Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

[ramana]

Economist has cover story this week:
"US loses its oomph!"

So even queendom is worried if they passed the baton wrongly.

[ramana]

Anglo-Saxons created two arrows to carry forth their mission.
One like them and another not like them but of same mind.

Both floundered and now they stare at the abyss.

[ramana]

Anyone notice the "End of World" proclamations have become fringe groups in the West.Periodically some priest would proclaim end of world.

[ShauryaT]

Inequality is universal in my view. Better to accept that and stop pretending that equality is feasible via this culture or that method.

I agree. SD systems never tried to bring about an artificial equality. Instead it recognized "natural" roles for men, women in their relationships, addressed their changing profiles as they progressed through ages and divided the works of peoples in four major classifications in an attempt to put these "natural" divisions to the use of society in a given socio-economic-politial framework - largely known as the VarnAshrama system. People like Gandhiji have called it another name for Hinduism. Think there is a way out in a reinvented method based on that paradigm for the future for India?

[RamaY]

The idea of 'Clash of Civilizations' came only after the west realized that

1/ The idea of Western Universalism is no more required to influence non-western nations because the cold-war ended in 1991 and US emerged as the sole super-power. Now the charade of WU is no more required and the societies that aren't Christian can be handled directly instead of the convoluted Christian ideologies like communism, secularism etc. Different nation-states are cleared ear-marked for occupation. This can be seen the reason behind POTUS declaring GWOT as a crusade and calling specific nations as Axis of Evil.

OR

2/ The idea of WU failed because even after centuries of colonization and decades of secularism and sepoy network couldn't break the last pagan civilization called India. The Babri Masjid demolition in 1992 declared the world the reemergence of Hinduism as an assertive and universal alternative to WU. So the Ivy League idiots quickly designed a new fartificial brand called Clash of Civilizations and made a battle call for the Western nations that they either survive together or sink separately.

This Clash of Civilization is similar to our secular-logic. India's secularism cannot survive unless the Muslims and Christians are appeased. India will have to go thru another partition if we want to push things like UCC and declare India as a Hindu Rashtra. It is because the CoC of these otherwise peaceful communities will kick-in.

P.S: I call some of these so-called western intellectuals as idiots because any intellectual worth of his intellect would see the fallacy called Abrahamism and its destructive nature and move away from it. Only Asurics like Mahishasura wish to continue such predatory ideology and civilization by strategizing it.

[RamaY]

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

If Hindu ideas are good and solve world problems and help humanity in its evolution, why not do it in the name of Hinduism? (Unless someone is not a Hindu)

[Vayutuvan]

Inequality is universal in my view. Better to accept that and stop pretending that equality is feasible via this culture or that method.

Inequality == Darwinian world == law of the jungle == jis kA danDA uskA bhains == food web

which cannot be changed not withstanding religious or secular yagnya performance. FWIW.

[shiv]

below is an article by Huntington in 1996, in response to his critics,

Economic success has engendered a greater cultural self-confidence. Whatever their differences, East and Southeast Asian countries are increasingly conscious of their own civilizations and tend to locate the sources of their economic success in their own distinctive traditions and institutions. The self-congratulatory, simplistic, and sanctimonious tone of much Western commentary at the end of the Cold War and the current triumphalism of Western values grate on East and Southeast Asians.

This is a very apt description of reality for a lot of Indians

The self-congratulatory, simplistic, and sanctimonious tone of much Western commentary at the end of the Cold War and the current triumphalism of Western values grate

It is precisely this western triumphalism and self congratulation, augmented by western apologists that have made them blind to simple biological principles.

For example if you try to sow rice in a dry, arid field, it is not going to take off. It will not grow in freezing temperatures either. It needs specific conditions to thrive.

If you take a system like democracy and introduce it to a target population, it's survival cannot be guaranteed just because the system is considered good and dubbed "universal". The target society needs to have a prior culture of accepting the right of everyone in society to survive and have a voice. That "prior culture" represents the "initial conditions" suitable for the growth of democracy.

When one speaks of "prior culture" one needs to recall that "culture" is a product of history. Culture is the end result of several centuries of evolution of behavior in a population. You cannot manufacture culture in a decade and stable cultures have a history that is difficult to erase even by genocide. So when democracy is introduced into a culture, it may or may not be able to absorb and make it thrive. And even if it does, the way in which democracy evolves may show some differences from nation to nation. Variation is universal and normal. Declaring that democracy has only one model and its name is western democracy is clearly a concept borrowed from "There is only one God and his name is me. Thou shalt worship me and me alone"

That apart, when it comes to economic development - political models other than democracy have done well, so the argument that "prosperity is a function of democratic freedoms" is garbage.

If I am prosperous and successful today and you are less so, the idea that you should behave like me to be like me presupposes that you desperately want to be like me and are seeking my advice. It may be that you don't give a damn and you are content as you are. You don't need my sanctimonious advice. Western universalism is that sanctimonious advice to everyone else. "We are the best. You need to be like us. You need to behave in this way to be like us"

Any attempt to impose such snake oil on everyone else is a restriction of others' freedom to choose what they want to do. Mocking their choices and thumbing one's virtual nose at people who make other choices is cheap triumphalism.

[RamaY]

Excellent perspective Shivji. Thx

[Arjun]

I think all the analysis on this thread so far completely misses the point.

Trying to understand and model why certain groups and communities are successful, while others are less so - is an extremely valid intellectual pursuit. In fact, in many way, it may well be THE most important and interesting field of inquiry.

The early attempts in this field so far from the West have been fairly infantile and crude. I include names like Max Weber and Samuel Huntington in this category. Max Weber tried hard to show a link between Protestantism and the then successful regions of NW Europe. The poor nut obviously couldn't envisage that a century or so later - Catholics would be in par with Protestants in the New World, Evangelical Protestants would be at the bottom of the performance hierarchy by all metrics, and that pagan Hindus would be right on top.

East Asians, Indians, Jews are going to be the leading races going forward. Dissing Huntington and Weber is all well and good - but we do need to see a comprehensive model from the Indian side as to which are the successful races and why. I don't see any attempt even on this thread to address this key aspect.

[shiv]

Trying to understand and model why certain groups and communities are successful,

Arjun what would be your definition of "success"?

I have cousins who grew up with me, went abroad and are dollar millionaires now and call themselves successful. I have cousins and other relatives who refused to go abroad or returned and lived their lives with humble, low paying DRDO jobs, travel by bus or train but find complete fulfilment and happiness in the service they do in looking after elderly relatives, or disabled children or simply teaching. Neither of these groups would exchange places with each other. But only one group lectures the other on the meaning of success.

The point is that success should, in my view, be defined from the objective reality of the individual and not from the subjective parameters of wealth, height, body weight index, muscle mass, purchasing power, dollars per month, energy consumption per capita, miles travelled, places visited and other statistical indices.

The tribal group (very few left now) that lives in isolation from modernity, in a fully sustainable lifestyle, with birth and death statistical indices that reflect the norm 200 years ago may all be perfectly "successful and happy". What is the exact need for me to interfere with their lifestyle and tell them what is right to become "successful" like me?

[Vayutuvan]

Arjun: How is race important in philosophical matters like Universalism? or is it your contention that only certain races are capable of being universalist in their outlook?

[Arjun]

Arjun what would be your definition of "success"?

I have cousins who grew up with me, went abroad and are dollar millionaires now and call themselves successful. I have cousins and other relatives who refused to go abroad or returned and lived their lives with humble, low paying DRDO jobs, travel by bus or train but find complete fulfilment and happiness in the service they do in looking after elderly relatives, or disabled children or simply teaching. Neither of these groups would exchange places with each other. But only one group lectures the other on the meaning of success.

The point is that success should, in my view, be defined from the objective reality of the individual and not from the subjective parameters of wealth, height, body weight index, muscle mass, purchasing power, dollars per month, energy consumption per capita, miles travelled, places visited and other statistical indices.

The tribal group (very few left now) that lives in isolation from modernity, in a fully sustainable lifestyle, with birth and death statistical indices that reflect the norm 200 years ago may all be perfectly "successful and happy". What is the exact need for me to interfere with their lifestyle and tell them what is right to become "successful" like me?

I agree - a term like 'success' in itself without any further qualification is somewhat loaded. So lets use terms which are less loaded, and more specific.

Lets talk about 'success in education' and 'success in income'. Education and income are typically the parameters which are the most tracked by academics and laypersons alike. If we are talking about countries we may also want to talk about power-related metrics such as 'success in hard power projection' or 'success in soft power projection'.

Individual to individual - there may be cases where folks disavow these measures of success. There are many of my close relatives who have chosen to do so despite immense inherent talent. Also, success is always relative. Each one of us is more 'succesful' on one or more of these parameters than millions in India and at the same time less 'succesful' than thousand others. However, the key point is - we are not talking about choice at an individual level, we are talking about entire communities or countries.

Governments are typically voted in with the explicit mandate to improve the education and income levels of the country, and to improve its capability in hard and soft power projection. That was a key reason for Modi's win in the recent elections - so I presume the 'success' metrics have been agreed to by the majority in India.

[Arjun]

Arjun: How is race important in philosophical matters like Universalism? or is it your contention that only certain races are capable of being universalist in their outlook?

I don't really see 'Universalism' as a 'philosophical' subject matter. When certain groups or regions either actually attain success, or perceive that they have attained success - they typically try and 'universalize' their own beliefs or evangelize these beliefs as a kind of 'success formula'. So, what beliefs qualify for being 'universal' is ultimately linked to what they believe to be the reasons for their own success. Universalism attempts are likely to originate from the races, regions or religions that believe they have attained success.

[A_Gupta]

A paper by Balu in which he dissects Francis Clooney, and throws down a challenge:
Translation, Interpretation and Culture: the disingenuity of a comparative theology
http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/css/a ... 58/pdf_110
(PDF downloadable from this page)

[Rahul Mehta]

what would be your definition of "success"?

At individual level, success is relative.

At national level, success has one and ONLY one definition --- the final ability to make better weapons. Nation-A is more successful than Nation-B is iff A has better weapons than B. And what is definition of "better"? War will decide. Now people in the nation has to ensure that most individuals's definition of success is linked with THE national goal of weapon making. If the people fail to ensure that, then soon, the other nation will take over.

Weapons are the only reality. And everything that increases weapon production is good and rest is all bad. And anything that looks good but decreases weapon manufacturing is similar to a "cookoo bird singing a very pleasant song not knowing that a snake is advancing", and nothing more.

=====

West has mastered the art of weapon making. And so it moved ahead from 350 BC to 300 AD, and has been moving ahead and ahead since 1100 AD. There has been retreats eg British had to leave India due to WW2. But Westerners are back and all trends show that they are advancing and no trend shows that they are slowing down. Now each one has to decide what can be done.

[shiv]

Rahul your other argument was better. Nuclear arms and ICBMs for everyone. Currently the West has no response for that other than to make rules that restrict the manufacture and spread of these weapons.

[shiv]

Lets talk about 'success in education' and 'success in income'. Education and income are typically the parameters which are the most tracked by academics and laypersons alike. If we are talking about countries we may also want to talk about power-related metrics such as 'success in hard power projection' or 'success in soft power projection'.

Individual to individual - there may be cases where folks disavow these measures of success. There are many of my close relatives who have chosen to do so despite immense inherent talent. Also, success is always relative. Each one of us is more 'succesful' on one or more of these parameters than millions in India and at the same time less 'succesful' than thousand others. However, the key point is - we are not talking about choice at an individual level, we are talking about entire communities or countries.

Governments are typically voted in with the explicit mandate to improve the education and income levels of the country, and to improve its capability in hard and soft power projection. That was a key reason for Modi's win in the recent elections - so I presume the 'success' metrics have been agreed to by the majority in India.

Arjun I believe that this is a subject for which we need to start from first principles. And here we come across some serious moral problems - I will try and state the case.

The efficacy and "success" of government ideally should revolve around an overall sense of success achieved by a large majority of people who are being governed. In some senses the governments of Bahrain, Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia are extremely successful. Success in income is no issue at all for them. Success in education does not appear to be a problem. They can only be criticized for their effect on other countries - perhaps Saudi Arabia can be criticized for funding Wahhabism, but those criticisms, in my view are "weak" criticisms.

If I compare Bahrain or Saudi Arabia with the USA - I find that the US is about as successful as the other two nations. If an American and a Saudi national were to stand together and boast about why "Mine is bigger" who would win? Whose nation is "more successful?" If I cut the detail, it appears that the US's model of success requires a lot more human intervention - a lot more work. If the US were to magically stop doing that work - it is the US that would become poorer and face internal dissatisfaction. KSA on the other hand has oil to export. If the US stops importing oil someone else will buy oil, and in fact the oil supplies will last longer because it is not being burnt up at US rates. So KSA could claim "greater success" than the USA. These arguments are pretty inane, but these are the types of arguments that are often used to measure success. They are more easily applied to compare between nations where it is evident from the outset that one is "more successful" and the other is "less successful". When it comes to comparing Saudi with USA the goalpost is moved from "income" and "education" to freedom of information and freedom of religion. Here again the parameters are weighted so that "the west" wins. If the parameters were set by asking "Where the one and only religion is paramount. Where women are treated as God intended them to be treated. Where gun violence is not high" etc - Saudi Arabia would "win"

Ultimately the only parameters that count are
1. Do I have enough to eat
2. Does my family have enough to eat
3. Do we have clothes to wear
4. Do we have a roof over our heads
5. Can we be safe from natural disasters, wars and crime
6. Will my children get what they need to become useful adults who can lead lives on their own (What exactly are the "best" needs for children?)
7. Can everyone get some relief from ill health
8. What happens to old and infirm people?

Finally, there is a number 9:
9. Can all the above factors remain positive for everyone for at least 100 years?

The moral issue crops up here:

Can all 9 factors be assured for ALL people in the WHOLE WORLD for now and for the foreseeable future?

It is easier to get a small number of people in one nation state to be "successful" especially if that success is predatory and at someone else's expense. If some magical force compelled that "successful" nation state to try and arrange for everyone else in the world to be equally successful, it might turn out that they might fail if success of one nation rests on the failure and exploitation of another nation.

Is it possible to include "Freedom from exploitation" at a global level? Would it be possible for the US, for example, to stop importing Chinese goods on the grounds that Chinese workers are being exploited? Whose fault is it that workers are being exploited? What is exploitation? If a man who has no job at all is paid a pittance to work long hours for low pay as an alternative to having no job, is it "exploitation" or is it "something is better than nothing"?

If millions of "exploited" Chinese workers lead to a massive expansion of the Chinese economy and an improvement in infrastructure and healthcare in China, what would the enforcement of western style human rights have done? Human rights is simply something used to bash China. Western style democracy and human rights were of no use to China and they are demonstrating that clearly.

"Success" is like a photograph. Humans live only for 60 to 70 years. Success has to be recalibrated and redefined every 25 to 50 years or so to see what helps the largest number of people lead the most self sufficient lives. It is a government's responsibility to make the lives of its people better. If the government does this by exploiting some other nation, it is morally wrong even if it is successful. If a nation state finds itself being exploited and yet criticized as "not being successful" - it would be in that nation state's interest to act destructive and wage war to tear down the exploitation from predatory, but "successful" states.

For the individual, his life would depend on whether the happens to be living in a currently successful state that seeks to maintain its current status, or whether he lives in a "less successful" state which is plotting to bring down the more successful state so that resources can be grabbed for itself. Certainty is absent.

[Arjun]

Shiv, your post had a number of interesting aspects that I am tempted to respond to - but which may take the conversation OT. Restricting myself to the subject of Universalisms, some observations are:

And here we come across some serious moral problems - I will try and state the case.

Your use of the term 'moral problems' suggests that the West has not got the morality of dealing with other cultures right. I agree. I think Indian Dharma offers a better framework on which to mould inter-community relationships - than does the Wests' own moral framework. Dharma, and especially the aspect of respect for alien traditions and cultures, is therefore well-suited to be an Indian Universalism that the world would do well to adopt.

It is a government's responsibility to make the lives of its people better. If the government does this by exploiting some other nation, it is morally wrong even if it is successful.

Again, you touch upon key aspects of 'Rajdharma' in the above line. What policies should a government follow to make the lives of its people better, and what is the moralism that needs to be central to inter-state dealings ? Rajdharma is another Indian Universalism that can be exported - though India would be far more successful on this front once it is able to show some actual success in significantly improving the lives of its own citizens. NaMo I think has made a start and his success over the next few years will be central to this project.

Couple of other Indian Universalisms relate to community and individual success. While India as a country is yet to re-emerge as a perfect model for others - individually and as groups Indians have done extremely well on the world stage. There is tremendous curiosity globally in understanding personal spiritual enlightenment techniques (yoga, meditation and the like) that lead to a better outlook on life. Also, some Indian communities / castes have been able to build up social capital in ways that enables the entire community to succeed. Rather than the 'individual as sole fulcrum' approach followed by the West that places undue burden on individuals to attain success - there may be a better community-oriented model from India that achieves higher success while lowering stress.

[shiv]

though India would be far more successful on this front once it is able to show some actual success in significantly improving the lives of its own citizens. NaMo I think has made a start and his success over the next few years will be central to this project.

The performance of China has thrown up a more powerful argument against western universalism than anything India has done.

India actually seems to share a lot more with western democracies in some areas than China, but other than growing economically and militarily I can't see any reason why anyone would want to accept any Indian model of universalism. I think it is more a matter of staying the course for us Indians. I think it was you that mentioned "soft power"

No one respects soft power - i.e "respects" as in "fears". But soft power has its own way of winning supporters. Indian soft power seems to extend over a very large continuous area over Asia and possibly parts of Africa. That soft power comes at least partly from culture in which the same "collective family" values are respected over these areas. I think Arun Gupta had made a post about the more self-centered images of people in the west versus the more family centered culture of east and south

[ShauryaT]

though India would be far more successful on this front once it is able to show some actual success in significantly improving the lives of its own citizens. NaMo I think has made a start and his success over the next few years will be central to this project.

The performance of China has thrown up a more powerful argument against western universalism than anything India has done.

India actually seems to share a lot more with western democracies in some areas than China, but other than growing economically and militarily I can't see any reason why anyone would want to accept any Indian model of universalism. I think it is more a matter of staying the course for us Indians. I think it was you that mentioned "soft power"

True, staying the course and reinventing what does it mean to be Indians along the way with our own unique stamp, hopefully incorporating aspects of our heritage into our power structures, hard and soft. For India, before we think of universalism et al, it is important to repair our "wounds", using Naipaul's terms.

[schinnas]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with idol worship. In fact the name "idol worship" is a misnomer. The idol serves as a central point which serves as an area around which people collect for prayer. The concept of having a church or a mosque is also merely to have a collection point. There is s philosophical issue in Christianity and Islam where it is alleged that if you sit in front of an image you will start believing that the image is God. This is complete nonsense. No Hindu believes that an image of God is God. The image is simply a meeting point for worship and prayer. Anyone who pays brief attention to the meaning of Hindu prayers (as recited in Sanskrit) will know that the first act of prayer in front of any idol is to pray to a formless omnipresent God to please come and occupy the idol for a brief while while you worship that god within that idol. "Invocations" that are sung before any Indian/Hindu function are simply a prayer-invitation for God to be present there and guide us. God is invariably "invoked" at the outset. Note that we never blow out lamps or candles. Fire/Agni is life. We always light them. Next time you have a birthday party, light lamps, don't blow them out.

The multiarmed "bloodthirsty" durga and the elephant headed God are simply artistic manifestations of stories of good over evil and the power of God to help you or make you feel better - no different from any other type of worship

Shiv-ji, excellent post on all other aspects. Except in terms of idol worship where I would like to add a few thoughts. First, we don't just worship idols, we worship _through_ idols. Secondly, there is a science of imparting energy to the idols through prana-pratista or mantras or yantras so that the seeker at a specific emotional state is positively influenced by the deity's specific attributes / virtues that are represented by the Mantras / Yantas associated with the deity. Thirdly, the forms of our Gods are not just symbolic representations or artistic imaginations. These are vivid realities that one can see for oneself in the occult / vital plane of consciousness through visions and deep meditation (one need not be exposed to that form before to see that - so that is not sub-conscious mind imagining it or projecting its memory). Several yogis have attested to this fact.

Fully agreed on not blowing the lamp / agni during birthdays. This notion has become so ingrained now that it is difficult to even explain it to urban Indians and youngsters. In one B'day party thrown to me by my friends, I gently resisted blowing out the candle and proceeded to cut the cake with the candle lit. But one of my friends took liberty to blew it out for me!

[schinnas]

Inequality is universal in my view. Better to accept that and stop pretending that equality is feasible via this culture or that method.

I agree. SD systems never tried to bring about an artificial equality. Instead it recognized "natural" roles for men, women in their relationships, addressed their changing profiles as they progressed through ages and divided the works of peoples in four major classifications in an attempt to put these "natural" divisions to the use of society in a given socio-economic-politial framework - largely known as the VarnAshrama system. People like Gandhiji have called it another name for Hinduism. Think there is a way out in a reinvented method based on that paradigm for the future for India?

Dharmic view of world is that every person is unique. Each person has their own special place in the world. Calling everyone to be the same as western universal-ism seeks to do is beyond dumb. It is an extension of the Abrahamaic faith's core notion of equating unity with uniformity. Islam has taken that to an extreme and tries to enforce it by force to make everyone same in terms of appearance(dress), belief, practice, habits, etc. Christian (and even secular) West on the other hand, has this view ingrained in their thinking without even realizing it. One of Communism's fundamental flaw was this.

I would say that some progressive thinkers in west are able to embrace diversity and value uniqueness over sameness. The recent change in mindset to view US as a salad of cultures (where each individual contributing culture retains its uniqueness) as opposed to melting pot (where every contributing culture loses its uniqueness) is a step in the right direction. However, these are just minor progress. Lot more needs to be done to help western thinking evolve in this area.

[Shreeman]

I have been reading this thread with some interest and have been surprised that two aspects have not appeared coherently:

• Mythology: Western notions of universalism are little more than a legend. At best the roman notion of panem et circenses applies. There is plenty of literature that licenses the idea that it is not an imperfect implementation, rather universalism was never intended to be anything more than a myth. The needs for internal surveillance and broad propaganda are a consequence of this duplicity. Otherwise, no dialog could put state security over individual rights.
• Religion: This is a direct corollary of the above. Clearly the legend has, over the last three centuries, taken a religious bent. That universalism exists is now taken as a fact. Much like god. Islam is a few centuries older, Christianity only a few hundred years more. This is just a younger religion -- same age as the mormons.

I believe in it, therefore it exists. This is about the only explanation for a thought for "universalism". I would rather say -- what universalism? Just the same as --- what religion?

And religion wins in this argument. Religion propagates (except perhaps for modern islam) on the basis of honest belief. If the concept of god is flawed, then it is an ignorant belief. But it is still a state of mind, none the less. This concept of universalism is a dishonest belief. In that people claiming it (and getting a platform to proclaim its benefits) exists clearly see every day that it does not exist. No different than the spokesperson for a Musharraf proclaiming the protection of democracy.

Universalism will never come out of monotheistic religion. If you can deny one set of beliefs ("there is more than one god") then you are justifying the exclusion of one ideology and one set of people. Universalism dies right there.

The nomads of any region were the most inclusive. Going forward, the best chance for any equality lies in where the population is, not where the resources have been stolen (during slavery, colonial times) and concentrated.

/end rant.

[Vayutuvan]

Arjun: I consciously and conspicuously omitted "western? when I said universalism is a philosophy. The question still stands as to whether different races have different abilities with races with lower abilities are unable to think in the abstract? Is that your position?

If so, there are lots of interesting bigoted statements regarding language, mathematics, and sciences which cannot be countered.

[Arjun]

Arjun: I consciously and conspicuously omitted "western? when I said universalism is a philosophy. The question still stands as to whether different races have different abilities with races with lower abilities are unable to think in the abstract? Is that your position?

If so, there are lots of interesting bigoted statements regarding language, mathematics, and sciences which cannot be countered.

Anyone looking to model the future needs to take into account which groups are likely to become more dominant, based on underlying trends. And ethnic groups do exhibit differences wrt performance on education and other parameter. As I see it, these differences are primarily a function of varying degrees of social capital built up over generations. How quickly can this social capital be built up or enhanced is actually an interesting and relevant question for social scientists and engineers to ponder.

[ShauryaT]

English as an aspirational and elitist language in India needs to end. Below is a recent debate.

Watch: The Language Debate - Hindi hain hum?

[RamaY]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Universalism

Christian Universalism is a school of Christian theology which includes the belief in the doctrine of universal reconciliation, the view that all human beings and all fallen creatures will ultimately be restored to right relationship with God in Heaven.

The term "Christian Universalism" was used in the 1820s by Russell Streeter of the Christian Intelligencer of Portland – a descendant of Adams Streeter who had founded one of the first Universalist Churches in September 14, 1785.[1][2][3] Christian Universalists believe this was the most common interpretation of Christianity in Early Christianity, prior to the 6th century.[4] (Refer to "Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During its First Five-Hundred Years, by John Wesley Hanson) Christians from a diversity of denominations and traditions believe in the tenets of this belief system, such as the reality of an afterlife without the possibility of eternal presence in hell.[5]

The two central beliefs which distinguish Christian Universalism from mainstream Christianity are universal reconciliation (all will eventually be reconciled to God-without exception, the penalty for sin is not irrevocable at the point of death, i.e. doctrines of everlasting damnation to hell and annihilationism are rejected) and theosis (all souls will ultimately be reconciled and conformed to the image of the glorified resurrected Christ).

The remaining central beliefs of Christian Universalism are compatible with Christianity in general:

God is the loving Parent of all people, see Love of God.
Jesus Christ reveals the nature and character of God and is the spiritual leader of humankind, see New Covenant..
Humankind is created with an immortal soul which death does not end, and which God will never destroy.[6]
Sin has negative consequences for the sinner either in this life or the afterlife. All of God's punishments for sin are corrective and remedial.
In 1899 the Universalist General Convention, later called the Universalist Church of America, adopted the Five Principles: the belief in God, Jesus Christ, the immortality of the human soul, the reality of sin and universal reconciliation.[7] The inclusion of Theosis as a sixth point is found in the statement of faith adopted in 2007 by the Christian Universalist Association.[8]

[A_Gupta]

May be useful to some.

When the British noticed that the majority of Indians are ignorant of their scriptures, the reformers tried to respond to this by going back to some texts from their traditions; when the British criticized this or that practice, the reformers tried to modify or replace that practice; when the British thought that Indians were immoral, the reformers tried to come up with a set of moral rules from their texts to show that ‘Hinduism’ could be moral as well? In many ways, these reformers merely acquiesced to the demands and criticisms of the British and tried to sculpt a ‘Hinduism’ that could meet the criticisms. However, in the midst of all these, they failed in doing that one thing which would have helped them: understand the culture of the British and the nature of their religiously inspired criticisms. They merely assumed that the British were justified in the criticisms of the ‘Hinduism’ of their time and tried to show that underneath the contemporary corruption, a ‘purer’ form of religion was waiting to be found. In this too, even where they did not know this well, they followed the British and European portrayal of India and the degeneration of her ‘religions’.

"Why Understand Western Culture?"
http://www.hipkapi.com/2011/04/02/why-u ... angadhara/

[shiv]

Thanks again for the great link Arun. Will post some thoughts here and/or on the blog in due course.

[shiv]

"Why Understand Western Culture?"
http://www.hipkapi.com/2011/04/02/why-u ... angadhara/

Balagangadhara is not just erudite, he is lucid.

But when I read of Greek descriptions of Indian religion and Al Beruni's description, I get the inpression that Hindus in that era were self confident about their beliefs and practices and nor apologetic and seeking to please.

It is very likely that British scholars questioned Hindu reformers as masters talking to subjects, and the latter were under pressure to please rather than offend. It is likely also that anything that caused offence would be dismissed as further proof that Indian beliefs and practices were definitely the devils work.

it occurs to me that Hindus after 1947, and Hindus in the west have retained that same attitude of apology and reticence. And it is these attitudes that are being handed down to children.

After all, it is rightly pointed out that Hindu beliefs and practices are not taught in India and no one questions them either. In fact no one questions why one must wash oneself after defecation. One could ask in the west why they wipe and not wash. People in the west don't question themselves about why they wipe and don't wash - it is simply a cultural trait. Hindu beliefs and practices are varied because they are unrestricted. There are no limits on what one must believe or profess. It is a matter of personal choice that is difficult to understand for a person who has been taught about one God and a religion dependent moral code while he was being taught to wipe himself.

[ShauryaT]

Balagangadhara is not just erudite, he is lucid.

But when I read of Greek descriptions of Indian religion and Al Beruni's description, I get the inpression that Hindus in that era were self confident about their beliefs and practices and nor apologetic and seeking to please.

It is very likely that British scholars questioned Hindu reformers as masters talking to subjects, and the latter were under pressure to please rather than offend. It is likely also that anything that caused offence would be dismissed as further proof that Indian beliefs and practices were definitely the devils work.

it occurs to me that Hindus after 1947, and Hindus in the west have retained that same attitude of apology and reticence. And it is these attitudes that are being handed down to children.

I will post later on two sides of the problem that Hindus of today face as opposed to what was the norm in pre-British India.
Ram Swarup is another one I like, who has documented the indo-european interactions.

India entered Europe as a widening and deepening force and it was looked upon with respect and admiration by some of its greatest thinkers like Voltaire, Schelling and Schopenhouer, But the vested interests and forces of narrowness and obscurantism were powerful and they banded together and made a determined stand. Eventually the Euro-Colonial-Missionary forces triumphed, represented by soldier-scholars like J.S. Mill, Hegel, Macaulay, Marx and many others. They were thoroughly Eurocentric and they looked at India and other countries of the East with contempt and condescension. But they became popular not only in the West but in India and Asia as well. They taught several generations of Indians how and what to think of themselves and of Europe. The Indian elites began to look at their country and people through European eyes and European categories. They even borrowed the West's contempt for their own people. Traditional India, during its recovery and reaffirmation, finds itself most fiercely opposed by these elitist forces at home. These forces have intimate intellectual, organizational and financial links with the West.


Neo-Hinduism

This anti-Hinduism of the Hindus, their Missionary-Macaulayite-Marxist view of themselves, their own culture, religion and history, is the most powerful legacy the European contact has left behind. But Professor Halbfass does not discuss this at all. On the other hand, he discusses, in the second section of his book, what he calls Neo-Hinduism, a Hinduism shaped by and during the presence of Europe but which is not anti-Hindu and which, in fact, defends Hinduism though not in its native idiom but in the borrowed idiom of Europe. According to Professor Halbfass, Neo-Hinduism took shape "in a historical setting created by Europe", and it "has difficulties speaking for itself"; it "speaks to a large extent in a European medium".

To some extent, this is true; but the limitation is not all on the side of Neo-Hinduism. If it is to engage in a dialogue with the West, it must speak in the idiom best understood by the listener. Though the West is an acute linguist and it has mastered many languages but it is not so nimblewitted in understanding the peoples who spoke them.

Moreover, Neo-Hinduism does more than justify Hinduism; it also justifies Christianity, Islam and many other non-Indian cults. As it uses Western categories to defend Hinduism, in the same spirit it uses traditional Indian categories to promote Semitic religions. In its insatiable desire for "synthesis" and similarities, it seeks and finds Vedânta in the Bible and the Quran and in Das Kapital too; it says that Jesus and Muhammad and Marx all are incarnations and Rishis, and that they all say the same thing. The net result is that Semitic prophets are as popular among the Hindus as their own. Western Rationalism had rejected Christianity not only for its miracles but even more so for its exclusive claims which offend rationality, but it is now coming back under Hindu auspices and promotion.

Indo-European Encounter: An Indian Perspective

[RamaY]

The death of English as an aspirational and elitist language in India needs to end. Below is a recent debate.

Watch: The Language Debate - Hindi hain hum?

On one side we argue that West became leader of the world due to its technological advancement (the intellect part) and on the other hand we try to learn their language.

In old days the emphasis was on intellect/technology/knowledge and people who wanted it learned the language that knowledge was available in.

But now in India we are making the communication/language more important than the knowledge that we want to communicate thru language.

If we look around only the nations that put technology/intellect/knowledge before language are becoming powerful - be it China, Germany etc., And the world is learning those languages.

When India puts its emphasis on technology/intellect/knowledge; whole world will learn Hindi to access that knowledge.

[A_Gupta]

India entered Europe as a widening and deepening force and it was looked upon with respect and admiration by some of its greatest thinkers like Voltaire, Schelling and Schopenhouer, But the vested interests and forces of narrowness and obscurantism were powerful and they banded together and made a determined stand. Eventually the Euro-Colonial-Missionary forces triumphed, represented by soldier-scholars like J.S. Mill, Hegel, Macaulay, Marx and many others.

Even Voltaire, etc., were seeking ways to liberate themselves from the Church(es) and that is where they used the new information that Europeans were gathering about India.

[A_Gupta]

But when I read of Greek descriptions of Indian religion and Al Beruni's description, I get the inpression that Hindus in that era were self confident about their beliefs and practices and nor apologetic and seeking to please.

It is a good question about why Hindus developed a complex w.r.t. Europeans that they did not have w.r.t. Islamics.

[ramana]

Skin color?

[member_22733]

A_Guptaji, a rambling thought from me as an attempt to answer your question:

When Muslim raiders came to India most of our institutions were in "peace and prosperity" mode. We could put up a strong resistance for a while. This means we were not a broken civilization yet.

The Muslims were also not very successful in assimilating Indian knowledge, and many of them tried to "meld" Islam with Hinduism as a means of Taqiya. But they broke the knowledge centers of India (Taxilla Univ etc). The economy was largely left untouched. However most of Indic culture did survive under the Islamic rule (Until Aurangzeb atleast). During Aurangzeb era taqiya gave way to true colors and a battle for India started.

When the Oirotards came here, we were already broken from a knowledge generation perspective. We were in "fight to survive" mode, Marathas in North India and Tipu in the South. Thus we could not hoist an effective counter offensive against Oirotards in terms of knowledge or military.

Oirotards also did another thing, they 'digested' Indic civilization and then used it to attack the roots of Indic culture. This cost Indians both their culture and their economy. This also installed an artificial "caste system" where oirotards were "superior" race. A lot of stories like the AIT, AMT were proposed for exactly this purpose.

Since most Oirotards were white, this artificial highest caste status got attributed to Oiropean whites.

[Rudradev]

But when I read of Greek descriptions of Indian religion and Al Beruni's description, I get the inpression that Hindus in that era were self confident about their beliefs and practices and nor apologetic and seeking to please.

It is a good question about why Hindus developed a complex w.r.t. Europeans that they did not have w.r.t. Islamics.

Arun-ji, let's remember we are looking at snapshots to reach that conclusion. At time t + 200 years after Islamic invasion the psychic effects may have paralleled those at time t + 200 years after the European invasion, etc. but the effects appear different in magnitude and quality today because Hindu society has had a longer time to "process" the Islamic interaction than the European one.

[ramana]

Also recall the West changed from its initial roots after Descartes.

[member_22733]

Arun-ji, let's remember we are looking at snapshots to reach that conclusion. At time t + 200 years after Islamic invasion the psychic effects may have paralleled those at time t + 200 years after the European invasion, etc. but the effects appear different in magnitude and quality today because Hindu society has had a longer time to "process" the Islamic interaction than the European one.

Let me add a few more variables that hinder this"processing" of Oriopean civilization by the Indian/Indic mind:
1) Lot of politically active and well networked set of house - N****s that were never wiped out after the "peaceful exit" of briturds from India.
2) The continuing effects of the above House-N****s in keeping alive the myth of the superior white man that continues to this day.
3) White-washing and obscuring of Indic history and information warfare by the west and assorted House-Ns.
4) Crusader/Mighty Whitey/White-man's burden from the west that actively seeks to create an equilibrium in India that benefits them.