The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Feb 2013 04:08

^ Supporting my above view...

Please see below video. Even Pakistani Muslims do not have any issue with India for they view it as Hindustan and Bharat. It is only secular Indians who have a problem with Hindustan and Bharat.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 Feb 2013 05:39

RamaY wrote:
ShauryaT wrote: Give Bharatiyas sustained economic development, true education and good corruption free governance for 20-30 years and I can guarantee that Bharatiya resurgence can endure another 1000 years of Abrahamic onslaught.

I have never been able to pin point and figure out this one thing. No other nation, tribe, religion or Kutumbh have been able to fight constant exictential war over a Millenium and still gunning , brushing aside all the Mleccic impositions over Indianity. There got to be something super duper Maha Klupper ingredient in our Soul values which kicks in to nurture and provide us this essence and sustainabiity in such gruesome circumstances. Both Mo-Ghouls and BriTush were the super powers of their time and they both failed and got pushed back just like the Alexanmder Da Bandar of old era. Now imagine if Arya putras have used this grit in taking the initiatve to make the human world Arya. Today they all will be singing Ram Dhun.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Feb 2013 07:04

Jhujar ji,

And the intellectuals want to take away the very identity that this nation fought with and stood unconquored and victorious by.

That is the damage inner enemies could do.

P.S: I am not blaming our BR brothers but the ideological leaders who instigates and sustains such fake universalism.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 13 Feb 2013 07:24

I think that at this point, everybody is agreed that there is an eternal universal core, which is common to all Dharma strands.

It is also agreed that this Dharmic core gives meaning to various rituals and practices, and without awareness of the core the rituals become like a dead tree.

It is also agreed that this core is what unites us as a nation, across regions and various Dharmic strands.

It is agreed that different people and different Sampradayas have different ways of supporting their evolutionary quest, and these different ways do not really contradict each other. A Sikh priest chanting Gurbani, a Buddhist doing Vipassana meditation and the Pujas at Dakshineswar Kali temple are all ways to connect with the Dharmic core.

So the only matter on which argument continues is what label should be used.

No problem, let the argument continue and may the best label win.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Feb 2013 07:28

^ Sorry to say this, but I wouldnt be surprised if someone says "Islam". That is the TSUchiyapanti about this labeling.

If RamaY changes his handle to appease Pranav then what value RamaY carries?

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 13 Feb 2013 07:48

Pranav wrote:I think that at this point, everybody is agreed that there is an eternal universal core, which is common to all Dharma strands.

I do not for one minute agree with a definition using the term "Dharma" strands.

It is all very well to talk about the original meaning of "Dharma" on Bharat-Rakshak, and to lament the 1,000 years of subjugation which has caused "Dharma" and "Dharam" to acquire a far more generalized meaning for the vast majority of Indians. But you can't wish away the sheer weight of history, however lamentable that history may be. People everywhere in India feel perfectly justified in saying "Yehudi Dharam, Islami Dharam, Isai Dharam."

A project to restore the original siginificance of "Dharma" ... without the qualifier "Hindu Dharma" is patently unrealistic in the short to medium term. It is about as useful as trying to extract data from a long-corrupted file by clicking the "refresh" button over and over again. Such reconstruction cannot be achieved in a trivial fashion, and it cannot be achieved in a time-frame necessary to counter the forces arrayed against us."Sanatan Dharma" is at least technically correct, but it is too esoteric a phrase for the masses to relate to, or to respond to with any degree of familiarity. It sounds like something mumbled by Pandits.

Using "Dharma" without the qualifer "Hindu" is also dangerous, and will lead to more confusion, more piggy-backing, more opportunities for deceitful inculturation by the Abrahamics who prey on our people. Let's say we just start calling the entire system "Dharma". We cannot wish away the fact that "Dharma/Dharam" has become a generalized term and that crores of Indians every day apply it to even Abrahamic faiths. What term do the pamphlets and speeches handed out by Evanjihadi predators, and Islamist proselytizers use to describe their own religions when targeting Hindus? "Isai Dharma", "Islami Dharma" of course! Those terms are all over India now, and eating into the mass consciousness of our people even while we sit here debating useless points.

If we go up against this organized, systematic propaganda of inculturation with the unqualified expression "Dharma" (just to appease a few people who have Taqleef with "Hindu")... what do we hope to achieve? We will only shoot ourselves in the foot.

P.S. I do agree with Shaurya that EVENTUALLY, there is a need to reclaim the original meaning of "Dharma" as a universal belief system rooted in Indic thought. I do not advocate giving up on that, and more power to Shaurya if that is the focus of his efforts. But as a strategic move it simply will not accomplish anything to ameliorate the threats we currently face.

Giving up on "Hindu", meanwhile, will actually be suicidal.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 13 Feb 2013 08:22

Pranav,

A unique label that says what one is NOT (rather than what one is) is important because:

a) One has to differentiate oneself from those that are not. "Hindu" is a unique label tied to a particular culture and even geography.
b) It is better to define oneself in terms of becoming rather than being.

What I mean by (b) is that an Abrahamic or even an Indian seeker can become Hindu - first by letting go of the ideas and pracices that are obstacles from being one, such as certain dogmas and attitudes. An example of this usage: We Are All Hindus Now. That neti neti definition creates the space within which we can then create a positive definition.

Then from that point on there must be a choice of Indic practices, communities, etc. that can be adopted base on the preferences of the individual.
(c) So it is very important to keep the entire spectrum of practices going vigorously, albeit with non-essential modifications. Some members rightly pointed out that the greatest threat is not another round of Islamist brutality, but the insidious Macaulayism and deracination by which contaminated Indians become the civilization's own enemies -- without even knowing it or understanding that they are. A spectacular example of this is the Zoroastrian Parsi community of India.

So (b) and (c) go together -- "first empty your cup so that it may be filled with wine".

It would be a mistake to insist on (b) while ignoring (a) and (c), or insist on (a) and (c) while ignoring (b).

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 13 Feb 2013 08:25

Started blogging. Wrote this post today on a whim:

Dogs: Legalistic ritualism vs. Epic freedom - a comparison between an Abrahamic and a Hindu tradition.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 13 Feb 2013 08:25

RamaY wrote: If RamaY changes his handle appease Pranav then what value RamaY carries?

What happened is that RamaY was happily living in West Africa, when he was captured by an Arab slave trader and sold to a middleman who transported him to Alabama, and sold him to a cotton plantation.

The rich plantation owner had a fine leather whip and decided that RamaY should be called "Watson".

After a while RamaY forgot his original name and started identifying himself as Watson.

Should Watson try to reconnect with his original name?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Feb 2013 08:29

Rudradev ji

After going thru 12 Rasis (pages) we came back to our original MahaKumbh

RamaY wrote:
Rudradev wrote:To myself, and crores of others, there is no difference between Hinduism and "Dharmic Value Systems." I always have, and always will refer to the traditional value and knowledge systems of India by the term "Hinduism" in English, and "Hindu Dharm" in Indian languages.

It is Hindu Dharm, not some amorphously delineated "Dharmic Value System", which propounded the national movement for independence under Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai and Bipin Chandra Pal. It is Hindu Dharm, not some confused notion of "Dharmic this or Dharmic that" which Vivekananda restored as a beacon of inspiration for the modern nation of India. And it is Hindu Dharm, not some vague high-minded abstraction, which keeps 80% of the people of India invested emotionally, psychologically and spiritually in the welfare of India today.

Hinduism is here to stay, and attempting to change the terminology proffers even less value for effort than a dog chasing its own tail. Surely we have more important matters that demand our time and energy.
+1008
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1392512
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1393545
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1394529

We have umpteen instances of people attempting to comeup with some Dharmic Code and usher a new world, they all failed because they tried to cut themselves from the roots. Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism etc too are such attempts.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Feb 2013 08:32

Pranav wrote: What happened is that RamaY was happily living in West Africa, when he was captured by an Arab slave trader and sold to a middleman who transported him to Alabama, and sold him to a cotton plantation.

The rich plantation owner had a fine leather whip and decided that RamaY should be called "Watson".

After a while RamaY forgot his original name and started identifying himself as Watson.

Should Watson try to reconnect with his original name?

The promise of SD/Hinduism is that it would offer you Moksha as you are, Watson/RamaY whoever you are, because you are that (Tat Tvam Asi).

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 13 Feb 2013 08:34

RamaY wrote:
Pranav wrote:Should Watson try to reconnect with his original name?
The promise of SD/Hinduism is that it would offer you Moksha as you are, Watson/RamaY whoever you are, because you are that (Tat Tvam Asi).

Wah!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Feb 2013 09:22

It must begin at the school level.The inculcation in our children of love for the motherland.When I was in school,at every film show,the National Anthem was sung before or after the film,and Films Division of the I&B Min. had great documentaries on India's freedom struggle and also about our famous cultural giants,musicians,sporting heroes,etc.Whenever pics of Pandit Nehru,Sardar Patel,Gandhiji,etc., appeared on the screen,there would be huge applause and many even stood up applauding.It was very heady for young schoolboys like myself.

At school we sung the National Anthem-there is still a House competition for the best singing of it,we recited the Pledge that began thus: "India is my country,all Indians are my brothers and sisters....".My school though founded during the days of the British Raj,gave the greatest importance to sports and games and many have represented the country,including the Olympics.Many have fought gallantly for the country in the wars Post and Pre-Independence,many losing their lives too. AIR was our divine instrument with which we listened to cricket and hockey commentaries and rejoiced at every Indian victory.Pride in our country always came first,the individual afterwards.

But what happened in recent decades? The National Anthem disappeared from cinemas,the Pledge recital was stopped in schools and it is only now that in multi-plex theatres the national Anthem is sung again.Vande Matram? Every school child knew it.On Independence Day,my school used to re-enact the Freedom Struggle with children dressed up as our great freedom fighters and delivered their most famous orations.Parents joined in the celebrations.Many classmates and contemporaries wanted to join the armed forces including myself,some did,but I couldn't pass the medicals.I am happy to say that in my school,these traditions still live on,though the pressure of exams on kids these days give them less time for sports and games and the NCC,Scouts,etc.,where they learn true leadership and face victory and defeat with the same demeanour.sadly today both state and central govts. are toying with education,interfering in the system for cheap political gains.The RTE act is an exercise in bufoonery,Sibal's great "Tughaklian" legacy .

However,the responsibility is first with the schools and their management.They must be patriotic in spirit and inculcate in the children their sacred duty to be "good citizens of India",and all that that phrase contains.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 13 Feb 2013 09:42

Philip wrote:Whenever pics of Pandit Nehru, Sardar Patel, Gandhiji,etc. appeared on the screen, there would be huge applause and many even stood up applauding. It was very heady for young schoolboys like myself.

While naive young school boys were applauding in the heady atmosphere, "Pandit" Nehru and others were promoting nepotism, corruption, distorting history, and laying the foundations of the system which would lead to ignominious military disasters, and hundreds of millions of Indians remaining impoverished, malnourished, wearing tattered rags, and living in hovels with neither education nor healthcare. That exploitative system continues to this day. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that the Nehruvians had no sense of self or nation other than what their colonial masters had taught them.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Feb 2013 09:54

Carl wrote:Started blogging. Wrote this post today on a whim:

Dogs: Legalistic ritualism vs. Epic freedom - a comparison between an Abrahamic and a Hindu tradition.

Great Blog Post!

It is good to reopen the knots that we have tied us into over the years due to dogmaticm.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 13 Feb 2013 10:14

Opening of knot is known as gandanta in sanskrit.

A spiritual knot that must be untied in a particular lifetime

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Feb 2013 10:19

Rudradev wrote:A project to restore the original siginificance of "Dharma" ... without the qualifier "Hindu Dharma" is patently unrealistic in the short to medium term. It is about as useful as trying to extract data from a long-corrupted file by clicking the "refresh" button over and over again. Such reconstruction cannot be achieved in a trivial fashion, and it cannot be achieved in a time-frame necessary to counter the forces arrayed against us."Sanatan Dharma" is at least technically correct, but it is too esoteric a phrase for the masses to relate to, or to respond to with any degree of familiarity. It sounds like something mumbled by Pandits.

Using "Dharma" without the qualifer "Hindu" is also dangerous, and will lead to more confusion, more piggy-backing, more opportunities for deceitful inculturation by the Abrahamics who prey on our people. Let's say we just start calling the entire system "Dharma". We cannot wish away the fact that "Dharma/Dharam" has become a generalized term and that crores of Indians every day apply it to even Abrahamic faiths. What term do the pamphlets and speeches handed out by Evanjihadi predators, and Islamist proselytizers use to describe their own religions when targeting Hindus? "Isai Dharma", "Islami Dharma" of course! Those terms are all over India now, and eating into the mass consciousness of our people even while we sit here debating useless points.

If we go up against this organized, systematic propaganda of inculturation with the unqualified expression "Dharma" (just to appease a few people who have Taqleef with "Hindu")... what do we hope to achieve? We will only shoot ourselves in the foot.

Rudradev ji,

just a query: Do you use 'Hindu Dharma' as

synonymous with 'Hinduism' or
synonymous with Sanatan Dharma or
more the way Savarkar used the term?

My own approach, I have suggested here.

I understand the practical implications you point out.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 13 Feb 2013 10:23

Carl wrote:Started blogging. Wrote this post today on a whim:

Dogs: Legalistic ritualism vs. Epic freedom - a comparison between an Abrahamic and a Hindu tradition.

Sashtaanga Pranam, Carl mahashay!

Please keep them coming whenever you can. The hardest thing about blogging is maintaining the blog regularly; it's also the most important thing, because regular updates are critical to growing readership. And people need to read your blog.

It's none of my business, but I have to ask... are you a Bawa? I grew up knowing a great many Bawas, who were more than half of my classmates in school. One thing about the Bawa population is that the Poisson distribution curve seems to favour very thick tails on both ends... sheer genius, and utter madness.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 13 Feb 2013 10:25

carl-ji

Pranamamyaham!

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 13 Feb 2013 10:28

Pranav wrote:
Philip wrote:Whenever pics of Pandit Nehru, Sardar Patel, Gandhiji,etc. appeared on the screen, there would be huge applause and many even stood up applauding. It was very heady for young schoolboys like myself.
While naive young school boys were applauding in the heady atmosphere, "Pandit" Nehru and others were promoting nepotism, corruption, distorting history, and laying the foundations of the system which would lead to ignominious military disasters, and hundreds of millions of Indians remaining impoverished, malnourished, wearing tattered rags, and living in hovels with neither education nor healthcare. That exploitative system continues to this day. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that the Nehruvians had no sense of self or nation other than what their colonial masters had taught them.

The way I read it, Philip's point isn't about the merits of the leaders but the inherent value of the atmosphere itself. The leaders, in hindsight, were lacking in many respects. But it was that atmosphere which made families of Indians go hungry and sell their family jewelry, so that they could send warm clothes and blankets to soldiers at the front during the '62 war. The mass idealism was a good thing, and perhaps the only thing that kept India together through those traumatic times.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 13 Feb 2013 10:41

RajeshA ji, Rudradev ji, Murugan ji - thanks for the encouragement!

Rudradev sirjee, I will try to keep it regular.
Yes I know some bawas pretty well too. And I agree with you - whether I am one is none of your business.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 13 Feb 2013 10:44

RajeshA wrote: Rudradev ji,

just a query: Do you use 'Hindu Dharma' as

synonymous with 'Hinduism' or

synonymous with Sanatan Dharma or

more the way Savarkar used the term?
My own approach, I have suggested here.

I understand the practical implications you point out.

Rajesh A-ji,

"Hinduism" is, to amend RM's phrase... an "English Non Translatable!" It is a term for the prism through which Abrahamic Universalists try to understand the Sanatan Dharma adhered to by Hindus... and therefore, useless or detrimental to us.

"Sanatan Dharma" is a technically correct term for what Hindus practice and believe in. But by itself it's not enough for identification... why? Because "Sanatana" simply means "eternal". This is a truth-claim. Other religions also make the same truth-claim. Both Islamists and Christists claim that their paths to divinity are eternal.

How do you test the validity of SD truth-claims as opposed to Abrahamic truth-claims? By following a particular course of Sadhana praxis and spiritual exploration to achieve direct experience of unity with brahman. It is very hard work! It is not as easy as opening a book and repeating what was allegedly revealed to some flea-bitten rabid prophet in the desert.

People have to work hard and do research to earn the moksha offered by Sanatan Dharma... it is like a lifelong PhD program! No one else can give it to you, though a guru may guide your way. Ultimately the only test of SD's truth claims is to experience the truth for yourself. Verification is not transferable among individuals. No one else can borrow your adhyatma vidya and copy your homework from it!

Meanwhile, Abrahamic religions offer tamasic and asuric people (people who have been traumatized by genocide and social/economic/cultural depradation) a much easier way out. They say... just accept that our "dharma" is the truly "sanatan" one, and we will let you live! After all, the "eternal" nature of our path can simply be verified by reading our "book"!

Therefore, "Sanatan Dharma" as a term, because of the difficulty of verification, doesn't serve as an adequate identifier when Hindus are besieged with direct challenges in an overwhelmingly tamasic/asuric environment.

That is why we need "Hindu".

I think the way Savarkar used the term comes closest to my own approach... but not completely. I share a considerable overlap with the approach described in your post as well, and also with RM's neti-neti qualifications (Integral Unity, Mutual Respect, Adhyatma Vidya, and other aspects.) I'll elaborate on my own thoughts later.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Feb 2013 10:50

Who is Dharmic?

Based on some Purva Paksha I tried:

Differences: Direct Transceivers

I suggest the definition:

Short: Anybody who considers that the Atma has direct access to the Supreme and does not need any intermediary is a Dharmic.

Longer: Anybody who considers that the Atma has direct access to the Supreme based on Atma's own capabilities and readiness and this access is not dependent on submission to the claims of any self-claimed intermediary is a Dharmic.

At another level what again needs to be brought into focus is

Anybody who is not Adharmic is Dharmic.

The terminology 'Dharmic' has been popularized by Rajiv Malhotra where he sets up "Dharmic Traditions" vs "Abrahamic Traditions"

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 13 Feb 2013 10:52

Carl ji congratulations on your first blogpost. Sookshma Dharm indeed. And the Rik you have highlighted about the Dog brings back memories from the OIT thread.

Philip ji welcome to this thread.

We have schools trying to include Sports and Deshbhakti as a part of normal schooling at least around here. A school near me has also taken senior kids on local tours to educate about the littering and general environmental upkeep. So people are trying with whatever little they understand & have after taking the will sapping onslought of entertainment and conformism.

I guess every age has to battle its respective demons.

Education, the way it is, is one more reason we have had this general degradation in human wellbeing. All children read only for the exams and forget everything the minute they pass. A complete case of round peg in a square hole.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 Feb 2013 10:59

We need a new Varana, called Bharat Varan, exclusively devoted to Arya Karm, always Garm when confronting Adharm, remove their Bharm and teach them Sharm.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 13 Feb 2013 11:16

RajeshA wrote:Who is Dharmic?

Based on some Purva Paksha I tried:

Differences: Direct Transceivers

I suggest the definition:

Short: Anybody who considers that the Atma has direct access to the Supreme and does not need any intermediary is a Dharmic.

Longer: Anybody who considers that the Atma has direct access to the Supreme based on Atma's own capabilities and readiness and this access is not dependent on submission to the claims of any self-claimed intermediary is a Dharmic.

I like your longer definition, and would rephrase it slightly:

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

At another level what again needs to be brought into focus is

Anybody who is not Adharmic is Dharmic.

That one might need some more work... as it stands, it is a solipsism. Like saying, "White is not the same as Not-White."

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 13 Feb 2013 11:22

Jhujar wrote:We need a new Varana, called Bharat Varan

Actually Prem ji might really be on to something here.

What if we leave the Dharmas alone... let them be Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jaina or whatever... and look instead to the Varna as a social category, which is present in ALL of these paths? This is using the "strategic depth" of our civilizational knowledge system... which goes beyond "religion" as defined in the West... to seek a unifying quality at the SOCIAL rather than spiritual level.

Imagine if there were a Varna ordained as Bharata, to which ALL people were welcome (regardless of birth, economic or educational status) as long as they embraced a well-articulated ideology that put the interest of Bharat above all.

This would amount to a double coup. It would take a category (Varna, seen through the Abrahamic prism as "Caste") which has traditionally been used to malign and divide Bharatiya Dharmas, especially Sanatan Dharma... and use this category as the trans-Dharmic foundation of a unified cultural nationalism!

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 13 Feb 2013 11:23

Rudradev wrote: The way I read it, Philip's point isn't about the merits of the leaders but the inherent value of the atmosphere itself.

That it is. My family used to live in the high Himalayas cut off mostly from the people around but my father and mother do vouch for the general atmosphere around 71 when people had sharply toned down the marriage gatherings because every few villages apart was a fighter's home. A home that lost a kid. So all neighbouing villages would basically express their condolences in that manner.

The atmosphere which was there in 62 got replicated again in 71 with only small differences. The desh did not need money or warm clothings this time. It was again the same in 99 Kargil. The whole country got glued to the TV. Informing oneself was the biggest input one could give. During the 84 events, the people were very tentative. Unable to understand things. State sponsored Terrorism was something new for them. The terrorism in north east has forever been kept under wraps. GoI never exposed the Chinese and Paki role there and only reluctantly admitted to BD role. But Punjab was different from the get go. Everybody knew Pakis were involved but nobody knew what that meant in terms of significance for the future. 89 Kashmir was just as much a learning on the job. But by 99 people had decided in their hearts about how to respond. Shows how all the people cannot be fooled all the time.

War times do begin to bring people together. The zeitgeist counts for more than an individual. The world around is what make this world worthwhile.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Feb 2013 11:34

Rudradev wrote:I like your longer definition, and would rephrase it slightly:

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

Thanks for the improvement! Sounds better!

Rudradev wrote:
At another level what again needs to be brought into focus is

Anybody who is not Adharmic is Dharmic.

That one might need some more work... as it stands, it is a solipsism. Like saying, "White is not the same as Not-White."

Rudradev ji,

on the contrary, this is a more activist definition. This is not definition by allegiance, but by qualification. It is like saying "Anybody who fights crime is a crime-fighter". It is to underline that in order to call oneself crime-fighter, you don't just sit on your butt and do nothing, you have to actively go out and stop crime.

It is like saying, fine you may consider yourself Dharmic as you may believe that your Atma has intrinsic capacity to access the Supreme, but that is not enough, you have to always control your urge to do Adharma and to be on the lookout for Adharma in society, and when you recognize Adharma, you don't just sit around, you do something about it.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 13 Feb 2013 11:40

Rajesh A-ji, I see your point regarding the need for an activist definition. But I still think it needs some qualification by association (i.e. context

) with other definitions regarding allegiance. By itself it is open to exceptions. For example, what about the fundamentalist Christian CIA drone operator who kills Taliban in Pakistan? He fights an Adharmic force but that does not make him Dharmic in itself. Hence, necessary but not sufficient.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 13 Feb 2013 13:25

What about a Christian like Tessy Thomas who makes Agni missiles. Is she Adharmic or Dharmic according to those definitions? Or did it make Ravana Dharmic as he was not an Abrahmic, and was well aware through the Shastra's about the Self and Paramatma.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 13 Feb 2013 13:40

harbans wrote:What about a Christian like Tessy Thomas who makes Agni missiles. Is she Adharmic or Dharmic according to those definitions? Or did it make Ravana Dharmic as he was not an Abrahmic, and was well aware through the Shastra's about the Self and Paramatma.

We can talk about ideologies rather than individuals.

Islamism and neo-imperialist political Christianity are Adharmic.

But that would not imply anything about individuals like Tessy Thomas or APJ Abdul Kalam.

Perhaps, if they are so inclined, they could reflect deeply about whether they agree with the problematic aspects of the said ideologies.

And then you also have specimens like Owaisi, Zakir Naik and John Dayal.

And Digvijay Singh, Laloo Prasad, the Sri Ram Sene Mutalik dude etc, for that matter.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 13 Feb 2013 13:47

Carl wrote:Started blogging. Wrote this post today on a whim:

Dogs: Legalistic ritualism vs. Epic freedom - a comparison between an Abrahamic and a Hindu tradition.

Jai ho.

Even today, the Vama marg and tantra play great regard to the dogs. They are the companion of Aghori's in the smaashans, they are with Shri Dattatreya and are pathfinders and most perceptive to the energies which human senses are not able to perceive.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 13 Feb 2013 13:58

Carl wrote:Started blogging. Wrote this post today on a whim:

Dogs: Legalistic ritualism vs. Epic freedom - a comparison between an Abrahamic and a Hindu tradition.

Thanks, interesting information, and well written too.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 13 Feb 2013 14:01

Carl Ji, very nice post on the blog. Thanks for posting that. Will share that one.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 13 Feb 2013 14:14

Identity politics: Why liberal is really illiberal in India - R Jagannathan on Firstpost

Worth reading the complete article.

The duo also critique the Left-liberal lumping of majority communalism with garden variety nationalism, and allege that this cabal helps the state retard the process towards a more common identity. The Left-liberals do this on the assumption that majority communalism is worse that minority communalism, and also wrongly equate the mainstream right’s views with nationalism. Thus nationalism itself has become a bad word. They point out: “Many of the mainstream right’s ‘controversial’ demands — for a uniform civil code and repeal of Article 370, for example — are not “communal”, but liberal and nationalist.”

Caste survived in India because we took the hyphen route to identity and keeping the peace. As I have noted before, “in the west, diversity was treated as a threat, and thus met with annihilation and destruction. The Americans annihilated the Red Indians, the Australians massacred the aborigines, and so on.” The west ensured uniformity by practicing brutality. Ambedkar, quoting 19th century French theorist Ernest Renan, confirms that brutality and extermination were key to homogenising society. ‘Unity is ever achieved by brutality. The union of northern and southern France was the result of an extermination, and of a reign of terror that lasted for nearly a hundred years.’”

Clearly, hyphens are superior to uniformity enforced through brutality. However, there is no need to artificially hyphen any community as an act of policy.

If you hyphen too much, you get virulent caste politics and Pakistan. If you compulsorily dehyphenate, you get violence anyway. If you just avoid hyphens, you won’t get a unified national identity on Day One, but it will emerge over time. Not by violence and the creation of artificial common identities, but an entirely new one forged by demographics, urbanisation, capitalist economics, and the natural tendency of communities to work out simple arrangements to live and let live based on one fundamental principle: universal human rights for all citizens.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Feb 2013 14:14

Rudradev wrote:Rajesh A-ji, I see your point regarding the need for an activist definition. But I still think it needs some qualification by association (i.e. context ) with other definitions regarding allegiance. By itself it is open to exceptions. For example, what about the fundamentalist Christian CIA drone operator who kills Taliban in Pakistan? He fights an Adharmic force but that does not make him Dharmic in itself. Hence, necessary but not sufficient.

Rudradev ji,

I had been drafting a post on the same issue.

Identity Markers

There are three aspects of any identity markers:

allegiance
belief
qualification

Any identity marker creates a community which is recognized by that identity marker. In order to belong to that community, there can be various criteria, whose fulfillment by an individual are under examination against a standard the community sets up for the right to call oneself by that identity marker.

a) Allegiance: One can pledge one's allegiance to an identity marker, and then one can use it. Or if somebody is born into a family which has allegiance to this identity marker, again one automatically becomes pledged to it. Whether one believes in everything that the identity marker entails or not is a separate question. Whether one fulfills all the laws and prescriptions of the identity marker or not is also another question.

b) Belief: An identity marker would have its own code of conduct, its own beliefs, etc. One could attach oneself to the identity marker, because one shares in those beliefs and lives by the code.

c) Qualification: This is often an external determination, it can be made by some human authority, some standard or some higher instance dependent on whether an individual has fulfilled all the criteria for the identity marker - the list of do and don't and thus qualified to use the identity marker.

-------

Why do I bring this up?

Whichever identity marker we consider - Hindu, Bharatiya, Dharmic, Indic, Indian, one needs to qualify sometimes in discussions which criteria one is using.

For example, let's say somebody calls his 'religion' Sanatan Dharma? Is he then a Sanatan Dharmic or Sanatanik because he pledges his allegiance to it, or because he believes in it, or has he qualified by living by the principles propounded by SD to call himself Sanatanik/Sanatan Dharmic.

Rudradev wrote:"Sanatan Dharma" is a technically correct term for what Hindus practice and believe in. But by itself it's not enough for identification... why? Because "Sanatana" simply means "eternal". This is a truth-claim. Other religions also make the same truth-claim. Both Islamists and Christists claim that their paths to divinity are eternal.

How do you test the validity of SD truth-claims as opposed to Abrahamic truth-claims? By following a particular course of Sadhana praxis and spiritual exploration to achieve direct experience of unity with brahman. It is very hard work! It is not as easy as opening a book and repeating what was allegedly revealed to some flea-bitten rabid prophet in the desert.

People have to work hard and do research to earn the moksha offered by Sanatan Dharma... it is like a lifelong PhD program! No one else can give it to you, though a guru may guide your way. Ultimately the only test of SD's truth claims is to experience the truth for yourself. Verification is not transferable among individuals. No one else can borrow your adhyatma vidya and copy your homework from it!

Rudradev ji,

that is one way of looking at it. Every system makes a truth-claim. The issue is not one whether one follows the path prescribed by the system, or whether one believes that the path may be the right one, but rather simply a question of whether one individual can claim to belong to the system of Sanatan Dharma? He may have converted to it or may have been born into it.

The truth-claim testing is a business he undertakes over the duration of his life or over some period, but that should have no bearing on whether he can identify himself with the moniker "Sanatan Dharma".

Similarly is the case of Sikhs. There can be Sikhs who visit Gurudwaras often and some who don't. There are Muslims who eat pork, drink wine and whatever and still call themselves Muslims.

So one should be able to claim a moniker by vowing allegiance to a system (body of scriptures, organization, ...) which propounds the given principles.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 13 Feb 2013 14:44

Re. kmkraoind Post subject: Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, PropositionPosted: 13 Feb 2013 14:14

The hyphenation seems like a good idea in creating flexibility and layering the identities. Will enable people full measure of freedom to define themselves the way they want to live without getting their souls harvested.

But looks like the idea of hyphenation will go against set-piece definitions too and forever remain a source of an ever evolving background. Makes things difficult for Rajesh ji and Rudradev ji.

In fact that way we Indians are lucky. We have Indian Minorities and not Minority Indians. We do have North Indians etc. but then the reverse would create problems with English.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Feb 2013 14:48

Dharmic vs dharmic

Rudradev wrote:For example, what about the fundamentalist Christian CIA drone operator who kills Taliban in Pakistan? He fights an Adharmic force but that does not make him Dharmic in itself. Hence, necessary but not sufficient.

harbans wrote:What about a Christian like Tessy Thomas who makes Agni missiles. Is she Adharmic or Dharmic according to those definitions? Or did it make Ravana Dharmic as he was not an Abrahmic, and was well aware through the Shastra's about the Self and Paramatma.

Similar queries, so responding together.

There is a difference between whether one is a Dharmic, or whether one is dharmic.

Using a crude analogy:

An ethnic Norwegian is a White, but if there is an ethnic Sudanese who has been born an albino, one wouldn't say he is a White, he is simply white.

So when I wrote the following I probably should have used small letters

Anybody who is not adharmic is dharmic.

As far as using it for an "activist definition" is concerned one can still claim

A Dharmic's Dharma is to fight Adharma, within and without!

Now if we go by the definition of a Dharmic System, Dharmic Sampradayas (Sanatan Dharma, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, etc.) they all would be considered Dharmic because of the definition:

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

and an individual can be a Dharmic either because one pledges allegiance to such a system or because one believes in the above principle.

To the issue whether Mr. Cia Dronacharya or Tessy Thomas are Dharmics!

Mr. Cia Dronacharya and Tessy Thomas have an association to Adharmic Systems. How far their allegiance goes one does not know. It can simply be an allegiance due to being born in the system, or because they were duped into the system, or because their awareness level of Dharmic vs Adharmic issue was low. Also one cannot make a judgment either about their strength of faith in or about their level of contribution to the Adharmic systems they may be associated with.

As far as their dharmicity is concerned, it can be adjudged by three instances: they themselves, outsiders i.e. the Dharmics, and the Supreme.

What the Supreme thinks, nobody knows. What they think about themselves is between them and their conscience, but even for that they would have to look towards the Dharmic Systems to find out what is dharmic and what is adharmic. They can give themselves positive adjectives from within their own culture or their own systems. What they however transport to the outside as claims of dharmicity, that can of course be commented upon by others, especially those who belong to Dharmic systems and are better attuned to the criteria. So we can say, yes Tessy Thomas is dharmic because she lends crucial support to the agenda of the Dharmics, or because despite her association with an Adharmic System, she still leads a dharmic life. One can make similar judgments about Mr. Cia Dronacharya. Also the Dharmics judged the Dharmic Ravana to be adharmic, and one of such proportions that he created his own Adharma System.

But mind, at all times dharmic remains in small letters as an adjective, and never becomes a noun with capital letters - a Dharmic.

So at no point do Mr. Cia Dronacharya or Ms. Tessy Thomas become Dharmics.

There can be adharmic Dharmics and dharmic "Adharmics" but they would be adjudged so by Dharmics and Dharmic Systems only.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 13 Feb 2013 15:06

Ek query meri bhi.

What if an Abrahmic treats his Nicean Creed/Kalima/whatever as a Shabd Brahma. I mean I read Hanuman Chalisa every once in a while but the 'Hanuman ji ne jump lagai aur vatika dwast kar di' is hardly the thing I am concentrating on. Its been ~5 years and I still have not mugged up Hanuman Chalisa. I am not even sure if I will ever get to learn it in the full.

I am basically not looking for the Jumping Hanuman so I do not get it. But the Umrikhans recognizes Hanuman Chalisa as such. So I do also recognize it as such to ease the interaction only. But I acknowledge it in a very different manner. I bear allegiance to it in a very different manner. So what am I. Rather what would the Christian etc be.

Though I could just be stupid asking this question. I tend to do that at times. I mean ask stupid questions. Luckily I am only a shishya so do not have to take up the higher responsibility of Guru.