A story sans redemption
Sudheendra Kulkarni June 20, 2000
#104 Posted by khatam-shud on February 27, 2004 2:18:49 pm
When i first read moth smoke i was left with a simlar uneasiness and dissatisfaction. i found the novel wanting although i was happy that Mohsin Hamid had put pakistani writers on the literary world map, even if as just a best-selling author. This was a promising beginning for aspiring writers here.
I came across no one in lahore, however, who shared my view, save one professor of post-colonial literature. But people in general - at least those i discussed the novel with were more than happy with the flat description of life in their city.
You have beautifully penned down all of my issues with the novel. i cannot put it better myself. And i am glad to have found your review because i am in the midst of writing my own.
I came across no one in lahore, however, who shared my view, save one professor of post-colonial literature. But people in general - at least those i discussed the novel with were more than happy with the flat description of life in their city.
You have beautifully penned down all of my issues with the novel. i cannot put it better myself. And i am glad to have found your review because i am in the midst of writing my own.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#103 Posted by krashid on June 30, 2000 4:47:38 am
Farangi-Kush #101
I hate to argue with such a nice person.
It is true, that our responsibility is to Allah. And I am a firm believer not because of books, but because of circumstances which I have passed through. Only God gave me solace when everybody abandoned. (But that is past).
According to my understanding, Islam is how to pass a good life in the world. Or accrding to some, in this life live like a tongue between tooth. If you see the teachings of Koran, you will see a detailed analysis of family life and day to day living. And bad deeds and good deeds are marked clearly. Where there is ambiguity, the religious people have made those ambiguities into whole religion. Tell me how appropriate, it is to beat a person if he is not fasting. Although it is very approprate to lash a person drinking. So the priorities of our religion are changed to sloganization and as was my pet during Zia Era that someday there will be Mohammed Night Club and Ali pub because these things are Islamized.
The example can be seen in travel on airplane, on PIA, when after Tilawat everything starts. It depicts that everything wrong is Halaal, if done in the name of Islam. That is why if you assess carefully, Mohajir Qaumi Movement (MQM). Almost all of its work force (including Altaf Hussain) came from Islami Jamiat Tulaba and Jamat-e-Islami with the same tactics, the only difference was that word ``Islam`` was changed to ``Mohajir``. How long will this bigotry will be done in the name of Islam.
The most pleasant people, I found were Tablighi. If people like them start the revolution, it will be successful. Otherwise we will be continuing to replace non-religious bigots with religious bigots.
And I am talking from first hand experience that people who would be doing adultery at night will be harrasing others for maligning their party as maligning Islam.
Tell me which religious bigot exhort people to read Koran. It is their own books and philosophy which is sacred.
As far as superiority of West. Without going into reason of exploitation in the worst form by whites. I am impressed by whites for their contribution to emancipation of human mind from bigoted and all powerful Church and scientific progress.
It is not to malign, all Religious people. There are many great people. There are some with whose point of view one differs but still respects them. Prime example is Yusuf Ludhianvi whose funeral was attended by millions.
It is a lengthy discussion.
But one point which I will put is that Sunni Islam historically has been a protector of status quo, with greater good of Muslims superseeding any other consideration.
While Shia Islam, although, I don`t agree with its basic premises (like Imamat etc) has been more revolutionary.
I think Islam lies somewhere in between.
I hate to argue with such a nice person.
It is true, that our responsibility is to Allah. And I am a firm believer not because of books, but because of circumstances which I have passed through. Only God gave me solace when everybody abandoned. (But that is past).
According to my understanding, Islam is how to pass a good life in the world. Or accrding to some, in this life live like a tongue between tooth. If you see the teachings of Koran, you will see a detailed analysis of family life and day to day living. And bad deeds and good deeds are marked clearly. Where there is ambiguity, the religious people have made those ambiguities into whole religion. Tell me how appropriate, it is to beat a person if he is not fasting. Although it is very approprate to lash a person drinking. So the priorities of our religion are changed to sloganization and as was my pet during Zia Era that someday there will be Mohammed Night Club and Ali pub because these things are Islamized.
The example can be seen in travel on airplane, on PIA, when after Tilawat everything starts. It depicts that everything wrong is Halaal, if done in the name of Islam. That is why if you assess carefully, Mohajir Qaumi Movement (MQM). Almost all of its work force (including Altaf Hussain) came from Islami Jamiat Tulaba and Jamat-e-Islami with the same tactics, the only difference was that word ``Islam`` was changed to ``Mohajir``. How long will this bigotry will be done in the name of Islam.
The most pleasant people, I found were Tablighi. If people like them start the revolution, it will be successful. Otherwise we will be continuing to replace non-religious bigots with religious bigots.
And I am talking from first hand experience that people who would be doing adultery at night will be harrasing others for maligning their party as maligning Islam.
Tell me which religious bigot exhort people to read Koran. It is their own books and philosophy which is sacred.
As far as superiority of West. Without going into reason of exploitation in the worst form by whites. I am impressed by whites for their contribution to emancipation of human mind from bigoted and all powerful Church and scientific progress.
It is not to malign, all Religious people. There are many great people. There are some with whose point of view one differs but still respects them. Prime example is Yusuf Ludhianvi whose funeral was attended by millions.
It is a lengthy discussion.
But one point which I will put is that Sunni Islam historically has been a protector of status quo, with greater good of Muslims superseeding any other consideration.
While Shia Islam, although, I don`t agree with its basic premises (like Imamat etc) has been more revolutionary.
I think Islam lies somewhere in between.
#102 Posted by farangi_kush on June 29, 2000 3:53:24 pm
krashid:# 101
Thanx for reply.
You/we do not owe the freedom to do anything to anybody.``Their`` job is to do their job,``Our`` job is to do ours.
``Ikk turz e taghaful hai so voh unn ko mubarik
ikk urz e tamanna hai so humm krtey rahein gey.``
You favourite one.
Freedom,like a lot many things are not ``given`` by anyone,therefore it cannot be ``taken`` by anyone.If you are bowing or prostrating to the western thugs thinking that they have `given` you freedom then surely they can `take` it away too.
Just see how the demostraters against Imf & world bank are photographed & taken away.Is it any wonder that the Indo/Pakis on chowk lie so low & do not even utter a whisper or a whimper against the Ugly Satan.
``Volcanos do not ask for ashtrays nor Lightning seeks a match.``
(My poetry line)
_________________________________________.
When you have something you seldom talk about it.The din of /free and /freedom is so much in the land of slaves/former-slaves that one must become one of the sloganeers.This was said by D.H.Lawrence(just to make Ba Ba Blacksheep types pay attention---Gora/good good --Bhoora/bad bad).
``The shout of ``Freedom`` is nothing but a rattling of chains``---from essay called `the spirit of the place`.
__________________________________________________
You and I as a muslim are not accountable to anybody but Allah or the one who carries out commands not in violation of His command/moral direction for our secular(belly filling/worldly) needs.
And the constant need for weighing & critiquing our words/deeds in that light.
__________________________________________________
We do not need intellectualism,we need to seek direction.
__________________________________________________
WASSALAAM.
Thanx for reply.
You/we do not owe the freedom to do anything to anybody.``Their`` job is to do their job,``Our`` job is to do ours.
``Ikk turz e taghaful hai so voh unn ko mubarik
ikk urz e tamanna hai so humm krtey rahein gey.``
You favourite one.
Freedom,like a lot many things are not ``given`` by anyone,therefore it cannot be ``taken`` by anyone.If you are bowing or prostrating to the western thugs thinking that they have `given` you freedom then surely they can `take` it away too.
Just see how the demostraters against Imf & world bank are photographed & taken away.Is it any wonder that the Indo/Pakis on chowk lie so low & do not even utter a whisper or a whimper against the Ugly Satan.
``Volcanos do not ask for ashtrays nor Lightning seeks a match.``
(My poetry line)
_________________________________________.
When you have something you seldom talk about it.The din of /free and /freedom is so much in the land of slaves/former-slaves that one must become one of the sloganeers.This was said by D.H.Lawrence(just to make Ba Ba Blacksheep types pay attention---Gora/good good --Bhoora/bad bad).
``The shout of ``Freedom`` is nothing but a rattling of chains``---from essay called `the spirit of the place`.
__________________________________________________
You and I as a muslim are not accountable to anybody but Allah or the one who carries out commands not in violation of His command/moral direction for our secular(belly filling/worldly) needs.
And the constant need for weighing & critiquing our words/deeds in that light.
__________________________________________________
We do not need intellectualism,we need to seek direction.
__________________________________________________
WASSALAAM.
#101 Posted by krashid on June 29, 2000 3:54:08 am
Farangi Kush#98
The thing you are proposing is right and I agree with it. But this is possible in America or probably in UK.
In Pakistan, the club of Islam is used indiscriminately to suppress any voice not in consonant with establishment.
The problem is this. When we argue, that Islam does not condone this, the reply is it is the people who are bad and not Islam.
We had a time tested formula in Pakistan.
The nearness of election is directly proportional to danger to Islam.
Islam is not the issue in Pakistan. The current Jamat-e-Islami taking a stand against Feudalism and Capitalism, when we used to argue back in late 70,s were the most vocal supporter of Feudalism and Capitalism in the sacredness of Private property in Islam and had no concern with exploitation as the basis for that.
What are the real issues in Pakistan. It is not Islam as 98% of population is Muslim. There can be movements for correction of people or abolition of interest (to which I support very much as a basis of exploitation in worst form), but to keep the monopoly on Islam and for that matter politics diverting real issues and being part and parcel of establishment (until they kick their butts) is Ain Islam in Pakistan.
And that Ain Islam is practiced throughout Islamic world throughout centuries and if not Islamic Church, but Islamic polity did a less worse treatment to those Islamic scientists than Christian church, that is nothing to be proud of.
The thing you are proposing is right and I agree with it. But this is possible in America or probably in UK.
In Pakistan, the club of Islam is used indiscriminately to suppress any voice not in consonant with establishment.
The problem is this. When we argue, that Islam does not condone this, the reply is it is the people who are bad and not Islam.
We had a time tested formula in Pakistan.
The nearness of election is directly proportional to danger to Islam.
Islam is not the issue in Pakistan. The current Jamat-e-Islami taking a stand against Feudalism and Capitalism, when we used to argue back in late 70,s were the most vocal supporter of Feudalism and Capitalism in the sacredness of Private property in Islam and had no concern with exploitation as the basis for that.
What are the real issues in Pakistan. It is not Islam as 98% of population is Muslim. There can be movements for correction of people or abolition of interest (to which I support very much as a basis of exploitation in worst form), but to keep the monopoly on Islam and for that matter politics diverting real issues and being part and parcel of establishment (until they kick their butts) is Ain Islam in Pakistan.
And that Ain Islam is practiced throughout Islamic world throughout centuries and if not Islamic Church, but Islamic polity did a less worse treatment to those Islamic scientists than Christian church, that is nothing to be proud of.
#100 Posted by anjum on June 28, 2000 6:01:10 pm
Sudheendra/Pennathur
Re: Messages 24/56
The visas look like they will come in the old-fashioned way - a friend of a friend. I am now down two favours. Should be in India (Agra, Delhi) July 7-17. Would love to get in touch with Chowk friends. Send me an em at: anjumaltaf@hotmail.com
Regards,
Anjum Altaf
Re: Messages 24/56
The visas look like they will come in the old-fashioned way - a friend of a friend. I am now down two favours. Should be in India (Agra, Delhi) July 7-17. Would love to get in touch with Chowk friends. Send me an em at: anjumaltaf@hotmail.com
Regards,
Anjum Altaf
#99 Posted by pullu on June 28, 2000 1:42:04 pm
I acknowledge your nice mails and unbiased discussions. Though most of the times I find it
difficult to write due to lack of time, I do manage to read the replies. Other reason being the
general trash exchanged by the cyber-public here.
I think we all come here to have a nice time, not to spoil our mood in meaningless rantings.
F_K, I have nothing against Islam and everything
against anybody using religion(any religion) as his personal tool.
To each one his own belief, his own faith.
It is futile to bring humanity under one colour.
until next time,
pullu
difficult to write due to lack of time, I do manage to read the replies. Other reason being the
general trash exchanged by the cyber-public here.
I think we all come here to have a nice time, not to spoil our mood in meaningless rantings.
F_K, I have nothing against Islam and everything
against anybody using religion(any religion) as his personal tool.
To each one his own belief, his own faith.
It is futile to bring humanity under one colour.
until next time,
pullu
#98 Posted by farangi_kush on June 28, 2000 1:20:05 am
krashid:# 97
Please do not mix up /individual political actions with the CANONICAL pronouncements by the church.A fatwa is an opinion & need not be followed.Ibn Rush(averoes) was still able to continue elsewhere as a muslim.Galileo was chained & imprisonmed & ex-communicated.
That is why the church finally sought pardon for its behaviour.Ibn Rushed cannot be pardoned by any /islamic ``church` (bad choice of phrase) because there is none.
You yourself owe nothing to any `party` and need not worry about what others are trying to do.You can still afford to be a fundamentalist(believer in the fundamental values of Islam) proud muslim in an individual capacity.Please try to divest yourself from any party(if you want to) but still stay a fundamentalist in your beliefs(& you are!!)---everyone of any philosophy is.US is very hardcore,orthodox,die-hard,rigid etc etc fundamentalist of democracy & wants to impose this on everyone.So please never be apologetic about the past or present power politics .
Please do not mix up /individual political actions with the CANONICAL pronouncements by the church.A fatwa is an opinion & need not be followed.Ibn Rush(averoes) was still able to continue elsewhere as a muslim.Galileo was chained & imprisonmed & ex-communicated.
That is why the church finally sought pardon for its behaviour.Ibn Rushed cannot be pardoned by any /islamic ``church` (bad choice of phrase) because there is none.
You yourself owe nothing to any `party` and need not worry about what others are trying to do.You can still afford to be a fundamentalist(believer in the fundamental values of Islam) proud muslim in an individual capacity.Please try to divest yourself from any party(if you want to) but still stay a fundamentalist in your beliefs(& you are!!)---everyone of any philosophy is.US is very hardcore,orthodox,die-hard,rigid etc etc fundamentalist of democracy & wants to impose this on everyone.So please never be apologetic about the past or present power politics .
#97 Posted by krashid on June 28, 2000 12:40:32 am
Farangi-Kush #57
Although you are right about christianity, that it has to accept all scientific facts after humiliation meaning humiliation of church.
But the record of Muslim scientists is also not great. Which I ascribe to Islamic Church.
I will refer you to one of the brightest mind of last millenium, Averroes, who was not only a great Islamic scholar and Qazi, I think of cardova, but his philosophical teachings were a beacon for West for centuries. But the same philosophy of observation and inference was seen as heretical by Islamic Church and he has to live in exile.
The Sheikhul-Islam of Turkey Caliphate in the early days of printing had found it Haraam to print Koran on Printing press (the reason was economics as most scribes would be out of job. But Haraam is Haraam and not dependent on the will of individual). The same can be said regarding Fatwa by Imam of mosque of Badshahi mosque in 1988 or 1989 election when he said that anybody voting for people`s party will not go to heaven. So 33% population did not go to heaven, the cases of rest are pending.)
There are many examples of confrontation between between Science, Scientists and Islamic Church throughout Islamic rule. (By Church means creating your own religion ascribing it as divine aka Jamat-e-Islami etc)
Although you are right about christianity, that it has to accept all scientific facts after humiliation meaning humiliation of church.
But the record of Muslim scientists is also not great. Which I ascribe to Islamic Church.
I will refer you to one of the brightest mind of last millenium, Averroes, who was not only a great Islamic scholar and Qazi, I think of cardova, but his philosophical teachings were a beacon for West for centuries. But the same philosophy of observation and inference was seen as heretical by Islamic Church and he has to live in exile.
The Sheikhul-Islam of Turkey Caliphate in the early days of printing had found it Haraam to print Koran on Printing press (the reason was economics as most scribes would be out of job. But Haraam is Haraam and not dependent on the will of individual). The same can be said regarding Fatwa by Imam of mosque of Badshahi mosque in 1988 or 1989 election when he said that anybody voting for people`s party will not go to heaven. So 33% population did not go to heaven, the cases of rest are pending.)
There are many examples of confrontation between between Science, Scientists and Islamic Church throughout Islamic rule. (By Church means creating your own religion ascribing it as divine aka Jamat-e-Islami etc)
#96 Posted by farangi_kush on June 28, 2000 12:40:32 am
urstruly:# 94
referring to your earlier post,let me just clarify that the concept of ``THE ONE in many``(wv) existed much much before the swami.I do not want to elaborate upon this right now because the /discussion will get into many tangents---& certainly not because of you.I hope you get the message.
The other approach ``None BUT ONE``(ws) is the fundamental concept and again I shall refrain to make this another /subject here.
For your personal enjoyment I present the following two shais by Mirza Ghalib on WS.
``Asl e shahood o shahid o mashhood eik hain
hairaan hoon phir mushahidah hai kiss hissab mein``
If the Observer,the Observed & the act of observation is ONE then what is observation worth.
Today(last 50 years) we saw this echoed by the scientists that the very act of observation disturbs the observation field(experiment).
Ghalib,like some others,preffered the cognitive experience through contemplation & inner-development and graduations.
``Usay kaun daikh sukta,kay yugaana hai voh yukta
keh duee kee booo bhee hoati,tho kaheen doa chaar hoata!``
very self-explanatory in contradiction of WV.
Hazrat Ali said(something like this) in Nahjul Bulagha---a MASTERPIECE WORK ON PHILOSOPHY & GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION -----``If one tries even to imagine(Image---picture) Allah in ones` mind then one contained Him in space.This means that one displaces Him from elsewhere,but that nullifies His manifest attribute of being Omni-present.
Allah can only be experienced through our daily life experiences and contemplation about his many glorious creations.
Again: Hazrat Ali said I experienced Allah by seeing my Plan & Will thwarted.
(one of many individual experiences by most of us)
__________________________________________________
Maybe one day I might be able to write more clearly on this esoteric subject.
__________________________________________________WASSALAAM
referring to your earlier post,let me just clarify that the concept of ``THE ONE in many``(wv) existed much much before the swami.I do not want to elaborate upon this right now because the /discussion will get into many tangents---& certainly not because of you.I hope you get the message.
The other approach ``None BUT ONE``(ws) is the fundamental concept and again I shall refrain to make this another /subject here.
For your personal enjoyment I present the following two shais by Mirza Ghalib on WS.
``Asl e shahood o shahid o mashhood eik hain
hairaan hoon phir mushahidah hai kiss hissab mein``
If the Observer,the Observed & the act of observation is ONE then what is observation worth.
Today(last 50 years) we saw this echoed by the scientists that the very act of observation disturbs the observation field(experiment).
Ghalib,like some others,preffered the cognitive experience through contemplation & inner-development and graduations.
``Usay kaun daikh sukta,kay yugaana hai voh yukta
keh duee kee booo bhee hoati,tho kaheen doa chaar hoata!``
very self-explanatory in contradiction of WV.
Hazrat Ali said(something like this) in Nahjul Bulagha---a MASTERPIECE WORK ON PHILOSOPHY & GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION -----``If one tries even to imagine(Image---picture) Allah in ones` mind then one contained Him in space.This means that one displaces Him from elsewhere,but that nullifies His manifest attribute of being Omni-present.
Allah can only be experienced through our daily life experiences and contemplation about his many glorious creations.
Again: Hazrat Ali said I experienced Allah by seeing my Plan & Will thwarted.
(one of many individual experiences by most of us)
__________________________________________________
Maybe one day I might be able to write more clearly on this esoteric subject.
__________________________________________________WASSALAAM
#95 Posted by bong_dongs on June 27, 2000 1:00:08 pm
Re: 70/71
I am currently reading ``Understanding the muslim mind`` and I do agree the selection of the title is rather unfortunate, but I think the reason is because we are judging by American standards of political correctness rather than any intention of disrespect on the part of the author.
I am currently reading ``Understanding the muslim mind`` and I do agree the selection of the title is rather unfortunate, but I think the reason is because we are judging by American standards of political correctness rather than any intention of disrespect on the part of the author.
#94 Posted by Urstruly on June 27, 2000 3:45:25 am
RE: SameerJB & FarangiKush
Reply# 83 & 77
I said my philosophy was rusty not my memory. My understanding of the concepts of Whadat-ul-Wajood and Wahdat-ush-Shahood is as follows:
Wahdat-ul-Wajood- As the name suggests, the closest translation might be the word “Uni-body”. According to this concept everything and every phenomenon in the universe is a manifestation of the Divine Entity (I am deliberately not using the word Allah, to save some readers from stomach cramps). In simple words, everything is a part of this Entity- this concept thus leads us to the uniqueness of such Entity.
Wahdat-ush-Shahood – As the name suggests, the closest translation might be, “uniqueness of phenomenon”. This concept defines this Divine Entity as a “Creator”. Since this Creator is absolute and has absolute powers thus it can create things that are not necessarily a part of Him. Thus Creator and the Creation may be two different things. It’s the nature of things and the study of natural phenomenon that leads us to the concept of Uniqueness of this Divine Entity.
As far as my memory serves me the students of Imam Abu Yousaf used to discuss this philosophy. This chronology suggests a time period of about one and half centuries after the Prophet (peace be upon him).
I was shocked to see Sameer’s post suggesting that Wahdat-ush-Shahood has something to do with seeking inner peace through tantric and orgasmic pleasures. That was absolutely preposterous. It was unexpected to come from Sameer.
The concepts of WW and WS helped develop the philosophy and logic when Islamic Fiqah and general philosophy were in early stages. The discussion on those concepts were theoretical and that was a philosophical attempt to understand the seven basic believes of Islam. Putting the religion aside, it is a great discussion that helps us understand the basic concepts in Logic and Philosophy.
Having said that, I urge you Gentlemen to visit the sites www.vedanta.org and www.srkvs.org and decide for yourself.
Reply# 83 & 77
I said my philosophy was rusty not my memory. My understanding of the concepts of Whadat-ul-Wajood and Wahdat-ush-Shahood is as follows:
Wahdat-ul-Wajood- As the name suggests, the closest translation might be the word “Uni-body”. According to this concept everything and every phenomenon in the universe is a manifestation of the Divine Entity (I am deliberately not using the word Allah, to save some readers from stomach cramps). In simple words, everything is a part of this Entity- this concept thus leads us to the uniqueness of such Entity.
Wahdat-ush-Shahood – As the name suggests, the closest translation might be, “uniqueness of phenomenon”. This concept defines this Divine Entity as a “Creator”. Since this Creator is absolute and has absolute powers thus it can create things that are not necessarily a part of Him. Thus Creator and the Creation may be two different things. It’s the nature of things and the study of natural phenomenon that leads us to the concept of Uniqueness of this Divine Entity.
As far as my memory serves me the students of Imam Abu Yousaf used to discuss this philosophy. This chronology suggests a time period of about one and half centuries after the Prophet (peace be upon him).
I was shocked to see Sameer’s post suggesting that Wahdat-ush-Shahood has something to do with seeking inner peace through tantric and orgasmic pleasures. That was absolutely preposterous. It was unexpected to come from Sameer.
The concepts of WW and WS helped develop the philosophy and logic when Islamic Fiqah and general philosophy were in early stages. The discussion on those concepts were theoretical and that was a philosophical attempt to understand the seven basic believes of Islam. Putting the religion aside, it is a great discussion that helps us understand the basic concepts in Logic and Philosophy.
Having said that, I urge you Gentlemen to visit the sites www.vedanta.org and www.srkvs.org and decide for yourself.
#93 Posted by dL on June 26, 2000 2:30:25 pm
re NasreenK/ previous post.
Excuse me. My reference should have been to post 70/71 I believe.
Thanks
dL
Excuse me. My reference should have been to post 70/71 I believe.
Thanks
dL
#92 Posted by dL on June 26, 2000 2:30:25 pm
re: nasreenk - 80
Something about presumptuous arrogance comes to mind. I thought books were never to be judged by their cover. i stand disabused, especially considering you haven`t really seen the cover and are blithely extrapolating from the title ?
To answer your question, it is one man`s attempt to delve into some of the grand muslim minds who were so integral to the eventual creation of Pakistan.
Fom Sir Syed, Jinnah, and Iqbal to the brothers mohammad and fazl`haq. Written by no less a personage then Rajmohan Gandhi .. grandson of Mahatma Gandhi. I`ve discussed it with some extremely patriotic Indians and Pakistani`s. Both agreed it was a singularly unbiased piece of work, including the treatment of Jinnah and Sir Syed. Needless to add, the book focuses on partition.
dL
Something about presumptuous arrogance comes to mind. I thought books were never to be judged by their cover. i stand disabused, especially considering you haven`t really seen the cover and are blithely extrapolating from the title ?
To answer your question, it is one man`s attempt to delve into some of the grand muslim minds who were so integral to the eventual creation of Pakistan.
Fom Sir Syed, Jinnah, and Iqbal to the brothers mohammad and fazl`haq. Written by no less a personage then Rajmohan Gandhi .. grandson of Mahatma Gandhi. I`ve discussed it with some extremely patriotic Indians and Pakistani`s. Both agreed it was a singularly unbiased piece of work, including the treatment of Jinnah and Sir Syed. Needless to add, the book focuses on partition.
dL
#91 Posted by Essensaur on June 26, 2000 1:08:30 pm
Since we seem to be discussing Swami Vivekananda, Vedantic (?) teachings about the common goal of different religions, equality, and secularism and what have you, it may not be out of place to point readers to an interesting article by MJ Akbar in an Indian newspaper. He refers to a story from an Indian epic that seems to have a moral.
The whole article may or may not interest readers, but hopefully a partial quote will.
A warning: the names of the characters in the story can be as difficult to absorb as those from the many fascinating stories the famous English Bard wrote for us.
QUOTE
__________________________________________________
On the last day of the twelfth year of exile, after Arjuna had returned from Heaven, the five Pandava brothers were hunting when a deer led them deep into the forest and vanished.
Thirsty, they began to look for water. Nakula climbed a tree, heard cranes in the distance, and was sent to fetch water. He did not return. His twin Sahadeva followed him; then Arjuna and finally Bhima.
No one came back. An anxious Yudhishthira finally discovered them, lifeless on the side of a clear lake. As he advanced to drink water, a voice stopped him: a crane, who said that it had slain the four brothers because they could not answer its questions.
That dialogue between the crane and Yudhishthira forms one of the outstanding passages of our greatest epic. I quote but a part.What is heavier than Earth? A mother, answered the eldest Pandava.
What is higher than heaven? A father. What is swifter than wind? The mind. What is more numerous than grass? Thoughts. What does not move after its birth? An egg. What is most valuable? Knowledge.
What is ignored till it departs? Health. What makes one richer if thrown away? Greed. Which enemy can never be defeated? Anger. Which peace is false? Tyranny.
What is envy? Grief of the heart. What is grief? Ignorance. Who lives in Hell on earth? A rich man who neither enjoys himself nor gives his wealth.What is hypocrisy? Setting up religious standards for others is hypocrisy, replied Yudhishthira.
Can there be a finer definition of secularism? Secularism is the right to live by your own religious standards, and to let others live by theirs. There is an apposite end to the narrative: the crane is a manifestation of Dharma, Yudhishthira’s father and God of Justice.
Because the other Pandavas did not obey Dharma the water they tasted turned to poison; they came to life only when Yudhishthira answered Dharma correctly. The moral of the story does not need a hammer.
__________________________________________________
UNQUOTE
http://www.deccan.com/edit.htm#What is hypocrisy, Yudhishthira?
The whole article may or may not interest readers, but hopefully a partial quote will.
A warning: the names of the characters in the story can be as difficult to absorb as those from the many fascinating stories the famous English Bard wrote for us.
QUOTE
__________________________________________________
On the last day of the twelfth year of exile, after Arjuna had returned from Heaven, the five Pandava brothers were hunting when a deer led them deep into the forest and vanished.
Thirsty, they began to look for water. Nakula climbed a tree, heard cranes in the distance, and was sent to fetch water. He did not return. His twin Sahadeva followed him; then Arjuna and finally Bhima.
No one came back. An anxious Yudhishthira finally discovered them, lifeless on the side of a clear lake. As he advanced to drink water, a voice stopped him: a crane, who said that it had slain the four brothers because they could not answer its questions.
That dialogue between the crane and Yudhishthira forms one of the outstanding passages of our greatest epic. I quote but a part.What is heavier than Earth? A mother, answered the eldest Pandava.
What is higher than heaven? A father. What is swifter than wind? The mind. What is more numerous than grass? Thoughts. What does not move after its birth? An egg. What is most valuable? Knowledge.
What is ignored till it departs? Health. What makes one richer if thrown away? Greed. Which enemy can never be defeated? Anger. Which peace is false? Tyranny.
What is envy? Grief of the heart. What is grief? Ignorance. Who lives in Hell on earth? A rich man who neither enjoys himself nor gives his wealth.What is hypocrisy? Setting up religious standards for others is hypocrisy, replied Yudhishthira.
Can there be a finer definition of secularism? Secularism is the right to live by your own religious standards, and to let others live by theirs. There is an apposite end to the narrative: the crane is a manifestation of Dharma, Yudhishthira’s father and God of Justice.
Because the other Pandavas did not obey Dharma the water they tasted turned to poison; they came to life only when Yudhishthira answered Dharma correctly. The moral of the story does not need a hammer.
__________________________________________________
UNQUOTE
http://www.deccan.com/edit.htm#What is hypocrisy, Yudhishthira?
#90 Posted by macgupta on June 26, 2000 11:40:05 am
It should be mentioned that Swami Vivekananda had his own understanding of Islam that most likely does not agree either with the orthodoxy or with the common Muslim`s point of view.
Re: social equality, here is a quote from Vivekananda, again, alas, without context re: social equality.
`If ever any religion approached to this equality in any appreciable manner, it is Islam and Islam alone.`
-arun gupta
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- akcheema: Re: # 58 Good post... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- hamidm2: Re: # 57 bj mian, ....... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- BJ2: Re: # 13 Harish, I... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- BJ2: Re: # 48 [... but... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- pinku: Re #56 Posted by... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- pinku: #55 Posted by mohar11... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- ajeya: #43 Posted by sharmeenqazi1... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- mohar11: I mean - this... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
