A question used to regularly poke my head when i used to study history as a kid at school. The textbooks always taught about foreginers invading India and indians mostly submissing with the exceptions of a few special men like shivaji. The thing that bothered me was the perceived weakness. Weren't india kings not as ambitious as their counterparts in other nations? What was lacking in the indian school of thought? This was a question that stayed with me. Strange but true.
Fortunately, i read this paragraph by rabindranath tagore, today.
Quoting him,
"According to the true Indian view, our consciousness of the world, merely as the sum total of things that exist, and as governed by laws, is imperfect. But it is perfect when our consciousness realizes all things as spiritually one with it, and therefore capable of giving us joy. For us the highest purpose of this world is not merely
living in it, knowing it and making use of it, but realizing our ownselves in it through expansion of sympathy; not alienating ourselves from it and dominating it, but comprehending and uniting it with ourselves in pefect union."
May be indian kings knew what tagore meant even before he said this!
This is not relevant here but he also said this, 'all men have poetry in their hearts and it is necessary for them, as much as possible, to express their feelings'.
Tagore, you rock dude!
1 comment:
yes buddy they were weak lazy bums not mainly bcoz of missing valor, potential or teaching but they invited their downfall by being overly self-indulgent and dissolute.
Post a Comment