The Art of War and The Art of Love

[trackwhack]

Nothing is more chic for international media houses today, when writing about geopolitics, than to make grand predictions about the coming clash of the world's two oldest surviving civilizations – China and India. Nothing is more rewarding from a readership perspective perhaps, considering there are more internet users in these two countries than the rest of the world combined. Nothing is more future secure as an investment perhaps, considering the purchasing power of these countries is predicted to touch 40% of the world's total in less than 3 decades.
After years of such articulate comparisons, nothing is more bland, perhaps; the repeats have run a few cycles already.
Readers already know about the discords – economic drivers, political frameworks, market fundamentals, workforce demographics. They also understand the commonalities – poverty, high growth rates, caste/hukou, disparity in sex ratio, high debt, high reserves, current and predicted resource appetite.

However, could any two civilizations be as diametrically opposite as these two. Two pioneering works, one from each land, and perhaps the most famous from each land epitomize this truth.

While Vatsayana's Kamasutra talks about the Art of Love, Sun Tzu's work the Art of War, talks about just that.

Will one prevail over the other? Will they find a way to co-exist? If so will it be peacefully or grudgingly? Will they team up to take on the rest of the world?

I don't want to start a poll because it is meaningless, instead anyone who has an opinion on how they feel the India - China mystery will unravel itself and why, please indulge yourselves ... I would especially be interested in knowing the views of the Chinese posters

 

[LurkerBaba]

Dude, we also wrote the Arthashastra

Anyways, I've shared my thoughts on China in another thread

 

[The Messiah]

Clearly art of love has prevailed because

1. chinese population
2. chinese cant fight for shit

 

[trackwhack]

Dude, we also wrote the Arthashastra

Anyways, I've shared my thoughts on China in another thread

Of course it has, but the Kamasutra is the most well known Indian literary work. Irrespective of where in the world you are, if you've not heard of it, you've not hit puberty.
I was watching a Mexican channel on Roku and saw a Viagra rip off advertised as KS.

And yes, your thoughts on China I read last time. This thread discusses the possible eventualities of these two civilizations that appear to be on a collision course.

 

[LurkerBaba]

Of course it has, but the Kamasutra is the most well known Indian literary work. Irrespective of where in the world you are, if you've not heard of it, you've not hit puberty.
I was watching a Mexican channel on Roku and saw a Viagra rip off advertised as KS.

And yes, your thoughts on China I read last time. This thread discusses the possible eventualities of these two civilizations that appear to be on a collision course.

On a serious note, afaik Kamasutra was never "lost", multiple commentaries have been written on it. Same is the case with the "Art of War", it has been analyzed thoroughly by many nationalities (including the Japanese).

Arthashatra was rediscovered quite (relative terms) recently, it has not received similar amount of PR

 

[Iamanidiot]

Arthashastra the primary workwas discovered by R.Shyama Shastry at mysore oriental research institute in 1909.The original work was written in the Grantha rcript

 

[Iamanidiot]

There are many ancient works lost in indian literature thanks to Brahminical insularity and lack of readership in ancient india due to carte ryrtem

 

[Iamanidiot]

The Jain tradition of scholarship is the sole reason some amount of literature survived.The arthashastra copy that shama shastry got was from the jains of the d4amcra rect at karnataka

 

[civfanatic]

How can you generalise two civilizations (that too, the two largest and most ancient civilizations) based on just two pieces of literature? Especially when there are numerous other pieces of literature that have had far more impact? The Kamasutra and the Art of War may be popular in the West, but that doesn't mean they are representative of either Indian or Chinese civilization.

The Confucian Analects provide a much better understanding of Chinese civilization than the Art of War or any of the Seven Military Classics.

 

[Iamanidiot]

The Chinese are primarily a very legalistic bunch atleast the main landers where as Indians are a very rebellious bunch

 

[civfanatic]

The Chinese have always been very down-to-earth and materialistic and favour large, highly organized government. Indians have historically been the opposite.

 

[KS]

There are many ancient works lost in indian literature thanks to Brahminical insularity and lack of readership in ancient india due to carte ryrtem

and due to invasions...

The Chinese are primarily a very legalistic bunch atleast the main landers where as Indians are a very rebellious bunch

Because unlike the chinese we were never homogenous..

 

[Iamanidiot]

The Chinese have always been very down-to-earth and materialistic and favour large, highly organized government. Indians have historically been the opposite.

The Chinese geography aided it and they always had a good adminstration with a highly organized civil service

 

[Iamanidiot]

and due to invasions...

Very secondary how did the jains save the literature

 

[KS]

Very secondary how did the jains save the literature

same way the tamils saved their literature...they were out of way of the invasion routes.

and same reason why buddhists/gangetic plain hindus could not save theirs..

 

[Iamanidiot]

and due to invasions...




Because unlike the chinese we were never homogenous..

Compare and contrast confucianism with Indian literature you will get the answer

 

[civfanatic]

Historians often talk about the Mauryas, Guptas, Mughals, etc. as "centralized" empires, when in reality these empires were anything but centralized (even by their contemporary standards). Effective power was always held at the regional level. Even the Mauryan Empire, the epitome of Indian centralism, was basically highly fertile regions in faraway parts of the empire held together by a system of roads and taxed while huge swathes of the empire remained quasi-independent (similar in many respects to the Achaemenid Persian Empire). Even the British Raj was quite decentralized, with huge kingdoms like Hyderabad being de facto independent.

In fact the most centralized state in the history of India is none other than the Republic of India.

 

[Iamanidiot]

same way the tamils saved their literature...they were out of way of the invasion routes.

and same reason why buddhists/gangetic plain hindus could not save theirs..

The jains were in the think of invasion routes gujarat for example the main reason is they had a network of people and institutions which could save and propagate the scholarship.Where as brahmins were insular,egoistic and petty this never enabled them to build institutions which would carry on their work

 

[KS]

The jains were in the think of invasion routes gujarat for example the main reason is they had a network of people and institutions which could save and propagate the scholarship.Where as brahmins were insular,egoistic and petty this never enabled them to build institutions which would carry on their work

...also the Jains had pretty solid foundations in south india even better than the Buddhists...they just transferred the knowledge downward...regarding brahmin part I agree.

 

[Iamanidiot]

Add to that the jains were mainly patronized by the business class where as brahmins were on really dubious state patronization