Be, do, have. Creativity is ultimately about 'doing', but is preceded by reflective 'being', and completed by the satisfaction of a non-material 'having'. Doing obviously involves pragmatism, and is social and Political in scope. But being and having are Individual in scope, and if not recognized as such will go out of control.
Individuation is to see any thing, not pigeon-holed as a member of a particular category of existence, but as an intersection of various categories. E.g., a human being is not material or animal or mental or intellectual or spiritual, but some intersection of them all. Dharma, artha, kama and moksha are not in conflict with one another (except in the holiest of holies!), but interconnected by self-determinism. Etc.
Politicization is the division of society into categories and vested interests for the purpose of governance. Governance means Control of parts, effective Communication between parts and as an organism, and an ability to deliver (Have) something of value to society at large. Of course, it all depends on that civilization's definition of value. E.g., the U.S. is an example of a body politic designed to deliver an American dream to its constituents, who are all in pursuit of happiness, and to cure other civilizations of their nightmarish ideals. Any nation-state from the Islamic Ummah is an example of a body politic designed to deliver the peace and tranquility of Islam to all humble members, and to inflict the peace of the graveyard on those not so humble. India is an example of a body politic that currently doesn't know its elbow from its arse. Etc.
The Political level keeps the Individual level honest, and vice versa. Sort of like how wives keeps their husbands honest and vice versa. Perhaps when Individuation is not balanced by contact with Political socialization, then it leads to ideological corruption - moral distortions. When Politicization is not balanced by relinquishment with a focus on Individuation, then it leads to material corruption - cultural and psycho-somatic malaise.
Cultural nationalism, not merely a civic nationalism, can help bridge this gap and restore balance. In cultural nationalism, the entire body politic can itself personify and individuate - around a form of the spiritual cynosure of its civilization. Thus, it can restore Control, Communication and a sense of Having and belonging. A useful experiment in cultural nationalism needs good-natured, wise, strong and skillful wizardry - the kind that Murli Manohar Joshi doesn't have.
In India, politicization for 60 years operated on a ramifying societal division of vested interests, done at the cost of some older categories of socialization. For a period, this was good for the nation and for democratic empowerment. The founding fathers of the US also agree in the Publius Papers that the greater the division and diversity of interest groups, the more stable a republican democracy. But the dereliction of higher-level civilizational awareness and values, education in the native humanities, and ethics at the individual level has caused a cancer in the political process within India. Rather than playing within the limits of a soft diversity, it has played into the hands of hard lobbies beholden to external forces. Because of the loss of this moral compass, the political process has been hijacked by forces with a fundamental hatred of the civilization's native substrate. Thus, at this delicate juncture, many Indians find themselves debating the 'Idea of India' parallel to the groundswell of anxiety about pervasive corruption. Not a bad start, though hopefully not too late.
The continuous movement back and forth from Individuation to Political socialization, from spiritual reality to transactional pragmatism, from the paramarthika to the vyavaharika, is a theme in Veda. It is intrinsic to the idea of the cycle of 'Work' or 'Doing' (karma). Following is a passage from the Aitareya Brahmana, which provides an ancient understanding of the following:
1. Meanings of the "4 yugas" (phases of Time and Movement) - satya, treta, dwapara, kali
2. Thought vs. Action - i.e., culture - and both their relation to "karma"
3. Relation of body and soul - role of a thriving body (physical or political), free of psycho-somatic or cultural illness.
4. Destiny (bhaagya) - and how it can be modified based on Individual modes of consciousness.
5. Non-clutching to any truths of Political socialization ("the Village"), but to keep moving to and from the "Forest" of creative individuation. (This is a famous verse supposedly also quoted often by The Buddha to his disciples).
अथ हैक्ष्वाकं वरुणो जग्राह, तस्य होदरं जज्ञे ।
तद् उ ह रोहितः शुश्राव, सो sरण्याद् ग्रामं एयाय ।
तं इन्द्रः पुरुषरूपेण पर्येत्योवाच -
नाना श्रान्ताय श्रीरस्तीति रोहित शुश्रुम ।
पापो नृषद्वरो जन इन्द्र इच्चरतः सखा ॥
"Then Varuna seized Aikshvaaka; his belly swelled up.
This Rohita heard; he went from the forest to the village.
To him Indra came in human form and said -
'Manifold is the prosperity of him who is weary (after great effort), so we have heard O Rohita;
Evil is he who stays put among men, Indra is the comrade of the wanderer.'"
चरैवेति चरैवेति वै मा ब्राह्मणो sवोचद्,
इति ह द्वितीयं संवत्सरं अरण्ये चचार ।
सो sरण्याद् ग्रामं एयाय, तं इन्द्रः पुरुषरूपेण पर्येत्योवाच -
पुष्पिण्यौ चरतो जङ्घे भूष्णुरात्मा फलग्रहिः ।
शेते sस्य सर्वे पाप्मानः श्रमेण प्रपथे हताश् ॥
"'Keep moving.' (Thinking) this Brahman has bidden me 'wander',
He wandered for a second year in the wild.
He came from the forest to the village. To him came Indra in human form and said -
'Flower-like the thighs (or shanks/heels) of the wanderer, his body grows and is fruitful;
All his sins go into remission, slain by the toil of his journeying.'"
चरैवेति चरैवेति वै मा ब्राह्मणो sवोचद्,
इति ह तृतीयं संवत्सरं अरण्ये चचार ।
सो sरण्याद् ग्रामं एयाय, तं इन्द्रः पुरुषरूपेण पर्येत्योवाच -
आस्ते भग आसीनस्योर्ध्वस् तिष्ठति तिष्ठतः ।
शेते निपद्यमानस्य चराति चरतो भगश् ॥
"'Keep moving.' (Thinking) this Brahman has bidden me 'wander',
He wandered for a third year in the wild.
He came from the forest to the village. To him came Indra in human form and said -
'The fortune of him who sits also sits, that of him who stands also stands erect;
That of him who reclines lies prone, the fortune of him that moves shall move indeed.'"
चरैवेति चरैवेति वै मा ब्राह्मणो sवोचद्,
इति ह चतुर्थं संवत्सरं अरण्ये चचार ।
सो sरण्याद् ग्रामं एयाय, तं इन्द्रः पुरुषरूपेण पर्येत्योवाच -
कलिः शयानो भवति संजिहानस् तु द्वापरः ।
उत्तिष्ठंस् त्रेता भवति कृतं संपद्यते चरंश् ॥
"'Keep moving.' (Thinking) this Brahman has bidden me 'wander',
He wandered for a fourth year in the wild.
He came from the forest to the village. To him came Indra in human form and said -
'Kali he becomes who lies down to sleep, Dwapara when he rises awake;
Treta when he stands erect, and Krta (Satya) when he gets moving.'"
चरैवेति चरैवेति वै मा ब्राह्मणो sवोचद्,
इति ह पञ्चमं संवत्सरं अरण्ये चचार ।
सो sरण्याद् ग्रामं एयाय, तं इन्द्रः पुरुषरूपेण पर्येत्योवाच -
चरन् वै मधु विन्दति चरन् स्वादुं उदुम्बरम् ।
सूर्यस्य पश्य श्रेमाणं यो न तन्द्रयते चरंश् ॥
"'Keep moving.' (Thinking) this Brahman has bidden me 'wander',
He wandered for a fifth year in the wild.
He came from the forest to the village. To him came Indra in human form and said -
'Journeying, one finds honey, journeying, the sweet Udumbara fruit;
Consider the pre-eminence of the sun, who wearies never of wandering.'"
What sort of civilizational context can best manage its form and contents? Are some civilizational contexts better than others at this?
Doctrines or dogmas, priesthoods and caste-collectivization...these are part and parcel of any scientific, religious, or aesthetic tradition. How is this political and ideological creation best related with the undercurrent of knowledge and cognition itself? When does it protect and facilitate the growth of the tree of knowledge, and when does it merely feed off of and eventually suffocate its own host?
Recently, there was outrage over an incendiary hate-speech by Akbaruddin Owaisi close to Hyderabad city in south India. Basically, he portrayed Hinduism as a ludicrous and crass religious culture that was violent towards Moslems without any provocation, and he threatened that angry Moslems would overrun India if Hindu self-assertion develops any further traction.
The moniker "Owaisi" is used in Islamic Sufism to refer to a spiritual method named after one Hazrat Owais al-Qarani, a contemporary and devotee of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). "Owaisi" means someone who can be in the presence of and take teachings from the Prophet directly, across space and time, without an intermediary teacher. Taken as an individual, Owais is one of my favourite spiritual exemplars from any tradition. But odd as it may seem, Owais-like spiritual power and violent Islamism have not necessarily been antithetical to one another, ever since the very first generation of Islamic history. Its not even too strange a coincidence that this hate-monger bears Owais' name.
Pause for thought. Isn't it interesting that any spiritual movement observed in any tradition tends to yield two bifurcated social products after the passing of its founder - one connected to the founder by some structured physical association and an authorized, historical 'caste' setup to preserve and propagate; and the other a free-zone of emulation and continuous experimentation and seeking. Depending on historical circumstances, the movement can fuse these two halves, and expand and consolidate. But it inevitably keeps creating certain imbalances and problems. In fact, the greater the persistence it derives from the purushaarthic dynamics, the more trenchant the future sociological problem can be. Must this dogma-driven or caste-collectivized daemon be annihilated once it serves its purpose? If so, are the circumstances for its own annihilation created and set in motion by the enlightened founder? How?
The Vedas and most of its branches comprising Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. do speak of a spiritual potency that must go hand-in-hand with temporal strength. This is the basis of the purushaarthas, of the twin swords of miri and piri. But in which forge they are conceived and in whose hands these two swords become one...can make a world of difference. Conceived one way, a Dharmic context will contain and manage the dogmatic evolution and/or caste-order, and keep existing schools as mere portals to the ever-flowing stream of Dharma. But conceived another way, an Adharmic context will keep causing a series of convulsions to justify its dogma and/or collectivized caste-order, and it can be contained (or better annihilated) only by an outside force.
Recall the story of Jarasandha. Brihadratha was the king of Magadha. His wives were the twin princesses of Varanasi. While he led a full life, he was unable to have children for a very long time. Frustrated, he retreated to the deep forest, approached and served the sage Chandakaushika. The sage took pity on him and gifted him a fruit, telling him to give it to his wife who would then become pregnant. But the sage did not know that the king had two wives. In a schizophrenic turn of mind, as it were, Brihadratha split the fruit in half and gave it to both of them. Soon both the wives became pregnant and gave birth to two halves of a human body. These two lifeless halves were very horrifying to view. So Brihadratha ordered these to be thrown in the forest. A demoness (rakshasi - one who is compulsively 'protective') named "Jaraa" found these two pieces and held each of these in her two palms. Incidentally, when she brought both of her palms together, the two pieces fused together giving rise to a living child. The child cried loudly which created panic in Jaraa. Not having the heart to devour a living child, the demoness gave it to the king and explained to him all that had happened. The father named the boy Jaraasandha (literally meaning "joined by Jaraa").
The Prophet Muhammad, even at the height of his spiritual and temporal power, was heckled by backbiters for being "abtar" - a frayed end, a lineage "cut off" - meaning one who has no living son to become his heir. It was an issue that frustrated the Prophet, and an entire short chapter of the Qu'ran was ostensibly revealed by Allah assuaging the Messenger and reflecting that same spite back on those detractors.(Qur'an, Chapter 108).
انا اعطینک الکوثر
"Lo! We have given thee al-Kawthar (the refreshing fount at the gates of Paradise)"
فسل لربک وانحر
"So pray unto thy Lord, and sacrifice."
ان شانیک هو الابتر
"Lo! it is thy insulter (and not thou) who is cut off (without posterity)."
But politically, the issue of succession was to eventually devolve into dispersion and schism immediately after the Prophet's death (a saga still playing out in Sunni-Shi'a violence). In fact, the prospect of Islam as a living tradition was stillborn. Horrific internecine war, plague and general dispersion followed. To resolve this death spiral the Islamic community was forged as a regimented Khilafat (Caliphate) under the iron hand of the first two Caliphs, especially Omar Ibn al-Khattab, who used to walk the streets of Medina with a whip in hand. Thus regimented, he successfully diverted that aggression outward, attacked neighboring Persia and hit the jackpot. The rest is history.
What are the traces of bifurcation here? The obvious one is well-known: 'Ali, the Prophet's son-in-law and father of his grandsons, had claimed the mantle of, both, spiritual and temporal leadership. But the other senior Companions (who were also related to the Prophet, having given their daughters in marriage to him) claimed that they had the senior right to political leadership. Indeed, some of the later founders of the Sunni schools of jurisprudence said that in terms of fadheelat (excellence of virtue), the order of precedence puts Abu Bakr at the highest, Omar second, Osman third, and 'Ali fourth; but 'Ali was first in a separate spiritual category all by himself. Thus, according to this line of thought in the dominant school of Islam, the legacy of the Prophet could be split into two parts, and they were given to two different spiritual lineages connected to him by family ties.
But there is a further, more interesting, and more subtle trace of bifurcation: Much to the consternation of all present, before passing away the Prophet actually bestowed his cloak on a completely different person with no family relationship - Owais al-Qarani, a camel-herder and a saintly personage in Yemen who had never met the Prophet in person, but was supposedly in communion with him telepathically. Not only did Owais have no tribal or family relation with the Prophet, he is not even considered a Companion by any Sunni school, since a Companion must by definition have been in the physical association of the Prophet and/or have served in the association of other Companions at least once. We will come back to Owais again later in this post.
The uneasy cleavage of the spiritual and the temporal was always problematic throughout Islamic history. For a long time, "Sufism" was a continuation of pre-existing spiritual cultures from the surviving remnants of Mithraic, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, neo-Platonic and Christian traditions of the Middle East, Egypt and India. Most Sufism at one time was considered outright heresy, and throughout its history its cutting-edge spiritual teachers were honored with the cutting-edge of the Caliph' temporal sword slicing their necks. Then the revered Imam Ghazali came and brokered a theoretical truce, claiming to show that Sufism could be fused with Islam, and that in fact the two could execute a very useful twinship. Thereafter, just as Guns and Bibles would later pioneer European colonialism, so did Swords and Sufis first set that template for expansion and consolidation.
But what makes this twinship a Jarasandha? The Bhagavad Gita, too, was spoken on a battlefield, so how is that different? Well, Ghazali wanted to fuse spirituality with Islam only insofar as it subordinated itself to the absolute dominance of the regimen of shari'ah and its supervising priesthood, its caste-collective, and its dogmas. He still attacked most spiritual schools of the time with vitriol. He wanted the spiritually packaged "Sufism" to be a cooling fount of ablution, with which the devout could soothe their agitations and refresh mind and spirit before re-entering the mosque.
Now the shari'ah is fundamentally based on the idea that in the person of the Prophet and his ways is the truth, and the perfect duplication of the truth is the true method. In the ways in which different Companions of the Prophet did this are reportedly found paths to the truth, and the shari'ah models them perfectly. Most often, this duplication of the truth is of the form of imitation. In fact, the satisfaction of simply imitating the behaviors of the Prophet was considered the greatest and most complete stage of self-realization according to the next great teacher who gave Islamism its ideological form - Imam Rabbani, or Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi, who lived in India during Moghal times. Thus, given matching circumstances, there is no sin in the devout committing apparently graceful or terrifying actions, as long as he does so in the consciousness of its alignment with the calculus of shari'ah, just like an automaton servant. Indeed, there is merit in performing all such apparently beautiful or terrifying acts with the force of an intention without reservation.
But most Indic traditions would consider a different permutation - that religious and social regimen, and case studies of the behaviors of spiritual exemplars, are at best a parallel track to individual spiritual knowingness, and that the inter-relation between the two is the subject of ethics. Emulation, not imitation, is emphasized - in fact, imitation is considered dangerous in Vedanta, which says that acts must be based on adhikara, spiritual qualification. Imitation of the amoral acts of higher beings is spiritually harmful, like a form of 'spiritual pedophilia':
धर्म-व्यतिक्रमो दृष्ट
ईश्वराणां च साहसम् ।
तेजीयसां न दोषाय
वह्नेः सर्व-भुजो यथा ॥
"The transgressions of Dharma observed, by the Great Controllers seemingly audacious...To such spiritually potent beings this is no blemish, like the fire that devours all and remains pure." - Srimad Bhagavatam, 10.33.29
Owais al-Qarani was someone who had only heard of the Prophet and his new religion, and became a devotee at heart. He had a blind mother to take care of, and so he would herd camels for part of the day and use the proceeds to lead a simple life. Before his death, when the Prophet Muhammad said that he wished to bequeath his mantle to a man named Owais in Yemen, all the Companions were shocked, most had never even heard of him. They inquired, "If he is such a great devotee of Allah and His Messenger, why has he never even come to see you once, where was he to serve the cause of Islam during all the battles?" It is said that the Prophet defended Owais' absence on the grounds of some provisions of shari'ah law, saying that since he had a blind mother to care for, he was exempt. As unconvincing as this was, the Companions couldn't object, and the Prophet sent his cloak with Omar and 'Ali - along with a request to Owais to intercede and save all Muhammad's followers on Judgment Day. Both of them found Owais in the wilderness of Yemen, in a state of meditation. (It was later said that Owais would spend hours in such meditation, and would sometimes be so absorbed in his Prophet that when the Prophet lost a tooth at the Battle of Uhud, Owais's own tooth reportedly dropped off at that very moment.) They gave him the cloak along with the Prophet's request. Owais reluctantly accepted it and asked for some time to meditate alone. He took his time, and heard a voice say, "We have forgiven most of the Companions". But Owais was persistent with his Lord: "I want forgiveness for all his believers." He continued to meditate on the Lord. But it is said that curiosity and impatience got the beter of Omar and he started to walk up to Owais. Seeing him approach, Owais was distracted. He told Omar, "If you had not disturbed me, I would not have worn this cloak until God had bestowed all of Muhammad's followers to me."
Later many second generation Moslems would come to Owais to see him and ask him for spiritual advice. Once they told Owais of an old Companion who had now dug his own grave and was residing in it day and night waiting for his time to arrive, so he could pledge allegiance to Allah and His Messenger one all-important, final time. Owais went to see the man, and found him weak. Owais said: "You have given 30 years to your coffin and your grave, allowing them to come between you and God. They have become your idols." It is said that the man saw the light of Owais and through him realized how much time he had wasted; with a cry he lay his head down and passed on from this world.
Haram Ibn Hayyam said, "I went to visit Owais al-Qarani. He asked the reason for my visit. I explained that I felt a peace in his holiness' presence. To which Owais replied: 'I have never seen anyone who knows what is God, and yet finds more peace and comfort in the presence of another being.'"
Haram Ibn Hayyam requested Owais, "Give me a hadith from the holy Prophet." He replied, "Though I have heard a great deal about him, I never met him. I would not want to engage in story-telling and hadith. I have far too much work to get on with and this is not among them."
"And choose a friend who is able to free you from all else."
"An aim is required before embarking on an action. Therefore, if your aim is to find God and His Messengers, then surely you will reach your aim."
Owais said, "I wanted a high position in life, I found it in modesty. I wanted leadership, I found it in giving advice. I wanted dignity, I found it in honesty. I wanted greatness, I found it in poverty. I wanted lineage, I found it in virtue. I wanted majesty, I found it in contentment. I looked for peace and found it in asceticism."
Later on in old age, after his mother had passed away, Owais went and joined the faction of 'Ali. He volunteered at the Battle of Saffein. Apparently, he wasn't much of a warrior. He was martyred there. They say:
شود رد ابد بو جهل در دامن پیامبر
اویس در بیابان یمن گردد به حق بینا
"Even so close to the robe of the Messenger, 'Bu Jahl passed Eternity by;
While Owais witnessed the Truth in the wilderness of Yemen!"
Jarasandha had a persistence, power and vitality that was preternatural. In the end he was killed by Bhima, the son of Vayu (vitality itself), who was Hanuman in a previous life, and the great teacher Madhva claimed to be his next incarnation. Bhima was the most certain of the five Pandavas, never hesitating in doubt, and had an intention that was without any reservation, especially when it came to annihilating an enemy. Bhima could marry a demoness and produce a devotee of Dharma from that union who would martyr himself for the Lord. Bhima would satisfy himself by drinking the blood of the slain Duhshasana. Bhima's intention was clear and without reservation, even though many of his actions inspire horror or disgust in lovers of Dharma.
After an interminable fight and numerous unsuccessful methods to handle Jarasandha, Bhima eventually killed Jarasandha by a method insinuated by K. - Bhima tore Jarasandha's body into its two unfused halves. Then he flung each half cross-wise in the opposite direction. Thus, the two halves could not merge back into one and resurrect.
What is the relationship between conflict and service? Anything on social justice and political transformation in the Vedas (supposedly accused of feudal casteism)? Actually I think understanding the injustices of politics, economics and ideology/religion as a Dasyu-Dāsa dynamic from all angles is far more enlightening as a theory than the demagoguery of half-baked "class struggle" semantics found in Marxist historiography. The former offers an insight, the latter only incites. The former is a truer observation and is psychological, the latter is opportunistic and based on justified thought conceived in an unstable condition.
There is a prominent sentiment in the Veda that calls upon the divinity Indra, Thunder-wielder, for help in liquidating those corrupt crackpots who play power games solely on the strength of being high-born, exclusive esoteric mystics, saviors from an oppressive foe, charismatics, fortuitous chosen races, and whatnot, and who instigate or mobilize large numbers of brainwashed orcs to wield political power:
"To him, Adhvaryu! yea, to him give offerings of the juice expressed.
Will he not keep us safely from the spiteful curse of each presumptuous high-born foe?"
Rg Veda 6.19.12:
जनं वज्रिन्महि चिन्मन्यमानमेभ्यो नृभ्यो रन्धया येष्वस्मि ।
अधा हि त्वा पृथिव्यां शूरसातौ हवामहे तनये गोष्वप्सु ॥
"Give up the people who are high and haughty to these men and to me, O Thunder-wielder!
Therefore upon the earth do we invoke thee, where heroes win, for sons and kine and waters."
This "high-born" foe is apparently the "Dasyu", who often lead the "Dāsas". A friend explained: The problem starts with development of personality-cults, whether in the form of deities or their spokespersons on earth. Elite sense of entitlement to power, but marginalization within the elite, leads to search for mobilization outside the elites. Once the non-elite has been mobilized to destroy intra-elite competitors, the new-power goes back to older elite drives. This is when personality cult develops - and a new elite base forms, often accompanied by sequential purges to reduce the number of competitors for power, and a coterie reinforces the personality cult. Net result - a society of "dāsas" under an elite super-personality. A slave society in more ways than one.
[Later in the Pauranic shift of Indian civilization, Indra is humiliated and sidelined, especially in the Vaishnava tradition which is historically associated with a birth-based, feudalistic, agrarian, hierarchical caste order. I wondered whether this change in Indra's popular image has anything to do with changing sociological circumstances or necessities of the time, but I am not qualified to comment on it.]
But "dāsa" in the Veda doesn't always mean the enemy, though it most often refers to an enemy. Yet, its greatest heroes also have "dāsa" in their names. The central Bhārata protagonist of the War of Ten Kings is called Sudās, and his illustrious father is called Divodāsa. The Vedic root "dās" (दास्) is understood by most to have the sense of "being used up" or "to yield up". A friend explained: "Dāsa" has a self-deprecating connotation when used in a proper name. But original usage for 'dāsa' is not as a collective noun meaning captive slave who provides service. It's originally used for enemies in Rg Veda. Even the root of this verbal noun is 'dāsati' which is used in the sense of destroy/assail/attack. The verb used in RgVeda for captive or fettered is gṛbhīta; and it's never used for 'dāsa'.
He adds: Leave alone the question of religious sanction for slavery; even if someone were to use secondary texts to assert slavery as a mainstream institution in Vedic India, the burden of proof is on them to corroborate it with actual archaeological evidence. Just compare the pictorial evidence of slavery in Pompeii for instance; evidence in Egypt; Scythian slave trade. There is just no comparison in India. Since Vedic India did not have monumental construction; instead it had strict rules for food and ritual and other spiritual disciplines, what could these hypothetical slaves do for the owners?
In Vedic spirituality, there seems to have been a warning against associating any permanent material property with a so-called divine significance. No grandiose stupas, temples, mosques, cathedrals. Even the custom altar for the Fire ritual was itself burned down after the exercise was completed. Ritual was drilled and performed as a sensory training routine and an interpersonal objective process. Thus, the spiritual foci of Vedic civilization were logical and honest, and not meant to be based on ways and means of priest-craft, politics, and mass hypnotism.
The Vedic foci were not merely elevationist, nor mainly salvationist, but rather noetic - i.e., it has components for regressive, progressive, linear and cyclical motion on the Time line, and is therefore able to be holistic in its understanding and holographic in it mental map and imagination. This is different from those spiritual/ideological cultures or cults (religious or Marxist, etc.) built around just an elevationist-salvationist dipole. The political dynamics of Vedic civlization was meant to be a discourse around holistic civilizational purpose rather than solely around economic gain, or social stability, or annihilation in a metaphysical ideal.
But how would one connect the transformation of the root dās' meaning from "destroy/assail" to "servant", especially when humble servitude is different from humiliating, forced slavery? My sense is that dās has the sense of 'to punish' or 'to use up'. Just like in English one can say, 'to punish a jar of whiskey'. So then dās could mean either to destroy something by force, or to use it up in willing service. So "Divodāsa" would mean 'one who is used up in service by the divinities'. After all, this body is wasted by Time anyways, better to offer it to be used up in conscious service by the divinities, for the sake of Divine Civilization.
What one feels one cannot "have" (possess with satisfaction), one must make better use of. What one feels one is unable to even use freely, one must first be made able to waste. The perspective of knowledge is that there is no scarcity of bodies (or material) - though Life is precious. The perspective of Ignorance is that all economics is based on scarcity and that in turn influences psychology.
My friend corroborates: I agree with you. Turns out dāsa' isn't the only word with this dual meaning. Even the word 'aryaḥ' (plural) and 'ariḥ' (singular) are often used in two ways:
- devout or suppliant when used for oneself before Gods
- then in some verses as a generic collective for enemies.
E.g., Rg Veda 8.48.8: ... mā no aryo anukāmaṃ parādāḥ
Addressed to Indu: "Give us not to our enemy's will/wish."
Rg Veda 2.12.6 ... so aryaḥ puṣtīrvija ivā mināti
"He (Indra) diminishes the possessions of the enemy like (a gambler) reduces the stake."
Now that's interesting. Usage of "ariḥ" as enemy is common, but I don't often come across it used for devotee!
Coming back to the point - So "dāsa" can be good or bad. How so? It depends on who/what is being served, or rather who or what is using up one's resources and body. If the Dasyu is your master, then surely it is a negative term in the Veda. If the Devas are one's beloved, then it is positive. (See also a previous post on this blog: "Human command potentials and roles in Civilization".) So every mobilization, religious or not, has a particular context and an undercurrent that deserves attention. One cannot draw a false moral equivalence.
Given that in its Vedic fundamentals, Hinduism has a clear antipathy to the Dasyu-Dāsa dynamic, it is strange that one finds so many manifestations of this dynamic that crept into Hindu civilization over the last 14 centuries. Something went rotten at the political heart of the civilization, some ethical Condition was mis-handled, something was displaced, first subtly from within, and later overtly and brutally under foreign occupations. It has been a long and humiliating 14 century exile, but one which has its treasures of devotion, purpose, identity, learning and being able to discriminate good from evil.
Lastly, as tiresome as it is, one can't put the pen down without a note about the spurious "Aryan-Dravidian" Apartheid race theories used by European colonial historians to misinterpret the Veda. "Dāsa" doesn't mean a "Dravidian" race. In fact, the heroic King Sudās calls several of his enemies "dāsa", including those who are "Arya". Arya was a cultural term. Thus, the large coalition of enemy nations ranged against our Sudas were depicted as an army of Dāsas lead by Dasyus, and they included some clans that were Arya and some that weren't. Whereas Sudās' own allies included Arya and non-Arya too. The Veda is far too complex and subtle for the tendentious interpretations of baser motivations to fly too far for too long.
...aaand the necessary disclaimer - All this is assuming one can reasonably assign Sanskrit meanings to the sonic data stream of the Veda - in itself a highly creative and speculative exercise based on cognitive states and scientific observation, as well as the strictest grammatical analysis of sound patterns. In one sense one can say that the poor speculative Vedic derivations of older colonial Western Indologists and Indian Marxists is also valid, as a reflection of their own metacognitions on life and the world and its interpersonal semantics.
Thus again, understanding the Dasyu-Dāsa dynamic from all angles is far more enlightening as a theory than the incitement of half-arse "class struggle" semantics found in Marxist historiography. This Marxist narrative is used by all manner of inimical forces in India today, to attack the core. (See a previous blogpost on this: "Psychohistory vs. Dumb Dialectics".) In India, the field of work associated with the political Left is ripe for an injection of better ideologies, and the emergence of a genuine "Hindutva" Left is much needed.
Already a lot of grassroots work is being done. K.N. Govindacharya, after he withdrew from the BJP and took a sabbatical, has been involved in a certain direction which is noteworthy. Per Wiki: Today he believes that challenges before the nation have to be confronted on three fronts - creative, intellectual and agitational. Therefore, he founded three organizations to fight on the following fronts:
1. Bharat Vikas Sangam: This is a working for needed model of economic development directed towards swadeshi and decentralisation.
2. Kautilya Shodh Sansthan: This is a research organisation working in the civilization context of Bharat.
3. Rashtriya Swabhiman Andolan: This organisation opposes the anti people and anti nature policies of the governments without having any political aspiration of its own.
One hopes such efforts proliferate. There are a lot of sincere individuals doing grassroots work to relieve social and economic injustices, but they are often duped into swallowing the narrative woven by well-funded NGOs and their ideological networks that are frankly ignorant or actively inimical to India's civilizational interests. Therefore, ideological creativity and better networking are essential. Vedic textual memes such as the Dasyu-Dāsa dynamic offer a more mature narrative for the benefit of all.
Here is an elaborate sculpture at Thailand's Bangkok International Airport, depicting the churning of the Milk Ocean by the tug of war between the Devas and the Asuras. [Would funding such a public cultural artifact be possible for the Government of India? Or is only a photo of the Taj Mahal "secular" enough to be included in all its cultural advertisements?]
There is a broad consensus on the significance of Bhakti (laws of devotional exchange) across all schools of Indian thought and religion. Yet, there remains some sectarian bickering, in which ideological wranglers go to extremes of sham profundity or declarations of suicidal love in order to defend their doctrinal positions. Furthermore, there is sectarian competition between schools that take vows of devotion to different deity forms, and wars have been fought in centuries past. I admit I myself would have volunteered at one time.
Apart from its entertainment and drama value, this fractious mentality is not desirable at all, especially at this time in India's evolving polity, and the need for Hinduism to play a mature role in facilitating a transition to the next phase of development. Fortunately, there is plenty of material in Bharatiya Sanskriti that takes a process philosophy perspective and analyzes the levels of maturity of Bhakti.
There is the question of the primacy of Bhakti versus Jnaana (laws of Knowingness) as fundamental properties of Consciousness. At its most mature level, they are like water and vessel. See the previous post: Bruce Lee and Bhakti - 1. Other relative equations at different points can be correlated with the stages of maturity.
"Knowledge only is the means for developing devotion - this is one view."
अन्योन्याश्रयत्वमित्येके ।
"Bhakti and knowledge are interdependent - this is another view."
स्वयं फल-रूपेति ब्रह्म-कुमारः ।
"But the son of Brahma (the Creator) says that Bhakti is its own fruit."
For anyone in any philosophical school of politics, science, or religion, there is usually a progression of stages. That famous first scene from Enter The Dragon encapsulates it the way Oriental masters do:
1. Exhibitionism - of "objective" standards of purity, adherence to discipline, apparent blissfulness and freedom from doubt, etc. It can be useful as an exercise in immersion. But even in its useful sense, there is some...how to say it...hypocritical or ignorant drama. A serious joke: At an ashram, several brahmacharis (students) assemble to chant the Vedas at dawn - after waking up early, bathing and performing other personal chores. After the mantras have been chanted in congregation, they are all dispersing in a hurry to attend to other duties. But one stripling remained conspicuously seated peacefully, eyes closed, a picture of serenity and seriousness in the early light - performing supererogatory prayers. A couple of seniors standing behind were impressed. One said to the other: "See how centered and immersed he looks. The mantras have affected him deeply. He is doing more." To their surprise, the young fellow turns around and says, "You should see me on mornings when I shit, shave and shower before coming here."
In its most harmful manifestation, it is a fight to prove who is "purer" and close to whatever is being idolized. E.g. in Pakistan, after ethnically cleansing Hindus and Sikhs, the different sects of Islam are now attacking one another ideologically and physically because they consider the other sects not pure enough. They hope that once ideological purity and consolidation are achieved, some alleged prophecies have great conquests planned for them. The scary part is that if the prey is unaware, this sordid fantasy could actually play out. Beware Hindus - if you fail to predict, you will fail to protect. Timely intervention can save.
2. Mental masturbation - about "subjective" standards, paths, and purity. In its most useful sense, it helps refine one's motives after clarifying one's understanding of the laws of Nature. It can bring one in better communication with one's body, and make one a better observer. It brings balance to the 4 purushaarthas, and therebya greater ability to learn by increasing one's pan-determinism. It can create the capacity for dealing with ideological ambiguity and difference. In this process, it is possible one may go down a rabbit hole, and while that can be fascinating and all, it could also just be a waste of time.
In its worst case it can become wishy-washy mental speculation about everything being relative, and a justification for succumbing to blind compulsions or repressions, driving one deeper into neuroses and even psychosis. When there is aarthic prosperity, it gives one the space to indulge (e.g. modern Western history). When there is aarthic attenuation without overt external intervention, it has its most harmful manifestation (e.g. history of the Middle East in modern times).
Counter-argument during aarthic normalcy or prosperity cannot save the day. Adharma, like Dharma, is supported by artha. Only aarthic attenuation can work here, wherein it will slide back to stage 1. Then an intervention and ideological change becomes possible. Alternatively, this stage may lead to burn-out. In that case, the individual or society becomes inoculated against spiritual aspirations and lives in apathy to it, finding inspiration in an atheistic mode of phenomenal and existential reality. E.g. post WW-2 European culture. This takes time to revive and must pass through fear and then fighting again on its way up.
3. Stable, connected control and 'havingness' - as a general state of a purpose-driven mind, a stable memory, in affinity with its present-time environment and taking responsibility for it. This is the optima.
Thus, a statement of 'Truth' at any point of time has been described as a Finger pointing to the branch of the Tree (of Knowledge) that is pointing to the Moon in its current astrological position.
Any consideration about life in its complete sense is 'astrological' - i.e., as applied to Thought and Emotion. (I am only beginning to learn something about Vedic Hora shastra, and so far I understand a distinction between the astrology of Parashara versus Jaimini's application). The Latin word "consider" is itself an astrological term. [Etymology of Consider: 1350–1400; Middle English consideren (< Anglo-French ) < Latin consīderāre con- + sīder- (stem of sīdus ) star-group, sky (see sidereal) + -āre infinitive suffix.]
Therefore, a statement of Truth may be understood in that perspective, as a concept that invokes a set of perceptics which ought to point to a branch from the multifarious Tree of knowledge that, in turn, indicates the Moon.
The Bhagavad Gita also talks of this Tree (15.1). This applies to any and all philosophies - Indic or non-Indic. This Tree is universal. India has simply been a changing microcosm of it through time, and therefore Hinduism probably understands it best.
Politically, it follows that all bona fide sectarian cultures must point to the unified Tree of supra-subjective knowledge. The ideological sources of any religious or ideological sect can be objectively evaluated for this complete structure and continuity with Knowledge. If it fails in this due to a fixation on one point in history, one personality, or one obsession with an ideal, then its destruction is written in the stars and the politics of Dharma must aid this process. Any political party that seeks to prevent their destruction is doing so at the cost of the general sanity of the environment.
Popular media and political parties seem to thrive on false dichotomies. Some are more transparent than others. Are faith and reason mutually exclusive? Is secularism and diversity endangered by Hinduism? Is democracy compatible with Islam? Is China's one-party system better than India's democracy at this stage of development? One bloc of countries is invading others to give them the gift of capitalist democracy, another bloc works to cure the disease of capitalism and bring social justice, while a third is trying to give everyone the gift of faith and religious law. Buffeted by internationalist blocs and their local sepoys, some Indians prefer to define themselves merely as "being different" from others based on a shared racial memory. How can Indians think about our identity more creatively while engaging with everyone in a globalizing environment?
Fundamental Hindu philosophy says that holistic survival can happen if we all become one - and we can become one while remaining diverse because our desires for distinctive categories reside simultaneously in each of us. We can become reflections of each other while not becoming copies of one other. We can see and work on reflections of others in ourselves, and ourselves in others. Moreover, the adventure of consciousness blossoms in stages, and each stage reveals petals that protect others within: whorls within whorls. Each whorl is an iteration in the civilizing process of Man. Below is a tentative table listing some civilizational iterations. Convenient names of historical civilizations have been used to characterize prominent cardinal values in each iteration. Original material borrowed from The Order of Time and modified. These can be applied to an individual or a culture as a whole. Various cultures of the world have managed to cycle through or assimilate few or more of these iterations. Its also pretty clear that some need to make more progress than others. Each iteration builds on preceding ones, so some individuals/cultures may need to "re-tribalize" in order to re-build a proper foundation for holistic growth rather than face increasing deracination as they "progress".
Once in 1992, Lee Kwan Yew, the architect of Singapore's successful city-state, was invited to Pakistan as part of a cultural exchange, to discuss ideas for developing an Asian economy using "Asian values", and to make way for investments. His hosts told him about the ideology of Pakistan, the two-nation theory, the inspiration of Islam, its values and mission, and the problems it was facing. At the end, Mr. Lee exclaimed, "How can a culture that places all its value in a life after death create a thriving entrepreneurial and innovation-based modern economy?!" Apparently he correlated purposes with values and virtues, and for a society with a fixation on one particular iteration, he saw a serious problem.
The purposes of any iteration have been looked at from four viewpoints:
Non-illusion, i.e., what kinds of data is considered more 'real' and significant than others. The Selection of Importances is basic to any course of action and further cognition.
Love, i.e., how is affinity expressed in the context of that iteration. The kinds of affinity and identification it allows directly corresponds to the smooth flows of that same type of communication, as well as the type of reality that can be shared by participants of that iteration.
Reward, i.e., the medium that provides satisfaction for participants. This has a direct effect on the political-economic order possible at that iteration. It can intensify or dampen the production-consumption cycle, and have similar effects on all other forms of oscillations.
Social quality, i.e., the attitude it creates at the social apart from individual level, in either mobilizing people or affecting them in other cultural ways: actions, speech, thoughts, etc. This will be a trigger for the kinds of "rights" and obligations that people at a particular iteration tend to prioritize and are willing to fight for.
Effect, i.e., the net political effect of that iteration at the individual as well as social level.
A quick summary of the above table:
The Zeroeth Iteration (Vedic) has as its essence a vigilant meditation as a permanent state of mind. Its net effect is "discipline". Here "discipline" doesn't mean a regimen, but rather discipleship. The Vedic effect is to be at cause over "knowingness", and therefore to gain the ability of continuous, never-ending learning.
The purposeful values of any iteration can't be treated as absolutes - that would be an error. Rather, its Values are better interpreted according to practical Principles aimed at bringing about a desired Reality. This desired Reality is the quality of consciousness that is sought to be achieved for some purpose. Each such Reality (consciousness) manifests certain Virtues that indicate its existence symptomatically. For this Zeroeth iteration, the relationship can be represented as follows:
The First Iteration(Asian) has as its goal "community", and therefore its values, principles and virtues align with that, in a sense of regimen and harmony.
The Second Iteration (Platonian) has as its goal "politics". So its values, principles and virtues align with this purpose of the art and science of governing any sphere of affairs - individual or social.
The Third Iteration (Christian) is inherently an inverted, subjective reality, and has as its goal sacrifice. Here is an inversion, a gambit of one reality for another, where there is gain through loss.
The Fourth Iteration (Mohammedan) is a sufferance, an austerity, executed at a sunset of sorts. A penitent austerity, an abandonment or killing of past, and a turning about and journey back to a lost Center. It is a cult phase, of correction and radicalization of old orders. But inversion and radicalism can result in unhinged fixations also.
The Fifth Iteration (Cartesian) is a rational foundation of inquiry based on empirical observation. Undertaken holistically, it is the beginning of being able to work with two (or more) realities simultaneously, a spiritual dualism. Undertaken without completing the earlier iterations, it can become a permanent deracination from spiritual reality.
The Sixth Iteration (Democratic) introduces accountability of all parts to the whole. It is devolution of responsibility.
The Seventh Iteration (Economic) is the organizing principle of any order that can encourage or discourage different types of responsibility. It is the base of the pyramid.
The Eighth Iteration (Interfaith) takes into account that at least at a global level, human civilization will always have a "cleft" in it - apart from the mainstream, there will be crosscurrents, subversive points of view, a rejectionist section of defectors or drop-outs. Certain ideologies will always exist that cater to this eternal tendency. A mature civilization can create a working unity even with this cleft, and turn it into an advantage by becoming a motor for continuous technological and ideological evolution. Apart from humanity as a whole, civilizations such as India have always included a cleft in it, and perhaps modern America is moving in that direction fast.
The Last Iteration has been tentatively named "A New Dualism", and its goal is one of social control - one that resolves a problem by inspiring and re-channeling human social forces towards a new purpose and greater satisfaction and justice. This re-purposing would go hand in hand with cleaning up the corruptions that indicate that the old order is running into several limiting conditions or stepping on unseen triggers - a dangerous "I didn't know the gun was loaded" condition that could threaten survival. I have called it "Dualism" because it is the full ripening of what began with the Fifth Iteration (Cartesian) and is able to fully work with two ontological realities seamlessly.
In the various anti-corruption movements or 'revolutions' today, there is a discernible move by different nations to complete their own incomplete iterations, or remove obstacles from the ones they have attempted. Some are proving to be more smooth and successful at progressing than others. What gives?
A progressive characteristic may have something to do with the underlying self-definition. The more abstract and dynamic, the smoother and more flexible. The more prescriptive or history-centric, the more reaction and conflict one can expect. Rajiv Malhotra's discussion of History-Centric traditions versus non History-Centric culture is relevant here.
A famous mantra from the Vedas and Upanishads. It was supposedly also quoted a lot by The Buddha to his disciples:
Anti-corruption movements for political reform and social justice seem to have one thing in common - seeking a better moral leadership for things like "justice" and re-directing the national sense of purpose. Various ideologies are moving into this space, each vending its version of justice and purpose, its iconic personalities, its enemies, its solutions. Some of these are presented as purely political-economic ideologies, some as religious, some as social ethics. But the question of what is moral is really interesting, and ultimately focuses on a personal exemplar: historical, epic, mythological - or more honestly its usually some mixture of all three, no matter which culture one examines.
In this regard, how does one adjudicate what is a superior morality? The personal exemplars of morality from different civilizational contexts are all complex personalities. Some of the exterior actions and words attributed to the same persona strike me as seductive and others repugnant, some as inspired and others fantasia, some as sterling boldness and other as fork-tongued cunning. Only if I can find a way to appreciate the subtleties, can I create a valid purva-paksha (comparative counter-proposal) to think about it "objectively" - or at least according to a supra-subjective scale of truth. I feel a need for this, because public discourse is swamped with the usual wishy-washy politically correct "no criticizing religion" discourse in India (or the West). Too many times the people who moderate the national discourse pass off a false moral equivalence by a practiced sleight of hand.
I was watching a religious debate between Robert Spencer and Nadir Ahmed, on "Does Islam teach violence?". Here's an excerpted part dealing with "rape":
While the two sides competed on selective statements, neither presented a logical argument about moral undercurrents, context, and actions itself. Admittedly, Spencer came out on top because of the sheer weight of evidence of legalized slavery, rape and violence that forms the self-vaunted track record of Islamist political history as well as present day news. But like most apologists, Nadir Ahmed points out that this is all an aberration from the pure example set by the core of Islam - the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) - in whose persona Islam's legal permissions unite with his personal integrity. So statistical record aside, it is worth looking closely at this apologia - because it means that if the core is morally pure and yet complex, then Islamism can re-invent itself, keep evolving and come to the forefront of proposing the most sound moral and yet practical solutions to society's material, social and spiritual problems.
First I have a consideration about permissiveness and restraint as advised by moral authority, especially religious moral authority: Even though slavery, rape and violence was practiced by the Prophet's own companions with the Prophet's personal sanction in the aftermath of wars, yet these can be rationalized as the inevitable concomitant of all war. As it is, war is a cauldron of human insanity, of tooth and claw, of reaction more than conscious action. Some reactions may be noble, but oftentimes not. No one can deny that excesses of violence during wartime occur in all civilizations. But does this imply a moral equivalence between excesses committed by, say, jihadis in the name of a religious ideology versus, say, an Anders Breivik?
A valid question here is whether the role of religious sanction is to buttress the "rationalizations" of these excesses (which are themselves a product of a process of insanity), or to warn against it, or to treat its aftermath. Religious sanction for acts of insanity can remove all natural vestiges of guilt that may hold the human back, or force him to think of alternatives. This is a tricky question, because false guilt can be a killer in times of insanity (such as war) and is considered a sin in most religions. But there is something to be said for real conscience, too. Does religious sanction mitigate the effects of the excesses of human insanity? Or does it merely help dissipate the surface effects after actually encouraging its widespread perpetration? I must throw up my hands on this one, because this consideration must again defer to the subjective details of Present Time context.
Secondly, Nadir Ahmed focuses his defensive argument against "rape in Islam" repeatedly on one single exemplary episode: This is the Hadith (narrations from the personal life of the Prophet) of Safiyyah, where the Prophet meets Safiyyah bint Huyayy and takes her as a wife. Some context: Safiyyah at the time was a 17 year old Jewish girl captured from the Banu Nadir tribe just after the Battle of Khaybar. In Islamic law, female captives of war are legitimate slaves ("right hand possessions"). Safiyyah was the only surviving member of the Banu Nadir tribe's ruling family. Safiyyah and another woman, Reyhanah, were brought as an offering to the Prophet by a few devoted companions. Reyhanah shrieked and cried, and the Prophet said, "Take this she-devil away from me!". Presumably, she may have become the slave-girl or perhaps the wife of another. But Safiyyah remained silent in the Prophet's presence, and that was taken as a sign of acceptance. She submitted to Islam and to its Prophet, considered by all those around her as the most desirable husband in all of Creation. The Prophet consummated his marriage to Safiyyah shortly thereafter, but in her marriage she never bore him any children. Later in life, Safiyyah was often taunted for her Jewish origins by the other wives of the Prophet. Some debated whether she had the status of a wife or a slave-girl, but it was agreed that she was a legitimate wife. Doubts about her sincerity in accepting Islam and suspicions that she would avenge the death of her family are recurring themes in the Sirah Rasul Allah (earliest biography of Muhammad).
Nadir Ahmed points out that in this episode, the Prophet has demonstrated by his own personality that he avoids rape, prefers marriage to slavery, and prefers non-violence to force, even in the immediate aftermath of a battle. He could have had his way with the other woman brought with Safiyyah, but his innate nature could not find a screaming, unwilling woman a desirable partner, or even a slave.
The message of the apologia is that the Prophet Muhammad did not delight in forced conquest, but was pleased only by voluntary acceptance and submission. This is evidence of a certain kind of nobility of character, a humbling and awe-inspiring restraint - in the aftermath of a successful abduction and in the wake of a shocking victory in battle. The Prophet is restrained and dignified when he looms over another.
One cannot find fault with this logical argument - unless one chooses to be irreverent to the stature of the Prophet of God, which now looks like a rather nervous, foolish and vain position considering the definitive overwhelm of historical circumstance - in Safiyyah's case and all cases of war, terror or general chaos in past and present times. Death itself is an inevitability for everyone, in whatever form it comes. Either one can be humble and 'realistic' about it, and find peace in submission - and the ecstasy that will come from it, sooner or later. Or one can be irreverent. These are the only two choices, it seems, in terms of affective states and their cognitive modes.
There is something fascinating about this logic, and its context of operation is like a seductive vortex. In that vortex there is to be had, both, a kind of passion and a peace, a vigor and a resignation, a succumbing and a release. An offer of security in surrender.
There is something metaphysical about it. Is it the anticipation of a Divine opening and further exploration, or is it the definitive Titanic thud of a closure of the past? Does it raise its servants into freedom and independence? Or does it keep its slaves in the pleasure of perpetual co-dependence? What kind of entity is the priesthood - brAhmaNa or dasyu? That would tell me what kind of dAsa the devotee is.
Such considerations floated across as I turned Nadir Ahmed's persistent, hammering argument, his devotion and his reverence over in my heart and mind. I was also reminded of something anyone who has been immersed in Hindu culture to any extent cannot help recall:
In the epic Ramayana, we have one examplar in the great King Ravana of Lanka. The glories of his admirable qualities are described at length in the Ramayana. He was Brahmana, and a man of superior wisdom and distinguished mystical realization. He had created a Stairway to Heaven, an elevationist meme abounding in Islamic Gnosticism, too, and which has as its product a salvationist meme for the mass of grateful devotees. His self-mortifying devotions and austerities were intense and often moving, a rendezvous at suicide cliff, sometimes a brilliantly macabre sado-masochistic ecstasy. And yet he was just, humble and pleasing in so many ways! A man of talent, passion, wisdom, and a deep sense of his own unfulfilled destiny, he had pleased the Lord Shiva and achieved many revelations and benedictions.
His ambition burgeoned, and with it a beautiful nation, of wealth, justice, power projection, and numerous ardent citizen devotees. A courageous warrior, from whom his roving lieutenants borrowed their boldness in war. In fact, just such a set of his bold lieutenants had been engaging in tactically brilliant bouts of surprise warfare against the Rishis and tribes of Bharatavarsha, including the young self-exiled scion of a ruling family of Ayodhya, Rama. They ambushed the pagans wherever they found them, raided them, defiled their heretic sacred spaces as it deserved to be defiled, and generally wrought the wrath of Ravana's God upon these tribes.
In the aftermath of a few such skirmishes, Ravana abducts Sita herself, the chaste wife of the pagan king Rama, and takes her back to Lanka. There, she finds herself in miserably pleasant environs - the Ashoka Vatika, the Grove of No Sorrow. Surrounded by palatial gardens, Ravana's co-wives and concubines tell her of the glories of their husband and master - the most eligible husband in the three worlds, as a matter of fact, and taunt her for her unyielding and patently unreasonable stubbornness.
His Majesty the King Ravana would periodically come visiting, to give her the opportunity to submit to his love, but Sita struggled to maintain her chastity, sometimes even suggesting that her husband Rama would come to her rescue. As irrelevant, irreverent and insulting as this was, Ravana maintained his dignity. He would not force himself on her, but preferred that she submit willingly. Only later - after a surprise visit by one Hanuman (who intruded covertly but departed with some disturbing fanfare), an agent of Rama - did Ravana include an ultimatum to Sita. But clearly, taken in the proper context, he procured her in an act of war and deception, but would not possess her against her will.
Of course one could say that Sita's free will was being tested by the change in her environmental context - physical abduction as well as the constant suggestions of those that surrounded her. While Ravana did alter the context that was operative on Sita's free will, one cannot accuse him of running roughshod over it. It was beneath his present dignity and power. Ravana gave her that opportunity to give herself to him willingly, even as he loomed over her.
Perhaps an unfavorable view of Ravana's treatment of Sita would be that while the exterior manifestation of Ravana's behavior seemed noble and reasonable, there was always in his life the undercurrent of a dominance-slave mentality at best and total nullification at worst that wrought circumstances around him.
Context determines the Value of any action. But in adjudicating the moral value of an action, even more important than the exterior Context is the personal Karmic Undercurrent that creates that context in the first place. Often I find myself acting out against my own dogmas in the clutch of circumstances that I know I have played a part in creating: a case of "My Kar-ma ran over my Dog-ma", no doubt. A self-fulfilling end-times prophecy is another classic case. That perspicacity would also be needed in calling out a false moral equivalence between one act and another from different persons, cultures, times and places.
I still don't know if there is any moral equivalence between Nadir Ahmed's logic of Muhammad's (pbuh) proposition to Safiyyah and the Ramayana's logic of Ravana's proposition to Sita, or whether there is a moral equivalence between acts of violence or seduction by Islamists and those of Christians, Marxists, or the newly emerging "Hindutva terror" as highlighted by Rahul Gandhi and Home Minister Shinde. Its a tricky question and has many subtle, contextual issues.
But it did occur to me that in India, the ethos of Dharma is illuminated and energized by the sun of its Mythos. Conscientious discrimination (viveka) cannot but bask in its reflected glory.
Normally, politicians speak in terms of Vision, Agenda, and Propositions. But most national democracies are relatively monocultural or small. In a diverse 'civilizational core state' like India, there is another important factor to address: Identity.
In December 2012, Narendra Modi's state election victory could mark a watershed in many ways. One was that this was probably the first major election where the main contender did not campaign on caste or communal lines. Rather, NaMo had made a greater creative Identity the cornerstone of his new politics much earlier - the politics of Asmita. Asmita is Sanskrit for the inspiration, dignity and work that springs from pride in one's Identity, and he called it Gujarati Asmita - which he significantly joined with a pan-Indian Asmita, and subsequently one theoretically based on a Dharma that promotes good values across humanity. In creatively enthusing a greater Identity, NaMo had transcended the petty identity politics that others have thrived on. He backed that up with a dynamic socio-economic vision and agenda.
In contrast with identity politics, Asmita politics is integral and invites more people to participate in it. When a greater all-encompassing identity is created, it is up to others whether they want to share in its inspiration and contribute to it, or whether they prefer to turn their backs on it and remain separate. In order to be able to invite and utilize more people in its projects of life and living, the Asmita politician must be able to select talents and resources where available, and redistribute them where needed. This is part of the larger system that we know as Varnashrama.
The Chaturvarna (4 Varnas) are functional divisions of a completed Cycle of Action, comprehensive in all respects of Life. So what is the significance of Varna, its actual purpose, and what does it mean for moral leadership, values and pragmatism in society? Sourced some of the material from here - The Order of Time. Check this article in particular: Q 5.1 What are the divisions and content of a balanced life? (Do a search for "varna" to get to some directly relevant paragraphs.) And then this article: Q 5.2 Interests of the Soul
The system of Varna is interlocking with the Ashrama divisions. Both together propose a system objective: "How do we guarantee and understand that interests of the soul should prevail over the interest of the ego? Simply balancing good with evil within ourselves with a clock and calendar is just part of the solution. To the solution there, of course, must also be a clear moral leadership."
The issue of moral leadership is important in answering the first question (bolded). But moral "leadership" can soon degenerate into religious or ideological "authority". That's a dwindling spiral, and an entity loses creative enthusiasm and becomes dull, or merely argumentative. This is true whether it is a religious authority like in, say, Iran; or whether it is a political ideology and rhetoric of "democracy" as in the US. The organizing principle becomes subverted by the ego to impose its static "solution" on everyone. It could degenerate into a stultified intellect (powered by the ego) driving a robotic machine (society and the individual). India's earlier "caste system" was a case in point for a while after it outlived its utility.
This poor record of "authority" is not an argument against the role of "leadership" in general. As we observe and participate in an "anti-corruption" movement in India today, this point will repeatedly come up. In Iran, the struggle for freedom from religious dictatorship is hamstrung because there is no viable alternative leadership with the required level of moral authority. The opposition leaders are merely "reformist" ex-Islamists. Same case in the US today, which could use a unified direction and re-calibration of values and Asmita, rather than political correctness based on identity politics.
Public education ("presentation of philosophy or standards") of the masses is therefore an important part of political economy and moral leadership: media, universities, cultural and competitive activities. The West puts a premium on its control of the media, its university network and control of academia, and the blatant use of the "Coliseum culture" to manage its populations. But how can one use this same organizing and educational principle to ensure that the interests of the soul prevail over the interests of the ego?
First, we can define fields (or scopes) of work:
It goes without saying that at the level of scientific "observation", "law", etc., whatever is observed or legislated may be true in one of these scopes, but not another. What may be true for a society may not be true for the individual. What may be true for one aspect of an individual may not be taken as true for the individual as a whole, etc. Clearly, any definition of Varna or Ashrama that is at the level of "legalism" cannot be a comprehensive definition, but is limited by spatio-temporal and cultural coordinates.
Within any field of work, there are levels of commitment:
In Sanskrit, different words are used for different calibers of teachers. An "adhyaapaka" is one who has some specialized knowledge that he can deliver to students. A "shrotriya" is one who is familiar with a much wider context of that specialized knowledge, and so never misses the forest for the trees. A "pravaktaa" is one who not only has all this, but is a personal believer in the subject and walks the talk in his life. It is not merely an academic "intellectual" interest, but he works with it. An "acharya" is one who has realized the end phenomena of the subject.
One can create such a status mapping, based on ego-inclinations and life-phases, and each would have its own set of values, easily recognizable in society:
The identities assumed by individuals can be further mapped based on their life situation and lifestyle choices:
From the above, its pretty clear that Asmita politics must have an interlocking co-operation with other aspects of Life, and its movers and shapers ought to demonstrate that internal harmony, either in themselves, or as part of society. That harmony signals a moral leadership that is important in society - to balance enduring values with the circumstantial demands for vigorous pragmatism in dealing with external and internal challenges, threats and opportunities.
