Wednesday, July 28, 2010

SHORT NOTES ON GITA.

Short Notes on reading Bhagavad Gita. (June-July 2010)

(These notes are just my overviews and do not follow any authoritative commentaries that are available in articles, journals and books. I have read many of them from school days. Evan earlier the Gita is something to be recited on a daily basis to acquire Punya (good deeds). When I started thinking on the meanings of the verses being recited daily, I thought of reading the Malayalam translations as well as commentaries in Malayalam and Sanskrit. They were all too solemn in the meanings and short/long explanations mainly exhibiting the saintly spiritual and vedantic slant. They never question the underlying assumptions and bland assertions. I followed them for too long a time in the past. However at certain juncture doubts crept as I found some of the comments contradicted themselves or others. So these notes are based on textual meanings as I understand them with my unfinished Sanskrit college studies.)

Chapter 1.

Gita starts with the blind king asking Sanjaya on the happenings in Kurukshetra where the two sides are arraigned in readiness to commence attacks on each other. Sanjaya with his divine vision sees all and makes a live commentary on the happening in the battlefield. He hears the sayings and conveys them with precision. First it was Duryodhana keeping his teacher Drona informed of the readiness of the army on both sides. The battles are signalled by the noise booming from conch shells of each and every warrior on both sides including that of Krishna the charioteer and Arjuna the warrior as well as from all kinds of battle drums. (The time is already late to re-think about the advisability or viability of the action to start. But that is what happens for the next long time.)

Arjuna asks Krishna to take his chariot to the middle of the formations facing each other, combat ready. He says that he wanted to see the battle ready warriors on each side especially whose who are on the other side with the cranky Duryodhana. (Here is my first skeptical quarry. Does this mean that Arjuna had no knowledge of the warriors facing each other before he came to the battle field? The preparations for the war must have taken a long time and consultations with allies and friends on the strength of the armies to be rallied. Might be this is the way the author wanted to introduce his philosophical not philosophical but theological thoughts?)

When he saw his entire dear and near ones ready to fight a deadly war Arjuna sat down resting his weapons and spoke of his dilemma to his charioteer. (I. 28 to 46) He opined that he does not wish to kill any of these near and dear relations even if he gets the three worlds as gifts in return. Arjuna makes a long argument to sustain his stand. He says that killing ones own will result in family women go astray and thus finish off entire clans and that entails falling in hell finally.

Chapter 2.

Krishna replied: Where from did you get this sadness at this emergent juncture that does not fit with your nature or heavenly trait and bringing dishonour to you. Don’t be a eunuch (asexual) as it is not befitting you. So get up; shedding your little heart troubles. (II.2. & 3)

Again Arjuna repeats his worries. (II.4 to 8)

Here starts Krishna’s philosophical discourse. It is a long argument on the nature of life on earth. Life goes on changing and death too is natural. He uses so many illustrations to buttress his point that there is no need to grieve the dead or living. Neither me or you nor all warriors assembled here were there neither in the past; neither all of us may be there in future. Both who think that one is the killer and other killed; are completely ignorants of the fact that no one kills or anyone is killed. He (Atma) is not born or dead while leaving the body. More of the same continued. (II.11 to 30) He might have thought that it is not convincing enough; so further down to earthly arguments. (One gets a doubt as to whether extinguishing a living person by using weapons is compatible, to the natural process of life from childhood, youth, aging and death? The question is not raised and so no answer.)

He says: It is the sacred duty of a Kshatriya to wage war. Only too lucky ones get such a divine opportunity. If you are not fighting this war, you will be skipping your duties and losing glory thus readying to be branded as a sinner. Such a situation is more fearful than death itself. Other warriors will insult you as a weakling who ran away from the battle ground. People will say unpalatable things. Keep your thought of happiness and grief as well as gains and loss at an equal level and get ready to fight. You will not be committing any sin by such an act. (II.31 to 38)

Here Krishna says that what is said above is as per Samkhya (philosophy). (According to my short knowledge, there are too few authoritative works available on this philosophy. Most of them are secondary which Vedantists quote in order to refute them. However there seems to be a consensus that the basic idea of Samkhya is duality i.e. Purusha who is not active and Prakriti that is very much active in formation of all things. However Krishna talks about Purusha and Prakriti at a later stage with one addition. He claims that he is the Purusha and Prakriti is his magical powers. (XIII).

Now another prolonged discourse on Yoga. Unlike what is usually understood by Yoga Krishna explains it as “Yogah Karmasu Koushalam;” the expertise on doing things with unflawing dedication. Also here the meaning of the word ‘Sthita Prajna’ and the nature of such a man are explored in all details. At a stage Krishna refers to a chain of actions and reactions thus: Those who contemplate on worldly pleasures get attached to them. Desire comes out of attachment. (Unfulfilled) desires cause anger. Anger results in confusion in mind. When mind is confused memories get fumbled. The brain gets affected due to fumbling memories. One will perish through defective brain. (II.40 to 72) There is no need to go through all those intellectual exercises but to note that they are used to buttress arguments already made earlier to persuade Arjuna to fight the war without looking to the results. There is one puzzling saying from Krishna to the effect that Vedas composed of three qualities and you Arjuna should move out of it. (II.45)

Chapter 3.

Arjuna question’s Krishna to the effect saying, if according to you duties are at higher level than others then why are you advising me to do something cruel in nature i.e. engaging in war? (III.1 & 2)

According to some; the most essential thought of Gita is here i.e. Doing duties without having influenced by worldly desires. “Nishkama Karma”. Here the charioteer assumes his real identity as god himself. Krishna says that he has shown two paths in the most ancient times; the Jnana Yoga to Samkhyas and Karma Yoga to yogis. No one is inactive at any moment. Person cannot get salvation by doing nothing in life. In this part some that are rational enough but more of them are rationalization of apriori assumptions. The above two short sentences are examples to the first. The later could be illustrated as the need to perform sacrifices (Yajna) ordained by the Prajapati or Brahma. By postulating a Prajapati, did Krishna admit that there are other gods than himself? It says that Prajapati after creating; ordained the humans to perform Yajnas to satisfy the gods; and they in turn favour you in achieving your desired worldly pleasures. Thus exchanging favors you will attain prestige and reputation. Krishna says that creations came from food; rains bring the food; rains happen through sacrifices (Yajna); sacrifices are righteous duty; know that righteous acts come from Brahma and Brahma rose from universal. So everything is depends in sacrifices (Yajna). Persons partaking the left over from Yajna get purified from all sins. More assumptions and rationalizations follow culminating in assuring Arjuna that he should leave all duties to Krishna and fight without remorse. The final words are that it is honorable to do one’s own (caste) duties even if they are qualitatively lower; the duties of others are scary enough. (III. 3 to 35)

Arjuna asks: if you have shown the way forward to do good deeds and salvation; why people resort to sin though unintentional and as if forced? (III. 36)

The answer is typical. People sin due to lust and anger that arise out from Rajo Guna i.e. middle qualities. He advises Arjuna to control all emotions. Senses, mind and intellects are the sources of these emotions. (III. 37 to 43)

One could sense how far Krishna has taken the original questions without responding to any of them. Now he is talking as the God himself. So believe him implicitly.

Chapter 4.

The God says that he imparted the above said Yoga to Vivaswan and he in turn instructed Manu and Manu told it to Ikshvaku. These lessons went on from generation to generation but completely lost in the process. These are the secret instructions that I have told you now. (IV. 1 to 3)

When Arjuna pointed to the fact that the life of Vivaswan is too far off in the past to claim that you Krishna instructed him in Yoga; Krishna responds to convey that you and me had very many past lives and I remember them but not you. (I am God and you are just a mortal.) This claim by God sounds to contradict his starting lesson conveying; you, me nor the kings assembled here did exist earlier; also all of us will not exist in future (II.12). Then follow more homilies. Among them is the classic: “Yada Yada Hi …”. I take birth through my magical powers (Maya) in all the eras (Satya/Krita, Treta, Dvapara and Kali Yugas.) whenever the righteousness (Dharma) slips down and evil (Adharma) raises up; in order to protect the pious and destroy the evildoers. (IV. 7 & 8) All avatar stories are explained with this promise made by the God. He also promises that those who know this divine origination; will have no re-birth when they get out of their bodies i.e. dead but absolved in me (God). (IV.9)

Krishna goes on illustrating more of the same Karma and Yoga in which renunciation also comes up. Among them is the most contentious claim that “Chaturvanaim Maya Srishtam Guna Karma Vibhagashah” meaning thereby that the four Varnas (castes) are created by God himself based on the qualities of duties prescribed. Scholars have found it too difficult to explain the genus that God himself created the castes that are found in Indian society. Most of them twist and turn the words to mean that caste is defined not by birth but through profession carried by individuals and or families.

(Here I find one saying that was incomprehensible. “Karmanyakarma Yah Pashyed, Akarmani cha Karma Yah: Sa Budhiman Manushyeshu, Sa Yukta Krisna Karmakrid.” (IV. 18) it might mean that the one who sees duties as non-duties and non-duties as duties; is the wisest and does his duties well. Could any one explain this without resorting to some mysterious meanings?)

Continuing in the same vain Krishna expounds several types of Yajnas and concludes that among all; the knowledge or intellectual (Jnana Yajna) understanding is the best and following this path person will be out of birth death cycle. The one who doubts will perish and not this world or the nether world will accept the one in doubt. By this Krishna cautioned not only Arjuna but all devotees to believe implicitly on his sayings without raising any doubts. All Gita commentators followed the advice. (IV.10 to 42)

Chapter 5.

Still Arjuna is skeptic on the choice which makes Krishna to lecture more on doing duties unattached which he equates with renunciation. Here there are some definitions of Samkhyayoga and Sanyasa Yoga which need no more explanations here.

(V)

Chapter 6.

Krishna continues with his teachings that Yogi does all duties prescribed just like others but without desire or attachment and through well dedicated mind. (VI. 1 to 32)

Arjuna reminds Krishna that mind is like wind and could not concentrate all the time and one might shake out. Krishna responds again saying that yes mind is wavering but could be controlled through regular practice, meditation and dedication. Now another question: what happens to the one who failed at certain circumstance? (VI. 37 to 39)

Krishna gives such people a kind of consolation. Their efforts will not go in vain. They will go to nether worlds where they spend more happy days and when their good deeds get exhausted they will be reborn in good families of learned people. (VI. 40 to 47)

Chapter 7.

Krishna goes on explaining the meaning and nature of Jnana and Vijnana Yoga. All that were spoken here have nothing to do with original questions posed. They are mind blogging words and thoughts that commentators and lecturers on Gita revel. As such unless one is a believer in Krishna the God; dwelling on these sayings is futile. (VII. 1 to 30)

It is clear that Arjuna has completely forgotten the questions where from he started and is being carried away by Krishna’s long non-material or spiritual talks. He demands more explanations from Krishna.

Chapter 8.

The Brahma has no end (Aksharam) and it is me. There should not be any doubt that those who leave their bodies thinking about me will be absorbed in me. (VIII. 3 to 28)

Chapter 9.

Now is the time to convince Arjuna about all his (Krishna’s) divine qualities and the same is done in a thorough manner. He says: this part is known as very secret hidden yoga and I am revealing the same to you. It seems that Krishna propagates a kind of devotion to him by all. He says “Ananyaschintayando mam” meaning that I will be taking the complete care of those devotees who do not think about any others but me alone. (IX.22) This might be the reason for many Indians to be indifferent to the fate of others in history. He further adds that even if one is a bad character, he should be considered pious if he is my ardent devotee. (IX. 30) (I think that all the politicians, corrupt and criminal elements have absorbed this tenet pronounced by Krishna. These people visit Tirupati, Pandarpur, Shirdi, and Guruvayoor, Sabarimala and all other innumerable temples and perform pilgrimages.) All those who submit to me will go to heaven; even those born of sins (Papayonayah); like women, vaisyas (peasants, traders etc.) and likewise Sudras. So there is nothing to be said about Brahmins and Kshatriya. (IX. 32 & 33) (Here one might point out the discriminatory view expressed by God himself between castes meaning that caste is by birth. Also the reference to women along with fourth Varnas Sudras as being born of sin signals a derisive and abusive mind set of the speaker. Significantly here is the only place where women are referred in a patronizing manner in the entire text of Gita.) (IX. 1 to 34)

Chapter 10.

Krishna continues to assert his divine nature saying that he is the essence of everything and not even gods and rishies are fully aware of it. Ahimsa (Non-violence) is mentioned in verse 5. (X. 1 to 11)

Now Arjuna is convinced that the one speaking to him is God himself and he acknowledges this fact and requests Krishna to repeat those teachings since they are (Amrita) nectar. (X. 12 to 18)

Krishna is too eloquent in his response. He says that he is the soul (Atma) of everything created and he is the beginning, middle and end of them. Then instances follow. He is Vishnu among adityas. (It is supposed that adityas i.e. suns are 12; one for each month of the year) Next he mentions Ravi i.e. sun among the luminous. (The fanciful imagination becomes clear when he says that among the stars he is the moon. Today everyone knows that moon is not a star. Even the Astrologers don’t take it as a star but a planet.) Krishna goes on listing the names of the ‘best’ claiming them as himself. Finally he concludes that there is not much meaning by detailing all these and you just understand that I am holding all of them with a small bit of me. (X. 19 to 42)

Chapter 11.

Arjuna tells Krishna: You have cleared my confusions by telling me about the colours and shades of all your images. I would like you; show me your real soul in its full entity; if it is possible for me to view it. (XI. 1 to 4)

Krishna responds saying that I will endow you with divine vision so you might be able see all of me. (XI. 5 to 8) This part of Gita is titled Viswarupa Darsanam.

Sanjaya also views the God in all its manifest images and explains them. (XI. 9 to 14)

Now it is the turn of Arjuna to elaborate all that he saw in Krishna. For him the view was too awe inspiring and fantastic; both scaring and humbling. Arjuna also saw all the warriors from both sides entering the mouth of Krishna and they being crushed in the teeth. He saw all of them perish. (XI. 15 to 31)

Krishna says that he is the destroyer of all the worlds and creatures and therefore also all those warriors lined up in opposite sides. So get up and achieve fame by winning the fight against your enemies and enjoy the kingdom. I have already finished them much earlier and you are just a mean to realise it. I have already killed Drona, Bhishma, Karna and all other warriors and so you will be victorious in fighting them. (XI. 32 to 34)

(I have not come across any believer who entirely imagines his god in this fashion.)

Sanjaya says that after hearing this Arjuna; shaken with fear bowed and mumbled words praising the God for all his attributes and then asked his pardon for posing questions as to a friend without knowing his real nature as God. I am too fearful of this divine image and so please change to image that is familiar to me (XI. 35 to 46)

Sanjaya says that Krishna reappeared in his human form and calmed the scared Arjuna. Viewing the human form Arjuna came to his senses and conveyed his regards. (XI, 47 to 51)

Krishna said that you have seen my form that was shown to no one else. No Vedic, ascetic or renouncer nor giver or sacrificer could view me in my original form. You were able to see it because of your ardent devotion. (XI. 52 to 55)

Chapter 12.

Then he was asked by Arjuna to define favorites and Krishna responds that those are his favorites who unflinchingly devote their time and life to me i.e. the real devotees. (Here is the basic teaching on Devotion to God. Bhakti. In course of time Bhakti replaced all else with addition of going on pilgrimages to innumerable places and temples. All Indian women follow the teachings on devotion to gods and goddesses even though they are born out of sin as earlier specified by Krishna. It may be reason enough to keep women ignorant and illiterate; fit only to do household work.) (XII. 1 to 20)

Chapter 13.

It becomes clear that Krishna has taken Arjuna to that far off place that the former has forgotten as to what he wanted to be cleared and now wishes to hear Krishna talk on Samkhya philosophy proper i.e. Purusha and Prakriti. Krishna makes out an exhaustive illustration of the two. Purusha is here first designated as Kshetrajna and Prakriti as Kshetra. Though they are opposite; one is completely stable and inactive; the other is most unstable and active. They fulfill each other in keeping the worlds go on. All those who know and understand these intricate relationships and engage in activities without confusion are the ones who are wise and learned. They reach heaven at the end of mortal life. It is here the word ‘Ahimsa’ appears for the second time in the text, Verse 8. (XIII. 1 to 35)

Chapter 14.

Krishna continues: I will tell you a very secret teaching; by knowing it one will not be affected by creation and destruction. By learning it most of the Munies got out of birth-death cycle. All creations come out of me since I am the greatest source of them all. There are three natural qualities in the creatures Satva, Rajas and Thamas i.e. best, middle and worst. These qualities enslave the created ones. (Does Krishna mean that the three qualities are separate from god and created by him?) Those are their natures and will appear and assert in their thoughts and actions. Those who accumulate their best qualities will go to the world inhabited by the best at the time of the great flood. Those middle qualities come back to the world at end of the flood. Similarly those with worst qualities will be born again in sin. Krishna continues with more of these teachings. (XIV. 1 to 20)

Arjuna wishes more clarification on the mode of transcending the three qualities and Krishna responds: All those who devote everything to me are the ones who will be able to clear from qualities. There are more in the same genre in this part. (XIV. 22 to 27)

Chapter 15.

Now Krishna redefines himself as the Paramatma who is everywhere inside as well as out all creations. This again is elaboration and repetitions in so many words to concretize the concept of God. He did not look back to recognise that he has told much about separate nature of God and creations. (XV. 1 to 20)

Chapter 16.

Krishna continues to propound a doctrine on the qualities divine and devilish. The divine include ‘Ahimsa’ (Verse 2) and other good qualities and behaviours. Since most of the earlier discourse covered the nature of goodness; in this part he concentrates to define ungodly ones which include atheists. There are three paths to hell, lust, anger and avarice and therefore one should throw them all out of life. I definitely feel that almost all politicians and public workers never read or understood the implications of what God said about carriers of the worst qualities (Thamas). (XVI. 1 to 24)

Chapter 17.

There are three kinds of concentration (Shradha) as well. They are of three qualities Satva, Rajas and Thamas. These are explained in more detail. Also there comes an explanation when Brahmins perform sacrifices with Om, Tad and Sat. Krishna did not give an idea as to what other castes (Varnas) should do in place of Brahmins performing sacrifices. (XVII. 2 to 28))

Chapter 18.

This is the last part and longer than the earlier ones. At first Arjuna asks for more explanations on renunciation or asceticism (Sanyasa) and on making donation/gift (Tyaga). Incidentally here is re-assertion of the nature and duties of the four castes (Varnas) making it more clear that castes are based on birth and birth alone These duties are ingrained in each caste. Verses 41 to 44. Once again it is said that ones own duties are greater than another’s’. Even if one’s duties are bad in themselves they should not be abandoned. Verse 47. (One hopes that the present day honour killers and khaps may not quote these to defend and justify.) Krishna says almost as a final edict to Arjuna: Rest all your mind on me by using your intellectual might so that you will overcome all hurdles with my blessings. You will perish if you don’t want to fight in order to satisfy your super egoism. It is useless for you to be carried away by your egoism and arrogance, since nature will compel you to do it. I have given you the teachings that are secret in all secrets. You discern them all and follow whatever you choose. (What is here to choose except follow the dictates of the god?) (XIII. 1 to 63)

The God has still some doubts about Arjuna. He states that once more I will impart the most secret of all secret teachings because you are my most beloved friend: Keep me in your mind, be my devotee, perform sacrifices for me and bow to me always. I assure you my fast friend that at the end you will join in me. Relinquishing all duties/faiths (Dharma) take refuge in me and then I will redeem you from every kind of sinful deeds; so don’t grieve. (XIII. 65 & 66)

Then comes a kind of admonition: This knowledge should not be made available to anyone who is not a devotee etc.

I say that he does a Jnana yajna who learns these conversations between us. Also the one who hear them with concentrated attention and without envy will escape from sins and reach worlds of good people. (XIII. 70 & 71)

Now Krishna asks Arjuna whether he got rid of his confusion after hearing all these to which Arjuna replies: All my confusions are cleared and I have found my mind due to your blessings. My doubts disappeared and I will do what you have ordered. (XIII. 72 & 73)

Sanjaya concludes that he is both happy and awestruck hearing these conversations and viewing the God Universal. This was made possible through the blessings of Vyasa (the author). There will be wealth and victory where dwell both Krishna the real god and Arjuna the warrior with bow and arrows in hand. (XIII. 74 to 78)

After going through the text at several occasions and reading those commentaries in Malayalam the last one by late Nitya Chaitanya Yati (an ardent disciple of Sri Narayana Guru a Vedanta scholar and composer of several works on the philosophy in Sanskrit and Malayalam. He was an un-touchable by caste) and also in English; I noticed that the God did not refer to the rightful duties of women anywhere in his preaching. It is strange and a little distressing indeed. This might be due to the fact Krishna is addressing Arjuna a male. Of course at one place (IX. 32) he mentions women as born of sin bracketing them along Sudras. The reference is most derogatory and sounds of male chauvinism. One might be tempted to envisage a scene where Krishna faces the defiant Draupadi who is all for revenge against Kauravas for their derisive behaviour against, assault and disrobing of her in public assembly when she was going through her menses period. While Krishna forcing Arjuna to fight, never recalled this incidence which would have helped Arjuna to stand up and redeem the honour suffered by his wife. I am unable to think about as to how Draupadi could have reacted to any negative advice. So be it.

Though the Gita is considered as a vedantic text; I find it emphasizing more on devotion (Bhakti) to Krishna than to any other philosophical principle. I am ignorant as to how Mahatma found this text advocating non-violence. (Ahimsa. X. 5; XIII. 8 ; XVI. 2 & XVII. 14) They are the only four places where the word is found. Non-violence is only one among other qualities to be cultivated by men.

There are a number of puzzles that confounded me while reading the text. I will site only four of them here.

(1) “Thraigunya Vishaya Veda; Nistraigunyo Bhava Arjuna.” (II. 45) Does Krishna disown the Vedas as unacceptable? There are similar sayings elsewhere. But everywhere in the rest of the text he affirms the relevancy of Vedic rituals like performing sacrifices to feed the gods.

(2) “Vidya Vinaya Sampanne, Brahmane, Gavi, Hastini;

Suni chaiva Svapake cha, Pandit á Samadarsina:”

(V. 18). Here it is pronounced that learned wise men view

all creatures as equal. The puzzle is the word “Svapaka”

meaning the groups who cook and eat dogs. Were there such people during the time of Krishna’s discourse?

(3) “Dharmaavirudho Bhuteshu Kamosmi” (VII. 11). The word “KAMA” is used to denote lust in all through the text but here it is qualified by word “Dharmaavirudha” meaning that is not opposed to righteousness. I am unable to comprehend the object/emotion specified. Does it mean that there are two modes of lust one that is opposed to righteousness and another not opposed?

(4) “Dyutam Chalayatamasmi”. (X. 36) I am the dice game among the acts of gambling. Just like in the case of lust, gambling is frowned upon and denounced as vice and therefore dark (Thamasa) by nature but there seems to be something that is acceptable to God.

I do accept that these notes penned here above seem too clumsy and disorganized. They are clumsy because of my own weak command on both Sanskrit as well as English languages. There could be better and more appropriate words and usages to convey the correct meanings of the concepts propounded. They are disorganized due to my perception on reading the text. I was dutifully reading Gita as sacred text since childhood. Slowly and during the course of time I became skeptical about its teachings finally culminating in disbelief. I do see that there are certain good things that could be accepted by all as universal. However all those are qualified as edicts of a god. All the good things to do and practice in life could be arrived at through well founded reasoning and scientific inquiry. There is no need to postulate a god to enforce good.

I am of the view that one of the essential teachings of the god could be interpreted as professing or justifying killing one’s own kith and kin if necessary. I am afraid that the recent developments in the killings of own siblings in the name of honour (sic) might come under these teachings.

The idea of caste being based on birth is explicitly explained where ever the subject was dealt with in the gita text especially in “It is honorable to do one’s own (caste) duties even if they are qualitatively lower than others’. Also it is honorable to die while doing one’s rightful duties. The duties of others are scary enough.” “…..One does not sin in doing own assigned natural duties.”

Sreyan Swa Dharmo Viguna: Paradharmat swanishtitad; Swadharme Nidhanam Sreya: Paadharmo Bhayavaha: (III. 35) Sreyan Swadharmo Viguna: Paradharmat swanishtitad; Swabhava Niyatam Karma, Kurvannapnoti Kilbisham. (XIII. 47) See that the first part of the verses being repeated making it difficult to mean anything else.

Of course there are modern commentators who would circumvent the topic to different directions to establish that cast is based on duties and professions. None of them are convincing enough at least in my case.

I find that almost on every other day one of those who script and fill the columns on spirituality and puranic lore in daily papers; quote some or other sayings of Krishna from gita as the evidence and authority for their contentions. They don’t recollect the contrary sayings in the same gita that refute their contentions. Instances are too many to list here.

In so many ways Krishna conveys that he is the creator of animate, inanimate, liquid, solid and all other objects in the world. This claim is repeated again and again in almost all parts of Gita. He also says that Brahma came out of him and then Brahma made all creations. But ultimately he is the one who is the first originator.

I have not come across Krishna saying why he or some one else created the world and creatures in it if not for them to suffer the death birth cycle. The question did not occur in Arjuna’s mind at any point during the long dialogue. It is surprising that such a basic issue did not figure in this philosophical teaching. Did Krishna know the Rig Vedic hymn “Nasadiya Suktam” wherein the Rishi is skeptic about the creator and why he created. He speculates that ultimately he knows or even he does not know the why.

There is some kind of follow up to the Gita in Mahabharata in Aswamedha Parvam. Following the victory in the war both Arjuna and Krishna were together in the palace they occupied. They were enjoying the happy days after the Pandavas started ruling the kingdom. During their conversations, Arjuna is said too have conveyed to Krishna that he has forgotten the teachings addressed to him by the later; just before the commencement of the Great War.

Krishna responded by saying that he also could not recollect all that secrets of all secrets in their entirety. The essence is that both have forgotten the teachings; the one who was hearing and the one who preached them. Here is another point to ponder over. The gita is dialogue between two individual though overheard by Sanjaya and recited to Dhritarashtra. In the entire dialogue Krishna affirms that these teachings propounded by him are too sacred and secrets of all secrets. Did it not signify that gita is not addressed to all and sundry in the world? How is it correct to propagate it as essential to all persons living in the present world? The fresh dialogues are termed as “Anu Gita”. I have not read the “Anu Gita” with the same attention that was given to gita itself. I remember them purveying some theological sayings and stories. More to the point is the fact that both have forgotten the teachings and still able to carry on their duties as usual. If at that period itself the teachings were forgotten and therefore became irrelevant; what are their worth in modern times? People could lead a good, fruitful and cooperative life among their near and dear ones even without going through the great Bhagavad Gita teachings.

(Add on: After going through the notes I happened to search the web where I found an English translation of Bhagavad Gita with a long introduction by the venerable and devout Hindu scholar advocate, Kashinath Tryambak Telang. He made the translation in 1875 or so when social reform movements were getting encouragement. Telang is only one of several scholars who commented upon the ancient scriptures. They were trying to be reasonable without any bias. To my astonishment and elation I found the following observation penned by Telang in the introduction:

“He (Krishna) next proceeds to distinguish another and higher species of 'indifference,' and then he goes on to point out the results of that self-restraint which is to be acquired in the mode he has expounded. That is one instance. Now take another. In chapter VI, stanza 10 and following stanzas the Gita sets forth elaborately the mode of practically achieving the mental abstraction called Yoga. It need not be reproduced here. The reader can readily find out how sundry directions are there given for the purpose specified, but without any attempt at systematizing. Contrast the Yoga-sutras. In my opinion, therefore, these comparisons strongly corroborate the proposition we have laid down regarding the unsystematic, or rather non-systematic, character of the work. Let us look at the matter now from a slightly different point of view. There are sundry words used in the Bhagavad gita, the significations of which are not quite identical throughout the work. Take, for instance, the word 'yoga,' which we have rendered 'devotion.' At Gîtâ, chapter II, stanza 48, a definition is given of that word. In chapter VI, the signification it bears is entirely different. And again in chapter IX, stanza 5, there is still another sense in which the word is used. The word 'Brahman' too occurs in widely varying significations. And one of its meanings, indeed, is quite singular, namely, 'Nature' (see chapter XIV, stanza 3). Similar observations, to a greater or less extent, apply to the words Buddhi, Âtman, and Svabhâva. Now these are words which stand for ideas not unimportant in the philosophy of the Bhagavadgîtâ. And the absence of scientific precision about their use appears to me to be some indication of that non-systematic character of which we have already spoken.

There is one other line of argument, which leads, I think, to the same conclusion. There are several passages in the Gîtâ which it is not very easy to reconcile with one another; and no attempt is made to harmonise them. Thus, for example, in stanza 16 of chapter VII, Krishna divides his devotees into four classes, one of which consists of 'men of knowledge,' whom, Krishna says, he considers 'as his own self.' It would probably be difficult to imagine any expression which could indicate higher esteem. Yet in stanza 46 of chapter VI, we have it laid down, that the devotee is superior not only to the mere performer of penances, but even to the men of knowledge. The commentators betray their gnostic bias by interpreting 'men of knowledge' in this latter passage to mean those who have acquired erudition in the Sâstras and their significations. This is not an interpretation to be necessarily rejected. But there is in it a certain twisting of words, which, under the circumstances here, I am not inclined to accept. And on the other hand, it must not be forgotten, that the implication fairly derivable from chapter IV, stanza 38, would seem to be rather that knowledge is superior to devotion--is the higher stage to be reached by means of devotion as the stepping-stone. In another passage again at Gîtâ, chapter XII, stanza 12, concentration is preferred to knowledge, which also seems to me to be irreconcilable with chapter VII, stanza 16. Take still another instance. At Gîtâ, chapter V, stanza 15, it is said, that 'the Lord receives the sin or merit of none.' Yet at chapter V, stanza 29, and again at chapter IX, stanza 24, Krishna calls himself 'the Lord and enjoyer' of all sacrifices and penances. How, it may well be asked, can the Supreme Being 'enjoy' that which he does not even receive?' Once more, at chapter X, stanza 29, Krishna declares that 'none is hateful to me, none dear.' And yet the remarkable verses at the close of chapter XII seem to stand in point-blank contradiction to that declaration. There through a most elaborate series of stanzas, the burden of Krishna's eloquent sermon is 'such a one is dear to me.' And again in those fine verses, where Krishna winds up his Divine Lay, he similarly tells Arguna, that he, Arguna, is 'dear' to Krishna. And Krishna also speaks of that devotee as 'dear' to him, who may publish the Mystery of the Gîtâ among those who reverence the Supreme Being. And yet again, how are we to reconcile the same passage about none being 'hateful or dear' to Krishna, with his own words at chapter XVI, stanza 18 and following stanzas? The language used in describing the 'demoniac' people there mentioned is not remarkable for sweetness towards them, while Krishna says positively, 'I hurl down such people into demoniac wombs, whereby they go down into misery and the vilest condition.' These persons are scarcely characterised with accuracy 'as neither hateful nor dear' to Krishna. It seems to me, that all these are real inconsistencies in the Gîtâ, not such, perhaps, as might not be explained away, but such, I think, as indicate a mind making guesses at truth., as Professor Max Müller puts it, rather than a mind elaborating a complete and organised system of philosophy. There is not even a trace of consciousness on the part of the author that these inconsistencies exist. And the contexts of the various passages indicate, in my judgment, that a half-truth is struck out here, and another half-truth there, with special reference to the special subject then under discussion; but no attempt is made to organise the various half-truths, which are apparently incompatible, into a symmetrical whole, where the apparent inconsistencies might possibly vanish altogether in the higher synthesis. And having regard to these various points, and to the further point, that the sequence of ideas throughout the verses of the Gîtâ is not always easily followed, we are, I think, safe in adhering to the opinion expressed above, that the Gîtâ is a nonsystematic work.” (Pages 10-13: Some intervening sentences are omitted here.)

“My view is that in the Gita and the Upanishads, the philosophical part has not been consistently and fully worked out. We have there the results of free thought, exercised on different subjects of great moment, unfettered by the exigencies of any foregone conclusions, or of any fully developed theory. It is afterwards, it is at a later stage of philosophical progress, that system-making arises. In that stage some thinkers interpret whole works by the light of some particular doctrines or expressions. And the result is the development of a whole multitude of philosophical sects, following the lead of those thinkers, and all professing to draw their doctrine from the Gîtâ or the Upanishads, yet each differing remarkably from the other.” (page 7-8)

The last para is an explanation for all the inconsistencies in Krishna’s teachings. I take a rest here even though the quotes raise more questions in my mind.)

QUEST (27.11.1995) i.e Questions:

Quest i.e. questions searching for and finding answers was the basic ingredients to the human progress in all material and spiritual spheres. What? Wherefrom? Why? And how? They are the basic questions that are asked and sought resolution. The questions were almost the same throughout history but answers were several and different depending on the time, circumstances and people concerned. Same questions were answered separately and differently by several historical communities and their predecessors. Throughout the world questions were posed and they were answered. Thoughts, thought processes, ideologies, theories developed and exhausted through questioning by men continued.

Truth is found to be many sided and imprecise. Research went on from one set of truths to others and in the process nullified the earlier truths. The quest continued so that the progress did not get interrupted in the middle. But the progress was not uniform the world over, stagnating here and there legendary (?) for periods extending for centuries. History of India show quest interrupted and stagnated and at certain times quest was completely forgotten. One of its reasons might be the fact that education and knowledge were the monopoly of certain groups for a long historical past. Brahmin the repository of Vedas did not try to educate himself on Vedas but confined it to recitations correctly. The reference here is to the late Kanchi Periavaal. Although they preserved the Vedic hymns they were put in writing very late. By that time the language in which Vedas were composed has undergone vast changes and became almost a dead language. Some of the budding hindutva scholars who claim so many innovations and discoveries from Vedic sources are unable to explain the fact, why all those innovations and discoveries were kept unknown for thousands of years. One of the oldest civilizations i.e ancient India did progress to certain limits for years and centuries. If so fantastic was that civilization and technologies in all spheres, one fails to understand the reasons for such abject failure and surrender of that civilization to invaders during the later centuries. Certain gentlemen saw the use of atomic weapons in Ramayana and Mahabharata wars. They found the aeroplanes in the Viman but not able to explain, why such weapons and carriers did not progress or were not available to face the crisis in later years. Hundreds or thousands of years after those legendary (?) wars our people used primitive weapons against the invading Alexander and others.

There is no rationale to those fantastic claims. They remain egoistic consolations to new found lovers of Hindutva in the present. Western thought, philosophy and science were unbroken efforts at quest in the present era. They were able to progress by discarding failed ideas and practices and establish the supremacy of QUEST even today.

K.N.Krishnan

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Warrior.

WARRIOR and THE CHARIOTEER.

A materialist interpretation of Bhagawat Geeta

By V. M. Mohanraj.

2002

His qualification to write this book is not clear. In the preface the author regretted that no progressive (?) thinker attempted to explain Gita in materialistic terms. He seems to forget that not just progressives but a few CPI & CPM variety having did short or long studies on Gita in English and more so in Malayalam in the past. So he takes up the job as a progressive. Mohanraj mentions that he wrote a critique of Gita in Malayalam way back in 1953. He admits that depiction in that article of Krishna as a diehard reactionary upholder of Brahmanic values against progressive development of society. It might be the influence of the leftist Ranadive line the CPI followed at that time. He also says that after gap of four decades in 1997 he published another paper in NEW QUEST the journal of Indian Association for Cultural Freedom an outfit brought into being sometime in 50’s as a tail of the infamous Congress for Cultural Freedom an anti-communist forum created by the American CIA/FBI. Let it be so.

No harm to the NEW QUEST by printing a critique of Gita. Between the time of the two articles the author changed his thinking radically and made a complete U turn arguing for Krishna to be progressive spearhead of the emerging Aryan society, hovering between primitive communism and slavery. (I think that was the reason for NEW QUEST to print it) He compares Krishna with Sun Yat-Sen and Kemal Ata Turk two social revolutionaries of 19th /20th centuries. This is preposterous since he comperes people of dissimilar periods and history. His admission of depicting Krishna as an arc reactionary and then a progressive has their basis. Krishna of Mahabharata could be both convincing and true. It is more so as the dispenser of Gita. There is little to prefer one against the other. From critique to devotee the author leaves his metamorphosis unexplained. He dispels having used the years to dwell more into the texts and or researching to establish the actual social context of the epic and the poem itself. In the preface itself Mohanraj confesses that his “proto history of man”….”is based solely on the book Ancient Society by Lewis H. Morgan” an American anthropologist, originally published in 1877 one and quarter century past. Ofcourse the work of Morgan was excellent and extraordinary considering that the science of anthropology was in its infancy. Engel’s Origin of Family, Private Property and State was an extension of Morgan towards Marxist ideology. But Engels seems to have had reservations as was reflected in one edition from Moscow. Further on that the works very few in number referred by Mohanraj to explain his position again are more than half a century past. Why did he not consider the phenomenal growth of anthropological, archaeological, sociological and connected literature readily available for his reference; is something very mysterious. For him Morgan is the only anthropologist to start with and to end up. Much of today’s scientific findings do not support the assumptions of Marxist materialistic readings of pre and proto historic societies. I don’t think that this belittles theoretical Marxism but enriches un-dogmatic thinking.

1. SOURSES: Facts and Fiction.

The author makes a very short summary of the main Mahabharata story and goes on arguing for the historicity of the story as well as the war being a decisive factor that finally turned against the primitive communist society into a full fledged slave society. The claim that the story of Mahbharata is part history and part myth has no meaning. Mahabharata is just fiction and citing it as an itihas has not made it a history. There must be one or another historical incident depicted but to spot and separate them is impossibility. Just like most of the others who tried to fix the present format of the epic as prior to 500 AD (thru inscriptions) Mohanraj also affirms it. He quotes every other reference than Bhagawat Gita from secondary sources. This is the biggest drawback of this book.

2. ANCESTORS: Historical Background.

In this part the author starts with generalising Morgan. Incidentally he mentions known hypothesis about Harappan era. If Harapans were on the threshold of changing from primitive communism to slavery, the same is not spelt with any evidence. Instead we are asked to believe that the Vedic people (Aryan is a wrong name) were communistic tribes that also has no valid evidence in support.

All other portions in this part are so many conjunctures and diversions from the theme of the book. None of it adduces any social value to Gita itself. Of course he did not assert that the Aryan society at the time of their coming to India was at the stage of primitive communism but implied as much leaning upon L. H. Morgan.

3. THE POEM: Treatise on Ethics.

Here also the author is disseminating views expressed by others without any specific or valid critique. He is trying to say that though Bhagawat Gita is a mixed dish the message is on ethics rather than on philosophy or religion. Of course for a Hindu none of the three are separate or different.

In this part some of the reference is made about a “revolutionary change” from primitive communism to slave society but not elaborated. We are left wondering about where and when exactly the communes existed among the incoming Vedic Aryans. According to some the Aryan immigration was not a one time event. Large scale migrations took place at more time intervals between 2000 and 1000 BCE. They were pastoralists wandering place to place yet to settle as full agriculturalists. Still there is no evidence of communes as alluded and imagined by the author or some others of his persuasion. The Harappan was more advanced from agri settlements to urban cities. Mohanjo Daro, Harappa and all other cities were not some villages as the author seems to think. (Page 12)

4. PRSONEA: Mythical and Historical.

The Author Mohanraj meticulously elaborated the main story of Krishna from conflicting sources to come to the conclusion that there was one Krishna deified earlier to 500 BCE quoting Panini. Since according to the author the Mahabharata was real and therefore the heroes of that war namely Krishna and Arjuna were historical personnel. In all this, he just echoes others who studied the epic and Gita. There is nothing new that the author found and contributed. He started with saying that he is presenting his work because other progressives did not attempt a materialistic interpretation of B Gita. If that was the intention one is surprised to note that the author wasted half of his treatise on irrelevant recapitulation of the epics and puranas. The time gap between the age of Rigveda and purannas is more than a thousand years. The author should have collected and mastered evidence from all sources like anthropology, archaeology and sociology along with literary such as Rigveda in order to portray the society that existed in the then Indian continent. He should have followed the descriptions of changes occurring whether evolutionary or revolutionary in the society described in the epic at the time of the historic war and tell whether it was a true reflection or imagination. Instead of pursuing any such effort the author perused the story as known to all of us for long. We are not enlightened.

5. COUNSEL: A New Ethic.

This part should have been kept as introduction to the book and the earlier 4 parts comprising 60 pages out of 109 pages in all could have been dispensed with.

The part 5 goes up to page 74 thus the core of the book just comprises in parts 6 and 7 that spreads to 35 printed pages. The announcement about this publication said that it was a materialistic interpretation of Bhagawat Gita. It attracted me and may be many others as well with the hope that the work might be something new based on years of reading by lifelong librarian. But unfortunately the writer Mohanraj did not show any progress further than L. H. Morgan and yes, Com.Dange. Oh No. He claimed that he is far ahead of Dange on the same track. L. H. Morgan was original as anthropologist of his time. It was Engels who found Morgan’s work supports and amplifies the ideas of Marxist historical materialism. As stated earlier the author remained in the same place that he was occupying half a century past. Whatever might have happened to him between the times, his original depiction of Gita being the assertion of Brahmanical chauvinism remains true thru the present work despite the author’s protestations to the contrary. The author’s latest Krishna also vehemently upheld the values of Brahmin superiority all through B Gita. Not all these were mentioned and satisfactorily repudiated by the author. Instead the author find a great rational in the Dange’s interpretation of social progress (?) that is said to have been followed from the end of primitive communism to slave society. HHH

6. BRAHMA: An Objective Reality.

This part consisting of 20 pages in the book is a rehash (charvita charvanam) of Dange followed by L.H.Morgan, Marx, Engels and a soviet author in support. The author who was quoting D.D.Kosambi earlier in appreciation suddenly feels shy of and magnifies Com. Dange the then CPI leader. Of course Dange had a firm grip on Vedic and other Sanskrit literature as well as in Marxist classics. But those were not sufficient to discuss the ancient Indian history in its historical perspective. However, in the fifties many of us unaware of the true facts of history intrinsically accepted the version propounded by Com.Dange.

In those days I myself sold copies of Dange’s book during weekly squad in Matunga area. Since I had Sanskrit educational background, I really appreciated Dange’s interpretation of Vedic terms and rituals. Later when the party started questioning the left deviation of B. T. Ranadive period self and many others realised how Marxism is as dogmatic as Vedic rituals. It was some point at that time CPI book-stalls started displaying non-party Marxist literature such as that of Dr. D. D. Kosambi’s. That was a revelation. Kosambi himself was an un-repented devotee of Lenin and Stalin. Developments since the end of world war II proved that most of what is propagated as official Marxism was a bunch of impractical clichés and confounded dogmas. Socialist construction in the Soviet Union turned to be monstrous, building war machines. The anti-imperialist liberation struggle all over the world degenerated into worst dictatorships except in case of India. Also many of the anti-imperialist movements proclaimed their affinity to some kind of Marxism influenced by Soviets.

The author did not mention the name of Malayalam weekly that is termed progressive. To my knowledge there was one CPI organ ie. Janayugam weekly and the other was Koumudi a weekly leaning towards RSP version of Marxism. I don’t remember having come across this article in those journals, which I was reading regularly on those days.

This part is entirely about commune and community production a theoretical exposition mainly based on L. H. Morgan followed by Engels. But the sole authority is Com. Dange as far as the ancient Indian society was concerned. One might have thought that the author has new evidences to buttress Dange’s through archaeological, anthropological or sociological research that has bloomed during the half of 20th century in order to explain the meanings of words BRAHMA and YAJNA in their materialistic terms. But no such evidence is brought into this book. He could have done better if he re-issued Dange’s book with his own introduction and editorial comments. There was no need to prop up B Gita for the purpose. Mohanraj thought otherwise and so be it.

It is ridiculous for Mohanraj to claim that all those sages scholars who defined Brahma by Neti, Neti and Yajna as several types of ritual sacrifices including the Vedic composers themselves were completely ignorant of their meanings and Com. Dange found them. May be a revelation? Several meanings adduced to Sayana (14th century) even by imputation could not be construed to mean as Dange did. The author could have probed Nirukta, Panini, Katyayana and Patanjali who were nearer to Vedic times and language. But Mohanraj did not undertake this minimum effort. Instead he stuck to Dange’s revelation. We have Sri Arabindo who claimed to have found new Vedic texts and Swaroopananda who captured Vedic Mathematics out of thin air. Dange’s Marxism did not allow him to claim so. We remember Dange’s son in-law Bani Deshpande discovering Marxism in Vedanta. Of course some post leftists have gone still further in their journey to the right. Cosmic Matrix by R. K. Mishra onetime editor of Link Weekly and Patriot Daily (both defunct) exhibits the same mindset.

According to the author the Aryan migration into India took place sometime between 2000 and 1000 or so BCE and the society was already past Primitive Communism stage and evolving to be a slave society. He failed to enlighten us as to whether the characteristics of Primitive Communist as per Marxism were to be found in the pre-Vedic Aryan society where and when. Was there a Primitive Communist stage to the Harrapan society? If so where and when? Mohanraj could have used so many published studies on the indo-Aryan problem and tried to spot the stage of development of society. Without any effort at this score Mohanraj wishes to inherit the Marxist dogmas propounded by Dange. What is most perplexing is that Dange himself failed to look into the eminent study titles ARYAN by Gordon Childe the famous Marxist, archaeologist and historian of vantage. Even today non-Marxists refer Childe with respect. In his scholarly treatise Childe went deep into unravelling the numerous tribes of Central Asia and Europe who could possibly or potentially the fore fathers of indo-Aryans who migrated to India. Nowhere G. Childe mentioned any of the potential indo-Aryans forming or living in a Primitive Communist society. But our author doesn’t’ see or care. Strange are the ways of dogmatists.

Among the latest publications one might refer to Vedic People by Rajesh Kochar a scientist, History of Early India by Romilla Thapar and a revised Ancient India by D. N. Jhah and none of them talk about a primitive communism or slave stage of Aryan society’s. N. Jhah is a pronounced Marxist and he lists Dange’s book in general bibliography but neither it is quoted in the text nor it is listed as reading material for specific chapters. So that is Dange’s contribution in writing Indian history.

A large part of Rig Vedic hymns consist of prayers to their favourite deities; Indra, Agni, Soma, Varuna, Maruts, Rudra etc. to beget in return cattle, grain and wealth. The word Brahma might have been used in Rigveda to the meaning given to it by Sayana but to conclude it being “commune” is the product of Dange’s fertile intellect to dowtail with his own vision of Marxism. It will be the limit of stupidity to discover Marxist historical materialism in the two Sanskrit words from the scripture. Thru reviving the almost forgotten Dange’s thesis Mohanraj is doing disservice to Marxist historiography as far as India is concerned. As stated earlier, there are innumerable studies authored by reputed anthropologists, archaeologists, sociologists, historians and lab tests. There are general and specific studies including a good lot on indo-Aryans. To my knowledge they are based on material evidence and methodology fit to it. They are not Marxist but should help Marxists to understand historical societies. None of them talked about Primitive Communistic society anywhere.

The matriarchy that is supposed to have prevailed in pre-historic societies is found to be very rare and specific to certain groups. Matriarchy in Kerala was a too late phenomenon and not intrinsic. Polygamy prevailed in the past but polyandry was rare. Wives and husbands in common are simply myths, where it is found might have other explanations to it.

As per the author whatever might be the date of Mahabharata war it heralded a crisis in existing society, a society in transition from primitive communism towards slavery. The process was a long one may be a thousand years. The war culminated in favour of emerging slave society. I think, this is the essence of the materialistic interpretation of Mahabharata and B Gita advocates ethics suited to the slave society. Now a question. Who or which party amongst the combatants i.e. Kouravas and Pandavas represented the past or the present? As an afterthought one may conclude that Kouravas are from the past and Pandavas won the present. But Mohanraj finds and explain that Arjuna did uphold the values of the past and Krishna thru his Gita converted the former to the “New values” i.e. the values of Kaliyuga. The epic comes to his support that the Dvapara ended and Kali took over thereafter. What about others on Pandava’s side? How did they accept the “New values” of Kali?

If the real meaning of the epic is as stated then Krishna should not have praise for “Brahma” the commune and “Yajna” the collective mode of production. His extortions to Arjuna and thru him to all mankind to strive for and attain the state of “Brahma” and also call to conduct “Yajnas” in order to sustain “Brahma” are incongruous indeed. The materialistic interpretation needs marshalling all round evidences from all sources and not just two words. The author failed abjectly, in his proclaimed aim of uncovering the materialistic foundations of Bhagawat Gita. He almost says that believe me, I am speaking the truth. On my own I cannot appreciate his faith and the book will be forgotten as in the case of Dange’s.

Finally the arguments favoured by Mohanraj bring grist to the mill of obscurantist Hindutva forces unwittingly. Since Vedic society is portrayed at the stage of transition from primitive communism, the formation must be still older to Indus Harappan societies. Thus the pre-Vedic era to be ante dated and span to not less than 5000 years BCE. I think that the author did not take into consideration the consequence of his arguments. I recollect that on his last days of public life Com. Dange accepted felicitations from Shiva Sean a rabid communalist and anti-communist outfit in Bombay. The SS has a long record of murderous assaults on the communist trade unions and workers nurtured by Com. Dange; the heinous being the cold blooded murder of Com. Krishna Desai.

However, one wonders about the aim and motivation of the publisher Left Word Books to undertake the task. There must be some compelling reasons behind it which is not comprehensible to simple mortals. I am not advocating any anti-Marxist or anti-communist ideology in this note. I would like to see Marxist and communist intellectuals to learn and absorb all the knowledge available to them in this 21st century as Marx and Engels did in their times. When you start working on your favourite subject please look back into the works of Marx and Engels for the references cited in them. That is where one should learn one’s Marxism.

By K. N. Krishnan.