The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

[RajeshA]

ravi_g ji,

AFAIK, different Sampradayas have different initiation ceremony - Buddhists have the Threefold Refuge; Sikhs have Amrit Paan Ceremony; Sanatan Dharma (Hindus) do Shuddhi, but that is only for those who had left Sanatan Dharma earlier; Jains do not have any ceremony. One could consider these initiation ceremonies as implicit vows of allegiance if one wants. The Kalima and the Nicene Creed are however most definitely vows of allegiance.

Different prayers and rituals, like Hanuman Chalisa, reaffirm one's faith and thus implicitly reaffirm one's allegiance. In the current context of discussion, important is to know if one is secure in one's identity.

[RajeshA]

Potency of the 'Dharmic'

It is true that Islam and Christianity are based on historical (Prophet, Revelation, Crucifixion, Ascension) and textual (Qu'ran, Holy Bible) anchors and are defined through a "Definition of Positive Content" (10 Commandments, Nicene Creed, Kalimah, Hadiths, Sharia, etc.).

But in their universalism and proselytization, they are implicitly also defined by negative content, and that is they are in opposition to others, e.g. idol worshipping, Shirk.

For Islam, "idol-worship" became a lightning rod to go against all "idolaters and polytheists". The term 'Shirk' energized them because the term told them what was supposedly sinful, against Allah, and needed to be uprooted.

What is going to be the call to Hindus to not only resist but to invade the Abrahamics?

The identity 'Hindu' is good for 'Resistance', 'Resistance' is defensive in nature, but the term 'Hindu' doesn't really have the offensive aspect.

Dharmic does!

But it depends on how one sees Dharmic! Is Dharmic one who lives a Dharmic lifestyle, tends to his rituals, does good deeds, seeks knowledge, i.e. is defined by a "Definition of Positive Content" or is Dharmic one who fights Adharma, i.e. is defined by a "Definition of Negative Content".

Dharmic should be defined by both Positive and Negative Contents.

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

Awakening the intrinsic capacity of Atma to seek the Supreme is the work of any Dharmic Sampradaya or Swa-Dharma. It is the definition of "Positive Content".

However by explicitly stating "without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary" the Dharmics would be defining our Shirk; we would be defining what by definition is 'Adharma'! Any system which "requires the intervention of self-proclaimed intermediaries" is indeed Adharmic. And just like Islam espouses doing away with Shirk, Dharmics would be espousing doing away with Adharma.

In the Upanishads, it is written "sarva dharma samabhava", which wrongly translates to "respect for all belief systems"! Dharma is not just some arbitrary "belief system". We need to retrieve ownership over what "Dharma" means. One cannot have anybody talking about "Turkha Dharma", "Isai Dharma", "Islami Dharma" or whatever. One should start using some other (neutral) Sanskrit word for Abrahamic religions - pranali, tantra or whatever. But Dharma it is not!

The use of "Dharmics" as an identity marker refocuses the general public to the fact that if SD, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists are Dharmics, than of course one cannot use "Dharma" for others.

So "Dharmics" moniker helps us reclaim the term "Dharma" also.

'Dharmic' is not simply a means of collecting the Dharmic Sampradayas under one tent or for reclaiming "Dharma", although these are major aims, 'Dharmic' is also a way to take the war to the opposite camp, especially as:

A Dharmic's Dharma is to fight Adharma, within and without!

It is testimony to the strength of the Hindus that we have resisted Islam and Christianism for so long. However the concept of Shirk gave the Muslims in their eyes the moral justification to do any sort of brutality on the Hindu, those idolators and the polytheists. This is something that has been lacking among the Hindus, a moral justification to take the war into the other camp. When I speak of war, it is something fought on many levels, including intellectual.

Secondly the Islamics and Christians should know exactly why they are being opposed and "besieged" by Dharmics and on the intellectual level they should feel weak. They should understand the reason of the Dharmics and be at a loss to counter.

How do they counter when the Dharmics say the Dharmics do not allow "Gates and Gatekeepers" between the Atma (~Soul) and the Supreme, and it is duty of the Dharmics to tear down these "Gates and Gatekeepers". "Gates and Gatekeepers" violate the natural order!

May be some dumb Islamics like dumb Dhimmis would then start posing the question: "Why do they hate us"?

So the function of 'Dharmics' is:

1. Create a collective for referring to various Sampradayas (SD, Sikh, Jains, Buddhists, etc.)
2. Reclaim the meaning of Dharma
3. Create a moral and ideological justification for going on the offensive

When Swami Vivekananda spoke of Hindus having a Vedantic brain and an Islamic body, perhaps it is this that he meant - Hindus having an additional layer which gives them an uncompromising resolve to finish off the other! 'Hindu' being 'Resistance' was only defensive as far as world was concerned, but 'Dharmic' is offensive through and through.

[Yogi_G]

Srimati Tessy has named her son Tejas IIRC and is also married to a Hindu. An adharmic person would not realize the oneness of religions, would seek to impose his/her value systems on the other and so on and so forth. From what I see, Srimati Tessy is tolerant, accepting, open-minded and accomplishing her Sadhana though intense gnana Yoga and plain simple karma.

She is essentially supporting the cause of keeping India away from mad frothing Taliban and commies and maintaining the Dharmic nature of the nation, that in itself is Dharma. For all I see, she is into a Dharmic path, if she realizes it or not, does it intentionally or not is another topic.

[RajeshA]

Hindusthan

I had already responded to it earlier, but there is another response.

Savarkar considered himself a Nastik, and he defined 'Hindu' as independent of Sanatan Dharma. His 'Hindu' did not have anything to do with the Trojan Horse "Hinduism". He considered Sanataniks, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists all to be Hindus.His definition for 'Hindu' included Bharatiya atheists as well like himself. All these resisted conversions to Islam or Christianity and so they were HINDUS.

Essentials of Hindutva
Author: V.D. Savarkar
Publication Date: 1922

So this does tell us something. That patriotic Atheist Bharatiya do not have any issue with Hindu identity.

Going back to my main question? WHO ARE uncomfortable with Hindu identity? I remember even Zakir Nayak say he is a Hindu to the fact that he came from Hindustan That covers all Zakir Nayak followers as well.

Zakir Nayak can call himself Hindusthani, but not Hindu.

[member_20317]

RajeshA ji, If you have observed an affidavit there is :

1) a claim; and

2) a verfication of that claim that whatever is stated in the above claim is to the best of the deponents knowledge true.

Both parts taken together become a claim proper.

Now any person can do the first part any which way about himself and then go on to verify it too. Both take together would be a complete claim.

When one attacks the veracity of the affidavit he primarily goes on to prove that whatever was claimed was not evidenced and the claim was false. (added later : Knowingly or unknowingly will entail different set of results)

Now if a person says yes I read the creed but I read it only because I do not know Indic languages and hence am forced to treat Latin as the language of puja paddhati and then he goes on further to claim that the creed he was reading are merely words (numbers/symbols) but he was concentrating on the infinite within. So he be kindly treated as Dharmic. Poorly trained and handicapped perhaps but Dharmic. After all Dharm without Swa-Dharm is nonsense and Swa is there in equal measure if not more.

In such a situation we really cannot do much beyond what is normally done with Affidavits or Truth claims. Go ahead and prove it false. Every claim is falsifiable so long as one has the evidence to do it.

Say for example harbans ji claims : he is an Indian &/or Dharmic &/or Bhartiya &/or Hindu. We simply have to accept that. Then I can go ahead and check out his passport &/or his ability to uphold &/or his ethinicity! &/or whatever forms the test.

Our headache does not start with the claim. The substantive claim can be there and without evidence to the contrary it has to be taken at face value. Headache starts after the difference in the claim and evidence is noticed. Till the difference is noticed and cross-examined and established we just have to accept the claim at face value. Because the 'context' of the definition can always be changed. That is why we need so many definitions and exceptions.

JMT



Added later :

I just have to basically assume everybody is Dharmic in the first instance till they show their difference with what upholds. Then as a Dharmic it would be my responsibility to put that up for other presumed Dharmics to assess and uphold whatever remains.

[RajeshA]

Hindu and Sanatan Dharma

There is some confusion about what is the relationship between 'Hindu Dharma' and 'Sanatan Dharma'. One point of some speculation is how to deal with the issue of a collective umbrella for the Dharmic Sampradayas (SD, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, etc.).

I had written on this issue earlier:

What is Hindu Dharma?

• Those who say that Hindu is another word for Sanatan Dharma, are making the identity 'Hindu' useless for the other Dharmic Sampradayas.
• Those who are saying that usage of 'Dharmics' takes away the supremacy of 'Hindu' in defining India and cannot be allowed, are making the identity 'Dharmic' useless for other Dharmic Sampradayas.

So both 'Hindu' and 'Dharmic' are being made useless, e.g. for Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists.

Now why is a collective identity of all Dharmic Sampradayas (SD, Sikhs, Jains, Indian Buddhists, etc. ) necessary?

As long as there is no collective identity moniker, all religious groups in India would be given "equal" treatment - i.e. Nehruvian Secularism. Sikhs, Jains, Indian Buddhists all have rights over India, just like Sanatan Dharmics, or Hindu atheists. But Islam and Christianity are foreign origin religions. The whole ideological demarcation between native faiths and foreign religions is lost because Sanatan Dharmics can't seem to find common ground with other Dharmic Sampradayas.

If this demarcation is not made forcefully, then all the ideological advantage and rights that Sanatan Dharma has over Islam in India is lost through Nehruvian-Secularism. Nehruvian-Secularists are more than happy that there is division among the ranks of the native faiths.

Only with a united front among the Dharmic Sampradayas (regardless of their numbers), would Sanataniks be able to tell the Islamics, that Islamics cannot enjoy the same level of support from the state as Sanataniks.

So one identifier, 'Hindu' or 'Dharmic' would have to be used as our collective identity. I say both can be used.

But if Hindu becomes used as a collective identifier, how would one arrange with its currently heavy usage as a synonym for Sanatan Dharma?

Popular Level
We need to make a distinction: academic level and the popular level. It is okay if at the popular level the term 'Hindu' remains synonymous with 'Sanatan Dharma'! It doesn't do anybody harm. It is good. It is good because it keeps the term 'Hindu' alive and healthy and does not relegate the term to some academic category. At the popular level this ambiguity is welcome.

Deracinated Minds
But for all those, who have become "victims" of deracination currents, they need to be given a clear picture about identities and what they entail. At the level where people start asking questions about what it means to be Hindu and whether 'Hindu' really caters to their spiritual needs, and if they are Hindu should they be following and believing in 'Hinduism' (yes, that Trojan Horse), at that level where faith becomes a matter of academic and intellectual debate, the Macaulayist kind, then the individual should be clarified that the faith is not 'Hindu' but 'Sanatan Dharma', and 'Hindu Dharma' basically involves Resistance to the Abrahamic push into India, and nothing more than that. This is important so that the deracinated mind does not start delving into Trojan Horse 'Hinduism' and tries to understand things from the Western or Macaulayist perspective. Then the deracinated Indian should concern himself more with 'Sanatan Dharma' directly without the 'Man-in-the-Middle' 'Hinduism'.

Transitivity
I had written

3. The traditional cultural resistance to Islam and Christianism, where each and every Dharmic Sampradaya, be they Sanataniks, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Animists, Nastiks, whatever Bharatiyas go and nurture their culture and as well as the common Bharatiya cultural heritage. We resist by retaining our culture. Hindu Dharma is however not in the business of prescribing any religious rituals. All that is outsourced to the various individual Dharmic Sampradayas and Samskaras

So how does the collective identity 'Hindu' work, if Sanatan Dharmics at the popular level are more in sync with the 'Hindu' identity?

Well actually it is indeed 'Hindu Dharma' to retain one's pre-Islamic belief systems, one's culture. So if Sanatan Dharmics are being good Sanatan Dharmics and holding on to their beliefs and culture, then they are automatically being good Hindus. And if Sikhs are holding on to their Sikh identity, Sikh beliefs, then they too are providing resistance. Same is the case with Jains, Indian Buddhists, Hindu atheists, etc.

As long as one holds on to one's Dharmic Sampradaya identity - Sikh, Jain, Buddhist whatever, and resists conversion to Islam or Christianity one is doing one's Hindu Dharma. If one feels that whatever he is doing is Hindu Dharma, e.g. as is the case with many Sanataniks, who consider 'Hindu' to be the name of their Dharmic Sampradaya, then that too is acceptable. He may just not be making the academic distinction but he is doing his Hindu Dharma.

Making the distinction at the academic level however is important for the other Dharmic Sampradayas, for their leadership can appreciate the collective appeal of 'Hindu' and join in.

Virtues of Sanatanik

Those followers of SD (Hindus) who are somewhat of an academic bend can however also start using the term "Sanatanik" for example, either alone or in combination with 'Hindu'.

Afterall 'Sanatan' means 'eternal' and aren't we eternal Atmas?! It sounds good calling oneself - The Eternals! It takes away the fright of death from you. Reminds you that when faced with Jihadis, one does not need to fear, and in fact you will provide them with 'eternal hell'!

[RajeshA]

RajeshA ji, If you have observed an affidavit there is :

1) a claim; and

2) a verfication of that claim that whatever is stated in the above claim is to the best of the deponents knowledge true.

Both parts taken together become a claim proper.

Now any person can do the first part any which way about himself and then go on to verify it too. Both take together would be a complete claim.

When one attacks the veracity of the affidavit he primarily goes on to prove that whatever was claimed was not evidenced and the claim was false. (added later : Knowingly or unknowingly will entail different set of results)

Now if a person says yes I read the creed but I read it only because I do not know Indic languages and hence am forced to treat Latin as the language of puja paddhati and then he goes on further to claim that the creed he was reading are merely words (numbers/symbols) but he was concentrating on the infinite within. So he be kindly treated as Dharmic. Poorly trained and handicapped perhaps but Dharmic. After all Dharm without Swa-Dharm is nonsense and Swa is there in equal measure if not more.

In such a situation we really cannot do much beyond what is normally done with Affidavits or Truth claims. Go ahead and prove it false. Every claim is falsifiable so long as one has the evidence to do it.

Say for example harbans ji claims : he is an Indian &/or Dharmic &/or Bhartiya &/or Hindu. We simply have to accept that. Then I can go ahead and check out his passport &/or his ability to uphold &/or his ethinicity! &/or whatever forms the test.

Our headache does not start with the claim. The substantive claim can be there and without evidence to the contrary it has to be taken at face value. Headache starts after the difference in the claim and evidence is noticed. Till the difference is noticed and cross-examined and established we just have to accept the claim at face value. Because the 'context' of the definition can always be changed. That is why we need so many definitions and exceptions.

JMT



Added later :

I just have to basically assume everybody is Dharmic in the first instance till they show their difference with what upholds. Then as a Dharmic it would be my responsibility to put that up for other presumed Dharmics to assess and uphold whatever remains.

ravi_g ji,

1) First of all, before getting to the individual level, one has to judge the belief systems. Is some belief system, be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, etc. Dharmic or Adharmic according to the criteria given:

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

1) This should be tested at the system's ideology level. So intrinsically by our criteria we could state that a "belief system" is Adharmic (mind the capital 'A').

2) Then we go on to test how the system as a whole is acting, we check its behavior, is it acceptable (from pragmatic perspective) or is it acting adharmically (posing a thread to us). If later then the system is adharmic (mind the small 'a') at the moment.

3) Then we check the individual and his/her allegiance. Is his/her allegiance to a Dharmic Sampradaya or is it to what we have termed as an Adharmic ideology? If it is to an Adharmic ideology, then the person is Adharmic (mind the capital 'A').

4) Then we check the behavior of the individual. Even if he/she belongs to an Adharmic institution, he/she can still be dharmic. However it is we, the Dharmics, who make that determination.

If a Adharmic system is acting adharmically, then we oppose it full force and in fact invade it (again this can even be at an intellectual level). If a Adharmic system is acting in acceptable way, we can postpone the opposition for pragmatic reasons and we concentrate our fire on those who Adharmic and acting adharmically, both at systemic/ideological level and at individual level. Of course we should also control those Dharmics who act adharmically.

If your question was about truth-claims about various belief systems and ideologies, well there cannot really be any verification from us without anubhooti. One can only test their ideologies and their behavior according to various criteria.

[Pranav]

Srimati Tessy has named her son Tejas IIRC and is also married to a Hindu. An adharmic person would not realize the oneness of religions, would seek to impose his/her value systems on the other and so on and so forth. From what I see, Srimati Tessy is tolerant, accepting, open-minded and accomplishing her Sadhana though intense gnana Yoga and plain simple karma.

She is essentially supporting the cause of keeping India away from mad frothing Taliban and commies and maintaining the Dharmic nature of the nation, that in itself is Dharma. For all I see, she is into a Dharmic path, if she realizes it or not, does it intentionally or not is another topic.

What somebody names their child and who they marry are personal matters, which I think one should not intrude into. What can be considered is to what extent somebody has consciously bought into ideas that conflict with a dharmic POV.

As regards Churchianity, although there are problematic ideas like the Nicene creed, introduced in the 4th century AD, the main problem is less one of ideas than the subversion of the organization for the purposes of neo-imperialism. Such subversion can happen even to ostensibly Dharmic groups.

[harbans]

It's not all that complex. Keep Dharma simple. Arjun has similar queries. After Krishna gives gyaan, Arjun asks how do i recognize such a (Dharmic) person. Krishna responds with a number of qualities that will be exuded, so it is easy to verify. Thus recognition requires a State/ Individual to reflect certain qualities. A humble, simple, truthful, honest farmer with continual trust in Hari will possibly be higher evolved on the dharmic scale than a high flying untruthful, easy to anger, Veda and Sanskrit spouting Swami. It is important to underline the evolving context of both Dharma and Truth. That is why i was saying our best bet lies in identifying what values we cherish and making sure that State Institutions reflect them. If those are reflected then we can be sure the State is Dharmic. If not change required to make the State reflect as close and as much to those values. The iteration continues till we achieve the required.

[ShauryaT]

The iteration continues till we achieve the required.

+1 to the post with a minor nitpick. The iteration continues. Period.

[Pranav]

It's not all that complex. Keep Dharma simple. Arjun has similar queries. After Krishna gives gyaan, Arjun asks how do i recognize such a (Dharmic) person. Krishna responds with a number of qualities that will be exuded, so it is easy to verify. Thus recognition requires a State/ Individual to reflect certain qualities. A humble, simple, truthful, honest farmer with continual trust in Hari will possibly be higher evolved on the dharmic scale than a high flying untruthful, easy to anger, Veda and Sanskrit spouting Swami. It is important to underline the evolving context of both Dharma and Truth. That is why i was saying our best bet lies in identifying what values we cherish and making sure that State Institutions reflect them. If those are reflected then we can be sure the State is Dharmic. If not change required to make the State reflect as close and as much to those values. The iteration continues till we achieve the required.

Not so simple, imho. The doctrines laid down in certain ideologies can be like ticking time bombs. Somebody may seem to be simple and humble, but if they have mindlessly bought into some doctrine then who knows when some cleric might be able to stir them up into taking up the sword and slaughtering their neighbours.

So the simple and humble folks should also educate themselves and take a stand on ideological issues.

[harbans]

Shaurya ji, yes indeed.

So the simple and humble folks should also educate themselves and take a stand on ideological issues.

True. For a State by underlying these qualities and committing it to uphold we do put onus on conflict and not appeasement with other States that do not uphold or possess similar value systems. So a Dharmic Indian state would never have approved of a Chinese takeover of Tibet or appeased Pakistan the way it has. It would endeavor other states too uphold similar value systems by diplomatic, cultural, economic and if need be military means too.

[RajeshA]

It is important to underline the evolving context of both Dharma and Truth. That is why i was saying our best bet lies in identifying what values we cherish and making sure that State Institutions reflect them. If those are reflected then we can be sure the State is Dharmic. If not change required to make the State reflect as close and as much to those values. The iteration continues till we achieve the required.

harbans ji,

Here is one relevant post from brihaspati garu.

[Prem]

Xpost
Bhartiyta Of Soil Vsl Klesha of Mlecca: Ze Foundation Vs Fixture

Indian-language literature is thriving
Ties which Bind and the Others Tied To Others

Literature in Indian languages is vibrant, thriving and more interlinked than is evident, say literary figures. Renowned writers, poets and playwrights, from different Indian languages, who came together at the Jaipur Literature Festival, said their work was not diverse as perceived by outsiders but linked to world literature.Who said Tamil literature is dying? It's so exciting! There are so many writers now. It was always so modern. There is no threat from English writing," said Tamil writer C.S. Lakshmi (pen name Ambai), told IANS.Sitanshu Yashaschandra, a Gujarati poet-playwright, said there were many new literary voices in the language now."But there is also a crisis. Its origin is in the country's growing eco-political dependence on the West," Yashaschandra told IANS at the festival held here from Jan 24 to 29.Eminent poet K. Satchidanandan said literature in Malayalam was vibrant now.Like the case of Benyamin, a popular writer settled in Bahrain, who said at a session that if his books in Malayalam sold thousands of copies, why should he bother about getting them published in English."As a writer one had to juggle language as a circus man. It is difficult to do so in any other language than the mother tongue. But it is nothing related to the love of the language," said the 43-year-old author of "Aadujivitham" (Goat Days).The other point that came up during talks was inter-connected to regional languages, including their link to English.Lakshmi, 69, said though she wrote in Tamil, her writing was "informed by many languages".English has also become a part of our existential world," said the author of "Kaattil Oru Maan" ("A Deer in the Forest").Asia's largest literary fiesta opened with feisty 88-year-old Bengali writer-activist Mahasweta Devi saying though she had written more in the context of Bengal, changing India influenced her literature.Malayalam writer Sethu said he reached a pan-India mission unconsciously. "I went to different parts of India and it gave me a wider pan-India mission." His novel "Pandavapuram" was some years ago adapted into a Bengali film.Yashaschandra, who won a Sahitya Akademi award for his poetic opus "Jatayu", said he found it easy to move within regional languages."The Gujarati way is reach through Marathi. Rajasthani is also next door. There is Nepalese, Assamese and Bengali. I try to bring to life that which is next to me, my neighbouring life."Uday Narayan Singh, a Maithili writer, asked if there was anything called Indian culture or was it Gujarati culture or Tamil culture.To this, Yashaschandra said every Indian language had other languages in it.Legendary Kannada folklorist and playwright Chandrasekhara Kambar said all his literary forms and idioms came from his native culture."Neither have I followed the masters who derived their imaginative tools from the repertories of pan-Indian culture, for instance, the shared ode of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata," the 76-year-old, winner of India's most prestigious literary award Jnanpith, said in a speech, praising writers H.S. Shiva Prakash and Hanur Krishnamurthy for "finding inspiration in folk and devotional cultures to turn works into 'a mourning and fiesta'".Later, he surprised all by singing a Kannada folk song, "Mao Tse Tunga" mourning the death of Mao Zedong.Contrary to this, Satchidanandan, who too has won the Sahitya Akademi award, made a case for bilingual writers, saying "that way, the language has a better chance of survival".

[MurthyG]

I think that we should reserve the use of the word 'Dharma' as suggested by many must be reserved only for the Sanatana Dharma. For all other religions of the world and even within Hinduism we must consciously use the word 'mata' as that is what they really are.
'Sanatana Dharma' or 'Dharma' represents a much higher ideal that does not
An eloquent explanation of this concept by Swami Chinmayananda is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOTgiImV ... ults_video
Best Regards,

[RajeshA]

MurthyG ji,

it is really not up to Sanatan Dharma to make that choice. It is one of the Threefold Refuges in Buddhism for example and Sikhs and Jains also use the word 'Dharma'.

[RamaY]

MurthyGaru

The current proposal is to remove/cut the roots because they are getting into & weakening foundations of secular mansions.

RajeshA garu,
Yet Baudhha Dharma != Jaina Dharma != Sikh Dharma != Hindu Dharma. The underlying ideology is what gives the flavor to the respective Dharma. If we remove Hinduism from Hindu Dharma; it will be simply an Atheist Civil/Criminal Law. This is how Secularism was sold while keeping the Christian definitions of many social, personal and cultural relationships. That is how secularism became "Christianity without church".

[harbans]

Let me try and work this this way:

Assume there are simple preamble nodal Values that the State must try and project. For example sake let us say the preamble nodal values are Truth and Compassion. The secondary code decided is say Communism. After some time it seen, that the Govt institutions cannot maintain communism without curtailing Truth via throttling freedom of speech. When some people start protesting, the State becomes ruthless and thus not compassionate. Result: Secondary code for achieving primary has failed and needs to be replaced. People decide to replace it with a Fascist secondary code. Similar result. Secondary code has failed to reflect the nodal values. Needs to be replaced. People decide Islam as secondary code. Same result. Islam does not work in reflecting those nodal values. Next they try Christianity and it too resembles the papal dictatorship.

Then people understand and say lets have a democracy with respect to all religions. Then we see again that in respecting all religions certain truths have to be swept under the carpet for the state to function. So we decide no that secondary code of treating all religions with kid gloves is not working too well.

Next logically people decide in the secondary code lets keep democracy and treat all religions equally except we will allow open criticism even if it hurts. Now what happens? Some people start saying that Compassion is not being exhibited by the Govt as people are hurt by criticism of their religion. Thus failure. The Govt consults the Dharmic blackbox and says it says the Truth > Compassion and the highest nodal Value to be preserved, so it is Ok to criticize, even if hurt. Truth after all can hurt a bit. But that teaches us to put Truth right above other nodal preamble values.

Thus as Truth is continually exposed the religions that have fundamental Dharmic inadequacies start crumbling as people gravitate towards the sampradaya's and philosophies that honor better those nodal values.

Next as Truth becomes well established and the norm reflected in state functioning, economically the state blooms, people prosper. The focus then comes on cruel treatment of animals. The state is not being compassionate..and so on. It may start with shelters and clinics, it may end up in disallowing slaughter. That is an evolution, not a revolution here. Fact is the whole process above is an evolution.

I cannot see a failure of primary nodal values. I can see a failure and need to change the secondary charter so the primary reflects better. The more we uphold the primary the better and faster we evolve on the secondary side. If you notice our constitution is not at the bottom of the evolutionary ladder but somewhere in the middle. We need to be higher up. But we go higher only if we create the necessary primary nodal based on those values.

[ShauryaT]

Sanatan Dharma defies tight definitions, many have tried but failed. I now consider it a fools errand, having myself tried it in the past. A fool because of a lack of Sadhana to understand and practice it, first. It does not mean SD cannot be understood or requires a pee chadee to understand or practice it. One can attain moksha with zero education or the formal understanding of SD. The four purusharthas do not need formal knowledge to accomplish them. SD believes that man is inherently spiritual - no training required. One cannot just start putting words like aatman, brahman, no intermediary, etc in an attempt to define SD, while all the time thinking how to differentiate from others. It would be very limiting.

Dharma is not meant to be defined, it is to be lived. You are adjudged dharmic or not based on your actions – not your beliefs. This judgment also is at multiple levels, where the state comes into play only if there is a question that demands its attention on the matter. The living is at multiple levels. Personal, family, social, national and universal. A dharmic person is a seeker and does not have to bear allegiance to any collective – sampradaya. It all starts with the person, the individual. However as a person’s actions affects others he interacts with, an appropriate guidance framework – which should be dharmic is needed, a back stop to such a dharmic system is the backing and force of law. Lacking this social awareness and practices and the full backing of the state, Dharma suffers and its principles, objectives and values decline. Its practitioners are its biggest loosers.

A dharma shastra or a constitution is an exposition of dharma’s values, principles, objectives and goals for a Rashtra. All that is required for such a Rashtra is to recognize that it is the principles and values of dharma that guide its construction. It is the ultimate truth that it needs to protect, so that all men have the opportunity to lead a spiritual and dharmic life and the ability to pursue all purusharthas in all stages of existence.

Since some pursharthas need a higher focus than some others in different times, a Dharma shastra for today’s times would probably need to focus more on dharma-arthic expositions and let Moksha remain by and large at the personal level, but the shastra should ensure that sajjans do not face any undue difficulty in its pursuit.

Personally, I am a big proponent of legislation of some values, principles, goals and objectives and the means to accomplish the purusharthas in such a structure. The formal inclusion of the four orders of society, the four stages, the four dharmas, institutionalization of Kama/Samskars, Nitya Karmas and some of the Karma Kaands, the use of our calendar, language are things worthy of consideration after due adjustment for current needs of society, in such a shastra. I do not think Mokhsa margs need any formal institutionalization as they are a personal quest and can be left out. A spiritual life is the purpose of such a rashtra.

Men define these laws for themselves based on the needs of their times. Wise men will tap into the rich civilizational heritage and learnings from the past to frame the future so that civilizational learnings are preserved.

Trying to define dharma with a mindset to oppose other ideas or in an attempt to create a sectarian separation will inherently contradict its universal moorings and hence destined to fail. The only way is to keep its understandings inherently spiritual and use the vast, vast learnings of our great civilization and learn to protect its teachings and be worthy of it.

[Agnimitra]

One way to define SD/Hindu/Bharatiya would be in terms of function - of what occupies most of our living moments, including here on this board -- resolving knotty problems! We spend most of our time helping resolve problems, outer or inner, either our own, and then those of people we love. Resolving problems for those we love causes bliss. The more all-encompassing the love, the greater the bliss.

The American constitution defines its basic purpose as "the pursuit of happiness". This is also the goal of the Veda, or any other Indic creed. Most Indic systems understand that happiness is not in the acquisition or relinquishing (pravrtti/nivrtti) of objects itself, but in the opening up of the knots in the heart in doing so.

So we can define "Sanatana Dharma" as the science and art of achieving happiness in the overcoming of obstacles to reach a definite goal, and includes the momentary contemplation of the goal and temporary indulgence along the way.

"Hinduism" would be the cultural and geographical locus of this constant planetary process. It is a confluence of human dynamics and a vital focal point of a global scatter-gather algorithm. It is a microcosm of humanity in many ways, but has always been more than the sum of its parts.

[RamaY]

Now that is a post ShauryaT garu, take a bow

[RajeshA]

Sanatan Dharma defies tight definitions, many have tried but failed. I now consider it a fools errand, having myself tried it in the past. A fool because of a lack of Sadhana to understand and practice it, first. It does not mean SD cannot be understood or requires a pee chadee to understand or practice it. One can attain moksha with zero education or the formal understanding of SD. The four purusharthas do not need formal knowledge to accomplish them. SD believes that man is inherently spiritual - no training required. One cannot just start putting words like aatman, brahman, no intermediary, etc in an attempt to define SD, while all the time thinking how to differentiate from others. It would be very limiting.

Dharma is not meant to be defined, it is to be lived. You are adjudged dharmic or not based on your actions – not your beliefs. This judgment also is at multiple levels, where the state comes into play only if there is a question that demands its attention on the matter. The living is at multiple levels. Personal, family, social, national and universal. A dharmic person is a seeker and does not have to bear allegiance to any collective – sampradaya. It all starts with the person, the individual. However as a person’s actions affects others he interacts with, an appropriate guidance framework – which should be dharmic is needed, a back stop to such a dharmic system is the backing and force of law. Lacking this social awareness and practices and the full backing of the state, Dharma suffers and its principles, objectives and values decline. Its practitioners are its biggest loosers.

A dharma shastra or a constitution is an exposition of dharma’s values, principles, objectives and goals for a Rashtra. All that is required for such a Rashtra is to recognize that it is the principles and values of dharma that guide its construction. It is the ultimate truth that it needs to protect, so that all men have the opportunity to lead a spiritual and dharmic life and the ability to pursue all purusharthas in all stages of existence.

Since some pursharthas need a higher focus than some others in different times, a Dharma shastra for today’s times would probably need to focus more on dharma-arthic expositions and let Moksha remain by and large at the personal level, but the shastra should ensure that sajjans do not face any undue difficulty in its pursuit.

Personally, I am a big proponent of legislation of some values, principles, goals and objectives and the means to accomplish the purusharthas in such a structure. The formal inclusion of the four orders of society, the four stages, the four dharmas, institutionalization of Kama/Samskars, Nitya Karmas and some of the Karma Kaands, the use of our calendar, language are things worthy of consideration after due adjustment for current needs of society, in such a shastra. I do not think Mokhsa margs need any formal institutionalization as they are a personal quest and can be left out. A spiritual life is the purpose of such a rashtra.

Men define these laws for themselves based on the needs of their times. Wise men will tap into the rich civilizational heritage and learnings from the past to frame the future so that civilizational learnings are preserved.

ShauryaT ji,

A good inspiring write up but with some paradoxes. On the one hand you say "A dharma shastra or a constitution is an exposition of dharma’s values, principles, objectives and goals for a Rashtra." On the other hand you say "Dharma is not meant to be defined, it is to be lived."

This is jumping from one horse to another - very much like the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, one is neither here nor there.

Trying to define dharma with a mindset to oppose other ideas or in an attempt to create a sectarian separation will inherently contradict its universal moorings and hence destined to fail. The only way is to keep its understandings inherently spiritual and use the vast, vast learnings of our great civilization and learn to protect its teachings and be worthy of it.

Trying to define one as a Yogi, interested in only his own Moksha and personal hobby of transcending existence does not do the community any good either.

When Krishna asked Arjuna to do his Dharma in the battlefields of Mahabharata, he did not try to paper over the "sectarian differences" between the Pandavas and the Kauravas. What use is Dharma if one is the last man sitting in a cave doing one's Tapasya, knowing that no one after him would be allowed this luxury!

While Moksha can indeed be focused on the individual, Dharma has to be focused on what is right and wrong, and mind you not only on what is right, for the greater good of every individual and the whole community. Dharma's main goal remains to seek out Adharma and abolish it, so that only Dharma can thrive in the land. There can be no Dharma without confrontation with any existing Adharma.

The universalist moorings of Dharma are not to embrace Adharma, but to oppose it universally!

[RajeshA]

Yet Baudhha Dharma != Jaina Dharma != Sikh Dharma != Hindu Dharma. The underlying ideology is what gives the flavor to the respective Dharma.

Indeed each and every flavor needs to be preserved, and no identity need to be destroyed.

The way I see it is:
Baudhha Dharma != Jaina Dharma != Sikh Dharma != Sanatan Dharma

Bauddha Dharma (among Bharatiya) ⊂ Hindu Dharma
Jaina Dharma ⊂ Hindu Dharma
Sikh Dharma ⊂ Hindu Dharma
Sanatan Dharma ⊂ Hindu Dharma

If we remove Hinduism from Hindu Dharma; it will be simply an Atheist Civil/Criminal Law.

I am suggesting a rejection of the word 'Hinduism' because it is basically a European and Macaulayist construct into which the followers of Sanatan Dharma have misguidedly injected their corpus of beliefs. I have elaborated on that here Do we need 'Hinduism'?

'Hinduism' ≠ 'Hindu Dharma'

It is important to distinguish. Just because one is against the use of the term 'Hinduism', does not in any way mean one is against 'Hindu Dharma' or Sanatan Dharma.

This is how Secularism was sold while keeping the Christian definitions of many social, personal and cultural relationships. That is how secularism became "Christianity without church".

You provide in fact a beautiful example of the same duping.

'Hinduism' is in this case exactly like 'Secularism'. 'Hinduism' has been sold to followers of Sanatan Dharma, and in fact to all Hindus as the embodiment of their religious beliefs, whereas it is formulated very much according to the interests of Europeans, Christianists, and Macaulayites.

Where do the "castes" come from? They come from 'Hinduism' and not from 'Sanatan Dharma'! Through the use of "Hinduism" the whole platform of "Hindutva" has been overturned and practically destroyed.

[RajeshA]

Assume there are simple preamble nodal Values that the State must try and project. For example sake let us say the preamble nodal values are Truth and Compassion.

harbans ji,

I think you speak of principles and not values (nodal values). A State can declare what principles it espouses.

The Preamble to the Constitution of India states:

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PREAMBLE
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India
into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and
to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of
November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO
OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity are principles. You could advocate the inclusion of "Truth" and "Compassion" as principles in this list.

There is "LIBERTY of expression" there in the Preamble, which is perhaps also in an important component of "Truth". However I feel Truth and Compassion would have to be defined more precisely, just as the target range of Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity have been defined. For example, it is "Liberty of expression" and not "LIBERTY to ransack", etc.

I had written in a response to you earlier

It is in fact unclear if your value "Truth" covers people's personal lives - Privacy Protection, or national security - Counter-Intelligence, or archaeology and history - Theories with some evidence but no way of finding Truth.

[RajeshA]

ravi_g ji, Carl ji,

thank you for your inputs on issue of blasphemy and sinfulness.

Would be taking up some time later.

[Rudradev]

SD believes that man is inherently spiritual - no training required.

And that is exactly the meaning of "intrinsic capacity" in Rajesh A ji's definition.

"Intrinsic capacity," however, represents only the potential for acquiring moksha. SD accepts that it is technically possible for human beings to acquire moksha completely at random, without any training. However, paramparas (lineages of established masters) exist within SD, only because training can and does increase the chance of achieving moksha. Accepting a guru and practicing a sadhana from any parampara is nothing but training.

If you can come up with your own sadhana without any training whatsoever, well, let's hope it will lead you to moksha. However, many people prefer to follow traditional paths (sampradaya) and techniques of adhyatma vidya that have been tried and tested before. Nothing contrary to SD in doing so.

One cannot just start putting words like aatman, brahman, no intermediary, etc in an attempt to define SD, while all the time thinking how to differentiate from others. It would be very limiting.

This is logically fallacious. You cannot define ANYTHING without automatically differentiating it from other things. The very process of defining an object X, intrinsically differentiates and excludes that object from the set X-prime. If you want to conceive of SD as totally limitless you have to say SD cannot be defined at all; in turn, that means there is no such thing as adharma, and that SD is indistinguishable from Islam, Christianity or any Asuratva. This is not merely limiting, it is destructive. It is, in fact, the reason why people say "Islami Dharam", "Isai Dharam" etc. today.

Dharma is not meant to be defined, it is to be lived.

So how does any individual know "how" to live a life consonant with Dharma? Only by discriminating what kind of living is dharmic vs. what kind of living is adharmic, no?

Viveka, or a sense of discrimination, is a prerequisite for living Dharma. Any kind of discrimination between good and bad first requires defining, what is "good" and what is "bad". Definition, in turn, is inherently a process of exclusion.

Therefore, to "live Dharma" itself, you have to be capable of discrimination, definition and exclusion.

You are adjudged dharmic or not based on your actions – not your beliefs.

Actions are not exclusive of beliefs. Actions are founded on beliefs. I act in a particular way because my beliefs inform me of the benefit of that action. I put on a sweater when it is cold because my beliefs inform me that this will keep me warm. I conduct myself with honesty and compassion towards others because my beliefs inform me that such conduct benefits all, and is conducive to moksha. You cannot separate the two.

This judgment also is at multiple levels, where the state comes into play only if there is a question that demands its attention on the matter. The living is at multiple levels. Personal, family, social, national and universal. A dharmic person is a seeker and does not have to bear allegiance to any collective – sampradaya. It all starts with the person, the individual. However as a person’s actions affects others he interacts with, an appropriate guidance framework – which should be dharmic is needed, a back stop to such a dharmic system is the backing and force of law. Lacking this social awareness and practices and the full backing of the state, Dharma suffers and its principles, objectives and values decline. Its practitioners are its biggest loosers.

Agree completely.

A dharma shastra or a constitution is an exposition of dharma’s values, principles, objectives and goals for a Rashtra. All that is required for such a Rashtra is to recognize that it is the principles and values of dharma that guide its construction. It is the ultimate truth that it needs to protect, so that all men have the opportunity to lead a spiritual and dharmic life and the ability to pursue all purusharthas in all stages of existence.

A constitution for the most part is nothing but a collection of defintions. A constitution without definitions is completely useless. For example, a constitution cannot simply say that all citizens of the state will have "Rights"... in order to have any meaning, it has to define what exactly those Rights are!

So again, definition is essential. And definition means exclusion of things other than the object which is being defined.

Trying to define dharma with a mindset to oppose other ideas or in an attempt to create a sectarian separation will inherently contradict its universal moorings and hence destined to fail. The only way is to keep its understandings inherently spiritual and use the vast, vast learnings of our great civilization and learn to protect its teachings and be worthy of it.

We are back to where we started. You cannot define anything without automatically excluding other things. The process of understanding SD as an idea automatically excludes ideas that are not consonant with SD, or opposed to SD.

It is not as if we are creating the opposition by our "mindset to oppose". In fact, the opposition already exists, and is merely being uncovered by our process of understanding Sanatan Dharma itself!

[RajeshA]

One way to define SD/Hindu/Bharatiya would be in terms of function - of what occupies most of our living moments, including here on this board -- resolving knotty problems!

We spend most of our time helping resolve problems, outer or inner, either our own, and then those of people we love. Resolving problems for those we love causes bliss. The more all-encompassing the love, the greater the bliss.

The American constitution defines its basic purpose as "the pursuit of happiness". This is also the goal of the Veda, or any other Indic creed. Most Indic systems understand that happiness is not in the acquisition or relinquishing (pravrtti/nivrtti) of objects itself, but in the opening up of the knots in the heart in doing so.

I had made some suggestions on what comprises "Bharatiya Dharma".

Bharatiya Dharma would be:

1. Expansion of Bharatvarsha to its maximum historical extent is of course one such interest (Akhand Bharat being an intermediate step).
2. Ensuring Bharatvarsha to be under Dharmic/Hindu leadership sworn to the upkeep of Bharatiya Civilization solely.
3. Expending effort to promote the health and flourishing of Bharatiya Civilization.

I think your words do justice to giving Bharatiya Civilization purpose, and thus to Bharatiya Dharma.

So we can define "Sanatana Dharma" as the science and art of achieving happiness in the overcoming of obstacles to reach a definite goal, and includes the momentary contemplation of the goal and temporary indulgence along the way.

"Hinduism" would be the cultural and geographical locus of this constant planetary process. It is a confluence of human dynamics and a vital focal point of a global scatter-gather algorithm. It is a microcosm of humanity in many ways, but has always been more than the sum of its parts.

I have previously expressed my desire to see a deprecation of the word 'Hinduism' because of its roots in colonial perspective of the native.

My suggestion would be to use "Bharatiyata" instead of "Hinduism" above. Again it is simply a suggestion.

One reason why I have gone into exploring the functional etymology of our identities is to see if one can inject these identities with the power of yore which strengthened us. As you say, each identity should have a function, a function of inspiration, a function of preservation, a function of liberation, a function of triggering a blossoming.

Functions of various Pan-Bharatiya identities:

1. Hindu
   1. Single Banner
   2. Resistance (political, religious, cultural) to the Abrahamic invasion
2. Dharmic
   1. Single Banner
   2. Bringing Focus to the Philosophical Richness & Diversity
   3. Energizing each and every Dharmic Sampradaya
   4. Liberation (Going on the offensive against "Adharma")
3. Bharatiya
   1. Single Banner
   2. Political Self-Determination
   3. Geographical Expansion
   4. Cultural Flourishing
   5. Dominating the Future (technologically, politically, militarily, ideas, culturally)
4. Indian
   1. Single Banner
   2. Allows a dialogue between all at the national level
   3. Strengthening the State
   4. Present and Available Vehicle of Self-Defense and Prospering
   5. ...

[RajeshA]

Published on Nov 10, 2012
By Sugata Ghosh
Hinduism: Tax Tribunal says donations to Nagpur temple trust exempt from tax: Economic Times

MUMBAI: "...Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, Goddess Durga does (sic) not represent any particular religion, they are merely regarded to be the super power of the universe....Technically Hindu is neither a religion nor a community."

Who said it? Neither an Advaita philosopher nor a stalwart of Arya Samaj. Nor are these the words of an iconoclast Brahmo of another era. And, certainly not ours. This was spelt out by none other than a tax tribunal while deciding whether someone donating to a particular temple trust in Nagpur can claim tax benefit.

According to the Income-Tax department, Shiv Mandir Devsttan Panch Committee Sanstan - the entity concerned - is carrying out 'religious activities' and spends money for the maintenance of temples.

But the law says anyone making a donation will enjoy a tax deduction - in other words, the person's taxable income will be lower - only if the institution receiving the donation is into 'charitable activities', and is not working for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste.

The department also said the trust spends more than 5% of its total income "for religious purpose".

Tax benefits enjoyed by donors are often the lifeline for many such institutions and it's a provision the government has retained as the needs of charity far outstrip contributions from philanthropists.

Understandably, the Devsttan Committee moved the tribunal. Its arguments were simple: the temple is open to everybody irrespective of caste or creed; even those who have no faith in the deities can visit the temple, and it does not belong to any particular religion.

But tax officers, while pointing out the object clause of the temple, were categorical that the activities of the assessee were essentially religious in nature. The clause describes the various activities.

Bench Quoted Clutch of Past Cases

The various activities of the trust include worshipping the deities, celebrating festivals such as Shivratri, Hanuman Jayanti, etc, providing facilities for people visiting the temples and utilising balance funds for social and cultural activities, providing education to poor children and helping people affected by natural calamities.

It's here that the tribunal bench, comprising DT Garasia (judicial member) and PK Bansal (accountant member), stepped in. Their order went in favour of the trust.

Nowhere, the tribunal said, the object clause "talks of advancement, support or propagation of a particular religion, worshipping of Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, Goddess Durga and maintaining of temple, in our opinion, cannot be regarded for the advancement support or propagation of a particular religion".

They felt no evidence was placed by the tax department which may prove that these object relate to a particular religion and Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, Goddess Durga are regarded to be the super power of the universe and do not represent any particular religion.

The bench quoted the case of Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar 1954 SCJ335, where 'religion' has been expressed to mean a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic.

"We may observe that Hinduism is a way of life of a civilised society. It as such is not a religion," said the tribunal while relying on the case of TT Kuppuswamy Chettiar vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1987) in which it was held that "the word 'Hindu' has not been defined in any of the texts nor in judgment made law. The word was given by British administrators to inhabitants of India, who were not Christians, Muslims, Parsis or Jews".

The tribunal pointed out that even the worship of god is not essential for a person who has adopted Hinduism as a way of life while the word 'community' means a society of people living in the same place, under the same laws and regulations and who have common rights and privileges - descriptions that may apply to some of the other religious communities but not to Hinduism.

"Therefore, it cannot be said that Hindu is a separate community or a separate religion. Technically, Hindu is neither a religion nor a community," said the tribunal. The Income-Tax department will in all likelihood challenge the tribunal's decision before the high court.

[RajeshA]

I would say one point on Agenda can be that

All donations to Dharmic Institutions should be tax-deductible, provided the Institution is Dharmic.

Those who speak for "religious freedom" should first define what religion is, and which parts of the laws and beliefs of a community go beyond religion.

The "Aarthik Machinery" of the Rashtra should support Dharmic Institutions only.

[member_20317]

ShauryaT ji,
A good inspiring write up but with some paradoxes. On the one hand you say "A dharma shastra or a constitution is an exposition of dharma’s values, principles, objectives and goals for a Rashtra." On the other hand you say "Dharma is not meant to be defined, it is to be lived."

Rajesh ji, looks like some of us have given you a somewhat wrong impression of what some of us are trying to say. I saw the essential unity yesternight so did not intervene.

I personally have nothing against your attempt at defining Bhartiya/Hindu/Indic. Mostly not even on Dharm. Also I do recognize Dharm, as you claim a set of ideals to be held up in a manner upholdable. Even harbans ji is right about it to the extent he mentions them. My difference are only with him to the extent that he leaves unsaid and wants to slip in edgewise. What he mentioned were qualities of dharmic people that normally should enable them to think straight. Not Dharm itself.

Any amount of defining attempts will remain only constructs. The “?” messes up every such attempt. The Values (big V ) have no meaning if they cannot be hierarchized. It is for this reason that the western world drew out a ‘doctrine of harmonious construction’ in understanding these words. But then their Harmonious is different from our harmonious. The east too, drew out an understanding of this nature, but without making a doctrine out of it. That non-doctrinaire approach gives all the takleef. Without the doctrines in the middle there is no ally to count on and no enemy target.


Let me see if I can explain the unity already present as I see it.

The base for carrying into effect IOW actually doing it is "?". Different systems call out "?" in different manner Swayam/Bhagwan/Uncertainity/Anomaly. Since this is already all pervading, so this forms the basis. This "?" is what forms the basis for going into the action of the mahabharat war too. Duryodhan is part of what Arjun is too, so there is no question of imbalance in the equation. Only advice is to follow what is supported by Dharm using the rationale of the Self. Failure to act on this advice is not a Blasphemy it only entails new Prayaschit or new action to set write which should not have been abandoned in the first place. Arjun chooses action at X point, under able advice. Duryodhan fails to choose so at that point and has to wait till Prayaschit, to start again. By which time Arjun could again have failed to choose so at Y point.

Thus if somebody decides that compassion is his Dharm/Value by all means he should go ahead and do it relying on the "?" within, come what may.

Similarly relying on the "?" within, I have decided to hell with Mellachas, Shathe Saathyam Samacharet. Samaan aacharan is also what is called equality in their framework. So good, they should have no problems either.

Without Swayam there can be no Swadharm and without Swadharm there can be no Dharm. Any insistence on the abrahmic style anointing of 'The Word' and avoidance of "?" will only cause reactions. Actions begin with the self and self tends to defy definitions.

[Agnimitra]

Functions of various Pan-Bharatiya identities:
[*] Hindu
[*] Dharmic
[*] Bharatiya
[*] Indian

An attempt by someone to give the broadest and yet most fundamental definition of "Vedic". I thought it would be relevant here too.
What is Vedic religion?

‘To accept truth through a continuous process of rejecting falsehood every moment to best of one’s abilities in the most sincere manner is Vedic religion’

This is beautifully described in Yajurveda 1.5:

“O Supreme Force governing the world! You function as per unchangeable laws which remain the same throughout without slightest of deviations. May I also seek inspiration from You to be unflinchingly principled in my life. Thus I resolve to seek truth constantly by eliminating the false from my life every moment to the best of my abilities, intentions and efforts. May I be successful in this noble decision of mine.”

The author of this article, Agniveer, is an offshoot of the Arya Samaj, and is active in shuddhi as well as education. The Arya Samaj philosophy does encompass the different levels you mentioned. I have heard it summarized as:

OM ka dhyaan - Meditation on the Word. Meditation is the zeroeth iteration of civilization.
Ved ka gyaan - Knowledge of Vedas, i.e. of knowingness, which encompasses all material and spiritual knowledge as per Swami Dayananda.
Yajna ka anushthaan - The execution of Yajna, in rites and in society.
Sanskaari santaan - Raising children through the traditional rites of passage that instruct life.
Raashtra hit balidaan - Sacrifice for the benefit of the rashtra (nation).

[member_20317]

Viveka, or a sense of discrimination, is a prerequisite for living Dharma. Any kind of discrimination between good and bad first requires defining, what is "good" and what is "bad". Definition, in turn, is inherently a process of exclusion.

Agreed. A sense of discrimination is certainly a pre-requisite. Both for forming definitions and for not getting entangled in them. Ergo as we move forward balance should remain established which is different from insisting upon a notional starting point and doing root cause analysis from that point on.

[Yogi_G]

Srimati Tessy has named her son Tejas IIRC and is also married to a Hindu. An adharmic person would not realize the oneness of religions, would seek to impose his/her value systems on the other and so on and so forth. From what I see, Srimati Tessy is tolerant, accepting, open-minded and accomplishing her Sadhana though intense gnana Yoga and plain simple karma.

She is essentially supporting the cause of keeping India away from mad frothing Taliban and commies and maintaining the Dharmic nature of the nation, that in itself is Dharma. For all I see, she is into a Dharmic path, if she realizes it or not, does it intentionally or not is another topic.

What somebody names their child and who they marry are personal matters, which I think one should not intrude into. What can be considered is to what extent somebody has consciously bought into ideas that conflict with a dharmic POV.

As regards Churchianity, although there are problematic ideas like the Nicene creed, introduced in the 4th century AD, the main problem is less one of ideas than the subversion of the organization for the purposes of neo-imperialism. Such subversion can happen even to ostensibly Dharmic groups.

Nobody is interested in their private lives but IT DOES matter what they name their children or whom they marry. Naming a son as Aurangzeb or marrying into the family of Zakir Naik definitely does make clear where their allegiance lies.

[RajeshA]

The potency of the 'Dharmic'

Similarly relying on the "?" within, I have decided to hell with Mellachas, Shathe Saathyam Samacharet. Samaan aacharan is also what is called equality in their framework. So good, they should have no problems either.

Without Swayam there can be no Swadharm and without Swadharm there can be no Dharm. Any insistence on the abrahmic style anointing of 'The Word' and avoidance of "?" will only cause reactions. Actions begin with the self and self tends to defy definitions.

Quite right ravi_g ji,

When we came up with the following definition

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

it goes to the heart of the equation Self-Supreme ("?"), Swadharma-Dharma!

In that equation there can be no intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, of any "The Word". The Atma-Supreme equation is the most basic equation between the Self and the Destination, which one can understand in a multitude of ways as dualistic or non-dualistic, as Ignorance and Knowledge, as Self and Nirvana!

The only distinction between the Dharmic and the Adharmic is that the Adharmic proposes an intermediary thus breaking the equation of intrinsic capacity of Atma to access the Supreme.

And as you say, Swadharma leads to Dharma, so the Self cannot be chained, its intrinsic capacity needs to be liberated to reach Dharma. Im Adharmic thought, through the introduction of the intermediary, the Self is required to submit to the intermediary, basically obliterating the Self, dissolving the Self into the intermediary itself leaving no scope for the intrinsic capacity of the Self to kick in and to directly access the Supreme.

Everything, the whole discourse, begins from here! This forms the basis of the political discourse!

Adharmic Control over the Self and the Self's pursuit of the Supreme in a any of its forms - freedom of thought, freedom to pursue happiness, freedom to seek knowledge, freedom to prosper, freedom to live peacefully, comes from the intervention of a self-proclaimed intermediary into the process.

A Dharmic Rashtra is however there to enable all these freedoms to the individual and to ensure that one's freedoms and rights to these do not impinge on those of the others. A Dharmic Rashtra is there to ensure that no Adharmic Control System comes to power and thus skews and controls Self's intrinsic capacity and chains its freedom to access what is Self's Dharmic right to seek and access.

The above definition also provides the way to the Aarthic Constitution for the Rashtra.

[RajeshA]

Islam through the Dharmic Lens

devesh

the Advaita-Dvaita conundrum might be a "philosophical" one, but the effect of the intense Dvaita focus on "surrender" are very real. I don't know how much the Advaitins stress the "surrender" aspect, but the Dvaita dualists have elevated it beyond all others. I think there is a direct correlation between "surrender-ism" in religion and the same concept seeping into real life circumstances in politics and Dharmaarthik situations. the problem is that "surrender" theology has made Hinduism for Hindus the same as Islam for Muslims. In many cases you can't even point out the difference between SD and Abrahamic religions b/c Hinduism has essentially become a copy of those religions. we have a 100 gods instead of 1, but the "surrender" above all others has eaten away the core while inflicting the deracination that we are a more diverse Abrhamism, and that is the only difference between us and them.

I've responded to this earlier too, but in view of the definition of the Dharmic, I'd like to comment on this again,

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

So while many Bhakti Margas also call for Submission of the Self to the Supreme in whatever form, Islam's submission is not to Allah (even if it were to be considered a form of Supreme) but to Muhammad accepting Muhammad's attestation that he speaks for Allah and faithfully transmitted the Word of Allah, as the Qu'ran. Furthermore one is asked to consider Muhammad as al-Insān al-Kāmil (the perfect human) and uswa hasana (an excellent model of conduct), so it is the cult of Muhammad that is watered here and not any innate capacity of the Self to seek Allah. That capacity of the Self is completely broken down and one is turned into a drone to be used for the intermediary and the system built around him.

Whenever an intermediary is inserted into the equation between the Self and the Supreme, there can be no guarantee that the impression the Self is given of the Supreme is really the Supreme or just some concocted portrayal of some earlier tradition or one's own fantasy.

So the "intervention of the self-proclaimed intermediary" makes all the difference.

Islam per definition is thus an Adharmic System.

Now this isn't really an astonishingly new finding, but it shows how through the definition one sees that the Self's access to the Supreme is systematically thwarted in the case of Islam.

[RajeshA]

The Aarthic of the Dharmic

Again we use the our definition of the Dharmic

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

The whole premise of the Dharmic mind is about empowering the individual.

If the Self has an intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, he also has an intrinsic capacity for direct access to any of the Supreme's subset, aspect, facet not just in the spiritual world but in the temporal world also. So the whole Dharmic machinery has to be geared to cater to facilitating the individual to achieve his goals, whether it is seeking knowledge, education, whether it is increasing his prosperity in a Dharmic way, whether it is in his will to do Karma Yoga, whether it is for showing his capacity to help others, in public service or in whatever way possible, a Dharmic system has to act as facilitating to the individual.

Also it is the duty of a Dharmic system to stop Adharma.

This means that the Rashtra does whatever is needed to stop the exploitation of the individual, which is another way of caging a person's potential and freedom to seek.

Always examine and reexamine the Controls

Control over a person's dharmic potential is Adharma. In governance everything that leads to over-control of life and business of an individual is not welcome. Control is the unwelcome intervening intermediary. As such control should be only for curbing of adharmic urges of people, but never of their dharmic urges. Controls can be installed for providing people with equal opportunity to get a piece of the pie, but not for nepotism.

For college seats, for jobs there is always a limitation. That is natural. But this filter which from many candidates and applicants take only a few, this filter cannot be done away with in the temporal world. The finiteness is an intrinsic part of the world, so of course the world cannot guarantee that every Self would arrive at their goal, but it is the duty of the Rashtra to enable all those interested to tap into their intrinsic capacity and see to it that those who have proven their worth are really accepted.

How can we in this world reenact the concept of "direct access to the Supreme" and "intrinsic capacity of the Self"? Of course we cannot be an intervention in this basic principle.

Recognizing an individual's merit is Dharmic!

So empowering the individual through knowledge, skills, opportunity, environment on the one hand and recognizing the individual's merit on the other is the fundamental aarthik principle based on Dharma!

In the field of economics too there is much to think about from this perspective.

[RajeshA]

Dharmocracy

If the Dharma of the Self is to seek the Supreme, what is the Dharma of the Rashtra?

For the Rashtra, the citizen is the sovereign! Dharma of the Rashtra (Self) is to serve the Sovereign People, each Individual (Supreme)! Thus the Dharma of the Rashtra is to ensure that the Citizen can follow his Dharma, be it to seek the Supreme or to seek some temporal facet of it.

So if one wishes to establish Dharmocracy, this function of the Rashtra has to be clear.

The Dharma of every Dharmic Institution be it the Rashtra or be it the Gurukul has to be to empower the Individual, the Self. Empowerment of the Self is the "Supreme" for any Dharmic Institution.

So each Dharmic Institution has to act as a facilitator of the Atma, and never as an intermediary. When Adharmic people get on the throne, get power, then they subvert the Dharma of Rashtra or any other institution, thus intervening as a self-proclaimed intermediary, and the machinery of the Rashtra is forced to submit to their will and instead of serving the individual, the machinery turns to abuse what should have been the institution's "Supreme", namely the people.

[Agnimitra]

ravi_g ji, Carl ji,

thank you for your inputs on issue of blasphemy and sinfulness.

Would be taking up some time later.

RajeshA ji, I used that post and added material to it to make it more comparative with non-Dharmic tradition (Mulla as well as "Sufi"). I also put it in context of Constitutional priorities versus religious priorities. I put it up on a blogpost so its easier to share.

Blasphemy and Multicultural Democracy

Lots of news on overt and covert religious politics and the national Constitution. Its time we scrutinized different religious canons in addition to constitutional law.

[ShauryaT]

For the Rashtra, the citizen is the sovereign!

A dharma shastra is a contract between the state and its people. This contract is enforced by the state. The people have vested their sovereignty to the state, limited by contract. Meaning everything that has not been explicitly vested is vested in who? This is a question to ponder. In a federal setup like in the US, the provinces or states of the union is where this sovereignty lies. For a unitary setup, like in India, sovereignty rests with the center and for the UK in its monarch. Sovereignty is also one of those words, that escapes tight definitions but can be understood and explained and followed. As a practical matter, the citizen cannot be sovereign, the citizen's sovereignty has to be vested in a higher entity.

From a historical perspective the idea of a monarch by and large exercising limited power over his subjects, if not by authority then by practice was the norm. A culture of multiple levels of code books, in a hierarchy, starting from a family to the community to a region and the nation is what wold be preferred. I am intrinsically in favor of a federal polity with a three/four tier setup in India. The province can be the "holder" of sovereignty for the citizen. I personally have no issues with the idea of dual citizenship for our people, at the province and national. It is high time, we get stopped being ruled by Delhi.

[RajeshA]

The province can be the "holder" of sovereignty for the citizen. I personally have no issues with the idea of dual citizenship for our people, at the province and national. It is high time, we get stopped being ruled by Delhi.

I personally have no issues with people with such thinking having no citizenship at all!

It is with much regret that I have to use such a retort.