The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

[Sanku]

What a bunch of sheer nonsense Harbans, sort of like 101 of distorted history that even the basic posters are supposed to be aware of -- a single post of yours has so much junk that one does not even no where to begin -- do yourself a favor and take a self imposed break before you dig a bigger hole than the one you have dug yourself into.

Secularism being self explanatory preamble and 1400 users and essh...

Do you really meant that? Or just part of the piquant fit ?

[member_20317]

Sanku ji, let him speak. This is not a Burkha thread and I say Bharat better learn the context before some of us get to the job of cleaning up things.

I was hoping other enlightened beings would join in but seems like that ain't gonna happen.

We should be thankful to him for the amount of work he has brought along. A point raised even if wrong is an opportunity to say what is right and commit ourselves to it while allowing several others to make up their minds.

[harbans]

Lord Krishna in BG:

Fearlessness, sincerity, assiduity in devotion, generosity, self-restraint, piety, and alms-giving, study, mortification, and rectitude; harmlessness, veracity, and freedom from anger, resignation, equanimity, and not speaking of the faults of others, universal compassion, modesty, and mildness; patience, power, fortitude, and purity, discretion, dignity, unrevengefulness, and freedom from conceit -- these are the marks of him whose virtues are of a godlike character, O son of Bharata. Those, O son of Pritha, who are born with demoniacal dispositions are marked by hypocrisy, pride, anger, presumption, harshness of speech, and ignorance.

What is the context here for these qualities that Lord Krishna mentions?

or here by Vishnugupta:

Kshamayaa dayayaa premnaa soonritenaarjavena cha
Vasheekuryaajjagatsarvam vinayena cha sevayaa

One can bring the whole world under one’s influence (power) by such sterling qualities as patience (or forgiveness), kindness, love, truth, straightforwardness, humility and service

[devesh]

Lord Krishna in BG:

Fearlessness, sincerity, assiduity in devotion, generosity, self-restraint, piety, and alms-giving, study, mortification, and rectitude; harmlessness, veracity, and freedom from anger, resignation, equanimity, and not speaking of the faults of others, universal compassion, modesty, and mildness; patience, power, fortitude, and purity, discretion, dignity, unrevengefulness, and freedom from conceit -- these are the marks of him whose virtues are of a godlike character, O son of Bharata. Those, O son of Pritha, who are born with demoniacal dispositions are marked by hypocrisy, pride, anger, presumption, harshness of speech, and ignorance.

What is the context here for these qualities that Lord Krishna mentions?

Harbans ji, I'm sorry, but are you saying that Krishna's sayings in the BG don't have a context?

the CONTEXT of EVERYTHING that Sri Krishna says in the BG is the MAHABHARATA.

everything that he says has the broader context of MB. it has the lessons, history, and story of the Kaurava-Pandava conflict, and broader North-Indian power struggle of the period.

in short, the entire story of MB, including the social, political, military, and historical progression of events which led to BG, is ALL part of the context of whatever that Krishna says.

how can you, or anyone, say that Krishna's sayings in the BG don't have a context? that they stand independent and detached from the contextual viewpoint of the story in which it is said????

[RajeshA]

That is why i insisted these values/ lakshana's must be nodal and the State must reflect them.

How are those values relevant for the state? Those lakshanas are for individuals! You haven't elaborated how the state will put those values into practice!

Here is a relevant post from Atri garu.

All one hears is "values, values, values" but no specifics, no elaboration!

[ShauryaT]

Harbans ji, I'm sorry, but the above question of yours is really ignorant if you don't know the answer to that.

the CONTEXT of EVERYTHING that Sri Krishna says in the BG is the MAHABHARATA.

everything that he says has the broader context of MB. it has the lessons, history, and story of the Kaurava-Pandava conflict, and broader North-Indian power struggle of the period.

in short, the entire story of MB, including the social, political, military, and historical progression of events which led to BG, is ALL part of the context of whatever that Krishna says.

how can you, or anyone, say that Krishna's sayings in the BG don't have a context? that they stand independent and detached from the contextual viewpoint of the story in which it is said????

Hello....
BG has no dependency on MBH for context. Any mention of context is incidental and besides the key facts it presents for man kind for ALL time. It is treated as a fifth veda and considered a shruti, while the MBH is a context specific smriti. The fact that the author ved vyas situates BG in the midst of the great war is besides the point. The BG is and remains a Moksha shastra in its purpose. It has no lessons of history or anything to with the story of kaurava-pandava or the power struggle of the period. It is not a dharma shastra and neither it has secrets to management as is the fad in some circles. Neither the BG is the key to understanding political struggles as Tilak tried to do. The BG is what it is - a Moksha shastra.

[harbans]

how can you, or anyone, say that Krishna's sayings in the BG don't have a context? that they stand independent and detached from the contextual viewpoint of the story in which it is said????

I agree that the context for BG scenario overall is in the MB. But these qualities don't have explicit qualifiers attached.

By Swami Shivanada The Divine Life Society, Rishikesh

Silent adorations to the Lord, the Embodiment of Dharma, the Controller and Protector of Dharma and the fountain-head of Dharma. What is Dharma? What is Dharma? Dharma is so called, because it holds: Dharma alone holds the people, etc. The word Dharma is derived from the root DHR- to hold- and its etymological meaning is ‘that which holds’ this world, or the people of the world, or the whole creation from the microcosm to the macrocosm. It is the eternal Divine Law of the Lord. The entire creation is held together and sustained by the All-powerful Law of God. Practice of Dharma, therefore, means recognition of this Law and abidance by it. That which brings well-being to man is Dharma. Dharma supports this world. The people are upheld by Dharma. That which accrues preservation of beings is Dharma. Dharma leads to eternal happiness and immortality. That which is Dharma is verily the Truth. Therefore, whosoever speaks the truth is said to speak Dharma, and whosoever speaks Dharma is said to speak the truth. One and the same thing becomes both. Dharma includes all external deeds, as well as thoughts and other mental practices which tend to elevate the character of a man. Dharma comes from the Divine and leads you to the Divine. Definition of Dharma No language is perfect. There is no proper equivalent word in English for the Sanskrit term Dharma. It is very difficult to define Dharma. Dharma is generally defined as ‘righteousness’ or ‘duty’. Dharma is the principle of righteousness. It is the principle of holiness. It is also the principle of unity. Bhishma says in his instructions to Yudhishthira that whatever creates conflict is Adharma, and whatever puts an end to conflict and brings about unity and harmony is Dharma. Anything that helps to unite all and develop pure divine love and universal brotherhood, is Dharma. Anything that creates discord, split and disharmony and foments hatred, is Adharma.

How are those values relevant for the state?

Check above bolded portions..

[RajeshA]

Hello....
BG has no dependency on MBH for context. Any mention of context is incidental and besides the key facts it presents for man kind for ALL time. It is treated as a fifth veda and considered a shruti, while the MBH is a context specific smriti.

The context one asks for is not of validity, but of semantics!

[devesh]

Hello....
BG has no dependency on MBH for context. Any mention of context is incidental and besides the key facts it presents for man kind for ALL time. It is treated as a fifth veda and considered a shruti, while the MBH is a context specific smriti. The fact that the author ved vyas situates BG in the midst of the great war is besides the point. The BG is and remains a Moksha shastra in its purpose. It has no lessons of history or anything to with the story of kaurava-pandava or the power struggle of the period. It is not a dharma shastra and neither it has secrets to management as is the fad in some circles. Neither the BG is the key to understanding political struggles as Tilak tried to do. The BG is what it is - a Moksha shastra.

that is your prerogative. and your interpretation is the dominant interpretation among the various "acharyas" and "gurus", as also the mathas and peethas.

but it is disconnected from logic. BG might have universal values in it, but it is not context-less. otherwise, it becomes a "scripture" and is easily digestible into all and sundry. dissociating the ideas expressed by Krishna in BG from the context of MB makes it a "universal" value, and in one fluid stroke, any other claimants of universalism which have similar ideas in some nook and corner of their "scriptures" can likewise claim that "all is one" or "all is same".

our "acharyas" and "gurus" have gone to great lengths to turn BG into a "universal Dharma". and it is very clever of them to do it. they couldn't let this radical text remain independent of their interpretations, after all, it is a text that was used to "goad" a warrior to take up weapons against established "elders". so, for the "elders" in modern times also, it is very important to control the narrative on this text.

BG might have some universal ideas, especially about the various Yogas, but ultimately the underlying message is tied in with MB. you simply cannot ignore that. the message is about dissociating personal emotions and feelings that come in the way of the massive culling that "needed" to be done. and this culling is based on the story of MB. so Krishna's "needs" are very clear: how to make Arjuna receptive to the message of putting aside personal emotions for the broader cause of Dharma?

how can you ignore all that? especially, the specific goal that Krishna had in mind?

BG has a context. that is MB. let's not fall for too clever by half interpretations by many, including even the various Vedanta-interpretation-founders (Adi Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva). I'm not saying completely disregard or discard them.

BUT WE MUST ALWAYS KEEP IN MIND THAT ANY "ELDER" WILL ALWAYS TRY TO PUT HIS OWN SPIN ON BG: BECAUSE IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY A REVOLUTIONARY TEXT AND YOU DON'T WANT THE "YOUNG ONES" TO START GETTING "CRAZY" IDEAS DO YOU?

[harbans]

Rajesh Ji, i asked this of you before..

Rajesh Ji if you think these are useless, why bother asking about the context?

If you think they are useful, you can add whatever context you want and enhance upon it. I don't prevent you from giving what context you want do i?

So if you don;t feel the need for values a State must reflect, then why the need to ask for context? If you do feel that the State must reflect some values, then why don't you put up your list of values and related context to it? Or say clearly that once i achieve a Bharatiya/ HIndutva state, no values are important. Or if you say the Bharatiya/ Hindutva state must reflect values, then please do state what values and their context.

[RajeshA]

Rajesh Ji, i asked this of you before..

Rajesh Ji if you think these are useless, why bother asking about the context?

If you think they are useful, you can add whatever context you want and enhance upon it. I don't prevent you from giving what context you want do i?

So if you don't feel the need for values a State must reflect, then why the need to ask for context? If you do feel that the State must reflect some values, then why don't you put up your list of values and related context to it? Or say clearly that once i achieve a Bharatiya/ Hindutva state, no values are important. Or if you say the Bharatiya/ Hindutva state must reflect values, then please do state what values and their context.

1) A Constitution needs to reflect the principles according to which responsibilities and rights of the various organs of the state, society and the individual are determined and regulated.

2) A Constitution needs to reflect the agenda of the state to help build a better society.

3) The character of the citizens is built through proper nurture, education, social environment, value inculcation. It is from here that the individual derives his values in general.

4) It is the responsibility of the citizens to choose the best among themselves to send as their representatives to lead them.

5) Quality of Governance is dependent on the quality of character of the leadership.

________________

I had initially written that you need to prove the conceptual soundness of your theory of embedding "values" in the Constitution! You haven't done that.

If you pass that test, then you need to show that your specific "values" bring some usefulness, that they are necessary. Nothing was forthcoming.

A "value" without context is not even conceptually sound, so you fail at the first step itself. The context gives the "value" its semantic.

[RamaY]

BG has no dependency on MBH for context. Any mention of context is incidental and besides the key facts it presents for man kind for ALL time. It is treated as a fifth veda and considered a shruti, while the MBH is a context specific smriti. The fact that the author ved vyas situates BG in the midst of the great war is besides the point. The BG is and remains a Moksha shastra in its purpose. It has no lessons of history or anything to with the story of kaurava-pandava or the power struggle of the period. It is not a dharma shastra and neither it has secrets to management as is the fad in some circles. Neither the BG is the key to understanding political struggles as Tilak tried to do. The BG is what it is - a Moksha shastra.

ShauryaT garu,

BG is a moksha sastra but that moksha can be achieved thru Bhakti/Jnana/Raja/Karma yogas. The political/management lessons for Karma yogis.

[RamaY]

At this point you belong to Muhammed verity.

Don't go too far on your personal hate froth. You've accused me of Xtian Sufi bias and now Islamic bias..while you yourself sit in under the constitutional powers of a Xtian Sufi state that you hate so much. And that is not irony, it is hypocrisy. So are you a Xtian Sufi state citizen?

I will tell you a secret. I am a closet christian I am eagerly waiting to join your dharmic code. But can I fall back to what pope says in matters of faith? For example all non Christian code pushers are sinners and will go to hell

Can I proselytize you to Christianity because we both believe in your 10-codes?

[SBajwa]

I must commend RajeshA for excellent writing and grasp of history!! You are a good writer! please start your blog and also start writing(books, columns, opinions, etc)!!! assuming that you do not do at this time!!

[RamaY]

^+1.

I tell my friends/family about him, Ramanaji, Bji, Shivji etc on how they patiently and systematically acquire, collect, analyze knowledge.

[ShauryaT]

Also whatever vision/ template they draw, the State and it's governance will have to be looked through the prism of these values.

We need to take this discussion forward. A set of values becomes the basis for an ideology. The values need to re-enforce a higher principle. Even higher than Lakshanas is to first define the inherent nature of man, as viewed from the Dharmic prism. From this inherent spiritual and moral nature of man flow other ideas of values that reinforce this higher principle. The higher principle that needs to be propagated is the concept of purusha-prakriti. We need to find a way to present the Aatman-Brahman inter relationship. The essence of our being as a spiritual one engaged with nature in our present form is one of the highest recognitions known to mankind. It is the sustenance of this eternal pursuha-prakriti balance for which laws of man need to be written. Chatur Dharma life needs legal sanction. If the preamble and article 51 (fundamental duties) can be redrafted to include these values to re-enforce these higher principles of man's purpose, which most dharmics believe are universal then I am all for it. There will be opposition from "mono" isms but this is exactly where Dharmics need to rise to uphold their values and systems and if necessary force the issue.

All Aastik and Nastik dharmic adhering paths will have to coalesce to make this happen. The Dalai Lama has no inhibitions in calling himself Hindu and taking a dip in the Kumbh (he could not do it this time). So, while I understand your intent to use the term Dharma instead of Hindu is to avoid the sectarian characteristics the term has acquired of late, the term used is not the key point.

But I am quite surprised with some here who claim that SD has nothing to learn from anyone as it is comprehensive. While it maybe so, there are some very specific failures of SD and its peoples, our failure to not get to the bottom of it and arrest its weaknesses can only be to the detriment of SD and its proponents – as has been seen in our losses. I am also dismayed that some cannot move beyond their obsession with purva paksha. Dharma is not going to be understood and propagated by being in opposition to something. While it is important to understand differences, it is more important to understand what are the ideas, values, systems, means and methods that make for a dharmic nation.

[Pranav]

You have not made the case for their usefulness, necessity or sufficiency ...

Are those the lakshNas mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita? If so, a Gita scholar would be able to answer this question.

[Pranav]

how can you, or anyone, say that Krishna's sayings in the BG don't have a context?

As far as I can see, nobody is saying that context should be ignored.

[Pranav]

How are those values relevant for the state? Those lakshanas are for individuals!

A state exists for the purpose of facilitating the evolution of individuals.

[Pranav]

BG has no dependency on MBH for context.

One cannot be dogmatic - e.g. truthfulness is generally a virtue but when dealing with wicked individuals one has to exercise wisdom.

Who was it that said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" ...

[Rudradev]

Hello....
BG has no dependency on MBH for context. Any mention of context is incidental and besides the key facts it presents for man kind for ALL time. It is treated as a fifth veda and considered a shruti, while the MBH is a context specific smriti. The fact that the author ved vyas situates BG in the midst of the great war is besides the point. The BG is and remains a Moksha shastra in its purpose. It has no lessons of history or anything to with the story of kaurava-pandava or the power struggle of the period. It is not a dharma shastra and neither it has secrets to management as is the fad in some circles. Neither the BG is the key to understanding political struggles as Tilak tried to do. The BG is what it is - a Moksha shastra.

BG has a context. that is MB. let's not fall for too clever by half interpretations by many

It is only people who have never read the Gita who will argue that it has no context in the MB. What is the first question asked of Sanjaya? Who was Partha and why did he have doubts?

Devoid of the context, deeply rooted in Hindu narrative and embedded in a Hindu epic, the BG becomes as anemic as an organ that is surgically excised from the body and deprived of blood circulation. People like Harbans ji are obviously quite happy to reduce the BG to a litany of fluffy garbage:

Fearlessness, sincerity, assiduity in devotion, generosity, self-restraint, piety, and alms-giving, study, mortification, and rectitude; harmlessness, veracity, and freedom from anger, resignation, equanimity, and not speaking of the faults of others, universal compassion, modesty, and mildness; patience, power, fortitude, and purity, discretion, dignity, unrevengefulness, and freedom from conceit

Who spoke these words? Why did he speak them? To whom did he speak them? Why did that person need to hear them? Are they simply the senile natterings of some prophet from a desert religion? Are they mere fodder for hypocrisy, and nothing else? What differentiates them from the "love" of the Religion of Love, or the "peace" of the Religion of Peace? ONLY the context. Only the narrative, which is a Hindu narrative beyond any question.

Attempts to strip the BG of Hindu context and purvey it as some sort of universal code are not only flawed, they are actively dangerous, because they facilitate the digestion of whatever wisdom it has to offer into other systems.

So, while I understand your intent to use the term Dharma instead of Hindu is to avoid the sectarian characteristics the term has acquired of late, the term used is not the key point.

It is absolutely the key point. If we begin the journey by apologizing for our identity, so as to assuage the discomfort of certain communities who cite "sectarian concerns" to justify their victimhood... then the journey is already fated to go nowhere, before it has even begun. We are in effect admitting that the enemy's psyops have already sundered the hull of the ship, before we have even set sail at all.

The only primary identity I have is Hindu; even my being a Bharatiya is pre-contingent on my being a Hindu first; and my allegiance to the modern Republic of India comes a long, long way after that. I categorically reject any efforts to construct some fabricated Bharatiya identity that conceals and apologizes for its roots, which arise only and exclusively from Hindu civilization.

[Pranav]

So, while I understand your intent to use the term Dharma instead of Hindu is to avoid the sectarian characteristics the term has acquired of late, the term used is not the key point.

It is absolutely the key point. If we begin the journey by apologizing for our identity, so as to assuage the discomfort of certain communities who cite "sectarian characteristics" to justify their victimhood... then the journey is already fated to go nowhere, before it has even begun. We are in effect admitting that the enemy's psyops have already sundered the hull of the ship, before we have even set sail at all.

The only primary identity I have is Hindu; even my being a Bharatiya is pre-contingent on my being a Hindu first; and my allegiance to the modern Republic of India comes a long, long way after that. I categorically reject any efforts to construct some fabricated Bharatiya identity that conceals and apologizes for its roots, which arise only and exclusively from Hindu civilization.

But aren't the terms "Bharat" and "Dharma" more authentic than the term "Hindu", which originated in the inability of Greeks to pronounce river names properly.

[Rudradev]

Do not know, why has reformation era german philosophers being quoted, who mostly got Indian systems wrong. Voltaire, Herder, Hegel, Schelling and Schopenhauer thought of India through a western prism. If western understanding has to be brought in then the Greece of Pythagoras, Plato and Plotinus has more in common with Hindu India than with Christian Europe.
.

I believe this is targeted at me, therefore I will answer.

If you actually read the posts in which I have cited Hegel, Schelling and Fichte (who were Enlightenment era philosophers, btw, not Reformation)... the reason is precisely because they got Indian systems wrong in exactly the same way that Harbans ji does. It is not to increase our understanding of India that I cite them... it is to highlight Harbans ji's hopeless misunderstanding of India, which is implicit in his advocacy of moral positivism and context-deprived "values".

[Rudradev]

It is absolutely the key point. If we begin the journey by apologizing for our identity, so as to assuage the discomfort of certain communities who cite "sectarian characteristics" to justify their victimhood... then the journey is already fated to go nowhere, before it has even begun. We are in effect admitting that the enemy's psyops have already sundered the hull of the ship, before we have even set sail at all.

The only primary identity I have is Hindu; even my being a Bharatiya is pre-contingent on my being a Hindu first; and my allegiance to the modern Republic of India comes a long, long way after that. I categorically reject any efforts to construct some fabricated Bharatiya identity that conceals and apologizes for its roots, which arise only and exclusively from Hindu civilization.

But aren't the terms "Bharat" and "Dharma" more authentic than the term "Hindu", which originated in the inability of Greeks to pronounce river names properly.

The term Hindu has been used by Hindus to define themselves ever since they first experienced consequential encounters with an adharmic Other. I have posted on this before: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &p=1294555

The terms "Bharat" and "Dharma" made sense when there were no (or minimal) contacts with adharmic peoples from outside of Jambudvipa... when in fact there was no realm that wasn't Bharat, and no way of being that wasn't Dharma. That is not the world we live in today.

"Hindu" identity is the immune system we have had to evolve from the time foreign diseases made their presence felt on our soil. We abandon it at our peril.

[RamaY]

Harbans,

Sri Rajiv Malhotra's whole life project/purpose is about making hindus self-confident Hindus and not fall for usurption of Hindu contributions by universalists by taking the Hinduness out of them.

It is ironic that you quote him for your universlistic project that denigrates Hinduism.

[ShauryaT]

It is only people who have never read the Gita who will argue that it has no context in the MB. What is the first question asked of Sanjaya? Who was Partha and why did he have doubts?

RD: Chapter I only sets the stage and NOT the context for the message of the BG. Yes, the message is addressed to Arjun in light of the MBH, however the messages in them stand on their own. BG would have NEVER been made a shruti, if its message had ANYTHING to do with the MBH as such and its applicability devoid of the context of that war. If someone, has an issue with that approach as Devesh ji does, then they will have to find another way to approach the BG. A way that our acharyas have not found yet. I can only say good luck to those. For me BG stands on its own and its message universal and the context for it is not MBH but Moksha.

[RamaY]

^Fair enough, that's your take.

But the context was to make Arjuna (that or this), who is overwhelmed by Harbansness (incorrect interpretation/application of passion, Kshama, duty etc.,), to do his Hindu duty. Moksha is awarenss of what is always there and not some phase in life that has a beginning (jatasya hi Dhruvo Mrityu: - if it has a beginning then it will not satisfy its Ananta-characteristic of Moksha).

[Rudradev]

RD: Chapter I only sets the stage and NOT the context for the message of the BG. Yes, the message is addressed to Arjun in light of the MBH, however the messages in them stand on their own. BG would have NEVER been made a shruti, if its message had ANYTHING to do with the MBH as such and its applicability devoid of the context of that war. If someone, has an issue with that approach as Devesh ji does, then they will have to find another way to approach the BG. A way that our acharyas have not found yet. I can only say good luck to those. For me BG stands on its own and its message universal and the context for it is not MBH but Moksha.

I see... and what exactly is the difference between setting the stage and establishing the context? Why is it even necessary to set the stage in the opening chapter, if the message is purely non-contextual? Why not just strip out everything except that one paragraph of abstract nouns which Harbans ji deems fit to quote? If it is only about "Values" then that should be enough, no?

The message is completely applicable to any situation apart from the Mahabharat war, and therefore it is a shruti. However the vehicle in which that message is delivered is the Mahabharat, and the context is inseparable from the message itself. That is why the stage must be set in the first place.

The fact is it is easy for people to sit down today and say the BG is something independent of the context of the MB. That only shows the lack of self-awareness among those who reach such a conclusion. If the BG holds any meaning for you today, it is because you probably (like most of us) heard the MB at your parents/grandparents' feet as a child, many decades before you began an approach to the BG itself as a universal philosophical treatise. The epic context is part and parcel of a Hindu's identity and does not need to be spelled out explicitly for a Hindu.THAT is the contextual wealth that gives the BG meaning. The MB is the canvas on which the BG is painted. You cannot separate them.

[devesh]

It is absolutely the key point. If we begin the journey by apologizing for our identity, so as to assuage the discomfort of certain communities who cite "sectarian concerns" to justify their victimhood... then the journey is already fated to go nowhere, before it has even begun. We are in effect admitting that the enemy's psyops have already sundered the hull of the ship, before we have even set sail at all.

The only primary identity I have is Hindu; even my being a Bharatiya is pre-contingent on my being a Hindu first; and my allegiance to the modern Republic of India comes a long, long way after that. I categorically reject any efforts to construct some fabricated Bharatiya identity that conceals and apologizes for its roots, which arise only and exclusively from Hindu civilization.

Rudradev ji, accept my salutations.

this clarity is what we need. if Bharat becomes disjointed from the "Hindu", it is not Bharat. it is the fake "secular" construct that we have right now.

there are some on this forum who will threaten us with "violence" if we question the construct of Republic of India.

but no matter what we are threatened with, there can be no compromise on the question of identity. there is no force on us to accept the "secular" identity being thrust upon us. and those who mock us that each of us has a different definition of "Hindu", let them mock us. there is no problem. we will take out time in figuring out exactly what we are and what WE ARE NOT.

And yes, India/Bharat is rooted in the Hindu civilization. Islam and Christianity are at best usurpers for a temporary period. THEY ARE NOT OUR CIVILIZATION. THEIR IDEOLOGY IS NOT OURS.
as long as we don't have clarity on that, there will be no consolidation and resurgence of the."Hindu". our difference needs to be clear.

[member_23686]

harbans ji.

if you find some time from high quality discussion, kindly look at my dehati version of why we cant have your value system at present-

in case harbans ji miss my response, here is the most important one-

5. the hijacking of our memes is what outrages me. you get the memes right and system will fall in place. when system will resonate with our memes, it will naturally radiate policies that uphold the moral values, but getting morals right without correcting the system and ownership of our memes will end up with us dead and our women becoming commodities. one should not forget what time has taught us. durga did not anshan-ed while fighting with mahishasura.... prithviraj let ghazni get away... both things had different effects, one prevented girls from getting raped, other gave you khaps.

the memes here is bhartiya identity onlee...

here is a little plan on how to put your value system thing in constitution etc-

i'm putting my vision in a timeline. gurujans can add.

1. namo happen- economic reform- remove propaganda from education- take steps towards creating a system that rewards hardwork- proper law enforcement (5years)

2. start a movement for ownership of all symbols and memes that have been misappropriated by west- start capturing humanities section in all indian unis- positive representation of our memes in bolly/tolly/holly/whatever wood (next 5years)

3. bring necessary changes/constitutional amendments to move towards a system based on our memes- use economic strength to remove anti-bhartiya propaganda from western unis- become global center for scientific research (next 5years)

4. birth of a new generation that is rooted in our memes and have no doubts about their bhartiya identity and understand that beacon of values only shine in strong hands

note- every process is continuous, i'm just mentioning their start. time can differ, give or take 3 years

this is something that a village person can easily understand, isnt it.

[Pranav]

The term Hindu has been used by Hindus to define themselves ever since they first experienced consequential encounters with an adharmic Other. I have posted on this before: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &p=1294555

The terms "Bharat" and "Dharma" made sense when there were no (or minimal) contacts with adharmic peoples from outside of Jambudvipa... when in fact there was no realm that wasn't Bharat, and no way of being that wasn't Dharma. That is not the world we live in today.

"Hindu" identity is the immune system we have had to evolve from the time foreign diseases made their presence felt on our soil. We abandon it at our peril.

Fair enough, but personally I am not happy to adopt a name that originated in a mispronunciation by foreigners, even though it is over 2000 years old.

[member_23686]

my pranaam to all gurujans here who are taking time to destroy the bs that have disfigured our cultural memes and have created an identity crisis.

rajesh ji seems to be in best of his form. special thanks to rudradev ji to establish clear argument aroud gita's context.

i'll also thank harbans ji for bringing this argument. i now have enough ammo to destroy "educated" line of thought coming from my social circle, especially the one about all religions being same and following the same values.

[member_23686]

pranav ji, your argument is totally valid but this is not the time to create confusion about "hindu". the term is well established and will remain for a few centuries.

lets try to secure our interest and get a few generations that have no identity crisis and then we can have a good namkaran sanskar for that identity.

[RajeshA]

Cross-Posting an aggregation post by johneeG from "Indian Interests" Thread

One does not want to accept Hinduism as the basis and instead wants some vague 'Dharma' as the basis. The term 'Dharma' is being propped as a proxy.

Johnee G, no proxy here. The vagueness is not in the 'upholding of Dharma' that is the core of what Ram and Krishna propagated, but in the term Hindu itself. No none of you gave an even definition of HInduism. Every definition and the threads are open are imprecise and different. And it's not for me to say. The proof is there since independence. When have Hindu;s actually united under the Hindu banner? They've voted in INC over HIndu parties most times. Now you will say they are foolish to have been doing so. But the fact of the matter is Hinduism failed to unite. Even Nepal a Hindu country for long fell to a crass maoist uprising. Something must have been weak for it to fall so easily. Or is there someother strength that keeps us together apart from the fact we have been termed Hindu's?

Saar,
you are repeating yourself and so, I have to repeat myself:

What is Hinduism?

Regardless of the origin and original meaning of the term 'Hinduism', it is now in vogue as a synonym of Sanatana Dharma.

So, what is Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma?

In my limited understanding, the primary axioms of Sanathana Dharma(Hinduism) is:
a) 'Veda(s) are the eternal truth.'

b) 'Veda(s) are divine. They are not man-made.'

c) 'Veda(s) are the authority on all things.'

d) 'All the experiences, words, customs and ideologies of the people that are in consonance with the Vedic teachings are acceptable. And all the experiences, words, customs and ideologies of the people contradictory to Vedic teachings are rejected.'

The word Veda refers to all the four Vedas along with Vedanta(Upanishads).
-------
Based on the above fundamental axioms, Indic philosophies have been categorised as Astika and Nastika.

Astika Philosophies are 6(Shat Darshanas). They accept the Vedic authority. They are:
a) Nyāyá, the school of logic (by Gautama)
b) Vaiśeṣika, the school that proposes atoms (by Kanada)
c) Sāṃkhya, the enumeration school (by Kapila)
d) Yoga, which assumes the metaphysics of Sāṃkhya (by Patanjali)
e) Mimāṃsā or Purva Mimāṃsā, the tradition of Vedic exegesis that stresses on the importance of Vedic rituals. (restored by Kumarilla Bhatta - who is disciple of Jaimini - who is disciple of Vyasa)
f) Vedanta or Uttara Mimāṃsā, the Upaniṣadic tradition.(restored by Adi Shankaracharya - who is disciple of Govinda Bhagavatpada - Gauda Bhagavatpada - Shuka - Vyasa)

Nastika philosophies. They reject the Vedic authority. They are:
a) Buddhism (supposedly by Siddhartha Gautama)
b) Jainism (supposedly by Rishabha, the first Tirthankara. Mahavira is the last of the 24 Tirthankaras.)
c) Cārvāka - Materialistic and hedonistic school of thought.

-----
Then, there are Tantras or Agamas. The Tantras like Darshanas(Philosophies) can also be Vedic or Non-Vedic. All the Tantras/Agamas (or the aspects of Tantras) that are in consonance with Vedas are acceptable. Rest are rejected.

The Tantras also claim their origin from divine beings. Even so, if the teachings are contradictory to Vedas, they are rejected.
-----

Then, there are Smritis or Dharma Shaastras. Smritis are authored by the Rishis. They deal with the rules of conduct. There are several Smritis.

The general rule is that the whole (or part) of a Smriti which is conflicting with Vedas is rejected.

-----

Then, there are Itihasaas(Ramayana & Mahabharatha) along with the 18 Puranas and 18 Upa-Puranas. Generally, they can be treated similar to Dharma Shaastras.

-----

Finally, there are traditions of family. Each family follow certain traditions and customs which it has inherited from its ancestors. These traditions are also acceptable and encouraged as long as they are not in conflict with the above mentioned scriptural teachings.

------

IMHO, the above is the outline of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma.

I like this approach. It seems more encompassing

But, why should it be 'more encompassing'?

One should accept a definition based on whether it is correct or wrong. And not whether it is 'more encompassing' or less encompassing.

and less confusing.

[quoteIndia has existed for several millennia; it is rooted in history and enshrined and encompassed by a civilisational ethos based on the attainment of Consciousness (self-realisation). India s ancient religion, Hinduism, is not a codified creed in the manner of other world religions. Properly known as the Sanatan Dharma or the Eternal Tradition, it is simultaneously a religion and a living civilisation or way of life, and is inspired by the ideal of universal welfare of all beings, both human and other creatures. Dharma is natural (cosmic) law. As Hinduism, it takes on a formal structure, creed and ritual; yet it is never the captive of absolutism. The sanatan dharma recognises even the atheist as morally valid, and does not deny him space in the religious-spiritual spectrum. This is because sanatan dharma is all-embracing: it is righteousness, duty, and the eternal law that is not fixed (in time or space) but eternally renews itself in response to changing times and provides for as many paths to salvation as there are individual souls who seek it.

Dharma demands that all faiths be treated with respect and courtesy, as they are all attempts to attain Godhead. Its quintessential argument is that each soul must chart its own evolutionary course, and that it is not given to any human agency to arbitrate a final truth for all mankind. Hindus do believe that the Vedas are the revealed truth that was heard by the Vedic rishis (Sruti). But that is no reason that they should be imposed upon the world by human regents who claim to be sole prophets of the only true revelation. This is the reason why, despite the belief in One Supreme Being, non-monotheism has been the hallmark of all Indic religions. Our polity and innate secularism has flowed naturally from these values; it is not for nothing that Aristotle observed that the Hindus were the only people to have successfully made dharma the basis of their public life (Politics). /quote]

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/articles_hinduism/144.htm

PS: Written by a Jain

Actually, this definition is more confusing. If 'sanatana dharma is all-embracing' as the author claims, then Islam, Judaism, X-nity,...etc would also must be embraced, no? If everything is being embraced, then what exactly is Hinduism defending itself from?

This definition provided by the author is high on words but low on matter. In fact, it seems the definition is kept so flexible just so that no one is offended. It is precisely such type of definitions that lead to unnecessary confusion. It is such views that lead to the ideology of 'Sarva dharma sama bhava'(All religions are equal). BTW, if you are looking for an all encompassing approach why not take up the ideology of 'Sarva dharma sama bhava', instead of trying to redefine Hinduism?

Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma is quite clear about what it is and what it is not. One may like that definition or not, but one must not try to misrepresent it.

Hinduism is not same as Buddhism or Jainism or Islam or X-nity or Secularism or Communism or whatever. It would be silly to ignore the differences between them by clubbing them together.

Of course, broadly we can divide them into 2 categories:
a) Abrahamic creeds
b) Indic religions(or Pagan religions).

Indic religions(or Pagan religions) face threat from the intolerant, violent, tyrannical, and vile Abrahamic creeds. So, there is a definite need for all followers of Indic religions(or Pagan religions) to come together and face the threat posed by the Abrahamic creeds.

For people or groups or ideologies to work together, they don't have to change their self-definition. It suffices if they have common interests. Here, the common interest is to face a common enemy.

Just take a look at how commies, EJs and Islamics are working with each other in India against the Indic religions. The same ideologies are hardcore enemies generally. The point I am making is that ideologies need not be friends with each other to work together, they just need to have common interests. So, all Indic religions can work together. Of course, all Indic religions share some common features. But, they also have their unique points which gives them their individuality.

But, to insist that one needs to change the definition of Hinduism because other religions would not agree with it, is quite silly. If someone says that Jains must change their religious beliefs because Hindus and Buddhists don't agree with it, then it would be silly, no? The same applies to Hinduism and Buddhism also. The Indic religions differ from each other. And one must appreciate the differences. Yet, we need to understand that they must work together against a common threat being posed by the Abrahamic creeds.

Indic religions have competed with each other and there are established ways to do so(like debates). Violence is not considered a way to prove superiority of a philosophy. This an indic trademark. On the other hand, Abrahmic religions have risen on the back of their weapons and wiles.

History shows that Indic religions can reconcile the religious/philosophical differences in non-violent manner unlike Abrahamic religions.

Finally, Hinduism is what it is. If people are not happy with it, fine... They will find some thing else that will suit them. But, there is no need to remould Hinduism into what people believe it must be. Of course, the same applies to other religions also.
----
harbans,

What is 'Dharma'? Who are 'Dharmics'?

Would followers of 'Isai Dharma' qualify as 'Dharmics'?

Ramana Ji, the Dharmic is ruthless in treating Adharma. Krishna showed and allowed some rules to be flexed. When Rama was in exile and protecting Vishwamitra and his Ashram he was ruthless with those that tried to disturb the seers meditations. Sita even mentioned this to him. Krishna was hard on Arjuna who claimed 'Dharmic' immunity that killing cousins and family members shamed him. Parsuram was ruthless too in dealing with Adharma. Protecting Dharma has always been stressed to involving ruthlessness. Rama, Krishna did that. Protecting the real seekers. Bhagavad Gita's first word is Dharma...this is a misconception people have that Dharma is some dove towards Adharma.

+1.
Indeed, it is misconception. Some more examples:
Lord Sri Rama killed Vali, Tataka(woman) and Ravana(Brahmin from father's side). All of them were slayed in a ruthless manner. Of course, He did give them one chance to redeem before proceeding with the punishment.

But, this 'Dharma' you are talking about is Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism. Buddhist Dharma or Jaina Dharma is not the same. I think the idea that Dharma is a dove came from Buddhist and Jain view of Dharma.

Jainism and Buddhism stress on Ahimsa as primary 'Dharma'. Hinduism also places great importance on Ahimsa but realises that absolute Ahimsa is simply impossible(not just impractical). For example, a very existence of one creature leads to the death of many others.

Therefore, Hinduism comes up with the concept of Sva-dharma. Sanyasis are expected to follow the concept of Ahimsa in strictest manner, while others are expected to abjure from injuring others as much as possible in course of performing their Sva-Dharma.

X-posting from 'Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas':
-----------

Not Hinduism again..

If you do not like that term, you are free to ignore it. As I said, it is in vogue as a popular synonym of Sanatana Dharma(not just any 'Dharma'). So, please bear with me if and when I use it...

Dharma will protect when it is protected or you make the right kind of noises in verse and action. But it will injure when you don't. That is nature. Not protecting Dharma and the values it seeks to protect in humans will lead injury.

Dharmo rakshati rakshitah... right.

But, which 'Dharma'? Sanatana Dharma? Baudha Dharma? Jaina Dharma? or even the latest pretenders like Isai 'Dharma'?

As I understand, you are contesting the usage of the term 'Hinduism' and want people to adopt 'Dharma' to replace it. You reason that the term 'Hinduism' is not large enough to accommodate certain differing views, while 'Dharma' will be acceptable to all. Also, you say that there is a lot of confusion about what exactly 'Hinduism' is.

So, I quoted a post of mine where I tried to outline what Hinduism is(according to the traditional and orthodox view). There is complete clarity about what is Hinduism and what is not Hinduism. The primary point is that Vedas are the basis of Hinduism. If you accept Vedas, you are a Hindu, otherwise not. Simple.

You quoted another definition of 'Dharma' because you claimed that it was more encompassing and less confusing. In that quote, the author says that Dharma is 'all embracing' and no 'human regent' is fit enough to be 'prophet' of claimed revelations(including the ones in Vedas). This position of the author contradicts the position of Hinduism.

I replied that there was no needs for the definition of Hinduism(or Sanatana Dharma) to be 'more encompassing' or 'all embracing'. Strictly, speaking no ideology can be 'all embracing'. If any ideology defines itself as 'all embracing' it leads to too much confusion especially if it faces threats from various directions. I pointed out that this definition is more confusing than the one I posted.

I said that Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism or any other Indic religion(or philosophy) can work with each other to collectively face the threat from Abrahamic religions without having to change their primary ethos. To work together one needs to have common interests, thats all.

Then, I asked you what you meant by 'Dharma'.

Then you posted the following:

If 'sanatana dharma is all-embracing' as the author claims, then Islam, Judaism, X-nity,...etc would also must be embraced, no? If everything is being embraced, then what exactly is Hinduism defending itself from?

That's the question i put to Nakul a post or two above yours.

Ok, so you do agree that Santana Dharma or Hinduism cannot be all encompassing?

I posted Jain's article to show that various strands of Dharmic thought can be got under one umbrella.

2 points:
a) What is the need to get various strands of 'Dharmic' thought under one umbrella?
You don't want to acknowledge that many of the so-called strands of 'Dharmic thought' already accept that they are part of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma. Some of the other strands of 'Dharmic thought' are not part of Hinduism. Fine.

What your are saying(and what Jain is saying) is that Hinduism should give up its fundamentals(Vedas) so that it is acceptable to other 'Dharmic strands'.

b) Various indic religions can work together without them having to give up their fundamentals.

The majority would happily endorse such.

Which majority? Hindu majority? Secular majority? World majority?

If you say 'Dharmic' majority, then you have to explain which 'Dharma'...

I don't agree with everything in the article. Yet the author makes a crucial distinction..see last quote..

I didn't get what that crucial distinction is. Please explain...

Agree. Thats why i used more encompassing. I want to include Jains, Sikhs, Hindu's, Buddhists, Arya Samaji's, Dvaits, Advaits which are different strands of thought within the Dharmic fold under one umbrella.

You don't want to acknowledge that many of the so-called strands of 'Dharmic thought'(like Dvaits, Advaits, and so on) already accept that they are part of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma. Some of the other strands of 'Dharmic thought'(like Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists) are not part(or don't want to be part) of Hinduism. Fine.

What you are saying(and what Jain is saying) is that Hinduism should give up its fundamentals(Vedas) so that it is acceptable to other 'Dharmic strands'. Why would Hinduism do that and negate itself?

So, you keep talking about 'Dharma' without clarifying which 'Dharma' you are referring to. You go on to say that your definition of 'Dharma' will bring all strands of 'Dharmic thought' under that umbrella. That can only mean that one or all of those strands would have to give up their fundamentals.

In simple terms, according to Hinduism: Buddhism or Jainism or any other ism(that does not accept Vedic authority) is not Dharmic.

I understand that such a stand will not be appreciated by others. But thats how it is. I would imagine that Buddhist and Jaina stands would also be similarly exclusive. That means, according to Buddhism, Hinduism would be wrong.

But the point is that these differences were resolved or reconciled or put to test using a well established mechanism: Free and fair debates.

On the other hand, Abrahmic creeds depend on force and fraud to spread themselves instead of proving the superiority of their philosophy or religion in a proper debate.

This is the chief difference between Indic religions and Abrahamic religions.

Something that can evolve to a preamble, constitutional, instituted approach for Governance. I want someting in that Constitution of Bharat to say more than the Dharma Chakra in the middle of the Indian flag. Dharma i defined in 5 words just yesterday to Ramay Ji. Those 5 words can form the value basis of the constitution. It was a start and once i find it will add it here to this post.

Ok. So, you want a definition that can cover all Indic religion and philosophies. Fine. I support your effort. But, why are you wasting your time in asking Hindus(or Buddhists or Jains) to remould their religion to suit your definition? Instead, you can simply create a definition based on the common traits of all Indic religions like belief in Karma, reincarnation and moksha(or nirvana).


Coming back to your present post:

India is being injured today because it rejects Dharma in many ways through it's so called secular manifestations..

I would have agreed. But, now I think it would be better if you clarify what you mean by 'Dharma'? Which Dharma are you talking about? Sanatana Dharma(Hinduism) or Baudha Dharma or Jain Dharma or Charvaka Dharma or ...?

Vashista or Vishwamitra were seekers..

Vashishta was a Brahmarshi. Vishwamitra attained the same status through prolonged perseverance.

Rama protected them with ruthlessness. Our State must protect seekers. Even diverse view points.

This is where the glitch is. Sri Rama did not protect all seekers. He protected only those seekers which acted according to the diktats of Veda. Sri Rama killed Shambuka(a seeker). Sri Rama does not tolerate the atheistic teachings of Jabali and goes to the extent of saying that His father, Dasharatha, erred by appointing Jabali as a minister. All this according to Valmiki Ramayana.

Actually, we find that Hinduism's portrayal of Rama, Krishna and other personalities differs from the portrayals of Buddhism, Jainism, and so on.

So, you should not merge Santana Dharma with other 'Dharmas' or vice versa. Such merging leads to confusion.

AFAIK, the ruthlessness is not supported by Buddhism or Jainism, which stress on absolute Ahimsa(at least in theory). It is only Hinduism(Sanatana Dharma) that accepts violence as a valid tool.

AFAIK, early Buddhism rejected the Vedic authority because of violence in Vedic rites. So, this is a major difference of opinion(on validity of violence in certain scenarios).

America does that in it's Dharmic quest to protect in it's own charter those that seek life, liberty and happiness.

You are working with a very loose definition of 'Dharma'

The American founding fathers chose Dharmic concepts to base their future civilization, and Ram/ Krishna rewarded them and lakshmi and Saraswati both touched America.

Richness or power does not mean that one is dharmic presently. Ravana was rich and powerful while Rama was in exile. Does that mean kidnapping Sita was 'Dharmic'?

Saudi is blessed by crude oil(and consequently Lakshmi), so by your logic Rama and Krishna must have rewarded them. Are Saudis also 'Dharmic'?

Present luxuries or troubles are not necessarily the result of present actions(if we go by Karma theory). Present status is the result of past actions(including past lives).

They fought against Fascism which seeked to overturn Dharmic values..they were rewarded and appreciated.

There are umpteen instances in history where America did many Adharmic things.

India was not because of it's mediocrity. We should have spilt blood to protect Dharmic Tibet from Adharmic Han Commies.

Yes, India should have done that due to variety of reasons.

We chose not to. We should have spilt blood and united to protect ourselves under the onslaught of the Islaimist those centuries we chose not to rally under those banners.

True.

So we were injured..by not protecting Dharma in our lands.

True. But, which Dharma?

Ram and Krishna only exhorted followers to uphold and stand by those that seek, are compassionate, good normal human beings against the Thug an Rogue civilizations and concepts that will emerge.

Hmm...no. Rama and Krishna say a lot more. Part of their teaching is to defeat rogue ideologies and thug civilizations. But teachings are not limited to only this aspect. Some of their teachings clash with teachings of Baudha Dharma and Jaina Dharma(at least according to Hindu portrayals like Vyasa Mahabharata and Valmiki Ramayana).

Portrayals of Rama and Krishna according to other Indic religions can clash with Hinduism(or Sanatana Dharma).

We failed. We are not lost yet.

Yep.

We have to re establish Dharma in this land of ours..even if it means questioning some terminology.

Which Dharma do you want to establish? Please don't give loose airy fairy definitions. Please clearly explain what you mean by 'Dharma'?

Even in pious vs less pious..the more pious wins over the less pious. Same in Dharma. Higher levels prevail. For a State it is imperative that the very basics we all agree upon are enforced and defended by the Rajya. The 5 Basic Dharmic references (Righteousness, Compassion, Equality, Search..Truth) that i provided are applicable to all the above, though maybe not to Isai as those who believe in Jesus are more equal.

The search for the absolute Truth and conviction in it, is Dharma in its highest form.

The search for a relative is an evolving quest and upon the peeling of one layer another layer is revealed. Take for example, trying to get a coveted seat say in an IIT or even a particular department within it. Everyone cannot qualify to an IIT Kanpur Comp science position. So Dharma dictates a fair entrance. Dharma dictates fairness of choice, equality to all who participate in that desire for that course. If that is accepted Dharma also dictates one righteously accepts the decision that has been made with equanimity, even if one loses out on it. The State and it’s institutions, the Private entities that it allows to function under it’s value systems must display such relative levels of Dharma expected. The quest here is not about the ultimate Truth, the highest Dharma. Yet the State and it’s Institution practice Righteousness, equality in conducting a fair exam and the persons involved take the results with equanimity.


No there is no clarity regarding that. When foreigners gave the word Hindu’s to a whole lot of people with diverse beliefs, 99.99% people in that group did not know what the Vedas were, what they sounded like or what they implied. Yes a small subset of them knew, understood and were well versed. Not anyone else. Today less than a few dozen people can comprehend the Veda’s. Millions may have belief in them, but those millions apart from calling Pandits to recite the Vedas in birth, marriage and death have little comprehension about what they deal with. Yet those millions have vastly greater intimacy with the Vedanta. The Philosophical discourses in the Upanishads, MB, Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, Buddha, Jain and Sikh versions of how to deal with others. The Veda's deal with evolving to Indra's material Heaven not Moksha. The essence of the Vedanta is crux, though if confused, fall back to the Veda. The Veda is a fall back option for the enlightened astray.
.
People are more closer to the values enunciated by Lord Rama, Krishna, Gautam Buddha, Mahavira, Guru Nanak, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Ramakrishna than what the Veda’s say or do. Comprehending that Shri Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita says:

“Those who follow the science of the three Vedas and drink the Soma, their sins purified, aspire to go to heaven through sacrifices. Having reached the pious world of the king of gods, they partake in heaven of the celestial enjoyments of the gods. Having enjoyed the vast world of heaven, they fall to the mortal world when their piety is exhausted. Thus those who desire sense gratification, and who have consistently resorted to the dharma of the three Vedas, achieve only going and coming.” (Bg. 9.20-21)

“The purity of Yog is to pass
Beyond the Sabdabrahm, the spoken Ved.” (Bg. Chapter 6)


India is the land of Dharma. The issue is not which is more encompassing and less confusing. The issue is what do the majority of us truly believe in? Are we all just Vedics/ Hindu’s? How many of us understand the Vedic/ Hindu?

What does the common Indian understand? What will he endorse from the Raj/ State? That is why I stated a few fundamentals that took the West millennia to come to state in their National Constitutional Charters: Righteousness, Compassion, Equality, Search, and Truth. Not that they have arrived, but they certainly have made an attempt, even though I consider it has been brokered through Western Philosophers who themselves were awed by the Vedanta.


Many mistakenly think all religions preach these values. No. Christianity does not. It took bloody revolutions to charter some of these provisions into State Codes. They may not have been perfect, but they were a start. It also entailed putting Papal primacy in the backburner with regards to State functions. Europe and the West prospered because some provisions of that charter they followed with rigor and defended too at a relative level. Those that followed such and imbibed those value systems are today the Worlds most modern societies. Yes with their blemishes, but they have opportunities and avenues for correcting them further. India being the land of Dharma, still falters in enforcing these value systems. Nepotism, Vote bank politics, favoritism still rule the roost against ethical state instituted principles based on Dharma.


Most people who take the Human form are Dharmic by nature. Yet very few amongst them take the strong stance and defend the Dharmic values I enunciated. Even Arjuna tried to obfuscate his way out. God obviously knows from many experiments it is these bravehearts that save the day for what the majority of Humans really wish for. That is why Rama and Krishna stand out as saviours of Dharma. That is why the Upanishadic Seers, Buddha and Mahavira stand out for enunciating values that deserve saving and fighting for.

Their followers are not wrong. The State must exhort Value systems as we commonly know as Dharma, be that be in Work ethic, dedication, Charity, Compassion, Non violence, Equality, Righteousness, Search for Truth. The State has also a Dharmic right bestowed to use all means to see that these values remain enshrined. Lord Rama/ Lord Krishna have shown that it is justified to use force to remove any forces that undermine these value systems.

Rally around these basic value systems, and follow any higher one that you deem. The State will protect the higher one and keep evolving as people too imbibe the basics and move next step. So what problem do you have with the basic version of Dharmic values a State should protect for starters?

“You are the indestructible, the supreme object of knowledge. You are the transcendental receptacle of this universe. You are inexhaustible, the protector of everlasting dharma. I conclude that You are the eternal person.” (Bg. 11.18)
Lord Krishna later declares as much in the fourteenth chapter: “Indeed, I am the foundation of Brahman [spirit], and of unending immortality, and of everlasting dharma, and of the ultimate happiness.” (Bg. 14.27)

In the last verse of the twelfth chapter also, Lord Krishna indicates that there is a truly eternal dharma: “But those who fully honor this immortal nectar of dharma as it has been spoken [by Me], having faith, taking Me as supreme—those devotees are exceedingly dear to Me.” (Bg. 12.20)

I am- of all this boundless Universe-
The Father, Mother, Ancestor, and Guard!
The end of Learning! That which purifies
In lustral water! I am OM! I am
Rig-Veda, Sama-Veda, Yajur-Ved;
The Way, the Fosterer, the Lord, the Judge,
The Witness; the Abode, the Refuge-House,
The Friend, the Fountain and the Sea of Life
Which sends, and swallows up; Treasure of Worlds
And Treasure-Chamber! Seed and Seed-Sower,
Whence endless harvests spring! Sun's heat is mine;
Heaven's rain is mine to grant or to withhold;
Death am I, and Immortal Life I am,
Arjuna! SAT and ASAT, Visible Life,
And Life Invisible!

Yea! those who learn
The threefold Veds, who drink the Soma-wine,
Purge sins, pay sacrifice- from Me they earn
Passage to Swarga; where the meats divine
Of great gods feed them in high Indra's heaven.
Yet they, when that prodigious joy is o'er,
Paradise spent, and wage for merits given,
Come to the world of death and change once more.
They had their recompense! they stored their treasure,
Following the threefold Scripture and its writ;
Who seeketh such gaineth the fleeting pleasure
Of joy which comes and goes! I grant them it!
But to those blessed ones who worship Me,
Turning not otherwhere, with minds set fast,
I bring assurance of full bliss beyond.

Clearly Shri Krishna focuses beyond the Vedic rites and rituals.

There are 2 options:
a) Accept the present form in which a word is being used.
b) Insist that we should go back to the original context in which the word was coined(or first used).

(a)one is ready to accept the present form in which a word is being used regardless of who invented it:
Hinduism is presently used as a synonym of Sanatana Dharma. It does not matter what the original context or intention of the word was.

Synonyms of Sanatana Dharma are:
Arya Dharma, Arsha Dharma, Vedic Dharma, Sanatana Dharma, Hinduism,...etc.

Presently, Dharma is being used as a generic term. Generic term has no meaning unless the context is specified. That is the reason I kept asking,"Which Dharma are you talking about?"

The word 'Dharma' in itself has no meaning unless it is associated with a specific philosophy that defines the word. Just like the word 'law'. If I say, 'law' allows me to do something without specifying the context, then that statement has no meaning. The first question that would be asked is,"Which law are you talking about? Indian law? paki law? African law? Which law?..."

I asked the same question. You did not specify any single philosophy according to which you were referring to the word 'Dharma', instead you came up with some words(which are also generic) which you said sum up 'Dharma'. You provided your own definition of Dharma whixch you think should be enshrined in constitution. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism come up with their own unique definitions of Dharma. The followers of a particular religion would believe that the definition provided by their religion should be enshrined in constitution. The others' definitions of Dharma are acceptable only to the extent that they agree with the definition provided by one's own philosophy. I presume that your stance is same. You provided a definition and you are willing to accept the others definition of dharma as long as the others do not contradict your definition. Your original goal was to 'bringing different dharmic strands under one umbrella'. As you can see, you are not going to achieve that unless everyone(and all philosophies) give up their definitions of dharma and accept yours. In short, you are adding one more definition into the ring claiming that yours is best suited. In a way, you are starting a new a religion/philosophy with your own definitions of dharma. And moreover, anyone can come up with their own definitions that are convenient to them. Why should they accept your definition? Why should Dharma be defined as righteousness? Why not as faith in prophet X?

The original conundrum also started similarly. This is a good cue to our option (b):
Insist that we should go back to the original context in which the word was coined(or first used):
You have insisted that the word 'Hinduism' is unfit because of the original context in which it was coined. Actually, the original context seems unclear to me but lets assume that what you say is true. Then, one should also insist that the word 'Dharma' should also be used in the original context that it was first used or coined. So, when was the word 'Dharma' first used?
Answer: Vedas.

So, by your own logic we should stop trying to redefine Dharma(just as we should not redefine the word Hinduism) and accept the definition provided by the first users. If that is the case, then Dharma would automatically mean Sanatana Dharma. Then, Dharma would not be generic anymore, therefore anyone who defines dharma in a way that deviates from the Sanatana Dharma would be wrong.

PS: When you talk about Rama or Krishna or any other figure, could you specify which source you will accept as authoritative?

If you have a problem with the term 'Hindu', then you can use its synonyms like:
Arya Dharma, Arsha Dharma, Vedic Dharma, Sanatana Dharma,...etc

But, it seems you have a problem with Hinduism itself. In which case, you can simply reject Hinduism. It seems you want to go one step further and urge everyone to reject Hinduism and re-define it. What you want to say is that Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma should be junked.

Coming to the term 'Hindu', it seems to be a middle-eastern word for Sanatan Dharmics(not any dharmics). Similarly, the word 'India' seems to be a greek(or western) word. There seems to be a phonological similarity between the words 'Hindu' and 'India'(or 'Indica'). So, it is not a new term invented by the Brits. It was ancient term for Sanatana Dharmics.

When Hindus use the word 'Dharma', then mean 'Dharma' as enshrined in Hindu scriptures only. Similarly, when Buddhists use the term 'Dharma', then mean it in a completely different manner. Just because both of them use the word 'Dharma' does not mean, they have same definition for that word.

Let me give an example:
Dharmo rakshati rakshitah...
Satyam Vada, Dharmam Chara... These are Hindu concepts of 'Dharma'.

Buddham Sharanam Gachami
Dharmam Sharanam Gachami
Sangam Sharanam Gachami... This is a Buddhist concept of 'Dharma'.

Both of the above differ completely from each other. Bhagavad Gita along with rest of Vyasa MB, Valmiki Ramayana and other Puranas are not just any Dharmic books, they are Hindu(or SD) books. These books are teaching Sanatana Dharma(Hinduism). They will not be acceptable in its totality to Buddhists or Jains, or other so-called 'dharmic strands'. Even Bhagavad Gita is a Hindu scripture and will not be acceptable in its totality to all these so-called 'dharmic strands'.

Sri Rama and Sri Krishna followed Vedic 'Dharma' or Sanatana 'Dharma' or Hinduism, not just any 'Dharma'... if you accept the portrayal of Vyasa MB and Valmiki Ramayana.

The point you are missing or ignoring is: 'Dharma' is a generic word. 'Dharma' broadly means 'rule'/'duty'/'religious law'. Without a context(that means an associated philosophy/creed, that word becomes meaningless).

If I keep parroting,"Lets uphold the 'law'...", but do not specify which 'law' I am talking about, then it becomes meaningless nonsense.

[Atri]

You have not made the case for their usefulness, necessity or sufficiency ...

Are those the lakshNas mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita? If so, a Gita scholar would be able to answer this question.

This, IMO, is a key question !!! it would be nice if harbans ji could cite the verses from where these lakshanas were taken.

I cited the ten lakshanas from Manu Smriti.

harbans ji, Please go through the following post of mine..

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 61#p902561

you have to acknowledge that four purushaarthas are segregated and are parallel. Out of four, only Moksha is personal (and hence not dependent on context as much as other three).

The theory of Purushaarthas is a Dhaarmik (I sense your aversion towards the word Hindu) exposition to categorize human interactions. Purushaarthas are designed keeping in mind how human interactions form the center-stage of the whole experience of "being human".

Please understand that dharma-artha-kaama (Purushaartha trayi - triad of purushaarthas) are based on interpersonal relationships. And it is a very dynamic field. Contexts change every instant, hence the values OR thoughts which guide the human interactions change as well. Else, they break down.

Yes, some gestures and urges are universal to human species (Urges of hunger, sleep, fear and libido - Aahaar, nidraa, Bhaya, Maithuna).. Almost all human interactions categorized in three Purushaarthas are workable set of solutions which society arrived upon to address these four urges of a person (primarily). When these are quenched, Dharmik man turns to Moksha related pursuits which may OR may not have human interactions. That is out of our scope.

Set of solutions (call it nash equilibrium, if you may) which takes care of these four urges of all (rather as many possible) components of ecosystem is Dharma. The solutions are dependent on space and time. What is universally constant is that "Unless amicable solution is implemented, society breaks down". What solution should be and how should the solution be implemented, depends upon space and time. Geography and Time are too diverse to allow a universal constant. I did not even bother to add to it, the vagaries of human nature, the system becomes too complex to model.

Hence context is important. By not acknowledging the importance of context in dharma-artha-kaama related human interactions, you are following the track of PBUH (sorry to say).

[RajeshA]

SBajwa ji, RamaY ji, dharamraj ji,

thank you very much for your words of appreciation and encouragement.

I would love to write blogs, books, columns, but I have not really ventured into that much, simply because of time constraints. At the moment I prefer the forum format because the discussion is not a monologue and even if I cannot devote the time, I'm happy that others can carry on the discussion. I hope that when I can find time, I'll be able to do other formats as well.

[RajeshA]

Cross-posting a post by RajeshA from "Indian Interests" Thread

I asked that before in another thread and i got all different answers. You said irrespective of what others say your version is correct. Another says Vedicism=Hinduism. Another says common the common Hindu is riddled with ego problems. That Upanishads is beyond them and for the common Hindu moksha is not a goal. Then there are people who will want Manu Smriti and other dharma shastra's in. First decide and then put forward your POV. There is no point in 5 different people putting different objections based on their interpretations of Hinduism to my basic preposition.

This is unfair.

What would you like to have? What do you expect - Someone to say, here is the Book, here is the Prophet, here are the five Principles?

It is up to you to make an integral whole of the various definitions you have received! However if you see contrary claims, then you can of course protest!

[Pranav]

When Hindus use the word 'Dharma', then mean 'Dharma' as enshrined in Hindu scriptures only. Similarly, when Buddhists use the term 'Dharma', then mean it in a completely different manner. ... Both of the above differ completely from each other.

One should not try to put Dharma into a box.

The "Swa-Dharma" of each individual is what he needs for his onward evolution, from his present state.

Even though the various strands of Dharma are different, they do have common fundamentals (like concepts of Karma and reincarnation).

The main theme of Rajiv Malhotra's "Being Different" book is to identify the common foundations of Dharmic philosophies and to contrast them with Abrahamic doctrines.

[RajeshA]

Hindu & Bharatiya

IMHO

Definition of Hindu - Any ethnic Indian who follows the traditions originating in the Indian Subcontinent.

Definition of Hindutva - Pride in identification with this Hindu identity

Definition of Hindu-ism - The traditions that Indians follow, traditions which originated in the Indian Subcontinent.


There are some who specify a particular tradition and receive their identity from that tradition, some of them considering their identity outside the overarching Hindu identity, but that is a decision for that community, but it does not change the definition as such. Hindu-ism is inclusive of all traditions which have originated in the Indian Subcontinent or organically evolved from those which have originated here.

I'd like to go further in exploring these identities.

When we have to produce a definition, especially one of identity, we can look at various ways:

1. Demarcation from other identities
2. Philosophical and Ritual content of the identity
3. Founders of the identity
4. Founding event of the identity
5. Geographical origin of the identity
6. Organizational edifice of the identity
7. Membership of the identity
8. ...

In any case one needs to find some anchor for any identity. The difficulty for many Indians to grasp identities like 'Hindu' is that it does not offer the same anchors as say Abrahamic religions which can produce well-defined anchors.

We can of course define 'Hindu' by content as johneeG has so admirably done earlier. But there will be others who will feel uneasy as they may think that their sangh or dera is not being adequately fitted into that definition. We also include sometimes various tribes in India which still practice some animist faith or some tribe which has lived isolated into the Hindu fold. So I feel if try to form the identity of 'Hindu' based on content, then some part of the fabric would remain hanging out of the suitcase. For this reason I used to call the Hindu identity as a Continuum, rather than as a Containment (semantically). This does not mean we should not give any Content Definition. We should. But if we wish to anchor using a 'Content Definition' lets call it 'Core Hinduism', or 'Orthodox Hinduism' rather than just Hinduism.

For most Hindus, their identity as an individual has always been solid, but as an over-arching community has remained amorphous and vague.

This amorphous nature of the identity is in fact an intrinsic aspect of the 'Hindu' community, because along the content definition axis, it is a Continuum and not a Containment. The free evolutionary and experimental nature of Hinduism, the emphasis on personal journey for Moksha, the liberty to write new smritis and shastras, all lead to this amorphous nature.

Either triggered by self-introspection or by external query either by other religions or other 'Hindus' who seem to have lost their moorings, one is of course 'forced' to think about the Hindu identity of the community! One is asked to produce similar anchors as are available to other religions - holy book, holy prophet, five pillars, vow of allegiance or initiation, etc. Hindus have some difficulty answering this, simply because the structure of our identity and belief systems is different. Do we need to produce the same anchors as some history-centric religions have? If we do it, often we are cutting into our own flesh in order to fit their ideological coffins.

But considering that we are bring invaded by proselytization armies using all sorts of methods - fear, money, privileges, etc., that we are being attacked physically and are being ethnically cleansed, that we are not being supported by our own state as a community, that there is increasing polarization among communities, it is of course important that we put up a united front. For that we need a Hindu identity at the whole community level, and not just at an individual level.

But despite this need should we still impose a similar containment over us based on the same anchors as other religions do?

In some way or another we have to define our predominant anchor! For that we have to look at our history and society and find out how we are different from the others. Our anchor is to be found elsewhere.

Hindu-ism is like a Banyan Tree. It has organically grown, branched, put new roots into the Earth, and still remained one. Hindu-ism is also like a Great Melange, where things have fused together producing more diversity and beauty.

Hindu-ism has a different way of expansion. It is based on preservation of the native. Looking at it historically, our mythology has woven together many narratives of our Kuladevtas and produced a single mythology and people say we have 33 million gods.

I have elaborated on our differences from other Abrahamic religions earlier, though of course not comprehensively

1. Differences: Direct Transceivers
2. Differences: Sitting for the Exam
3. Differences: Saving the Native
4. Differences: Clerical Power

This is also useful to understand what our anchors are.

So in Hindu-ism we have both
- organic growth and branching
- fusion of many

Of course we have our Vedas, and there can be no stronger beej for our civilization, but we also have some other strong traditions like Tantra, Tirthankaras of Jainism, Hatha Yoga, etc. Sorry if I make any mistake here. I am stressing here the morphology rather than the theology.

So what I see is that if there was organic growth, then the seed can be our anchor. I there was fusion of many, then the many seeds can be our anchors.

What is fortunate for us is that the history-centrism of Christianity and Islam actually do not allow any religious syncretism. Those seeds have not as such contributed to Hinduism, and so we do not need to consider these seeds in our equation.

Since our history is so long, and even though much has been transmitted to us, one would always have difficulty pointing out the exact seeds. It is good if we can but there are simply too many, especially if we consider the Kuladevtas.

So in order to give an anchor to the Hindu Continuum, I proposed

"traditions which originate in Bharatiya Civilization or are based on other traditions which have their origin in Bharatiya Civilization" belong to Hinduism.

The anchor is geographical and temporal.

The Hindu identity, the Hindu-ism, has to be anchored in geography of Bharat and the cycle of Bharatiya Sabhyata.

Bharatiya Sabhyata and Bharatavarsha provide the time-space anchor for the Hindu identity and of course for the Bharatiya identity.

And because Bharatiya Sabhyata allows for organic growth and evolution for all that it embodies, it does not restrict Hinduism (religion) to a snapshot, to a book, to a cult figure, to five commandments, etc. Similarly Bharatvarsha may be considered as a limited geography, limited space, but the bhava, the sentiment for Bharatvarsha can exist regardless of where one is the universe. The journey itself is Hinduism, and its the journey of billions of atmas through umpteen punarjanams (reincarnations) through umpteen margs (paths). But in the temporal world, we are all anchored to Bharatvarsha and Bharatiya Sabhyata.

That however does not take away from the universalist appeal of any of the Hindu (Dharmic) traditions.

That is why the identity 'Hindu' and 'Bharatiya' complement each other. 'Hindu' focuses on the faith and 'Bharatiya' focuses on the history, and both are anchored by Bharatvarsha and Bharatiya Sabhyata. However neither is Hindu identity solely about faith, nor is the Bharatiya identity just about history.

[member_20317]

When the Indian constitution gives context free terms Secularism and Socialism that does not mean Islamic secularism.

harbans ji, are you sure these are context free ideas. In the sense that these are meant to be followed regardless. Would you be confident of taking this to people who live and breathe this business of law administration, directly or indirectly. Are you sure Secularism is not Islamic secularism?

The charge by the Hindutva vaadis and other Bhartiya people is:
1) that it is a back door entry to 'context-free' ideation, basically a Torjan horse.
2) The charge is also that it is intentionally kept vague to facilitate an undermining of the peoples both in the current and in future.
3) Further charge is also there that the values developed over eons like ‘Sarva Dharm Sambhaav’ are absent.
4) Then there is a charge that Dharm-Karm framework has not been given adequate expression to govern people who are familiar with it even when the central principle of constitution is ‘different laws for different peoples and same laws for same people’.

The defence taken is that the context is present in our constitution and the charges related to absence of context are wrong.

These are the battle lines. A song and dance on the no-man’s land is not going to change the front.

If you have to set it up as Constitution vs. Hindutva fight, then at the very least you have to come prepared on Constitution. I will be batting for Hindutva because that is the base for even the Constitution as I see it. Howsoever compromised the base may be by the drones of modernity. There are people willing to fight for the base and reclaim it.

There is not one constitution worth the trouble that does not recognize a context. The Secularists &/or Scientists, with whom you believe you have a lot in common with, do not deny the existence of ‘Context’ either. Context is developed real-time (only time it can be developed for real life situations) in concepts like ‘Equity’, ‘Customs’, ‘General Parlance’, ‘Public policy’, ‘Vicarious liability’, ‘moral turpitude’, ‘circumstantial evidence’, ‘expert testimony’, ‘rarest of rare’, ‘legal maxims for interpretation of law’. All of these you will find in the Constitution or in the Constitutional machinery structured thereunder. Islamic constitutions are perhaps the only ones that are an exception and that is claimed to be one of the reasons for Christians dominated countries to go against the Muslim dominated ones.

Our Indic view has matured still further and we recognize that the context itself is sought to be vitiated by a propaganda for modernity, context-free ideals and just plain hedonism. Some go on to claim that for such wrongs the constitution should carry some provisions. Kindly notice that while the Christian dominated countries themselves make ample use of ‘context’ when it serves their purpose, they seek to divide countries earmarked for ‘Salvation’ or ‘harvest of souls’ by espousing the line of thought that you support. We changed our view because we saw how the Christian led countries have themselves paid only lip service to the ‘context’ and the result of it all there for you to see too with, the New world cull/imperialism/WW1/WW2/Cold war/General interventionism. All these required legal justifications and were conflicts sourced from legal viewpoints. Somehow the enlightened western legalities ended up supporting these mass extinction events.

BTW do you recognize it that all so called modern legal frameworks recognize that no legally enforceable title flows from any act originating from an act void ab-initio. IOW, if your investment is in a property that had at some point been acquired by a crime then your investment is lost to you for good. Do you understand the implications of this for your life and savings.

In the days or weeks..you will realize how basically wrong you are. But one thing i will say go ahead and try defining yourself what Values would you the Bharat of your vision to reflect? Instead asking me, which i have answered, why don't you attempt the answer yourself. In fact i will ask others too reflect and attempt what Institutional values they desire to see in their version of Bharat.

Harbans ji, a person taking the high road of secularism and constitution could not have missed the S.R. Bomai case which clearly said amongst other things the following:

1) The Indian Constitution is both a legal and social document. It provides a machinery for the governance of the country. It also contains the ideals expected by the nation. The political machinery created by the Constitution is a means to the achieving of this ideal.
2) To what extent we have been successful in achieving the constitutional ideals is a question with a wide spectrum which needs an elaborate debate.
3) Secularism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution……and it was Justice Ahmadi who said the following while justifying the 42nd amendment - “The term 'Secular' has advisedly not been defined presumably because it is a very elastic term not capable of a precise definition and perhaps best left undefined”. [Note how he is comfortable contextualizing the concept. Note this in the light of the fact that Secularism per honorable Justice Ahmadi is == tolerance]

So your contention that Indian Constitution is context blind is wrong. So is your contention of Indian Secularism != Islamic Secularism.

Secularism itself is context dependent. The judiciary has taken pains to establish the context in several judgements including the S.R. Bomai case and in the S.R. Bomai case they have ended up defining secularism the only way it could reasonably have been defined. The western way. Where the State is not in the business of Dharm-Karm. So we are basically sought to be encumbered by Western imperialism by Stealth.

Also you need to read up on real Upanishads instead of the English translations where Atma==Soul and Dharmkshetra==Holy land and Paramatma==God. But then there are better trained people to take down that line of logic. I will restrict myself to your contentions regarding the Constitution.

----------------------------------------------------

Now a word for fellow Hindutva vaadis –
Bhai log,
1) The constitution is not constipation. In private cross talk that may be a rhetorically acceptable that too under certain aggravating circumstances but not so on a public forum.

2) The constitution is a work in progress. The people give themselves the Constitution. Judiciary merely interprets the difficult parts of it. Since the people change by normal life and death and by normal change of views, so should the constitution. The sleeper agents recognize this that is why they behave the way they do to undermine our collective future. Ergo the defence has to be continuous. This is a real Dharm Yudh. Do not turn away from reclaiming your Constitution. Otherwise you will die for abandonment of personal Kartavya. Do not walk into the trap. Savings and Severability are a regonised concept in both Indic an western thought. Do not abandon the baby because it is not making as much progress.

3) Judiciary may have its views regarding the non-negotiability of the Constitution but the judiciary itself is culpable of negotiating the constitution. So rest assured a cleric cannot decide what the people should convey at least not without embarrassing himself. If the Judiciary believes that constitution is swayambhu then there is no need to protect the swayambhu. Protection is required for the temporal. The self-causative non-negotiable, has little use for protection. Judiciary needs to think how something that restricts its role to the ‘legal and social’ can also govern humans who also claim to be living collectively in a non-corporeal existence, which incidently also provides the basis for faith in the first place. Judiciary is filled up with pompous budhijeevis like in any other walk of life. A lot of what constitutes judiciary cannot think for themselves. Most need to be hand held through the legal minefield. And so the bulk of my lords need to be value judged.

4) To the extent the Constitution and its numainde/machinery cannot support the will of the people, it will get used/misused for negotiation positioning and dilatory purposes. That would be the responsibility of the Judiciary and Legislative. We already have evidence of that. But having said that let us remember that a whole lot of the Constitution is really sourced from Indic/Dharmic memes. So for that part it should be treated as valid. Esp. considering we do allow our people to live under it for the time being.

Do not let the modernist cheat you of your wealth. Seize it back, insure it, use it, improve it and do-while loop.