The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

[ShauryaT]

But you are not being clear whether varna is a derivative of guna and karma or the other way round!

My readings suggest: Karma and its nature (gunas) makeup a person's Varna. Each person has the "capacity" to be of any Varna (the Purusha Sukta interpretation). Howerver, it is actions alone that determine a person's Varna. How each society for its times decide to use these varnas and put to use or misuse is the responsibility of that generation.

[ShauryaT]

Dividing of society into mutually exclusive groups based on functionality will always be abused. No exceptions.

Agreed. Ossification will lead to abuse. The challenge is to keep the entries into such groups rule based and not let the elites be unchalleged by the stupid masses. But, I understand where you are coming from and the principle behind it.

[RajeshA]

RajeshA ji, by "purpose" I meant in the largest scope, rather than a determination to do something. Purpose can be in terms of "Beingness", "Doingness" or "Havingness". Everyone has some purpose that is limited by different horizons. Shudra also has purpose and a sense of ownership and pride in his profession. Even a depressed or lost individual has a purpose to find purpose. In some ways the Brahmana is like that too! -- but at a self-determined and knowledgable level. So the quality of purpose (and ownership, etc.) have different scopes of definition. Its like guNa IMHO.

Carl ji,

from the semantic that I presented earlier, there really is no such thing as a Brahmin person or a Shudra person. At the most one can say that a person works in an economic field which can be accorded a Varna should one decide to see the society as a Purusha - a consciousness, a conscious organism, similar to a human being.

In such a case, an economic field/activity has a Varna but not the person active in it.

Let's take the tanners. Many would classify them as Shudras. But among the tanners, there would be those who would be making decisions for them, those who would be working to improve the process, those who would be looking into the economics of it and those who would be doing the work.

So how can one call somebody Shudra just because he is a tanner. All one can say is that tanning is a Shudra economic activity in the society, but these categories may not be applicable to a person. Perhaps as part of a small enterprise one could say so, but even then the role would be the Varna, but not the person occupying that role or position.

So there are no Brahmins and there are no Shudras. There are no Kshatriyas and there are no Vaisyas.

In fact I can't even see any hierarchy between the faculties - creativity, decision, motivation and application. They are all needed for a complete Purusha - a consciousness.

Nor can there be any hierarchy in any application of this model at some other level - day-to-day life of a person, institution, or human society. These are all equal faculties.

The application of the model on human society was always a tentative endeavor. Projecting a hierarchy onto the Varnas was a perversion. Bringing in heredity in the model was outright abuse. Giving it divine sanction through RV and BG outright adharmic.

[Agnimitra]

Linking from a discussion on the NaMo thread in GDF:

I totally disagree with such classification. To me Govindacharya types are just nut cases and if they have brains they are Ambhi Kumars of modern India. By giving them Left, Right, hindutva etc, we are unnecessarily giving them respect which they do not deserve. I really don't care what they did in the past or how brilliant they were. When it matters they have become enemy of the national aspirations of the state.

OK. Could you explain what exactly Govindacharya types are doing that makes them "enemy of the national aspirations of the state"? Thanks.

For example, what is this "mukhota, mukhota" business about Vajpayee that he carried on for few years?

Well he denied it, and later said Vajpayee was a "mukut" not "mukhota". But even if he did make such a remark, I want to understand why he did so.

RSS severs links with Govindacharya

Govindacharya was not very comfortable with the coalition style of BJP politics after the National Democratic Alliance Government came to power. The BJP had to virtually give up all its pet issues - Ram temple, abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, and a uniform civil code - which were not accommodated in the NDA manifesto and agenda for governance. An RSS hardliner like Mr. Govindacharya was not convinced that giving up policy for power was politically prudent.

Here's what I think based on the discussion earlier in this thread (this post) about the iterations along any one human dynamic. I had quoted from this blogpost:



I think around the year 2000 when the BJP had come to power, it had done so mainly by mobilizing a populist sentiment - the Ram Janma Bhumi issue. In doing so, it had suddenly brought to light the fact that there was a mass sentiment for change from the typical politics of the Nehruvian era. This would be the inflection point. It is also the Penultimate step. Being the very first iteration of this Penultimate step of Hindutva politics in independent India, it would trigger a "cycle". Here is my idea on that:

My observation is that, down each column, the ideological tendency one step before balance also acts like an inflection point. We can call it the Penultimate step. At this point, there is a tendency to ripple right back in a sort of reverse peristaltic movement, back to the tendency one step after the balance point. We can call this the Intrapersonal Limit point, for it is the logical conclusion of the drive, taken independently of all other drives with one's body as the reference point. This reverse peristaltic movement vomits all the discontents of the system before a rebuilding can begin. So from this Limit point, one then cycles down through all the other steps, including the Penultimate step, and then one comes out the other side and actually reaches the balance. However -- if one does not have that enlightening cognition on the self and life in the Penultimate step during the first iteration, then one can fall over into excess - one falls into an unenlightened mode of the Intrapersonal Limit!

So, the next logical step (after the populist wave) to pay attention to would be all the way back to "formalism" - i.e., to re-focus on one's ideology, policy, direction, and the most efficient way to effect change. Otherwise ,the danger is that one rides the populist wave and puts together a shabby or "expedient" ideology in order to gain and consolidate power...and AT BEST (if one can continue that successfully) it will ultimately lead to one of two things: (a) "an unenlightened mode of the Limit point" - IOW it would lead to ideological ossification and divisive communalist "identity politics" (different from Asmita politics) of loyalty to a particular banner or religion rather than a creative movement. OR (b) Compromise ideology and succumb to becoming just another animal in the same dispensation - no new order is created.

So maybe Govindacharya was wary about the compromises with the NDA that diluted any ideological focus, much less allow it to be fleshed out more equitably and wisely.

Secondly, by not paying the right kind of attention to the Ram Mandir issue, one would even whittle down the populist base one had built up. In this case, it may not lead to ideological polarization, but it would lead to the BJP becoming just another part of the Nehruvian political paradigm.

Not abrogating article 370 undermines the future "nationalim" step from the PoV of a weak foreign policy impinging on domestic policy.

Not implementing a uniform civil code undermines nationalism and betrays the intents expressed in the Preamble.

Govindacharya's insistence at that time and his unhappiness with Vajpayee's charming compromises as part of NDA coalition politics may have seemed excessively "hardline" and raised the spectre of a despotic "Hindu Nazi". It is true that there are despotic tendencies, but that need not necessarily be bad. In fact, according to the table in the blogpost, that is a logical and necessary step, though a risky one. It is a phase of consolidation and changing of the order in all limbs of society - educational, political, foreign policy, media, etc. So although it has a grain of truth in it, perhaps Govindacharya and his ilk have a wiser, more far-sighted point about the unfolding of "Hindutva". He had mentioned in an interview to Seema Mustafa that he was upset at the lack of "scientific principles" in running the political party. That's why he walked out.

Lastly, perhaps the time was not yet ripe, and there was too much charge around the "despotism" step of the graph. So perhaps the last decade has been a phase where much of that fear has been discharged. Vajpayee was a soft face that helped in that, too. Perhaps the time has come for the kind of politics that Govindacharya types were talking about. But it would be good to see it blossoming into a cordial opposition or counterpoint to the current mainstream Hindutva leadership.

[RajeshA]

- del -

[ramana]

Carl. My thinking is Ar 370 has been kept as a pathfinder for re-integration. It is an Indian way of reverse Millat.

Millat as you are aware of is a Ottomon Turkey scheme where the non-Muslim minorities in Ottomon Empire are allowed to govern themselves in areas where they form a majority Eg. Armenia.

[Agnimitra]

Carl. My thinking is Ar 370 has been kept as a pathfinder for re-integration. It is an Indian way of reverse Millat.

ramana ji could you say more about this? I agree it is a "test case". But how does one go about it?

[ramana]

Do you all agree its fit for this thread or Strat leadership thread?

[RajeshA]

ramana garu,

this thread is for all matters structural and political-philosophical. So I would say, Article 370 does belong in this thread.

[ShauryaT]

are societal functions as they exist today - orderable by dividing up society into just four? Not only just four - but with specialization of functioning being divided up into mutually exclusive social divisions? Is the nature of social interactions and experiences - even in its variety, divisible into four?

I have been down this path of questioning, why on earth will BG refer to a division of society based on 4 colors of nature, with example after example to clarify what it means by it. Every Dharma shastra then goes on to ratify in large measure this division of society, unambiguously. Every read of our history will testify to its inherent nature both of its use and abuse. By the time we come to our consitutent assembly the entire concept gets junked!! But, even before that the then "elite" had stopped living by VarnAshrama as testified by MKG in Hind Swaraj. The resistance to the abuse of this concept is also on record.

The only way I can make sense of it is chatur varna is an articulation of our internal nature to the world outside and not the other way around. Our inherent need to feel secure, gain knowledge, be happy and good to society is being projected as a society division of functions. Not all are able to actually deliver on these personal objectives at all times, leading to specializaiton. Groups eventually form based on capabilities. When the Vedas were deemed to be all knowing and all encompassing and all that was worthy to know and serve the world, only those who could master the vedas, were qualified to be Brahmins. As things changed these definitions of who qualifies also changed with them.

The defining question on the table is, was the constituent assembly's decision to junk VarnaAshram to order and stucture society the right one? VarnAshrama was the corner stone of the dharmic order, since ages. Do we need to reform and adjust VarnAshrama to current times or leave its application to philosophical levels only? Many are very comfortable with this idea as it allows them to pay lip service to the societal aspects of SD and relegate the practice of SD to the personal realm and comfortably live under a "modern" "secular" "democratic" order where equality and fraternity are supposed to rule under a "socialist" frabric!

[Muppalla]

Carl ji,
No offence but I respectfully disagree with all that analysis with respect to Govindachrya and his types. I will tell you a story that I read in my childhood in a monthly magazine called Balajyothy (equivalent to Chandamama).

It is written in a beautiful lyrical prose so that kids of 10 can understand. A Pandit well versed in 100 shastras needed to cross a stream and he get a boat and he gets on the boat. He is very proud of his knowledge. This boatman is a typical boatman who know the stream, winds, direction and whrilpools inside the stream and danger spots etc. While crossing the stream, the pandit ask boat man if he know vastusastra? The botman replies "no sire". Similarly pandit inquires about other similar sashtras if the boatman even know a little of any of them. The boatman replied for all with "no sire". Suddenly a storm comes and the boat gets into danger spot and ultimately inspite of best efforts the boat capsizes and as both of them are on thin edges of float, the boatman asks the pandit if he know swimsashtra (eethasastram is word he uses and I remember that much) to which the pandit replies no. So the boatman finally swims and saves the Pandit too. In the end the boatman asks the pandit about what is the use of all those sashtras if you cannot learn the life saving sashtram. Note that the boatman did not say they are all useless. He only said what is the use if you did not learn what that helps.

A lot of these elederly and senior saffron wearing or religiously chaddi wearing honchos are like the Pandit in the story. They go telling a lot about how great we were and also about coming of Bharatvarsha or all those sanskritized jargons (I swear that no offence to anyone using such things on this forum). However, when it comes to strategy, they just cannot unite and are only good at finding faults of their own brothers of the organization who are capable of fighting the real enemy. These brothers who may have faults are really able to challenge and fight the system but they are all like the boatman in the above story. These guys are happy to see the default that India lives on but are unhappy to see boatmen bringing the change (may not be perfect but is far better than the default).

With so much of knowledge can't these idiots understand simple things. The simplething is they are just nut cases or pure and simple Ambhi kumars of India. India has innumerable numbers and they are just part of such. I have no respect for such folks. Associating some logic, some isms and analyzing these junk is just creating falsehood about them.

Govindacharya when he opposed ABV in favor of LKA, I thought he has a point. Later he said LKA has become compromised. I thought fine. Now he says Diggy Raja and Nitish are better leaders than Modi for India. It is easy to spin and say he is right. It is a simple case of "Amtya Rakshash syndrome" and nothing else. In boatman's language it is all bakwaas.

For me(being a boatman) they are better not there in this world and perfect place is hell and that is where they should rot for being anti-Hindu society especially after being knowledged and after seeing through what it is going on.

[Pranav]

Here is a summary -

We have the 4 Purusharthas i.e. the goals by which humans are motivated - (1) Kama (sensual fulfillment), (2) Artha (acquisition of wealth), (3) Dharma (self-discipline, responsibility and right action), and (4) Moksha (spirituality, enlightenment).

There are also 4 corresponding modes in which individuals can contribute to society - (1) Physical and routine mental labour (2) Business activity (3) Administrative, executive and protective functions (4) Creative research, philosophy, teaching and inspiring.

There are the 3 Gunas, Tamas-Rajas-Sattva, and there are the 4 Varnas.

The proposition is that Varnas are aligned with Gunas. Each individual has all 3 Gunas, but Varna is determined by their relative dominance within the psyche of the individual. The individual evolves through the Varna stages until Self-realization.

Now any individual, irrespective of his Varna, has all 4 life goals, and all 4 modes by which he should contribute to society. However, his approach and emphasis will be colored by his Varna / mix of Gunas.

For example, business activity can be carried out in a way that is Tamasic, but it can also be carried out in a way that is Sattvic. A Tamasic individual should not be made a Dharma Acharya or given a position of high political responsibility.

One general principle is - "from each as per his capacity, to each as per his need".

There is a nice exposition in the Autobiography of Paramahansa Yogananda - http://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/chap41.php (See foot notes also).

[Agnimitra]

ShauryaT ji, I don't understand your repeated complaint. I personally am deeply interested in varnashrama. But why are you ignoring the fact that varNa is an abstract concept that can have several implementations based on the context - individual or political.

Every Dharma shastra then goes on to ratify in large measure this division of society, unambiguously.

So what about the famous verse from shastra that says that in Kali Yuga everyone is born Shudra?

जन्मना जायते शूद्रः. संस्कारात् द्विजं उच्यते |
वेद-पाठात् भवेत् विप्रः ब्रह्म जानाति ब्राह्मणः| स्कंदपुराण ६.२३९.३१

Everyone is Shudra by birth. With Sanskaras (the system of 16 sanskaras in dharma) makes a person "Dvija". Mastering Vedas (knowledge) makes one "Vipra". One becomes a "Brahmana" as he attains "Brahma-Jnana".

The defining question on the table is, was the constituent assembly's decision to junk VarnaAshram to order and stucture society the right one?

They did not "junk Varnashram", they wanted to junk the past-expiry-date implementation of Varnashram which was often grossly unjust and self-defeating in present times. That recent historical implementation may have had some merits at one time, but it was long past its due date.

VarnAshrama was the corner stone of the dharmic order, since ages. Do we need to reform and adjust VarnAshrama to current times or leave its application to philosophical levels only?

Not "only". But FIRST understand it philosophically. The main problem is that the philosophical understanding has been lost, and the original intention behind the most recent historical interpretation (as 'caste' in a medieval feudal setup, under external siege) has been forgotten, because of neglected or destroyed history-keeping practices. A related problem is that the guys that continue to manage our history right now are Marxists. That needs to be changed. (Psychohistory vs. Dumb Dialectics).

Many are very comfortable with this idea as it allows them to pay lip service to the societal aspects of SD and relegate the practice of SD to the personal realm and comfortably live under a "modern" "secular" "democratic" order where equality and fraternity are supposed to rule under a "socialist" frabric!

Its not about "relegating" to the personal realm. In fact that's where certain aspects of religiosity can find balance. Outside that, it will quickly degenerate into hypocrisy. First let that center be found, then the social and political aspects can form.

Hypocrisy or Equilibrium?

[Agnimitra]

Govindacharya when he opposed ABV in favor of LKA, I thought he has a point. Later he said LKA has become compromised. I thought fine. Now he says Diggy Raja and Nitish are better leaders than Modi for India.

Wow he said that?! LOL.
Well I was just trying to use Govindacharya ji as an excuse to go into some valid reasons. Let's not let his personal quirks overshadow the discussion.

I think Indian politics needs a solid shift to the Right. But in that case a New Left needs to emerge that addresses the "causes" that the current Left exploits. the New Left has to come up with Indic solutions and methods that identify and address the correct root cause of the problem without ripping the national fabric.

So, what I am interested in exploring is the formation of an ideology that can be comprehensive enough to have a creative decorum that manages a "complementarity of opposite PoV's" and can occupy both sides of the aisle.

[Pranav]

The defining question on the table is, was the constituent assembly's decision to junk VarnaAshram to order and stucture society the right one?

I believe it was the right decision. The Varna concept is not to be enforced by law. It is a reflection of what goals an individual chooses for himself.

[RajeshA]

are societal functions as they exist today - orderable by dividing up society into just four? Not only just four - but with specialization of functioning being divided up into mutually exclusive social divisions? Is the nature of social interactions and experiences - even in its variety, divisible into four?

I have been down this path of questioning, why on earth will BG refer to a division of society based on 4 colors of nature, with example after example to clarify what it means by it. Every Dharma shastra then goes on to ratify in large measure this division of society, unambiguously. Every read of our history will testify to its inherent nature both of its use and abuse. By the time we come to our consitutent assembly the entire concept gets junked!! But, even before that the then "elite" had stopped living by VarnAshrama as testified by MKG in Hind Swaraj. The resistance to the abuse of this concept is also on record.

The reference in BG is much more abstract than being a reference to "division of human society"!

MKG probably spoke of Brahmins moving in to occupy the administration in the British Raj.

The only way I can make sense of it is chatur varna is an articulation of our internal nature to the world outside and not the other way around. Our inherent need to feel secure, gain knowledge, be happy and good to society is being projected as a society division of functions. Not all are able to actually deliver on these personal objectives at all times, leading to specialization. Groups eventually form based on capabilities. When the Vedas were deemed to be all knowing and all encompassing and all that was worthy to know and serve the world, only those who could master the vedas, were qualified to be Brahmins. As things changed these definitions of who qualifies also changed with them.

Exactly. Chatur Varna is indeed an articulation of our internal nature (consciousness) to the human society. This articulation however is a derived model or a projection or an application.

The danger is in losing that perspective and thinking that that structuring of society has divine sanction, that it is part of a Dharmic order. The Dharmic social order is based on four Puruṣārthas and the four Ashramas (stages of life).

The defining question on the table is, was the constituent assembly's decision to junk VarnaAshram to order and structure society the right one? VarnAshrama was the corner stone of the dharmic order, since ages. Do we need to reform and adjust VarnAshrama to current times or leave its application to philosophical levels only? Many are very comfortable with this idea as it allows them to pay lip service to the societal aspects of SD and relegate the practice of SD to the personal realm and comfortably live under a "modern" "secular" "democratic" order where equality and fraternity are supposed to rule under a "socialist" frabric!

What would the use of Varna today? Isn't there a need to increase mobility in society? Isn't there a need to increase the level of education in society? entrepreneurship? innovation? empowerment? social cohesion? How does Varna help in that?

[RajeshA]

The defining question on the table is, was the constituent assembly's decision to junk VarnaAshram to order and stucture society the right one?

I believe it was the right decision. The Varna concept is not to be enforced by law. It is a reflection of what goals an individual chooses for himself.

That still presupposes that society should be structured according to Varnas.

At society level, the philosophical concept of Varna is a projection in order to better understand how human society functions. The problem that occurred was that the analytic approach was twisted into a synthesis approach and society was forced to act in those categories, even though those categories had a different origin - as faculties of consciousness.

[Pranav]

Even in the past, it would not have been possible or feasible. People were forced to cross strict division lines of functionality specialization in their daily and larger lives. If your family is attacked, your child being raped, and you have not specialized or functionally been approved by society to train/inflict violence/defence/physical-weapons-martial say since you are category X - would you wait until the members of the proper section of society trained/"charcha" subdivision in whose jurisdiction the physical retaliation required - falls in category Y, arrive?

You are right, each individual needs a spectrum of competencies, but specialization is also inevitable as a society becomes more technically advanced. In a primitive hunter-gatherer society each person has to do everything.

[Pranav]

The Varna concept is not to be enforced by law. It is a reflection of what goals an individual chooses for himself.

That still presupposes that society should be structured according to Varnas.

What I mean is that society naturally tends to structure itself according to Varnas.

For example, in today's society, if we wanted to improve conditions, what should we do? We ought to ensure that political power is not monopolized by Tamasic individuals. Such roles should go to those with self-discipline, responsibility and desire for right action.

[RajeshA]

Even in the past, it would not have been possible or feasible. People were forced to cross strict division lines of functionality specialization in their daily and larger lives. If your family is attacked, your child being raped, and you have not specialized or functionally been approved by society to train/inflict violence/defence/physical-weapons-martial say since you are category X - would you wait until the members of the proper section of society trained/"charcha" subdivision in whose jurisdiction the physical retaliation required - falls in category Y, arrive?

You are right, each individual needs a spectrum of competencies, but specialization is also inevitable as a society becomes more technically advanced. In a primitive hunter-gatherer society each person has to do everything.

That presupposes that Varna and professional specialization are equivalent. So if one is a bawarchi (a cook) in the Army, what Varna does one have - a Shudra or a Kshatriya? What if the soldiers do shifts - On Tuesdays, Ramu cooks and Shyamu does night watch, and on Wednesdays, they do it the other way round?

It is one big wastage of time trying to allocate some Varna to some person! Often certain roles in an institution could be understood in terms of Varna, but that still does make the person in that position belong to the Varna.

[RajeshA]

The Varna concept is not to be enforced by law. It is a reflection of what goals an individual chooses for himself.

That still presupposes that society should be structured according to Varnas.

What I mean is that society naturally tends to structure itself according to Varnas.

I think one can understand human society as a conscious organism much like a human having the four faculties of creativity (brahmin), decision (kshatriya), motivation (vaisya) and application (shudra), but that is only a model, a prism for our understanding of society, it is our tool for analysis, and that too one among many. It does not mean that society "naturally tends to structure itself according to Varnas", for when we say that we are using the prism as a tool for synthesis.

For example, in today's society, if we wanted to improve conditions, what should we do? We ought to ensure that political power is not monopolized by Tamasic individuals. Such roles should go to those with self-discipline, responsibility and desire for right action.

But aren't those qualities a general requirement for any job, any role?

[Pranav]

You are right, each individual needs a spectrum of competencies, but specialization is also inevitable as a society becomes more technically advanced. In a primitive hunter-gatherer society each person has to do everything.

That presupposes that Varna and professional specialization are equivalent.

No, I did not mention Varna.

But I did say earlier that an individual's natural Varna will influence his approach to, and his emphasis on, various goals and activities.

[Pranav]

For example, in today's society, if we wanted to improve conditions, what should we do? We ought to ensure that political power is not monopolized by Tamasic individuals. Such roles should go to those with self-discipline, responsibility and desire for right action.

But aren't those qualities a general requirement for any job, any role?

Those requirements are especially critical for roles which have a large impact on others.

For example, Sonia Gandhi's original profession was being a waitress. Should she be the most powerful individual in Bhaarat-varsha, with its 1.25 billion population? But I would have had no complaint if she had continued to function as a waitress.

[ShauryaT]

No, I did not mention Varna.

But I did say earlier that an individual's natural Varna will influence his approach to, and his emphasis on, various goals and activities.

Do not shy away from Varna. It has always been used to achieve the goals of an SD society. Take any dharma shastra and it shall be clear. Delink Varna from professions (since it is professions that have evolved in the "modern" world NOT Varna), except to the degree that we can understand a person's Karma (so examples to understand context are fine - just like chapter 18 of BG). Now, try to use Varna to determine eligibility?

[RajeshA]

You are right, each individual needs a spectrum of competencies, but specialization is also inevitable as a society becomes more technically advanced. In a primitive hunter-gatherer society each person has to do everything.

That presupposes that Varna and professional specialization are equivalent.

No, I did not mention Varna.

But I did say earlier that an individual's natural Varna will influence his approach to, and his emphasis on various goals and activities.

Pranav ji,

that is what I am getting at. An individual does not have a natural Varna or a predisposition towards a Varna. Each individual has all the Varnas because as a conscious organism - a Purusha, he requires all four Varnas to function - creativity (brahmin), decision (kshatriya), motivation (vaisya) and application (shudra).

The reason we come to believe that an individual has a Varna is when we project the division of society based on Varna onto an individual.

For example - we believe the "decision faculty" of the society is best embodied in politics. The political leaders make the decisions. Early only those who were able to get into politics who were able-bodied individuals who could fight, make life-and-death decisions, had a strong will. Their functions included giving leadership to society and providing protection and security to those under them.

Then we project that onto an individual - that he is a kshatriya if he can do some dishum-dishum and provide protection to his family! That is veerta, courage. So we arrive at a personality characteristic of an individual by projecting already applied Varnas on human society onto the individual.

The identification of Varna with human society divisions is so profound that we consciously or unconsciously take that as the original semantic of Varna and then apply it onto other spheres, like onto humans. That skews our whole image of human being.

The individual is supposed to be looked at directly as Purusha - the consciousness, with four Varnas - creativity (brahmin), decision (kshatriya), motivation (vaisya) and application (shudra).

This needs to be the start of our application of our model and not the end of its application.

Personal characteristics such as contemplative nature, aggressive nature, protective nature, diligent nature, greedy nature, etc. are part of a much wider array of characteristics in human psychology, and can perhaps be understood together with Gunas and Varnas together or one may need further facets.

[RajeshA]

Now, try to use Varna to determine eligibility?

The psychological profile of an individual cannot be understood in terms of Varna alone! One needs all four Varnas to be able to function as a conscious full human being.

If the eligibility requires exceptionally clever, or diplomatic, or servile, or open-minded, or humorous, or aggressive, or diligent, or whatever, can one go about looking at Varnas?

This is forcing a square peg into a round hole.

[Pranav]

that is what I am getting at. An individual does not have a natural Varna or a predisposition towards a Varna. Each individual has all the Varnas because as a conscious organism - a Purusha, he requires all four Varnas to function - creativity (brahmin), decision (kshatriya), motivation (vaisya) and application (shudra).

I understand what you are saying, but what I am saying is different.

Each individual has all 4 Purusharthas (life goals) and all 4 modes of contributing to society (see this post). However, different individuals have different approaches and emphases, depending upon their inherent mix of Gunas.

For example, a Tamasic individual may be more interested in Kama than in Moksha, and such an individual should not be made the Ruler, or be made a Dharma Acharya.

[Pranav]

The psychological profile of an individual cannot be understood in terms of Varna alone! One needs all four Varnas to be able to function as a conscious full human being.

If the eligibility requires exceptionally clever, or diplomatic, or servile, or open-minded, or humorous, or aggressive, or diligent, or whatever, can one go about looking at Varnas?

This is forcing a square peg into a round hole.

Yes, there are thousands of professions, each with its own requirements. I quite understand that it might not be possible to classify a given profession neatly into one of the 4 broad modes of contributing to society. It is not meant to be a complete and perfect classification. However if a profession demands a very broad spectrum of aptitudes, then it may be difficult to find individuals who meet the requirements.

[member_20317]

Read you all gurujan,

And looks to me you are all saying pretty much the same thing but from different standpoints.

Stage 1 - There was a concern on artificial limitations being placed on individuals. This was the starting point.

Stage 2 - Then there is a view that unbridled freedom will get the undeserving imbeciles to the top and they will place limitations on deserving people below/above/besides them. I believe that is what Pranav ji is trying to get at. Perhaps in a slightly longish manner ShauryaT ji is also concerned about this.

To my limited understanding, the Varna as a concept has little to do with these concerns as such. But the misuse of Varna does. At this point a few of the actual listing down of the misuses may be helpful to resolve concerns. My only request would be that the excercise be done with the acknowledgement that misuse of anything is possible and may not even be preventable except by the actual usage of the concept in our respective lives.

[RajeshA]

Superficial Posing as Hindus

Cross-posting from a post by Sushupti in "Indian Interests" Thread








ramana

I don't believe a word of his. Being a spy he is trained to lie. So one doesn't know when he is telling truth. He has called BRF a Hindu forum and now he is claiming he is a Hindu! So is he supportive of BRF now or is still dissembling?

During Kargil he was shouted down for saying "Soldiers are paid to die!" when Lt Kalia and his troop got tortured and killed. And has not come back after that!

yet he got first news of the 13/12/2001 attack from BRF!

varunkumar

^^^ Well, you don't become a Hindu just by proclaiming yourself as a Hindu, just like a woman doesn't become a mother merely by delivering a baby. A woman becomes a mother only after committing herself to the welfare and protection of the child. Similarly you become a Hindu only when you swear to protect Hinduism and fellow Hindus. Just going to temples or doing puja or sporting a tilak doesn't make you a Hindu.

Aditya_V

They are changing strategy, they don't want to look anti-Hindu, but want the BJP to look anti-Minority. These guys thrive on Hate, they don't run on track record.

Jhujar

O Burri nazar Wale terra Muh Kaala !!
Rawman Ji

Sarakti Jayye Hai Mukh se Niqab , Aahista Aahista !!
Naqli Hinduon Ka Bhiara Khwab , Ahista Aahista !!
Aise Bhi Mazboori kya Hai Janab, Ahista Aahsita

For this reason it is important to have a clear definition of Hindu

Hindu means RESISTANCE:

So 'Hindu Dharma' has three constituents

1. The historical physical resistance to Islam and Christianism, to all foreign predatory expansionary imperialistic religious ideologies
2. The modern intellectual resistance to Islam and Christianism, which are expanding in India under the protective shielding of Nehruvian-Secularism.
3. The traditional cultural resistance to Islam and Christianism, where each and every Dharmic Sampradaya, be they Sanataniks, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Animists, Nastiks, whatever Bharatiyas go and nurture their culture and as well as the common Bharatiya cultural heritage. We resist by retaining our culture. Hindu Dharma is however not in the business of prescribing any religious rituals. All that is outsourced to the various individual Dharmic Sampradayas and Samskaras

Physical, intellectual, and cultural resistance are in that order of importance.

Even if somebody is culturally (religious) Hindu, but has instead of providing resistance at the other two levels in fact facilitated the expansion of Islam and Christianism into Bharat, then one is not a Hindu. A Brahmin who does his rituals but is a Cultural Marxist is not a Hindu, e.g..

What means facilitating expansion of Islam in the context of Nehruvian-Secularists (aka Islamo-Christianist Platform)?

When I say Islamist, then I mean

1. supported by Gulf money
2. supportive of Islam's expansion in India - through
   1. geographic expansion;
   2. increased birth rate;
   3. migration of Bangladeshis and Pakis;
   4. consolidation of Muslim ghettos;
   5. consolidation of Mullah's control over the Muslim masses;
   6. elevation of Mullahs as the legitimate dialogue partners w.r.t. issues involving the Muslim community;
   7. tolerance of Muslim mafia, underworld and muscle;
3. Appeasement of Kashmiri separatists and Pakistanis
4. supportive of Islamic-British historical narrative at the cost Indian Civilizational history

Those who are part of the Islamo-Christianist Platform simply cannot be Hindus as per definition. They are anti-Hindu regardless of how many Pujas they do!

[RajeshA]

For example, in today's society, if we wanted to improve conditions, what should we do? We ought to ensure that political power is not monopolized by Tamasic individuals. Such roles should go to those with self-discipline, responsibility and desire for right action.

But aren't those qualities a general requirement for any job, any role?

Those requirements are especially critical for roles which have a large impact on others.

For example, Sonia Gandhi's original profession was being a waitress. Should she be the most powerful individual in Bhaarat-varsha, with its 1.25 billion population? But I would have had no complaint if she had continued to function as a waitress.

Pranav ji,

Sonia Gandhi worked as a waitress when she was 19 to finance her studies. That is normal in the West to do part-time work during studies. For a girl working as a waitress is quite normal. One looks for jobs one can find, and not everyone has parents to finance studies as is often the case in India. In fact it shows her resolve to study by financing it.

So one can't really go in search of Varna based on these circumstances. She should not be the most powerful person in Bharat simply because she is not a Bharatiya. Everything else comes later. She should not be the most powerful person in India because she did not go through the political mill in India working her way up based on her leadership qualities and character independent from her connections. There are very good reasons for her not being the most powerful person in India, but I think having worked as a waitress has nothing to do with that.

It is not the work that she did that disqualifies her but the work that she did not do.

[Pranav]

Sonia Gandhi worked as a waitress when she was 19 to finance her studies. ... In fact it shows her resolve to study by financing it.

Well actually it is said that her family had KGB connections through her father, and that she was placed as a waitress specifically as bait for Rajiv, who it seems was as dumb as his son is.

Be that as it may, I would say that being a professional waitress is far more suitable for her than the role she has now.

[RajeshA]

that is what I am getting at. An individual does not have a natural Varna or a predisposition towards a Varna. Each individual has all the Varnas because as a conscious organism - a Purusha, he requires all four Varnas to function - creativity (brahmin), decision (kshatriya), motivation (vaisya) and application (shudra).

I understand what you are saying, but what I am saying is different.

Each individual has all 4 Purusharthas (life goals) and all 4 modes of contributing to society (see this post). However, different individuals have different approaches and emphases, depending upon their inherent mix of Gunas.

There are also 4 corresponding modes in which individuals can contribute to society - (1) Physical and routine mental labour (2) Business activity (3) Administrative, executive and protective functions (4) Creative research, philosophy, teaching and inspiring.

Pranav ji,

I can think of a time when it was much easier to model the human society on the based of Varna (to be understood as faculties of human consciousness), however as the complexity in society and socio-economic life grew with the creation of institutions, companies, etc. it has become much more difficult to keep this model going. The advent of bigger institutions, networking between these institutions, all this has introduced multiple layers between society and the individual, and thus one cannot model the function of the individual in terms of society anymore, but has to do it rather in terms of the role he plays in an institution he works for.

Due to these additional levels, Varna system, as understood in the context of human society, is broken and has no more meaning or relevance. Humans today do not any more Varnas, not even in the artificial meaning as divisions of society.

One could say today, it is the institutions that follow a certain Varna with respect to society, but not individuals now.

So it is proper to understand Varna in its original meaning - as faculties of consciousness - Purush - creativity (brahmin), decision (kshatriya), motivation (vaisya) and application (shudra). It is best to pursue Varna as a philosophical model, a model for consciousness.

[RajeshA]

But you are not being clear whether varna is a derivative of guna and karma or the other way round!

My readings suggest: Karma and its nature (gunas) makeup a person's Varna. Each person has the "capacity" to be of any Varna (the Purusha Sukta interpretation). Howerver, it is actions alone that determine a person's Varna. How each society for its times decide to use these varnas and put to use or misuse is the responsibility of that generation.

No, I did not mention Varna.

But I did say earlier that an individual's natural Varna will influence his approach to, and his emphasis on, various goals and activities.

Do not shy away from Varna. It has always been used to achieve the goals of an SD society. Take any dharma shastra and it shall be clear. Delink Varna from professions (since it is professions that have evolved in the "modern" world NOT Varna), except to the degree that we can understand a person's Karma (so examples to understand context are fine - just like chapter 18 of BG). Now, try to use Varna to determine eligibility?

ShauryaT ji,

So somehow what you are positing is that we all need to find out what is everybody's Varna (understood as a division of society). We can't leave somebody's Varna unassigned, as we need to know how to use a person in the society, and you have clearly emphasized your preference for introducing VarnAshram in society again.

As per your view, Varna can be determined by Karma, but not by profession. Then upon determining Varna one can channelize it to structure society, perhaps giving each individual the right responsibility upon the determination of his Varna.

I think that is going in circles!

1) Professions according to you do not determine Varna, and yet Varna should be used for giving people responsibility, as if that is something different from profession.

2) If one cannot determine Karma from professions, than from what else should one determine Karma - his social life, his private life, his hobbies, his engagement in society? Would all that suffice in determining Varna?

3) Then one needs to know about Gunas for determining Varna? Should one use psychological tests, or recommendations from some authorities for determining that? Would that really be his Gunas, or simply some superficial determination?

The point is the whole hassle of determining Varnas for people is both a useless exercise and more importantly it is based on a skewed model of structuring society.

The proper way for Rashtra is as suggested in the Suggestion (v.0.0.8 ) for Preamble:

to empower ALL its citizens to realize their intrinsic capacity to pursue happiness by facilitating their pursuit with freedom, knowledge, skills, opportunity and conducive environment and by encouraging and recognizing their merit,

Everybody would find their own aptitude and through merit be entrusted with the proper responsibilities.

[Pranav]

one cannot model the function of the individual in terms of society anymore, but has to do it rather in terms of the role he plays in an institution he works for .... Humans today do not any more Varnas ... it is the institutions that follow a certain Varna with respect to society, but not individuals now.

RajeshA ji, it is individuals who are undergoing spiritual evolution, so as per definitions I am using, Varna is an attribute that can apply only to individuals.

But I agree that the role an individual plays within his environment (which could mean within an institution) is what is relevant. This role ought to be appropriate considering his natural Gunas / Varna.

Then one needs to know about Gunas for determining Varna? Should one use psychological tests, or recommendations from some authorities for determining that? Would that really be his Gunas, or simply some superficial determination?

Psychological tests are in fact already used in some selection processes, including for the Indian Army, I believe.

The point is the whole hassle of determining Varnas for people is both a useless exercise and more importantly it is based on a skewed model of structuring society.

I agree that one should not have some national authority assigning Varnas to people. IMHO, Varnas need not play any explicit role as far as the state is concerned. People should have the maximum possible freedom to contribute to society in whatever way that interests them, and relevant authorities within various organizations may consider factors like psychological compatibility, if it can be done objectively.

to empower ALL its citizens to realize their intrinsic capacity to pursue happiness by facilitating their pursuit with freedom, knowledge, skills, opportunity and conducive environment and by encouraging and recognizing their merit,

This is quite OK. I would replace the phrase "realize their intrinsic capacity to pursue happiness" with just "pursue fulfillment".

[RajeshA]

one cannot model the function of the individual in terms of society anymore, but has to do it rather in terms of the role he plays in an institution he works for .... Humans today do not any more Varnas ... it is the institutions that follow a certain Varna with respect to society, but not individuals now.

RajeshA ji, it is individuals who are undergoing spiritual evolution, so as per definitions I am using, Varna is an attribute that can apply only to individuals.

I would like to better understand how spirituality is intertwined with the determination of one's eligibility for a certain work

But I agree that the role an individual plays within his environment (which could mean within an institution) is what is relevant. This role ought to be appropriate considering his natural Gunas / Varna.

If the role the individual plays in a institution is what decides one's Varna, then the question is why is it important for the rest of society to really care what one's Varna is?

Also if he already plays that role, what is the use of determining one's Varna, if not to assign him the same role?

Then one needs to know about Gunas for determining Varna? Should one use psychological tests, or recommendations from some authorities for determining that? Would that really be his Gunas, or simply some superficial determination?

Psychological tests are in fact already used in some selection processes, including for the Indian Army, I believe.

Would these examinations be for determining somebody's Varna or for determining one's suitability for the job vacancy?

The point is the whole hassle of determining Varnas for people is both a useless exercise and more importantly it is based on a skewed model of structuring society.

I agree that one should not have some national authority assigning Varnas to people. IMHO, Varnas need not play any explicit role as far as the state is concerned. People should have the maximum possible freedom to contribute to society in whatever way that interests them, and relevant authorities within various organizations may consider factors like psychological compatibility, if it can be done objectively.

But people are not static. People grow. A person may just be doing his job (call it Shudra mode). When he knows his field of work sufficiently, he may be promoted to manager, and then he may be ordering people around (call it Kshatriya mode). Or he may decide to do some R&D in the field (call it Brahmin mode). Or he may decide to buy the shares of the company (call it Vaisya mode)!

Would somebody be running after the guy with a Varna certificate in hand?

to empower ALL its citizens to realize their intrinsic capacity to pursue happiness by facilitating their pursuit with freedom, knowledge, skills, opportunity and conducive environment and by encouraging and recognizing their merit,

This is quite OK. I would replace the phrase "realize their intrinsic capacity to pursue happiness" with just "pursue fulfillment".

Pranav ji,

I know it is a funny formulation. The whole Preamble exercise, I based on 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.

For a Dharmic institution, its work is to help the Dharmics realize their intrinsic capacity to pursue whatever they consider to be the highest aim, translated into the temporal dimension. I call that 'happiness'.

The Dharmic Rashtra's duty is to facilitate this realization.

The reason I chose the formulation was so that it aligns with the definition of 'Dharmic', for if the Rashtra is to be 'Dharmic' then that is where it would get its mission statement from.

If the Dharmic Rashtra has to get its mission statement from some other source, then that would need to be defined properly. I based it simply on the definition for 'Dharmic'.

The fine nuance between 'fulfillment' and 'happiness' is that 'happiness' does not foresee any limits. In fact the journey itself can provide 'happiness'. 'Fullfillment' imposes, I believe, a psychological pressure on the individual to someday to call it a day and say one has been fulfilled. Free will however does not bound oneself to any limits.

[RamaY]

I think the constitution has to be changed so there are only few acceptable religions in Bharat - Hindusim, Buddhism/Jainism, Sikhism.

The TSUchiyapanti of secularism must end so Hindu pluralism is limited to Indic philosophies and not desert religions.

The sub-continent population has no reason to be Muslims or Christians. If they really believe in and follow the memes of Christianity and Islam, there are better alternatives - Jimutavahanism/Buddhism for Christians and Sikhism for Muslims.

[RajeshA]

RamaY ji,

I think the constitution needs to be so changed that there is maximum support for indigenous traditions and maximum accountability on non-indigenous traditions.

[RamaY]

RajeshAji,

I agree.

At the same time, Sikhism and Buddhism+Jainism call for a caste less society based
- Sikhism: Worship of formless supreme being in the path of valor and submission
- Buddhism/Jainism - Worship of a realized soul as the guiding persona in the path of service and renunciation

Both these Indic paths propose and support proselytization. I suggest they bring sub-continental Muslims and Christians under their fold by doing active conversions.

Everything is legal only and no need to change the constitution either.

Harbans ji - what is the possibility of Sikhism taking the lead w.r.t Subcontinental Muslims and Budhists taking the lead to bring down Indian Christians?

[Pranav]

I would like to better understand how spirituality is intertwined with the determination of one's eligibility for a certain work

The same example again - Should a Tamasic person be made a Ruler or a Dharmacharya?

If the role the individual plays in a institution is what decides one's Varna, then the question is why is it important for the rest of society to really care what one's Varna is?

No, it is the natural Varna (based on mix of Gunas) which suggests whether a role is suitable or not.

Would these examinations be for determining somebody's Varna or for determining one's suitability for the job vacancy?

The aim would not be to determine Varna per se, it would be focussed on the job. But those 2 questions may be related.

But people are not static. People grow. A person may just be doing his job (call it Shudra mode). When he knows his field of work sufficiently, he may be promoted to manager, and then he may be ordering people around (call it Kshatriya mode). Or he may decide to do some R&D in the field (call it Brahmin mode). Or he may decide to buy the shares of the company (call it Vaisya mode)!

Sure. In fact individuals should be encouraged and helped to evolve.

Would somebody be running after the guy with a Varna certificate in hand?

No, the way I see it is that Varna would not play any official role ... it is a mental category to understand people's inclinations and capabilities.

The fine nuance between 'fulfillment' and 'happiness' is that 'happiness' does not foresee any limits. In fact the journey itself can provide 'happiness'. 'Fullfillment' imposes, I believe, a psychological pressure on the individual to someday to call it a day and say one has been fulfilled. Free will however does not bound oneself to any limits.

Well, humans want contentment / fulfillment, no? IMHO the word "fulfillment" suggests that the agitation of the mind has ceased, that the mind has reached a state of restfulness.