Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by RajeshA »

shiv wrote:I think that it is the wealthy people who can afford it, who should be having more children because they are the ones who can absorb the financial stress which has become an inevitable accompaniment to more children. They will also be better able to see the logic behind your argument. How do you convince them to reject their love for WU?
Basically any soft power attack has to be two-prong attack - tear the other down, humiliate and present a better alternative.

Western Universalism has been able to beat Bharatiyata into the dust simply by abiding by this simple recipe. Not just Western Universalism, but Islam does that all the time, on the one hand they humiliate the Kufr at every instance and on the other there is always the devout Sufi and the rich Arab. Chinese use bullying and territorial aggression on the one hand and Panda, Kung-fu and Credit on the other!

So basically whatever we have to bring down, it too would need this two-prong strategy: Call out Western Universalism as a monster and a failure on multiple fronts, shame the West-enthralled Indians and at the same time present a better more confident Bharatiyata.

There are difficulties on both these fronts.

The intellectual tearing down of WU is taking place only at the margins of public opinion. This criticism is very unusual and indeed unnatural for Indians, for we seem to have become a people who are mostly self-critical, i.e. when self refers to tradition, and we show utmost understanding and appreciation as far as non-Indian ideas are concerned.

It is also not very easy to try and shame Indians who are flying in seventh heaven because they were successful in latching on to some prosperous Western economic engine or unit, be it Indians who have made it big in the US or IT developers in India working on some US contract, or those who get to make the rounds of the international convention circuit. One can't shame the rich and high-flying people, as arrogance is relative, to some they bow and from others they expect to be envied. Again this should not sound like some generalization. It is fine to use Western support for self-upliftment, but quite another to be ideologically pledged to it and show off with it.

Even those whom we consider as representatives of Bharatiya culture, say the Sitar and Tabla maestros would rather perform for a Western audience, which shows the level of digestion.

Preaching by itself does not help. The majority has to be lured by the power of money. That is where NaMo's "Made in India" mantra would help.

Some would however still need to do the dirty work of watching the Western Emperor without clothes and calling it out loudly.
Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Shreeman »

RajeshA wrote: Even those whom we consider as representatives of Bharatiya culture, say the Sitar and Tabla maestros would rather perform for a Western audience, which shows the level of digestion.
Leave this one out. It doesnt serve your argument. Indian classical music (northern, karnatic, rabindra sangeet or other semi classical folk, whatever..) is in really dire straits. Beyond redemption (some forms are extinct and mere imitations left now). We are all responsible (artists and listeners), but the events may also have been unavoidable.
Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8220
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Gus »

csaurabh wrote:and had racist bullying ( he was a native american ). .
errr...he was a popular student and the people he shot were his own cousins and friends. there is no racism involved here.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

A_Gupta wrote:http://youtu.be/Ow3nJA8fhhQ?t=31m49s
Rajiv Malhotra.
LOL I am in that crowd.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by ShauryaT »

The problem is not ours alone.
Individualism in Classical Chinese Thought
the Western tradition tends to view the individual in an atomized, disconnected manner, whereas the Chinese tradition focuses on the individual as a vitally integrated element within a larger familial, social, political, and cosmic whole. Chinese thinkers frequently address issues related to individual value, empowerment, authority, control, creativity, and self-determination, yet they package these crucial aspects of individualism in ways that are generally different from the way individualism has been packaged in the West.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12056
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by A_Gupta »

In the STFUP thread, we had the argument from Shiv that to say that the day of the religious conflict was over was Western Universalism; and from myself, that to frame the conflict as a religious one was Western Universalism. That didn't come to any conclusion, so let me ask a question here:

Was the Khalistan secessionist movement a religious movement, from the point of view of the Khalistanis? From the point of view of India? Why did India not frame it as a religious conflict?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

A_Gupta wrote:In the STFUP thread, we had the argument from Shiv that to say that the day of the religious conflict was over was Western Universalism; and from myself, that to frame the conflict as a religious one was Western Universalism. That didn't come to any conclusion, so let me ask a question here:

Was the Khalistan secessionist movement a religious movement, from the point of view of the Khalistanis? From the point of view of India? Why did India not frame it as a religious conflict?
Perhaps because Hindus don't see Sikhism as a "separate religion"

The classification of groups in India as belonging to "religions" is itself a western phenomenon - since they self-identified as being followers of a religion and expected religions wherever they went. You have yourself posted a terrific link from Balu where he describes how the British codified "religious acts" in the penal code and how this led to the inclusion of sati as a "Hindu religious act"

Before the British "discovered" Indian religions like Hindu-ism, Jain-ism and Sikh-ism (and Buddh-ism) there were no religions in India. If "Hindus" opposed "Jains" it was only an extension of the internecine warfare like that of Madhwa Brahmins trying to kick Smartha Brahmin butt. It was never about imposing my God on yours and my holy book on yours. IIRC, kings of different Indian dharmic systems actually supported other systems and many ancient monuments exist as a testament to this. It was only after the advent of Islam that temples were razed for mosques.

The Brits had seen "religious war" for centuries before they "discovered, described and classified" Hindu-ism and Sikh-ism. Islam and the crusades were well known to them as were the religious wars of Europe. In fact it would be possible to postulate that "Religious war" is a concept invented by Christianity and taken forward by Islam. However after the secularization of Europe, religious wars ended in Europe but continued elsewhere till the west colonized most of the world The defeat of the Caliphate was not seen as a religious war by the secular British. It was definitely seen as a religious defeat by Muslims.

JMT
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12056
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by A_Gupta »

^^^ Good, so we are free to frame our struggle against Islamist manifestations as is strategically suitable for our purposes. We can adopt some existing template (e.g., "Cold War", or "anti-NoKo", or "anti-Nazism") or create our own. Part of the battle is to deprecate whatever framework the other side wants to erect.

PS: A big part of the non-physical part of the battle is to try to control the narrative.

PPS: In fact, the whole point of this thread is to take away control of the narrative about India from the West, and to make the dominant narrative about India to originate in India.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by ShauryaT »

From an SD prism, the only way to frame "religions" like Christianity, Islam and other monotheistic systems is to either accept them as Sampradayas and hence Dharmic - as the RSS does or frame them Adharmic, i.e: evil or a degrading system to be opposed by Dharmic sampradayas.

Accepting them as sampradayas is what allows the RSS to still call muslims as "Hindus", as in living in India or from India. The definitions are not clean as they start to break down, in BD and TSP. Where the RSS refers to only those of Hindu faith to be Hindus in those countries.

The implication seems to be, those from India, reagardless of faith are "Hindus" and Dharmic, but those of non-Hindu faiths, who live outside India in separate systems may not be so.

At root is a confusion and aspects of political correctness or refusal to call out aspects of Islam and/or Christianity to be Adharma.

To frame an Indian narrative, we would have to first come to an agreement on the underlying aspects of this narrative. i.e: its key values, principles, goals and objectives. It is my contention that this part has to be done INDEPENDENT of external narratives and experiences, to the degree possible. Once there is a sufficient core developed this narrative can be framed and compared and contrasted with other narratives. Constantly harping on Islam and Christianity does not help build our own narrative. There are people who subscribe to the constant harping but have NO clue on what they themselves stand for.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 01 Nov 2014 00:56, edited 1 time in total.
TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by TKiran »

I think Pakistan has been analyzed by all and sundry by now. They actually lost the power to surprise us any more their every move is predictable. The initiative is coming from Araps now. I think all we need to do now is to predict their every move and retaliate appropriately. They'll sink.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ Good, so we are free to frame our struggle against Islamist manifestations as is strategically suitable for our purposes. We can adopt some existing template (e.g., "Cold War", or "anti-NoKo", or "anti-Nazism") or create our own. Part of the battle is to deprecate whatever framework the other side wants to erect.

PS: A big part of the non-physical part of the battle is to try to control the narrative.

PPS: In fact, the whole point of this thread is to take away control of the narrative about India from the West, and to make the dominant narrative about India to originate in India.
To come to think of it I think India did a great job in re-framing the narrative. I say re-framing because the origins of the India-Pakistan strife were based firmly on the "two-nation theory" which is another way of saying religious war. India has changed that to "cross border terrorism" - an expression that has now become mainstream.

But the ulterior motive in my digging into the religion narrative was to find some way of framing it to make it embarrassing or shameful for Pakistanis to keep using the religion excuse. Let me repeat an observation I have made several times on BRF. No longer do you hear anyone trying to claim that Islam is a religion of peace. At one time this was a commonly stated (and believed) expression. Naming and shaming motivations is, in my view a valid way of making people wary of using clever rhetoric that has worked for them in the past.

And, to go back once again to the history of secularization of Europe and how "religion" was allowed free rein as long as it did not impose itself on state affairs. The state in turn would not touch religion. This was exactly the template handed to India. The sentiment was perfectly expressed in that speech (true or false) attributed to Jinnah where he is said to have stated that everyone will be free to go to their mosques or temples blah blah. The idea of Pakistan used the concept of "religious freedom in a secular state" to turn the tables on Hindus. They said that Muslims can never enjoy full religious freedom in a state that is dominated by Hindus. That is why they demanded special treatment.

Secularism worked well in Europe because there was only one religion, Christianity, and the people were fundamentally only members of different sects of Christianity with no major religious differences.

Secularism in India was applied on a bi-religious society (Dharmic faiths and Islam). Secularism cannot work without active suppression of all religions in such a society. Complete freedom of all religious expression is not possible because there are 'competitive" religions that do not accept the existence of other religions alongside them. Indian secularism was made to work by the active suppression of Hindus, and a de facto suppression of Muslims as well. Pakistan, that inherited the same basic organization completely failed in terms of secularism - letting Islam run haywire, which is what Islam is designed to do in any case.

When Islam first came to India, I don't think Hindus recognized Islam for what it is. They did not think that Islam was "wrong" or that it needed to be fought. But the invaders knew very well that they were coming into a land of different beliefs and those beliefs were intolerable to Islam. So religion based intolerance backed by the sword was a new introduction to India. There is nothing about Islam that sounds strange from an ancient and very liberal Indian viewpoint except that it is forced by violence and murder of others. Remove the violence, and Islamic beliefs can fit into one of the hundred and one belief systems allowed in India.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

One final thought before I retire:

A secular state with complete religious freedom can only happen in a mono-religious state - that is, a state with only one religion. Once add an extra "competitive/proselytizing" religion into a mono-religious state and religious conflict will arise. Since law and order is a subject that concerns the state, religious strife becomes a law and order problem and the state must intervene. As a result, all religions will require some suppression because and "full and free" religious practice of all religions is not possible.

European nations and the were actually mono-religious nations (barring the parallel existence of Christian sects which were at peace with each other) until large numbers of Islamic immigrants came in. They are now learning how to balance religion with state secularism. I do think India has done very well and can teach the west a few lessons.
TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by TKiran »

Shiv sir, even if musalmans realizethe greatness of Hindu way of life in India, they cant convert back into Hinduism as there is nosocial status to those who convert back as they would not be fit into any caste(except Mastan Reddy s of andhra who kept their caste identity intact) also most of musalmans have only maternal lineagedifficult to trace. . . When when Pakistan problem gets automatically solved a'la Khalistani problem, India will still have issues with Islam. Perhaps EJ problem is going to be easier to solve as many of the christians still know their Hindu roots.

If you get a chance, please give your views on possible ways of giving a chance to musalmans of subcontinental origin to come back to indic fold. It is very cruel to live with the identity of sub continental muslim without a chance to come back to hinduism. That door is permanently closed for them.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by ShauryaT »

shiv wrote: They are now learning how to balance religion with state secularism. I do think India has done very well and can teach the west a few lessons.
Rajeev Bhargava one of the foremost proponents of Indian Secularism in the academic world agrees with the above. You should find the paper interesting, I have a couple of his books.
Western secular states need to improve the understanding of their own practices and to have a better theoretical self- understanding. Rather than get stuck on a model they developed at a particular time in their history, they would do well to learn from the original Indian variant. Equally, both the self-proclaimed supporters of secularism and some of its misguided opponents could learn from examining the original Indian variant. Indeed it is my conviction that many critics of Indian secularism will embrace it once they properly understand its nature and point.
The Distinctiveness of Indian Secularism
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12056
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by A_Gupta »

shiv wrote: Secularism worked well in Europe because there was only one religion, Christianity, and the people were fundamentally only members of different sects of Christianity with no major religious differences.
Haha, the differences between the various sects of Christianity were more deadly than the Shia-Sunni divide in today's Middle East and Pakistan.

Secularism worked well in the West, because secularism is Christianity minus theology (and yes, to your point, the West was Christian). That is the fundamental framework within which Christianity remains intelligible was retained in secularism, and all the particular-to-Christianity features were discarded.

As a simple example - freedom of religion in the secular world means you are free to belong to one religion. Why not to two or five? Because religion means belief, and it is not considered rational to have contradictory beliefs. Different religions embody different beliefs.

But suppose religion means practice? So you can go to a Sikh gurudwara to listen to Gurubani, recite the Vedas, do Yoga, observe the Ramzaan fast, attend the Catholic Mass (if they would let you), do pilgrimage to Hardwar - there is no inherent contradiction in these practices. This is closer to the Indian model, so freedom of religion would mean that you are free to practice any and all religions. The best the secular world can offer is that you are free to do these in a sequence, converting out of an old religion and into a new one, and only then is your right to do these things protected by secular law and constitution.

The Indian framework does not fit well into the Western mold. So, even if we want the same results (i.e., religious peace, freedom, etc.) the framework has to be Indian or else, India must Westernize.

More later.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by ShauryaT »

A_Gupta wrote:But suppose religion means practice? So you can go to a Sikh gurudwara to listen to Gurubani, recite the Vedas, do Yoga, observe the Ramzaan fast, attend the Catholic Mass (if they would let you), do pilgrimage to Hardwar - there is no inherent contradiction in these practices. This is closer to the Indian model, so freedom of religion would mean that you are free to practice any and all religions. The best the secular world can offer is that you are free to do these in a sequence, converting out of an old religion and into a new one, and only then is your right to do these things protected by secular law and constitution.

The Indian framework does not fit well into the Western mold. So, even if we want the same results (i.e., religious peace, freedom, etc.) the framework has to be Indian or else, India must Westernize.

More later.
Non Exclusive belief systems was and is an essential hallmark of Indian faith systems. However, here is an example of how Indian faith systems changed under the influence of western society. As you noted, it was possible to go to a gurudwara and a temple simultaneously as people still do. In fact, idols were there in the golden temple, until the turn of 20th century. But in 1925, in order to gain better control of its assets and assert social control the SGPC passed a wide reaching "gurudwara" resolution, in which it defined for the first time, who is a Sikh?

"who believes in 10 Gurus and Guru Granth Sahib and has no other religion is a Sikh". Later, it is this act that was and is still used by some to "segregate" Sikhs from the larger main stream and make it distinct. Fortunately, our laws and courts firmly include sikhs to be part of the Hindu fold, for all practical purposes.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by RajeshA »

A_Gupta wrote:
shiv wrote: Secularism worked well in Europe because there was only one religion, Christianity, and the people were fundamentally only members of different sects of Christianity with no major religious differences.
Haha, the differences between the various sects of Christianity were more deadly than the Shia-Sunni divide in today's Middle East and Pakistan.

Secularism worked well in the West, because secularism is Christianity minus theology (and yes, to your point, the West was Christian). That is the fundamental framework within which Christianity remains intelligible was retained in secularism, and all the particular-to-Christianity features were discarded.
In Europe, in the Middle Ages, the Monarch and the Church were both institutions of political power. The inter-Christian wars, were fought at both levels - at religious level and at political level. Some monarchs wanted to increase their lands and used either the excuse of religion or its influence to march into other regions, and some monarchs thought of getting more autonomy and used religious divide as an excuse to separate. The same way, various Christian Churches also participated in these wars, in order to extend their sphere of influence or to protect their sphere of influence.

Secularism came about when the interests of the Monarch and the Church diverged. If a Monarch has attained control over a piece of land with two Christian denominations, then further warring between the two would only destabilize his kingdom, especially as neighboring kingdoms would make use of the instability to pounce on him. Secondly it provided the Monarch the ability to cut down the Church's power, which often rivaled his own in any place.

Secularism was an effort at cease-fire and strengthening the Monarchy vs the Church.

Secularism could work in Christian countries because every Church is a centralized system with a hierarchy. Centralized systems are more vulnerable to pressure. If the head of the Church can be neutralized and forced to abide by the Monarch's interests, basically the whole Christian populace would abide by the Monarch indirectly, or in today's terminology the Christian populace would not revolt against the State.

In Poland, in the 1980s, the people were Roman Catholic and the Church was based in Rome. The Communist Polish State did not have control over the Church and no way to neutralize the Pope sitting outside the Warsaw Pact countries. So if they tried to control at the local level, it always looked like religious suppression. In Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, people belonged to the Orthodox Church and its head was indeed within their region, so the State could control the people much better, including the devout. The Church never really formed a center of opposition in those countries as it became in Poland.

For this reason, earlier on in 16th century and later, the Germans, Dutch and so on opted for Protestantism. The English wanted to have their own Church, the Anglican Church.

We often think that the British influenced our per-Independence politics and later the Constitution and thus we became Secular and so we should be thankful to the British for giving us Secularism. By a quirk of fate, Secularism in Europe is actually to a large extent a gift from India. The philosopher who most attacked the Church was Spinoza and his work on Ethics led to even a Philosopher Cult of Spinozists, and as it so happens, that his ideas have been considered almost a copy of Vedanta principles.
A_Gupta wrote:As a simple example - freedom of religion in the secular world means you are free to belong to one religion. Why not to two or five? Because religion means belief, and it is not considered rational to have contradictory beliefs. Different religions embody different beliefs.

But suppose religion means practice? So you can go to a Sikh gurudwara to listen to Gurubani, recite the Vedas, do Yoga, observe the Ramzaan fast, attend the Catholic Mass (if they would let you), do pilgrimage to Hardwar - there is no inherent contradiction in these practices. This is closer to the Indian model, so freedom of religion would mean that you are free to practice any and all religions. The best the secular world can offer is that you are free to do these in a sequence, converting out of an old religion and into a new one, and only then is your right to do these things protected by secular law and constitution.
Here I have a very different opinion on nature of religion. Religion is politics and control coated with faith. Islam and Christianity are religions as they fit this model. What we call Eastern Religions are not religions at all. They are Dharma Panths, which have a totally different function, which is to make ethics, scientific knowledge (which includes spiritual "sciences"), philosophy and ancient history palatable to common man and thus is coated in faith. These Panths do not have any political drive. Nor were these Panths a primary giver of political identity to the people. In India, one saw various kings supporting all these panths because they all had a common virtuous goal. Calling these Dharma Panths as Religion distorts their nature and makes them equivalent to Christianity and Islam. We are talking about two very different beasts here. It is in the nature of West to muddy the issue and put all on the same shelf. So we need to reassess both "religion" and the differences.

Faith is used as a means to mobilize the masses. The question is to what end? Only if wee know that, do we find out the core mission hiding behind the faith and its accompanying practices.
A_Gupta wrote:The Indian framework does not fit well into the Western mold. So, even if we want the same results (i.e., religious peace, freedom, etc.) the framework has to be Indian or else, India must Westernize.
Western model is simply a completely unsustainable model and thus a not-yet-but-about-to-be failed model. "Secularism" made them blind to the entry and expansion of Islam within Europe.

India really suffered a military defeat at the hands of Islam and as such Islam broke open the front gates of Bharat and colonized the minds of Indians turning them into Muslim. India did not have a choice. But Europe allowed Islam in voluntarily due to their utter stupidity and now the European governments are pumping money to Islam's adherents giving them housing, social benefits, employment opportunities, etc. and most of all complete freedom to spread through the length and breadth of Europe.

Europe's Secularism is a successful model as long as their populace are themselves ambivalent about faith, or their devout belong to Churches within their geographical domains or friendly domains, or its immigrant population belongs to Eastern faiths, which do not happen to be "religion" anyway but follow non-political missions. Europe's Secularism would fail simply because it lacks an intellectual framework which can stop Islam from aggressively spreading within its area. The ideological centers of Islam lie outside Europe and West in general. Secondly Islam is a highly decentralized religion, and thus immune to acupuncture.

The last thing India needs is Western Secularism. We most certainly do not want the same results as in the West.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

A_Gupta wrote:
Haha, the differences between the various sects of Christianity were more deadly than the Shia-Sunni divide in today's Middle East and Pakistan.
This was true until the 30 years war followed by the peace of Westphalia that led to the separation of Church and state. In that war it is claimed that 25% of Europe's population died due to famine and the plague. Ths murderous phase ended there and secular states succeeded only after that
A_Gupta wrote: Secularism worked well in the West, because secularism is Christianity minus theology (and yes, to your point, the West was Christian). That is the fundamental framework within which Christianity remains intelligible was retained in secularism, and all the particular-to-Christianity features were discarded.
Yes. Again it was Balu who opened my eyes to this - it was the first I had heard of the man, via BRF about 5-6 years ago
A_Gupta wrote: As a simple example - freedom of religion in the secular world means you are free to belong to one religion. Why not to two or five? Because religion means belief, and it is not considered rational to have contradictory beliefs. Different religions embody different beliefs.

But suppose religion means practice? So you can go to a Sikh gurudwara to listen to Gurubani, recite the Vedas, do Yoga, observe the Ramzaan fast, attend the Catholic Mass (if they would let you), do pilgrimage to Hardwar - there is no inherent contradiction in these practices. This is closer to the Indian model, so freedom of religion would mean that you are free to practice any and all religions. The best the secular world can offer is that you are free to do these in a sequence, converting out of an old religion and into a new one, and only then is your right to do these things protected by secular law and constitution.
I think what India did under the circumstances was continue what the Brits did (if I have interpreted Balu correctly). They first identified different religious practices and banned what they felt was morally reprehensible from their Christian framework. They then allowed people of designated religions to state what practices were an essential part of religion and ruled that these would be allowed as religious practice. This is how "sati" was identified as a "Hindu practice" that needed to be banned.

So in this British version of "secularism for India" , Hindus (and probably Muslims as well) faced restrictions based on a penal code that was imposed by the Brits. This actually defeated the definition of secularism in that the state was not supposed to interfere with religious practice, but it did, and I suspect that Hindu practices which were more alien to the British received greater disapprobation. I have examples of the latter but that is a separate discussion.

Secularism in the Indian context is suppression of free religious practice for everyone with state involvement in keeping the peace between faiths without unduly suppressing the practice of religion beyond that. I think that this may have gelled with the Indian population because the system was hardly new. Ashoka's edicts were basically a form of state imposed freedom to practice religion while demanding religious harmony. Which goes to show that for a "secular state with freedom of religion" democracy is not required. (I am not saying that democracy is not needed in India, but I am saying that secular principles of governance can exist outside of democracy.)
Last edited by shiv on 01 Nov 2014 07:16, edited 1 time in total.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Arjun »

RajeshA wrote: By a quirk of fate, Secularism in Europe is actually to a large extent a gift from India. The philosopher who most attacked the Church was Spinoza and his work on Ethics led to even a Philosopher Cult of Spinozists, and as it so happens, that his ideas have been considered almost a copy of Vedanta principles.
Thanks for this.

This one needs to be publicized. But what could have been the route of the Vedantic influence ?
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by johneeG »

RajeshA saar,
thats a great post. Vintage stuff!

One point though, bhest has total control on malsI. They have consistently maintained control on malsI's power-structure through top-down. They have control on Turks and Arabs. They even have the ability to play them against each other.

This is something that many people miss out. The fact is that secularism, malsI, X-ism, bhestern universalism(which is based on modern science), ...etc are models to control populations.

At the highest level, the elites of all these systems are allies and friends helping each other out. They may have their internal tussles. But, they will all come out to protect the system. This called HATO: hammam associates treaty organization.(Created by mediacrooks).

Whenever people talk about malsI extremism, people can trace it upto the Arabs or Turks. But, they become disoriented about bhest because of cognitive dissonance. So, they simply avoid probing the role of bhest in nurturing malsI. They simply cannot accept that the bhest and malsI are in the bed together.

I think shiv saar was asking,"how does Amirkhan get away by attacking malsIs? Why can't dhesh do the same?"
Well, Amirkhan can get away because Amirkhan is ally of Arabs and Turks. Dhesh is not. Further, Amirkhan is eliminating the enemies of Arabs and Turks. That means, Amirkhan is used as mercenary in intra-malsI fights to keep the top-dog position of Arabs and Turks intact.

Turks and Arabs are played against each other.

Amirkhan has been trying to get a control on persia, so that it can control the other variant of malsI also. Arabs and Turks want to eliminate that variant completely.

So, bhest has control on X-ism because it controls Watikan.
Bhest has control on malsI because of allying with topdogs.
Bhest has control on science, capitalism, and atheism because of universities & hollymedia.
Bhest has control on universalism because it has control on global leagues.
Bhest has control on fuel.
Bhest has control on banks(& currency).
Bhest has control info and entertainment due to hollymedia.

Bhest has total control. It tells you how to eat, how to drink, how to sit, how to talk, how to live. It controls every aspect of people's lives.

What is the weakness of the bhest?
It is basically a racist society that believes in subjugating the other. And they are not only interested in subjugating the other, but further they seem to be interested in subjugating their own. In short, aristocracy. But, aristocracy is loathed in these days, so it is implemented using sophisticated mechanisms. But, the idea is quite simple: serfdom and aristocracy.

Glorifying people slaving away for corporations without getting married or without having children is part and parcel of this system. This is just glorified serfdom. In serfdom, all people(men and women) were put to work. So, what is so empowering about 'working women'?
Medieval Peasant Women

Facts and interesting information about Medieval Life,
specifically, Medieval Peasant Women

Daily Life of Medieval Peasant Women
The daily life Medieval Peasant women was hard. Most of the peasants were Medieval Serfs or Medieval Villeins. Women were expected to help their peasant husbands with their daily chores as well as attending to provisions and the cooking of daily meals and other duties customarily undertaken by women. The daily life of Medieval peasant women can be described as follows:

The daily life of a peasant woman started at started in the summer as early as 3am
She first had to prepare a breakfast, usually of pottage
Work in the fields or on the land started by dawn and the daily life of a peasant woman during the Middle Ages would include this type of hard work during busy times especially harvest
Preparations had to be started in order to provide the daily meals
Peasant women were expected to look after small animals - geese, chickens etc
Weaving, spinning and making and mending clothes were also part of a woman's work
Preparing rushes for lighting
Making preserves
Tending the vegetable plot and collecting berries and herbs
Women were also responsible for the children and need an understanding of medicines and herbs for basic nursing requirements
Outside work finished at dusk, working hours were therefore longer during the summer months
Women generally ate when her husband and children had finished and had little leisure time

So ended the daily life of Medieval Peasant Women during the Medieval times and era.
Link

Even in Bhaarath, many women have done labour work when they were poor during colonial and jihadi times.

In serfdom and bonded labour, people were so much in debt that they, their families and their kids had to keep working all their lives to clear debts. Today, these things are still the same. The only difference is that the serfs of earlier times were allowed families(in some cases atleast). Today, the families of the serfs are broken leaving the serfs much more vulnerable.

Earlier people had a strong family structure which allowed them to keep their culture, traditions, and pride intact despite being down on social hierarchy. If the family structure is broken down, then the serfs and slaves would find it very difficult to preserve their way of life.

In Turkic model, the slaves were castrated to stop them from reproducing. In the modern variation, people are encouraged to have late marriages, less children, no children, easy divorces, alimonies, lots of ****** and sex outside marriage, late pregnancies, abortions, ...etc. If one thinks about it, its quite brilliant. People poke their eyes with their own hands. Quite brilliant even if cruel.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Arjun »

RajeshA wrote:Here I have a very different opinion on nature of religion. Religion is politics and control coated with faith. Islam and Christianity are religions as they fit this model. What we call Eastern Religions are not religions at all. They are Dharma Panths, which have a totally different function, which is to make ethics, scientific knowledge (which includes spiritual "sciences"), philosophy and ancient history palatable to common man and thus is coated in faith. These Panths do not have any political drive. Nor were these Panths a primary giver of political identity to the people. In India, one saw various kings supporting all these panths because they all had a common virtuous goal. Calling these Dharma Panths as Religion distorts their nature and makes them equivalent to Christianity and Islam. We are talking about two very different beasts here. It is in the nature of West to muddy the issue and put all on the same shelf. So we need to reassess both "religion" and the differences.
Very good delineation of the distinction between Western vs Eastern 'religions'. Continuing further down on the same line of thinking should lead to more insights. Looking forward to this on either this thread or the Bharatiyata one.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

johneeG wrote: Glorifying people slaving away for corporations without getting married or without having children is part and parcel of this system. This is just glorified serfdom. In serfdom, all people(men and women) were put to work. So, what is so empowering about 'working women'?

<snip>

In Turkic model, the slaves were castrated to stop them from reproducing. In the modern variation, people are encouraged to have late marriages, less children, no children, easy divorces, alimonies, lots of ****** and sex outside marriage, late pregnancies, abortions, ...etc. If one thinks about it, its quite brilliant. People poke their eyes with their own hands. Quite brilliant even if cruel.
+1
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by johneeG »

Arjun wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Here I have a very different opinion on nature of religion. Religion is politics and control coated with faith. Islam and Christianity are religions as they fit this model. What we call Eastern Religions are not religions at all. They are Dharma Panths, which have a totally different function, which is to make ethics, scientific knowledge (which includes spiritual "sciences"), philosophy and ancient history palatable to common man and thus is coated in faith. These Panths do not have any political drive. Nor were these Panths a primary giver of political identity to the people. In India, one saw various kings supporting all these panths because they all had a common virtuous goal. Calling these Dharma Panths as Religion distorts their nature and makes them equivalent to Christianity and Islam. We are talking about two very different beasts here. It is in the nature of West to muddy the issue and put all on the same shelf. So we need to reassess both "religion" and the differences.
Very good delineation of the distinction between Western vs Eastern 'religions'. Continuing further down on the same line of thinking should lead to more insights. Looking forward to this on either this thread or the Bharatiyata one.
According to this definition, Buddhism would be the first religion. Infact, most of the modern religions seem to have been inherited from Buddhism directly or indirectly.

Maybe Ajivika was the first religion by this definition. Ajivikas seem to be a sort of proto-Buddhism. It seems that After the Mahabhaaratha war, there was a period when people were attracted to ideologies which speak of futility of wars(and other worldly pursuits) and emphasize on renunciations.

Gradually, this seems to have spread to all over the world(in its various mutations). At some point, this proto-Buddhism seems to have been adopted by the royalties of Magadha kingdom and transformed into Buddhism. Buddhism continued to mutate based on its patronization and clients.

This is my working hypothesis:
Versions of Buddhism(or Non-Vaidhik Religion):
- Proto-Buddhism (born in 3000 BCE) – Ajivika – organized as Nikayas. Concept of Nirvana.
- Buddhism 1.0 (born in 2000 BCE)– Hinayana (Shravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayāna). Sangam Literature. Organized as Sangas. Viharas built in cities patronized by moneybags and royalty.
- Buddhism 2.0 (born in 500 BCE) – Mahayana(Bodhisattvayāna) & Theravada. Viharas built in cities patronized by royalty and moneybags.
- Buddhism 3.0 (born in 200 CE and crystallized in 500 CE) - Vaajrayana
- Buddhism 4.0 (born in 200 CE and crystallized in 500 CE) - X-ism
Even though names and date are mentioned by me. It seems to me that the reality was much more complicated because Buddhism seems to be an artificial grouping of various schools. The one common thing seems to have been anti-Hindhuism(or anti-Vedhas and other Puraanas and Ithihaasas). So, various schools of Buddhism had tussles with each other for supremacy. And these schools mutated. Those schools which got the patronization of moneybags or royalty were able to neutralize the other schools.

Their philosophies, histories and customs seem to be continuous mutation to stay relevant.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Arjun »

johneeG wrote:According to this definition, Buddhism would be the first religion. Infact, most of the modern religions seem to have been inherited from Buddhism directly or indirectly.
Buddhism seems to have spread due to its close association with ruling clans, and was a highly organized and centralized Panth - but is that sufficient basis for viewing it as distinct from the Eastern way and more akin to the Western ? I would not be so hasty.

Buddhism was, at the same time, heavily suffused with Indic philosophy, ethics & was in synch with scientific thought - the dominance of which would clearly place Buddhism in the Eastern Panthic camp.

My sense is the degree of political orientation of a 'religion' can be objectively linked to the degree to which it is 'exclusivist'. Western 'religions' have a very clear sense of 'us' and 'them' which is not present in the Eastern Panths. I don't think Buddhism has the same degree of exclusvism built in as any of the Abrahamic religions.

It is possible that Buddhism mutated, like you suggest, at some stage into Christianity - but the original belongs to the Eastern Panthic camp. And where does Judaism fit in here in your scheme of evolution of Christianity ? Also - there are massive points of departure between Buddhism and Christianity - eg entire philosophy (the lack of it in Christianity as compared to Buddhism), ethics (stress on non-violence being one), theology etc which are difficult to explain.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

Ashoka was a Buddhist but his edicts hardly show discrimination against other paths.
Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Shreeman »

Not sure where to post this, but I do hope this is not the universalism we are headed towards. After the syria "heart eating" bit, this is the second time it has come up.
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6919
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by habal »

many Indians believe that a lack of self-esteem can be compensated by acquisition of wealth.

a colonised Indian mind severely lacks in self-esteem and seeks monetary route to cover up this inadequacy. Corporatised social narrative and corporate ethics validates this imbalance by encouraging a class of wealth-seeking slaves.

The 'twist' here is that the 'seeking of wealth' is never ending, because it is continually under supplied and self-esteem is always in negative.

this is how western universalism uses wealth to retain status quo. A colonised mind will never challenge western status quo.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Arjun »

Prime Minister Modi's statement
It is said in the Mahabharata that Karna was not born from his mother’s womb. This means in the times in which the epic was written genetic science was very much present. We all worship Lord Ganesha; for sure there must have been some plastic surgeon at that time, to fit an elephant’s head on the body of a human being.
A reaction from Karan Thapar
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/c ... 553304.ece
The two faces of Mr. Modi

by Karan Thapar, 1-nov-2014

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assumption that in prehistoric mythological times India had mastered genetic science and plastic surgery is irrational ... What do we expect of our prime ministers? This is not a rhetorical question and you’ll soon see why. We expect integrity, commitment, dedication, administrative expertise and, hopefully, a fair modicum of intelligence..... Ultimately, my problem with the Prime Minister’s comment goes a step further, but it could be the most critical of all. Under Article 51 A (h) of the Constitution it’s the fundamental duty of every citizen to develop a scientific temper. I can’t see how the Prime Minister is doing that by blatantly claiming medical advances on the basis of unverified myths. His views clearly and undeniably contradict this constitutional requirement. In fact, if he thinks about it I feel confident Mr. Modi would not disagree!
My view on Karan Thapar's argument: The answer to this conundrum lies in realizing that scientific temper in the hard sciences and in the social sciences are not necessarily related.

Sometimes taking a non-objective and somewhat more utilitarian view of the social sciences (more specifically history) can actually assist in promoting scientific temper among the masses in hard sciences. And since the hard sciences are far more important to mankind's progress than the social sciences - the utilitarian approach to history should be the preferred route. Perhaps this has always been the Indic way - history seems to have been the one 'science' that was never regarded as one by ancient Indians.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

Arjun wrote:Prime Minister Modi's statement
It is said in the Mahabharata that Karna was not born from his mother’s womb. This means in the times in which the epic was written genetic science was very much present. We all worship Lord Ganesha; for sure there must have been some plastic surgeon at that time, to fit an elephant’s head on the body of a human being.
A reaction from Karan Thapar
I have left a comment
There is a well known plastic surgical method of using forehead skin to reconstruct the nose of a person whose nose had been cut off - described by Sushruta. This method is still used today and is called the "forehead flap" . Funnily enough a bulbous flap of skin when brought down to the face makes a person look like he has a small elephant's trunk. The method can be looked up in any standard textbook of surgery or plastic surgery.
member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by member_22733 »

How is an interest in hard science a contradicting position to invoking historical/mythical facts to support hard science?

One side of the cargo cult is to find EVERYTHING in hard science in Hinduism, much like the other side of the cargo cult which is rejecting everything that is in our culture and doing EVERYTHING that the west does.

Karan Thapar is doing the latter, and accusing Modi of doing the former. Karan Thapar's requirement that an interest in hard science means rejection of any idea or any possibility, however remote, that it could have originated or independently existed in our culture is clearly cargo cult behavior of accepting everything western and thereby rejecting everything Indian.

Modi clearly does not fall in either sphere. He is a man who uses elements from both indic culture and western knowledge, with synergy and meaningfulness. A concept which Thapar is clearly not mature enough or educated enough to comprehend.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by negi »

Well first thing to note is no one channel or newspaper has cared to print or show Modi's entire speech ; to quote someone selectively without giving much needed background on context means one is trying to show what one thinks what Modi is saying as against what Modi actually said, what to infer/conclude needs to be left to the individual reader/viewer .

From what I could gather Modi was only giving an analogy and mind you he was saying all this in Hindi , translating the same to English and selectively quote just those few lines is mischievous , this is like Modi's famous remark about accidentally running over a puppy while driving a car and MSM concluding that Modi called Indian muslims a puppy.

Lastly technically speaking question is not whether Ganesh had a plastic surgery or not question is does one believe in Ganesh if one does then it is obvious he/she believes in all that we know about Ganesh , taking an elephant's head and then planting on a body is technically a grafting operation which in layman's terms people refer to as plastic surgery so yes technically plastic surgery was carried out . Those who do not believe in Ganesh obviously do not have to believe that plastic surgery happened in those times it is as simple as that. Modi was only saying that the concept was known to Indians in those times he did not anywhere say that he believed that it actually happened .
csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by csaurabh »

LokeshC wrote:How is an interest in hard science a contradicting position to invoking historical/mythical facts to support hard science?

One side of the cargo cult is to find EVERYTHING in hard science in Hinduism, much like the other side of the cargo cult which is rejecting everything that is in our culture and doing EVERYTHING that the west does.

Karan Thapar is doing the latter, and accusing Modi of doing the former. Karan Thapar's requirement that an interest in hard science means rejection of any idea or any possibility, however remote, that it could have originated or independently existed in our culture is clearly cargo cult behavior of accepting everything western and thereby rejecting everything Indian.

Modi clearly does not fall in either sphere. He is a man who uses elements from both indic culture and western knowledge, with synergy and meaningfulness. A concept which Thapar is clearly not mature enough or educated enough to comprehend.
+1

In addition, KT has not made any attempt to hold up other prime ministers to the so called ideals explained in the article. And see how Maun mohan, IK gujral, Weepy Singh, 'theoretical' prime minister Rahul Gandhi hold up in comparison.

This results in NM being held up to impossible standards while everyone else is ignored. I don't know if this is a consequence of WU or not. it is definitely a pitfall we should avoid.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Pratyush »

The comments from KT are similar in nature to those that were made by some DDM regarding the superstition in ISRO for having preyed in some temple for the success of one of the space ventures.
member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by member_22733 »

negi wrote: Modi was only saying that the concept was known to Indians in those times he did not anywhere say that he believed that it actually happened .
When we in BRF smell WKKitis in anyone, even in microscopic amounts, everyone has their laser like focus on that narrow aspect of the person in question. It maybe good or bad, but the point is you are trained to "smell" certain things and you can detect even the slightest whiff of it in anyone the moment he or she opens his or her mouth.

Now, of all the things Modi has said, why would Karan Thapar chose to zero in on this? The obvious answer is that he is very sensitive to the smell of "non-conforming-to-the-west" type of statements. It is clear that something in that behavior bothers Mr. Thapar, and it is very clear that he is rather ashamed of that behavior, and he is insecure enough to make a big deal about it. It is as if he is in a school-camp and one of your group mate farted, and you know the teachers dont like it. You hurriedly want to chastise your colleague on his mistake and earn good grades of your teachers. KT, is subconsciously doing just that.

Here is a piskology experiment which shows what happened to KT and his elitist ilk:

Image
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Pulikeshi »

A_Gupta wrote:In the STFUP thread, we had the argument from Shiv that to say that the day of the religious conflict was over was Western Universalism; and from myself, that to frame the conflict as a religious one was Western Universalism. That didn't come to any conclusion...
Religion for good or bad becomes a tool in geo-politics... not the other way around. So WU's father what goes?

The problem in my opinion (I said some in STFUP thread about geo-political levers and was kindly ignored :-)) is that either Islam caused 'Dhimmi' behavior in the sikular or 'Bigotry' & 'Revisionism' in the Internet Hindus. Either of these positions are ill equipped to deal with either Islam or the Geo-Political problem at hand. It gets even worse when one confuses the Religious debate with the Geo-Political one and vis-versa.

If India has to deal with a state that is Ideological and not Security Seeking, then the problem at hand for the purposes of this thread is defined as whether WU or SD a solution to this geo-political question? I'd suggest neither offers any effective answer and there in lies the conundrum.

The key is really what is the end goal to India's Paki-Satan problem - without defining this, trying to seek a solution is just plain dumb waste of time!
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Pratyush »

Wow, to think KT & the rest of the DDM in this way. Amazing.
member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by member_22733 »

csaurabh wrote: This results in NM being held up to impossible standards while everyone else is ignored. I don't know if this is a consequence of WU or not. it is definitely a pitfall we should avoid.
NM is fundamentally an outsider, someone who came from the very community that KT and his bunch want to "empower". In reality, they DONT want to empower anyone, they just throw these keywords to make themselves feel superior. The west also does this, by giving aid, sponsoring minor student exchange programs of limited consequences etc. But when the people of India really empowered a true son of the soil, or a non-western nation became really powerful, it upsets the apple-cart.

In such a case, they become desperate to show that they are still relevant and of course superior. Modi is not being held to any standards here. It has nothing to do with Modi, and Modi surely has nothing to do with them. Even if Modi was one of the avatar of Vishnu, an embodiment of unparalleled morals, who appeared on earth to take care of this yug, KT would still criticize him. It has everything to do with KT and his insecurity.

KT does not know how to deal with Modi, he does not know how to deal with a powerful "other", who ironically are the people that KT and other sepoys want to empower in the first place. It is a rather funny situation and a sad commentary on the category 5 cyclone inside the brain of Maculayite sepoys after the accent of Modi into PMship :)
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by chaanakya »

negi wrote:
Lastly technically speaking question is not whether Ganesh had a plastic surgery or not question is does one believe in Ganesh if one does then it is obvious he/she believes in all that we know about Ganesh , taking an elephant's head and then planting on a body is technically a grafting operation which in layman's terms people refer to as plastic surgery so yes technically plastic surgery was carried out . Those who do not believe in Ganesh obviously do not have to believe that plastic surgery happened in those times it is as simple as that. Modi was only saying that the concept was known to Indians in those times he did not anywhere say that he believed that it actually happened .
Well I heard NaMo speech as it was being delivered. He said this idea was known in ancient times: idea of plastic surgery and conception outside a mother's womb. He also meant to take inspiration from such ancient concepts and examples and try innovative treatments ( not exactly planing cross species head).

It might be the cause of inspiration for German scientists who were trying similar surgeries from which idea of plastic surgery and graft, transplanting organs emerge. I would not be surprised that sanskrit texts , researched by maxmueller and others, would have given them this idea. Now a days scientists are working on transplanting pigs organs to humans.

Not enough time have elapsed, else they would believe that zero was not Indian invention, decimal system was not devised by Indian scholars, Aryabhatt or Bhasker never happened or Arabic numeral is not actually Indian numerals. Medieval europe would have been stuck in Roman numerals.

Namo's main thrust was to keep eyes open for new ideas in medical care and invention from whatever source they come , even if it is our ancient text so be it.
csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by csaurabh »

LokeshC that's an amazing cartoon. It explains so much!
Did you make it/ can I forward it to others?
Post Reply