Objectifying Subject or Subjectifying Object

There are numerous differences between Indian and Western cultures. But one difference, which I believe is very important and which is missed in most of the literature, is the marked difference in perception of subject and object. In simple terms, a particular incidence which is subjective to western world is objective to Indian mind and vice versa.

The dictionary meaning of the word subjective is proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world. Since renaissance in medieval ages the western nations constantly strived to break the shekels of structured and hierarchical society. The regulations of the society, the conventions, which every individual was supposed to follow, were repeatedly questioned. Everything became relative and subjective and open for different interpretations. At the same time the western world was rapidly capturing old eastern world and conquering new world. Add industrial revolution to this and world or at least Europe entered in the new order of market economy. The imperceptive papal power and its rigid Christianity became an obstacle for scientific development. Metaphysical and spiritual development became taboo and subject to backwardness. Materialism became mantra and human thirst to attain the highest physical comfort at all cost attained Himalayan height. Materialism is epitome of objectivism. If you do not attain certain goals or do not own certain things then you have achieved nothing. Driving BMW, having yacht and beach house etc are measures of happiness. But if a person kills another person for no reason then the killer does not necessarily to be bad, there will arguments in killers support. The killer become a subject not an object.

The basic philosophical thought of Indian religion is that the materialistic life is all Maya i.e. unreal. The spiritual and metaphysical development is ultimate way to attain the moksha. (Salvation) Obviously, this was in contrast with the new world order set by conquering Europe. For them, lack of faith in materialism is direct threat to their business and markets. Since then, these capitalistic nations are trying every way to discredit the Indian philosophy, branding it as old, archaic, rigid, discriminatory or simply obsolete. There is no religious head like Pope in any of Indian religion. (I am mainly considering Hinduism and Buddhism). So, no one within the religion tried to break the old way of thinking, which according to majority, if followed correctly is still relevant. The social structure changed over the period of time but society never deviated from basic tenet of religious philosophy that emphasizes more on spiritual development than material development. Indian people are used to see world in black and white. There are certain things that are bad and therefore should be shunned at all cost. People who do those things were treated as culprit and abhorred. There is no subjectiveness in those things. There are different ways to reach god but basically the spiritual ways were objective. There are certain ways set to attain salvation. In contrast, subjective thinking is paramount in materialism. Happiness of a person has nothing to do with his materialistic wealth. Good health and good family is desirable.

There was an interesting opinion poll published in TIME magazine. The question was would you accept pay-raise that would cost your family time? In US around 80% answered positively while in India around 80% or so people answered negatively.