Incremental Knowledge vs. Instantaneous Enlightenment

[QUOTE=High Wolf;53921]Just wait there a second all of you: Taosim is not a religion at all! The key text Tao Te Ching is a masterpiece work on philosophy of mysticism. If we take every philosophical work involving some practical stuff on how to live as religious texts, then there would be an insane amount of religion out there. Well, there already are…

If Taoism is a religion, then I am a nine-tailed fox :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

This is a hghly debatable subject. taoism has a religious aspect to it just the same as sanatana dharma. I included it under dharmic traditions because of the massive overlaps in methodolgy, themes and philosophy…especially wrt nondualism.
So while technically taoism uses chinese syntax, it is talking about the same things

Tao = brahman
Wei wu wei = nishkaam karma
Taiji = sat asat
Te = atman

To find the similarities one has to look below the surface

The reverse argument is equally valid if not more so. Non-Indian scholars have no vested interest in preserving existing traditions or interpretations. Translations by Hindu scholars are much more likely to contain that type of bias. This is evident in the many translations of Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, which can vary considerably depending on the bias of the translator. It is unfortunate that roman transliterations of the Samhitas and Upanishads are not readily available. We are forced to rely on the translators, and have no way of knowing what may or may not be accurate, or subject to different interpretations.

[QUOTE=Asuri;53925]The reverse argument is equally valid if not more so. Non-Indian scholars have no vested interest in preserving existing traditions or interpretations. Translations by Hindu scholars are much more likely to contain that type of bias. This is evident in the many translations of Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, which can vary considerably depending on the bias of the translator. It is unfortunate that roman transliterations of the Samhitas and Upanishads are not readily available. We are forced to rely on the translators, and have no way of knowing what may or may not be accurate, or subject to different interpretations.[/QUOTE]

You do…learn sanskrit!

Given that the “native” is Emic, the narrative is going to naturally be more positive as opposed to that of those whose ideology is directly or indirecly challenged by that tradition …eg…hindu traditions such as vedanta, tantra, yoga

Case in point, we get weird abberations such as christian yoga, jewish yoga etc. Or appropriation en masse as the nazis did with the hindu motifs and distorted something benevolent such as the swastika into a hate symbol or the term arya which means noble in sanskrit into a race theory!

I am with sd in that westeern academics usually do no good with a very few exceptions. A shining example of questionable scholaship are mainstays of american indology such as wendy doniger or jeffrey kripal…neither of whom can hold their own against native scholars but yet attempt to protect their ivory towers of deceit and fraudlence in the guise of academic integrity!

[QUOTE=Asuri;53925]The reverse argument is equally valid if not more so. Non-Indian scholars have no vested interest in preserving existing traditions or interpretations. Translations by Hindu scholars are much more likely to contain that type of bias. This is evident in the many translations of Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, which can vary considerably depending on the bias of the translator. It is unfortunate that roman transliterations of the Samhitas and Upanishads are not readily available. We are forced to rely on the translators, and have no way of knowing what may or may not be accurate, or subject to different interpretations.[/QUOTE]

In most cases, translations done of the sacred texts of a religion are done by the natives and peer-reviewed by the natives. In the case of the Vedic samhitas, the translations are done by European colonial men using methods of translation which are based on 19th century linguistic theories. So rather than doing a straight translation by looking at the Sanskrit, and then translating it into English, as you would do with say translating the Quran into English(Look at the Arabic, then translate it into English) The European scholars have deliberately rejected the Sanskrit dictionaries of India in translating the Vedas by claiming the entire Indian scholarship tradition going back thousands of years to to be made up and rejecting the vast history recorded by the Indians(even the precise astronomical data recorded to mark special events in Indian history, were dismissed as hoaxes by Brahmin astronomers) Their theory was the Aryans did not come from India, but from Europe, and therefore the Vedas cannot be read using Sanskrit, but need to be read linguistically based on the original language in 1500BCE. They reconstructed this theoretical language known as PIE(Proto-Indo-European) its alphabet, list of verbs, and original meanings.

The method they used to translate the Vedas went something like this: They read a word in the Vedas. They look at similar sounding words in other IE languages. They find what the word means in all the languages and then take the mean meaning, rather than just looking in a Sanskrit dictionary for what it means. It would be like me translating an Italian word by looking at word that sound similar in other languages in the same family, finding the common meaning it has, and then taking that as the meaning, rather than just looking it up in an Italian dictionary.

Basically it was clear racist chauvanism. The translations done by Europeans was done by first negating the entire Indian tradition, it’s history, it’s scholarship, it’s dictionaries and grammar - and then presenting a representation of it through European eyes to suit European ideologies and interests. It would be akin to invading a country, and then proceeding to tell the natives their entire civilisation is a lie. This is what happened in India.

This is why translations of the Vedas not done in accordance to Sanskrit are to be rejected. Seek translations done by experts in Sanskrit using the traditional method of translation which has been used for thousands of years.

[QUOTE=High Wolf;53921]Just wait there a second all of you: Taosim is not a religion at all! The key text Tao Te Ching is a masterpiece work on philosophy of mysticism. If we take every philosophical work involving some practical stuff on how to live as religious texts, then there would be an insane amount of religion out there. Well, there already are…

If Taoism is a religion, then I am a nine-tailed fox :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Taoism is officially recognised as a religion by modern definition of religions. It was also recognised as a religion historically in China, even during the times of Confucious.

@Surya Deva

You’re sounding like you have a bit of a persecution complex. I’m not defending translations by 19th century Europeans, but you didn’t really address the question of bias on the part of Hindu translators. You can’t deny the diversity in the translations of the Yoga Sutras. The suppression of Samkhya literature is another prime example. Most Indian scholars claim that the Samkhya Karika is the primary document of Samkhya philosophy, when it clearly is an abridgement of an earlier work, and it says so in the Karika itself.

[QUOTE=Asuri;53947]@Surya Deva

You’re sounding like you have a bit of a persecution complex. I’m not defending translations by 19th century Europeans, but you didn’t really address the question of bias on the part of Hindu translators. You can’t deny the diversity in the translations of the Yoga Sutras. The suppression of Samkhya literature is another prime example. Most Indian scholars claim that the Samkhya Karika is the primary document of Samkhya philosophy, when it clearly is an abridgement of an earlier work, and it says so in the Karika itself.[/QUOTE]

I don’t have a persecution complex. I am speaking on the behalf of a people, that I happen to born into, who have been persecuted and still are, such as by denying their civilisation and portraying them as a hopeless, static people in need of being civilised. Many scholars agree this is a real issue Hindus’s face.

There has been no suppression of Samkhya philosophy to my knowledge. Most Hindus Gurus, even contempoary ones, always talk about Samkhya. The Samkhyakarika is dated older than the Samkhya sutras by European scholars. Their argument is the Samkhya Sutras contain themes and concepts which are more indicative of modern Samkhya.

The problem of translation is more so with Vedic Sanskrit and not classical Sanskrit. The translation of Yoga sutras, Gita etc is relatively uncontroversial, because classical Sanskrit is a well known language and there are thousands of works written in this language. Vedic Sanskrit is a much older, archaic form, that predates classical Sanskrit and was the language used to compose the Vedas(Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads) and this is controvesial because there is not many works written in this language to cross-reference, and barely anybody speaks this language.

The European scholars took advantage of this fact to present a translation of the Vedas that suited their interests, because they could not get away with doing the same with the Gita per se, because it is written in classical Sanskrit. However, like I said were not completely in the dark on the Vedas. We have Sanskrit dictionaries surviving from the Vedic era, and even Panini has a section in his grammar on reading Vedic Sanskrit. So translations done in accordance with his old tradition tend to be more accurate. Vedic Sanskrit is not entirely different from classical Sanskrit, it is simply an older and more complex version.

The translations of the Yoga sutras I have read so far, and I have now read about 10 different translations, differ slightly, but for the most part are indentical. This is not the case with the Vedas. If you read Griffith and Muller vs Dayananda or Sujoy Ghosh, you are reading a completely different book, with barely any resemblance.

I see you’re still up to your old tricks. I say it is, you say it isn’t, and round and round we go. I’m not really interested in the Samhitas, so it’s a non-issue for me. I don’t see what possible interest could have been served by intentionally skewing the translation of some old books. This kind of spurious claim can cause a lot of damage. Everyone will be better off when you finally grow up and stop making them.

[QUOTE=Asuri;53947]@Surya Deva

You’re sounding like you have a bit of a persecution complex. I’m not defending translations by 19th century Europeans, but you didn’t really address the question of bias on the part of Hindu translators. You can’t deny the diversity in the translations of the Yoga Sutras. The suppression of Samkhya literature is another prime example. Most Indian scholars claim that the Samkhya Karika is the primary document of Samkhya philosophy, when it clearly is an abridgement of an earlier work, and it says so in the Karika itself.[/QUOTE]

What you consider biases are interpretations. There are rules to who can do commentaries and interpret these works…it is called adhikara and it implies that the person who is writing the commentary has a sound background in the subject at both intellectual and practical level.

In india through the early history until the advent of the mughals there was a vibrant and active spiritual/intellectual culture. Acharyas of various schools of darsana would debate and theorize and practice their hypotheses to prove or disprove ideas. For example, there are the distinct interptations of vedanta. The advaita, dvaita ad vishishtadvaita. Each of these interpret the upanishads from an unique perspective. There have been countless arguments and counterarguments made for against each school. Advaita came first and a lot of shankaracharya’s work focuses around debating and winning over the prevalent views of his times…sankhya, purva mimamsa and buddhism were the prevalent and popular systems in those days.

In order to form his arguments, shankara had to conform to rules engagement. If you are familiar with the concepts of purva paksha and uttara pakhsa you will understand that no system was simply ignored, but were systematically and contantly being deconstructed and reconsructed by various experts. Unfortunately for sankhya, purva mimamsa an buddhism, they could not stand in the face of shankara and his disciples scrutiny. Achayras of these schools in many cases conceded there defeat and became disciples in shankara’s system.

This is the reaon why many subsequent commentators focussed on the advaita or other vedantic frameworks more than sankhya or purva mimamsa

I’m not really interested in the Samhitas, so it’s a non-issue for me.

It is an issue for me, because as a Hindu, the Vedas are the source of our entire civilisation, ethos and thought. They are sacred books to us and are the works of the Risis that founded our civilisation, so we take issue when white people tell is they do not belong to us, they are the works of nomadic savages or barbarians from Europe and mistranslate them to serve their interests.

I don’t see what possible interest could have been served by intentionally skewing the translation of some old books. This kind of spurious claim can cause a lot of damage. Everyone will be better off when you finally grow up and stop making them.

This is not just a claim, but a fact. The first translation was done by Max Muller, who was employed directly by the British empire to translate the Vedas. Here is what he has to say:
In a letter to his wife, he said:

The translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3000 years.

I can’t make it anymore obvious that the European translaters of the Vedas’s purpose was to destroy Vedic culture, so they mistranslated the original sacred scriptures. The entire European scholarship was serving the agenda of the empire. Shall I make it even more clearer?

http://www.salagram.net/WesternIndologists-page.htm

The following is the biggest names of Western indologists other than Max Muller, upon whose works modern Indology, Hindu studies is taught:

Proffessor Horace Hayman WILSON and MONIER-WILLIAMS :

THE PURPOSE OF BODEN CHAIR OF SANSKRIT IN OXFORD UNIVERSITY : In Samvat 1890 Horace Hayman Wilson became the Boden Professor of Sanskrit in the Oxford University. His successor Prof. M. Monier-Williams has drawn the attention of scholars to the object of the establishment of that chair in the following words ;-

"I must draw attention to the fact that I am only the second occupant of the Boden Chair, and that its Founder, Colonel Boden, stated most explicitly in his will (dated August 15, 1811 A.D.) that the special object of his munificent bequest was to promote the translation of Scriptures into Sanskrit; so as to enable his countrymen to proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian religion."

Sir Monier Williams that followed in the footsteps of Wilson, and the first European scholar to propose the existence of Proto-Indo-European and a foreign homeland of the Aryans, revealed the real object of the purpose of the establishment of the Boden chair, thus delivers himself:-

‘Brahmanism, therefore, must die out. In point of fact, false ideas on the most ordinary scientific subjects are so mixed up with its doctrines that the commonest education - the simplest lesson in geography - without the aid of Christianity must inevitably in the end sap its foundations.’
‘When the walls of the mighty fortress of Brahmanism are encircled, undermined, and finally stormed by the solders of the cross, the victory of Christianity must be signal and complete.’

RUDOLF HOERNLE: Rudolf Hoernle was the Principal of Queen’s College, Banaras, in Samvat 1926. At that time Swami Dayananda Saraswati, who later on founded the Arya Samaja happened to reach Banaras for the first time for the propagation of his mission. Dr. Hoernle met Swami Dayananda on several occasions. He wrote an article on /Swamiji from which the following extract is noteworthy, because it reveals the real intention of many European scholars who take to study of Sanskrit and ancient scriptures of Bharatvarsha. Hoernle says:-
’…he (Dayananda) may possibly convince the Hindus that their modern Hinduism is altogether in the opposition to the Vedas… If once they became thoroughly convinced of this radical error, they will no doubt abandon Hinduism at once… They cannot go back to the Vedic state; that is dead and gone, and will never revive; something more or less new must follow. We hope it may be Christianity,…’

In the following account, a Sanskrit dictionary prepared by European scholars is challenged by another Western Sanskrit scholar:

WEBER AND GOLDSTUCKER: Weber and Boehtlingk prepared a dictionary of the Sanskrit language called the 'Sanskrit Worterbuch. Prof. Kuhn was also one of their assistants. Being mainly based on the wrong and imaginary principles of philology, the work is full of wrong meanings in many places and is, therefore, unreliable and misleading. It is a pity that so much labour was wasted on account of sheer prejudice. The dictionary was subject of severe criticism by Prof. Goldstuker which annoyed the two editors. Weber was so much upset that he stooped to use abusive language of the coarsest kind against Prof. Goldstucker. He said that the views of Prof. Goldstucker about the Worterbuch showed ‘a perfect derangement of his mental faculties’, since he did not reject the authority of the greatest Hindu scholars freely and easily. Replying to their undignified attacks Prof. Goldstucker exposed the conspiracy of Professors Roth, Boehtlingk, Weber and Kahn which they had formed to undermine the greatness of ancient Bharatvarsha. He wrote:
‘It will, of course, be my duty to show, at the earliest opportunity, that Dr. Boehtlingk is incapable of understanding even easy rules of Panini, much less those of Katyayana and still less is he capable of making use of them in the understanding of Classical texts. The errors in his department of the Dictionary are so numerous… that it will fill every serious Sanskritist with dismay, when he calculates the mischievous influence which they must exercise on the study of Sanskrit philology’.

He further remarks: ‘…that questions which ought to have been decided with the very utmost circumspection and which could not be decided without very laborious research have been trifled with in the Worterbuch in the most unwarranted manner.’

Goldstucker was called upon by one of Boehtlingk’s men not only to have respect for ‘the editor of Panini…’(i.e. Boehtlingk) but even for the hidden reasons for foisting on the public his blunders of ever kind. We know that there were no other ‘hidden reasons’ than their Christian and Jewish bias which impelled them to suppress the correct information of the Hindu grammarians and underrate and vilify Aryan civilisation and culture, and at the same time to serve as tools of the British Government towards the same end.


The agenda is explicitly clear the purpose of European scholarship was to destroy Vedic culture and negate the entire civilisation of the Hindus, in order to serve the interests of the empire and making the natives accept British rule of India as natural and accept its Christian religion. This is why they undertook the task of translating the Vedas to make it look childish, savage and barbaric and its authors as some kind of tyrants and tricksters.

To trust the translations of Euroepean scholars of the Vedas is like trusting Nazi translations of the Torah. Therefore I submit to you again, if you want to read authentic translations, make sure they are done in accordance with the Sanskrit tradition.

@Surya Deva

I find it telling that you have this material so close at hand. It’s obvious from your own material that, even though there were some whose motives were sinister, there were others who exposed them and called them out on it. You need to realize that the motives of some of the others were not to destroy the Vedic culture but to convert the people to Christianity, which in their minds was a noble purpose. They also wanted to release the grip of the Brahmins on the people, in order to elevate them to a more civilized state, with better government and more modern technology. They succeeded in that, and India is better off for it.

It serves no purpose to rail against the Europeans, other than to inflame the minds of impressionable young people, and perhaps to promote your own political ambitions. If some of the translations were wrong, then just correct them.

I’m not an expert but I think I understand in general what you call the rules of engagement. One obvious defect in your argument is that the buddhists did not become disciples of Shankara, they left India. That should give you some idea of what they were facing at the time. Shankara was a formidable intellect, and others could not defeat him in debate. That doesn’t mean he was always right, just that no one could match the sheer volume of his words, a lot like trying to argue with Surya Deva.

I haven’t read a lot of Sankara, because I really can’t stand it. From what little I have read, I know that Shankara based everything on the Upanishads. According to him, if it couldn’t be found in the Upanishads, it couldn’t be right. In my opinion, that his views became so widely accepted was an unfortunate turn of events for India. Everything became based on religion and an oppressive caste system. I suspect it was that which caused the decline of India, not the British empire.

I don’t think it is a noble purpose to go about destroying another civilisation. It is very clear they wanted to destroy Vedic culture and replace it with Christianity. This makes them my enemy, because I am a member of that culture.

The Brahmins had no grip on the people, this is yet more European propoganda. There has never been in the history of India, a clergy. Religion has always been a personal affair and personal choice - whether one wanted to go to a temple, join a samapradya, live a life of good deeds, meditate was their own personal choice. There was no central authority of “brahmins” that made decisions for people. In fact, the Brahmins were financially the poorest class and lived on the charity of people(hence the expression, “Poor Brahmin”) What the Brahmins did enjoy was respect from Indian society for their education and learning, and were highly sought after by Indians for advice in all matters. Even in ancient times Brahmins were advisors to the state. They were highly respected, because they were considered sagely, enlightened. But they had no political or financial power.

The Brahmins were hated by the Europeans because they were the most resistant class to British rule and Christian missionaries. Most of the people that were killed during the Indian independence struggle were Brahmins. Thus they actively went about villifying them, portraying them as tyrants, oppressors and tricksters to divide public opinion against them. Thence, the myth of the caste system was also created, with Brahmins as these evil oppressors ruling the roost.

India did not require to be civilised, because she was already civilised. She already had a better education system, banking system, economic system, hence why she was the wealthiest country, alongside China in the world for most of history. Indian people were a lot better off than Europeans. This is admitted by countless historians. On the contrary, as soon as British rule of India started, India became uncivilised. It’s economy atrophied, it’s people became impoverished and malnourished, and people became illiterate. In 1947, when India gained independence 90% of the people were poor and illiterate.

It is a clear and cut case of economic and cultural genocide of India at the hand of Europeans. I mean why defend the Europeans? We know for a fact they went about colonizing and exterminating civilisations around the world. The same happened to India.

I can see why a lot of the world hates the West.

According to him, if it couldn’t be found in the Upanishads, it couldn’t be right. In my opinion, that his views became so widely accepted was an unfortunate turn of events for India. Everything became based on religion and an oppressive caste system. I suspect it was that which caused the decline of India, not the British empire.

Sankara never said that if it is not found in the Upanishads, it is not true. He was a reformist who had noted the original Vedic religion as found in the Upanishads was no longer well known in India and there was much confusion. So his mission was to present a coherent philosophy based on the Upanishads, and to argue for it. In order to do this he had to obey formal rules of logic and debate in India. He wrote many books, commentaries and participated in many debates, and he proved to be a formiddable intellectual. This is why he became popular.

Although Sankara was instrumental in weakening Buddhists in India, the main reason Buddhists disappeared from India was the Muslim invasions. The Buddhists were the first to be hit and were despised with a vengence by Muslim invaders. They hated them more than they hated the Hindus. The Buddhists, because they were pacifist, had nothing to fight the Muslims with. The Hindus principalities of India, were different, because they had warriors. They gave very stiff resistance to the Muslims, and as a result Hindus did not disappear like the Buddhists did.

The decline of India can be attributed to two major causes: Muslims and Europeans. The Muslims significantly weakened and polarized India, destroying its temples, libraries and universities. The Europeans then took advantage of that polarization to gain a footing in India. As soon as they established the East India company and won Bengal, that changed the fate of India forever. Unlike the Muslims, the Europeans did not make India their home, rather they used it as a colony to loot all of its wealth which was then sent back to Europe to fuel the industrial revolution. In order to end the hegemony of India on international trade they deindustralized the Indian economy, taxed it to death, and forced the closure of Indian industries, eventually outalawing them completely. The result was the highly skilled Indian workforce was made redundant, forcing them all into agriculture and other low-tech industries. They then sucked the blood of Indians dry, forcing them to pay heavy taxes in the form of food grain(Lagaan) to the empire, even during times of draught. The result was several famines that killed of tens of millions of Indians. They finally killed of the Indian education system and forced the closure of tens of thousands of Sanskrit schools, colleges.

This is how India went from the wealthiest and most literate country in the world, alongside China, to the poorest and most illiterate in 1947. The Muslims came as conquerers, the Europeans came as pirates. The most developed period in Indian history was when India was neither under the Muslims or the Europeans.

The wealth of India has been legendary in history. Almost all foreign writers have spoken very highly of the wealth of India. Let us look at a few accounts:

During the Persian Empire:

During the late sixth and early fifth centuries BCE, when the Persian empire was at its height, most of what was then Greece and much of Northwestern India were united under Persian rule. Interestingly, the Greek historian Herodotus, who lived in the fifth century BCE, provides in the third book of his Histories a list of the tribute paid by all twenty of the provinces of Persia. Regarding the province of Northwest India, he commented that “the Indians, the most populous nation in the world, paid the largest sum: 360 talents of gold-dust.” (de S?lincourt 1996:192) This was a princely sum, considering that the other provinces all paid in silver. According to Herodotus, the overall revenue of the Persians under Darius was 14,560 Euboean talents, 4680 of which were provided by Indians in the form of gold dust. India provided almost one third of their revenue, far more than was contributed by Greece, Egypt, Babylon or any of the Persian provinces. And when we take into account that only a relatively small portion of India was under Persian authority, there seems little doubt that India was quite economically better off than her Western neighbors.

During Roman period:

During the Roman period there was a brisk sea trade between India and Rome, mainly in spices and valuable trade items. Many of these Indian goods were known to Romans such as Pliny, who recognized them as being of Indian origin. (See Karttunen 1997, pp. 148-49) By the Roman era the pattern that came to dominate trans-Eurasian trade for the next two millennia was well established. This pattern was one of trade imbalance, in which the goods produced in India and Southern Asia were highly valued by peoples in the more northern and western parts of the continent, who were unable in turn to produce goods in sufficient quantity or quality to offset this imbalance.

Throughout the ages the trading connections between Europe and Asia have been based on the Europeans’ desire to obtain the luxury products of the East. Thus trade involved goods that were light in weight but high in price. The products given in exchange by the Europeans consisted partly of textiles, metal goods and the like, but also to a significant extent of precious metals in uncoined and above all in coined forms. (Attman 1981:8)

Pliny commented on the Roman trade with India, and on the sizable trade imbalance made up by the export to India of silver coins. This report has been verified through the discovery of large hoards of Roman silver coins throught South Asia. (Attman 1981:8)

Accounts of travellers into India:

Accounts of travelers during this period indicate that India was a thriving, sophisticated amalgam of diverse and interrelated civilizations. For example, the Chinese pilgrim Xuan-zang, who traveled throughout India during the first half of the seventh century, describes thus the city of Kanyakubja (later called Kanauj), which was the capital of King Siladitya who at the time ruled most of North India:

This kingdom is about 4000 li [17] in circuit; the capital, on the west, borders on the river Ganges. It is about 20 li in length and 4 or 5 li in breadth. The city has a dry ditch round it, with strong and lofty towers facing one another. The flowers and woods, the lakes and ponds, bright and pure and shining like mirrors, (are seen on every side). Valuable merchandise is collected here in great quantities. The people are well off and contented, the houses rich and well found. Flowers and fruits abound in every place, and the land is sown and reaped in due seasons. [18]

  1. The Medieval Period
    During the period ranging between the seventh through eleventh centuries, trade between India and the West was controlled by the Arab Caliphate, which exchanged Indian luxury goods for European gold. This trade imbalance was mitigated somewhat by the Arab trade with Russian and Nordic merchants, where at trading centers on the Volga the Europeans traded slaves, furs and swords for Indian luxury goods as well as gold and silver coinage. This trade ceased during the tenth century when Turkestan and Khorasan passed from Arab to Turkish control. (Attman 1981:10-12).

During the eleventh century, Italian merchants began traveling to Egypt and Syria, exchanging textiles, furs, metals, weapons and slaves for Indian and Arabian luxury items. During the crusades Venetian and Genoan merchants dominated trade with the Middle East. Trade items sought by the Europeans included spices, silk and cotton, dyestuffs and drugs, which were highly valued throughout Europe.

These items were of high value, and in exchange for them Venice and Genoa provided textile and metal products from the industries of Western Europe. But the value of the exports from Europe was far from sufficient to balance that of imports from the Orient. A balance was achieved through massive exports of gold and silver from the cities of Italy, France and Spain. (Attman 1981:15)

Thus the pattern of trade imbalance in India’s favour established during the Roman era was replicated once Europe arose from its dark age and was reacquainted with high quality Indian merchandise via the Arabs. This led to a chronic bullion shortage throughout Europe, a problem that became particularly acute during the fifteenth century.

This trade imbalance, naturally, contributed to the wealth of Indian society, which was attested by foreign travelers from throughout the world. For example, a Persian account, the Mukhtasiru-t Tawarikh, describes India or “Hindustan” in the following manner:

India is a very large country, and it is so extensive that other countries are not equal to a hundredth part of it. Notwithstanding its extensive area, it is populated in all places. It abounds in all quarters and every district with cities, towns, villages, caravanserais, forts, citadels, mosques, temples, monasteries, cells, magnificent buildings, delightful gardens, fine trees, pleasant green fields, running streams, and impetuous rivers. On all the public roads and streets strong bridges are made over every river and rill, and embankments are also raised. Lofty minarets are made at the distance of each kos to indicate the road, and at every two parasangs inns are built of strong masonry for travelers to dwell in and take rest. At each inn can be obtained every kind of food and drink, all sorts of medicine, and all kinds of necessary instruments and utensils. On all roads shadowy and fruitful trees are planted on both sides. Wells and tanks are dug which contain fresh and sweet water in abundance. The passengers go along the roads under the shadow of trees, amusing themselves, eating the fruits and drinking cold water, as if they were taking a walk among the beds of a garden. The merchants, tradesman and all travelers, without any fear of thieves and robbers, take their goods and loads safe to their distant destinations. The whole of this country is very fertile, and the products of Iran, Turan, and other climates are not equal to those of even one province of Hindustan. In this country there are also mines of diamonds, ruby, gold, silver, copper, lead, and iron. The soil is generally good, and so productive that in a year it yields two crops, and in some places more. All kinds of grain, the sustenance of human life, are brought forth in such quantities that it is beyond the power of pen to enumerate. [21]

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/history_overview_frameset.htm

Also the myth of European technological superiority has to be challenged:

European technological superiority often overrated. As Frank noted, citing the work of Dharampal (1971) and Kuppuram and Kumudamani (1990),

there are several accounts of British import of samples of Indian wootz steel, which specialized British laboratories found equal to that of Sweden and superior to any made in Britain in 1790. Moreover, among the ten thousand Indian furnaces at the end of the eighteenth century, many still produced comparable iron and steel both faster (in two and a half hours instead of four) and cheaper than the British did in Sheffield. (Frank 1998:202

So how did the Europeans rise to the top then? Through piracy and brute force:

The use of such brute force to secure a monopoly evidently replaced a much more cooperative and free, non-compulsory system of trade. As Chaudhuri convincingly argued,

before the arrival of the Portuguese … in 1498 there had been no organized attempt by any political power to control the sea-lanes and long-distance trade of Asia … The Indian Ocean as a whole and its different seas were not dominated by any particular nations or empires. [33]

In other words, unable to compete in a situation of free and uncompulsory trade, the Europeans used force to shut down free trade and position themselves as the beneficiaries of uncompetitive monopolies. Far from being the torchbearers of capitalism as Weber and others would have us believe, [b]Europeans wielded force to construct an uncompetitative, uncapitalistic despotism which far exceeded that achieved by any of the so-called “oriental despots”. The theories of Hegel, Marx were not only Eurocentric, but fantastic in that they represent an ideal rather than actual version of history, with Europe aligned along the positive pole and Europe’s “dark side”, the sordid side of European hegemony, projected upon the dominated other. As Blaut argues contra Weber, capitalism did not arise due to any innate superiority on the part of the Europeans, such as greater rationality or so forth. Rather,

Capitalism arose as a world-scale process: as a world system. Capitalism became centrated in Europe because colonialism gave Europeans the power both to develop their own society and to prevent development from occurring elsewhere. It is this dynamic of development and underdevelopment which mainly explains the modern world. (Blaut 1993:206)

To conclude:

Therefore, when considering the poverty under which much of India suffers today it is important to take into consideration all of the historical factors which contributed to this condition. Clearly, in the case of India, we are dealing with a situation in which one of the world’s wealthiest and most vibrant economies was transformed, over the course of several centuries, into one of its poorest and most moribund. While the causes for this transformation are no doubt manifold it is also clear that one cause in particular played a particularly important role. This, naturally, is the economic exploitation that occurred under colonial rule in India. As Romesh Dutt argued,

It is, unfortunately, a fact which no well-informed Indian official will ignore, that, in many ways, the sources of national wealth in India have been narrowed under British rule. India in the eighteenth century was a great manufacturing as well as a great agricultural country, and the products of the Indian loom supplied the markets of Asia and of Europe. It is, unfortunately, true that the East Indian Company and the British Parliament, following the selfish commercial policy of a hundred years ago, discouraged Indian manufacturers in the early years of British rule in order to encourage the rising manufactures of England. Their fixed policy, pursued during the last decades of the eighteenth century and the first decades of the nineteenth, was to make India subservient to the industries of Great Britain, and to make the Indian people grow raw produce only, in order to supply material for the looms and manufactories of Great Britain. This policy was pursued with unwavering resolution and with fatal success; orders were sent out to force, Indian artisans to work in the Company’s factories; commercial residents were legally vested with extensive powers over villages and communities of Indian weavers; prohibitive tariffs excluded Indian silk and cotton goods from England; English goods were admitted into India free of duty or on payment of a nominal duty. The British manufacturer, in the words of the historian, H. H. Wilson, “employed the arm of political injustice to keep down and ultimately strangle a competitor with whom he could not have contended on equal terms;” millions of Indian artisans lost their earnings; the population of India lost one great source of their wealth. It is a painful episode in the history of British rule in India; but it is a story which has to be told to explain the economic condition of the Indian people, and their present helpless dependence on agriculture. (1950: vii-viii)

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/history_overview_frameset.htm

The conclusions to be drawn from the above paper is therefore as follows: India did not decline because of any internal reason, whether to do with its own kingdoms or its culture or religion, it declined because of European economic genocide. The Europeans could not compete with India in a free market international economy, so because they could not compete, they resorted to using force and piracy to gain control of international trade on their terms and to destroy their competitors by taxing them into oblivion, and thereby moving the centre of trade by force into England(in places like Manchester and Sheffield)

The rise of Europe is not out of any superiority of its culture or technology, but out of looting and plundering, like barbarians, of more wealthier countries. This is a clear fact that all European people are going to have to face. It’s development today rests on the backs of slave labour and looting and pillaging of other civilisations. The Europeans have been the most succesful pirates in history. They gave India, not superior systems, but corrupt systems which has lead to the rise of a corrupt India today with massive social inequality.

See what I mean? I think we need to get this moved to a different thread.

http://www.yogaforums.com/forums/f33/persecution-of-hindus-and-ending-it-7604.html#post54017

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;53940]Taoism is officially recognised as a religion by modern definition of religions. It was also recognised as a religion historically in China, even during the times of Confucious.[/QUOTE]

Maybe. But I dont think its a religion… a religion has methods and principles. Taoist texts, Tao Te Ching and Chuang-Tzu’s essays, dont have such principles.

Indeed this is a debatable subject.