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!

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.

Subsume all their Shibboleths

In an intellectual competition, the goal is not just to find truth, but also to achieve certain political aims, such as winning over another person's mind and heart, or splitting the opposition and putting them at cross-purposes. In comparing two ideas, how does one not get caught in a false dichotomy? The practice of purva-paksha is healthy and encourages a shift in the learner's understanding - but it is not immune to false dichotomy, and a siddhanta that is in contradiction to its Other is not an uncommon outcome. That could leave the Other just where it is, without winning it over and putting it into a new perspective as part of the Self.

The dialectic process is not immune to false dichotomies because of the way false data works within the psyche. As indicated in an earlier blogpost 'Psychohistory vs. Dumb Dialectics': "It is an epistemological observation that if the human mind is first possessed of an untruth, and is then confronted with a truer piece of data (true w.r.t the self), then it first rejects the new data via a process of Othering. Any synthesis subsequently formed is of less truth value than the newly introduced data, though it may be better than the untrue figment that was used as the starting point."

Therefore, first of all there is a necessity for a sound epistemic technique to strip false data as a prerequisite to a selection of importances from a stream of data. If I understand correctly, the purva-paksha offered in the formative phases of the 'Hindutva' worldview by thinkers such as Rajiv Malhotra ji are such an attempt at stripping false data, mostly by a process of Othering, and by working at the points of greatest strain or inability in the body politic. 

Not unexpectedly, one finds that carping "intellectuals" like to point out that this process of Othering is rather divisive. They fail to take a process view of things, and want to pigeonhole 'Hindutva' into a 'rightist' or 'leftist' paradigm upon arrival. This is rather silly, considering the vast and deep tradition that 'Hindutva' seeks to serve. 'Hindutva' as a relative of the word 'Sindhu' itself means oceanic. And its seed is 'Veda' - knowingness.

So then, what sort of cognition does Veda look forward to as a desirable outcome of contemplation? Agni (Fire) is the "first among worshipables", the first among the 33 Divinities, the "One who gathers all the others." In RigVeda 1.1.4 we find as per Swami Dayananda Saraswati's translation and interpretation:

"O Agni, only that sacrifice goes to the Divinities which is of knowledge that you have encompassed on all sides and pervaded through and through, after it is free of schism and contradiction."

One operative word in the above mantra is vishwa-taH, signifying a universality that encompasses the world of knowledge. Therefore, a false knowingness that sets up one "truer" or "greater" fetish to loom over another token idea is in itself in violent opposition and contradiction to the Other - even if it shows itself to be complete and consistent in itself, on its own arbitrary self-referential authority. Such would not be a sacrifice of knowledge fit to reach the Gods. It may be eulogized in the puerile antics between idol-breaker and idol-maker, nothing more. 

These themselves may be incomplete phases in a process (for there is nothing inherently wrong with violence), but usually they aren't. A stellar example of when it is the case would be that of Bhai Kanhaiya, disciple of Guru Tegh Bahadur. On the battlefield at Anandpur Sahib, he would fight against the Islamists, and then walk around serving water to the thirsty among the wounded and the dying. It dismayed many of his fellow-disciples that he was serving water to enemy wounded as much as to his own. When they reported this to the Guru, he smiled approvingly, for he must have known that his sacrifice was reaching the Divinities and wasn't merely a fratricidal orgy between earthlings. Brother Kanhaiya simply said in his defence that he saw his Guru's light reflected in every fallen soldier, enemy or his own. History is witness that Brother Kanhaiya's goat-skin water-pouch probably did more to establish the line between Dharma and Adharma that day than did his sword. 

But intellectually, in terms of logic, how does one describe this universalism better? After first stripping false data via Othering followed by a relentless criticism of its hypocrisies, one must then subsume its remaining truth into one's own siddhanta. This can be done by demonstrating how what is true in it is a special case of one's own model, which is free from its limitations. An example would be how Einstein's theory of Relativity can show that Newtonian mechanics are a special case of its own equations at speeds much slower than the speed of light.

The universalism of the Veda is truly an intellectual universalism, while a subjective affective adherence to a token is a matter of free choice and personal preference (ishta). Whereas the much-touted "universalism" of the Abrahamic systems is actually a totalitarianism.

If Hindutva has to truly evolve and occupy both sides of the aisle, then it has to develop coherence in its worldview - so that there is only a soft diversity between its opposing parties rather than a hard diversity that threatens the affinity and integrity of its civilization. Even the founding fathers of the United States had envisioned only a soft diversity as beneficial, rather than a hard one.

As an example, I would take this excellent blogpost at Indosphere: Rejecting the Dialectic of Western Materialism. In it, the author exposes the historical origins of the favourite shibboleths and obsessions of different strands of Western political and social philosophy, and rejects them as the neuroses they truly are. He then rejects the silly and typical attempts by the Other (including Oxfart-educated Indians who are more-or-less deracinated from Hindu civilization) to label or force-fit Indic philosophical or political movements into this Western framework:

I would caution very strongly against applying such categories as "Capitalist", "Socialist", "Liberal", or even "Right-wing" and "Left-wing" to anything within the Indian system. Not just because they are foreign, but because the very assumptions from which these classifications derive are completely disjointed from an Indian worldview. 

For example, there is a pernicious idea that the traditional Vaishya Dharma, or the relationship of Indian mercantile classes to wealth, is essentially "capitalist." This could not be further from the truth. "Capitalism" is a form of sophistry developed by the apologist Adam Smith to philosophically justify the accumulation of wealth as a natural outcome of Protestant work ethic, in the face of pre-existing memes in Western materialism that glorified poverty. Socialism is a response to Capitalism that re-establishes the glorification of poverty without the earlier tone of overt religiosity. This entire back-and-forth proceeds across a playing field whose geography is dictated by the contours of Western Materialism. The precepts of Western Materialism themselves could not be further removed from the way in which Vaishya Dharma regards the concepts of wealth and prosperity. 

Indian Vaishya Dharma is nothing at all like Capitalism, because in our view, the accumulation of wealth is itself a task consonant with divinity; there is no sophistry required, and nothing to apologize for. To cast one thing in the mold of the other, is like asking Pt. Bhimsen Joshi to sing Raga Maalkauns in "F sharp minor, allegro moderato". It's meaningless.

This is an excellent method to put the Other's affective obsessions in their right place, and then introduce a cleaner, more refined terminology in Sanskrit to put an area of life and living in perspective. 

Further, in order to round off that argument, I would add the following to show that the sentiment of compassion and charity, as well as the glorification of poverty does find a place within the Indosphere, though in a far more well-rounded context. One point that occurred to me was that the Indic philosophical eye (i.e., jyotisha) also does include in its field of vision a "daridra-yoga" case which can be dovetailed via spiritual method to draw closer to God. In this conjunction of karma and circumstance, poverty or deprivation can also be meaningfully dovetailed to draw closer to God. E.g., the Sudama-Krishna relationship. Even here there is fulfillment in the Lord via charity, and Sudama drew closer to the Lord via poverty - though not by glorification of it but by embarrassment and humility.

By showing the Libtards, Maovadis and Macaulayputras that their classifications are included as special cases within a larger, more intellectually and spiritually fulfilling paradigm, one is more likely to win over converts. Apart from defectors, one would also be able to bracket and broadside the bigoted and the prostituted among them, for they may globetrot as much as their patrons can afford, but they won't find a concept to cover their intellectual poverty with. Therefore, one must surround them on all sides and encompass them wholly so they have nothing to hide behind. Subsume all their shibboleths.

The Resurrection of the Karma Kanda

Happy Easter to all.
Is it better to have a fundamentally progressive or hidebound Constitutional framework for civilization, law, spiritual life, etc.? In what matters does one adopt a liberal Policy, and in what is conservatism better sense? When are permissive and draconian Acts justified? Can a permissive or draconian Act telescope into a conservative or liberal Policy respectively? And can all relevant combinations of these be used to serve a fundamentally progressive (or alternatively a fundamentally hidebound) Constitution?

The proposal here is that the Semantics of any Data depends on the Condition or Phase of the 'organism' relative to Time, and so the Action taken on Data depends on the Condition. (An 'organism' here can be the individual, family, clan, organization, portion of an organization, nation, civilization, the Earth taken as a whole - or any stream of data, etc..)

In understanding Constitutional purpose, one could consider Prakriti and Purusha and their interrelationship. Purusha may have considerable residual knowledge of its own...but the knowledge in which an 'organism' is interested is information concerning the Laws of Purusha and Prakriti as they apply to the composite 'organism'. The Laws of this interaction are known as Maya, which spans the gamut of Realism, from empiricism to magical realism. Each and every organism develops in the ratio that it understands and utilizes these laws correctly. All Learning of these laws springs from a disorderly entanglement where Purusha has impinged too suddenly or sharply on Prakriti with little regard for the advice of Time. As Purusha withdraws and frees itself of this entanglement, the Data of Prakriti's virginal states and its effects upon those becomes observable - and thereby converted to Experience. In the process, entrapped Life-force is also freed - and so Learning of these Laws occurs. Further, all of the philosophical reasoning behind Policy (the use of these Laws in proper order relative to Time) is made when Purusha returns over Prakriti for an orderly and harmonious winning over.

Very few knowledge-cultures have tried to model these organismic Laws via a Purusha-Prakriti model. This ought to be an area of special interest to observers of trends in world affairs today, its problems and proposed solutions from different cultures. Islam models its Laws via its own science of jurisprudence (usool ul fiqh), and the laws of what it considers the "subjugation" (taskheer) of Prakriti by Purusha. Therefore, the priesthood of fiqh and shari'ah proposes and disposes along the lines of this model, and the semantics of the Islamic model gives an indication of its purpose and Constitutional tone. Western jurisprudence, and in particular Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, is of a different Constitutional tone from Islamic shari'ah, but due to a particularly painful and confused historical experience with religion, it has shied away from boldly including certain metaphysical angles in its co-ordinates, and therefore it lacks 'altitude' and relies on compartmentalization. What does the Veda say of the laws of Policy and Activity, and what is the wingspan of its semantics?

Since Vedic sound is fundamentally a stream of Data, its Semantics and therefore its application would change based on the Condition of the organism in question. But for over a millennia in India, the Vedic stem of Acts (कर्मकाण्ड) has come to mean solely the acts of ceremonial and sacrificial rite. That's from Vedic commentators like Sayana (14th c. AD), Mahidhara (16th c. AD) and Uvata (11th c. AD), who were all very recent interpreters from the 'medieval' era. External shocks to India's body politic had begun by the 5th century AD. By their times, key centers and flows of Vedic civilization were already under occupation and continuous life-threatening attack, and it was in political retreat, fighting deep on its own home turf for survival. It was, as explained below, in a condition of Non-existence in several parts of the subcontinent, a condition of Treachery in several crucial areas, even co-opted into a condition of Covert Liability or Active Enmity in key areas, and generally in a condition of Danger in the subcontinent as a whole. Therefore, that medieval assignment of meanings to Veda must be seen as very contextual - for a lockdown of Veda into words and action, or the lockdown of political economic organization into hereditary caste duties, could be an appropriate mechanism in one or two of those Conditions, but not most others.

Ethics (Dharma) itself is unconditional and therefore eternal, sanatana. But its ethical laws of application depends on time, place, and the cultural maturity of stakeholders. A wrong-headed application is unethical, because it doesn't benefit the greatest number of stakeholders in the greatest number of ways (in a given circumstance), and therefore endangers personal or social integrity.

Wrong-headed applications are fundamentally due to improper understanding, though an incomplete understanding is often most eager to take an entrenched 'principled' stand. Wrong-headed applications can be due to venality and corruption. Here, opportunity, expediency, threats and worries aren't entities that come knocking - rather, they occupy the castle and inform it. Wrong-headed applications can be due to ignorance or apathy. "'Tis is not ours to question why," they say. Or a fatalistic misunderstanding of 'Karma' and other metaphysical angles.

In all cases wrong-headedness is a crooked combination of all three above. Set right, real Karma can be performed with true purpose - for Karma Yoga is the enactment of Dharma, and is always a felicitous joy [BG 9.2], a spirited challenge and a love affair. Its primary components are Spiritual sacrifice (यज्ञ), Material giving (दान), and Psychological annealing (तपस्) [BG 18.5].

I've heard that over 2000 years ago there was a massive shift from from the Vedic to Pauranic Hinduism in Greater India - probably following the divorce of the Iranic stem from the Indic core. I've heard some knowledgeable people think aloud that the time is come for a shift back to the Vedic. Therefore, the significance of the theory and application of the Karma-kanda of Purva Mimamsa as given in the Vedangas must be revitalized, reinterpreted in its broadest sense, and made a foundation for nation-building. For a few centuries, it had become fashionable in populist Pauranic schools to deride it publicly and keep it as the preserve of the priesthood. Almost 2 centuries ago, the first sentiments for modern Indian freedom and internal reform began when Swami Dayananda gave the call 'Back to the Vedas'. Even before that, Sikhism took some decisive steps in that direction that changed India's history as well as the Middle East / C. Asia. (It would be an interesting exercise to see in which Conditions below both these movements succeeded and in which they faltered.)

The following is a series of Conditions of the ethical integrity of the 'organism'. As given by the rules of shiksha and other Vedangas, the basic task is to be able to:
1. First estimate (ऊहा) the current ethical Condition and trend-line of the 'organism' in question.
2. Apply the correct formula for that Condition thoroughly, until it ceases to be applicable and there is a change in Condition.

One can estimate what Condition formula to apply only by closely observing trends. This is done by inspecting stats over time. (A single stat is meaningless.) If the correct Condition is not estimated and some wrong formula is applied, or the correct formula is misapplied, then the organism drops one Condition lower.

The Conditional formula is the Code of Conduct to be used to stay healthy and maintain the integrity of the 'organism' under that Condition, and prevent it from going into a dwindling spiral. The steps of the formula are to be applied energetically, in the same exact order and sequence, and without adding needless or redundant steps. Cease to apply when stats indicate it.

One can wreak an organism by applying the wrong formula in the wrong Condition. The universe is made that way. An example of this would be Arjuna's pseudo-wisdom in the 2nd chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, which K. dismisses as प्रज्ञावादांश्च भाषसे, and "not a heaven-bound" (अस्वर्ग्यं) code of action in the present circumstance. Arjuna was about to fall into a dwindling spiral. Conditional formulae are part and parcel of the Activity of the universe.

Applying the right formula always works, no matter how dull or stupid the person who is applying it. Intelligence and brilliance can change the speed of recovery or expansion, but the end phenomenon itself is an inevitable product of acting on the formula and nothing else. The humble idiot who applies it correctly is better than the blooming genius who deviates from the laws of Action due to his egotistical fancy. This is the essence of karma-kanda philosophy as I understand it. Of course, the dull one who is unable to estimate the Condition and apply the formula exactly will naturally be remiss.

If the organism lacks the ability to observe its own Conditions and use the formulae, then expansion and survival is entirely a matter of chance or fate - regardless of how good its ideas are. Ideas alone do not attract Grace and Mercy.

An attempt to list the Conditions in ascending order, from lower to higher. In another sense, all 12 Conditions or Phases are equal, especially in Meditation. Corrections and feedback is welcome:

Condition	Indicators	Formula
Chaos अनवस्था (as opposed to वर्णव्यवस्था)	·  Total chaos and dispersion. ·  Any set of factors or circumstances which do not seem to have any immediate solution. ·  Random motion of all ‘particles’ of the system. No factor is clearly understood. ·  Unpatterned flows. All particles randomly interact and stay in the area. No particle leaves the area and hence there is no product. · It is a basic cause of dullness and stupidity.	Control resolves Confusion. 1. Locate oneself in Present Time and Space. “Realize where you are and what space you deserve to occupy.” To be able to fix attention on even one factor or particle of the system, and then seeing other particles in some relation to it is enough to remove this condition. Confusion can be conflated with Treachery (below). First apply group formula for Confusion, then apply Treachery formula (below) and continue on all the way up.
Treachery by Inaction स्वधर्मत्याग	·  Betrayal after trust - by inaction. ·  A failure due to lack of will to fulfill the roles and responsibilities one has within the organism, and betrayal of the functions and purposes of the group.	1. Remedy criminal inaction by finding a sense of being. “Realize that you are.” Asmita  is Sanskrit for “I am-ness” and signals pride and identity.
Active Enemy अरिः	·  Avowed and knowing enemy to survival of an individual, group, project or organization.	1. Focus and resolution of identity and othering. “Find out who you really are.” Would include political defections, religious conversions, etc to remove this condition.
Uncertainty संशय	·  Crisis of belonging. ·  Cannot make up one’s mind about an individual, group, project, etc. ·  Being a cause of uncertainty, which complicates decisive action with cloudy details or sham profundity.	1. Inform oneself honestly of the actual intentions and activities of that group or person, without bias or rumours. 2. Examine the stats of that person or group. 3. Based on the greatest good for the greatest number of universal purushaarthas, decide whether it is best to attack, harm, contain or help that person or group. 4. Evaluate oneself or one’s own group as to intentions and objectives. 5. Evaluate one’s own stats and group stats. 6. Join or remain in or befriend the one which progresses towards the purushaarthic summum bonum. Announce the fact publicly to both sides. 7. Do everything possible to improve the stats of the person or group one has remained in or joined. 8. तपस् - Suffer on up the Conditions in the chosen group if wavering in it or harming it earlier has lowered its status.
Covert Liability द्रोह	·  The being has ceased to simply be Non-existent and irrelevant (below), and has taken on the colour of an enemy. ·  Careless or malicious and knowing damage caused to projects, activities, etc. ·  This Condition is assigned after a long, unchanging pattern of conduct is detected and observed. ·  Often covert. Being cannot be trusted.	1. Have that being decide who its real friends are. 2. Offer that being the opportunity deliver an effective blow to enemies of the group it has been pretending to be part of - despite personal danger in taking this action. 3. Make up the damage one has done by personal contribution far beyond the ordinary demands of a group member. 4. Apply for re-admission to the group by asking personal permission of each member, and rejoining only by majority permission. If refused, repeat steps 1-4 until one is allowed to join again.
Non-existence असत्	·  Not mattering. Not affecting matter, energy, space and time. Becoming non-existent or fossilized or merely nominal. ·  Every new appointee begins in this Condition. He tries to start off in a Condition of Power because he is self-aware of the position he holds - but other terminals have no reality on this yet.	1. Find all communication channels related to one’s post. 2. Make oneself known on all comm channels. Find out from other terminals what’s going on, limited by security pledges and NTK rules. 3. Study the system and discover what is needed or wanted. Do a detail survey and appraisal. 4. Do, produce or present, as the case may require. If formula is applied intelligently, one enters the Bypass zone of the Condition of Danger. Then one must apply that formula. The inhale and exhale of an organism is the give and take of vital particles such as information, skills, leadership roles, wealth, research knowledge, and genetic heritage – in decreasing order of velocity.
Danger संकट	·  Danger is assigned when a Condition of Emergency (below) has lasted for too long. ·  Or a statistic plunges very steeply. ·  Or a senior post finds itself wearing the hat of another activity because it is in trouble.	1. Bypass – ignore the agencies normally in charge and handle under direct control. 2. Handle situ and any danger in it. 3. Publicly assign Danger condition to the area. 4. Assign each individual in the Danger area a personal Danger condition and have them apply the individual Danger formula (derived below) in their personal spheres. 5. Reform - reorganize the activity so that condition does not recur. 6. Recommend firm Policy so that in future the condition will be better detected and/or prevented. Personal Danger formula: 1. Bypass habits and normal routines. 2. Handle the situ and any dangers in it. 3. Consciously assign self a Danger condition. 4. Examine personal ethics, identify out-points, use self-discipline to straighten it out. Write-up a confessional of out-points searching proper memory of time, place, form of deviation, and actual event. This action usually produces a small to medium miracle in life – and one becomes acutely and ecstatically aware of all-pervading metaphysical powers and forces of ethics in the universe. 5. Reorganize your life so that Danger condition is not continually happening to you. 6. Formulate and adopt a firm policy that can detect and prevent in future.
Emergency आपत्काल	·  Stats are declining. OR Stats are not changing.	1. Promote the group/organization. In case of individual – produce more efficiently. 2. Change the operating basis. Working harder on same operating basis and expecting change is Lahori logic. If one promotes one’s group and idea but does not change operating basis, one will head for another Emergency condition. Another positive example: Over the past 1000 years, Indian civilization changed one aspect of its operating basis by moving to Prakrits, and later even assimilated foreign Prakrits to some extent (Persian, English). That was in a different Condition. Today the Condition is again changing, and it is time to create a new operating basis again and bring in Sanskrit 2.0. 3. Economize. 4. Prepare to deliver. 5. Stiffen discipline/ethics against corruption, improve work culture and commitment. Ultimately life itself will discipline the individual, so might as well save oneself and one’s dependents some trouble.
Normalcy सामान्य	·  Routine or gradual increase in stats. ·  It comes close to “stability” (निर्विकार), but static stability (no increase, no decrease) does not exist in the universe. Therefore, if there is no gradual increase, there will be no stability.	1. Don’t change anything. Monitor stats and maintain system. 2. Justice factor is mild and reasonable. No draconian action. 3. Everytime a stat changes for the better, find out what caused it. Then incorporate that without abandoning anything else that was being done before. 4. Everytime a stat worsens slightly, find out why and remedy it systemically. 5. Keep jockeying between 3 and 4 – when some change happens, get the change factor off the lines.
Prosperity समृद्धि	·  Positive statistical line goes steeply up. ·  Affluence in isolation or in partnership or as subordinate to another. ·  Prosperity is the most risky of all Conditions. If one does not spot it and apply the formula, one can fall off the roof and fall splat on the street below. Spotted and handled well, it can be a leap over the moon.	1. Economize. Don’t buy or devote any money, time, energy or faith to anything that has a future commitment to it. a. Remove all needless or dispersed actions that did not contribute to present Condition. 2. Pay off every bill and debt possible. Fulfill as many obligations as possible reasonably. 3. Invest the remainder in service facilities, service readiness. Make it more possible to deliver. a. Make every action count and don’t engage in useless actions. Every new action must be of the same kind as those that did contribute. Consolidate gains, don’t let complacency set in. No downhill or roller-coaster. 4. Discover what caused the Condition of Prosperity and strengthen it for the time being.
Power प्रभुः	·  Stats in a very high range - a Normal trend in a higher octave, so to speak. ·  Power is not a short-term stat . It is a trend that can be relied upon. ·  It is a Normal in such high range, that it is total abundance. ·  In this range, there may be a slight dip here and there, but it is still Power. ·  Creates leisure and security.	1. Don’t disconnect from past associations from previous Conditions. Take ownership and responsibility for one’s past friends, family, mates, caste, inter-caste buddies and acquaintances, and all other connections. 2. Write up one’s record of one’s service role and its details. This is essential for the next incumbent in same role. Next incumbent for the post must know what not to change. 3. Make the post occupiable by someone else who is qualified. This is the Condition for Relinquishment (त्याग / संन्यास).
Transfer of Power संक्रान्ति or परम्परा	·  Handing over power or being overtaken by another in a mutually beneficial transaction. ·  Only 2 circumstances require transfer of power – very successful or very unsuccessful. This Condition is for the very successful case. One takes over a new or collapsed post in a Condition of Non-existence. But a going concern is taken over in Transfer of Power. ·  This is the Condition for Meditation (ध्यान) and Devotion to the Supreme Being (भक्ति).	1. Don’t change anything. All pressure points may come in on the new incumbent at once. Resist them in the same way the predecessor did (appropriate varnic शमो दम). Don’t do anything. 2. Keep learning and observing. Apply Normal Condition formula if necessary. 3. Study the Policy docs and Admin record. Learn and follow patterns and activity. 4. Issue no orders that are not instructed as routine by predecessors. 5. Innovate nothing, change nothing. 6. Write up one’s own record of observations. “Change nothing until you are thoroughly familiar with your new zone of power.” Special Note: A Danger Condition can occur by a violation of the Transfer formula. To remedy it: 1. Observe, question, and draw up a list of what was previously successful in one’s zone of control. 2. Observe, question, and draw up a list of what was unsuccessful in one’s zone of control. 3. Get the successful actions in. 4. Knock off all unsuccessful actions. 5. Shrug off all tendencies to frantically cope or “defend”. 6. Sensible get back into a working structure.

"Louder" dialogue: Right foot forward

Here's a line of thought that advocates a greater focus on internal dialogue and external covert ops, along with a drastic reduction of external dialogue, diplomacy, and "cultural exchange" with any nation or party that misuses protocols and engages in a one-pointed agenda of hate.

Sometime during my 11th or 12th grade, a young man walked into class and said he was our new physics teacher - a male teacher at an all boys school where most staff members are female. In our small world, some of us in the backbenches thought it was in the same category as being a male nurse. It was a class in which the backbenches were extraordinarily eager to participate: We would keep interjecting, "Lowda sir! Sir, lowda please!" while pretending that we were straining to hear him. Lowda is Hindi slang for 'dick', or 'dick off', pronounced a bit like English "louder". He became a target because we thought: (a) There was something odd and out-of-place, (b) We could take liberties that we couldn't take with other teachers just because we had a common gender,  (c) But we still had to treat him like a teacher because of rules and the risk of punishment. In this game, plausible deniability is the best policy.

It is said that the human subconscious is more vulnerable to insanity than the animal kingdom because we evolved the faculty of speech, and especially because of homonymic words in human speech (homonym: a word with more than one distinct meaning). Add to that a multilingual society with an alien "elite" language transplanted across cultures, and it makes it all the more fun.

But insanity is after all just the final limiting condition of a long process, when a lie or a misunderstood idea has been consciously practiced over and over against all reason, with such unrelenting stubbornness that it finally finds its hiding place in the subconscious.

Fortunately, even backbenchers know when a joke ceases to be funny. But in the merciless world of politics, a deadly combination of dissimulation and crushing ridicule of the other would be too good to let go, decency be damned. Is one man's terrorist really another man's freedom fighter? Is the white man's burden the heavy loot from India or the setting up of convent schools over the rubble of its society? Does "jihad" mean holy war, interfaith diplomacy or inner struggle? Or all three (while "terrorists have no religion")? Does "secularism" and "communalism" in Hindu India mean exactly the same thing as it does in a Western society re-negotiating its relationship with Christian authority?

Generalizing from the case above, the requirements are that the unfortunate target is: (a) A person, party or nation that oddly sets itself up (or has been set up) for ridicule by its non-traditional methods of conducting policy or expressing its purpose, (b) Participates in creating some cultural commonality and familiarity that invites contempt - by allowing for a certain leeway in etiquette that can be used to subvert the intent of dialogue, and (c) And yet expects to be taken seriously and holds out the threat of punishment.

In the Logic of the Nyaya-sutras, Gautama says that there are 3 well-known types of argumentative dialogue:

प्रमाणतर्क्कसाधनोपालम्भस्सिद्धान्तविरुद्धः पञ्चावयवोपपन्नः पक्षप्रतिपक्षपरिग्रहो "वादः" ॥१.२.१॥ 

"Discussion (vaada) is the adoption of one of two opposing sides. What is adopted is analysed in the form of five members, and defended by the aid of any of the means of right knowledge, while its opposite is assailed by confutation, without deviation from the established tenets."

To put it simply: A "discussion" is an honest effort to understand and arrive at a truer conclusion - either from the winning side, or a newly created understanding of the subject after listening to both sides. That's what classroom discussions should be trying to do. That's what history-writers, scientists, religions and philosophers should be trying to do. That's what the media should be trying to do in a national discourse. That could also be what international discourse and relations could do.

What is significant is that partisanship is not derided here. Anyone can have their point of view to begin with. But the discussion is carried forward on sound principles of logic and a love of truth, not hatred or prejudice.

But if any of the above prostitute themselves to politics and partisanship, then one of the following ensues:

यथोक्तोपपन्नश्छलजातानिग्रहस्थानसाधनोपालम्भो "जल्पः" ॥१.२.२॥ 

"Wrangling (jalpa), which aims at gaining victory, is the defence or attack of a proposition in the manner aforesaid by quibbles, futilities, and other processes which deserve rebuke."

Zhou Enlai's cocky assertion that "diplomacy is war by other means" is the most honest description of a dishonest mentality, spoken by one who oversaw the transition from communism to ethnic nationalism - one visceral movement to another.

स्वप्रतिपक्षस्थापनाहीनो "वितण्डा" ॥१.२.३॥ 

"Cavil (vitanda) is a kind of wrangling which consists in mere attacks on the opposite side."

Clausewitz's well-known quote "war is merely the continuation of policy by other means" appropriately comes from the colonial age in Europe - a Europe that hadn't been so successful with the religious Crusades in an earlier time. Historical background plays a big part in the dialectic quality of the thought process (ref. earlier blogpost - Psychohistory vs. Dumb Dialectics).

What is fascinating is that wranglers and practitioners of cavil are often the ones quickest to disavow or rebuke partisanship in all its forms, raising cries of "communalism", "religious fanaticism", "social inequality", "reason versus faith" and a host of false dichotomies.

Its not that visceral, detrimental partisanship doesn't exist. Its just that its possible for someone to have a partisan view as an aesthetic rather than a visceral propensity. And there lies the rub. In casting suspicion and following it up with wrangling and cavil, one can reduce an aesthetic proposition to a visceral threat. That's an important datum for "strategists" right there.

In fact, it seems to be a rather popular tactic. In India's national discourse, Modi is basically subjected to a one-point cavil response to almost anything his supporters have to offer. (See this video of the English media's latest feeding frenzy.)

But it is best seen applied in international relations, whether it is the Indian subcontinent or any other theater of international affairs. Vajpayee was riding the peace bus to Lahore amid much fanfare, while Musharraf's "mujahideen" were creeping up on Kargil. A "war of a thousand cuts" using "non-state actors" is waged while also cultivating "track II diplomacy". Cultural exchange is used by the guests and their internal hosts to shape India's national discourse, rather than the other way round.

"Citizen diplomacy" is fruitful only if the agents of dialogue are reasonably in sync with their nation's purpose and philosophy. Such individuals from both sides can use the informality and good intentions to create a genuine dialogue and enhance mutual understanding. If India had genuine representatives, I would be all in favour of track II diplomacy and cultural exchange. But an octogenarian Wagah Candle Holder pining for his ancestral aangan in Lahore and trying to keep alive his dhimmi-schooled father's Urdu may not be India's best foot forward. 

Nor, in my view, is a "secularist" who is unwilling to acknowledge the depth and real context of India's civilization as a valid (and valuable) starting point in modern times, much less take pride in it. What is he willing to fight and die for? - That question undergirds his qualification to dialogue on behalf of the nation, rather than merely his "pacifist" unwillingness to fight. Or worse. (See this interesting speech by M.J. Akbar on the Idea of India.) 

This is all the more important because this generation of warfare has stepped out of the conventional framework of Westphalian states, and its driving force goes beyond a primitive nationalism and even political-economic ideology. In this scenario, there are "countries" today that are not really nation-states in the proper sense of the term, they are sly foxes in the garb of law abiding nation-states. Their behaviour confuses naive observers, who call them "failed states" that are not quite failing. But the fact is that they were never meant to be successful as nation-states. Their success lies in something else, something much larger. Taking advantage of the protocols of being called a nation-state and especially a failing one that cannot control "non state actors" is part of that larger war, specifically its diplomatic aspect.

When this is the big picture, a nation that is in a make-believe delusion that the context is about nation-states is decidedly out-of-place and a naive oddity, setting itself up for others to play games with it. Therefore, those Indian commentators that try to distract the nation by calling a strangely idiotic "pride" to the fact that India is not considered as "failed" a state as some others are deluding the people. Knowingly or unknowingly, they are a direct hazard to the future crystallization of India's national purpose, much less ideal representatives in dialogue with others.

As long as India cannot put its "right" foot forward, its probably better to keep transactions limited to covert ops where required, as punishment for specific actions or to cultivate certain trends. At the same time, the need of the hour is for a vigorous discussion (not wrangling, not cavil) within India, to clarify and then solidify the idea of India going forward. As actions speak louder than words, this combination of internal dialogue and hard external ops will make for a "louder" dialogue, decency be damned.