I have a doubt: why should laws be compulsorily part of a religion? Shouldn't laws be part of a state? What happens when the laws are broken?
I understand that the laws are derived from the religion or culture and are aimed at enforcing a particular culture therefore laws are very closely associated with religion and culture. However, I still don't understand why laws should be compulsorily part of a religion. Instead, I think the better method is to derive a legal system from the religion. Infact, many religions including malsI and X-ism seem to claim that they derived their laws from their theology.
In Hindhuism, it seems the need for a Hindhu legal system(which would define the dos and don'ts for a society) was clearly recognized and understood. However, Hindhus recognized clearly that any legal system must be suitable to the time, place, circumstance and objects(i.e. people).
So, by this very logic, there cannot be one single legal system for all times, for all places, for all circumstances and for all objects. So, Hindhus seem to have developed various legal systems(i.e. Smruthis) which would govern the societies.
Obviously, this would give rise to some basic questions:
a) Who developed these smruthis?
Some rushis who were highly respected in their times developed these smruthis.
b) Why should these smruthis be considered as Hindhu legal system?
Because they claim that they are based on Vedhas.
c) Are these legal systems always valid?
No. Different legal systems were in vogue in different places at different time and in different circumstances.
d) What is these legal systems are not fair? For example, what if they try to promote 'social evils'?
In that case, those parts of the legal system can be abrogated or updated. Because any part of Smruthi is valid only as long as it is derived from Vedhas.
So, Hindhus have not only come up with legal systems but they were one step ahead(like in all other issues). They clearly recognized that any system come up with will not be valid forever and will get corrupted at some point in time. At that point, that system will have to be reformed, update or a new system will have to be created. Hindhus established a basic criteria and as long as these basic criteria are met, legal systems are allowed.
a) The basic dogma of Hindhuism is that Vedhas are immutable. If any idea can be shown to be supported by the Vedhas using the Veghangas to interpret the Vedhas, then such an idea is a Hindhu idea even if all Hindhus don't accept that idea. Infact, it is perfectly possible that Vedhas might support many different or even contradicting ideas. Why would Vedhas do that? Because these ideas or concept are aimed at different people or different circumstance or different times.
b) The legal system must be Dhaarmik. That raises a question: what is Dhaarmik? What is Dharma?
Dharma was defined by Manu as follows:(Manu is considered the first law giver of Hindhuism. He is portrayed as supporting the caste system and many excesses against the so-called lower castes).
Ahimsa - non-violence
Sathyam - Truth
Astheyam - Not stealing
Shaucham - cleanliness
Indhriya nigraham - sensual control
These are basic qualities which are to be promoted by any legal system for it called Dhaarmik legal system.
In a fair legal system, responsibilities are proportional to privileges. In an unfair legal system, responsibilities are disproportionate to privileges.
In a fair legal system, people who have more privileges will have to bear more responsibilities. On the other hand, if privileges are to be equally shared, then the responsibilities also should be shared equally.
If all human beings should have same rights, then they should all have same duties. For example, if parents don't have any rights to control their children, then the parents cannot be held accountable for the behaviour of children. On the other hand, if parents are given rights to control their children, then the parents will be held accountable for the behaviour of the children.
harbans wrote:Even Xtianity didn't evolve/ reform on its own. People who rejected the tenets made the evolution possible. And exactly who were the people who rejected the tenets and made revolution possible? Western Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire, Schopenhauer who came into contact with the Vedic and Upanishadic texts same age. As the thinking spread amongst the elite, the consequent rejection of the tenet spread..and they wisely realized that Xtianity/ the Papal hold cannot be broken till a meta ethic called secularism is invoked. That invocation demanded the Secular Governing Meta Ethic to be > The Xtian dogmatic religious Mores. It succeeded. The role and influence of Sanskrit/ Dharmic texts in the whole affair of Western thought reformation hasn't much been taken up for obvious reasons, but one can easily see from available material it (the influence) is huge. No, Xtians did not evolve by themselves. It was people who rejected its tenets that did/engendered the evolving process. With Islam it is stupid to assume that it will reform due to moderate muslims. It won't. It will due to help from Muslims who reject its core doctrine.
But while European Greats like Voltaire, Schopenhauer influenced by Dharmic texts could offer secularism to subdue the Church role in politics, what can Islamic greats like no one as yet, use to influence subduing of the political doctrine of Islam? Secularism as i mentioned is a failure to contain Islam as they will breed/outbreed if not powerful enough presently for the right numbers. Thus a doctrine > than secularism is required this time to contain the virus. That doctrine is obviously not Secularism, it is the exertation of Dharmic tenet. The ideas time has come. So Secularism under Dharmic influences contained Xtianity. Now Dharma as a successful constitutional entity will contain Islam near term future. But we must rally behind it too.
There are 3 aspects to this:
a) Intellectual: the intellectual aspect was inspired from the Hindhuism and malsI. Hindhu knowledge was passed on through the malsI and then Hindhu knowledge directly passed on after 1600s.
b) Political: the royalty wanted to weaken the X-ism and church. So, they supported these intellectual movements which lead to concepts like secularism and nationalism which replaced X-ism.
c) Money bags: This is the Khazarian element. The khazarians supported these royalty and intellectuals by sponsoring them.
These 3 groups choked X-ism. And by 1800s, church was bankrupt. Then, church made its peace with these groups and allied with them. In 1900s, Turks were defeated and replaced by Arabs. This added a new ally.
Now, this is the group. Many times, people fall into a trap of thinking that they are different groups. While they seem like different groups, they have very strong linkages with each other. So, they should be seen as allies.
In a way, organized religions make it easy to take control. All you have to do is take control of head quarters, then the entire creed will be in your hands. But, disorganized religions provide more problems because they are never under complete control.
malsI is an organized religion whose head quarters has been toppled but not properly replaced.
). But at the nation level we cant rely on ethereal concepts. We need some rigidity by depending on some superstructure called religion. And watch where we have to change labels.