Subject: [world-vedic] Indian Secularists Begin Attack on Western Hindus Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 04:06:49 -0000 From: Vrin Parker Reply-To: vediculture@yahoogroups.com To: vediculture@yahoogroups.com (NOTE:I apologise if this message offends anyone but this is my sincere response to Dr V Prashad's Article.) As an American Friend of India, I take great offense at being belittled by eggheads with political axes to grind. Right away I would like to warn such anti-Hindus Indians, that we Americans won't generally take such insults lightly. Unlike the Indian Hindus, we will react and expose racism, even when it's coached in scholar-ese. Dr V. Prashad's article is pure casteism and racism. Many non-Indian Hindus have been confronted by such racist Indians. They believe we are phony and cannot possibly be true Hindus. So they always come up with some label...CIA, Druggies, Hippies. It's pure hate-mongering and racism. Friends, we don't have to put up with this. Call it for what it is: A Strange Mix of Native-Loathing and anti White Racism spread the word. Look at his books, he is an anti-white racist. My associate and fellow Vedic researcher also does not appreciate being called a white suburbanite, esp. being an African-American. My Native American friend who sincerely appreciates the cultural connections between India and Ancient America also does not accept the label. As someone who can never be labeled a suburban white, yet still being a white American, but raised a Hindu in India, I have to call this article for what it is...shrewd propaganda designed to belittle the sincerity of America's non-Indian Hindu community. Though, such scholars accept and defend the rights of the Gay community, the abortion activists, the environmentalists, the democrats, the republicans etc. they can never extend such liberality to the legitimate convictions and aspirations of the nearly 2 billion non-Indian and Indian Hindus/Buddhists world wide. At a loss as to why the native Indian culture is suddenly being accepted by millions of non-Indians around the world, they must now extend the label of fanatics to all Hindus around the world. That is the only explanation as to why anyone would accept such a "backward culture." My challenge to Dr V Prashad is that he is expressing fanatic tendencies. By ignoring the suffering pleas of millions of Hindus, Dr Prashad, you are directly contributing to that suffering. By publicly using yr academic position to slander Hindus for the sole crime of being Hindu activists, you have become an accomplice to the continuing war against the very heart of India. Every crying Hindu/Buddhist child fleeing the savagery of Bangladesh's Muslim Fundamentalists has you to thank for being ignored by the world. Except the VHP no one is helping them. My friend in Bangladesh sends me updates until my heart wants to break. I contacted the media, My Senator, President etc. but no response. Only the Sangh family has done anything about it. WHAT ABOUT YOU?! I WILL SEND ALL THE PLEAS AND REPORTS FOR YOUR PLEASURE. HAVE SOME MERCY DR PRASHAD. Why is yr activism against Enron any more important than the RSS's activism? Do you deny that there is even a need for Hindu activism? Such a denial will expose yr prejudice. With Bangladesh's annual and ongoing Hindu pogroms, Pakistan's ethnic cleansing of its Hindus, Kashmir's Pandits, I challenge you to find any other such group that has as many enemies and needs to be met. That's been the problem with you lazy Hindus; you don't give a damn about yr fellows. Fortunately, the RSS is changing that problem. I also ask you, where is yr sense of legality. Really, I am shocked at you. A scholar with no concern for the concept of innocent till proved guilty, you and others have decided in yr almighty wisdom that the RSS and anyone else associated with them is automatically guilty of genocide. Talk about fanatics with a huge burden of dogmatic belief. You read a report in the news, wow mr enron exposer. Of all people you must know that the news is the front for the real story that usually comes out a year or two later. So how do you know what really went on in Gujarat? If you are so expert, perhaps a psychic? I think India should let all its police force retire. You seem to know everything, even before the impartial investigations have been concluded. And finally, I ask you why are the heartfelt beliefs of Hindus any less than a Muslim or Christian's right to legal protection? Why would self-proclaimed secularists support Islamic law? This one fact alone proves the TRUE FASCIST FACE of India's secularism. It is dedicated to denying the rights of a majority of its citizens. What other form of tyranny can there be than a movement dedicated to the denial of the rights of a majority of its citizens? It is now time for all the Friends of Hinduism, worldwide, to expose the Fascist Constitution of the Republic of India and its secularists supporters. As an American citizen, with roots back to the founding of the Country, I directly challenge your ability to stop me from doing anything...What to speak of standing up for the only civilization that is actually sustainable. As someone who grew up with a strong education in Indian studies and full immersion in Vedic studies, and living as an adult as an American, I have a truly unique perspective that allows me to see the benefits and weaknesses of both cultures. My life has been enhanced by India's Hindu culture. I belong to no Sangh or Temple, yet have adapted Vedic tradition to my daily life. So as someone in the culture, yet not burdened by blind admiration of Western civilization, I see the great need for a unifying group like the RSS. Why are you any better than me? Who are you to take away my right to support or admire Hinduism and the only organizations that are defending what is dear to my heart? Multiply my needs by millions and you can understand the need for the Sangh. As someone who also accepts the Koran as God's word, and has Muslim friends, I do not like being labeled an anti-Muslim just because I don't agree with you. About yr nutty statement against the Hare Krsnas, to me that is a smoking gun exposing yr prejudice. The Hare Krsnas haven't been involved in airports etc. for nearly 20 yrs. At least they don't hijack airplanes like yr Jihadi friends. Another point that is obvious is that we are currently in a world where nearly every struggle involves at least one side being Islamic Jihadis. It is obvious they are making a world-wide power play. Yet suddenly we get to India, and its "oh those poor innocent Muslims." Do the math. If the Muslims are causing terror and war in all the other hotspots, why they disconnect with the Muslims in India? Oh I forgot about the new math that has been developed since Sept 11th... Terrorism and Islamic extremism is unacceptable except when it is engaged against India and Hindus in particular. If there is any Hindu response, rather than blaming the RSS/VHP, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the blame can be directly laid at the feet of Dr V Prashad and the fanatic and fascist secularists like him. When a government refuses repeatedly to stand up for its people regardless of religion, and allows injustice against its own majority, people naturally become fearful. When academics constantly belittle the cherished traditions of its own people, when the media trivializes and mundanes the sacred and glamorizes the trivial, it as such a time that people are forced to count on their own abilities and strengths. If the secularists would allow India to have a true constitution that rises above caste, creed and religion, India will finally become peaceful and prosperous. However this won't happen until scholars like V Prashad are exposed for their support of Islamic law and all its archaic traditions. Let the whole world know what these so-called secularists support. Their pseudo liberality will collapse instantly once Westerners understand that India's secularists support wife killing, instant divorce at the man's whim, 4 wives per male, taxpayer funded trips to Mecca, free funding for Islamic Madrasses and Born Again Christian schools and none for Hindu schools. India's secularists support complete secrecy for Islamic institutions and demand complete financial transparency for Hindu organizations. Fellow Hindus, our job is simple. Just tell the truth, and 90% of Americans will have nothing to with the Indian secularist's cause. In regards to yr statement below, "Do not allow liberal multiculturalism to give global Hindutva cover from secular forces. Finally, as global Hindutva tries to get United Way clearance and as its front organs try to pose as charitable organizations, be ready to fight them all the way." I respond by reminding you that it is foolish to try to bring yr Indian Constitutional insanity and try and apply it here. Like it or not my rights as an American allow me to promote India's glory as I see fit. As someone in the media and has very successfully convinced thousands about Hinduism's glory, you have already lost the battle. So no force, including the SECULAR FORCES, you mentioned, can do anything to stop me. It is interesting to note yr Freudian slip, in yr use of the words SECULAR FORCES. That's all you got is force, no wisdom. For Your info, we just finished our weekly talk, "The English Dialect Known as Sanskrit." Every week many thankful Americans are learning and accepting the truth that Sanskrit is their mother tongue. I also make sure to inoculate them against secularist's lies. We also have many successful events featuring art, music, and dance. Rather than the usually stuffy programs you professors like to offer, we have dynamic exciting programs that convert nearly every participant into a lover of Hindu India. You couldn't duplicate my efforts even if you tried because yr heart is tainted with hate. So good luck trying to force us Americans to do anything. Disappointed by another Indian posing as a scholar, Vrin Subject: [world-vedic] My Response to Boston Globe's Anti-Hindu piece Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:49:40 -0000 From: Vrin Parker Reply-To: vediculture@yahoogroups.com To: vediculture@yahoogroups.com Dear Boston Globe, In regards to your article, Rising threat of Hindu extremism, 7/12/2002, I was truly shocked to read such diversionary propaganda in your respected publication. At a time when America is confronted with powerful enemies dedicated to its destruction, you have done a great disservice. By attempting to divert our collective energy and attention to pseudo threats like Hindu nationalism, it is easy to question your commitment to America's struggle. The tone of the article smacked of pure anti-Indian propaganda one usually finds on Pakistani websites. Such anti-Indian diatribes in the Boston Globe suggest that there are forces at work dedicated towards defusing America's resolve to defeat Islamic terrorism. So while we are all concerned with Islamic terrorism, let's stay focused on Islamic terrorism and we may actually defeat it. Your article encourages us to begin worrying about Hindu nationalism instead. America's has a lot of real problems; don't add to our woes by inviting us to support the Islamic Jihad against the Hindus. Surprisingly, the author acts as if we are completely ignorant of recent events. While attempting to demonize Hindus, not once does he mention the initial burning alive of Hindu and women children that precipitated the cycle of violence. What purpose does it serve your paper to propagandize these horrific events into an ugly form of racist anti-Hindu propaganda? Ironically this kind of treatment towards Hindus of India has been a common and ongoing theme of Western journalists, academia and politicians. While belittling or ignoring the legitimate needs and concerns of nearly a billion people you emphasize the panicked responses of the mob and misrepresent them as official representatives of Hinduism. No evidence is needed, only accusations are enough for you to present a story to the world. You claim many were quoting lines from the Gita after India's latest test in its 30 year nuclear program. So what, many people quote many things all the time. It's meaningless towards any real report unless you can show who in particular said what. Such tactics are shameless propaganda at work. You attribute India's 1998 test to be the incentive for Pakistan's tests. As if it takes anything besides Pakistan to encourage Pakistan to be militant. You obviously ignore Indira Gandhi's 1974 nuclear tests because that would completely dismantle your anti-Hindu theories. Indira Gandhi was a secularist and she tested nukes and developed India's defenses for the same reasons as India's current leadership. The only difference between Indira and Advani is that Advani is a dedicated Hindu traditionalist while Indira Gandhi was an Indian secularist. Still they were both dealing with the same issue of an aggressive Islamic enemy dedicated towards India's conversion or destruction. Your attempt to link India's resolve with extremism only feeds the cause of Islamic Jihad. Like it or not, India and America are both facing the same enemy of Islamic Jihadism. Now just if America's elite can get over their racist superiority complex and start acting like an ally rather than a domineering bully. Sincerely, Vrin Parker 679 Lincoln st Eugene, Oregon 97401 541 683 7155 Subject: [world-vedic] Indian&non-Indian Hindus Unite Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 11:06:17 -0400 From: dchakrav@cs.com Reply-To: vediculture@yahoogroups.com To: vediculture@yahoogroups.com 9. Indian Secularists Begin Attack on Western Hindus From: Vrin Parker Jai Ramji Ki! Dear Vrin Parker: I wholeheartedly support your sentiments. The problem, however, is more acute than you have indicated. The secularists (including those who declare authority by mentioning their diplomas) are generally ignorant of dharma, therefore, religious Indian Hindus do not get worked up with their statements. I admit that there is a need to counter their propaganda. But the religious Indian Hindus are also at fault. Non-Indian Hindus frequently express concern that many Indian Hindus living in the West have not accepted them with open arms. Such behavior is not only discourteous, but also forbidden in Scriptures. I would like to cite just one example: GaruDa puraana says: BhaktirashhTavidhaa hyeshhaa yasmin mlecche.api vartate Sa viprendro muniH shriimaan sa yatiH sa cha panditaH Tasmai deyaM tato grahyaM sa cha pujyo yathaa HariH. Translation: If the eight-fold symptoms of devotion (archana, vandana, daasya, sevana, smarana, kiirtana, sakhya and aatmanivedana - worshipfulness, felicitation, servitude, hospice, remembrance, glorification, friendship and self-surrender) exist in a mleccha (one who is of non-Vedic origin and/or one who has given up Vedic dharma), he is the highest among the twice-born, he is a sage, he is glorious, he is an ascetic and he is wise. One should give to him and accept from him and he is worshipable like Sri Hari. Such verses clearly say that we Indian Hindus are at fault. I feel that it is imperative that non-Indian and Indian Hindus very much need to join hands together in our Vedic and laukik (popular) activities. Regards, Dhruba. Subject: [world-vedic] Secularism, Religion and Spirituality(no url) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 14:54:36 +0200 From: "Parag Garg" Reply-To: vediculture@yahoogroups.com To: "self" Secularism, Religion and Spirituality by Kittu Reddy A new word has recently been cast into the shifty language of politics - a language of self-illusion and deliberate delusion of others, which almost immediately turns all true and vivid phrases into a jargon, so that men may fight in a cloud of words without any clear sense of the thing they are battling for - it is the word secularism. The Late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi introduced this word into the Indian Constitution in the mid-seventies during the Emergency. Since then the word secularism has become the battle cry of political parties, intellectuals and opinion makers in India; it has been used as a tool and a stick to decry anyone with a different viewpoint and has created more confusion than understanding and harmony. So the terms now being bandied about by the media are secularists, pseudo-secularists, and non-secularists. As a consequence, there is a great confusion in the minds of the average Indian as to what secularism really means. It will therefore be both useful and interesting to try to trace the origin, history, and meaning of the word secularism. This exercise might help in clearing the misunderstandings and pave the way for a more harmonious polity. The word secularism is not essentially of Indian origin, rather it is a product of modern Western history and civilization and has now become a part of the vocabulary of all governments in the world. The Western mind Let us therefore take a look at modern Western history and the mindset of its people in order to understand its psychological roots. The first point to note is that it was during the reign of Constantine in 324 AD that Christianity became the State religion of the Roman Empire. Before that there was no State religion anywhere in the world. It must also be noted that the first religious wars in history were fought between the Christians and the Muslims during the Crusades in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Let us analyze the characteristic trends of the Western mind. There are two things especially that distinguish the normal European mind. Its two significant characters are firstly the cult of the inquiring, defining, effective, practical reason and secondly the cult of life. All the great developments and the high tides of European civilization, Greek culture, the Roman empire before Constantine, the Renascence, and the modern age with its two colossal idols, Industrialism and physical Science, have come to the West on the strong ascending urge of this double force. Whenever the tide of these powers has ebbed, the European mind has entered into much confusion, darkness, and weakness. This was the period of the Middle Ages, known also as the Dark Ages; it began from the time of Constantine when he made Christianity the State religion right up to the period of the Renaissance and the Reformation in the 15th century. During that period the Church was the dominant power in Europe. The Roman Empire was in a state of decay, disorder, and lawlessness and it was the Christian religion that brought some kind of light. Appealing to the poor, the oppressed and the ignorant, it captured the soul and the ethical being, but cared little or not at all for the thinking mind; it was content that the mind should remain in darkness if the heart could be brought to feel religious truth. Later in the fifth century when the barbarians captured the Western world, it was in the same way content to Christianize them, but made it no part of its function to intellectualize them. Distrustful even of the free play of intelligence, Christian ecclesiasticism and monasticism became anti-intellectual; it was only when the Arabs came in contact with Europe that the beginnings of scientific and philosophical knowledge were reintroduced into a semi-barbarous Christendom; and it needed the spirit of the Renaissance and a long struggle between religion and science to complete the return of a free intellectual culture in the re-emerging mind of Europe. Thus although the Christian religion humanized Europe in certain ethical directions, it failed to spiritualize Europe; and this happened because it ran counter to the two master instincts of the European mind - the cult of reason and the cult of life. The Christian religion denied the supremacy of the reason and suppressed the urge for a satisfied fullness of life. As a natural consequence there was a revolt and the movements of the Renaissance and Reformation overthrew Christianity. Since then religion was put aside in a corner of the soul and was forbidden to interfere in the activities of the human being and this was done on the ground that the intermiscence of religion in science, thought, politics, society, life in general had been and must be a force for retardation, superstition, oppressive ignorance. That was the beginning of the modern age of Europe and it was an age of great progress in all the fields of human activity. It was a time of great activity, of high aspiration, of deep sowing, of rich fruit-bearing; it was also a time when humanity got rid of much that was cruel, evil, ignorant, dark, odious, not by the power of religion, but by the power of the awakened intelligence and of human idealism and sympathy; and it was from this time onward that the predominance of religion has been violently attacked and rejected by that portion of humanity which was then the standard-bearer of thought and progress, Europe after the Renascence, modern Europe. The tendency to secularism is a necessary and inevitable consequence of the cult of life and reason when it is divorced from their inmost inlook. The early Christian religion in its origin and essence, like all oriental religious thought claimed to make religion commensurate with life; it aimed at spiritualizing the whole being and its action. But the later version of Christianity as it was practiced was a secular institution which did not look beyond a certain supraphysical sanction and convenient aid to the government of this life. And even then the tendency was to philosophize and reason away the relics of the original religious spirit in order to get into what they called the clear sunlight of the logical and practical reason. But modern Europe after the Renaissance and the Reformation went farther and to the very end of this way. In order to shake off the obsession of the Christian idea, modern Europe separated religion from life, from philosophy, from art and science, from politics, from the greater part of social action and social existence. And it secularized and rationalized all human activity so that it might stand in itself on its own basis; it had no need of any aid from religious sanction or mystic insistence. In this evolution religion was left aside, an impoverished system of belief and ceremony to which one might or might not subscribe with very little difference to the march of the human mind and life. Its penetrating and colouring power had been reduced to a faint minimum; a superficial pigmentation of dogma, sentiment and emotion was all that survived this drastic process. The Indian mind But in India there has been neither this predominance of reason and the life-cult nor any incompatibility of these two powers with the religious spirit. Reason and life were not opposed to religion and spirituality. The great ages of India, the strong culminations of her civilization and culture - in India the high Vedic beginning, the grand spiritual stir of the Upanishads, the wide flood of Buddhism, Vedanta, Sankhya, the Puranic and Tantric religions, the flowering of Vaishnavism and Shaivism in the southern kingdoms - have come in on a surge of spiritual light and a massive or intense climbing of the religious or the religio-philosophical mind to its own heights, its noblest realities, its largest riches of vision and experience. And this happened because in India philosophy and religion - philosophy made dynamic by religion and religion enlightened by philosophy - have always co-existed in harmony. It was in such periods that intellect, thought, poetry, the arts, and the material life flowered into splendour. The ebbing of spirituality brought in always, on the contrary, the weakness of these other powers, periods of fossilization or at least depression of the power of life, tracts of decline, even beginnings of decay. Even in its period of decline, the religious spirit saved it. And this was proved vividly in the 14th century and later in the 19th century when it seemed that Indian civilization was going down under the onslaught of the Muslim and British rule respectively. We can therefore say that all great awakenings in India, all her periods of mightiest and most varied vigour, have drawn their vitality from the fountainheads of some deep religious awakening. Wherever the religious awakening has been complete and grand, the national energy it has created has been gigantic and puissant. This is a clue to which we have to hold if we would understand the great lines of divergence between the East and the West. We thus see that the Indian temperament is radically different from the Western temperament. What is good for the West is not necessarily good for India. Neither is there any question of superiority or inferiority. They are only two orbs of the same world culture. The question now arises as to what is the place of secularism in India. If by secularism is meant the separation of religion from life and all its activities, then it goes contrary to the natural Indian temperament. Such secularism cannot have any place in India; for the religious power and instinct is too strong and powerful here; more as already seen, it has been the central motive force behind all Indian development. It will be therefore impossible to separate religion from life and all its activities. If on the other hand secularism means that all religions have an equal place that is nothing new; it did not need the political class or the intelligentsia to reveal this truth. For this concept has been the very essence of all Indian religious thought right from the Vedic times till today. Indian religion has always given equal importance and place to every approach to God and that is the reason why all the religions in the world find place in India. No other country in the world has all the religions being practiced with as much vigour and freedom as in India. We may conclude therefore that the word secularism is quite irrelevant and out of place in the Indian context. Religion and Spirituality Religion then has been one of the dominant motivating forces of Indian culture. But the governing force of Indian culture was not religion but spirituality. A spiritual aspiration was the governing force of Indian culture, its core of thought, its ruling passion. It not only made spirituality the highest aim of life, but it also tried, as far as that could be done in the past conditions of the human race, to turn the whole of life towards spirituality. But since religion is in the human mind the first native, if imperfect form of the spiritual impulse, this predominance of the spiritual idea necessitated a casting of thought and action into the religious mould and a persistent filling of every circumstance of life with the religious sense; it demanded and created an all-pervading religio-philosophical culture. It is true that the highest spirituality moves in a free and wide air far above that lower stage of seeking which is governed by religious form and dogma. But man does not arrive immediately at that highest inner elevation and, if it were demanded from him at once, he would never arrive there. Therefore Indian culture created a strong religious base with the intention of leading man gradually from religion to spirituality. But at the same time it was aware of the serious limitations in the practice of religion. Let us then see the limitations of religion and what we have to guard against. The first and most serious limitation of religion is when it becomes creedal and insists on the existence of one God only, one sacred book, and one approach. This leads to narrowness and to fanaticism. Another serious defect is that religion often lays exclusive stress on intellectual dogmas, forms, and ceremonies, on some fixed and rigid moral code, on some religio-political or religio-social system. Not that these things are altogether negligible or that they must be unworthy or unnecessary or that a spiritual religion need disdain the aid of forms, ceremonies, creeds or systems. On the contrary, man needs them because the lower members have to be exalted and raised before they can be fully spiritualized, before they can directly feel the spirit and obey its law. An intellectual formula is often needed by the thinking and reasoning mind, a form or ceremony by the aesthetic temperament or other parts of the infrarational being, a set moral code by man's vital nature in their turn towards the inner life. But these things are aids and supports, not the essence; precisely because they belong to the rational and infrarational parts, they can be nothing more and, if too blindly insisted on, may even hamper the suprarational light. Such as they are they have to be offered to man and used by him, but not to be imposed on him as his sole law by a forced and inflexible domination. In the use of them toleration and free permission of variation is the first rule which should be observed. The spiritual essence of religion is alone the one thing supremely needful, the thing to which we have always to hold and subordinate to it every other element or motive. We also see that religion has often stood violently in the way of philosophy and science, burned Giordano Bruno, imprisoned Galileo, and so generally misconducted themselves in this matter that philosophy and science had in self-defense to turn upon religion and rend her to pieces in order to get a free field for their legitimate development; and this because men in the passion and darkness of their vital nature had chosen to think that religion was bound up with certain fixed intellectual conceptions about God and the world which could not stand scrutiny, and therefore scrutiny had to be put down by fire and sword; scientific and philosophical truth had to be denied in order that religious error might survive. Another shortcoming of religion is that a narrow religious spirit often oppresses and impoverishes the joy and beauty of life, either from an intolerant asceticism or, as the Puritans attempted it, because they could not see that religious austerity is not the whole of religion, though it may be an important side of it, is not the sole ethico-religious approach to God, since love, charity, gentleness, tolerance, kindliness are also and even more divine, and they forgot or never knew that God is love and beauty as well as purity. In the field of politics too religion has often thrown itself on the side of power and resisted the coming of larger political ideals, because it was itself, in the form of a Church, supported by power and because it confused religion with the Church, or because it stood for a false theocracy, forgetting that true theocracy is the kingdom of God in man and not the kingdom of a Pope, a priesthood or a sacerdotal class. Similarly religion has often supported a rigid and outworn social system, because it thought its own life bound up with social forms with which it happened to have been associated during a long portion of its own history and erroneously concluded that even a necessary change there would be a violation of religion and a danger to its existence. As if so mighty and inward a power as the religious spirit in man could be destroyed by anything so small as the change of a social form or so outward as a social readjustment! This error in its many shapes has been the great weakness of religion as practiced in the past and the opportunity and justification for the revolt of the intelligence, the aesthetic sense, the social and political idealism, even the ethical spirit of the human being against what should have been its own highest tendency and law. These are the limitations of religion and we must become aware of it. The solution Where then is the solution? The solution lies not in getting rid of religion but in the words of Dr Abdul Kalam in graduating from religion to spirituality. This is beautifully illustrated in the following passage from Sri Aurobindo: "India can best develop herself and serve humanity by being herself and following the law of her own nature. This does not mean, as some narrowly and blindly suppose, the rejection of everything new that comes to us in the stream of time or happens to have been first developed or powerfully expressed by the West. Such an attitude would be intellectually absurd, physically impossible, and above all unspiritual; true spirituality rejects no new light, no added means, or materials of our human self-development. It means simply to keep our centre, our essential way of being, our inborn nature and assimilate to it all we receive, and evolve out of it all we do and create. Religion has been a central preoccupation of the Indian mind; some have told us that too much religion ruined India, precisely because we made the whole of life religion or religion the whole of life, we have failed in life and gone under. I will not answer, adopting the language used by the poet in a slightly different connection, that our fall does not matter and that the dust in which India lies is sacred. The fall, the failure does matter, and to lie in the dust is no sound position for man or nation. But the reason assigned is not the true one. If the majority of Indians had indeed made the whole of their lives religion in the true sense of the word, we should not be where we are now; it was because their public life became most irreligious, egoistic, self-seeking, materialistic that they fell. It is possible, that on one side we deviated too much into an excessive religiosity, that is to say, an excessive externalism of ceremony, rule, routine, mechanical worship, on the other into a too world-shunning asceticism which drew away the best minds who were thus lost to society instead of standing like the ancient Rishis as its spiritual support and its illuminating life-givers. But the root of the matter was the dwindling of the spiritual impulse in its generality and broadness, the decline of intellectual activity and freedom, the waning of great ideals, the loss of the gust of life. Perhaps there was too much religion in one sense; the word is English, smacks too much of things external such as creeds, rites, an external piety; there is no one Indian equivalent. But if we give rather to religion the sense of the following of the spiritual impulse in its fullness and define spirituality as the attempt to know and live in the highest self, the divine, the all-embracing unity and to raise life in all its parts to the divinest possible values, then it is evident that there was not too much of religion, but rather too little of it - and in what there was, a too one-sided and therefore an insufficiently ample tendency. The right remedy is, not to belittle still farther the age long ideal of India, but to return to its old amplitude and give it a still wider scope, to make in very truth all the life of the nation a religion in this high spiritual sense. This is the direction in which the philosophy, poetry, art of the West is, still more or less obscurely, but with an increasing light, beginning to turn, and even some faint glints of the truth are beginning now to fall across political and sociological ideals. India has the key to the knowledge and conscious application of the ideal; what was dark to her before in its application, she can now, with a new light, illumine; what was wrong and wry in her old methods she can now rectify; the fences which she created to protect the outer growth of the spiritual ideal and which afterwards became barriers to its expansion and farther application, she can now break down and give her spirit a freer field and an ampler flight: she can, if she will, give a new and decisive turn to the problems over which all mankind is labouring and stumbling, for the clue to their solutions is there in her ancient knowledge. Whether she will rise or not to the height of her opportunity in the renaissance, which is coming upon her, is the question of her destiny".