Quotessence
Home / Authors / Pavan K. Varma

Pavan K. Varma Quotes

Author

Filter quotes by topic

Famous Pavan K. Varma Quotes

“The truth is that Hinduism is both a salad bowl and a melting pot. It is—and was—a great religion not because it was linear or prescriptive, but because, self-assured in its central narrative, it was not intimidated by diversity. ‘It is perfectly acceptable in Hinduism to be a polytheist, monotheist, monist, pantheist, agnostic, atheistic, animist or any combination thereof’.74 This is proof of its deeply eclectic spirit, not a reason to devalue its coherence. As Rabindranath Tagore says: ‘To experience unity in diversity and to establish unity amongst variety—this is the inherent dharma (the spirit) of Bharat. Bharatvarsha never interpreted diversities as hostility.”

“The Hindu civilisation’s thought processes were never overwhelmed, even when its people were conquered. This is important, because monuments can be destroyed, but the fortress of ideas is imperishable. The core of this thought process was spiritual, as distinguished from simply religious practice. The spiritual vision both transcended and guided religious rituals, and spilled over into the secular realm. This did not make it a religious civilisation. The spirituality was more about ultimate truths, an exploration of the world of ideas, and not a manual only for religious worship. This spiritual churning could have a religious counterpart, but would survive even without it. As Rabindranath Tagore says: ‘In reality, our history had deeply serene and contemplative phases—for the longest period of time—periods not without war or turmoil, but essentially grappling with pivotal concepts in the realm of thought [emphasis mine].’2 Sri Aurobindo also speaks about ‘an ingrained and dominant spirituality, an exhaustive vital creativeness and … a powerful, penetrating and scrupulous intelligence … each at a high intensity of action … the stamp put on her by that beginning she has never lost”

“One has to imagine a setting in a forest sometime as far back as 2000 BCE or earlier, where a sage, who has spent decades perhaps in the search for truth and wisdom, shares thoughts, most often elliptically, with a group of students eager to begin their own journey in unravelling the mysteries of life. The conversation is not in the form of a formal dialogue, but through parable and suggestion, story and allusion, or statements of deep penetrative insight into what constitutes the transcendent reality underlying our lives and this universe. What is significant is that while obviously having the role of a mentor, the guru is open to questions being asked and instead of delivering a monologue from a pedestal, is willing to have a conversation which is guided as much by what the guru has to say as by what is being asked by the shishya. Significant too is that what the sage says is not in the nature of a command, but more in the format of an insight, inviting discussion and interrogation. Considering the fact that for many Hindus (including Adi Shankaracharya), even though the Upanishads are seen as shruti or revealed texts, the fact that they were dialogic, and not prescriptive, set the tone for the further evolution of Hinduism itself. Other foundational texts of Hinduism carry forward this dialogic tradition. One of these is the Brahma Sutra by Badarayana written sometime around 450 BCE. In Indian tradition, Badarayana is identified with the legendary Vyasa who compiled the Vedas. The Brahma Sutra is known by many names—Nyaya Prasthana, because it puts the teachings of the Upanishads in a structured order; Vedanta Sutra, since it is a text on the Vedanta; Sariraka Sutra, since it deals with the nature and evolution of the embodied soul; and Uttara Mimamsa Sutra, since it deals with the final section of the Vedas, unlike the Purva Mimamsa which deals with the earlier sections.”

“Vijayanagara had adopted ‘many of the administrative, tax-collecting, and military methods of the Muslim sultans that surrounded it—namely, stirrups, horse-shoes, horse armour, and a new type of saddle’. Its architecture also showed evidence of the use ‘of the arch and the dome of the Islamic north’.15 Reciprocally, Hindu influences were also discernible in the Islamic sultanates, with whom the Vijayanagara kingdom on occasion entered into strategic alliances. I am not, however, clear what these arguments prove. Because the kings of Vijayanagara did not appear bare-chested in public, or because they used stirrups or horseshoes, and because, where they felt politically necessary, they aligned themselves with one Muslim sultanate to finesse the other, was Vijayanagara not a Hindu kingdom? Or that, when it was defeated, the Muslim sultans did not savagely destroy the city and, in particular, attack its remarkable temples? To quote a few instances of Hindu–Muslim syncretism in architecture, in dress or in administrative practices, is more an acknowledgement of the unavoidable fusions wrought over centuries, and not a change in the mindset of Muslim conquerors against kafirs and their practice of destroying Hindu cultural and religious artefacts. It is a moot point too whether the Vijayanagara kings, on conquering a Muslim sultanate, would have as relentlessly destroyed mosques. Historical records clearly bring out that Krishnadevaraya (1509–1528 CE)—the most illustrious ruler of Vijayanagara and among the greatest kings India has seen—respected all faiths. He was himself a Vaishnavite, but extended wholehearted patronage to Shaiva, Jain and other sects. He employed Muslims in his army, encouraged them to settle in the capital city and erected a mosque in 1439 for them to pray. For the Muslim officers in his court, he placed a copy of the Koran before his throne so that they could perform the ceremony of obeisance before him without sinning against their religious injunctions, even though the Vijayanagara kingdom was formed with the aim of protecting Hindus and Hindu culture from Muslim attacks. Christian Portuguese also found residence in the capital. The Portuguese traveller, Barbosa, who visited Hampi during Krishnadevaraya’s rule, wrote: ‘The king allows such freedom that every man may come and go and live according to his own creed, without suffering any annoyance and without enquiry whether”