Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

[ShauryaT]

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

Certainly and without Varna, there is no Hindu system. One might well as accept the current framework if Hinduism is to remain as a private practice, in a secular polity that separates the religious from the temporal.

Pulikeshi and others have questioned, why 4 varnas. Knowledge, wealth and power have ALWAYS been aspects of social and individual concern. Sarasvati, Lakshmi and Durga exist to regulate these based on Dharma - not to bestow them. The Varna system has been a way to regulate these three desires for the larger good. One can keep on arguing about why 4, why these 4 and the various "objections" that the modern mind has with this concept but the Hindu structure of social organization argues that not all ACT in an equal manner, for such equality of actions is neither desirable nor possible.

Most Hindus have lost the plot on the issue of Varna - even our practicing Brahmins. One has to ask the question, what was the design intent of Varna? Was it really to segregate occupations? Was it to distribute work functions in society? The three varnas have a "higher" value in society, only because these individuals have offered more to society, through their individual actions. That is all there is to it.

Our actions are either to acquire things for ourselves in varying degrees or to benefit others in varying degrees. The genius of the varna system is vested in the idea that actions by individuals that DO NOT benefit the immediate self interest ought to be valued. Individuals who have performed such actions on a sustained basis ought to be valued for MOST cannot and do not endeavor in that direction, but a few do. If ALL in society work only for their own self interest then such a society will have a hard time to build a just society. The western response is vested in the welfare state, the Hindu systems answer is Varna. Since, most cannot and do not offer their lives for the benefit of society, they remain shudras.

What failed are the regulations, leading to ossification. What failed are the practice of these values behind these systems. Hence, if we have to revive Varna then we will have to do this through a revival of the value systems that govern Varna. Without such a revival in values, Varna would not hold meaning, even if imposed.

[RamaY]

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...

Good points Pulikeshi garu!

What makes you think the Rishis aren't actively guiding the Hindu society vis.a.vis Varna-Ashrama Dharma even now? Probably they are gently guiding the society towards a more structured Varna-Ashrama dharma, and may even against what we propose. I would call the Yajna of 2014 elections is one such thing. These things become very visible when Dharma has Rashtra's overt support. Unfortunately a secular India cannot espouse Bharatiya Dharma for its very "Idea and foundations" are against SD.

To your 2nd point, the Bharata-varsha definition/concept (IMHO) came when the incompatibles are kicked out of Bharat proper for those Asuras preferred Bhoga (Even at the cost of others) to Karma. Think about it. At the time of Pruthu (hence Prithvi = Earth) etc there was no Bharat.

[ShauryaT]

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...

A few points. Disagree that Nation-States are ill equipped to protect civilizational values. Most research points to the idea that only civilizations with a strong core state are able to protect their culture and prosper. US for Western (AKA: Protestant + Cathoilc), Russia as the core state for the Orthodox and China as the core state for Confucian society. On the other side, you have Africa, Latin America, Islamic who's civilizational interests suffer due to the lack of a strong core state. India's issue is, she is a viable nation-state, however she has to change her character and champion her own values to protect her civilizational culture.

All of our Puraan is pay-ops to a degree and I myself propagate it! It is one of the best tools we have devised to keep our populace clued into our ways and systems.

[Vayutuvan]

Pulikeshi: I have a different take on "Why 4 varnas?". I posit that the word "chatur" came to mean the number "four" from the cardinality of the set Varnas = {brahmina, Kshatriya, Vaishay, Shudra}. Same with Ek which is the cardinality of the set Satya = {satya}. "dvi" from the set Dvija = {x: x has births from the oredred set = {coming out of the womb, upanayana smaskara brith}}.

How can one not have "chatur" varnas if "chatur" is defined as such?

[shiv]

2. Nation-states (esp modern Westphalian ones) are ill equipped to protect civilizational values.

On the other side, you have Africa, Latin America, Islamic who's civilizational interests suffer due to the lack of a strong core state. India's issue is, she is a viable nation-state, however she has to change her character and champion her own values to protect her civilizational culture.

Shaurya - I think I have a viewpoint that lies somewhere in between what Pulikeshi says and what you have said.

If you take a group of people in a given geographic region and draw a border around them to create a nation-state you are creating a human-defined boundary of "civilizational values". One is saying, in effect, "On this side of the border we value these things, on the other side people do not value these things. Therefore we are different from them". The fallout of this viewpoint is passports, visas, border controls and restriction of movement. It also means that you are putting a border on your own civilizational values - which then cannot be universal because you have scored a self goal and declared that your civilization ends at the border you have drawn.

Western Universalism is just another attempt to retain one's own nation-state boundaries while reserving the right to interfere and modify (or lecture) other nation states because they don't have the "universal" values that you have defined. In other words, you are first putting a border around yourself and saying "This is my nation state, and these nation states represent my civilization. Anyone outside this do not belong to my civilization". After doing this, you are saying "OK - here are a set of values. I think they ought to be universal - and you need to apply them to your nation state because I say that they are good for you. You need these values so that you can become like me. You may or may not become part of my civilization - but at least you will be following rules that I set." What this does is protect borders and yet impose values on others. Universalism is a form of internal interference in other civilizations or nation states just like evangelism and communism.

But this is a model that can be followed. Groups of nation states with similar civilizational values can "ally" with each other and agree upon a common defence mechanism. Like NATO

If you look at the union of India - it is precisely such a union of nation states with common civilizational values. The India that existed before 1947 was "500 nations, with common values". The India after 1947 is 500 nations with a common defence, foreign policy and economic policies. This allows the freedom for individual states to develop their own unique civilizational values under an umbrella of "Indian values" that are to be protected by the common "central government" of the alliance of states. It is those Indian values (or goals) that we have to declare, and move out of pseudosecularism and faux-universalism. This view also answers idiotic questions like "Did India exist before 1947?" It existed as "500 nations" (so to speak) with a common core civilization that was unprotected by a common protective shield.

Africa and Latin America (and, in fact North America too) were "500 nation states" without a common shield. Why did they fail and fall while India squeezed past the onslaught? They were just like India. Multiple tribes and nations. Worshippers of nature and geography. Wonderful folklore and mythology. "geographic protection" of India by 3 sides water and one side mountains is unlikely to be a reason - after all North America was totally isolated.

I think India just had the oldest civilization that developed the best "common values" based on our Vedic inheritance which gave the resilience to absorb and counter ideological threats. Maybe India was helped by just being a fertile and warm land where people came to live and not fight. But ultimately it was not "western universalism" or colonialism that took Africa and America down. It was the religions - Islam and Christianity. Africa and the Americas did not have the civilizational wherewithal to resist the religions backed by murderous force. The colonization that followed was merely insult added to injury. For India the original "religious insult" was itself resisted, and rendered incomplete. The colonialism that followed was not then dealing with a civilization killed by one of the religions.

[shiv]

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.

Venkat - I have already made a list of things which are pushed as western universalism. Everything about western universalism is about individual rights based values which are promoted at the expense of group values. We need to get definitions right and cannot afford to be vague if we are to weigh the benefits of each.

There is a difference between " individual rights" based values and "individual duties" based values.

Individual rights based values ask "what's in it for me personally"?
Individual duties based values ask "what do I need to sacrifice or do for society/family/tribe/community" (group values)

Both are required, but it is my contention that duty based values such as dharma are necessary for the long term health of society and the environment. For that reason we need to check where all these indivdual rights based universalisms are taking us.

Someone made the point that there are some things that cannot be proved by science. That is true - and for that reason you cannot use science to prove that WU with its greedy individual rights based approach is damaging to society and the environment in the long term. i think it is but I can offer only empirical evidence. For the same reason you cannot "scientifically" prove that dharma and group based values are better for the world and society at large. I personally believe that they are better and here again I only have empirical proof to offer.

[member_22733]

I think India just had the oldest civilization that developed the best "common values" based on our Vedic inheritance which gave the resilience to absorb and counter ideological threats. Maybe India was helped by just being a fertile and warm land where people came to live and not fight. But ultimately it was not "western universalism" or colonialism that took Africa and America down. It was the religions - Islam and Christianity. Africa and the Americas did not have the civilizational wherewithal to resist the religions backed by murderous force. The colonization that followed was merely insult added to injury. For India the original "religious insult" was itself resisted, and rendered incomplete. The colonialism that followed was not then dealing with a civilization killed by one of the religions.

I remember someone in Rajiv Malhotra's forums commenting about religions of Abundance and religions of scarcity. Abrahamic religions are built on scarcity and depravity, as they were historically from the desert, where a dying soul might see one God in a mirage here and there.

India (and native Americans/Africans) had a culture built on Abundance. There was fertile and arable land, there was plenty of water, the weather was warm all year round. There was limited need to innovate and while there was violence it was almost never of genocidal nature, at least nothing in known history points to it.

Scarcity and necessity causes humans to innovate. Moving out of Africa, the hunting spear, agriculture were all human inventions to solving necessities. However once a human is "satisfied" there is no rational need to innovate and improve. I believe the entire European world at this time is in a "satiated" phase. They think they have things largely under control. They are moving from a "scarcity" phase to an "abundance" phase.

The example I usually use is the space program. When there was USSR and cold war, the pressure to innovate was huge. Unkil went from sub-orbital flights to the moon in 2 decades. Look at things now. Economy of unkil is still strong, but NASA is almost defunded. There is no rational need for space innovation.

Now if, just like in western sci-fi movies that reflect on their past actions, a barbarian alien race from a distant galaxy comes to earth with superior technology they created to search for whatever scarcity they seek to fullfil, we might as well truly be phucked. We will be in the same position as the Native Americans were when Cool-umb-ass "discovered" America.

[shiv]

Scarcity and necessity causes humans to innovate. Moving out of Africa, the hunting spear, agriculture were all human inventions to solving necessities. However once a human is "satisfied" there is no rational need to innovate and improve. I believe the entire European world at this time is in a "satiated" phase. They think they have things largely under control. They are moving from a "scarcity" phase to an "abundance" phase.

Innovation came in the form of astronomy, linguistics, mathematics, poetry, literature, metallurgy, maritime trade (shipbuilding), medicine, the arts and philosophy - all of which are considered the "higher" achievements of a settled civilization.

Weapons as innovation to loot and subjugate are perfectly valid in the same manner as tigers need to exist as much as buffalo. But tigers wiping out all food sources would be a self goal. Innovations that eventually wipe out animal and plant populations to meet human needs have no future no matter how brilliant the innovation. The aliens are already here. It reveals a fundamental absence of knowledge of the world hidden by a veil of "brilliant innovation for human use"

There are two aspects to western civilization and WU that i believe are a direct consequence of false premises created in the form of Christian belief:
1. That humans are the peak of evolution and modelled on God - so no other life form matters as much as human needs.

2. The insistence on "one single, solitary root cause"; a single trunk from which everything emerges. This manifests in a thousand different ways. In terms of society - it is claimed that only one set of rules needs to be applicable to all. In terms of political systems - only one model is right for all. In medicine there is one root cause of one molecule that does the trick. These are all variations on the one God theme - even the term "God particle" is a Freudian slip. Diversity is rejected as an undesirable enemy of unity. It is monism gone wild.

[ShauryaT]

The example I usually use is the space program. When there was USSR and cold war, the pressure to innovate was huge. Unkil went from sub-orbital flights to the moon in 2 decades. Look at things now. Economy of unkil is still strong, but NASA is almost defunded. There is no rational need for space innovation.

There is distrust of a space program by government. There is MASSIVE interest in a space program by the private sector. This is one area that I actually appreciate the west and especially the US for. The insatiable desire to explore, like no other on earth (maybe the India of 500 BC to 500 AD qualifies). While it is true that necessity is the mother of all invention. There is a way to keep this spirit of innovation and exploration going. I do not know the right magic formula for the same but it seems a secure state is a necessary but maybe not a sufficient condition. If you track the many Indian innovations through the various eras, one thing to observe is Indian innovations taper off post Gupta periods (the last known large state of the sub-continent) not counting Raja/Chola empires of the south. You will see a similar parallel in China, where after the stability provided by Song and Tang and after defeating the Mongols, the Chinese empire reached its zenith in the Ming periods.

So, I do not buy too much into the this no need to innovate, because of fertile lands, warm climates. It is the over all eco system that matters with security as its foremost pre-condition.

[Pulikeshi]

Certainly and without Varna, there is no Hindu system. One might well as accept the current framework if Hinduism is to remain as a private practice, in a secular polity that separates the religious from the temporal.

Very insightful comments, you have some key points that ought to keep the intellectual occupied.
However, you walk away from my question 'why only 4?' too quickly. There is a tie into the root desire that started this all, as mentioned in the p.sukta and n.sukta. That is, there are multiple implications in getting the right answer to that question. Having said that, I will get back to elaborating this point later.

A few points. Disagree that Nation-States are ill equipped to protect civilizational values. Most research points to the idea that only civilizations with a strong core state are able to protect their culture and prosper. US for Western (AKA: Protestant + Cathoilc), Russia as the core state for the Orthodox and China as the core state for Confucian society.

I am talking about specific Nation-States (Westphalian that confuse national boundaries to those of the civilization) - think Ashoka, history tells us he spread Buddhism to Asia, then think again, that also sows the seeds of Buddhism's demise in India. Think Pagan Greece, same story. Think Christian Rome, same story (most of Europe is walking away from Christianity). Ironically, the same with the US, eventually - hence the kujlee of the helpless Rightwing types. I suspect we may disagree on this point and that is fine. My point is simply that Nation-States pick 'Universalism' at great cost, but they do so in what they deem as a necessity to enable scaling, but are actually unaware of what the scaling with entail for them and the 'Universalism' they pick.

Nation-States that chance upon unnatural civilization boundaries to defend, extend themselves by picking up the 'Universal' in fashion at the time. Think of this as hardware software mis-match. However, they rarely have accounted for the Scaling problem in doing so. This means that as they try to scale they end up spending tremendous energy in defending the nation-state boundary (sometimes physical but most times less tangible). This inefficiency eventually causes the demise of the Nation-State or the Civilization or both. There has not been too many successful survival stories of Civilizations and/or Nation-States.

The India that existed before 1947 was "500 nations, with common values". The India after 1947 is 500 nations with a common defence, foreign policy and economic policies.
...
Africa and Latin America (and, in fact North America too) were "500 nation states" without a common shield. Why did they fail and fall while India squeezed past the onslaught? They were just like India.

Yes, one successful civilization story is that of SD, but barely, yet there was no single strong Nation-State that enabled it throughout history, I suspect not, you can correct me if I am wrong. There has been sporadic Nation-States that chanced upon the boundaries of the civilization, but rarely has it tried to overreach. There is also a key difference between the pagan states of Europe, 500 nations of the Americas, Africa and Nation-State(s) of historic Indian Sub-Continent. The law book was the same, but localization was possible across groups, the Kshatriyas(Rajan) could never enact laws, only the Brahmanas could make them, the Vaishyas funded them both and were critical to the balance between the other three, the Shudras enabled and executed the daily activities that held society on its feet. This invention was to solve the scaling problem, but its boundaries can only exists to the extent that Varna-Jati system can exist in the framework of Dharma. This is the reason for the unique success, if one were to call survival that, of SD.

To distill this is more plain english - the SD framework, like light being both particle and wave, is both declarative as well as based on conventions. With one feeding the other and resonating to make the structure of society stronger. However, without the structure of Varna-Jati it will not scale, nor will it protect those following Dharma. The original desire that started it all is a meme, it is protecting itself and we are the result of that original desire, especially our Civilization. Nation-States come and go on this framework. That the Varna-Jati system is integral to this original desire and the root of Dharma itself is an exploration for another day... but I'd just like to state it at this time.

If the English edumacated look at strengthening the Secular Nation-State, which currently is under punching its boundary in terms of Civilization, and hence a mis-match as well, then there is no way to come out sustaining either Nation-State or Civilization. The constitutionally secular declarative Nation-State has no way to resonate with the changing conventions of the land. It is another matter that SD society has become more strongly conventional and therefore cannot resonate with the declarative framework that is missing in action. This is a structural flaw!

In fact, there is more evidence for strong Civilizations throwing up strong Nation-States again and again. The history of the Indian Sub-Continent and the continuous, unapologetic, and brutal defense of SD - Chandragupta (two of them), Hakka & Bukka, Prithviraj, Shivaji, etc. etc. all evidence for what a strong Civilization can throw up to defend itself. Civilizations are the incubators of Nation-States, not the other way around, if and when Nation-States especially mis-matched ones pick a 'Universalism' they doom both to a life-cycle. Hence not-Sanatana!

[svenkat]

shivji,
imho,There are no sharp lines demarcating Hindu and western value systems.Even we have indvidual rights while the western mlecchas too are conscious of group rights and indvidual duties.

Western Universalism is conscious of the rights of western capitalists and industrial corporations and innovators.Its conscious of US/Western interests to dominate the world.Its about the rights of affluent,beautiful,smart people to have the good life.Theres a hierarchy when they talk of indviduals.Even in their society,they will not mind sacrificing the interests of poorer classes.Actual power politics is not driven by arcane ideologies,its based on more 'mundane' but extremely important things like access to resources,land,clean water etc.

WU has to be seen as the ideology of white nations who have access to critical resources and want to maintain status quo.Their instrument is capitalism and high technology and political/social/economic/financial/military instruments/tools to maintain that supremacy.

What west has in its favour is that whites are fairly homogenous and strong in parts of western europe and US and WU was forged primarily in the aftermath of 1945 to reduce the violent nationalist tendencies between European nations which exist inspite of the 'homogenity' as one sees in the bitter disputes in Scotland,Ukraine,or the great national conflicts(between France,Germany,Poland,Flanders,Walloons,Magyars,Slavs) in Europe.A sense of unity was also forged by greater prosperity.

WU is sought to deepen fissures in the 'other' while consolidating the west.

My point is this is the human predicament everywhere.In the land of cholas,pandyas,rashtrakutas,pallavas,chalukyas,in Hogenakal,in hosur,talawadi,in Belgaum,Kasargod,in Abohar-Fazilka,on cauvery ,between tamizh and kannada,between the dalit labourer and the sophisticated northern vyaapari vaishya,the insecure or chauvinist tamizh,the 'fearful' kannadiga,between the wheeler dealer andhra baron,the reactive telengana dora the same human fears and aspirations play out.In Hindu India too there are indvidual rights,some having more than the rest,some having greater access to resources than rest.

The whitey has a stabler system because he has been at it for longer ie in the modern industrial/service economy.He has forged a successful vaisya-sudra order incorporating the brahmana-kshatriya values of that society.Our vyaapari vaishyas are novices compared to them but they are learning.Even there,there were kshatriya-vaishya conflicts both between kshatriyas and vyaapari vaishyas and between vyaapari vaishyas and peasant vaishyas and between peasant vaishyas and kshatriyas.We find analogues in India too between jats and rajputs,rajputs and ahirs,sikhs and hindus,vanniars and mudaliars etc.THE WU has been forged out of these national conflicts,economic conflicts.WU is the product of vaishya-shudra empowerment.This is Kaliyuga dharma.Jutt sikhs,vokkaligas,thevars,vanniars,kurubas,kapus,kurmis,ahirs,jats,kunbis will be empowered.How to maintain kshatriya-brahmana values along with shudra-vaishya empowerment is the question of the day.Today POWER has shifted to vaishya-shudras.This is the REALITY.THE WU has enormous hypocrisy as applied to us.Because they want a varna system for the planet.Also they are glorifying vyaapari vaishyas.Yet vyaapari vaishyas have played an important role in the making of modern world.

But this is the reality too that vyaapari vaishyas (jews,anglo-saxons) have set the standards of modern age."brahmanas" cannot ignore this reality for 'brahmanas' are now part of this world.I dont see 'brahmanas' queuing upto join veda patashaalas.

Ofcourse,these are the very things that you have noted many times in many "Indick" debates in BRF.

[johneeG]

I disagree with the idea that scaling is the root problem. The narrative seems to be that originally hindhu society was created for small groups and the hindhu system has been unable to adjust to large society. This seems like a wrong idea to me. Infact, it is the reverse. The modern western systems can work during plenty that means small groups lording over large slave populations. But, otherwise, in a normal society, it cannot work. The modern western systems are derived from the jihadi model.

In contrast, hindhu system is about sustainability regardless of scale. Someone gave the example of Ganesha festival. Its a good example. See originally, the Ganesha idols were supposed to be made of soft mud found near local lakes. Later, the Ganesha had to be immerses back into the same lake. The various leaves which are needed in the worship were supposed to be acquired locally.

If this system is properly followed there won't be any problems regardless of scale. But, it requires a local lake in many vicinities. These days, lakes have become endangered species. Few lakes which exist are like drainage. Nothing surprising because the rivers itself have become huge drainages.

So, what is the reason for pollution of lakes and rivers? What is the reason for disappearance of lakes?

Drainage and industrial waste are the main reasons for pollution of water bodies.
Real estate and lack of govt interest is the main reason for dissappearance of lakes.
The same applies to green cover.

This is the real problems caused by western ways of living.

[Pulikeshi]

I disagree with the idea that scaling is the root problem.

Just so you are able to disagree with the right argument even if for the wrong reason -

Scaling is a problem for everyone, no matter what system, as long as its invented by humans. SD has some unique advantages to this problem, but it is just an edge... and it needs constant correction.
For those who come from belief, where systems are invented by extraordinary external powers - God, my arguments may not make much sense. Then again, not much else other than belief makes sense for such.

[Pulikeshi]

Pulikeshi: I have a different take on "Why 4 varnas?". I posit that the word "chatur" came to mean the number "four" from the cardinality of the set Varnas = {brahmina, Kshatriya, Vaishay, Shudra}. Same with Ek which is the cardinality of the set Satya = {satya}. "dvi" from the set Dvija = {x: x has births from the oredred set = {coming out of the womb, upanayana smaskara brith}}.

How can one not have "chatur" varnas if "chatur" is defined as such?

You are indeed very chatur

[Rudradev]

I remember someone in Rajiv Malhotra's forums commenting about religions of Abundance and religions of scarcity. Abrahamic religions are built on scarcity and depravity, as they were historically from the desert, where a dying soul might see one God in a mirage here and there.

India (and native Americans/Africans) had a culture built on Abundance. There was fertile and arable land, there was plenty of water, the weather was warm all year round. There was limited need to innovate and while there was violence it was almost never of genocidal nature, at least nothing in known history points to it.
...

I'm not sure if I'm the one who wrote about this on Rajiv's email list, but about 2 and a half years ago I did post the following on BRF (in another context).

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1238892

Has anyone thought how a powerful king in the old days could ever survive and still keep nobles and vassals loyal to him although each of those nobles/vassals had armies available to them? Not easy - requires real leadership but the following is an approximate description.

First the king would have a very powerful loyal army led by good trained men and loyal generals. The best generals and men would be rewarded with land, wealth. wimmens, villages etc. This "kingdom" would then be able to attack a neighbouring kingdom. Either the neighbouring king would be killed and a loyal general given the throne there, or the neighbouring king might agree to become a vassal. In every case the vassal/general would require to have an army to help support the king, but the king himself would also require a separate "Kings guard" of his own in case any of the general/vassals got uppity - so that they could be defeated. The Nizam of Hyderabad had a Nizams army of Arabs who were his own private guardsmen to serve this role.

What has this got to do with Pakistan? Believe it or not this is the exact model used by the Pakistani army to retain control of Pakistan. It is also a model used by the USA in NATO and "Warsaw pact" to have vassal nations to fight proxy wars for USA/NATO. The USSR did it too, as did the British empire.

The Pakistani army treats the Army chief as "King/President". The army itself is the Presidential Presidents private guard. Loyal generals are awarded large tracts of land as gifts. Islamist groups are the vassals. They are armed and allowed to fight the Pakistan army's enemy (India mainly, but also Hindus, Sikhs, Shias and Ahmedis).

Shiv's thesis here gives me the opportunity to articulate something tangential thoughts I've been having about the nature of Islam and Indian nationhood in general.

What Shiv describes is essentially the feudal model which, having moved past in their own lands in the post-Enlightenment era, European colonialists reinforced as a tool for the imposition of their own will in colonized lands such as India. It is also very much akin to the "Kabila" model that Islamic empires have employed for expansion and governance throughout their history.

The essential similarities between Western feudalism (transplanted to colonized countries in the colonial era) and Islamic "Kabila" imply that it is not only the "West" which has been a colonial entity as far as societies like ours are concerned... Islam itself is equally a foreign colonialist entity in our subcontinent, as fundamentally alien and predatory to our land, our culture and our way of life as the British or Portuguese or Dutch ever were. The atavistic howls issuing from their minarets five times a day are, indeed, cries of triumph and domination in a foreign language... the language of the colonizer shouting down the colonized.

Ramana has written extensively on the "Kabila" model... it roughly translates to "government as armed camp." Essentially there is a sultan who, with his generals and their troops, constitutes the ultimate fount of power in the political hierarchy. This is unwaveringly typical of the manner in which various political groups and dynasties have consolidated power in West and Central Asia, and North Africa, since the very advent of Islam.

The "Kabila" worked very well in the lands where Islam originated, and where it spread in the early centuries of its expansion. Why? Because the lands themselves were amenable to being governed in this form. In the deserts of West Asia, the arid mountains of Persia and the steppes to the North, the circumstances of nature favour a form of political dominance which relies on armament, maneuverability and mobility. This is because resources are scarce and concentrated in a few areas... an oasis here, a valley there. With a strong group of highly mobile armed men on horseback, you can easily forge an empire in such places. All you have to do is seize control of the few well-defined supply centers, the market centers (city states) and the trade routes between them. Most of the land is junk anyway. Once you're able to do this, and especially to destroy any civilizational affinity to pre-Islamic forms in the market centers (hence the Islamic obsession with temple breaking and idol smashing) you have, effectively, an empire. It doesn't matter if the thousands of useless square miles in between are physically under your domination or not; as long as you have no challengers in these particular small foci of power, you're an unchallenged monarch.

"Kabila" differs from European feudalism because of the emphasis on mobility... horsemen and artillery could be moved to engage a challenger in very short order. A necessary corollary of the Kabila model is un-rootedness. If you have to move fast you cannot afford to be tied down. Therefore, you do not invest in the land or the people, you see them only as objects to be controlled and squeezed for every drop of utility against the hard anvil of history. You position mullahs in population centers to be your spies, propagandists and social monitors... weeding out unorthodoxy and rebellion at the stage of ideation before it becomes necessary to smack down an armed rebellion. But ultimately you, and your apparatus of mullahs, constitute an extraordinarily parasitic, locust-like and virulent form of colonialism. This is something that Western studies of post-colonialism (with their essentially Euro-centric historiography) entirely ignore... they see the Islamic virus as something that was indigenous somehow to the lands they conquered. They do not realize that it was merely a more rapacious and less invested form of colonial imperialism.

Indeed, the more invested Muslim rulers became in their territories, the less "Islamic" they became, of necessity taking on the administrative, social and traditional trappings of pre-Islamic statehood. This made them vulnerable to "purer", mobile and less-invested Islamic conquerors. Hence the Delhi sultanate was prime fodder for Timur and Babar... Baghdad for the Mongols... and Mughal Delhi, again, for Nadir Shah. In each case the less-civilized, more predatory and more essentially savage Kabila prevailed over the more "settled" and "urbanized" Muslim state. When you do not carry the baggage of civilization or of feeling responsibility for the people you rule, you have much more maneuverability and ruthlessness at your disposal. Taking advantage of the Kabila's inherent strengths, the West was able to lead roving bands of armed Arabs in a devastatingly effective rebellion against the settled Ottomans during the 1st World War.

Why do I bring all this up with relevance to Pakistan?

As I said before... the "Kabila" system worked very well to dominate places where resources were scarce and concentrated in well-defined locations. However, it never worked quite as well in India.

That is because our Bharatvarsha is quite unlike those lands where Islam originated and expanded in the early centuries of its being. In Bharatvarsha, the land is almost never inhospitable or forbidding. In Arabia, a band of people displaced from an oasis had two choices: submit to the peaceful orthodoxy of a triumphant Muslim conqueror, or go out into the desert and die. In India, not so. A displaced people had only to go fifty or a hundred or two hundred kilometres in any direction... and mother Bharat in her generous embrace would provide fertile lands, rich orchards, abundant and plentiful fields. How many generations and what huge extents of such flights were supported by the bounty of Bharatvarsha become apparent if you study the migration of the Saraswats, originally from Kashmir... one branch traveled from there south of the Vindhyas, to Goa, and then again uprooted themselves in the face of Portuguese onslaught and proceeded to what is Dakshin Kannada in Karnataka today.

This had two effects: first, it made Indians in general indifferent to the fact of an Islamic conquest. If they took away our old fields and seized our city... well, we would just move over a little bit and build a new city, cultivate new fields. Our Gods and families are safe, let the Turk or Afghan have the old land, because there is enough for everybody if we simply adjust our location a little bit: this was how our forefathers dealt with Islamic expansion.

The second effect, of course, is that Hindu society survived, largely unscathed, as an essentially Indian identity. In Mesopotamia or Egypt, the Muslim idol-smashers and temple-breakers could effectively carry out cultural genocide because their targets were all in one place and immobile... where could you build another Baghdad or Luxor? The inheritors of the old culture had no choice but to surrender before the savagery of Islam's harbingers, and participate willingly in the extinction of their pre-Islamic cultural identities, if they wished to survive at all. In India, we would take our Gods, our families and our few possessions and head out a few more miles into the vast green hinterland and endless bounty of Bharat-mata, who would provide lovingly for us to begin our lives over again as Hindus.

This is essentially why we were saved from being extinguished by the onslaught of Islamic colonialism... Bharatvarsha herself sheltered her children and empowered them to preserve their way of life.

Now what you have in Pakistan today is the continuance of the Kabila system. The West realized soon enough that without the depredations of Islamic colonialism that denuded the civilizational wealth of the East for nearly ten centuries, sapping the power of the old Asiatic states and erasing their very identities... without this, the West would have had a much harder time pursuing their own colonial expansions. In fact, Islamic colonialism prepares the ground for Western colonialism... a fact that remains as true today as it was before the Battle of Plassey. Hence, everyone from Olaf Caroe to Zbignew Brzezinski sees a utility for the West in maintaining Islamic Kabilas even when the armies and viceroys of the West have gone home. The Kabilas will never construct a state of sufficient power to threaten the West; but they will keep Asia weak for the day that the West might want to return, in one form or another.

THIS is why the West was so determined to see a Pakistan constructed out of a large portion of Bharatvarsha. It is also why the West has been careful to destroy any alternative sense of nationhood or state-based form of governance in the Muslim world, other than Kabila. It is why the Arab nationalists of Ba'ath Egypt (Nasser) and Iraq (Saddam) had to be deposed, and the last scion of Ba'athism, Syria's Assad, is being systematically marked for elimination today. This is the reason why Gaddaffi in Libya was ousted, and why Iran is now at the head of the list of Western targets. Meanwhile the Kabila-state of Saudi Arabia is raised to paramountcy; while in smaller GCC nations... which are essentially city-states or market-centers like the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain... the US itself has taken on the role of Kabila.

In Pakistan that role has been given to the Kabila known as the Pakistan Army. However, let's remember... the land which the Pakistan Army Kabila seeks to dominate is not an arid expanse with tightly localized resource concentrations, as in the territories where the Kabila model has a natural advantage. No, the land of Pakistan is the land of Bharatvarsha... all-embracing and hospitable. It is much harder for a Kabila to control and dominate this "Pakistan" than a Persia or an Iraq.

Meanwhile, to the northwest of Pakistan is Afghanistan... a prime Kabila land, where a mobile and savage army unencumbered by investment in the people can always prevail over the forces of a more settled kingdom.

What happened over the last ten years is instructive. The Kabila (Pakistan Army) deputed by the West to control and enervate Western Bharatvarsha for colonial exploitation, has failed in its task. It has succumbed to the temptations of the land it occupies... Bharatvarsha... and become more "settled" than a Kabila has any right to be. It has become invested in private enterprise, legitimate ones like textiles and agriculture as well as illegal ones such as heroin supply. The Pakistan Army remains a true Kabila in that it still does not give a damn for the people in its charge; but it has become "softer" in the style of the Lodhi who was overwhelmed by Babar, or the Abbasid Caliph who was smashed by Genghis Khan. To compensate for its softness, the Pakistan Army has overemphasized the role traditionally played by Mullahs in the Kabila system, and set up a huge, hypertrophied apparatus of highly empowered political agents to subdue the population in the name of Islam... including all our favourite Tanzeems.

The big mistake that the Soft Kabila of the Pakistan Army made was to create another Kabila... the Taliban... in an attempt to colonize and subdue the people of Afghanistan. Taliban Kabila, being a classic, mobile, hard Kabila, was able to gain control over the prime Kabila-land of Afghanistan in record time back in 1996. However, with the force of historic inevitability... they have utterly lost regard and affinity for the soft, settled Kabila of the TSPA. They see no reason why they should take orders from this decadent, less-pure Sultanate; they have enjoyed repeated military successes over the TSPA over the past ten years; and worst of all, they have seen the TSPA do the bidding of the Kaffir by comfortably abetting the slaughter of Momin perpetuated by the Americans since 2001.

As a result, not only the Taliban, but many sections of the Kabila-apparatchik mullahs (who would ordinarily remain loyal to a strong, hard-Kabila) have turned against the soft and decadent Kabila of the TSPA.

Perhaps the most curious thing is how the TSPA and the Paki elite have responded to this state of affairs. Being themselves of Bharatvarsha... they have begun to do the classic Hindoo thing! "Fine", they say, "let the fundoos have FATA/KP, after all we have much more productive land".... "fine, let them have a presence in Karachi/Quetta/Peshawar, not a blade of grass grows there"... "fine, let them expand into southern Punjab, after all we should keep them close so we can keep an eye on them." Rationalization after rationalization is articulated by these Pakis while their circle of influence shrinks; so far will our bounteous mother Bharat let them retreat into the welcoming folds of her sari that they blindfold themselves ever more tightly with her pallu and convince themselves that all is well.

[Shreeman]

Shiv,

Much has been written about what the ideal is/not is/ought to be. As a tangent, once one finds a set of ideals -- dharmic or satanic -- what does one use them for? Can I ask how you see utilizing said norms in real life, and the consequences there of. Where does practice come into play here?

Many thanks. Readers kindly ignore the branch/tangent.

[csaurabh]

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.

Venkat - I have already made a list of things which are pushed as western universalism. Everything about western universalism is about individual rights based values which are promoted at the expense of group values. We need to get definitions right and cannot afford to be vague if we are to weigh the benefits of each.

There is a difference between " individual rights" based values and "individual duties" based values.

Individual rights based values ask "what's in it for me personally"?
Individual duties based values ask "what do I need to sacrifice or do for society/family/tribe/community" (group values)

Both are required, but it is my contention that duty based values such as dharma are necessary for the long term health of society and the environment. For that reason we need to check where all these indivdual rights based universalisms are taking us.

Someone made the point that there are some things that cannot be proved by science. That is true - and for that reason you cannot use science to prove that WU with its greedy individual rights based approach is damaging to society and the environment in the long term. i think it is but I can offer only empirical evidence. For the same reason you cannot "scientifically" prove that dharma and group based values are better for the world and society at large. I personally believe that they are better and here again I only have empirical proof to offer.

Indeed, there are two ways to approach the world..
1) What can X ( company, organization, country, etc. ) give to me.
2) What can I give to X ( company, organization, country, etc. )

The first can be called as the pursuit of individualism and is very high in 'Western Universalism'. The second is more in line with Indian thinking or Dharma or whatever you want to call it. We all have both of these within ourselves to some extent. The key is to find a balance between the two.

I have encountered this attitude in IIT campuses a lot. Mainly, students are all too much wrapped up in 'branding', without realizing what went into creating the brand in the first place. The general perception goes something like this: I want to join IIT ( or whatever ) because of its 'brand name', and then use that brand name to get XYZ package in ABC company, or go abroad. It is all about what you can get from the organization. Scarce thought is given to what you give back to the organization. That realization, I think, comes later in life ( and not from everyone ).

Of course, the reverse is also there. Many alumni do indeed give back to their institution in whatever way, but it isn't as much as it should be. And the trend is, it is getting worse. If an IITian ( for example ) commits an unethical action, this may benefit him in the short term, but in the long run with harms not only himself but also damages the reputation of his institute ( I have seen examples of this, personally ). People don't think about these things very much.

Is WU deeply embedded in our psyche? I think not, honestly. Yes, a good many do go abroad in pursuit of individualism but the phenomenon called R2I cannot be explained purely on the basis of individual benefits. In recent years I have seen an good number of my batchmates setting up their own companies after leaving well paid jobs. This cannot be explained in purely monetary terms either. Indian entrepreneurship, as I see it, is not based only on acquiring money, but also about fulfilling a certain need of society. Many well educated people also do part time social work.

Capitalism and Communism are two extremes of the same problem. Pure capitalism is all about individual profits. Pure communism is entirely about duties to the state while the individual owns nothing. We need to find a balance.

Perhaps the answers to such questions can be found by looking at history. Look at how the Tatas set up their companies for instance. Along with their factory, they also built planned townships, quarters, employee clubs, sponsored schools, good roads, etc. Pure capitalism demands no such things, such as software companies in Bangalore. The result? Uncontrolled growth leading to traffic jam, environment pollution and general ugliness, all of which could have been preventable. Jamshedji Tata and Swami Vivekananda had a chance meeting on a ship and exchanged their views a great deal- if that had not happened, I think the history of India would have been quite different.

[johneeG]

I disagree with the idea that scaling is the root problem.

Just so you are able to disagree with the right argument even if for the wrong reason -

Scaling is a problem for everyone, no matter what system, as long as its invented by humans. SD has some unique advantages to this problem, but it is just an edge... and it needs constant correction.
For those who come from belief, where systems are invented by extraordinary external powers - God, my arguments may not make much sense. Then again, not much else other than belief makes sense for such.

Well, its an assumption that the system was invented by humans. Its another assumption that the system invented by humans cannot adjust to scaling. Your argument is based on set of assumptions.

A better way is to see how these systems are actually performing on the ground. Hindhu system has shown that it is highly adaptable and flexible. It has managed to survive in so many different conditions that no other system has managed. And all this was done without major changes in core hindhu philosophy.

----
Saurabh saar,
Link to a post on the same lines.

[shiv]

Shiv,

Much has been written about what the ideal is/not is/ought to be. As a tangent, once one finds a set of ideals -- dharmic or satanic -- what does one use them for? Can I ask how you see utilizing said norms in real life, and the consequences there of. Where does practice come into play here?

Shreeman, my involvement with this thread is on two levels.

One is a degree of alarm that certain western mores are being blindly copy pasted by Indians without understanding the long term repercussions. This is based on my conviction that the "west" in general is simply experimenting with society with no goal in sight and making up things as they go along, fiddling with this, adjusting that and imagining that all will be well. Almost every day I see evidence of what was declared true and above question yesterday is rejected today, which makes me wonder how there was so much confidence in yesterday's "scientific" conclusions. It is not clear that what is declared true today is convincingly right either.

But western ways are seductive - they give instant sensual pleasure and are difficult to turn away from. Which young man would not love the idea of free sex, free from all responsibility. And how much more fun it is when women too feel the same way. So no matter what arguments I may have against some things - they all fall flat in the face of instant sensual gratification that is an obvious benefit of western ways that stem from idea of individual freedoms. Combating this, once such attitudes become established in society will be very difficult and I believe such societies are going downhill.

I also believe that the WU prescriptions for uniform food supplies, human health, human happiness and human comfort are, in the long term unsustainably damaging to the environment. That apart, there is no dearth of solid evidence that the world simply does not have the resources to support 1.2 billion Indians (and 1.3 billion Chinese and others) indulging in the per-capita consumption rates of the US. The future is not going to hold out that model as being possible. We need to invent a new, and if possible better future. Invention cannot come from blind copying. We have to strike out on a new path. I am not convinced that Indians are thinking this through - they may well be imagining that we will have an America in India in X years if we behave in a particular way. We cannot and we will not.

My second level of involvement with this thread is to try and get intelligent BRFites and lurkers to think and apply their minds to some of these things. There are a large number of unexplored doors to explore. I have mentioned some areas that interest me. One such area is to create a new branch of sociology where western society is studied by non western minds just as sociology and anthropology have always been the western mind studying "the other". I am tickled at some reactions that are evoked when I touch on some subjects. So that too is an ongoing process.

[ShauryaT]

However, you walk away from my question 'why only 4?' too quickly. There is a tie into the root desire that started this all, as mentioned in the p.sukta and n.sukta. That is, there are multiple implications in getting the right answer to that question. Having said that, I will get back to elaborating this point later

The reason I do not over dwell on this question of why only 4 is in my readings and interactions I have not found a satisfactory answer, either through the P. Suktam or other Shruti texts and bhashyas of many learned. To me the Purusha Suktam is an expression of how the mind of the ancients worked. Staying focused on the overall message rather than trying to split up the individual verses and words runs the risk of an over analysis, for a simple mind. It is the overall message of the suktam that appeals to me. While fully accepting the primary seed of desire as in the nasadiya suktam, as the root cause for all action, born of the mind - I am not able to correlate this to the 4 divisions of the purusha and say, why it was 4 in the P.Suktam and none of my readings shed more light into it, except to go on the basis of providence and faith but not a primary level of understanding. Instead I accept the division of four based on texts, practices, traditions and make the argument that it makes sense to have such divisions, primarily based on our civilization experience, both good and bad. How these divisions are to be used for the larger good is for each age to define and redefine. Maybe you can shed some light on why 4?

[Shreeman]

Shreeman, my involvement ...

Readers, please read over.
---
Shiv,

Western culture is fundamentally, and openly, self-centered. Opportunity today, always, over a better future tomorrow. All the flaws of this approach are omnipresent as well. Hypocricy is fundamental. 15 minutes of fame succinctly defines every aspect. Charity needs to come with a tax deduction (and those who say otherwise are likely abusing children as a substitute!).

This contradicts with the "save for tomorrow" or even "save for the next life" approach. Punya is NEVER its own reward in the western system.

Having said this, I have come to realize that this forum is now OLD, and not just ordinarily old and slightly out of practice, like really really old. Almost twenty years on the web will do this, few other forums have maintained a presence, let alone activity over two decades. But I deduce it is bereft of practitioners now.

The practices today are fundamentally different that what was practiced as universalism when we came across it. Well, they are certainly different than what I interpreted them to be. I am only four years out of active life and can see absolute fundamental professional and social changes that were unimaginable then.

And we have no true representatives of the "western way" of life. Truly, blind people of Hindoostan feeling an elephant.

Thus the question of practice naturally arises, how do you distinguish what is propaganda vs. actual principle vs. actual practice. And which really constitutes the western universalism. As an outsider to BOTH systems, the only thing I hear addressed to me is "I do not understand how the system works", despite being well versed in the written rules. So the unwritten and actually practiced must have some fundamental bearing. In BOTH systems.

What are the unwritten rules of western universalism and sanatan dharma? How does one go about learning them if you don't have a second lifetime to interact (and go through the failures of youth) with a society?

[Vayutuvan]

You are indeed very chatur

As in "has some knowledge of vocations of chatur varna - theorize, build, commercialize, and compete with others in the market place" or "know little bit of each of the chaturveda". Of course chaturAnana or chaturmukha* recites chaturvEdA from each of his four heads/faces/mouths. There are only four yugas and dharma is represented as a cow which stands on four legs in satya yuga, three legs in krita yuga, two in treta yuga, and one in kali yuga. "Chatuh sana" the four first mind-born creations of brahma (abstract but not physical manifestation?)

If one adds up the number of legs dharma stands on in each yuga, we get the number 10 (dashAvatAra).

By the way there is a sequence called Specker Sequence which is an important in computability theory, in that is a computable, monotonically increasing, bounded sequence of rational numbers whose supremum is not a computable real number.



Seriously speaking, I think it is a coincidence or related to cow having four legs and saNatanIs were able to make some connection between what they saw in animals - cow the most useful of them all and possibly primates which are seen sometimes walking on two legs and use the forelegs similar to humans using their hands and made the logical jump to dashAvatAra.

*When I was a kid I always used to wonder why Brahma is portrayed as having only three heads and finally got the courage to ask my dad. He had a good laugh and explained that the fourth head is in the back facing away from us.

[chanakyaa]

Shivji, did you ever post your thots on worker ants??

[KLNMurthy]

trolling crap deleted...


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.

India is hopeless and will be in the gutter forever, because you said so. And your sh*t is not trolling because you said so. And there is nothing wrong with you because you think so.

Beautiful. Can mods please do something about this great man who insists on gracing BRF with his presence?

[shiv]

Thus the question of practice naturally arises, how do you distinguish what is propaganda vs. actual principle vs. actual practice. And which really constitutes the western universalism. As an outsider to BOTH systems, the only thing I hear addressed to me is "I do not understand how the system works", despite being well versed in the written rules. So the unwritten and actually practiced must have some fundamental bearing. In BOTH systems.

What are the unwritten rules of western universalism and sanatan dharma? How does one go about learning them if you don't have a second lifetime to interact (and go through the failures of youth) with a society?

Tough one.

Let me use an analogy

If you are sick, you go to a doctor. If your plumbing needs fixing, you might need a plumber. There are people dedicated to addressing certain classes of problems.

So who looks at societies? Can't be doctors or plumbers. The obvious answer that comes to mind is "sociologists". In fact if one looks at the work of sociologists and anthropologists - you find that most of them are "Western" (European or American) and their work for more than a century has been dedicated to the study of "other societies". Every damn society on earth has been studied, codified, classified, magnified, dried, mummified and displayed to be gawked at and mocked. Any number of works exist that look at Indian society, Red Indian society, Chinese society, Japanese society, Javanese society, African society, Mayan society, Inca society, Hopi Indians, Eskimos, Arab society, Bantu society, Tibetan society.

What about English society? Irish society? Welsh? American society? European society? French society? German society? Swedish society? Danish society? No serious works exist and nothing compared to the voluminous tomes that can be found about every other society. There is nothing to compare. These societies are the "normal" against which other societies are compared and all of us learn this model. On another list with people from all over the world (mainly Indian, Europe, Americas, far east) I asked about why sociological studies of western societies are not done and which scholars could be consulted if we want to ask whether societies are going the right way or not. Strangely - the answer I got was that Science fiction writers are guiding the future of societies in the west. Let me not get into what I think of that - but clearly sociologists and anthropologists are not doing that. They are "western" scholars who study non western societies. If you want to learn about Indian society, you will read reference works by western sociologists, anthropologists and historians.

There have been others who looked at societies in the west - philosophers, religious leaders, revolutionaries (communists?) and some others. But most have been discarded. To me, it appears that people in western Europe and America have no model for a future society other than self-fulfillment today, in this life.

I see this as wrong. My background (upbringing) tells me that while I am here temporarily something livable and pleasant should be left behind for others who follow. One can argue with my viewpoint and say that it is bullshit and that there is no obligation for anyone to think of the future as long as you can live it up and enjoy yourself now. But still, I feel the way I feel.

As for the nitty gritty of what WU or SD is - I think we have been simply feeling our way around. I am not going to repeat the volumes of stuff that have been written earlier on this thread.

[shiv]

The question of whether there could be more or less than 4 varnas is an interesting one and a totally original one as far as I am concerned.

This is what Plato said
http://www.ditext.com/demos/plato.html

Plato divides the social organism into three classes -- the philosophers, the warriors, and the artisans. It is a division of society upon the basis of function; the first class rules, the second protects the state, the third provides for its physical needs.

Here is some more mind-blowingly familiar stuff from the same link. Was Plato influenced by Indian thought?

Two features stand out in Plato's conception. First, that leadership is in the hands of the intelligent group, the producing class being allowed the least power of any. Modern society often tends to reverse this order and to establish the business group as dominant, as the one which sets the tone and pulls the strings in politics and in the other spheres of life. Second, there are class-distinctions in Plato's republic, based -- be it noted -- on the principle of function and not on any hereditary principle. We have to-day the I viewpoint that any man may begin in a log-cabin and end in the White House; and this is a conception which we must cherish. Nevertheless, Plato's social philosophy supplies a useful check to whatever temptation there may be to carry our contemporary viewpoint to an extreme. For Plato, every individual has a natural orbit which prescribes the boundaries of his career; to-day many an individual is rendered unhappy by continually trying to rise to a more commanding position than the one in which he finds himself and so to rise into a sphere beyond his abilities. An apprentice must become a shop keeper, the shop keeper must become a professional man, the professional man must become a manufacturer or a political chief. In this there lurks a false standard of values. According to Plato, a man can realize his function as a human being and become happy no matter what the rank of his position, provided it be socially useful. The ideal of boundless ambition means that man moves continually from function to function and from position to position without catching root at any point and without ever enjoying the fruits of his labor; the business man must keep on making more money and the official must keep on being promoted to a 'higher' rank. But this fitful restless change makes for shallowness; only in repose may depth of experience be achieved.

Can I create more varnas than three. Or four?

If I attempt honesty in answering this question I must say that I don't know. I have not thought about it and have not studied the structure of societies as Manu or Plato might have done. My mind is clouded by the Macaulayite instruction that all men are equal and all men are the same in the eyes of God blah blah. A brief analysis tells me that this latter stuff that i was taught is rubbish. All men are not created equal and all men do not have equal potential.

It may be a social experiment of Western Universalism to assume the Christian declaration of equality of all men as the truth and then try to fiddle with societies so that all men get equal nutrition, equal education, equal everything. But wtf? Even after all that they can't be equal.

So there are "varnas" of some sort. In the absence of any original ideas of my own, I will simply accept the idea of 4 varnas.

[Pulikeshi]

Shiv -

You are on the right journey - it is incredibly amazing that many other civilizations have done the 3 - 4 class dance.
SD did the same dance but with a variant, it enabled geologic time subscriptions Jatis to enable scaling...

The 1 class dance is newer one, it is another attempt at scaling... just like the older versions... perhaps started with Zarathustra, or Buddha, but it has never mainstreamed in the Indian Sub-Continent, not for long anyway...

The thing that was simple and in front of my eyes, but I had missed seeing all these years and wasted time -
Of all the animals born out of the original desire, Humans are the only ones still arguing about mean of governance.
You never see ants, dophins, elephants, birds or fish argue on methods of governance... we do because?

Think of all that 'consume food' and organize themselves... their organizations are naturally what strategy enabled their survival within the context of what they live in, if and when evolution brings change a new normal is arrived at.
Small tribes of humans are amazingly good at coming to an agreed upon form of governance. Trouble arises when we try to put these Jatis together into a larger unit, even more trouble when we have to organize them into a country or civilization... The 1 classers think they can bring an ironing board and a hot iron and remove all the crease, sounds like a perfect plan, till the iron meets the tribes..

Humans have thus been arguing 1, 3, 4... these and any other number is fraught with trade-offs... it is hard to argue which is more natural, just that there are certain advantages for certain contexts... perhaps deserts made 1 class more attractive, whereas in the lush tropics the 1 classer have faired more poorly than the 3-4 classers. This needs to be explored more detail.

Bluntly for SD -
Picking 1 means weakening civilization, picking 3-4 means weakening nation-state, picking x brings question why?

[ShauryaT]

Here is some more mind-blowingly familiar stuff from the same link. Was Plato influenced by Indian thought?

Or is Plato's thought being mapped on to Varna, while Varna's design intent was something different? We should be careful for a lot of western thoughts and world views and Greek philosophy being one of its arms are used to explain the observations of westerners about Indian society. Not unlike to what they did with caste, where they tried to map and interpolate the European class system to Indian society to come up with Caste.

[shiv]

Here is some more mind-blowingly familiar stuff from the same link. Was Plato influenced by Indian thought?

Or is Plato's thought being mapped on to Varna, while Varna's design intent was something different? We should be careful for a lot of western thoughts and world views and Greek philosophy being one of its arms are used to explain the observations of westerners about Indian society. Not unlike to what they did with caste, where they tried to map and interpolate the European class system to Indian society to come up with Caste.

Shaurya - I am increasingly beginning to feel that western claims that they owe their culture and background to the Greeks is a load of crock. The Greek philosophers said and did something completely different - the west has totally ignored and rejected all that but find it convenient to claim an "ancient history" by latching on to Greek history. You read what those Greeks actually said and you wonder - hey what the heck - how on earth can the west claim all this as their history - they have no use for it.

This is my current hypothesis - I am currently reading Thomas More's "Utopia" and have just downloaded Plato's "Republic". Let's see how things go.

It is the democracy part that is bandied about and tomtommed the loudest but a lot of what was said by Greek philosophers was simply thrown out or interpreted for convenience. I think non westerners need to re look and re interpret a lot of stuff.

[csaurabh]

Plato should be taken with a grain of salt. A lot of his ideas were simply wrong.
Richard Dawkins writes in his book that the platonic 'ideal' animal was a concept that was just inherently opposed to that of evolution. And a lot of opposition to Darwin came because of that.

Similarly Aristotle came up with the (wrong) theories of Sun moving around the Earth, which was the basis for religious persecution in 15th Century Europe. This didn't come from Christianity.

[shiv]

Of all the animals born out of the original desire, Humans are the only ones still arguing about mean of governance.
You never see ants, dophins, elephants, birds or fish argue on methods of governance... we do because?

We don't know if they do, have done, or will do in future.

Is man unique? That is what Christian doctrine tells us. Man is special. Modelled after God. I will not bother getting into the paradox that asks what God is and where he can be found if we are shaped and modelled after him.

If everything was created out of the original desire, did the original desire have a special place for man? Is it only man that has a consciousness? If "Brahman" indicates the ultimate state of consciousness of everything, it is conceivable that non human living beings and non living things could have a consciousness of sorts that humans are not ordinarily able to sense. This would award no special favours to man, and man would be like anything else in the universe - bound down by his narrow consciousness of himself and his feeling that only he and what he senses represents reality.

I think there is too wide a gap between the concept of creation by the original desire and the worldly human quest for governance. If the original desire had desired a specific type of governance for man, that is what we would have had. I think the concept of creation by the original desire created the universe as we sense it but did not award specific outcomes or a specific pre-determined "fate" for specific parts of creation.

Can humans change the outcome? We humans certainly seem to think we can. Can some other life form change the outcome - for example could lynxes or guava trees change the outcome? If they could, we don't know about it. We have no information either for or against the idea. In the end, I suspect that lynxes, guava trees and humans are probably equally capable of affecting the future shape of our world. After all humans, lynxes and guava trees are all part of the same maya that humans sense.

But this means that humans are no more capable of changing the future than guava trees. So should we really bother about what we are doing? Should we really care about rapidly changing our environment? About eliminating all forms of animal life that we see as "enemies" or "pests"? Should we worry when we convert a 1000 hectare forest with a million life-forms into rolling grassland and a concrete city with a handful of species?

I think the answer is clear. If we, as humans, are going to worry about pollution and environment, it means that:
1. We believe that we humans can and do have an effect on the world and its future.
2. We believe that we have made mistakes and those mistakes need correction

On a deeper plane it means that we humans are "attached to human life" and wish to preserve it.

This actually brings the entire argument back to whether humans are special (as stated by Christianity) or not. If humans are not special, it means that in order to preserve human life we have to preserve everything else - or disturb everything else as little as possible. The implications of this conclusion are many, but let me simply stick to the question of human governance.

The "best" human governance would be the one that is most likely to achieve, for humanity, the greatest chance of long term survival. If that greatest chance requires the preservation of environment and other species, it means that the best human governance that seeks to help humanity, must also care about environment and flora and fauna.

Now we need to ask if humans alone must receive priority, or whether environment must require equal attention? Do "human rights", "human needs" and "human desires" need overarching attention or not. Western Universalism seeks to put humans, and individuals above everything else.

You can look at the life as a balance of:
1. What is good for me
2. What is good for human family and society
3. What is good for all life-forms

Western Universalism tends to favour 1 over 2 and 3. We really need to be paying more attention to 2 and 3

[member_23692]

trolling crap deleted...


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.

India is hopeless and will be in the gutter forever, because you said so. And your sh*t is not trolling because you said so. And there is nothing wrong with you because you think so.

Beautiful. Can mods please do something about this great man who insists on gracing BRF with his presence?

Your post, its quality, its tenor reflects your background, your experiences and where you come from. I never either respond to personal attacks, nor make them myself. People can make up their own minds about your posts.

I do try to speak the truth. And the truth, always hurts some people, in fact truth has a tendency to hurt a lot of people. In India, truth hurts most people. I dont know why it is, but it is so. It is very sad. Also, in India people always, always shoot the messenger. It is uncanny. They never miss. And this goes across all "Varnas", All 400 of them. Across all regional lines, across all linguistic lines. Here is another truth. The thing that binds the diverse "us" as Indians are not as many positive traits, as negative traits.

So, you want me to stop speaking the truth ? What is the evidence that I am speaking the truth. The evidence is that you want to gag me. You want me banned. That only happens when a person speaks the truth. If a person speaks falsehood, it is there for all to see. It can be easily refuted. By quoting counter facts and counter arguments. Then the falsehood is exposed and there is no need to gag. But with all our declarations that we in India have a great tradition of democracy, going back thousands of years, going back to our scriptures, what is amazing is that scratch the surface, and we have very little tolerance for free speech, and I am not talking about free speech of the personal attack variety, but free speech of the intellectual variety.

So, you want me to stop speaking the truth as I see it. Stop making the arguments that I would like to make. You want me to speak the truth as you see it and arguments that you would like to make. Sorry, cant help you.

By the way, stop speaking falsehoods. I never said, blanket, that India is in the gutter and will always stay there, as you have represented my words. There is a context to my posts. The context is always, "unless we Indians change our trajectory and reverse the decline", which we are eminently capable of doing. But we will not reverse the decline by bashing others, whether it be the West, no matter how bad it is or Rsangram, no matter how bad he is.

Yes, if we continue down the same path, keep from facing up the hard issues, avoid looking at the mirror, then we will not only stay in the gutter, we will perish. Others will not even leave us any space in the gutter, even if we, as we have demonstrated, are perfectly happy living there. The classic adage holds here. Either we improve or we get even worse. No status quo. Human beings are predators, and they will not let us live in status quo, if that is the only thing we want.

Pullikeshi said - 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!'

My friend, Pullikeshi, there is no more "self flagellation" than attacking one of our own, or shooting the messenger of bad news amongst us. Not yours, but the post I am responding to above, is a classic case of "self flagellation". The urge to suppress the truth, to gag others, is highly dangerous and a sign of complete decay and death. I repeat, these are all further signs that we are already dead as a culture or near death.

For people to say that this is a thread on Western Universalism, our decay can be discussed elsewhere, it is like Nero saying, yes, Rome is burning, but this is the music auditorium. Here we only fiddle.

[Pulikeshi]

^^^Boss you are welcome to discuss whatever you want on this or any other thread you create...
Whose father what goes... I am neither admin nor oldie, all this is time pass onlee.. I am a poor SDRE Shudra onlee...

Nero is saying, Rome is burning, but the world is under pralaya (deluge) - pick ur poisone yea Malthusians!

[member_23692]

X-POST from another thread.

Rsangram said - On this genuinely proud day in Indian history, one of the rare ones, and I am privileged to be alive to experience it, I am literally teary eyed, imagining an Indian space craft in an orbit around Mars. As a regular and harsh India basher, I genuinely with all my heart, congratulate my fellow Indians, all one plus billion of them, each one of them, regardless of their religion, region, ethnicity, language, ideology. Today, I am genuinely, genuinely proud, even prouder than when we went nuclear.

Mr Modi should call upon the Chinese president today, to join us Indians, to pursue grand goals for the betterment of humanity, rather than indulging in petty thievery and petty encroachments in an attempt to seize some land from us. Today is a glaring example of contrasting visions between India and China. Indian space craft enters the Martian orbit in its first attempt and the Chinese are holed up on the heights of Chumar trying to steal some land from us.

I never once believed those who said that they were proud that we had democracy and the Chinese did not. I always wanted us to have the economy and infra-structure and the self confidence of the Chinese. But today, I can genuinely say, that we have something that the Chinese dont. We have Mars. And no amount of obfuscation by the Chinese or the Western press will take that away. They all have to grudgingly accept it.

I take this opportunity to urge my fellow countrymen. Today proves, that if we just develop the right mindset, we Indians can do anything, solve any problems. Let us adjust our mindset, just a little bit, and we will see that in no time, we Indians will reach the stage where we will be near complete human beings, very human, very generous, very kind, very giving and quite well to do ourselves.

[A_Gupta]

Another reminder that the history of Europe is not the history of mankind:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/you ... eformation

[shiv]

Another reminder that the history of Europe is not the history of mankind:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/you ... eformation

There is something odd about the article.

The man is technically right in defining the "reformation" and I don't know if people are blaming lack of "the reformation" in Islam. "The reformation" is different from "reform" in European Christian states.

Martin Luther and the invention of the printing press enabled the printing and spread of different versions of the Bible and a breaking free of different Christian sects from the Vatican That then led to years of religious war and ended in the "Peace of Westphalia" which led to secular governments. The west today has gone one step further by discarding even the Christian morality they followed from 1650 to the 1950s.

So the development of Europe saw religious wars from mid 1500 to mid 1600s and the peace of Westphalia. After that the Church went out of government but remained as a moral and spiritual guide that guided and led colonial conquests. After colonialism ended - even church morality has been discarded with the break up of families, low marriage rate, single mothers, high divorce rates, gay marriage and legal gay parenthood.

[A_Gupta]

Myths about Sanskrit - Dr. K. Kapoor:

[A_Gupta]

I am increasingly beginning to feel that western claims that they owe their culture and background to the Greeks is a load of crock.

When I joined graduate school, there was a plethora of Greek students there also. One of the more thoughtful of them told me the above, too. This was, oh my god, almost 3 decades ago. I never did any work to verify it; I just assumed it was true.

[member_22733]

Maybe they are thinking about the Bryzantine Empire, when they say they owe it to Greeks. The empire took a lot from Greece and India and middle east, and while collapsing gave everything to Europe.

[A_Gupta]

Shiv,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/opini ... riage.html

For every child lifted out of poverty by a social program, another one is entering poverty as a result of the continued breakdown of the American family. If we could turn back the marriage clock to 1970, before the sharp rise in divorce and single parenthood began, the child poverty rate would be 20 percent lower than it is now. Even some of our biggest social programs, like food stamps, do not reduce child poverty as much as unmarried parenthood has increased it.

....scholars studying low-income or working-class communities have discovered that the women in these communities no longer think it is realistic to depend on the men in their lives. They have seen or experienced too much divorce, infidelity, substance abuse and other bad behavior to trust or fully rely on their partners.

Conservatives, for their part, believe that the problem is cultural and that restoration of marriage is not only possible but the best route to reducing poverty and inequality. .....Conservatives, however, have never explained how to restore marriage. Everything they have tried — from marriage-education programs to changes in the way marriage is treated in tax and benefit programs — has had little or no effect.

....We also need a new ethic of responsible parenthood. That means not having a child before you and your partner really want one and have thought about how you will care for that child.