Non-Western Worldview

Sushupti · Post by **Sushupti** » 03 Dec 2011 08:21

Rajiv Malhotra's Guest Lecture on Being Different at YPO, Chennai

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Feb 2012 02:13

I was reading a college essay on "Connectivity in the Pre-modern World in Ibn Batuta's travels". The thesis is that Islam provided an connected network for pre-modern Sub-Saharan Africa and the Islamic world.

Aramco essay on Ibn Batuta

I think that the British Empire is a modern version of the Islamic trading empire of the pre-modern world. After WWII, US took over the British Empire rules and norms via the UN system.
Hnece the empahsis on access, rules and regulations which favor them in the world system. The "Law of the Sea" is the old pirate EIC rules to claim immunity on the high seas to do their work.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Feb 2012 07:02

Studying the past is nice time pass. We need to apply it to the present and the future.

We see there are the following trading systems in the past:

- Hindu trader system and its variants
Pre-Buddhist to Jagat Sheth type to Birla and Ambani
- Islam based pre-modern world trade system described by Ibn Batuta etc
- British & French take over of above system morphing into colonialism for captive markets
- Post World War II US run world trade system

Lastly
- Post FSU collapse US-PRC duoploy based on US money and PRC access to world markets.

Each of the above transitions were after a major war (hot or cold) or tragedy.

How will the future pan out?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 22 Feb 2012 20:43

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2913662.ece

India's destiny not caste in stone

ANDRÉ BÉTEILLE

Those who try to keep up with discussions on current affairs in the newspapers and on television may be forgiven if they conclude that caste is India's destiny. If there is one thing the experts in the media who comment on political matters have in common, it is their preoccupation with caste and the part it plays in electoral politics.

Many are now coming to believe that, despite the undeniable demographic, technological and economic changes taking place in the country, the division into castes and communities remains the ineluctable and ineradicable feature of Indian society. They also believe that to ignore those divisions or to draw attention to other divisions such as those of income, education and occupation is to turn our backs on the ground reality. The more radical among them add that ignoring those realities amounts to an evasion of the political responsibility of redistributing the benefits and burdens of society in a more just and equitable manner.

Does nothing change in India? A great many things have in fact changed in the last 60 years both in our political perceptions and in the social reality. The leaders of the nationalist movement who successfully fought for India's freedom from colonial rule believed that India may have been a society of castes and communities in the past but would become a nation of citizens with the adoption of a new republican constitution. They were too optimistic. The Constitution did create rights for the citizen, but it did not eradicate caste from the hearts and minds of the citizens it created. For many Indians, and perhaps the majority, the habits of the heart are still the habits of a hierarchical society.

Inter-dining rules

Universal adult franchise opened up new possibilities for mobilising electoral support on the basis of caste and thus prevented the consciousness of caste from dying down. Democracy was expected to efface the distinctions of caste, but its consequences have been very different from what was expected. Politics is no doubt an important part of a nation's life in a democracy, but it is not the only part of it. There are other areas of life in which the consciousness of caste has been dying down, though not very rapidly or dramatically. The trends of change which I will now examine do not catch the attention of the media because they happen over long stretches of time, in slow motion as it were. They are not noticeable from month to month or even year to year but across two or more generations.

Let us start with the ritual opposition of purity and pollution which was a cornerstone of the hierarchical structure of caste. The rules of purity and pollution served to mark the distinctions and gradations among castes and sub-castes. Characteristic among them were those relating to commensality or inter-dining. They determined who could sit together at a meal with whom, and who could accept food and water from whom. Only castes of equivalent rank could inter-dine with each other. In general people accepted cooked food and water from the hands of their superiors, but not their inferiors.

The ritual rules governing food transactions were rigid and elaborate until a hundred years ago. Nobody can deny that there has been a steady erosion of those rules. Modern conditions of life and work have rendered many of them obsolete. The excesses of the rules of purity and pollution have now come to be treated with ridicule and mockery among educated people in metropolitan cities like Kolkata and Delhi. It is impossible to maintain such rules in a college canteen or an office lunch room. To insist on seating people according to their caste on a public occasion would cause a scandal today.

In the past, restrictions on inter-dining were closely related to restrictions on marriage according to the rules of caste. The restrictions on marriage have not disappeared, but they have eased to some extent. Among Hindus, the law imposed restrictions on inter-caste marriage. The law has changed, but the custom of marrying within the caste is still widely observed. However, what is happening is that other considerations such as those of education and income are also kept in mind in arranging a match. At any rate, it will be difficult to argue that caste consciousness in matrimonial matters has been on the rise in recent decades.

In politics, the media

There continues to be a general association between caste and occupation to the extent that the lowest castes are largely concentrated in the menial and low-paying jobs whereas the higher castes tend to be in the best-paid and most esteemed ones. But the association between caste and occupation is now more flexible than it was in the traditional economy of land and grain. Rapid economic growth and the expansion of the middle class are accompanied by new opportunities for individual mobility which further loosens the association between caste and occupation.

If, in spite of all this, caste is maintaining or even strengthening its hold over the public consciousness, there has to be a reason for it. That reason is to be found in the domain of organised politics. Caste had entered the political arena even before independence, particularly in peninsular India. But the adoption of universal adult franchise after independence altered the character and scope of the involvement of caste in the political process.

The consciousness of caste is brought to the fore at the time of elections. Elections to the Lok Sabha and the Vidhan Sabhas are now held all the year round. For logistical and other reasons, elections to even the Vidhan Sabhas may be stretched out over several weeks. There are by-elections in addition to the general elections. Election campaigns have become increasingly spectacular and increasingly costly, and they often create the atmosphere of a carnival. The mobilisation of electoral support on the basis of caste is a complex phenomenon whose outcome gives scope for endless speculation.

Even though for the country as a whole the election season never really comes to an end, the individual voter participates in the electoral process only occasionally and sporadically. The average villager devotes far more thought and time to home, work and worship than to electoral matters. It is well known that the voter turnout among urban professional Indians is low. But even when they do not participate in the elections to the extent of visiting their local polling booths, they participate in them vicariously by following on television what happens in the outside world. Television provides a large dose of entertainment along with a modicum of political education.

Private television channels have created a whole world in which their anchors and the experts who are regularly at their disposal vie with each other to bring out the significance of the “caste factor,” meaning the rivalries and alliances among castes, sub-castes and groups of castes by commentators who, for the most part, have little understanding of, or interest in, long-term trends of change in the country. These discussions create the illusion that caste is an unalterable feature of Indian society. It will be a pity if we allow what goes on in the media to reinforce the consciousness of caste and to persuade us that caste is India's destiny.

(The writer is Professor Emeritus of sociology, Delhi University, and National Research Professor)

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 23 Feb 2012 23:01

Greeks queue up to learn German

History has been witness to many turning of the tables. Civilizations considered barbarian once lived off the ones considered "classical" and "definitive". Then the tables were turned. Some which come to mind are as below,

1. India (classic) and the Afghans/Turks/Mlecchas (barbarian)
2. Italians (classic) and the Germans/British (barbarian)
3. Chinese (classic) and the Mongols (barbarian)
4. Persians (classic) and the Arabs (barbarian)

I am not sure if the Japanese and white man example can be taken, the white man after all did vie for trade with Japanese and eventually achieved it with gunboat diplomacy (typical barbarian behaviour).

And now we have the Greeks and the Germans.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Feb 2012 23:32

Devesh, Your post doesn't belong here. This thread is about the Non-Western looking at the West. Its not about looking at India.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 24 Feb 2012 00:08

sorry. understood. but can't edit that post now!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Feb 2012 00:07

Brilliant post by Bji on structural racism in modern West.

brihaspati wrote:
vishvak wrote:
quote="shiv"The racism practiced by the Europeans was "science", but Indian ethnic groups, called jati became caste. caste=racism.

So Hindu=racist. But this racism is among inferior races and need to be differentiated from "scientific racism" that puts European races on top. That is not racism. /quote

So it means that Europeans were extremely racist for thousands of years. Not to talk of slavery. Thousands of years of racism and the Europeans call others racists!

It is important to what one can infer from the barbarians who appear civilized. A barbarian invading from the sea with a military uniform and speaking chaste English is still a barbarian. It is a good reflection of the psyche that could aid in knowing mentality of the Europeans.

It seems that the "Barbarians" from the northern parts were more racist than the southern, south-of-Alps Europeans. Which is also natural to expect as the northereners were smaller, self-sufficient, primarily pastoral tribes. The southerners at least had to pretend to be cosmopolitant for the sake of profits from the Mediterranean trade. This type of "racism" can be traced in the narratives as early as 1st century BCE. But before that the Egyptians amply show "racism", [against the "Pelest" - the marauding and looting western Med islanders who settled in current Palestine and became ancestors of modern oppressed Palestinians, the "Haberu" - the Canannite tribes rather looked down upon in Pharaonic records, and forefathers of the Israelites, the "looter" Bedu's or peninsular Arabs, the much hated "Hyksos" or "sea-peoples" etc] - this can be traced to even before 16th century BCE.

The Greeks sometimes do show "racist" attitudes, but the least is shown by the Romans. The narratives are peculiarly devoid of racial constructions - rather more obsessed with states and kingdoms as primary sources of identity.

Even until the late medieval, 16th-17th century - colour does not seem to have mattered. In the Roman church there are well known early "black" bishops [sourced from the African provinces of Rome - 1-st millenium] of Rome - the forerunners of the modern Popes. There were significant presence of "darkies" in the northern Med littoral states and not as slaves but sometimes as important state and military functionaries. In fact there is now some evidence that even in Spain, the transition from Islam to Christianity was greatly helped by prominent "Moorish" or African origin functionaries and military personnel changings sides and later on being installed as stalwart "Christian" aristos.

The colour based racism is really based on overseas tropical colonial maritime empires of the European powers. As such it found its peak in Victorian British empire.

The 16th and 17th century was also crucial for the Spanish started the slave trade to man their plantations in the Americas and the Anglo-Saxons followed suit.

The bogus biblical narratives were used to justify slavery and from there to color discrimination was not to far a leap.

Hence color based racism was an outgrowth of the colonial phase of Wastern civilization. It was only the end of WWII that ended colonization and hence it will take a few years for the Waste to relaize dark is beautiful.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 04 Mar 2012 18:54

For whatever its worth

Is There A Connection Between
Ancient Indian And Hebrew Language? A scholar finds compelling evidence for ancient Indian influence on a global scale.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 04 Mar 2012 21:02

there is Judaism.
there is Islamism.
there is Hinduism.
there is Zoroastrianism.
there is Buddhism.
there is Jainism.
there is Rastafarianism.
there is Fascism.
there is Communism.
there is -------ism.

then, there is Christianity. Not Christianism. Not Christism. but an "-ity".

Why is this?

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 04 Mar 2012 21:20

Xtianity indicates that the followers think of their religion as absolute truth, and other religions as relative truths only - it is a form of communalism.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Mar 2012 23:49

The -ity and -ism debate is interesting. Linguistically they would be classified as rival morphemes.

The -ity in Christianity denotes the awareness that it is a "mode of being" and does not involve thinking or thought processes. It is not therefore a philosophy, a thing to ponder and explore.

The others are -isms - implies that they are philosophies rather than "modes of being". Devesh ji, if I read your starred item correctly, that will also correctly be classified as -ity and not -ism.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 04 Mar 2012 23:53

bji,

I would love to know what you thought was the starred item. I mean nothing by it. simply repeating that there are bunch of philosophies which end in "ism". I simply wanted to stress that part so put a bunch of dashes and put ism. but now, I'm simply curious, what did you think it was?!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Mar 2012 00:00

I joked. You left out capitalism.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 05 Mar 2012 00:07

holy shit! the number of dashes exactly matches "capital". that is one heck of a coincidence. completely unintentional.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 05 Mar 2012 00:37

There seems to be a new definition of Christianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianism

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 05 Mar 2012 01:27

bji,

"ity" correlates with "nationality". this word is somehow considered "above and beyond" the concept of religion. especially in the Westphalian sense, ideally speaking, "nationality" is supposed to be above other consideration. so "Christianity" might actually be a 'special marker' that identifies it as being 'above' other belief systems. the suffix "-ity" has a broad appeal, that "-ism" lacks. "-ism" is an all and sundry word applied to any tom, dick, and harry. after all, there is McCarthyism. the West, by naming it Christianity, might have subconsciously colonized the rest of the world into thinking that is superior and "special" compared to all others.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Mar 2012 02:11

Could be. But I think even the "native" English users rarely have the educational height or remnants to distinguish between the two. Ask randomly - and you will see what I mean. You can note the possibility - because your are conscious about the language, and can note the relative frequencey of usage and context. That is a linguistic skill way beyond most "native" users.

For non-native users, for the general public - this difference will be less noted. Nietzsche's three texts - Beyond Good and Evil, The genealogy of morals and The Antichrist all deal with the -ity and -ism problem. Antichrist deals with this more, but is sort of less didactic than the other two. If you follow them through [unless you have done already] you will have a really good critique from inside.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 05 Mar 2012 03:10

nope. haven't read any Nietzsche. have begun reading Hannah Arendt and she truly is a fascinating thinker.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 05 Mar 2012 03:13

devesh: while noting you point let me point you to the way Christianism is being used (See wikipedia pointer above).

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 05 Mar 2012 03:22

viv ji,
I saw that. referring to the "political right" by that name is interesting. kind of like Islam and Islamism. but it is not mainstream. on mainstream media, you never hear the word. and even in the blogosphere, nobody uses that word. I've never seen it yet. there is perhaps a strong enforcement mechanism which ensures such seeds are not sown.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Mar 2012 19:44

Rony wrote:For whatever its worth

Is There A Connection Between
Ancient Indian And Hebrew Language? A scholar finds compelling evidence for ancient Indian influence on a global scale.

Rony ji,

I think there is a lot of potential in this theory that the Jews are basically Indian tribes who migrated West. Some comparisons from the article.

In the following list, all references to Indian tribes, castes, subcastes, and places will be listed at the left. Biblical and Hebrew names will be listed after each Indian word, accompanied by their biblical references. You will note that the comparative words are either identical or nearly identical. The differences are trivial. Even a non-linguist can notice that all these words sprang from the same source. The similarities are too abundant to be coincidental. Wanting to remain as conservative as possible, I present only a partial list. However, as conservative and brief as this list is, I believe I have presented enough examples to convince anyone that India did, indeed, at one time dominate in Bible Land.

Code: Select all

Tribes, Castes, and Subcastes
Abri       - Ibri (1 Chr. 24-27)
Amal       - Amal (1 Chr. 7:35).
Asaul      - Asahel (2 Chr. 17:18)
Asheriya   - Asher (Gen. 30:13)
Azri       - Azriel (! Chr. 5:24)
Bal.       - Baal (1 Chr. 5:5)
Bala; Balah- Bala (Josh. 19:3) 
Bakru      - Bokheru (1 Chr. 7:6)
Baktu      - Baca (1 Chr. 8:38)
Banniya    - Baana (1 Chr. 11:30)
Bellu      - Bela (Gen. 14:9)
Bera; Baru - Beerah (1 (Chr. 5:6)
Basaya     - Basseiah (1 Chr. 6:40)
Beroth     - Beeroth (2 Sam. 4:2)
Bilgai     - Bilgah (Neh. 12:5)
Buhana     - Bohan (Josh. 15:6)
Buir       - Beor (Ps. 23:4)
Butt       - Bath (1 Ki. 7:26)
Caleb; Kleb - Caleb (1 Chr. 2:18)
Dar; Dhar; Darku - Dor (1 Ki. 4:11)
Dara       - Dara (1 Chr. 2:6)
Dum        - Dumah (1 Chr. 1:30)
Gabba      - Geba (Josh. 18:24)
Gaddar     - Gedor (1 Chr. 4:4)
Gadha      - Gad (1 Chr. 2:2)
Gaddi      - Gaddi (Nu. 13:11)v Gani; Gani - Guni (1 Chr. 1:40)
Gareb      - Gareb (1 Chr. 7:13)
Gomer      - Gomer (Gen. 10:2)
Hahput     - Hatipha (Neh. 7:56)v Iqqash - Ikkesh (1 Chr. 11:28)
Ishai      - Ishui (1 Sam. 14:49)
Israel     - Israel (Gen. 32:28)
Kahan Masu - Kahana; Kan, Kanah (Josh. 19:28)
Kalkul     - Calcol (1 Chr. 2:6)
Kanaz      - Kenaz (Ju. 3:9)
Kar        - Careah (2 Ki. 25:23)
Karrah     - Korah (Nu. 26:9)
Kaul       - Caul (Isa. 3:18)
Kadu; Kaddua; Khadu - Cauda (Act. 27:16)
Kotru      - Keturah (Gen. 25:4)
Laddu      - Lud (1 Chr. 1:17)
Lavi; Laveh - Levi (1Chr. 2:1)
Magar      - Magor (Jer. 22:3)
Mahlu      - Mahali (Ex. 6:19)
Maikri     - Machir (Josh. 17:1)
Malla; Maula- Maaleh (Josh. 15:3)
Mallak     - Mallouck (1 Chr. 6:44)
Matri      - Matri (1 Sam. 10:21)
Meresh     - Meres (Esther 1:14)
Mir        - Mearah (Josh. 13:4)
Mahsa; Mahsi- Massah (Ex. 17:7)
Moza       - Moza (1 Chr. 7:36)
Musa       - Moses
Nehru      - Nahor (1 Chr. 1:26)
Opal; Upal - Ophel (2 Chr. 28:3)
Pareh      - Paruah (1 Ki. 4:17)
Phalu; Pau - Phallu; Puah; Pua (Nu. 26:23)
Poot; Put  - Phut; Put (a Chr. 1:8)
Raina      - Rinnah (1 Chr. 4:20)
Raphu      - Raphu (1 Ki. 11:23)
Reshu; Resh; Reshi - Rhesa (Luke 3:27)
Reu; Reu-wal - Reu (Gen. 12:18)
Reual      - Reuel (Nu. 2:14)
Sachu      - Sechu (1 Sam. 19:22)
Sam        - Shem (Gen. 5:32)
Sapru; Sapra - Saphir (Mic. 1:11)
Seh        - Siah (Neh. 7:47)
Shahmiri   - Shamir (1 Chr. 24:24)
Shaul      - Shaul (1 Chr. 4:24)
Shavi      - Shaveh (Gen. 14:17)
Shora      - Sherah (1 Chr. 7:2)
Shuah      - Shuah (1 Chr. 4:11)

When one says, Yah-weh was the God of the Jews, then it is understandable, because these Indo-Hebrew tribes were far from home - India, in alien territory, and it is understandable that they saw their God as the true God on one hand, and as their very own, as the others had other gods.

If Hindus and Jews can cooperate in such a way, if we can connect ourselves historically and genealogically, giving Abraham an Indian origin, even as we leave doctrinaire questions open, we could in fact effect a major change in the politics of the world, perhaps sandwiching both Christianity and Islam in between.

We would be shifting the whole historicity of these religions over to India from the Mideast. Would Ka'aba continue to have the same significance for the Muslims if they knew that Abraham did not lay the foundation of some new God concept in Ka'aba but rather simply continued the Godly tradition that was prevalent in India - his original home or home of his ancestors!

The point is that Jews control 2/3rds of nature of Yah-weh (Judaism and Christianity parts) while one-third is controlled by Muslims. This is because Jews control 2/3rds of the story of Abraham, and Jah-weh is nothing more than the God of Abraham. In fact Jews control more than 2/3rds as the Muslims differ from the Jews only on a few aspects of the life of Abraham.

So if Jews were to pronounce that Yah-weh is indeed referring to Shiva, and that Shiva was originally the God of Abraham/Brahma, then Allah too becomes just another name for Shiva, that is, if the Muslims choose to keep the cosmology of their religion in sync with those of Judaism and Christianity!

So basically Yindoos and Yehudis can together pull the direction of Christianity and Islam in any whichever way we want!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Mar 2012 02:16

X-post....

brihaspati wrote:
shiv wrote:
quote="Altair"

------------
I had a direct discussion with Prof. Karnad. He said if India starts dismembering other neighboring states it is entirely in the realm that other countries will start to think to dismember India. Redrawing maps/Boundaries in South Asia is a colonial legacy and India should not actively pursue it.
-------------------
I agree with Karnad here, but saying why requires re stating of what I have written over many threads.

Remember that "nation states" with absolute fixed boundaries, also known as "lines on maps" were invented in Europe after the peace of Westphalia that sidelined the church in governance. One you invented a state with a fixed boundary, you required a "recognised" body to govern (government) and "nation-al" reasons for staying united. (National language. National religion. National game. National bird (how stupid))

In Europe, where nation states were invented, language and ethnicity were the prime reasons for unity. The European coloniser, esp the Brits considered ethnicities/"races" as nations who would fight each other (as in Europe) unless separated by boundaries. For Brits, the mixing of "races", colors and ethnicities could not make a nation state. It could only be "weak nationalism" with no social glue to hold a nation together. Social glue had to be ethnicity, tribe, religion. These boundaries were considered sacrosanct. Geographic "nation state" boundaries were sough to be drawn based on ethnicity and race or religion. This is racist thought (and scientific racism) applied to politics and governance.

The splitting up of colonies in Africa was on these arbitrary lines. India was already a bunch of kingdoms. The Brits did not realise the existence of the glue that created the independence movement. They would not have recognised it even if it was shoved up their asses lubricated with chili powder because for them "races" were nations, inferior races made inferior nations, and India was mixed races caused man fu*king monkey and India formed castes instead of nations in their "scientific" viewpoint.

The trick of encouraging ethnic minorities to form a "new nation" that will be recognised as a "nation state" in a "world order" run by nations who set up a racist world order is an old colonial/imperial trick. Sikhs are a different nation. "Dravidians" are a different nation. (Who the heck are these Dravidians anyway? If there are no Aryans show me some Dravidians. If Aryans exist, Hitler was right.) Tamilians are a different nation. Baluchis are a different nation. None of these "nations" can survive without external aid. And a "nation" that can survive on external aid alone is a colony. Like Pakistan. The nation that benefits most from a colony is an imperial power.

Ethnicities are not nations. India is a prime example of a nation that is not based on ethnicity. The ethnicity "Baluchi" has never been a nation. It is part of a larger whole. That larger whole is India.
No, the Brits did not believe in ethnicity as the basis of nationhood - they simply applied the theory first to their continental enemies to keep them divided and then later used it to win colonies. Based on ethnicity and language etc, UK was itself an enforced conglomerate over the Welsh [Bretono-Roman], the Scotts and Picts, the Angles and Jutes, and the Vikings, and finally the Irish Gaeltacht.

The consciousness of separate ethnicities remained, sharpened - internally, while they made common cause when it was moving against and extracting benefits from the external - especially imperial advantages. In one sense, there were misgivings about promoting ethnicities externally within Victorian politics itself - worried about the tide ultimately reaching back on to home shores. UK reaped the benefits of "national" theory wonderfully through Irish independence, and ultimately loss of all its direct milch cow colonies - exactly out of that "nationhood based on ethnicities" concept. Its a double edged sword.

All European identities are constructed and artifical ones - there are no pure races, cultures, languages or tribes. There were none even in early iron age and the age of the eastern Med empires.

In the case of Pak, it is an artificial identity not based on ethnicity. It is purely and simply based on religion - and this was the only way it could otherwise distinguish itself from the majority of Indians. In fact even with the religion it is at a loss - because there are more concentrated and "purer" versions available and already appropriated by other "nations" - so Pak has nothing unique. In fact its only uniqueness is the bit about "India" and "Indian" tagged on to "Islam" and the "Muslim". Pakis can earn distinction from the rest of the Ummah by becoming more Indian and not less. Paki identity is always in a crisis and will be increasingly so.

The more nationhood it wants - more religious it has to become, thereby becoming less of a distinct nation. The more distinction in nationhood it wants, less religious it has to become and more Indian it has to be - which in turn means a change in the basis of nationhood itself.

Only if Paki nationhood dissolves in its current religious form and becomes a part of the Indian spectrum can it ever hope to gain back any identity at all.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 04 Apr 2012 17:51

Muhammad Iqbal to Jinnah, 1937:

"Also the insertion of Jawaharlal's socialism into the body-politic of Hinduism is likely to cause much bloodshed among the Hindus themselves. The issue between social democracy and Brahmanism is not dissimilar to the one between Brahmanism and Buddhism. Whether the fate of socialism will be the same as the fate of Buddhism in India I cannot say. But it is clear to my mind that if Hinduism accepts social democracy it must necessarily cease to be Hinduism."

i.e., caste is the essence of Hinduism, the end of caste means the end of Hinduism.

The Congress had just swept the elections, electorally wiping out both the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha, yet

"[Hindu] Mahasabha.... I regard as the real representative of the masses of the Hindus".

-- All of these reveal a complete misread of Hindus and other dharmics. That is especially clear in retrospect. Iqbal's views are close the academic views of India of that time.

It is similar mistaken notions that drive a lot of outside attitudes towards India, even today. It is what happens when you are not master of your own narrative.

What is the essence of Hinduism, or better yet, the Dharmic traditions? It is not cows, caste, curry. Rajiv Malhotra's work, Being Different, gives a crisp way of explaining that essence. That book is all about erecting a non-Western framework.

Iqbal's letters to Jinnah can be read here:
http://sites.google.com/site/cabinetmis ... -june-1937

member_19686 · Post by **member_19686** » 05 Apr 2012 02:02

Some more ramblings on the mlechCha-marUnmatta abhisaMdhAnaM

The mlechCha-s outwardly appear to have been at war with the shashidhvaja-s since the first days of the khilI-moha propagated by the adi-marUnmatta. But throughout history several actions of mlechCha-s have ended up strengthening the marUnmatta-s rather than weakening them. This has been more so in the last 150 years than ever before. We first realized this and pointed it out when we were in school. The kIlitashava-sAdhaka-s attacked us with much vigor and only ekanetra stood by us in that great strife. We wondered why the pretAchArin-s of the desh needed to be so affected by this observation – after all many of them were from the so-called “depressed” jAti-s (technically avarNa jAti-s or jAti-s not belonging to the 4 varNa-s) who had historically nothing to do with the mlechCha-s. Then by interviewing these pretAchArin-s we learned that they had connections with good old chAchA shAM – after all they had become shUlashava-sAdhaka-s in return for the rice (or was it chappAti-s?) and pelf given to them by mlechCha agents. When we reached the shores of the mlechCha-desha, we brought this up again on certain internet fora, which evoked a comparable response, again spearheaded by concealed pretAchArin-s, who were herding clueless Hindus as a bulwark against us. Thus, again we found that pretAcharin-s and their deluded followers were batting for the marUnmatta-s – a true harmony between the religions of peace and love. One may list many historical instances of this:
* The legitmization of sundry Arabic bandits as the royalty of the hellhole of Saudi Arabia by the Anglospheric combine. This was accompanied by legitimization of petty Moslem warlords or robber barons as grand Amirs all the way from West Asia to Brunei.
* The empowerment of TSP against Hindus as part of the historical extension of Anglospheric colonial ventures in the subcontinent, with an ultimately pan-Asian objective from the mlechCha viewpoint (part of the subcontinent as a foothold to reach China policy).
* The military and material support for Ghazis against the neo-Russian Soviet empire during the cold war.
* The support of eastern European Mohammedans against Serbia by the Anglosphere.
* Support for the Chechen terrorists against the Rus.
* Facilitation of the de-Hinduization of East Bengal by supporting the genocide of Hindus by the Mohammedans of TSB.
* Covert dealings with or support for Mohammedan groups who destroyed the visible signs of Indic heritage in Afghanistan, Maldives, Malaysia, Indonesia and other places.
* Support for or facilitation of various Mohammedan movements to replace secular Arab and Shia regimes with sharia compliant ones (Iran, Iraq, Tunisia, Egypt, etc).
* Cover up and lobbying to make the marUnmAda look like a respectable religion (including offering additional cover for the Sufi subversionists).

An important aspect of this has been the effort to prevent any study of the interesting psychological dimensions of marUnmAda by using the cudgel of academic liberalism to enforce self-censorship. The marUnmAda is interesting in that it is a meme complex that originally arose as a moha in brain of an unmatta, i.e. a person with defective neural hardware. However, it successfully propagated in the brains of millions upon millions of people with normal hardware. Herein lies the key to understanding the mlechCha-marUnmatta abhisaMdhAnaM. Even before the marUnmAda reached pandemic proportions, that path was taken by another unmAda arising from the defective neural hardware of the kIlita-preta. The heathen ancestors of the mlechCha-s were among first victims of the pretonmAda. A clear diagnosis of this unmAda was made by the brilliant yavana vidvAn Celsus, who exposed it for what it was. Yet, this unmAda spread rapidly and overwhelmed the western world. Any fundamental description of the marUnmAda can also be generalized to the pretonmAda. This, would lead to a widespread appreciation of Celsus’ brilliant analysis, leading to the realization that for all these centuries the mlechCha-s have been carrying a “mind-bending” unmAda and basing their whole culture and society on it. This, their leaders well realize, could result in a very damaging effect on their carefully built self-image. Thus, investigations on the remarkable phenomenon of how an unmAda from a defective brain can memetically affect millions of normal brains has been sidelined. Thus, the attacks of the conservative mlechCha-s on the marUnmAda are, at best, structurally weak because any further development of this will come to destroy their own under-girding of the pretonmAda. The demographic advantage held by the devout followers of the pretamata relative to the lapsed ones, can lead to a strengthening of the basic delusions of pretonmAda, at least in parts of krau~nchadvIpa. Thus, we are not going to see any improvement in the fundamental characterization of the unmAda-s in the west, which in turn implies that they are unlikely to fundamentally challenge the marUnmAda.

The only real challenge to the mata-s based on unmAda has, for a long time, been that of the bhArata-s. Hence, we are not surprised that they have a particular fear of the dharma and work hard to exterminate it. In this regard ekanetra had asked if historically the unmAda-s understood their shared doctrinal weakness when confronted with the robustness of the dharma. This question was particularly pertinent because the general opinion has been that until the late 1800s (e.g. Vakimchandra Chattopadhyay) the Hindus had no proper understanding of the unmAda-s. At least the sister group of the bhArata-s, the yavana-s had a Celsus or a Julian who had produced devastating critiques of the unmAda. But Hindus were not known to have any such. If this were the case, then how could the unmatta-s feel threatened by the dharma. This prompted us to narrate to ekanetra the case of the relatively obscure internal critiques that arose in the West Asian and European realms, long after the tragic demise of the brave Julian, wherein rare philosophers saw through the madness gripping their people. We had earlier alluded to the Georgios Plethon Gemistos (http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... hermetica/) in the Byzantine world of pretonmAda-s. Not only did he see the delusion gripping the Greeks but he also realized that it was not different from the marUnmAda gripping his neighbors. But several centuries before him there was an internal critique right in the maru from Abu al-Husayn Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Ishak al-Rawandi, which is of interest for multiple reasons, one of which is how the transmission of an Indic critique touched a raw nerve simultaneously across all the mata-s based on unmAda.

What ever little is known of al-Rawandi makes a fairly interesting tale, which while commonly known in educated circles, is still worth retelling (One may profitably consult the works of Sarah Stroumsa to glean useful information regarding him). His father was a Judaist and Talmudic scholar, who as a Dhimmi during the Arab conquest of Iran, was obliged to convert to Islam. Moving from one Abrahamism to another with much ease, with a new convert’s zeal, he started a program of refuting Judaic texts and favoring Mohammedanism. His son Abu al-Husayn was well schooled by his father in Koran and Hadiths and was on his way to being a good Mohammedan. However, he drifted away, first moving to the mu’tazilI system of semi-rational Mohammedanism, followed by a stint as a Shia, and then becoming a Manichaean. Finally, he gave up all prophetic Abrahamisms and compiled a piercing critiques of these cults, and thoroughly exposed their shallowness. The Mohammedans termed him al-zindIq and al-mulHid, which are supposed to mean a materialist or atheist who rejects the religions of the book. Indeed an Islamic apologist says about him: “We have never heard anyone defame the creator (i.e. the Abrahamistic mono-deity) and make fun about him as much as this cursed one (i.e. al Rawandi) did.”

Not surprisingly, his refutation of the Abrahamism, titled the Kitab al-Zumurrud (or the emerald) does not survive in totality. However, we have fragment of it preserved within an Islamic apology written by a Shia hAshIshin (Assassin) missionary to counter it. The point of interest to us here is his presentation of the critique of prophetic religions that was developed by the barAhima or brAhmaNa-s. Now some western arabologists have tried to deny that barAhima meant brAhmaNa-s or have tried to claim that al Rawandi put words into brAhmaNa-s’ mouths because he was afraid to claim them as his own. These attempts suggest that there is still an underlying fear among the followers of unmAda-mata-s to accept that these critique came from the brAhmaNa-s. After all, unlike some imaginary group, they are still very much alive and can still undermine the philosophical foundations of the unmAda-mata-s. Indeed, this denial is a part of the continuum of trying to deny the Hindu traditions when confronted with their superior robustness (it should be noted that a tangled skein connects some of these arabologists to the indologists like the mahAbhagabhakShakI from Chicago and her relatives). However, a closer look clearly re-affirms the fact that the barAhima were indeed brAhmaNa-s and not anything else, and the critique was not put into their mouths but came from them. First, in the 900s al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim clearly states that the barAhima are from al-Hind. This establishes that the Arabic writer were talking about Indians not any one else as some western arabologists have tried to claim. Second, as Stroumsa indicates, the Persian mullah Taj al-Din ash-Shahrastani furnishes the term “barAhima sumaniyya aShhAb al-budUd”; thus, clarifying that the brAhmaNa-s and shramaNa-s (bauddha-s) were the categories of idol worshipers. Other Islamic authors place the al-budUd, i.e. the idol-worshipers in al-Hind (the term bud-shikhan or buddha-buster is a general term used by Mohammedans for their iconoclastic ghAzI-s). So it is quite clear that the Moslems were indeed referring to the brAhmaNa-s and bauddha shramaNa-s, whose lands they were intruding into and thus coming in direct contact with them. Third, independently of al-Rawandi, we find the mention of the barAhima as refuting the prophetic religions in both Islamic and non-Islamic Abrahamistic sources, such as the work of the Judaic apologist Dawud ibn Marwan al Muqammash. Among the Judaic and Islamic sources we also have Sa’adya and al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim, which appear to be independent of that of al-Rawandi. All these sources are distinct but consistent with the statement that the barAhima reject the truth claims of all Abrahamistic prophets and refute the idea the word of a prophet can have soteriological value. These observations, taken together, make it clear that indeed the refutation of the prophetic religions was composed by the brAhmaNa-s: it was lapped up by al-Rawandi and extensively utilized in his own refutation of the Abrahamism, even as the barAhima refutation was attacked by apologists of all three Abrahamistic cults.

Now looking at what survives of the barAhima refutation of prophetism, it is clear that the Arabic writers are talking about sAmkhya-yoga and vedAnta based ideas which were philosophies of the Hindus. It is notable that al-Rawandi, who was well familiar with the related Greek Neoplatonic thought, especially via its late survival in the city of Harran (http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... c-science/), refers to the brAhmaNa-s. This, strengthens the idea that he was specifically referring to the philosophy taught by brAhmaNa-s and not a general transmission of this type acquired via the Neoplatonists. The fundamental barAhimA critique of prophetism presented by the Arabic writers is rather destructive (effectively showing their mata-s to be delusions): “If prophets are sent to preach adherence to things that can be established by the use of intellect then the prophets are just like ordinary people. If, of the other hand, they come to preach what contradicts those things – god has made those things to be perceived as proofs; they will not suit anything else except through the altering/perversion of the intellect itself.” The Abrahamistic writers also mention that the brAhmaNa-s denied a role for prophetic declarations (as seen in the pretonmAda and marUnmAda) in determining reward and punishment (i.e. puNya and pApa of Hindus being independent of the prophetic assignment of someone to either to hellfire or 72 girls and 28 boys).The primary thesis of the barAhima presented in the Islamic world by multiple Islamic apologists (Sunni and Shia) is entirely consonant with the idea of j~nAnayoga which widely encountered in Indian advaita vedAnta and bauddha circles. They view it with much fear because, as noted above, the barAhima view of j~nAna alone being the instrument for soteriology fundamentally overturned the principle of a prophet’s direct line to the Abrahamistic mono-deity: From the Stroumsa’s work one can glean at least 12 Mohammedan authors writing polemics against the barAhima-inspired refutation of Islam introduced into their world by al-Rawandi. This continued long after the death of al-Rawandi and well after the army of Islam had erased the Hindus from the Western expanses of Greater India. Importantly, this fear was not restricted to the Mohammedan – interestingly we find similar reactions from the paleo-Abrahamism to the barAhima, with at least 5 polemical Judaic authors taking up their refutation of prophetism, along similar lines to that of the Sunni and the Shia. Much of this mirrors the earlier attack by the pretAcharin-s on the yavana pagans (e.g. Origen apology for the shavamata and his attack on Celsus). This strongly supports the contention that the fear of the dharma among the prophetic monotheists is a dangerous one. These attacks might also be leveled in a slightly modified form against the secular neo-Abrahamism which emanates from the prophets Marx and Engels (whom DD Kosambi venerated in a very Abrahamistic fashion as the “nUtana-mAnava-samAja-nirmANakAra-s). That is why we see the liberal Marxists studiously avoid any presentation of the true import of al-Rawandi’s attack on Abrahamism.

Finally, we might ask a question as to how did the knowledge of the brAhmaNa-s reach al-Rawandi. Much after his time, when the accursed Mahmud Ghaznavi was leading the army of Islam against the Hindus, Al-Biruni remarks that the Hindus had “scattered like atoms” their scholars had retreated from the western domains of Greater India. But before the cataclysm of Mahmud, we know that the Hindu presence was still strong in the western domains of bhArata even as the rAjpUt-s and stanched the Arabic jihad. However, the jihadic pustules were already scarring lands of the sindhu and bAhlika giving opportunity for transmissions of Indic knowledge to the Mohammedans. The preservation of transmissions to multiple Islamic and Judaic sources around al-Rawandi’s and his Manichaean teacher al Warraq’s times suggest the transmission itself happened before their times. It was probably via a Manichaean or Judaic informant (given that al-Rawandi’s own family had been Judaic before conversion to Mohammedanism). From the location of the early sources in Iran and their association with what is now northwestern Afghanistan, we suspect that brAhmaNa-s were from gandhAra or bAhlika rather than the sindhu. In this context we might look into the case of two other men who gained freedom from Islam. The first of these, the mathematician Abu’ al Abbas al-Iranshahri from Persia, is mentioned by al-Biruni as being influence by Hindu thought and he subsequently gave up Islam. He then went on to propose his own religion that was based on a Indic model of sAmkhya with several Iranian elements incorporated into that framework. He in turn inspired the physician and chemist Abu Bakr al Razi (from Ragha near Tehran), who too gave up Islam and took to the study of Neoplatonism preserved by the Harran school and Hindu thought. From that point on he started describing himself as a Neoplatonist or a Pythagorean, but he also incorporated the saMkhya theory in his view of the origin of the world. He states: “The world originated with consciousness uniting with matter. Through higher knowledge the consciousness recognizes is its identity as itself and not as as matter. This he declared is the ultimate wisdom that releases consciousness from the bonds of matter.” He also declared that the divine inspiration is innate in all organisms, including non-human ones and does not require additional revelation of divine directives from prophets. Thus, he too declared the prophet Abrahmisms as invalid truth claims. Here too, not just the Islamic authors but also the Judaist theologian Maimonides declare al Razi as a dangerous heretic, again illustrating the alignment of basic Abrahamistic thought. What we observe from this is that not just al Rawandi and but also al Iranshahri and al Razi lapsed from Islam under the influence of Hindu thought. Given their links with the North-Western Afghanistan, it again points to Hindu thought being transmitted via that route. The case of these early refuters of Abrahamism parallels the much later rejection of Islam by the Mogol tyrant Akbar under the influence of Hindu scholars and his Hindu friend bIrbal. Thus,we see two related phenomena play repeatedly over several centuries: 1)The re-acquisition of heathen thought, Hindu and Greek, cured several Abrahamists. This process involved a lapse from Islam towards more robust heathen constructs. 2) Specifically in the zones were Hindus came in close proximity with Moslems there were brAhmaNa refutations of Islam that today are only preserved in Arabic sources but had a strong effect on not just Islam but even Abrahamisms with whom the Hindus were not directly in proximity. This reinforces our view that the West will be unable to critique the religion of peace seriously as long as it does not give up the religion of love at all levels. As corollary the otherwise disunited Abrahamisms could align against the dharma because they all recognize it as a fundamental problem from their stand point. This lies at the heart of something which has been diagnosed by Malhotra in his “desert” versus “forest” dichotomy. Finally, we might point out that some of Arun Shourie’s eminent historians claimed that Islam influence the Hindus during the consolidation of shaMkarAdvaita. As we can see here there is influence no doubt, but the direction was opposite, and it clearly confronted rather than conformed to Abrahamisms.

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/5030/

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Apr 2012 02:56

Surasena, Dont mind lekin, can you post it in readable English. Writing Sanskrit in English makes it difficult reading and slows one down immensely. If the object is to share knowldege then lets do it right.
Maybe its OK for the cognoscenti but its not for others.

member_19686 · Post by **member_19686** » 05 Apr 2012 03:05

It is not my blog so I can't change what he writes.

shashidhvaja = moon banner literally or flag of Islam
marUnmatta = Muslim
adi-marUnmatta = Mohammad
pretAchArin = Xtian
yavana = Greek

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Apr 2012 03:22

So that much new terminology!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Apr 2012 09:35

I have read a few protest movements against the west.

What I find is that those movements that succeeded start with Hegel's Philosophy of History and find themselves led to Gandhi and begin their journey.

To critique the West one needs to be able to critique Hegel.Then its easy.
The key to understand Hegel is he is basically putting polish on Christianity as progress of man in a linear fashion.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Apr 2012 10:19

was watching History Channel episode on Axes. The guy claims axe is a Western Civilization achievement!

Wonder if the idiot ever heard of Parasurama avatar of Vishnu.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 11 Apr 2012 00:56

Surasena wrote:It is not my blog so I can't change what he writes.

I think I know who the writer is.

Would be nice if comments to the blogposts were enabled. I have a problem with one part of the latest one about venkaTAdhvarin.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 11 Apr 2012 01:44

^^^ I am fascinated by his commentary on Vedanta-nastik interface. I want to compare his writings with that of Mimansa vedantic school as propounded by Kumarila Bhatta.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Apr 2012 09:59

ramana wrote:I have read a few protest movements against the west.

What I find is that those movements that succeeded start with Hegel's Philosophy of History and find themselves led to Gandhi and begin their journey.

To critique the West one needs to be able to critique Hegel.Then its easy.
The key to understand Hegel is he is basically putting polish on Christianity as progress of man in a linear fashion.

Western domination is a layer cake. Hegel's Theory of Linear History is one layer. The next layer is the colonial trading system which funded the Industrial Revolution and bootstrapped the Western rise. The Adam Smith theory of Wealth of Nations is another layer.

Gandhiji was the first to understand the intertwining of the mercantile and political networks.

Every fightback in a subaltern situation (British India, Aprathied South Africa, Martin Luther King) starts with trading boycott to cut the mercantile networks reach and that has its own blowback.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Apr 2012 11:20

Carl wrote:
Surasena wrote:It is not my blog so I can't change what he writes.
I think I know who the writer is.

My humble two cents please. There are folks like me, who just CANT read Sanskrit or any Indic language in the roman sound equivalent. Would it be possible to contact the author and request the Devnagari form of the words there.

Please, I really want to read what he has written, but these throw me off. (Note my issue is not with terms, but with the use of roman script screwing up my head)

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 12 Apr 2012 11:49

Carl wrote: I think I know who the writer is.
(

By any chance, is it a person who used to post on BRF once upon a time under the handle Hauma Hamiddha? The style is reminiscent.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Apr 2012 11:54

Please dont speculate or create CT.

I will ask him to post articles in shuddh English

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 12 Apr 2012 13:23

ramana wrote:Western domination is a layer cake. Hegel's Theory of Linear History is one layer. The next layer is the colonial trading system which funded the Industrial Revolution and bootstrapped the Western rise. The Adam Smith theory of Wealth of Nations is another layer.

Gandhiji was the first to understand the intertwining of the mercantile and political networks.

Every fightback in a subaltern situation (British India, Aprathied South Africa, Martin Luther King) starts with trading boycott to cut the mercantile networks reach and that has its own blowback.

Hindu society was able to separate the three upper castes socially as well as politically, so that they could not collude to create a dark age in India. However, in the west, all three castes have formed a tribe of interlocking interests (the military-industrial-academic complex) and have become the greatest threat to freedom and world peace.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 14 Apr 2012 06:45

I am seeing a resurgence of che-shirts around the campus and the student joints I am often invited in. I am wondering has BR ever undertaken an analysis of guerrilla warfare - of a people against its ruling regime, less equipped and resourced than the state, from the non-western viewpoint? I once did comparative studies on che and mao as 20th century points in the general historical spectrum of guerrilla warfare from military strategic view [as well as the counter moves against them]. But it is interesting that I have not seen a philosophical attempt at deconstructing them as guerrilla strategists - and none probably from an Indic viewpoint.

A non-western viewpoint may throw an alternative light on the current Naxalite moves, and perhaps directions for the future we have not thought about.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Apr 2012 18:52

It is known that many Nazi ideologues were fascinated with Hinduism. They obviously did selective reading of scriptures to justify to themselves the propriety of their own plans and actions, incorrectly turning the Jews into hate objects. Obviously some wish to mislead by using Nazi fascination for Hindu scripture to prove that fault for WW II and Jewish Holocaust lies with Hindu scriptures. Here a little about the fascination of Nazis for Hinduism.

Published on Mar 26, 2012
By Palash R. Ghosh
Nazi Germany’s Fascination With Ancient India: The Case Of Heinrich Himmler: International Business Times

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Apr 2012 08:18

Nazi hate for Jews was due to their desire to create a new Christianity without Joseph or rather Jews. As Bji says its Greek Oedipus complex.As he says:

Abraham's religion is the mother, Moses version of Judaism is the father and Christianity and Islam are the elder and younger siblings. They want to reach the mother by parricide. This is a very Greek thing, Kronos, Oedipus etc. Its the Greco-Roman interlude of Christianity and even Islam that makes them wish ill for Jews.

It has nothing to do with Hinduism etc.

The Chicago school knows this and wants to absolve the parricidal tendencies of the sibling relihions by transferring the blame to Hinduism.