The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Feb 2013 03:54

harbans ji,

perhaps you should focus more on the meaning of intermediary in the context of his purpose!

So in context of Islam, Is it about just "addressing Allah", like say in Namaz, or is it about "direct access to Allah", like say in reaching Jannat, supposing that that is the nearest one comes to Allah?

So would one reach Jannat say without knowing any rules of the game laid down by Prophet Muhammad? If no, then Prophet Muhammad is an intermediary w.r.t. to the definition.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Feb 2013 03:58

harbans wrote:
I don't think anybody in power really gives a rat's ass about what principles are enshrined in the Preamble.
Now now...who is going about framing Preambles and Principles in a Dharmic Constitution..all in the course of a few hours.

Well the Nehruvian-Secularists who are IN power wouldn't really give a rat's ass about what is in the Preamble. Dharmics would however pay heed to a Dharmic Constitution.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 25 Feb 2013 04:09

Tawassul is resorting to an intermediary. Since you have not defined Intermediary i had taken the English language definition earlier.

-A person who acts as a link between people
-Acting as a mediator or an agent between persons or things. A means.
-An intermediary is a person or service that is involved as a third party between two or more end points in a communication or transaction.

All these definitions of Intermediary also qualify most Hindu's or Dharmics who have Guru's, worship Idols as employing intermediaries between the person and God in this instance.

Fact is most Dharmics won't bother too much and happily accept that their Guru, Parents, Gita or XYZ was responsible and a link to get them close to God or Godhead. So yes anyone helping a person or guiding him to unite his Atma with the Paramatma is an intermediary in the true sense of the word Intermediary as i have listed above. So why so much heartburn in accepting that that definition does not differentiate when it is pointed out?

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 25 Feb 2013 04:12

Hypocrisy is all yours Harbans ji. It is after establishing your own definition of "Truth==Dharma" that you go on to attack Rajesh ji's definition on the basis of Zakir Naik and Quran's claims about intermediaries. For your attack on Rajesh ji's defintion to be valid, you must assume Zakir Naik's and Quran's claims to be the Truth, and therefore Dharmic. You cannot have it both ways.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 25 Feb 2013 04:28

Rudra ji i used the English language definition of Intermediary. Unless you imply Intermediary is a word in some other language. But the meanings as in my post above this are clear. So my usage of defintion is neutral while your hypocrisy Sparkles through clearly.

BTW the Truth definition is not mine it is in the Brihadraranyaka Upanishad the words of the Sage Brihadraranyaka himself:

Verily, that which is Dharma is truth.

Therefore they say of a man who speaks truth, "He speaks the Dharma,"
or of a man who speaks the Dharma, "He speaks the Truth."
Verily, both these things are the same.
—(Brh. Upanishad, 1.4.14) (2)

Also since i see that Truth does not mean much to you, i doubt i should try and expect that from your rhetorical posts. Good day.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Feb 2013 04:50

harbans wrote:Rajesh Ji, intercession/ Tawassul is a debated subject in Islam. Shia's and many groups advocate intercession to some extent. Others are dead against it. Qadri i think is Shia. IIRC he also had some fatwa on him for being Gumrahi (Aberration from the norm). I have pointed to you that there are large numbers of Muslims that do believe in a direct communion with God without intermediaries. In fact that is so strong in most muslims they consider Idols as intermediaries, some graves as intermediaries and so on and avoid them. Thus basing your definition that Dharma requires no intermediaries between God and Human you are endorsing a major Islamic claim among a large section of it's adherents and wrt Idols and others all. Meanwhile with the Islamic Tawassul definition Idol=intermediary, most Hindu's would fall in the intermediary category according to all muslims. So when you definte Dharma that way you put in all muslims as Dharmics and most Hindu's as Adharmic.

harbans ji,

I support such tendencies among Islamics to believe in a direct communion with God without intermediaries e.g. idols and graves, etc. The day they arrive at the fundamental insight that not just rituals but all form of language use in communion with God is also an intermediary, one can consider allowing them to be called 'Dharmic'!

It is best they burn everything which contains "language" for that too is intermediary. And there are of course the mosque intermediaries.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 25 Feb 2013 07:47

harbans wrote: BTW the Truth definition is not mine it is in the Brihadraranyaka Upanishad the words of the Sage Brihadraranyaka himself:

Verily, that which is Dharma is truth.

THEREFORE they say of a man who speaks truth, "He speaks the Dharma,"
or of a man who speaks the Dharma, "He speaks the Truth."
Verily, both these things are the same.
—(Brh. Upanishad, 1.4.14) (2)

This should be taken, not as an effort to define Dharma, but as an explanation of the deeper meaning of the non-translatable term Satya, to which the English word truth is but a poor approximation.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 25 Feb 2013 11:07

Intermediary-follower relationship is a transaction relationship with respect to:
1) Payment of goods/services/other priced consideration; or
2) Avoidance of a disability to seek the above.

Guru-Shishya relationship is a Dharmic-Karmic relationship:
1) With no guarantees as to obtainment of the objective (which in any case is not a priced consideration); nor
2) With any guarantees as to avoidance of disabilities (which is dependent only on the will of the Shishya).

So where is the question of such long discourse.

The reconciliation can be effected either way with one position getting abandoned and the other being taken up, in spirit even if not in letter.

Which raises the question of which one should be given up and which one can be taken up.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Feb 2013 11:17

ravi_g ji,

As per my understanding the intermediary-follower relationship is more like a life-long contract possibly with no escape clausal. The follower abides by the terms of the contract, as fully formulated by the intermediary, and the intermediary guarantees deliverance.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Feb 2013 11:48

The Potency of the 'Dharmic'

harbans wrote:Rajesh Ji, intercession/ Tawassul is a debated subject in Islam. Shia's and many groups advocate intercession to some extent. Others are dead against it. Qadri i think is Shia. IIRC he also had some fatwa on him for being Gumrahi (Aberration from the norm). I have pointed to you that there are large numbers of Muslims that do believe in a direct communion with God without intermediaries. In fact that is so strong in most muslims they consider Idols as intermediaries, some graves as intermediaries and so on and avoid them. Thus basing your definition that Dharma requires no intermediaries between God and Human you are endorsing a major Islamic claim among a large section of it's adherents and wrt Idols and others all. Meanwhile with the Islamic Tawassul definition Idol=intermediary, most Hindu's would fall in the intermediary category according to all muslims. So when you definte Dharma that way you put in all muslims as Dharmics and most Hindu's as Adharmic.

harbans ji,

it is in fact a boon for the Dharmics that the term "intermediary" is a debated theological issue in Islam. The rejectors of "intermediary" in context of communion with Allah would have made the use of "intermediary" unwelcome. Thus the psychology of this rejection would carry on into a different context - the context of "access", of deliverance. This is a context of "intermediary" we are imposing on public discourse which also pulls them in, but rejection of "intermediary" in this context amounts to rejection of the main tenet of Islam - "Muhammad is His Nabi"!

So there is nothing better than injecting a different context for "intermediary" and causing major cognitive dissonance among the Islamics.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Feb 2013 16:11

The Potency of the 'Dharmic'

Looking at the definition once again

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

one notices that there is a strong emphasis on the 'intrinsic capacity' of the Self.

This is the core message to the Dharmics - each individual, each Dharmic, is endowed with an inalienable intrinsic capacity. That says I can, You can, We can! If one can aim for "direct access to the Supreme" and achieve it, then we have the right to have confidence that we can certainly achieve the lower aims as well which involve our spirit, our intellect, our grit.

What can be a better gift of a belief system to the individual than which says, "believe in yourself, have faith in yourself, you are capable"! It is the ultimate motivational message. In 2008 US Presidential Elections, Barack H. Obama ran successfully for President on the campaign slogan "Yes, We Can"!

If Bharatiyas want to build a great Rashtra, a great Civilization, a great Society and lead the world we first need to believe in ourselves. For centuries now we have been told again and again that we are not good enough, that we have to look up to others, to accept the selfish world order others imposed on us telling us we are incapable of coming up with anything better. If this battered psyche of the nation wants to stand up again first and foremost we need to believe that "Yes, We Can"!

And where else to plant this message than in the very core of Bharatiyata's spiritual beliefs - in Dharma itself, in our identity as Dharmic itself.

We are the people who know we can, and it is this knowledge itself which makes us call ourselves 'Dharmics'!

What the definition of the 'Dharmic' is telling us is that if one starts doubting one's capacity to do, to perform, one is in fact doubting one's own identity and faith as a 'Dharmic'! Of course such confidence should not become over-confidence, and knowledge of reality and the limitations of space-time-matter imposed by reality would always temper this over-confidence, but one's spirit should remain immersed in confidence.

Ahankaar is not what is being promoted here. Ahankaar manifests itself when one thinks we are better than the other. The definition however talks about this capacity being there in each one of us - in each Self.

Furthermore the definition underlines that we run to the Supreme not out of escapism as many navel-gazing Moksha lovers may tend to think, but because we consider it the ultimate test case of liberating the potential of the intrinsic capacity of the Self. It does not mean we block our intrinsic capacity to do other works of Dharma. That is why in Dharma, Karma Yoga is not discounted, but is considered important. Nor is one being told to jump directly into Sanayasa Asharam skipping Brahmacharya and Grihastha. The various Asharams are also there to hone our intrinsic capacity.

So we face the world with confidence in ourselves, in our intrinsic capacity and in our Dharmic brothers without lapsing into escapism or over-confidence.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Feb 2013 17:02

The Potency of the 'Dharmic'

It is not just that we are proposing 'Dharmic' as an identity to simply demarcate ourselves from the 'Adharmics' better - Muslims and Christians.

No the 'Dharmic' identity also proposes a very different developmental model of the Self and Community.

For reference sake, let's look at the suggestion (v.0.0.3) for the Preamble of a Dharmic Constitution.

WE, THE PEOPLE OF BHARAT, that is India, having solemnly resolved

to constitute Bharat into a DHARMIC REPUBLIC inspired by SANAATANA DHARMA as espoused in the Dharmic traditions: Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत), and our history

to empower ALL its citizens to realize their intrinsic capacity to pursue happiness by facilitating their pursuit with freedom, knowledge, skills, opportunity and conducive environment and by encouraging and recognizing their merit,

to secure justice and liberty of thought and expression for ALL,

to continue the enrichment and prosperity of the Bharatiya Civilization and

to promote the unity, integrity, security and environmental health of the nation

....

do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

Satyameva Jayate!

This reflects one ideal of a Dharmic Rashtra and until it is not promulgated at the minimum the ideal of a Dharmic society. It is about the role the Rashtra, Society and Family play to facilitate each Dharmic's "pursuit of happiness with freedom, knowledge, skills, opportunity and conducive environment and by encouraging and recognizing their merit".

Now it says, this is our goal. What the Dharmic society offers is: freedom, knowledge, skills, opportunity and conducive environment. Dharmic society encourages merit and Dharmic society recognizes merit.

Now we come to the job market. There the most meritorious of the job applicants should get the job. Who would it be: would it be one who has been made to believe that he has intrinsic capacity to perform and thus is a confident individual, one whose capabilities have been facilitated and promoted by the Dharmic society in which he was nurtured, one whose values and principles have been formed by a Dharmic worldview or would one get the job who has not had this privilege?

All too often Muslims complain that they are discriminated against in the job market, in the rental market, etc. The key is to respond that that is not simply because one has different identities - one is Hindu and he is a Muslim, and in industry dominated by Hindus he will not get a good deal because of his religious persuasion. The reason has far more to do with the underlying framework of the society in which a Muslim grows up and one in which a Dharmic is nurtured.

This difference in the underlying frameworks of both societies should be made apparent and visible.

One urgent reason for bringing this into focus is that difference in the employment rates among Muslims and Hindus may start getting steeper. The Mullahs and Nehru-Secularists may try to advance the theory that the Hindus are discriminating Muslims based on religion, and this would increase the resentment among the Muslims towards the Hindus.

A clear mission statement about what a Dharmic society is would allow the Hindus to deflect the criticism and rightly claim that the problem lies not at the Hindu end but at the Muslim end, and that they have only themselves and their Mullahs to blame for being unfit and unskilled for jobs. One just needs to ask them - what is their Islam-compliant and Islam-derived social agenda?

So the 'Dharmic' definition is not just for questioning Adharmics at the theological level but also at the level of socio-economic model.

Actually there is nothing much new in the difference of attitudes. The thread "Intelligence / Achievement Studies and Global Indians" looks at the issue statistically.

What is perhaps new is the suggestion of elevating the basic socio-economic model of the Dharmic society to a much more clearer definition and connecting it political-philosophically with the definition of 'Dharmic' itself.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Feb 2013 17:27

The Potency of the 'Dharmic'

I have written a few posts on this issue now. Here just collecting references for having an overview for my benefit (and of others).

Inder Sharma · Post by **Inder Sharma** » 25 Feb 2013 17:40

I would rather prefer a change in the 2nd clause of this preamble:

‘to constitute Bharat into a REPUBLIC inspired by DHARMA, which for the purpose of this document is understood as the core universal ethical principle.’

Listing only prominent schools of Dharma, by default bar’s other future and marginal dharmic schools. This would in future lead to sectarian persecution.
Heck, we must not allow even Islam, Christianity, Scientology and Shamanism to fall out of the Umbrella of Dharma. The only requirement being that all groups agree to the supremacy of Universal human ethics over all the other guiding principles.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Feb 2013 17:59

Inder Sharma wrote:I would rather prefer a change in the 2nd clause of this preamble:

‘to constitute Bharat into a REPUBLIC inspired by DHARMA, which for the purpose of this document is understood as the core universal ethical principle.’

Listing only prominent schools of Dharma, by default bar’s other future and marginal dharmic schools. This would in future lead to sectarian persecution.
Heck, we must not allow even Islam, Christianity, Scientology and Shamanism to fall out of the Umbrella of Dharma. The only requirement being that all groups agree to the supremacy of Universal human ethics over all the other guiding principles.

Inder Sharma ji,

Dharma may be considered in its applicability as a "core universal ethical principle" however its semantic, its nuances are derived from the work done among the Dharmic traditions. That there may be similar work undertaken in other religions is not discounted.

What Dharma is is understood by Bharatiyas in the context of the Bharatiya Civilization, so we source the meaning of Dharma from that context.

I like you describing Dharma as "a core universal ethical principle" however this in itself does not say much about Dharma's content, nor is its content so simple to describe. That content can only be referred to through the body of work in which the concept of Dharma has been dealt with, and so one has to name the various streams of thought where this has happened.

However you are right. One should not sound closed-minded, so I am making certain changes

Suggestion (v.0.0.4) for the Preamble of a Dharmic Constitution.

WE, THE PEOPLE OF BHARAT, that is India, having solemnly resolved

to constitute Bharat into a DHARMIC REPUBLIC inspired by SANAATANA DHARMA as espoused in the Dharmic traditions: Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत) and others, and our history

to empower ALL its citizens to realize their intrinsic capacity to pursue happiness by facilitating their pursuit with freedom, knowledge, skills, opportunity and conducive environment and by encouraging and recognizing their merit,

to secure justice and liberty of thought and expression for ALL,

to continue the enrichment and prosperity of the Bharatiya Civilization and

to promote the unity, integrity, security and environmental health of the nation

....

do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

Satyameva Jayate!

Revision: added "and others"

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 25 Feb 2013 18:13

RajeshA wrote: to constitute Bharat into a DHARMIC REPUBLIC inspired by SANAATANA DHARMA as espoused in the Dharmic traditions: Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत) and others, and our history

Do you really need to mention various Sampradaayas? Why recognize sub-identities? Just say Sanaatan Dharma or simply Dharma.

And I would also say something to the effect that this Dharma is eternal and universal, it is the natural order underlying the universe, and it is what each human needs for their ultimate fulfillment.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Feb 2013 18:25

Pranav ji,

I would opt both for conciseness and usage of collective terms, however the danger of misunderstanding is great.

One cannot be sure whether Bauddhas, Jainas and Sikhs would feel included in Sanaatana Dharma or not. They were included in the Constitution as Hindu, but that did not work out to make Hindu really a composite term for all Sampradayas. So this makes the definition of Sanaatana Dharma more precise. I was under the impression till short time back that Sanaatan Dharma itself referred to only Aastikamata (also popularly known as Hindus). So these definitions are somewhat in flux and therefore the risk of misunderstanding increases if one does not name the Sampradayas.

However if these definitions become standardized and popular in society before any such new Preamble is incorporated and adopted, then there may not be any need for an explicit listing. But until such time, I think they are needed.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 25 Feb 2013 18:27

‘to constitute Bharat into a REPUBLIC inspired by DHARMA, which for the purpose of this document is understood as the core universal ethical principle.’

Inder ji, exactly. Butting getting this far has been hard. Before the debate was getting a Hindu Rashtra, what the hell is Dharma. There is Buddha Dharma, Xtian Dharma and so on. Then the acceptance that we are basically Dharmics that Dharma unites was met by the same arguments running several weeks and months till now it is accepted. Then when Dharma is defined on the basis of ethic/ Value it's called fluffy, so new definitions had to be carved out keeping ethic and values out. Next when the constitutional meme to include ethic/ value into Dharma came in constitutional preambles it was said no one cares a Rat's ass about preambles. Now that the importance of the preamble is being sort of acklnowledged and some framework is being attempted, i don't want to disrupt the thought process here.

I had pointed also before that Dharma is understood as a universal ethic/ value principle, it's highest embodiment of ethic being captured in Truth as enunciated by Sage Brhidraranyaka for example.. so as a start to the preamble that itself is enough.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 25 Feb 2013 18:29

Pranav wrote: this Dharma is eternal and universal, it is the natural order underlying the universe, and it is what each human needs for their ultimate fulfillment.

By adding such words we also make clear that Dharma is for all of humanity, so no one need feel excluded.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 25 Feb 2013 18:38

Important in all of this is:

1. Understanding that definitions to Dharma cannot be formulated as the result of a longing to differentiate.
2. Any formulation to exclusivity in the preamble will be met with savage resistance. The nation will break.
It will be unacceptable for most.
3. Understanding that the real Dharmic formulation for State policy as in preamble will unite not divide.
4. Understand that the pains we have suffered over a 1000 years is the result of not recognizing the common basis of ethical Dharmic qualities and values we cherish and should primarily fight for.
5. Formulate a Dharmic constitution without recourse to religious or group meme. With Ethic/ Value systems at a forefront.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 25 Feb 2013 18:45

There is a verse in the Mahabharata that says "Ahimsa sakalo Dharma", meaning Ahimsa is the entire Dharma. While non-violence does have its merits, it does not mean that rigid practice of non-violence is always Dharmic. It may even be Adharmic under some circumstances. Such verses have to be understood in their context. And it would be incorrect to translate "Ahimsa" as "non-violence" in the first place.

The same applies to the verse equating Satya with Dharma that is being quoted. If you translate Satya as "truth" and insist on rigid adherence to "truth" (as defined in normal English), you could well be going wrong.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 25 Feb 2013 18:46

it is in fact a boon for the Dharmics that the term "intermediary" is a debated theological issue in Islam.

Rajesh ji, it hardly matters. There are too many doctrinal aspects in Islam that are so excluvist and damning for the unbeliever, that it is simply useless thinking some debate on 'intermediaries' will knock the theology down. That is why i have been insisting Dharma be linked to ethical principles/ values. But it's hard to get through some 'at the drop of a hat, froth and wield a trishul' kind of mindset. A Dharmic state is an ideal to achieve, not a religious meme to pursue. The ideals for the State can only be Values in conduct. The Preambles must reflect them.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Feb 2013 18:49

Pranav wrote:
Pranav wrote: this Dharma is eternal and universal, it is the natural order underlying the universe, and it is what each human needs for their ultimate fulfillment.
By adding such words we also make clear that Dharma is for all of humanity, so no one need feel excluded.

This is of course true and I had considered whether one should describe what one means by Dharma in the Preamble but I decided against it, one reason being that it bloats the Preamble (I know the name list does that too), and secondly these descriptions can readily be sourced from any of the bodies of "work" on Dharma referenced (Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत)).

All speak of the eternal and universal nature of the principle.

I just did not want the Preamble to become a full Treatise on Dharma.

Suggestion (v.0.0.5) for the Preamble of a Dharmic Constitution.

WE, THE PEOPLE OF BHARAT, that is India, having solemnly resolved

to constitute Bharat into a DHARMIC REPUBLIC inspired by SANAATANA DHARMA, the natural order of the universe and basis of human fulfillment, as espoused in the Dharmic traditions: Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत) and others, and our history

to empower ALL its citizens to realize their intrinsic capacity to pursue happiness by facilitating their pursuit with freedom, knowledge, skills, opportunity and conducive environment and by encouraging and recognizing their merit,

to secure justice and liberty of thought and expression for ALL,

to continue the enrichment and prosperity of the Bharatiya Civilization and

to promote the unity, integrity, security and environmental health of the nation

....

do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

Satyameva Jayate!

Revision: added ", the natural order of the universe and of humanity,"

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 25 Feb 2013 19:00

RajeshA wrote: to constitute Bharat into a DHARMIC REPUBLIC inspired by SANAATANA DHARMA, the natural order of the universe and basis of human fulfillment, as espoused in the Dharmic traditions: Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत) and others, and our history

I would replace "inspired by" with "founded upon".

Also replace "natural order" by "eternal natural order". I know eternal is covered by Sanaatana, but it is good to have it in English too.

And as I mentioned, I would avoid giving a list of sub-identities.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Feb 2013 19:03

harbans wrote:
it is in fact a boon for the Dharmics that the term "intermediary" is a debated theological issue in Islam.
Rajesh ji, it hardly matters. There are too many doctrinal aspects in Islam that are so excluvist and damning for the unbeliever, that it is simply useless thinking some debate on 'intermediaries' will knock the theology down. That is why i have been insisting Dharma be linked to ethical principles/ values. But it's hard to get through some 'at the drop of a hat, froth and wield a trishul' kind of mindset. A Dharmic state is an ideal to achieve, not a religious meme to pursue. The ideals for the State can only be Values in conduct. The Preambles must reflect them.

So what is wrong in having something in the definition of Dharmics that too is damning for the Islamics? Is any exclusivism being propagated in the definition based on ethnicity, language, race, age, spiritual path, etc? No it is based on a simple single criterion! Anybody can fulfill it and be a part or remain outside.

I am not asking for a debate with the Muslims on Islam. I am just defining myself based on a criterion. Anybody who agrees can define himself similarly. All I am saying is that if the Islamics want to analyze us in the future, they are condemned to an internal debate and breakdown of any rhetorical advantage they have had for undertaking conversions of Dharmics. I am saying we can respond better to them.

It is not a debate with us that would crush them ideologically but rather their own inability to respond properly to the Dharmic ideological challenge.

As far as your repeated insinuations about a 'at the drop of a hat, froth and wield a trishul' kind of mindset among Hindus are concerned, I would say you have imaginary monsters hiding beneath your bed.

We have already had a long discussion on Values. I would like to move on!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Feb 2013 19:11

Pranav wrote:
RajeshA wrote: to constitute Bharat into a DHARMIC REPUBLIC inspired by SANAATANA DHARMA, the natural order of the universe and basis of human fulfillment, as espoused in the Dharmic traditions: Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत) and others, and our history
I would replace "inspired by" with "founded upon".

Also replace "natural order" by "eternal natural order". I know eternal is covered by Sanaatana, but it is good to have it in English too.

And as I mentioned, I would avoid giving a list of sub-identities.

As I mentioned, the sub-identities can be avoided once Sanaatan Dharma is understood as being a collective term for Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत).

Suggestion (v.0.0.6) for the Preamble of a Dharmic Constitution.

WE, THE PEOPLE OF BHARAT, that is India, having solemnly resolved

to constitute Bharat into a DHARMIC REPUBLIC founded upon SANAATANA DHARMA, the eternal natural order of the universe and basis of human fulfillment, as espoused in the Dharmic traditions: Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत) and others, and our history

to empower ALL its citizens to realize their intrinsic capacity to pursue happiness by facilitating their pursuit with freedom, knowledge, skills, opportunity and conducive environment and by encouraging and recognizing their merit,

to secure justice and liberty of thought and expression for ALL,

to continue the enrichment and prosperity of the Bharatiya Civilization and

to promote the unity, integrity, security and environmental health of the nation

....

do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

Satyameva Jayate!

Revision: added "eternal", changed "inspired by" to "founded upon"

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Feb 2013 19:21

harbans wrote:Important in all of this is:

1. Understanding that definitions to Dharma cannot be formulated as the result of a longing to differentiate.
2. Any formulation to exclusivity in the preamble will be met with savage resistance. The nation will break.
It will be unacceptable for most.
3. Understanding that the real Dharmic formulation for State policy as in preamble will unite not divide.
4. Understand that the pains we have suffered over a 1000 years is the result of not recognizing the common basis of ethical Dharmic qualities and values we cherish and should primarily fight for.
5. Formulate a Dharmic constitution without recourse to religious or group meme. With Ethic/ Value systems at a forefront.

Cross-posting a post by Carl from "Islamism & Islamophobia Abroad - News & Analysis" Thread

Published on Feb 04, 2013
By Warren Cole Smith
The Muslim Future of Europe: World Magazine

According to this weekend’s New York Times, France now has about six million Muslims out of a total population of 65 million. The overwhelming majority of them are immigrants, or the children of immigrants, but about 100,000 French Muslims are converts. Muslim organizations put the number as high as 200,000. In France (as here in the United States) the country’s prison system has become fertile ground for Muslims. The Times article estimates about a third of France’s prison population is made up of practicing Muslims. Though many of the converts are former Roman Catholics, they say they are not reacting to Catholicism or Christianity so much as to secularism. Hassen Chalghoumi, an imam in a Paris suburb, said, France’s official secularism “breeds spiritual emptiness.” He added, “Secularism has become antireligious. Therefore, it has created an opposite phenomenon. It has allowed people to discover Islam.”

Something similar is also at work in India.

European countries have often built their constitutions and laws around "universal values and principles", and they have had to apply them universally to all their citizens - native as well as immigrants. Many Islamic immigrants have refused to integrate and try to abuse the privileges they receive to the fullest. They have got the European countries to finance the Islamic demographic invasion on them. That is what happens when one goes about in the blind faith of universal values and principles like religious tolerance. Europeans cannot now start differentiating because it means they would have to come down from their so called "moral high ground" and clean up the dirt they have allowed to collect by remaining on their "moral high ground" for so long!

Dharmics are not going to be that stupid! You are calling upon Dharmics to adopt a model which has amply proved its sheer uselessness.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 25 Feb 2013 19:29

So assuming we all do agree how important these preambles are, i too take the liberty of framing one..

To constitute Bharat into a REPUBLIC inspired by DHARMA, which for the purpose of this document is understood as the core universal ethical principle.

That this Dharma is eternal and universal, it is the natural order underlying the universe, and it is what each human needs for their ultimate fulfillment.

That this Republic through it's Institutions will strive to uphold, evolve to and encourage

1. Truth (Satya) and thus Honesty in it's dealings.
2. Compassion in it's dealings towards it's Citizens, Flora, Fauna.
3. Equality of Opportunity for all it's citizenry.

In honoring the above the Dharmic Republic of Bharat/ India will strive in

4. The Pursuit of Happiness for it's citizenry.
5. The pursuit of Liberty of thought and expression for it's citizenry.
6. The Pursuit of Justice for it's citizenry.

In honoring the above the Dharmic Republic of Bharat/ India will strive to

7. Uphold the Prosperity and Enrichment of the Bharatiya Civilization.
8. Promote the unity, integrity, security and environmental health of the nation.

With these Principles the State emphasizes to endeavour to empower ALL its citizens to realize their intrinsic capacity to pursue happiness by facilitating their pursuit with freedom, knowledge, skills, opportunity and conducive environment and by encouraging and recognizing their merit.

The State also endeavours to provide those Dharmics that seek release through Recluse, the security and peace to pursue recluse and merger with with the Supreme.

WE DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

Satyameva Jayate!

I try not to mention Religious terminology, but try and bring the core principles of Dharma in. I put Pursuit of Happiness below the 1st 3 because if someone is unhappy that Rushdie attends a conference, the guardians of the Constitution say Freedom of expression as valid in the First Constitutional principle allows him to attend. Your hurt is secondary to that. The State is compassionate and it offers you the choice to write against Rushdie, not attend the conference, boycott it. You will not be forced to attend, hear Rushdie etc. Rajesh Ji's excellent treatise on "Rules Of Engagement" come in the Annex to the Preamble regarding these matters.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 25 Feb 2013 19:31

Aum Sri Gurubhyo Nama:! Sri Maha Ganapataye Nama:!

Started reading Gurugrath Sahib. The first mantra opened a door for me on the origins of this thread...

ONE UNIVERSAL CREATOR GOD.
THE NAME IS TRUTH.
CREATIVE BEING PERSONIFIED. NO FEAR. NO HATRED.
IMAGE OF THE UNDYING, BEYOND BIRTH, SELF-EXISTENT.
BY GURU'S GRACE ~
CHANT AND MEDITATE:
TRUE IN THE PRIMAL BEGINNING. TRUE THROUGHOUT THE AGES.
TRUE HERE AND NOW. O NANAK, FOREVER AND EVER TRUE. || 1 ||

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 25 Feb 2013 19:34

Dharmics are not going to be that stupid! You are calling upon Dharmics to adopt a model which has amply proved its sheer uselessness.

Arrey Rajesh Bhai ji, what you are almost coming to now, i have been on it for quite some time now you know. So give some leeway here. I am not doing that. Please do read my version 1 of the DC (Dharmic Constitution). Where do i do so what you accuse me off.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 25 Feb 2013 19:40

RajeshA wrote: As I mentioned, the sub-identities can be avoided once Sanaatan Dharma is understood as being a collective term for Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत).

If you give a list of sub-identities then you exclude those who don't associate themselves with those identities.

How can Abrahamics also be drawn in, under Dharma, without any dilution of core Dharmic principles? Obviously those Abrahamic ideas that are incompatible with Dharma would have to go, but the process should be natural and self-motivated.

My objection to the "values" approach of Harbans ji is that it fails to do justice to the core principles and subtleties of Dharma, and would lead to dogmatism and even outright Adharma.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 25 Feb 2013 19:49

Actually, Harbans ji much of the above is quite good. Thank you for a constructive post. My objection to using unqualified "Dharma" still stands, and in that sense I lean towards Rajesh ji's preamble. But putting that aside it is a good start. I am glad that you have qualified "Truth" as "Satya".

Only other thing I would change is the wording of 4,5,6. A constitution of governance cannot merely strive towards these items, it has to guarantee them as fundamental rights to all citizens in order to secure an enduring social contract. I would change as follows:

In honoring the above the Dharmic Republic of Bharat/ India will guarantee: 4. Equality of opportunity to pursue happiness for all its citizens.5. Liberty of thought and expression for all its citizens. 6. Recourse to a system of Justice for all its citizens.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 25 Feb 2013 19:50

Ramay Ji the Veda's say Truth is ONE: ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti agnim yamam matariswanam ahuh. Sage Brihadraranyaka says Dharma is Truth and Truth is Dharma. Jains and Buddhists too say the same, so why blame the Sikhs for saying it, they are Dharmic too.

So when you formulate a Dharmic Constitution, Truth has to be a primary, no?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Feb 2013 19:55

Pranav wrote:
RajeshA wrote: As I mentioned, the sub-identities can be avoided once Sanaatan Dharma is understood as being a collective term for Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत).
If you give a list of sub-identities then you exclude those who don't associate themselves with those identities.

How can Abrahamics also be drawn in, under Dharma, without any dilution of core Dharmic principles?

Pranav ji,

my agenda is quite Hindutvavadi (a la Savarkar)! It is oriented towards cultural domination of Bharatiyas over Islam and Christianism in Bharat. I am very happy to see Muslims and Christians feel included in the task of nation building and there should be no hostility towards them. But I am in favor of the Constitution having a hard basis in Bharat's own native traditions and there is no room to look for some middle-way between Dharmic traditions and Abrahamic traditions.

The middle-way we already have in the Secular Socialist Republic of today!

Even if you leave the listing of Sampradayas from the Constitution, Islamics and Christianists would not agree to it anyway.

Pranav wrote:My objection to the "values" approach of Harbans ji is that it fails to do justice to the core principles and subtleties of Dharma, and would lead to dogmatism.

For a nation under siege, in the mission statement one can either have

a) Fight adharma, fight adharma, fight adharma - but that sounds too aggressive (the nuanced principled Dharma cannot leave this out), or

b) Dharmics and Adharmics - the interaction is clear, no hanky-panky would be tolerated (identity differentiation)

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 25 Feb 2013 19:57

harbans wrote:Ramay Ji the Veda's say Truth is ONE: ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti agnim yamam matariswanam ahuh. Sage Brihadraranyaka says Dharma is Truth and Truth is Dharma. Jains and Buddhists too say the same, so why blame the Sikhs for saying it, they are Dharmic too.

So when you formulate a Dharmic Constitution, Truth has to be a primary, no?

Firstly, you can use the word Satya, which should not be translated as truth, and secondly you should define Satya as Dharma. Dharma is defined in terms of the fundamental concepts of human evolution, fulfillment, and the eternal natural order underlying the universe.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 25 Feb 2013 20:00

Actually, Harbans ji much of the above is quite good. Thank you for a constructive post. My objection to using unqualified "Dharma" still stands, and in that sense I lean towards Rajesh ji's preamble. But putting that aside it is a good start. I am glad that you have qualified "Truth" as "Satya".

Rudra Ji, thanks. Yes indeed the next lot should be guaranteed by the State and not 'strived' for. However i have made provision for one more aspect, the security and peace for those seekers who want to abandon material life to meditate and find release. Like Lord Rama secured forests for seekers so too should the modern Dharmic State.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 25 Feb 2013 20:03

Firstly, you can use the word Satya, which should not be translated as truth, and secondly you should define Satya as Dharma. Dharma is defined in terms of the fundamental concepts of human evolution, fulfillment, and the eternal natural order underlying the universe.

Pranav Ji, i did use Satya when i initially used it and brackets Truth. So i hope we do narrow our differences here without compromising on it's universality, and i think that is what both of us and others are concerned about.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 25 Feb 2013 20:05

harbans wrote:Ramay Ji the Veda's say Truth is ONE: ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti agnim yamam matariswanam ahuh. Sage Brihadraranyaka says Dharma is Truth and Truth is Dharma. Jains and Buddhists too say the same, so why blame the Sikhs for saying it, they are Dharmic too.

So when you formulate a Dharmic Constitution, Truth has to be a primary, no?

I am not making any judgement calls. I just started reading Gurugranth sahib because I am trying to understand why the Guruparampara stopped (I can just study the political aspects of it, but am looking to see if Gurugranth sahib itself offered any hints for it) after the 10th guru.

I am trying to understand why Sikhism is Gurumata and why not Islam.

I will post my thoughts if I find an answer to my questions...

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 25 Feb 2013 20:07

RajeshA wrote: my agenda is quite Hindutvavadi (a la Savarkar)! It is oriented towards cultural domination of Bharatiyas over Islam and Christianism in Bharat. I am very happy to see Muslims and Christians feel included in the task of nation building and there should be no hostility towards them. But I am in favor of the Constitution having a hard basis in Bharat's own native traditions and there is no room to look for some middle-way between Dharmic traditions and Abrahamic traditions.

The middle-way we already have in the Secular Socialist Republic of today!

Even if you leave the listing of Sampradayas from the Constitution, Islamics and Christianists would not agree to it anyway.

I am not suggesting a dilution or middle way, but a pathway to absorb everybody into Dharma, in a manner that is as natural as possible.

For a nation under siege, in the mission statement one can either have

a) Fight adharma, fight adharma, fight adharma - but that sounds too aggressive (the nuanced principled Dharma cannot leave this out), or

b) Dharmics and Adharmics - the interaction is clear, no hanky-panky would be tolerated (identity differentiation)

IMHO the nuanced and principled Dharma is also quite capable of stern Dharma-Raksha when called for. The real strength of Dharma comes from its core ideas. When we lose sight of the core ideas, we no longer understand what is worth defending and why.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Feb 2013 20:10

harbans ji,

I know it is a stupid metric, but you may like to make it more concise.

Current Preamble: 77 words

My Suggestion: 129 words

Your Suggestion: 246 words (excluding the first line "WE, THE PEOPLE OF BHARAT, that is India, having solemnly resolved" which is not there in your version).

It it useful if people can memorize the preamble by heart.