From another forum
Some interesting points have been made here. My take on some for example..when we say we're thinking from a 'Western' or what i prefer 'Modern' moral perspective, is it unfair to ask how much of these modern moral perspectives have been influenced from Indian thought and literature. Indeed most Renaissance thinkers openly acknowledged most of the much debated schools of Western philosophy having 'Eastern' roots. Voltaire was most brazen and unashamed about it. Even as Europe colonized India, it's vast knowledge made available fired up the thoughts of some of Europes greatest thinkers that resulted in Modern perspectives and mores. When Europeans came in large numbers to India, it would seem surprising and strange that this land of Fakirs was indeed the source of much of their knowledge and humanity. Compare the Hindu code of War with the Geneva convention formed possibly 5 millenia after..the former is still more humane. Additionally the Europeans that made it into India started justifying Western morality as superior basically on Race issues. Justification took the course of exceptions being applied as rules for natives (e.g Sati) so 800 Sati deaths in few years was more for us, while 800 witch burning incidents in Europe was just an aberration. The moral distortion originates principally from a racial perspective and sought to be justified even till the present day, though in lot subtler terms by the Wendy Doningers and Mark Witzels. But a reason for our own sense of inferiority possibly lies in not comprehending how 'Western' morality was really developed through Upanashidic and Vedic shruti and thought even as we were being colonized. Looking at it this way helps also solve the dilemna, why of all British colonies India turns to Modern (and not Western) democratic tradition so much like a duck takes to water. Why India gravitates continuosly towards guaranteeing minority rights, valuing Human rights and other so called Western moral initiations to the savage world.
One has to see how easy it is for those that move out of a village setup forget a so called deeply entrenched and discriminatory caste system, or how easily abhorred we are of a single case of Sati in a decade, or even in the 18th century how easy it was for the Arya Samaji's to propagate a rational system of thought amongst the 'pious Casteist Hindu'..while the Arthashastra would have had some verses on how it's ok for 25 year olds to marry 9 year olds, the marriage was essentially a social pledge and the book not exactly one that was implemented on a large scale before that era. Because it states so, it is solving some moral dilemna in a village type set up in that era and because it deems it Ok, it indeed was a moral problem of sorts even then. The point is not what a smriti said or what society started implementing after it was written, the point is today it is considered abhorrent very easily. It is not resisted. So while discrepencies might and had indeed creeped into our societies, the moral initiative to curb those always lay within the spiritual and philosophical framework of Hindu society.
.it was the protestent denominations that gathered the maximum from India..whether Germany or England or France. It were philosophers and thinkers from here that discovered Grammar as analyzed by Panini and then thought about analyzing their own languages in such detail. The interest of the Max Muellers in India originated essentially from the firing up of knowledge in Europe that was happening from large influx of Indian thought (though only to top level thinkers in Europe). And as mentioned racial motives to morality sought to be exemplified by Schopenhauer and implemented using contorted Hindu symbols by Hitler for example. However as society developed the protestent denominations did realize the folly in colonization and sought to rectify the same by implementing fairer laws within their own societies.
A look at catholic countries such as dominated by Spain and Portugal shows a much lesser infiltration to Indian thought and thus lagging behind the present moral standards of the "West". One look at the South American continent confirms why democracy and human rights comes more easy to India than essentially catholic and European origin ruled states, while India does this steadily for 6 decades and more.
Same with the Phillipines and other Catholic dominated countries. Democracy and rights issues don't come easy. The least influenced by Indian thought, philosophy are ofcourse the Arabs and Islamic countries. We know where they stand in the 'rights and morality department'. The third lot come are those countries of East and South East Asia (most were influenced over several centuries by Hindu/ Buddhist) thought. They've had trouble implementing democracy too as they did not imbibe philosophical influences like what protestent denominations did. India subtly passed the 'Morality' baton to the protestent denominations even while it was being colonized them and besieged by Muslim conquerors. A clever thing to do..coming to think.
But in the continuing post, i did want to emphasize a linkage between those who prospered firstly through devouring knowledge and philosophy from here, then through wealth attained part by colonization and part by ethics that encouraged industriousness and hard work from here. Germans, French and the British are leaders in that and they subsequently dominated. Knowledge in Medieval Europe flowed from these centers more than from Greece unlike ancient times where Greeks again prospered and learnt from their links to India. Europe has always benefitted from India's amazing quest for knowledge and more, ancient as well as medieval times. Take China for example, they'll not say this open, but India is reverred as an elder brother. This countries quest for Truth is continual, and sometimes we do self flagellate more so than citizens of any other nation..precisely because we search deeper for Truth,.
When large sections of our population were beseiged by onslaughts lasting more than a thousand years, it was prudent that knowledge be kept confined for fear that open bearers of the same would face the fate of the monks in Nalanda or Taxila, but it was prudent so too that it be transmitted. Like the ancients said about Knowledge..it would to the best future bearers of it,.with all their shortcomings and growth pangs, the protestent denominations of the Christian religion did do a fair enough job of revitalizing and translating texts to significant sections of their own population, even though through their own kind disseminating those views in hardly subtle different ways. The consequence of such was an enlightenment within their own societies that disengaged the Yoke of Islam from large parts of India and freed it not only of themselves but of Islamic rule. That was India's destiny and it achieved it with understatably some pain. The quest for truth remains alive on this forum, heartburn too in varying degrees, but it's all too visible.
I've met too many Westerners and Chinese and Japanese who are simply too astonished at India's leap into the knowledge fold. It took them much too long to attain a society that prides a large part of it's GDP from a knowledge based economy. India did that easy. More stark is many of their knowledge based economies and tech shortages are propped up by a disproportionately large percent of Indians..coupled with the fact that Indians compromise the least percentage of people in their prisons or with criminal records of all other nationalist or religious denominations. (US maintains such records and available on adherents.com). Thus this is not just a fluke as some make it out to be. Or a result of British influence..it runs much deeper and it's something we've all carried within our souls for thousands of years and amongst the greatest trepidations. So while their may be exceptions to what i say, the general thrust is that ancient and medieval societies with max contact with India and it's culture were the biggest beneficieries of wealth and moral values. To think we're falling for 'Western' morals may be very incorrect to assume in case we look at things this way. JMT though think their is much value and truth to this POV IMHO.
Some interesting points have been made here. My take on some for example..when we say we're thinking from a 'Western' or what i prefer 'Modern' moral perspective, is it unfair to ask how much of these modern moral perspectives have been influenced from Indian thought and literature. Indeed most Renaissance thinkers openly acknowledged most of the much debated schools of Western philosophy having 'Eastern' roots. Voltaire was most brazen and unashamed about it. Even as Europe colonized India, it's vast knowledge made available fired up the thoughts of some of Europes greatest thinkers that resulted in Modern perspectives and mores. When Europeans came in large numbers to India, it would seem surprising and strange that this land of Fakirs was indeed the source of much of their knowledge and humanity. Compare the Hindu code of War with the Geneva convention formed possibly 5 millenia after..the former is still more humane. Additionally the Europeans that made it into India started justifying Western morality as superior basically on Race issues. Justification took the course of exceptions being applied as rules for natives (e.g Sati) so 800 Sati deaths in few years was more for us, while 800 witch burning incidents in Europe was just an aberration. The moral distortion originates principally from a racial perspective and sought to be justified even till the present day, though in lot subtler terms by the Wendy Doningers and Mark Witzels. But a reason for our own sense of inferiority possibly lies in not comprehending how 'Western' morality was really developed through Upanashidic and Vedic shruti and thought even as we were being colonized. Looking at it this way helps also solve the dilemna, why of all British colonies India turns to Modern (and not Western) democratic tradition so much like a duck takes to water. Why India gravitates continuosly towards guaranteeing minority rights, valuing Human rights and other so called Western moral initiations to the savage world.
One has to see how easy it is for those that move out of a village setup forget a so called deeply entrenched and discriminatory caste system, or how easily abhorred we are of a single case of Sati in a decade, or even in the 18th century how easy it was for the Arya Samaji's to propagate a rational system of thought amongst the 'pious Casteist Hindu'..while the Arthashastra would have had some verses on how it's ok for 25 year olds to marry 9 year olds, the marriage was essentially a social pledge and the book not exactly one that was implemented on a large scale before that era. Because it states so, it is solving some moral dilemna in a village type set up in that era and because it deems it Ok, it indeed was a moral problem of sorts even then. The point is not what a smriti said or what society started implementing after it was written, the point is today it is considered abhorrent very easily. It is not resisted. So while discrepencies might and had indeed creeped into our societies, the moral initiative to curb those always lay within the spiritual and philosophical framework of Hindu society.
.it was the protestent denominations that gathered the maximum from India..whether Germany or England or France. It were philosophers and thinkers from here that discovered Grammar as analyzed by Panini and then thought about analyzing their own languages in such detail. The interest of the Max Muellers in India originated essentially from the firing up of knowledge in Europe that was happening from large influx of Indian thought (though only to top level thinkers in Europe). And as mentioned racial motives to morality sought to be exemplified by Schopenhauer and implemented using contorted Hindu symbols by Hitler for example. However as society developed the protestent denominations did realize the folly in colonization and sought to rectify the same by implementing fairer laws within their own societies.
A look at catholic countries such as dominated by Spain and Portugal shows a much lesser infiltration to Indian thought and thus lagging behind the present moral standards of the "West". One look at the South American continent confirms why democracy and human rights comes more easy to India than essentially catholic and European origin ruled states, while India does this steadily for 6 decades and more.
Same with the Phillipines and other Catholic dominated countries. Democracy and rights issues don't come easy. The least influenced by Indian thought, philosophy are ofcourse the Arabs and Islamic countries. We know where they stand in the 'rights and morality department'. The third lot come are those countries of East and South East Asia (most were influenced over several centuries by Hindu/ Buddhist) thought. They've had trouble implementing democracy too as they did not imbibe philosophical influences like what protestent denominations did. India subtly passed the 'Morality' baton to the protestent denominations even while it was being colonized them and besieged by Muslim conquerors. A clever thing to do..coming to think.
But in the continuing post, i did want to emphasize a linkage between those who prospered firstly through devouring knowledge and philosophy from here, then through wealth attained part by colonization and part by ethics that encouraged industriousness and hard work from here. Germans, French and the British are leaders in that and they subsequently dominated. Knowledge in Medieval Europe flowed from these centers more than from Greece unlike ancient times where Greeks again prospered and learnt from their links to India. Europe has always benefitted from India's amazing quest for knowledge and more, ancient as well as medieval times. Take China for example, they'll not say this open, but India is reverred as an elder brother. This countries quest for Truth is continual, and sometimes we do self flagellate more so than citizens of any other nation..precisely because we search deeper for Truth,.
When large sections of our population were beseiged by onslaughts lasting more than a thousand years, it was prudent that knowledge be kept confined for fear that open bearers of the same would face the fate of the monks in Nalanda or Taxila, but it was prudent so too that it be transmitted. Like the ancients said about Knowledge..it would to the best future bearers of it,.with all their shortcomings and growth pangs, the protestent denominations of the Christian religion did do a fair enough job of revitalizing and translating texts to significant sections of their own population, even though through their own kind disseminating those views in hardly subtle different ways. The consequence of such was an enlightenment within their own societies that disengaged the Yoke of Islam from large parts of India and freed it not only of themselves but of Islamic rule. That was India's destiny and it achieved it with understatably some pain. The quest for truth remains alive on this forum, heartburn too in varying degrees, but it's all too visible.
I've met too many Westerners and Chinese and Japanese who are simply too astonished at India's leap into the knowledge fold. It took them much too long to attain a society that prides a large part of it's GDP from a knowledge based economy. India did that easy. More stark is many of their knowledge based economies and tech shortages are propped up by a disproportionately large percent of Indians..coupled with the fact that Indians compromise the least percentage of people in their prisons or with criminal records of all other nationalist or religious denominations. (US maintains such records and available on adherents.com). Thus this is not just a fluke as some make it out to be. Or a result of British influence..it runs much deeper and it's something we've all carried within our souls for thousands of years and amongst the greatest trepidations. So while their may be exceptions to what i say, the general thrust is that ancient and medieval societies with max contact with India and it's culture were the biggest beneficieries of wealth and moral values. To think we're falling for 'Western' morals may be very incorrect to assume in case we look at things this way. JMT though think their is much value and truth to this POV IMHO.