Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

[shiv]

Here is one viewpoint on why women in India were ((and still are) required to sit aside and not cook or visit temples while menstruating
Three Days of Impurity: Menstruation and (In)Auspiciousness

In my personal view, Indians often bullshit when common sense would be more appropriate. We could IMO avoid that.

The minute a menstruating woman sits down the blood soaks out of any clothing and stains the seat. If she stands up it flows down her legs and on to her ankles. How come no man sees much of this? Obviously most women do not desire to walk around advertising to the whole world that they are dripping blood from the very place that a man wants to put himself at any time.

I don't know when sanitary towels were invented. I know they existed in India in the 1960s - there used to be a brand called "Comfit". But I do know that Indian women often simply used rags or other pieces of cloth to soak up the flow. None of these is totally effective and most need changing several times a day at the time of heaviest flow. That means woman has to go to a private place, remove all clothing over her genitals and change.

It is not at all surprising that women who do not have modern sanitary napkins or tampons prefer a little privacy and access to an area where they can clean themselves and change. I am equally certain that a girl who first starts menstruating gets upset by the fact that she has all these things happening to her for no fault of her own. I am also certain that modern sanitary napkins/tampons which are absorbent and hold a lot of liquid are definitely a boon for all women because it allows them a degree of freedom on "those days". Women at the time of their periods - need to be vigilant and actually carry pads around in case the period starts during a social function or at work. That apart a number of women ( a high percentage) suffer from aches and pains - usually derogatorily referred to as PMT by men who don't face the risk that their pants will suddenly become wet with blood. (you need to see them when it happens! )

But what about before sanitary napkins? A woman in a sari would find herself suddenly depositing blood all over the place apart from having a rivulet of blood flowing down her thighs and legs. Even wearing a cloth, the cloth could overflow any time - say when she was cooking - necessitating the requirement that she changes and washes herself again. At that time, sitting it out was a good idea. If she was performing a Puja - the same problem arose - and she would not really want to hang around. I think the rules were simply created to make it easy for women to escape inconvenient duties while menstruating.

No need to invent funny reasons and rationalizations.

[Arjun]

Was reading something again last night... was interesting to remember this:

Manu Smrithi - Chapter 9 - 282-283:

A person who drops filth/garbage on the highway shall be liable to be fined two panas and he shall be made to remove the same.
In case of an aged man, a pregnant woman or a child doing so, the person shall only be reprimanded.

there are others as well... this one includes excreta on the roads...
but was amused given the discussions on this thread... no big deal unless it is WU ofcourse!

So Manu Smriti fails the test of universalism. Was it supposed to be Sanatana in the first place ?

[Pulikeshi]

"India had everything. In the past"

Shiv,

Here is my honest answer - I do not know! All I have are some theories, but they have not gelled yet to put on paper.

That said, I do not believe India had everything in the past, there are many things about the Manu Smrithi for example, that I find
less than par (plenty said by gutter inspectors here...), others intriguing (for example a Hindu man can be punished for adultery,
but not the women (another's wife) who was an equal party to the crime), and yet others unexposed to even educated Indians (laws on
partnership, defamation, agency, etc.). Neither do I believe in revisionism, whereas I am painfully aware of its attraction.

I have not been able to decide if SD is an universal or a local specialization as I have mentioned before... and I am trying to see what
makes sense... In this my interpretations may or may not follow any school, I see it as another human effort to re-understand the works
of centuries with what we also know from the West. Balagangadhar for example has posed the question on what is the framework of SD.
I understand Karma differently than most in that it is purely action, not tied to any consequence, as that is only realized post facto.
Neither do I know enough to say if reincarnation (as in souls migrating) is possible or not... I stick to what I can understand ie recycle of
knowledge and transmission of it via nucleic acids, memes etc. CK Prahalad probably should have lived longer, I had may questions...

The Trivarga way only includes Dharma, Artha & Kama - this meant, that Moksha was excluded intentionally as all schools at that time
were Dharmic, but should we revisit it? Hindus have not had any such discussion that I am aware of... heck what is Adharma these days?
I have not come across a good definition of what is considered Adharma today. No other religion is considered Adharma as there are
many paths to the truth, etc. but is this really true? Compromise is one thing, becoming irrelevant is all together another thing...
An Anti-pattern to the Human Right to Life is perhaps the Human Right to die with dignity - SD Dharma scripture is against it,
but I still think it is worth a rethink as the context has changed.

If the Trivarga only applies Dharma to Artha/Kama, then Smrithi is the guide book for it, even if the SD genius is to figure out that
Dharma will need to be revisited based on context and time again and again... Nothing has happened on this front.

I know that there are lot of things broken in SD and I have said so... most Hindus today have outsourced their law codes to
Hindu Personal Law aka Ambedkar Smriti, and will spout Technology and Science as the key - truth is we suck at Social Sciences!
Most of us do not have critical thinking, we do not understand half the terms invented in the last 1k years...
You know what I am saying... most of us slept through social studies and civics... and stayed awake for math and science.
Worse still most Hindus do not think SD is going to be extinct if it continues this way... hence my amusement...
First step is take responsibility and say, we are broke, we own it and we need to fix it!

PS: I may make a post defining terms at some point, but I have not been able to collect all my notes to make a coherent attempt.
In general, I will not translate Sanskrit terms unless absolutely necessary, but more later...

[Pulikeshi]

So Manu Smriti fails the test of universalism. Was it supposed to be Sanatana in the first place ?

What you do not defend cannot be Sanathana - Dharma need active defense. Smirti (not just Manu's version, but the one adopted into
Hindu Personal Law and even several IPC per Indian Constitution inherit from Mitakshara a more recent update provided by Vijneshwara
in the Chalukyan court on the Yagnyavalya Smriti). Historically, Hindus have organized their own assemblies and panchayats where a
localized version of these texts ran the course, when exceptions occurred, the Rajan's intervened with their assembly of ministers to
establish what is Dharma. Perhaps knowing these dictums thought children in ancient times not to throw refuse and defecate in roads,
but today irrespective of population pressures, etc. I call into question who is educating them and by what means? I am not denying the
points on infrastructure, current acceptable culture etc, but are they static? who and what causes change?

I do not know if SD is a universalism or not, but I still have the question very early on in the OIT thread.

[shiv]

Shiv,

No offense, but you got to lay off the preachiness in discourse... my point was not even directed at you...
Frankly, I still owe you two drinks (you paid for them...) so being nice onlee... but...
I point to something - sarcasm or not what was ignorant about it?
Was Manu (and subsequent editors) ignorant of making that law? Or those who do not follow their Dharma per their Smriti?

Very easy to claim 'we are like this onlee' and justify everything that is as is and what is'nt as WU's problem onlee - whose father what goes!
That is your right as a citizen I suppose as much as it is my duty to point out what the WU?
Chillax - learning is harmful to egos onlee!

There was sarcasm in your post which is what I advised caution against: You said "was amused given the discussions on this thread... no big deal unless it is WU ofcourse!"

The ignorance was quoting Manu's great awareness of not throwing garbage on the roads without any reference to what Manu might have said about handling faeces or blood.

As far as I can see, the problem in India is less about where garbage is thrown and more of an expectation that the duty of cleaning up belongs to some system that no longer exists.

Let me explain where western universalism comes into this and how (I believe) Indians are struggling to cope with a basic cleanliness concept against their own (Indian) tradition in which cleanliness wroked with a different system of dealing with a different kind of garbage

Soon after I returned from the UK I used to be a garbage vigilante and one day confronted a couple of men who simply threw out a cigarette packet on the pavement. I asked them who woud pich that up. One of them told me that it is the job of the road sweeper to do that.

Another time, outside a restaurant, a cleaner boy threw leftovers on the pavement. I asked them who would clean that. I was told that a cow would come around an eat it. A neighbour of mine actually feeds a stray cow that comes by every day for that food. We have cows who are allowed to wander during the day. It is illegal but it happens because people want to feed them as they come by. The cow promptly deposits dung near the neighbour's gate. Cars pass over the dung and smear it around. I asked this man why he tolerated dung. He told me that the cow owner's boy comes and picks up the dung for fuel. Another man was chucking garbage at the metal grate that led to the rainwater drain. I asked him why and he said "Sir the "charandi" (drain) is there and i am putting it in the drain where it will get washed away. I tried to tell him that plastics would clog the drain but gave up.

The point I am trying to make is that the system in India and in the little villages (like Mavalli) that have coalesced and become big cities still has people who were accustomed to dealing with their garbage in a particular way. In some cases organic garbage was eaten by cows and cow pats collected by people designated for the job. Other garbage that came flying in - like leaves and twigs were swept by sweepers designated for the job. Garbage deposited in open drains was 100% biodegradeable. Urbanization and modernization has made it illegal to have a separate traditional sweeper class. Sweepers are now paid government employees. Stray cows are illegal. And garbage now consists of plastics and cardboard which were almost non existent 60 years ago. But the people have the same ideas - they do not know that a "sweeper class" no longer exists other than 9AM to 1 PM government employees. They need to put their garbage out by themselves in plastic garbage bags before 8 AM when the door to door garbage collector comes. Stray cows on roads are illegal. Cowdung is smeared around by cars before the cowdung picker can get it. Importantly, none of this stuff is taught in schools that teach readin, 'ritin' and 'rithmentic

What was the requirement for Indians to do away with a separate sweeper class? Why did we not simply increase their salaries and improve their working condition?

What was the requirement for Indians to make stray cows illegal?

What made dry cowdung collection for fuel an unprofitable and dirty task?

What started creating non biodegradable plastic garbage in a society that had mostly organic garbage till 60 years ago?

Some of this is universalism that has come from the west. Good or bad Indians have not fully replaced their traditional ways with the new system.

[Arjun]

From Wikipeadia:

Yuga Dharma (Sanskrit: युगधर्म) is one aspect of Dharma, as understood by Hindus. Yuga dharma is that aspect of dharma that is valid for a Yuga, an epoch or age as established by Hindu tradition. The other aspect of dharma is Sanatan Dharma, dharma which is not subject to change.

Hindu sacred writings are broken into two groups: Śruti writings (such as the Vedas) regarded as timeless in character, and Smriti, writings that focus on less timeless elements. Sanatan Dharma is based on the Shruti writings, while Yuga Dharma is based on the Smitris.

Some scholars describe Santan dharma as the overall, unchanging and abiding principals of dharma, and describe Yuga dharma as a lesser aspect of dharma, since it is constantly changing. Such scholars distinguish Sanatan dharma as the dharma of religion, and Yuga dharma as the dharma of social interaction: law, ethics, etiquette and so on.

Swami Vivekananda describes the distinction between them in this way. Of Sanatan dharma, he says:

We know that in our books, a clear distinction is made between two sets of truths. The one set is that which abides for ever, being built upon the nature of man, the nature of the soul, the soul's relation to God, the nature of God, perfection and so on; there are also the principles of cosmology, of the infinitude of creation, or more correctly speaking, projection, the wonderful law of cyclical procession, and so on; these are eternal principles founded upon the universal laws of nature.

Of Yuga dharma, he says:

The other set comprises the minor laws, which guide the working of our everyday life. They belong more properly to the Puranas, to the Smrtis, and not to the Sruti. These have nothing to do with the other principles. Even in India, these minor laws have been changing all the time. Customs of one age, of one yuga, have not been the customs of another, and as yuga come after yuga, they will still have to change. [1]

[Pulikeshi]

The ignorance was quoting Manu's great awareness of not throwing garbage on the roads without any reference to what Manu might have said about handling faeces or blood.

Manu said many things, but the ignorance is in not in quoting it, but in misapplying it to either find permission or using what was not
supposedly said to make value judgement.
Indeed can you tell me what Manu or other Smriti writers said or did not say about feces or blood?
What does surgery have to necessarily do with garbage disposal and cleanliness? Have you walked streets of Mumbai recently?
Yes, in India neither Ambedkar (who wanted WU) nor Gandhi (who wanted a half baked SD) won - it is a mess!

At the end of the day you are saying the same thing I am saying -
"Good or bad Indians have not fully replaced their traditional ways with the new system."

The difference is, you come of seemly making excuse for what is, whereas I make no excuses!

[Pulikeshi]

The other set comprises the minor laws, which guide the working of our everyday life. They belong more properly to the Puranas, to the Smrtis, and not to the Sruti. These have nothing to do with the other principles. Even in India, these minor laws have been changing all the time. Customs of one age, of one yuga, have not been the customs of another, and as yuga come after yuga, they will still have to change. [1]

There is no distinction in my mind about higher Dharma and lower Dharma - there is only Dharma.
The Sruti is considered the "infallible" source, Smriti the worldly application of the dictum in the former.
When there is confusion in Smriti (and there has been) the fall back is on the Sruti.
This is known to most good Judges in India even today and they need to understand Mitakshara and its modifications quite well.

The Puranas are delegated as illustrative examples... this is per Vyasa I think, I do not have the quote handy.

[shiv]

Lecture time. Here are two examples of semantics

Manu said many things, but the ignorance is in not in quoting it, but in misapplying it to either find permission or using what was not

For you this is not ignorance, but misapplication

And below, what is an explanation so that I can say what i seem to have understood, is for you a "seemly" excuse while you, high as you situate yourself on the podium of superior understanding "make no excuses"

The difference is, you come of seemly making excuse for what is, whereas I make no excuses!

In case you don't realize it, your way of writing comes across as arrogance. If no one has told you, I have just done that. It may not be arrogance but endless sarcasm and two line posts without specific explanations certainly don't help. There are in fact many Brahmin friends and relatives of mine whose normal way of speaking is like this - arrogant superciliousness. Of course they never like it when I do a tit for tat.

I had an uncle whom I greeted with a "How are you". He said "How do I look" with a patronizing air of triumph. I told him "You look like you have smoked one cigarette too many" (He was a smoker). he never spoke to me again and I never missed anything.

[shiv]

What does surgery have to necessarily do with garbage disposal and cleanliness?

Everything.

But you come across as knowing so much I doubt if you really want to hear anyone else out especially if they sound like excuses to you about something that upsets you.

In 1999 I wrote an article for a medical alumni audience which I post FWIW

Toilet thoughts

When one is young, one takes for granted the experiences that one is subjected to, and accepts rules that are taught without questioning their meaning. At least, this was certainly true for me until I entered an NHS toilet in England in the early 1980s in partial fulfillment of an urgent physiological requirement.

I found, to my amusement, that the toilet paper had, printed on it, the words "Now wash your hands please". I wondered if people had to be told to perform this task which I and everyone I knew performed routinely without talking about it and announcing it aloud.

Suddenly, something fell into place in my mind and I started thinking of all that had been drilled into my resisting mind as a boy at home, and compared it with the wisdom imparted to me by my teachers and textbooks in medical college. I remembered being taught the word "fomite" and how a fomite might spread bugs (of the non-carrot-eating kind). It seemed strange that the act of washing one's hands after using them for unspeakable tasks had been conceived of and taught to me by people who had no knowledge of fomites or fo-midges. How had they known?

There were a number of other tips on hygiene that had similarly been passed on to me. I was born and brought up in a Brahmin family, and there exists a concept called "madi" in Kannada. Madi is pronounced "muddy", but is quite the opposite in its intent. "Madi" is typically used by a Brahmin prior to performing his work - whatever it might be - which traditionally was that of a teacher or a priest, or even perhaps a physician. In essence it involved having a bath and wearing fresh clothes, after which the person could not be touched by a "non-madi" person. Even a single touch was considered "contamination" (a state called "ma'ilgay"), necessitating a repeat bath and a change. The concept was a joke for me, and I remember deriving great pleasure from ruining the "madi" state of my grandmother by touching her. A decade later, I realized that the practice of operating theatre technique has close parallels to this "madi" state. A mere touch is considered contamination, and is treated as such.

People still remove their footwear before entering a house in India. Certainly this used to make much sense when cooking, eating, and everything was at floor level in India. Removing footwear is the usual first step before entering most operating theatres and intensive care units anywhere in the world. Overshoes serve much the same purpose - that is, of preventing gross contamination adherent to one's footwear from being carried in and spread around in an area where one is trying to keep contamination down. In Indian homes the advent of dining tables and kitchen platforms for cooking have diluted, but have not fully taken away the significance of the simple act of removing one's footwear.

At a recent meeting in Bangalore on nosocomial infections, one prominent surgeon from St. John's said that in this day and age it is ridiculous and unnecessary to take off one's shoes before entering an ICU because bugs cannot walk up beds and tables. I was surprised at this statement from a person who I otherwise view in a very favourable light. Floor contamination has an insidious way of getting on raised platforms. Dust can be stirred up by gusts caused by people walking. Pens and papers are accidentally dropped and then picked up and replaced on tables or on beds. I still think removal of footwear is a useful adjunct in keeping bug counts down.

As a boy, I was always instructed to wash my hands and feet if entering the house from outside, or after visiting the toilet. The necessity for washing hands is obvious, but why the feet? A single experience of relieving oneself in the traditional Indian way gives new meaning to the word "splashing", and it is easy to convince oneself that washing of feet is an essential part of maintaining a degree of hygiene. But what about hospitals? Certainly, we all wear shoes, and most wear socks as well, and our feet are generally kept free from gross amounts of muck, so removing footwear is probably adequate - for us. But things always work differently in India. I once noticed that the canteen boy who brought in coffee and snacks to the operating theatre side rooms was barefoot, seemingly indicating that he had removed his footwear. But when I followed him out, I saw that he had no footwear at all. In effect, that hospital had a system in which those who had footwear maintained OT hygiene by removing their footwear outside, but the dozens of people who never wore footwear at all were walking in and out of the clean area of the OT with impunity. Maybe washing one's feet should be a requirement before entering Indian operating theatres.

Another concept, drilled into most Indians is the idea of something being "jootha" (hindi), or "yenjilu" (literally saliva in Kannada). If I eat from a plate, that plate is jootha or contaminated, and no one else eats from it until it is washed. The degree of jootha-ness that one tolerates is dependent on one's cultural background. The concept has some scientific basis, with the idea being to avoid any chance of an inadvertent exchange of body fluid from one person to another. I don't know how this concept was first introduced in India, but I have a reasonably good idea of how it came about in modern science.

And finally, that seemingly silly habit of using the left hand for unmentionables, and the right hand for clean stuff. Surprisingly, this has parallels too. Every time I do a wound dressing, the nurse hands me something sterile using a pair of tongs ("Cheatle's forceps"). The handle of this instrument is considered contaminated, while its jaws are considered non-infective by virtue of their being stored in an alleged antiseptic liquid. Not too different from right hand and left hand is it?

[shiv]

Here is an example of lack of consensus on dharma. No one actually says what dharma is, but many seem to claim to know.

The other set comprises the minor laws, which guide the working of our everyday life. They belong more properly to the Puranas, to the Smrtis, and not to the Sruti. These have nothing to do with the other principles. Even in India, these minor laws have been changing all the time. Customs of one age, of one yuga, have not been the customs of another, and as yuga come after yuga, they will still have to change. [1]

There is no distinction in my mind about higher Dharma and lower Dharma - there is only Dharma.
The Sruti is considered the "infallible" source, Smriti the worldly application of the dictum in the former.
When there is confusion in Smriti (and there has been) the fall back is on the Sruti.
This is known to most good Judges in India even today and they need to understand Mitakshara and its modifications quite well.

The Puranas are delegated as illustrative examples... this is per Vyasa I think, I do not have the quote handy.

I had earlier written

As far as I can see there is no consensus. In fact i believe that there can be no consensus. Too many intelligent Hindus get all worked up when people start talking about dharma - and that suppresses any frank discussion. Everyone (to me) seems to refer to some nebulous concept called "sanatana dharma" but fails to dilate.
<snip>
I put it to you that educated Hindus on here are by and large afraid of saying much about dharma and adharma but feel free to talk about western universalism, even if they are unable to say what Western universalism might be.

If you meet ordinary Indians or read about them you hear them say what their dharma is. They usually speak about looking after parents, protection of children, educating children, being faithful to one's wife, serving others, helping others. Even a Muslim supari killer interviewed in the book "Maximum City" says what his "dharm" is - and that is a prayer and then doing his job of shooting someone, for which he is paid and protected.

Dharma should not be as difficult to pin down as it has been made on BRF. Neither is "Western Universalism"

[Shreeman]

Here is an example of lack of consensus on dharma. No one actually says what dharma is, but many seem to claim to know.

The other set comprises the minor laws, which guide the working of our everyday life. They belong more properly to the Puranas, to the Smrtis, and not to the Sruti. These have nothing to do with the other principles. Even in India, these minor laws have been changing all the time. Customs of one age, of one yuga, have not been the customs of another, and as yuga come after yuga, they will still have to change. [1]


There is no distinction in my mind about higher Dharma and lower Dharma - there is only Dharma.
The Sruti is considered the "infallible" source, Smriti the worldly application of the dictum in the former.
When there is confusion in Smriti (and there has been) the fall back is on the Sruti.
This is known to most good Judges in India even today and they need to understand Mitakshara and its modifications quite well.

The Puranas are delegated as illustrative examples... this is per Vyasa I think, I do not have the quote handy.

I had earlier written

As far as I can see there is no consensus. In fact i believe that there can be no consensus. Too many intelligent Hindus get all worked up when people start talking about dharma - and that suppresses any frank discussion. Everyone (to me) seems to refer to some nebulous concept called "sanatana dharma" but fails to dilate.
<snip>
I put it to you that educated Hindus on here are by and large afraid of saying much about dharma and adharma but feel free to talk about western universalism, even if they are unable to say what Western universalism might be.

If you meet ordinary Indians or read about them you hear them say what their dharma is. They usually speak about looking after parents, protection of children, educating children, being faithful to one's wife, serving others, helping others. Even a Muslim supari killer interviewed in the book "Maximum City" says what his "dharm" is - and that is a prayer and then doing his job of shooting someone, for which he is paid and protected.

Dharma should not be as difficult to pin down as it has been made on BRF. Neither is "Western Universalism"

^^^^^^

Recently on a long plane ride, I sat besides a chatty western lady. Perhaps in her 40s, a little younger or older. The plane has wifi and en route to holiday (alone on this flight, a group holiday supposedly assembles midway to the carribean) she is on her laptop furiously chatting on a match making service. Age does horrible things to western women, physically and mentally, but she has certainly put a lot of effort in keeping herself in shape and managing her demeanor and appearance.

Then it ocurred to me -- she has no other choice.

Mid-life she is "alone" and will forever remain so, and even if pretences of "friends" and "family" exist, you travel to another country to see them. This is the western universalism -- total loneliness from birth to death. A dependence only on financial security. Not ethics, nor religion, and never the law. The western dharma is not even earning power, it is present finanicial net worth. This is the only guiding principle, everything else is fluff.

By comparison, there is a lot more left in Indian society.

[TSJones]

You are right in that garbage collection has everything to do with it. A 100 years ago Sweden decided to do "something" about mental retardation and other mental problems. They decided to sterilize people with these symptoms and let the problem breed itself out. This went on until the late 50's or so. They stopped this. Why? It turned out that the problem wasn't mentally retarded people were breeding and continuing problems for Swedish society but a great transformation occurred in public sanitation, public medical health and proper nutrition. The incidence of mental retardation plummeted due to this transformation. Access to potable water, sanitation, and understanding proper nutrition helped to create the modern nation of Sweden. Sweden's poor no longer had to immigrate to America in order to survive and prosper. Needless to say America underwent some of the same things as well.

[A_Gupta]

Mahatma Gandhi:

"The Shastras have taught us both our ideal dharma and our practical dharma....

"However, we do not seek solutions to such problems by regarding them as matters of absolute dharma. Relative dharma does not proceed on a straight path like a railway track. It has, on the contrary, to make its way through a dense forest where there is not even a sense of direction. Hence in this case, even one step is sufficient. Many circumstances have to be considered before the second step is taken and, if the first step is towards the north, the second may have to be taken towards the east. In this manner, although the path may appear crooked, since it is the only one which is correct, it can also be regarded as the straight one. Nature does not imitate geometry. Although natural forms are very beautiful, they do not fit in with geometrical patterns."

[A_Gupta]

Neither do I know enough to say if reincarnation (as in souls migrating) is possible or not.

Balu suggests that is a psychological device to keep the seeker from getting over-anxious.

Possibly (my thought) also, one needs a device to keep one working at a seemingly impossible task. With ISIS and such jihadis, the device is that Allah needs them (see Arif Jamal's video on the Pak thread). With SD, it is re-incarnation, and the assurances that no effort is wasted. But when one reaches a certain level of understanding, the possibility that nothing of oneself survives after death is viewed with equanimity.

[Pulikeshi]

Lecture time. Here are two examples of semantics

Assumption #1 - that I have situated myself on a podium of superior understanding...

And below, what is an explanation so that I can say what i seem to have understood, is for you a "seemly" excuse while you, high as you situate yourself on the podium of superior understanding "make no excuses"

Assumption #2 - that I am arrogant and supercilious and do not like to hear criticism

In case you don't realize it, your way of writing comes across as arrogance. If no one has told you, I have just done that. It may not be arrogance but endless sarcasm and two line posts without specific explanations certainly don't help. There are in fact many Brahmin friends and relatives of mine whose normal way of speaking is like this - arrogant superciliousness. Of course they never like it when I do a tit for tat.

Assumption #3 - I remind you or your uncle

I had an uncle whom I greeted with a "How are you". He said "How do I look" with a patronizing air of triumph. I told him "You look like you have smoked one cigarette too many" (He was a smoker). he never spoke to me again and I never missed anything.

No point in disputing your assumption as they are just that...
I say this in a light vein, but somewhat seriously - sarcasm is not illegal nor counterproductive, if you cannot deal with it,
best choose not to engage. It is not for me to say, but you never know what you missed with your uncle, just as he never will what
you were about - it takes two to tango and I am here to learn and take criticism as long as they are constructive irrespective of the style.
So I thank you for the time you took to write and caution me on my sarcastic, arrogant, supercilious, uncle like behavior.

[Pulikeshi]

Balu suggests that is a psychological device to keep the seeker from getting over-anxious.

Head faking is not a bad strategy, it has its benefits... thanks for that point...
Will check out Arif video later...

[RamaY]

Given the fact that Dharma is contextual Dharma-Sastras are more of a guideline. The Dharma-Adhikari has the freedom to apply those guidelines to a given context (time, place, doer, victim etc) and make a judgement call.

Even in these modern times a terrorist trying to get nuclear/bio-weaponry knowledge is curtailed and if anyone gets that knowledge one way or the other, that person/society (axis of evil) is punished.

Before blaming Manu for asking to punish a Sudra for listening Vedas, we need to understand how they read/practiced Vedas in those times (unlike mere learning/remembering of Vedas being done today for passing them from one gen to another) and who was a Sudra in his times and not to confuse with our birth-Brahmins and birth-Sudras of today.

Added later: In a society where Varna-Ashrama Dharmas are followed to a T, a Shudra trying to learn Vedas is akin to a normal citizen taking law into his/her hands by killing a terrorist/rapist outside the incident scene.

Too much of WU model application even in understanding Bharatiya knowledge, society and thought process.

[Pulikeshi]

Here is an example of lack of consensus on dharma. No one actually says what dharma is, but many seem to claim to know.

Not true, I actually took a honest stab at what I think it is, just as Arjun posted what is on his mind.
The lack of consensus is neither of our main concern really... to seek such a uniformity is the artificiality of the issue.
This really goes to the core of my question on if SD universalism or not... does universalism need uniformity or consensus?

If you meet ordinary Indians or read about them you hear them say what their dharma is. They usually speak about looking after parents, protection of children, educating children, being faithful to one's wife, serving others, helping others.

So is your opinion practice is more important than theory? There are no ordinary Indians in my mind, only there are groups with affinity
of affiliation and each has carried with it memes from a long forgotten time, each have subscribed to many attempts at codifying
behavior, but each has broken free from it from time to time and carried away that which was essential. In my opinion, it is incorrect
to deny either the practice or the theory space to collide with each other, as this collision is what enables evolution of SD.
All I have been pointing out repeatedly is very simple onlee - that SD's evolution has been arrested, in this I mean the Smriti has
been given up by the practitioners and the theory is now under the control of a secular state.

All I am saying is - practitioners have a couple of choices:

• Bury head in the sand and keep practicing whatever they are used to... whose father what goes onlee
• Appeal to the Secular State to take care of their temples, prevent conversion, etc. (yes some already have takleef on these... rightly)
• The Secular State will continue down the path of individual rights based society... and the practitioners can watch in amazement

When will the practitioner wake up? When will they see that the system is broken? First step in change is acknowledging we are broke!

[Pulikeshi]

You are right in that garbage collection has everything to do with it.

Some of us wallow in (sh)it before we emerge clean - nice to see you agreeing with Shiv

[Pulikeshi]

Added later: In a society where Varna-Ashrama Dharmas are followed to a T, a Shudra trying to learn Vedas is akin to a normal citizen taking law into his/her hands by killing a terrorist/rapist outside the incident scene.

Too much of WU model application even in understanding Bharatiya knowledge, society and thought process.

Disagree strongly - it may have been like that, even that could be argued... Veda Vyasa (fisherwoman's son) could not have learnt, nay
reorganize the Veda then according to you? Valmiki (Ratnakara a highway robber) could not have written the Ramayana etc. etc.
Jabali (who took his mother's name as he had no known father) could not have learnt the Vedas and contributed...
What the Smriti said then is not as important as to what it ought to be today, but today the Smriti is part of a secular constitutional doc.
There is no Hindu Law Code other than the one in Hindu Personal Law - even Mitakshara is not relevant today, it is of a different time,
context - it has not been updated.

I have a lot of Hindu friends who in polite conversion will say, Hinduism is so liberal, we have so much freedom, yada yada...
Yes, it is amusing and yes I do sarcastically point out that their freedom is the fruit of their ignorance on the duties that their religion
commits them to... indeed, a lot of the convent educated lot, fail to see why conversion is not the problem of the secular government,
it is a problem for SD to solve, why ridding caste system, whatever its demerits, will have a negative impact on SD civilization, etc.
These and other inconvenient questions are brushed aside with why you are so worried about all this, who cares as long as we are growing
economically, it is only important to speak of scientific and technological development, there is no questioning of direction...
Many on this forum have said this and I agree with them - I see more bad things of the West being picked by in India than the good.

Yes, there is good in the West as well, and as much as some would like to make it out, they are not always out to get you... even though
it is true some do try to get you... There are children in the West who have scarified a lot for their parents, several are good friends of
mine. Yes, middle aged women (and men) are searching for their next mate, they have match maker sites and so do we, if we do not
fix what is broken and offer the world solutions, what ever crappy solutions exist with WU will be the only option people will choose.

WU worked for its practitioners, my argument is only in their claiming it to be universal - I have no desire to prevent learning for it...
In fact, I will contend that in order for SD to get updated, it has no other choice but to walk the treacherous path of learning from a
framework, even while it digests it... If you learn from Shankara it was in effect what he and others did with respect to Buddhism.

[member_22733]

There is another hidden cost of getting infected by WU and it is another one of my favorite topics.
How many groundbreaking have we seen coming out of India?

Two problem words here - "groundbreaking" and "seen". I will ignore the former and will explain that "groundbreaking" can have a different definition.

"Seen" is a problem word in some strange ways - and I will try and explain that

For many years (decades in fact) Indian hospitals have been churning out results that were available only in the west, and they are doing it at one tenth (or even one hundredth) of the cost in the west. When people howl poverty poverty poverty all cost reduction is groundbreaking. When the same or largely similar results are obtained on humongous numbers of "poor" people what we are looking at is a groundbreaking achievement.

How is this achieved. Actually the details would take too long to describe - but let me simply dumb it down under two headings

1. Low salaries (relative to the west)
2. Innovative use of equipment and chemicals

Low salaries is across the board. Every medical related worker, doctors included in India gets paid one tenth or even one fiftieth or less than what a comparable job would earn in the west. Why do they keep doing it? Would you describe this situation as
1. They are poor and something is better than nothing
2. Its a job, and they are made to work like slaves in India
3. Everyone gets low pay - everyone does the same job as in the west. Could this be altruism?

As regards innovative use of equipment - everything is aimed at getting maximum bang for the buck. Let me use this example to differentiate between two different definitions of "consumerist society".

If you have a company such as Apple releasing a new phone every two years and a large number of people change their phones every two years you have a consumerist society that is consuming at a particular rate measured in new phones bought per capita per year.

If you have a company in India that produces a new phone every two years but people change their phones only every four years, you still have a consumerist society, but the latter consumerist society is making do with something nominally described as "less" and using it over a longer period of time. Is this because Indians are poor? Or are they cheap? Or less enthusiastic about the latest advances.

Some of the ways in which Indian hospitals "make do" can be "seen" in a whole lot of negative ways, but the results belie the impression. And costs of equipment use too are reduced in Indian hospitals. This stuff is groundbreaking for patients but its heartbreaking for a company that wants to see its medical equipment sales graph rising and rising and rising.

Another thing about how things are "seen". Anyone who looks at traffic volumes at a busy Indian intersection such as "Corporation circle" in Bangalore will find that the number of humans going through per minute is probably among the highest in the world. No one actually talks about that. Everyone talks about how chaotic traffic is, how much Indians honk, how bullock carts and hand drawn carts (low caste slave labor?) slow down traffic. Of course there is a price to pay for such "chaos", and that price is time. In in Indian city it is difficult to average more than 15 kmph. That means that workplaces and homes tend to develop in close proximity. But the payoff is that unparalleled numbers of people get to where they need to go. Is this groundbreaking? Or is it simply Indian chaos?

Solutions suitable for India are being reached all the time - but most Indians hear only condemnation of Indian solutions because they do not conform to western norms. They are "seen" as stupid, indisciplined or chaos.

I was talking about groundbreaking in the following way: Groundbreaking in not "beating the west" style, but in creating solutions that shift paradigms in India. You are saying the same thing, but in a more clear and direct way with evidence to prove it.

I have my own set of stories. One of my good friends did some travelling in Indian villages and found that almost every house in remote villages in AP/Karnataka had cable TV but no phone (this was before mobile phones revolution) and an idea occurred to him. He figured that he could use the bandwidth of a single TV channel to work as a control/signalling channel for a large number of digital wired phones (VoIP like architecture).

If this worked the whole village could have cheap home phones with existing cable infrastructures in early 2000s. Since he had experience in only a particular subset of comm. tech. He had to rely on others to make this possible. I was involved in it as well. When we tried to sell this idea to a few Indian scientists in this field (in Indian institutions), we were met with subtle sarcasm and almost instant dismissal. Despite showing the potential of significant Intellectual Property generation (western idea) and business model with strong money fundamentals, they refused to believe it. These geniuses were living in a different world. We had a critical hole in our tech expertise and the idea withered away. We always wondered whether it was because none of us were from IIXs and did not have PhDs.

Coming to the "seen" part, which is equally important, which is why I highlighted it in my post. There is a big western expert on the subject Creativity: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. He differentiates between "personal creativity" and "creativity", and defines the latter as not only being able to create new ideas, but to communicate them effectively to their community. This allows others to adopt and build on your work and thus develop the field further. For the growth of any field, the "seen" part is extremely important. This growth is of course of exponential nature.

In your example, the Indian medical field using chemicals and devices in ways unconventional to the west is groundbreaking creativity. Question is, is there an Indian journal where these ideas get communicated to every Indian medical practitioner? Are there peer reviews done by Indian experts who understand the need to use those unconventional ways. This is important, since an idea in such a journal may produce new uncharted territories for further development, one which the west might not even have thought about. If we need to break out of the clutches of WU based science, this is the key part.

The fact that no 'groundbreaking' research can be 'seen' can be a combination of two things:
1) 'Groundbreaking' research does not occur.
2) Whenever someone does something 'groundbreaking' no one is there to 'see' it. Or worse, refuses to 'see' it. It lives and dies with that person.

[Pulikeshi]

What does surgery have to necessarily do with garbage disposal and cleanliness?

Everything.

Just to be clear, I agree with your article and it is well written and informative, but it did not tell me anything that I did not already know.
In this I say without any arrogance, sarcasm, etc. etc. please read what I said about convention and declaration....
A lot of what comes as convention (some good some bad) in SD and its practice can be shown to have great benefits...
Like eating ghee with rice before a meal in limited quantity... etc. there are innumerable examples as you have pointed out...
but we are having a parallel conversation in that my style seems to somehow upset you...

We (some friends) recently had an argument about the use of handicapped spots in the US. Why does this need to be declared?
Think it is similar to giving your seat in a bus to an elderly person or a pregnant (or otherwise) lady, children, etc. now it is so declared!
Would it not make sense to educate everyone that people with disabilities will need to park closer to the venue and therefore those
who can walk should park father away? Yet, humans keep parking as close as they can to the venue entrance as if their life depended
on that one act. In one case switching examples - doors that help open/close slowly for differently enabled people was installed, it slows
the flow for 95% of the humans using the building, to benefit the 5% perhaps? Could the geniuses not have done it for one door and
not all doors to the venue? The solutions we provide society can always be improved... Ironically, even when declared that said spot is for
handicapped drivers, even then some imbecile or the other violates the said directive. All quite amusing onlee... sometimes neither
convention nor declaration works only - therein come punishment!

[RamaY]

Added later: In a society where Varna-Ashrama Dharmas are followed to a T, a Shudra trying to learn Vedas is akin to a normal citizen taking law into his/her hands by killing a terrorist/rapist outside the incident scene.

Too much of WU model application even in understanding Bharatiya knowledge, society and thought process.

Disagree strongly -

Expected

The Varna of an individual is defined for his Grihastha-Ashrama only.

You naturally ignored my key point - that Dharma Shastra is a guideline and not binding and context must be applied. A Sudra learning Vedas to pursue the knowledge (becomes Brahmin for it is his/her swadharma) is different for a Sudra learning Vedas as an escape mechanism to avoid his/her swadharma. First understand what is "swadharma" and do not get confused with current by-birth castes and non-varna/Ashrama system.

Please tell me one good thing that India need to learn from west that is not known to India and not applied by at least few lakhs at any given point of time. There are more Indians who care for their families than in west, so what is there to learn from west for India?

All that are good in West are already inherent in Hinduism and many implement in India. What we need is improving that Dharmic quotient organically. There is not a single good thing that can west can export to India, that is not known to India.

India has all the good, bad and ugly the whole universe can offer over many millinnia and even more, perhaps spanning multiple earths and universes (manvantara and kalpas). What we see in the west are nothing but slight variations of what happened in our Puranas. We don't need a zilch from WU.

[Pulikeshi]

You naturally ignored my key point - that Dharma Shastra is a guideline and not binding and context must be applied.

You are incorrect. There is a record (sorry don't have the link handy, but it is in Jois' book on Constitutional Law) in Sanskrit of a court
judgement using the Dharma Shastra even as late as 1700, this case was in Mithila court on 10th June 1794. There is also a full text
appendix there of a royal charter from King Vishnu Sena in 592 CE of the Lohata Dynasty in Kathiawar Gujurat on 72 clauses laying down the rules for citizens. These all derive from Manu but deviate on several front from Manu and Yagnyavalkya as needed for their time.

There are several revisionists, who to deal with the finger pointing on Manu produced the fiction that the Shastra were not
binding. Manu Smriti was widely replaced by the Yagnyavalkya version and much later by Mitakshara and Daya Bhaga, these are all
accepted fact by eminent Indian jurists. The Jati courts have and continue to operate in India (even though the Supremes declared it illegal without understanding the grievous injury they have and are causing to society and its structure.

The Varna of an individual is defined for his Grihastha-Ashrama only.

So, if I understand you correctly, after finishing Grihastha-Ashrama a Brahmana can work as a cobbler and a Shudra can write Purana?
Is this something that has some scriptural basis, if so what is it? or is this your interpretation? That is ok as well, would be good to know.

I can explain my view on swadharma once I get your answer, but I will be upfront and say, my interpretation may not agree with
yours.. but I do not hold on to the traditional (a rather Victorian concept), as my theory picks and chooses what it needs...

All that are good in West are already inherent in Hinduism and many implement in India. What we need is improving that Dharmic quotient organically. There is not a single good thing that can west can export to India, that is not known to India.

No one is stopping you, but you are writing in a Western language for arguing SD and already part of the WU framework whether you like it or not! The very math and science that perhaps enables your vocation (incidentally it is a Shudra occupation to not learn Vedas and
do Yagna per scriptures as a Brahmana) is WU.

We don't need a zilch from WU.

In rejecting and othering WU, you become them. Even Rama could still learn something from Ravana?

[RamaY]

Pulikesi ji,

That is my understanding of varna-Ashrama dharma. A Brahmachari is a Brahmachari and cannot have a Varna yet. S/he gets into Varna only when he joins the society as Grihastha. Similarly a Samnyasi is a Samnyasi and can't be a Samnyasi by definition as long as s/he retains the varna.

That doesn't mean you cannot have a different interpretation of it based on your dEsa/kAla.

We cannot interpret Manu-Dharma which was formulated in Swayambhu Manvantara, even though some flavors of it might have continued till current Vaivaswata Manvantara. Humans are humans even if they have different skin tones, facial features, matas etc., isn't it?

SD is not Islam like to say it can be explained/debated only in Samskrutam. It is rhetoric to say why are you using 'English'. I can give you rhetorical answers but unfortunately cannot do it given the fact that I am on admin notice in that department.

Do not need to learn from WU doesn't mean we are OTHERing it. All the people who prefer WU can happily adapt to it as long as they do that with self-awareness and do not sell it as some reformation of SD and reap its karmic benefits without blaming SD for those results.

[shiv]



Assumption #2 - that I am arrogant and supercilious and do not like to hear criticism

Declarations are completely pointless for people who ignore or misunderstand the declaration. It is not you. Your style of posting two liners and not explaining yourself and appearing to disagree with cryptic sarcasm and smilies and no declaration of what you are commenting about that come across in the post as arrogance. It is definitely your style of writing. If criticism upsets you, sorry. Yes it is preachiness. Remember that the "declaration" that asks people to wash hands after defecation or to leave vacant parking spaces for disabled people is also preachiness. That is one way of interpretation. It would definitely be arrogance to respond to a request asking people to leave space for the disabled with "I already know. No need to preach"

Just to be clear, I agree with your article and it is well written and informative, but it did not tell me anything that I did not already know.
In this I say without any arrogance, sarcasm, etc. etc. please read what I said about convention and declaration....
A lot of what comes as convention (some good some bad) in SD and its practice can be shown to have great benefits...
Like eating ghee with rice before a meal in limited quantity... etc. there are innumerable examples as you have pointed out...
but we are having a parallel conversation in that my style seems to somehow upset you...

Pulikeshi the article cannot inform people who already know, or are convinced that they understand. In fact you have not understood, but it was written for an audience trained in modern bacteriology.

There is a connection in my mind between that article and this thread. It was one of a series of discussions where I was pointing out that blind contempt for Indian convention and the declaration of Indian practices as condemnable across the board, as happens among some educated Indian groups, was misplaced. What is not evident from the article for the person unaware of the history of bacteriology is that the fact that contamination can cause disease was not understood in Europe till the nineteenth century and the "declaration" that people must wash hands after wiping bottoms did not appear in the UK till the late 20th century.

For me the mystery was more scientific in nature - how was it possible to reach the same conclusions through different paths of reasoning. In Europe the discovery came after the invention of the microscope. But Indians had established at least within Brahmin families, decontamination practices akin to operating theater sterile technique a few thousand years ago. Surely you know all this, but there are others who may not know.

My article is a declaration to an educated audience that such practices exist in India and must be propagated with pride without either contemptuously dismissing Indian practices or superciliously declaring that there is nothing to be learned. The latter is, in my view true for only a small minority of people.

For the few people who are interested , the article is also a question about the approach to science taken in ancient India versus modern Europe. The latter is reductionist. The former is unknown, and what is known is not reductionist.

The article was posted simply because you asked what was the connection between surgery and dirt. I assumed you did not know. But now you say you already know. There is in fact a lot more - but I will move on to other stuff.

[shiv]

This really goes to the core of my question on if SD universalism or not... does universalism need uniformity or consensus?

If you cannot define something, you can never say if that something is true or applicable everywhere. A person who cannot define dharma cannot claim that it is applicable everywhere, to everyone and for all time. Dharma must first be defined. If some Indians cannot define dharma they cannot claim its universalism. However there are other Indians who do not hesitate to define dharma (as I detailed in another post) and every one of those features sound like universally applicable values to me. If you are confused about what dharma is , that confusion does not seem to extend to everyone.

So is your opinion practice is more important than theory? There are no ordinary Indians in my mind, only there are groups with affinity of affiliation and each has carried with it memes from a long forgotten time, each have subscribed to many attempts at codifying behavior, but each has broken free from it from time to time and carried away that which was essential. In my opinion, it is incorrect to deny either the practice or the theory space to collide with each other, as this collision is what enables evolution of SD.

There is, in my view, a remarkably consistent set of practices that have been consistently carried away as essential. It is those practices that constitute the core of dharma. The practice and theory are not in conflict at all when it comes to these core values that are universally applicable, but are not universally applied in the west

All I have been pointing out repeatedly is very simple onlee - that SD's evolution has been arrested, in this I mean the Smriti has
been given up by the practitioners and the theory is now under the control of a secular state.

All I am saying is - practitioners have a couple of choices:

• Bury head in the sand and keep practicing whatever they are used to... whose father what goes onlee
• Appeal to the Secular State to take care of their temples, prevent conversion, etc. (yes some already have takleef on these... rightly)
• The Secular State will continue down the path of individual rights based society... and the practitioners can watch in amazement

When will the practitioner wake up? When will they see that the system is broken? First step in change is acknowledging we are broke!

I don't understand this part. But if all practitioners are not individuals but groups with affinity or affiliation, what is to be gained from waking up the individual practitioner or asking when he will wake up. There is no individual according to you.

[shiv]

You are right in that garbage collection has everything to do with it. A 100 years ago Sweden decided to do "something" about mental retardation and other mental problems. They decided to sterilize people with these symptoms and let the problem breed itself out. This went on until the late 50's or so. They stopped this. Why? It turned out that the problem wasn't mentally retarded people were breeding and continuing problems for Swedish society but a great transformation occurred in public sanitation, public medical health and proper nutrition.

In fact India has the same issues. Indian personal hygiene practices are prescient, but the practice of separate water sources for different social groups is based on the premise that some social groups do not practice hygiene as rigorously as others. This would be described as racist today. Even if this practice has actually protected some social groups from waterborne diseases endemic to another social group, the problem of population growth and widespread contamination of water with sewage is an issue that makes water source segregation redundant as a safety measure.

Today India is dealing with issues that were concerns in 17th and 18th century Europe and were solved in a particular way. To me it is not clear that the solutions reached in Europe are wholly applicable to India mainly because of shortage of space in cities and shortage of water overall. Indians have to come up with what I believe is a new paradigm for safe sewage segregation if we are to include 1.2 billion and more Indians in the business of organized sewage collection and treatment which is the current convention. There was a news item in today's paper that I read an hour ago that referred to a water shortage in California that is calling for a response that is called "From toilets to flowers" or something where sewage is collected, filtered, subjected to reverse osmosis and exposed to UV and then re used.

The idea is unimpeachable, but is very energy intensive. But for India, given monetary pressures - it will be tempting for planners to build standard "common or garden" flush toilets and sewage disposal and not jump into high investment-high energy solutions. But the latter is what India must do and when India starts sucking more energy we are going to pollute something else.

[shiv]

In your example, the Indian medical field using chemicals and devices in ways unconventional to the west is groundbreaking creativity. Question is, is there an Indian journal where these ideas get communicated to every Indian medical practitioner? Are there peer reviews done by Indian experts who understand the need to use those unconventional ways. This is important, since an idea in such a journal may produce new uncharted territories for further development, one which the west might not even have thought about. If we need to break out of the clutches of WU based science, this is the key part.

You hit the nail bang on the head and drove it right home in one blow!

I suggested for years to my colleagues (including those at the meeting I described in an article I posted above) that we really should be starting our own journals.

But Indian scientists in the medical field used to be afraid of censure from the west and contemptuous of Indian sources, seeking glory only in publication in western journals. That is changing gradually. Still there are a hundred-thousand things that need to be studied and published. The problem may be less about western universalism and more of mental colonization and mental intimidation.

[shiv]

You naturally ignored my key point - that Dharma Shastra is a guideline and not binding and context must be applied.

You are incorrect. There is a record (sorry don't have the link handy, but it is in Jois' book on Constitutional Law) in Sanskrit of a court
judgement using the Dharma Shastra even as late as 1700, this case was in Mithila court on 10th June 1794. There is also a full text
appendix there of a royal charter from King Vishnu Sena in 592 CE of the Lohata Dynasty in Kathiawar Gujurat on 72 clauses laying down the rules for citizens. These all derive from Manu but deviate on several front from Manu and Yagnyavalkya as needed for their time.

There are several revisionists, who to deal with the finger pointing on Manu produced the fiction that the Shastra were not
binding. Manu Smriti was widely replaced by the Yagnyavalkya version and much later by Mitakshara and Daya Bhaga, these are all
accepted fact by eminent Indian jurists. The Jati courts have and continue to operate in India (even though the Supremes declared it illegal without understanding the grievous injury they have and are causing to society and its structure.

Interesting exchange. From what I can understand, Pulikeshi disputes RamaY's contention that Dharma shastra injuctions are guidelines only, and says that they are law, to be followed as per Manu's book.

But, Pulikeshi, how does this vehement disagreement with RamaY square up with what you wrote in response to one of my posts:

In my opinion, it is incorrect to deny either the practice or the theory space to collide with each other, as this collision is what enables evolution of SD.

Ramay is saying that practice has allowed itself the space to collide with theory, but you say that the people who did that are "revisionsists". Surely practice and theory can never differ if any differences are dismissed as revisionism? SD can never evolve under these self restricting circumstances.

[member_22733]

But Indian scientists in the medical field used to be afraid of censure from the west and contemptuous of Indian sources, seeking glory only in publication in western journals. That is changing gradually. Still there are a hundred-thousand things that need to be studied and published. The problem may be less about western universalism and more of mental colonization and mental intimidation.

Western universalism propagates itself among the colonized using the mechanism of mental colonization and intimidation. Mental colonization is an automatic learned response from the colonized. The intimidation is achieved by the colonizer (west) using "sanctions", in the form of cutting off access and/or funding. It is precisely these things that we need to take care of urgently, if Indian science needs to get anywhere.

This independence in science also plugs into industrialization, product development, economy and commerce. At this point all these things are delinked from academia because the academia was never in the business of supporting them. They only play catch up with the west.

Intimidation is severely enforced by most people in the west automatically. It is their automatic response against any act they consider questioning WU, just like automatic response of a colonized mind would be to not step over the lines/boundaries defined by the colonizer. It is a very synergetic, self propagating system that can last generations, as is evident to anyone who manages to step out of it and peek in.

[RamaY]

Pulikesi ji,

The Dharmasastras themselves were re-written every time something is found to be short-coming.

For example Mandavya muni episode changed the definition of childhood from 8yrs to 12yrs or something like that. Here the guiding principle of Dharma-sastra is to ensure that childhood actions are exempted from punishment. The revision is about what that cut-off point should be for a given place/time.

Yama himself coming as Vidura is Dharma doing the cleanup job for he followed the scripture by verbatim instead of as a guideline.

Context is everything in SD because the seers figured out Dharma is contextual. This is why it is Sanatana/Eternal (for it will adapts to the context while holding on to foundational principle called Satyam, Sivam, Sundaram).

[shiv]

But Indian scientists in the medical field used to be afraid of censure from the west and contemptuous of Indian sources, seeking glory only in publication in western journals. That is changing gradually. Still there are a hundred-thousand things that need to be studied and published. The problem may be less about western universalism and more of mental colonization and mental intimidation.

Western universalism propagates itself among the colonized using the mechanism of mental colonization and intimidation. Mental colonization is an automatic learned response from the colonized. The intimidation is achieved by the colonizer (west) using "sanctions", in the form of cutting off access and/or funding. It is precisely these things that we need to take care of urgently, if Indian science needs to get anywhere.

This independence in science also plugs into industrialization, product development, economy and commerce. At this point all these things are delinked from academia because the academia was never in the business of supporting them. They only play catch up with the west.

Intimidation is severely enforced by most people in the west automatically. It is their automatic response against any act they consider questioning WU, just like automatic response of a colonized mind would be to not step over the lines/boundaries defined by the colonizer. It is a very synergetic, self propagating system that can last generations, as is evident to anyone who manages to step out of it and peek in.

Insightful

I have personally found it quite difficult to get these points across without sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but there are examples.

For example if you look at the social structure of India it was and remains family centered (i did say that dharma moots a family centered society and that remains the Indian convention). Family are the "social security net" if you destroy family - either there is no social security or the government has to provide social security. With government support at best you get some sort of socialist system. At worst you will get scams and an incomplete government sponsored social security. It s my firm view that India must continue to promote family based society with family centered social security nets.

However no western medium will ever recognize the role of family social support. The only reports I see is that "India is underdeveloped because the Indian government spends only 1% of its GDP on social security. India has millions of crapping sickly people blablabla". The colonized Indian mind believes this and fails to see that in any society the government cannot take on the role of mother father or son and daughter. Family is important. Top that with "individualism" taking precedence over family values and you have a formula that only breaks the existing structure without offering a robust successful solution

[member_22733]

I have personally found it quite difficult to get these points across without sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but there are examples.

Someone called me a conspiracy theorist on this very thread . There is no conspiracy here. No people actively trying to keep us down. The colonizer and the colonized are like two sets of monkeys.

The colonizer monkeys used to put the colonized monkeys in a cage, with severe penalties for trying to escape. After both are trained in their roles, the cage is removed. The colonized monkeys will be afraid to step out and their safe option would be to stay in. The colonizer monkeys would actively and severely punish any colonized monkey from setting out. These are learned behaviors transmitted through generations. There is no one "actively" enforcing these behavior on people. It is automatic, involuntary and it is ever pervasive in any field, be it "indology", social sciences, administrative policy or electrical engineering.

Obviously it is an extreme hindrance that has stopped us from truly developing to our potential.

[shiv]

The colonizer monkeys used to put the colonized monkeys in a cage, with severe penalties for trying to escape. After both are trained in their roles, the cage is removed. The colonized monkeys will be afraid to step out and their safe option would be to stay in. The colonizer monkeys would actively and severely punish any colonized monkey from setting out. These are learned behaviors transmitted through generations. There is no one "actively" enforcing these behavior on people. It is automatic, involuntary and it is ever pervasive in any field, be it "indology", social sciences, administrative policy or electrical engineering.

To use words introduced by Pulikeshi this behavior has now become convention. And I do believe that it can only be changed by declaration that the cage does not exist any more than what is in one's own head. That is the manner in which my views fit in with his.

[member_22733]

To use words introduced by Pulikeshi this behavior has now become convention. And I do believe that it can only be changed by declaration that the cage does not exist any more than what is in one's own head. That is the manner in which my views fit in with his.

All one needs to do is to "walk away". It's not that easy as it sounds, but it is one of the most liberating experience I have ever had. It took me about 3 years of questioning each fundamental belief I had. I wish there was a standard procedure to help people to "walk away".

[Vayutuvan]

Lokesh, it is not practical for one to walk away if one is in grihasthAshrama. If (every) one walks away during brahmacharya, Homo sapien species becomes extinct. VAnaprastha is literally "Walking away from it all" and then slowly slip onto samnyAsa and spend rest of ones life on the shores of walden pond (or rather mAnasa sarOvara).

[member_22733]

^^^^ saar, I am not talking about "walking away" in terms of Sanyaasa, I truly have no clue about what involves it other than very generic idea.

Please read my post before the previous one. I am talking of "walking away" from the mental cage that colonization has built for us. One can do it in any stage of life. There is no need for us to stay in that cage.

The point is that we have so habituated ourselves by being in that artificial mental cage, from which we can just walk away, outside of it. There is no need for staying in there. Thats all i meant

[A_Gupta]

Balu again:

Colonial law in India embodied the normative model of toleration and religious liberty. At first glance, this may seem to be good, since it implied that the traditional practices of `the Hindoos’ were to be tolerated. This impression is wrong, however. In fact, the legal model of toleration compelled the Hindus to make their traditions into religions. This policy systematically forced Hindus to prove that a particular practice was founded in `the true religious doctrines of Hinduism’. This happened, because the liberal colonial state would only tolerate a practice if the proper `religious authority’ had demonstrated that the practice really belonged to the realm of religion. Thus, in the nineteenth-century controversy over the practice of widow-burning, the Governor-General in Council decided in 1805 that “the best course to follow, according to [the] fundamental principle of religious toleration, would be to allow the practice in those cases in which it was countenanced by their [Hindu] religion, while preventing it in others in which it was by the same authority prohibited.” In the same controversy, a colonial observer commented that “the true interpretation of the religious law/will no doubt diminish, if not extinguish the desire for self-immolation. The safest way of coming to a right understanding on a point so interesting to humanity, is a rigid investigation of the rules of conduct laid down in the books which are considered sacred by the Hindoos.” Consequently, the orthodox Hindu community began to aggressively defend the practice of self-immolation by demonstrating its foundation in the `religious doctrines’ and `sacred texts’ of the `Hindu religion’.

Following this route, the colonial legal policy of religious toleration gradually transformed the self-confidence and vibrancy of the Hindu traditions into a fanatical defense of their alleged `religious doctrines’. Before the early nineteenth century, the Hindu spokesmen had protected their traditions from the missionary onslaught by pointing out the antiquity of their ancestral practices. Or they insisted that “every one may be saved by his own Religion, if he does what is Good, and shuns Evil,” as a Malabar Brahmin told the missionary Ziegenbalg in the early eighteenth century. This changed once the liberal colonial state implemented its policy of religious toleration: now these traditions had to prove that they were proper religions in order to be legitimate. In the same way as its colonial precursor, the secular state of post-independence India has forced the Hindu traditions to identify and stand up for themselves as religious doctrines, variants of Islam and Christianity. The result is the Hindutva movement: a rabid attempt to establish the doctrines of `Hinduism’ as the superior and dominant form of religion in the Indian society. Hindutva imitates all the strategies of religious self-assertion, which Muslims and Christians have developed so as to exploit law for their own purposes. For instance, ever more cases occur in India of Hindu organizations going to court, because “their religious sentiments and sensitivities have been violated.”

Again, law spreads a typical Christian attitude in a secularized form: it forces one to defend one’s tradition as a religion, with its own sacred doctrines and sacrosanct sentiments. Turning to the West, this has taken tragic forms today. A week back there was an account in the newspaper about a controversy in the UK. Apparently, a `Hindu organization’ calling itself the “Hindu Forum” had objected when the British postal services issued a stamp depicting a painting of an Indian-looking pair wearing tilaks, who are doing puja for the Infant Jesus. The spokesmen of this organization found it unacceptable that “Hindus were depicted as worshipping Christ.” This shows how a pluralist tradition is being reformed into an intolerant religion, because the British legal system will only respect a cultural community if it is able to invoke its sacred doctrines and sacrosanct sentiments. The U.S. legal system also promotes such religious self-assertion and such demands for the recognition of a separate identity. Basically, its model of toleration forces ethnic and other communities to take the form of secularized Protestant churches, with a set of doctrines and norms that should never be violated.