India's civilizational narrative

Thanks to Sanjay Dixit ji for inviting me.

As I told him, I am uncomfortable with the emphasis on narrative.

Narrative vs fact

The issue is narrative vs fact: facts are rigid, while narratives are fluid.

E.g. of panchatantra

Take for example the Pancatantra narrative

As you know, it is about Niti shastra and quotes Chanakya who influenced Machiavelli.

The first tantra has a Machiavellian ending: the jackals Kartak and Damnak (courtiers) poison the mind of the king (the lion Pingalak) who betrays and kills his good friend the bull Sanjeevak.

As you also know, the Pancatantra was translated from Sanskrit to Farsi in the 6th c., and then from Farsi to Arabic in the 7th-8th c. by Ibn Muqaffa,

who changed the ending to a moral ending in which Sanjeevaka is rewarded and the courtiers are punished.

This text later became the basis for a religious movement within Islam called Ikhwan us safa or Brethren of Purity.

As a child of about five or six years I was asked which ending I liked, the Machiavellian one of Vishnu Sharma or the moral one of Ibn Muqaffa, and I preferred the moral one.

So this is an example of a fluid narrative. There are no facts, only a story which may be changed to suit our desires and purposes.

Vishnu Sharma's purpose was to teach the ways of the world to 3 ignorant princes.

Ibn Muqaffa's purpose was to teach the prevalence of insaf.

To summarise: narratives are fluid where facts are rigid.

Every lie is a narrative,

where you use the fluidity of narrative to try to bypass facts.

Even small children tell lies.

मैं बालक बहिंयन को छोटो, छींको किहि बिधि पायो । ग्वाल बाल सब बैर परे हैं, बरबस मुख लपटायो ॥ … मैं नहिं माखन खायो.

But Is every narrative a lie?

Fantasy does dominate popular narratives: those told by Hollywood, Bollywood, Tollywood.

Look at popular narratives like Harry Potter, Batman, superman. All fantasy.

Fantasy is an attempt to bypass facts.

But there is a more serious problem.

In focussing on narrative we are imitating the West and its "post-modernism" which is a near-dead academic fashion.

Post-modernism denies there are any facts. Hence it erases the distinction between lies and truth.

Post-modernism was fashionable thirty years ago, in the 90's.

Then I was in the Shimla Institute, and every seminar, every day would mention Derrid and Foucault etc.

I recollect this guy arguing "what is a fact?".

I got so irritated that I said: "I will punch you in the face and then we will debate whether it is a fact".
If it is not a fact, I will punch you again.

if there are no facts, there are no lies and no truth. All is narrative.

but we are imittating post-modernism in a half-baked way.

Postmodernism is empistemological relativism. There is a democracy of narratives.

telling your own narratives only seems liberating,

you seem to be challenging the dominant narrative.

but without facts there is no way to say one story is better than another.

While 7.7 billion people are busy telling billions of different narratives, the status quo of the dominant narrative persists.

hence post-modernism is subtly subversive, it gives you the false impression of being liberating while maintaining status quo.

But forget post-modernism, let us see in another way why ignoring facts is subversive.

Recent clown narratives

Politicians (netas) often tell lies. That is, they try to use narrative to overcome inconvenient facts.

This is possible in politics because politics is tactical, or very short-term. And propaganda often prevails.

But the field of culture, is strategic or very long-term. So neglecting facts does not work.

Let us take some examples.

PM Modi said, the idol of Ganesh is proof that plastic surgery existed in India in ancient times.

Clearly, Ganesh is a case of head transplant, that too across species. The fact is this has never been done.
Actually, the fact also is that plastic surgery did exist in India, and the British took it from Pune. But PM Modi's wrong claim destroyed the credibility of the real claim.
So, did we gain or lose by neglecting facts?

During the National science Congress 2015 a paper was presented claiming that an ancient Sanskrit document showed that ancient India had spaceships and Interplanetary travel.

No one thought it necessary to demonstrate how such a spaceship could be built—science is about demonstration but the focus was on narrative.
The Sanskrit manuscript in question was not researched and was exposed as one dating back to the 1930s, and not an ancient manuscript.
So, did we gain or lose by neglecting facts?

One regional Chief Minister said that Sanjay’s divya drishti in the Gita showed that Internet existed in ancient India.

Glorious narrative? I leave it to you to judge.

Some clown narratives may not be obvious. For example, the term "grand narrative" was used as a joke in post-modernism,

but some use "grand narrative" seriously, confusing it with the "brand narrative" of a corporate like Coca-cola.
I reject this idea of coca-cola "culture". Culture is not a syrup sweetened by fantasy which can be sold like a bottled drink.

What does Indian culture say on this issue of narrative vs facts?

It is firmly on the side of facts, on the side of truth.

All systems of Indian philosophy say you must test something to determine truth.

All systems accept pratyaksha pramana as the first means of proof.

As a scientist I fully agree with that.

As an Indian, I want to know the TRUTH about my culture. The good the bad the ugly, and not some corporate brand fantasy.

My culture should work for ME, for my people. If something has gone wrong, it is my duty to repair it, as was done in the past by my ancestors. And if it is irrepairable, I should reject it.

I am NOT looking for Western approval.

That is a job for NRI's and the colonised mind, for whom the West is their Mai-Baap.

My culture should work for ME.

For it to work, we should focus on facts and truth, not narrative.

Let me give a quick example of how that helps our narrative.

The real aim in telling alternative narratives is to attack the dominant narrative.

My point is that you should all turn shiv bhakts: you cannot create a new world without destroying the old.
And you CAN destroy the dominant narrative better by focussing on facts and truth.

Example of "Euclid"

For example, our 9th standard NCERT school text in its chapter 5 on "Euclid's" geometry teaches the dominant narrative

that Indian mathematics was no good and we should imitate Greeks like Euclid.

My point is simple: Euclid did not exist,

and he did not do what the text claims he did.
I have offered a prize of Rs 2 lakhs for it.

I want to focus on just one fact because exposing one lie will expose a host of other lies.

This one fact "Euclid did not exist" destroys the dominant narrative that Greeks did some superior form of mathematics which we should imitate today.

Many of our NRI's and colonised minds are very pro-Western. They don't want to hurt the West.
Like Narayan Murthy who says we will tell our own story but only in a way approved by the West. We won't say anything negative about them.

Pro-Western defenders say the falsehood in our school texts do not matter, and should stay in our texts anyway.
Jawadekar recently boasted we have not changed a line in our school texts.

The fact that my challenge to Euclid stands for twenty years is proof enough.

It is a great pity that such falsehoods are acceptable to the government and to parents.

It is a great pity that a nation of 1.3 billion can be fooled for two centuries with such brazen lies.

Talk must lead to action. So, how many of you here are willing to do anything about it?

Will you write to the Director of NCERT, with a copy to the Minister?

It is a scandal that you are openly being accused of fraud in school texts
and do nothing about it.

Please provide the evidence or change the school text.

Note: evidence means actual evidence, not the mere opinion of a Western "expert".

How many people here will stand up and take a pledge to do this little thing?

The second point is that focus on facts and truth requires knowledge. facts need knowledge, and knowledge needs tapasya.

Ancient Indian society respected knowledge. For example, the Panchatantra says that children without knowledge are worse than dead children, because the ignorant will remain a constant source of emabarraasment (like our clown narratives).

Knowledge requires tapasya. PhD + ten years. First book + other books + experiments.

Now I understand, but difficult to communicate, because so many others are ignorant.

Anyway today we don't respect knowledge, we respect political power and money. Politicians appoint loyal monkeys even if they cut off our nose. They are actively against knowledge, and throw out knowledgeable people like me. Hence, our culture is dying.

Twenty years ago, the NDA-1 government planned to open 16 university departments in Vedic Astrology.

Then the India International Centre organized a debate, and I was on it with the late Raja Ramanna and Pushpa Bhargava.

I produced a copy of the Vedanga Jyotish, challenged anyone to show me a single sentence about astrology in it.

So, we opened 16 university departments on the recommendation of an ignorant UGC committee which had never seen the Vedanga Jyotisha.

Then I wrote to the UGC. Please open at least one university department in the history and philosophy of science. False history was the basis of colonialism. The UGC never responded.

In 20 years we kept discussing history of science, but neither government nor private initiative opened a single university department or appointed a single person to research history of science because we want favourable narratives but are against facts and knowledge.

We are still going by ignorant committees. Rajasthan changed its school text, introduced a paragraph on Aryabhata, but nobody in Rajasthan knew the correct spelling of Aryabhata, even though I pointed it out publicly ten years ago. (An also recently in Jansatta: Google celebrtating dalit achievements).

Anyway, we should focus on facts and knowledge, else we will keep getting clown narratives from loyal monkeys who will, as in the Panchatantra story, keep cutting off the nose of our culture.

Let me move on to the second part, of what we should do.

Many people think the issue is Abrahamic vs dharmic

By Abrahamic (they mean Christians, Jews, and Muslims) against Dharmic religions (they mean Hindus, Buddhists, Jains)

This is wrong. Pre-Nicene Christianity was strikingly similar to Hinduism.

It had exactly the same notion of soul, karma-samskara. * The most prominent pre-Nicene theologian Origen even argued that caste or inequity by birth was a just system. (Quotations on my website).
They copied Egypt, not Hinduism. And Egypt was from where they also got their god Jesus, like Greeks and Romans.

That is, the church mixed religion with politics, and changed the religion to suit politics.

That led to the change in post-Nicene Christianity, to its so-called Abrahamisation,
exactly as is happening to Hinduism and Islam today.

Sufism has been influential in Islam and sufism too is remarkably similar to Hinduism.

Centuries ago, Dara Shukoh wrote Sirr-i-Akbar (The Great Secret) that Hinduism and Islam are similar,

and he hence got the Upanishads translated into Farsi from where the West (Schopenhauer etc.) got it.
Unfortunate that he lost the war of succession to Aurangzeb.

Anyway there is no time to discuss Christianity and Islam, so let us stick to Hinduism.

What is dharma in Hinduism?

If we look for a bookish answer in the dharmasutras (as e.g. the British did) there is a problem.

The dharmasutras begin with varna. The Manusmriti, Apastamba, Gautam dharmasutras all start with varna.

So, if you go by those books, you have to say, varna is essential to Hindu dharma.

Of course, you can reject the books by saying like Ambedkar or Kosambi that the Manusmriti is a late 6th c. forgery.

You can also say Hindusim is not a religion which goes by books. But say it: that you hence reject the dharmasutras.

The second part of the Abrahamic-dharmic dichotomy is also false. You have equated Hindu and Buddhist dhamma, but there is no varna in Buddhist dhamma. That is why Ambedkar died a Buddhist.

Indeed, the conflict between dharma and dhamma long precedes in India precedes Christianity and Islam.

In fact, in equating Hindu dharma to Buddhist dhamma you have erased 1500 years of conflict between Hinduism and Buddhism.

The 12th c. Madhava’s Sankara Digvijay describes the situation at that time (in approximately the 8th c.) prevalent before the Adi Sankara.

today [7th/8th c CE], the country is filled with the…followers of that…[Buddha], as night is by darkness. They are indulging in carping criticism of the Veda, declaring it [vedic rituals] to be just a fraudulent means of livelihood for a few, and condemning its [Hinduism's] teachings on the duties of Varnas and Ashramas as mere superstitions.

As people have given up the orthodox Vedic path…there is none to do the daily devotional acts like Sandhya…The mere utterance of the two syllables 'Yajna' will make them close their ears. – [Source Madhava Vidyaranya, Sankar Digvijay, Canto 1, verses, 27-39, trans. Swami Tapasyananda, Ramakrishna Math, no date given, reprint 2008?]

Clearly Hinduism was in bad shape,

and the Adi Sankara came as a saviour.
What exactly did he do?
There is no record that he debated with Buddhists.
But he did debate with orthodox Hindus, particularly Naiyayikas like Mandana Misra who opposed Buddhists.

His followers like Sri Harsa in his Khandanakhandakhadya also attacked Naiyayikas leading to the emergence of Navya Nyaya.

The Adi Sankara instituted a Math at Sringeri

and the subsequent Sankaracharya of Sringeri used to come from a group of 64 families to which my father belonged.
so this is the story of how Advait Vedant saved Hinduism.

Mind you, I am not saying that I am an Advait Vedantin, but only that my ancestors were—
I am telling you briefly about their point of view, and how it saved Hinduism.

Briefly, the Adi Sankara shifted attention from rituals (the economic lifeline of Brahmins) to the core philosophy of Hinduism as found in the Upanishads.

The Upanishads emphasize moksha in the hierarchy of dharma, artha, kama, moksha,

So, you do not go by a rule book like the dharmasutra-s,
but start top down and deduce dharma from the ultimate purpose of moksha.

How is that done?

Have explained in my book Eleven Pictures of Time, written 20 years ago, published 15 years ago.
Since even the leading Indian philosopher Daya Krishna did not understand it, I explained it again in the memorial volume for him.

Briefly, act so as to increase harmony in the cosmos.

Relates also to artha and kama.

Great advantage of this is that Dharmasutra-s are silent on the ethics of modern technology like GMO.

But this can be related to the harmony principle.

The big problem is this

Today Hinduism is again in crisis.

This time, the challenge to Hinduism is from science.

When Adi Sankara emphasized the Upanishads, nobody doubted the reality of mokhsa.

But is moksha compatible with science?
Is the related belief in rebirth anything more than a superstition?

Have discussed in the Eleven Pictures of Time.

Rebirth is scientifically possible, with quasi-cyclic time.
With Newtonian physics something confusingly similar (super-cyclic time) MUST happen in a closed cosmos.

Western science

Basic point is that Western science is mixed-up with Christian metaphysics
So, to resolve the conflict, you must elimiante Christian metaphysics from mathematics and science.

But those who could not stand up to a simple fraud like Euclid in twenty years

Will they acknowledge Stephen Hawking as fraudster who was glorified because he spoke in favour of the church?
Have discussed it in the Eleven Pictures of Time