Our Ancient Culture

Our Ancient Culture *

BY Prof. T. VIRABHADRADU, M. A

“What is culture?” is a question easy to ask but difficult to answer. It is like the reply given by an early Christian saint who, faced with a similar but more serious problem, said, “If not asked, I know; if you ask, I know not.” Culture, said some one, like beauty, cannot be defined. We know it, we feel its influence and we can trace its evolution but to define culture is impossible. There seems to be a good amount of truth in this, for, we admire beauty and are attracted by it. It plays such an important part in our lives that our happiness or misery depends upon it and that we either succumb to it or try to resist its temptations. But to describe it, much less to define it, is not within the reach of all, though poets have attempted it with a good deal of success. However, with the help of a few eminent writers and thinkers of the past and present, we might, before proceeding to consider our ancient culture, understand what is meant by culture. Matthew Arnold of Nineteenth-Century England thinks that culture is a scientific passion for knowledge and a love of doing good to others. It is ‘sweetness and light’. It is a combination of Hebraism and Hellenism, i.e. intellectual and moral discipline combined with a love of beauty and art. It is the study of perfection, a harmonious perfection, and expansion of the mind. Arnold is so enthusiastic for culture that, notwithstanding the achievements of the Victorian Era, he is sadly disappointed in his contemporaries whom he divides into three classes, Barbarians, Philistines and Populace. Ruskin and Newman each in his definition of the gentleman has given us also his view of culture. According to the former, one of the characteristics of a gentleman is fineness of nature, which is “fineness of structure in the mind which renders it capable of the most delicate sympathies.” ¹ A gentleman is a person who feels rightly on all occasions and desires to express only so much of his feeling as is right to express. Vulgarity is the opposite of gentlemanliness and ‘deathful selfishness’ is only another term for vulgarity. In Newman’s opinion, a gentleman is one who possesses a disciplined intellect. He has a breadth of mind and religious toleration. He respects difference of opinion on religious or other matters and is never mean. More than all this, he is one who is not elated in the hour of triumph or depressed when misfortune overtakes him. That equanimity is the true mark of culture has been accepted all along, as for instance in the simple Sloka given below:

Udaye savita raktaha raktaschasthamane tattha

Sampattau cha vipattau cha Mahatamekarupata.

(The Sun is blood-red at the time of rising and is also blood-red at the time of setting. Such is the way of the great, being the same in prosperity or adversity.)

Distinguished personalities of the present day like Sarojini Naidu and Radhakrishnan have expressed similar views. They have repeatedly said that learning is not identical with culture. Culture stands for sweetness of temper, sanity of outlook and refinement of taste. ‘It is not,’ says Radhakrishnan, a pose of intellect or a code of convention, but an attitude of life which finds nothing alien, common or unclean.’ ² That learning is not necessarily wisdom can be proved from the Dharmavyadhopakhyanam (The Episode of the Pious Huntsman) in the Mahabharata. It is the story of a learned Brahmin well versed in the Vedas and Sastras who could not shed the influence of the ego and who was advised by a simple but noble woman to go to the Meat-Seller, the Righteous, for acquiring wisdom, an advice which was readily followed and which transformed the learned man into a cultured or wise man. In the Lost Horizon, the author, a twentieth century writer, puts the following into the mouth of a Tibetan monk living in the Himalayas, by way of presenting to us the monastic ideal: “To be gentle and patient, to care for the riches of the mind, to preside in wisdom and secrecy while the storm rages without.”³ It is an ideal which coincides with that of our ancient sages who lived in forest hermitages to contemplate on the Supreme and to practise self-control and attain serenity. A definition of culture would be incomplete without a reference to intellectual modesty which is ever associated with cultured or wise men. If you asked the greatest scientist of the world about his discoveries, he would simply tell you, “I am only gathering pebbles on the shore.” Socrates is generally considered the wisest man of the world, not because he knew many things or was proud of it, but because at the age of seventy he felt he knew nothing. Comparing himself to a man reputed to be wise, he said, “I am wiser than this man: neither of us probably knows anything that is really good, but he thinks that he has knowledge, when he has not, while I, having no knowledge, do not think that I have. I seem, at any rate, to be a little wiser than he on this point: I do not think that I know what I do not know.”⁴ To know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, is by no means a simple task. We as individuals or as a nation suffer from one of two evils. We have sometimes strength but are not conscious of it. For instance, we have no confidence in our own men and we open our eyes their greatness only after they have crossed the seas and obtained recognition in Europe or America. Sometimes, owing to vanity or stupidity, we go to the other extreme and over-estimate our abilities and exaggerate our importance. The truly cultured man is he who not only knows his strength but also his limitations, an idea very nicely expressed by a modern Chinese writer in one⁵ of his plays. Writing about General Su, he says, “He knows little, but enough to be aware of his own ignorance.”

We often talk of ancient and modern cultures, but is it possible to separate the two and, secondly, is there any essential difference between the two? Ancient culture is popularly associated with discipline, respect for tradition and obedience to authority, while by modern culture we mean originality, initiative, enterprise, a spirit of revolt and a tendency to challenge accepted values. Some are prejudiced against all that belongs to the past ages because, in their opinion, all ancient institutions are based on superstition, narrowness and bigotry. This controversy relating to the comparative merits of the early and the late has always been a part of the history of human thought. Students of English literature know how at one time in France and in England there was an acute conflict between these two schools, Swift’s Battle of the Books being the most illustrious offspring of that literary war in England. In every century there are those who look as well as those who look forward, as Mrs. Besant used to put it, the Yesterdays and the Tomorrows. Generally, youth treats age with contempt and if a young fellow meets an elderly man who offers to give him advice, he will consider him a number and the elderly gentleman will dub the extravagant and irresponsible youth a Nayee Roshni (New Lamp). An English writer had such a poor opinion of the old that he said, “Any one who has passed through the regular gradations of a classical education, and is not made a fool by it, may consider himself as having had a very narrow escape.”⁶ An ancient Samskrit poet has expressed the same view, though in a milder and less blunt form, in

Yasya nasti swayam prajna sastram tasya karoti kim

Lochanabhyam viheenasya darpanah kim karishyati

(For one who has no originality, of what avail is learning? If a man is blind, can a mirror do him any good?)

That we cannot always draw a line of demarcation between the old and the new can be inferred from the following instances. Dr. Johnson who belonged to the eighteenth century was rigorously orthodox in his attitude to social, religious and political questions and had a strong classical bias in his criticism of literature, and still he defended Shakespeare’s neglect of the rules of drama and praised him for ‘approximating the remote and familiarizing the wonderful! ⁷ Charles Lamb, the most ‘romantic’ of Shakespearian critics, surprises us when he makes a very novel and stimulating remark that the plays of Shakespeare are not calculated for performance in the theatre and that “Lear is essentially impossible to be represented on a stage.” But Johnson, one of the most ‘classical’ of critics, anticipates him by saying “Many of Shakespeare’s plays are the worse for being acted, Macbeth for instance.” The late Rao Bahadur K. Veeresalingam Pantulu was a revolutionary in religious and social matters, yet he was an old-world man in his dress, was Telugu Pandit, Presidency College, Madras, for several years and even in his literary work, while he enriched Telugu literature and made it suit the requirements of the day, he did not break away from tradition altogether. Rabindranath Tagore was one of the most outstanding products of modern culture. He was a Brahmo by religion and always pleaded for liberty in thought. His ambition was to see his country ‘a heaven of freedom’ and his prayer was that in his motherland the clear stream of reason may not ‘lose its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit.’ ⁸ He called his visit to Europe a pilgrimage to the shrine of humanity because there ‘the human mind is fully awake.’ At the same time, he was a great admirer of Valmiki and Kalidasa and carried from country to country ‘the message of the forest’, the message of ancient India. In fact he looked like one of the Rishis of old brought to earth in this century. It is not uncommon for us to find men or women, orthodox in their dress and ways, being utterly free from superstition or fanaticism, and Europe-returned Indians tip-top in fashion, consulting the Panchangam for the auspicious day or seeking the advice of the Vidyar ⁹ for Rahu-Kalam ¹⁰ when they have to go on a journey. Again, people who are radicals in social reform are highly conservative in Politics, while those who are extremists in politics are no-changers in social matters. Thus it is not possible to treat the ancient and the modern as two water-tight compartments; nor is it easy to point out where the old ends and the new begins. More often than not, they co-exist.

If we look into the matter carefully, we will notice also that it is not always possible to distinguish between what are generally called Eastern and Western cultures. There are differences no doubt but they are mostly of a minor nature and superficial. To take an instance, in our country when we go to office or pay a visit to a superior, we put on the turban or the cap, but the Englishman’s way of showing respect to others is to remove the hat. So we have in one ¹¹ of Shakespeare’s plays a servant coming to tell his master that dinner is ready and that only ‘cover’ is the word. To the master’s question, (which contains a pun on the word cover), “Will you cover then, sir?”, the servant who stands uncovered replies: “Not so, sir, neither; I know my duty.” In English we have the phrases ‘a warm reception’ and ‘a happy fireside’ whereas we have in Telugu Challanivela (=in the cool of the day), Challanithalli (=the mother who is sweet like the coolness that cheers). It is probably because England being a cold country, warmth would be welcome and in India which has a tropical climate, it is the other way about. Here is an interesting tribute to the motherland by a contemporary Telugu poet:  ¹²

Chaduvagaligina Maata – sadvamsasamjata

Matalandari mata—MaBharatha mata!!
Makutamaivelayuna—Manchukondala chaluvo!
Muduvaipulanunna—munneeti chaluwayo!!
Gangathallee modalu—Kaverivarakugala
Jeevanadhula Chaluvoo—Devathala Chaluvayo.

(Image of the coolness that cheers! Royal Dame!
Mother of mothers! Mother Bharat! How proud we are of
thee! How good thou art to us!
Dear mother, I humbly ask, ‘what is the secret of this,
thy refreshing sweetness?’
Is it the bracing cold of the snow-capped Himalaya
which sits like a crown on thy head?
Or the breeze that comes from the three seas that guard you?
Or the delicious coolness of the streams that flow, from
sacred Ganga to southern Cauvery?
Or the sympathy of the gods who look with kindly eyes upon thee?
Embodiment of refreshing sweetness! Royal Dame!
Mother of mothers! Mother Bharat! How
proud we are of thee! How good thou art to us!

Sometimes we also observe that standards of beauty differ from country to country. Grey seems to have been the favourite colour of ladies’ eyes in England at one time, while in our country from the days of the Ramayana black eyes have been considered a sign of beauty. About his prioress, Chaucer says:

Hire nose tretys, hir eyen greye as glas. ¹³
(Her nose well-shaped, her eyes grey as glass.)

In Shakespeare we have the same thing, though the Lady of the Sonnets has ‘raven black’ eyes. Julia in The Two Gentlemen of Verona who is jealous of Silvia, her rival, sees no reason why the latter should be preferred to her. Her argument is:

Her eyes are gray as glass; and so are mine. ¹⁴

In the Ramayana which is styled Adikavya (First great poem in Samskrit), Sita the heroine is a most charming princess. The poet tells us that her body has the colour of gold and her eyes are dark-blue. Hanuman, Rama’s friend, who is wandering up and down in the Asokavana (A grove of Asoka trees) in search of her, assures himself thus when he finds there a most beautiful lady,

Iyam Kanakavarnangee Ramasya Mahishee priya

(This golden-hued lady is Rama’s beloved queen)

and after observing her for a few minutes exclaims:

Raghavorhati Vaideheem and tam cheyamasitekshana
(Rama richly deserves Vaidehi and there is no doubt that this lady with dark-blue eyes is worthy of him.)

Leaving aside these minor differences, we might say that on the fundamentals of human conduct or the ideals which have swayed men’s minds, there cannot be any essential cleavage between the East and the West. Sometimes ideas are so similar that we marvel at the coincidence. Topee means cap and the expression topee veyuta in Telugu means ‘to cheat’ and we have something corresponding to it in more than one Indian language and, strangely enough, Chaucer in the fourteenth century says that the manciple, who had thirty masters, all lawyers, above him, was so clever that he deceived all of them:

And yet this Manciple sette hir aller cappe. ¹⁵
(And yet this manciple set the caps of them all.)

In a Shakespearian play we have, “No ill luck stirring but what lights on my shoulders; no sighs but of my breathing; no tears but of my shedding.”¹⁶ Milton expresses a similar idea, “Hope never comes that comes to all.” ¹⁷ We have the popular Hindusthani song:

Gar gar me divali mera gar me andhera

(In house after house it is a Festival of Lamps; in mine it is nothing but darkness.)

and still the author might not have read either Shakespeare or Milton. The spirit of sacrifice is exalted in modern times and Carlyle’s words may be cited as an instance:

“Let him make his claim of wages a zero, and he has the world under his feet. For it is only with renunciation that the world can be said to begin,” ¹⁸

an ideal emphasised centuries ago by the author of the Mahabharata:

Nasti vidyasamam chakshurnasti satyatamam tapaha
Nasti ragasamam duhkham nasti tyagasamam sukham. ¹⁹

(There is no eye greater than knowledge, no religion higher than truth, no misery worse than worldly attachment, no happiness superior to sacrifice.)

If Milton says ‘God is light’²⁰ our Indian sages had said long ago, Asavadityo Brahma (This sun is God, the Supreme Creator.) All great men think alike and human life is the same all over. Culture recognises no geographical barriers and, in the words of the distinguished scientist, Dr. Sir C. V. Raman, knowledge is not national, but international.

Coming to India, we note at the outset that Samskritam is our greatest cultural heritage. It is in fact the gift of ancient India to the world. It is a glorious language and we have every reason to be grateful to Providence for having bestowed on us such a treasure. To consider it ‘dead’ and believe that, in this age of science and economics, we can afford to neglect it is as foolish as anything can be. To think that there is any clash of interests between it and our present-day literatures is equally silly. Its phonetic alphabet, the music of the words, the richness of the literature, the ideals which the poets and philosophers have placed before humanity, the aesthetic pleasure one would derive from reading its masterpieces and the general culture, refinement and taste that would follow from a close acquaintance with them are all strong and sufficient inducements for its study and cultivation, irrespective of religion or caste. We may even go to the extent of declaring that an Indian’s cultural equipment will at best be imperfect without an acquaintance, however limited it may be, with this wonderful language. In the opinion of Max Muller, it is only from Sanskrit literature that Europeans, who have been nurtured almost exclusively on the thoughts of the Greeks, Romans and Jews, may draw that ‘corrective’ which is most wanted in order to make their inner life more perfect, and more truly human than it is. ²¹ What a pity that it does not receive, in the land of its birth, the encouragement it deserves! It is not enough if it is tolerated. It must be respected, and not to know Sanskritam is to be cut off from our ancient culture, for it is the key to almost every thing good in the India of the past.

It may be said that ancient culture stands for love of Dharma. In that one phrase are summed up the ideals pursued, the wisdom aimed at and the lessons preached by our ancestors. ‘Follow Dharma’ is the message, which our forbears have left us. It is not possible to find an exact equivalent to that word in English. Dharma stands for law and custom, religion, charity, justice, righteousness, duty, discipline, culture. According to Rabindranath Tagore, “Dharma for man is the best expression of what he is in truth.” Its specific meaning is “that principle which holds us firm together and leads us to our best welfare” and as such Dharma is the nearest synonym in our own language for the word civilization.²² Thus Dharma means the development of the inner spirit, adherence to the eternal verities and disciplining of the body and soul in a way suitable to that end. In this connection one point may have to be noted. There is an impression that our forefathers were all other-worldly, that they neglected the body and treated with contempt earthly happiness. Nothing can be farther from the truth. They believed in Sareeramadyam khalu dharmasadhanam (To possess a healthy and robust body is really the first step in the practice of Dharma). They knew that achievement, intellectual or other, would be impossible otherwise. Their Dharma consisted in being happy and making others happy and that could not be without Marmvikasa (Illumination or widening of the mental horizon). They saw unity in life and felt the presence of the Supreme in every object of the Universe. They recognised no difference between man and man and treated all religions alike. They respected other people’s opinions and faiths and showed “a toleration, which is a rare thing in the history of mankind.”²³ And this attitude was not confined to the knowing few. It was a part of the Indian’s character and was as much in evidence in the villages as in the towns, as the following small incident will prove. A young man had been to his native place in the vacation and on a certain night there was a Moharram procession and the Peerlu (Alams) as they are called in the Telugu country were going around. The young fellow who was in a half sleepy condition was watching them when his mother said, “Baba, will you please stand up? Else, they might misunderstand you. We have to respect their gods as we do ours, you know.” We admit the lady was not ‘educated’ and the Peerlu did not represent gods, but one thing is certain. The tolerance which arises out of ignorance and superstition is much better than the intolerance which is the result of education and rationalism. It was because of these virtues that India was for several centuries the spiritual mother of Asia. It is very unfortunate, it is indeed tragic, that it is all a thing of the past. As Radhakrishnan puts it, “the longest journeys have become surprisingly easy, but mutual understanding terribly hard. As physical distances have diminished, psychological distances have increased.”²⁴ Thus Dharma was the ideal which the sages of ancient India kept in view and it was with its help that they were able to live a lofty and a full life. Correct thinking, breadth of vision, self-control and mental equipoise were the qualities they cultivated. They observed creation in its variety and realised its oneness. They witnessed the passing pageant, noticed the storm and stress and scaled the heights of calmness and serenity. And this is no small matter. In the opinion of our great leader Jawaharlal Nehru, it is our one title to greatness, our one hope:

“We (children of ancient civilisations) have much that gives an equilibrium to the mind and spirit, a calm and unhurried look on life which refuses to get flurried and flustered at changing events. That essentially is the hallmark of ancient culture; it is that, that China has in abundant measure: it is this, I believe, that India also possesses. And because of this, it will be well with India.” ²⁵

An account of our ancient culture would be incomplete without a reference to woman and her place in society. A notion generally persists that in ancient India women were uninteresting domestic drudges and were tyrannised over by the members of the other sex. Here and there we no doubt come across sentences like the following: Streenam na swatantryam arhati, (It is not proper to give liberty to ‘women), Streebuddhihi pralayantakaha (Follow the advice of a woman and you bring about chaos for the world). There were also some who, like the poets and moralists of medieval Europe, considered woman a snare and a Telugu poet said, “it is less dangerous to play with the whiskers of a tiger than be on terms of familiarity with a woman!”²⁶ But this is only one side of the shield and the poets and the wiser sort of men thought otherwise. Below is quoted a verse which represents a different point of view:

Sati pradeepe satyagnau satsu tararaveendushu
Vina me mrugasabakshya tama bhutamidam jagat.²⁷

(I know there is light in the world; I admit there is fire; I grant also there are the sun, the moon and the stars; but without my fawn-eyed one, the world, to me, is dark, utterly dark.)

Romance apart, we must remember that, though women had not then the rights they are agitating for at present, there was not a single religious or social ceremony in which the wife played a less important part than the husband. Her supreme position in the life of the family can be gathered from the fact that at the time of Upanayanam (Thread-Ceremony) when the little Dvija (Twice-born) is initiated into religion and has to go begging from guest to guest–the scholar in those days had to lead a life of simplicity and poverty till his education was complete–the very first person whom he approaches for alms is the mother, not the father. He greets her with Bhavati bhiksham dehi (Mother, give me alms) and she has precedence over others in that she throws the first handful of rice into the bag hanging from the little beggar’s shoulder. In Jayadeva’s Gita Govinda the opening verse is interesting. Krishna and Radha, the romantic lovers, are going one evening to the Jumuna bank and Nanda, Krishna’s father, who is worried about his young son going out at that time of the day, says, “The forest is enveloped in darkness and my little boy is not very brave. Radha, thou must bring him home.” Professor Radhakrishnan puts a most ingenious construction on this simple Sloka. He thinks it only means that woman must enable man to reach his home, to fulfil his destiny in life! In other words, woman leads and man follows. To think that our ancient women lacked initiative, courage and resolution is also an erroneous impression. Let us take the example of Sita, the first great woman to be introduced into Indian poetry. Owing to an unfortunate circumstance, Rama had to go into exile for fourteen years and, coming to take leave of his dear wife, he tried his very best to persuade her to stay behind. She said she must go with him and was not prepared to take a refusal. The difficulties of the journey, the problem of food and the dangers of the Dandaka forest would not deter her. She appealed to him in the name of love and in the name of pativratyam (wifely devotion) and added that she might be useful to him in removing the thorns from the road, if not for anything else. Rama would not yield and having decided once for all on not keeping at home when the husband was going out to face unknown risks, the indignant lady added in a firm, though quiet, tone:

Kim tvamanyata vaidehaha Pita me mithhiladhipaha

Rama Jamataram prapya striyam purusha vigraham

(What will my father, King of Mithila, think of having secured in his son-in-law a woman in the shape of man?)

This rebuke administered to the husband by the heroine of the sacred Ramayana is shocking and Sita is not only the fairest but the chastest and modestest of women that human imagination has ever produced! To be asked to live peacefully at home when the husband is going into the jaws of danger, probably death, in an insult to the marriage tie, to her capacity to endure hardships when necessary, and to the husband’s strength in guarding the wife from robbers or other enemies. If Sita represents modesty and devotion rising to the level of determination when the occasion needs it, Sakuntala is a case of romantic courage and defiance of convention, coming down to modesty and humility characteristic of simple mortals. One might say, with the Chinese, “it is scandalous for a young girl to choose a husband for herself.” But this Sakuntala did and it was a case of “I saw, I loved, I married.” This most fascinating creature, a child of nature, on whom one of the greatest poets of the world, Kalidasa, lavished his imagination, feels too shy to stand side by side with the husband when the latter proposes, after their reconciliation, that they should present themselves before Sage Kasyapa to wish him and the Ashramites farewell. She hesitates because

Jihremyaryaputrenasaha gurusameepam gantum

(I feel too shy to walk arm in arm with the husband before the elders),

and the elderly person was no other than her foster-father who had looked after her with the greatest care and affection in her days of sorrow. In Hindu mythology there are three goddesses, Saraswati, Lakshmi and Parvati. The first is the goddess of learning and the second of wealth and prosperity. The third is the consort of Siva the Destroyer, and is known by several names, some of which are Amba (Universal Mother), Uma (Light), Jagad-dhatri (Preserver of the world), Kali (the Fierce), Sakti (Strength or Energy). These three deities seem to stand for three things, wisdom, happiness and heroism, and those that instituted this worship had probably this advice in mind: “Gather knowledge, lead a happy and prosperous life and die a heroic death.” And dying heroically is not so simple as it looks. It implies noble ambition, hard work, achievement or the struggle for it. An American philosopher once said: “He is not fit to live who is not fit to die, and he is not fit to die who shrinks from the joy of life or from the duty of life.” Living a happy life, discharging life’s duties and passing out bravely when the call comes, is the meaning of the above sentence which is paradoxical at first sight. And the three goddesses whom we have worshipped for centuries represent three aspects of human life, and through this symbol the Indian seers of old convey this message to us: “Be wise; be happy; be strong.”

In conclusion it may be said that the wise men of ancient India respected Dharma, and Dharma was only another name for Satya (Truth) and Ahimsa (Reluctance to inflict pain upon God’s creatures). Love of things both great and small was the essence of their philosophy, so simply and so neatly expressed in:

Slokarthhena pravakshyami Yaduktam granthha Kotibhihi

Paropakaram punyaya papaya parapeedanam

(I shall give in a single line of poetry what has been said in a million books to do a good turn to another is the greatest of virtues, to do Injury the worst of Sins)

It was to preach this gospel that, twenty-five centuries ago, a great prince who could not stand the sight of human, or other, suffering renounced kingdom, wife, child and all worldly pleasures, and, to quote Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, “India’s greatest gift to the world is the sublime message of the Buddha,” We are fortunate in having amidst us today an equally great figure whose life has been a series of experiments with Truth and who has been proclaiming almost every day that “Truth itself is God and Non-violence is just a synonym for Truth.” This is our heritage and it is up to us to be worthy of it.

* A lecture delivered, under the presidency of Dr. Sri C. V. Ramana, to the members of the Osmania University Hostel.
¹ Modern painters
² Punjab Convocation Address (1930)
³ P.240
⁴ The Trial and Death of Socrates (Tr. By F. J. Church), pp 42-43.
⁵ Hsiung: Lady Precious Stream.
⁶ Hazlitt: On the Ignorance of the Learned.
⁷ Preface to Shakespeare.
⁸ Gitanjali 35.
⁹ Teacher
¹⁰ Inauspicious hour.
¹¹ The Merchant of Venice, III—v.
¹² S. Gurunath Rao: Geyaguchchamu.
¹³ The Prolouge to the Canterbury Tales L. 152.
¹⁴ IV-iv L. 197
¹⁵ The prolouge (Ed. By Liddell) L. 568
¹⁶ The Merchant of Venice, III–i.
¹⁷ Paradise Lost, I 66-67.
¹⁸ Sartor Resartus.
¹⁹ Santi parva.
²⁰ Paradise Lost, III–3.
²¹ India: What Can It Teach Us?
²² Civilization and Progress.
²³ C. E. M. Joad: The Story of Indian Civilization.
²⁴ India and China, p. 30.
²⁵ Krishna Hutheesing: With no Regrets, p. 6.
²⁶ Pulula meesamulanuyyalaluganagani varijakshulachenta jeranagune?
²⁷ Bhartruhari: Srungarasataka.