Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

[Abhi_G]

^^^^
Pulikeshi, dhanyvaadaha. Will wait for more.

[RamaY]

2. Buddhism or Jainism were reactions to a rigid orthodoxy. Not the other way around.
Also, the subtleties of the idea of a soul was not a prime issue.
However, if the soul was not bound by Karmic duties - here I mean actions,
then what incentive does the individual have in upholding Dharma? That is society itself?
Society is stable only with Darayathi (that stabilizes) eva Dharma.
Notice, that Rta (righteous order similar to cosmos from the Greek)
is upheld in dhARma.
This is why 'Ritualism' was very important for the orthodoxy.

Pulikeshi-ji,

Is Buddhism really a reaction to Orthodoxy (of society)?

AFAIK, Prince Siddhartha became a seeker and finally achieved self-realization (atma sakshatskara). If you observe closely, his approach to self-realization (renunciation, penance, and jnana marga) is very Vedic in nature. His teachings deviated from Vedas because he couldn't see the connection between that Atman and Param, thus falling into a branch of non-vedic Dualism.

Its impact on the social structures is an after affect. Buddhism became a religion unto itself, during and after Gautama Buddha's life, as it influenced the society to depart from Karma-Veda social structure (Orthodoxy in your words).

The side effect is that it pushed the society so far non-violent that the social-self-preservation mechanisms/structures too were destroyed.

[Abhi_G]

RamaY-ji, found this one long back by Ram Swarup. Long one but nice to read.

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ohrr/ch03.htm

[ramana]

When population and communitys izes were small, "gotra" could be an effective way to maintain genetic diversity. But now with billions! In fact "gotrantar" [changing into another gotra by adoption] is routinely accepted by many "forward caste" groups. Otherwise many other social criteria would not be satisfied [appropriate and desirable status/background etc.].

I am not supporting anyone-marrying-anyone. There can be underlying issues of power and influence that can vitiate relations. In many professional settings a difference in hierarchy precludes "marriage" due to "conflict of interest". So either such "marriages" have to be cleared by the organization or people have to change jobs. With a societal birth relation this becomes a problem - because with blood relational hierachy, you cannot change it.

I think direct blood relational consanguinous marriages should be sought after through courts, and permitted only after courts allow under special circumstances.

My point is that, at many points in our history we definitely came across situations where to continue the group, sexual and repoductive relations between "blood relations" could not be avoided. Surely that must have been approved by the then "supreme/divine power"! Restrictions on consanguinous marriages exist in the Hindu code bill, and that should be sufficient. It is absurd to extend that to the "gotra" concept which is no longer a good indicator of "blood/genetic affinity/proximity".

Within the Abrahamic school, there is clear recognition of the fact that two events are behind the Cain-Abel murder story. Only one is commonly told - that of the conflict between agriculture and hunter-gatherer. But the other conflict usually suppressed is that they also fought over their sister. The story of Lot - who was supposedly drugged by his daughters and mated with to continue the line. There are similar stories in the Puranas. Of course we can try and expaqlin them away as "symbolic". But we must recognize that the narrative device of the story if showing such stuff implies that the narrators were comfortable in dealing with such concepts and incidents in real life.

The injunction not to explore rishis/rivers etc comes from the practical dilemma faced by the "gurus" of a later society which had started condemning such practices. [To maintain legitimacy you have to soucre yourself from the past - but then the past creates difficulty by giving examples you don't want the people to copy]. Yam+Yami is a well known bro-sis connection. There are more. Explore why Brahma has one Sandhya of Gayatri recitation incomplete - the reason the better Brahmin Ravana had to be brought to do akala-bodhana of Chandi by Rama. This was over Saraswati - pitamah's "daughter".

OK why dont you stop toying with us and post The answers in the epics thread please?

[Pulikeshi]

Its impact on the social structures is an after affect. Buddhism became a religion unto itself, during and after Gautama Buddha's life, as it influenced the society to depart from Karma-Veda social structure (Orthodoxy in your words).

The side effect is that it pushed the society so far non-violent that the social-self-preservation mechanisms/structures too were destroyed.

RamaY,

Good points. You are correct in that Buddha perforce did not want to
change the social hierarchy. However, it would be incorrect to assume he
did not care and see the ill effects of a rigid social structure (especially
what had become of the Varna system).

Here are some salient points that may highlight:

1. Buddha was primarily concerned with individual liberation (moksha).
In this we find similarity to the Vedanta diversity of thinking...
However, the Buddha differs in that he visualizes a state called Nirvana
that liberates the fleeting soul from repeated transformations and
physical manifestations - this has been interpreted as liberation from rebirth.

One bad analogy for what is Nirvana - How can I prevent the
Schrodinger wave equation from collapsing even as I keep making observations
The SD followers perhaps brought into this the theory of a specific Atman
soul being reborn endlessly and Moksha puts a definitive end to that cycle.

2. One major point of difference - Kama. Buddha perceives incorrectly
that 'desire' or kama is the root of all evil.
SD followers see this is disbelief
If there is no 'desire', there is no Universe. See the Nasadiya Sukta -
The Universe itself desired itself into existence from the previous unexplained superpositioned state (tetralemma)
(please see the Buddist Nagarjuna's work if what I say below does not make any sense - search wikipedia):
1. A
2. !A
3. A & !A
4. !(A & !A)

For the Buddhist - Individual Nirvana is a way to get to this state.
However, as a collective they practice the Madyama (middle) path.
Society thus has to follow moderation. Here is the grind -
Kings have to fight less wars, Business people have to take less risk,
Intellects have to think less in the extreme, Works have to work in moderation.
Notice what is going on - we ending up with a society full of 'Simpsons'

For the SD, at the individual level this is called Moksha when the
Atman realizes the oneness with the manifest Brahman (it is not an
unexplained state - indeed it is stateless).
Subtle but very important distinction.
However, as a collective SD prescribes Ritualism (Karma marga).
See below for why the Karma marga sets up a 'market'

3. The difference therefore between Buddism and Hinduism is very
subtle philosophically at the level of the individual.

However, it is stark at the collective - society level.
A purely (non-ritualistic) Buddhist society filled with individuals pursuing
Nirvana is untenable as a society. Perhaps this is the reason why the
West of India became prime for invasions (pre-Islamic).
Heck even capitalist activity cannot be achieved if 'desire' is the root
of all evil
Karma marga (Ritualism) fair or unfair sustains society - it regulates the market.
The individual has a duty to society:

1. Brahmacharya
2. Grihasta
3. Vanaprasta
4. Sanyasa

Notice Moksha is prescribed only at the end of life
One has the freedom to create Artha (wealth), pursue Kama (desires) and only then
attain or attempt to attain Moksha (salvation).

Finally, notice most SD followers were not averse to Buddhist philosophy
at the individual level as it aligns very much together. At the level of
society, both have very different goals. Put this way, Buddhism can be
viewed as a 'leash' mechanism on 'pagan' imperial state.
However, similar to Marx Socialism, it is good rhetoric, but unimplementable.
Notice the proliferation of Buddhist Socialist thinkers it the west -
The rationality and social harmony aspects of Buddhism has always been
appealing to the intellect.

more ramblings later...

[Sanku]

^^^^^

Very nice, I especially liked the reference to Nasadiya Sukta, when growing up as a teenager, I used to grapple with my "personal" dislike for Buddhistic doctrines, it was not until I was in my 20s that I understood the linkage of Kama and life. No desire no life period. I would rather be reborn till I reach the level of consciousness that Nachiketa had.

It is similar reason that I am uncomfortable with only "bhakti" marg a la ISKON.

If god didnt want us to exist, he wouldn't have willed the universe into being. So says the Geeta too, that "I dont need to do anything but I still do so as to set a path for the society to follow"

[RamaY]

Thanks Pulikeshi garu!

Yesterdin I was lurking at http://www.kamakoti.org/ and a thought occurred to me.

SD correctly professes that Moksha (God-realization) can happen at only individual level. The journey from self>atman>god-realization is a lonely path and the seeker has no friends or family in this journey. He has to follow the Sat-guru in jnana marga. Here the guru being a realized soul, is Param himself.

IMHO Buddha achieved self-realization (atma-darshan) but not god-realization because he did not believe in the the concept of Param, thus becoming a non-vedic line of thought.

Sri Aurobindo thought that Moksha can be attained as a society as he thought if Atman==Param, then if one of us can achieve that state, then that Param (consciousness) can be brought down to earth.

Hermann Hesse captures this logic exceptionally well in his novel "Siddhartha". When the protagonist, along with his friend, comes across Gautama the Buddha, he reasons against following Buddha's marga unlike his friend. Here Siddhartha says, (in my words) "Gautama Buddha is a realized soul no doubt but he cannot "communicate" his realization to me".

Looks like SD institutionalized this self>atman>god-realization process thru the Guru-Parampara approach. That is why sat-Guru supersedes Mata, Pita, and even Daivam in SD.

SD is structured in such a way that the pursuit of self-realization is left to the individual's prerogative, while providing necessary support structures to achieve that atma-sakshatkara in society thru varna-asrama systems. The concept of Dharma is imbibed in these social systems so a fine balance is maintained between individual rights and social repsonsibilities.

If you are a true seeker pursuit your realization process in any way that suits your personality - Karma, Bhakti, Yoga, Jnana, and even Tantrika (practices like Devikalottaragamu are pure advaita-jnana approaches). But all your interactions with society (here society is extended to entire nature not just humanity) must be Dharmic (That general's comment on Sati that Sachin-ji posted in Nukkad is exactly this).

Just my humble thoughts...

[Prem]

Thanks Pulikeshi garu!

Yesterdin I was lurking at http://www.kamakoti.org/ and a thought occurred to me.

Just my humble thoughts...

Let these thoughts go in Duss Dishas and Duss Dwars.
When SD can give you variety of Swetts, jalebsi like above , strange many Indians go on eating ME Qaddooz.

[brihaspati]

Very interesting take Pulikeshi ji!!

For me the SD and Buddha [assuming that what we assign to them as their thoughts were indeed their actual thoughts and not something filtered and edited by later eminents] philosophies represent the application of "capitalism" and "socialism" in the spiritual and philosophical domain.

In a sense they almost anticipate in the spiritual domain what is going to be put forward as theories in economics in the 20th century.

Think of it this way : spiritually, both are talking of "growth". Both realize the need to accummulate "spiritual capital". In economics, too capitalism and socialism both are looking for accummulation of capital - where they differ is the method of that accummulation. In "capitalist" SD, the goal is set for the individual to seek it out - a private enterprise, that allows experimentation with the method of accummulation - any method is acceptable if it allows growth. [I am not equating any with a "free-for-all"]. It allows innovation and exploration, and reinforces the exploratory nature and "unbounded" nature of the living human spirit. Not ironically, the "capitalist" here also cherishes more what he has obtained by personal endeavour and would do more to ensure that what he has obtained is safeguarded, or passed over if possible [if not the "capital" itself which ina spiritual sense need not be entirely transferable but at least the striving for that capital] to appropriate "descendant/disciples". Such an attitude makes for better preservation and attention to so-called non-spiritual or material base - such as society and its safety and consumption. Think of the attention to "material" apsects like artha/kama as the infrastructure we talk of nowadays without which "economic growth" or "capital accummulation" itself cannot happen.

The Buddists however are talking of "socialism" as the method of "accummulation of spiritual capital". Here accummulation is a "collective" process through the Sangha. It imposes collective control over individual "consumption" [what Pulikeshi ji calls all-encompassing "moderation"] that necessarily implies "moderation" of individual efforts/desires/growth.

Socialism stifled individual innovation but also provided a 'social/collective" safety net. So in a way it ultimately celebrates mediocrety and stagnation. By taking away the role of incentive for private effort, it ultimately brings in the "public goods paradox", whereby individuals gradually find no drive to invest in and innovate for the "infrastructure" of society. Something Pulikeshi ji hints at about the fate of the western parts of India.

Moreover, one of the most vilified aspects of capitalism - that of "accummulation" an end in itself, is actually something that is also self-sustaining. Therefore SD turns out to be more vigorous and persistent than "Buddhism".

Now, the European countries tried out "moderation" or a mix of socialism and capitalism and could balance out for some time post WWII. But they needed the capital inputs from "capitalist" USA. I feel a similar attmpt was made by "Bhakti" movements [and earlier the Mahayana trend within Buddhism as laid out by Ashvaghosha]. But the Bhakto movement could do so only under the previous stimulus provided by the SD school.

Does capitalism need "moderation"? Can socialism manage private "incentive"? These are the timeless questions and we can find them in each and every debate between the SD and the Buddhist positions.

Apologies if anyone feels I have "degraded" the theme with this "economization".

[RamaY]

Good one Bji

Does capitalism need "moderation"? Can socialism manage private "incentive"? These are the timeless questions and we can find them in each and every debate between the SD and the Buddhist positions.

I thought Dharma is that "moderation" or "The Regulatory Authority" in your economic analogy. And the ensurer of Dharma is Virat Purusha (Param) himself.

[ramana]

I don't know if it fits this thread but here goes!

Visualised Space : Maps of Varanasi pdf article

[Pulikeshi]

B,

You are on the right track, there is a bit more masala
Will try to summarize that in the write up I am putting together.
Couple more points on your astute observation.

In a sense they almost anticipate in the spiritual domain what is going to be put forward as theories in economics in the 20th century.

....

Does capitalism need "moderation"? Can socialism manage private "incentive"? These are the timeless questions and we can find them in each and every debate between the SD and the Buddhist positions.

Not just 20th century...
Yes, there is a lot of similarity in thought in Karma-Kanda with 'Human Actions' of Mises
or the 'Invisible Hand' more aptly 'The theory of Moral Sentiments' by Smith.
Universal truths can be arrived at by seers searching in their hearts with wisdom for the connect between Being and non-Being

I would add this view can be extended to many other debates, but that has
to wait for the framework to be explained...

[Pulikeshi]

Good one Bji

Does capitalism need "moderation"? Can socialism manage private "incentive"? These are the timeless questions and we can find them in each and every debate between the SD and the Buddhist positions.

I thought Dharma is that "moderation" or "The Regulatory Authority" in your economic analogy. And the ensurer of Dharma is Virat Purusha (Param) himself.

One small clarification - Dharma is the contract to keep society stable.
The Smritis are the conditionality verbiage that could be enforced by either party(ies).

Moksha - Atman's attempt to recognize sameness w/ Brahman does not come under this contract.
In the SD framework, AFAIK, no one has attempted to regulate Moksha
Especially the mechanism to achieve it. The seers and gurus have provided help...

As you guys correctly pointed out - we are all alone each one of us in that quest.
The freedom of choice in achieving Moksha is also an important characteristic.
Unlike other systems, SD keeps the Market for Moksha open and free.
This insight explains the proliferation of thought streams coming out of India -

It is your choice to defend the contract or not as a collective and as individuals.
Dharma gives the weakest a sword to defend against the strongest!
Dharma prevents the strongest from tyranny on the weakest.
(Note when it failed to do so with a rigid Varna system - the heterodox
systems gained steam...)

Krishna may come back to help you, but the battle is yours Arjuna!
Finally, the ensurer of Dharma is all of us. We only have those rights we can defend.

More ramblings later... thoughts are welcome.

[Atri]

Careful look at all the Indian religious ideologies, we understand that all the religious ideologies(especially Indic ones) are nothing but Moksha-Shaastras and are strictly personal endeavours. In fact, Ishaavaasya Upanishad (ईशावास्य उपनिषद् ) conclusively states that sciences for obtaining Spiritual gains or Moksha is completely segregated from the sciences for obtaining Dharma, Artha and Kaama. However, it is essential for a human being to master both the domains of the sciences in order to lead a successful life.

अन्धं तमः प्रवेशंती ये अविद्यामुपसिते ततो भूय इव ते तमः ये उ विद्यायाम रताः ll 9 ll
Those who worship Avidya alone fall in dark pit of nothingness... But those who worship Vidya alone fall in a dark pit which which is deeper than the one in which worshippers of Avidya alone fall.

अन्यदेवाहुर्विद्यया अन्यदाहुर्विद्यया इति शुश्रुम धीराणाम ये नस्तद विचचक्षिरे ll 10 ll
The seers say that the fruit of Vidya is different from that of Avidya

विद्याम चाविद्याम च यस्ताद वेदोभायम सह अविद्यया मृत्युं तीर्त्वा विद्याया अमृतमश्नुते ll 11 ll
Hence one who understands Vidya and Avidya together, he overcomes death using his Avidya and gains Moksha using his Vidya.

Here is Avidya refers to Material knowledge i.e.sciences to attain Dharma, Artha and Kaama in life) and Vidya refers to sciences for gaining Salvation/Moksha/Nirvana. The sages say, both Vidya and Avidya are equally important and should be pursued simultaneously.

Thus,
Dharma-Shaastra - धर्मशास्त्र - Avidya- The science of Righteousness and Duty (Individual, societal, national).

Artha-Shaastra - अर्थशास्त्र - Avidya - The science of earning and protecting wealth and power (individual, societal and national)

Kaam-Shaastra - कामशास्त्र - Avidya - The science of fulfilling all the desires (primarily Individual). Kamasutra (कामसूत्र ) is but one of the many Kaam-Shaastras available.

Moksha-Shaastra - मोक्षशास्त्र - Vidya - The sciences of attaining liberation OR nirvana OR peace by spiritual pursuits (Necessarily Individual). Ideologies like Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta, Vedanta, Saamkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Mimamsa, Vaisheshika, Tantra, Buddhism, Jaina, Sikh, Charvaaka, Ajivika etc are essentially various Moksha-Shastras available.

In Indian context, segregation of Moksha from Artha-Kaam-Dharma aspects of individual, societal and national life is secularism. Among the Shastras for attaining first three Purusharthas (Dharma-Artha-Kaama) is Avidya and Dharma is supreme amongst them. Next comes Artha.

Dharma and Artha are the only two Purusharthas which are needed to be cared for by the "Raaja". Since only these two transcend beyond personal convictions and predilections. Kaama-Shaastra, although avidya, is strictly personal domain of a person. So is Moksha-Shaastra (Vidya).

Chanakya says, The root of Artha is Dharma. And the Root of Dharma is Raaja. The root of Raaja is Raashtra. Thus a Raaja who is ruling a Raashtra needs to be concerned only with Dharma and Artha of Rashtra-samaaj-vyakti (Nation-Society-Individual).

All the measures taken by Raaja (however immoral they may be) to preserve Dharma and Artha of the praja are considered as Punya (good deed) and Raaja gets 1/6th of the Punya of his entire praja which is satisfied and thus goes to Swarga (Heaven).

If Raaja gives preference to his personal upheavel (Kaama and/or Moksha) neglecting the "herding" (Pratipaalan) of Dharmaartha (Dharma and artha) of Praja, 1/6th of the total curses and the misery of entire praja negates his personal holy deeds and he has to suffer the "Narakavaas".

Raaja-Dharma transcends the necessities of righteous fulfilment of Kaama and Moksha.

Notice Moksha is prescribed only at the end of life. One has the freedom to create Artha (wealth), pursue Kama (desires) and only then attain or attempt to attain Moksha (salvation).

Pulikeshi ji,
This is, in my humble opinion, erroneous take on the issue. The progress of all four aspects aren't arranged serially. It is about the state of mind and the situations we face that shape up the person's journey. In case of society and Nation, Kaama and Moksha aren't valid. However Dharma and Artha are.

The pursuit of all four Purusharthas need to happen simultaneously. Out of four, Dharma is the guiding factor which shapes up the pursuits of rest three (for an individual). When you attribute moksha to atman and brahman stuff, you neglect the followers of Samkhya-Yoga, Nyaya, Buddha, Jaina and other philosophies. Samkhya and Yoga ask the Saadhak (Seeker) to continue his journey on Moksha-Marga without stopping. There is no waiting for a Mumukshu, and since everybody is "Amritasya Putra", everybody is a "Mumukshu" (seeker of completeness).

One has to manage his dharma-artha-kaama and his Moksha pursuits simultaneously. There are various techniques (like Yoga) which allow you to do that, and this is what is taught by Krishna (not only in Geeta but in his entire life).

Yoga is Nirodh of Chitta-Vritti (Regulation of the tendencies of Chitta). Chitta is not mind, mind (maanas) is a subset of Chitta. Chitta is origin of consciousness (Chetana)

Thus controlling the tendencies of Chitta comprises controlling the tendencies of mind (maanas) as well.

Give you a simple example,"while I am driving", says Krishna to Uddhav on his last journey," I am so much in tuned with the process of driving that me, my horses and my Ratha become one. This is what I called Saarathya Yoga. When I love, I loose my separate existence and become love it self. This is Premayoga."

Thus, we understand that regulating the tendencies of mind on your karma to an extent that you loose your sense of "ME" (aatma) is what is Samadhi. This exactly is the Bauddha concept of "Anatta (Anatman)". There can't be any fruits associated with whatever karma you do while in this state because you are not the "Kartaa" (Doer). This is the Nishkam Karmayoga which it is popularly called.

Thus, Indian Darshan does not prescribe to wait until old age to pursue your moksha goals. It is to be pursued every moment of life along with other three. In fact, other three are switched on and off based on circumstances. Moksha-pursuit is never switched off.

In words of Saint Tukaram," रात्रंदिन आम्हा युद्धाचा प्रसंग, अंतर्बाह्य जग आणि मन..." Ratra-din aamha Yuddhacha prasanga antarbaahya jag aani man - we have to battle every moment of life (day and night) with inner and outer worlds and mind.

This is exactly what is stated in the Shruti verses from Ishavasya Upanishad which I quoted in the beginning of this post. One has to use Vidya and Avidya SIMULTANEOUSLY to gain amrit-tatva and win over death (Mrityur Teertva) respectively.

[RamaY]

extrapolating further...

So if Dharma (or a Smriti) is our constitution and it is supposed to apply to everyone in the Rashtra. Looks like our leaders thought that "freedom of religion" ensures individual's right to pursue Moksha in any form/way they see fit.

At the same time they might have thought that the civil code will ensure Dharma for all Indic relgions, while "assuming" that a separate Muslim personal law would enforce their version of Dharma in that body of Rashtra. At a philosophical level it looks fine. But these two sections of the society interacts day in and day out. Which dharma guides in such a situation, and this is where the system gets murkier.

For the rashtra to be strong and cohesive there should be uniform civil and criminal code. It is very interesting that IMs are not satisfied with the "freedom of religion" right in the constitution, a right which every islamic nation denies its minorities. More over they demand a separate civil code, which will divide the rashtra perpetually.

[brihaspati]

I don't think the standard interpretation of "moksha" is correct. The SD school does not equate "moksha" with freedom from "rebirth". Look even Vishnu comes "down" in human births! We cannot say that Vishnu has not "attained moksha"!

This is a fundamental difference between SD representation of the Vedic postulates, compared to almost all other schools of thought we are discussing - Buddhism, or the "revealed" traditions. All the others deny life and celebrate death - for them life is something that has to be escaped from and there exists something "better" and "detached" from mortal life, after physical death. The SD and Vedic tenor is completely opposite - it is a celebration of life. Moksha in SD is different from moksha in the others. In SD it is awareness of being part of the whole, of knowledge of that belonging - but it does not deny birth and life. Nothing in SD denounces in reality, human birth and rebirth.

Once you accept the principle of life being important, it automatically becomes necessary to recognize clearly that those philosophies which do not celebrate life and basically look for death as the only door to some kind of a better existence and "moksha" - are not, cannot be part of our rashtra. We have to think of such philosophies as deviations and "errors".

Once rebirh becomes accepted as a principle, we immediately have certain practical consequences :
(1) we need to ensure that life continues, reproduction takes place as otherwise "rebirth" of the sould cannot take place in a new "vessel". This requires giving utmost importance to protection and materially enhancing our birth society.
(2) rebirth imposes greater urgency to do our tasks within current birth cycle since "next time" the conditions that demanded a specific action from us - may no longer exist. Which means the task remaisn incomplete.
(3) we need to realize that the concept of rebirth will be vehemntly denounced by the revealed traditions because it undermines their whole religious power structure - entirely dependent on an external supra-human authority to penalize and reward.

[Pulikeshi]

Atri,

Need a few more cycles to address your post -
However, I am glad you were thinking along those lines...
I have some interesting points for you to critic.

I don't think the standard interpretation of "moksha" is correct. The SD school does not equate "moksha" with freedom from "rebirth". Look even Vishnu comes "down" in human births! We cannot say that Vishnu has not "attained moksha"!

Very nice! This is correct. Agree with most of your points here....
My response to Atri will include -
Moksha is not just salvation, it is also education and enlightenment.
That is knowledge of both what illuminates (Vidya) and ignorance (Avidya).
What is being talked about is meta-knowledge to rise above....

Once rebirh becomes accepted as a principle, we immediately have certain practical consequences :
(1) we need to ensure that life continues, reproduction takes place as otherwise "rebirth" of the sould cannot take place in a new "vessel". This requires giving utmost importance to protection and materially enhancing our birth society.
(2) rebirth imposes greater urgency to do our tasks within current birth cycle since "next time" the conditions that demanded a specific action from us - may no longer exist. Which means the task remaisn incomplete.
(3) we need to realize that the concept of rebirth will be vehemntly denounced by the revealed traditions because it undermines their whole religious power structure - entirely dependent on an external supra-human authority to penalize and reward.

On the flip side, rebirth also let Karma (action) degenerate into (fate):

1. If I keep getting multiple chances to get this right, perhaps this is the best I can do this time around

2. rebirth also breeds laziness, and rationalization of others in society with lesser means and health than our own. It gives one the license to do nothing as a collective - That is it takes away collective responsibility.

3. rebirth also allows one to take no action - since the success of action may lead to good only next life or further. In case bad action is done, it also postpones the consequences.

In this sense, rebirth set up a credit/debit system for good and bad deeds
Not sure if this was the intent....

Overall, it is my very humble opinion that rebirth has caused more grief than good. Indeed if one reads the Upanishads, it is clear that there was a wide
variety of option on rebirth as well. There is talk of the cycle of life and death
in that energy is transformed and we are all the same material of the stars
and recycled and there is also talk of specific entity called the soul that transforms from body to body.
So, I am not sure if Atman is Anu (atom) samana -> in a energy transformation way
Or, if Atman is an entity that moves unattached from one body to the next.
In my very humble opinion the jury is till out

[ramana]

So all these years how were you suppressing all this gnan within yourself? At least you are able to bring out whats within you. True meaning of educato.


Bji, Please reply to my question in your x-post on this page!

[Prem]

[e="Pulikeshi"]Atri,
[qe="brihaspati"]I don't think the standard interpretation of "moksha" is correct. The SD school does not equate "moksha" with freedom from "rebirth". Look even Vishnu comes "down" in human births! We cannot say that Vishnu has not "attained moksha"!
[/qe]
Very nice! This is correct. Agree with most of your points here....
My response to Atri will include -
Moksha is not just salvation, it is also education and enlightenment.
That is knowledge of both what illuminates (Vidya) and ignorance (Avidya).
What is being talked about is meta-knowledge to rise above....
3. :

[/quote]`

IMHO, this explanation can fit every school of Indian thought. Get Libration , be free and still enjoy all the material/physical pleasures and with added benefit of rebirth Yindoo get to enjoy yoga and bhoga eternally in both worlds.
Laddoos here , laddoos there and laddoos everywhere. Lord is merciful indeed. BTW, aint every universe has all Trimurits?
And going by above laddu equation, why would Vishnu seek Liberation ?

[Atri]

Which dharma guides in such a situation, and this is where the system gets murkier.

There is no dichotomy in "Dharma". Dharma is does not hold its complete potency if it is not universal. Dharma has to be one. UCC (Uniform civil/criminal code) is the necessary reformation for constitution to be qualified as Dharma. Dharma segregates itself and the pertaining duties into individual societal and national. Religion (which is an alien concept to India) is only a Moksha-Maarga. Moksha-marga has no role in deciding the policies of Dharma and artha aspects of life (of all the three tiers).

Dharma is India's answer to Islam, Communism and EJism. In all aspects...

I don't think the standard interpretation of "moksha" is correct. The SD school does not equate "moksha" with freedom from "rebirth". Look even Vishnu comes "down" in human births! We cannot say that Vishnu has not "attained moksha"!

Very nice! This is correct. Agree with most of your points here....
My response to Atri will include -
Moksha is not just salvation, it is also education and enlightenment.
That is knowledge of both what illuminates (Vidya) and ignorance (Avidya).
What is being talked about is meta-knowledge to rise above....

Pulikeshi ji, I agree that Moksha is not about freedom from rebirth. The english translation of "salvation" is a very wrong translation since there is nothing to be salvaged about human life and human being according to Indic world view.

One should put a cursory look at all the words which are used in various Indian philosophies to denote this same state.

1. Moksha - comes from word root which forms the word Mukt - Liberation
2. Advaita - Non-duality (of Aatman and Brahman)
3. Kaivalya - singularity (used in Samkhya and Yoga philosophies) - The state of Kaivalya is called Nirbeej Samadhi (seedless Samadhi).
4. Nirvaan - departure; to extinguish; to calm; to set (as in sun-set).

All these terms refer not to freedom. They refer to state of perfect harmony/equilibrium. Completeness. This completeness is what is searched for by everything in this universe.

Long long ago this was written on blog. Pardon the childish style of writing.

Name of article - On Dualistic and Monistic perception of existence.

Unity and duality are the two basic approaches of a Vedic individual in his spiritual journey...

The Advaita school of vedic philosophy propounds that everything in the universe is fundamentally same.. The Dualistic school of thought says that there is subtle duality in Supreme truth and rest..

Although both of these views are apparently contradictory to each other, in deeper sense, they in fact are complementary to each other..

I visualize Duality in terms of potential difference. The duality in Vedic literature is shown in form of famous duals like Praan-Rayi, Shiva-Shakti, Aatman-Brahman... In the terms of physical sciences, it can be seen as matter-energy.. In other oriental philosophies, like taoism, it is seen as Yin-Yang... In other words, this apparent duality is acknowledged by almost all of the oriental philosophies....

It is the basic law of Universe/multiverse that for any thing to HAPPEN, what is required is potential difference.. All types of energies flow from higher potential to lower potenial.. Not only energy, even the matter shows similar tendency.

This Potential Difference is depicted in the concept of Dvaita OR Duality.. Becoz, it is this difference that keeps individual performing Karma.. Without Karma, nothing can exist.. And karma itself is a deed done by one sane human being with respect to other living being.. As it involves the concept of ME and OTHERS, it falls under the domain of Dualism OR Dvaita..

After an individual attains the state of Advaita in Supreme Samadhi mentioned in Patanjali Yog-sutras, there is nothing left for him to do.. Rather he cannot perform any karma as the duality is vanished and potential difference gone.. Two things at equal potential cannot perform work..

Hence all reasons of that person to exist are gone, and he unfies with the Parabrahman.. But until this stage, Duality enables a person to survive/to exist..

As it is stated above that experience of Unity bars a person from performing any karma.. But karma is extremely important as it is the reason of the existance of Universe..

Hence there is an ingenious phenomenon of Maaya.. This Maaya keeps a thin veil of ignorance on the minds of living beings, thus creating the illusion of Duality.. Although it is an illusion, it is so real and so essential that most of us prefer to live in Maaya and do not question its existence..

Everything in Universe/Multiverse tends to attain stability OR unity.. It is Maaya that maintains the Duality and hence maintains the Potential difference.. This enables the universe to exist.. The Sanskrit term for Universe Jagat arises from 2 word roots.. Jaayate meaning to come to birth OR existence.. Ga meaning to move..

One which comes into existence from movement OR difference, is Jagat OR world..

Thus, we can see, how important both Dualism and Monism are.. What is required is to strike a golden mean...

Hence, the correct approach. according to me, is as follows..

Unity>>(leads to)>>duality(maintained by Maya)>>(Purpose of person)>>to experience unity in apparent duality..

Moksha/Nirvana/Nirbeej Samadhi/Advaita/Kaivalya all these terms refer to a state when the potential difference between "I" and Brahman is vanished. The seeker gains knowledge on his path to this stage as long as his sense of "I" exists; that is as long as the Potential difference exists. To gain knowlege (which implies flow of information), "I" have to exist in first place. When there is no "I", there is no potential difference, hence no karma and hence no existence. This is referred to as "Poornatva" (completeness) in Upanishad. This is what everything in the universe capable of doing kriya or karma strives to achieve.

There is subtle difference between Kriya and karma. Kriya or action can be done by any object which exists. Karma is Kriya done by an entity with sense of "I" with respect to other entities with the sense of "I".

Hence, this quest to achieve this state is never ending and hence Charaiveti until you find the amrit. This never ending urge for everything and everyone to reach this state is "Dharma" in my understanding.

[RamaY]

That logic of B-ji assumes Vishnu is also an ordinary atman, not Param.

I thought Vishnu is the name given to the Param of manifest form during its sustenance phase, Brahma being the process of manifestation {Vishnu = Vyapana Seelatvat Vishnu:}. The same manifest brahmana is called Shiva during the dissolution process. That explains why only Vishnu swaroopa has avataras.

The Moksha in Advaita goes close with B-ji's thought. If we were to assume Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi attained moksha, then he continued to live in his body doing his humanly duties. Perhaps this is what the realized souls are expected to do. Since Moksha is nothing but realization of (knowledge of) self, that life (jeeva) will be blissful. The realized atman may continue to take births even after realization. Could this be the reason how/why some rishis stay in human forms in many yugas?

[Pulikeshi]

Careful look at all the Indian religious ideologies, we understand that all the religious ideologies(especially Indic ones) are nothing but Moksha-Shaastras and are strictly personal endeavours.

Atri, good points - lets have a few points to see where it takes us.

1. All SD methods (in the framework) are not Moksha-Shaastra.
Among others the Vedanta (Upanishads, etc.) are works of multiple seers with a wide
diversity of thoughts and interpretations. However, these in particular
primarily want to illustrate the nature of the individual with the universe.
Moksha and the method to moksha afaik have not been called out
in any rule form. These are just guidelines for the individual.
Similar guidelines occured in the Bhakti, Sikh, etc. marg later on.
Much of the Sthuti is just poetry, recitation rules, magic, etc.
Why do you think we moderns never talk about any of these?

One reason is Monism and later movements - Bakthi, Sikhism, etc.
It also seems as Indians got educated in English, they wanted to seek
Theological parity or better the West and in this quest it has been more
Oriented on the Moksha aspect in the way they interpreted and presented
Hinduism to the West. It seems ridiculous that we need to follow in that path…

2. Ok, it will take me a while to clarify my problem with the Purusharthas.
I actually think they are grouped wrong and explained incorrectly

Won't go into all the historic reasons for this mess, but suffice to give my take:

Purusha + Artha => The purpose (Artha here is that which gives meaning)
of an individual.

Thus it is not correct to take Artha as just wealth, let’s take it holistically.
Similarly, Kama is not just sexual or material desire, it is also spiritual or any action that is desired....
Finally, Moksha is not just spiritual salvation; it is also the GNana (knowledge) as well as the AGNana (lack thereof), etc.
In some sense, the true essence of these words cannot be translated!

The Pursharthas themselves have gone through some evolution.
The confusion is an old one. When one starts reading the older Smrithis
this becomes obvious. The moral, ethical and legal cannons are all mixed
together in a nice big mess. Only later going towards Mitakshara, we notice
some degree of separation.

Notice Karma is missing totally from the Purusharthas. This has always
bothered me. When I went down the path of understanding Karma.
I got a lot of text on parabdha, sachita, etc. types of Karma.
However, it did not explain Karma in the context of Purusharthas to my satisfaction.

Then it occurred to me, the prior to monism, SD correctly understood,
that Artha, Kama and Moksha are result of individual actions or Karma.
However, Dharma is the contract that needs to be paid attention to in
following these actions. Lets look at it from another angle. Dharma for an
individual makes sense only if there is a Varna system. The Rajan has to follow
Raja Dharma, The Brahmana has to follow his Dharma, etc. They need not
be one and the same. If we unify Dharma (common civil Dharma )
Then, Dharma is the network contract between all entities that agree to enter
into the Dharmic contract.
As, Indian society evolves, this is the direction that makes the most sense.
Also, it sets up a way to articulate the positive works of the Western seers
and add the concepts of equality and fairness, etc. to the works.
I see this are a positive evolution...

Now, this is my interpretation – nay summation of some years of research.
Brickbats are welcome. However, as Ramana requested, will flesh this
idea out in more detail.

Finally, sometimes I do suffer from the Advaita bias, but I am trying to
correct it. It is just that I have spent a lot more time on the philosophical
side, but more recently have moved into society and tried to see what is the
overall unifying arguments one can make with the changing nature of
society that Indians are now exposed to…. What is the yoga (yoke) that binds?

Suggestions and comments are welcome.

[RamaY]

Would it help the discussion if we consider that -

Artha - sense of security; food, shelter, water, energy, social, national, etc

Kama - manifestation of that security; what type of energy security we seek for example

Dharma - moral, social, and intellectual rules that we are willing to adhere; for example NFU with regards to nuclear weapon use.

Moksha - is self-social realization and awareness; the knowledge repository (Vedas) to be used to guide in our pursuit to destroy Avidya.

[brihaspati]

ramana ji,
During Rama's akala-bodhana of Chandi to get power to destroy Ravana, he needed a "perfect Brahmin" to officiate. But it turned out that even Brahma could not be perfect for the position because he had forgotten to recite the Gayatri for one "sandhya". So Ravana himself had to be brought as officiating, since he had never missed a Gayatri yapa. The reason Brahma had missed that Sandhya-Gayatri, was because he had been too "aroused" at the sight of just-born manasa-kanya Sarwaswati, who had begun shifting around in directions to avoid his "father's" amorous glances. Brahma developed the fifth face/head because of amorous purposes too.

Yami's appeal with logic for her brother to become her husband is in the tenth part of the Rigveda. I remember the curious line in Yama's refusal that predicts in prophecy style, that in the future brothers and sisters will do such things, but it is not desirable. For me this was a re-edit of an older story where brother-sister marriages were common, but no longer favoured at the time of setting down of the hymn. However even at that time the practice still continued as indicated in the pretense of an older "prophecy" predicting such behaviour.

[brihaspati]

Pulikeshi wrote
On the flip side, rebirth also let Karma (action) degenerate into (fate):

1. If I keep getting multiple chances to get this right, perhaps this is the best I can do this time around
2. rebirth also breeds laziness, and rationalization of others in society with lesser means and health than our own. It gives one the license to do nothing as a collective - That is it takes away collective responsibility.
3. rebirth also allows one to take no action - since the success of action may lead to good only next life or further. In case bad action is done, it also postpones the consequences.

In this sense, rebirth set up a credit/debit system for good and bad deeds
Not sure if this was the intent....

Perhaps not, indeed! My aswer to all three is the reason I gave in point (2) in my post :
rebirth imposes greater urgency to do our tasks within current birth cycle since "next time" the conditions that demanded a specific action from us - may no longer exist. Which means the task remaisn incomplete.

Think of it, a particular karma/duty can only be performed in the flow/context of other "kriyas" taking place, with other and "others'" "karma" interacting, and the particular state that the "actor" is in, materially and spiritually. Thus in a future life-time, by its very definition, the same state is not reproduced. In that absolute sense, "karma" in one life cannot be balanced out by action in another life unless the object of that "karma" spans both life-times.

Solution is devising a kind of "exchange-rate" for karma in one space-time with that in another "space-time". This is the most common device used in our literature, and I think it is extending and stretching a simple logic beyond logicality. For the exchange rate then cannot by definition be universal and timeless [becuase all possible actions in the past and futuer cannot be descrribed by a single rule and anticipated based on a real point in time and space], and is necessarily defined on the basis of a particular person/groups viewpoint at a particular time point. That can lead to a lot of "corruption" - like the dollar-based World Bretton-Woods and teh current Chini undervaluation of its currency.

So, in my humble opinion, karma should be categorized depending on intended objective and its timeframe. So for example, the political-independence seeking first anarchists in India to be hanged in the first decade of 20th century, could logically be taking birth again in the second decade to fight in 1942 movement - as the initial objective of liberation from colonial rule had not yet been achieved. In this case the rebirth is purposive as the task was multiple generation and life-time spanning. But not all karmas should be classified as contributing to future lifetimes or being carried over. There are accounts which have to be balanced within this life itself.

The main idea behind rebirth is not "bhoga" - but moving on towards "awareness" through the interaction of experience and action. Action and experience cannot be separated. They generate each other and are entwined. Action cannot take place without the body and hence the need for taking a vessel.

I arrived at the same "block" of "varna"! Some degree of definition of social roles and their acceptance as part of a social-collective contract is necessary.

However my solution was to invert the standard interpretation of the "purusha shukta" which is taken as "society modeled as individual". My inversion puts the same as "individual modeled as society". This means I propose that each individual recognizes and cultivate all four varnas as gunas within himself, simultaneously. He studies, researches and pursues intellectual quest as a Brahmin, takes up arms to defend those he is in social contract to defend [family-dependants-society-nation] when called to do so as a kshatryia, contribute to the economy by trading or commercial activities as a Vaishya and most importantly be productive in labour and skills as a Shudra. I would have that these "varna-gunas" be cultivated seriously and equally by every individual rather than being prompted or restricted by origins - birth in a family or gender for example. Something like a all-round basic education of modern times - giving history lessons and arts to people whos eparents are bent on making doctors and engineers out of them. Crucial thing is that the opportunity be there and it be delinked from "origins". In this way - the social contract aspect of "varna" remains, but its corruption into exclusive monopolies is made impossible.

[brihaspati]

RamaY ji,
Imagine a large ball with innumerable spikes coming out of it - as if the ball is growing thorny projections. The points at the top of the spikes are individual souls. The "space" into which the spikes are reaching out is the physical reality. So at the extremities of the spikes - each soul is surrounded by physical reality - the body and the material environment. At this point each such soul therefore feels isolated, and feels the need to connect to other souls through the intervening material space of the body and the material surroundings.

When the phsyical reality withdraws, say the body dies or the soul realizes that it is an extension of the great ball -it realizes that it can withdraw into the ball and connect to other parts of the ball, including its points or other souls through the ball itself.

The static ball is Vishnu, when it forms spikes to explore its material surrounding space - it is in the Brahma the creator phase, and when it destroys that space by enclosing or expanding it is in the Shiva phase. I do not see difference between expansion, static, contracting phases and see the spikes (individual souls) and the ball as one and the same.

[RamaY]

Excellent discussion!

B-ji, your perspective on Purusha Sukta in that chatur-varna in an individual is already there at individual level. Even a Sudra is expected to seek knowledge of and intellectualize his skills; protect his interests; trade his products/services; and make efforts to realize his goals etc.,

Since each individual has a temperament that is better suited with one of the Chatur varnas; it might be efficient to have the varna system at society level.

For example, I tried to run a business in the past few years and failed miserably in it. I failed to do the basic things in business such as having a partnership deed, identifying my personal investments as assets/loans in company accounts etc, in spite of holding a business degree. Even if I applied basic business calculations, I would know the revenue model is not sustainable. I was benevolent about my financial investments, put too much emphasis on individuals than the process etc. Naturally the people behaved differently (looked after their self-interests) when push came to shove. The point here is that I do not have the necessary "natural' temperament to be a businessman. (Yet, I am doing alternative budget models for India )

I remember reading a version of Manu Smriti, where it was said that in historical gurukula model, the children of all varnas are sent to residential schools at the age of 8 and they undergo 12 years of education. At the end of it the Gurus will classify the students into varna system based on their temperament and character and suitable professions are recommended. I saw the same thought process in Plato's Republic.

Even in such a model, the question remains to be, and often asked in many contexts (even in this forum), "How do we know that the Guru-system is impartial in determining a student's temperament and character?".

IMO, SD tried to avoid this (continual) distraction by making the varna classification birth-based. If agreed upon, an individual knows his swa-dharma based on his varna and ashrama. This model also puts immense trust, confidence, entitlement, and association into the individual's birth, family tree, and lineage. For a balanced mind, birth is an opportunity for jubilation, association, and clarity of purpose (swa-dharma).

[Pulikeshi]

Couple of quick points (working on the summary now):

1. Many moons ago, on BRF, I had indeed suggested that asking each and everyone to the best of each Varna is a good way. Since, then I have arrived at a slightly different conclusion. Guidelines are easier to recommend to individuals. When strictures are passes to govern collectives, at worse they stifle the market and at best they remain unsustainable. Dharma is eternal in Sanathana Dharma - any modification ought sustain.

2. Approaches to the collective are fraught with the danger similar to those posed by Socialism, Communism, etc.

3. It is difficult to optimize both a civilization and a nation-state at the same time. My preference is to think about the foundation - civilization. Does not mean others will approach it from the pov of nation-state and they incorrect, just means there may be some disagreements due to this the pov and scope.

4. In a true Dharmic way, only those ideas that do not sustain ought to be rejected.
All other ideas we can joust on

[brihaspati]

RamaY ji,
perhaps you only studied "business" as a formal item then - you did not "absorb" it ["atmastha"]. This could be because you had a subconscious resistance to absorbing it, because you felt that it was not appropriate for your "birth varna". Until we get rid of the "by birth" bias, we will not actually know what we are capable of.

Roles are to be played according to necessity. Pre-conceptions can create obstacles. I have come to my conclusions based on the "atman" against my conscious, logical and analytical mind. It was rather "forced" on upon me without my social and parental upbringing having any favourable aspect towards such a realization.

I still feel the disconnect from mundane, orthodox stratifications and hierarchies society imposes. I can feel what goes on inside the other person's heart even if he/she is something completely different. This has made me see and look for the essence in life and humanity. From childhood I felt connected to an inner life that somehow in an indescribable way connected mountains, rocks, plants, trees, animals, sunrise and sunset, rivers, and humans. I saw that somewhere this connectedness was different from and not reflected in social structures or human pretensions.

They never did my "initiation"/thread ceremony because of fear that I was going to "leave". I had really and early wanted to take "prabrajya". But then I also felt duty and commitment come overwhelmingly as an inner drive. But I have never really felt tied in that "samsara" sense. I feel an exquisite and intense "ananda" in the expression of an innocent animal, or a stranger's face, or the sole standing tall tree, or a mountain cliff, even the dance of light on the leaves of a rainwashed tree. I felt "varna" as defined and practised hollow and untrue - this was not the "plan". This is an error and deviation. The "atman" inside is the essence and is the one that connects us all to the whole. The outside is just the vessel. It should not overshadow the real "gantavya" or destination.

[RamaY]

Pulikeshi ji

Dharma is eternal in Sanathana Dharma - any modification ought sustain.

This is the extrapolation I am afraid of. A Telugu reference at Kanchi Kamakoti Org talks exactly about this perspective. My translation here:

There are references in Manu and other Smritis that Dharma Parishads deliberate on contemporary issues and define Dharmas suitable for those times. This is not a correct interpretation. While it is correct that Manusmriti talks about Dharma Parishads, in that Manu clearly mentioned that such bodies do not have the authority to change Dharmas themselves. Manu clearly mentions any dharma not mentioned in his Smriti cannot be assumed to be outside dharma scope and open for individual interpretation, and instead must be consulted by other Smritis and/or Gurus. Dharma Parishads are meant to clarify any doubts w.r.t Sruti and Smriti and not for redefining those Dharmas:

अनाम्नातेषु ढर्मेषु कधम्स्यदितिछेध्बवेत
यं सिष्टा ब्रह्मनब्रुयु, स्सढर्मस्स्यादसम्कित:

B-ji,

I will give you the benefit of doubt in my example. I echo your experiences as I too have similar tendency towards people, nature, and life.

What I am not sure of is; the perspective that sees varna system as a vertical hierarchy. I instead see it as an horizontal classification of individuals as I see the value system moving from one varna to another in both directions. Since the asrama-dharma applies to all varnas, that is what makes the vertical classification across the society.

I somehow feel that we subconsciously accept the western-construct - "hierarchical classification" of caste system, and it need not be correct.

[brihaspati]

Dharma should only set the objectives. If it goes down to stating the rules, it creates problems. Because rules have to be framed within the context of the experience of that particular society at that particular time. When you go down to that level of micromanagment, and call it dharma then it becomes very very problematic. The fundamental reason that the revealed traditions are problematic - because they extend and impose the rules that appear to be [or are claimed to have been] optimal for a particular society at a particular time at a particular place - to all societies, at all times, and all places.

This is where I beg to differ from the author of Manusmriti as it has been handed down to us. "Manu" himself I think recognizes the problem of contradictions in "sashtra" "sammata" and "deshachar/rajanugnya".

I take SD as setting the value system by which you measure the height of the "goal function" and try to maximize it. Different dharama-sastras and smritis are approximations to the local optima at that time point for Indian society, but we should not let them claim having reached the global optimum of "dharma".

I think with such a complicated optimizing function, people have basically landed up with "simulated annealing" as a method of search. Once they settle down into a local optima they shake things up a bit from the temporary and local equilibrium and check if a better optimum is available close-by [by nor departing too much].

We should take SD as this simulated annealing procedure towards reaching that global optimum. Hence the stress on "charaibeti" and non-stationarity. If you have indeed reached global optimum, a little shaking will still bring you back to the global optimum!

[Sridhar K]

B-Ji/RamaY-Ji

Though tangential to the discussion here, have heard the concept of the four varna's existing within the individual from few people other than B-Ji(thru this forum) as well.

i.e classification of varna based on
a) birth
b) Guna
c) karma

It may have started with Karma (perhaps Guru deciding the Karma based on the dominant guna in the individual) which slowly may have turned into a birth based classification. Birth based has been the predominant one in the chronicled history perhaps due the reasons that RamaY is talking about.

However, the guna based classification have existed all along perhaps more as an exception.
Ex. Parasurama, Drona --> Kshatriya by Guna
Viswamitra --> Brahmana by Guna and later by Karma.
Valmiki - Brahmana by Guna and by Karma.
Udhava/Vidhura- Brahmana by Guna.

Interesting aspect in the BG is that Krishna prescribes that people should stick to their designated Karma even if it is not great, but he does not mention that people should stick to their varna designated Karma. Dharma (through the Karma marga)and Mokhsha has been central themes as indicated in the BG. Though he entices Arjuna to fight the war, he does not do the same with Udhava/Vidura. With Arjuna, he asks him to follow his Karma/Dharma(also asks Yudhistra to learn Dharmasastra from Bhisma) and at the same time initiates and guides Arjuna on his spiritual quest towards Moksha.

Agree with you that within SD, the concept of Dharma has changed over several points in time, re-calibrated by different gurus. In today's world, the classification by birth is on the way out, classification based on Karma is moot and by Guna may be relevant only for people in the spiritual plane to grade themselves on where they stand.

RamaYji
If you have been reading Devaithin Kural (or it's Telugu equivalent), Sri CS does mention that if a kula dharma is not followed for a couple of generations in a family, then the person in the latest generation is no longer in the varna, and the karmic/guna dimension alone applies.

Added later:
Agree with Pulikeshiji that prescriptions rather guidance to Individuals is effective than codifying societies. More than Purushartha, I would look at the BG more which encompasses Karma , Bhakthi and Gnana on the personal front and does not talk much about Specific Dharma. Later in the Mahabaratha, he asks Bhimsa to explain the Dharmasastra's instead of him explaining. Perhaps, he refrained himself from saying much on Dharma as it may be considered *Universal* and not as a function of its time.

[RamaY]

Good points B-ji.

I am presenting one set of expectations, observations, and reasoning as part of the discussion.So kindly take it FWIW.

Hindu scripts are filled with numerous examples of great seers coming from all walks of life. They are the realized souls thus are the great-souls to be followed. The varna-asrama structure is for general populace who get distracted by material world and need more structured approach towards self-evolution.

The birth-based varna system is the basis for your point on re-birth.

Rebirth imposes greater urgency to do our tasks within current birth cycle since "next time" the conditions that demanded a specific action from us - may no longer exist. Which means the task remains incomplete.

By being born as a brahmin an individual achieved the right combination of pre-conditions to achieve self-realization. Even then the shastras advise that only one in millions achieve that state of self-realization. But being born into a brahmin family provides access to the knowledge, time, guidance and most importantly social (financial) support to pursue individual's quest. In return the Brahmin is expected to share his knowledge, and karma-phala with the society. The brahmin is supposed to utilize all his tapa-phala for the betterment of society.

IMO this is why Sri Samkara in Vivekachoodamani said this

जन्तूनाम नरजन्म दुर्लभम अतः पुम्स्त्वं ततो विप्रता
तस्माद वैदिकधर्ममार्गपरता विद्वत्त्वम अस्मात परम
आत्मानात्मविवेचनं स्वनुभवो ब्रह्मात्मना संस्थितिः
मुक्तिर नो शतजन्मकोटिसुक्ड़^तैः पुण्यैर विना लभ्यते.

Among sentient creatures birth as a human is difficult of attainment, among human beings manhood, among men to be a Brahmana, among Brahmanas desire to follow the path of Vedic Dharma, and among those, learning. But the spiritual knowledge which discriminates between spirit and non-spirit, the practical realization of the merging of oneself in Brahmatman and final emancipation from the bonds of matter are unattainable except by the good karma of hundreds of crores of incarnations.

Then what about individuals from other varnas?

While structuring the society into varna-asrama structure, SD allows quantum leaps of evolution by eligible individuals (mumukshus). A Mumukshu belonging to any varna can take up Sanyasa (== sat-nyasa) asrama thus skipping Grihastu and Vanaprasta asramas and achieve self-realization and become equal to a brahmin in the same asrama. That is why the rules for Sanyasa are so difficult as one is trying to short-cut his/her way in their evolution path and they need to build immense tapa: to support that accelerated transformation. In his "Autobiography of a Yogi" Paramahamsa Yogananda gives such a calculation in explaining the science of Kriya Yoga.

For normal population following swadharma is the safest way to pace the evolution. Follow the duties set forth for your Ashrama and Varna with honesty and dedication and you are set to achieve salvation as soon as you are ready.

If dharma is changeable, then what is the meaning of "sanatana" in SD?

[Atri]

If dharma is changeable, then what is the meaning of "sanatana" in SD?

Sanatana - Sat + Aa + Tan = One which shows continuity since "Sat".

The basic drive to excel and evolve is not changeable since it originates from Sat. That drive is the real Dharma. Other rules which facilitate this movement of every player from darkness towards light ("Tamaso ma Jyotirgamaya") are Bahya-Dharma and are changeable.

Thus Bahya-Dharma (Set of rules) is changeable and is subset of the "Sanatan Dharma" which is intrinsic drive to move towards completeness (poornatva).

Sanatan Dharma is the Dharma which shows continuity with (or since) "Sat".

[brihaspati]

Agreed. The rules have to be spelled out in the context of the specific societal experience. The reason, many of the British started laws in the IPC, have become incongruous to current conditions. What made sense to the listeners and practitioners of 7th centiry desrets of Arabia does not make sense in most of modern world.

People therefore go back and try to reconstruct a set of principles that could have led to "those rules" "at that time" and which are sufficiently abstract to derive rules for the "current time" and context. SD is more about the principles.

I understand the core view in Sankara that in emphasizing the Vedas over all and above others, what he is essentially saying is to look at the "principles" and not specific "rules" derived in the context of time and place, as being equal to or surpassing in importance the "principle". If you look at the RigVeda - there is hardly any direct prescriptive rules being spelt out. The hymns are poems exulting in features of entities, and sometimes celebrating them and sometimes telling of stories or incidents. You have to look much deeper into those hymns to extract the principles which are being applied to come to conclusions, or the features being highlighted.

The Karma and Guna is closer to this fundamental view of "principle' ruling supreme. Birth-circumstance is a specific practical context which gets delinked from "purva-karma" if we do not accept the claim that each and every "karma" gets "passed on" over multiple lifetimes. Not all Karma can be equivalent over different lifetimes, as I have argued in a previous post. To do so, will depend on interpretations of what karma in one life will be equivalent [and therefore redeemable] in another lifetime. This is why I am not that confident in claims that "purva-karma" determines current birth-circumstance.

I have seen such horrible characters taking birth as "Brahmin" [from very very close quarters of observation] that no amount of theory claiming "supreme purva-punya " leading to Brahmin birth will ever be convincing to me. I suspect, BG's insistence on carrying out "karma" in the current contextual life is because in reality the "narrator" knows that not all "karma-phala" can be transferred to future lifetimes. If you do not do the "karma" in that context, you will never again get the chance to repeat it - as circumstances, people, events - all will be different in a future lifetime. And it means that you lose the chance of the experience-action combination to go one more step further towards "poornatva" and have to search for another "karma" opportunity.

[RamaY]

I have seen such horrible characters taking birth as "Brahmin" [from very very close quarters of observation] that no amount of theory claiming "supreme purva-punya " leading to Brahmin birth will ever be convincing to me. I suspect, BG's insistence on carrying out "karma" in the current contextual life is because in reality the "narrator" knows that not all "karma-phala" can be transferred to future lifetimes. If you do not do the "karma" in that context, you will never again get the chance to repeat it - as circumstances, people, events - all will be different in a future lifetime. And it means that you lose the chance of the experience-action combination to go one more step further towards "poornatva" and have to search for another "karma" opportunity.

This I completely agree with. I hardly see any composure, compassion in many brahmins (by nature) in my family circles. I would say less than 1% of today's brahmins-by-birth are brahmins-by-character. I also saw many brahmin-type individuals in non-brahmin families; in fact they have a higher percentage of brahmins-by-character.

That justifies the redefinition of varna-by-birth or caste system we have now.

[Sanku]

Sanatan Dharma and at its core, at attempt to illustrate and flesh out a "value system" and means of its propagation rather than a set of codified rules.

The rules that they espouse (when they do, such as Maturdevo bhav) are important in the inherent value they uphold rather than the following of the rule.

Same with any and all Karmkanda.

[RamaY]

We should be aware of the pitfalls:

* Since no one is meeting the standards, let us lower the standards to suit today's conditions. (like in - since no one is following their varna-asrama dharmas in current society, let us change/remove the varna-ashrama dharmas)

* Since someone else following our dharma's let us accept their world-view as our world-view.

* Let us somehow try to fit contemporary social order into our varna-ashrama system.


*****

Was reading about Shamkara and looks like he was put under "Abhicharika (or something like that)" spell by Buddhists. I heard similar story with regards to Andhra Satavahana in his fight against Buddhist Sinhalese kingdom.

Buddhists are not that non-violent after all. Is it possible that Many tantrik etc non-vedic ideologists entered Buddhism in protest against Vedic varna-ashrama system? Samkara is said to defeat 72 (reminded me of the raisins ) practicing religions in his Bharata-Yatra.

Even now lot of Tantra practice exists in Buddhism.

[Rampy]

Has anybody seen the BS "Sita sings in blue". I am so disgusted after seeing it

the background commentory was the worst, narrated by some bunch of nincompoop’s who had no clue what they were talking. It was distasteful and least of all humorous
I am sure they would not take such leverage with other epics

Please send email to stop this non sense to
[email protected]

THIRTEEN Tri-State Community Advisory Board
Email: [email protected]

Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 212-560-2888

[Pulikeshi]

We should be aware of the pitfalls:

* Since no one is meeting the standards, let us lower the standards to suit today's conditions. (like in - since no one is following their varna-asrama dharmas in current society, let us change/remove the varna-ashrama dharmas)

* Since someone else following our dharma's let us accept their world-view as our world-view.

* Let us somehow try to fit contemporary social order into our varna-ashrama system.

Some quick points - details later:

1. There are no standards or lowering of standards. All that is going on is a clarification. The Varna system is dead, but the caste system is alive on half a brain - any doubt please see Indian matrimonial ads

2. No one is fitting anything to anything. Point is society is evolving, Dharmic legal codes have been usurped by a 'Secular' state and is being 'modernized' without care for the civilizational ethos of Sanathana Dharma.

3. On the one hand Hindus want nothing to do with managing their own religious rules, on the other hand they are pissed off at how the 'Secular' government legislates on their behalf - go figure!
Especially when it comes in relation to how the state is not modernizing equally along religious lines.

4. If everyone in society is equal and equally responsible then the Varna based Dharmic codes need to be done away with, else bring back the Varna system (clean out the caste system that exists today) and keep using the
Mitakshara as the existing codes with common Dharma and specific Dharma as codified in the current shastras. While I applaud the effort to say everyone should inculcate all the Varna in each of us, it is better to follow through and provide a Dharmic code to follow through with...

5. Ultimately, either the texts, treatises and kathas are used to give SD civilization a second chance or like Egypt in slow decline for a 1000 years, we wait for Cleopatra to mark the beginning of the end.
Perhaps, that is already the case! What I suspect is that SD followers have already given up!

more ramblings later