Indriyajaya, environmentalism, the trad fallacy and adapting Hinduism for modernity ⭐

Also published on Twitter

A common mistake I’ve seen from neo-trads is they think the restraints in Hinduism were motivated by “minimizing harm to others” — whereas in reality the motive was always personal discipline.

(The only context where “harm to others” comes up at all is when the “others” is Dharma itself.)

This is a fundamental philosophical point of difference between Hinduism and the Śramaṇa sects:

• Hinduism preaches restraint over the senses as instrumentally valuable for achieving your goals
• Buddhism preaches restraint as an end in itself
• Jainism preaches restraint to avoid harming others

(e.g. to illustrate my point: many such restraints are only imposed on upper-castes. Surely if the goal was to reduce to avoid causing harm to others, then it would not be OK for a śūdra to harm others either. But holding aristocrats to higher standards of personal discipline is perfectly understandable.)

The distinction between between “terminal goals” (“value in itself”) and “instrumental goals” is important because it tells us exactly how to generalize these principles for modernity.

Terminal goals—in Hinduism, artha, kāma, dharma; and all that is encompassed therein—are not subject to change. But instrumental goals are naturally context-dependent, and thus a matter of pragmatism.

Specific examples in reference to restraint:

I’ve debated ?? (????) and others here re: environmentalism, which is an evil misanthropic cult based on the hatred of man and his ability to far advance the world beyond the unrefined form in which it came to him. “But Hinduism condemns wastefulness!”—indeed, so do I! What is condemned is dehātī destructiveness that shows a lack of restraint on your part: like shitting in rivers and murdering squirrels and trashing your grandmother’s garden. This objection has no relevance to consuming the environment for productive enterprises (which you may note the ancient H did a lot of, and there was never any religious objection to it, rather it was celebrated, whether in the burning of the Khāṇḍava forest or the Pallava kings being celebrated as “the destroyers of trees”, or Kautilya prescribing the colonization of wild tracts as the duty of the minister).

Brahmacārya was promoted in antiquity because many elite men had an absolute abundance of women to enjoy (due to widespread acceptance of polygyny and high-end prostitution, and men dying in wars), and could easily become addicted to the amorous pleasures of life. You, a modern man, do not (yet). Have sex.

Similarly for restraints on onion and garlic. With testosterone levels and sperm counts in freefall, you don’t want to suppress libido. Eat all the onion and garlic you can (and eat it raw btw—that and cruciferous vegetables are the absolute S-tier vegetable be it on cancer prevention, heart disease or testosterone, and both should be eaten raw).

But on the other hand, alcohol is more abundant than ever before, and restraints on its consumption are more relevant than ever before.

This “pragmatism on instrumental goals” doesn’t just apply to restraint, of course. I think ?? (a) had written a quite sensible thread once on a similar point wrt the varṇa system.

But I focus on restraint, because that is perhaps the single biggest area where modern H have failed to correctly generalize tradition to modernity. On one hand Indians restrain themselves on stuff it no longer makes sense to; on the other, as ?? (a) often says, modern India is “an assault on the senses”.

Of the latter category, gaudy aesthetics is one example, but there is a far more serious one—which will be the topic of a future post—where items that were once luxury goods became status-markers, leading to their excessive mass-consumption in modernity. Sugar. Ghee. Deep-frying. Refined grains and flours. The failure of the Indian diet.

… continued in: xeet/politics/new-arya-man/diet2.org

Also published on Twitter

The arguments in this article (“Ecological Consciousness”):

• H will be reincarnated back on earth so we can’t destroy it
• The root dhr- of Dharma means “to sustain”. Wow, look, sustainability!
• Random ref to 5 kośas and claiming they somehow “banish” anthropocentrism
• H pray to the things we use, bc we’re “conscious” about it

This is sort of article that, if written about Xianity, they would immediately recognize as a subversion attempt by libs. Our geniuses do it to ourselves, because they have no real respect for their own religion.

https://x.com/abbajabadabba/status/1845375312462324049

Why not just be honest about the motivations for this kind of thing? It’s the same genre as “OUR R̥ṢIS KNEW QUANTUM PHYSICS!!”

You are so indocrinated by lib ideology you subconsciously view it to be as factual (and therefore as much worth kanging on) as quantum physics.

I’m rarely this harsh on groups like brhat, because at least they’re doing something etc. But distorting the sacred word for some lib approval is contemptible.

… and you won’t even get it. Your worst sin is that you have sold your Dharma for nothing.

https://x.com/ImperiumHindu/status/1845430230594224387

Distorting and lying about the sacred word in service of lib ideology, and romanticizing Indians living in poverty, is liberal subversion.

The only reason I know it isn’t deliberate liberal subversion is that libs would give vastly smarter arguments than “dhr- means sustain!”

Also published on Twitter

Ok sār then tell me what’s your cope for:

• Kṛṣṇa & Arjuna burning down the Khāṇḍava forest
• Pallava kings being honored as “the destroyers of trees”
• Kautilya saying that it is good to create artificial forests (plantations) that expand replacing wild tracts (7.12, 2.2)
• Kautilya stating that the colonization and improvements of wild tracts is a duty of the minister (8.1, 2.1)

Also published on Twitter

As I have said, a lot of the (actual) quotes cited as proof of “environmentalism in H” simply do not understand the cultural context behind them. In general, it is simply unlikely that the exact topics we discuss in modern politics would have been central themes or “axes” that the ancient Hindus thought on—nonetheless, people have a tendency to “see” the civic religion of their times in ancient texts.

This is why Vivekananda could so comfortably say things like

• Man is born to conquer nature not to follow it
• Religion is the idea which is raising the brute unto man, and man unto God
• The very reason for nature’s existence is the education of the soul; it has no other meaning
• The soul is superior to all environment. “The universe is my father’s kingdom; I am the heir-apparent”—that is the attitude for man to take. “My own soul can subdue all.

while Rāytās today call this blasphemous and “Semitic” and instead see “sustainability” in “Dharma” because “dhṛ” means “sustain” (if you do not laugh at the stupidity of this argument you have an IQ < 40). All of this “living in harmony with nature” “it’s about balance” claims are not serious claims that anybody made before the late 20th century.

To be specific, the verses cited for the “Hindus were environmentalists!” tend to be instances of one of the following contexts:

1. Natural elements with human utility. By and far the majority of “verses about protecting the environment” are about protecting trees and forests with direct human utility. MS 8.285 makes this explicit (“The punishment for injuring trees should be as per their utility”); similarly everything in the Arthaśāstra about protecting forests is about elephant forests, timberland, plantations of forest produce, forests for ascetics and learning, hunting grounds etc. Even the hunting grounds were heavily terraformed, with moats, artificial lakes, wild plants replaced with fruit-bearing ones, tigers tracked and de-clawed and de-toothed (KAS 2.2).

The same goes for mentions of planting trees having religious merit. Far more common are mentions of building infrastructure (especially hydraulic infrastructure) having religious merit: they even make it onto Sātavāhana and Śaka inscriptions. Trees are sometimes mentioned alongside these, because they too are examples of things that bear fruit for a very long time, often many generations (thus the idea of planting trees granting a certain immortality similar to siring children).

1. General stories about gods. Sure, the Vedic gods personified elements of nature so they were technically “worshipped”. We also have a god of sex; it would be stupid to say that this means Hindus worship sex and the sexual revolution is very Hindu. We also have a god of death, various gods of war etc.

Apart from the obvious, this also applies to verses like “Let me not pierce thy vitals or thy heart” (AV12.1) or the story of Karṇa and Bhūdevī.

1. Brahman. Another argument is “since we are all Brahman, nature is also Brahman so we shouldn’t touch it”. Needless to say, that’s not how it works. If a tree is Brahman then so is furniture made out of its wood, etc. Indeed, this is exactly what distinguishes Hinduism from other “pagan” religions: the elements may be transformed as desired, and they will still carry Brahman in them.

---

There are only two actual themes in Hinduism that could be seen as even vaguely environmentalism-related:

(1) ahiṃsa and value for all sentient beings

(2) cows and specific sacred trees/groves etc.

1 was the reason why in my initial post I wrote “the value of nature lies in its utility to sentient beings, i.e. humans”. In principle, the utility of all sentient beings matter (though it is clear that that of humans matters far more), but if you really take this logic seriously, you will end up with EA-style utilitarianism/shrimp welfare, not environmentalism. For instance, you would have to castrate all tigers to prevent animals from getting hunted by them.

In any case, like I said in my previous post: such restraints were primarily focused on personal sin. Many of these restraints are only imposed on upper-castes—surely if the goal was to reduce to avoid causing harm to others, then it would not be OK for a śūdra to harm others either. But holding aristocrats to higher standards of personal discipline is perfectly understandable. This applies to stuff like “Brāhmaṇas should avoid agriculture/eating meat because it harms animals” etc. Ahiṃsa was a matter of personal sin, not about legislating away economic or religious activities for causing hiṃsa.

As for 2: the presence of some particular special inviolable things doesn’t imply everything of its broad category is inviolable. This is the same error as saying we worship women because goddesses exist.

---

If you want to see if a particular theme is present in Hinduism: instead of trying your hardest to find it in everything, ask: “What would Hindu literature have looked like if that were true?”

E.g. if the Ahiṃsa theme were real, we would see the presence of vegetarianism, various moral restraints in war, restraints on animal sacrifices, extreme cults that try to avoid even hurting microbes, softer treatment toward tribals and such … and you do see that, so the Ahiṃsa theme is supported.

If the environmentalism (i.e. the belief that inanimate nature is an end in its own right, and man must not impose reason upon it) theme were real, we would see:

• humans being implored not to cultivate wild tracts or build infrastructure
• condemning civilization
• exalting tribal lifestyle as ideal
• worship of entropy

Instead, the “colonization and improvement of wild tracts and land” is seen as one of the central background functions of the state (alongside supporting private enterprise, security, disaster relief, recruiting the army, collecting revenue and bestowing favours) (KAS 8.1) and in general the settlement and cultivation of wild tracts, even seizing them from those who don’t cultivate it (KAS 2.1), through land grants etc has long been a central function of Hindu polities.

You very often see sentences like “He shall carry on mining operations and manufacturers exploit timber and elephant forests” (KAS 2.1), or Pallava kings being honored by epithets like “destroyers of forests” (Kaduvetti). This is not something you would see in an environmentalist society.

There is also the very common motif of the construction of hydraulic infrastructure like dams, canals and reservoirs having greatest religious merit (something that even finds its way to Śātavāhana and Śaka inscriptions). (Luddites like to cite one isolated statement in the Manusmṛti that gives penalties for diverting the flow of water: from this context it is clear that applies to private persons interfering with the national water supply and irrigation system, not a religious condemnation of dam-building.)

The merit accruing from digging a well is one-fourth and that of a tank should be known as equal to that of a lotus pond. O king, the meritorious benefit in digging a canal is said to be hundred times greater than that of constructing a tank.

(Nārada Purāṇa 1.13)

The water-dam, a meritorious gift [made out of] compassion for the world, for [the sake of] merit.

(Kanheri dam inscription)

Furthermore there is an entire “man conquers nature to build civilization” motif omnipresent in the literature:

• Pṛthu levelling and transforming the Earth to create civilization
• Videgha Māthava being accompanied by Agni, burning all the uncultivated forests and marshes in his path, even drying up rivers, to establish the kingdom of Videha.
• burning the Khāṇḍava forest to build Indraprastha
• burning the Madhuvana forest to build Mathura
• Karikala Chola is honored in Saṅgam literature as the “one who converted forests into fields” for clearing the dense forests of the Tondaimandalam and Andhra
• Kaśyapa draining the Satisar lake to build Kaśmīr
• Agastya crossing the Vindhyas
• the founding of Dvāraka from sea reclamation

All examples of the Prakṛti -> Sanskṛti transformation. Raw, untamed nature is terraformed into civilization for both economic and religious purposes.

This is not a motif you would see in an environmentalist society.

Nor the various other examples of the “man threatens to destroy nature; nature begs man for forgiveness” motif (e.g. Rāma and the ocean, Paraśurāma and the ocean, Agastya and Vindhya, Jahnu and Gaṅga, Pṛthu and Bhūdevī)

Nor the “human being as the ultimate creation”/humans alone having the intelligence for mokṣa motif:

The gods looked at a cow and a horse and said, “These are not enough for us.” Then the Creator brought a human being to them. The gods said, “Well done, indeed! A human being is a masterpiece of well-made form.” (Aitareya Upaniṣad 1.2.2-3)

After creating various forms—trees, reptiles, cattle, birds, and insects—the Lord was not satisfied. But when He created the human body, which is endowed with the intelligence to perceive Brahman, He was delighted. (Bhagavata Purāṇa 11.9.28)

Quite the opposite of worshipping entropy, what Dharma actually “sustains” (i.e. upholds) is Ṛta, i.e. order. This is the opposite of saying what is natural is perfect; rather it imposes order upon Prakṛti.

---

Now, the point of pointing out all these motifs is not to say that the Faustian spirit is some integral part of Hinduism. Hinduism is fundamentally a philosophical theory—or theories—and one shouldn’t expect to derive authority from it on precise modern political topics. Motifs like “civilization being built by transforming the earth/burning forests” “BVILDing has religious merit” were certainly omnipresent in the ancient Indian social mileu, but it is not necessary for it to be part of the ancient Indian social mileu in order for us to accept it (as I have pointed out before, this “one may freely accept outside ideas on things other than religious matters” is itself a fundamental part of Hindu epistemology) and the exact moral conception of the Faustian spirit is itself a post-Enlightenment thought.

The point is that none of these motifs would have existed in an environmentalist culture or (which is, in any case, a late 20th century ideology). I don’t know if people reading environmentalist themes into an ancient religion realize it, but the ancient Indians were a smart and reflective people. If they had some latent environmentalist belief, they would have noticed and written about it; you wouldn’t have to read it from bizarre things like “dhṛ means sustain so sustainability” and “we talk about not hurting the earth goddess’s heart while doing farming”.