The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

[Agnimitra]

Collected some old material from GDF and blogged it:

Bruce Lee and Bhakti - 1

Added another part:

Bruce Lee and Bhakti - 2

Thus, a statement of 'Truth' at any point of time has been described as a Finger pointing to the branch of the Tree (of Knowledge) that is pointing to the Moon in its current astrological position.

Any consideration about life in its complete sense is 'astrological' - i.e., as applied to Thought and Emotion. (I am only beginning to learn something about Vedic Hora shastra, and so far I understand a distinction between the astrology of Parashara versus Jaimini's application). The Latin word "consider" is itself an astrological term.

...

Therefore, a statement of Truth may be understood in that perspective, as a concept that invokes a set of perceptics which ought to point to a branch from the multifarious Tree of knowledge that, in turn, indicates the Moon.

The Bhagavad Gita also talks of this Tree (15.1). This applies to any and all philosophies - Indic or non-Indic. This Tree is universal. India has simply been a changing microcosm of it through time, and therefore Hinduism probably best understands it.

Politically, it follows that all bona fide sectarian cultures must point to the unified Tree of supra-subjective knowledge. The ideological sources of any religious or ideological sect can be objectively evaluated for this complete structure and continuity with Knowledge. If it fails in this due to a fixation on one point in history, one personality, or one obsession with an ideal, then its destruction is written in the stars and the politics of Dharma must aid this process. Any political party that seeks to prevent their destruction is doing so at the cost of the general sanity of the environment.

Pls let me know if its not immediately relevant to this thread. I can put it in GDF.

[Agnimitra]

Purusha Sukta is said to be the main motivation why people (mis)interpreted Varna system to be what it is. To be fair the Viraat Purusha of Purusha Suktam is more than the whole (स॒हस्र॑शीर्षा॒ पुरु॑षः । स॒ह॒स्रा॒क्षः स॒हस्र॑पात् । स भूमिं॑ वि॒श्वतो॑ वृ॒त्वा । अत्य॑तिष्ठद्दशाङ्गु॒लम् ॥).

OT - RamaY ji, how were you able to type the mantra above with diacritical marks for swaras? TIA.

[RamaY]

The Sun Sets on the Modern Merchant Class

We have had many discussions on Varna/Caste.

A white man is saying this so hopefully people will find it more acceptable...

This is something the ancients understood. They saw society as an aggregation of various occupational groups that each has its own ethos. In the medieval West, they were called "orders," and in India they are still called "castes" (varna). According to ancient Hindu ideas, each varna has its own dharma, or morality and way of life. And many cultures identified four castes or orders: the priests or "sages," who specialized in ideas; the rulers/warriors, who were expert in force and authority; the merchants, who ran trade and finance; and the peasants and workers.

Of course, applying an archaic system like this to our modern age may seem simplistic and wrong-headed, but in fact this premodern sociology has modern resonances. The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu's notion that social and occupational networks generate their own habitus, or set of practices and attitudes, is not far from the Indian concepts of varna and dharma.

Read it all...

[RamaY]

Carl garu,

I copy/pasted it from http://www.vignanam.org

[ramana]

Speaking of Punyabhoo, possibly one of the biggest mistakes the map-drawers of TSP made was to include Nankana Sahib and other Sikh tirtha-sthanams in their borders and ethnically cleanse Sikhs from them. Like Bethlehem without Christians. It just sets up a stage for a 'crusade'.

The Brits definitely tried to undermine the Savarkarite concept of punyabhoo, and their manipulation of Sikhs is the best example. They first Macauliffe'd them and deracinated them from being an organic extension of Veda. They extended privileges to them and also plied them with racist ideas (AIT, etc.) to do this vis a vis the Hindoos. They tried to Abrahamize a Dharmic religion like Sikhism. They then laid the foundations for a 'Khalistan' fractured from the rest of Bharatvarsha. And in a last cruel twist - they gave away Lahore and the Sikh tirthas to Islamist Pakistan.

By doing this they set Sikh identity and its memes into a vortex, and effectively tried to collapse one of the kshatra arms of Bharateeyam. We need to work to prove that this attempt, especially the last twist, was a big mistake.

Carl, In the early 90s before the web browser MOSAIC, it was usenet discussion groups. So in one hot discussion on soc.culture.indian, someone I know, told the khalistani supporters to liberate the Sikh holy sites in TSP first before asking for any Khalistan in India otherwise its khali demand.

[member_20317]

Beginning with the example of Hindus to take the benefit of precedence.

All of rituals start with a Vow, statement of intent, Vrat, Sankalps. These however are only the start. The mid game and end game remain open to risk and open for action. This part is what is going to build up merit. A jajmaan will need both an inspiration to complete the process and he is normally expected to complete the process to further the cause. A son, while walking the path of a son's dharm say while taking care of his old parents will only strengthen the dharm while drawing his strength from there. So goes for the Desh and other parts of life too.

The protection of the ritual grounds or Mandirs or Theerathas becomes important for exactly the same reason as the protection of the mother’s rasoi and protection of the territorial integrity of the desh, to be taken up in the same spirit and to be completed with the same will. However exactly as in the case of the Desh, where the people and their adhyatmic existence carries precedence over all things related to their temporal existence, the Punya too has to mean much more than just grappling over land, howsoever hallowed. A vacuous attachment to a piece of land is what has put all sons of Abraham at each others throats. That piece of land carries any worth only if these sons of Abraham can sport good judgement based on inspiration drawn from their ancestors or inspirers from those lands otherwise it is all bunkum.

We Indians are lucky that our inspiration is from the lands where our future is going to be. But because of the promotion of ideologies that seek transnational controls using artificial ideas like religions, a significant portion of our people can be easily waylaid. In such a case it falls on the equally significant majorities to mould the national character in a way that the minorities instead of falling for falsity begin to gain self-respect in their minority status. The chain of events for the minorities also has to be established or rather they have to be protected from outside interference as they begin to develop their own flow.

[ShauryaT]

1) I feel you are obsessed with application of Sanatan Dharma - be it Varna, be it on consensual sex, be it on support for the elderly. Your articulation seems to be - this is how we have earlier done this, and this is how it should be done in the future. It is orthodox thinking. Any application has to deal with a changed environment and not simply an ideal environment. One has to go back to the basics, the fundamentals, the spirit and see how to apply all that in the changed environment.

2) Secondly you're on the lookout for "othering" of others, simply based on the other's acknowledgment of a world of multiple ideologies competing for mind-space of the individual. It seems that you have lost all touch with the greatest of Indian inventions - neti neti, that you seem to feel discomfort when doing Purva-Paksha. To get to the core of the spirit of Dharma again, neti neti is the light in the darkness that helps you find your way.

3) What you seem to argue for is often an elitist version of Dharma's application. It is about instituting more and more red-lines, divisions and controls in socioeconomic area instead of taking the egalitarian approach and empowering people.

More later.

I am glad you observed my “obsession” with SD. I consider it a worthy mission and feel grateful to have learnt it and made it my own and I do my part for its propagation.

The question is not one of orthodoxy. There is no constant in this world. Even the universe keeps on expanding. However, it does not mean the Sun has stopped being the Sun. SD’s core ideas and systems have developed over centuries. Let Ishwara give us the wisdom to recognize its greatness, change what ought to be changed but ensure that these changes are to protect and serve Dharma. This is my fundamental disconnect with you, in that IMO, your mind is not immersed in the systems, means and ideas of SD.

I meditate on the Shivoham mantra every week as a ritual. So, really cannot be accused of not knowing of the neti-neti method of Advaita practitioners. Purva-Paksha’s objective is to understand our opponents view points and arguments as well as our opponent does and NOT to find one’s own view points in them. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Purva-Paksha is for. Please do not accuse me of not knowing about purva-paksha, I have spent long years learning about the various “isms” and have formed my definite views on the three “isms” and have gone out of my way to meet and continue learning 1-1 from some of the masters in this field, from a SD perspective. Even met some non-SD purva paksha experts of Islam at US Academia. The best master’s were the one’s who had a firm grounding in our own systems. Example: Ram Swarup’s treatise on Patanjanlis Yoga Sutras serves as the foundation to understand his critiques on Christianity, Islam and Marxist thoughts. Arun Shouries study of the Upanishads and the Brahmasutras form the foundation for his purva paksha on Islam, Christianity and the “secular” structures of India. Such masters breed other masters like Sita Ram Goel and David Frawley. One cannot know, what a circle looks like, by observing a square. All you will know is that the square is not a circle. You will have to study the circle to know what the circle is.

If one does not have a firm grounding in our own systems and simply goes and tries to oppose the various “isms” based on ethno-national structures of say a Savarkar or an empty political rhetoric of the BJP or a superficial and non-practicing version of SD – you will come up with a strange emptiness, where you will have rejected all the “isms” maybe, but will be at a pain to define what SD’s vision is beyond buzzwords like vasudeva kutumbham. I find that same emptiness in your arguments that same inability to say, that it is a circle and the rules of the circle are X, Y and Z. I do not need a square at all to understand a circle and its rules

I will be more than happy to receive any critiques on the charge that the structures proposed are elitist. Divisions and controls are a fact of society. Pretending they do not exist is turning a nelson’s eye to the fact. It is the “control” of these divisions that will occur in ANY society that is at the heart of the matter of reform and change. One can use these divisions to ruin society or to benefit society. SD’s answers are vested in VarnaAshrama, you may choose to disregard them, however SD’ facts shall not change based on our opinions.

[Agnimitra]

ShauryaT ji, you make many good and acceptable points. However, I must admit that I, too, am a little uncomfortable with your "solutions".

I will be more than happy to receive any critiques on the charge that the structures proposed are elitist. Divisions and controls are a fact of society.

Perhaps by "elitist" RajeshA ji meant that there was a rather heavy element of paternalism in your "structures" - telling others how they ought to behave and how not to. I call your attention to the copious material in SD that points out the futility of dishing out verbal data as a means of increasing knowledge. Rather, the optimal method is to initiate a process that increases the pan-determinism (self-determinism across all purushaarthas) of individuals so that they develop the willingness to make their own choices that are self-fulfilling and at the same time carry a desire to be very co-operative and harmonious.

Secondly, AFAIU, your "obsession" with a particular application of SD was being objected to. That application is limited to a particular period of Indian history characterized by: 1. Foreign attacks beginning in the 6th c. AD - at first repelled but eventually succumbing to it in certain ways. 2. Feudal social and political structures that were then co-opted into a mansabdari culture used by ruling powers. 3. An agricultural technological environment.

Such conditions have their own threats and opportunities, and so the particular application of SD in that condition has its own strengths and weaknesses, too. But now we are talking of a different period and circumstance, and so a fresh application.

I'm sure you can agree that, irrespective of circumstantial applications, the eternal undercurrent of SD has always been to propagate using an enhancement drive mentality, by edifying the natural inclinations of individuals and increase their self-determinism across purushaarthas. This is an act of love and sacrifice, and in the logic of love, there can be receiving in giving and vice versa. Veda may have many complicated "structures" and tables, but that is all boring if we don't recognize that it is first and foremost a book of love and communion.

[member_20317]

I have been reading both the Veterans and realised they are essentially talking about the same thing from 2 different view points.

ShauryaT ji has conceded that the old varna classifications are not immediately usable. RajeshA ji is very keen on using the underlying philosophy of Prakriti-Guna-Varna.

ShauryaT ji, do you realize people talking about Guna/Varnas are almost untouchables. Not trying to make you defensive about it but the reality remains that for people like yourself, immersed in the Itihaas and the commentaries of the ancient Rishi Munis, the dependence for a social expression of these ideas remains pretty much absolutely on the more free stylist kind of Sanatanis. The free stylists are the only last hope before everything gets mixed up into a useless dark gangue. Have you noticed, how all the participants in these matters are thinly spread out all over the globe.

I for one do not mind being 'told'. But then there are limitations to what can actually be delivered based on a second person account. If you wish for a new generation to re-establish its links with its Pitrus you will have to give space to the new generation and realize that a fuller understanding of the Varna sanskaar will have to wait till the Gunas are re-established in a fruitful cycle of Acknowledgement-Recognition-Cultivation. In fact Gunas too are seen as ramblings of half-primitive, half-shamanistic peasant culture to be used/abused but not allowed to be cultivated. That is why I feel that we need to go even deeper and wait for Gunas too to be understood in the light of the Prakriti. The link with the Purush-Prakriti itself needs to be focused on at this moment.

Bhai ji, Indic culture carries very little ching ching bling bling value and not very many people get attracted towards it with a self-actualized force. Most come to accept it only reluctantly or after a bout of strong emotional-mental upheavals.

[RajeshA]

1) I feel you are obsessed with application of Sanatan Dharma - be it Varna, be it on consensual sex, be it on support for the elderly. Your articulation seems to be - this is how we have earlier done this, and this is how it should be done in the future. It is orthodox thinking. Any application has to deal with a changed environment and not simply an ideal environment. One has to go back to the basics, the fundamentals, the spirit and see how to apply all that in the changed environment.

I am glad you observed my “obsession” with SD. I consider it a worthy mission and feel grateful to have learnt it and made it my own and I do my part for its propagation.

I think you conveniently ignored the "APPLICATION" part. Your obsession is not with SD. It is only with Varnic social order!

The question is not one of orthodoxy. There is no constant in this world. Even the universe keeps on expanding. However, it does not mean the Sun has stopped being the Sun. SD’s core ideas and systems have developed over centuries. Let Ishwara give us the wisdom to recognize its greatness, change what ought to be changed but ensure that these changes are to protect and serve Dharma. This is my fundamental disconnect with you, in that IMO, your mind is not immersed in the systems, means and ideas of SD.

Our fundamental disconnect is that I see Sanatan Dharma as a universalist egalitarian worldview with its Ātman-Paramatma unity and the Dharmaarthic exposition, whereas you would like to see Sanatan Dharma as a hereditary, hierarchical and discriminatory Varnic system advocating social divisions.

Even as you propose your "modifications", this is in fact what it leads to.

Basically Hindu society is moving away from such precepts. Sanatan Dharma would again be returned to its philosophical roots, which did not see Varna as a unit of social division, but as an aspect of Consciousness itself.

Those who choose to stick to the legacy Varnic understanding would in time get marginalized, isolated and ultimately thrown out of Sanatan Dharma, in much the same way that has happened to the Ahmadiyyas in Islam. Hopefully the backlash would not be violent considering the extent of this historical scam of denying huge sections of the population of the Brahma-Jñāna and a chance to explore their individual potential based on a false reading of Purusha Sukta.

2) Secondly you're on the lookout for "othering" of others, simply based on the other's acknowledgment of a world of multiple ideologies competing for mind-space of the individual. It seems that you have lost all touch with the greatest of Indian inventions - neti neti, that you seem to feel discomfort when doing Purva-Paksha. To get to the core of the spirit of Dharma again, neti neti is the light in the darkness that helps you find your way.

I meditate on the Shivoham mantra every week as a ritual. So, really cannot be accused of not knowing of the neti-neti method of Advaita practitioners. Purva-Paksha’s objective is to understand our opponents view points and arguments as well as our opponent does and NOT to find one’s own view points in them. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Purva-Paksha is for. Please do not accuse me of not knowing about purva-paksha, I have spent long years learning about the various “isms” and have formed my definite views on the three “isms” and have gone out of my way to meet and continue learning 1-1 from some of the masters in this field, from a SD perspective. Even met some non-SD purva paksha experts of Islam at US Academia. The best master’s were the one’s who had a firm grounding in our own systems. Example: Ram Swarup’s treatise on Patanjanlis Yoga Sutras serves as the foundation to understand his critiques on Christianity, Islam and Marxist thoughts. Arun Shouries study of the Upanishads and the Brahmasutras form the foundation for his purva paksha on Islam, Christianity and the “secular” structures of India. Such masters breed other masters like Sita Ram Goel and David Frawley. One cannot know, what a circle looks like, by observing a square. All you will know is that the square is not a circle. You will have to study the circle to know what the circle is.

If one does not have a firm grounding in our own systems and simply goes and tries to oppose the various “isms” based on ethno-national structures of say a Savarkar or an empty political rhetoric of the BJP or a superficial and non-practicing version of SD – you will come up with a strange emptiness, where you will have rejected all the “isms” maybe, but will be at a pain to define what SD’s vision is beyond buzzwords like vasudeva kutumbham. I find that same emptiness in your arguments that same inability to say, that it is a circle and the rules of the circle are X, Y and Z. I do not need a square at all to understand a circle and its rules.

Well it is of course your good fortune that you have had the privilege to study all these works. However considering your continued emphasis on desisting from attacking the Adharma in these other "isms", calling such a viewpoint "overly confrontational", I don't really know what all that "Purva Paksha" of yours would be good for?!

It is only when you have a good look at squares that you'd really appreciate the beauty of the circle!

The need of the hour is also to make suitable changes in the square itself, so that it becomes a circle! Without understanding the square, you will not accomplish it. Otherwise the square would clone itself to such an extent, that the space for circle would vanish! If one cares about the circle, one would do so, if not one would simply use the circle as a halo for one's own needs only but would not serve circle.

3) What you seem to argue for is often an elitist version of Dharma's application. It is about instituting more and more red-lines, divisions and controls in socioeconomic area instead of taking the egalitarian approach and empowering people.

I will be more than happy to receive any critiques on the charge that the structures proposed are elitist. Divisions and controls are a fact of society. Pretending they do not exist is turning a nelson’s eye to the fact. It is the “control” of these divisions that will occur in ANY society that is at the heart of the matter of reform and change. One can use these divisions to ruin society or to benefit society. SD’s answers are vested in VarnaAshrama, you may choose to disregard them, however SD’ facts shall not change based on our opinions.

Actually I've heard this often before.

Of course divisions and controls are a fact of society and life. There is no point in denying them.

The problem occurs when one starts labeling them and institutionalizes them. For then we ossify them.

By making such an institutionalization, i.e. of VarnaAshrams, a corner-stone of the faith, in fact one destroys the universalist appeal of it to the masses of the world, who even as they accept the inequality of life, still demand dignity and equality in formal status, at least from the faith, if not from life. As such use of labels and their institutionalization is a great disservice to the faith itself.

An individual needs to feel acceptance of his worth by his religion, even as he acknowledges the facts of life like limitation of opportunity, resources and unbiased human nature, which keeps him from progress, but frustration with which he chooses not to offload on his religion. However with Varnic divisions that is not possible. He would make the religion itself culpable.

In case of a captive population, it was easy for an elite to institutionalize these Varnic labels, but in an open society, continuing to advocate Varnic divisions and labels is akin to sabotaging one's own religion, and allows other religions to poach upon those who are either frustrated with their lives' predicaments and are being told that by both Varnic-order enthusiasts in Sanatan Dharma as well as by the various "isms" that religious sanction in Sanatan Dharma is responsible for their plight and they should convert.

The circle should remain a circle and not be used as hand-cuffs.

So even as Purusha Sukta would be appreciated by all Sanatan Dharmics, Varnic social order would become a thing of the past. The New Bharat has no place for it. The dinosaurs are dead!

[member_20317]

RajeshA ji, here are the two links where ShauryaT ji has acknowledged your concerns and his take on them.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1420720
Basically says how money power and muscle power getting intermixed caused all the trouble in the first place.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1420440
I have reservations on #3 & #6 but then on the whole he has the diagnosis correct. I also do not agree with the prescription. He thinks a 'control' can be excercised under the aegis of Sadhu-jan. I with the benefit of hindsight see no possibility of 'control' instead I want a 'de-control' and 'de-licencing' where every man gets to see a chahu-mukhi vikas of his innate gunas and gets to be in charge of his guna ably expressed through his Kaal-Varna.

But I don't think your characterization is justified.

The way I see it while both of you acknowledge each others problems, both of you are unwilling to acknowledge that there can be more then one solutions and all the solutions getting inspired from the same base facts. Rather the most workable solution could be the one none of us have figured out yet.

[chetak]

Aryadan Mohammad clears Jihadi doubts in Saudi Arabia on Hindu Fundamentalism


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... QqeIXwzBl8[/youtube]

[RajeshA]

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1420720
Basically says how money power and muscle power getting intermixed caused all the trouble in the first place.

ravi_g ji,

I don't buy that money and muscle power are to be blamed for the troubles we are in.

Power is Power and Power would go to the one most resourceful and most ambitious. The problem comes in when the vested interests behind power, the vendors of the resources, have interests which conflict with those of Dharma, Rashtra, Nyaya, Samaj and Jana.

That is why one needs to make absolutely clear what are the interests of Dharma, Rashtra, Samaj and Jana in a context-free way, one needs to have a system which analyses our interests in the current context, one needs to have an accountability system which ensures that those in power do not act against these interests and one which allows a peaceful transition of power and responsibility.

I wrote earlier On Nature of Power

Power would always reside with those who crave for power and know how to translate that craving and there will always be a multitude of such people. One can't really stop that. That is how it is.

Our effort should be directed at

1. The Face of Power should be the Center of Power as far as possible.
2. This Power should have a very concrete enduring responsibility: to the people, to society, to Rashtra and to Civilization (PSRC)
3. There should be a system in place which can truthfully assesses what are the current challenges to PSRC and how well this power has implemented its enduring responsibility and faced these challenges.
4. The system should allow the survival and emergence of Multiple Candidates for Center of Power.
5. There should be a system in place which allows a different Center of Power to be chosen from among the Candidates if PSRC are not satisfied.

Another question is how to create this People+Society+Rashtra+Civilization entity whose service becomes the primary objective and responsibility of this Center of Power!

I had also written on An Alternative Model: Dharmocracy

An Alternative Model can be based on fragmentation of and competition among power centers, so that they cannot limit or otherwise manipulate the power to choose the primary center and face of power, which is to lie with the people, who empowered through education and information, have been prepared to better appreciate the interests of the Rashtra and Sabhyata.

When I speak of power centers, I refer to "Big Money", "Big Religious Cults", "Big Media Houses" and "Big Paramilitaries".

Also what is important is that the system should try to create ever more power centers, i.e. more and more people who are not apparently associated with the power centers should be facilitated by the system to come up, and these new people should be given real power through direct mandates by people rather than through any connections they may have with existing power centers.

This is important so that the power centers do not build a closed system, an elite system which nobody else can enter. One would have to be especially cautious about progeny of existing power centers. They would have to prove their worth on the basis of their own work.

What ShauryaT ji in that post goes into are not my concerns. My concerns are not about a Rashtriya System of Evaluating "Sacrifice". This a dharmically awakened and educated Jana should be able to and allowed to do on their own.

My concerns are about monopolies on power, about cliques and back-scratching networks, about nepotism, about subdivisions developing their own sense of interests cut off from the wider interests of Dharma, Rashtra, Samaj and Jana.

I have gone into some depth as to why Varnic social order is a counter-intuitive concept to Dharmic interests.

Varna Dharma went wrong when it failed to understand the intrinsic aspirations of the human spirit!

Varna Dharma went wrong when it failed to understand man's love for his progeny!

Varna Dharma went wrong when it failed to appreciate the rajasik and tamasik aspects of man and their consequences!

Varna Dharma went wrong when it failed to appreciate the strengths of alien ideologies.

Varna Dharma went wrong when it failed in its duty to the Supreme, to impart Brahma Jñāna to each Ātman.

Varna Dharma went wrong when it failed to understand the prerequisites for a society to be full of vitality and be driven by merit.

Varna Dharma went wrong when it failed to understand that any hierarchy breeds more hierarchy and contempt is simply passed on to the lower level on and on and on, fracturing Rashtriya fraternity. Instead of expanding fraternity horizontally, Varna Dharma fractures the fraternity vertically.

Moreover I have tried to critically analyze all the suggestions of ShauryaT ji and suggested many pitfalls and lacunae. ShauryaT ji on the other hand could not even say what logical problem he sees in what I proposed except going on a tangent and accusing me of not knowing SD, not being immersed in SD, there being a disconnect, ...!

So basically he is only interested in Varna-Ashram, and as far as I see it, not in any solutions.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1420440
I have reservations on #3 & #6 but then on the whole he has the diagnosis correct. I also do not agree with the prescription. He thinks a 'control' can be excercised under the aegis of Sadhu-jan. I with the benefit of hindsight see no possibility of 'control' instead I want a 'de-control' and 'de-licencing' where every man gets to see a chahu-mukhi vikas of his innate gunas and gets to be in charge of his guna ably expressed through his Kaal-Varna.

But I don't think your characterization is justified.

The way I see it while both of you acknowledge each others problems, both of you are unwilling to acknowledge that there can be more then one solutions and all the solutions getting inspired from the same base facts. Rather the most workable solution could be the one none of us have figured out yet.

ravi_g ji,

the fundamental core of what I am proposing is do away with "control". "Control of the Individual" is an Abrahamic and an Adharmic concept. Dharma should be all about "Facilitation of the Individual".

I don't claim to have the most workable solution. I can only make suggestions to what I think is right according to me! It is for all to make their suggestions and to evaluate what others are saying.

However ShauryaT ji's and my views on this are totally opposite, so there really isn't any middle ground. I don't think there is any need or sanction for social divisions and these are rather counter-productive to the cause of Sanatan Dharma, whereas ShauryaT ji thinks that if there are no Varnas in Sanatan Dharma, there is no need for Sanatan Dharma itself.

[ShauryaT]

I'm sure you can agree that, irrespective of circumstantial applications, the eternal undercurrent of SD has always been to propagate using an enhancement drive mentality, by edifying the natural inclinations of individuals and increase their self-determinism across purushaarthas. This is an act of love and sacrifice, and in the logic of love, there can be receiving in giving and vice versa. Veda may have many complicated "structures" and tables, but that is all boring if we don't recognize that it is first and foremost a book of love and communion.

If I have indicated anything other than what you posted then will be glad to clarify. Do not see a place for "Paternalist" constructs. Do see a place to use natural divisions of Varna to be applied in new ways to solve some of today's issues - by no means all. Control of Knowledge, wealth and power are such temporal societal issues, on which Varna dharma and its principles can be layered on to.

Intrigued on your usage of "love and communion" - you know where are these terms popular. Whatever upholds satyam, ritam and yagnam upholds dharma and is to be "loved'.

[ShauryaT]

Carl ji: I am acutely aware of the charges and circumstances and misuses of SD in the ages past and also have a view based on readings of our history. SD's weaknesses are to be addressed but first, an honest and correct diagnosis of its and societal failures needs to be undertaken. I am of the view that it is not Varna that failed the state, it was the weaknesses of an organized state that led to the downfall of and further ossification of Varna. There are some works that document this aspect.

However, what has happened today is, we are so influenced by western structures and values that we are largely willing to relegate SD to "spiritual" "personal" "private" matters and discuss "philosophy" more than application of our systems and values to topical life. In the process, we have thrown out the fundamental premise of SD that it is and has always been a "complete way of life". The distinctions of public and private do not exist. The distinctions of spiritual and topical do not exist. Prakriti is a part of Purusha.

There is no excessive focus on the individual, equality and dignity is not a value but an effect of other values. When western law talks of equality, the concept is one of equality before law. It is an evolution of their particular conditions, why are we forced to take on this value value system. But, even there, most judges take the "context" into consideration. The brotherhood is not limited to just man. Each influences the other in a holistic manner to form a "complete way of life".

I am more than willing to clarify any perceptions of "paternalism" in some proposed structures but where and how do they translate to someone or some authority telling some other, how they ought to behave? On the contrary, I made the case that yagna and obligations needs to be part of a key value system - at same levels that money and power and stature work. Even Animals fulfill their dharmas and desires, so what is it that distinguishes us from Animals is where SD has provided answers. It is the application of this knowledge to topical life is what distinguishes an SD system from other societies and their values. These values are the reason why systems like capitalism or socialism or a welfare state will never be enough to capture the value systems imbibed by SD. SD's values did not change. What changed is our commitment to it, either by force or neglect. More than happy to hear how does one propose to control wealth, knowledge and power for the benefit of larger society. I have tried to apply Varna in context of topical issues, retaining its core principle. Similarly, in the personal and family realm, as a person's goes through various Ashramas, which are obligatory not based on individual "freedom" for what is being asked from this freedom is freedom from obligations - intended to kill the very nature of Ahsramas.

I have long suspected that many of my fellow Hindus have not articulated the need to live by SD precepts, is because they do not really want to. A life of "freedom" from obligations is a life without dharma. It starts with simple things like the daily pancha maha yajna - an obligation. A life lived performing these obligations is a life of dharma. If there is no social and state support for these obligations - they will die, as is happening. What you will be left with is a hollow shell. How long will an iron fence, protect a tree eaten by termites?

My argument is not about the messages of the Veda or the various perceptions of the Brahman - we have enough matts, that expound on "Brahma Gyan". I am least qualified to talk about them in any substantial measure. There are many that have tried to understand the "original" meanings of the verses but the more honest, IMO recognize that we have no choice but to partly reinterpret. My struggle is about the application of our civilizational heritage for current era and defining its vision in a contemporary setting - so in that the scope is largely topical and not philosophical.

[Agnimitra]

ShauryaT ji,

If I have indicated anything other than what you posted then will be glad to clarify. Do not see a place for "Paternalist" constructs. Do see a place to use natural divisions of Varna to be applied in new ways to solve some of today's issues - by no means all. Control of Knowledge, wealth and power are such temporal societal issues, on which Varna dharma and its principles can be layered on to.

But strict control of people's sex lives is a rather heavy hand, more appropriate in cults or schools. Such cults and schools can certainly be an essential part of the social and Dharmic landscape, but not a part of the overarching Law of the polity (and its general education system). Interested individuals would then voluntarily subscribe to or immerse themselves in a cult or school as part of their investigation and learning about Life and the Self. But even in such an environment, government "regulation" of abuses in such cults is an issue to be considered. So by no means can a cult-discipline be extended to society as a whole. Perhaps the general education system could have elective plug-ins from these Dharmic institutions.

Thus, "Hindutva" as a political philosophy must provide a Map for society - one that maps out the purushaarthas and gives adequate space for each, without allowing one to overwhelm or suppress another. Within that map would be space for Dharmic institutions that would earnestly work to spread the values of shamO-dama in society. Shama and dama are considered the twin aspects of "karma" in the guNa-karma division of varNa.

So that's the distinction I make between Hindutva as a political philosophy and dharma as a cult(ure) of personal discipline. I have included the aspect you are talking of as one iteration within a Hindutva society. But Hindutva must ensure that its Map always exerts power in the direction of Balance.

Can Hindutva do Yoga?

Intrigued on your usage of "love and communion" - you know where are these terms popular. Whatever upholds satyam, ritam and yagnam upholds dharma and is to be "loved'.

"To be loved"? That's an Islamist idea. If my usage of words used by Christianity is objectionable, I would argue that your idea of "ought to be loved" based on some manual or calculation is Islamist. Actually AFAIU, the Indic idea is that someone or something gets to be called God because He/She/It is the most lovable - not the other way round. Once when the notorious cowherds Krishna and Balaram went to the Brahmanas of Vrindavan asking for something to eat, they shooed them away because they were performing a major yajna and these Rascals were disturbing them. But their wives left everything and brought the Boys butter and other offerings. Who was making the real offering? The ritviks and purohits performing the external yajna? Or their wives?

However, what has happened today is, we are so influenced by western structures and values that we are largely willing to relegate SD to "spiritual" "personal" "private" matters and discuss "philosophy" more than application of our systems and values to topical life.

This is a valid concern.
Viewpoint: The Limitations of Being ‘Spiritual but Not Religious’

I also blogged about it a couple of days back. In this post, I contrasted "Exhibitionism" with "Mental Masturbation":
Bruce Lee and Bhakti - 2

I am of the view that it is not Varna that failed the state, it was the weaknesses of an organized state that led to the downfall of and further ossification of Varna. There are some works that document this aspect.

Again, what you say has truth in it. I do agree that our commitment and sincerity in understanding and implementing varNa is key. All of Dharma hangs from the tenuous thread of human integrity, no doubt. But tenuous as it is, a more subtle approach is required. Change and control the environment, change the conversation (like NaMo is trying to do). Increase people's pan-determinism. That works better than trying to control specific actions. Is pancha-mahayajna to be performed by everyone in society for one to be called dharmic? I don't believe all varNas have to perform such noble rituals. There will always be a significant number of people who don't want to. Yet, perhaps they can serve Dharma in other ways. It depends on which iteration they need to complete, IMHO.

[ShauryaT]

But strict control of people's sex lives is a rather heavy hand, more appropriate in cults or schools. Such cults and schools can certainly be an essential part of the social and Dharmic landscape, but not a part of the overarching Law of the polity (and its general education system). Interested individuals would then voluntarily subscribe to or immerse themselves in a cult or school as part of their investigation and learning about Life and the Self. But even in such an environment, government "regulation" of abuses in such cults is an issue to be considered. So by no means can a cult-discipline be extended to society as a whole. Perhaps the general education system could have elective plug-ins from these Dharmic institutions.

I have advocated laws to ban underage sex and sex outside of marriage. Are you referring to the institution of marriage as a cult? The havoc that has been caused due to the breakdown of the institution of marriage in the west is not something that IMO serves the idea of social order. Teenage pregnancies in the west due to underage sex is an issue of epic proportions for society. Termination of pregnancies have been turned into a "women's rights" issue from a moral one. Since when has infidelity been considered an OK act? As explained, sex is a procreative activity that impinges on social order and hence the need for the state to legislate on the matter. Adultery is grounds for divorce in India and under age sex is banned by law currently. IMO, attaching some harder punishment, maybe civil in nature if not criminal are legitimate grounds from protection of an institutions that promotes a desired social order, when under threat. There will be exception cases but laws are not made for exceptional ones, they are made as a general rule, within the framework of the law, good judgment needs to prevail for justice to be done is always the first rule.

[ShauryaT]

Is pancha-mahayajna to be performed by everyone in society for one to be called dharmic? I don't believe all varNas have to perform such noble rituals. There will always be a significant number of people who don't want to. Yet, perhaps they can serve Dharma in other ways. It depends on which iteration they need to complete, IMHO.

No doubt. To each his own to perform their swa dharmas and hence I am generally opposed to some "definition" to be called dharmic. However, in context of a rashtra, dharma is mostly about the social space and a desired society. So I am keeping the Brahma and personal duties, largely out of it from the purview of the state, although they may be in the background as force multipliers or what is also called as the "soft" constitution.

[RajeshA]

One cannot use laws to curtail the sex life of people based on consent. The only way to do it is through education, by having a constant narrative in the the social arena which urges people to lead principled Dharmic lives.

[Agnimitra]

I have advocated laws to ban underage sex and sex outside of marriage. Are you referring to the institution of marriage as a cult? The havoc that has been caused due to the breakdown of the institution of marriage in the west is not something that IMO serves the idea of social order.

Yes the breakdown of the instt of marriage in the West has several detrimental ramifications. However, think about this - the first civilization to legally enforce the idea of monogamy was the West under the Catholic Church. I argue that the breakdown of the institution of marriage itself was a product of this pseudo-Dharmic legislation of a Dharmic ideal!

Hinduism also considers monogamy the idea of the maryada-purusha, but Hindu law has never legislated it. Never, that is, until the laws passed in the Nehruvian era. So we can reform the Hindu Marriage Act to Dharmically give a more 'spherical' understanding of the institution of marriage, and to model laws that reflect all those dimensions of commitment.

Marriage is a closed commitment between two (or more) individuals. Spiritual realizations are the fruits of a series of commitments, or sanskaaras. But a commitment is not the end - it is fully realized as a process that passes through various stages. The state must support the commitment of marriage through its various stages, without intervening to cut it prematurely or not-intervening to allow moral abuse.

The state cannot do this alone. Rather, the level of Dharmic discourse in society plays a big role. So does the aarthic paradigm...for the modern instt of marriage in the West has been affected as badly by feminism and other ideologies that seek to grind down society and refine the granularity of consumer decision-making and employment availability to the individual rather than the family. So not just dharmic discourse but also aarthic paradigm has affected the family.

Therefore, a broader span of thought (across all 4 purushaarthas) has to be put into this, rather than mere legislative thinking. Marriage is a great example to work on.

[RoyG]

One cannot use laws to curtail the sex life of people based on consent. The only way to do it is through education, by having a constant narrative in the the social arena which urges people to lead principled Dharmic lives.

Many forms of marriage used to exist in India including for couples that have interest in engaging in sex outside of marriage. Everybody is different. It's only when the education system and state interfere with that are we left with some medieval christian institution. The breakdown of the family starting with marriage has to do with the economic policies of the state which promotes reckless spending, welfare, and too many "rights" to children which teaches them to be irresponsible from a young age and to have unreasonable expectations of others.

[prahaar]

Gurus, one simple question: what is the Bharatiya itihaas standpoint or view about same sex marriage?

Based on my thinking, having a couple that can pay off all the different types of obligations (to devas, to ancestors, to samaaj, to parents), procreate and raise able children would be dharmic. Now in today's age, many same sex couples can manage to have children as well (using different techniques), so as a ratio unless the percentage of such marriages in very small, it should not (in theory) cause any disruptions. But would the children of such families have any handicaps?

Any gyaan on this topic would be quite helpful. I have already created flutter in many circles by stating that marriage being a one-to-one relationship is a constraint not supported by history (polygamy, polyandry).

[RajeshA]

Young Bharatiyas & Young Love

All societies have to deal with hormones and passions of the young and they deal it in various ways.

• There are societies (Western, some African) which in order to retain the value of freedom of the individual also tend to give freedom to their young kids to have relationships with other kids, often the advice to the children being only to practice safe sex and to have sex in relationships and not casually. Through education they try to bring down the rate of teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and wanton sex. But as children are, they take the liberties provided to them, and demand even more, so one would see tendencies for exhibitionism, experimentation with sexuality, group sex, casual sex without relationships, pool parties, consumption of alcohol & drugs, etc. Of course the youth are also subjected to a media barrage of promiscuity and perversity among grown ups, making them think that all that is course for the par. However normally parents like to develop more of a friendly and approving attitude towards teenage relationships, including often allowing their teenage children i.e. above a certain age, to have their girlfriends and boyfriends sleep in, so that they remain in the loop, and the children do not have to resort to having sex with their partners in unhygienic and unsafe places. At the least "responsible" parents wish to know the girlfriends and boyfriends of their teenage and older children. So the model in the West is often to retain some semblance of influence on the children by approving of their relationships, gaining their trust and thus remaining in the loop.
• Islam has its own strict rules which forbid the young men to approach Muslim women, who are often given a "protection" by head-scarfs and burqas, and girls are not given any leeway to have relationships of their own outside marriage.
• In ancient India, the model was to marry off the children young, and give them responsibility early on, and thus imposing rules of marital life early on in the life. Thus hormones and passions were channeled by society by tapping into them in a socially acceptable way early on. At least girls who were reaching puberty were taken out of the "potential relationship market" early on.

So how should Bharat deal with a youth which is receiving all forms of influence from the rest of the world especially on promiscuity through films, serials, music, Internet *****, etc. How does one build a society which allows freedom of thought, intermixing of the sexes, e.g. in co-education, work-place, neighborhoods, freedom to choose their own life-partners, etc. but still maintains a social order which does not spiral into teenage pregnancies, single-mother families, breakdown of the institution of marriage, increased divorce rates, live ins out-of-wedlock, etc?

I personally am in favor of creating a social cult thinking that only young men who have absolved 1 year military conscription mandatory for higher studies in India have a social right to have girlfriends, because only then they have proven themselves as MEN.

Teenage boys who have not finished this one-year conscription, e.g. when they are still too young, should be rejected by girls themselves as well as derided by others should they try to flirt with girls or otherwise express any interest in romantic relationships. They first have to prove their WORTH.

When they are however doing this 1 year conscription, some valuable lessons should be drilled into them as to how to behave with girls even after they have proven themselves as MEN and finished their one-year tenure in the military service. So chances are that when these "men" come out of their service, they would not plunge into casual sex or even sex with their girlfriends, but rather their effort would only be to find a partner who happens to have their wavelength for a future marital relationship.

Abstinence, Control, Discipline are things that boys need to be taught and it is best possible in a military setup, so that it all comes to them voluntarily, for then society can afford to give the youth much more freedom to intermingle as one knows they would tend then not to abuse it.

However if society, i.e. grown ups try to impose some authoritarian rules on society, youth would only take everything underground. If society tries to stop that per force, then we will devolve into an Islamist-minded society and only be obsessed and consumed by that.

[member_20317]

RajeshA ji, India has such a big youth population and so much of a young mans time is wasted in utter nonsense that military conscription alone cannot provide a viable outlet for all the excess energy. Have you seen how military recruits get used in the regular army. With the kind of social structure we have today a military conscription will only make these young people even more conceited. Have you seen exactly how a young urban man deals with say a rickshaw puller or a Kaamwali. The fast attenuating 'service motive' and 'right to freedom of this and that' has ensured that most of these guys are already a freedom fighter. Freedom fighter as in fighting to get the muft ka maal. You can easily inspire a young man to go for Damdami puja in Hindu college but you cannot really suggest any man that he pick shoes and sweep in the local mandir or even just push a rock out of the way from public roads.

The service motive is the key to the grand unification of all gunas and varnas. At least that is why I believe we should look at inculcating a seva-bhaav as the first 'value' when we think over the direction of the youth. Basically this is the line of thought I have used.

However, even the classical labour camps would be impractical. The kind of workforce you can move by mobilizing the youth is so great that Labour rates would dip to drastic levels to the detriment of the normal economic cycle. However a different thing can still be attempted in this regard. Young men can be taken through all of the following (almost):

1) 6 month course - A civil work project of national importance using labour intensive methods. Just put up a multiple line of bund cum ditch obstacle all along the borders of India or a long line of tunneling all along the Himalayas. This will add a hidden budget to the IAs needs. This will also not affect the budgeted/regular economy as this was never envisaged and never planned/budgeted for. This will also be good to 'Break the Horse', so to say. You can always expect the seniors to extract this much out of the juniors. Last month guys can be seniors who get to interact with a sprinkling of civil engineers/Project Managers/foremen.

2) 3 month course - Itihaas, Dharm and practice of mediation in some remote location in Himalayas/Coastal areas.

3) 3 month course - Teaching what they have themselves learnt in their classrooms by way of formal subjects in academics, to the children of the poor in the villages.

This one year course carrying an option at the end to repeat the same should a young guy feel like doing it all over again. Off course adequate caveats can be built in for special cases.

The need is for bringing the excess energy to the service of the last in the line.

JMTs.

PS : BTW same sex whatever should be ok. But only again in service to the wider world. Not as a friggin sex slavery.

[RajeshA]

ravi_g ji,

one can teach anybody anything as long as we are clear about what to teach and how to teach it. We can inculcate values like service to society, valor, etc. in our youth, if those who do the teaching know what and how to do it!

I personally think it is important that the youth really get an intensive 1 year or 2 year training in military combat and logistics - what we often call kshatriyata. I can understand the need to teach them "service" and "humility", but that can be done in school also. In the one or two year conscription, the focus should remain on developing desh-bhakti, fitness level, tactical thinking, fighting skills and discipline.

Bharat would need a lot of mind and muscle in the years to come to push back the threats to nation and civilization and we should prepare for it and everybody needs to chip in. The time when one section of society, often called kshatriyas, were alone responsible and everybody else could go their merry ways are over. Everybody should have some fighting capacity.

[RajeshA]

Young Bharatiyas & Young Love (Cont.)


Those young men who return to their communities after their conscription time would of course have additional respect, not only because they would then be eligible for higher university studies, physical prowess and experience but also for their polished characters and polished character would make them eligible for looking for their life partner on their own terms. They would have earned themselves the right to have a girlfriend or a fiancée.

If they complete their conscription time with distinction, then higher would be the level of respect and deference for them in society. If they do two years of conscription, still better. Those who don't do the conscription would simply be shooed away if they try flirting.

It has been talked about how the suppression of sexual desire among Muslims was then harnessed by the Islamic raiders into attacking the Kufr and stealing their women. In our case, it is also possible to make a bargain with the youth. They do miltary service, prepare themselves for civilizational and national defense and in return society would oblige them with the freedom to look for their life partners.

Since conscription duty is made as a mandatory requirement for higher studies, e.g. in university, naturally educated families would want to have their daughters engaged or married to only to such boys. This increases the worth of conscription duty, and that worth transfers also to the ideal of national defense duty itself.

[ShauryaT]

Hinduism also considers monogamy the idea of the maryada-purusha, but Hindu law has never legislated it. Never, that is, until the laws passed in the Nehruvian era. So we can reform the Hindu Marriage Act to Dharmically give a more 'spherical' understanding of the institution of marriage, and to model laws that reflect all those dimensions of commitment.

I am not sure of this. Do not want to open a bigger pandora's box of man-woman relationships, as I am still a little conflicted. The monogamy legislations are there in Hindu law half way, i.e: for the woman. However, let me quickly add, punishable offenses do exist for sex with a married woman in many of our shastras, such as Manu, Gautama, Vishnu, Vashishtha, Narada, Yagnavalkya and Brihaspati. However, sex with "fallen" women was not punishable. The eight forms of marriage, effectively was a means to ensure that a "free sexually charged" young high testrorone spewing males are reigned in. A number of our sanskaras, revolve around puberty as a way to deal with these issues. While many of the shastras have eulogized the institution of marriage, they have refrained from outright monogamy laws. The vast majority of our historical practices are vested in monogamy. The exact nature of shastras apart, order did prevail and hence dharma was served - even if some may view it as unjust from a certain lens. This lens is conditioned by the modern mind and seeks to judge the past from the present. What we ought to look for is order and stability in social settings, sorely missing in the western milieu. In the province I live in, if one has a "live in" for more than 30 days, she is to be treated as a defacto spouse. India is headed in that direction. I am just not sure, where in this brave new world this movement of sexual freedom is heading towards, so far I have only seen bad effects and hence a natural instinct to protect what works!

Marriage is a closed commitment between two (or more) individuals. Spiritual realizations are the fruits of a series of commitments, or sanskaaras. But a commitment is not the end - it is fully realized as a process that passes through various stages. The state must support the commitment of marriage through its various stages, without intervening to cut it prematurely or not-intervening to allow moral abuse.

The state cannot do this alone. Rather, the level of Dharmic discourse in society plays a big role. So does the aarthic paradigm...for the modern instt of marriage in the West has been affected as badly by feminism and other ideologies that seek to grind down society and refine the granularity of consumer decision-making and employment availability to the individual rather than the family. So not just dharmic discourse but also aarthic paradigm has affected the family.

Therefore, a broader span of thought (across all 4 purushaarthas) has to be put into this, rather than mere legislative thinking. Marriage is a great example to work on.

No doubt. No law can work without an entire system of unwritten laws and practices that are supported by society. One idea, I have been tampering with is the institutionalize the idea of a vow renewal marriage ceremony as a marker for the end of grihasta and beginning of Vana Prastha stage of life, to be instituted as a sanskara. It can serve as a great renewal and a recommitment. There is a strange emptiness in today's nuclear and urban environments. Need a few more fun rituals that also can serve as Ashrama markers.

[harbans]

I thought in Satyug there was no institution of marriage..

[ShauryaT]

I thought in Satyug there was no institution of marriage..

Every generation evolves. Manu for his time made only four of the marriage forms valid from the 8 prevalent. The question is what is it that promotes order and needs of society today?

[harbans]

Shaurya ji thanks. However my original point was the importance of whatever kind of state we want, what does it reflect ultimately. It's not just about what we promise in a preamble. The state must also ultimately reflect something. That is why i referred to lakshana's. And when we see people with the right lakshana's we know what they stand for. So must the state. So the lakshana's are really our best yard stick to realize how close we are. So apart from a preamble wishlist we need an epilogue kind of closing to reflect the desired lakshana's.

[brihaspati]

I think one way to navigate this marriage-sex contentious bit is to allow consensual sex for those who are not married, no matter whether it is 1-1, or many-to-one, or many-to-many. Married couples should be strong enough to commit to 1-1. I know that swinging is a growing trend in urban India. But marriage as an institution should not encourage disruptive tendencies because it does provide a stable framework to bring up children. [Even here people may dispute citing studies of polyamorous families where children apparently are quite happy -I am not sure, I have met only one such group, and the idea neither attracted me nor repulsed me. It was simply not important enough from my viewpoint.]

If people want to experiment they should go out of "marriage" - and then they should be allowed to experiment. I agree to the idea of social "compensation" mooted before for "sacrifices", which in sociological circles would be dubbed as the "economy of esteem" - to compensate for the "sacrifice" that married couples make. So they should have pride of position to claim resources and advantages over the non-married.

Many countries use a similar idea - but rooted in various financial motivations onlee couched in high moral terms - to impose a "bachelor" tax, one way or the other [less tax credit if you are unmarried etc]. So on. But sexuality should not be suppressed in the way we are trying to copy the mullah or the bishops before them had tried to suppress.

I have seen the effects of regimented demands on how people should satisfy their sexuality - the most violently demanding high priests are themselves perverts, and often hide a hypocrisy whereby the elite/powerful/patrons/people-who-can-unleash-retribution-on-the-moralist are covered for under various pretexts, and the brunt falls on the disempowered. This leads to a dishonesty in spirituality that itself leads to moral corruption. How can one denounce extra-marital affairs on a wife, given acceptance of Krrishna's relationship with Radha as laid in Sanskrit bhakti epics? How far will we twist our upaveetams to explain away Geeta-govindam's verses as symbolic acts? Why adopt Abrahamic, one-sided sexual exploitation memes as the standard by which the Bharatyia traditions should be judged?

[RamaY]

I think this whole sex debate is for, by and of people who are too scared to experiment or too ill-equipped to get laid.

The real people who want and can get some sexual partner are doing what they want; laws, culture, morals and spirituality be damned.

The law instead of defining what is dharmic, should focus on what is Adharmic/illegal/not-acceptable irrespective of context. For example rape is Adharmic irrespective of context, age, sex, religion, marital status and so on.

The govts and laws have no business in telling how people should live, except giving strict, non-negotiable red lines for all their citizens. If Lallooo thinks marriage below 9Yrs is not acceptable, so be it. But it should have no ifs/buts. It should apply to all citizens, including his daughters and sons.

[RajeshA]

If people want to experiment they should go out of "marriage" - and then they should be allowed to experiment. I agree to the idea of social "compensation" mooted before for "sacrifices", which in sociological circles would be dubbed as the "economy of esteem" - to compensate for the "sacrifice" that married couples make. So they should have pride of position to claim resources and advantages over the non-married.

As Rashtra establishes order in society using Laws, Samaj establishes order using "Economy of Esteem". In fact, if Samaj were a clay statue, "economy of esteem" would be the clay. The issue is how to structure Samaj based on this primary ingredient.

"Freedom to choose one's relationship partner", "freedom to indulge in sex", etc. need not be taken as inherent rights. Even if these are inherent rights, they can be moderated by "economy of esteem". Marriage may be considered both as a prerequisite for esteem as well as reward for having earned esteem elsewhere. In other words, a man may have to first prove himself worthy of "marriage" as well as for all other modes of lesser commitment in sexual bonding (e.g. having girlfriend) with the possible exception of when such is based as a paid service (e.g. prostitution).

It is possible to provide a "labor market" for earning esteem in which the "labor" contributes to the welfare of Rashtra or Samaj.

Simply put, a boy does conscription military service, earns esteem, can have girlfriends and marry! If he does not, he has a hard time!

[ShauryaT]

Shaurya ji thanks. However my original point was the importance of whatever kind of state we want, what does it reflect ultimately. It's not just about what we promise in a preamble. The state must also ultimately reflect something. That is why i referred to lakshana's. And when we see people with the right lakshana's we know what they stand for. So must the state. So the lakshana's are really our best yard stick to realize how close we are. So apart from a preamble wishlist we need an epilogue kind of closing to reflect the desired lakshana's.

Laskshanas are personal characteristics that make up a value system of a person. Propagate these across the nation and it starts forming, what I call as the unwritten constitution. Something akin to the protestant work ethic in the US system. The success of the written words depends on the values and principles of the unwritten one's. IOW: The unwritten codes have far greater power than the written one's in daily life and behaviors. It forms the subtext behind everything we do as a nation. All laws we pass, all policies, how we look at an issue, etc.

In order to promote such a common set of values, we will have to learn to do what the Americans have done and so have the Chinese. The word is "assimilation". The "Han" is a constructed identity and so is the American identity. We are lucky that in India we already have a common underpinning and only need to harness it. This will require work and leadership. It means, we do not follow "Unity in Diversity" but pursue unity at all costs - even if it means civil war - always remember, it was not MKG, who shied away from it. This message and policy approach will go a long way towards addressing many issues that divide our country across religious, caste, regional and economic factors.

I hope you will agree that lakshanas by themselves have little place in the formal constitution. But, it will be good for the thread to explore, what are the key elements of change, we seek in the constitution. We need this to be such that they are lasting and not something that gets changed, every time there is some political pressure. Especially important to focus on is, what elements of a dharmic framework, do we seek to be incorporated in such a structure.

It will be good to get a list of some items that we would like to see in a Dharmic constitution. Satyam, ritam and yagnam are concepts of great principles, however would not know what will they do in a legislative structure directly. We will have to use these principles and lakshanas to drive the controlling structures of the constitution. Regulation of knowledge, wealth and power and how they work will have to abide to dharmic principles. Legislation of duties and some obligations to retain the dharmic ethos and principles is the Indian way. There would have to be a place for the puruSharthas, support for swa dharmas based on VarnaAshrama and sanskaras. Individual worth is measured through economic wealth only. While we still respect other values, there is no way to measure such achievements anymore. A chatur vedi used to spend 48 years mastering the four vedas. MKG had some great insights into the role of wealth being used for the public trust - but for this to work, it needs strong governance frameworks. The principle of yagna would have to given prominence with a way to measure such sacrifices for society respected and valued.

Before we actually write the laws, we will have to come to an agreement on what are the different type of entities that laws should be framed around. While the individual is one and that is the only entity around whom laws are framed in western structures, the "group" entities take the form of governmental structures by way of local, province, state and national structures. From an SD perspective, what is the role of the "Karta" in this structure? Just because joint families are not popular anymore, does that mean the role of the Karta cannot be reinvented to strengthen families? I submit that the entities in a dharmic framework would have to recognize the individual, ashramas (roles), varnas, Karta (as the representative of the family) and then the governing structures at local levels to balance things out.

Finally but not the least, there has to be a recognition of the divine (however one wants to define it). A recognition that the goal of dharmic life is to move towards this spiritual destination. In that sense, the goal of the nation is not secular but a religious life. A life that seeks to move towards the divine. It is the purpose of our civilization.

[ShauryaT]

For example rape is Adharmic irrespective of context, age, sex, religion, marital status and so on.

Clarification. Indian law does not recognize rape between a married couple. Conjugal rights is a presumption of marriage.

[ShauryaT]

How can one denounce extra-marital affairs on a wife, given acceptance of Krrishna's relationship with Radha as laid in Sanskrit bhakti epics? How far will we twist our upaveetams to explain away Geeta-govindam's verses as symbolic acts? Why adopt Abrahamic, one-sided sexual exploitation memes as the standard by which the Bharatyia traditions should be judged?

What did the poet Jaidev had in mind, when he wrote the Gita Govindam, only he knows. One thing, I am sure of though, when Hindus worship Radha Krishna, they are not worshipping carnal love. The story is not unsimilar to how Shiva was eventually not allowed to live without unity with Adi Shakti. Over reading into Radha Krishna as some sanction for extra-marital affairs would be over reach.

The gurus say read the puraans and itihaas as works of poets. It does not mean they were false, but poetic license is presumed and hence the need for gurus for correct interpretations. I have wished many times for it to be otherwise but then think, how boring it would be, for beings of yester years to listen to these stories without any color, adventure, plot and magic to them.

[RamaY]

For example rape is Adharmic irrespective of context, age, sex, religion, marital status and so on.

Clarification. Indian law does not recognize rape between a married couple. Conjugal rights is a presumption of marriage.

I know. It may be legal in current context but Adharmic nevertheless.

As I said before, the objective of this thread is to offer an alternative Bharatiya view. So current Indian laws cannot be a constraint, and are meant to be changed.

[Agnimitra]

It will be good to get a list of some items that we would like to see in a Dharmic constitution. Satyam, ritam and yagnam are concepts of great principles, however would not know what will they do in a legislative structure directly. We will have to use these principles and lakshanas to drive the controlling structures of the constitution. Regulation of knowledge, wealth and power and how they work will have to abide to dharmic principles. Legislation of duties and some obligations to retain the dharmic ethos and principles is the Indian way. There would have to be a place for the puruSharthas, support for swa dharmas based on VarnaAshrama and sanskaras. Individual worth is measured through economic wealth only. While we still respect other values, there is no way to measure such achievements anymore.

This is a good insight. "Flows of wealth" as a measure of "worth" may be more appropriate than "possession of wealth", i.e. a person of high worth is one through whose hands more wealth flows, even if he keeps a frugal residual amount for himself/herself.

वित्तमेव कलौ नृणाम्
जन्माचार-गुणोदयः ।
धर्म-न्याय-व्यवस्थायाम्
कारणं बलमेव हि ॥

"In Kali-yuga, wealth alone will be considered the sign of a man's good birth, proper behavior and fine qualities. And law and justice will be applied only on the basis of one's power." - Shrimad Bhagavatam 12.2.2 (also in Skanda Purana).

But I disagree with your statement that "there is no way to measure such achievements anymore." Ways exist in different schools, but in this Age there is no broad agreement, and inter-school quarrel is the norm. Therefore, application of standard methodology for measurement may be difficult from a political PoV. But individual corporations will adopt standards based on whichever expertise they trust. I gave an example of I/O psychology being used by large corporations in the West.

[member_20317]

We have to discuss sexuality because every person has a sexual life even if not talked about as often. And then there are a minority who have only a sexual life and that is the only thing they talk about, invariably quite at the top of their lung power hogging the MSM. An MSM that wants to convince us that man biting a dog is news.

Now it is not my proposition that sexuality, marriage, procreation, recreation and family sizes are separate and silo-ed ideas. But this view nonetheless exists and they can argue for their points. Arguing for my own, what I have observed is that one is always a function of several others. So sexuality does have something to do with the other things downline characterstic of one free unsilo-ed life. Had these been mere laws I would have been ok with these being treated separately.

Anyhow the laws tend to lag against the customs and when we talk of customs the focus can rightfully, only be on the rules that emerge out of the exceptions. As a matter of tradition hindu marriages (and that of other dharmics not being any different) have been about families looking to bless the newlyweds and get blessed in the process of Kanyadaan, as representative of (?) of Ram-Sita or Shiva-Parvati. At least that is what the girl’s father wishes for. As it is, we have a large majority of men who are both the father of a son and that of a daughter. All these fathers and the families lead by them cannot logically be expected to suffer in silence a system that puts the girls fate at risk. So to that extent a 'Lagaam/Bridle' on the sexuality is certainly required. After all the girl has to run the family and bear the bigger burden of raising the kids of the other family. Menfolk invariably decide to contribute little by way of effort. A smaller contribution cannot really support a bigger right. Understanding this, families often express their wish for the prospective groom in terms like, ‘Ram jaisa ladka’ etc. The balance of social conduct suggests that marriages, remain a monogamous affair. There have been, historically, exceptions to that. Hindu customs have tolerated without social-prejudice both the polygamy and the polyandry. Both exceptions are however, exceptions only, in the service of a larger good and not a matter of rule/right. The polyandry groups have begun turning to monogamous relationships due to the normal pressures of time and socio-economic realities. Polygamous relationships are not any more an in thing either. Mainly because no family feels safe giving a Kanyadaan in a family where the girls fate begins to carry risks. Polygamy was far widespread compared to polyandry because of the overwhelmingly Patriarchal society that we had. Against this backdrop and keeping view the fast changing socio-economics the hindu law, when codified into a strictly monogamous one, had nobody really complaining to it. If a need arises it is understood that the general rule would be changed. But that need is not there. Even to this day if the law is unable to provide to the will of an individual in exceptional circumstances, nobody really stops the individual from going off in his own direction. But the general rule, is by now well established by sarva sam-matti. Sam-matti need not be express it can be implied too.

Sarva jan having formed a wish in this manner it becomes important to protect it when the desire is to provide for newer exceptions like:

1) People who want a family but no marriage can be put under extra provisions as to support of their kids or the kids they take up the responsibility for.

2) People who wish for a marriage but no family can be allowed as such or even allowed to raise kids from outside their marriages so long as they are also put under extra provisions as to responsibilities of the kids they support.

3) People who want neither family nor marriage but only the satisfaction of their sexual desires can also be allowed to continue as such so long as STDs can be kept in check and these holy people can be kept from interfering in normal life.

4) Open marriages are a strange idea. Often people who support this concept, when asked about the kids in such marriages are willing to hold up a purported healthy and bright kid from such background as an example in support. But nothing is said of the large number of kids from such marriages who do not have the benefit of wealth and social approbation. A large number of poor families esp. in urban slums would fall prey to such unbridled idiocy. Those who are well endowed are as it is, despite whatever the law says, enjoying their existence in Sanik Farm Rave parties. If these people can keep their silly freedoms with adequate care for small matters of STDs, Narco trade and greenmailings/blackmailings in subversion of regular life, I guess these will be tolerated in much the same manner as they already are.

5) Same sex relationships (marriage or otherwise) can be treated in any of these categories depending upon what is sought to be achieved.

6) Cases of Niyog, sperm donations, surrogate motherhood can be separately provided for keeping in view the health and progeny issues.

7) Women’s health prior to pregnancy is a big issue that we face. And this should ideally form a big input for the judge and the system put up to deal with these issues.

The test remains not allowing a particular group to seek false exclusivity at the expense of the other, whatever be the sizes.

[prahaar]

Sarva jan having formed a wish in this manner it becomes important to protect it when the desire is to provide for newer exceptions like:

1) People who want a family but no marriage can be put under extra provisions as to support of their kids or the kids they take up the responsibility for.

2) People who wish for a marriage but no family can be allowed as such or even allowed to raise kids from outside their marriages so long as they are also put under extra provisions as to responsibilities of the kids they support.

Some very good points, although the point 1 & 2 about providing provisions for taking care of children properly (properly is always a relative term, I agree). Based on my experience in N.Europe, it all ends up as one of the partners giving money to the single-mother or the state paying up. Although money is essential, it is not sufficient for raising a kid. Raising a kid in a wholesome manner needs time, love, care, role-models to grow up. These poor mothers end up taking care of the kid without a father (in majority cases it is the father who has gone away or been sent away) and it is physically not possible to be with the child for all their needs. This has led to a weird situation where fathers have become an optional ingredient in the government policies, which ends up alienating young men from fatherhood (since it is NOT considered a cool thing + law is against them due to many cases of physical assaults/etc + women have been fed a koolaid of they do not need a man in the house to raise their children). There are photos in childcare centers having only mother+child+grandparents, the father is missing in the pictures. We should not allow men to escape fatherhood.