Yukta-Vairagya: Natural merger of Classical & Sacred

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YOUTUBE: Discussion of Madhusudana Saraswati's Prasthāna-Bheda - by Shri Narendra Khapre

Why and when would one ignore a religious scripture? It says: "If it interrupts or impedes a purushārtha." That's an essentially classical view. But in a purely sacred dāsa-kūṭa tradition, or an Abrahamic religion like Islam, it goes something like this: Refer to your awliya (saints and their predecessors), but if their justifications contradict the statements of the sahābā (Companions of the Prophet), then reject it and go with that of the Companions, and if the words of a Companion contradict that of the Prophet and Qur'an, then bypass that and go with the Qur'an and prophetic Sunna. In other words, its "logic" is purely deductive and has no anchor point in the real world in Present Time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

॥ इन्द्रं वर्धन्तो अप्तुरः कृण्वन्तो विश्वं आर्यं अपघ्नन्तो अराव्णः ॥ 

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

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

Triangulating Hindutva: The Fundamentalist, Reformist & Traditionalist

Some lessons can be learned from the electoral loss in Karnataka for forces purporting to represent 'Hindutva'. The loss of bastions like Mangalore is attributed by some to the foolhardiness of those leaders who reduced 'Hindutva' to moral policing and protecting old superstitions in the name of tradition.

It is also immediately relevant to point out that a slap in the face of 'traditionalist' activism is by no means equivalent to a defeat for 'Hindutva', but is rather a very welcome shift for its most dynamic vectors at the present time. Consider this post on another blog:

Kal Chiron's Blog: Rise of Narendra Modi - Return of Savarkar's stream of thought?

Time-binding Hindutva
It is not the place of 'traditionalists' to lead anything or set the tone for a movement like Hindutva. But they must always be carried along and their proper place is to act as strong 'buffers' to channel the stream, delineate its survival routes, and assert its beingness - Asmita. But it is the 'fundamentalists' who must lead Hindutva, intellectually as well as in terms of setting its social programme.

Without trying to pigeonhole any individual as a 'traditionalist', 'fundamentalist' or 'reformist', how can we define these terms in a schema of form and substance? A friend suggested (at BRF):

There are of course "traditionalists" who like to retain all the evolutionary changes that have taken place in their ideological framework over the years as well as in its implementation in society! Then there are "reformists" who accept the religious framework as it stands but say that the society should deprecate certain practices, making them congruent with current thinking on ethics. Then there are "secularists" who cannot wait to throw off their religion underpinning their civilization for a variety of reasons, shame for it being one of them, atheism another.  

... What about "fundamentalists"? Considering that Sanatan Dharma goes back to the dawn of human civilization itself, that kind of fundamentalism would mean reaching quite a bit back. It is going back to the Rishis themselves, and to try to understand their message! ... "Fundamentalism" on [any] issue however need not detract from the fact that one can still remain a traditionalist as far as culture, rituals and other spiritual and philosophical endeavors are concerned.

Unlike other species, General Semantics considers the human being to be a time-binding organism, i.e., humans transmit experience cumulatively from one generation to another, usually via symbols. Knowledge regarding material form and method is constantly to be revised and changing in present time, flowing eternally like a torrent (प्रवाहतः अनादि). Knowledge regarding spiritual principles is eternally unchanging and inherent in all 'being' and 'becoming' (कूटस्थ अनादि). When both are transmitted together, then the integrity of Dharma and her civilization is maintained.

Experience that is transmitted down generations is called Agama (आगम) in Sanskrit. The foregoing description of 'fundamentalists', 'reformists' and 'traditionalists' (apart from 'rejectionists'/'secularists') reminds one of the classification of Agama according to the Vaikhanasa and Pancharatra schools of the orthodox Vaishnavas. the Pancharatra says that Agamas are handed down in 3 forms:

1. दिव्य - Divine: Directly revealed by the Lord of all Mankind, Narayana, to Mankind via the Rishis.
2. मुनिभाषित - Spoken to Sages: Handed down and interpreted by the self-realized philosophers of different schools at different times, places and for different levels of cultural maturity.
3. आप्तमनुजप्रोक्त - Spoken by reliable and authentic persons: This has been written down and transmitted by individuals deemed trustworthy by virtue of their ethical character, intellectual acumen, clarity of memory, etc.

The first can be considered the fundamentals, such as the Veda. The fundamentalist harks back to those rudiments via meditation and epiphany. The second can be considered the speculative exegesis, such as the Upanishads and their extensions in the smritis. The reformist engages in this search as a process of managing the house politically at all times. The third can be considered pure traditionalism, which limits itself to duplication and admiration of what is written in the 'shastras' that were written at one time in pursuance of an Upanishadic method.


First Formalism, then Propaganda
In my humble opinion, as a precursor to propaganda, there is a need to create a greater awareness of a core ideological formalism of a high standard for Hindutva that can hold its own against any ideological adversary. Up until now, Hindutva ideologies have been individually propagated by fundamentalists (e.g., Swami Dayananda Saraswati), by reformists (e.g., Swami Vivekananda), or by traditionalists (e.g., Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada). Each one of these tried to subsume or derogate the other strands in order to mobilize certain sections of society that were ripe for their propaganda focus. The political philosophers of Hindutva, such as Sitaram Goel, Ram Swarup, the RSS ideologues, Savarkar, etc. must be extended in order to do a sound job of consolidating and managing these strands, which can sometimes appear divergent and sometimes complementary. It would help the general awareness of all proponents of Hindutva as well as its opponents, to have a clear picture of the political schema into which all these tendencies find a coherent place.

Good and Bad Fundamentalists - Context dependent
Unlike Abrahamic cultures (esp. Islam), in the Hindutva context, the 'fundamentalists' are best suited to define the mainstream public and political discourse of the civilization, because of its yogic rudiments and fundamentally liberal undercurrents. Whereas the 'traditionalists' are best suited in defining the extremes and populating the margins, and therefore its outer contours and different stages and schools of its spiritual  process. (For a schema of 'balance' verses unbalanced phases of growth, see previous blogpost: 'Can Hindutva do Yoga?')

Notice that the reverse is true in the context of non-Dharmic societies. E.g., in Abrahamic cultures, it is in the interest of sanity that the 'fundamentalists' are marginalized and not allowed to dominate the mainstream discourse or establish a rule by religious law. Because that will read to violent radicalization. (To some extent that is true of non-Vedic Dharmic religions also, such as Jainism, Buddhism, etc., though here the radicalization is non-violent and of abnegation.) In such cases, the 'reformists' or so-called 'moderates' must be helped to hold that fort, and the 'traditionalists' may be corralled into religious institutions that serve society. 'Secularism' may be encouraged as a temporary bridge to moving away from a deracinated, exclusivist cultism and discovering Dharma (via any of the 3 co-ordinates).

This is simply because there is a difference in the 'fundamentals' of the Vedic and non-Vedic, or more generally of the Dharmic and non-Dharmic. In Abrahamic societies, the irrational and violent 'right-wing' draws on scripture and the associated excitement of reliving the lives of its traditional exemplars, whereas the reasonable and pacifist left-wing appeals to rationalism, compassion, balance, etc. But it is seen that in Dharmic societies, the progressive, pacifist and reasonable leaders who advocate 'balance' typically draw on scripture and the religious exemplars, whereas the right-wingers appeal to a sense of outrage, national emergency, some grievance, or the need to preserve old traditional forms in this so-called 'Kaliyuga'. (This includes Lankan Buddhist extremist clergy or Dharmic clergy anywhere else).

But 'Hindutva' is best interpreted entirely in present time, from its rudiments, and taking all modern and existing currents in its sweep. It must also be open-ended, and not succumb to "definitions" demanded or imposed by others. Its programme should be to complete all incomplete civilizational iterations and strengthen the earlier fundamental iterations. (See previous blogpost on civilizational iterations: 'Identity and Learning: Worlds within worlds')

The Parting of the Waters 
It may be significant that the encrustation of the 'traditionalist' constituency for 'Hindutva' has received a well-deserved setback, opening the way for the 'fundamentalists' and 'reformist' vectors to take control at this point. Meanwhile, the Congress and its casteist litter find themselves increasingly veering towards the extremely shrill "secularist" or "rejectionist" end - a prelude to their ultimate irrelevance or subsumation within a Dharmic viewpoint. Could this polarization of extremes and their insanities be clearing a passage for the sane but strong Vedic fundamentalists to lead the wandering Bharatas across to their native land?

The Dasyu-Dāsa dynamic vs. "class struggle" theory

What is the relationship between conflict and service? Anything on social justice and political transformation in the Vedas (supposedly accused of feudal casteism)? Actually I think understanding the injustices of politics, economics and ideology/religion as a Dasyu-Dāsa dynamic from all angles is far more enlightening as a theory than the demagoguery of half-baked "class struggle" semantics found in Marxist historiography. The former offers an insight, the latter only incites. The former is a truer observation and is psychological, the latter is opportunistic and based on justified thought conceived in an unstable condition.

There is a prominent sentiment in the Veda that calls upon the divinity Indra, Thunder-wielder, for help in liquidating those corrupt crackpots who play power games solely on the strength of being high-born, exclusive esoteric mystics, saviors from an oppressive foe, charismatics, fortuitous chosen races, and whatnot, and who instigate or mobilize large numbers of brainwashed orcs to wield political power:

Rg Veda 6.42.04:
अस्मा अस्मा इदन्धसोSध्वर्यो प्र भरा सुतम् ।
कुवित्समस्य जेन्यस्य शर्धतोSभिशस्तेरवस्परत् ॥

"To him, Adhvaryu! yea, to him give offerings of the juice expressed.
Will he not keep us safely from the spiteful curse of each presumptuous high-born foe?"

Rg Veda 6.19.12:
जनं वज्रिन्महि चिन्मन्यमानमेभ्यो नृभ्यो रन्धया येष्वस्मि ।
अधा हि त्वा पृथिव्यां शूरसातौ हवामहे तनये गोष्वप्सु ॥

"Give up the people who are high and haughty to these men and to me, O Thunder-wielder!
Therefore upon the earth do we invoke thee, where heroes win, for sons and kine and waters."

This "high-born" foe is apparently the "Dasyu", who often lead the "Dāsas". A friend explained: The problem starts with development of personality-cults, whether in the form of deities or their spokespersons on earth. Elite sense of entitlement to power, but marginalization within the elite, leads to search for mobilization outside the elites. Once the non-elite has been mobilized to destroy intra-elite competitors, the new-power goes back to older elite drives. This is when personality cult develops - and a new elite base forms, often accompanied by sequential purges to reduce the number of competitors for power, and a coterie reinforces the personality cult. Net result - a society of "dāsas" under an elite super-personality. A slave society in more ways than one.

[Later in the Pauranic shift of Indian civilization, Indra is humiliated and sidelined, especially in the Vaishnava tradition which is historically associated with a birth-based, feudalistic, agrarian, hierarchical caste order. I wondered whether this change in Indra's popular image has anything to do with changing sociological circumstances or necessities of the time, but I am not qualified to comment on it.]

But "dāsa" in the Veda doesn't always mean the enemy, though it most often refers to an enemy. Yet, its greatest heroes also have "dāsa" in their names. The central Bhārata protagonist of the War of Ten Kings is called Sudās, and his illustrious father is called Divodāsa. The Vedic root "dās" (दास्) is understood by most to have the sense of "being used up" or "to yield up". A friend explained: "Dāsa" has a self-deprecating connotation when used in a proper name. But original usage for 'dāsa' is not as a collective noun meaning captive slave who provides service. It's originally used for enemies in Rg Veda. Even the root of this verbal noun is 'dāsati' which is used in the sense of destroy/assail/attack. The verb used in RgVeda for captive or fettered is gṛbhīta; and it's never used for 'dāsa'.

He adds: Leave alone the question of religious sanction for slavery; even if someone were to use secondary texts to assert slavery as a mainstream institution in Vedic India, the burden of proof is on them to corroborate it with actual archaeological evidence. Just compare the pictorial evidence of slavery in Pompeii for instance; evidence in Egypt; Scythian slave trade. There is just no comparison in India. Since Vedic India did not have monumental construction; instead it had strict rules for food and ritual and other spiritual disciplines, what could these hypothetical slaves do for the owners?

In Vedic spirituality, there seems to have been a warning against associating any permanent material property with a so-called divine significance. No grandiose stupas, temples, mosques, cathedrals. Even the custom altar for the Fire ritual was itself burned down after the exercise was completed. Ritual was drilled and performed as a sensory training routine and an interpersonal objective process. Thus, the spiritual foci of Vedic civilization were logical and honest, and not meant to be based on ways and means of priest-craft, politics, and mass hypnotism.

The Vedic foci were not merely elevationist, nor mainly salvationist, but rather noetic - i.e., it has components for regressive, progressive, linear and cyclical motion on the Time line, and is therefore able to be holistic in its understanding and holographic in it mental map and imagination. This is different from those spiritual/ideological cultures or cults (religious or Marxist, etc.) built around just an elevationist-salvationist dipole. The political dynamics of Vedic civlization was meant to be a discourse around holistic civilizational purpose rather than solely around economic gain, or social stability, or annihilation in a metaphysical ideal.

But how would one connect the transformation of the root dās'  meaning from "destroy/assail" to "servant", especially when humble servitude is different from humiliating, forced slavery? My sense is that dās has the sense of 'to punish' or 'to use up'. Just like in English one can say, 'to punish a jar of whiskey'. So then dās could mean either to destroy something by force, or to use it up in willing service. So "Divodāsa" would mean 'one who is used up in service by the divinities'. After all, this body is wasted by Time anyways, better to offer it to be used up in conscious service by the divinities, for the sake of Divine Civilization.

What one feels one cannot "have" (possess with satisfaction), one must make better use of. What one feels one is unable to even use freely, one must first be made able to waste. The perspective of knowledge is that there is no scarcity of bodies (or material) - though Life is precious. The perspective of Ignorance is that all economics is based on scarcity and that in turn influences psychology.

My friend corroborates: I agree with you. Turns out dāsa' isn't the only word with this dual meaning. Even the word 'aryaḥ' (plural) and 'ariḥ' (singular) are often used in two ways:
- devout or suppliant when used for oneself before Gods
- then in some verses as a generic collective for enemies.

E.g., Rg Veda 8.48.8: ... mā no aryo anukāmaṃ parādāḥ
Addressed to Indu: "Give us not to our enemy's will/wish."

Rg Veda 2.12.6 ... so aryaḥ puṣtīrvija ivā mināti
"He (Indra) diminishes the possessions of the enemy like (a gambler) reduces the stake."

Now that's interesting. Usage of "ariḥ" as enemy is common, but I don't often come across it used for devotee!

Coming back to the point - So "dāsa" can be good or bad. How so? It depends on who/what is being served, or rather who or what is using up one's resources and body. If the Dasyu is your master, then surely it is a negative term in the Veda. If the Devas are one's beloved, then it is positive. (See also a previous post on this blog: "Human command potentials and roles in Civilization".) So every mobilization, religious or not, has a particular context and an undercurrent that deserves attention. One cannot draw a false moral equivalence.

Given that in its Vedic fundamentals, Hinduism has a clear antipathy to the Dasyu-Dāsa dynamic, it is strange that one finds so many manifestations of this dynamic that crept into Hindu civilization over the last 14 centuries. Something went rotten at the political heart of the civilization, some ethical Condition was mis-handled, something was displaced, first subtly from within, and later overtly and brutally under foreign occupations. It has been a long and humiliating 14 century exile, but one which has its treasures of devotion, purpose, identity, learning and being able to discriminate good from evil.

Some more on these fundamentals:
- Agniveer: Vedas and Dāsa.
- Agniveer: Vedas and Dasyu in Hinduism.

Lastly, as tiresome as it is, one can't put the pen down without a note about the spurious "Aryan-Dravidian" Apartheid race theories used by European colonial historians to misinterpret the Veda. "Dāsa" doesn't mean a "Dravidian" race. In fact, the heroic King Sudās calls several of his enemies "dāsa", including those who are "Arya". Arya was a cultural term. Thus, the large coalition of enemy nations ranged against our Sudas were depicted as an army of Dāsas lead by Dasyus, and they included some clans that were Arya and some that weren't. Whereas Sudās' own allies included Arya and non-Arya too. The Veda is far too complex and subtle for the tendentious interpretations of baser motivations to fly too far for too long.

...aaand the necessary disclaimer - All this is assuming one can reasonably assign Sanskrit meanings to the sonic data stream of the Veda - in itself a highly creative and speculative exercise based on cognitive states and scientific observation, as well as the strictest grammatical analysis of sound patterns. In one sense one can say that the poor speculative Vedic derivations of older colonial Western Indologists and Indian Marxists is also valid, as a reflection of their own metacognitions on life and the world and its interpersonal semantics.

Thus again, understanding the Dasyu-Dāsa dynamic from all angles is far more enlightening as a theory than the incitement of half-arse "class struggle" semantics found in Marxist historiography. This Marxist narrative is used by all manner of inimical forces in India today, to attack the core. (See a previous blogpost on this: "Psychohistory vs. Dumb Dialectics".) In India, the field of work associated with the political Left is ripe for an injection of better ideologies, and the emergence of a genuine "Hindutva" Left is much needed.

Already a lot of grassroots work is being done. K.N. Govindacharya, after he withdrew from the BJP and took a sabbatical, has been involved in a certain direction which is noteworthy. Per Wiki: Today he believes that challenges before the nation have to be confronted on three fronts - creative, intellectual and agitational. Therefore, he founded three organizations to fight on the following fronts:

1. Bharat Vikas Sangam: This is a working for needed model of economic development directed towards swadeshi and decentralisation.
2. Kautilya Shodh Sansthan: This is a research organisation working in the civilization context of Bharat.
3. Rashtriya Swabhiman Andolan: This organisation opposes the anti people and anti nature policies of the governments without having any political aspiration of its own.

One hopes such efforts proliferate. There are a lot of sincere individuals doing grassroots work to relieve social and economic injustices, but they are often duped into swallowing the narrative woven by well-funded NGOs and their ideological networks that are frankly ignorant or actively inimical to India's civilizational interests. Therefore, ideological creativity and better networking are essential. Vedic textual memes such as the Dasyu-Dāsa dynamic offer a more mature narrative for the benefit of all.

Here is an elaborate sculpture at Thailand's Bangkok International Airport, depicting the churning of the Milk Ocean by the tug of war between the Devas and the Asuras. [Would funding such a public cultural artifact be possible for the Government of India? Or is only a photo of the Taj Mahal "secular" enough to be included in all its cultural advertisements?]

Can Hindutva do Yoga?

What is "Hindutva", where is it coming from? How has it changed colours and manifested different tendencies along the way, and where is it going? Is it a reactionary threat from a bruised past, or could it be an opening to a new future for India as an all-inclusive civilization? There is some polarization and imbalance in Indian politics today around these questions.

समत्वं योग उच्यते । "Balance or evenness is called Yoga."
So goes the famous phrase from the Bhagavad Gita (2.48). In practical terms, it is the intelligence to correct an imbalance or unevenness that resulted from the effort to stretch one's concept of Self. It is a technique to correct problems in a way that is safe and also beneficial.

Its a given that an individual, society, civilization and humanity is continuously exploring new frontiers of information, exterior and interior to its sense of self. In this exploration, the individual or society stretches itself beyond familiar limits, or is stretched by circumstances it gets itself into. So an understanding of the territory is helpful, and a technique is needed to regain balance or reach new stable ground.

A map would give one an understanding of the territory. If one finds oneself on new or dangerous ground, one can use the map to decide on a course. Perhaps one could retreat to the safety of old familiar ground. But that would not be beneficial if newer ground can be discovered after, say, fording a river or climbing a plateau.

Of course it goes without saying that "the map is not the territory", in the famous words of Count Alfred Korzybski in his dissertation, Science and Sanity. But even more interestingly, one could say that "the map is part of the territory", as far as human consciousness goes! Therefore, even more than the biophysical environment, cultural "mind-maps" (mathematically analyzed) are important for intrapersonal and political preferences. That then goes back into reshaping the environment and world we live in.

So as the individual or a social or political movement evolves or devolves, it may manifest several tendencies. Some of these tendencies may enhance survival, others are counter-survival, and still others simply vain indulgences. Even among these, some tendencies may be more pro-survival than others, or some may be less damaging than others.

Importantly, some tendencies that seem risky or retrogressive may be just what is needed to be able to find new ground, and therefore must be undertaken - with a vision. Whereas other over-cautious obsessions may hold the individual or society back, and keep one chained to old and familiar burdens and enemies that continue to slowly feed on one's soul.

Which tendencies should one support in adjusting to - and proactively reshaping - the political environment? Which tendencies to restrain? Which tendencies can compensate for the risks of other tendencies?

I found a good table that maps various tendencies from different angles of vision, and puts them on a grade-scale, along an axis of optimal balance:

Source: The Order Of Time website.

My observation is that, down each column, the ideological tendency one step before balance also acts like an inflection point. We can call it the Penultimate step. At this point, there is a tendency to ripple right back in a sort of reverse peristaltic movement, back to the tendency one step after the balance point. We can call this the Intrapersonal Limit point, for it is the logical conclusion of the drive, taken independently of all other drives with one's body as the reference point. This reverse peristaltic movement vomits all the discontents of the system before a rebuilding can begin. So from this Limit point, one then cycles down through all the other steps, including the Penultimate step, and then one comes out the other side and actually reaches the balance. However -- if one does not have that enlightening cognition on the self and life in the Penultimate step during the first iteration, then one can fall over into excess - one falls into an unenlightened mode of the Intrapersonal Limit!

Example 1: The "cultism" phase under the column "religion" is an inflection point. If in the course of life one has drifted into a religious or political cult ideology, and then has certain cognitions, it can lead to greater maturity. Then one tends to start over, first from a self-pampering "royal" enjoyment of what one has of life or can reach for. Then one moves into re-examining the "fundamentals" (but with a new vision this time). Then cycles through "traditionalism", and learn to integrate it into a "holistic" life. Again at the penultimate step, there is a re-entry into the deeply personal imago of the "cult" cocoon (but with purpose and vision this time), until one comes out from it into "balance". However, if one does not have a metacognition in the cult phase the first time round itself, then one is likely to fall over into excess, in the form of the "religious royalty cultish dead-end", and its worshiping devotees. Either one becomes the guru maharaj, or one of the acolytes.

This can be applied to any column. Also, perhaps more than one iteration may be required between the Penultimate step and the Limit, so that one gains all the necessary cognitions before one emerges into the point of balance on a new plane. Lastly, to get a comprehensive view of any religious, political or social ideology, one could map out its position along all columns and then put it on a grade-scale in comparison to other ideologies or cultures.

For the purposes of this blog entry, some brief thoughts about the column "politics":
(1) The "populism" phase under politics is the Penultimate inflection point. At a point when a tendency gains popularity (e.g. at a punctuated equilibrium in a society's evolution), then cults form and there is a tendency to gravitate to a "formal" ideology that best encapsulates the desires associated with this tendency.
(2) Next, there is likely to be the emergence of a "strong leader"  or more preferably a tight leadership core that consolidates the ideological movement and fleshes it out -- especially by wisely encompassing opposing but complementary points of view -- then captures the commanding heights of political power, and begins changes in all limbs of the establishment - political, educational, economic, cultural.
(3) From there a dynamic society should move into a new nationalism that is not centered on a particular personality or its dynastic succession, but on a national purpose linked with its civilization's worldview, to grow stronger economically and healthier socially.
(4) From there it would move into an isolationist phase, to consolidate its gains and capitalize on them, feed itself and grow strong in order to project power internationally.
(5) From there the society would re-enter a populist phase, where there is a widespread will aligned with the national purpose conceived earlier, and a widespread implementation of the promised benefits conceived in the populist phase the first time round.
(6) Once these benefits are received at the popular level, there should emerge a general recognition of its limits, and a national cognition of a new plane of existence that involves balance.
(7) However, if there is no proper cognition the first time round in the "populist" phase, then no good "formalism" comes from it, or rather an intellectually mediocre ideology rides the tide and leads to a chronic excess in the "formalism" step, of legalistic ideological affiliation and repeated purges of people who cannot continually swear by that ideology.

I think its easy to see that in movements where this has not played out, there has been a stalling of the iteration, and ultimately it leads to greater and greater tension and conflict - either internal, or with other societies - or simply stagnation.

In step (1) from above, movements that generated a more elegant, agile and intellectually superior formalism and ideology thrive longer. The US constitution is one example. The basic credo of Islamism is also pretty agile and rugged -- though at a rather different level of the psycho-physical mind than the US constitution. The Shi'a conversion of Iran is another case in point - where several Sufi cults were already closet Shi'a and Persian nationalist. Shah Esma'il was himself influenced by one such sect and he emerged as the strong leader in step (2) and lead the Safavi takeover. The Indian constitution is also a very comprehensive document, but the dead weight of several provisions in it need to be done away with as their intended goals are met as per the Preamble. Religious and caste privileges and freedoms to politically organize on those lines and so forth are meant to create a unified nation as clearly stated in the Preamble. They were never intended to become permanent entitlements for the purpose of more and more vicious politics.

Then in step (2) one observes that certain movements found a core leadership that consolidated that formalized ideology, debated it within their own core and found themselves cordially on both sides of the aisle. Again the US is a good example with its founding fathers fleshing out their thoughts on democracy and the Publius papers, and occupying both sides of the aisle. Whereas other movements that were not able to maturely encompass two opposing viewpoints have run into historic problems. Islamism still suffers from the Shi'a-Sunni schism that has lead to chronic blood-letting for fourteen centuries. Does Hindutva have the philosophical caliber to speak from opposing viewpoints? Can Hindutva be all-encompassing? Is there even a credible Hindutva Left at this point, or is there likely to be one in the near future? Obviously, the Gujarat model of development cannot be replicated in all states and regions.

Next, in step (3) a new nationalism is given shape, as a collective aspiration and there is economic growth and removal of social evils. I think the USSR and to some extent the PRC had a good phase in this aspect, but because of a philosophically immature formalistic ideology and equally immature core leadership formative phases, they had/have problems. The US continued its colonial momentum and occupied the entire continent from coast to coast, practically finishing off the native races. Thereafter, its engagement with Japan and opening up the Far East is noteworthy, as is its competition with Hispanic and other colonial powers. In India there is a lot of confusion on this step -- about what exactly this national aspiration really is! At best, the only pride that has been inculcated revolves around the fact that India is more sane and morally superior to its neighbors, some of whom we have engaged with in war successfully.

Next, in point (4), the US went through an isolationist phase of consolidation. India has been Non-Aligned, and perhaps this may continue in the near future. It becomes nonsensical without a vigorous growth trajectory and future purpose. So this must go along with an upsurge in economic growth. China has used this step to compensate for its weaknesses in previous steps, and is surviving and doing better than India in many ways, even though India is stronger on some of the earlier steps.

In point (5), we see that many of the promised benefits in the US were realized at a popular level, in terms of standards of living and the American Dream. At this point the US is in step (6), and it remains to be seen whether the nation as a whole can have a cognition of the limitations of the current materialistic understanding of the "pursuit of happiness", and an agreement on a more balanced spiritual understanding of the term - a sane spirituality that avoids the pitfall of Christian fundamentalism or its theological quirks. If this cognition does not dawn on the nation, then as part of step (7) it will continue to get into deeper conflict in the world as it competes for energy resources or in Crusader terms, and there will be greater tensions outside as well as a widening income disparity within.

India is still in the early steps, but at a crucial juncture here. Clearly, future growth and direction is slacking, and it is because there is confusion about the national sense of purpose. The intent expressed in the Preamble has been betrayed by the Congress and the caste and communal political discourse it created. Its own leadership core has degenerated into a dynastic sycophancy. Hindutva has potential and some of its leaders are promising, but it remains to be seen if a mature and intellectually superior ideology can emerge and encompass both sides of the aisle. I believe the emergence of a credible Hindutva Left would be a sure sign of things changing, and notably stalwarts like K.N. Govindacharya walked out of the BJP over a decade ago and started work on this in earnest. Perhaps the cult of Hindutva needs to be revisited and certain cognitions to be gained.