Obviously in a skeptic's mind the question comes is if the usage of camphor was a case of serendipity? Or was it used knowing fully well the properties of it (like the case where we use odomos knowing that it is supposed to be a mosquito repellent)?
<!--QuoteBegin-SwamyG+Apr 22 2007, 07:55 AM-->QUOTE(SwamyG @ Apr 22 2007, 07:55 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Obviously in a skeptic's mind the question comes is if the usage of camphor was a case of serendipity? Or was it used knowing fully well the properties of it (like the case where we use odomos knowing that it is supposed to be a mosquito repellent)?
[right][snapback]67641[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SwamyG - questions like this have occurred to me time and time again when given explanations about ancient practices that appear to fit in with modern science. In medicine there is a constant mental conflict (among patients) between science, ayurvedic science, "traditional knowledge" and just plain superstition being passed off as science.
My personal observations do not relate to camphor per se - but are more general. There are definitely some areas in which ancient Hindu knowledge tallies well with the results of "modern science' with its repeatable experimental results and double blind studies. There are other areas in which Ayurvedic science has definite strengths that have not yet been understood or proven in terms of the modern science of repeatable experimental results and double blind studies. There are also areas where the traditional knowledge is both not based on any science and is positively harmful.
<!--QuoteBegin-SwamyG+Apr 21 2007, 09:25 PM-->QUOTE(SwamyG @ Apr 21 2007, 09:25 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Obviously in a skeptic's mind the question comes is if the usage of camphor was a case of serendipity? Or was it used knowing fully well the properties of it (like the case where we use odomos knowing that it is supposed to be a mosquito repellent)?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is there a need for every human action to have 1) a rational basis? 2) a scientific basis?
An American behaviorist BF Skinner tried to explain religion and superstition on the basis of his experiments on pigeons. While Skinner's experiment was undoubtedly elegant it can hardly be considered as explaining the human situation in its completeness. The commonest counter-reaction to such Skinner-like explanations is to try to justify scientific basis for religious performance. This is common amongst modern Hindus. But we really need to sit back and ask the above questions. We should also explore the possibility of purely naturalistic explanations of a non-Skinnerian type. While Hindu science definitely arose out of the Hindu religion, we need not try to see scientific justification for all and sundry.
Though many scientists of the Abrahmistic cultures imagine that their religious constructs favored the emergence of science, the case which can be made for Hindu-s is much stronger than theirs.
I had mentioned in the old thread my own amazement as I realised that modern day "scientific" practices for asepsis, "no touch techniques", scrub technique and operating theater discipline were all concepts that existed in the Hindu household of my childhood.
Even the well known concept of "jootha" ("yenjilu" or saliva/spit in Kannada) has a clear scientific basis. You DO NOT take a ladle out of a pot in which you are cooking food for a group.put that ladle to you lips and put it back in the common pot because you are contaminating the common pot with bacteria from your mouth.
You DO NOT dip a spoon into yogurt and then into another cooked food item because the bacterial inoculate in yogurt can make the other food go bad soon.
If you are in a hospital sterile environment and you have to pick up a sterile instrument and hand it to a doctor wearing sterile gloves, you do not use your unsterile hands to do that. You use an instrument in which you are allowed to hold one end (which is unsterile) but the other end is sterile and you pick up the sterile object with the sterile end. The idea that one area can be clean and another area less clean has an exact analogy in washing one's backside with the left hand alone,(followed by a good wash of hands) and using the right hand alone to handle foodstuff.
These are examples of exact concurrence between Hindu practice and science. The Hindu practice could well have been serendipity, for there is no record of research and double blind studies.
When one is young, one takes for granted the experiences that one is subjected to, and accepts rules that are taught without questioning their meaning. At least, this was certainly true for me until I entered an NHS toilet in England in the early 1980s in partial fulfillment of an urgent physiological requirement.
I found, to my amusement, that the toilet paper had, printed on it, the words "Now wash your hands please". I wondered if people had to be told to perform this task which I and everyone I knew performed routinely without talking about it and announcing it aloud.
Suddenly, something fell into place in my mind and I started thinking of all that had been drilled into my resisting mind as a boy at home, and compared it with the wisdom imparted to me by my teachers and textbooks in medical college. I remembered being taught the word "fomite" and how a fomite might spread bugs (of the non-carrot-eating kind). It seemed strange that the act of washing one's hands after using them for unspeakable tasks had been conceived of and taught to me by people who had no knowledge of fomites or fo-midges. How had they known?
There were a number of other tips on hygiene that had similarly been passed on to me. I was born and brought up in a Brahmin family, and there exists a concept called "madi" in Kannada. Madi is pronounced "muddy", but is quite the opposite in its intent. "Madi" is typically used by a Brahmin prior to performing his work - whatever it might be - which traditionally was that of a teacher or a priest, or even perhaps a physician. In essence it involved having a bath and wearing fresh clothes, after which the person could not be touched by a "non-madi" person. Even a single touch was considered "contamination" (a state called "ma'ilgay"), necessitating a repeat bath and a change. The concept was a joke for me, and I remember deriving great pleasure from ruining the "madi" state of my grandmother by touching her. A decade later, I realized that the practice of operating theatre technique has close parallels to this "madi" state. A mere touch is considered contamination, and is treated as such.
People still remove their footwear before entering a house in India. Certainly this used to make much sense when cooking, eating, and everything was at floor level in India. Removing footwear is the usual first step before entering most operating theatres and intensive care units anywhere in the world. Overshoes serve much the same purpose - that is, of preventing gross contamination adherent to one's footwear from being carried in and spread around in an area where one is trying to keep contamination down. In Indian homes the advent of dining tables and kitchen platforms for cooking have diluted, but have not fully taken away the significance of the simple act of removing one's footwear.
At a recent meeting in Bangalore on nosocomial infections, one prominent surgeon from St. John's said that in this day and age it is ridiculous and unnecessary to take off one's shoes before entering an ICU because bugs cannot walk up beds and tables. I was surprised at this statement from a person who I otherwise view in a very favourable light. Floor contamination has an insidious way of getting on raised platforms. Dust can be stirred up by gusts caused by people walking. Pens and papers are accidentally dropped and then picked up and replaced on tables or on beds. I still think removal of footwear is a useful adjunct in keeping bug counts down.
As a boy, I was always instructed to wash my hands and feet if entering the house from outside, or after visiting the toilet. The necessity for washing hands is obvious, but why the feet? A single experience of relieving oneself in the traditional Indian way gives new meaning to the word "splashing", and it is easy to convince oneself that washing of feet is an essential part of maintaining a degree of hygiene. But what about hospitals? Certainly, we all wear shoes, and most wear socks as well, and our feet are generally kept free from gross amounts of muck, so removing footwear is probably adequate - for us. But things always work differently in India. I once noticed that the canteen boy who brought in coffee and snacks to the operating theatre side rooms was barefoot, seemingly indicating that he had removed his footwear. But when I followed him out, I saw that he had no footwear at all. In effect, that hospital had a system in which those who had footwear maintained OT hygiene by removing their footwear outside, but the dozens of people who never wore footwear at all were walking in and out of the clean area of the OT with impunity. Maybe washing one's feet should be a requirement before entering Indian operating theatres.
Another concept, drilled into most Indians is the idea of something being "jootha" (hindi), or "yenjilu" (literally saliva in Kannada). If I eat from a plate, that plate is jootha or contaminated, and no one else eats from it until it is washed. The degree of jootha-ness that one tolerates is dependent on one's cultural background. The concept has some scientific basis, with the idea being to avoid any chance of an inadvertent exchange of body fluid from one person to another. I don't know how this concept was first introduced in India, but I have a reasonably good idea of how it came about in modern science.
And finally, that seemingly silly habit of using the left hand for unmentionables, and the right hand for clean stuff. Surprisingly, this has parallels too. Every time I do a wound dressing, the nurse hands me something sterile using a pair of tongs ("Cheatle's forceps"). The handle of this instrument is considered contaminated, while its jaws are considered non-infective by virtue of their being stored in an alleged antiseptic liquid. Not too different from right hand and left hand is it?
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Apr 22 2007, 10:54 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Apr 22 2007, 10:54 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is there a need for every human action to have 1) a rational basis? 2) a scientific basis?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rational to a great degree.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->....justify scientific basis for religious performance. This is common amongst modern Hindus. But we really need to sit back and ask the above questions. .........We should also explore the possibility of purely naturalistic explanations of a non-Skinnerian type. While Hindu science definitely arose out of the Hindu religion, we need not try to see scientific justification for all and sundry.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well said. That is the point I was trying to make. By rationalizing the past actions we lose the sight of fact - what actually happened. It is possible some actions had darn good reasons. We pass down traditions down the generations because it is valuable in some ways (we are rational). Dilution occurs when humans think some parts of it are irrational and are willing to let them go.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Though many scientists of the Abrahmistic cultures imagine that their religious constructs favored the emergence of science, the case which can be made for Hindu-s is much stronger than theirs.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed. So what were the circumstances that led the Europeans to make lots of scientific advancements while the Indians and Chinese were left to catch up. They say necessity is the mother of invention. Were there no necessities in our pre-Colonialistic days that did not warrant us say from inventing the Steam Engine?
ps: By the way somebody moved my cheese <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> . The Admins must have chopped my reply to the other thread and start a "new narrative" here.
<!--QuoteBegin-SwamyG+Apr 22 2007, 08:09 PM-->QUOTE(SwamyG @ Apr 22 2007, 08:09 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Agreed. So what were the circumstances that led the Europeans to make lots of scientific advancements while the Indians and Chinese were left to catch up. They say necessity is the mother of invention. Were there no necessities in our pre-Colonialistic days that did not warrant us say from inventing the Steam Engine?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe we are treading on shaky territory here.
From the viewpoint of a world that has reached it current status in about 2-300 years largely because of developments (that you have chosen to call advancements) the answer to your question could range from "pure chance" to "extra European cleverness" to "superior religion" - but my view is given below.
It is possible that 500 years from now, a retrospective view could provide a different viewpoint, as a view of the world 2000 years ago would have provided yet another viewpoint.
However, if you ask me about what we have today (the result of about 300 years of European/American ingenuity) then I would say that these developments were related to two things
1) The Socratic method of asking questions and finding answers.
2) The Christian belief of the superiority of man over all of nature, requiring that the questions that man asked were aimed at the "conquer" of nature rather than any attempt at coexisting with nature.
<!--QuoteBegin-sengotuvel+Apr 22 2007, 08:42 PM-->QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 22 2007, 08:42 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->1) The Socratic method of asking questions and finding answers.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well we have our share, if not more than the Greeks, of people who questioned and sought answers. <b>The realm might have been different</b>.
The Upanishads are filled with episodes of people asking questions and finding out answers. Hindus definitely had a hoary past of that tradition too.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->2) The Christian belief of the superiority of man over all of nature, requiring that the questions that man asked were aimed at the "conquer" of nature rather than any attempt at coexisting with nature.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe it is the realm that I talked above. But if what you say is true, then there should have been no medicinal discoveries in India. We have a rich heritage there too - Ayurveda, Siddha etc.
Or can we restate your point as Hindus are inward looking, seeking to improve themselves at every possible opportunity; and hence there was not the <b>critical</b> necessity to beat nature?
Maybe the answer is one page, if not a chapter, in the annals of Hindu narrative.
<!--QuoteBegin-SwamyG+Apr 22 2007, 08:52 PM-->QUOTE(SwamyG @ Apr 22 2007, 08:52 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Or can we restate your point as Hindus are inward looking, seeking to improve themselves at every possible opportunity; and hence there was not the <b>critical</b> necessity to beat nature?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am reluctant to address this question because I believe that we are ignoring a whole lot of other factors - chance events that may have played a role in routing history in this particular manner.
Jared Diamond asks pretty much the same question as you do in "Guns, Germs and Steel" but there is almost no analysis or mention of India in his work (a common failing of a lot of works including Huntington's Clash of Civilizations).
However - it appears that a LOT of inventions that are called "modern" existed in China centuries before they were put to use in Europe. Examples are paper, a printing press, clocks and fireworks, and Diamond has his own explanation of why they were not put to similar use in China. He may or may not be right, I don't know.
But I do believe Jared Diamond is on to something when he looks at human history in timescales of millennia rather than decades or centuries. That is what I implied when I spoke of 500 years hence or 2000 years ago. The "advancements" of the last 300 years are of utmost importance to us in 2007, but may pale into insignificance depending on what happens 500 years from now.
Hindu thought was aimed at looking for eternal truths at periods of time when civilization was settled and medicine, agriculture and public health were highly developed. The eternal truths were supposed to transcend lifetimes.
I have often believed that a Christian ethos of "only one life to live" has played a role in the development of thought processes that seek to improve this life right now. In fact there was a time (in 1983 specifically) when I was upset by the seeming lackadaisical Hindu attitude to life - but I was younger then and knew a lot less.
I was surgeon in charge of the Casualty dept in JIPMER where I studied and in those days all patients suffering from tetanus (almost invariably fatal in those days) were kept in a ward attached to casualty.With clockwork like regularity one of those patients would have a cardiac arrest and I would find myself and a colleague huffing and puffing and strutting around giving cardiac massage and artificial ventilation to try an restart the heart. I would notice with irritation that there were usually one or two "old hands" - ward attendants hanging about shaking their heads and advising me in Tamil "Ponaal pohattum poda" - words from a Tamil song that philosophically advises letting go of a dying person and not attaching yourself to him. The same year I found myself in the UK- witness to people holding special "crash bleeps" as part of a "cardiac arrest team". These pagers would go off the minute anyone had a cardiac arrest anywhere in the hospital. They would get priority access to elevators to rush to the bedside - and their efforts often paid off - saving a life - for now. But for that Christian ethos - saving life was all that mattered - even if that life would go in the next 10 days.
There are fundamental differences in the way life itself is viewed and the timescales in which the world or the universe is viewed in Hinduism.
<!--QuoteBegin-SwamyG+Apr 22 2007, 08:52 PM-->QUOTE(SwamyG @ Apr 22 2007, 08:52 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-sengotuvel+Apr 22 2007, 08:42 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 22 2007, 08:42 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->1) The Socratic method of asking questions and finding answers.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well we have our share, if not more than the Greeks, of people who questioned and sought answers. <b>The realm might have been different</b>.
The Upanishads are filled with episodes of people asking questions and finding out answers. Hindus definitely had a hoary past of that tradition too.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True,
But we asked different questions.
Was that pure chance? Or was it that we already had a highly developed and civilized society that was not struggling with the things European society was struggling with when they asked their questions.
<!--QuoteBegin-sengotuvel+Apr 22 2007, 03:53 AM-->QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 22 2007, 03:53 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
 Or was it that we already had <b>a highly developed and civilized society</b> that was not struggling with the things European society was struggling with when they asked their questions.
[right][snapback]67669[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe the reluctance is going to suppress in certain parts of the narrative to come out! Regarding Jared and Huntington missing out India. My theory is that the world went through one phase of "infatuation" with India probably before the 16th Century. And maybe we are in cycle where we are not getting much attention.
Well in my opinion, it is definitely our chance now to say what is civilized and what is development and progress. Bhutan did it by standing up and saying "Hey GHP is more important than GDP".
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Apr 22 2007, 10:13 PM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Apr 22 2007, 10:13 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-sengotuvel+Apr 22 2007, 03:53 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 22 2007, 03:53 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
 Or was it that we already had <b>a highly developed and civilized society</b> that was not struggling with the things European society was struggling with when they asked their questions.
[right][snapback]67669[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a known.
[right][snapback]67672[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No Acharya - it is not known well enough. It is, in fact, part of the lost Hindu narrative. It is "known" just like everybody "knows" about the role of oxidative phosphorylation in aerobic metabolism.
<!--QuoteBegin-SwamyG+Apr 22 2007, 11:50 PM-->QUOTE(SwamyG @ Apr 22 2007, 11:50 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Well in my opinion, it is definitely our chance now to say what is civilized and what is development and progress.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It certainly is.
Indian and Hindu culture is treated on par with "lost cultures" aka Inca/Mayan civilization, while Hindus have been living that culture hidden away in their homes, successfully leading double lives as though the culture did not exist.
This was IMO - the most successful covert, culture saving operation in the history of the world and successfully staved off the culture-erasing assault of Islam and Christianity, although Hinduism was not left untouched.
The story of how Hindu memes have survived has got to be one of the most amazing stories of survival - because the world was successfully made to believe that those Hindu memes were dead and not worthy of study.
However the downside is that the supposed death of those Hindu memes have been celebrated and justified as essential and positive events that were needed to destroy the evil, pagan/kafir forces of Hinduism. So we now find that any outward manifestation of Hinduism beyond the recessed practices at home is looked upon as "Resurgence of Hindutva".
Resurgence it is not. It was always there - it never went away. The word resurgence is used in the sense of a horror movie in which a ragged ugly corpse climbs out of the grave to terrorize good Christians.
There are certain cultural stereoypes, manifested as images representing good and evil that exist as deep rooted memes in Christian societies that appear every now and again as "popular imagery"
Evil forces are often represented as fully shaven heads and evil dark faces. Fully shaven heads are perfectly non threatening images for Hindus and from the now dead pre-Islamic Egyptian civilization. Check out Amrish Puri in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom from 1984, or the evil soldiers in "Eragon" from 2006.
The forces of "good" are all long flowing robes and closed collars. Check out Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings, or even Dumbledore in Hogwarts.
The reason I point these out is that even in this day and age you will find common people in predominantly Christian societies feeling fear and revulsion at images that have been permanently associated with evil, and are reassured by the padre look. The people may not be overtly racist or religious, but Christendom's memes run in their minds just below the surface, reinforced by the images I have described.
When an innocent unsophisticated Hindu from a small temple town in India behaves like himself and gets seen, he does not realise that by being himself he is evoking horror and revulsion in a world dominated by Time-Warner and CNN and their insidious Christian memes - a world that Hindu memes have hidden themselves from in order to survive.
This is what I am talking about when I speak of unsophisticated Hindus who don't even know how far back and how deep the scales are loaded against their just being themselves. These are things that will have to be reversed with finesse by those of us who can see what is happening.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indian and Hindu culture is treated on par with "lost cultures" aka Inca/Mayan civilization, while Hindus have been living that culture hidden away in their homes, successfully leading double lives as though the culture did not exist.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I need to disagree. In my view the evangelicals are pissed off because the Hindu culture has been continuing for ages, morphing and adapting but surviving. I do not think a Hindu is leading a double life per se. He is not afraid to lead a Hindu life in private or public.
Memes? Why even we memes. We still consider our gods decked with crown and jewels; clothes and weapons all belonging to thousands of years ago. Let us put Muruga in Khakis, Bata chappals and Gandhi cap.
<!--QuoteBegin-SwamyG+Apr 23 2007, 08:08 AM-->QUOTE(SwamyG @ Apr 23 2007, 08:08 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> I do not think a Hindu is leading a double life per se. He is not afraid to lead a Hindu life in private or public.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No Swamy G.
That was not how it used to be. The most apt description I have found is in Robert Kanigel's biography of the mathematician Ramanujam where he describes the Hindus man's work appearance and behavior and his home where his wife and family are different. He wears trousers to work and may eat with a fork an knife. At home he switches to dhoti, sits on the floor and eats off a plaintain leaf using his fingers.
The description gelled in well with the life of my own grandfather, and fits in with another book that I have promised to post excerpts from.
The Hindu way of life and memes were protected by sacrificing the man's habits and clothes and etiquette. The man adopted alien ways and dress, while the woman made a counter sacrifice to keep the culture flame burning at home. This is definitely part of what I see as an untold Hindu narrative.
Remnants of that age are visible even today. Look at a party of Indians - typically family get together photos of NRIs in the US where parents are invited for say Diwali. The elderly Indian men are in trousers and maybe even suits, while their wives typically wear saris or salwar kameez.
It is only now that Indian men are going back to their roots fearlessly and wearing "ethnic" clothes while women are experimenting with Western dress, particularly in India.
That was not how it used to be. The most apt description I have found is in Robert Kanigel's biography of the mathematician Ramanujam where he describes the Hindus man's work appearance and behavior and his home where his wife and family are different. He wears trousers to work and may eat with a fork an knife. <b>At home he switches to dhoti, sits on the floor and eats off a plaintain leaf using his fingers.</b>
The description gelled in well with the life of my own grandfather, and fits in with another book that I have promised to post excerpts from.
<b>
The Hindu way of life and memes were protected by sacrificing the man's habits and clothes and etiquette. The man adopted alien ways and dress, while the woman made a counter sacrifice to keep the culture flame burning at home. This is definitely part of what I see as an untold Hindu narrative.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My father (who is no more ) used to tell me when I was young that he wears pants and shirts only for making a living. I still remember this.
Well people have adapted pieces of alien culture through out history. Dress patterns change. Well we have South Indian brides wearing Gagra Chowli in the receptions, and the bride grooms wearing "bandgalas" and "sherwani". So are the South Indian losing out to non-South-Indians? Is the South-Indian narrative being not told.
Well that is my personal peeve. The Kendriya Vidyalaya education never taught much about South Indians. Even if it was taught, what stuck in mind is about Maurya, Guptas, Mughals. What stuck is Chandrasekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh, Gandhi and Nehru. Such is the treatment to very own parts of India.
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+Apr 23 2007, 08:39 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Apr 23 2007, 08:39 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Shiv wrote
--
I was surgeon in charge of the Casualty dept in JIPMER where I studied
--
When were you there?
My brother was there from 1977-1984
[right][snapback]67707[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was five years senior to him and was there from 1972 to 1983. Please PM me - it is likely that I know him.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> . The Admins must have chopped my reply to the other thread and start a "new narrative" here.