Philosophers From India

"‘Wicked kings began to rule, and they exploited their subjects like thieves. Themselves worse than Shudras they converted people of all castes. Such being the condition ( sinful and sacrilegious) Brahmans gave up studying the scriptures; they became drunkards, served the ignominious, and fed themselves like dogs...on the leavings from the Turks’ table.’"

"Ramdas was one of the greatest saints of the world. He was the inspirer of Shivaji. Like the Sanskrit Gita and the Tamil Kurul, the Dasabodh is one of the greatest classics of world literature. Ramdas was a contemporary of Sant Tukaram. As makers of Maharastra and remakers of Hindus tan, Ramdas and Shivaji will always go together as one ideological complex in the historical scholarship of future generations."

"The Mlechchhas have surrounded all the holy places with the result that they have become infected with evil. Besides, the holy people are full of sorrow. At such a time Krishna alone is my way."

"Their almost simultaneous appearance in Bengal and Central India represents an ‘unusually strong current of similar ideas and sentiments! through- out the country. ‘Vallabhacharya was the son of Lakshmana Bhatt, a Telingana Brahman, and was born at Varanasi in a. D. 1479. At twelve, Vallabha had already discovered a new Vaishnava religion, and started on a pilgrimage to preach it. He is said to have gone to the court of Krishna Dévariya of Vijayanagar, where he defeated some Shaiva pandits in discussion. It is said that while at Vrindavan, he was visited by Krishna in person. Vallabha insisted on the ‘‘complete identity of both soul and world with the Supreme Spirit”. His monism was known as Suddhaadwaita or “Pure Non-Duality”. According to him Bhakti was both ‘the means and the end; it is given by God; it comes by His grace. He conceived of Brahma as the material cause of the world, and believed that through His grace salvation could be achieved. His was the Pushti-Marg, or path of salvation through His Grace (anugraha). Pushti in its highest form enabled one to attain God; in the ordinary way it enabled one to attain the objects of one’s desires. Vallabha regarded the teacher on earth as divine, receiving divine honours. Vallabha differed from Ramanuja in so far that he believed in Suddha-adwaita, recognising no distinction between Soul and God— Soul was not His part but Him. Otherwise he also followed in the footsteps of the twelfth century master. Rimanuja’s advocacy of intense devotion to Vishnu is fully realised in Vallabh’s faith. According to both, Gurii was comparable to God. Above all, to both of them, God was full of grace, and love for His creation In essence Vallabh’s teachings were good, in practice they became “wordly". Eliot thinks that with Vallabh the vision which is generally directed Godwards and forgets the flesh, turned earth- wards and forgot God. The literature of the Vallabhacharis re- peatedly states that the Guri is the same as the deity, and often the ‘worship tended to be licentious when women worshipped the deity in the form of the priest, In the sixteenth century the Radhi- ‘Vallabhis, who gave pre-eminence to Radha, made the worship a farce bordering on obscenity. In the words of Monier Williams, “Vallabhacharyaism became in its degenerate form the Epicureanism of the East”,"

"Vadirajatirtha, of the Uttaradi Madhva Matha, visited Kolhapur in the latter half of the sixteenth century. In his Teertha Prabandha, he wrote, What is so surprising with the fact that goddess ramaa (mahalakshmi) is residing in kolhapura kshetra, a place which is full of numerous lakes each of which have numerous lotuses?.... May goddess mahalakshmi ... be the reason for me having abundant prosperity!"

"Akis ditut narma ta khasay, Akis jandah palas nay, Akis ditut barni-nyasay, Akis tsur ay doran Lhasay."

"Adana archana karay no me Tas Wuni pyom tsetas greki vizi nun."

"Arah-balan naga-rada rov Sadha ror tsuran manz Muda gharan gora Pandita ror Ruza hansa ror kuran manz."

"The universe will sustain only if the forests sustain."

"Adam akay ta byun byun war — Ak layi mukhta ta ak layi na har Tsandun ti dar, arkhor ti dar Arkhor asi na barkhurdar."

"Man is the same [but] of different qualities; One is worth a pearl, another is not worth a shell. Sandal is wood, arkhor is wood, [but] Arkhor is not of any use. 1"

"There was clearly a foreign hand behind [Dravidian] agitation . . . Some Dravida leaders had been influenced with American money routed through Sri Lanka and they became, if unsuspectingly, ready instruments of destabilizations. Annadurai perhaps did not know it but he was becoming an effective plaything of America's intelligence machinery ."

"India is a continent; it should be divided into a number of countries. . . . Aryan influence increases within a single country called India. Welfare of the other races is crushed under Aryan rule. Uniting different races under a single country leads to rebellions and troubles. In order to prevent such troubles and bloodshed in India, we should divide India according to racial lines now. . . . The reason one race has not choked another race to death in India so far is the British guns. When the British leave, India will become a killing field."

"“Our people will be liberated from ignorance only on the day we are freed from the Aryan illusion.” (Barnett 1976:73)"

"If we had to accept the principle of numerical superiority while selecting our national bird, the choice would have fallen not on the peacock but on the common crow."

"In physics, the thinker Kanada, explained light and heat as different aspects of the same element, thus anticipating Clarke Maxwell's Electro-magnetic Theory, which unified different forms of radiant energy. Sankaracharya, in his Advaita thought expanded the concept of unity of matter and energy. Vacaspati recognized light as composed of minute particles emitted by substances, anticipating Newton’s Corpuscular Theory of Light and the later discovery of the Photon. In Botany, Sankara Mishra and Kanada have discussed the circulation of sap in the Plant and the Santiparva of Mahabharata has clearly stated that the plants develop on the strength of nutrients made through interaction of sunlight and materials obtained from the air and ground. Bhaskarcharya's concept of Differential Calculus preceded Newton by many centuries. His study of time identified Truti: The 3400th part of a second as the unit of time."

"As Gautama is the Aristotle of India, so Kanada is its Democritus. His name, which means the “atom-eater,” suggests that he may be a legendary construct of the historical imagination. The date at which the Vaisheshika system was formulated has not been fixed with excessive accuracy: we are told that it was not before 300 B.C., and not after 800 A.D. Its name came from vishesha, meaning particularity: the world, in Kanada’s theory, is full of a number of things, but they are all, in some form, mere combinations of atoms; the forms change, but the atoms remain indestructible. Thoroughly Democritean, Kanada announces that nothing exists but “atoms and the void,” and that the atoms move not according to the will of an intelligent deity, but through an impersonal force or law — Adrishta, “the invisible.” Since there is no conservative like the child of a radical, the later exponents of Vaisheshika, unable to see how a blind force could give order and unity to the cosmos, placed a world of minute souls alongside the world of atoms, and supervised both worlds with an intelligent God.66 So old is the “pre-established harmony” of Leibnitz."

"To be at the height of their calling, men of Science have to reject the very possibility of Materialistic doctrines having aught to do with the Atomic Theory; and we find that Lange, Butlerof, Du Bois Reymond—the last probably unconsciously—and several others, have proved it. And this is, furthermore, demonstrated by the fact, that Kanâda in India, and Leucippus and Democritus in Greece, and after them Epicurus—the earliest Atomists in Europe—while propagating their doctrine of definite proportions, believed in Gods or supersensuous Entities, at the same time. Their ideas upon Matter thus differed from those now prevalent... the Atomic Theory kills Materialism."

"The way some established historians have tried to justify unabashedly iconoclastic acts of Mahmud of Ghazni and Aurangzeb is a big blot on writing correct and unbiased history and all right-thinking persons must congratulate Justice Agarwal for making a factual and bold statement."

"When Prof. Ali knows that these valiant Rajputs had sacrificed all these assignments and were ready to die, then such calumny against a valiant race is a gross injustice to them and a daunting distortion of historical facts."

"Two systems of Hindu thought propound physical theories suggestively similar to those of Greece. Kanada, founder of the Vaisheshika philosophy, held that the world was composed of atoms as many in kind as the various elements. The Jains more nearly approximated to Democritus by teaching that all atoms were of the same kind, producing different effects by diverse modes of combination. Kanada believed light and heat to be varieties of the same substance; Udayana taught that all heat comes from the sun; and Vachaspati, like Newton, interpreted light as composed of minute particles emitted by substances and striking the eye."

"The atomistic theory of matter appears in well established and elaborated form in various systems of Hindu philosophy... The oldest of these systems... appears to be that of the Vaiseshika, attributed to Kanada... Whether or no the... theory antedated Democritus... is... uncertain. Professor Garbe's opinion is that beyond a doubt the Indian theory is a long time after the theory of Leucippus and Democritus. L. Mabilleau, on the other hand, considers the Vaiseshika system as several centuries earlier than Democritus. ...This theory recognizes nine distinct entities constituting the universe. These are earth, water, fire, air (or wind), ether (akasa), time, space, soul, and "manas." ...Time, space, and soul are not material, though existent. The "manas" is the medium through which impressions of sense are conveyed to the soul. The first four, therefore, correspond to the four elements of Empedocles; the fifth, ether, can be compared with little similarity to the ether of Aristotle. The first four elements are composed of atoms which are eternal, never created nor destroyed. Each of these four elements exists as atoms and also as aggregates of atoms. As atoms, they are imperishable. The elements which we see or feel are aggregates of atoms and as such are subject to change, but the atoms, which are invisible, do not change. ...Akasa, or ether, is assumed not to consist of atoms, but is infinite in extent, continuous and eternal. It cannot be apprehended by the senses, but is the carrier of sound. It is also described... as all-pervasive, occupying the same space that is occupied by the various forms of matter, and therefore devoid of the property of impenetrability, characterizing the atoms of other elements."

"Now, after such a detailed discussion it is clear that there is a world of unimpeachable evidences which testify to the fact that there existed a definite birth-site of Rāma. It was located in the disputed shrine which was constructed after demoli-shing a temple of Rāma. Despite all these testimonies, if any historian clings to his old stand that there is no evidence showing the existence of any birthplace of Rāma at the disputed site, then one is reminded of the famous line of Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”"

"Thus, on the Rāmanavamī Ayodhyā has been attracting a large number of pilgrims ranging from four lakhs to one million for centuries and they have been performing pūjā at the Rāma-janmabhūmi site and even then, self-proclaimed impartial historians postulate that there is no evidence. It is ridiculous."

"Makhdum Shah Juran Ghori, He was the younger brother of Muhammad Ghori. He invaded Ayodhyā with a large army and destroyed the famous Jain Adinath temple... Bartuh might have been a governor of Gahadavāla king at Ayodhyā who defended Ayodhyā valiantly and this is the reason that the Turkish invaders succeeded in demolishing only one temple (Adinātha) at Ayodhyā."

"Thus, on 28th February, 1659 when according to Sir Jadu Nath Sarkar Emperor Aurangzeb issued the firman of the religious tolerance through the office of his son Muhammad Sultan, the Emperor was in Rajasthan and the Prince was in Eastern India! How the twain met to consider sympathetically the condition of the Hindus of Benaras and issue a Firman from the imperial seat is beyond comprehension!"

"Even then, Prof. Habib makes this fanciful observation which is totally unsupported by any direct or indirect historical evidence. One must salute the superb sophistry."

"The very fact that Sardar Nihang Singh forcibly occupied the Janma-sthāna mosque on 15th December, 1858 A.D. and wrote राम,राम on its walls shows that the Sikhs had been associated with the Janma-sthāna shrine for long."

"It is an irony that though there are indigenous literary sources, foreign travellers’ accounts, a detailed inscription and archaeological excavation reports, all supporting the existence of a temple at the birthplace of Lord Rāma at Ayodhyā, yet established historians have been misleading the nation by spreading unsubstantiated propaganda incessantly that there is not an iota of evidence to prove the claim that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Rāma and a temple existed thereon."

"The report to the nation is a beautifully written document with a lot of distorted and misleading statements."

"In view of the communal riots between the Hindus and the Muslims in 1855 the British Government took an arbitrary decision and deprived the Hindus of the worship in the disputed shrine and made an arrangement for the worship outside the mosque. It generated widespread resentment and a Nihang Sikh with 25 followers from the same sect from Punjab came to Ayodhyā and forcibly occupied the mosque. They did puja and homa inside it and placed an idol therein. Thereafter, they prayed to Guru Govind Singh and pitched a nishan outside the shrine. They wrote राम राम throughout the mosque with coal."

"Mir Rajjab Ali further complained that whenever the Moazzin called Azaan, the Respondent Nihang blew conch... Nevertheless, when the Hindus were asked to do it outside the shrine, they started creating trouble like blowing the conch at the same time when there was Azaan."

"We are of the view that at Ayodhyā at least three temples existed till 1660 A.D. Fuhrer had found an inscription in the debris of Tretā Kā Thākura mosque which had been built by the order of Aurangzeb after demolishing a temple built earlier by Jayachandra in the V.S. 1241, i.e. 1184 A.D. The magnificent Svargadvāra temple, too, was demolished and an impressive mosque was built there by the order of Aurangzeb. There are many sources to confirm this fact."

"Here it is important to note that Svargadvar and Treta Ka Thakur temples were built during the regime of the Gadhawal Kings in the 11th and 12th centuries. An inscription of King Jayachandra of this dynasty relating to the Treta Ka Thakur temple was found and mentioned by Anton Fuhrer in his report. It is accepted by almost all scholars including Hans Bakker that these two temples were demolished by Aurangzeb’s order. Now the riddle remains why would the Muslim marauders who demolished Janma-sthāna temple at Ayodhyā in 1528 A.D. leave these two temples unmolested, when they were standing just at a very short distance from it? The simple answer is that all the three temples were demolished by the same set of iconoclasts and they were none other than the marauders of Aurangzeb."

"In 1855-56 Mirza Jan wrote a book ‘Hadiqa-i-shuda’ wherein he claimed thus.. The mosque of Ram Darbar was built by Fedai Khan. It has been damaged by the infidels who have torn the two minarets and the wall. During the days of Amjad Ali Shah, orders had been issued for its reconstruction. But with his sudden death, he took this wish along with him, while the Qila Masjid was given to the Mahant of the Qila as muafi. The mosque has been converted into a house. The possession of mosques under the Hindus is well-known... Svargadvāra temple is called the Rāma-darbar by the Urdu writers of the second half of the 19th century. Thus, from this testimony of Mirza Jan it is known that Fedai Khan, the Governor of Awadh had demolished the Svargadvar temple and constructed a mosque thereon. ... It appears that he demolished all the three temples at Ayodhyā in 1660 A.D. Since the Svargadvar temple was the most magnificent, it is specifically named and other temples are clubbed together. It has been argued earlier that had the Janma-sthāna temple been demolished in 1528, there was no reason to keep the Svargadvar temple unmolested then because it stood at a short distance from the Janma-sthana temple. So all the three temples were demolished by the marauding militia men of Fedai Khan in 1660 A.D."

"Svargadvāra temple is called Rāma-darbar by many Muslim writers and it is reported that it was demolished by Fedai Khan, the Governor of Aurangzeb."

"Fedai Khan, who was Aurangzeb’s foster brother and favourite on account of Fedai’s unflinching support to him in the war against Dara and his worthy son Sulaiman Shukoh, was made Governor of Ayodhyā in August 1658 and it was Fedai Khan who demolished all the three temples at Ayodhyā, viz. Svargadvārī, Tretā Kā Thākura and Rāma-janma-bhūmi temples and built mosques at all the three places. Svargadvari temple’s demolition by Aurangzeb has been mentioned by Joseph Tieffenthaler, C. Mentelle, Mirza Jan and many subsequent Muslim authors. The demolition of Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple by Aurangzeb has been mentioned by Tieffenthaler (1670 A.D.), Mentelle (1800 A.D.) and J.R. M’culloch (1842 A.D.). The perception that Aurangzeb demolished Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple was prevalent during the visit of Buchanan also."

"For the first time in the history of the Ayodhyā controversy the present author is producing a clinching evidence which conclusively proves that there was a temple at the birthplace of Lord Rāma and there was an idol inside it. Devotees used to visit it for having a glimpse of the idol and for the annihilation of their poverty. It is described in the 12th chapter called दरिद्र-भञ्जनदुर्ल्लभो Adhyaya of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Rudra-yāmala scripture"

"It is now learnt that Ram Narayan had a photograph [in 1875] which showed a mosque at Rāma’s birthplace built by Aurangzeb. Thus, the association of Aurangzeb’s name with the construction of the mosque at the site of Rāma-Janma-bhūmi has a long tradition."

"According to a long-standing tradition prevalent in Korea a Princess of Ayodhyā, Suriratna by name, was married to a Korean King Kim Suro, the monarch of Kingdom Gaya (also known as Garak) located in the Korean country. As per the tradition, in July, 48 A.D. the Princess from the ancient sacred city of Ayodhyā embarked on her journey in a boat which anchored at a small harbour on the Korean peninsula. Her royal sojourn was in consequence to her father’s dream that she would get her husband in a small harbour in Korea. Upon her arrival, she was married to King Kim Suro who was the first King of the Korean Kingdom. ... Queen Sūriratna (Heo) is said to have given birth to 10 children who became founders of many dynasties. The powerful dynasty of the Gimhae Kim clan was started by her offspring and today six million Koreans with surnames Kim and Huh from Gimhae, and Lee from Incheon, trace their ancestry to this royal couple."

"Thus, it is gathered from a contemporary source that no sooner had Aurangzeb ascended the throne than he started harassing the Hindus by imposing taxes and demolishing temples. It is corroborated by his iconoclastic activities in 1661 and 1662 A.D. In 1661 the famous temple of Kuch Bihar was razed to ground and in its place a mosque was built. In 1661-62 Abdul Nabi, faujdar of Mathura, destroyed a Hindu temple and constructed a mosque on its site. Therefore, there should be no surprize that Fedai Khan demolished the three temples at Ayodhyā in 1660 A.D."

"The demolition of temples was taking place since the beginning of Aurangzeb’s reign, nay, from his Viceroy’s days, when he had demolished the Somanâtha and Chintâmani temples in Gujarat. In 1661 when the King of Kuch Bihar was defeated by Mir Jumla, Aurangzeb’s Governor of Bengal, the principal temple of the capital of Kuch Bihar was demolished and a mosque was built thereon. The name of the capital was changed to Alamgir-nagar. In 1661-62 A.D. Abdun Nabi Khan, Aurangzeb’s Faujdar at Mathura, built a Jama Masjid in the heart of the city on the site of a mandir which was different from the famous Keshav Rai’s temple. It seems that after the execution of Dara Shukoh on 30th August, 1659 there was a jubilation in the conservative Muslim camp because he was executed for apostasy by the victorious Emperor Aurangzeb. Once Aurangzeb was in the saddle, his foster brother Fedai Khan, who was the Governor of Ayodhyâ, demolished all temples there at the Emperor’s command and built mosques at those places as marks of the triumph of the ‘true faith’ over the infidelity."

"Thus, there is ample evidence in the Rudrayāmala, Skanda-purāna, Satyopākhyāna and Avadha-vilāsa to conclude that the birth-site of Rāma has been regarded as a sacred spot for more than a thousand years."

"In this book I have coined two words ‘established’ and ‘enthusiastic’. By ‘established’ historians I mean self-proclaimed secular, progressive or left historians who have established an academic empire and try to stifle any voice of dissent or truth. At times, they obfuscate matters. Similarly, I have called the historians of the opposite group as ‘enthusiastic historians’ in place of nationalist or conservative historians. In this camp the standard of historians’ writing history except that of a few of them is far from satisfactory because they lack the skill of sifting the grain from husk. This is the reason that they, too, have failed to do justice to the history of Ayodhyā, and hence the difference on Ayodhyā between the two groups of historians is very thin. The first group asserts that the victorious Babur built the mosque on a barren plot, whereas the other group claims that Babur erected the mosque after demolishing a temple. Thus, both groups claim that it was a creation of Babur or his Governor Mir Baqi!"

"It would thus appear that the four historians who wrote the ‘report to the nation’ were really experts nominated by All India Babri Masjid Action Committee and were not independent. But they always pretended to be impartial professional historians. In fact, in their ‘report to the nation’ they criticized the claims of V.H.P. only and made no comments on the documents submitted by A.I.B.M.A.C. Had they really been truly impartial historians, they would have commented on the evidence submitted by both parties and presented their report to the nation or M.H.A. without any bias or prejudice."

"P. Carnegy has written that Ayodhyā is to the Hindus what Mecca is to the Mahomedon and Jerusalem to the Jews. R.T. Griffith, the celebrated translator of Vālmīki Rāmayana, was of the opinion that ‘Ajudhyā is the Jerusalem or Mecca of the Hindus’."

"The tragedy with the I.C.H.R. was that it was hijacked by four historians who claimed themselves to be ‘an independent forum of historians’ and took upon themselves the task of passing judgment on all the three branches of the evidence."

"The background of my meeting with Prof. B.B. Lal is very interesting. Long back when I was Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna in 1983-84, I had an occasion to travel along with Dr. Kumar Suresh Singh, an I.A.S. officer who edited the monumental work ‘People of India’ published by ‘Anthropological Survey of India’. In the course of talk he told me that Prof. B.B. Lal had once told him that in the course of excavation at Ayodhyā he (Prof. Lal) had found the remains of a temple beneath the Baburi Mosque. When he informed the authorities concerned including Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi, it was decided after due deliberation that the excavation should be abandoned, lest it should create a serious contentious issue. Thereafter the excavation was stopped. Our talk ended there. In 1990 when I was appointed Officer on Special Duty on Ayodhyā during the premiership of Shri Vishwanath Pratap Singh, I called on Prof. Lal and asked him about the excavation and its abandonment in consequence of finding a temple’s remains. He confirmed it and showed me many slides to prove how the remains of a temple were found at the site. He told me that since the 14 Kasauti pillars existed in situ, they were parts of a temple which existed earlier at the site. (Preface)"

"Java’s capital at ‘Jogya karta’ for centuries has been named after Ayodhyā. ‘(A)Jogya’ is named after Ajodhya and karta means city. The main river in Java is called Serayu, which is apparently named after the Indian Sarayū on the bank of which Ayodhyā is situated. A cave in its proximity is called Kiskanda of the Rāmāyana. Similarly, a town Situbenda after the Setubandha is located in the extreme east of the principality."

"A confusing situation has been created by many modern historians who are not well versed in the Sanskrit language or who have a pre-determined agenda to follow. They have written long articles that the Ayodhyā mentioned in some Buddhist texts was situated on the bank of Gangā and not Sarayū and therefore different from the present-day Ayodhyā... But this has happened either due to the lack of the knowledge of the Sanskrit/Pāli language or on account of a deliberate attempt to confound the issue."