Between Friendliness and Fascism

Continuous, complex, micro and macro movements of Divergence and Convergence define the murmurations of a flock of birds in flight, as they do human interactions in a dynamic civilization. Attitude determines altitude. A broken wing is a non-starter.

"He who conceals his hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool."
- Proverbs, 10:18

In torrid India, being seen as cool has always been popular: Never offend, never take offence; let bygones be bygones; rather be naive than confrontational. In the Indian Olympics, love is a losing game and the nice guy wins gold; where it is better not to see or know than be appalled at motives and agendas, and a saumya Bollywood Miss Congeniality is the most popular goddess of the season. It is almost religious commandment:

तृणाद् अपि सुनीचेन
तरोर् इव सहिष्णुना ।
अमानिना मानदेन
कीर्तनीयः सदा हरिः ॥ 

"Humbler than even a blade of grass,
Tolerant and stoic like a tree,
Always giving respect but not expecting any in return,
Only being like that, can one sing praise to the Lord!"

Of course, idolization of such ideals happens only in cleft cultures. Indian etiquette tries to stay true to the Golden Rule: "I will talk down to you before you talk down to me." It manifests as moralizing, class contempt, intellectual intimidation, or just plain bullying - depending on one's naturally designed Varna, I presume.

This schizophrenic sabhyata generates a diversity of political ideologies and moral mechanisms to achieve self-control at an individual level (varying attitudes on wealth and ambition, on diet, on the meaning of ritual, on sexual ethics and celibacy, on theological doctrine, on the role of the Rashtra in the individual's sadhana, etc.)... and achieve social control or influence at a Subcontinental level (casteism, religious fascism, Marxist yahoos, "chosen people" syndrome, real and imagined "victimhood" narratives).

The politics of Asmita is not for people who can't think beyond merely managing divergence to minimize its chaotic potentials, instead of capitalizing on its creative evolutionary potentials; it is not for those to whom 'service' and 'conflict' are unrelated - as for those who sloganeer only half the doctrine: अहिंसा परमो धर्मः, धर्महिंसा तथैव च - "Non-violence is the highest Dharma, and so is violence for the sake of Dharma."

Perhaps Indians are imbalanced in the Divergence-Convergence cycle of civilization - scattering but not gathering, or conserving but not evolving:

 

The fundamentally meta-cultural Arya system assimilated many peoples and cultures due to its integral Asmita process philosophy. But that is only half the cycle. The Arya system also excreted out certain subcultures and peoples from time to time - and in doing so it first freed new possibilities, then selected some in a perpetual cycle of the Principle of Selection:

That excretion can happen in two ways: One, when Arya civilization is dynamic and evolving, then excretion happens when some subcultures choose not to evolve because their intellectual priesthoods prefer a legalistic social control or personal behavioral discipline over the mercurial, curious, loving, spiritually intoxicated and unpredictable current of the soul. Therefore, the Vedic exhortation to make war against the "illiberal", with the help of Indra (as Soma). This is the first way of excretion - like moulting old skin. It creates choice, and it continuously learns from circumstance in the light of fundamentals. The second, decadent, way is when those illiberal priesthoods are dominant, and they exile or excommunicate people who dare to be creatively different in their own journey, or are less than deferential to authority and its set paths. It kills choice, and suffocates Nature's dynamic of Necessity and Possibility.

This much is well understood in India. But the second half of the cycle is not given due justice holistically, either in the modern democratic space, or even by many schools of traditional Vedanta. The hoped-for denouement is a cataclysmic convergence upon a choice, or at least to set up new hierarchies based on the next stage of evolution of meanings, values, and purposes. But perhaps this is understood in an autistic fashion - in a limited individual sphere disconnected from the interpersonal social empathy and political energy. Politically, a mobilization in favour of new, better values, meanings and purposes - or conversely the creative re-tribalization of society back to fresh recognition of rudiments - is de-emphasized, or condemned as uncool, or even inherently Fascist.

For sure, there is some truth to the danger of Fascism in this process. After all, the second half of the cycle is an attempt to seek control of the self and society by re-normalizing social and interpersonal values, hierarchies and potentials on a new cultural platform. No matter how high these new ideals and values, the attempt at self-control and communal power is fraught with dangers of excess. This suppresses the other interlinked aspects of the soul - such as friendliness, a deeper understanding of reality, and how to oppose an adversary while taking responsibility for him, by being invested in understanding his/her viewpoint and devoting energy to communicating, rather than being contemptuously indifferent or fearfully insular. In this, service and conflict are closely related. [See Dasyu-Dāsa dynamic vs. "class struggle" theory] These form 3 points of an equilateral triangle. If one vertex widens too much, then the other two angles will be suppressed; if one is suppressed, the other two will become obtusely wishy-washy:

One is reminded of wise words from someone whose selective glorification of the rudiments of noble Samurai culture lead to Japanese fascism - exactly what he cautions against:

"Discipline in self-control can easily go too far. It can well repress the genial current of the soul. It can force pliant natures into distortions and monstrosities. It can beget bigotry, breed hypocrisy, or habituate affections."

- Inazo Nitobe, Bushido: The Soul of Japan

Taken from:

BUSHIDO: THE WAY OF TOTAL BULLSHIT

At the moment, Indian civilization is one up on Bushido, because it could be walking down two opposite ways of total bullshit simultaneously. One, of totally Friendly wishy-washy "all is well" refusal to confront direct provocations, or call out invidious agendas and double standards, and always be at the receiving end of a social dialectic. This is the type who still thinks its OK to have roads and cities named after people like Aurangzeb, or who gush unequivocally over Kipling. Two, of totally clumsy, culturally inept and weak-but-aggressive Hindutva that scores triumphant self-goals (because a majority of Hindus are walking down the first path of total bullshit) and gets painted into the Fascist corner. This is like the squint-eyed pracharak who scowled at the camera and threatened a 'Ghar Wapasi' devoid of brotherly love.

That some sort of Divergence is in process is a foregone conclusion. It remains to be seen if the Gurus who can shepherd Convergence will find themselves in positions of influence when the time is right.

A classic touchstone of the Divergence Convergence process was Dr. Ambedkar - he sacrificed congenial etiquette and chose confrontation to break entrenched aristocratic priesthoods and their hypocritical ideologies - though he himself was educated and mentored by people from that very same aristocratic background. But he also pointed out the boundaries of that divergence, when he went to the radical extent of declaring conversion to non-Indic faith-systems as "denationalization" (which I do not subscribe to as a general rule):

Further, he also pointed towards the Convergence he preferred - championing the cause of the mass revival of Sanskrit literacy, for example, for a new platform for diversity to re-normalize Indian subcultures and society:

Sanskrit 2.0 and Diversity Policy - 1

What is happening is a natural process of nonsense begetting nonsense: for every pinko Leftist at JNU there will soon be an opposite on the Right. The former misuses Ambedkar's name by highlighting only a portion of his Divergence-Convergence schema to further social division. The latter hates Ambedkar because he broke affinity with the medieval tradition.

An example of scattering but not gathering: The emergence of Sikhism from Hinduism that was struggling against foreign oppression was a spectacular example of constructive Divergence and Convergence over an inter-generational span. It learned from circumstance, returned to fundamentals, created choice at various levels of society, and imbued it with Charhdi Kala and regenerated both wings: Bhakti and Shakti. But in present time, there is a failure to harvest and develop those memes again - as a continuing process within the civilization, rather than as purely schismatic cult. Instead, yet another cleft has been introduced by a hidebound Sikh priesthood and superficially appreciative Hindus. The excretion in process is of the illiberal type on the Sikh side, and of the obtusely liberal type on the other.

Theologically, this manifests as a new trend of irrational aversion to "monotheism" among politically-aware Hindutva, under the spell of a shallow Atheism, or a neo-Advaita philosophy of compromise that makes a hodge-podge of possibilities by scuttling the Principle and Process of Selection. The rich and deep tradition of Indic Monotheism gets the short shrift - Any similarity with historical manifestations of Christian or Islamic monotheism is seen as identitical. There is an unwillingness to distinguish differences between an Infinite but Unique Monotheism that bounds the two ends of the Divergence-Convergence process of Selection, and a fundamentally Angry Schismatic Monotheism that chokes the process of discovery. There is a discomfort with accepting that some level of violence may be part of both processes, but its role and employment in each differ significantly in value, meaning and purpose. Here is another view on this subject by an author I love, and who is of non-theistic bent:

Gods, God, Unity, Unit - by Aravindan Neelakandan

In my view, there is only one way to gather all parts of society and all Varnas of human into one flock. Perhaps, only when the civilization can gather itself to the Gurus to learn the holistic process of Divergence-and-Convergence that sits in the lap of the Monotheistic Infinite, can the flock take flight again.

Happy Ram Navami!

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.

Brahma's Lotus Arse: A Hindutva view of LGBT issues

Recently the bizarre stance taken by the Supreme Court of India in criminalizing homosexuality has been in the news. Taken in an isolated sense, it is a matter of concern to most right-thinking people, whatever be their political orientation. It is also surprising that supposedly 'Hindutva' forces have chimed in with an asinine note in this debate on LGBT issues. India is a society in unprecedented flux, which over the past 60 years has seen an unprecedented re-alignment of social forces (for better justice and empowerment) in modern history - all through the ballot rather than the bullet. Just like there can be good things from this flux, there is apparently the possibility of ignorance that emerges from this churning, too.

Political Identity
Political orientation - exactly like sexual and gender identity - is not a bipolar case of 'left' and 'right', 'male' or 'female'. Therefore it should be apparent to the discerning that the BJP is a political bandwagon that is not equivalent to 'Hindutva' as a political philosophy. The BJP as a political vehicle has its own share of Dilli billis who are politician passengers rather than statesmen drivers with an ideological vision. One can read up on the "D4" within the BJP to get an idea of the wheels-within-wheels of the political forces that run this country - on both sides of the political spectrum and across party lines. There is conflict between them and, say, Modi.

There is nothing special in the fact that there are "communal" forces of all stripes in India (or any other society), most of them as Congress affiliates and some of them in the opposition. There is also nothing special that there are "liberal" forces on all sides, and so it should not be surprising that there are truly liberal forces that form an intrinsic part of 'Hindutva'. This essay here tries to put forward a 'Hindutva' liberal view on LGBT issues. Its also worth noting apologetically that every country has its pseudo-liberal jackasses. Their fashionable cerebral musings are blissfully disconnected from other parts of their own brains. Unfortunate societies must wait for Time to show fully the actual fruits of a generation's reckless experiments with truth. A more holistic perspective serves the purpose better.

Sexuality and Psychophysical Identities
Sexuality and even gender identity is a continuum, not merely a polarity of male-female. This is true even biologically within one individual's composite body of all types of cells, irrespective of the body's aggregate gender. The fact that sexuality is a continuum with many 'overlapping' areas even in 'mainstream' society can be seen with classifications of sexual preferences such as "gynandrophilia" (attraction for transsexuals), etc. Statistically, it has been noted to emerge as an increasingly preferred customer choice in escort services, pornography, etc. Among Hinduism one sees deity forms of various intersections of categories of species and gender identity, such as the iconic ardha-nareeshwara form (check out the 'lotus' diagram below).

Gender differences range from 'absolute' to merely a matter of degree. 'Absolute' differences are sex-dichotomous differences, such as the presence or absence of gender-specific genital organs. On the other hand, a greater number of gender differences are sex-dimorphic and therefore only a mater of statistical degree, such as stature, behaviors and psychological and other abilities (typically complementary). These categories of psycho-physical differentiation are a product of, both, nature and nurture.

However, even the 'absolute' differences are developmentally a matter of degree of elimination, sharing the same 'substrate' (in an ontological, or better called 'morphogenetic', sense). For instance, in order to become 'male', the foetus goes through a de-feminization (and thereby masculinization) process. The 'female' is the default path for the psycho-physical development of the human being, in the sense that gene actions that result in the formation of 'absolute' female-specific systems are merely eliminated. This idea is supported by the fact that there are no female-specific genes or hormones that correspond to the hormones active in males only. Therefore, the Vedas switch to female deities at particular points in the spiritual journey. [Agniveer: 1. Vedas on Woman – "Sunrise of enlightenment"; 2. Vedas on Woman – "Foundation of knowledge"]

Thus, in a psycho-spiritual and psycho-physical process of self-discovery, there is a good possibility of having to discover and pass through a beingness that strides and encompasses gender identities. In the end, atman is said to be asexual - or rather pan-sexual. Along the way, as part of a process of self-discovery, there appears to be a phase of homo-eroticism, i.e., developing a sort of intimate comfort - or even admiration - for the morphological body of the same gender as one's current mortal coil. In some Dharmic systems, this phase, like many other phases, seem to be projected on the ishta devata. E.g., there are detailed descriptions of the spiritual body, including all private parts, of chosen deities, both male and female. Clearly, these were not meant for the meditations of devotees of the opposite sex, and of course these are not lustful flights either. But they do indicate a 'transmutation' of eros and its perspective.

It follows that tendencies like homophobia would become a deep-seated developmental block in spiritual life. It may or may not be the case that there are healthier paths for the common man to self-discovery than those manifested by LGBT, but the fact is that LGBT is relatively uncommon by nature as much as by nurture. Therefore, it should be treated with the humility, respect and wonder that is due to all such relative phenomena of nature that are the products of crises or blurs of identity. If destiny is born out of crisis, and if the spiritual task is to derive new order out of chaos, then the revulsion to outliers and counter-examples to common set identities is counter-productive across all purushaarthas and for socio-political varnashrama.

Justice, Ethics & Experience
Law (prescription and proscription) should ideally set the contours for spiritual life within a particular society. Criminalization of homosexuality does the opposite at this point in our society. Unbelievably, in India homosexuality is being legally conflated with pedophilia and bestiality, perhaps because a lot of homosexual conditioning happens in such contexts as the systematic buggery of street children as a form of abuse and gang dynamics, turning into a cycle of the abused becoming the abuser. Promiscuity also may be a problem within consensual homosexual social circles, but that is partly related to their lack of space and status in society. It is not inherent in LGBT orientations, but is a combination of legitimate LGBT tendencies with other illegitimate tendencies common to all sexual orientations - such as lust, abusiveness, irresponsibility and other forms of perversity.

So the legal position is tantamount to aiding in the nurture of perversity by compartmentalizing a particular psycho-physical tendency and pushing it down into a vicious spiral instead of containing (regulating) and edifying it into virtue. The law should promote fidelity and discourage promiscuity and abuse. Criminalizing homosexuality serves no purpose whatsoever. However, in my humble opinion, a useful debate could be had on whether same-sex couples can be "married" in the same cultural form as regular couples, or whether it should be differentiated for cultural purposes (if not legal). Perhaps it calls for containment but not ostracism, definitely for unbiased edification and not visceral condemnation in the garb of religion or culture.

In some ancient societies they actually took the opposite stance of elevating the status of people with mixed gender identities, etc. For example, in Oaxaca (Mexico), even today the old tradition persists, that if one offspring happens to be 'transsexual', he/she wears distinguishing jewelry and inherits the entire family property - and then may choose to re-distribute it one way or another. Et cetera. I guess the purpose behind such traditions must have been to uphold such a minority cases of "freaks" of nature so that the aam abdul can wonder about the fixed conceptions around identities that are common in society, and also to induce a sense of spiritual responsibility as an antidote to a vicious spiral of promiscuity or persecution that often stems from identity crises.

देवोsदेवान् जघनतः
सृजति स्मातिलोलुपान् ।
त एनं लोलुपतया
मैथुनायाभिपेदिरे ॥

"The God Brahma then created the Demons from his buttocks, overly concupiscent. Due to excessive sexual lust, they approached Him for copulation." - The Bhagavatam, 3:20:23

In its morphology, the Bhagavatam or any Vedic text is interesting. One could think of the homunculus. Even by its own devotional logic, Brahma (with the four-lobed head) is the Supreme Being's first-born son, and Brahma's blessed arse rests on the Lotus emanating from Vishnu's own navel, the source of everything. 

One Being, Many Vectors: Sanity in Politics & Religion

Veda could be characterized as an unlimited collection of sane points of view, and a rejection of not-so-sane 'packaged' half-truths that come bundled with beliefs, affiliations, etc. एकं सत् विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति । "Truth is One, the learned call it by many Names." - RigVeda 1.164.146

'Sanity' is measurable in terms of a genuine relationship with all branches of knowledge, and holistic processes to recognize that knowledge. A point of view that answers more questions than it causes to be raised, and which offers a pragmatic process of further cognition and more mature questions, is worthy of being adopted. A point of view that does not square with reasonably related branches of knowledge, or that has no pragmatic method to it, is worthy of rejection. [Check out Agniveer: 'What is Vedic Religion?']

The fact that there are unlimited points of view is emphasized in Hindu philosophy itself -

तर्कोsप्रतिष्टः श्रुतयो विभिन्ना
नासावृषिर्यस्य मतं न भिन्नम् ।
धर्मस्य तत्तवं निहितं गुहायाम्
महाजनो येन गतः स पन्थाः ॥

- Yudhishthira in The Mahabharata, Vana-parva, 313.117

"Dry arguments are inconclusive. A philosopher/teacher/prophet (muni) whose opinion does not differ from others is not considered a purified intellect. Simply by studying the shrutis (books that were "heard" by the teachers), which are multifarious, one cannot come to the right path by which Dharma is understood. The solid truth of Dharma is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated, self-realized person. Consequently, as the shaastras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive path the great ones advocate."

Enlightened seers all have a unique and different point of view! This is an astonishing assertion of Hinduism. Yet Dharma is one and unified, as is the multifarious tree of knowledge - i.e. there is a consilience of knowledge.

It also says that dry argument without reference to being-ness (asmita) is always inconclusive. Cultural or civilizational identity is clearly a component to understanding. A particular culture will have a greater bandwidth for truth if it can accommodate a greater diversity of the civilizational spectrum, including the deracinated sections of society.

Therefore, "Hinduism" cannot be defined by some kind of doctrinal manifesto like most typical "religions". Rather, it appears to be a broad culture of a never-ending curiosity about truth. Finito.

The Politics of Hindutva

Then there is the consideration of the political philosophies derived from a Vedic mindset. On his bed of arrows on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, the grandsire Bhishma equated Politics with the practice of sannyasa.

The set of political philosophies claiming affiliation with the Veda has come to be called Hindutva in the current day and age. [Insert: Some people differentiate Hinduva from Raj Dharma (BRF).]

Like a true philosophy, it ought to have a consideration from different vectors. It would be wonderful for India's social and political discourse at large if educated sections of its people could break out of their old, encrusted categories and recognize the fundamentals of Hindutva, as outlined above in this blogpost -- and then participate in it and enrich it, for there is plenty of space for many viewpoints, and plenty of need for different methods to tackle India's (and the world's) varied problems in its various regions.

But many currently think of the political philosophy of Hindutva as a monolithic, opportunist juggernaut that can be pigeonholed into some Western category (like "right-wing" ideology), and whose internal differences of opinion are only ramifications within that category. But the fact is that it doesn't really fit any Western category. Even using a Western lens, an honest survey shows that there are as many clearly leftist people within Hindutva as there are right-wingers. Hindutva can easily occupy both sides of the aisle, even in its current nascent form.

It is actually a different dynamic of governance, i.e., one based on a different form of social and cultural capital -- created on an evolving civilizational resource rooted in native experience rather than one imported and "thrust fully formed" on the civilization. Yet, some tendentious opinion-makers have tried to bury its distinct diversity and subtle nuances under some rather unsettling labels imported from other civilizations with a very different historical experience. Once that is done, it becomes a matter of forcing an identification based on the merest similarity. This semantic confusion is sheer insanity. Such an intellectual priesthood and its sepoys have become active carriers of this contagion, with little regard for real facts and honest analysis.

Old order must pass

In the Vedas, there is an eternal Truth (satyam), and a continuously changing modality of Truth (Rtam). Cultural nationalism means to create a system for the recognition of the modal nature of old and new truths through time, where dynamic Rtam can be fostered, and where static half-truths that try to monopolize, limit, or distort it can be weeded out as time flows by. For sure, there will be ideological casualties - not to be construed as 'victims'. From the post 'Bruce Lee and Bhakti - 2' -

"Politically, it follows that all bona fide sectarian cultures must point to the unified Tree of supra-subjective knowledge. The ideological sources of any religious or ideological sect can be objectively evaluated for this complete structure and continuity with Knowledge. If it fails in this due to a fixation on one point in history, one personality, or one obsession with an ideal, then its destruction is written in the stars and the politics of Dharma must aid this process. Any political party that seeks to prevent their destruction is doing so at the cost of the general sanity of the environment."

But if pseudo-"secular" mavens of spin and their gullible 'educated' consumers in India cannot bring themselves to understand this cultural nationalism and break out of their ignorant prejudices, then to quote Bob Dylan's lyric:

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.
- (link to song)

Good Critic, Bad Critic

My pathbreaking research has revealed that the Bollywood blockbuster "Dilwale dulhaniya le jayenge" ("The possessor of a heart carries away the bride") was named after a mantra from the RigVeda. I know you think I'm a bullshitter, but at least everyone agrees that Bollywood's dons of doggerel are plagiarists. If you don't believe me, I can show you. Its from the RigVeda's Saraswati Suktam:

उत त्वः पश्यन् न ददर्श वाचं , उत त्वः श्रृण्वन् न श्रृणोत्येनम् ।
उतो त्वस्मै तन्वं विसस्रे जायेव पत्य उषति सुवासाः ॥ ऋग्वेदः १०.७१.४ 

"One man looks at the Word, yet he does not see Her; One listens but does not hear Her.
But to another has She shown Her beauty, like a fond well-dressed bride does to her husband."
- RigVeda 10.71.4

The enlightened person, whose ignorant heart has been set alight by knowledge, who becomes an intoxicated bard in pursuance of the Veda, is often called kavi in Sanskrit - a poet. I'm told that this is not your cheap Urdu poetaster, churning out cliched or mawkish rhyme for a bit of notoriety or wallow, but rather someone whose transactions are of a different type, whose fame is of a different frequency.

But the mantra is not about the Poet, it is about the hearer, about ways of listening or reading. Shravanam.

This word "dilwala" is Persian pidgin in north-India. The Sanskrit word is "sahridaya" - "companion or possessor of a heart". I came across this thoughtful editorial in the Sanskrit language Sudharma newspaper of September 11, 2013 - A translation:

कविसहृदयाख्यं तत्त्वम् । The reality of what is called 'Poet' and of the 'Possessor of a sincere, learned heart' 

"The reality of Saraswati (Goddess of Speech, Knowledge) is won by the Poet, and by the Possessor of a heart", said Abhinavagupta. "Those who, by constant practice and devotion to the poetry acquire the ability to identify and become part of (something) in the clear, illustrative imagination of the heart's mirror, they become participants in the relationships of the heart and are possessors of the heart," said he. In the hands lies creativity, so also in the possession of a heart lies the ability for bliss. But its not as if all who read poetry or all who watch theater are knowers of the poet's heart. Only some have that ability. Thus it is heard: 

"One man looks at the Word, yet he does not see Her;
One listens but does not hear Her." 

In the world, as poets are rare, so also are possessors of hearts. Just like poetic talent, the ability for critique and reflection is also obtained only by the Grace of God. By the ability for critique and reflection, the possessor of a heart knows the inner state of the poet, and discovers new meanings, too. What the sun doesn't see, that the poet sees; and what even the poet doesn't see, that the reflective critic sees. But some critics turn into academic commentators. They only seek the faults in the poet. Where the meaning is complex, there they say it is obvious and literal and cast it away. Where the meaning is clear they re-describe it in complex ways. They increase the readers' perplexity. In this way, many an interpreter has perverted reality. They aren't possessors of hearts. Only he is a possessor of a heart who sets aside envy and emulation and reads poetry for the joy of poetry. The reality of Saraswati is in, both, the poet and the possessor of a heart. If there were no possessors of hearts, then the poet's work is wasted. If there was no poet, then the possessors of hearts would have no bliss. May both increase!

So the devoted practice and duplication is not blind admiration, says the editor; it is a sympathetic, reflective critique.

Secondly, this line was intriguing: "What the sun doesn't see, that the poet sees; and what even the poet doesn't see, that the reflective critic sees." It reminded me of a verse famous in the Mahabharata:

अष्टौ श्लोकसहस्राणि अष्टौ श्लोकशतानि च
अहं वेद्मि शुको वेत्ति सञ्जयो वेत्ति वा न वा 

"Eight thousand and eight hundred verses there are,
That I know and Shuka knows but Sanjaya (the author) may or may not know." 

      -Mahabharata, Adi Parva 1.81

Around this verse is built the theory of the "Hidden Bharata", one that isn't available in the popular epic's text. Now if I were an Idiot, or a clever Nazi or colonial Western Indologist, or a traditionalist upper caste Hindu clansman, I might go digging for the relics of this 8800 verse Holy Grail in Tibet or Turkey, or deep in the family archives of a particular caste-collective. Nothing wrong with that, of course - after all, "What one has not yet learned to use, one must first learn to waste", be it time, money, energy or intelligence. But this Hidden Bharata seems to have been pursued more as an idea by those Hindu spiritual leaders who worked with the fundamentals. For example, one finds an echo of it in the texts of Bengal Vaishnavism, where Lord Shiva says:

अहं वेद्मि शुको वेत्ति
व्यासो वेत्ति न वेत्ति वा ।
भक्त्या भागवतं ग्राह्यं
न बुद्ध्या न च टीकया ॥ 

"[Lord Śiva said:] 'I may know; Śuka may know; and Vyāsa may or may not know the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. For the spotless Purāṇa can be grasped only through devotional service, not by material intelligence, mental speculation or philological commentaries.'"       

                   - Chaitanya Charitamrta, Madhya, 24.313 

If "dilwala" is pidgin, the above tried to address the Indian side, the sahridaya. The Persian equivalent would be saheb e delaan. Its a phrase that is found in Persian mysticism going back to Zoroastrian and Mithraic times, they say. And so is the word khudaa, which means Self-evident (khud aashkaar) according to the mystics. Some of its best expression is in the poetry of Hafez:

دل می‌ رود ز دستم صاحب دلان خدا را

دردا که راز پنهان خواهد شد آشکارا 

"My heart is slipping out of my hands, O possessors of hearts, for Self-evidence's sake!

Alas, the hidden secret will become manifest!"

As the editor said, "In the hands lies creativity, so also in the possession of a heart lies the ability for bliss." Here, our man is moving beyond creativity and 'doing' (service), towards an encounter that the possessor of a heart is entitled to. (Conversely, in a condition of confusion and disorientation, "dil pey mat ley, haath mein ley!").

Control + Duplication = Communication;
Control + Communication = Having [ref. Be Do Have: Creativity, Faith, Works and Witnessing]

Its probably better to draw close to the original Veda before one spends time on academic interpretations and the theories of linguists, archaeologists and other "researchers" who have little identification with the Veda, or instead have an attitude of envy, usurpation or malice towards Vedic civilization or India. In other words, if they haven't paid their dues at the altar of the Veda and Vedanga, duplicating its practice as per its own clear native specifications, then their theories and critiques are worth nothing - or more harmful than useful.

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.