dwai

For much of the history of India I'd say flexible within the (Sanatana)dharmic laws, thus the ideal and truly dharmic practicing king and all the people of the kingdom (in my view) would be in depper atunement with Spirit - that is if we are comparing it to variations of worldly democracies. Obviously in much of our history the ideal and truly dharmic laws are not always being carried out, for in many cases kings and kingdoms (and various spiritual groups for that matter) have been corrupted and in that case I'd take democracy any day. Btw, the heavenly worlds are not run and do not need to be run as democracies since true dharma is in greater effect there! I also know that many "democratic" people would revolt if they had to abide in a kingdom based on dharmic law and authority, which is why our worldly goverments are not of a "heavenly" order. (at this time) http://www.nipissing...em/indiadem.htm

Serene, I appreciate your candor. If you have the time to listen to the talks (especially the talks at Dartmouth) you will find him referencing exactly what you are interested in -- a Confucian gaze-reversal (he calls it China's development of the Confucian Ethic) and about some 100 odd centers set up by the Chinese government all over the world to present the Chinese/Confucian worldview. @Jetsun, It is important to remember that the gaze-reversal by the author is an exercise used in classical indian philosophical systems to understand the subject via the native framework. In places like India, the Western mode of thinking is ubiquitous and there is no special need to "understand the west from its own perspective". It is funny however that the "purva paksha" has hardly ever happened. I will give you an example from my own perspective. I came to the US in 2000 as young engineer. When I first arrived here, I was oblivious to the peculiarities of the West (i.e. the US) from a deeper cultural perspective -- the ideas, beliefs, preconceptions regarding my country and culture, etc (to a large extent there was ignorance and the instances where there was "awareness", it was more a negative image -- caste, cows and curry as many of us like to term it). I struggled for a few years trying to articulate this and as part of a group of writers on a diaspora web portal, I wrote some of my preliminary thoughts. One point that rose over and over again was -- "Why is there a need to use a Western lens to look at India?". I felt there was a need for an alternate paradigm at viewing the world, more in harmony with an Indian way. After I started interacting with this author (who was also part of that same group), and reading his works, I started realizing that alternate framework -- now I have spent close to a decade in that space...so I have internalized the concepts (when I first started I had massive reservations against it, primarily due to a very superficial understanding of the thesis). This book is a beautiful first step in that direction. Now one might ask, why is there such a need. The reason for me personally is that I am not comfortable with accepting the Western worldview completely, mainly because the vernacular view in India is/was greatly different and more integral than the western one. I of course won't say that I reject the Western Worldview (I live and work in the West after all). I just don't' accept it as a universal...in the Western context, it might be perfectly logical. For those who don't share the roots with the West, it is peculiarly bothersome. The reasons for this are many (both trivial as well as deep). I have in the past expressed my opinions on "Westernized" Eastern esotericism and I think that it is an abomination...but I also do understand that most of us are not even aware of our own subconscious conditioning (within the context of our primary culture). As far as charitable acts and acts of human compassion etc are concerned...of course they are admirable qualities but its not accurate to say that such practices are not prevalent in places like India. A lot of this is built into the tradition itself (caring for the sick, aged, etc is automatically part of the familial structure -- such as joint family systems, elderly parents living with their children, etc). Charitable acts are part of rituals (where thousands of people are fed for extended periods of time during such periods). Yes...organized activities are far less outside of these contexts, but a lot of this is actually a function of the level of affluence in the society. As affluence rises, so will all these other things.

That is not the point..,indan christians are less than 10% of its population...while that subject does warrant a detailed look, imho, since the book is about looking at the west thru dharmic lens, indian christians re not covered beyond those that are instruments of the conversion business... You could join the being different discussion group and ask your questions...im sure rajiv will be happy to respond .. The responses you will get from me are only my guesses and not the author's actual responses... I said subconscious triggers because i can see them as clear as day...i dont insinuate anything about you when say that....only that it takes considerable effort to see all the layers of conditioning. And i am happy for you...that you have seen these layers... Academic exercise in discussions is what we are trying to do. I could sense strong emotion in your responses before so i suggested that we take a more cerebral approach... To help take myself out from between the reader and author, i will post a series of rajiv's talks in video...here is one he gave at the indian institute of science... Rajiv's discussions the fr francis clooney at umass...

Relax...i wasnt making an attack on americans. How ever i have seen many americans get extremely defensive when that sordid part of their otherwise glorious little history come up...i mean really extreme reactions... Also i sense a subconsciously triggered need to compare "the bads" between the "us" and "them". Take a step back...let us approach this first as a purely academic exercise... The purpose of this book is to reverse the gaze on the west and challenge western universalism. I supect you have not gotten to chapter 6 yet... The predominant root of the west is christianity and its offshoots...so i guess thats why his focus has been on christianity.

Indeed...very good points. I know for a fact that he considers the islamic topic a larger phenomenon that he intends to tackle separately. In general he is working on abrahamic systems which include all three (c,j&i). I dont think he is saying that everything about the west is bad or wrong. And neither that everything that happened in the indic context is free of wrongs. But what i ubderstood from his position is that relative intensity of wrongness dont warrant one system primacy over others ( and raising those bogies again is a result of applying that very same lens to criticize, ie western rules) I will explain later why the typical western bogies of "indian" evils...sati, dowry and caste are not in fact result of dharmic traditions. Also, If you read on, he covers all that. As far as democracy goes...well there was typically a mixed mode where in most cases there was a central monarchy with loosely associated and democratically governed villages. In fact if you read mahatma gandhi's model of india (tht he envisioned) , it was very much a decentralized democratic model based on early indian history...pre-islamic invasions, albeit without a monarchy. What people forget is that european nations where modern demcracy evolved were tiny specs of land and population compared to the size and diversity of india. The US was a direct reult of setllement of primarily anglo-saxon immigrants from britain, where interstingly enough the native popultion was almost decimated. You think there was no cost paid for democracy in the us? Just go ask the native americans...

I would not categorize Vedanta, Yoga, Daoism etc as religions. To read my elaborated view on this point, please read my comments on the following two threads -- http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/21908-being-different/ http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/22956-being-different-2/ Specifically addressed to Twinner...I touch upon why these are not religions (in the western sense). These are as open and adventurous in nature as science or perhaps even more so (in fact more so because there is no dogma in the process of inquiry, or the process is not inquiry). I touch upon this subject in an old article -- http://www.medhajournal.com/science/101-the-battle-between-science-and-yoga.html

Hegel was a racist buffoon...:-p But on a serious note, i doubt science as its done today can ever get to the GUT of it (pun intended). Since you are familiar with quantum physics,how would you explain the observer effect? It think we are going about this bass-ackwrard. We need to develop a metaphysic based on consciousness..oh but wait! There already are....eg vedanta, daoism...et al

I just showed you that science is not universally true. There is nothing in this phenomenal world that is "universally true"... Science is just like anything else a collection of theories which postulate how certain phenomena operate. So even within science there are paradoxes and contradictions. The problem is that most folks consider newtonian physics "science"...theres more to science than that... My experience with something like qi have led me to beleive that matter is a function of consciousness and therefore matter can be manipulated by the mind. Simply put qi is an energy that is actuated by the mind ( intent) and can be expressed externally (to the body) as a wave. It is not magic...it is simply outside the realm of science as we know it today... See the problem is that qi is subjective...as in felt internally. Its effects can be observed and perhaps measured sometimes...so the waves being generated are nt qi...the term for it is jin. So one should approach firt to understand jin...

Actually a theory is just a structured application of the intellect to explain an observed phenomenon (its mechanics, etc). It is not something that has been validated scientifically...the proof of a theory has to be done mathematically (modeled) and further still (if possible) practically. As a result, there might be various theories for an observed phenomenon and for most parts they all must be assumed to be sound, until they cannot be expressed via a mathematical model (or reproduced in practice). For instance, classical newtonian physics is a set of theories that try and explain observed phenomena and there are first mathematical models based on it. However, when we move into the field of sub-atomic particles, classical newtonian physics doesn't work (in that the observed phenomena breakdown/defy the rules set forth in the theory), so there newtonian physics is invalidated (or better still considered incomplete/inadequate). We will continue to see this in course of the evolution of science as science too is a framework and is context driven/sensitive. When there's an attempt to apply it (whatever that might be) out side the context, it will fall apart. That doesn't invalidate it, it just makes it invalid outside the context of it's boundaries. The biggest challenge with reconciling things like Qi and its associated phenomena with "Science" is that it science starts with matter and then assigns consciousness as a property of matter. However, in this case, it is more likely that Consciousness is what one needs to start with and assign matter (and a particular state of matter) as a property of consciousness. It is almost as if we are talking about "anti-Science" in such a case...

Those who don't know find it mysterious. Once they know, it is not mysterious anymore ;-) The how and why is also there...you just have to accept a different (than science) framework for it. Eg, the premise of Qi...if you don't accept it, it is all black magic. If you do, it is simple...it is Qi...you can feel it, manipulate it, grow it, shrink it, make it affect others. What other confirmation/validation do you need?

Has it really? Science cannot even have one unified theory to explain all objective phenomena. Same set of rules aren't valid once you change the scale of reference... I think Science is just another framework to interpret phenomena. That it is the norm doesn't make it the best. And I am an Engineer by background, making my living in the world of Science...so I do know quite a bit about this subject.

Why is there is a need to get "Scientific" verification? Why not follow a specific path/philosophy and see if it gets you the results it promises. If it does, it works...if it doesn't it doesn't work -- simple! It's like saying I want to validate TCM with Western Medicine. Both are different and have different praxes and how can you apply the methodology of one theoritical system and validate another? Obviously, Western Medicine cannot validate TCM or vice versa (if anything each would invalidate the other). Similar story is in play here...ask me to elaborate more and I can get into the boring details

I do ward off and push and tai chi ball splits in meetings (gives ball-busting a completely new meaning)....ocassionally go into deep breathing...and sometimes if the people around me stop talking long enough they notice it and ask me what im doing Sometimes when im racking up 70-100lbs servers, i try and use uprooting to lift them up...my 6'+ colleagues wonder how a short guy like myself manages to do that ) Oh and writing software is a good meditation...staying cntered and letting the creativity flow through the finger tips...aka code...good right brain left brain balance i must say...

it is called as such because that is how master liao learnt it at a daoist temple in taiwan from his childhood. Interestingly enough he was also chen man ching's chess buddy. I can tell you one thing that the way the material is taught is unlike any other type i have encountered. The emphasis is in single forms...repetitions. Upward downward, ineard outward, raised hands stance, tai chi stance, single whip, spilt, so on. The forms are broken into 3 sections...end of each section completes one aspect of the long form. After the three sections, the full long form is put together. Each energy (8 nrgs) is practiced via the single forms till we get a good feel for how it flows, cultivating, refining, so on. Afaik, cmc never taught his taichi that way. Different applications of the energies..,on different planes and axis... Master liao says that that is how tai chi really was praticed in the temples...not moving on beyond a certAin form before one is ready for the next. Hmm...something to thinng about. To explain how the energy might feel low freq. or high...analogy i can give is the feeling one gets if one walks into a room where there was a lot anger or tension. The energy feels heavy, pulsing slowly.. As oppossed to walking into a meditation hall or a good yoga studio....where the energy feels light and higher freq. i cant see energy but can feel it...kind of like how during push hands we can feel where the energy is, how yin or yang to mae ourselves...which part to empty out, which to make full....etc. http://www.willamette.edu/~jlaronge/seven.html This explains how we are taught quite well...also ive heard from my teacher that master liao moved way from martial focus to meditative over the years (iirc he started teaching in mid 70s )

. It is called Temple style tai chi as taught by master waysun liao. The long form is idntical to prof chen manching's but the way we are taught each single form first...then piece together the long form. What i have seen is that martial application cultivates a low frequency energy and intent is different from if one practices healing or spiritual level.my intention was no to "knock" martial taiji players. I was conveying what our teacher says about the matter. Yeah, we learn all the things needed to do martial application...condensing, fa jin, applications of neutralization, folding, push hands, ta lu etc. Here is what my teacher says about martial vs spiritual. A spiritual player is in the state of no enemy no self. So there is no scope of conflict with a high level taiji player...because its almost like he/she is not there....which is different from martial approach where conflict is neutralized, diffused etc with effort. At high level tai chi is resonating with dao...so there no telling it anything...you follow where the energy takes you

Hi steve, Its important to find a teacher who can take one fom basic taiji practice to true nei gong. In Mater liao's system we are taught that. It takes time....funny thing is even though i was taught the same meditations 5 years ago (daoist prayer hands, etc) it didnt make sense until 5 years after.

In the school of tai chi i learn, we are told there are three levels of tai chi practice. One is martial arts...the lowest level. Second is healing and highest level is spiritual transformation. So you dont have send condensed jin into any one...you could do condensing to make your chi vibrate faster and faster....till it matches the vibrational frequency of dao....that is spiritual transformation. When tai chi practice matures you will get to competely thoughtless state....there is your true self....pure consciousness.

What's the difference? One is a natural corollary to the other, isn't it? See the entire exchange we've had is deeply rooted in philosophy (which is the mother of religion to a large extent). Secondly, religion is also a way to facilitate cultural transmissions (from one generation to another). For instance, in India, there is not much emphasis on organized religion (for non abrahamic faiths) -- ie there are temples, etc but there is no compulsion to attend a service in the temple with any particular frequency. I must have visited temples 20-30 times in my life thus far. And of that, perhaps 50% of that was spent as a tourist or a patron of art (because Indian temples are wonderful works of art). In my circles which is very diverse, it is the same case. The majority of training in ethics, morality, how to conduct oneself in society are instead reinforced via the family (elders) -- using various tools such as fables, mythology, led by example, etc. The emphasis is on individual effort, for a seeker to gravitate towards a deity or no deity and pursue a system that works for him/her. Most people there are open minded and don't ascribe to dogma in the sense that you are projecting. Sure, many believe in God, but that is a matter of faith (colored by their experiences, etc). However, what westerners see when they visit india is an often "over-the-top" display of religious fervor, giant processions of massive deities, so on and so forth...that's from the outsider's perspective. From an insider's perspective, those displays are actually as much celebrations of tradition and culture as they are about "religion". Just like people attend concerts, plays, operas outside the context of religion in the West, these happen in the context of religion and associated festivities in India. So, when I present my case, I present it as an Indian Hindu (born and raised) who has had the opportunity of living and working in the West. As it must be evident by now, that your experiences with religion might have been radically different from mine. I have grown up for the most part in a model where all religions are treated with openness, not much jingoism and as personal choices that don't affect civil life (of course there are aberrations, but those are by far insignificant in number, in the grand scheme of things). I have never disputed the fact that one can see through these categorical frameworks to a greater existence. This is called Atma Jnana in Vedanta...or Self-realization. When all that is not the true self is stripped away, that which is the true self shines in its own light. But for practical purposes, it is not very feasible for everyone to get to that state easily. What is the hurdle, the very categorical frameworks that we use everyday and the actions that we take based on them (karma). Trust me, I have had more than a few experiences with the "Self". But I cannot reject the "self" that is not the "Self" (if that makes sense). Why? Because what is set in motion in this world is everything that is associated with "me" -- a family, responsibilities, etc. Most people in this world are like that...not everyone can get up and walk away from it all and spend time in meditation. In the Indian model, there are four stages of life that every individual is recommended to live through. The childhood through early adulthood is called Brahmacharya (as a student, a seeker of knowledge, an acquirer of wisdom). The next phase is that of a householder (or Grihastya) where one fulfills his/her duty to the society he/she is part of (raise a family, charitable actions to help those who are less privileged). The third is around retirement age, where one retreats to relative solitude with his/her spouse and spends time in contemplation of everything that has transpired so far, trying to understand the knowledge that has been acquired (spiritual) - this is called vanahprastha (in the ancient times, a couple would go live in a forest amidst nature). The final stage is called Sannyasa (or ascetism), where the individual breaks the bonds of this world (samsara) and gives up his/her personal history and lives the rest of their life in 100% dedicated discovery of the true self (Atman). One could argue that this process is slow and tedious, why not jump to stage 4 directly. One could if they had the capacity to do so. Not everyone does. It is amazing how most people in this world need to be "eased" into spirituality...very few come with the ability to tune in with ease. Hmm...what is referred to as absolute truth is something that is beyond the scope of categorical frameworks. So, while there might be absolute truth claims (which is the root of the problem), they are not infact absolute truth. There can never be absolutes in a relativistic world, don't you think? It is clear that religion is not necessary for you. For me, I need the triumvirate of philosophy, a system (actually a combination of meditation, yoga and tai chi -- which I equate to Vedanta and Daoism, wherein these systems are contained) and my own consciousness.

ok ... You win

Good point serene...please share more of your thoughts on this matter.

Dear Aaron, I'm not ignoring your question. I have already given the answer...you haven't seen it yet. I'm saying that there is no escaping Categorical frameworks...even so-called frameworks to leave all frameworks create a new framework. This is called "Nama-Rupa" in classical Indian philosophy. Any "system" is a complex of one or more categorical frameworks. Why? Because the very fact that there IS a system suggests that there is a certain methodology used to facilitate cognition and intellectual interpretation. So members of a certain species have evolved a basic biological framework based on which they operate. As there is differentiation within the species (slice and dice it as you may -- ethnic groups, linguistic groups, cultural groups, etc) each have developed a unique set of categorical frameworks based on which they operate. While all humans share a common set of categorical frameworks, there is also diversity between them (eg: Eastern thought process is significantly different from Western thought process, as a function of the different intellectual models being used - materialist vs idealist, so on and so forth). So, to make a really long story short, if there is a system, there is a categorical framework. Also posited in Vedanta (and other Eastern philosophies) is the concept of relative and absolute truth. Relative truth operates in the realm of categorical frameworks. Absolute truth is beyond all categories and labels. Also posited is (based on observation) that the relative realm is one of duality (subject and object). Absolute realm is pure subject. So, in the relative realm subject and object go hand in hand (there is never any single phenomenon in the relative world that is not dualistic in nature). Similarly, for something to be absolute, there can never be a duality, it is always non-dual (tad ekam, na dwitiyam -- that one, not dual). So for a member of the human species to be always present in absolute truth is to be in a state of no-thought (because thoughts are also dualistic in nature). It is because of this reason, it is impossible to be bereft of categorical frameworks in the mundane reality. Even those great masters who have been enlightened have to step into the mundane world to communicate and operate. It is another matter that they don't really consider the mundane world "absolutely" real -- because the trappings and mechanics of the relative world become evident to them as being empty (of self-existence). So, whether you have religion or not, there is no "freedom" from conceptualized ideation (of any particular thing). Whether one ascribes a value to what they experience is another matter. For one to "get" the absolute realm, he/she still has to use the relative. So, one cannot discard the relative. Since the methdologies to get to this level (of non-dual awareness) are many, thus various religions have evolved to provide the framework to get there. Some of these religions don't go beyond duality. Some others do. So, in the relative sense, as long as the religion provides a bulwark for humans to expand their consciousness and awareness and get closer to the absolute, it is perfectly valid. Do various adherents of the various religions use them for control? Sure. Does that mean that these religions are bad? Surely not. So, each individual has to choose which one in the buffet of religions works for them at a deeply personal level. For some none of them work, so they choose a different path. However, they still develop or use an alternate categorical framework to get what they want. That's why, no-religion is also a religion.

I must apologize...my intent wasn't to suggest that you are juvenile. The feeling I got from your post was that the idea was almost juvenile (in that, that is how I used to argue against religion when I was a teen). I am glad you don't have an obsessive dislike for religion. In that case, perhaps you should be open to the possibility that what you are suggesting as the "characteristics" of religion are infact not inherently intrinsic to them, but to interpretations of suggestions there in? Would it be reasonable to suggest that as a theory? You don't really understand Karma. Karma is not India's answer to heaven and sin. Karma is the incentive for being Wu Wei (Nishkama Karma). The fact of the matter is, this has never served the purpose of keeping the masses in line. What it has done is allowed the adventurous individuals to break free from the bondage of ignorance. Like I said, your approach is way too reductionist to actually appeal to me...and I used to think like that 20 years back. Ah...objectivity...I see. Hmm...what is the means of gathering objective information? A subjective observer Oh and the rules that define objectivity? Those are called categorical frameworks. You can be assured that there is no reality that is not interpreted via a categorical framework. I can also assure you that there are things that have to be taken on faith. Without that, you cannot start down any path. Imagine you are driving in a new city and your have a map. If you dont' take the map on faith you will be lost. Religion is like that map. Let me ask you this...do you think that what you see is objective reality? If there was no categorical framework that set down the rules to interpret what you see, there would be no way to make sense of anything. Everything that you take for granted in the mundane world is based on a conceptualization of reality (categorical framework). The moment we ascribe a description and label onto something, it becomes a conceptualized intepretation of the "real" thing. The paradox is that without this, we cannot operate. Try walking in the middle of your busiest express way without that framework...you'll get run over by a speeding car... I am not insisting that you become religious. I just don't like the presumption that something has to be rejected purely on a superficial analysis (I don't see any depth in your analysis so far...there are so many more layers to things than what you have articulated). Moreover, this was about the book Being Different and what it posits. It is by no means a call to become religious. It is a book for intellectuals who like to see things from a perspective that is different from the norm.

you come across as a smart guy. Why this obsessive dislike toward religion? You re being so reductionistic, it is almost juvenile... I could answer you point by point but i will be wasting my energy...like i have told others before. You will learn as you grow older. er...yes thats what i said...karma is is karma or action. There is no good or bad karma...because the chain of causality is so complex, it is useless to ascribe a value to the effect...what might seem good on the surface might be bad in the long term but in even longer term might be good and so on... Good or bad are dependent on perspective. Lets say a mosquito bites you, you smack it and it dies. Do you accrue bad karma? and we are what? Humans right? so why would religion exist outside the human mind? However, just because it does makes it bad? What kind of logic is that? The very fact that you say "reality" is in itself a conceptualization, your use of english is a conscptualization, living in this society, you cannot avoid conceptualized views of reality. Why? Because thats how our faculties are set up...even the most enlightened being has to return to the dualisitic world to navigate his way around and immediately conceptualized view of reality is used. so you do agree that being different is not only natural but also a good thing... If you spend some more time thinking about your position, you will find dogma in that as well...and find flaws in logic which i dont have to point out rigth now. Mark in your calendar an arbitrary date a few years later...and then come back and read your comments here and smile...because i bet you if you spend some more time on this in honest introspection, you will "break free"

Deep stuff there Steve! I like it...

Aaron, no worries. These things take time to think about and respond to. You are conflating two different things here. I am saying that most "religions" aren't dogmatic by their very nature. First, the term religion is not appropriate to describe them...they are dharma (especially the eastern ones) (which is a lot more amorphous while at the same time being greatly wider in scope). One good description of the difference between the two is in the intent: "religion is dogma when one follows it for rewards or fear of punishment (heaven or hell) while it is dharma is what one follows it for knowledge, harmony and insights". Do certain cultures tend to lean towards one or the other? Sure they do. Does that make religion bad...I don't think so. You don't understand Karma. Karma is neither good, nor bad. Karma is karma. The more karma one does the more entangled one gets in the cycle of this universe, the more obscured they get from their true self. Everything else you write is true...but that is true irrespective of whether there is religion or not. Any ideology will force an individual to do that (as will the so-called secular ones -- eg post-modern humanism or it's predecessor communism). It is foolish to throw the proverbial baby out with the dish water... Do you think diversity without religion is any better than it is with it? Do you think there would be diversity if there were only one skin-tone in the world (sure there are so many other attributes besides skin tone, right)? Do you think there would be diversity without different languages? Different dietary habits? Different musical interests? The list could go on and on... You might say, these are all culture dependent. I would say, so are religions. They are as much a part of natural evolution of the human species as it is for the dinosaurs that developed wings and finally resulted in the avian species...