04-11-2010, 09:18 AM
Ramana,
Look at the conclusions of the piece!!
On page 39, the author mentions the vedic origin of the 'knowledge of consciousness' (in conjunction with 'maharishi' - probably Mahesh Yogi, his Guru). Now, the question is why he makes an association between the plausibility of certain ancient migration events and the presence of such knowledge in India -- couldn't such knowledge have arrived in India from without? The answer is no, because we know that, even when the world was solely heathen, India was still the teacher of the world, as attested by the Greeks and ME'ers, and independently by the Chinese, etc. To (historically) usher in such knowledge in India while the rest of the heathen world is relatively ignorant of the same is impossible (for some reason); in fact, such was not even "desired" by the ancients and was considered 'irrelevant'.
Now, with Monotheism/Modernism, which denies the presence and validity of such knowledge by problematizing experience/learning/narratives as a deviation from perfect (and all-saving) belief/ideology, it became possible to posit an opposite scenario; such a scenario when translated into the material world also had a counterpart, known as colonialism (whose felt force of presence also legitimized the monotheist theory). Any one component could never be appropriated by itself, but when integrated into a "system," the contrary results seemed more or less self-evident. Thus, linguistics when visualized through 'class' (eg as vernacular versus sacred) seemed to suggest certain meta-scenarios... Any desired result could be achieved; in this case, india as perpetually colonized.
In addition, any Chanakyaness on the part of the heathen could be recast as colonialism. An exacting and demanding Buddha could be turned 'rational', the Chanakya Chinese could be turned 'legalistic' and ideological, the Pandavas could be "conservative" with Kauravas as "liberals," a tattooed villager into a proponent of lifestyle, a Shukra into a firebreather prophet, and a bandhu as a votary of apartheid.
The remainder of the heathen realm was receptive to Indian knowledge because of a shared heathen dynamics; Monotheism systematically eliminated such considerations from the equation and could thus project its present colonization back into the past as well. Probably, there is some need to colonize the past to maintain integrity in the facade.
The ancient Judaism/Christianity binary was replicated as a "Hinduism"/Modernism binary. Judaism was the spitted-out shell of the colonized's past. "Hinduism" is the same.
Look at the conclusions of the piece!!
Quote:page 33: The Vedic civilization, far more ancient than the Greek, spread from India to Europe, via Anatolia, Thrace, and Greece, and from there into Western Europe. The direction of the flow was from India into Arabia and then to Europe. Evidence shows that the Vedic
tradition entered into Europe sometime before the early fourteenth century BC.
The Rig Vedic tradition and its literature almost certainly came into existence
sometime long before the earliest civilizations of Mesopotamia, Sumeria, and Egypt.
These were relatively late events in the history of civilization and probably owe their
existence to the earlier civilization of Vedic India.
On page 39, the author mentions the vedic origin of the 'knowledge of consciousness' (in conjunction with 'maharishi' - probably Mahesh Yogi, his Guru). Now, the question is why he makes an association between the plausibility of certain ancient migration events and the presence of such knowledge in India -- couldn't such knowledge have arrived in India from without? The answer is no, because we know that, even when the world was solely heathen, India was still the teacher of the world, as attested by the Greeks and ME'ers, and independently by the Chinese, etc. To (historically) usher in such knowledge in India while the rest of the heathen world is relatively ignorant of the same is impossible (for some reason); in fact, such was not even "desired" by the ancients and was considered 'irrelevant'.
Now, with Monotheism/Modernism, which denies the presence and validity of such knowledge by problematizing experience/learning/narratives as a deviation from perfect (and all-saving) belief/ideology, it became possible to posit an opposite scenario; such a scenario when translated into the material world also had a counterpart, known as colonialism (whose felt force of presence also legitimized the monotheist theory). Any one component could never be appropriated by itself, but when integrated into a "system," the contrary results seemed more or less self-evident. Thus, linguistics when visualized through 'class' (eg as vernacular versus sacred) seemed to suggest certain meta-scenarios... Any desired result could be achieved; in this case, india as perpetually colonized.
In addition, any Chanakyaness on the part of the heathen could be recast as colonialism. An exacting and demanding Buddha could be turned 'rational', the Chanakya Chinese could be turned 'legalistic' and ideological, the Pandavas could be "conservative" with Kauravas as "liberals," a tattooed villager into a proponent of lifestyle, a Shukra into a firebreather prophet, and a bandhu as a votary of apartheid.
The remainder of the heathen realm was receptive to Indian knowledge because of a shared heathen dynamics; Monotheism systematically eliminated such considerations from the equation and could thus project its present colonization back into the past as well. Probably, there is some need to colonize the past to maintain integrity in the facade.
The ancient Judaism/Christianity binary was replicated as a "Hinduism"/Modernism binary. Judaism was the spitted-out shell of the colonized's past. "Hinduism" is the same.