Monday, March 27, 2017

SANKARA'S VIEW OF BRAHMAN BASED ON HIS COMMENTARY ON BADARAYANA'S "BRAHMA SUTRAS"

The Being of Satchidananda: Sankara’s Commentary on the Brahma Sutras
by Vijaya Rajivaon 23 Mar 20178 Comments
Indian philosophy has always been preoccupied with the question of what or who is the Ultimate Reality behind the everyday experiences of life and what is the human relationship to this reality? This question was broadly framed: does such an Ultimate Reality exist, what is its nature and how do humans relate to this reality?

The quest began with the Veda, the collective name for the four Vedas (Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva), the prose commentaries of the Brahmanas, the forest treatises referred to as Aranyakas, ending with the Upanishads. The quest continued with the various writings on Vedic ritual such as Jaimini Sutras and the contemporaneous attempt by Badarayana to unify the teachings of the Veda in his Brahma Sutras. This was followed by many commentaries (Bhashyas), the most famous of them being the Bhashya of Adi Sankara (8th century CE) and Ramanuja (13th century CE).

Shortly after the end of the Vedic period, there arose the philosophical systems (Sankhya, Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Yoga, Jaina, Carvaka and Bauddha, which were independent philosophical enquiries into the nature of Ultimate Reality). Among these systems only the Carvaka was dismissive of philosophical speculation on the nature of Ultimate Reality and offered a purely materialistic explanation of life and its problems.

Among these systems the Sankhya system alone accepted the authority of the Veda and in fact used the Veda to uphold its philosophical position that there are two independent ultimate realities, the inactive intelligentPurusha and the active non intelligent Pradhana (Prakriti/Nature) and these two realities interacted to produce the universe and its beings. This position is known as Dualism.

Collectively, these systems challenged the Veda and its emphasis on Brahman/Satchidananda as the one Ultimate Reality. Satchidananda is a compound word that describes Sat (that which exists), Chit (that which is Conscious) and Ananda (that which is Blissful). The system known as Vedanta upheld the unity of Satchidanda and hence was non dualistic or Advaita. It became the central theme of Adi Sankara’s commentary on the Brahma Sutras, and may be said to have laid (along with his interpretation of the Upanishads) the foundation of Advaita Vedanta. In the commentary, Sankara refers to Brahman (the Upanishadic word for Satchidananda), thus following Badarayana. On this interpretation there is only one reality, Brahman, which is the origin, subsistence and dissolution of the universe.

While it is customary to focus attention on the differences between Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta (Non-dualism) and Ramanuja’s Vishistadvaita (Qualified Dualism), here we shall briefly examine Sankara’s theory of the Being (Sat, that which exists) of Satchidananda as seen in his Commentary.

Following Badarayana, he describes Brahman as the origin, maintainer and dissolver of the world and that it is the sole reality (no second one exists). This rejects the Sankhya theory that there are two independent realities, Purusha and Pradhana (Prakriti). It is also a spiritual-conscious reality and hence it rejects the materialism of Carvaka, namely that the world is simply a material entity. It rejects the Nyaya-Vaisekhatheory of the separate reality of the material world as evolving from atoms. It also rejects the Jaina and Bauddha theories.

Where Sankara’s Commentary on the Brahma Sutras is completely clear is his argument that Brahman as Self (Paramatman) is the cause of the world in a special sense. That world is not independent of Brahman and in fact has been created by Brahman as part of its magical power (Maya) and to that extent is illusory, has no independent reality.

Readers will note that it is precisely here that Ramanuja differed from Sankara. He argued that the magical power is real not illusory and that the individual Selves (jivas) and the world of many beings are a modification of Brahman. However, this position seems to be a misrepresentation of Sankara’s position, which as pointed out, is arguing that the world is not an independent reality but is the result of the magical, abundant power of Brahman. The word Maya carries the meaning of ‘abundance’.

In the traditional misreading of Adi Sankara’s position, it has been argued against him that the vivartadoctrine (that Brahman’s change is illusory) is contradictory and that parinama (real change) alone can explain the world. However, in the Commentary it would seem that what Sankara is emphasising is that for humans (individual jivas) to think that they are independent realities in relation to Brahman is Ignorance or Nescience. Understanding this is Liberation. Hence the Upanishadic truth that this Atman is Brahman (ayam atma brahma).

The achievement of the Commentary is the refutation of dualism, specifically the Sankhya argument thatPradhana and Purusha are two eternal coexisting realities, with Pradhana or Prakriti being active but non intelligent, and Purusha being inactive but intelligent. Sankara’s refutation is done through showing that Sankhya is misrepresenting the Veda.

Sankhya is misrepresenting the Veda:

1. The enquiry into Brahman with which the Brahma Sutras begin propounds the following aphorism:
‘Brahman is that from which the origin &c (the origin, subsistence, and dissolution) of this world proceed’ (pp.15-16).1.

After pointing out that cause, we say is Brahman, (pps.15-16) Sankara goes on to say:
“The origin, &c of a world possessing the attributes stated above cannot possibly proceed from anything else but a Lord possessing the stated qualities; not either from a non-intelligent pradhana, or from atoms, or from non-being, or from a being subject to transmigration; nor again, can it proceed from its own nature (i.e. spontaneously, without a cause), since we observe that (the production of effects) special places, times, and causes have invariably to be employed”(pps.16-17).

What Sankara means by ‘special places, times, and causes’ is that there is agency in Brahman.

2. Brahman is omniscient and is the source of the Veda (Scripture): Badarayana asserts this and Sankara follows up with this observation:
“Brahmans is the source ,i.e., the cause of the great body of Scripture, consisting of the Rig-Veda and other branches, which is supporting by various disciplines (such as grammar, nyayapurana, &c); which lamp like illuminates all things; which is itself all-knowing as it were” (pps.19-20).

The theme of illumination will be taken up later when discussing the question of Brahman being self-luminous like the sun. Citing from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad he continues: “The Rig Veda, &c, have been breathed forth from that great Being (p.20). After a prolonged discussion on the means of right knowledge of Brahman, Sankara points out:

“It, therefore, is the task of the Vedanta texts to set forth Brahman’s nature, and they perform that task by teaching us that Brahman is eternal, all-knowing, absolutely self-sufficient, ever pure, intelligent and free, pure knowledge, absolute bliss” (p.25).

He goes on to say that sastra teaches devout meditation on this Brahman and from this results final release from samsara (the cycle of birth and rebirth)

3. Final Release:

What does Sankara mean by final release? He quotes from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II,4,5: ‘The Self is to be heard, to be considered, to be reflected upon’. By Self he means Paramatman, the Universal Self. We see from this passage, says Sankara, that consideration and reflection have to follow the mere hearing (p.26). Hence, devout meditation and reflection will ensure final release from samsara:

“Release is an eternally disembodied state. It is eternal in the sense that it does not undergo changes, is omnipresent as ether, free from all modifications, absolutely self-sufficient, not composed of parts, of self-luminous nature (p.28).

Furthermore, release follows immediately on the cognition of Brahman: ‘He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman’ Sankara quotes from Mu.Upanishad, II,2,8 (p.29).

4. Brahman as omniscient Knower:

Brahman is the eternal Knower, simultaneously existing and all knowing. It is also blissful. Brahman’s Being and Consciousness are simultaneous and identical.

The Significance of Sankara’s Refutation of Sankhya:

In our times the idea that Pradhana (Nature) is active but non-intelligent is outlandish and outmoded. Even modern science recognises that Nature is a complex interaction of matter and energy. Sankara’s non-dualism, the affirmation of Satchidananda emphasises that Consciousness is Brahman (prajnanam brahma) and that this Consciousness is all pervasive. Contemporary physics, especially Quantum Physics, no longer operates only with the matter-energy-space-time complex, but has focussed on the role of the observer in experiments and hence the role of Consciousness.

Quantum Physics now works with the concept of a living, conscious universe. Non duality is the key word in contemporary physics.

A living conscious universe is one and in Adi Sankara’s view it is the Being of Satchidananda.

Notes
1. All references are from George Thibaut’s translation of the Vedanta Sutras, Part 1, The Sacred Books of the East, at Google Books, Volume 34, Oxford University Press.
User CommentsPost a Comment
The dating of Adi Sankara in the 8th Century is disputed. He is placed by Hindu sources at some 300 years after the Buddha.
Bhaskar
March 23, 2017
Report Abuse
I totally reject the ONENESS philosophy of sankara, because it is a mirror of budhist/jaina philosophy of nirvana. Ramanujar rightly said, that Sankara is a prachanna baudha, ie.. the hidden buddha..

Budhism says that there is no GOD and human's fate is decided purely by their karma. Sankara also says the same, but imposes a just superior force that rightly delivers the fruits of one's karma without any partiality.

But I challenge the very basis of karma theory which has no reference in the vedas and upanishads or in any of the ithihasa. Also there is no concept of moksha in the vedas. all these invention of budhism escapism.

I have challenged many to quote any references in the vedic literature about the modern version of karma theory . So far no one could give me any references.

The puranas and Ithihasas, only mentions the swarga or naraga, and NOT about the moksha.

Also in the vaideeha tradition, the people say an atma would be reborn in the same kulam/gothra or family lineage. The common people consider the grandchildren as the reborn atma of their grandfather or ancestors.

The Hinduism as propogated today by hindutvavadis is nothing but budhism in disguise. The karma theory is NOT vedic, and is a oppressive ideology being imposed.

While the christianity claims that their GOD can save a person from the sin, the hollow hinduism which is defined as per one's convenience, says that everyone has to bear the fruits of their past karma.

On the other hand, both shaivam and vaishnava religion says that their GOD can save their bhakths from the sins, through pariharams and appropriate poojas.

But these shaivite and vaishnavite identities are brutally crushed by the hindutvavaadis, by calling everything as hinduism.

Had we seen any hindu intellectuals ever accept a krishna temple as vaishnava temple or madhwa temple? They would only say it is a Hindu temple, which is an internal onslaught of native identities.


So i am once again challenging the hindutva stereotypes for the nth time in this vijayvaani magazine.

1. Show me any proof of modern day version of karma theory in vedas or upanishads.

2. Show me any reference of Moksha in the vedas or upanishads.

3. Show me any reference of "HIndu" identity in pre-colonial texts used by our people.
senthil
March 23, 2017
Report Abuse
Very interesting question Sri Senthil. Let me now ask you a question:
have you read the Brahma Sutras and the commentary by Adi Sankara ?
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
March 23, 2017
Report Abuse
@vijayarajiva,

I want my questions to be answered first, as i dont want to divert the discussion. My questions are more fundamental and NOT brahmasutras.
senthil
March 25, 2017
Report Abuse
Dear Dr. Rajiva:

I have sensed a contradiction in your presentation of Brahman -
Satchidananda as "inactive" and then using many descriptions which
implies "creates", etc. The syntax is not appropriate if we see the world as originating from the Brahman than to say the Brahman creates or created this world. You surely understand where I am going with this.

Inactive agency cannot be given many active roles.

Secondly I have no objections to the word "Conscious" "Being", "Supreme Consciousness." Yet, I would have some difficulty with
the word "Intelligent". The quality of all knowing or "knowledge" is
a subjective experience of "Chid" and also the "Bliss" is the subjective
experience of the seeker which are attributed to "inert" Brahman which is essentially "gunatrayaateeta" and has no qualities at all.
So, there is self-contradiction even in this realm.

Maya and avidya are processes in the Prakrity or Pradhana and the products of Dhee and Mahadhee the individual intelligence and Universal Intelligence and therefore are components of Prakrity (Pradhana) and not to be attributed to Pusrusha or the equivalent of Brahman the "inert" "inactive" "qualityless" "Nirguna" entity. Maya and avidya originate only in the Prackrity which is saguna. The only debate can be whether the Prakrity itself originate from Purusha or Brahman, or is it a separate independently existing entity that draws into its operation the Prusha as a component to manifest the biosphere of conscious sentient beings of all sorts. Prakrity space-time-mass-energy complex by itself does not become modified into living beings and needs addition or interaction with Purusha (Brahman) or consciousness and has to rely on some form of intellignece (dhee) for its design. So the duality of dvaita or even the Vishistha Advaita are based on the foundation of Purusha and Brahman and hence the debate becomes defunct when one takes side with advaita or davita proponents. Therefore, the entire debate is bypassed by the Buddhists as a product of Maya by using the concept of Shunya for the Ultimate Reality where the Shunya and Infinity merge in ONE Reality. So, there is no real contradiction between the Buddhist, Jain and Hindu philosophies whether one accepts the concept of Karma or not. Karma is distinctly a later rationalization to explain away many of the inconsistencies that challenge the attribution of Universal Love and Compassion and a sense of Justice and an attitude of equal dealings with all living beings and their experiences in the real world, "Sansara." Karma theory actually corrupts both the Advaita and Dviita philosophies.

Having said that, your article raised more questions than answered for any for those who have some familiarity with the Advaita philosophy whether he/she has read the original Badarayana's Brahmasutra or Shankara's commentary or not.

Simple, honest, and humble suggestion is not to fall into the trap of using colonial Western concepts and Western lens to understand
the original Hindu philosophical texts although the Western translators have their own merit as superior scholars.

English language has its own problems, besides inherent problems in any language trying to express the nature of the ineffable entity of Brahman that can only by experienced and cannot be accurately expressed as to its nature in any language.

However, I congratulate you for undertaking this stupendous task.

Thanks for any further clarification.

Sincerely,

Nokidding101
Nokidding101
Yesterday
Report Abuse
@No kidding 101

Thankyou for the comments.

The interaction between Purusha and Pradhana(Prakriti) is a Sankhya concept and Adi Sankara is refuting that.

For him (and he repeats this in the Bhashya)Satchidananda is ONE, and there is no second. He agrees with Badarayana that Brahman is the origin, the maintainer and dissolver of the world. Hence, Pradhana comes out of Brahman.

I see no contradiction in that. And as my article states(from Adi Sankara himself) this Brahman is all knowing, conscious and blissful.
It is Sat, Chit and Ananda.

The Buddhis theory of Shunya is quite different from this.

Re: Maya, the Bhashya has some 20 pages on this. It is equated with the word 'abundance'.

I hope you can get to read the Bhashya, even the Thibaut translation which is considered the best English translation. I found Swami Gambirananda's translation unreadable because it is not a 'translation'. It is a point presentation which presents his interpretation of the Bhashya.

I look forward to discussing the topic with you once you have read the Bhashya.
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
22 Hours ago
Report Abuse
Western authors will and want to equate
Brahman as God the creator of the Universe.
Also give Him the attributes familiar to them from their study of the Bible. We don't need to fall for that.
nokidding101
19 Hours ago
Report Abuse
@nokidding101

The quotes are all from the Upanishads, supporting Adi Sankara's arguments.

Please remember that an inactive Purusha and an active Prakriti are Sankhya concepts, not Vedanta. Sankhya is dualistic, while Vedanta is monistic, whether it is Sankara, Ramanuja, Vallabha, Nimbarkar et al.

Further, if you have read Ramanuja's Bhashya(as I have) here too the Vedantic arguments are similar.

I have checked out many of the translations by Hindu authors, notably the Swamis from various mathas.

The first key lines from the Brahma Sutras are what I have quoted above : Brahman is the originator, sustainer and dissolver of the universe.

What the relationship is between the jivas and Brahman is what is different in the various Vedantic schools : advaita, vishistadvaita,bheda-bheda and so on.

Otherwise,all of them agree on Brahman being the Ultimate Reality.
Nothing to do with the Bible or Western authors etc.
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
6 Hours ago
Report Abuse

Friday, March 17, 2017

MUDDIED POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY DELIBERATELY PROMOTED BY SECULAR MEDIA IN INDIA

What is Hindutva and why do Secularists paint it as Rightwing?

March 14, 2017, 1:36 PM IST Ashali Varma in No Free Lunch | India | TOI

(Extensive Editorial liberties taken to make this excellent article comprehensible for readers not familiar with Indian political jargon)

When I was working as a journalist in New York, my son used to tease me and call me a "liberal." I am a liberal but now it means different things to a different set of people in India. For instance, I am a Hindu, whatever that means. Sadhguru says, it means people born in a geographical area between the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean and there are numerous sects within us and a number of writings we call our "scriptures" that include the Vedas, the Upanishads, The Geeta and so many more including the Buddhists and Jain scriptures or "philosophical texts and treatises."
We Hindus have the freedom to worship many "gods" whom we call our devas, devis, and devatas,  (See on Sookta : "Devas and Devatas : Not Gods and Goddesses") but the basics are a belief in nature and the universe and a oneness with these elements and thus we are followers of a philosophy that was born in this land (the Indian subcontinent.) If we talk about this broad minded philosophy or say we are proud of it, we become followers of Hindutva. It seems to me that for some Hindus it is a shame to be Hindu, at least this is what the so- called "liberals" in India and their followers have been saying for decades and now Hindus are also called "intolerant." There is no limit to the number of negative labels piled upon the Hindus.
There are only a billion of us Hindus in this world who historically belong to this rather prolific philosophical, literary and scientific tradition originating from a specific geographical area  Thanks to recent DNA testing it seems the "Aryans" never invaded us. We evolved as a civilization without the help of outside invaders. I got further proof of this not only by western scientific discoveries but by visiting an ancient site like Harappa in Hissar, Haryana very recently. We were taken to mounds next to a village where Harappan "aged bricks", terracotta pieces had been found. They were dated back to an age before any imagined invasions into our hinterland. In fact, 5000 years ago, according to the symmetrical sizes of bricks found here, we had developed mathematics. Later there was Aryabhata a Hindu mathematician and others who actually invented numbers, decimal system, and even more important the Zero or Shunya. These now are all well known facts.
Thus, the Muslim Arabs who invaded our lands had nothing to do with mathematics or science. It was us the Hindus who had developed the Zero or Shunya, Algebra (Beeja ganita) and the so called Arabic numbers. When President Obama went to Egypt and spoke about how great the Muslim Civilization was and how they had given the world integral parts of mathematics, I cringed with despair as the Islamic world had simply taken it from India in the 12th Century after four hundred years of invasions. The Hindu or Indic civilization existed as written about extensively in The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington long before Islam was born. He is clear about how science and math travelled borders and got translated into local languages and wise men from different lands adopted it as their own.
Therefore, even today it is believed by many superficial scholars that the Arabs invented mathematics. There are western academics who think there was a Golden Age of Islam but fail to see that what the Arabs claimed as their own mathematics and science was borrowed from India, China, Greece and the Roman Empire where arts, architecture and science had flourished. No one in their right mind can actually think that in 7th Century Arabia there existed a flourishing civilization. There is no proof of this.
In the 7th and 8th Century, Islamic hordes conquered Europe, China and India where these innovations were flourishing and then acquired these to claim as their own. I do wish President Obama had known these facts before he so confidently told the Egyptians’ how much the Islamic civilization had contributed to science and arts. The President was ill informed about these facts in the history of civilizations and history of mathematics and science.
Here in India another real clash of civilizations is taking place as I write this; not between castes and/or religions but among the Hindus themselves who deride Hindutva and those who deride Hindutva are called "secular and tolerant" and the vast majority of Hindus who have finally reacted against such spreading of misinformation of history are termed by the so-called "secularists" as "intolerant." Fortunately, I fall in this proud Hindu category which I learnt today is "being a follower of Hindutva"—with a strong loyalty to my heritage. The "Saffron" bit and the other such aspects or epithets are merely derogatory adjectives that the secular and very biased media lay upon us Hindus. Please note the so-called seculars are mostly all Hindus themselves. So, the clash is between us Hindus and so-called secular Hindus and not between Hindus and people following other religions.
This clash is fortunately ideological and not physical as between Shias and Sunnies. Although emotions fly high generally the dialogue and interactions around this "clash" are on a civilized level. 
As the brilliant columnist, Jay Bhattacharjee writes in Swarajya on March 13th 2017, about the Governing party (BJP) winning elections in five states in India and how it was portrayed by the secular media : “The secularist storm troopers (SS), of course, are hardened psychological warriors and putting up a brave front when their ship is going down comes naturally to them. From their early youth, they are taught the skills of mental bluster, sang froid and intellectual calisthenics.
When they are out-maneuvered and outsmarted, they can always draw on the helplines extended by their handlers in various parts of the globe. Make no mistake, the resources at the command of the latter are humongous.”
This is true. After 60 years of wielding power, and calling the shots they do have their chamchas (sycophants) as we would say in Hindi in higher educational institutions and organizations such as the mainstream media here and abroad. Sixty years of promulgation of such negative characterization of Hindus is akin to brainwashing three generations in India and abroad in believing and viewing the Hindu world through their "secular" sense in almost every facet of life.
No wonder the media and political parties are so aghast by the BJP winning three states by a comfortable margin and two more by forming a government. The SS will try their best as they never give up in derailing India’s development agenda and trying to muddy the waters, but finally the BJP has the upper hand and it is up to us the citizens of India to ignore the naysayers secularists and give PM Modi all the help he needs.
As he said clearly, it is not that they (BJP) won’t make mistakes but never intentionally; and he will do whatever it takes to make the dreams of Indians come true; and work hard to "get it done." On these three qualities no one can doubt him—-except for the so called Secularists who are jaded beyond belief and are clutching at straws as they are drowning. 
                                     -------0----------0-----------0----------0----------0------------0----------
The following is original article untouched by the editor of Sookta.
When I was working as a journalist in New York, my son used to tease me and call me a liberal. I am a liberal but now it means different things to a different set of people in India. For instance, I am a Hindu, whatever that means. Sadhguru says, it means people born in a geographical area between the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean and there are numerous sects within us and a number of writings that include the Vedas, the Upanishads, The Geeta and so many more including the Buddhists and Jains.
We believe in many gods but the basics are a belief in nature and the universe and a oneness with these elements and thus are of a philosophy that was born in this land. If we talk about this or say we are proud of it, we become Hindutva. It seems it is a shame to be Hindu, at least this is what the so- called liberals have been saying for decades and now we are also called intolerant.
There are only a billion of us who belong to this rather prolific geographical race. Thanks to recent DNA testing it seems the Aryans never invaded us. We evolved as a civilization without the help of outside invaders. I got further proof of this not only by western scientific discovery but by visiting an ancient site just like Harappa in Hissar, Haryana very recently. We were taken to mounds next to a village where Harappan aged bricks, terracotta pieces had been found. They were dated back to before invasions into our hinterland. In fact, 5000 years ago, according to the symmetrical sizes of bricks found here we had developed mathematics. Later there was Aryabhata and others who actually invented numbers and even more important the Zero or Shunya.
Thus, the Muslim Arabs who invaded our lands had nothing to do with mathematics or science. It was us the Hindus who had developed the Zero or Shunya and numbers. When President Obama went to Egypt and spoke about how great the Muslim Civilization was and how they had given the world integral parts of mathematics, I cringed with despair as the Islamic world had simply taken it from India in the 12th Century after four hundred years of invasions. The Hindu or Indic civilization as written about extensively in The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington is clear about how science and math travelled borders and got translated into local languages and wise men from different lands adopted it as their own.
Therefore, even today it is believed by many superficial scholars that the Arabs invented mathematics. There are western academics who think there was a Golden Age of Islam but fail to see that what the Arabs claimed was borrowed from India, China, Greece and the Roman Empire where arts, architecture and science flourished. No one in their right mind can actually think that in 7th Century Arabia there existed a flourishing civilization. There is no proof of this.
In the 7th and 8th Century, Islamic hordes conquered Europe, China and India where these innovations were flourishing and then acquired it as their own. I do wish President Obama had known this when he told the Egyptians’ how much the Islamic civilization had contributed to science and arts.
Here in India the real clash of civilizations is taking place as I write this; not between castes and religions but between Hindus who deride Hindutva and they are called secular and tolerant and the vast majority who have finally reacted against it and are termed by the so-called secularists as intolerant. Fortunately, I fall in this proud Hindu category which I learnt today is being Hindutva—believing in my heritage. The Saffron bit and the other such aspects are merely adjectives that the secular and very biased media add on to us Hindus in a derogative way. Please note they are all Hindus. So, the clash is between us and not from other religions.
As the brilliant columnist, Jay Bhattacharjee writes in Swarajya on March 13th 2017, about the Governing party (BJP) winning five states in India and how it was portrayed: “The secularist storm troopers (SS), of course, are hardened psychological warriors and putting up a brave front when their ship is going down comes naturally to them. From their early youth, they are taught the skills of mental bluster, sang froid and intellectual calisthenics.
When they are out-maneuvered and outsmarted, they can always draw on the helplines extended by their handlers in various parts of the globe. Make no mistake, the resources at the command of the latter are humongous.”
This is true. After 60 years of calling the shots they do have their chamchas (sycophants) as we would say in Hindi in institutions and organizations such as the mainstream media here and abroad. Sixty years is akin to brainwashing and getting three generations aboard in almost every facet of life.
No wonder the media and political parties are so aghast by the BJP winning three states by a comfortable margin and two more by forming a government. The SS will try their best as they never give up in derailing India’s development agenda and trying to muddy the waters but finally the BJP have got the upper hand and it is up to us the citizens of India to ignore the naysayers and give PM Modi all the help he needs.
As he said clearly, it is not that they won’t make mistakes but never intentionally; and he will do whatever it takes to make the dreams of Indians come true; and work hard to get it done. On these three qualities no one can doubt him—-except for the so called Secularists who are jaded beyond belief and are clutching at straws.