Chhatrapati Shivaji Raje Bhosle: The Great Hero

Shivaji Bhosle, the great Maratha Warrior, also known as Chhatrapati Shivaji Raje Bhosle was born on February 19, 1630, and died on April 3, 1680. He was the founder of Maratha empire in western India in 1664. He is considered a great hero in India, especially in the state of Maharashtra.

Shahaji (Shivaji's father) was a major player in the Deccan Wars. At that time, Shahaji was a regent for the young Nizam of Ahmednagar. However after sometimes, tired of the unsettled conditions, Shahaji maharaj left Nizamshah's service and joined the Mughal King Adilshah of Bijapur, who gave him a higher title of 'Sar Lashkar'.

Later on, the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan again attacked the Ahmednagar Kingdom of Nizamshah. At this decisive hour, Shahaji Raje returned to the military service of Nizamshah to help stiffen-up the defenses. In the meantime, an outstanding Maratha sardar Lakhuji Jadavrao was murdered on the order of the Nizamshah, and this was not acceptable to Shahaji Raje, and it prompted him to hoist the banner of independence and set up an independent kingdom.

It was during this disconcerted period only when Shivaji was born. His birth was in an independent country, as declared by his father, Shahaji Raje. Perhaps, that was the most important contributing reason for his life long desire for independence.

Shivaji was born in Shivneri Fort, Junnar, Pune and about 100 kilometres east of Mumbai. He was named Shiva, after the local Goddess Shivai, to whom his mother Jijabai had pleaded for a son. Jijabai had several other sons before Shivaji who did not survive.

Shahaji Raje,Shivaji's father, endeavored to build on the ruins of the Nizamshahi kingdom of Ahmednagar, but was defeated by a much larger joint force of the Mughals and Adilshah. He was enforced to leave the region around Pune. He was inducted by Adilshah of Bijapur and was offered distant land holdings, at present Bangalore, but he was allowed to keep his old land tenures and holdings in Pune.

Shivaji started his rise to power in what is now the state of Maharashtra in the coastal Deccan Given these circumstances, Shahaji appointed the young Shivaji under the care of his mother Jijabai to administer the Pune holdings. A small council of ministers was appointed to assist and train Shivaji in the administration which included Shamrao Nilkanth, Balkrishna Pant,Raghunath Ballal, Sonopant and Dadoji Konddeo Apart from these ministers, military commanders Kanhoji Jedhe and Baji Pasalkar were also appointed to train Shivaji in martial arts. In 1644, Shahaji had built Lal Mahal in Pune for his wife and his son Shivaji.

Shivaji started his career as an independent young prince of a small kingdom on a mission. Shivaji used the title of king only after Shahaji's death. His mother made an ineffaceable impression on him with her teachings, with her love for the homeland and its people. He learned much from his father's failed attempts at political independence, his exceptional military capabilities and achievements; his knowledge of Sanskrit, Hindu ethos, patronage of the arts, his war strategies and peacetime diplomacy. Shivaji was enthused and informed by his family's vision of independence and freedom.

Furthermore, his mother, having lost her father and brothers in a treacherous plot hatched by the regional king Nizamshah, was opposed to those rulers, due to their scorn and callousness toward the local population. Jijabai thus instilled in Shivaji a natural love for self-determination and an repugnance to external political domination. Her holiness and commitment to indigenous culture and her recounting of tales from the great Indian epics of Mahabharata and Ramayana molded Shivaji's character and helped him to be unequaled especially in his tolerant attitude towards other religions as well as in his fair and kind treatment of women and non-combatants.

Shahaji's vision, Jijabai's and Dadoji's teachings and motivation, and the able training by military commanders such as Pansambal and BajiPasalkar were the main influences which groomed Shivaji into a valiant and fearless military leader as well as a responsible administrator. Shivaji along with his friends took a blood oath to fight against the Mughal Empire. And young Shivaji, brisk and enthusiastic as he was, wasted no time in setting off on a path of freedom and glory.

At the tender age of 17 Shivaji carried out his first military action by attacking and capturing Torna Fort of the Bijapur kingdom, in 1645. By the year 1647,he had captured Kondana and Rajgad forts and had complete control of the Pune. By 1654 he had captured forts in the Western Ghats and along the Konkan coast. In a bid to incapacitate this move of the Marathas under Shivaji's able leadership, Adilshah had his father;Shahaji arrested by deceitful means, and he sent one army against Sambhaji, Shivaji's elder brother at Bangalore and another against Shivaji at Purandhar. However both Shivaji and Shambaji brothers defeated the invading armies securing the release of their father. Thereafter, Afzal Khan, a seasoned commander and a skillful warrior, was then sent to destroy Shivaji, in an effort to put down what was seen by Bijapur as a regional revolt.

Afzal Khan, after leaving Bijapur to confront Shivaji, first defiled the temples of goddess Bhavani in Tuljapur and Pandharpur. The intent was to get a disturbed and shaken Shivaji out in the open to face him in a pitched battle. Instead, Shivaji sent a letter saying he was not at all eager to face Afzal Khan and sought some type of understanding. Shivaji upon vigilantly weighing his options, strategically decided to confront and surprise Afzal Khan under the guise of diplomatic negotiations. A meeting was arranged between Afzal Khan and Shivaji at the foothills of Fort Pratapgad.

Shivaji, armed himself with a weapon called tiger claw and armor prior to the meeting. Afzal Khan attempted to stab Shivaji in the back with a dagger as they embraced at the onset of their meeting. Shivaji was unscathed due to the armor he wore under his clothes, and he counter attacked Afzal Khan with the tiger claw, spilled his blood and entrailed on the ground. Thereupon Afzal Khan's deputy, Krishnaji and his bodyguard Sayyed Banda attacked Shivaji with swords but Jiva, Shivaji's personal bodyguard fatally struck them down with a 'medieval weapon) Afzal Khan managed to trip up out of the tent to get help but was immediately slain by Shivaji's associate Sambhaji, before he could alert his commanders or raise an alarm.

To counter the loss at Pratapgad and to defeat the newly emerging Maratha power, another army, was sent against Shivaji, commanded by renowned Bijapur's general Rustemjaman. With cavalry of five thousand Marathas, Shivaji attacked them near Kolhapur in the year 1659. In a swift movement, Shivaji led a full frontal attack at the center of the enemy forces while other two portions of his cavalry attacked the flanks. This battle last for several hours and at the end Bijapuri forces were soundly defeated and Rustemjaman ignominiously fled the battlefield.

. This great and absolute victory made Shivaji a hero of Maratha folklore and a legendary figure among his people. The large amount of captured weapons, horses, armor and other materials helped to strengthen the embryonic and emerging Maratha army.

In 1660, Adil Shah, sent Siddi Johar to put down Shivaji once again. He ordered his large army north to Kolhapur, Maharashtra to face and defeat Shivaji once and for all. At that time Shivaji was camped at the fort Panhala with a small part of his army, near Kolhapur, on the borders of his dominion. Siddi Johar's army camped near Panhala, cutting off supply routes to the fort. Shivaji, decided to escape to a nearby fort Vishaalgad, where he could regroup his soldiers to fight a decisive battle.

Shivaji sent few misleading messages to Siddi Johar indicating that he was willing to negotiate and was looking for accommodation, understanding and mercy. With this news Adilshahi soldiers relaxed, and Shivaji escaped under the cover of a very stormy night.

In 1660, Aurangzeb sent his maternal uncle Shaista Khan, with a huge army to defeat Shivaji. He was an experienced commander who had defeated Shahaji in the same region in the year 1636. Within three years Shivaji had lost most of his invasions to a relentless attack by Shaista Khan and his army numbering over one lac. Shaista Khan, detained Pune and the nearby fort of Chakan. Although he held Pune for almost one year, he had little additional success. He had set up his residence at Lal Mahal, Shivaji's palace, in the city of Pune.

Shaista Khan kept the security in Pune very stiff. Shivaji planned a daring attack on Shaista Khan amidst that tight security. In April 1663, a wedding party had obtained special permission for a procession. Under the guise of this procession; Shivaji planned an attack using the wedding party as cover. The Marathas disguised themselves as the bridegroom's procession and entered the city of Pune. Shivaji, having spent much of his youth in Pune, knew his way around the city and his own palace of Lal Mahal.

After overpowering and slaying the palace guards, the Marathas broke into the mansion by breaking through a wall. Shivaji confronted Shaista Khan and severed Shaista Khan's fingers with his sword as he fled through an open window. Shaista Khan narrowly escaped death; lost not only his son but many of his guards and soldiers in the raid.

Within twenty-four hours of this courageous attack, Shaista Khan left Pune and headed North towards Agra. An angered Aurangzeb transferred him to distant Bengal as a punishment for bringing humiliation to the Mughals with his very personal and ignoble defeat in Pune.

In 1666, Aurangzeb on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday ceremony, summoned Shivaji to Agra, along with his six years old son Sambhaji, Aurangzeb's plan was to send Shivaji to Khandahar, to consolidate the Mughal empire's north-western frontier. However in the court, Aurangzeb made Shivaji stand behind military commanders of his court. Shivaji took offense to this seeming abuse and stormed out of court and was promptly placed under house arrest, under the watch of Fulad Khan of Agra.

From his spies, Shivaji came to know that Aurangzeb planned to shift him to Raja Vitthaldas's Haveli and then to possibly kill him or send him to fight in the Afghan frontier. As a result he planned his escape. The entire plan of escape is by far the unsurpassed example of analysis, planning and execution ever found in history. He pretended almost fatal sickness and requested to send most of his contingent back to Deccan. Thereafter, on his request, he was allowed to send daily shipments of sweets and gifts to saints and temples in Agra as offerings for getting well.

After several days and weeks of sending out boxes containing sweets, Shivaji hid himself in one of the boxes and managed to escape. Sambhaji, his six years old son had been smuggled out a couple of days earlier. Shivaji and his son fled to the Deccan disguised as holy men) Some people claim that after the escape, rumours of Sambhaji's death were intentionally spread by Shivaji himself in order to deceive the Mughals and to protect Sambhaji.

In January 1670, Shivaji launched a major, multi-pronged assault on Mughal garrisons in Maharashtra. Within six months he had regained most of his old territory and more. From 1670 to 1674 Shivaji extended his kingdom to include major portions of Maharashtra and far in to the south including parts of modern-day Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Shivaji was formally crowned Chhatrapati on June 6, 1674 at Raigad fort, and given the title Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Pandit Gaga Bhatt, a renowned Brahmin from Varanasi, officially presided over the ceremony declaring that Shivaji's lineage was bonafide and recognized Kshatriya.

However on the 3rd April in the year 1680, Shivaji died at 12 noon at Raigad, after running a fever for three weeks. It is said that he died due to contracting a disease called as Bloody Flux. The funeral ceremony was arranged in Raigad in presence of his son Rajaram, and wife Soyarabai. After Shivaji's death, his elder son Sambhaji fought for control of the kingdom. After a brief struggle Sambhaji was crowned as the king.

View the original article here

How Ancient Greek Democracy Worked

It is not difficult to describe how ancient Greek democracy worked. Actually, it is different from our present-day form of democracy, but still pretty straight forward and easy to understand. Ancient Greek democracy found its origins in the city if Athens, Greece. Our current system of 'democracy', although different than the Athenian version, owes its existence to this form of governing. As the scholar, Marvin Perry, pointed out, "Athenian democracy embodied the principle of the legal state - a government based not on force but on laws debated, devised, altered, and obeyed by free citizens." In this brief article we will briefly outline the workings of Greek democracy, and what differs between it and the form of democracy which we enjoy today.

Prof. John Keane, of Westminster University, states in the video series, "In Search of Democracy", "Democracy means self governing through the assembly." (Part 2) This self governance manifested itself through six main institutions. Each part was integral in the operations of the whole system. Comprising the main institutions were the Assembly, the Council of 500, the People's Court, the Archons, the Council of the Areopagus, and finally, the Generals.

The 'how' of the ancient Greek democracy is quite simple. Basically, everything flowed interdependently through these six institutions. Legislation was introduced and passed by the will of the people. The law was enforced by the military and crime was judged and punished by the people themselves. As we shed some light on the individual institutions, themselves, we'll see the synergy upon which the ancient Greeks' democracy was built and the society was governed.

This early Greek democracy had as its foundation the idea of the Assembly, Ekklesia, in Greek. Historian, Christopher W. Blackwell, writes in "Athenian Democracy: A Brief Overview", the Assembly was "the regular gathering of male Athenian citizens to listen to, discuss, and vote on decrees that affected every aspect of Athenian life, both public and private... " Notice, the assembly consisted of male citizens only. While women enjoyed citizen status, they, as well as foreigners and slaves were denied a place among the assembly. Assembly members met frequently to propose, debate, and vote on legislation and other matters of the state. This was undoubtedly a lengthy process, as each member was permitted to speak and participate in an orderly fashion.

The Council of 500 (originally 400) consisted of 500 members, each serving a one year term. Each member of the council was taken from among the Assembly. The Council was responsible for managing the ports, the military installations, and other state property. Most importantly, they prepared the agenda for the Assembly. As we see, each component of ancient Greek democracy was vital to its smooth operation.

In Aristotle's Athenian Constitution, we read, "There was also to be a Council, consisting of four hundred and one members, elected by lot from among those who possessed the franchise. Both for this and for the other magistracies the lot was cast among those who were over thirty years of age; and no one might hold office twice until everyone else had had his turn, after which they were to cast the lot afresh." (Aristotle Part 4)

History tells us that these council members were paid. The inclination towards a career in professional politics was curbed by the imposed term limit of one year, and the opportunity to only serve two terms in one's lifetime. However, the pay was substantial enough to afford one a year of absence from his chief trade to tend to the affairs of the state.

The People's Court formed what essentially was the primary judicial arm of ancient Greek democracy. These were known as 'jury courts', consisting of the citizens, themselves. In such courts, the jurors would hear cases brought before them, and decide the fates of those on trial. Again, turning to Aristotle, we see that "There are three points in the constitution of Solon which appear to be its most democratic features: first and most important, the prohibition of loans on the security of the debtor's person; secondly, the right of every person who so willed to claim redress on behalf of any one to whom wrong was being done; thirdly, the institution of the appeal to the jurycourts; and it is to this last, they say, that the masses have owed their strength most of all, since, when the democracy is master of the voting-power, it is master of the constitution. Moreover, since the laws were not drawn up in simple and explicit terms (but like the one concerning inheritances and wards of state), disputes inevitably occurred, and the courts had to decide in every matter, whether public or private." (Aristotle Part 9)

Next in Greek democracy were the Archons. This was a group of nine men who were essentially the chief leaders of the city of Athens. They were highly educated and honored individuals, originally responsible for making various judgments regarding public, military and religious affairs.

The fifth vital piece of ancient Greek democracy was the Areopagus, or Council of the Areopagus. This was a council of men who had served as judges with jurisdiction over cases of murder and other serious crimes. The court was comprised of former Archons, and its members served for life. Citing the ancient writer, Demosthenes, we learn that "You are all of course aware that in the Areopagus, where the law both permits and enjoins the trial of homicide, first, every man who brings accusation of such a crime must make oath by invoking destruction upon himself, his kindred, and his household; secondly, that he must not treat this oath as an ordinary oath, but as one which no man swears for any other purpose; for he stands over the entrails of a boar, a ram, and a bull, and they must have been slaughtered by the necessary officers and on the days appointed, so that in respect both of the time and of the functionaries every requirement of solemnity has been satisfied. Even then the person who has sworn this tremendous oath does not gain immediate credence; and if any falsehood is brought home to him, he will carry away with him to his children and his kindred the stain of perjury-but gain nothing. If, on the other hand, he is believed to be laying a just charge, and if he proves the accused guilty of murder, even then he has no power over the convicted criminal; only the laws and the appointed officers have power over the man for punishment." (Dem. 23.67-69).

Lastly, were the generals. The generals were entrusted with the military welfare and affairs of the state. Again, Aristotle informs us, "Four year after the establishment of this system, in the archonship of Hermocreon, they first imposed upon the Council of Five Hundred the oath which they take to the present day. Next they began to elect the generals by tribes, one from each tribe, while the Polemarch was the commander of the whole army." (Aristotle Part 22)

As has been demonstrated, these six facets of ancient Greek democracy each contributed to the proper functioning of the whole. The Assembly, the Council of 500, the People's Court, the Archons, the Council of the Areopagus, and the Generals were the people, themselves. Most of the familiar trappings of politics were avoided because of the intentionally short term limits. The people performed the will of the people.

As has been shown, this early Greek democracy was an intensely participatory form of government, as opposed to our modern representative form of government. Today the United States has what is traditionally been labeled a democracy, when in fact, it is a Republic. The main difference between our government and theirs is the cyclical election of public officials who go to the various state offices and to Washington to represent their constituents. Our voices do count, but not in the direct, everyday inner workings of legislating, ruling and judging the citizenry.

Additionally, today's political figures are well paid, and most (if not all) pursue politics as a career. This differs greatly from the model of classical Greek democracy. It has also led to an endless string of scandals, too numerous to cite here. Public officials are not readily trusted by the governed masses under our system, and are

This cynicism has evolved into a general distrust of government and a desire by the citizens to be protected from the constant intrusions of 'Big Brother'. Our text affirms this sentiment, "We are concerned with protecting the individual from the state, which we often see as a threat to personal freedom and a hindrance to the pursuit of our personal lives... the Greeks were not concerned with erecting safeguards against the state; they did not view the state as an alien force, to be feared or to be protected against." (Perry 63)

Many of the original ideas from ancient Greek democracy have been preserved in our present Republic. Ours is a more refined system, perhaps. Our brand of democracy serves as a model of justice and freedom throughout the world in much the same way that the fledgling democracy of Greece once did. While far from perfect, the checks and balances in our system serve to balance the powers of government in very unique and ingenious ways.

Selected Works Cited:

Aristotle, "The Athenian Constitution," Translated by Sir Frederic G.Kenyon. 350 B.C.E. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/athenian_const.1.1.html

Demosthenes. Demosthenes with an English translation by A. T. Murray, Ph.D., LL.D. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1939.

Curtis Bradley is the father of three and a full time writer and entrepreneur, residing in Connecticut. He holds a B.S. Finance, Summa Cum Laude, from Sacred Heart University (Fairfield, CT). Curtis is an avid reader and enjoys learning immensely. Currently, he's reading through his list of the top books of all time and writing extensively.

View the original article here

Tragic Flaw (Hamartia) Of Hamlet

Undoubtedly, Shakespeare is a great literary figure of his age. His contribution to drama and other literary terms is excellent and unforgettable. It is useless to criticize against such person. Christopher Marlowe, one of the university wits, gave few dramas to the age but he enriched it with such literary term. His dramas are watched and read with great curiosity through out the world. His work has not paid him only reputation but also made his name immortal. He wrote a total of 37 plays in his lifetime, all of which can be categorized under tragedy, comedy, or history.

Before discussing the tragic flaw or hamartia of Hamlet, it is better to know something about the word 'hamartia' used by Aristotle in his work, ' The Poetics'. According to him, the tragic hero is not perfect, and misfortune falls on him by some fault of his own. Aristotle uses the Greek word, 'Hamartia'. Its root meaning is, ' missing the mark'. A.C. Bradley translates it, 'tragic flaw'. Aristotle uses it, 'error of judgment'. Hamartia is not moral imperfection but it is an error of judgment whether it is arising from ignorance of some material fact or from rashness and impulsiveness of temper or from some passion. The hero commits various errors in series which seem unknown to him. At last, they create very strange situation that leads the hero to his catastrophe.

Hamlet, a prince of Denmark, is a well educated and sympathetic person. He is morally a good person and mostly liked by all, despite it, he is not a saint or perfect man. Apart from it, he can not be called a villain because he does not perform such action that may prove him a villain. It is his love for his parents that becomes the cause of his catastrophe, but he is unknown to the errors that he commits in love. Aristotle talks about an intermediate person who commits errors unknowingly. He further talks about hastiness in action and light temperedness as the main weapons of hamartia, leading the hero to catastrophe. Hamlet does not seem light tempered, but it is very fit for Othello. Undoubtedly, Hamlet is a tragic hero; he commits errors which become the cause of his tragedy. If Othello had been on the place of Hamlet, there would not have been tragedy. It is the skill of the playwright that moves the hero in a way that he may face his tragedy by committing tragic flaws.

Hamlet commits a series of errors which become the cause of his tragedy. Jan Knott says that Hamlet is like a Swiss cheese with all the holes. In his character, irresolution is a dominant factor and it gives birth to delay. It occurs due to his childish mood. Indeed, a man possesses very strange disposition, and a man who is the owner of a childish nature never thinks to harm the others. It is same condition with Hamlet that arouses pity and fear among the audience.

Throughout the drama, Hamlet is found in grief. His grief is the hasty marriage of his mother to his uncle Claudius. It hides his love for his mother and reveals his pure immaturity. Although he is a prince, he does not enjoy his status but wants to move the country on the foot steps of his father. Besides, when he hears the cause of his father's murder, his grief becomes double and leaves the other business of the kingdom. His invading by his inner conflict lessens sympathy for others. He wants to take revenge of his father; he must come out of the grief and hit the enemy a mortal strike. Apart from it, he is not helpless or weak; he can do any thing, but, in advance, he checks the accountability of his action.

In this drama, the author stages a play within play. Hamlet wants to make sure whether his uncle Claudius is the murderer or not. His staging drama for this purpose was equal to make the enemy aware of his crime and plan. The enemy is clever; he takes swift steps to repel him or to contrive to harm his life. He is ascertained that Claudius is the real murderer of his father, it again jostles him into grief, and he thinks about his mother. Such step made the enemy stronger but him weaker. His soliloquy, wherein he calls women frail, creates doubt within him about his mother as accomplice in the murder. His grief continues, and he is unable to get rid of. When Hamlet watches the drama that is prepared by him, he becomes very emotional on the emotional speech of the player. In the second soliloquy, he calls himself rogue and peasant slave and a dull and muddy-mettled rascal who, like a John-a-dreams, can take no action. He is, indeed, besieged by self contempt. His becoming fiery and condemning himself means to resolute to take a measurable action to avenge of his father's death. This grief enhances his inner and external conflict.

Hamlet is not a successful lover. Shakespeare avoids falling him in the inferno of love, and it may be that he is childish. Hence his love is inclined to his mother that shows Oedipus complex. This love was perceived more apt for his tragedy. Undoubtedly, he loves Ophelia and she likes him, too. He, in haste or without any conformation, kills her father, and she loses her sense. It relied on him to support her, but he always thought about his mother. At last, she drowned to death in the river. When he comes back from the grip of the pirates, he sees the rite of her burying. There he repents on this accident. His participation aggravates the anger of Laertes, and his fire of revenge increases.

She was innocent and immature in love. It was Hamlet who raised her feelings of love, and she started moving on the unknown track of love. Hamlet did not completely introduce her to love. He left her in desert alone and dejected. When her father was murdered, it was a great threat to her life. If she had been fully fallen in love of Hamlet, she would not have committed suicide. Shakespearean tragedies mostly give importance to the love of heroine, but here, it is different because importance is given to the love of mother. If she had been alive and in sense, there would have been a great resistance in the tragedy of the hero. She might have supported Hamlet, and Claudius would have been failed in his conspiracy of duel between Hamlet and Laertes. Shakespeare does not let Hamlet taste maiden love.

His soliloquies delve out his inner conflict. He finds Claudius busy in worship, and it was the best chance for him to take revenge but he comes into dilemma. Here Shakespeare introduces his popular soliloquy 'To be or not to be'. It means that he should kill him or not. If he killed him in this condition, he would go direct to heaven. He decides not to kill him. It shows his religious belief and fear as that child feels in darkness. Besides, it shows his inability. It verifies his first step to procrastination. He declares that it is conscience that resists him from the action and that's why irresolution comes into his actions. He stages a drama to find the reaction and passion of the murderer. Claudius becomes suspicious and deputes Polonius as spy. When he was engaged in conversation with his mother, he hid himself behind the curtain to listen their secret. Hamlet felt somebody there and realized that it might be Claudius. Without any proof, he, in disgust, killed him. Claudius was in search of such hasty action. He got opportunity to contrive against him. He takes benefit from his flaw and sends him abroad with a cruel plan.

His fourth soliloquy, too, shows his irresolution. Here he watches efforts and bravery of Fortinbras, the prince of Norway, and then he compares him with himself. He attempts to revive his own desire for revenge against Claudius for the death of his father. Hamlet condemns himself lethargic because he does not think too precisely on an event, although he has cause, will, strength and means to get revenge. Apart from it, he has evidence that Claudius is the killer of his father. Hamlet finally decides that he must take action against Claudius in some form or fashion. Here he himself feels that he is the prey of procrastination that has happened due to irresolution.

His killing to Polonius is very strange. His soliloquies are proof of his delay in action. When he kills Polonius, he does not verify whether he is Claudius or some one else. It is his hastiness or childishness, and it appeals to the rule of Aristotle's concept of hamartia. Such immaturity stands the entire environment against him. He loses his love, makes enmity against Laertes and the king. He is alone and easy to be hunted by the enemies. Laertes is his mighty enemy who is under the spell of Claudius. He makes two plans to kill him. His first is to offer a poisonous cup before duel, if he avoided taking it, he would be the prey of poisonous sword of Laertes.

His mission was to take avenge of his father and to save his mother. He could not save his mother. His indecisive pursuit of revenge for his father's death confirms his major tragic flaw. In result, he is able to avenge for his father's death on his own death. He was a good person, and his devotion and struggle arouses pity and fear for him among the readers. Hamlet's irresolution is obvious in his actions after viewing the emotion of the actors, after his third soliloquy, in his fourth soliloquy, and in his indecisive pursuit of revenge for his father's death. Hamlet was able to avenge his father's death, but his own death due to his irresolution labels him as a tragic hero.

In result, it is obvious that Hamlet is not a fiery person. He looks lethargic into actions, although he has everything. His delay that inflicts his personality, but his death or tragedy restores his position. Even Fortinbras feels pity for him. It is really a great tragedy of a great tragic hero.

View the original article here

The Meaning of Tomb Paintings and Ornaments in Ancient Egypt

The tomb ornaments in the New Kingdom were gorgeous, and at first Egyptologist believed the paintings to be Egyptian dreams and fancies. But once the Amduat (book about the underworld), was found the real meaning to Ancient Egyptian tomb paintings was discovered.

During the Eighteenth Dynasty the walls of the burial chamber, the columns, the anteroom, and the shaft spot were decorated. But by the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasty the entire tomb was decorated.

The procedure of the painting even changed from simply paint to raised, then to sunk relief painting.

The Amduat clarified the nightly voyage the sun god Ra took to the underworld on his barque. It was very important that the dead pharaoh participated in this quest, to become one with Ra and live for ever.

At this point in time, only pharaohs were believed to be able to go on to the afterlife. Typical Egyptians did not have that privilege.

Tomb designs typically illustrated the pharaoh's journey with Ra. Hieroglyphs and images directly from the Amduat were decorated onto the walls of the kings' tombs.

The Amduat helped explain tomb ornaments by explaining the sun god's quest with the dead king. Specific phases of the twelve hours of night journey were painted around the pharaoh's tomb.

Each hour Ra and the spirit of the dead king would come across some kind of friend or opposing forces. The primary purpose for the quest was to supply the names of particular gods and opposings forces to the dead pharaoh, so he might utilize them for help or call upon their name to defeat them.

The very first hour of the quest, the sunlight god travel west. In hours 2 and three, the sun god would pass through a water globe called Waters of Osiris.

In hour four, Ra would reach Sokar, the sandy realm of the underworld hawk god. Throughout the fifth hour Ra might arrive at Osiris's tomb which was hidden beneath a lake of fire, and covered by a pyramid like mound, where Isis and Nephthys stood guard.

During the sixth hour, the ba of Ra united with the ba (soul) of Osiris. During this hour the sunshine god started his regrowth.

In the seventh hour, Apep, the enemy of the gods, laid in wait on a sandbank in the shape of a gigantic serpent. The snake would scoop the water of the underworld lake away from the boat to cease it from continuing on its journey.

Ancient Egyptians believed if the sunlight's cycle was ever stopped, it would be the end of the world. Thus Apep is defeated by Ra (some variations point out Isis and Seth assistance in this struggle) and his body is depicted on the royal tombs as being cut into pieces.

In the eighth hour, Ra opened the doors of the tomb and left Sokar. He then rowed promptly back into the water for the ninth hour.

In the tenth hour the regrowth process continued with Ra immerging in the waters till the eleventh hour. Ra's eyes were then totally regenerated (an indication of wellness). In the twelfth hour, Ra would rise in the east to prepare the new day's sunshine.

During the Eighteenth Dynasty tomb decorations altered. King Horemheb's tomb showed an additional book of the underworld was made use of, the Book of Gates.

Like the Amduat it displayed the night quest of the Ra on the solar barque. The difference was, the hours were not depicted. Instead an image of all the different gates the king had to go through were painted.

And at each gate Ra and the dead king would encounter a particular god or goddess.

The Book of Gates was meant for everyone, not merely royalty. The perspectives about Ancient Egyptians not having a soul had altered, and now they believed they were entitled to an afterlife.

In the Twentieth Dynasty, the Book of Caverns replaced the Amduat in tomb decorations. The Book of Caverns did not break out the twelve hours of Ra's journey, as an alternative it was a much more comprehensive about the afterlife and their idea of hell.

Check out about-ancient-egypt.com for more information on this amazing society.

View the original article here

Liberty - A Blessing?

How wonderful it would have been if Liberty was more of a universal phenomenon. Liberty to all celestial bodies to orbit, accelerate, and if wishes may command, to resign and join any other galaxy. How much magnificent could have been such varying sights of stars and sky. Unfortunately, such beauty has not been blessed to the heavenly beings. It is pity to find them busy orbiting and following the same old path since billion light years. I wonder why they don't exhaust crawling the most predictable path subjected to equations and phenomenon.

On the other side, however, I see a rare beauty in mankind, of being progressive, varying and evolving codes and patterns of lifestyle, values and laws. Its noteworthy that humans have evolved from apes, as many say. However, I wonder why the rest of the apes that still survive failed to evolve and why humans have stopped evolving any further in shape and structure. Its pity that humans in 21st century even has miserably failed to continue this legendary evolution.

Its 2 AM and its dark here. Sun rises at 5 21 AM today and I am sure there is no doubt in it. Its irony that such prediction and punctuality have never been wronged. On accounts of pretext, I see humans engulfed in dichotomy. At one point, mankind has made rules of all sorts and for every possible array of probabilities and on the other hand, they talk of freedom and liberty.

Oxford dictionary defines Liberty as the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views. Whereas, the word 'oppressive' is consciously ignored by the zealous youth that bear the torch of our future. Mankind teach their children to obey and yet pass on the coin of free-will. Free-will subjected to time tested values, principles and established moralities? I wonder what use it would make to give choices to a child to chose between flavors of pizza, where he was insisting to have a Burger.

Liberty however, defined in dictionary, its boundaries clearly demarcated in literature and in the words of elderly wise people, is sure to spread the evil manifested propaganda. Liberty is the act of liberation and when our youth thinks of it, they imagine liberation from everything. Literally no rules, no boundaries and no stoppage from believing and doing what one considers fit or appealing.

It is very important to highlight and understand that the social bindings and religious restrictions are not a product of 'wish list'. It is more of a set of guidelines and instructions which if not followed and adhered shall result in an individual or massive disorder & illness. The rules and laws whether religious or worldly are not just rules which would result in reward or punishment. There is a whole lot of wisdom and understanding of thousand years that made them to survive.

Unfortunately, it is a general tendency of people that they tend to extract what favors them from a vaguely defined information and if the information is not vague, it is manipulated to look like one. Liberty, thus is not a slogan that liberates us from everything. It does have jurisdiction over few practices though, but it is not a godly freedom. Furthermore, argument of liberty is sometimes conceived as the free will of an individual that does not affect other individuals. Such argument is still misleading. It is very important that the literature which is a pr-requisite to understanding what liberty means, must be institutionalized in the public, especially youth. This phenomenon and desire of claiming liberty can not survive alone, otherwise, it will only result in chaos.

Naveed Chandio ANY ONE WHO HAPPENS TO READ IS HUMBLY REQUESTED TO COMMENT.... SO I MAY BETTER MYSELF.....

View the original article here

Prosperous Period of the Tang Dynasty

The Prosperous Period of the Tang dynasty (618-907) started with the first half of 7th century and ended in the middle period of 8th century, when the Tang Empire covered a vast territory with prosperous economy, enlightened politics and consolidated national defense, and it boasted the most powerful empire in the world, so the overseas Chinese are still called the Tang people by foreigners. The Tang dynasty is the most glorious period in ancient Chinese history, and then the extensive and profound Chinese civilization spread all over the world along the Silk Road (stretching from Chang'an (present Xi'an) to the Mediterranean coast), attracting the kings, envoys, merchants, monks and international students from all over the world to gather in Chang'an, all of whom marveled at the prosperous and bustling city.

As the history rolled on to the Prosperous Period of the Tang dynasty in China, the Americas and the Africa were still in sleeping state, the European was in the pioneering stage of the Frankfort Kingdom, the Roman Empire suffered invasions from the barbarian tribes and the Arab Empire was at war with Byzantium, Persia and India, however, the unprecedented achievements were made by the Tang Empire in economy, politics and culture during this period. Du Fu (the most well-known realist poet in Chinese history) depicted the prosperous screen of Kaiyuan Period in his poem Recalling the Past, which read, "Recalling the prosperous days in Kaiyuan Period, even a smaller county houses ten thousand households. The sweet rice and the white millets are filled with both pubic and private warehouse", fully reflecting the richness and prosperity of the Tang empire.

The agriculture industry developed rapidly during the Tang dynasty, the reasons for which are mainly as follows: fist of all, the structure of plough was greatly improved, and the working people invented the Curved Shaft Plough and scoop waterwheels (ancient Chinese irrigation tool), which greatly promoted agricultural productive force. Secondly, the new large-scaled water conservancy projects were built and the old ones were renovated successively under imperial order. Thirdly, the wastelands were cultivated, and the working people created great fortunes and contributed more to the national tax revenue. At the same time, great progress was also made in handcraft industry, and the silk fabrics from Yangzhou, Yizhou (present Chengdu) and Dingzhou were famous all over the world for their wide varieties and unique patterns, symbolizing the highest level in silk industry then. The porcelains from Xingzhou were as white as snow, while the ones from Yuezhou were as green as jade, and Tang San Cai (tri-colored glazed porcelain) was favored by people from both home and abroad for its bright color and attractive appearance. The paper-making industry in Xuanzhou and Yizhou were very famous all over China.

Chang'an and Luoyang were called the West Capital and the East Capital respectively in the Tang dynasty, functioning as the national economic and political centers and the cultural exchanging centers for the Tang Empire and the foreign countries, where a number of foreigners lived and traded with the Tang people, making them the most prosperous cities in the word then.

We provide more information for the visitors who are interested in the Tang Dynasty and the history of China, for more information, please visit my website.

View the original article here

The Greatest English Writer?

Shakespeare is such a great writer that no article, especially one as short as this, can hope to do him justice. So where do we begin? How about this: a famous passage from a lesser-known play:

This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,

This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,

This other Eden, demi-paradise,

This fortress built by nature for herself

Against infection and the hand of war,

This happy breed of men, this little world,

This precious stone set in the silver sea,

Which serves it in the office of a wall,

Or as a moat defensive to a house,

Against the envy of less happier lands

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...

(Richard II, Act 2 Scene 1, lines 40 - 50)

Before saying anything about the lines above I suppose I ought to begin by defending the application of the term "great" to a writer such as Shakespeare. It is no longer considered to be politically correct to say that writers such as Shakespeare are "great". It is elitist. It will lay you open to the terrifying charge of "intellectual snobbery".

This applies not only to English Literature in general, and Shakespeare in particular, but also to all other branches of the arts. I teach Classical Studies at the Open University. The courses I have taught over the years have contained some of the greatest works of art ever to have been produced by the human brain. But the course materials never once mention this. The present-day "official" attitude towards the art of the past is to regard it as an invaluable repository of information about earlier historical periods, not as something which has a certain special intrinsic value. An Open University Classics course will tell you a huge amount about, say, the plays of Sophocles. What it will not do is even discuss whether the plays in question have any purely artistic merit. Such matters are now regarded simply as matters of individual taste.

I do not and cannot accept this. But I do acknowledge that if we're going to speak of "greatness" in art we need to be clear about what we actually mean. Here, then, is my criterion for greatness in art:

A work of art is "great" if, and only if, it is rich enough to allow the reader or listener or viewer to discover new things within it, or derive new experiences from it, every time they experience it. This doesn't mean that a work of art must be lengthy or complex. The tiny songs of Hugo Wolf, the lyrics of Sappho, Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience - they all fall into the category of great art because, small though they are, they never cease to surprise us, or to offer us new experiences every time we read or hear them.

If my criterion of greatness holds, then every single Shakespeare play falls into that category. And not one episode of any soap opera does. An episode of a soap opera is designed to be seen once and once only. Even diehard soap fans find it difficult to see any episode, no matter how enjoyable first time round, more than twice. But you can see, hear or read King Lear, As You Like It, or Richard II as many times as you want - you will never exhaust them.

The lines quoted about are, or were, some of the best-known lines in Shakespeare. Schoolchildren used to learn them by heart - not an exercise I would necessarily encourage. The phrase "this sceptred isle", like Blake's phrase "dark Satanic mills", has found its way into common usage. As usual, those who use the phrase have little idea of the context.

This is perhaps not entirely surprising. Richard II is a truly great play. It is (I think) the only one of the plays to be written entirely in verse. If you see a really good performance of this play, or if you spend some time with the text, you will not forget the experience in a hurry. But it has never been very popular. I believe that it has only been shown once on British television. A quick visit to Amazon shows me that there are only two versions of the play on DVD. One of them, fortunately, is the BBC Television Shakespeare version with Derek Jacobi in the title role. If you're interested, you needn't hesitate.

The lack of popularity arises from the fact that the motivations of some of the characters, especially the central character, are hard for modern audiences to understand, let alone empathize with. Why does Richard turn on Bollingbrook? Why does he abdicate when he doesn't have to? This is a historical play. Shakespeare can take some liberties but he cannot entirely re-write history. The play doesn't provide conclusive answers to these and other questions. What the play does is to bring the characters and episodes to life in a unique and wonderful way and leave the viewers or readers to judge them for themselves.

The lines quoted above are from a speech by John of Gaunt. They are spoken in praise of England. These lines might be judged as having some contemporary relevance in the Diamond Jubilee year of Richard's distant descendant Queen Elizabeth II. Events such as Royal Jubilees or Royal Weddings often evoke a certain emotional patriotism which Gaunt's lines seem to express so eloquently. But quotations from Gaunt's famous speech, like mine above, fail to present the whole picture. Gaunt's speech is not a paean of praise but a lament for an England which is passing. Note how the speech ends:

This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,

Dear for her reputation throughout the world,

Is now leased out - I die pronouncing it -

Like to a tenement or pelting farm.

England, bound in with the triumphant sea,

Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege

Of watery Neptune, is now bound with shame,

With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds.

That England that was wont to conquer others,

Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.

(Act 2, Scene 1, lines 57 - 66).

An England which is up for grabs, available to the highest bidder, an England in which money is all that really matters, a vain, selfish, self-serving leadership, influenced by corrupt counsel and acting in short-term self-interest, a leader who is so out-of-touch with reality that he might as well be physically blind...

Couldn't happen these days, could it?

Dr. Neil S. Hall
http://www.horshamhypnotherapy.co.uk/
The author is a practising hypnotherapist and an Associate Lecturer with the Open University (UK)

View the original article here

Song in the Throat of Death: Battle of Chillianwala

The Anglo-Sikh wars were the most hotly contested wars during the days of British rule. The fierce battles earned a healthy respect for the Sikhs in the mind of the British, who later classified the Sikhs as a martial race. This also started a long association between the Sikhs and the British, where the Sikhs became the biggest supporters of the Raj. They were instrumental in furthering the interest of the British Empire all over the world.

One battle that stands out as an example of Sikh soldiery is the Battle of Chillianwala fought in January, 1849 during the Second Anglo- Sikh war. This battle resulted in defeat for the British and nearly 3000 British soldiers died that day. It is aptly referred to as a song in the throat of death, for despite winning this battle the Sikhs lost the war and the Punjab was annexed.

The battle has great historical importance and an eye witness account is available in Cunningham's ' History of the Sikhs'. The Sikh army was commanded by General Sher Singh and the British force was headed by General Lord Gough. Another significant aspect of this battle is that it took place at the same place where the Hindu Raja Porus stopped Alexander the great in 326 BC. The battle was fought on the banks of the river Jhelum, referred to by Greek historians as Hydespes.

Lord Gough was confident of victory as he had more guns than the Sikh army. The East Indian Company army had about 12000 soldiers, a preponderance of who were pure English. Sher Singh had lesser guns but a slight edge in soldiers. He commanded about 15000 men. Lord Gough decided on that fateful day to launch an offensive with coveting fire from his guns. Sher Singh held a line nearly 6 miles long on the banks of the Jhelum. History records that the British assaults failed and a Sikh counterattack by Sher Singh carried the day. The British suffered heavy casualties. However Sher Singh committed a blunder by not pursuing the retreating British. This was to prove heavy in the subsequent battle of Gujarat.

The Governor General Dalhousie heard of the defeat at Chillianwala and was aghast. He promptly removed Sir Hugh Gough as commander and appointed Sir Charles Napier as commander to replace Gough. The battle individually was a colossal defeat for the English, where for the first time a preponderant English force was defeated by a local or native force. There is no such incident in British Indian history. However Lord Gough made amends in the next battle at Gujarat as Sir Charles Napier took 2 months to reach India.

View the original article here

The Military and Political System in the Qing Dynasty

The Military and Political System in the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) was mainly composed of the Eight-Banner System, the Six Ministry System, the Privy Council and the Han Green Army.

1. Eight-Banner System

The Eight-Banner System (administrative divisions into which all Manchu families were placed.) was founded by Nurhachi (the founder of the Qing dynasty), composed of the Border Yellow Banner, the Plain Yellow Banner, the Plain White Banner, the Plain Red Banner, the Bordered White Banner, the Bordered Red Banner, the Plain Blue Banner and the Bordered Blue Banner, which combined the army and the common people perfectly as one. The political power was centralized in the hands of nobilities, and the important decisions were discussed and decided by Manchu Council of Princes and Ministers. Hong Taiji (the son of Nurhachi) imitated the political system of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) and established the Six Ministries in the 5th year (1631) of Tianchong Period, trying to weaken the power of Manchu nobilities. Emperor Shunzhi reformed the Eight-Banner System by commanding the Plain Yellow Banner, the Plain White Banner and the Bordered Yellow Banner, centralizing all power in his own hands.

2. The Six Ministries

The Six Ministries were established by Emperor Hong Taiji, with a Shangshu (the senior minister) in charge of each ministry, and the vice-senior minister was called Shilang (assistant minister). It was stipulated that the two ministers (served as Shangshu) in each ministry should be chosen from the Manchu ethnic group and the Han ethnic group respectively in the first (1644) year of Shunzhi Period, when a number of coordinate administrative institutions were set up in addition to the Six Ministries, including Hanlin Academy, the Ministry of Tribal Affair, the Imperial Hospital, the Ministry Internal Affair and Court of Censors, so the officials were classified into nine grades based on their ranks in the Qing dynasty.

3. Privy Council

The Qing army was at war with Mongolian army in the 7th (1729) year of Emperor Yongzheng, and the Privy Council was established under imperial order to handle military intelligence, which became the core organ of state power after the 2nd year of Emperor Qianlong's reign and it lasted to the 3rd year of Emperor Xuantong's reign in the Qing dynasty.

4. Green Standard Army

The army was divided into the Eight-Banner Army and the Green Standard Army in the early Qing dynasty. The Eight-Banner Army was composed of the Manchu Eight-Banner, Mongolian Eight-Banner and the Han Eight-Banner, which were directly controlled by the emperors, and the local governors had no rights to call up them. The Green Army was established by the local governors, playing a more and more important part in the late Qing dynasty.

We provide more information for the visitors who are interested in the Qing Dynasty and the history of China, for more information, please visit my website.

View the original article here

Ramayana: The Indian Epic

The Ramayana is one of the two greatest Indian epics, the other one being the Mahabharata. The Ramayan is the very soul of India. The Ramayana tells about life in India around 1000 BC and offers models in dharma. It acts as a complete guide to God-realization, the path to which lies in uprightness. The ideals of man are beautifully portrayed in it. Everyone should imitate those ideals and grow into ideal human beings and ideal citizens.

The original Ramayana was around twenty-four thousand couplet-long epic poem attributed to the Sanskrit poet Valmiki. It has since been told, translated and trans-created, retold throughout South and Southeast Asia, and the Ramayana continues to be performed in dance, puppet shows, drama, songs and movies.

The hero: Rama lived his whole life by the rules of dharma; in fact, that was why Indian considers him heroic. Oral versions of Rama's story circulated for over centuries, and the epic was probably first written down sometimes around the start of the Common Era. Rama is the 7th incarnation of Vishnu and the central figure of the Ramayana epic.

Rama took birth to free the earth from the cruelty and sins of the demon King Ravana. Ravana had practiced austerities in order to propitiate Shiva and Brahma, who had granted him immunity from being killed by gods, gandharvas or demons. One of the gods had to take on a human form in order to be able to defeat Ravana.

Dasharatha, King of Aydohya, had three wives and four sons. Rama is the eldest. His mother was Kaushalya. Bharata was the son of his second and favorite wife, Queen Kaikeyi. The other two are twins, Lakshman and Shatrughna.

Later In his youth, Rama went with Saint Vishwamitr to Mithila where the astute King Janak ruled and the ruler's daughter was Sita. Sita was an incarnation of Lakshmi, the consort of Lord Vishnu. King Janak had organized a svayamvaraa;an ancient custom wherein the bride chose her husband of her own accord from amongst a number of suitors. It was announced that whosoever would bend the bow of Lord Shiva will marry King Janak's daughter Sita

No one else could even lift the bow, but as Rama bent it, he not only strung it but broke it in two. Sita indicates she had chosen Rama as her husband by putting a garland around his neck. The disappointed suitors watch.

Since prince Rama was the eldest of four sons;he was to become king when his father retired from ruling. King Dasharatha, Rama's father, decided it was the time to give his throne to his eldest son Rama and retire to the forest to seek moksha(salvation). Everyone seemed to be pleased. In addition, everyone loved Rama.

However Rama's step-mother, the king's second wife, was not pleased. She wanted her son, Bharata, Rama's younger brother, become king to rule. Remembering that the king had once promised to grant her any two wishes she desired, she demanded that Rama be banished and Bharata be crowned. The king had to keep his word to his wife and ordered Rama's exile. Broken-hearted, the devastated king cannot face Rama with the news and Kaikeyi must tell him. Rama accepted the decree unquestioningly.

Rama, always obedient, was as content to go into banishment in the forest as to be crowned king. When Sita, Rama's wife, heard Rama was to be banished, she begged to accompany him to his forest retreat. She pleaded and finally Rama agreed, and Rama, Sita and his brother Lakshmana all went to the forest. After Ram left to the forest, Dashratha died from the pangs of separation from his beloved son Ram.

Bharata, whose mother's evil plot had won him the throne, was very upset when he found out what has happened, he sought Rama in the forest. Not for a moment did he consider breaking the rules of dharma and becoming king in Rama's place He reminded Rama that the eldest must rule. He requested him to come back and claim his rightful place as king.

Rama refused to go against his father's command, so Bharata took his brother's sandals and decided that he would place these sandals on the throne as symbols of Rama's authority. He would rule only as regent in your place, and each day he would put his offerings at the feet of Lord Rama. He also decided to joyously return the kingdom to Rama when the fourteen years of banishment got over, Rama was very impressed with Bharata's selflessness. Until his brother returned from the exile Bharat served the kingdom as a true and honest caretaker of Ram.

Years passed and Rama, Sita and Lakshman are very contented in the forest. Rama and Lakshman destroyed the rakshasas (evil creatures) who disturbed the sages in their meditations. Once Surpnakha, the sister of Ravana(King of Lanka) passed by the place where Ram was living. She saw Ram and became daunted by his good looks.

She transformed herself into a gorgeous lady and went to Ram and asked him to marry her. When Ram refused and told her he is already married to Sita, she became fuming. Coming back to her original form she ran towards Sita to kill her. When Lakshman saw that he cut her nose and one ear. Surpnakha then sent her brother Khardushan with fourteen thousand s to avenge her. But all of them were killed by Rama.

She returned to her brother Ravana, the ten-headed ruler of Lanka and told him about lovely Sita. He devised a plan to abduct Sita. He sent a magical golden deer which Sita desired. Rama and Lakshman went off to hunt the deer, first drawing a protective circle around Sita and warning her she would be safe as long as she did not step outside the circle. As they went off, Ravana appeared in a disguise of a holy man begging alms. The moment Sita stepped outside the circle to give him food, Ravana grabbed her and carried her off the kingdom in Lanka.

Rama is broken-hearted when he returned to the empty hut and could not find Sita In Lanka, Ravana tried to threaten Sita into marrying him, Ravana had carried Sita to his palace in Lanka, but he could not force her to be his wife so he put her in a grove and alternately sweet-talked to her and threatened her in an attempt to got her to agree to marry him but was rejected again and again.

Meanwhile, Ram made an alliance with the monkey King Sugreeva, who had been exiled from his kingdom by his brother Bali. Ram helped Sugreeva to regain his kingdom and in return Sugreeva raised an army of monkeys and bears, led by Hanuman. Hanuman, the general of the monkey band could fly since his father was the wind, and Hanuman flew to Lanka and, finding Sita in the grove, comforted her and told her Rama will soon come and save her.

Ravana's army capture Hanuman, and Ravana ordered them to wrap Hanuman's tail in cloth and to set it on fire. With his tail burning, Hanuman hops from house-top to house-top, setting the whole Lanka afire. He then flew back to Rama to tell him where Sita was.

Rama, Lakshman and the monkey army build a boardwalk from the tip of India to Lanka and cross over to Lanka. A might battle proceeded. Rama killed several of Ravana's brothers and then Rama confronted ten-headed Ravana. Rama finally killed Ravana.

Rama freed Sita. In order to set a fine example, however, Rama demanded that Sita should prove her purity before he could take her back as his wife. After Sita proves here purity, they return to Ayodhya and Rama becomes king. Rama, Sita and Bharata are all examples of persons following their dharma

This epic focuses on how the Ramayana teaches Indians to perform their dharma. Encourage students to pick out examples of characters in the epic dreaming that one day modern India would become a Ram-rajya.

View the original article here

Is The Earth Being Overrun and Over Populated By Humans - Should We Intervene?

It seems to be a favorite theory that the human population has grown entirely too large and that it is over taxing the Earth to the point of environmental ruin. Is this so? If so, what should we do about it? Well, it also seems to be a favorite theory that we need to put strict controls to bring the population down on Earth. Some have suggested the maximum number to be under 1.5 Billion humans, some even less, but the figures range from 5 Billion to 300 million humans. Okay so, let's talk about this shall we?

You see, recently I was discussing this issue with a young starry eyed university student who would like to see mandatory controls in place. Why? I guess because his European professors have sold him on global warming theory, and over population collapses. Now, don't get me wrong, here in the US we have tons of college professors purporting the same thing, some have decent research in their minds to justify this, most not, and under severe peer review, not much of it holds water in my opinion.

Nevertheless, I asked; do you think that technology can conquer this problem? It was once noted that in the USA, the great state of Texas could hold every person in the world (up to 10 Billion) with less density than Tokyo in mega cities, and no humans anywhere else on the planet, we could use all of Africa, Asia, and parts of South America for farming and leave the rest untouched. Do you think we could handle 50 billion humans living lifespans of 600-1000 years in the future?

Now then, I was told that 50 Billion was way too high, and that Earth could never hold that many people, but this is what folks had said in the 1970s about 5 Billion or 10 Billion, still today we can obviously see that is possible, and with new technologies perhaps not all that difficult to sustain either. You see, humans as bad as they are at making decisions, they are equally brilliant at finding solutions to problems and crisis - even if generally they linger in the arena of unintended consequences throughout that never ending process of two-steps forward, one step back.

My acquaintance, of extremely high IQ noted that it was unimaginable to consider a 50 Billion human population on Earth living in any sustainable fashion. Unimaginable, well then if one loses their imagination at the University, then why attend? We are going to have to face this population issue head on, because slowing human population to under 2.2 per couple has perceived dire economic consequences as per economic theory. Plus, humans cannot seem to stop procreating anyway. Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Humanitarian Issues. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View the original article here

Mercutio's Monologue on Queen Mab in Act 1, Scene 4

Mercutio's monologue on Queen Mab in Act 1, Scene 4 is like a section of an orchestra which comes in unexpectedly. It conducts itself. It follows its own rhythm almost obliterating and drowning the other sections of the orchestra. Yet, even in its seeming distortion of the flow of music, it acts like a prelude to a unified whole.

While Mercutio's monologue overshadows the progress of the whole play, the excess of images in his speech foreshadows what is to going to happen to Romeo and Juliet and their feuding families. Thus, Mercutio's monologue on Queen Mab is significant to the overall play. While it appears incongruent with the progression of the play, it is actually in harmony with the overall play. What appears to be an insignificant intrusion, it turns out to be a reservoir of meanings.

Mercutio's speech is an allegory whose overabundance of details conveys hidden meanings. For example: an agate-stone, her hazelnut chariot made by the joiner squirrel, her wagon spokes of spiders' legs, her collars of waterish moonshine, the cover of the wings of grasshoppers, blister plagues, cutting foreign throats, et cetera. These superfluous details say something about Romeo's overflowing emotion as he is passionately in love with Juliet. Also, the concrete images in his speech augur unwanted consequences in Romeo's and Juliet's passionate love.

Furthermore, the dynamism of Mercutio's speech is indicative of the play's movement and how it affects the audience. His speech's intensity engages and perturbs the audience. It holds their attention and heightens their emotion. Mercutio' speech seems to transport him to another realm drawing the spectators to his make-believe world. However, as soon as his speech reaches the threshold, it immediately takes a decrescendo movement. Its intoxicating intensity begins to wane losing his control over the audience in the process. Then finally disengages himself and his audience from the realm of fantasy. This disengagement brings him back to his senses, to reality.

The dynamic pattern of Mercutio's monologue on Queen Mab reflects the pattern of the overall play. Thus, Kent Cartwright declares that the pattern of Mercutio's speech "distinguishes the pattern of Romeo and Juliet as a whole" (Cartwright, 54). Passionately in love with Juliet, Romeo seems euphoric and enters the realm of fantasy. But this fiery passion reaches its summit in tragedy. Believing that Juliet is dead, he kills himself by drinking the poison. And when Juliet wakes up, she sees Romeo dead. She then gets the dagger and stabs herself to death. Then there after, the play's tension diminuendos.

Work Cited

Cartwright, Kent. Shakespearean Tragedy and Its Double. United States of America: The Pennsylvania State University, 1991.

View the original article here

Reflections of Hindu Saivite Mythology in the Annanmar Story

The Legend of Ponnivala is an Indian story best known in the Tamil language as the Annanmar Kathai (or Tale of the Elder Brothers). As this popular name indicates, the story is generally thought to feature the courageous exploits of two brave men: Ponnar and Shankar. But looking deeper into this great tale, one finds a subtle commentary that offers a telling female perspective on heroism.

The mother and elder heroine is named Tamarai ("lotus woman"). She was born in a lotus blossom from a drop of Lord Shiva's own semen, which fell to earth during his love-play with his wife Parvati. Tamarai is a pillar of strength and determination, and indeed she sits on a high pillar in prayer for twenty one years. Tamarai's life, taken as a whole, closely fits with what Wendy Doniger recognized as the Classic Saiva Cycle of Myth Motifs. To paraphrase Doniger, the basic Saivite story can be outlined as:

1. The Initial Creative Impulse:

There is an initial creation where a female child emerges from Brahma (her male, and only, "parent"). After this emergence, Brahma comes to desire his lovely daughter. She takes the form of a doe and flees, with him chasing in the form of a stag. His seed falls to earth and generates sages and other lifeforms.

2. Shiva's Marriage to the Original Daughter:

Daksha, a "son" of Brahma, gives his daughter Sati in marriage to Shiva. Daksha, however, holds Shiva in very low regard, deriding him for his asceticism (meditation) and lower-class habits. Daksha performs a Vedic sacrifice but refuses to invite Shiva, who in outrage beheads Daksha. The exclusion of her husband causes Sati to burn herself to death in the hope of being reborn to a father she can respect. Shiva is finally admitted to the sacrifice, and replaces Daksha's head with that of a goat.

3. Shiva's Wife Undergoes Rebirth:

Shiva, distraught at Sati's death, rescues her body and dances with it in a wild stupor of despair. Then he drops it and goes into a protracted period of meditation. Sati, meanwhile, is reborn as Parvati, and performs tapas; a form of meditation that produces intense spiritual heat; with the intent of regaining Shiva as her husband. Shiva tests her, but she remains steadfast in her devotion until finally he asks her to marry him. After performing tapas himself, Shiva returns to make love to his wife, but they are interrupted by Agni, the god of fire. Parvati is angered by this interruption and curses all the gods' wives to become childless. Agni attempts to drink Shiva's seed, but it is too hot even for him and he deposits it in a river (or pond). The six Kritikkas who are bathing there become pregnant by this seed, and their multiple pregnancies somehow result in the six-headed Murugan, who is widely considered a sort of "unnatural" son of Shiva and Parvati.

Parallels in Part One

Interestingly, Tamarai's story in The Legend of Ponnivala bears striking resemblances to this classic Saivite cycle. A key animal motif in the Saivite cycle is that of the mating deer, whose love-energy begins a creation story on earth. In the Annanmar story, Shiva and Parvati likewise disguise themselves as deer in order to make love. When Lord Shiva's seed falls to earth, however, it doesn't form a vague group of sages and creatures. It forms a single, named girl. Tamarai's mother, desirous of a daughter, was performing tapas at the edge of a pond when this occurred. The god's seed is his gift to her, arriving in the form of a child. When she discovers the miraculous baby in the lotus flower, she adopts her as her own.

It is important to point out that the Annanmar story creatively expands on the original creation image of a mating couple in interesting ways. In addition to Shiva and Parvati's joint parenting project where they create Tamarai, each god is also seen to exercise creative powers on their own. Shiva, for example, creates Tamarai's future husband, Kunnutaiya. Knowing that Kunnutaiya's entire family has been cursed to barrenness (by Shiva himself), Lord Shiva is persuaded by Vishnu to create a child for this farming family. By creating the child himself, Shiva is able to work around his own curse. He places the baby under a pile of heavy rocks in a field, where he can be found, adopted, and cared for. The parallel here is with Brahma creating Sati out of his own flesh--a common mythological theme across many cultures.

But the most significant creative effort in the Annanmar story is that of Parvati, who at the very outset of the tale creates a clan of "first farmers" in the area. She does this with the consent of Lord Shiva, but entirely without his involvement, using her own creative energy to form both the farmers and their wives. Hence, instead of a male (Brahma) giving birth asexually to a daughter (Sati), the Annanmar story begins with Parvati, the great female goddess, giving birht asexually to nine sons. This is only one of many hints that point to a set of strong female-oriented subthemes running through the Legend of Ponnivala.

Parallels in Part 2

In the second part of the Saivite cycle the Annanmar story matches with several classical motifs in creative and striking ways. It could be labelled the "Daksha Motif," in that it is a story that revolves around a father-in-law/son-in-law rivalry, with the female figure caught in the middle. In the Annanmar story, we first have to replace the father-in-law with a brother-in-law, which is not a big alteration in terms of family dynamics. Tamarai's parents are virtually absent from the Ponnivala story, with little explanation given for the absence. What we do know is that she is raised by her two substantially older brothers. She is kept confined to the family courtyard, where she plays and swings happily but alone. Kunnutaiya arrives in her world as a waif and orphan who is hired by Tamarai's brothers to work as a shepherd, although among his duties he is to push Tamarai on her swing. This is how they meet and fall in love.

Unfortunately, Kunnutaiya is far below Tamarai's social status. One day, he is encouraged to ask his masters for Tamarai's hand in marriage by Lord Vishnu, who has come to him in the guise of a wandering beggar. On his first attempt, Kunnutaiya is badly beaten by the brothers for even daring to think abuot arranging a match with their lovely sister. Nonetheless, Vishnu sees to it that the marriage happens by blackmailing the brothers with the threat of fire. Under protest they agree to the marriage, provided the wedding take place outside the village boundaries, and without the traditional blessings of the family. Lord Vishnu himself magically supplies all the trimmings and musicians, the ceremony is held in front of an ancient Ganesh temple. Tamarai's family sends a collection of insulting wedding gifts that send the clear message, "leave immediately, and never come back."

This story of Tamarai's wedding clearly parallels Sati's wedding to Lord Shiva, and the derision her brothers feel for her shepherd groom match well with Daksha's feelings of derision towards Shiva.

After finally arriving and reclaiming Kunnutaiya's inheritted lands, Tamarai realizes that she is barren and cannot have children, which may be a reflection Shiva and Parvati's lack of children. Her first thought is return to her natal home to see her brothers' children and delight in their happiness, and despite being sternly warned against doing so by Kunnutaiya she makes the journey with a few servants bearing gifts for her nieces and nephews.

When she arrives, she is met with violence. The guard at the palace door has been ordered to beat her. Shiva supplies her with a fireball, with which she burns her attacker until he backs off. She curses her brothers, who are hiding along with their children in the palace. All fourteen children suddenly die. She then erects a stone marker declaring that no one may take or give a woman in marriage to anyone from the palace, and no one may accept water from the family members there. This act effectively turns her brothers' entire household into outcasts from the community.

After a visit to Kali's temple, the goddess aids Tamarai by effectively forcing her brothers to submit and beg forgiveness. When they do this, Tamarai is supplied with a golden wand with which she resurrects the dead children. If one equates Tamarai's two brothers in the Annanmar story to Daksha's actions in the base myth, these mens' children to Daksha's "sacrifice," and Tamarai to Lord Shiva, then this story closely parallels the original myth in its structure and intent. The son-in-law wins the contest of wills and his will becomes supreme. But note the significant twist: here again the female is the active party. Tamarai does all the destroying, forgiving and resurrecting.

We know from other aspects of Saivite mythology, it is the fallen goddess Sati who reigns supreme on earth. The locations where the body pieces land are hers (they fall from from the distraught and dancing Shiva's arms). These are the spots where temples dedicated to the goddess have sprung up. But Shiva's lingam can be found (at least figuratively) at each such place too, where it always places itself at her side as a stabilizing force. In this sense the Annanmar story accords very well with a possible larger understanding of Tamarai as a "fallen Sati"--a form of Shiva's wife who has a husband (in this case, Kunnutaiya) living beside her.

Parallels in Part 3

The concept of Tamarai as Sati grows even stronger in the next part of the Annanmar legend. Tamarai returns home to Kunnutaiya after her misadventures at her natal home. He finds her bruised and exhausted, and is outraged that she did not take his advice and stay away from her brothers' palace. He casts her out.

In a deep depression, Tamarai has a huge pillar built, from which she intends to jump to her death. Fortunately, she's stopped in this exercise by Vishnu, who persuades her instead to commit to a list of devout works, upon completion of which she may go to Shiva's Council Chambers and beg for the gift of a child. This she does, and after the long journey to Lord Shiva's Council Chambers, she patiently and devoutly meditates for twenty one years atop a pillar.

Shiva is determined to test Tamarai, and so puts her through seven deaths--a number significant in atonement for each of the seven cows her father-in-law killed (which brought the curse in the first place), as well as for each of the seven generations the family has been cursed to barrenness. It is also significant, as it reflects Sati's own self-willed death. Even more interestingly, as a prelude to each death, Vishnu builds a sacrificial fire under Shiva. Here is Vishnu, acting in the role of Daksha, taunting Shiva with the heat of a sacrificial fire. In his annoyance, Shiva lashes out by killing Tamarai as he had at Daksha's sacrifice.

When Shiva finally agrees to grant Tamarai an audience, he agrees publicly before all the gods that he will grant her a pregnancy by placing three seeds in her womb. This is done by magic, of course, and she is impregnated on the spot with the reincarnated spirits of heroes from the Mahabharata (Bhima and Arjuna), and one girl from the seven sisters known as the Kannimar.

This lifting of a curse of barrenness parallels the Saivite cycle yet again. Recall that Parvati did a long tapas in order to win over Lord Shiva as her husband, and that due to the interruption of Agni, Parvati cursed all the gods to barrenness. When Agni consumed Shiva's seed, however, all the gods became pregnant, and Shiva's seed ended up in a river, eventually to become the six-headed Skanda or Murugan.

Another echo with this part of the story is that, just as the gods all became pregnant in a counter-measure to Parvati's curse, Tamarai returns to Ponnivala with a gift of divine water through which Lord Shiva lifts his curse of barrenness from all the mothers of that kingdom. Humans and animals in Ponnivala have been without children since the curse was imposed, but through her penance Tamarai is able to sprinkle just a few drops on all the females of the kingdom, and they quickly become pregnant.

But sprinkling water over everyone is not the end of the story. Nine months later Tamarai gives birth to twin boys. True, they are not double-headed beings let alone one boy with six heads! But the concept of multiplicity is there in this birth of triplets to the newly fertile queen. Furthermore, the two boys are a bit like Lord Murugan in their personalities. They are young, warlike and eager to enforce a just and moral rule over the land. The younger twin (the true hero who is beloved by all) carries a spear as his ever-present weapon, just as the beloved Murugan himself carries the golden spear or vel. And Murugan, though said to have six heads, is usually portrayed with only one. It is more like he has a mix of personalities.

The twins in the Annanmar story represent contrastive personalities as well. One is gentle and concerned with justice while the other (the younger) is much more aggressive, violent and intolerant of what he believes to be wrong-doing. There is just a possibility here that the twin heroes of the Annanmar story are like two of the many faces of Lord Murugan himself. Their younger sister Tangal, on the other hand, specifically reincarnates one of the seven Kannimar virgin girls (described as the six Kritikas of the Murugan story; one of whom has a separate fate) who are like Murugan's surrogate mothers. Just like in real life, where elder sisters often help raise and care for younger children, so Tangal is given a sisterly role in relation to her brothers. But there are interesting changes, as is typical in such cases of mythical recycling. In this story Tangal is younger than her brothers and is cared for by them. The Murugan overtones are present in this legend but they are partially hidden. Like so much in this great folk epic, the singer-poets who retell the story assume that their audience is familiar with the most important and culturally ubiquitous Hindu myth cycles. The local poets take liberties with these traditions, playing with these classical relationships in a way that causes their listeners to think, to puzzle, and to dream.

Dr. Brenda Beck  has invested nearly fifty years in the study of Tamil culture and society, making the focus of much of her research a folk tale she happened upon quite by accident while doing fieldwork in India in 1965. Dr. Beck's mission has been to capture this localized epic story; known locally as the Annanmar Kathai; and bring it to the world with new insight, new life, and new technology.

View the original article here

Chandra Gupta Maurya: The Charismatic Emperor

Chandragupta Maurya was born sometime around 340 B.C., reportedly in Patna, now situated in the Bihar state of India. There are many arguments about his birth and his parents. Some texts claim that both of Chandragupta's parents were of the Kshatriya i.e. warrior/prince caste, while others state that his father was a king but his mother was a maid from the lowly Shudra i.e. servant caste. Chandragupta's grandson, Ashoka the Great, later claimed a blood relationship to Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, but this claim is uncorroborated.

From an early tender age, Chandragupta was valiant and charismatic born leader. The young man came to the attention of a famous Brahmin scholar, Chanakya, who bore a grudge against the Nanda King. The reason being, Nanda King Dhananand had insulted Chanakya in front of all courtiers and kicked him out of his court. Chanakya began to groom Chandragupta to conquer and rule in the place of the Nanda Emperor. He helped the young man to raise an army, and taught him various tactics.

Chandragupta associated himself to the king of a mountain kingdom, Puru, who had been defeated by Alexander and later onset out to conquer the Nanda. Initially, the upstart's army was repulsed, but after a long series of battles Chandragupta's forces cordoned the Nanda capital at Pataliputra. In 321 B.C., the capital fell, and 20-year-old Chandragupta Maurya started his own dynasty, The Mauryan Empire.

Chandragupta's new empire, at the time of its founding, extended from what is now Afghanistan in the west to Myanmar in the west, and from Jammu & Kashmir in the north to the Deccan Plateau in the south. Chanakya served as the equivalent of a "prime minister" in the fledgling government.

Chandragupta Maurya was only a teenager when Alexander the Great of Macedonia invaded India. Facing stiff resistance all through and hampered by the high HindKush Mountains, Alexander's army lost its will to conquer India at the Battle of Jhelum. When Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C. his generals divided up his empire into "satraps", so that each of them would have a territory to rule. By nearly about 316 B.C., Chandragupta Maurya was able to defeat and incorporate all of the satraps in the mountains of Central Asia, extending his empire to the edge of what are now Iran, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

In 305 B.C., Chandragupta decided to expand his empire into eastern Persia also. At the time, Persia was ruled by Seleucus founder of the Seleucid Empire, and a former general under Alexander. Chandragupta detained a large area in eastern Persia. In the peace treaty that ended this war, Chandragupta got control of that land as well as the hand of one of Seleucus's daughters in marriage. In exchange, Seleucus got 500 war elephants, which he put to use at the Battle of Ipsus later.

With as much territory as he could comfortably rule to the north and west, Chandragupta Maurya next turned his attention south. With an army of four lakh, Chandragupta conquered the entire Indian subcontinent except for Kalinga on the east coast, and the Tamil kingdom at the farthest southern tip of the land-mass. By the end of his reign, Chandragupta Maurya had unified almost the entire Indian subcontinent under his rule.

The Chandragupta's queen's name was Durdhara, the mother of his first son, Bindusara. According to legend, Prime Minister Chanakya was concerned that Chandragupta might be poisoned by his enemies, so he started introducing small amounts of poison into the emperor's food in order to build up a tolerance. Chandragupta was oblivious of this plan, and shared some of his food with his wife Durdhara when she was very pregnant with their first son. Durdhara died, but Chanakya hurried in and performed an emergency operation to remove the full-term baby. The infant Bindusara survived, but a bit of his mother's poisoned blood touched his forehead, leaving a blue "bindu" spot that inspired his name.

When he was in his fifties, Chandragupta became fascinated with Jainism, an extremely ascetic belief system. His guru was the Jain saint Bhadrabahu.As a result, in 298 B.C.; the emperor renounced his rule, handing over power to his son Bindusara. Chandragupta traveled south to a cave at Shravanabelogola, now in Karntaka. There, the founder of the Mauryan Empire meditated without eating or drinking for five weeks, until he died of starvation..

The dynasty that Chandragupta founded ruled over India and the south of Central Asia until 185 B.C. His grandson Ashoka followed in Chandragupta's footsteps in several ways i.e. conquering territory as a young man, but then becoming devoutly religious as he aged. In fact, Ashoka's reign in India may be the purest expression of Buddhism in any government in history. Today, Chandragupta is remembered as the unifier of India.

View the original article here

Predation, Part One - The Humans

"Only sophisticated predators like rats, cats, mongoose, and humans that colonize island biotas whose members had no previous evolutionary experience with enemies of comparably high performance are capable of wiping out entire prey species." - Geerat J. Vermeij, Department of Geology, University of California at Davis

In Jurassic Park III, the big (and, let's face it, only) 'oh, shit' moment is during Dr. Grant's presentation: velociraptors are sophisticated, communicative, and intelligent predators - if the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out, we humans would either have had to share our top position on the plant, or end up in second place altogether. And that's assuming that the raptors would have left any of our predecessors alive long enough to evolve.

There are so many variables about what the world might be like had a massive asteroid not killed off the majority of the complex life on earth that it's hard to even imagine a probably one. Giant reptiles could be the dominant species on Earth, or eventual climate shifts would have lead to the evolution of other (maybe mammalian, maybe primate, maybe insectoid) top predators... what are worlds like in which the top of the food chain had reached their evolutionary 'now' through different paths? Of course, the end of the dinosaurs isn't the only factor that has influenced the formation of life - it isn't even one of the most important or (depending on how punny you want to be about the Cambrian Explosion) explosive.

That honor goes to predation. As a subset of competition - as gruesome as it might be, both predator and prey are competing for the rights to the prey's body - predation has played a large part in everything from our social skills to terrestrial life's initial shift from photo- or chemo-receptive prokaryotes to more complex eukaryotes. An alien world without predation would be a calm, dismal place, but a world with a high rate of evolution due to extreme predation and short life spans - topped by a super predator far more technologically advanced or intelligent than us and with an interest in space travel - would fairly easily lead to our extinction or our being knocked cleanly off the top trophic pedestal.

Remember that island biota the University of California professor was talking about? Yeah: that would be us.

Because the realm of possible change is so infinitely huge, I'm going to follow predation's effect on Earth's life a bit backwards: first, how being both predator and prey has changed human, and how like changes could apply to extra-terrestrials. Then there's predatory animals in general and, finally, predation's effect on ancient cellular life - while it's just about impossible to predict advanced alien life forms from this stage, an alien would in which predation never happened is a kind of weird one.

1 - The Humans

The Beatles said that "all you need is love." This sentiment has been used for a lot of cheap segues, and refuted for equally cheap and plentiful segues. As far as human evolution is concerned, a little love helps - reproduction and all - but what you really need is a little neocortex. Really. It's the part of the brain that singlehandedly holds the majority of what makes us human, and it keeps getting bigger, ever since we first started being primates.

Rather charmingly referred to as grey matter - and, by the way, whoever decided to name a Crayola crayon after it clearly did not have a neocortex-intensive brain - the neocortex is the control center for most of our more complicated activities. These include sensory control, motor commands, conscious thought, language, and spatial reasoning. It's not that these things are unique to humans or even necessarily unique to terrestrial life. But the gradual formation and advancement of the made all of these functions come about in a range of formats for a list of specific purposes.

For example, our primate ancestors had forward-facing eyes and potentially nimble hands - the specifics of our sight-based strengths and weaknesses were based on these: terrific hand-eyes coordination, fairly excellent depth perception, and the honed skill of manipulating our hands, body and environment thought visual perception. These skills developed and advanced primarily because we both used and needed them. Primates grabbed (and still do) small pretty their hands, used tools, climbed trees, and performed social rituals, all using their hands.

If aliens had, say, telekinesis, they would not need hands, or any sort of limbs, actually. If they evolved in a world of icy cliffs, their 'hands' might be spike-like protrusions, hard enough to stab through ice and rock. Maybe, seeing as how this world is dominated by icy cliffs, it is far from the nearest star and receives very little heat and light: the deep cliffs, certainly, would lead to long shadows and little access to sunlight. Instead of their eyes adapting to what we know as the 'visible' light spectrum, they can see heat - both their prey's body heat and that of their own species and hunting partners, letting them successfully hunt in sophisticated groups and with sophisticated strategies.

Who knows?

Social evolution seems to be the only constant necessary for both central forces of an alien invasion novel - that is, both us and our enemy. Sure, you could to the monster movie route or the plant/microbe/virus route, but if you want a good fight for the planet between two advanced species, each side has to be social.

There is a theoretical side-effect of sociability, however, and it's one that you don't necessarily have to buy into. This line of thought goes, essentially, the more social and intelligent you are - the more neocortex you have -the less able you are to physically and individually be aggressive. We rely on interaction for both attacks and defenses, as humans, whether through actual allies or by using technology and knowledge created by others. We are individuals without shells, we have only vestigial claws and fangs, and we can't move quickly without sacrificing some balance or duration. So the elasticity of our brain really is our biggest resources - evolution demanded it.

That's not to say that this is universal or that a case for connection can even be made. The aliens in Predator (terrible example, I know) are roughly like us in mentality and social development; they also happen to be far more physically tough. In fact, if not restricted by fairly stupid plotlines, that advantage plus their advanced technology could easily lead to them taking over the Earth and using us in slightly more grand hunting festivities.

Predation was influential in the formation of the contemporary human in more ways than the homo sapiens' stint as a predator. We were (and still are, by the way) prey, too. In Africa - Ethiopia, by current popular opinion - humans were by no means on top; we didn't have the technology or community base to ensure complete domination. We never will, if people keep taking boa constrictors and wildcats as pets (there's that neocortex problem again), but humans will certainly not be wiped out by current terrestrial predators. During that long span of time in which we might have been, however, we got some evolutionary perks: increased alertness and locomotor performance, more survival-oriented habitat preference, and the foundations of our basic social structure. All of these things could have formed if we had only ever been predators, but they might have happened differently, unexpectedly, or maybe a bit slower.

So if we come across extra-terrestrial who had never been prey throughout the history of their species, maybe they never developed a finely-tuned fight or flight instinct. Maybe these aliens don't identify dangers as rapidly, or maybe they don't have any primal fear.

That habitat preference could also make for some interesting novels. Say that there were aliens who successfully invaded the planet, killed off the majority of the human population, and claimed Earth as their own. They need sunlight the way we need water (almost constantly, but we could easily made it without water for twelve hours and could spend a couple of uncomfortable days without it if not faces with undue environmental stress), but they never developed sunlight bulbs.

The remaining humans, after figuring this out, would head for the caves. Over a course of millions of years, humans have evolved to not need as much vitamin D ourselves, have developed better senses with which to navigate... Sight seems almost like a cop-out, so maybe some combined advancement of our ability to feel vibrations and sense proximity. With this, our fingers and ears might elongate and contain for more concentrated nerves; we'd become shorter to better navigate, too, and eventually become blind.

In short, the species would evolve solely for a habitat of caves, the only place these once-humans could survive.

Rachel is a science fiction fan, and writes about extra-terrestrials, philosophy, and alien invasion novels at her site How to Survive Alien Invasion Novels with her partner Rusty. If you want to read more about alien theories like the Zoo Hypothesis and responses to alien invasions, click here to look around, and feel free say how you would survive an alien invasion novel.

View the original article here