According to a book on Indian political philosophy, India surprisingly was mostly non-theocratic throughout history
It still carries on “imposing” to this day. It’s all the safest things that the mainstream here knows about India.
Counter-intuitive to think
The pre-capitalist India was a more hospitable place to live in than the pre-capitalist Europe. Only in late history, in and around the 17th and 18th centuries, Europe had marched ahead of India in civilizational progress.
The East India Company, founded in 1600, hmm…
If the above is true then perhaps their pre-westernization political theories could be useful to us.
You can tell the difference between Indians and Chinese from the way they talk in this book- brahmins are smarter. Obviously the Chinese in general have something about them though.
Laruellian reasons for wanting to know about this
I attempt to approach the field of Indian political thought basically as a field in its own right
So, this Kautilya does seem to be their Plato. Had you ever heard of him?
The introduction is calling me out on all my “orientalisms” and he’s not wrong half the time! Sorry, all we’re taught about here is what’s on the list of Schindler.
We’re all such cardboard cut-outs here
You don’t even need to be able to read the titles there, you just know that most post-normie people read basically the same things too. I’ve been trying to find other material, to make us strange. You don’t want to talk to someone new and feel like you’ve talked to the same person a thousand times before.
All we know about from there, politically, is Gandhi. P. S. probably not a coincidence that “It’s enlightened not to be violent, goy!” Gandhi was of the bania usurer-merchant caste I brought up the other day. Did they have “tricks” too? That they’re “up” to?
I can’t recall Strauss ever bringing up Indian political philosophy, that’s interesting to me.
the dharmashastra tradition is more prolific than the arthashastra tradition
Recent political thought that isn’t in the tradition of Marxism whatsoever, that would be so nice to find. Remember Manu?
Something similar could be said about the Greek Tragedians and later Socratics
Laruelle seems like he moved from myth to theory. “Deconstruction as a Veda” heh. I at least get that impression, and that’s pretty crazy that he can do that. Still, the Indians could possibly help us get outside of him, go still further. The Russians certainly do. They still tend to be Platonists though. What is it about myth anyway that people are so fond of? It’s like an ID that they show to get into a club or something. Or a badge that they flash. “Yes, I am one who believes this, I am one with you.” No, I like theory and scientificity, I don’t want to be one with you. “If you want to be part of humanity you have to say that you believe this.”
I’ve never seen anything like this, nor have I even thought to look til now
A major Buddhist text, Dīgha Nikāya, addresses, among others, the question of the origin and evolutionary profile of the state.
I’m thinking of carrying around Plato sitting in a throne attached to my back. This is a possible way to… Because as new-fangled as those French try to convince you that they are, you’re not going to get away from the Greeks by studying them.
I’m pretty sure this stuff is close to totally unknown over here
In the opinion of A. T. Embree (1992, p. 129), ‘this is probably one of the world’s oldest versions of the contractual theory of the state’.
Easterners sitting in lotus. What allowed them to sit like that! Political “meditation”.
Know pretty much nothing about their political thought, while I keep seeing this theme
Even this theme
They had something they call the Indian Renaissance
Orientalism or its India-centered vision made pioneering discoveries of texts and later of forgotten and obscure Eastern/Indological/Indian traditions in the realm of letters and arts, and it projected them as distinctly different traditions from the Western ones.
We’re hostile to the Muslim countries, indifferent to India. And if you know what those Laws of Manu are about, you might have concluded that we could use something like that here. It’s a bias of ours to think they’re only concerned with “non-duality”, that kind of thing.
The Arthashastra could be a method of returning to originary political being
The subjects dealt with prominently are: constituent elements of the state, major departments of the government, taxation system, armed forces and network of spies and the theory of rajamandala and foreign policy.
Similar to Heidegger, I pretty much know what Plato (and Platonists) are going to say. It’s even like that with Confucius. I’ve never heard of “Indian political philosophy” in my life. Kautilya? A Plato from a different dimension?
They were alive at the same time too