Unbinding India

satyamvada

OK so you want to give in to a possibility that the ancient texts have wisdom. I agree, that those sages put in a lot of hours and there is plenty of wisdom in it. It is however a fact that we have rejected many of our own texts. I see no farmer dusting out his old aryabhatta book to calculate amount of grain needed to sow in a new field under the plow. We have kept some intellectual pursuits(i gave example of yoga, music etc). We have kept almost all of our rituals (samskara), as they were found useful to organize life, and celebrate it. It is possible that researching the texts will yield some new morsels of wisdom, applicable towards the future. It is however, not obvious to me as it seems is to you. The rennaissance european nobles used whatever was available to them (to solve worldly problems) ancient knowledge accumulated and preserved by the arabs..and so should we. Use all easily available knowledge first. For problems wiht non-obvious solutions, sure.. search anything at all.

Jang,

In my note to you, I made two mistakes which totally change the meaning !
Here are the corrections:

a) I wrote: ``Surely quite a lot of it is applicable today ``
I meant to write : Surely quite a lot of it is not applicable today ``

b) I wrote: ``colonies of the british were able to become democracies``
I meant to write : ``colonies of the british were unable to become democracies ``

Jang,

I am afraid that you are making a mistake by assuming that old texts have been
given up by Indians because they found nothing valuable in it.

It seems to me that Indians for the most part have no idea what is in the old texts,
and how it may add to our knowledge. Most Indians have internalised european
explanations of Indian texts. We have not bothered to study it on our own and
interpret it according to our experiences.

Do you know how the West has used Greek works for its own rejuvenation ?
How they have managed to build an intellectual tradition
But the modern Westerners dont go around doing everything that the Greeks did
2000 years ago.

Similiarly, there is a lot in our culture, literature and history that we can use to
propel ourselves ahead. We are the only civilization with tremendous amount
of intellectual work dating all the way from 1500 BC (at the very minimal) to the
present times. Surely quite a lot of it is applicable today - but what is wrong in
acknowledging and respecting our intellectual heritage ?
If we give up our culture and history, instead of reframing it and adapting it
to meet our needs, we will become a dead people, alive in flesh, but intellectually
dead.

Let us look at achamana - it may be boring to you, but why will you prevent others
from knowing more about ? Do you know how much research and effort goes
into finding out where Washington stayed for a night or how Billy the Kid got killed ?

Knowing about achamana, may give a perspective on a world-view that is different
from what you have. What is wrong about that ?
Smritis by themselves are a reflection of what the people of that period used to consider
as important. What is wrong in learning about it ? Do you know how much of the
Indian Law is based on Indic texts ?
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/oct03/spt3.asp
Indian laws are some of the most progressive in the world and they were implemented
in the 1950`s. Do you know how bigoted and regressive the US laws were until the
late 60`s

Dont you find it amazing that for the most part, a poverty-stricken country, with
hundreds of millions of people were able to frame a set of laws for themselves and
setup a democratic govt, when almost no other country could do so.
Do you think that it is the Brits who made us what we are ? If so how come none
of the more monolthic colonies of the british were able to become democracies.

I am afraid that you are still under the old colonial macaulay influence (dont mistake
this - I dont mean it pejoratively at all). You seem to be somehow scared that Indians
are a bunch of fools who will somehow regress if they get a pride in their own culture
and history. You should have a little more confidence in the ability of Indians.

Satish

Let me try to clarify.. we can study anything for what it is. Looking for answers in obscure texts which we ourselves have rejected, while those answers are easily available otherwise is criminal. Similarly, studying Kalidasa for the poetic value is just fine and dandy. Discovering importance of ``achaman`` in some smriti is boring. And the right comparisons would be classics departments in west and not humanities and fine arts. I dont believe that classics departments have a-priori objective of making zeus an idol. Regarding the study of arts and (yoga), indians have not rejected these.. music/dance is alive and well with a long continuity thru practice. Similarly, its not that the westerners read patanjali, and discovered yoga. They found that it is practiced all over and then adopted it..so practice is the operative word here. So is true for Ayurveda.. the clinical practice is what is far more important than one book by Charak. So, I hope you see what I find silly is a blind hope and vaccuous pride in culture. I am not seeking rejection of Indian culture, but would like to point out that much of the old texts have been rejected by us for a good reason.

Jang ji

If I understand you right, Indians have no right to study history, philosophy, fine arts ... or even astrophysics etc. as long as there is one Malaria sufferer in the country. It is a point of view and deserves the respect any other point of view does. As long as I understand you correctly...

As long as you accept that it makes even European Humanities and Fine Art a crimina enterprise ....

Jang and Sridhar,

My own take is that we should not go to an extreme either way. While there
are a lot of excellent ancient works - we need to study them for what they are
not to find cures for modern day ills. They are a repository for who we are as
a people , it will help us know our own civilization better.
For eg: Read Dharmapal book `` A Beautiful tree`` - it gives details on how Indians
a few centuries ago used to treat smallpox. How many schools were in Bihar and
how they worked. Such information is useful in its own right for us to adapt and
plan for the future.

That said, we should not expect a cure for cancer in ancient Indian texts. A wonderful
like Yogavasishta cannot help us in reducing illiteracy.

We should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. India is a Civilizational entity
so we need to study our history and achievements for the sake of our own knowledge and
as a people to decolonize our minds. While at the same time, we have to proceed
and learn current technologies and sciences and contribute to the future.

This is not a either or situation. Each of us will do what we are good at and we will
all pick where we can make a difference. I would like all Indians to have the opportunity
to be able to know their history and chart a way in the future using modern scientific
knowledge.

Sridhar:
``There is a wealth of info in these texts that we do not realize. ``

Crap doctorsaab.

There is easy-to-read simple stuff written in prose, in modern languages avaible which can help very large portion of human suffering from diarrhea (sp?) to malaria to TB. Amazingly this requires no long practice of hatha or ashtanga or piety and is available to even a moron. If and when it gets done (i.e. irradication of malaria), there will be no British guy to record this as a cool thing, but it will be far more important than one yogi getting his nervous system under control. So bottomline, get your priorities straight, and study Kalidasa`s Meghdoot for what is important in it: exquisite description of the female body-form. Simple to read modern lit is available now to take care of a very large number of human conditions (the kind buddha was worried about.) Getting that done is the priority, for which poring over old texts to find that innoculation againt polio was discovered (as is written in Skandha Purana) by king Janameyjaya is ridiculous and criminal.

re:#44 by satyamvada
Good post. Some fascinating discussion going on here.
I agree with you that Hinduism is a civilizational entity. You must be aware that there is no word ``Hindu`` in the whole of the so called ``Hindu scriptures``.
Are vedas hindu? Is Bhagawat Geeta hindu?
These and other such scriptures came from a distinct civilization belonging to a distinct area. Since western mind has to neatly package everything related to religion into one of the ``isms``, this religion was called Hinduism. The truth is: at its highest level, hinduism is not a religion at all but shines like a diamond. Can Advaita be called a hindu thought? Is Yoga Hindu? Do only hindus meditate?
India has existed since millenia as a continuous thought preserved among the brahmanas in their scriptures and thr` many story forms, fables, epics etc. among the rest of the population. During the vedic ceremonies in the past, the place, country and continents were often invoked and India of the past was referred to as ``Bharata`` belonging to ``Jambudwipa``. So, India existed in the consciousness of its people for millenia though it was given a political shape in its present form by the influence of the British.
Sridhar

re:#31 by jang
The value of Yoga has already been proven by India`s ancient practitioners. We do not need the west to tell us that Yoga is good!
``Yogasutra`` is a spiritual classic by Patanjali, written more than 2000 years ago. Its English translation is available and is on the web. All the yogas that you see being practised today are in one way or the other derived from that classic.
West is trying to convince itself that Yoga is good for health whereas the primary purpose of yoga (to unite) is lost on the western world viz to unite with the cosmic consciousness.
The problem is: western scientists, until very recently, have not dwelled into the ``mind-body realm`` so to speak and do not concern themselves with ``the soul`` and ``God``. They leave the latter matters to the Church.
Paul Brunton was possibly the first person from west (he was a British journalist interested in India`s spiritual traditions) to introduce Yoga to the west from India. He witnesses an advanced Yogi from South do some intricate Hatha Yoga routines and recorded them for posterity. More interestingly, as he came to know this Yogi better, he was told that advanced Yogis have complete control over their Autonomic Nervous System. The yogi, to prove his point, goes into deep meditatin and is able to stop his respiration and heart beats for more than an hour, to the utter amazement of Paul Brunton. This was personally verfied by him and he wrote about the episode in his now famous book ``The Search in secret India``.
Such episodes and marvels have been recorded by our sages down the ages and need to be researched and understood if modern science were to fulfil its full potentials. That is why, all the sanskrit texts of the past need to be researched carefully. There is a wealth of info in these texts that we do not realize.
Sridhar

#54 by satyamvada:
To dismiss off something as bluster without substantiating it amounts to some bluster. And dare I say humility does not only mean realising there is a lot to know (and scholars are not the only source of such knowledge; life teaches you much more), but also accepting that the knowledge others may choose to possess and cull might be of value to them and one`s own is not the only sacrosanct one.

I have not held forth on Greek philosophy at all, so questioning my credentials makes absolutely no sense, and my dinner table conversations tend to avoid `bullshit` since I respect the food too much.

Questioning what I find are gaps in an argument does not denote anger; if you care to accept, then that too is a learning process. I did the interview with Gurcharan Das with this in mind and thought of interacting when I found the subject interesting. Going by your philosophy, try to know a bit more about a person`s motives before judging.

Thanks for interacting on my board.
Regards,
Farzana

Farzana`ji

Bluster is not a substitute for facts.
First of all you have no credentials at all on any of the topics you are opinionating
on - like in Indian and Greek philosophies- so there is no point in questioning it.

One can sit around a dinner table and bullshit anything or one can have anykind
of opinion and even get it published in a newspaper. But such opinions or views formed
without effort in knowing facts and related information, is mostly worthless.
Unfortunately, I must say, your opinions belong to the category mentioned above.

On a personal note, I have made an effort to collect scholarly academic papers,
meet and discuss with academics and scholars to learn from them and have also
invested substantial time than most people do into knowing about India and the ``West``.
I have also put my own little bit of money to support scholars and researchers. After
all this effort one realizes there is a lot more one doesnt know and a lot to learn.
Humility goes a long way in helping one to learn.

My suggestion to you, *if you care to accept*, is to learn to be less angry, do a little
bit more of contemplation and to first find out more about issues before
forming opinions and mouthing off.

with unpatronizing regards
satyamvada

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Farzana # 50

That was highly educative. It is Orthodox Jew stuff - but most of it is followed by Muslims as well. So all these beliefs come in a historical process as well.

The most intriguing was ``Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar
of God if I have a defect in my sight. ``. We do not slaughter a blind goat on Eid Baqar. I have been personally made to return a blind goat and get a full eye sight goat for sacrifice.

Warpster # 84

Thanks. I will read it. Infact, I liked the Sulekha.com site & registered with it. It gives a good window into the contemporary Indian thinking.

I got this fwd, and although it is not strictly about the subject here, it looks at the contradictions within religions. Some of you may have already read it elswhere...


Subject: FW: Dr. Laura - Readings From Leviticus

On her radio show recently, Dr Laura Schlesinger said
that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an
abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be
condoned under any circumstance The following response
is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident,
which was posted on the Internet.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding
God`s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show,
and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I
can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination.
... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some
other elements of God`s Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I
know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9.
The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not
pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do
you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman
while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness -
Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have
tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves,
both male and female, provided they are purchased from
neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this
applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can`t I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the
Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he
should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating
shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser
abomination than homosexuality. I don`t agree. Can you
settle this? Are there `degrees` of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar
of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit
that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be
20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though
this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should
they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a
dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football
if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by
planting two different crops in the same field, as does
his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds
of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to
curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that
we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn`t we just
burn them to death at a private family affair like we do
with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I
know you have studied these things extensively and thus
enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am
confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God`s word is
eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus Dept. of
Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia

Re. satyamwada’ post #44, it reeks of a patronising attitude. Such a person cannot claim to be rational and open-minded who deems it fit to declare, “But what is not so funny is Ms.Versey`s vehement denial of any kind of common cultural strand that runs through India. Maybe she should be grateful for the Indic civilization that accords her to express her opinions, however strange, without retribution.”

By skirting the points I raised regarding his contradictions, he thinks he can question my credentials. Asking genuine questions and perhaps questioning the loopholes in an argument is certainly different from regurgitating what you read on websites. Tough luck.

I have shown no contempt for Indian thought. There is no point in confusing philosophy with culture as a thriving entity. It is in this respect that I said there is no cultural commonality amongst Indians. We do not need Communists and “detractors” to point it out. It is we who talk about how wonderfully disparate ideas thrive here. When I talk of Indian thinkers I am mainly concerned with those who formulate a way of thinking, not necessarily of daily living.

I agree that there may be an American culture, but it is based on pop and aped knowledge. I was responding to culture as a criterion for being as ‘superpower’. One can examine such culture in various lights, and you can do so without doing a course in Humanities at some US univ.

Re. my calling India Bharat as opposed to Hindustan, my reason was that many people by using the latter name make it sound as the Land of the Hindus.

Re. “I do understand that access to academic or scholarly level literature is much more difficult in Mumbai (or in other cities of India)”, I do not have such contempt for my country. Besides, getting a mouse to do the running for you does not necessarily dignify your knowledge any further.