Bharat Rakshak

That is not say that these ideas are not worthy of strife and struggle for indeed they are. Slavery in the US didn't end until a civil war had been fought with more casualties than any other war the US has fought. Civil rights for everybody didn't come until 100 years later. These ideas are worthy on their own merit alone forget about the money and power. The question is, can they happen w/o money and power? I think it all depends on the circumstances.

Perhaps the slide of Duty accelerated when those who were presumed to be the guardians of Duty became vested with too much privilege - and then started to hang on grimly to their own privilege as the economy and the defense realities of society deteriorated.

I don't know how to create conditions where this is reversed. Through the Ages, the ideas of Sacrifice and Duty (doing something although it is inconvenient/has drastic personal consequences) have obviously been incompatible with short-term convenience and personal comfort. Tribes dealt with this mismatch through various means:

1. The Leader (the guy who stood out front and faced the enemy first) was rewarded if he survived, and even idolized. Perhaps promised a life of comfortable, respected retirement, or at least, during his tenure as Leader, a life of luxury. Most never really got to enjoy the Good Life because they were always worried about the prospect of murder, torture, or being tossed in a dungeon.

2. The Sacrificial Class (clergy) were promised a life of not having to really worry where their next meal came from, since they claimed they needed nothing more. Eventually, they were also put in Palaces (see Vatican, Bishop's Palaces) and wore the richest robes and cloaks and crowns, probably to try and hide their mijjiles. Also given whole herds of youths with carnations in the ear.

3. The Revolutionaries declared that All Were Equal, so everyone had to share in the sacrifice. This was fine as long as everyone was half-starved and angry. Great movements started this way: the Mongols/Tartars, the Bavarian Barbarians, the Maoist People's Liberation Army, the Red Guards, the Red Army, the French Revolution, the Sandinistas, the Cuban Revolution, the Angolan Revolution, and countless others throughout human history. In India, the RSS, and (sorry) the Naxalites.

And recently, the Intifadah in the Occupied Territories of Israel, the Iranian Revolution, and most recently, the Islamic Jehad, and now the ISIS. But every one of these peaked with a Great Leader being anointed, and then trying to solidify their power base and their own future.

4. Given that prospects of Luxury and Comfort and Security were mutually exclusive in this life, leaders started spreading the idea that these would be available and waiting in Heaven/ Kingdom of Heaven / Houristan/ Nirvana for all the Followers, since they couldn't be given adequate rewards unlike the Leaders.

How can a nation and a whole culture "instill values of sacrifice" and still grow as a stable free, modern entity?

The answer of the West is that it cannot, and one might as well recognize that and move on. Greed and focus on personal advancement are far more "democratic" since everyone has those, and a system to manage the rat race without too much violence against the leadership, seems the best bet. Since greed cannot be satisfed with what is available, invasions, colonialism, slavery and plain robbery are integral parts of this Societal Plan. And lies and propaganda to lull the Outsiders and the Followers as long as possible, until it is too late for them to react effectively.

There are always limits to the "Western" preachings. For instance, the Treaty on Banning Torture, conveniently excludes the POTUS and cronies. Same with War Crimes.

The interesting thing to note is that these Societies that promise The Rule of Law etc etc have conveniently ensured that the guilty are never punished, and that they get to keep their ill-gotten wealth, privilege etc. Look at the following:

1. Genocide against Native Americans (obvious example)
2. Slavery
3. Robbery against immigrants
4. Racial discrimination

The only exceptions I know have been
a) Acts of The Almighty (read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address in full... and you suddenly understand why there was no way he could be allowed to live)
b) The SPLC - even there, the Leadership has now been ensconced in luxury, I think.

UlanBatori wrote:How can a nation and a whole culture "instill values of sacrifice" and still grow as a stable free, modern entity?

A reinvented VarnAshram system can be an answer, in an attempt to better regulate Knowledge, Wealth and Power for the larger good. But to elaborate on this, one will have to come to terms with some fundamental difference in approaches and accept Chatur Varnyam Maya Shrishtam, Guna Karma Vighagasha.

The answer of the West is that it cannot, and one might as well recognize that and move on. Greed and focus on personal advancement are far more "democratic" since everyone has those, and a system to manage the rat race without too much violence against the leadership, seems the best bet. Since greed cannot be satisfed with what is available, invasions, colonialism, slavery and plain robbery are integral parts of this Societal Plan. And lies and propaganda to lull the Outsiders and the Followers as long as possible, until it is too late for them to react effectively.

The highlighted is that quintessential difference between the western frameworks and SD. SD's is vested in the idea that Man's essence is to be one with the spirit. Its entire system of edifices and structures are designed to lift man from his lower nature of fulfilling their needs/wants to one vested in the idea of Yagnya. Only humans are able to offer this amongst all beings in a conscious and deliberate manner. It is what separates us from animals for even animals do things to fulfill their wants but of course man can take these fulfilling of desires to a whole other level resulting in wanton greed with no care for the other - just like the rakshasa.

Shiv,

I may have misunderstood but it seemed as if you suggested on the previous page that values don't matter to material outcomes for societies and countries. Lets look at England and Egypt after the Black Death, a plague that killed approximately 1/3rd of the population in both societies. But the outcomes were very different - one went on to produce Newton and Shakespeare, the other stagnated.

http://utpress.utexas.edu/index.php/books/borbla

There's a compelling argument there that the higher level of solidarity among Egyptian ruling classes and the extent of their sense of ownership over the peasantry made them unwilling to allow peasants the freedom to make their own economic choices. That made a bad situation much, much worse.

If you screw over the majority of members of your own society, you'll probably fall behind societies that a) dont hold them down and b) actually help them when they need it. Especially if its a society that is more open to change and innovation, whether social, political or technological.

But values are lived things, not just matters of identity or dogma. Its entirely possible for people to firmly say one thing, even make it central to their identity and yet do something very different.

Islam has not stopped Pakistan from being a radically unequal society where people go hungry - for all the belief in sharing as a core value of Islam, and the centrality of Islam to identity, it has a pattern of physical want and inequality that has far more in common with the rest of South Asia than the (including non oil producing) Middle East. That's part of the attraction for poor Pakistanis to the idea that more Islam or Arabisation is the solution. Of course they end up with something else, often much worse.

The US at the turn of the old century had along with Germany the finest public education and public health systems in the world, and that came in part from progressive ideas of the Enlightenment embedded in the constitution. That made it enormously competitive. Today the country has the same constitution, and more money than ever, far less institutionally racist and more people thump the constitution harder than ever but unlike Germany there's been a shift in values away from public goods. Unquestionably that decline in the quality of schooling and other public goods has made America less competitive.

UlanBatori wrote:Perhaps the slide of Duty accelerated when those who were presumed to be the guardians of Duty became vested with too much privilege - and then started to hang on grimly to their own privilege as the economy and the defense realities of society deteriorated.

I don't know how to create conditions where this is reversed. Through the Ages, the ideas of Sacrifice and Duty (doing something although it is inconvenient/has drastic personal consequences) have obviously been incompatible with short-term convenience and personal comfort. Tribes dealt with this mismatch through various means:

1. The Leader (the guy who stood out front and faced the enemy first) was rewarded if he survived, and even idolized. Perhaps promised a life of comfortable, respected retirement, or at least, during his tenure as Leader, a life of luxury. Most never really got to enjoy the Good Life because they were always worried about the prospect of murder, torture, or being tossed in a dungeon.

2. The Sacrificial Class (clergy) were promised a life of not having to really worry where their next meal came from, since they claimed they needed nothing more. Eventually, they were also put in Palaces (see Vatican, Bishop's Palaces) and wore the richest robes and cloaks and crowns, probably to try and hide their mijjiles. Also given whole herds of youths with carnations in the ear.

3. The Revolutionaries declared that All Were Equal, so everyone had to share in the sacrifice. This was fine as long as everyone was half-starved and angry. Great movements started this way: the Mongols/Tartars, the Bavarian Barbarians, the Maoist People's Liberation Army, the Red Guards, the Red Army, the French Revolution, the Sandinistas, the Cuban Revolution, the Angolan Revolution, and countless others throughout human history. In India, the RSS, and (sorry) the Naxalites.

And recently, the Intifadah in the Occupied Territories of Israel, the Iranian Revolution, and most recently, the Islamic Jehad, and now the ISIS. But every one of these peaked with a Great Leader being anointed, and then trying to solidify their power base and their own future.

4. Given that prospects of Luxury and Comfort and Security were mutually exclusive in this life, leaders started spreading the idea that these would be available and waiting in Heaven/ Kingdom of Heaven / Houristan/ Nirvana for all the Followers, since they couldn't be given adequate rewards unlike the Leaders.

How can a nation and a whole culture "instill values of sacrifice" and still grow as a stable free, modern entity?

The answer of the West is that it cannot, and one might as well recognize that and move on. Greed and focus on personal advancement are far more "democratic" since everyone has those, and a system to manage the rat race without too much violence against the leadership, seems the best bet. Since greed cannot be satisfed with what is available, invasions, colonialism, slavery and plain robbery are integral parts of this Societal Plan. And lies and propaganda to lull the Outsiders and the Followers as long as possible, until it is too late for them to react effectively.

There are always limits to the "Western" preachings. For instance, the Treaty on Banning Torture, conveniently excludes the POTUS and cronies. Same with War Crimes.

The interesting thing to note is that these Societies that promise The Rule of Law etc etc have conveniently ensured that the guilty are never punished, and that they get to keep their ill-gotten wealth, privilege etc. Look at the following:

1. Genocide against Native Americans (obvious example)
2. Slavery
3. Robbery against immigrants
4. Racial discrimination

The only exceptions I know have been
a) Acts of The Almighty (read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address in full... and you suddenly understand why there was no way he could be allowed to live)
b) The SPLC - even there, the Leadership has now been ensconced in luxury, I think.

1) The answer is not in the West, it is within ourselves. It is demeaning to us and insulting to the West, if we keep seeking answers outside of ourselves and our own culture and environment. Of course, we have to take international environment into account and we have to be willing to import any idea from outside that may work for us and also fit in well in our own strategy. But the drive to find answers has to come from within and we have to "pull", if we ever need something from outside, not face a "push" from outside to get it in

2) You have hit the right note with how do you promote the idea of sacrifice and duty in a society. Well, let us examine why we dont have it right now. If in any society, the leadership is immune and insulated from whatever is happening to the general population, then you will never have the idea of sacrifice and duty take hold. That is one of the greatest allure and seduction of democracy. Democracy promises that the leadership will not be insulated from people. Let me define what I mean by insulated. You cannot have the general population suffer from poverty, lack of food, sanitation, infra-structure, healthcare, education etc, while the leadership does not suffer at all from these things. So, if the price of gas or onions go up, do our elites or leadership suffer too, even in a small measure? No. If our soldiers get attacked on the border and are beheaded, does our leadership suffer any at all, even in a small measure ? If the per capita income goes down or does not increase as much, does our leadership suffer any, even in small measure ? If the rest of the population has to live in a bureaucratic and lawless mess of a daily existence, does our leadership suffer from the same, even in small measure ? Does the system behave in the same way for the leadership as it does for the people ? So, Democracy is supposed to not have this situation. Democracy is suppose to ensure that the leadership, more or less, is as much a participant in suffering, misery, oppression, inconvenience as the rest of us. And I dont mean the threat of removal from power. That is not much of a hardship at all. Now listen to this. IF A DEMOCRACY IS NOT ABLE TO DO THIS, MEANING, IF IT IS NOT ABLE TO NARROW THIS INSULATION, THIS INSULARITY OR THIS IMMUNITY FOR LEADERSHIP VIS-A-VIS COMMON PEOPLE, THEN WHAT ELSE IS THE ALLURE OF A DEMOCRACY ? NOTHING. Other than this, a Democracy does not have any redeeming features, even theoretically. All the benefits of a democracy flow from the narrowing of this "insularity gap" that I have talked about. If there is no narrowing, a democracy provides no benefits. On the other hand, a democracy, even well practiced, has many many disadvantages, which are theoretical and can actually be seen on the ground. Lack of ownership, paralysis in policy making, slide, general chaos, are all the disadvantages. So, if a democracy cannot narrow the "insularity gap", then all it has are disadvantages and nothing but disadvantages. This is a trap, nations and people have to avoid and this is where, the idea of Western Universalism does not hold, in my view. West thinks that Democracy is a universally applicable "good" idea. I believe otherwise.

However, in this thread, we have challenged everything the West does, in the name of challenging Western Universalism, but challenge this idea of democracy. We have gone to great lengths to defend our democracy, even claiming it as our own Indic idea. And then, except for challenging this one idea, which has kept us majorly from being what I call, a "sacrifitial" people, rather than an "aspirational" people, we have challenged everything the West peddles, in a very strange way in this thread. We have done this by defending each and every evil we have in our own society, in the name of denigrating Western Universalism. So, really, if you read this thread, we in India have no problems, no evil, all our solutions, no matter how klugy or "judadi", no matter how criminal, no matter how demeaning, are good, because West does not have those particular problems or evils and therefore, what we have is all good, whatever solutions emerge are all good and ideal and Western Universalism is bad. We might as well say, that all our evils are good, all our solutions are perfect and Mars is not red but orange. A total red herring.

In my view, at this point, at least for all thoughtful people, West is a non issue. It is neither absolutely good nor bad. It has found some good solutions to its problems, some not so good. It has nothing to do with our problems or our solutions, except that it is a peddler from whom we can buy some devices, if they so fit our solutions and strategy. Our problems, in my view, all lie within. And we have control over what we can do. If we do the right things, we can not only match the West in results, but do better.

But, like I said, looking at our contemporary thought and its bias towards "aspirational", rather than "sacrificial", I am not very optimistic. And, I am, by nature an optimistic person..........only

Unless suffering is more or less equally or at least fairly shared in a society by all, you will never have a "duty" and "sacrifice" oriented society and if you will not have that, sooner or later that nation will die

Indian leaders such as M.K.Gandhi and Lal Bahadur Shastri (and EMS Namboothiripad and several early leaders of the CPI), Vir Savarkar and some contemporary RSS leaders tried their very best to set this example.

The Sneering Classes however, controlled public perception, and within a few years of Independence, Greed won. A huge win for the basic premise of Capitalism. Today, the leaders of the PRC are probably mega-Billionaires. Putin certainly is not poor.

The American model is that ppl who win the Presidency are rich enough to not NEED to steal after they become President, but they come up by the support of many Billionaires who still have their hands in the President's pockets, ready to (let's put it this way, win his heart and mind.. )

A similar thing happened to India. I can't say that MMS was personally corrupt. But...
So how do we move ahead? How long can you tell the soldiers to Sacrifice For The Motherland on a Kargil cliff, while lounging in a Dilli resort?

Johann wrote:
If you screw over the majority of members of your own society, you'll probably fall behind societies that a) dont hold them down and b) actually help them when they need it.

<snip>

The US at the turn of the old century had along with Germany the finest public education and public health systems in the world, and that came in part from progressive ideas of the Enlightenment embedded in the constitution. That made it enormously competitive. Today the country has the same constitution, and more money than ever, far less institutionally racist and more people thump the constitution harder than ever but unlike Germany there's been a shift in values away from public goods. Unquestionably that decline in the quality of schooling and other public goods has made America less competitive.

Johann - By the year 1900, what was the status of Native Indians in America?

Migrants from Europe came and took the country relegating the surviving inhabitants of the country to a second class status. So yes, the migrants did look after themselves and their own society, but for more than 2 centuries they had done nothing other than pillage, kill, grab and be racist. After all that was done, universalism suddenly gained currency. Values like freedom, equality and other positive virtues would have been a huge hindrance to creating the America that was already great by 1900.

UlanBatori wrote:Indian leaders such as M.K.Gandhi and Lal Bahadur Shastri (and EMS Namboothiripad and several early leaders of the CPI), Vir Savarkar and some contemporary RSS leaders tried their very best to set this example.

The Sneering Classes however, controlled public perception, and within a few years of Independence, Greed won. A huge win for the basic premise of Capitalism. Today, the leaders of the PRC are probably mega-Billionaires. Putin certainly is not poor.

The American model is that ppl who win the Presidency are rich enough to not NEED to steal after they become President, but they come up by the support of many Billionaires who still have their hands in the President's pockets, ready to (let's put it this way, win his heart and mind.. )

A similar thing happened to India. I can't say that MMS was personally corrupt. But...
So how do we move ahead? How long can you tell the soldiers to Sacrifice For The Motherland on a Kargil cliff, while lounging in a Dilli resort?

Exactly. My one big worry is this. The day the jawan and junior officers, who are by and large the only non-corrupt and "sacrificial" class of people that remain in India today (I cant say the same for even the officer class in the armed forces above the Col level, maybe even the Major level), also become corrupt, to reflect the rest of the society, that is the day we will physically die as a nation. How long do you think this class will stay non-corrupt while everything and everyone around them emits the strong odor or rot and corruption ? And even if they miraculously manage to stay non-corrupt forever, how long do you think it is fair to rely on a small number of people and ride them like beasts or burden or halal them like sacrificial lambs, while we go about merrily, being "aspirational". And let us not just talk about our leaders now, let us take responsibility and talk about ourselves, the general population. The leaders are just our own reflection. As long as we stay dirty as a people, you can change one dirty leader, but we are sure to get another even more dirty (lotteries are an exception and Modi is a lottery, but like I said, even when we hit a jackpot like Modi, we will not be able to get any benefits because as long as we general people stay dirty, we will not be able to leverage a Modi to our advantage). Besides, we need the strength of all our people, not just our jawans and junior officers and Modi to come out of the hole that we are in and the challenges we face internally and externally today.

My view is that we need to think of alternative system of governance, radically different from what we have today. We as a people respond to fear. Currently, our leaders have no fear. The only fear they have is being removal from power. Which is not much of a fear at all, as they have already minted money in the first couple of years that they have been in power, and they know that the next guy, even their opponent, will not hold their feet to the fire and they also know that after the next guy has made his money, the people will get fed up of him and bring the old guys back in power. This will keep going on in circles. Unless we change our system to where the leadership fears that they will be dragged on the streets by people and then literally hung on a public square or beheaded or shot, nothing will change. We have to create a system of that kind of accountability, enforced by that kind of fear. This cannot occur in the type of democracy we have today.

I think you mean that we need Sharia then only people and leader both will have fear and then incorruptible system of governance will come about. That's one view point.

rsangram wrote: My view is that we need to think of alternative system of governance, radically different from what we have today. We as a people respond to fear. Currently, our leaders have no fear.
<snip>
We have to create a system of that kind of accountability, enforced by that kind of fear. This cannot occur in the type of democracy we have today.

You have several interesting points that add merit to the discussion.
I just want to point out a few areas that you could indulge my argument.

Running a chai shop, a large corporation, a state government or a nation-state -
it is always about the "Peeps" who run the show. Good competent people trump even a bad system.

That said, the same democracy you rail against had some stalwarts who understood the nature of man:

"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
- I believe this one is from Jefferson or was it Barnhill

It is not like Duty is unimportant in the West, ironically they too have lost a sense of Duty and
become more entitlement driven by Rights... It is also important to question why this may be the case?

"It seems to me that the duty to rebel is much more understandable than that right to rebel, because the right to rebellion ruins the order of power, whereas the duty to rebel goes beyond and breaks it." - Howard Evans Kiefer

Real question is even if you had a perfect system, will dishonest people not just cause its downfall?
So, who and what needs change?

chaanakya wrote:I think you mean that we need Sharia then only people and leader both will have fear and then incorruptible system of governance will come about. That's one view point.

I will settle for a Chanakyan system, the real Chanakya. There was nothing either "soft" or "democratic" about Kautilya.

Pulikeshi wrote:

rsangram wrote: My view is that we need to think of alternative system of governance, radically different from what we have today. We as a people respond to fear. Currently, our leaders have no fear.
<snip>
We have to create a system of that kind of accountability, enforced by that kind of fear. This cannot occur in the type of democracy we have today.

You have several interesting points that add merit to the discussion.
I just want to point out a few areas that you could indulge my argument.

Running a chai shop, a large corporation, a state government or a nation-state -
it is always about the "Peeps" who run the show. Good competent people trump even a bad system.

That said, the same democracy you rail against had some stalwarts who understood the nature of man:

"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
- I believe this one is from Jefferson or was it Barnhill

It is not like Duty is unimportant in the West, ironically they too have lost a sense of Duty and
become more entitlement driven by Rights... It is also important to question why this may be the case?

"It seems to me that the duty to rebel is much more understandable than that right to rebel, because the right to rebellion ruins the order of power, whereas the duty to rebel goes beyond and breaks it." - Howard Evans Kiefer

Real question is even if you had a perfect system, will dishonest people not just cause its downfall?
So, who and what needs change?

What needs to change is we as a people. Each one of us has a responsibility to sacrifice ourselves, and teach our children well. At least, that is something we all can do. And then collectively, like in forums such as these, we can at least talk about "sacrifice" and "duty" as a worthwhile value to have, as opposed to "chankianism" which we have distorted to mean everything repulsive and cowardly, or 10% growth or "aspirational" aspects. Don't forget, when we talk about "duty" and "sacrifice", we are being "aspirational" too, not just about shiny cars, money, houses, power over others, but for self respect, clean living, respect for each other, even love for each other and yes, a little bit of affluence too, why not ?

1. Ironically, the sense of duty today is relatively more prevalent in US than anywhere else. This is not saying much, but it is tragic that in other places it is even less than the US.

2. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. - Thomas Jefferson

3. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical - Thomas Jefferson

ShauryaT wrote:A reinvented VarnAshram system can be an answer, in an attempt to better regulate Knowledge, Wealth and Power for the larger good. But to elaborate on this, one will have to come to terms with some fundamental difference in approaches and accept Chatur Varnyam Maya Shrishtam, Guna Karma Vighagasha.

You are correct on this front, but what I struggle with intellectually is if this reform is societal or if it is the system of government. I tend to fall on the former, the groups and the individual, but others may have a different opinion. Let me stick my neck out and suggest two extremes - either the Varna order is collapsed and the amsha of each Varna is poorna in each individual or the other extreme is to bless institutionally a flexible Varna system and order the movement of Jatis in a fair and equitable manner.

ShauryaT wrote:SD's is vested in the idea that Man's essence is to be one with the spirit. Its entire system of edifices and structures are designed to lift man from his lower nature of fulfilling their needs/wants to one vested in the idea of Yagnya. Only humans are able to offer this amongst all beings in a conscious and deliberate manner. It is what separates us from animals for even animals do things to fulfill their wants but of course man can take these fulfilling of desires to a whole other level resulting in wanton greed with no care for the other - just like the rakshasa.

This is good analysis... but I want to point out that SD is not overwhelmingly interested in the upliftment of
man to any Moksha. The key reason for Dharma is stability - Dharayati iti Dharma.
Purushartha points out that creating Artha is the first and foremost as you are well aware...
Moksha comes last if at all, this overt romanticization of India by the West as the spiritual other is in itself
forcing us to look at SD in an alternate framework.

We in India have not had a rebellion, a real cleansing of dirty blood in a long time !

rsangram wrote:

chaanakya wrote:I think you mean that we need Sharia then only people and leader both will have fear and then incorruptible system of governance will come about. That's one view point.

I will settle for a Chanakyan system, the real Chanakya. There was nothing either "soft" or "democratic" about Kautilya.

You have one at the centre now.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is why you can not be the real thing. Just kidding.

We have a Chanakyan person, not a Chanakyan system in the Center. At least not yet. Don't conflate the two.

The beauty of the real Chanakya was that he understood the difference. And his other beauty was that he understood the importance of a "system" over an individual all that many centuries ago. In fact all his writings talk about systems.

I didn't say "person" either. I meant "System" onlee.

chaanakya wrote:I didn't say "person" either. I meant "System" onlee.

Then all is well. Congratulations.

Like we are saying in this thread. Unlike Western thought, in our thought, everything is inside of us. If inside of you, you feel like you are living in a Chanakyan system, you must be. Enjoy.

shiv wrote:Staying on "Western Universalism"

....
Right to life
Right to equality of people of all colours and races
Freedom from slavery
Right to freedom
Rights over resources in one's land
Right to clean air and water
....
If you (as I stated in an earlier post) examine each of these principles in detail, you will find that actually implemeting them is costly. Looting someone esle would be the easiest way of geting some things done, but guess what, looting has now been removed from the list of "universalisms"

To repeat a point I made, Western power and wealth were not created out of universalism. Adopting western principles of universalism is not necessarily going to make any country better, richer or more powerful. In fact it is going to keep a whole lot of countries down. If it comes to gaining national wealth and power, none of these universal principles are any good. The west too know damn well that these principles became applicable AFTER they all gained ascendancy.
...

Shivji, agreement with your post. To me, "western universalism" is a policy created to maintain its competitive advantage in the post colonial era and it should be treated like such from Indic pov. We see the implementation of this "moral code" in areas other than simple human life. For example,

1. World Trade Organization (WTO), trade agreements, and all the trade rules that came with it, in my view, is sort of enforcing a "economic moral code" on the developing world. West made sure that after colonialism ended, they continued to enjoy the trade advantage over the developing world. India is learning it the hard way in the area of solar panels, just to name one example.

2. Environmentalist's sneaky agenda combined with shenanigans of NGOs is another example of enforcing a "moral code" on developing nations. During the entire industrial revolution, no one in the west cared about the environment or carbon footprint. Now, if you don't make policies to protect the environment, you are considered backward nation. I wonder if the Europe's steps towards globalizing carbon tax is to cripple industrial revolution of the developing nation.

3. In the field of finance, sovereign credit ratings is another area in which the "moral code" is enforced on countries, which forces them to manage their finances according to "wester universal (??) principals".

4. European Union enforces a "universal" concept on its member states. This has caused a feeling of submission by some members states to powerful countries like Germany and France. Not that countries like Greece and Italy are well managed, but they have reluctantly accepted the EU "economic moral code".

rsangram wrote:

chaanakya wrote:I didn't say "person" either. I meant "System" onlee.

Then all is well. Congratulations.

Like we are saying in this thread. Unlike Western thought, in our thought, everything is inside of us. If inside of you, you feel like you are living in a Chanakyan system, you must be. Enjoy.

Ha its certainly not a paki one which needs to be culled.

shiv wrote:it seems like a good idea to start off both honest and unbiased.

Let's examine those claims shall we ?

1. What is the ideal rate of infant mortality?
2. Where is the medical proof that all babies who are born simply must be kept alive even if they have some of the most difficult to treat and not completely curable congenital disorders.

1. With enough data not hard to discern. Of course there might be variations between populations but is unlikely to be the kind of difference it is even currently. 190 per 100,000 in India compared to 7 in Germany, 8 in the UK and 28 in the US. The order of difference is 27 times Germany/UK and 6 times the US's. (As an aside why is the number so damn high for the US ? This seems to be a hot button topic.). By contrast Afghanistan is only roughly twice us for the same statistic. Point 2 is an outlier. Even if in the case of 2, christian morals were done away with and that child allowed to die with dignity, but good care during childbirth was accessible to all Indians, would the mortality rate be very different from countries with Christian morals ? I don't think so. It makes no sense for those two statements to be listed together, especially by a doctor. Can't really see any honesty there.

It is a Christian imposition that all human life must be preserved. But that must be tempered with the situation of a villager in India who has a third child born with a congenital abnormality in the heart that requires major surgery and months in hospital for a person who cannot afford the treatment or the time. But if the child dies - it is one more "infant mortality".

I can totally see the lack of bias here

We want healthcare for all, and we want wealth for all. Last time I checked - all top soccer teams and all top cricket teams in the world had people under the age of 35, barring the odd exception. Humans enjoy good health (generally) up to that age. After that things start falling apart. People of my age are often getting to be decrepit old wrecks who would look cute in a mortuary.

You can spend your entire life paying health insurance, but the entire insurance money will be exceeded when you are a half dead person aged 85 being kept alive in an ICU somewhere, waiting for something to kill you by chance. Surely society needs to accept ill health and death. Families were the social security net. In India they still are. A significant percentage of elderly urban patients in India have several children abroad - but one remains in India, looking after his/her parents. They would go broke if their parents were not allowed to die in dignity at home instead of dying after 6 weeks in hospital with tubes shoved up godknowswhere.

But "being wealthy" means having fewer children and discarding children earlier and living away from parents. Being "healthy" is a great ideal, but what the fuk does "health" mean at age 95?

Most of it felt completely irrelevant to childbirth mortality, so I'll let it pass.

By creating societies which concentrate on wealth and sensual pleasures to be enjoyed in this one, single life being valued at a premium, death and old age are treated as undesirable features. Western society has gone up that route and they are welcome to do what they want. But what are Indians doing? We have a wealth of information about what is valuable and what is not. Yet, we drop everything and follow western ideals without so much as a thought. Sorry - this is getting philosophical - but in the end it really is philosophy.

Nope, it's wishful thinking. That somehow we're different, more altruistic, less interested in material goods, or least were till the west corrupted us. All figments of your imagination. Very much in the same class as the "it was so much better in the past". One of my mother's most frequent claim is "Kali kalaam mutthiduthu". Seems pretty common. No philosophy there really.

I had to hunt down this gem.

brihaspati wrote: See why universalism is so useful for hardcore bullshiters! Without the crutch of "western universalism" to lean on, how could KrishnaK bullshit about "part of unique culture that is not hurting anyone"! "hurt" is a matter of perception. So KrishnaK type of bullshitting will have to support Khomeinis call for execution of Salman Rushdie as the latter's unique "culture" of lampooning a claimed prophet of a certain religion based on actual verses attributed to that prophet - "hurt" Khomeini. Also support the beheading of a filmmaker by a Muslim in an European country - because that filmmaker's unique culture of making critical documentaries on Islam in his country hurt some muslim.

Even cursory reading of *western universalism* would involve right to life and ... And some here treat you like a intellectual That argument is pretty well thought out, and I'd suggest you not make further fool of yourself.

What this type of bullshiting carefully hides under lofty claims of "human drive and behaviour is everywhere the same" is the bullshit state of knowledge about human behaviour and motivations. If krishnaK's bullshit were true, given identical situations, two humans would behave in exactly the same way. All social situations, and social events become predictable. Judges would be redundant, courts unnecessary - only documenting machines required, which would tick off the features of the particular situation, and predict the expected behaviour, which by KrsihnaK's bullshit should match actual human behaviour for that situation - and therefore no real crime/deviation from law can be attributed to the human: it was the situation which made him behave so.

I very much enjoy your pretentiousness. I mean something like

carefully hides under

As if there was some deviousness to the claim that you have unearthed with your intellect.

Human behaviour and drive everywhere is indeed the same. That doesn't mean a million other variables and human imagination doesn't result in a lot of diversity. People from different cultures, religions might paint different things, but all human populations have wanted to draw (scratch on a cave would be more like it ?) and paint. All peoples have come up with the concept of a religion, no matter if the tale they tell is very different. Most people moved through various stages of evolution from hunter gatherers, to pastoralists to urban conglomerations in exactly the same order. Would it be also roughly around the same times ? All of them have come up with kingdoms and more importantly a justification for why some person should be king. The story again varies widely, but a story there almost always is. Every sort of governance has tried to come up with some moral justification to find legitimacy to their rule. When I mean human behaviour and drive everywhere is the same I claim that The language of psychopaths would be mostly applicable to Indian psychopaths just as well, in spite of vast differences in culture, language and religion. Just like almost everything else that involves human interaction will apply, no matter what the race or religion. Democracy just happens to be one of it. This equality will apply even if Hindus came up with something worth adopting, whether in the past or the future.

udaym wrote: Shivji, agreement with your post. To me, "western universalism" is a policy created to maintain its competitive advantage in the post colonial era and it should be treated like such from Indic pov. We see the implementation of this "moral code" in areas other than simple human life. For example,

1. World Trade Organization (WTO), trade agreements, and all the trade rules that came with it, in my view, is sort of enforcing a "economic moral code" on the developing world. West made sure that after colonialism ended, they continued to enjoy the trade advantage over the developing world. India is learning it the hard way in the area of solar panels, just to name one example.

2. Environmentalist's sneaky agenda combined with shenanigans of NGOs is another example of enforcing a "moral code" on developing nations. During the entire industrial revolution, no one in the west cared about the environment or carbon footprint. Now, if you don't make policies to protect the environment, you are considered backward nation. I wonder if the Europe's steps towards globalizing carbon tax is to cripple industrial revolution of the developing nation.

3. In the field of finance, sovereign credit ratings is another area in which the "moral code" is enforced on countries, which forces them to manage their finances according to "wester universal (??) principals".

4. European Union enforces a "universal" concept on its member states. This has caused a feeling of submission by some members states to powerful countries like Germany and France. Not that countries like Greece and Italy are well managed, but they have reluctantly accepted the EU "economic moral code".

Yes absolutely. I am guessing that it is well within their rights to call something as "universalism". It is also OK if they try to sell this snake oil to others.

But those who buy this snake oil are the ones who need enlightenment.

Two hundred years ago looting, pillaging and slavery were all "universalism". When you have concepts like "White man's burden" or "The descendants of Japheth have inherited the world and are somehow superior to Hamites and Shemites" - looting and slavery certainly become laudable forms of "universalism" for al humans - since others are sub human in any case.

If we use today's morals and claim that we are better now let me point out that there was another form of universalism in the past that allowed people to migrate form continent to continent to escape famine, drought, pestilence, flooding or persecution. In fact the US is claimed to have been made by such people. How come free migration is no longer a universal right.

Western forms of Universalism, as you say re tools to maintain the current world order, Note the propaganda apparatus that constantly compares infant mortality, child mortality etc - and accuses countries that don't come up to some mark of all sorts of deficiencies.

Every one of these "universalisms" would be easier targets to meet if there was enough money to go round. One could be innovative about how to make that money. Note that the "Hindu rate of growth" can be explained by Indian efforts to be law abiding and try and toe the line about all the universalism goals. Countries that enjoy great natural resources - like Saudi Arabia do not even need to conform to all these morals. Countries that thumbed their noses at some of these universal values have done better than India economically. While India is fundamentally democratic and I don't think that will change India's economy was far better when there was no democracy. I am not trying to argue against democracy - I am only pointing out that India is forced to spend unrealistic amounts on unreachable goals simply to meet targets set by demands claimed to be "universalism".

I am particularly concerned about healthcare where investment is heavily and blindly being put into the western model and that investment is never going to be enough. A laughable contradiction in India is the way the same newspaper will carry a report of a dozen infant deaths in some backward state while proudly proclaiming that some Paki child born with a very complex and normally fatal abnormality like a three chambered heart or blood vessels with reversed connections in the heart were saved by Indian doctors. If your child has such a problem you will not spend less than 15 lakhs and still have no guarantee. A tenth of that investment would save lots of children from common Indian problems. So we are picking up western norms and going the wrong way. Right from the 70s (when I did my education) to 2014 India is training doctors who, from the moment they are qualified are ready to slot in seamlessly into any hospital in the west. They are misfits in India because our healthcare system is modeled on western countries of 2014 not for Indian problems. We need heath care workers and nurses, not expensive doctors who are only good for export. "Humans rights" means you can't stop them from leaving.

Our Nehruvian morality in India that makes us support all this international bhaibhai UN mediated universalism-shuniversalism business and all "good goals of world peace and cooperation" has prevented us from developing one of the most lucrative industrial businesses in the world - arms export.

Every Indian American relative or friend I meet says vegetables in India are so much more flavourful. I don't know how long that will last - because the universalism of obesity for all demands that we take up genetically engineered foods to let everyone gorge and let no one die of hunger. India will soon be the country in the world with the dubious paradoxical distinction of having both the largest number of malnutrition deaths AND the largest number of obese diabetics. And the word's media will still be lampooning us for being unable to meet western targets for child nutrition and western targets for diabetes control.

I think we need to look at what is being pushed as not necessarily useful for India. We have to make our own rules and work to our own standards to see what is within reach, rather than spend our lives trying to match standards set by others.

KrishnaK

KsirhnaK wrote:People from different cultures, religions might paint different things, but all human populations have wanted to draw

What are the linkages between "culture", "religion", and "draw" (i.e. art)? I will supply it in the form of a multiple choice question if required (by you). Otherwise please go ahead and delineate the three concepts you have freely used above.

Pulikeshi wrote:

ShauryaT wrote:SD's is vested in the idea that Man's essence is to be one with the spirit. Its entire system of edifices and structures are designed to lift man from his lower nature of fulfilling their needs/wants to one vested in the idea of Yagnya. Only humans are able to offer this amongst all beings in a conscious and deliberate manner. It is what separates us from animals for even animals do things to fulfill their wants but of course man can take these fulfilling of desires to a whole other level resulting in wanton greed with no care for the other - just like the rakshasa.

This is good analysis... but I want to point out that SD is not overwhelmingly interested in the upliftment of
man to any Moksha. The key reason for Dharma is stability - Dharayati iti Dharma.
Purushartha points out that creating Artha is the first and foremost as you are well aware...
Moksha comes last if at all, this overt romanticization of India by the West as the spiritual other is in itself
forcing us to look at SD in an alternate framework.

Moksha is as much part of purusharthas as Kama and Artha are. If SD is not interested in Moksha it wouldn't be part of chaturvidha-Purusharthas. It will be three purusharthas.

The issue, IMO, is with people thinking Moksha as some separate being from man's life. If we take Moksha as Atma Sakshatkara = one's true self; then it is as much part of every man as Kama and Artha are. Dharma (Dharayati Iti Dharma) makes sure that the Dharana is on Moksha (true being of one's self) even when one is amidst Artha & Kama.

None of these purusharthas are meaningful on their own to the 'society'. If a man is only Moksha then there is no action (or action has no purpose for that person), if a man is only Dharma and no Artha, Kama, Moksha that too is of no use for the society and so on... It is the culmination of all these purusharthas is what makes a human Sanatana-Dharmic a.k.a Bharatiya or Aarya.

shiv wrote: Two hundred years ago looting, pillaging and slavery were all "universalism". When you have concepts like "White man's burden" or "The descendants of Japheth have inherited the world and are somehow superior to Hamites and Shemites" - looting and slavery certainly become laudable forms of "universalism" for al humans - since others are sub human in any case.

I think you're argument is not clear at all. The very democracy we emulated, managed to get our GDP from 25% of the world to 1% while benefiting equally. That in itself has nothing to do with the fact that democracy was a good idea. I'm not arguing about democracy per se. Only the fact that if an idea stands the test of reason, it should be adopted. The culture, religion or whatever else of the source has no room in that debate.

If we use today's morals and claim that we are better now let me point out that there was another form of universalism in the past that allowed people to migrate form continent to continent to escape famine, drought, pestilence, flooding or persecution. In fact the US is claimed to have been made by such people. How come free migration is no longer a universal right.

Hypocrisy. That though, is not solely the west's prerogative.

Every one of these "universalisms" would be easier targets to meet if there was enough money to go round. One could be innovative about how to make that money. Note that the "Hindu rate of growth" can be explained by Indian efforts to be law abiding and try and toe the line about all the universalism goals.

The hindu rate of growth came about because of the nonsense of a planned economy. Incidentally that's exactly what you suggest in terms of human development below in this post.

Western forms of Universalism, as you say re tools to maintain the current world order, Note the propaganda apparatus that constantly compares infant mortality, child mortality etc - and accuses countries that don't come up to some mark of all sorts of deficiencies.

Is that why the Indian economy has grown 5x and the Chinese 20x ? The west must be pretty awful and incompetent at maintaining the current world order if they've managed to let the Chinese at only 6k per capita GDP threaten a 50k per capita GDP economy. Your argument makes no sense. None.

Countries that enjoy great natural resources - like Saudi Arabia do not even need to conform to all these morals. Countries that thumbed their noses at some of these universal values have done better than India economically. While India is fundamentally democratic and I don't think that will change India's economy was far better when there was no democracy. I am not trying to argue against democracy - I am only pointing out that India is forced to spend unrealistic amounts on unreachable goals simply to meet targets set by demands claimed to be "universalism".

India is not forced to do anything. Not because there isn't any coercion, but because we're pretty good at resisting it. I have posted multiple links on how we managed to continue to get US food aid, in spite of criticizing the US over Vietnam. We're not as helpless as you make us out to be, and the west not as heartless. At least not now, given the assumption we're not getting our money back from the brits. That's gone. Any half decent Gujju will explain that to you. Incidentally it was the IMF's coercion that caused us to liberalize our economy and attain subsequent growth.

I am particularly concerned about healthcare where investment is heavily and blindly being put into the western model and that investment is never going to be enough. A laughable contradiction in India is the way the same newspaper will carry a report of a dozen infant deaths in some backward state while proudly proclaiming that some Paki child born with a very complex and normally fatal abnormality like a three chambered heart or blood vessels with reversed connections in the heart were saved by Indian doctors. If your child has such a problem you will not spend less than 15 lakhs and still have no guarantee. A tenth of that investment would save lots of children from common Indian problems. So we are picking up western norms and going the wrong way. Right from the 70s (when I did my education) to 2014 India is training doctors who, from the moment they are qualified are ready to slot in seamlessly into any hospital in the west. They are misfits in India because our healthcare system is modeled on western countries of 2014 not for Indian problems. We need heath care workers and nurses, not expensive doctors who are only good for export. "Humans rights" means you can't stop them from leaving.

I'd definitely agree that educating a doctor or an engineer while letting millions starve and get malnourished isn't a good thing. That said, the only exports India was good at was humans. The only sector not affected by a planned economy ?

Our Nehruvian morality in India that makes us support all this international bhaibhai UN mediated universalism-shuniversalism business and all "good goals of world peace and cooperation" has prevented us from developing one of the most lucrative industrial businesses in the world - arms export.

You live in the 50s. The most lucrative business in the world is selling smartphones and apps that run on it. Not arms. I had posted data on how the all controlling MIC in the US is no more profitable than General Motors. A far cry from the likes of GOOG or AAPL. Besides the fact that you're factually incorrect, you also have a notion of Indians being innocent and easily misled. That is just as baseless as your claim that Indians were more altruistic.

KrishnaK wrote: I had posted data on how the all controlling MIC in the US is no more profitable than General Motors. A far cry from the likes of GOOG or AAPL.

Funny that.
Was it really necessary to say that I am living in the 50s and make an insinuation about my state of mind. Are you so upset at my posts? How about looking at your state of mind which is utter slavery to America.

If something you say is true for America you believe it will be true for India as well. No need to look at data for the last 60 years from multiple nations. The "America is the navel of the universe" argument that so many Indians including you relentlessly push. It is because Indians are sold out on this sort of stuff that Indians find it difficult to chalk out a unique path for India. We have to emulate the west - currently America.

shiv wrote: Was it really necessary to say that I am living in the 50s and make an insinuation about my state of mind.

I believe I owe you an explanation. I grew up believing India was inferior because we were more corrupt than the west. I grew up believing India was inferior because the Japanese when the went on strike would continue to manufacture only one of the pair of shoes in a shoe factory. I grew up believing that India was destined to poverty because we didn't have *natural resources*. I still meet people who claim that. I grew up believing India was destined to poverty because of her huge and unsustainable population. I still meet people who claim that, in spite of the fact that we've managed to grow at rates far exceeding our population growth.

I think too many Indians have internalized western universalism as the truth for India and a large number of such Indians sit in decision making bodies in India.

Once again I will describe the sort of thinking that I have observed among Indian decision makers and this thinking is totally guided by the parameters set for us by the west, and by western statistics and data.

For example reports show that Indians maternal and infant mortality is pathetic compared to most nations. So what to do? Then some Einstein looks at data for healthcare. He observes that the doctor-patient ratio in India is very bad compared with the USA or European countries. The media echo this - and so Indians end up building huge medical colleges that take in thousands of students and churn out thousands of doctors.

Indians love it when we receive praise from the west. When some westerner says "India is a vibrant democracy" it makes headlines. We cringe and howl when the same western news portal points out that we have more cellphones than toilets or that India has the largest number of malnourished children in the world. Of course our democracy ensures that infant mortality and human development is consistently better in states where governance is better. Our democracy can do little to improve governance in states where it remains consistently bad.

I would say that "reservation" in India is India's response to the demands of Western universalism. We cater to downtrodden minorities by lowering standards for them. Note that homosexuals are also a minority and should have reservation - i await that move as part of our quest to equal the west in universalism. We want to mix minority and majority thoroughly and imagine we are becoming like "melting pot" America. I suppose there must be some decision makers in India who enjoy the feeling of being praised when they go abroad and boast "We are just like you" Problem is only praise form America and the west suits Indians in keeping with our slavish following of western ideals.

KrishnaK wrote:Besides the fact that you're factually incorrect, you also have a notion of Indians being innocent and easily misled. That is just as baseless as your claim that Indians were more altruistic.

Indians as individuals may or may not be less or more altruistic than Westerners. There is not enough data that I have seen to determine one way or the other.

But institutional and societal capabilities are not equivalent to the sum total of the values or capabilities of the individuals that comprise the group. What one can say with surety is that Indian society as a whole over the last thousand or more years has had more of a 'live and let live' attitude compared to either the West or Islam. Whether one chooses to use the term 'altruistic' to describe this attribute is a different matter- but Indian society and civilization has certainly brought about far less damage to other societies than have the other two worthies.

KrishnaK wrote:

shiv wrote: Was it really necessary to say that I am living in the 50s and make an insinuation about my state of mind.

I believe I owe you an explanation. I grew up believing India was inferior because we were more corrupt than the west. I grew up believing India was inferior because the Japanese when the went on strike would continue to manufacture only one of the pair of shoes in a shoe factory. I grew up believing that India was destined to poverty because we didn't have *natural resources*. I still meet people who claim that. I grew up believing India was destined to poverty because of her huge and unsustainable population. I still meet people who claim that, in spite of the fact that we've managed to grow at rates far exceeding our population growth.

Fair enough but you have said a lot about your state of mind. How did you smear that on me? You are trying to look into your mind and your experiences and acquaintances and use that as a template for my thinking as if the universe is restricted to what you have seen and felt. That is nonsense.

KrishnaK wrote:Besides the fact that you're factually incorrect, you also have a notion of Indians being innocent and easily misled. That is just as baseless as your claim that Indians were more altruistic.

I just saw this - courtesy Arjun. Delicious! (for me )

KrishnaK, you and I are both aware of your right to disagree with me.

Hilariously, and paradoxically, you seem to believe that Indians are so naive that they will believe misleading stuff that I write, even if it is wrong. If they are not naive, they will not swallow it will they?

But I don't need to refute your statement at all. I just need to do nothing more than state my views. If I am misleading people and Indians are naive enough to be misled by my words (that you claim are wrong) - then my work is done. If they are not misled by what I write then they are not naive and you need not worry about them.

I am saying that Indians are both naive and altruistic and swallow the snake oil of western universalism.

• If I am wrong and they are naive, they will believe me.
• If I am right and they are naive, they will still believe me
• If I am wrong and they are not naive they will dismiss my words
• If I am right and they are not naive, they will believe me

Arjun wrote: What one can say with surety is that Indian society as a whole over the last thousand or more years has had more of a 'live and let live' attitude compared to either the West or Islam. Whether one chooses to use the term 'altruistic' to describe this attribute is a different matter- but Indian society and civilization has certainly brought about far less damage to other societies than have the other two worthies.

+1

Pulikeshi wrote: You are correct on this front, but what I struggle with intellectually is if this reform is societal or if it is the system of government. I tend to fall on the former, the groups and the individual, but others may have a different opinion.

Without societal change governmental changes in this direction alone would not make any sense. At this time, I am primarily worried about society living by VarnAshrama. Governmental change can be later with one caveat - no compromise on unity, sovereignty and integrity.

Let me stick my neck out and suggest two extremes - either the Varna order is collapsed and the amsha of each Varna is poorna in each individual or the other extreme is to bless institutionally a flexible Varna system and order the movement of Jatis in a fair and equitable manner.

Varna as a system of socio-political organization that upholds Dharma, has collapsed totally. Ahsrama Dharma still by and large followed in an Individual capaciti, without political backing is under pressure from an alien system. These have collapsed because the only thing of value any more is wealth and power. The ideal of yagnya (not = moksha) is not recognized in society anymore. This is the underlying reason for a lack of officers in militaries in most nations, including India. Similar is the case for lack of good teachers in education - especially those not for profit. People want to earn money till they are age 85 and live as a grihasta - with no obligation to return something back to society. I usually cajole my older relatives that they are in debt of mother earth for all the food, water and air that she has provided - so do something to pay back that debt and many others we do not realize. They usually write me off - and these are also those, who do have not done their daily pancha mahayagnas and are largely divorced from SD as a living system, except in the personal spiritual space. So, in a socio-economic-political sense VarnAshrma is dead. Without some version of VarnAshrama back in action, It will not be Hinduism as we have known it but something else. Many and Many well informed tell me, that is fine for what is important is Moksha at the end - I remain unconvinced.

I want to point out that SD is not overwhelmingly interested in the upliftment of
man to any Moksha. The key reason for Dharma is stability - Dharayati iti Dharma.
Purushartha points out that creating Artha is the first and foremost as you are well aware...
Moksha comes last if at all, this overt romanticization of India by the West as the spiritual other is in itself
forcing us to look at SD in an alternate framework.

To clarify. Uplifting man to be god-like and envisioning man's actions in the vision of the gods is to do with how a man lives his life in all dimensions and not just Moksha. Rama is maryada purshottam because he shows how a god incarnated man is supposed to live - as a man. The only qualifier being, since Ramayana is a smriti and itihaasa and contextually derived for a certain time and space - ALL of its messages may not be directly relevant today.

KrishnaK wrote: I grew up believing India was destined to poverty because of her huge and unsustainable population. I still meet people who claim that, in spite of the fact that we've managed to grow at rates far exceeding our population growth.

Are you aware that there is an Indian view of poverty that is different from the American view. Or do you believe that poverty has a universal definition?

shiv wrote:

Johann wrote:
If you screw over the majority of members of your own society, you'll probably fall behind societies that a) dont hold them down and b) actually help them when they need it.

<snip>

The US at the turn of the old century had along with Germany the finest public education and public health systems in the world, and that came in part from progressive ideas of the Enlightenment embedded in the constitution. That made it enormously competitive. Today the country has the same constitution, and more money than ever, far less institutionally racist and more people thump the constitution harder than ever but unlike Germany there's been a shift in values away from public goods. Unquestionably that decline in the quality of schooling and other public goods has made America less competitive.

Johann - By the year 1900, what was the status of Native Indians in America?

Migrants from Europe came and took the country relegating the surviving inhabitants of the country to a second class status. So yes, the migrants did look after themselves and their own society, but for more than 2 centuries they had done nothing other than pillage, kill, grab and be racist. After all that was done, universalism suddenly gained currency. Values like freedom, equality and other positive virtues would have been a huge hindrance to creating the America that was already great by 1900.

I'm not sure why you've chosen to focus exclusively on American history. The 'West' isn't just America.

But even in the American context the ideas of political freedoms and equality were important from the start - the problem is that large sections of the society were convinced that this didn't apply to people who were different from them.

But there were powerful impulses from within the society to make enlightenment values lived values - that is why abolitionism grew as a movement to the point that it actually became the single most divisive issue in America in the first half of the 19th century. You couldn't believe in Enlightenment values and accept slavery. This was long before America was a superpower, or even dominant in that hemisphere.

Could America have been powerful and wealthy if it had been willing to apply universal values universally? I don't see why not.

Treating Native Americans like US citizens with full and equal rights as Americans would not have in any way weakened the country, or impeded its growth.

Ending slavery sooner, or having ended Jim Crow laws sooner would have decreased the enormous drag on the US from having this sizeable underclass of poorly educated, often unhealthy people with whom social relations are often fraught. Much of the wealth created by slavery ended up being destroyed in the Civil War anyway.

The question of what Americans owe one another as citizens (regardless of race) is probably the most divisive issue today. Should corporations and money really have the same status as humans and free speech? If Enlightenment values stress tolerance, how much intolerance are you obligated to tolerate? America will lose if those values lose out.

TSJones wrote:The question is, can they happen w/o money and power? I think it all depends on the circumstances.

Yes, and those circumstances require recognition of two more things in the socio-political framework that will balance money and power. It is knowledge and renunciation. Welcome to Sanatan Dharma.

For those who are interested, in the "universalism" of removal of poverty, here is a great paper. I urge those of you who have access to download and read it. I will only post excerpts as screenshots
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3 ... 4552535443

One wonders whether the colonization of America would have been possible without slavery.

The wealth accorded America by slavery was not just in what the slaves pulled from the land but in the slaves themselves. “In 1860, slaves as an asset were worth more than all of America’s manufacturing, all of the railroads, all of the productive capacity of the United States put together,” the Yale historian David W. Blight has noted. “Slaves were the single largest, by far, financial asset of property in the entire American economy.” The sale of these slaves—“in whose bodies that money congealed,” writes Walter Johnson, a Harvard historian—generated even more ancillary wealth. Loans were taken out for purchase, to be repaid with interest. Insurance policies were drafted against the untimely death of a slave and the loss of potential profits. Slave sales were taxed and notarized. The vending of the black body and the sundering of the black family became an economy unto themselves, estimated to have brought in tens of millions of dollars to antebellum America. In 1860 there were more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi Valley than anywhere else in the country.

http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/arc ... ght/60666/

But this is a digression. The point about American Universalism is as follows: tomorrow or soon, the laws against marijuana in the US might be revoked. Thereupon, the US Human Rights Industry will go about condemning every nation that has laws against marijuana use.