the whole world is one family in sanskrit according to vasudhaiva kutumbakam.
the whole world is one family in sanskrit according to vasudhaiva kutumbakam.
the whole world is one family in sanskrit?
vasudhaiva kutumbakam
as per the rss annual report of 2019, there were a total of 84,877 shakhas of which 59,266 are being held daily; 17,229 are weekly shakhas (58,967 in 2018, 57165 shakhas in 2017, and 56,569 in 2016)









































section::::mission.









































golwalkar describes the mission of the rashtriya swayamsevak sangh as the revitalisation of the indian value system based on universalism and peace and prosperity to all. vasudhaiva kutumbakam, the worldview that the whole world is one family, propounded by the ancient thinkers of india, is considered as one of the ideologies of the organisation.
rashtriya swayamsevak sangh
kierkegaard's final discourse is about the philosophical questions concerning the soul. he keeps using the socratic method. this time he asks, "is it saying too little to say that a person comes naked into the world and possesses nothing in the world if he does not even possess his soul? (…) what is there to live for if a person has to spend his whole life gaining the presupposition that on the deepest level is life’s presupposition-yes, what does that mean? he had already asked himself about the soul in "either/or" in this way: i shall suggest in a few words the danger that faces a person in the moment of despair, the reef on which he can be stranded and utterly shipwrecked. the bible says: for what would it profit a person if he gained the whole world but damaged his own soul; what would he have in return? scripture does not state the antithesis to this, but it is implicit in the sentence. the antitheses would read something like this: what damage would there be to a person if he lost the whole world and yet did not damage his soul; what would he need in return? there are expressions that in themselves seem simple and yet fill the soul with a strange anxiety, because they almost become more obscure the more one thinks about them. in the religious sphere, the phrase “sin against the holy spirit” is such an expression. i do not know whether theologians are able to give a definite explanation of it, but then i am only a layman. but the phrase “to damage one’s soul” is an esthetic expression, and the person who thinks he has an ethical life-view must also think he is able to explain it. we often hear the words used, and yet anyone who wants to understand them must have experienced the deep movements of his soul-indeed, he must have despaired, for it is actually the movements of despair that are described here: one the one side the whole world, on the other side one’s own soul. you will readily perceive, if we pursue this expression, that we arrive at the same abstract definition of “soul” at which we arrived earlier in the definition of the word “self” in the psychological consideration of wishing, without, however, wanting to become someone else. in other words, if i can gain the whole world and yet damage my soul, the phrase “the whole world” must include all the finite things that i possess in my immediacy. then my soul proves to be indifferent to these things. if i can lose the whole world without damaging my soul, the phrase “the whole world” again includes all the finite qualifications that i possess in my immediacy, and yet if my soul is undamaged it is consequently indifferent toward them. i can lose my wealth, my honor in the eyes of others, my intellectual capacity; and yet not damage my soul: i can gain it all and yet be damaged. what, then, is my soul? what is this innermost being of mine that is undismayed by this loss and suffers damage by this gain? "either/or part ii", hong p. 220-221
four upbuilding discourses, 1843