What's the word - Scientific or Indigenous? The Science of Indigenous Knowledge

<-- Excerpt from an email, edited for context -->

There are two ways of learning and leading one's life in the modern world.

1) Based on scientific proof / evidence

2) Based on Intuitive and evolutionary guidance that was passed over the years - I have been referring to this as indigenous contribution in my earlier email. My point is not necessarily specific to Hindu culture vs. Muslim culture vs. Native Americans vs. Aborigines Vs...

Over the years, we have demeaned ourselves by eliminating as much as we can on the second style in the name of being scientific and rational. 

Decades ago - when the modern scientific movement that is typically credited to the likes of Descartes and Newton for their reductionist approach to problem solving inherent in the scientific method originated, and Centuries ago where the likes of Socrates and Plato were credited for their contributions to logical thought process in the west -  there used to be a lot of holistic thinking and sometimes pagan thinking where Gods were invoked to explain all natural phenomenon - all over the world. Since then, we have made quite a lot of progress. 

However, what I mean by "pendulum has swung too far in the other direction" means that we have now started being totally analytical and are losing our instincts and have started questioning everything that falls in the second "traditional" category. We wait for the wisdom of the generations to be approved by the scientific community before we accept it.

And that is precisely where my problem is - that indigenous knowledge is being viewed with indignity because it is not backed by science. A healthy skepticism is OK, but not a fundamentalist approach to scientific reasoning!

Of course, the contributions from science and technology are vast and immense. I would be insane to downplay the effects of science. However, our unwavering faith in science is unfortunately misleading in some cases and increasingly making us lose our instincts.

We have come to rely so foolishly on science and technology that the email floated earlier this week - one is ready to go to war based on google maps, seems ludicrous.

http://www.geek.com/articles/news/google-maps-error-could-have-plunged-two-south-american-countries-into-war-2010115/

In a few years, it would be like saying you don't exist / you are not alive because I don't see your profile on facebook :) OK - that was a joke!

Now, speaking of FDA and the health side of things

1) A few years ago - Babies were advised to sleep on stomach and then later they advised to sleep on back. One of my elderly friends jokes about this. They have two kids and the recommendation changed between the two. So he says - he screwed up one of them. Don't know which is right.

2) Atkins (high protein diet) and Bread for life diet (high carb diet) are both backed by science and contradict each other.

3) An entire generation was raised here on Orange Juice for breakfast until recently they started scaring the heck out of people with acidity advising them against consuming on empty stomach.

4) The shoe industry in the 70's started making shoes with heels (backed by science) till recently. Now there is science to prove that shoes with heels distort the natural running form and the heel strike is  causing more injuries. Hence the recent disruptive change in the shoe industry to go minimal and barefoot. So, now there is science to prove that forefoot striking is better. (10% of industry is minimal now - All the major shoe ones including Nike have minimal shoes now and this is a major growth segment)

The point is that there is science to prove anything and its contrary. A new born baby does not need scientific evidence from FDA on whether formula milk is good or breast milk is.

He/she is drawn to  instinctive and evolutionary knowledge passed over the generations.

I will end it with a crisp example that I read in the Systems thinking book about applied anthropology. Copying verbatim from the text book.

--Natives on the pacific island of Nauru traditionally drank a strong home-brew made from fermented palm leaves. But after world war one,  Nauru was mandated to Australia and prohibition was imposed. Infant mortality rose to 50% level within 6 months. The reason ?

The people's natural diet was so low in Vitamin B1 that infants being nursed got the required amount of it only when the mother was drunk. When the natives were allowed to drink again, infant mortality fell at once to seven percent.

-----

My intention is not to sound as the radical anti-science guy. However, I am trying to draw the otherwise wise,  scientifically dependent, analytically left-brain guy to also rely on the   other side of brain, the instinctive side and have a healthy respect for the indigenous knowledge.

What's the word - Clean or Hygiene ?

Almost 8 years ago in Time magazine - I remember learning first about Triclosan.
Triclosan in 2002


And now in 2010..See how it percolated over the years
Triclosan in 2010
In fact, over the last few years, it has been increasingly difficult to find a wash without one.


Now- Read it in context with
Is Dirt Hygienic?

Clay for thought !

Why Kenyan women crave stones

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7596067.stm

Clay for Food
http://www.magneticclay.com/eating-clay.php

Pica

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pica_(disorder)

Greek democracy - then and now

Around 340 B.C - Aristotle on Democracy

About 340 Greek drachma converted per Euro as it entered EU

And 3 people killed in violence in less than 40 days since the Greek bonds were oversubscribed by up to 3 times.

Fruit, Flower and Form of art - Seemingly ordinary items of extraordinary value

http://news.chennaionline.com/newsitem.aspx?NEWSID=9ead212a-06ee-4d06-a51e-59d5eea66d43&CATEGORYNAME=CHN

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=a.bcEjrh2RcQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

Why is GDP of US 7 times that of India ?

The Hindus: An Alternative History

<<< Excerpt from email #1>>

I went in with a totally open mind into the book and am on page 480 and 200 odd pages to go in this voluminous book. Not sure if I can go on further. plan to though...

Mixed emotions. A good read as it starts with the Indus period and offers the usual interpretations around Aryan invasions. Haven't been able to keep it down in the last week and wasn't even running (thanks to Pollen too). 

But I can certainly feel that the author had her mind set on raising a controversy or at least preparing for one. It also feels like she had a magnifying glass for all the negative things to say about the Hindus based on her loose interpretations based on 20th century Freudian terms (which themselves are an outdated viewpoint) and chose to barely touch the so called positives. 

The tone started sounding more bashing as the chapters go past the Vedic and Upanishad times. She was even able to put the reader down from time to time by having a total disregard to the point that she occasionally intersperses good things to say in a chapter full of otherwise seemingly slamming off-hand remarks. 

If she were to author a book on American History - it was as if she  had just focused on slavery, Trail of Tears,  civil war, KKK, and Greed  with an occasional mention of the virtues of  the land of the free, capitalism and stock markets. Not getting into details on the topics if some of you hate the spoilers like I do before picking up any art form.

Is it too much to expect a careful handling of history from a non-native author? I was prepared for the occasional or even reasonably cynical viewpoint. But it seems like her disparaging tone has a purpose behind it.

<<< Excerpt from email #2 >>

First to answer D's comments - the definition of Hindu takes four pages or so in the beginning of the book. And a few paragraphs for Muslims too.

History is usually written by winners who survived. We had been told all along the history in India (as any other country does) in a pro-native way obviously. The attempt these days, which I first felt first with The Argumentative Indian (Amartya Sen) is to retell the history in an inclusive way giving a fair share to not only a Hindu India but to a multi-cultural India. (This is the liberal view in India).

What is good about the book:
1) The author is definitely thorough in her prep work. She has strong basics of the region across the ages - vedic, vedantic, epic, and during the Mughal/British periods.

2) She attempted to relay History not just from the typical Kshatriyan and Brahminical points of view as is told in India and was inclusive in incorporating the view of the Adivasis, the tribals, OBCs, the SBCs etc in addition to covering the foreign ruler's and women's point of view.

3) Her pulse on the Hindus is so precise to the extent that she knows that most temples in America are run by women - a keen observation contrasting the male dominated religious circuit in India. There is even mention of the BAPS in Atlanta.

Why it could have been better:

Especially when an author writes for 690 pages, the reader expects to see a holistic view of the history.
1) For the ancient period - The sacred texts alone are the basis for her interpretation of how the people may have lived - to the point of coming to conclusions and making side remarks. There is a sloka in some text about what the husband can do when he hates the guy who slept with his wife. She focuses on the word - "hates" and has a side remark that it is not applicable for those who may have indulged in a menage a trois. Such side comments are through out the book and brought her down as a serious author in my opinion. For instance - at another place , her comment on reading Vedas by day and Kamasutras by night is insulting especially when the two subjects are from two different times about a few hundred years apart. Again, I have no problems discussing the two together. They were catered to two different audiences. There are people who read PlayBoy and there are people who swear by Bible. Though there may be some who do both - using that together in a sentence seems to  justify that as a common trend as opposed to an exception (possibly).

2) She is talented in making any one look bad. I understand History is not about making any one look good or bad. But - a disproportionate coverage of the negative takes away what any person or event actually stood out for.
When she has a sentence about Muslims robbing Indian temples, she is quick to add in a bracket that Hindus also had robbed other temples. This constant "support" of the opposition party (If I may) leaves a distaste when you are in the middle of one version. I have NO problems in talking about Hindus who DID rob temples. But, every time you talk about the mischief done by the oppressors, it seems that she justifies their wrong doing just because it was also done by the victims themselves.. Again, this attitude prevails through out the book for every one.
On the few pages about Gandhi -sleeping with girls was discussed quite a bit,
On the one page about Vivekananda - his statement about his preference for beef was a paragraph.
On the couple of pages about Sankaracharya - his sleeping with the philosopher's wife (as an interpretation of the incident around Grihastha experience where Sankara gets into soul) was discussed enough.

3) 80% of the book is focused on bashing males, the so-called upper castes(and predominantly Brahmins), common religious and social views of the day and de-emphasizing the main aspects of Hinduism, extrapolating the myths of the day to treat them as actual version of what happened. I DO believe that some of the so-called upper castes treated others unjustly. There is no argument about that. However, focusing only on the negatives without mention of the other events that happened in that time is not an accurate portrayal of History either. For instance - Aryabhatta was mentioned for a couple of words within the same sentence. That's it.

4) Though there is mention of the parallels between Sanskrit and Tamil from the ancient days, there is not much coverage of the south. I would have expected more. Roughly 70% was for North Indian based coverage.

5) Tantra took a decent coverage. I am sure she would have talked about Nityananda had she waited a little longer to publish this book :) However, it is sad that tantra took more coverage than the philosophical concepts of Vedantic Hinduism. Actually, there was less coverage for the "Brahman"  or the soul (NOT the Brahmin) than what Tantra had.

6) Hardly any coverage on the other aspects of life - For instance arts, dance, yoga, mimamsa, culture took the back seat. Dogs, horses and Linga took the lead.

7) Too many modern/recent theories (Freudian for instance) and views (feminist for instance) imposed on analyzing a slice of the spectrum of events from the past.

Bottom line:

Worth a read for the alternate view. Couldn't muster the fact that my money would go to her (in a selfish pro-Indian way - and hence the above review could be somewhat biased as much as I try not to) and hence opted the library route. Inspired me to look into my next studies on other cultures that shared the monistic concepts and to focus on Avesta, Confucius, and ancient Greek religions.
2.5 star on Amazon is a true reflection of what I feel about the book!

PS: Intended to write this as a brain dump as opposed to an article.
So, the usual emphasis for proper writing is not there. I didn't even spell check.
Send...

Later

<<< Excerpt from email #3>>

On the Hindus in America.. it was mainly about

- Vivekananda's speech here 

-  the temples built here

- Hollywood influence and other articles (toilet seats, slippers etc with Hindu Gods as example)

- American Tantra and 

- talking about sites like eprarthana as if every one does just that !

Again, it is based on boundary conditions as if it is the mainstream!

Get on the train !!

Queensboro Plaza Subway Station

Korea

India