Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 18 Jan 2015 18:20

The Chinese also have systems that are quite similar to ours. They have itihaasa/mythology of their own, systems of worship and ethical codes developed by Confucius, Tao, etc. as well as the influence of Buddhism.

Unfortunately the PRC insists that it is 'atheist'. There was a cultural revolution that aimed to rid China of all this 'mumbo jumbo'. It did a lot of damage but eventually didn't work.

I don't know who has it worse.. they who believe they have no religion, or us who believe we have 'Hindu religion'. The true problem is that the framework of the word 'religion' only makes sense in Abrahamic terms.

One must also ask why an 'atheist' and 'secular' government celebrates Chinese New year for instance. There is some GIGO going on there..

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 18 Jan 2015 22:24

csaurabh wrote:The Chinese also have systems that are quite similar to ours. They have itihaasa/mythology of their own, systems of worship and ethical codes developed by Confucius, Tao, etc. as well as the influence of Buddhism.

The Chinese have no such capability - their systems have been very internally focused with no overall consistency, as in, there is no method to the madness of the various schools. SD schools on the other hand have a very rigorous method defendable and offensive to WU. Hence the affinity of Western scholars to these disparate schools more digestible by them, whereas SD give them some indigestion naturally. Whereas the SD schools have historically imposed a self restrain in terms of not prescribing their way to outsiders, some like me would argue the Chinese are incapable to undertake such an activity even if they desired to...

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Jan 2015 01:07

shiv wrote:The point is that it is entirely possible for civilizations to have a working ethical code without any organized religion to go with it, And that code can be encouraged or implemented without coercive laws. If that is not the height of civilization what is? The only problem is that the system is vulnerable to disruption by organized crime that goes by the name "organized religion"

It is a fallacy to assume that there were no coercive laws in Indian systems. I do not know, what is the genesis of that idea. Our Dharma Shastras have had laws of multiple kinds, criminal and civil, laws for the state and people and families, with courts and "due process" defined, Judges and litigants and a way to appeal. There was evidence of "accepted" books, who's antecedents could be traced. There was an entire process for its implementation but top-down coercion was not its core method. The BORI texts document about 150 of these shastras and about three dozen in detail in a six volume piece of work. There are 100's of books on the topic.

The puranas, itihaas and Shruti texts show Dharma in action. The shastras are the codes of Dharma and law is part of it. The high concepts of satyam, ritam, yagnam, are codified in the shastras and so are the lakshanas. VarnaAshrmas is codified and so are the objectives of the puruSharthas. So are mundane punishments for stealing, sleeping with another's wife and so on.

The shastras are the working documents that codifies Dharma. Please understand the gravity of discarding these living and evolving codes as done by the consitutional founders. Just because the British found use/misuse for it does not mean we forsake them. By not seeking to evolve from these codes evolved over 1000's of years traced right to Manu and Daksha as prajapatis, we have established a "disconnect" from our own past - in a legalistic sense. We can ignore these shastras at our own peril.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Jan 2015 01:19

Pulikeshi wrote: The Chinese have no such capability - their systems have been very internally focused with no overall consistency, as in, there is no method to the madness of the various schools. SD schools on the other hand have a very rigorous method defendable and offensive to WU. Hence the affinity of Western scholars to these disparate schools more digestible by them, whereas SD give them some indigestion naturally. Whereas the SD schools have historically imposed a self restrain in terms of not prescribing their way to outsiders, some like me would argue the Chinese are incapable to undertake such an activity even if they desired to...

My understanding is the same. The Chinese are incapable of taking on WU. It is an internally focused society but they may yet overcome WU due to this internal cohesion that India also has but needs to nurture and use. Although Mao's revolution and reforms achieve great strides at great costs, the jury is still out. China has its own struggles with WU and its own internal mores. But, at root China has a very hierarchical and centralized setup that is actually better at keeping these western forces at bay. Similar for the Orthodox to a degree. A strong state is essential to keeping these forces at bay. If India can regroup and reorganize truly Malacca to Hormuz can be firmly within our grip.

Added: What the chinese do well is assimilate WU concepts within their own, without giving up their social or organizational structures.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 19 Jan 2015 04:36

ShuaryaT:

> But, at root China has a very hierarchical and centralized setup that is actually better at keeping these western forces at bay

Confucius was a big proponent of hierarchy.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 19 Jan 2015 04:41

ShauryaT wrote: Added: What the chinese do well is assimilate WU concepts within their own, without giving up their social or organizational structures.

Or in other words they are very capable of jumping from one centralized machine bureaucracy to another

PS: The appeal of the Baudhamata in both China (south-east asia) and the West are related phenomenon.
In the former there is higher affinity than the latter as the East has a natural pining for diversity of belief...

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 19 Jan 2015 04:44

For those having a misunderstanding with my argument that "Smrithi is not law" -

A Sanskrit judgement of a court in Mithila, India
(in the Saka Year 1716, Jyaishta, bright fortnight 13, on Tuesday):
A Judgment of a Hindu Court in Sanskrit

It has the argumentation of modern law, but modern law is a very dry instrument in that there has neither a persuasive, nor a normative element to it - whereas the Smrithi is all that and much more. The same danger exists when we confuse Dharma for either Ethics or Religion.

PS: Don't get your knickers in a twist if you do bother to read the english vinglish translation of the judgement... they are not slaves (again in the WU sense) but the girls in question are all bonded (does not still make this any more pleasant, but they are all under the law of contracts)... but then we will have an OT debate... I for one have had trouble finding any Indian scholar researching into other judgements and the nature of the application of Smrithi as it were by the courts in historic India.
Again goes to show that there is no money nor interest, we all watch PK without thinking onlee!

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 19 Jan 2015 04:51

Pulikeshi: I used ethics loosely as a synonym for dharma. Dharma encompasses good sense, tradition, law, ethics, and conscience at least.

For example, I consider the methods used by both MKG and SCB to get bhArata out from under the yoke of British to be dhArmic. But IMHO I cannot hold the methods of Azad, Bhagat singh and associates to be dhArmic even though I respect their intent, ie the end goal. for me means matter too. Same with 1857 - I consider their method to be dhArmic but not what nanashaeb was purportedly to have done to the English civilians.

I know what I said above is not as abstract a thought as you and others would like on this thread. But what to do? I am a pragmatic idealist and cannot change my nature midstream.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 19 Jan 2015 05:00

^^^ Matrimc - fair enough - for me I view Dharma as almost a mathematical concept in which exists a catallaxy (to borrow Mises' term, etc.) we can look for "nash equilibrium" of systems and how to find natural alignments...
but I am midstream as well and cannot quite change certain parts of my nature

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jan 2015 05:41

ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:The point is that it is entirely possible for civilizations to have a working ethical code without any organized religion to go with it, And that code can be encouraged or implemented without coercive laws. If that is not the height of civilization what is? The only problem is that the system is vulnerable to disruption by organized crime that goes by the name "organized religion"
It is a fallacy to assume that there were no coercive laws in Indian systems. I do not know, what is the genesis of that idea. Our Dharma Shastras have had laws of multiple kinds, criminal and civil, laws for the state and people and families, with courts and "due process" defined, Judges and litigants and a way to appeal. There was evidence of "accepted" books, who's antecedents could be traced. There was an entire process for its implementation but top-down coercion was not its core method. The BORI texts document about 150 of these shastras and about three dozen in detail in a six volume piece of work. There are 100's of books on the topic.

The puranas, itihaas and Shruti texts show Dharma in action. The shastras are the codes of Dharma and law is part of it. The high concepts of satyam, ritam, yagnam, are codified in the shastras and so are the lakshanas. VarnaAshrmas is codified and so are the objectives of the puruSharthas. So are mundane punishments for stealing, sleeping with another's wife and so on.

The shastras are the working documents that codifies Dharma. Please understand the gravity of discarding these living and evolving codes as done by the consitutional founders. Just because the British found use/misuse for it does not mean we forsake them. By not seeking to evolve from these codes evolved over 1000's of years traced right to Manu and Daksha as prajapatis, we have established a "disconnect" from our own past - in a legalistic sense. We can ignore these shastras at our own peril.

Shaurya there is a semantics problem here. Dharma comes down to us right from the very earliest shrutis, where it was code and not law in that the same sources do not recommend punishment for not sticking to that code. Laws are, by definition a set of rules that inevitably and invariably produce a reaction as in "You insult Muhammad-you will be killed".

Of course the code that Dharma represents were implemented by means of legal systems - i.e they were "written into law". But I think it is important to differentiate between a top>down law that started as a law from day 1 and a system that was an ethical code that was recommended and followed even before it was written into law simply because it was taught, in Hindu society, as being right. The analogy is like saying "thank you". Saying "thank you" is not law, but is widely followed as a desirable code for good conduct in society.

There is a great fallacy in calling them top down laws because that is exactly what was done by the Brits when they took Manusmriti and called it a "Hindu law book" even though punishments like pouring lead in ears was not known to have been implemented by any other corroborative historical source.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Jan 2015 22:53

shiv wrote: Shaurya there is a semantics problem here. Dharma comes down to us right from the very earliest shrutis, where it was code and not law in that the same sources do not recommend punishment for not sticking to that code. Laws are, by definition a set of rules that inevitably and invariably produce a reaction as in "You insult Muhammad-you will be killed".

Of course the code that Dharma represents were implemented by means of legal systems - i.e they were "written into law". But I think it is important to differentiate between a top>down law that started as a law from day 1 and a system that was an ethical code that was recommended and followed even before it was written into law simply because it was taught, in Hindu society, as being right. The analogy is like saying "thank you". Saying "thank you" is not law, but is widely followed as a desirable code for good conduct in society.

There is a great fallacy in calling them top down laws because that is exactly what was done by the Brits when they took Manusmriti and called it a "Hindu law book" even though punishments like pouring lead in ears was not known to have been implemented by any other corroborative historical source.

Shiv ji: Yes, Most probably semantic differences. The word "code" to me means a precursor to parliamentary laws, in that the word code itself has a legal connotation of laws and rules of a sovereign that need to be followed and if not face consequences from its enforcement by the state. Shruti texts are not codes or laws, but they are guidelines or duties or parts of dharma or "righteous actions" with no enforcement authority, except for one's own conscious. In that we are truly unique and different for even the oldest "codes" of west, needed to be enforced through the instrument of the church, as treating "God" as its sovereign.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Jan 2015 23:05

matrimc wrote: For example, I consider the methods used by both MKG and SCB to get bhArata out from under the yoke of British to be dhArmic. But IMHO I cannot hold the methods of Azad, Bhagat singh and associates to be dhArmic even though I respect their intent, ie the end goal. for me means matter too. Same with 1857 - I consider their method to be dhArmic but not what nanashaeb was purportedly to have done to the English civilians.

I know what I said above is not as abstract a thought as you and others would like on this thread. But what to do? I am a pragmatic idealist and cannot change my nature midstream.

Interesting. An observation that I read recently was Sri Krishna in contrast to MKG does not take into account, means as an important consideration, if the ends are justified. IOW: If the opponent's overall predispositions are deemed to be Adharmic then one should not quibble on the means to achieve their downfall. What do folks think about this matter? Do ends justify means?

My view: I am with Sri Krishna but with one caveat, the anxiousness to declare someone as Adharmic has to be with a lot of deliberations and the means used have to be targeted and not wide spread. So, I would judge Azad, Bhagat Singh to be very dharmic but not the massacre under nanasaheb.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 20 Jan 2015 00:50

I think the most fundamental mistake we have made is to consider everyone as dharmic even after hundreds of years of struggle while other world views have pillaged and genocided - and will continue to do so. No one is going to listen while genociding others even while pointing their lethal weapons against us.

We need to treat n kinds of universal-isms from viewpoint of Chanakya's kuta-neetee and similar ways - only such methods and nothing else.

We need to treat only dharmics as per shastra and sidhdhaanta.

We can not first fool ourselves when we consider barbarians as civilized under fancy labels and brands, and then complain later, when daggers are out against us. We have many other minorities in each and every state and the safety and security of these rest on shoulders of Hindus.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 20 Jan 2015 05:14

ShauryaT: krishna did decide kaurava side to be adhArmica only after extensive deliberations including rAyabAra where he asked only five vilages for pAnDava clan which was rejected out of hand. The same is true with shishupAla where he was a given clear indication of what constitutes a casus belli. When he crossed the line he was killed with nary a voice raised against sree kishan ji. I don't see much difference between krishna's means and SCB's means both of which are honourable. On the other hand - I am speaking for myself only here - terror, however noble the intentions and lofty the target, is cowardly.

"Noble" Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus were cowards. Their side should have fought a civil war instead of assassinating Julius Caesar. (I bring in this example as opposed to several others from western history since it was one of the defining moments in the development of western universalism).

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 20 Jan 2015 05:17

vishvak: I hold that the normal state a human being is to consider everybody friendly unless proven otherwise repeatedly over a period of time.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jan 2015 05:34

If you take the Mahabharata as guide you find that every single party/person has both dharma and adharma. It's just that some have more of one or other. Everyone reaches adharmic compromises to achieve goals that cannot otherwise be achieved by dharmic action. On the other hand Yudishthira - the fountain of dharma can be accused of sloth, dilly-dallying and indecisiveness because of his constant need to conform with dharma. For me the lesson is that dharma is an ideal to strive for and that one must not shy away from unsavoury actions if one must defeat adharma - one must be bold and decisive about kicking adharma in the butt,

Secularism in the Indian sense is pure adharma if you look at the history of how it came about and how it was imposed after causing untold misery. The least that is required is to expose the truth. Colonized minds are under a cover of maya which needs to be pulled away - and that maya is maintained by the lie that Hindus are going to riot and kill. The latter is a cognitive bias in which the religions expect the same actions from Hindus that their own faiths have used.

There are a hundred thousand things that we are asked to be apologetic about with absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the actions for which we are asked to be apologetic actually occurred. Another million things we are asked to accept as "good and right" despite the most horrendous actions being conducted in the name of the two invader religions on all the pre existing systems, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Judaism.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 20 Jan 2015 06:03

shiv ji: Sloth is one of the seven deadly sins. We will start go down the Rabbit Hole or shall I say the Looking Glass of Western Universalism. Is sloth adharmic? What about charvaka "RuNam kritvA ghrutam pivEt". Is sloth same as hedonism without having money/resources to maintain one's conspicuous consumptive life style?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jan 2015 07:03

matrimc wrote:shiv ji: Sloth is one of the seven deadly sins. We will start go down the Rabbit Hole or shall I say the Looking Glass of Western Universalism. Is sloth adharmic? What about charvaka "RuNam kritvA ghrutam pivEt". Is sloth same as hedonism without having money/resources to maintain one's conspicuous consumptive life style?

Sorry. You lost me there

Sloth=slowness of movement.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 20 Jan 2015 07:39

Just to make sure we are talking about the right saying: "Yavat jivet, sukham jivet rinam kritva, ghrutam pibet"
(As long as you live, live happily, incur debt, but eat ghee) - This aptly defines our current state of financial engineering

We currently have incurred the debt not of our children or grand children, but several generations into the future!

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 20 Jan 2015 09:20

shiv wrote:On the other hand Yudishthira - the fountain of dharma can be accused of sloth, dilly-dallying and indecisiveness because of his constant need to conform with dharma.

shiv ji: I surmised (if it is incorrect you have to correct me on that) from the highlighted part above that you are saying that being slothful is a bad quality or a personal failing or sin (?). In xtian ethics, sloth is considered to be one of the deadly sins and not xtgian like.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 20 Jan 2015 09:25

Pulikeshi wrote:Just to make sure we are talking about the right saying: "Yavat jivet, sukham jivet rinam kritva, ghrutam pibet"
(As long as you live, live happily, incur debt, but eat ghee) - This aptly defines our current state of financial engineering
We currently have incurred the debt not of our children or grand children, but several generations into the future!

Yes, I am talking about the same saying and shortened it to the latter half as is usually done. It is the quintessential "instant gratification" vAda of present day US citizens.

Your "We" refers to Indian or the US citizens? The latter are even more deep in debt than the former and know that they never have to repay

chArvAka school was based on scepticism and empiricism. Only pramANa was pratyaksha (observed) where as other pramANa are accepted only conditionally.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 20 Jan 2015 10:34

shiv wrote:Secularism in the Indian sense is pure adharma if you look at the history of how it came about and how it was imposed after causing untold misery. The least that is required is to expose the truth. Colonized minds are under a cover of maya which needs to be pulled away - and that maya is maintained by the lie that Hindus are going to riot and kill. The latter is a cognitive bias in which the religions expect the same actions from Hindus that their own faiths have used.

There are a hundred thousand things that we are asked to be apologetic about with absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the actions for which we are asked to be apologetic actually occurred. Another million things we are asked to accept as "good and right" despite the most horrendous actions being conducted in the name of the two invader religions on all the pre existing systems, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Judaism.

The pitfalls of secularism in India would have only a limited understanding, if only read in association to the popular narrative of "appeasement" of minorities. There is a larger but under appreciated issue of secularism in the Indian context, which I find the below quote as describing it well.

Secularism is contested even by academics. Indian academics were among the first to voice their
opposition to secularism. (Nandy 1998, Madan 1998, Chatterjee 1998). According to them, the
external threat to secularism in India is a symptom of a deeper internal crisis - the conceptual and
normative structure of secularism is itself terribly flawed. For them, secularism is linked to a
flawed modernization, has a mistaken view of rationality and its importance in human life,
makes an impractical demand that religion be extruded from public life, has an insufficient
appreciation of the importance of communities in the life of religious people and a wholly
exaggerated sense of the positive character of the modern state.

Thoughts?

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 20 Jan 2015 10:52

matrimc,
it is not the same as "instant gratification" -
my understanding of the charvaka thinking is about the futility of moderation, morality, etc. given we only know what we perceive - Pratyaksha.
This is different from hedonism, "instant gratification," etc. - the key is there is deep ignorance on the pramanas each SD philosophy is based on.
My only argument with the charvaka system is there are more pramanas than just Pratyaksha.

In understanding WU and SD if you go down the path of affiliation to countries - US, India, China, Brazil, you are missing the point of all this -
financial engineering, state of the art, as it stands is making everyone borrow from the future, everyone pays one way or another.
Unless you are making claims that WU vs. SD is the same as nationalism - which I do not... there is more than one country that has incepted, adopted and imbibed WU for various reasons. SD stands without any national affiliation today, so it would be incorrect to compare or confuse frameworks.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 20 Jan 2015 11:33

ShauryaT wrote:
According to them, the external threat to secularism in India is a symptom of a
deeper internal crisis - the conceptual and normative structure of secularism is itself terribly flawed.
For them, secularism is linked to a flawed modernization, has a mistaken view of rationality and its
importance in human life, makes an impractical demand that religion be extruded from public life,
has an insufficient appreciation of the importance of communities in the life of religious people and
a wholly exaggerated sense of the positive character of the modern state.

Thoughts?

Very good summary - the challenge is not the intellectual understanding of the 'flawed modernization' - yes there is a vast majority that is still somewhat clueless on the force at play. The challenge is the dismal state of new intellectual ideas from India.

The challenge, in general, but on this one in particular, is what the replacement system is that still helps a diverse country such as India to flourish. It is not just the deracination of the Hindu, it is also of the other minorities and the challenge of evolving a new system. The current idea of sticking Hindu- (Hindu-Christian, etc.) in front of every minority does not even scratch the surface of the challenge. Rolling back the converted is another pipe dream, there is a role to play to reinvent SD into a system that can assimilate new people, but not by any current ideas that I have heard to date. The challenge is going to be a slow painful social therapy, truth commissions, offensive defense, intellectual reconstruction at a civilizational pace. I for one am skeptical, yet hopeful - civilizations that suffered abuse of others, are doomed to repeat the abuse of the abuser. Only a miracle will save India from that fate and deliver it into a generator of new intellectual ideas - but I'll drink to that!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jan 2015 16:39

matrimc wrote:
shiv wrote:On the other hand Yudishthira - the fountain of dharma can be accused of sloth, dilly-dallying and indecisiveness because of his constant need to conform with dharma.
shiv ji: I surmised (if it is incorrect you have to correct me on that) from the highlighted part above that you are saying that being slothful is a bad quality or a personal failing or sin (?). In xtian ethics, sloth is considered to be one of the deadly sins and not xtgian like.

LOL. I have no idea that "sloth" was included among in some Christian thing. Need to look it up. The word "sloth" is derived from "slow-ness". Yudishthira never made hasty decisions but always weighed them for dharma - and frustrated his brothers time and again by barring their hasty decisions - who in turn obeyed his advice as part of their duty. He stops Bheema from killing Dussasana there and then for disrobing Draupadi.

I have just Googled for the biblical meaning: "Sloth: Evil exists when good men fail to act"

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 20 Jan 2015 20:08

matrimc wrote:"Noble" Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus were cowards. Their side should have fought a civil war instead of assassinating Julius Caesar. (I bring in this example as opposed to several others from western history since it was one of the defining moments in the development of western universalism).

What about a similar defining event from Indian history. Do you consider the act of the INC to shy away from a civil war, resulting in the partition of the land as Adharmic?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jan 2015 20:46

ShauryaT wrote:
Secularism is contested even by academics. Indian academics were among the first to voice their
opposition to secularism. (Nandy 1998, Madan 1998, Chatterjee 1998). According to them, the
external threat to secularism in India is a symptom of a deeper internal crisis - the conceptual and
normative structure of secularism is itself terribly flawed. For them, secularism is linked to a
flawed modernization, has a mistaken view of rationality and its importance in human life,
makes an impractical demand that religion be extruded from public life, has an insufficient
appreciation of the importance of communities in the life of religious people and a wholly
exaggerated sense of the positive character of the modern state.
Thoughts?

Sounds like Nehru doesn't it? But the fact is every one was colonized - including my own parents and me.

By that I mean that every educated Indian "accepted " the British construct that Hindu-ism was another religion like Christianity and Islam. The reformation had sidelined "religion" and introduced secularism. I think what no Indian figured out was that this business of "rationality" itself is a Protestant construct. The Protestants ruthlessly removed any semblance of anything that might have sounded "fantastic" and not explainable in terms that corresponded with day to day human experiences. Protestantism itself was "rational Christianity" where "rationality" was defined by Protestants in a tradition that dated back to the early days of Christianity where they edited "history" and left out all references to human mediated miracles. This was in fact a continuation of Plato's version of rationality with a Christian foundation.

In secularism, rationality has to be Protestant Christian rationality. Miracles pertaining to Christ are OK, but nothing outside of that. If something irrational appears out of a non Christian source - it is rejected. Much of what we have discussed falls in this category - after all "rational" history was "recorded" by Protestants to fit in with this ideal. That straightaway excluded all itihaas and anything else that did not sound credible. So "modernity" can only flow out of a Protestant Christian ethos and not from any other background.

But as we have discussed time and again - "secularism" has other faults which were not anticipated by our "founding fathers". The concept of secularism demanded the defining of the boundaries of religion for the purpose of drawing the secular Lakshman rekha where state and religion stay separate. It is easy to define Islam and Christianity because they are doctrines limited by books. But Hindu dharma is not a religion per se and cannot be defined by set boundaries that say "This much is religion. Beyond that is secular" . Is respect for animal rights and vegetarianism as a mode of prevention of cruelty to animals a religious act? But it becomes a religious act in India because Hinduism is a "religion". And, on the other hand - every tree, river and clod of earth is sacred for Hindus and any public demonstration of that sentiment can be called "communal act" that hurts the sentiment of Muslims or someone else. That insufferable buffoon Omar Khalidi had indicated exactly that in his moronic book that I reviewed.

And apart from our founding fathers we now have a whole lot colonized Hindus of people who purport to be great supporters of Hindutva who now claim a that Hindu-ism is a "religion". Once you say that something is a religion you are forced between two choices. One choice is to push the religion and discard secularism. The other choice is to accept secularism but then lay down boundaries for the "Hindu religion" like the British did. The latter is what we have now and the "secularists" are afraid that the Hindutva vadis will "foist their religion" on everyone else.

But I don't believe that Hinduism is a religion - it is far broader and older than religions. So it worries me that people who claim to be "Hindutva" supporters often don't have a clue about the difference between "religion" and Hindu dharma. They don't know it but they are mentally colonized to believe what the British decided for Hindus in the 1800s. They decided that xyz was "Hindu religion" and that became part of our laws. That killed Hindu dharma there and then and it is ironic to see some supporters of Hinduism actually vehemently pushing the crap that the British foisted on Hindus. They fight against "seculars", who are Nehruvian followers of what you wrote - ie they believe in the Protestant rationality and modernity model.

Ironically both the seculars and some of the Hindutva vadis are wrong. They each display different aspects of mental colonization. The seculars follow the Protestant "rationality/modernity" model, and some Hindutva vadis follow the "We are a religion" model. It upsets and makes people insecure to hear that Hindu-ism may not be a religion, but mental colonization runs too deep for people to imagine that there can be something higher and more profound than mere religion. It is a series of messes within a bigger mess.

The foundation stone of Hindu dharma is very profound and as close to rational science as anything can get. That is why it is difficult to dislodge, but that is why it also comes under attack by religious morons and needs protection

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 21 Jan 2015 00:49

A point that may help the Hindus in this debate is this:
Sadguru Jaggi Vasudeva's in conversation

"Ritual is the mass delivery of spirituality," said Sadhguru, "I can close my eyes and feel blissed out. But not everyone can disconnect as easily. It is for them that rituals are needed, a step towards spirituality"

This is important since this is about scaling up for better society as a whole. That rituals are part of spirituality is also important to know that rituals are about spirituality and not about something else that seem to have hijacked rituals are doing something else in another form.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 21 Jan 2015 01:20

I am not sure the sadguru has it figured right. The problem here is the reality that (a) there are numerous local gods all over India, none of which are necessarily related the more popular ones like Shiva or Vishnu or Krishna (b) Hinduism is a social framework that operates well with all these gods seamlessly. (c) the "defenders" of hinduism stupidly and ignorantly try to cover up fact 2 by pretending that all local gods are "reincarnations" or somehow connected to the more central gods. (d) these stupid "defenders of hinduism" have to first accept that all the local tribal gods are unique and deserve as much respect as Rama or any of the other more popular gods.

Once the "defenders of hinduism", i.e., the stupid right wing that views hinduism as religion like Islam or christianity, get to the point where they intrinsically accept (d) and make that clear far and wide, then they can effectively argue that islam and christianity are just like any of the other 1000s of gods and are not any more special than any of them and argue that all of this is consisten with hinduism as an ethos, rather than religion.

Rituals are completely different for each of the local gods, and I can count a few dozen local gods that exist in TN villages if you just go visit every village temple on the way from any two big cities. Just my 2 paise.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jan 2015 05:58

Tuvaluan wrote: Once the "defenders of hinduism", i.e., the stupid right wing that views hinduism as religion like Islam or christianity, get to the point where they intrinsically accept (d) and make that clear far and wide, then they can effectively argue that islam and christianity are just like any of the other 1000s of gods and are not any more special than any of them and argue that all of this is consisten with hinduism as an ethos, rather than religion.

It was the British who instilled into Indian heads that "religion" is the highest organization. In doing that the British bashed through (by hook and crook) a "definition and shape" of a Hindu religion. Then Hindus with post 1850s "secular education" started believing in this "Hindu religion" business and even developed pride in this legally defined "Hindu religion" as "the highest Hindu organization equal to Islam and Christianity" They did not realize that what had been done was to bring down an even higher organization of thirty-three crore Hindu religions that were part of the "Organization of the faiths of Hindu Dharma" into just another single religion with boundaries and a single book. Hindus then started fudging the concept of the "Absolute, Brahman" as the same as that one single God Jahweh or Allah saying "We too are monotheistic like you onlee at our core". In real terms Jehovah and Allah would fit in simply as two more among the thirty-three crore getting a grand total of thirty three crore and two gods in secular India- 33,00,00,002.

For Hindus the 'Absolute Brahman" is the core origin of all of creation. It is the single point "beginning of everything" before the Big Bang. All consciousness and "reality" stem from that. That core does not hand down laws specifically for humans, but simply set the laws of the universe including all of creation, and all life forms. Those laws of the universe, that you cannot make of break constitutes one aspect of dharma. You can follow and unfollow, but the laws are there and will win, in the end. This "One God" is not the same as a Jehovah or Allah laying down laws for humans and sensing human prophets (but no prophets for whales, dogs, fish, scorpions etc)

The Hindu point is that the identity of God is irrelevant, but the higher organization of the Universe and life on earth required ways of humans cooperating with each other, with environment and animal life that made the concept of a monopolistic "human only" God naive and ignorant. Hindus, having forgotten this, and having swallowed the legally defined "Hindu religion" that brought down the number of faiths from 33,00,00,002 (Thirthy three crore and two) to just 3 (Islam, Christianity and Hinduism) have now split themselves into "Hindutva" and "secular" where at least some of the Hindutva vadis are fighting for one out of three religions and seculars are fighting for equality of all three of the three religions.

What a pathetic mess! And what a fall from the height of civilized thought.

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 21 Jan 2015 06:47

Great posts shiv. But I think it is not enough to say that Hinduism is not a 'religion'. More exploration is needed into what Hinduism is, rather than what it is not.

Allah and Jesus cannot be swallowed into the concept of Brahman. That is the mistake our ancestors made. The abrahamic religions are based on exclusivism and difference between believer and non believer. All hatred stems from that.

Another point: Having a single blanket term for 'Hindu religion' may be necessary for unity against abrahamic monotheisms.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 21 Jan 2015 07:01

The problem in "right wingers" accepting Hinduism is a religion concept is not just that it is wrong, but that they are going to "compete" against a highly entrenched top-down system of "legal genocide and piracy" that was established by the abrahamic religions.

It is like bringing an imaginary gun ("Hindu Religion") in a gun-battle up against two pirates with auto-cannons. You have no chance of survival.

So defending Hindu System (rather than Hindu-ism), the state of being a Hindu (Dharmic ?), is actually two pronged without any order for the priority:
1) Disabusing the "Hindu-religion" folks from their colonized ideas of Hindu-ism
2) Going to a gun battle against an armed pirate with a real gun and not an imaginary gun. Fight the Abrahamics in both physical and mental spaces. This can be a challenge, since Abrahamic religions are designed specifically to destroy accepting "polytheist" societies (which Hindu society is by design).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jan 2015 07:25

csaurabh wrote: Another point: Having a single blanket term for 'Hindu religion' may be necessary for unity against abrahamic monotheisms.

Since we are in a theoretical discussion it is OK for me to make expansive statements. I agree with the point you make from a conceptual viewpoint - and in any case that is the reality now with Hindus by and large believing that they belong to a "religion" that is equalequal with Islam and christianity.

Technically if Indians stated that they have thirty-three crore religions then the "mine is bigger" problem of jealousy and feeling of inadequacy would be aggravated for Hindus because with 33 crore religions we would have 3 people per religion. I am trying to open up the concept that it is British education and the Protestant "Universalist" worldview that convinced us that everyone needs to have a "religion" first. If we magically discarded the idea that having one religion is important, we could then start looking up to a higher ideal of unity of people beyond all religion - i.e. religion need not be a point that causes divisions among humans. In fact this is the exact meaning of "Vasudeva kutumbakam". The Abrahamic religions are not about unity at all. They are about dividing people into believer and unbeliever, faithful and pagan. This concept is blown out of the park by discarding the identity of one's God as secondary to a universal creative force that constitutes a "theory of everything".

These are some fundamental Hindu concepts. If a person says "This is my god. This is my shirt. This is my land. This is my plate. This is my gal. This is my arm. This is my leg. My body etc" it goes only so far as the guy is alive. the minute he dies - everything that he describes as "my" this or that vanishes. So the attachment to what is mine is temporally limited. You as a young man may act cocky and rule the roost - but when you become an old codger some other young man will copy your assholegiri and hoist you up your own petard.

I really think it is important to define "reigion" as a restricted concept - which it is and the fact that the overarching "dharma" is what unites and is superior to the idea of religion needs to be re-instilled into colonized minds. And some modern day swamijis are not outside of such colonization - some are colonized.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jan 2015 08:17

I am making this post for future reference.

I am posting the archaic meaning of "religion" as defined in earlier days. It is important to know what "religion" meant in the 1850 to 1900 period because that is when the British hammered and chipped at a huge body of Hindu knowledge to fit a small number of "Hindu beliefs and behaviours" into a box called "Hindu religion" which was then presented to Hindus in schools and in European universities saying "Here - take thou this - your religion"

The following is from the 1913 Webster dictionary
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/religion

Re`li´gion Pronunciation: rė`lĭj´ŭn
n. 1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers.
An orderly life so far as others are able to observe us is now and then produced by prudential motives or by dint of habit; but without seriousness there can be no religious principle at the bottom, no course of conduct from religious motives; in a word, there can be no religion.
- Paley.
Religion [was] not, as too often now, used as equivalent for godliness; but . . . it expressed the outer form and embodiment which the inward spirit of a true or a false devotion assumed.
- Trench.
Religions, by which are meant the modes of divine worship proper to different tribes, nations, or communities, and based on the belief held in common by the members of them severally. . . . There is no living religion without something like a doctrine. On the other hand, a doctrine, however elaborate, does not constitute a religion.
- C. P. Tiele (Encyc. Brit.).
Religion . . . means the conscious relation between man and God, and the expression of that relation in human conduct.
- J. Köstlin (Schaff-Herzog Encyc.
After the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
- Acts xxvi. 5.
The image of a brute, adorned
With gay religions full of pomp and gold.
- Milton.
2. Specifically, conformity in faith and life to the precepts inculcated in the Bible, respecting the conduct of life and duty toward God and man; the Christian faith and practice.
Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.
- Washington.
Religion will attend you . . . as a pleasant and useful companion in every proper place, and every temperate occupation of life.
- Buckminster.
3. (R. C. Ch.) A monastic or religious order subject to a regulated mode of life; the religious state; as, to enter religion.
A good man was there of religion.
- Chaucer.
4. Strictness of fidelity in conforming to any practice, as if it were an enjoined rule of conduct.
Those parts of pleading which in ancient times might perhaps be material, but at this time are become only mere styles and forms, are still continued with much religion.
- Sir M. Hale.
Natural religion
a religion based upon the evidences of a God and his qualities, which is supplied by natural phenomena. See Natural theology, under Natural.
Religion of humanity
a name sometimes given to a religion founded upon positivism as a philosophical basis.
Revealed religion
that which is based upon direct communication of God's will to mankind; especially, the Christian religion, based on the revelations recorded in the Old and New Testaments.

From an 1828 Webster's dictionary
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/religion

RELIGION, n. relij'on. [L. religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind. This word seems originally to have signified an oath or vow to the gods, or the obligation of such an oath or vow, which was held very sacred by the Romans.]

1. Religion, in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man's obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man's accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties. It therefore comprehends theology, as a system of doctrines or principles, as well as practical piety; for the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion.

2. Religion, as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men, in obedience to divine command, or from love to God and his law. James 1.

3. Religion, as distinct from virtue, or morality, consists in the performance of the duties we owe directly to God, from a principle of obedience to his will. Hence we often speak of religion and virtue, as different branches of one system, or the duties of the first and second tables of the law.

Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.

4. Any system of faith and worship. In this sense, religion comprehends the belief and worship of pagans and Mohammedans, as well as of christians; any religion consisting in the belief of a superior power or powers governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers. Thus we speak of the religion of the Turks, of the Hindoos, of the Indians, &c. as well as of the christian religion. We speak of false religion, as well as of true religion.

5. The rites of religion; in the plural.

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 21 Jan 2015 08:24

Pulikeshi wrote: The Chinese have no such capability - their systems have been very internally focused with no overall consistency, as in, there is no method to the madness of the various schools. SD schools on the other hand have a very rigorous method defendable and offensive to WU. Hence the affinity of Western scholars to these disparate schools more digestible by them, whereas SD give them some indigestion naturally. Whereas the SD schools have historically imposed a self restrain in terms of not prescribing their way to outsiders, some like me would argue the Chinese are incapable to undertake such an activity even if they desired to...

Well yes, and I would say that if nothing else, the Chinese example proves that a nation does not need the crutches of the English language and abrahamic 'religions' to bring about technological development. That itself is a counter to Western Universalism.

The technology factor cannot be underestimated. When the British came into India with steam ships, railways and big guns, we assumed that since they can build those things, they must be right about everything. Hence the notions of Hindu religion, secularism, Aryan invasion theory, and so on..

According to them, the west invented everything onlee.. Hindu philosophy is a direct challenge to that since they did not invent it. Actually, even Christianity was not invented by the west but rather stolen from some middle eastern desert area. Western attempts at inventing religions have been pretty pathetic - see Book of Mormon, Scientology..

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 21 Jan 2015 08:31

The Sanatana Dharma is not an absolutist faith system. It is a relativistic life system. Faith is neither a necessary condition, nor a sufficient condition but it is a perfectly viable one.

In absolutist religions, faith is a necessary condition, and a sufficient one. In other words, faith alone is enough to be considered religious.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jan 2015 08:44

JE Menon wrote:The Sanatana Dharma is not an absolutist faith system. It is a relativistic life system. Faith is neither a necessary condition, nor a sufficient condition but it is a perfectly viable one.

In absolutist religions, faith is a necessary condition, and a sufficient one. In other words, faith alone is enough to be considered religious.

And from the 1828 dictionary I posted above we have this:

3. Religion, as distinct from virtue, or morality, consists in the performance of the duties we owe directly to God, from a principle of obedience to his will. Hence we often speak of religion and virtue, as different branches of one system, or the duties of the first and second tables of the law.

Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.

The Brits came with the idea that laws and morality cannot occur without religion.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 21 Jan 2015 09:04

^Not sure if the Brits came up with the idea, but certainly they are the ones to have transmitted it in a general sense - that "laws and morality cannot occur without religion"; earlier in the Indian context the Islamic rulers came up with the proposition that "laws and morality cannot occur without Islam" (in the sense of outside Islam).

I think the Brits had a more pernicious impact on the Dharmic worldview in that they generalised in a "secular" fashion the idea that "laws and morality cannot occur outside religion" - and that set us Hindoos off on a wild goose chase to try and demonstrate that we were just like them too. Understandable then, to some extent as they ruled directly and obviously. Not acceptable since at least the 1960s. It's taken some time, but I believe realization is gradually dawning, and being vigorously expressed.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 21 Jan 2015 09:54

shiv ji: With 33 crore religions, there is no requirement that there are only 3 people per religion unless one excludes a person following more than one religion. If you insist that each person has to follow exactly one religion then we can have (33 crores - 1) each followed by one person and one religion followed by the rest (i.e. current indian population - 33 crores + 1)

That would be still be a sizeable following, though I am not in favour of that. I would rather have anyone following any number of religions AKA beliefs.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 21 Jan 2015 10:29

csaurabh wrote: Well yes, and I would say that if nothing else, the Chinese example proves that a nation does not need the crutches of the English language and abrahamic 'religions' to bring about technological development. That itself is a counter to Western Universalism.

The Chinese (if you have spent time there and understand their current state of affairs intimately) are even more enamored by West than India or Indians.
Frankly, I am surprised you missed the elephant in the room - the adoption of Communism by the Chinese - they swallowed the WU mother load