In the song `Nidhi saala Sugama' also he prefers lotus feet of Lord Rama rather than materialism and power or position. It only proves that materialism was rejected by great people like Thiagayya just 160 years back.
Is it because of British rule that we gave up real Spritualism and adopted materialism? How it happened? Why it happened? When it happened?
All the best
rvr,
from what i know of thyagayya, he considered any song without religious overtones not fit to be written. i think all his songs are spiritual and let us leave it at that.
there were several people 160 years ago, like tilak, motilal nehru, et al, who did not reject materialism, and yet were great people. there is no need, i think, to be ashamed of materialism. it is managing it, i think, within bounds, that is the key to any good living. in the same context unbridled religiosity and rituals can cause a lot of pain too. or guilt?
re materialism, for milleniums life and culture did not change. till the first industrial revolution in england in the late 1700s. throughout early mid 1800s england was the factory of the world (much like china now) along with it the evils of greedy capitalism.
but the fact remained, the process of mass scale urbanzation, the increased produce of goods, cheaper prices, the factory system, the need for markets, all of this combined with overall increased in prosperity became a world wide phenomenon. the power of the influencing the state moved from the country squires and jamindars to the city based industrialists. india, with or without british rule, i am sure, woould have pursued the industrial path, sooner or later, i would say.
though it would be an interesting exercise, as the configuration of india, if the british had not arrived !!
hwell:
