An Attempt at Understanding Religions

Most religions are built around a strong God and doctrine, but can there be a religion without a well-defined divinity? What is its purpose and what are its qualities?

For many of us, religion is a way to address a need or seek support during a time of crisis. This may be towards a desired outcome such as success in occupational, familial, financial or similar circumstance, or to avoid undesirable outcomes such as ill-health or failure of some sort. This is the religion of need and it consists of mostly rituals and prayers, each tailored for a specific purpose or situation.

Another large group looks to religion for a self or social identity through a goal, philosophy or focus in life. For them, religion provides a place in a well-defined social group, differentiating them from others. It gives them social support, security and activities to do – productive within their group – which in-turn offers them a reason to exist within the confines of their religion. Rituals are social and communal often with pomp and ceremony designed to impress both the followers and outsiders, and involve all followers. This religion is characterized by doctrines, rules and sects. In some cases, there is a well-defined hierarchy and often logic for its own superiority over other religions or sects. We term this the religion of identity or social religion.

The above two descriptions define religion for most people. Indeed, when we talk of religion, we usually talk only of these forms.

But beyond these two versions, there are at least two others where religion becomes introspective, personal and somewhat ill-defined. The first of these addresses individual development – physical, mental or spiritual. This religion offers frameworks within which one can focus on improving specific aspects of oneself. It contains exercises in self-discipline, challenges to overcome or goals to achieve. This is the religion of self.

The final form of religion is one that helps us understand the world around us. Here, the individual attempts to make sense of cumulative or specific aspects of nature, including of living beings. This may be termed as the religion of knowledge or enlightenment. This is perhaps the most ill-defined of all and contains a variety of approaches. For those that want to go beyond existing knowledge in their areas of interest, the path is nebulous at best. Being individual dependent, it is pluralistic as each path and practitioner requires a different method of inquiry. As the number of practitioners in each form grows, the members form loosely organized structures to preserve their learning and facilitate new entrants to their paths. But, at least among the more learned, there is an acknowledgment that they all represent different paths to the same goal.

The religion of enlightenment includes various sciences too; while we may not see science as part of any religion, practitioners of sciences follow the same path as those pursuing religions of self and enlightenment. Indeed, the earliest sciences were conceived by people of religion who saw it as part of spiritual development.

We all may not recognize the last two as legitimate religions, but for some ancient philosophies – especially Oriental and those that look into inquiry – these represented true religion. Disciplines such as Yoga, Nyaya, Samkhya and Vaiseshika in early Hinduism, Ajivaka, Buddhism and Jainism, Mu’tazila in Islam, the philosophies of Socrates and Aristotle, and Gnosticism in early Christianity are all representations of this form. So much so, some Upanishads in Hinduism’s Vedas dismiss ritualistic religions and learned sciences as inferior and proclaim knowledge that is realized by oneself as superior.

The God of each religion is also different and defined by goals of that religion. In the religion of need, God represents the perceived ideal of that particular need with the ability to give when prayed to; for those seeking support and security, God is the supreme ally and protector, for those seeking wealth, God is the wealthiest and most philanthropic entity, for those trying to cure a physical ailment, God represents the wisest and ablest physician with the power to cause or cure ailments, and so forth.

The God in the religion of identity is more anthropological – the strongest, most powerful, compassionate and in some cases vengeful entity that ensures success and superiority of His or Her own group over others. These groups also frequently get into religious conflicts over opposing philosophies, to emphasize their superiority or in some cases, claim ownership of resources arising from their doctrines. These conflicts do not just occur between religions of identity, but also with other types of religion which are seen as a threat to their doctrines. The persecution of Gnostics by the early Church, that of Mu’tazila by Orthodox Caliphs all point to opposition of introspective religions from more popular sects, particularly those that were establishing an identity for themselves.

The God of the religion of self is somewhat ill-defined and followers of this type of religion usually look to teachers or mentors rather than Gods. Nevertheless, they acknowledge a Superior Power that has made their endeavor possible and provided a structure to it. The God in the religion of enlightenment is also abstract and in many instances, agnosticism or atheism is common in early phases. Rationalism or reasoning is a necessary quality for practitioners of this religion and a God that alters the course of nature or events to suit the wishes of particular individuals or sects is illogical. As the practitioner evolves, God becomes a more omnipresent and abstract entity, but without any anthropological characteristics and the practitioner becomes spiritual rather than religious.

All major religions provide space for practitioners of all four types. They have introspective origins, but over time have developed qualities necessary to appeal to a broader audience. These take the form of religions of need and identity. This is partially an acknowledgement that at various stages in our lives, we require different forms of religions to help us evolve. No one form of religion can address all stages of human evolution. It is not a coincidence that the various types of religion mirror different stages of development.

Nevertheless, it is observed that as society grows larger, religions of the first two forms become more dominant. Individual introspective paths are more difficult to pursue as space for their followers is reduced, and they are often viewed with suspicion. In the end though, without the last two forms, human growth becomes stunted – mired in insecurity and conflicts.

Plant Intelligence, Industrial Farming and Modern Health Issues

Sometime ago, I came across a documentary on plant intelligence which started a train of thought on some of the health issues we face today.

The documentary starts with a study on the sudden deaths of greater kudu antelopes in South Africa’s game reserves in the late 1980s, a period of severe drought. Scientists eventually traced the cause of deaths to the presence of tannin in their gut and identified local acacia trees as the source of the tannin. It was noticed that acacia trees on which the kudus grazed had a higher tannin content as did trees downwind from them. Kudus which grazed downwind were affected and were more prone to dying.

Tannins are toxins that plants develop as a defense mechanism. When a plant is attacked by pests, it generates tannin as a way to ward off or even kill the attacker. Scientists concluded that the tannin that killed the kudus was deliberately produced to dissuade the antelopes from grazing, which the acacia trees saw as a form of attack. Furthermore, the first tree was able to communicate the attack to other trees downwind so that when the kudus reached them, they were ready with the tannin.

In other words, the plants were able to sense an attack and consciously developed a mechanism to stop it. And they communicated this to other plants in their vicinity to help them prepare for the coming attack.

The documentary covers a lot more on how plants react to stimulus in their environments – they respond to music, sleep and wake up, and even have social lives. Clearly plants are far more evolved than we think. They have coexisted long with many other species – symbiotically with some and antagonistically with others – and some have more gene sequences than humans. They can not only sense what is going around them, but are also capable of defending themselves – lethally if need be.

Carrying this thought further, what happens when we cause stress in plants, especially those which we consume? Most modern humans, especially us urban types, think of plants as nothing more than photosynthesis machines and a lower member of the food chain. Many farmers too, view plants as primarily a source of revenue – a thought institutionalized by industrial or factory farming.

Like animals, plants in industrial farms are subject to stresses. Concepts like monoculture, overuse of fertilizers and pesticides, frequent transplantation, alien environments and removal of all surrounding organisms – friend or foe – are unnatural practices, something plants in the wild are not used to. It is natural to expect plants to be affected by these practices and eventually react through defense mechanisms. The mechanisms may not just be producing harmful chemicals, but decreasing beneficial ones.

Our question then becomes – do they? A quick search of allergy statistics in the US reveals an interesting trend – food allergy rates are increasing. While allergies are traced to certain foods or individuals, the actual causes are yet to be determined. The rates are higher in developed countries where industrial farming is practiced more and growing faster in countries where industrial farming is a recent development. There is speculation on what could the cause for this increase, but scientists have noticed that non-industrialized societies seem to show a lesser incidence of allergies. Autism, which has been linked to certain chemicals, also shows similar trends. We can add cancer to this list. Some causes of these health issues are well established, but many are still not understood properly.

Effects of industrial farming are felt on other species as well: colony collapse disorder (CCD) in bees is observed more in industrial farming environments. Other insects and birds too are affected, though their declines are more traceable to habitat destruction and loss of sustaining species.

If it is true that our farming methods trigger lethal plant defense mechanisms, it has far reaching consequences for us. All humanity is directly or indirectly dependent on plant life, but our understanding of plants is minimal. Coupled with the force of industrialization, this ignorance could translate to abuse. We are noticing issues around us that could be viewed as reactions to this abuse, given what we have learnt about plant behavior.

What is the solution? A logical first step would be to step away from the industrial farming model we are following today. We need a deeper understanding of life around us and a more humane approach to other species in our surrounding environment. We may see ourselves as the apex predator, but in the end we are as much part of the same ecology system as those species that sustain us and our well-being is dependent on theirs. There are glimmers of hope – farmers are starting to question some of the existing models and explore others. There is also realization among consumers and citizens in general, of the damage we are causing to the environment through adoption of industrial farming, stressing the lives of other species around us. Our challenge is to make them more widespread and mainstream.

Towards a universal human development model

Is there a universal human development model? Taitriya Upanishad’s Bhrguvalli provides an intriguing idea. It traces sage Bhrgu’s evolution, guided by Varuna, through different stages of consciousness culminating in enlightenment. Brghu is one the preeminent sages in Indian religions and is known as the author of Bhrgusamhita – a work on astrology. He features prominently in several puranas, or stories involving the Indian pantheon and prominent personalities in ancient India. Varuna is one of the devas or celestial beings, in the Indian pantheon and often considered to be deity of the seas.

In Bhrguvalli, Varuna guides Bhrgu through five stages of evolution: Annamaya or the world of food, Pranamaya (the world of life), Manomaya (the world of mind), Vigyanamaya (the world of higher knowledge) and finally Anandamaya (the world of bliss). In more general terms we can think of these as (physical) existence, survival, self-consciousness or identity, higher awareness or intelligence and finally, bliss.

Through Annamaya, Varuna introduces physical nature where all objects affect one another. To exist physically is to be part of this system, one that is common to both the living and non-living. Brghu learns that being part of this cycle is the first step in our evolution.

Life is the next concept that Brghu encounters. Varuna uses the term “Prana”, often interpreted as the energy of life, to identify this stage. Brghu learns that being endowed with that energy is the next stage of evolution.

Varuna then leads Brghu to the next stage – Manomaya or the world of the mind. Awareness of the mind and thoughts signal the onset of individualism. The mind allows us to form and realize our own identity, and acquire knowledge. It also lets us know we have a measure of control over the knowledge we acquire. Individualism is also very important in establishing our identity in society. Bhrgu ponders on this stage and soon realizes his world is that of the mind.

Having realized the power of the mind, Bhrgu is introduced to metaphysics and higher knowledge. Vigyana is often interpreted as science where abstract knowledge and relationships between various entities in nature are explored. Brghu dwells on this and eventually realizes all different types of knowledge he has learned are but facets of a single system. At the end of this stage, Bhrgu is now aware of the universe as a single entity and revels in the bliss that comes with the realization and comprehension of this entity. He has entered the state of Anandamaya.

Hidden in this short passage is a development model devoid of specific regional or cultural traits, and one with a focus on the individual. Not only does it provide a non-violent and non-materialistic path with stages that are universally relatable, it also explains human behavior in a unique way. It addresses different facets of development culminating in, what Eastern religions refer to as, Self-Realization.

An examination of the model shows a progression from physical to social to spiritual development. The first stage of human development – survival – has a few well defined needs, is almost entirely physical and independent of individualism. Identity is somewhat more complex. There are two components to it – self and social identity. Self-identity is how we perceive ourselves and how we want ourselves to be perceived by others. Social identity is how society perceives us. Both identities have several dimensions based on our character and multiple social roles. The eventual identity is often a negotiation between the individual and society, and marks the transition of development from physical to social.

The next stage – intelligence – involves examination of ones’ experiences, observation and introspection. It also requires self-experimentation which could be demanding, both physically and mentally. Occasionally one may join a group of people involved in the same endeavor or even find a mentor, but usually the individual determines his/her path at this stage. The constant self-scrutiny and possibility of multiple failures require us to subsume our survival instincts and identity. This marks the transition from social to spiritual development, eventually culminating in an overall understanding of nature and our role in it.

Models such as this were of great interest to ancient Indians and other societies which were interested in evolution of the soul. In India, a strong ascetic class that focused on understanding and elevating one’s soul developed and formalized several such models. Over time as society grew larger and more complex, the models required interpretations – some conservative and others more liberal, some specific to a lifestyle, others more universal – which gave rise to several philosophical and social sects.

Most people were content on attaining one of the initial stages, but for the few that became discontented, these models provided a path forward. Indian philosophies that embraced the concept of a soul – Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and others – adopted these models as it provided a development path within their system. Over time, they became buried under individual rules and social structures. While they may not be visible today, a little research shows these underlying thoughts exist not just in Eastern philosophies, but in all cultures.

On the Nature of Soul in Indian Religions

Among the many visitors that came to India in the medieval ages was scientist and philosopher Al-Biruni. Born in central Asia, he was captured when Sultan Mehmud of Ghazni conquered the region and taken into the Sultan’s employment as a court astrologer/astronomer. Being of a scientific bent of mind, he offered to accompany the Sultan on his conquest of Western India around 1000 AD. His primary reasons were to learn Hindu mathematics which was significantly different from prevalent Greek and Arab mathematics, to learn Sanskrit literature and to interact with Indian philosophers and scholars.

While his main claims to fame are as mathematician, astronomer and scientist, Al-Biruni was also a learned philosopher, deeply interested in the religions of his time. In the tradition of older societies, he learnt in-depth, the dominant philosophies of his region – Greek, Christ, Islam/Sufi and pre-Arabic. To this he added knowledge of various Indian philosophies he encountered on his trip. In India, he was able to meet and learn from scholars about her various religious and philosophical sects. He has covered Indian religion and philosophy in surprising depth in his work on India (Tarik Al-Hind), comparing them with corresponding thoughts from other faiths. His work gives an excellent picture of India at that time, describing her society, geography, culture and science in great detail, and comparing them with his own native land’s at times.

One of the more interesting topics he has covered is the nature of the soul – a central concept in many of India’s religions. Not only does Al-Biruni discuss the concept of soul in Indian philosophy in detail, but he brings up similar thoughts from other parts of the world.

As the word of confession, “There is no god but God, Muhammad is his prophet,” is the shibboleth of Islam, the Trinity that of Christianity, and the institute of the Sabbath that of Judaism, so metempsychosis (transmigration/development of the soul) is the shibboleth of the Hindu religion. Therefore he who does not believe in it does not belong to them, and is not reckoned as one of them.

Given its importance, numerous philosophers and scholars dwelt on the soul and its qualities at length. Almost everyone of them felt it was of divine origin and all living beings – including plants and animal and in some philosophies, even inanimate objects – were believed to possess a soul and thus have a connection to divinity. Ahimsa (non-violence) was a natural progression; making any creature suffer was tantamount to making oneself and the divinity suffer. On its basic qualities, Al-Biruni says:

Those Hindus who prefer clear and accurate definitions to vague allusions call the soul purusha, which means man, because it is the living element in the existing world. Life is the only attribute which they give to it. They describe it as alternately knowing and not knowing, as not knowing (actually), and as knowing (potentially), gaining knowledge by acquisition. The not-knowing of purusha is the cause why action comes into existence, and its knowing is the cause why action ceases.

Living beings differ from one another when the soul combines with the nature of the creature.

People say the soul resembles the rain-water which comes down from heaven, always the same and of the same nature. However, if it is gathered in vessels placed for the purpose, vessels of different materials, of gold, silver, glass, earthenware, clay, or bitter-salt earth, it begins to differ in appearance, taste, and smell. Thus the soul does not influence matter in any way, except in this, that it gives matter life by being in close contact with it.

Krishna explains the transition of soul through a lifetime to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. In doing so, he emphasizes the immortal nature of the soul, a quality that became central in many philosophies.

“If you believe in predestination, you must know that neither they (Arjuna’s enemies) nor we are mortal, and do not go away without a return, for the souls are immortal and unchangeable. They migrate through the bodies, while man changes from childhood into youth, into manhood and infirm age, the end of which is the death of the body. Thereafter the soul proceeds on its return.”

Al-Biruni brings a Christian description of the soul, which is similar to Krishna’s.

The Apostles asked Jesus about the life of inanimate nature, whereupon he said, ‘If that which is inanimate is separated from the living element which is commingled with it, and appears alone by itself, it is again inanimate and is not capable of living, whilst the living element which has left it, retaining its vital energy unimpaired, never dies.’

The behavior of the soul within and without the body was also considered by many philosophers.To explain metempsychosis, the Indians say the purpose to life is to provide the soul with experience and knowledge. That is, to evolve, the soul needs to be born as a living being.

The soul, as long as it has not risen to the highest absolute intelligence, does not comprehend the totality of objects at once, or, as it were, in no time. Therefore it must explore all particular beings and examine all the possibilities of existence; and as their number is, though not unlimited, still an enormous one, the soul wants an enormous space of time in order to finish the contemplation of such a multiplicity of objects. The soul acquires knowledge only by the contemplation of the individuals and the species, and of their peculiar actions and conditions. It gains experience from each object, and gathers thereby new knowledge.

Patanjali, who formalized the yoga system and is the author of Yoga-sutra, emphasizes this. He felt there is no other way for the soul to evolve.

”The soul, being on all sides tied to ignorance, which is the cause of its being fettered, is like rice in its cover. As long as it is there, it is capable of growing and ripening in the transition stages between being born and giving birth itself. But if the cover is taken off the rice, it ceases to develop in this way, and becomes stationary. The retribution of the soul depends on the various kinds of creatures through which it wanders, upon the extent of life, whether it be long or short, and upon the particular kind of its happiness, be it scanty or ample.”

Krishna offers a somewhat different view on this topic:

“If the soul is free from matter, it is knowing; but as long as it is clad in matter, the soul is not-knowing, on account of the turbid nature of matter. It thinks that it is an agent, and that the actions of the world are prepared for its sake. Therefore it clings to them, and it is stamped with the impressions of the senses. When, then, the soul leaves the body, the traces of the impressions of the senses remain in it, and are not completely eradicated, as it longs for the world of sense and returns towards it. And since it in these stages undergoes changes entirely opposed to each other, it is thereby subject to the influences of the three primary forces. What, therefore, can the soul do, its wing being cut, if it is not sufficiently trained and prepared?”

Al-Biruni also quotes the Greek philospher Socrates, who provides a explanation similar to Krishna’s.

Socrates says in the book Phaedo: “Our souls lead an existence of their own in Hades. The soul of each man is glad or sorry at something, and contemplates this thing. This impressionable nature ties the soul to the body, nails it down in the body, and gives it, as it were, a bodily figure. The soul which is not pure cannot go to Hades. It quits the body still filled with its nature, and then migrates hastily into another body, in which it is, as it were, deposited and made fast. Therefore, it has no share in the living of the company of the unique, pure, divine essence.”

Patanjali describes a somewhat passive or detached learning role for the soul, as have many later philosophers:

The task of the soul is to learn the actions of matter like a spectator, resembling a traveler who sits down in a village to repose. Each villager is busy with his own particular work, but he looks at them and considers their doings, disliking some, liking others, and taking an example from them. In this way he is busy without having himself any share in the business going on, and without being the cause which has brought it about.

Kapila, one of India’s most influential philosophers and father of the Samkhya philosophy, adds an interesting view that the soul is affected by its surroundings whose actions it cannot control fully.

The book of Samkhya brings action into relation with the soul, though the soul has nothing to do with inaction, only in so far as it resembles a man who happens to get into the company of people whom he does not know. They are robbers returning from a village which they have sacked and destroyed, and he has scarcely marched with them a short distance, when they are overtaken by the avengers. The whole party are taken prisoners, and together with them the innocent man is dragged off; and being treated precisely as they are, he receives the same punishment, without having taken part in their action.

And finally when the soul has a complete knowledge of the universe, it no longer needs to be born.

Hindus compare the soul to a dancing-girl who is clever in her art and knows well what effect each motion and pose of hers has. She is in the presence of a sybarite most eager of enjoying what she has learned. Now she begins to produce the various kinds of her art one after the other under the admiring gaze of the host, until her program is finished and the eagerness of the spectator has been satisfied. Then she stops suddenly, since she could not produce anything but a repetition; and as a repetition is not wished for, he dismisses her, and action ceases.

Al-Biruni provides an Islamic context. Quoting Sufi philosophy, he says:

The same doctrine is professed by those Sufı who teach that this world is a sleeping soul and yonder world a soul awake, and who at the same time admit that God is immanent in certain places—e.g. in heaven—in the seat and the throne of God (mentioned in the Koran). But then there are others who admit that God is immanent in the whole world, in animals, trees, and the inanimate world, which they call his universal appearance. To those who hold this view, the entering of the souls into various beings in the course of metempsychosis is of no consequence.

Al-Biruni covers much more on topics relating to the soul, mostly from sources we now recognize with mainstream Hinduism. The development of religion, discussions and arguments on what constitutes good behavior, evolution of the soul and others are all presented. There are also quotes from the Iranian Christian philosopher, Mani, who was banished out of his land and traveled to India, and thus developed an Indian view of the soul. Interestingly, Buddhism, which focuses on this concept, is mentioned only in passing and Jaina works on this topic are strangely absent. Also absent is any mention of Sankara, who had traveled across India to establish and preach his Advaita philosophy in the 8th century. Perhaps they were more popular in South India, well away from his route and he never encountered any scholars of this new philosophy. Or perhaps they were upcoming (Advaita) or waning or incorporated into other philosophies (Buddhism and Jainism) and did not figure in mainstream philosophies of that time.

The concept of an immortal soul capable of metempsychosis, and whose fate was decided by its convoluted time behavior endowed Indian society with a certain moral character. Citizens, concerned with their next birth, kept themselves in moral check even in the absence of authorities. They attributed good and bad fortunes in one’s lifetime directly or indirectly to their own behavior in previous lives. Rules on what constituted proper ethical and moral behavior among individuals were decided by their own subgroups or castes in some cases, by society elders and Brahmins in others or even by society as a whole. Some of them were short-lived while others survived through the ages. These rules were at times illogical or unfair, particularly as societies became larger and more complex. But by and large, they were observed, having been decided with much participation and discussion. The desire to cause as little suffering (Ahimsa paramo dharmah, as the saying goes) was an overriding factor which mitigated the severity of such rules. Religion grew around it and an ascetic class developed, interested in methods to elevate the soul during one’s lifetime. People that joined this order withdrew from mainstream life, subsisted minimally and were given a high place in the society, irrespective of their origins. The concept of an immortal soul also gave the society a certain indifference to death, a quality that captured the attention of Arabian and European rulers and visitors. Misfortunes were usually borne stoically as it was felt they were deserved and undergoing them now would be beneficial in future lives.

Given the metaphysical and speculative nature of the topic, it is surprising to find such unity in its description and relation to the body across the world. Perhaps all philosophers learnt about it from a single source. Or perhaps it represents a truth most of us are yet to comprehend, but was evident to philosophers of those times.

Eighteenth Century South India

What was India like in the beginning of British rule? Starting around the middle of the 18th century and more so at turn of the 19th century, the British East India Company (EICo) made an effort to study Indian society in detail. With help of local guides, their members traveled across the country to observe and record the society in its entirety. In the process, they documented climate, vegetation, agriculture and commerce including how taxes were calculated and levied. They also recorded social and religious aspects of the Indians and their history.

Two such members in the service of the EICo, Francis Buchanan and Benjamin Heyne, traveled across South India from Chennai to Mysore between 1800 and 1810. Their findings published in books, provides a fascinating picture of a complex and diverse South India. Of the two, Buchanan appears more objective and sympathetic to the local population. Heyne, on the other hand, appears more as a British commercial representative who feels the Indian customs are less cultured than that of the British. His goal seems to be towards identifying and exploiting commercial resources, and helping the company take over India (for which he was employed). While Buchanan recorded social behavior of each part of the population and their industry, Heyne observed behavior of the society as a whole. Heyne was also more interested in the local climate and vegetation. Both give detailed accounts of agricultural practices. Information such as the specific variety of crop/grain, the method of farming, yield and pricing are presented in great detail. Tools used for various purposes are also explained in very good detail with drawings in some cases.

The first striking feature of their writings is the diversity of the region. Every part was populated by several hundred tribes or castes (Buchanan, who made a point of categorizing their social identity using the Varna system, identified them as predominantly Sudra and Dalit), living in villages and specializing in one or a few commercial activity or role. Every village was made of one or at most a few of these caste communities. The freedom – administrative, social and religious – enjoyed by these communities is very evident. Every community was administered from within by a (male) head, either hereditary or elected. In almost all communities, he was assisted by a group of elders. Only in rare cases did the (royal) government step in and even then, usually with the permission of the head and through a local administrator (usually a Brahmin or Muslim). The religious head of each caste was usually a Brahmin monk attached to matam (monastery). Local spiritual matters were taken care of by a village priest, in some cases a Brahmin, but in many cases from another community. Each village had a headman, militia police, an accountant, a land estimator and a priest, each forming their own caste. Groups of villages often worked together. Buchanan observed that community decisions were always taken in the open through discussions, where everyone including Dalits had their say. Most land owners were Sudra, some Vaishya and a few Brahmins, who either farmed on their own land or rented it to a cultivator. Produce was divided among the cultivator, land owner, headman, accountant, priest, teacher, other officers and any supported Brahmins in the village, for community needs, charity and finally a part for the government as tax. Wealthy people usually financed or supported public works such as tanks, reservoirs, temples, mosques, schools, food shelters and inns. For these they were provided with some rights, usually land grants.

There were variations in diets between communities – most ate meat, some didn’t, some could drink liquor and some couldn’t. The strictest diets were found among the Brahmins. In most communities, women worked outside and within the house (often more industrious than men!). Polygamy was common in many communities, but polyandry was not permitted. Some allowed widow remarriage, most didn’t. While the institution of Sati was known, it was not at all followed. It was customary for the husband to give the family of the wife a sum of money at marriage (sort of “purchasing” a bride!), since the wife’s industry added to the household income. Punishments for disobeying rules of the community were handled by the community head with the help of older members. Most punishments were light and resulted in a hearing, fine or a visit to the community’s main temple for more severe offenses. The most severe was casting the offender out of the community, but that was extremely rare. Occupations varied between the castes – there were some specialized in agriculture, others in construction, trade, weaving, dyeing, manufacture of goods such as salt or sugar, breeding cattle or metal work. There were even castes dedicated to medicine and surgery, maintaining kitchen gardens, washing clothes or transporting goods between regions. There seemed little conflict among the castes or within, for that matter, for political power. Each had its own rhythm and for most part, was able to live amicably with others.

The second feature that jumps out is the staggering amount of goods produced and consumed in the community. Agriculture was the central activity outside cities. Land was divided into wet and dry, and the crops grown in each were different. Farmers produced several kinds of grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, spices, cotton and jute. The books mention many kinds of millets, rice, wheat and lentils, for both humans and cattle. There were sub-varieties in each, growing in a specific climate and soil and possessing its own unique characteristic. There were, for example, four different kinds of sugarcane, but each able to be grown in only a specific condition or in a particular area. Many of the agriculture produce were processed. Sugar-making (both from sugarcane and palm), dairy, textiles (cotton, woolen and silk), iron and steel works were all principal industries. Some finer produce were reserved for the royal family and wealthy individuals, but most were available to all. There were taxes on every good. Cattle – oxen, buffaloes and donkeys – was used to plough and water fields, run oil presses, transport goods and their dung was used as a manure and fuel. Goats and sheep were reared for meat, milk, hide and wool. The support industry to agriculture was huge. There were castes dedicated to making and maintaining different kinds of agriculture equipment such as ploughs, drill presses, oil presses and others, to breeding cattle or even sowing and harvesting grains or fruits.

Another interesting phenomenon was the jostling for religious and spiritual supremacy among all castes. Within each caste, there seemed to be a gradation, with some sub-castes being lower than others. Most sub-castes claimed superiority or parity with their nearest neighbors. Interestingly, their political and social rights appear unconnected to this phenomenon, and they all had equal voices and seats in community councils such as Panchayats. Brahmins were acknowledged to be the most spiritually evolved group and behaved as such. They served as religious guides to almost all other castes, and in some instances promoted some communities to a higher spiritual status for fees or as part of a favor! There were sectarian quarrels among Brahmins regarding philosophies, modes of worship and other facets of religion. Most castes allowed for its members to withdraw from daily life to a complete spiritual pursuit (or sanyasa) resulting in higher honor for that member. Such members subsisted minimally and usually by begging for their basic needs. Among Brahmins this was seen as a very high honor, and the more religious Brahmins took to this path. Priests, on the other hand, were not held very high as they received a salary! Each community had its own gods, temples and customs, which they were able to practice without any interference. Many meat eating communities practiced animal sacrifice as a form of worship – a practice shunned by other castes or groups, particularly the Brahmins.

Finally, as we get close to Mysore and Srirangapatnam, we see effects of Tipu Sultan’s rule. Buchanan visited the area in the first decade of 1800, a decade or two after the Sultan’s defeat and the damage of his misrule was still very much in effect. The Sultan comes across as an insecure and tyrannical megalomaniac. It appears he was mainly interested in converting his entire kingdom to Islam, punishing those who resisted. He is said to have destroyed several temples and penalized Brahmins and other Hindu religious leaders who did not take his offer to convert to Islam. He was arbitrary in his administration, often creating new towns and forcing the entire population to migrate from one to other. His trade and finance policies were also ill thought – Buchanan mentions he would force shopkeepers to sell their goods to his soldiers at a fraction of the cost resulting in heavy loses, and eventually either ruining them or forcing them to migrate to other areas. Corruption in his administration was common thanks to a lack of checks and balances. Punishments were arbitrary and severe. He also forbade any trade with neighboring kingdoms with all whom he had quarrels. His frequent warfare resulted in abandonment of a large part of the farming area and in loss of livelihood for a large part of his population. The deprivation of livelihood and rights among his people has a definite effect on their behavior and Buchanan observed a general distrust of the government among all sections. All these seemed to be in sharp contrast to his father Hyder Ali’s rule (which though ruinous to his neighboring kingdoms were beneficial to his own people) and his neighbor to the East – The Nawab of Arcot. Buchanan also mentions the effects of the invasion of the Marathas and Lord Cornwallis in the region resulted in more damage, but these pale in comparison with Tipu Sultan’s.

One gets the feeling that most of the people encountered during the journey were wary and defensive. Preceding centuries of conflicts resulting in erosion of rights and freedom seems to have caused the inhabitants to become more conservative and less open to new ideas. There appears very little original thought and most people are content with preserving what they have – be it wealth or customs.

Dandamis, Alexander and the idea of freedom

Megasthanes, the Greek scribe, mentions an interesting encounter between Alexander the Great and an Indian yogi, Dandamis. Megasthanes came to India with Alexander and his general, Selucus Nikator during initial years of the Maurya empire. As I mentioned in one of my previous blogs, his writings give a fascinating view of Indian society around the time Buddhism became popular in India (or just before that, as Buddhism was popularized by Ashoka about 50 years later). Dandamis is not mentioned in any Indian literature, but that might be because Megasthanes uses Greek versions of names rather than Indian (he calls Chandragupta as Sandrakottus or Androkottus, (Hari)Krishna as Herakles and so forth). It is very possible that we know Dandamis by another name, perhaps as Dandamuni or the sage with a staff. In any case, this discussion provides an insight into the values and lifestyle of Indian ascetics.

Alexander had arrested a group of brahmin yogis (described as gymnosophists by Megasthanes and other Greeks) for inciting a local king to rebel against him. Alexander questioned them on their intent and background. One of those captured, Kalanos (perhaps a corruption of Kalinatha), chose to follow the king back to Greece. In doing so, he earned the scorn of his fellow brahmins for abandoning the ascetic path.

[The brahmins said] “We have, however, amongst us a sage called Dandamis whose home is in the woods, where he lies on a pallet of leaves, and where he has nigh at hand the fountain of peace, whereof he drinks, sucking, as it were, the pure breast of a mother.” King Alexander, accordingly, when he heard of all this, was desirous of learning the doctrines of the sect, and so he sent for this Dandaamis, as being their teacher and president.

Onesikrates was therefore despatched to fetch him, and when he found the great sage he said, “Hail to thee, thou teacher of the Bragmanes. The son of the mighty god Zeus, king Alexander, who is the sovereign lord of all men, asks you to go to him, and if you comply, he will reward you with great and splendid gifts, but if you refuse will cut off your head.”

Dandamis, with a complacent smile, heard him to the end, but did not so much as lift up his head from his couch of leaves, and while still retaining his recumbent attitude returned this scornful answer:–“God, the supreme king, is never the author of insolent wrong, but is the creator of light, of peace, of life, of water, of the body of man, and of souls, and these he receives when death sets them free, being in no way subject to evil desire. He alone is the god of my homage, who abhors slaughter and instigates no wars.”

“But Alexander is not God, since he must taste of death; and how can such as he be the world’s master, who has not yet reached the further shore of the river Tiberoboas, and has not yet seated himself on a throne of universal dominion? Moreover, Alexander has neither as yet entered living into Hades, nor does he know the course of the sun through the central regions of the earth, while the nations on its boundaries have not so much as heard his, name. If his present dominions are not capacious enough for his desire, let him cross the Ganges river, and he will find a region able to sustain men if the country on our side be too narrow to hold him.”

“Know this, however, that what Alexander offers me, and the gifts he promises, are all things to me utterly useless; but the things which I prize, and find of real use and worth, are these leaves which are my house, these blooming plants which supply me with dainty food and the water which is my drink, while all other possessions and things, which are amassed with anxious care, are wont to prove ruinous to those who amass them, and cause only- sorrow and vexation, with which every poor mortal is fully fraught. But as for me, I lie upon the forest leaves, and, having nothing which requires guarding, close my eyes in tranquil slumber; whereas had I gold to guard, that would banish sleep. The earth supplies me with everything, even as a mother her child with milk. I go wherever I please, and there are no cares with which I am forced to cumber myself, against my will. Should Alexander cut off my head, he cannot also destroy my soul. My head alone, now silent, will remain, but the soul will go away to its Master, leaving the body like a torn garment upon the earth, whence also it was taken. I then, becoming spirit, shall ascend to my God, who enclosed us in flesh, and left us upon the earth to prove whether when here below we shall live obedient to his ordinances, and who also will require of us, when we depart hence to his presence, an account of our life, since he is judge of all proud wrong-doing; for the groans of the oppressed become the punishments of the oppressors.”

“Let Alexander, then, terrify with these threats those who wish for gold and for wealth, and who dread death, for against as these weapons are both alike powerless, since the Bragmanes neither love gold nor fear death. Go, then, and tell Alexander this: Dandamis has no need of aught that is yours, and therefore will not go to you, but if you want anything from Dandamis come you to him.”

Alexander, on receiving from Onesikrates a report of the interview, felt a stronger desire than ever to see Dandamis, who, though old and naked, was the only antagonist in whom he, the conqueror of many nations, had found more than his match.

Alexander encountered similar thoughts among other Indian chieftains and kings as he crossed into the western border of India. Overall, Alexander also comes out of this encounter as more noble than he is given credit for. It is evident that he was not just a war-monger, but his education at the hands of Plato enables him to understand higher thoughts. I found this site that gives some more information on Dandamis and his sect. Plutuarch also provides some information on Dandamis and his sect in his history of Alexander, but not as much detail.

But to those who were in greatest reputation among them (the yogis), and lived a private quiet life, he sent Onesicritus, one of Diogenes the Cynic’s disciples, desiring them to come to him. Calanus (Kalanos), it is said, very arrogantly and roughly commanded him to strip himself, and hear what he said, naked, otherwise he would not speak a word to him, though he came from Jupiter himself.

But Dandamis received him with more civility, and hearing him discourse of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Diogenes, told him he thought them men of great parts, and to have erred in nothing so much as in having too great respect for the laws and customs of their country. Others say, Dandamis only asked him the reason why Alexander undertook so long a journey to come into those parts. Taxiles, however, persuaded Calanus to wait upon Alexander. His proper name was Sphines, but because he was wont to say Cale (referring to the goddess Kali), which in the Indian tongue is a form of salutation, to those he met with anywhere, the Greeks called him Calanus. He is said to have shown Alexander an instructive emblem of government, which was this. He threw a dry shriveled hide upon the ground, and trod upon the edges of it. The skin when it was pressed in one place, still rose up in another, wheresoever he trod round about it, till he set his foot in the middle, which made all the parts lie even and quiet. The meaning of this similitude being that he ought to reside most in the middle of his empire, and not spend too much time on the borders of it.

[…]

At the same time (when Alexander reached Cyrus the Great’s grave in Persia), Calanus having been a little while troubled with a disease in the bowels, requested that he might have a funeral pile erected, to which he came on horseback, and after he had said some prayers and sprinkled himself and cut off some of his hair to throw into the fire, before he ascended it, he embraced and took leave of the Macedonians who stood by, desiring them to pass that day in mirth and good-fellowship with their king, whom in a little time, he said, he doubted not but to see again at Babylon. Having thus said, he lay down, and covering up his face, he stirred not when the fire came near him, but continued still in the same posture as at first, and so sacrificed himself, as it was the ancient custom of the philosophers in those countries to do. The same thing was done long after by another Indian, who came with Caesar to Athens, where they still show you “the Indian’s monument.”

It is interesting to note that more than 2000 years later, Mahatma Gandhi advocated the same approach to life with great success.

Northern Wisconsin Fall

 

End to End Milky Way

The night sky outside of cities or towns is a remarkable sight of nature. It is impossible to describe how bright the sky is, if one hasn’t seen it before. Last week, my wife and I had the opportunity to spend some time in N Wisconsin, near Wausau. My wife, an avid amateur astronomer, noticed the sky full of stars even during the drive to our destination. During our stay there, we took an evening off just to enjoy the sky devoid of any light pollution. I thought I’d try my hand at photographing some of the better known stars. The main challenge was to find an open spot and set up the gear in complete darkness. Some coyotes and owls nearby kept things interesting while we were setting up the camera.

The sky reminded of an ancient Indian saying – “In all directions, Suns, Suns, Suns”. It is easy to be an astronomer when one doesn’t need a telescope. For one of my images, I attempted a panorama of the Milky Way that stretched from the eastern horizon to west. It took four shots and some awkward bending and twisting to get it in the viewfinder, to capture the entire stretch during the course of which our galaxy kept moving out of sight. And we got to see a shooting star!

So finally, here it is – our home in space. From end to end.

The fine art of camoflauge

Last week, I got my first true macro lens and over the weekend decided to take it out for a spin. I have been wanting to do bug photography for a while. Ever since I started reading up on farming and the environment, I have been fascinated by the roles of different insects and plants in our food supply.

Find the bug!

I decided to try out the Milwaukee Urban Ecology Center on the Eastside. Sure enough, when I stopped by late morning immediately after the rain, the place was full of late summer flowers and bugs. There was the initial sensory overload, but soon I started to observe individual insects and their behavior. I saw several clumps of flowering black-eyed susans with feeding soldier beetles (a golden rod or Pennsylvania leatherwing, I think). I did not see them on any other flowers close by. I did not think much of this at that time, until I accidentally saw one of them fly to one of those flowers and disappear among the colors almost completely.

Busy feeding

I was taken in by how well the the beetle blended with the flower. Was this a conscious decision by the beetle to select only those flowers to feed on? There were other color flowers, but very few soldier beetles.

Since then, I have seen other images of this sub-species on the web, but almost always on a yellow flower. Perhaps this is evolution at work – creating a unique partnership between a color and a beetle.

For those of you with a garden, soldier beetles are predators of aphids, grasshopper and other pest larvae. They do not harm the plants themselves and are good pollinators.

Revisiting Indian history

In my high school back in India, we were taught that India was invaded and conquered by Aryans from West about 3000 years ago (dates vary from 1500 BC to further back). And that Aryan society was hierarchical, institutionalized in the caste system, pushing native Dravidians into lower castes. Fast forward to today; there seem to be three main versions of this thought:

The original Aryan conqueror theory which says that much of current Indian culture has been brought in by the Aryans from outside. Thus, language, literature, religious practices are all external to India. The conquered Dravidians have accepted their lower status in the society, albeit grudgingly. This theory gained support in the 18^th century through research by British colonial scholars and Indologists such as Max Mueller, William Rhys David and others. Here is Rhys David’s description of Buddhist Indian society:

The basis of the social distinctions was relationship; or, as the Aryans, proud of their lighter colour, put it colour. Their books constantly repeat a phrase as being common amongst the people,—and it was certainly common at least among the Aryan sections of the people,—which divided all the world, as they knew it, into four social grades, called Colours (Vaṇṇā). At the head were the Kshatriyas, the nobles, who claimed descent from the leaders of the Aryan tribes in their invasion of the continent. They were most particular as to the purity of their descent through seven generations, both on the father’s and the mother’s side; and are described as “fair in colour, fine in presence, stately to behold. Then came the brahmins, claiming descent from the sacrificing priests, and though the majority of them followed then other pursuits, they were equally with the nobles distinguished by high birth and clear complexion. Below these were the peasantry, the people, the Vaisyas or Vessas. And last of all came the Śūdras, which included the bulk of the people of non-Aryan descent, who worked for hire, were engaged in handicraft or service, and were darker in colour.

The origin of this thought coincides with onset of British colonization in India, as several indigenous civil resistance movements came up. This is currently the most accepted version among educated in India.

A second theory, from late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, accepts most of the first version, but says the conquered natives in India have always been at war with the rulers. This version holds that traditional Indian religion was a means to subjugate conquered society in India. Here is D Raja on Indian caste system:

The caste system contains not only economic exploitative mechanisms but operates on the basis of the dogma of predestination, formulated and safeguarded by the Hindu religion. The caste system is able to mobilise cheap labour or free labour under capitalism. Ambedkar goes on to state that the burdens of economic crises are laid upon the oppressed castes by maintaining the caste system in current times.

This is currently the dominant thought in Indian political scene. Many parties, particularly Dalit, Marxist and Dravidian, base their manifestos on this version as do Indian affirmative action policies. This version has also been picked up by Islamists from late 19^th century onwards to show that conversion to Islam among Indians was voluntary to escape an oppressive social structure.

Created by British ethnographers and historians, elaborated by many Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationals, and subscribed to by countless journalists and historians of South Asia, especially Muslims, this theory has for long been the most widely accepted explanation of Islamization in the subcontinent. The theory postulates a Hindu caste system that is unchanging through time and rigidly discriminatory against its own lower orders. For centuries, it is said, the latter suffered under the crushing burden of oppressive and tyrannical high-caste Hindus, especially Brahmans. Then, when Islam “arrived” in the Indian subcontinent, carrying its liberating message of social equality as preached (in most versions of the theory) by Sufi shaikhs, these same oppressed castes, seeking to escape the yoke of Brahmanic oppression and aware of a social equality hitherto denied them, “converted” to Islam en masse.

A third idea that gained prominence over the last few decades, asserts that ancient India was an ideal civilization, scientifically and technologically advanced (with aircrafts and nuclear weapons, if you will), that was destroyed by invading Muslims from the West. Advancements in ancient India were made possible through the existence of a stratified society where certain segments wielded more power than others. Restoring this structure is essential to making Indian great again. This idea has been present in the minds of the middle and upper class Hindus for a while and has been institutionalized by BJP, VHP and their allies when in power. A similar argument for Islam also exists among small sections of Muslims, but that number is insignificant even as a percentage of their population.

In a simplified form, the first version sought to justify colonization with the idea that Indians were never a free society and owed all their development to their colonizers. The second version implies that Indians can never be trusted to look after each other; each section tries to exploit the other and can never work together for a common good and a strong external ruler is needed to obtain justice. The third version is sought to promote a small class of people as safe-guardians against another section that was proclaimed to be external and inimical to India. In today’s India, all three versions coexist uneasily. Conflicts often occur between different sections, based not just on present economic and social disparities, but also on perceived historical treatment.

But accounts of travelers to India in ancient and medieval times paint a very different story, one of a much more integrated society. These and compilations of historical records by people like Dharampal are at odds with the versions presented above. Consider these fragments from Megasthanes’ description of Indian society circa 300 BC:

It is said that India, being of enormous size when taken as a whole, is peopled by races both numerous and diverse, of which not even one was originally of foreign descent, but all were evidently indigenous; and moreover that India neither received a colony from abroad, nor sent out a colony to any other nation.

Of several remarkable customs existing among the Indians, there is one prescribed by their ancient philosophers which one may regard as truly admirable: for the law ordains that no one among them shall, under any circumstances, be a slave, but that, enjoying freedom, they shall respect the equal right to it which all possess: for those, they thought, who have learned neither to domineer over nor to cringe to others will attain the life best adapted for all vicissitudes of lot: for it is but fair and reasonable to institute laws which bind all equally, but allow property to be unevenly distributed.

Al Biruni,the great Muslim scientist from medieval period and a visitor to India around 1000 AD says:

Much, however, as these classes [the Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Sudra] differ from each other, they live together in the same towns and villages, mixed together in the same houses and lodgings.

Surveys discovered by Dharampal show that, even as late as in the 19^th century, fundamental rights such as education, land ownership and public representation, were made available to all members of the society.

A more detailed survey of it [indigenous education] was carried out [by the British] in 1822–25 in the Madras Presidency (i.e. the present Tamilnadu, the major part of the present Andhra Pradesh, and some districts of the present Karnataka, Kerala and Orissa).  … Much more important and, in view of our current assumptions, unexpected information which this survey provided is with regard to the broader caste composition of the students in the schools. According to it those belonging to the Sudras and castes below them formed 70%–80% of the total students in the Tamil speaking areas, 62% in the Oriya areas, 54% in the Malayalam speaking areas, and 35%–50% in the Telugu speaking areas.

… in Thanjavur in 1805, the number of mirasdars (i.e. those having permanent rights in land) was put at 62,042, of which over 42,000 belonged to the sudras and castes below them.

Somewhat similar patterns were also seen in Bengal and Punjab.  In addition, there were many admirable qualities found in societies across India –sense of ethics and morality, reverence for life, desire for truth, fairness & justice, strong sense of community & pride in their identity within, tolerance for multiple viewpoints, concern for the environment and many others. These spanned castes and regions. All these point to a complex society that goes beyond a set of conquerors guided by a priestly class.

Rhys David also goes on to conclude, drawing examples from Pre-Buddhist societies through Buddhist sutras and Jataka stories, that the rigid Indian hierarchical caste system was a fallacy and that the early Indian society was much more liberal and fluid.

… And it is no more accurate to speak of caste at the Buddha’s time in India, than it would be to speak of it as an established institution, at the same time, in Italy or Greece. There is no word even for caste. The words often wrongly rendered by that modern expression (itself derived from a Portuguese word) have something to do with the question, but do not mean caste. The Colours (Vaṇṇā) were not castes. No one of them had any of the distinctive marks of a caste, as the term is now used, and as it always has been used since it was first introduced by Europeans, and there was neither connubium nor commensality between the members of each.

It is thus, surprising that many sociologists and historians ignore this rich body of facts while discussing India. By using European social models for interpretation, they present a distorted version of Indian history and draw erroneous conclusions. A fundamental difficulty seems to be that interpreting our history accurately requires an understanding of Indian philosophical and religious movements. Much of India’s social changes – whether it be Buddhist or Bhakti movements or even the freedom struggle – were spiritual movements based on different philosophies and vice-versa. Those that study spirituality and philosophy in India have little interest in history, except when it concerns their own sect. They are at odds even with philosophies other than their own. Historians have little interest in religion and often look down on its scholars as uneducated and superstitious. Bridging this gap is necessary to obtain a correct understanding of Indian society and history, and thus to a better understanding of our problems.

All modern social models assume it is human nature to exploit and enslave each other; that modern civilization alleviates this through the use several mechanisms – popular democracy through a centralized governing structure, market economics and technology; that, while these mechanisms introduce some inequality or conflict, they are still significantly better than what we were before. This argument would be weakened if alternate models of development exist or existed in the course of our history, or if the current models themselves prove to be cause of the problems.