The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RamaY »

ravi_g wrote: ...
Ravi_g garu,

Who/when said sex is a sin/not-desired? What is the purpose of sex, for pleasure or for procreation only or for self-realization and so on?

Who sees head, hands, waist and legs as separate and some how one has more value? How come one culture views touching feet as the most sincere form of respect/reverence where as another culture views it as a symbol of submission, slavery and low-life?

Who decides touching one limb of the body as a sign of respect where as touching another part of the body as sin? Aren't we living among the cultures where even mere looking at someone's face/hair/feet is blasphemy hence they must be covered? On the other hand did you come across deliberations on whether Ravana 'touched' Sitadevi skin to skin or not and whether Ravana had enough penance/power/strength to even touch the mere skin of Sitamdevi?

Who decides 'consensual sex between two adults' is dharmic or not? Didn't the whole Ramayana was about non-consensual desire of Ravana over Sitadevi or MB about non-consensual desire of Duryodhana/Karna over Draupadi and so on; where as consensual relationship between Draupadi and five brothers is Dharmic?
Last edited by RamaY on 13 May 2013 23:28, edited 1 time in total.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RamaY »

Agnimitra wrote:<snip> the fact that abuse and charlatan practices are rampant is also a matter of concern. A moral code based on technical best practices would certainly be useful.
Agreed and it has nothing to do with Nityananda, who based on what I read so far didn't do anything illegal or immoral. The society should fight rampant abuse and charlatan practices are present in all fields including spirituality and they are many laws against. But some how the law tangled itself on whether a 17.6 yr old be treated as child or adult even when he has the knowledge, physical strength and organizational capacity to brutally rape a women older than him after dangerously assaulting her boy friend.

We must simply ask the law of the land to work without any +ve or -ve discrimination for all Bharatiyas. Can the patriotic Indian Muslims and Christians start a campaign for UCC please?

The next question is how do you define the "moral" code. Is it part of law or part of spirituality? How do you solve the conflicting moral codes between various spiritual ideologies? Who wins at the end?
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by Agnimitra »

RamaY wrote:The next question is how do you define the "moral" code. Is it part of law or part of spirituality?
It should be based on best practices as learned from the historical experience of the race and the current state of scientific agreement.
RamaY wrote:How do you solve the conflicting moral codes between various spiritual ideologies? Who wins at the end?
The law should protect. As for individual sansthas of different religions, they are free to do whatever they want as long as they don't contravene the law. Where there is conflict, they must be subjected to vigorous public debate and be asked to defend themselves.
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by member_20317 »

RamaY ji,

yes you are not qualified to certify him nor am I nor is the guy who agitated you in the first place.

The peer group should comprise of people who understand these matters. Considering Nityanand is an Advaitist he can get the accredition from other Advaitists.

Simple wikiable stuff tells us the following (note for new guys 7 Akharas are accredited to Advaitist school of darshan):
In Feb 2013 during the Maha Kumbh Mela, Swami Nithyananda was bestowed the title of Mahamandaleshwar by the Maha Nirvani Akhada one of the oldest Akhada or sect of holy renunciates and one of the main organizers of the Kumbh Mela. This exclusive tile is given to those saints who are believed to have attained godly qualities.[3]
Prior to that too the appointment of Swami Nityanand has been an unsettled affair in other seats of learning.

Anyhow as to 'who decides'? Well you decide. As do I and brazilion others in our respective lives for ourselves. Some of what gets decided and survives through usage and practice becomes dharm if it sustains us. Survives as in after all the nonsense has fallen by the wayside. That is why I discounted Legality and/or Morality from the equation altogether.

Once we have taken the qualification part as indicated by the affiliated gurus and practioners in Akharas I believe the only thing to answer that remains is the one regarding Guru-Shishya relationship.

To me Guru like parents cannot afford to get entangled with a Shishya.


PS :

1) ji is good enough bade bhai ji (even that may be too much perhaps). Lets leave 'Guru' for real gurus who take us from darkness into light. I am only a follower. Ergo cannot be a Guru.

2) as for purpose of sex. well to each his own. I just enjoy it :), cannot take the sar-khapai of wondering whys and wherefores of it.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RamaY »

^ Thanks. Next question is

What are the best practices as learned from
1/ the historical experience of the race >> Who is this race, how do you define it and which perspective of the historical experience (winner, occupier, occupied, survived, resurged, local, foreign etc.,) should form the basis?

2/ and current state of scientific agreement >> What is this "current state" of scientific agreement? Is this agreement perceived from human (only) perspective of all of life or all of existence? How frequently this "current state" change, after every new ground-breaking discovery or specific period of time? What weight this aspect be given compared to the historical experience of the race?

TIA (I know adigevadiki cheppevadu lokuva :wink: )
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by Agnimitra »

RamaY wrote:What are the best practices as learned from
1/ the historical experience of the race >> Who is this race, how do you define it and which perspective of the historical experience (winner, occupier, occupied, survived, resurged, local, foreign etc.,) should form the basis?
In this case, it is an Indocentric view, so it is Hindus. Hindus can, of course, observe and borrow ideas and practices from other peoples.

In different survival conditions, different moral codes apply. the goal of the moral code at any time is to ensure maximum survival and thriving of the individual and the race.
RamaY wrote:2/ and current state of scientific agreement >> What is this "current state" of scientific agreement? Is this agreement perceived from human (only) perspective of all of life or all of existence? How frequently this "current state" change, after every new ground-breaking discovery or specific period of time? What weight this aspect be given compared to the historical experience of the race?
By scientific knowledge I included spirituality, because that's how it was treated in India. We can include "psychology" here (and I don't mean current Western psychology only). Certain human behaviors are well known and well-understood. For example, it is well understood that adoration and deification can cause some psychological regression and impair reason and cause the individual to lose sense of scale and perspective from the point of view of society.

Knowledge, understood comprehensively, includes observation in present time as well as preservation of what is carried down by the race, with corrections tailored to present time survival.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by Agnimitra »

RajeshA wrote:We could look at the fundamentalist, reformist and traditionalist division form the perspective of literalism as well. My take on this:
RajeshA ji, that was a good post. It brought to my mind that one could look at the fundamentalist, reformist, traditionist, rejectionist, etc also from the perspective of scopes of consciousness as well - in terms of the degree of identification, introjection and projection involved in each case's approach to self and reality.
RajeshA wrote:fundamentalist perspective: One could say that the fundamentalist tries to be the most literalist, however in case of Dharma, that would be amiss. Indeed at the root of the Knowledge Tree in Dharma sits the Vedas, an oral tradition of preserving the revelations to the rishis (from whichever source qualifier added to win KLP Dubey ji's acceptance). The fundamentalist in Dharma could of course take the text of the Vedas and claim to be satisfied with it. However Dharmic fundamentalism, I believe, is to mentally reconnect to the thought process of the rishis, buddhas and tirthankars, and basically to ignore the cultural and religious evolution after their advent. The effort is to take care of the base of the trunk (Vedas) and to reach the roots (Rishihood).
This is true. Remember that the fundamentalist position of Vedic Purva Mimamsa is that the sounds of the Vedas are not words in any human language, and are best appreciated via peripheral hearing. Thus, the Vedic fundamenttalist is probably the only "religious" fundamentalist in the world who will just shrug his shoulders (or even call you a heretic) if you were to compliment him on how "meaningful" his "scriptures" are! However, he will acknowledge that multiple interpretations are possible within a careful hermeneutic process (and many more bogus interpretations are also possible when they deviate from that process).

Those who interpret the Vedic words as pure ritual are merely one traditionalist school. They are traditionalists, not fundamentalists, though an important traditionalist backbone for Purva Mimamsa.
panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3781
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by panduranghari »

Assuming politicians are bacteria within the super-organism called Bharat, there are some politicians who are good bacteria (commensals) and are essential for the survival of the desh. Then there are some who are pathogenic, thus need to be exterminated by the defence systems of the body. Without putting a party to the bacterial type, surely there are pathogens within many political parties. Some are viruses as they are foreign to the tissue. What prevents the commensals within the c-system to from opposing the c-system. Or has the desh reached the terminal stage of life where the symbiotic relationship is no more but its a parasitism?

Politicians can choose a Mutualism/Symbioism based policy where both the desh and the politician benefits or even a commensalism where the desh may not benefit but is definitely not harmed even if the politician benefits.

What stops the commensals within the c-System from opposing the parasitic relationship. Do they not see the parasitic nature leads to their own death and the death of the desh? Or are they too short term focussed that they cannot and do not wish to see the big picture?
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RamaY »

JohneeG wrote: By wearing the Kashaya(Bhagwa/Saffron), he gave an impression that he was a sanyasi(fake one or real one). A sanyasi is prohibited from sex. So, by wearing saffron and giving an impression that he was a sanyasi was the reason his detractors could convince the larger hindu audience by leaking his private moments.
Is it true? Does Hinduism/SD/Vedic-Tradition "prohibits" sex during Samnyasa ashrama?

Then why do almost all Rishis, who are even Brahmarshis, have wifes and hundreds of children? Why Hindu Gods have wives and children?

Is there a difference between Brahmacharya and Samnyasa, if so what is it?

Who/When made Samnyasa a vow for celibacy?
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Published on May 17, 2010
By Rajiv Malhotra
Lessons from The Swami Nithyananda Saga: Medha Journal

After reading this, I can only say that Swami Nithyananda has done absolutely no wrong and needs to apologize for nothing.

6 of 112 Shiva Sutras revolve around sexual experimentation by male and female yogi to arouse body energies. It is science. It is voluntary. Even the sexual arousal is part of the experiment. There is nothing to be ashamed about it. In context of these 6 Shiva Sutras it is permissible even for a Guru and a female Shishya to undertake sex experiments. Science is of course subject to ethics but not to social morality.

Important is that before any such experiment is conducted the student should be made aware of his rights and there should be no pressure to participate. Also the psychological maturity of the student should be a primary criteria. It should be undertaken by mutual consent.

Nowhere has Swami Nithyananda acted against this code!

The only way to look at this issue is from the Tantrik perspective. No colonized mind should be allowed to pass judgement over the morality of this.
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by Atri »

RamaY ji,

Rishis were Grihasthas... not all Rishis were sannyasis. Especially those who built ashrams and taught students.

Furthermore, the Aghora, Kapalika and Vaamamargi (left-handed tantra guys with 5 Ms - Flesh (मांस), fish (मीन), Sex (मैथुन), alcohol (मदिरा), money(माया)) did not wear the Kaashaaya vastra.. They had (and still have) different color codes and appearance. For example, smearing Bhasma all over, they are usually Nagas. Not all Naga Sadhus are Left-Handed tantriks, but left handed tantrikas (those who are initiated into the path by a Shrotriya and Brahmanishtha guru (well-read/knowledgeable and enlightened teacher) have different dress color. Kapalika sect of aghora shaiva school (part of Apauranika Kashmiri Shaivism), wear black robes. Some others wear red robes.

Kaashaaya vastra refers complete renunciation - Bhagvat Jharjhara (Indra's flag) is of this color (The Bhagwaa).. I have serious problems with sannyasis who built and stay in Mutts and still wear Kaashaaya vastra. They are invested in a land. The whole point of saffron is having nothing, not even one's identity. But, I may be a Yindu Fanatic onlee. IMO, they should wear white or some other color. Saffron is for a roaming sadhu who does not stay in one place for more than two days.. Or, if old, stays in some place which is not institutionalized and lives on alms which he personally has to collect. Sadhus living in Mutts, eating the food purchased by the donations of richer Vaishya-Shudra section of society (or state) have not experienced the humiliation of begging for food. They live in hostels, eat in mess, like typical brahmachari living in college hostels do.

Yes, they are important, Mutt institution is important, but not fit to wear Kaashaaya vastra, IMO.

Anyways, I digress. The point being, those who were into left-handed tantra path, made people around them known that they were in left-handed tantra path. So, those who approached them, knew what they were getting into.

One may argue that in post colonial India, the system and the masses have lost this scheme of accepting left-handed tantrikas.

I do not think, Nityananda made this clear to his disciples. Perhaps he was trying something. But then he was not doing so by Raaja Marga (by learning it from a Shrotriya and Brahmanishtha guru), but was learning it on his own. Learning on one's own is also acceptable (Aadiguru Shiva teaches stuff, when connection is established) in our system. But, learning science in home-grown laboratory has its drawbacks as well. Nityananda suffered from those drawbacks. In an institution, measures are taken to make sure that tantra remains saadhana and does not descend into an orgy. Those measures need not be present when learning things on one's own.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by Agnimitra »

To add to Atri ji's points above:

Nityananda ji developed all around him the aura of a sattvika bhakti cult. This does not mix well with the vamachari stuff he was experimenting with.

Secondly, forget conspiracies by others who did the sting operation. The fact is that when it came to light, most of his own committed followers were shocked and hurt. That itself is a damning case against him. If he was a sensible guru, he would have a safer and more robust and truthful way of managing his disciples.

I do believe that RM's writings here and its critique of the morality-wars used by non-Dharmics is essential, and its a good time to bring it up! However, I do not think we can ignore the other issues internal to Dharma itself.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RamaY »

Thanks for the details Atriji and Agnimitraji.

I agree that Brahmacharya and Samnyasa are two different ashramas. What would be the main difference?

In Ashrama dharma, Samnyasa comes after Grihastha and Vanaprastha asramas thus is a healthy and natural progression. Even then we see people moving from Vanaprastha to Samnyasa as couples (wife and husband) even though they may leave this life separately.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Agnimitra wrote:To add to Atri ji's points above:

Nityananda ji developed all around him the aura of a sattvika bhakti cult. This does not mix well with the vamachari stuff he was experimenting with.

Secondly, forget conspiracies by others who did the sting operation. The fact is that when it came to light, most of his own committed followers were shocked and hurt. That itself is a damning case against him. If he was a sensible guru, he would have a safer and more robust and truthful way of managing his disciples.

I do believe that RM's writings here and its critique of the morality-wars used by non-Dharmics is essential, and its a good time to bring it up! However, I do not think we can ignore the other issues internal to Dharma itself.
The only thing one can accuse Swami Nithyananda is one of not being open about his varied spiritual interests and possibly about his maarg to his disciples!

However a Rishi needs to retain his freedom to experiment!

The problem happened because instead of stepping forward and laying out his thinking in front of the public on the issue, the whole ashram decided to weather the storm. That was wrong!

Swami Nithyananda should have explained why he is within his rights to do what he did if he could justify it to himself and if not, he should have simply asked for forgiveness for his transgression of giving in to some temptation or for not being open about his interests to his disciples.

Moreover he should have come forward and said that only a small minority of Swamis really do experimentation of the type he was conducting.

Instead he let the pseudo-seculars paint whole of Sanatan Dharma Gurus as some sex-obsessed and exploitative people. Upon this, of course others too felt let down.

The problem is that he too befell to intimidation by social mores of deracinated elite and their morality preaching.

If there is some misconduct among the Dharmic Swamys, then any explanation or apology needs to be provided promptly and to the Swamy Sabha. There is no need to talk to sickular media about it, but the explanation needs to be forthcoming.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by Agnimitra »

RajeshA wrote:The only thing one can accuse Swami Nithyananda is one of not being open about his varied spiritual interests and possibly about his maarg to his disciples!
Well, I would call that a major breach of ethics. But perhaps Nityananda's case was especially vulnerable to the hypocritical and deracinated social discourse created by the morality wars imposed by non-Dharmic religions.

To clarify ethics we must go back to Varnashrama. It is not just ethics around calling oneself a sannyasin in social terms. It is also about the ethics of being a Guru and relating with people. In each of the 4 ashramas, a Guru can relate in 4 different classes. According to each class, a different set of "tantras" is ethically valid between student and teacher, without breaking the integrity and agreement (reality) of that relationship.

Image

From Links:
Dialogue five III- an Identity control
The Game of Order
RajeshA wrote:However a Rishi needs to retain his freedom to experiment!
But freedom comes with responsibility. Nityananda ji should have taken the trouble to flesh out the subject of ethics. Instead, people like RM are now trying to do the job so that the "swami sabha" can continue their merry experimentation. Nityananda owed an explanation more to the public than merely to the swami sabha, whose members no one's ever heard of but everyone is supposed to respect?
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Agnimitra wrote:Nityananda owed an explanation more to the public than merely to the swami sabha, whose members no one's ever heard of but everyone is supposed to respect?
Well his explanation given to the Swamy Samaj should be public of course. The reason he owed an explanation to them is because he is using titles, symbols and knowledge which derive from them, and any abuse of his position as one of them throws a bad light on all.

Secondly Swamy Nithyananda owed an explanation to his disciples.

However should he be bothered about proving his innocence to the deracinated public at large through the compromised media? No! As far as the media is concerned, it is okay to have his organization deal with it but more competently than they did. The morality of what he did would not be judged by the public, but by his peers. As far as the public is concerned all he needs to prove is that he did not commit any crime, and no criminal charges have been filed against him.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RamaY »

In Hindu sampradaya one can mix and match multiple paths depending on the preference and capability of both Guru and Sishya. There is no need for a Guru/Math to be an explicit marga and there is no need for a Shishya to be surprised.

It is like saying an Advaitic matha should not have Yoga classes or an Achala matha to not have any Dwaita pujas.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Shri Narendra Modi interacts with NRI community in North America commemorating Gujarat Foundation Day on May 12, 2013

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by Agnimitra »

RajeshA wrote:As far as the public is concerned all he needs to prove is that he did not commit any crime, and no criminal charges have been filed against him.
RajeshA ji, you are correct in terms of the legality, as far as the government is concerned. But public ethics goes beyond legal contours.

By not educating his followers on a gradient, Nityananda ji's experiments got him into trouble - because he was effectively experimenting with his followers, without preparing them for it adequately.

Without such a gradient, the sting operation put most of his followers into a Condition of Uncertainty - not just w.r.t. his ashram but w.r.t. the Sadhu and Guru parampara as a whole. As part of this condition, they must now investigate not just his ashrama, but also the traditions it is coming from, and decide for themselves. In this process, they must be provided with adequate materials explaining the traditions, its view of morality, ethics, etc.
RajeshA wrote:Well his explanation given to the Swamy Samaj should be public of course.
Is it public? Can anyone provide any info about those proceedings?
RajeshA wrote:The reason he owed an explanation to them is because he is using titles, symbols and knowledge which derive from them, and any abuse of his position as one of them throws a bad light on all.
The titles, symbols, etc that the Swami Sabha appropriates are in direct relation to the civilization of which the public is the major part. Therefore, the responsibility for dialogue extends not just between individual applicants and members of the Swami Sabha (which used to be strictly restricted on a caste basis earlier), but must involve educating the public as well. We appreciate that the Swami Sabha has so far acted as a repository of the symbols of the civilization, but it must be invited to once again become an active participant in the public discourse of Bharata. And in this iteration that involvement must be all the more vigorous, and without caste barriers.
RajeshA wrote:However should he be bothered about proving his innocence to the deracinated public at large through the compromised media? No! As far as the media is concerned, it is okay to have his organization deal with it but more competently than they did.
The media will react mostly based on the reactions it can elicit from the public. So again it comes down to the effort of educating the public about Varnashrama Dharma. It is the same public that Nityananda ji courted for followers. It is true that the public can turn against you in no time. Therefore, an educational gradient is important. Also, a parallel social discourse must continue to be created, including TV channels, that operate on different principles than the presstitute media.

RamaY ji,
Mix and match is totally fine. But the context of it all should be made clear, a graded schema that is intelligible and appreciated by all stakeholders.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Shri Narendra Modi at the inauguration of Krishi Mahotsav 2013 in Radhanpur, Patan District, Gujarat on May 13, 2013

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Agnimitra ji,

I think I am trying to say that Swamy Nithyananda was not obliged to give an explanation to the public through the media.

1) Ideally, he should have been called into a court consisting of Swamys, his peers, and he should have given his explanation to them and answered all the questions put to him. He should have explained the Dharmic Smriti according to which he acted and according to which he should be judged and how open he was with his Shishyas on this.

Then he should have awaited the judgement on any transgression on his part and should have received guidance on how to proceed by a jury consisting of eminent Swamys.

This should have been broadcasted to the public through the TV channels.

2) Furthermore he should have called all his Shishyas and explained what he did to them, which would have been a closed affair.

All in all, it would have even established the authority of the Swamys rather than having the media undermine it. The public would have become aware of the ethical intricacies involved.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RamaY »

Agnimitra wrote: RamaY ji,
Mix and match is totally fine. But the context of it all should be made clear, a graded schema that is intelligible and appreciated by all stakeholders.
Based on what I read, he did that. He informed the potential students into that specific marga and even took consent letters. Coming to the other students and followers he need not tell them what he would teach other students. That would be a wrong thing for him to do as a guru of others, for many people may get attracted to Tantric vidya for wrong reasons.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by brihaspati »

Looking at senses, and the physical body connected to it - as an obstacle, as "adhama", lower - heena, antaraya in the way of spiritual ambitions, was the first line of deviation from whatever led to or lay at the core of what is now represented by the textual "Vedas". A tiny stream within the text, it became politicized, institutionalized, and state-ified by the proto-Buddhist/Jaina/Ajeevika schools that possibly developed in the post early urban phase of India [between 1800 BCE - post megadrought, to Mauryas], and became the dominant influence enforced by the state.

This might have influenced or in turn influenced by parallel sources in ME - right up to Greece - all at the same time seats of migrant, warrior creeds practising virtual communal sharing of women, homosexuality with both perhaps arising from a common source of misogyny, with a spiritual tendency to form all male/celibate/homosexual theological communities/monastic orders - and engaged at the same time in a curious combination of politics, theology and militancy.

This peculiar twist in hating the woman, the body, sexuality, and finding comfort in male-onlee company - with a militant theocracy and monasticism - has permeated the entire area from the western edges of India to Rome.

We have imbibed that fallout of the deviation starting with proto-Buddhism, to Christian monasticism, to Islamic self-hatred - into an overwhelming culture of guilt. This whole theology is based on construction by ruling interests of state formations. If you can make most of the natural tendencies and urges of humans into "sin", you have a massive whip to beat the population with - for they would be permanently and overwhelmingly guilty.

Guilt == control == power for those who arbitrate guilt. All the imperialist cores used constructed guilt to control. The early to medieval Church, the Islamic orders, and the British empire - all promoted and used constructed and invented guilt. Its like making a law carrying a fine for breach that most will be unable to stop breaking and therefore provide revenue for the enforcers of that law.

Religious guilt is more insidious than state law - because - this guilt and control extends beyond lifetimes, with the threat of penalties hanging that do not end with physical death.

Modern India is guilt ridden - with its values often constructed from the needs of imperialist memes like Islamics or the Victorian. It sees much less guilt in the communal greed that turns a blind eye to financial corruption as long as it is not caught and provides benefits of consumerism to all related to the corrupt person or institution. But it sees red in sexuality. That lessening of the "evil" of monetary deviations while pushing for heightening of "evil" for sexuality - is the gift of corrupt regimes and ideologies. It fits perfectly the needs of a completely unethical, valueless, opportunist and out and out corrupt polity - which preserves its core monetary interests while uses a guilt based on an universal urge to control the larger populations.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by Agnimitra »

B ji,

But here the issue is a mixture of two memes - sexual encounters and experimentation AND Guru-cult.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by brihaspati »

The reaction is extreme - whenever it is about sexuality. The "guru"==theologian completely devoid and disjunct from sex - is an extreme perversion of the Indian mind. This is not us, not us at all. It stems from a deep anxiety and repression about sex and sexuality, the impossible dilemma of dealing with irresistible "dirtiness".
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by member_20317 »

Thanks Atri ji, complete and succinct.

Also I believe Kesariya is allowed for warriors on a mission. But then again that is only because the life is to be renounced.
There are quite a few Godmen who have taken to white and blacks. Though I believe it is time to help people understand the commitment that comes with these codes.

....................

brihaspati ji, you must have noticed how many a times quite a few of us comment/concur that Islam/Christianity appear to be a dummies version of Vedic/Hinduism. What you highlighted could just as easily be a Dharmic meme taken to the extreme by the malechas. In much the same manner as we find MUTUs here today when the socio-economic power has moved in favor of malechas. Only that, we Indics were the super power of ancient times and there is every possibility that foreigners tried to copy us and ended up diseased instead of being inoculated. Today, yes these guys try to infect us with an overdose of the pathogen they carry. The observed phenomena may not necessarily imply a one way street of them affecting us. As a general observation the longer and deeper the tradition harder it is to disturb it.

Indics have gone out of their way to acknowledge both the mainstream tradition and to try to contextualize the apparent deviation. We were the originals and later day saints like the intellectuals of Umrikha are only now trying to match up, again over-correcting in a wave pattern. Any human activity including sex has to remain within control of the humans practicing it. This requirement is not unlike a Chemistry teacher guiding his students so as to avoid hurting themselves with dangerous chemicals, but at the same time teaching them with the benefit of SOPs and greater experience.

You have raised a connected point and a variant of it has been raised by panduranghari ji w.r.t. corruption/financial dealings/power. I hope to be able to make a post on that in due course. Being in India and connected to accounting and corporate affairs I have had to deal with some of these questions for myself. And the zoo is very very entertaining without being any more intimidating then say walking by a busy road.

...................

Many at times I have come to notice is that everything that is sought to be imposed upon Indians is actually at some level a contorted idea of what was Indian to begin with and to this day is better managed in India then at any other place.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Sexuality

Just putting down my opinion on sexuality.

In my opinion the only reason when sex needs to be restricted is when the intercourse is not based on mutual respect and understanding, and when it leads to long term negative consequences impairing the physical and mental health of the individual and the society.

The unit of social stability and strength is the family unit. The unit of mental stability and strength of an individual is self-worth.

If sexual contact does not impinge on the stability and strength of the individual and of the society, then it should be allowed.

Of course the above axiom can be further subdivided into contractual, pragmatic, situational and aesthetic reasons for avoiding sexual contact!
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Form of Government

Image

Published on May 13, 2013
By Manoj CG
Rudy seeks direct election of PM, moves Bill to keep MPs out of ministries: Indian Express
At a time when serious questions are being raised over Parliament not being able to carry out its legislative work owing to frequent disruptions, BJP general secretary and Rajya Sabha MP Rajiv Pratap Rudy has moved a private member's Bill calling for selection of the prime minister through direct elections — in other words a presidential form of government — and confining MPs and MLAs to only law making.
Rudy has suggested de-linking of the executive from elected political representatives both in the states and at the Centre. The elected representatives, he has said, should "confine themselves to framing of laws and hold others accountable for implementation of law, rather than be implementers of law themselves".

Barring lawmakers from assuming ministerial or other positions, he argues, would weed out corrupt elements as politics would no more be attractive to them. Moreover, such a form of governance would ensure that national agenda and priorities and foreign and other policies do not become subservient to regional demands in the name of survival of a government.

The prime minister or the chief minister — in his words the "chief executive" at the Centre and states — should be selected through direct elections like in the US and some European countries. "They can pick whosoever they want as ministers," he told The Indian Express.

Although Rudy is not the first in the BJP to float the idea — L K Advani had suggested around 15 years ago that India should go in for a presidential form of government — he is perhaps the first MP to float a private member's Bill in this regard. It was listed in Rajya Sabha but could not be taken up since the House did not function.

Rudy has argued that the Westminster parliamentary form of democracy adopted by India has failed to achieve the basis objectives enshrined in the Constitution. Dysfunctional governments, lack of delivery and accountability, he says, have spawned civil society movements involving the middle class in some urban areas and violent forms of Naxalism in several rural areas.

"If law makers are prevented from becoming ministers or holding other posts, only those who are seriously interested in the process of law making would enter politics," Rudy said.

"The provision of whips on legislators, filing affidavits of having no criminal record and regarding assets and liabilities to contest elections, imposition of anti-defection laws, curbs on election expenditure have all been legislated to establish the credibility of elected representative... making the very basics of electability a suspect," his private member's Bill says.
Published on May 14, 2013
BJP's Rajiv Pratap Rudy calls for a chief executive to be directly elected by the people
Politicians tend to be status quoist. But BJP general secretary and Rajya Sabha MP Rajiv Pratap Rudy has sprung a pleasant surprise with a private member`s Bill that calls for profound reforms — in the quest for better governance. The Bill calls for selecting the prime minister through direct elections, while restraining MPs and MLAs from ministerial positions and confining them to lawmaking. The proposals aim at a stronger executive, which can be buttressed by professionals instead of being sapped by electoral compulsions. They seek a truer separation of powers between the executive and the legislature, paving the way for more responsive and responsible government.

In the present era of weak governments and fractious coalitions that can never pull together, the problems with the existing model of government are becoming increasingly clear. Ministerial choice is limited to MPs, many of whom may have criminal records. The prime minister has weak authority over ministers, both because he isn't directly elected by the people and because he heads a government where coalition partners need to be appeased if it is to survive. Rudy's proposals at least have the merit of getting rid of these infirmities, and deserve to be seriously considered.

We understand that the matter is complicated. But we are only calling for a debate, something that has become rare within parliament itself. What if parliamentarians could focus on making laws (and fighting elections) while executive professionals could focus on implementing them? As for selecting the prime minister through direct elections, it`s possible that India is more than ready to embrace this idea. Whether it`s electing Narendra Modi in Gujarat and Jayalalithaa in Tamil Nadu or Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal, voters have already shown themselves amenable to a surrogate presidential form.

Cannot mess with the present model: Murali Ramachandran

The private member's Bill for direct election of the executive heads at the Centre and the states and restricting powers of elected representatives to lawmaking is a whimsical response to a genuine problem. Our present form of government, based on the Westminster model, was conferred by the Constitution. We cannot mess with this. After all we were able to accelerate growth to above 9% only during the era of coalition governments, when a broad consensus was forged to rework economic policies.

Similarly, a stable and powerful executive is no guarantee for reforms and change. It can, in fact, develop a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Powerful prime ministers like Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi did little to usher in changes needed to keep pace with the times. So rather than blame our present form of parliamentary democracy for all the gloom and doom, we should apportion a fair share of the blame to the stunted vision of our political leadership and their inability to restructure the important institutions of governance to conform to the changing needs of the economy.

Unelected professionals would not understand the needs of people as well as elected MPs do. As this ought to be an essential qualification for ministers, such professionals wouldn't serve the purpose. It's no surprise that Rudy`s bizarre Bill is a private member`s one, since no responsible political party would sponsor it. People's aspirations have soared, and even coalition governments will eventually be forced to cater to them. They also have the merit of checking autocratic tendencies on the part of the biggest coalition partner. The political system as it stands has stood us in good stead and ensured India's survival as a nation. Calls to change it, therefore, should be strictly beyond the pale.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Form of Government

I can only wholeheartedly welcome this initiative by BJP's General Secretary Rajya Sabha MP Shri Rajiv Pratap Rudy.

Strong Powers need strong executives, and a Presidential form of Government can provide just that.

There are a few recommendations, I would like to make on this issue:
  1. Direct Election for President having executive power
  2. Common National Language (Sanskrit) needed for such a form of government
  3. Each elected office based on 50%+1 votes, i.e. top-two run-off voting.
  4. Legislature responsible for Law Making, Budget Outlays, Oversight, Confirmation of Executive Nominations, Expressing Opinion of the Nation
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Bharatiya-Only Suffrage

Today we have a system that every Indian has one vote. In principle it is good. With this vote, the Indian citizen is expressing his opinion on what he feels is good for him and the constituency in question and contested.

The question is however: is everybody capable of making that determination?

One would retort: who would make the determination weather he is capable of making that determination! So one should simply trust that the citizen is capable!

However one is still making an assumption - that the citizen really has the best interests of the larger community at heart when he makes that determination of whom to give his vote in national elections.

One could question: why should one not have the interests of the larger community at heart?

Well it is possible if one has been conditioned to think otherwise, e.g. if the citizen has been conditioned by some group to think of his interests being aligned to some other land through ideology! This conditioning can happen if the Rashtra is not inculcating its civilizational history into the individual and leaving it up to narrow vested groups to do so.

As such I would advocate that only somebody who has passed a certain test to prove his immersion in the history, identity and interests of the nation and civilization, should be allowed to vote.

So two things should be required of a citizen, if the citizen desires to have the right to vote, he needs to show himself as a Bharatiya through:
  1. Adequate knowledge of the Bharatiya Sanskriti Studies.
  2. Vow of allegiance to Bharat
shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by shaardula »

in the state elections thread rudradev had quoted malhotra that prior to the scandal, nityananda was one of the heaviest trafficked channels on youtoobe. anybody knows what his channel is? i did a quick search yesterday and only the actress content show up irrespective of what criteria i chose.

some of the interviews i saw of his especially related to aarthi rao, he sounds like a slimy baasturd. i'm really curious to know how such a guy became popular for his "spirituality". standard boiler plate cut & paste advaita like your neighbourhood fake swamy or did he really have any stuff?
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RamaY »

matrimc wrote:RamaY garu, you are taking the words literally.

Let me say something outrageous (and my guess is that I am not the first). hindu is secular and vice versa. period. hindu subsumes all other "churches" - past and future. No other religious/non-religious thought can say anything that has not been said by hindu either directly or indirectly through a meta-theory.
VikasRaina wrote:^ How about Kill Kaffirs and you will get 72 Virgins plus eternal sex ?
I mentioned this earlier.

Perhaps Hindus should, as part of their purvapaksha, make a list of every Abrahamic religion's core principles and identify all the items that separate them and then use that list to fight Abrahamics.

I can guarantee this list will be 100% non-compliance with human rights and then use it to call for a ban of these faiths.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

shaardula wrote:in the state elections thread rudradev had quoted malhotra that prior to the scandal, nityananda was one of the heaviest trafficked channels on youtoobe. anybody knows what his channel is?
Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam @Youtube
shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by shaardula »

thanks rajesh. will check him out.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by johneeG »

RamaY wrote:
JohneeG wrote: By wearing the Kashaya(Bhagwa/Saffron), he gave an impression that he was a sanyasi(fake one or real one). A sanyasi is prohibited from sex. So, by wearing saffron and giving an impression that he was a sanyasi was the reason his detractors could convince the larger hindu audience by leaking his private moments.
Is it true? Does Hinduism/SD/Vedic-Tradition "prohibits" sex during Samnyasa ashrama?

Then why do almost all Rishis, who are even Brahmarshis, have wifes and hundreds of children? Why Hindu Gods have wives and children?

Is there a difference between Brahmacharya and Samnyasa, if so what is it?

Who/When made Samnyasa a vow for celibacy?
Saar,
It is a misconception among many(including me until sometime back) to think that Rishi means Sanyasi. But, Rishis and Sanyasis are not same. They are completely different. A sanyasi need not be a rishi and a rishi need not be a sanyasi.

A rishi has ati-indriya-darshana-shakti(extra-sensory-sight) to see beyond the ken of senses. If a rishi has the capability to 'see'(or discover) the Mantra, then such a rishi is called drashta(seer). If a king rules in a dharmic manner without any love/hatred and being fair to one and all, such a King is called raja-rishi. Also, when a king performs a rigorous tapas, he can be called raja-rishi.

If someone performs a great tapasya and obtains victory over ari-shad-varga(kama, krodha, lobha, moha, madha, matsarya), then such a one is called Maha-rishi.

If someone performs a great tapasya and is able to experience the Brahman/Atma, then such a one is called Brahma-rishi.

These rishis could be bachelors(brahmachari), house-holders(grihastha or vanaprastha), or sanyasis(renouncers).

As for Gods/Goddesses, they can also be bachelors(brahmachari), house-holders(grihastha or vanaprastha), or sanyasis(renouncers).

Most of the Gods/Goddesses are Grihasthas(house-holders). They are the role-model for others. Moreover, the world is their house. If the Gods/Goddesses become Sanyasis, then the world will not exist.

Even then, there certainly some sanyasi(renunciated) Gods/Goddesses also to provide inspiration(and be a role-model) to Sanyasis. For example: Kapila Maharshi (avatar of Lord Vishnu).
---
RamaY wrote:Thanks for the details Atriji and Agnimitraji.

I agree that Brahmacharya and Samnyasa are two different ashramas. What would be the main difference?

In Ashrama dharma, Samnyasa comes after Grihastha and Vanaprastha asramas thus is a healthy and natural progression. Even then we see people moving from Vanaprastha to Samnyasa as couples (wife and husband) even though they may leave this life separately.
All the creatures of the world have chitta-vrittis(mental/emotional tendencies). There are 2 methods prescribed to handle the situation. These are 2 types of dharma:
a) Pra-vritti (good tendencies)
b) Ni-vritti (no tendencies)

Pra-vritti marga means a way of life which involves cultivating 'good tendencies'. Ni-vritti marga means a way of life which involves discarding all tendencies.

Pra-vritti marga has 4 Purusha-artha-s:
a) Dharma b) Artha c) Kama d) Moksha.

It also has 4 Ashramas: Brahmacharya, Grihastha, Vanaprastha, Sanyasi.

In Ni-vritti marga there is only one goal: Moksha. It is a path of renunciation.

Generally, people get confused because they conflate Pra-vritti marga and Ni-vritti marga. The Dharmas of people in Pra-vritti is different from the Dharma of people in Ni-vritti.

The final goal of all creatures is Moksha. But, in Pra-vritti marga, it is done in a step by step process, while in Ni-vritti marga the concentration and focus is solely on Moksha and Vairagya.

When Lord Brahma created the beings in the beginning, He created 4 Sanath Kumaras and Naradha. All of them chose Ni-vritti marga i.e. they did not take up any household. So, Lord Brahma again created more beings(Swayambhuva Manu, Angira, Kratu, Kardama, ...etc). These people became the procreaters of various creatures. That means these being entered Pra-vritti marga.

When a person of Pravritti marga takes up Sanyas, he is entering Ni-vritti marga. Sanyas means Ni-vritti. In Sanyasa, there is no scope for being married and having a wife, or children or comforts or possessions or sex or friends or enemies or lovers or admirers and so on. The only focus and concentration is on Moksha and Vairagya.

There is a formal procedure to take up sanyasa. It involves shaving the head(shikha), breaking the thread(upanayana thread), giving final pindas to all the forefathers, taking permission to renounce from the wife/parents and giving up feelings of mine/your.

The sanyasa is given by someone who is already a sanyasi. Kashaya/Bhagwa/Saffron is wore by them. A stick is held by sanyasis. (If you carefully observe, Jainism and Buddhism follow most of these rules, particularly shaving the head. This shows that they were initially ascetic sects of Hinduism before they broke up from Hinduism. Instead of Saffron, they took up white. In fact, it seems it is the jains who used to wear the white or go naked. Going naked has a long history starting from Lord Shiva. It seems buddhism copied white from jains. Finally, X-ism also has white because it is crypto-proxy-buddhism).

Generally, everyone is allowed upto Vanaprastha. But, sanyasa was prohibited for women. It seems it is also not allowed for non-dvija-s. Dvija means one with thread ceremony(i.e. Kshatriya, Brahmana, and Vaishya). But, over a period, all the people have been taking up sanyasa. Even then, women were not allowed for a long time. Exceptions do exist, but they are exceptions, not the norm. (Buddhism introduced a new phenomenon by extending sanyasa to women and making them nuns. X-ism also has nuns because it is crypto-proxy-buddhism. As far as I understand, no other creeds have this unique concept of renunciation for women).

Of late, all people are taking up sanyasa without following any formal codes. There is a prevalence of fake sanyasis who wear kashaya but indulge in all sorts of sensory activities and accumulate wealth. It is because the Sanyasis are respected by the mango men.

If you read the bio of Buddha(without going into whether its true or fake), even Buddha joined a school of Sanyasis and tried tapas. Infact, he was inspired to become a sanyasi when he saw a sanyasi while roaming in the town. 3 instances are mentioned which motivated the Buddha:
a) he saw a dead body while roaming in the town.
b) he saw a diseased person writhing in pain while roaming in the town.
c) he saw a sanyasi while roaming in the town.

a) and b) made him lose interest in the world, while c) inspired him to take up sanyasa. Of course, he did not follow the due procedure. He did not take permission of his parents, nor did he take the permission of his wife. He joined a school of sanyasis, but he soon gave up and joined another one. He kept shifting from one to another and rejected them all. Finally, he claimed to get enlightenment and in the process discovered a new path: middle path. So, now he established his own school of sanyasis. The unique point of this school was missionary activity. Buddha sent out missionaries to swell up his numbers. Kings, elite and ordinary folk paid respects and regards to all Godmen even if they did not agree or understand the theology being preached. This is a continuation of Hindu tradition of respecting all sanyasis. There was coaxing to make people join Buddha's sanyasi organization. Even a young child, Buddha's own son, was given sanyasa. All the male relatives of Buddha were given sanyasa. Many of them were forced to take up sanyasa because Buddha's father was the King of Shakyas.

Many of them resented the sanyasa because they had not taken it up voluntarily. Over a period, there was lot of internal politics and bickering in the Buddha's organization. Devadatta, Buddha' cousin, wanted to replace the Buddha as leader of the Sanyasi organization. Buddha refused to give up the leadership of the organization even though Buddha was quite old by that time. Devadatta split the organization into two. Some(Many?) followers of Buddha left with Devadatta and formed a new organization. Devadatta's organization and Buddha's organization competed with each other to swell the ranks and also gain the favour of the King Ajatashatru, ruler of Magadha. There were also plots to murder Buddha. Buddha's right-hand man Sariputra had a fight with Devadatta faction when both of them encountered each other while on their missionary activity. Devadatta was abused by Sariputra. Their was a fight. Sariputra killed some of the opposite faction. But, he was also critically wounded and died as a consequence. Initially, Devadatta acquired the favour of Ajatashatru, but later Buddha was able to charm Ajatashatru.

When Buddha was thus coaxing many people(particularly in his home country) into Sanyasa, the women became desperate and asked Buddha to accept them also into his school. Buddha refused to do so.(This is a traditional hindu position.) But, then Ananda, a close disciple and cousin of Buddha, took up the cause of women by appealing to Buddha on emotional lines. Those women were being led by Buddha's aunt who had raised him after the death of his mother. So, Buddha gave in to the emotional appeal and accepted the women into Sanyasa. But, Buddha warned that his religion which was going to last for 2000 years, would now last only 1000 years because the women have been allowed to join. Then, Buddha puts up many preconditions for nuns. Many of them are quite rigorous and nuns are kept lower in hierarchy then the male sanyasis, even if the nun is a senior in terms of age or knowledge or anything else. This is the unique attribute of Buddhism. Nuns exist only in Buddhism and X-ism, correct me if I am wrong.

If one goes by the bio of Buddha, then Buddha also used to undergo Chaatur-masyas(4 month vows) that has been prescribed for Sanyasis in Hinduism. Chaatur-masya means 4 months. Sanyasis are not supposed to stay at any one place. They should keep roaming. But, in 4 months of rainy season, they should remain at one place(village, town, ..etc). A sanyasi's seniority is judged by the number of chaatur-masyas he has taken up in his life so far.

Buddha lived a long life of 80 years and he had taken up sanyasa quite early(30 years). He claimed to have been enlightened very early. If Buddha is taken as a real historical figure, then his field of action seems to have been limited to few cities in UP and Bihar. Even the populace of these cities did not completely become Buddhists. In fact, even the Kings(like Ajatashatru) did not become total Buddhist supporters. His organization remained a small school among many others. Of course, the bio of Buddha boasts that it had defeated many schools which were taken as prominent in those times. It should be noted that the method of defeat was not discussion or debate. Buddha defeated his opponents or convinced the people of the superiority of his school by performing miracles.(very similar to jesus figure. jesus also purportedly shows miracles to convince people).

----
Adhi Shankara took up sanyasa by following all the formal procedures. He kept roaming all over Bharath. He defeated many scholars of His day and made them accept the superiority of Vedhantha. Finally, He established 4 matas in 4 directions: in Shringeri(Karnataka), in Puri(Odisha), in Dwaraka(Gujarath), in Bhadhari. He also reformed the mode of worship at several temples across Bharath. One of the unique features is that He used to set up people of one place as priests in temple of another place. He was trying to integrate Bharath through such process. This shows(by establishing the maths in 4 directions of Bharatha and integration) that Bharathiyas had an idea of being a single country before muslims or X-ians entered the desh. So, those people who claim that there was no concept of being a single nation before brits or islamics came are wrong. Yes, it may not have been political unity. But, there was a civilizational, cultural, and religious unity. The rashtra is only a shell to protect the desh. Rashtra itself is not a desh.

Adhi Shankara established His 4 disciples as the pontiffs of the 4 matas. These pontiffs were supposed to be Acharyas i.e. they should be role-models for the people in dharma-acharana. They should have Vairagya. Traditionally, Sanyasis have been the pontiffs of these matas. These are the only Sanyasis(mata-adhipathis) who are allowed to have possessions for the sake of dharma-rakshana.

Adhi Shankara lived for merely 32 years. In this short lifetime, He re-established Vedhantha to its pinnacle status. He defeated 72 different creeds of His time and established Hinduism on strong grounds. Many people, including the followers of Adhi Shankara, have been trying to replicate His successes, but have not been able to do so. Many people have imitated Adhi Shankara and have written many commentaries. Many people have also tried to set up Mata-s. Or create new sects or philosophies. They have been largely limited to a small location or specific demography.

Adhi Shankara, on the other hand, has His mark all over Hinduism.

Dashanami sanyasa order was formed in connection with the 4 matas established by Adhi Shankara during Islamic rule. The original 4 matas also established certain branches on the request of the people and appointed a pontiff to these branches. Over a period, some of these branches declared themselves as independent. During Islamic rule, the Bhadhari Mata collapsed and remained defunct. Even the matas in Dwarka and Puri had periods when there was no pontiff for long times. Shringeri managed to have uninterrupted succession of pontiffs. Incidentally, Shringeri happens to be the first mata established by Adhi Shankara.

These matas, their branches and the dashanami sanyasis have played a pivotal role in preservation of Hinduism, particularly in hostile rules. During times of great desperation, these sanyasis also had to take part in politics of the time to protect the Hinduism. So, saffron/Bhagwa/Kashaya which was originally a symbol of renunciation came to be associated with desperate valor.

It was in this manner that Sanyasis came to be introduced into politics...

Due to long hostile rules, the order and hierarchy was broken up. Many new sanyasis came up with no formal sanyasa. These people claimed to be sanyasis. There is also a prevalence of many fake sanyasis. These fake sanyasis cannot be checked by the real sanyasis or the matas or the Hindus because of the laws. Yet, the antics of these fake sanyasis maligns all the sanyasis and Hinduism in general. Anyone can claim to be a sanyasi and do anything. And the detractors of Hindhuism can show such deviant or fake sanyasis to show all sanyasis in poor light.

----
There is another point: Vamachara is considered heretic in mainstream Hindhuism. Adhi Shankara defeated and reformed many tantriks and other cults which were steeped in perversions by calling themselves as Vamacharis.

It is not just sex between opposite gender. Many other kinds of perversions were followed at one time, during Adhi Shankara's period. He ended all such stuff. He established that such stuff is not supported by Vedhas.

Such perversion should not be followed or justified. It is best if such things are not encouraged. The problem is that there is no Hindhu body(comprising of spiritual leaders) which can monitor the Hindhu society. The 4 matas established by Adhi Shankara were supposed to play that role. But, now, it is only the courts that have jurisdiction, even though these are supposed to be religious matters.

For example, there are certain kshudhra pujas(lowly/base rituals) to obtain certain powers. Such activities are prohibited in mainstream Hindhuism. But, inspite of that these activities happen. The worst part is that these activities are shown to malign Hindhuism, even though Hindhuism prohibits them.
---
People being shocked about a Sanyasi having sex is same as people being shocked that a married Guru is having extra-marital affair.

Sex is allowed in Hindhuism. But, within the institution of marriage. Outside marriage, sex is prohibited.
----
Sri Krishna's Raasa Leela is an example of Ni-vritti marga. Sri Krishna plays His flute and all the Gopis leave their respective homes to come to Him. He is still a young boy(less than 16 years). Gopis are of various ages. When they come to Him, the first thing that Lord says is that the Gopis should go back to their respective homes and coming out of their homes in this manner is not correct. Then, the Gopis reply that what the Lord had said is true in case of Pra-vritti marga, but the Gopis have taken up the Ni-vritti marga...

---
johneeG wrote: Of course, it is well-known that anything and anyone connected to Hinduism is in the crosshairs and will be targeted for real or perceived faults. Even while, there is a conspicuous silence when it comes to abrahan cults.

Infact, the agenda is to equate Hinduism to a superstition. They seek to portray Hinduism as nothing more that superstition. They carefully avoid any such exposure of abrahan cults. This careful portrayal has given rise to interesting trend: many non-X-ist people in desh actually believe that abrahan cults(particularly X-ism) does not believe in 'superstitutions'.

What does superstitution mean?
For example, supersitution can mean ghosts. Many hindus, after being constantly exposed to MSM propaganda, think that X-ists do not believe in ghosts! :rotfl: Or other such superstitions.

It is a supreme irony because, initially, X-ists used to be called by the Greeks as narrow-minded superstitious idiots. Even today, in west, X-ists are looked at as silly and superstitious. But, in desh, they are given an aura being 'progressive' and 'liberal'.

From the brits times, EJs have been trying to claim the successes of west as successes of their theology. They hide the fact that west started progressing only after it started giving up that theology. And theology had desperately opposed the scientific development. When the theology had reigned supreme for atleast 700 years, Europe was in dark ages. And to impose such superstitions, the knowledge was complete removed from public domain. Ignorance was deliberately perpetuated. Libraries were burnt. Any moderately intelligent or educated person(particularly women) were persecuted on one pretext or the other.

Dark ages started to end when Europe was exposed to oriental ideas through the jihadis. Finally, Europe was enlightened when they where directly in contact with oriental. Europe had to wage a long struggle against the X-ist ideology to obtain freedom from most silly superstitions imposed by it on the society. It is in this background that most of the present Europe(and White America) must be viewed. Ideas and concepts like liberalism, or feminism, or science being atheistic, or secularism were developed to combat the superstitious and narrow-minded theology.

But, in desh, most of these concepts have no relevance. For example, science was never seen as an antonym to religion in desh. Particularly, in Hinduism, knowledge and religion went hand in hand. At least, in case of buddhism, one can claim that perhaps the war-sciences were neglected(or even actively sought to be discouraged). But, there is no such thing in case of Hinduism.

So applying these Europe centric(particularly in the backdrop of the X-ist antics) concepts to desh is a great mistake.

Even in Europe, these concepts themselves take extremist positions. Perhaps, it is done to counter the X-ist extremism. But, most often, they end up being clones of X-ism. For example, communism. Communism is very much similar to X-ism with omission of god, godson, eternal heaven/hell and sin. Same thing applies to other such concepts and ideas which originated in Europe(or White US).

In short, they are unable to break through the mental-framework that X-ism has enforced on them. Even when they create a new cult, it ends up being very similar in essential thought process to that of X-ism. This is happening because X-ism had eliminated all the alternatives. So, there is no alternative idea from which inspiration can be taken.

It is precisely here that the importance of Indic religions lies. Indic religions are perhaps the only alternate model to the Abrahan cults. And are the last resort to all those who want to break free from the abrahan model of thinking. It was not at all coincidence that the grip of watikan started weakening as mango people of the Europe(and White US) were exposed to the Indic philosophies.

I think the only ideologies that are still capable of mounting intellectual, philosophical and social challenge to abrahan model are Indic ones(particularly Hinduism). arbahan models have always relied on eliminating their opposition rather than defeating them. And generally, they try to eliminate the opposition by warming up to the people in power(or by installing their people in power) and/or by deception. When they are in powerful position, they resort to direct action. When are in a weak position, they resort to deception. The same model is being implemented in desh.
Link to original post

X-posting a previous post by Surasena garu in reply to the post of Anand K:
Anand K wrote:The Arab invasions of Egypt, Western Roman Empire, Persia and Chinese Central Asia resulted in a lot of literature which discussed the religious zealotry and an analysis in their own theological terms. The Copts saw the Arabs as instruments of deliverance from Chaldean Church, the Roman church saw it as a punishment for human sins and the Persian sources explicitly mention the religious aspect. The invasion followed the heels of two devastating plagues and a terrible war with Sassanids.... so it fitted with apocalyptic views of Semitic faiths. The Buddhists OTOH also came up with some interesting Mahakal literature; fringe sects but still significant. IIRC the Mihirakula campaign against the Buddhists did produce some texts which discusses the religious zealotry but did the Turk scourge which swept Buddhism away from Kabul to the Meghna produce such analysis?

Similarly, is there any detailed analysis by Hindu sources on the foreign zealotry..... if not by the Arabs, the Turks at least? I mean, in a religious and social perspective? Someone must have noted the new "drives" and the fact that the invaders have mixed demographics and distinctly different social classes (versus their own caste dominated armies)? I mean, it is generally accepted that by the 7th century AD caste system had lost a lot of flexibility...

PS: What did the Jews of 7th-8th centuries think of the Muslims..... I mean, theologically. They were a diaspora by then and did not need to cast them as another Nebuchadnezzar, but still......
Surasena's reply:
The only real challenge to the mata-s based on unmAda has, for a long time, been that of the bhArata-s. Hence, we are not surprised that they have a particular fear of the dharma and work hard to exterminate it. In this regard ekanetra had asked if historically the unmAda-s understood their shared doctrinal weakness when confronted with the robustness of the dharma. This question was particularly pertinent because the general opinion has been that until the late 1800s (e.g. Vakimchandra Chattopadhyay) the Hindus had no proper understanding of the unmAda-s. At least the sister group of the bhArata-s, the yavana-s had a Celsus or a Julian who had produced devastating critiques of the unmAda. But Hindus were not known to have any such. If this were the case, then how could the unmatta-s feel threatened by the dharma. This prompted us to narrate to ekanetra the case of the relatively obscure internal critiques that arose in the West Asian and European realms, long after the tragic demise of the brave Julian, wherein rare philosophers saw through the madness gripping their people. We had earlier alluded to the Georgios Plethon Gemistos in the Byzantine world of pretonmAda-s. Not only did he see the delusion gripping the Greeks but he also realized that it was not different from the marUnmAda gripping his neighbors. But several centuries before him there was an internal critique right in the maru from Abu al-Husayn Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Ishak al-Rawandi, which is of interest for multiple reasons, one of which is how the transmission of an Indic critique touched a raw nerve simultaneously across all the mata-s based on unmAda.

What ever little is known of al-Rawandi makes a fairly interesting tale, which while commonly known in educated circles, is still worth retelling (One may profitably consult the works of Sarah Stroumsa to glean useful information regarding him). His father was a Judaist and Talmudic scholar, who as a Dhimmi during the Arab conquest of Iran, was obliged to convert to Islam. Moving from one Abrahamism to another with much ease, with a new convert’s zeal, he started a program of refuting Judaic texts and favoring Mohammedanism. His son Abu al-Husayn was well schooled by his father in Koran and Hadiths and was on his way to being a good Mohammedan. However, he drifted away, first moving to the mu’tazilI system of semi-rational Mohammedanism, followed by a stint as a Shia, and then becoming a Manichaean. Finally, he gave up all prophetic Abrahamisms and compiled a piercing critiques of these cults, and thoroughly exposed their shallowness. The Mohammedans termed him al-zindIq and al-mulHid, which are supposed to mean a materialist or atheist who rejects the religions of the book. Indeed an Islamic apologist says about him: “We have never heard anyone defame the creator (i.e. the Abrahamistic mono-deity) and make fun about him as much as this cursed one (i.e. al Rawandi) did.”

Not surprisingly, his refutation of the Abrahamism, titled the Kitab al-Zumurrud (or the emerald) does not survive in totality. However, we have fragment of it preserved within an Islamic apology written by a Shia hAshIshin (Assassin) missionary to counter it. The point of interest to us here is his presentation of the critique of prophetic religions that was developed by the barAhima or brAhmaNa-s. Now some western arabologists have tried to deny that barAhima meant brAhmaNa-s or have tried to claim that al Rawandi put words into brAhmaNa-s’ mouths because he was afraid to claim them as his own. These attempts suggest that there is still an underlying fear among the followers of unmAda-mata-s to accept that these critique came from the brAhmaNa-s. After all, unlike some imaginary group, they are still very much alive and can still undermine the philosophical foundations of the unmAda-mata-s. Indeed, this denial is a part of the continuum of trying to deny the Hindu traditions when confronted with their superior robustness (it should be noted that a tangled skein connects some of these arabologists to the indologists like the mahAbhagabhakShakI from Chicago and her relatives). However, a closer look clearly re-affirms the fact that the barAhima were indeed brAhmaNa-s and not anything else, and the critique was not put into their mouths but came from them. First, in the 900s al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim clearly states that the barAhima are from al-Hind. This establishes that the Arabic writer were talking about Indians not any one else as some western arabologists have tried to claim. Second, as Stroumsa indicates, the Persian mullah Taj al-Din ash-Shahrastani furnishes the term “barAhima sumaniyya aShhAb al-budUd”; thus, clarifying that the brAhmaNa-s and shramaNa-s (bauddha-s) were the categories of idol worshipers. Other Islamic authors place the al-budUd, i.e. the idol-worshipers in al-Hind (the term bud-shikhan or buddha-buster is a general term used by Mohammedans for their iconoclastic ghAzI-s). So it is quite clear that the Moslems were indeed referring to the brAhmaNa-s and bauddha shramaNa-s, whose lands they were intruding into and thus coming in direct contact with them. Third, independently of al-Rawandi, we find the mention of the barAhima as refuting the prophetic religions in both Islamic and non-Islamic Abrahamistic sources, such as the work of the Judaic apologist Dawud ibn Marwan al Muqammash. Among the Judaic and Islamic sources we also have Sa’adya and al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim, which appear to be independent of that of al-Rawandi. All these sources are distinct but consistent with the statement that the barAhima reject the truth claims of all Abrahamistic prophets and refute the idea the word of a prophet can have soteriological value. These observations, taken together, make it clear that indeed the refutation of the prophetic religions was composed by the brAhmaNa-s: it was lapped up by al-Rawandi and extensively utilized in his own refutation of the Abrahamism, even as the barAhima refutation was attacked by apologists of all three Abrahamistic cults.

Now looking at what survives of the barAhima refutation of prophetism, it is clear that the Arabic writers are talking about sAmkhya-yoga and vedAnta based ideas which were philosophies of the Hindus. It is notable that al-Rawandi, who was well familiar with the related Greek Neoplatonic thought, especially via its late survival in the city of Harran, refers to the brAhmaNa-s. This, strengthens the idea that he was specifically referring to the philosophy taught by brAhmaNa-s and not a general transmission of this type acquired via the Neoplatonists. The fundamental barAhimA critique of prophetism presented by the Arabic writers is rather destructive (effectively showing their mata-s to be delusions): “If prophets are sent to preach adherence to things that can be established by the use of intellect then the prophets are just like ordinary people. If, of the other hand, they come to preach what contradicts those things – god has made those things to be perceived as proofs; they will not suit anything else except through the altering/perversion of the intellect itself.” The Abrahamistic writers also mention that the brAhmaNa-s denied a role for prophetic declarations (as seen in the pretonmAda and marUnmAda) in determining reward and punishment (i.e. puNya and pApa of Hindus being independent of the prophetic assignment of someone to either to hellfire or 72 girls and 28 boys).The primary thesis of the barAhima presented in the Islamic world by multiple Islamic apologists (Sunni and Shia) is entirely consonant with the idea of j~nAnayoga which widely encountered in Indian advaita vedAnta and bauddha circles. They view it with much fear because, as noted above, the barAhima view of j~nAna alone being the instrument for soteriology fundamentally overturned the principle of a prophet’s direct line to the Abrahamistic mono-deity: From the Stroumsa’s work one can glean at least 12 Mohammedan authors writing polemics against the barAhima-inspired refutation of Islam introduced into their world by al-Rawandi. This continued long after the death of al-Rawandi and well after the army of Islam had erased the Hindus from the Western expanses of Greater India. Importantly, this fear was not restricted to the Mohammedan – interestingly we find similar reactions from the paleo-Abrahamism to the barAhima, with at least 5 polemical Judaic authors taking up their refutation of prophetism, along similar lines to that of the Sunni and the Shia. Much of this mirrors the earlier attack by the pretAcharin-s on the yavana pagans (e.g. Origen apology for the shavamata and his attack on Celsus). This strongly supports the contention that the fear of the dharma among the prophetic monotheists is a dangerous one. These attacks might also be leveled in a slightly modified form against the secular neo-Abrahamism which emanates from the prophets Marx and Engels (whom DD Kosambi venerated in a very Abrahamistic fashion as the “nUtana-mAnava-samAja-nirmANakAra-s). That is why we see the liberal Marxists studiously avoid any presentation of the true import of al-Rawandi’s attack on Abrahamism.

Finally, we might ask a question as to how did the knowledge of the brAhmaNa-s reach al-Rawandi. Much after his time, when the accursed Mahmud Ghaznavi was leading the army of Islam against the Hindus, Al-Biruni remarks that the Hindus had “scattered like atoms” their scholars had retreated from the western domains of Greater India. But before the cataclysm of Mahmud, we know that the Hindu presence was still strong in the western domains of bhArata even as the rAjpUt-s stanched the Arabic jihad. However, the jihadic pustules were already scarring lands of the sindhu and bAhlika giving opportunity for transmissions of Indic knowledge to the Mohammedans. The preservation of transmissions to multiple Islamic and Judaic sources around al-Rawandi’s and his Manichaean teacher al Warraq’s times suggest the transmission itself happened before their times. It was probably via a Manichaean or Judaic informant (given that al-Rawandi’s own family had been Judaic before conversion to Mohammedanism). From the location of the early sources in Iran and their association with what is now northwestern Afghanistan, we suspect that brAhmaNa-s were from gandhAra or bAhlika rather than the sindhu. In this context we might look into the case of two other men who gained freedom from Islam. The first of these, the mathematician Abu’ al Abbas al-Iranshahri from Persia, is mentioned by al-Biruni as being influenced by Hindu thought and he subsequently gave up Islam. He then went on to propose his own religion that was based on a Indic model of sAmkhya with several Iranian elements incorporated into that framework. He in turn inspired the physician and chemist Abu Bakr al Razi (from Ragha near Tehran), who too gave up Islam and took to the study of Neoplatonism preserved by the Harran school and Hindu thought. From that point on he started describing himself as a Neoplatonist or a Pythagorean, but he also incorporated the saMkhya theory in his view of the origin of the world. He states: “The world originated with consciousness uniting with matter. Through higher knowledge the consciousness recognizes is its identity as itself and not as as matter. This he declared is the ultimate wisdom that releases consciousness from the bonds of matter.” He also declared that the divine inspiration is innate in all organisms, including non-human ones and does not require additional revelation of divine directives from prophets. Thus, he too declared the prophet Abrahmisms as invalid truth claims. Here too, not just the Islamic authors but also the Judaist theologian Maimonides declare al Razi as a dangerous heretic, again illustrating the alignment of basic Abrahamistic thought. What we observe from this is that not just al Rawandi and but also al Iranshahri and al Razi lapsed from Islam under the influence of Hindu thought. Given their links with the North-Western Afghanistan, it again points to Hindu thought being transmitted via that route. The case of these early refuters of Abrahamism parallels the much later rejection of Islam by the Mogol tyrant Akbar under the influence of Hindu scholars and his Hindu friend bIrbal. Thus,we see two related phenomena play repeatedly over several centuries: 1)The re-acquisition of heathen thought, Hindu and Greek, cured several Abrahamists. This process involved a lapse from Islam towards more robust heathen constructs. 2) Specifically in the zones were Hindus came in close proximity with Moslems there were brAhmaNa refutations of Islam that today are only preserved in Arabic sources but had a strong effect on not just Islam but even Abrahamisms with whom the Hindus were not directly in proximity. This reinforces our view that the West will be unable to critique the religion of peace seriously as long as it does not give up the religion of love at all levels. As a corollary the otherwise disunited Abrahamisms could align against the dharma because they all recognize it as a fundamental problem from their stand point. This lies at the heart of issue which has been diagnosed by Malhotra in his “desert” versus “forest” dichotomy. Finally, we might point out that some of Arun Shourie’s eminent historians claimed that Islam influenced the Hindus during the consolidation of shaMkarAdvaita. As we can see here there is influence no doubt, but the direction was opposite, and it clearly confronted rather than conformed to Abrahamisms.

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/5030/
Link to original post
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by Agnimitra »

RamaY wrote:
VikasRaina wrote:^ How about Kill Kaffirs and you will get 72 Virgins plus eternal sex ?
I mentioned this earlier.

Perhaps Hindus should, as part of their purvapaksha, make a list of every Abrahamic religion's core principles and identify all the items that separate them and then use that list to fight Abrahamics.

I can guarantee this list will be 100% non-compliance with human rights and then use it to call for a ban of these faiths.
An idea similar to the one quoted by VikasRaina ji does exist in Hinduism. The idea is that a kshatriya must fight in battle to efficiently slay those who want to slay him or those he protects,or who are subverting the Dharmic balance. In doing so if he loses his life, he attains heavenly worlds where he can have heavenly pleasures without obstacle. E.g.:

This Hindu meme is indicated by K. in BG 2.32:

यदृच्छया चोपपन्नम्
स्वर्ग-द्वारमपावृतम् ।
सुखिनः क्षत्रियाः पार्थ
लभन्ते युद्धमीदृशम् ॥

"Arjuna, happy are the upholders of justice (Kshatriyas) who achieve a battle of this kind presented by its own accord and which is a wide open path to the heavenly planets."

Commentaries to this verse refer to the Garga Samhita Canto 10, Chapter 61, Verses 23, 24, 25, 26.

The following verse from the Smritis is also sometimes quoted in commentaries to the next verse 2.32:

आहवेषु मिथोsन्योन्यम्
जिघांसन्तो महीक्षितः ।
युद्धमानाः परं शक्त्या
स्वर्गं यान्त्यपरान्मुखाः ॥
यज्ञेषु पशवो ब्रह्मन्
हन्यन्ते सततं द्विजैः ।
संस्कृताः किल मन्त्रैश्च
तेsपि स्वर्गमवाप्नुवन् ॥

"In the battlefield, a king or kṣatriya, while fighting another king envious of him, is eligible for achieving heavenly planets after death, as the brāhmaṇas also attain the heavenly planets by sacrificing animals in the sacrificial fire."

The heavenly planets enjoyed by these kshatriyas includes pleasures without obstacle, including sexuality. Plenty of descriptions of this in Hindu tradition. Apparently sex is not considered something un-spiritual or un-heavenly, or embarrassing from the point of view of doing good works and its joy and reward. Rather, it is placed in a certain context, on earth as well as in hell and in heaven.

Of course, this meme in the Hindu tradition is different from the similar meme in the Islamic jihadi tradition, because the context and duties of a "Kshatriya" are somewhat different in the two cases. IMHO the differences are always to be found in the civilizational context, rather than the meme itself. the example I like to give is: a lump of sodium will remain unchanged and preserved when placed in a solvent like kerosene, whereas the same lump with fizzle and crackle and be deconstructed when placed in a universal solvent like water. Similarly, a particular anthropological meme or natural tendency may act upon consciousness (and be acted upon) in one way when placed in one civilizational solvent, whereas it will have a different effect on consciousness when placed in another civilizational context. In the above verse also, it refers to that cultural context of refinement - "sanskritaaha kila..."
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RamaY »

JE Menon wrote:Modi or not we are going to become a major global player. But it will be good to do it with him at the helm. My personal opinion.
Very interesting opinion.

I think it would be helpful if we try to understand this PoV from different angles.

First of all we need a evaluation criteria.

Internal - Political stability, quality of governance, different HDI, per capita GDP, consumption, food grains and so on.

External - opportunities; Multi-national orgs, trade, trade balance and so on

External - threats; territorial integrity, potential competitors, potential enemies and so on...

Secondly we can use a -10 to +10 scale for each of these criteria at specific points of history. We can use every 5 years or key national milestones 1947, 1962, 1971, 1974, 1991, 1998, 2004, 2009, 2013.

Where did we do well and where did we fall behind?

If we want a single number, we can give weight to each criteria (total being 100) and see how we grew overall as a nation.


And we can do a projection from here to say next 10 years...
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Cross-posting a post by brihaspati from "Secularism in India - Boon or Bane" Thread

"pseudo-secularism" is more about excessive concentration on only one aspect of life and corresponding construction of desirable goals for the individual and national life. Buddhism had overwhelming obsession on renunciation, which in turn led to institutional obsession to the exact opposite - material profits and physical/sexual "purity". Islamism had overwhelming obsession with sexuality and power and totalitarian control over thought. This led to paranoid destruction of the vitality of the economy and society. British imperialism had overwhelming obsession about racial supremacy and profits - leading to sexual deviation and super massive repression and financial corruption. Communists had overwhelming obsession with guilt of being born "Hindus". The mercantile line in Indian politics had always contextualized profits over all else and hence led to monetizing all values.

Each of these forces had chosen to focus on one particular aspect of life that the ancient Indians did look upon as only a part of spectrum of a full life - and not the whole. The balance aspect of life was forgotten. The current -p-sec is therefore driven by a need to distinguish itself from almost every Indian aspect that has been decried upon by the deviationists in their obsession with narrow foci in isolation. The result is a complete vacuum of values, and therefore a space in which every opportunistic foray can be justified by contextual application, modification or rejection of "values".

This leads to paralysis in national life and the state decision making. If we do not have a system of value sto evaluate our decisions - how are we going to take decisions? Is going to war over a territory of higher "value" than the next electoral win with potential for monetary profits benefiting individuals and circles? How do we measure such values - if we do not have a reasonable system in place? This is the fundamental problem that "secularism" has landed us in. Making the nation devoid of values, substituted perhaps weakly by monetary profits - but which is well known to be notoriously fuzzy and indecisive on non-material aspects.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Continuing from "Secularism in India - Boon or Bane" Thread
Supratik wrote:Secularism is governance without clergy.
Well in India the Rājanya were also advised and guided by Rajpurohits and Rajgurus, who advised among other things on issues of Raj Dharma!

These would not be called technically "clergy" in that role.

The major difference between say Hindu brahmanas and Abrahamic clergy was that the former were bound to not pursuing political power or wealth nor were they in favor of coercing people to follow a particular religious panth using state power. As such they did not form a parallel power base in parallel to that of the sovereign. They did not intervene as power brokers in the running of the state.

So Secularism should simply be
  1. No sharing of power with clergy or using them in mediation with the people.
  2. Not giving preference to any cosmological view or spiritual philosophy or support in proselytizing the people with it.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Post by RajeshA »

Continuing from "Secularism in India - Boon or Bane" Thread
Theo_Fidel wrote:Can you post the crux of the idea here and why you think that will work. I must warn you that you are up against a system that does not discriminate on the basis of Identity, vison, agenda or proposition. None of them matter.
Theo_Fidel ji,

the crux of the idea is that India is simply not any x,y,z country which should play neutral in a war (competition) of other civilizations which are keen on making India a theater for proxy wars. As the mother civilization of many others which came later on, as the dominant civilization just a thousand years ago, as a civilization which once represented a third of the world GDP, as a civilization which basically wrote the book on scientific thinking, excelling in Maths, Astronomy, Medicine, Metallurgy and Textile Industry among other things, Bharat has the right to be counted as a civilizational pole in its own right!

Islam is the aggressive ideology of the Islamic Civilization nurtured by Ummah. Christianity is the aggressive ideology of the Western Civilization along with Western Universalism nurtured by the West. Mandate of Heaven and Mao-Marxism are the aggressive strategies of the Sinic Civilization nurtured by China.

If Bharat has to stand up and be counted as a civilizational pole, Bharat cannot play shy and neutral. Secularism not only does not allow us to project Bharatiya Sabhyata with it full soft power across the world, but it also smothers our huge reserve of soft-power - our Sanskriti with time at home by denying any state support to it.

The discrimination in India among the "religions" comes simply from the fact that Islam in India is being fully supported by Ummah - the Islamic Civilization, and Christianity is being fully supported by the West - the Western Civilization, but Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism if you wish) receives support from no quarter in the world. From that perspective Secularism in India is useless because it cannot work. The playing field is not level.

Even in practice external pressure from other countries (Ummah and West) on the GoI and internal pressures due to tactical vote-bank politics ensure that other "religions" would receive preference from the Indian State.

The "Identity, Vision, Agenda and Proposition" do not matter if India is to be only the theater for proxy civilizational wars after the local civilization has been finished. However if India wishes to stand up and be counted as its own civilizational pole, then these are of the utmost importance, and the fact that secularism does not allow that, as per your own words, secularism is simply not in our national interests.

Each citizen has a right to choose his or her own path of Moksha or Salvation, including those proposed by our rival civilizations, even as we are aware that these paths are simply tools for their imperialistic outreach. This freedom is given simply because Dharma allows it. However a minority of such citizens eager to suckle on milk of these rival civilizations have no right to deny Bharatiya Civilization her place in the Sun!
Post Reply