@arunjetli7909
23 hours ago
My dad wrote a book called “ ethical philosophies of India” his name is Dr I C Sharma . His book was even a popular text book in USA My PhD is in western philosophy “ the role of the critic and the logic of criticism in Hegel, Bruno Bauer and the Frankfurt School” Purely a study of Phenomenology and Adorno. I finally read my dad’ book after he passed away and felt so guilty that I had never bothered to study indic schools of thought. He had explained to me the nastiest and astir schools Yes the Astic schools believe in tha Vedas , but you are not accurate as in even in astir schools the vedas can be denied, and this is crucial they believe the correctness of vedas not absolutely as the Abrahamics do.. Check my dad’ s book The atheists are basically Abrahamics , the only thing they reject is Abrahamic mythology , not its teachings, not it’s dogmatism , not it’s Aristotelian rigidity of a single paradigm
@darkprince2490
0 seconds ago
Good to see a real PHD in Philosophy take a certain JNU product/grifter-opportunist/colonial collaborator to task.
There was no such thing as atheism in ancient Bharata. Atheism is a product of the western Enlightenment, a result of secularization of christianity. Indologists/missionaries etc have been falsely projecting it back into ancient Bharata since it much easier to project a generic secularized christianity, than actual localized christianity. For example the term nirishwar refers to nirguna aspect of brahman and has nothing to with atheism. A lot of the evidence for "carvaka" is projection and much of it also colonial fabrication. Recently, this gang also discovered verses against "infidels" in the context of veda ninda in Hindu texts, predictably ascribed to ancient atheists, by citing translations of the missionary scholar Oliveille! It does not even make sense from everything we know about the type of culture/civilization that bharata was.
Nastik referred only to Jaina-s and Bauddha-s. And even this is a later usage referring not so much to anti-vedic but rather to post- or extra- vedic paths where the line of teachers/gurus is given precedence: eg boddhisattvas, buddhas, tirthankaras, etc. Neither of these were against Deities and indeed they both have Devas. They also tend to depict Deities in the form of a teacher or mendicant, changing rupa or bhesha of devas is also found in Sanatan.
In older literature nastika refers to the Aghori sect, as does the term chandala (Bhagavan Shiva as an ascetic with four dogs ie Vedas, implyng Knower of Vedas; Chhanda-la means protected or reared up by Chhandas, just as Shakunta-la refers to raised by birds; here the brits tried to remap the term to outcast tribe, a forerunner of "Dalit" construction by american academics). It is the aghori sect which is also discussed in Srimad Bhagavad Gita, certainly not buddhists or others.
Similarly, Sramana referred originally to Saiva wandering Sadhus as opposed to Brahmanas who were grihastha. We see these sadhus even today. When the carvaka supposedly states, there is no dharma or the like, this is quite obviously a remapping of the aghori's abandoning of vyaktigat dharma. When it supposedly states that there is only this world, this in fact is the hindu position of there being nothing outside the cosmos.
The verse regarding living on borrowed money is quite obvious a BEIC fabrication. Colonizers promote hedonistic views among their subjects to this day.
The earlier usage of nastika was for "extreme" left handed practices by ascetic orders like the aghori and possibly sakta (extreme in terms of accessibility to the grihastha). In both cases, it had nothing to do with atheism which is a western enlightenment product.
Carvaka is a completely fabricated category where the ordinary egoism discussed throught our texts is compelexed into a philosophical belief system. The phenomenological and its experiential transcendance is transformed into an ideological category in the usual monotheist fashion (referred in your post as 'doxa').
The inclusion of carvaka as nastik by Sri Ramanujam in his survey is only to emphasize that enlightenment is possible even among the mundane, which has always been the hindu view eg, Sisupala killed by Shri Vishnu and attaining moksha.
Carvaka also meant a conman in ancient India. A sophist. A contrarian. A degenerate. Something more degenerate than ordinary sansarik folk. Of course the sepoys will start making an ideology and religion out it. It just goes with the colonial trend projecting heinousness onto ancient bharata. It's done using native materials/texts using strained reinterpretation. Just like the distortionist/contortionist Devdutt.
Ajita Kesamkambali, the supposed atheist, is quite ibvioulsy a fabrication with specific refernce to the "hair shirt" worn by medieval christian monks! Just another colonial fabrication!
The Ramayana episode with the supposed carvak is another fabrication/interpolation as widely acknowldged. This just underlines that there was colonial intent in this case of fabrication of the carvaka as a "philosophical school"
The recounts of Makkhali Gosala make it quite clear that his "determinism" was simply a restating of the common hindu sentiment of sabh bhagwan ki dena or iccha hai. It was certainly not atheism.
Hedonism in ancient greece was associated with the dionysian which is for all practical purproses Shaiva-like. This again emphasizes that construction of hedonist philosophical school in ancient greece associated with the Gods was also very likely a monotheist colonial project. Also tied in here is 19th century recycling of greek terms into sociopolitical tracts eg the dionysian, the oedipal.
Brits and their sepoys tried to tamper with vedic traditions. Manu smriti is another such case. We know this happens. In fact they fabricated an ENTIRE false history for us.
@darkprince2490
0 seconds ago
The truth is that nothing survives of carvaka because it was never a real school or teaching, etc. We have plenty of jain and buddhist texts. they need to posit "brahmin conspiracy" to explain everything away - a clear indication of the colonial/monotheist origin. Same applies to the contention that ancient india was a hotbed of anti-ritual and anti-idolatry "revolutionary activity".
The entire "rational" vs "irrational" dichotomy emerged in Enlightenment Europe as a part of orientalist colonial discourse. The natives are deemed as irrational, needing to be saved and liberated by the colonizer. In this colonial discourse, the native is irrational just like women supposedly are. At some point this orientalist social discourse also appropriate material methods, likely as a guise. I am not at all convinced on the positivist origins of science. rather it seems an attempt to appropriate material methods, much as "Islamic science" or "Christian science". The primary doamin of postivism is the social, socail engineering, etc.
Cultural marxism is just the latest permutation of enlightenment postivism.
Carvaka was just a description of certain tendencies in ancient people. It was not demagoguery, much more like psychopathy. Leave it to Indians to fall for a fabricated belief system out of this.
The book was reviewed by someone on social media. it was unfavorable.
Most of the stuff being bandied around here as carvaka is just repackaged J Peterson and other fringe american political opinions. Even Westerners are not fully onboard the westerm cult of rationalism, as indicated by authors and trends like Dostoevsky.
There was no category of religion or even ideology in ancient Bharata. This itself indicates that this entire thesis is just another exercise in colonial anachronism. The "carvakas" are colonially constructed much like the "aryans" are constructed, as bringers of logic and civilization. To lend it credence as a genuine grouping is like saying there was race of fools and buffoons in ancient bharata.
Look at how a conman can be described - he uses deductive (or specious) logic and denies that he is using inference! Same as the carvaka.
Logic is not a property of persons. It is a property of normative linguistic statements which can be useful in colonial discourse and indeed engender such. Mathematical logic is another animal altogether, different than social language. There is in fact no singular logic reflected by the fact that is no universal grammar (Chomsky). Even basic term are unknown in certain cultures. In psychological systems, there is a category for subjective logic, with objective logic simply being a subjective logic mutually agreed upon.
Car-bak literally means "sweet talker" ie a deceptive person, a "smooth operator" or swindler. The Hindi term 'achaar' referring to pickles (ie "not sweet") is of the same derivation! In traditional texts where car-bak is used, it refers to this connotation of fool/buffoon/criminal/swindler.
Savakar was not atheist. He wrote poems to the goddesses in his own blood. neither was bhagat singh- his book on the subject is a forgery with no known manuscript, unlike his other writings. Just speaks to the fact that these atheists are acting like typical monotheists, trying to politically subvert and tamper with the culture and timeline. Both monotheists and atheists also try to coopt native terms for themselves. Inculturation. Cultural appropriation.
The claim that the Vedas show scepticism is plainly colonial projection. Not knowing is stated in the sense of being the opposite of Knowing, just as the gita discuses both acting and not acting as an attribute of the Stithpragna (or Deity).
This entire indian atheist gang is bad faith and unscrupulous and disingenuous. And they are widely known to be deracinated (their atheism is a consequence of their deracination). DMK rationalists are typologically the same as this gang and DMK is known to be of colonial genesis. Pseudointellects.
Lastly, the development of atheism in the west started since the enlightenment and can be traced in minute detail as an outgrowth of christianity. Indian atheists are just a branch of the same. This ideology comes prepackaged with a bunch of plainly christian tropes: anti-ritualism, anti-idolatry, anti-"priest", pro-colonial history, and millenarian pretensions to "reorganize society". all this signifies its cohesion as an ideology.
===============
Refer to:
[For more on atheism: At the Modern origins of Modern Atheism: Father Michael J Buckley.
Christians were called atheists, Even though they believe in Lord God. For more:
Porphyry among the Early Christians, In Romanitas et Christianitas, by Grant R.M., 1973.
Pagan criticism of Christianity during the first 2 centuries A.D., In Aufsteig and Niedergang der Rominschen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neuren Forscgung, pp1055-1118., by Benko Stephen, 1980.
Pagan Rome and the Early Christians: Batsford Ltd, London, by Benko Stephen.
Recent Book on Christian understanding Roman pagans:
Literature and Religion at Rome : Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs by Denis Feeney. In this book, the author argues that then pagans never had belief system, even though they held beliefs.]
No comments:
Post a Comment