The Clash of Civilisations: Indian vs Western

Spirituality Religion
#1

I am starting this thread to take an off-topic discussion from the “What is Enlightenment” thread into the relevant forum and a thread of its own.

My position is this: I am not a relativist. I do think one culture is more superior than another culture and one religion is superior to another. I honestly have no problem with this and before the postmodern age nobody else did as well. Now we are are all expected to simply assume cultural, ethical, epistemological and moral relativism and be politically correct by prefacing everything with a “in my opinion” - there is no absolute truth or no essentials - it is all just subjective and socially constructed - blah blah. Is the theory the earth goes around the sun subjective and socially constructed? Is the poloio vaccine subjective and socially constructed? Was 9/11, hurricane Katrina and the Asian tsunami subjective and socially constructed?

Relativism is an absolute farce. Nobody can ever trully be relative, everybody has to form a viewpoint in life. Even relativism is a viewpoint. Can you be relative about relativism :wink:

The truth is there is a truth in reality, there are laws and principles in reality and everything has a natural order. Such as the natural order of water is fluidity and wetness. It is not heat and fire is it :wink: The natural order of a teacher is to teach; a mother to give birth and nuture her child; a father to discipline and protect his child; a warrior to protect and fight for his people. This is is not subjective and socially constructed. This is dharma. Unfortunately, a concept that is completely lacking in Western culture - no wonder its always been in a mess :stuck_out_tongue:

Likewise, even cultural forms like dance, poetry, language, cuisine, clothes have a natural order. There is such thing as perfect dance, perfect poetry, perfect language, perfect cuisine, perfect clothes. The more advanced a culture is the more closer to perfection their cultural forms will be. One would be foolish to visit an advanced alien planet and become exposed to their more developed cultural forms and argue cultural relativism with them :smiley:

My purpose is this: Western culture has been responsible for massive destuction of humanity and this planet and yet it is taken for granted that it is modern and thereby more developed than previous cultures on this planet - this myth needs to be busted. Entire races have been near exterminated under colonalism. Much of the third world exists today because of the looting, plundering, pillaging and enslaving perpetrated by the West. Today, due to Western culture we have a planet that is gradually being poisoned. Western material greed is raping the planet of its resouces, destroying the ecosystems, endangering the species on this planet, polluting our food, water and air we breath. Its individualism has destroyed the instituion of the family leading to divorce rates of 50% or higher, most children growing up in dysfunctional families and losing respect for their parents. The entire world has been turned into a global market(even education!) and the humanity has been reduced to nothing more than a consumer and producer of goods. Vast social inequality exists on this planet due to the exploitative capitalist system, billions of the next generation of humans will be born in poverty and no access to clean drinking water. The media, like Hollyood, MTV, video games are rendering our youth stupid and glorifying war and violence.

What we need now is Dharma. World civilisation needs to be rebuilt on a dharmic foundation.

PS: Please try to take the thread lightly and enjoy it and have fun :stuck_out_tongue:

#2

Does fairness seem to be part of this world, is marriage natural, is respect something we expect or earn? Yes, so much trouble in the world, yes improvement will most likely come with quality education and exposure that allows the individual to awaken to how they are contributing to the problems. Then again maybe there is no wrong/right, good/evil, etc./etc. but simply a natural never ending shifting balance?

#3

We can easily identify what is wrong with this world by simply looking at the values. Most people in the world today strongly identify with four isms, especially in the West: Materialism, Capitalism, Individualism and Secularism. These are all Western philosophies and systems, all intertwined with one another stemming from the same values. And here is what is fundamentally wrong with them:

[B]Materialism:[/B] Materialism is based on the assumption that everything is just material and there is nothing beyond it. Mind and consciousness are just a by-product of brain activity and have no importance in the world other than in the world of faith. The natural world is just about natural selection and survival of the fittest. The only needs we have are biological food, water and sex. Life is all about seeking pleasure and competing with others for pleasure and reproduction(like animals). This is the cause of crime, depression, stress and mental disorders.

[B]Capitalism:[/B] Capitalism is based on the prime value that one must generate maximum profit through the production of goods and surplus value. Surplus value is only created through the exploitation of somebody this leads to individuals and groups constantly competiting with one another to dominate one another for goods and resources creating this dog-eat-dog world, leading to some individuals becoming very powerful and owning a disproporiate share of the wealth in the world, whereas in another part of the world there is vast poverty. This is the cause of poverty, social inequality, war and injustice.

[B]Individualism:[/B] Individualism is the view that there is no society as such but there are only individuals who are on their own catering to their own needs. This leads to a highly alienated and fragmented society where people treat each others like strangers, do not pull through to help others, do not acknowledge each other on the streets and become extraordinarily selfish and apathetic. This is the prime cause behind the collapse of the institution of the family. As all are individuals, nobody wants to accept roles and positions - the plumber wants to be a pop star, the woman wants to be the man, the teacher wants to be famous - the natural order of relationships in society thus collapses completely. This is the cause of promiscuity, divorce, dysfunctional families, teenage pregnancies, sex, drugs and rock and roll subculture.

[B]Secularism:[/B] You may be surprised that I include this. But please don’t be. Secularism is one of the most dangerous isms of them all, because it legitimates why we should completely take spirituality out of society in the name of separating the state and religion, leading to spiritual impoverishing of the society. Rather than treating religion as a legitimate area of life and study, it throws religion and spirituality by the wayside. It claims to be neutral, but it is not, it is partial to materialism and atheism. Secularism promotes amorality and thus gives free reign to materialists to exploit, plunder and pillage the world. It is the cause of the damage our ecosystems are sustaining, the world being polluted and the endangering of the species on this planet and our vast spiritual impoverishment.

This is indeed what Western culture is and has taken over the entire world. It has also invaded into the sacred space of the dharmic countries and has corrupted them. It is easy for a rational person to see that Western culture produces an adharmic world, a world which is the very opposite of natural order and virtue. If we follow its course we have a very bleak future ahead of us. Therefore the antidote is a dharmic world. We need to apply the antidote now. Now is the time to save humanity.

#4

Scientifically humans are animals with densely enlarged brains, hopefully this gives learning ability to eventually understand the dynamics of materialism, capitalism, individualism and secularism while examining the dangers of beliefs, faith, feelings, pleasure, happiness and how it relates to the interconnectivity of everybody and everything, perhaps then positive actions will result, cause and effect. Unfortunately acknowledging the problem is only the first step.

#5

Einstein said, “You cannot solve the problems with the same consciousness that created them” You are trying to offer solutions while still sticking to your culture. Rather than reallising that it is because of materialism, capitalism, individualism and secularism the world is in such a sorry state, you would hope we change ourselves si we we can fit them :smiley:

Western culture is the cause of the destruction of this planet and humanity. The solution is to get rid of it.

#6

Yeah your idea in secularism kinda surprised me, but I see where you are coming from. Granted. However, would you rather have religious myths dominate your own life than capitalist myths? Would you rather have something like Iran instead of UK?

Probably, you’d rather have none.

Western culture is the cause of the destruction of this planet and humanity. The solution is to get rid of it.

The focus of your criticisms are based around “Industrial era” rather than the entire history of West. I am with you on putting down industrialist usurpers, but would also question, say, 17th century European world. Monarchs had always been capitalists but also secular too. It was rationalism and freedom that initiated the industrial era, and making the existing landed elites industrialists. It all began in Britain and then in France, made their way to America. The kind of lifestyle you critique has its foundations there.

It occurs to me that you might emphasise this thread as “Anglo-Saxon-Franco world vs India” or “Christian civilizations vs Dharmic civilizations” or “Conquistadors vs. Aborigines” or such…

For me West ain’t really “the” West as it is attired. Certain things about civilizations are rather messy and not straightforward as you presume. It ain’t a computer game :smiley:

#7

?Western culture is the cause of the destruction of this planet and humanity. The solution is to get rid of it.?

An immediate solution is desired; any chance of converting them or just get rid of em all? Hold on this is beginning to sound like a western solution. Sincerely I?m not a formidable debater since it takes tremendous effort to maintain this capitalistic life style, I?m kinda locked in until my son gets out of college, the government stops taxing, health and energy cost go away, so forth and so on but I will exercise my freedom of speech and spread the word.

#8

The West is simply the generic term to refer to the Abrahamic-Anglo-Saxon civilisation whose origins can be traced first to Sumeria and the Roman world. Although the West is made up of many countries including the Romantic countries like France, Italy and Spain which have their own cultural forms, the dominant culture of the West is English and American culture which dominates the world today. Hence when I use this term I am describing in particular the dominant culture of the West. This is indeed characterized by materialism, capitalism, secularism and individualism.

Similarly, when I say Indian culture although it too is an amalgamation of different cultures, I am using it in the generic sense to refer to the dominant culture of India, which is of course Hinduism which stems from Vedic dharma i.e., dharmic civilisation. This is indeed characterized by rationalism, spirituality, relationalism and idealism.

The point of the comparison is to show that what is referred to as the West and as India are mutually contradictory civilisations and dharmic civiliation is actually vastly more advanced, refined and civilised than the West. There is no question of co-existence, this world cannot be both dharmic and Western at the same time - it is either dharmic or Western. Thus a strong emphasis of this comparison is to show the West is backwards compared to dharmic civilisation, and even its most refined cultural forms, cannot compete with dharmic civilisation. To do so would be akin to comparing your culture to an advanced civilisation on an alien planet.

#9

How is superiority measured, how can we say one culture is more advanced than another and one cultural form is better than another? The answer is by seeing how refined, rich and textured it is, because this is evidence of a history of development. Also by how much a culture tends inwards rather than outwards, because this is also evidence of evolution. It is easy to see if we look at the history of the evolution of humanity. What separates the human organism from the animal organism is the human organism developed metacognition, the ability to think about the world, life and themselves and respond creatively. Initially, in the primitive stage, the human organism developed tools and language to survive better in their environment. When the human was secure with survival, the human tend even more inwards and developed mythology, religion, ritual, art, music and dance. As the human continued to develop they went increasingy inwards, mythology became history, religion became spirituality, art, music and dance became poetry and drama, ritual became science.

This development is also mirrored in an individuals life. In the early years the individual is only outwardly projected and primarily concerned with survival and seeking pleasure. This is why there is not a significant difference in higher animals like dogs and cats and the human child. When the child is established in a secure environment, it begins to go inwards starts to form language, play, draw and form relationships with its peers. Later, the individual develops the intellect and more sophisticated language, means of play and creativity and complex relationships. There comes a point in life when greater inwardsness happens and the individual begins to reflect on their life and experience existential angst(This tend to happen around the age of 30-40) If the individual develops past these stages they tend towards spirituality, philosophy, ethical living. This is how you can tell a more evolved being from a lesser being.

This is how we can tell Western civilisation is actually lesser evolved than the dharmic civilisation on the whole. It is more outwards than inwards; it is less about spirituality and philosophy and more about industy and technology; it is less about ethical living and more about selfish living. The same will be seen true if you compare its cultural forms to dharmic cultural forms - the latter will be shown to be more spiritual, refined, textured. In the subsequent posts I will demonstrate just that. However, before I do that, I want you to ask yourself some honest questions:

Why did dharmic civilization develop Yoga/meditiation and Western civilisation didn’t? Why is the notion of dharma(remaining in harmony with the nature order of things) so important to dharmic civilisation, but virtually absent in the West? Why is ahimsa - no violence in thought, speech and action to all living beings - such a prevailing moral value in dharmic culture and not in the West?

Honest answers to these questions will show the way.

#10

Yeah your idea in secularism kinda surprised me, but I see where you are coming from. Granted. However, would you rather have religious myths dominate your own life than capitalist myths? Would you rather have something like Iran instead of UK?

I think you are forgetting the difference between Abrahamic and Dharmic religions.

A state run by Dharmic idealism doesn’t have the problems of extremism and intolerance.

The focus of your criticisms are based around “Industrial era” rather than the entire history of West. I am with you on putting down industrialist usurpers, but would also question, say, 17th century European world. Monarchs had always been capitalists but also secular too. It was rationalism and freedom that initiated the industrial era, and making the existing landed elites industrialists. It all began in Britain and then in France, made their way to America. The kind of lifestyle you critique has its foundations there.

But the ideology of it all is intricately tied to Judeo-Christian tradition.

It occurs to me that you might emphasise this thread as “Anglo-Saxon-Franco world vs India” or “Christian civilizations vs Dharmic civilizations” or “Conquistadors vs. Aborigines” or such…

Its fine the way it is. The term “Westerners” is referring to biased and supremacist Westerners like you. It includes even the French, the Greeks, the Italians, the Germans, the Spanish, and so on.

#11

Neitzsche, I have said to you before and I will say it again: Stop labelling everybody a racist/white supremist who says something which is not particularly favourable to India, Hinduism, Indians as racist, bigots etc. High wolf is the last person on this forum who is deserving of that title. In fact he is pro-dharma himself and anti-abrahamic and what he is effectively arguing here is the broad generalization “The West” is an unfair one because it tarrs with the same brush every memeber of its culture. For example the Italian, French, Spanish and Germans and Greek people did nothing to the Indians historically, they were not the main drivers of colonialism, and they indeed do have made a lot of noble and good cultural contributions(I actually enjoy continental culture). Many Europeans do not even identify with the culture that we refer to as the “West” For example, family values are important in many European countries like Italy and Spain. I have talked to Irish people who also do not identify with the label “The West” are condemn the English as much we do.

If we are going to be honest about it when the term “The West” is typically used it is referring to largely English, Australian and American culture, with America in particular considered the leading Western country. As they are the dominant Western stream this is why the term “The West” had come to be used to identify them. However, we cannot ignore the fact that Western civilisation does have a common origin which is typically traced to Greco-roman world and Sumeria. Hence why it is referred to as the Anglo-saxon civilisation. This is why France, Italy, Spain and Greece also get lumped in. They do in fact share the same culture more or less, with Europe(minus UK) being more romantic.

As I have made clear on many occasions. This is not about people, not even English or American people. It is about culture. It is about demonstrating how Western culture itself contains destrucitive seeds and it not in fact an advanced culture, but a backwards culture if you compare it to dharmic culture.

#12

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;58947]Neitzsche, I have said to you before and I will say it again: Stop labelling everybody a racist/white supremist who says something which is not particularly favourable to India, Hinduism, Indians as racist, bigots etc. High wolf is the last person on this forum who is deserving of that title. In fact he is pro-dharma himself and anti-abrahamic and what he is effectively arguing here is the broad generalization “The West” is an unfair one because it tarrs with the same brush every memeber of its culture. For example the Italian, French, Spanish and Germans and Greek people did nothing to the Indians historically, they were not the main drivers of colonialism, and they indeed do have made a lot of noble and good cultural contributions(I actually enjoy continental culture). Many Europeans do not even identify with the culture that we refer to as the “West” For example, family values are important in many European countries like Italy and Spain. I have talked to Irish people who also do not identify with the label “The West” are condemn the English as much we do.

If we are going to be honest about it when the term “The West” is typically used it is referring to largely English, Australian and American culture, with America in particular considered the leading Western country. As they are the dominant Western stream this is why the term “The West” had come to be used to identify them. However, we cannot ignore the fact that Western civilisation does have a common origin which is typically traced to Greco-roman world and Sumeria. Hence why it is referred to as the Anglo-saxon civilisation. This is why France, Italy, Spain and Greece also get lumped in. They do in fact share the same culture more or less, with Europe(minus UK) being more romantic.

As I have made clear on many occasions. This is not about people, not even English or American people. It is about culture. It is about demonstrating how Western culture itself contains destrucitive seeds and it not in fact an advanced culture, but a backwards culture if you compare it to dharmic culture.[/QUOTE]

It is clear that High Wolf, while anti-Abrahamic, is clearly biased in favor of the Western world. Remember the times when he defended Christianity (not the religion itself, but its supposed humanistic values) and made fun of Muslims and Islam? How he said Islam is the most dangerous ideology in the world? How he made fun of Indian clothing, and so on?

When people make fun of India, Hindus, or Hinduism, I don’t care about the comments themselves but the motivation and biases behind such comments. In short, High Wolf’s assertion that Islam is the most dangerous ideology is a sentiment borne out of the age old Western prejudice against non Judeo-Christian traditions (which is cultural in nature).

I will agree High Wolf is probably the least PC member on the forum when it comes to Abrahamic religions. That does not mean, however, he isn’t free of the Western supremacists biases which the Judeo-Christian traditions played no small part in inculcating.

I would be wary of High Wolf from now on.

So that’s it? You will forgive the Germans, the Italians, the French, the Irish, the Scottish, etc because they didn’t harm India? What the hell kind of half-assed dedicated to eradicating Western supremacist biases is that?

The Germans, the Italians, the French, the Irish, and the other Western Europeans also have had their share pf white/Westerner supremacist biases. The French were a great imperialist power, unless you choose to forget the havoc they wrecked upon Indochina. The Scottish and the Irish are not devoid of Western/white/Christian supremacy, thanks to either their Catholicism or their close history with Britain.

The Germans have had quite a track record with racist intellectuals (Kant and Schopenhauer were white supremacists and stated that the blacks were inferior) and multiculturalism. We shouldn’t forget the considerable antisemitic sentiment in Germany from the days of the Holy Roman Empire(s) to Hitler. I especially don’t think we should forget Max Muller.

The Italians are a strange lot, but don’t forget their Roman Catholicism and their Pope! Remember that Christianity brings with it religious and cultural supremacist biases!

No, Western/White supremacy is Western/white supremacy. If there is any kind of European we largely don’t have to worry about, its the EASTERN EUROPEANS. These Europeans have, throughout history, been subjected to the racism and hatred of Western Europeans themselves.

Other than that, I agree with you. Its about culture.

I too don’t have a problem with any of the groups I mentioned above (I too love their art, music, intellectual traditions; German philosophy/scientists/music and Italian music are my most favorite), but the CULTURE that BINDS THEM ALL, the Homeric/Hellenistic/Judeo-Christian culture that creates intolerance, materialism, and Social Darwinist-type ideology.

#13

I think you are being fairly harsh on High Wolf. I admit High wolf has said some rather ignorant things about Indian culture, but I see no evidence this is motivated by some agenda, but just ignorance. I say ignorance in a positive sense. High Wolf has demonstrated he is an open minded individual and I am sure he will change his views when you show him more evidence. It is not proper to condemn so quickly. Never condemn anybody without first giving them them a fair hearing. To condemn somebody on a knee jerk reaction is hardly befitting of somebody who represents dharma.

High Wolf should be expected to have some Western biases and views based on a Western mindset, because he is Western, has been bought up in that culture with its arts, philosophy, music, science and literature. There is nothing inherently wrong about this, what is wrong if he holds onto wrong biasses and wrong views even when they are reasonably demonstrated to be so. On that note I must say something critical to you Neitzsche regarding your views on metaphysics and science. I have shown you that your views stem from a Western reductionist approach and demonstrated to you how advanced our sciences were and what our scientific method was, but you still dismiss them as science and call them philsophy and religion. And nor are you friendly to idealism which is the very modus operandi of Hindu philosophy. Shall I now say you are being anti-Indian/anti-Hindu? Shall I be wary of you?

High Wolf has very good reason to consider Islam a dangerous ideology and to be somewhat sympathetic to Christianity. Islam gives blatant instructions in its foundational scripture itself to hate, maim, rape and slaughter non-Muslims, but you would be hard pressed to find the same in the NT. In fact you will find the opposite: love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek, forgive and do not judge. You will find it in the OT but not in the form of explicit instruction, but rather in the form of historical accounts. It should not be ignored that most Christians consider the OT to be the old revelation and NT the new reveleation. You will also find many Christian sects which are positive and spiritual. I am not at all justifying Christianity, and neither is High Wolf to be honest, but I am pointing out the need to be more balanced in your criticism, especially if you want to look credible in the eyes of the impartial and objective readers of these forums. If you constantly slam everybody, even your well wishers like High wolf as anti-Hindu/anti Indian, you will be perceived as a rabid lunatic.

I agree with your point that French, Italian, Spanish, Germans sub-groups of Western culture are still Western culture and motivated by the same ethos. Hence, why I regard them as all the West. I do admire French and Italian food for instance, but I still don’t think they are the equivalent of dharmic food. I am very staunchly a dharma supremist and I consider EVERYTHING in dharma to be superior. This is because all our cultural forms are based on dharmic ethos, that is the natural order of reality and hence virtue. I am going to demonstrate this quite clearly in subsequent posts.

#14

I am responding to some points made by Q in the “What is Enlightenment thread” which I really think illustrates my points why the West is backwards and uncivilised, why it is vastly inferior to dharmic civilisation, and why the solution to the problems of the world today cannot come from the West.

The West does not see immorality as a problem but rather as its virtue. It does not care that the institution of family has been destroyed, its high divorce rates, the vast social inequality in society, the destruction of ecosystems of this planet, porn - but sees these as ironically enough modernism. It is easy to see where this so-called modernism is going to lead. To back up my points I will point out so far Q and Ray, both Western members, have spoken in support of Western ideology.

But it easy for many people who are awake today that the world cannot continue on a Western path lest we want to destroy ourselves. If we want our children to be born in a society where being a porn star is an option, divorce, teenage pregnancies and broken families are seen as norm, social inequality as natural order, war, conquest and profit as virtue - then there is something very wrong with us. To such people I would say they are spiritually impoverished.

I actually think that morality is nonsense overall, and to grant a people freedom is the virtue of the West. :wink:

As I said earlier this stems from the Western ideology of secularism - where morality is optional. If morality was optional then murdering, killing, stealing and raping would be optional. Who would want to live in a world like that? What Q is calling “freedom” here is nothing more than total anarchy and chaos. If we had no moral foundation in the world which promoted values like kinship, love, compassion, unity, honesty, paitence, we would have a society which is the opposite: Selfish, hate, violence, divided, dishonst and discontent. In fact very much like the world we have today. Seriously, what kind of creature would prefer to live in a world like this, if not a demon?

In the dharmic tradition the greatest freedom is actually control over your own senses. When you realise that you are not your body or your mind, and that you actually have automony from them, then you come to an Eurka moment where you realise just how much you are being controlled by your body and mind. How instincts, beliefs, assumptions, values, emotions and thoughts are driving you. You then realise, far from being free, you are a prisoner to your own body and mind. All wise and virtuous people in the world have come to this understanding: Plato, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Mahavira, Gandhi, Lao Tzu being good examples.

But to come to this understanding requires a certain degree of spiritual development to first recognise your automony as a conscious being. To recognise you have a choice to not go with what your body and mind is telling you to do. This only happens with people who have attained to a certain level of evolution. Backwards civilisations and people do not understand this(Plato said this himself) People who are driven by their body and minds are not far removed from animals in evolution. The more externalized they are the more backwards they are.

If one has no control over their senses, I agree they need to improve. But why would somebody who watches porn not have control over their senses? Why would one who watches porn not have the ability for great compassion, charity, love, friendship and wisdom?

One only watches porn when they are motivated by lust. Next time you feel the urge to watch porn, observe your mind and body and see what has changed. Lust is a negative emotional state widely recognised to be as such by cultures all around the planet, except for modern secular - asura Western culture. If you lust for something it means they have a strong desire to attain something to gratify your sexual desires. This means that rather than you being control of your senses, your senses are in control of you. Try this exercise: Imagine you see a very beautiful and sexy lady walk by you and you feel the craving of lust for her. Now amplify that craving by 10, now 100, now 1000. There will come a point where the lustful energy is to strong that you cannot control it anymore and MUST at all costs satisfy it. You just discovered the cause of rape. Rape, adultery and incest are caused by the negative state known as lust. You can never respect what you lust for, for that becomes nothing more than object for your gratification. This is why women in your culture are disrespected. Everytime you feed lust, you make it stronger.

What is happening on an energetic level when you are overcome by lust? Unfortunately, your science is not advanced enough to know this, but let me fill you in: lustul energy is very powerful and every lustful thought and action causes the vital energy in your body to be depleted. This is especially true when you ejaculate. This vital energy can be used for greater purposes like spiritual development, creativity and work.

It is impossible for the crime of rape or adultery to exist without the negative state of lust. If we all eradicated lust from our mind and body there would never be rape or adultery. Everybody would respect one another and have high character.

You gave no single argument for anything being wrong about porn. Is it wrong to love eating tasty food to?

Yes, because taste is again just gratifying the senses. It is no more evolved than an animal loving to have a shit. You are addicted to just the sense feelings. Rather, what you do not realise that you have many beautiful virtues latent in your consciousness like joy, love, compassion which emanate from within and do not depend upon sense objects. If you stopped feeding the senses, you would discover these virtues. If everybody on the planet did the same we would have a virtuous world. A world where you and I would be born into.

It is due to selfish, primitive and backwards people like you who are concerned with nothing more than gratifying their senses like animals, that we do not have virtue in this planet but the very opposite. If we do not get rid of the ideologies that motivate people like you this planet has no hope and will fall into great despair.

See, you give no single reason. You just repeat traditional values. Why not? Besides being my parents, my parents are my friends, I don’t call them “Madam” and “Sir”.

Parents are not friends that is why they are parents. If you respect the sanctity of a relationship you will understand how that one social relationship then goes onto make a world of world of relationships. To maintain that harmony maintains order and virtue. This is how the universe works itself - everything is kept in a relational order to maintain balance. Otherwise the universe would collapse. I do not talk to my parents as I would take to my mates. I do not talk to my teacher as I talk to my parents and mates. I do not talk to my boss as I talk to my parents, mates and teacher. Each relationship has a specific order.

When we breach the natural order of our relationships like for example sleeping with the teacher, drinking with the parents, society fragments, virtue reduces and institutions collapse. Isn’t that what is exactly happening in your Western society? Children do not respect their parents; 50% or higher divorce rates; dysfunctional families teenage pregnancies, substance abuse, peadophillia.

The irony is you cannot even deny this is not happening and yet you still have the audacity to oppose dharma :wink:

And why can’t the father do that?

Yeah dude, of course it is. The question is, why has it to be the job of a woman. It can as well be the father. The father can stay at home and take care of the household and the children and the mother goes to work.

Do you realise in most cultures in the world it is indeed the man that works and the woman manages the home? Any idea why that is the case? Well, because it is the natural order of things. Nature made it so that the man would naturally be more aggressive and stronger and woman would be more passive and weaker. Nature gave man rational, decision making and strength qualities and to woman she gave intuition, paitence, multitasking and nuturing qualities and also decreed she would be mother. This is also reflected in the biology of the man and woman. Hence the woman fits into the natural function of being at manager of the home and the man of working.

I have actually had an ex-feminist girlfriend. It did not work out as you obviously might have guessed, because she was trying to be like the man in the relationship - and obviously that was not going to happen so we fought all the time. But I noticed something very interesting when she actually relaxed she would melt into my arms like a wilting flower and in those moments we never fought. They were harmonious moments and both of us cherished them. I then realised the wisdom in why a man should be a man and woman a woman.

Or the mother sacrifices her own leisrue to work and the father his to look after the children. Or, and that’s how my wife and I handle it, they split it. I look as much after our son as his mother, and I often even do more at home, because I work at home. There’s surely something wrong according to your primitive-uhm-I-mean-dharmic worldview: Explain what!

Dharma is based on qualities. If your wife has better qualities than you to work and you are more suited to being the househusband, then it makes sense for her to work. There would have to be a good reason though why she is working and you’re not. If you are ill or physically challenged obviously somebody has to provide for the family, so it would be your wife. However, if you are healthy and she is still working, once would have to ask why?

Oh, I do understand it quite well. To take care of a household is not exactly a work that is considered to be manly, you know, wash clothes, prepare food, clean the toilet. You call it dharma: Well. :wink:

No, but why should the man do it, when the woman can? If dharma is unfair for prescribing this, then nature must be unfair for making the mother the bearer of the child and labour pains, right? My mother considers it her duty to do all of the above. When I have tried to help she has insisted it is her work. I have a duty to look after her in the same way when she becomes old. So dharma is about give and take. In a Hindu family while the woman does indeed have a duty to manage the house, the man has a duty to earn and provide - and guess who keeps the keys to the safe? The woman. Guess who spends the money? The woman.

Most Hindu women do not consider themselves oppressed, but actually consider themselves to be fortunate to be in a tradition that respects them and empowers their feminity - rather than tries to force them to become masculine. Again, dharma.

See: when I say that India was conquered a lot and it seems to have been quite esay, that’s actually an observation. No glee involved, no pride. You stating that “most” childredn grow up without being sure who their father is and adding a bunch of smileys to it: That’s glee. You like that thought. You like to think that western culture is rotten and all. What’s so likeable about it, Surya Asura?

It is actually true a lot of children in the West grow up not knowing who their real father is or have a step father or even a sequence of step fathers! This is what happens when you do not respect dharma.

However, it’s indeed the case that in the West parents can take a break of being parents every now and then. It’s common. You let the kids grandparents watch over it or you leave it at a friends house, who has children as well, and they sometimes leave your kids with you. Or you leave the kids with the fathers and the mothers go out or the other way. Why wouldn’t you? So you have some free time for yourself to have some non-kid-fun, that provides you with some energy.

This is called displacing your responsibility. If you could not look after your kids, why did you bring them into the world? The kids need you in the formative stages of their life. They need the mothers love, nuturing and affection and the dads scolding and disciplining. So they get the right balance of masculine and feminine energy in them.

About the divorce rate: I don’t see the problem again, sorry. If people don’t want to be together anymore, why would they not part? According to your tradition-driven India, the reason why there (are there?) less divorces should be that tradition forbids it, forbids women to got out and meet other men (and therefore men don’t meet other women). So you have families that live a formal life with artificial relationships that are determined by traditions, instead of feelings. Women are not allowed to leave the house and have fun, are not allowed contact with other men, not allowed to divorce if they simply don’t love their husbands anymore. Well, if they ever did in the first place, aren’t mariagges arranged a lot in India? And if it wasn’t banned, widows would even die with their husbands. Why all that would be “civilised” and “advanced culture”: I don’t get it. To me it sounds like oppression.

I can see why divorce rates is so high in your culture, because you are so lax about it. However, you have no idea what impact divorce has on children and the emotional traumas it leaves. Nor do you know how much it hurts a child development to see its parents fighting all the time and how these behaviours are then perpetuated in the child in its later life.

The reason your relationships are breaking all the time because you do not know how to make relationships, how to maintain them and keep them in harmony. From the very get set go most children are born in dysfunctional relationships anyway, so it hardly a surprise in later life they cannot form functional relationships.

Most marriage are based on love marriages, where the word love is a misnomer, they are rather based on marriages of infatuation. Then over time when the infatuation fizzles out - the love dissipates and then the man and the woman(or another thing in your culture: the man and the man, or woman and the woman) cant bear to see one another - but in this exchange it is always the children who get hurt. Hindus, at large, do not get married based on relationships of infatuation, but based on relationships where the man and womans dharma fit together: similar economic class, similar education, similar caste. And statistics on the whole show these relationships are the most succesful.

Why is the instituton of marriage there in the first place? It is there for the sake of children. If you are not prepared to take on the responsibility of bringing up your children then why produce them in the first place?

It is a fact, yes. But I do not see what the problem is. Well, I do see a problem that when a couple breaks up and they have a child, that the father or the mother isn’t around all the time anymore and they get to see each other less. On the other hand, if mom and dad don’t love each other anymore and don’t want to be together anymore, they’d be unhappy if they’d be forced to be, which would again affect the child. And if they work it out, both parents can still frequently see the child after a divorce and spend “quality time” together.

This is actually really sad and I am embarrased for you that you would say this so casually. You are so casual about complicating the childs life, ok with the fact that they have vaciliate between mommy and daddy, go through the trauma of the breaks ups and divorce.
And what happens when mommy and daddy have new partners and new kids? How does that affect the childs life.

Do you have any duty of care towards the next generation of humans you are bringing in this planet? You behave like it is optional.

Dharma, that’s an Indian tradition or something, isn’t it? That you then call the eternal law of the universe or so. :wink:

Yes, dharma is the natural order of the universe. If you in harmony with the laws of nature you will prosper. If you go against them, you will be punished. And that is exactly what is happening to you today. Most of your kids are being bought up in dysfunctional families and go onto produce more dysfunctional families. Your society is fragmenting and breaking apart leading to a host of problems like substance abuse, mental disorders and explosion in crime.

Rather than decreasing human suffering; you are increasing it. Asuras.

And while you were disgruntled by a 60 year old woman having a good time, that 60 year old woman was having a good time. If you asked me, you already have failed in life.

In our culture at the age of 60 you are with your grandchildren at home, spend their time doing creative things, helping out in charitable causes or spiritual work. It is shameful that a 60 year old is doing what 18 years old are doing. Absolutely shameful. The reason that many people in your culure are getting to the age of 60 and still behaving like 18 years old is because people do not develop or evolve in your society. They are spiritually impoverished. In traditional Hindu society we had structures in place where at the age of 60 you would enter into spiritual retirement to prepare for your final day. In your culture people often die alone on their homes in their old age. Sad.

Dharma is obvious to a virtuous person. It is not obvious to you because you are lacking in virtue. We live just as the universe has decreed we should live. And so will you, when you become civilised. Just a few hundred years ago you were living in filthy conditions and suffered massive plague because you went against the dharma of keeping the body and society clean(one of the niyamas of yoga) Today you are suffering mental disorders and stress because you are going against the dharma of the mind of keeping it clear and under control. Tommorow you will realise the importance of the dharma of relationships when you realise your society has completely collapsed. You do not learn by logic, but by disaster: plagues taught you to keep clean; mental disorders has taught you to do Yoga; and obviously nothing but a total collapse of your society will teach you about relationships.

#15

Surya Deva , is pushing beliefs an effective means to help the dire straits of the times, again, exposure and quality education may prove a sensible and effective option. My common folk perspective throughout recent decades detects exponential progression in the level of consciousness in the US, although politically it lags, history can never be changed, realistically a hybrid of worldly legacy may need to evolve to reach what you desire.

For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, push and you will feel resistance.

#16

[QUOTE=Nietzsche;58956]It is clear that High Wolf, while anti-Abrahamic, is clearly biased in favor of the Western world. Remember the times when he defended Christianity (not the religion itself, but its supposed humanistic values) and made fun of Muslims and Islam? How he said Islam is the most dangerous ideology in the world? How he made fun of Indian clothing, and so on?

When people make fun of India, Hindus, or Hinduism, I don’t care about the comments themselves but the motivation and biases behind such comments. In short, High Wolf’s assertion that Islam is the most dangerous ideology is a sentiment borne out of the age old Western prejudice against non Judeo-Christian traditions (which is cultural in nature).

I will agree High Wolf is probably the least PC member on the forum when it comes to Abrahamic religions. That does not mean, however, he isn’t free of the Western supremacists biases which the Judeo-Christian traditions played no small part in inculcating.

I would be wary of High Wolf from now on.

So that’s it? You will forgive the Germans, the Italians, the French, the Irish, the Scottish, etc because they didn’t harm India? What the hell kind of half-assed dedicated to eradicating Western supremacist biases is that?

The Germans, the Italians, the French, the Irish, and the other Western Europeans also have had their share pf white/Westerner supremacist biases. The French were a great imperialist power, unless you choose to forget the havoc they wrecked upon Indochina. The Scottish and the Irish are not devoid of Western/white/Christian supremacy, thanks to either their Catholicism or their close history with Britain.

The Germans have had quite a track record with racist intellectuals (Kant and Schopenhauer were white supremacists and stated that the blacks were inferior) and multiculturalism. We shouldn’t forget the considerable antisemitic sentiment in Germany from the days of the Holy Roman Empire(s) to Hitler. I especially don’t think we should forget Max Muller.

The Italians are a strange lot, but don’t forget their Roman Catholicism and their Pope! Remember that Christianity brings with it religious and cultural supremacist biases!

No, Western/White supremacy is Western/white supremacy. If there is any kind of European we largely don’t have to worry about, its the EASTERN EUROPEANS. These Europeans have, throughout history, been subjected to the racism and hatred of Western Europeans themselves.

Other than that, I agree with you. Its about culture.

I too don’t have a problem with any of the groups I mentioned above (I too love their art, music, intellectual traditions; German philosophy/scientists/music and Italian music are my most favorite), but the CULTURE that BINDS THEM ALL, the Homeric/Hellenistic/Judeo-Christian culture that creates intolerance, materialism, and Social Darwinist-type ideology.[/QUOTE]

Your words reek of a conspicuous immaturity. It’d be better if you listen more and react less.

#17

[QUOTE=High Wolf;58979]Your words reek of a conspicuous immaturity. It’d be better if you listen more and react less.[/QUOTE]

I apologize High Wolf. You are right, I was too quick to judge you.

I shouldn’t have attributed your comments to sinister feelings of racial superiority. They were merely comments borne out of ignorance, and ignorance that could have easily been rectified with the right approach.

Here is a link about the diversity of Indian clothing. Despite what the top of the page says, the information is quite accurate.

#18

I think you are being fairly harsh on High Wolf. I admit High wolf has said some rather ignorant things about Indian culture, but I see no evidence this is motivated by some agenda, but just ignorance. I say ignorance in a positive sense. High Wolf has demonstrated he is an open minded individual and I am sure he will change his views when you show him more evidence. It is not proper to condemn so quickly. Never condemn anybody without first giving them them a fair hearing. To condemn somebody on a knee jerk reaction is hardly befitting of somebody who represents dharma.

Perhaps I was. Very well then. I will apologize to him.

High Wolf should be expected to have some Western biases and views based on a Western mindset, because he is Western, has been bought up in that culture with its arts, philosophy, music, science and literature. There is nothing inherently wrong about this, what is wrong if he holds onto wrong biasses and wrong views even when they are reasonably demonstrated to be so. On that note I must say something critical to you Neitzsche regarding your views on metaphysics and science. I have shown you that your views stem from a Western reductionist approach and demonstrated to you how advanced our sciences were and what our scientific method was, but you still dismiss them as science and call them philsophy and religion. And nor are you friendly to idealism which is the very modus operandi of Hindu philosophy. Shall I now say you are being anti-Indian/anti-Hindu? Shall I be wary of you?

You have a good point.

High Wolf has very good reason to consider Islam a dangerous ideology and to be somewhat sympathetic to Christianity. Islam gives blatant instructions in its foundational scripture itself to hate, maim, rape and slaughter non-Muslims, but you would be hard pressed to find the same in the NT. In fact you will find the opposite: love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek, forgive and do not judge. You will find it in the OT but not in the form of explicit instruction, but rather in the form of historical accounts. It should not be ignored that most Christians consider the OT to be the old revelation and NT the new reveleation. You will also find many Christian sects which are positive and spiritual. I am not at all justifying Christianity, and neither is High Wolf to be honest, but I am pointing out the need to be more balanced in your criticism, especially if you want to look credible in the eyes of the impartial and objective readers of these forums. If you constantly slam everybody, even your well wishers like High wolf as anti-Hindu/anti Indian, you will be perceived as a rabid lunatic.

I disagree with you here. In which Testament was the phrase “I am the only way” in? Hmm?

If most Christians consider the NT to be the new relevation, and if the NT is full of humanistic sentiments, then explain why they remain the most intolerant and bigoted people on the planet.

And don’t give me the “OT is still there…” B.S. Christianity, as a religion, IS based on the revelations of Jesus and his apostles in the N.T.

The fact is that Christianity is the most dangerous ideology in this world and far more dangerous to Islam.

I have never seen most Muslims go like this: “Hey this yoga sh!7 is great! But since its haraam, I think we should make something called ‘ISLAMIC YOGA,’ while still going around and saying Hinduism is younger than Yoga and merely a conglomeration of rituals and mythology.”

They know their limits, for the most part. If something is haraam, they won’t touch it, let alone flirt with the idea of it. That’s why several Islamic nations have banned Yoga and that is why there have hardly been any Muslim people on this forum.

Christians, on the other hand, go like this: “This Yoga sh!7z is gr8! I like it but I don’t like its roots. So let’s make ‘Christian Yoga’ or more liberalized things like ‘Hot Yoga’! That way, we can remain healthy, continue to go around bashing Hindus, and maybe even grab a few converts.”

Christians are compelled to be supremacist and intolerant. If they see a religion they don’t like, its back to proselytization. If that doesn’t work, then they revert to touchy-feely-make-friends-with-Hindus tactics and convince Hindus to add Jesus to their pantheon. Then, innocent Hindus start getting more and more influenced by Christianity until they finally renounce Hinduism for it.

How many times have you seen a Christian on the General Yoga Discussion forum, say something like “I acknowledge the usefulness of philosophies but I will not pray to other gods?”

Which you would rather prefer? Someone who hates you and your religion and keeps himself aloof, or someone who hates you and your religion and gets inside you and twists you into a mockery of yourself, all out of disgustingly perverted feelings of “love” and “compassion”? To me, the answer is clear.

#19

Neitszche, I am already aware of the evils of Christianity. I was merely making a point that from the point of view of scripture or NT which most Christians accept as new revelation, there is no justification for much of the violence that has been done in the organized religion. The cause of this is Roman Catholic church and the legacy of death and destruction they started. This is why you can meet many Christians who are nice and friendly(well I certainly have) and open minded. There are even some denominations of Christianity which accept other religions as valid paths to god. You will also find Gnostic Christians a more open minded bunch.

I am not excusing Christianity, it is still a primitive religion that needs to be rid of, but I am being more balanced in my criticism. In the Sai Baba thread you are telling me to consider Sai Baba’s good deeds, even if he is a charlatan and a child molester. Then in that vain I say to you consider Christianity’s good deeds and aspects too.

#20

[QUOTE=Nietzsche;59054]I apologize High Wolf. You are right, I was too quick to judge you.

I shouldn’t have attributed your comments to sinister feelings of racial superiority. They were merely comments borne out of ignorance, and ignorance that could have easily been rectified with the right approach.

Here is a link about the diversity of Indian clothing. Despite what the top of the page says, the information is quite accurate.[/QUOTE]

I wish these clothes were more stylish here in the States! I love Indian clothes for women. They are so beautiful. Thanks for the link Nietzsche.