dwai

https://asiancenturyinstitute.com/development/1568-britain-s-shameful-colonisation-of-india P.S. But that chicken tikka masala was a good contribution by the British P.P.S. I want to make it clear, I’m not cross, upset, angry etc etc about this stuff. We’ve been having a meaningful (imho) exchange in a respectful manner. My intention isn’t to make anyone ‘uncomfortable’ by sharing my views. I certainly have more than a casual interest in the subject being an Indian-born/raised member of the world community. I don’t bear ill-will towards either the British or westerners in general Sometimes these things can be lost in the midst of discussions which are contentious to say the least. So I wanted to take the time to make sure my two companions who are actively participating, and others who are watching with semi-interest (or others who think it’s like watching a car-wreck) - I welcome your participation. I think this is the most meaningful discussion I’ve had on this topic in a while now.

Why do you think it is not?

Precisely my point. It’s time to dismantle the western narrative of Indian history

You do know that a lot of the industrialization of Britain (and consequently Europe) was done on the back of India? For example, Textile mills, etc only developed when the Indian textile framework was systematically dismantled by the British. https://www.thefridaytimes.com/weaving-misery/

Suspend disbelief and watch it — it has some very interesting ideas.

I agree on this. But then there is also the risk of discarding someone’s genuine research and scholarship (and not unfounded) purely on the basis of “credentials”. Let me explain. There are many Indian scholars classically trained in the Indic philosophical traditions (which get thrown under the bus of “Hindu religion” by many academics). They had to study and understand many aspects, which included study of epics (Puranas and Itihaasa, enchanted get categorized as mythology and wished away). By what authority can a western academic (who often relies on these very scholars to provide them with translations and commentary) then claim that these are “native informants” and not peers? That is specifically what happened since the time of the emergence of indology in the west! Many Indian academics (until recently) are essentially heirs/agents of western academia - and so their rejection of genuine scholarly work by “native” experts is questionable in many cases. There is now a movement in place called “swadeshi indology” which is working to eliminate that kind of mentality. This came about after repeated attempts to engage formal academia in dialog, which was essentially dismissed in the most patronizing and condescending manner. https://swarajyamag.com/culture/swadeshi-indology-conference-where-the-western-claims-fell-silent Who gets to decide what constitutes civilization (or anything else for that matter) and what doesn’t? Why must a civilization as ancient and mature as India or China (for eg) accept the rules set by the west? There is a very deep-rooted assumption inherent in the kind of statement you made, which is not necessarily valid. (and I’m not accusing you of anything, so that we’re clear). Much like, most of the western worldview is influenced by a judeochristian lens. And so, it’s interpretation/study of civilizations such as India or China also suffer from an inherent bias thereof (legacy of the European imperalist agenda). I know this kind of thought can be shocking , or even infuriating for many, but I present to you that, it is a genuine concern. History is a narrative of cultures and civilizations. What, say, is possible in the case of ancient Egypt (no one is left to challenge the western view on it), is not so for India, China, Japan and so on. These are older and far more mature civilizations, and so they are entitled to their own narrative (and inspection, as well as rejection of the western paradigm). I am on the same page as you on this. I only think that it is imperative to have a level playing field before real dialog can happen, especially in the context of history, anthropology and so on. I would love to see academic studies of western cultures in the Indic context, “reversing the gaze”, in an anthropological sense. Can you imagine what the outcome would be? Especially if we considered a hypothetical scenario where Indians (or Chinese) had colonized Europe and studied their ways?

Why deranged? And what sounds deranged?

https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/tim-cook-may-have-just-ended-facebook.html Fascinating stuff going down in the Big Tech space...I think Apple's position is one of strength. FB has no business trying to force Apple to release user data. While I'm certain Apple's position is not entirely altruistic...the value of what Cook has said stands on its own merit. The Big Tech over-reach and commoditization of social media users is an alarming phenomenon, along with the fact that polarization is being accelerated algorithmically -- echo chambers getting louder, and freedom of expression squashed.

All the titles are available online on taichitao.tv if you have a reasonable internet connection, just buy the streaming titles — it’s cheaper and always available without the hassle of switching DVDs etc

Yes Tilak’s version is not accepted. I think you’re missing a point — academia used to have all the power in this, and the ones sitting in western universities ruled the roost. I’ve been involved (not active anymore) in an effort to wrest control from these academics for the past 20 odd years, just so Indian scholars can get a chance to put their opinions out without being rejected without even a proper hearing. Now, mind you, many of these Indian scholars are exemplars in their own fields (and I dare say, order of magnitude smarter than the academics who are “experts” of indology), as many are not “professional” indologists. Meaning, they spend (have spent) a significant portion of their lives dedicated to a project that gave them no practical return on interest. Things are changing now. There are departments of such studies in Indian universities, especially in some of the most elite technical universities - they get government grants so they can research without the interference and gaslighting by the likes of Wendy Doniger, Michael Witzel etc.

There has been a discovery of the original dwaraka (Krishna’s capital) off the gulf of cambay and dated to, varyingly, between 5-9K years ago. The Indian oceanographic institute and Archaeological society of India are studying it. Until the 17th Century, Indian ship builders were considered among the best in the world. https://www.newindianexpress.com/lifestyle/spirituality/2018/aug/12/the-mythical-city-of-dwarka-1855600.html Yes there certainly is lot of disagreement internally too. But in order to find the truth, first step is to acknowledge the new evidence, and in fact not dismiss textual evidence, just because!

Straight down on the Indian Ocean. You know that ancient Indians were also a great maritime civilization, right? I think he (Nilesh) thinks it is Antarctica from the description provided in the Ramayana, and also because other texts have something like this to say ---

If you actually listen to what is being said, he (Sugriva) gives the description of the path but tells them to go no further than a certain point as he calls the Antarctic region "Yama's Kingdom" (Yama is the God of Death/underworld in the Hindu tradition). The explanation given within the original Ramayana text is that Sugriva actually circumnavigated the globe (as much as was possible, given the glacial cover over most of Northern Europe and North America (and yes, the Ancient Indians knew the world was round long before Pythagoras was born, don't be upset just because you didn't know that...)

I've not come across any serious Advaita Vedantin who says "no" The very basis of Advaita Vedanta is that there is Being/existence (Awareness/Brahman/Atman) from which all phenomena arise, and into which all phenomena dissipate. I think the AV position on this is also based on experience. But from the experience, especially, and more importantly, mundane, everyday experience, the underlying existence itself (Being) is to be recognized (not as an object, but as that which illuminates the experience). That's why many who've had this recognition state that the "truth" (so to speak) is very simple, direct, and readily available all the time.

Fascinating discussion (this is only an excerpt) -- In the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, written 2500 years ago (conservatively speaking), one of the aphorisms states -- "knowledge is from direct experience, the testimony of a reliable witness, or intuition". In all cases, Consciousness is the primary mode of knowing. Even in the case of the anesthesia -- the assumption Sam is making is that the "awareness" is only localized to a body-mind. Actually, for those who have advanced yogic capabilities, even these so-called "unconscious" experiences are simply awareness without any objects. This is an everyday experience of deep sleep. In order to 'experience' deep sleep, a certain degree of disentanglement with the mind needs to occur (in the waking and dream states) -- which is called "abiding in awareness". Then deep sleep is simply and directly known as "deep sleep" while it is occurring. Similarly with anesthesia. Such people can are perfectly lucid across all three states of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep.

Yes. I find the Australian aboriginal tribes very fascinating. I was watching a documentary where apparently the healers are working alongside western medicine doctors in hospitals in some rural parts of Australia? That is a very positive thing...not to reject the wisdom and traditional knowledge, but to integrate it, and its practitioners into the mainstream society with full honor and dignity. That is already an established matter right? The Out of Africa model is not disputed by anyone. The AAA part is more than likely a result of migration out of India rather than into India, though I can't find a reason why if the migration path might have not reversed too later on until the path went under water. The ATB aspect probably is due to intermingling between people of that region. Historically, South-East Asia often fell under Indian rulers. Also if you look at modern day North-East India, their tribal culture seems to continue quite seamlessly all the way into the South-East Asian jungles. Nagas from Nagaland have a lot of similarity with the headhunters of Borneo. In the epics which comprise the Itihasa (loosely translated as history) part of indian civilization (Ramayana, Mahabharata), there are plenty of instances of cross-group marriage between Nagas, Asuras and "humans". The Ramayana and Mahabharata refer to their influence and alliances going much farther than present-day India's political boundaries. There IS no Aryan genetics. Arya is an honorific term used in Sanskrit, it means "Noble/Civilized". Similarly, Dravida was used as a term to identify the progeny of an Indian sage. It is also a surname used by Deshastha Rigvedic Brahmins (if one buys into the Aryan-Dravidian myth, one can't get more Aryan than this) from the region that falls in present times between the states of Maharashtra and Karnataka. A famous example is the famous Indian Cricketer - Rahul Dravid.

And this is the Northward journey —

This is the part of the presentation of sugriva’s atlas from India to Europe, and he covers the ice age -

Great advice

I can’t without going into a meditative state.

Yes

Consider the causal to be like the angelic.

You know, in the Vedic context, Forest Dwellers were considered some of the highest intellects and visionaries. I think a lot of people in the Indic studies field (especially native Indian) consider the Australian Aborigine population to be distant cousins. Based on what I remember, the migration path out of Africa entered India, went south, and then went east/south-east towards Australia. Similarly with the other migrations to the far east. Is that what you mean?

I've not spent a lot of time on the neo-advaita gang tbh...I used to consider Rupert as Neo-Advaita and then warmed up to him in terms of both Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism (which he seems to have some knowledge of). But, I find his "pointing to" quite apropos...though he doesn't have the effect that Eckhart Tolle has on me -- Eckhart can take me into a very deep silence, just by listening to him. Another thing about Rupert's talks is, I only started "hearing" him after I didn't need to listen to him anymore for "knowledge" per se. I don't feel that way about it. When he is pointing, he is pointing experientially (as much as realization is an "experience" in that sense). But I've not really spent too much time on him, and am not invested in his teachings/or him in any way. I know what you mean. That's the way I am in Master Jose's presence -- just being in his vicinity puts me into a deep alive stillness. The power of a lineage is very real...a mentor of mine, who has been a direct disciple of Sifu Sheng Yen, Sri Abhinava Vidya Teertha, the previous Shankaracharya of the Sringeri Math (among other powerful masters) tells me the reason why one must maintain the purity of lineage is that lineages have power, and whichever lineage one belongs it, its power will manifest in their life. One has to taste the fruits of one's lineage. Now, whether it is a fruit one wants to taste or not, ultimately is a matter of decision. For me specifically, he said so in the context of the Daoist lineage, as he considered my Vedantic nidhidhyasana to be quite deep already. Every tradition has epistemology and ontology (even non-being/non-Self is effectively ontology, isn't it?). The "real" deal is simple. Sophistry is a result of communication -- so do we enjoy the moon or the finger that points to the moon?

Oops...I stand chastised Sir! Though I am hesitant to retract said statements 😜 Actually Rupert spent a long time as a disciple of Swami Shantananda Saraswati - Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math — legit Advaita Vedanta credentials there. I used to feel similarly about Rupert too earlier, but with time, I found myself disagreeing less with him/his approach. For me, it used to be an irritation about neo-Advaita in general, and he seemed to be the figurehead (in my mind). If we are to go “full Advaita Vedanta”, nothing he says is incongruent with say the Ashtavakra Samhita. On a similar note, I know some who found Swami Sarvapriyananda unimpressive, until one day, they actually listened to what he was teaching!