Appreciate all these good folks keeping this kind of research for public access. Remember the times when I used to ask friends and family in universities for PDFs 😁
+
Hope Hindus engage on this too. Philosophy of technology is not a taboo topic for us just because we feel inferior as a people that we didn't invent steam engine or internet. It is an important topic to engage in our times. Like everything else Hindu perspective helps.
/End
For example in this paper the notion of "traditional" technology is of a technology that exploited nature. Perhaps that is because there is no memory of Technology prior?
Our notion of traditional technology is different.
Our modern is their traditional!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Few thoughts on this piece by Shepherd gaaru. Won't link. Those really keen can Google.
He tries to draw a wedge between Brahmins as a representative of civilization of the book and Shudras as a civilization of the spade.
+
This is a very popular Marxist trope and there is so much irony there. Needs some elaboration.
"A book is not an instrument of civilisation building. On the other hand, the spade is an instrument with which civilisation is built" shepherd gaaru says.
+
So he says Outsider invader Aryan Brahminical Vedic civilization is a book civilization.
Pre-Vedic Harappan civilization is a spade civilization. Workers of the world, unite kind he imagines perhaps. Classless egalitarian utopia until evil wily Aryans came.
Not sure on what grounds Hindu parents can argue against this of and when it comes to India.
At best I can think one minority religion may complain and Hindus will say why are you conservative? Look at us we are a liberal religion our religion accepts it all?
Don't think Hindus in India have any locus standi on such based on their faith. You have reformed your religion so much don't argue like you have non-negotiablles in your faith. You might as well reform for this also incase you have any religious issues on such.
+
And this discourse is perfectly fine per the other dominant religion of our time - Liberty and Equality. Most Hindus subscribe to that religion anyway. So nothing to object there as well.
I referred to this quote attributed to Wittgenstein recently. Worth elaborating in the context of the Rigveda.pdf worldview.
"Tradition is not something a man can learn; nor a thread he can pick up when he feels like it; any more than a man can choose his own ancestors"
+
Most non-missionary / non-proselytising religions operate this way. Even the proselytizing ones work this way for your progeny once you jump ship.
+
However in case of Hindus and other indigenous faiths world over there is no explicit urge to convert others. Hence no urge to codify or uniformize customs into a book based religion and say look here's the book. This is the entirety and essence of my faith.
"The fact is India that is Bharat has always been a pluralistic society" -
Yes but we never had or felt the need for a uniform code to sustain this pluralism as long as the King was Dharmic. No popular demand for uniformity existed ever.
Totalitarian big brother states need control and uniformity.
Not decentralised Dharmic constructs where the head of state can be a sovereign of sorts on top without being a control freak or indulging in micro management
+
The secular state tries to wrest control from religion(s) on the lives of people in the garb of defending individual rights and the autonomy of man. This is a problematic construct. It will only shrink the role of religion more as there is only so much room anyway!
I think we carry a very carefully constructed image of Adi Shankaracharya in popular Hindu psyche today which is very different from traditional commentary. Part of the blame is with the Indological discovery of Shankaracharya in early 18th/19th century or so.
Most traditional commentators are clear that Shankara Advaita style realisation isn't going to be possible for millions in same lifetime. They acknowledge it is not for everyone. The path exists. But not everyone can withstand the ordeal in same lifetime.
+
So they don't portray Shankaracharya discourse as some form of a "Individual is sovereign.This is Hindu liberalism" style construct.
The Sadachara part is is a very Hindu innovation that constantly negotiated with diverse local customs and legitimised some, tolerated some and rejected some.
Multiplicity of Smritis also is a proof for the negotiation, tenacity, longevity etc.
+
Today what is happening is that the diversity of Sadachara is being used to portray this impression that - Look there is no one rule. You can do whatever you want.
Sadachara is not Swecchachara i.e, unconstrained freedom to say muh Hinduism muh wish.