Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

[A_Gupta]

Hungary:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-2 ... ngary.html

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said he wants to abandon liberal democracy in favor of an “illiberal state,” citing Russia and Turkey as examples.

[Pulikeshi]

jhineeG: if I understand n.sukta universe is not created deliberately. But my understanding may be deficient.

We have to understand the differences in the models as the first task. We should not confuse the model with the application of the model.

I will post more details in a bit after I pull together the relevant verses in both the n.sukta and p.sukta as well as from the Smriti - The smaller part (known unknown) of the Purusha that is manifest is what is in cyclical time, where as the larger part that is non-manifest (better english words here... unknown unknown) is beyond us. The manifest Purusha was so due to primal desire. Thus we (unlike Christianity which was from original sin) were from original desire. All that is manifest is born from the original kama of the one that breathed alone without air. This is important as this is what gives rise to the Purushartha and to the Gunas, therefore spawning the Varnas. Jatis subscribe to this framework to enable the convention to fit into this declarative setup. This is the model - the masterplan, but what I have here is very crude explanation, it needs to be articulated in greater detail and precision.

Given these are poetic descriptions it is easy to say there is some fluff... but we have not analyzed the vocabulary carefully - for example in the first verse Dasha-Angulam has been translated variously, but I find my own interpretation better - the Purusha pervades beyond what can be characterized by numbers of base 10 (counted on 10 fingers), such a beautiful definition of infinity... Some of these definitions are very precise in the crafting of the language, yet our translations and understanding have been pusillanimous.

Therefore, on this I agree, with some of what you all have said on defining the model better.

[Pulikeshi]

There are other things to consider as well - why if the model was as described above - has it broken down today?
Ironically, the answer lies not only in Islamic and Anglo-Saxon Colonization, but more importantly, because of another problem, I described before of scaling when answering the issues of Ganesha idols and eco friendly marketing of the same today.

The Varna-Jati system worked fairly well for a long time, but was breaking down prior to even the arrival of heterodox systems within the Dharma framework. The challenge was one of scaling, as the population moved from contained groups to large empire and mega-cities, the enforcement needed to become more declarative and less conventions based. Purely Declarative systems inevitably suffer from entropy, given they lack the power to regenerate like those that consume food. This means the rot of the said system had set in long before today. This has not been studying with the seriousness that the subject demands. Simple politically correct lip service is payed by claiming that originally there was more mobility and later it became rigid, until the saviors appeared in the form of Gandhi, Nehru & Ambedkar (etc.) This trivializing and lack of depth in understanding the forces at play is perhaps due to colonial effects, but the original and the continuing decay is not. The culprit is scaling, now before you think I am another Malthusian, let me disabuse of such a notion. All I am suggesting is that newer models and framework is required to handing the scaling and change in context.

If you agree with my proposal, you may think the West immune to the problems of scaling. Again ironically, it can be shown that what the West is dealing with today are also problems due to scaling. If success itself is its worst enemy, the adoption of WU itself seeds its demise. WU is brilliant at tactical solutions, but it has no overarching framework that enables natural markets like SD does... this means as it tries to scale, random unintentional technological, often contradictory, innovations can occur. This has continued to the point today where most individuals have less power, while the promise of is more rights. The individual is less connected to each other, while the promise is of lower cost of transportation, communication, etc. The individual has more gadgets, while her mental condition is no more stable. The criticism along these line can continue, but I stop here hoping to have made the point. When folks like Kurzweil pitch the idea of the Technological Singularity by 2040 - "wherein artificial intelligence will exceed human intellectual capacity and control, thus radically changing or even ending civilization in an event called the singularity." These predictions are done with no idea on what is contributing to the said trajectory, therefore ironically contributing to its predicted direction. WU is leading humanity close to extinction if one were to believe these intellectuals. Whereas the developing world is being increasingly goaded to join this end.

[RamaY]

^ original desire is a poor translation of "Karana/causal" sambandha/relation.

In a cyclical creation (Vyakta/perceivable universe?) the seed is the karana sambandha. This karana sets the initial conditions only. Free will of humans (do non-human animate and inanimate beings have free will?) can/do change the evolution process every time, while keeping the larger cycles similar (not same).

[Pulikeshi]

^^^ Please translate कामस्तदग्रे समवर्तताधि from the fourth section of the n.sukta question part...

[shiv]

There are other things to consider as well - why if the model was as described above - has it broken down today?
Ironically, the answer lies not only in Islamic and Anglo-Saxon Colonization, but more importantly, because of another problem, I described before of scaling when answering the issues of Ganesha idols and eco friendly marketing of the same today.

The Varna-Jati system worked fairly well for a long time, but was breaking down prior to even the arrival of heterodox systems within the Dharma framework. The challenge was one of scaling, as the population moved from contained groups to large empire and mega-cities, the enforcement needed to become more declarative and less conventions based. Purely Declarative systems inevitably suffer from entropy, given they lack the power to regenerate like those that consume food. This means the rot of the said system had set in long before today. This has not been studying with the seriousness that the subject demands. Simple politically correct lip service is payed by claiming that originally there was more mobility and later it became rigid, until the saviors appeared in the form of Gandhi, Nehru & Ambedkar (etc.) This trivializing and lack of depth in understanding the forces at play is perhaps due to colonial effects, but the original and the continuing decay is not. The culprit is scaling, now before you think I am another Malthusian, let me disabuse of such a notion. All I am suggesting is that newer models and framework is required to handing the scaling and change in context.

If you agree with my proposal, you may think the West immune to the problems of scaling. Again ironically, it can be shown that what the West is dealing with today are also problems due to scaling. If success itself is its worst enemy, the adoption of WU itself seeds its demise. WU is brilliant at tactical solutions, but it has no overarching framework that enables natural markets like SD does... this means as it tries to scale, random unintentional technological, often contradictory, innovations can occur. This has continued to the point today where most individuals have less power, while the promise of is more rights. The individual is less connected to each other, while the promise is of lower cost of transportation, communication, etc. The individual has more gadgets, while her mental condition is no more stable. The criticism along these line can continue, but I stop here hoping to have made the point. When folks like Kurzweil pitch the idea of the Technological Singularity by 2040 - "wherein artificial intelligence will exceed human intellectual capacity and control, thus radically changing or even ending civilization in an event called the singularity." These predictions are done with no idea on what is contributing to the said trajectory, therefore ironically contributing to its predicted direction. WU is leading humanity close to extinction if one were to believe these intellectuals. Whereas the developing world is being increasingly goaded to join this end.

Pulikeshi these are valid observations. I have mentioned the "scaling problem" from time to time (mostly not on this thread) but had not managed to coin such an elegant expression.

I have believed that the Abrahamic religions were themselves an attempt at scaling up the number of people who could be "united and controlled" under one banner. That wasn't good enough since competing mirror image religions emerged. Islam was almost a "mooh tod jawab" to Christianity.

Secular Democracy was one step up in scaling, trying to meld religious clefts under the democracy bandwagon. But I have argued in this thread that as a method of "scaling up" the number of people under one system, democracy too fails simply because democracies are dependent on and restricted to nation states. The "international behaviour" of a democratic nation state can resist scaling up further when the people within one democracy choose to oppose or topple another democratic nation state or support and perpetuate a theocratic or autocratic state. So democracy can sow the seeds for restricting itself - so much for the argument that democracy is the best system for all.

The concept of "nation states" itself is technically anti-freedom. You can have "freedom and democracy" on a less than global "nation state" scale but getting beyond that is not happening and seems unlikely given the current circumstances. In the meantime the greed and consumer demands within nation states that consider themselves as representing universally desirable attributes is directly contributing to poverty, want, enslavement and environmental degradation of other states. For those "other states" democracy and freedom are held up as ideals but that is pure sophistry - no one wants real freedom and democracy in a nation that is providing resources at low cost to others.

"Equality" is incompatible with capitalism and free markets. Yet both equality and free markets are pushed as universally desirable traits. For people who have great takleef with the ostensible inequality of the varna system, I would like to point out that they have their eyes closed. Egalitarianism is absent in the Abrahamic religions; it is absent in democracies; it is absent in free economies. Why constantly bash the Hindu varna system as the epitome of inequality?

[A_Gupta]

"janm na jayet shudra sanskara dwij uchyate"

Why bash Hindu varna system? Because it enables one to ignore most of the Hindu writings as "casteist". Because it makes Hindus apologetic.

The US constitution began with allowing slavery, counting blacks as 3/5 of a person as far as apportioning Congressional seats by population. It has been amended of course, but its legitimacy is never really put in question. So why is not the case with any Dharma Shastra, Gita, etc.?

Here is where the second trap comes in. "Hinduism is a religion" and in a religion the holy books came from God and are not amendable, except by God. When (modern) Hindus rework their society, customs, practices, etc., it is somehow no longer "authentic" because it is not in accord with the ancient texts, blah, blah, blah.

Jakob de Roover, one of Balu's students, wrote this which, I think, makes the point:
http://www.hipkapi.com/2012/06/23/dawki ... -delusion/

To quote:

While re-reading certain passages from Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion (2006), I was so shocked by his combination of ignorance and arrogance. Forgive me for some Dawkins- bashing:

1. In a memorable passage, Dawkins discusses the problem of Trinitarianism in Christianity and extends it to other forms of “polytheism,” such as the cult of the Virgin Mary and the saints in Roman-Catholicism. “What impresses me about Catholic mythology,” he shares with the reader, “is partly its tasteless kitsch but mostly the airy nonchalance with which these people make up the details as they go along. It is just shamelessly invented” (Dawkins 2006: 35).

As a reader, try to bracket away all presuppositions about religion and reread the sentences. If you succeed in doing so, the impact of Dawkins’ claim dissolves. So what, if certain details of Roman-Catholicism are human inventions? What is the problem in aspects of religion being “shamelessly invented”? From a non-Christian, neutral point of view, it is unclear why Dawkins bothers to mention this. However, anyone with a basic understanding of the history of Christianity will note where his claim comes from: Dawkins himself reproduces a piece of theology in this sentence (apparently without knowing it). From its earliest beginnings, Christianity claimed that it was the original and pure revelation of God, first given to Adam. This original revelation had been corrupted by sinful idolaters, seduced by the Devil into the worship of the false god and his minions. This corruption, according to Christian theology, took the form of human additions to the pure divine revelation: rites and myths, fabricated by priests and prelates.

During the Protestant Reformation, Luther, Calvin and their followers began to accuse the Roman-Catholic Church of the same sin of idolatry. They cried that the pope and his priests had invented a plethora of dogmas and rituals and imposed these on the believer as though they were part of God’s revelation and necessary to salvation. In this sense, the worst accusation one could make against Roman- Catholicism was that it consisted of “shameless human inventions.” The Enlightenment philosophes extended such charges of idolatry to all of Christianity and to all “religions” of humanity. All of these, including the notion of God itself, were human fabrications, the atheists among them claimed. Ironically, Enlightenment atheism thus presupposed and built on the claims of Christian theology. Without the background belief that there is something intrinsically wrong in religion being a human invention—very much a Christian belief—the impact of such charges simply disappears into thin air.

At this first level, Dawkins reproduces Christian theology, even though he masks it as an atheistic insight that is supposed to liberate humanity from religion.

I've highlighted the key points above. We are trapped in this idea of religion, and forget we Hindus are totally free to invent. We are ***not Abrahamic***, and that is our strength. (Well, not totally free, in the sense that we do want to maintain identity and continuity, and that puts constraints on our innovations.) Apart from the Veda Samhita for the aastikas, everything else we Hindus have boils down to "human invention" (I count avataars as human.). So what are we afraid of? Why have centuries of Islamics and Christians successfully been able to browbeat us with "my God is bigger/truer than your God"? so that we get stuck in a textual fundamentalism?

[ShauryaT]

So what are we afraid of? Why have centuries of Islamics and Christians successfully been able to browbeat us with "my God is bigger/truer than your God"? so that we get stuck in a textual fundamentalism?

My thinking on the why comes down to one word. "Organization" or the lack thereof. This lack of organization has two dimensions. 1. Lack of organization amongst our spiritual/philosophical structures to evolve our smritis, shastras, puraanas and itihaas as per times, which would reiterate a bond through common principles, values and objectives for individuals and society in a more structured manner.

2. Lack of large political entities to defend and protect against external aggression and cohesive functioning in the Indian land mass (until ROI).

We have item 2, for the most part - the task at hand is to change the nature of the state and promote better organizational unity amongst our sampradayas along with newer thinking groups to form a nation-state, which looks like an evolution of the Indian land mass as opposed to a foreign imposed construct.

Now, if I say, how to do this, I will run foul of MatrimC's caveat of "Practicality".

[shiv]

For a few days now - ever since someone pointed to a link that led to my enlightenment that rapes are common among the indigenous peoples (Injuns) of Alaska, I have been trying to find out why black American society has lost the plot.

If you go back 1000 years - you will find that American Indian tribes had a thriving culture in which they were at peace with themselves - their deities, spirits and their environment. The same holds true for the tribes of Africa.

In both cases the original culture has been replaced by a European Christian culture that has morphed into a monster "secular individualistic culture with white European Christian roots".

Googal tells me that the last slave ship entering the US was around 1860ish. My own paternal grandfather was born in 1888 - so there must be people today in the US whose grandfathers were born in 1860 and grew up in an environment in which slaves were segregated but retained some elements of their old African tribal culture as a straw to clutch at a time of great upheaval.

The structure of the brain itself (interconnections) gets modified depending on language and culture and I am certain that American Indian and African culture would probably suit those people if only it would somehow magically com back. But it may be too late. The peoples have been raped - and a different culture imposed. To an extent - Indian Macaulayites become that way - but they are protected by solid links to the old languages and culture within India - although our education system is disruptive of both language and culture - inculcating a sense of shame in one's past and pride in copying western norms of Individual greed over-ruling responsibilities to the group.

[RamaY]

Best example of limitation of democracy is AP with the Telangana agitation.

[TSJones]

For a few days now - ever since someone pointed to a link that led to my enlightenment that rapes are common among the indigenous peoples (Injuns) of Alaska, I have been trying to find out why black American society has lost the plot.

If you go back 1000 years - you will find that American Indian tribes had a thriving culture in which they were at peace with themselves - their deities, spirits and their environment. The same holds true for the tribes of Africa.

In both cases the original culture has been replaced by a European Christian culture that has morphed into a monster "secular individualistic culture with white European Christian roots".

Googal tells me that the last slave ship entering the US was around 1860ish. My own paternal grandfather was born in 1888 - so there must be people today in the US whose grandfathers were born in 1860 and grew up in an environment in which slaves were segregated but retained some elements of their old African tribal culture as a straw to clutch at a time of great upheaval.

The structure of the brain itself (interconnections) gets modified depending on language and culture and I am certain that American Indian and African culture would probably suit those people if only it would somehow magically com back. But it may be too late. The peoples have been raped - and a different culture imposed. To an extent - Indian Macaulayites become that way - but they are protected by solid links to the old languages and culture within India - although our education system is disruptive of both language and culture - inculcating a sense of shame in one's past and pride in copying western norms of Individual greed over-ruling responsibilities to the group.

You should speak to what you know about. American Indians had slaves a 1000 years ago primarily from intertribal warfare. They also had things like ceremonial torture of their captives. They would kill a selected child if they thought a great sacrifice was required. they also, like everybody else, had their good side, made peace and traded with each other. In short, they were and still are, humans. They were basically a stone age people, visited and invaded by a modern technical culture and they were not adapted to the diseases that came with the invaders. May God forgive us. Read the book "1491".

[member_22733]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Myth ... h_Conquest

Chapter 7 deals with what Restall calls "The Myth of Superiority" — the belief that the success of the Spanish conquest was due to either the supposed technological superiority of the Spaniards or a kind of inherent cultural superiority — and that Spanish victory was therefore inevitable. Restall claims that such technological advantages as handguns, cannons, steel armor, horses and dogs weren't of great consequence in the actual fighting since they were all in short supply, and that the Aztecs were not daunted by this new technology for long. He also refutes the notion that the Indians' lack of alphabetic writing constituted a major drawback. Nor were the Indians childlike, naive or cowardly in comparison with the Spanish such as many early Spanish sources have painted them. Restall argues that the factors behind the success of the conquistadors were mostly the devastating effect of European diseases for which the Indians had no resistance, the disunity between indigenous groups some of which allied with the Spaniards early, the technological advantage of the steel sword, native battle practices that were not upheld by the Spaniards — such as killing non-combatants and civilians, and most importantly the fact that the Indians were fighting on their own ground with their families and fields to care for, which made them quicker to compromise.

Brishit barbarians and Mogul barbarians were the first to kill non-combatants and civilians in India. In most of ancient India, according to historical records, civilian deaths and rapes are unknown. Warring is common in ancient India, but it never descended to rape/torture of non-combatants or civilians. The Brishits and Moguls changed it, just like the Spaniards and the Brishit folks did in the Americas. Technological advancement does not come automatically with cultural advancement. Going around with a sniper rifle killing innocent people makes you a technologically advanced barbarian and nothing else

Calling BS on the following:

You should speak to what you know about. American Indians had slaves a 1000 years ago primarily from intertribal warfare. They also had things like ceremonial torture of their captives. They would kill a selected child if they thought a great sacrifice was required. they also, like everybody else, had their good side, made peace and traded with each other. In short, they were and still are, humans. They were basically a stone age people, visited and invaded by a modern technical culture {ever read about the spanish inquisition and the Pope's pear} and they were not adapted to the diseases that came with the invaders. May God forgive us. Read the book "1491".

Native Americans are one of the most obese folks in the US now, the reason is they cannot take sugar/HFCS due to insulin resistance. Sugar/HFCS is the cheapest thing that poor people can afford that gives them biggest caloric bang for the buck.

[RamaY]

1. Lack of organization amongst our spiritual/philosophical structures to evolve our smritis, shastras, puraanas and itihaas as per times, which would reiterate a bond through common principles, values and objectives for individuals and society in a more structured manner.

2. Lack of large political entities to defend and protect against external aggression and cohesive functioning in the Indian land mass (until ROI).

Point 1 on its own never stopped the society to define new smritis. Point 2 leads to point 1.

[ShauryaT]

They were basically a stone age people, visited and invaded by a modern technical culture and they were not adapted to the diseases that came with the invaders. May God forgive us. Read the book "1491".

Stone Age! See these are characterizations based on what the white race was accustomed to, of associating permanent settlements with fences with settled civilization. However, for the natives the concept of "settling" down in one place was an alien concept. A concept ill suited to their way of life, which moved to different lands due to seasons and the idea that after harvesting a crop in a given land mass, to let the land recover. The white races not only invaded their lands but sought to evaluate their culture to be "inferior" to the way the whites lived - leading them to be called uncivilized. This process of hounding their way of life continued, until they were decimated and driven to narrow or god forsaken lands. I hope god forgives you all.

[member_22733]

Indeed, the first writings of Native Americans on Spaniards were that they were ugly barbarians.

The exact opposite was the impression of Spaniards on the Native Americans when they first met. They were taken aback by the Aztec cities in that they were much better architecture than anything they saw in Spain at that time, and this is from the writing of Spaniards themselves. They were in awe, before they started their mass murder

[TSJones]

They were basically a stone age people, visited and invaded by a modern technical culture and they were not adapted to the diseases that came with the invaders. May God forgive us. Read the book "1491".

Stone Age! See these are characterizations based on what the white race was accustomed to, of associating permanent settlements with fences with settled civilization. However, for the natives the concept of "settling" down in one place was an alien concept. A concept ill suited to their way of life, which moved to different lands due to seasons and the idea that after harvesting a crop in a given land mass, to let the land recover. The white races not only invaded their lands but sought to evaluate their culture to be "inferior" to the way the whites lived - leading them to be called uncivilized. This process of hounding their way of life continued, until they were decimated and driven to narrow or god forsaken lands. I hope god forgives you all.

Stone Age in that they had very little use of metal. vs. Iron Age, etc. You don't like classification, too bad.

[Pulikeshi]

1. Lack of organization amongst our spiritual/philosophical structures to evolve our smritis, shastras, puraanas and itihaas as per times, which would reiterate a bond through common principles, values and objectives for individuals and society in a more structured manner.

2. Lack of large political entities to defend and protect against external aggression and cohesive functioning in the Indian land mass (until ROI).

1. The organization exists, but it does not resemble what we would recognize it to be as one. The ascetic and monastic folks of SD are not recluses from society, on the contrary, they have complete access to society irrespective of where they came from originally. They are agents of change, but not in a organized way that one would recognize. Once in a rare while this organization becomes visible. Like the Yagna altar and support structures, everything goes back to nature after displaying its organized state. What is unfortunate is none of them have taken up this cause... I am still trying to learn what triggered them to act historically... typically one or more of them worked with learned folks to request that they clarify the law books again for all. Another cycle began...

2. Nation-states (esp modern Westphalian ones) are ill equipped to protect civilizational values. I cannot seem to find the original from the Vishnu Purana, there is a verse which talks about why the Indian Sub-Continent (Bharata) is a KarmaBhoomi, whereas the remaining are referred to as BhogaBhoomi - not sure if this was ancient psy-ops, but the defense of Bharata is not that of a nation-state, but by the constituents of the region and the living culture of its people. Here the battle has been lost.
India is secular and cannot apply itself to protect civilization and the region is well, the less said...

[Pulikeshi]

You should speak to what you know about. American Indians had slaves a 1000 years ago primarily from intertribal warfare. They also had things like ceremonial torture of their captives. They would kill a selected child if they thought a great sacrifice was required. they also, like everybody else, had their good side, made peace and traded with each other. In short, they were and still are, humans. They were basically a stone age people, visited and invaded by a modern technical culture and they were not adapted to the diseases that came with the invaders. May God forgive us. Read the book "1491".

You make it so easy, perhaps you enjoy the pain, why not just paint a target on yourself?

Blame the victims, defame them, show yourself as superior and then ask God to forgive you!
Sounds like that is a great summation of the strategy followed by every vile conqueror since the beginning of time.

[member_22733]

I am gonna be a bit un-PC here. There is a game I used to play in my mind when I visit any kind of forum, and it is: Identify the whitey.

I dont play it these days. The reason is that I can "smell" the stench of the standard "defenses" of their ancestors excesses. The colonial apologist, Eurocentric historian, slavery justifier, the "I am white and therefore sup-e-rear", and "my ancestors effed you over, deal with it" types. I have become so sensitive to that stench, that I dont even have to play the game, I can guess almost right away.

Specimen here:

Stone Age in that they had very little use of metal. vs. Iron Age, etc. You don't like classification, too bad.

Wiki mamu has this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy ... an_America

Indigenous Americans have been using native metals from ancient times, with recent finds of gold artifacts in the Andean region dated to 2155–1936 BCE. and North American copper finds dated to approximately 5000 BCE. The metal would have been found in nature without need for smelting techniques and shaped into the desired form using heat and cold hammering techniques without chemically altering it by alloying it. To date "no one has found evidence that points to the use of melting, smelting and casting in prehistoric eastern North America." In South America the case is quite different. Indigenous South Americans had full metallurgy with smelting and various metals being purposely alloyed. Metallurgy in Mesoamerica developed from contacts with South America

[TSJones]

You should speak to what you know about. American Indians had slaves a 1000 years ago primarily from intertribal warfare. They also had things like ceremonial torture of their captives. They would kill a selected child if they thought a great sacrifice was required. they also, like everybody else, had their good side, made peace and traded with each other. In short, they were and still are, humans. They were basically a stone age people, visited and invaded by a modern technical culture and they were not adapted to the diseases that came with the invaders. May God forgive us. Read the book "1491".

You make it so easy, perhaps you enjoy the pain, why not just paint a target on yourself?

Blame the victims, defame them, show yourself as superior and then ask God to forgive you!
Sounds like that is a great summation of the strategy followed by every vile conqueror since the beginning of time.[/quote

I can't help it if you guys don't know or understand native American tribal history but still feel compelled to spout off about it. Try reading up on it first.

[TSJones]

I am gonna be a bit un-PC here. There is a game I used to play in my mind when I visit any kind of forum, and it is: Identify the whitey.

I dont play it these days. The reason is that I can "smell" the stench of the standard "defenses" of their ancestors excesses. The colonial apologist, Eurocentric historian, slavery justifier, the "I am white and therefore sup-e-rear", and "my ancestors effed you over, deal with it" types. I have become so sensitive to that stench, that I dont even have to play the game, I can guess almost right away.

Specimen here:

Stone Age in that they had very little use of metal. vs. Iron Age, etc. You don't like classification, too bad.

Like the stench of a hypocrite that calls all descendants of the British people racist and Nazis?

[member_22733]

^^^^ Troll alert. Spouting bull$hit without supporting evidence.

LOL you calling me hypocrite. I am sorry, Brishits were racist nazis, and their descendants have to live with that fact. If you accept your ancestry as "proudly brishit" then you also need to accept their "unproudly" moments in history. The fact that Brishitland has not redeemed itself nor has expressed any serious remorse for the mass murder they committed in India makes them nothing but nazi phucks.

I only have issues with white people who have are unable to think outside their racial eurocentric mindset (which is 99.9% of white population that I have come across).

[TSJones]

[quote="LokeshC"]^^^^ Troll alert. Spouting bull$hit without supporting evidence.[/quote

You even got called on it by another poster who posted a picture of someone who had a British mother.

[member_22733]

That poster was also spouting bullshit and soon got banned for trolling . Understandably you two would get along quite well.

Can we stop this now, Mr. TrollS Jones?

[shiv]

You should speak to what you know about. American Indians had slaves a 1000 years ago primarily from intertribal warfare. They also had things like ceremonial torture of their captives. They would kill a selected child if they thought a great sacrifice was required. they also, like everybody else, had their good side, made peace and traded with each other. In short, they were and still are, humans. They were basically a stone age people, visited and invaded by a modern technical culture and they were not adapted to the diseases that came with the invaders. May God forgive us. Read the book "1491".

No thanks for the gratuitous advice about what I should speak about - you can stuff it up your Sunnyvale.

You have repeated your version of someone else's history. You will see, on this thread and other threads, others' versions of your history.

[member_22733]

You have repeated your version of someone else's history. You will see, on this thread and other threads, others' versions of your history.

Shiv,

It is very difficult for someone who is submerged in white/eurocentric history to see it from an alternative perspective. It would need rejection of their own history (and thus their own historians) and also unlearning a lot of myths.

TSJ is not trolling because he wants to. TSJ REALLY believes in what he is saying. Just that what he and people like him believe in is some fine cured nandi dropping served up by his ancestors from the time they were sucking their mama's teats.

To these folks any alternate "competing" history will immediately be dismissed. Any role for white Europeans and their descendants that highlight something other than "mighty whitey" or "benevolent colonizer" will cause a deep cognitive dissonance. TSJ is commenting out of hurt and pain. He wont tell you that, but that is the case.

Most white people who have debated (and almost all of them lost) with me are in that category. They seriously believe in their myths, which are peddled as facts.

[Vayutuvan]

Now, if I say, how to do this, I will run foul of MatrimC's caveat of "Practicality".

Flights of imagination need to have some basis, no?

All of us can pine for satya yuga before its time. The only way to achieve that in our lifetimes is a two part process (in my very humble opinion and all that apply to whatever I say as always)

1) Stand on the shoulders of giants of philosophers of science and philosophers of Politics (nay Economics)
2) take steps mostly going forward - many many many small ones or a few very large ones.

[shiv]

They were basically a stone age people, visited and invaded by a modern technical culture and they were not adapted to the diseases that came with the invaders. May God forgive us. Read the book "1491".

Stone Age in that they had very little use of metal. vs. Iron Age, etc. You don't like classification, too bad.

It's funny that you reserve the right to say things that you know nothing about while you ask me to write about things that you think I don't know about. That is so much like an evangelist preaching to a potential convert

"Very little use of metal" is a "let me quickly cover my ass" qualification of "stone age". Stone age is stone age as in no known metal

On the other hand copper was mined in 3000 BC in - you guessed it - in the land that was later to become the US of A, the land of freedom to bullshit anyone at will
http://www.philipcoppens.com/copper.html

The era around 3000 BC saw more than 500,000 tons of copper being mined in the so-called Upper Peninsula, in the American state of Michigan.

"Very little use of metal" eh? Talk about cognitive bias

There is an entire free ebook about all this for those who accept that they may not know some things.
http://www.amazon.in/Ancient-America-No ... rchaeology

[Pulikeshi]

I can't help it if you guys don't know or understand native American tribal history but still feel compelled to spout off about it. Try reading up on it first.

Enough with the presumptions - generalizing them all into one category itself displays ignorance.
500 nations each with its own distinct culture, civilization, technology and ideas, all wiped out in a genocide with no remorse!
Thinking there is a linear progression from stone to bronze to iron to nuclear is another! Some of us learn nothing from history!

Even a 10 year old kid in the US with a good quality education would trump you!
Again, I suspect you are not who you say you are...

Perhaps not their side of their story, but a start for those interested -

500 Nations The Story of Indian Americans Part 1
500 Nations The Story of Indian Americans Part 2

[shiv]

To these folks any alternate "competing" history will immediately be dismissed.

I can see that and I can also see the cognitive dissonance in the instant reaction.

American Indians and African Americans came from a culture that was wiped clean using the same justifications about the backwardness of their respective cultures that TSJones eloquently provides about the red Indians. That is what he was taught. No alternative view can exist. "There is no God but God and <insert moniker here> is his name."

There is no history other than the history of my people.
Ultiimately the only argument that works is "Well, we won"

I would accept that argument. In fact that is what I am trying to point out here. Victors erase the history of losers. But some losers do not lose all their history.

In fact this is a clasic example of how sociologists are now analyzing these Indian and Black societies from the prism of white American culture and act dumb as if they cannot explain what is happening. They need to get back and do a serious study of Injun and American cultures before - not a biased one of how bad they were for 15,000 years "till we corrected them 150 years ago"

My criticism of western sociology is their inability to see western culture through the eyes of a non western person. That is not science. It's bullshit. Or religion. Or plain dumb racism. Take your pick.

[member_23692]

1) It is a fact that the Native American Tribes, many of them, although not all of them, had slaves. And there were many many tribes.

2) It is also a fact that the Europeans have been extremely racists towards non-europeans and have perpetrated atrocities against almost all non-europeans, including genocide, ethnic cleansing and clearing people of their lands like trees to grab it.

3) It is also a fact that a lot of non-europeans have been extremely racists towards the "other" and have perpetrated atrocities against "others" including committing genocide against certain people.

4) It is also a fact that the undermining of Modi that has been going on since his election in May, first by Biharis in the Bihar by-election polls, then people of MP in their by-election polls, and yesterday by people of UP, Rajasthan and even Gujarat in their by-election polls, while being the classic continuation of a suicidal and massively delusional trajectory that India has been since the last 1000 years, has nothing to do with either the slave owning native Americans or the genocidal Europeans or the ethnic cleanser non-europeans, mentioned in point number 3 above. This undermining of Modi and resumption of stupid and suicidal behavior by Indians is all their own doing, completely Indian in character and tactics. It was so predictable, I had predicted it two days or so after Modi's election, which got one particular prolific brf poster's "chaddi abnormally stiff".

Not to mention, the "amusing, if it just was'nt so sad" drama of our esteemed Prime Minister having to hide his tail under his dhoti and warmly embrace and welcome the same Chinese President, whose unusually large number of forces, that very minute were obstinately refusing to leave the Indian territory that they had knowingly trespassed into. I understand that standoff still continues, and is likely to continue until the Chinese President is on Indian soil, in a show of clear superiority over Indians and heap humiliations on them in the most sadistic way possible.

Forget it folks. No amount of European bashing is going to save India now. The native Americans may have had their slaves and the West may have committed not one, not two but three genocides, but none of them really caused India to be where it is today..........down in the gutter..........doing that to the Indians was......all their own doing......and continues to be their own doing, and unfortunately, will continue to be their own doing...........and all these clumsy attempts to get the Indians all riled up on the drug called "other bashing", is not going to get the Indians out of this gutter.....

That is not trolling, that is a simple fact and even as our civilization dies and perishes, let us at least, some of us at least, man up and call a spade a spade.

[member_22733]

Ultiimately the only argument that works is "Well, we won"

I would accept that argument. In fact that is what I am trying to point out here. Victors erase the history of losers. But some losers do not lose all their history.

That is the last resort of a western universalists when they lose arguments. Its almost a pattern, start with a "mighty whitey" quote, when countered go to "benevolent imperialist" quote, when challenged go to "well, we won, deal with it".

There is nothing here for us to "deal with", really and they dont realize that where I am coming from is not the same place as where they are coming from. If they understand that, then they would see through their arguments. But they inevitably fail to understand that the problem lies within them, and I really have nothing to do with it.

The days of erasing history are gone. Thanks to another tool of science: Internet and digital media. Now before someone says it was "invented" by the white man, let them be reminded that we "invented" the number system and trigonometry that the white man used to design weapons that were promptly used against us.

The problem with liberal information access on internet and digital media is why Unkil and Oiropean powers want to control it. They want to be in control of their narratives, their myths and their positions. They will do anything they can to defend it.

[Pulikeshi]

rsangram - perhaps you should put up a link selling a free whip with spikes for self flagellation to anyone who reads your 'woe is me!'

[member_22733]

1) It is a fact that the Native American Tribes, many of them, although not all of them, had slaves. And there were many many tribes.

3) It is also a fact that a lot of non-europeans have been extremely racists towards the "other" and have perpetrated atrocities against "others" including committing genocide against certain people.

I am going to be a bit crass here:
If my neighbor rapes a woman and I come to know about it, is it OK for me to rape his wife and daughter? Because that is what you are saying here.

Forget it folks. No amount of European bashing is going to save India now. The native Americans may have had their slaves and the West may have committed not one, not two but three genocides, but none of them really caused India to be where it is today..........down in the gutter..........doing that to the Indians was......all their own doing......and continues to be their own doing, and unfortunately, will continue to be their own doing...........and all these clumsy attempts to get the Indians all riled up on the drug called "other bashing", is not going to get the Indians out of this gutter....

I can sympathize with what you are saying (although I may not agree with some of your points), but that is not what this thread is about.

[shiv]

but that is not what this thread is about.

His posts don't show up on my machine - but I saw what you quoted.

The man is completely unable to start a thread of a topic that interests him and keep it going - so all he does is cry a river of tears on the wrong threads about his favourite peeves. He really should start a thread - I am sure it will attract interest and attention given his deep involvement and intense dedication. But he does not seem to have the motivation to start a thread on his own. Starting a thread about what moves him is probably less important than crapping on other threads. That is a time-honoured but cheap way of pushing a personal agenda designed to catch eyeballs in unrelated threads - like ads in the Pakistan thread.

[member_22733]

^^^ Yep, he wants to solve it "now". This place is to understand part of how we got where we are, much less about solutions.

[shiv]

My thinking on the why comes down to one word. "Organization" or the lack thereof. This lack of organization has two dimensions. 1. Lack of organization amongst our spiritual/philosophical structures to evolve our smritis, shastras, puraanas and itihaas as per times, which would reiterate a bond through common principles, values and objectives for individuals and society in a more structured manner.

2. Lack of large political entities to defend and protect against external aggression and cohesive functioning in the Indian land mass (until ROI).

We have item 2, for the most part - the task at hand is to change the nature of the state and promote better organizational unity amongst our sampradayas along with newer thinking groups to form a nation-state, which looks like an evolution of the Indian land mass as opposed to a foreign imposed construct.

Now, if I say, how to do this, I will run foul of MatrimC's caveat of "Practicality".

Shaurya - your post and thoughts I had set off by two pf Pulikeshi's posts are related.

Pulikeshi mentioned "scaling" and you are talking about scaling in the form of "large political entities to defend and protect against external aggression"

Funnily enough, it was Pulikeshi again who linked the American Indian history videos of 500 nations formed by the Red Indian tribes.

In many ways India too was several hundred nations following a common umbrella culture. Perhaps we were lucky that the land was/is rich and heavily populated allowing a very powerful culture to unite without suicidal infighting.

I have earlier referred to the idea that the religions were an attempt at scaling up the number of people united under one cause. Democracy is also one such idea - but democracy too fails in being applicable to all peoples globally - democracies fight and undermine other democracies for their own benefit, like Islam vs Christianity

Looking at Indian history and at Red Indian history - it may be that political scaling to make one whole united global mass of humanity is just not possible. The most stable configuration is multiple nations, multiple religions, multiple languages, multiple cultures that co-exist with their environment, including flora and fauna.

What is needed is the wherewithal to stop multiple nations that coexist from being overrun by united rapine forces. The UN is a dismal failure in this regard.

[vishvak]

A question of standards in WU. From this link: link

U.S. officials and Pope Pius XII agreed the south should remain under the control of wealthy anti-communist Catholics although the Buddhist majority was estimated at between 70% and 90% of the population. Both Pius and New York Cardinal Francis Spellman lobbied for Ngo Dinh Diem, whose brother was archbishop of Hue, to be installed as the CIA-approved “pliable leader” in South Vietnam.

"Diem’s suppression of free speech, promotion of Catholicism and persecution of his political enemies including many Buddhist religious leaders dashed any hopes of the South Vietnamese for a democracy,” driving many Vietnamese to the communist cause.

The buddhists are democratic by default. However, those who enforced denial of democracy to millions of budhhists have never been declared PNG (personna non grata) in 'international' matters. Compare it with Indian PM who has been elected with hugh mandate and who is 3 times elected CM of a state.

The budhhists were barbarically colonized first by France, then denied democracy by Pope+US officials and then bombed after taking help of Russia under label of communists. The question is, what are the standards of democracy that WU blabbers about Vietnam, barbaric colonial times and, of course, Vietnam war that alone killed hundreds of thousands.

[svenkat]

WU is just the effort of US/West to control the world.But that does not mean multi-lingual,multi-ethnic India should not heed yuga dharma-for instance rights of dalits to dignity,linguistic rights etc.

Even Congress/BJP promote some form of Indian/Hindu universalism.Buddhism was the original universalist creed.Sri Krishnas teachings are universalist too.Shankara within the limitations of his time 'manufactured' a Vedic-Vedantic 'universalism'.

The whites as leaders of present time have concocted some 'universalism'.Rather than rejecting WU wholesale,we need to analyse WU and chose selectively themes in WU that are in our interest,modify and appropriate them.They can be Hinduised if useful and we can reject those themes which are irrelevant or harmful to our cause.

[ShauryaT]

What means can be used to change that?

Change in value systems and governing laws. What needs to happen is an inversion of value systems and objectives in play. Without respect and appreciation of SD values and objectives, we would be lost. While the pursuit of knowledge, wealth and power is a necessary exercise for individuals and nations - the idea of yagnya of these pursuits by individuals for the larger good, needs to recognized - again, valued and codified. This recognition of an older set of values and objectives is a two pronged affair between the society and the state. The state needs to provide incentives to society to promote these values and objectives through recognition and rewards and even reservations, if it is deemed that important, e.g: To be a Judge of a court, have to forsake the pursuit of wealth or power. The state also needs to impose penalties on some behaviors that violate such values and objectives. The state can promote such change in values through education and programs. People react to incentives by the power structure just like Indians reacted to the creation of "caste" by the colonial powers.

But, that is not where the biggest challenges are. The biggest challenge is with individuals and society. How much so ever, I may desire a strong state that can lead such a transformation and revival of values, this transformation eventually has to be led by people and society. It comes down to how we live, what we teach our children. What we value. SD is a living system - if the people stop living by its values then it is a lost cause. The situation on the ground is very complex and unaided by what the elites and the state values. The purohit's son no longer wants to be a purohit and neither does the military officer's son.

The purohit or pandit, considered to be the safe keeper of SD, no longer himself understands the inter workings of the purusharthas, lakshanas, Swa, Varna and Ashrama Dharmas. Trying to correlate all of this to a changed socio-political world where the way of life has changed to such a degree that the old parables no longer apply, is beyond their means. In my many interactions with many of them over the years, these traditional custodians are truly lost. They do a fine job of explaining Brahma Vidya and to explain the "workings" of SD through the itihaas and puraans but they are unable to convey the practical applications to anyone with a capacity to question, which starts at age 5.