The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

[brihaspati]

The role and very structure of the state needs to be very carefully thought about. In most cases now, the sheer size of the central industrialized pyramid that is needed to maintain the coercive control that the state imposes on the society - is almost impossible for citizens to overthrow if the state fails to keep its side of the bargain/contract.

Its simplistic to state that its is only a matter of a contract between the state and the citizens. It was perhaps so in the days when cannons were relatively few, and guns could still be supplied with bullets made at home with a punch, or it was just a case of bow and arrows and slingshots.

The fundamental factor that drives all contract is the actual power of either of the party to impose consequences, retaliatory, punitive and decisive on the other for breach of contract. The modern state almost always holds an unfairly overwhelming coercive edge over its citizens, thereby nullifying the theory of "contract".

People often try to proclaim that the "voting" or electoral methods give the people all power to change everything they don't like. That again is a very simplistic claim often coming from members of elite or others who stand linked or support power groupings dominating the state for their own advantage.

If the state provides a one-sided coercive control mechanism, it means that it will attract those people who would like to exercise totalitarian control over the rest of society. If they manage to come to power, they will exercise all available methods of ideological control, by actively promoting through education, media and even monetary incentives their own brand of "values" and intervening with all the above as well as the full coercive power of the state - both overt and covert - to crush or eliminate even ideological nuclei of opposition to their agenda.

This is exactly the method that has been used to corner the "Indic" in India. On the other hand mere balancing acts between regional and central totalitarians is no guarantee or solution either. The very reason any two-level system can still be corrupted by power-seeking elite - works here too. The problem with the representative method that we have now - is actually the problem of a two-tiered, or two level game.

The first levels are those that the people elect directly - and therefore that game is much more restricted, localized and narrowed down in its scope. The electorate does not have to think of larger issues, do not have any pre-requisite to be even aware of such issues and their impact perhaps down the chain on their own cozy local interests. Moreover - they might be under dependency/fear/connected constraints with those they have to elect.

But the elected actually form a second level of the game where they bargain and ally with each other at this "elected" level on larger issues, and in ways and on things they never had to consult with those they elected. They can then get away with things - using the lagged effect problem - that might affect the very people they were elected by, negatively.

The regional and Delhi [or Ujjain - a new capital perhaps for the future] might actually be repeating this two-level corruption nakhra that exists now in the assembly/parliament system itself (if one thinks the regional satraps forming the pseudo-parliament).

In fact the states authority to intervene should be divided into two restricted classes: those that can be automated and taken out of human discretion (thereby disempowering the tsars and bosses of patronizing institutions), and those others where discretion is still unavoidable - subject to direct democracy.

I would be very very wary of claiming "existing" practice or even selections of textual claims as to be made into "state values" or "state principles". This was exactly what was done by the Brits [and perhaps by the sultanate too] to select only one text of Hindu "law books" among many competitive ones - as "proposed" by certain scholars and as accepted by British "experts" and orientalists, as the "law book for Hindus". There is well documented research on how confusing and divested of real-practice this attempt was. The result was the production of the more repressive memes from Manu Samhita as the sole legitimate representative of claimed ideal Hindu society - which in turn provides all the right excuses to kick the Hindu and even create new invented divisive identities. Whenever textual claims are imposed without trying to understand the motivations, context, time place and language use - it almost always is used by the powerful to create conditions for perpetuating their own power and weakening alternative centres of challenges to their power. Are we to justify the khap panchayats torture and liquidation of couples because they don't fit into their ideas of sexual unions - out of claims of "practice"? That in turn is based on taking a certain idea of "gotra-aantara" and exogamy rules - which obviously evolved at least partly out of a certain specific demographic constraint. It might have been appropriate and reproductively meaningful from the interests of the group - at that specific time and condition and numbers, but need not be valid for our times. People have to try to understand the principles used to arrive at "practices" and need to check out whether they remain applicable.

Sanatana is often represented as something unchanging, universally applicable. Agreed that there might be something after all like that - but make sure that what you are trying to apply as "sanatana" is really sanatana. Even the texts bear signs of constant change of practice - from period to period, place to place.

Do not let this become and excuse for perpetuation of dominance and power by small aspiring elite groups who will simply reproduce all the totalitarian features we are condemning now. They will do so in the "Indic " garb, and thereby ensure that a future reaction to their personal narrowness will throw the Indic away too as guilty.

[RamaY]

^ Thanks Bji.

The basic premise that governance is a "contract" between state and people is a western Tsuchiyapanti to me. I mentioned this in some post referring Pranabda's comment about this contract. Let me search.

OK here it is.. http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1400298

Quoting the relevant part...

Now let us refer Pranab Mukharjees republic day speech I posted in this page http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1399873. He says constitution of India is a "contract" between the state and citizenry. That shows multiple things

1. The state is different from citizenry, eventhough it draws its financial, human and military strengths are drawn from that very citizenry

2. Citizenry cannot demand anything from the state beyond the agreed-upon contract. (here Pranab Mukharjee is referring state's inability to solve social problems such as the Delhi rape, because it is not part of the contract)

3. The contract stipulates that the citizenry doesn't have the right to revolt against state and the only way for them to influence the state is thru elections. The state's escape mechanism is to manipulate elections by controlling the candidate list (eligibility criteria, expulsion based on court cases, EVMs etc, and even controlling the election results)

That is why he was talking about resetting Moral Compass because the state cannot be separate from the citizenry (society). Positively taking, this means undoing secularism (separation of state and church/ism/society). Now the question is which ism should be the foundation of the state in India? The majority community or violent community or influential community?

[Prem]

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.

Yea, bring us back to peaceful, progressive, prosper Mo-Ghouls days when India was not united and Response to medieval values guided Muslims Dhowns was regional, provincial in nature.

[Atri]

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.

It is natural consequence, Rajesh ji..

Our current understanding of "citizenship" is based on westphalian construct of "Nation-state". India is a "Civilizational-state" being forced to function as Unitary Nation state modeled in the image of UK. (This is the Nehruvian Legacy).

I find American system much more in sync with India's civilizational ethos (of course, the primary constraint here is unification of India under Dharmik polity, Until such unification, it cannot completely materialize).

Imagine states as small as districts.. Central government handling only defense, foreign affairs and other such portfolios.

Check this post by me long ago - http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1229642

Once we eliminate the westphalian sanskaras on us, the whole concept of "citizenship" changes. Is it me OR the very word "citizen" denotes urban civilization. India with fully manifested "Graama-Swarajya", it is the Graama is the functional unit of civilizational state and not individual.

Both approaches has its benefits and drawbacks. But the idea and definition changes.

[ShauryaT]

Do not let this become and excuse for perpetuation of dominance and power by small aspiring elite groups who will simply reproduce all the totalitarian features we are condemning now. They will do so in the "Indic " garb, and thereby ensure that a future reaction to their personal narrowness will throw the Indic away too as guilty.

This is an issue many ponder over to find a lasting balance. Our society had failed on this score. There is no way out from an "elite" that would dominate polity. Has never happened in history and the history of "revolutions" are not plated in gold. One elite usually replaces another. The challenge is to keep this elite accountable, fungible and its qualifiers merit based, so that the tendency to ossify is reduced. There are some well proven ways - none perfect, to accomplish the same. There is no way out from a representative system - especially in todays polity. The question of who chooses this representative at what levels is open. From informed opinion, what I have understood is at higher levels of polity indirect representation may actually work better for India at this time.

However I have some controversial thoughts on this matter of who is qualified to be at what levels of governance. This is where, I would propose the resurrection of Varna based orders.

One of the fundamental objectives of a Dharmic state is to provide each of the four varnas enough recognition that wealth and/or power are in fact at a lower order than service and recognized as such. In exchange those varnas dedicated to service agree to forego aspects of wealth and/or power. Along with a per capita income, there ought to be other measures of achievement that the society as a whole recognizes and upholds. So four indexes based on four varnas? Only Bhutan has a vague attempt to include something on the lines of gross happiness index Not sure how they measure it. This is still not completely flushed out but need to move beyond models offered by the west by way of capitalistic/socialism or welfare state constructs. Personally, prefer a libertarian model, where the state has minimal powers and maximum freedoms are with the people and its provinces but with this freedom strong principles and values are essential. Strong local governance is essential. This is precisely what Jati based systems provided in bygone eras and the quintessential reason why India remains a democracy and resists totalitarian rule of any kind. Personally am a huge fan of "trusting" sajjans to make the best judgment and reserving intervention of higher authorities only as a last resort. In fact, citizens need protections against the state. But today's constructs of India work on the presumption that citizens and its lower organs cannot be trusted. There is much to change.

[ShauryaT]

Atri ji: Many observers of India at high positions starting from JLN have observed this that India is a civlilizational state and escapes fitting the definition of nation-states. As such Westphalian ideas of nation-states are limiting. One of the best ways to move towards this idea of making India a civilizational state is to link the state to its ideology that of SD. An insert in the preamble achieves it.

[RajeshA]

Our current understanding of "citizenship" is based on westphalian construct of "Nation-state". India is a "Civilizational-state" being forced to function as Unitary Nation state modeled in the image of UK. (This is the Nehruvian Legacy).

Once we eliminate the westphalian sanskaras on us, the whole concept of "citizenship" changes. Is it me OR the very word "citizen" denotes urban civilization. India with fully manifested "Graama-Swarajya", it is the Graama is the functional unit of civilizational state and not individual.

Atri garu,

The Westphalian construct of nation-state certainly has drawbacks, but one advantage it has is that it allowed the Hindus respite and space for consolidation for our civilizational ethos. We could have achieved a much higher degree of unification and integration perhaps under a differently minded regime - but we have had some consolidation, and that is good.

Where the Congress left off, others can pick up the challenge and carry it forward.

During this time, we have had time to again ponder over our civilizational roots, we could build up our economic power again and we could build a military committed to Bharat.

So for a civilization under siege, sovereignty within a Westphalian state provides some respite. Our problem was simply that the people at the helm did not use that respite for only civilizational rejuvenation. They also used it to nurture the tumor within, kept it appeased and somewhat quiet, but allowed it to grow unchecked.

That is not the consequence of the Westphalian model. That is the consequence of the quality of the people at the helm.

What model is most suitable really depends on the historical and current state of affairs and current and foreseeable environment!

It is one thing to set up a model which makes assumptions of an ideal situation - Dharmik civilization reigning all over India. However one's model should be based on what allows the civilization the best chances of respite, consolidation and expansion.

This a unitary model allows. After the ravaging of so many centuries, India really needed to feel one again. Too bad it happened under sickular rule, but sickular rule due to its own limitations still allowed a grassroots and virtual regeneration of the Hindus.

I find American system much more in sync with India's civilizational ethos (of course, the primary constraint here is unification of India under Dharmik polity, Until such unification, it cannot completely materialize).

There are several very appealing aspects of the American system, especially the run-off elections model.

Imagine states as small as districts.. Central government handling only defense, foreign affairs and other such portfolios.

Check this post by me long ago

Smaller states - states as small as districts can also mean more boundaries - a hell lot more boundaries, and on a boundary there will always be tension, due to right of transit, due to river water distribution, due to cross-boundary pollution, due to migration, due to redistribution of wealth. Dharmik civilizational or not these pressures would remain, and with a higher level of federalization, the uppermost level - the Center loses its power of mediation in all these conflicts and disagreements.

Secondly such a level of federalization also means that a foreign religious ideology can eat away at the whole through salami-slicing, nibble away bit by bit. There can never be a full-scale civilizational response to this gangrene, for defense would be outwardly oriented.

Today in the unitary state the response is not there because of the sickular hold as well as due to an Abrahamic world order, but it remains a theoretic possibility. In the model of district-states, the response would be impossible.

Under the district-state model, all the districts today in the East and Northeast, which have Muslim majorities would long have merged with Bangladesh, not due to an apparent invasion of foreign forces but rather because your own people would have either become alienated or due to demographic expansion of the other, would have become a minority. This is what happened in Kosovo as well.

Both approaches has its benefits and drawbacks. But the idea and definition changes.

Civilizational-State simply requires that at the Center governance and direction is dictated by civilizational ideals and the Center gives maximum encouragement for these civilizational ideals to spread within its boundaries and outside.

[RajeshA]

The fundamental factor that drives all contract is the actual power of either of the party to impose consequences, retaliatory, punitive and decisive on the other for breach of contract. The modern state almost always holds an unfairly overwhelming coercive edge over its citizens, thereby nullifying the theory of "contract".

Well should one see the state as a black-box vs. the people then in theory that would indeed be the case. The constitution of the state however foresees a distribution of power over various organs which act as checks and balances over the others.

Problem happens when an elite expands over the whole establishment, and instead of becoming checks and balances over the power of the other, they establish an establishment-wide understanding on duping and fleecing the electorate.

Then the system of checks and balances breaks down.

People often try to proclaim that the "voting" or electoral methods give the people all power to change everything they don't like. That again is a very simplistic claim often coming from members of elite or others who stand linked or support power groupings dominating the state for their own advantage.

Well the electoral methods do not give the people sufficient power, and that is the problem. The electorate should have the power to unelect politicians from public office.

In Strategic leadership for the future of India we had a long discussion on electoral changes in Summer of '09. It was about electoral reforms.

Some suggestions on improvement would be:

1) I had written

If we want to strengthen Indian Democracy it is important that the Members of Lok Sabha are elected directly by the people, as is the case right now, with the Candidate having to get more than 50% of the votes in order to win.

In case no candidate has received more than 50% of the votes, then the two candidates receiving the most votes should be considered for a new vote in the constituency.

So the candidates win not because they get the most votes, but because they get the majority of votes in their constituency. Only then can the candidate claim to represent the majority.

IOW, if the candidate polls more than 50% in the first voting, then he/she wins, otherwise one would have to repeat the voting only for the two candidates polling the most votes.

The benefits:

• Small parties cannot act as spoilers.
• Minorities lose the power to sway the seats. Except in constituencies where Muslims form a substantial portion of the constituencies electorate, they cannot determine who wins.
• Candidates will start to appeal more to the central issues and to majorities and less to the emotive 'sekoolar' vote-banks.
• There will be more legitimacy in the system.

2) Possibly through improvement in technology, one could create a unpopularity monitor for a public official. If the number of people in a constituency who want a public official out of office (disapproval ratings) rises to say 75% of the electorate, then it should trigger new elections for a constituency.

If the state provides a one-sided coercive control mechanism, it means that it will attract those people who would like to exercise totalitarian control over the rest of society. If they manage to come to power, they will exercise all available methods of ideological control, by actively promoting through education, media and even monetary incentives their own brand of "values" and intervening with all the above as well as the full coercive power of the state - both overt and covert - to crush or eliminate even ideological nuclei of opposition to their agenda.

As far my current thinking goes, I don't think the state should share coercive power (violence) with the citizenry - No Naxalite revolutionaries.

But the citizenry should put pressure on the state to institute better checks and balances on its own coercive power.

The INC is coming around to using the social media and blogosphere itself for its own agenda. This is good. They think they can influence. But this media does mean that their methods of control - education and media will break down. A parallel political discourse system is coming forth in the virtual world which the establishment cannot control so well.

The first levels are those that the people elect directly - and therefore that game is much more restricted, localized and narrowed down in its scope. The electorate does not have to think of larger issues, do not have any pre-requisite to be even aware of such issues and their impact perhaps down the chain on their own cozy local interests. Moreover - they might be under dependency/fear/connected constraints with those they have to elect.

But the elected actually form a second level of the game where they bargain and ally with each other at this "elected" level on larger issues, and in ways and on things they never had to consult with those they elected. They can then get away with things - using the lagged effect problem - that might affect the very people they were elected by, negatively.

The regional and Delhi [or Ujjain - a new capital perhaps for the future] might actually be repeating this two-level corruption nakhra that exists now in the assembly/parliament system itself (if one thinks the regional satraps forming the pseudo-parliament).

There is both localization, nationalization and internationalization of the news content and thus also of the interest of the people. The more the general level of awareness at all these levels, the better judgments the citizen can make about his candidate based on considerations at all these levels.

In fact the states authority to intervene should be divided into two restricted classes: those that can be automated and taken out of human discretion (thereby disempowering the tsars and bosses of patronizing institutions), and those others where discretion is still unavoidable - subject to direct democracy.

Sanatana is often represented as something unchanging, universally applicable. Agreed that there might be something after all like that - but make sure that what you are trying to apply as "sanatana" is really sanatana. Even the texts bear signs of constant change of practice - from period to period, place to place.

Do not let this become and excuse for perpetuation of dominance and power by small aspiring elite groups who will simply reproduce all the totalitarian features we are condemning now. They will do so in the "Indic " garb, and thereby ensure that a future reaction to their personal narrowness will throw the Indic away too as guilty.

Dharmocracy should be based on facilitating role for the state, controls only to check Adharma and for tax collection, and otherwise almost totally rescinding all forms of control over the people.

[member_20317]

As a basic criteria what I would suggest is lets try to build up our wishes/judgements within the bounds of our strengths.

We have several identities. Not all are meant for the exact same idea. At the core remains the Dharm which is:
1) Uniquely ours by way of our acceptance of the same
2) Uniquely placed to reflect back the bhaav being projected.

All resources have some or the other strengths. Like the Abrahmics have their own model which is extraordinarily well honed for the purpose they wish to achieve. Similarly we need to sharpen our cognition to cater to our basic resources.

One of the members had a very pertinent point in that they early Christians were aiming for a very limited set of goals quite unlike the present EJ inspired imperialism. Their underdog status at that time allowed them to think in terms of self-interests. The Abrahamics in India show the exact same tendencies. And working backwards now I know why the things have been the way they were since Independence. And that lead me to conclude that we had Independence without Freedom in 47. If we had Freedom too then there is no way Jinnah could have taken half the country with him. 47 was not a partition between Hindu majority and Muslim minority. That is how it is promoted and naively accepted too. It was a plain and simple exploitation of the ecology by a ruthless force of nature called greed. Abrahmics were doing what they were trained to do. The ecology was prevented by subterfuge to react properly. It was temporally a partition between a Muslim majority and several minorities that constitute Hinduism.

Since 47 too the situation has not changed and the majority of the land basically went from the Gulami of the Brits to the Gulami of the resident elite. What happened was that all groupings were somewhat loosely defined including the resident elite. So there has been cross overs too. (Current Sangh Leadership takes inspiration from what was political hindu within Congress early on and all its votes come from people who earlier used to vote for Congress). This looseness of groupings basically went to further the excuses of the then ruling elite who gradually chipped away at the interests of the native. These excuses went on to work like 'the thousand cuts' inflicted on the poorer populations of the country and kept the natives weaker. All the while the then resident elites were also reproducing/cloning their own essentially foreign antigens.

Now there are only two relatively simple reactions that can take place. Either its death/digestion or it is an antibody counter attack. But in both cases the reliance has to be on our strengths to develop the left upper cut that takes down the part of the system that is a parasite. We cannot just be 'lalaayit' at F-22 Raptor like technology and keep wishing for it, postponing our personal fight, on the excuse of an absense of the make believe perfect. These wish buildup need to be controlled too. If we are natives and if we lack resources then we need to establish our strategy based on an understanding of that limitation a la Ho Chi Minh. That would be a true 'Look East Policy' for us. Coincidently that would also replicate what the early Christians attempted. Play to ones strengths.

[member_20317]

The Constitution as a contract between the State and people in their several capacity is an invalid idea, if India is to be regarded a Republic. More on that later.

The constitution has at once to recognize and it does so selectively recognise the contract as between State and peoples in their joint capacities. eg. preferential treatment on religious grounds.

The constitution has also to recognize and which it only reluctantly recognises the contract as between State and people (note missing 's') in their joint capacities. This one it would rather have pushed in some deep dark dungeon.

[RajeshA]

Blasphemy and Multicultural Democracy

Good comparison.

Religions based on Dharma point to the fact that there is only One Way, and all viewpoints must connect with that Way. They freely acknowledge the multiplicity of viewpoints and forms, while also denouncing certain 'viewpoints' as spurious. Whereas religions not based on Dharma will also say that there is only One Way, but that is to abandon other spiritual applications, and install and execute their own managed solution that comes bundled with an ideological affiliation, communal membership and notions of ritual purity and duty.

I have been thinking about the practical application of differences in thinking on abuse of one's religious icons by people of other religions.

It is more on the lines of

• graphic, oral and textual representation of
• appearance and activity of
• deities and human religious personalities based on
• re-imagining of
• material in past tradition, manuscripts, books, visual representations, etc.
• by non-believers

[Agnimitra]

It is more on the lines of

• graphic, oral and textual representation of
• appearance and activity of
• deities and human religious personalities based on
• re-imagining of
• material in past tradition, manuscripts, books, visual representations, etc.
• by non-believers

The key here is "re-imagining". In the blogpost I had used a software deployment analogy:

Is religion supposed to be a 'managed solution' that comes as a package of bundled contents that need to be implemented independent of context? Or is it an 'unmanaged solution' where the contents are to be continuously customized to the scope and context of its application? Maybe a bit of both?

Here's a more graphic illustration of how multiple managed solutions sit in an environment, versus multiple deployments of material as unmanaged solutions:



When elements are deployed using an unmanaged solution:
- After deployment it is as if the "wrapper" is of no consequence and is discarded and the bundle of contents simply reacts with the solvent of the native environment (its new context).
- In this way, the contents forever become part and parcel of that environment - they are never deleted as elements, but their net effect can be further transformed based on future additions and reactions.
- The effects deployed also override any previous effects.
- Its own effects are never deleted, but they can be masked by a future managed solution. If the managed solution is deleted then its effects reappear.
- They can also be changed permanently only by a future unmanaged solution deployment.

But when a bundle of elements is deployed using a managed solution:
- Then post-deployment it remains in its wrapper, insulated from the native context of the environment it is deployed in.
It seeks to stay as a bundle within its own bubble context, ad duplicate its effects as is, rather than by adding to the net effect of the native environment.
- Any chance interaction with the native environment through a hole in the wrapper can cause Byzantine behaviour requiring troubleshooting.
- It also overwrites any corresponding effects of a past managed solution, by superimposing its own effects as is. Only those effects of a past managed solution continue to shine through that are not explicitly over-ridden within the new managed solution. E.g. the Template in Managed Solution A has not been overridden by Managed Solution B, and so it still is part of the Application Behavior. But if Man. Sol. B had included a Template within itself, then its own Template would appear as part of App Behaviour, and Man. Sol. A's Template would have been lost.
- If the managed solution is deleted or overwritten by another managed solution, then all its effects are deleted as if it were never there. Any effects of underlying system or older managed solutions then reappear in Application Behaviour.

What all this means is that one way the effects of a Managed Solution can be masked is by inventing and deploying another managed solution that hides and overrides some or all its effects. But this is playing the same non-Dharmic game, and susceptible to the same limitations as the problematic managed solution. If the new managed solution is deleted then the older managed solution's effects again reappear. The other way is to block its effects is to deploy new behaviors via an unmanaged solution.

This is the trick that must be accomplished by the interplay between India's national Constitution, its public discourse and Dharmic religious movements.

AFAIU, Dharman is a way to deploy potentials of Brahman like an unmanaged solution. Therefore in Indic culture, discussion of Dharman is anterior to Brahman. The human body and its cultural symbiotes is like the wrapper needed for the potentials to be deployed, and thereafter is of no consequence to the actual realization of the potentials. Whereas in non-Dharmic religions, the Brahmanic potentials are sought to be deployed without the context of Dharma, and therefore are deployed as managed solutions, in which the integrity of the wrapper is very important for predictable behaviour.

[RajeshA]

Carl ji,

I like your analogy with Managed and Unmanaged Solutions. The challenge is how to get rid of the Managed Solution which grafted onto the system and is surely but surely trying to upstage the overwrite the whole operating system.

Its template comes with a very hard wrapper.

Now shifting analogies, one can build some strategy

a) Managed Solution could get in into the system as sufficient resistance from the solvent broke down. In fact after '47, the compromised system administrator has tried to break down the rest of the resistance, thus making the environment as hospitable to the Managed Solution as possible.

b) The threat from this Managed Solution comes from the fact that it has such a responsive firewall, that as soon as it notices any effort to overwrite it through coercion, it threatens to cause a system crash.

c) In this hospitable environment, the Managed Solution can start overwriting the files little by little, expand and continue to increase its capacity to cause system crash.

d) So two things need to be done. One is increase the inhospitability of the environment (solvent) and to stop its expansion.

e) Secondly as one cannot really disable the firewall, one would have to replace the firewall with another one without the possibility that the Managed Solution rejects this switch.

f) Instead of Managed Solution overwriting the Operating System, one has to find another Managed Solution B for the initial Managed Solution, which changes initial Managed Solution just enough that a Unmanaged Solution strategy can be used later on.

[RajeshA]

Carl ji,

if one wants the solvent to become a really corrosive bath for the Abrahamic solutions, then I advocate pouring of Dharmic salts into the solvent, and saturating it.

Here is a sample of the Dharmic salt:

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.

Now the additional salinity would cause the ice sheet to melt more slowly, however we can try to break the ice sheet into smaller icebergs by focusing a laser cutter at various fault-lines and weak-spots. Thus we can nibble away at the ice sheet one iceberg at a time, dissolving the iceberg into the saline water. May be it decreases the salinity for a short time at the spot of melting, but one can pour more of the Dharmic salts spread over 1-2 generations.

Dharmic solvent allows the use of such laser cutters, which the current Nehruvian solvent doesn't.

[RamaY]

X-Posting from Mahabharata thread...

Continuing ...

Yudhistira talks to Vyas.

Vyas: Your city will be ready now. But the aim of your life is not the construction of a city. You should aim at the establishment of dharma-rajya. You should believe that this city is not just your capital, it is the capital of dharma-rajya in Bharat.

Yudhistira: Give me instructions. I will try to live up to your expectations.

Vyas: Yudhistira, dharma exists with nyaya. Nyaya means that every person should have the opportunity to develop himself/herself. No one should have the right to stop the path of others for their own development. Not a single person in your praja should think that they have not advanced in their lives despite having potential. It means that laws should be made very carefully and should be implemented without exceptions. Every person should get work based on their nature and behavior. No one should feel that their work is a burden. It is unjust when a brahmin's son is expected to do a brahmin's work without taking into account his behavior. Neither he nor your praja will benefit from it. Giving respect to people who don't deserve it, and not respecting people who deserve our respect are equally bad. That is why we should give weapons to those people who believe that they should use weapons to protect nyaya. They should be willing to give their lives for protecting the weak and the helpless. People who love their lives and are selfish are not kshatriyas regardless of their heritage. The kshatriya-ness of unjust and selfish people is Rakshas-tva. You should not create bandits in your state by giving weapons to them.

Yudhistira: And who are the Vaishyas?

Vyas: People who have the talent for earning wealth by dharmic means are the Vaishyas. They produce things. They are also businessmen. But people who cheat others to earn money are bandits, not Vaishyas. And people whose skills and capabilities are not fully developed should be considered Shudras. They implement the orders given by others and do low-level work. It is the undeveloped state of human beings. Such people are perhaps not capable of thinking about themselves and the society. They just do physical labour. As a king, it is your responsibility to ensure that none of these people are ignored. You should not allow anyone to exploit or be exploited. Your palace should have representatives from all classes. And you should seek advice from all of them. The intellect of all of your praja should be used to think for the society, their bravery should be used for killing internal and external enemies and their physical and mental powers should be used for producing and constructing for the society. All these contributions are useful. Narrow-minded people might over/under-estimate the relative importance of some types of work.....some people might have more than others. But no one should be so poor that they starve to death and no one should be so rich that their wealth becomes a symbol of evil in the society. God might give some people more than others. But you should never insult people who are unable, weak or uninformed.

[Agnimitra]

a) Managed Solution could get in into the system as sufficient resistance from the solvent broke down. In fact after '47, the compromised system administrator has tried to break down the rest of the resistance, thus making the environment as hospitable to the Managed Solution as possible.

Yes RajeshA ji, not just since '47, but at different points in the last 1000 years, the local Sys Admins have cooperated in the deployment of different modules of a certain managed solution that seeks to exploit the native environment.

One other thing about managed solutions is that they always need the external vendor (who built it) or his explicit legatee for any issue that crops up - hence it is called a 'managed' solution. If the contract and dependency on the external vendor is broken, then the managed solution could stall and not yield any effects, or even create problems with no one to make even a show of troubleshooting. A period of such behaviour builds up a justifiable case for deleting it (or at least removing the wrapper and converting it into an Unmanaged solution). Hostile priesthoods and selfish anti-national politicians have a vested interest in reinforcing the contract.

f) Instead of Managed Solution overwriting the Operating System, one has to find another Managed Solution B for the initial Managed Solution, which changes initial Managed Solution just enough that a Unmanaged Solution strategy can be used later on.

Exactly, Dharmic-friendly Managed solutions do need to be crafted in order to "contain" the more harmful and invasive effects of the exploitative Managed solution -- but only as a stop gap measure before all are deleted and the system is reset via an Unmanaged refurbishment.

Practically speaking, how to engineer an Unmanaged solution? Simply by preventing or countering the necessary things that a wrapped, bundled and strings-tied managed solution needs to deploy and survive -- which is where the "neti neti" definition is relevant.

1. By opening up the wrappers that segregate the popular Indic consciousness into hostile castes or vote banks, or at least stop reinforcing those wrappers. Hostile priesthoods and selfish anti-national politicians have a vested interest in reinforcing the wrapper. The best way to dissolve it is by arthic capacity building - economic development and drastic expansion of a common educational system, so that opportunity is made available easily to all.

2. By changing the social and educational discourse to define our environment as distinct from other civilizational environments. Defining boundaries.

3. By reducing the penetration and power of external vendors to enforce or expand the contract of co-dependency. This must be done based on an internationally justifiably policy of reciprocity. If you won't allow me to do something in your country, I won't allow you to do so in mine. Also, it demands that India execute a bold foreign policy and that should go hand-in-hand with arthic capacity building. Yet another way is to cast doubt or confusion on the bona fides of various legatee claimants to the original vendor.

4. By playing ball in that extension or interface of the invasive Managed solution called things like "Sufism" or "Christian spirituality", etc. This is the soft underbelly of the hard wrapper, and a field where India has the comparative advantage.

5. By encouraging time-bound Dharma-friendly managed solutions to either substitute for each and every feature of the invasive managed solution, or to deprecate it by showing it is wrong. A whole range of such plugins may be necessary. Conversions must be encouraged, and this is where Indics are lagging behind a lot. The converting Managed solutions act as a transfer mechanism - a portal to Dharma. Indics have done so successfully in the past, and must do so again. It is already happening, but its scale must be increased.

6. Finally and most importantly, to make sure that the PH value of the Indic solvent remains Dharmic. That means not just in name but in actual values. Practically, that means that all pseudo-'Dharmic' impostor memes in our society need to be broken down, especially when they have outlasted their legitimate purpose and usefulness. That means any structures or forms that are obsessed with reinforcing the need for their "wrapper" - the fixed integrity of their priesthood, bodies and cultural exclusivity based on being legatees of some past vendor.

[SBajwa]

Sri Guru Arjan Dev ji in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Raag Aasa

[RajeshA]

Carl ji,

those are some good points to use as principles. The arthic capacity building is indeed crucial. In order to introduce "Managed Solutions" into the solvent, and as I put it "Dharmic salts", the solvent would first need to be made receptive.

For that there are really only 2½ ways of going about it - fear or promise which need to be combined with rest ½, pride.

1. By opening up the wrappers that segregate the popular Indic consciousness into hostile castes or vote banks, or at least stop reinforcing those wrappers. Hostile priesthoods and selfish anti-national politicians have a vested interest in reinforcing the wrapper. The best way to dissolve it is by arthic capacity building - economic development and drastic expansion of a common educational system, so that opportunity is made available easily to all.

The Nehruvian train ran on promise and pride for half a century, and now the train has run out of steam. It offers no promise and no pride any more.

If the Dharmic train wants to pick up speed - it needs to show the promise of a big arthic leap, and when something has been achieved some pride in it. Only if that comes to fructify, would one see the new India embracing or rather re-embracing Dharma again on a sweeping scale.

The Nehruvian train based on its promise of an Independent India, victories of '65 and '71 could push through this sickular sewage down the throats of the Indians, with a heavy dose of smokes and mirrors, lies and deceit.

The Dharmic train hasn't really had much of an innings.

What is undoubtedly good about the Gujarat Model of Development is that it is based on all three economic branches - agriculture, industry and services. So Gujarat has been able to promise and pride, and naturally people would be more open to looking at the concept which served as inspiration for this arthic leap forwards - Dharma.

So arthic expansion is a must for Dharmic forces to gather political capital if they wish to roll over sickular objections to introducing new models of thinking in society - Dharmic models, and then to move on to entrench them.

4. By playing ball in that extension or interface of the invasive Managed solution called things like "Sufism" or "Christian spirituality", etc. This is the soft underbelly of the hard wrapper, and a field where India has the comparative advantage.

This playing ball has to do with a hard Hindu edge albeit sheathed. It has to be done after a thorough Purva Paksha of the other "mystic" movements and their more no-nonsense brothers. Their memes should be clearly visible through any taqiyyah! What one cannot have is WKK-type Dharmics embracing these "mystic" movements as if they are all one and the same, all are long-lost brothers. One needs a Rajiv Malhotra mind, and a Sri Sri Ravi Shankar face for this. Most importantly the agenda must be clear - to cut a lump of the ice, to cut an iceberg out of the ice-sheet. Of course any engagement must be given time to mature and one need to be seen as rushing to it, but the agenda must be clear.

The reason I advocate the definition below

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.

is because it IMHO it is the ultimate firewall, which would stop the Dharmic from giving in into the other direction. It is ideological wall which keeps the Abrahamic at bay! Also it is the laser cutter I speak of, the hard drill bit one needs to drill through the shell. The total rejection of the concept of intermediary is what would force the other not to just keep the focus on "The Word" but to look at "The Nature" of the Supreme, not just to keep oneself standing in the queue to enter Heaven through prescribed manned gates, but to make the gates vanish.

All the Noor and Light the other mystics are seeing needs to be explained to them differently.

If one big iceberg breaks off, it will destroy the myth of invulnerability of their misguided faith. One needs a Dharmic environment to ensure that the iceberg has broken off successfully without any retribution.

[brihaspati]

The fundamental factor that drives all contract is the actual power of either of the party to impose consequences, retaliatory, punitive and decisive on the other for breach of contract. The modern state almost always holds an unfairly overwhelming coercive edge over its citizens, thereby nullifying the theory of "contract".

Well should one see the state as a black-box vs. the people then in theory that would indeed be the case. The constitution of the state however foresees a distribution of power over various organs which act as checks and balances over the others.

Problem happens when an elite expands over the whole establishment, and instead of becoming checks and balances over the power of the other, they establish an establishment-wide understanding on duping and fleecing the electorate.

Then the system of checks and balances breaks down.

The state always remains an instrument of coercion on the entire society. The more a state refuses to share coercive powers with its citizens/subsets - the more is it liable to be monopolized by small groups of elite who manipulate everything for their personal privilege and continued reproduction into supreme power. Constitution is always framed by a small minority - no counter example exists. When any Constitution is formed, it almost always and surely reflects the concerns of the elite who have undertaken the task of framing it - and it does not necessarily reflect the majority view or even the future interests of the majority of that society.

Because it is framed by a minority, it always emphasizes and concretizes those elements that would ensure its own dominance or even their group's descendants in power - while it hems, haws and obfuscates or even avoids mentioning or emphasizing those that they feel at that time point to be potentially damagaing for their own minority dominance.

Any constitution that is not periodically sent for general referendum - and is privileged to be altered onlee at the behest of a small selected [from within the "elected" or appointed - like the supreme intellects and preminences gracing Supreme Courts even if they after retirement show up signs of hidden ideological biases], implies that it reflects the the minority group's wishes to monopolize power as well as a general distrust and disdain for the intellect and wishes of the commons.

No checks and balances ever balances the power equations. Because the system is designed right from the beginning that the checks and balances serve more to formally legitimize the existing minority in power - by declaring that "there are checks and balances - so dont take the law into your own hands by protesting outside the checks and balances". It is more aimed at focusing state violence on dissent rather than any real checks and balances. Networks of power ensure that checks and balances are all managed by the saame minority in power elite.

People often try to proclaim that the "voting" or electoral methods give the people all power to change everything they don't like. That again is a very simplistic claim often coming from members of elite or others who stand linked or support power groupings dominating the state for their own advantage.

Well the electoral methods do not give the people sufficient power, and that is the problem. The electorate should have the power to unelect politicians from public office.

Not really. Even if you unelect politicians - you will have to choose from the same pool. You replace the person not the network. There are very practical reasons as to why significant proportions of Indian politicians successful in the hustings or general political survival - are kids of previous politicians similarly successful in power and survival. This is not the fault or stupidity of the electorate. It is because they have little or no choice. Even if they manage to put up a candidate from outside the established networks of biz+mafia+politicos - various networks parameters and their interconnections with financial, employment, general social safety, and state coercive apparatus - will prevent that elected candidate from being able to deliver anything at all.

In Strategic leadership for the future of India we had a long discussion on electoral changes in Summer of '09. It was about electoral reforms.

Some suggestions on improvement would be:
[....]
2) Possibly through improvement in technology, one could create a unpopularity monitor for a public official. If the number of people in a constituency who want a public official out of office (disapproval ratings) rises to say 75% of the electorate, then it should trigger new elections for a constituency.

Before any organized conscious "Hindu" political frame emerges - the above proposal would mean sweeping powers to the alliance combo of Islamics and INC types, and in perpetuation.

Remember that every apparently sweeping dominance by an ideology - happens only after physical cleansing of the dissenters, opponents, and pre-existing powers. The JLN version of anti-Hindu and Islamophile/Britophile state could come only after the Brits ensured physical elimination of all the potential thorns from within the INC, insurgents, as well as voices in the public-opinion manipulation services and professions.

If the state provides a one-sided coercive control mechanism, it means that it will attract those people who would like to exercise totalitarian control over the rest of society. If they manage to come to power, they will exercise all available methods of ideological control, by actively promoting through education, media and even monetary incentives their own brand of "values" and intervening with all the above as well as the full coercive power of the state - both overt and covert - to crush or eliminate even ideological nuclei of opposition to their agenda.

As far my current thinking goes, I don't think the state should share coercive power (violence) with the citizenry - No Naxalite revolutionaries.

But the citizenry should put pressure on the state to institute better checks and balances on its own coercive power.

The INC is coming around to using the social media and blogosphere itself for its own agenda. This is good. They think they can influence. But this media does mean that their methods of control - education and media will break down. A parallel political discourse system is coming forth in the virtual world which the establishment cannot control so well.

Yes I agree. But, there are possible deep interconnections at the "control" level, shared by all the ex-Anglo-colonies. Note how US is managing its "occupy" and the Brits are managing their own "protests". The biz-mafia nexus is not defeated yet. In fact a lot of social-media could have been designed itself with a sepcific agenda of transformation of societies beyond the reach of US-Brit ruling mafiosi - but had unintended consequences. Ultimately it will reduce to a question of who manages the higher coercive power - physically, make no mistake. The social-media generated "dissent" has been successful onlee in places where they also got outside military/coercive support - typically from the US-Brit axis. Within their own domain they have used their monopoly over mass-deception and mass-coercion to effectively dilute the impact of blogo-dissent.

The first levels are those that the people elect directly - and therefore that game is much more restricted, localized and narrowed down in its scope. The electorate does not have to think of larger issues, do not have any pre-requisite to be even aware of such issues and their impact perhaps down the chain on their own cozy local interests. Moreover - they might be under dependency/fear/connected constraints with those they have to elect.

But the elected actually form a second level of the game where they bargain and ally with each other at this "elected" level on larger issues, and in ways and on things they never had to consult with those they elected. They can then get away with things - using the lagged effect problem - that might affect the very people they were elected by, negatively.

The regional and Delhi [or Ujjain - a new capital perhaps for the future] might actually be repeating this two-level corruption nakhra that exists now in the assembly/parliament system itself (if one thinks the regional satraps forming the pseudo-parliament).

There is both localization, nationalization and internationalization of the news content and thus also of the interest of the people. The more the general level of awareness at all these levels, the better judgments the citizen can make about his candidate based on considerations at all these levels.

Even if there are awarenesses, as long as the "remote" is not seen to have "immediate" effect, and even after awareness, if local - immediate, interests - the fear of losing employment, or share of scarce resources, or retaliation from the political mafia may nullify all awareness.

In fact the states authority to intervene should be divided into two restricted classes: those that can be automated and taken out of human discretion (thereby disempowering the tsars and bosses of patronizing institutions), and those others where discretion is still unavoidable - subject to direct democracy.

Sanatana is often represented as something unchanging, universally applicable. Agreed that there might be something after all like that - but make sure that what you are trying to apply as "sanatana" is really sanatana. Even the texts bear signs of constant change of practice - from period to period, place to place.

Do not let this become and excuse for perpetuation of dominance and power by small aspiring elite groups who will simply reproduce all the totalitarian features we are condemning now. They will do so in the "Indic " garb, and thereby ensure that a future reaction to their personal narrowness will throw the Indic away too as guilty.

Dharmocracy should be based on facilitating role for the state, controls only to check Adharma and for tax collection, and otherwise almost totally rescinding all forms of control over the people.

The method might not be what we are thinking about. The crucial thing to understand is the coercive power and nature of the state. As much as I rage against the Leninist paranoia - the understanding of the real role of the state comes up trumps in every situation.

[RajeshA]

brihaspati garu,

thanks for your detailed clarification. Before I came on BRF, let's just say I still had some confidence and idealism in the present power system in India. It is thanks to your insight and wisdom that I have disabused myself of that optimism, i.e. optimism in the current system.

And even though your words have an uncanny ability to cause depression in the the most optimist of people, there is always some hope and assurance that despite the bleak picture one is shown, you know your way through.

I build my optimism on three pillars - India's defense forces, the Internet, and most importantly the common sense of the common man in India.

So I say: the Future beckons!

[SBajwa]

Here is how Krishna appears in his another avatar!!

“Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.”
“There are times when silence becomes an accomplice to injustice.”
Ayal Ali Hirsi

[brihaspati]

RajeshA ji,
it was not my intention to be a dampener. I was offered the life opportunities to study the various forces from close at hand. From the really murky corridors of power in that old cesspool of the capital, to the remotest corners of jhopris in the middle of nowhere. The spiritual to the anti-spiritual. I was too idealistic and rosy eyed the previous "time". Maybe this life was about shedding all the "roses".

I don't see this as negative. I see it as real assessment of the battlefield topography and disposition of forces.

[Prem]

brihaspati garu,

thanks for your detailed clarification. Before I came on BRF, let's just say I still had some confidence and idealism in the present power system in India. It is thanks to your insight and wisdom that I have disabused myself of that optimism, i.e. optimism in the current system.And even though your words have an uncanny ability to cause depression in the the most optimist of people, there is always some hope and assurance that despite the bleak picture one is shown, you know your way through.I build my optimism on three pillars - India's defense forces, the Internet, and most importantly the common sense of the common man in India.So I say: the Future beckons!

We need to bring 30% Asura Assar in us in this Kalyug To Fix KhalBhoot.

[akashganga]

I am impressed by many good posts in this topic. I want to share a couple of my experiences with Desi Abrahamists. One muslim openly told me to convert to his religion and when I started defending hinduism he openly showed disrespect. On goan christian told me that we hindus are occupying his land and his people. One tamil christian told me that he wants a separate country. The problem with islam and christianity is that they both claim that theirs is the only true path and everyone in the world should convert to their religion. Christianity has undergone reforms and many westerners behave more like hindus accepting other faiths, and pluralism. As for Islam it has not changed even a bit. It will never change. As long as muslims are under 15 to 20 percent of population things will be under control. Once their population crosses this threshold you can forget peace. India is united because Om Namah Shivaya is worshiped in Kashmir (Kashmiri Saivism), and Kanya Kumari, in Gujrat, and Assam and everywhere in between. I have nothing against any one practicing any religion. We have to look at the facts as they are without getting emotional and the fact is that India is united by Bhagrawan Shiva, Yoga, Vedas, etc.

My 2 cents.

[Pranav]

brihaspati garu,

thanks for your detailed clarification. Before I came on BRF, let's just say I still had some confidence and idealism in the present power system in India. It is thanks to your insight and wisdom that I have disabused myself of that optimism, i.e. optimism in the current system.

And even though your words have an uncanny ability to cause depression in the the most optimist of people, there is always some hope and assurance that despite the bleak picture one is shown, you know your way through.

I build my optimism on three pillars - India's defense forces, the Internet, and most importantly the common sense of the common man in India.

So I say: the Future beckons!

RajeshA Garu, while folks valiantly tie themselves up in knots trying to define "Dharma" or proving the "Out of India" theory, or worrying about the Kaveri engine (worthwhile endeavors though they may be), real control will be exercised through means like management of voting machines.

[RajeshA]

I don't see this as negative. I see it as real assessment of the battlefield topography and disposition of forces.

brihaspati garu,

indeed! In any churning for solutions, we need to know that we are churning real solutions and not Disney-world Fantasia solutions.

Should any solution ever come to implementation, a strategy to execution, there too we would have to pass through the battlefield and it becomes crucial to know where all the snipers, mines and booby-traps are hidden! One needs to be able to recognize all the honeypots and Trojan Horses! Why should we just suppose there is only one layer of political illusion that the Brit-Islamic Networks have created? We joke about American money in Paki hands being used to bomb the Americans themselves, but we too need to be sure that those whom we support is not just another Manchurian candidate!

[RajeshA]

RajeshA, while folks valiantly tie themselves up in knots trying to define "Dharma" or proving the "Out of India" theory, or worrying about the Kaveri engine (worthwhile endeavors though they may be), real control will be exercised through means like management of voting machines.

Pranav ji,

I am guilty as charged!

[member_20317]

akashganga ji,

Observe the whole not just what is said to your face. What was said to you could have had many different causation. Excercise a sense of discrimination and Judgement.

And do not underestimate the West. Islamists are merely trying (rather hoping) to be a better west, historically been so.

The only difference between the West and Islamists is that Islamists hated the target so deeply that they failed to study it, except perhaps the political aspect of their perceived target.

The West went on to deeply study the whole system of the Pagan and destroy it from a position of strength. The lines are sought to be blurred for the present. And this is the second attempt. The first attempt the west was damn successful. The only reason the west got hobbled was the WW1+WW2. The first time they were so successful that Brits caused a bigger downfall for our civilization in less then 200 years then what the Islamists could not do even in 700 years. Besides the Islamists were contained in the west and confused in the east. OTOH the West has been on a great cull since very very early times. And up till now everybody has succumbed. India remains the last frontier and even here a vast population has almost given up.


The civilizational tear is sought to be effected through, among others:

1. Promoting an ambivalence towards our Itihaas and rituals by causing an aseptic amputation of the Swayam from the Poorn.

2. Promoting useless argumentation, designed to make people oscillate between Feeling important and Feeling rejected. The driver being Feelings/Sensibities oftentimes mixed with a cynical, almost mocking, use of Compassion/Patience.

3. Promoting a sense of anxiety in our collective existence at various levels (Country, Jaati, Varna, Nation). This is actually why they need the system designed as:
Individual A => Political aurhority <= Individual B.
This enables an attack from within and from outside the system while at the same time dealing with all the potential opponents one at a time.

4. Downright lies/inspired moderation of debate/avoidance of the subject/harangue/social engineering

5. A polity of accusations.

6. Alienating the more privileged (in terms of education) classes from the masses by an elaborate arrangement of insular existence and moral ambivalence.



My indicative suggestions (exhaustive depends on your own requirements for yourself)–

1) Recognize the situation as a fight. If you don’t you risk abdication.

2) Enjoy your part in the fight. If you don’t you risk not lasting the distance.

3) Think for solutions and your role in working towards them. There are enough role models to choose from within our Itihaas (both Nutan and Puraatan), depending upon your innate bhaav. One reason for an attack on the Itihaas has been to bury the role models. Do not let them get buried by adopting them in your life.

[RajeshA]

I am impressed by many good posts in this topic. I want to share a couple of my experiences with Desi Abrahamists.

akashganga ji,

thanks for sharing!

One muslim openly told me to convert to his religion and when I started defending hinduism he openly showed disrespect.

On both sides, this is the most natural response. Your Muslim friend cannot but do what he has been programmed to do - either w.r.t. his invitation to join his faith and in showing utter contempt for yours. Would he act otherwise, it would either show that his "education" or programming is incomplete, that he is doing the taqiyyah tango, or that his nature and nurture are not in harmony, which seldom happens. Usually one is conditioned to be the lamb within (fear) and to be tiger without (promise).

akashganga ji,

you do bring up an interesting response from us Hindus. We "defend Hinduism" and give arguments in favor. I am understanding your use of 'Hinduism' as it is traditionally understood - as a combination of 'Hindu Dharma' and 'Sanatan Dharma'.

a) When we say we "defend Hinduism", then that is basically saying, we try to defend our reasons for staying Hindu, claiming that there is merit in Sanatan Dharma, and one is staying Sanatanik (Hindu) as one has given thought to these on its objective merits. But it is important that "Sanatan Dharma" should never stand on trial in an Islamic's court of judgment where one knows the other would act according to his programming. No need to defend the merits of Sanatan Dharma.

b) However we say we are Hindu because that is the native way, and those who have fallen for Islam are basically serving a foreign imperialist religious ideology. Does "foreign imperialist religious ideology" (though a mouthful) sound like contempt? Depends on where one is standing. If one is into Islam in India, there would be nothing contemptible in that. For us that is however wrong. It is selling out Bharat Mata and the Bharatiya Civilization of our Purvaja. It is a question of allegiance and not merit. So one response is

Why should I sell out Bharat Mata to a foreign imperialist religious ideology? Where is the Pride in that?

That is the Hindu response - The Resistance!

Yes, it is a direct accusation as well. But it is a counter-accusation. One is already being looked at with ideological contempt. One is only outlining one's ideological red-line. The sickulars can fret about the response not being "politically correct"!

c) The other response is the 'Dharmic' response. It gives the reason why one is invested in one's own Dharmic way and at the same time it underlines what is wrong with the other theologically.

As Dharmics, we consider that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, and reject any (requirement for) intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary.

This in fact turns the tables, and puts the other's religion on trial forcing the other to defend his religion, forcing the other to bring forth arguments why it is legitimate to have an intermediary, a prophet, when the access should be free.

On goan christian told me that we hindus are occupying his land and his people. One tamil christian told me that he wants a separate country.

That is why in such cases one should make it a point that one is aware that they cannot think differently as they are victims of a foreign imperialist religious ideology, whose worldviews have been distorted to an extent that they are willing to sell out their motherland.

It is important to call them victims. It shows pity, sympathy and contempt all in one word! It tells them that their views are not even worth considering, as these views are not even their own.

The problem with islam and christianity is that they both claim that theirs is the only true path and everyone in the world should convert to their religion. Christianity has undergone reforms and many westerners behave more like hindus accepting other faiths, and pluralism. As for Islam it has not changed even a bit. It will never change.

The problem is see is not really "claims to know the one true path". The problem is that this path has a big gate on it manned by gatekeepers - the cults of Muhammad and Jesus, and their all-powerful temporal representatives - the Mullahs and their Shariah, the Church.

Yes, Islam would not change. But the situation will change.

As long as muslims are under 15 to 20 percent of population things will be under control. Once their population crosses this threshold you can forget peace.

Peace is not something one can take for granted or buy through appeasement. We have to ensure that when they become 20%, that we become 80%.

I have nothing against any one practicing any religion.

"Not having anything against someone practicing any religion" is a stand I am not willing to accept for myself because I need to be told first by the powers that be what is the definition of religion, what does it all constitute, what are its memes, how does it behave with other religions, what kind of practices are we speaking about, etc.

India is united because Om Namah Shivaya is worshiped in Kashmir (Kashmiri Saivism), and Kanya Kumari, in Gujrat, and Assam and everywhere in between. We have to look at the facts as they are without getting emotional and the fact is that India is united by Bhagrawan Shiva, Yoga, Vedas, etc.

True!

[KLNMurthy]

...

Rama, not RamaY, wanted to find his wife Sita and get her back. How did he go about it?

1. He went out searching for her following one clue after another (Jatayu, Sugriva and his ministers, Vanaras, and so on).

2. Once he got confirmation that Ravana did it, he wanted to go fight with him to get her.

3. He waited till the rainy season was over.

4. He took the help friends, who came to help him on their own. It is a different matter what motivated them to help him (gratitude, dharma, reverence and so on)

5. He made plans and executed them patiently until he has highly success rate (Building setu)

Would Rama go to war with Ravana even without all these? Of course yes. Could he go to war within one day? Of course not, because it takes whatever time he takes for him to reach Lanka. Would he fight Ravana alone even if no one comes to his help? Of course, because that was his dharma and valor.

Was Rama sure of his victory even if he were to fight entire Ravana's MIC on his own? Yes. But still he took whatever time it took to achieve his goal. Can we blame Rama for letting Sita wait, suffer Ravana's coercion for nearly 1 year? Who are we to judge? Sita didn't. She didn't even want to come with Hanuma even when she had a chance.

A curve ball question here. Why should Rama go get Sita? Does it mean he thought Sita as an object and that too one he owns or his own? How is Rama has a higher responsibility of Sita's well being, safety and independence than Sita herself?; especially when Rama and Sita are equal and have same rights and so on? Would we expect Sita to do the same if it were Rama who got kidnapped? Does it mean, deep down we all see women as objects to own and to be protected all the time?

OK Rama won the war, killed Ravana and freed Sita. Does it make Sita his war prize? Is Sita Rama's property for ever just because he married her 20 years ago? How come the marriage, a ritual that lasts hardly few hours, puts the wife/husband in certain roles/responsibilities for year's to come? What if Sita chose to stay with Vibheeshana/Lakshmana/anyoneelse, do we all accept it as a dharmic deed? Would such an outcome make Rama's duty to go to war with Ravana's entire MiC any less/more dharmic?

This is what happens when we become self-declared prophets

Let us do some reading between the lines of Ramayana.

The Ramayana project was not to just get Sita back (Sita by herself was powerful enough both physically and spiritually to not let herself get captured by Ravana and destroy him if he tried, or Hanuman could have brought her back when he found her in Asoka vana) but to put an end to the resurgent strength of the Rakshasas new base in Lanka, consolidate Bharata Varsha and establish the invincibility of dharma once and or all. Just prior to Ramayana time the Asuras were conclusively defeated--or so it was thought--by a joint command of devas and humans, with Rama's father Dasaratha as General. But they became a renewed threat under the leadership of Ravana who was a very gifted individual along with his brothers.

This is the reason for the pulling together of all allies like Vanaras, Bhallukas etc., to mount an all-out assault on Lanka. The end result was the destruction of Rakshasa power, and the subjugation of its vestiges under vassal kind Vibhishana. It is also the reason why Sita, apparently against all logical arguments offered by Rama, insisted in going to the forest with him; her father Janaka was also a Rishi and I believe he knew that the Sita-Rama duo was key to the consolidation of dharma.

There is a lesson here for us in the correct way to deal with adharmic forces today.

[RajeshA]

One other thing about managed solutions is that they always need the external vendor (who built it) or his explicit legatee for any issue that crops up - hence it is called a 'managed' solution. If the contract and dependency on the external vendor is broken, then the managed solution could stall and not yield any effects, or even create problems with no one to make even a show of troubleshooting. A period of such behaviour builds up a justifiable case for deleting it (or at least removing the wrapper and converting it into an Unmanaged solution). Hostile priesthoods and selfish anti-national politicians have a vested interest in reinforcing the contract.

3. By reducing the penetration and power of external vendors to enforce or expand the contract of co-dependency. This must be done based on an internationally justifiably policy of reciprocity. If you won't allow me to do something in your country, I won't allow you to do so in mine. Also, it demands that India execute a bold foreign policy and that should go hand-in-hand with arthic capacity building. Yet another way is to cast doubt or confusion on the bona fides of various legatee claimants to the original vendor.

When you speak of "breakage in the contract and dependency on the external vendor" it is indeed a very potent solution.

I have at times spoken of a strategy to force the creation of "violations in the terms of the EULA" by the local Managed Solution with respect to the vendor.

One needs many small doctrinaire changes which can be built up to gross violations of the integrity of the doctrine. Of course one can effect these doctrinaire changes either through some inserted code in the Managed Solution or through creating an environment of pressure and benefits where some parts are willing to break off.

This needs to be managed as a cascade, or a snowball, where the doctrinaire changes start becoming dramatic.

Now of course the Ahmadiyya Movement is a classic case where the EULA broke down. At the "Sufi" fringe, I too think there are possibilities.

Please look up "Closet Dharmic Sects, with Big Fishing Nets" and "Reverse Love-Jihad™"!

One change in the environment I proposed was "Bharat & Women"!

5. By encouraging time-bound Dharma-friendly managed solutions to either substitute for each and every feature of the invasive managed solution, or to deprecate it by showing it is wrong. A whole range of such plugins may be necessary. Conversions must be encouraged, and this is where Indics are lagging behind a lot. The converting Managed solutions act as a transfer mechanism - a portal to Dharma. Indics have done so successfully in the past, and must do so again. It is already happening, but its scale must be increased.

I think there are a host of Managed Solution plugins like Inter-religious marriages, Education & Job opportunities (aka Christian Yoga), which can be utilized. Jaati affinity can also act as an important channel.

6. Finally and most importantly, to make sure that the PH value of the Indic solvent remains Dharmic. That means not just in name but in actual values. Practically, that means that all pseudo-'Dharmic' impostor memes in our society need to be broken down, especially when they have outlasted their legitimate purpose and usefulness. That means any structures or forms that are obsessed with reinforcing the need for their "wrapper" - the fixed integrity of their priesthood, bodies and cultural exclusivity based on being legatees of some past vendor.

While it is important to remove wrappers, it is also important to some extent to preserve the clumps, the diversity. By creating strong external firewall-identities like 'Hindu', 'Dharmic', 'Bharatiya' it is possible to facilitate a less constrictive environment, which even as it allows internal jaati-identities, varnas become totally virtualized whereas spiritual exploration becomes an integral feature of the environment itself.

But for all that we need a hard outer shell - 'Hindu', 'Dharmic', 'Bharatiya'!

[RajeshA]

Continuing ...

Yudhistira talks to Vyas.

Vyas: Your city will be ready now. But the aim of your life is not the construction of a city. You should aim at the establishment of dharma-rajya. You should believe that this city is not just your capital, it is the capital of dharma-rajya in Bharat.

Yudhistira: Give me instructions. I will try to live up to your expectations.

Vyas: Yudhistira, dharma exists with nyaya. Nyaya means that every person should have the opportunity to develop himself/herself. No one should have the right to stop the path of others for their own development. Not a single person in your praja should think that they have not advanced in their lives despite having potential. It means that laws should be made very carefully and should be implemented without exceptions. Every person should get work based on their nature and behavior. No one should feel that their work is a burden. It is unjust when a brahmin's son is expected to do a brahmin's work without taking into account his behavior. Neither he nor your praja will benefit from it. Giving respect to people who don't deserve it, and not respecting people who deserve our respect are equally bad. That is why we should give weapons to those people who believe that they should use weapons to protect nyaya. They should be willing to give their lives for protecting the weak and the helpless. People who love their lives and are selfish are not kshatriyas regardless of their heritage. The kshatriya-ness of unjust and selfish people is Rakshas-tva. You should not create bandits in your state by giving weapons to them.

I find these words from Vyas on Dharma especially encouraging because they confirm the 'Dharmic model' we have been discussing here.

In the post "The Aarthic of the Dharmic", I wrote:

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.

I also wrote:

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!

All that is based on one central axiom:

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 is good to know that the validity of the definition of 'Dharmic' proves its validity from the wisdom of Vyas spoken more than 7,500 years ago (as per Nilesh Oak's timeline).

Dharmic Model is all about freeing one's potential.

[RajeshA]

Continuing from a post by nawabs from "Indian Interests" Thread

Minority scholarship constitutional: HC

A five-judge bench of the Gujarat High Court on Friday afternoon held UPA’s pre-matric minority scholarship scheme as constitutional in a 3-2 decision. The five-judge bench was formed after a two-judge bench, which held the scheme to be unconstitutional, referred the matter to a larger bench for finality on its constitutionality.

While the detailed judgement is awaited, Justice Akil Qureshi read out the operative portions of the judgment for the majority side, stating that this scheme does not violate Article 15 of the Constitution. Justice Pardiwala read out the dissenting view that this scheme is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Under the scheme, the Union Government contributes 75 per cent of the scholarship amount while the State Governments are required to contribute 25 per cent of the amount. The Advocate-General of Gujarat asked the court to grant a stay on the judgement.

Refusing to grant a stay, the court held that this was merely a referral bench which had to judge on the constitutionality or otherwise of the scheme. The final order for implementation thereof is to be made by the two-judge bench which referred this matter to the larger bench.

This matter has a long history. The Congress-led UPA had initiated this scheme under the 15-Point Programme for the Welfare of Minorities wherein poor students belonging to five specific minority communities (Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis) were to be given scholarships provided they maintained the grades specified under the scheme.

The Government of Gujarat refused to implement the scheme stating that it discriminated between students on the basis of religion. Moreover, the Gujarat Government had a scheme in place since three decades which covered six lakh eligible poor pre-matric students whereas the minority scholarship scheme would be applicable only to 52,260 students.

A Gujarat Congress member Adam Chaki filed a Public Interest Litigation, asking the High Court to issue directions to the Gujarat Government to implement the scheme. The Union Government, through its law officers, supported the stand taken by Chaki.

Apart from arguing on the unconstitutionality of this scheme, the Gujarat Government also argued that the minority communities in Gujarat are more developed and educationally advanced as compared to minorities in many other States and even compared to people belonging to the SC, ST, SEBC and EBC categories.

Therefore, targeting a limited number of communities on the basis of religion alone would create ‘heart-burning’ and discriminatory feeling amongst the other low income students.

Interestingly, in an earlier petition which challenged the 15-Point Programme, another two-Judge Bench of the Gujarat High Court had held that “funds utilised by States for … providing education etc” to specific religions would not violate the Constitution. Even the Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutionality of this scheme.

However, the two-judge Bench of the Gujarat High Court (Chief Justice being one of them) listening to Adam Chaki’s petition held that since the scheme entailed “further classification by way of micro-classification” on the basis of religion alone, it was unconstitutional. In other words, it first classified the eligible applicants on the basis of income and then made a micro-classification on the basis of religion.

In a scathing remark on ‘education secularism’, the two-judge Bench observed that the UPA had, through this scheme, “exposed the idea that there is no necessity of socio-economic upliftment of persons of even the poorer and socially backward strata with the help of Government sponsorship unless they belong to the five minority religions.”

One might ask why the matter was heard by a five-judge bench. Because of the apparent contradiction in the judgement of the earlier two-judge bench which was reviewing the Prime Minister’s 15-Point Programme and the latter two-judge bench holding the scheme unconstitutional, the matter was referred to a larger five-judge bench which gave its judgement on Friday.

The Gujarat Government is very likely to knock on the Supreme Court’s doors once the implementation orders are given by the two-judge bench which referred the judgement.

It would be myopic and needless to see this judgement as a sort of victory of one set of forces over another. The UPA’s view has been that students belonging to some religions need special care and, therefore, such micro-classification serves the purpose of assimilating minorities within the ‘mainstream’. The Gujarat High Court has supported this view today.

The Gujarat Government’s view, on the other hand, is that if meritorious students belonging to poor families need financial assistance for education and if Government coffers are being utilised, they must all be given that regardless of their religion – which is what the Gujarat Government’s existing schemes do.

This debate is an ongoing one that is set in motion since the Constituent Assembly debates while finalising our Constitution. Therefore, it is imperative that the discourses do not drift in unwarranted tangents. The very nature of ramifications of any position in this debate necessitates that needless pandering and outrage be resisted.

How many Buddhists, Parsis, or even poor Sikhs would be profiting from this scheme in Gujarat? Not trying to be discriminatory here but how many poor Parsis are even there?

What is being done here is that Sikhs, Buddhists are being separated from Hindus as religious minorities outside the "Hindu fold"? Why?

The Constitution of India is very specific about this.

the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.

So how can these religious communities be considered separately from Hindus, then brought together under one roof with "Muslims and Christians (and Parsis)" so that one can justify doling out appeasement packages to Muslims and Christians. Basically Sikhs and Buddhists are letting their good name be used for minority appeasement of Muslims and Christians.

That is why I have been very particular about definitions - 'Hindu', 'Dharmic', 'Bharatiya', 'Sanatanik', etc.

These identities need to be given Constitutional sanction. 'Hindu' already is used in a collective way for Sanataniks, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs in the Constitution, so it is just not understandable how in this ruling Sikhs and Buddhists could be used separately!

Under the garb of minorities, the Indian political and judicial system cannot be allowed to break the unity of the 'Hindu' which includes all four - Sanataniks, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists.

It is also important that Sanataniks (Hindus) try actively to bring the others under the collective umbrella of Hindus, Dharmics and Bharatiyas, so that in India, never can an Islamo-Christianist dispensation use the diversity of the Dharmic front to propose minority appeasement. This is not minority appeasement - it is appeasement of foreign imperialist religious ideologies in India and it should not be given the "religious minority" cover.

Sanataniks should try to actively persuade that even though at the religious level Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists have a separate identity than say Sanataniks (Hindus?), at the cultural-political level there should be unity under the banner of 'Hindu'. Even at the macro-theological level, we all should call ourselves "Dharmics" and should all reaffirm our pride in Bharat as 'Bharatiyas'. It is important to bring SGPC on board. Also we should be aware that the Buddhist platform, especially the name of Ambedkar is being hijacked by anti-national forces, along with 'Dalits'. We need to bring them too under these identity-banners - 'Hindu', 'Dharmic' and 'Bharatiya'!

What happened in 1984 was an Islamo-Christianist (INC) reprisal against the Sikhs under the name of 'Hindu' and had nothing to do genuine Hindus (Sanataniks)! Similarly the Khalistani Movement was also an Islamo-Christianist project! All one needs to do is to see which countries were involved in supporting Khalistanis! So on both side of the equation it was Islamo-Christianists (Congress party) driving the movements - Khalistani and Sikh-Genocide!

Even though the Sikh leadership have understood the game and have realigned themselves with Hindutva, still there is ressentiment among many Sikhs. This needs to be done away with.

Similarly the Christianists have set up movements like Ambedkar.org which produce all sort of seditious material under the banner of Buddhism which is then used by Christians and Islamics alike to lash out at Hindus.

So the Buddhists too need to be brought in into the 'Hindu' fold and actively. Within the Buddhists themselves the Hindus would need to encourage those who are willing to expose the anti-national activities of those who use their name to that end and they need to be marginalized and formally excommunicated.

Only if Sanataniks, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains stand together, only then can one unmask and stop the Islamo-Christianist (Nehruvian-Secular) platform in India in their efforts to direct the Indian state into primarily serve the interests of these foreign imperialist religious ideologies.

[RajeshA]

Axioms of Sanatan Dharma

Some time ago sudarshan ji summarized the Axioms of Sanatan Dharma. The axioms are meant to be compatible with the various other Sampradayas - Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism, as well. sudarshan ji's approach is based on minimalism for easier propagation.

My exposition on my idea is basically done. Below, I just wanted to summarize my reasons for adopting this particular view of Sanatana Dharma. I think it offers us some significant advantages in presenting our view to the world. The entire world-view I expounded is based on the axioms I’ve already listed. Like I said, two of the axioms are (I feel) universal to all the Dharmic faiths. This also gives us a chance to unify all of these Dharmic faiths under a common ethos.

Here are the axioms themselves, again:

Axiom 1: God is all-powerful, but He does not desire the fruits of material actions.

Axiom 2: It is our own desire for material fulfillment of our spiritual potential, which brings us to this universe.

Axiom 3: The law of karma – in this causal universe, you do not get something for nothing. As a corollary – you are impartially subjected to the consequences of your actions.

Reasons for adopting this particular axiom-theory view of SD:

* This is a scientific approach, which starts with basic axioms and builds the theoretical structure from that base. This is the same “Feynmannian approach” that I saw mentioned in the “Out of India” thread. The advantage being, that all debate on the axioms themselves is sidelined. The proof of the axioms lies in how well the resulting structure agrees with observations of the world around. In science, nobody subjects axioms to philosophical debates. They simply look for evidence which would invalidate the axiom. Lacking such evidence, the axiom is accepted, with the caveat that it is unproven.

* What evidence do we have in favor of the three (or two, if Buddhism/Jainism are adhered to) axioms listed above? Since the principle of evolution is a logical conclusion of adopting these axioms, I submit that the extensive fossil records are all evidence in favor of these axioms. Further, many of the tenets of quantum mechanics may be derived from the axioms (as I tried to show in an earlier post). The observations that led to the development of QM are also evidence in favor of these axioms. SD comes off as a scientific enquiry into the nature of our consciousness, which is validated by observations of the universe around us.

* As a corollary of the above, any debate with other viewpoints is a cinch. Our approach is scientific, and supported by evidence. Other approaches are stuck with their inflexible, scientifically indefensible assertions. While this has always been a weakness of the Abrahamic faiths, and a strength of SD, SD can now claim scientific validation for its tenets, and showcase its open-source nature. WE ARE NOT AFRAID OF SCIENTIFIC DEBATE. WE NEVER HAVE BEEN – SD HAS BEEN HONED BY DEBATES BETWEEN OPPOSING VIEWS IN PALACES AND IN TEMPLES, AND BY ACCEPTANCE OF THE VIEWS WHICH PROVED THEMSELVES IN THESE DEBATES. No dogmas here.

* From the axioms, SD is seen as a view-point which unites all people all over the world. We are all here to fulfill our material urges. This is such an intuitive, appealing assertion, that few can take objection to it. If this seems like a hedonistic view, the third axiom counters that effectively. We are held responsible for the manner in which we pursue our desires. Not only does this view-point unite all the people of the earth, it also unites every single life form, from the higher animals to the lowest germs. The claim is, that all of these life forms are united by the urge for material fulfillment of their fantasies, but that the consequences of their actions put them at varying stages of bodily evolution. The evolution we see in the world around us, is simply the evolution of our own desires, and of the consequences of our own actions.

* It becomes a cinch to respond to seemingly tough questions such as “what is the purpose of this life?” [A: To enjoy yourself]. “Where do good and evil come from?” [A: From the fact that we are held responsible for the manner in which we pursue our desires]. “What is nirvana? [A: Simply, freedom from this urge for material enjoyment]. This was the idea behind my identifying a list of such questions, and answering them one by one, from the point of view of the axioms.

* The fear psychosis of the Abrahamic religions now finds an effective counter-point. God is not a vindictive maniac. He is your friend, your well-wisher – you can see this for yourself, from the way He not only created a vast universe for your enjoyment, and gave you a body with which to act on that universe, but also the fact that He got out of your way and allowed you to forget Him for the space of a lifetime, so you could enjoy yourself without guilt or misgivings or interference on His part. Not only that, if you are not yet done with your desire for enjoyment after one lifetime, He will permit you to come back. He is not going to make you burn in hell forever for any reason. Your reunion with Him is guaranteed, at a time of your choosing.

* We also see the clear demarcation in the SD world-view, between the true seekers (who take sannyasa and run to the forests or the mountains) and the ones who are into ritual worship, bhajans, charity, or other such exercises. We are all here to enjoy ourselves - this is why the thought of death, or even of sannyasa, frightens us so much. We are not ready to let go of our desires. But our eventual happiness lies in doing exactly this. Therefore, the sages prescribe means for us, by which we can continue to enjoy ourselves (within limits), but also move closer to God, to the point where we come to love God more than our desires. Hence temple-worship, bhajans, kirtans, giving to charity, etc. To the sannyasi, all that matters is the truth. The sannyasi is somebody who is close to letting go of his/her desires. A separate path is prescribed for such souls. Sri Ramakrishna's lifetime illustrates this very distinctly indeed. Sri Ramakrishna had two sets of disciples - one set was the sannyasi kind (like Swami Vivekananda, Swami Abhedananda, and others such), while the other set was the householder kind, who were not ready to let go of the pleasures of samsaara, but still wanted to make progress towards God.

* The concept of “reincarnation” gains a sound logical footing. Once you accept that it is your desires which brought you here, it is easy to see how you could yearn to come here again, and again. Punarapi jananam, punarapi maranam. Combine this with the concept of Karma, and evolution becomes a foregone conclusion.

* This framework is acceptable (IMHO) to all the faiths which originated in Bharatavarsha. Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism all accept the concept of Karma (and consequently, reincarnation). The second axiom (that it is your own desires which bring you here) is also, I feel, an implicit assumption in each of these faiths. This is all we need, to bring a common understanding between these faiths. We do not have to agree on the structure that is derived from these axioms. The structure depends on the interpretation of the axioms, and ideas on the practicality of the resulting system. Most importantly, unifying the Dharmic faiths on the basis of desire fulfillment and Karma marks them as separate from the Abrahamic faith, with its axiom of absolute good and evil, and mankind’s fall from perfection. The intellectual battle-lines will be clearly defined, to the advantage of the Dharmics. Questions such as “is Sikhism derived from Hinduism, or Islam – or is it a hybrid?” become trivial. Does Islam accept the axioms listed above? Your call.

* Desire fulfillment explains the evolution of our society. Why was the seventeenth and eighteenth century in Europe the age of classical music? Because of the number of spirits which wished to indulge their musical potential. The scientific age caught on. It is currently mankind’s obsession. Will we find life on other planets? Depends – on our desire, and on the consequences of our actions. Will we find multiple universes? Ditto. Having found life on other planets, or time travel, will we be happy? Not a chance. Desire only grows with feeding. And so on. Why are there so many deracinated, self-loathing Indians today? Well, many of the spirits which inhabited nineteenth-century Europe got curious about India, and wished to see what being Indian was like. God granted their desire. Not all of these spirits were comfortable with the concept of India – their subliminal memory of the old western world is what attracts them back there. Also explains why the population of India exploded and that of Europe is now declining, doesn’t it? [THIS IS A TONGUE-IN-CHEEK EXPLANATION, THOUGH IT MIGHT HAVE AN ELEMENT OF TRUTH IN IT ].

* The axioms clearly separate the concept of “heaven” from that of “nirvana.” Heaven results when a spirit brings so much desirable consequence upon itself, that unmitigated enjoyment is the result – for a while. Nirvana is when material enjoyment is no longer the driving force. Nobody enjoys heaven forever, nobody burns in hell forever. Our true happiness lies in giving up our material urges. Nor can anybody “take on our sins” for us. Karmic reactions are strictly non-transferrable. This explains why the term “Indra” refers, not to a deity, but to a position. Any of us can become Indra, if we attain sufficient merit. Those tales of mortals performing penance, which unnerved Indra, make perfect sense.

* The axiom set is only the bare essence of SD, as it should be. I believe concepts such as the varna system are practicalities, which resulted from the needs of the Dharmic society. I think we need to show ourselves as willing to discard an obsolete caste system. Classes are built into society – we can’t eliminate them (we all know how the communist experiment went). But discrimination based on caste should be a strict no-no. The axiom set above does not concern itself with caste at all. Some may argue that this is a liability, others may say that it is an asset. I personally think we should distance SD from the idea that caste is an essential part of the Dharmic world-view. Think about it. IS THERE ANY NEGATIVE OF HINDUISM, WHICH CAN BE TOUTED BY OPPONENTS (OTHER THAN GENERIC ASSERTIONS OF BEING A “MISH-MASH” OF CONFUSING IDEAS), OTHER THAN THE CASTE SYSTEM? The axiom set is specifically designed to counter this impression that Hinduism is a confused mish-mash.

* It is possible that other axiom sets may be devised, which also capture the essence of SD. My suggested touchstone for acceptance of these axiom sets: Do they bring all the Dharmic faiths under one umbrella? Are they supported by observed scientific facts? Do they clearly demarcate themselves from the Abrahamic faiths? Are they intuitive, and do they offer us a psychological advantage when negotiating with the Abrahamics? Would people of other faiths be intrigued and attracted enough by the axioms, and by their implications? I believe that the axiom set I listed above passes all of these criteria.

* It is also possible that I am missing something, that there are errors in my reasoning, or incomplete thoughts, or evidence I’m missing. I am willing to accept those, if they are pointed out. SD itself is not a “finished” theory, by any means. SD has always shown itself willing to make changes, if necessary.

* Lastly, I’d like to say that we do urgently need a unifying umbrella under which we can gather the Dharmic ways. I’ve argued this in my previous posts, so anybody who is interested may go back to read them. I don’t want to keep repeating my views on this.

My novel is based on this idea of mine, that there is a simple, one-sentence definition of the entire Dharmic ethos. Hindus have always been open to the charge that we don’t know what our faith is all about. Each one of us has our own views on this. I think we can all agree on the basics of our faith. But this idea is only a small part of my novel (which, upon the suggestion of a reviewer, is now going to be broken up into four separate, though related, novels).

These Axioms of Sanatan Dharma are compatible with the Axiom we produced here

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.

[SBajwa]

If somebody asks you to convert and/or if his/her religion is better than yours! here is a reply from Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji in his conversation with the Hajis (people on pilgrimage to mecca) This exact shabad was told by Bhai Bala who was accomplice of Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji in many of his travels.

[brihaspati]

RajeshA ji,
in your own post about the Gujarat minority-scholarship, you can see that the Constitution was, can be and will be used or interpreted by the "checks and balances" of even say the judiciary to serve particular elite-subgroup persistence-in-power objectives.

The first step in the required awareness is that the rashtra is a superstructure created on top of the society, and it is less important than the underlying society. Second is that the existing rashtra was created in collaboration with new-imperialists (Brits) and remnant of old imperialists (Islamists) together with the survivors from the compromiser-mercantile elements of the "Hindu". Therefore it will desperately continue to see to the continuation of those interests - whatever new, shiny, "modern" spin is given to it.

This rashtra will - with its glorious Constitution, its almost divine in wisdom beyond-all-criticism forever-infallible judiciary, with its beyond-accountable non-legislature supreme power maintained in proper British style dynastic symbolism, its two-tier legislative game to separate out local issues and national or international interests, its ancient biz+mafia+politico networks that are now also interfaced with transnational similar networks, its covert coercive wings carefully selected and vetted to act as eyes and ears and eliminators in favour of the underlying power network - continue toa ct against each and every aspiration that you and others are laying out on this thread.

The people need to psychologically de-integrate from this superstructure. It will be given the spin of trying to "overthrow" - but that is not what deintegration means. It simply means becoming aware that this rashtra was designed and continues to act in the specific interests of foreign imperialist ideologies and their local comprador biz-mafia collaborators. That is the first step. You do not need to act against the "rashtra" - you need to feel detached from and not identify with it mentally anymore. Realize it was a construct by a group of humans, who specifically took advantage of the planned British elimination programme of all elements who might not be conducive to "continued friendly power relationships".

They gave shape to this particular rashtra in a vacuum, where the "hard" opponents of the British and related comprador Indian biz interests had been thinned by attrition of the various liberation struggles, where the "Hindu" cultural element had been thinned again by more than a century of ideological and isntitutional fight against combined British+Christian-missions+Islamist onslaught.

Simplification of the "dharmik" meme as it is going to be repackaged - minus the inessential, and thsi is where its going to be controversial. We cannot retain many of the hsitorically narrowed contextual stuff like by-birth-varna, who-can-marry-whom, who-can-eat-wth-whom - under any of the excuses. There is no need to bash them up - and we should be ready to concede to those stuck up on such things that - yes, there were such solutions suggested in a specific historical context, and we are not trashing them, but they should not be pushed as inalienable, core, and relevant forever.

Once we are set on this re-application relevant for the current times, we should be non-compromising on that revised programme. No concessions, no dilution of commitment, no dilution of the intensity and sincerity with which the programme is to be followed in life, in politics, and in society. No grounds to be given at all. It may seem like we will loose support, and we will be mocked of being a fringe minority. But one day we will become the majority.

[brihaspati]

The on-ground reality of the problem reduces to who-can-sleep-with-whom, who-can-eat-with-whom, who-can-worship-whom-and-where, who-can-do-what-to-earn-keep. Make these things equitable, or at least equal-opportunity tested by actual performance - and 99% of the problems of the "dharmik" will be gone.

[RajeshA]

The people need to psychologically de-integrate from this superstructure. It will be given the spin of trying to "overthrow" - but that is not what deintegration means. It simply means becoming aware that this rashtra was designed and continues to act in the specific interests of foreign imperialist ideologies and their local comprador biz-mafia collaborators. That is the first step. You do not need to act against the "rashtra" - you need to feel detached from and not identify with it mentally anymore. Realize it was a construct by a group of humans, who specifically took advantage of the planned British elimination programme of all elements who might not be conducive to "continued friendly power relationships".

brihaspati garu,

if the people are to psychologically detach from a state which wants to control the people more than facilitate the progress of the people, the people would need to further develop their mistrust, disillusionment and frustration with the state to its logical conclusion - that they would need to rebuild the Rashtra on a different set of principles and for that the people would need a transformation plan.

I think the easiest way to get people on board is to give them the ideological tools to better structure their observations so that they come to the same conclusion, ideological tools which help them channelize the disenchantment in a similar fashion, ideological tools which help them to better judge friend from foe.

These ideological tools need to be simple but robust for much easier dissemination.

When we talk about a non-Dharmocratic State, which India is most definitely under the current dispensation, we are talking about a regime which both alienates its people from their roots and secondly tries to control the people through various instruments of government and coercive power. The key word is control whereas a Dharmocratic state's operating parameters would be to facilitate.

A Dharmic consciousness as per our definition here

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.

would be one where one would feel repelled by the notion of (unnecessary) control some intermediary, in this case State, exercises over the people and hinders their Selbstverwirklichung (~Self-actualization), and if it does facilitate it then only conditionally if such facilitation promotes the interests of the regime.

I am aware that this form of argumentation based on definitions etc really sounds naive, but please bear with me. The reason is that if you are asking for the people to detach themselves from a State controlled by a networked elite, then one needs to package that whole revolutionary spirit in a very small message-package, which enables common people to sift wrong from right on their own and recognize what they face.

More importantly people should be able to better recognize other Dharmics from pakhandis, from counterfeits. So one needs to work on the Dharmic intuition, the sixth sense of the common people to recognize those who are on the same frequency and those who are not. Alternate leadership outside the elite-networks would rise only if people are able to recognize them as fellow Dharmics and not new usurpers managed by yet other foreign puppeteers.

Adharmic politicians are today able to walk among people and convince them with promises, caste affinities, dole outs, etc., able to convince them that they have their interests at heart. There is a need for Dharmics to instinctively reject such people. However instinct breaks down when they sweet-talk you and give you smiles and rub their shoulders with you. So the people need to develop Dharmic feelers.

And it is best if one helps this development along using simple messages.

[RajeshA]

Case Study in Psychology of Hindu Identity Crisis & Conversions

Cross-posting some relevant posts from the "Indic Cultural Renewal" Thread

sudarshan

I've had two cousins of mine reject Hinduism and take up X-tianity. They were truly confused about what SD was about, asking elementary questions such as "who is the ONE God in Hinduism, who is above Krishna, Rama, and Shiva?" "Why is Hinduism such a confused mish-mash? How can you people be so stupid as to follow all this?"

It didn't stop there. Their portrayal of Hinduism as a confused mish-mash with no real essence won my brother over to their side as well. The damage stopped there, as far as my family was concerned. It is still ongoing (so far as I know) with other families that are being targeted by my cousins as we speak, with this same argument that there is no such thing as Hinduism, just a mess of convoluted beliefs.

My point isn't about aping some other culture to win converts to Hinduism. My point is, that a simple, one-sentence definition of Hinduism/SD *has always existed,* since the very beginning of SD. The confused mish-mash that we see today is the result of what you say - each individual expressing his/her divinity in his/her own way. But why should that preclude our recognition of the original essence of SD?

This *axiom view* and *one-sentence definition of Dharmic faiths* that I'm talking about, are not something new that I'm coming up with as a reaction to proselytizing faiths. They *are* the basis of Hinduism/SD, they've *always been around.* We've forgotten them, and we're paying the price, watching our brothers and sisters falling for other faiths which are better able to articulate their points of view, while we sit in our lofty ivory towers saying - "you people don't understand SD, fine. Go your own way - we don't need you." That has been the essence of Hindu response to the targeting of the so-called lower castes by Islam and Xtianity.

The parallels between quantum mechanics and Zen Buddhism or Hinduism are not incidental. SD *is* based on a scientific inquiry into the universe. Like all scientific endeavors, the axioms are the basis of the structure. That's my contention. In this scientific age, it is to our advantage to highlight the scientific basis of Vedanta. Swami Vivekananda's talk at the Parliament of Religions was a good beginning. We need to take it further.

Edit: Oh, I left out a juicy bit. My brother's question - "if this 'Brahman' is so important to Hinduism, how come there are no temples for this 'Brahman,' even after so many thousand years? See how stupid Hindus are?" What would your answer be to my brother? Do you think your view of SD could convince him any better than I could?

RajeshA

sudarshan ji,

regarding your cousins and brother, here are two suggestions. One can analyze many things from that, but this is here as a start.

1. Instead of focusing on why Hinduism is a mish-mash of confusion, one can instead focus on why their minds are a mish-mash of confusion. If one is accepting some Abrahamic faith, well that is his or her choice, but one can certainly dig into the 'why'!
   
   The 'why' is very interesting. Basically from a psychological PoV, it means one doesn't have faith in oneself and thus is hoping for the savior! Secondly it means one feels dirty and debased and thus is hoping for salvation! Thirdly it means one has himself no intelligence to judge his own actions and is willing to submit oneself to external laws and judgment! All three are psychological problems.
   
   1. The first problem - one's need for savior, occurs when one is in ignorance and doesn't understand the world and all the problems one faces in this world seem insurmountable due to this lack of knowledge. So one needs to imagine a higher power taking one by the finger, showing one the way and providing one with the faith to persevere.
      
      Now there are many Hindus who would say they are pious for the very same reasons. So what is wrong with that? The difference is in empowerment. Ignoring the caste system for the time being, empowerment of the individual in Hinduism means providing him with the knowledge of the working of the cosmos, various disciplines of uplifting arts and the various skill sets for various professions. I can convincingly say that few other people were so devoted to gathering knowledge from the beginning itself than Indics - Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, etc, and this knowledge was in all spheres of life. The more an individual is empowered the less need he feels for 'saviors'! More specifically, the empowerment has to be in mind and muscle, brain and brawn! The Abrahamics (initially) concentrate on brawn only as that was to serve the bigger cause of the faith, and not necessarily to empower the individual. In fact even the varna specialization to some extent served the individual because at the end of the day, there was one field in which he was skilled, though the individual should get all-round empowerment! It is a different thing that today Christians too underscore education.
      
      Even if the Abrahamic faith is willing to empower the individual, it still produces some reason for feeling the need for being saved. Abrahamic faiths are based on fear, fear of Hell, fear of eternal damnation, fear of the Devil. By inculcating such fears into the hearts of men (and women), they produce the need for the savior! If man had no fear, he would not look for saviors! So besides disempowerment/ignorance (as is more in the case of Islam), fear is the other leash the Abrahamics use!
   2. The second problem - If one was feeling dirty and debased because of one's own actions, then one could understand that feeling, but if one feels like that because of one's origins, then one has got an inferiority complex! In fact, such people after their conversion would be very vocal in telling others who have not converted how dirty and debasing the unconverted's status and situation is!
      
      All means are used by Abrahamics to underline the inferiority of the other. Physical strength, Western military power, TFTA stature, Western fashion, Western aesthetics, Western tech, Western education, Western lifestyles, Western films on India, Western culture, Sports, etc. etc.
      
      The point is those who convert, they have fallen prey to the Western or Islamic propaganda - that they are better and stronger. They would like to distance themselves from their culture, their skin, their history, everything and consider themselves as having been adopted by the West/Islam. They think that because they can talk to and be friendly to the 'Master Races', they have become one of them! They do not know that one can be strong and be respected only from one's own strength and not from borrowed strength.
      
      This also plays out at another level - Origin Sin Level (Christians) or Kufr Level (Islam). This type of propaganda instills in the other person that he is not fit, he is sinful and thus something lowly. And the salvation provided by the Abrahamic faith would cleanse the other person and make him worth respecting again.
      
      So basically all those who fall for it, are those with psyches saying there is something wrong with them!
   3. The third problem is again a defect in one's faith in one's ability to judge one's actions and based on that judgment then to act.
      
      Dharma is an elaborate system of moral code, applicable both context-free and contextually, taught through many anecdotes, and it is designed to enhance a person's ability to judge one's actions. Abrahamic faiths on the other hand, give a list of dos and donts, and basically turn a person into a programmed drone.
      
      So one who needs to be told what to do, and how to do it would go for Abrahamic faiths. Those who can think for themselves, would go for Dharma, and based on his decisions in life would accept his ensuing karma, something of which he himself is the author. In Abrahamic faiths either one goes by the Commandments and all whole list of who to wash before praying or one goes to Hell and one can enjoy the deep dark tan of burning coal and flesh. In Abrahamic faiths, the Jehovah/Allah would sit above you on Judgment Day, go through their record books and pronounce their judgment! In Dharma one carries the account books with oneself and one's own Atma takes care of the deserved karmic fruit!
      
      So those who desire slavery of the mind would opt for Abrahamic faiths. Those who desire freedom of mind and the choice to choose one's own path for spiritual fulfillment would opt for Dharma and thus to make individual journey.
      
      Abrahamic faith is for the collective, where one is supposed to subdue one's own individuality to that of the group. Dharma is the ultimate form of individual striving even as one stays cognizant of one's responsibilities to those around us.
2. I would urge you to see this as an opportunity. Use the cases of your cousins and brother to make a deep study into how the system of conversion really functions - what comes from the outside, and what is needed within the person to undertake this step! Make a psychological analysis of your relatives. In my opinion if you can unpeel the whole process through interviews and discussions with your relatives, through study of psychological models, you would be doing the others, the Hindus, a big service and perhaps saving thus many from future conversion! Just think about it!

RajeshA

RajeshA, more power to your words. I apologize for butting in, but many Hindus suffer from real trauma due to loss of a close one to conversion. The fragmentation of the family especially in cities is the main reason for that. This trauma and added to that audacity of the converted to an apparently more TFTA religion (in the mind of the converted) does not leave much words to speak/defend for the person who remains a Hindu. This is especially true when short cuts rule - short cut to educational degree, short cut to money, short cuts to everything.

It is after all a game of numbers, however, crass and crude it may sound, this is the truth. And added to that is the confusion spread in the media that 'All views have to be tolerated, even if it leaves the native faith at peril". At this moment we are really in a bad situation. My hopes are that we will find something out but it has to be drastically done without much delay. And I accept, that while I type away my rants, things will not be magically done..... responsibility lies with me as well to do something in that direction.

Abhi_G ji,

the way I see it, psycho-analysis of the convertee, and then confronting him with his weak psyche is the first response. You see, in his mind he has risen to a higher sphere, so he will attack you for still remaining in the mud. That is an opportunity one can use to taunt him for his weak psyche. Expose it! Make his thinking naked! Tell him that if he doesn't know about Hinduism, then he is a fool. What was he doing all these years? There are enough vectors of verbal attack in what I wrote earlier.

But I think the basic diagnosis is wrong when it comes to Hindus!

Some would castigate me for saying this, but Hindus are wrong to believe that conversion is a struggle between the tenets of Dharma and the proselytizing religion. It is NOT!

This struggle is about which society - Hindu or Christian or Muslim - can provide for the psychological requirements of an individual. Often the proselytizing religion first creates the demand for some psychological fulfillment by formulating the narrative of spirituality etc differently.

If a Christian starts asking you all the time, who is going to save you, you might start thinking that you need saving, even though from a Dharmic viewpoint that is bakwas. But usually all such propaganda is to graft certain narratives onto already existing psychological weaknesses in the target conversion candidate. So in such a situation, it does help to propagate a narrative especially designed to neutralize any propaganda attack vectors from the proselytizers. That the Dharmics would have to do better. But with only secular education, it becomes far more difficult. Secondly all those Gurus who keep on babbling about "all religions are same" also contribute to the blunting of the Dharmic message.

But the far more important role is for Hindus to understand the psychological needs of the people and extend support. That need may not be anything more than companionship, somebody to talk to about life and the world.

I however think, the biggest weakness we have is a sense of cultural inferiority. Whereas Islam has immunized that weakness in itself through violence towards others, we Hindus somehow are still looking around for ways how to bolster our psyches.

I think much more than any tenets of Dharma, what would save Indics from proselytization, is simply knowing who they are, knowing their history, knowing their accomplishments, and realizing that we were not just one among the many great civilizations but were really the best, and the oldest standing civilization. Even the realization that one was fairly well-developed should be enough to stem the tide, but realization that one was really the oldest most developed should really sweep the cobwebs of doubt in one's psyche.

All of which just goes to say how criminal our governments have been in denying Indians their history. That is why I personally have devoted so much time to the "Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth" Thread.

sudarshan

RajeshA, you are spot on, when you say to attack the psyche of the converted. This is the method that worked best with my brother, and I like to think (the signs were there, which my mother also noticed) that he was seriously re-evaluating his decision to convert, and thinking of taking a fresh look at Hinduism. Unfortunately, we'll never know - he's been dead and gone for the past few years (of unrelated causes - nothing to do with the conversion). No need for extended sympathies and condolences, we're over it .

My cousins are a different story. The girl married into a Mallu Christian family, Catholics, I believe. Then her hubby got into this Pentecost thingy, and forced everybody in the family into that fold. His parents were resisting for a long time, especially his mother, but they gave in. The other cousin got influenced by this as well. So, as you can see, Christians aren't immune from this EJ menace either. A Catholic family, living in harmony with the rest of India, was aggressively brought into this virulent Pentecostal fold.

My cousin and hubby have a self-owned business, which, as of the last time we heard, was doing extremely well. I suspect - a little too well. The root problem there is not any psychological need or cultural alienation (though those play their roles), it is *MONEY.* That's what I feel.

Johneeg, I haven't read your post fully either. Just want to tell you, from what I saw as I skimmed through it - I've tried your approach, patiently explaining Hindu concepts to the confused types. The problems are many-fold. One - technical terms in a language from which 90 to 95% of Indians are alienated from an early age. Especially when they come to the point of moving away from Hinduism, they are already at a stage where they regard all of Hinduism as occult, voodoo stuff. This includes Sanskrit. If you throw a Sanskrit term at them, like "Smriti" or "Sruti," that is classified as "occult garbage." They tune you out. Heck, my brother wouldn't even listen to my mother, when she advised him to do some yoga for some health problems. Yoga is voodoo Hindu stuff - leads straight to hell.

Let's say you use generic English terms. They may listen. Then the next Hindu who tries to set them right gives them a totally different explanation, which very likely uses Sanskrit terms. Back to occult garbage, with the added disadvantage that Hindus are perceived as unable to agree among themselves. Hindus have no common narrative. It doesn't end with your explanation of terms to them - they hear a totally different explanation from some other Hindu - they hear a hundred explanations from a hundred Hindus. This is where I was going with that “if you ask a hundred Hindus,” etc.

With my brother, Rajesh's approach worked best. I took all of my brother's vitriol against Rama and Krishna, and impartially applied the same logic to Abraham and Christ. The results were embarrassing to him - Abraham came out to be either a liar, or guilty of incest, or both; Christ turned out to be homosexual or bisexual. No offense to those of the Abrahamic faiths, but like I said, this was simply the result of applying my brother's logic (which "conclusively" proved that Krishna was a womanizer and Rama was a coward) and applying the same logic to the Bible. That put him on the back-foot.

With regards to his question on the 'Brahman,' I didn't even bother arguing with him. I just burst into derisive laughter, and told him to stop putting up his ignorance for public display. He dropped the argument pretty fast. I didn't think of it at the time, but I could have asked him why Christians never built a Church for the Holy Spirit.

Laugh at the proselytizers' mischaracterization of Hinduism - don't argue it. Turn their logic back on themselves. Don't be defensive. Ask them how, when a "Son of God" is required to take on your sins for you before you can go to heaven, why a "Son of the Devil" isn't required to take on your good deeds for you, before you can go to hell. Is hell the default state for mankind? Again ties in with RajeshA's comments on the fear psychosis. My brother's favorite word was "sinner." Humans are all sinners, no hope of salvation without Christ.

In SD, the default state for all of us, or indeed, the *guaranteed* end state, is *reunion with God.* Even Hitler or Alla-ud-din Khalji will be reunited with God. Once they pay for their deeds of course, whether in hell, or in this world itself. That's my idea for dealing with the fear psychosis of the Abrahamic faiths.

This exercise I'm going through is not a reaction to what happened to my cousins or brother. I'd have come around to this anyway - maybe the process was accelerated a bit. I do feel that the essence of SD is simple enough to condense into a sentence.

BTW - maybe I should mention another thing. My brother was genuinely confused about Hinduism - that's how he came to choose his path. I think he'd have come around - I had him pretty much on the backfoot, struggling to defend his stance. BUT - my other brother, who was *equally confused about Hinduism,* who couldn't be dragged into a temple by force, basically told my cousin and her new family to buzz-off when they tried the same stunts on him. He is now beginning to see why it's necessary to keep the continuity of SD going. There is hope.

RajeshA

I have a little theory on the weakness of Hindu society!

When we see conversions taking place among the Hindus to Christianity and Islam, we sometimes start looking at our navel and then we compare Hindu philosophy with the Christian and Islamic theology and see huge gulfs in philosophical depths and wonder why would the other desire to convert out of Hinduism!

Then we think perhaps the problem is that the message of Hinduism is not getting through to them!

There is a lot of truth to that! But that is the smaller truth! It is not the main problem - neither the depth of philosophy nor the message not getting across! There may be people out there with quite good insight into Hinduism, who may still opt for another religion, which again need not be a reflection on the merits of Hindu philosophy.

In order to understand the phenomenon, I would suggest we should forget that the problem has anything to do with Hindu philosophy as such!

The strength of the other religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam lies in community coherence!

And if one thinks that sectarian headhunting and bloodbaths makes a mockery of this community coherence, while Hinduism has tolerance and mutual respect to offer towards other schools of thought, giving us an edge, then we should think again, it doesn't. That is inter-community dynamic and not intra-community dynamic. In fact often stronger intra-community coherence is ensured through sharpening the inter-community rivalry! This strategy is most often applied in rivalry versus a different religion, but if that is not possible than rivalry is looked for against other sects. The rivalry can take an ideological flavor or physical aggression. The point is that community coherence is actively encouraged through various strategies.

But the mainstay of community coherence is building a support network for the community - financial, livelihood, employment, education, marriage counselling, companionship, emotional support in times of loss, moral support in times of trial, elderly care, community participation in festivities, organization of community activities, mutual respect and thus self-respect and last but not least joint security.

Hindu society or rather Hindu communities often fulfill only a subset of these roles well and many of them marginally.

This is where Hindu social DNA needs to be worked on!

Philosophical and theological differences between Hinduism and Christianity/Islam are really secondary in this tug-of-war!

[harbans]

If there is no simple solution to a vision, then there is no solution one has. One can put in string theory fundamentals and beat all day around, but it's frankly going to get one nowhere. You want Aryavrata? Then let the State be Arya. Let it reflect it's qualities. Just have to chalk out what Arya means..