Bharat Rakshak

Posted: **19 Nov 2014 19:57**

If one needs to comprehend how and why a Dharmic Rashtra may be the answer, one has to understand two important issues:

1. How a core doctrine affects a society that chooses it.
2. Evolution vs Absolutism

The first in brief: Over the years i have seen many Indians hardly give a damn to doctrine. Even constitutional. If you talk to them they think its a piece of paper, who cares. They give numerous examples of constitutional impropriety etc etc. And one cannot flaw the examples that they give. But that is not it. The society come what may evolves in the direction the constitution is set. So put secularism, slowly and surely that concept starts filtering into State Institutions, the people who hardly bothered about it a generation back give way to another generation that starts to mouth it and then another that starts to practice elements and then to another that starts to deal with it in a more fanatic and absolutist manner. The same with respect to declaring an Islamic State. Jinnah (and i do believe so) had a vision of an Islamic state with equal rights, pubs, nightclubs, modern Westernized ways etc. Many Paki libs and there are similar types in IM circles too thought that just declaring doctrinally we are Islamic is enough, we'll otherwise use the Westernized legal system that we've inherited. But it may have been ok for a generation (in Paks case even less before the ist evolution) to think that way, but then the next put in laws that reflected an Islamic state by a few more % and so on to Zia which was still a lot shy of what the Taliban/IS kind of doctrinal purity required. Indonesia and Pak were a lot less Islamized 40 years ago than they are today. That is the power of stated doctrine. So let it not be disputed that if you state a doctrine today for your company, organization, state whatever, 4/5 generations down the line there will be a higher degree of compliance with the stated doctrine than now. This is a very important point that one needs to understand.

In context of the above, it need be that compliance can be induced by broadly 2 methods. Law and Example. Absolutism or Evolution. Islamic, Fascist kind of doctrines heavily depend on law for compliance. The more Tamasic a society the more the laws, the more fear one needs for compliance. The more it progresses to Sattva the lesser the laws one requires. This is a general trend and if one hasn't thought much about it, do put in some thought. At home for example do you prefer to set a standard, an example for your children say or do you prefer punishment based compliance to achieve the same set of results? With your children would you prefer law based absolutism over example based evolution to your desired standards? If one thinks about this one will realize one prefers evolution over absolutism to ones ideals/ standards possibly with the least bit of disruptive 'punishment' examples.

Over many years i have observed convicted criminal rates in different nations wrt Dharmics and other religious denominations. I inevitably see Vaishnavs, Jains, Buddhists, Hare Krishna'ites, Dvaits, Advaits whatever denomination of Dharmic one chooses or a combination, they have the lowest convicted criminal rates going. Read the Chinese India travelogue accounts from the 5th century. People not locking doors, no theft, no capital punishment, little laws. They expressed a lot of surprise at these aspects. Our scriptures and their many examples stress on the evolution over absolutism aspect repeatedly. Our prayers to remove Tamas are not legal absolutist injunctions but a very significant example of how praying that Tamas inside goes can make a huge difference to the way we interact and behave. It doesn't mean that today a criminal does a prayer and his Tamas is gone. Its a generational. And if a whole Generation starts down the line the next generations will evolve beyond Tamas. What you wanted to remove by the absolutism of law can thus be removed a generation down the line by dint of Dharmic prayer and doctrine. The not so subtle difference is the Western constructs focus on absolutism and law enforcement while Dharma will largely focus on example and evolution.

Posted: **19 Nov 2014 20:19**

Couple of questions harbans:
1. Is it a good model where every person aspires to be Sattvic?
2. If not how do you enforce peace and protection where there is a mix ?

Posted: **19 Nov 2014 20:19**

saravana wrote:
My point is can you enforce Dharma at all? Society can enforce a version of it, maximum. That could be done like ostracation by society or by punitive damages by authority. Only at that point it becomes a stereotypical religion. Hence individual nation states. At that point how easy it was for a person to move elsewhere and start over in another corner of the land. Do I still follow Dharma , I think yes. Only I cease to be a member of the nation state.

Saravana I am guilty of using the word "law" for dharma in a post above and simultaneously insisting that a law by definition is something that inevitably produces an effect if some conditions are met.

Both are correct, but I need to explain

The definition of law remains as I said it. So why is dharma "law"?

This is where Hindus are expected to "have faith" in dharma. They are not necessarily expected to have faith in any particular God, although the act of being dharmic involves worship and duty to your chosen deity. Dharma is supposed to get you the only prize that Hindu"ism" says is worth getting. That is moksha and release from the cycle of life and death. Hinduism's chosen "God" is dharma, with the desired goal being release. Not heaven or houris.

No human can prove that dharma will get you all this any more than anyone can prove houris or heaven.

Don't ask me why, but people all over India, for some reason, not only bought into this dharma idea and spread it right across what I call India's "sacred geography", but they also spawned off new branches, Baudha Dharma, Jaina Dharma and Sikh dharma which all chose to reject certain practices that had come into common use under 'Hindu dharma".

Perhaps the reason is that dharma requires faith. There is no immediate punishment for breaking the law of dharma. Your punishment is simply more lives. Except in some obvious instances - like screwing neighbour's wife where neighbour might castrate you, dharma's returns are slow, and a matter of faith. That probably made it easy to have practices that could be judged adharma or just disgusting in the absence of a monarch who could enforce dharma by temporal, "in this life" punishment for adharma. This may have encouraged the creation of new "dharmic panths". But they were dharmic. they were not "God centered" religions.

Remember that for Hindus, Gods were a "free for all". You could have any God. Under the circumstances, it seems a wonder that no fascist religion based on one jealous God alone did not take off an run amok in India for 5000 years. Why? Either dharma was protected actively, or people were really enamoured of the sublime concepts offered and did not buy into "religions" easily

One parting shot:

You have used the word "nation state". This is a new concept - very recent. The "nations" of old India were just kingdoms. No border controls over vast areas and no stopping migration.

Posted: **19 Nov 2014 20:27**

RajeshA wrote:My thinking is that Religion does have its benefits, like unity and cohesion,

Rajesh, unity and cohesion under religion is a cock and bull story.

When you have a religion that promises you heaven or houris for worshipping one God but then punishes those who don't worship that God - by death or torture right here an now in this life - then in a few generations of this type of fascism you have a population that says "Hey only my religion is best." And they are right, because those who rebel are killed. Darwinian selection.

it is a complete myth that religion per se leads to unity and brotherhood. That unity comes wiith threats of punishment if you break away. That is why the religions are so hot on Laws. I mean laws that instantly kick in and chop off your head or gonads if you disagree.

i think we need to quit believing that religion by itself leads to brotherhood and unity.

Posted: **19 Nov 2014 20:38**

shiv, beautifully explained.
In my mind, I picture as a multi threaded model where each thread has individual intelligence and data where the overall flow control is intrinsic to the thread and you don't need an external intelligence to make it behave. The model could be flawed but it is easy for me to understand. Kind of satisifes my bull headed thinking that fundamentally it is at individual level.
Gives me a greater clarity. Thanks

Posted: **19 Nov 2014 22:05**

shiv wrote:
RajeshA wrote:My thinking is that Religion does have its benefits, like unity and cohesion,
Rajesh, unity and cohesion under religion is a cock and bull story.

shiv saar,

if you or I were to go to Chandni Chowk or Old Hyderabad or some other Muslim ghetto, and if we were to just slap some Muslim, regardless of who provoked a quarrel, one would be able to experience Muslim cohesion and unity first hand. If in Europe, in places like London, or Paris, or even in Berlin some areas are considered out of bound for the Gora police, if it is not due to cohesion and unity, then I don't know for what other reason it is!

If I speak of unity and cohesion, e.g. in Religion like Islam, I am not trying to blow kisses at them.

shiv wrote:When you have a religion that promises you heaven or houris for worshipping one God but then punishes those who don't worship that God - by death or torture right here an now in this life - then in a few generations of this type of fascism you have a population that says "Hey only my religion is best." And they are right, because those who rebel are killed. Darwinian selection.

it is a complete myth that religion per se leads to unity and brotherhood. That unity comes wiith threats of punishment if you break away. That is why the religions are so hot on Laws. I mean laws that instantly kick in and chop off your head or gonads if you disagree.

It is fully immaterial how that unity and cohesion is established, and I know it is due to terror of peer-pressure, the fact is that there is unity and cohesion. In Europe one has seen religious wars. For any religious war, one needs religion to create cohesion in any group or army. It is a benefit those with Religion can have. I have already explained that such thing is not possible in the way Hinduism is packaged as a "Religion", and I don't wish it to be packaged as a religion.

shiv wrote:i think we need to quit believing that religion by itself leads to brotherhood and unity.

I repeat, religion creates a group identity and leads to a brotherhood and unity, especially if it is directed at others, if the religion can be shown to be "threatened". That is why there are calls of "Islam khatre men"! Unity requires a continuously heightened alert level or ghazwas.

The sooner we are able to understand and accept the strengths and weaknesses of rival systems, the better.

However, I think you have misread my post to mean, as if I am either praising or advocating any brotherhood or unity so attained, attained through the use of religion! That is not the case.

This does not mean that Islam does not have processes in play which cause disunity as well. I have gone into them as well, in the series "Why is there Islamic Terrorism?", especially at a sectarian and gang level.

Posted: **20 Nov 2014 00:59**

Couple of questions harbans:
1. Is it a good model where every person aspires to be Sattvic?
2. If not how do you enforce peace and protection where there is a mix ?

I didn't quite understand what could be wrong in encouraging people to be Sattvic? It is aspirational indeed.
Everyone may not be Sattvic and every Tamsic activity need not deserve punishment. BUt it's generally the case the lesser Tamsic activity the more peace, less crime. Is there a conflict here?

Posted: **20 Nov 2014 02:43**

Hindu Nationalism is the outcome of the realization that Hindu culture was on its way to being wiped out. It is a last ditch stand and the reigning powers--xtianity, malsi and leftists--were just getting used to the idea. Anything to upset the applecart is anathema, specially if that something is a science, not a belief system built on dogma and which promises far deeper and meaningful answers to human beings than the cooked-up religions which are merely political tools in greedy hands.

It is a huge mistake to say as we commonly do that "India is 80% Hindu". If pakistan and bangladesh were not goughed out of Hindu lands, we would be 50% or even less. That was the extent of conversion during malsi rule. When one considers the rennaisance in malsi aggro and its history when it is at or near a majority, Hindus may well have gone the way of the original Parsis by now, except there isn't another "India" to welcome us.

Posted: **20 Nov 2014 05:33**

Victor wrote:Hindu Nationalism is the outcome of the realization that Hindu culture was on its way to being wiped out. It is a last ditch stand and the reigning powers--xtianity, malsi and leftists--were just getting used to the idea. Anything to upset the applecart is anathema, specially if that something is a science, not a belief system built on dogma and which promises far deeper and meaningful answers to human beings than the cooked-up religions which are merely political tools in greedy hands. .

Agreed, and this could also be the reason for viewing Hindu Nationalism negatively.

But such nationalism cannot be conjured up at the drop of a hat because someone fancies it.. Some sort of pre-existing loyalty to nation must exist. This loyalty does exist and is not simply "loyalty to religion". Secularists have always assumed that "Hindu nationalism" is a sort of Islamic terrorism clone that is created by Hindu religious fervor alone and that their own personal secularism and lack of such religious fervor is what keeps the nation together by preventing minorities from revolting. This says as much about how secularists view minorities as their own mental colonization . People are not fighting for India because India is full of Hindus in the way people may join ISIS because they are Muslims.

I believe the loyalty is to a sacred land - which is itself seen as God - or an embodiment of a mother-goddess.

Posted: **20 Nov 2014 06:10**

Hi Shiv, (sorry for the long reply)
Hinduism or Sanatan tries to give some amount of clarity (the highest amongst all faiths or philosophies) on the inaccessible subject of God. The one who cannot be defined, the infinite, the form and the formless, the one who exists and at the same time doesn't. It does this by the cumulative knowledge about the form and formless, through the dvait and advait. When a person starts becoming aware about these two aspects of his existence and the universe around him only then can he start entering into the realm of real knowledge or Vidya. Over the millenia the Sanatan always tried to give this message to the seekers that God is infinite and hence one has to start with the most nearest and the most accessible object to him, be it an idol, mother nature, Surya Devata or Gau mata rather than overwhelming him with a a grand picture of the Virat to start with. This is the way it was always supposed to be planned for humans. Through Saadhna and Meditation the seekers could then start unlocking door after door.
When this holistic and exhaustive knowledge about the universe and reality started becoming a vast ocean of scriptures, gyan, music, incarnations, saints, rituals etc the human mind slowly couldn't comprehend it in its entirity. Combined with the human ego people following saints and the great masters started creating their own absolute path, starting from Shaivites and Vaishnavaites to Buddh, Mahavir, Moses, Judas, Christ and Mohammed. Many people following these paths wanted to create a separate identity for themselves. The only way to do so was to show how different they were from their parent. In course of time the need to show this difference turned into the need to show how better their path was from the original Sanatan. This was an impossible and a foolish task, as there was nothing in the new separate paths which the Sanatan hadn't covered in depth about already. However the task had to be done. The different paths started a strategy of selectively presenting information about the Sanatan, showing half knowledge facts and things and rituals which showed it in poorer light compared to the new path. For eg. Islam started showing Sanatan only from an idol and animal worship point of view there by completely ignoring its advait and formless part of knowledge which was Islam's original parent. Christianity did the same through its presentation of the holy trinity and showing that Christ was not part of the Sanatan's divine scheme of things. The same went with Buddhism a step further that there is no Incarnated God to Jainism, Bahais, Judaism, Shinto, Zen and Scientology. Each had tried to successfully make its own distinctions and selectively criticizing its parents and sub parents. However in due course the primordial mother of all faiths the Sanatan suffered because of a one sided view towards it from all quarters of the world. It reached upto a point that its own followers started criticizing it selectively. Due to its vastness understanding it without spiritual awareness or Chetana became next to impossible. The result of all of this I guess is the answer to your original question. I guess this pejorative attitude is then taken to all other offshoots like Hindu Nationalism, Life style, Education, languages etc.

Posted: **20 Nov 2014 14:18**

rshinde wrote: It reached upto a point that its own followers started criticizing it selectively. Due to its vastness understanding it without spiritual awareness or Chetana became next to impossible. The result of all of this I guess is the answer to your original question. I guess this pejorative attitude is then taken to all other offshoots like Hindu Nationalism, Life style, Education, languages etc.

Good post shinde.

In fact I am beginning to feel that the history of Hindu dharma is so long that thousands of people even centuries ago have had the opportunity to misunderstand and write questionable stuff. Aurobindo is critical of Sayana's interpretation of the Rig Veda. The VHP rejects Manusmriti.

Our deracination comes from our inability to read Sanskrit texts and depending on Jones, Buhler and Doniger to tell us about them. When you have philosophical concepts as sublime as you have mentioned, it cannot be assumed that everyone at a time more than 2000 years ago could understand it all and only we are too stupid. There must have been dunderheads and pretenders and fakes and some of these people must have had their words immortalized. It would be silly of us to assume that all ancient texts and descriptions must be holy and 100% accurate.

Looking at a translation of Manusmriti, I am stuck by the fact that he says that if two srutis contradict each other, both must be considered as correct and as law.

Since no examples are given, I cannot tell what is meant by that. Anyway, manusmriti (in is translation) has become a must-read for me.

Posted: **20 Nov 2014 22:31**

^^^ "Truth in the texts" is somewhat subordinate to "truth in practice". The texts provide a framework, so e.g., a Ramakrishna Paramahamsa or Ramana Maharshi have the vocabulary, the ontology, to express their teachings, and the teachings remain comprehensible across eons. But there is a sort of primacy (for their followers) of their teachings over whatever the texts may say.

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 03:09**

A_Gupta wrote:It is not clear whether the Rg Veda is trying to explain an existing situation, or is mandating it. Only a person with religion on the brain would be jumping up and down, saying, see, see, a "scripture" (if the preserved-by-oral-tradition Rg Veda can be called a scripture) has a mandate about varna.

Well why dont you read Rg Veda again and maybe it will become clear?

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 03:10**

Arjun wrote:
peter wrote:No confusion. The claim that some know Dharma "absolutely" is false. Which is what some posters here seemed to be suggesting and I am opposing that.
Peter, everybody here understands that. There are some situations where the response is easily determinable under the principles of Dharma. There are others where Dharmics would come up with contradictory responses to the same situation. Its a bit like Strategy Consulting.... In some cases, the same case study would lead to different responses from different strategy consultants. Does that mean that Strategy is worthless - since noboby can agree on what the correct 'strategic' response to a given situation should be ? Not in the least. A 'strategic' outlook or mindset is still far superior to not having a strategic outlook at all. Same with Dharma - Its the Dharmic mindset and process of constantly questioning whether ones actions are Dharmic that is important. The application of Dharma for a particular situation can vary depending on both the context and the person applying it.

But you are supposing the existence of "principles of Dharma". Do we have a documntary or oral proof of such an existence?

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 03:12**

peter wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:It is not clear whether the Rg Veda is trying to explain an existing situation, or is mandating it. Only a person with religion on the brain would be jumping up and down, saying, see, see, a "scripture" (if the preserved-by-oral-tradition Rg Veda can be called a scripture) has a mandate about varna.
Well why dont you read Rg Veda again and maybe it will become clear?

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 03:23**

shiv wrote:Here is what you said earlier
peter wrote:In the time of vedas aryan society was divided in four entities:
kshatriya: rulers/fighters
brahmins: teachers
vaishya: vaaniya business
shudra: serve others.

Total inter movement in these four divisions allowed. You got into any group based on your choice and what you learnt or not learnt. Each of these is further subdivided. Kshatriyas into Surya and Chandra vansh and so on so forth. With the passage of time these vansh further got subdivided based on an eponymous king. Thus kuru vansh, raghu vansh, panduputra etc.

shiv wrote: Now you say:

peter wrote: Aryvarata was land of Aryas. Arya society has a four fold division mandated in Rg Veda. If you do not follow Arya principles you are routinely pushed out of the varna system. These are facts. What is it that you are not following?
First you say that varna could be changed at will. Now you say varna is mandated by the vedas and you can get pushed out

What is the difference between being pushed out and pushing yourself out?

A lot of difference or shall I say a fundamental difference. A person of any group/division/varna/jaati could desire to do something else and change the division he was born in. A shudra could become Brahmin, A Brahmin Kshatriya, A Kshatriya Brahmin and so on so forth.

But if a Kshatriya's deeds were unbecoming of his group then the authority of that group could make such an individual an outcaste. Here is quote:

With such examples as Marwar and Amer (of giving their daughters to Mughals), and with less power to resist the temptation, the minor chiefs of Rajasthan, with a brave and numerous vassalage, were transformed into satraps of Delhi.
But these were fearful odds against Pratap. The arms of his country turned upon him, derived additional force from their self-degradation, which kindled into jealousy and hatred against the magnanimous resolution they lacked the virtue to imitate. When Hindu prejudice was thus violated by every prince in Rajasthan, the Rana renounced all matrimonial alliance with those who were thus degraded.

To the eternal honour of Pratap and his issue be it told that, to the very close of the monarchy of the Moguls, they refused such alliances not only with the throne, but even with their brother princes of Marwar and Ambar. It is a proud triumph of virtue to be able to record from the autograph letters of the most powerful of the Rajput princes, Bukhet Singh and Sawai Jai Singh, that whilst they had risen to greatness by the surrender of principle, as Mewar had decayed from her adherence to it, they should solicit, and that humbly, to be readmitted to the honour of matrimonial intercourse and "to be purified," " to be regenerated," " to be made Rajputs" and that this favour was granted only on condition of their abjuring the contaminating practice (of giving daughters to Mughals) which, for more than a century, had disunited them. ( James Tod, Annals and Antiquities of Rajast'han or the Central and Western Rajpoot States of India, 2 vols. London, Smith, Elder (1829, 1832); New Delhi, Munshiram Publishers, (2001), pp. 83-4. ISBN 8170691281)

shiv wrote: If varnas can be changed in a minute how does it make a Hindu law. Laws cannot be changed at will. Everything you say about Hinduism - be it cow worship, name of God, or varnas can be changed voluntarily. So Hinduism has no laws?

System had the principle that you could change your varna as many example cited earlier. So you can name it anything you are comfortable with.

shiv wrote: What laws does Hinduism have? You have not given even one "law" that is there in Hinduism. Everything is changeable. Here today gone tomorrow. Religions have laws. Those laws cannot be changed. Hinduism that you talk about has no laws. it is not a religion.

Not quite. People were thrown out of their groups/divisions/jaatis etc.

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 03:27**

peter wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:It is not clear whether the Rg Veda is trying to explain an existing situation, or is mandating it. Only a person with religion on the brain would be jumping up and down, saying, see, see, a "scripture" (if the preserved-by-oral-tradition Rg Veda can be called a scripture) has a mandate about varna.
Well why dont you read Rg Veda again and maybe it will become clear?

A_Gupta wrote:

Ok funny person then please give us your explanation on why the Rg Ved mentions the four sub divisions of aryan society?

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 03:31**

shiv wrote:Peterji, you have made the following two statements:
peter wrote: If you sold your cow to a butcher then you would have been made an outcaste. You would have lost your jaati and your place in the hindu division of the society.

peter wrote:If you do not follow Arya principles you are routinely pushed out of the varna system. These are facts.

shiv wrote: You have used the word "outcaste"

What does outcaste mean? Does it mean being pushed out of jaati, or being pushed out of varna.

You could be pushed out of the aryan divisions of the society.

shiv wrote: Does selling of cows fail under Arya principles? If I sell my cow to a butcher would I lose my varna?

This was routinely decided by authorities of your group. If you were a Brahman whoever was your clan head would take that decision.

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 03:32**

A_Gupta wrote:I believe the literature of the 1300s-1400s describes the fight against the invaders as "mlecha" and "turk", not as "mussalman" (or anything close). From the Hindu side, it was not a fight over doctrine, it was a fight of self-defence against aggression.

This is what JNU and AMU teach us and is total rubbish.

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 03:34**

JE Menon wrote:>>Well Hinduism propounds many paths to God and all these paths are equally true. Buddhism on the other hand says only path is true and none other. This is what later Abhramic religions also say path of the book and nothing else.

Not exactly. Secondly, Buddhism does not say only one path is true and it leads to God (with a capital g, not a small g as our friendly evangelist in TN says). In Buddhism, to the best of my knowledge, there is no reference to a personal God of any kind of the sort found in the Abrahamic faiths.

>>So you see Hinduism and one path only religions are 180 degrees apart. My way is not highway in Hinduism.

One path only "religions"? Is Buddhism a religion? There are many Buddhists who do not regard it as one. My way is not high way in the Abrahamic sense in Buddhism either; if you don't adhere to the 8-fold path, there is no eternity in "hell".

>>Second Buddhism believed in conversion. The missionary zeal of Buddhism took it to Japan, central asia and south east asia and who knows where else.

Again, not exactly. Buddhism is a proselytizing life-organising system, but as far as I know there is no standardised and easily recognised conversion ritual. If you want to become a buddhist, just read up and act like one (i.e. do what other buddhists do and believe what other buddhists believe - depending on the sect you prefer; you don't have to proselytize either) - just like in Hinduism. Let us not forget, Hinduism too expanded to other parts of the world - per some historical accounts, before Buddhism did.

>>BTW what revolt did you expect? Buddha dissing Hindus? It is a doctrinal revolt.

Well, I expected that clarification. According to you it's a doctrinal revolt. Now, why the word "revolt" - which has very specific connotations in the English language? Wouldn't it be considered much more correctly a distillation of views that already existed in Hinduism in some form or another? In that milieu of 600 BC or so, when there were a proliferation of views within the underlying structure of Sanatana Dharma, arose a very cogent and easily understood set of views which helped people to better comprehend the world in which they lived. It was simply another set of theological views, albeit powerful and popular; as far as anyone knows, there wasn't any singular structure or overarching faith system that exercised control of any kind, doctrinal or otherwise, which required a revolt; just what seemed to people then an attractive set of ideas. Which is why the Buddha was never persecuted, he preached like hundreds of others apparently did, and died a natural death...Revolt is the wrong word for it. If anything, it was an "evolt", i.e. an inevitable evolutionary development in thought - one among many systems, and of course the fittest ones survived with a high visibility - Buddhism and Jainism.

Beef eaters in central asia, korea and japan besides other places, in otherwords beyond the original aryavrat, were admitted to Buddhism. This was a major revolt and I am not following why you are not able to see this?

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 03:46**

peter wrote:
RajeshA wrote: You are again repeating yourself that "Dharma Yuddha == religious war"!

So if the Indian State protects the Durga Temple from an attack by Jihadis, then the secular Indian State is waging a "religious war"! Would that be what you are trying to tell me?
In Indian hindu kings realm this happened:
a) Muslim holy books were burnt, thrown in wells
b) Mosques were destroyed
c) Muslim men were killed based on their appearence and they could only save themselves by shaving their heads, and beards and wearning a janeu and tilak.
d) In 18th century panjab a rajput swordsmen who was fighting to avenge the death of Guru Gobind Singhs sons gave choice to muslims of towns/villages that he conquered that either they convert or they will perish.
e) He routinely had a rod put thru people who did not convert and had them roasted alive. All this while he ate his food.

If this is not a religious war what is?

And as I wrote earlier you are falling into the trap of Secularists that Hindus in medieveal India were under no religious war. Please do some research as it is imperative that at least Indians know what their past is. Your line of argumentation is uninformed.

RajeshA wrote: Secularists make that case to show that
- there was no animosity between the two religions - Islam and Hinduism,
- and if there were any atrocities on Hindus, then they were not at a scale that they are made out to be,
- and if there were any atrocities on Hindus, then it was the work of a greedy invader, who may have been nominally a Muslim, but whose actions were not in accordance with Islam,
- and as such there should be no grievance from the side of Hindus, against Muslims or against Islam.

There is obviously more to it but these are valid points you write.

RajeshA wrote: However the Secularists too sell the nonsense that Hinduism is a religion, ......

Here I differ. Our stalwarts also called Hinduism a religion before british hegemony. Perhaps time to change your own views.

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 03:56**

RajeshA wrote:
peter wrote:Well Hinduism propounds many paths to God and all these paths are equally true. Buddhism on the other hand says only path is true and none other. This is what later Abhramic religions also say path of the book and nothing else.

So you see Hinduism and one path only religions are 180 degrees apart. My way is not highway in Hinduism.
You keep on thinking in terms of religion boxes, silos, and drawing hard lines between various Dharmic panths, and so you keep on repeating the same old ...

Not quite. Aryas lived in Aryavrat and people beyond it were not arya for specific reasons. Please investigate the reasons.

Once you have done that then please research why buddhism converted those beyond aryavrat as Buddhists.

RajeshA wrote: How does one otherwise explain Ramayana being a central theme in Thailand, even though it is a Buddhist country?!

Hindu King and buddhist subjects is perfectly fine.

peter wrote:Second Buddhism believed in conversion. The missionary zeal of Buddhism took it to Japan, central asia and south east asia and who knows where else.

Hinduism had no conversion. Again 180 degrees apart.

RajeshA wrote: So what were those Japanese who believed in both Shintoism and Buddha, were they Buddhist or not?

How does it matter?

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 04:14**

shiv wrote:
ChandraV wrote: Consider the following facts:

1. Uber-liberal youth of today - the whatsapp generation - they will become more and more permissive and promiscuous with every passing year. Relationships, dating, etc. will become extremely common among all classes of society. This is inevitable with increasing independence and economic growth. This is bound to increase.

2. Now, these morons in Bajrang Dal and other vanara senas stand like policemen and scream about "what is right and what is not". And they do all this in the name of Hinduism, Hindu religion and 'Hindu nationalism'. The message they are giving is, "Hindu nationalism spits on your desires, aspirations, needs and trends".

3. End result: Hindu nationalism is seen as the preserve of old fogeys and uninteresting "un-cool" thugs. Respect for Hindu nationalism (and even Hinduism) goes down, contempt and derision for Hindu nationalism (and Hinduism) keeps going up among the newer generation.

So, what happens when this new generation grows up and dominates the nation? They will have a contempt for Hinduism and Hindu values, and will contribute greatly towards derision of our civilization and heritage.
This is an interesting point. The conflict here is "What is our heritage that we need to preserve?" To some extent this could go in the Western Universalism thread as well - but since you felt it appropriate here I will stay on this thread for now.

Whatever the answer to the above question, it is clear that the groups who are protesting, calling themselves "nationalists" are feeling a threat to their idea of nation, or perhaps their very identity by the things they protest against. In the case of Muthalik and co it is usually Valentines day, mixed boy-girl parties with music and dancing and unmarried couples. The methods they use attract the ire of the media, who generally come from the same social background that see no harm in the things that these groups oppose.

For the time being let us ignore all the "uber-liberal" people whom you have named who are opposed by the Muthalik and co type groups and just examine their ostensible viewpoint

In the (collective) minds of these groups it appears that "Being Hindu" means that one must not encourage acts that bring unmarried young men and women together. "Valentine's day" seems to attract special attention because of "St Valentine" being of "Christian/Western origin". Be that as it may, Valentines day celebrates "courtly love" as per Wiki where chivalrous men court women creating romantic love stories.

But let me step outside this for a minute. Muslim groups too oppose Valentine's day. They too feel their identity/culture is being attacked. I don't think "Hindu" groups have even joined hands with Muslims groups against Valentine's day as a common "cultural enemy"

If you look at Christian institutions in Bangalore - you find that they are prominent in forbidding the wearing of jeans to college by women. So the idea of female propriety being upset by the wearing of "Western" jeans is not a Hindu monopoly

If Hindus, Christians and Muslims are upset by the same things it clearly means that there is some issue that affects all of them. All of them have a common view of propriety and morality. Maybe some of us may not agree with them but they are remarkably similar in their opposition to certain modes of behavior that include women appearing to show their body curves to everyone, and free mixing and socializing of unmarried men and women. But none of them seem to want to unite publicly against the "common enemy."

Suppose we unite them in our minds and ask what unites them and what is that unity called. And what divides them and why that division exists

Could the common thought process of Hindus, Muslims and Christians be called "Nationalism"? Only the Hindus call themselves "Hindu nationalists" protecting Hindu culture. The Muslims call it against their culture. Christian institutions say it is against Indian culture.

Why should the uber-liberals then single out Hindus as offensive?

Perhaps the explanation is as follows: The uber liberals are all westernized wealthy Hindus. They do not see any attack on "Hinduism" by their behavior. They don't give a damn about what Muslims might say because Muslims are free to control their own Muslim youngsters. The minute they (Muslims) touch the liberal Hindus, the "Hindutva vadis" will side with the liberal Hindus. As for Christians, they do not look down upon unmarried men and women meeting each other. The college dress code is not restricted to Christian institutions - so they can't be singled out.

It turns out that there is more commonalty between the Muslim objections and the Hindutva objections. Overall - all three groups represent conservatism, versus so called "liberalism". I dislike the word liberalism because western liberalism is also a kind of fake liberalism - but that is another issue. So this business is more of a reaction to "westernization" - which is seen as an attack on Indian culture along with slippage of morals. It may be viewed as the "thin end of the wedge" or the "slippery" slope leading to western norms of promiscuity. If the uber liberals are actually heading that way then perhaps this is better discussed in the Western Universalism thread.

The issue here is that Muthalik and his cohorts are trying to interpret Hinduism in a certain way and then expecting that others should listen to them. In the process they are making a fool of themselves.

I am wondering if these jokers have ever visited Khajurao temples?

Does he even know that a hindu temple cannot be consecrated unless it has an image of a male and female making out?

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 04:50**

peter wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:
Ok funny person then please give us your explanation on why the Rg Ved mentions the four sub divisions of aryan society?

For the same reason the Rg Veda mentions horses, or Ganga.

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 09:00**

shiv wrote:But such nationalism cannot be conjured up at the drop of a hat because someone fancies it.. Some sort of pre-existing loyalty to nation must exist. This loyalty does exist and is not simply "loyalty to religion". Secularists have always assumed that "Hindu nationalism" is a sort of Islamic terrorism clone that is created by Hindu religious fervor alone and that their own personal secularism and lack of such religious fervor is what keeps the nation together by preventing minorities from revolting. This says as much about how secularists view minorities as their own mental colonization . People are not fighting for India because India is full of Hindus in the way people may join ISIS because they are Muslims.

I believe the loyalty is to a sacred land - which is itself seen as God - or an embodiment of a mother-goddess.

Map of the Shakti Peethas shows that the whole of the Indian Subcontinent was considered one civiliational sphere. In a tale of divine passionate tragic love, Shiva wanders with the hacked limbs of his beloved, which drop at various places, which the Hindus commemorate as the Shakti Peethas. It goes at least as far west as Hinglaj in Baluchistan, across empty desert. The fact that its claim spans even across empty desert is remarkable.

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 09:03**

>>Beef eaters in central asia, korea and japan besides other places, in otherwords beyond the original aryavrat, were admitted to Buddhism. This was a major revolt and I am not following why you are not able to see this?

This was a major revolt against Hinduism in these places? My question is wholly related to the characterisation of the emergence and spread of Buddhism as a "revolt" against Hinduism. On the basis of what are you saying it did not happen, rather, like I describe in my earlier post? A revolt, doctrine or otherwise, has certain connotations.

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 11:14**

peter wrote: Does he even know that a hindu temple cannot be consecrated unless it has an image of a male and female making out?

I am all for making out, but source if you can please...

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 11:17**

harbans wrote:
Couple of questions harbans:
1. Is it a good model where every person aspires to be Sattvic?
2. If not how do you enforce peace and protection where there is a mix ?
I didn't quite understand what could be wrong in encouraging people to be Sattvic? It is aspirational indeed.
Everyone may not be Sattvic and every Tamsic activity need not deserve punishment. BUt it's generally the case the lesser Tamsic activity the more peace, less crime. Is there a conflict here?

harbansji,
I could be due my ignorance of concepts. Is a Sattvic person is allowed to take life of others? If not, then how does defence and peace keeping work?

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 11:54**

Agnimitra wrote: Map of the Shakti Peethas shows that the whole of the Indian Subcontinent was considered one civiliational sphere. In a tale of divine passionate tragic love, Shiva wanders with the hacked limbs of his beloved, which drop at various places, which the Hindus commemorate as the Shakti Peethas. It goes at least as far west as Hinglaj in Baluchistan, across empty desert. The fact that its claim spans even across empty desert is remarkable.

Good point. Shri Vidyananda Shenoy in his Bharata Darshana series makes the same point. If you know Kannada, do listen to his series if you haven't already.

Other parts are linked on that youtube page.

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 12:16**

peter wrote:Not quite. Aryas lived in Aryavrat and people beyond it were not arya for specific reasons. Please investigate the reasons.

The Balinese people are followers of both Sanathana Dharma (SD) as well as the Varna/Jati tradition. They consider themselves Arya and even use it in their names to date. The Iranians would consider themselves Arya as well and did have a version of the Varna system in vogue. So not sure of your points and what is it?

peter wrote:Second Buddhism believed in conversion. The missionary zeal of Buddhism took it to Japan, central asia and south east asia and who knows where else.

Hinduism had no conversion. Again 180 degrees apart.

There are two key ill understood dimensions to the issue - individual versus groups and belief versus action.
That is, it is quite correct to say SD does not have conversion, but it is quite incorrect to suggest that acceptance of the SD umbrella did not occur or does not occur. It does, and the mechanism is deliciously quite different from belief/faith based conversions. SD has much more so, and is much less so reliant on groups (Jatis) converting into its fold as the traditions are based on actions and the test threshold is not one of belief. It is indeed correct that the Buddha matha of the tradition emphasized on individual action, but to equate it to individual conversion based on the attestation of belief is quite incorrect. This is a key point of difference between SD and other traditions outside its umbrella. SD also diffuses from central core of converged positions with distinctions, but it does not reduce naturally nor is it susceptible to Aristotelian reduction or even worse rejections. I like to see the Monothesitic religions as traditions within the diffusion zone, but with central cores quite outside the umbrella.

Several confusions in the current SD followers on this subject stem from mistaking SD for a individual liberation path. Especially Advaita folks tend to make this mistake more so than others. The VarnaAshram system does not enable one to get to the individual enlightenment etc. only after the individual is quite useless to the group and especially society. SD does not treat liberation (moksha) in exclusion, it takes the holistic view of a purposeful life with a meaningful end.

This is also a key reason why Buddha and other mathas eventually failed. This is also the reason in my humble opinion for the U-Turn RM claims (albeit I have not read his reasons for this phenomena). Many folks in the West who go with the WU framework of individual attestation of belief and faith, make some progress, but eventually fail to understand or fit into the SD framework as they cannot find their group or Jati within the whole and in relation to their Varna. Not because Jati/Varna are important in of itself, but because they are tied to the conventions of approved actions. These actions are what one has to live by etc.

Another point was made about being thrown out of one's group (Jati) - as unappealing it seems to WU purists and perhaps to true liberals, it is the natural way. There is ample evidence of this in nature and humans are no different in their behavior as group or social animals. Whether you agree or not, even the mercurial SSwamy was thrown out of Harvard and one can protest, but that does not always change the nature of group behavior.

As always, some of what I say above will cause deep takaleef to some, but take it for what it is worth.
Some of the threads on BRF these days are begging for Indian Social Sciences to take off and help construct a viable framework for India and her future. The confusion in terminology and frameworks is both depressing and exciting at the same time - I am sure there is a clinical disorder that characterizes such a claim.

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 12:26**

harbansji,
I could be due my ignorance of concepts. Is a Sattvic person is allowed to take life of others? If not, then how does defence and peace keeping work?

Saravana, would suggest reading the Bhagavat Gita on three Gunas especially Chapters 14 and 17. Sattvic is a state of mind and not necessarily a state of action. Sri Krishna explains the classification of various facets like belief, food, yagna, taps/austerity/meditation, Dhanam, thyag on the basis of Guna.

Not in exact words, if you do an action with a very objective of your materialistic desire, then you action is rajasic. If you actions intended towards affecting others with scant regard for dharma it is tamasic whilst if the same is done as a duty, then it is Sattvic. So when you are fighting/waging a war as a duty to protect yourself/country, you should fight the war as a duty without hegomonistic or saddistic ambition. In a way, Krishna denounces Arjuna's reluctance to fight the kurus as being rajasic since his action (rather inaction) is linked to his materialistic attachment to the Kurus.

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 12:38**

Thank you, would do it.

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 12:52**

Agnimitra wrote:
shiv wrote:But such nationalism cannot be conjured up at the drop of a hat because someone fancies it.. Some sort of pre-existing loyalty to nation must exist. This loyalty does exist and is not simply "loyalty to religion". Secularists have always assumed that "Hindu nationalism" is a sort of Islamic terrorism clone that is created by Hindu religious fervor alone and that their own personal secularism and lack of such religious fervor is what keeps the nation together by preventing minorities from revolting. This says as much about how secularists view minorities as their own mental colonization . People are not fighting for India because India is full of Hindus in the way people may join ISIS because they are Muslims.

I believe the loyalty is to a sacred land - which is itself seen as God - or an embodiment of a mother-goddess.
Map of the Shakti Peethas shows that the whole of the Indian Subcontinent was considered one civiliational sphere. In a tale of divine passionate tragic love, Shiva wanders with the hacked limbs of his beloved, which drop at various places, which the Hindus commemorate as the Shakti Peethas. It goes at least as far west as Hinglaj in Baluchistan, across empty desert. The fact that its claim spans even across empty desert is remarkable.

Guess there are many such items from the Hindu traditions (rather Sanathana Dharma tradition) which indicates to the civilizational idea of India
like the below shloka

"Ganga Cha Yamuna Chaiva Godavari Saraswati,
Narmada Sindhu Kaveri Jalesmin Sannidhim Kuru"

which talks about the Indian rivers, or the Sankalpha mantra which has
"Jambu Dvipe, Bharat Varsha, Bharadha Kande...".

On the topic of Hinduism as a religion, it may help if we see the question from two different time frames
1) Prior to invasion of Bharata from by people with a foreign origin religion, there was no religion called *Hinduism* but multitude of religion/sampradhaya like multiple vaishnavism, multiple shaivisms, meemamsa and other aasthic/naasthik traditions including Buddhism. The only difference was that most of them had a Vedantic base. The fight of Buddhism and Jainism was against the different religions grounded on the primacy of Vedas and the Vedic Gods. So whatever fights were there were intra-religious fights within the Sanadhan dharma fold

2) Post the Islamic invasion saw the consolidation of different religions within the sanadhanic fold under the Hinduism banner like the actions of Rajputs, Marathas, Vijayanagara etc.

So, to me the consolidation of different sanadhanic religions of India under the Hindu nationalism started only as a reaction to the threats from non native religions. IMHO, the term Hindu came into prominence post the Greek invasions and prior to that all religions within the Indian civilizational fold in India may have never termed themselves Hindus.

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 16:04**

peter wrote:
RajeshA wrote: How does one otherwise explain Ramayana being a central theme in Thailand, even though it is a Buddhist country?!
Hindu King and buddhist subjects is perfectly fine.

King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand is also called King Rama IX. His "religion" if one can call it that is Theravada Buddhism. The House of Mahidol, Chakri Dynasty has contributed a lot in preserving Ramayana as a popular culture in Thailand.

peter wrote:
peter wrote:Second Buddhism believed in conversion. The missionary zeal of Buddhism took it to Japan, central asia and south east asia and who knows where else.

Hinduism had no conversion. Again 180 degrees apart.

RajeshA wrote: So what were those Japanese who believed in both Shintoism and Buddha, were they Buddhist or not?
How does it matter?

It matters! Can a Muslim also belong to "Hinduism" or Christianity or something else? No! Can a Christian belong to Islam, to "Hinduism" or something else? No! Why not?

Because Islam and Christianity are religions. There is an issue of oath of allegiance or oath of submission. One chooses a particular exclusive path of salvation, but more importantly one chooses a form of brotherhood, a group identity. One cannot have multiple allegiances.

Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism are not religions, as there is no oath of allegiance or submission. One can dabble in all, or some or none of these Moksha Margas. A person is not submitted to an "either ... or ..." dilemma.

So a Thai can indulge in Hinduism and Buddhism.
A Japanese can be a Shinto and a Bauddh!

You are thinking in religion silos when you are thinking of Dharmic traditions. In Dharmic traditions there isn't any concept of oath of allegiance and brotherhoods, but rather the purpose is to impart spirituality and ethics to a person. Any brotherhood is restricted to the institution one is actively involved in but not to the whole philosophical framework.

RajeshA wrote:However the Secularists too sell the nonsense that Hinduism is a religion, ......

peter wrote:Here I differ. Our stalwarts also called Hinduism a religion before british hegemony. Perhaps time to change your own views.

What I can read is "Hindu Dharma". I see nowhere "religion" or "Hinduism". You are making a case that "Dharma == Religion"! I don't see how you can make a case like that, based on what you have provided.

What I read is:

आमेर का राजा जयसिंह उन हिंदूऔं में से था जो पूजा-पाठ को ही धर्म मानते थे तथा राष्ट्र-सेवा के धर्म को भूला कर विदेशी हमलावरों का साथ देने का घोर पाप-कर्म कर रहे थे।

Translation: King of Amber, Raja Jai Singh was one of those Hindus who believed in "Dharma of Puja-Paath" but having forgotten the "Dharma of service to Rāshtra", he committed the grave sin of allying with foreign invaders.

So what is Hinduism Religion here: the "Hindu Dharma of Puja-Paath" or the "Hindu Dharma of Rāshtra-service"? Or can it be that "Dharma ≠ Religion"?

Here is what I wrote about "what is Hindu Dharma?"

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 17:03**

^^
That letter is quite interesting ( written in what seems like a little archaic Sanskritized Hindi ).

However it says that the original letter was in Farsi, and this translation was done 100 years later ( ie. in 1764 ). I wonder if the original had terms like 'Dharma' ? I'm sure it must have.

Is there a site which has the original document ( photograph ) along with English translation?

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 18:51**

read this letter in hindi for the first time. in marathi, translations address Jaisingh as in higher pronoun (tumhi equivalent to Aap in hindi). Did not know Shivaji addressed this letter to jai sinh in second-person pronoun of first order of respect.

But, basic gist matches with marthi translations I have read. Most of historians take implicit soft-spot for Shivaji in mind of Jai Singh for granted. Aurangzeb had Jai Singh assassinated and his son Ram Singh sent off to futile mission to have himself killed in Assam as punishment for going soft on Marathas and Shivaji. Ram Singh and his Rajputs played very crucial role in ensuring Shivaji escaped from Agra-imprisonment. Shivaji was kept alive by Aurangzeb for few months upon insistence of Jai Singh. after escape, Aurangzeb broke the back of Amber. Jaipur sunk into abyss until rise of Jai Singh the second. But that is another story and not relevant.

It was named "Hindavi Swaraajya" for crying out loud.

shiv wrote:
Atri wrote: First, when we say "nationalism" or "nationalist" or "Hindu-nationalist" etc, we have to ask one basic question - what is this "nation" thingy? Does nation here means Republic of India - a westphalian nation-state which emerged on world-stage on 26th January 1950? Or do we mean raashtra of Bhaarata which Vedas proclaim पृथिव्यै समुद्र पर्यन्तया एकराळिति (this land until the oceans is one raashtra).

They very construct of westphalian nation-state is very illogical according to me.
It is my argument that "Hindu nationalism" is respect and loyalty that Indians show to what you describe as the raashtra because that raashtra encompasses most of their history and a continuing way of life from 3000 BC till today.

Elsewhere in the world (Europe, Africa, far east) In a land area the size of India the concept of Westphalian nation state has introduced borders and artificial constructs that often go completely against the natural human tendency to migrate or travel. I do agree that the Westphalian nation state has arisen out of the concept of the "possession of a sovereign" (could be a "sovereign" state) where the things that the sovereign holds "in his right hand" are his right and he can do what he likes. This exact concept extends to Islamic states as well - and Pakis have convinced themselves that their rapine ancestors held India in their right hand but they are now simply left holding a limp piece of flesh in their own right hands. But I digress.

I think the closest analogy I can get is that "westphalian nation state" corresponds to Rajya with insane border controls of the "Sovereign right hand ownership". The sovereign owns the people as well in the nation state. In the past in India - free migration and movement from Rajya to Rajya was possible for pilgrimages or for any other reason. In other words strict border controls, passports and visas etc were not required for a person traveling say from Mysore to Kashi, or for that matter to Kedarnath despite having to pass though more than one Rajya en route.

The people of India have had, in my view, a sense of "ownership" and "freedom of travel" and "freedom to migrate" anywhere within the raashtra. It is another matter that the "raashtra" as described by you :"पृथिव्यै समुद्र पर्यन्तया एकराळिति (this land until the oceans is one raashtra) is not exactly the same as the Westphalian Repubic of India with its set borders. But the borders of Westphalian nation state India coincide to a great extent with the ancient raashtra. Hence I posit that Hindu nationalism - or Hindu allegiance to their "nation" is also an ancient and traditional Hindu allegiance to their millennia old raashtra. Whether they hate or love "minorities" has nothing to do with it.

It is an insult to all Hindus to simply club the sense of nationalism (love/loyalty to raashtra) they display with the concept of "hating someone". The Hindu identity has no concept of a society existing simply by hating and setting themselves apart from some other people based on the god they worship. That egregious tendency from Abrahamic religions is being "painted" on to Hindus in the idiotic construct which they term as undesirable and hateful Hindu nationalism.

There was no need to have a common denomination for Indic people prior to invasion of Islam. The name "hindu" is a name that got popularized among masses and kings alike after Islamic invasions. It comes from Archaic "sapta-sindhu" which was replaced by Bhaarat, Aaryavarta, Ajanaabh-khanDa and common "Uttaraapatha" and "dakshiNaapatha". But Sapta-Sindhu (and its derivatives) became popular outside desh. Hence the term "India" and all Persian and European (even Chinese) derivatives of Saptasindhu.

Raashtra is mark of identity. identity of people living in Bhaarata was not "Hindu" in pre-islamic times. Yes, they were ancestors of today's hindus but they didn't feel the need to have a name for this sense of nationality. I have given references from Rigveda which declare that this land until the oceans is "one raashtra". It sufficed then. It was not sufficient post Islamic invasion. Hence popularization of term "Hindu" (which is a foreign term in itself of Persian origin). People from "Al-Hind" are "Hindus" - as simple as that from point of view of invading arabs mongols and turks from 700s to 1700s.

I did not understand the taqleef in accepting this fact.

Hindutva is a socio-political adaptation to nation-state model which is derived from Hindu which is a common denomination forced upon native Indians following Non-abrahmic life-styles of INdian origin.

Krishnadevaraya called himself Hindu king. Guru Nanak speaks of mongols and babar terrorizing "hindus" and "hindusthan". All the references to this term are in relation and context to the "other". When the "other" will stop bothering and will assimilate in mainstream, this tag WILL fall off. It is not about hating someone. It is about preserving self. Even aafter abrahmics stop bothering "hindus", and hindu-tag has fallen off, the allegiance of people to that continuous dharmik sanaatana civilization will continue. Hence the term "Sanaatana-dharma". Hindu is a socio-political identity and Hindutva (Hindu-ness) is a sociopolitical theory. It is relevant only to those times and spaces post-abrahmic incursion where abrahmics have been threatening existence of Dharmiks due to their forceful exclusivist dogma. Once that stops, the very context which necessitated rise of identity "hindu" will cease to exist. Then the term "hindu" will fall out of fashion, just term "aarya" has fallen out of fashion today.

Nationalism in dharmik system is NOT connected to nation-states. Since Rigvedic times, there have been plethora of states with variety of governance models. Allegiance to a state is only in form of taxation given and salary (and protection received) from local king (or assembly, if democracy). allegiance to "nation" was understood (others have been called mlechhas, yavanas and other assorted names which meant what Romans meant by term "barbarians") and was not specifically talked about or emphasized about. This need to emphasize and come-together under common binding factor arises only after islamic invasions. Hence hindu-nationalism has its origins there.

As a negative control, see what yadavs, kakatiyas, hoysalas, vakatakas, rashtrakutas, chalukyas, saatavahanas etc called themselves and their states? All sorts of fancy names and titles taken up by kings and these empires. Gautamiputra SaatakarNi called himself "tri-samudra-toya-peeta-vaahana (त्रिसमुद्रतोयपीतवाहन - one who's horse has drunk waters from all three seas - meaning complete conqueror of peninsular India). But why did the need arose for Vijaynagar to specifically call itself a "hindu-empire" or marathas to call their state as "hindu-selfrule"? Answering this question gives the answer.

All indigenous states prior to Vijaynagar and maraThas were Raajyas (states). Vijaynagar and Marathas were "nations" precisely because of this reason. They were not "vijaynagar-nation" or "maratha-nation". They were iteration of hindu-nation with vijaynagar-state or maratha-federation as custodian of that nation. That was the whole point of Shivaji having himself coronated by Vaidik ceremony.

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 21:05**

I now believe that I may have another minor insight into why "Hindu Nationalism" gets a bad name.

It is related to the Aryan Invasion Theory and Manusmriti (and similar sources, if any)

Manu smriti (which I am reading now, in translation, is very interesting and informative. It reads like a proper "law book" in the religious law sense. But Manu smriti claims

1.That Brahmanas own the entire world and are entitled to anything on earth
and
2. The people for whom the laws pertain are "Aryavarta"
Here is a copy-paste of Aryavarta
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu02.htm

18. The custom handed down in regular succession (since time immemorial) among the (four chief) castes (varna) and the mixed (races) of that country, is called the conduct of virtuous men.

19. The plain of the Kurus, the (country of the) Matsyas, Pankalas, and Surasenakas, these (form), indeed, the country of the Brahmarshis (Brahmanical sages, which ranks) immediately after Brahmavarta.

20. From a Brahmana, born in that country, let all men on earth learn their several usages.

21. That (country) which (lies) between the Himavat and the Vindhya (mountains) to the east of Prayaga and to the west of Vinasana (the place where the river Sarasvati disappears) is called Madhyadesa (the central region).

22. But (the tract) between those two mountains (just mentioned), which (extends) as far as the eastern and the western oceans, the wise call Aryavarta (the country of the Aryans).

23. That land where the black antelope naturally roams, one must know to be fit for the performance of sacrifices; (the tract) different from that (is) the country of the Mlekkhas (barbarians).

24. Let twice-born men seek to dwell in those (above-mentioned countries); but a Sudra, distressed for subsistence, may reside anywhere.

The theory that has been fed to Indians, and swallowed by Indians is that the Aryans invaded India and settled in the above land "Aryavarta" and later subjugated others. This theory deliberately excludes nationalistic followers of sanatana dharma from everywhere outside the cow-belt and its immediate environs. The feeling of alienation created is compounded by some Indians from the Hindi belt claiming some sort of moral superiority and extra special "Hinduness" on account of this history, particularly among chauvinistic upper-castes of the Hindu belt. Of course Indians who came under the Sikh, Maratha, Vijayanagar and Chola empires do not give a flying fuk about any fake sense of superiority that can and does come out of some of the denizens of the Hindi/cow belt - but Hindutva and "Hindu nationalism" gets a bad name here because it is presented like a special preserve of the Hindi belt. This attitude is particularly harsh on the backward castes of South India for they get excluded from in the Vedic pride by such texts and attitudes despite being fully paid-up members of the Indian nation.

Ultimately India and Indian nationalism is the sum total of all these peoples across India who protected dharma and not what some uppity-nosed Brahmins may have blabbered in Manu smriti.

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 21:17**

Here is a commentary on Manu smriti from, of all places, Globasecurity.org.

To me it is an interesting read so I post without kaament. Take FWIW
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... smriti.htm

Manu-Smriti — The Code of Manu

Manu Smriti is the popular name of the work, which is officially known as Manava dharma shastra, is the central source of the later Brahmanical Hinduism. The Manu Smriti (smriti = remembered law) (also called Laws of Manu, the Law-Books of Manu, nor Manu Samhita, Manava Dharma Sastra, or Institutes of Manu) commonly known as the Code of Manu, is a well known law-book that is the earliest of all the post-Vedic writings, and is chief of the works classified as Smriti. The Code of Manu is a compilation of laws reflecting Hindu thought in the Buddhist period, preserved in a metrical recension, or survey.

It contains 2685 verses, and is evidently not the work of one man, but the production of many minds. It gives the observances of a tribe of Brahmans called Manavas, who probably belonged to a school of the Yajur (or black) Veda, and lived in North-West India not far from Delhi. It was written in a period later than the Vedas when the Brahmans had obtained the ascendancy, but its deities are those of the Vedas and not of the Epics and Puranas — so it occupies a middle place between the Vedas and the Puranas.

It is the foundation of Hindu Law — a collection or digest of current laws and creeds rather than a planned systematic code. It is frequently quoted to-day in law courts, and by Hindus in all cases where the customs of Hindu society and the observances of caste are under question. In it the four main castes are clearly defined and their duties and obligations laid down, and the whole system of rules and regulations is instituted by which the Brahmans sought to perpetuate an organised caste-system in subordination to themselves.

After eliminating the purely religious and philosophical precepts, the greater number of its rules fall under the following four heads:

1. Achara, 'immemorial practices.' These, in fact, include all the observances of caste, and are regarded as constituting the highest law and highest religion.
2.Vyavahara, 'practices of law and government,' embracing the procedure of legal tribunals, rules of judicature, and civil and criminal law.
3.Prayas-chitta, 'penitential exercises,' rules of expiation, both of the sins of this present life—especially sins against caste—and the effects of offences committed in previous bodies.
4.Karma-phala, 'consequences of acts,' good or bad, as leading to reward in heaven or punishment in various hells and involving repeated births through numberless existences until the attainment of final beatitude.

This is one of the most remarkable books that the literature of the whole world can offer. It not only presents a picture of the usages, manners, and intellectual condition of an important part of the Hindu race at a remote period, but some of its moral precepts are worthy of Christianity itself.

The Manu Smriti or Hindu code of Manu is of uncertain date. There was a wide divergence of opinion among 19th Century Oriental scholars as to the date of the Manu Smriti, or Laws of Manu. Max Muller and his followers, who at times seemed to bend all their energies to the task of proving that everything in Hinduism was of comparatively recent origin, claimed that the Laws of Manu were compiled in the fifth century AD. Their arguments were based upon certain passages which allude to customs and religious rites known to be modern. But it can easily be shown that all such passages may have been later interpolations of the Brahmins, while, on the other hand, the bulk or greater part of the work seemed to others to be undoubtedly archaic in character.

Prof. Monier Williams, of Oxford, says: "Sir William Jones held that Manu's book was drawn up in about the year 1280 BC. Mr. Elphinstone placed it 900 years BC. Possibly some parts of it may represent laws and precepts which were current among the Manavas at the later date, but no one would now assign so early a date to the actual compilation of the Code. Nor can it, I think, reasonably be placed later than the fifth century BC." There is here a trifling difference of a thousand years in the estimates of two such good authorities, even, as Max Miiller and Monier Williams, to say nothing of the earlier writers quoted, who affirm a still higher antiquity for Manu.

In the 19th century the Code of code of Manu in its present form was widely thought to date from about the fifth century BC, though portions were thought to probably be much older, about 1000 BC. More recently, scholars have gravitated to the view that the Manu-Samhita, probably dates in its earliest form from about 500 BC, with the texts standardized between 200 BC and AD 200.

Brahmanism would seem to have first originated among Aryan colonists who established themselves between the valleys of the Indus and the Ganges about a thousand years after the Aryan conquest of the Panjab. While confined to the Panjab, the Aryas still remained a Vedic people, but on crossing over into the valley of the Ganges, they gradually became Brahmanical Hindus. The original country of the Brahmans extended, according to the Code of Manu, along the slopes of the Himalayas between the Sarsuti and Kagar: "Between the two divine rivers Saraswati [Sarsuti] and Drishadwati [Kagar] lies the tract of land [about 100 miles N.W. of Delhi] which the sages have named Brahmavata, because it was frequented by the gods."

The collection of laws and precepts commonly called " The Code of Manu" is the oldest and most celebrated of many books of the law that were compiled for the purpose of giving more definiteness to the vague injunctions of the Vedic hymns. It is a compilation of the customary law, and exhibits the social organization which the Brahmans, after their successful struggle for the supremacy, had established in the Middle Land of North India. No doubt ultimately it worked its way to acceptance with the entire Hindu community; and certainly in the end it not only secured for itself a high place in popular estimation and a degree of reverence only second to that accorded to the Veda, but it became, moreover, the chief authority as a basis of Hindu jurisprudence."

The laws of Manu were the result of a series of attempts to codify the usages of some not very extensive center of Brahmanism in Northern India, — a metrical digest of local customs condensed by degrees from a legendary mass of 100,000 couplets (slokas) into 2684. They may possibly have been reduced to their final form of a written code with a view to securing the system of caste against the popular movement of Buddhism, and to thus giving a rigid fixity to the privileges of the Brahmans.

The Brahmans early saw the importance of codes of law, and of ascribing to them a divine origin. The Brahmans claimed for their laws a divine origin, and ascribed them to the first Manu, or Aryan man, 30 millions of years ago [the word Manu is from the Sanskrit root man, to think], who sprang from Swayam-bhu, the "self-existing" [identified with Brahma]; and by others to the Manu of the present period, the seventh Manu, or Vaivaswata, the son of Vaivaswat, the sun. In the Hindu mythology the name belongs to the fourteen Praja-patis, or forefathers of all creatures, each of whom presides over the destinies of men for a period, called a Manwantara, of 4,320,000 years. In the Rig-Veda Vaivaswata is the father of the Aryas and the whole human race; and it has been conjectured that his name was applied by its compilers to the Code of Manu to reconcile the Brahmanfcal law to the Aryan Kshatriyas.

The conception of Manu as the first man, the father of the Vedic Aryans, if not of the whole the human race, finds sufficient expression in the hymns of the Rig-Veda. Subsequently, in the Brahmanic period he is said to have been warned by a fish to build a ship, in which ho ultimately escaped from a great flood; a legend which bears a curious resemblance to the Mosaic tradition of Noah and the deluge. Brahmanical code has been ascribed to Manu, and is still known as the Institutes of Manu. This association of the name of the Vedic Manu with the Brahmanical code may have arisen from the desire to assert the remote antiquity and divine authority.

The distinction between the Vedic and Brahmanic ages is seen in the distinction between the Vedic conception of Manu as the first man, and the Brahmanic conception of Manu as the divine lawgiver. The conception of Manu as the first man, the father of the Vedic Aryans, if not of the whole the human race, finds sufficient expression in the hymns of the Rig-Veda. Subsequently, in the Brahmanic period he is said to have been warned by a fish to build a ship, in which ho ultimately escaped from a great flood; a legend which bears a curious resemblance to the Mosaic tradition of Noah and the deluge. From these circumstances the famous Brahmanical code has been ascribed to Manu, and is still known as the Institutes of Manu. This association of the name of the Vedic Manu with the Brahmanical code may have arisen from the desire to assert the remote antiquity and divine authority but it may also have been deemed expedient to recommend that law to the worshippers of the Vedic deities, by referring its origin to the time-honored progenitor of the Vedic Aryans.

The connection of the Vedic Manu with the Brahmanical law is accompanied by another significant fact. The so-called "Institutes of Manu" are the expression of an important compromise in religious history; being, in fact, a compromise between the worship of the Vedic deities and the worship of the god Brahma, between whom an opposition amounting almost to an antagonism seems at one time to have prevailed. The compilers of the code have certainly spared no pains to uphold the worship of the god Brahma above that of the Vedic deities; but at the same time they have found it necessary to recognize Vedic rites and institutions to an extent which imparts a two-fold character to a large portion of the code; one referring to the Vedic period, and the other to the Brahmanic period. At the same time, however, the compromise has evidently been carried out by Brahmans, who have done their best, as in the MahaBharata and Ramayana, to Brahmanize every Vedic tradition.

The code of Manu is separated from the Vedic era by a series of Brahmanical developments. The Vedic worship was simply the natural expression of the gratitude of men for their daily bread; who, before sitting down to their meals, instinctively offered of the meat and drink before them to the gods from whom they believed these blessings came. In the Code of Manu these oblations of food and wine are superseded, or overlaid by an elaborate ritual of essentially a sacrificial and propitiatory character. But the Vedic gods are not yet so completely set aside as in the Puranas, although they are all rigidly subordinated to Brahma, the especial deity of the Brahmans. Nor again is there in the Code of Manu any indications of that wholesale absorption of the pantheon of the aboriginal races of southern India which, as the later Puranas show, was gradually forced on the Brahmans. The Code is on analogous grounds proved to be also older than the Ramayana and Mahabharata, in their present form, for it makes no allusion to the Kshatriya heroes Rama and Krishna, who are declared in the Itihasas to be incarnations of Vishnu.

The seventh chapter supplies a systematic contemporary account of the social and religious institutions of ancient India. The village system it describes is the permanent endowment of the traditionary arts of India. Each community is a little republic, and manages its own affairs, so far as it is allowed, having rude municipal institutions perfectly effectual for the purposes of self-government and protection. Its relations with the central Government are conducted by a headman, and its internal administration by a staff of hereditary officers, consisting of an accountant, watchman, money-changer, smith, potter, carpenter, barber, shoemaker, astrologer, and other functionaries, including, in some villages, a dancing girl, and a poet or genealogist. This whole chapter is of the deepest interest. The form of government it enforces is in marked contrast with the feudal type of the original Vedic traditions to be found running through the Brahmanical revisals of the Ramayana and Mahabharata. All traces of patriotism and of the sentiment of devotion to the common weal, and of loyalty to great national leaders, which certainly characterised the Vedic Aryas of India, and which are essential to the preservation of the liberties and independence of states and empires, have been eliminated from the sacerdotal system of Manu. It recognises only the narrow interests of the family, the village, and, in a very limited degree, except among Brahmans, the caste.

The origin and progress of the caste-system in India is of course difficult to trace, though the caste system was absent in the early Rig Vedic society. It was only in the Vedic Age, the time of the Smritis which can be placed between 1000 and 500 BC, that the caste system became institutionalised and rigid. The chief architects of this rigid stratification of society were the authors of the Manu-Smriti. The restrictions upon inter-marriage, inter-dining and occupations which are the essential characteristics of a caste system are amply present in the Manu-Smriti. Hindu society is divided into four classes which are termed varnas. It is said in Manu Smriti (X, 97) "It is better to do one's own duty (dharma) badly than another's well."

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 21:17**

delete duplicate

Posted: **21 Nov 2014 21:28**

shiv saar,

One should look at Aryanization as a process! North India as Aryavarta did not come up in a day! It may have started at some corner, some place, and it spread out!

According to Manu Smriti, perhaps North India was first to partake in this Aryanization process, but it has been spreading, and spreading, and one can say that people as far as Japan, Vietnam, Philippines, Turkey became Arya to various degrees. It is a process of cultural syncretism. In its spread it may not be that different from spread of Christianity, Islam, Communism, Western Universalism, etc. But its origin may have been just one little kingdom!

If Manusmriti has anything to do with Vaivasvata Manu, then it is quite an old text. It would have been written when there were some who considered themselves Arya while others were still out of its fold, so some discrimination between Arya and non-Arya would be expected.

Bharat Rakshak

Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sense?

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen