Gun and Gomukh

Is Kshatram relevant to personal spirituality? Or is its domain mainly political organization and self-defence? Popular notions of Varna-vyavastha today would suggest that the fount of spiritual and material knowledge is Brahmana, Kshatriya is the energetic implementer, organizer and protector, and so on.

Spiritual Capital à Cultural Capital àSocial Capital àPolitical Capital àEconomic Capital àInfrastructure Capital à And so on

On a related note, is the Khalsa now irrelevant, since Aurangzeb is dead? Or is it the razor's edge that makes Dharma relevant? Common to hear that Khalsa was a stopgap arrangement in order to beat back Islamic jihadis, and should have been disbanded later on. Instead, a martial Khalsa remains the backbone that many have wanted broken, and Nihangs are the equivalent of the Juna Akhada in that region. Why so?

Don't be Autistic

A closer reading of the Indic tradition suggests there were always two, not one, founts of spiritual knowledge and power. In fact, this isolation and autism of knowledge culture and martial culture is a massive self-goal for the civilization:

"The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards."

-- William Francis Butler, The Great Lone Land

Butler was an officer in the British Army in the second half of the 1800's and early 1900's, and served in various parts of their colonial empire, including Burma, India and North America. He had a passion for history and biography. His superiors saw merit in his recommendations on how to encroach upon and establish authority over native peoples with the least amount of disruption, and those ideas were put to good use. The goal of a colonial is to make sure, in some cases, that the colonized people retain a productive usefulness, and even though they may be rebellious and yearn for autonomy, they should be permanently neutered as a civilization - never really able or even willing to play the big game of global domination. The quote above must be seen in that context.

The Vedic/Hindu tradition does not appear to draw a hard line at all, explicitly stating that the two are inseparable:

यत्र ब्रह्म च क्षत्रं च सम्यञ्चौ चरतः सह।

तं लोकं पुण्यं प्रज्ञेषं यत्र देवाः सहाग्निना॥

- यजुर्वेदः २०.२५

"Where Brahma and Kshatra march united, like the Devas with Agni, that society has merit and wisdom." - YajurVeda 20.25

Segregation and super-specialization will naturally lead to autism, preening narcissism and the lack of empathy those carry with it, thus making one unfit for spiritual leadership.

Don't be Ghey

Further, the ultimate state of samadhi is often juxtaposed with the character and spirit required for true martyrdom in battle, a mind unrattled by fear or hatred, but absorbed in love of Vishnu and ferocious devotional service to the Devatas:

द्वौ सम्मताविह मृत्यू दुरापौ

यद् ब्रह्मसन्धारणया जितासुः।

कलोवरं योगरतो विजह्याद्

यद् अग्रणीर्वीरशयेऽनिवृत्तः॥

- श्रीमद् भागवतम् ६.१०.३३

"There are two ways to meet a glorious death, and both are very rare. One is to die engaged firmly in Yoga (union), in a state of absorption in The Brahman (Supreme Being) and having mastered the mind and life-force. The second is to die on a battlefield of bravehearts, leading men from the front, and never turning one's back in retreat. These two kinds of death are recommended in the shaastra as glorious." - Shrimad Bhagavatam 6.10.33

And there is no suggestion that one is a 'lesser jihad', either. Or that one is merely a metaphor for the real, greater, inner struggle. Perhaps the metaphorizing tendency is attractive to a people who are easily convinced they have no option left except 'inner' struggle, in order to sublimate their frustrations.

The one important difference is that martyrdom here has a psycho-social dimension - it is achieved in the company of similarly minded bravehearts, both on one's own side and the adversary's.

Don't be an Adrenalized Nutcase

However, Kshatram (Lordly Power) is not synonymous with Balam (Might). The two terms are used separately:

क्षत्रेण क्षत्रं जयति बलेन बलम् अश्नुते यस्यैवं विद्वान् ब्रह्मणो राष्ट्रगोपः पुरोहितस् तस्मै विशः संजानते सम्मुखा एकमनसो यस्यैवं विद्वान् ब्रह्मणो राष्ट्रगोपः पुरोहितः।

- ऐतरेयारण्यकम् ८.४०.२५

"By lordly power he conquers lordly power (Kshatram - power generation and projection)

By might he attains might (Balam - use of force),

Who hath for Purohita to guard the dominion a brahmana with this knowledge, 

For him are his people in harmony, with one aspect and one mind, 

Who hath for Purohita to guard the kingdom a brahman with this knowledge."

- Aitareya Aranyaka 8.40.25

Thus, political capital must be rooted directly in spiritual capital, not social or cultural or intellectual capital, although those logically precede the manifestation of political capital.

How does political capital form? Essentially, it is Dharmic people bonding over a learning curve, in activities that are expansionary in nature rather than introspective, purely aesthetic, intellectual or merely as consumers of existing culture. That can only happen by tapping into an original creativity free from restlessness and a preoccupation with exercising available force.

Kshatriya Parampara does not mean Political Dynasty (nor Vyayamshalas)

But even if one had enough bhang to tranquilize Shakasthana, it would not lead to the generation of a valuable spiritual product without yajna and tapasya. The core texts of Dharma hold Rajarshis belonging to Kshatriya Paramparas to be responsible for the generation of critical and widely used Darshanic material. In the Bhagavad Gita, spoken on a battlefield by one Kshatriya to another:

श्रीभगवान् उवाच

इमं विवस्वते योगं प्रोक्तवान् अहम् अव्ययम्।

विवस्वान् मनवे प्राह मनुरिक्ष्वाकवेऽब्रवीत्॥1॥

एवं परम्परा प्राप्तम् इमं राजर्षयो विदुः।

स कालेनेह महता योगो नष्टः परन्तप॥४.२॥

"Bhagavan said, 'I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to Vivasvan, the Sun Devata, and He instructed it to Manu, the father of Mankind, who in turn taught it to King Ikshvaku. This supreme science was received through the disciplic succession and understood by Rajarshis (saintly kings) as such. But in course of time the succession was broken, and the science lost, O Scorcher of Enemies."

          - Bhagavad Gita 4.1-2   

In his commentary to 4.2, Adi Shankara uses the word Kshatriya Parampara explicitly: एवं क्षत्रिय-परम्परा-प्राप्तम् इमं राजर्षयः राजानश्च विदुः इमं योगम्। 

Shri Madhva specifies what particular Darshanic elements are being referred to: बुद्धेः परस्य माहात्म्यं कर्मभेदो ज्ञानमाहात्म्यं चोच्यतेऽस्मिन्नध्याये। पूर्वानुष्ठितश्चायं धर्म इत्याह इममिति।

Shri Jayatirtha further elaborates that the idea of Jnana-Karma-Samuchchaya, as distinct from Jnana-Karma-Samanvaya, is the Kshatriya take on process philosophy. Adi Shankara ji recommends samanvaya, which entails that one engages in Karmas (ritual processes as well as worldly activities) until one has certain realizations (Jnana), after which those can be abandoned as one graduates to higher echelon inner processes solely of Jnana, and so on. Upon attaining jivan-mukti, even Jnana, Veda, etc. are no longer of any use. Whereas the samuchchaya process philosophy of the Kshatriya Parampara holds that Karma and Jnana are helically intertwined throughout one's life. A Karma will continue to yield different fruits of Jnana as one matures, and the Jnana one accrues will make the simplest of Karmas blossom and reveal deeper secrets. Thus, they inhere in one another. Even after complete liberation, such a yogi will continue to perform Karmas and teach Jnana purely for the devotional pleasure of the Supreme Being (Bhakti is its own reward - तत्स्वरूपत्वात् in Narada Bhakti Sutras), and in order to set an example for the rest of society, as Prahlada Maharaja did.

Jayatirtha further states that this also means that Grihastha Ashrama must not be neglected, circumvented or abandoned, and that only through Karma is one's knowledge perfected. After all, the first 6 chapters of the Bhagavad Gita discuss in some detail how Karma and Sankhya find their consilience in Buddhi, intellect. All these subjects are directly sourced from Kshatriya Parampara.

The historical problem mentioned by Krishna is that, because of its nature, and because it sits at the commanding heights of political power, Kshatriya Parampara often tends to die out, and needs to be revived from time to time by eternally liberated souls.

Two Engines of Spirituality

In a shloka that could earn Him the ire of the proletariat, petit bourgeoisie and feminists all at once, Shri Krishna calls women, Vyshyas and Shudras 'tainted births':

मां हि पार्थ व्यपाश्रित्य योऽपि स्युः पापयोनयः।

स्त्रियो वैश्यास्तथा शूद्रास्तेऽपि यान्ति परां गतिम्॥९.३२॥

"O Son of Prtha, though they be of tainted birth, women, Vyshya and Shudra, attain to the highest Path once they take shelter of Me."

- Bhagavad Gita 9.32

That leaves us with Brahmanas and Kshatriyas as untainted. Note, some interpret the verse as meaning that 'tainted births' are a separate class from women, Vyshya and Shudra - but in any case, Brahmana and Kshatriya Varna are being considered a cut above the rest.

This clubbing of Brahma and Kshatra as a higher echelon category of being is common. Another example, speaking of the Atman Itself:

यस्य ब्रह्म च क्षत्रं च उभे ओदनः भवतः। मृत्युर्यस्योपसेचनम् क इत्या वेद यत्र सः॥कठ १.२.२५॥

"He to Whom the Brahmanas and Kshatriyas are as rice, and death itself as daal, how thus shall one know of where He abides?"

- Katha Upanishad 1.2.25

The Pragmatist Sovereign and the Idealist Officer

But what is the inter-relationship between the Varnas? There are many views, and Indic tradition is such that any text that is devoted to a particular Varna or Ashrama will extol its subject Varna, Ashrama or Sampradaya above all, as is only appropriate. Nevertheless, some are considered the abstract essence or at least a very high-level view of matters. Bhishma Pitamaha's discourses on his bed of arrows is one such. After glorifying the characteristics and place of the other 3 Varnas, he has this to say about Kshatriya (Mahabharata, Shanti Parva, 63.24-29):

बाह्वायत्तं क्षत्रियैर् मानवानां लोकक्षेष्ठः धर्मम् आसेवमानैः।

सर्वे धर्माः सोपधर्मास् त्रयाणां राज्ञो धर्माद् इति वेदाच् छृणोमि॥२४॥

"The best dharma of this world of men, which depends upon the strength of one's arms, is served by Kshatriyas. All the dharmas of the other 3 Varnas are subordinate to (and protected under) Raja Dharma. Thus do I hear from Veda." (24)

Kshatra is built on the mentality of developing physical strength: the strength of one's limbs and cherishing of weapons. The worship of Strength is in order to develop the strength to Worship.

यथा राजन् हस्तिपदे पदानि संलीयन्ते सर्वसत्त्वोद्भवानि।

एवं धर्मान् राजधर्मेषु सर्वान् सर्वावस्थान् सम्प्रलीनान् निबोध॥२५॥

"Just as the footprints of all essential created beings are subsumed in the footprint of an elephant, understand, O King, that all dharmas and their various states of being are included within Raja Dharma." (25)

अल्पाश्रयान् अल्पफलान् वदन्ति धर्मान् अन्यान् धर्मविदो मनुष्याः।

महाश्रयं बहुकल्याणरूपं क्षात्रं धर्मं नेतरं प्राहुरार्याः॥२६॥

"Less inclusive (more specialized) and less fruitful are other dharmas, say men who study Dharma. The broadest and greatest service to the summum bonum is afforded by Kshaatra dharma and none other, say the Aryas." (26)

Other dharmas are susceptible to autism and can lose sight of the big picture, lose the living touch with all sections of society, and may not experience the relevance of all occupational lifestyles to spiritual health and balance.

सर्वे धर्मा राजधर्मप्रधानाः सर्वे वर्णाः पाल्यमाना भवन्ति।

सर्वस् त्यागो राजधर्मेषु राजंस्त्यागं धर्मं चाहुरग्र्यं पुराणम्॥२७॥

"Raja dharma is primary to all other dharmas. All Varnas are protected and nourished by it. O King, every kind of sacrifice and relinquishment is included in the duties of a Kshatriya. And sacrifice is considered the most archaic and best of Dharma." (27)

मज्जेत् त्रयी दण्डनीतौ हतायां सर्वे धर्माः प्रक्षयेयुर्विबुद्धाः।

सर्वे धर्माश्चाश्रमाणां हताः स्युः क्षात्रे त्यक्ते राजधर्मे पुराणे॥२८॥

"If the Policy of Punishment dies out, then the Vedas shall sink (to Patala) and all dharmas shall wither and become comatose. The dharmas of all Ashramas shall also die out if the archaic Kshatra is abandoned or lost control of." (28)

Once a society loses its Kshatriyahood and sovereignty, all other Varnas merely hark to their natural strengths and run on auto-pilot, as it were, climbing whatever ladders are placed before them by their new colonial masters. The various Jatis become ladder-climbers, but none of them become nations that actually build ladders and landings for others to climb. Thus, they keep modifying and 'adapting' their dharma to circumstances wrought by Adharmics, rationalizing every such adjustment by specious logic, until their dharma dies out completely over the generations, while they individually scale the heights of 'success' as defined by the parameters of their colonized environment. Alternatively, a group may choose to remain in stubborn defiance of the changes in environment and turn inward, segregating itself to remain "pure", and as a result will simply fail to exercise any influence and gradually sink to the bottom. As Guru Gobind Singh said: राज बिना नहीं धरम चलै हैं। धरम बिना सब डलै मलै हैं॥ "Without sovereignty Dharma does not work. Without Dharma, everything is out of place."

The sovereign must be a pragmatist, and the officers of the state must be idealists. If the sovereign tries to act like an idealist and the officers of state try to play the role of pragmatist, it is an inversion of Dharma. The apparent 'faults' of Rama are only from an idealist perspective, not a pragmatist. Kshatra social hierarchy is based on pragmatic and politic requirement and qualification, with a will to exercise autonomous power and cultivate strength. Whereas an intellectual Brahminical hierarchy is based on highlighting ritual principle and preserving a theoretical model of idealized reality. For the Kshatriya mind, only scripture and science that rests on the edge of the sword of optimizing sovereignty in Present Time is relevant, all else being of only academic interest.

Denzil Ibbetson's book 'Panjab Castes' dwells on the devolution of society there once Kshatriya castes were defeated or destroyed - their role as the fount of social honour (bestowing station and rank to individuals and groups) fell upon the Brahmins, and the implementation of that principle changed, resulting in a gradual transformation of Hindu society there. Later, under the Sikh Gurus, the Kshatriya principle was restored, and society there once again underwent a transformation. 

सर्वे त्यागा राजधर्मेषु दृष्टाः सर्वा दीक्षा राजधर्मेषु चोक्ताः।

सर्वा विद्या राजधर्मेषु युक्ताः सर्वे लोका राजधर्मे प्रविष्टाः॥२९॥

"In Raja Dharmas, all sacrifices can be seen. In Raja Dharmas, all initiations are uttered. In Raja Dharmas, there is a consilience of all systems of knowledge and art. In Raja Dharma are all worlds joined." (29)

For someone or a group of individuals to be able to cultivate the qualification and exercise the responsibilities of Kshatriya dharma, they would need to make every type of sacrifice, cultivate every type of strength and ability, experience every initiation and grow into maturity, and with the eye of individuation be able to perceive the interconnectedness of various facets of life and society. 

Koel and Crow

Kshatriya Darshanic material can appear deceptively similar to what is today considered Brahminical sampradaya - the japa, kirtan, vratas, nitya-karmas, meditation. E.g., Sikhi is sought to be held as from the same mould as other Bhakti Movement sampradayas, with merely regional/caste differences. But is it? Did any other sampradaya create a school that anyone with qualifications can join and transform himself? An infrastructure of charities and places of worship that serve whichever wider community they are part of, a martial Khalsa culture that fought from Assam to the Deccan, a Nirmala scholarly Vedantic limb that today is a recognized center at Kashi, created mainly from lower caste aspirants at that time? No, there is a Varnic difference at play here.

Kshatriya organizational attitudes can also appear deceptively similar to Angry Schismatic Monotheisms of the West Asian variety - individuation from the stalk of society, rebellious sovereignty, disregard for certain idealist 'traditions', identity based on Maryada, and so on. E.g., Sikhi is accused of imitating 'Abrahamism' in several respects. But is it? No, there is a fundamental and vast Dharmic difference here.

So in both cases, this is a false superimposition. काक-पिक-न्यायः - the 'logic of the crow and the koel' - both appear almost identical, but sing very different tunes. Instead of premature judgment based on superficial reading or mere social acquaintance, better to immerse and experience the moral and transformative undercurrents of a sampradaya, its adhishthata Devata. Hineinfühlung.

Gun and Gomukh

Mao said that power flows from the barrel of a gun, but sustainable power flows when it is mated with the rosary, in that cloth bag (gomukh or gomukhi) this soldier is carrying. 

Kshatram and Balam are incumbent not just upon the actual sovereign, but for the vast majority of individuals who consider themselves citizens of a free nation. It must form a vital component of invdividual sadhana, no matter what Varna they belong to. Service to Rashtra is one of the limbs of sadhana, and each person is a brick in building Rashtra. In future posts, let's take a brief look at this, in theory and historically. 

Until then, don't be ghey.

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.

Yukta-Vairagya: Natural merger of Classical & Sacred

The Hindi metaphor, sone pe suhaga (borax on gold) refers to an ideal amalgam of two things - one intrinsically valuable, the other worthless by itself but possessing some useful reactive properties with the thing of value. Gold in native state is a dull metal that has no glitter or resemblance to what we know as gold. It gains its aesthetic brilliance and practical value when borax is added to it, with heat.

My friend Rajesh A. (BRF) reasons that there is a distinction between 'sabhyata' - the process - and 'sanskriti' - the product - of civilization. In this view, patriotic dedication to nation-building and security is a legitimate form of worship [the conversation was in response to this blogpost: Head, Heart & Connectedness: Browsing the marketplace of identities].

Unfortunately, its common to hear pseudo-liberals in India and outside say things like: "Transcending religion and culture is the goal of human evolution. The sooner religion dies out, the less problems the world will have." But there is a difference between transcendence and mere deracination.

Personal confusion (at an individual level) or petty politics (at an organizational or national level) is based around an artificial conflict between "sacred" values and "classical" worldly values, or between cultural-spiritual and material issues. Whereas mature personal ethics or organizational politics is based around an amalgamation of the sacred and the classical in a sort of annealing process. Like that Hindi metaphor, sone pe suhaga. Isha Upanishad, mantra 11:

विद्यां चाविद्यां च यस्
तद् वेदोभयं सह ।
अविद्यया मृत्युं तीर्त्वा
विद्ययामृतम् अश्नुते ॥ 

"Only one who can learn the process of nescience (classical worldly knowledge) and that of transcendental knowledge (spiritual culture) side by side can transcend the influence of repeated birth and death and enjoy the full blessings of immortality."

In a genuine annealing process of the self or of nation-building, the hard dichotomy between 'sacred' and so-called 'profane' melts away in favour of dovetailing and then amalgamation. This has been described by the paradoxical term yukta-vairagya (harnessed in renunciation) in the terminology of the bhakti shāstras. Amalgamation of the numinous and the phenomenal applies as much to the nation (rāshtra) as it does to the individual. Some observations of the characteristics of these two configurations (corrections and additions are welcome):

Characteristics...	“Classical”	“Sacred”
Learning by:	·         Training and creative evolution. ·         Practice.	·         Letting go of concepts, and by co-creative (or service-oriented) involution. ·         Practice.
Recognition of value by:	·         Perception and estimation of observable characteristics.	·         Immediate perception of contextual quiddity beneath observable data.
Social scope:	·         Objective. ·         Results of and in This world.	·         Subjective. ·         Results of and in Other world.
Epistemological scope:	·         Extensional. ·         Normative. ·         Descriptive.	·         Intensional. ·         Positive. ·         Prescriptive.
Type of reality:	·         By experiment and agreement.	·         By a priori personal conviction.
Attitude to change vs fixity:	·         Uses a probabilistic model, which models uncertainty itself as an element. ·         Emphasis on continuity of sabhyatā – the civilizing process that generates culture. ·         Seeks continuity and permanence as observer of constant change. ·         Wants devotional activity (seva) to serve Time.	·         Uses a deterministic model, which strives to root out uncertainty. ·         Emphasis on continuity of sanskriti – the cultural products of the civilizing process. ·         Seeks permanence in escape and transcendence from temporal change. ·         Wants to achieve a state where  Time is in the service of the devotional activity (leela).
Pedagogical type:	·         vyāsa-kūṭa	·         dāsa-kūṭa
Typical method of communication:	·         By demonstration or argument. ·         Peer-reviewed agreement by individuals considered 'qualified'. ·         Specialization of knowledge and authority.	·         By suggestion or insinuation. ·         Gradual creeping or sudden invasive ideological mould. ·         Generalization of knowledge and authority.
Type of logic:	·         Inductive. ·         Ascending process. ·         Elevationism.	·         Deductive. ·         Descending process. ·         Salvationism.
Mass vs. significance:	·         Bias towards significance. ·         Does not attach importance to physical mass or its force. ·         Considers clearing of mental mass and its reactive mental force as highly desirable. ·         Subtle contempt for mass as purely temporal and its mental force as impinging on clarity of conscious thought. ·         Prefers subsuming lower significance with larger significance rather than force-reduction of Other or Self.	·         Bias towards mass and its force. ·         Attached to maximum demonstration of mass and its physical or emotive force whenever possible. ·         Considers mental mass and its emotive force as mystical source and causative. ·         Subtle contempt or neglect of intellectual significance as being manufactured and therefore less ‘real’, with presence of mass being primary reality. ·         Prefers force-reduction of Other, and sometimes of Self, in confrontation and negotiation.
Propagation pattern:	·         Scatter-gather pattern of survival and propagation, or other multi-vector type of algorithms to allow itself to learn and evolve. ·         Alternating between syncretism (bee-like gathering from diverse flowers) and detached cooking / abstraction of essence. ·         Not averse to sacrificing quantitative mass to extract qualitative significance.	·         Greedy algorithms, or any linear quantitative pattern like an incremental tree structure to encyst the individual mind or involve a society. ·         Alternating between expansion and consolidation. ·         Averse to sacrificing mass and its force, re-interprets significance to accommodate maximum mass-force at any given time.
Symbiotic/competitive strategy:	·         Cuckolds sacred spaces for thought seeding and power projection, without asserting ownership of it. ·         Infiltrates the associative command networks of the sacerdotal and puts its own ideas on those communication lines. ·         Employs one set of sacred memes to differentiate itself from competing classical cultures and their memes. ·         OR alternatively, it facilitates interfaith dialogue between competing sacerdotal networks in order to create new significance via forceless subsuming of competing significance.	·         Marries or takes ownership of classical culture and uses it as a carrier for legitimacy of its own cognitions or commands. ·         Subverts the liberality of the classical culture to protect its own freedom to operate. ·         Uses the complex thought-products of the carrier for argument – albeit in a reductionist form. ·         Employs its classical carrier culture to envelop and project power into the classical space of another competing sacerdotal network. Ultimately wishes force-reduction of competing sacred networks – to demolish or derogate competing sacred spaces and their material symbols.
Socio-political fingerprint:	·         Elite formation in different fields with agreeable or submitted mass base in tow. ·         Formal and institutional relationships. ·         Diversification of social opportunity into formal roles based on qualification.	·         Based on Individual cognition, demonstrated abilities, and aesthetic / ethical orientation. ·         Relationships are personal. ·         Re-tribalization of society, forging of discrete, homogenous caste-collectives based on identification with a general aesthetic or orientation.
Cultural attitude:	·         Celebration of diversity. ·         Cultural relativism. ·         Liberalism. ·         Multipolar world order. ·         Emphasis on different entitlements earned on adherence to universal values underlying diverse aesthetic preferences or orientations. ·         Preference for democratic institutions.	·         Celebration of exclusivity. ·         Hierarchical specificity. ·         Asserts its own socio-political separateness. ·         Unipolar dispensation. ·         Emphasis on equal entitlements based on affiliation to totalitarian uniformity (mistaken for "universal" and “egalitarian”). ·         Preference for absolute monarchy.
Via media:	·         Participation in formation of mainstream outlets of social discourse and educational networks.	·         Individual authority, around whom a small group forms aloof from mainstream society, which then uses plug-ins to the mainstream via willing individuals (disciples or agents).
Polarity on psycho-spiritual spectrum:	·         Partial towards Daivic side of spectrum.	·         Partial towards Asuric side of spectrum.

Dangerous dichotomies of Classical & Sacred - process and precedence
Problems arise when the sacred and classical memes are at odds within the individual or the body politic. Isha Upanishad, mantra 9:

अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्ति
येsविद्याम् उपासते ।
ततो भूय इव ते तमो
य उ विद्ययां रताः ॥ 

"Those who engage in the culture of purely phenomenal processes shall enter into the darkest region of ignorance. Worse still are those engaged solely in the culture of so-called transcendental knowledge."

Two circumstances can result in problems such as blind fanaticism, OR deracination mistaken for transcendence. The first is imbalance between attention due to "classical" phenomenal and "sacred" numinous processes, where one overwhelms the other. E.g., Communist or theocratic societies. The second is the artificial separation between the sacred and classical, in a way that hinders the continuous process of their interaction. E.g., artificial pseudo-secularism and separation of church and state as evolved from a particular civilization with an adverse historical experience with a particular type of sacred memeplex.

The healthy interaction of the sacred and classical is not facilitated by either of the above two types of nation-building experiments. Rather, it is facilitated by a fleshed-out varṇāshrama operating as per the laws governing the harmonies between the 4 main purushārthas - dharma (physical and metaphysical laws), artha (ambition for possession or havingness), kāma (pleasure), moksha (spiritual release). And what is the operator precedence assigned to these fundamental instincts in Indian civilization? Following is from a lecture at Samskrita Bharati California. It talks about how to approach Vedic literature, what to read and in what sequence, and what to avoid reading/following:

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." 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.

Now as the above lecture indicates, Madhusudana Saraswati's compilation is not merely an individual's opinion, but rather it is a commentary on a civilization's classical tradition. In that traditional opinion, a particular historical source is to be bypassed if it impedes the Purushārthas. The purushārthas are rooted in the real world in Present Time. It is based on the individual's current condition, and even then it is not merely prescriptive for different conditions, but actively involves the personal judgment and decisions of the individual. It is a descriptive tradition rather than prescriptive - the prescriptive texts of various dāsa-kūṭa sects are embedded within this tradition.

At the same time, the lecture talks about the meaning of "Bhārata". Being a Bhārata (or Bhāratiya) is to undertake tapas for the love of knowledge, or for knowledge of love. Bhārata = One who is addicted (rata) to pursuing Light (bhā) even at the cost of everything, like a moth is drawn to a flame. So the etymological derivation of "Bhārata" itself extols Light - the light of cognition and knowledge and love. It is not biased either towards an obsession with "salvation" or an obsession with "elevation" to some esoteric knowledge. It is an innate neediness for cognition and learning and serving that process only. In sum, Dharma = logical Buddhi + unselfish Heart.

Among all types of nations and cultures and their respective configurations of the sacred and the classical, only the one with a Bhārata culture is chosen by the Vedic gods. A premature or wrongly-ordered form of 'release' is either a half-baked pseudo-liberal deracination from sacred culture; or a horrible perversion by an essentially malicious sacred core wherein the individual becomes captive or compulsive, his intelligence clouded.

Pehle devālaya phir shauchālaya
Clearly, those political forces whose agenda is obsessed with sacred fetishes are for the worse. They are fascist fanatics who will eventually create a contra-survival situation for the rāshtra, first spiritually and then materially. Kauṭilya warns:

अन्नहीनो दहेद् राष्ट्रं मन्त्रहीनश्च ऋत्विजः ।
यजमानं दानहीनो नास्ति यज्ञसमो रिपुः ॥ 

"There's no enemy like a yajna (sacred sacrifice)
...that leaves the food reserves of the nation depleted,
...and/or that is executed by an intermediary (priesthood, brotherhood, etc.) that doesn't understand the meanings of the mantras,
...and/or and that is commissioned by one who doesn't understand the meaning of charity."

Therefore, as Modi put it, pehle shauchalaya, phir devalaya:

Cultural Nationalism
On the other hand, the Rāṣtra (civilizational dominion) has its roots in paurohitya (cultural wizardry; spiritual meaning and purpose for civilization). A Rāṣtra disconnected from visionary guidance will not be on a firm footing or endure very long. Brahminical varṇa is placed clearly and unambiguously as the reference frame for kṣatriya varṇa, where the brahmaṇa is a context (śarman) from which the kṣatriya operates. Only when Kshātra and Paurohitya are yoked, will the mercantile class be observant of national justice, This common sense significance of purohita to rāṣtra is in ancient sources like the Aitareya Aranyaka (8.40.25):

क्षत्रेण क्षत्रं जयति बलेन बलम् अश्नुते यस्यैवं विद्वान् ब्रह्मणो राष्ट्रगोपः पुरोहितस् तस्मै विशः संजानते सम्मुखा एकमनसो यस्यैवं विद्वान् ब्रह्मणो राष्ट्रगोपः पुरोहितः । 

"By lordly power he conquereth lordly power (kṣatram - soft power projection),
By might he attaineth might (balam - hard power projection),
Who hath for Purohita to guard the dominion,
A Brahmaṇ with this knowledge,
For him are his people in harmony,
With one aspect and one mind,
Who hath for Purohita to guard the kingdom
A Brahmaṇ with this knowledge."

Thus, those political forces whose guiding ideology does not go beyond supposedly pragmatic secular preoccupations - at the cost of the sacred soul of the rāshtra - are also making a fundamental error. By limiting the national discourse only to material issues, they corrode away the spiritual-cultural basis of nationhood instead of allowing it to evolve in a healthy manner by contact with the torrent of the material world and its flux.

Unless democratic politics at a national level goes hand-in-hand with a genuine liberal personal culture and civilization, it will be subverted or abused by non-liberal cultural and civilizational forces that deliberately or unwittingly undermine the very idea of the empowerment of the individual in relation to the collective.

Conversely, in order to fight off a non-liberal "sacred" meme, one needs to draw on one's own "sacred" memes and deploy them strategically, both, as sources of inspiration as well as means of aggression. An appraisal of the overall balance of sacred and classical memes within one's own culture would constitute the risk assessment of doing so. For instance, 90% of Hindu or Buddhist core source literature is liberal spiritual in content, whereas 90% of Islamic or even some Christian core source literature is blood-curdling. The risk assessment to intrinsic liberalism in deploying the sacred is clearly different in each case, and anyone who tries to slip in a false moral equivalence between the two is either ignorant or a liar. Whence the Dharmic case for ecstatic religious-cultural deployment:

॥ इन्द्रं वर्धन्तो अप्तुरः कृण्वन्तो विश्वं आर्यं अपघ्नन्तो अराव्णः ॥ 

"Augmented by Indra's (Soma's) strength, civilize the world by destroying the non-liberal and jealous ones." ~ Rigveda 9.63.5

 See also: Violence and Kshātra: War, Religion & Philosophy