David B

Re-reading steve Pinker's 'How the Mind Works', I came across this :-

'The anthropologist Donald Brown was puzzled to learn that over the millenia the Hindus of India produced virtually no histories, while the neighbouring Chinese had produced libraries full. He suspected that the potentiates of a hereditary caste society realised that no good could come from a scholar nosing around in records of the past where he might stumble on evidence undermining their claims to have descended from heroes and gods. Brown looked at 25 civilisations and compared the ones orgnised by hereditory caste with the others. None of the caste societies had developed a tradition of writing accurate descriptions of the past; instead of history they had myth and legend. ...also distinguished by lack of political science, social science, natural science, biography, realistic portraiture and uniform education'.

Is this fair comment, and, if so, does it have anything to say about how seriously Hinduism should be viewed?

David B

premjan

Sure, caste is a more primitive mode of organization, and civilization in India remained a bit less technological than in China for sure.

Dharma

The Chinese had histories descended from the Mythical "Yellow Emperor" and the snake Goddess.

Hindus have fantastic mythological records, yes...but they are spiritual records. As I said it is more important to be descended from Manu and understand the virtues of Manu than to really understand his kingship.

Hindus found it more useful to understand the following:

What makes a person a great king? Truth and virtue.

Historians just record the kingship, and as anyone would tell you history is colored by the bias of historians.

The ancient Chinese technoligically beat everyone, hands down.
The Hindus beat everyone hands down in understanding the mind and it's relationship with the universe. It is this understanding that colored scientists notions of what the universe truly is and influenced such ideas as relativity of time and space, Holographic theory, quantum theory, psychology, the theory of multiple/parallel universes etc.

Hindu medical science too was quite influential.

hinduwoman

David B, The anthropologist is actually speaking from a Christian framework where without history (manufactured or otherwise) Christianity cannot survive (fall, birth of Jesus, crucifixtion, resurrection, future Jerusalem all are specific events in the lineal timescheme fullfiling God’s premeditated plan; if they are false then Christianity is false) and so he insists that any civilization worth the name must have a detailed history.

However Hinduism does not work that way. It believes in the cyclic theory of history, that every age will come again. So it does not feel any urge to put down everything in detail.

Secondly Hinduism does have a kind of history mixed with legends in the puranas and epics. For a professional historian it is difficult to separate the facts from legends. However, to a hindu it does NOT matter whether the myths are literally true or not. They provide a particular world-vision and that is enough. History does not determine the truth of dharma. That is why --- though people would sulk if confronted directly about it --- what scholars uncover about origins are not important; the members of the caste would continue as before.


the trouble is Christian societies did not have them either until the Renaissance.

does it have anything to say about how seriously Hinduism should be viewed?
No.
China has libraries, but is it better off than India?
Romans were mad about history and record keeping, where is their empire? Their gods and culture are gone while Hinduism survived both Islam and Christianity.

So the anthropologist’s conclusions are generalizations.

premjan

different strokes for different folks. sometimes hunter gatherers are rich and farmers and industrialists are poor.

David B

I don't think that as a general rule Christian frameworks have much regard for truth.


You say 'what scholars uncover about origins are not important; the members of the caste would continue as before.'

That's what I take exception to. The case seems to be lack of accurate records and uncritically accepting myth helps the domination of some castes by others, without any justification for it.

Further 'also distinguished by lack of political science, social science, natural science, biography, realistic portraiture and uniform education'.

the trouble is Christian societies did not have them either until the Renaissance.'

I don't dispute that Christianity has been traditionally anti science. It is as some enlightened people have been able to cast aside, or adapt, their religion that science has flowered. In the face of opposition from a church which blindly believed dogma like a geocentric earth.

I do think that the caste system, both in theory and, especially, as it has been practiced is a good reason for regarding Hinduism as at best a very flawed religion - at worst, as monstrous as Christianity at its worst. Or very nearly, anyway.

David B

Dharma

Yes it is wrong in practice, I think it unnecessary to create any specialized inheritable stations.


However, that being said, it is a system not wholly unique to India - however, because the system survived it is generally questioned.

Great Brittain still has "blue bloods" marrying blue bloods.
Many people in Europe still love tracing their blood lines.
People in Islam think Mohammad's line was special.
It has been made clear by Jews that the performance of priestly sacrifice and all the caste rules of Judaism would apply in any sacrifice if the Temple of Jerusalem were constructed.


Hindus and Hinduism alone can't be held guilty of trying to maintain blood lines.

David B

True enough. Class systems and nepotism seem pretty ubiquitous. Though there is usually a greater or lesser degree of being able to move across class boundaries.

The Hindu Caste system is pretty impermeable, though. Or that is the impression I've gained.

Which takes us back to the OP - is the claim that caste system's in general don't have accurate histories significant in this?

It seems plausible to me.

David B

premjan

It could be that absence of a concrete history tends to hide the imperfect origins of some blood lines (e.g. when someone of less noble birth managed to seize power and start a dynasty for instance, which probably happened a fair bit).

David B

Indeed! And particularly so when the dynasty wants to claim descent from gods and/or legendary heroes?

David B