Namaste!
I was given a subject that is so broad that I can tackle it from almost any direction or may be couldn't have tackled it from any direction at all. I would like to take it from a couple of points. One, I think it is important to take a new look at the characteristic civilisation of this region. What is not just called the civilisation of India, but the civilisation of Bharata, or what is called the Bharateeya Samskriti.
Because, we live in a time when civilisation and culture are being defined from one corner of the world. And of course, that corner is America. And the American idea of civilisation is very different from the Bharateeya idea. It is so different that the Western thinkers have neither understood nor adequately estimated the civilisation of India.
The British were here for two or three hundred years and yet they failed to understand the orientation of the Vedas, Vedanta and the indigenous culture. So, what is happening today is that you are first introduced to your culture from an alien point of view, from a framework of alien ideas and values and also with a great deal of distortion. Most of what you think about Bharateeya culture or at least a significant part of it is actually not true and needs to be re-examined. I am speaking specifically of the historical situation.
The history of this country from Vedic times is largely described by a colonial model which fails to understand the indigenous civilisation of the region and the continuity of the culture that has been established here. Today, there is, what they call, "a clash of cultures" or "clash of civilisations" going on in the world. This is essentially an attempt of one culture to dominate and overcome the rest.
We live in an era of globalisation which when examined closely appears to be another form of colonialism. I remember watching an American television programme a couple of years ago on globalisation which showed young people wearing blue jeans, working at the stock market, drinking coffee, in Singapore, Bombay, Africa and South America. I felt this isn't globalisation, the entire world simply being forced into an American or Western model.
What is the Bharateeya model and how is it relevant? We should keep in mind that every culture rewrites history in its own image. So, the history of India that you see in text books is not a scientific fact like the law of gravity, it is simply one view that reflects a western and largely a materialistic civilisation.
Now, if we go back to the roots of civilisation in this region, the most important texts we have are called the Vedas, particularly the Rig Veda. There is a continuity of teachings from the Vedas to the Upanishads and the Gita. Most of you have been taught to have some respect for the Vedantic philosophy, at the same time, most of you are also taught that the Vedas were composed by some foreign intruders or nomads and that the invaders were from Central Asia.
I don't want to go into this subject in great detail tonight. We are going to have a conference in Hyderabad and Bangalore over this issue. But, based on the latest developments in archaeology, we can trace this indigenous civilisation in this subcontinent to 7000 BC which is at a place called Mergarh in what is now Pakistan. There was a continuous development of an archaeological record of the characteristic agriculture, domestication, urban and cultural developments that have come to be associated with India.
And this ancient culture was centred around a river called the Saraswati, which was the largest, and the most significant rivers of that period. This was the great Saraswati river of Vedic fame. So, we would like to recall this ancient civilisation of India, the Saraswati culture. 80% of the urban sites of the Harappan or the Indus sites are on the dried up banks of the Saraswati. This ancient river dried up around 2000-1900 BC owing to various ecological changes and hence there was a gradual relocation of the population. So, we have the Vedic literature on the Saraswati, shifting to the Puranic literature on the Ganga and we find a number of texts like the Mahabharata, portions of which are on the Saraswati and others on the Ganga. In fact, the whole Kurukshetra region of the Mahabharata was along the great plane of the Saraswati, but at a time when the river was already on the decline and largely not flowing.
This civilisation called Harappan should be renamed as the Saraswati civilisation to be more accurate. This was the largest urban civilisation of the world, particularly in the third millennium BC, but it could have been older than that. Recent, archaeology shows that riding and other factors came as early in India as in Egyptian Sumeria or other cultures.
In this culture of ancient India, which was so large and extensive at that time, you could put all of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Sumeria and still find extra room left over. So, India represents something we could call "The Cradle of Civilisations". But, so far this has not been entirely acknowledged, largely owing to the Western mindset which going by its traditional, habitual patterns looks to the Biblical aspect of the near East even though the Judaic tradition was rather a very minor tradition in the ancient world in the past, and also compared to the Greco-Roman developments that came later. Neither of these had any significant impact on India until the British period.
If you also take a look at this Western view of civilisation and culture, we have first of all the regular scientific view that civilisation develops through technology and the manipulation of the material world, through the developments in science.
Secondly, we have the western religious view that civilisation develops through some inspired prophet or "saviour" who receives some message from God and passes it on to humanity.
The Indian tradition is different from the western worldview in both these aspects. Hence, the western terminology that is superimposed like religion or God or scriptures is not entirely appropriate to this country. Going back to the Vedic view, we see a culture of the Rishis, which had a significant impact in developing the civilisation of this region. Who were these Rishis? They were enlightened souls, who, through their own Tapas, through their own sadhana, could reach a state of consciousness where they could perceive a cosmic law or a higher state of realisation which could be used as the foundation of civilisation. And thus a civilisation emerged where Moksha or liberation of the spirit was the highest goal, not just material development nor salvation through a monotheistic God.
In fact, there is an interesting thinker in Delhi, J.C. Kapoor, a well-known person in the educational and foreign affairs fields. He made a very interesting observation in this regard that the thrust of Western civilisation today, even in its materialistic and consumeristic aspects is still following an essentially monotheistic model which is to get everybody do the same thing, look the same way, cherish the same values and conditioned along the same lines.
The Vedas, on the other hand, are based on a model of unity, a unity in multiplicity in which there is a natural pluralism, "Ekam Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanti" (Truth is one, sages call it by various names). It is a civilisation of Dharma, there us some natural and universal law, not some order of some God in heaven. It does not owe its origin to a particular individual or culture. There are certain universal laws like the law of karma, universal principles like "satya", "ahimsa", which are the foundations of dharma, not of one teacher versus another or one sect versus another.
This emphasis on dharma, spirituality and moksha, this pluralistic approach has characterised the civilisation of this region. But, this civilisation continues to be under siege today and at the same time is undergoing some revival and is also gaining recognition worldwide. It is a very interesting transitional phenomenon.
In the West, many people honour India for its great spiritual traditions, Yoga, Vedanta, Buddhism etc. but here in India, you have a situation where these very traditions are not honoured and added to this is an attempt to discredit them as not being legitimately representing the civilisation of this region.
A very unfortunate thing that happened in modern India which I still am not certain why it happened that way, is that at the time of independence, the intelligentsia (especially the English language intelligentsia), followed a Marxist-Socialist model that rejected the dharmic rights of this culture and also was particularly anti-Hindu in its orientation. In fact, the colonial rule left behind its incarnation in the form of the intelligentsia of the country; even Nehru described himself as the last English Prime Minister of India! He depended on the London school of Economics to structure this country which was predominantly a socialist school. He also looked to a socialist influence and the Soviet model - five-year plans to develop the country. He refused to change the textbooks from the British colonial model. These textbooks are essentially the same as they were before Independence. They still teach you to a great extent that this nation owes its existence, at least as a united political entity, to the British and that if there was anything called Hinduism, it was because the British were able to make some sense out of all the different sects that we find in this country.
This is not only wrong but also totally cynical. This culture has aided in preserving this civilisation longer than any other and has also maintained its continuity better than any other. I will give you a simple example of this. You have the text called Mahabharata. What does Mahabharata mean? It also means Great Bharata, great India. Even the most restricted accounts acknowledge that it is more than two thousand years old. You will find in this Mahabharata, all the important deities, practices that have come to characterise the Hindu tradition and you also find all aspects of the country mentioned from Afghanistan to Assam, from Sri Lanka to Tibet. We have no equivalent epic called Great Europe or Great Britain! Even today, Europe in spite of all its colonial glory is much more fragmented than India and there doesn't seem to be any hope of getting it united over the next few decades. Even, China, which has maintained a political identity better than any other region of the world, has not maintained this kind of a cultural identity.
I don't think you will find anywhere a book, which has such a wide scope for all spiritual practices, diverse approaches to various levels of life and culture. Yet this civilisation is not appreciated even here today.
The other problem is that this Marxist intelligentsia allied itself with external forces, missionary and religious and this siege of Hinduism is still going on within India. There are even new movements going on towards conversions in this country. There is another journalist writing some thing very good, Francois Gautier, he made a very interesting point, "When the English newspapers of India talk about Hindu Gurus, they talk about them as godmen and cult figures. But, when they talk about the Pope they call him Holy Father."
But, we are also observing today a revival of interest in Vedic disciplines, Yoga, Vedanta and Vedic philosophy. We find a greater awakening of this kind among overseas Hindus, for example, in America where Yoga has become very popular. There is a revival, but at the same time, there is a clash, conversions also go on.
Dr. Padma Subramanyam of Dharma Rakshana Samithi, the famous exponent of Bharata Natyam, was saying the other day that in Tamil Nadu they have now created academia for teaching Bharata Natyam in which the traditional dance is taught but all for the glory of Jesus. This process is called "inculturalisation" in the religious tradition i.e. appropriating native customs for conversion purposes and then undermine that very culture and civilisation from which these traditions were borrowed, all for the sake of conversion.
What has made India great is a pluralistic approach to spirituality and a spiritual approach to life. I don't mean that we should get prejudiced or bigoted or not be open to truth when it comes from other areas. If Christian, Islamic or any other group wants to be part of the pluralism of this culture that is fine, they should be welcome. But, if they want to exclusively take it over, and push out the pluralism, which characterises this culture, then they should be opposed.
And in the name of freedom of democracy, exclusive ideologies are promoting themselves because they have more money! When the Pope was here, there was some debate on the issue of conversions. The Catholic Church said, " Conversion is the right of the individual. It is part of individual freedom, freedom of choice." This is a very curious statement coming from a group that does not believe in pluralism and talks of one path only!
You have an authoritarian institution using freedom as a means of promoting authoritarianism. People are sincerely interested in freedom of religion and spirituality, why don't we all get together and discuss these things? Why doesn't the Pope invite all the Swamis, the saints, the teachers of all religions come together to discuss these things, to develop friendship and respect for others' views and have a commonality of approach? That will be the simple way to do it. Instead, they hold on to promoting their agenda and ignore the rest of what is going on in the country.
So, this civilisation has preserved certain things. For example, if you look at ancient Egypt or Greece, you will find certain philosophies, certain religious practices; certain mystical practices that once existed. You find them still going on in this country today. It is very important to preserve the essence of this civilisation. India doesn't need to become another United States, Japan, Soviet Union or Saudi Arabia. And of course, it surely doesn't need to become another Afghanistan. Pakistan is moving closer to becoming another Afghanistan.
The characteristic civilisation of this region needs to be restored, which is one of tolerance but not of apologetic appeasement which is what tolerance is often confused with. You should be proud of your traditions, you should endeavour to study them, and you must learn how to adapt them to the modern needs.
Or consider for example, another such stereotype, there is lot of criticism of the Manu Smriti as if it was the most characteristic or important teaching in the Hindu tradition. That could be like judging Christianity by the law codes of Solomon or Islam by the laws of the Shariyat. These are medieval law codes. The Manu Smriti as a modern law code does not look particularly good. No medieval law code looks particularly good. The Manu Smriti as a medieval law code does not look so bad either.
And as Arun was saying earlier, the Smritis could change, they do change and have always changed. The Dharma Shaastras which dealt with the problems of the society have always been changed and adapted. The Manu Smriti was never a last word, they we just certain guidelines and opinions reflecting the needs of that particular period of society.
For example, the medieval period, the culture was often under siege. So, there were lots of rules to protect women, they wouldn't go out alone. If you take that statement out of context then it appears that women had no freedom at all. When you understand the context, the situation changes.
I have also looked at the textbooks of Hinduism in the West. And they discuss Hinduism through the Manu Smriti or they talk about the Ashvamedha and how many horses might have been sacrificed in the ancient world or Sati! They don't mention Ramana Maharshi or Sri Aurobindo or if they do bring in some modern Gurus, they try to discredit them by portraying them as cult figures.
The situation is changing in some areas. There are scholars and thinkers who are more open, but these are people with certain spiritual awareness. For example, there is a Professor Klosteimer in Canada who published an interesting book called "The Survey of Hinduism", which is much better than the books you have in India, particularly for those meant for schools and universities. He was able to appreciate figures like Ramana Maharshi.
We live in this computer age, information age and it is very easy to promote distortion. At the same time, India is in a situation where you have the computer and the Internet expertise that can challenge these superficial distortions. For example, the Kumbh Mela received a lot of positive coverage in England. After the news they also relayed information about it. The American media generally ignored it and some of them came up with silly stories that in the 18th century some of the sects fought and so many people were killed as if that was relevant news today.
Look at the deeper currents in this culture, there is a whole lot of survival of tradition, how many people went to the Kumbh Mela. Compare this to any other culture. In America, people don't go to the Church, may you will find a few thousand fundamentalist Christians, but you don't have this kind of devotion, nor will you find this kind of a spectacle in any other religion.
It is interesting to note that according to a lot of western thinkers, Hinduism is not even a religion. It is just a bunch of sects. If that is the case, what is this Kumbha Mela about? What other religion can produce that type of gathering or that type of a situation?
In the current era in which we live, science is the predominant force, and yet we are also developing new openness towards spirituality. Unfortunately, often are the regressive forms of western culture that come to India. For example, the main Christian group operative in India, the evangelical Christians are generally rejected, criticised and even ridiculed in America.
The Southern Baptists, one of the active groups of evangelical Christians brought out some hand books criticising not only Hinduism as a pagan and destructive religion but also Judaism and Buddhism. They were criticised by the American press.
When people come to this country you must find out where they come from, they usually don't represent the West and they generally don't represent the more open or progressive elements within Christianity. Even the Catholic Church represents a regressive form of Christianity; many of the Catholic countries in the world are poor countries. Latin America, South America, Philippines has never been very progressive or modern!
The Western world developed the positive aspects of its civilisation in spite of these authoritarian ideologies. It introduced freedom and broke the rule o these authoritarian ideologies. This is the model that needs to be borrowed. Unfortunately, the west did not have the spiritual model of freedom or the approach to spiritual life on an individualised basis.
Why are there so many deities in the Hindu tradition? Is it because they can't figure out some unity behind the Universe? This is curious. Hindus are criticised for two things. One, you have too many Gods, that is a big problem! But worse than that you believe that everything is God! (laughter). That is probably the reason why you have too many Gods. But, you cannot be called a polytheist just because of this.
You have also been taught to look at your spiritual tradition as something backward and the religions of the West as something enlightened. I won't go into that in any detail but I think it is fairly easy to see that the spiritual aspects of consciousness, awareness, the pursuit of the Infinite, eternal, even what modern science is doing is more in harmony with the Vedas and Vedanta than this kind of Biblical revelation idea of the world.
How many of you have heard of this text called the Yoga Vasishtha? All of you must read it. Everything you might think of telepathy, about transcending time and space, time travel, every aspect of occult spirituality, artificial intelligence, change of species, references to other worlds, all these things are mentioned in a text hundreds of years (if not thousands) old.
As we move into this new century, we are moving into an era where the Vedic and Vedantic spirituality is much more reflected in the futuristic trends. I think it is very important for India to undergo a renewal, culturally and spiritually. This is possible only by honoring and respecting the traditional roots of civilisation in the region, which is this Rishi culture, and this doesn't mean you have to mechanically follow the Upanishads or the Vedas.
The Gayatri Mantra, one of the most important ones in the Hindu tradition, says,"Dheeyo Yonah Prachodayaat". May that divine Sun impel and enlighten dhee, the buddhi, and the higher intelligence. That is still the call and the need. There needs to be that awakening of the higher mind, that higher intelligence, that deeper discrimination. As a species we need to recognize our spiritual heritage, our connection with the Rishis, the great Yogis behind humanity, the spiritual goal of life. The real movement of life is the evolution of consciousness and not just simply a historical development of civilisation in one form or the other.
And that energy, that impulse, that culture, is still here and if it has to rise in the rest of the world, it has to be awakened in this land.
Thank You
