Critique of the West in Indic literature and society

[J.B. Sharma]

Lars Martin Fosse wrote :
 I still miss references to a more systematic and sophisticated 
critique of the West and its values. 
----------

 There are several pointed cross-cultural observations along the 
lines you seek in the myriad literature credited to Rajneesh. One 
that stands out in my mind as being quite original is paraphrased 
thus : The Western mind is concerned with the details of the patterns 
of the mind whereas the Eastern mind is just concerned with getting 
out of (transcending) it. 

Regards,
J.B. Sharma



 
 


> From THRASHER at MAIL.LOC.GOV 17 1995 Aug EST 18:17:18
Date: 17 Aug 1995 18:17:18 EST
Reply-To: THRASHER <THRASHER at MAIL.LOC.GOV>
From: ALLEN W THRASHER <THRASHER at MAIL.LOC.GOV>
Subject: CRITIQUE OF WEST IN INDIA

          On the why India kept getting invaded: 
           
          First,  much  of  the  world  keeps  getting  invaded, frequently 
          successfully in  the sense  that  the invaders settle down  as  a 
          ruling group  at  least  for  a century or  two  (e.g. China, any 
          country in  West  Asia a.k.a  the Middle East).  There  are  also 
          cases  of frequent transfer of  control  from  one  polity  whose 
          center  is  outside  the territory to  another, e.g.  Florida  or 
          Louisiana  or  Maine.   Maybe  the  more pertinent question, what 
          needs to  be explained,  is why some regions or nations or states 
          have  been invaded  or transferred less frequently, e.g.  why  in 
          all  the  fights between  the Austrian and  Spanish Habsburgs and 
          France the Habsburgs as far  as  I know never contemplated taking 
          over France, even  when  the Emperor Charles V captured Paris and 
          Francis I.   
           
          Secondly,  without  having  the  slightest  qualifications  as  a 
          military historian it appears to  me  that India has  the problem 
          that it  is easier for someone else  to  move into  it  from  the 
          Northwest than  for  a state based  in  India  to conquer to  the 
          Northwest.   On   the  one  hand  once  one  debouches  onto  the 
          Indo-Gangetic plain  there  are  no  natural boundaries  such  as 
          mountains or oceans for more than  a thousand miles.  (However as 
          someone noted eastern regions such as Bihar held out a good time. 
          Perhaps their dense population base enabled them to  do so.)   On 
          the other hand it  is hard  for  a subcontinental state to expand 
          across the Hindu Kush because it must do  so through a few easily 
          defensible passes - not  to mention that the wealth awaiting them 
          if  they succeeded would I think be  a  lot  less than  what  was 
          available by expansion within the subcontinent.  It seems  to  me 
          that  the states that spanned parts of India and parts of Central 
          Asia (the Kushans, the Moguls) began in Central Asia and expanded 
          to India, not the reverse, and tended to lose their Central Asian 
          holdings.  Jai Singh's sack of Kabul under Aurungzeb was  just  a 
          very big raid.  If conquerors came into India and went forth from 
          it  back  and forth, I  don't think we'd  hear  much  about India 
          "being invaded" or "losing its independence," or any imperialists 
          drawing conclusions about  Indian political and military prowess, 
          or any Indian feeling embarassed. 
           
           
          Allen Thrasher