A Pakistani guy also tried his best to convert me during a flight, fortunately I knew Quran and Hadiths and he had to go on backfoot. But this is the reality of this cult.
A Saudi client tried to convert me (I was his lawyer). I am a Westerner but Indian racially (long time ago we left), I shave my head, wear camo and steel capped boots when I play, I looked at his dress and head gear and thought, "No thanks". I dont wanna look like a girlie. I politely declined. Hahaha. These backward people are hilarious.
@shiroyasha_007 Race comes first. We cannot hand India over to Abrahamic foreigners and watch the wealth of the race go to another race. First we get rich as a race and then address adapting our scriptures. I am here to defend my genetics, not let another's genetics prevail. Evolution 101.
I am an atheist but civilisational Hindu and support Hindu Rashtra because Sanatana is all inclusive and the most liberal belief. I aggressively counter any conversion talk of abrahamic religion followers and totally frustrate them.😂
Same here because being athiest in hindu society is best, never had any bad experience asking about existence of God.... That's why I promote indic or dharmic religion over abrahmic ones
I was a pretty well read 12 year old when an Irish Catholic priest tried to convert me ( i have stayed just opposite a Roman Catholic church almost all my life). He told me i was a satan worshipper and i was going to go to hell. I asked him a few pointed questions on the historicity of Jesus and the appropriation of Pagan festivals, etc and he turned to the colour of a boiled lobster and started to look like he is going to have a stroke and left cursing. Still look back on it and have a good laugh 😂
Had faced multiple conversation attempts by the cult members over many years, but they had to backtrack as I have in-depth knowledge on these issues. Fantastic analysis and conversation 🙏
So glad to see that you got Carvaka Maharishi!!! Nice talk!!! Agreed on the Indian content landscape being poor on content but high on clickbait. Keep up the good work. Read his book ''Nastik : Why I'm not an Athiest''.
@@PragyaanPodcast no one takes kushal and his gang seriously. they are well known western supremacist ideologues trying to grift off of hindutva. The sheer amount of disinformation they pour into world is staggering.
Mrs. Mira Bhupathi, mother of Mahesh Bhupathi a famous ex-tennis player, was trying to convert me to Christianity during a flight from Mumbai to Bangalore in 2014. I still remember how serious she was and how hard she was trying.
Home Sapien discovered alcohol. (SOMA). The need to create alcohol.in bulk led to agriculture.. Agriculture lad to land use and labor logistics etc. Then civilisation and masses that need to be controlled gave rise to the military. The stick was not enough to keep masses of people away from mischief. So religion came into play...The first time religion was organised was after the battle of ten Kings.
I think religion was created to counter fascism. In the age of monarchy, kings would become totalitarian and oppressive. Thus,, people liked an institution of priests, who had moral authority to tell the king, that there is a power above you. All the Hindu Puranic stories, are about defeating oppressive kings by an avatar. People simplify caste system to brahman oppressing shudras. In reality, brahman's job was to control the kshatriya and make them rule responsibly. That's why kshatriya despite physical strength, were below brahman who is physically weak. But when brahman and kshatriya combine, as in the case of Ravana, the person became an expansionist plunderer, despite being knowledgeable. The balance of power was disturbed.
No, monotheism is fascism and atheism is a branch of monotheism. there was no such thing as atheism in ancient bharata and Nastik only refers to Jainas and buddhists. Carvak is a fake school fabricated by colonial indologists.
Gosh ! just found out this channel and loved it. I always loved Kushal's intellectual depth and his articulation. I really like how well you structured your questionaire. This Channel is a "Goldmine". Keep up the good work pragya. :)
My dad wrote a book called “ ethical philosophies of India” his name is Dr I C Sharma . His book was even a popular text book in USA My PhD is in western philosophy “ the role of the critic and the logic of criticism in Hegel, Bruno Bauer and the Frankfurt School” Purely a study of Phenomenology and Adorno. I finally read my dad’ book after he passed away and felt so guilty that I had never bothered to study induc schools of thought. He had explained to me the nastiest and astir schools Yes the Astic schools believe in tha Vedas , but you are not accurate as in even in astir schools the vedas can be denied, and this is crucial they believe the correctness of vedas not absolutely as the Abrahamics do.. Check my dad’ s book The atheists are basically Abrahamics , the only thing they reject is Abrahamic mythology , not its teachings, not it’s dogmatism , not it’s Aristotelian rigidity of a single paradigm
Good to see a real PHD in Philosophy take a certain JNU product/grifter-opportunist/colonial collaborator to task. There was no such thing as atheism in ancient Bharata. Atheism is a product of the western Enlightenment, a result of secularization of christianity. Indologists/missionaries etc have been falsely projecting it back into ancient Bharata since it much easier to project a generic secularized christianity, than actual localized christianity. For example the term nirishwar refers to nirguna aspect of brahman and has nothing to with atheism. A lot of the evidence for "carvaka" is projection and much of it also colonial fabrication. Recently, this gang also discovered verses against "infidels" in the context of veda ninda in Hindu texts, predictably ascribed to ancient atheists, by citing translations of the missionary scholar Oliveille! It does not even make sense from everything we know about the type of culture/civilization that bharata was. Nastik referred only to Jaina-s and Bauddha-s. And even this is a later usage referring not so much to anti-vedic but rather to post- or extra- vedic paths where the line of teachers/gurus is given precedence: eg boddhisattvas, buddhas, tirthankaras, etc. Neither of these were against Deities and indeed they both have Devas. They also tend to depict Deities in the form of a teacher or mendicant, changing rupa or bhesha of devas is also found in Sanatan. In older literature nastika refers to the Aghori sect, as does the term chandala (Bhagavan Shiva as an ascetic with four dogs ie Vedas, implyng Knower of Vedas; Chhanda-la means protected or reared up by Chhandas, just as Shakunta-la refers to raised by birds; here the brits tried to remap the term to outcast tribe, a forerunner of "Dalit" construction by american academics). It is the aghori sect which is also discussed in Srimad Bhagavad Gita, certainly not buddhists or others. Similarly, Sramana referred originally to Saiva wandering Sadhus as opposed to Brahmanas who were grihastha. We see these sadhus even today. When the carvaka supposedly states, there is no dharma or the like, this is quite obviously a remapping of the aghori's abandoning of vyaktigat dharma. When it supposedly states that there is only this world, this in fact is the hindu position of there being nothing outside the cosmos. The verse regarding living on borrowed money is quite obvious a BEIC fabrication. Colonizers promote hedonistic views among their subjects to this day. The earlier usage of nastika was for "extreme" left handed practices by ascetic orders like the aghori and possibly sakta (extreme in terms of accessibility to the grihastha). In both cases, it had nothing to do with atheism which is a western enlightenment product. Carvaka is a completely fabricated category where the ordinary egoism discussed throught our texts is compelexed into a philosophical belief system. The phenomenological and its experiential transcendance is transformed into an ideological category in the usual monotheist fashion (referred in your post as 'doxa'). The inclusion of carvaka as nastik by Sri Ramanujam in his survey is only to emphasize that enlightenment is possible even among the mundane, which has always been the hindu view eg, Sisupala killed by Shri Vishnu and attaining moksha. Carvaka also meant a conman in ancient India. A sophist. A contrarian. A degenerate. Something more degenerate than ordinary sansarik folk. Of course the sepoys will start making an ideology and religion out it. It just goes with the colonial trend projecting heinousness onto ancient bharata. It's done using native materials/texts using strained reinterpretation. Just like the distortionist/contortionist Devdutt. Ajita Kesamkambali, the supposed atheist, is quite ibvioulsy a fabrication with specific refernce to the "hair shirt" worn by medieval christian monks! Just another colonial fabrication! The Ramayana episode with the supposed carvak is another fabrication/interpolation as widely acknowldged. This just underlines that there was colonial intent in this case of fabrication of the carvaka as a "philosophical school" The recounts of Makkhali Gosala make it quite clear that his "determinism" was simply a restating of the common hindu sentiment of sabh bhagwan ki dena or iccha hai. It was certainly not atheism. Hedonism in ancient greece was associated with the dionysian which is for all practical purproses Shaiva-like. This again emphasizes that construction of hedonist philosophical school in ancient greece associated with the Gods was also very likely a monotheist colonial project. Also tied in here is 19th century recycling of greek terms into sociopolitical tracts eg the dionysian, the oedipal. Brits and their sepoys tried to tamper with vedic traditions. Manu smriti is another such case. We know this happens. In fact they fabricated an ENTIRE false history for us. The truth is that nothing survives of carvaka because it was never a real school or teaching, etc. We have plenty of jain and buddhist texts. they need to posit "brahmin conspiracy" to explain everything away - a clear indication of the colonial/monotheist origin. Same applies to the contention that ancient india was a hotbed of anti-ritual and anti-idolatry "revolutionary activity". The entire "rational" vs "irrational" dichotomy emerged in Enlightenment Europe as a part of orientalist colonial discourse. The natives are deemed as irrational, needing to be saved and liberated by the colonizer. In this colonial discourse, the native is irrational just like women supposedly are. At some point this orientalist social discourse also appropriate material methods, likely as a guise. I am not at all convinced on the positivist origins of science. rather it seems an attempt to appropriate material methods, much as "Islamic science" or "Christian science". The primary doamin of postivism is the social, socail engineering, etc. Cultural marxism is just the latest permutation of enlightenment postivism. Carvaka was just a description of certain tendencies in ancient people. It was not demagoguery, much more like psychopathy. Leave it to Indians to fall for a fabricated belief system out of this. The book was reviewed by someone on social media. it was unfavorable. Most of the stuff being bandied around here as carvaka is just repackaged J Peterson and other fringe american political opinions. Even Westerners are not fully onboard the westerm cult of rationalism, as indicated by authors and trends like Dostoevsky. There was no category of religion or even ideology in ancient Bharata. This itself indicates that this entire thesis is just another exercise in colonial anachronism. The "carvakas" are colonially constructed much like the "aryans" are constructed, as bringers of logic and civilization. To lend it credence as a genuine grouping is like saying there was race of fools and buffoons in ancient bharata. Look at how a conman can be described - he uses deductive (or specious) logic and denies that he is using inference! Same as the carvaka. Logic is not a property of persons. It is a property of normative linguistic statements which can be useful in colonial discourse and indeed engender such. Mathematical logic is another animal altogether, different than social language. There is in fact no singular logic reflected by the fact that is no universal grammar (Chomsky). Even basic term are unknown in certain cultures. In psychological systems, there is a category for subjective logic, with objective logic simply being a subjective logic mutually agreed upon. Car-bak literally means "sweet talker" ie a deceptive person, a "smooth operator" or swindler. The Hindi term 'achaar' referring to pickles (ie "not sweet") is of the same derivation! In traditional texts where car-bak is used, it refers to this connotation of fool/buffoon/criminal/swindler. Savakar was not atheist. He wrote poems to the goddesses in his own blood. neither was bhagat singh- his book on the subject is a forgery with no known manuscript, unlike his other writings. Just speaks to the fact that these atheists are acting like typical monotheists, trying to politically subvert and tamper with the culture and timeline. Both monotheists and atheists also try to coopt native terms for themselves. Inculturation. Cultural appropriation. The claim that the Vedas show scepticism is plainly colonial projection. Not knowing is stated in the sense of being the opposite of Knowing, just as the gita discuses both acting and not acting as an attribute of the Stithpragna (or Deity). This entire indian atheist gang is bad faith and unscrupulous and disingenuous. And they are widely known to be deracinated (their atheism is a consequence of their deracination). DMK rationalists are typologically the same as this gang and DMK is known to be of colonial genesis. Pseudointellects. Lastly, the development of atheism in the west started since the enlightenment and can be traced in minute detail as an outgrowth of christianity. Indian atheists are just a branch of the same. This ideology comes prepackaged with a bunch of plainly christian tropes: anti-ritualism, anti-idolatry, anti-"priest", pro-colonial history, and millenarian pretensions to "reorganize society". all this signifies its cohesion as an ideology.
The truth is that nothing survives of carvaka because it was never a real school or teaching, etc. We have plenty of jain and buddhist texts. they need to posit "brahmin conspiracy" to explain everything away - a clear indication of the colonial/monotheist origin. Same applies to the contention that ancient india was a hotbed of anti-ritual and anti-idolatry "revolutionary activity". The entire "rational" vs "irrational" dichotomy emerged in Enlightenment Europe as a part of orientalist colonial discourse. The natives are deemed as irrational, needing to be saved and liberated by the colonizer. In this colonial discourse, the native is irrational just like women supposedly are. At some point this orientalist social discourse also appropriate material methods, likely as a guise. I am not at all convinced on the positivist origins of science. rather it seems an attempt to appropriate material methods, much as "Islamic science" or "Christian science". The primary doamin of postivism is the social, socail engineering, etc. Cultural marxism is just the latest permutation of enlightenment postivism. Carvaka was just a description of certain tendencies in ancient people. It was not demagoguery, much more like psychopathy. Leave it to Indians to fall for a fabricated belief system out of this. The book was reviewed by someone on social media. it was unfavorable. Most of the stuff being bandied around here as carvaka is just repackaged J Peterson and other fringe american political opinions. Even Westerners are not fully onboard the westerm cult of rationalism, as indicated by authors and trends like Dostoevsky. There was no category of religion or even ideology in ancient Bharata. This itself indicates that this entire thesis is just another exercise in colonial anachronism. The "carvakas" are colonially constructed much like the "aryans" are constructed, as bringers of logic and civilization. To lend it credence as a genuine grouping is like saying there was race of fools and buffoons in ancient bharata. Look at how a conman can be described - he uses deductive (or specious) logic and denies that he is using inference! Same as the carvaka. Logic is not a property of persons. It is a property of normative linguistic statements which can be useful in colonial discourse and indeed engender such. Mathematical logic is another animal altogether, different than social language. There is in fact no singular logic reflected by the fact that is no universal grammar (Chomsky). Even basic term are unknown in certain cultures. In psychological systems, there is a category for subjective logic, with objective logic simply being a subjective logic mutually agreed upon. Car-bak literally means "sweet talker" ie a deceptive person, a "smooth operator" or swindler. The Hindi term 'achaar' referring to pickles (ie "not sweet") is of the same derivation! In traditional texts where car-bak is used, it refers to this connotation of fool/buffoon/criminal/swindler. Savakar was not atheist. He wrote poems to the goddesses in his own blood. neither was bhagat singh- his book on the subject is a forgery with no known manuscript, unlike his other writings. Just speaks to the fact that these atheists are acting like typical monotheists, trying to politically subvert and tamper with the culture and timeline. Both monotheists and atheists also try to coopt native terms for themselves. Inculturation. Cultural appropriation. The claim that the Vedas show scepticism is plainly colonial projection. Not knowing is stated in the sense of being the opposite of Knowing, just as the gita discuses both acting and not acting as an attribute of the Stithpragna (or Deity). This entire indian atheist gang is bad faith and unscrupulous and disingenuous. And they are widely known to be deracinated (their atheism is a consequence of their deracination). DMK rationalists are typologically the same as this gang and DMK is known to be of colonial genesis. Pseudointellects. Lastly, the development of atheism in the west started since the enlightenment and can be traced in minute detail as an outgrowth of christianity. Indian atheists are just a branch of the same. This ideology comes prepackaged with a bunch of plainly christian tropes: anti-ritualism, anti-idolatry, anti-"priest", pro-colonial history, and millenarian pretensions to "reorganize society". all this signifies its cohesion as an ideology. =============== Refer to: [For more on atheism: At the Modern origins of Modern Atheism: Father Michael J Buckley. Christians were called atheists, Even though they believe in Lord God. For more: Porphyry among the Early Christians, In Romanitas et Christianitas, by Grant R.M., 1973. Pagan criticism of Christianity during the first 2 centuries A.D., In Aufsteig and Niedergang der Rominschen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neuren Forscgung, pp1055-1118., by Benko Stephen, 1980. Pagan Rome and the Early Christians: Batsford Ltd, London, by Benko Stephen. Recent Book on Christian understanding Roman pagans: Literature and Religion at Rome : Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs by Denis Feeney. In this book, the author argues that then pagans never had belief system, even though they held beliefs.]
The truth is that nothing survives of carvaka because it was never a real school or teaching, etc. We have plenty of jain and buddhist texts. they need to posit "brahmin conspiracy" to explain everything away - a clear indication of the colonial/monotheist origin. Same applies to the contention that ancient india was a hotbed of anti-ritual and anti-idolatry "revolutionary activity". The entire "rational" vs "irrational" dichotomy emerged in Enlightenment Europe as a part of orientalist colonial discourse. The natives are deemed as irrational, needing to be saved and liberated by the colonizer. In this colonial discourse, the native is irrational just like women supposedly are. At some point this orientalist social discourse also appropriate material methods, likely as a guise. I am not at all convinced on the positivist origins of science. rather it seems an attempt to appropriate material methods, much as "Islamic science" or "Christian science". The primary doamin of postivism is the social, socail engineering, etc. Cultural marxism is just the latest permutation of enlightenment postivism. Carvaka was just a description of certain tendencies in ancient people. It was not demagoguery, much more like psychopathy. Leave it to Indians to fall for a fabricated belief system out of this. The book was reviewed by someone on social media. it was unfavorable. Most of the stuff being bandied around here as carvaka is just repackaged J Peterson and other fringe american political opinions. Even Westerners are not fully onboard the westerm cult of rationalism, as indicated by authors and trends like Dostoevsky. There was no category of religion or even ideology in ancient Bharata. This itself indicates that this entire thesis is just another exercise in colonial anachronism. The "carvakas" are colonially constructed much like the "aryans" are constructed, as bringers of logic and civilization. To lend it credence as a genuine grouping is like saying there was race of fools and buffoons in ancient bharata. Look at how a conman can be described - he uses deductive (or specious) logic and denies that he is using inference! Same as the carvaka. Logic is not a property of persons. It is a property of normative linguistic statements which can be useful in colonial discourse and indeed engender such. Mathematical logic is another animal altogether, different than social language. There is in fact no singular logic reflected by the fact that is no universal grammar (Chomsky). Even basic term are unknown in certain cultures. In psychological systems, there is a category for subjective logic, with objective logic simply being a subjective logic mutually agreed upon. Car-bak literally means "sweet talker" ie a deceptive person, a "smooth operator" or swindler. The Hindi term 'achaar' referring to pickles (ie "not sweet") is of the same derivation! In traditional texts where car-bak is used, it refers to this connotation of fool/buffoon/criminal/swindler. Savakar was not atheist. He wrote poems to the goddesses in his own blood. neither was bhagat singh- his book on the subject is a forgery with no known manuscript, unlike his other writings. Just speaks to the fact that these atheists are acting like typical monotheists, trying to politically subvert and tamper with the culture and timeline. Both monotheists and atheists also try to coopt native terms for themselves. Inculturation. Cultural appropriation. The claim that the Vedas show scepticism is plainly colonial projection. Not knowing is stated in the sense of being the opposite of Knowing, just as the gita discuses both acting and not acting as an attribute of the Stithpragna (or Deity). This entire indian atheist gang is bad faith and unscrupulous and disingenuous. And they are widely known to be deracinated (their atheism is a consequence of their deracination). DMK rationalists are typologically the same as this gang and DMK is known to be of colonial genesis. Pseudointellects. Lastly, the development of atheism in the west started since the enlightenment and can be traced in minute detail as an outgrowth of christianity. Indian atheists are just a branch of the same. This ideology comes prepackaged with a bunch of plainly christian tropes: anti-ritualism, anti-idolatry, anti-"priest", pro-colonial history, and millenarian pretensions to "reorganize society". all this signifies its cohesion as an ideology. =============== Refer to: [For more on atheism: At the Modern origins of Modern Atheism: Father Michael J Buckley. Christians were called atheists, Even though they believe in Lord God. For more: Porphyry among the Early Christians, In Romanitas et Christianitas, by Grant R.M., 1973. Pagan criticism of Christianity during the first 2 centuries A.D., In Aufsteig and Niedergang der Rominschen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neuren Forscgung, pp1055-1118., by Benko Stephen, 1980. Pagan Rome and the Early Christians: Batsford Ltd, London, by Benko Stephen. Recent Book on Christian understanding Roman pagans: Literature and Religion at Rome : Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs by Denis Feeney. In this book, the author argues that then pagans never had belief system, even though they held beliefs.]
The truth is that nothing survives of carvaka because it was never a real school or teaching, etc. We have plenty of jain and buddhist texts. they need to posit "brahmin conspiracy" to explain everything away - a clear indication of the colonial/monotheist origin. Same applies to the contention that ancient india was a hotbed of anti-ritual and anti-idolatry "revolutionary activity". The entire "rational" vs "irrational" dichotomy emerged in Enlightenment Europe as a part of orientalist colonial discourse. The natives are deemed as irrational, needing to be saved and liberated by the colonizer. In this colonial discourse, the native is irrational just like women supposedly are. At some point this orientalist social discourse also appropriate material methods, likely as a guise. I am not at all convinced on the positivist origins of science. rather it seems an attempt to appropriate material methods, much as "Islamic science" or "Christian science". The primary doamin of postivism is the social, socail engineering, etc. Cultural marxism is just the latest permutation of enlightenment postivism. Carvaka was just a description of certain tendencies in ancient people. It was not demagoguery, much more like psychopathy. Leave it to Indians to fall for a fabricated belief system out of this. The book was reviewed by someone on social media. it was unfavorable. Most of the stuff being bandied around here as carvaka is just repackaged J Peterson and other fringe american political opinions. Even Westerners are not fully onboard the westerm cult of rationalism, as indicated by authors and trends like Dostoevsky. There was no category of religion or even ideology in ancient Bharata. This itself indicates that this entire thesis is just another exercise in colonial anachronism. The "carvakas" are colonially constructed much like the "aryans" are constructed, as bringers of logic and civilization. To lend it credence as a genuine grouping is like saying there was race of fools and buffoons in ancient bharata. Look at how a conman can be described - he uses deductive (or specious) logic and denies that he is using inference! Same as the carvaka. Logic is not a property of persons. It is a property of normative linguistic statements which can be useful in colonial discourse and indeed engender such. Mathematical logic is another animal altogether, different than social language. There is in fact no singular logic reflected by the fact that is no universal grammar (Chomsky). Even basic term are unknown in certain cultures. In psychological systems, there is a category for subjective logic, with objective logic simply being a subjective logic mutually agreed upon. Car-bak literally means "sweet talker" ie a deceptive person, a "smooth operator" or swindler. The Hindi term 'achaar' referring to pickles (ie "not sweet") is of the same derivation! In traditional texts where car-bak is used, it refers to this connotation of fool/buffoon/criminal/swindler. Savakar was not atheist. He wrote poems to the goddesses in his own blood. neither was bhagat singh- his book on the subject is a forgery with no known manuscript, unlike his other writings. Just speaks to the fact that these atheists are acting like typical monotheists, trying to politically subvert and tamper with the culture and timeline. Both monotheists and atheists also try to coopt native terms for themselves. Inculturation. Cultural appropriation. The claim that the Vedas show scepticism is plainly colonial projection. Not knowing is stated in the sense of being the opposite of Knowing, just as the gita discuses both acting and not acting as an attribute of the Stithpragna (or Deity). This entire indian atheist gang is bad faith and unscrupulous and disingenuous. And they are widely known to be deracinated (their atheism is a consequence of their deracination). DMK rationalists are typologically the same as this gang and DMK is known to be of colonial genesis. Pseudointellects. Lastly, the development of atheism in the west started since the enlightenment and can be traced in minute detail as an outgrowth of christianity. Indian atheists are just a branch of the same. This ideology comes prepackaged with a bunch of plainly christian tropes: anti-ritualism, anti-idolatry, anti-"priest", pro-colonial history, and millenarian pretensions to "reorganize society". all this signifies its cohesion as an ideology. =============== Refer to: [For more on atheism: At the Modern origins of Modern Atheism: Father Michael J Buckley. Christians were called atheists, Even though they believe in Lord God. For more: Porphyry among the Early Christians, In Romanitas et Christianitas, by Grant R.M., 1973. Pagan criticism of Christianity during the first 2 centuries A.D., In Aufsteig and Niedergang der Rominschen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neuren Forscgung, pp1055-1118., by Benko Stephen, 1980. Pagan Rome and the Early Christians: Batsford Ltd, London, by Benko Stephen. Recent Book on Christian understanding Roman pagans: Literature and Religion at Rome : Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs by Denis Feeney. In this book, the author argues that then pagans never had belief system, even though they held beliefs.]
The truth is that nothing survives of carvaka because it was never a real school or teaching, etc. We have plenty of jain and buddhist texts. they need to posit "brahmin conspiracy" to explain everything away - a clear indication of the colonial/monotheist origin. Same applies to the contention that ancient india was a hotbed of anti-ritual and anti-idolatry "revolutionary activity". The entire "rational" vs "irrational" dichotomy emerged in Enlightenment Europe as a part of orientalist colonial discourse. The natives are deemed as irrational, needing to be saved and liberated by the colonizer. In this colonial discourse, the native is irrational just like women supposedly are. At some point this orientalist social discourse also appropriate material methods, likely as a guise. I am not at all convinced on the positivist origins of science. rather it seems an attempt to appropriate material methods, much as "Islamic science" or "Christian science". The primary doamin of postivism is the social, socail engineering, etc. Cultural marxism is just the latest permutation of enlightenment postivism. Carvaka was just a description of certain tendencies in ancient people. It was not demagoguery, much more like psychopathy. Leave it to Indians to fall for a fabricated belief system out of this. The book was reviewed by someone on social media. it was unfavorable. Most of the stuff being bandied around here as carvaka is just repackaged J Peterson and other fringe american political opinions. Even Westerners are not fully onboard the westerm cult of rationalism, as indicated by authors and trends like Dostoevsky. There was no category of religion or even ideology in ancient Bharata. This itself indicates that this entire thesis is just another exercise in colonial anachronism. The "carvakas" are colonially constructed much like the "aryans" are constructed, as bringers of logic and civilization. To lend it credence as a genuine grouping is like saying there was race of fools and buffoons in ancient bharata. Look at how a conman can be described - he uses deductive (or specious) logic and denies that he is using inference! Same as the carvaka. Logic is not a property of persons. It is a property of normative linguistic statements which can be useful in colonial discourse and indeed engender such. Mathematical logic is another animal altogether, different than social language. There is in fact no singular logic reflected by the fact that is no universal grammar (Chomsky). Even basic term are unknown in certain cultures. In psychological systems, there is a category for subjective logic, with objective logic simply being a subjective logic mutually agreed upon. Car-bak literally means "sweet talker" ie a deceptive person, a "smooth operator" or swindler. The Hindi term 'achaar' referring to pickles (ie "not sweet") is of the same derivation! In traditional texts where car-bak is used, it refers to this connotation of fool/buffoon/criminal/swindler. Savakar was not atheist. He wrote poems to the goddesses in his own blood. neither was bhagat singh- his book on the subject is a forgery with no known manuscript, unlike his other writings. Just speaks to the fact that these atheists are acting like typical monotheists, trying to politically subvert and tamper with the culture and timeline. Both monotheists and atheists also try to coopt native terms for themselves. Inculturation. Cultural appropriation. The claim that the Vedas show scepticism is plainly colonial projection. Not knowing is stated in the sense of being the opposite of Knowing, just as the gita discuses both acting and not acting as an attribute of the Stithpragna (or Deity). This entire indian atheist gang is bad faith and unscrupulous and disingenuous. And they are widely known to be deracinated (their atheism is a consequence of their deracination). DMK rationalists are typologically the same as this gang and DMK is known to be of colonial genesis. Pseudointellects. Lastly, the development of atheism in the west started since the enlightenment and can be traced in minute detail as an outgrowth of christianity. Indian atheists are just a branch of the same. This ideology comes prepackaged with a bunch of plainly christian tropes: anti-ritualism, anti-idolatry, anti-"priest", pro-colonial history, and millenarian pretensions to "reorganize society". all this signifies its cohesion as an ideology. =============== Refer to: [For more on atheism: At the Modern origins of Modern Atheism: Father Michael J Buckley. Christians were called atheists, Even though they believe in Lord God. For more: Porphyry among the Early Christians, In Romanitas et Christianitas, by Grant R.M., 1973. Pagan criticism of Christianity during the first 2 centuries A.D., In Aufsteig and Niedergang der Rominschen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neuren Forscgung, pp1055-1118., by Benko Stephen, 1980. Pagan Rome and the Early Christians: Batsford Ltd, London, by Benko Stephen. Recent Book on Christian understanding Roman pagans: Literature and Religion at Rome : Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs by Denis Feeney. In this book, the author argues that then pagans never had belief system, even though they held beliefs.]
so happy that more and more females are coming in podcast realm , always wondered why our girls aren't in podcast serious discussion scene , and kushal is always good in analyzing, perfect for long intellectual discussions
13:22 Road outside your colony is to built by the government, why would individuals or colony people lay the roads? Government is elected to do the things that we as Individuals cant do , like roads, electricity , water supply, gas line etc;
FIRST YOU SHUD VE ASKED HOW & WHY DOES ASTIK & NASTIK CAME ABOUT... TO FIRST CLEAR ON OUR GROUND & NOT WORRY ABOUT WHAT WEST WUD THINK... INCURABLY NCERT ENDING IN 1 LINE...
Man… Kushal hasn’t washed 🧼 his shoes 👟 🤮… Kya celebrity bneyga rey tuu 😂😂😂 A Celebrity changes his wife every five minutes and shoes every 2 minutes 🙄
Amazing podcast. Admire the level of intellectual capital Kushal has w.r.t Indic Schools of Thought. ( Way of perceiving Reality ) J Sai deepak , Abhijit Chavda and Kushal Mehra ....these folks are truly remarkable when it comes to explaining Religion, Historiography and Societal issues.
Engaging discussion. But will point out some misrepresentation. @31:30 Please tell us 1 of any 8/10 core tech companies founded by humanity students? I think you’re mixing business entrepreneurs with tech entrepreneurs. Without studying the basics of technology, “founding/laying the base for a tech Co” is difficult. Hah, people could use tech to solve a business, ethical problem tho. Different point altogether.
I know my facts Sir. Here is a link for you to know more - www.univariety.com/blog/corporate-leaders-with-humanities-degree/ Hope this helps. The point I was trying to make that humanities is very critical. Steve Jobs and others took humanities subjects along with their main subject and that helped them stand apart.
@@PragyaanPodcast I’m sorry but with all due respect you need to go through the link you shared yourself. None of the examples cited (with exception to Steve Jobs) are about any “founders” having founded a Tech Company. They might have gone on to become CEOs or some leadership position in tech companies (& at the most spearheading a product). That’s a totally different paradigm compared to establishing a Tech Co & solving a tech problem. Like I mentioned in my original comment , it’d be extremely rare for a humanities student with NO background in tech to Co-found a Tech company. (& nothing to take away from Steve Jobs, but he also needed a Steve Wozniak). And just to be clear.… I’m also not saying humanities student can’t lead a tech Co or as a leader can’t oversee a new tech product in a company & I agree to your point - they might bring in new perspective, but I’d argue it’d be extremely rare for them to Co-found a Tech Co & solve a Tech problem with their educational background.
15:35 I don’t like Kushal showing off his follower count like this. Very bad Kushal especially considering that you are an established high profile writer now ✍️ 📝
Is it possible, at this moment in the podcast, the talk is silently hinting at the general character of people? People populate the various departments of the government and institutions.
Re: Hindutva, there is a response at another level missed out by the two talking heads here: * First, on an independent and unbiased basis, attempt to define key performance indicators of a society anywhere globally for well-being, prosperity, progress, etc of citizens, especially those of so-called minorities along various dimensions. * Then, independently check the FACTs the way say someone like Dr Thomas Sowell, world-leading economist at Stanford Research Institute, would. Undeniably, one will find Bharat under Hindutva, say since 2014 onwards, has been better than any other. Facts support Hindutva, and that's a profound rationale to carry Hindutva forward with shraddha.
@jiten2023 Bowing down to man has destroyed the world, not bowing down to God. I am only relaying a message God Vishnu has given me and I am a Hindu. India faces many catastrophes soon in form of nuclear war with Pakistan and invasion by China+ 13 Muslim nations. And then HE would come who is blessed in the name of the LORD. That is why I am preaching the Gospel of the SON of GOD Vishnu.
