Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

[shiv]

"Freedom protected by law" is one of the biggest brain farts ever coined by human minds. It is on par with "religion of peace" in the way it makes an idiot out of anyone who hears it and believes it.

Think about that one.

[johneeG]

Shiv saar,
You are right! Laws don't give freedom, laws provide protection. But laws provide protection by restricting freedoms. So, its a trade-off between freedoms and protection. The exact ratio of freedoms vs protection will be unique to time, place, circumstance and people. Thats means laws will be based on local conditions. If there is too much stress on protection ( which translates to many restrictions on freedom), then such state will be a police state. If there is too much stress on freedom ( which means no protection to people), then such a society will be anarchic. So, freedoms and protection has to be properly balanced.

Now, universal human rights means some basic protections to all human beings. But as you have explained so well, it also means 'some basic restrictions on freedoms of all human beings'.

This raises many questions:
- why only x type of protections are universal? Why not offer y type of protection also as universal human rights?
- why offer protection to all human beings? Some human beings may deserve punishments based on their bad behavior.
- why offer protection to only human beings? What about protection to animals and plants?

But, the most important point is:
- Laws require an enforcing authority. So, universal laws means universal enforcing authority. Generally, law enforcing authority is called govt. So, if there is a universal law enforcing authority, then that would become global govt. Obviously, global govt would clash with local and national govts over jurisdiction.

So, that leads to the next question: if there is a clash between local laws and global laws (universal human rights), then which of them has higher priority?
It seems that western govts stress that universal human rights have higher priority. That means, if there is a clash between global govt and national (or local govt), then global govt has the higher priority. This was invoked in the invasion of eyeraq.

Notice that this narrative seeks to enforce one global govt. This goes against the westphalion agreement. Westphalion agreement stresses on the sanctity of national borders. This was an agreement between european nations. After sometime, it was extended to other white dominated nations. After 1947, it was extended to all 'free' nations. However, at the same time a global govt which would supercede the national govts is sought to be setup. So, even as they insist on westphalion agreement and sanctity of nation states, they have taken steps to weaken the national govts and replace them with a global govt.

Global govt (universal human rights, un) will protect the secessionist movements and internal revolutions in non-western countries. Interestingly, the global govt is not a democracy. Some countries have special veto powers. As, it can be clearly understood, it is a vehicle to continue their control on the world through this means. Human rights are an excuse to create a system of global governance under the control of western elites.

[shiv]

Well said JohneeG. Well said. i wish every Indian were able to think for himself in this manner rather than pompously pontificating on the values of "western universalism"

Your whole post is valid, but I will simply quote part of one sentence for its value

The exact ratio of freedoms vs protection will be unique to time, place, circumstance and people. Thats means laws will be based on local conditions

Because the ratio of freedoms to restrictions are variable, a United Nations or Western dictation of "freedom" and "Human rights" cannot be universal. They are different in India and different in Russia. And in the US. They are simply and falsely declared as "universal" like claiming that one religion is a "religion of peace". False declarations, designed to mislead. Lies.

Freedoms and rights are created by laws. US laws restrict the rights and freedoms of Americans. European national laws restrict the rights and freedoms of people in European nations. We in India do not need those restrictions on our freedoms and our rights. We have our own ideas of freedoms and rights.

[Shreeman]

The only common element (or one of the few) in the ideologies debated above is hypocrisy. That is, not ordinary self-serving hypocrisy, but the grand delusion that things are some how collectively different than they are. I quote "religion of peace". But also supposed freedoms and rights, vs. practical and achievable rights and freedoms of all. Not just the elite or the educated but anyone born of the soil.

The ability to question, let alone distinguish between the myth and the fact is fast becoming extinct. Perhaps it was always difficult to question authority (be it your local thug or the "west"), it has certainly always been against common sense to do so. Lie, if lying for the sake of it is communal practice, applies to more than rome.

So the difference, in my humble opinion, will always be who has a cleaner mirror. Both to see your own face, and to show the opponent theirs as the need be. A hypocrisy quotient, so to say.

Please to ignore if tangential.

[KLNMurthy]

...
Should we in India reconsider using racial supremacy memes and looting as a tactic? We should not discard it just because the west has recently sidelined such behaviour under the banner "Universalism". It would go against our cultural ethos to simply discard even debating and thinking about such things. The west that now discourages colour consciousness, racism, looting and enslavement under the banner of neo-universalism used all those things to their advantage. That behaviour, after all, was the original universalism, all brushed under the carpet for cargo culters.

It is hard to answer such a question in the abstract. I prefer to ask the question, "is it, on balance, beneficial for us (under what definition of benefit and to whom and in what time frame) to hold on to racial supremacy memes and looting?"

Memes like genes have viability considerations that depend on the ecosystem. If there is an anti-racial superiority meme powerfully expressed in the ecosystem which will end up overcoming the racial superiority meme, or if the meme in question faces no opposition and spawns like the rabbits in Australia and destroys (that is to say, eliminates the desirable elements of )the ecosystem, then it is probably a bad idea to cling to that meme.

Another determining factor might be conformity with civilizational goals: we can see that Muslims--broadly speaking--seem to use a version of the racial superiority meme to good effect, but then again those that do use them don't have much by way of civilizational ambition beyond achieving dominance over mankind, they are in essence nothing more or less than large-scale bandits and parasites.

Probably certain kinds of "negative" or high-entropy memes like racial superiority etc. are a deeper part of human fabric of thinking, and don't require much effort to trigger and propagate. Other, more positive ones like pluralism, democracy and so on require a lowering of the entropy by doing the equivalent of pushing a stone up a hill.

But it is a moot point for the most part--mostly we don't really have a handle on consciously and predictably propagating a particular meme that is not already poised for propagation in the present ecology. When a gifted political leader like Modi successfully propagates a meme like development, he is only making use of an inbuilt sense for recognizing the memetic trends in the ecosystem and serving as an amplifier for that trend.

[Agnimitra]

Should we in India reconsider using racial supremacy memes and looting as a tactic? We should not discard it just because the west has recently sidelined such behaviour under the banner "Universalism".

No, India should not consider that meme as a 'tactic', because it just doesn't fit the fundamental sense of 'sacredness' in Indic civilization's identity. And no, the West has not "sidelined" such behavior - white Nordic racial features remain the most 'sacred' part of Western identity (Note: I'm not one to suggest this is necessarily a 'bad' and 'racist' thing - but it is something to be observed, that's all).

Here is typical viral piece going around about ISIS in the US -especially among the Bible-thumpers:

ISIS Kidnaps 300 Yazidi Women For One Purpose: ‘To Smash The Blonde Bloodline’

The different civilizational 'dvipas' have their different 'sacred' and 'classical' memes. [Classical vs. Sacred]. In the West, the core 'sacred' meme is racial features, particularly colour of the features, and being unblemished in that sense. In this mindset, all original vigour, purity, gentleness, epic violence, intellect, etc. needs to emanate from the pure genetic repository of the White Nordic, or its intermingling with Others.

As I said, I personally am not necessarily judgmental about this particular 'sacred' meme - it is just something to observe in humanity in general.

Note that 'sacred' meme of any one group is always in some form of difference and having-ness in opposition to the envy and not-having of another group. The above-linked article brings that point out also. Thus, those fair features are seen to be the envy of other races, and are adopted as the defining characteristic of Euro-dvipa, and it is obviously God-given, and hence 'sacred'. Even when the West was not economically or technologically dominant, they were still envied and admired for their racial features. Ottoman sultans always took white Balkan wives who became queen mothers. Their abducted and trained blonde Jannisseries became generals, while the original conquering mongol Turk yokel faded away. The Iranians and Turkish Ottomans competed for control over the Caucasus in great part for the gene pool, to make themselves more white. It didn't matter if white territories were dirt poor and filthy, their race was still prized. So, even when being the underdog buffeted by other powers, their white racial meme continued to be prized by the hateful Other - this is important in understanding the genesis of 'sacred' memes. When the dominant Other has contempt for you in general but still envies something in you, that thing tends to become a sort of 'sacred' thing in one's consciousness.

Racial superiority in that same sense doesn't really apply to India. But there are certain other memes about Indic civilization that were prized and envied by the dominant, contemptuous Other even when they held sway over India. And that meme is a sort of disembodied spiritual culture, its literature and its putative techniques to achieve that state. In some ways it is the exact opposite of the physical race meme - and yet not necessarily 'opposed' to it either... India can weaponize this disembodied spiritual culture and its wisdom - both, in terms of soft power and hard power. ॥ ऊँ क्ष्रौं ॥ ...

[shiv]

Having come this far, let me try and pen down a few thoughts and summarize what I can say about Western Universalism

Western Universalism does not have a simple definition or list that you can obtain. I got the list from references to many sources and articles. In brief WU is a prescription of behaviours and characteristics that are claimed to be global in nature, or said to be globally desirable or globally applicable, but they broadly reflect where Industrialized and developed societies have reached after about 200 years of development

I will now make a list of those aspects of WU that I can think of along with their pros and cons

1. Democracy:

• PRO: As a concept, everything
  CON: Some nations like China find it easier to conform to WU ideals by postponing or holding back democracy. A benevolent monarchy (a.k.a. "Ram Rajya") may be able to meet all the ideals without democracy

2. Freedom
All freedoms - including freedom to worship, freedom to have sex etc come under this

• PRO: As a concept, everything
  CON: Freedoms depend on laws and laws vary with societies. Some Indian freedoms are inapplicable in the US and vice versa. The same freedoms are not universal

3. Human rights

• PRO: As a concept, everything
  CON: Rights are mandated by laws. Laws depend on social norms. Social norms vary, so rights will vary. The same rights are not applicable everywhere. The same rights are not universal

4. Equality

• PRO: As a concept, everything
  CON: Religions and laws arising out of religion oppose the secular equality proposed by this ideal. The level of equality depends on local laws. Hence it is not universally applicable.

5. Right to food and clean water

• PRO: As a concept, everything
  CON: requires technology (see below)

6. Right to universal healthcare

• PRO: As a concept, everything
  CON: Modern healthcare is too expensive. Requires technology (see below)

7. Technology development and Industrialization

• PRO: Leads to wealth and power. Betters human lives
  CON: Environmentally degrading, may cause irreversible damage like deforestation and toxic pollution, very expensive - often wealth needs to come before industrialization, useful as a tool of subjugation and coercion, may lead to conflicts over resources and come into conflict with freedoms and rights

In summary, when you look at all the features of Western Universalism, you find that the best ones, with th least CONs like democracy and freedom cannot be applied uniformly everywhere. Everything else requires industrialization and technology.

Industrialization and technology are environmentally degrading, expensive and cause conflicts with ideals like rights, freedoms and democracy.

To me this business looks like a right royal mess. I see no easy way out of this mess - but will post views on that later

[A_Gupta]

This might seem rather off-topic, but I think it is relevant because it shows how history can be spun one way or another. The last successful invasion of England was 1066, you say?
The invasion of 1688:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... story.html

[anupmisra]

"Freedom protected by law" is one of the biggest brain farts ever coined by human minds. It is on par with "religion of peace" in the way it makes an idiot out of anyone who hears it and believes it.

Think about that one.

It rhymes well with "Peace in our time" and "Moderate Muslims".

[member_23692]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 868021.cms

Look at this news item. It appears as if Modi "magic" is waning already. Things are returning back to their normal state in India. Further confirms what I have been saying about Modi being a "one off" lottery, that was a complete fluke. And I repeat. I said right after Modi's election that Indian population in general, by large numbers, will act like a billion crabs pulling Modi down and the process has already started, even faster than I had anticipated, for all to see.

How does this relate to Western Universalism ?

Well, it seems like electing "wrong people" by the Indian electorate is not a habit born out of any effects of Western Universalism in India, in a narrow sense. But it is in a larger sense, an outcome of Indians choosing this kind of democracy that we have prevalent today in India, as a system of governance for us, which itself is an outcome of Western Universalism being slavishly followed by the Indian elite.

So here is what happened, and it was and is a deadly combination, highly suicidal.

The Indian elite got influenced by Western Universalism and adopts the system of governance that we have today in the form of current Indian Constitution and the idea of "universal suffrage", which coincidentally has the word "universal" in it.
This decision by the Indian elite was lethal, although would not in and off of itself been fatal, had not the Indian electorate, at least 90% of which had no exposure to Western Universalism, nor had anything to do with Western Universalism, chooses on its own, constantly and consistently, to vote criminals, psychopaths, sociopaths, rapists, dacoits, mafia figures, murderers as our leaders. This is a death knell.

Indian elites' corrupt nature of being influenced by Western Universalism, combined with 90% of Indians' own corruption of the non-Western Universalism variety and of a variety all our own, all very Indian form of corruption, forms a lethal and fatal potion, which is killing our culture and our civilization, and further taking us down the path of being a "crackpot" nation of suicidals.

As bad as Western Universalism is, where is our own native wisdom gone, that as bad as it is, we make it worse, much worse, by not only not countering it, but making its effect times 1 million, by our own corrupt acts, as a people ?

Why then, blame Western Universalism, with the vitriol that we do in this thread ? It is mild stuff compared to what we do to ourselves.

And it is ironic, that in this thread of "bashing" Western Universalism, the one outcome of the influence of Western Universalism in India, which is most lethal, which is the current form of Democracy practiced by Indians today and the Indian Constitution as a whole, is not only not questioned, but whole heartedly endorsed, not only that, anyone who questions that is either pulverized or worse, ignored. What is the point of this thread, when you embrace, by far, the most lethal form of Western Universalism, while criticizing it around the edges ? Even if we as a people exorcise the influence of all those marginal and peripheral Western Universalisms that we discuss in this thread, if we ignore the pernicious effects of the elephant in the room, all this discussion is...........shall I say, just........pie in the sky, chamber party, scotch drinking, intellectual masturbation......

[shiv]

In the post above I have made a list of 7 points that represent commonly quoted recommendations of western universalism. There are probably a few more, but this will do for now. I will simply list them again

1. Democracy:
2. Freedom: All freedoms - including freedom to worship, sexual freedom etc come under this
3. Human rights
4. Equality
5. Right to food and clean water
6. Right to universal healthcare
7. Technology development and Industrialization

Of this list, the first four, Democracy, Freedoms, Human rights and equality can be classified as social standards. These four do not require any monetary investment. Only moral commitment, and writing of laws.

The last three can be called material or physical standards. Food production and clean water supply are dependent on technology and industry. Technology and industry in turn require investment. They also require resources and land for industrial infrastructure, labour for construction and employment.

All the industrialized nations ignored or never even had the first four values when they were industrializing. Even some "democratic" countries had excluded huge segments of their own populations from democracy but these facts aided them considerably in generating wealth and industrialization. Most industrialized, wealthy, western nations well full industrial economies by 1940.

It was only after the 1950and 60 and even the 80s one might say that it became fashionable to push for the declaration of the first four moral values as "universal". You see, when your stomach is full. it is easy to preach morality and good sense.

The problem that India faces is bitter criticism, even sanctions and punishment on the moral universalist standards that we fail to achieve even as we struggle to meet the material and physical standards. I think it would be useful for Indians to understand and be empathetic with India about the dilemmas we face. My suggestion has been that instead of getting one's chaddis in a massive twist and demanding that no one should be critical and "bash" these lovely admirable universal standards that we incompetent bum Indians have not yet reached, how about not bashing India constantly? It's not for lack of trying. India is dirty. Shit everywhere. No LCA. Scooter helmets. rape. Everyone knows that. But look at the history of how those standards were achieved elsewhere.

Of course we have problems. Our problems are directly related to achieving the universal standards that we are supposed to reach, having started 200 years late with no possibility of having slaves or colonies. So how about cutting down on the cribbing and trying to see what history has done. How about some thought and understanding to match up to our otherwise world beating personal achievement standards?

[member_23692]

Of course we have problems. Our problems are directly related to achieving the universal standards that we are supposed to reach, having started 200 years late with no possibility of having slaves or colonies. So how about cutting down on the cribbing and trying to see what history has done. How about some thought and understanding to match up to our otherwise world beating personal achievement standards?

Again, while I agree with you on just about everything, even the slightest variation from your own thinking causes you to use words like "cribbing" to characterize other people's opinions. It is not possible for everyone to carry the same opinion as you with exactly the same nuance that you give to it, exactly the same spin, exactly the same amount of salt, exactly the same garlic and exactly the same color.

While i generally agree with you that we should be more understanding of ourselves and be less harsh, in theory, but really, you are preaching to an Indian. You are telling me to be less harsh on myself. Why should I ? Why should I not have worked harder than other American students, when I was in college in the States and been "kind" to myself. If I had been "more understanding" of myself, just because I was having to work twice as hard to get the same results as other "white" kids, I would be working in some drug store today as a night clerk. I will never force my kids, but I have tried to raise them in an environment where they have a good deal of motivation to succeed. When we talk in the family, we very seldom harp on the systemic obstacles we face both in India or anywhere else we operate, but focus almost exclusively on what we have to do to achieve our family goals. In other words, very little time is spent on obsessing with the systemic problems we face and how unfair they are, which of course they are, but more on how we get past them and how through our single mindedness, focus, hard work and creativity, while all the time staying within our family moral values, primary of which is to take as much care as possible that no other person gets hurt by what we do, we overcome these obstacles and achieve the same results as people who have advantages, even unfair advantages.

So, in a sense, you are advocating that we Indians dumb down and expect less from ourselves, and get mired in the unfairness of the obstacles placed before us, rather than single mindedly focussing on overcoming them. In fact, within our family, we constantly discuss that we should be thankful for the advantages we do have over others, and also for the disadvantages we have over others, as overcoming these disadvantages make us stronger and the ultimate result is that we live richer lives by virtue of the fact that we have overcome, rather than someone who is, for example, born a millionnaire and just coasts through life. A person who does not know how to overcome is like a color blind person, who only sees some colors all his life and has the rest of the very rich world totally hidden from him/her.

India and Indians has many advantages still, most other people in the world dont have. We should not feel sorry for ourselves, but get tough on ourselves and whip ourselves in shape to face the world. Making excuses does not do anybody any good. There is no "higher power" who will get moved by our plight and come and help us.

So, yes, it is hard not to be self critical, when every day you get news of our people, as a collective doing something so stupid, so corrupt, so suicidal, like the people of Bihar did yesterday. You get no break from these stupid acts. And all this goes down to the root cause, which is the system of governance we have. I think we should, without wasting any more time (we have wasted enough already), do away with it and start discussing how we do away with it. Is this cribbing ? Should we be more gentle, forgiving and understanding of this monstrosity of a system we have adopted ? Why ? Why should we be more understanding of it and why is attempting to do away with it, cribbing ?

I agree with you to the extent that we should be very clear about our enemies and what we are facing. We should know the true nature of evil. That helps us being realistic and helps us strategize how we overcome it. But it should then stop right there. The moment you start using other people's evil eye on you as an excuse to do less, not more, to be more understanding, not harsher on yourself, you have fallen into their trap. That is what they want. Their(our enemies') only yardstick of success is for you to go soft. If instead of going soft, we harden ourselves even more, everytime our enemies escalate their evil, there is no way in hell we can lose.

And finally, what is it that we should be more understanding of ? Should we be more understanding of the casteism that has become a part of our DNA, that divides us as a people ? I mean, why did the people of Bihar vote the way that they did ? Do they deserve any understanding ? Any sympathy ? Should we be more understanding of the fact that most of our people vote the way they do because they want something for nothing ? Should we be more understanding of that and not "crib" ? What are you talking about ?

The tougher our enemies, and Western Universalism is one of them, gets with us, the tougher they act with us, the more obstacles they place on us, the correct response is even more self discipline, even more self toughening, even more resolve, even less corruption, even more hard, naked courage, not "understanding and softness".

Understanding and softness are luxuries, like corruption, which we can enjoy when we are relatively safe and affluent and by and large have a healthy society. In anything less than that, we cannot afford corruption we cannot afford luxuries, we certainly cannot afford understanding and softness.

[shiv]

even the slightest variation from your own thinking causes you to use words like "cribbing"

rsangramji - please don't think I am trying to bash you. I express my thoughts here and it is your prerogative to psychoanalyse my thoughts. i am not stopping you from being hard on yourself or on other Indians. Please go ahead. You are doing nothing more than what Indians normally do. In my view I think Indians have a tendency to think that if they bash each other hard enough they will improve. That is what my neighbour's grandfather used to think when he was cruel to a servant. I am sure the servant learned his lessons well from the criticism. Only I hear the same India bashing from non Indians as well - I am sure they all mean well.

But I disagree with that view and refuse to bash Indians unnecessarily. I will however bash things that I feel like bashing and don't give a damn whether those entities like it or not. I am not trying to change them like you are trying to change yourself and Indians with self criticism. So my work is easy. That is my viewpoint and my prerogative. You do what you think is right I will do what I think is right.

I will leave you with a funny video which you might like, made by Indians about Indian behavior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fOaW6A4j5E

[Vayutuvan]

Decadence, malls stocked with imported cheap plastic ("beads" will fit quite well), hedonism without the philosophy that goes with it, not reading anything serious (sometimes even non-serious) material even when they have all the doo-das like tablets phablets, non-science, hagiography, praising to the face of the kids whenever they achieve small - even microscopic - things, praising encouraging and even boasting about their fine arts prowess without any understanding of what differentiates Dali from D&D artists (I could have used an Indian example as well but then we are talking about recent RNIs for whom everything comes from levant and lands west) or balamurali krushna from SP balasubramanyam ... The list can go on. But majority of the US are like that onlee. But if we start comparing the average achievements of the top 5% in any field we would see a marked separation - the US is certainly theleader of the pack and probably India would be somewhere in the middle. But India's best will do well anywhere so do amerikhan's best.

[member_22733]

Self criticism is ok as long as it's not born out of shame. When self criticism occurs due to shame, it becomes a distortion.

Will expand on this later.

[RamaY]

http://youtu.be/mtETTbjKdWw

Think about it. Be a solution!

[johneeG]

Western nations swear by democracy of late. They are ready to go to wars for democracy. If democracy is such an important ideal, then why is not global govt democratic? Why can't all citizens of the world vote to elect the leadership of un? Well, numerically cheen and bhaarath have advantage. So, global democracy would translate to power in the hands of cheen and bhaarath. So, it cannot be democracy at global level.

Fine, then atleast, there should be democratic voting in which all countries can vote as equals. But, even this basic requirement of democracy is not adhered by un. Some countries have special powers called veto. So, un has no democracy whatsoever. And un is used to bully all non-western countries on the pretext of democracy and human rights. The most obvious question is: who elected the un as global govt? Did the people of the world agree to the views of un? Was there ever any type of voting or plebiscite to validate un?

Of course, bhaarath will have to contribute troops for 'peacekeeping'. So, bhaarath will not have power to lead, but it has the responsibility to provide troops who will be used as cannon fodder by imperial west.

[shiv]

Fine, then atleast, there should be democratic voting in which all countries can vote as equals. But, even this basic requirement of democracy is not adhered by un. Some countries have special powers called veto. So, un has no democracy whatsoever. And un is used to bully all non-western countries on the pretext of democracy and human rights. The most obvious question is: who elected the un as global govt? Did the people of the world agree to the views of un? Was there ever any type of voting or plebiscite to validate un?

Well to repeat what I said earlier in this thread

The United Nations was actually set up to uphold [...] moral responsibilities - but it was set up to be led by nations with the worst morals. That is because the only morality is power and the only power that seemed respectable was frightening military power. The UN is not a balance of morals. It is a club led by brutal goons.

What I find amusing is that nuclear weapon power is now spreading partly because of the laughably low morality displayed by the P5.

[Vayutuvan]

"Freedom protected by law" is one of the biggest brain farts ever coined ...
Think about that one.

Is it different from "dharmO rakshati rakshitA:"?

[Pulikeshi]

There are rants about ‘them’ and then there are rants about ‘us’ – I say why rant at all?

If civilization-states have allowed the transfer of information, they have also prevented them, but even worse distorted them. Indeed, all reflections on civilizations and their values are just that, they are mirrors looking at each other. Ideally, the mirrors in question would be without any aberration spherical or otherwise. However in practice, it is not clean mirrors looking at each other reflecting into infinity. Reality, as it were is more disturbing, in that the mirrors are complex with concave and convex shapes, spherical and chromatic aberrations and the like that makes cause and effect impossible to decipher.

Universalisms and histories are constructed on these distortions, even reinforced into the very weave of the mirrors till one side or the other comes to believe it to be reality and has greater access or control over its shape. Ironically, the purely declarative systems have been more notorious on this front since the very beginning starting with the Zoroastrians. Every ascendant civilization-state at the zenith of its power invented a Universalism or adopted and modified one for its use. This was the same for Asoka, Rome, Bryzantine, etc. historically, and remains the same even today with every power in between.

Rants only reveal a lot about the prejudice and the nature of the person indulging in it, but rarely does it help in either understanding existing distortions in ‘them’ or in ‘us’, nor does it help in creating new ones that are meaningful to an ascendant civilization-state you care about.


Common sense questioning often sounds intelligent, but leads to only more misunderstanding of the distortion. We end up with WKK, Mama ka Tamasha, I grew up Hindu, but very secular onlee, Ours was not an arrangement, but parent approved love marriage, I am not casteist but I married in my jaati onlee, ityadi

Let alone mango loins, even intellectuals from the conventions framework have a lot of trouble understanding their own distortions, and leave alone understanding those of declarative frameworks. They fumble all over the place and themselves even on basic questions on their conventions, and get even more confused on their declarations which are amendable, where as those from pure declarative frameworks are set in stone. If you want to look up the declarative ideas in the SD framework – here are a few values that are claimed to apply to all Varnas:
(notice they can evolve! but some of it has now been cast in stone into Hindu Personal Law and few others into Constitution)

Manu Smrithi (Book 10.63) [Similarly in Vasishta Dharmasutra and Vishnu Dharmasutra]:

• Ahimsa – Non-violence
• Satya - Truthfulness
• Asteya – Not coveting the property of others
• Shoucham - Purity
• Indriyanigraha – Control over the five senses

Mahabharata – Shanti Parva:

• Satya - Truthfulness
• Akroda – Free from anger
• Kshama – Forgiveness
• Samvibhaga – Charity
• Sexual intercourse with one’s wife alone
• Shoucham – Purity
• Bhrtyabharana – Maintaining and cherishing dependents and servants

[ShauryaT]

Pullikeshi: Good Post. The lakshanas overlap with Yam/Niyam of Yogasutras, Bhagwat Puraan, BG itself, Jaina, Sikhi and Buddhist texts right down to what the Arya Samaj has propagated in the industrial era.

Which lashanas are cast into Hindu Personal Law? To my knowledge, The only part of personal law that is somewhat derived from Mitakshara/Dayabagha is the concept of co-parceners - but with a western framework modification - rooted in the concept of "individualism" i.e: one becomes a co-parcener at the age of 18, for both male and females.

[shiv]

"Freedom protected by law" is one of the biggest brain farts ever coined ...
Think about that one.

Is it different from "dharmO rakshati rakshitA:"?

What would that mean in English?

You have to decide if freedom is different from dharma.

On BRF nobody is willing to stick his neck out and say what dharma is. As far as I can tell I am the only guy who tried. I am willing to be corrected by links to posts where people other than me have defined dharma. I don't think freedom and dharma are the same.

Can you define dharma?
Can you define freedom?

PS Just noticed that Pulikeshi has put up a list.

I can see nothing in that list that equates with the sense in which "freedom" is used.

[ShauryaT]

On BRF nobody is willing to stick his neck out and say what dharma is. As far as I can tell I am the only guy who tried. I am willing to be corrected by links to posts where people other than me have defined dharma. I don't think freedom and dharma are the same.

Shiv ji, maybe the following post http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=920 is not a "definition" of Dharma but I have tried to state in brief what Dharma would mean in action in our social, political and economic life, which needs elaboration. PS: It was in response to a question by you.

[shiv]

On BRF nobody is willing to stick his neck out and say what dharma is. As far as I can tell I am the only guy who tried. I am willing to be corrected by links to posts where people other than me have defined dharma. I don't think freedom and dharma are the same.

Shiv ji, maybe the following post http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=920 is not a "definition" of Dharma but I have tried to state in brief what Dharma would mean in action in our social, political and economic life, which needs elaboration. PS: It was in response to a question by you.

Thanks Shaurya. I recall that post.

Unfortunately it does not list out dharma as a bullet point list.

If a young person were to ask you,"What is dharma" would that post be a satisfactory reply to leave him wiser?

Let me say one more thing.

I don't think 90% of BRFites, all of who consider themselves to be totally Indian and Hindu at heart, would be able to give a straight answer to what is dharma.

I am looking for a straight, no beating about the bush, no buggering about answer. I believe I made one such post. Pulikeshi has made one above although he stops short of saying "Dharma is defined as:"

[svinayak]

This is not a religion forum.

[shiv]

This is not a religion forum.

Dharma is not religion. Religion requires God.

Dharma exists independent of God.

[shiv]

This has been discussed earlier in this thread

Western Universalism includes a set of moral dictates that are claimed to be secular. Most of us do not have the intellect of Balagangadhara to recognize that these so called secular moral dictates are all derived from Christianity - especially the parts about human rights (rights of a sovereign over his domain), and freedoms allowable to man.

Again - if one goes back and reads those delectable quotes of Balagangadhara posted by Arun Gupta - you will see how Hindus were cornered into bracketing their practices as religion, because for the British, all that Hindus did simply had to be the "other" religion. They were unable to conceive of something that could exist outside the Kingdom of God when Hindu dharma is not religion at all. It is above religion. Even Gods have to conform to dharma which is perfectly secular. How can we now classify dharma as "religion" and see no problem about discussing Christianity derived universalisms on a non religious forum. Ironic

[ShauryaT]

To me Dharma is righteous action. The universe is upheld through this righteous action. Of course, what constitutes righteousness is a matter of debate, deliberation and evolves as per context and times. So, while certain things are eternal or sanatan certain others are more elastic that needs careful deliberation for its times. The corpus of material we have, which can be confusing, but which can also shed light and provide clarity should be enough for a student of this literature and through practice and observation to understand in totality what Dharma is.

I do concede though that the majority of our populace does not have this understanding due to many factors, among them are lack of formal theoretical education of our systems, changes in values, laws based on alien frameworks and last but not the least a degradation in our own practices and social systems.

Also, although in that post, I did not list the bullets, I have stated the exact point that Pulikeshi has in his post, just that I simply referenced the source the Manu Smriti in that post and did not elaborate. But, IMO, Dharma is multi faceted and has a role beyond the individual and hence listed, social, community and universal dharmas along with the self. But, you are right, to a young person, I might as well be speaking Clingon language.

[shiv]

To me Dharma is righteous action. The universe is upheld through this righteous action. Of course, what constitutes righteousness is a matter of debate,

Righteous action yes. There is no debate whatsoever about some aspects of dharma relating to the telling of truth, avoidance of excess, respecting elders and gurus, caring for children and one's parents, marrying and having children, marital fidelity and a whole lot of other behaviors that are generally recognized as dharma, and propagated by stories and legends. Some of these are "eternal" and are required to uphold society. These are some of the very things that are under attack from western social experiments that spread under the generic title of "universalism" and modernity and development.

[shiv]

An earlier quote of Balu (SN Balagangadhara) by Arun Gupta
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1700371

once the liberal colonial state implemented its policy of religious toleration: now these traditions had to prove that they were proper religions in order to be legitimate. In the same way as its colonial precursor, the secular state of post-independence India has forced the Hindu traditions to identify and stand up for themselves as religious doctrines, variants of Islam and Christianity.

law spreads a typical Christian attitude in a secularized form: it forces one to defend one’s tradition as a religion, with its own sacred doctrines and sacrosanct sentiments.

[member_23692]

even the slightest variation from your own thinking causes you to use words like "cribbing"

rsangramji - please don't think I am trying to bash you. I express my thoughts here and it is your prerogative to psychoanalyse my thoughts. i am not stopping you from being hard on yourself or on other Indians. Please go ahead. You are doing nothing more than what Indians normally do. In my view I think Indians have a tendency to think that if they bash each other hard enough they will improve. That is what my neighbour's grandfather used to think when he was cruel to a servant. I am sure the servant learned his lessons well from the criticism. Only I hear the same India bashing from non Indians as well - I am sure they all mean well.

But I disagree with that view and refuse to bash Indians unnecessarily. I will however bash things that I feel like bashing and don't give a damn whether those entities like it or not. I am not trying to change them like you are trying to change yourself and Indians with self criticism. So my work is easy. That is my viewpoint and my prerogative. You do what you think is right I will do what I think is right.

I will leave you with a funny video which you might like, made by Indians about Indian behavior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fOaW6A4j5E

Again, as someone who agrees with most of what you say, as an ideological cohort, here is how I will respond.

1. You have been bashing Indians incessently and viciously in this thread, right from the first post. You have been bashing Indians for being adherents of Western Universalism or for buying into Western Universalisms. So, again, you are being disingenuous about you not wanting to bash Indians or not bashing Indians unnecessarily. Now, I happen to agree with you that Indians need to be bashed for blindly buying into Western Universalism. Therefore, I did not and am not critical of you for bashing Indians for that reason. But please dont claim that you dont bash Indians.

2. So, if you want to be intellectually honest, you will say that both you and I bash Indians, but whereas I agree with your Indian bashing for buying into Western Universalism, you dont agree with my Indian bashing for those reasons that I enunciate, such as corruption and suicidal acts arising out of our own Indianness, not necessarily Western Universalism. So, am I correct in understanding that it is not Indian bashing per-se that you oppose, but Indian bashing for any other reason other than blindly accepting Western Universalism.

3. It is ok. You dont have to agree with the reasons for my bashing, just because I agree with yours. There is no quid pro quo here. We all have to argue logically and let the chips fall where they may in each argument based on their own merits. But please let us be honest and call a spade a spade, rather than taking the moral high ground of not indulging in Indian bashing, while accusing others of doing so. We can each be a bit humbler and more respectful that way, which will promote an honest discussion.

Now, coming to your post. A servant ? Really ? You think when I am critical for the people of Bihar for voting in the most corrupt manner for Lalu and Nitish, based on narrow self interest and caste, I am thinking of them as servants? You really think people of Bihar are servants ? A lot of them are so rich, that they can buy someone like me a hundred times over. On second thoughts, you may be right. It is not the money which makes someone think like a servant. People in Bihar have acted like servants by voting the way they did a couple of days ago in their by elections. You choose to not agree with my bashing them for that reason. After all, there was no direct connection between Western Universalism and them voting that way. So, they are not deserving of any criticism.

The biggest Western Universalism is "Democracy" and "Secularism". We need to discard those. All the other Western Universalisms crumble, when those two concepts tumble. And those two concepts, while the West has managed to find the right balance to make those work for them at least in the near past and the present (dont know about the future), they do not work anywhere else and in fact are destructive in other places. These concepts need to be jettisoned, certainly from India. And those Indians that stick by these two concepts with a passion that rivals orgasms, why are you not so critical of them ? So, you are selective even in your criticism of the Western Universalists. You make the classic Indian mistake of going after the "less guilty", while leaving the big sharks alone. What is your reason for doing this, I dont know.

[Yayavar]

rsangram: Democracy is not 'western' and it is not a concept to be discarded.

live and let live is but a form of 'secularism', it is not western and is not a concept to be discarded. Just because politicos use a convoluted meaning of 'secularism' in Inida is a different subject.

[Satya_anveshi]

choti muh badi baat...here is my take (may not be palatable to many):

At the lowest level, performing Yagnas per Vedic strictures is Dharma. This one act will impose behavioral and thought sandbox in the individual whose actions are guided and which will in turn maintain the world order conducive for human growth. Righteous action is closest next definition but is, IMO, is the result of yagnic karma. Dharma is not independent of Veda per this definition.

[member_23692]

rsangram: Democracy is not 'western' and it is not a concept to be discarded.

live and let live is but a form of 'secularism', it is not western and is not a concept to be discarded. Just because politicos use a convoluted meaning of 'secularism' in Inida is a different subject.

The kind of democracy we practice in India right now, is certainly a Western Derivative. We can all agree with that.

We also can all agree with the fact that this manifestation of democracy that we have in India right now, needs to be discarded and jettisoned, like 65 years ago.

Now, if you or anyone else can come up with a non-western model of democracy, preferably with an Indian ethos, that has high probability of working, and has good likelihood of getting us to our goals of preservation of our culture, ethos, territory, civilization and makes us more affluent and better people morally, then I am all ears.

Lets get rid of this monstrosity that we currently have.

[Yayavar]

What are these Indian ethos that need to be infused into the democractic process?

[member_23692]

What are these Indian ethos that need to be infused into the democractic process?

That should not be a question directed to me. I am for doing away with democracy. If you want a democracy, I say, make it conditional on and infuse it with Indian ethos.

Indian ethos to me are the same as Dharma. It really is not that complicated, quite straight forward actually. It is

1) Duty

2) Sacrifice

3) Acting to strengthen the larger community and the nation

4) Moderation as opposed to run away capitalism and glutony

5) Taking care of the weak

6) Respect for elderly and utilizing their wisdom instead of disposing them off

7) Straight forwardness - example in our heritage - fight from the front, fight by the rules, dont stab in the back

Dont live like you will live forever

9) God fearing

10) Respect for all individuals as all of them have God within them

11) Fair play - as evidenced in our tradition by rules of war, which pitted warriors of more or less same caliber against each other

12) Fairness and quick justice - as evidenced by our ancient system of justice which was quick, no delayed justice

13) Strong emphasis in Karm Yog - action to protect Dharma - implies military strength in the service of nation's defense

I can go on and on in that vein, but I think you get my drift.

By the way, NONE of the above are present in Indian society today. You need a system that will bring these back, and then further evolve them, to suit modern times.

This democracy that we have, started taking us in the opposite direction of what I have enunciated above, almost from day one that it came into existence and has gradually, as every day as passed over the past 65 years, accelerated our collective journies on the wrong path and in the wrong direction.

Today, we are not a nation of laws, nor are we a nation based on duty and sacrifice (or maybe, you perform your duty and you sacrifice, while I take), nor do we think as a nation or even a city or a mohalla (we only think about ourselves), nor are we a nation of moderation (we are a glutenous nation of fools, running after nothing but money and power), nor are we straight forward (we are too clever by half, each one of us, in fact we pride ourselves in our jugad), nor do we take care of our weak (in fact we routinely prey on our weak), nor do we think we are ever going to die (look around you, every body is living like they will live forever and everyone else will die except for them), nor are we a culture that respects our elderly anymore (we routinely abuse them), nor are we God Fearing (we behave like there will never ever be any consequences of our actions, no matter how ghastly they are), nor do we believe in fair play and justice (we constantly strive to get ahead by cheating our fellow man via corruption or using influence), nor are we a nation of laws (we pride ourselves in breaking the law - you are not a big man, until you break the law and get away with it), nor are we Karam yogis (with the exception of our brave Jawans and jr officers, we only believe in cheating and robbing our fellow man) nor are we a nation that can protect its citizens (try calling the police and see when they arrive, and actually try and compare our border on the ground compared to 1947 and see how much territory we really have lost and these mafiosos who call themselves our democratically elected government lies to us through their teeth).

So, we are not a nation at all. And expecting this democracy that we have right now to return us back to the path of Dharma as I listed above, is like expecting "amrit" to flow out of a rear end.

[ramana]

FDR's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms

---

Dharma is doing the right thing.
Dharma is different for different professions/avocations stages of life.

It is constrained by time, place and circumustances.

[ramana]

"Freedom protected by law" is one of the biggest brain farts ever coined by human minds. It is on par with "religion of peace" in the way it makes an idiot out of anyone who hears it and believes it.

Think about that one.

In 1748, Montesquieu said" Liberty is the freedom to do what the laws allow,..."

[shiv]

"Freedom protected by law" is one of the biggest brain farts ever coined by human minds. It is on par with "religion of peace" in the way it makes an idiot out of anyone who hears it and believes it.

Think about that one.

In 1748, Montesquieu said" Liberty is the freedom to do what the laws allow,..."

That is an excellent illustration - and let me use this as a starting point for something I was planning to write - that is - a clarification/explanation of what "Balu" (SN Balagangadhara) has written (quoted above) about "forcing" a declaration that certain Indian practices are "Hindu religious practices"

Balu writes that British "liberalization" of laws applied in India created the following change: People who wanted to practice something odd or unusual would be allowed to do so provided they claimed that it was a "religious practice". For example - a few people could go to the Brits and appeal that "sati" was a Hindu religious practice. A Khap Panchayat could, in theory, claim that an honour killing is "a Hindu religious practice". As long as some Hindu group could claim a long "religious tradition" that some oddball practice was a "Hindu religious practice" they would be allowed to do it under certain liberal laws.

That is how a whole lot of nonsense that has no bearing on dharma, which used to be a non religious primary driving force in Indian society got clubbed into "Hindu religious practices" by legal recognition.

It is another matter that Hindus, by then, had lost their ability to check other Hindus by debate and ask if any particular practice was dharma or not. That apart - once British "liberal" laws recognized something as a "religious practice" - that practice got classified as part of a "religion" by law. Thus child sacrifice became "Hindu religion", Sati became "Hindu religion".

There was no Hindu of any stature who could point out that Sanatana Dharma is not religion. Hindu dharm is not religion. But religious practices form a subset of Sanatan Dharma. Unfortunately this does not seem to be apparent to most Hindus even today. On the other hand most Hindus seem to have accepted and internalized the idea that Hinduism is a religion like Christianity is a religion, but Hindu religious practices have bad things like Sati and caste which we must change.

Flippin heck. None of these pratcices are part of any "religion" called Hinduism. They were thrown into the melting pot along with "Hindu religion" because people who wanted to continue certain practices within their communities simply claimed that they were members of the Hindu religion and that these were Hindu religious practices so as to gain legal recognition. We now see Hinduism as a "religion" on the seat at the "high table" of religions. What a come down that is for a beautiful and secular universal concept like dharma.

It would be perfectly possible to reason from the viewpoint of dharma whether sati or child sacrifice or honour killing are dharma or adharma. But that ability - to reason and reach agreement within Indian society has been destroyed. Hindus are now pale copies of Christians and Muslims and think the way people of those religions think. We think of ourselves as following a religion where a God is foremost. But that was never the case. Dharma was always first for Hindu behaviour. the need for God for succor or worship was secondary. Dharma was mandatory whether or not you followed any God. But modern Hindus can't even say what it is they must do to follow dharma. It's not that difficult or complex. In fact Indian society by some quirk of fate seems to still recall and pratcice, or at least talk about some aspects of dharma. But our education wipes our minds free of all that. It is the "Hindu religion" that we hold dear.

[shiv]

Indian ethos to me are the same as Dharma. It really is not that complicated, quite straight forward actually.

Correct. Agree 100%.