Indian Society has often been organized or moved by force of religion, not governmental authority or other things. So it makes sense to search for roots of passivity in Indian religion as it changed with time.
All the trouble in India is result of restricting religion to rituals, which is very easy to break, Hindu became more like Muslims, doing magical rituals without seeking truth; as a result rituals alone being weak, lost power to guide people in other matters. There was little commitment expected in actions, and interhuman matters. I think 99% Hindu people are followers of Bhakti, sincere seekers are almost nowhere, people have no idea what it means.
The transition from a deeper, truth-seeking spiritual practice to a more ritualistic, Bhakti-centric focus has altered the dynamics of religion in India. Bhakti, while a powerful path for personal devotion and love for the divine, can sometimes overshadow the original intent of deeper inquiry, self-realization, and ethical action that ancient Hindu philosophy advocated.
Hinduism had a balance of Gyana (knowledge), Karma (action), and Bhakti (devotion). The Upanishads emphasized rigorous intellectual inquiry (Jnana), ethical living (Karma), and devotion as complementary paths. However, the emphasis on Bhakti over time has led to a more passive form of religion, where bhakti becomes an end in itself rather than a means toward collective spiritual and moral growth.
Any dumb Muslim or leftist makes fool of Hindu and Hindu cant even respond, he is so much ignorant about his own religion, its moorings in real world. Doom of Hindu civilization was preceded by Bhakti movement in which karma and Janana were reduced to rituals. Bhakti movement is often celebrated for bringing democracy in spirituality, making it accessible to the masses. It is true that masses can only be moved by feelings and emotions, there is no other way. And Bhakti does that, but atleast some people have to think and manage; like body walks on legs but is guided by invisible brain. Bhakti movement brought emotional unity, but in doing so, it may have also laid the groundwork for a more passive approach to life. By sidelining the intellectual and action-oriented aspects of Hinduism. Doom is caused by this imbalance, when a civilization stops valuing knowledge and action, it becomes vulnerable—rituals, without ethical commitment and intellectual inquiry, fail to sustain a society's strength in the long run.
In India opinion of educated people is also weighted sum of opinion of people around them. No capacity for independent thinking and validating. In that way a billion people are reduced to few big rigid lumps, not a billion brains. Caste, and regional identities, though once mechanisms for organizing society, now often contribute to reinforcing stagnant thinking. With the power of a billion brains, India could be a hub of intellectual diversity and innovation, but the reality often falls short because people are incapable of thinking or acting outside the boundaries of their immediate social contacts. If none in that group think then there is no incentive to think. That is the main reason India fails in innovation., we become a factory with half billion unskilled workers barely utilizing the brain capacity.
Intent is important in long run. Intent of Brahmins in 700 AD onwards was not knowledge but establishing their hold on society, knowledge or debate was a mean to that. Once they subdued Buddhist, they consolidated their grip on everything. Sought no further expansion or need of knowledge. Indian people hardly see any use of knowledge other than getting govt job. They like fun things, celebration. Indian society places more emphasis on fun, celebration, and external rituals rather than reflective intellectual pursuits. Thing with knowledge is that, only those who have it can appreciate it. Discrimination is like taste, only those who have tasted know it.
When society sees knowledge purely as a tool for material or social advancement (e.g., securing a government job), it loses the transformative power that knowledge can have. This narrow view limits intellectual curiosity and suppresses the possibility of meaningful advancements, whether in philosophy, science, or ethics.
No comments:
Post a Comment