By: Dr. N. Naveen Chandra
Under the lofty heading of “What are Vedic values, aka ‘Indian Ethos’ of the Hindus?” Devdutt Patnaik (hereafter referred to as DP) tries to define on 27th August 2016, a subject in a few hundred words (exactly 570) that took Maharshi Vyas 100000 slokas in his magnum opus “Mahabharatam” or Adi Sankara an entire life time in several books, discourses, travels, poems in reviving Hinduism, which he did or Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan several voluminous scholarly books. DP should examine what he wrote and tell himself if he came anywhere closer to define Vedic values. He says, “Sadly, no one is sure what the correct set of rules and values are” and that is why Christians, Jews and Muslims fight.
He says “as we look at the transformation of Hinduism from Vedic to Puranic times” – let us stop here for a moment. We need a quotation from a scholarly work that there was a transformation of Hinduism between these two periods. Three definitions of transformation are given by Webster: a thorough and dramatic change in form or appearance, a metamorphosis during the cycle of an animal and the induced or spontaneous change of one element into another by radioactive decay. We take the first definition as the other two are not applicable here. Many define Hinduism as Sanatan Dharma which is eternal without a beginning or an end. That means whatever was there is there and will be there. Sanatan Dharma does not change. Obviously then Hinduism did not change from Vedic times to Puranic Times. What Vedas taught Puranas also taught albeit in a different way. The method of Puranas was to convey a message through a story. The story does not change the concepts elaborated in Vedas. Thus, there was no transformation of Hinduism from Vedas to Puranas.
DP says Vedic thought obsessed with Ananta, aneka and anitya is opposite of Abrahamic thought which seeks to “fix” the world by a set of fixed “rules/values.” That means Vedas have no rules or values in the world of DP. This can be proven wrong by citing few phrases from Vedas.
- अहिंसा परमोधर्मः |“Ahimsa Paramodharmah” | “not doing any injury to any thing is the supreme dharma”
- सत्यं वद | “Satyam Vada” | “Speak Satyam”
- धर्मं चर | “Dharmam cara” | “Walk along Dharmam”
- सर्वेजनाः सुखिनोभवन्तु | “Sarvejanah sukhinobhavantu” | “Let all people be happy”.
- ॐ असतो मा सद्गमय । OM, asatoma sadgamaya | Lead me from the unreality of Bondage to Reality of Liberation
तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय । tamasoma jyotirgamaya | Lead me from the darkness of Ignorance to the Light of Knowledge
मृत्योर्मा अमृतं गमय । mrityorma amritamgamaya | Lead me from the death of bondage and ignorance to the Immortality of freedom and knowledge
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥Let there be Peace at three levels. Daivika, Body and Atma. - ॐ सहनाववतु |: Om sahanaavavatu | Let us (guru and student) be protected
सहनौभुनक्तु | sahanoubhunaktu | let there be food for us
सहवीर्यं करवावहै | “saha veeryam karvaavahai | Let us together have competence in our endeavours.
तेजस्विनावधीतमस्तु | ,tejasvinavadheetamastu| let there be light in our endeavours
माविदिशावहै maavidvaashavahai” – let us not succumb to hatred.
These teach values and rules. When it says “Speak Satyam and Do Dharmam:’, it is a rule. When it says “sarvejanaassukhinobhavantu” it is a value. There is a lot of philosophical and metaphysical thinking in Vedas but they are not devoid of rules and values. Will DP revise his opinions on this matter for the good of the world? And there are thousands more phrases and mantras in Hindu Library that consists of 500000 texts majority of them not even read yet.
For the Vedas nature came first, before culture, before humans even. What does DP understand of Nature? Aren’t humans part of nature? Inanimate world and animate world are parts of nature. Plants, animals and humans are part of animate world. Per DP “and nature functions as per “law of jungle” where might is right, only the fittest survives and so driven by hunger and fear animals establish food chains, pecking orders, and territories.” Therefore, nature is jungle and there is law of jungle where might is right. Whereas “Humans don’t have to subscribe to this jungle way, thanks to our ability to imagine”. This betrays ignorance without comparison. Where might is not right, can DP give examples? In the “cultured” world of man also might is right. As a matter of fact, humans murder other humans because of “our ability to imagine.” Humans do mass murder because of “our ability to imagine”. Humans enslave other humans because of “our ability to imagine”. Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, Sikander, Gazni, Ghori, Ourangazeb, Clive, Napoleon, Hitler, Pol Pot, Papa Doc, Hiroshima-Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iraq wars, Pakistan, Terrorism, Colonialism, Imperialism, Holocaust, Racism, Oppression, Suppression, Monotheism, rape of ecology, manmade extinctions of species- all happen because of “our ability to imagine”. Vedic thought is contrary to this mayhem created by West. That is true. Count of Monte Christo and Les Miserables show how “our ability to imagine” makes us inferior to animals. Humans have fear and hunger on a scale unheard of in history. We do establish our own food chains, pecking orders and territories. We are the experts in doing this. Your greatest leaders are liars, cheats and murderers.
On the other hand, Nature is the most orderly thing in the universe. Earthquakes, Floods, Volcanoes, Tides and myriad other things are explained by science. There is a rhythm to nature. Falling bodies, rising gases, flowing rivers, erosion of land, deserts are all explained. Evolution is not a jungle law whatever is meant by the phrase “jungle law”. Anytime I prefer nature over human who established an asphalt jungle.
DP analysis of Mahabharata is completely baseless. He says Duryodhan is a villain who obeyed the laws. Duryodhan was manifestation of kama, krodha, lobha, moha, mada, matsarya. He tried to kill Pandavas from the childhood. He was a hood from the beginning. He stole the Kingdom of Pandavas by lying and cheating. Why did he not throw dice? Why Sakuni threw dice? Why did he try to disrobe Draupadi? Why did he renege on the word that after twelve years of Aranya vaasam and one year of Ajnaata vaasam Pandavas will be restored to their kingdom? He said he would not accede even a needle end area of land. He prepared for the war from the childhood. He made friends with the rogue Karna form the beginning in preparation of war. He was not rule abiding- he broke every rule in the book. Now DP seems to have a thing for Krishna. What rules did Krishna break? He gave vastrams to Draupadi. He protected Pandavas from the beginning. He fought against adharma. He established dharma. He punished Sisupala and Dantavaktra and Kamsa and Jarasandha and other bad people. Dharma Raja was embodiment of Dharma. He praised Krishna. Bhishma, Kripa, Drona and Vyasa were devotees of Krishna. Why? Because Krishna was Yogishwareshwar. Only ajnaanees fail to understand Krishna. Giving ten thousand great fighters with astras and sastras to Duryodhan for his war and unarmed Krishna sat as charioteer in Arjun’s ratham as Parthasaarathi. Where else you will find this samadrishti?
It is true the fundamental Vedic rule and value is “know thyself”. Does DP understand this?
Filed under: Contemporary World
