I don’t understand why this is an either-or choice, shouldn’t mankind develop both materially as well as spiritually as Prof. Nadkarni suggests? Or do we need to subscribe to the divisive theory of modern intellectuals that suggest a purely materialistic development of human society while neglecting the spiritual side?
I am sure there is scope and place for both. Man has a material body which needs food, clothes and shelter as the slogan goes. But man has also a psychological and spiritual side as ancient India recognised and provided for. Besides what exactly is this spiritual side that you feel is a waste of time and effort? To grow in love and unity, to grow in the spirit of peace and harmony and joy, to grow in wisdom and strength is the spiritual task for man. Are these things of no or little value for the poor? Do you mean that only brahmins of ancient India were intellectuals and the poor simply need food, sex and shelter like an animal? By saying this are we not degrading and demeaning the poor by restricting them of any higher spiritual possibility? Would an ideal society be formed by men stuck to their belly living for bread alone? Of course, bread is needed but as Christ beautifully said ‘Man does not live by bread alone.’ Is it not divisive to split society along lines of money, caste, etc. as your anti-Brahmanical statement and the Marxist slogan of haves and have-nots implies? Can’t or shouldn’t man have both, spiritual as well as material wealth? Is it good to give him material food but deprive him of spiritual food as men like professor Nadkarni is doing? Most importantly, is the value of a thought to be judged by the caste of the speaker?
How low and cheap and mean can we get. This is what happens when we deny the intellect its food and focus only on material poverty. And a people who do that are bound to doom after their initial success bubble is over. Just wait and watch how these Marxist ideals will collapse while the spiritual truths of far back ancient India continue to engage the forward-looking minds of both East and West. But as I said, why create a false needless division between the two. Let political thinkers do their bit to provide material food while the spiritual thinkers cater to the spiritual side. Both are needed for man’s complete growth.
Incidentally most of the great spiritual Masters were not Brahmins. They came from all classes and castes. Kabir and Raidas were from the low castes, Swami Vivekanand and Sri Aurobindo are kayastha, the Sikh gurus were kshatriya, to name a few. Poor brahmins were mainly custodians of all kinds of knowledge. It is when India neglected these great teachers of humanity that it lost much of its accumulated knowledge and suffered and now copies the brahmins of the West.
