It would perhaps be incorrect to say that in India, there is less or no distinction between the self and the non-self and that in fact the self is subordinated to either the divine or the cycle of karma and births. Or at least it would not be sufficient to say this.
It is generally assumed that the Self, the Ego is stronger in western modes of thinking. But I think that it is possible to suggest that in fact the apparent fuzziness between the self and the non-self in 'Indian' thinking is in fact due to the predominance of the Self. One only needs to look at the way knowledge is acquired and mastered in the Indian framework. [I think there are strong overlaps with some modes of Arabic thinking too, but this needs more thinking]. From classical music and dance, to the knowledge of plants and 'padaarthas' (elements in nature), to even arts of divinition and of Tantra knowledge is acquired not by establishing logical laws of nature, but by such detailed familiarity with that material realm which is being mastered that its secrets, its very intentions and workings become apparent - their nature is known, not their law of nature. In this then is discerned a moving law... But for this, entry is required by a strongly intention-ed Will, perhaps yes, not a Self, but a Will which will achieve this mastery. Surely yes, this process will not leave the person unchanged. And yes perhaps one can then suggest the curious relation between a strong Self and a bending Will or strong Will and bending Self, I don't know.
Secondly, think about rules such as those of Manu which declare that if a woman sleeps with another man when her husband is away for a long period, she is not punishable but is only so if she deliberately cheats on him. Is there not a curious recognition of desire in this, as a valid aspect of the lives of even ordinary people? So the morality related to adultry is not the Victorian one we are used to today.
Of course, it may be correct to ask, how representative Manu was of Indian thinking at a particular time and in fact also what context his writing emerges in - perhaps a period of reconciling more tribal and/or 'pagan'/proto-Hindu sorts of ways with other ideas of reform that were emerging at that time. Surely the views about the Self and the non-self would have varied greatly in the Advaita traditions and those of Manu and the Dharmashatras. So then, would the attitude to desire.
But it is useful again to broadly note that this recognition of desire even in formal documents, does not match the stereotype of the self-denying aspects of even later Hinduism. (though is Manu from later Hinduism or still in conversation with more of the Vedic forms?)
I wonder - Is there an integrated idea of the Self here? how can one be thinking of an individual as a Brahmin or Shudra only (note that adopting children among relatives even today remains quite common but only so within the community - which implies that one is not an individual, but one is also not of the whole society, but of the particular community/family/jaati) and yet also have a profound tradition of separation from community and the social, through systems like Sanyasa or even more mundane instances. Maybe, i make the mistake of trying at the same time to look at lived life and formal injunctions, to older and more recent periods of reform and change in the 'hindu traditions'.
It is generally assumed that the Self, the Ego is stronger in western modes of thinking. But I think that it is possible to suggest that in fact the apparent fuzziness between the self and the non-self in 'Indian' thinking is in fact due to the predominance of the Self. One only needs to look at the way knowledge is acquired and mastered in the Indian framework. [I think there are strong overlaps with some modes of Arabic thinking too, but this needs more thinking]. From classical music and dance, to the knowledge of plants and 'padaarthas' (elements in nature), to even arts of divinition and of Tantra knowledge is acquired not by establishing logical laws of nature, but by such detailed familiarity with that material realm which is being mastered that its secrets, its very intentions and workings become apparent - their nature is known, not their law of nature. In this then is discerned a moving law... But for this, entry is required by a strongly intention-ed Will, perhaps yes, not a Self, but a Will which will achieve this mastery. Surely yes, this process will not leave the person unchanged. And yes perhaps one can then suggest the curious relation between a strong Self and a bending Will or strong Will and bending Self, I don't know.
Secondly, think about rules such as those of Manu which declare that if a woman sleeps with another man when her husband is away for a long period, she is not punishable but is only so if she deliberately cheats on him. Is there not a curious recognition of desire in this, as a valid aspect of the lives of even ordinary people? So the morality related to adultry is not the Victorian one we are used to today.
Of course, it may be correct to ask, how representative Manu was of Indian thinking at a particular time and in fact also what context his writing emerges in - perhaps a period of reconciling more tribal and/or 'pagan'/proto-Hindu sorts of ways with other ideas of reform that were emerging at that time. Surely the views about the Self and the non-self would have varied greatly in the Advaita traditions and those of Manu and the Dharmashatras. So then, would the attitude to desire.
But it is useful again to broadly note that this recognition of desire even in formal documents, does not match the stereotype of the self-denying aspects of even later Hinduism. (though is Manu from later Hinduism or still in conversation with more of the Vedic forms?)
I wonder - Is there an integrated idea of the Self here? how can one be thinking of an individual as a Brahmin or Shudra only (note that adopting children among relatives even today remains quite common but only so within the community - which implies that one is not an individual, but one is also not of the whole society, but of the particular community/family/jaati) and yet also have a profound tradition of separation from community and the social, through systems like Sanyasa or even more mundane instances. Maybe, i make the mistake of trying at the same time to look at lived life and formal injunctions, to older and more recent periods of reform and change in the 'hindu traditions'.