Bharat Rakshak

RajeshA: First, thanks for being open to a change to your views. It takes courage to do so and my respect to you for that. Think of it this way - To a practitioner of dharma of ANY sampradaya the word "hindu" and its derivatives is inherently foreign. So, the question is are we better off adopting this word. This decision is best taken after very heavy discounting of what others think of that word. The most important aspect is what we the practitioners think of it. No acharya worth his salt is comfortable with the word hindu or hinduism in my view. The foreign nature of that word is implicit.

This is about identities. The best identities are formed to last. They last because their are rooted in lasting ideas or eternal ideas and eternal truths. My land has been known as the land of dharma for 1000's of years before mono-ism came around and will last 1000's of years into the future. No mono-ism shall define who we are and what we are called - two bit empires that last a few centuries notwithstanding.

My call to you is to shed all fear of what others think of it.

Pranav wrote:

devesh wrote: the "older" term for our system was not really "Dharma". it was "Vaidika Dharma".

so for people who have a problem with "Hindu", the only valid option is "Vaidika Dharma", not simply "Dharma".

You have taken it upon yourself to dictate to others that only Vedic and nothing else.

This Abrahamic mind-set, which seeks to put Dharma into a box, should be avoided.

The principles of Dharma are eternal and universal and cannot be restricted to a particular book. And each individual walks his own path (his Swa-Dharma), as per his Karma and state of evolution.

Hindus as mentioned in the Constitution include Vaidik Dharmics, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs! May be tribals too.

The term 'Hindu' however should mean those Bharatiyas who have defied Islam and Christianity as predators in Bharatvarsha.

Another collective term could be 'Dharmic Continuum' or 'Dharmic Traditions' which refers to the various philosophies, mythologies, and Moksha Margs.

all of above is fine for academic discourse.

but for real life, and the need to form a large enough unified base with interest in rebuilding Bharat, we need something that can mass mobilize. that is the purpose of this thread. otherwise, there is no need for us to get all worked up over a philosophical, imagined academic "debate".

words have power. which one do you think is more suitable for the purpose of social/political mobilization? the intense aversion to the "Hindu" makes one wonder if the real objective is to scuttle any real progress in that required direction?

ShauryaT wrote:RajeshA: First, thanks for being open to a change to your views. It takes courage to do so and my respect to you for that. Think of it this way - To a practitioner of dharma of ANY sampradaya the word "hindu" and its derivatives is inherently foreign. So, the question is are we better off adopting this word. This decision is best taken after very heavy discounting of what others think of that word. The most important aspect is what we the practitioners think of it. No acharya worth his salt is comfortable with the word hindu or hinduism in my view. The foreign nature of that word is implicit.

This is about identities. The best identities are formed to last. They last because their are rooted in lasting ideas or eternal ideas and eternal truths. My land has been known as the land of dharma for 1000's of years before mono-ism came around and will last 1000's of years into the future. No mono-ism shall define who we are and what we are called - two bit empires that last a few centuries notwithstanding.

My call to you is to shed all fear of what others think of it.

I think the reason the acharyas and others are not comfortable with 'Hindu' or 'Hinduism' are because of the distortion the term 'Hinduism' causes on the term 'Hindu'. A 'Hindu' is not a follower of 'Hinduism', but that is how these terms are used.

Just to be clear, I am all in favor of purging the term 'Hinduism', but the term 'Hindu' should remain. Acharyas who are people more into Dharma, need however not use the term 'Hindu' as their identifier, as the term is more of a civilizational statement of resistance than some religious category.

What I also regret is that there is too much emphasis on principles of life and Moksha Margs. As far as I am concerned, Bharatvarsha and Bharatiya Sabhyata form the core identity and provide the temporal anchor to all Dharmic traditions.

devesh wrote: but it is disconnected from logic. BG might have universal values in it, but it is not context-less. otherwise, it becomes a "scripture" and is easily digestible into all and sundry. dissociating the ideas expressed by Krishna in BG from the context of MB makes it a "universal" value, and in one fluid stroke, any other claimants of universalism which have similar ideas in some nook and corner of their "scriptures" can likewise claim that "all is one" or "all is same".

I have no issues with other proponents of universal truths that are from outside India. But, they have to be tested in light of eternal truths. There are defined pathways to test them. One of these pathways is to understand the nature of god, through understanding the nature of man. I will look for aspects of Adyatmik Vidya, which I believe is not restricted to dharmic thoughts emanating from India alone. As mentioned earlier the Plato and Pythagoras of Greece had more in common with SD of India than of Christian Europe. I have no fear in others claiming universal truths but these truths are not just accepted blindly or through dogma and force, they have to undergo tests to stand up to the claims they make.

devesh wrote:words have power. which one do you think is more suitable for the purpose of social/political mobilization? the intense aversion to the "Hindu" makes one wonder if the real objective is to scuttle any real progress in that required direction?

I think, the term 'Hinduism' is being used as a Trojan Horse, to create aversion among Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Animists, and all types of imprisoned Macaulayites and Yuppies against the Vaidiks and to break ranks with them as well as to turn away from the Hindu cause - full eradication of foreign expansionary imperialist religious ideologies from Bharatavarsha.

The fact that Vaidiks have embraced this Trojan Horse 'Hinduism' and fight for the right to grooming it properly, makes the job of the miscreants very easy.

How better to kill a Hindu than sell him a 'Murti' which gives out toxic fumes?!

RajeshA wrote: Just to be clear, I am all in favor of purging the term 'Hinduism', but the term 'Hindu' should remain. Acharyas who are people more into Dharma, need however not use the term 'Hindu' as their identifier, as the term is more of a civilizational statement of resistance than some religious category.

An obvious inconsistency, which you will have to resolve in due course of time.

What I also regret is that there is too much emphasis on principles of life and Moksha Margs. As far as I am concerned, Bharatvarsha and Bharatiya Sabhyata form the core identity and provide the temporal anchor to all Dharmic traditions.

If I had a magic wand, my wish would be gather ALL acharyas of dharma and wipe out the word Moksha for the next 100 years from their teachings and focus on the other three purusharthas. I am looking for such a magic wand, any suggestions.

It means, I have tried to reach to many known and sundry but they just will not budge.

ShauryaT wrote:

RajeshA wrote: Just to be clear, I am all in favor of purging the term 'Hinduism', but the term 'Hindu' should remain. Acharyas who are people more into Dharma, need however not use the term 'Hindu' as their identifier, as the term is more of a civilizational statement of resistance than some religious category.

An obvious inconsistency, which you will have to resolve in due course of time.

There is no inconsistency. If there was any it has been resolved in the posts above. Please read, "Why is 'Hindu' non-negotiable?" as well as the subsequent post(s) on the topic.

RajeshA wrote:

An obvious inconsistency, which you will have to resolve in due course of time.

There is no inconsistency. If there was any it has been resolved in the posts above. Please read, "Why is 'Hindu' non-negotiable?" as well as the subsequent post(s) on the topic.

I do not agree to your "reactionary" approach to what others think of us. Anyways, you do not have to be convinced now. The fact that you are open is good enough. From my side, I could care less of the term used but it should be for the right reasons and I do not want to give "others" the right to define or term who I am.

Interesting discussion.

So we are willing to purge/leave-away the identities that are muddied by foreign ideologies. Instead of washing the cloths and punishing the mud-throwers we prefer to give away the cloths. All in the name of "freedom from fear"

Can someone kindly educated me what are the Moksha margas that are outside Veda-compliant shat-darshanas? Are Charvaka/Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism/etc., Moksha margas? Who attained moksha in those paths?

ShauryaT garu -
It is very simplistic and (pardon my french) Tsutiya way to wipe out the word Moksha for a specific period (100-x000^yyy years). All the other Purusharthas Artha, Kama, Dharma become meaningless and purposeless without that Mokhsa-goal in perspective.

Please tell me how you can define Artha, Kama, Dharma that is devoid of Moksha in a Dharmic way? What is the purpose of Dharma without Moksha, heaven/hell? What is the purpose of Kama without Moksha, a license to procreate? What is the purpose of Artha without Moksha-bhava, a greed to steal from nature?

And you need a magic wand for this? Why not go join an Abrahamic faith?

I humbly present my blog post on Artha-Purushartha

http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/2012/ ... artha.html

Artha is the first of four Purusharthas: Artha, Kama, Dharma, and Moksha.

The fundamental quest of any living being is to stay alive and fight the insecurity of 'death/Mr'tyu'. This pursuit for security is called Artha, the first Purushartha.

It is instinctive for a living being to search and acquire food to fight hunger, water for thirst, dwelling for security from elements, procreate to continue one’s lineage etc., which are part of pursuing the Artha Purushartha. Any pursuit that goes beyond this basic sense of security becomes the second Purushartha, Kaama. For example - acquiring food to sustain one's life and health is Artha, whereas the desire to have a specific taste/type of food becomes Kaama.

Even this natural pursuit of security has to be done within the limits of a socially acceptable code of conduct, Dharma, the third Purushartha. The live beings are separated into two groups: the species that are mere Bhoktas - all non-human beings who have limited consciousness; and Kartaas - humans who are beings with enough level of consciousness to choose their actions. Only the Kartaas are bound by the Dharma - code of conduct, whereas Bhoktas are destined to accept whatever action is imposed on them.

When extrapolated to a society, the Artha Purushartha becomes the modern concept of National Security. The purpose and objective of any governance system is to ensure that all its citizens are provided this basic sense of security in terms of the social, civilizational and territorial definitions of a given nation. Chanakya thus defines Artha "ManuShyaaNaam Vrutti : ArTha:, Manushyavatii Bhoomirityartha:, Tasyaa: pruThivyaa: LaabhaPaalanOpaaya: Saastram ArThaSaastram Iti = The process of human livelihood is Artham, and the process of acquiring and securing such a society is science of Artha or Artha-Sastram" in his Arthashastra (Chapter 15:1).

No government's mandate goes beyond this Artha-Purushartha, because even the whole universe cannot satisfy a single person's Kaama/desire.

The only way a being's Artha Purushartha can be neutralized is by redefining one's being. As long as a person's being is defined in the limited sense of life (period between material birth and material death), the Artha Purushartha exists. Only when this definition of oneself goes beyond this concept of life, this in-complete sense of insecurity can be solved permanently.

That alternative definition of self and life is defined as Aatma-swaroopa in Sanatana Dharma a.k.a Hinduism. That is why all other Purusharthas dissolve when one realizes one's Aatma-swaroopa-- Moksha, the last Purushartha.

ShauryaT wrote:

ShauryaT wrote:An obvious inconsistency, which you will have to resolve in due course of time.

RajeshA wrote:There is no inconsistency. If there was any it has been resolved in the posts above. Please read, "Why is 'Hindu' non-negotiable?" as well as the subsequent post(s) on the topic.

I do not agree to your "reactionary" approach to what others think of us. ... From my side, I could care less of the term used but it should be for the right reasons and I do not want to give "others" the right to define or term who I am.

I wrote earlier:

1. 'Hindu' means first and foremost Resistance.
2. 'Hindu' means the rightful inhabitants of the region around Sindhu river.
3. 'Hindu' means the non-infested Bharatiya Collective.

We could have done away with 'Hindu' but the origin of the term is benign and the later development of the term gives hope that not all is lost and the agenda of fighting back is not forgotten.

In the whole 'right to define' argument, one should not forget one's battle scars which though given to us by our enemies still define our spirit and should be carried like medals to give us strength when we return the favors.

Also the aversion to 'Hindu' is a carefully executed project by the Nehruvian-Secularists and needs to be resisted.

ShauryaT wrote:Anyways, you do not have to be convinced now. The fact that you are open is good enough.

A bit less condescending would be much appreciated!

RamaY wrote: ShauryaT garu -
It is very simplistic and (pardon my french) Tsutiya way to wipe out the word Moksha for a specific period (100-x000^yyy years). All the other Purusharthas Artha, Kama, Dharma become meaningless and purposeless without that Mokhsa-goal in perspective.

Please tell me how you can define Artha, Kama, Dharma that is devoid of Moksha in a Dharmic way? What is the purpose of Dharma without Moksha, heaven/hell? What is the purpose of Kama without Moksha, a license to procreate? What is the purpose of Artha without Moksha-bhava, a greed to steal from nature?

And you need a magic wand for this? Why not go join an Abrahamic faith?

I do not think you are in tune with the spirit of that post - so stay out of it. You continue to misinterpret either knowingly or unknowingly. You also underestimate the serious shit we have at our hands and the need to clean up house. You see enemies everywhere. Display fear and paranoia, uncertainty and doubt in all you write. So, what I write, I am afraid you will not get and vice versa. If we are in two different planes, it is better not to talk on it for some time, at least directly. Over time, maybe.

RamaY wrote:Interesting discussion.

So we are willing to purge/leave-away the identities that are muddied by foreign ideologies. Instead of washing the cloths and punishing the mud-throwers we prefer to give away the cloths. All in the name of "freedom from fear"

Can someone kindly educated me what are the Moksha margas that are outside Veda-compliant shat-darshanas? Are Charvaka/Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism/etc., Moksha margas? Who attained moksha in those paths?

Let's then say they are marketed as Moksha Margas! Since we do not retain our memories from previous incarnation there is only so much one can say with absolute certainty which eschatology works and which does not!

^

You never answered any of my questions except saying I am paranoid and I don't "understand" you. I am ok with it.

But Your POV will not be accepted and left unrediculed just because YOU THINK/CLAIM it is modernity.

RajeshA wrote: Let's then say they are marketed as Moksha Margas! Since we do not retain our memories from previous incarnation there is only so much one can say with absolute certainty which eschatology works and which does not!

There is a soul searching book by Arun Shourie on this issue. It is called "Does he know a mother's heart". Highly recommend it for some serious introspection of eschatology.. But, requirement number one is to give up dogma and approach it with an open mind.

RajeshA wrote: A bit less condescending would be much appreciated!

Did not mean it that way. Apologies if offended.

RajeshA wrote:

RamaY wrote:Interesting discussion.

So we are willing to purge/leave-away the identities that are muddied by foreign ideologies. Instead of washing the cloths and punishing the mud-throwers we prefer to give away the cloths. All in the name of "freedom from fear"

Can someone kindly educated me what are the Moksha margas that are outside Veda-compliant shat-darshanas? Are Charvaka/Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism/etc., Moksha margas? Who attained moksha in those paths?

Let's then say they are marketed as Moksha Margas! Since we do not retain our memories from previous incarnation there is only so much one can say with absolute certainty which eschatology works and which does not!

As I answered to Harbans garu, I completely understand the reasoning behind calling all Indic margas as Hindu/bharatiya/Dharmic/ShauryaT/Harbans/whatever and agree with them. The seers of our Constitution did exactly the same.

I did this hair splitting only when erudite members suggested to get away with the Hindu-umbrella and suggested we use Moksha margas. By such interpretation even ShauryaTs (with much respect to him) can come up with Moksha margas. If this is so simplistic then millions of seers who walked on Bharat and attained moksha would have started their own moksha margas. We do not see that happened. One should think why.

ShauryaT wrote:

RajeshA wrote: Let's then say they are marketed as Moksha Margas! Since we do not retain our memories from previous incarnation there is only so much one can say with absolute certainty which eschatology works and which does not!

There is a soul searching book by Arun Shourie on this issue. It is called "Does he know a mother's heart". Highly recommend it for some serious introspection of eschatology.. But, requirement number one is to give up dogma and approach it with an open mind.

By this definition even Abrahamic faiths are Moksha margas for they did not know a mother's (or shall we say, the father's) heart.

The real DOGMA is "secular/liberal/Modernity fundamentalism". Perhaps one should forego this dogma before suggesting others thus.

Just because one writes a great poetry on sh1t, the sh1t doesn't stop stinking and doesn't become sandal paste.

RamaY wrote:
But Your POV will not be accepted and left unrediculed just because YOU THINK/CLAIM it is modernity.

You do not have to accept and have never asked you to. However, what you have to stop doing is to stop describing others as Dhimmis or as expressing modernity, when no such thing is claimed. You resort to ridicule and then expect respect? Stick to arguments without getting personal for a change. Critique the argument and not ridicule the person is a fine line to follow in debate. But, your choice to make your arguments.

ShauryaT wrote:

RamaY wrote: But Your POV will not be accepted and left unrediculed just because YOU THINK/CLAIM it is modernity.

You do not have to accept and have never asked you to. However, what you have to stop doing is to stop describing others as Dhimmis or as expressing modernity, when no such thing is claimed. You resort to ridicule and then expect respect? Stick to arguments without getting personal for a change. Critique the argument and not ridicule the person is a fine line to follow in debate. But, your choice to make your arguments.

I did ridicule some thoughts, not individuals. The label of Dhimmi is as meaningful as a label seer or liberal or secularist or hindutva. All these labels define a specific line of thought process. That is also an expression to drive the message home. But I always supported my ridicules with logic/reasoning.

I must say you did not do the same in the past few posts. You complained on the ridicule but didn't respond to the logic behind it.

RajeshA wrote:

devesh wrote:words have power. which one do you think is more suitable for the purpose of social/political mobilization? the intense aversion to the "Hindu" makes one wonder if the real objective is to scuttle any real progress in that required direction?

I think, the term 'Hinduism' is being used as a Trojan Horse, to create aversion among Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Animists, and all types of imprisoned Macaulayites and Yuppies against the Vaidiks and to break ranks with them as well as to turn away from the Hindu cause - full eradication of foreign expansionary imperialist religious ideologies from Bharatavarsha.

The fact that Vaidiks have embraced this Trojan Horse 'Hinduism' and fight for the right to grooming it properly, makes the job of the miscreants very easy.

How better to kill a Hindu than sell him a 'Murti' which gives out toxic fumes?!

There is a slow movement to throw out Vediks from "Hindu" conglomerate. Which on ground translates as declaring brahmins as "non-hindus".

I have said that long time ago in deracination dhaga. The epithet of Hindu (i mean Hinduism) is fast outliving its usefulness.

I would recommend you to walk through the villages of KG-basin and Narmada basin, to get this feel.

Hindu was useful in Islamic times. Also in early English times. Hinduism started becoming a liability (I mean the term) when first census happened. Things are churning in India where the OBC castes are rapidly rising up. Even devatas of swarga cannot stop this, so my brothers, heed to this call of time.

I have opposed the usage of word "bhartiya" or Indic (though I have used it on multiple occasions due to ease).. Hindu is much more broad than Bhartiya because when we say bhartiya, we fail to define a crucial question - Which Bharat? Maratha Bharat, Mughal Bharat, British Bharat or republic of bharat?

I am afraid Hindu is approaching similar bottleneck. Which Hindu? legal hindu or colloquial Hindu? are vaidik people HIndu? to be frank, are there any Vaidik people left at all? (barring the arya samajis and some shrauta nambuthiri brahmins)...

The problem has arisen because we have not finished the problem of Islam before getting entangled with problem of western domination. "Hindu" is useful against Islamic (rather abrahmic) problem, not against "secular West". against west, Hindu becomes a liability. All this taqleef is due to the fact that we have to face two of them simultaneously and we are not able to conjure up the two-faced dharmik who can be this and who also can be that, without feeling the need to defend himself.

I segregate abrahmic problem (Islam and Christianity - the EJ variety) from problem of west and secularism.

RamaY wrote:

ShauryaT wrote:There is a soul searching book by Arun Shourie on this issue. It is called "Does he know a mother's heart". Highly recommend it for some serious introspection of eschatology.. But, requirement number one is to give up dogma and approach it with an open mind.

By this definition even Abrahamic faiths are Moksha margas for they did not know a mother's (or shall we say, the father's) heart.

The real DOGMA is "secular/liberal/Modernity fundamentalism". Perhaps one should forego this dogma before suggesting others thus.

Just because one writes a great poetry on sh1t, the sh1t doesn't stop stinking and doesn't become sandal paste.

You obviously have no clue of the work, for you have not read the book or any of the 26 other books he has, forget interacting with him but have the temerity to say shit and all and then say you do not ridicule the person....By saying "hindu" six thousand times with little understanding of it and its challenges, does not make you a hindutvadi. It makes you a .....

Atri ji: Appreciate the perspective. Maybe you can elaborate on the essential nature of this two faced problem. Do not care about the term we use.

Here is an analogy:
Lets say X wants to save a temple from a foreign onslaught. Now, the foreigners are opposed to the temple. So, X comes up with the idea that temple must be protected. To protect temple, X turned temple into a mini fortress. Then, X stocked it with soldiers. Taking care of soldiers was given a preference over the day-to-day activities of temple(after all, protecting the temple was more important). All the temple money was diverted to the upkeep of fort and soldiers(and their various needs). To maintain the soldiers, X had to bring cooks, servants and maids. After some time, all the puja in the temple was stopped. After some more time, people came with the idea that since there was no puja, why have the Vigraha? So, the Vigraha was also shifted out to a small temporary temple outside the fort. Once the Vigraha was also shifted out, people really started using it as a regular fort. To 'amuse' the soldiers and keep their spirits high, prostitutes were brought and kept. X was very happy with the proceedings. He was confident of resisting.

The foreigners finally came to attack the temple. But, they were perplexed. Instead of finding a temple, they found a fort. Since, their angst was only against the temple, they found no reason to attack a fort. Instead, they saw a small temple outside the fort. They went and attacked that small temple. The people of the fort were happy that they were not attacked.

---
I think the point here is not about the term, 'Hinduism'. Harbans and people of the same view don't really have a problem with the term 'Hinduism'. The attacks 'Hinduism' as a foreign word are merely a strawman. If the issue is really only about the term 'Hinduism', then it is no big deal at all. One can replace the word 'Hinduism' with many synonyms of the Hinduism(like Sanatana Dharma, or Vedic Dharma or Arsha Dharma ...etc).

But, the real issue is revealed when they oppose even these labels. The real issue is with ideology/belief/doctrine/definition of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma itself. They are saying, if you insist on being a Hindu(or a Sanatana Dharmic or Vedic Dharmik), then other so-called 'Dharmic strands' will be alienated. The point is that Hindus are being asked to make compromises on Hindu beliefs to accommodate the so-called 'Dharmic strands'. BTW, Hinduism/SD does not accept any dharmic strand other than itself. As far as Hinduism/SD is concerned, when it really comes down to it, Buddhism is as good as Christianity. Similarly, when it really comes down to it, as far as Buddhism is concerned, Jainism is as good as Judaism.

But, all the indic religions can work with each other to face the onslaught of the abrahamic faiths. They have a common interest: survival. That is enough. There is no need to change anyone's beliefs or identities. Any project wanting to change the identity or belief system is bound to do harm rather than help.

But, if someone insists that Hindus have to give up their identity or belief system to be accepted by others(whether so-called dharmic or not), then there is nothing Hindus(and Hinduism) can do. To ask Hinduism to give up its beliefs to accommodate others is a non-starter. Hinduism cannot really give up the concepts without invalidating itself. And some are suggesting this 'strategy' are to protect Hinduism/SD. It is like trying to save the temple from an onslaught by turning it into a brothel. If you turn a temple into a brothel, did you save it?

Similarly, if you make compromises on beliefs of Hinduism/SD, did you save Hinduism/SD?

If all the core points are taken away step by step, then is it still the same? For example, if the concepts of Jesus, Bible, Monotheism, Eternal Heaven/Hell, and church are removed, then is the left-over doctrine still christianity?

Now, some people will retort that Hinduism is not like Christianity(which in their speak means that Hinduism has no core concepts at all). This is plain wrong.

Some people say that Hinduism must remain undefined. They say that giving any definition to Hinduism will turn into a Abrahamic creed. This is a strange logic. In this view, Hinduism must stand for nothing. So, one can do anything one wants and claim that is what Hinduism is.

But, the problem is that there is a ALREADY definition of Hinduism/SD. If one does not want to adhere to it, it is their prerogative. But, to insist that no definition exists is plain wrong. Hinduism has a definition just as all other religion(including the so-called dharmic strands) have a definition. There is a clearly demarcated positions on various issues.

Clearly defining does not make it Abrahamic. It is a superficial understanding. It is the content of the definition that makes it different.

If one insists that one wants to believe in whatever one wants to believe in, then such a view is definitely not supported by Hinduism(or for that matter by any ideology in the world, religious or not). When one believes in one's own opinion, then that is what it is: One's own opinion. Nothing more. One's own opinion cannot be an ideology(any ideology, abrahamic or other wise).

---
Pranav,
You said that Dharma means to uphold. Fine. To uphold what, when, where, how, how long and why?

I hope you won't say sva-dharma because according to you dharma means to 'uphold', sva means 'self'. So, sva-dharma would mean 'self-uphold', which is also unclear about what it is saying.

Johneeg: Speaking for myself, I have no issues with the term Sanatan Dharma. Also, agree that defining it is not akin to abrahamic tendency. If it escapes tight definition, it can certainly be explained in a cogent manner that instantly captures its essence and int this essence captures its key differentiators automatically. I personally think the route to the same is through Adhyatmik constructs.

ShauryaT wrote:Johneeg: Speaking for myself, I have no issues with the term Sanatan Dharma. Also, agree that defining it is not akin to abrahamic tendency. If it escapes tight definition, it can certainly be explained in a cogent manner that instantly captures its essence and int this essence captures its key differentiators automatically. I personally think the route to the same is through Adhyatmik constructs.

More rhetoric and intellectual prostration slavery onlee

What happens tomorrow a section of Sanatana Dharmics continue to call themselves Reddys, Jats, Kammas, Iyers, Namboodris, Kumris, Boyas etc., and they complain on this term "sanatana Dharma"?

I have a problem with Sanatana Dharma. It means nothing to me. Its meaning is Sanatana = Eternal and Dharma = a set of rules. Are you implying that set of rules have to be eternal and cannot be changed in time? Isn't it Dogma?

What essence SD carries that Hinduism doesn't carry? Can you show an islamist or EJ who is willing to add SD as kosher in their books?

johneeG wrote:I think the point here is not about the term, 'Hinduism'. Harbans and people of the same view don't really have a problem with the term 'Hinduism'. The attacks 'Hinduism' as a foreign word are merely a strawman. If the issue is really only about the term 'Hinduism', then it is no big deal at all. One can replace the word 'Hinduism' with many synonyms of the Hinduism(like Sanatana Dharma, or Vedic Dharma or Arsha Dharma ...etc).

But, the real issue is revealed when they oppose even these labels. The real issue is with ideology/belief/doctrine/definition of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma itself. They are saying, if you insist on being a Hindu(or a Sanatana Dharmic or Vedic Dharmik), then other so-called 'Dharmic strands' will be alienated. The point is that Hindus are being asked to make compromises on Hindu beliefs to accommodate the so-called 'Dharmic strands'. BTW, Hinduism/SD does not accept any dharmic strand other than itself. As far as Hinduism/SD is concerned, when it really comes down to it, Buddhism is as good as Christianity. Similarly, when it really comes down to it, as far as Buddhism is concerned, Jainism is as good as Judaism.

johneeG ji,

I can only speak for myself. My new-found aversion to 'Hinduism' has only to do with the term, and the Western inputs that have gone in defining it. Many Sanataniks in order to understand their Dharma look directly at the sources of Sanatan Dharma. However many many Indians in secular India and people abroad are fed on 'Hinduism' and that includes a lot of theories by Westerners, Macaulayites mixed with some truths about Sanatan Dharma.

So my suggestion is to only refer to our Dharmic tradition as Sanatan Dharma, and completely purge the term 'Hinduism'.

The term 'Hindu' however should remain non-negotiable.

johneeG wrote: But, the real issue is revealed when they oppose even these labels. The real issue is with ideology/belief/doctrine/definition of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma itself. They are saying, if you insist on being a Hindu(or a Sanatana Dharmic or Vedic Dharmik), then other so-called 'Dharmic strands' will be alienated. The point is that Hindus are being asked to make compromises on Hindu beliefs to accommodate the so-called 'Dharmic strands'.

I don't think other Dharmic strands have any problems with "Sanatana" Dharma ... even Harbans is quoting from the Gita.

Some people say that Hinduism must remain undefined. They say that giving any definition to Hinduism will turn into a Abrahamic creed. This is a strange logic. In this view, Hinduism must stand for nothing. So, one can do anything one wants and claim that is what Hinduism is.

It is the universal and eternal aspects of Dharma that are the core. The core includes concepts like Karma, reincarnation, evolution towards Moksha / Nirvana, Raja Yoga, and the essential unity of the universe (Advaita).

There can be a problem if people start thinking that Dharma cannot exist without their favorite rituals. Though rituals can also be useful, they are not necessarily universal.

For example, Tamil may express various philosophical concepts through very beautiful Bharatanatyam dance, but it is not that the dance form is essential or universal, it is the concepts that are important. A Punjabi, or for that matter, a non-Indian, may very well understand these concepts without knowing anything about Bharatanatyam.

Similarly, Murtis may be useful for some but not for others. But the underlying idea of focussing the mind, for which Murtis may be used, is universal, as are the philosophical concepts which forms like Kali symbolize.

Pranav,
You said that Dharma means to uphold. Fine. To uphold what, when, where, how, how long and why?

Uphold the universal, eternal core ... to facilitate the ultimate goal of human existence, which is evolution of the self, and society at large.

I hope you won't say sva-dharma because according to you dharma means to 'uphold', sva means 'self'. So, sva-dharma would mean 'self-uphold', which is also unclear about what it is saying.

The term refers to an individual's evolutionary path.

harbans wrote:Rajesh Ji, for the vision of a Bharatiya State one need not really take away any Hindu identity at all or for that matter any one's identity. The difficulty in imposing an outright Hindutva state will not only lie in direct opposition from all sorts of groups, but also in it's inherent characteristics and basic visions. Thus the impracticality of it's formation cannot be overstressed. Yet we can have a lot of resistance removed, increased assimilation by expecting the State to exude qualities that we believe are fundamental to our ethos. I do deeply admire the way you collate, logically present information and admire the effort you put into that. I also think no one on this board does that part as well as you do with so many different and difficult topics. So in that sense do not underestimate my appreciation of your efforts.

I also acknowledge that the depth of tradition and knowledge in this country is way too valuable to be ever destroyed. It also is the duty of every citizen to be able to seek to preserve and nurture that wealth. The preservation of these traditions as you have earlier rightly mentioned must have state prioritization, though that itself may be debatable and have limitations. However it does fall on the citizenry to be able to understand the import and contribute to it's preservation.

When we talk of Hindutva, for many people in India it implies a rejection also of a lot of other Dharmic strands, which may not be the flavor of HIndutva but none the less have volumes of knowledge within their folds. Even though the roots are all in the Vedic branches many of these do not give much import to the root and that lack of acknowledgement may be a cause for differentiation and more. However i would not like that non-acknowledgement to be a cause of difference. Somewhere there we have to move beyond our stated stances and rally under a State that recognizes each one, the root to branches and leaves as one part of the family.

So rather than rush with framing a Hindutva constitution why not try and see what really integrates and not divides the nation.

harbans ji,

I responded with an earlier post. I can further elaborate some points.

The main agenda of Hindus in India (as per the definitions providedearlier 1 2 3) is to first ensure that predatory foreign ideologies are not given any sanctuary in India. Syncretism is a hoax and I am sure it would be exposed to the Indian people sooner than later.

As Atri garu also says, Bharatiya Tradition allows everybody to have his own Moksha Marga, his own eschatology as long as one does not impinge on the rest of the Puruṣārtha - Dharma, Artha, Kama.

These foreign predatory religious ideologies in India have however not held to that condition and so they must be removed.

The resistance to these foreign predatory religious ideologies has always been 'Hindu' (not to be confused as follower of some Trojan Horse religion 'Hinduism'). Hindutva is simply the Resistance Movement (not to be confused for a vehicle for some Trojan Horse religion 'Hinduism'). So neither 'Hindu' nor 'Hindutva' can be taken out of the equation of defining the nation. Once the foreign predatory religious ideologies have been purged, then the work of 'Hindu' and 'Hindutva' is finished (at least for the time being).

The opposition that one sees from other groups to 'Hindutva' is also stage-managed by the same parties who are responsible for the Trojan Horse 'Hinduism' as well.

I haven't heard of other Dharmic Sampradayas having any problem with Vaidik Dharmics (whom we generally refer to as Hindus). The problem other groups and Sampradayas have with Hindutva arises because they have been told that Hindutva is a movement only for the benefit of Vaidik Dharmics, and only to promote their cause at the expense of that of all others. This impression arises due to the wrong semantics that have been imposed on the identity 'Hindu' through the use of the Trojan Horse 'Hinduism'.

Vaidik Dharmics ≠ Hindus

Vaidik Dharmics ⊂ Hindus

and that too because 'Hindu' means The Resistance (to foreign predatory religious ideologies).

There is also the resistance of Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and some others to consider their religions as part of 'Hinduism'. Of course there would be and there should be. If the other Sampradayas do not wish to be called Vaidiks it is their choice, and Vaidiks are not opposing this. As far as 'Hinduism' is concerned, the term should itself be thrown into the dustbin much less be fed with more Content Definitions.

However if the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist wish to get rid of the foreign predatory religious ideologies from Bharatvarsha, than they are automatically Hindu and believe in Hindutva.

harbans wrote:So the choice remains Hindutva: Risk of alienation and particulars Sampradaya's taking over reins of power. Nodal Values from our various Dharmic texts put in Dharmic contexts that espouses their universality and expectation that the State institutions reflect those qualities. The choice what we build up on this thread is yours. One may end up as a wishlist for it's impracticality, another may have a serious chance of being workable and evolve further in the near future.

The alienation of the other Sampradayas from 'Hindu' and 'Hindutva' is not a natural occurrence.

It is the result of manipulation of the whole issue by Nehruvian-Secularists. If they have

1. successfully tempted the Vaidiks to adopt 'Hinduism' as their religion,
2. injected 'Hinduism' with all sorts of prejudices of caste, caste oppression, sati, untouchability, backwardness and the like,
3. manipulated the media to always throw muck at 'Hinduism',
4. manipulated the media to project 'Hindutva' simply as a vehicle of a despised 'Hinduism', at the cost of others

then it is obvious that others would try to go at a distance from 'Hinduism' and 'Hindus'.

So basically the task of shattering this smoke and mirrors house is part of the liberation from the Nehruvian-Secularism that has paved the path for these foreign predatory religious ideologies.

This is just another instrument they use!

harbans wrote:For a State to be just that i try to look into what should the State reflect that all these branches shine on their own, but will glow harder due to association with the bigger tree. The only best thing i could think was values. In the Dharmic context only. So my first priority here is not a critique of Hindutva/ Hinduism for it's ideological meme, but whether it really is capable of bringing about that integration we need. IF we agree that values (taken all from Dharmic/ SD contexts) can bring about integration, then we can specify and work on exact contexts to be allotted. If we don't agree that values can be integrating in their scope the need for context does not arise. Indeed many of the values that are in our traditions are universal in scope.

Trojan Horse 'Hinduism' is not capable of bringing anything together. Hindutva is however the centerpiece for organizing the resistance, but all it can offer is that - Resistance, and that is the banner we need to use. Hindutva is conceived only for Resistance.

I think what we have in common besides "values" is Bharatiya Sabhyata which embodies our whole history, our regal genealogies, our languages with Sanskrit given prime position, our philosophies, our Sampradayas, our literature, our music, our architecture, our art, etc. etc. and Bharatvarsha, the geography. Dharma, Karma, Artha is common more or less between the Sampradayas and that can be promoted.

devesh wrote:all of above is fine for academic discourse.

but for real life, and the need to form a large enough unified base with interest in rebuilding Bharat, we need something that can mass mobilize. that is the purpose of this thread. otherwise, there is no need for us to get all worked up over a philosophical, imagined academic "debate".

words have power. which one do you think is more suitable for the purpose of social/political mobilization? the intense aversion to the "Hindu" makes one wonder if the real objective is to scuttle any real progress in that required direction?

The concept of Dharma Raksha has always been strongly embedded in Indic thought, and it is certainly an idea in support of which people can mobilize.

Rajesh Ji, as i said before you have an amazing capacity to put forward a lot of complexities in points and present them clearly. You have in the past few posts posted a lot of matter. I might nit pick on some points later, but that is only to understand your pov for what you are suggesting/ interpreting. I agree with you Sabhyata and Values we can find common ground. Much of the heartburn is on how much sanctity various Dharmic strands give to the Vedas, and this has been around since a long time, even before Islamics came to India. We have to consider that aspect. Yet it is clear that without the Veda's and the Vedanta, the Dharmic strands would not have emerged. For those who might not know, the Word wisdom, it's roots are Ved. So unknowingly or not, the root of the word wisdom in English is Ved.

Pranav Ji, excellent post couple above!

ShauryaT wrote:Atri ji: Appreciate the perspective. Maybe you can elaborate on the essential nature of this two faced problem. Do not care about the term we use.

I am not qualified to talk on Moksha because I lack the quintessential "anubhuti" - The "pratyaksha pramana"...

What is Moksha? This is a philosophical question and will have 7 billion different answers, if all of us humans chose to think over this question. It may be possible that all 7 billion answers are correct.

A Moksha Marga can be anything. For Dr. Hannibal Lector, killing men to eat their meat may give him the necessary Nirvana moment (or moksha moment)..

Moksha (liberation) implies bondage. Bondage of Karma which according to Dharmik schools, every jeeva is bound with. But this is quinessentially a personal question. By personal I mean this - From Dharmaarthik perspective, it is not possible for me to categorically state whether the path X leads to Moksha OR not.. and I have said in the beginning, I lack the anubhuti..

But while framing dharmaarthik policy, I have to assign some value to "Moksha" (even if that value is incorrect).. So, I take the vision of a soul whom I believe to be "realized". Here is Pasaaydaan by Gnaneshwara...

पसायदान

आतां विश्वात्मकें देवें। येणें वाग्यज्ञें तोषावें।
तोषोनि मज द्यावें। पसायदान हें।। 1 ll

जे खळांची व्यंकटी सांडो। तया सत्कर्मी रती वाढो।।
भूतां परस्परें पडो। मैत्र जीवाचें।। 2 ll

दुरितांचें तिमिर जावो । विश्व स्वधर्मसूर्ये पाहो।।
जो जें वांछील तो तें लाहो। प्राणिजात।। 3 ll

वर्षत सकळमंगळीं। ईश्वर निष्ठांची मांदियाळी।।
अनवरत भूमंडळीं। भेटतु या भूतां।। 4 ll

चलां कल्पतरूंचे अरव। चेतना चिंतामणीचें गांव।।
बोलते जे अर्णव। पीयूषाचे।। 5 ll

चंदमे जे अलांच्छन। मार्तंड जे तापहीन।।
ते सर्वांही सदा सज्जन। सोयरे होतु।। 6 ll

किंबहुना सर्वसुखीं। पूर्ण होऊनि तिहीं लोकीं।।
भजिजो आदिपुरुखीं। अखंडित।। 7 ll

आणि ग्रंथोपजीविये। विशेषीं लोकीं इयें।।
दृष्टादृष्टविजयें। होआवें जी।। 8 ll

येथ म्हणे श्रीविश्वेश्वरावो। हा होईल दानपसावो।।
येणें वरें ज्ञानदेवो। सुखिया जाला।। 9 ll

- संत ज्ञानेश्वर (ई.स.१२७५ - १२९६)

Translation -

1. Oh Luminescent Principle which makes up the entire universe, please accept this oblation and grant me the fulfilment (prasaad) of this task.

2. Those who take pleasure in needlessly inflicting pain on to others, rid them of this mentality; enable them to enjoy the pleasure one gets by doing righteous deeds; let all the living beings, concurrently, find friendship and peace with each other and self...

3. May the darkness of unrighteousness in the universe be dispelled by the rising sun of righteousness and duty; Let all the righteous desires of every living soul be fulfilled and may they find peace...

4. Let every living soul always find the continuous company of pious, righteous people who desire and think of nothing but well being of everybody all the time..

5. Those saints who always move around amongst people, fulfilling their wishes like mythical tree, granting them peace, energetically spreading the message of righteousness using the sweet words which are like heavenly nectar (let everybody enjoy the company of such men all the time)

6. Those saints with minds as spotless as moon, with radiance as brilliantly pleasant as morning sun, let such men always be friends with common man in all times...

7. Let everybody obtain the grace, peace and knowledge of the primordial spirit of the universe after attaining material and spiritual success in life's all aspects...

8. May all those who find light after reading this book, emerge victorious against all seen and unseen desires of mind...

9. Upon hearing this (wish-list), the master of the universe said," So Be It !!!" Then the composer (Gnaaneshwar) attained state of complete harmony and peace...

- Saint Gnaaneshwar (1275-1296 AD)

This is in sync with Ishavasya and varna-aashram-purushartha system of Hindus. Let us say that A path OR ideology which when followed leads to what is said by this being in verse 3 and 7, is a Moksha marga. I find that to frame a dharmarthik policy, this definition of Moksha marga is enough.

But I am saying this from position of advantage. I am myself a being struggling to rid myself of the deracinations that have crept in our psyche. I do not feel many others care to pass through this struggle. So, they have to live with identities which have been assigned to them by the establishment. Furthermore, since we are talking about dharmaarthik problem, the most essential aspect is "Loksangraha". Creation of a super-ego of "Samaaja-Purusha" and making him work to implement the solution to the dharmaarthik problem (solution also has to be dharmaarthik in nature - Mokshik solution does not exist for dharmaarthik problem).

As discerning people had already guessed, the key here is "lok-sangraha". If Loksangraha can be prevented from happening, Hindus (dharmiks, whatever) cannot come up with and implement the solution and change the status-quo. Loksangraha was the key and is..

IMU, super-ego "Hindu" became popular when Islam slammed in (from 1300s). Tackling with Arabs in Sindh, Rajputs did not require Hindu, Medhatithi was able to do so (along with Deval rishi and sword arm of rajputs and rashtrakutas) with classical identities as mlenchha and arya. There was a clear-cut demarcation among Sindhi people between "us" and "them". For subsequent 250 years, Islam conquered and converted Gaandhaara slowly. The demarcation had vanished from Gaandhara. Furthermore, the dharmik sword arm vanished and what happened happened. This led to creation of centers in Ganga valley and the demarcation departed. This is when "hindu" became more popular because it was essential. I think Guru Nanak was one of the first of our thinkers to popularize "hindu" and "hindusthaan" amongst our people.

Hindu made it easier to tackle the problem of "religion" - a concept which was alien to India prior. One cannot call one's neighbor a "mlenchha" because he eats, drinks and behaves almost like you do most of the times. But since there is a need to come together, there has to be an identity. His religious identity is clear - that he is a Muslim. What is the common identity of non-muslims? - Hindu !!!! (a territorial term - literally means Indian). What applies to Islam also applies to Christians. This is how people rallied against Portuguese in Goa when they started inquisitions. This is how Vijaynagara kings started calling themselves Hindu-kings, so did Marathas (Hindavi swarajya-Hindu Patshahi etc)...

But there was a crucial change that was happening in west. West had begun its journey of departing from abrahmic idealism (literalism) and slowly began to return to their Roman ways. The whole reformation, renaissance, french revolution and gradual decline in stature of religion from public lives seen in west. This has given rise to secularism and western civilization.

There is huge difference between abrahmic onslaught and secular onslaught (although it started through abrahmic people. It includes Communism). Hindus, by the means of Loksangraha, managed to overthrow the domination of "people with religion" - it was out and out religious struggle. First against Muslims, then against Christians (1857). Heck, even the independence movement was a "religious" movement where Hindus fought to liberate their country and the native others simply piggy-backed.

But the nature of enemy had changed drastically by then. It required different "super-ego" to make people come together against west. The deracination makes it difficult to think in mind and answer the crucial question - What is mine and what is not mine - which inturn begs the answer to the fundamental question of all - Koham (who am I)..

If the answer is "I am Hindu" - this makes it difficult to bring people together against Secular onlaught - because the detractors thrive on multiple identities. Although all Indian philosophies and darshanas are native to India, there are differences. Vedokta person is different from Puranokta. Saamkhya is different from Vedanta which is in turn different from bauddha and jaina. All of them Indians.. All of them Hindus. All of them opposing each other on some aspects and agreeing with each other on many other aspects.

The identities like "friedmannite", or "Keynesian" or Wilsonian did not take root in India beyond a point (the exception being infamous "Nehruvian" which is synonymous to "west"). Which identity is there to rival with "Nehruvian" in India? DD Upadhyay et al, tried and failed. Like Nehruvian socialism, we have upadhyayian integral humanism.

Look at pre-islamic times -

While discussing on Dharmik debates, we had various identities (one belonged to Manu's school, OR yagnavalkya's school OR apastambha's school etc). While discussing on aarthik debates, we had various identities (chankian, vidurian, bheeshman, shukracharyian, etc)
heck, even on Kaama matters, we had people who were "vatsayanaian" or jayadevian etc..
and of course we had sankhya-yoga-bauddha-vedanta etc for moksha matters..

"Hindu" encompasses all of these against "Muslim" or "Christian".

But Hindu is not an answer to "Nehruvian". Because it is easy to refute - a classical rebuttal of a nehruvian - "I am a practicing hindu myself and I disagree with you, hence loksangraha is not justified."

It would not have been the case if (it is worthless to indulge in counterfactuals) marathas finished off the problem of Islamism after winning 1761's battle of panipat and cleared the Ganga valley and then Indus valley of the transnational lobbies which infest the region today and have spread elsewhere. Had it been "one problem at a time", this would not have been a problem at all. The social group which called it self "Hindu" while its fight against abrahmic occupation of India would have adjusted and shifted accordingly to deal with new invasion.

"Hindutva" was one attempt by Savarkar to delink from "religious" identity and come up with a dharmaarthik identity. But it was entangled with religion in 1980s and RJB movement happened. Why this happened? Simple - Abrahmics and Nehruvians colluded against us. Hindu can fight only Abrahmics and Hindutva can fight only Nehruvians. But similarity in names, IMO, equated hindutva (dharmaarthik ego) = hindu (moksha maargik ego). DD Upadhyay tried to undo this, but that did not pick up. That option is still available. One can start calling oneself as integral humanist (although the term is tainted and everyone will call you a hindutvavaadi).

Nothing against the term Hindutvavadi- I am a Hindutvavaadi and proud of it, when it comes to abrahmic problem because Hindutva is now equated to Hindu religions. But with this equation firmly in place, I find the tag useless to do a "loksangraha" against "Nehruvianism" which is nothing but secularism and western invasion on "us".

People arguing for and against "Hindu" and "Hinduism" here have to take into consideration this important aspect, IMO.

The categorization of aarya and mlenchha is not relevant today (not until preislamic dharmaarthik preeminence of India is restored for some generations). The categorization of "Hindu" and "Non-Hindu" is important only against Muslims and Christians. There is no identity to rally against the third demon which is clear and present danger. The taqleef with "Hindu" which is been shouted is this. But those shouting and cursing "Hindu" should understand that it is very much relevant and essential identity and them cursing it is only going to hurt them. They are shouting against "Hindu" seeing its impotence against secularism and nehruvianism, without looking at its efficacy against abrahmic. The proponents of "Hindu" OTOH, should realize that it indeed is impotent against secularism and nehruvianism and new identity is required to facilitate the "Loksangraha" of Sajjana people..

Dharma is just code of conduct of sajjana people, by sajjana people, for sajjana people.

Two points:

1. If we rally behind Sabhyata and Values, what terminology best to use (Arya Dharmics/ SDs)?
2. One thing i have noticed is that Encyclopedia write ups of what is Hinduism is undergoing change. From what i read in Britannica decades ago to Doningers' narrow write ups in Microsoft Encarta to todays Wiki's there has been an evolution in the explanation of Hinduism.

Personally i am in favor of a small first simple doable step. Identify values that Dharmics from Vedic to Jain to Sikh to Hindu to Tribal and more don't have objections to. We endeavor our State and it's Institutions reflects those. Simultaneously our State realizes that our culture is special not just because it is ours, but because it has been the precursor to so much original thought not only for us but for Asia and the rest of the world. It becomes the duty of the State to have a stake in civilizational preservation and instilling that in it's citizenship. This part already till a large extent exists but it can be refined by quantum.

Thanks for that post Atri.

Atri Ji why do you call a Code of Conduct, 'Just' a code of conduct? Arya is noble, noble is one who conducts himself in a certain way. Qualities are everything a man is, a nation is. Why do we laugh at Pakistan and Pakistaniyat..it's qualities, it's conduct. Why are people fed up of this INC and GoI/ assorted politicians? Conduct. No values. Blowing with the wind attitudes, rootlessness. I want to join politics coz there is money in it attitudes and so on. How many times have you seen GoI bureacrats express helplessness, 'Arrey System aisa hai..', while the person at the recieving end weeps. Where is the compassion for example here in State institutions? Misery, frustration, unhappiness are there where people have no sense and respect for values. So why 'Just' a code of conduct?

Sagar Manthan happening here. Indics on one side taking rassi with established powers.

harbans wrote:Atri Ji why do you call a Code of Conduct, 'Just' a code of conduct? Arya is noble, noble is one who conducts himself in a certain way. Qualities are everything a man is, a nation is. Why do we laugh at Pakistan and Pakistaniyat..it's qualities, it's conduct. Why are people fed up of this INC and GoI/ assorted politicians? Conduct. No values. Blowing with the wind attitudes, rootlessness. I want to join politics coz there is money in it attitudes and so on. How many times have you seen GoI bureacrats express helplessness, 'Arrey System aisa hai..', while the person at the recieving end weeps. Where is the compassion for example here in State institutions? Misery, frustration, unhappiness are there where people have no sense and respect for values. So why 'Just' a code of conduct?

"Just" is important Harbans ji, because Justice is contextual and not absolute. Remember the story from MBH, Yudhishthira gave harshest punishment to a brahmin and lightest punishment to a Shudra for same crime. Why? context.

A just code of conduct is feeble translation of the sanskrit term I have phrased - न्याय्य आचारसंहिता (Nyayya Aachaar-Samhitaa)..

Dharma (as in first purushartha) is an "aachaar-Samhitaa" for sane human beings (who has ability to perform karma and be held accountable for their karma) towards the intrinsic drives to evolve and excel and satisfy the four primordial urges (aahaar-nidraa-bhaya-maithuna) of all living beings in ecosystem.

A set of solution which gives a just chance to all (or as many) components of "ecosystem" (living and non-living) to evolve and satisfy the urges at optimum rate is dharma..

Here "equality" does not mean literal equality. Supplying electricity to all electrical appliances in home "equally" will only achieve chaos. Air-conditioner requires more electricity to do its job than LED bulb. Even the same AC requires more electricity on hot day than on cold day.. Acknowledging this inequality and giving what is required for one'e optimum performance is what I mean by equality. This is the whole logic behind Varna-system. Vaishyas require more money, Kshatriyas more power, brahmins more knowledge, Shudras more land and technology. There is benefit and there is compromise. Everyone compromises and in turn every one benefits. This is how things work in ecosystem (hence the term Sanatana Dharma). when everyone knows what he has let go and accepts it in exchange of what he has earned, it is justice.

It is a continuous system, sublimely yet complexly mathematical. Call it Nash Equilibrium, if you may.. Justice, ideally, is Nash equilibrium. The nash equilibrium of "Sajjana people" is dharma. The rider "sajjana people" is essential because they negate dogmas and understand the contextual nature of dharmaarthika vyavahara and yet agree to address the drives and urges of every other sajjana in their high diverse and contextual ecosystem - something which "durjanas" or "asuras" do not.. Vagaries of space-time-geography-human nature are accounted for by Sajjana aka dharmik aka Hindu, and they remain as close to the the "nash equilibrium point", in spite of these vagaries...

ShauryaT garu,

Harbansji says my points become Satya when I write them in friendly tone See if this makes sense -

1. Let us assume we forego Hindu/Hinduism word and replace it with SD. What happens then? Will it wash the onslaught of Abrahamics on the culture, heritage and history of Bharatiyas? Please note most of the issues Secular-West or Abrahamics or even Indian intellectuals raise are in matters of traditions, which can be changed at any time per SD itself.

2. The next demand (which is already mainstream) is this http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1408479. Please note here the purva-paksha is the interpretation of Puranas from class-struggle and demand is to remove all such references from Puranas, Epics etc before they can be made national treasures.

Fair enough. Let us see this proposal from the very context that gentleman has given.

But replace them with what? Please the read the story from Santiparva. If one were to remove casteist words from that story, it should simply talk about Gautama (without refering him as Brahmana who left his kulachara and married to a Boya), Nadijhanga (without refering him as a crane), Virupaksha (without mentioning him as a Rakshasa), Names of Dogs (because we cannot have the reference to species Dogs), names of Cow and its calf (again no mentioning species), Indra and Brahma. Since we cannot give the references to species, we have to remove the references to Virupaksha asking his soldiers why they didn't kill and eat Gautama then and there, the reference to Dogs not touching Gautama's dead body and so on.

Will that suffice? The whole story makes no-sense unless if one infers Indra as king of Gods (again class reference) and Brahma as creator (again class reference) and so on...

Now will there be any story to be told after all these changes?

Wait a moment - Can we use only Hindu/SD/Sanskrit names in the story? Why not Joe, Tom, Muhammed and Azhar? Again who should get what name so it is not viewed as derogatory by some sections?

Do you see the slippery slope?

3. Let us assume we somehow managed even that feat. The next demand will be secularization of Vedas. Yes Vedas too have references to people, regions, varnas, kulas (lineages) and so on. We should get rid of them too.

4. Harbansji might say that would leave us with pure 24ct Upanishadic literature. Even there we have references to Shiva, Vishnu and so on. For example Kaivalyopanishad says "Umasahayam parameswaram prabhum...". Does it mean only UmaShankara can get Moksha? Definitely not... so we need to change that as well...

5. Let us assume we throw all these things into Bay of Bengal. After all we do not want to associate with anything that our "opponents" blame us for.

To what Glory is this journey?

A/ How all this intellectual, cultural, philosophical and spiritual harakiri will unite all Indian SDs (note I am not calling them Bharatiyas/Hindus anymore)

B/ How this self-flaggation makes Indian or outside Abrahamics any Dharmic?

- Yours respectfully

Atri ji, ok. I assumed you were saying it is just a code of conduct.

Ramay Ji, intended dialectic turns into rhetoric if it is interspersed with ROFLs. When not, then yes it can be debate which might involve rhetoric. But for dialectic which is what we want here, the absence of an ROFL is much appreciated, even if the content is not to one's liking. Just saying, but i do see you introspecting some. So no need to take that negatively.