The Historical Roots of Ahimsa in Indian Religion

[Politesse]

It'd be interesting to see a comparative analysis on the extent of drug use, and a comparison of the qualities of the drugs used, but I imagine such a thing isn't possible. My bet is on Soma being a stronger drug than that used in different regions, and that it did have an influence, but that's going to remain a guess.

What we know about any sort of ritual activities in ancient Meditterranean or Indian worlds, let alone specific rituals, doesn't fill a book (unless you're trying to fill a book).

When I teach Intro to Archeology, and it's time for the week 1 "lab", instead of a standard lab exercise I dump out a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle onto the table at the front of the room, then give each lab group seven puzzle pieces to analyze. No peeking at the box, or at other students' assemblages. Their task is to determine as best they can the content, subject, and artistic qualities of the fully assembled puzzle. Then all the groups compare notes, to see whether they have reconstructed similar portraits of the whole. I think you've done enough reading on archaeology and cultural studies to guess correctly what the moral of the exercise might be. Indeed, I'm far too generous in setting up the game, as what we posess for a material or written record before 1000 BCE comes nowhere remotely near a sample size like 7 in a thousand.

 

[rousseau]

It'd be interesting to see a comparative analysis on the extent of drug use, and a comparison of the qualities of the drugs used, but I imagine such a thing isn't possible. My bet is on Soma being a stronger drug than that used in different regions, and that it did have an influence, but that's going to remain a guess.

What we know about any sort of ritual activities in ancient Meditterranean or Indian worlds, let alone specific rituals, doesn't fill a book (unless you're trying to fill a book).

When I teach Intro to Archeology, and it's time for the week 1 "lab", instead of a standard lab exercise I dump out a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle onto the table at the front of the room, then give each lab group seven puzzle pieces to analyze. No peeking at the box, or at other students' assemblages. Their task is to determine as best they can the content, subject, and artistic qualities of the fully assembled puzzle. Then all the groups compare notes, to see whether they have reconstructed similar portraits of the whole. I think you've done enough reading on archaeology and cultural studies to guess correctly what the moral of the exercise might be. Indeed, I'm far too generous in setting up the game, as what we posess for a material or written record before 1000 BCE comes nowhere remotely near a sample size like 7 in a thousand.

Yea, I've definitely picked up on that, but I still find myself guilty of over-optimism toward what we know from time to time. Some of the questions I research within sociology and biology as well. I want answers that don't or can't exist.

 

[Politesse]

It'd be interesting to see a comparative analysis on the extent of drug use, and a comparison of the qualities of the drugs used, but I imagine such a thing isn't possible. My bet is on Soma being a stronger drug than that used in different regions, and that it did have an influence, but that's going to remain a guess.

What we know about any sort of ritual activities in ancient Meditterranean or Indian worlds, let alone specific rituals, doesn't fill a book (unless you're trying to fill a book).

When I teach Intro to Archeology, and it's time for the week 1 "lab", instead of a standard lab exercise I dump out a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle onto the table at the front of the room, then give each lab group seven puzzle pieces to analyze. No peeking at the box, or at other students' assemblages. Their task is to determine as best they can the content, subject, and artistic qualities of the fully assembled puzzle. Then all the groups compare notes, to see whether they have reconstructed similar portraits of the whole. I think you've done enough reading on archaeology and cultural studies to guess correctly what the moral of the exercise might be. Indeed, I'm far too generous in setting up the game, as what we posess for a material or written record before 1000 BCE comes nowhere remotely near a sample size like 7 in a thousand.

Yea, I've definitely picked up on that, but I still find myself guilty of over-optimism toward what we know from time to time. Some of the questions I research within sociology and biology as well. I want answers that don't or can't exist.

Such questions can be motivating! But I do think it is important to be realistic about the certainty of the answers we come up with.

 

[abaddon]

Seems likely there's a connect between non-violence and "oneness". During "the axial age", religions started internalizing the rituals and shifted from making sacrifices to the gods towards, in effect, applying the "sacrifice" to their own self rather than using a symbolic stand-in.

Once internalized, if the "self-emptying" results in seeing that one is not a lone entity set apart from the rest of being, then what we are is a feature of being. Being is eternal so therefore "I" am also, inasmuch as "I" am being too. (An atheist can realize something like this as well, if his "absolute" is conceived as matter and he thinks "when I die I'll recycle as matter"... that arguably is a variety of "oneness" too).

So therefore, if I'm an expression of being (whether described as God or The One or Brahman, et al), then harm to others is self-harm. There's no Me vs The World in the unitive vision of the world.

I doubt psychedelics are a cause of what's being called "monism". There are many ways to get the I-me-mine self out of the way. Contemplative techniques can get you there too. But then it's no surprise psychedelics were used, as one of the available technologies for ego-transcendence. In the right set-and-setting, they're a very effective way to dissolve the self and experience the eternality in oneness, far faster than years of ascetic contemplative practices.

The one central theme, AFAICT, is the lessening of the significance of the little "me" that makes us feel isolated and "put upon" by the universe. Whether it's the incense and candles in a church, or a monk sitting on his zafu, or an awesome view of the night sky, the smallness of "me" doesn't necessarily result in an "oh lord please don't squish me!" response. It can also (imv, much preferably) result in a "the universe and I are one process" response.

(@rousseau... Karen Armstrong provides a decent overview of the early developments in the major religions, the story of how they moved from tribal gods to more universal conceptions. If the work of searching older histories to get a summary overview has been done, then why do it again? Also her sources are in her bibliography.)

 

[Politesse]

I have met Karen Armstrong, and like her a great deal as a person and a scholar, but the notion of an Axial Age was not her original contribution; rather, it emerged from the work of philosopher and sometime Freudian psychiatrist Karl Jaspers. You can read his argument for the existence of such an age in his once-influential work, The Origin and Goal of History (1953). It's not an evidence-based argument, which handicaps it somewhat in my way of seeing things, but I'll admit it is a proposition driven by beautiful ideas.

 

[rousseau]

Seems likely there's a connect between non-violence and "oneness". During "the axial age", religions started internalizing the rituals and shifted from making sacrifices to the gods towards, in effect, applying the "sacrifice" to their own self rather than using a symbolic stand-in.

Once internalized, if the "self-emptying" results in seeing that one is not a lone entity set apart from the rest of being, then what we are is a feature of being. Being is eternal so therefore "I" am also, inasmuch as "I" am being too. (An atheist can realize something like this as well, if his "absolute" is conceived as matter and he thinks "when I die I'll recycle as matter"... that arguably is a variety of "oneness" too).

So therefore, if I'm an expression of being (whether described as God or The One or Brahman, et al), then harm to others is self-harm. There's no Me vs The World in the unitive vision of the world.

I doubt psychedelics are a cause of what's being called "monism". There are many ways to get the I-me-mine self out of the way. Contemplative techniques can get you there too. But then it's no surprise psychedelics were used, as one of the available technologies for ego-transcendence. In the right set-and-setting, they're a very effective way to dissolve the self and experience the eternality in oneness, far faster than years of ascetic contemplative practices.

The one central theme, AFAICT, is the lessening of the significance of the little "me" that makes us feel isolated and "put upon" by the universe. Whether it's the incense and candles in a church, or a monk sitting on his zafu, or an awesome view of the night sky, the smallness of "me" doesn't necessarily result in an "oh lord please don't squish me!" response. It can also (imv, much preferably) result in a "the universe and I are one process" response.

(@rousseau... Karen Armstrong provides a decent overview of the early developments in the major religions, the story of how they moved from tribal gods to more universal conceptions. If the work of searching older histories to get a summary overview has been done, then why do it again? Also her sources are in her bibliography.)

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll throw it on my to read list.

I'm aware of the term Axial but usually thought of it in the frame of Big History where the world economy became robust enough to allow a deeper level of intellectualizing than previously possible. Which is why so many systems of thought emerged around the same time.

I definitely wouldn't claim that psychedelics were the ipso facto cause, and I understand the problem with evidence during the period. But it's definitely not counter-intuitive at all that the religious class of a monist philosophy was using hard drugs. I know enough about the practice of history to know when we can make an explicit statement, though, and that's obviously not the case here.

And yea, that Indian History book I mentioned above. I'm interested in India specifically as that seems to be where most of my own beliefs came from. Aside from the question of Ahimsa it should be a good read.