TatTvamAsi
16 November 2010, 10:14 PM
Namaste,
I was thinking about the seemingly indifferent attitudes of Hindus, modern and otherwise, towards their history not only of their religion, but of their country etc. At first, one can write historical scholarship off as a cumbersome activity afforded only by the wealthy and apparently erudite sections of society while the majority is busy trying to subsist.
However, when one looks deeper into the philosophy behind Hinduism, the whole concept of "history", as commonly defined, seems rather superfluous and consequently unimportant.
This, in my opinion, is a double-edged sword for several reasons. One, Hindus, impelled by their philosophy to live in the "now", or perhaps out of sheer indolence, seem the least bit bothered about their history, as aforementioned. Since history, like time, is usually defined as a series of events that have arisen due to a perennial cycle of cause and effect; is ultimately, linear in nature. Since the Hindu ethos is to think about things cyclically, the importance, or rather, the apparent importance of "one" particular event at "one" particular time is null and void. Thus, the primary reason Hindus are not too obsessed with their history is philosophical in nature.
The second reason, I believe, that Hindus' indifference about their history is a double-edged sword, is when the modern educational system was institutionalized, history was one of the most important subjects of study. As the old adage states, history is often written by the victors as they are the arbiters of their own destiny. Since Hindus didn't chronologically record their history, others, in this case the British, felt that they had free reign to write the history of the Hindus "for them".
As I've stated several times before, India has the dubious distinction of the only country of such stature to have its history written by non-natives, or etic scholars.
So the conundrum is as follows: is history, as commonly defined and understood, really important? If so, in what respect? What are the implications of ignoring or being indifferent to one's history?
As the great historian HG Wells said, "The only thing we learn from history is that we have learnt nothing from it!"
Is history as superfluous as our sages perceived it to be? Or is it important to preserve traditions, civilization, and the country itself?
I hope we Hindus can learn just enough from "history" not to repeat it! India, that is Bharat, should shine forth in her splendor like she has for thousands of years!
Vande Mataram!
Jai Hind!
Namaskar.
I was thinking about the seemingly indifferent attitudes of Hindus, modern and otherwise, towards their history not only of their religion, but of their country etc. At first, one can write historical scholarship off as a cumbersome activity afforded only by the wealthy and apparently erudite sections of society while the majority is busy trying to subsist.
However, when one looks deeper into the philosophy behind Hinduism, the whole concept of "history", as commonly defined, seems rather superfluous and consequently unimportant.
This, in my opinion, is a double-edged sword for several reasons. One, Hindus, impelled by their philosophy to live in the "now", or perhaps out of sheer indolence, seem the least bit bothered about their history, as aforementioned. Since history, like time, is usually defined as a series of events that have arisen due to a perennial cycle of cause and effect; is ultimately, linear in nature. Since the Hindu ethos is to think about things cyclically, the importance, or rather, the apparent importance of "one" particular event at "one" particular time is null and void. Thus, the primary reason Hindus are not too obsessed with their history is philosophical in nature.
The second reason, I believe, that Hindus' indifference about their history is a double-edged sword, is when the modern educational system was institutionalized, history was one of the most important subjects of study. As the old adage states, history is often written by the victors as they are the arbiters of their own destiny. Since Hindus didn't chronologically record their history, others, in this case the British, felt that they had free reign to write the history of the Hindus "for them".
As I've stated several times before, India has the dubious distinction of the only country of such stature to have its history written by non-natives, or etic scholars.
So the conundrum is as follows: is history, as commonly defined and understood, really important? If so, in what respect? What are the implications of ignoring or being indifferent to one's history?
As the great historian HG Wells said, "The only thing we learn from history is that we have learnt nothing from it!"
Is history as superfluous as our sages perceived it to be? Or is it important to preserve traditions, civilization, and the country itself?
I hope we Hindus can learn just enough from "history" not to repeat it! India, that is Bharat, should shine forth in her splendor like she has for thousands of years!
Vande Mataram!
Jai Hind!
Namaskar.