Thread by @vakibs

In this thread, I will discuss the civilizational identity of India and its traditional understanding of the separation between the civilized (insiders) and the uncivilized (outsiders). Every civilization makes such a distinction to protect its internal norms and values.

The Greeks called outsiders as "barbarians". This word refers to the unintelligible speech of outsider tribes (whether Phoenicians, Persians or other non-Greek tribes). The barbarian not only didn't speak Greek, he also didn't have Greek ethical norms. Hence, he is uncivilized.

The Christian civilization of Europe and its descendant nation states similarly identify as the "western civilization", which has a specific set of ethical norms. Parallel to this civilizational identity is the notion of the outsider, who do not follow or accept western norms.

The prejudiced reporting on India (or other non-western countries) in western media is a reflection of their understanding of separation between the civilized and the uncivilized. Overt racism of the past decades / centuries toned down a bit, but this separation is still active.

A peculiar phenomenon can be seen in post-colonial countries like India or in Africa. The civilizational norms of the occupier become internalized by the colonized (uncivilized) people. The discourse on ethical values in those countries gets conducted through colonial vocabulary.

The inability to speak the colonial language with a required degree of fluency, or unacquaintance with the culture or habits of the colonial metropolis, become a metric for judging people. Even when such trappings are not judged, colonial ethical norms are assumed as universal.

For example, in India, the vocabulary for ethics revolves around "human rights". The vocabulary for religion revolves around "monotheism/polytheism" distinction. The vocabulary for science revolves around "natural law". These are peculiar things borrowed during the colonial era.

Did India not have "human rights" before? No, but these issues were formulated on very different axes.

Did Indian scientists not see "natural law" before? No.

Did Indians not speak of "gods and their numbers"? No. But these would have been considered irrelevant issues then.

What would be the "relevant" issues for civilizational discourse then? These would be issues which the civilization itself identified as its principal values, worth protecting from dilution. India does have such a set of values, they are attested in monumental literary history.

In the following, I will discuss the norms that mark Indian civilization. An inevitable fallback will be that they also mark the outsider as "uncivilized". This is despite India having a famously open civilization: "Let noble thoughts come from the whole world", as Ṛg Veda says.

The picture I chose at the beginning of the thread is intentional. It is a reconstruction of the Paśupati seal from Harappa, clearly showing Yogic symbolism & its relation to nature. This is the earliest archeological find showing a symbolic depiction of India's ethical ideals.

The ethical norms of Indian civilization are developed from this Yogic experience, specifically the experience of the Ṛshis, which had the earliest literary attestation. These norms developed from Brahmāvarta, the very geographical heart of the Saraswati-Sindhu civilization.

The key Indian value is forbearance दम: control of one's own mind. Everything proceeds from this.

The Paśupati seal depicts the Yogic master surrounded by the various beasts. The counterparts to these beasts exist also in his mind. The Paśupati is one who controls the Paśus.

Between the Yogic master and the beasts with no control whatsoever, lies the vast spectrum of beings (human or non-human). Indian civilization recognized this gradation and saw man as an *inherent* part of nature. It marked "outsiders" as lacking this control, effectively Paśus.

Whenever a foreign tribe like Yavanas or Turushkas ravaged in India, they were described as Paśus. Their behavior is termed as Pāśavika पाशविक​ (beastly). The word became synonymous to "cruel". Even frontier tribes like Parama Kāmbhōjas were mentioned to be fierce in temperament.

The other word used to describe the "uncivilized outsider" Mlēccha म्लेच्छ​ also acquired the same connotations of lack of self-control and excessive cruelty (although originally, the word probably just meant "milk" as I argued in this earlier thread).

https://twitter.com/vakibs/status/1179401176334385152?s=20

The contrast to Mlēccha/Paśu is the "civilized insider" Ārya. The word आर्य "Ārya" means cultivated, and derives in a simple manner from the root ऋ (to flow). A cultivated mind is one that is in sync with Ṛta ऋत​ and one that controls the beasts within.

https://twitter.com/vakibs/status/1097546540510400512?s=20

The word "Ārya" आर्य is used exactly in this sense of "cultivated mind" in the Buddhist texts, or in the Hindu/Jain texts. Ignoring such literary history, a mendacious racist theory is foisted upon it by British colonialists, which was taken up by the Paśus par excellence- Nazis.

For the purpose of this thread, nonsensical theories of the Paśus of last century are irrelevant. From within the Indic civilization, the Ārya-Paśu distinction is the separation between the civilized insider and the uncivilized outsider.

So is western civilization Ārya or Paśu?

The answer is not a straightforward yes or no, but a qualified yes or no.

This is similar to how western countries look at India, if its values are aligned with western ethical norms. The answer can be a qualifed yes or no.

The axes for defining the norms are very different.

A clear understanding of ethical norms is what enables the formation of a large country as a nation. India is a modern nation state, but Indians are an ancient nation. The geography of India was termed as Yajñīyo Dēśa in Manusmṛti: refering to the norms codified in a Yajña.

Yajña is the shared consciousness realized in the participants. The Yajamāna achieves the union between self and the universe, not only at the physical level but also at the level of self-reflection. Buddhism refers to the same notion of Yajña, embodied by kindness and charity.

India is thus a civilizational state formed through shared ethical norms. The norms are reflected in cultural practices. The name Bhārata stems from the Vedic rituals of the bearers of the fire for Yajña. The name India (from Indu: moon) refers to Sōma that is the fruit of Yajña.

This understanding about Indian civilization is important, as the alternative is to attribute the nation simply to birth (Jāti जाति). This is also true to an extent as Indians are a genetically related group of people. But such identity cannot work for a nation so large as India.

If India didn't have a civilizational identity, it is just a flagpost to western civilizational norms: something that can be planted here (just like religions or MacDonalds franchises). Furthermore, it can be broken up into easily governable pieces, each tethered to some Jāti.

But India does have a civilizational identity. Consequently, it also has an internal vocabulary by which to judge the "civilizedness" or the "uncivilizedness" of other nations, religions or civilizations. I will discuss this vocabulary tomorrow, in the rest of my thread.

The Indic vocabulary for judging civilizedness is based on the Trivarga त्रिवर्ग which are the “just goals” of man: Dharma धर्म (righteousness), Artha अर्थ (wealth and means) and Kāma काम (sensual pleasures) - all in balance. This notion of balance or Samyama संयम is critical.

The balance can only be achieved through a centering on the Ātman आत्मन् (Self), and a detachment from the outer world, along with a desire for Mōksha मोक्ष (liberation). If a person or society is not centered like this, they suffer from अरिषड्वर्ग or षड्रिपु (6 enemies).

The 6 enemies are indeed 3 pairs, with the 3 being the corresponding effects of decentering on the just goals of Trivarga. They are:

1) Kāma काम (desire) and Krōdha क्रोध (anger)
2) Lōbha लोभ (greed) and Mada मद (arrogance)
3) Mōha मोह (delusion) and Mātsarya मात्सर्य (jealousy)

The first two enemies of Kāma (lust) and Krōdha (anger) result when sensual pleasures are met or unmet. The latter two enemies of Lōbha (greed) and Mada (arrogance) come from wealth. The final two enemies of Mōha (delusion) and Mātsarya (jealousy) come from one’s conduct in life.

The ideal of Indic civilization is to enable the pursuit of Purushārthas पुरुषार्थ (goals of man) which are the Trivargas in balance, as well as the final liberation. Its cultural and ethical norms are for recognizing and defeating the 6 enemies. This is what marks civilizedness.

If a person is afflicted by the 6 enemies, then he or she is Anārya अनार्य (uncivilized). If they are unable to recognize the affliction and correct their conduct, then they are Paśu पशु (beasts). A society or religion which amplifies such afflictions is Pāśavika पाशविक(beastly).

In Indic view, Jñāna ज्ञान (knowledge) is the means for Mōksha मोक्ष (liberation) and Ānanda आनन्द (bliss). Equivalently, ignorance is the cause of beastly conduct. As the saying goes, मूर्खः परिहर्तव्यः प्रत्यक्षः द्विपदः पशुः । A fool is to be avoided, he is a two legged beast.

With this Indic perspective, we can judge whether a person, a country, a religion is actually “civilized” or “beastly”. The British Prime-Minister Churchill once infamously opined “Indians are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

Would Churchill qualify to be a Paśu?

The method for judging Churchill (or any other person) is not about how they themselves saw India or Indians, but rather on the merits of their own character: whether they possess the Dama दम and Samyama संयम. And whether they are afflicted by the 6 enemies of षड्रिपु.

Based on the layered structure of the 6 enemies, we can qualify the uncivilizedness as at the basic bodily level (lust and anger), or at the mental level of possessions (greed and arrogance), or at the level of identity or religion (delusion and jealousy). The latter are worse.

This is a fair comment. At individual level, this is how the afflictions happen.

Lōbha (greed) when one has possessions, and Mōha (delusion for unwanted possessions) when one hasn’t.

Mada (pride) when one achieves recognition for ego, and Mātsarya (jealousy) when one doesn’t.

https://twitter.com/anonnational/status/1413076310990069761

But I grouped them in a different manner to discuss the affect of these afflictions on society. The effects of greed and arrogance in the colonial enterprises for wealth extraction, and the effect of delusion and jealousy in the activities of proselytizing religions.

Moral teachings are a part of all religions and even secular worldviews. Parallels to the Indic emphasis on the dangers of the षड्रिपु six enemies can be found even in religions like Christianity and Islam. But the key difference is the Indic emphasis on harmony and balance.

Too much of a good thing is not bad, right? No. Indeed, it can be very bad. This is why Indic culture and civilization represents opposing polarities of good qualities (गुण) as distinct deity figures. Furthermore, every moral principle is qualified according to the context.

Indian moral philosophy, due to its superior understanding of linguistics and logic, opted for codifying these moral principles through stories, where all the context can be specified, instead of a blunt list of commandments devoid of context.

pragyata.com/morality-in-la…

The world प्रकृति is full of context and diversity. This प्रकृति is sacred. Local context cannot be abstracted away & morality cannot distilled into laws. The recognition of sacredness of प्रकृति is a key difference between the civilized आर्य and the uncivilized अनार्य societies.

One’s very identity is not atomic, compressible into an isolated bubble called a “soul” that awaits judgement for its actions. In contrast, one’s identity is dependent on the spatiotemporal context of प्रकृति in which one lives. Any “Truth” that one discovers is a personal truth.

Indic moral philosophy is a radical individualism. Nobody can be saved by anyone else. Nobody can spread a “truth” to others. Any such belief is a delusion. In contrast, one must learn to identify one’s context and grow one’s awareness of प्रकृति through साधना spiritual practice.

Indic moral philosophy recognizes that universal Truth exists, but that it can only be “seen” by an enlightened mind that was able to grow its context to encompass the whole of the universe विश्व. The most supreme ideal of an आर्य civilized society is to enable such a growth.

Yajña यज्ञ is a means for the mind to achieve this holistic awareness. The whole of the universe is represented by विश्वेदेवाः Viśvēdēvas, who are recognized and realized in one’s own consciousness. Any activity कर्म whether social, personal or professional can be seen as a यज्ञ.

This is the import of India being recognized as Yajñiyo Dēśa यज्ञीयोदेश (land fit for Yajña). It is equivalently recognized as Karmabhūmi कर्मभूमि, the arena where this sublimated activity कर्म as यज्ञ can be conducted. Every Indian village was organized to facilitate that यज्ञ.

When one doesn’t seek that holistic awareness as a goal and strive for it, then one is a partisan barricaded into narrow mental walls. Such a person is termed a Pāshanda पाषण्ड and derided. It can be argued that the western religions are all forms of पाषण्ड and thus uncivilized.

Furthermore, if a religion doesn’t recognize the षड्रिपु 6 enemies as obstacles to spiritual growth, and even amplifies the afflictions विकार, then that religion is पाशविक Pāśavika (beastly) and fit only for Paśus.

Now, let’s come to the question of “god” or “gods”, which is a rather irrelevant and distracting topic when we deal with the ideals of Indic civilization. But we must consider this question because many other civilizations have built their identity around this issue.

We don’t know what a god/God is, but it is ultimately a supreme ideal that must be comprehended by a human being in a human body. In Indic tradition, the supreme ideals (देवाः) are thus associated with various body parts. Many organs in the body occur as pairs and so with Dēvas.

The focal point in Monotheistic faiths is “God, the Creator”. In Indic perspective, that icon of creative force is Prajāpati, who is indeed one in number and associated with the sexual organ. If one denies the existence of other gods, then it is Phallocentrism, a form of पाषण्ड.

So “monotheism” when it is focused exclusively on the aspect of “God, the Creator” is literally seen as “Monophallism”, a tautology leading to a very biased view of the world. It would be representative of an uncivilized society, completely clueless of the need for Yajña यज्ञ.

A better form of monotheism is when the Godhead is associated with the heart, as the heart constantly draws blood to all the organs of the body. It can be seen as a Yajña, of mutual reaffirmation of all the Dēvas through the heart. So monotheism is not totally अनार्य uncivilized.

Thus, according to the Indic perspective, whether a foreign culture, society or religion is considered civilized depends on a variety of Indic criteria. They are a very different reference frame compared to western civilization. These differences must be studied. (End of thread).