“वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम्” – किमेतत् छलं वा?

गतमासे “वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम्” इति विषयमधिकृत्य लेखनमेकं अतीव चिन्तोद्दीपकं एकस्मिन् जालपुटे दृष्टवान् । लेखकस्य नाम भरतेन्दुः । लेखनस्यास्य संकेतः एषः अस्ति – http://bharatendu.com/2008/08/30/the-hoax-called-vasudhaiva-kutumbakam-1/

लेखकः वदति यत् “वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम्” इत्येतद् न कस्मिन्नपि वेदे, उपनिषदि, पुराणे, स्मृतिग्रन्थे उपलभ्यते। वचनमेतत् पंचतन्त्रे, हितोपदेशे चैव दृश्यते – तदपि न कोऽपि महात्मनः उपदेशः, किंतु कश्चित् दुष्टः शृगालः एकं हरिणं वञ्चयित्वा तं निहत्य खादितुं एतद् वाक्यं वदति.

अतः “वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम्” इत्येतद् न महद्वाक्यं परन्तु कस्यचन नीचस्य वाक्यम्। एतत्सत्यं अजानन् प्रणब् मुखर्जी वर्यः वदति “भारतस्य वैदेशिका नीतिः “वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम्” इति – कियत् मूर्खत्वमेतत्।

भरतेन्दु वर्यस्य एतत् लेखनं भागत्रयात्मकम् अस्ति। भवते लेखनमेतत् कौतुकवत् भवेत् इति मन्ये।

4 thoughts on ““वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम्” – किमेतत् छलं वा?

  1. by the way, the mahopaniShad chapter 6, shloka 71 has the original shloka –
    ayam bandhur_ayam neti gaNanA laghu-chetasAm |
    udAra-charitAnAm tu vasudhaiva kuTumbakam ||

    that hitopadesh takes shlokas from other sources is well known and is said upfront in the preface of the book. whenever it takes a shloka from another source, it modifies it by a word or so, to denote that it is a lift. credit to their honesty!

    many other shlokas, here are a few examples –
    1. ‘anabhyAse viSham vidyA…’ – is from chANakya ‘durAdhIte viSham vidyA…’
    2. dAtavyam iti yaddAnam … taddAnam sAtvikam viduH’ is from gItA ‘… taddAnam sAtvikka smaH’
    etc.

    • Shashi,

      Thank you for pointing out this mantra from Mahopanishad. Do you know whether Mahopanishad predates Hitopadesha? It is believed that many Upanishads (except those that are part of Vedas) were composed within last 1500 yrs.

      regards

      Bharateeya

  2. hitopadesh is dated to about 1100AD and panchatantra to about 300AD.
    the reason why i am sure the upaniShad is earlier is that no spiritual
    text borrows from a neeti text 🙂

    what is being done in panchatantra and hitopadesh by way of picking on
    this line is to point out that in reality, in realm of polity and
    empire building, such sweet talks are dangerous. remember the audience
    of these books are future rulers, the princes.

    this should in no way be taken as a soft spot for india. in spiritual
    realm it is a great thought that the world is connected. it is
    visually clear in the movie avatar how an ecosystem can be connected.

    but the real world of kings and kingdoms is different, and real
    streets have deceitful people as well. being spiritual doesn’t mean
    being worldly stupid. 🙂

    in modern india, the spiritual and religious emphasis is ridiculous to
    a point of being impractical. but that is another story!

    — shashi joshi
    no substitute for hard work –
    http://practicalsanskrit.blogspot.com/2010/02/no-substitute-for-hard-work.html

  3. Shashi,

    I agree with your views. It is evident that Indian kings and leaders misapplied lofty principles from spiritual realm in the realm of polity, and our mother land had to remain in slavery and misery for thousands of years.

    Thank you for sharing your views with me. I had visited your blog earlier. I highly appreciate your efforts to spread Sanskrit!

    regards

    Bharateeya

एक उत्तर दें

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / बदले )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / बदले )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / बदले )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / बदले )

Connecting to %s