 |
(41) The effect of western writers on Hindu scholars.
The primacy of English education and the abundance of biased
literature regarding the history and the Vedic religion affected the Hindu
society a great deal. The wrong historical dates of Hindu dynasties and
the notable personalities that they fixed, especially
Buddh,
Chandragupt
and
Ashok,
became a guideline, and many Hindu writers followed the same wrong trend.
Certain great scholars and the so-called patriots of India also had
profound effects of western education on their minds that held the feeling
of lowness for Hindu culture, history and religion. They too collected
the intellectual dirt of the western writers and used it in their
writings.
Not knowing what were they doing, their writings like: “Ram was only a
good man. He was not God.” betrayed and confused millions of Hindus and
contempted the authentic writings of Ved Vyas which are the national
treasures of India.
We will give you a few examples.
S.
Radhakrishnan (1888-1975).
His brief biography: Born near Madras,
South India, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan showed his intelligence since
childhood. He received a Master’s degree in Arts from Madras University.
His essay on “Ethics of the Vedant” (as a partial fulfillment for his
Master’s degree) was highly appreciated by professor A.G. Hogg as it
contained the boldness of thought and the neglect for the personal form of
God.
In 1909 he was appointed to the Department of
Philosophy of the Madras Presidency College. In 1918 he was appointed as a
professor of Philosophy at the University of Mysore and in 1921 he was
appointed at the University of Calcutta. In 1926 he represented the
University of Calcutta at the Congress of the Universities of the British
Empire. From 1936 to 1939 he was appointed as a professor of Eastern
Religions and Ethics at Oxford University, in 1939 he was elected as
‘Fellow of the British Academy’, and from 1939 to 1948 he was Vice
Chancellor of the Benares Hindu University. He was the Vice President of
India from 1952 to 1962 and he also held the Office of the Chancellor,
Delhi University from 1953 to 1962. In 1962 he was elected the President
of India.
He was known as a world figure in philosophy. Renowned
for his philosophical writings and lectures, he had collected enormous
information in his brain by reading all the books of the European writers
who wrote about Indian scriptures, religion and history. He was a
bookworm, and had also extensively studied western philosophy. South
Indian brahmans used to do elaborate Vedic rituals in their temple
ceremonies and they are famous for their correct Sanskrit pronunciation.
Radhakrishnan had a slighting attitude toward them since the beginning.
The derogative views of Radhakrishnan about Hindu religion and
scriptures.
We have written about Jones, Max Müller and the other
writers of that group. Radhakrishnan was not only their admirer, he was
the promoter of their views which is clearly evident from his writings.
His prejudicial attitude toward the Vedic religion and sneering opinions
about the historical Divine Masters and their writings are seen in every
book he wrote. See a few examples:
Indian Philosophy Vol. I ,
first print 1923, reprint 1996. Indian Philosophy Vol. II, first
print 1927, reprint 1996. The Bhagavadgita first print 1948,
reprint 1994. The Principal Upanisads first print 1953, reprint
1995.
(About the early Hindus of Vedic religion)
“Man’s never-ceasing effort to
raise himself above the level of the beast to a moral and
spiritual height finds a striking illustration in India.” (Indian
Philosophy Vol. II, p. 766)
(About the Rigved)
“The process of god-making in the
factory of man’s mind cannot be seen so clearly anywhere else as in the
Rg-Veda.” (Indian Philosophy Vol. I, p. 73)
(About the Atharvaved)
“The religion of the Atharva-Veda
is that of the primitive man, to whom the world is full of shapeless
ghosts and spirits of death.”
“The world becomes crowded with
goblins and gods, and the catastrophes of the world are traced to
dissatisfied spirits… The terrific powers could only be appeased by
bloody sacrifices, human and animal… The religion of the Atharva-Veda is
an amalgam of Aryan and non-Aryan ideals.” (Vol. I, pp. 119, 120)
(About the Upnishads)
“The Upanisads contain the
earliest records of Indian speculation… they contain much that is
inconsistent and unscientific.” (Vol I, p. 138)
(About the Puranas)
“The Puranas are the religious
poetry of the period of the schools, representing through myth and
story, symbol and parable, the traditional view of God and man… They
were composed with the purpose of undermining, if possible, the
heretical doctrines of the times.” (Vol. II, p. 663)
(About the Yog Darshan of Patanjali)
“The popular cult of magic is
mixed up with the religious scheme of salvation in the Yoga.”
“Sometimes psychic powers are
also attained by the use of drugs and anaesthetics. Narcotic
intoxication and ecstatic state are confused by the popular mind. The
use of drugs is not recommended in Patanjali’s Yoga, though it is
mentioned as one of the ways of obtaining perfections. Thus the habit of
drug intoxication prevalent in primitive tribes was mixed up with the
higher mysticism of the Yoga. Spells and austerities also help us in
acquiring these powers.” (Vol II, pp. 366, 368)
(About Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his disciples)
“The orthodox were much disturbed
by his startling ways. He accepted converts from Islam freely… His
disciples, Rupa and Sanatana, were renegade converts to Islam and
outcasts from the Hindu society.” (Vol. II, p. 761)
The Vedas and the Upnishads were originally produced by
the Rishis, then, about 5,000 years ago, they were all reproduced by
Bhagwan Ved Vyas. The Upnishads contain the knowledge about God, maya,
soul and His devotion which is further explained in the systematically
written short sentences of the Brahm Sutra by Ved Vyas who also revealed
all the Puranas. Sage Patanjali expounded the yogic theme of the
Upnishads in his Yog Darshan which explains the eightfold path of yogic
practice to fully eliminate the worldly desires and to purify the heart so
that the yogi could become qualified to receive and to retain the
Divine knowledge of the supreme God.
The writer of the “Indian Philosophy,” Radhakrishnan,
calls the early Hindus ‘the beast’ and the Divine wisdom of the
Rishis ‘the god-making factory,’ and defines the Vedic religion
as ‘the religion of the primitive man in the world of ghosts and
goblins who were only satisfied with bloody sacrifices.’ He speaks of
the teachings of the Upnishads and the Puranas as ‘speculation, myth,
parables and heretical doctrines;’ criticizes the Brahm Sutra, and
tells that the higher mysticism of Yog Darshan was mixed up with drug
intoxication.
No true Hindu can utter such words for our Divine
scriptures and the Vedic religion. They are all tamoguni writings.
His wiliness, antipathy towards our acharyas and his
inclination towards Christianity.
Radhakrishnan criticizes Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who is
the most adorable figure to millions of Hindus, and degrades the most
respected rasik Saints of Vrindaban, Roop and Sanatan Goswami, by
calling them ‘renegade converts to Islam and the outcasts from the
Hindu society.’
He doesn’t stop over there. To justify the Aryan
invasion fiction, he condemns the entire history of all the manvantars
by telling that ‘Indian civilization is about 4,000 years old’ in
Volume I, page 46, of his book the “Indian Philosophy”; and in Volume II,
page 656, he draws a parallel between the description of God (brahm)
of the Upnishads with the description of God in the Jewish and Christian
religious book (the Bible).
It may be shocking for some people to know that the
world renowned philosopher, bearing the prestige of having the seat of
Vice President and the President of India for many years, had a leaning
towards the western Christian faith and had anti-Vedic thoughts in his
head, which he covered behind the big turban that showed the sign of
Hinduism. But the fact is, that his own statements are the evidences of
his own duplicitous character, when he writes,
“To love God is to take up the
cross. The surrender of the soul to the heavenly Bridegroom… a
metaphor not peculiar to India.” (Vol. I, p. 495)
“To take up the cross” is a pure Christian saying which
means to do everything for the sake of Christianity. But taking the
example of a general Christian proverb and befitting it with the occasion
of maharas and with the unlimited depth of Gopis’ love for
Krishn whose Divine sweetness surpassed all the forms of Divine
Blissfulness, positively expresses the total anglicization of
Radhakrishnan’s mind.
In the introduction of “The Principal Upanisads,” page
35, while describing the creation aspect, he compares the creation theory
of the Upnishads with the Bible and the Iliad which was composed by a
blind bard of Greece, Homer. He writes:
“Before creation all this was
darkness shrouded in darkness, an impenetrable void or abyss of waters.”
(Footnote on page 35 in “The Principal Upanishads”: Genesis
1.2, where the Spirit of God is said to move on the face of the waters,
and the Puranic description of Vishnu as resting on the Serpent Infinite
in the milky ocean. Homer’s Iliad speaks of Oceanos as ‘the
source of all things’ including even the gods.)
In the Indian Philosophy Vol. I, page 103, he writes,
“The personal God brooding over
the waters the Narayana resting on the eternal Ananta. It is the god
of Genesis who says, Let there be, and there was. ”
Here again Radhakrishnan compares the Divine greatness
of Gracious and kind God Narain (Vishnu) with the wrathful God of the Old
Testament (Genesis).
At one place the Kathopnishad describes the ascending
dependability of soul, maya and God.
The meaning of this verse is, “Maya (the
original cosmic power called prakriti) is beyond the soul and is
more powerful than the soul; and beyond maya is God in His
personal form (purushah). Beyond the personality of
God there is no other (Divine) matter. He is the final goal of
a soul.” The key word in this verse is purushah which means ‘the
Personal form of God.’ But, Radhakrishnan alters the meaning of the
word purushah from ‘the Personality of God’ to ‘spirit,’
because the New Testament (John 4/24) describes God as a ‘spirit.’ Thus he
translates it like this,
“Beyond the great self (atma)
is the unmanifest (prakriti); beyond the unmanifest is the
spirit. Beyond the spirit there is nothing. That is the end
of the journey; that is the final goal.” (The Principal Upanisads, p.
625)
In the New Testament whenever Jesus Christ is saying
something, the words “Verily, Verily” are often used in the
beginning of his statement. Radhakrishnan adopts the same style in his
writings while translating the Upnishads. For instance,
“Non existent, verily, was
this in the beginning. Therefrom, Verily, was existence
produced.” (p. 548)
The reason of his being famous as an Indian philosopher.
There were two reasons: (a) His political status as the
President of India, and (b) the ignorance of the common people about the
quality of his writings. Hindus have tremendous faith in the Gita,
Bhagwat, Ramayan and the Upnishads etc. Just the thought, that
Radhakrishnan had translated the Gita and the Upnishads, gave an
air of respect to him. Moreover, in the political field, he was well known
to Indians as being a good politician, and people had a regard for him.
His oratory was well known, and his presentation of a subject before the
students was promising. All these things promoted his name. His
appointment to the Oxford University as a Professor of Philosophy gave him
a further rise, and his political distinction promulgated his fame when he
became the President of India. The notion, that ‘the President of India’
had written books on Indian philosophy and translated the Gita, augmented
his fame as a philosopher, and thus, he came to be known as a world figure
in philosophy.
But, it was all in the air. Had the Indians in common known what really
he had written about the Rishis, the Vedas, Bhartiya scriptures, our most
revered acharyas and Saints and about the Divine descensions,
Bhagwan Ram and Krishn, the story would have been entirely different.
More than ninety-five percent of the Indian population
reads the scriptures that are published in Indian languages, so they
remain unaware of the biasedness of his writings (which were written in
English only). Very few who take higher education in the Indian philosophy
and religion happen to study such books as those of Radhakrishnan and
other similar Indian or European writers. By the time they finish their
course they accumulate so much philosophical confusion in their mind by
studying the works of worldly and incompetent writers that most of them
lose faith in the devotional aspects of Hindu religion and develop a kind
of no-regard feeling for the Divinity of the scriptures, Jagadgurus
and the great historical Masters as well. Thus, it doesn’t matter to them
what Radhakrishnan or any other writer has written about the religion,
philosophy or the culture of India.
Many people who regarded Radhakrishnan as a philosopher
have simply praised him without even knowing what he has actually written
in his books. Moreover, no one has ever written genuine comments on his
writings, and the common people of India and also the people of the world
don’t indulge in the intricacies of the philosophy. So, the dark side
of his writings always remained hidden, and that was a plus point on his
part that maintained his image as a great Indian philosopher, which, in
fact, was a false perspective of his personality.
The writings of Radhakrishnan were more damaging to Bhartiya religion
as compared to the European writers.
The derogatory writings of the western scholars, as initiated by the
British, left a great impact on the Indian minds. But the reconfirmation
of those western views by Radhakrishnan had much more damaging effects and
confused millions of scholars of philosophy and religion around the world
by giving them entirely wrong input about Hindu philosophy, Hindu
scriptures and the Hindu religion. Just examine some of his
mis-translations.
The writings of Radhakrishnan were more damaging to Bhartiya religion
as compared to the European writers.
The derogatory writings of the western scholars, as
initiated by the British, left a great impact on the Indian minds. But the
reconfirmation of those western views by Radhakrishnan had much more
damaging effects and confused millions of scholars of philosophy and
religion around the world by giving them entirely wrong input about Hindu
philosophy, Hindu scriptures and the Hindu religion. Just examine some of
his mis-translations.
His Upnishad and Gita translations.
How wrongly he has translated the Upnishads, it can be
seen from his translations of some of the most important verses.
In the Taittariya Upnishad,
(a) The true meaning is: “He (the Supreme
God) manifested and made Himself omnipresent in the visual world.” But
Radhakrishnan translates it as, “That (God) made itself a soul.”
(b) The true meaning is, “He (sah =
the Supreme Personality of God Himself) is the Bliss; whoever perceives
the Blissful God becomes blissful forever.” But Radhakrishnan
translates it as, “That, verily, is the essence of existence (the
existing mayic world). For, truly, on getting the essence, one becomes
blissful.” (The Principal Upanisads, p. 549)
The word sah means, “the personal form of
God” only. All the Jagadgurus have given detailed explanations on
this particular verse, however, Radhakrishnan has his own way.
See his translations of the Gita.
The verse 15/6
“ ” tells about the existence of
Krishn’s Divine abode (called the Golok), which is beyond maya and
where the material sun, moon and fire do not exist (because it is Divinely
illuminated). That ‘param dham,’ the eternal and absolute abode of
Krishn, is such a Divine abode where God realized Saints go and (while
perceiving the absolute Bliss) they live there forever and they never
reincarnate in the material world. But Radhakrishnan gives his comment on
this verse and says, “This verse refers to the Immutable Brahman which
can be reached by ascetic practices.” (The Bhagavadgita, p. 328)
See more extracts from The Indian Philosophy Vol. I
& II (IP/I,II) and the Principal Upanishads (PU).
-
Rigved has the impassionate
utterances of the primitive poetic souls.
(IP/I-71)
-
Atharvaved contains the pre-Vedic
animist religion of spirits and ghosts. It gives an idea of demonology
prevalent in the tribes of India.
(PU-45;IP/I-121)
-
The earliest Vedic seers
worshipped nature… the Vedic gods were stupidly self-centered… gods
and ghosts governed the life of people.
(IP/I-121)
-
The Upnishads (aranyakas) are the
speculations of the hermits. Their teachings are lost in the jumbled
chaos of puerile superstition. (IP/I-355)
-
He (Radhakrishnan) cannot accept
Krishn of the Puranas. It was only the unknown author of the Gita
who made Krishn famous through his writings and devised him to pose as
God (brahm).
(IP/I-496, 521)
-
Ram was only a good man. He was
not God. His religion is polytheistic and external.
-
In the theism of Ramanuja, his
city of God, the heaven, where the redeemed souls dwell is not much
different from the usual description of the paradise of the popular
imagination. (This is the
description of Vaikunth in the words of Radhakrishnan.)
(IP/I-482)
Shankara’s arid logic made his
system unattractive, and Ramanuja’s
story of the other world carries no weight.
(IP/II-711)
In the Chaitanya religion the ultimate reality is
Vishnu, and there is nothing much in their theory (achintya bhedabhed
vad). (IP/II-761)
You can see that the great philosopher Radhakrishnan,
introducing his skeptical views, despises the Divineness of the philosophy
and the religion of Bharatvarsh.
He calls the Vedic Rishis as primitive poets whose impassionate
utterances are the Rigved. He says that Atharvaved incorporates the
demonology of primitive tribes; Vedic gods are stupidly self-centered; and
the Upnishads are childish superstitions.
He criticizes the Divinity of Krishn, and says that
(Bhagwan) Ram was only a good man, not God. He condemns the Divine
greatness of Vaikunth by calling it the imagined heaven of Ramanujacharya
and says that Ramanujacharya’s story of the other world (Vaikunth) carries
no weight, and the dull logic of Shankaracharya makes his theory
unattractive. He refutes the most impressive theory of the Vaishnavas of
Vrindaban, the achintya bhedabhed vad, and thus, degrading the
Hindu religion and philosophy by all means, he promotes only the western
orientalists at each and every step of his writings.
A question arises: If the Upnishads are superstitious,
Vedas are the primitive utterances, and the writings of acharyas
carry no weight in his eyes, why then has he wasted his time writing on
the Indian philosophy and the Upnishads; and why was he visiting the
universities lecturing on the Indian philosophy? Was he trying to show how
useless the Hindu religion is?
In fact, the Upnishads contain the Divine knowledge
about God and God realization, and the Gita, Bhagwatam, Ramayan,
Mahabharat and the Puranas are the Divine writings in which the Divine
glory of the supreme descensions of God (Bhagwan Ram and Krishn) are
described. The acharyas and the Jagadgurus revealed the
simple path of divine-love-devotion to God for the good of mankind and
established the greatness of bhakti (devotion to supreme God) that
encouraged uncountable souls of the world to rise above the mayic
dependency and proceed towards the fulfillment of their inner self that
always longed for the Divine love of the supreme Beloved of their soul.
But, Radhakrishnan’s derogatory writings confused millions of good
souls looking for the path to God. Covering all the aspects of Hindu
religion (the scriptures, the writings of the acharyas and the
descensions of God) he tried to implode the entire structure of Hinduism.
Collecting the wrongs of the
European writers (who were appointed by the British) he decorated his
writings with that. It created an opening for the other Hindu writers
of the 20th century to follow the same wrong tradition of despising
the Sanskrit literature, religion and the ancient history that was planned
and designed by the British diplomats to ruin the culture, the religion
and the history of Bharatvarsh.
Such was the effect of the writings of the western
orientalists and Radhakrishnan etc., on the Indian minds that a great
number of Hindu writers followed the same wrong trend, and, on the same
guidelines, a number of books were written in the last eighty years.
|
 |
 |
