She says her book could be a misplaced discourse because the text it’s on is so old. Good!
It disappeared in the 12th century and was rediscovered in the early 20th. Weber said it makes Machiavelli look harmless. Everyone knows about the Vedas, you never hear about the political philosophy of the Hindus.
Love to see this description
These authors regarded the “state” – if that word might be used here –
This book on it I’m looking at interprets order as dharma, which is generally seen as a word that doesn’t have a translation.
She calls it a non-western contribution to political theory
Laruelle is such a cracker.
Taunting him, taunting myself
Nooo she’s interpreting it through western hermeneutics (explicitly referring to Gadamer).
Laruelle puts me in a “put it all in a burn barrel” mood, I’ll give him that.
In the author’s display picture she has a dot on her forehead, so that’s a good sign.
If one is born in a modernized/westernized India, western hermeneutics IS a possible way to retvrn to tradition… Or to be imperialized without realizing it.
I can tell this book was definitely written by a brahmin though, without even having to look up the name.
I started the day wondering if there is a study on neanderthals, thought how some genetic scientists are thinking of reviving them, and how there’s a backlash against that because it would be “humiliating” to live as a neanderthal, then thought “Weren’t neanderthals more advanced than native australians, africans, and americans?” Can’t say the same about brahmins of India. The typical cracker is afraid of “elitology” like this. Just talking about the various creatures of the pre-posthuman zoo.
A note of caution needs to be placed at the outset that it does not “decentre” the ontological objects of study.
Arguably in interpreting it with western concepts like these the text is decentered from the get-go. Silly Indian lady.
This is a good sign though
it does not critically problemitize these concepts and casts them within the framework of pre-westphalian/pre-modern period and examines how they were imagined within the Hindu tradition.
“A westerner telling me not to listen to westerners – why should I listen to you then?”
This is a doctor of diplomatic studies. It’s possible that there is truth to the Arthasastra that one couldn’t put into practice as an Indian diplomat because everyone is forced to submit to western standards. Something itself that doesn’t seem thoroughly diplomatic.
MUH BOMBS, MUH RULEZ
Now I want tease an Indian by calling her a chandala. “We’re literally treated like chandalas on the international stage.” Nah more like shudras. Iranians are treated like chandalas.
Is it just me or do non-whites want to be called racial slurs by white males during sex? Can’t say that, oops. Human psychology is an interesting thing.
“You fucking kike bitch!”
No no, all part of my imagination. “These antisemites are demented!”
Let’s settle down now, we’re trying to understand India here, not Jewish pathologies.
These are unknown in the west
Upinder Singh argues meaning of political in ancient India was inferred from texts like dandniti, arthashastra and nitishastra
I don’t care what English books have to tell me about what “the political” is because they’re all political books themselves.
it is believed that the use of Arthashastra was restricted to a select section of elites who desired its extinction rather than survival.
Hidden for 800 years? Probably circulated among brahmins.
Is Arthashastra beyond disciplinary boundaries? This question could appear anomalous as disciplinary boundaries were not invented when Arthashastra was written.
Everyone knows Confucius and Sun Tzu. What is this? Something like the brahmin Talmud? Secret book of the high IQ caste.
Can you tell the difference between the two books already from this
Kautilya outlined the end purpose of the state as yogakshema – meaning the wellbeing of the people, and this according to him was the essential engine of the state, because it was the scaffold for ensuring the security of the king.
Versus “Screw them over, just not too much.” No lie detected, eh?
Everyone knows this Hindu word–I’ve never heard it in this context, you?
Every function was thus directed to strengthening the state, which was elicited as the highest embodiment of dharma itself.
Political Hinduism – perhaps a genuine “non-philosophy”?
I keep thinking about that raccoon and laughing.
We think of meditators, never of the political order they meditated in. Must have done something right if it facilitated all those systems of mysticism (possibly the highest “genre”). A sure sign that a “political science” is indeed a science. Elsewhere on the web it says the Arthashastra is the oldest text of its kind. Must have been written by a “political Buddha”.
This is hyper-Buddha consciousness
The arthashastra teachers wanted to offer a mid-way and tried understanding the cause of new change advocating that the forces of change could be strengthened with the help of the institution of the state.
She says the idea of the state was introduced around the 6th century BC in India. Perplexing imagining something such as the state being “created”, or “thought up”. We always stereotypically think of monks surrounded by a few disciples. Someone eventually had the idea “We need to think of the broader picture here, not just our clan- everyone around.” Is that what the state is? Is that the origin of what we call the cathedral? Things get so ordinary and first-nature to us we forget why they arose in the first place.
Real time-traveler hours