Gun and Gomukh

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

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

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

Don't be Autistic

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

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

-- William Francis Butler, The Great Lone Land

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

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

यत्र ब्रह्म च क्षत्रं च सम्यञ्चौ चरतः सह।

तं लोकं पुण्यं प्रज्ञेषं यत्र देवाः सहाग्निना॥

- यजुर्वेदः २०.२५

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

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

Don't be Ghey

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

द्वौ सम्मताविह मृत्यू दुरापौ

यद् ब्रह्मसन्धारणया जितासुः।

कलोवरं योगरतो विजह्याद्

यद् अग्रणीर्वीरशयेऽनिवृत्तः॥

- श्रीमद् भागवतम् ६.१०.३३

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

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

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

Don't be an Adrenalized Nutcase

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

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

- ऐतरेयारण्यकम् ८.४०.२५

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

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

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

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

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

- Aitareya Aranyaka 8.40.25

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

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

Kshatriya Parampara does not mean Political Dynasty (nor Vyayamshalas)

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

श्रीभगवान् उवाच

इमं विवस्वते योगं प्रोक्तवान् अहम् अव्ययम्।

विवस्वान् मनवे प्राह मनुरिक्ष्वाकवेऽब्रवीत्॥1॥

एवं परम्परा प्राप्तम् इमं राजर्षयो विदुः।

स कालेनेह महता योगो नष्टः परन्तप॥४.२॥

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

          - Bhagavad Gita 4.1-2   

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

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

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

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

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

Two Engines of Spirituality

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

मां हि पार्थ व्यपाश्रित्य योऽपि स्युः पापयोनयः।

स्त्रियो वैश्यास्तथा शूद्रास्तेऽपि यान्ति परां गतिम्॥९.३२॥

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

- Bhagavad Gita 9.32

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

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

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

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

- Katha Upanishad 1.2.25

The Pragmatist Sovereign and the Idealist Officer

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

बाह्वायत्तं क्षत्रियैर् मानवानां लोकक्षेष्ठः धर्मम् आसेवमानैः।

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

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

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

यथा राजन् हस्तिपदे पदानि संलीयन्ते सर्वसत्त्वोद्भवानि।

एवं धर्मान् राजधर्मेषु सर्वान् सर्वावस्थान् सम्प्रलीनान् निबोध॥२५॥

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

अल्पाश्रयान् अल्पफलान् वदन्ति धर्मान् अन्यान् धर्मविदो मनुष्याः।

महाश्रयं बहुकल्याणरूपं क्षात्रं धर्मं नेतरं प्राहुरार्याः॥२६॥

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

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

सर्वे धर्मा राजधर्मप्रधानाः सर्वे वर्णाः पाल्यमाना भवन्ति।

सर्वस् त्यागो राजधर्मेषु राजंस्त्यागं धर्मं चाहुरग्र्यं पुराणम्॥२७॥

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

मज्जेत् त्रयी दण्डनीतौ हतायां सर्वे धर्माः प्रक्षयेयुर्विबुद्धाः।

सर्वे धर्माश्चाश्रमाणां हताः स्युः क्षात्रे त्यक्ते राजधर्मे पुराणे॥२८॥

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

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

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

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

सर्वे त्यागा राजधर्मेषु दृष्टाः सर्वा दीक्षा राजधर्मेषु चोक्ताः।

सर्वा विद्या राजधर्मेषु युक्ताः सर्वे लोका राजधर्मे प्रविष्टाः॥२९॥

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

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

Koel and Crow

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

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

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

Gun and Gomukh

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

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

Until then, don't be ghey.

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.

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.

Priest-craft: Managed solutions vs. Unmanaged customizations

The name and signature of any particular element is of primary importance in changing a cultural, psychological or technical system. For instance, these days the main problem in discussing Indian religious and secular culture is semantic confusion. Terms like "religion" are used from a purely Christo-Islamic perspective, rather than understood from within the 'pagan' Indic context. 'Hinduism' is called a "religion" by secularists, and 'Hindutva' fundamentalism is compared to Islamic fundamentalism. This is ludicrous. Similarly, within the cacophony of 'Hindutva' aspirants, many do conflate reinforcement of tradition with an all-inclusive eternal philosophy, thus justifying the reservations some opponents may have. [See 'Triangulating Hindutva: The Fundamentalist, Reformist & Traditionalist'].

Two kinds of dharmas - faith-based and ethics-based
There are two main categories of Dharma (broadly, Ethics). In its most comprehensive and truly universal sense, it is One Sanatana Dharma (eternal Dharma), or the Philosophia Perennis that Western philosophers have tried to discern. Then there are the several dharmic applications that are bound by purpose, culture, etc.

Among these applied dharmas, there are again two types - those dharmas that are received as "managed" solutions for the individual or a society, and those that are received as "unmanaged" solutions for the individual or society. This blogpost focuses on these two.

Consider an analogy that is applicable to, both, the individual as well as a society. The figure below describes an operating environment. Its substrate is an operating system that provides an unlimited set of resources, mapping logics, etc. But at the very top, the actual observed behaviour only reflects that part of this fundamental system that is allowed to shine through. Even those parts that are allowed to shine through may be intercepted and over-ridden. Most other aspects may be suppressed, or masked.

Between this fundamental operating substrate and the externally observed behaviour lie solutions that have been installed in the environment. There are Managed solutions (A and B) and Unmanaged customizations (C and D). Each of these either masks or modifies certain inherent, pre-existing elements of the system.

Unmanaged Customizations
When elements are deployed using an Unmanaged solution, the effects deployed over-write (not merely over-ride) any previous effects of the same name and signature within the environment.

Secondly, after deployment it is as if the initial solution's "wrapper" is of no consequence. It is discarded and the bundle of contents simply becomes part of the native environment and reacts with it like a solute does with a solvent. 

In this way, the contents forever become part and parcel of that environment - they can never be deleted as a finite package of elements, but their net effect can be over-written or transformed based on future additions and reactions. 

Since it over-writes (not over-rides) an element, the only way to restore that element to its pre-customized state would be to somehow re-connect with the fundamental systemic substrate wherever it may be accessible, query it, and then duplicate the desired element in the environment via a new Unmanaged customization.

Managed Solutions

When a bundle of elements is deployed using a Managed solution, then post-deployment it remains in its "wrapper", insulated from the native context of the environment it is deployed in. It seeks to stay as a bundle within its own bubble context, and duplicate its effects as is, rather than by adding to the net effect of the native environment. It uses the native environment's resources for its own operation, giving back only its intended effects to change the native environment.

Any chance interaction with the native environment through a hole in the wrapper can cause Byzantine behaviour requiring troubleshooting. 

It over-rides (not over-writes) any corresponding elements of the same name and signature of past solutions, by superimposing its own effects as is. Only those effects of a past managed solution continue to shine through that are not explicitly over-ridden within the new managed solution. 

If the managed solution is deleted then all its effects are deleted as if it were never there. Any effects of underlying system or older managed solutions then reappear in Application Behaviour (without having to reconnect or deploy another solution).

Another thing about Managed solutions is that they always need the external vendor (who built it) or his explicit legatee for any issue that crops up - hence it is called a 'Managed' solution. If the contract and dependency on the external vendor is broken, then the managed solution could stall and not yield any effects, or even create problems with no one to make even a show of troubleshooting. A period of such chronic misbehaviour ought to be a justifiable case for deleting it (or at least removing the wrapper and converting it into an Unmanaged solution). But hostile priesthoods and selfish anti-national politicians have a vested interest in reinforcing the wrapper by reinforcing isolation (ghettoization or caste-exclusivity) and contracting out to an elite core group.

Dharman and Brahman

Dharman is an Unmanaged Way to deploy different selected potentials of Brahman. Therefore in the Bharata culture, discussion of Dharman is anterior to Brahman. The human body and its cultural symbiotes are like the wrapper needed for the potentials to be deployed, and thereafter is of no karmic consequence to the actual realization of the potentials. Whereas in non-Dharmic "religions", the Brahmanic potentials are sought to be deployed without the context of Dharma, and therefore are deployed as managed solutions, in which the integrity of the wrapper is very important for predictable behaviour. Even without a hierarchical priesthood, when such non-Dharmic religions deploy themselves as a franchised network, their ideological integrity and sanctity of their idolized scriptures of personalities is of critical importance to their survival. Whereas in a Dharmic pantha those are only via media, intrinsic but not critical, because of the constant awareness of the Perennial Philosophy that is the real substrate, rather than obsession with a particular historical time, place, form or event.

The Wrapper

Where the wrapper is considered fundamental, there karma is cumulative - whether it is good karma or bad karma. 'Wrapper' can be a particular book, personality cult, organizational hierarchy, caste system, etc. When the wrapper is not considered fundamental in an Unmanaged customization, there karma is being changed directly - either rightly or dangerously, depending on the contents deployed and the state of the context.

Tone of the Context

Lastly, it would be an omission to not acknowledge that if the environmental context itself comes alive and becomes an active participant in the process rather than merely a passive recipient, that is a real game-changer. If people spilled out onto the streets, beside themselves with humble joy and creative enthusiasm, it is a game-changer. Similarly, if bloody revolution and conspiracy is in the air, that is also a game-changer - and then it doesn't matter if the society is moving towards "democracy", because certain types of forces will win power anyway.

Priests, Politicians and Wizards

Clearly, one way the effects of a Managed Solution can be masked is by inventing and deploying another managed solution that hides and overrides it, element for element. But this is playing the same faith game, and susceptible to the same limitations as the problematic Managed solution. If the new managed solution is deleted then the older managed solution's effects again reappear. A cult that is tightly controlled by a priesthood can be deprogrammed much more easily than an ideology that survives as a franchised network that injects itself culturally into the mainstream discourse. 

The other way to block its effects is to deploy new behaviors via an Unmanaged solution, which would have the effect of modifying the mainstream discourse itself in a way that inoculates it from evil invasion.

Using Managed solutions to modify and correct the evil effects of older Managed solutions is a typical dialectic process - it is unidirectional and can only move forward without ever regaining original virginity. 

Using Unmanaged customization is double-edged - it depends on what is being injected into the mainstream, and whether there exists a real, live channel of communication with the fundamental substrate. Only that live channel can ensure right customization at any stage.

This is the task that must be accomplished by the interplay between a nation's governing Constitution, its public discourse (education, media, etc.) and religious movements.

Retrospective
At different points in the last 1400 years, the local System Administrators have cooperated in the deployment of different modules of certain Managed solutions that seek to suppress or exploit the native environment. Feudal Casteism, Islam, Christianity and now pseudo-secularist Marxism are cases in point. One finds that the priest-hoods controlling these Managed solutions jockey with rival priesthoods in a mutually convenient musical chairs, as long as the environment isn't fundamentally altered.

One had to then find another Managed Solution B for the initial Managed Solution A, that changed 'A' just enough that an Unmanaged Solution strategy could be used later on. This is what several Indian social, political and religious reformers initiated over the last few centuries.

Thus, Dharma-friendly Managed solutions do need to be crafted in order to "contain" the more harmful and invasive effects of the exploitative Managed solution -- but only as a stop gap measure before all are deleted and the system is reset via an Unmanaged refurbishment. That deletion can safely be undertaken only after an Unmanaged component can be deployed that has a live connection with the fundamental substrate. E.g. Cloud Resource in the diagram above.

Buddhism itself was an attempt to reconnect with the fundamentals and reset the environment - but when Buddhism itself became a Managed solution and the sangha wrapper assumed ascendancy in league with mercantile or government interests, it only served to deracinate existing religious applications, without following it up with reinvigorating the fundamentals and re-aligning with Veda. I believe this happened partly because the tone of the environmental context was not optimal for the kind of discourse that could lead to real change; rather, it caused conservatism even when there was desire for political peace in the post-Ashokan period.

Secularism and Paganism
One can observe the operation of different memes based on how they were deployed, and the historical order in which they were deployed. India as a civilization is "wounded", i.e., it still retains its fundamental operating basis to a large extent, but has borne the brunt of every possible effort and stratagem to destroy that basis. Other civilizations are twice-deracinated - their fundamental operating basis has been ruthlessly destroyed by one Managed Solution and its Unmanaged counterparts, and then they have suffered a second round of the same. E.g., Russia and generally the Slavic nations were first deracinated by Christianity, and then by Communism. When Communism was deleted, the Church re-surfaced to some extent (modified by the mainstream discourse). The Islamic world is once deracinated, while within it subcultures like Persia are twice deracinated like Slavic nations. With the West the situation is still different for reasons of political economy, and there are ambiguous attempts to try to dissolve Christianity as an Unmanaged solution within its secular context. In each case, the solutions to return to a holistic state will be slightly different. In all cases, a return to secularism, or I daresay paganism, are important. In the case of India, this is important to consider as an advantage and a repository. Paganism is essentially the name given by hostile Managed solutions to native host environments.

Administrative Policy
Practically speaking, how to engineer the optimal dynamics between Managed and Unmanaged solution? Simply by preventing or countering the necessary things that a wrapped, bundled and strings-tied managed solution needs to deploy and survive. In this regard, the "neti neti" process is relevant in terms of self-definition, as an individual or as a civilization.

It would then be an interesting exercise to jot down how governmental policy can incorporate Dharmic ethics by being an able System Administrator with sound policy on the kinds of Managed and Unmanaged solutions that can be deployed in the system, as well as the relative order in which they are deployed.

As a guideline, a truly secular government cannot extend active support to Managed solutions, though it may have a policy of, say, incentivizing faith-based initiatives applicable to all. However, the government can actively ensure that all Managed solutions have a level playing field. Native Managed solutions must be protected from Managed solutions with wealthy and powerful foreign vendors and priesthoods. E.g., a principle of reciprocity can be introduced - if your country will not allow XYZ to be deployed in your environment, we cannot allow you to sponsor the deployment of ABC in our environment. Or, a low ceiling on foreign-funding to NGO's active in deployment of Managed solutions can be set by governmental policy.

However, a truly secular government can and must define its value system in Dharmic terms, in terms of its overall worldview. This worldview has, for instance, been talked about at length by India's Constitutional fathers such as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The revitalization of certain Dharmic memes in the mainstream are an important part of this. E.g., Dr. Ambedkar was a vigorous advocate of Sanskritization. [See 'Sanskrit 2.0 and Diversity Policy - 1'].

The government also has a responsibility to ensure that the 'PH value' of the Indic solvent remains Dharmic. That means not just in name but in actual values. Practically, that means that all pseudo-'Dharmic' impostor memes in our society need to be broken down, especially when they have outlasted their legitimate purpose and usefulness. That means any structures or forms that are obsessed with reinforcing the need for their "wrapper" - the fixed integrity of their priesthood, bodies and cultural exclusivity based on being legatees of some past vendor.

Rushdie and Naipaul
Salman Rushdie says regarding his transforming relationship with Muslim culture in the Subcontinent and Pakistan in particular, in his novel Shame: “I tell myself this will be a novel of leavetaking, my last words on the East from which, many years ago, I began to come loose […] It is part of the world to which, whether I like it or not, I am still joined, if only by elastic bands.” This mirrors the condition of Western 'secularism' and its relationship with Christianity. Many Indians from different communities would echo the same sentiment to some extent or another. On the other hand, V.S. Naipaul calls India a wounded civilization and wants to heal a historical wrong while criticizing the agencies of those crimes. A comprehensive Dharmic secularism should encompass both these good aspirations within a larger process.

Indian secularism does need some Modi-fication. A truly Secular Government would not discriminate based (primarily) on belief-system, but rather on its ethical effect in the environment. In other words, government should not practice मतभेद but rather धर्मविवेक. Secondly, government does this not by fiat, but by coordinating with grassroots Dharmic organizations and by stakeholders in the national discourse under an overarching constitutional framework.

The upshot of this is that no belief-system can consider itself immune to criticism or questioning, either in terms of its beliefs or the actions and opinions of its people.