Bharat Rakshak

^^^^.

Somehow, the discussion on sexuality/freedom is taking place in absence of prior context/consequences.

Sexual freedom is not just about just age, partner or consent. It is also having access to the social tools for safeguarding these choices (eg uk grooming) and managing natural consequences (both reproductive and psychological).

These same free societies restrict access to sex education, and medication so arbitrarily that it is difficult for an unbiased observer to differentiate between freedom to have sex vs sexual exploitation and propaganda supporting it.

And I am not even stepping past conception, when all the charade comes crashing down. So much so, that a civilsed debate on the subject is impossible. And women thermselves have no say in policy or law whatsoever. Religion does.

Lastly, it is alien to an Indian society to think that the shephards of a childs future are not the parents but some foster parenting social services agency that can take away the children at its whim. Yet this is the routine in split parenthood practiced in these advanced societies.

There is a lot of djinn-physics equivalent civics here that is entirely inexplicable to an outside observer.

Shreeman wrote: There is a lot of djinn-physics equivalent civics here that is entirely inexplicable to an outside observer.

I started looking for information on the subject with some biases in my mind and I was surprised at what I found.

Let me start by saying that female sexual freedom appears to be controversial.

On the one hand there are those who believe that
1. Women have been hoodwinked into making their bodies cheap and easily available
2. Women still have a stigma in ways that men don't
3. The safety net and checks and balances do not seem to extend to women in the lower socio-economic strata

In fact these were the biases I started with. But after some reading, it appears to me that there is the other, happy and positive side to the female sexual freedom story as told my many women

1. Women now have financial independence and don't need to marry. They don't need men for support.
2. They don't need to get pregnant; it's not true that all women secretly desire children. They do not want to have children
3. Women are able to enjoy casual sex just like men and are quite happy with that situation
4. The last thing they want is to get hooked and stay married they genuinely value their freedom.
5. In addition to this, one researcher created a storm by saying that genuinely smart and inrelligent women would not have children. She backed this up with data

From my viewpoint and from the viewpoint of this thread, this is how I see it.

If women are being misled and misused by sexual freedom, it is obviously wrong. And if women are perfectly happy to remain single, independent, enjoy casual encounters and not have children - it falls within their "individual rights" to be that way. But as I argued earlier, from the Indian viewpoint (and not the western viewpoint), individuals owe society something as a duty. It is necessary to have children. And with children it is necessary to stay married if possible.

As a counterpoint, if I have quoted one study that says that sexually liberated women without kids are smarter, let me quote another study (albeit old) that there is no human civilization on earth that has survived in which monogamy has not been the rule. Polygamous, free sex societies have always destroyed themselves according to that author.

So as I see it, fee sex, either for men of for women is adharma. Children are essential and a child has a right to have a mother and a father - so marriage must be encouraged and kept sacrosanct.

Does this mean a restriction of individual right to sexual freedom?

In a word, yes. Individuals do owe something to society and must ensure stability and continuation of society in far more ways than simply paying taxes and earning a living. That is a no brainer if one looks at it from the viewpoint of dharma.

Since they are very close allies, why can Western countries insist of *exual Freedom in OIC countries, let most of the women choose not to have kids, say for 20 years.

I feel these countries must take a lead in this.

ON the other hand, the example of North America, South America- Native Americans and Aborgines of Australia, Kashmir, Hindus of Pakjab, Hindus of Bangladesh, Armenians have shown that if you do not have sufficient population and miltary might, your society is likely to be wiped out by other societies which are predatory in nature.

Again these Induvidual rights are good when you are insulated from predatory populations through miltary might and geography. USA, Australia, South America and Western Europe or Even Japan, China and North East asia where these Homogenous societies are hardly likely to be swamped.

But in the subcontinent, where we have seen what has happened in Bangladesh, West Punjab, Kashmir Valley, Kyber Puktunwala, Balochistan. Such decesions in Assam, NE, Kerala, WB could very well mean extinction of one community in the near future.

shiv wrote: On the one hand there are those who believe that
1. Women have been hoodwinked into making their bodies cheap and easily available
2. Women still have a stigma in ways that men don't

The liberation movement is not really in favor of woman’s future, it is against it. It is a reactionary movement. They are asking for equality with men. Why equality? Woman is woman, man is man; they are unique beings. They are not equal, they are not unequal either; they are simply different. They are opposite polarities.

Asking for equality, they are doing all kinds of idiotic things. Because man smokes, liberation women are smoking. Do you think this is intelligence? Man is doing something foolish, but to be equal, you have to do that foolish thing. Soon the women’s liberation will tell women to piss standing! Equality? This is sheer nonsense.

I don’t see that there is any problem. Women should behave like women, according to their nature. A woman smoking looks as if something has gone wrong. And please, at least don’t start pissing standing. Equality does not mean that you have to do everything that man is doing.

Psychologically there is no equality; there is only uniqueness. The woman has to assert her uniqueness, and she has a different way of expressing herself.

It is not only when you make a painting that you are a creator; when you make delicious food, you are an even greater creator, because nobody can eat the painting. It does not help in any way.

From Osho, From Bondage to Freedom, Chapter 14

I have a question, why is woman smoking worse than a man smoking?? This is something In India which men who smoke also point as if it is something especially bad. If it is socially acceptable for a man to smoke, same should be for a woman.

Aditya_V wrote:I have a question, why is woman smoking worse than a man smoking?? This is something In India which men who smoke also point as if it is something especially bad. If it is socially acceptable for a man to smoke, same should be for a woman.

In America, if you wear pink shirt and put a hand around your guy friend's shoulders, be sure to be called nice names from others. Once my friend (fresh from India) put his hand on his work (male) colleague's shoulder, in America, the colleague shouted "I am not your wife". Social conditioning creates such non-linear reactions in different parts of the worlds.

"Should" type of prescriptions is just your projection of what is the "ideal". Such "ideals" are always subjective and not universal.

Feminism arises as a necessary corollary of the fact that all the systems that prescribe self-control for both men and women devolve into the control of women and the self-indulgence of the men.

Aditya_V wrote:I have a question, why is woman smoking worse than a man smoking?? This is something In India which men who smoke also point as if it is something especially bad. If it is socially acceptable for a man to smoke, same should be for a woman.

Smocking is bad for everybody, and rightly recognized as a vice.

A few rural women who are over the child bearing age smoke, and they are not looked down upon. Whereas in urban settings I have rarely seen women of child bearing age smoke from the mainstream population.

Aditya_V wrote:I have a question, why is woman smoking worse than a man smoking?? This is something In India which men who smoke also point as if it is something especially bad. If it is socially acceptable for a man to smoke, same should be for a woman.

You are right.

But let me point out something else. You have to judge for yourself whether it is good or bad.

In India (and in a number of other generally non-westernized countries) there is a general feeling that white western women are readily willing to get laid. This is not just because of books, movies and TV - all of which suggest that male-female encounters between white woman and man end in sex. Everything I have read about female sexual freedom suggests that over the years women in the west have actually started mimicking men in their attitudes towards casual sex. Some mards may have personal experience of this. Read this link, for example
http://feministing.com/2012/08/27/hook- ... bad-thing/

It may be heading that way among wealthy, westernized Indian women (a very small minority), but for the vast mass of Indian women it is not that way.

Now here is the interesting thing - many Indian girls and young women are choosing western style dresses (that is what shops stock whether anyone likes it or not - all cheap and mass produced) and they certainly do look very good in them - but these are clothing fashions. Indian girls are "not yet there" in terms of sexual freedom.

However the non westernized Indian man, who believes that western dress represents western woman and that western woman represents willingness to have sex, tends to interpret Indian women in western clothes as a woman advertising her sexual willingness. Even non westernized Indian women believe this. This is why there are constant calls by some people and groups in India for Indian women to "dress modestly" if they do not want to attract sexual assault. And we find Indian women protesting on TV and in the media saying that the dresses they wear are not invitations for sex. Unfortunately for Indian women, western women - via western media and the big hoo hah that is made about the liberated woman who is sexually free has now developed a reputation for being an easy lay. The appearance (the dress) is conflated with promiscuity.

Now imagine if Indian women were sexually free and easily available to get laid, perhaps a lot more people would be getting sex and perhaps some assaults on women would be avoided (lewd comments, boob squeezing). But not all Indian women may want to be that way, or may not be allowed to be that way by family. I think they do need to be informed about western female sexual freedoms and the attitudes those freedoms create in the minds of a non westernized male audience in non western nations. That is the signal that western dresses send out in India to the non westernized audience - who constitute 80+ percent of Indians.

It could perhaps be said that the Indian teenage and twenty something girl in a short-skirt party dress is only a pale fake copy of the liberated western woman. She looks like one but does not carry the sexual freedoms that western women have acquired for themselves. But do Indian girls know what men are thinking?

Aditya_V wrote:Since they are very close allies, why can Western countries insist of *exual Freedom in OIC countries, let most of the women choose not to have kids, say for 20 years.

I feel these countries must take a lead in this.

ON the other hand, the example of North America, South America- Native Americans and Aborgines of Australia, Kashmir, Hindus of Pakjab, Hindus of Bangladesh, Armenians have shown that if you do not have sufficient population and miltary might, your society is likely to be wiped out by other societies which are predatory in nature.

Again these Induvidual rights are good when you are insulated from predatory populations through miltary might and geography. USA, Australia, South America and Western Europe or Even Japan, China and North East asia where these Homogenous societies are hardly likely to be swamped.

But in the subcontinent, where we have seen what has happened in Bangladesh, West Punjab, Kashmir Valley, Kyber Puktunwala, Balochistan. Such decesions in Assam, NE, Kerala, WB could very well mean extinction of one community in the near future.

Aditya, we cannot ask the west to do or say what we feel that someone else should do.

What we need to do is to say these thing out loud and lecture others. We need to lecture the west about family and lecture Islamic countries abut how they need to deal with their wimmens

A_Gupta wrote:Feminism arises as a necessary corollary of the fact that all the systems that prescribe self-control for both men and women devolve into the control of women and the self-indulgence of the men.

True and this is the case when the core value systems and objectives of a human life and a married life as per Dharma are not practiced and/or do not enjoy backing or enforcement in law. Few examples, If Artha, Kama, Dharma are to be shared jointly by husband and wife and a Dwijia or twice born is to be a Brahmacharya, until marriage, where is the question of man enjoying more rights sexual or otherwise over a woman? It is only when principles of dharma degrades in society is there scope for such abuses and biases. Kshatriyas hold primary responsibility to uphold Dharma in society for they are entrusted to enforce laws. A historical read of India will show the degradation of dharma more or less in sync with loss of knowledge and power of kshatriyas and of the larger society.

A_Gupta wrote:Feminism arises as a necessary corollary of the fact that all the systems that prescribe self-control for both men and women devolve into the control of women and the self-indulgence of the men.

Not sure if the prescription for self control leads to feminism for the reasons you state.

It is the demand for equality of men with women that leads to feminism

Men and women cannot be exactly equal. There can be equivalences, but their biological roles are necessarily different. If you set aside the biological role - then you can make them somewhat equal.

But it is a mistake to try and make men and women equal by suppressing, or rendering irrelevant the biological roles. Biology is about life (heck bios means life) and humans exist only because of those male-female differences. It is complete idiocy to try and render the biology irrelevant. It is anti life.

shiv wrote:

A_Gupta wrote:Feminism arises as a necessary corollary of the fact that all the systems that prescribe self-control for both men and women devolve into the control of women and the self-indulgence of the men.

Not sure if the prescription for self control leads to feminism for the reasons you state.

It is the demand for equality of men with women that leads to feminism

This demand for equality is a western demand. Arun's statement rings true in context of Indian history and dharma shastras, which did codify in law and in practice many aspects that sought control of women. This is precisely the case made against the Mitakshara treatises in the framing of the Hindu code bills, where the existing codes sets were deemed to be "against" women - in light of western principles and hence our entire baby i.e: our learnings was thrown out along with the dirty bath water accumulated in our society for many millennia.

At the end of the day, it really isn't about "equality" of men and women. It is allowing for the option of both men and women to practice their dharma to the extent that it does not impinge upon anyone else doing the same.

In the indian context we believe in duties. Since we do not believe in soul there can be no rights bearer so rights and hence feminism has no relevance.

If a women chooses to stay at home then fine. If women are under represented in parliament, that is fine as well. If she wants to prostitute herself, that is just fine too. Just as long as we have competent people in office, infra, health, and sanitation are top notch and women aren't being harassed, and can get upper tier jobs in private and public (including gov) sector, then what is the problem?

We don't need a certificate from christendom on the virtues of empowered women. We have Kali who gobbles men up for a living and both men and women pay respects to her. Every single Indian economics lecture that I have watched starts with the idea that it is because of Indian women that our economy is stable and growing. Go to any "progressive" western country and they begin talking about stock brokers snorting f*cking coke in the bathroom and gambling with 401k's with pride and how they parade women in front of oprah and dr phil and embarrass them on national television.

That could be Rapepal excuse.

shiv wrote: ...checks and balances do not seem to extend to women in the lower socio-economic strata...

This is almost universally true, and is not limited by economic strata. Shame, and bureaucratic inertia truly equal-equal under-reporting. The mistreatment of women in the guise of freedom is even more widespread. Sexuality should not be commerce related, yet it forever will be.

shiv wrote: So as I see it, fee sex, either for men of for women is adharma. Children are essential and a child has a right to have a mother and a father - so marriage must be encouraged and kept sacrosanct.

Does this mean a restriction of individual right to sexual freedom?

Sex/intercourse is the modern handshake. A secret handshake today, a public one in another generation. Lets not confuse it with procreation.

If you cant buy a car without a contract and insurance or even drive one without a license, then bearing or raising a child without appropriate resources/support structure is certainly reckless. Difficult for anyone to argue about Imran khan having four wives and thirty two children being acceptable. Adequate resources, and second cousins or not.

Social oversight of either sex or procreation is directly in conflict with individual liberty. Most societies are still quote primitive in their understanding or at least universal application of common sense civics. Religion prevents it.

The downside of following up on the logic and going to the other extreme is loss of genetic diversity and aged populations (eg japan).

shiv wrote: In a word, yes. Individuals do owe something to society and must ensure stability and continuation of society in far more ways than simply paying taxes and earning a living. That is a no brainer if one looks at it from the viewpoint of dharma.

I have personally come to the conclusion that extinction too is natural. Even "good" genes, beneficial concepts, logical outcomes all fail to materialise or get destroyed in what is today's natural. Diversity is the only defense for the species' survival.

If societies destroy themselves in our lifetimes, its still a small blip in the overall evolution cycle. Highly disruptive/destructive events too might have a purpose. So while I have an opinion (its bad), I pass no broad judgment on individual or social choices. I am, like all of us, a frog in a well.

As for societies, we are in the teenage years of social evolution, with previously unforeseen individual liberty in certain aspects -- finance, sexuality,etc-- while remaining octogenerian in others -- religion, governance, education, etc. A potent recipe for conflict.

edit -- the tremendous (unimaginable to most of the readership) psychological consequences to an individual in polygamous societies are a cost in itself that is passed on to the next generation. it is no good excusing oneself that "you cant even imagine" a monogamous life. the polyamorous ways are not even a century old.

I think mostly everyone understands that men and women are different in some ways. However, one would say that they should be equal legally (e.g., 1 woman witness == 1 male witness), equal politically (one man/woman = 1 vote), and so on, equal pay for equal work, equal right to hold property and other such unexceptionable things.

The problem is that the only effective way we know to measure whether wrong type of discrimination is occurring is to measure equality of outcome. If women are only 11% of physics Ph.D.s or men are only 2% of nurses we don't know whether it is because of wrong type discrimination or because of just the fact that men and women are different.

Historically, people have defended unequal outcomes caused by wrong type of discrimination by claiming inherent differences, and they have always been proved wrong.

What we have to master is the right type of equality between men and women which does not force women to become man-like in order to enjoy equality.

I would like to relate a little parable that I made up, to reflect the irony of what I see. The story involves 9 characters over about 150 years from 1850 to 2000

The 9 characters are in 3 eras
1. 1850 - Brit 1, Indian 1 and Indian 2
2. 1940 - son of Brit 1, son of Indian 1 and son of Indian 2
3. 2000 - grandson of Brit 1, grandson of Indian 1, grandson of Indian 2

Setting 1850:

Brit 1 orders setting up of English schools to teach the natives, closes Indian schools, imposes punitive taxes, shifts the economy to Britain and protestors are shot
Indian 1: No jobs in my village. No food. I learnt English and got a job as a clerk to an English magistrate
Indian 2: My father was arrested by police and my family starved

Setting 1940:

son of Brit 1: All food supplies to be sent for the war effort. Jail the protestors
son of Indian 1: We need independence: throw the Brits out
son of Indian 2: We need independence: throw the Brits out

Setting 2000:

grandson of Brit 1: The world must respect human rights, equality and abolish slavery
grandson of Indian 1: The world must respect human rights, equality and abolish slavery. We in India still have discrimination and slavery and no rights. Caste, color, inequality. Our backwardness is because of our erroneous ways. Descendants of forward caste people should pay a price for the indignities heaped on ancestors of the backward castes
grandson of Indian 2: But shouldn't the British then pay reparations to India for the slavery, inequality, looting and discrimination that they heaped on Indians?
grandson of Indian 1: "What?! India is backward because of people like you. Would you have had railways and cellphones if it was not for the Brits? Our problems are because our society is wrong. Backward Hindu society. Caste. Communalism. Don't blame it on the Brits. Learn from them - their equality and freedom and rights. That is what made them what they are.

Shiv Ji,

You have a knack of explaining difficult topics in such a manner that any one who reads it will understand the importance of what you are saying.

I say this because, I had a similar conversation (scenario 3) with someone less than a month ago.

Pratyush wrote: I say this because, I had a similar conversation (scenario 3) with someone less than a month ago.

Sad but true Pratyush. We have colonized minds living among us.

The British taught us that we are wrong and they were right. We have never got over that and we now believe that prosperity in the west is because the people were so egalitarian and just. The same reputation has now been applied on America.

If you think about it - Indian attitudes are like the attitude of a child- "If you behave yourself you will get some candy" Or a toy.

We have cellphones and cars today because of well behaved Indians who believe in universal values and we are being held back by medieval Indians. Makes you wonder how Saudi Arabia, Iran or Pakistan got cellphones and cars.

That story describes intellectual cargo-culters perfectly. They have no understanding of history, they have no perspective on the depth of their own culture, and nor the intellect nor confidence to figure it out by themselves.

They are as you said, a child that was just born a few years ago, in our case in 1947. In their past life it began with the "merciful" invasion of Babur (this is the crap that is taught in school as history).

A deep sense of shame and inferiority follows them like a shadow, so does the curse of not knowing what to do. Due to the lack of knowledge in their own culture they never figure out how to get out of the mess we are in. They only know to import ideas from the west: "Secooolarism, Pink CHaddi, Western style Women's empowerment, western-style-environmentalism, phreeeeeedom"

There are three tragedies here :

The first tragedy is, unfortunately for all of us involved, these imported cultural values clash with the cultural foundations of India, which due to its strength has survived to this day(in ritual forms).

The second tragedy is that these intellectual cargo cult members are the ones that have the economy in their hands, due to obvious reasons.

The third tragedy is the result of shame and inferiority. It is the instant rejection of any individual or philosophy that attempts to reform or advance our culture *within* the cultural framework we have.

Baba Ramdev is a perfect example of a reformer that is trying to work within the system, you can easily find insults upon insults heaped on him from every cargo-cult member. Cargo-cult members go and do "pilates" paying thousands for a single sessions. Pilates was derived from Yoga, which is what Baba Ramdev is trying to teach.

Assume that our rich elites were not cargo culters, we would have seen a ton of money heaped on Baba, and he would have spawned off many more yoga centers than we already have. Studies in Yoga, meditation and their impact on Indians would have been documented and we would have held the keys for Yoga all around the world. Instead now we are fighting with some ch()()thiya or the other in the US for patenting Yoga and Ayurveda.

One of the biggest shock of my life came when my own father called Baba Ramdev an idiot, dhongi. My father goes to the temple, does pooja every other day and calls Baba Ramdev a dhongi baba. It just blew my mind. He was like a robot programmed with Indian culture, but hated anything that came from it.

For the cargo cult members, anything coming from within India is worthless. Anything coming from India will not work as it has resulted in us being in the mess we are in.

Look at this article on Yahoo today.

Look at the statistics this guy is giving for Bangladesh and then India. It is quite possible this guy is not telling the truth.

http://news.yahoo.com/even-build-toilet ... 50939.html

A_Gupta wrote:
The problem is that the only effective way we know to measure whether wrong type of discrimination is occurring is to measure equality of outcome. If women are only 11% of physics Ph.D.s or men are only 2% of nurses we don't know whether it is because of wrong type discrimination or because of just the fact that men and women are different.

Historically, people have defended unequal outcomes caused by wrong type of discrimination by claiming inherent differences, and they have always been proved wrong.

What we have to master is the right type of equality between men and women which does not force women to become man-like in order to enjoy equality.

Yes but making someone "man-like" or"woman-like" is itself an indication of what is considered male or female behaviour.

Many pages ago I had pointed out how in Indian society people had figured out that washing hands is an essential routine in preventing the spread of disease - and this was even before anyone knew about bacteria and dirty hands. Even in the west, the same concept was rediscovered by a man called Semelweiss - again before people discovered bacteria.

The point I am making is that empirical observations have, in the past resulted in practical and useful applications. In this day and age, empirical observations need to be validated by deliberate research in a format that aims to avoid the pitfalls of assumption.

I thought to myself, let me start with a list of things that have been shown by psychological tests to demonstrate a bias towards male or female. I started searching for studies that are specifically aimed at trying to pinpoint differences.

But I am surprised to find that all studies seem to be "agenda based" - simply aimed at blindly equalizing numbers rather than actually looking at deeper differences that probably exist. Every study - for example, on the topic of female preponderance in nursery teaching, detects glaring male-female differences in attitudes and approaches - but somehow the goal seems to be to ignore or sideline these differences simply for the sake of numerical male:female equalization. Convoluted and unproven conclusions are made - some based more on hope than science, that having more males in nursery teaching may provide male role models which will somehow magically improve male performance. One study lists the differences in the way males handle children but fails to ask why females cannot change their behaviour to be more male like.

There is so much empiricism and so little science that one could ask, why should western society allow families to break up and have single mothers bringing up children and then expect the state education system to take on the burden of providing more male nursery teachers to try and mend the hurt mind of a male child from a broken family in school. The idea seems totally absurd to me. Make the family whole. bend the rules to make the family whole and don't expect the state to do the fathering.

Shiv ji and LokeshC: If one values knowledge, learning, simple life, and simple entertainment over cell phones and cars, what would (can might be more apt) the west (the sellers of trinkets) do?

More conversations, less TV, more sports less video games, more science less bollywood, more tradition less discotheque glitter, more "jai phal" (nutmeg) laden sweets less rave/alcohol/choose your poison, more friendship less bar buddies or publicanism.

Matrimc - materialistic consumer culture apart, no one has anything against cellphones and cars any more than we might oppose ploughshares. It is the fake connection being made between human rights, equality and democracy and the ability to acquire or produce cellphones and cars that is the problem.

You don't need an equal, racism free, toilet sufficient, ovefed, undernourishment-free and obese society for technology development. The two have no connection. Most modern industry and technology arose from rapine racist societies who were hell bent on looting and subjugation in the name of trade. It is one thing if those same societies lecture us on the benefits of equality and removal of slavery. It becomes a completely different ball game when Indians believe that wealth and technological competence first requires equality, nutrition for all, toilets for all, lack of racism and lack of slavery and democracy. The two goals are different. You can make toilets for all, but you still won't have a working jet engine as a result of that. You can have a well fed population with no under-nutrition, but it still won't produce chip fabrication plants. You can curse, rant and remove the caste system, but plastics will not decompose into eco friendly degradation products because of your great egalitarian caste free society.

It is a cargo cult society that has lost all track of cause and effect.

Well, one thing is that when a woman chooses to stay at home to take care of it, elders, children, that does not show up in income or GDP figures; nor does it show up as the cash that becomes available if instead she works. (Likewise for a "house husband"). So the economic system to which people are "resources" itself puts pressure on families.

shiv wrote:

matrimc wrote: Is it different from "dharmO rakshati rakshitA:"?

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.

matrimc wrote:
Shiv ji:

No I cannot define dharma because it is a free variable in a meta rule. My understanding is (loosely speaking) is that sanatana dharma is similar to but brooder than what has been termed Logical Positivism and has been discredited because of non-expressiveness of the English in particular and Germanic languages in general.

Let us say ancients over several millennia of churning the ocean of knowledge and experience have come up with a meta rule which goes something like the following (A stands for "forall" and E stands for "exists" though in logical formalism they are represented as upside down A and mirror image of E whose tines point leftward but in ASCII A and E are the usual notation as long as one follows the convention of not using these two symbols for anything else - neither literals nor variables but part of the alphabet, or equivalently one can assign a "reserved" or "distinguished" status to these two alphabet)

A x: If x is defended, x defends.
or
A x: if x is protected, x protects.


Since x is not defined x is called a free variable (i.e. x is not bound to any particular abstract or concrete "thing")

If one takes the above as template, then concrete rules can be generated.

Example 1: Substitute gOw for x, produces the concrete rule: if cow is protected, cow protects. Which is a true from empirical observation. Ancients would have seen situations that during years of plenty they butchered the cows then during lean times they had nothing to fall back. So the protect your cows from raiders.

Example 2: x <- Leader(s). if Leader(s) is(are) protected, he/she/they will protect.

Example 2a: X <- yagnya

Example 3: A smart gal came up to the guru(s) and said "I protected a cow thief. Instead of protecting me (and my property) he in fact stole my herd. Stop making these stupid rules." and modified the rule to constrain x to a set of objects which will yield only statements that are empirically observed to true.

(as an aside, Tautology is hereditary but a contradiction is not. In other words, every tautology whether it is ground (A true observation, axiom that is assumed to be true) or derived to be true from ground remains a tautology for aall time to come. This hereditary property is what is used by Godel to prove his two incompleteness theorems of Arithmetic based on Peano's axioms.

A few centuries passed and another person came up with the idea binding x with a set instead of only singleton objects.
So instead of listing each of the rks, he compiled them together into a book called rkveda and said
x <- rkveda where rkveda = {rks}.

x <- { rks in rk veda, yajur veda, sama veda, atharvana veda } and so on.

Climbing the ladder of this abstraction one eventually ends up with the definition for dharma which is "protecting dharma in turns protects you"

Why was Cong(I) routed in recent elections? They were unable to see beyond the immedaite vote bank politics and did not protect sanatana dharma so sanatana dharma did not protect them. IOW, they subverted secularism and secularism kicked them out.

(PS: I see Shiv posted something about xtianity. Simplistically speaking the schism between Roman Catholics and Church of England was because Pope did not follow his dharma of protecting the King of England's right to annul his marriage).

I refer again and again to the definition of Dharma given by Vyasa:
Para-upakaraya punyaya papaya para-peedanam

Benefiting others is punya/dharma.
Paining others is papa/adharma.

This is a very important and simple definition of dharma. And sice it is given by none other than Vyasa himself, it is authentic. So, we don't have to search for our own definitions of dharma.

There are 4 purusha-arthas. Purusha means any human(man or woman). Artha means objectives which need to be acquired or achieved.
So, what are the 4 purusha-arthas:
a) dharma
b) artha
c) kama
d) moksha

Dharma and adharma has already been defined. So, now, lets see artha. Artha means objectives which need to be acquired or achieved. Basically, all economic transactions fall under artha category.

Now, kama: kama means desires.

Finally, Moksha: moksha means freedom.

So, we have 3 factors:
a) dharma
b) artha
c) kama

Artha: all things that one wants to achieve. Generally, all economic transactions.
Kama: all types of desires. Generally, all romantic desires.

Now, in simple terms,
artha means 'what can I gain?', 'how can I gain?'.
Kama means 'what I like.' and 'what I don't like'.
Now, generally, both artha and kama involves earning something for oneself and keeping it with oneself. Now, generally, that puts one in conflict and competition with others. At basic level, artha and kama involves to take something from others or to keep something with oneself protecting it from being taken by others.

So, we have broadly two approaches:
a) taking something from others or denying something to others by protecting it - artha & kama - greed
b) giving something to others - dharma - sacrifice (thyaga).

Both these seem to be mutually contradictory. So, a society/individual has to choose which of these two approaches one will adopt.

Dharmo rakshathi rakshithah is very interesting in this. It is saying that those who protect dharma will be protected. That means 'those who protect others will be protected'. It also means that 'those who hurt others will be hurt'. This seems to reconcile the mutually contradictory paths.

So, what 'dharmo rakshathi rakshithah' means is that you can protect yourself by protecting others. But, generally, one thinks that one can protect oneself only by hurting others.

So, broadly, there are two approaches:
a) absolute greed - artha & kama
b) absolute sacrifice - dharma
Dharmo rakshathi rakshithah means that best way to serve your greed is by sacrifice. Infact, this is also declared in upanishads: "thena thyekthena bunjithah" (enjoy by sacrificing).This is the interesting aspect. How to explain this seeming irony about the saying 'dharmo rakshathi rakshithah'? How can one enjoy by sacrificing?

But strictly speaking, there is no irony at all. Absolute greed is not viable. For any system to work, it needs many different beings to come together and work. No being can survive on its own. Every being needs other beings for various reasons. So, any intelligent person will be able to see that one has to take care of others, so that they will take care of you. If you exploit others due to greed, then eventually it will lead to your own destruction. This is the way world is designed. So, absolute greed in untenable.

Most societies recognize that absolute greed is untenable. That one has to take care of other human beings, plants and animals because one's own welfare is dependent on them. For example, the saying 'a friend in need is a friend indeed' conveys this in a round-about way. See just as you will expect your friends to come to your help during your distress, others will also expect you to come to their help when they are in distress. If you don't help others when they are in distress, then no one will come to your aid when you are in distress. This much is recognized by even animals. So, they help those whom they think will help them when they are in distress. Generally, it means helping people of our family/clan/herd or neighbours, so that they help us when we are in distress.

That means each member of the system has to overcome one's absolute greed for long term and more sustainable welfare. That requires some sacrifice from each member to protect the system. If you protect the system, system will protect you. Dharmo rakshathi rakshithah.

But, absolute dharma I.e absolute sacrifice is also not possible for ordinary beings. Absolute sacrificing (I.e giving everything to others or giving whatever others want) is possible for only someone who himself is infinitely rich but does not desire anything for himself and is ready to give everything to others. This is the definition of God in Hindhuism. God is called bhagawan I.e infinitely rich. Everything in the world belongs to God according to Hindhuism. However, the God does not want any of it for himself/herself. All that is given away to others.

This leads to another upanishadic statement: thyagena ekena amruthathva manasuhu
Immortality is achieved only by sacrificing. More one sacrifices, more one becomes immortal. This is related to moksha.

Moksha means freedom. Freedom from what?
Artha and kama lead to constant fear. There is fear from all beings that they will take what belongs to us. And there is constant fear for others from us that we will take what belongs to them. Freedom from fears is called Moksha. Freedom from fears towards others from us and freedom from fears towards us from others. Such freedom is possible only if we are not going to take anything from others and don't worry about others taking anything from us.

So, more one sacrifices, more one becomes free. This is the essence of hindhuism.

Now, capitalism and democracy are the reverse. In capitalism and democracy, the idea is that when each person takes care of their own greed, then there will be checks and balances in the system. The greed of one entity is supposed to balance out the greed of another entity. However, this system ignores the relative hierarchies and power structures. All entities are not equally powerful. If more powerful entities form a cabal and indulge in absolute greed, then other less powerful entities find it hard to counter that in capitalism and democracy.

Western universalism glorifies personal greed particularly kama. Their hierarchy is kama is greater than artha is greater than dharma is greater than moksha.

In hindhuism, moksha is the highest state of dharma. Dharma is greater than artha is greater than kama.

Vyasa declares that artha can only be achieved through dharma. This is dharma-shaasthra.

General worldview is that dharma requires artha. To help others, one needs to earn first is the thinking. This is the artha-shaasthra.

johneeG wrote:

shiv wrote: 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.

matrimc wrote:
Shiv ji:

No I cannot define dharma because it is a free variable in a meta rule. My understanding is (loosely speaking) is that sanatana dharma is similar to but brooder than what has been termed Logical Positivism and has been discredited because of non-expressiveness of the English in particular and Germanic languages in general.

Let us say ancients over several millennia of churning the ocean of knowledge and experience have come up with a meta rule which goes something like the following (A stands for "forall" and E stands for "exists" though in logical formalism they are represented as upside down A and mirror image of E whose tines point leftward but in ASCII A and E are the usual notation as long as one follows the convention of not using these two symbols for anything else - neither literals nor variables but part of the alphabet, or equivalently one can assign a "reserved" or "distinguished" status to these two alphabet)

A x: If x is defended, x defends.
or
A x: if x is protected, x protects.


Since x is not defined x is called a free variable (i.e. x is not bound to any particular abstract or concrete "thing")

If one takes the above as template, then concrete rules can be generated.

Example 1: Substitute gOw for x, produces the concrete rule: if cow is protected, cow protects. Which is a true from empirical observation. Ancients would have seen situations that during years of plenty they butchered the cows then during lean times they had nothing to fall back. So the protect your cows from raiders.

Example 2: x <- Leader(s). if Leader(s) is(are) protected, he/she/they will protect.

Example 2a: X <- yagnya

Example 3: A smart gal came up to the guru(s) and said "I protected a cow thief. Instead of protecting me (and my property) he in fact stole my herd. Stop making these stupid rules." and modified the rule to constrain x to a set of objects which will yield only statements that are empirically observed to true.

(as an aside, Tautology is hereditary but a contradiction is not. In other words, every tautology whether it is ground (A true observation, axiom that is assumed to be true) or derived to be true from ground remains a tautology for aall time to come. This hereditary property is what is used by Godel to prove his two incompleteness theorems of Arithmetic based on Peano's axioms.

A few centuries passed and another person came up with the idea binding x with a set instead of only singleton objects.
So instead of listing each of the rks, he compiled them together into a book called rkveda and said
x <- rkveda where rkveda = {rks}.

x <- { rks in rk veda, yajur veda, sama veda, atharvana veda } and so on.

Climbing the ladder of this abstraction one eventually ends up with the definition for dharma which is "protecting dharma in turns protects you"

Why was Cong(I) routed in recent elections? They were unable to see beyond the immedaite vote bank politics and did not protect sanatana dharma so sanatana dharma did not protect them. IOW, they subverted secularism and secularism kicked them out.

(PS: I see Shiv posted something about xtianity. Simplistically speaking the schism between Roman Catholics and Church of England was because Pope did not follow his dharma of protecting the King of England's right to annul his marriage).

I refer again and again to the definition of Dharma given by Vyasa:
Para-upakaraya punyaya papaya para-peedanam

Benefiting others is punya/dharma.
Paining others is papa/adharma.

This is a very important and simple definition of dharma. And sice it is given by none other than Vyasa himself, it is authentic. So, we don't have to search for our own definitions of dharma.

There are 4 purusha-arthas. Purusha means any human(man or woman). Artha means objectives which need to be acquired or achieved.
So, what are the 4 purusha-arthas:
a) dharma
b) artha
c) kama
d) moksha

Dharma and adharma has already been defined. So, now, lets see artha. Artha means objectives which need to be acquired or achieved. Basically, all economic transactions fall under artha category.

Now, kama: kama means desires.

Finally, Moksha: moksha means freedom.

So, we have 3 factors:
a) dharma
b) artha
c) kama

Artha: all things that one wants to achieve. Generally, all economic transactions.
Kama: all types of desires. Generally, all romantic desires.

Now, in simple terms,
artha means 'what can I gain?', 'how can I gain?'.
Kama means 'what I like.' and 'what I don't like'.
Now, generally, both artha and kama involves earning something for oneself and keeping it with oneself. Now, generally, that puts one in conflict and competition with others. At basic level, artha and kama involves to take something from others or to keep something with oneself protecting it from being taken by others.

So, we have broadly two approaches:
a) taking something from others or denying something to others by protecting it - artha & kama - greed
b) giving something to others - dharma - sacrifice (thyaga).

Both these seem to be mutually contradictory. So, a society/individual has to choose which of these two approaches one will adopt.

Dharmo rakshathi rakshithah is very interesting in this. It is saying that those who protect dharma will be protected. That means 'those who protect others will be protected'. It also means that 'those who hurt others will be hurt'. This seems to reconcile the mutually contradictory paths.

So, what 'dharmo rakshathi rakshithah' means is that you can protect yourself by protecting others. But, generally, one thinks that one can protect oneself only by hurting others.

So, broadly, there are two approaches:
a) absolute greed - artha & kama
b) absolute sacrifice - dharma
Dharmo rakshathi rakshithah means that best way to serve your greed is by sacrifice. Infact, this is also declared in upanishads: "thena thyekthena bunjithah" (enjoy by sacrificing).This is the interesting aspect. How to explain this seeming irony about the saying 'dharmo rakshathi rakshithah'? How can one enjoy by sacrificing?

But strictly speaking, there is no irony at all. Absolute greed is not viable. For any system to work, it needs many different beings to come together and work. No being can survive on its own. Every being needs other beings for various reasons. So, any intelligent person will be able to see that one has to take care of others, so that they will take care of you. If you exploit others due to greed, then eventually it will lead to your own destruction. This is the way world is designed. So, absolute greed in untenable.

Most societies recognize that absolute greed is untenable. That one has to take care of other human beings, plants and animals because one's own welfare is dependent on them. For example, the saying 'a friend in need is a friend indeed' conveys this in a round-about way. See just as you will expect your friends to come to your help during your distress, others will also expect you to come to their help when they are in distress. If you don't help others when they are in distress, then no one will come to your aid when you are in distress. This much is recognized by even animals. So, they help those whom they think will help them when they are in distress. Generally, it means helping people of our family/clan/herd or neighbours, so that they help us when we are in distress.

That means each member of the system has to overcome one's absolute greed for long term and more sustainable welfare. That requires some sacrifice from each member to protect the system. If you protect the system, system will protect you. Dharmo rakshathi rakshithah.

But, absolute dharma I.e absolute sacrifice is also not possible for ordinary beings. Absolute sacrificing (I.e giving everything to others or giving whatever others want) is possible for only someone who himself is infinitely rich but does not desire anything for himself and is ready to give everything to others. This is the definition of God in Hindhuism. God is called bhagawan I.e infinitely rich. Everything in the world belongs to God according to Hindhuism. However, the God does not want any of it for himself/herself. All that is given away to others.

This leads to another upanishadic statement: thyagena ekena amruthathva manasuhu
Immortality is achieved only by sacrificing. More one sacrifices, more one becomes immortal. This is related to moksha.

Moksha means freedom. Freedom from what?
Artha and kama lead to constant fear. There is fear from all beings that they will take what belongs to us. And there is constant fear for others from us that we will take what belongs to them. Freedom from fears is called Moksha. Freedom from fears towards others from us and freedom from fears towards us from others. Such freedom is possible only if we are not going to take anything from others and don't worry about others taking anything from us.

So, more one sacrifices, more one becomes free. This is the essence of hindhuism.

Now, capitalism and democracy are the reverse. In capitalism and democracy, the idea is that when each person takes care of their own greed, then there will be checks and balances in the system. The greed of one entity is supposed to balance out the greed of another entity. However, this system ignores the relative hierarchies and power structures. All entities are not equally powerful. If more powerful entities form a cabal and indulge in absolute greed, then other less powerful entities find it hard to counter that in capitalism and democracy.

Western universalism glorifies personal greed particularly kama. Their hierarchy is kama is greater than artha is greater than dharma is greater than moksha.

In hindhuism, moksha is the highest state of dharma. Dharma is greater than artha is greater than kama.

Vyasa declares that artha can only be achieved through dharma. This is dharma-shaasthra.

General worldview is that dharma requires artha. To help others, one needs to earn first is the thinking. This is the artha-shaasthra.

Let me explain what my understanding of Dharma is based on a detailed interpretation of Dharma eva hato hanti dharmo rakshati rakshitah. Whatever I have written below isn't my work, so I've linked source in the end.

This is extensively used and many times abused.

The meaning of the slok “Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitah” is taught to us as “Dharma protects those who protect Dharma” or some other similar interpretations.

But does it really mean that?
Do we need to investigate?

Yes I think we need to investigate! Because in this slok there is no any word which talks about protecting Dharma.

If we try to translate “Dharma protects those who protect Dharma” in Sanskrit then it will be more like “Rakshitam Dharma Rakshati“.

Then what could be the real meaning of this slok? I tried to explore, here is what I got:

Let's have a look at the whole slok:

Dharm~Eva Hato Hanti, Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitah!
Tasma~Dharmo Na Hantvyo, Ma No Dharmo Hato~Vadhit!!

And the meaning of each word:

Dharm - Dharma
Eva - used to emphasis
= Dharm~Eva - Dharma alone/Dharma indeed
Hato - Being killed/destroyed
Hanti - Kills/destroyes
Dharmo - From Dharma
Rakshati - To protect
Rakshitah - The protected one
Tasma - Hence/Therefore
Dharmo - From Dharma
Na - Not
Hantvyo - To kill/destroy
Ma - Do not
No - Nor
Dharmo - From Dharma
Hato - Being killed/destroyed
Vadhit - Killed

In my understanding here Manu is trying to state a fact rather than an advice.

The meaning I can get from this is:

Dharma destroyed, destroys; Dharma protects, the protected.
Therefore, Dharma does not destroy, nor Dharma can be destroyed.

Infect Manu is trying to pull the Dharm out from protect-destroy, good-bad kind of trap.

If I try to compare this with Gravitational Force, I’ll say:

If Gravitational Force is destroyed, everything on earth will fall apart; Gravitational Force keeps everything protected on earth. Neither Gravitational Force can be destroyed, nor does Gravitational Force destroy.

In my understanding, Manu is just stating the fact that Dharm is an essence of everything. It is neither a philosophy, nor moral obligation, or religious doctrine, or some kind commandments, or any faith or belief.

Here one thing should be noted that Dharm and Dharan (and DhAran) comes from same root, which means ‘Contain’. Thus it can be said (if I may say so):

Dharm is a name given to that essence, which contains everything, just like Gravitation is a name given to that force which holds everything on earth.


Site: http://blogs.rediff.com/santoshgairola/ ... rakshitah/

johneeG wrote: So, broadly, there are two approaches:
a) absolute greed - artha & kama
b) absolute sacrifice - dharma
Dharmo rakshathi rakshithah means that best way to serve your greed is by sacrifice. Infact, this is also declared in upanishads: "thena thyekthena bunjithah" (enjoy by sacrificing).This is the interesting aspect. How to explain this seeming irony about the saying 'dharmo rakshathi rakshithah'? How can one enjoy by sacrificing?

But strictly speaking, there is no irony at all. Absolute greed is not viable. For any system to work, it needs many different beings to come together and work. No being can survive on its own. Every being needs other beings for various reasons. So, any intelligent person will be able to see that one has to take care of others, so that they will take care of you. If you exploit others due to greed, then eventually it will lead to your own destruction. This is the way world is designed. So, absolute greed in untenable.

Most societies recognize that absolute greed is untenable. That one has to take care of other human beings, plants and animals because one's own welfare is dependent on them. For example, the saying 'a friend in need is a friend indeed' conveys this in a round-about way. See just as you will expect your friends to come to your help during your distress, others will also expect you to come to their help when they are in distress. If you don't help others when they are in distress, then no one will come to your aid when you are in distress. This much is recognized by even animals. So, they help those whom they think will help them when they are in distress. Generally, it means helping people of our family/clan/herd or neighbours, so that they help us when we are in distress.

That means each member of the system has to overcome one's absolute greed for long term and more sustainable welfare. That requires some sacrifice from each member to protect the system. If you protect the system, system will protect you. Dharmo rakshathi rakshithah.

But, absolute dharma I.e absolute sacrifice is also not possible for ordinary beings. Absolute sacrificing (I.e giving everything to others or giving whatever others want) is possible for only someone who himself is infinitely rich but does not desire anything for himself and is ready to give everything to others. This is the definition of God in Hindhuism. God is called bhagawan I.e infinitely rich. Everything in the world belongs to God according to Hindhuism. However, the God does not want any of it for himself/herself. All that is given away to others.

<snip>

Now, capitalism and democracy are the reverse. In capitalism and democracy, the idea is that when each person takes care of their own greed, then there will be checks and balances in the system. The greed of one entity is supposed to balance out the greed of another entity. However, this system ignores the relative hierarchies and power structures. All entities are not equally powerful. If more powerful entities form a cabal and indulge in absolute greed, then other less powerful entities find it hard to counter that in capitalism and democracy.

Western universalism glorifies personal greed particularly kama. Their hierarchy is kama is greater than artha is greater than dharma is greater than moksha.
.

JohneeG - that was a great post.

Now the interesting thing is that if you confront an educated Indian and propose to him that there were people in India who had studied societies over many centuries (nowadays such people would be called sociologists and historians) and then made recommendations about what is good for society, and therefore for the individual - he will laugh and ask you to stop bullshitting. For the educated Indian sepoy in his cargo cult world any knowledge comes only via a western fountain. Anything else is trash. It is trash because Indian society is trash - with malnutrition, rape, sati, caste etc.

The recommendations of individual conduct as part of dharma are the only rules I have ever seen that tells what the individual must do to preserve society in the long term. Concepts like "Individual rights" and "freedoms" have nothing to do with preserving society. They are simply wiggle room within Artha and Kama. The wiggle room may change over time. Today buggery is a crime. Tomorrow it may be your right by law. Laws change with society - but there are no laws that govern society as a unit that has to survive on earth along with the rest of the biosphere. Western societies are guided by individual demands and not by individual sacrifices. After all democracy allows votes by grabbers as much as by sacrificers. If one outnumbers the other it rules. In India we seem to recognize this when it happens in India, but we are unable to see it as the norm in the west because we are told that the west is always right and we believe it.

For the past few days I have been trying to see if there are any guidelines for entire societies to live harmoniously on earth. Other than Hindu dharma (and perhaps other dharmas like Buddhist dharma) there is no western entity that has any guideline for the long term survival of society. Marxist thought was probably going in that direction - but that has been roundly rejected by the west. There are plenty of predictions of how society "will be" in 50 years. These predictions are more in the nature of desires rather than rational plans to protect society and the planet. The societies for whch "predictions" are made are or a minority wealthy western society with no indication that anyone knows or cares about what the other 80% of the world are going to do. This is a form of racism by deliberately being blind to issues of where resources are coming from - but that was normal throughout the 20th century

In another post I will point out "predictions" that were made for the 1990s or later in earlier eras and what was wrong, or right. There may be something to learn there

^^^ The climate change or geological changes or whatever that led to the collapse of the Saraswati-Sindhu urban centers might have raised some consciousness about sustainability.

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ The climate change or geological changes or whatever that led to the collapse of the Saraswati-Sindhu urban centers might have raised some consciousness about sustainability.

Quite possibly.

Planners in Bangalore are now finding out that Bangalore at the time of founder Kempegowda had 120 odd artificial lakes interlinked by canals. These ensured enough rainwater was collected to keep the groundwater levels high.

Modernity and encroachment of lakes and canals to build malls, concrete parking lots and high rises with deep borewells to fetch water have led to a precipitous drop in groundwater levels. And now water is being piped in from 100 km away. For me the irony should strike home hard. I was the guy who used to laugh at the "solution" that was applied for drought in the UK a couple of decades ago when water was being transported by road in tankers from water surfeit areas to water deficient areas.

shiv wrote: Planners in Bangalore are now finding out that Bangalore at the time of founder Kempegowda had 120 odd artificial lakes interlinked by canals. These ensured enough rainwater was collected to keep the groundwater levels high.

Modernity and encroachment of lakes and canals to build malls, concrete parking lots and high rises with deep borewells to fetch water have led to a precipitous drop in groundwater levels. And now water is being piped in from 100 km away.

The situation you describe was largely true for most of India, which had water bodies as an integral part of every community and glimpses of this can still be seen in a place like Udaipur, where the 5 large lakes and the infamous Taj Palace Hotel in the middle are all artificial lakes. But, all is not lost, Modi has been able to build over 100,000 check dams and ponds in Gujarat, resulting in a net increase in underground water levels.

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ The climate change or geological changes or whatever that led to the collapse of the Saraswati-Sindhu urban centers might have raised some consciousness about sustainability.

This is my traditionalist opinion:

The source is the RV (which has no origin - so what is Saraswati-Sindhu? ), the keys words there are Ṛta, Karman and Dhárman

That Ṛta must be maintained is foundational on the Gods - Varuna, Mitra, Soma, Indra, etc. and Humans.
That humans or Gods doing their Karman need to always preserve the foundational Ṛta is inherent in the tautological enigmatic definition of Dhárman.
Again my personal opinion I do not see any difference in Dhárman and Dharma (see note (2) below) in that both are tied intimately to Ṛta and Karman. I do see subtle intuitive differences, but it is not relevant here. While it is hard to write intuition into a logical argument for answering why - here goes nothing:

Very simply, and intuitively, every Karma performed can potentially result in a negative effect to Ṛta, thereby negatively impacting Dharma.
Therefore to preserve Ṛta, the Gods have to follow Dharma and uphold it.
Similarly to preserve that which preserves individuals and society, Humans have to uphold it.
The Gods do it to preserve the cosmic, Humans do to preserve society... to each her universe!

PS1: In one of the examples I had presented on this thread many of you had responded to the Bob, Anne, Carla problem with a Utilitarian mindset. This is perhaps the nature of the scientific training imparted to us if not our very intrinsic nature. Dharma is more subtle and needs an intuitive mindset. Afterall Bheesma cautions us against falling into the traps set by Tarka, Utilitarian thinking, etc. This cannot be explained in a post, but I am liberal with my clues. Given the multiple schools of SD thought, the intuitions arrived at are very different from those more familiar with rational or empirical systems of declarative frameworks in exclusion.

PS2: Horcsh,Witzel, etc. have all published imho useless works on difference between Dhárman and Dharma - you are welcome to read it and weep on the hijack of India's heritage. They wade away into the deep woods of dating different parts of the RV and how Dhárman evolved into Dharma and why they are different.
Its like Bill Gates taking his stolen PC and evolving a design for an iPhone!

The place where this is going to happen - João Pessoa in Brazil - looks like a tropical beach paradise. Hopefully some here on BRF can avail of this through their research grant money set aside for attending conferences.

1st World Congress on Logic and Religion April 1 through April 5 2015

The main page has a picture of Godel and behind him on the blackboard his formal proof that God (with a capital G - western universalism) exists. Prof. P. Billimoria from Aus is on the org committee. A professor of Theoelogy from Vatican is one of the invide speakers so are Islamic, Jeweish, and Buddhist professors but none to represent the other major religion Hinduism.

This is where some of our hindu gurus have to make headway.

FWIW

pulikeshi wrote:PS2: Horcsh,Witzel, etc.

You mean Prof. Hans Hock (professor emeritus of Historical Linguistics, UIUC)?

This is what 1999 was expected to be in the 1960s. And I believed it. Love the song at the end though
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RRxqg4G-G4


In so many ways the vision of the future has been made to come through, but can we look at this video in retrospect and ask where things went wrong, and what went wrong in creating this dream future?

it is easy to say what was right. But what wast wrong? What was not mentioned at all or even considered? If those factors were known back in the 1960s, would the plan for the future have been different?

matrimc wrote:

pulikeshi wrote:PS2: Horcsh,Witzel, etc.

You mean Prof. Hans Hock (professor emeritus of Historical Linguistics, UIUC)?

No boss, I am aware for Hock... this one is Paul Horsch see his writings here:

Paul Horsch

That said, I am not free of typos, esp when happily under the influence of the God Soma

Pulikeshi
Thanks. I did not hear of Horsch.