Gurudev PDF

Shri Gurudev R. D. Ranade's Literary Treasure A Rare Collection lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm - EH$ Xþ{‘©i g§J«h  Compilation  Deepak V. Apte I Rajendra Chauhan



Shri Gurudev R. D. Ranade's Literary Treasure A Rare Collection lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm - EH$ Xþ{‘©i g§J«h  Compilation  Deepak V. Apte I Rajendra Chauhan

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Shri Gurudev R. D. Ranade's Literary Treasure - A Rare Collection Publisher: Shri Deepak V.Apte Dr. Rajendra Chauhan ‘Ramdhun’, 65/1 Erandavana, Prabhat Road, Lane No. 15, Pune 411004 Cell- 7709586963 Copyright:All Rights Reserved © Shri Deepak V.Apte © Dr. Rajendra Chauhan First Edition: 10 June 2022 Shri Gurudev Ranade's Punnyatithi Cover Photo: This photo of Gurudev Ranade was taken on 15th February 1956 at Nimbal R S (Karnataka). ISBN Compilation: Deepak V.Apte Rajendra Chauhan Type-setting and Printed by: Pratima Offset B-1, Devgiri Industrial Estate Kothrud, Pune 411038 Price: MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Dedicated To My Spiritual Teacher

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M MlrJMwéXMod Mam.MX.MamMZSM>o ¶Mm§MrMdMmL²>‘M¶MrZ Mg§nMXmMMIMV MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM CONTENTS Preface A Articles written by Gurudev R. D. Ranade 1 Shivaji and the Maratha Poets 2 àmÀ¶{dÚmg§emoYZ‘§{Xa 3 Pre-Socratics 4 God-Love B lrJwéXodm§Zr BVa J§«Wm§Zm / nwñVH$m§Zm {b{hboë¶m àñVmdZm 1 Zr{Vemó {dMma - bo.am.am. {dZm¶H$ gXm{ed JmoJQ>o, E‘².E. (1924) 2 àdmg¶mÌm dU©Z- bo.Vr.J§. ¶‘wZm~mB© JmoIbo (1926) 3 Introduction to Indian Philosophy- Dr. Jwala Prasad 4 Ellora - A Handbook of Verul (Ellora Caves) - Shrimant Balasaheb 5 A^§J‘mbm- bo. lr‘§V amO‘mVm nwVimamOogmho~ S>’$io, g§ñWmZ OV, (1935) 6 fð> A^§J‘mbm- bo. lr‘§V amO‘mVm nwVimamOogmho~ S>’$io, g§ñWmZ OV, (1935) 7 g‘m{YeVH$- bo. amdOr Zo‘M§X ehm, gmobmnya (1940) 8 I - Cn{ZfX² Xe©Z (H$Þ‹S>)- {XdmH$a, ~|Ðo d Omoer, II - Cn{ZfX² Xe©Z (Second Edition) 9 à^w{dZ à^o (H$Þ‹S>) 10 ¶moJ{gÕr Am{U gmjmËH$ma - bo.S>m°.{d.‘. ^Q> (1955) 11 EH$mXe A^§J‘mbm - bo. lr‘§V nwVimamOo S>m°doOa amUrgmho~, OV (1955) 12 Verul- Krishanaji Vinayak Vajhe MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M MlMrJwéMXodMaMm. XM. MamZMS>o M¶m§MMr MdmLM²>‘¶MrZMgM§nXMm M MV MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM C Reviews written by Gurudev R. D. Ranade 1 The Education of Karl Witte 2 Ancient Greece 3 An Introduction to Ethics 4 A Practical Course in Secondary English 5 India and the Western World 6 Sri Krishna Bhakti in Sanskrit 7 Sasvata Kosa 8 Rahasya-Nirikshana 9 Works of Sri Sankaracharya (In the original Sanskrit) Vol. I-III 10 History of The Maratha People 11 Tales of the Saints of Pandharpur 12 The Making of Marathi 13 The Yoga-Vasistha. Vol. I and II (Marathi Translation) 14 The Second General Report of the Ramakrishna Mission (1913-1916) D Reviews of Gurudev R. D. Ranade's Writings Review of 'Carlyle's Essays on Signs of the Times and Characteristics' 1 Prof. Alban G. Widgery Review of \"Psychology in the Upanishads' 2 Paul Masson-Oursel 3 E. Washburn Hopkins 4 J. N. Farquhar 5 Otto Strauss 6 Prof. Y. P. Mei 7 Prof. P. S. Sastri 8 W. G. Rafee 9 Arthur Osborne 10 Walter Ruben 11 Jarl Charpentier 12 Prof. George S. Brett 13 F. Otto Schrader MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M MlrJMwéXMod Mam.MX.MamMZSM>o ¶Mm§MrMdMmL²>‘M¶MrZ Mg§nMXmMMVMI MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 14 Prof. James B. Pratt 15 Prof. Alban G. Widgery 16 Dr. Nicol Macnicol Reviews of 'The Evolution of My Own Thought' 17 Prof. T. G. 18 Edward J. Thomas 19 F. Otto Schrader 20 Prof. James B. Pratt 21 Prof. George B. Burch Review of 'Pre-Socratics' 22 George P. Conger E An extensive series of Lectures from Gurudev Prof. R. D. Ranade: F Articles on Gurudev R. D. Ranade 1 'R. D. Ranade'- Prof. George B. Burch 2 \"My Rebirth'- Prof. B. B. Lal 3 \"na‘mW©Mo nm{UZr: àmo. Ama. S>r. amZS>o'- ݶm¶‘y{V© am‘Ho$ed amZS>o 4 \"JwéXod am‘^mD$ amZS>o ñ‘¥{V-nwînm§O{b'- lr ¶. {d. {b‘¶o 5 'A great Indian Thinker: Prof. R. D. Ranade'- Prof. V. H. Date 6 'R. D. Ranade's Philosophy of God-Realisation' - Dr. Matthew Lederle S.J. 7 'An Excursion on the Out-skirt of the Philosophy of Professor R. D. Ranade'- Prof. V. H. Date 8 'Gurudev R. D. Ranade'- Prof. P. Nagaraja Rao 9 'Prof. Ranade's Contribution to Mysticism'- Prof. B. R. Modak 10 \"JwéXod amZS>o H$s ahñ¶ Ñ{ï>'- S>m°. {Ì^wdZ am¶ 11 'Ranade and the Bhagvadgita: -n examination of his theory of Beatificsm' - Dr. Aditya K. Gupta 12 àmo’o$ga am‘M§Ð XÎmm̶ amZS>o- EH$ ‘hmZ² ^maVr¶ qMVH$ (qhXr AZwdmX) MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M MlMrJwéMXodMaMm. MX. MamZMS>o M¶m§MMr MdmLM²>‘M¶rZMgM§nXMm M MVIMI MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMAppendix 1 \"‘hm¶wÕmMm g§{já B{Vhmg'- àñVmdZm 2 Sir Sayajirao Gaekwad- Inaugural Address 3 The Annual Address to the Nagpur Philosophical Society 4 \"lr AmZ§XM[aVm‘¥V'- A{^Z§XZ 5 lrna‘h§g n[ad«mOH$mMm¶© ¶{V Zmam¶UmZ§XgañdVrH¥$V lrJwéXodmï>H§$ ñVmo̧ 6 VéU ^maV- \"^mfmdma àm§VaMZog§~§Yr VÎmdk S>m°. amZS>o ¶m§Mo {dMma' 7 Indian Philosophy in English 8 amOñWmZ n{ÌH$m- Xe©Zemór am‘M§Ð amZS>o 9 Devotional Padas by Shri Gurudev R. D. Ranade 10 Gurudev's Rare Handwritten Note about a Dream  M7 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M MlrMJwéMXodMamM. XM. aMmZSM>o ¶Mm§MMr dMmLM²>‘¶MrZMg§nMXmMMVMIIMI MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM PREFACE This book is a collection of some rare literary treasures of Shri Gurudev Prof. R. D. Ranade. This work may be considered as an extension of our previous publication \"Smruti-Sangam\" which was result of ongoing research and as such, was and will always remain open to new findings about Gurudev Ranade. As mentioned in previous edition, the primary purpose is to apprise the world about greatness of Gurudev Ranade and views of noted scholars of the world about his philosophy. As this book was going to press, new articles and additional details about reviews on Shri Gurudev's writings came to light which have also been included. The second section of this book is outcome of extensive and dedicated research by Dr. Vivek Haldavnekar, Shri Ashok Rabade, Dr. Kiran Dabade, Shri Deepak Apte and Dr.AshwiniA. Jog. These rare “Forewords” were written by Gurudev Ranade and we remain indebted to them for allowing us to include these gems here. It is pertinent to highlight that a rare collection of such “Forewords” was done in the book \"\"h| àMrVrM| ~mobU|'' by Professor B. R. Kulkarni. Many such “Forewords” came to light after publication of above-mentioned book which have been compiled and included in this book. We acknowledge with thanks the permission from Padma Vibhushan Dr. B. B. Lal and his son Retd. Air Vice Marshal Rajesh Lal, to reproduce his article \"My Rebirth\" in this book. We are eternally grateful to Dr. Aditya K. Gupta, Asst. Professor, University of Delhi and Dr. Tribhuvan Rai, Retd. Vice-Principal and Head of Department of Hindi, Khalsa College. Mumbai, for their articles for this book. We express our gratitude to Dr. Shankar Lal Suthar, Dr. Shaila M. Patil, Mrs. Jyoti Chitale, and Shri Alok Bansal for extending their helping hand in completion of this work. We are also thankful to various journals, newspapers and publications from which these materials were reproduced here. We are thankful to Shri Ajit Thombre and his team of Pratima Offset, Pune for neat and beautiful printing of this book. These materials related to Gurudev Ranade are invaluable. With our persistent endeavours, we hope that future research will reveal even more details MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M MlrJMwéXMod Mam.MX.MamMZSM>o ¶Mm§MrMdMmL²>‘M¶MrZ Mg§nMXmMMIMX enlightening us of greatness of Gurudev Ranade and spread of his philosophy across globe. Lastly, we express our profound gratefulness to Shri Gurudev, whose hidden hand directed us.All glory to His unbounded grace! MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMJanuary 9, 2022Deepak V.Apte ShriAmburao Maharaj's Punyatithi Rajendra Chauhan MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  1 A - Articles written by Gurudev R. D. Ranade 1. Shivaji and the Maratha Poets H. G. Rawlinson The great national revival under Shivaji brought with it, as such revivals often do, an outburst of poetic writing. The great Maratha poets who are associated in popular tradition with the name of Shivaji, are Tukaram and Ramdas. Of each of these I here give a brief sketch, with a translation of some of the poems bearing more directly on Shivaji. They may be of interest to the reader, as Marathi poetry is almost unknown to the outside world, and Ramdas, at least, has never before been translated. Marathi poetry has few of the distinctively 'lyric graces' of western verse. It is partly 'gnomic' and sententious, partly devotional. In the latter respect it resembles curiously the poetry of the so-called 'mataphysical' school of English poets,- Crashaw, Vaughan, Herbert,- especially in its quaint conceits and its genuinely mystic note. Tukaram, especially, rises to extraordinary heights in the latter respect. I have had to translate somewhat freely in order to meet English readers, as Marathi poetry, in an English dress, often appears inconsequent and elliptical if literally rendered. In these translations I am greatly indebted to Mr. R. D. Ranade. M.A., a profound Marathi scholar with a unique knowledge of the poetry of the nation. Tukaram's stansas are quoted from the Nirnayasagar edition (1912); those of Ramdas from Gondhakekar's collected edition of the Works (Dhulia, 1906). I. TUKARAM Tukaram was born in 1608 at Dehu, near Poona, on the banks of the Indrayani. His father kept a littel store. In 1629 one of the terrible periodic famines swept over the Dekhan, and all whom he loved perished in it. He took to the worship of Vithoba, the god of Pandharpur and though after the famine he married again, his devotion for the deity grew daily upon him. He identified Vithoba and Krishna, and his poetry rises to almost lyrical heights in praise of him. He was cruelly persecuted by the Brahmans, but by his patience under torment he won their hearts. Shivaji visited him and tried in vain to get him to come to his court. Tukaram, however, refused, saying that Ramdas was a fitter preceptor for the prince. He, however, addressed Shivaji in a number of stanzas giving him wise advice and blessing his enterprise. In 1649 he

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  2 disappeared. ' I am going to my mother's village,' he said, in a pathetic verse he left behind. The common people said that Vithoba carried him to Heaven in his chariot. Tukaram is the popular poet, par excellence, of the Dekhan. His verses are still chanted by high and low, and form a guide in life to those who, are unacquainted with Sanskrit and cannot read the Sacred Books. He is a true mystic, and his artless verses, always sincere, always filled with a personal perception of the Divine Presence, sometimes rise to wonderful heights of devotion and praise. The following is part of the Epistle which Tukaram sent to Shivaji, when the Council of Eight went to him in a body and implored him to come to the court : (4440) God made the world, and in it He placed all manner of skill : a skilful Prince art thou, wise in heart, devoted to thy Teacher. Siva is thy name, Lord of the Maratha hosts, Lord of the Umbrella, Governor of the world : vows and penance, meditation and yoga, these thou hast practised, therefore thou invitest me to come. Listen to me, O Prince, while I reply; this is my request : Dwellers in the forest are we, we roam homeless, wild and uncouth to behold, unwashed and naked, foodless and living on wild fruits. I am lean and ugly, my hands and feet are far from beautiful : what then is the pleasure of seeing me? Listen to my request, saith Tuka, invite me not to come. (4441) Why come to thy court? Why weary myself with a fruitless pilgrimage? Alms are my support, cast-off rags my raiment, stone my bed, the sky my covering. Why then ask thy help? It is but wasted time. The king is the fountain of honour, but honours give no peace to the Soul: The fortunate are blessed by the king, the rest remain unhappy; looking upon the rich in golden raiment, I feel that I am already dead to the world. Even if thou forsakest me, God forsakes me not : This then is my last message to thee, The Mendicant's life is the best for me. Many honourable men suffer torture, for penance, vows, sacrifices; none of these can rid them of Desire : you are honourable men, saith Tuka, but the devotee is already blessed. (4443) Do now one thing, Grow not weary of well-doing : invite me not, for it will be a sin.

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  3 Bad men, fault-finders, there be in plenty around thee; take no heed of such : find out the rulers, make this thy aim. Do this and my heart finds Peace : I need not visit thee, for life is short. There is one Truth in the world : there is One Soul in all Being. Pin thy faith of This Soul, see thyself mirrored in Ramdas : Do this, O Prince, and Thou and the whole world shalt be blest therein, thy fame will pervade the Universe, saith Tuka. Finding that he could not get Tukaram to come to court, Shivaji went to visit him. The following is the stanza said to have been uttered by the poet on this occasion : (4445) King Shivaji, listen to me; fix thy mind on Ramdas : Ramdas is thy teacher, thy sage, go prostrate before him. An incarnation of Maruti, he hath imparted to thee his secret word (mantram) : the secret word of Rama saves. It relieved the Lord of Uma Himself in his pain. Repeating backwards the Name of Rama, Valmiki found salvation : this also was the secret of Vasistha; resort not, therefore, to any one else. Rama-Panduranga will save thee; think therefore or none but Ramdas. We are indifferent to thee, Lord of the Umbrella (chhatrapati), for we are Lords of Rags (patrapati) : we have the right to alms in all quarters, and yet we often lack bread. God hast bestowed upon us the begging-bowl as His Gift : let us, then, go our ways, for thou also art a devotee of Rama. We are the servants of Vithala, God will not forsake us. Humble yourself before Ramdas; blessings be upon you, saith Tuka, make obeisance to your Teacher. II. RAMDAS Narayan, afterwards called Ram-das (the slave of Rama), was born in A. D. 1608 on the banks of the Godavari. Early in life he pledged himself to a life of celibacy and devotion, and is 1620, when he was about to be married, he ran away from the hall when the ceremony was being conducted, 'as the priests were beginning to chant the Savadhana'. For twenty-four years he was never heard of by his parents. He first went to Takali near Nasik, where he spent twelve years in rigorous penance. After this (like Nanak the Sikh Guru), he wandered all over India, visiting the great shrines. Among the places he is reported to have stayed at, are Benares, Ayodhya and Mathura in the

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  4 north; Jagannath in the east; and Rameshwara and Ceylon in the south. At each he founded a matha, or monastery. Returning home in 1644, after an absence of nearly a quarter of a century, he visited his aged mother, and then settled down in the Krishna district. Wai and Mahulf were his favourite places of residence. Here in 1649 he gave his first audience to Shivaji. He visited the shrine of Pandharpur, but when he gazed on the famous idol of Vithoba, he saw, not Vithoba, but his own deity Rama. 'God is one, though the wise call Him by many names.' Shivaji became more and more devoted to Ramdas, whom he adopted as his spiritual preceptor, about 1650. Ramdas therefore took up his residence at Parali near Satara. In 1655, when Ramdas, according to the practice of the mendicants, came to ask an alms, Shivaji fell at his feet, and made over his empire to him. Ramdas accepted the gift, but returned it to the prince, saying that henceforth he must regard his kingdom as held in trust for God, and himself not a prince but a trustee. In token whereof, Shivaji adopted the 'brown banner' (bhagva jhenda) as his standard in imitation of the brown robe of the mendicant. After the murder ofAfzal Khan in 1659, Shivaji was told by Ramdas that he owed his victory to faith in Bhavani. After this, we do not hear much of Ramdas in connexion with Shivaji. His great work, the Dasabodha, composed about this time, contains much sage advice, but it is philosophical rather than political. It is, however, full of shrewd practical observations on life. In 1680 Shivaji died. Ramdas heard of Sambaji's evil courses, and wrote exhorting him to give up his vicious life and follow the example of his mighty father, but all in vain. In the following year this remarkable man called his disciples around him and told them his time had come. Of the three great Marathi poets of the period, it may be said that Eknath was literary, Tukaram emotional, and Ramdas practical. Ramdas, 'the power behind the throne,' is inseparably bound up, in the minds of the Marathas, with the rise of the national power under Shivaji. The Sat-Karyottejaka Sabha, Dhulia, is now collecting and publishing his works, and they have recently acquired a MS. of the Dasabodha by Kalyan, his favourite disciple, with notes by the Master himself. The Bharata- Itihasa-Samshodhaka-Mandala, Poona, claims to have discovered some original documents and letters, but these are not yet available. None of the works of Ramdas has been hitherto translated into English. I. Shivaji went to visit Ramdas at Mahuli in 1649. Ramdas was at Chaphal, but he sent Shivaji the following epistle :

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  5 (1, 2) Immovable at heart, the protector of many, resolute to lead a holy life, rich and meditative, generous-hearted-who can vie with such an one? (6) Bold and liberal and earnest-minded, alert and brave, you have put all kings to shame, O Prince. (7) The shrines-are desolate : the 'Brahmans' houses are polluted : the earth is quaking : Faith is dead. (8) Gods and Cows, Brahmans and the Faith, these are to be protected : therefore God has raised you up. (10) In all the earth there is not another who can save the Faith : a remnant of the Faith you have saved. (11) Through you religion survives; many look to you, blessed in your fame, world-renowned. (12) The wicked are rooted out; they tremble. Many come to you for shelter, O Shiva, prince of auspicious name. II. Shivaji after meeting Ramdas, wished to renounce the world, and become his disciple. But Ramdas told him that his duty lay with his people, and addressed to him the following 'Ode to Duty' : The Duty of a Prince. (4) A Prince should gauge the capabilities of men : he should employ fit servants, putting aside the unfit. (7) Treachery should be blotted out : seek out Truth where she lies hid. (8) Lucky is he who wins people's hearts : time-servers should be kept at a distance. (11) Luckless is he who grows weary of action : cowardly is he who fails at the supreme moment. (17) Sheep run from a tiger : what do we care for a buffalo, though he be far larger? (18) Kings should fulfil their kingly office : warriors the duties of a soldier : Brahmans should perform their religious functions, each according to his station.

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  6 Duties of a Warrior (2) ... He who is afraid, should shun the soldier's life, and fill his belly by other kinds of work.... (4) A Warrior should die fighting and go to heaven : or striving valiantly, return to reap the meed of Victory... (12) When the Faith is dead, death is better than life; why live when Religion has perished? (13) Gather the Marathas together, make religion live again : our fathers laugh at us from Heaven ! (15) If you are proud of your lineage, march out to the fight : shun it, and bitter will be your repentance. (16) Forgive me, O Prince, but a man of one caste cannot fulfil the duties of another. (17) The enemies of God are as dogs; root them out, Victory lies with the servants of God, doubt it not ... (19) Discrimination, Prudence, Action, these be thy virtues : Rama killed Ravana by the aid of the Lord of Tulaja. (20) Tulaja Bhavani confered her blessing on Rama : to her Ramadas prays. III. The following Ode was addressed by Ramdas to Shivaji after the latter's victory over Afzal Khan. This Ode, recently discovered, is given in the Dhulia Edition of the Dasbodha (Dasaka 18, Samasa 6) : (1) Men deck their bodies, with jewels and fine raiment : but far better is a soul arrayed in Wisdom. (2) A resplendent body, decked with jewels and fine raiment, without the seed of Wisdom at its core, is void of worth... (7) Avoid excess, be sober : a wise man is never obstinate. (8) Obstinacy is the cause of faction : and when two factions arise, one must perish. (9) Tulaja Bhavani protects us : yet we should be prudent in our duty. (10) Aprudent man needs no warning : yet even he must be on the watch. (11) A prince has many folk under him : he should therefore be prudent, for upon him rest the hopes of many.

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  7 (12) The accursed barbarian has waxed mighty : be continually on your guard against him. (13) God does all : wondrous happy is he whom He favours. (14) Justice and Thought : Wisdom in all things : Courage at the crisis and noble deeds : these be the gifts of God. (16) Fame and Glory : unequalled Virtue : these be the gifts of God. (17) Gods and Brahmans : Thought and Deed : the people's love and a charitable heart : these be the gifts of God. (18) Thoughts for this world and the next : Prudence and Tolerance : these be the gifts of God. (19) Thought for the ways of God : Veneration for Brahmans : Protection for the people : these be the gifts of God. (20) Incarnations of God on Earth : Protectors of the Faith : these be the gifts of God. APPENDIX II (21) An eye for Merit : Shrewdness of mind : Love of the Faith : a holy life : these be the gifts of God. (22) The noblest of virtues is Reason : by Reason only we cross safely the sea of life. (Here endeth the sixth Samasa, being the description of the Virtuous Man.)  Courtesy : H. G. Rawlinson - Shivaji the Maratha, His life and Times, Oxford University Press, 1915, pg. 112-122.

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  8 àmÀ¶{dÚmg§emoYZ‘§{Xa boIH$ - àmo. am‘M§Ð XÎmm̶ amZS>o, E‘².E. qhXþñWmZ gaH$mam§Zr 1911 À¶m Owb¡ ‘{hݶmV {g‘ë¶mg àmÀ¶{dÚm{demaXm§Mr EH$ g^m ~mobm{dbr hmoVr. àmMrZ {dÚm§M| nwZé‚mrdZ d CËH$f© H$aʶmH$[aVm H$moUVo Cnm¶ ¶moOmdoV ¶m àíZmMm g^oV D$hmnmoh Pmbm d gaH$mam§H$S>o g^oZo H$mhr gyMZm d {e’$magr Ho$ë¶m. ˶m§n¡H$s H$mhr - CXmhaUmW© nT>rH$, {dÚmì¶mg§Jr emórn§{S>Vm§Zm ‘m{gH$ dm dm{f©H$ nm[aVmo{fHo$ XoUo- VËH$mb A‘bm§V Am{Uë¶m Joë¶m. H$mhtMr dmQ>mKmQ> d A§XmOn{ÌH$mhr hmoD$Z Ðì¶m^mdr ˶m ‘mJo gaʶmV Amë¶m; d H$mhr Ví¶mM Xáat amhÿZ Joë¶m. nwU| ¶oWo H$merH$bH$ζmH$S>rb Z‘wݶmà‘mU| EH$ g§ñH¥$V H$m°boO, {deofV: emórn§{S>Vm§À¶m {ejUmH$[aVm§, H$mT>md| hr EH$ {g‘ë¶mÀ¶m g^oZ| Ho$boë¶m§n¡H$s¨M gyMZm hmoVr. øm g§ñWoH$[aVm§ nwU| ¶oWrb {dlm‘ ~mJoOdiM OmJm ¿¶md¶mMr hmoVr, d S>o¸$Z H$m°boOm§Vrb hñV{b{IV nwñVH$m§Mm g§J«h hr g§ñWoÀ¶m Vmã¶m§V Úmd¶mMo R>ab| hmoV|. g§ñWoMm gd© Mmby IM© qhXþñWmZ gaH$mam§H$Sy>Z {‘imd¶mMm hmoVm, d ˶mMm A§XmO Ho$bm hmoVm. B‘maVrH$[aVm§ dJ¡ao ~w{S>V IM© ~amM ìhmd¶mMm hmoVm. nwT>| bT>mB©‘wi| qhXþñWmZ gaH$mam§Zt XoD§$ Ho$bob| Ðì¶gmhmæ¶ ‘mJ| KoVb| d AWm©V² VoWoM gd© ¶moOZoMr B{Vlr Pmbr. {g‘ë¶mÀ¶m g^oZo {X„rgma»¶m {R>H$mUt EH$ ‘ܶd{V© g§emoYZ g§ñWm H$mT>ʶm~Ôbhr {e’$mag Ho$br hmoVr d {H$˶oH$m§Zt gd© qhXþñWmZm§V Agbr EH$M g§ñWm H$mT>ʶmnojm§ Vgë¶m 3&4 g§ñWm nwU|-‘Ðmg-H$bH$Îmm dJ¡ao {R>H$mUr H$mT>mì¶mV Aer nwadUr gyMZm Ho$br hmoVr. ¶mg§~§Ym§V qhXþñWmZ gaH$mam§Zt Amnb| {ejUmM| YmoaU AmIUmam EH$ R>amd Vm. 21 ‘mho ’o$~«wdmar gZ 1913 amoOr à{gÕ Ho$bm. ˶m§V nwT>rb CX²Jma H$mT>bo AmhoV- \"\"àmÀ¶{dÚm§À¶m Aä¶mgmMr gwYmaUm H$ê$Z dmT> H$aU| ¶m Jmoï>rg qhXþñWmZgaH$ma ’$ma ‘hÎd XoV|. AmOH$mb gd© qhXþñWmZM| Amnë¶m àmMrZ g§ñH¥$VrH$S>o A{YH$m{YH$ bú¶ doYb| OmV Amho Am{U nmümζ g§emoYZnÕVtÀ¶m Ûmam d AmYw{ZH$ à‘o¶m§g AZwgê$Z ˶m g§ñH¥$VrMr {M{H$Ëgm hmoU| Oê$a Amho. à‘wI àmÀ¶{dÚm{demaXm§Mr 1911 À¶m Owb¢V {g‘ë¶mg Or g^m ^a{dbr hmoVr {VZo Hanoi ¶oWrb L'e'cole Francaise D'Extreme Orient À¶m YVuda EH$ ‘ܶd{V© g§emoYZ g§ñWm ñWmnʶmMr {e’$mag Ho$br hmoVr. {dÚ‘mZ {dœ{dÚmb¶m§À¶m Ûmam g§emoYZmM| H$m‘ ¶mo½¶àH$ma| Ho$b| OmB©b qH$dm Zmhr ¶m àýmMr g^|V MMm© Pmbr d ¶m {dœ{dÚmb¶m§Mr h„tMr KQ>Zm bú¶m§V KoVm§ àmÀ¶{dÚm§À¶m Aä¶mgmg bmJUmar AZwHy$b n[apñWVr VoW| CËnÞ H$aU| XþîH$a hmoB©b ømM ‘VmMm àm‘w»¶mZ| nwañH$ma Pmbm, Am{U àmÀ¶{dÚm§VJ©V d nañna g§b¾ {df¶m§À¶m

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  9 {Za{Zamù¶m emIm§V à[al‘ H$aUmè¶m {dÛmZm§Mm EH$mM (Zì¶m) g§ñW|V g‘mdoe H$aU| ¶mo½¶ R>ab|. àW‘ H$mQ>H$garÀ¶m Ñï>rZ| Aer EH$M g§ñWm H$mTy>Z {dnwb gmYZ| d n{hë¶m àVrMm J«§Wg§J«h {VÀ¶m hdmbt H$amdm Ago§ {Z{üV Pmb|. g^oÀ¶m ¶m aMZog qhXþñWmZgaH$ma Amnbr ‘mݶVm Xe©dyZ hr ‘ܶd[V© g§ñWm AbJ Z R>o{dVm§ qhXþñWmZm§Vrb gd© ^mJm§Vrb {dÚm϶mªZm Vr ‘moH$ir amImdr, d àM{bV {dœ{dÚmb¶o d BVa {ejU g§ñWm ¶m§et e³¶ VodT>çm ghH$m[aVoZ| {VZ| Amnbm H$m¶©H«$‘ Am§Imdm, Ag| gwM{dV Amho.'' ¶mM R>amdmV g§emoYZg§ñWoMt Amdí¶H$ gmYZ| åhUOo - \"CÎm‘ J«§Wg§J«h, à¶moJmb¶| d AO~ImZ|, Aä¶mgmg ^anya doi, nyU© ñdmV§Í¶; {dÚm϶mªMr d {ejH$m§Mr nañnam§et ì¶dpñWV ghH$m[aVm; Am{U g§emoYZmÀ¶m {d{dY nU {dbJ emIm§V EH$g‘¶mdÀN>oX|H$ê$Z n[al‘ H$aUmè¶m AZoH$ 춺$s¨À¶m CÚ‘mZ| {Z‘m©U Pmbobr d¡km{ZH$ n[apñWVr', ht hmoV Ag| åhQ>b| Amho; d g§emoYZm{edm¶ ¶m g§ñWoMt Xþgat ܶo¶| åhQ>br åhUOo \"ñdV§Ì emoY H$aʶm§V Va~oO Pmbobo qhXr {dÛmZ² {Z‘m©U H$aU| H$s Á¶m§À¶m hmVyZ BVCÎma ^maVdfm©À¶m B{VhmgmgmR>r AWdm nwamUdñVw g§emoYZmgmR>t ZdrZ ‘mJ© AWdm g§ñWm ñWm{në¶m Omì¶mV; AWdm hñV{b{IVJ«§Wm§À¶m gdmªJewÕ gyMr V¶ma H$aU|, AO~Imݶm§Mr dmT> H$aU| d {Za{Zamù¶m Bbm»¶mVrb {dÚmb¶| Am{U {dœ{dÚmnrR>| ¶m§‘YyZ g§emoYZmMr OmonmgZm H$aU| ¶m§gmaIr H$m‘| Ho$bt OmdtV. Vg|M Xþga| ܶo¶ åhUOo H$mbm§VamZ| {ZîUmV emór n§{S>V d ‘m¡bdr ¶m§g gXa g§ñWoMr Amdí¶H$Vm nQ>dyZ gd© qhXþñWmZ^a Owݶm d Zì¶m àmÀ¶ {dÚm{demaXm§Mm Cƒ{dÚoÀ¶m ~m~VtV {dMma{d{Z‘¶ KS>dyZ AmUU| ho hmo¶.' Ag| gaH$mam§ZtM Z‘yX H$ê$Z R>o{db| Amho. ¶m gd©Wm àe§gZr¶ YmoaUmZwê$n A§‘b~OmdUr hmoU| AWm©V² bT>mB©‘wio Ae³¶ Pmb|. àmÀ¶ {dÚmg§emoYZmMm hm àíZ gaH$mam§Zm Aem àH$ma| Aܶm©daM gmoSy>Z Úmdm bmJbm Var ˶m‘wi| g‘mOm§Vrb {dMmar dJm©V EH$m ZdrZ CUrdoMr Vrd« OmUrd CËnÞ Ho$br. ¶mnydu H$m§ht df} ¶wamonm§V OmD$Z nmümζ g§emoYZnÕVrMm {M{H$ËgH$ arVrZo Aä¶mg H$aʶmH$[aVm§, N>mÌd¥{Îm XoD$Z hmoVH$ê$ {dÚmWu nmR>{dʶmMm gaH$mam§Zt CnH«$‘ gwê$ Ho$bm hmoVm; nU ¶m {dÚm϶mªZm gwÕm ñdXoer naV Amë¶mda {‘imboë¶m kmZmMm ¶mo½¶ Cn¶moJ H$aʶmgmR>t gmYZgm‘wJ«rMm A^md ^mgVM Ago. Voìhm§ Aem àH$maÀ¶m n[apñWVrV ~§Jbmoa ¶oWo \"g§ñH¥$V AH°$S>o‘r' H$mT>ʶmMm g§H$ën H$ê$Z {VÀ¶m ê$naoIoMr MMm© H$aʶmH$[aVm§ Hw$V©H$moQ>rMo n§{S>V qbJoe ‘hm^mJdV B.g.1915À¶m ‘o ‘{hݶm§V nwUo ¶oWo Ambo hmoVo. ˶mdoir ˶m§Mr S>o¸$Z H$m°boOMo S>m°. ~obdbH$a ¶m§À¶mer ‘wbmIV Pmbr. S>m°. ~obdbH$a ¶m§À¶m ‘V| AH°$S>o‘rgmaIr g§ñWm ~§Jbmoa ¶oW| dmQ>ë¶mg H$mT>mdr nU ˶mnojm§ Vr nwʶmgM H$mT>U| OmñV lo¶ñH$a R>ab|, d Ver g§ñWm {ZKmë¶mg {Vbm Jwéd¶© S>m°. ^m§S>maH$am§M| Zmd Úmd| d g§ñWog ñdV:Mm ImgJr J«§Wg§J«h AnU© H$aʶmg S>m°³Q>a gmho~m§g {dZ§{V H$amdr Aem gyMZm ˶m§ZtM Ho$ë¶m. gagmho~m§Mm 78 dm dmT>{Xdg nwT>| 1&2 ‘{hݶm§ZtM ¶oUma Amho Ag| nmhÿZ e³¶ Va ˶m{XderM gXa g§ñWoÀ¶m ¶moOZoMm CnH«$‘ H$amdm Ag| gmh{OH$M R>ab| d àW‘ Amnbm

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  10 J«§Wg§J«h Xoʶmg S>m°. ^m§S>maH$a H$~yb hmoVrb qH$dm H$go h| AmJmD$ {dMmê$Z ¶oʶmÀ¶m H$m‘t n§{S>V ‘hm^mJdVm§Mr ¶moOZm Ho$br. ˶mà‘mU| n§{S>OtZr S>m³Q>agmho~m§M| ‘ZmoJV g‘OmdyZ KoVë¶mda nwZ: ˶mM H$m‘mH$[aVm S>m°. ~obdbH$a d S>m°.gaXogmB© ¶m§Zr n§{S>V ‘hm^mJdVm§gh gagmho~m§Mr nwZ: ‘wbmIV KoVbr d g§ñWoMr ¶moOZm ˶m§Mo H$mZmda KmVbr. ¶moOZog§~§YmZo AWm©V Jwéd¶mªMo AZwHy$b ‘V nS>b|. Vo åhUmbo, \"Aem àH$maMr EH$mXr g§ñWm {Z‘m©U ìhmdr Ag| ‘bm {H$˶oH$ df] dmQ>V hmoV|. nU AmOVmJmB©V Vg| KSy>Z Amb| Zmht. ‘m¶m J«§Wg§JhmMr ‘m¶m ‘mJ| H$er {dëhodmQ> H$amdr hm {dMma AmO ~aoM {Xdg ‘m¶m ‘Zm§V KmoiV hmoVm d eodQ>t \"S>o¸$Z EÁ¶wHo$eZ gmogmBQ>r' gma»¶m EImÚm g§ñWog Vmo An©U H$amdm Ag| ‘r ‘ZmZ| R>a{db| hmoV|. AmVm Vw‘Mr g§ñWm {ZKmbr d {VÀ¶m {MañWm{¶Ëdm~Ôb ‘mPr ImVaO‘m Pmbr Va ‘mPm J§«Wg§J«h ‘r ‘moR>çm AmZ§XmZo g§ñWog An©U H$arZ. g§ñWog ‘mP| Zm§d XoD$Z ‘mPm Vwåhr Jm¡ad H$ê§$ BpÀN>Vm§ ¶m~Ôb ‘r Vw‘Mm Am^mar Amh|. dmñV{dH$ Aem àH$mao H$m§ht ‘m¶mg§~§YmZ| Ho$b| OmB©b Aer ‘mPr Ho$ìhm§{h H$ënZm AWdm Anojm ZìhVr.' g§ñWoÀ¶m ¶moOZog Aem AH$pënV arVrZ| àmoËgmhZ {‘imë¶mZo Vm.6 Owb¡ 1915 amoOt EH$ àmñVm{dH$ g^m ~mob{dʶmMm ~oV ’$½¶w©gZ H$m°bOoMo S>m°. JwUo ¶m§À¶mer MMm© H$ê$Z {Z{üV Ho$bm. g§ñWog BVa gmhmæ¶ H$em àH$ma| {‘idmd| ¶mMm {dMma H$[aVm§ gmh{OH$M ¶oWo hmoD§$ KmVboë¶m g§ñH¥$V H$m°boOmg gamH$mamZ| XoD§$ Ho$boë¶m hñV{b{IV J«§Wg§J«hmH$S>o bú¶ Job|. gXahþ J«§W-g§J«h Joë¶m 50&60 dfmªÀ¶m Alm§V n[al‘mM| d {dnwb Ðì¶ì¶¶mM| ’$b hmo¶ d AmO {‘Vrg Owݶm àmÀ¶J«§Wm§Mm EdT>m ‘moR>m g§J«h OJm§V Xþgam H$moR>ohr Zmht. S>o¸$Z H$m°boOm§Vrb OmJm øm J«§Wg§J«hmg Anwar d J¡agmoB©Mr Amho d ˶m‘wi| H$m°boOMrhr OmJog§~§YmZo AS>MU hmoV|. hr Jmoï> ZOaog Amë¶mdê$Z gXa J«§Wg§J«hmH$[aVm§ EH$ ZdrZ hm°b 12&15 hOma én¶o IM© H$ê$Z ~m§Yʶmg gaH$maMr ‘§Owar {‘imbobr hmoVr. nU nwT>| g§ñH¥$V H$m°bOoMm dJ¡ao àíZ {ZKmë¶mZ| Vr Jmoï> VodT>çmdaM am{hbr hmoVr. AWm©V² bmoH$m§H$Sy>Z dJ©Ur Jmoim H$ê$Z EH$ ‘moR>m A¾rMo ^¶ Zgbobm hm°b ~m§YyZ g§J«hmÀ¶m gwa{jVVo~Ôb ¶mo½¶ h‘r {Xë¶mg hm J«§Wg§J«hhr g§ñWoÀ¶m Vmã¶m§V ¶oB©b Aer Amem CX²^dbr d J«§Wg§J«hM g§ñWoH$S>o {Xë¶mg ˶màr˶W© Xadfu gaH$mam§VyZ IM© Ho$bo OmUmao 3000 én¶ohr g§ñWog {‘imdoV Aer ‘mJUr H$aU| AmoKmZ|M àmá Pmb|. gaH$mam§VyZ Xadfu gw‘mao 15000 hOma én¶o J«§WàH$meZmH$S>o IM© Ho$bo OmVmV. ˶m§Vrb H$m§hr ^mJhr g§ñWoZ| ‘m{JVë¶mg {‘iob Aerhr EH$ Amem dmQ>ë¶mZ| Vm. 5 Owb¡ 1915 amoOt åhUOo àmñVm{dH$ g^m ^a{dʶmÀ¶m AmXbo {Xder S>m°. ~obdbH$a ¶m§Zr nabmoH$dmgr emn©gmho~, ˶mdoiMo {ejUIm˶mMo S>m¶ao³Q>a, ¶m§Mr Jm§R> KoVbr d Anojoà‘mU| H$m§hr AQ>tda g§ñWoM| ‘mJUo§ ‘mݶ H$aʶm~Ôb gaH$mamH$S>o {e’$mag H$aʶmMo ˶m§Zr A{^dMZ {Xb|. g§ñWog hm EH$ Xþgam AH$pënV bm^ Pmbm. AmZ§Xml‘mV ^a{dboë¶m àmñVm{dH$ g^oMr g§nyU© hH$sJV B§J«OtVyZ d ‘amR>tVyZhr à{gÕ PmbobrM Amho. g§ñWoMr H$ënZm gdmªg ng§V nSy>Z Vr A‘bm§V AmUʶmH$[aVm EH$ VmËnwaV|

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  11 H$m¶©H$mar ‘§S>i Zo{‘bo. ‘§S>imMo Cnmܶj ga à^me§H$a nÅ>Ur, S>m°.‘°Z, {àpÝgnmb am°{bÝgZ, àmo.nmR>H$, àmo.amOdmS>o ho AgyZ, I{OZXma am.h[a^mD$ AmnQ>o d S>m°. gaXogmB© d goH«o$Q>ar S>m°. ~obdbH$a d S>m°. JwUo ho Pmbo. n§{S>V ‘hm^mJdV ¶m§Zr {’$a˶m goH«o$Q>arMo H$m‘ nËH$[ab|. ¶m{edm¶ H$m¶©H$mar ‘§S>imH${aVm am. ~. d¡Ú, àmo.KmQ>o, S>m°. bÈz>, àmo. gmR>o, gaXma ‘oh|Xio, am.Ho$iH$a d am. H$mUo dJ¡ao AmR> g^mgX g^|VM Zo{‘bo Jobo d Z§Va 1&2 ‘{hݶm§Zr àmo.eoI, àmo.Y¥d d am. nmܶo ¶m§Mr Zm§d| ‘§S>imZ| Amnë¶m‘ܶo g‘m{dï> H$ê$Z KoVbt. nwT>| 1 ‘{hݶmZ| àmo. H$mog§~r d OmZodmar 1916À¶m gw‘mamg am. CXJrH$a ho H$m¶©H$mar ‘§S>imMo g^mgX Pmbo. g§ñWoÀ¶m ¶moOZog Ama§^tM XmoZ ‘moR>o J«§Wg§J«h bm^ʶmM| AmœmgZ {‘imë¶mZ| H$m¶©H$mar ‘§S>img Or EH$ Amem d hþê$n dmQ>br hmoVr {VOda gmd©O{ZH$ H¥$˶mH$[aVm§ \"{^jm§Xo{h' H$[aV AgVm§ {‘imboë¶m ~è¶mdmB©Q> AZw^dmZ| ~a|M XS>nU ~gU| gmh{OH$M hmoV|. n{hë¶m dfmªV XmamoXma qhSy>Z H$m¶©H$mar ‘§S>img gw‘ma| 10&12 hOma én¶o {‘idVm§ Ambo d ˶m§Mm Cn¶moJ g§ñWoH$[aVm§ EH$ Xhm EH$aMr {dñVrU© d gmoB©Mr OmJm {dH$V Koʶm‘ܶ| Ho$bm. hr OmJm \"gìhªQ>g² Am°’$ B§{S>¶m'À¶m {nN>mS>rg Jm§dmnmgyZ ’$ma bm§~{h Zmht d Odihr Zmht Aer Amho, d g§ñWoMr nwT>o 50&75 dfmªMr gd© JaO ¶m OmJ|V ^mJʶmOmoJr Amho. n{hë¶m dfm©Mr Xþgar ‘hÎdmMr H$m‘{Jar åhUOo Ano{jV ‘XVr~Ôb gaH$mam§H$S>o AO© H$aU| d ˶m g§~§Ym§V Zm‘Xma JìhZ©a bm°S>© {dqb½S>Z ¶m§MoH$S>o EH$ {eï>‘§S>i nmR>{dU| hr hmo¶. ¶m {eï>‘§S>imV lr. ~m~mgmho~ BMbH$a§OrH$a, S>m°.‘°Z, àmo.am°{bÝgZ, am.h[a^mD$ AmnQ>o, am.Zagmon§V Ho$iH$a, gaXma ‘oh|Xio, S>m°. ~obdbH$a, S>m°. JwUo d n§{S>V ‘hm^mJdV ho hmoVo. {eï>‘§S>img JìhZ©a gmho~m§Zt {Xbob| CÎma CËgmhOZH$ d ghmZw^y{VnyU© Ago hmoVo. CÎmamÀ¶m eodQ>r Vo åhUVmV, \"\"qhXþñVmZm§Vrb {ejUmMr àJ{V AmOH$mb Á¶m pñWVrg ¶oD$Z nm|Mbr Amho ˶m pñWVtV ñdV§Ì g§emoYZmÀ¶m gmYZm§Mr dmT> H$aʶmH$[aVm§, ñdXoer {dÚoM| ajU H$aʶmH$[aVm§ d {VM| ZdrZ d A{YH$ àJ{Vna ‘mJm©Zt {Z¶‘Z H$aʶmH$[aVm§ ApñVËdm§V ¶oUmè¶m gd© MidirM| ’$ma ‘hÎd AgyZ ‘bm ˶mMr nyU© OmUrd Amho. AmOH$mb ì¶mdhm[aH$ Cn¶wº$VoMoM EH$ ܶo¶ Ho$di gmYʶmH$S>o {ejU{df¶H$ MiditMm à‘wIV: am|I R>o{dbm OmV Amho h|, ‘bm dmQ>V|, ZmH$~yb H$[aVm§ ¶oUma Zmht. kmZàmárMo kmZ hoM§ ñdV§Ì gmܶ g‘OʶmMr, BÀN>m ÑT> H$aʶmMr d gܶmÀ¶m kmZm§V ZdrZ ^a KmbʶmMr H$m‘{Jar Oa Vwåht ~Om{dbr - Am{U ‘bm Amem Amho H$s¨ Vwåht Vr ~Omdb - Va EH$ ‘hÎdmM| d g§ñ‘aUr¶ H¥$˶ Ho$ë¶mM| Vwåhm§g lo¶ {‘iUma Amho.'' n{hë¶m dfm©À¶m AIoarg ga Zmam¶Uamd M§XmdaH$a ¶m§À¶m AܶjVoImbr EH$ g^m ^adyZ H$m¶©H$mar ‘§S>imZ| Amnë¶m dfm©À¶m H$m‘{JarMm Ahdmb gmXa Ho$bm. g^oZ| nwT>rb dfmªH$[aVm§ ZdrZ H$m¶©H$mar ‘§S>imMr {ZdS>UyH$ Ho$br. ˶m‘ܶ| Joë¶m gmbMo ~hþVoH$ gd© g^mgX AgyZ am.XodXÎm ^m§S>maH$a, am.{X{jV, àmo.ÐdrS>, àmo.nam§Ono d àmo.H$a‘aH$a ¶m§Mr A{YH$ Zm§d| KmVbt Jobr d

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  12 am.CQ>JrH$a ¶m§Zm S>m°. ~obdbH$a d S>m°. JwUo ¶m§À¶m ~amo~aM goH«o$Q>ar Zo{‘b|. Xþgè¶m dfmªÀ¶m àma§^mgM g§ñWog à{gÕ XmZeya Q>mQ>m~§Yy ¶m§OH$Sy>Z 15000 én¶o {‘imbo d ˶m§Mm Cn¶moJ g§emoYZmÀ¶m H$m‘mH$[aVm§ EH$ hm°b ~m§YʶmH$S>o H$aʶmM| R>a{db|. hr XoUJr doioda Ambr ZgVr Va nyd©g§H$ënmà‘mU| S>m°.^m§S>maH$am§À¶m 80ì¶m dmT>{XdgmMo doit g§ñWog ‘yV© ñdê$n XoU| e³¶ Pmb| AgV|M Ago åhUdV Zmhr. B‘maVrÀ¶m H$m‘mg 27 OmZodmar 1917 amoOr àma§^ Pmbm d g‘ma§^mÀ¶m doit (6 Owb¡ 1917) Vr {Zå¶mhÿZ A{YH$ nwar Pmbr hmoVr. ¶m{edm¶ {H$aH$moi dJ©Ê¶m Jmoim H$aʶmM| H$m‘ gwê§$ hmoVoM d V| Ag|M H$m§hr df} gwê$ R>odmd| bmJUma. gaH$mam§et J«§Wg§J«hm~Ôb d BVa Am{W©H$ gmhmæ¶m~Ôb gwê§$ Ho$bobm nÌì¶dhma Mmby§M hmoVm d ˶mMm AIoaMm {ZH$mb AmVm§ bdH$aM bmJob Aer Amem Amho. H$m¶©H$mar ‘§S>imZ| Xþgè¶m dfu Ho$bobr ‘w»¶ H$m‘{Jar åhUOo S>m°. ^m§S>maH$a ¶m§g Aer˶ãXnyVuÀ¶m {Xdet An©U H$aʶmH$[aVm§ V¶ma Ho$bobr g§ñ‘¥{V-boI‘mbm hr hmo¶. gXa boI‘mb|V ¶wamo{n¶Z n§{S>Vm§Mo d qhXr n§{S>Vm§Mo {Za{Zamù¶m {df¶m§da {b{hbobo {dÛÎmmnyU© boI g‘m{dï> Pmb| AmhoV. bT>mB©‘wi| O‘©ZtVyZ boI ‘mJ{dU| Ae³¶ Pmb| hmoVo d A‘o[aH$m d OnmZ ¶m Xoem§VyZ ¶oUmao boI ˶mM H$maUm‘wi| doioda hmVr Ambo ZmhtV. VargwÕm§ {dÛÎmm, {d{dYVm d Anyd©Vm ¶m JwUm§‘wi| hr boI‘mbm àg§Jmg nyU© gmOoer hmoVr Ag| gdmªM| ‘V nS>b| Amho. ¶m gmbm§V KSy>Z Ambobr gdmªV ‘hÎdmMr Jmoï> åhUOo bm°S>© {dqb½S>Z ho H$m¶©H$mar ‘§S>imÀ¶m {dZ§Vrg ‘mZ XoD$Z g§ñWoMo ào{gS>|Q> Pmbo hr hmo¶. ¶m Anyd© gÝ‘mZm‘wi| g§ñWoMm XOm© d H$m¶©j‘Vm ¶m§V Mm§JbrM ^a nS>br Amho. d H$m¶©H$mar ‘§S>imÀ¶m AOm©Mm gaH$mam§VyZ bdH$aM AZwHy$b d H$m¶‘Mm {ZH$mb bmJbm åhUOo g§ñWoMo gmañdV g§emoYZmM| H$m‘ nwT>| Aì¶mhV Mmbʶmg H$moUVr{h ZS> ¶oUma Zmht. nyd©g§H$ënmZwê$n Vm.6 Owb¡ 1917 amoOr Zm‘Xma bm°S>© {dqb½S>Z, ‘w§~B© Bbm»¶mMo bmoH${චJìhZ©a, ¶m§À¶m hñV|, g§ñWoÀ¶m ñdV:À¶m OmJr ¶m H$m‘mH$[aVm§ ‘wÔm‘ C^maboë¶m àojUr¶ ‘§S>nm§V EH$ ‘moR>r g^m hmoD$Z, \"^m§S>maH$a Amo[aE§Q>b [agM© BpÝñQ>Q>çyQ>' ¶m Zm§dmMr g§ñWm ApñVËdm§V Am{Ubr Jobr, d ˶mM doit JìhZ©a gmho~m§À¶m hñV| S>m°. ^m§S>maH$a ¶m§g V¶ma Ho$bobr g§ñ‘¥{VboI‘mbm An©U Ho$br Jobr. S>m°. ^m§S>maH$a ¶m§Zr Amnë¶m nümV² Amnbm J§«Wg§J«h gXa g§ñWog An©U Ho$ë¶mM| ¶mM g^|V Omhra Ho$b|. d EH§$XatV hm Anyd© d {Mag§ñ‘aUr¶ CËgd ‘moR>çm WmQ>mZo d CËgmhmZo nma nS>bm. H$m¶©H$mar ‘§S>imMo {Vga| df© åhUOo g§ñWoM| n{hb| df© ¶o˶m Owb¡V nyU© hmoB©b. ¶m dfm©V g§ñWoÀ¶m B‘maVrÀ¶m ‘Yë¶m hm°bMo H$m‘ nyU© Pmb| Amho d ¶m H$m‘mg \"A§XmOm~mhoa IM© Amë¶mZo Q>mQ>m~§Yy§H$Sy>Z AmUIr 6000 én¶m§Mr XoUJr {‘imbr. VgoM ¶m hm°bbm OmoSy>Z XmoZ bhmZ Imoë¶m, bm¶~«o[a¶AZH$[aVm ~§Jbm d ZmoH$abmoH$m§H$[aVm§ VrZ Kao BV³¶m B‘maVr ~m§Yʶm§V Amë¶m.

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  13 EdT>çmZ| g§ñWoÀ¶m gd© JaOm ^mJVrb Ag| Zmhr, Var VyV© H$m‘MbmD$ ì¶dñWm Pmbobr Amho d Anojoà‘mUo gaH$mam§VyZ ‘XV {‘imë¶mg g§ñWoÀ¶m H$m¶m©g {MañWm{¶ ñdê$nhr {‘iʶmOmoJ| Amho. VWm{n g§ñWoMo CÔoe ‘moR>o AmhoV, {VÀ¶m H$m¶m©Mo§ joÌ dmT>Uma| Amho, d ˶m ‘mZmZ| Ðì¶mMr ‘XV {Vbm Ho$ìhm§{h AnwarM nS>Umar Amho. g§ñWoZ| VyV© hmVt KoVbobt AWdm bdH$aM hmVt KoVbt OmUmat H$m‘| åhUOo (1) AJXr do{XH$ H$mbmnmgyZ Vm| AmOVmJmB©V qhXþñVmZm§V O| O| dmL²>‘¶ {Z‘m©U Pmb|, Oo Oo Y‘©, n§W d AmMma ApñVËdm§V Ambo, VËg§~§Yt AZoH$ ^mf|V {Za{Zamù¶m {dÛmZm§Zt Oo J«§W {b{hbo d emoY bmdbo ˶m§Mr {df¶mda d Zm§ddma O§Ìr V¶ma H$aU|. EH$mÚm {df¶mg§~§Yt {dÛmZm§Zr AmOda O| H$m§ht {b{hb| Amho ˶mMm {dMma Z H$[aVm§ ZdrZ H$m§ht {bhÿ§ nmhU| Ae³¶ Zgbo Var nwîH$i doim§ {Zî’$b d H$mbmMm An춶 H$aUma| R>ê§$ eH$V|. (2) O§Ìrà‘mU| e³¶ Vm| J«§Wm§Mm d boIm§Mm g§J«h H$aU| AWdm g§ñW|V H$m‘ H$aUmè¶m§H$[aVm§ Vo boI dm J«§W Aݶ g§J«hmb¶m§VyZ n¡Xm H$ê$Z XoU|, d Vg|M H$moU˶mhr {Okmgw {dÚm϶m©bm g§ñWoV Jmoim Ho$bobr ‘m{hVr nwadU| d ˶mÀ¶m H$m‘m§V ¶mo½¶ Vmo g„m XoU| d VÁkm§Mr ‘XV {‘i{dUo. Ama§^t Aem ‘XVrÀ¶m A^mdt gd© gmYmaU ‘m{hVr {‘i{dʶm§V H$mbmMm {H$Vr An춶 hmoVmo h| AZw^dmZ| à˶oH$mg H$iUmao Amho. (3) g§ñW§oV AWdm g§ñWo~mhoa H$m‘ H$aUmè¶m {dÚm϶mªH$Sy>Z Pmbobo emoY g§ñWo‘m’©$V {ZKUmè¶m {Z¶V H$m{bH$m§VyZ à{gÕ H$aU|, g§ñWoÀ¶m g^m§VyZ ˶m§Oda MMm© H$a{dU|, d gd© bmoH$m§g ˶m§Mm bm^ ìhmdm ¶m hoVyZ| g§ñWo‘m’©$V (Oê$a Va ‘amR>tVyZ) ì¶m»¶mZ| H$a{dU|. (4) OwZo AàH$m{eV J«§W g§emo{YV H$ê$Z ì¶dpñWV arVrZ| à{gÕ H$aU| d VÁkm§H$Sy>Z ñdV§Ì J«§W {bhdyZ àH$m{eV H$aU|. gaH$mam§VyZ ¶m H$m‘mg ~arM ‘XV {‘iʶmMm g§^d Amho. (5) g§emoYZmMr d {M{H$ËgoMr nmümζ emór¶ nÕV åhUyZ Or H$m§ht EH$ g‘Obr OmVo d Or {eH$ʶmH$[aVm§ AmOH$mb {dÚm϶mªZm N>mÌd¥{Îm XoD$Z ¶wamonm§V nmR>{db| OmV| {VM| kmZ {dÚm϶mªg e³¶ Vmo ¶oW|M H$ê$Z XoU| d ˶m§OH$Sy>Z ¶mo½¶ XoIaoIrImbr g§emoYZmMo H$m‘ H$adyZ KoUo§. (6) ~r.E. Pmboë¶m {dÚm϶mªZm H$m§ht {df¶mnwaVr Var E‘².E. H$[aVm§ ì¶dpñWV {ejU XoʶmMr VaVyX H$aʶmgmR>r EH$ Post-Graduate School H$mT>U|. nwT>| ‘mJ| ¶oW|M. Ph.D. gma»¶m nXì¶m {‘i{dʶmg bmJUmè¶m {ejUmMr gmo¶ H$[aVm§ ¶oU| Ae³¶ Zmht. (7) Owݶm emórn§{S>Vm§Mo kmZ, ˶m§Vrb d¡{eï>ç H$m¶‘ R>oD$Z AmYw{ZH$ n[apñWVrg AZwê$n d H$m¶©j‘ H$aʶmH$[aVm ¶oWrb \"g§ñH¥$V nmR>embm' AWdm \"doXemómoÎmoOH$ g^m' ¶m gma»¶m gÝ‘mݶ g§ñWm§et ghH$m[aVm H$ê$Z EImXr ¶moOZm V¶ma H$aUo d Vr A§‘bmV AmUU|. (8) Am{U EH§$XatV OwݶmZì¶m§Mm ¶mo½¶ àH$ma| {‘bm’$ KS>dyZ AmUyZ d qhXr {dÛmZm§‘ܶo AmË‘{dœmg CËnÞ H$ê$Z {ZXmZ àmÀ¶ {dÚm§À¶m ~m~VtV Var namdb§~ZVm OoU|H$ê$Z Zmhter hmoB©b Ago Cnm¶ hiy§hiy§ nU {Zü¶mZo ¶mo{OV OmU|. g§ñWoM| ܶo¶ H$moU˶m XOm©M| Amho ˶mMr A§YwH$ H$ënZm da {Xboë¶m hH$sJVrdê$Z ¶oUmar Amho. AWm©V ho H$m‘ EH$XmoKm§Mo Zmht, gd© XoemM| Amho. am. ~id§VamdOr {Q>iH$ hr g§ñWm nhmd¶mg

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  14 Ambo hmoVo ˶mdoit ˶m§Zt nwT>rb CX²Jma H$m{T>bo AmhoV:- \"\"nyd}À¶m AV§^}Xr {dÛÎmoet n{ü‘oÀ¶m emór¶ nÕVtMm ¶mo½¶ à‘mUmZ| {‘bm’$ KS>dyZ AmUʶmMr ¶m g§ñWoZo C‘oX Y[abr Amho d Vg| KSy>Z Amë¶mg Vr Jmoï> A˶§V ñn¥hUr¶ hmoB©b Aer ‘mPr ImÌr Amho. H$maU ˶m ¶moJmZ| EH$ Va Amnbm C‚db nyd©H$mb g˶mÀ¶m àIa àH$mem§V ¶WmdñVw d ¶WmH«$‘ nmhÿZ ˶mMr ¶mo½¶ ‘hVr OmUʶmg AmnU {eHy§$ d ¶wamo{n¶Z {dÛÎmoÀ¶m Xmñ¶m§VyZ ñdV:Mr ‘wº$Vm H$aʶmg AmnU g‘W© hmoD$Z H$moU˶mhr {df¶mda ñdV§Ì ‘V ~Z{dʶmMr AmnUm§‘ܶ| nmÌVm ¶oB©b. Á¶m kmZjoÌm‘ܶo g§emoYZ Mmb{dʶmg qhXr bmoH$ gd©Vmonar A{YH$ nmÌ Amho ˶m joÌm§V gwÕm§ qhXr bmoH$m§Zr§ Xþ涑 àVrMr OmJmM nQ>H$dmdr h| Añdm^m{dH$ Amho. gmam§e, Amnë¶m narZ|, hr g§ñWm H$bH$ζmÀ¶m \"~mog [agM© BpÝñQ>Q>çyQ>' BVH$sM Amdí¶H$ d ‘hÎdmMr Amho. dñVwV: ¶m XmoZ g§ñWm EH$‘oH$m§g nyaH$ AemM AmhoV, H$maU emómMr dmL²>‘¶mer Zoh‘t OmoS> Agbr nm{hOo. g§ñWoM| H$m¶© CXmÎm d Xoem{^‘mZmM|hr Amho. g§ñWonwT>| ¶oD$Z nS>bobr H$m‘{Jar Cn¶wº$ AgyZ {VMm ‘mJ© {d{dY d àm¶e: AjwÊU AgmM Amho. hr g§ñWm ¶eñdr hmodmo Aer ‘mPr A§V:H$aUmnmgyZ BÀN>m Amho d {VÀ¶m XÿaJm‘r AmH$m§jm nyU© H$aʶmÀ¶m H$m‘t bmoH$hr gT>i hmVmZo ‘XV H$aʶmg V¶ma hmoVrb Agm ‘mPm {dœmg Amho.'' Á¶m H$m¶m©Mr ‘hVr Zm‘Xma bm°S>© {dqb½S>Z d am. {Q>iH$ ¶m§Zr OdiOdi gma»¶mM eãXm§Zr d{U©br Amho ˶m H$m¶m©g bmoH$m§Mo gmhmæ¶ gܶm§nojm§ OmñV à‘mUmda {‘iʶmMr Anojm H$aUo§ J¡admOdr hmoUma Zmht. Xagmb 10 én¶o XoD$Z g§ñWoMm g^mgX hmoVm ¶oV| d EH$X‘ 100 én¶o {Xë¶mg VhømV g^mgX hmoVm ¶oV|. ¶m{edm¶ dJ©Ur XoʶmM| 250,500, 1000 Ago àH$ma AmhoV. {deof ‘m{hVr goH«o$Q>ar (339 Zmam¶U noR>, nwU|) nÌÛmam AmZ§XmZ| H$i{dVrb. Agmo. àmÀ¶{dÚmg§emoYZ‘§{XamMr H$ënZm H$moRy>Z {ZKmbr d {VMr dmT> H$gH$er Pmbr ¶m~Ôb gmYma ‘m{hVr à{gÕ hmoU| Oê$a Agë¶mZ| Vr ¶oW| g§H${bV H$aʶmMm à¶ËZ Ho$bm Amho. ¶m ‘m{hVtV H$m§ht ݶyZm{YH$ Agë¶mg V| H¥$nm H$ê$Z Amåhm§g H$i{dë¶mg ˶mMm Amåhr AmZ§XmZo ¶mo½¶ Vmo {dMma H$ê§$. ‘hmamï´>m§VM Zìho Va gd© qhXþñWmZm§V Anyd© Agbobr hr g§ñWm CÎmamoÎma bmoH$ml¶mÀ¶m d amOml¶mÀ¶m Omoamda CËH$f© nmdmo d {VÀ¶m MmbH$m§À¶m A§Vüjy§nwT>o {XgUmè¶m H$ënZm bdH$aM ‘yV© ñdê$nm§V AdVamoV EdT>rM ¶m boImM| eodQ>t na‘oœamMr àmW©Zm H$ê$Z hm bm§~bobm boI VyV© ¶oW|M g§n{dU| ~ao.  gm¡Oݶ : \"à^mV', df© Mm¡Wo, A§H$ {Vgam, Owb¡ 1918, n¥. 138-144. (gm{h˶ àgmaH$ ‘§S>ir, ‘w§~B©)

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  15 PRE-SOCRATICS 1. INTRODUCTORY: THE EARLY BEGINNINGS OF GREEK THOUGHT PHILOSOPHY in the West is generally said to begin with the Greeks. The Greeks were pre-eminently fitted, on account of certain national characteristics, to produce an independent and lasting system of philosophy. It was their impartiality, combined with a strong sense of reality, and an equally strong power of abstraction that enabled the Greeks to set up a world of Ideas, built up by the strength of independent human thought, the Logos, which could claim to explain reality in a natural way, in place of the mythological creations of artistic imagination. The Greeks not merely formulated all fundamental questions and problems of philosophy, by themselves no mean achievement, but also answered them with the transparent clearness which is peculiar to the Hellenist mind. They fashioned for philosophic thought the basic ideas in which the whole of later European Philosophy, Science and Theology moved and with which they still work. But the Greek philosophical systems have not merely a secondary and preparatory value. They have a value in themselves, as an achievement in the development of man's intellectual life. The Greeks proclaimed theAutonomy of Reason, and gave it a two-fold application. Wisdom, to the Greeks, is not a mere theoretical explanation of the world but also a definite practical attitude towards life. In this respect Greek thought shows striking similarity with the main trend of Indian philosophical systems. The leading Greek thinkers always \"lived\" as philosophers. That is what Nietzsche called \"the bold openness of a philosophic life\" and what he missed in the lives of modern philosophers. The Greek idea of culture is something more than a \"decoration of life\"-a concealment and disfiguring of it: for all adornment hides what is adorned; it is the idea of culture as a new and finer nature, without distinction of inner and outer, without convention or disguise, as a unity of thought and will, life and appearance. Everything which makes for sincerity and honesty is a further step towards this true culture, however destructive of merely conventional and decorative culture it may seem to be. Then, the absence of religious dogmatism in Greek philosophy produces both an impartial, scientific explanation of the world as well as a morality which is unfettered by authority or revelation. Finally, Greek philosophy like Greek art and poetry grew out of the minds of the people and formed an organic component of Hellenic culture. It has a perfect artistic

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  16 form in presentation and stands before us in eternal, unfading freshness like the poems of Homer or the masterpieces of Periclean art. Homer. -Ionia in Asia Minor, where Homer sang, was the cradle of Greek Philosophy. Homer and Philosophy are the two poles between which the world of Greek thought rotates. Even Homer's language betrays the intellectual structure of the Greek mind. The Greeks regarded what we call \"character\" as knowledge: e.g. a king \"knows\" justice; a woman \"knows\" chastity, and so on. Secondly, there is an element of sadness, pessimism, \"Moira,\" immutable fate, shortness of life, suffering of earthly existence; even the question of origin of evil is raised; but nowhere is there any trace of a systematic working out of these ideas in Homer. Homer thus lays the foundation of later Greek Ethics (cf. Stoic \"Fate\" and Socratic \"Virtue is knowledge.\") In the two centuries that followed Homer, the Greeks extended their territorial possessions to a great extent, and the colonization and emigration brought them into contact with numerous foreign peoples and revealed to them unknown morals and customs. In politics, the power of nobility began to totter and a constitution of an oligarchic or democratic nature was established. In poetry, the lyric was created and the individuality of the poet was emphasized. Individual priests and prophets began to make their appearance and gain influence. Religion entered upon a critical stage. The old cults no longer satisfied the new strong emotions. Orpheus. -The new god, Dionysus, won for himself a place among the native gods. He is the god of creative nature, and was celebrated in nocturnal rites by torchlight on mountain tops with the accompaniment of wild music. This cult was connected with the name of the Thracian bard, Orpheus. The body is not the instrument of the soul, but rather its bonds, its prison, its tomb. The Orphic theology believes in transmigration, the grievous cycle of births. It borders on Pantheism, without, however, taking the final step, the difficulty of the duality of soul and body, god and the world, not being successfully surmounted. Thus the first precursors of Greek Philosophy, whom Aristotle calls \"theologians,\" are revealed to us in a curious twilight of Religion and Philosophy. The second preliminary phase of Greek Philosophy is the proverbial wisdom, which appears in connected form in the maxims and sayings of the seven sages. Plato's list included Thales, Solon, Pittacus, Bias, Cleobulus, Myson, Chilon, the first four being included in every list. The first-named, Thales of Miletos, was assigned a special

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  17 place among his contemporaries and has been now generally accredited by historians as the father of all European philosophy. Greek Philosophy thus begins properly with Pre-Socratic Philosophy (from the beginning of the sixth to the middle of the fifth century BC.). It consists mainly of Cosmology or Philosophy of Nature. Its main interest is in the world that surrounds man, the Cosmos. It came to an end with the scepticism of the Sophists, who turned the attention of Philosophy to man, his mental and moral nature, and to the practical problems of life. Materialism or Hylozoism. -The philosophical tendency, represented by the pre- Socratics, has been sometimes called \"Materialism,\" the exception being \"Anaxagoras.\" But we must remember that the separation of nature and spirit, or matter and mind, was wholly foreign to original, pure Greek thought. The Greek always imagined nature as animate. It would be more correct to speak of Hylozoism. The problem of life and mind does not exist for these thinkers, since everything is living and infused, although in varying degrees, with mind. In Democritus and the Sophists we get the questions of Ethics and social Theory, as well as a Theory of education. It would be more accurate to describe the pre-Socratic Philosophy as Cosmological inquiry or Philosophy of Nature. Instead of remaining satisfied with the crude fashion of explanation by temporal sequence, these earliest philosophers raised the question, What is the permanent element in real existence, and of what are actual things composed? This question, so clearly put, marks the difference, once for all, between Philosophy and Mythology. 2. THALES AND ANAXIMENES Thales. -Miletos was the home of the earliest School of scientific cosmology. There can be no doubt that the founder of the Milesian School, and therefore the first of the cosmologists, was Thales, a contemporary of Solon. The most remarkable thing we know about him is that he foretold the eclipse of the sun which put an end to the war between the Lydians and the Medes (May 28, 585 B.C.). He was forty years old at this time, so his birth is calculated to be 625-624 B.C. He died at 78 in 546 B.C. Thales visited Egypt and is said to have introduced Egyptian Geometry to Greece. His Cosmology. -If Thales ever wrote anything, it was soon lost. All that we know of him is derived mainly from Aristotle. The following statements are attributed to Thales:

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  18 (1) The earth floats on water. (2) Water is the material cause of all things. (3)All things are full of gods. The magnet is alive, for it has the power of moving iron. The first of these statements must be understood in the light of the second, which means that water is the fundamental or primary thing of which all other things are mere transient forms. The greatness of Thales consists in this, that he was the first to ask, not what was the original thing, but what is the primary thing now?; or more simply, \"What is the world made of?\" The answer he gave to this question was: Water. Of all things we know, water seems to take the most various shapes. It is familiar to us in a solid, a liquid, and a vaporous form. The third statement implies that Thales believed in a \"soul of the world\" but this is Aristotle's inference. Burnet does not take such statements of Thales seriously, for according to him, to say that the magnet is alive is to imply that other things are not so. But this duality of matter and spirit had not yet been formulated. Thales had some notion of the efficient cause, however dim it was, and it is unfortunate that the later cosmologists could not \"appreciate the very great step that Thales had taken, and so allowed themselves to rest content with the non-recognition of the efficient cause, until Anaxagoras came on the scene and rediscovered the conception of a psychical and efficient cause for whichAristotle gives him the credit that he fully deserves.\" The Pan-psychism of Thales. -We should go beyond Zeller and characterize Thales' philosophy not only as \"Hylozoism,\" but a \"veritable Pan-Psychism.\" When Thales says, \"All things are full of Gods,\" he is choosing magnet and amber as two examples-as pre-eminent specimens to prove the general contention that all things are full of gods. Burnet's interpretation entirely misrepresents the situation. Anaximenes. -The doctrines of Anaximenes are the development of those of Thales, whereas Anaximander follows a totally different line of speculation. The style of Anaximenes is simple and unpretentious and is distinguished from the poetical prose of Anaximander. The speculations of Anaximander were distinguished for their boldness; those of Anaximenes are more careful and more fruitful in ideas that were destined to hold their ground. Theory of the Primary Substance. -He was the first to proclaim as the ultimate reason of all material transformation a \"true cause,\" a vera causa, and thereon rests his title to immortality. He ascribed the separation of material substances to

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  19 condensation and rarefaction, or differences of proximity and distance in the particles. When most evenly diffused, in its normal state, so to speak, air is invisible; when most finely diffused, it becomes fire and in its progress towards condensation it becomes liquid and finally solid. Thus the underlying substance is one and Infinite, but not Indeterminate (as Anaximander held) but Determinate: it is air. From it all things that are and have been, and shall be, took their rise. \"Just as our soul, being air, holds us together, so do breath and air encompass the whole world.\" It differs in different substances by virtue of its rarefaction and condensation. The importance of this philosophic discovery will be obvious to everyone. It makes the Milesian Cosmology thoroughly consistent for the first time, explaining everything by the transformation of a single substance: thus all differences are regarded as purely quantitative. The unity of the primary substance is saved by saying that all diversities are due to the presence of more or less of it in a given space. The analogy from human breath suggests that the primary substance bears the same relation to the life of the world as to that of man. It is an early instance of the argument from the microcosm to the macrocosm. 3. ANAXIMANDER AND HERAKLEITOS Anaximander. -The second generation of the Milesian School is represented by Anaximander who was born in 610-609 B.C. He is distinguished by certain practical inventions: he was the first cartographer, the first to construct a map. He was the first Greek philosopher to leave his doctrines in a book written in prose. His theory of the Primary Substance. -Anaximander seems to have thought it unnecessary to fix upon water, air, or fire as the original and primary form of body. According to him the material cause and first element of things was the Infinite, a boundless something from which all things arise and to which they all return again. And into that from which things take their rise they pass away once more, \"as is ordained; for they make reparation and satisfaction to one another for their injustice according to their appointed time.\" He was struck by the fact that the world presents us with a series of opposites, of which the most primary are hot and cold, wet and dry. If we look at things from this point of view, it is more natural to speak of the opposites as being \"separated out\" from a mass which is as yet undifferentiated than to make any one of the opposites the primary substance. Thales made the wet too important at the expense of the dry. Anaximander asks, how one of the particular forms could be the Primary Substance? The \"elements\" (if we could use the word by Anachronism) are in opposition one to another-air is cold, water is moist, fire is hot, and therefore if

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  20 one of them were infinite, the rest would have ceased by this time. Thus there must be one eternal, indestructible Substance, a boundless stock from which the waste of existence is made good. If Thales had been right in saying that water is the fundamental reality, it would be inconceivable how anything else could ever have existed. Aristotle regarded it as an anticipation or pre sentiment of his own doctrine of \"indeterminate matter.\" The reason why Anaximander conceives the primary substance as \"boundless\" is that indicated by Aristotle, viz. \"that becoming might not fail.\" His General Outlook. -Anaximander was quite clear that every created thing is doomed to destruction. Primary Matter alone, the source and destination of all life, he regarded as without beginning and without end. This gave him a kind of moral satisfaction. \"Each separate existence he regarded as an iniquity, a usurpation, for which the clashing and mutually exterminating forms of life would suffer atonement and penalty in the ordinance of time.\" The natural order transformed itself in his mind to a comprehensive order of Justice. \"All that hath existence is worthy to decay.\" Nothing seemed to him \"divine\" but Matter, the repository of force, dateless, eternal and un-aging. Everything at the end of long cosmic periods would be brought back to Primary Substance, the unity of the original, Universal Being. Herakleitos (535-475 B.C.). -Herakleitos of Ephesos, son of Blyson, flourished about 504-500 B.C. In boldness, originality and their great logical stature, Herakleitos and Anaximander stand out among the early Greeks as two lonely giants. He was not a disciple of anyone: but he was acquainted both with the Milesian Cosmology and with the poems of Xenophanes. He also knew something of the theories taught by Pythagoras. \"The best in himself he believed that he owed to himself, for of all whose opinions he was acquainted with none had attained true insight.\" He belonged to the ancient royal house of Ephesos, but he renounced his claims to his brother. \"Solitude and the beauty of Nature were his Muses. He was a man of abounding pride and self-confidence and he sat at no master's feet.\" The title of his work is unknown, but it has been divided into three parts by his Stoic commentators: (1) cosmological, (2) political, and (3) theological. His style is proverbially obscure and later got him the title of \"the Dark.\" He wrote in an oracular style and was conscious of doing so. It was the manner of his time, an age of great individualities. They all felt that they are in some measure inspired. \"He felt a contempt for the mass of the people.\" \"His enigmatic philosophy is addressed to the fit and the few, without regard to the multitude, \"baying like curs at a stranger,' or to 'the ass that preferred the bundle of hay to the nugget of gold. His headstrong

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  21 temperament sometimes led him into inconsistencies of statement.\" His Teachings. -He looks down not only on the mass of men but on all previous inquirers into Nature. He believed himself to have attained insight into some truth which had not hitherto been recognized. The truth hitherto ignored is that the many apparently independent and con flicting things we know are really one, and that, on the other hand, this \"one\" is also \"many.\" The \"Strife of Opposites\" is really an \"attunement.\" Wisdom is not a knowledge of many things, but the perception of the underlying unity of the warring opposites. This was the fundamental thought, which must be analysed into its various elements, one by one. The Doctrine of Flux or Becoming. -It is here that we can connect his system with that of Anaximander who had treated the Strife of Opposites as an \"Injustice,\" while to Herakleitos it was the highest Justice. What, then, is the new Primary Substance? Herakleitos wanted something which of its own nature would pass into everything else, and everything else would pass in turn into it. This he found in fire; the quantity of fire in a flame burning steadily appears to remain the same and yet the substance is continually changing. It is always passing away in smoke, and its place is being taken by fresh matter from the fuel that feeds it. This is just what we want. If we regard the world as an \"ever-living\" fire, we can understand how it is always becoming all things, while all things are always returning to it. This brings with it a certain way of looking at the change and movement of the world. Fire burns continuously and without interruption, always consuming fuel and liberating smoke. It follows that the whole of Reality is like an ever-flowing stream, and that nothing is ever at rest for a moment. All things pass and naught abides. \"You cannot step twice into the same stream.\" The Upward and The Downward Path. -He works out the details of the perpetual Flux in terms of \"exchange.\" This seems a good name for what happens when fire gives out smoke and takes in fuel instead. The pure fire is to be found chiefly in the sun. He called change \"the upward and the downward path.\" The details of his Cosmology, if taken literally, as is done by Burnet and Zeller, make a most meaningless puzzle. So it is best to interpret him symbolically, and the clue to it may be found in mystic terminology. Herakleitos has clearly an idea of something more than a physical substance or energy in his concept of the ever-living fire. Fire is to him the physical aspect, as it were, of a great burning, creative, formative and destructive force, the sum of all whose processes are a constant and unceasing change. The idea of the one which is eternally becoming many and the many which is eternally

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  22 becoming one, and of that one therefore not so much as stable substance or essence as active force, a sort of substantial will-to-become, is the foundation of Herakleitos' Philosophy. Nietzsche, the most vivid, concrete and suggestive of modern thinkers, as is Herakleitos among the early Greeks, founded his whole philosophical thought on this conception of existence as a vast will-to-become, and of the world as a play of Force. 4. RELIGIOUS REVIVAL. PYTHAGORAS AND XENOPHANES The Pythagorean School represents a more developed stage in abstract reflection and stands out in the history of Greek thought as constituting an independent source which determined one line of thought in all the later Greek work. We now come to a period of religious revival which had an important influence on philosophy. Orpheus and Pythagoras. -The Orphic communities looked upon revelation as the source of religious authority. Their doctrines had a startling resemblance to the beliefs which were prevalent in India. The main purpose was to purify the believer's soul so as to enable it to escape from the \"wheel of birth\" and it was for the better attainment of this end that the Orphics were organized in communities. This religious revival emphasized the view that philosophy was above all a way of life. The initiated, says Aristotle, were not expected to learn anything, but merely to be affected in a certain way and put into a certain frame of mind. Science too, was a \"purification,\" a means of escape from the \"wheel.\" The wise man became more and more detached from the world. Pythagoras (c. 582-506 B.C.). -Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to recover the earliest forms of Pythagorean speculation. Our authorities are almost all of relatively late date. The School of Pythagoreanism had a continuous though somewhat disturbed existence; it incorporated elements from quite different philosophical views. Broadly speaking, two main points emerge out of the works of the early Pythagoreans: their views on transmigration, and their interest in, and promotion of, mathematical studies. The founder of the School was by universal consent Pythagoras, a native of Samos, an island in Asia Minor. It is no easy task to give an account of Pythagoras that can claim to be regarded as history. Herakleitos writes of him, \"Pythagoras practised enquiry beyond all other men, and made himself a wisdom of his own, which was but a knowledge of many things and an art of mischief.\" Of his teaching we know still less than of his life. Hegel says that he had a remarkable personality and some miraculous powers of healing.

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  23 The Pythagorean Order. -The Order was simply, in its origin, a religious fraternity and not a political league. Nor is there the slightest evidence that the Pythagoreans favoured the aristocratic rather than the democratic party. The main purpose of the order was to secure for its own members a more adequate satisfaction of the religious instinct than that supplied by the State Religion. It was, in fact, an institution for the cultivation of holiness. Pythagoras taught the doctrine of transmigration: it was a development of the primitive belief in the kinship of men and beasts, as all alike children of the Earth. On this was based the system of taboos on certain kinds of food, viz. abstinence from animal flesh such as beef. This was not based on humanitarian grounds, as modern Western vegetarianism is, or on ascetic grounds, as in India, but on taboo. The Pythagoreans ate flesh when they sacrificed it to gods. Pythagoras as a Man of Science. -Aristotle says that he was the first to discuss the subject of goodness, and that he made the mistake of identifying its various forms with numbers. Herakleitos admits that he had pursued scientific investigation farther than other men. What, then, was the connection between his Religion and Science, those two sides of his activity? The answer is in the Orphic system of \"purification\"; the greatest purification of all is disinterested Science, and it is the man who devotes himself to that, the true philosopher who has most effectively released himself from the \"wheel of birth.\" Pythagoras was the first to carry arithmetic beyond the needs of commerce, and made it a study for its own sake. When Aristotle talks of \"those who bring numbers into figures like the triangle and the square,\" he meant the Pythagoreans who knew the use of the triangle, 3, 4, 5, in constructing a right angle. In later writers, it is actually called the \"Pythagorean triangle.\" The traditional Pythagorean proposition that the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides was the real foundation of scientific mathematics. Proportion and Harmony: Music and Medicine. -Pythagoras was the author of a momentous discovery by means of which the numerical ratios which determine the concordant intervals of the musical scale, or the \"harmonic,\" stand in close relation to the \"octave\" in music. In Medicine as in Music, the Pythagoreans held the law of proportion and harmony applicable. They held the body to be strung like an instrument to a certain pitch, hot and cold, wet and dry, taking the place of high and low in music. Health is just being in tune, and disease arises from undue tension or relaxation of the strings. We still speak of \"tonics\" in medicine as well as in music. Health, in fact, was an \"attunement\" depending on a due blend of opposites, and the same account was given of many other things with which the physician is concerned, notably of diet and climate. When we speak of \"temperance\" in eating and drinking,

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  24 bodily temperature and temperament, or of the temperature which distinguishes one climate from another, we are equally on Pythagorean ground (cf. \"Atonic\" Dyspepsia). Numbers. -These discoveries led Pythagoras to say that all things are Numbers. If musical sounds can be reduced to numbers, why should not everything else? The Pythagoreans indulged their fancy in tracing out analogies between things and numbers in endless variety. The Philosophical Importance of Pythagoreanism. -The Pythagoreans applied their principle also to the soul, and thus determined what is spiritual as number. Aristotle finds a further application of the number conception as follows: \"Thought is the One, knowledge or science is the two, for it comes alone out of the One. ... Everything is judged of either by thought, or science, or opinion, or feeling.\" In these ideas, vague as they are, even a modern philosopher like Hegel finds \"some adequacy.\" \"While thought is pure universality, knowledge deals with something 'other'.\" Form and content are thus distinguished. Xenophanes, Transition to the Eleatics. -Pythagoras had identified himself with the religious movement of his time: Xenophanes denied the anthropomorphic gods altogether. He ridiculed Pythagoras and the doctrine of transmigration. His chief importance lies in the fact that he was the author of the quarrel between philosophy and poetry which culminated in Plato's Republic. To attribute to gods \"things which might be considered disreputable among men... stealings and adulteries and deceptions of one another\" is to set a very bad lesson for moral instruction. As a great satirist of his age, as the moral instructor of his nation, as an apostle of shrewd common sense, Xenophanes stands unequalled. He bewails that people do not prize wisdom as much as they prize physical strength. It is strange, he says, that a gymnast or a wrestler should come to be honoured more than even a philosopher. Would a city, he asks, be better governed for having more wrestlers than philosophers? God and the World. -In metaphysics, Aristotle refers to Xenophanes as \"the first partisan of the One,\" and seems to suggest that he was the first of the Eleatics. Plato says in the Sophist: \"The Eleatics... say that all things are many in name, but in nature one; this is their mythus which goes back to Xenophanes and is even older.\" Burnet finds it very unlikely that he settled at Elea and founded a School there. He does not take the remark of Plato seriously. The question of importance, however, for a history of philosophy is not whether he founded a School at Elea, but whether he founded the

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  25 Eleatic doctrine. Xenophanes' way of thought must have led to that of Parmenides'. Xenophanes speaks about his God as \"abiding in the same place and as not moving at all,\" a way of speaking about the Primary Reality which is so characteristic of the whole Eleatic School. Xenophanes said that those who assert that the gods are born are as impious as those who say that they die, for in both cases the assertion amounts to saying that the gods do not exist at all. He believed that there were no gods but God, \"the whole of whom sees, the whole perceives, the whole hears, who without effort sets in motion all things by mind and thought.\" Burnet tries to interpret these verses as satires on the Homeric gods, and not as a cosmological poem. We should give all credit to Xenophanes for stressing the monotheistic aspect of his teaching. There was, indeed, just one step left for Parmenides to traverse, to go over from this complete and philosophical monotheism to his pantheism. 5. THE ELEATICS: PARMENIDES AND ZENO Parmenides. -Parmenides, son of Pyres, was a citizen of Elea. He was born in about 515 B.C. as, according to Plato, he came to Athens in his sixty-fifth year, and conversed with Socrates who was about eighteen or twenty, He founded the Eleatic School. His doctrines are composed in a poem which begins with a chariot ride of the poet to the \"goddess\" who reveals to him the plain truth and the deceptive beliefs of men. The poem accordingly is divided into two parts: (1) The way of Truth, (a) The way of Opinion. The Method of Parmenides. -The great novelty is his method of argument. \"Only that can be which can be thought: for thought exists for the sake of what is.\" Thus, \"Non-Being\" must be entirely rejected, but this is the common presupposition of all the former views. But then we come into direct conflict with the evidence of our senses, which present us with a world of change and decay. So much the worse for the senses, says Parmenides. His thoroughgoing dialectic made progress possible. The Doctrine of Being. -In the light of his great principle (viz. That which cannot be thought cannot exist), Parmenides goes on to consider the consequences of saying that anything is. In the first place, it cannot have come into being. If it had, it must have arisen from nothing or from something. It cannot have arisen from nothing; for there is no nothing. It cannot have arisen from something; for there is nothing else than what is. Nor can anything else besides itself come into being; for there can be no empty space in which it could do so. Is it or is it not? If it is, then it is now, all at once. In this way Parmenides refutes all accounts of the origin of the world. Ex nihilo nihil

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  26 fit. Further, if it is, it simply is, and it cannot be more or less. There is, therefore, as much of it in one place as in another. (That makes rarefaction and condensation impossible.) It is continuous and indivisible; for there is nothing but itself which could prevent its parts being in contact with one another. It is therefore full, a continuous indivisible plenum. (That is, directed against the Pythagorean theory of a discontinuous reality or empty space.) Further, it is immovable. If it moved, it must move into empty space, which does not exist. Also, it is \"finite and spherical,\" according to Burnet. On this point there is an acute difference of opinion between Burnet and Zeller, on the one side, as against Adamson and Gomperz, on the other. We must go into this question deeper, as on this depends the important conclusion, whether Parmenides is the \"father of Idealism,\" or still a materialist like the other early Greek philosophers. Burnet here closely follows Zeller, who identifies the contrast of Being and Non-Being with the difference between the space-filling and the void. \"What is is, therefore a finite, spherical, motionless, continuous plenum, and there is nothing beyond it. The \"matter\" of our physical text-books is just the real of Parmenides.\" Materialism versus Idealism in Parmenides. -All the epithets which Burnet interprets in a materalistic fashion can, however, be interpreted in an idealistic sense, and we may quote the following from Parmenides in support of our interpretation: \"Being is without beginning, and in indestructible. It is universal, existing alone, immovable, and without end. Nor was it, nor will it be, since it now is.... Powerful necessity hobls it in confining bonds... Therefore, Divine Right does not permit Being to have any end. It is lacking in nothing; for, if it lacked anything, it would lack everything\" (his Poem, lines, 59-89). Adamson and Gomperz are also sympathetic to the idealistic interpretation of Parmenides. Adamson understands Parmenides to have at least risen to the conception of the non-corporeal, if not to that of the incorporeal, i.e. mental or psychical. Gomperz interprets Parmenides' philosophy in a Spinozistic sense: \"Was the universal Being of Parmenides merely matter, merely corporeal and extended?... This seems well nigh incredible. The supposition is rather forced on us that for Parmenides, as Spinoza might have said, thought and extension were the two attributes of one substance, and the real was at once the thinking and the extended.... The Material Being of Parmenides was incontestably a Spiritual Being as well. It is universal matter and universal spirit at once.\" This Spinozistic interpretation of Parmenides is not unfair on the whole. Plato and Aristotle on Parmenides. -The testimony of Plato and Aristotle is, however, more valuable than that of others, because they were so much nearer

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  27 Parmenides, and were less likely to misunderstand his doctrines. Aristotle's evidence is all the more important, because he had a naturalistic bias. He gives a fair objective presentation of Parmenides, even though he himself would not subscribe to the unity of thought and being. Plato was, however, in sympathy with the position of Parmenides, even though his own idealism was of a different kind. Plato speaks of Parmenides as a person to be at once reverenced and feared. It follows that he must have taken the trouble to at least understand the man whom he so much reverenced, and therefore his testimony is of real value. He tells us in the Sophist that Parmenides regarded Not-Being as unspeakable, inconceivable, irrational, meaning thereby that in order to exist, anything must be thought, conceived, and reasoned about. Parmenides and Samkarācārya. -Greek thought has many parallels in Ancient Indian thought. Samkara, who represents an ancient tradition of long duration, comes to the very position of Parmenides. His philosophy of the one Absolute Existence which is Being and Thought, sat and cit, at the same time, his recognition of Not-Being (maya) as conceptually antithetical to the idea of Being, and as essentially non-existent, his explanation of the plurality of the world which is only apparent, his distinction of the phenomenal and the noumenal, the vyavaharika and paramarthika (parallel to the Parmenidian distinction of opinion and truth), should enable us to call Šamkara the Indian Parmenides. Finally, there is the very curiously identical way in which both Parmenides and Samkara argue against the Logical Universal. Is the Universal wholly present in the particular, or only partly? If it is wholly present, it is distributed in so many things, and so it is many; if it is partly present in the particulars which are many, it is divisible (cf. Plato: Parmenides, 131A ff. and Samkarācārya, Brahma-sutra-bhäşya, II. 1. 18). The extreme similarity of the arguments can also be used to strengthen Gomper's assertion that \"if an idealistic interpretation of Parmenides be incredible on other grounds, the last traces of hesitation would be removed by the parallelism to Parmenides which we find in the Vedänta-philosophers of India\" (Gomperz: Greek Thinkers, 1, 179). Zeno (b. c. 489 B.C.). -Zeno criticized the prevailing pluralistic systems from the point of view of the absolute monism of Parmenides. By his clever dialectic he sets the whole world of his opponents at naught in order to defend his master's monism. A modern critical philosopher, like Bertrand Russell, after the lapse of more than 2,000 years of advance and criticism, still calls his arguments \"immeasurably subtle and profound.\" Opinions differ as to whether Zeno should be regarded as having a positive object for his philosophy or only a negative one. Gompers thinks that though Zeno started as a believer in the Eleatic doctrine of unity, he ended as a sceptic and as

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  28 a nihilist. Zeller, however, credits him with having a positive end for his negative method of argumentation. He starts by provisionally assuming the truth of an opponent's conclusion and then deducing from it, either an absurd conclusion or two contradictory results: in fact, his method was a reductio ad absurdum of the pluralistic position. His works are mainly written against Empedokles and the Pythagoreans, though by implication he attacks all Pluralists, including Anaxagoras and the Atomists and even the Herakleitean doctrine of incessant motion and change. As the first of the dialecticians or logicians, we may call Zeno the precursor not only the Sophists and Socrates, but of the Platonic Dialectic itself. Arguments against Motion. -Aristotle has summarized for us Zeno's arguments under two heads: (1) Those against Motion, and (2) Those against Multiplicity. It is impossible for a moving body to reach any destination whatsoever. It is impossible for the swift Achilles to overtake a creeping tortoise who is ahead of him. The flying arrow must be regarded as at rest. Regarding these arguments, Aristotle says that one of the most significant fallacies underlying them is the confusion of the infinite and the infinitesimal. \"With infinites in point of quantity, it is not possible for anything to come in contact in a finite time, but it is possible in the case of the infinites reached by division.\" (Aris. Phys., VI. 2, 233). Thus an infinitesimal space could be traversed in a finite time. In the Infinitesimal Calculus, which was later discovered, the position ofAristotle is further clarified.Aristotle did not see that the infinitesimals have to do with the finites no more and no less than the very infinites themselves; the two stand absolutely on a par so far as their relation with the finites is concerned. Arguments against Multiplicity. -These arguments have been preserved for us by Simplicius. Being could not be a plurality, because it would at once be finite and infinite. It is finite because it consists only of as many units as there are: it is infinite because we could always interpose an intermediate unit between any existing pair of units. Again, Being could not have any magnitude, for the same line could be shown to be both infinitely small and infinitely large at the same time, which is absurd. Finally, it is inconceivable how a bushel of corn could make a noise, when each grain and each smallest part of a grain is not perceived to make a noise, even though it must be regarded as making one. Zeno's arguments against motion are based on a defiance of the application of the concepts of the Infinite and the Continuous to time; the arguments against

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  29 multiplicity are based on a like defiance as extended to space. Zeno thus inspired Euclid in regard to the first principles of his science. Zeno's argument of the bushel of corn has an additional interest to the student of Leibniz and modern psychology. It was intended to invalidate the authority of sense- perception: the example of the roaring of the sea, which Leibniz cited, points to the same difficulty. Leibniz solved the difficulty by his theory of \"Petites Perceptions,\" but modern psychology tackles the problem more efficiently in the theory of the subconscious and unconscious mental states and the commingling of subconscious units to form a total state of consciousness. Importance of Zeno. -Zeno's acute insight led him to discover the nature of the Continuous and the nature of the geometrical point. These, among others, are real contributions to the development of science. So far as his doctrine of absolutely motionless being is concerned, Aristotle urged that the whole to Zeno is a mere static reality, a mere \"block universe\" which allows of no motion and no change. Trying to fly to the opposite pole from the eternal flux of Herakleitos, the Eleatics, Parmenides and Zeno, landed on the \"desolate Whole, breezeless and motionless.\" Such a conception of Reality was to Aristotle unimaginable. The mistake of Zeno has been rectified in modern times by Bergson, who takes motion to be a spatio-temporal relation. Motion is neither a purely spatial nor a purely temporal function. It consists of a correlation between places and times: movement is indivisible. If we take the arrow to be motionless in each point of its course, then it cannot move at all. \"To suppose,\" as Bergson says, \"that the moving body is at a point of its course is to cut the course in two by a snip of the scissors at this point, and to substitute two trajectories for the single trajectory which we were first considering.\" (Creative Evolution, pp. 325-28.) 6. EMPEDOKLES AND ANAXAGORAS Empedokles (c. 495-435 B.C.). -The personality and character of Empedokles can be understood as a combination of a passion for scientific enquiry with a none the less passionate striving to raise himself above nature. With him it was not merely a question of knowledge of nature but of mastery of nature. His purpose was to discover what forces govern the natural world and to subject them to the service of his fellow-men. He believed himself to be a higher being, for in the circle of birth, as physician, poet, and leader of the people, he had reached the highest state; \"he wandered like an immortal God among the mortals,\" and be had followers in

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  30 thousands when he passed through a city. His Teaching: Pluralism. -He sides with the Eleatics in his denial of becoming, but assumes the reality of motion. Matter is immutable in its essence, but bodies are in a state of constant change; their constituent elements (the \"four roots\") are combined and separated in different proportions. Hence we must abandon the notion of elementary unity; we must cease deriving air from water, or earth from fire, or water from air, and consider these four elements as equally original. He regards the \"roots\" as eternal, indestructible. This means that Empedokles took the opposites of Anaximander and the Pythagoreans, the hot and the cold, the moist and the dry, and declared that they were \"things,\" each of which was real in the Parmenidean sense. This is the reason why his system is regarded as an attempt to mediate between the monism of Parmenides and the extreme pluralism of Democritus and theAtomists. Strife and Love. -The Eleatic criticism had made it necessary for subsequent thinkers to explain motion. Empedokles starts from the original state of a mixture of \"four roots\": this fact makes change and motion possible. But what combines and separates the mixture? Empedokles postulates the existence of Strife, which separates all the elements in the sphere, and Love which is needed to bring them together again. It is important to notice that strife and love in Empedokles are not incorporeal forces, but corporeal elements like the other four. Love and strife are to the world what blood and air are to the body. A world of perishable things, such as we know, can only exist when both love and strife are in the world. The elements alone are ever-lasting; the particular things we know are unstable compounds, which come into being as the elements \"run through one another'' in one direction or another. They are mortal or perishable, just because they have no \"substance\" of their own. There is no end to their death or destruction. Nothing is imperishable but fire, air, earth and water, along with the two forces of love and strife. The clear duality of the corporeal and the incorporeal comes out only in the philosophy of Anaxagoras for the first time inAncient Greek thought. Anaxagoras (c. 500-428 B.C.). -He was born of rich parents, but he neglected his possessions to follow science. He was the first philosopher to take up his abode at Athens, where he was called by Perikles, whom Nietzsche calls the greatest of all Anaxagoreans, the mightiest and worthiest man of the world; and Plato bears witness that the philosophy of Anaxagoras alone had given that sublime flight to the genius of Perikles. But later, Anaxagoras was persecuted and put on trial for teaching that \"the sun was red-hot stone and the moon earth.\" Like a true Ionian, he wrote in prose, and

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  31 the fragments of his work which remain show that it was written in a \"lofty and agreeable style.\" The Doctrine of \"Seeds.\" -His system, like that of Empedokles, aimed at reconciling the Eleatic doctrine, that primary substance is unchangeable, with the existence of a world which everywhere presents the appearance of coming into being and passing away. The conclusions of Parmenides are frankly accepted and restated. Nothing can be added to all things; for there cannot be more than all, and all is always equal (Fr. 5). Nor can anything pass away. What man commonly calls coming into being and passing away is really mixture and separation. Thus, he postulated a plurality of independent elements which he called \"seeds.\" They were not, however, the four simple \"roots,\" fire, air, earth and water of Empedokles: on the contrary, they were compounds. \"There is a portion of everything in everything\" (Fr. 11). \"How can hair be made of what is not hair, and flesh of what is not flesh?\" (Fr. 10). The smallest portion of bone is still bone-you can never come to a part so small that it does not contain portions of all the opposites. These words directly attack the Empedoklean doctrine of the four simple \"roots.\" Though everything has a portion of everything in it, things appear to be that of which there is most in them (Fr. 12). \"The things in one world are not cut off from one another with a hatchet\" (Fr. 8). Thus the differences which exist in the world as we know it are to be explained by the varying proportions in which the portions are mingled. But, how are we to explain the transition from the state of the world when all things were together to the manifold reality we know? This is the other problem-the source of motion-whichAnaxagoras deals in his second great contribution to Greek thought, viz. his doctrine of Nous. Nous. -Like Empedokles, he was in search of some external cause to produce motion in the mixture. He called it Mind or Nous. On account of this important innovation, he has been credited with the introduction of the psychical or spiritual element into philosophy. But he did not succeed in clearly formulating the concept of an incorporeal force any more than Empedokles. Both Plato and Aristotle expressed great disappointment over the failure of Anaxagoras to use his newly discovered principle for a teleological explanation of nature. \"Nous\" is absolutely simple, as opposed to matter which is completely composite and mixed. Nous is \"mixed with nothing,\" \"exists for itself alone,\" \"the finest and purest of all things\": it possesses complete \"knowledge\" of all things and the greatest strength. Its essential function consists in the separating of the mixed mass. Matter, before Nous has worked upon it, exists as a mass in which nothing is separated from anything else. But the later stages of this process of separation and world creation are all explained by Anaxagoras

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  32 mechanically. He, like Descartes, is a dualist and not a teleological spiritualist like Leibniz. In Indian thought, his views have a parallel in the dualism of purusa and prakyti in Samkhya philosophy. 7. THE SOPHISTS: PROTAGORAS AND DEMOKRITOS The Sophists. -The Eleatics had given a view of reality in flat contradiction to the evidence of the senses. Is the world of science any truer than the world of the senses? How can we say that thought is not as misleading as sense is said to be? Human thinking varies from age to age, people to people and even from city to city. The scientific Schools only agree on one thing, viz. that all other Schools are wrong. Such were the sceptical thoughts of the educated men in the middle of the fifth century B.C. The word \"Sophist\" is apt to be misleading, on account of the modern sense in which it is used. But even in Plato and Aristotle the Sophist is defined as \"a paid huntsman of rich and distinguished young men,\" and \"one who makes money out of apparent wisdom.\" The \"age of the Sophists\" is, above all, an age of reaction against science. Protagoras (c. 500-430 B.C.). -The earliest Sophist was Protagoras of Abdera. Though Plato has given us a caricature of his teaching in the Theaetetus, he confesses that it is a caricature and goes on to give a much more sympathetic account of it. We are made to feel that Socrates had a genuine respect for Protagoras himself. His work, referred to by Plato as \"The Truth,\" is the same as \"The Throwers,\" a metaphor from wrestling, meaning an attack on Sensation as a source of knowledge. His famous doctrine that \"Man is the measure of all things, of things that are that they are, and of things that are not that they are not,\" has been much discussed. Who is the \"man\" who is the measure? Is it the individual man or \"man as such\"? Plato explains it as meaning that \"things are to me as they appear to me and to you as they appear to you.\" Demokritos also follows Plato. But it is not an immoral doctrine. Plato distinctly tells us that though, according to Protagoras, all beliefs are equally true, one belief may nevertheless be better than another. Thus Plato represents Protagoras as a convinced champion of law against all attempts to return to nature for guidance. He was a strong believer in organized society and he held that institutions and conventions were what raised men above brutes. So far from being a revolutionary, he was the champion of traditional morality, not from old-fashioned prejudice, but from a strong belief in the value of social conventions. Burnet rejects the story of his accusation for impiety as being \"highly improbable\" It is true that we do not know

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  33 whether the gods exist or not, but if we cannot attain sure knowledge, we would do well to accept the recognized worship. That is what we should expect the champion of law against nature to say. There is nothing impious in this view. \"The Homo Mensura.\" -Zeller says that Protagoras was not a representative of Individualism in an ethical or political sense. Burnet represents the dictum to mean simply that \"theories that set themselves in opposition to the common sense of mankind may safely be ignored.\" Gomperz gives a \"generic\" interpretation of the word \"man.\" Human nature or Man-as such is the \"measure\" of all things and not the individual man. The dictum, according to him, cannot possess an ethical meaning and cannot be the shibboleth of moral subjectivism. Schiller's Humanistic interpretation of the dictum shows that Protagoras gave a death-blow to the intellectualism and aestheticism which was corrupting Greek thought. This may be called the \"individualistico-collectivistic\" interpretation. According to this view, the \"humanism\" of Protagoras covers both \"man\" and \"humanity.\" Burnet himself does not think it to be \"an immoral doctrine.\" Zeller admits that there is no absolute religion, no absolute morality and no absolute justice, according to Protagoras. He regarded all morals and laws as only relatively valid, that is binding only on the human community which formulates them and only so long as that community holds them to be good. Demokritos (c. 460-370 B.C.). -Demokritos was a universal mind who embraced the whole of the philosophical knowledge of his time. He was the first among the Cosmologists to include the realm of mental life in philosophy, doubtless under the influence of his great countryman, Protagoras. He was convinced, like Parmenides, of the impossibility of an absolute creation or destruction. But he did not wish to deny the manifold of being, the motion, the coming-into-being and the ceasing-to be of composite things. Atomism. -Being and Not-Being, the full and the empty, are declared by Demokritos to be the basic constituents of all things. The full is divided into innumerable particles, which are too small to be perceived. They are separated from one another by the empty, and are themselves indivisible. Hence they are called \"atoms\" or dense bodies, having no empty space in them. The \"atoms\" of Demokritos are real in the Parmenidean sense: they have neither come into being nor can they cease to be; they are completely homogeneous in substance, are distinguished only by their shape and size, and are capable of no qualitative change-but only a change of quantity. All qualities of things rest on the shape, size, position and arrangement of the atoms.

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  34 Nevertheless, there is an essential difference between them, which is recalled in Locke's later distinction between Primary and Secondary qualities. Some qualities (weight, density, hardness), belong to things themselves; others (colour, taste), merely express the way in which the perceiving subject is affected. These atoms, according to Demokritos, thanks to their different size and weight, are from the very beginning in a state of rotary motion. Thus Motion is transferred to the Primary Substance itself and we need not postulate (as in Empedokles and Anaxagoras) an alien force necessary to bring about motion. By this motion, similar atoms are, on the one hand, brought together, and on the other hand, separate and isolated atom- complexes or worlds are formed by the conjunction of atoms of different shapes. The world to which we belong is only one of such infinite worlds. Theory of Knowledge. -As the soul is composed of atoms like everything else, sensation must consist in the impact of atoms from without on the atoms of the soul, the organs of sense being \"passages\" through which these atoms are introduced. The objects of vision are not strictly the things we see, but the \"images\" which bodies are constantly shedding. The image is not, however, an exact likeness of the body from which it comes: it is subject to distortion by the intervention of air. That explains the relativity of all perception by the medium of the senses. \"By the senses we in truth know nothing sure.\" Demokritos, however, does not agree with Protagoras in making all knowledge relative. He distinguishes between \"true-born\" and \"bastard\" knowledge, the former as distinguished from sense-perception is knowledge through the soul. But as he gives a purely mechanical explanation of this also, there is really no absolute separation of sense and thought in his theory of knowledge. Thought consists in a similar impact on the soul-atoms of the outside atoms. Ethics. -Just as thought is superior to sense-perception, so reasonable knowledge of the good is superior to the impulses of the senses; peace of soul, the harmonious tranquillity of the spirit is superior to pleasure and pain. \"The best thing for a man is to pass his life so as to have as much joy and as little trouble as possible.\" But Demokritos interprets happiness quite differently from vulgar hedonism. What we have to strive for is \"well-being\" or \"cheerfulness\"-a state of the soul. Here we can see the germs of an idealistic theory of conduct in a philosopher who had a mechanical and materialistic theory of nature and reality. BIBLIOGRAPHY BAKEWELL: Source-book of Greek Philosophy. BURNET: Early Greek Philosophy.

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  35 FAIRBANKS: The First Philosophers of Greece. GROTE: History of Greece. GOMPERZ: Greek Thinkers, Vol. I ZELLER: Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy. ZELLER: The Pre-Socratic Schools, 2 vols. ADAMSON: Development of Greek Philosophy. BURNET: Thales to Plato. RANADE: Thales. RANADE: Herakleitos. RANADE:Aristotle's Criticism of the Eleatics. RANADE:Aristotle's Critique of Protagoreanism. SHRIAUROBINDO: Herakleitos. HEGEL: History of Philosophy, Vol. I. LEWES: Biographical History of Philosophy. NIETZSCHE: Lectures on Greek Philosophers. BENN: The Greek Philosophers, 2 vols. FERRIER: Lectures on Greek Philosophy, 2 vols. DIELS: Doxographi Graeci. RITTER: Geschichte der Philosophie alter Zeit. Works of Plato andAristotle. (Courtesy: History of Philosophy- Eastern and Western Vol. 2, Edited by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Published by George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1953. Chapter 27, Pg. 26-45)

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  36 GOD-LOVE - Gurudev R. D. Ranade What is the guiding thread through the list of virtues advocated by the saints, which might enable us to determine the nature of the central virtue, as Kant was able to discover his Unity ofApperception through the labyrinth of the Categories? We can easily find an answer to this question if we go to the nine-fold scheme of Bhakti. We are not concerned here so much with the different species of Bhakti as with the nature of Bhakti itself. God-love would then be found to be the central virtue in which are focused all the virtues that have been mentioned in our inventory, and which thus illumines them all. All virtues, to deserve the name, must merely be the expressions, manifestations, or aspects of this central virtue, and all vices only derelictions or aberrations there from. We may say that God-love is so absorbing that it does not suffer any other claimant to the throne; thence arises the necessity of dispassionateness for everything except God. Discrimination and God-love may be related to each other like a lame and a blind man: God-love would not become effective unless it has the direction of Discrimination. How, again, would it be possible for us to love God unless we have controlled all our sense-organs and mind? Hence self-control becomes an essential propaedeutic to God-love. The vision of God is not a matter of child-play; it requires long and patient toil, almost to the point of exhaustion or even disbelief. Let us now take the social virtues. If God is in all men, God-love must manifest itself through sympathy to all human beings. Sympathy thus becomes the source of Dharma. Tulsidas himself has said elsewhere, X¶m Y‘© H$m ‘yb h¡ nmn‘yb A{^‘mZ & Vwbgr X¶m Z N>m§{S>E, O~ bJ nQ> ‘| àmZ &&

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  37 Then, again, sympathy and benevolence are related to each other and the negative and positive poles of the spiritual battery! Where sympathy or compassion would stop with inspiring high ideals in individuals, benevolence would move out and show itself in positive acts of beneficence to humanity. na{hV is just the Tulsidasian spiritual equivalent of the Benthamite utilitarian conception of Benevolence! Coming to the spiritual virtues, the study of philosophy for oneself and for others becomes a cardinal requisite for the determination of the nature of God, and consequently for our attachment to Him. Even if we may not agree with Tulsidas in his doctrine ‘moVo g§V A{YH$ H$[a boIm or that of Valmiki ‘غo$îd{YH$m nyOm we could at least grant that, without rendering the highest reverential service to our Teacher, the double lock of God-love and God-vision would not open out to us. Martineau has spoken of Reverence as the highest in the scheme of ethical virtues; with far greater force is this applicable to the reverence which we bear towards God or our Spiritual Teacher. Meditation on the Name and Qualities of God is related to God-love in terms of reciprocal causation. Unless we have ‘§ÌOmn and JwUJmZ, God-love cannot be created in us and unless the germ of God-love is in us we may not be tempted to and certainly not succeed in carrying on our ‘§ÌOmn and JwUJmZ. Finally, of what value would our God-love to be to us unless it sees in every happening in History and in Nature the beck and call of God, and unless it sees the fruition of the logical law of Sufficient Reason in the mystical realization of a God- centred Optimism- ‘‘ ^amog? (Courtesy: Bhavan's Journal, Vol. 12, No. 22, Page No. 29-30, 1966 )

lrJwéXod am. X. amZS>o ¶m§Mr dmL²>‘¶rZ g§nXm  38 B. lrJwéXodm§Zr BVa J§«Wm§Zm / nwñVH$m§Zm {b{hboë¶m àñVmdZm Zr{Vemó{dMma bo.am.am. {dZm¶H$ gXm{ed JmoJQ>o, E‘².E. (1924) am. X. amZS>o, qZ~mi, E‘².Eg².E‘. aoëdo, Vm. 15/3/1924 ‘mPo {‘Ì d {dÚmWu am. am. {dZm¶H$ gXm{ed JmoJQ>o, E‘².E. ¶m§Zr Amnë¶m \"Zr{Vemó{dMmam'g àñVmdZm {b{hʶmg gm§[JVb|, Vr {b{hʶmg ‘Obm ’$ma AmZ§X hmoV Amho. am.JmoJQ>o ¶m§Zr Zr{VemómMm Aä¶mg ’$½¶w©gZ H$m°boO‘YyZ Ho$bm AgyZ JVdfu E‘².E.À¶m narj|V VÎdkmZ hm {df¶ KoD$Z Vo Mm§Jë¶m arVrZ| CÎmrU© Pmbo AmhoV. {edm¶ AbrH$S>o lr. am. àVmneoR> ¶m§À¶m A§‘iZoa ¶oWrb VÎdkmZg§ñWo‘ܶ| Vo Aä¶mg H$arV AgyZ àW‘ dfm©À¶m Aä¶mgmM| ’$b åhUyZ \"Zr{Vemó{dMma' hm J«§W ˶m§Zt OJmÀ¶m ZOaog Am{Ubm Amho. am.àVmneoR> ¶m§À¶m g§ñWo‘Yrb à˶oH$ {dÚmWu Xa dfm©À¶m AIoarg Aem àH$maMm J«§W {bhrb, Va ˶m§g d g§ñWog C^¶Vm§ghr gmaI|M ^yfU ¶oUma Amho. am. JmoJQ>o ¶m§M| d¶ Aën AgyZ Zr{Vemó ¶m àH$maMm n¸$ J«§W ˶m§Zt {bhmdm h| ˶m§g ’$ma ^yfUmdh Amho. nwñVH$m§Vrb ^mfm ’$maM gai d gw~moY AgyZ öX¶§J‘hr Amho. {dMmamMr {Xem nmümζ d nm¡añ˶ ¶m C^¶ VÎdkmZm§À¶m Aä¶mgmZ| R>a{dbr AgyZ Zr{Vemóm§Vrb ~hþVH$ê$Z à˶oH$ àíZm§Mm ¶m J«§Wm§V {dMma Ho$bm Jobm Amho. bmo. {Q>iH$, àmo.dm‘Z ‘ëhma Omoer, am.H$moëhQ>H$a ¶m§Zt ‘amR>r ^mfo‘ܶ| nmüm˶ VÎdkmZmMm D$hmnmoh {dñV¥V arVrZ| H$ê$Z ‘amR>r ^mfm nmüm˶ VÎdkm§À¶m {dMmam§Mr MMm© H$aʶmg nyU©nU| g‘W© Amho h| {gÕ H$ê$Z {Xb| Amho. am.JmoJQ>o ¶m§Zt ¶mM {dMmagaUrMm Adb§~ H$ê$Z ‘amR>r‘ܶ| AmYw{ZH$ nmüm˶ Zr{Vemó {dMmam§Mr MMm© {deX d gw~moY arVrZ| Ho$br Amho h| ˶m§g ^yfUmdh hmo¶. àW‘ Eo{Vhm{gH$ nÕ{V åhUOo H$m¶, d Zr{VemómMm Eo{Vhm{gH$ arVrZ| Aä¶mg H$amdm h| am. JmoJQ>o ¶m§Zt gm§{JVb| Amho. Z§Va gXg{ÛdoH$~wÕrMr ì¶{VaoH$mÝd¶mË‘H$ MMm© ˶m§Zt Ho$br Amho. Z§Va Zr{VÑï>çm H$moU˶m àH$maÀ¶m dmJUwH$sg à‘mU g‘Omd| d ˶m à‘mUmZwê$n dV©Z R>o{dë¶mg ‘Zwî¶mM| ñdmV§Í¶ J‘mdb| OmB©b qH$dm H$m¶, ¶mMm ˶m§Zt {dMma Ho$bm Amho. Z§Va ‘Zwî¶mZ| gd© Ñï>rZ| Amnbr CÞ{V H$ê$Z KoU| h| loð>, qH$dm jUmojUt Amnë¶m {hVmMm ˶mJ H$aU| h| loð>, ¶m {df¶mMm ˶m§Zr {dMma Ho$bm Amho. ì¶dgm¶mMr {ZdS> H$moU˶m àH$mamZ| H$amdr d H$moUVm ì¶dgm¶ nËH$abm AgVm§ Amnb| A§{V‘ {hV gmYë¶mà‘mU| hmoB©b, ¶mM| {X½Xe©Z H$ê$Z nwT>| g‘Vm åhUOo H$m¶, Am{U emgZ H$aU| h| ¶mo½¶ Amho H$s¨ Zmht, Agë¶mg H$moU˶m ^mdZoZo ào[aV hmoD$Z emgZ H$amd|, ¶mMm, ˶m§Zt D$hmnmoh Ho$bm Amho. eodQ>r Zr{Vemó d VÎdkmZ ¶m§Mm, Zr{V Am{U Y‘© ¶m§Mm, nañnag§~§Y H$gm Amho h| XmIdyZ, d Zr{VemómÀ¶m Aܶ¶ZmM| ܶo¶ \"amOmZ| VÎdkmZr ~Zb| nm{hOo' d \"VÎdkmݶmZ| amÁ¶ {‘i{db| nm{hOo' ¶m ßboQ>moÀ¶m CnXoem§V Agë¶mMo XmIdyZ am. JmoJQ>o ¶m§Zt Amnbm J«§W nyU© Ho$bm Amho. Aem àH$maMm J«§W ‘amR>r dmMH$m§À¶m nwT>| R>o{dë¶m~Ôb VÎdkmZ g§ñW|Vrb ’o$bmo am. JmoJQ>o d VÎdkmZg§ñWoMo à‘wI àVmneoR> ¶m C^¶Vm§Mo{h ‘Z:nyd©H$ Am^ma ‘mZyZ hr N>moQ>rer àñVmdZm nwar H$[aVm|. qZ~mi, E‘².Eg².E‘². aoëdo am. X. amZS>o Vm. 15-3-1924