Policy and Law: Moral consequences in the Here and Hereafter

Ethics, Policy and Law are concerned with distinguishing 'right' from 'wrong' and enforcing a balance of right in society. But do diferent religious-cultural backgrounds have a different colouring effect on Policy and Law? If so, do jurisprudence and policy frameworks conceived in the West and East complement or pervert one another? The service-relationship between the Conscious and Subconscious minds determines the semantics of Policy and Legal systems.

If only a Way existed so that each human being could know right from wrong, the world would be a better place, both, in the Here and Hereafter. Below are two different approaches found in the world. Whether the 'Hereafter' means the ever-present 'subconscious' or a postmortem destination is immaterial. It all depends on what one's reference of communication is - a Person or Book?

Dharma - Personal Fountainhead
Yudhiṣṭhira was Dharmarāja, king of Dharma. When K. recommended that he lie about Aśvatthāma's death in order to throw the latter's father Droṇa into grief-stricken confusion, Yudhiṣṭhira hesitated to lie. Immediately the wheels of his chariot, which hitherto spun two inches off the earth, hit the floor. The common people's version says that this happened because he lied. But the theological commentaries say it happened because he hesitated to lie on K.'s suggestion. धर्मं तु साक्षाद् भगवत् प्रणीतम् - "Dharma is what is laid down for enactment directly by the Lord, without proxy." The word sākṣāt is important - it means immediate, live, without proxy.

After passing from this world, Yudhiṣṭhira passes a test of patience, loyalty and intelligence: He reaches Heaven, only to find that it was filled with his erstwhile enemies, the Kauravas. He was then taken to Hell where his brothers and wife were suffering bitter torments. Shocked by the blood and gore he saw there, his initial reaction was to flee. But then he made a value judgment - he decided it was preferable to endure Hell with good people he loved than enjoy Heaven in the company of evil. Eventually this also turned out to be an illusion to test him, as Indra soon revealed. But significantly, the commentaries point out that it also served to atone for his sin of having lied to his guru, Droṇa - a breach of loyalty to someone he loved.

So, it was in his Hereafter that Yudhiṣṭhira atoned for the lie, and not in the Here & Now of Kurukṣetra. In the Present Moment of Kurukṣetra, Yudhiṣṭhira paid for not heeding the amoral impetus of K.'s advice. His connection with his Lord fell short of intention without reservation. Whereas in the Hereafter he atoned for the overt lie by way of commitment to a value - its meaning and purpose re-orienting his intelligence after he overcome the initial impetus of the reactive mind.

धर्मं तु साक्षाद् भगवत् प्रणीतम्
न वै विदुर्ऋषयो नापि देवाः ।
न सिद्ध-मुख्या असुरा मनुष्याः
कुतो नु विद्याधर-चारणादयः ॥

"Real religious principles (Dharma) are directly enacted by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although fully situated in the mode of goodness, even the great Seers who occupy the uppermost Heavens cannot ascertain the real religious principles, nor can the demigods nor the leaders of the Heaven of the Perfected Souls, to say nothing of the Demonic Titans, ordinary human beings, and other Celestial beings." 

~ Srimad Bhagavatam, 6.3.19

The word sākṣāt above is key - "immediate, witnessed live, without proxy". So in the Dharmic traditions, ultimate morality is based on connectedness, not on proxies such as a book, an ideology, and the diktats of a reigning priesthood. [Head, Heart & Connectedness: Browsing the marketplace of identities].

Morality is discovered as a circumstantial undercurrent rather than depicted as an overt isolated quality. [Moral equivalence - Exterior manifestations vs. Undercurrents]. In other words, morality is consequential, not deontological.

The desideratum - connectedness - is achieved through using up one's gifts in the energetic service of goodness, and by making a sacrifice based on intelligence - rather than surrendering one's intelligence to priestcraft. [The Dasyu-Dāsa dynamic vs. "class struggle" theory]

That intelligence suggests a different formula for different conditions of existence, and different circumstances of time, place and maturity of stakeholders. [The Resurrection of the Karma Kanda]. Therefore, great law-givers are humans, albeit of transcendental intelligence. Being human, every law codex has an expiry date, nothing absolute about it. Thus, it is not surprising that Hindu civilization, for example, has had various codices of law (dharma-śāstras) at different times and in different areas - the smritis of Manu, Apastamba, Baudhayana, Gautama, Vasishta, Parasara. None of them are absolutely sacrosanct, all of them yielding way to others. In modern times, sadhus campaigning on behalf of political Hindutva go from village to village brandishing the Constitution of the Republic of India as a modern smriti that has to be upheld as sacred law - and the intentions of its authors in the Preamble be honored rather than subverted in letter and spirit. 

Priestcraft and cultural solutions are only scaffolding to support one at various stages of the journey home. Later it becomes a resource base to contribute one's own experience and knowledge to, for the sake of future seekers. [Priest-craft: Managed solutions vs. Unmanaged customizations].

Religious-Ideological 'Scripture' - Impersonal Template
In a tradition that is religious in a purely ideological sense (or obversely dubbed "secular", i.e., shy of the domination of a religious priesthood), morality is measured purely by overt affiliation with a certain dogma and set of beliefs.

At this level of 'thought', a book and variegated literature in pursuance of its contents become the direct word of God. The book is not a proxy in this consideration, it is God Himself. It is not that God is experienced immediately (not via 'feelings' or a 'spirit') in the Word, but rather that a recorded word is itself God, whose human-intelligible interpretations bring one experience of God in the Hereafter. It is not that the Sabbath was made for Man, but that Man was made for the Sabbath. At this level of existence, memory processes are such that Commemoration of a historical event is mistaken for Remembrance of a Living God. At this level of existence, preference is given to commemorating the cultural products (sanskriti) of some previous spiritual process instead of personal implementation of a living spiritual process (sabhyatā).

Of course, even within a Dharmic framework, for the seeker who is not self-realized, who lacks connectedness of conscience with the divine, books and disciplines are necessary and a virtue. But even in that case, the adherence to tenets and practices is subordinated to the subtle immediate connection, and this is so clearly emphasized by Dharmic scripture that the maxim is "Dharma is subtle (sukshma)", not overt. Whereas in a non-Dharmic context, all logic is subordinated to the word of 'scripture', and it becomes almost totally deductive. In the post 'Yukta-Vairagya: Natural merger of Classical & Sacred' I quoted:

YOUTUBE: Discussion of Madhusudana Saraswati's Prasthāna-Bheda - by Shri Narendra Khapre 

Why and when would one ignore a religious scripture? It says: "If it interrupts or impedes a purushārtha (one of the 4 natural human dynamics of righteousness, ambition, sensuality, and liberation)." That's an essentially classical view. But in a purely sacred dāsa-kūṭa tradition, or an Abrahamic religion like Islam, it goes something like this: Refer to your awliya (saints and their predecessors), but if their justifications contradict the statements of the sahābā (Companions of the Prophet), then reject it and go with that of the Companions, and if the words of a Companion contradict that of the Prophet and Qur'an, then bypass that and go with the Qur'an and prophetic Sunna. In other words, its "logic" is purely deductive and has no anchor point in the real world in Present Time.

In the Dharmic context, the classical is the substrate of all 'sacred' experiments, until one reaches full self-realization. Whereas in the non-Dharmic context, the sacred is the substrate of all culture and observation, and anything that does not fit into that framework is discarded or suppressed.

Empiricism vs. Legalism
The logical framework of Dharmic spirituality devolves to Experientialism, whereas the logical framework of religious-ideological spirituality devolves to Legalism. 

Even in dāsa-kūṭa traditions within the Dharmic context, after delineating a million do's and don'ts - all with the purpose of pleasing the Lord - the final "how to" is invariably येन-केनापि - "somehow or the other!" - ultimately leaving it to the intense desire and inventiveness of the seeker after launching himself/herself from that framework. In this context, social law and its punishments serve to preserve the integrity of the classical tradition and culture (sabhyatā), rather than enforce individual morality which is a matter of personal experience and the nuances of one's specific family background.

But in the Legalistic framework of Islam, satisfaction in the pure duplication of the Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) actions in different circumstances is considered the pinnacle of self-realized morality (a philosophy finding its full expression in the works of Imam Rabbani a.k.a. Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi). In the legalistic framework of Islam (fiqh), all actions pertaining to every aspect of living can be pigeon-holed into one of five groups:

Fardh - Those commands of Allah (recorded in scripture) which are obligatory, without which one falls from one's status as a faithful believer. 

Wajib - An act that usually accompanies a Fardh, and are practically compulsory - unless there is a very good scriptural precedent to omit it in a special circumstance. 

Sunnat-e-muakkadah - A habit or act of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that is extremely desirable to imitate. To omit its performance now and them can be overlooked, but to become habitually neglectful of it is a sign that one is misguided. 

Sunnat-e-ghair muakkadah - A habit or act of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that the Prophet himself often omitted without any reason - thus freeing the faithful from the obligation to deductive reasoning. However, performance of even such occasional or arbitrary acts of the Prophet brings great reward and are highly encouraged. 

Mustahab - Those actions that are to be encouraged, but are not compulsory. There is no harm if one omits it, but there is reward in doing it 

Mubah - Those actions that are neither encouraged nor discouraged, such as whether to wear a green or red shirt. 

Makrooh - Acts considered disgusting to Allah, the performance of which is not forbidden but highly discouraged nevertheless. In certain extenuating circumstances they may be done, or even encouraged. 

Haraam - Those acts that are forbidden. Anyone who denies the forbidden nature of such acts is considered an unbeliever. There is reward in refraining from such acts. 

All except Haraam acts are considered 'Halaal' - those that do not make one lose one's status as a believer. The entire spectrum of action (halaal to haraam) is based on "authenticated texts" as transmitted by bona fide transmitters. It is these personal ethics that are to be enforced via state law. The nuances of one's specific family and cultural background are to be wiped off if they are not a smooth fit to this curve.

Law, Policy and Interpersonal Culture
In a Dharmic situation, the law serves policy, and policy serves the civilization and culture of self-realization. In a non-Dharmic situation, cannibalized cultures are made to serve policy, and policy serves the fullest possible implementation of the law in any given condition of existence.

In that non-Dharmic context, while the law and its intent is clear, a wise policy is to be used to realize its implementation. Violence is a last resort, though the threat of violence and the overwhelm of power is apparently encouraged in some cultures more than others. At the best of times, polite admonishment is the best policy, often just with the eyes. At the worse of times, one uses lies and dissimulation, subversion and overt complaints, negotiations and treaties in order to protect or further the cause. Somewhere inbetween these two extremes is a love of doing battle.

I think whether Dharmic or non-Dharmic, there is a fair overlap in policy choices, and one cannot determine the Dharmic quotient merely from a snapshot of policy. But perhaps by observation of long-running policy trends, and discerning the service-relationships between law, policy and interpersonal culture, one can draw conclusions. The 'modes of doing' are common to the human condition in general. [See table in 'Be Do Have: Creativity, Faith, Works and Witnessing'].

The basic equations between the three definitely has a huge bearing on inter-personal relationships and also inter-communal relationships [Blasphemy and Multicultural Democracy]. For example, in the command-obedience scheme, this Qur'anic command assumes extraordinary importance: "al Amr bil Ma'aroof wal nahi an'il Munkar" - "To enjoin what is good and to forbid what is wrong". But "good" and "wrong" are values that have no real empirical basis here, except as handed down to "believers". So the Shi'a considers it his godly duty to curse and condemn the other 3 Caliphs and several Companions of the Prophet (pbuh) who were politically in a different faction from 'Ali (rs) - because the Shi'a needs to forbid to his fellow Muslims and human beings the wrong guidance they may be getting from those people who are not chosen by the Lord. On the other hand, the Sunni needs to forbid and condemn this blasphemy of the Shi'as, who dare to blaspheme the holy Companions who descended onto this Earth to participate in Muhammad's divine career ("leela", as it were), and are all sacrosanct by association despite any apparent human imperfections. Their apparent imperfections must be seen in terms of various paths to tawheed (cognition of Oneness) and attraction to Muhammad (who is perfect), and so every Muslim chooses to emulate one or the other holy Companion based on something that draws him to that Companion's character, something he can identify with. By denigrating large sections of Companions and questioning several hadiths, the Shi'as are spreading mischief and doubt among the Muslim ummah and its perfect system for approaching tawheed. Therefore, the Shi'a and the Sunni are locked in mutual condemnation, one reacting to the other. The only time this death-spiral pauses and transforms into unity is when the non-Muslim casts a shadow, for the non-Muslim threatens things that both Shi'a and Sunni consider even more sacred than their mutual differences. Therefore, this is a tribalistic mindset, where blood and faction are closely related.

Justice and Mercy
A tendency towards Haraam acts is to be punished both Here on earth as well as in the Hereafter. Wherever possible, Haraam is to be discouraged by a combination of "fear and hope", as formulated by the master theologian Ghazali. In implementing the system, legalism is again the prime recourse - in which case an interesting philosophical turn comes into sight - the relationship between Justice and Mercy. True Mercy is only in the Hereafter, for all practical purposes. A very telling hadith (narration) from the Prophet's times is as follows:

From Sahih Muslim 4206 -  

"'Abdullah b. Buraida reported on the authority of his father: There came to the Prophet (S) a woman from Ghamid and said: 'Allah's Messenger (S), I have committed adultery, so purify me.' He turned her away. On the following day she said: 'Allah's Messenger (S), why do you turn me away? Perhaps you turn me away as you turned away Ma'iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant.' He (S) said: 'Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child).' 

When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: 'Here is the child whom I have given birth to.' He (S) said: 'Go away and suckle him until you wean him.'
When she had weaned him, she came to the Prophet (S) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: 'Allah's Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food.' 

Prophet (S) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded the people and they stoned her.
Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head, and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah's Apostle (S) heard Khalid's curse. 

Thereupon he (S) said: 'Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even it a wrongful tax collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven.' 

Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried."

The believer woman in this case displayed a sterling quality of taking responsibility for her crime. Her penitence was simply in undergoing the prescribed torment in the Here, in order to absolve herself of consequences in the Hereafter. According to this level of consideration, her voluntary shame in this world contributed to her honour in the next. This consideration is common to mindsets characterized by a dipole of honour and shame, or sin and redemption.

Honesty and Introspection
Among communities with such a non-dharmic legalistic mindset are to be found several individuals who are 'honest' and friendly in terms of saying what they think and doing what they say - but they frankly cannot be apologetic for what has been prophesied, no matter how seemingly absurd, hypocritical, or horrific. Their reasoning and responsibility for personal value judgments operates within a very limited jurisdiction, one of deductions from scripture. This is quite unlike Yudhiṣṭhira.

There is something strange with their 'honesty '. It contains no part of that introspection in the sense of being the Observer separate from the Observed (drg-drshya viveka). Any 'introspection' is very superficial, about who is promiscuous (ayyash, aubash) or a devious cheat (makkaar), and who isn't.

The majority of the discourse in such cultures tends to externalize blame to conspiratorial non-believers, while being equally swift to tackle 'traitors' within. Such 'honesty' necessarily has a cruel edge to it. At the same time, the sense of responsibility is displays is equally macabre, albeit sometimes inspiring - a tribute to human nature and its willingness to sacrifice for righteousness, no matter what culture one is from.

It is rather chilling to realize that, given the naivete human intelligence is capable of, human societies can gain their sense of righteousness from rather primitive religiosity and 'honesty', as much as from a deeper introspective Dharma. It does appear that the Lord is equally generous with his blessings of righteousness (and all the powers that flow from that certainty) to both, the divine and the daemon. Perhaps when the river of Karma breaches its banks and the tide overwhelms everything including the Lord, it will be left to humans to realize that the locus of actual salvation is the Person within.

Head, Heart & Connectedness: Browsing the marketplace of identities

I was wondering why a disproportionately large number of Hindu political thinkers identify themselves as "atheist", while that does not seem to be the case with Hindu spiritual leaders and teachers. Are they contrapuntal considerations of the same truth-stream? What are the risks involved?

At least over the last 100 odd years, the "atheist"and "theist" labels have been used to analyze Indian religious and philosophical systems. Those are Western Christian labels, of course. But even before that, the "astika" and "nastika" labels were used within India to categorize different sects. Astika were those sects that accepted the "authority" of the Veda (can be theistic or atheistic schools), while nastika were those that did not require the Vedic word as evidence (again, can be theistic or atheistic schools).

I think intellectual categorizations (created essentially for the purpose of debate) are often taken too far, and they obscure the big picture, knocking the student off center as he tries to fit himself or herself into this or that category.

Rather, categories are best used by the student to understand various phases of his own experience as an integral individual approaching completion. He/she may wax and wane through various categories, but always remains an entity at the intersection of all categories (and transcendental to them) rather than trying constantly to belong to one or the other category or label (उपाधि).

In the same vein, this astika/nastika and also the theist/atheist division are themselves false dichotomies introduced as exclusive categories at some point into the socio-political discourse.

If Sikhism is called nastika just because Guru Nanak poetically or rhetorically coaxes us to give up being obsessed with the words of the Veda, then the Bhagavad Gita must also qualify as a nastika text:

याम् इमां पुष्पितां वाचं
प्रवदन्त्यविपश्चितः ।
वेद-वाद-रताः पार्थ
नान्यद् अस्तीति वादिनः ॥
कामात्मनः स्वर्ग-परा
जन्म-कर्म-फल-प्रदाम् ।
क्रिया-विशेष-बहुलां
भोगैश्वर्य-गतिं प्रति ॥ 

"Men of small knowledge are much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heaven, good birth and karma, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more to religion than this." - Bhagavad Gita 2:42-43

Here, Krishna denigrates the Vedic karma-kanda, or at least those who remain confined to the karma-kanda worldview. The BG isn't considered anti-Vedic; it's one of the prasthana-traya in Vedanta. But this passage is no less denigrating than any verse from the honorable Guru Granth that brushes aside those who remain addicted to Vedic karma-kanda. So if Sikhi gets classified as 'nastika' (and therefore non-Hindu), then does that make the Gita a nastika text, too?

Similarly, is the Bhagavad Gita the epitome of Hindu theism? Or does the Gita leave the door open for atheism? Krishna seems to be quite comfortable with atheism as an alternative route to better spiritual ability, at least at a preliminary point in the process:

अव्यक्तोsयम् अचिन्त्योsयम्
अविकार्योsयम् उच्यते ।
तस्माद् एवं विदित्वैनं
नानुशोचितुम् अर्हसि ॥
अथ चैनं नित्य-जातं
नित्यं वा मन्यसे मृतम् ।
तथापि त्वं महाबाहो
नैनं शोचितुम् अर्हसि ॥ 

"It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable and immutable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body. If, however, you think that the soul [or the symptoms of life] is always born and dies forever, you still have no reason to lament [because you know it is destined to end anyway], O mighty-armed." - Bhagavad Gita 2:25-26

So since the Gita has no problem with its disciple NOT believing in any metaphysical existence, doesn't that mean that it is OK with, both, atheism or theism? Or rather that those words from Western categories have a very limited significance within the Indic context?

This sort of categorization or labeling is practically nonsensical, in my humble opinion. Rather, a nastika or negating condition is an inherent part of the Vedic understanding of Existence and how to DEAL with it constructively. My 2 cents on where such classifications and dialectic devices fit into the larger picture:

Consideration	Definition	Example from Vedic Source
सत्यम् / याथातथ्यम्  (Satyam) As-Is-ness	The condition of immediate creation without persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction, and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival. कूटस्थ अनादि – Highest or fundamental eternality.	स पर्यगाच्छुक्रम् अकायम् अव्रणम् अस्नाविरं शुद्धम् अपाप-विद्धं कविर्मनीषी परिभूः स्वयंभूर् याथातथ्यतोsर्थान् व्यदधाच्छाश्वतीभ्यः समाभ्यः । “Such a person must factually know the greatest of all, the Personality of Godhead, who is unembodied, omniscient, beyond reproach, without veins, pure and uncontaminated, the self-sufficient existence as is, who has been fulfilling everyone's desire since time immemorial.” – Isha Upanishad, mantra 8
यज्ञः (Yajna) Modified-Is-ness	It is the consideration which introduces a vector change in an As-Is-ness, and therefore time and persistence, into an As-Is postulate in order to obtain persistence or continuity, i.e. Dharma.	ऋतं च मेsमृतं च मेsयक्षमं च मेsनामयच्च मे जीवातुश्च मे दीर्घायुत्वं च मेsनमित्रं च मेsभयं च मे सुगं च मे शयनं च मे सूषा च मे सुदिनं च मे यज्ञेन कल्पितम् । “May my Rtam, my immortality, my freedom from decay, my life, my longevity, my freedom from non-aligned (unallied) forces, my freedom from fear, my happiness, my inactive rest (lying down safely), my beautiful dawn (rising), and my lovely day be created (kalpita) by Yajna.” – Yajur Veda, 18.6
ऋतम् (Rtam) (आस्तिक) Is-ness	It is an apparency of existence brought about by the continuous alteration of an As-Is postulate. When agreed upon, this is called reality. प्रवाहत अनादि – Eternality of flowing from source.
अनृतम् / मिथ्या (Anrtam / Mithya) (नास्तिक) Not-Is-ness	It is the effort to handle, or gain control over, or gain freedom from an Is-ness by reducing its condition through the application of force. It is an inferior apparency and cannot entirely vanquish an Is-ness. It is likely to eventually succumb and become subsumed under that existing Is-ness. (Therefore, the creation of a new, bigger Is-ness via a fresh Modified-Is-ness is the wiser option if the intention is really abrogation.) The skillful application of an opposing Not-Is-ness is essential to serving the persistence of the Is-ness.	ऊँ इति सत्यं नेत्यनृतं । तद् एतत् पुष्पं फलं वाचो यत्   सत्यं, स हेश्वरो यशस्वी कल्याणकीरतिर् भवितोः पुष्पं हि फलं वाचः सत्यं वदति । अथैतन् मूलं वाचो यद् अनृतं तद् यथा वृक्ष आविर्मूलः शुष्यति स उद्वर्तते, तस्माद् अनृतं न वदेद् दयेत त्वनेन । पराग् वा एतद् रिक्तं अक्षरं यद् एतद् ऊँ इति तद् यत् किंचोम् इत्याहात्रैवास्मै तद्रिच्यते स यत् सर्वं ऊँ कुर्याद् रिञ्च्याद् आत्मानं स कामेभ्यो नालं स्यात् । अथैतत् पूर्णं आभ्यात्मं यन् नेति,   स यत् सर्वं नेति ब्रूयात् पापिकास्य कीर्तिर् जायेत, सैनं तत्रैव हन्यात् । तस्मात् काल एव दद्यात् काले न दद्यात् तत् सत्यानृते मिथुनी-करोति, तयोर् मिथुनात् प्रजायते भूयान् भवति । “’Yes’ (Aum) is affirmation and ‘no’ (na) is negation. And affirmation is the most beautiful fruit   and flower of language. Whoever speaks the flower and fruit of language will become a famous ruler with a spotless reputation, i.e., he who speaks positive affirmation. However, the root of language itself is negation. Just as a tree whose roots are exposed must dry out and perish, so too must a human being dry out and perish if he allows negation to be sounded, for he exposes his own roots. Therefore, he should not allow negation to be sounded, and instead should exercise caution. Truly, ‘yes’ (Aum) is a forward-looking, an outgoing syllable. Whenever he says ‘yes’ (Aum) to someone, he gives something away. And if he were to say it to everyone, he would not leave enough for his own needs, for he would have given himself away completely. But ‘no’ is a syllable turned in on itself, a full [remaining syllable]. If he were to say ‘no’ to everyone, his reputation would be loaded with curses. And this would crush him on the spot. Therefore, there is a time when one should give and a time when one should not give. In this way he makes a united pair out of affirmation and negation, and through this pair he becomes more than he was before.” – Aitareya Aranyaka 2.3.6

Bhakti, as the very substance of consciousness, is transcendental to "beliefs", and cannot be bottled in any philosophy, theistic or atheistic. Of course, ideas can give it shape and form, protect and direct it, and help to grow and develop one's ability to have more bhakti. Ideas depend on scale and perspective. So also, it looks like the Gita, or Hinduism in general, is a very different approach to "religion" or "philosophy" as defined in the Christian West or in Islam. It is bigger than "beliefs" and operates at a different level than mere affirmations and/or negations (and their attendant philosophical justifications).

It may be that Hindu spiritual leaders concern themselves more with higher echelon processes like Satyam, Yajna and Rtam, while Hindutva politicians seem focused on defence of a sense of control or freedom from an overwhelming effect, especially by the application of Anrtam. Wisely or not - that will depend on the deference and sincere relationship of the "rational" or "religious" Hindutva politician to true spiritual leaders and their long-term vision. Time stands poised like a hooded cobra over ideological and material politics, either to strike dead, or to serve and protect.

A friend commented on the "atheist" posturing of several Hindutva leaders (BRF):

""Atheism" or describing oneself as "atheist" while being "Hindutva leaders" comes out possibly of both a linguistic as well as philosophical difficulty. 

Linguistic - because one feels pressurized or an urge not to identify with what passes currently for "theism" or the "theist" version of contemporary "Hinduism". They are reacting against the conventional imagery of "theism".  

"Philosophically - because the primary language of expression, required also for the very necessary political mobilization on all fronts at both internal Desh "educated" levels as well as abroad [spiritual as well as material] is English. That is an extremely inadequate language to accurately describe the insights from the core of Vedic or post-Vedic explorations.
Theism-atheism, god-no-god-beyond-god, ityadi - all are inadequate descriptions of the concept of the spiritual matrix of reality/world/universe/life from the core of "Hindu" thought that transcends all of those hard-boundary mutually exclusive categories. Now how to explain that in "English"?!!! So better stick to "atheism" as the label. 

"Having said that, some of the "leaders" might be desperately resolving their own issues of feeling the need to distance themselves from what they have subconsciously been conditioned to look down upon as "superstition" [a la selective and pseudo moralism of the later Abrahamic], and atheism is a convenient shield to defend oneself from having to sympathetically look on those "superstitions" as sometimes little understood or non-long-forgotten ancient insights and symbolic representations of those insights in natural processes and life. 

"People here have found my attitude towards RJM [Ram Janma Bhumi] building a strange contradiction to my supposedly otherwise "rational" no-ritualistic attitude. But I navigate this minefield without any dilemma. I have not formally worshiped at any pilgrimage or temples, but I have done the "parikramas" keeping the "hardship" aspect in mind with full respect. Even if I do not always participate in rituals, I deeply sympathize and have my respects for the underlying symbolisms. They are my ancestors own, almost often a poetical rendering of deeply symbolic insights into nature and life. It is crucial to respect the rituals and understand their full import as a coded passing on of our ancestral civilization's understandings at their times.  

"Hindutva leaders should take a neither-reject-nor-accept attitude to the past accumulation of such stuff. There is no need to feel ashamed of them, nor is it necessary to get bogged down in the formal magical enchantment of the rituals and their symbolisms, and have a deep appreciation as to what they stand for, and how they really should be looked at and that regard and appreciation passed onto the next generations in one unbroken continuity of ever-increasing philosophical insight."

I think so , too. Hindu political thinkers are making a statement rejecting western categories. But its still interesting why they choose "atheism" as the most convenient label. They often introduce themselves as such. Perhaps it is a ruse to avoid being equated with other "religious fundamentalists" such as the inevitable comparison with Pakistani Islamists, or with heavily funded Evangelicals that a running amuck in vast swathes of India. Or is it because the Abrahamics have decided among themselves that they have a monopoly over what they call "monotheism", and so the Indic is turning away in disgust at being shut out, and rejecting the Western 'theism' itself? Or is it because they are distancing themselves from their own confused inability to make sense of the Hindu Pauranic traditions? (I remember reading Arun Shourie ji's book on Hinduism [a person whom I otherwise have the greatest respect for], and I couldn't believe the shallowness of his "rational" critique, pointing out so-called "conrtadictions" without being able to offer any perspective, like it was nothing more than priestcraft over a rather ignorant and superstitious civilization.)

In his classic 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire', Edward Gibbons devotes considerable attention to the religious-philosophical currents prevalent at the time of the beginning of that decay. In it, he points out the dry, speculative, aloof and cynical philosophical trends that were fashionable among the educated elites in stark contrast with the devotional and somewhat superstitious attitudes of the masses whom they looked down upon. This internal cynicism and disconnect between the intellectual and emotive streams within the people and the body politic as a whole was a symptom of the beginning of the end of true creative energy in that civilization.

नास्ति बुद्धिर् अयुक्तस्य
न चायुक्तस्य भावना ।
न चाभावयतः शान्तिः
अशान्तस्य कुतः सुखम् ॥

"One who is not connected [with the divine through a spiritual process] does not have a sound transcendental intellect, and neither does he have a steady flow of feeling in his heart. There is no tranquility and contentment without a steady and full heart, and without peace how can there be happiness?" - Bhagavad Gita 2.66

Whatever be the case with Hindutva political leaders and thinkers, in my humble opinion the inclination to identify with "atheism" and their aloofness from the kumbha-mela of popular Hinduism could backfire in other ways - at a civilizational level - if their intellectual stances and hearts are not tempered with a real adherence and connection to the processes of spiritual development. In this respect, it appears that only Narendra Modi appears to stand apart from the others at this time. In a marketplace of identities, his Asmita seems a bit more connected than any other.

Varnashrama: Between Method & Madness

Ideological & political approaches should balance and combine emotion and intellect. Politics based purely on the philosophy of "Its the economy, stupid" is less reliable than fiat currency. Politics based purely on primitive emotion is a compelling example for human devolution.

Discussing Judaism, Christianity and Islam in contrast with Indic religions, a friend suggested: "Founding roots of Abrahamic [religion] is the ill-digested follow-on from Krishna's battlefield Bhagavat stressing the personal-relationship with humanoid 'God' but minus the understanding of karma and re/incarnation." Regardless of whether the distinction holds in general, here are some preliminary considerations on the difference between Vedic and non-Vedic ideological approaches to civilization:

Aitareya Aranyaka, 3.2.3 says: "एष पन्था एष कर्मैतत् सत्यम् एतं वायौ ।" - "He is the Path(s), the Way/Method, the Truth, (in) the Life (life force)."

This is almost verbatim to Jesus' famous words, "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life...".

Similarly, in the Isha Upanishad, and in various variations in many other Hindu texts we find the phrases like "सो sह्म्" - "I am He/That". And "यो sसावसौ पूरुषः सो sहमस्मि ।" - "The He that is that Person, He is I". Again, apparently from the same loom as Jesus' words "I am that 'I am'".

Jesus is supposed to be the firstborn son of God, born from the very body of God, and non-different from Him. Similarly, in Hinduism, Brahma, the Creator, is born from the body of Garbhodakashayi Vishnu, and is the very first emanation born directly from Him.

If you look for any of Jesus' cryptic words and instructions in the Vedas, Aranyakas, Brahmanas, Upanishads, and Puranas, you will find all of them directly in them. Typically fleshed out copiously and in a far richer context in all cases.

Those words and descriptions and their contexts have been there in the Vedas and its literature before Christianity, before the recorded history of Judaism.

Those words were also understood very differently by the Hindus and other Vedic peoples for tens of thousands of years.

There is no dearth of exclusive devotion to God in a henotheistic or monotheistic way in Hinduism.

But it is still very different from the alleged monotheism of Christianity or Islam.

I trust it will be as fascinating to you to explore this crucial difference, as it has been for me.

Vedic and non-Vedic religion: A matter of epistemology

1. The map is not the territory.

• When parts of a map are described, it does not actually describe the real territory. 
• The material sense perceptions are like a lower-order map of a higher order reality. 
• Moreover, in a holonymic semantic model of the universe (or multiverse), the actual territory also contains a map of itself in some part of itself. So the whole is made up of its parts (easy to understand), but each part also contains the whole within it, recursively. 
• Optimal perception and observation of reality requires "objective silence" and cannot be achieved by mere intensional or extensional paradigms of analysis.
• Faith with understanding and works determine Karma. "Surrender with intelligence", not "surrender your intelligence".

Mobius' transformations nicely depicts it mathematically:

A non-Vedic philosophy or religion does not distinguish between the synecdoche and metaphor of scriptural word-maps, and the reality of the process. It does not distinguish between the addictive effects of psycho-physical 'feelings' and 'emotions' and the reality of psycho-spiritual mellows. It does not have a holonymic semantic, but rather is limited to a purely associative semantic logic. It is entangled in intensional or extensional ideologies, far removed from objective silence. It eventually devolves to faith at the cost of either understanding or works.

2. Time has a linear as well as cyclic component.

• A psycho-spiritual model must account for regressive as well as progressive movement along the psychological time-track as viewed by the individual. 
• 'Sacred' and 'classical' values must be balanced in combination.
• The individual spiritually involves and evolves cyclically only via numerous 'births' and 'deaths' - psychological and physical.
• There is no scarcity of physical bodies - yet Life is precious.
• See also: Priestcraft: Managed Solutions versus Unmanaged Customizations

A non-Vedic philosophy or religion is based on a predominantly linear concept of time. Moreover, it is riddled with obligatory introjections that cause the adherent to, well, adhere fixedly to some particular point on the time-track - such as an obsession with one particular prophet, book, god, etc. as a singular or final pinnacle in a hierarchy limited by space-time. The ideology misuses the 'sacred' as a carrier for political ambition, and it cuckolds the 'classical' to lend itself respectability. The time-horizon is limited to a single lifetime of the current physical body, to the extent of projecting it into an afterlife in heaven or hell (as the case may be). It socially engineers managed solutions and elitist priestcraft at the cost of a spiritual culture of individual, unmanaged customization.

[A word here on the Vedic perspective of Karma and rebirth: Some Western "Indologist" types with their 'Aryan' race-based theories have been trying to suggest that the concept of Karma and rebirth is not present in the 'Aryan' Vedas, and was a later development within 'Upanishadic' Hinduism. Bollocks, of course.]

From a RigVeda verse on cremation, 10.16.3 -

सूर्यं चक्षुर्गच्छतु वातमात्मा द्यां च गच्छ पृथिवीं च धर्मणा ।
अपो वा गच्छ यदि तत्र ते हितमोषधीषु प्रति तिष्ठा शरीरैः ॥ 

"To the Sun let your Eyes go,
To the Wind your Life-breath.
By the good Deeds you have done,
Go to the Heaven and then come back again
To live on the Earth or take to the Waters
If you are comfortable with it.
Remain in the Herbs with the bodies you intend to take."

And another one. RigVeda 10.16.2 -

श्रुतं यदा करसि जातवेदो ' थेमेनम् परिदत्तात् पितृभ्यः ।
यद् गच्छात्यसूनीतिमेतामथा देवानां वाशनीर्भवाती ॥ 

"When the Supreme Lord gives the soul rebirth and facilitates another mother-father duo based on the fruits of Karma, then the soul inherits that particular type of life-force dynamics, and becomes engaged with the sensory apparatus."

Between Method & Madness

Caught between the intoxication of devotion and the method of the intellect, what is the way? Seen from the perspective of Vaishnava bhakti texts like the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu 1.2.101 -

श्रुति-स्मृति-पुराणादि
पञ्चरात्र-विधिं विना ।
ऐकान्तिकी हरेर्भक्तिर्
उत्पातायैव कल्पते ॥

"Devotion to the Lord that ignores the method and concepts of Vedic literatures like the Upaniṣads, Purāṇas and Nārada-pañcarātra is merely an unnecessary upheaval in society." (History stands witness!)

That perspective is intimately related to progress over multiple "births-and-deaths" - Bhagavad Gita 7.19 -

बहूनां जन्मनामन्ते
ज्ञानवान् मां प्रपद्यते ।
वासुदेवः सर्वमिति
स महात्मा सुदुर्लभः ॥

"After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare."

That said, all such arrangements without true devotion is useless labour - Shrimad Bhagavatam 1.2.8 -

धर्मः स्वनुष्ठितः पुंसाम्
विश्वक्सेन-कथासु यः ।
नोत्पादयेद् यदि रतिम्
श्रम एव हि केवलम् ॥

"The occupational activities a man performs according to his own position are only so much useless labor if they do not provoke attraction for the message of the Personality of Godhead."

See also: Blasphemy and Multicultural Democracy for a comparison of the basic principles of a Vedic devotional religion and a non-Vedic one.

Varnashrama Dharma: Completing a Cycle of Action & Cycle of Thought

The four psycho-physical modes and the four psycho-spiritual modes are the matrix in which the method and madness can operate.

The 4 varnas (psycho-physical modes) are phases of a cycle of Action. It is a psycho-physical process within the individual as well as the body politic.

The 4 ashramas (psycho-spiritual modes) are phases of a Cycle of Thought. It is meant to discharge life-force so as to best channel the progress of civilization.

Quoting Shrimad Bhagavatam 5.19.19:

अस्मिन्नेव वर्षे पुरुषैर् लब्ध-जन्मभिः शुक्ल-लोहित-कृष्ण-वर्णेन स्वारब्धेन कर्मणा दिव्य-मानुष-नारक-गतयो बह्व्य आत्मन आनुपूर्व्येन सर्वा ह्येव सर्वेषां विधीयन्ते यथा-वर्ण-विधानं अपवर्गश्चापि भवति ।

"The people who take birth in this land are divided according to the modes of material nature — the modes of goodness [sattva-guṇa], passion [rajo-guṇa], and ignorance [tamo-guṇa]. Some of them are born as exalted personalities, some are ordinary human beings, and some are extremely abominable, for in Bhārata-varṣa one takes birth exactly according to one's past Karma. If one's situation is ascertained by a bona fide method according to the four social modes [brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra] and the four spiritual modes [brahmacārī, gṛhastha, vānaprastha and sannyāsa], one's life discharges itself to perfection."

Quoting from the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (389), Parāśara Muni says:

वर्णाश्रमाचारवता
पुरुषेण परः पुमान् ।
विष्णुर् आराध्यते पन्था
नान्यत् तत् तोष-कारणम् ॥

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Viṣṇu, is worshiped by the proper execution of prescribed duties in the system of varṇa and āśrama. There is no other way to satisfy the Lord."

Needless to say, the theoretical framework of Varnashrama itself can be treated in an erroneous epistemological non-Vedic way. In which case it is asuri varṇāśrama, not daivi varṇāśrama. Varnashrama is based on the classifications of "guna-karma" (quality and cultivation), as the Bhagavad Gita explains clearly. As the Bhagavatam's story goes, the asuras (demons) developed a perfect varṇāśrama society, but it did not please Vishnu, whereas even the imperfect varṇāśrama of the society of devas (gods) apparently pleased Him no end.

Be Do Have: Creativity, Faith, Works and Witnessing

The Biblical Jesus Christ reportedly said that the Kingdom of Heaven is already within those he speaks to. But he also said that the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be seen until one is born again. He also confirmed the ancient notion of the mission to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth. 

Being, Doing and Having (a thing) probably have little in common with one another, except the thing in itself. They are distinct mediums in which that thing is realized, knowledge of that thing is gained, and bliss of that thing is experienced - mediums of Time and Eternality, of Motion and Survival. Probably like the difference between the mediums in which creatures of the Earth, the Atmosphere and the Heavens operate. According to the Veda, they are three containers in which the cosmic fire (Agni) burns.

If Being, Doing and Having are not treated as distinct, then the proverbial dog apparently keeps chasing its own tail, knowledge becomes Mechanical, and bliss becomes  mere Entertainment to kill Time. A rather hellish wheel of action and Reaction.

The 3 may also have a logical order at the level of Individual agreement - Being precedes Doing, and Having follows.

That could appear counter-intuitive. Some may think that in order to truly Be something, one has to first Do something in order to Have some qualification, at which point there is social agreement that one is that thing. That's also true - at the level of social or Political agreement. As stated in another blogpost [The Forest and the Village] - "The Political level keeps the Individual level honest, and vice versa."

The Earth and the Atmosphere: Being and Doing

The Sacrifice, Yajna, is to be conceived first in Heaven, then wrought on Earth: 

देव-विशः कल्पयितव्या इत्याहुस् ;
ताः कल्पमाना अनु मनुष्यविशः कल्पन्त इति । 

सर्व विशः कल्पते यज्ञो sपि ।
तस्यै जनतायै कल्पते यत्रैवं विद्वान् होता भवति । 

"'The subjects of the Gods should be brought into order', they say;
'As they are brought into order, the subjects of Mankind come into order.'" 

"All the subjects come into order, the sacrifice comes into order also.
All is in order for that people where there is a Wizard knowing thus."

                                                                  - from Aitareya Brahmana 1.9

So then, the first phase of Yajna is postulated by someone who has already seen the Heavens, and then heard by and refined within the Individual researchers (encompassing their most confidential relationships as well as circumstance). The work then is to remove all obstacles so as to refine one's intention to the point of Being without reservation. Then each one takes ownership of Work. This is Consecration (diksha). 

The adjacent phase of Yajna is in working to create that Heavenly postulate on Earth. It is the translation of the Individual idea to the social or Political. It is an effort in building civilization, or supporting it in balance, or destroying its hypertrophic (ugra-karmic) excesses.

Of course, there is a feedback loop between the two phases, between conception, working, reformation and re-working. 

The progression of one's sense of reality and objective relationships could be described somewhat as follows (in ascending order):

Modes of Doing
Waiting  परिचर्या	-          Passive hope based on waiting for future advent of an avatara or savior, rather than observation -          Simple patience and happiness devoid of ambition
Hiding  अप्यय	-          Occultation of the cynosure from Earthly observation -          Personal renunciation, etc.
Protecting  गोप्तृत्व	-          Confidential preservation and transmission -          Covert affiliation while pretending to be a very dutiful part of inimical mainstream [Like a wife secretly having an extra-marital affair and being extra-diligent in her duties to her husband to avoid suspicion or address her conscience]
Defending  जय	-          Open expression of one's affiliations by violently or peacefully confronting contra-postulates -          The struggle to create social and political space for activity
Owning  स्वतन्त्रता	-          Identification and belonging to a reality and its cultural symbiotes -          Sense of belonging not requiring justifications or reasons
Taking Responsibility दास्य	-          Cognition of one's Basic Purpose as formed in first 2.5 years of life -          Service involvement
Achieving Control संयम	Responsibility, Knowledge and Control increase and decrease with one another in a virtuous or vicious spiral. [If one takes Responsibility for something, it increases one’s Knowledge of it and results in increased Control of that field of activity, which generates an expanded scope of responsibility, and so on.]
Physical Death द्विजत्व	-          Experiencing physical death and being born again. -          Death (यम) as Teacher [I am not sure if physical death can be experienced by yogic method. According to Acharya Madhva, in the Katha Upanishad, Nachiketa experiences actual death by Vajashrava’s words, and is not drawing near to Yama simply in meditative trance.]

... and so on, leading to higher, aesthetic, and ecstatic (disembodied) modes of Doing.

The exercise of mature free will and self-determinism is fundamental. Compulsion or hustle and haste in Political identification, or invalidation of an Individual's sense of ownership would immediately lower Individual responsibility and push the Individual down that scale -- to a reality of Hiding, or Waiting, or a sense of the reality being in Occultation, etc. All types of cult and sectarian doctrines and mythologies could be mapped along this spectrum.

Diksha brings one to the point of active ethics and Taking Responsibility. Any mode inferior to that does nothing active to bring the Kingdom of Heaven closer. Yet, the superior modes of activity must be grounded in the inferior modes, which provide orientation. Otherwise they become mere fruitive activities. Infinite patience, treating the world in good faith and affinity (bhakti) are the foundation of true Vedic Karma Kanda.

But then, in order to actually see the realm of Heaven the Individual apparently has to be born again (dwija). For only in a newborn can the seed of an idea be planted and its own native fruit be observed in present time. An idea transmitted between older 'grown-ups' is merely grafted onto an existing creeper. The newborn is a clean slate, in a limited sense. Whence the logic of renewal, renascence into fresh youth, as in the Zoroastrian frasho-kereti (Sanskrit praso-kriti).

The Heavens: Thanking and Having

So the Being and Doing are not complete without Having as its fruit. And Having is probably not possible until after being born again, not just psychologically but by experiencing physical death, and witnessing Heaven Itself, the fruit of the Yajna. For to see is to believe:

ऋतं वाव दीक्षा सत्यं दीक्षा, तस्माद् दीक्षितेन सत्यं एव वदितव्यम् । 

"The consecration is holistic arrangement, the consecration is truth; therefore, by one who is consecrated should truth alone be spoken." 

अथो खल्वाहुः -
"को sर्हति मनुष्यः सर्वं सत्यं वदितुम् ।
सत्य-संहिता वै देवा, अनृत-संहिता मनुष्या" इति ॥ 

Rather they say -
"What man is capable of speaking all truth? ;
The Gods are of truth composed, but Men of a false-disorder composed!" 

विचक्षणवतीं वाचं वदेच् ;
"चक्षुर्वै विचक्षणं, वि ह्येनेन पश्यति" इति ।  

He should speak using (the word) 'discerning' (विचक्षण - faultless vision, a product of a wise heart);  

"The discerning is the eye itself, for by it he sees distinctly", they say. (i.e., seeing is believing, as compared to hearing/reading about it, inferring it, or imagining it, etc.) 

एतद् ध वै मनुष्येषु सत्यं निहितं यच्चक्षुस् तस्माद् आचक्षाणं आहुः - "अद्राग्" इति ।  

Now the eye/witnessing is truth deposited among men; therefore, to him that narrates they say - "Hast thou seen?" 

स यद्यदर्शम् इत्याहाथास्य श्रद्दधाति । 

If he replies, "I have seen", then him they believe.  

यद्यु वै स्वयं पश्यति, न बहूनांचनान्येषां श्रद्दधाति ।  

But if a man himself sees, he believes not even many others (who may all agree on a different version). 

तस्माद् विचक्षणवतीम् एव वाचं वदेत् , सत्योत्तरा हैवास्य वाग् उदिता भवति भवति । 

Therefore should he speak using (the word) 'discerning' (विचक्षण); his uttered speech then is essentially true. 

                                                                       - from Aitareya Brahmana 1.6

A person who has completed the Yajna in all 3 phases utters postulates. Such an Individual's postulates are food for another Individual seeker's research, and the basis of sound nation-building.

Browsing around, I heard a teacher, Shriman Arya Naresh, practically define Yajna (Devotional Offering) concisely as:

OM ka dhyaan (ऊँ का ध्यान) - Meditation on the Word.

  

Ved ka gyaan (वेद का ज्ञान) - Knowledge of Vedas, i.e. knowledge about knowingness itself. 

Yajna ka anushthaan (यज्ञ का अनुष्ठान) - The execution of Yajna, in ritual and in society. 

Sanskaari santaan (संस्कारी सन्तान) - Raising children through good mental cultivation that protects and instructs the life force and facilitates creative imagination. 

Raashtra hit balidaan (राष्ट्र हित बलिदान) - Sacrifice for the benefit of the nation and civilization.

It spans the Individual and the Political. Indian youth seem to be getting involved at different levels - spiritual, ideological or social - in the political reformation of the nation and its ecology. It may still lack focus, direction, or sophistication, and one hopes it is not too late. Also, all talk of cultural nationalism will turn out to be no different from petty identity politics without genuine guidance and understanding.