Showing posts with label napoleon bonaparte. Show all posts
Showing posts with label napoleon bonaparte. Show all posts

Monday, April 5, 2010

Kali The Divine Warrior



Excerpt frm Dr.Vp.Varma's "The Political Philosphy Of Sri Aurobindo"

Monday, March 23, 2009

Napoleon And Josephine

" Genius discovers a system; average talent stereotypes it till it is shattered by fresh genius. It is dangerous for an army to be led by veterans; for on the other side God may place Napoleon."

"One called Napoleon a tyrant and imperial cut-throat; but I saw God armed striding through Europe."

SRI AUROBINDO


Napoleon's achievement is the achievement of his emotions. His emotions are of the physical – physical emotion is passion.
For a passionate man to achieve, his passion must be at rest, in equilibrium. The equilibrium is found when his own passion finds its balance in another's passion.
Josephine gave Napoleon that equilibrium. When he left her, his downfall began. Sri Aurobindo said he should not have left her.
A force acts to accomplish when it is at rest – rest enough to produce results. Neither a fast moving force nor the one at rest accomplishes. Accomplishment requires of the force the same velocity of the plane of accomplishment.
Napoleon acted out of passion. Most men act out of emotion. For his emotion to achieve, it needs to be at the same velocity of the plane of accomplishment. It is supplied by a woman in the measure she meets that criterion.
For that he must meet her own requirements of accomplishment.
That condition exists outside today's social morality.
For a man and a woman to jointly discover the equilibrium at which both meet, the context lies not only outside the plane of morality but also many of today's social laws.
If it exists, it exists theoretically today.
Spiritually it is there when he becomes Ishwara and meets his Shakti.
What obtains today is within the moral constraints of society and the ethical compunctions of human psychology...
source

Sunday, March 22, 2009

The Code Napoleon


Napoleon's greatest reform of the Consulate Period was the creation of a universal system of laws that replaced contradictory and antiquated provincial policies. The Code Civil (more commonly known as the Code Napoleon) was compiled, ratified, and signed under the First Consul's

direction. From 1800 to 1804, a commission of jurors worked tirelessly on this project. Finally, in March of 1804, the new laws went into effect. Finally the Reign of Terror had truly come to an end since Frenchmen were now granted the ability to locate and learn all the government's policies and thus ensure that they were not acting contrary to them...read more

DID NAPOLEON CONVERT TO ISLAM?

England's foe for many years has been France. The legacy remains as seen in the Capital of England, London, where monuments dedicated to defeats over France, are evident. The defeats have been most significant against that of when France was being ruled by Napoleon Bonaparte. (Nelson's Column, Trafelgar Square, Waterloo Station to name but a few.)
Yet, history is seldom seen in the truthful light, and is nearly always partial to the 'winning side' - in whose hand the pen remains, long after both the battle and the war have been won. Yet, recent discoveries have seemed to suggest some interesting facts about Napoleon and his religious beliefs.
In the book, ‘Satanic Voices - Ancient and Modern’ by David M. Pidcock, (1992 ISBN: 1-81012-03-1), it states on page 61, that the then official French Newspaper, Le Moniteur, carried the accounts of his conversion to Islam, in 1798 C.E.
It mentions his new Muslim name, which was ‘Aly (Ali) Napoleon Bonaparte’. He commends the conversion of his General Jacques Menou, who became known as General ‘Abdullah-Jacques Menou’, who later married an Egyptian, Sitti Zoubeida - who was descended from the line of the Prophet Muhammad (on whom be peace).
Napoleon did recognise the superiority of the Islamic (Shari'ah) Law - and did attempt to implement this in his Empire. Most of this, as one can imagine, has been removed/replaced by modern-day secular laws in France and other parts of Europe, but some aspects of the Islamic (Shari'ah) Law do currently exist in French constitution as the basis for some of their laws from the Code Napoleone. One publicised case was that of the fatal car accident with Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al-Fayed. "The photographers were charged with an old part of the French Jurisprudence, for ‘not helping at the scene of an accident’- which is taken from the Shari'ah Law of Imam Malik." (David M. Pidcock, 1998 C.E.)
Further detailed accounts of this can be found in the book 'Napoleon And Islam' by C. Cherfils. ISBN: 967-61-0898-7






NAPOLEON AT THE FESTIVAL OF MUHAMAD




NAPOLEON ADDRESSING THE DEWAN










Letter From The Leader


The following letter was sent by Islamic Party leader David Pidcock to The Sunday Telegraph, contrasting the French hysteric phobia of late with Napoleon Bonaparte's admiration for Islam.
An open letter to the Editor and owner Mr. Conrad Black
Gentlemen,
As an English convert to Islam, I feel bound to respond to your Editorial Comment, p.27, "The enemies within." (7/8/94).
Your reference to Mr.Charles Pasqua, the French Interior Minister, is clearly in ignorance of the debt his Department owes to Islam. With the exception of French family law, 95 per cent of French law, i.e., The Code Napoleon is, in its entirety Islamic. Unlike the United Kingdom ... which only has Courts of Law ... the French have courts of Justice.
Having recognised the divine nature of the Qur'an, Napoleon Bonaparte embraced the religion of Abraham in the latter half of 1798, taking Ali as his Muslim name. And, having further recognised the wisdom and superiority of Islamic Jurisprudence, he authorised the translation of the rulings of Imam Malik from the Arabic, and the implementation of it throughout the Empire. So The Code Napoleon, which is universally proclaimed and admired by the likes of Monsieur Pasqua, owes its origins entirely to Europe's Islamic past.
The Battle of Waterloo was, in fact, a battle of the usurers (represented by Wellington) and the opponents of debt - finance (represented by Napoleon Bonaparte). Unfortunately, the usurers won and wrote their account of history. On the 9th of February 1807, Napoleon had obtained the support of Rabbi David Sinzheim and the Grand Sanhedrin, in issuing a rabbinical Fatwa prohibiting usury. Napoleon clearly understood the root cause of Europe's problem. For, upon being shown a table of interest charges, he reflected for a while and made the following comment:
"The deadly facts herein revealed, lead me to wonder that this monster, interest, has not devoured the whole human race. It would have done so long ago if bankruptcy and revolutions had not acted as counter poisons." (Lincoln: Money Martyred; Omni Publications 1935).
Which makes it clear, why he found the liberating theology of Islam so attractive. In one of the most valuable pieces of evidence, attesting to his grasp of the subject, he is reported as having given the following reasons for his love of the Islamic religion. In a recently acquired copy of Bonaparte et l'Islam by Cherfils from the Bibliotheque National De France, we find on pages 105 - 125 the following well kept secret:
"Moses", Napoleon says, "has revealed the existence of God to his nation, Jesus Christ to the Roman world, Muhammad to the old continent... Arabia was idolatrous when, six centuries after Jesus, Muhammad [re]introduced the worship of the God of Abraham, of Ishmael, of Moses, and of Jesus Christ. The Arians and some other sects had disturbed the tranquillity of the East by agitating the question of the 'Father the Son and the Holy Ghost.' Muhammad declared that there was none but one God, who had no father, no son, and that the trinity imported the idea of idolatry...
"The Parthians, the Scythians, the Mongols, and the Tartars and the Turks, had shown generally themselves to be enemies of science and the arts, but this reproach cannot be fastened onto the Arabs, no more than upon Muhammad. The first Omayad Caliph, was a poet and he granted peace to a Rabbi, because he prayed for grace in four beautiful Arabic verses...
read more



Bonaparte's approach to religion
Napoleon's conciliatory approach to Islam is well documented. He is known to have admired the Mohammed - he even learned off by heart several suras of the Koran. His relationship with Christianity being one of a practical statesman - religion was useful as long as it was comforting to society, but dangerous if it lead to fanaticism. And his frank disbelief in the Trinity caused him to adopt monotheistic attitude, obviously not a million miles from Islam...
READ +

The Kalki Avatars-Napoleon Bonaparte




Sri Aurobindo was known in his ashram as the rebirth of Napoleon. Napoleon’s birthday was also August 15th.... In his previous births, it was believed he was Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Krishna and many other persons too. Someone asked Sri Aurobindo whether he had been Shakespeare as well, but could not elicit an answer (GuruNet, 2003)..READ+
NIRODBARAN: Aldous Huxley says Napoleon and Caesar were bandits.
SRI AUROBINDO: Nonsense.
NIRODBARAN: He also says all evil, economic and otherwise, of the modern age are due to Napoleon..
PURANI: That is going too far.
SRI AUROBINDO: If he does say so, it shows a mind that is pedantic and without plasticity.
PURANI: Anatole France, though not an imperialist, says Napoleon gave glory to France.
SRI AUROBINDO: Not only glory. He gave peace and order, stable government and security to France. He was not only one of the conquerors but also one of the greatest administrators and organisers the world has seen. If it had not been for him, the whole idea of French Revolution would have been crushed by the European Powers. It was he who stabilised the ideas of the Revolution.
The only trouble was that he was not bold enough. If he had pushed on with the idea of unification of all Europe, which he had at the back of his mind, then the present Spanish struggle would not have been necessary. Italy would have been united much earlier and Germany would have been more civilised. If instead of proclaiming himself Emperor he had remained the First Consul, he would have met with better success. But, he was not like Hitler, he could not carry out things in a ruthless fashion. Even after his overthrow, the Germans on the Rhine were unwilling to give up the Code Napoleon and the institutions he had brought into existence.
Satyeyndra: They say his Russian Campaign was a proof that he was not a military genius. It is Tolstoy who belittles him in his War and Peace.
SRI AUROBINDO: War and Peace is a novel after all.
Satyeyndra: There Tolstoi says that Napoleon blundered by burning Moscow.
SRI AUROBINDO: But, history says that the Russians themselves burnt Moscow to deprive Napoleon of the gains of his victory. He conquered Moscow though he couldn't conquer Russia. Even his retreat at Leipzig is regarded as a feat of military genius. But, there is now a tendency to belittle even his military genius. They say it was his generals who were the military genius of his campaigns and not he. In the same way they belittle Genghis Khan and call him a cut-throat.
Page-166
He organised the whole of Asia and part of Europe and made commerce safe. He was successful because he was supported by all the trading agencies who badly wanted safe commercial highways along the banks of rivers.
It is true about Napoleon that his physical capacity failed towards the end owing to his disease.
NIRODBARAN: Napoleon had a pituitary tumour, as a result of which his mental powers declined.
SRI AUROBINDO: History says it was cancer of the stomach. But who says he lost his mental powers? It is an historical fact that his mind remained clear and powerful up to the last. All talk of his mental decline is nonsense.
Nirodbaran read out to Sri Aurobindo some passages from Aldous Huxley's Ends and Means. They were on war, passive resistance, non-attachment, the Jacobins, Caesar, Napoleon and dictators in general. The last was: "More hooks have been written about Napoleon than about any other human being. The fact is deeply and alarmingly significant. . . . Duces and Fuhrers will cease to plague the world only when the majority of its inhabitants regard such adventurers with the same disgust as they now bestow on swindlers and pimps. So long as men worship Caesars and Napoleons, Caesars and Napoleons will duly rise and make them miserable."

SRI AUROBINDO: All that is shallow, it is mere moralising. If Caesar and Napoleon are not to be admired, then it means that human capacity and attainment are not to be admired. Caesar and Napoleon have been admired not merely because they were successful: plenty of successful people are not admired. Caesar has won admiration because it was he who founded the greatness of Imperial Rome which gave us one of the greatest periods of human civilisation. And we admire Napoleon because he was a
Page-167
great organiser and he stabilised the French Revolution. He organised France and, through France, the whole of Europe. His immense powers and abilities - are these things not great?
PURANI: I suppose men admire them because they find in them the realisation of their own potential greatness,
SRI AUROBINDO: Of course. But Huxley speaks of Caesar and Napoleon as if they were the first dictators the world had seen. There have been dictators since the beginning of the world. And they are of various kinds. Kernal, Pilsudski, all the kings of Balkan states, as well as Stalin and Hitler, are all dictators. Even Gandhi, if he were put at the head of a free India, could be a dictator. My own father can be called the dictator of Rangppur or Khulna! The dictators come in answer to the necessity of the hour. When men and nations are in conflict with their surrounding conditions, when there is confusion all about, the dictators come, it set things right and pull the race out of its difficulties.
As for the Jacobins, with whom Huxley finds fault, I have been thinking of Laski's view. Laski is perfectly right in saying that the Jacobins saved the Republic. If they had not concentrated power in their hands, the Germans would have marched on Paris and crushed the new Republic at the very start and restored the old monarchy. It was because of the Jacobins that the Bourbons even when they returned, had to accept constitutional monarchy. Louis XVIII and all the kings in Europe were obliged, more or less, to accept the principles of democracy,
It is true that in Napoleon's time the Assembly was only a shadow, but the full Republic, although delayed for some time, was in fact already established. Politics is only a shadow at the top: the real changes that matter are those that come in society. The social laws introduced by Napoleon have continued till this day. It was he who made for the first time all men equal before the Law. The Code Napoleon bridged the gulf between the rich and the poor. This kind of equality seems very natural now, but when he introduced it, it was something revolutionary. The laws he laid down still hold. What he established may not have been democracy in the sense of government by the masses, but it was democracy in the sense of government by the middle class, the bourgeoisie.
On the topic of war, Huxley speaks as if there were always an alternative between military violence and non-violent peaceful development. But things are never like that: they don't move in
Page-168
a perfect way. If Napoleon had not come, the Republic would have been smothered in its infancy and democracy would have suffered a setback. No, the Cosmic Spirit is not so foolish as to allow that. Carlyle puts the situation more realistically when he says that the condition was, "I kill you or you kill me. So it is better that I kill you than get killed by you."
PURANI: Huxley says war is always avoidable.
SRI AUROBINDO: When intellectuals talk of these things, they get into a muddle. How is war avoidable? How can you prevent war so long as the other fellow wants to fight? You can prevent it only by becoming stronger than he or (smiling), as Gandhi says, by changing his heart by passive resistance. And even there Gandhi has been forced to admit that none has understood his passive resistance except himself. It is not very promising for Satyagraha; in fact, it is a condemnation of it, considering that it is intended to be a general solution for all men. What some did in several places in India is not Satyagraha but Duragraha (obstinacy). ..READ MORE