Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

[ShauryaT]

MatrimC: If you put the caveat of execution as a pre-condition to ideas being expounded, then one will have a hard time, expounding upon any idea in our barely functioning polity. If this nation can adopt an entirely foreign construct to govern itself, is it so hard to imagine a construct evolved from our own lands? Is Dharma and its practice defunct to not be able to explore our own constructs? Or is it that our own constructs sound alien to us?

There are many ways to roll a dice, for now, we are still exploring the game we want to play, its objectives and rules. When the time comes to roll the dice, is the time to explore the ways to do it, big bang or incremental. A new constituent assembly is not exactly an insane idea - envisioned by Ambedkar himself. However, my hopes are more modest but my dreams know no bounds. There is no going back, at least for me, the question is only one of going forward, the question is the basis of this forward movement and its direction.

[Vayutuvan]

Chalo, I am not sure whether this should go here or in "Understanding America" thread - but who is paying attention? This thread seems to be a kitchen sink of any random idea so here is this.


Since there is some discussion about single moms, father being a male role model, "virtues" of a big "ummaDi kutumbam" (joint family) etc. here is something I just happened to listen to on NPR today.

Please do listen to the audio (linked in the quote) as Prof. Cohen gives lot more details of his study.

Why There No Longer Is A ‘Typical’ American Family

There is no dominant form of family arrangement in the United States anymore, according to a new study from the Council on Contemporary Families.

In 1960, 65 percent of young children were growing up in a family arrangement in with a mother at home and breadwinner father.

Only 22 percent of children grow up with that arrangement today. And today’s most common family model — that of the dual-earner married couple — makes up 34 percent of children’s experiences.

American children are growing up in widely varied homes, headed by single mothers, co-habiting parents, single fathers or grandparents.

Study author Philip Cohen, a demographer at the University of Maryland, tells Here & Now’s Jeremy Hobson that even those categories are marked by great change: children now with a single parent may have been in a joint household, they may have a parent with another family, step-siblings from one or both parents, even their grandparents might be divorced and remarried to other people.

“Diversity is the new normal,” Cohen said.

As a result, Cohen says policy makers cannot build laws on the assumption that families are built on stable, married couples.

“However we are going to go about helping families deal with their problems of insecurity and instability, we have to take an approach that does not assume — or try to construct — a monolithic family structure,” Cohen said.

Guest

Philip Cohen, professor of sociology at the University of Maryland and author of, “The Family: Diversity, Inequality, and Social Change.” He tweets @familyunequal.

There are only 11 comments and are interesting (including the trolling accusations) so I am including them here.

Rick • 10 hours ago
The result of the breakdown of the American Family is trillions of dollars spent every year on welfare and massive deficits. The government has replaced the role of the father in many families, especially in certain demographic groups.

Tommy Rick • 10 hours ago
Dude - just get a life and do something else with your time. No one cares what you think.

Rick Tommy • 9 hours ago
Please read the Community Rules and refrain from personal attacks. I hope the moderator deletes your comment.

Tommy Rick • 9 hours ago
I hope the moderator deletes your account. You are a troll.

Blake Tommy • 39 minutes ago
People who accuse others are truly making projections. A Troll is not evil, is not an emotional vampire and is definitely not out of control.

If you are triggered by this man then be straight with him and speak to him about how he is triggering you. Don't give away your power by asking questions of him.

You have an opportunity to make a difference in this man's life by blessing him. Learn how to make a clean cut to him by making the cut empowering. A true Warrior can do this. Remember Blood makes the grass grow.

Blessings

coffeegirlchatting Rick • 9 hours ago
I disagree. The Government has contributed to poverty and the ills of society in some aspect but the Government and/or welfare checks can't be held solely responsible for irresponsible guys abandoning their families and responsibilities. Whom do we blame for EMPLOYED single mom's and there are lots of them out there, that receive NOTHING from the Government YET the guy has left her to raise his kids without him?

Rockswell • 7 hours ago
In many minds of millennials, marriage is archaic. Many of us are not religious, and marriage doesn't seem to have enough benefits to outweight the potential huge negatives if the relationship falls apart. It doesn't have anything to do with the "breakdown of the family". We're overpopulated, and we don't make enough money to take care of children outside of ourselves, so why would we have them??? It's a huge investment of time and money that we just don't have, so many are not getting married and having kids.

Blake • in 10 minutes
Prisons, racism, sexism, white, male ,Christian privilege, religious fundamentalism. People unwilling to change themselves because they believe that others must change first.

We are a corrupt, fat, sick and ignorant society that is lead around the world by a corrupt media that keeps us fed with entertainment and sugary, fatty, salty food that is subsidized by the money grubbing political system that supports corporate interests ahead of human basic needs.

In other more advanced societies the family is the community and the Elders are honored for their wisdom as they are responsible for the nurturing and up bringing of the children while the younger men and women play, work, learn and enjoy their freedom to come and go as they want.

Look at our cultural beliefs first. They are based on two thousand year old laws and morals that haven't changed with the times. The conservatives would make you believe that the old ways work better for social structure while the new ways are destructive to family values and morals.

We are an expression of our faiths and beliefs that have kept us stuck in cultural stagnations of prejudice and discrimination against those that we accuse of being disbelievers and terrorists that go against American Ideals.

If you want to see change in the world start with yourselves become conscious of how religions defeat you at every turn. Become aware of your privilege that you as an American are born with. Be conscious that for all your lives you have been living unconsciously without being responsible to each other, without be unconditional to all that there is no space and time like the scientists want you to think, there is only here and now.

Practice these three states of awareness and you will not have any conflict, any debt, any depression. Be the change in your life, be an example of what you truly are and truly were born as, LOVE.

Bless someone everyday. You will immediately conjure gratitude. Stop praying because prayer creates the opposite condition that you are praying for. Prayer is only done as a source of group lead visualization in healing others.

Meditation allows you to connect deeply and effectively with the One that is all things and we are all one and Divine.

Follow these suggestions and you will create a profound family experience.

Blessings
see more

it_disqus • 5 hours ago
The current system encourages the poor to not get married. "Single" mothers can get aid from the government that poor married women can not. Also, the penalties for being a dead beat dad don't kick in for poorer people. The system has given a financial incentive to not get married.

Demography prof it_disqus • an hour ago
That is ridiculous - TANF and food stamps, as well as Medicaid, are based on household income, not marital status. You are about 40 years out of date! Check the regulations for ANY government anti-poverty program and you will see this yourself. It just happens to be the case that single mothers have the lowest household incomes, so are disproportionately receiving government assistance. As for poor deadbeat dads, again, check your facts. Low income fathers are much more likely to be punished for failing to pay child support than more affluent men. It is true that unemployed men are less likely to pay child support - that old "can't squeeze blood out of a turnip" thing.

coffeegirlchatting • 9 hours ago
Dysfunctional families are/have always been the Typical Family. What's changed is the way we handled that dysfunction (technology and publicizing almost everything). It's like saying there is an emergence of homosexuality. Not likely. Homosexuality has always been here the difference is more gays are coming out and it's more acceptable now in comparison to the days of old. In the 1990's Ellen Degeneres tv series was canceled because it was rumored she was gay. Today Ellen is openly GAY and has one of THE most successful daytime tv shows out there. Sharon Osbourne stated years ago that If there is a normal family in this world then THAT family would be considered abnormal.

[Vayutuvan]

MatrimC: If you put the caveat of execution as a pre-condition to ideas being expounded, then one will have a hard time, expounding upon any idea in our barely functioning polity.

ShauryaT: I am not objecting to expounding ideas but the impracticality of implementing the same in any reasonable time frame.

My motto is "Reformation is eminently more practical than Revolution".

It costs far less in terms of number of lives lost. I would go even so far to say that it is zero cost. Only we have to be patient and keep pushing for the reforms we want.

"dheere dheere rE manA dheere sub kuCh hOi, mAli seenchE sau ghaDa ritu AyE phal hOi"

[member_23692]

Look at the cross post below from another thread. Another example of how the Japanese business looks at India from the "Western Universalist eyes". What they dont really understand is that the bad roads, the bad infra-structure and the retrospective and unpredictable taxation that they complain about are all our "indic" way of solving our problems. I mean, if we can have roads, move goods, and redistributing the revenue around more by having our local businesses, babus and politicians all getting their share, where exactly is the problem ? The West, having demonized, all non-western way of doing things, will have the world believe that India has this monstrous business environment in the form of "terrible" infra-structure.

When and who will put a stop to this actual monstrosity, which is "Western Universalism" ? When, I ask, when ?

Besides, there is another element at work here. the inability of the "West" and the "Western influenced Japanese 'India doubters'" to make a proper presentation to the Indian babus and Indian government, is then turned around and characterized as "unfriendly business climate" by these "propoganda masters", to conceal their own bad presentation skills. Is there no corruption in the West ? Just yesterday, we go the news that a prominent politician in the US state of Virginia, an ex-governor and a much touted presidential contender, no less, was convicted, yes convicted, in a US federal court of at least nine counts of corruption, along with his wife.....his WIFE. In India, have you ever heard of a Babu's or a politician's wife being corrupt ? There have been examples after examples of Japanese Prime Ministers having been disgraced and having to resign because they were exposed as being corrupt, not to mention a number of ministers, some of whom actually committed Hara-Kari. Besides, if you put aside all the media misinformation and chatter and noise about India, how many politicians even, have actually been convicted in Indian courts of corruption ? You will be able to count them on your fingers. How many Indian Prime Ministers had to resign because of them being corrupt ? So, for the West and its stooge, the Japanese "business", to talk about corruption in India, is typical "Western Universalist" noise, and a scratching noise at that.

Let us redouble our efforts, I say, to subject these "unfriendly" Japanese business interests to more "Indic" way of doing things, if and when they do dare to come to India. They will inevitably have to come to India, despite all their pronouncements about "bad business climate" in India. They will have to come for their own sake. Where else will they find a market of a billion people and with the Chinese kicking them in the butt, they have no choice but to come to India. When they do, we should unleash all our "Indic Universalism" on them. Will serve them right. And besides, what about the Indo-Japan nuclear deal, eh ? Who is holding that up ? "Bad Indian business climate" ? Gimme a break!


X-posted from another thread - original post by poster - Kjo

Japan Inc cautious on India despite premiers' love-in

http://news.yahoo.com/japan-inc-cautiou ... nance.html

[Yayavar]

matrimc: in the above 'american family' responses the most telling is from Rockswell, "...if the relationship falls apart". This is a major contributor since the focus is on falling apart and not being together as the vow states. A negative focus gets negative results.

[member_23692]

Look at this article below.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-na ... es-2017635

Another victory for Western Universalism and the privatization garbage the Westernalists purvey. Even Modi is falling prey to those around him, who are victims of this "Westernalism slavery".

We had our own uniquely indic solution in public sector ownership and management of these precious resources of the people. To hand these over to just a few hands and that too of a few cronies is a travesty and a result of another sub-conscious bias towards Westernalist solutions.

[Pulikeshi]

^^^ So you are suggesting that Private Enterprise is a WU?
The Sreni and partnership based industry system has existed since eternity in India. Partnership (Incorporations), Agency laws, treatment of Inc. as an individual for tax purposes, Tax law clarifications, etc have a strong history in the Smriti. Please read the Smriti or some articles on this topic before jumping to conclusions.

If what you are suggesting is that some services need to be run as a public utility that is a different point.
While I have nothing against PSU when India had to bootstrap, and in certain critical sectors where no one else is going to provide either capital or technology, I question your conclusion that private enterprises are cronies and public enterprises are virtuous.

[Pulikeshi]

Now, the hierarchy issue:
First consider a family:
Father is the administrator and protector. Kshathriya.
Grandfather is the spiritual and intellectual. Brahmana
Mother and granny provide food. Vaishya
Children do small chores in the home. Shoodhra.

While this example is very romantic and perhaps appealing to some, but it is also patronizing and somewhat demeaning...
I get reminded of the story of the body parts fighting on who is higher in the hierarchy and the arse-e-hole winning!

I seriously ask this question (albeit a very smart Economics prof asked me this question) - why did they come up with only four Varnas? Actually, it was perhaps three to begin with...
Why not just Father and Grandfather? Why not Father, Grandfather, Mother/Granny, Children and Woh?

[member_23692]

^^^ So you are suggesting that Private Enterprise is a WU?
The Sreni and partnership based industry system has existed since eternity in India. Partnership (Incorporations), Agency laws, treatment of Inc. as an individual for tax purposes, Tax law clarifications, etc have a strong history in the Smriti. Please read the Smriti or some articles on this topic before jumping to conclusions.

If what you are suggesting is that some services need to be run as a public utility that is a different point.
While I have nothing against PSU when India had to bootstrap, and in certain critical sectors where no one else is going to provide either capital or technology, I question your conclusion that private enterprises are cronies and public enterprises are virtuous.

Yes, but Sreni system was based entirely on a strong sense of "Indic Dharma", as opposed to run away greed of corrupt businessmen, which is the order of the day today. The private corporations today in India are entirely of the western variety, "of the west", "for the west" and "by the west", so to speak, and nothing to do with the strong indic moral code and ethics that were the foundation of Sreni system. May I gently remind you that every time you disagree with me, please dont automatically assume, that I do not know about that subject and please dont presume to advice, always, that I should read up on a certain subject, implying that I have no knowledge of it. Having said that, yes, more reading is always good and I certainly do not know everything about everything and I make an attempt to read every day and try and learn every minute of every day. Hell, I dont even know most things about most things. I am so busy worrying about learning myself and framing my own thoughts correctly, that I for one, never presume to consider the other person ignorant.

Public ownership is our own very indic solution to our very indic problems. If that comes with corruption, so be it. If it is inefficient, so be it and if it only benefits a few, so be it. At least it is a very "indic" solution and at least it goes counter to "Western Universalims", besides, it makes the West very angry. So, we must understand how it came about. It is far more efficient to cut corners in traffic and travel in a zigzag fashion on straight roads, because we have two wheelers. The West does not have that. Same thing goes for Public ownership. If there is a zigzag way to accomplish an indic goal, what is wrong with it ?

[Arjun]

Fail to see what is Indic about the government being in the business of business, as opposed to focusing on administering the country. Chanakya would certainly not have approved.

Socialism and Communism are probably far more alien to the Indian ethos than capitalism and private enterprise.

[Rony]

The doctrine of ‘humanitarianism’ is not as benign as you might think

Humanitarianism: this abstract noun gained wide currency during the high noon of neoliberalism. It connotes philanthropy and benevolence, a charitable impulse towards the unfortunate from those capable of alleviating poverty, disaster or war. It suggests a benign doctrine, even a profession of faith.

Claims to humanitarianism are always heard most loudly after some spectacular act of inhumanity. The end of the second world war provided a particularly compelling example. After Europe had been laid waste by the ideology of Nazism, a creed born in what had promoted itself for centuries as “the cradle of civilisation”, redemptive action was vital. Not only did “the economy” – the site of the breakdown – become the object of rapid rehabilitation, but “development assistance” to former imperial territories began; most of these had defected to “socialism”, and the west offered “development” as the alternative. In an age of globalisation, development has been superseded by a fitting successor – humanitarian intervention.

“Humanitarian”, originally a theological term, referred to one who affirmed the humanity of Christ, while denying his divine existence. It came to mean the application of purely human action – without religious sanction – to the resolution of social problems. In this sense it first appears in the early 19th century; at that time it carried ironic overtones, suggesting an excess of zeal or sentimentality in those who would change the world.

International commitment to “humanitarianism” grew out of imperial missionary and charitable activity. The abolition of slavery gave an impulse to a movement which did not yet call itself humanitarian; even though the principle has existed, in one form or another, in all human societies; and is, for example, according to Qur’anic and prophetic texts, an essential and obligatory element of Muslim religious practice.

For Christian missionaries, medical advances in the 19th century made material healing an important adjunct to the spiritual work of evangelists; no doubt, tangible improvements in the material condition of the people also assisted the spiritual “healing” required in the conversion of the heathen; and the importance of the human often took precedence over a theoretical religious “mission”.

A significant moment in this secularisation of humanitarian action came as a result of the battle of Solferino in 1859, when Swiss businessman Henry Dunant, passing through Castiglione, was appalled by the fact that soldiers on both sides had simply been left on the battlefield to die. His proposal for trained medical personnel to be present at such scenes of suffering led to the establishment of the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863.

Despite the detachment of humanitarianism from religion, the idea still retains something of its otherworldly roots, since it is seen as a work of rescue, even of salvation, and produces a sense of reverential piety. “Humanitarian” aid is supposed to transcend all ideologies, cultures and beliefs. It is the essence of human fellow-feeling, not to be contested or questioned. In other words, it is an ideal vehicle for the monopoly of compassion often implied by its western promoters.

As soon as any belief or doctrine becomes an “-ism” we should be on our guard, for that is the sign that it is in the process of hardening into ideology.

Humanitarianism is what the west uniquely practises, bringing its kindness and goodwill to dark places of the world, where savagery and barbarism still rule (or have reappeared) at the heart of “primitive” or regressive cultures.

It is significant that we hear much about “our values” when it comes to humanitarian help in places ravaged by war, particularly when the west has been instrumental in, or indifferent towards, the creation of strife, to which we must bring the urgent capacity for relief of a concerned “international community”.

In this way, even our “humanitarianism” is an old story, but with a contemporary inflection. It implies that love of humanity and compassion are defective in places that cry out for “our” intercession. Not only is it at the core of “liberal interventionism”, which topples dictators and dismantles dictatorships, but it is also called into being to support campaigns of violence as a lesser evil; notably in the arbitrarily established entities of the former Ottoman empire, created at the end of the first world war by powers who had not yet discovered their own humanitarian potential.

Humanitarianism, therefore, justifies all over again what “we” give to “them”. Its supreme appeal is that it trumps all other systems and faiths, since it brings succour to those persecuted in the name of all ideologies, religious and secular. It is elevated over all other forms of giving. Dissent falls silent in the presence of such magnanimity, and we drop our coins into the great collecting box of conscience, satisfied we have done our duty.

In such a context, it should not astonish us if humanitarian assistance is sometimes invoked even in the form of bombs, dropped to prevent greater wrongs – to protect innocent civilians or to halt the “cancer” of extremism.

Perhaps the most extraordinary example of humanitarianism in action may be seen in the recent appeal to help the afflicted, the mutilated and bereaved of Gaza. When the buildings have been razed, the bodies counted, the rubble turned over, sorrowing peoples are invited to offer assistance to those whose lives have been ruined or abridged; but no one – including those who were in a position to do so – invoked humanitarianism to prevent the carnage from happening in the first place. Humanitarianism after the event savours of hypocrisy as much as of philanthropy.

This suggests the humanitarianism of our age demands – in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, Libya – flattened cities, heaps of corpses, strife and bloodshed in order to find its fullest expression. Should it surprise us if the imperialists of compassion themselves sometimes contribute to the supply of scenes of misery, which then call forth their exhibitions of altruism before a wondering world?

[Pulikeshi]

At least it is a very "indic" solution and at least it goes counter to "Western Universalims", besides, it makes the West very angry. So, we must understand how it came about.

Why do you care about the West becoming angry? You are still stuck in WU when u care that much...
Again it is ok to disagree and question proposals in a civil manner - I am assuming nothing about you.

If your zig zag solution can stand on its own merit and survive the harshness of the real world power to you.
You are welcome to suggest solutions and also welcome to expect criticism and kudos per its merit...
Simble onlee!

[ShauryaT]

Socialism and Communism are probably far more alien to the Indian ethos than along with capitalism

Varna Dharma along with Ashrama Dharma and contemporary proponents of the Hindu view of wealth and its role in society is vested in the concept of "sarvodaya" or wealth held by individuals in the public trust. Excess Wealth held in the public trust by individuals for the benefit of the public, not one held by the state, would approximate to the Hindu view of individual wealth and its role in society.

[A_Gupta]

A real bharat-rakshak story:
http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... hayagriva/

[member_22733]

I was a big fan (still a loyal one) of Arthur C Clarke. He really did inspire me to pursue engineering. I read two of his works: "The Fountains of Paradise (1979)", and "Rendezvous with Rama (1973)". I read them when I was just entering my undergrad and boy did they rile me up . The science and the possibilities mentioned in those books were beyond anything I ever imagined.

Arthur was a resident and a citizen of Sri Lanka from 1956 to his death in 2008, yet he could not escape from a western mindset. Neither could he escape "Presentism" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism

In the last few weeks, I have been reading the same books with attention to social interactions, references to hierarchy and I ended up with the conclusion that shiv reached a few pages ago:
Future as Arthur imagined it, was very much like the time of writing of the books.

In 2500s the west is still the leader in everything. While the Indians and Srilankans have gotten to a very high standards of living, but the decision makers are still from the west. There is mention of population reduction to less than 1 billion and Islam being a peaceful and co-operative religion.

Clarke was also influenced by the Hindu - Buddhist fight and he subtly references the yeeeevil Yindoos of Hindostan in the Fountains of Paradise. Clarke was an agnostic atheist, but he subtly makes reference to Christian thinkers liberally in his books. There are no quotes from Buddhism, SD or any other religion. Any SD/Buddhist quotes was purely made up by him.

England features as a very powerful country in his books, as it was in 1970s. There is also an attempt to whitewash the colonial mass-murders. While non-british colonial atrocities get mentioned, Clarke carefully avoids mentioning the Brishit excesses in India. Clarke is unapologetic in promoting brishit actions as that of a "civilizing" nature. There is a passing mention of China in both the books, but of no significant importance to space and science. Arthur was also a peacenik. He never mentions the Russians in any of the works.

The names in the books are a melding of Indic/Srilankan names and English names, since at that time there will be a lot of mixing between races. But the key scientists, the key people are always named with white sounding names. There is no mention of science coming from the Far East or anywhere non-european, Almost seems like Clarke resisted from exploring that possibility.

Clarke also firmly believed in a English like "class" based society. In Fountains of Paradise, there were personal servants for Johann Hari Singh. In Rendezvous with Rama, there were genetically engineered chimps who serve their masters faithfully and are killed off if there is ever a need to abandon ship.

I wish I was ignorant of WU. Knowing it makes life a bit difficult. Literature from the west and "caged" individuals (DIE, RNIs etc) appears hollow, even when the plot and the science are good. I am now re-reading a lot of books I read before in a completely new light.

[A_Gupta]

I wish I was ignorant of WU. Knowing it makes life a bit difficult. Literature from the west and "caged" individuals (DIE, RNIs etc) appears hollow, even when the plot and the science are good. I am now re-reading a lot of books I read before in a completely new light.

Suppose you were a world explorer and you "discovered" Great Britain (the same conceit, that other people were "undiscovered" till the West "discovered" them). Now you're reading their literature, exploring their customs. Can you do a better job with them, than they did with us? Or is this inescapable human nature onlee?

[A_Gupta]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... philosophy

The author argues that ISIS is western in origin, specifically, he traces it to the French Revolution. To me it is confirmation of a common problem in these ideologies. Since what ISIS does sounds very much like Muhammad bin Qasim's invasion of Sind, I don't agree with the author.

[shiv]

I wish I was ignorant of WU. Knowing it makes life a bit difficult. Literature from the west and "caged" individuals (DIE, RNIs etc) appears hollow, even when the plot and the science are good. I am now re-reading a lot of books I read before in a completely new light.

Suppose you were a world explorer and you "discovered" Great Britain (the same conceit, that other people were "undiscovered" till the West "discovered" them). Now you're reading their literature, exploring their customs. Can you do a better job with them, than they did with us? Or is this inescapable human nature onlee?

Arun - this thread has become too long. I was looking for and was unable to find a post, perhaps by you, noting the fact that all "pychology" is white anglosaxons studying others.

I have new realised that all of sociology is pretty much the same. Sociology itself was set up to study brown and black races by white Europeans. Their own societies did not need studying and hence studies don't exist.

There are two ramifications of this:

First, you find that ancient Indian (and even biblical references) take into account how societies have behaved in the past and make recommendations for the future.

The second is that we have the opportunity to do a new sociology and psychology that studies western society - which has never been done in the west because they are unable or unwilling to look at themselves from the outside

Western sociology have simply discarded what they see as old and have been experimenting with society. Even today "science fiction" is seen as a predictor of future human society and it appears that what is predicted today as science fiction will get implemented tomorrow because young people are inspired to achieve those scifi goals. But in the midst of all this the fact that we are still dealing with humans has been forgotten and human relationships, the role of family, parenthood etc have been sidelined because western science has simply ignored that as passé.

Western society is headed in th direction of an artificial monster in which men and women are the same in role, aggressiveness capability and strength, sexuality is being pushed towards enjoyment of sex with both sexes by both sexes rather than for procreation. Procreation itself is being increasing seen as an undesirable chore as are maters like bringing up children in a sheltered family environment. Group activities are being replaced by individual activities and freedoms and individual independence form an age when children really should learn to relate to family and be with a parent. And western society is constantly at war. War against wildlife. War against autumn leaves. War against grass longer than a couple of inches . War against pests and varmints. War against diversity of speciation towards uniformity and just a few variants ("melting pot"). War against nature and natural processes fought with inadequate information and massive assumptions. When there are no wars being fought, in leisure time, entertainment consists of conjuring up war against imaginary enemies, space aliens, monsters, dinosaurs, sharks, giant spiders, snakes.

Science fiction does not take the past into account and makes assumptions about biology - often based on the one-sided and flawed psychology and sociology that has made monsters and enemies out of ancient Mayan, Amerindian, Aboriginal and Indian societies.

Crazy stuff that would be laughable if Indians were not hell bent on copying all that.

[A_Gupta]

^^^ Shiv, http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... t#p1687761

(look for Jonathan Haidt).

[chanakyaa]

Posting it here because I find it somewhat relevant to discussion of this dhaga.

The Best Language for Math (Not English)

The Best Language for Math
Confusing English Number Words Are Linked to Weaker Skills

What's the best language for learning math? Hint: You're not reading it.

Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Turkish use simpler number words and express math concepts more clearly than English, making it easier for small children to learn counting and arithmetic, research shows.

The language gap is drawing growing attention amid a push by psychologists and educators to build numeracy in small children—the mathematical equivalent of literacy. Confusing English word names have been linked in several recent studies to weaker counting and arithmetic skills in children. However, researchers are finding some easy ways for parents to level the playing field through games and early practice.

Differences between Chinese and English, in particular, have been studied in U.S. and Chinese schools for decades by Karen Fuson, a professor emerita in the school of education and social policy at Northwestern University, and Yeping Li, an expert on Chinese math education and a professor of teaching, learning and culture at Texas A&M University. Chinese has just nine number names, while English has more than two dozen unique number words.

......more

[Arjun]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... philosophy

The author argues that ISIS is western in origin, specifically, he traces it to the French Revolution. To me it is confirmation of a common problem in these ideologies. Since what ISIS does sounds very much like Muhammad bin Qasim's invasion of Sind, I don't agree with the author.

There is a germ of truth to this article - even though the intention is clearly to whitewash ISIS horrific worldview by giving it a supposedly 'positive' spin. Western philosophy IS rooted in the same Jihadi / Crusader mindset that has been the crucible and marker of the Middle Eastern faiths over the last millennia and more.

There is a very clear distinction to be drawn between Western and Eastern philosophies. And India is where the dividing line occurs. The future survival of the world depends on how soon Eastern (India+East Asian) attitudes and mindset starts dominating over the Western (Christian + Islamic inspired) universalisms. The sooner this occurs the safer and more secure the world will turn out to be. This is really what Modi and Xi need to be talking about in their upcoming summit next week.

[RamaY]

Now, the hierarchy issue:
First consider a family:
Father is the administrator and protector. Kshathriya.
Grandfather is the spiritual and intellectual. Brahmana
Mother and granny provide food. Vaishya
Children do small chores in the home. Shoodhra.

While this example is very romantic and perhaps appealing to some, but it is also patronizing and somewhat demeaning...
I get reminded of the story of the body parts fighting on who is higher in the hierarchy and the arse-e-hole winning!

I seriously ask this question (albeit a very smart Economics prof asked me this question) - why did they come up with only four Varnas? Actually, it was perhaps three to begin with...
Why not just Father and Grandfather? Why not Father, Grandfather, Mother/Granny, Children and Woh?

Chaturvarnas are the basic four Varnas based on key social/Rashtra structures and the associated temperamental attributes in the people filling those positions/roles.

There can be people with temperaments in the cusp of these Varnas. They too have names. For example the cusp of Brahmana&Kshatriya is called Suta; who are given things like running the chariots, military logistics etc., There are such groups in all combinations in both directions male & female (proof that SD valued male & female gene pool equally when it comes to offspring).

[member_22733]

I wish I was ignorant of WU. Knowing it makes life a bit difficult. Literature from the west and "caged" individuals (DIE, RNIs etc) appears hollow, even when the plot and the science are good. I am now re-reading a lot of books I read before in a completely new light.

Suppose you were a world explorer and you "discovered" Great Britain (the same conceit, that other people were "undiscovered" till the West "discovered" them). Now you're reading their literature, exploring their customs. Can you do a better job with them, than they did with us? Or is this inescapable human nature onlee?

I dont know if any of us can answer this question. Every experience we have changes our neural circuits and reshapes memories (this is from the latest research in brain science). WU has been our baseline in judging ourselves in our formative years. So our view of "them" would be biased and will be in one of the extremes. Either we will be understanding them and agreeing with them completely, or we will be disagreeing and hating them completely as a sign of revolt against WU. So constant course correction is necessary when looking at "them" through a non-WU lens.

Balu has an answer to this and you quoted him a few pages back: He was talking about the third option, of an Indian renaissance. That should be the end result of our processing of "them" and "their" contributions to the world.

[member_22733]

And western society is constantly at war. War against wildlife. War against autumn leaves. War against grass longer than a couple of inches . War against pests and varmints. War against diversity of speciation towards uniformity and just a few variants ("melting pot"). War against nature and natural processes fought with inadequate information and massive assumptions. When there are no wars being fought, in leisure time, entertainment consists of conjuring up war against imaginary enemies, space aliens, monsters, dinosaurs, sharks, giant spiders, snakes.

Science fiction does not take the past into account and makes assumptions about biology - often based on the one-sided and flawed psychology and sociology that has made monsters and enemies out of ancient Mayan, Amerindian, Aboriginal and Indian societies.

I have read a lot of sci-fi. Arthur C Clarke stands out from the rest of the crud.

Asimov (Foundation series), HG Wells (The War of the Worlds), Phillip K Dick (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) were all very "war" like sci-fi and I was able to identify their works as a "western way" of looking at things long before I truly understood WU.

Clarke was a total pacifist compared to the other "greats of sci-fi" and he stood out because he could envision a society devoid of technological-mayhem. His sci-fi did not have monsters that are out to "get us". He was very focused on the science part rather than the fiction part.

What surprised me when I re-read his classics, is how deep WU was embedded in the psyche of a man who had left Western society for good. He tried to live among the "other" but he could never fit in. His novels prove that he could never shake off his core beliefs even after 20 years with the "other".

What surprised me even more was realizing that I missed all his apologist tones with respect to western excesses and colonization when I read it for the first time. It is as much a statement of the contrast between my frame of mind at the time of reading those works the first time vs my frame of mind now (approx 13 year gap).

[shiv]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... philosophy

The author argues that ISIS is western in origin, specifically, he traces it to the French Revolution. To me it is confirmation of a common problem in these ideologies. Since what ISIS does sounds very much like Muhammad bin Qasim's invasion of Sind, I don't agree with the author.

Fascinating article. The man has turned on a light in my mind.

He points out that the old Christian rule was that God is sovereign and that all men are under (that) God. People from a Hindu background probably find it difficult to understand the implication here - which is that if you are not a follower of that "one and only God" you are an outcaste and not fit to be considered equal. Islam has the same injunction - which is how you have the concept of heathen or kafir.

But the concept of Westphalian "nation-states" secularized the idea of citizenship under the sovereignty of one God and converted it into citizenship under one nation state. But this happened only after the 30 years intra-Christian wars of Europe and the death of 25% of Europe's population from plague and famine. The pinnacle of this idea of "citizen without separate ethnicity under one nation state" was apparently France.

Although Maududi may have seen France a an example, clearly the "Islamic nation" of Maududi has little similarity with the secular nation state of France. It is more akin to the Catholic/Vatican rule over Europe and ISIS killings are more like the various inquisitions - including Indian version of the Spanish inquisition. The only similarity with France is the avoidance of ethnicity as an identity that comes in between the state and the citizen (in France) or in between Allah and the citizen for ISIS.

However, ISIS is like Christianity before secularization. The US is Chirstianity after secularization.

[shiv]

What surprised me when I re-read his classics, is how deep WU was embedded in the psyche of a man who had left Western society for good. He tried to live among the "other" but he could never fit in. His novels prove that he could never shake off his core beliefs even after 20 years with the "other".

What surprised me even more was realizing that I missed all his apologist tones with respect to western excesses and colonization when I read it for the first time. It is as much a statement of the contrast between my frame of mind at the time of reading those works the first time vs my frame of mind now (approx 13 year gap).

Lokesh, what is needed is to define and write a new sociology and psychology of the west as seen from the eyes of a non western person. If necessary you and me can lay the seeds of that on here.

The west with its scholars and disciplines (eg sociology) that are designed to study "academically" - "the other" - the black and heathen races has never studied itself and has assumed itself as a sort of standard - which is not only a massive academic error, but has failed to note how the standard itself has changed over the decades (and the last 2 centuries).

We need to write down how the non western person sees the west along with its faults and weaknesses. Until this thread started, the standard view has been to spit on and strike down any viewpoint that deviates from the "true path" of how the west sees the world. For me it was only through this thread that I realized that the west is unable to se itself form the eye of an Indian or a non western viewpoint.

[csaurabh]

I disagree that the Western society have no capability of analyzing itself. They do that quite often. Just to give an example.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc ... ss/379976/

Now if this article would have been about India or elsewhere in the world it would probably have had snide comments about religion, caste, tribes, racism, misquoted ancient texts, Aryans, Dravidians and god knows what else. However when they write about themselves, they consciously ignore all those biases..

[Pulikeshi]

Chaturvarnas are the basic four Varnas based on key social/Rashtra structures and the associated temperamental attributes in the people filling those positions/roles.

I was not asking for a classic definition, in this it was trick question and for that I do apologize, I was asking why only four (there are three Gunas, yet four Varna) and even more are the Gunas valid even today? Further more, if we looked at the movie I posted earlier, what Gunas does the West exhibit? what is their Varna system?

My theme if you picked up on it, is not so much how was it (as the WU mistake we make with SD is to view it as static, final declarative conclusion), or the defensive - we too take care of the girl child, but more so -
How is it now? What will it be next? Perhaps in doing this, we answer how is the West now? What will it be next?

It is not so much to defend the Varna-Jati, Varna-Ashrama or Artha-Vyavasta of yore, but to redefine, modify if needed and critic the other in this process.

This thread for me helps question the questions of SD and answer the questions of WU and ask it question in turn.

[Pulikeshi]

I disagree that the Western society have no capability of analyzing itself. They do that quite often.

You are quite correct, and it is also important to analyze those in the west who have rejected WU and are critical of it.
The challenge is that WU is a strawman at one level and at another an 'inception' in our very deracinated minds.
My own view is that it will be a couple of generations before any renaissance can occur... if it even does..

[shiv]

I disagree that the Western society have no capability of analyzing itself. They do that quite often. Just to give an example.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc ... ss/379976/

Now if this article would have been about India or elsewhere in the world it would probably have had snide comments about religion, caste, tribes, racism, misquoted ancient texts, Aryans, Dravidians and god knows what else. However when they write about themselves, they consciously ignore all those biases..

saurabh, when I read that article I somehow got the feeling that the language was similar to the language used when western observers refer to "other" societies. This is not the language used for "our WASP society" So I decided to look deeper - and sure enough this is what I found
Why Rape Is So Much More Common In Alaska

How did Alaska get to be such a dangerous place for women?

Two possible causes are its high population of Native Americans - nearly 15% compared to the 1.2% national average - and its remoteness. South Dakota is also a rural state with a a high Native American population of nearly 9%.

Native Alaskans make up 61% of rape victims in the state, and Native Americans make up 40% of sex assault victims in South Dakota, The New York Times has reported. One in three Native American women has said she's been raped in her lifetime, according to a frequently cited Justice Department report from 2000. Native women are 2.5 times more likely to be raped than women of other races, that report found.

So even here the study is not about the issues in "white western societies" but what is happening to the "other" - Indian societies.

[Vayutuvan]

Lokesh and shiv: both o. Henry and mark twain are considered verboten for American school children today - the former because of his anti-semitism and the latter due to racist material on blacks and native Americans.

I also read a scathing review of the book Robinson Crusoe.

[RamaY]

Chaturvarnas are the basic four Varnas based on key social/Rashtra structures and the associated temperamental attributes in the people filling those positions/roles.

I was not asking for a classic definition, in this it was trick question and for that I do apologize, I was asking why only four (there are three Gunas, yet four Varna) and even more are the Gunas valid even today? Further more, if we looked at the movie I posted earlier, what Gunas does the West exhibit? what is their Varna system?

My theme if you picked up on it, is not so much how was it (as the WU mistake we make with SD is to view it as static, final declarative conclusion), or the defensive - we too take care of the girl child, but more so -
How is it now? What will it be next? Perhaps in doing this, we answer how is the West now? What will it be next?

It is not so much to defend the Varna-Jati, Varna-Ashrama or Artha-Vyavasta of yore, but to redefine, modify if needed and critic the other in this process.

This thread for me helps question the questions of SD and answer the questions of WU and ask it question in turn.

I figured that much from your question!

Let me ask you a question in return. What changed in basic human consciousness, pursuit, behavior & temperament?

Varnas represent human pursuit of knowledge, security, progeny (not money wealth but continuation of progeny/their kind) and pleasure. They were same in 72,786BC, they are same now & they will be same in 10,008 AD. Gunas are how these pursuits are pursued.

I question the very basic premise of changing for the sake of change without understanding what we are trying to change.

WU is pursuit all these only from human perspective, with the definition of humans evolving from Romans only to Christians only to Anglo-Saxons only to citizens of West only and so on....

[Pulikeshi]

Let me ask you a question in return. What changed in basic human consciousness, pursuit, behavior & temperament?

Unless you are kidding... nothing has changed from the Vedic, classical, medieval, Islamic colonialism, European colonialism, to WU induced current times...
If there is a constant in the universe it is human consciousness, pursuit, behavior & temperament.
My sarcasm as always is not welcome, I get that, but you understand where it is coming from...

That said, this is where we disagree. I refuse to follow any 'holy ancient path' as none such exists -
SD is about argumentation, questioning and evolving new paths. WU is about declarations and following THE path.
If we declare (or accept what has been declared per prior conventions in another age) and try to preserve SD, we are doing so only due to WU in our brains.
Funnily, I may end up concluding what you are saying is true, but I cannot come to it without a questioning,
on this either you have already arrived or your cup is full, and I am still in the journey and suspect to be there for a while.

[Vayutuvan]

Pulikeshi: My answer is a little late in coming for your objection to human being having a head, and other body parts etc. as a meaning of pusursha sUkta. But my point was that that is one extreme, i.e. most literal extreme. Purusha as the universal consciousness is the other extreme, i.e. most abstract. all interpretations of the sUkta will lie somewhere in between unless somebody can show the set of interpretations is not compact either it is not closed or it is not bounded. If it is not closed, then one has to admit interpretations which are only partial. If it not bounded from below, there is no ground interpretation. I am unable to put it more formally but that is sort of gist of what I had in mind when I threw that out in this thread.

[shiv]

If we leave out expressions like "Sanatana dharma" and "eternal" and "Western Universalism" - all of which evoke emotions in our our minds - we can look at the question of what we ought to experiment with more objectively. But before rejecting the application of those expressions let me point out that all of them deal with humans at one level. Sanatana dharma claims to go beyond just human life. WU makes no such claim. So I will stick to the question of life on earth, human and non human

Let me first make a Dawkinsian proposal - that given the peculiar physical conditions of earth, life evolved from less complex (to the human brain) organisms to more complex ones. Inherent in this proposal are two statements:
1. All life on earth is related to all other life on earth
2. Life was not created by a God

Do any of these statements fall afoul of Sanatana dharma? No.
Do these statements fall afoul of Western universalism? Yes, because Universalism invokes "right to religion" and some religions call these Dawkinsian statements as false. On another plane, the "rights" espoused by universalism place human rights over and above animal rights. This is is wrong as per Sanatana dharma. Dawkins too sees it as wrong, but we could debate this and say that Sanatana dharma and Dawkins are wrong and that human life is special, and deserving of a special status in the world.

Modern science demands demonstrable proof. Sanatana dharma is a declaration that does not provide proof that humans are special. It does not provide proof to the contrary either. Sanatana dharma posits itself as eternal and does not give a flying fuk even if humans go right ahead and flush themselves down the Pakistan. It only states what "is" for the universe. Whether you believe it or not is up to you. Over the millenniums, humans in India have developed some guidelines for humans to follow. No proof is provided. It is simply stated that for you to conform to dharma, you must behave as x,y,z and that is stated to be for the good of life and the universe. Western Universalism, and the concept of individual freedom demands that these SD guidelines must not be accepted just because they are old and traditional and that they must be held up to modern day standards where they prove themselves to be tangibly and demonstrably beneficial to mankind on Western Universalist terms

in other words Sanatana Dharma has to meet the specifications laid down by western universalism, and western universalism demands that "mankind should benefit". Sanatana dharma does not seek benefit for man and mankind over and above other forms of life on earth or the environment. But at the same time it does not prevent man from acting like he is the greatest. It only suggests conduct that respects for other forms of life, other beliefs and promotes taking only what one needs and no more. It offers no proof that this is the right way.

Sanatana dharma does not provide modern scientific proof that it is wrong for humans to act like they own the world and do things that benefit man over everything else. Western Universalism lays down standards about what is good for human beings and those standards can be met easily as long as you consider humans as top dog and deserving of more resources and special treatment. Within a few years - a society that follows the guidelines of universalism can change itself and become the perfect society for man. This is visible to anyone who visits of lives in developed western nations - at least in percentage of people benefited in comparison to undeveloped nations.

So why on earth should we follow sanatana dharma with its declarations that lack all proof? Even those of us who may believe in sanatana dharma consider ourselves scientists enough that we need "western scientific standards" of proof that SD offers something better than the human benefits that WU points at.

Going one step further, has science provided any proof that western universalism with its emphasis on the primacy of the human condition is wrong? The answer to that is science has shown that the wealthiest human societies are also the most damaging to the environment. Science has shown that damaging the environment is probably not a good thing to do. But science has not managed to show that western universalism with its emphasis on improving the individual human condition is responsible for environment degradation.

In a sense, both environmental science and sanatana dharma are "losers". Also rans. They make all sorts of shaky claims but they cannot provide alternatives. They cannot provide a well fed and healthy human existence which is a direct consequence of the emphasis of western universalism on the primacy of the human condition, over and above the rights of animals or plants.

Are we sticking to sanatana dharma because it is "old" and because it is "ours". Or is there anything there that offers a real alternative to the tangible benefits to human, pleasure, leisure and health that the principles of universalism demand and allow for? Why must we forego excess in exchange for frugality? Why must we accept that pleasure alternates with pain? Why must the pleasure of sex be accompanied by the pain of childbirth and the burden of children? Why not pleasure all the time? Why must humans starve while varmints are well fed? Why not get rid of the varmints as we have the power to do so?

Western Universalism gives you wealth, health and pleasure right now in this life. What does SD offer in comparison?

[RamaY]

Let me ask you a question in return. What changed in basic human consciousness, pursuit, behavior & temperament?

Unless you are kidding... nothing has changed from the Vedic, classical, medieval, Islamic colonialism, European colonialism, to WU induced current times...
If there is a constant in the universe it is human consciousness, pursuit, behavior & temperament.
My sarcasm as always is not welcome, I get that, but you understand where it is coming from...

That said, this is where we disagree. I refuse to follow any 'holy ancient path' as none such exists -
SD is about argumentation, questioning and evolving new paths. WU is about declarations and following THE path.
If we declare (or accept what has been declared per prior conventions in another age) and try to preserve SD, we are doing so only due to WU in our brains.
Funnily, I may end up concluding what you are saying is true, but I cannot come to it without a questioning,
on this either you have already arrived or your cup is full, and I am still in the journey and suspect to be there for a while.

I didn't say anything about 'holy ancient path'. All I am asking is what is the problem we are trying to solve.

SD is just a name as WU, neither eternal nor dharma if it doesn't help us solve any given days problems. It gives us the model. We can use whatever names/structures we want to use. The underlying motivations will remain same; or so I think.

SD isn't holy it is just dharma - often very harsh & brutal with its consequences. SD isn't ancient, it should be as modern as tomorrow. SD isn't a path that we leave when we reach the goal, it is the being.

[RamaY]

Western Universalism gives you wealth, health and pleasure right now in this life. What does SD offer in comparison?

This definition is the problem.

Bharat was wealthy (largest economy), healthy (advanced & universal Ayurveda including preventive Yoga) and pleasure (home of Kamasutra, Khujaraho etc) before one or the other form of WU entered Bharatiya society.

If it were left untouched, by the very definition of progress/evolution, Bharat would have been much advanced (in wealth, health, pleasure matrix) than any nation in the world today.

The proof can be seen from two facts:
1. Indian economy grew to be one of the top 10 economies within 60yrs from its independence. In absolute terms it pulled at least 10 UKs or 2 USAs out of poverty within 6 decades starting from where it was in 1947.

2. India improved its HDI score from o.4 to 0.6 without adding any additional eco-footprint.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/456 ... y_cuba.gif

[ShauryaT]

That said, this is where we disagree. I refuse to follow any 'holy ancient path' as none such exists -
SD is about argumentation, questioning and evolving new paths. WU is about declarations and following THE path.

While one can argue, sometimes incessantly, at some point of time, we would have to accept some common rules and processes. While there may not be "A Path" for some, there are many paths shown by our ancients, worthy of preservation. I for one, choose to go by the principles, values and objectives as set by the ancients, while reinventing its purpose and processes. This process of reinvention can only be true to the SD paths, only and only if one accepts and makes SD's systems as their own and has a measure of "belief" and "faith" in them. This process is similar to what Gandhi ji did, where he saw the message of Ahimsa in the Gita! When asked how he said, it came from his heart. Sri Aruobindo did something similar in his reinterpretation of the Vedas.

Moving to a new SD framework will require something similar. Respecting the paths of the ancients but yet not bound by them.

[ShauryaT]

If it were left untouched, by the very definition of progress/evolution, Bharat would have been much advanced (in wealth, health, pleasure matrix) than any nation in the world today.

OK, this is definitely in the category of "If my aunt had a *ick, she would be ruling my uncle" Anyways, shiv ji has the exact quote.

[shiv]

That said, this is where we disagree. I refuse to follow any 'holy ancient path' as none such exists -
SD is about argumentation, questioning and evolving new paths. WU is about declarations and following THE path.

While one can argue, sometimes incessantly, at some point of time, we would have to accept some common rules and processes. While there may not be "A Path" for some, there are many paths shown by our ancients, worthy of preservation.

By chance, while reading a translation of UR Ananthamurthy's book "Bhava" I came across a reference to the Charvaka school of thought. I did not know of its existence but it seems to me that the Western world is the product of unbridled application of the Charvaka school of thought

http://www.cshe.smsvaranasi.com/docs/sms.pdf

In ethics, the Charvaka regards sensual pleasure as the summum bonum of life. Eat, drink and be merry,
for once the body is reduced to ashes, there is no hope of coming back here again. There is no other world. There is no soul surviving death. Religion is the means of livelihood of the priests. All values are mere phantoms created by a diseased mind. The ethics of the Charvaka is a crude individual hedonism; pleasure of the senses in this life and that too of the individual is the sole end. Out of the four human values - Dharma (righteousness, ethical code of conduct), Artha (wealth), Kama (desires) and Moksha (liberation) - only Kama or sensual pleasure is regarded as the end and Artha or wealth is regarded as the means to realize that end, while Dharma and Moksha are altogether rejected. Pleasure is regarded as mixed up with pain, but that is no reason why it should not be acquired. ‘Nobody casts away the grain because of the husk’. Should nobody cook because of beggars? Should nobody sow seeds because of animals?

http://www.kasarabada.org/One%20more%20thing%2021.html

"Charvaka" school makes clear that Charvaakas have no faith in any religious practice .They denounce religious practices to attain Heaven . They declare all the severe penances to attain salvation are meaningless. All efforts to please Gods and obtain fruits are also useless, according to this school of Philosophy . The main aim of life according to them is to enjoy the life as it happens. This is truly the "Here " and " Now" sect.

According to Charvaakas- it cannot be said that enjoyment of life cannot be the goal of man because there may be pain associated with such enjoyment. A man wanting to eat fish does not reject it because there are bones , nor does a man reject rice because it may carry husk and small stones. It proclaims that it is foolish reasoning that pleasure arising from sense objects should be relinquished as accompanied by pain. It asks ‘ does a man desirous of keeping good health throw away the berries of paddy rich with finest grain considering it to be covered with husk and dust?

There is no heaven ( other than the pleasures on this earth), Therefore it follows that there is no hell other than the pain on this earth. King whose existence is proved by all is the God . The dissolution ( death) of the body is the liberation. Soul and body are one and the same.

All of this probably came as a reaction to Brahmanic schools of thought which pushed rituals and the Vedic philosophy. The Charuvaka philosophy is difficult to set aside because majority of living beings live by this view even if they subscribe to the more esoteric Advaita Philosophy of Sankara or even Dvaita philosophy of Madhvacharya officially.

The thought process of Charuvaka School is ascribed to Brihaspati