Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: INDIAN CULTURE - subservient?
From: J.Ainikkal@massey.ac.nz (J. Ainikkal)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 23:47:17 GMT
Organization: Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Keywords: Indian Culture
Summary: Indian Culture
X-Reader: NETNEWS/PC Version 2c

udumudi@vanilla (u v babu srinivas)  writes:
 
>it is true that the west has taken to materialism whereas
>eastern  cultures have striven to attain happiness spiritually.
>but I am not  sure if we can call the present form eastern
>cultures spiritual.  

Since Independence there has been a shift from religious pre-
occupation to economic problems. Our leaders have changed their
focus of attention to the latter. But this focus has been
spiritually inclined. So there is emphasis being placed on
'economics' but not in a way should be - except until very very
recently.

Besides religion should be personal (as Selvakumar puts it). I
do not deny the fact that religion can bring more happiness. A
religious person often does not think - and there is a lot of
truth in the statement 'Ignorance is Bliss'. 

It is usually the thinking person who is most dissatisfied. IMO,
this dissatisfaction leads to creativity. Creativity can come
through spiritual thought or through material achievements.


>they are definitely material too. only with much more affinity 
>towards the spiritual than the western. 

Oops - I just thought U missed this out.

>I think you are wrong in saying ills and evils of their society 
>have been reduced because of affluence. they don't have the kind 
>of problems which haunt our society, but of a different kind.

Definitely - No society is without its problems. Personally I
think that the West has some very serious problems with 'Family
Values'. IMO, the lack of 'obligation' in the West will lead to
a very primitive society in time i.e. if it can be proved that
children with single parents are 'more affected' due to the 'lack
of 'total parenthood'' therefore leading to criminal and other
anti-social behaviour. 

But on the other hand they have been very very successful
fighting other evils. No society has doen as much for womyn
rights as the West, No society has as much wealth as the West,
No society has as much 'individual rights' as the West. The
concept of 'individual rights' is the most fascinating and has
a great deal of merit. 

Development of culture can take place two fold - Materially and
through ideas. I think it was (I am not sure of the name of the
person- just slipped my mind- lets call him/her 'X':() who used
the concept of ideas and Marx who used the  materiality concept. 
The former 'X' showed that protestant religious ideas lead to the
present form of 'capitalism'. The materiality concept also lead
to the breaking down of many customs and ills of society. While
we can argue and say that it was 'ideas' not 'wealth' that
reduced evil in society we would be making a grave mistake -
leaving Marx out completely:( - it was/is wealth that makes a
whole lot of contribution and difference by itself. If India (the
average Indian) got wealthy he/she would have more rights. It is
only with wealth that rights are increased. I am sure U would
want to see that all Indians have 'equal' rights. Rights
implemented in a society lead to less evil in that society.



> still,  though I want to agree with your statement 'how can one
>without  even a square meal be happy,' I am sure that an average
>Indian is  definitely more happy and content than an average
>american or western  who is much more wealthy than his counter 
>part in India.  

The average Indian does not get two square meals a day. We have
35% of the WORLDS poor.
 
>I heard of an IIT graduate who has given up his ordinary life
>and  has gone to the himalayas to live peacefully. he gets his
>daily  meals from the village folks in the mountain ranges. He
>thinks he is happy there. you might think differently -- you
>might think he has been foolish not to use his education to earn
>and live like a raja, that he's stupid to reject all the wealth
>that was on its way to reach him, and to live like the
>uncivilized. but, you can't say that he's not happy. 

I have no problems with his quest of happiness - but if he goes
about inciting violence by preaching that his religion is better
than mine  and he goes about 'telling' other people that his way
is the right way and to be 'humble' and search for happiness
spiritually - well then I have a problem.
 
>no, I am not asking people to give up their worldly life and
>take to the his path. but, the part 'spirituality' plays making
>someone 'happy' should be clear. this is what I was always told
>when I was a kid, and I definitely do understand it. 
 
>we need not give up our material life, but it can take a
>secondary position in our lives. we need to attain what the west
>has, we need to get affluent, we need to make sure that everyone
>gets at least their daily meals, but giving up the
>'spirituality' is not the way it should be done. 

Show me a better way - give all Indians the material wealth I
have along with their religious beliefs - I will have no problem
with it. 

Like someone said before - this 'self rule' concept has spiritual
inclinations - it just does not work in a predominantly material
world.
 
> the west is affluent, but don't 
>they still use religion for commercial ends? don't they use it 
>in politics? 

One of the greatest achievements of the West is its segregation
of state and religion. The opportunity to talk and discuss the
ills and stupidity in many religious beliefs. The lack of
brainwashing in their media about 'one way being the right way'.


>the arab countries are affluent too. what do you say 
>about them? 

The worst example that anyone could bring forward - When it comes
to human rights - their societies are primitive (My opinion).
When it comes to wealth - they 'got lucky' - they were sitting
on oil. Their true achivements in society - Zero (These are my
opinions).

>deciding to put 'getting truly religious' behind  
>'getting affluent' only makes it tougher to get back. 

Do we need to get back - that might be the question we need to
answer. 

>we are only getting away from 'real happiness'.  also, I hope
>you realize that I talk of being 'religious' in the 'true sense'
>-- as described by selvakumar in his response to your article. 

While I can understand that U have your concept of happiness -
I cannot understand why U can not agree with the statement that
there are as many people in the West who are as happy.  

Happiness can be achieved by ones definition of 'happiness' and
ones achivements towards reaching that definition. The Western
concept of happiness is different from a more spiritual one
prevalent in the East. There is NO One True way to attain
happiness. Real happiness is how society defines it to U. In your
case its spiritual.
 
> but that is not because of religion as it is, but because 
>of viewing religion in the wrong sense. it is because of using 
>religion for commercial, political and other material needs.
>this  doesn't mean that we need to get rid of religion itself
>to get rid  of the problems. but it means that we need to get
>rid of 'using' of religion and get back the 'true sense' of
>religion. 

Religion has always been a 'tool' to gain power. The only truly
religious people were Buddha, Christ etc. If they had any
foresight as to the way their teachings would be used they would
not have invented religion. U should remember that there are only
a handful of such people.
 
>though we are dissatisfied, it is not the level it would reach 
>in any material culture. I agree with that. we are more content 
>with what we have. but I don't think that's the prime cause for 
>all what is now. 

Its your religious self saying be 'content with what U have'.
This leads to accepting a lot of injustice from others. Most
Indians think in the same way as U do. Be content - Why? So that
U can get exploited?
 
 
JA> Do we need religion in a land like ours today? 
 
>yes. without it I can't imagine how we would be today.
>definitely not like the west, but definitely not as we are
>today. can you imagine what that would mean? :) 
 
Why not as affluent as the West. Do we lack the intellectual
capabilities of the white anglo-saxon? I personally do not lack
anything that the average person in the West has with regards to
intellectual capabilities - and I speak for myself. I am sure
that many educated Indians feel the same.
 
JA> A culture which is deeply rooted in religion - is bound to
be 
JA> doomed in a material world.  
 
>a material world is bound to me doomed. only a culture deeply
>rooted  in religion [in it's true form] will save it. 

Well u have your thoughts - I have mine:(
  
>we would be conversing in the Great Indian Language (tm), the 

I am sorry but I am not sure of this great Indian language U are
referring to - is it Tamil(tm)? A rather conceited statement.

>day the world learns from history and takes to its original
>spiritual base -- I am waiting for that day. 
 
And I dread that day - It would be moving backward a 1000 years
(IMO).


John Ainikkal
I think - Therefore I am.
'Aotearoa' - Land of the long white cloud
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian