continued...

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Hmmm.. yeah correct. In Bhagwat Puran, I have read something to this effect. You have used the phrase "all the forms of the Lord". What forms are included in this. Does it include the forms of various incarnations?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I was probably too general in my statement when I said "all forms" as there are bound to be minor exceptions. It generally includes all the incarnations, but there are some exceptions according to which school of Vaishnavism we are refering. I know some schools don't consider the mohini avatara to be an eternal form of the Lord.

 

But if we take into account the famous avataras, such as matsya, kurma, varaha, etc., they are accepted by all schools as eternal forms of the Lord. They each possess their own personal abode in the realm of Vaikuntha. Even particular moods of an avatar sometimes possess a separate abode. For example there is a partha-sarathi-loka in Vaikuntha, where Lord Krishna the charioteer of Arjuna resides along with His devotees (Arjuna, Bhishma, etc.). There the Gita upadesham is constantly going on, but not to dispell ignorance - to increase the ananda.

 

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>As far as Shvu's statement that Prabhupada introduced the concept of a 'permanent form', I have to assume it was a typo...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I admit, that statement was a mistake. I got carried away by the 'fraud' accusation of one gentleman above.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Come on dude, your smarter than that, I think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Come one dude, the very fact that I show interest in Advaita shows how dumb I am. :-)

 

Cheers

[jijaji]

Come one dude, the very fact that I show interest in Advaita shows how dumb I am. :-)

 

Not to me.....

 

see this cool link on Ramana;

 

 

http://www.cosmicharmony.com/Sp/Ramana/Ramana.htm#Advent

 

 

 

;^)

[Guest guest]

Advaita-vada as a fake

 

Some people say that they follow the path of advaitavada and attain nirvana just because this doctrine is very old. To these people we want to say that the nirvana-mukti of mayavada is completely and totally false!!!

 

Actually the jiva can never attain any such state as nirvana, because the supposed condition of nirvana-mukti is simply imaginary. We can use historical evidence to prove without any doubt that there is not even a single instance of any advaita-vadi attaining this condition.

 

None of grat mayavadis such as Gaudapada, Govindapada, Sankaracaya and Madhava achieved nirvana-mukti. According Sankaracaryas's biography (not Iskcon's), after his grand-guru Gaudapada left his material body, he came into Sankara's samadhi (trance) when Sankara was absorbed in his meditation one day and said; "Sankara! I have heard your praises from your Gurudeva, Acarya Govindapada. I have also heard that you have composed a beatiful commentary on my Mandukya-karika. I want to see it." Acarya Sankara immediately showed Gaudapada the commentary. Gaudapada left very happy to see it and, after giving his approval, he left.

 

From te above incident it is evident that Gaudapada and Govidnapada did not became liberated from their material bodies and achieve nirvana-mukti. In the first place, how could Guadapada hear about Sankara from the mouth of Govindapada if both Gaudapada and Govindapada had achieved nirvana-mukti? Secondly, how could Acarya Sankara show his commentary on Madukya-karika to Gaudapada, if Gaudapada was a nirvana-mukta?

 

If they had acctually attained nirvana-mukti, neither incident could possibly have taken place. If we accept these incidents as real, then the nirvana-mukti, or nirvisesa-mukti, of the advaita-vadis must be false. Conversely, if we accept nirvana-mukti or nirvisesa-mukti as real, then the above mentioned incidentes are either false or imaginary. Even if we accept that the incidentes are partly true, still, the liberation of both of advaita-vadis acaryas is false, according to the mayavadis' description of the symptoms of nirvana-mukti.

 

Putting this incident aside, the bigraphy of Sankara states that he personally reincarnated as Madhava Acarya; that is, he appeared in the form of Vidyaranya. Now, how is this consistent with the conception of nirvana-mukti? Mayavada doctrine says that after nirvana-mukti the jivas have no existence sepate from Brahman, with is formless, changeless, inactive and without any attributes. However, we see that Gaudapada, Govindapada and Sankaracaraya all had their respective separete existence.

 

So, how can we logically accept, then, that they had actually attained nirvana-mukti? The nirvana-mukti which the advaita-acaryas propagate has no aspect or principle which allows any reciprocal dialogue, and what to speak or reincarnation, after attainment of mukti. This consideration veru clearly shows that nirvana-mukti os simple a fake and a deceptive expression, or a trap to collect followers among atheists.

 

If the dhief preachers of that kind of mukti, those we can regard as the founders of the doctrine, coild not attain such mukti themselves, then how can anyone else expect to?

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Guest guest]

 

The Differences Between Adi Buddha (Visnu Buddha) and Sidharta Gautama Bhudda.

 

Historical remarks point out that Visnu Bhuddha has mad His advent 3500 years than now, that means 1500 after Kuruksetra. That is the time of the last Buddha-avatara as the son of Jina, who has born at Gaya as a brahmana.

 

Gautama Buddha, as mentioned by Max Muller has born in Nepal, as a ksatriya, in the 4th century BC. It is a historical fact.

 

The point is that is no mention of Adi Buddha preaching sunyavada. Gautama Buddha, who has attained Buddha-hood in Gaya, has postulated Gautamya's sunyavada and established his doctrine under Raja Asoka's sponsor. He was an advaitavadi from Gautamya's school, therefore he is named after Gautama.

 

Adi Buddha (Visnu Buddha) and Sidharta Gautama Bhudda are different ones. And only a few ordinary people are aware of this historical fact.

 

It is perfectly clear that the modern Buddhism has nothing to do with the original Lord Buddha's preaching. There is no mention in sastra on Lord Buddha preaching sunyavada in that Kali-yuga.

 

That modern Buddhism that still is present in that world is only a concocted and temporary religion based in Kapila's Sankhya and so, it is advaitavada and atheism. Gautama Buddha was an ordinary jiva who has spread that doctrine of sunyavada under Emperor Asoka's sponsorship all over India, on 4th century BC, more than 3,000 years after Buddha-avatara's pastimes.

 

The kind of atheism usually taught by Adi Buddha or Visnu Buddha is upadharma, stressing mainly ahimsa (non violence), as mentioned in so many sastras. There is no mention on sunyavada in His teachings.

 

The Srimad Bhagavatam states:

 

deva-dvisam nigama-vartmani nisthitanam

purbhir mayena vihitabhir adrsya-turbhih

lokan ghnatam mati-vimoham atipralobham

vesam vidhaya bahu bhasyata aupadharmyam

 

"When the atheists, after being well versed in the Vedic scientific knowledge, annihilate inhabitants of different planets, flying unseen in the sky on well-built rockets prepared by the great scientist Maya, the Lord will bewilder their minds by dressing Himself attractively as Buddha and will preach on subreligious principles."

 

Those subreligious principles are named upadharma.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>None of grat mayavadis such as Gaudapada, Govindapada, Sankaracaya and Madhava achieved nirvana-mukti. According Sankaracaryas's biography (not Iskcon's), after his grand-guru Gaudapada left his material body, he came into Sankara's samadhi (trance) when Sankara was absorbed in his meditation one day and said; "Sankara! I have heard your praises from your Gurudeva, Acarya Govindapada. I have also heard that you have composed a beatiful commentary on my Mandukya-karika. I want to see it." Acarya Sankara immediately showed Gaudapada the commentary. Gaudapada left very happy to see it and, after giving his approval, he left. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Can you let me know where you got this information from? A dream of Shankara about Gaudapada does not mean that Guadapada was not liberated. People have several dreams about so many different things. I don't see how they can be used as arguments. I had a dream where Amitabh Bachchan and me were close pals. What does it imply? For more details, see an earlier thread on this forum titled 'My startling dream'.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>In the first place, how could Guadapada hear about Sankara from the mouth of Govindapada if both Gaudapada and Govindapada had achieved nirvana-mukti? Secondly, how could Acarya Sankara show his commentary on Madukya-karika to Gaudapada, if Gaudapada was a nirvana-mukta? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Nice questions. I'll add to that list. How could I possibly have been pally with Amitabh Bachchan? How could I be talking to the Supreme personality of Godhead? If you have had dreams, recollect them and add them to this list. Then take a look at the whole list. You will find answers to the questions you have posed above.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If they had acctually attained nirvana-mukti, neither incident could possibly have taken place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

:-)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Putting this incident aside, the bigraphy of Sankara states that he personally reincarnated as Madhava Acarya.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Please cite your source.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>This consideration veru clearly shows that nirvana-mukti os simple a fake and a deceptive expression, or a trap to collect followers among atheists. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

A small suggestion. Before you take it upon yourself to judge Advaita, how about going beyond the material written by Gaudiya Acharyas and reading some authentic text on Advaita? That is the simplest way for you to discover how ridiculous your posting sounds.

 

Can you imagine how an article written by a Zoologist on Semi-conductors would appear? Pretty much like your posting.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Historical remarks point out that Visnu Bhuddha has mad His advent 3500 years than now, that means 1500 after Kuruksetra. That is the time of the last Buddha-avatara as the son of Jina, who has born at Gaya as a brahmana. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

You know this how?

 

Cheers

[jijaji]

"A small suggestion. Before you take it upon yourself to judge Advaita, how about going beyond the material written by Gaudiya Acharyas and reading some authentic text on Advaita? That is the simplest way for you to discover how ridiculous your posting sounds."

 

shvuji..

 

It's a catch 22...how can you debate Gaudiyas on Advaita when they do not allow themselves to read advaita texts. The sources and quotes from advaita are considered inaccurate from the get-go.

They only acknowledge what their acaryas have said about advaita...so it's difficult even to have an open exchange. It's like muslims and jews debating their differences in their respective scriptures...it just plain don't work!

 

;^)

jijaji

[Guest guest]

When Sidharta Gautama, the Buddha, went to Gaya, Adi Buddha already was being worshiped by Bauddhas, that is another name for Vaisnavas, at that place. Even nowadays, the same Adi Buddha Deity is being worshiped there.

 

These worshipers have their own sastras, describing the astrological moment of Adi Buddha's advent, that is placed circa 1500 after Kuruksetra. Adi Bhuddha father was a bramanin named Jina, and that corroborates what is stated in all Vedic lore concerning Buddha-avatara.

 

This historical fact was extensively denoted by Max Muller in all of his works regarding Buddhism, and it is a sastric, scientific and historical event.

 

Gautama Buddha went to Gaya and in that place he become enlighten with transcendental buddhi, intelligence, and has postulated his sunyavada doctrine. He was born in Nepal, in a ksatriya family circa 4 th century BC. His father was Sudhodaya, and his teachings were spread under the Emperor Asoka sponsor in a period when Buddha-avatara was almost forgotten in all India.

 

One may read Max Muller books on that subject matter.

Buddha-avatara has nothing to do with sunyavada doctrine.

 

[shvu]

 

I am pointing out that some people have misconceptions about what Advaita is. They have been led to believe that it is false, fraud, a trap and so on. It is amazing how effective false propaganda can be. At least now they know [hopefully] that their idea of what Advaita is, is incorrect. If people are interested in getting their facts straight, then they will make an attempt to tap the right sources. At the minimum, they will stop referring to Advaita in a derogatory sense.

 

Cheers

[jijaji]

satya says;

 

"One may read Max Muller books on that subject matter."

 

no thanks

 

 

;^)

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Adi Bhuddha father was a bramanin named Jina, and that corroborates what is stated in all Vedic lore concerning Buddha-avatara. This historical fact was extensively denoted by Max Muller in all of his works regarding Buddhism, and it is a sastric, scientific and historical event. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I find it very surprising that Max Muller wrote about this earlier Buddha and dated him to 1500 BC. None of the Indology books that I have read, talks about this person. Besides 1500 BC was the time when the Vedas were being cxomposed. It is commonly known that after the 4 Vedas there was a long gap until the Buddhist literature came up from 500 BC onwards. I have to do some reading on this.

 

btw I notice that you still say 'Vedic lore'. To clarify, there is no Buddha mentioned in any of the Vedas.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

 

>> A small suggestion. Before you take it upon yourself to judge Advaita, how about going beyond the material written by Gaudiya Acharyas and reading some authentic text on Advaita? That is the simplest way for you to discover how ridiculous your posting sounds.

 

This is not a material written by Gaudiya Acaryas. You can find this narrative in many of the biographies on Sankaracarya printed and distributed by advaitavadis at Haridvara, Rsikesa, Varanasi, and even at any rail-road stations all over India. Very cheap booklets, about R$ 10,00. I think that with this money no one can buy a good biography, isn't?

 

Does advaita vada have changed its aim? Does someone have changed Sankaracarya maha-vakiyas? Do they have write any new commentary postulating eternal seva to Bhagavan as the only jiva's svarupa?

 

BTW: a jñani in Sankara's line should have a guru and should follow his discipline. They also follow parampara. Are you an initiated jñani or you are only trying to read srutis by your own account? Please inform us your lineage!!!

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>This is not a material written by Gaudiya Acaryas. You can find this narrative in many of the biographies on Sankaracarya printed and distributed by advaitavadis at Haridvara, Rsikesa, Varanasi, and even at any rail-road stations all over India. Very cheap booklets, about R$ 10,00. I think that with this money no one can buy a good biography, isn't? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

If it was an authentic one and written by an advaitin, he should know that a Jivan-mukta will not be reborn. The fact that he says Shankara was reborn, is a good enough reason to discard it as false without further ado. FYI the Madhava Shankara Vijayam is the standard biography accepted by the Advaita Tradition.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Does advaita vada have changed its aim? Does someone have changed Sankaracarya maha-vakiyas? Do they have write any new commentary postulating eternal seva to Bhagavan as the only jiva's svarupa?

 

No, they have not and it has nothing to do with the discussion in hand.

 

 

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>This is not a material written by Gaudiya Acaryas. You can find this narrative in many of the biographies on Sankaracarya printed and distributed by advaitavadis at Haridvara, Rsikesa, Varanasi, and even at any rail-road stations all over India. Very cheap booklets, about R$ 10,00. I think that with this money no one can buy a good biography, isn't? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

If it was an authentic one and written by an advaitin, he should know that a Jivan-mukta will not be reborn. The fact that he says Shankara was reborn, is a good enough reason to discard it as false without further ado. FYI the Madhava Shankara Vijayam is the standard biography accepted by the Advaita Tradition.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Does advaita vada have changed its aim? Does someone have changed Sankaracarya maha-vakiyas? Do they have write any new commentary postulating eternal seva to Bhagavan as the only jiva's svarupa? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

No, they have not and it has nothing to do with the discussion in hand.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>BTW: a jñani in Sankara's line should have a guru and should follow his discipline. They also follow parampara. Are you an initiated jñani or you are only trying to read srutis by your own account? Please inform us your lineage!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I have already clarified that I am not an advaitin. Now you may ask why I talk about Advaita. Surely if you, having no knowledge of Advaita beyond it's spelling can sit on judgement of Advaita and condemn it as false, I trust someone who has taken the time to study Advaita from proper sources, can also talk about it.

 

btw it is very gracious of you to consider me as a Jnani. But sorry to disillusion you; I am not one.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

>> I notice that you still say 'Vedic lore'. To clarify, there is no Buddha mentioned in any of the Vedas.<<

 

You are considering only sruti texts as Vedas. But this is only accepted by you and by no one else. Smrti, sruti, Itihasas are all Vedic lore, as stated by Vedavyasa himself, the compiler of these texts.

 

Some scholars, that probably you also never heard about (like Max Muller), use to say that actually the original text of all Vedic lore was the Urpurana, and not Rgveda. They state that by logic smrti should have appeared before srutis, otherwise how could one memorize the text without knowing its meaning? How to praise Indra if no one knows who Indra is, for example? So, many Western and Indian scholars use to defend the priority of smrti texts over srutis.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>btw I notice that you still say 'Vedic lore'. To clarify, there is no Buddha mentioned in any of the Vedas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

No one has claimed buddha is mentioned in the Vedas, there was a mention that buddha is mentioned in "Vedic lore". Get a dictionary and look it up.

 

To sumarize it:

 

"Lore refers to traditional stories of a particular culture."

 

Like I said in the past, "Vedic" refers to a culture, and those texts belonging to this culture are known as "vedic lore" or vedic literature.

 

Others may define their terms diferently, but only a foolish person would think he has a monopoly on language usage.

 

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>You are considering only sruti texts as Vedas. But this is only accepted by you and by no one else. Smrti, sruti, Itihasas are all Vedic lore, as stated by Vedavyasa himself, the compiler of these texts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Open your eyes and read some proper books. You haven't got the fundamentals themselves right. I will not bother to ask you where Vyasa made such a statement.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Some scholars, that probably you also never heard about (like Max Muller), use to say that actually the original text of all Vedic lore was the Urpurana, and not Rgveda. They state that by logic smrti should have appeared before srutis, otherwise how could one memorize the text without knowing its meaning? How to praise Indra if no one knows who Indra is, for example? So, many Western and Indian scholars use to defend the priority of smrti texts over srutis.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Thanks for posting such humor. Please post some more stuff like this. It lightens up my day considerably.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

I have already clarified the difference between Vedic and Puranic, both from a traditional and historical viewpoint. Look it up. If still not convinced read a book on Indology and that should clear it up. I can even mention one right now,

 

The wonder that was India - A.L. Basham

 

Cheers

[jijaji]

Max Muller ?

 

Satya.....come on dude!

 

 

 

;^)

[jijaji]

shvu....

 

what you think of this ?

 

Rewriting

Indian

History

by Francois Gautier

 

This book does not pretend to be a historical treaty, neither on India, nor on other civilisations; it only fleetingly uses events and people, in an attempt to go beyond the superficial views that have usually been held on India by many historians.

 

Foreword

Many historical books have been written about the greatness of India's past. One of these books is of course A.L. Basham's classic, "The Wonder that WAS India". While there is no doubt that Mr Basham's book is a scholarly treatise, beautifully written, which casts a sympathetic and benevolent look at what he feels WERE some of the wonders of a bygone India, my book differs totally from his for many reasons.

 

Firstly, he erroneously takes as final the biased theory of an Aryan invasion, subjugating the Good Harappan (Dravidian) civilisation, a theory which I propose to dismantle in the next chapter. Then, like the majority of Western historians, he also post-dates most of the Vedic events - for then, their theory of, say Mohajan-daro being overrun by the Barbarian Aryans, would stand no more. Thirdly, although Mr Basham is full of praise for Indian (pre-Muslim) culture, art, language, sciences, village life, his views of Hinduism seem to be a little warped and reflect a strong Western bias. He appears to have absolutely no understanding of the greatness and importance of the Vedas, in which he sees only "a culture that bears a generic likeness to that of 'Beowulf', the earlier Icelandic sagas'...(nobody ever thought about that one)... 'and was somehow less advanced than that depicted in the Iliad"...! (page 34, Wonder That was India). To flout such an ignorance and contempt for India's culture and compare the visions of great sages who lived at least 5000 years ago, with the tales of the semi-barbarian Beowulf, is quite an achievement! Mr Basham also puts forward the eternal clichés propagated by Christian missionaries and "enlightened secularists" on the Indian caste system. "The Aryans anointed themselves the ruling class (= Brahmins and Kshatriyas), while the poor conquered Dravidians (Harappans), became the slaves, (= Vaishyas and Shudras)". Or: "As they settled among darker aboriginals, the Aryans seem to have laid greater stress than before on purity of blood - and thus class divisions hardened..." (36, Wonder that was India). Or else this monstrosity: "...In the Vedic period, a situation arose rather like that prevailing in South Africa today, with a dominant fair minority, striving to maintain its purity and its supremacy over a darker majority"... (138, Wonder). Poor India, being granted the honour by Mr Basham, of being the founding father of racism! But it is thus that Mr Basham lays the ground for his later theories on what he calls 'Hindu imperialism'.

 

He also seems to miss completely the point, when he talks about Indian polity, or politics rather (always pre-Muslim of course). He sees Hindu kingdoms and republics as "a hopelessly divided nation, inviting thereby future conquest by Muslims and Europeans", a theory which I will attempt later to show as completely false and misguided. But more than that, he implies that Hindus were a cruel and warlike (except for the goodie-goodie Ashoka, a convenient hero) nation, even going as far as suggesting that India's sacred writings were responsible for that militant trait. In his chapter on Hindu militarism (page 123, Wonder), he goes on to say: "In several passages of the Mahabarata, notably in the famous Bhagavat Gita, the evil and cruelty of war are referred to, and it is suggested that the life of a soldier is sinful one. But such arguments are only put forward to be demolished by counter-arguments, most of which are based on the necessities of this dark age of the world and on the dangers of anarchy. Positive condemnations of war are rare in Indian literature..."! Not only is this a rather contemptuous view of the Gita, one of the great books of spiritual Revelation in world literature, but it completely misses the point that the Gita makes, which is that when one has to fight the evil forces of the world, one is doing one's dharma and one goes beyond the pious Christian prejudices about war.

 

But perhaps the greatest flaw of his book, after having dared to come down so heavily on Hindu militarism, after having devoted a whole chapter (Punishment page 118) on Hindu cruelty, after having labelled the Indian monarchical system of "quasi-feudalism" (page 95 Wonder), is that Mr Basham is surprisingly lenient towards the Muslim invasions and very quickly skims over that terrible period, which is, as we will see later, a genocide unparalleled in history. It should suffice to quote Mr Basham without any comments: "Under the rule of some of the Delhi sultans of the Middle Ages, there was persecution, and Brahmans were put to death for practising their devotions in public (!); BUT IN GENERAL THE MUSLIMS WERE REASONABLY TOLERANT (p. 481 Wonder)"...!!!! Or else: "..The Muslim invasions and the enforced contact with new ideas did not have the fertilising effect upon Hindu culture which might have been expected" (???). Another one: "Hinduism was already very conservative when the lieutenants of Mohammed of Ghor conquered the Ganga valley. In the Middle Ages, for every tolerant and progressive teacher, there must have been hundreds of orthodox Brahmans, who looked upon themselves as the preservers of the immemorial Aryan Dharma against the barbarians who overran the holy land of Bharatavarsa.."(Wonder, 481-482) But don't you know, Dear Mr Basham, that the Muslims were proud of their bloody record in India, of their war in the name of Allah, and that they left numerous chronicles of the amount of Hindus they killed, and the number of temples they razed to the ground?. You say you are an historian, Sir; then get your facts right. Are you then implying, Mr Basham, that Hinduism, one of the most tolerant religions in the world, which historically not only accepted coexistence with all the world religions, but also recognised their divinity, pales in comparison with Islam, a creed, which whatever its greatness, killed tens, if not hundreds of millions, in the world, in the name of Allah and for which all non-Muslims are "Kafirs", infidels?

 

And last but not the least, Mr Basham credits the European invasion with the renaissance of India: "It was through the influence of Europe that revival came..." (Wonder 483). He also sanctifies the Christian missionary influence in India, which, though in a lesser degree than Islam, has been responsible for dividing this country and creating a small Hindu-hating westernised minority in India: "But early in the 19th century, the British evangelical conscience awakened to India and missions schools sprang-up in all the larger towns" (Wonder, 483). Does Mr Basham think then that the Muslims, the British and the missionaries were the greatest benefactors of India? He must be - as he is saying that it was the Western influence, through the British, which modernised Hinduism, influencing such movements as Ram Mohan Roy's Brahma Samaj. But he conveniently forgets that Hinduism has always been one of the most plastic religions in the world, from which sprang-up constantly hundreds of movements, all recognising the oneness of their source.

 

For this and for many other reasons, this book has not only nothing to do with Mr Basham's but you might well call it an antithesis.

 

Synopsis on inside of jacket

For most historians, whether Foreigners or Indians, India's greatness - if there is a Greatness at all - lies in its past, in the golden period of pre-Muslim conquests. Such for instance, is the theory of A.L. Basham's classic: 'the Wonder that was India'. But even that greatness, they often limit to a cultural, or else a spiritual grandeur. There also have been throughout the centuries, conscious attempts, particularly by Christian missionaries, and later by a few of India's own westernised elite, at propagating false theories on India's history, such as the famed Aryan invasion and its imposition on the "good" Dravidians of the hateful brahmanic caste system. Or the devious inference of a benevolent Muslim rule in India, which negates the immense Holocaust which the Arabs wrecked on the peninsula from the 7th century onwards. And most unfortunate, many of these theories have resulted in a wave -pre and post-independence- of denigration of the greatness which is Hinduism and a conscious attempt at stamping it out from Indian life today.

 

This book endeavours, not only to show that India was great in all respects, spiritually, socially, culturally and even politically, but also that this Greatness IS still there today, waiting to be manifested, waiting for India to awake to Her true destiny. However, India today is facing grave dangers, both from within and without. And it is only after recovering her true soul, recouping her Dharma, that she will become united again, the Greater India that she was centuries ago, and fulfil Her destiny as the spiritual leader of the world. For as Sri Aurobindo, India's great yogi, philosopher and revolutionary said: "It is in India, the chosen land that Truth is preserved; in the soul of India it sleeps expectant on that soul's awakening, the soul of India leonine, luminous, locked in the closed petals of the ancient lotus of love, strength and wisdom, not in her weak, soiled, transient and miserable externals. India alone can build the future of mankind (India's Rebirth, p.88)

 

About the Author

Francois Gautier, born in Paris in 1950, is a French journalist and writer, who is the political correspondent in India and South Asia for "Le Figaro", France's largest circulation newspaper. He is married to an Indian and has lived in India for the past 29 years, which has helped him to see through the usual cliches and prejudices on India, (to which he d for a long time), as most foreign (and sometimes, unfortunately, Indian) journalists, writers and historians do. He shuttles between Delhi and the international city of Auroville near Pondichery.

 

[shvu]

 

What do I think about this person?

 

I think I wil not be far off the mark when I say that he is one of the Anti-Aryan Invasion theory team. I have found these people to pick on all scholars who support the AIT by attempting to show them in a bad light.

 

He says Basham skipped over the Muslim period. Not surprising because the book deals with the period before muslims invaded India.I don't think he has fiddled with any dates. They are consistent with the dates found in any other book on Indology.

 

About the author's own book...

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>This book endeavours, not only to show that India was great in all respects, spiritually, socially, culturally and even politically, but also that this Greatness IS still there today, waiting to be manifested, waiting for India to awake to Her true destiny. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

If he has set out to write a book with such a notion, naturally he will be biased. I am not interested in books that tend to exaggerate the glory of ancient India. They usually sound emotional and have a complaining tone, with a significant part devoted to picking on others.

 

Cheers