The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

[Agnimitra]

Blogged this today.

Psychohistory vs. Dumb Dialectics - Evolution vs. Devolution of nations

[RajeshA]

Carl ji,

an excellent piece there. In fact the perfect lens through which to see Nehruvian Secularism and the state of the Bharatiya Civilization.

The core of the message is:

the dispensation then encourages a maudlin sentimentality and a wishy washy "synthesis" culture from the thesis and antithesis. What's interesting about these periodic bouts of 'Aman ki Asha' is that it always initiates this "synthesis" by using the cultural preferences, dogmatic core and hackneyed accusations of the periphery and the subversive as the starting point (thesis), with the native core viewpoint (usually a travesty of psychohistory) framed as the flexible, fungible, or downright illogical and unjust 'other' (antithesis).

Carl ji

If you allow me, I would like to make a few suggestions. I think you should put the above in a graph. Some suggestions

• Use concentric circles to represent core, periphery, the subversive and the outright antithesis.
• Use appropriate colors for representing these. (Dharmic = 'saffron', Islam = 'green', Christianity = 'purple'?, Communism = 'red')?
• Use block arrows to show pressure. These can be inward or outward. The size of the arrows can show different levels of pressure (say to convert, or to dominate national discourse).

When the antithesis, subversive and the periphery are inverted and promoted as the thesis whereas the core is othered and presented as the periphery, i.e. is, I think, the ground-breaking and startling message, i.e. to the uninitiated.

When the inversion takes place, it would be better to show a thin layer of Nehruvian-Secularism and Cultural Marxism around the "green/purple" core, which protects the 'green/purple' core, i.e. does not allow any saffron arrows to pierce into the core, whereas the 'green/purple' protrude out .

In fact your whole blog post, needs to be brought to graphics, including the way the Cultural Marxists go about distorting history.

I would highly recommend that in the future you paste half of your blog post here with a "read more" link to your blog. It can lead to more visits of your blog.

Carl ji,

thanks for sharing it. Makes understanding easy!

[Sanku]

Blogged this today.

Psychohistory vs. Dumb Dialectics - Evolution vs. Devolution of nations

Wonderful...

[RajeshA]

Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 29, No. 34 (Aug. 20, 1994), pp. 2214-2219

Mass Conversions to Hinduism among Indian Muslims: JSTOR
Authors: Yoginder Sikand, Manjari Katju

If somebody has free access to the article, please provide a link to an online copy. Thank you!

[Pranav]

Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 29, No. 34 (Aug. 20, 1994), pp. 2214-2219

Mass Conversions to Hinduism among Indian Muslims: JSTOR
Authors: Yoginder Sikand, Manjari Katju

If somebody has free access to the article, please provide a link to an online copy. Thank you!

I read the 1st page, which is freely viewable ... it takes an extremely jaundiced view.

[uddu]

Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 29, No. 34 (Aug. 20, 1994), pp. 2214-2219

Mass Conversions to Hinduism among Indian Muslims: JSTOR
Authors: Yoginder Sikand, Manjari Katju

If somebody has free access to the article, please provide a link to an online copy. Thank you!

I read the 1st page, which is freely viewable ... it takes an extremely jaundiced view.

Anyway someone is admitting that this is happening. This process will speedup and finally the whole of Indian subcontinent will be Dharmic.

[RajeshA]

Saw a comment on Youtube, so provided my take on it.

"Hindus are confused, I mean most of the Hindus do not know what Dharma stands and why it is not equal to Abrahmic Male Religions."

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

A Hindu is any "Bharatiya who resists advance of foreign imperialistic religious ideologies in Bharatvarsha".

A Bharatiya is "anyone from the land of Bharatvarsha who identifies himself with Bharatiya Civilization and wants to see it prosper again in Bharatvarsha in all its dimensions under a Dharmic leadership".

It is 'Dharmic', 'Hindu' and 'Bharatiya' identities that build our composite umbrella identity and provide us with our national agenda.

Again I notice it quite often that among Indians, including among those who wish to connect again to their Hindu/Bharatiya roots, there is a real crisis of identity and they do not know what they stand for. They see that the Christians and Muslims, especially in the Subcontinent, have their agendas, and feel secure in their identities. They see how these identities are based upon very concrete symbols, rules and language. Since these Hindus see how Muslims and Christians (and even Sikhs) have coherent homogenous identities, the religious diversity, we keep tomtoming about, and the lack of any perceptible common ground, instead of appealing to them as the greatness of Bharatiya philosophical churning, instead looks to them like the weakness of Hindus. The fragmented Hindu politics adds to the disenchantment of unity.

Rajiv Malhotra has done here seminal work in pointing out what Dharmic traditions really share among themselves - integral unity, non-history-centrism, etc. but as far-reaching as this Purva Paksha is, the man on the ground is often simply looking for a simple but powerful anchor which he shares with the rest of his community and beyond.

Their religious world view should be able to be packaged very compactly, at least as compactly as say the

Islamic Shahādah:

ā ʾilāha ʾillā l-Lāh, Muḥammadun rasūlu l-Lāh) (in Arabic)

There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God.

Christian Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God,
_the Father, the Almighty,
_maker of heaven and earth,
_of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
_the only Son of God,
_eternally begotten of the Father,
_God from God, Light from Light,
_true God from true God,
_begotten, not made,
_of one Being with the Father.
_Through him all things were made.
_For us and for our salvation
_he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
_he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
_and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
_he suffered death and was buried.
_On the third day he rose again
__in accordance with the Scriptures;
_he ascended into heaven
__and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
_and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
_who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
_With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
_He has spoken through the Prophets.
_We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
_We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
_We look for the resurrection of the dead,
__and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Now both the Shahādah and the Nicene Creed really spell out what Muslims and Christians believe in. For the Hindus it doesn't work out that well, because we are not supposed to "believe" but supposed to understand and explore and seek. But Hindus are convinced that unless they have something to latch on to, something they can say, "this is what we believe", they wouldn't be able to forge a belief-based identity, which each knows they all share.

One simply needs something fundamental, some fundamental difference, a Lakshman Rekha, which immunizes them from the Abrahamic outreach/inroads as well as serves as a platform on which they can build their further beliefs, or at least does not contradict anything that they would further learn on their respective spiritual pathways.

The story of conversions (forced, tempted and duped) in India is a story of Sita Apharan, where we refuse to even draw an ideological Lakshman Rekha for Sita, because we are so full of ourselves that Sanatan Dharma cannot be defined and boxed...

It is one thing that our efforts to get back Sita are still not even fantasized, let alone in execution, the issue is not even that we do not have the eyes to see how Ravana, the foreign imperialist religious ideologies, this time has disguised himself as the secular brigade in India, the issue is that we haven't even made the effort to draw a Lakshman Rekha.

Rajiv Malhotra is one of the first Indians to have taken up this ideological challenge and has started educating Indians on the differences between Rama and Ravana in the modern world, though he still advocates mutual respect, which is fine at the level of discourse.

We need to use the definitions of 'Dharmic', 'Hindu' and 'Bharatiya' as our Lakshman Rekha and try to save Sita, as much of her as we can!

Let's also not forget that Sita, who is Bhumi, is still in the grasp of Pakis and Bangladeshis and various other parties. And still needs liberation. In fact if one looks at Ramayana from what Sita represents, the daughter of Bhumi, Bhumi herself, it is one story which says, never let Mlecchas capture your land and if they do, get it back.

[shaardula]

r noted. later

[johneeG]

Saw a comment on Youtube, so provided my take on it.

"Hindus are confused, I mean most of the Hindus do not know what Dharma stands and why it is not equal to Abrahmic Male Religions."

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

A Hindu is any "Bharatiya who resists advance of foreign imperialistic religious ideologies in Bharatvarsha".

A Bharatiya is "anyone from the land of Bharatvarsha who identifies himself with Bharatiya Civilization and wants to see it prosper again in Bharatvarsha in all its dimensions under a Dharmic leadership".

It is 'Dharmic', 'Hindu' and 'Bharatiya' identities that build our composite umbrella identity and provide us with our national agenda.

Again I notice it quite often that among Indians, including among those who wish to connect again to their Hindu/Bharatiya roots, there is a real crisis of identity and they do not know what they stand for. They see that the Christians and Muslims, especially in the Subcontinent, have their agendas, and feel secure in their identities. They see how these identities are based upon very concrete symbols, rules and language. Since these Hindus see how Muslims and Christians (and even Sikhs) have coherent homogenous identities, the religious diversity, we keep tomtoming about, and the lack of any perceptible common ground, instead of appealing to them as the greatness of Bharatiya philosophical churning, instead looks to them like the weakness of Hindus. The fragmented Hindu politics adds to the disenchantment of unity.

Rajiv Malhotra has done here seminal work in pointing out what Dharmic traditions really share among themselves - integral unity, non-history-centrism, etc. but as far-reaching as this Purva Paksha is, the man on the ground is often simply looking for a simple but powerful anchor which he shares with the rest of his community and beyond.

Their religious world view should be able to be packaged very compactly, at least as compactly as say the

Islamic Shahādah:

ā ʾilāha ʾillā l-Lāh, Muḥammadun rasūlu l-Lāh) (in Arabic)

There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God.

Christian Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God,
_the Father, the Almighty,
_maker of heaven and earth,
_of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
_the only Son of God,
_eternally begotten of the Father,
_God from God, Light from Light,
_true God from true God,
_begotten, not made,
_of one Being with the Father.
_Through him all things were made.
_For us and for our salvation
_he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
_he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
_and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
_he suffered death and was buried.
_On the third day he rose again
__in accordance with the Scriptures;
_he ascended into heaven
__and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
_and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
_who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
_With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
_He has spoken through the Prophets.
_We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
_We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
_We look for the resurrection of the dead,
__and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Now both the Shahādah and the Nicene Creed really spell out what Muslims and Christians believe in. For the Hindus it doesn't work out that well, because we are not supposed to "believe" but supposed to understand and explore and seek. But Hindus are convinced that unless they have something to latch on to, something they can say, "this is what we believe", they wouldn't be able to forge a belief-based identity, which each knows they all share.

One simply needs something fundamental, some fundamental difference, a Lakshman Rekha, which immunizes them from the Abrahamic outreach/inroads as well as serves as a platform on which they can build their further beliefs, or at least does not contradict anything that they would further learn on their respective spiritual pathways.

The fundamental of Hinduism is: Vedas(including the Upanishads/Vedanta).
Hindus are united by Vedas. Zimple. Everything else is up for debate.

Similarly,
fundamental of Buddhism is Buddha. Everything else is open for negotiation.
fundamental of Christianity is Jesus. Everything else is open for negotiation.
fundamental of Islam is Mohammad. Everything else is open for negotiation.

The above may not be discernible immediately. It is evident when the creeds are forced to evolve.

[ShauryaT]

Why is this God business necessary at all for this thread? It has nothing to do with the vision, agenda and proposition of a Dharmic state. If at all it has any meaning for a person's identity, it is at a personal belief level, of which God and how one perceives this God is only one part of this person's identity. The Rashtra does not largely interfere with the beliefs of how a person as an individual perceives God. So long as a person respects the plurality of god perception, it is no concern of the state. Regardless of how one perceives god or the almighty or not, the person is bound by the rules of the Rashtra, which are bound to Dharma.

The state cannot have an issue with the idea that as a person, I shall conceive God to be the one Allah, who's message has been communicated to a prophet or through the birth of the so called son of God, through a so called virgin mother. As long as the practice of these messages do not interfere with the laws of the state, it is no issue. Where it does, the state shall reign supreme and the conflicting practices disallowed.

We have civilizational values learnt over 1000's of years that have been put to risk and here we are overly concerned about a bunch of stupid words in some books. Let the laws take its course. Force the issue. Force the assimilation to a Dharmic Rashtra, under Dharmic laws, regardless of what ANY book says. The laws of the state are for ALL to follow regardless of how they conceive their Gods. The issue of God conception is largely irrelevant. If there are outside forces, who oppose then what are our valiant men and women for, if not to protect Dharma. They fight under the war cry of Har Har Mahadeo and Sat Sri Akal, don't they? Unleash them on our enemies, if they threaten.

I am still waiting for some real "Dharmic" or civilizational issues to be discussed in this thread. Does no one see a conflict, if conflict is too strong a word then a deviation in the values, goals and objectives of the current state with those of Dharma?

Is "Democracy" the way defined and practiced a "dharmic" ideal? How about "individualism" the way defined and practiced? How about "equality"? How about "objectives"? People rile about "Secularism" but the best we get is no, no, the current practice is "pseudo-secularism" and the Hinduvadis go, we are the "real" secularists. Does no one feel that a "spiritual" life is the guiding goal, IOW a religious life? We talk about rights in our current polity, how come the anchor of "duties" is not spelled out? How will VarnaAshrama dharmas be ensured without the support of the state and duties defined.

It is not that we did not know, how to provide a simple order. We did. It was done through a ruler and the rules of a state, enforced by the ruler with the support of elites and the masses. The disarray has been because we lost the ruler. Unlike western society where there were always two orders, one of the state and the other of God - through the church, Dharmic society's orders came down only from the state. Destroy the state and one shall eventually win over its population too - this is what happened to India. Without an organized countervailing force, the people cannot resist for long. It is the reason for our losses.

What we ought to focus on is to ensure that this ONE structure of order we have, that is of the state, is for the purpose of protection and propagation of Dharma. This is the first task at hand for now, that is to make the GoI govern under the guidance of our civilizational heritage.

[Agnimitra]

self deleted

[member_20317]

JohneeG ji, Ved are indeed the crux but basically these are realistically usable only as a uniting factor even as between Hindus and non-hindus. Unfortunately this will have to wait for a very long time. Till the time Veds, get treated as a mirror for the Self.

Historically - Ved are the only idea that can be used to fill up the gaps in human memory over his very long history.

Morally - Men will have to, at some point decide, if they want to work on 'New vs. Old' or in 'New, an evolution of the Old'.

Pragmatically - The view that the essense of present is pragmatism, will need to be propagated. Actually most men already know this and deal as such but only in fits and starts like a droopy clouded mind. The preparation element is missing. Without pragmatism, present degenerates very fast into a distraction. Here again Ved have a very deep meditative role to play.

Futuristically - Again eventually every man has to face the grand question mark as to his legacy. What would he like to leave for the progeny. Is it 'this that he himself is not content with' or is it 'that which helped him develop'.

People are just not prepared for Vedas as yet. Right now it is better served in the confines of committed practioners. Present situation is people are in love with thought (philosophy) and this is the absolute top. Balance is considered either too effeminate or too lazy. Practice is not considered smart.

OTOH development of Axioms as sudarshan ji tried is a very important for finding common ground within dharmic traditions, but then these are not tied up to our distinctive identity, distinct from the marbles of abrahamics. Like say for example if a Hindu mentions Axiom 2 (Desires) & 3 (Karm phal) that would readily get accepted as truism even by the non-hindus. These now have the authorisation of their friends. The Axiom 1 too would be difficult for the modern types but that too would get accepted by and large. So while everything of the dharmics gets used and abused they really have nothing of their own.

What I feel is needed is something that puts dharmics (lead by Hindus) in a position where they remain outside the non-hindu framework, without the fear of the hunted and then go on to confidently negotiate without having to put the basics of the collective Dharm at risk. In this light the axioms approach is a valid start. The mid game and end game are still unexplored.

[sudarshan]

OTOH development of Axioms as sudarshan ji tried is a very important for finding common ground within dharmic traditions, but then these are not tied up to our distinctive identity, distinct from the marbles of abrahamics. Like say for example if a Hindu mentions Axiom 2 (Desires) & 3 (Karm phal) that would readily get accepted as truism even by the non-hindus. These now have the authorisation of their friends. The Axiom 1 too would be difficult for the modern types but that too would get accepted by and large. So while everything of the dharmics gets used and abused they really have nothing of their own.

What I feel is needed is something that puts dharmics (lead by Hindus) in a position where they remain outside the non-hindu framework, without the fear of the hunted and then go on to confidently negotiate without having to put the basics of the collective Dharm at risk. In this light the axioms approach is a valid start. The mid game and end game are still unexplored.

Permit me to clarify one point. Part of the idea behind this axiom exercise was to demarcate the battle-lines between the SD and non-SD (read: Abrahamic) camps. The Judeo-Christian view is of a "fall from grace" of mankind. This is, in fact, one of their axioms, which directly leads to the concept of a "savior" to take men back to "grace."

The axioms of SD (as I outlined, and per my understanding) are totally in conflict with this Judeo-Christian axiom. The starting point is diametrically opposite, the implications too are quite the opposite in both cases. There is no "fall from grace" according to the three axioms I posited. In fact, we are always in God's grace. We take leave of God on our own initiative to pursue our desires. Nor is there any need for a savior - we are assured of reunion with God, at a time of our choosing. The implications of the three axioms I mentioned also include evolution as a foregone conclusion. Whereas, there is no way the Christian camp can even contemplate evolution, without some fundamental change in their world-view.

If the Judeo-Christian camp were to accept axioms 2 & 3, I would submit that much of our work is done. They will seamlessly merge into SD as a rather minor variant/cult.

[harbans]

Does no one see a conflict, if conflict is too strong a word then a deviation in the values, goals and objectives of the current state with those of Dharma?

Shaurya Ji, this thread is not about Civilizational Dharmic Bharat. It is about Power through those means. For achieving that ,the veneer is achieving some coherence of differences in sampradayic ritual, practice etc. The realization is it cannot be through the Hindutva platform alone, so try and find coherence in Dharma and ride on it. This is not about allegiance or faith in Dharma, it is about power and domination alone. Little is the realization that in the quest for domination and power alone, how Dharma itself is undermined. This is not about a deviation in values, it;s about deviation in sampradaya. It makes little sense and more work to evolve to understanding differences based on values than on ritual.

There is though, a quick easy way through the route of deceit and negation of values to power that many feel is better for the 'Dharmic' civilization. I consider even that quest for domination fair enough a goal. But the quest for domination cannot be at the expense of devaluation of Dharma which will inevitably occur if that course is followed. If we do that, we lose. We give the high ground for others to claim. And this is what is happening all around. After reading some of the posts here, who would want now to be even Dharmic? What do i see the neo 'Dharmics' reflect here? Arrogant, pushing an agenda, uncontrolled name calling, my ways is the highway.

[Agnimitra]

I consider even that quest for domination fair enough a goal. But the quest for domination cannot be at the expense of devaluation of Dharma which will inevitably occur if that course is followed. If we do that, we lose. We give the high ground for others to claim.

harbans ji, Dharma is not the kind of animal that can achieve "dominance" in relation to some 'other'. Rather, Dharma wins by an "enhancement" drive. This is done by (a) making others Dharmic, or (b) allowing them to perish as a consequence of their own vikarma/akarma, which creates space into which it can move.

This (b) means to make the other undergo the consequences of his vikarma/akarma in the here and now (rather than some 'hereafter').

Making others Dharmic is through enhancement drive, by communicating the virtues and benefits across all scopes. This must, of course, be backed up by hard power. During Akbar's time, Hindu pandits were called in to explain their tradition, and they impressed the king and courtiers so deeply that Abul Fazl whines about it in his books. Yet it didn't achieve the end goal because of the influence of hard power politics by others in that time, which played out on an inter-generational scale and ended in the murder of a Dara Shikoh by an Aurangzeb. Thus, the superior virtues, character, knowledge and presentation of the pundits that made an exposition of Dharma was not enough. What lesson do you derive from this historical experience?

Since (a) didn't work, (b) is also needed. That means that one must have comparable or greater hard power capability and will to act in order to reinforce the communication. This (b) encapsulates the pragmatics of Dharma at lower, more reactive levels of the nervous system. Why can't you understand that? (a) and (b) must work in parallel, with (a) always given precedence. That's all people here are saying.

[harbans]

Making others Dharmic is through enhancement drive, by communicating the virtues

Carl ji, so Dharmic spread is primarily based on virtues/ values? Do you acknowledge that?

[Agnimitra]

Carl ji, so Dharmic spread is primarily based on virtues/ values? Do you acknowledge that?

LOL after all these pages you're asking this question? Everyone agrees, but we have been debating the semantics of "virtue" and "value". The core purpose is "survival" or "integrity" in its most comprehensive sense (not just body, but body, mind and soul).

So yes, it is "primarily" based on the higher expressions of these virtues and values, which must be communicated via purva-paksha, prachaar and aachaar. But veeryam is also part of this expression and it must cover the entire scale of human affective states. To convince by word and example is best, to outwit is the next preference, to fight and destroy is the next preference, etc. maitra, sama, bheda, danda, indrajaala, etc, etc.

[member_20317]

sudarshan ji, let me clarify how I see things and lets see if we can engage after that. My contention is as follows

The ever changing battlefront:

In every battle the lines keep moving. The winner is not the one who has the shifted the line to his advantage for now. The winner is the one who has shifted it for good. I draw your attention to the distinction between ‘for now’ and ‘for good’. For good as in a change with permanent repercussions even if not permanent.

The reason why I had mentioned love for thought (philosophizing) is because it was an easy way of avoiding the action part. Basically an imbalance between Gyaan and Karm (also Bhakti).

Premise for Hindu understanding of the frontline:
Now under the Indic traditions these are not mutually exclusive. Instead these are cooperative. In fact in BG which is the Karm/Kriyayog scripture of our tradition these subjects are not dealt with in separate compartments. The focus is on permanent change (for long enough a change as to be coterminous with the man’s life and then eventually the reverberations are expected to flow beyond).

Premise for Abrahmic understanding of the frontline:
OTOH in the current set up lead by the west which is inspired and structured by the abrahmics, Gyan/Karm/Devotion are sought to be promoted as disparate ideas. Those after Gyan are given the highest seat of consultancy. Those after Karm are reduced to the lowly politician’s levels and Devotion (is it bhakti, never thought about that) is thought of as crazy/effeminate good only for bachabaazi. The end result is the dumbing down of the lay man who is reduced to the level of a consumer. Basically if you consume, you do it only to produce further. But these days if somebody says you are a producer too besides being a consumer, that he says only to sell more stuff. Through advertising. This continuum from advertising/approbation to guilt/isolation is the core of the hijack strategy.

Now the Axioms 2 (Desire) and 3 (Karm phal) were actually the residual axioms retained by the erstwhile competitors of Hindus. Lets call them Buddhists.

The Axiom 1 (from the whole comes the whole and divided you still get the whole) is purely a practioners thought.

[Aside for contrast- Hindus per chance ended up subscribing to that at the very start of it all. Hindus themselves are nothing but the acceptance of what is/Saakaar. Often this is disparaged as acceptance of status quo, fear, jada-moodh bodh. But in reality this acceptance bhaav is what constituted both the acceptance of militaristic resistance (ref. RajeshA ji) and the proliferation of the so called spiritual &/or scientific temperament of the Rishi, Munis. This acceptance bhaav of a practioner tradition eventually got termed and accepted as Hindu.]

Now the erstwhile competitors were actually read up on by the west for an attack, before the west came to the Hindu. West as in Muslims and Christians. These were easily digested also, at least in part, with the new knowledge being sanitized of the original sin and baptized into the culture of disparate existence. This digested/sanitized part + the newer western framework of disparate Gyan/Karm/Devotion are the two pronged strategy to digest Hindu thought now.

So at least the Axiom 2 (Desire) and Axiom 3 (Karm phal) are now widely accepted as part of the new/improved/better west.


The way forward as I see it:
Form a practicing Hindu’s perspective this is a check (not a check mate yet). The way out is through the Axiom 1 (Poorn). But practicing does not mean expert. And Poorn is a very difficult step despite the familiarity. The only solace is that the west is even more afraid of the Poorn. No part of west likes the Poorn. Not in regular temporal life, not in religious life, not in the more esoteric disciplines of science etc. They have God. God, that like every other thing makes sense only when it furthers consumption.

Unfortunately again Axiom 1 (whole) still is not going to be acceptable straightaway to a large parts of the non-abrahmic world. We wish to look east but the east looks at China. China is west by east.

What we can do is to help assuage fears of our East (remaining Buddists) in much the same way as Hindus mended fences with Jaina (the original other).

Our competitors know deep down that the Axiom 1 is the killer punch. Hence this is where you will find the most resistance. This resistence comes in the form of inane argumentation, ignoring, banal repetition. OTOH our potential allies have little to fear from our espousal of Axiom 1. They themselves have been a bhukt-bhogi just like us. It is just incredible that we Hindus have not been able to mend fences with the Buddhists in any concrete manner. The same off course goes for Buddhists also. It is a case of 2 dumb guys ignoring each other when their common village is being pillaged.


I hope I was reasonable.

[harbans]

LOL after all these pages you're asking this question? Everyone agrees,

Every page here i've seen folks, crying, yelling name calling, calling admins, raging whenever i mentioned that, context or none. Very enlightening to hear that now 20 pages down the line, all do agree.. convincing indeed

[Agnimitra]

RajeshA ji,

Made some changes. Instead of circles and arrows, how about this? -



Amateurish and poor quality, but probably gets the point across easier?
I put it up on the blogpost for now - Psychohistory vs. Dumb Dialectics.
Let me know if it works, or I can change it.

[Pranav]

Dharmic spread is primarily based on virtues/ values? Do you acknowledge that?

One needs a Dharmic framework from which to view the universe, and the human condition. It is from that perspective that every situation should be analyzed, and the righteous course of action discerned.

But Dharma is subtle. Rules like "non-violence" or "truth" may be Dharmic in some circumstances and Adharmic in others. One should not get stuck in a dogmatic rut, without understanding the deeper principles, like MK Gandhi.

[Agnimitra]

Rules like "non-violence" or "truth" may be Dharmic in some circumstances and Adharmic in others. One should not get stuck in a dogmatic rut, without understanding the deeper principles.

At the Council of Nicea, when the dogma of political Christianism was frozen, only 4 gospels were chosen and dozens others burned, their proponents killed off. One of the gospels that was not accepted into the canon was the Gospel of Thomas, whom Western Christians learned to mock as "doubting Thomas" because of his subtlety and questioning. Many objections were raised about his account of Jesus' gospel. One of the points was exactly the above (bolded). He said that sometimes prayer, charity and such things can be evil, not good. "Yeshua says to them: If you fast, you shall beget transgression for yourselves. And if you pray, you shall be condemned. And if you give alms, you shall cause evil to your spirits." The blokes at Nicea couldn't see any sense in that. (I wonder if those Indian Christians who claim to be taught by the Apostle Thomas have a version of his gospel, and if not, why. Its strange that this gospel was only discovered in Egypt in 1945.) Chapter 17 of the Bhagavad Gita says that even charity and sacrifices performed by anyone can be either in sattva, rajas or tamas. But the tyrannical absolutism of Nicea hated "gnostics" and wanted to exterminate them.

Its a common psychological aberration - probably an addiction to the "certainty" of an initial or chronic "conversion experience" syndrome - that makes people blind to this and insist on such absolutes, with which they then feel commissioned to clobber everyone around them, unable to have a wholesome two-way conversation. Been through that myself.

[member_22872]

Carl ji, very nice depiction. says it all. Can I share it others with your permission?

[Agnimitra]

venug ji, yep its open for sharing. Mostly summaries of discussions abstracted from BRF contributors.

[member_22872]

Carl ji, thank you.

[Pranav]

Rules like "non-violence" or "truth" may be Dharmic in some circumstances and Adharmic in others. One should not get stuck in a dogmatic rut, without understanding the deeper principles.

At the Council of Nicea, when the dogma of political Christianism was frozen, only 4 gospels were chosen and dozens others burned, their proponents killed off. One of the gospels that was not accepted into the canon was the Gospel of Thomas, whom Western Christians learned to mock as "doubting Thomas" because of his subtlety and questioning. Many objections were raised about his account of Jesus' gospel. One of the points was exactly the above (bolded). He said that sometimes prayer, charity and such things can be evil, not good. "Yeshua says to them: If you fast, you shall beget transgression for yourselves. And if you pray, you shall be condemned. And if you give alms, you shall cause evil to your spirits." The blokes at Nicea couldn't see any sense in that. (I wonder if those Indian Christians who claim to be taught by the Apostle Thomas have a version of his gospel, and if not, why. Its strange that this gospel was only discovered in Egypt in 1945.) Chapter 17 of the Bhagavad Gita says that even charity and sacrifices performed by anyone can be either in sattva, rajas or tamas. But the tyrannical absolutism of Nicea hated "gnostics" and wanted to exterminate them.

Its a common psychological aberration - probably an addiction to the "certainty" of an initial or chronic "conversion experience" syndrome - that makes people blind to this and insist on such absolutes, with which they then feel commissioned to clobber everyone around them, unable to have a wholesome two-way conversation. Been through that myself.

Good points.

OT - the Thomas fellow who came to India was apparently not the apostle, but a Syrian merchant, Thomas of Cana. See http://ishwarsharan.wordpress.com/

[sudarshan]

Ravi_g saar,
Not sure I understood everything in your post. It seems you're saying that the west came to digestion of Buddhist thoughts first, and is now trying to digest Hindu thought using its previous digestion of Buddhist thought? This previous digestion of Buddhist thought being the acceptance of axioms 2 & 3 by the west in its "improvement" of its original Christian theology?

That's in a way a valid line of reasoning, and you seem to feel that the killer punch that Hindus can pack is the first axiom, since the second and third are already acceptable to the west.

I disagree, at least to some measure.

Let's see.

Axiom 1: God is all-powerful, but does not desire the fruits of material actions (BG: Na maam karmaani limpanti, na me karma phale spr'ha).

Axiom 2: It is our own (as in - each individual soul's) material desires, which bring us to this material plane.

Axiom 3: The law of karma - as in, "you do not get something for nothing in this universe." The corollary being, that you are impartially subjected to the consequences of your actions, as you pursue your desires (per axiom 2).

Start with axiom 3. You say the west has "digested" this. I don't entirely agree. The west has assimilated this axiom by trivializing it. As in - "it's obvious that what goes around comes around - this is God's logic." But this is simply the corollary of the axiom - not the axiom itself. The axiom is, that "you cannot get something for nothing, you have to face the consequences of your actions on your own, nobody else can take on the consequences of your actions for you." This is a direct negation of the "savior" concept. When Sri Ramakrishna contracted throat cancer, a lot of his devotees started saying that he'd "taken on their sins." Swami Vivekananda countered this, saying that Sri Ramakrishna had done nothing of the sort. Even a realized soul will remain in this world until his/her karmaphala runs out. Even God Himself, when he becomes an avatara, will impartially subject Himself to his karmaphala. Sri Rama and Sri Krishna both lived as mortals, both underwent pain and separation and death. This is the true extent of the axiom.

Now axiom 2. This directly counters the "mankind's fall from grace" concept. The west, in its pursuit of desire, might have in some sense accepted part of the axiom, but the full extent of the axiom is unpalatable to the Abrahamics. It directly negates their world-view. Taken together with axiom 3, we have the concept of "reincarnation," we see that heaven and hell are both transient states in the soul's journey back to God, that God is not "sitting up in heaven in judgment," and neither is there a devil "lording it in hell."

The west may have assimilated some part of these axioms, but this was achieved by trivializing them. We need to make sure that the axioms shine through in all their splendor and with all their implications intact. We need to build a scientific theory on the full, unadulterated axiom set, and show that it is (at least in part) representative of the SD worldview.

That's my take on these axioms.

[RajeshA]

RajeshA ji,

Made some changes. Instead of circles and arrows, how about this? -



Amateurish and poor quality, but probably gets the point across easier?
I put it up on the blogpost for now - Psychohistory vs. Dumb Dialectics.
Let me know if it works, or I can change it.

Carl ji,

much better than "amateurish"!

In fact it is quite apt to portray the dangers that India face in this way, wolves tearing up India devouring it. Each wolf is given a name of one of India's enemies. It is a wonderful picture and I would suppose an effective picture in many quarters.

However I think this picture could be considered by some as one of the run-of-the-mill cartoons which try to portray, India is in danger from X, Y, Z. There will be other subversive parties who may turn it around, give different names to the wolves calling them Bajrang Dal, VHP, RSS, "Hindu Terror", and what not and keeping 'India' still in the middle. And on the right side, instead of somebody meditating they have plaster a Taj Mahal!

At the level at which the picture would be effective, probably at that level people would not really be able to make out what is thesis and what is antithesis!

So the concept is open to abuse!

Your blog-post however captures a far more fundamental dynamic at work in India. The concept of inversion of thesis and antithesis under the supervision of the current dispensation and its historical predecessors. Perhaps the concept needs to be clarified to different target groups in India differently through different graphics or cartoons!

I would urge you to try to visualize the import of the message of your blog-post in additional and different ways!

I do like the picture you've drawn, but your message has much more potential.

[Rudradev]

Ravi_g saar,
Not sure I understood everything in your post. It seems you're saying that the west came to digestion of Buddhist thoughts first, and is now trying to digest Hindu thought using its previous digestion of Buddhist thought? This previous digestion of Buddhist thought being the acceptance of axioms 2 & 3 by the west in its "improvement" of its original Christian theology?

That's in a way a valid line of reasoning, and you seem to feel that the killer punch that Hindus can pack is the first axiom, since the second and third are already acceptable to the west.

I disagree, at least to some measure.

Let's see.

Axiom 1: God is all-powerful, but does not desire the fruits of material actions (BG: Na maam karmaani limpanti, na me karma phale spr'ha).

Axiom 2: It is our own (as in - each individual soul's) material desires, which bring us to this material plane.

Axiom 3: The law of karma - as in, "you do not get something for nothing in this universe." The corollary being, that you are impartially subjected to the consequences of your actions, as you pursue your desires (per axiom 2).

Start with axiom 3. You say the west has "digested" this. I don't entirely agree. The west has assimilated this axiom by trivializing it. As in - "it's obvious that what goes around comes around - this is God's logic." But this is simply the corollary of the axiom - not the axiom itself. The axiom is, that "you cannot get something for nothing, you have to face the consequences of your actions on your own, nobody else can take on the consequences of your actions for you." This is a direct negation of the "savior" concept. When Sri Ramakrishna contracted throat cancer, a lot of his devotees started saying that he'd "taken on their sins." Swami Vivekananda countered this, saying that Sri Ramakrishna had done nothing of the sort. Even a realized soul will remain in this world until his/her karmaphala runs out. Even God Himself, when he becomes an avatara, will impartially subject Himself to his karmaphala. Sri Rama and Sri Krishna both lived as mortals, both underwent pain and separation and death. This is the true extent of the axiom.

Now axiom 2. This directly counters the "mankind's fall from grace" concept. The west, in its pursuit of desire, might have in some sense accepted part of the axiom, but the full extent of the axiom is unpalatable to the Abrahamics. It directly negates their world-view. Taken together with axiom 3, we have the concept of "reincarnation," we see that heaven and hell are both transient states in the soul's journey back to God, that God is not "sitting up in heaven in judgment," and neither is there a devil "lording it in hell."

The west may have assimilated some part of these axioms, but this was achieved by trivializing them. We need to make sure that the axioms shine through in all their splendor and with all their implications intact. We need to build a scientific theory on the full, unadulterated axiom set, and show that it is (at least in part) representative of the SD worldview.

Sudarshan ji,

But "trivializing for assimilation" is nothing but the process of "digestion" (at least, as Malhotra uses that term), at a mass level. Just as enzymes destructively catalyze the breakdown of food into its more rudimentary biochemical components...Yoga is trivialized into a fitness craze. Sattvic diet is trivialized into the "Vegan" fad. It takes some amount of thinking for Joe/Jane Sixpack to realize (as you have correctly said) that karma, being about responsibility, negates redemption by a chosen saviour; or that manifestation through our own desire for material fulfillment is not reconcilable either with Biblical ex-nihilo creation or the original sin. Most Westerners will take "what goes around comes around" and say "yes, that is in Christianity also."

For that matter even your first Axiom can be trivialized and plundered. "Sure God is all-powerful. The God of Christ does not desire the fruits of material actions. When He requires human beings to do such and such a thing... massacre the Canaanites, burn the temple library of Alexandria, collude with the Maoists in heathen India... it is a test, to improve them as Christians, for their own good. Not because He desires the fruits for himself!"

That's why the crystallization into Axioms is itself a project ridden with potential pitfalls... the resulting approaches are often sufficiently open to interpretation that they allow many avenues for trivialization.

If I may suggest an alternative... I personally think "na-maam karmaani limpanti name karma-phale sprihaa / iti-maam yobhi-jaanaati karma-bhirna sa-badyate //" may be better defended from trivialization by the translation:

"God in His omnipotence, lies beyond all actions and their consequences; He is not encumbered by the aspiration to fruitive action, which enslaves human beings; And it is by truly understanding this nature of God, that human beings can free themselves from such enslavement."

Yes, it is a mouthful, but I think the italicized part of the sloka is an important differentiator that the Abrahamics will never be able to swallow much less digest.

[member_20317]

Carl ji, thanks for such a clear depiction of the idea. One picture is indeed worth a thousand words.

While discussing the Pasupati seal in OIT thread somehow a query got raised. What is it that we would like to send across to our heir many many years into the future. I had mentioned the Pasupati seal. But could not say how and why of it.

Your depiction is the best download for me till date.

And Rajesh A ji, this is good. You are holding out the possibility of a misuse. But then anything can be misused. That is no excuse for not even stating the obvious. And comparisons cannot be between 2 misuses. The comparisons have to be between 2 uses.

----------------------
Sudarshan ji, yes I acknowledge the observation regarding the trivialization of Axioms of Desire and Fruits. And this trivialization process is the digestion process at least the start of it by a long sick body. During this figurative digestion, one processes it, eats it, digests it and excretes it. Merely consuming it. Without regard to the health and yogic commitments/benefits of it. There is no commitment to the grow the plant in the fields.

This trivialization is what people notice even within India when they say that Indic gurus are also guilty of drawing specious equalizations amongst the unequal.

OTOH from the westerner perspective this is the first step only. Their manner of thought is that if they can process it better, break it down better, analyze it better they can digest more of it. For them it is a simple case of improving the fuel consumption of their Internal Combustion Engine.

I for myself see it as an infinite growth for them. Basically if you had zero apples to begin with and now have one. The rate of growth under the present understanding is infinite. Trivialization is the first step to ownership. Pretty soon they will begin to preach to the Indians what it means to be a Hindu. Initially perhaps through some sort of double agents. The kind that can run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. In this the trivialization at home is also to be blamed. People think oh! we have say a 100 apples, if the buyer does not pay for one lets just debit it to the books as a sort of indirect expenditure or even in some idiotic Suspense account. Oh! we have the orchard and cannot eat all the apples so lets sell them. What people fail to realize is that even the farm, to which we are directly linked, is also subject to the input-output constraints. Our people are neglecting the orchard, indulging in distractions that got supplied by the west and then one fine day the commission agent will take-over the orchard also. The day they find the marginal returns from the refinement of exploitation machinery are less than the DCF of the vertical integration. The west has a whole GDP logic running behind their refine-define-consume-titilate cycle.

The disagreements that you highlight are only amongst the people who are masters of their respective systems. At this level you do not even require 3 Axioms. Just 1 is enough to inflict/accept defeat. To the lay man in both sides of divide the trivialization is the main deal. And while for an Abrahmic inspired West trivialization is their first foot in the door of our orchard. For us it is promoted as only an indirect expenditure, the kind for which nobody can question nobody. Now because the enquire at this loss is sought to be stymied even before it has begun so for an inattentive dharmic this is the beginning of a long long but sure slide.

Probably I am getting difficult to understand. Thanks for bearing with me.

[member_20317]

Rudradev ji, I see you have already written much of what I wanted to say.

Also you have stated

"That's why the crystallization into Axioms is itself a project ridden with potential pitfalls... the resulting approaches are often sufficiently open to interpretation that they allow many avenues for trivialization."

The Axioms cannot be proven. Only deviations can be noticed and highlighted. If the Axiom and its exposition is correct then there is no need fear for a potential misuse. If they misuse you clarify/reclarify. But if out of fear we do not even start then we risk abandonment.

The fight like the truth is eternal. Why fear the fight? What sudarshan ji has done is he has restated/re-clarified and in that manner it is a valid re-start.

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

Re. Sudarshan ji,

This previous digestion of Buddhist thought being the acceptance of axioms 2 & 3 by the west in its "improvement" of its original Christian theology?

Seriously bhai ji, I am too much in love with I, me and mine. Remember I am the guy defending the 'raping Indians', 'bollywood lover', 'agenda driven' and what not*. I do not know amongst many more things the Abrahmics with their ideology. I would not really be able to point out how or if Buddhism is there within Christianity. My observations come strictly from the Pratayaksh/Observable.



*And while these were meant to be invectives. But thanks I am exceedingly comfortable in my bed of nails. And yes this is a statement of fact.

[Rudradev]

Ravi g-ji, I agree totally. We cannot be paralyzed by fear for one second longer! In fact, I very much commend Sudarshan ji and yourself for coming up with these Axioms as a beginning, as well as Rajesh A-ji's tireless efforts to construct clear definitions of many ideas. This has been one of the most useful threads on BRF in that regard! I only wanted to point out that (as you said) there is a need for many iterations and re-clarification, one reason being to provide a kavacha against digestion or trivialization.

[Rudradev]

Why is this God business necessary at all for this thread? It has nothing to do with the vision, agenda and proposition of a Dharmic state. If at all it has any meaning for a person's identity, it is at a personal belief level, of which God and how one perceives this God is only one part of this person's identity. The Rashtra does not largely interfere with the beliefs of how a person as an individual perceives God. So long as a person respects the plurality of god perception, it is no concern of the state. Regardless of how one perceives god or the almighty or not, the person is bound by the rules of the Rashtra, which are bound to Dharma.

Shaurya, I am sincerely trying to understand your argument and position, but I am either failing to grasp it or you are failing to communicate it adequately.

Let me highlight the issues I have with the way it is presented in your post.

You say we need a constitution for a Rashtra that protects Dharma and fosters Dharmic conduct among the government and citizenry; but this must be accomplished without any reference to God, metaphysics, sampradaaya, traditions, rituals and other cultural accoutrements of our civilization, and without making any appeals to these entities for authority. All that is private onlee. Theek hai. Let us accept this for now.

So let us try this as an experiment. Let us take out all of that extraneous material from Dharma and see what we are left with. Essentially it is a set of values that we are left with, which for convenience we will call "Sampradaaya-prime Dharma" (S'-Dharma). These values are cleanly divested from any connotations regarding particular views of God, philosophy or sampradaayic observations.

Are we on the same page so far?

Now here is my question. What is the difference, in real terms, between a constitution based on "S'-Dharma" and the actual Constitution of India as adopted in 1950? Would love to hear your answer, in specific terms.

My own answer is that there isn't much, if any difference. The 1950 Constitution does in fact provide the framework for governance of a Westphalian-style state (necessary, given the prevailing international order) that, technically, upholds ALL the values in the set S'-Dharma. Truth, honesty, compassion, patience, respect for the individual, mutual respect and equality between faiths, various traditional neetis of conduct and governance, you name it... it's all there, either mentioned in explicit terms or by implication. In fact, the 1950 Constitution of India, overall, is a very good Constitution by any modern standards... in the early postcolonial era, many newly independent countries actually looked to it as a model for their own frameworks.

So the question becomes: what went wrong? Why, even though we have a Constitution that successfully constructs S'-Dharma by removing "God" and other things you consider extraneous... why do we still have all this horrible misgovernance, immorality and widespread culture of corruption at every level of society?

I put it to you that there are, broadly, two possible reasons for what went wrong.

1) The Constitution, based on S'-Dharma, is fine and workable just as it is (or with very minor amendments). The only thing wrong is implementation. Dharmic values (minus God, Sampradaaya, cultural context) exist in the Constitution but are not upheld in Indian society and governance only because the current Constitution is not implemented properly.

Or,

2) A Constitution based on S'-Dharma is itself a fundamentally flawed framework at the conceptual level. The S'-Dharma set of values doesn't work as a foundation' God, Sampradaaya, cultural context etc. HAVE to be explicitly present within the Constitution, in order to achieve the kind of Rashtra you (and many of us Bharatiyas) wish for.

Can I ask which view is closer to yours? Or if it is some other view totally different from both, can you please elaborate?

Thanks.

[Agnimitra]

Vaisheshika-darshana of Rishi Kanaada has its definition of "Dharma" in 1.1.2:

यतोऽभ्युदयनिःश्रेयससिद्धिः स धर्मः । - "Whatever leads to happiness and ultimate bliss or Moksha for entire world – alone is Dharma."

Rishi Jaimini's Mimamsa-sutra 1.1.2 says:

चोदनालक्षणोऽर्थो धर्मः । - "Whatever is 'impelled'/'impulsed' is indicative of the meaning of Dharma."
-------------------------------

RajeshA ji, I will think of other representations too. Never thought about it earlier. I guess folks with talent on BRF should come out with cartoons, videos, etc on different little messages.

[Pranav]

Vaisheshika-darshana of Rishi Kanaada has its definition of "Dharma" in 1.1.2:

यतोऽभ्युदयनिःश्रेयससिद्धिः स धर्मः । - "Whatever leads to happiness and ultimate bliss or Moksha for entire world – alone is Dharma."

A good definition, since the aim of human existence is evolution towards Bliss / Moksha / Nirvana. And an individual's evolution is connected with the evolution of other beings - all entities in the universe being expressions of the one ultimate reality.

[harbans]

One needs a Dharmic framework from which to view the universe, and the human condition. It is from that perspective that every situation should be analyzed, and the righteous course of action discerned.

But Dharma is subtle. Rules like "non-violence" or "truth" may be Dharmic in some circumstances and Adharmic in others. One should not get stuck in a dogmatic rut, without understanding the deeper principles, like MK Gandhi.

I think you are confusing Individual and State. A State which is Dharmic will not be a moksha seeker itself, but it will provide conditions, support for those experimenting and evolving on the Dharmic ladder. And within the State there will be all sorts of peoples at all levels of evolution and understanding. There will also be people and sampradaya's that do not believe in moksha for instance. Thus the one purpose of the state is as a facilitator for seekers and making sure they are not distrurbed in their meditations to evolve on the spiritual front.

Sure enough the Indian state does not disallow the above to quite an extent, one may say. In fact compared to most countries it still is very flexible in it's sensitivity to faith. Yet in the above something is lacking. And i have explained this before. I will do so again.

Firstly the Indian Constitution does not honor any of the attributes that i ascribed to Dharma. Where Freedom of Speech is mentioned it is at the mercy of 'Law and Order'. So Truth is restricted from being opposed by clauses like 'Anti Hate Speech' etc. HIndu, Xtian, Islamic, Sikh all kind of groups take umbrage and shelter under these clauses. They stall proceedings, ban books, disallow and threaten authors etc. Who wins by this censuring Truth? Vested, parochial agenda based groups. Why do these groups win that too under the sanction of Indian law? Because Truth is subservient to 'Law and Order' and 'Anti Hate speech laws'. The fact that Truth has it's own way of somehow appearing is another matter, whether through the internet, underground channels if not allowed to surface, it does. But the more one delays and prevents Truth from coming out as is relevant to the above context say of stiffling people like Rushdie or Taslima, the more the parochial groups are empowered. The more people suffer as these parochial groups gain power and create chaos.

Another context where Truth is suppressed by the State in favor of appeasement is in it's dealings with neighbors. Chinese aggression of Tibet. It is the pragmatists that favor rapprochement and harmony with China. The Truth is simple though: China occupied Tibet. A plebiscite in Tibet will not get the Han one single seat in the entire Tibet province. The Tibetan people have always been culturally close to India. We neglected the Truth in these matters and resorted to pragmatism. Appease the Chinese and all will be hunky dory. Result: By negating simple self evident Truths about the Chinese aggression in favor of pragmatism we ended up playing into the hands of parochial groups step by step till we ended acknowledging Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. Now we suffer and we don't know why.

Many people here are obviously not aware how charters affect the functioning of an entity. I mentioned before how company functioning can be changed just by tweaking there primary charters. Many industries across the world have been bound to improve upon their accident records not by some high power auditing, but putting up safety as the highest priority. They laughed it off initially and were happy to put it up on the CEO walls. Now laws were framed in different countries that had to comply with those simple ideals. Owners cried foul, stating total Safety as an aim that could never be achieved in mortal environs. They gave perfectly valid examples of situations where what choice would be if one has to sacrifice 2 people to probably save 10. Those examples are still valid. Those who stuck by the ideals, however improved their functioning drastically along with economic bottom lines, earning a good reputation and more. Yes the ideal of 100% safety or 100 % Truth may never be achieved. There may have to be compromises. But it is only those who are committed to it that will be able to make the right choices when it comes to the dilemma of conflict. The difficult choices then are made much more easily. Go to say any diving firm and ask them about limitations on safety. They'll tell you volumes of conflict situations. Yet ask them if they think then Safety is bad primary preamble concept. They will laugh at you.

It is complete naivete to think the Indian constitution has already provisions for upholding truth, compassion, etc. As i mentioned above and on several occassions here they are not nodal. Nodal are subject to law and order or hurt sentiment. So any exposure of truth that may require churning, some heartburn will be negated by the State. Nothing has gone wrong wrt the Indian state. Banning Vishwaroopam or Rushdie, or Taslima from speaking out is constitutional and state ordained. Better people who have not understood that reflect, before trying to think that all those values are the already. They are not nodal values. They are subjected to contexts of pragmatism interpreted by the Jayalitha's, Mulayams, and Sonia's. That is why it will be impossible for those that seek a Bharatiya vision of a Dharmic state to negate the primary role to values in the constitution. There is no way out of that. Without understanding that basic, there is no point in laying out contexts as yet. Without getting companies to commit to the preamble of non contextual Safety in their management systems, there would be no improvement in safety standards for millions who work in these industries. Without than bringin in laws that confirm that the Govt or Institution/ Company did it's best to confirm, it would be impossible to achieve what one intends reflected from the organization, better safety or Dharma.

[RajeshA]

The fundamental of Hinduism is: Vedas(including the Upanishads/Vedanta).
Hindus are united by Vedas. Zimple. Everything else is up for debate.

Similarly,
fundamental of Buddhism is Buddha. Everything else is open for negotiation.
fundamental of Christianity is Jesus. Everything else is open for negotiation.
fundamental of Islam is Mohammad. Everything else is open for negotiation.

The above may not be discernible immediately. It is evident when the creeds are forced to evolve.

johneeG ji,

while I agree with the above in general I have an issue with application of the above.

Re: Agenda

For me the primary issue here is one of consolidation of Bharatiyas, i.e. those who care for Bharatvarsha, wish to see Bharatiya Civilization prosper again and wish to see Bharatvarsha under a Dharmic leadership, under a composite identity where their sense of political identity, historical identity, cultural identity, and faith-based identity find harmony and cohesion, thus giving Bharatiyas a drive to act based on agendas derived from their various pan-Bharatiya and sub-identities.

For Bharatiyas, Bharatvarsha is focal. It is our Punya Bhoomi. It is our Karma Bhoomi (even if one lives outside India). It is our Janam Bhoomi (if not directly then indirectly). It is our Bharat Mata.

For those whose Punya Bhoomi is outside India, who do not consider the land, Bharat Mata, who are still enslaved by foreign imperialist religious ideologies, they we cannot take along ideologically, even if at the practical level we must still ensure that their conduct remains conducive to the interests of the land.

Now Bharatiya Civilization has had many different Sampradayas - Aastik and Naastik. In their own way they have contributed to the advance of our civilization. Most of our kings and emperors have lend their support to all Sampradayas. We have had kings and emperors who have been Buddhists and Jains. We have had a Sikh Maharaja who pushed the Adharmics all the way back to their lands north of Khyber Pass.

So the Bharatiya Identity is intricately linked with ALL the Sampradayas. It cannot be detached from that fact. Even as at the theological-philosophical level there has always been strong competition between the Sampradayas, including in inter-sampradayic conversions, it was always done according to the rules of the game, which excluded violence, coercion or material temptation. It was based on convincing the other of the rightness of one's stand based on cultured debate and impressing the other with one's knowledge and cultural richness. That was the general rule.

Most importantly all the Dharmic Sampradayas took birth in Bharatvarsha and came to be what they are through shared history, each enriching oneself from what came and from the others.

The foreign imperialist religious ideologies which invaded India were neither born of the soil nor observed the rules of the game.

So whereas at theological level, Sanatanics and Buddhists may have had a bitter rivalry, at the cultural and political level it didn't mean much.

So if Bharatiyas have to unite, Sanatanics and Buddhists, along with Jains and Sikhs would have to find common ground at the philosophical level which sets them apart from the foreign imperialist religious ideologies - the Abrahamics. There may be Bharatiyas who may not believe in any of these traditions and may just be atheists or have no opinion on all of this and if possible, even they need to be taken along.

Re: Comparison as made by you

The reason why Sanatan Dharma spread all over India was not just because everybody recognized the authority of the Vedas at get go, but because the Sanatanics had the ability to assimilate local customs and traditions into the tapestry and web of Indian mythology without destroying them and explaining the local customs and traditions from a much more fundamental philosophical viewpoint. It was this ability which made the people everywhere recognize the authority of the Vedas, for that was the framework which accorded national authority on their own preexisting local beliefs and customs.

So whereas each person may have his Ishtdevta or a community may have their Kuladevta, at important life-cycle events - weddings, funerals, they ask a pundit who knows the Vedas to recite them. They recognize the authority of the Vedas, just as the Vedas recognizes the authority of their local beliefs and customs.

Today if one says Sanatanics (popularly also known as Hindus) are united by the Vedas, this dynamic is quite different to how it is in Christianity or Islam or even Buddhism. There each holds on to Jesus, or Muhammad or even Buddha very closely and people are intimately conversant with these icons. Christians have a Bible at home, Muslims have a Quran at home and Buddhists too have some Buddha statue at home. But how many who are today called Hindus have a compilation of Vedas at home or know even a single verse from the Vedas? Earlier Vedas were not even in the written form or on some digital media to get.

So the recognition of the authority of the Vedas works differently. Vedas was the domain of Brahmins and Pundits. The others, the commoners used to approach the Supreme through their Ishtadevta.

Vedas are for most Sanatanics not a personal scripture, even though they all recognize its authority. So in that way, the Vedics did not impose Vedas on all Sanatanics making the Vedas something personal for them. One reason was because it was Śrauta, and its phonetic integrity needed to be preserved and making it a common-commodity would have caused damage to that goal. There may have been other reasons.

So even as we say Sanatanics recognize the authority of the Vedas, to an individual Sanatanic it would lack the personal experience as other icons provide to other religions. Now this is not that relevant to a discourse of national identity, but perhaps the nuance is important when making comparisons with others.

Re: Common Dharmic Claim

So for Bharatiya unity, a Dharmic unity is essential, for otherwise just as you did all of the religions can be considered equivalent - Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity, thus allowing the Indian State to impose a secularism and call it as equivalent to what previous political manisfestations of Bharat have had, where the King was not necessarily a Sanatanic, but say a Jain or a Buddhist or a Sikh (later on), and most people in India would say there is no need for one religious group to dominate and as such Hindutva would be kept in the rain to get wet but would not be allowed in into power.

However if one makes the argument that in Bharatiya Civilization, power has always been in the hands of a Dharmic and the monarch or government was always forced to rule according to Dharma, then that makes today's India an aberration from its previous political manifestations, and we can make a case that that is not acceptable.

So for national unity, the theological position if made at the political level that "Hinduism" is just as distant from Buddhism as it is from Islam and Christianity is a position which harms the interests of all Bharatiyas, and perpetuates the current state where foreign imperialist religious ideologies can rule over Bharat through their secularism tool!

It is of course wrong for Sanatanics to compromise on the authority of the Vedas at the theological level, but at the political level, neither is this compromise necessary nor the Sanatanics have to make it. The Vedas are not like the Shariah, and at the political level they need not play any part.

Of course, Vedic authority can give or withhold its approval of the Dharmic dispensation that takes power over Bharatvarsha, but considering that such a dispensation would not be negating or rejecting the authority of the Vedas, the Vedic authority too should not withhold its approval.

So for political unity, one would have to find a way to separate the Dharmics from the Abrahamics if one wishes to delegitimize secularism in India, and thus banish Nehruvian-Secularism which is just a wrapper around the Islamo-Christianist Platform.

We cannot do othering of the Buddhist view from Bharatiya Civilization and Bharatiya History, for that breaks the Bharatiya Civilization. We however need to do othering of the Abrahamics because their religious allegiance lies to centers of power outside India and cannot be Bharatiya and this othering is necessary to save the Bharatiya Civilization.

So at the philosophical level too we would need to find common ground between Sanatanics, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs, and forge that common ground into an identity - the "Dharmic"!

In fact, the Sanatanics have in their own way given recognition to Lord Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu, though it is unclear which Lord Buddha that was, for there were many and it need not be Śākyamuni Siddhartha Gautama. But it is clear that the Sanatanics were not out to doing an "othering" of the Buddhists completely. Interestingly no Tirthankar of the Jains was given that honor.

Re: Hindus and Hinduism

Hindu: When the Islamics started their advance into the Subcontinent, they called all the inhabitants Hindus - and that included Sanatanics, Buddhists and Jains. They couldn't really care less who was who. We were all Hindus for them. There were Buddhist kings too who put up resistance against the Islamic onslaught. In the end they failed and fell, but they too were called Hindus by the Islamics. When Hindu became a badge of honor among the Bharatiyas as Vijaynagara Empire and Maratha Empire started referring to themselves as Hindus, should the Buddhist Kings who fell earlier protecting Bharat be deprived of this badge of honor - "Hindu"! Hindus refer to all Bharatiyas who resisted the Abrahamic onslaught - both of Islamics and British.

Hinduism: I define Hinduism as "A European discipline of study of the beliefs of the Hindus (Bharatiyas) with all the incurring prejudice and bias of White Racists, Christianists and Colonialists and later continued by Cultural Marxists". It is inexplicable why we Sanatanics are willing to call the beliefs of the Hindus as "Hinduism"! From the native PoV, what has this discipline of study to do with our self-defined beliefs. Are the Europeans going to decide what we believe in?

Just some thoughts!

[RajeshA]

Just noticed on the "Sri Lanka - News and Discussion" Thread, there is much hostility among Indians to even the word "Dharma"

There should be a ban on the usage of the word dharmic in BRF, there is no end to stupidity these days.

Most of the "dharmic, dharmic" loonies on this board seem to lack even the slightest shred of common sense. Blinded with all the one-sided "dharma, dharma" crap, they don't seem to understand that the indic world outside the hindu hold doesn't give a rats ass about "dharma" and all that BS. It's a fact.

China doesn't care
Japan doesn't care
Bhutan doesn't care
Srilanka doesn't care
Nepal doesn't care
North-east doesn't care
South-east asia doesn't care

Snap out of your fantasy dear delusional friends and think realistically. And please stop making threads titled "dharma" and "dharmic".

It will take a long time to convince Indians that we need remain ideologically huddled in the box prepared for all of us by the Brits and Chacha Nehru, that we can come out of it and look at the world through the eyes of the Bharatiya, the Hindu, the Dharmic.

What is wrong in being a Christian, eh?

To me humanitarian and strategic considerations are important. And India has been morally on the high ground, we have never persecuted people of any faith. Pakistan poking fingers is crazy, and it annoys us because it is not the truth. I would be upset if India mistreated any Indian community. Indian government and system has been good, every now and then people do mistreat others... It is not government sanctioned.

This is being implied here that Dharmics would mistreat some Indian community and only the Nehruvian-Secularist dispensation can be the last word "morally high ground".

It is not the Dharmic way to mistreat any human being, from whatever community. The Dharmic fights Adharma AND adharma and not an individual or even a community.

Yes Christians are Adharmic because they belong to an Adharmic institution - the Church, Adharmic being used from the PoV of the definition here

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

If one rejects the definition then one need to propose another definition.

Whether an individual Christian's conduct is adharmic (small a) or not, who can tell!

Do not ascribe any dharmic aspirations to this motley group of racists. Just check how many non-Sinhala Prime Ministers or Presidents this country has had since it's independence from British rule.

We differentiate between 'Dharmic' (capital D) and 'dharmic' (small d). The capital D 'Dharmic' signifies the tradition - Buddhist, which is Dharmic. The small d 'dharmic' signifies one's conduct. Same is the case with capital A 'Adharmic' and small a 'adharmic'.

[Pranav]

I think you are confusing Individual and State. A State which is Dharmic will not be a moksha seeker itself, but it will provide conditions, support for those experimenting and evolving on the Dharmic ladder. And within the State there will be all sorts of peoples at all levels of evolution and understanding. There will also be people and sampradaya's that do not believe in moksha for instance. Thus the one purpose of the state is as a facilitator for seekers and making sure they are not distrurbed in their meditations to evolve on the spiritual front.

I am confusing individual and state? As regards states I have been saying pretty much the same thing -

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

What is worth defending is all the systems, practices, knowledge and infrastructure that facilitates human evolution, which is the ultimate purpose of human existence. And that is also the purpose of the existence of a state, for that matter.

What is a nation-state? From a Dharmic POV, it is a collaborative project whose goal is to facilitate the evolutionary quest of its people.

For that the nation state has to create and protect all the conditions conducive to this purpose (including material conditions, infrastructure, institutions, public safety, knowledge transmission systems etc).

Coming to your other point -

Firstly the Indian Constitution does not honor any of the attributes that i ascribed to Dharma. Where Freedom of Speech is mentioned it is at the mercy of 'Law and Order'. So Truth is restricted from being opposed by clauses like 'Anti Hate Speech' etc.

It is true that keeping large sections of the population ignorant and subject to manipulation by vested interests is good neither for them nor for anybody else. But I would view all policy decisions through the prism of the state's duty to "facilitate the Dharmic quest of all its people", rather than putting slogans like "non-violence" or "truth" on a pedestal.

Another context where Truth is suppressed by the State in favor of appeasement is in it's dealings with neighbors. Chinese aggression of Tibet. It is the pragmatists that favor rapprochement and harmony with China.

Well, what do you propose to do about Tibet? Those who understand the nature of the "deep states" of western nations know they they are at least as bad as the Chinese, if not a lot worse.

[ShauryaT]

Can I ask which view is closer to yours? Or if it is some other view totally different from both, can you please elaborate?

Thanks.

RD: Cannot elaborate now but totally different from the above two scenarios. The words dharmic constitution to me conjure visions of a dharma shastra. So a new dharma shastra is written with the experience of the old one's that were in place in the millenniums past. Its key objectives are to enable the fulfillment of puruSharthas, a society ordered to fulfill VarnaAshrama Dharmas - it is a complete reorganization of society to a more familiar set of objectives and orders recognizable in light of our civilization history and NOT something imported from Mars or the UK! - The closest but incomplete public articulation of it is by Deendhayal Upadhyaya. The most complete spiritual articulation of it is by Sri Aurobindo. The indic centric purva-paksha articulation of it is by Ram Swarup and his compatriots Sita Ram Goel and Arun Shourie. The most topical articulations are by men like Subhash Kashyap, Pratap Bhanu Mehta. On BRF - the most in sync on the issue I am is with Atri Garu. If one takes an amalgamation of all these works, then it will approximate to something close to what I have in my head and the fault is entirely mine for not being able to articulate. Have to run now.