OSHO : What is the responsibility of love?

OSHO : Sat Chit Anand, Chapter 30

THE MIND CREATES QUESTIONS. They may look very relevant and rational, but they are against experience, against existence. And because the whole world is communicating with each other only through the mind, nobody raises his voice against such questions, that they are basically wrong. For example, this question is fundamentally wrong. It is out of total misunderstanding. Love knows no responsibility, because love itself is responsibility. To separate love and responsibility is simply stupid. But all moral systems of the world separate it. Their idea of responsibility does not correspond with existence, but only with their logic. And it has to be understood that logic is man-manufactured. It does not grow in the fields. It is not like the mountains and the stars and babies. It is simply a mind projection. And it has dominated humanity for centuries. It has destroyed many valuable possibilities, potentialities. It has closed many doors to the mysteries of life. It has made man almost blind to light, to consciousness, to bliss, to truth. But its domination has been so long that it isn't easily apparent that it goes on committing mistakes against existence. I would like to dissect this question as minutely as possible. Only dissection of the question will make you aware that it does not need an answer. RESPONSIBILITY, ACCORDING TO ALL all moral codes, is a kind of duty; and a duty is a burden. You have to do it, because you have been told to do it in spite of yourself. It is a should. And you feel guilty if you don't do it. You feel you are escaping from your responsibility. If you do it, you feel enslaved, destroyed as an individual, destroyed as freedom. So on both counts, you are in trouble. Morality makes man psychologically sick. It gives ideas which are going to make you uneasy whatever you do. Whether you follow them or not makes no difference. You are told, "This is your responsibility towards the nation." Now, the nation is a fiction. There are no nations in the world as far as nature is concerned, existence is concerned. All your maps are just meaningless and a better humanity is going to burn them all, because all the boundaries that discriminate against any part of humanity are ugly, insane. I have told you a story ... WHEN INDIA WAS DIVIDED into two nations, India and Pakistan, a rumor was heard that there was a madhouse just on the boundary. Neither India nor Pakistan was interested to take the madhouse. But something had to be done. It had to go somewhere. Finally, the chief superintendent of the madhouse called all the mad people and asked them, "Do you want to go to India?" They said, "No, we are perfectly happy here." The superintendent said, "You will be here. Don't be worried about that. Just tell me -- do you want to go to India?" They all looked at each other and they said, "People think we are mad! Something has gone wrong with our superintendent. If we are going to be here then the question does not arise of going to India. Why should we go to India?" The superintendent was in a difficulty how to explain to these insane people. He said, "Then would you like to go to Pakistan?" They said, "No, not at all. We are perfectly happy here. Why should we go anywhere?" He again tried to explain to them that, "You will be here, whether you choose India or Pakistan. You are not going anywhere." Then they said, "It seems to be very strange. If we are not going anywhere, then why should we even be asked about it? We are here." It was impossible to convince them that it is not a question of physically moving to India or Pakistan. It is a political question: "Under which country, within which boundary do you want to remain?" Finally it was decided by the officials that the madhouse should also be divided into two parts. One will be in India, one will be in Pakistan. They raised a huge wall, just dividing the whole madhouse in two. And I have heard that the mad people still climb up on the wall, talk to the people on the other side and say, "We cannot figure it out. We are here, you are here, but you have gone to Pakistan and we have gone to India -- just because they have raised this wall. And the strangest thing of all is that they think we are mad." IT IS A MAD WORLD. All boundaries are absolute nonsense. Anything that divides man from man is inhuman, uncivilized, uncultured. But nobody asks whether nations are a fiction, and because you never ask you start believing in the reality of nations. Then arise questions of responsibility towards the nation. You even have to sacrifice your life for the nation which is a fiction. No such thing exists anywhere, no India, no Germany, no Japan, no America. It is a single planet, one humanity. But because of the fiction, people go on killing each other. Real people are killed for an unreal idea. Responsibility towards the nation has been the cause of all the wars. If all those people who had gone to the wars had refused: "We are not going to kill anybody for a fiction and we are not going to be killed for a fiction," there would have been no wars, no politicians. The world would have been a peaceful, beautiful place to live in. For centuries we have done nothing else except fight, except kill. Our only profession seems to be war. Sometimes we fight, and sometimes we prepare for a future fight. But all the time we are engaged in a single profession, that of murderers, because we have been taught a stupid idea: responsibility towards your nation, responsibility towards your religion. All the religions have been teaching that your life is not more valuable than your religion. It is such a strange idea. All these things should be for man, not vice versa. A religion exists to help man, not to destroy man. But all religions have been destroying man, none has been helping. They say, "It is your responsibility, if your religion is in trouble or if your religion is trying to conquer bigger territories, to acquire more people, it is your responsibility to sacrifice." It reminds me of the primitive religions, because it is a relic of those days. In the ancient book of the Hindus, Rigveda, they sacrificed to a fictitious God. Nobody has seen him, nobody has any idea what you mean by the very word. There exists no proof, no evidence, no witness. But for that unreal, fictitious God, which is just a hypothesis, even men were sacrificed before a stone statue -- a statue that you have made. There is mention in Rigveda of narmedh yagna. Sacrificing man to God was the greatest ritual. And the man who was ready to be sacrificed was thought to be a saint. Those who could not do such a thing were thought to be cowards, not fulfilling their responsibility. Dying for God -- what can be more valuable than that? After man, they started sacrificing animals. Today all the Hindus of this country continuously try to stop cow slaughter. But they are not aware that their forefathers in the Rigveda were themselves killing cows as a sacrifice to God. And they were eating the meat of the cows, because stone statues don't eat. You can offer and then you can take it back as a divine gift. Everything is yours: you are killing the cow, you are offering to a stone god who cannot eat and then you are taking it back and distributing it to all the worshippers. And these people are continuously trying to stop cow slaughter. They were killing horses, they were killing all kinds of animals. They are still killing. In Calcutta, at one of the most famous temples of the mother goddess Kali they still kill every day a few goats and then the goats' meat is distributed as prasad, as God's gift to the worshippers. And this is a vegetarian country. A strange kind of vegetarianism! But in the name of God, everything is allowed. When they stopped sacrificing man -- because it became more and more hammered in by people like Gautam Buddha and Vardhamana Mahavira that this is absolutely ugly and uncivilized, it is just a strategy to hide your cannibalistic tendencies, in the name of religion you are eating man -- because it was criticized so much, finally they dropped killing man. But something had to be substituted. So even today, people who are using the substitute may not be aware what they are doing. They have found a substitute in the coconut, because it looks like the head of a man -- with two eyes, a little nose, a small beard, hair -- and in Hindi the head is called khopari, and the coconut is called khopera; there is not much difference. And if you want to visit any temple, you will have to take coconuts. You don't know what you are doing! The statues once were bathed in human blood. Now, that has become difficult. Coconuts are being used, so the statues are colored red. Why red? Blood red. IN THE NAME OF GOD, which is a fiction, your responsibility was to sacrifice yourself. In the name of religion, there have been crusades: Mohammedans killing Christians, Christians killing Mohammedans, Mohammedans killing Hindus, Hindus burning Buddhists alive. And the greatest problem is that what you are doing to man is in the name of something for which you cannot provide any existential proof. But responsibility ...! Responsibility to your parents, responsibility to your wife, responsibility to your husband, responsibility to your children ... Perhaps you may never have thought about it that if you love your children, there is no question of responsibility. Because you love, you do things, you enjoy doing it. Nobody can enjoy responsibility. It is too big a word, too heavy. If you are educating your children, is it responsibility or your love? If it is love, then there is no question of any burden; you are not doing something reluctantly in spite of yourself, because it has to be done. But you are concerned about respectability, what others will say. You will be condemned, so you have to take care of your old parents -- out of responsibility, not out of love. LOVE IS COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN, because love needs a revolution in your consciousness. It is not so cheap as responsibility. Responsibility can be taught to you by the priests, by the teachers. Nobody can teach you love. Love you have to find yourself, within your being, by raising your consciousness to higher levels. And when love comes, there is no question of responsibility. You do things because you enjoy doing them for the person you love. You are not obliging the person, you are not even wanting anything in return, not even gratitude. On the contrary, you are grateful that the person has allowed you to do something for him. It was your joy, sheer joy. Love knows nothing of responsibility. It does many things, it is very creative; it shares all that it has, but it is not a responsibility, remember. Responsibility is an ugly word in comparison to love. Love is natural. Responsibility is created by the cunning priests, politicians who want to dominate you in the name of God, in the name of the nation, in the name of family, in the name of religion -- any fiction will do. But they don't talk about love. On the contrary, they are all against love, because love is unable to be controlled by them. A man of love acts out of his own heart, not according to any moral code. A man of love will not join the army because it is his responsibility to fight for his nation. A man of love will say there are no nations, and there is no question of any fight. When I was a student in the university, it was made compulsory for every student that they should join army training. Otherwise they would not be given their postgraduate certificates. It was my last year in the university. I went to the vice-chancellor and told him, "It goes against my consciousness, it goes against my heart to learn anything destructive. And I refuse absolutely to join any training that you are providing for students. I don't care whether you give me the certificate or not." He immediately said, "But don't you feel any responsibility for your nation?" I said, "Where is the nation? I have never come across it, except on the map." And I told him a story about two men sitting on the sea beach who suddenly began to beat each other, so a crowd gathered. They were somehow separated and the police came, they were arrested and taken to the court and the magistrate said, "I know you both. You have been known in the city as the best of friends. What happened?" They both felt very ashamed and they looked at each other. "You tell him what happened," and the other said, "Better you tell it." The magistrate said, "What can be such a secret that you are having so much difficulty in saying it?" They said, "It is not a secret. It is simply so shameful that we don't want to say it, but ... if you insist, we will have to speak. We were sitting -- we are great friends -- just sitting on the beach, and this person, my friend, said that he is going to purchase a buffalo. I said, `Buffalo? But remember, she should not enter into my field. I am going to purchase a farm and if she enters into my farm, I will not tolerate your buffalo simply because you are my friend. I will kill your buffalo.' "My friend said, `This is too much. Buffaloes are buffaloes. And I cannot follow my buffalo the whole day wherever she goes. She will go into your farm and I will see then who kills my buffalo. I will kill anybody who kills my buffalo. I will not remember that you are my friend. You are my enemy if you kill my buffalo.'" And the thing came to such a point that the man who had made it clear that he would not tolerate the buffalo, made a square with his finger and said, "This is my farm. Now let us see where your buffalo is." He does not have a farm yet, nor has the other any buffalo. Both are thinking to purchase. But the other said, "This is your farm," and he brought his finger running across the farm saying, "This is my buffalo. Now do what you want to do." And the fight started. The magistrate said, "This is too much. Neither does he have the farm, nor do you have the buffalo. You should at least have waited." They said, "It was a hypothetical question, but we forgot that it was hypothetical. We became so hot. Please forgive us." We have all forgotten that many hypotheses are asking us to do things which we would never do in our senses, in our intelligence, in our consciousness. You are asking, "What is the responsibility of love?" You don't understand those words. And you don't understand because you have not loved yet. That's the only reason that you don't understand. If you had loved, you would have experienced a responsibility arising out of it, with no sense of duty, with no sense of burden, but just a sheer joy, a dance, a song of the heart. You are doing something that is needed. You never think that you are obliged. Love never obliges anybody. Love is always obliged that you allowed the heart to shower upon you its flowers, its joys, its songs. Love is obliged to you for your receptivity. Responsibility always thinks, "I have done well and everybody should know it. And everybody should feel obliged. I have sacrificed so much for the freedom of the country; I have done so much in the war in defending the country; I am working so hard so that my children can be educated, can be well-nourished, so that I can provide facilities for my grandparents or my parents." But you find this a burden. You are crushed under it. It is not a joy, it is not blissfulness, it is not ecstasy. MY GRANDFATHER loved very much. He was old, very old, but he remained active to the very last breath. He loved nature almost too much. He lived in a faraway farm. Once in a while he would come to the city, but he never liked it. He always liked the wild world, where he lived. Once in a while I used to go to him and he always liked somebody to massage his feet. He was becoming so old and he was working so hard, so I would massage his feet. But I told him, "Remember, I am not fulfilling any responsibility. I don't have any responsibility towards anyone in the world. I love you, and I will massage your feet but only up to the point where it is not troublesome to me. So when I stop, never ask me to do a little more. I will not. I am doing it out of my joy, not because you are my grandfather. I could have done the same to any beggar, any stranger, just out of love." He understood the point. He said, "I never thought that responsibility and love are two things. But you are right. When I am working on the field, I always feel I am doing it for my children and their children, as a duty. It is heavy on my heart. But I will try to change this attitude of responsibility. I may be too old to change -- it has become a fixation in my mind -- but I will try to change." I said to him, "There is no need. If you feel it is becoming a burden on you, you have done enough. You rest. There is no need to continue working, unless you enjoy the open sky and the green field and love these trees and the birds. If you are doing it out of joy and you love your children and you want to do something for them, only then continue. Otherwise stop." Although he was old, something synchronized between me and him. That never happened with any other member of my family. We were great friends. I was the youngest in the family and he was the oldest, just two polarities. And everybody in the house laughed, "What kind of friendship is this? You laugh together, you joke with each other, you play with each other, you run after each other. And he is so old and you are so young. And you don't communicate the same way with anybody else, nor does he communicate the same way with anybody else." I said, "Something has happened between us. He loves me and I love him. Now it is no more a question of any relationship; neither am I his grandchild nor is he my grandfather. We are just two friends: one is old, one is young." Once you taste love, you will drop the word responsibility completely. Hence your question, "What is the responsibility of love?" is simply irrelevant. Love needs no responsibility. And responsibility knows no love. And I don't teach you any responsibility, because I don't want you to be sacrificed in any fictitious name. I want you to live as naturally, existentially as possible. Don't live according to hypotheses. Don't live according to moral codes. Don't live according to Manu or Moses. Live according to your own heart and whatever you do will be right. Never ask anybody what is right. Only a man who has no heart asks that kind of question. Let your heart respond to your question: your answer is not going to come by any scripture, any holy tradition. I have heard.... When God made the world, he went to the Babylonians and asked them: "Would you like to have a commandment?" They said, "First tell us what the commandment is." And he said, "Thou shall not commit adultery." And the Babylonians said, "Then what shall we do? No, we don't want any such commandment." He went to the Egyptians with the same result. He went to other people -- the same. They all asked, "What is the commandment? Don't trick us into some trouble. First be completely clear: what is your commandment?" And then finally he went to Moses and said, "Would you like to have a commandment?" Moses said, "How much?" And God said, "It is free." Moses said, "Then I will have ten." And because of this Jewish mind, millions of Jews since that time have been living according to those ten commandments. I WAS IN GREECE and one of my sannyasins, Amrito, told me that the Greek Orthodox church is very old-fashioned, very traditional. It insists on every woman being a virgin until she gets married. She has been one of the most beautiful women herself. When she was young she was chosen as the beauty queen of Greece and since then she has been a topmost model. She was telling me about this emphasis of the Greek church on virginity. I asked her, "But is it followed?" She said, "Don't ask such a question. You will not find a single virgin in the whole of Greece." I remember she told me that in a church a priest was hammering hard the fact that, "If you are not a virgin, you will suffer eternal hellfire. So stand up if any woman is a virgin." Nobody stood up, everybody was looking down. He said, "I give you another chance. Stand up! At least for God's sake, one or two women should stand up." Finally, one woman with a small baby stood up. And the priest said, "You think you are a virgin?" She said, "No, I am not a virgin. This baby is virgin. But she cannot stand on her own. And she is the only virgin in the whole congregation. She is only six months old, so I have to stand up." People have been forced into all kinds of nonsense. And they have been made to feel guilty if they don't follow the codes. If they follow them, they become unnatural; they start becoming miserable, they become unnecessarily tense; they lose all juice in life, because they are going against life. Love is not a religious commandment. Love is your very innermost longing, your very nature. Responsibility is imposed from outside and it is needed only by those who have not grown up in love. If you are grown up in love, you can throw away all responsibility. Love is enough unto itself. Your question makes me feel sad that you have not experienced love yet. But this is the situation of the greater part of humanity. Forget all about responsibility, search deep in your being for the space which we call love. Once you have found that space within you, it expands. On its own it starts growing. It goes spreading around you, radiating around you. It becomes your very aura, your very energy field, and whoever comes into that energy field is touched, deeply touched with your joy, with your celebrating realization, with your love. But it is not a responsibility at all. Little Ernie is playing with the girl next door. "Let us play Adam and Eve," he says. "You tempt me to eat the apple and I will give in." Be Adam and Eve, as if you are the first people in the world. You don't have any past, you don't have any Moses and you don't have any Manu and you don't have any Confucius. There is no past. Adam and Eve had a certain freedom which you don't have, because they had no past, only an open future. You don't have any future, because you are always looking at the past and the past is gone. You can see the dust a long way back on the road, but you cannot reach again to the same place. What is gone, is gone. And remember, existence has not given you eyes in your neck. If it was the intention of existence that you should look back, it would have given you eyes in the back of your head. What is the point of giving you eyes looking forward when you are not looking forward? RESPONSIBILITY IS LOOKING BACKWARD; love is looking forward. Be innocent like Adam and Eve, as if you have just arrived fresh and you don't have anything to do with the past. You have to find your own way; there is no guide, there is no holy scripture, there is no prophet, no savior. You are left alone to find your path. You will not find responsibility, you will find spontaneity. You will not find duty, you will find love. And if your life is nothing but pure love, you don't need any other spirituality. Love is the best name you can give to God. Because love is something which is not a hypothesis. It is your intrinsic reality. And it is the most precious thing in you. A Jewish boy is courting a Catholic girl. "I'm sorry I could not see you last night," she says, "but I had to go to confession." "I hope you don't tell the old priest all about the things we do when your parents are out," says the boy. "Sure, I do," she says. "But don't worry. I just slip Father Murphy ten bucks and he makes things okay for me." The next evening the Jewish boy arrives at the Catholic church to see the priest. "Aha," says Father Murphy. "My son, I suppose you have come for confession." "No Father, not likely," says the boy. "I have come for my commission." In fact, all your religions are nothing but business. And the boy is right to ask for a commission! Love is not business and love is not a sin. Love is your greatest virtue. Love is your highest flowering. Sharing it is sheer joy. Don't call it responsibility. That word has become too heavy by continuous use by those people whose vested interests are served by it. Love serves nobody. It gives you individuality and a tremendous sense of freedom. Love makes you courageous enough to assert your uniqueness in a world where only the crowd respects those who belong to the crowd. THE UNIQUE PERSON does not belong to the crowd. He stands alone and aloof like a very tall tree reaching towards the stars. The small bushes, naturally, feel jealous. Hence every great man in the world is going to be condemned by the pygmies. They will find all kinds of excuses to condemn anyone who has something unique in him. Any individual who is not surrendering his freedom to the crowd is going to be condemned. But I want you to be individuals, not respectable people. They are the ugliest people in the world. Yes, those who are thought to be respectable are the most condemnable, because they have sold their souls for their respectability. They have become slaves of a crowd which knows nothing of the higher things of life, the higher values of life. Just be yourself , silent, peaceful, meditative, and love will arise in tidal waves and will go on coming to you from unknown sources which are hidden inside you. Those sources are as oceanic as any great ocean in the world. And you can share that love without humiliating anyone and without feeding your ego; these two things are done by responsibility, which feeds your ego, makes it stronger and humiliates the other person. You may not be aware that whenever you do something because of responsibility, the other person can never forgive you. You have insulted him. But when you do something out of love, nobody feels any humiliation because love is humble, it cannot humiliate. Responsibility is not the quality of a humble person, it is the quality of the egoist who wants to make everybody obliged to him, who wants everybody to be a beggar and he the giver. He always wants to keep the upper hand. Nobody can forgive such a man. They may give him respect in the crowd, but behind his back, they all feel utterly insulted. And they take revenge. Love never humiliates; hence there is no question of revenge. It simply rejoices in giving: it gives and it forgets. It does not even remember to whom it has given, what it has given. It does not keep an account of all that it has shared. It goes on, moment to moment, singing its song to whoever is capable of understanding it. Whoever is capable of receiving it will receive it. But he is not doing any social service, he is not a public servant. He is a man who knows how to celebrate. He is celebrating himself. In the three hundred years of America, there have not been many men who can be compared to the great mystics of the world. Only one man, a poet, comes very close to the mystics, Walt Whitman. One of his beautiful songs is: "I Celebrate Myself." America has not paid much attention to Walt Whitman, but he is the only one in the three hundred years of America's life who has reached the highest peak possible. When he says, "I celebrate myself," he is saying everything about love. "And if you can rejoice in my celebration, you are welcome. If you can be my guest, I invite you to celebrate." Love celebrates, it is not a responsibility at all.

Health Secrets Of Lemon

Lemon the round yellow juicy fruit is the full of resources that we need in our daily life. It is the super food which is mix with both vitamins and minerals. Lemons are an excellent source of Vitamin C. Having a lemon squeezed in warm water first thing every morning will cleanse your digestive system. The strong antibacterial and antiviral properties added the worth of this food and the major benefits of lemon. Lemons also contain flavonoid, Vitamin B complex, potassium, magnesium, calcium, copper, phosphorus, iron, and fiber. The fruit is low in calories - 29 calories per 100 grams - contains no saturated fats, nor cholesterol. Although lemon is acidic when eaten, It also increases the levels of immunity thus cutting the chances of infections. Because it has antibacterial and anti-viral properties, you can battle flu and colds by downing a glass of lemon juice. It is also known to purify blood, hence getting rid of toxins from the body.

Following are the benefits of lemon;

Resist infectious agents

Among the many benefits of lemon the foremost is that Lemons are the major source of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) which is known to be a natural anti-oxidant. Vitamin C also helps the body to resist infectious agents and helps with eradicating harmful free radicals from the blood. It also helps to prevent scurvy diseases which is very common during travel or on voyages.

Helpful For Good Vision

Vitamin A is present in small levels together with flavonoids such as B-carotenes, beta-cryptoxanthin, zea-xanthin and lutein compounds which all have antioxidant properties. Vitamin A is very helpful for good vision, healthy skin and mucus membranes. Consuming lemons which are rich in flavonoids, are known to help protect the body from lung and oral cancers.

Good For Heart

Lemon contains more potassium then apple and grapes. Potassium is a significant element that helps control a good heart rate and blood pressure.

For Maintaing Good Cholesterol

Lemon helps in increasing the level of HDL High-density lipoproteins (good cholesterol). This is because of its anti-oxidant action. HDL takes the LDL-Low-Density lipoproteins(bad cholesterol) to the liver where it broken down.

Helpful in Digestion

Lemons mix with warm water relieve digestive problems. This is because lemon helps liver in producing more bile.

Prevent Constipation

Lemon mix with water is the best product in preventing constipation. This is because the Lemon helps in digestion and thus addresses all causes of constipation.

Fights Cancer

Lemons contain compounds called lemonoids which have been shown to stop cell division in cancer cells. Cancers of the mouth, skin, lung, breast, stomach, and colon have been proven to be relieved with the help of lemons.

Diabetes

Lemons contain a compound called hespiridin, which lowers blood sugar by increasing the activity of the enzyme glucokinase metabolizing glucose from the blood stream.

Prevent Bleeding From Gums

Due to it contains Vitamin-C thus it is very helpful in stopping bleeding from gums. Massage lemon juice gently into the gums a few minutes each day.

Great For Acne

Apply lemon juice with finger or cotton ball in acne, leave on overnight then rinse the following morning. Blotch removal. Mix 1-2 lemons with banana puree and apply to blotches for an hour. Make a paste by combining lemon juice and salt, use to rub off dead skin cells on elbows and thighs.

Mosquito Bites

To relieve itching and pain of mosquito bites put lemon juice on it for prompt relief.

Ant Repellent

Lemon juice has been using as ant repellent. Just pour the lemon juice at the corners of cupboards and windows for keeping away ants.

As A Deodorizer

Lemon juice can be used as a deodorizer because of its nice fragrance to get rid of strong order such as onion or after dish washing. Also it softens your skin as well.

Stain Removal

Use with salt to remove ink stains, rusts, or fruit stains. Rub the stain with lemon juice then apply salt then put in sun.

Is Lemon A Cancer Killer That is 10,000 Times Stronger Than Chemotherapy?

Outline
Message purporting to be from the Institute of Health Sciences in Baltimore claims that lemon is a "miraculous product" that can kill cancer cells, is 10,000 times stronger than chemotherapy, and is "a proven remedy against cancers of all types".

Brief Analysis
Scientific studies indicate that citrus (including lemon) contains compounds that may indeed be beneficial in preventing or combating some types of cancer. However, this message significantly exaggerates the potential of lemon as a cancer remedy, contains false and misleading information, and does not originate from a credible medical or scientific entity. The message did not originate from the Institute of Health Sciences as claimed. 

Detailed analysis and references below example.

Subject: FW: Lemon - kills Cancer Cells

The surprising benefits of lemon!

================================

Institute of Health Sciences, 819 N. L.L.C. Charles Street Baltimore , MD 1201.
This is the latest in medicine, effective for cancer! 

Read carefully & you be the judge. 

Lemon (Citrus) is a miraculous product to kill cancer cells. It is 10,000 times stronger than chemotherapy. 

Why do we not know about that? Because there are laboratories interested in making a synthetic version that will bring them huge profits. You can now help a friend in need by letting him/her know that lemon juice is beneficial in preventing the disease. Its taste is pleasant and it does not produce the horrific effects of chemotherapy. How many people will die while this closely guarded secret is kept, so as not to jeopardize the beneficial multimillionaires large corporations? As you know, the lemon tree is known for its varieties of lemons and limes. You can eat the fruit in different ways: you can eat the pulp, juice press, prepare drinks, sorbets, pastries, etc... It is credited with many virtues, but the most interesting is the effect it produces on cysts and tumors. This plant is a proven remedy against cancers of all types. Some say it is very useful in all variants of cancer. It is considered also as an anti microbial spectrum against bacterial infections and fungi, effective against internal parasites and worms, it regulates blood pressure which is too high and an antidepressant, combats stress and nervous disorders.

The source of this information is fascinating: it comes from one of the largest drug manufacturers in the world, says that after more than 20 laboratory tests since 1970, the extracts revealed that: It destroys the malignant cells in 12 cancers, including colon, breast, prostate, lung and pancreas ... The compounds of this tree showed 10,000 times better than the product Adriamycin, a drug normally used chemotherapeutic in the world, slowing the growth of cancer cells. And what is even more astonishing: this type of therapy with lemon extract only destroys malignant cancer cells and it does not affect healthy cells.

Institute of Health Sciences, 819 N. L.L.C. Cause Street, Baltimore, MD1201

Conclusion

The benefits of lemon listed above are just the tip of the iceberg. The daily use of the lemon will not only helpful in health but caters most of the day to day problem as well. Enjoy reading this page so give us a favor by sharing it with whom you care. 

TO LIVE FOR OTHERS

It is assumed to be noble to live for others. This nobility can take many forms and some of them can be very difficult to identify. Still, in most of the cases the underlying motive is not benevolent even though the appearance tells a different story. Selfishness has many disguises.

No doubt serving and helping others is the highest cause there is, but not always. It is worthwhile to consider the motive for the help. In many cases the true motive is not pure and noble, on the contrary, it is an ego trip and boost without any limits. Hard to believe? Well, if it were really about the others there shouldn’t be any need for anybody else to know about the aid. Also the compassionate act should not direct any unnecessary attention to the helper. Any expectation of reciprocity is not an act of compassion. And this means anything, including the little word ‘thanks’ from the one you supported. Helping others can also be a way to reduce one’s guilt of something else in which case the issue has really nothing to do with helping others. It is just a means to deal with one’s own conscience.

What about the target of the help, is it far away and somehow exotic? People in the next block might as well need your help but is it somehow better if you focus on greater distance to give your aid? Often it would make more sense to help people close to you since you can make a larger impact—in addition of being a practical example for others.

Often taking care of one’s own business is quickly condemned as selfishness—having only a negative connotation nowadays. But this is a great fallacy as well. If everyone was supposed to pay attention only for others without caring for one’s own needs there wouldn’t be anyone feeling good and balanced anymore. The reality is exactly the opposite. In order to help others one needs to be in a solid position to give a helping hand. The only way to give a lot is to have plenty as well. This does not apply just to material things but basically every quality and virtue there is. If supporting others is an act of compassion then it should be carried out with the upmost care and the best possible way. Giving the best you have is not a light-hearted issue, is it? This is the test you most likely fail provided that you are not doing it solely for the compassion and love for others.(Petri Kajander)

The Ten Biggest Myths of Living for the Sake of Others

Myth #1:  If you devote yourself to living for the sake of others, you will lose your freedom.

Myth #2:  Those who live for the sake of others lose out on "the good life."

Myth #3:  Living for others is for saints, priests, and nuns.

Myth #4:  If you live for the sake of others, you will lose your dignity.

Myth #5:  Those who live for the sake of others never discover their "true self."

Myth #6:  Only weak and dumb people sacrifice themselves for others.

Myth #7:  As soon as you decide to live for the sake of others, you become a person that others will manipulate and take advantage of.

Myth #8:  Living for the sake of others is unattractive and it doesn't work.

Myth #9: People who live for others aren't happy.

Myth #10:  The only way to achieve anything worthwhile in this life is to put yourself first.

Day .26-JAWAHARLAL NEHRU - The Discovery of India (Continued)

India and China

It was through Buddhism that China and India came near to each other and developed many contacts. Whether there were any such contacts before Ashoka's reign we do not know; probably there was some sea-borne trade, for silk used to come from China. Yet there must have been overland contacts and migrations of peoples in far earlier periods, for Mongoloid features are common in the eastern border areas of India. In Nepal these are very marked. In Assam (Kamarupa of old) and Bengal they are often evident. Historically speaking, however, Ashoka's missionaries blazed the trail and, as Buddhism spread in China, there began that long succession of pilgrims and scholars who journeyed between India and China for 1,000 years. They travelled overland across the Gobi Desert and the plains and mountains of Central Asia and over the Himalayas—a long, hard journey full of peril. Many Indians and Chinese perished on the way, and one account says that as many as 90 per cent of these pilgrims perished. Many having managed to reach the end of their journey did not return and settled in the land of their adoption. There was another route also, not much safer, though probably shorter: this was by sea via Indo-China, Java, and Sumatra, Malaya and the Nicobar Islands. This was also frequently used, and sometimes a pilgrim travelled overland and returned by sea. Buddhism and Indian culture had spread all over Central Asia and in parts of Indo-nesia, and there were large numbers of monasteries and study centres dotted all over these vast areas. Travellers from India or China thus found a welcome and shelter along these routes by land and sea. Sometimes scholars from China would break journey for a few months at some Indian colony in Indonesia in order to learn Sanskrit before they came to India.

The first record of an Indian scholar's visit to China is that of Kashyapa Matanga who reached China in 67 A.D. in the reign of the Emperor Ming Ti and probably at his invitation. He settled down at Lo Yang by the Lo river. Dharmaraksha accompanied him and, in later years, among the noted scholars who went were Buddhabhadra, Jinabhadra, Kumarajiva, Paramartha, Jinagupta, and Bodhidharma. Each one of these took a group of monks or disciples with him. It is said that at one time (sixth century A.C.) there were more than 3,000 Indian Buddhist monks and 10,000 Indian families in the Lo Yang province alone.

These Indian scholars who went to China not only carried many Sanskrit manuscripts with them, which they translated into Chinese, but some of them also wrote original books in the Chinese language. They made quite a considerable contribution to Chinese literature, including poetry. Kumarajiva who went to China in 401 A.C., was a prolific writer and as many as forty-seven different books written by him have come down to us. His Chinese style is supposed to be very good. He translated the life of the great Indian scholar Nagarjuna into Chinese. Jinagupta went to China in the second half of the sixty century A.C. He translated thirty-seven original Sanskrit works into Chinese. His great knowledge was so much admired that an emperor of the T'ang dynasty became his disciple.

There was two-way traffic between India and China and many Chinese scholars came here. Among the best known who have left records of their journeys are Fa Hien (or Fa Hsien), Sung Yun, Hsuan-Tsang (or Chwen Chuang), and I-Tsing (or Yi-Tsing). Fa Hien came to India in the fifth century; he was a disciple of Kumarajiva in China. There is an interesting account of what Kumarajiva told him on the eve of his departure for India, when he went to take leave of his teacher. Kumarajiva charged him not to spend all his time in gathering religious knowledge only but to study in some detail the life and habits of the people of India, so that China might understand them and their country as a whole. Fa Hien studied at Pataliputra university.

The most famous of the Chinese travellers to India was Hsuan-Tsang who came in the seventh century when the great T'ang dynasty flourished in China and Harshavardhana ruled over an empire in North India. Hsuan-Tsang came overland across the Gobi Desert and passing Turfan and Kucha, Taskhand and Samarkand, Balkh, Khotan and Yarkand, crossed the Himalayas into India. He tells us of his many adventures, of the perils he overcame, of the Buddhist rulers and monasteries in Central Asia, and of the Turks there who were ardent Buddhists. In India he travelled all over the country, greatly honored and respected everywhere, making accurate observations of places and peoples, and noting down some delightful and some fantastic stories that he heard. Many years he spent at the great Nalanda University, not far from Pataliputra, which was famous for its many-sided learning and attracted students from far corners of the country. It is said that as many as 10,000 students and monks were in residence there. Hsuan-Tsang took the degree of Master of the Law there and finally became vice-principal of the university.

Hsuan-Tsang's book the Si-Yu-Ki or the Record of the Western Kingdom (meaning India), makes fascinating reading. Coming from a highly civilized and sophisticated country, at a time when China's capital Si-an-fu was a centre of art and learning, his comments on and descriptions of conditions in India are valuable. He tells us of the system of education which began early and proceeded by stages to the university where the five branches of knowledge taught were: (1) Grammar, (2) Science of Arts and Crafts, (3) Medicine, (4) Logic, and (5) Philosophy. He was particularly struck by the love of learning of the Indian people. Some kind of primary education was fairly widespread as all the monks and priests were teachers, Of the people he says: 'With respect to the ordinary people, although they are naturally light-minded, yet they are upright and honorable. In money matters they are without craft, and in administering justice they are considerate. . . .They are not deceitful or treacherous in their conduct, and are faithful in their oaths and promises. In their rules of government there is remarkable rectitude, whilst in their behavior there is much gentleness and sweetness. With respect to criminals or rebels, these are few in number, and only occasionally troublesome.' He says further: 'As the administration of the government is founded on benign principles, the executive is simple.... People are not subject to forced labor.In this way taxes on people are light.... The merchants who engage in commerce come and go in carrying out their transactions.'

Hsuan-Tsang returned the way he came, via Central Asia, carrying a large number of manuscripts with him. From his account one gathers a vivid impression of the wide sway of Buddhism in Khorasan, Iraq, Mosul, and right up to the frontiers of Syria. And yet this was a time when Buddhism was in decay there and Islam, already beginning in Arabia, was soon to spread out over all these lands. About the Iranian people, Hsuan-Tsang makes an interesting observation: they 'care not for learning, but give themselves entirely to works of art. All they make the neighbouring countries value very much.'

Iran then, as before and after, concentrated on adding to the beauty and grace of life, and its influence spread far in Asia. Of the strange little kingdom of Turfan, on the edge of the Gobi Desert, Hsuan-Tsang tells us, and we have learned more about it in recent years from the work of archaeologists. Here many cultures came and mixed and coalesced, producing a rich combination which drew its inspiration from China and India and Persia and even Hellenic sources. The language was Indo- European, derived from India and Iran, and resembling in some ways the Celtic languages of Europe; the religion came from India; the ways of life were Chinese; many of the artistic wares they had were from Iran. The statues and frescoes of the Buddhas and gods and goddesses, beautifully made, have often Indian draperies and Grecian headdresses. These goddesses, says Monsieur Grousset, represent 'the happiest combination of Hindu supple-ness, Hellenic eloquence, and Chinese charm.' Hsuan-Tsang went back to his homeland, welcomed by his Emperor and his people, and settled down to write his book and translate the many manuscripts he had brought. When he had started on his journey, many years earlier, there is a story that the Emperor T'ang mixed a handful of dust in a drink and offered this to him, saying: 'You would do well to drink this cup, for are we not told that a handful of one's country's soil is worth more than ten thousand pounds of foreign gold?'

Hsuan-Tsang's visit to India and the great respect in which he was held both in China and India led to the establishment of political contacts between the rulers of the two countries. Harshavardhana of Kanauj and the T'ang Emperor exchanged embassies. Hsuan-Tsang himself remained in touch with India, exchanging letters with friends there and receiving manuscripts. Two interesting letters, originally written in Sanskrit, have been preserved in China. One of these was written in 654 A.C. by an Indian Buddhist scholar, Sthavira Prajnadeva, to Hsuan-Tsang. After greeting and news about common friends and their literary work, he proceeds to say: 'We are sending you a pair of white cloths to show that we are not forgetful. The road is long, so do not mind the smallness of the present. We wish you may accept it. As regards the Sutras and Shastras which you may require please send us a list. We will copy them and send them to you.' Hsuan-Tsang in his reply says: 'I learnt from an ambassador who recently came back from India that the great teacher Shila-bhadra was no more. This news overwhelmed me with grief

that knew no bounds Among the Sutras and Shastras that I, Hsuan-Tsang, had brought with me I have already translated the Yogacharyabhumi-Shastra and other works, in all thirty volumes. I should humbly let you know that while crossing the Indus I had lost a load of sacred texts. I now send you a list of the texts annexed to this letter. I request you to send them to me if you get the chance. I am sending some small articles as presents. Please accept them (Quoted in 'India and China' by Dr. P. C. Bagchi -Calcutta, 1944).   

Hsuan-Tsang has told us much of Nalanda university, and there are other accounts of it also. Yet when I went, some years ago, and saw the excavated ruins of Nalanda I was amazed at their extent and the huge scale on which it was planned. Only a part of it has so far been uncovered, and over the rest there are inhabited localities, but even this part consisted of huge courts surrounded by stately buildings in stone.

Soon after Hsuan-Tsang's death in China, yet another famous Chinese pilgrim made the journey to India—I-tsing (or Yi-tsing). He started in 671 A.C., and it took him nearly two years to reach the Indian port of Tamralipti, at the mouth of the Hooghly. For he came by sea and stopped for many months at Shribhoga (modern Palembang in Sumatra) to study Sanskrit. This journey of his by sea has a certain significance, for it is probable that there were disturbed conditions in Central Asia then and political changes were taking place. Many of the friendly Buddhist monasteries that dotted the land route may have ceased to exist. It is also likely that the sea route was more convenient with the growth of Indian colonies in Indonesia, and constant trade and other contacts between India and these countries. It appears from his and other accounts that there was at that time regular navigation between Persia (Iran), India, Malaya, Sumatra, and China. I-tsing sailed in a Persian ship from Kwangtung, and went first to Sumatra.

I-tsing also studied at Nalanda university for a long time and carried back with him several hundred Sanskrit texts. He was chiefly interested in the fine points of Buddhist ritual and ceremonial and has written in detail about them. But he tells us much also about customs, clothes, and food. Wheat was the staple diet in North India, as now, and rice in the south and the east. Meat was sometimes eaten, but this was rare. (I-tsing probably tells us more about the Buddhist monks than about others). Ghee (clarified butter), oil, milk, and cream were found every-where, and cakes and fruits were abundant. I-tsing noted the importance that Indians have always attached to a certain ceremonial purity. 'Now the first and chief difference between India of the five regions and other nations is the peculiar distinction between purity and impurity.' Also: 'To preserve what has been left from the meal, as is done in China, is not at all in accordance with Indian rules.'

I-tsing refers to India generally as the West (Si-fang), but he tells us that it was known as Aryadesha - ' the Aryadesha'; 'arya' means noble, 'desha' region—the noble region, a name for the west. It is so called because men of noble character appear there successively, and people all praise the land by that name. It is also called Madhyadesha, i.e., the middle land, for it is the centre of a hundred myriads of countries. The people are all familiar with this name. The northern tribes (Hu or Mongols or Turks) alone call the Noble Land 'Hindu' (Hsin-tu), but this is not at all a common name; it is only a vernacular name, and has no special significance. The people of India do not know this designation, and the most suitable name for India is the 'Noble Land.'

I-tsing's reference to 'Hindu' is interesting. He goes on to say: 'Some say that Indu means the moon, and the Chinese name for India, i.e., Indu (Yin-tu), is derived from it. Although it might mean this, it is nevertheless not the common name. As for the Indian name for the Great Chou (China), i.e., Cheena, it is a name and has no special meaning.' He also mentions the Sanskrit names for Korea and other countries.

For all his admiration for India and many things Indian, I-tsing made it clear that he gave first place to his native land, China. India might be the 'noble region,' but China was the 'divine land.' 'The people of the five parts of India are proud of their own purity and excellence. But high refinement, literary elegance, propriety, moderation, ceremonies of welcoming and parting, the delicious taste of food, and the richness of benevolence and righteousness are found in China only, and no other country can excel her.' 'In the healing arts of acupuncture and cautery and the skill of feeling the pulse, China has never been superseded by any part of India; the medicament for prolonging life is only found in China. .. .From the character of men and the quality of things China is called the "divine land". Is there anyone in the five parts of India who does not admire China?'

The word used in the old Sanskrit for the Chinese Emperor is deva-putra, which is an exact translation of 'Son of Heaven'.

I-tsing, himself a fine scholar in Sanskrit, praises the language and says it is respected in far countries in the north and south. . . . 'How much more then should people of the divine land (China), as well as the celestial store house (India), teach the real rules of the language!'* Sanskrit scholarship must have been fairly widespread in China. It is interesting to find that some Chinese scholars tried to introduce Sanskrit phonetics into the Chinese language. A well-known example of this is that of the monk Shon Wen, who lived at the time of the T'ang dynasty. He tried to develop an alphabetical system along these lines in Chinese. * These extracts have been taken from J. Takakusu's translation of I-Tsing's: 'A record of the Buddhist Religions as practised in India and Malay Archipelago' (Oxford, 1896).

With the decay of Buddhism in India this Indo-Chinese commerce of scholars practically ceased, though pilgrims from China occasionally came to visit the holy places of Buddhism in India. During the political revolutions from the eleventh century A.C. onwards, crowds of Buddhist monks, carrying bundles of manuscripts, went to Nepal or crossed the Himalayas, into Tibet. A considerable part of old Indian literature thus and previously, found its way to China and Tibet and in recent years it has been discovered afresh there in the original or more frequently, in translations. Many Indian classics have been preserved in Chinese and Tibetan translations relating not only to Buddhism but also to Brahminism, astronomy, mathematics, medicine, etc. There are supposed to be 8,000 such works in the Sung-pao collection in China. Tibet is full of them. There used to be frequent co-operation between Indian, Chinese, and Tibetan scholars. A notable instance of this co-operation, still extant, is a Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese dictionary of Buddhist technical terms. This dates from the ninth or tenth century A.C. and is named the ' Mahavyutpatti.'

Among the most ancient printed books discovered in China, dating from the eighth century A.C., are books in Sanskrit. These were printed from wooden blocks. In the tenth century the Imperial Printing Commission was organized in China and as a result of this, and right up to the Sung era, the art of printing developed rapidly. It is surprising and difficult to account for that, in spite of the close contacts between Indian and Chinese scholars and their exchanges of books and manuscripts for hundreds of years, there is no evidence whatever of the printing of books in India during that period. Block printing went to Tibet from China at some early period and, I believe, it is still practised there. Chinese printing was introduced into Europe during the Mongol or Yuan dynasty (1260-1368). First known in Germany, it spread to other countries during the fifteenth century.

Even during the Indo-Afghan and Mughal periods in India there was occasional diplomatic intercourse between India and China. Mohammed bin Tughlak, Sultan of Delhi (1326-51) sent the famous Arab traveller, Ibn Batuta, as ambassador to the Chinese court. Bengal had at that time shaken off the suzerainty of Delhi and became an independent sultanate. In the middle of the fourteenth century the Chinese court sent two ambassadors, Hu-Shien and Fin-Shien, to the Bengal Sultan. This led to a succession of ambassadors being sent from Bengal to China during Sultan Ghias-ud Din's reign. This was the period of the Ming Emperors in China. One of the later embassies, sent in 1414 by Saif-ud Din, carried valuable presents, among them a live giraffe. How a giraffe managed to reach India is a mystery: probably it it came as a gift from Africa and was sent on to the Ming Emperor as a rarity which would be appreciated. It was indeed greatiy appreciated in China where a giraffe is considered an auspicious symbol by the followers of Confucius. There is no doubt that the animal was a giraffe for, apart from a long account of it, there is also a Chinese picture of it on silk. The court artist, who made this picture, has written a long account in praise of it and of the good fortune that flows from it. 'The ministers and the people all gathered to gaze at it and their joy knows no end.'

Trade between India and China, which had flourished during the Buddhist period, was continued throughout the Indo-Afghan and Mughal periods, and there was a continuous exchange of commodities. The trade went overland across the northern Himalayan passes and along the old caravan routes of central Asia. There was also a considerable sea-borne trade, via the islands of south-east Asia, chiefly to south Indian ports.

During these thousand years and more of intercourse between India and China, each country learned something from the other, not only in the regions of thought and philosophy, but also in the arts and sciences of life. Probably China was more influenced by India than India by China, which is a pity, for India could well have received, with profit to herself, some of the sound commonsense of the Chinese, and with its aid checked her own extravagant fancies. China took much from India but she was always strong and self-confident enough to take it in her own way and fit it in somewhere in her own texture of life (Professor Hu Shih, the leader of the new Chinese renaissance movement, has written on the past 'Indianization of China.). Even Buddhism and its intricate philosophy became tinged with the doctrines of Confucius and Lao-tze. The somewhat pessimistic outlook of Buddhist philosophy could not change or suppress the love of life and gaiety of the Chinese. There is an old Chinese proverb which says: 'If the government gets hold of you, they'll flog you to death; if the Buddhists get hold of you, they'll starve you to death!'

A famous Chinese novel of the sixteenth century—'Monkey' by Wu Ch'en-en (translated into English by Arthur Waley)— deals with the mythical and fantastic adventures of Hsuan-Tsang on his way to India. The book ends with a dedication to India: 'I dedicate this work to Buddha's pure land. May it repay the kindness of patron and preceptor, may it mitigate the sufferings of the lost and damned . . . . '

After being cut off from each other for many centuries, India and China were brought by some strange fate under the influence of the British East India Company. India had to endure this for long; in China the contact was brief, but even so it brought opium and war.

And now the wheel of fate has turned full circle and again

India and China look towards each other and past memories crowd in their minds; again pilgrims of a new kind cross or fly over the mountains that separate them, bringing their messages of cheer and goodwill and creating fresh bonds of a friendship that will endure.

Indian Colonies and Culture in South-East Asia

To know and understand India one has to travel far in time and space, to forget for a while her present condition with all its misery and narrowness and horror, and to have glimpses of what she was and what she did. 'To know my country', wrote Rabindranath Tagore, 'one has to travel to that age, when she realized her soul and thus transcended her physical boundaries, when she revealed her being in a radiant magnanimity which illumined the eastern horizon, making her recognized as their own by those in alien shores who were awakened into a surprise of life; and not now when she has withdrawn herself into a narrow barrier of obscurity, into a miserly pride of exclusiveness, into a poverty of mind that dumbly revolves around itself in an unmeaning repetition of a past that has lost its light and has no message for the pilgrims of the future.'

One has not only to go back in time but to travel, in mind if not in body, to various countries of Asia, where India spread out in many ways, leaving immortal testimony of her spirit, her power, and her love of beauty. How few of us know of these great achievements of our past, how few realize that if India was great in thought and philosophy, she was equally great in action. The history that men and women from India made far from their homeland has still to be written. Most westerners still imagine that ancient history is largely concerned with the Mediterranean countries, and medieval and modern history is dominated by the quarrelsome little continent of Europe. And still they make plans for the future as if Europe only counted and the rest could be fitted in anywhere.

Sir Charles Eliot has written that 'Scant justice is done to India's position in the world by those European histories which recount the exploits of her invaders and leave the impression that her own people were a feeble dreamy folk, sundered from the rest of mankind by their seas and mountain frontiers. Such a picture takes no account of the intellectual conquests of the Hindus. Even their political conquests were not contemptible, and are remarkable for the distance, if not the extent, of the territories occupied. . . .But such military or commercial invasions are insignificant compared with the spread of Indian thought."* •Eliot: 'Hinduism and Buddhism', Vol. /., p. xii.

Eliot was probably unaware, when he wrote, of many recent discoveries in south-east Asia, which have revolutionized the conception of India's and Asia's past. The knowledge of those discoveries would have strengthened his argument and shown that Indian activities abroad, even apart from the spread of her thought, were very far from being insignificant. I remember when I first read, about fifteen years ago, some kind of a detailed account of the history of South-East Asia, how amazed I was and how excited I became. New panoramas opened out before me, new perspectives of history, new conceptions of India's past, and I had to adjust all my thinking and previous notions to them. Champa, Cambodia and Angkor, Srivijaya and Majapahit suddenly rose out of the void, took living shape, vibrant with that instinctive feeling which makes the past touch the present.

Of Sailendra, the mighty man of war and conquest and other achievements, Dr. H. G. Quaritch Wales has written: 'This great conqueror, whose achievements can only be compared with those of the greatest soldiers known to western history, and whose fame in his time sounded from Persia to China, in a decade or two built up a vast maritime empire which endured for five centuries, and made possible the marvelous flowering of Indian art and culture in Java and Cambodia. Yet in our encyclopedias and histories... one will search in vain for a reference to this far-flung empire or to its noble founder.... The very fact of such an empire ever having existed is scarcely known, except by a handful of Oriental scholars(*In 'Towards Angkor', Harrap, 1937.  Reference might be made to Dr. R. C. Majumdar's 'Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far)

The military exploits of these early Indian colonists are important as throwing light on certain aspects of the Indian character and genius which have hitherto not been appreciated. But far more important is the rich civilization they built up in their colonies and settlements and which endured for over a thousand years.

During the past quarter of a century a great deal of light has been thrown on the history of this widespread area in south-east Asia, which is sometimes referred to as Greater India. There are many gaps still, many contradictions, and scholars continue to put forward their rival theories, but the general outline is clear enough, and sometimes there is an abundance of detail. There is no lack of material, for there are references in Indian books, and accounts of Arab travelers and, most important of all, Chinese historical accounts. There are also many old inscriptions, copper-plates, etc., and in Java and Bali there is a rich literature based on Indian sources, and often paraphrasing Indian epics and myths. Greek and Latin sources have also supplied some information. But, above all, there are the magnificent ruins of ancient monuments, especially at Angkor and Borobudurf.

From the first century of the Christian era on wards wave after wave of Indian colonists spread east and south-east reaching Ceylon, Burma, Malaya, Java, Sumatra, Borneo, Siam, Cambodia, and Indo-China. Some of them managed to reach Formosa, the Philippine Islands and Celebes. Even as far as Madagascar the current language is Indonesian with a mixture of Sanskrit words. It must have taken them several hundred years to spread out in this way, and possibly all of these places were not reached directly from India but from some intermediate settlement. There appear to have been four principal waves of colonization from the first century A.C. to about 900 A.C., and in between there must have been a stream of people going eastwards. But the most remarkable feature of these ventures was that they were evidently organized by the state. Widely scattered colonies were started almost simultaneously and almost always the settlements were situated on strategic points and on important trade routes. The names that were given to these settlements were old Indian names. Thus Cambodia, as it is known now, was called Kamboja, which was a well-known town in ancient India, in Gandhara or the Kabul valley. This itself indicates roughly the period of this colonization, for at that time Gandhara (Afghanistan) must have been an important part of Aryan India.

What led to these extraordinary expeditions across perilous seas and what was the tremendous urge behind them? They could not have been thought of or organized unless they had been preceded for many generations or centuries by individuals or small groups intent on trade. In the most ancient Sanskrit books there are vague references to these countries of the east. It is not always easy to identify the names given in them but sometimes there is no difficulty. Java is clearly from 'Yavadvipa' or the Island of Millet. Even to-day java means barley or millet in India. The other names given in the old books are also usually associated with minerals, metals, or some industrial or agricultural product. This nomenclature itself makes one think of trade.

Dr. R. C. Majumdar has pointed out that 'If literature can be regarded as a fair reflex of the popular mind, trade and commerce must have been a supreme passion in India in the centuries immediately preceding and following the Christian era [East' (Calcutta, 1927), and his 'Svarnadvipa' (Calcutta, 1937). Also to the publications of the Greater India Society (Calcutta])' All this indicates an expanding economy and a constant search for distant markets.

This trade gradually increased in the third and second centuries B.C. and then these adventurous traders and merchants may have been followed by missionaries, for this was just the period after Ashoka. The old stories in Sanskrit contain many accounts of perilous sea voyages and of shipwrecks. Both Greek and Arab accounts show that there was regular maritime intercourse between India and the Far East at least as early as the first century A.C. The Malay Peninsula and the Indonesian Islands lay on the direct trade route between China and India, Persia, Arabia, and the Mediterranean. Apart from their geographical importance these countries contained valuable minerals, metals, spices, and timber. Malaya was then, as now, famous for its tin mines. Probably the earliest voyages were along the east coast of India-Kalinga (Orissa), Bengal, Burma and then down the Malay Peninsula. Later the direct sea routes from east and south India were developed. It was along this sea route that many Chinese pilgrims came to India. Fa Hsien in the fifth century passed Java and complains that there were many heretics then, meaning people following the Brahminical faith and not Buddhism.

It is clear that shipbuilding was a well-developed and flourishing industry in ancient India. We have some details and particulars of the ships built in those days. Many Indian ports are mentioned. South Indian (Andhra) coins of the second and third centuries A.C. bear the device of a two-masted ship. The Ajanta Frescoes depict the conquest of Ceylon and ships carrying elephants are shown.

The huge states and empires that developed from the original Indian settlements were essentially naval powers interested in trade and, therefore, in the control of the sea-routes. They came into conflict with each other on the seas, and at least once one of them challenged the Chola State of South India. But the Cholas were also strong on the seas and they sent a naval expedition which subdued for a while the Sailendra Empire.

There is an interesting Tamil inscription of 1088 A.C. which refers to a 'Corporation of the Fifteen Hundred.' This was apparently a union of traders who were described in it as 'brave men, born to wander over many countries ever since the beginning of the Krita age, penetrating the regions of the six continents by land and water routes, and dealing in various articles such as horses, elephants, precious stones, perfumes, and drugs, either wholesale or in retail.'

This was the background of the early colonizing ventures of the Indian people. Trade and adventure and the urge for expansion drew them to these eastern lands which were comprehensively described in old Sanskrit books as the Svarnabhumi, the Land of Gold or as Svarnadvipa, the Island of Gold. The very name had a lure about it. The early colonists settled down, more followed and thus a peaceful penetration went on. There was a fusion of the Indians with the races they found there, and also the evolution of a mixed culture. It was only then, probably, that the political element came from India, some Kshatriya princes, cadets of the noble families, in search of adventure and dominion. It is suggested, from a similarity of names, that many of these people who came were from the wide-spread Malva tribe in India—hence the Malay race which has played such an important part in the whole of Indonesia. A part of central India is still known as Malwa. The early colonists are supposed to have gone from Kalinga on the east coast (Orissa) but it was the Hindu Pallava Kingdom of the south that made an organized effort at colonization. The Sailendra dynasty, which became so famous in south-east Asia, is believed to have come from Orissa. At that time Orissa was a stronghold of Buddhism but the ruling dynasty was Brahminical.

All these Indian colonies were situated between two great countries and two great civilizations—India and China. Some of them, on the Asiatic mainland, actually touched the frontiers of the Chinese Empire, the others were on the direct trade route between China and India. Thus they were influenced by both these countries and a mixed Indo-Chinese civilization grew up but such was the nature of these two cultures that there was no conflict between the two and mixed patterns of different shapes and varying contents emerged. The countries of the mainland— Burma, Siam, Indo-China—were more influenced by China, the islands and the Malay Peninsula had more of the impress of India. As a rule the methods of government and the general philosophy of life came from China, religion and art from India. The mainland countries depended for their trade largely on China and there were frequent exchanges of ambassadors. But even in Cambodia and in the mighty remains of Angkor the only artistic influence that has been so far detected came from India. But Indian art was flexible and adaptable and in each country it flowered afresh and in many new ways, always retain-ing that basic impress which it derived from India. Sir John Marshall has referred to 'the amazingly vital and flexible character of Indian art' and he points out how both Indian and Greek art had the common capacity to 'adapt themselves to suit the needs of every country, race, and religion with which they came into contact.'

Indian art derives its basic character from certain ideals associated with the religious and philosophic outlook of India. As religion went from India to all these eastern lands, so also went this basic conception of art. Probably the early colonies were definitely Brahminical and Buddhism spread later. The two existed side by side as friends and mixed forms of popular worship grew up. This Buddhism was chiefly of the Mahayana type, easily adaptable, and both Brahminism and Buddhism, under the influence of local habits and traditions, had probably moved away from the purity of their original doctrines. In later years there were mighty conflicts between a Buddhist state and a

Brahminical state but these were essentially political and economic wars for control of trade and sea routes.

The history of these Indian colonies covers a period of about thirteen hundred years or more, from the early beginnings in the first or second century A.C. to the end of the fifteenth century. The early centuries are vague and not much is known except that many small states existed. Gradually they consolidate themselves and by the fifth century great cities take shape. By the eighth century seafaring empires have arisen, partly centralized but also exercising a vague suzerainty over many lands. Sometimes these dependencies became independent and even presumed to attack the central power and this has led to some confusion in our under-standing of those periods.

The greatest of these states was the Sailendra Empire, or the empire of Sri Vijaya, which became the dominant power both on sea and land in the whole of Malaysia by the eighth century. This was till recently supposed to have its origin and capital in Sumatra but later researches indicate that it began in the Malay Peninsula. At the height of its power it included Malaya, Ceylon, Sumatra, part of Java, Borneo, Celebes, the Philippines, and part of Formosa, and probably exercised suzerainty over Cambodia and Champa (Annam). It was a Buddhist Empire.

But long before the Sailendra dynasty had established and consolidated this empire, powerful states had grown up in Malaya, Cambodia, and Java. In the northern part of the Malay Peninsula, near the borders of Siam, extensive ruins, says R. J. Wilkinson, 'point to the past existence of powerful states and a high standard of wealth and luxury.' In Champa (Annam) there was the city of Pandurangam in the third century and in the fifth century Kamboja became a great city. A great ruler, Jayavarman, united the smaller states in the ninth century and built up the Cambodian Empire with its capital at Angkor. Cambodia was probably under the suzerainty of the Sailendras from time to time, but this must have been nominal, and it reasserted its independence in the ninth century. This Cambodian state lasted for nearly four hundred years under a succession of great rulers and great builders, Jayavarman, Yashovarman, Indravarman, Suryavarman. The capital became famous in Asia and was known as 'Angkor the Magnificent,' a city of a million inhabitants, larger and more splendid than the Rome of the Caesars. Near the city stood the vast temple of Angkor Vat. The empire of Cambodia flourished till the end of the thirteenth century, and the account of a Chinese envoy who visited it in 1297 describes the wealth and splendor of its capital. But suddenly it collapsed, so suddenly that some buildings were left unfinished. There were external attacks and internal troubles, but the major disaster seems to have been the silting up of the Mekong river, which converted the approaches to the city into marshlands and led to its abandonment.

Java also broke away from the Sailendra Empire in the ninth century, but even so the Sailendras continued as the leading power in Indonesia till the eleventh century, when they came into conflict with the Chola power of South India. The Cholas were victorious and held sway over large parts of Indonesia for over fifty years. On the withdrawal of the Cholas the Sailendras recovered and continued as an independent state for nearly three hundred years more. But it was no longer the dominant power in the eastern seas and in the thirteenth century began the disruption of its empire. Java grew at its expense as also did the Thais (Siam). In the second half of the fourteenth century Java completely conquered the Sailendra Empire of Srivijaya.

This Javan state which now rose into prominence had a long history behind it. It was a Brahminical state which had continued its attachment to the older faith in spite of the spread of Buddhism. It had resisted the political and economic sway of the Sailendra Empire of Srivijaya even when more than half of Java itself was occupied by the latter. It consisted of a community of sea faring folk intent on trade and passionately fond of building great structures in stone. Originally it was called the Kingdom of Singhasari, but in 1292 a new city, Majapahit, was founded and from this grew the empire of Majapahit which succeeded Srivijaya as the dominant power in south-east Asia. Majapahit insulted some Chinese envoys sent by Kublai Khan and was punished for this by a Chinese expedition. Probably the Javanese learnt from the Chinese the use of gunpowder and this helped them finally to defeat the Sailendras.

Majapahit was a highly centralized, expanding empire. Its system of taxation is said to have been very well organized and special attention was paid to trade and its colonies. There was a commerce department of government, a colonial department, and departments for public health, war, the interior, etc. There was also a supreme court of justice consisting of a number of judges. It is astonishing how well this imperialist state was organized. Its chief business was trade from India to China. One of its well-known rulers was the Queen Suhita. The war between Majapahit and Srivijaya was a very cruel one and though it ended in the complete victory of the former, it sowed the seeds of fresh conflict. From the ruins of the Sailendra power, allied to other elements, notably Arabs and Moslem converts, rose the Malaya power in Sumatra and Malacca. The command of the eastern seas, which had so long been held by South India or the Indian colonies, now passed to the Arabs. Malacca rose into prominence as a great centre of trade and seat of political power, and Islam spread over the Malay Peninsula and the islands. It was this new power that finally put and end to Majapahit towards the end of the fifteenth century. But within a few years, in 1511, the Portuguese, under Albuquerque, came and took possession of Malacca. Europe had reached the Far East through her newly developing sea power.