What is 'Civilizational Continuity'?

[The SC]

There must have been a civilisational (civilising) seed, in the evolution of the human race, and it was in the thought process.

So civilisation continuity is the evolution through time of that thought process.
The rest are variations of habits and customs through space.

 

[Bang Galore]

That does not make sense - an acceptance of agnosticism and especially atheism by definition would imply the lack of 'religion' - your argument would therefore mean that the majority of the Vedic civilization were 'agnostics or atheists' ... in which case they were not 'Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims', and therefore the religions practiced by the majority of the people in South Asia today indicate a 'lack of civilizational continuity' based on the metric of religion/faith.

Atheism in the Indian context does not mean a lack of religion, simply a lack of God at the centre of that religion. Difficult as it may be for followers of Abrahamic religion to grasp, all Indian religions have a strong atheistic streak & both Buddhism & Jainism are completely without reference to God. Hinduism, being older & the longest continuing has evolved to incorporate many different views within it. The Vedas & the Upanishads are both regarded as important Hindu scriptures though the line of thought is completely different with the Upanishads for the large part being indifferent to the idea of God. Your question of whether that makes for cultural continuity is an interesting point since most Hindus today follow a much later "Puranic/Bhakthi" form. I believe an argument can be made either way on this & wouldn't be wrong.
The continuity argument probably comes from the fact that these differing texts are all accepted as part of the religion even if not being followed by the majority today.

 

[Rig Vedic]

ESP? Proselytization has to be done one way or another I would assume.

The same way as a student who loves Mathematics might be drawn to schools like Princeton or Berkeley.

But it is certainly possible to spread a violent ideology through conquest and subjugation also.

 

[Rig Vedic]

None of that is relevant to the argument you made in favor of what comprises civilizational continuity - I was merely pointing out that your argument can also be used to justify 'Caliphate' across the Muslim world.

Surely you did not miss this part -

Well if it floats somebody's boat, who are we to stop them?

At the same time, given the proclivities of some Caliphate types, some special measures are needed to handle them. Their ideology must be critiqued clinically, with no regard for their fragile sensitivities. Any challenge to freedom of speech must be crushed with utmost ruthlessness.

 

[Rig Vedic]

I have no time for evangelism or guru-ism in any form. Or for the spread or ebb of faiths.

I do not see it as a race. I see it as a disease.

Let's not restrict ourselves to a unidimensional religious view.

A civilization, through its attractiveness or through its mastery of certain types of knowledge, can draw other people to it.

Which is why you might practice allopathic medicine and wear blue jeans.

Of course, over a period of time, through the contributions of people from many lands, the system of medicine practiced becomes the property of the world, rather than being associated with a particular culture.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Atheism in the Indian context does not mean a lack of religion, simply a lack of God at the centre of that religion. Difficult as it may be for followers of Abrahamic religion to grasp, all Indian religions have a strong atheistic streak & both Buddhism & Jainism are completely without reference to God. Hinduism, being older & the longest continuing has evolved to incorporate many different views within it. The Vedas & the Upanishads are both regarded as important Hindu scriptures though the line of thought is completely different with the Upanishads for the large part being indifferent to the idea of God. Your question of whether that makes for cultural continuity is an interesting point since most Hindus today follow a much later "Puranic/Bhakthi" form. I believe an argument can be made either way on this & wouldn't be wrong.
The continuity argument probably comes from the fact that these differing texts are all accepted as part of the religion even if not being followed by the majority today.

I used the term 'deity', and later clarified that by deity I was referring to all manner of 'spiritual entities' (nature, fire, God etc.) to argue that my understanding of religion indicates some sort of 'spiritual entity/deity' at the core of every religion.

This might really lead to a separate discussion though - how does one define religion/faith, if not through the 'worship of some deity'? Without a deity, are we not talking about a 'philosophical theory' instead of religion, perhaps some form of 'codification of culture'?

I would argue that any form of 'worship/prayer' implies the existence of some deity, and a 'place of worship' (temple, mosque, corner of a room, banyan tree ..) further reinforces the existence of a deity in that particular 'faith'.

Surely you did not miss this part -

I did not miss it, which is why I did not quote it since I had not issue with it.

At the same time, given the proclivities of some Caliphate types, some special measures are needed to handle them. Their ideology must be critiqued clinically, with no regard for their fragile sensitivities. Any challenge to freedom of speech must be crushed with utmost ruthlessness.

Again, those are arguments/concerns that are irrelevant to the question of 'how civilizational continuity' is defined.

Those are concerns related to how any particular civilization might function - one could argue that the existence of the Pharoah in the ancient Egyptian empire was a 'highly flawed and autocratic system of government', but the form of government is not the question here.

 

[Bang Galore]

I used the term 'deity', and later clarified that by deity I was referring to all manner of 'spiritual entities' (nature, fire, God etc.) to argue that my understanding of religion indicates some sort of 'spiritual entity/deity' at the core of every religion.

This might really lead to a separate discussion though - how does one define religion/faith, if not through the 'worship of some deity'? Without a deity, are we not talking about a 'philosophical theory' instead of religion, perhaps some form of 'codification of culture'?

I would argue that any form of 'worship/prayer' implies the existence of some deity, and a 'place of worship' (temple, mosque, corner of a room, banyan tree ..) further reinforces the existence of a deity in that particular 'faith'.

The people of the vedic age & of the age of the upanishads lived largely without the sort of worship that you see today. There are almost no references to temples of any sort during this period. The Vedic Hindus believed that they could command Gods to do their bidding (to put it crudely) by their Yajnyas (which was done in any open place) & had little use for temples. The atheistic philosophy of Hinduism largely related to self awareness & looking within rather than without & had no use for worship of any kind. Temples are a relatively newer entrant into Hinduism & only with the advent of the Bhakthi/puranic philosophy, did temples & deity worship take deep hold. (Hindu philosophical thought was quite divided on the temple concept- it was best expressed by Adi Shankara (Shankracharya) who while being philosophically opposed to the idea of Gods & temples actually made the point that if some people wished to worship there, "there was no harm", pointless but harmless! The idea was that Hindu philosophical thought was too complicated to be understood by everybody & those wishing for a more simplistic idea could have that too. A similar situation existed in Buddhism with the theravada buddhism (teaching of the elders; also referred to as Hinayana-lesser vehicle) being overwhelmed by the Mahayana (greater vehicle) which was a more simplistic, more devotional form of Buddhism)

You are actually accurate in surmising that these were philosophical theories rather than religion (especially of the Abrahamic sense) & codification of culture is probably an apt description.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The Vedic Hindus believed that they could command Gods to do their bidding (to put it crudely) by their Yajnyas (which was done in any open place) & had little use for temples.

But that still points to 'deity worship', does it not?

Whether one prays in a temple, mosque, or out in the open, commands or requests for their bidding to be done, one is 'calling upon' some 'powerful spiritual entity' to do do that 'bidding'.

The atheistic philosophy of Hinduism largely related to self awareness & looking within rather than without & had no use for worship of any kind. Temples are a relatively newer entrant into Hinduism & only with the advent of the Bhakthi/puranic philosophy, did temples & deity worship take deep hold. (Hindu philosophical thought was quite divided on the temple concept- it was best expressed by Adi Shankara (Shankracharya) who while being philosophically opposed to the idea of Gods & temples actually made the point that if some people wished to worship there, "there was no harm", pointless but harmless! The idea was that Hindu philosophical thought was too complicated to be understood by everybody & those wishing for a more simplistic idea could have that too. A similar situation existed in Buddhism with the theravada buddhism (teaching of the elders; also referred to as Hinayana-lesser vehicle) being overwhelmed by the Mahayana (greater vehicle) which was a more simplistic, more devotional form of Buddhism)

That would imply that we are looking at two distinct 'beliefs' here then - the shift to 'worship of deities and establishment of places of worship' indicates a shift to religion, significantly different than the 'philosophical theories/codification of culture' that the ancient vedic civilization may have practiced.

 

[suleman1]

aasare qadeema

civilization -------------------------> our identity

 

[vsdoc]

Perhaps, but then research also suggests that human migration started out of Africa, and all humans are linked to those 'common ancestors', so we are in essence talking about sub-groups within the larger group here, and human migration and evolution on its own is not 'civilization'.

You are stretching the argument to the begining of the human race and evolution. I am talking about historically established civilizations. All life forms evolved from protozoans inhabiting the primordial sludge. Why don't we start from there instead?

I don't believe what you described is necessarily applicable to just a 'civilization' - humans have migrated, spread and seeded throughout history. At times that migration, spreading and seeding might coincide with some 'civilization of the time', but the process itself is not tied into 'civilization' and does not, on its own, indicate the dispersion, expansion or dilution of any civilization - it merely points to the nature of humans to 'spread and seed' - I mean, all this points to is our ability to procreate does it not?

Exactly. So that is why what I said earlier holds true. There is something that separates historical pockets of humanity and makes them evolve over millenia as separate entities. Civilizations. And that something is Blood, Faith, and Soil. Only when all three come together and stay together does a civilization continue. Where one is replaced by another, a new civilization is born or merges into an existing one. Or is absorbed and dies.

Sure, but that is pointing the obvious is it not? All humans originated from a common ancestral source did they not?

We are not talking Darwinism and Evolution here. We are talking Civilization. The difference needs to be appreciated for this discussion to develop.

No need for knee jerk peevishness - Faith, as in religion, does involve worshiping a deity/deities, whether they be God, Allah, the Sun, Rain, Nature, Zeus, or Hanuman, and that was the context in which I used the term.

Ok, thank you for the clarification. The link to the earlier topic on Bharat and India caused the confusion. Let's move on then.

So if we can return to the question, what sort of 'common faith metric' are we looking at here, and how can this metric be defined t be exclusive to one set of people vs another, to imply civilizational continuity for the former set of people?

A common faith in combination with common blood and common soil makes a civilization. If that common faith is replaced by a new one, or there is a major influx of new genes, or if a major arm migrates to new lands, the old civilization either dies, or is replaced, or mutates into a new one, or morphs into an existing one. A common faith does not entail a common civilization anymore than many faiths in a common land creates one, or for that matter a common people spread over different lands.

How would Parsis be part of the same civilization as, say, those practicing the Vedic faith or its offshoots? Does that not remove one of your major metrics for civilizational continuity?

Parsis are too small to count. And are the outliers I was referring to earlier. It is obvious that we come from a different civilization to the Vedic one, though it may be argued that we are both joined at the hip as a people if you move back sufficiently.

And while you have offered your opinion on 'long enough', is your definition of 'long enough' not one merely pulled out of a hat by you? Is it not subjective? Why not exclude any group of people resident for less than 5000 years, or 10,000 years?

Not at all. My comments above should have clarified my stand further by now. Civilizations evolve. Mutate. Morph. Merge. Persevere. Or die. The discussion I believe was on the thread of continuity. About where you draw the line and say that this civilization is an ancient one versus this is the land or these are the people or this is the faith of what was once an ancient civilization.

 

[53fd]

To be honest, although I am unfamiliar with the term; I believe it refers to assimilation, to being able to adapt, even if it means letting go off some of your (local) cultural norms/religious leanings to progress in society.

 

[vsdoc]

Before even considering the issues relating to civilisational continuity proposed by Agnostic Muslim, it seems useful to point out that there are two overlapping sets to be considered, civilisation, of course, the idea that has been placed before us, but culture as well. Many of the arguments made during the course of the discussion apply strongly to culture, even where they apply weakly to civilisation per se.

So do we conduct two discussions in one? No, but we would do well to keep this idea of cultural issues overlapping with but not identical with civilisational issues in the back of our minds as we write what we do write.

Joe I must admit while I was trying to come up with the barebone basic acceptance criteria for what constitutes a civilization, the culture paradigm was thrashed internally back and forth.

But no matter how I looked at it, or where I looked, I was force to concede that culture is an amalgamation of exactly the same criteria - namely blood, faith, and soil.

And that culture itself is largely moulded by the existing dominant faith of the land and people.

Would love to hear more on this. And evolve the criteria further if need be. Should they prove to be robust enough to pass muster across historical shifts.

 

[Bang Galore]

That would imply that we are looking at two distinct 'beliefs' here then - the shift to 'worship of deities and establishment of places of worship' indicates a shift to religion, significantly different than the 'philosophical theories/codification of culture' that the ancient vedic civilization may have practiced.

Distinct it may be, seen with the passage of time & evolution of the religion/culture but that is not how it started or was seen. The Upanishads while propagating a philosophical thought quite different from the vedas still placed high importance on the value of the vedas themselves. Adi Shankara used the Upanishads as a base for his philosophy of Advaita (non-dualism) & those that followed him like Ramanuja who propounded his theory of Vishishtadvaita (combines Advaita with Vishesha (attributes))then followed by Madhvacharya who moved it further towards Dvaita (dualism). Each step was an increment one with due respect being paid to earlier philosophies but the end result is a completely transformed philosophy/religion. Difficult to separate out & point to a time/place where the change occurred. Hence continuity even if we have now have a total reverse of the previous position.

This is why, anyone looking at religions in India should refrain from using a yardstick for measuring that wasn't created here. Just because they are called religions does not mean that they are all based on similar principles.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Distinct it may be, seen with the passage of time & evolution of the religion/culture but that is not how it started or was seen. The Upanishads while propagating a philosophical thought quite different from the vedas still placed high importance on the value of the vedas themselves. Adi Shankara used the Upanishads as a base for his philosophy of Advaita (non-dualism) & those that followed him like Ramanuja who propounded his theory of Vishishtadvaita (combines Advaita with Vishesha (attributes))then followed by Madhvacharya who moved it further towards Dvaita (dualism). Each step was an increment one with due respect being paid to earlier philosophies but the end result is a completely transformed philosophy/religion. Difficult to separate out & point to a time/place where the change occurred. Hence continuity even if we have now have a total reverse of the previous position.

This is why, anyone looking at religions in India should refrain from using a yardstick for measuring that wasn't created here. Just because they are called religions does not mean that they are all based on similar principles.

The evolution in a philosophical, cultural or religious system that you described is not unique to South Asia and the Vedic Civilization - almost every school of thought, as it is created, refined, changed etc. develops and/or adapts on existing schools of thought and influences.

Take the 3 major Abrahamic religions for example - Islam developed on/from Christianity which itself developed on/from Judaism, and if one is to believe that the accounts of 'prophets/messengers' millennia before Moses, the roots for Judaism, Christianity and Islam were laid even earlier. The three major Abrahamic religions have further evolved within into various denominations/sects, in some cases (Sufi branch of Islam for example) because of absorbing influences from the other cultures they came in contact with.

Therefore, while I understand the argument you are trying to make, I don't agree that the process of change and evolution in the philosophical and/or religious belief systems in South Asia is necessarily unique to South Asia, and the final result we see, of 'Religion' (as in worship of deities) practiced by the majority of the residents of South Asia, is distinctly different from the Vedic 'Philosophy' that you argue was followed by the residents thousands of years ago.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I repeat what I said in another thread. Civilizational continuity is a umbrella term often used by Indian's who want to project a exclusive link with what went on in South Asia in the distant past. It enables modern Indian nationalist's to make first claim right's on Harrapa, Mohenjo Daro etc.

It is the perfect way of solving a physical hurdle - Most of the classic history of South Asia is centred on the Indus Valley almost all of which is within Pakistan, India's arch enemy. When pointing out to Indian's that Harrapa sits smack bang in middle of Pakistani Punjab or Mehr Garh is in Balochistan I often hear this term being used.

Civilization continuity is a term lacking any real substance and it lends itself to revisionst historians who can use it to make links with classical South Asia and to add shine to 'Mother India'. It is the perfect antidote to the cruel reality of modern political geography.

Panini was from Charsadda and probably sat on the banks of River Indus not too far from modern Islamabad writing his comprehensive rule on Sanskrit Grammar. Was he Indian? Yes. But he lived no where near India. Yes but he has direct link with India because there is 'civilizational continuity'.

Problem solved.