The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Feb 2013 01:24

harbans ji,

why all the despondency all of a sudden?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Feb 2013 01:25

KLNM garu, that post on Ramayana was in response to a SPECIFIC PERSONAL question Harbansji raised.

I think you should add his post too so people get the context.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Feb 2013 01:46

harbans wrote: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..

Harbansji.

Your goal and vision are noble. We can make Bharat/India Aryavarts by being Hindus/Bharatiyas. No need for self-doubt, self-contradiction, self-flaggation.

Just wait till Hindu Bharat achieves financial critical mass (max 10-15 more years) and political critical mass (if Devas bless us it can be as soon as 2014).

In the mean time let us pass on our Haindava dharma, sampradayas, world-views and more than anything Haindava confidence, valor, resilience and perseverance to our children.

It doesn't matter if this knowledge transfer happens thru caste, rituals, Vedas, Puranas, yoga, Kamasutra, you name it....

Once a Hindu Bharat comes to existence, all the visible aberrations will fade away as the signs of illness fade away as one gets healthy.

Uttishta Bharata! (this is for Satya_Anveshi)

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 17 Feb 2013 02:09

RamaY wrote: Just wait till Hindu Bharat achieves financial critical mass (max 10-15 more years) and political critical mass (if Devas bless us it can be as soon as 2014).In the mean time let us pass on our Haindava dharma, sampradayas, world-views and more than anything Haindava confidence, valor, resilience and perseverance to our children.It doesn't matter if this knowledge transfer happens thru caste, rituals, Vedas, Puranas, yoga, Kamasutra, you name it....Once a Hindu Bharat comes to existence, all the visible aberrations will fade away as the signs of illness fade away as one gets healthy.Uttishta Bharata! (this is for Satya_Anveshi)

Project require next few generation's commitment.
UPA types, RNIS, PSers are trying best that India dont gain financial security and weight at all. Their shops will shut down once Indians learn the truth and move toward internal cohesion. Not 2014 , i am sticking with my 2022 target when the filth cleaning, sewage draining system can safely be made operational. 10T+ economy, Young population , 2k Brhamastars, one of the largest Precious metal reserve and we can make the neighborhood in our own image. Right now , the main objective ought to be the passing of true knowledge ,information and passion to next generation so they can build on the foundation laid down by current generation.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 17 Feb 2013 02:20

Rajesh Ji, i sincerely appreciate your efforts here. To collate, crystallize and attempt present with sincerity in a cogent manner a lot of info. This thread most probably would be mired and jade in parochial and winded jargon'ism without your efforts. These efforts are to be lauded. And i do so sincerely here. I am certain that there will be a crystallization of thought. So do take this post as an appreciation for your efforts.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 17 Feb 2013 02:24

Once a Hindu Bharat comes to existence, all the visible aberrations will fade away as the signs of illness fade away as one gets healthy.

Ramay Ji, i don't see it happening on auto wish mode.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Feb 2013 02:24

harbans ji,

thank you very much for your appreciation, kind words and support.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Feb 2013 02:26

I am not suggesting auto-wish mode. Pass Hindu traditions, rituals, awareness and IDENTITY to your children along with as much wealth as you can.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 17 Feb 2013 12:40

I agree with you all. Different aspects of Bharata (individual Sadhana, political thought and organization, Sanskrit, etc.) need only to survive for a generation. Then it will start expanding. This is a tough and tricky period, so even survival and adaptation through it is success. Tough because of enemies, tricky because certain types of "gains" (aarthic) can sometimes cause one to lose the essence even if externals proliferate. So we are in the Stage of Love - those who keep the different parts of it alive by cherishing it oneself and perhaps passing it on to others. Just a little bit of love is required. JMT.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Feb 2013 13:49

The Dharmic Brotherhood

The issue is where is brotherhood among coreligionists forged. The Abrahamic doctrines of brotherhood derive from "the Word of God", but we would like to see how brotherhood is possible without the intervention of any intermediary who professes to be "God's Messenger" bringing us his "Word" and proclaiming that those who believe in it would become "brothers".

I do not wish to base the concept of Dharmic Brotherhood on any arguments based on affinity of blood, jaati, ethnicity, language, culture, region. Nor do I wish to bring in doctrine-internal reasons like Karmic Yoga, or some specific philosophy of Dharma, not even one specified by an Avataar, let alone a human philosopher. All these doctrines work to strengthen the cohesion of the community and should be used. However here I wish to keep it at the meta level in order to better show the difference between the notion of brotherhood among the Abrahamics and Dharmic Brotherhood without taking recourse to the teachings of a particular Dharmic tradition.

So let's discuss a bit the relationship between the Dharmic Individual and the Dharmic Community strictly from the PoV of Self/Atma.

Getting back to the Definition of Dharmic

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

So Atma goes looking for the Supreme in the transcendental sense and for some other facet of the Supreme in the temporal sense. The Self has the intrinsic capacity so why not seek whatever one desires. Where does the community come here? Isn't this whole Dharmic definition the root of Dharmic selfishness?

In order to understand that, one would have to take this definition and jump to different meta-levels of understanding. We arrived at the Aarthic of the Dharmic by projecting the principle onto the economic field and seeing how the semantic of Self and Supreme changes in the changed context.

Depending on context, the Self can be the Atma, the Physical Body, the Personality, the Offspring, the Family, the Community, the Nation, the Civilization. Depending on context, the 'Supreme' can be the SUPREME, or any temporal facet of the Supreme - be it Nature, be it Fulfillment of Desires, be it the Family, be it Prosperity, whatever the heart desires.

One can look at the Dharmic Brotherhood at a different meta-level, say at the level of society, but let's first look how the transcendental search for the Supreme affects the Self at the temporal level.

This is nothing other than Mathematics. It is a question of whether one can derive the Dharmic Brotherhood from the apparent egoism of the Self to undertake his search for the Supreme. There are in fact many angles which strengthen each other.

Universality of the Definition of Dharmic: From an intellectual PoV, the Transcendental Supreme is hidden beyond and beneath the layers of reality, which would remain a challenge for the intellect to probe. Of course various Dharmic Sampradayas provide their own methodology on how to tear through these layers of Maya. But common sense says, we look at the manifest of the Supreme in the same layer of Maya that we are in and to use that manifest as the breadcrumb trail to the Supreme.

The Self, the Atma knows that it is a Manifest of the Supreme, for from where else would the intrinsic capacity, the innate capability come from to seek the Supreme. The intrinsicness of the capacity of the Self is the guarantee of receiving access to the Supreme, uniting with the Supreme.

The Self, the Atma also understands that that is the gift of each and every Self, and not just of It-Self. So each and every Individual being logically the Manifest of the Supreme can be considered as a trail we could take to reach the Supreme.

Let's consider two models from IT world.
1. WLAN: When one wants to access the Internet and one first makes a connection to the WLAN and the WLAN makes a connection further to Internet. Would that be a model to access the Supreme over another Self? Possible, but where is the guarantee that the Anubhooti level of the other would really realize a stable connection to the Supreme. So of course it is good to have people around oneself with high Anubhooti levels, but there is no guarantee, that one ultimately gets a connection. Every Self is vulnerable to fall back into Maya. Despite the analogy others Selfs cannot act as intermediaries but only as guides.
2. BitTorrent: Another way is to join a BitTorrent type network based on the BitTorrent protocol. One joins many peers who too seek to complete their knowledge - the file, and thus reach the Supreme. Each peer has some spiritual knowledge, some level of Anubhooti, with which the peer can alight one's own Anubhooti. In this case, the bigger the network of Anubhooti sharers, the better. So one tries to build a network of Dharmics.
Now this is not just about single-mindedly seeking Moksha. It is a more general statement that for Self's own Dharmic upliftment, the Self builds communities of Dharmic Selves. Also Dharmic upliftment is not meant only on the transcendental plane but also on the temporal plane, where Dharmics cooperate and together realize Dharmic objectives and undertake Aarthic activity as well.
Bridging the Self-Supreme divide: The Self seeks the Supreme. But at the same time this unison, this merger is possible only if the Self is willing to let go some of its Selfness. The Self needs to learn Selflessness. This can be done through transcendental meditation tapasya, perhaps, where the Self lets go of its Selfness in the process directly to the Supreme, tearing through the various levels of Maya at once. Though it is the highway to the Supreme, not every Self is at a level of maturity, of Anubhooti, where this can be achieved.

The other way to achieve Selflessness, a state necessary for the convergence with the Supreme, is by acting Selflessly towards the Manifest of the Supreme in the temporal world - towards other people, especially towards people who too are Dharmics. Selflessness increases by adopting an attitude which focuses on the larger well-being than just that of one-Self.
Social Being: The Self did not manifest itself marooned on an asteroid all by itself. The Self manifests itself surrounded by other Selves. The individual is innately a social being. Looking at Dharma in the sense of function, just like the Dharma of the Sun is to give light and heat, the Dharma of water is wetness, so too the Dharma of human beings are to be social beings. That has been a part of our evolution and we cannot deny that. So when one speaks of the intrinsic, the innate capacity of the Self, one alludes to the Self's Dharma of being social.

So if one wants to nurture one's intrinsic capacity, one has to be social and that too means changing the focus from Self onto other Selves.
City Lights: When one looks at our planet from space on the dark side, one can see the city lights clearly. The bigger cities can be seen from even further away. A bigger city makes a bigger impact. For this reason, Dharmics are attracted to other Dharmics, for together they build a bigger point of Dharmic Illumination, which attracts then more Dharmics. One could call it Dharmic Urbanization. As more Selves come together, they create a bigger impression, and if the access to the Supreme involves getting noticed, then the bigger the Dharmic Illumination, the better the chances of getting noticed. That is why it is said that Bharatvarsha was particularly blessed with Dharma.
Relapse Risk: The Self is always at risk of relapsing into the Maya of this world. As such nothing wrong, but if the Self has determined to raise its Anubhooti level, to seek the Supreme, then it is best if the Self does not gets taken in with Maya. The more Dharmic one's environment, the better the chances that one stays the path of the Dharma. Again one need to consider this only at the transcendental level, but at all levels including the aarthic and that is why one should try to create a Dharmic Environment, so as to stay Dharmic. In an Adharmic Environment either one accepts its inevitability, makes an arrangement with it, then the chances of a relapse would only increase. Or one could become isolationist and try to shield one Dharmic consciousness, but this is a slippery slope, because the Adharmic Environment will not give you or your family respite. Or one can fight the Adharma in the society, but here also one could face frustration if one does not try to gather more Dharmic people around oneself to increase the strength and effectiveness of one's efforts to fight Adharma, though that is not to be an excuse not to be in fighting Adharma in any whichever way one can.

Summarizing, it becomes imperative for a Dharmic to increase the Dharmic Quotient of his Environment, in order to save his own Dharmic Self, in order to pursue one's Dharmic goals, be they of transcendental nature or temporal.

In Dharma, the Dharmic Brotherhood is based thus on

the need of the Self for Selflessness in order to bridge the divide between Self and Supreme,
the need to increase the Dharmic Quotient in one's environment to prevent the Self's relapse into Adharma,
seeing the others as a Manifest of the Supreme, as a trail to the Supreme,
increasing the collective Anubhooti Quotient turning oneself into a beacon,
following Man's Dharma as a social being,

And all this is still centered on the Self and its intrinsic capacity and its goal to seek access to the Supreme.

Only after the Self can appreciate the Dharmicness of other Selves as relevant for its own access to the Supreme can it start to identify itself and its interests with those of the rest. It's then that the Dharmic Community becomes an extension of the Self.

Once Self attains Community consciousness, then one can start speaking of Dharmic Interests.

Also lets not forget

A dharmic is one who fights adharma

If a Dharmic wants to fight Adharma, then there is no better way of fighting it then by promoting Dharma in society and that means becoming an active participant in society - in building a Dharmic society.

All this flows from one's Dharmic Identity. Till now we have not gone into what is one's Karmic duty or even much into what Dharma would say when the Self has Community consciousness.

The reason for going into this esoteric explanation is to refute an often repeated accusation that the Hindu/Dharmic attitude is one of selfishness whereas other religions like Muslims and Christians have a strong feeling of community and brotherhood. Their brotherhood is based on all coming together to serve the interests of self-professed gatekeepers and intermediaries, and not on the nature of the Self. After all there is brotherhood among all the bee drones also.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Feb 2013 18:14

The Dharmic Brotherhood

Once the Self can see itself as a community, seeing how its own intrinsic capacity and its goal of seeking access to the Supreme is interwoven with the interests of the community, then it can start looking at the definition of the Dharmic

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

in a way, where the interests of the Self are identified as equivalent to that of the community, interests as referred to within the definition itself.

Once the Self identifies with the other Selves, when the Individual becomes the Community, then it becomes possible to look at principles according to which such a Dharmic Community would be able to act cohesively, principles which both to further cohesion as well as to further the Dharmic agenda. Such principles would then also be propounded within the specific Dharmic parampara or sampradaya. And as the philosophy of Dharma expands so too would the philosophy bring forth new principles which contribute to cohesion and agenda.

The point to take home is that society gets organized under a Dharmic banner not on the basis of some alleged Divine Laws which promulgate brotherhood but on the basis of principles whose relevance become self-evident as the community is immersed in Dharmic thinking.

According to Dharmic thought, the Supreme has no need to send someone to give the society any Laws. When the individual of a community are on the Dharmic wavelength the principles to guide society become self-evident and so the Dharmic society is structured to increase cohesion, drive to establish Dharma and an agenda to promote Dharma-compatible activity.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Feb 2013 19:05

Dharmic Views on Competition and Cooperation

We spoke earlier about how Selflessness is an important attribute of being Dharmic. We also spoke of how when Self sees itself in the other Selves, there arise a common agenda which forms the basis of Cooperation. But then why Competition?

Internal competition in Dharmic society is to be welcomed. However in this Competition the emphasis is not to win at all costs but it is more altruistic:

The aim of competition is:

provide the best product or leadership possible to the Dharmic community
provide a diversity in products and views to the market
raise the bar of competition so that the Dharmic rivals are forced to improve their game

There would be a whole host of practices which would be considered not Dharmic. However fair fight practices need not be in play when dealing with Abrahamics, as one could claim that these are all only secondary Dharmic principles and the primary principle is to fight Adharmics.

The reason I bring this up is that just because one is Dharmic, it does not mean one becomes a renunciate. In fact competition is a Dharmic duty.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Feb 2013 21:43

Published on Dec 12, 2012
By R Jagannathan
Kerala HC sets new norm for conversion before marriage

Kerala, land of the alleged Love Jihad, has just managed to reverse a Hindu-Muslim marriage on the ground that a religious conversion just before marriage sounds suspicious. The interesting twist to the tale is that this is a case of a Muslim groom who converted to Hinduism, apparently with the blessings of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).

The Kerala High Court, reports The Times of India, deemed the conversion of the groom Shaiju M to Hinduism before his marriage to Ashwathy Ravindran as invalid. Even though both were adults, and thus entitled to marry according to their wishes, Justices Pius C Kuriakose and Babu Mathew P Joseph said their marriage would be valid only if they registered it under the Special Marriage Act.

The judgement is controversial—and is sure to be challenged by religious organisations—for three reasons.

First, conversion before marriage is often the norm in inter-religious marriages, especially where Hindus marry into Muslim and Catholic families, and if they want their weddings to be solemnised according to Islamic or Church regulations. Does the judgement mean all religious conversions before marriage will be invalid before the law?

Second, while there are clear guidelines laid down by Islam and Christianity on how someone can convert, Hinduism has no such established norm that is widely accepted and recognised by law. The VHP and other Hindu organisations, which try and encourage conversions (or reconversions) from other religions, have evolved their own norms which do not have scriptural sanction. Nevertheless, for a court to decide that such conversions are invalid is a bit of a leap into uncharted territory.

Third, the court’s insistence that the marriage will be recognised only if it is done under the Special Marriages Act (a.k.a registered or civil marriage) will set a new precedent for inter-religious marriages. It is not at all certain that courts can demand that couples should compulsorily opt for a civil marriage, when the law does not say so. In this case, the court has ordered the woman, Ashwathy, to stay with her parents till they opt for a civil marriage.

However, the idea is in itself progressive. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many inter-religious marriages are conducted after shotgun “conversions” which may be purely tactical on the part of the converting spouse and intended to avoid injuring the feelings of the groom’s or bride’s family. But once registered under a community’s marriage code, the spouse is bound by the limitations of that community’s marriage laws, unless the couple go through the additional trouble of also registering their marriage under the Special Marriages Act.

Opportunistic conversions happen in all communities. In fact, some Hindu men are known to convert to Islam just because that religion permits bigamy – otherwise forbidden to Hindus.

However, one learns that Kareena Kapoor, who married Saif Ali Khan recently, did not convert to Islam despite the fact that she was to become the Begum of Pataudi.

If one assumes that many people converting just before marriage are doing so only for the purpose of societal acceptance or even nefarious reasons, the requirement that they should opt for the Special Marriages Act will offer the protection of the law to the couple instead of leaving them at the mercy of the religious law that would otherwise govern such marriages.

If the Kerala High Court order in the case of Shaiju and Ashwathy passes muster in the highest court, it would be a tiny move in the direction of a more uniform civil code.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Feb 2013 21:57

Published on Sep 04, 2012
By M.G. Radhakrishnan
Over 2500 women converted to Islam in Kerala since 2006, says Oommen Chandy

The shrill debate over love jihad is back again following a spate of recent incidents. On June 25, Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy informed the state legislature that 2667 young women were converted to Islam in the state since 2006.
On June 27, the state high court ordered the Kozhikode City Police Commissioner on June 27 to probe an alleged case of "love jihad" in which a 20-year-old Hindu girl eloped from a hospital in Kochi with a Muslim boy after the girl's parents filed a habeas corpus petition. On July 19, Deepa Cherian (31) a former Christian housewife converted to Islam was arrested for allegedly delivering SIM cards to a key terror suspect languishing in prison.

Chandy gave the figures related to conversions in state legislature as a written answer to an unstarred question raised by K K Latika, a CPI(M) legislator. According to Chief Minister a total number of 7713 persons were converted to Islam during 2006-2012 as against 2803 conversions to Hinduism. Interestingly he said no statistics was available as to the number converted to Christianity during the period. Among those converted to Islam during 2009-12, as many as 2667 were young women of which 2195 were Hindus and 492 were Christians. As against this number of young women converted during 2009-12 to Christianity and Hinduism were 79 and two respectively.

Chief Minister said there was no information regarding the original religions of women who converted to Hinduism and Christianity.

However Chandy said that there was no evidence for forced conversions in the state and the fears about love jihad were baseless. "We will not allow forcible conversions. Nor will we allow to spread hate campaign against Muslims in the name of love jihad" said Chandy in response to Lathika's demand for inquiry into forcible conversions.

Hindu and Christian groups are up in arms again repeating their long-standing demand for a thorough investigation into the phenomenon of "love jihad" in which Muslim youths allegedly lure young women from other communities to convert to Islam feigning love.

"Love Jihad in Kerala is part of global Islamisation project" said Global Council of Indian Christians. In 2009 Kerala Catholic Bishops Council (KCBC) had stated that more than 2600 young Christian women were converted to Islam since 2006. KCBC's Vigilance Commission for Social Harmony had called Christians to be on guard against the phenomenon.

Rahul Eswar of the Kerala's Hindu Parliament, an umbrella organisation of various Hindu groups called for an immediate inquiry into the phenomenon. "The state police's attempt in 2009 was to suppress facts about this phenomenon. This will lead to communal flare-ups. Forced conversions undertaken by Islamists will be cited by Hindu fanatics to establish their legitimacy" warned he.

Organisations like BJP, Hindu Aikyavedi etc too have called for inquiry and lambasted the state government's policy to whitewash the issue under pressure from Muslim League. Hindu groups have pointed out growth in Kerala's Muslim population rate has been double that of Hindus and Christians. Hindus, Muslims and Christians form 55, 25 and 19 percent respectively in Kerala's population of 3.33 crore.

Cherian, a former Christian housewife was arrested in Kochi for allegedly providing two SIM cards to V Noushad - her boyfriend according to the police - who is interred in Ernakulam sub jail in connection with a drug peddling case. Naushad allegedly handed over the cards to T. Nazir suspected to be a top Lashkar-e-Tayeba operative in South India who also is languishing in the same prison in connection with a number of terror cases including the bomb blasts in Bangalore.

According to the police Cherian who was in Dubai with her husband and children had become friendly with Noushad who was working as a bus driver there. She allegedly left her family and returned to India with Noushad subsequently and got converted to Islam. According to police Noushad is suspected to have faked involvement in a narcotic case in order to get lodged in the jail and assist Nazeer who is alleged to have made many international calls using the SIM card.

"Love Jihad" had kicked up much dust in 2009 in Kerala and Karnataka after Hindu groups like Hindu Aikyavedi and Sree Rama Sene began campaign against alleged attempts to lure young women by Muslim youths feigning love and using them for immoral or terror activities. The issue acquired serious attention when the state high court ordered asked the police to inquire into the allegations related to love jihad. This followed the complaints filed by the parents of two Hindu college girls saying their two Muslim college mates had cheated them into converting to Islam by promises of love. But the state police after investigation had informed the court that though there were complaints about attempts to convert by feigning love that there was no evidence for the existence of an organisation named love jihad in the state. After this the court withdrew its order to inquire into the issue.

In another case in 2009 Karnataka Police too had informed the Karnataka high court that there was no evidence for the prevalence of love jihad in that state. This led to the fizzling out of the campaign by Hindu and Christian groups about the phenomenon in both states.

Muslim groups condemned the repeated attempts to spread hatred against Muslims in the name of a non-existent love jihad. Muslim League, second largest constituent in the ruling United Democratic Front (UDF) government has strongly denied occurrence of any forced conversions.

"Love Jihad is a myth being perpetrated by interested groups to vilify Muslims. How can any one use force in a state like Kerala where all religions, media and civil society in general are so vigilant? The conversions could be voluntary or the result of inter-religious marriages" said Abdurehman Randathani, MLA and League's secretary.

"It reminded of the racist propaganda in the US some time ago against blacks who were accused of luring white women. It is an attempt to demonise the Muslims" Umer Tasneem, Muslim scholar and English professor at the Calicut University. He smells a rat in Chief Minister Chandy, a Christian, not revealing the statistics of conversions to Christianity. "Why only conversion to Islam evokes emotions? Conversions to other groups are seen spontaneous".

Eswar too says Christians still lead in organising conversions. "A single major evangelist in Kerala has officially admitted of receiving more than Rs.1000 crores last year as financial contributions from abroad. Pentacoastal Missions in Kerala have converted lakhs of persons in last 5 years giving allurements" says Eswar.

According to top sources in police as many as 15 lakhs have been converted to Christianity in the last 20 years as per official statistics provided by the State Converted Christian Corporation. "Muslims have only two institutions and Hindus only one who have the authority to convert. But every Christian church has this right" said a top police official.

According the Christian Persecution Update, a website run by Bangalore-based Christian group, Cherian was only the latest victim of Love Jihad also called Romeo Jihad, a global project by Islamist groups to lure women from other communities feigning love to make them accomplices in immoral or terror activities.

"It is a serious issue. We should seriously address it so that no tension is created in Kerala between communities" warned Fr Paul Thelakat, spokesperson of the Syro Malabar church, the largest Catholic church.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Feb 2013 22:26

Conversions and Freedom of Religion

I think this is one thing all the Dharmic Sampradayas (Sanatanics, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists) should take up and take a collective stand on it. In fact, one should think up a collective "Dharmic/Hindu* Shuddhi" ceremony, or at least where half the ceremony is conducted according to a common protocol and language, and the other half can be from the Sampradaya itself whose priest is asked to conduct the ceremony.

Anytime somebody from Islam or Christianity is converted back into the Hindu fold, this ceremony needs to be conducted.

This is among many one national issue which is current and urgent, where Sanatanics, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists can show that they accept each other on the one hand and if a person moves between these sampradayas, it does not mean the end of the world and does not invoke social ostracization, and that Islam and Christianity are different from the Dharmic traditions.

Of course this is not a strategy to stop conversions or Love-Jihad, but it is indeed a way to underline that conversion to Islam and Christianity has something unacceptable about it what "conversions" between the Dharmic Sampradayas do not.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Feb 2013 22:34

^ Conversions into Abrahamic faiths should be banned. All children born in Abrahamic faiths must register their faith when they achieve 21 and go thru compulsory religious education program about all faiths.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Feb 2013 22:39

Religion: Definitions

From Wikipedia:

Edward Burnett Tylor (1871): "the belief in spiritual beings"
Clifford Geertz: "system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."
Antoine Vergote: "the entirety of the linguistic expressions, emotions and, actions and signs that refer to a supernatural being or supernatural beings"
Durkheim: "unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things"
William James: "the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine"
Frederick Ferré: "one's way of valuing most comprehensively and intensively"
Paul Tillich: faith is "the state of being ultimately concerned", which "is itself religion. Religion is the substance, the ground, and the depth of man's spiritual life."

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Feb 2013 22:51

RamaY wrote:^ Conversions into Abrahamic faiths should be banned. All children born in Abrahamic faiths must register their faith when they achieve 21 and go thru compulsory religious education program about all faiths.

Well for starters, one thing that can be banned is that if somebody converts to Islam, he will not be allowed polygamy. This can be done even in this sickular world. One can always give the excuse that such a conversion cannot be considered to be serious as it had "material" benefits involved.

I heard Dharmendra had converted to Islam officially in order to marry Hema Malini while still retaining his earlier wife Parkash Kaur.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 17 Feb 2013 22:58

Rajesh Ji, 3 points that are crystallizing

1. A basic definition of Dharmic. Based on simple principle/ value/ premises.
2. The basic definition is not excluvist to Dharmic tradition and assorted sampradaya's
3. 'Competition' in the Dharmic tradition is not confrontational but it is an effort to evolve.

By the first, it is easy for any Indic of any Dharmic sampradaya to provide an easy answer to anyone who asks who is a Dharmic. At that point one becomes more clear in defining the subset sampradaya or tradition one is presently attached to/ born it/ adhere in parts to etc. The confusion fades away for the person and the questioner.

The second one is able to easily instill in lay Dharmics the plurality associated naturally with followers of Dharma. The acceptance of plurality within the Dharmic fold increases respect and bonding to fellow Dharmics, and instills caution in dealings with excluvist faith.

The third is naturally what we witness in the Indian context. A Sikh marrying Vishnu bhakt does not raise eyebrows, neither a Hindu marrying a Buddhist or Jain etc. Most people are not fundamentalist in their respective sampradaya's. So most people like to listen to Zen, of words of different sampradaya guru's to make their minds up or gain wisdom. The competition between sampradaya's is between people fundamentally invested in their respective Sampradaya's and who have spent years pondering the doctrines. So when these inter sampradaya debates do happen, and they have occurred right throughout Bharatiya history they enrich the culture and iron kinks that may have arisen in the Sampradaya's.

Unfortunately by removing Dharma as a whole and considering Samradaya's as excluvist we engendered divisiveness and exclusivity between different sampradaya's. There is also no Sanatana Dharma. Dharma is universal, sanatana. It's tautological to use Sanatana with Dharma. So IMO when some text mentions 'Do your Dharma' it implies 'do your part of Dharma' that is tautologically 'do your part of Sanatana Dharma'.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 17 Feb 2013 23:13

The Bhagvad Gi:tā (17.23) has:

om tatsatiti nirdesho brahmanstrividhah samratah
"OM, tat and sat has been declared as the triple appellation of Brahman, who is Truth, Consciousness and Bliss."

The biggest and most fundamental common strand between Dharmic faiths, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain is the Word OM. None denies the supreme significance of that word.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Feb 2013 23:16

harbans wrote:Unfortunately by removing Dharma as a whole and considering Samradaya's as excluvist we engendered divisiveness and exclusivity between different sampradaya's. There is also no Sanatana Dharma. Dharma is universal, sanatana. It's tautological to use Sanatana with Dharma. So IMO when some text mentions 'Do your Dharma' it implies 'do your part of Dharma' that is tautologically 'do your part of Sanatana Dharma'.

harbans ji,

I don't see anything wrong with the term 'Sanatan Dharma'. One can name one's Dharma as and how one wants. One could say Sikh and Dharma in combo 'Sikh Dharma' is also a tautology, as in a Dharma one is always a pupil on his learning journey.

Anyway, today many know 'Sanatan Dharma' under the term 'Hindu'. It is not 1:1 but it is popular.

When one says, "Do your Dharma", one means "Do your Dharma according to the teachings of whatever Dharmic tradition you follow"!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Feb 2013 00:17

harbans wrote:Rajesh Ji, 3 points that are crystallizing

1. A basic definition of Dharmic. Based on simple principle/ value/ premises.

By the first, it is easy for any Indic of any Dharmic sampradaya to provide an easy answer to anyone who asks who is a Dharmic. At that point one becomes more clear in defining the subset sampradaya or tradition one is presently attached to/ born it/ adhere in parts to etc. The confusion fades away for the person and the questioner.

There are two definitions, that one can use. More points can be added through further evaluation.
Premise:

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.

Value:

A dharmic is one who fights adharma

harbans wrote:2. The basic definition is not exclusivist to Dharmic tradition and assorted sampradaya's

The second one is able to easily instill in lay Dharmics the plurality associated naturally with followers of Dharma. The acceptance of plurality within the Dharmic fold increases respect and bonding to fellow Dharmics, and instills caution in dealings with excluvist faith.

The above are not exclusivist as far as I can make it. Beside the definition forms a strong separation between Dharmic and Abrahamic faiths.

In Sikhism too, there are Gurus but never prophets.

harbans wrote:3. 'Competition' in the Dharmic tradition is not confrontational but it is an effort to evolve.

The third is naturally what we witness in the Indian context. A Sikh marrying Vishnu bhakt does not raise eyebrows, neither a Hindu marrying a Buddhist or Jain etc. Most people are not fundamentalist in their respective sampradaya's. So most people like to listen to Zen, of words of different sampradaya guru's to make their minds up or gain wisdom. The competition between sampradaya's is between people fundamentally invested in their respective Sampradaya's and who have spent years pondering the doctrines. So when these inter sampradaya debates do happen, and they have occurred right throughout Bharatiya history they enrich the culture and iron kinks that may have arisen in the Sampradaya's.

As long as the external shell is strengthened through identities such as 'Dharmic', 'Hindu' and 'Bharatiya', internally one can allow free philosophical exchange.

harbans wrote:Unfortunately by removing Dharma as a whole and considering Samradaya's as exclusivist we engendered divisiveness and exclusivity between different sampradaya's. There is also no Sanatana Dharma. Dharma is universal, sanatana. It's tautological to use Sanatana with Dharma. So IMO when some text mentions 'Do your Dharma' it implies 'do your part of Dharma' that is tautologically 'do your part of Sanatana Dharma'.

Well the problem was that in absence of Abrahamic systems in India, there was of course strong differentiation and competition among the Dharmic traditions. When Islam came on the scene, the Dharmics were not really qualified to understand it, as they took Islam as a similar variant "Dharma" which it was not. There was little Purva Paksha though the Hindus (Sanatanics, Buddhists, Jains) did put up strong political resistance - well mainly Sanatanics. Sikhism came later on the scene.

I have some understanding for that time period. However we need to build a strong shell now!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 18 Feb 2013 00:24

harbans wrote:
The Bhagvad Gi:tā (17.23) has:

om tatsatiti nirdesho brahmanstrividhah samratah
"OM, tat and sat has been declared as the triple appellation of Brahman, who is Truth, Consciousness and Bliss."
The biggest and most fundamental common strand between Dharmic faiths, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain is the Word OM. None denies the supreme significance of that word.

All the dharmic faiths took it from Hinduism as their heritage. That is why the roots of all dharmic faiths are in Hinduism thus should not have any problem with Hinduism or Haindava identity.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Feb 2013 00:27

RamaY wrote:All the dharmic faiths took it from Hinduism as their heritage. That is why the roots of all dharmic faiths are in Hinduism thus should not have any problem with Hinduism or Haindava identity.

Hinduism is a European invention and it is a Trojan Horse.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 18 Feb 2013 00:46

The above are not exclusivist as far as I can make it. Beside the definition forms a strong separation between Dharmic and Abrahamic faiths.

True. I didn't mean it that way. I meant that the basic definition (my pt 1) and also as you have put/ highlighted it are not excluvist to any sampradayic tradition, so they hold. Not that these are also common to Xtianity and Islam.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Feb 2013 01:53

Clarification: Conversion to Islam for Bigamy

By Rakesh Shukla
Convert and remarry?

Code: Select all

http://www.islamawareness.net/Polygamy/poly_nm_news0006.html

If a non-Muslim converts to Islam without any real change in belief, merely to avoid an earlier marriage and enter into a second one, should the second marriage be considered void and the person prosecuted for bigamy?

Sushmita Ghosh married G C Ghosh in May 1984, in accordance with Hindu rites, and they were living together. In May 1992, Ghosh advised his wife to agree to a divorce by mutual consent in her own interest, as he had converted to Islam in order to remarry. He had already fixed up his marriage to someone called Vanita Gupta. Ghosh showed her a certificate issued by the office of Maulana Qari Mohammed Idris, Shahi Qazi, dated June 1992, certifying that he had embraced Islam.

All efforts to get Ghosh to change his mind failed; he said that if Sushmita did not agree to a divorce she would have to put up with a second wife.

Sushmita Ghosh petitioned the courts saying that her husband G C Ghosh alias Mohammed Karim Ghazi had converted to Islam solely for the purpose for remarriage, and that he had no real faith in Islam. He neither practised the prescribed Muslim rites nor changed his name or religion on other official documents, she claimed. Ghosh asserted her fundamental right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sex or religion.

The petition also submitted that in the past several years it had become common for Hindu males who could not get a divorce from their wives to convert to Islam solely for the purpose of remarriage. And that, after the second marriage, they re-converted to Hinduism in order to retain their rights over property. They then went about their business in their old name and religion.

Ghosh asked the courts to declare polygamous marriages by Hindus and non-Hindus after conversion to Islam, illegal. And to make suitable amendments to the Hindu Marriage Act to curtail and forbid the practice of polygamy. If a non-Muslim male converted to the Muslim faith without any change of belief, merely to avoid an earlier marriage and enter into a second one, then any marriage entered into after the so-called conversion should be considered void. Ghosh also prayed for an order restraining G C Ghosh from marrying Vanita Gupta or any other woman during the time he was married to her.

Meena Mathur got married to Jitender Mathur in 1978 and had three children by him. In 1988, she learnt that her husband had married Sunita Narula, alias Fathima. The marriage had been solemnised after Jitender and Sunita converted to Islam. Meena contended that her husband’s conversion was done solely for the purpose of marrying Sunita, and to circumvent the provisions of Section 494 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code), which punishes bigamy.

Sunita, alias Fathima, filed a petition submitting that she and Jitender Mathur had embraced Islam, got married and had a son. After marrying her, Jitender, under the influence of Meena Mathur, reverted to Hinduism and agreed to maintain his first wife and their three children. Sunita (Fathima), who is still a Muslim, pleaded that she receives no maintenance from husband and has no protection under either of the two laws.

Geeta Rani was married to Pradeep Kumar according to Hindu rites, in 1988. Her husband mistreated and beat her. In 1991, he converted to Islam and married Deepa. Kalyani, a women’s organisation, filed a petition to check the growing number of desertions of wives married under Hindu law, and husbands resorting to conversion in order to rid themselves of their wives.

These petitions were heard together and a judgment delivered in 1995 in the Sarla Mudgal versus Union of India case.

A review of the 1995 judgment was sought and was heard along with a public interest petition by Lily Thomas. A judgment was delivered in 2000.

The central issue in all these petitions where a non-Muslim has converted to Islam without any real change in belief, merely to avoid an earlier marriage and enter into a second one, is whether the marriage after conversion should be considered void and the person liable for bigamy.

The court examined the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) and Section 494 of the IPC that makes bigamy an offence. According to Section 5 of the Act, one of the conditions for marriage between two Hindus is that neither party should have a living spouse at the time of marriage. If either party does indeed have a spouse living at the time of marriage, that marriage can be declared null and void under Section 11 of the Act. Section 17 further declares that a marriage between two Hindus is void if either has a husband or wife living and that the provisions of Section 494 of the IPC punishing bigamy would be applicable.

Section 494 of the IPC punishes bigamy and lays down that a person who marries whilst having a husband or wife living (and the marriage is void by reason of having taken place during the life of such husband or wife), is punishable with seven years’ imprisonment and a fine. Complaints of bigamy can only be made by the aggrieved person, ie, by the spouse. In the wife’s case, the complaint can be made by her father, mother or brother.

The court declared that if a Hindu wife complained that her husband had converted and remarried, the offence of bigamy would have to be investigated and tried in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. According to the Act, conversion of one of the spouses does not automatically dissolve a marriage solemnised under Hindu law. The persons continue to be ‘husband and wife’, despite the conversion of one of them. Conversion is only grounds for divorce or judicial separation.

Therefore, unless a decree of divorce is obtained the ‘marital bond’ persists. A second marriage, even after conversion, would be void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The marriage would also be void under Section 17 of the Act, which makes bigamy punishable by making Section 494 of the IPC applicable. The court declared that as long as the first marriage subsists, according to the Hindu Marriage Act, a second marriage is not permissible even under another personal law. Even after conversion to Islam, if a second marriage is performed during the subsistence of the first one, the person is held liable for prosecution for bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC. Prosecution under Section 494 of the IPC with respect to a second marriage under Muslim law can be avoided only if the first marriage too was under Muslim law.

The argument that there should be no prosecution for bigamy of persons who had solemnised their second marriage before the passing of the judgment, as this would violate Article 20 (1) of the Constitution, was rejected. Article 20 (1) declares that a person cannot be convicted for an offence that was not a violation of law in force at the time of the commission of the act. The court declared that the judgment had not made second marriage by a person converted to Islam an offence, but had merely interpreted the existing law that was in force and so was not violative of Article 20 (1).

The contention that prosecuting a person contracting a second marriage after conversion was a violation of the right to freely profess and practise religion was also rejected. The court observed that freedom to practise religion guaranteed under Article 25 is a freedom that does not encroach upon the freedom and rights of another. The argument that making a Hindu who converts to Islam and solemnises a second marriage liable for bigamy is against Islam was also dismissed. The court observed that it would be doing an injustice to Islamic law to urge that a convert be entitled to practise bigamy notwithstanding the continuance of his marriage under the law to which he belonged prior to conversion.

The Jaat-e-Ulema Hind and the Muslim Personal Law Board argued that the interpretation given by the court would render the status of the second wife to that of a concubine, and children born out of that marriage as illegitimate. The court took the view that the issue before it was ascertaining the criminal liability of a person who undergoes a second marriage after conversion under Section 17 of the Hindi Marriage Act, read with Section 494 of the IPC. It observed that the legitimacy of the second wife and children was not an issue that had arisen in the case, and hence no ruling was necessary on the matter. The court also clarified that the judges had merely expressed their views in the 1995 Sarla Mudgal case, and that no directions had been issued for codification of a common civil code.

The judgment reported as Lily Thomas versus Union of India, 2000 (6) SCC 224 unequivocally declares that if the first marriage was under any personal law where there is a prohibition on contracting a second marriage during the lifetime of the spouse, as in Hindu or Christian law, then a second marriage performed under Muslim law would make the person liable for prosecution for bigamy.

(Rakesh Shukla is a Supreme Court lawyer)

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Feb 2013 02:38

Conversion/Reconversion to another Religion - Mode of Proof

LINK

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA
Conversion/reconversion to another religion - mode of proof
Report No. 235
December, 2010
1Justice P. V. Reddi New Delhi
(Former Judge, Supreme Court of India) Tele: 2301 9465
(R)
Chairman 2338 4475
(O)
Law Commission of India Fax: 2379 2745 (R)
D. O. No. 6(3)/185/2010 – LC (LS) December 27, 2010

Dear Hon’ble Minister Dr. M. Veerappa Moily,
Sub: Conversion/reconversion to another religion – mode of proof

I am forwarding herewith the 235th Report of the Law Commission of India on the above subject.

In a matrimonial appeal disposed of by the Kerala High Court, the question was whether the wife who applied for divorce with mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 satisfactorily proved the factum of conversion to Hindu religion. Inter alia, the Family Court held that the applicantwife who was Christian by birth has not established that she had converted herself to Hindu religion and there was no adequate proof of valid solemnization of marriage as per Hindu customs and rites.

The High Court set aside the said findings and directed de novo consideration of the issue after giving further opportunity to the applicant to adduce appropriate evidence. The observations made in paragraph 15 of the judgment are extracted in the opening paragraph of the enclosed Report. In paragraph 16 of the judgment, the Registry was directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the Law Commission of India, drawing the attention of the Commission to paragraph 15.

Accordingly, the subject was taken up by the Law Commission of India for consideration. After I assumed the office, the study was undertaken and a consultation paper was circulated for getting the views of the public, while expressing the prima facie view of the Law Commission. Certain representations were received and the same have been adverted to at paragraph 15 of the Report.

The Commission after due deliberations has come to the conclusion that a declaration followed by confirmation before a registering authority should not by itself be treated as proof of conversion and secondly it would be highly inappropriate to prescribe by way of legislation the details of ceremonies and formalities to be gone through for conversion or the manner in which conversion is to be proved in a Court of law. At the same time, the Commission felt that the suggestion of the High Court should be accepted to a limited extent so as to afford opportunity to those who would like to have documentary evidence to substantiate the plea of conversion. The Commission has made it clear that filing of declaration and recording thereof should not be an indispensible proof of conversion. It should only be made optional so that the converted person will be enabled to have documentary proof to establish conversion/reconversion as and when necessary. The Commission has also made it clear that the documentary proof ought not to be considered as conclusive proof in as much as the Court has necessarily to go into the question whether conversion was true, and voluntary. Accordingly, recommendations are made at paragraph 16 and 17 of the Report. The Commission has expressed the view that in order to give effect to the simple recommendation which does not conflict with any law in force, statutory amendments to personal laws are not required. The Central Government can issue appropriate instructions to the concerned authorities of the UTs and the States.

With regards,
Yours sincerely,
(P.V. Reddi)
Dr. M. Veerappa Moily
Hon’ble Minister for Law and Justice
Government of India
New Delhi – 110 001

3Re: Conversion/reconversion to another religion - mode of proof
Introduction: Observations of Kerala High Court

1. A Division Bench of Kerala High Court, in a matrimonial case in Betsy and Sadanadan Vs Nil (Mat Appeal No. 339 of 2009) while dealing with a joint application moved by the parties for dissolution of marriage under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 examined the issue whether in the absence of any specific procedure prescribed under pristine Hindu law, custom and statute governing conversion, what the approach of the court should be and whether there is a need for legislative intervention so as to make the law simple and user - friendly. The High Court invited the attention of the Law Commission to the observations made in paragraph 15 in order to address the need for legislation. It was observed thus by Justice R. Basant in para 15 of the Judgment:

“We must, in this context, note that the stipulation in clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 2(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act which shows that a conversion or re-conversion to Hinduism can take place and the absence of any stipulations of law or specific recognized practices to facilitate such conversion is causing great difficulties to the parties. It should not be impossible for the legislature to prescribe the methods by which a person without any difficulty can effectuate such conversion. He should not be left before courts to adduce exhaustive evidence to prove such conversion. The law which recognizes such conversion must also be in a position to prescribe how the parties, without the necessity to get involved in unnecessary and time consuming litigations, can declare to the world such conversion. Appropriate stipulations of law appear to be necessary on this aspect in respect of conversions to and from all religious. Simple statutory stipulation applicable for all religions of filing of an affidavit of solemn declaration before a registering (statutory) authority (who must give the declarant sufficient time to dispassionately contemplate and confirm the declaration) and acceptance and recording of such reconfirmed declaration by the authority in a register maintained under the statute for that purpose after lapse of a stipulated period and after calling for and hearing of objections if any of any interested party, will make the procedure simple, user friendly and less cumbersome. Such stipulations will save many a citizen like the petitioners herein of the tedious obligation to get involved in time consuming and unnecessary legal proceedings and litigation. Religious conversions may appear to many in Indian mindset to be unnecessary, puerile and negation of the very concept of respect for both religions as also the followers of such religion. But certainly, the freedom of faith guaranteed the Constitution may not justify the negation of the right to pursue the chosen faith, by conversion where necessary.”

The High Court observed that easy identification of the religion of a person in the event of a controversy does not appear to be possible even with the help of the decided cases The Bench then observed in paragraph 13 as under:

“But the courts cannot throw their hands up. Resolve they must, in the event of controversy or conscientious and objective doubt (even when parties raise no controversy) of the question whether there was conversion or reconversion to Hinduism in a given case as asserted by the litigant. We are certain that it must be possible for the court below with the help of the above guidelines, on the basis of evidence presently available and further evidence that may be adduced, to decide whether the first appellant has become a Hindu by conversion under explanation (c) to Section 2(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. We may broadly indicate that an assertion of the 1st appellant that she had, prior to her marriage, embraced Hinduism will have to be given due weight. She can explain the assertion and satisfy the court that the tests indicated above have been satisfied by her in accepting conversion to Hinduism. She can prove the conduct of having her marriage with the 2nd appellant solemnized in accordance with Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. She can certainly show before the court that she had, after such conversion, been worshipping Hindu Gods. She can also adduce evidence to show that after such conversion, she has held out to the world that she is a Hindu. All these circumstances, if established, we find no reason why the uncontroverted assertion of the appellant that the 1st appellant had become a Hindu by conversion before marriage cannot be accepted and the marriage performed in accordance with Hindu rites cannot be accepted as valid under the Hindu Marriage Act by the Court below.”

With the aforesaid observations, the High Court remanded the Case to the lower court and allowed the parties to adduce further evidence and also to amend their pleadings, if necessary.

2. The Law Commission of India with a view to address the limited question whether a particular mode of proof of conversion as suggested by the High Court should be statutorily prescribed , having made a preliminary study and recorded its prima facie view, invited the views of public on the said issue. Certain suggestions have been received which would be adverted to at the appropriate stage.

Freedom to profess and practise religion of one’s choice

3. The freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion is enshrined in Art.25 of the Constitution. The equality of all religions is expressly recognized by Art.25 thereby emphasizing the cherished ideal of secularism. The expression ‘practice’ is concerned primarily with religious worship, ritual and observations. Propagating the religion connotes the right to communicate the religious beliefs to others by expounding the tenets of that religion.Of course, in the name of propagation, no one has a right to convert a person to another religion under pressure or inducement (vide Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 908). Religious practices are as much a part of religion as religious faith or doctrines (vide The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thiratha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282). The fundamental right to freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate a religion is subject to the considerations of public order, morality and health. Clause (2) of Art.25 preserves the power of the State to make a law regulating any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice. Art.26 gives effect to the concomitant right of the freedom to manage religious affairs and this right is again subject to public order, morality and health. Articles 25 and 26 undoubtedly extend to rituals also and not confined to doctrine. It is well-settled that the freedom of conscience and the right to profess a religion implies freedom to change the religion as well. It is pertinent to mention that Art. 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically lays down that the freedom of conscience and religion includes freedom to change the religion or belief. The right to freedom of conscience thus implies the individual right of a person to renounce one’s religion and embrace another voluntarily.

4. The change from one religion to another is primarily the consequence of one’s conviction that the religion in which he was born into has not measured up to his expectations – spiritual or rational. The conversion may also be the consequence of the belief that another religion to which he would like to embrace would better take care of his spiritual well-being or otherwise accomplish his legitimate aspirations. At times it may be hard to find any rational reason for conversion into another religion. The reason for or propriety of conversion cannot be judged from the standards of rationality or reasonableness.

5. Any discussion on conversion generates thoughts on religion and religious faith. There is no precise definition of religion. ‘Religion’, it is said, is a matter of faith and belief in God is not essential to constitute religion. In Shirur Mutt case (AIR 1954 SC 282), Mukherjee, J made the following pertinent observations on religion and Hindu religion in particular:

“Religion is certainly a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic. There are well known religions in India like Buddhism and Jainism which do not believe in God or in any Intelligent First Cause. A religion undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by those who profess that religion as conducive to their spiritual well being, but it would not be correct to say that religion is nothing else but a doctrine or belief. A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion and these forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and dress.” ( para 18)

The saint and great philosopher Swami Vivekananda said:

“Religion as it is generally taught all over the world is said to be based upon faith and belief and in most cases consists only of different sets of theories and that is the reason why we find all religions quarrelling with one another. These theories are again based upon faith and belief.”

Sri M.N. Rao, former Chief Justice of H.P. High Court and presently Chairman of National Commission for Backward Classes, after referring to the above thoughts in his article on ‘Freedom of Religion and Right to Conversion’ (2003) made the following pertinent observations:

“Right to conversion connotes individual right of a person to quit one religion and embrace another voluntarily. This kind of change from one religion to another religion must necessarily be in consequence of one’s conviction that the religion in which he was born into has not measured up to his expectations, spiritual or rational. Sometimes it may also be the result of losing faith in one’s own religion because of the rigidity of its tenets and practices. Sometimes one may even lose total faith in the very concept of the existence of God and turn to Atheism. A change of religion, a consequence of any of the above reasons, falls within the ambit of the “Right to Conversion”.

Conversion –nature of and essentials to be proved:

6. Conversion like a marriage is a solemn act. Conversion from one religion to another has far reaching consequences –social and legal. It affects succession, marital status and also the right to seek elective office. Divorce can be granted on the ground that the spouse has changed the religion (vide Section 13(1)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act). `Upon conversion a person may be governed by a different personal law. The right to contest in elections from a constituency reserved from SCs / STs might be lost if the person who has changed the religion happened to be a member of Scheduled Caste or Tribe. Thus, the event of conversion is of critical importance from the point of view of rights and disabilities of a convert.

7. Conversion cannot be treated as an event which can be achieved through a mere declaration – oral or writing. At the same time, no particular formalities or ceremonies are required according to the law declared by Supreme Court. In fact, no such ceremonies are specifically prescribed in any religious texts or precepts, though certain ceremonies like ‘Suddhi’ (in the case of Arya Samajists) and baptism (in the case of Christians) are gone through in practice in some cases. Credible evidence of the intention to convert followed by definite overt acts to give effect to that intention is necessary. The subsequent conduct of the convertee is also important in reaching the conclusion that a conversion in its true sense had taken place and there was genuine conversion. The evidentiary facts which establish conversion have been time and again stated by the Supreme Court, while observing that no specific ritual or ceremony is required. Satisfactory evidence of conversion which has always been insisted upon by the Courts is necessary especially when we hear plethora of complaints of manipulated conversions for extraneous reasons or as a result of undue pressures.

Views of the Commission on the crucial question and relevant case law:

8. In the Commission’s view, statutory prescription of procedure to establish conversion or nature of proof required is neither desirable nor practicable. Normally, a statute does not deal with the details which lie within the realm of appreciation of evidence. Any such enumeration touching on the quality of evidence to be adduced would result in more complications. A declaration of the nature suggested by the High Court cannot be a substitute for the tests laid down in decided cases for entering a finding of conversion. In fact, it does not appear that the High Court intended to say that the declaration followed by confirmation should be treated as a conclusive evidence of conversion/reconversion. The High Court apparently intended that the declaration followed by subsequent confirmation before the registering authority would serve as weighty documentary evidence, thereby minimizing the scope of controversy. There is another angle from which the said observations of the High Court have to be viewed. The declaration and registration thereof, if made the only mode of proof, many bona fide converts may be handicapped in proving the conversion merely by reason of failure to adhere to the procedure of registration. Moreover, a question may arise as to what purpose will such a procedure serve, where there are objections from some quarters – whether they be bona fide or mala fide? Should it be left to the Registration Officer to deal with those objections and record a finding? Is it proper for the Registration Officer to take a decision on the bona fides of conversion on the basis of facts existing at that initial stage? These questions defy a satisfactory answer if the declaration and confirmation should be treated as the conclusive proof of conversion.

9. The High Court’s observation that the proof in respect of conversion should be simplified and credible documentary evidence could be made available to those who are called upon to prove the factum of conversion is not without merit. It stems from an anxiety to avoid prolonged litigation and unnecessary controversies. But, the issue has to be viewed from a larger perspective keeping in view the socio-economic conditions, the practical difficulties in implementation and the spurious claims that are quite often advanced. The Courts including Supreme Court have consistently held that the law does not require any particular ceremony or ritual for conversion, but what is necessary is a bona fide intention to convert to another religious faith accompanied by conduct unequivocally expressing that intention. The satisfaction of the Court on this aspect should necessarily be present and the filing of declaration of conversion before a prescribed authority is one of the important aspects that aids the Court in reaching such satisfaction, but that should not be the sole criterion.

10. It has been held in a number of decided cases including the pronouncements of the Supreme Court that no particular formalities or religious rituals or ceremonies are necessary to bring about conversion or reconversion. In the case of Punjabrao v. Dr. D.P. Meshram and others (AIR 1965 SC 1179), it was observed that the presence of a Bhikku on the occasion of a function held for conversion of Hindu Harijans into Buddhism and compliance with particular rituals is not necessary; so also, the signature of a converted person in a register for conversion is not obligatory. In Perumal Nadar (dead) by Legal Representative v. Ponnuswami Nadar (minor) (AIR 1971 SC 2352), the principle was reiterated that no formal ceremony of purification or expiation is necessary to effectuate conversion. So also in the case of S. Anbalagan v. B. Devararajan and others (AIR 1984 SC 411), the Supreme Court examined the legal position in regard to caste status on conversion or re-conversion to Hinduism and held that no particular ceremony was prescribed for reconversion to Hinduism. The Karnataka High Court observed in Sujatha v. Jose Augustine (II (1994) Divorce & Matrimonial Cases 442) that to be a Christian, one must truly profess the Christian faith and the fact that one has undergone the ceremony of baptism may not by itself be sufficient to hold that he or she has become a Christian. The fundamental thing to be established before one can be held to be Christian is that the person concerned truly believes in and professes the Christian faith.

10.1 The test of conversion has been put thus by the Supreme Court in Perumal Nadar v. Ponnuswami (supra).

”A person may be a Hindu by birth or by conversion. A mere theoretical allegiance to the Hindu faith by a person born in another faith does not convert him into a Hindu, nor is a bare declaration that he is a Hindu sufficient to convert him to Hinduism. But a bona fide intention to be converted to the Hindu faith, accompanied by conduct unequivocally expressing that intention may be sufficient evidence of conversion. No formal ceremony of purification or expiation is necessary to effectuate conversion”. (para 6) The Supreme Court also observed “in our judgment the finding of the courts below that Annapazham was converted to Hinduism before her marriage to Perumal is amply supported by evidence.”

10.2 In Kailash Sonkar vs. Smt. Maya Devi (AIR 1984 SC 600) the Supreme Court while dealing with a case of reconversion adopted a similar approach, as seen from the following observations:

“In our opinion, the main test should be a genuine intention of the reconvert to abjure his new religion and completely dissociate himself from it. We must hasten to add here that this does not mean that the reconversion should be only a ruse or a pretext or a cover to gain mundane worldly benefits so that the reconversion becomes merely a show for achieving a particular purpose whereas the real intention may be shrouded in mystery. The reconvert must exhibit a clear and genuine intention to go back to his old fold and adopt the customs and practices of the said fold without any protest from members of his erstwhile caste.” ( para 30)

It was further clarified:

“In order to judge this factor, it is not necessary that there should be a direct or conclusive proof of the expression of the views of the community of the erstwhile caste and it would be sufficient compliance of this condition if no exception or protest is lodged by the community members, in which case the caste would revive on the reconversion of the person to his old religion.” ( para 30)

10.3 We may also refer to the decision of Kerala High Court in Sapna Jacob, Minor vs The State of Kerala & Ors (AIR 1993 Kerala 75) - K.G. Balakrishnan, J. (as he then was) after referring to the various authorities, observed:

“In order to prove that the petitioner was a member of the Hindu community she must have established that there was a bona fide intention to be converted to the Hindu faith accompanied by conduct or unequivocally expressing that intention. It is true that no formal ceremony of purification or expiation is necessary to effectuate conversion. The petitioner is admittedly the daughter of a Jacobite Christian. So by birth she is a Christian. A convert must embrace Hinduism and follow the cultural system and tradition of that religion and should take the Hindu mode of life. It may be true that the Court cannot test or gauge the sincerity of religious belief; or where there is no question of the genuineness of a person’s belief in a certain religion, the court cannot measure its depth or determine whether it is an intelligent conviction or ignorant and superficial fancy. But a court can find the true intention of men lying behind their acts and can certainly find from the circumstances of a case whether a pretended conversion was really a means to some further end. In the instant case, the petitioner’s mother after marrying V.M. Jacob changed her name as Uma Jacob. The petitioner’s name is Sapna Jacob, admittedly a Christian name. There is nothing in evidence to show that the petitioner ever led a Hindu mode of life. The only ground on which the petitioner claims the benefit of Scheduled Caste is that her mother is a Scheduled Caste.” ( para 6 )

10.4 Similarly, in Rakheya Bibi vs. Anil Kumar ILR (1948) Cal. 119), the Calcutta High Court observed that it is open to the Court to go into the question whether the conversion was a bona fide one or a mere pretence.

10.5 In recent case of M.Chandra vs. M. Thangamuthu and Another (2010) 9 SCC 712 the Supreme Court observed in para 42

“it is a settled principle of law that to prove a conversion from one religion to another, two elements need to be satisfied. First, there has to be a conversion and second, acceptance into the community to which the person converted.”

10.6 In the case of Punjabrao Vs Dr. D.P. Meshram (Supra), a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court interpreted the expression ‘profess’ in clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order 1950. The said provision contemplates that a person to be treated as one belonging to the Scheduled Caste, should profess either Hindu or Sikh religion. In that case, the election of the first respondent to the Legislative Assembly was challenged on the ground that he embraced Buddhism and had ceased to be a member of Scheduled Caste. The Election Tribunal upheld the contention of the appellant and set aside the election. However, the High Court held that conversion of first respondent to Buddhism had not been established and therefore, upheld his election. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the order of the Election Tribunal holding that the first respondent had ceased to be Hindu at the time of his nomination and consequently ineligible to be a candidate for election from a constituency reserved for members of Scheduled Castes. The Supreme Court explained as to what is meant by professing a religion. The Supreme Court observed after referring to the dictionary meanings of the word ‘profess’, “it seems to us that the meaning ‘”to declare one’s belief in: as, to profess Christ, is one which we have to bear in mind while construing the aforesaid Order because it is this which bears upon religious belief and consequently also upon a change in religious belief. It would thus follow that a declaration of one’s belief must necessarily mean a declaration in such a way that would be known to those whom it may interest. Therefore, if a public declaration is made by a person that he has ceased to belong to his old religion and has accepted another religion he will be taken as professing the other religion. In the face of such an open declaration it would be idle to enquire further as to whether the conversion to another religion was efficacious”.( para 13) In that case, the argument that no Bhikku had officiated at the function and that respondent No. 1’s name was not found in the register of conversion to Buddhism and therefore, there was no satisfactory proof of conversion was rejected. The decision shows that a declaration in public renouncing his old religion and accepting another religion is an important step in establishing the factum of conversion to another religion. Another equally important step as laid down in Perumal’s case is the bona fide intention to convert demonstrated by his/her subsequent conduct. In Punjabrao’s case, the Supreme Court was concerned with the import of the expression ‘profess’ in the Presidential Order.

11. Though no particular formalities or ceremonies are required to be followed for the purpose of conversion, credible evidence of intention to convert followed by subsequent conduct of the convertee is necessary in reaching the conclusion that there was genuine conversion. The convert must embrace Hinduism (or another religion) and follow the cultural and spiritual traditions and take to the mode of life of that religion.

12. It may be noted that in some states, viz., Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh etc., the Freedom of Religion Acts were enacted. The provision thereof prohibits forcible conversion. i.e., by use of force, allurement or by fraudulent means and requires the person who participates or takes part in the ceremony for conversion from one religious faith to another should send the intimation to the District Magistrate either in advance or within a stipulated period after the event of conversion. Failure to do so is an offence. Some enactments cast a duty on the person who is converted to send a notice to the District Magistrate within a stipulated period in a prescribed form and if he fails without sufficient cause to comply with this requirement, he is also punishable. Thus, the intimation and the filing of declaration is a statutory obligation enforceable by law in some of the States. However, where there is no such legislation, the Commission feels that the filing of declaration and registration should not be made obligatory or indispensable mode of proof of conversion. Nor it is necessary or desirable for the Parliament to step in and incorporate such a provision in the Hindu Marriage Act and other laws. We are not concerned here with the issue of forcible or induced conversions and remedial action to be taken in connection therewith. We are only examining the limited question of the evidentiary proof required to establish the factum of conversion when a dispute arises.

13. Viewed in this light, the Commission is of the view that the suggestion of the High Court deserves to be accepted to a limited extent so as to afford an opportunity to those converts who would like to have documentary evidence of declaration to substantiate the plea of conversion as and when required. At the same time, the filing of declaration and recording thereof should not be made obligatory and an indispensable mode of proof of conversion, but it should only be made optional so that the converted person will be enabled to have documentary proof to establish the factum of conversion/reconversion in the absence of other reliable documentary evidence. However, as stated earlier, such documentary proof testifying to the declaration and confirmation made by the converted persons ought not to be considered as conclusive proof. The Court cannot be barred from considering the other relevant questions such as the voluntary nature of conversion and the subsequent conduct of the alleged convert, whenever a dispute arises. Hence it is reiterated that the recorded declaration not followed by objections cannot be regarded as the sole criterion to establish conversion in a court of law, though it may be given due weight by the Court in reaching the finding.

14. The Commission would like to advert to one more aspect. In regard the compulsory registration of marriages, the Supreme Court in the case of Seema(Smt.) Vs Ashwani Kumar (2006) 2 SCC 578, gave certain directives/ suggestions to the State Governments. However, it does not appear that the States have taken any concrete measures in this regard. In the 211th Report, the Law Commission has gone to the extent of recommending that the nonregistration of marriage and divorce should be made an offence and secondly that no judicial relief shall be granted if the concerned marriage or divorce is not duly registered under the proposed Act. Presently, the Law Commission does not wish to offer its comments on those suggestions having far-reaching effects because the issue which the Commission is presently called upon to deal with is about conversions. If the registration of marriage is made obligatory as per the directives of Supreme Court, or the recommendations of the Law Commission, it does not necessarily follow that conversion to another religion should also be compulsorily registered. Conversion which is bereft of any particular formalities or religious rites, cannot be placed on the same pedestal as marriage which can be recognized in law only if customary rites and ceremonies are gone through. Further, the backdrop in which the compulsory registration of marriages was considered necessary in societal interest is not applicable in all fours to religious conversions. Maybe, as and when compulsory registration of marriage and divorce becomes a reality and adequate machinery is put in place to implement the directives for registration of marriages, the question of recording/registration of conversion could also be considered. At this juncture, the Commission does not propose to recommend, based on the 211th Report, to evolve a scheme for compulsory registration of conversions as well where there is no such law in a State.

Representations/views received and discussions thereon

15. Before we conclude the report by formulating the Commission’s recommendations, we would like to consider the views expressed in the responses submitted by Kerala Law Academy Law College, Thiruvananthapuram, Revd. Archbishop of Bhopal, the Catholic Church Body of Madhya Pradesh and certain other Christian organizations/individuals of MP State.

15.1 The students and faculty of Kerala Law Academy, after intensive discussion submitted a report under the caption “Statutory vacuum for effectuating voluntary religious conversion”. The report of Kerala Law Academy has stressed on the need to legislatively prescribe a non-cumbersome procedure for effectuating religious conversion. It has been pointed out that declaration should be recognized in the statute as an effective means of conversion. Further, it was pointed out that the law should clearly define the scope and ambit of conversion ceremonies in effecting conversion. The absence of prescription of specific procedure, according to them, creates a legal vacuum in the area of religious conversion which is not in tune with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience.

15.2 We have already adverted to some of these aspects. The Commission would like to reiterate that the declaration followed by confirmation should not by itself be treated as proof of conversion and secondly it would be highly inappropriate to prescribe by way of legislation the details of ceremonies and/or formalities to be gone through for the purpose of conversion or the manner in which by law the conversion has to be proved in a court of law. Nebulous prescriptions ought to be avoided. Further, the whole problem has to be viewed from the angle whether the conversion was bona fide or genuine. The observance of the prescribed ceremony or the declaration of the convert cannot give sanctity to the alleged conversion, if the conversion is otherwise a ‘sham’ exercise or a pretence to achieve an ulterior objective or the result of force or allurement. Freedom of conscience is in no way infringed by adopting this approach. The Commission is, therefore, of the view that the filing of declaration or the proof of observance of certain rituals / ceremonies cannot, having regard to the essence of conversion, be treated as conclusive proof of conversion. But, the declaration followed by confirmation, as said earlier, serves as an important piece of evidence in support of conversion.

15.3 Coming to the responses sent by the Rev. Archbishop of Bhopal and the Christian Organizations of MP (which are almost on similar lines), the following is the summary of the representations: Cases are being registered against Christians on the allegation of effecting conversion by force or allurement and the fundamental organisations have also been disturbing the prayer meetings.

Proper guidelines on the subject of religious conversions and reconversions will help avoiding conflicts. The law should be such as to respect the conscience of the individual. When the change of religion is a conscious choice of an individual based on his belief in God, the law cannot insist on obtaining the prior permission from the District Magistrate to change his or her religion. It is only after the conversion that it would be appropriate to send the intimation to the concerned officer of the Government.

15.4 Some of the points referred to above relate to the legal validity of certain provisions of the Freedom of Religion Act enacted by Madhya Pradesh Legislature and the alleged high-handed action by the police under the said Act and also the lawless acts of the people of certain groups opposed to Christianity. These complaints cannot be looked into by the Law Commission as it is not within the scope of the subject taken up for consideration. They raise larger issues regarding the constitutional validity of the provisions of the said enactment or distortions in applying the law or the alleged lawless acts of certain persons. These do not fall within the domain of the Commission’s report.

15.5 As regards the other point raised, i.e. providing proper guidelines on the subject of conversions/re-conversions, this aspect has already been dealt with in the earlier paragraphs.

Recommendations

16. The Law Commission, therefore, proposes to formulate the following recommendations:

1. Within a month after the date of conversion, the converted person, if she/he chooses, can send a declaration to the officer in charge of registration of marriages in the concerned area.

2. The registering official shall exhibit a copy of the declaration on the Notice Board of the office till the date of confirmation.

3. The said declaration shall contain the requisite details viz., the particulars of the convert such as date of birth, permanent address, and the present place of residence, father’s/husband’s name, the religion to which the convert originally belonged and the religion to which he or she converted, the date and place of conversion and nature of the process gone through for conversion.

4. Within 21 days from the date of sending/filing the declaration, the converted individual can appear before the registering officer, establish her/his identity and confirm the contents of the declaration.

5. The Registering officer shall record the factum of declaration and confirmation in a register maintained for this purpose. If any objections are notified, he may simply record them i.e., the name and particulars of objector and the nature of objection.

6. Certified copies of declaration, confirmation and the extracts from the register shall be furnished to the party who gave the declaration or the authorized legal representative, on request.

17. Now, the question arises as to how the above recommendations could be implemented. It is clarified that in whichever State, there is a law governing conversion such as Freedom of Religion Act, the above recommendations do not apply. The question then is whether for implementation of the said recommendations in other States, the enactment of law by Parliament is necessary. The Commission is inclined to think that a separate enactment or amendments to the respective personal laws is not required to give effect to this simple recommendation having regard to the fact that it does not go contrary to the existing provisions of law nor does in any way impinge on the religious freedom or faith of any person. Matters relating to conversion/reconversion are governed by the personal laws in respect of which Parliament has power to make laws. The Central Government can exercise its executive power under Article 73 to issue appropriate instructions to the Union Territories. Similar communications may be addressed by the Central Government to the States (where there are no laws governing the conversion) to give effect to the recommendations set out supra. The Governments concerned in their turn will have to issue necessary orders to the Registration officers. That can be done by the Governments of UT and State Governments administratively.

(Justice P.V. Reddi) Chairman
(Justice Shiv Kumar Sharma) Member
(Amarjit Singh) Member
(Dr Brahm Agrawal) Member-Secretary

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 18 Feb 2013 05:58

X-Posting from GDF. Thanks Hari Saldon and VijayK garus for posting this

Times are changing, Muslim hostility to Modi softening: Jamiat leader Maulana Madani

In an exclusive interview to Rahul Kanwal on Aaj Tak's Seedhi Baat programme, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind leader Maulana Mehmood Madani admitted there's a change in the Muslim psyche towards Modi.

In Gujarat, Jamiat workers on the ground have told me that in several Assembly segments, Muslims voted for Modi. There is a perceptible change of heart and circumstances are different now. I agree the times are changing. Muslims in Gujarat are economically better off than in several states which have so-called secular governments in power," he told Rahul Kanwal in an exclusive interview on Seedhi Baat.

This statement from the Jamiat - the political offshoot of Darul Uloom, Deoband, that holds the pulse of millions of Muslims and is the final word in Islamic jurisprudence - is a covert endorsement for Modi in the run-up to his Delhi crowning. Modi may no longer be an untouchable for a community which accused him of masterminding one of the biggest anti-Muslim pogroms." More innocent Muslims are wallowing in prisons of Maharashtra than in Gujarat. The human rights record of several states with secular governments in power is deplorable and the economic situation of Muslims in West Bengal is shocking. These states don't have a Modi at the helm. This is a ground reality we can't ignore," said Madani.

The Madani family which controls Deoband and played a critical role in the dramatic coup to oust the seminary's rector Maulana Vastanvi for his pro-Modi remark, may be actually softening their hawkish stand. To a query on whether Muslims will accept Modi as Prime Minister, Madani did not vent his spleen as Deobandi hawks are wont to do. "It's too early to comment. Even the BJP has not decided on its PM's face. Let the time come, we will react."

But the BJP may not longer be a pariah for Muslims in the run-up to the 2014 elections. Madani said, "Just not in Gujarat, even in Bihar, Muslims have voted for BJP, which is in alliance with a secular party, the JD(U). There's a thaw in hostility towards BJP. There's a change of heart in Gujarat. But I am not sure if the Bihar-Gujarat experience will set the trend and become a pan-India phenomenon for the BJP," he said.

But while Madani was cautious about not toeing Vastanvi's line on Modi, he did not mince words to condemn the execution of Parliament attack mastermind Afzal Guru. "It was hasty and surreptitious move. Afzal Guru's hanging smacked of Maoist justice delivered in kangaroo courts. The denial of his last wish to meet his family is a blatant human rights violation. It was a political execution, a knee-jerk reaction from a government which was trying to prove that it's not soft on terror to cut the rising tide of Modi and his imminent march to Delhi.

Madani also said Guru's hanging has dealt a big blow to those fighting for human rights and campaigning against terrorism. "We in the Jamiat will suffer. We had moved a resolution in Deoband on Kashmir and rallied support for the government at the Ramilila Ground in Delhi. Now this clandestine execution will hurt our efforts and boomerang on the government. How will we face our community now," asked Madani.

This proves what I have been saying all along.

Provide a just, honest and nationalistic governance and all Bharatiyas will approve it irrespective of their religion, caste, language etc.

Now when that just, honest, nationalistic and dharmic government comes from a self-confident Hindu fold, the nation will accept and be proud of that identity too.

There is a conscious and deliberate attempt to undermine Hindu identity and heritage of this nation and associate that identity with anything and everything wrong (to the extent that the problems of other Abrahamic ideologies are attributed to Hindu identity).

Our fight should be against this anti-national propaganda, power and mafia family and NOT against our own identity, heritage and history.

Uttishta Bharata! Satya_Anveshi garu.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 18 Feb 2013 07:53

RamaY wrote:^ Conversions into Abrahamic faiths should be banned.

Counter-productive (apart from unconstitutional). Only pushes it underground, betrays weakness and lack of confidence. Ref. Iran, prohibition, etc.

Positive methods like education is the better way, and will easily defeat the problem. Also, ban material inducements like bigamy.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 18 Feb 2013 08:03

^
You are seeing the issue from Islamic perspective only. The issue includes Christianity.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 18 Feb 2013 08:16

RajeshA wrote:Clarification: Conversion to Islam for Bigamy

Hmm ... although the intention may have been good, the logic is dubious.

Hindu Marriage Act does not say that subsequent marriages are void while the present marriage exists.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Feb 2013 10:48

Clarification: Conversion to Islam for Bigamy

Pranav wrote:Hmm ... although the intention may have been good, the logic is dubious.

Hindu Marriage Act does not say that subsequent marriages are void while the present marriage exists.

Conversion and Marriage
By P. Rajendran

Whether the second marriage of a Hindu husband after conversion to Islam, without having dissolved his first marriage under law would be valid? Whether the husband would be guilty of committing the offence of Bigamy under Section 494 IPC? Whether the second marriage would be void in terms of the provisions of Section 494 IPC? Such questions are being raised very often.

Section 494 IPC reads as follows: “Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine”.

The Hindu Marriage Act strictly enforces monogamy. A marriage performed under this Act cannot be dissolved except on the grounds available under Section 13 of the Act. In that situation, parties who have solemnized the marriage under this Act remain married even when the husband embraces Islam in pursuit of another wife. Till the time a Hindu marriage is dissolved under the Hindu Marriage Act none of the spouses can contract a second marriage. Conversion to Islam and marrying again would not, by itself, dissolve the Hindu Marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act. A second marriage of an apostate, would be illegal marriage qua his wife who married him under the Hindu Marriage Act and continues to be a Hindu. Though the marriage solemnized by a Hindu husband after embracing Islam may not strictly be a void marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act because he is no longer a Hindu, but between the apostate and his Hindu wife the second marriage is in violation of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and as such would be non est.

The expression “void” defined under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act has a limited meaning within the definition under that Section. On the other hand the same expression has a different purpose under Section 494 IPC and has been used in the wider sense. A marriage which is in violation of the provisions of law would be void in terms of the expression used under Section 494 IPC. The real reason for the voidness of the second marriage is the subsistence of the first marriage which is not dissolved even by the conversion of the husband. The second marriage by a convert, therefore, being in violation of the Hindu Marriage Act, would be void in terms of Section 494 IPC. Any act which is in violation of mandatory provisions of law is per se void.

The conduct of a spouse who converts to Islam has to be judged on the basis of the rule of justice and right or equality and good conscience. A matrimonial dispute between a convert to Islam and his or her non Muslim spouse is not a dispute “where the parties are Muslims” and therefore the rule of decision in such a case was or is not required to be the “Muslim Personal Law”. In such cases the courts shall act and the judge shall decide according to justice, equity and good conscience. The second marriage of a Hindu husband after embracing Islam being violative of justice, equity and good conscience would be void on that ground also and attract the provisions of Section 494 IPC.
The above interpretation of Section 494 IPC would advance the interest of justice. It is necessary that there should be harmony between the two systems of law just as there should be harmony between the two communities. The result of the interpretation would be that the Hindu law on the one hand and the Muslim law on the other hand would operate within their respective ambits without trespassing on the personal laws of each other.

Much misapprehension prevails about bigamy in Islam. To check the misuse, many Islamic countries have codified the personal law, wherein the practice of polygamy has been either totally prohibited or severely restricted. But India is a Democratic Republic. Freedom of religion is the core of our culture. Even the slightest deviation shakes the social fibre. Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees religious freedom whereas Article 44 seeks to divest religion from social relations and personal law. Marriage, succession and like matters of a secular character, cannot be brought within the guarantee enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The personal law of the Hindus such as relating to marriage, succession and the like have all an origin in the same manner as in the case of the Muslims or Christians. The Legislation – not religion – being the authority under which personal law was permitted to operate and is continuing to operate, the same can be superseded /supplemented by introducing a uniform civil code for all the citizens in the territory of India. The successive Governments till date have been wholly remiss in their duty of implementing the constitutional mandate under Article 44 of the Constitution of India, namely, “endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 18 Feb 2013 11:43

What we see right now is that anybody who wants to use the marriage route to a libertine life takes the conversion route. And these people relying on the support of their loyal hoodlums will 'shake the social fibre' to have their way.

In such a situation if some group feels that they in turn need to provide the 'shake' to get to the Dharmic goal of a Uniform Civil Code, they are sought to be censured.

What is not understood is that if every man pours a little water in the Mandir then what comes out will be water.

Rajesh A ji, please continue the Taandav.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Feb 2013 16:41

ravi_g wrote:RajeshA ji, please continue the Taandav.

ravi_g ji,

thank you for the support.

As one of Ganapati's mushak, my Taandav would be of similar level onlee!

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 18 Feb 2013 17:00

RajeshA wrote:Dharmic Views on Competition and Cooperation

Rajesh, in my opinion, the greatest contribution our dharma and our way of life have to offer to the world is absolute individualism. It's a way of life, borne out of thousands of years of trial and error, that most other newer faiths can not recognize as they generally believe in collectivism and directed obedience. We don't need an intermediary or an interpreter to scold us that our pajamas are too long or our beards are too short. You are what you make of your self, but only you can only make for your self what you sense is your individual duty. It is between you and your conscience. That's how you and I can opine in a group freely even if we disagree and not have the fear of being struck down by the unknown who we can not imagine.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Feb 2013 17:47

anupmisra wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Dharmic Views on Competition and Cooperation
Rajesh, in my opinion, the greatest contribution our dharma and our way of life have to offer to the world is absolute individualism.

anupmisra ji,

a decade and a half ago when I started getting interested in philosophy, I was incessantly told by some European friends how Western civilization was the most developed because it lay such emphasis on individualism and individual freedoms. I used to wonder those days, so what is so special about it - Hinduism (the term now deprecated for me) too supports individual thinking, swa-dharma, etc.

You are right of course - individualism is an Indian concept, and today I do wonder which trail of Western political-philosophy dealing with individualism leads back to Indian Civilization.

The challenge is of course how one forges maximum coherence of purpose, drive, efficiency and effectiveness while retaining absolute individualism - be it in security, in retaining individual freedoms, in technological progress or in economic productivity.

Another thing is individualism is a high investment social enterprise. Whereas it is possible to mass-produce drones the way they do in madrassas, communist schools and create clone armies, in societies which prize individualism, each and every child's nurturing and education needs to be done in a way which makes them less susceptible to control ideologies, and that means one needs to activate a child's aptitude to think and judge and still prepare him for society where he needs to cooperate and compete.

In control ideologies, it is easy to direct the child or the child when he is older. There is always a leash, a tether to which he is tied. Such a control ideology is everywhere. However in a society based on individualism, there is no ubiquitous control and if not prepared well, the individual can easily be persuaded to become anti-social and do society harm especially under the guidance of outside control ideologies. The not well-prepared individual becomes the weak-link.

One just needs to look at how the prison population in USA is being converted to Islam, or how Love Jihad is rampant in Europe. Control ideologies are always keen to pick up followers among those the "individualist" societies leave behind and have not been culturally anchored well.

This investment is so crucial, because if you leave a child behind and he gets picked up by one of the control ideologies, then he becomes infected ultimately becoming an agent who is out to undermine your individual liberties as well, and if not yours, then those of your children.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 18 Feb 2013 18:32

Welcome home anup bhai, to this thread.

RajeshA ji, what do you suggest is the difference between Indic Individualism and Western Individualism. You have had the benefit of western exposure too.

For us the Individualism in Indic traditions is said to be concomitant with a Maryaada.

Like the Potency of Ram being bound to serve the nation and both being complete only with one another. The tempest of Shakti must be bound to the yogic Shiv. Both being individual but together.

Like Krishna sported an Individualistic streak so is every man supposed to. Like Krishna dirtied his hands in much the same manner as a sweeper dirties his to clean up the surroundings so is everybody encouraged to. Like Krishna then went on to do Prayaschit (Humbly accepting the Shaap put upon him by a mother) so is everybody exhorted to. Bhagwaan Ram did the same and many examples have been held up over the ages.

The problem for us arises only when:

1) instead of cleaning up the surroundings the unsystematic/ayogic is sought to be raised to the level of an Ideal in itself; or

2) when an derisive equivalence is sought to be imposed between the sweeper and the sweeped.
'They did wrong but so did you so it is all ok now and I am the peer reviewed, canonically authorised law giver in the middle'. No thanks, I have my own people to teach me what to do. Don't need the authorised version from the pulpit.

I for one find our framework much more simplified and verifiable. But then the bundling of rights and duties and harking to the balance of evidence, in the west, must have the same underlying principle. The only difference I can find is their insistence on only the, Pratyaksh Pramaan of Constitution/State power while we go on to rely on other Pramaans also.

Probably in the western sense our system can be characterised as 'everybody is a fallen Avtar but so are others and you know what that implies'. Mmmmwwwaaaahhh. Just kidding.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Feb 2013 22:02

Dharmic vs Western Individualism

ravi_g ji,

as far as I understand in the West individualism is given an extremely high philosophical-political-cultural-social priority. What this means is that there is a lot of scope allowed for variant thinking, and much is tolerated. Individualism is formulated in terms of individual rights and individual freedoms.

They also have a strong emphasis placed on rule-of-law. Rule of Law is where the arbitration takes place between the rights and freedoms of each individual in society. One can enjoy one's rights and freedoms as long as one does not step on the rights and freedoms of the others.

What this means is that everybody tries to selfishly protect one's domain of rights and freedoms and that is what preoccupies one much of the time setting up the other as the potential violater of one's "rightful" domain of rights and freedoms.

Of course there are other layers on top. One of them is "culturedness". According to this layer, one tries to be mindful of the other showing other some deference and respect. This "culturedness" is however often a way to show one's class, one's pedigree.

Another layer is the Christian morality. As such one finds many people willing to do charity and charitable work. But often when it is done in "third-world countries" there too it reeks of racial superiority.

Mostly because the state has started regulating the tasks of deliberating on issues of money, how much money one family member has to contribute to the other - for education, for support after divorce, for unemployment, for support of older family members, for sickness, etc. more and more family members take recourse to state mediation, which has led to weakening of family structures. That is where individualism has taken society - away from the family.

The state has taken over all of the functions which a community or a family need to sort out among themselves.

Now this is by no chance any absolute picture of reality in the West but it has become the skeleton of Western society. It is also not an effort to be cynical about Western society.

Of course there is still family life, and people caring for their children and children having strong feelings about their parents. It doesn't take away from that, but these are parallel currents in society.

Dharmic Individualism has to take a different route when it is formulated for the modern times.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Feb 2013 22:11

Axioms of Sanatan Dharma (Cont.)

No I am not going to be doing this exercise. This is beyond me, frankly speaking. Whereas I have been trying to show that 'Hindu Dharma' can for modern times mostly be defined using a "Definition of Negative Content", 'Sanatan Dharma' would of course be defined using a "Definition of Positive Content".

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.

It was an extensive exercise, so I will be re-posting it here in a long post for the benefit of all lurkers, and I hope I find sudarshan ji's approval.

LINK 1

This is going to be a long post on a topic which has been of interest to me for some time. Please give it a patient read. It’s relevance to the Indian ethos may not be immediately evident, but it should be by the end of the post.

Albert Einstein said – “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” What is the simplest that things can get in the scientific approach? The axiom. What is an axiom? It is an assumption that we make, so that we can begin building our scientific theories. An axiom cannot be proved. Its validity can be inferred by making observations of the universe, and comparing them with the implications of the axiom. One conflicting observation is enough to negate the axiom. Likewise, predictions can be made based on the theory that is derived from the axiom. If the predictions do not correspond to experimental observations of the system in question (the universe, for instance), the axiom is again negated.

Einstein rejected the Newtonian axioms of absolute space and time, conservation of matter and energy. Einstein’s starting point was the Maxwellian axiom, that the speed of light is absolute. When Einstein pursued a theory based on this axiom, he inferred that space and time were relative, that mass was also relative, and that matter and energy could be inter-converted. This is special relativity. When Einstein generalized this theory to accelerating frames of reference, he came up with a new axiom – accelerating motion is indistinguishable from gravity. This is the basis of general relativity. The revolutionary change that Einstein’s world-view instituted was simply this: the rejection of one set of axioms, and the adoption of another.

When you want to learn about relativity, you could get hold of a book on tensor algebra or manifold mathematics, and go mathematically. In my opinion, this is not the smart way of going about it. A person who is unable to explain a concept in a sentence or two, without resorting to equations and hand-waving, cannot be considered to understand the concept. Understanding a concept starts with the basics – the axioms. A physics lecturer who regales his students with tensor math and equations on Lorentz contraction and time dilation, without explaining the basic concepts – the negation of the Newtonian axioms, and the adoption of the Maxwellian one – is doing his students a great disservice.

Now for the interesting part. If you ask a hundred Hindus to define Sanatana Dharma, you will get a hundred conflicting, confused answers. If you ask a thousand Hindus, you will get a thousand answers. This, to me, indicates that Hindus have LOST TOUCH WITH THE AXIOMS OF THEIR FAITH. They are unable to agree on a consistent definition of Hinduism (or more accurately, SD). The fact that they cannot explain their faith in one sentence, indicates that they do not understand SD at all.

Now get a hundred Muslims – Shias/Sunnis/whatever, and ask them to boil their faith down to one sentence. You will get a consistent, confident answer. La Ilaha il Allah, Mohammed ur rasul-ul-lah. Ask a hundred Christians (of whatever denomination) to define their faith in one sentence, and you will likewise get a consistent answer (or at least, answers with much less variation than the confused Hindu responses).

How then, do Hindus propose to retain, much less increase interest in and awareness of SD?

This is the basis of my book. Or actually, it’s the ideological basis, around which the story of my novel is built.

I believe that it IS possible for Hindus the world over, be they Shaivites or Vaishnavites, Advaitavadins or Bhaktas or whatever, to agree on one consistent, simple definition of SD. More: I believe that it is possible for all adherents of all four Dharmic faiths – Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism, in that chronological order – to agree on a simple, one-sentence definition of the basis of the Dharmic ethos. I further believe that this one-sentence definition directly leads to many of the tenets of quantum mechanics.

This one-sentence definition is based on three simple, intuitive axioms. If you start with these three axioms, and build a logical theory based on them, the resulting structure (I believe) is entirely consistent with the Vedas and the Gita, with Advaita and Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita, with the stories of men and Devas and Asuras performing tapas for thousands of years for attaining their chosen boons, with idol worship or Vedic abstract monism. More – the structure is also consistent with the teachings of the Buddha, with his agnosticism and insistence on quelling your inner desire. Even more – the structure is consistent with many (from my limited thought so far) of the tenets of quantum mechanics. If you pursue the axioms logically, you will find that evolution is a foregone conclusion. I submit that the extensive fossil records and the observations that led to the theory of quantum mechanics, are basically evidence in favor of the axioms of SD.

I realize these are rather tall claims, but I believe that SD is in one sense a scientific inquiry into the nature of the world around us, and more importantly, into the nature of our own consciousness. Like any scientific inquiry, SD is based on simple axioms. Christianity, as it exists today, is also built around an assumption – an assumption that is so basic to Christianity, that no Christian even thinks of questioning it. This is the assumption of absolute good and evil. It is only in the context of this assumption, that it makes sense to have a “good” God and an “evil” devil, who are constantly in competition over man’s soul; to have an “original sin,” which caused the downfall of mankind; to have a “son of God” “take on” your sins for you.

SD, I believe, is based on a different set of assumptions. This is why, despite the seeming similarities between religions, it is so hard to reconcile one with the other – their axioms are different. Classical mechanics and relativity agree (within a few parts per million) in their predictions of how objects behave at low speeds. Fundamentally, though, there is a world of difference between their axioms. Christianity and Hinduism may agree on the triumph of good over evil, and all that kind of feel-good stuff, but at a fundamental level, their axioms are different. Their world-view is different, because of the differences in the cultures of the lands where they evolved. I’m not interested in showing the superiority of either world-view over the other – just in establishing a consistent definition of the SD world-view. A consistent definition of SD is the precursor to taking on politically motivated religious orders (such as the EJs), and to increase awareness in SD the world around. I submit that it is the lack of a consistent definition, which has thus far hampered more extensive acceptance of SD, at least in the modern world.

I think most Hindus would immediately recognize the axioms I’m talking about – just that they haven’t been conditioned to systematically classify them as “axioms,” and to think of the rest of SD as “a logical structure that follows from these axioms.” I think the hundred or thousand different, conflicting answers that Hindus give to the question of “what is SD?” come from their confounding of axiom with theory, mantras and ritual worship with the true basis of the Vedas.

The logical structure resulting from the axioms of SD yields intuitive answers to seemingly vexing questions. I’m not claiming that the SD world-view has THE answers to all these questions, I’m just saying that the SD world-view has intuitive answers, which can be verified by observations of the universe around us. This is the standard to which science is held, is it not? Here are some of the questions which I think SD (through these three axioms) answers in an elegant and intuitive manner, simply by referring back to the axioms, or their corollaries.

* What is the purpose of this life? Why are we here?

* What is God’s master-plan? Why did He put us here?

* Is there a God? If so, why have I never seen Him?

* Where do the concepts of good and evil come from?

* How come there is so much evil in this world, if there is a just, merciful God? Specifically, why doesn’t this God intervene in favor of the good?

* Why does SD keep talking about reincarnation?

* What is “Nirvana?”

* What is evolution? Is it consistent with SD?

* Where do the concepts of Advaita and Dvaita come from?

* Is this world really an illusion? Then why do we even bother giving respect to anybody, to not hurt anybody, to remember God?

Many of the tenets of quantum mechanics (so far as I can observe) can also be shown to be *directly derivable* from these three axioms. Such as:

* The principle of quantum decoherence.

* The principle that events depend upon the observer. (Is this the same as decoherence? Could be.)

* What happens to Schroedinger’s cat?

* Are there really multiple universes?

I want to put up my idea here (that there are a set of few, simple, intuitive axioms of SD, from which the entire logical structure may be derived) for critical review. I also want to emphasize that I’m not claiming to have come up with anything new – I’m only claiming to have identified three tenets of SD, from which the rest may be derived. These tenets have been around from the beginning of SD – just that Hindus, over the centuries, have stopped thinking of them as the basics of SD. If there are gaps or fallacies in my logic, I’d like to be able to correct them for my book.
LINK 2

So after the hype and hoopla, why don’t we get to a discussion of actual axioms (or candidate axioms)? My plan was to serve up the results of my thought so far, and to invite comments/revisions. I was going to split up my points into multiple posts, to keep each post to a manageable size (and also to increase my post count ).

Like I said, I think the essence of SD can be reduced to three basic axioms.

Axiom 1: (this one might have to be modified or discarded from the list to accommodate agnostic faiths such as Buddhism). Let’s start with a test axiom. We might need to modify it a bit before we’re done, even to make it conform to gnostic Hinduism. Here goes.

God is all-powerful.

This sounds obvious, and even very right and proper. But the implications of this axiom can get pretty unsavory. Think about it. If God is all-powerful, then where did evil come from? If this axiom is true, then it implies that nothing exists, except in God. So if anything exists in this universe, it has to exist in God. If something doesn’t exist in this universe, but if you can conceive of it in theory, then that means that possibility exists in God. If something does not exist in God, then there is no way it can exist in this universe, even as an abstract possibility.

So, all objects, abstractions, concepts, theories, dreams and possibilities have to exist in God. Good and evil, love and hate, male and female, capitalism and communism, Christianity and SD – all of these exist in God. Take it further. Stupidity and insanity, sadism and blood-lust, wanton sex and pedophilia, delusion and paranoia and egomania. Cancer and heart disease, cyanide and arsenic, slime and grime, and every repulsive, ugly, and hateful object and concept you can think of – all of these are also in God, they are God. If not, then God cannot be deemed all-powerful – because that would mean that these objects or concepts can exist independent of God.

Does this sound confusing? Think about it, and answer this question honestly to yourselves. Are any of you physically or mentally incapable of stabbing somebody in the back for no reason, of stealing a kid’s lollipop, of taking advantage of a helpless member of the opposite sex? If you were incapable of such deeds, then where is the merit in not behaving that way?

This is our clue to modifying our axiom. We could say that God is all-powerful, but he feels no urge to perform evil deeds. Thus he is good. All fine in theory, but why stop there? Why not take that logic one step further?

Na maam karmaani limpanti, na me karma-phale spr’haa

That’s from the Bhagavad Gita. I would say that our first axiom could be modified as follows:

God is all-powerful, but he feels no urge to exercise his power or potential, either for good, or for evil. God, as the Bhagavad Gita states, does not desire the fruits of material actions.

Corollary: This axiom gives us a clue to our own nature. God is all-powerful. Thus, if the concept of “Sudarshan” exists, this concept which is currently typing on the concept of the “keyboard,” then “Sudarshan” has to exist within God. We are each a collection of possibilities and potential – it is these possibilities which define our individuality. Some of us represent humor and wit and sarcasm, some of us represent artistic talent or sporting ability or leadership potential, etc. We each exist in God, we each are God. Advaita, anyone?
LINK 3

Further clues to our existence may be derived from the implications of axiom 1. God does not desire the fruits of material actions. What about us, then? Maybe we are here in this universe, because we do desire the fruits of material actions? Let’s make this our axiom 2.

Axiom 2:

It is our own material desires which bring us to this material universe.

Imagine a free spirit, a collection of possibilities and potential, residing within God. Suppose this spirit possesses the capability for love, for discovery, for humor, for sporting ability. An eternity of God’s love is available to this spirit, with full freedom to bask in God’s infinite potential. But let’s say this spirit starts thinking to itself: “is there no way I can exercise my potential for love, for discovery, for humor, for sporting talent? Can’t I impress my peers, win accolades, earn their love, show my love for them in a physical sense?”

So this spirit approaches God with this material desire. “You know, God, I’d like to live out my potential for a while.” And God says, “All right, my child. I will build you a material framework, where you can exercise your talents. But,” God says, “that means you will be separated from me, at least for a while.” “I will return to you, Lord. I have all eternity with you, anyway.”

This is the axiom. We come here, because of our urge to make physical love, to exercise our passion for discovery, for sport or leadership, for possession of wealth, for artistic achievement.

But wait. What of the unfortunates, those born deaf or lame, the autistic kids, the three-legged dogs and two-headed cats, the children born to poverty-ridden parents, or within repressive societies? Was it their desire for a disadvantaged existence that drove their pitiful situation? This brings us to axiom 3.
LINK 4

Axiom 3: The law of KARMA

This is a causal universe – you do not get something for nothing here.

The implication being, this: that God is only giving you a material framework, where you can fulfill your desires out of your own efforts. Nobody else can make your payment for you. I believe that this is the true meaning of the law of karma – not that silly “what goes around, comes around” trivialization that the western world has made it out to be.

Imagine a devoted, but wise father, with five kids. Each kid comes to the father with his/her own fantasy – “I want a truck,” “I want a train,” “I want a plane.” What would the father do? I would suggest that the father get his kids a lego set, and let them build their fantasies out of their own efforts. That way, they learn the value of their fantasies. This universe is a giant lego set, and our body is a God-given gift, with which we can act on the universe to fulfill our fantasies. If we construct a monster out of the lego set, that monster will devour us. It is up to us to wisely sculpt our fantasies from this universe.
LINK 5

So, that one-sentence definition of Sanatana Dharma that we were talking about? I believe it would go something like this (though it would need modification to fit in with agnostic faiths like Buddhism):

The indulgent, all-powerful God created this material universe for the fulfillment of our material desires – but, God holds us responsible for the manner in which we pursue our desires.

With this, the axiom list is complete. I will devote my next few posts to showing how (IMHO of course) these axioms are consistent with the Vedas and the Gita, with Advaita and Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita, and how the structure of SD can be logically derived from these axioms. I also intend to derive (as best I can) some of the tenets of quantum mechanics from these axioms. I will then show how these axioms can answer all of the questions I listed in my earlier post. Lastly, I will try to show how other Dharmic faiths can also be reduced to this axiom set (or a slightly modified axiom set).

It might take me a day or two to get all this down. In the meantime, here are some thoughts on Vedantic concepts, which are consistent with these axioms.

Vishnu as Mahamayo, the great deceiver. Vishnu’s maya is simply the means by which he allows you to forget about Him, so that you can pursue your own desires without guilt or misgivings. The measure of Vishnu’s mercy is this – that he not only facilitates your material desires, but also gets out of your way until you yourself are ready to go back to him (aka “Nirvana,” where you completely give up your desire for material fulfillment of your spiritual potential).

Bhakti, gnana, and karma are all ways back to God. By the path of bhakti, you come to love God more than you love your desire for material fantasies. Thus, you return to him. Gnana is the path of knowledge – where you come to realize that you do not need your material fantasies for your happiness. You were happy enough with God to begin with – and you can be happy again with Him, once you give up your material urges. Karma is where you surrender the consequences of your actions to God – thus gradually (again) losing your identification with material urges. These three paths are all ways by which you realize that endlessly chasing material fantasies is not the same as happiness.

Good and evil. When you realize that other spirits in this universe also have desires of their own, and when you try and accommodate their desires, you become a “good” person. By doing this, you also come to realize that your material desires are not synonymous with your happiness (see above). On the other hand, when you pursue your desires with no regard for the desires of others, you not only incur “sin” (the concept of “sin” is defined below, wrt the axioms), but you also sink deeper into the misguided belief that material fantasies are the same as your happiness, thus paving the way for future “sinful” behavior. This results in an escalating cycle of delusion, where frustration of your desires due to past unfavorable consequences increases your urges to take short-cuts, thereby generating more bad consequence, etc. Dhyayato visayan pumsah, sangas tesupajayate and all that.

What exactly are “punya” and “papa?” Axiom #3: every pleasure you take out of this world has to be paid for, through your own efforts. When you take short-cuts to fulfilling your desires, by stealing from somebody or killing somebody, you deprive them of the means to fulfilling their desires. Notice that you have not yet paid for your desires – you simply took a short-cut. The payment will come due eventually – and when it does, you will also have to pay for the other person’s desires, of which you deprived him or her. This is the concept of “papa,” where you end up making multiple payments for your desire, because of your urge to take short-cuts.

On the other hand, when you facilitate the desires of others, through charity or other means, you make advance payment towards your own fantasies. Wise men pay for their desires through charity, or empathy for other’s desires. Foolish men pay through disease or deprivation. This is the concept of karma-phala. Why does the ashwamedha or the rajasooya yagna merit you heaven? Because you give away possessions to hundreds or thousands of people, because you facilitate their desires, thereby earning credit towards the fulfillment of your own wildest fantasies (aka “heaven”).

Corollary: Heaven and hell are temporary situations. When a spirit soul earns so much merit, that fantastic enjoyment is the result, then heaven is merited. Likewise with hell. In the world-view of SD, nobody burns in hell forever, nobody enjoys heaven forever. Heaven is not synonymous with God.

These are just a few examples, showing how the axioms above are in harmony with the concepts of SD. I’ll be back with a more rigorous analysis of the implications of the axioms – including of course, the big elephant in the room – REBIRTH/REINCARNATION – or, in other words, EVOLUTION.
LINK 6

Below is an attempt at answering my list of questions from the point of view of the axioms I presented. I didn't get as far into my list as I hoped. Here's what I have for now.

Let’s summarize our axiom set so far before moving on.

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.

So what is the driving force behind this universe? Two factors, based on the axioms above. One factor is the collective desires of all the spirit souls which are in the universe. The second factor is the collective consequences of the actions of these spirit souls to date. Let’s keep this in mind, as we try to answer our questions that we saw earlier. Keep in mind the fact that these answers are only as good as the axioms. They will need to be verified by observations of the universe around us. So the answers are really just replies – there is no claim as to their being the absolute truth.

Q: What is the purpose of this life? Why are we here?

A: Axiom 2 – the purpose of this life, is to enjoy ourselves in the material plane.

Observations in favor of the answer: what is the one unifying factor among all humans, that gives them this “zest for life?” Desire. You lose your desire, you become a tired zombie. This concept of desire may even be observed in the higher animals – elephants and dogs, cats and lions, deer and cows. They desire love, society, companionship. They display fear and anger, just like us humans. They are no different from humans at the basic level – the level of the spirit. In what way are they different from us? We’ll come to that later, maybe in another question.

It could be a bit of a stretch to say that even the lower animals and insects are motivated by desire. More of a stretch to say that the plants and trees are, too. How about the germs and bacteria? Conceivable, but unverifiable. Let’s leave it at that for now.

Q: What is God’s master-plan? Why did He put us here?

A: Axiom 2 – God has no “master plan.” He is simply indulging our desire for material fulfillment of our spiritual potential.

Q: Is there a God? If so, why have I never seen Him?

A: Axiom 1 – there is a God. This is an assumption – no sense debating it. It is the starting point of the theory – simply accept it for now and move on, until the assumption is conclusively negated by some observation of the universe.

The second part of the question implies that there is an observation which could negate the assumption – there is no instance of anybody, who has honestly claimed to have seen God (except of course Sri Ramakrishna – but he’s not around to ask anymore, is he?). Now, is there a reason why none of us has seen God, even if He exists?

Axiom 2 – God is simply staying out of your way, since your enjoyment of the desires you crave is dependent on His staying away. You voluntarily submitted to worldly delusion, forgetting Him. If He were to show Himself to you, the delusion would be over.

Ask yourself, honestly – are you ready to go back to God, if He exists? I mean – really? Give up eating and drinking, traveling, seeing Stonehenge or the Eiffel tower, possessing an iPod, falling in love, marrying, having your first child, your first grandchild? Are you ready to leave your spouses or kids who might need you, to forego a chance at an Olympic Gold, your tenth Olympic Gold? Are you ok with leaving this world before they find life on other planets, before time travel is invented?

Ask somebody who has lived a full life, into their nineties – are they ready to give it all up and go? You’d be surprised at how many wistful looks you get, showing their yearning to stay and enjoy life some more. Ask a Christian, who staunchly believes he will be united with Jesus in heaven after death – is he ready to go right now? No? Not even to be united with Jesus? Hmm. How about a Muslim, who believes he will get his 72 in jannat after he leaves this world? Why, friend, you seem in no hurry to claim your reward in paradise, despite living in this world with chronic heart disease, with a nagging wife and a disobedient teenage kid.

See what I mean? Do we begin to see the genesis of the concept of reincarnation? It is your desires which brought you here; it is your desires which, when you do leave this world, will make you plead with God for one more fling, one last fling at material enjoyment, before you return to Him forever.
LINK 7

Continuing the exercise, answering the previously identified questions one by one:

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.

Q: Where do the concepts of good and evil come from?

A: Axioms 2 & 3 – you came here to fulfill your desires. Likewise, every other spirit soul that inhabits this universe is also here to fulfill its own desires. Each of us has to pay for every pleasure that we enjoy, out of our own efforts (axiom 3). If you respect the desires of other beings, you are a “good” person. If you try to take advantage of their efforts to attain their desires, you are culpable of “evil.” When you take shortcuts by stealing from somebody or killing them (separating them from their bodies), you deprive them of the means to fulfilling their desires. So when the payment comes for the desires that you enjoyed, you will also have to pay for the desires of the other person, of which you deprived them. This is the genesis of the concepts of good and evil – empathy for the desires of the other souls that came to this universe in search of material fulfillment of their spiritual potential.

Q: How come there is so much evil in this world, if there is a just, merciful God? Specifically, why doesn’t this God intervene in favor of the good?

A: Axioms 2 & 3 – God is simply enforcing a material framework, where each spirit soul that enters the universe is impartially subjected to the consequences of its actions. He doesn’t need to intervene – the system of cause and consequence that he has designed, is perfectly capable of sorting itself out on its own. If there were a need for him to intervene, that would imply that the causal universe that he’s designed does not work as intended.

Cross Q: Then what is the meaning of the verses in the Gita – Yada yadahi dharmasya… and Paritranaya saadhuunaam…?

A: Simply, this – that cause and consequence, living out our desires in this material framework, etc. is not the full story. The other side of the story is the fact that we do not need these material fantasies for our happiness. God indulges our fantasies, but He’s waiting for our return – waiting for us to realize that our true happiness lies with Him.

While the system of cause and consequence that God has designed is perfectly capable of sorting itself out, sometimes, spirit souls, whose aim is to break free of this self-imposed delusion, find themselves in a mess of cause-consequence owing to the insatiable desires of some reckless soul. Like for example, when Duryodhana and his brothers created a tangle of deceit and destruction in his reckless pursuit of his own ends. God incarnates as one of us, to re-establish the way back to Him. He causes minimal damage to the system of cause and consequence – He plays within it, with little fanfare. Miracles are minimal. For the most part, He simply mingles among us as one of us. He might accelerate the process of cause-consequence, but He will not disrupt it. He will act through human agents, or as a human agent. Lord Rama acted, for the most part, as a human. Lord Krishna did not even take part in the Mahabharata war – He let the Pandavas and Kauravas fight it out, but guided the Pandavas. The causal universe is perfectly capable of performing its function of fulfilling our desires and impartially imposing the fruits of our actions on us. God only intervenes to re-establish the path back to Him, so that we don’t get so caught up in desire fulfillment, that we completely forget Him.

Q: Why does SD keep talking about reincarnation?

A: Because our desires do not end with one lifetime. Desire is like the fire – it only grows with feeding. Over the course of our lifetime, we tend to covet the desires that our neighbors are enjoying – be it wealth or power, artistic achievement, or a good-looking spouse. When the time comes for us to leave the world, these desires reign uppermost in our consciousness. When God asks us – “did you get enough of your desire in this past life of yours, my child?” We go – “can I go back just one more time, Lord? I promise, I will return to you immediately after this life.” Punarapi jananam, punarapi maranam.

Even if a soul leaves this world free of desire, will this soul be able to resist the entreaties of the spirits who were its mother or brother, sister or spouse? “I want to go back – come with me one last time. Be my wife again, my lover again. This time I won’t get drunk and beat you up. Please, just once more, just for me?”

A dog which lives in human company, yearns to see what a human life is like. A human who lived poor all his life, yearns to possess wealth, just for a lifetime. Even somebody who was happy with his life, might want to relive it, as if for the first time, forgetting about all the past times he’s lived in this universe. Oh, to be a child again, to turn eighteen again, to turn twenty one again. To fall in love again, to marry again, have my first child, my first grand-child, as if for the first time.

To forget about my past mistakes and start fresh. To forget that drug addiction that ruined my health, that affliction that kept me bed-ridden. To submit to delusion again, and live it over. To be on the earth when they reach for the stars, when they colonize the planets. To travel to those worlds, to meet the inhabitants, to take away their land and reduce them to reservations, to indoctrinate them with my faith….

This is the basis of the theory of reincarnation. Why do we not remember our past lives? Because of our yearning to forget them and live over again. Because it is in our interest to submit to delusion, to maya, and temporarily forget God.
LINK 8

Q: What is “Nirvana?”

A: Axiom 2. Short answer – Nirvana is when you realize that you do not need material fulfillment of your spiritual potential, for your happiness. The Buddhist concept is, that you give up your worldly desires. The Hindu concept is, that you become free of samsara and merge with God. Both concepts are consistent with the above answer.

Q: What is evolution? Is it consistent with SD?

A: The first question probably doesn’t need an answer. It was more rhetorical. As for the second question. Axiom 3 – we do not get something for nothing in this universe. Therefore, if we have a human body, capable of abstract reasoning, among other functions, then we must have earned this body through our prior deeds. Maybe we were a lesser animal in our previous life. How did we earn that body?

Follow this through logically, and you will come to the inevitable conclusion, that you must have started with a very primitive body, and worked your way up to a human existence. Therefore, life in this universe starts with the germs and bacteria, which are barely alive. On to plants and fish, amphibians and reptiles, and so on to mankind. So – evolution is not “consistent” with SD. Rather, once you accept the axioms of SD, evolution becomes a foregone conclusion. The extensive fossil records are evidence of the truth of the third axiom of SD. These records simply show the evolution of our own desires, and of the consequences of our own actions.

This is consistent with the words of many sages – Auvvaiyaar, who said Aridhu aridhu, maanidarai pirappadhe aridhu. I.E., it is rare to even be born as a human being; rarer still to be born without a hunchback, without blindness or deafness etc. Also Maanikkavaachakar – Pullaagip, puzhuvaagi…. I was first a blade of grass, then a worm….

If you occupy a human body now, it indicates that you have been through most, if not all, of the lower life stages that you see in the world around you. Evolution is the logical extension of the tenets of SD.
LINK 9

The abhyaas is nearly done. These are the last two questions on the list, before we get into derivation of tenets of Quantum Mechanics from the axioms.

After that, I will summarize my points so far, reiterate why I think this axiom list and the resulting one-sentence definition fit the bill as a short-and-sweet, consistent definition of SD, which also, with minor modification, applies to Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism.

Then, if people are still interested, we can discuss this further.

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.

Q: Where do the concepts of Advaita and Dvaita come from?

A: Axiom 1 – God is all-powerful. Therefore, he is everything that ever was, is, or will be. Therefore, everything in this universe is a subset of God’s infinite potential. Everything exists in God, everything is God. Thus, every one of us, humans, animals and plants, insects and germs, is God. Hence Advaita. But we are each individual, with our own urges and desires. Dvaita comes from the second axiom – it is our own desires which bring us to this universe. We beings propitiate God for the fulfillment of our desires, and our happiness lies in our merger with God, whenever we’ve had our fill of desire. Kankshanthaha karmanaam siddhim, yajanta iha devataah. Kshipram hi maanushe loke, siddhir bhavati karmaja. Visishtadvaita is qualified dualism.

Swami Vivekananda’s remark makes sense in this context. “Man is an infinite circle, whose circumference is nowhere, and whose center is at a fixed point. God is an infinite circle, whose circumference is nowhere, and whose center is everywhere.” We men are individual – our centers are at a fixed point, which is the “location” of our consciousness. God’s individuality is all-encompassing, and also includes the individual individualities (if such a term exists) of all his creations. Thus His center is everywhere.

Edit: WRT advaita/dvaita, it must be pointed out that even Adi Sankara, who propounded the advaita philosophy (whether or not he initiated it), did compose hymns in praise of Devi (Ayigiri nandini), or Vishnu or Siva, he did establish temples, he did propitiate Narayana to produce golden goose-berries to repay an old woman who had given him a goose-berry when he was hungry (if I remember the story right). All these are dvaitic expressions. There is no dichotomy between advaita and dvaita - they are two different viewpoints of the same reality. I think the axiom list I've identified incorporates both viewpoints, in axiom 1 and axiom 2, respectively.

Q: Is this world really an illusion? Then why do we even bother giving respect to anybody, to not hurt anybody, to remember God?

A: There probably isn’t a better age in which to find a convincing answer to this question. This being the internet age, most people will immediately understand this analogy. The internet world is virtual, illusory. Then why should we give respect to anybody on web forums, which are all illusion, maya? Because we interact with real people through these forums, and because our own character is affected by these interactions, as are the characters of those we interact with.

Likewise, this world is an illusion created by God to fulfill our material urges. But, even though our bodies are illusory (or rather, the result of our submitting to material delusion), our spirits are very real. The way we interact with other spirits through our bodies, determines the consequences we will face from now on. Within this maya, we interact with the rest of God’s vast creations, with His spiritual children.
LINK 10

Finally got to what the axioms that I listed have to say about Quantum Mechanics. I can't claim to understand everything about QM, and I'm not claiming to be able to derive every principle of QM from the axioms of SD. For one thing, QM is hardly a "finished" science - there's lots of research still on-going in the field. For another, QM does not address the issue of how our consciousness fits into this universe. I believe SD does - thus the SD world-view will be inherently different from the QM world-view, since SD approaches the issue from the point of view of our consciousness in relation to this universe.

What I'm claiming, is that the SD world-view does lead to many of the tenets of QM. The point is that focusing on our consciousness is the key to understanding why we're here. As the Buddha said - "Do not waste time inquiring into the nature of this universe - such inquiries are futile. Rather, try to understand why you are here." Or something to that effect.

Here goes - showing how many principles of QM follow from the axioms that have been previously identified.

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.

The implications of these axioms are, that this universe is driven by two things: 1. Our desires, and 2. The consequences of our actions. The driving force for all our experiences and observations is thus established (obviously, this “establishing” is only as good as our axioms).

According to the axioms, the outcome of any event depends on the desires of the beings who currently inhabit this universe, and the consequences of their actions to date. While all the possibilities that ever existed, that currently exist, or will exist (or can exist) in future are all in God, only a very minute subset of those possibilities is manifest in the universe at any time. Which among the infinite possibilities that exist in God are actually manifest in the universe? Only the ones that are determined by our desires, and by the consequences of our actions. The rest remain as God’s unmanifested potential.

God becomes our food and drink, our enjoyment, our leisure and travel, our wealth and power over others, depending on whether or not the consequences of our actions allow these possibilities for us, and whether the consequences of the actions of others allow us to lord it over them. He is simply enforcing an impartial cause/consequence or action/reward system. Why haven’t we found metals which are twenty times stronger than steel, which can stay solid at temperatures of 10,000 Celcius? The consequences of our actions do not permit us to enjoy the possibilities of such metals. Why haven’t we found life on other planets yet? Same reason – the possibility of “life on other planets” still remains among God’s unresolved potential, as far as we are concerned. And so on.

Now apply this principle to events and observers. The outcomes of events depend on the desires of the observers, and on the consequences of their actions. Could this be what we’re seeing in our experiments which led to the theory of Quantum Mechanics? The principle of “Quantum Decoherence” implies that all possible states of an event are entangled with each other, or coherent with each other, but that the boundary between the classical and quantum worlds is the point where some of the possible states “decohere” from the others.

This is consistent with the axioms above, and with their implications. All possible states of an event or object exist as God’s unrealized potential; the only state that we see in this universe, is the one that is permitted by our desires and the consequences of our actions. The axioms not only tell us why this phenomenon of “decoherence” occurs, but they also tells us (in a theoretical sense) which of the possible states of the event or the object will actually be manifest in this universe. I.e., which way does the wave-function actually collapse?

Do we need “multiple universes” to explain what happens to the possible states of an event or object, which we do not perceive in “our universe?” Not really. Those possibilities simply stay as God’s unmanifested potential. Does this mean that if we go looking for multiple universes, we won’t find them? Not quite. If it is our desire to find multiple universes, and if the consequences of our actions permit us to do so, we will find multiple universes. Does life exist on other planets? Depends. Do the consequences of our actions permit us to find life on other planets, and do we desire to find such life? If so, we will find it. Having found such life on other worlds, will we finally be happy? Not a chance. Our desires only grow with feeding, like the fire. We will yearn for further possibilities, work towards them, realize them, pay for them one way or the other – through disease or deprivation, hard work or environmental degradation, through our self-imposed separation from God.

So – what happens to Schroedinger’s cat? It depends on the desires of the relevant observers and the consequences of their actions. However – the cat is itself an observer. At a basic level, a cat is the same as a human. It is a conscious being, which came into this universe with its own desires. It has not yet merited a body as sophisticated as a human’s – but its fate is also governed by its desires, and by the consequences of its actions. If the consequences of its actions keep it safe, then it will stay alive in the apparatus.

Why should this cat undergo the trauma of being imprisoned in this apparatus and having its fate decided by the radioactive decay of an atom? No reason to undergo this, unless the consequences of the cat’s actions impose this fate on the cat. A human experimenter will not be able to catch every cat in this world and subject it to this experiment. The only cat(s) which we will be able to catch for this purpose (assuming we want to) will be the ones, the consequences of whose actions permit us to catch them.

As an interesting aside. The world-views of the western and the Indian peoples are reflected, in a sense, in the games they devise. The western world came up with card games. These are games where you are dealt a random hand, and you make the best of it. “Oh, so you were born deaf? Too bad, mate. God had some mysterious purpose in creating your body that way. Just make the best of it.”

Indians, on the other hand, are chess players. Both players start out equal. It is the consequences of their moves, which dictate victory or defeat. This universe can be thought of as a multi-player chess game. Why is the universe in the mess it is in today? Why is the chess-board so messy in the middle of a game, with pieces caught in power struggles and dead-locks? Because of the consequences of the actions of the players involved. If you could trace back each move to the origin, you would know how the board came to be in such a mess at the current moment.

Bottomline: it is our desires, and the results of our actions, which drive this universe. This is the SD world-view. The parallels between Dharmic traditions such as Hinduism and/or Zen Buddhism, and between the tenets of Quantum Mechanics, stem from this principle.
LINK 11

Getting back to this after a break of a couple of days. Below, I try to show how all the major Dharmic faiths - Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism - may be brought under the umbrella of a "one-sentence definition," which captures the essence of the faiths. My contention is that the axioms upon which the one-sentence definition is based, may be used to build the structure of any of these faiths. Interpretation of the axioms, and disagreements on practical application, are what distinguish these faiths.

For example, the Varna system (in my opinion) was a practical approach in SD to division of labor, which is a mainstay of any modern society. Do away with classes, and you get communism, which wasn't exactly a spectacular success in the brief epoch in which it was known to have been tried. Sikhism categorically rejects caste distinctions. This is a quibble on the practicality of implementation of the ethos resulting from the axioms - not on the axioms themselves. If the whole world were to convert to Sikhism, we'd still have classes, simply because there's no other way to run a society. Rigid hereditary classes, with no chance of mobility - that is what Sikhism is against (IMHO). Caste/class has no basis in man's interaction with God.

But the axioms themselves do not concern themselves with these practicalities at all. They are simply assumptions as to what brought us all to this universe in the first place, and the guiding principle behind this universe. They should be acceptable to all Dharmic faiths, on that basis.

Here goes.

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.

How do these axioms relate to other Dharmic faiths (than Hinduism), like Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism?

I believe the axioms can be left as-is for Sikhism, which is monotheistic, which also speaks of liberation from worldly pleasure and pain, of the law of Karma. Sikhism is not in conflict with any of these axioms. What Sikhism is in conflict with, is meaningless ritualism, fasting, external trappings of devotion with no sincerity at heart, superstition and degeneracy in general. Sikhism does not disagree with the core philosophy of SD, which is, that we are sundered from God, and must seek liberation from our worldly life to regain him. Sikhism only disagrees with other Dharmic philosophies in the means to achieving this end. Sikhism does not accept that God incarnates in this world (as in – Paritranaya saadhunaam), but this is simply a quibble with Hinduism, which the axioms avoid getting into. This is a detail in the theoretical framework derived from the axioms. A question of interpretation. Rather like the “Copenhagen interpretation vs. the ensemble interpretation of quantum decoherence.” The one-sentence definition derived from the above axioms is perfectly compatible with Sikhism.

The Buddha’s message is fully compatible with axioms 2 & 3. Buddhism does not disagree with the premise that it is our own desires which bring us to this universe. Buddhism is certainly in harmony with the third premise, that of the law of Karma. The first axiom is not really incompatible with Buddhism either. The Buddha was not an atheist, he was agnostic. He didn’t think it mattered much whether God existed or not. The first axiom may either be modified, or dropped entirely. We are simply here to fulfill our desires, but we are subjected to the consequences of our actions. The corollary being, that nirvana is the state where we no longer feel the urge for material fulfillment of our spiritual potential.

The Jain religion is similar to Buddhism. They also seem to be agnostic (which would not be a problem, as stated above). The law of karma, and the consequent belief in reincarnation (aka evolution) are very much present in Jainism, as in all Dharmic faiths. No surprises there. The second and third axiom are thus also representative of the Jain faith. Ahimsa is a direct consequence of axiom 3 – do not create any negative consequences for yourself through himsa. When you break free of the karmic cycle, you attain enlightenment. The karmic cycle is basically axioms 2 and 3. It seems in Jainism, all karmic fruits are regarded as undesirable, whether they result from “good” deeds (such as charity) or “bad” deeds (such as murdering somebody). No conflicts with the axioms here, either. Endlessly gratifying our desires and making payments through charity or empathy with the desires of others, is not happiness. Your true happiness lies in letting go of your urge for material enjoyment, in realizing your spiritual self. Again, as for Buddhism, axioms 2 and 3 are fully compatible with the Jaina faith. Axiom 1 may be dropped entirely – it doesn’t matter if there truly is a “God.” This is not atheism, this is agnosticism.

The one-sentence definition of Dharmic faiths, which followed from all three axioms, was:

The indulgent, all-powerful God created this material universe for the fulfillment of our material desires – but, God holds us responsible for the manner in which we pursue our desires.

Drop the reference to “God,” and you get this:

This material universe exists for the fulfillment of our material desires – but, we are held responsible for the manner in which we pursue our desires.

As a corollary, we attain enlightenment when we realize that endless fulfillment of our material desires in this causal universe is a dead-end path, and unnecessary for our happiness. Who created the universe? Immaterial. Who holds us responsible for the manner in which we pursue our desires? Again immaterial. It could be “God,” but it doesn’t have to be. An explicit reference to God is avoided by the Buddhists and the Jains, and while Hindus and Sikhs would be more comfortable with the thought that there is a God, Hindus and Sikhs (I believe) would have no real quibbles with a statement which does not concern itself with the existence of God.

We thus arrive at a reduced axiom list (axioms 2 & 3) and a corresponding one-sentence definition of the Dharmic ethos, from which the structure of the ethos can be derived.

In my next post, I will talk about the reasons (IMHO) for adopting this particular description of the Dharmic ethos – how does it help us present our message to the world, at least in the current age? What are the advantages of this particular representation of the Indic viewpoint? How would it help us take on politically motivated religious orders like the EJs?

Please see post here.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Feb 2013 22:28

Hindu Political Agenda

What we need to do is to keep on showing the foreignness of Islam and Christianity in the Indian context, and do away with the minority narrative.

So one emphasizes

Foreign origin
Foreign control
Foreign financing
Alienness to Bharat and Dharmic thinking

So whereas foreign origin and alienness are talking points, foreign control and foreign financing is something one can use to legislate to underline to difference.

Even foreign origin can be used in legislation.