The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Feb 2013 20:06

The Hindu World

What I clearly observe in European society is the de-Christianization. People are becoming less and less religious, in the Christian sense.

One also observes that when that happens there is a cultural de-tethering of the European to a degree. But the European has moved on to create a cultural identity based on languages, nations, various phases the historians give names like Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, Revolutions, Colonialism, Industrialization, etc. What this creates is however a spiritual vacuum. So many have moved to some alternative churches, many delve in Sanatan Dharma, others in Buddhism, etc. However all this again means a certain cultural alienation for them. So they try to balance their European cultural roots and their spiritual search.

There are some in Europe that want to do away with Christianity and go back to their earlier faiths - their pagan faiths. The problem with that is that there is really little which has been transmitted. The Christians were quite thorough in the destruction of old texts. Also just knowing the name of a few deities of old, some mythology, a little epistemology, really doesn't make a complete package. It is difficult for neo-Pagans to fully connect to their old religions, as these are hardly religions of the book, or still having vast libraries or people still versed in the rituals. So on the one hand these religions need some philosophy, some Dharmic backbone to make them stand. Here Sanatan Dharma can really help fill the huge gaps, holes and cavities.

So one potential is the provision of a Dharmic Foundation, of course while they retain their mythology, cosmology, rituals, etc. but their philosophical underpinnings can be worked on.

The other issue is that these neo-pagan religions still have remained fringe groups with little following. One reason is of course dearth of a viable philosophy other than the back to the roots concept. The other reason is they lack mass, agenda and the proselytization drive, where proselytization drive may simply be making more people interested in the pagan religion. The agenda can be the revival of old cultures.

But the people also need fulfillment in the enterprise, a hope that they are part of something big, they can hold hands across the divisions of humanity. Localized pagan religions do not promise them that through them they will be able to relate to other ethnic groups. So besides the foundation of a solid Dharmic foundation, they may also need a bigger identity which helps bridge the divisions in mankind.

I believe the 'Hindu Identity' can act as a good tent for all the world's pagan religions. The 'Hindu Identity' gives all the pagan religions a certain collective purpose - global competition against the Abrahamics. Just like the slogan "Beat Coke" reinvigorated Pepsi, so too can "Hindu Resistance" reinvigorate the pagan movement with the slogan - "Beat Abrahamic Intrusion".

Just imagine when the Dievturība of Latvia say they are Dievturība Hindus and Maoris of New Zealand say they are Maoris Hindus, or when the native Americans call themselves Dreamer Dance Hindus.

They will call themselves Hindus simply because Hindus mean the Resistance, but the Indian root of the word would remain.

In this one act, Hindutva would become an international movement.

And this would change the whole discourse in India as well. Because the world over the ethnic people under threat of cultural extinction would have embraced Hindutva, it will come to mean in the Indian context something totally different than how it is used today. Today the large majority of Indians have bought into some moral superiority of secularism and need for protection of minorities.

If however Hindutva redefines itself as an international movement for the survival of indigenous faiths, it turns the tables on the sickularists - for then we become the minority - as everywhere in the world it is the indigenous people and their faiths which are under pressure from Christianity and Islam.

By internationalizing the word 'Hindu' we in fact forge it into a principle, and not just India-centric "nationalism" (I don't have anything against the word) of some "bigoted" Hindus, as sickularists would want to portray the Hindus. Thus the Hindus show that we are not against "foreigners" or even faiths in foreign countries, but against foreign imperialist religious ideologies which try to destroy native cultures.

The stand will enable us to enact legislation which advances the cause of the natives in India - the Indics.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 20 Feb 2013 20:34

Rudradev wrote:
harbans wrote:
No, your question is. Krishna in BG if you've read it is God himself. He favors those who are close to him. The laws of nature are his creation according to the MB/ BG. Everything is his. So what time he blows his conch to help his friend is his prerogative.
Interesting.

So in your personal interpretation of the BG:

1. "God" is separate from creation, because creation itself is "God's" possession, and is hence a distinct entity to do whatever He wants with. (this negates "Ekam Advitiyam Brahma")
2. "God" has prerogatives that human beings do not share, because human beings are ultimately separate and distinct from "God" (this negates "Aham Brahma Asmi" from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad of Yajur-Veda.)
3. "God" can ordain a code of conduct based on "Truth" for human beings to follow, but ignore it Himself as He pleases (this negates "Prajnanam Brahma" from Aitareya Upanishad of Rig Veda).

I think it is you who need to do some reading before you talk of Dharma (or accuse others of Adharma.)

rudradev i just want to point out that majority of theist indian branches, including vaishnavas, are dualistic and insist on the difference between ishavara and humans at a bare minimum (there are other dualities). the same vedic quotes you used, mean differently to them.

in anycase an ordinary person's conception of god is as a distinct entity. and he uses this conception in his daily practice of his duties. bhakti for example makes sense in a dualistic context. if go with the strict non-dualistic context bhakti becomes narcissism.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 20 Feb 2013 20:42

Bhagawan and self are considered as a dual for the reason of maya alone, Such is Dharmic concept and no Hindu disagrees with it, even though he/she because of maya thinks they are different and they acknowledge that they are ignorant. No such thing in judeo-Christian-Islamism is possible. For them the dualism is real and there is no maya there and dualism is not universal.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 20 Feb 2013 20:56

venu i'm pointing out that what you are saying is one theory of hindu spirituality. not the only one, even if the most advertised one.

i'm also saying that overwhelming people of spirituality is driven by bhakti which itself is driven by factors such as self preservation. the higher concepts such as maaya etc are barely understood.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 20 Feb 2013 21:09

In Sage Brihadraranyaka's own words:

Verily, that which is Dharma is truth.

Therefore they say of a man who speaks truth, "He speaks the Dharma,"
or of a man who speaks the Dharma, "He speaks the Truth."
Verily, both these things are the same.
—(Brh. Upanishad, 1.4.14) (2)

Satyam Vada, Dharmam Chara also from Taitreya Upanishad confirms the same.

Thus if one talks about a BHARATIYA civilization, one that is based on Dharma, it must have Truth as a nodal point. It's Institutions must reflect it in their functioning.

Rajesh Ji asked this of me wrt Truth:

Please try to explain to us,

what they are?
how these are derived from Dharma?
how they work at the Rashtra level?
why are they relevant to us?

If we are discussing expanding Dharma and a Dharmic civilization how can one dismiss Truth as a fundamental cornerstone of polity? Everyone not even connected overtly with Dharma, knows increasing transparency and openness within Govt institutions leads to better services for it's citizens. Institutional Polity rooted in Truth will lead to transparency and faster feedback based improvements improving governance issues. Thus a Dharmic State with clear constitutional instructions to it's institutions that Truth is nodal to it's functioning as evidenced by increased transparency, openness will lead to better governance.

I mentioned Compassion because a Dharmic State and it's associated Institutions has to be compassionate not just to it's citizens, but to it's flora, fauna and it's environment.

Any State that does not have credibility in it's institutions and is not compassionate to the plight of it's citizenry, flora, fauna is destined to failure. It becomes an Adhamric state by it's very rejection of these values.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Feb 2013 21:20

harbans ji,

why split Dharma? Isn't it sufficient for something to be Dharmic?

or of a man who speaks the Dharma, "He speaks the Truth."

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 20 Feb 2013 21:29

shaardula wrote:rudradev i just want to point out that majority of theist indian branches, including vaishnavas, are dualistic and insist on the difference between ishavara and humans at a bare minimum (there are other dualities). the same vedic quotes you used, mean differently to them.

Shaardula, the apparent disjuncture between advaitic and dvaitic systems is a favourite ploy used by many Hindu-baiters to claim that our philosophy is ultimately incoherent, because we sometimes emphasize an integral unity of all the universe with the Supreme (Advaita) and sometimes a dualism (Dvaitic schools.)

This is actually not the case. As Venug says, it is a question of what convenient first-principles are preferentially applied by different paths, that eventually reach the same integral unity.

The following is from an article by Rajiv Malhotra (no web link available):

Vishishtadvaita is distinctively different from Advaita, but ultimately also addresses a view of the universe predicated on integral unity. To understand Ramanuja’s Vishistadvaita properly, one must first appreciate the specific contours of his approach. In contrast to Shankara, Ramanuja says that Brahman cannot be imagined as nirguna or nirvishesha (devoid of attributes). In support of this, he divides Vedic passages into two categories:

• Abheda shrutis are passages that negate difference, suggesting that Brahman is without any internal distinctions. Examples are Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1, and Mandukya Upanishad 3.2.
• Bheda shrutis are passages that uphold difference, suggesting that internal distinctions exist within Brahman. Examples are Svetasvatara Upanishad 1.9, and Katha Upanishad 2.2.13.

Ramanuja does not consider these two categories of Vedic passages to contradict each other; indeed, he declares emphatically that both are true. The apparent contradiction between them is resolved and harmonized by another category of passage called ghataka shruti, exemplified by the antaryami brahma passage of the Brahadaranyaka Upanishad.

This passage of 27 sentences settles the ostensible discord between bheda and abheda shrutis while maintaining the validity of both. It explains that all sentient and non-sentient beings relate to Brahman in the same manner as the body relates to the indweller; a relationship it calls pradhana pratitantram. Ramanuja emphasizes Brahadaranyaka Upanishad chapter 3, passages 3 to 22 in order to establish the true nature of the three tattvas – Ishvara ("Lord"), cit ("consciousness") and acit ("matter") – that form an integral unity called sarira-sariri ("body-indweller"). The final passage of this series concludes: "Brahman is in all, dwells in all, rules from within all, but the all know Him not, and the all constitute His body. Brahman is the indweller (sariri) of all cit and acit, the latter as his body (sarira)."

The essence of sarira-sariri doctrine is that, while sarira (body) and sariri (indweller) are real, sarira depends inseparably on sariri. Just as the physical body (sarira) inseparably depends on cit (sariri), similarly, cit depends inseparably on Ishvara for its existence. Brahman alone is ultimately independent. Integral unity, therefore, is clearly established and upheld in the precepts of Vishistadvaita.

Therefore, the systems of Shankara and Ramanuja are each characterized by integral unity, albeit in different ways. Shankara’s system proposes the integral unity of reality and mithya, explaining that mithya is not a separable, self-sustaining entity, but depends on underlying Brahman for its existence. Ramanuja, likewise, posits the integral unity of Brahman as antaryami; a foundational quality inherent within all that exists.

The scholar Mircea Eliade has described the integral unity prevalent across all Indian systems, as follows:

“Four basic and interdependent concepts, four ‘kinetic ideas,’ bring us directly to the core of Indian spirituality. They are karma, maya, nirvana, and yoga. A coherent history of Indian thought could be written starting from any one of these basic concepts; the other three would inevitably have to be discussed. In terms of Western philosophy, we can say that, from the post-Vedic period on, India has above all sought to understand:

1. The law of universal causality, which connects man with the cosmos and condemns him to transmigrate indefinitely. This is the law of karma.

2. The mysterious process that engenders and maintains the cosmos and, in doing so, makes possible the “eternal return” of existences. This is maya, cosmic illusion, endured (even worse—accorded validity) by man as long as he is blinded by ignorance (avidya).

3. Absolute reality, ‘situated’ somewhere beyond the cosmic illusion woven by maya and beyond human experience as conditioned by karma; pure Being, the Absolute, by whatever name it may be called—the Self (atman), brahman, the unconditioned, the transcendent, the immortal, the indestructible, nirvana, etc.

4. The means of attaining to Being, the effectual techniques for gaining liberation. This corpus of means constitutes Yoga properly speaking.”

i'm also saying that overwhelming people of spirituality is driven by bhakti which itself is driven by factors such as self preservation. the higher concepts such as maaya etc are barely understood.

Hindu systems have no problem with this. Integral Unity of the Supreme with the cosmos was a matter of high philosophical debate and deliberation, not of dogma. Every individual can approach this ultimate Integral Unity in his or her own way. If they are most comfortable positing a duality between individual self and personal divinity (bhagwaan) then that is how they should start. Bhakti yoga, even if it begins from there, eventually reaches the same moksha, the same realization of integral unity and obliteration of ahamkaara at the ultimate level. Bhakti just happens to pursue a path based on devotion and ecstatism rather than philosophical deliberation and knowledge, and it uses dualism is a convenient starting point. No path is more valid than any other if it approaches the same integral unity in the end.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 20 Feb 2013 21:39

harbans wrote:In Sage Brihadraranyaka's own words:

Verily, that which is Dharma is truth.

Therefore they say of a man who speaks truth, "He speaks the Dharma,"
or of a man who speaks the Dharma, "He speaks the Truth."
Verily, both these things are the same.
—(Brh. Upanishad, 1.4.14) (2)
Satyam Vada, Dharmam Chara also from Taitreya Upanishad confirms the same.

Thus if one talks about a BHARATIYA civilization, one that is based on Dharma, it must have Truth as a nodal point. It's Institutions must reflect it in their functioning.

But then you see, Krishna in the Gita says:

Na hi gnanena s'drasham pavitram iha vidyate

Typing this from memory, so I might have got the exact words wrong - but the gist is: "Nothing is purer/holier than knowledge."

So should our "Dharmic state" have knowledge as the ideal (i.e., follow Krishna's words) or truth as the ideal (i.e., go with Brihadaranyaka)? What if it comes to a conflict between pursuit of knowledge and pursuit of truth? Should we have weekly Tues-din massacres (ala Pakland) where the "more pure" knowledge seekers cull the "less pure" truth seekers, and vice versa? Or should we look at how many references there are in the scriptures that support the "truth" view vs. the "knowledge" view? Wow, 300 references in favor of truth. But wait - 303 in favor of knowledge. Oh, look - we didn't consider this scripture - it has another five references in favor of truth. Truth wins.

This is the kind of literal interpretation that is the bane of the Abrahamic religions.

So India should have "truth" as a nodal point? Meaning, if the Pakis and Chinis come asking for details of our spies in their lands, we should just hand them over to them? Or should we do what Yudhishtir did - "the man named Sanjay (who is not a spy) is located in Quetta at such and such a dwelling." This would be an "exception" of course. Or should we do what the Yogi did - maintain silence?

Edit: The point of typing all the above was to try and show that there can't be one "absolute ideal" in a Dharmic state. It's always a compromise, based on the situation. And the compromises aren't the "exception" either.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 20 Feb 2013 21:47

Some you are really deep into the darshan part of our civilization. Is there any darshan that promotes a fractured view of the follower. Fractured in the manner that:

1) it precludes the possiblity of the attainment of the objective and only gives a half way house of everlasting enjoyment/damnation.
2) it upholds instead an alternative 'best' like the prophet.
3) it then tries to judge, administer and execute amongst the people based on the above two without in anyway opening itself up to enquiry.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 20 Feb 2013 22:06

Meaning, if the Pakis and Chinis come asking for details of our spies in their lands, we should just hand them over to them?

IF that is the kind of logic you are using, there is no dialect here. Security info is shared with almost no one. The agencies in charge report truthfully to their institutional bosses and no one else. Just because someone asks something does not imply by not giving it one has been untruthful etc. By your logic then anyone asking for something in a shop should be given it even if no money is paid. There is a very large gap between Institutions being Truthful and giving out spy lists. I'm still trying to see what kind of mind works out that institutions being truthful to their charters works out=giving spy secret lists to China and Pakistan=giving anything one wants.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Feb 2013 22:13

harbans wrote:I'm still trying to see what kind of mind works out that institutions being truthful to their charters works out=giving spy secret lists to China and Pakistan=giving anything one wants.

harbans ji,

again you have not explained much about how "Truth" is supposed to be applied in a Rashtra, so why complain about how people understand your one word statements.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 20 Feb 2013 22:22

again you have not explained much about how "Truth" is supposed to be applied in a Rashtra, so why complain about how people understand your one word statements.

Rajesh Ji, i think i have explained in a number of posts why and how truth can be applied. You asked me 4 questions the other day, my previous post does tell clearly how Dharma and Truth are linked together. I think i have in several posts explained why Govt Institutions must be truthful to there charters including one a few above. If you feel Institutions should not be truthful to there state charters then tell why so. I am not here to write out a constitution. For those who think they can form a Dharmic state without Truth or other values being Nodal to it..i'll say good luck. Go ahead and develop your charters and wish lists, feel free.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Feb 2013 22:51

harbans wrote:
again you have not explained much about how "Truth" is supposed to be applied in a Rashtra, so why complain about how people understand your one word statements.
Rajesh Ji, i think i have explained in a number of posts why and how truth can be applied. You asked me 4 questions the other day, my previous post does tell clearly how Dharma and Truth are linked together. I think i have in several posts explained why Govt Institutions must be truthful to there charters including one a few above.

In the Ten Commandments, do you see any commandment which says, "Thou shalt follow these 10 Commandments". Why isn't there any commandment which speaks thus?

Simply because that is the whole meaning of Commandment - It is God's word and it is to be followed.

Similarly it makes no sense to have a Law which says, "You will follow all laws", or some rules and regulations, which say "You will act as per these rules and regulations."

Of course it is incumbent on the Government to act according to its laws. Why else should one have laws or charters? The existence of some law passed by the Parliament means that the parties mentioned need to act according to it, including the government! Does anywhere in the world, people make laws, rules, regulations, etc. just as time-pass or because they want the parties to act according to them? Say a government does not act according to the law. If there is an extra law, that it has to act according to the law, then that would provide the solution!

harbans wrote:If you feel Institutions should not be truthful to there state charters then tell why so. I am not here to write out a constitution. For those who think they can form a Dharmic state without Truth or other values being Nodal to it..i'll say good luck. Go ahead and develop your charters and wish lists, feel free.

So this whole campaign of yours was really about nothing!

In response to

how they work at the Rashtra level?
why are they relevant to us?

what one gets is nothing!

If you think only by requesting truthfulness, somebody would act truthfully, then you know some Jedi trick others don't!

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 20 Feb 2013 23:11

harbans wrote: Thus if one talks about a BHARATIYA civilization, one that is based on Dharma, it must have Truth as a nodal point.

What is "truth"?

If the Yogi had misdirected the murderers, would his conduct have been "truthful"?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 20 Feb 2013 23:15

Rajesh Ji, what do you mean it's about nothing? You conveniently forget a few posts above and then go about nice rosy fluffy wish lists. But the hard part about civilizational values you ignore. And you want to set up a Civilizational Bharatiya state? No you don't, i realize. It's pushing an agenda against that is more of interest here than one of setting up a state with it's own positive attributes that attract and assimilate. Your idea is setting up of a state that is based on what you think others are and what you consider your agenda based setup is not. Some of you while living in and off 'Christian Sufi' lands yearn for living in an idealized romantic notion of your own land. You wean off your identity crises there by idealizing a civilizational setup here. Values are a big irritant ofcourse.

Ofcourse your assumption that the values will generate on an auto mode once we have such an idealized romantic state of your notions materializes has been answered earlier too. Despotic Hindu kings and Rajahs were no exceptions. They literally came in all sorts of shapes, sizes, from various sampradaya's. Ravana the Hindu scholar king was only one such example.

Hankering for a civilizational state without rallying on what values you stand for is a rank stupid exercise in the primary place. Deep inside you know that it is true. That values and not sampradayic ritual is what differentiates you from those you claim to hate and eliminate from your lands. But the temptation that prompts so many here is quickie that deception, untruth will somehow win a nice and quick victory.

Your quest for a civilizational state is based on vengeance and hatred. Not on positive attributes. Once you evolve to basing your ideals to those of positive attributes, even a 3rd of my posts so far will be sufficient to understand why. But as long as you are blinded, it will be impossible for me to make you understand. So do continue. You changed your stance midway once and probably will so again as you still are not clear about what a Dharmic state should stand for. Will wait and see when that happens.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 20 Feb 2013 23:25

What is "truth"?

If the Yogi had misdirected the murderers, would his conduct have been "truthful"?

Pranav Ji, we should here be talking about a Dharmic state and it's responsibilities. What kind of state would that be. How would it treat it's citizens. What would it reflect and what values it seeks to uphold. This is not about individual Yogi's and their quest for the ultimate truths. If i am known as a truthful person and someone comes to me and says tell me a lie or i will kill your family, i will tell a lie. These kind of questions are childish and don't and cannot dent the requirement that when you talk about forming a State based on XYZ, what kind of state will that be? What does it reflect? etc, So yes if someone tells the Dharmic state tell a lie or else i will nuke you, either the State should be powerful enough to double nuke that state in question or give in or tell a lie to appease that state? But then that question can apply to a Hindutvaadi state too. I nuke your entire HIndutvaadi state unless you dismantle it. Same choices as in the previous one. So that line of questioning can be applied everywhere to stall. So it's a staller line of questioning, not some line that is going to bring more light and understanding.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 20 Feb 2013 23:28

I don't think RajeshA ji you ever changed your stance.

But it does happens that to a mind accustomed to think in terms of 'Murgi pehle ya anda pehle' this is exactly how Dharm looks. At times it looks like truth and then it looks like pragmatism. If a person has an additional layer of westphilia the SDRE pragmatism will get reduced to a lie.

has happened earlier. chalta hai i guess.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 20 Feb 2013 23:30

suppose rudra i'm not a hindu baiter and reject rajeev malhotra's understanding of vaishnava thought, and his authority on matters of indian spiritual thought. how does the discussion then go further?

are we seeing a bollywoodization of indic thoughts here? where everybody is a raj and everybody speaks dialogues in a language that is native to none, and yet pretends to tell the story of indians?

an unfortunate side effect of this whole rajeev malhotra business is the urgency it has manufactured about the need for coherance. what is so holy about coherance? why should we aspire for it?

"As Venug says, it is a question of what convenient first-principles are preferentially applied by different paths, that eventually reach the same integral unity."

This is completely and fully wrong understanding of indian thought and implies that indian thinkers were idiots to have strived for so long and so hard over pointless semantics. not everyone accepts "same integral unity". many of them start with - you can do all the monkey circus you can, you will never become ishvara. not everyone accepts maaya. as a newly minted convert to advaitism, i would get into arguments with my family. my aunt, who was basically a priest's wife and led a life of orthodoxy, once asked me, so what we are all fooling ourselves here? so what all that i see and experience is false? what sort of nihilism is that? she flew off a handle with what is ultimately implied by advaitic interpretation of aham bramhaasmi, and thought that it was asahya (disgusting) to even harbor a notion that negates the distinction between ishvara and jeeva. there was more to her argument and based on being a non-abashed empiricist.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 20 Feb 2013 23:41

the distinction between indic schools are not the same as distinctions between ahl-ehadith and deoband etc.

this whole business of manufacturing a unified front is a monkey business of mirroring the organization and world view of precisely the groups that are deemed as non-indian.

there may be a valid political argument, but let us not give it a spiritual veneer and create strawmen, nothing is more fragile than a strawman.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 20 Feb 2013 23:42

harbans wrote:
What is "truth"?

If the Yogi had misdirected the murderers, would his conduct have been "truthful"?
Pranav Ji, we should here be talking about a Dharmic state and it's responsibilities. What kind of state would that be. How would it treat it's citizens. What would it reflect and what values it seeks to uphold. This is not about individual Yogi's and their quest for the ultimate truths. If i am known as a truthful person and someone comes to me and says tell me a lie or i will kill your family, i will tell a lie. These kind of questions are childish and don't and cannot dent the requirement that when you talk about forming a State based on XYZ, what kind of state will that be? What does it reflect? etc, So yes if someone tells the Dharmic state tell a lie or else i will nuke you, either the State should be powerful enough to double nuke that state in question or give in or tell a lie to appease that state? But then that question can apply to a Hindutvaadi state too. I nuke your entire HIndutvaadi state unless you dismantle it. Same choices as in the previous one. So that line of questioning can be applied everywhere to stall. So it's a staller line of questioning, not some line that is going to bring more light and understanding.

It is a very relevant line of questioning ... you want the state to be based on what you call "truth" but in the same breath you admit that "truth" is not universally applicable.

So then are there higher principles, that are universally applicable?

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 20 Feb 2013 23:44

Rudradev wrote:Shaardula, the apparent disjuncture between advaitic and dvaitic systems is a favourite ploy used by many Hindu-baiters to claim that our philosophy is ultimately incoherent, because we sometimes emphasize an integral unity of all the universe with the Supreme (Advaita) and sometimes a dualism (Dvaitic schools.)

This is actually not the case.
The following is from an article by Rajiv Malhotra (no web link available):

Vishishtadvaita is distinctively different from Advaita, but ultimately also addresses a view of the universe predicated on integral unity.

True. Even in the "Dvaita" school of Madhva, there is only One Independent Reality - all other realities are dependent realities within epistemic scopes that telescope into this One Independent Reality. Of course, the decisive point is that Difference itself is a property of this One Independent Reality...but this is not the same as the separateness seen materially. In the material world, Difference is merely signalized between two separate entities, but it is never observed as a property of one single entity. Whereas that is the case with the Ultimate Independent Reality. Thus, the Indic "Dvaita" is a very sophisticated concept that builds upon the foundation of Advaita in many ways, whereas the non-Indic "Dualism" has no Advaitic foundation or context whatsoever.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 20 Feb 2013 23:49

The more one will focus on outside systems like Christianity and Islam and their world views based on their evolution and their systems the more one will tend to focus on Dharmic systems in its conception of god, paths to Moksha, what it means and how it is different etc. IMO: This approach will utterly miss the point of SD and a Dharmic system based on it. This is also partly the reason I am not a big fan of an approach with an over emphasis on the BG to understand a dharmic life. The focus invariably tends to get Moksha centric. This is usually at the cost of the other three goals of life, which dominate our activities and duties and little is sought to be learnt and practiced. What it does do is make dharmics quite comfortable with the "secular" approach to life as they are largely free to pursue their chosen Moksha margs in their private lives and "live" the popular culture. It is also the reason when a poison pill like the Hindu code bills, is thrust upon the nation the Hindus meekly accept it.

It is fine to defend these Moksha margs and even atheist and Nastika systems of Dharma against critics but does little to further the idea of a dharmic life, dharmic systems and ways to "live" a dharmic life to make this person an "Arya" and make a nation "AryaVarta".

There is a need to view a dharmic life from the prism of dharma shastras, which hardly anyone talks about. It is our dharma shastras that acted as the life blood of society, enforced by a ruler. It is a dharma shastra that needs evolution. Bharat needs a new dharma shastra and the title of this thread ought to be the evolution of such a proposition. Moksha being a personal goal can be largely left alone , no? What has Moksha to do with identity, vision, agenda proposition? What has even god to do with it?

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 20 Feb 2013 23:53

Ok I will be willing to learn.

If the common base of dharmics is a strawman then we can all safely destroy it.

The point that comes up is, with what. Ignoring is one, pontificating is another, pear reviewed authorizations or something else that I am yet to find.

Another query, is there a common base for Abrahmics. Like say all the three points that I had mentioned earlier.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 21 Feb 2013 00:02

Carl wrote: True. Even in the "Dvaita" school of Madhva, there is only One Independent Reality - all other realities are dependent realities within epistemic scopes that telescope into this One Independent Reality. Of course, the decisive point is that Difference itself is a property of this One Independent Reality...but this is not the same as the separateness seen materially. In the material world, Difference is merely signalized between two separate entities, but it is never observed as a property of one single entity. Whereas that is the case with the Ultimate Independent Reality. Thus, the Indic "Dvaita" is a very sophisticated concept that builds upon the foundation of Advaita in many ways, whereas the non-Indic "Dualism" has no Advaitic foundation or context whatsoever.

no. dvaita is not an extension of advaita. it does not "build upon" it. it negates it.

bnk sharma is good modern accessible reference. please read him.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 21 Feb 2013 00:05

shaardula wrote:no. dvaita is not an extension of advaita. it does not "build upon" it. it negates it.

bnk sharma is good modern accessible reference. please read him.

I have read BNK sharma. In fact I borrowed the expression I used about Difference being "signalized" in the material Maya versus being a property of the Independent Reality from him!
Dvaita, understood properly, only negates superfluous conclusions of Advaita (and Vishishtadvaita). It also establishes a different set of pragmatics as far as sadhana is concerned.

Added: And I didn't say Dvaita was an "extension" of Advaita. Rather, it takes a thorough look at the fundamentals of the relationship between ontology and epistemology. But in a sense of sadhana, it is an extension that builds on the foundation of an existing culture of Advaita and Vishishtadvaita.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 21 Feb 2013 00:09

ravi, i dont know, there may be something to what vidyaranya had to say? perhaps we can build on that? he actually faced conditions that were fairly similar to ours. he had to build a coalition of all sorts of theorists. he went about his task without any appeal to "integral unity".

may be a purely empirical existential argument is possible? i dont know, i have not much to say.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 21 Feb 2013 00:13

shaardula wrote:suppose rudra i'm not a hindu baiter and reject rajeev malhotra's understanding of vaishnava thought, and his authority on matters of indian spiritual thought. how does the discussion then go further?

To be fair to RM, he has never claimed to be an authority on anything. 90%+ of his viewpoints are written to refute the western misunderstanding/misappropriation of SD. He does purva-paksha of western society and lives in the US. To what degree is this wealth of knowledge applicable to India, Indian issues, and the purpose of this thread is to one's own perception of what ails Indian systems. Someone like me finds little of use for RM's work in that context for what IMO ails is that our constitution and laws have not been framed in light of our civilizational heritage and have been imported. The objective IMO has to to expound on concepts, ideals, goals and values that go into framing a "shastra" that is an exposition for the title of this thread?

Going at each other on Moksha margs is a favorite pastime of different sampradayas - however we did not have a different "dharma shatra" for different sampradayas. It does not add value to the thread. My request would be to leave it out and focus on what the thread is for?

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 21 Feb 2013 00:16

shaardula wrote:ravi, i dont know, there may be something to what vidyaranya had to say? perhaps we can build on that? he actually faced conditions that were fairly similar to ours. he had to build a coalition of all sorts of theorists. he went about his task without any appeal to "integral unity".

may be a purely empirical existential argument is possible? i dont know, i have not much to say.

shaardula, you would also recall that Vidyaranya did debate and accept the philosophy expounded by the Dvaita exponent Jayatirtha, though he maintained his affiliation with Advaita. Moreover, another such debate was adjudicated in favour of Dvaita by the great Vishishtadvaitin Vedantadeshika, even though Dvaita is also scathingly critical of some practices of Vishishtadvaita. Thus, we can see that the 3 main schools have their differences, yet their exalted exponents could see eye to eye and even admire one another.

So there's no need to fall into the trap of saying that Hindu philosophy is incoherent and self-negating. Rather, the 3 philosophies are orthogonal to one another, but they help set the co-ordinates for a more rounded understanding of reality.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 21 Feb 2013 00:18

Carl wrote:
shaardula wrote:no. dvaita is not an extension of advaita. it does not "build upon" it. it negates it.

bnk sharma is good modern accessible reference. please read him.
I have read BNK sharma. In fact I borrowed the expression I used about Difference being "signalized" in the material Maya versus being a property of the Independent Reality from him!

ok. i honestly am not interested in the nature of being. if you say i'm wrong i'm ok with it. i shared my understanding of sharma and bhasyas.

for the purpose of rudradev's orginal argument my point is still valid.

Carl wrote: Dvaita, understood properly, only negates superfluous conclusions of Advaita (and Vishishtadvaita). It also establishes a different set of pragmatics as far as sadhana is concerned.

Added: And I didn't say Dvaita was an "extension" of Advaita. Rather, it takes a thorough look at the fundamentals of the relationship between ontology and epistemology. But in a sense of sadhana, it is an extension that builds on the foundation of an existing culture of Advaita and Vishishtadvaita.

kind of agree. not really. anywho i've not revisited these things in a while. i dont want to waste your time. you are a serious student, i'm not.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 21 Feb 2013 00:20

SharuyaT ji let the Moksha shastrics remain here for some time at least.

Actually moksh marg is not controlled by the constitution for good reasons. The constitution itself carries parts of Dharmshastras which is why I had been working overtime to stop people from abandoning our constitution. And people will for themselves see how the moksh marg arguments are usually used in an effort to pass bunkum.

This will also help in understanding the basics of why Indian systems while differing in the moksh marg are not contradictory in the Dharm marg. (work for sudarshan ji

Axiom 2 & 3)

Further this will also show how the constitution & statutes themselves finds it unable to function, without first establishing the superiority of Shruti over Smriti, only with different wordings.

There was a reason why all the Smritikaars upheld the Shruti above their own work. And this will get revealed if this thing goes any further good enough.

IMHO.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 21 Feb 2013 00:22

Carl wrote:
shaardula wrote:ravi, i dont know, there may be something to what vidyaranya had to say? perhaps we can build on that? he actually faced conditions that were fairly similar to ours. he had to build a coalition of all sorts of theorists. he went about his task without any appeal to "integral unity".

may be a purely empirical existential argument is possible? i dont know, i have not much to say.
shaardula, you would also recall that Vidyaranya did debate and accept the philosophy expounded by the Dvaita exponent Jayatirtha, though he maintained his affiliation with Advaita. Moreover, another such debate was adjudicated in favour of Dvaita by the great Vishishtadvaitin Vedantadeshika, even though Dvaita is also scathingly critical of some practices of Vishishtadvaita. Thus, we can see that the 3 main schools have their differences, yet their exalted exponents could see eye to eye and even admire one another.

completely agree. says a lot about the level a "The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition" requires doen't it?

Carl wrote: So there's no need to fall into the trap of saying that Hindu philosophy is
incoherent and self-negating
. Rather, the 3 philosophies are orthogonal to one another, but they help set the co-ordinates for a more rounded understanding of reality.

this is my bone. equating incoherance with self negation. the common thread is "see eye to eye and even admire one another" what is the need for coherance? why the need to bollywoodize everything into an integral unity?

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 21 Feb 2013 00:27

shaardula wrote:this is my bone. equating incoherance with self negation. the common thread is "see eye to eye and even admire one another" what is the need for coherance? why the need to bollywoodize everything into an integral unity?

Well that's just semantics. Rudradev ji's concern was not semantics but politics -- If non-Indics use words like "incoherent" to describe us, then we do need to challenge them about what they mean by that.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 21 Feb 2013 00:33

ShauryaT wrote:
shaardula wrote:suppose rudra i'm not a hindu baiter and reject rajeev malhotra's understanding of vaishnava thought, and his authority on matters of indian spiritual thought. how does the discussion then go further?
To be fair to RM, he has never claimed to be an authority on anything. 90%+ of his viewpoints are written to refute the western misunderstanding/misappropriation of SD. He does purva-paksha of western society and lives in the US. To what degree is this wealth of knowledge applicable to India, Indian issues, and the purpose of this thread is to one's own perception of what ails Indian systems. Someone like me finds little of use for RM's work in that context for what IMO ails is that our constitution and laws have not been framed in light of our civilizational heritage and have been imported. The objective IMO has to to expound on concepts, ideals, goals and values that go into framing a "shastra" that is an exposition for the title of this thread?

sure shaurya. but we must also be alert when rm is used to define hinduism. and this happens very often. avreaged out version is fine for political reasons. but we must also not loose our natural variation, not deny it, and let that average and become us.

ShauryaT wrote: Going at each other on Moksha margs is a favorite pastime of different sampradayas - however we did not have a different "dharma shatra" for different sampradayas. It does not add value to the thread. My request would be to leave it out and focus on what the thread is for?

hmm, i'm not necessarily interested in any sampradaya. was just pointing the broadstroking that was going on here.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 21 Feb 2013 00:37

Shaardula,

Have you read Malhotra's work? Integral Unity, as he uses the term does not demand coherence to the point of essentialization or uniformity. It is a characteristic that encompasses all the diverse streams of Indian thought, and differentiates them from Abrahamic thought where it is absent. What is the use of appealing to it? Only to make the differentiation, nothing else. It does not negate diversity amongst streams of Indian thought at all.

Also, "incoherence being equivalent to self-negation" is a piece of propaganda by the Abrahamics (who are "coherent" to the point of frozen fundamentalism in their texts.) The false equivalence between coherence and legitimacy is a hallmark of Western Universalism, a system that Malhotra critiques. Integral Unity is not a method to impose an artificial "coherence" on Hinduism to mirror that of the Abrahamics, or to "justify" Hinduism as "equally coherent" per the Abrahamic definition. It stands in opposition to Abrahamic "Synthetic Unity", per RM, wherein it is the duty of Man (as special representative of an external, non-immanent God) to impose order by "healing the brokenness of creation." Within Malhotra's framework I see no contradictions.

If you think this amounts to "Bollywoodization" or is detrimental in some way, pray make your case to Rajiv Malhotra. I see it as a useful differentiator, no more and no less.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 21 Feb 2013 00:41

Carl ji,

Incoherence is self negation in the present context (OMG that word

, so bollywoorr).

The reason why we have a corporeal existence of individuals recognised at the same level as the corporate existence of say Ramlala or your employer is because man by law is recognised and acknowledged in its various existences. They just couldn't not recognize it.

And that is why we need to understand philosophies/philophobies that are basically immiscibles with the ever flowing shaaswat dharm.

Ergo a need for Integral unity which again has been spoken off in different ways by our law givers.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 21 Feb 2013 00:48

ravi_g, True that.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 21 Feb 2013 00:53

Thanks for indulging me Carl ji.

But then you realise na, even the almighty has to submit to Dharm and Maryada when in the Avtaar form dealing with humans.

You are my guru, the equivalent of god but I have many gurus. All of them I equally love. So let x^x^aum = n (added later : or was it something else you engineers do)

Shastaan pranamam gurudev.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 21 Feb 2013 00:56

shaardula wrote:
for the purpose of rudradev's orginal argument my point is still valid.

To understand my original argument in its proper context you have to go a ways back in this thread. One poster was insisting that per Sanatan Dharma, "Truth" is an absolute value with uniform and universal applicability; this poster refused to be deterred from his insistence by examples to the contrary even from within our epics and texts. When confronted with one such example, that of Krishna's role in Drona-vadha, the poster countered with an absolutist Dvaitic interpretation of the BG.

My pointing out the contradictions between his interpretation and Advaitic interpretation of certain Mahavakyas, was to illustrate the diversity within Sanatan Dharma that makes an absolute, context-insensitive characterization of "Truth" completely untenable. Isn't this the exact diversity which you feel is being threatened by the very term "Integral Unity"? Go back in the pages of this thread and you will find it being threatened much more directly.

So no, your point is not valid for the purpose of my original argument, unless you too contend that there is no room for diversity of interpretation within Sanatan Dharma.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Feb 2013 01:53

harbans ji,

I'll leave the useless polemic out. You like to debate with some ideal ghost debaters, as mostly what you ascribe to others is usually a figment of your imagination.

I'm of course not against the state being governed according to certain principles but these principles must have some real applications in the structure and work of the Rashtra.

I listed several such principles earlier in fact as a response to your claim that anybody who asks you to make a case for your suggestions is against truth and values and a nasty hateful person.

You spoke of "openness" and "transparency" as applications of "truth". I believe these are better covered by the principle of empowering individuals including with knowledge. I see "Truth" as a principle which has too much depth and comes with too much subjective baggage, thus miring everything into debate.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 21 Feb 2013 03:42

ravi_g wrote:Carl ji,

Incoherence is self negation in the present context (OMG that word , so bollywoorr).

The reason why we have a corporeal existence of individuals recognised at the same level as the corporate existence of say Ramlala or your employer is because man by law is recognised and acknowledged in its various existences. They just couldn't not recognize it.

And that is why we need to understand philosophies/philophobies that are basically immiscibles with the ever flowing shaaswat dharm.

Ergo a need for Integral unity which again has been spoken off in different ways by our law givers.

Good point