The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

[RajeshA]

Differences: Clerical Power

How does the clergy of Abrahamic religions really attain and use power? It is of course by trading. They give something to an individual and the individual gives something to the clergy. What the clergy uniquely gives the individual is social acceptability for his behavior and actions, over and above the promise of a promising afterlife. Of course, they can additionally give monetary perks, but that can be given by any other influential instance as well.

In return for this social acceptability of one's behavior and actions, the individual gives the clergy his submission to their authority.

For a clergy, the main goods it has for trading is really its authority and influence over the people, so that is what they best trade with.

In Islam, the clergy makes it a point to control all levers of what is socially acceptable, hence the emphasis on Sharia which is a clergy administered set of laws. As the final arbiters of what is right and what is wrong, what is legal and what is not, who is guilty of a transgression and who is innocent, they hold the ultimate levers of power. Such power would of course lead to the people becoming dependent on them, but in case justice is not meted correctly some would be angry too. That is also why the punishments are so harsh and terrifying, so that a wronged party is either not alive to fight back or his spirit and body are completely broken. Alone the fear of such punishment would drive people to not question the authority.

Earlier the Christian clergy too used to have this power, as they used to determine who is a witch and who is not.

But it is not just fear of punishment that the Islamic clergy trades in, but also acquittal for any transgressions of the law they guard over. If somebody has transgressed these laws, then paying blood money or expressing stronger allegiance to them or making a monetary contribution to their dawa efforts, would allow one to escape the law. One can buy one's transgression.

That is why even in sections of Muslim society which like to enjoy the Western liberties and pork and wine and women, those Muslims try to provide other services to the clergy, be it in their hatred towards the Kufr, or through contributions to various Islamic charities. They are encouraged to buy themselves a transgression quota.

So paying one's way out is especially lucrative for the clergy, and so they have even more laws, even more stricter laws, which contribute to more transgressions and thus more money flow to them.

In the West, despite the stranglehold of the clergy for example on the monarchs, they were not really playing the role of the judiciary. That was still the monarch's privilege. We know from Western society that when the people were given the freedom of secular education, prosperity, etc. the stranglehold of the clergy broke down ultimately. Of course they tried to retain influence due to their role in the life-cycle events of the individual - marriage, funeral, baptism, etc, and of course because of their promise for spiritual redemption, but overall the influence decreased.

This cannot happen in Islam, simply because they have the concept of Sharia, and there the clergy plays the major role. In principle that gives them major power within the state. The monarch/government retains the power of taxation, public works and administration. But the clergy gets to decide who lives and who dies according to their laws.

Furthermore Islam gives its followers, the men, a lot of leeway on how to deal with their women, and unbridled leeway on how to deal with non-believers.

If an individual is close to the clergy, he can do absolutely anything with his women, and in fact even with other women, and nobody can really touch him.

Through controlling a man's liberty with women, the clergy attains power in the very heart of a man's life! Polygamy, divorce, remarriage, adultery, right-hand possessions, rape, violence on women and other issues of deliberation allow the clergy to minutely control society.

Control of an individual's mind and control over an individual's life is what gives the Islamic clergy power. Education in a sense actually breaks this power. But we see many educated Muslims who are themselves quite radical in the Islamic beliefs! Well there is education and there is education! Technical education is acceptable generally even though the whole environment of education could prove corrupting. But basically it being also a transgression against the general meme of Islamic society, one finds the Muslims who have technical education, are more than willing to pay for this transgression by providing services to the clergy and Ummah through their technical skills. Secondly those who do go into education are usually ones who earlier on had a secular upbringing. The secular upbringing of course produces an extreme paucity of spiritual maturity and thus these Muslims are often most prone to even more radical Islamic thinking. Education which would hardly be welcome in Islam is in the sphere of humanities and comparative religions etc, unless of course the individual has shown to use that knowledge too for say proselytization purposes.

But education would remain a discouraged exercise in Islamic society and the emergence of a thriving industrial and services oriented society would be unlikely, simply because the focus of the society than changes from religion to industry. Small-scale industry is acceptable for after all some money needs to be generated.

For this reason, instead of productivity Islam actually encourages theft and entitlement over the Kufr. Jizya is part and parcel of Islamic code. So looting caravans, piracy, road toll, plundering temples, etc. was always done under the sanction of Islam, and the clergy always got its share. When Muslims take social benefits from the Western governments, there is no gratitude, because that is entitlement. There is NEVER EVER gratitude towards the non-believers.

In India another business model of the Islamic clergy is votes for favors. Through the allegiance of the Muslims to their clergy, they have another item what they can trade in a democracy - vote banks.

The Christian Clergy still holds to its property very closely, which it has gathered over its history. It is now dependent on the state to collect taxes for it, which some state still do. But the Christian Clergy has now an additional business model, and that is to target other non-Western countries and proselytize. This is to soften the natives for Western political and commercial interests. Thus even as in Europe the role of the Church has decreased, it still is busy proselytizing in other countries like India.

Of course in well to do countries, it helps if its followers are rich and can make hefty contributions, either to save their souls or to partake in the global influence of the Church. The cult of "Original Sin" also motivates the followers to try to mitigate it to some extent through charity for "good works".

Those are the memes of the Islamic clergy and of the Christian clergy which has lost the power to implement them.

On the other hand, the clergy of Dharmic traditions had a different role. It would be unrealistic to believe that they would not have a business model. Being humans all need to eat to live. In Dharmic traditions, people are encouraged to give Dana and Dakshina. It is voluntary. Dakshina is given to a priest for some service rendered, usually for some Yagya, or it is given to the Guru in the form of Gurudakshina. Those who well-off are encouraged to give charity to the poor and clergy in the form of Dana. It is ALL voluntary! It is NOT a tax.

In Dharmic traditions there is no concept of Divorce. Unlike Abrahamic clergy, there is no lever here for the Hindu clergy to use. It is prescribed how a man and a woman ought to live in marriage, and the clergy does not appropriate any right to judge how the marriage is progressing. In India, this has without any friction become the privilege of the secular government.

So the clergy in Dharmic traditions is there to perform yagyas, render lifecycle services but does not purport to control the life of the individual and to demand his allegiance based on that power.

Most importantly in Dharmic society, the clergy does not act as the judiciary and has no saying over any laws. They can comment if any law provides for the freedom to exercise a Dharmic lifestyle, but they will not be judging people on their guilt and innocence. The Karmic Cycle takes care of that in case the ruler abdicates his responsibility.

Islamic clergy is attuned to control and trade in social acceptability. In Dharmic traditions clergy's only role is in providing religious services, caretakers of rituals in places of religion and providing education, and they depend on compensation for those services and charity.

And all this flows from the mentality of "gates" and "gatekeepers".

Gatekeepers would always act according to the memes of control and power, which innately lead to expansionism and intolerance!

[RajeshA]

One might ask why is it important to talk about differences between Dharmic traditions and Abrahamic traditions in the context of this thread.

If one wishes to establish a Dharmic code for Bharata, one needs to be exactly aware of where the differences lie between the Indian Civilization and other "civilizations", so that one can formulate a code and policies which allow Dharmic traditions to flourish in India and sucks out all oxygen from various other ideologies.

[RajeshA]

Purva Paksha of Islam and Western cultures has limited value, if our own society has stopped being a Dharmic society.

Fully agree that one should reinvigorate Dharmic customs in one's life. That is firmly putting your feet on the ground and becoming rooted.

But it is also pure rubbish that Purva Paksha of Islam and Western cultures has limited value. That is firmly putting one's head in the sand as well and becoming stupid.

[SBajwa]

Mlecchas are to be militarily decimated.

Absolutely!! not only they need to be militarily decimated but were!! From 1750-1850.

Today the need of the hour is

1. If Mlecchas demand 3 girls Dharmics must fight and take over 300 of theirs just for demanding.

2. If Mlecchas threaten us with Nuke War! We must have a right to strike first and even lob a small nuke over their city., just for threatening.

We must DO!! The deed has to be done!!! The slap for each of their terror action needs to at least 300 times than the terror act. i.e. if 30 are dead., we must kill the 9000 of theirs (factoring in the past missed actions).

[brihaspati]

If one looks at the various levels of "dharmik" society, one can identify - that even their practice of SD differ in many outward and in some cases, even inward forms. The way the dominant elite perform these practices - differ from those who are poor or dominated - out of very obvious socio-economic constraints. One of the problems I find in the "practice and all will be ok" approach is that it most often comes from an ambience of only experiencing the elite "practice". Perhaps one of the reasons various "Bhakti" leadership "simplified" the practice - was out of a keen realization of this practical issue.

I am not sure many of us here, gunning for an emphasis on "practice" have really lived the life of those who do not have the resources, training, conditioning - and yes, the "leisure" time, to practice SD in its full manifestation. So SD practice reduces to various applicational prescriptions as relevant for the particular socio-economically determined and constrained lifestyle of the social level.

It is important to provide a common platform of practice, something that does not put too much of a hierarchical gradation of "uttama" practice and "adhama" practice. We cannot and should not push up to the skies the practices and lifestyles of so-called "evolved" gurus and acharyas and their influential and powerful devotees. It obviously took a lot of other's time into productive work so that these evolved individuals could have their free time (free from productive labour, free from defense of the land, free from the troubles of raising a family) to maintain their pursuit of refined and elaborate "practice".

For a long time, I could not reconcile my inner almost uncontrolled urge to promote naama-samkeertana with my other Kapilistic viewpoints. Reading through the posts here, I realize now why I had always been attracted by "naama". I also realize the deeper socio-politics of figures like Chaitanya and Vidyaranya .

If one is not aware of the exact nature of existence, the daily living existence of the vast majority of one's society - if you cannot feel or sense the inner being of jana-ganesh, there will be no revival, no inner consolidation over the fractures that have been allowed to grow. We should make it easier for people to belong to "us", rather than make it harder.

In practice onlee - there are three fundamental dangers

(1) we blindly go on doing things - without evaluating whether these were temporarily adapted items fitted to a particualr historical period, cumulative experience up to that time, existing power relations, and place and people. That these need not be significant or relevant now.

(2) we fail to undertake the search and concretization process - that every generation has to do - as to what forms the timeless, the "forever", universalist principles [NOT universal prescriptions and conclusions - BUT methods of arriving at those conclusions] of SD.

(3) we cover up the injustices, or fallacies in what we practice by justifying on tradition and texts or interpretations, what we ourselves realize is unjust/false but which at the same time gives us some practical advantages, be it psychological self-inflation or social.

There has to be a compromise - we must make SD practicable and immensely attractive for all sections of socio-economic constraints. Without the "jana" nothing will remain. At the same time, we cannot and should not reject the accumulated body of experiences, realizations, insights, and even speculations of past schools and masters. But we should not be completely bound by those accumulations.

The thought or practice leaders of the new approach must be able to think and operate at these two levels. You have a duty and role as social consolidators and organizers too.

[devesh]

but what if "politics" is maya?

what if "Hindutva" is maya? maybe even protecting girls?

after all, a "sthree" is described in some texts as the supreme rupa of Maya?

so sacrificing a "sthree" for a temple could be a noble thing, no? even indicative of "wisdom" on the path to "total surrender to the Lord".

RamaY garu,

you can rotfl all you want.

but my question stands. don't start talking complicated things like "Maya" and the rest. you are experienced enough to see for yourself that the "surrender" has gone too far. it has seeped into the Dharma-arthik situations too.

we can all pretend that our Shiva/Vaishnava/Shakta devotion is the "real practice of everyday life as prescribed by SD". if it is the "real practice" then SD needs to go through a huge change. the "Moksha"/"mumukshu" facet of SD has become the only aspiration of out Bhakti marga practitioners. this attitude is always a huge obstacle.

I have faced this "surrender" obstacle every time I try to engage in a debate. it has become such an overwhelming obsession.
even the "gurus" and "acharyas" are subtly allowing this to happen by discouraging "political" questions. often times, they have an easy refrain, "how arrogant are we to believe that the Lord needs us small being to fight for him? his will is supreme, and he knows how to save his Dharma (SD)".


Acharya ji,

perhaps you should spend more than a sentence and write a properly though out response instead of name calling like "moorkha", etc.
you are living in a fantasy world with all your talk of "Maya". the only "Maya" I see is the Hindu mind deluded with the notion of "surrender". you can not pretend that this problem doesn't exist. I have come across it quite often.

also, your advice about "practicing" seems like the usual refrain from the "elites". I'm not new to that "criticism". it's a disarming refrain that I've heard quite a few times from "elders" in my own family. the notion that "practice" of elaborate rituals somehow gives some people an innate right to call others "moorkha" and "marxist" is symbolic of the ritualistic Brahmins (perhaps next you'll call me "self-flagellating"?).

[RajeshA]

There are many policy matters that one can suggest as a way of anchoring the Dharmic code into the fabric of Bharat - perhaps through Constitution, perhaps through laws, perhaps through programs.

I'll be formulating these based on what one can do to stay Dharmic and to completely spoil the party for the Islamics.

Bharat & Women

1. Each and every girl in India - Dharmic, Muslim or Christian, should be given maximum support for education. Each girl should do at least 12 classes of school. This support should be built into a law. The girl's school education fees should be borne by state. For poor families, the state should provide some monetary incentive.
2. Co-education should be encouraged. For this the state should provide extra monetary incentive to the family.
3. All parents who do not send their girls to school should be forced to pay a monthly fine dependent on their income.
4. Each and every girl should be encouraged to do sports and receive self-defense (martial arts) training in school. For this the state should provide extra monetary incentive to the family.
5. In the school, all children should receive intensive education in Bharatiya history, philosophy, culture, and Sanskrit. This includes girls.
6. In the school, in girls only classes, girls need to be told about their rights over their bodies, about their sexuality, about means of contraception.
7. In case of household violence, the state should ensure the safety of the woman or girl. She should be provided with the means and guarantees to relocate to some welfare asharam for abused women.
8. In case of household violence, the family members who commit this violence on the woman and are found guilty should be given strict and timely punishment.
9. Any sexual abuse of minor girls, rape or violence should carry heavy punishment, with monetary support for those other than the victim who report a true case of such abuse. For crimes against women, any boy over 14 should be liable and should be given the same punishment as an adult.
10. If the age difference between a girl (under 21) to be married and her fiancee is more than 10 years, than she should go for mandatory counselling.
11. All present quotas for government jobs and college seats for certain communities should be changed into quotas for only women from these communities. Quota for poor minority women should be added to that. Overall quota reservation should be decreased.
12. In the case of divorce, all issues of alimony and distribution of assets should be covered by the Uniform Civil Code.
13. Contraceptives should available through the public distribution system and subsidized, where each woman carries her own "ration card" for it.

For Dharmics all this means some adjustment, but for Islamics it could break their back and means of control!

[devesh]

RajeshA ji,

I am not advocating "othering" of the Dvaitins. I am only suggesting that the "surrender theology" needs to relax a bit. the gurus and acharyas need to stop stressing this aspect, and eventually after the political awakening happens, we can revisit the concept and reinterpret it.

regardless of my issues with the extreme Dvaitins, I personally have not given up Bhakti marga. to me, that was the first seed of SD I was endowed with from family. and that will remain with me till the end. but I do wish that there is a reorientation of focus.

[Agnimitra]

If one is not aware of the exact nature of existence, the daily living existence of the vast majority of one's society - if you cannot feel or sense the inner being of jana-ganesh, there will be no revival, no inner consolidation over the fractures that have been allowed to grow. We should make it easier for people to belong to "us", rather than make it harder.

+1
B ji, I found that while a certain section of any country does have the motivation to undertake specific "esoteric" practices, the majority are not. And I think "Hinduism" caters to both:
(1) For some, through the action of the specific contents of whichever school of theory and practice they choose to take up;
(2) For many, through the action of a cultural context, via "mythology", festivals, feasting and fasting, and other samskaras. It caters to every kind of mood and mentality, and it seeps into consciousness without any anxious thought and effort from the participants.

Western society is trying to fill in the gaps in their culture by creating new mythologies, festive occasions, etc., but it would be a tall order to come up with something as cohesive and aesthetic as the Epics based culture of Bharata. Instead, it is something we can export to them, along with the entire gradient of practices.

Also, I think this effect of "Hinduism" (and its very open and vague definition) is enhanced in a republican political system, as opposed to a monarchy and feudal hierarchy. Wasn't it The Buddha who when asked about which system was better - Republics or Monarchies - replied in favour of the former?

ravi_g ji had brought up this point, and its very important, IMHO.

[brihaspati]

The "surrender" theology is a good bit of rationalization. It helped to cope with situations beyond one's immediate control - or the vision, determination and clarity required to overcome teh situation was missing. Hence the alternative of "surrender" was a good option still to survive at least psychologically.

The problem with this approach, is we fail to realize that the very goal of theological or religious endeavours - carry on them the stamp of their originators. If you have people who believe women are a distraction, its their own personal disability or inability to deal normally with sex and physical interactions, that is then passed on to the general following as an ideal. Even when they are shrewd enough to realize that if everyone abstained, then no physical birth and the break of the "karma-penalty-retribution-reward-oh-so-gradual-liberation" cycle for ever [from the theoretical argument - I personally do not subscribe to the exact formulation] - they do not and cannot entirely rule out sex and the regular social biological processes. But they essentially create an atmosphere by which their own inability to accept the normality and desirability of the biological stuff even as a spiritual process, is converted into a glorification of disengagement.

If they do - there will be no one to follow. No one to work the fields and milk the cows to provide the prasaadam.

The major obstacles stem from what I choose to call the "theology of disengagement from life and living":

(1) the inability or reluctance to deal with sexuality and reproduction as natural, necessary, and esteemed action, and not as incompatible or obstructive to spiritual inquiry and progress.
(2) the inability or reluctance to deal with the question of political power, the active defense of the life and culture of a society, in a raw physical sense - and most importantly such defense as a necessary part of spiritual life.
(3) justifying inequalities, injustices, as results of divine justice, or the justified near-legalistic excuse of crimes of a past life unseen and unknowable for most - is another aspect of this disengagement policy.

This is a severe blunder, the root of the deviation that led to early Buddhism from the more robust, inquisitive, exploratory, and life-celebratory mysticism one can sense lying beneath the verses of the Vedic.

[RamaY]

X-Posting from Nukkad as I have a point to make

Since this matter keeps getting raised by some very narrow-minded Hindus in the middle of any and every kind of post, here is what I have to say:

My upbringing in family, my education, my professional circles and my social circles have been and shall remain a combination of both Indian and Western influences. I deny neither and I am glad to have the gift of both. I synthesize them into a coherent worldview which I am happy with.

This is consistent with the globalization era and with the reality of my educational (=Western) and spiritual (=Indian) experiences that are a part of me. So it’s also a pragmatic matter of accepting what is a given.

To make matters more complex for the narrow-minded persons here, I have worshipped in every major religion of the world, have dear friends in each, have read their spiritual books, and have had numerous brainstorms with theologians in each in the spirit of learning. Furthermore, I intend to continue these practices.

What this narrow mentality has produced is 800 Hindu temples in North America at a cost of about $2 billion, but lacking in intellectual content in most of them. They come across to the NRI youth as voodoo centers, doing some exotic ritual with no meaning. The pandits are ill-trained for 21st century discourse, many cannot communicate for nuts. Any sincere visitor who wants to appreciate Hinduism would be well advised to stay away from them, and instead to spend quality time with someone knowledge in discussions first. Hindu temples have failed to project Hindu culture to mainstream society.

This is a clear example of Prophetic Drishti-Srishti vaada.

Per this theory the reality exists because (some)one perceived it. Often this kind of Peracusia ends up with people declaring themselves as prophets and having revelations and so on.

What is this Drishti-Srishti vada? I explained this in other forum but it will be of interest to public readers of this forum.

http://www.vmission.org.in/vedanta/arti ... hristi.htm
Broadly speaking there are two fundamental theories about creation. They are: Srishti-Drishti Vada and the Drishti-Srishti Vada. The first, Srishti-Drishti Vada means that 'We see the creation because it exists', and the second one implies that 'The creation exists because we see it.

Vedanta says that the 'seen' has no independent existence apart from the seer. In fact the entire Srishti (creation) is created from, is sustained by and goes back into - the seer. Obviously those Rishis who have dared to propose this revolutionary and most often unimaginable theory, see the 'seer' to be very different from all what the others know it to be. They see the seer as Brahman, the infinite, timeless divinity. The Lord wishes to see something and thus the entire creation is presented by his divine creative power called Maya. This is what Sri Gaudapada has presented and in fact proved in his profound commentary on Mandukya Upanishad known today as the Gaudapada Karika. So also the Yoga Vasishta, the compendium of the teachings of Sage Vasishta to his disciple Sri Rama. Without mincing any words they clearly thunder this truth that the creation exists because you wish to see it, otherwise there is no independent creation whatsoever. The basic difficulty to see and believe this is because today we entertain a very superficial, baseless and fallacious perception about our own Self and also about the truth of the world.

If this Drishti-Srishti vada is used by seeker to understand that "that the 'seen' has no independent existence apart from the seer", then it results in Vedanta.

But there can be very dangerous implications if the seers starts believing this too much and DEMANDS that what he sees is the ultimate truth and all other seers who do not accept his version of reality are "non-believers".

There are a few prophets in human history who took this insanity to civilizational levels and the impact of it is visible everywhere for people to see. These prophets (as seers have seen the truth) had revelations, which are nothing but a summation of their prejudices, greed and Paraphilias, that are holding billions of humans from living Human lives.

I hope we do not end up creating new prophets of such kind.

[member_22872]

deleted..posting in philosophy thread.

[member_20317]

Loa ji, even SBajwa ji fell for it.

Praah ji, the example by harbans ji, was calculated to get the wrong sort of response. Women hunting has never been the issue. At least possessions of the right hand has never been spoken of by any Dharmic tradition. So why are you jumping the gun. Will not this 300 for 3 turn you into a the exact same Mallecha to your own Sikh tradition. We have a lot of such people within Hindu traditions also. But does that mean I do that too.

The issue has been if as harbans ji accuses the Dharmic traditions are capable of being hijacked. Well the facts speak of exactly the opposite. All the wrongs were committed under the watch of constitutionalists and Dharm frees up people to think for themselves. The fact is within the Dharmic strain there is a lot of freedom of practice and response. I admit past facts are not a guarantee for future performance. But what has been done by the constitutionalists that is different and suggests that whatever wrongs have been committed will not be done so again. Unfortunately for the Constitutionalists, they have choosen a model that needs constant updation of the basic guidance program itself. Normally nobody does a reprograming of the missile in flight. If it is ‘the word’ that you have choosen then ‘the word’ needs to be clarified, explained, illustrated, provisioed, judged upon, precedented, stayed, reviewed, revised etc. Unfortunately none of this can be done proactively. But if you use the framework of Dharm-Karm the focus shifts to taking care of the likely results of ones actions/inactions and everyone of these functions becomes proactive.

<sniped>

I will now present a new statement for the members to ponder over and react - "Constitution has survived to the extent it did only because of the basically Dharmic nature of the governed."


Devesh ji will try to respond by Mid day/Evening.



Added later : ok Rajesh ji complied with. But now you have to remove the offending portion of my write up from your own post.

[RajeshA]

I am actually quite surprised that some have allowed harbans ji to take them on a ride with that bait of an ugly crow.

How and when one allows the other to walk over one's honor, should remain a subject of intense deliberation but should also remain something hidden not just from one's enemies or one's comrades-in-arms or one's "people" but even from one's active conscience and from the last until the circumstances force it upon him!

Nobody should be aware when and how one may have to give in, in fact one oneself should believe that one wouldn't give in, while otherwise one would have already trained one's conscience to give in.

Remember our deliberations here are a bit more public than some discussion between a person and his conscience in a moment of distress. We are speaking here about how a Dharmic mind should behave, and considering the subject matter of this thread we must understand it goes a bit further than just our personal opinion.

The group mentality should never be conditioned on surrender or loss of honor.

Of course the application of Dharma is contextual, but it is foolish to see it as an intellectual exercise to imagine all eventualities in which the contextuality would force one's hand to compromise on one's honor and one can justify it as adherence to Dharma.

[RajeshA]

1. If Mlecchas demand 3 girls Dharmics must fight and take over 300 of theirs just for demanding.

2. If Mlecchas threaten us with Nuke War! We must have a right to strike first and even lob a small nuke over their city., just for threatening.

We must DO!! The deed has to be done!!! The slap for each of their terror action needs to at least 300 times than the terror act. i.e. if 30 are dead., we must kill the 9000 of theirs (factoring in the past missed actions).

SBajwa ji,

I concur with your sentiment. However it is usually not the Dharmic way to take it out on the women.

A more advisable method would be to go to war with the Mlecchas, kill some and then offer them peace if they are willing to offer 300 of their young men for castration giving them three days time.

[member_20317]

Devesh ji,
The 'surrender' aspect that you highlighted made the Abrahmics, aggressive and made the Indics submissive. Prima facie, it seemed contradictory and I was about to leave it. But wait let me try to do justice to it.

Kindly note that 'surrender' of ‘Sharanam/Sharanaagat’ is a western translation of a perfectly valid concept. This translation is a mischief in the same bracket as Dharmkshetra == Holy land == Place of pilgrimage. To that extent you need to realise that anything can be turned into nonsense by a misapplication of it. The misapplication can be motivated like in the case of Max Muller or Sir Edwin Arnold or it can be just plain inertia that you claim you witnessed with otherwise normal, run of the mill SD gurus. At this point, what I believe is you want to bring focus to these misled SD gurus and their shishya.

Now here is how present the same problem to you :

The Guru:
This problem exists in SD gurus. Yes. In the main because there has been an organized effort to subvert the hindu thought by cutting it off or misleading it from the original thinkers. Only a few SD gurus are actually familiar with the vast variety of enquiry systems present in the SD fold. Most are good only for one school, their own. Even these schools have practitioners trying out various things. This at once breeds alienation from the expanse of the knowledgebase and at the same time makes the guru slow and lethargic. Say for example I like to listen to Pujya Deepak Bhai Desai, but only for items which I decide need me to be calm. For things that I believe I need to be taught better on technical matters, I ask people around. For still other things which demand a cunning attitude from me well I rely on myself . I, as a consumer of the knowledgebase, would have been served better if Pujya Deepak Bhai Desai himself would/could have spoken with pramanikta on all matters of my choice. BUT Pujya Deepak Bhai Desai is meant to be dealing with a very large set of people for short periods of time. He cannot realistically be expected to know the needs of all his audience, all at once and present an absolutely pramanic answer for special need cases like mine. He can be said to have completed his job when he is able to cover the most common need of the most number of people in his satsang, with the application of at least one school of thought. Yes, to that extent it falls on the student to go and check out other means for satisfying his special needs. This covers what the guru can realistically be expected to do.

The Student:
However a misuse of 'Sharanaagati' is also a realistic proposition. But that has less to do with the Guru and more to do with the student population. Even the most basic gurus will explain Bhakti and Sharan quite adequately. But what the student retains, is not in the hands of Gurus. Remember even the guru was a student at one time. A variant of this, I did experience, in a slightly attenuated version, at workplace. Educated people, average to good work ethics, good upbringing but still nowhere near what they should have been doing in the target detection and tracking. Basically we have a huge population of people who have been made to think of the 'sensibilities' in derogation of all 'sense'. Training in advocacy and evidence is helpful to counter this. But the size of the bite has to be decided by digestive capacity. Go slow, explain things in perspective. Nobody has got to win on day one.

The MIA:
Also there is a still bigger part of the world that is not the Guru nor is it the well endowed groups. The poorer people who need to care more for their immediate needs. These can certainly not be expected to start protesting on say the Delhi rape case. This bracket also suffers daily humiliation and will never support any structure that is build around exploiting them but they are handicapped. By not just their zero training but also by their inability to put themselves in a place where they can hope to get trained. These I believe should be allowed to go about their daily business till they can prepare themselves good and then they will rejoin action. Right now they are out of action because of past events.

This was about the problem and the perspectives on the constituents.

Now lets check out something else:

1)
What if the battle-lines are elsewhere and ‘surrender’ is not the first thing to be taken care of. After all the very same inputs/ideas that allow a bunch to ‘surrender’ to manifest destiny of the Mleccha kind can be expected to ‘surrender‘ to the manifest destiny of the Dharmic kind. In such a case would you like to preach to the unprepared or would you like to consolidate and prepare the willing. See you can have a priority list that is ever changing. But you cannot have a priority list with everything at #1. The willing and the unwilling need to be treated differently.

2)
What if instead of working against ‘surrender’ you work around it. How about rhetoric and dialectics. How about stumping the errant guru with set up questions. If that was tried on you. Surely you can try that on others. Can you not highlight the contradiction between ‘surrender to god’ with ‘fear for life and limb’ which you find is the root cause of dhimification.

3)
How about just plain acceptance of the situation as it is and working upwards from there. You cannot after all expect all the people to be at the same level of understanding with a perfect distribution of information. Is it not a weakness in itself to expect the most amount of change and hide behind the frustration of not having this, most amount of change.

My take:
I believe Bhakti, Tyaag, Sharnaagati can co-exist with Karm, Veerta, Anushaasan. The fight is the fight for the middle ground. The Haji peer pass. The balance. If the fight within the individual is for balance then how can it not be the same with more individuals.

[RajeshA]

RamaY ji brought this interesting post here, and I would like to say a few words on it.

harbans ji,
I hope you indulge me.

Since this matter keeps getting raised by some very narrow-minded Hindus in the middle of any and every kind of post, here is what I have to say:

My upbringing in family, my education, my professional circles and my social circles have been and shall remain a combination of both Indian and Western influences. I deny neither and I am glad to have the gift of both. I synthesize them into a coherent worldview which I am happy with.

This is consistent with the globalization era and with the reality of my educational (=Western) and spiritual (=Indian) experiences that are a part of me. So it’s also a pragmatic matter of accepting what is a given.

To make matters more complex for the narrow-minded persons here, I have worshipped in every major religion of the world, have dear friends in each, have read their spiritual books, and have had numerous brainstorms with theologians in each in the spirit of learning. Furthermore, I intend to continue these practices.

I can understand this viewpoint and it is to be expected that in the globalization era one would see more and more people living striding multiple civilizations.

It is not just Indians living abroad, but even those living in India who are constantly faced with these pulls and counter-pulls, with questions about identity, with questions on religion.

There will be those who will feel the need to create harmony between the various civilizational contributions to their life - Indian and Western.

However this endeavor is more difficult than one is willing to acknowledge. Just because one feels at ease in both Western surroundings and Indian surroundings does not mean that both can be harmonized at an philosophical and cultural level. Perhaps it can be done if one concentrates only on the overlap of the social memes and ignores the deeper philosophical and cultural details.

In fact this has been the biggest achievement of Rajiv Malhotra - to show that we should acknowledge and respect the differences without having any difference anxiety.

But here harbans ji seems to be showing a bit too much ambition. Not only does he wish to harmonize Western and Indian civilization, so that in his personal life he can feel a higher harmony with his civilizational parts, but he wishes to undertake the exercise for whole of India by planting "context-free universalist values" into the Constitution, detaching "Dharmic values" from the culture in which they have originated and prospered.

What this narrow mentality has produced is 800 Hindu temples in North America at a cost of about $2 billion, but lacking in intellectual content in most of them. They come across to the NRI youth as voodoo centers, doing some exotic ritual with no meaning. The pandits are ill-trained for 21st century discourse, many cannot communicate for nuts. Any sincere visitor who wants to appreciate Hinduism would be well advised to stay away from them, and instead to spend quality time with someone knowledge in discussions first. Hindu temples have failed to project Hindu culture to mainstream society.

harbans ji,

1. Why do you think it is the job of Temple Pandits actually to explain to you Hindu-ism?
2. Isn't that a symptom of equating Abrahamic religions with Dharmic religions, considering Church priests (or Mullahs) as having the same job description as the Temple Pandit?
3. If the Pandits have difficulty in communication, then it is usually due to the language! But the pandit would seldom have difficulty in communicating in his Indian language? If you want to avail of temple facilities, why do you presuppose that the Pandit should make those services available in a language of YOUR choice, say English? Is English a standard Indian language?
4. If Hindu Rituals come across to you as voodoo, something exotic with no meaning, then doesn't it say more about your level of knowledge or about the level of knowledge of some youth, rather than about the ritual or the Pandit?
5. If you can find time to talk to theologians from other religious streams and consider it desirable intellectual activity, if you can feel pride in your education which prepared you for your professional life, why is it considered beneath your par to try to understand Hindu rituals? Why does one notice more disgust than curiosity? Obviously a civilization would not have created elaborate rituals devoid of any meaning. There must of course be some meaning behind it. But the "exoticness" instead of providing you a spark of curiosity seems rather to frighten you away? Why? Doesn't one sit in front of a biology book or some software book and try to understand the system, because knowledge is considered desirable? So why is the same thirst for knowledge not there with respect to Hindu rituals in your view?
6. You are making a claim that Hindu temples have failed to project Hindu culture properly to mainstream society. Are you absolutely sure that promotion belongs to the job description of the Hindu temple priests?
7. Can it be that for your lack of own interest in Hindu Samskaras, you are passing the blame to the Hindu temple priests?
8. Not saying you belong to such a category, but many deracinated well-to-do Indians in India and abroad still try to keep a modicum of identification with Indian civilization, or with some Dharmic tradition, but that is only to look "interesting" to the Goras or Muslim Elite. Often they show some taste in Indian Music and Abstract Values, but they are also prolific critics of India and "those archaic rubbish rituals"

Here is a an interesting piece written by Subhash Kak on the meaning of rituals

Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, vol 11, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla, 2004
Author: Subhash Kak

Ritual, Masks, and Sacrifice

Sacrifice and Sacred Theatre

The central idea behind the Vedic system is the notion of bandhu (bindings or connections) between the astronomical, the terrestrial, the physiological, and the spiritual. These connections are described in terms of number of characteristics, such as the 360 bones of the infant (which later fuse into the 206 bones of the adult) and the 360 days of the year. In a similar vein, the Garbha Upanisad says that the body has 180 sutures, 900 sinews. The Brhadaranyaka Upanisad takes the number of nadis to be 72,000. All these numbers are related to 360, the nominal day count of the year.

Another central Vedic number is 108. Its astronomical basis is that the sun and the moon are approximately 108 times their respective diameters away from the earth. Furthermore, the diameter of the sun is approximately 108 times the diameter of the earth. The number 108 is also taken to represent the ‘distance’ from the body of the devotee to the Isvara within. The chain of 108 ‘links’ is held together by 107 joints, which is the number of marmas, or weak spots, of the body in Ayurveda. . The Natya Sastra speaks of the 108 karanas -- combined movements of hand and feet -- of dance.

We can understand that the 108 beads of the rosary (japamala) must map the steps between the body and the inner sun. The devotee, while saying beads, is making a symbolic journey from the physical body to the heavens or getting a measure of Isvara through his own self. This explains the tradition of the 108 names of divinity. The number 108 appears in many other settings in the tradition, including temple architecture.

One can see a plausible basis behind the equivalences between the microcosm and the macrocosm. Modern research has shown that all life comes with its inner clocks. Living organisms have rhythms that are matched to the periods of the Sun or the Moon. There are quite precise biological clocks of 24-hour (according to the day), 24 hour 50 minutes (according to the lunar day since the Moon rises roughly 50 minutes later every day) or its half representing the tides, 29.5 days (the period from one new Moon to the next), and the year. Monthly rhythms, averaging 29.5 days, are reflected in the reproductive cycles of many marine plants and those of animals. The menstrual period is a synodic month and the average duration of pregnancy is nine synodic months.

It is reasonable to assume that the Vedic thinkers were aware of these connections, as were the ancient people in other cultures. The uniqueness of the Vedic vision was the extension of the bindings to the body to those in the inner landscape of the spirit.

The Vedic rites were meant to help the participant transform themselves through sacrifice. The rishis saw the universe as going through unceasing change in a cycle of birth and death, potentially free yet, paradoxically, governed by order. This order was reflected in the bandhu between the planets, the elements of the body, and the mind. At the deepest level, the whole universe was bound to, and reflected in, the individual consciousness.

Vedic ritual is a highly systematized performance of various elements that include manipulations, formulas, liturgy, exchanges, where some of these elements are varied according to the specific rite. These elements have symbolic significance. The basic pattern is that of the preparation or offering of one or more cakes or bowls of porridge.

The place of sacrifice represents the cosmos. Three fires are used, which stand for the three divisions of space. The course of the sacrifice represents the year, and all such ritual forms part of continuing annual performances. The rite culminates in the ritual rebirth of the yajamana, which signifies the regeneration of his universe. It is sacred theatre, built upon paradoxes of reality, where symbolic deaths of animals and humans, including the yajamana himself, may be enacted.

The mystery of the sacrifice, with its suspension between life and death, reality and magic, logic and mystical experience is communicated in a language which is full of riddles. For example, it is stated that Prajapati is Agni's father, but he is also Agni's son (SB 6.1.2.26); also, the gods sacrificed to the sacrifice with the sacrifice (RV 1.164.50).

The sacrifice is not the drama associated with it, but rather the transformation accruing from it. Says Kena Upanisad 2.3: “He by whom Brahman is not known, knows it; he by whom it is known, knows it not. It is not known by those who know it; it is known by those who do not know it.”

Vedic ritual is also related to the ongoing struggle between the devas and the asuras, where the devas represent the higher cognitive centers in man, and the asuras represent the lower centers that are associated with the body. Viewed as independent agents, the asuras are materialists, content with the identity of the body with their self; this is described aptly in the dialogue between Prajapati, Virocana, and Indra (CU 8.7-14). The devas need to subdue the asuras to establish order. The asuras are older because the body comes first; the devas are the younger descendents of Prajapati (BU 1.3.1).

The prototypical sacrifice is that of Vrtra, who represents the covering that separates the individual self from the inner Sun (SB 1.1.3.4). Indra, as the deity of the atmosphere, must make this sacrifice. Indra kills Vrtra by the offering of a cake (SB 5.2.3.7).

We must be cautious and not read the descriptions of ritual literally. The ritual books have enough warnings about the paradoxical aspects of the performance.

Sacrifice allows the participant to bridge the divide of the body and the spirit and be transformed. But to the outsider the performance can be viewed in asuric terms, or correctly (daivika). The asuric reading is literal; the correct one transcends simple dichotomies.

This is stressed most clearly in the Isa Upanisad. One is enjoined not to consider either the material or the abstract spiritual reading the correct reading. Ritual requires performance and that is the material or the avidya part of it, but that, in turn, becomes the ground for the transcendent meaning: “He who knows at the same time both the spirit (sambhuti) and the destruction (vinasa), overcomes death by destruction and obtains immortality through the spirit.” (IU 14)

Unfortunately, to a beginner trying to understand the Vedic system, the asuric position appears most natural. This is responsible for much misunderstanding of Vedic rites and their meaning in the West.

Added Later:
harbans ji,

Sorry, I thought you had written the above! It is however from an article from Rajiv Malhotra in Sulekha.

Rajiv Malhotra clarifies that he doesn't mean ordinary temple priests

Many swamis told me point blank that they are disinterested in teaching about the sociopolitical realm as they find it irrelevant or even un-Hindu-like.

[JE Menon]

An illuminating thread. My feeling is that everything else - Abrahamic, Sinic, Islamic, whatever - flows out of the Dharmic. These are just strands, thick ones, but still that's what they are. Some of these chaps got hung up on the "all is one" metaphor and have taken it a bit too far to "one is all". Look at the humongous number of sects, breakaways, and outright new creations under the so-called monotheistic faiths, and it is clear enough that any "mono" notion is nonsense, leave aside the "theist" part. These have nothing to "contribute" to the concept of Dharma, basically because the way I see it at least there is no definition to Dharma. We just describe its attributes differently.

In that sense, I entirely agree with Harbans original post that what we put into the constitution should be free of specific named identity and should focus on maximum inclusivity. It appears that is what to a great extent we have already done.

[RajeshA]

In that sense, I entirely agree with Harbans original post that what we put into the constitution should be free of specific named identity and should focus on maximum inclusivity. It appears that is what to a great extent we have already done.

However what is it that we put into the Constitution? Do we have any suggestions?

Some Dharmic Lakshanas for a Dharmic person are hardly the stuff which should form the responsibilities of the state or the contract between state and citizen! In case of state, many are meaningless.

What is definitely useful are prescriptions from Arthashastra. But there "Truth" may not find the same importance as some here would like to see!

[RajeshA]

Bharat & Religious Freedom

Religious Freedom is a right given to all Indian citizens. Some Indian officials have however lately claimed that Hindus do not form a religion even and as such cannot avail of some rights.

In fact, religion remains undefined, not just in India but in many Western constitutions as well. Some groups are given the status of religion, some are called sects, and some are unofficially referred to as cults.

What in India we accept is that Islam and Christianity definitely constitute religions. With Hinduism one seems to be unsure.

So shouldn't we discuss what is a religion and what kind of freedom one can allow a citizen or a "religious" group?

1. Which religious characteristics should be considered acceptable for an individual,
2. which religious characteristics are allowed for citizens acting together in society bound by a common religion, and
3. which religious characteristics, which are considered today part of religion, should be isolated and considered a state responsibility?

[JE Menon]

Here is a link to the Constitution of India. Articles 1 to 32 or so are directly applicable in some way to this discussion...

http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-eng ... nglish.htm

It is a very well considered document, and we already have put in a lot of values that are inclusive. What could be included that would make it more Dharmic?

[RamaY]

.
In that sense, I entirely agree with Harbans original post that what we put into the constitution should be free of specific named identity and should focus on maximum inclusivity. It appears that is what to a great extent we have already done.

JEM garu,

I have mentioned this in my first response many moons ago. But the poster is not satisfied with that. The posters proposition is not to come up with a modern dharma sastra a.k.a constipation of India which we already have enough.

The proposition was to force Hindus forego their identity that goes beyond dharma-sastra into the realms of spirituality, cultural identity, ritualistic life style and so on so as to appease (in the name of attract) other dharmics following Abrahamic religions. Anyone opposing this nonsense is a narrow-minded Hindu. This is nothing but religious WKKism in the guise of modernity,

It is a nonsensical proposition at best as we already have seen how many abrahamics care for constipation of India or any other national constipation around the world.

Now I understand why Vedas should not be available in English translations for everyone to read in their iPads and copy/paste them out of context. Often language itself is the problem, for example one can never explain how happy one is no matter how much poetry one writes as it is a feeling. The philosophy and spirituality encoded in Vedas is so high that one needs a sat-guru who teaches them in traditional manner to understand and benefit from that knowledge base. What is the point of reading of Vedas if it results in Srishti-Drishti vada or Prophetic Drishti-Srishti vada?

[RajeshA]

Constitution of India

Here is a link to the Constitution of India. Articles 1 to 32 or so are directly applicable in some way to this discussion...

http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-eng ... nglish.htm

It is a very well considered document, and we already have put in a lot of values that are inclusive. What could be included that would make it more Dharmic?

Thank you saar.

From the above:

Right to Freedom of Religion

25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.—

1. Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
2. Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law—
   
   1. regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
   2. providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.

26. Freedom to manage religious affairs.—
Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right—

1. to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable
   purposes;
2. to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
3. to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
4. to administer such property in accordance with law.

27. Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion.—
No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.

28. Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions.—

1. No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds.
2. Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution.
3. No person attending any educational institution recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted in such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person or, if such person is a minor, his guardian has given his consent thereto.

Cultural and Educational Rights

29. Protection of interests of minorities.—

1. Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.
2. No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.

30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.—

1. All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
2. 1A. In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.
3. 2. The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

[RajeshA]

Even though many already know this, but still saying it out loud, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are legally Hindus. The Constitution says so. So there should be no problem in referring to them as Hindus as well.

[harbans]

JEM garu,

I have mentioned this in my first response many moons ago. But the poster is not satisfied with that. The posters proposition is not to come up with a modern dharma sastra a.k.a constipation of India which we already have enough.

The proposition was to force Hindus forego their identity that goes beyond dharma-sastra into the realms of spirituality, cultural identity, ritualistic life style and so on so as to appease (in the name of attract) other dharmics following Abrahamic religions. Anyone opposing this nonsense is a narrow-minded Hindu. This is nothing but religious WKKism in the guise of modernity,

I know it's a nice honorable thing to preserve a temple by offering a a few girls on demand (particularly if the girls population is high)...it's also a cute dharmic thing to lie through ones teeth..at least for some 'Dharmcis' throwing universal consciousness, Brahman, Veda's, dhristi shristi and assorted terms in whatsoever context or no context..the only qualities lakshyas in display though are untruthfulness, vengeance, hatefulness, slyness. All Dharmic qualities obviously. Now is that not a good posterboy for Hindutva?

[member_20317]

Most of what is there in the constitution is very acceptable. A few points are fossilized remains of Gulam Zeheniyat debated heavily which are well known, talked over on this forum too. These parts are very very harmful in any run and that is why the long debate.

Also most of the Constitution has remained unchanged from its inception and was drafted by a team which was reasonably aware of Dharmic memes. They actually did a rather good job considering the limitations.

A lot of this discussion was actually avoidable had people read it and understood its practice before voicing their concerns. The so named constitutionalists are not even constitutionalists actually. They just think they are. So I went along with the flow.

Personally I have a view that the Constitution has some of the following additional limitations and these can only be addressed by the Dharm-Karm framework being used at ground level:

1) virtually zero relevance at how one person should behave with other. In any case on this point most of the modernists will be satisfied if their life and limb are saved. It is the rest of the crowd that needs it. A kind of directive principle of personal policy would have helped.

2) strong limitations on how the individual should understand the layered existence of themselves and of people/institutions around. This too is required only in principle in the constitution for the general guidance of Judiciary. The practice of a layered existence cannot be upheld for any length of time without the involvement of people and that is where the focus should be.

3) Over the years Constitution has been used as a religious book itself. That is the pain point. This ‘cannot change the basic structure of the constitution’ is dangerous business. Weak people come to it thinking it will protect the varied minorities that constitute Hinduism. And while it actually fails to do that it also lays down a trap for the future Dharmics when the Abrahmics become majority on this land.

The basic solutions in these regard remain executable at the level of society only and no amount of law giving will solve a problem that is drivers for which are below the constitutional radar. The smarter foreigners know this that is why they keep prodding the general population, using various agencies. This way they hope to drive the general population around a khunta/peg so their shenanigans go unnoticed and one fine day they will come up with the highly contorted version of the constitution the basic structure of which cannot be changed.

Baaki kuch yaad ayega to likhunga. Thanks.

[harbans]

26. Freedom to manage religious affairs.—
Subject to public order,

One need not look further to see why the GoI bans things at the first snarl or whiff of controversy. Threat to public order will always emanate from the more violent. Thus the more sensitive and violent ideology will always have the first priority under the constitutional norm.

While the law/ intention would have possibly meant stopping impeding traffic, crating nuisance in the garb of religious function. The very fact that freedom is subject to public order implies that the freedom itself is at the behest of violent groups that may create mayhem. From a ToI blog today:

So many incidents have taken place of late which have done nothing but bring disrepute to various religions. As if the issuance of the fatwa by the Grand Mufti of J&K against a girl band was not bad enough, today’s story in the TOI of an Iranian girl band performing freely in that country and worldwide made India look medieval in comparison. And almost as if they didn’t want to be left behind, ultra fanatical Hindu group Durga Vahini – a part of the BJP family – demanded and succeeded in getting 3 “offensive” Hindu paintings removed from an exhibition in Bangalore. Both these incidents, as so many others in the recent past – have tarnished the reputation of Islam and Hinduism. The bigots who lead such groups need to be lynched in public.

Jaya and others who banned Vishwaroopam are not wrong. They are acting just like the Constitution intends them to behave. The India today is the logical conclusion of it's constitution.

[JE Menon]

>>Even though many already know this, but still saying it out loud, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are legally Hindus.
The Constitution says so.

Maybe not exactly. These are referred to as separate religions. Just that within the constitution when Hindus are referred to, the other Indian religions are also included. In that sense, it might be more accurate to say the term Hindu and Indian appear interchangeable rather than that Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are legally Hindus in a religious sense.

>>So there should be no problem in referring to them as Hindus as well.

Depends on them I would think. If they don't want to be referred to as Hindus, then why would Hindus want to force it on them?

[RamaY]

There are two different propositions here by the self-declared Dharmics. Let us examine them.

1. Bring out all Dharmics into a single fold outside current, known religious identities.

The assumptions behind this proposition -
1. All religions are equal.
2. They all are dogmatic and do not add any spiritual or intellectual value to the follower
3. There is so much enmity between them that it is not possible to bring the followers of one religion to another religion (it is a different matter this assumption breaks assumptions 1 and 2).

Let us test this hypothesis using Bharat as a use-case. Let us assume there exists 90% Dharmics and 10% Adharmics in every religion. For clarity sake the 10% of Adharmics are the ones who said/say they cannot co-exist with non-Muslims, the 10% of Christian Adharmics are Britishers and 10% Hindu Adharmics are Veda-rutting Brahmins.

The 10% Muslim Adharmic demanded a separate nation and took half of Bharat away for them. Gone are >50% Dharmic Muslims with them for being muslims or living in those areas. We know how the internal Muslims interactions are going in Pakistan and Bangladesh. We are yet to see the muslim Dharmics raise their voice against Adharmics of their own faith. This leaves all Muslims of India in Dharmic fold.

The 10% Christian Adharmics left Bharat in 1947. That leaves the Dharmic Christians in India. We have been seeing how Dharmic they have been in their proselytization exercises. It is also important how steadfast they have been in following the super-duper Dharmic Constipation of India, especially when it fails to protect their Christian interests.

The 10% Hindu Adharmics live amongst us. The constipation of India did its best to weed out these Hindu Adharmics by secularizing the Civil Law, Criminal Law, Education System, Governance System and even ensuring that these Adharmics are given little rastra space by ensuring maximum reservations to Dharmic Hindus. Yet, these Hindu Adharmics find new ways to suppress Dharmics and their current avatar is NBPJRE (Neta-Babu-Police-Judge-Real Estate) community. Unfortunately all these Hindu Adharmics hide behind the very constipation of India. All power to Dharmic Hindus to destroy this NBPJRE nexus.

As we all know there exists some Christian-Muslim support to this Hindu Adharmic groups. Since we already demonstrated that all Adharmic Christians and Muslims left India and all Muslim and Christian Indians are 24ct Dharmics, then what is making them to support the Hindu Adharmic nexus?

Religious interests anyone?

So even for a Dharmic, the pull of religion is much greater than Dharma. Why So? Is it because it is the religion that defines the prize the Dharmic gets for following all that Dharma. And Dharma alone (like in Atheism) doesn't add any value to human existence in Dharmic fold?

Next: Bharatiya experiments with various Dharmas...

[RamaY]

>>Even though many already know this, but still saying it out loud, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are legally Hindus.
The Constitution says so.

Maybe not exactly. These are referred to as separate religions. Just that within the constitution when Hindus are referred to, the other Indian religions are also included. In that sense, it might be more accurate to say the term Hindu and Indian appear interchangeable rather than that Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are legally Hindus in a religious sense.

>>So there should be no problem in referring to them as Hindus as well.

Depends on them I would think. If they don't want to be referred to as Hindus, then why would Hindus want to force it on them?

It is because there is no Hinduism that is separate from Bharat and there is no Bharat outside Hindus.

[RajeshA]

ravi_g ji,

The Constitution fails to address what belongs in the purview of "religion". Does Jihad belong to it as well? After all it is considered a religious duty of the Muslims? Does Shariah belong to "freedom of religion"? Does "death for apostates" belong to "freedom of religion"? Does spreading hate propaganda against polytheism, idolatry and vegetarianism constitute "freedom of religion"? Is killing or cutting off of hands in the name of blasphemy constitute "freedom of religion"? Does expanding demographically to an extent that one can usurp the Constitution belong in the field of "freedom of religion"? Does passing fatwas on singing girl bands constitute "freedom of religion"?

Religious Freedom should be applicable for the citizen only to the profession and practice of personal "Moksha Marg". Everything else should be overseen according to Dharmic principles, and Bharat's security and civilizational interests.

[harbans]

harbans ji,

Why do you think it is the job of Temple Pandits actually to explain to you Hindu-ism?

Isn't that a symptom of equating Abrahamic religions with Dharmic religions, considering Church priests (or Mullahs) as having the same job description as the Temple Pandit?

If the Pandits have difficulty in communication, then it is usually due to the language! But the pandit would seldom have difficulty in communicating in his Indian language? If you want to avail of temple facilities, why do you presuppose that the Pandit should make those services available in a language of YOUR choice, say English? Is English a standard Indian language?

If Hindu Rituals come across to you as voodoo, something exotic with no meaning, then doesn't it say more about your level of knowledge or about the level of knowledge of some youth, rather than about the ritual or the Pandit?

If you can find time to talk to theologians from other religious streams and consider it desirable intellectual activity, if you can feel pride in your education which prepared you for your professional life, why is it considered beneath your par to try to understand Hindu rituals? Why does one notice more disgust than curiosity? Obviously a civilization would not have created elaborate rituals devoid of any meaning. There must of course be some meaning behind it. But the "exoticness" instead of providing you a spark of curiosity seems rather to frighten you away? Why? Doesn't one sit in front of a biology book or some software book and try to understand the system, because knowledge is considered desirable? So why is the same thirst for knowledge not there with respect to Hindu rituals in your view?

You are making a claim that Hindu temples have failed to project Hindu culture properly to mainstream society. Are you absolutely sure that promotion belongs to the job description of the Hindu temple priests?

Can it be that for your lack of own interest in Hindu Samskaras, you are passing the blame to the Hindu temple priests?

Not saying you belong to such a category, but many deracinated well-to-do Indians in India and abroad still try to keep a modicum of identification with Indian civilization, or with some Dharmic tradition, but that is only to look "interesting" to the Goras or Muslim Elite. Often they show some taste in Indian Music and Abstract Values, but they are also prolific critics of India and "those archaic rubbish rituals"

Apologies Rajesh ji, you should ask Rajiv Malhotra those questions. Ref Nukkad.

[RajeshA]

In my opinion there is some confusion, and it may lie even with me.

But I don't equate Bharat and Dharma.

Bharatiya Sabhyata (Indian Civilization) is where Dharma was revealed to man or discovered by man or invented by man depending on how one's PoV.

Bharatiya Sabhyata is the final arbiter of what is Dharma. I say so for otherwise the mischievous would either try to pick it to pieces and digest, or would mischaracterize and misrepresent it. And so Bharatiya Sabhyata must remain the final authority on Dharma.

However having once been gifted to man, Dharma belongs to whole mankind and thus itself makes a claim of Universalism.

But Bharatiya Sabhyata has brought forth many other Pan-Bharatiya Systems as well which may be considered by some as part of Dharma or apart from it depending on one's PoV. These are systems like Sanskrit, Unified Mythology for the people of Bharat, Preservation of various Sub-Sanskritis of Bharat. Bharat gave the world sciences like Astronomy, Mathematics and contributed to a host of other sciences from Medicine, to Botany, to Metallurgy, to Agriculture, to Domestication of Animals, to Cuisine to Textile Production, and through our sense of Aesthetics, Jewelry, Fabrics, Architecture, Music, Dance and Art we have enriched the world.

Whereas we will always claim our right to our own Sabhyata based on Sanskriti, we should not give up on Sanskrit providing the practical basis for promoting not only fraternity in India but a sound system for progress as a nation.

A common language is a must for India, and that can only be Sanskrit.

[SBajwa]

by RajeshA
SBajwa ji,

I concur with your sentiment. However it is usually not the Dharmic way to take it out on the women.

Dharmics don't Rape and kill the women and children. Here is an example of how Dharmic take out the Mlecche Women

---- Bibi Kaulan

Qazi Rustam Khan had bought her from her parents while she was a child. The Qazi gave her the education of Islam and sent her to Saint Mian Mir for higher schooling.

Saint Mian Mir was sufi saint. He had no prejudice against any religion. He had a very deep love with Guru Nanak's Institution. It was usual for him to go to Amritsar to meet the Guru. Whenever the Guru visited Lahore, he never went back without seeing Saint Mian Mir. Due to these meetings, Saint Mian Mir knew a large number of Guru's verses by heart which he used to quote to his disciples. Bibi Kaulan also remembered some of the verses by heart which she used to recite by herself for her pleasure. Her attachment to the Guru's institution increased further when she saw the Guru and the Sikhs came from Amritsar to Lahore at the time of the plague epidemic and nursed the patients with their own hands.

One day, Qazi Rustam Khan heard Bibi Kaulan reciting Guru Nanak's verses at home. He rebuked her and said "Do not recite these verses of the infidels in future." Bibi Kaulan Said, "Dear father! Saint Mian Mir bows in all humility to the man you call an infidel and thinks it a privelege to seat him by his side. It is unbecoming to call the man an infidel whome the saint hold in such esteem." The qazi gave a sound thrashing to Bibi Kaulan on hearing the praise of the Gurus from her and said, "I do not want that you recite the verses of these infidels even unintentionally." Between her sobs Bibi Kaulan said, "You may beat me to death but I cannot live without reciting these verses."

Qazi Rustam Khan went and asked other Qazis, "Kaulan persists with reciting the verses of the infidels inspite of my beating. What remedy shoul be adopted? They said, "It is a great sin for the Momins (believers of Islam) to praise the infidels and recite their word. Kaulan should be beheaded for this sin." When Saint Mian Mir heard about the decree of beheading of Bibi Kaulan, he sent her to the Guru's institution at Amritsar through Abdul Yaar Shah where the homeless were protected. Guru Hargobind made arrangement for separate accommodation for Bibi Kaulan. She had no fear at Amritsar of being killed by the order of the Qazis. To immortalize the memory of Bibi Kaulan's resolve to remain firm on her words, the Guru constructed a pool named Kaulsar in 1627 A.D. Bibi Kaulan died at Kartarpur in 1630 A.D.

[SBajwa]

Then there are countless examples of Dharmics saving the persecuted women (of all faiths) and showing them the way of the Dharm.

The Sikh General Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia in 1760s (during Abdali's invasion) was even renamed as "Bandi Chhor" i.e. "Stealers of the Slaves" or "Liberator of the Slaves" when he and his band use to raid Abdali's caravan to rescue the women being sent to the bazaars of Arabia, Baghdad and Turkey. Just in one raid he rescued 2200 women.

But Dharmics do something!! i.e. action!! they don't sit around blaming everything on Maya and their "Qismat"

[RamaY]

In my opinion there is some confusion, and it may lie even with me.

KRINVANTO VISHWAM DHARMAM = KRINVANTO VISHWAM ARYAM = KRINVANTO VISHWAM BHARATAM

[RajeshA]

RamaY ji,

it is about Sets and Subsets. It is about Generalizations and Specializations.

[RajeshA]

SBajwa ji,

I fully agree. All Pakeezahs need to be liberated.

[RamaY]

RamaY ji,

it is about Sets and Subsets. It is about Generalizations and Specializations.

I put my correct location. Hopefully that removes the confusion RajeshA garu... Off late you seem to have searching for a house in our street

You know it is difficult for secularists to get a apartment/rental-house in Narrow-mind streets. Check with Shabana Azmi for references.

[member_20317]

ravi_g ji,

The Constitution fails to address what belongs in the purview of "religion". Does Jihad belong to it as well? After all it is considered a religious duty of the Muslims? Does Shariah belong to "freedom of religion"? Does "death for apostates" belong to "freedom of religion"? Does spreading hate propaganda against polytheism, idolatry and vegetarianism constitute "freedom of religion"? Is killing or cutting off of hands in the name of blasphemy constitute "freedom of religion"? Does expanding demographically to an extent that one can usurp the Constitution belong in the field of "freedom of religion"? Does passing fatwas on singing girl bands constitute "freedom of religion"?

Religious Freedom should be applicable for the citizen only to the profession and practice of personal "Moksha Marg". Everything else should be overseen according to Dharmic principles, and Bharat's security and civilizational interests.

Yes RajeshA ji, these are the well known aspects. The three I added are aspects that have not been touched upon by people in open source. These have implications on equally important issues but with a some what oblique trajectory (Vakri aspect) much more then what you are right now concerned about. The time for these things will also come too.