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.

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.

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.

Owais and Owaisi: Two halves of Jarasandha

What sort of civilizational context can best manage its form and contents? Are some civilizational contexts better than others at this?

Doctrines or dogmas, priesthoods and caste-collectivization...these are part and parcel of any scientific, religious, or aesthetic tradition. How is this political and ideological creation best related with the undercurrent of knowledge and cognition itself? When does it protect and facilitate the growth of the tree of knowledge, and when does it merely feed off of and eventually suffocate its own host?

Recently, there was outrage over an incendiary hate-speech by Akbaruddin Owaisi close to Hyderabad city in south India. Basically, he portrayed Hinduism as a ludicrous and crass religious culture that was violent towards Moslems without any provocation, and he threatened that angry Moslems would overrun India if Hindu self-assertion develops any further traction.

The moniker "Owaisi" is used in Islamic Sufism to refer to a spiritual method named after one Hazrat Owais al-Qarani, a contemporary and devotee of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). "Owaisi" means someone who can be in the presence of and take teachings from the Prophet directly, across space and time, without an intermediary teacher. Taken as an individual, Owais is one of my favourite spiritual exemplars from any tradition. But odd as it may seem, Owais-like spiritual power and violent Islamism have not necessarily been antithetical to one another, ever since the very first generation of Islamic history. Its not even too strange  a coincidence that this hate-monger bears Owais' name. 

Pause for thought. Isn't it interesting that any spiritual movement observed in any tradition tends to yield two bifurcated social products after the passing of its founder - one connected to the founder by some structured physical association and an authorized, historical 'caste' setup to preserve and propagate; and the other a free-zone of emulation and continuous experimentation and seeking. Depending on historical circumstances, the movement can fuse these two halves, and expand and consolidate. But it inevitably keeps creating certain imbalances and problems. In fact, the greater the persistence it derives from the purushaarthic dynamics, the more trenchant the future sociological problem can be. Must this dogma-driven or caste-collectivized daemon be annihilated once it serves its purpose? If so, are the circumstances for its own annihilation created and set in motion by the enlightened founder? How?

The Vedas and most of its branches comprising Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. do speak of a spiritual potency that must go hand-in-hand with temporal strength. This is the basis of the purushaarthas, of the twin swords of miri and piri. But in which forge they are conceived and in whose hands these two swords become one...can make a world of difference. Conceived one way, a Dharmic context will contain and manage the dogmatic evolution and/or caste-order, and keep existing schools as mere portals to the ever-flowing stream of Dharma. But conceived another way, an Adharmic context will keep causing a series of convulsions to justify its dogma and/or collectivized caste-order, and it can be contained (or better annihilated) only by an outside force.

Recall the story of Jarasandha. Brihadratha was the king of Magadha. His wives were the twin princesses of Varanasi. While he led a full life, he was unable to have children for a very long time. Frustrated, he retreated to the deep forest, approached and served the sage Chandakaushika. The sage took pity on him and gifted him a fruit, telling him to give it to his wife who would then become pregnant. But the sage did not know that the king had two wives. In a schizophrenic turn of mind, as it were, Brihadratha split the fruit in half and gave it to both of them. Soon both the wives became pregnant and gave birth to two halves of a human body. These two lifeless halves were very horrifying to view. So Brihadratha ordered these to be thrown in the forest. A demoness (rakshasi - one who is compulsively 'protective') named "Jaraa" found these two pieces and held each of these in her two palms. Incidentally, when she brought both of her palms together, the two pieces fused  together giving rise to a living child. The child cried loudly which created panic in Jaraa. Not having the heart to devour a living child, the demoness gave it to the king and explained to him all that had happened. The father named the boy Jaraasandha (literally meaning "joined by Jaraa").

The Prophet Muhammad, even at the height of his spiritual and temporal power, was heckled by backbiters for being "abtar" - a frayed end, a lineage "cut off" - meaning one who has no living son to become his heir. It was an issue that frustrated the Prophet, and an entire short chapter of the Qu'ran was ostensibly revealed by Allah assuaging the Messenger and reflecting that same spite back on those detractors. (Qur'an, Chapter 108). 

انا اعطینک الکوثر
"Lo! We have given thee al-Kawthar (the refreshing fount at the gates of Paradise)"

فسل لربک وانحر
"So pray unto thy Lord, and sacrifice."

ان شانیک هو الابتر

"Lo! it is thy insulter (and not thou) who is cut off (without posterity)."

But politically, the issue of succession was to eventually devolve into dispersion and schism immediately after the Prophet's death (a saga still playing out in Sunni-Shi'a violence). In fact, the prospect of Islam as a living tradition was stillborn. Horrific internecine war, plague and general dispersion followed. To resolve this death spiral the Islamic community was forged as a regimented Khilafat (Caliphate) under the iron hand of the first two Caliphs, especially Omar Ibn al-Khattab, who used to walk the streets of Medina with a whip in hand. Thus regimented, he successfully diverted that aggression outward, attacked neighboring Persia and hit the jackpot. The rest is history.

What are the traces of bifurcation here? The obvious one is well-known: 'Ali, the Prophet's son-in-law and father of his grandsons, had claimed the mantle of, both, spiritual and temporal leadership. But the other senior Companions (who were also related to the Prophet, having given their daughters in marriage to him) claimed that they had the senior right to political leadership. Indeed, some of the later founders of the Sunni schools of jurisprudence said that in terms of fadheelat (excellence of virtue), the order of precedence puts Abu Bakr at the highest, Omar second, Osman third, and 'Ali fourth; but 'Ali was first in a separate spiritual category all by himself. Thus, according to this line of thought in the dominant school of Islam, the legacy of the Prophet could be split into two parts, and they were given to two different spiritual lineages connected to him by family ties. 

But there is a further, more interesting, and more subtle trace of bifurcation: Much to the consternation of all present, before passing away the Prophet actually bestowed his cloak on a completely different person with no family relationship - Owais al-Qarani, a camel-herder and a saintly personage in Yemen who had never met the Prophet in person, but was supposedly in communion with him telepathically. Not only did Owais have no tribal or family relation with the Prophet, he is not even considered a Companion by any Sunni school, since a Companion must by definition have been in the physical association of the Prophet and/or have served in the association of other Companions at least once. We will come back to Owais again later in this post.

The uneasy cleavage of the spiritual and the temporal was always problematic throughout Islamic history. For a long time, "Sufism" was a continuation of pre-existing spiritual cultures from the surviving remnants of Mithraic, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, neo-Platonic and Christian traditions of the Middle East, Egypt and India. Most Sufism at one time was considered outright heresy, and throughout its history its cutting-edge spiritual teachers were honored with the cutting-edge of the Caliph' temporal sword slicing their necks. Then the revered Imam Ghazali came and brokered a theoretical truce, claiming to show that Sufism could be fused with Islam, and that in fact the two could execute a very useful twinship. Thereafter, just as Guns and Bibles would later pioneer European colonialism, so did Swords and Sufis first set that template for expansion and consolidation.

But what makes this twinship a Jarasandha? The Bhagavad Gita, too, was spoken on a battlefield, so how is that different? Well, Ghazali wanted to fuse spirituality with Islam only insofar as it subordinated itself to the absolute dominance of the regimen of shari'ah and its supervising priesthood, its caste-collective, and its dogmas. He still attacked most spiritual schools of the time with vitriol. He wanted the spiritually packaged "Sufism" to be a cooling fount of ablution, with which the devout could soothe their agitations and refresh mind and spirit before re-entering the mosque.

Now the shari'ah is fundamentally based on the idea that in the person of the Prophet and his ways is the truth, and the perfect duplication of the truth is the true method. In the ways in which different Companions of the Prophet did this are reportedly found paths to the truth, and the shari'ah models them perfectly. Most often, this duplication of the truth is of the form of imitation. In fact, the satisfaction of simply imitating the behaviors of the Prophet was considered the greatest and most complete stage of self-realization according to the next great teacher who gave Islamism its ideological form - Imam Rabbani, or Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi, who lived in India during Moghal times. Thus, given matching circumstances, there is no sin in the devout committing apparently graceful or terrifying actions, as long as he does so in the consciousness of its alignment with the calculus of shari'ah, just like an automaton servant. Indeed, there is merit in performing all such apparently beautiful or terrifying acts with the force of an intention without reservation.

But most Indic traditions would consider a different permutation - that religious and social regimen, and case studies of the behaviors of spiritual exemplars, are at best a parallel track to individual spiritual knowingness, and that the inter-relation between the two is the subject of ethics. Emulation, not imitation, is emphasized - in fact, imitation is considered dangerous in Vedanta, which says that acts must be based on adhikara, spiritual qualification. Imitation of the amoral acts of higher beings is spiritually harmful, like a form of 'spiritual pedophilia':

धर्म-व्यतिक्रमो दृष्ट

ईश्वराणां च साहसम् ।

तेजीयसां न दोषाय

वह्नेः सर्व-भुजो यथा ॥ 

"The transgressions of Dharma observed, by the Great Controllers seemingly audacious...To such spiritually potent beings this is no blemish, like the fire that devours all and remains pure." - Srimad Bhagavatam, 10.33.29

Owais al-Qarani was someone who had only heard of the Prophet and his new religion, and became a devotee at heart. He had a blind mother to take care of, and so he would herd camels for part of the day and use the proceeds to lead a simple life. Before his death, when the Prophet Muhammad said that he wished to bequeath his mantle to a man named Owais in Yemen, all the Companions were shocked, most had never even heard of him. They inquired, "If he is such a great devotee of Allah and His Messenger, why has he never even come to see you once, where was he to serve the cause of Islam during all the battles?" It is said that the Prophet defended Owais' absence on the grounds of some provisions of shari'ah law, saying that since he had a blind mother to care for, he was exempt. As unconvincing as this was, the Companions couldn't object, and the Prophet sent his cloak with Omar and 'Ali - along with a request to Owais to intercede and save all Muhammad's followers on Judgment Day. Both of them found Owais in the wilderness of Yemen, in a state of meditation. (It was later said that Owais would spend hours in such meditation, and would sometimes be so absorbed in his Prophet that when the Prophet lost a tooth at the Battle of Uhud, Owais's own tooth reportedly dropped off at that very moment.) They gave him the cloak along with the Prophet's request. Owais reluctantly accepted it and asked for some time to meditate alone. He took his time, and heard a voice say, "We have forgiven most of the Companions". But Owais was persistent with his Lord: "I want forgiveness for all his believers." He continued to meditate on the Lord. But it is said that curiosity and impatience got the beter of Omar and he started to walk up to Owais. Seeing him approach, Owais was distracted. He told Omar, "If you had not disturbed me, I would not have worn this cloak until God had bestowed all of Muhammad's followers to me."

Later many second generation Moslems would come to Owais to see him and ask him for spiritual advice. Once they told Owais of an old Companion who had now dug his own grave and was residing in it day and night waiting for his time to arrive, so he could pledge allegiance to Allah and His Messenger one all-important, final time. Owais went to see the man, and found him weak. Owais said: "You have given 30 years to your coffin and your grave, allowing them to come between you and God. They have become your idols." It is said that the man saw the light of Owais and through him realized how much time he had wasted; with a cry he lay his head down and passed on from this world.

Haram Ibn Hayyam said, "I went to visit Owais al-Qarani. He asked the reason for my visit. I explained that I felt a peace in his holiness' presence. To which Owais replied: 'I have never seen anyone who knows what is God, and yet finds more peace and comfort in the presence of another being.'"

Haram Ibn Hayyam requested Owais, "Give me a hadith from the holy Prophet." He replied, "Though I have heard a great deal about him, I never met him. I would not want to engage in story-telling and hadith. I have far too much work to get on with and this is not among them."

"And choose a friend who is able to free you from all else."

"An aim is required before embarking on an action. Therefore, if your aim is to find God and His Messengers, then surely you will reach your aim."

Owais said, "I wanted a high position in life, I found it in modesty. I wanted leadership, I found it in giving advice. I wanted dignity, I found it in honesty. I wanted greatness, I found it in poverty. I wanted lineage, I found it in virtue. I wanted majesty, I found it in contentment. I looked for peace and found it in asceticism."

Later on in old age, after his mother had passed away, Owais went and joined the faction of 'Ali. He volunteered at the Battle of Saffein. Apparently, he wasn't much of a warrior. He was martyred there. They say:

شود رد ابد بو جهل در دامن پیامبر

اویس در بیابان یمن گردد به حق بینا

"Even so close to the robe of the Messenger, 'Bu Jahl passed Eternity by;

While Owais witnessed the Truth in the wilderness of Yemen!"

Jarasandha had a persistence, power and vitality that was preternatural. In the end he was killed by Bhima, the son of Vayu (vitality itself), who was Hanuman in a previous life, and the great teacher Madhva claimed to be his next incarnation.  Bhima was the most certain of the five Pandavas, never hesitating in doubt, and had an intention that was without any reservation, especially when it came to annihilating an enemy. Bhima could marry a demoness and produce a devotee of Dharma from that union who would martyr himself for the Lord. Bhima would satisfy himself by drinking the blood of the slain Duhshasana. Bhima's intention was clear and without reservation, even though many of his actions inspire horror or disgust in lovers of Dharma.

After an interminable fight and numerous unsuccessful methods to handle Jarasandha, Bhima eventually killed Jarasandha by a method insinuated by K. - Bhima tore Jarasandha's body into its two unfused halves. Then he flung each half cross-wise in the opposite direction. Thus, the two halves could not merge back into one and resurrect.

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.