http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070621/ap_on_re_au_an/australia_aborigines

CANBERRA, Australia – Australia’s prime minister announced plans Thursday to ban pornography and alcohol for Aborigines in northern areas and tighten control over their welfare benefits to fight child sex abuse among them.

Some Hindutva ’scholars’ claim that India is the original IE homeland (the “Out of India” theory), but that is a bit wacko. Feuerstein etc. believe that a migration to India occured before the Indus Valley Civilization. “the Aryans could just as well have been native to India for several millennia, deriving their Sanskritic language from earlier Indo-European dialects.”

I contributed to the following article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_the_Cradle_of_Civilization

I don’t mean to suggest it is B&W at all. Re the Aryan invasion. The reason that it is thought that the Aryans migrated was because of their influence outside India, notably Iran. If the Aryans were indigenous to India then how to explain Iran and the linguistic links to European languages, as well as the existance of Dravidian languages in the south of India?

Your account seems to be imputing everying admirable to the indigenous people and everything unfortunate to the late-comers (or nearly so), which strikes me as unlikely to turn out to be accurate when more evidence is in. History is rarely so black and white.

Aurobindo rejected the notion of an Aryan invasion or migration, right? And Georg Feuerstein believes that the Aryans refer to upper-class people of the same ethnic mix as the non-Aryans.

I’m not sure how to make sense of this. That’s like saying that it’s unknown to upper-class women that something called “God’s penis” is a representation of…God’s penis.

Which for me includes getting rid of the artifical and lower-meme categories of “spirit” as opposed to “matter” (sex) altogether and recontextualizing them within a more current, “nondual” context (like the undeconstructable of Derrida). Liberate sex and higher states of consciousness by limiting (differentiating) their paradigms, as Ken puts it, rather than “fusing” them a la tantra (pre-differentation, pre-rational). And note that the undeconstructable itself is not sex or a state or a stage but the “emptiness” that grounds them all, only again re-contextualized (and de-”spirited” [dualized]) from its origins.

In The Light at the Center, Bharati offers one among many examples of how interpretations of basic texts was distorted: ‘..the basic content of the Hindu doctrine is hedonic, the canonical scriptures talk overtly about delight and pleasure, and even the last five centuries of puritianical subversion have not quite succeeded in suppressing them.

‘In the Taittiriya Upanishad’, Bharati continues ‘there is a famous long passage called “the hierarchy of ananda (pleasure)”. Now, official Hindu exegesis today, informed by that puritanism which I view as verging on the pathological, declares that ananda does not mean pleasure, it has no hedonistic underpinnings: rather it means controlled spiritual well being, etc. But the passage resists these dampening attempts, and if you really want to get a rise out of a modern Hindu pandit who speaks English (Bharati wrote this 31 years ago–perhaps matters have changed?) you quote the ananda-mimamsa, “the hierarchy of pleasure”. ”

(Light at the Center, pages 29-30)

And in his memoir, Bharati describes this same sex negative bias
distorting the work of scholarship: young Agehananda was a monk in the Ramakrishna order. Swami Madhavanada had just published an important English translation of the Brhadarnayaka Upanishad with commentaries by Samkaracarya.

‘The ancient canonical text contains, toward its conclusion, a section of candid erotics, how a woman should be courted, how she should be consummated, how male offspring is to be begotten in her womb, and how she ought to be treated if she refuses the earnest suitor’s wooings. Purianism had not yet clogged the Brahmin mind in the canonical age and as not to mar its abudant freedom for centuries to come….’

With dismay, Bharati wrote ‘In Swami Mahavandanda’s (edition) the full text is printed in the Sanskrit original, but these passages are simply omitted in his translation. It was to this omission I took strong exception. For if every word in the sruti is truth, then there is no human being who can tamper with the text itself; he may interpret it by all means,and make it speak about the preparation of vegetables, if he can torture the text sufficiently and sexual matters are an abomination in his ears, but he simply must not omit it without explanation…’

(For if nothing is done to tell the reader that passage X has been omitted, how can the reader know that he or she is reading an incomplete text? AK)

Years later, after leaving the Ramakrishna Order, Bharati was ordained a sanyassi and met another monk to whom he related the censorship episode described above.

‘He laughed aloud and said ‘If God does not mind creating a human or animal penis or a human and animal vagina, and if he does not mind arranging a particular relationship between thier carriers why should he hesitate to talk about them? Who are we to tell Him what is decent and what ought to be said or what ought to be omitted?’

Bharati, The Ochre Robe 136-7)