Why does he not talking about the history of India?

[Anonymous No.17500014]

He occasionally talks about their metaphysics but never goes on the multi page rants regarding indian history like he does for Arabs, Chinese or fucking +2000BC egyptians.
I think he wrote more on hypothetical aztecs and mayans than any indian leaders.

does India not fit into his paradigm?

[Anonymous No.17500530]

Waiting...

[Anonymous No.17500982]

>>17500530
Because he doesnt know enough about it. Evola,Guenon,Neetch didnt know enough about it either. Even today westerners dont understand india and with how the civilization is moving forward i dont think they will ever understand it.

[Anonymous No.17501007]

>>17500982
India was the focal point of early spice trading, infamous since Alexander and under full colonial rule for hundred of years;
How is it possible no one at least asked an indian to summ it up for them? How could western curiosity fail here?
>I am unironically curious

[Anonymous No.17501051]

>>17500014
The reason he goes into depth about China is he is one of the first people to understand Sino thought in detail. The way west views arabs is same as how romans viewed jews(or moreso how people from 20th century and before viewed them) as for Mayans,Aztecs,Sumerians,Egyptians chapters about them felt empty compared to his comprehensive writings about Anglo,Western European civilization. Just there to fill his theory i find his thoughts about Russia laughable western europeans cant even understand slavs

[Anonymous No.17501090]

>>17501051
>find his thoughts about Russia laughable western europeans cant even understand slavs
well that fits his rundown on russia, since he always says
>gee i wonder what that will be like,
>hmmm what the slavic soul really msut hold...
He literally ends subchapters with like this unironically.
>as for Mayans,Aztecs,Sumerians,Egyptians chapters about them felt empty compared to his comprehensive writings about Anglo,Western European civilization
his whole concept falls apart if he cant look at other (previous) cultures as the apodictical paradigm which the occident must follow in its theme though.
So this doesnt make sense.
He writes a lot about most of the 'other' cultures Except the indians. That is the only unique thing.

[Anonymous No.17501105]

>>17501007
>infamous since Alexander
Did you mean to say famous? Infamous has a bad connotation but everyone from the Arabs to the Greeks generally wrote about India as a land of wisdom and riches

[Anonymous No.17501137]

>>17500014

India has that whole cycle molded into their very metaphysical thought. Its ahistorical in that way like Spengler says , but there can still be heros, great events to come.

Abrahamics have the end of times which is basically the end of historical time, but India has Kali Yuga and endless repeats of the cycle, endless reincarnations etc.Indian philosophy is actually also much more "presentist", it is concerned with the here and now, becoming clear minded and so on.

I think in the end we have to cope that India is basically the most stable civilization in the history of humankind, macro historically speaking.

[Anonymous No.17501204]

>>17500014
Marx also largely ignored India, for the reason that it didn’t fit his model of human societal development, you could say it ‘retroactively refuted’ him