The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby harbans » 04 Feb 2013 04:11

Rajesh ji enrage is not a hard word. Those enraged only would indulge in name calling and worse. I know how biased the agenda driven can be. But that is ok. Discuss your Bharatiya to hearts content. Your mind is already made up. You are not here to discuss, however you lace it.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby harbans » 04 Feb 2013 04:13

Here again I believe you misunderstand. devesh ji's position, as far as I have understood it, is that one doesn't give in to Mlecchas demands or their blackmails, because it destroys a very important commodity of a community - psychological purity and honor. One could call it moral integrity. It has a very perceptible effect on the community as it becomes prone to further blackmail and the community's members lose their trust in their leadership and in themselves.

So what we are talking about here is the health of a community.

His stance differs from yours, as I see it, that he is advocating making a stand not for the sake of some universalist values but for the health of the community, which differs from your stand.


Ok dokie. You are right man. Your understanding is way above..apologies to have stepped in here. Go ahead..

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 04 Feb 2013 04:16

harbans wrote:Rajesh ji enrage is not a hard word. Those enraged only would indulge in name calling and worse. I know how biased the agenda driven can be. But that is ok.

Again you are thinking that being agenda-driven is some vice. You too have an agenda and I find it good that you are pursuing it. I find it less good that while discussing you take it as a personal affront if somebody disagrees. Considering that you have skipped all the content of my counter-arguments, but like to dwell on meta-discussions, I would say you would have to improve your arguments for a better reception of your otherwise well-meaning and noble agenda.

harbans wrote:Discuss your Bharatiya to hearts content.


I wasn't aware that beside "Hindu", "Hindutva", now "Bharatiya" too is ripe for sarcastic mocking!

harbans wrote:Your mind is already made up. You are not here to discuss, however you lace it.


Of course my mind is made up! That doesn't mean I haven't discussed with you sincerely. :) In fact a new thread was created for the purpose. I have gone into almost each and every argument of yours in considerable detail, including into the somewhat "childish" hypotheticals -

  1. Case 0: upholding "Bharatiya" cultural trait of demeaning women vs. (universalist) value-inspired standing up for them.

  2. Case 1: give 3 girls to Mlecchas to save (Hindu) temples, idols vs. (universalist) value-inspired fight for 3 girls' honor

  3. Case 2: suppressing "irrevocable proof" in favor of AIT vs. (universalist) value-inspired upholding of Truth

You don't see why people would come to the view that your examples are laced with anti-Hindu prejudice?

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 04 Feb 2013 05:07

Cross-Posting from a post by RajeshA from the "Indian Interests" Thread

Context-free use of values always always leads people to think how they can use the slogan only to their advantage. For example, the West has imposed on itself so many "liberal" minded ideals for their internal societies, that everything is going downhill - the Islamics are using every loophole to suck Western societies dry - social benefits; rape of 13 year olds and then claiming ignorance due to Madrassa study; free homes, making 10s of children and getting paid for it by the state, job protection due to discrimination claims, and so on.

Context-free values have also been used by the Americans, e.g. for invading foreign countries - all in the name of freedom.

The idea should be to make India deeply Bharat.

  1. Make Sanskrit the official single language at the Center. Do away with English as the primary medium for administration, education, business and even science.

  2. Give maximum support to all innovations in areas of art, culture, philosophy, literature, science and technology which have taken place in historical Bharat, and strengthening of unity and identity of the country based on that.

  3. Give intensive education to children in an Indo-centric history (i.e. non-AIT) which emphasizes the 26,000 years of Indian Civilization and its innovations.

  4. Make knowledge of Sanskrit, Bharatiya history and Bharatiya culture mandatory for all government jobs.

  5. Expand the above with manifold effort among the Muslims and Christians of India.

  6. Physically remove the hard core Islamist constituency in India.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby devesh » 04 Feb 2013 05:25

Although I am as yet neutral on the idea of embedding specific values into the "Constitution", I think one aspect which has already been raised, which is pertinent to this thread, should be discussed in greater depth:

if you assemble a random sample of 100 people in say, some part of Andhra, and ask them the question of Harbans ji's Case 1, what would their answers be?

would they choose the path of Shivaji?

I think one of the pitfalls of the Bhakti Marga will be apparent, if this aspect is explored further.

by elevating "surrender to the One Supreme" as the ultimate motive, the Bhakti Marga has actually perpetuated the worst kind of deracination on the Indian mind.

I am personally very afraid of finding out the answers from the random sample of 100.

I think if I ever go through with it and conduct that survey, I will be terribly disappointed.

It is also one of the reasons why I have developed an aversion for the extreme Dvaita-insisting streams within the Hindu. When I say Dvaita, I mean all 3, Shaiva, Vaishnava, Shakta streams. the "surrender to the Lord" has been elevated above all others.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby member_20317 » 04 Feb 2013 10:45

harbans ji, for all your western ideation, you have still not communicated what exactly it is that you have against 'Context'. Are you afraid of the responsibilities that come with it. The cocoon of constitution is not comfortable. Is it? Does not still guarantee factory manufactured outcomes!

or

Is it that you would rather a hindu loose his right, to look out for his own interests, because he did not protest to a hijacking called modernity/values/fraternity/secularism/WT_. Now the hindu has to accept the hijacking as some ehsaan. Is that it.

Well to pour more water. Your constitution also claims a right to decide on 'equity'. Would you like to enlighten us what that equity is and where was it when, whatever happened, did happen?

harbans ji, I would suggest you tag team with other renaissance wala floatsam, otherwise I am afraid you will loose your cool before you have made your point. The point is valuable, even if I do not subscribe to it and want to kill it with what I think it deserves. I am but one man the readers should have the benefit of your valuable judgement.

BTW my dharmic agenda driven sense, besides allowing me to sacrifice the 3 girls allows me to:
1) sacrifice a few more hindus, &/or
2) sacrifice the temples, &/or
3) the 1000 men army that you so assidiously put up to save the 3 girls, and/or
4) to save everything by properly handling the cabal that is likely to bring the people to such a position, even before this kind of dharm-sankat has arisen.

What do you think is the answer by your 'values'?

Why would you sacrifice the 1000 men army and the village for 3 girls? Once the army is gone and the 3 girls saved what do you think will happen to those 3 girls?

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby member_20317 » 04 Feb 2013 12:13

Devesh ji, the Advaita - Dvaita contradictions are at a daarshnic level only and that too in a very narrow area of 'Purush-Prakriti' interface. Both are mostly the same in terms of God/Pramatma. In this Dvaita as it is mostly today is Vishishtadvaita. Carl ji is better equiped to handle this well. But at the temporal level there is hardly any practical difference. The differenes are something like the genetic variations in Indic populations. More nearer than farther.

Basically there is nothing that cannot be misused. But that does not stop anybody from making new tools for new requirements. At times there is a need for new tools for old requirements. As much as there may be old tools sharpened for new requirements too.

A lot of you guys went ahead and tried to define what the most likely answer would be in a Dharmic context. I pointed out the range of options available as against the silly yes-no answer that was expected. And somehow this my way or highway style of interogation is not an agenda. It is almost worth a laugh. I intend to take this query to my work mates and report on what comes up. Not in AP, alas but should be a reasonable indicator of how the people see it all.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5242
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby ShauryaT » 04 Feb 2013 17:34

Harbans ji: FWIW. I support your basic contention but do not have the time or inclination to elaborate now. Dharma and its values are universal. They were indeed "coded" in rule books of yore in spades. In fact, I would go to the extent of stating the fundamental reason for India to exist as a nation is to drive this universal dharmic message. Encoding of these Dharmic values can and should be done without reference to a particular stream of belief - Aastik or Nastik. Universality is the context of these value systems and there should not be any issues in codifying SwaDharma based on the 10 lakshanas as its anchor, Varna Dharma - if our current society is ever able to take this age old system of orders and put it to good use for today's world (in here, I believe lies the secret to a fundamental reorganization and stepping away from the deracinated notions of the west), Ashrama Dharma with the puruSharthas as its anchor and Brahman Dharma which defines the highest universal orders for men.

What you are seeing in the opposition here is the age old Indian issue of not being able to provide ideological cohesion to the Dharmic framework - for the times we live in coupled with sectarian like allegiances to sampradayas. The kings of yore, Jaina, Buddhist or Hindu had NO qualms to provide for its peoples such a Dharmic set of rules for their times.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 04 Feb 2013 18:42

ShauryaT wrote:What you are seeing in the opposition here is the age old Indian issue of not being able to provide ideological cohesion to the Dharmic framework - for the times we live in coupled with sectarian like allegiances to sampradayas. The kings of yore, Jaina, Buddhist or Hindu had NO qualms to provide for its peoples such a Dharmic set of rules for their times.

Isn't there already such cohesion for the "Dharmic Framework" in the form of "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", "Geneva Conventions", Animal Rights Movements, etc?

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby devesh » 04 Feb 2013 21:14

Ravi_g ji,

when you do the survey, don't indicate which answer you are looking for. just try to ask without hinting at the "right" answer or even discussing the topic. I am looking forward to what you find out. When you feel confident you have a large enough sample, please do tell us what you find. I am eager to know.

the Advaita-Dvaita conundrum might be a "philosophical" one, but the effect of the intense Dvaita focus on "surrender" are very real. I don't know how much the Advaitins stress the "surrender" aspect, but the Dvaita dualists have elevated it beyond all others. I think there is a direct correlation between "surrender-ism" in religion and the same concept seeping into real life circumstances in politics and Dharmaarthik situations. the problem is that "surrender" theology has made Hinduism for Hindus the same as Islam for Muslims. In many cases you can't even point out the difference between SD and Abrahamic religions b/c Hinduism has essentially become a copy of those religions. we have a 100 gods instead of 1, but the "surrender" above all others has eaten away the core while inflicting the deracination that we are a more diverse Abrhamism, and that is the only difference between us and them.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby svinayak » 04 Feb 2013 23:01

devesh wrote: the Advaita-Dvaita conundrum might be a "philosophical" one, but the effect of the intense Dvaita focus on "surrender" are very real. I don't know how much the Advaitins stress the "surrender" aspect, but the Dvaita dualists have elevated it beyond all others. I think there is a direct correlation between "surrender-ism" in religion and the same concept seeping into real life circumstances in politics and Dharmaarthik situations. the problem is that "surrender" theology has made Hinduism for Hindus the same as Islam for Muslims. In many cases you can't even point out the difference between SD and Abrahamic religions b/c Hinduism has essentially become a copy of those religions. we have a 100 gods instead of 1, but the "surrender" above all others has eaten away the core while inflicting the deracination that we are a more diverse Abrhamism, and that is the only difference between us and them.

Dvaitha sees the world as a maya and the world as dual. To surrender is to surrender to the paramathma so that you can keep the maya world away from youself to attain.

Guru - Dattatrya and other lineages are important so that the maya world does not seep into the persons life.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby devesh » 05 Feb 2013 01:24

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".

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 05 Feb 2013 02:42

devesh wrote: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".

devesh ji, none of the above is characteristic of the so-called "Dvaita" tradition of Madhva. It is more true of the Advaita and Vishishtadvaita traditions of Acharyas Shankara and Ramanuja.

Madhva's Tattva-vada ("Dvaita") did not consider the world as "maya" in the sense of being unreal in the ultimate sense. Rather, it is considered as a magical creative power of the Supreme Being, which we must use vigorously to learn the laws and principles of Life and Existence.

Nor did Madhva seem to consider women to be lesser than men. He entrusted his precious library of rare Indic manuscripts to a woman - a telling way for a young sannyasin like himself to respond to her devotions.

Nor did Madhva have any queasiness about the use of violence to deal with rascals. Once, the nearby Advaitist authorities decided to finish him off by destroying his library. So they stole that rare Indic heritage and started to burn it. When Madhva found out he rushed to their premises, summoned the king there, and had the miscreants arrested. They were protesting innocence, and Madhva told them, "From people who consider the world itself as "mithya" (false), what truth can be expected?" On an inquiry from the king, Madhva sanctioned the use of torture to make them divulge the location of the remaining manuscripts, as well as punishment for the damage they had done. Needless to say, the rascals responded under torture.

Madhva had a very positive attitude to the world, and to scientific investigation. Why should the human mind tend towards supernatural theories or theologies of "karma" when perfectly scientific explanations were possible for different things that happened? He extended this to even the use of mantras and tantra - explaining that they were merely using certain laws of the universe, and that anyone who could understand these laws could use them. He was against all forms of "mysticism" and "supernatural" displays. He also decisively showed that "karma" and "reincarnation" did NOT explain problems of theodicy.

Madhva was an avid sportsman, and loved physical exercise. He was a particularly good swimmer and wrestler, and a rock-climber. He kicked the ar$e of a prominent local wrestler during one challenge. In popular depictions of the 3 great acharyas, you will find that Madhva is the one with the broad chest and biceps, and the confident (almost cocky) smile on his face along with two fingers raised in defiance of the "all is one" BS of popular Hinduism. This is distinctively different from the iconic hynotic raccoon-eyed yogi photu of Adi Shankara, or the humble, sweet surrendered devotee attitude of Shriman Ramanuja.

However, I think Madhva's philosophy had been misunderstood, and sometimes perverted - both by others as well as his own followers. Also, in the dasakuta bhakti tradition that was spawned from his Brahma-sampradaya, a lot of Shankarite and Ramanujite memes crept in so that they also have a similar attitude about "maya", "surrender", "women and wealth", etc. Moreover, the vyasakuta establishment of ashta-mathas that is the holder of Madhva's legacy is also pretty intensely casteist, based on some of the acharya's own words. It does have its problems, and this is just one of them.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RamaY » 05 Feb 2013 02:58

devesh wrote: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".

:rotfl: :rotfl:

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby brihaspati » 05 Feb 2013 03:12

Carl ji,
can we not do without the adjectives about representations of "acharyas"?

In general: one of the problems I find rather annoying with "ourselves" is the obsession with finding out differences from "within" to the hyperfine degree, while being unable to clearly distance ourselves from the really "distant" ones.

It helps to try first to characterize, what we are not - and what we do not want to be. This might be easier to do than go the constructive route. The different sampradyas, and acharya-followers will find a lot of things in common they do not agree to [in common] and they do not want to be either. People should attain the philosophical and tactical maturity to understand the difference between "internal and intra-group" differences and differences with the "external and intergroup". There can be internal family rivalries, but it should never be allowed to jeopardize the survival and interests of the family-group as a whole vis-a-vis an external entity.

I would have put the matha-dakshyas and acharyas locked up in a hall, until they come out in agreement to provide a common front. If they don't agree to such conclaves and common fronts, it is safe to assume that they are "compromised" by state and transnational forces. In that case think without them. We define what should be appropriate as our characterization. Nothing is sacrosanct, and nothing is trashable either. We will take from our traditions, texts, experiences, narratives, what is relevant and apt for our expansion - now, but we will neither be bound by those we do not use now, nor shall we reject and erase/trash those that we do not currently use. They might become apt, useful, iconic, memetic, inspirational for another future period.

Hopefully this can provide a common ground between the different shades of fights I see reflected in the discussion.

I don't see why I cannot sing and dance "Hari haraye namah..." while having no particular ability or fondness to imagine a deity form, or even unconditionally believe dual/monic/inchoate/pan-universal consciousness. The practical task, at the moment is to form a unified movement, a practical socially inclusive ideology, a programme of expansion - military, political, economic and reabsorption - in all possible senses.

We have to expand our borders. There are civilizational expansions to undertaken. There is nothing to be ashamed of in seeking political and military power, if it is for the expansion of the territorial and demographic hold of our ideology. It should not be "personal". Whatever in our heritage restricts us from doing so, is to be kept aside for future use and not outright rejected. Expansion, is the drive that will rejuvenate us.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 05 Feb 2013 03:22

devesh wrote:by elevating "surrender to the One Supreme" as the ultimate motive, the Bhakti Marga has actually perpetuated the worst kind of deracination on the Indian mind.

...It is also one of the reasons why I have developed an aversion for the extreme Dvaita-insisting streams within the Hindu. When I say Dvaita, I mean all 3, Shaiva, Vaishnava, Shakta streams. the "surrender to the Lord" has been elevated above all others.

Surrender is certainly the ultimate motive. But "elevating it above all others" doesn't obviate all the other steps. Rather, those other steps must be completed before one can undertake and sincerely fulfill the ultimate step. That's very clear from, say, the Bhagavad Gita, for example.

But I agree with you in that this is all too commonly misunderstood as an excuse for inaction. Surrender becomes "resignation". Whereas the fact is that confidence (utsAha) is a pre-req for surrender, and confidence is generated through vigorous action.

So its better to get out of this theological debate between dvaita-advaita which has become too cluttered with clever propagandu over centuries, and instead frame Bharatiya identity around a hierarchy of values that can be used as a descriptive meta-language for any path.
Last edited by Agnimitra on 05 Feb 2013 03:27, edited 2 times in total.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 05 Feb 2013 03:25

brihaspati ji,

Apologies, I did not mean it to be denigrating or partisan, and I did point out problems with Madhva also! I have the deepest respect for all the Acharyas, more so as my understanding increases gradually. I agree with your take above.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby svinayak » 05 Feb 2013 05:50

If one does not practise SD or various paths then it becomes just analysis. You hav only noise and criicism

JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby JwalaMukhi » 05 Feb 2013 06:12

Whoa, a whole set of commentaries about surrender/sharanagathi? eh?
The surrender is not about inaction, in fact it is exact opposite of it. Sharanagathi is principally about to stop fretting about the fruits of right actions and surrender of those results. It does not necessitate nor demand inaction due to results are viewed without passion. It essentially means the (right) action needs to be passionate, only the results of such be surrender and without passion. The idea is to detach one getting struck in the mode of "caught in the headlight" worrying about results and perform the necessary action. It is not a free pass to inaction. When misunderstood, there will be whole pages of commentaries, about nishkama karma pala to no action.

If anything, Sharanagathi of the dvaitha philosophy is about the acknowledgement of the limitations imposed due to being born. This quasi-free will associated with birth, needs acknowledgement of limitations and move onto what is possible in the free will. \
Well Acharaya ji is absolutely correct, only the non-practitioners will have analysis (scientific, and rational to the boot ) (sic).

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby svinayak » 05 Feb 2013 06:23

Elders in my family used to to call these confused people as "Moorkha"
With marxist analysis being seen as real analysis it has become utter garbage.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 05 Feb 2013 06:46

Acharya ji,

So any criticism of casteism is now "Marxist analysis" and "noise"? Interesting.

Thanks for the encouragement to start practicing SD.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 05 Feb 2013 06:52

JwalaMukhi wrote: If anything, Sharanagathi of the dvaitha philosophy is about the acknowledgement of the limitations imposed due to being born. This quasi-free will associated with birth, needs acknowledgement of limitations and move onto what is possible in the free will.

Make the best of whatever is available, no doubt.

JwalaMukhi wrote:Well Acharaya ji is absolutely correct, only the non-practitioners will have analysis (scientific, and rational to the boot ) (sic).

"To the boot" is "sic" indeed. How does the foregoing mean that one should not analyze or criticize something that is patently illogical? After all Madhva advocated that one ought to criticize what is against one's conscience and logic. If you can show me the error of my ways then I'll be happy to correct my analysis. Merely suggesting that I don't practice SD doesn't move me.

JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby JwalaMukhi » 05 Feb 2013 07:04

Carl wrote:
"To the boot" is "sic" indeed. How does the foregoing mean that one should not analyze or criticize something that is patently illogical? After all Madhva advocated that one ought to criticize what is against one's conscience and logic. If you can show me the error of my ways then I'll be happy to correct my analysis. Merely suggesting that I don't practice SD doesn't move me.

Rule no.1: Before arriving at any conclusion about any field of study, conduct literature survey. How many bhashyas, vimarshanas are published to precisely address those very questions!
Which means, are the logic, questions, objections that YOU have proposed are original, or they were also posed and tackled by others? The answer to that question will hopefully move you. Or it may not.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 05 Feb 2013 07:26

JwalaMukhi wrote:Which means, are the logic, questions, objections that YOU have proposed are original, or they were also posed and tackled by others? The answer to that question will hopefully move you. Or it may not.

They're not original questions. In fact, very few questions that bhashyas handle are ever new or original. They're usually questions that have always been around.

But the different literatures will answer those questions contextually, according to the time and place they were written, and for whom they were written.

Most of the literature you are referring to was written when India (and a lot of the world) was in a feudal phase of socio-economic-political systems. That was according to that technological age. So a lot of their responses were logical, caused the least damage and chaos, and created the best solutions for self-fulfillment. That usually doesn't apply now.

Therefore, the questions are still relevant, and demand fresh analysis, new answers. Most of the great leaders of SD over the past 200 years have given very different answers, often contrary to what went in the previous technological and political age.

Its not the questions that ought to be new or original, my friend, but the stream of answers. These must keep changing in order to contribute to the persistence of truth through time.

But if one starts treating a particular Acharya or portions of his bhashya in a prescriptive "hadith and sunna" fashion, then you're setting up a tension that is bound to create a reaction. If it pushes tempers too far south, then mischievous and envious ideologies like Marxism will take up the reaction. IMHO, its better to let the Ganga flow. JMT.

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5829
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby krisna » 05 Feb 2013 07:43

We need to study western ‘White’ culture on our own terms RM in first post 26 jan 13.

Race consciousness—blackness compared to the whiteness of the majority—is central to the African-American identity. This preoccupation speaks to the huge role that race has played in American history and Western culture. Having borne the brunt of racism in America and subsequently been at the forefront of the battle for racial justice, African-Americans can hardly neglect or forget their race-imbued history. Every year on MLK Jr. Day, that legacy is remembered and the strides made by the Black race in the US, as distinct from the White one, celebrated.

Among Whites, there’s a reluctance to examine whiteness explicitly and publicly. The invisibility given to “whiteness” and the presumption of its neutrality perpetuates White privilege in American society and makes it’s examination muted. Lowell Thompson, who describes himself as the world’s first “whiteologist”, has said that “the reason America still has a race problem was because we were studying the wrong race (i.e. Blacks)”.

He advocates that scholars should be studying whiteness in order to deal with race issues rather than using white gaze to study Black, Hispanic, Asian, and other cultures of colour. In my view too, understanding race and specifically “whiteness” is critical to examining Western culture.

I’ve found that among Indians, unlike Blacks, issues of race and racial discrimination are largely ignored in social and public spaces. Indian-Americans would like to pretend that they are somehow exempt from the racism that dogs American society.

Also, Indians derive their identity not from race but language, caste, region and religion and are novices in racial dynamics.

I disagree with those Indians who try to mimic whiteness, and partake of its privileges rather than attempt to better understand their own non-White identity and negotiate as an equal “other” with the dominant White culture. Such Indians seem to acquiesce to the West’s claims to universalism that projects its whiteness as neutral.

As I write in my book, Being Different, An Indian challenge to Western Universalism (HarperCollins 2011), such claims of universalism have generally led to the denigration of India and her traditions. It is by understanding whiteness rather than becoming subsumed by it that we understand Western universalism and can subsequently challenge and contest its conclusions.

In my book, I advocate the practice of purva paksha, or reversing the gaze on the West. In purva paksha, one does not look away from real differences but attempts to clarify them without the pretense of sameness. Gazing at whiteness (rather than from it) would enable Indians to recognise that White epistemologies and worldviews are relative and not universal, and could help level the playing field between the two cultures and empower Indians to live more authentically and with pride.


According to Hitchcock, White American culture was created with a “frontier” mentality that encouraged the exploitation of natural resources, and a disregard of those defined as not White.


Whiteness in his view formed the centre of Western society and had a unholy association with Christianity. Terms such as “Western” and “American” were often code words for whiteness used in place of “White” and consequently whiteness remained unexamined.

American Blacks have done a purva paksha on Whites and White culture and after a long and hard journey are able to stake their claim on the world around them unapologetically and on their own terms.

Purva paksha, as Blacks know all too well, is not painless and resistance is to be expected. However, once undertaken correctly, it offers the potential for a far greater self-awareness than we currently have as a people and can have far-reaching impact on individuals and our multi-racial world.


Hope RM gets space more and more in MSM.

JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby JwalaMukhi » 05 Feb 2013 08:14

Carl wrote:Its not the questions that ought to be new or original, my friend, but the stream of answers. These must keep changing in order to contribute to the persistence of truth through time.

But if one starts treating a particular Acharya or portions of his bhashya in a prescriptive "hadith and sunna" fashion, then you're setting up a tension that is bound to create a reaction. If it pushes tempers too far south, then mischievous and envious ideologies like Marxism will take up the reaction. IMHO, its better to let the Ganga flow. JMT.


Ok. But just because answers need to be fashioned to the audience, it does not mean misunderstanding or misrepresentation of answers of earlier genre form the basis to seek change. Change for the sake of change is worthless. Change is constant, it will happen if one wishes or not. Change borne out to enlighten more is welcome. If one is not even aware that one is misrepresenting or misunderstanding the answers provided by earlier gurus/acharyas, then what hope will one have the change that one hopes to usher in.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 05 Feb 2013 08:31

JwalaMukhi wrote:Ok. But just because answers need to be fashioned to the audience, it does not mean misunderstanding or misrepresentation of answers of earlier genre form the basis to seek change.

Absolutely, and that's exactly what ideologies like Marxism and others do. They're mischievous, and they depend on distorting history to impinge on present time, and use that "reasonable" reaction rather than create anew based on true logic. They depend on antagonism (overt or covert), or anger, etc. They can work with apathy to incite it a little into hostility or anger. But they will lose all grip if the mindset is above antagonism, in a creative mode.

The danger is that, to counter this mischief, one may resort to an insistence on the validity of something ancient beyond its legitimate scope, or fail to acknowledge that mistakes were committed mainly due to poor understanding as well as the natural time it takes to make transitions. This insistence and denial will actually only feed into the action-reaction modus operandi that these mischievous ideologies thrive on.

A better tactic is to find a way to create and operate on a platform of balance and true logic. That would naturally involve, among other things, leveling a fair criticism on all accounts, not just across political affiliation. Also, its not just the arguments, but also the 'tone' of the intention with which they're formed and voiced. The higher the tone (in a positive, clinical, enthusiastic and creative mode), the further into the future the idea/identity created will go. The lower the tone, the shorter the trajectory, and anything at or below antagonism will fall prey to the principle of the dwindling spiral, for sure.

Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Atri » 05 Feb 2013 10:15

Acharya wrote:If one does not practise SD or various paths then it becomes just analysis. You hav only noise and criicism


Fantastic!!!!

Every family has got their own kulacharas. Their own kuladevatas. Every one has got his own ishtadevata. How many of us do those kulacharas daily?

All we do is read up some book by some thinker, perhaps think over it, indulge in intellectual masturbation and feel high and dry about dharma.

Dharma survived because of simple folk who actually practised dharma in their homes, fields, work-places against all odds. The poor warkari farmers who gathered together twice a year in pandharpur provided the cadre-base for Shivaji. Also the ideological base of Shivaji.

I miss our old mimamsakas and karma-kanda people. I miss the yajna institution. All this talk about dvaita and advaita and their total disprroval by sankhyins and buddhists is vain until one actually practises this school under the tutelage of an enlightend and well-versed guru. Else it is wastage of bandwidth and time.

The three girl problem is of similar contention. It is an aarthik problem. Should not be treated emotionally. People have to come up with a solution workable then and there to optimally utiilize their aarthik resourcs and protect the citizens (including the kidnapped girls). As long as state is doing this, it does not matter what solution was. Even if solution meant abandonning girls.

The Dasha-Lakshana Dharma is a universal concept. But one needs artha to enforce that dharma globally. This is what chanakya says, right? Dharmasya moolam Artha. What good is dhamr aif one does not have necessary artha to establish it. Other smritis propagating arthasya moolam dharma are from happier times.

It is time we become sanatan dharmiks by practice. To begin with, we should start performing our kulacharas and kuladevta and ishtadevata upasana and please our ancestors. Take up some vrata and live by it until life ends. This is dharma for individual. Most of us do not even bother to worship gods in our home daily, do not even bother to perform sandhya-vandanam twice a day and spend money and time on some popular temple and/or intellectual navel-gazing. The gods in our home are our real care-takers. They are members of our family. One should start treating them as ones first.

And most of all, teach these kulacharas of family to kids in family. This is how dharma is propagated there is no need to think so much for absolute dhama on aarthik levels. We all know what to do there and furthermore few of us can actually do something meaningful on that level. Yes it is our duty and freedom to talk about ways to do it and we do it here which is good. But we can actually perform dharma-samvardhana at home. That is in our hand.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 05 Feb 2013 10:44

Atri wrote:Yes it is our duty and freedom to talk about ways to do it and we do it here which is good. But we can actually perform dharma-samvardhana at home. That is in our hand.

शतं विहाय भोक्तव्यं
सहस्रं स्नानमाचरेत् ।
लक्षं विहाय दातव्यं
कोटिं त्यक्त्वा हरिं भजेत् ॥

For partaking food, put aside hundred tasks,
To bathe, leave a thousand.
For charity leave aside a hundred thousand considerations,
And when it is time to meditate, leaving aside ten million!

Atri ji, but this cannot be misused to shut someone up. The quality of our work and thinking during the rest of the day determines the actual effects of the time we spend in sadhana.

Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Atri » 05 Feb 2013 10:55

Not shutting anyone up, dada. But time to "do" has come. It is good to talk and think. But it is essential to do. It is essential to be a practising hindu not just intellectual hindu or accidental hindu. And by intellectual hindu i do not mean jnaana-maargi. A jnaanayogi also "does" and not just "talks". SV was a archetypical jnaanayogi.

Udyamena hi siddhyanti kaaryaani, na manorathe
Na hi suptasya simhasya praveshanti mukhe mruga:

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby member_20317 » 05 Feb 2013 11:14

Carl ji goodmorning :)

Your point about the interlink between personal life and professional life or between temporal life and meditative life carries merits.

At the same time Dharm is more a matter of practice then of debate. The points you are standing up right now for have more to do with Moksha. Better part of humanity is involved in the lower functions right now because of past inertia. I have at a personal level tried to figure out the link between the transcedental and the temporal but failed. Along the way I did learn many new things as a spin off and found that before I came to these conclusions somebody else already had. Infact a decent majority of people now desire these ideas with a small minority actually adept at these things.

I am afraid most incremental benefit for the Dharmic forces are going to come in from people like myself. And these people belong squarely to the Aarthik world. These guys need to understand Dharm before then can understand the rarified idea of 'kan kan mein bhagwaan'. See for my kind of crowd the lesson that hits home better is the 'principle of uncertainity' as seen at the boundary of life-death or at event horizon. It is important to establish this before you establish god at every moment and particle level. There are more then enough logical presentations of these simpler ideas which while limited in scope, nevertheless get the idea across good enough.

Better to light a small deepak that shows a way then to scare away people with a conflagration. Surya bhagwaan will have to wait till a step by step way is traced.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby member_20317 » 05 Feb 2013 11:42

Oh I see Carl ji you have raised a lot of points. You will get small people like me frightened.

Re. Carl ji - "But if one starts treating a particular Acharya or portions of his bhashya in a prescriptive "hadith and sunna" fashion, then you're setting up a tension that is bound to create a reaction."

This is what I would like to focus on. Considering my capabilities this is a more relevant point you have raised.

The Mat/View getting set in concrete is a real danger and needs to be provided for. I suggest a that a 'one man one vote' structure that we function under today is capable of taking care of these issues. The reason why I say this are two fold:

1) The last time Dharmics had their own sunna was the time that after a long long long successful innings of the varnaashram and Dharmic politics, the Dharmics came up against something that was a bit of an extinction event. The new strains that came from west came better prepared then normal and our people were a little lesser prepared then normal. These new strains themselves had a very strong influence on the events. Which most of us are familiar with. For new guys I would advise you kindly look around what others have written elsewhere on the forums.

2) The moment this yoke of western strains was overthrown the flow returned to normal. Now the more modern members of the forum are welcome to take the credit for it or hang it up on Magna carta or their favourite church, but for me personally I propose to Carl ji that the core reason this change are the people themselves in exactly the fashion that in the first point the people were responsible for their destruction by outside forces.

[Added later to clarify the link : Both these situations can be turned to our favour with the Universal franchise with some additive amendments. People will give up on the old power politics of the dhurta jan. Also this will empower the locals to arm themselves better with a more bhumiputra approach.]

People in both set of circumstances have had and have today a responsibility to prepare themselves better then their competition. The earlier ones failed, the current ones are doing considerably better and should be strengthened further.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 05 Feb 2013 12:50

ravi_g ji, suprabhatam. :)
ravi_g wrote:The Mat/View getting set in concrete is a real danger and needs to be provided for. I suggest a that a 'one man one vote' structure that we function under today is capable of taking care of these issues.

True.

I also think it was a brilliant move to create this nebulous "Hindu" identity that encompasses diverse sects and practices, and even those without any sect or practice - but all bound together by a common cultural context mostly woven together from the Two Epics, the presence of a live spiritual tradition of seeking, and a culture of festivals.

At the end of the day, I believe this identity is the basis of sanity. It means we ought to be comfortable as just "one among men", irrespective of our ideological affiliation. And that my God is just one among the Gods. When this realization dawned on me I realized that this was real sanity, and it didn't weaken my devotion or vratas, but made them more stable and enjoyable.

I think Indic monotheistic, monist, agnostic or any other philosophical groups are useful in terms of the contents of one's sadhana, but never at the cost of being deracinated from this wholesome context. But with Abrahamic religions, it seems to be the opposite. They are deracinating forces.

Also, earlier I had meant to talk more about memes than moksha. devesh ji had brought up the question of ideas and attitudes. The philosophical stuff has something to do with the memes that affect us in society, including our meditations and action-preferences. Memes created by religious leaders and acharyas can hijack or take the 1 man 1 vote dynamic in different directions (see Egypt). So just as Moslem societies affected by Ibn Taymiyyah's or Syed Qutb's ideas would tend a certain way, so also would Hindu societies affected by different munis. It should be possible to have a good-humoured biographical look at each muni in opposition to the other. But usually it becomes a highly uncomfortable issue with us. I used to be one of those partisans who would rattle kripans over it once upon a time, but sadhana, continuous re-reading, and serving different groups straightened that out (all happening in the context of the "Hindu" identity). Now I just enjoy sparring from time to time. :P

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 05 Feb 2013 14:07

devesh wrote:the Advaita-Dvaita conundrum might be a "philosophical" one, but the effect of the intense Dvaita focus on "surrender" are very real. I don't know how much the Advaitins stress the "surrender" aspect, but the Dvaita dualists have elevated it beyond all others. I think there is a direct correlation between "surrender-ism" in religion and the same concept seeping into real life circumstances in politics and Dharmaarthik situations. the problem is that "surrender" theology has made Hinduism for Hindus the same as Islam for Muslims. In many cases you can't even point out the difference between SD and Abrahamic religions b/c Hinduism has essentially become a copy of those religions. we have a 100 gods instead of 1, but the "surrender" above all others has eaten away the core while inflicting the deracination that we are a more diverse Abrhamism, and that is the only difference between us and them.

There are three approaches for underlining our ideological differences from Abrahamics.

  1. The Meta-Differences - One looks at the memes which are prevalent in society and one analysis the society in general, e.g. plurality, diversity, tolerance, respect, participation, level of inter-communal violence, etc. Similarly one analyzes the "other" and then one underlines the differences.

  2. The Macro-Differences - We first try to form a concept of what is common among us. It need not be the absolute least common denominator but should cover the major streams of thought, and after we know "what we are", we then try to underline the differences with those whom we consider "others".

  3. The Aggregate of Micro-Differences - In this approach one tries to find the differences between each stream of thought which is consider part of our whole and the ideology of the "other". And then we try to formulate a composite of these differences.

I believe Rajiv Malhotra has tended to take the second approach. What we often feel are the Meta-Differences, or say Micro-Differences between one Dharmic tradition and the "other", but we don't do that in a systematic way or comprehensively.

devesh ji,

coming to your postulate about similarities between Dvaita and Abrahamics, I would consider it the less productive approach. What we would be doing here is "othering" a stream of thought which very much belongs in the Bharatiya Philosophical Continuum, sort of shoving Dvaitas out, making them "brothers" of the Abrahamics, just so that we can have our own "purity".

The diverse philosophical streams in Bharat which have originated in Bharat or have developed from other streams of philosophy with an origin in Bharat are simply part and parcel of Bharat. There should be no "othering" regardless of similarities with the "others" as long as it is rooted in Bharat. That is the whole point of accepting diversity as long as the allegiance or veneration or gratitude remains to the soil.

If Dvaita, you think, has certain similarities with Abrahamics, then that may be so, but if you look at them closely, then there would also be perceptible differences.

If one takes the Meta-Differences Approach or the Aggregate of Micro-Differences Approach, then surely the differences between Dvaita and Abrahamics would also contribute in better defining the borders between the Bharatiyas and the Abrahamics.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 05 Feb 2013 16:00

Differences: Direct Transceivers

Talking about differences,

one difference between the Dharmics and Abrahamics that I find relevant is that Dharmics see themselves in direct contact with the Supreme and do not need a intermediary. The Atma connects directly with the Paramatma. The Guru's task is simply to facilitate this connection by preparing the Atma for this connection, to teach the Atma how to connect, but never act as the intermediary beacon.

Among the Abrahamics, they need an intermediary. Nobody approaches God directly, but only through the prophets, and God does not speak to the commons directly either, but only through the prophets.

In Dharma, each and every Atma is a transceiver.

Abrahamic faiths are dependent on this self-imposed limitation on Atma, dependent on the ignorance in Atma to transcend the Maya. This is used by those who deem themselves prophets to appropriate an exalted status and claim that they are uniquely capable of being transceivers, and in fact they were chosen to be transceivers.

When Rajiv Malhotra speaks about non-history centricity of Dharma, he is talking about this in fact. Any prophet, any human is limited in space-time (at least in physical form). Any "revelation" to that self-claimed prophet is also an event limited in space-time. And since the connection to the Supreme is channeled through a single human through a single event, the religion becomes history centric.

In Dharma there is no such thing. There is no restriction on somebody attaining the spiritual maturity and experience of a Rishi.

This understanding is often the fundamental meme which differentiates the Dharmics and the Abrahamics and leads to the individual search for one's spiritual path be it through Karma, Bhakti or Gyan. But the training required to prepare the Atma to act as a transceiver to the Supreme, also leads people to connect to each other and undertake this preparation together through various Gurus and their Ashramas, through various festivals, through visiting of various places of pilgrimage, through researching historical material as to how others have performed this connection, and on the way one practices various Samskaras and acquires one's wisdom.

Bhakti is not the same type of "Submission" one finds in Abrahamic religions. The "Submission" in Abrahamic religions is always to the "Law of God", and not to "Emotional Union with the Supreme" (in Advaita or Dvaita sense).

All these differences stem from the core difference and that is about the Capacity of Atma!

Atma is not the same as the imprisoned Soul. The imprisoned Abrahamic soul can only use the Gates provided by the prophets, but the prophets are not just the gates but also the gatekeepers. The Atma does not recognize any gatekeepers.

Just some thoughts!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 05 Feb 2013 16:46

Differences: Sitting for the Exam

In fact, in Abrahamic religions one has added even more "gatekeepers". Mullahs act as "gatekeepers" to the prophet "gatekeeper". One is not allowed to approach even the prophet "gatekeeper" directly. Here is one example.

What this does is, it increases the temporal dimension of cuffs on the "soul", and allows the clergy to control the population promising them the Spiritual World by demanding compliance from them in their socio-political-economic agenda for the Temporal World.

Individuals who lack the confidence of being able to seek spiritual union with the Supreme on their own and do not even have the confidence that a Guru can help in such an effort are like those who know they will flunk the exam regardless of how good their tuition is. They want others to sit and write their exams. It is a psychological weakness. In Abrahamic religions that is exactly what the clergy does - it promises to sit and write their exams for them. Of course, nobody will ever find out if they passed the exam and entered heaven.

In Dharmic traditions each and everybody sits and writes his own exam. The Guru can prepare one for this. An Atma in fact gets unlimited chances to pass the exam through reincarnations. But everybody has to write his own exam. Nobody can do it for you.

In Abrahamic religions this is not what one is told. There a promise is given and the gullible and the insecure accept it and allow themselves to be used for the temporal agendas of the clergy and power-brokers.

There is the concept of Judgment Day in Abrahamic religions, and that is set up as the exam in these religions. But the terms for passing it are set down up the gatekeepers - obedience to the code as written down. In fact, through the Jihadi Shuhudah, which is nothing more than working for the temporal agenda of the politico-military clergy, one is promised even a shorter cut through this exam of Judgment Day - one goes directly to Jannat.

Of course, the temporal agenda of society is also there in Dharmic traditions - Karma Yoga or Varna Dharma, but there is a difference. The Dharmic martyrdom is for the purpose of freedom, the freedom of the Atma of every individual to seek their own spiritual path. The Abrahamic martyrdom is for the purpose of slavery, the continuation of slavery of the soul to the temporal agenda of the "gatekeepers", of a political-military clerical system.

member_23686
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby member_23686 » 05 Feb 2013 17:49

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

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

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

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

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

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

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 05 Feb 2013 17:54

Differences: Saving the Native

And as we observe, the core fundamental difference: the Atma as the direct transceiver to the Supreme manifests itself into a multitude of differences in the memes.

For a Dharmic tradition, the overlying narrative is the Atma's direct access to the Supreme. This direct access can be attained regardless of the ethnic culture in which one is born and resides, regardless of the various icons and deities one uses to meditate on the Supreme, regardless of what one wears, regardless of what language one speaks, regardless of how one's corporeal manifestation (the body) looks like. From everywhere there is a path going to the Supreme for the Atma.

And that has been the message of the Dharmic world throughout. So we have never really demanded of anybody anywhere to adopt our Samskaras, our worldly traditions, but were always willing to share this knowledge with the others. We have of course also shared with the others the names, the mythologies, the traditions we ourselves use to access the Supreme, and some influences have gone over into the peoples. But there was never a requirement that the other had to oblige us by accepting our lifestyles. We have tried to show in fact how others could approach the Supreme while retaining their own icons, their own deities and have in fact tried to fuse the mythologies of the others into our own, in order to show that the destination is one regardless of what names one uses or what customs one has. This has of course led to our own rich mythology and helped people feel at ease with our approach and philosophy. Non-coercion has been a fundamental approach. There was no need ever to impose some historical personality on the other either, be it even an Avataar. That is why there are so many kuladevtas.

Similarly one finds still many languages in India.

So the preservation of the culture of the native has been a dominant feature of the Dharmic way.

In Abrahamic traditions however, the effort has been to destroy the native culture. The Abrahamic cults in fact expand by opening local branches and use their own expat clerics - the missionaries, to run them. Their prime goal is not to raise the level of spiritual awareness in the Atma, but to capture souls for the temporal clerical order, who have made a business out of "gatekeeping". The longer the queue in front of the gate, the more tickets they can sell.

What the missionaries require is an allegiance of the individual to a particular "gate" manned by a given group of "gatekeepers". This allegiance can be given only if the individual is immersed and captured completely in the temporal routine, cultural adjustments and personality cult that they prescribe. The Differences in society need to be sharply demarcated and exacerbated in order to increase the loyalty of the followers for reasons of security, upward mobility, etc.

In short the native must be exterminated and instead a drone needs to be created in the individual which responds to commands from a central base or one of its branches.

Christian missionary practices have developed so that they are willing to trade spiritual slavery for temporal privileges like education, work, visas, money, etc, and more of it if one is willing to himself become a branch of this soul fishing enterprise.

Of course lately the Church has started to give some leeway to local cultures to retain their cultural moorings, we hear of Christian Bharatnatyam, Christian Yoga, etc., but as there has been no merging of the mythologies, which is the sole guarantee of long term promise of preservation of the culture, it is at the most a stop-gap measure at inculturation.

The merging of the mythologies is the ultimate promise in good faith for the preservation of the native culture.

One sees the interaction of Dharmic traditions in peoples all over the world, and one notices the influence of Dharmic traditions on their own philosophies and mythologies - from Polynesians to the Vikings, from Africans to the native Americans.

In the age of Abrahamic proselytization, can the Dharmic traditions compete with these other traditions which trade in instruments of temporal security (and thus fear), promises of spiritual salvation, and temporal rewards to win allegiance, whereas Dharmic traditions "merely" offer the knowledge that the Atma is free to seek the Supreme on its own and the Guru can at most offer guidance.

Resistance

Dharmic traditions can only compete with others only if each individual recognizes the intrinsic freedom and capacity of his Atma to access the Supreme on its own accord, only if each individual recognizes that his native culture deserves to be saved and it cannot be made subordinate to the demands of the "gatekeepers" to fall in line. That is why the individual needs to feel pride in his native culture, and one of the reasons why pride in the native culture is something the Abrahamics go first at with hammer and tongs.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 05 Feb 2013 18:13

Resistance

Just to put what Atri garu and Acharya garu have stated earlier into the model of differences that I have suggested,

what they are saying is that through the daily practice of Dharma one reassures one's Atma of its innate capacity to access the Supreme.

If the Atma is aware of that, one would not feel lured to those "gatekeepers" who claim that the soul can attain salvation only if it passes through their "gate". The Atma recognizes that there are NO GATES between it and the Supreme.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5242
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby ShauryaT » 05 Feb 2013 19:45

Atri wrote:It is time we become sanatan dharmiks by practice. To begin with, we should start performing our kulacharas and kuladevta and ishtadevata upasana and please our ancestors. Take up some vrata and live by it until life ends. This is dharma for individual. Most of us do not even bother to worship gods in our home daily, do not even bother to perform sandhya-vandanam twice a day and spend money and time on some popular temple and/or intellectual navel-gazing. The gods in our home are our real care-takers. They are members of our family. One should start treating them as ones first.

And most of all, teach these kulacharas of family to kids in family. This is how dharma is propagated there is no need to think so much for absolute dhama on aarthik levels. We all know what to do there and furthermore few of us can actually do something meaningful on that level. Yes it is our duty and freedom to talk about ways to do it and we do it here which is good. But we can actually perform dharma-samvardhana at home. That is in our hand.
+1. First and foremost, do what is in your control. Live a dharmic life in ALL its dimensions. Ensure that you and your family, especially your kids understand and practice a dharmic life. Perform your Nitya Karmas , perform periodic yajnas to mark important events. In the land we live in, we have started a monthly yajna with some friends and family, where each month along with the yajna - there is a focus session to explain things and the yajna itself is customized for purpose . Ofcourse wholesome food accompanies these yajnas. Do them yourselves, do not outsource to a "priest" to the degree possible. Still better, make your kids do these. The Vrata that Atri ji mentions above is the heart of the practice of Indriya-Nigraha or sense control. Try it, it is not easy but when accomplished will lead to a transformed life. For inspiration read MKG's experiments with truth on the issue. Far better than a Gita discourse and to mess with dwaita-advaita debates and contemplation of moksha margs, is to do your Karma Kanda. Do not have anything against BG ofcourse but many put the cart before the horse.

It is through the individual a society changes and it is society that changes the nature of a state. If we do not live a dharmic life then all this talk of what the state should be is meaningless. Purva Paksha of Islam and Western cultures has limited value, if our own society has stopped being a Dharmic society. I have been through this cycle myself, where my understanding of western and islamic theology preceded my understanding of Dharma. It would have been so much easier to the do it the other way around. For some of these reasons, I have immense respect for the Sikh panth that have put a value on performance. There is something for "traditional" vedic paths to learn from new paths.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pradeyal, sum and 24 guests