(CHAKRA) Person XYZ asked: “Are Vedas God’s creation?”  Now let us analyze this in detail by looking at each word.

‘VEDAS’… What does one mean by Veda? The word ‘Ved comes from the root ‘vid’, which means knowledge. The Vedas are tomes of knowledge, but knowledge of what? Knowledge of that which helps fulfill our 4 human PurushArthas (human pursuits), viz: artha, kAma, dharma, mokSa.

The first portion of the Vedas deal with rituals, ‘do’s and ‘don’t’s, how to fulfill one’s basic necessities (artha), how to fulfill other desires (kAma), performing one’s obligatory duties, doing what is right, living in accordance to the cosmic order (dharma).

The next portion of the Vedas deals with the 4^th PurushArtha- mokSa, which deals with knowledge; knowledge of the Self (AtmA/Brahman), bhagavAn, and jagat. It also reconciles the three by revealing that all that there is, is Brahman (jIvAtmA paramAtmA aikyam- jIvAtmA and paramAtmA are one and the same). This is revealed in the Upanishadic portion of the Vedas, also known as vedAnta.

Now we look at the second word you use, “GOD”. I prefer very strongly not using the word. Let us use Ishvara or bhagavAn instead. ‘God’ carries with it many Abrahamic connotations (similarly, it is incorrect to use the word ‘soul’, as it cannot be mapped onto the Vedic system.

So what is bhagavAn? The entire totality, that is illumined in the presence of the Self, or consciousness, is Ishvara/bhagavAn. In other words, the same Brahman from the standpoint of the MANIFEST JAGAT is looked upon as Ishvara.

Now, the third word- “CREATION”. Again, another word I would avoid, as in our tradition, we do not accept such a concept, since not only is it non-vedic, but also logically flawed. Instead, we posit the idea of MANIFESTATION. Creation implies giving rise to something that was non-existent first. Manifestation is simply a change in appearance of one thing to another, or in other words, a change in nAmarUpa (name and form). Forms can change, and as the form changes you will refer to it by a different name, but the substance (Brahman) behind the name-form remains the same.

So now, instead of asking “Are Vedas God’s Creation”, let us instead twist the question into something more befitting a sAdhaka or mumukSu, and ask “How did the Vedas manifest?”

We have something called Kalpas, universal cycles. Before this universe, there was only consciousness (Brahman), in its un-manifest state, and before that the universe was manifest, and so on. Like this, there have been countless manifestations (sRSti) and dissolutions (pralayam), and a countless more will follow. This is the constant and endless cycle we refer to. The period of each manifestation is called one kalpa.

Now, there are jIvas, countless living beings, born out of their own ignorance. jIvas continue taking birth kalpa (universal cycle) after kalpa, yuga (eon) after yuga, janma (birth) after janma, and this cycle of beginning-less birth and death only ends when the jIva has gained knowledge of the Self (Brahman).

Vedas

Now, let us say there is a universal cycle where a jIva has gained Self-knowledge already, but the prArabdha karma is not completely lived out, as these jIvas have a special (though non-binding) wish to do well to others, and establish this knowledge base for everyone else. Therefore, though jNAnis, and technically free from birth, when the next kalpa takes place, they descend again, out of their own will. These jNAnis are called vishesha jIvanmuktas, and can be considered avatAras too. When they are born again, they already have the knowledge with them. These are the ones we call Rshis (seers). Since they already have this knowledge, it comes to them very naturally without any formal studies (*Note*: remember, they have already accomplished this in the previous kalpa, so the knowledge does not come magically, they have already done the necessary effort to gain it, and for everyone else other than vishesha jIvanmuktas, the steps of shrava?am, maNanam and nidhidhy?sanan CANNOT be skipped. This is taught by a Rshi, Sage YajNavalkyA himself in the Br. Upanishad, and hence it cannot be refuted).

So, whatever knowledge the Rshis have, that forms the teachings of the Vedas and it is passed on from Guru to Shishya from thereon. This knowledge comes naturally to the Rshis, as they have already gained it in the past, and thus we say the knowledge only becomes manifest, and in doing so they attribute BhagavAn as the nimitta kAraNam for this knowledge because in our culture everything is seen as Ishvara prasAda. Hence it is said in our tradition that the Vedas come from bhagawAn, but to understand this one statement, it is important to understand this entire post.

hariH Om.

By Prashant Parikh, a student of traditional Vedanta from Arsha Vidya Gurukulam

Ancient India Map

(CHAKRA) Like any other country, the culture of India too is derived from her ancient history, more appropriately called the history of ‘bhAratha’. This culture or tradition is the result of a quest for “cause” unlike the quest for “effect” in most other cultures. This is evident if we take any field of interest, from medicine to judiciary to astronomy to spirituality.

If we take Indian medicine, i.e., ayurveda, it cures the root cause and not the effect. Most of the current medicine techniques do the reverse. And obviously, it never ceases the original cause and thus never “cures” the possibility of future diseases. Moreover, it has its own side effects, adding salt to the injury.

Next let us see the judiciary and handling of crime/evil. If we take the judicial system of present India, we see a lot of crimes happening throughout the map. This can be called as an ‘effect’ here. And what is the ’cause’ for it? There are two factors.

1. The lack of dhArmic moral values.
2. Second, the abundant supply of self degrading commodities such as drugs, alcohol etc which destroy the self-control of a human being; thereby leading to uncontrolled emotions and finally, crime. The latter heavily depend on the former point.

The term ‘dharma’ has no equivalent in English. It may be vaguely translated as a combination of “righteousness + duties + values +……etc”. This rich tradition of dharma is the only reason why most of ancient India could keep crimes at bay.

Now don’t confuse this education as something that is externally induced to you. This sense of dharma is inherent in every being, but needs training to shine forth. This is how dhArmic education works. It never teaches anything new. It only helps you discover what you already have.

The ancient education system was built on this foundation. Today, we are following the Britishers’ remains that they left here. And in that sense, they have succeeded in establishing a society which feels ashamed of its own culture! We, as fools have replaced every tinge of our tradition with what they wanted. The whole of our history was re-written, which we still follow today.

Rather than going deep into that, let’s come to our point of discussion. If we need any improvement, it is this cause that has to be corrected.

This search for “cause” is evident in every level. The same technique was led into the concept of ultimate reality or supreme Brahman as well. When every other tradition/religion assumed an external ‘creator’ that created and maintains the universe, the vEdic India [bhAratha] demanded every being to search for this. Rather than blindly imposing the laws and teachings of a particular man/book, it guides and enables each individual to discover the truth by oneself. Whatever a religion teaches is an ‘effect’ of what its founder discovered. Or what he discovered is the ’cause’ of that religion. Rather that binding to the effect, vEdAnta takes you directly to the cause – the supreme Brahman. This is why it’s called vEdAnta – the ‘anta’ of ‘vEd’ – the end of what a man can know – the rest has to be experienced by oneself. This can be achieved easily by guidance of one who have already experienced, and hence the significance of a ‘guru’.

By Vishnu Prakash Nangath

Harmony in Action Conference 2012 – Toronto

(Toronto, Ontario) As the world debates the religious protests across the Middle East, Canada is hosting a historic conference on religious harmony under the auspices of the Honorable Paul Hellyer, Deputy PM to Canada’s most iconic leader Pierre Trudeau and featuring Hanne Strong, Organizer of the UN’s Millennium World Peace Summit and wife of Under Secretary General to the UN Maurice Strong as well as Dave Courchene who conducted the Opening ceremonies at the G8 Summit on World Religions in 2010. Indian dharma will be represented by powerhouse orator Zenji Acharya, noted professor T.S. Rukmani, philanthropist Dr. Rajiv Malhotra and Sikh Spokesperson Ramadeep Kaur Grewal.

Hinduism will be represented by Professor T.S. Rukmani – an Oxford University awarded author on Yoga philosophy and protege of the legendary philosopher B.K. Matilal. Her four volumes on Vijanabhikshu’s Yogavarttika and her two volumes on Sankara’s Yogasutrabhasyavivarana have been widely acclaimed as significant contributions to Yoga philosophy. She may be joined by Dr. Rajiv Malhotra – CEO of the Infinity Foundation and Chairman of the Board of Governors of the India Studies Program at the University of Massachusetts and Ramandeep Kaur Grewal to give a voice to the Sikh community.

Buddhism will be represented by Zenji Acharya who is the only Western expert to hail from the oldest and most venerated Buddhist-Brahmin lineage of India that comprised the Buddha’s closest disciples Sariputra and Maudgalyayana and founders of every major Buddhist tradition including Mahayana (Asvaghosha and Nagarjuna Acharya), Theravada (Buddhaghosa), Chinese (Kumarajiva and Paramartha), Tibetan (Atisa and Padmasambhava) and Japanese (Bharadwaja and Bodhi Dharma). The peerless lineage also included Buddhism’s most influential authors (Shantideva and Nagasena), Nalanda’s brightest scholars (Shantarakshita and Aryadeva), Mahakashyapa – the Conveyor of the first Council and Dona Acharya who presided over the distribution of Lord Buddha’s relics. Furthermore, Buddhists believe that this unrivaled lineage will also give birth to Maitreya – the Future Buddha today both India and China are honoring Him by building the world’s 2 tallest statues respectively.

Moreover, Zenji Acharya is the only Western expert to hail from an unbroken line of sages that were appointed by the last Buddhist empire of India; the Palas of Bengal under whom Mahayana Buddhism reached its zenith – to preserve the Dharma for future generations and assist in the promotion of Buddhism down the Silk Road. He has therefore been passed on many insights one cannot find on Wikipedia or in conventional class-rooms and will thus be referencing a landmark book he is working on titled “Everything You Need to Know About Buddhism (But No One Else Is Telling You)”. It will present rare research into Buddhist scripture, history, art and archaeology to challenge and correct even the most basic concepts of Buddhism in the West. While most of the books written today on Buddhism are from a Sri Lankan, Tibetan or Western perspective, Zenji will be representing the original Buddhist traditions of India that were continued by his family even after Buddhism was phased out by foreign invasions and are today well preserved in Japan as well as among the majority inhabitants of China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan among other Asian nations.

During his presentation, Zenji Acharya will also be highlighting the synergy between Buddhism and Hinduism that created the Golden Era of Indian history and he will be drawing parallels between the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads and Vedanta on the one hand and such influential Buddhist scriptures as the Lotus Sutra, Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Lankavitara Sutra, Vimalkirti Nirdesa Sutra, Mahajima Nikaya and Itivuttaka on the other. Zenji will also be elaborating on Vivekananda’s assertion that it was Lord Buddha who first brought Bhakti Yoga and Karma Yoga to Hinduism as well as Mahatma Gandhi’s proclamation that Buddhism has played such an important part in Indian history, culture, literature and social reform that India’s national emblem on her flag, currency and official letterhead deserves to be the Buddhist Ashoka Chakra.

In addition, Zenji Acharya will be speaking about India’s greatest monks Vivekananda and Bodhi Dharma and is producing the first international films on their lives, lessons and legacies. This is continuing the dharmic tradition of using story-telling and entertainment to communicate Dharma as evidenced by perennial classics from the Buddha Jatakas to the Ramayana. Zenji is planning to film key scenes of these films in Bodh Gaya as well as Nalanda where the governments of Japan, China, Singapore and many Asian nations are working with Indian scholars from Amartya Sen to former President Abdul Kalaam in honoring India’s glorious Buddhist heritage.

The Harmony in Action Conference will take place on the 3rd and 4th of October, 2012 at the prestigious 89 Chestnut Conference Center of the University of Toronto – Canada’s premiere center for learning and one of the world’s leading academic institutions.

(CHAKRA)

In our Indian context, Dharma did not aim to rule society, rather it tried to explain the forces that makes society work, allowing Dharma to pave its natural course, hence Science, Faith and Government evolved hand in hand in an undifferentiated manner, as one smooth continuum; neither one in conflict with or threatened by the other. Therefore, Dharma is non-separate from its cultural/regional practices. In fact, the culture itself evolved to incorporate the values of Dharma, because it is Dharma itself that explained it.

Secularism, on the other hand, is an ideal handed down to us unwittingly. Ideals should evolve as a need to serve us better, they are not to be inherited from a colonial power without discerning. Most complex living beings have an immune system fortified by a battalion of antibodies, that will identify and neutralize a foreign object and prevent bodily harm. If the immune system fails, the body is susceptible to disease. Extrapolating the same principle to society, we are stricken by an
intellectual disease, and the resulting illness is socio-cultural decay.

The reason is simply this: In India, Secularism aims to separate the culture of the nation- which is inherently Dharmic in nature- from its people. This form of Secularism only facilitates to destroy the nation morally from within, by doing away with the dharmic carpet which forms the basis for our cultural ethos. And of course, if secularism n India isn’t clumsy enough, we have to further contend with it’s more rancid manifestation- pseudo secularism- the dangers of which we all know only too well.

We may accept rights and individuality. We should not, however, accept a forced ideal of sameness. It would be unwise for Indians to fall under such narrow, impaired, imposed and socially awkward definitions such as ‘Secularism. Rather, we must strive to preserve our ‘soft-capital’ through all means possible, in all areas of life, and provide that social ‘immune system’ which we all sorely lack.

I sincerely thank Mr. Rajiv Malhotra ji, for inspiring us to “reverse the gaze” and look at the world from a Dharmic perspective, and also my friend and fellow writer, Karthik Vaidhinathan ji, for his valuable inputs.

By Prashant Parikh

(CHAKRA) Thank you all for your appreciation and valuable comments regarding my previous write-up What is our “Religion” ? What is “Dharma” ?  There were a few objections raised and a few questions posed, and I will attempt to answer them from my perspective through the current write-up.

Objection 1 - I am defining religion in a narrow way by taking only Abrahamic religions into account.

The word religion is a Western concept. As I had discussed in the previous write-up, different civilizations have different experiences in dealing with life and thus the way they see the world is different. Thus, while west came up with the idea of religion, traditionally we did not have this concept. It was only after we came in contact with the west and started understanding the world through the western lens, that we started using the word religion to express our experiences. Since, my attempt has been to “reverse the gaze”, it would not be correct to impose the Indic frameworks onto the word religion. Thus, religion cannot be defined by taking texts like Bhagavad Gita, but should be defined as the Westerners understand it, in order to contrast it with Dharma. And the primary vehicle for western understanding of religion is through Christianity, an Abrahamic religion.

Objection 2 - Dharma is not inherent to Indians. In this day and age, many Indians also do not know what Dharma is.

When one says Dharma is an Indic category, what it means is that the major traditions, as also the common man, associates his experiences and understands them from the framework of Dharma. It is not a claim that Indians are all Dharmic and Westerners are not. It means that Indic Darshanas revolve around this category called Dharma as opposed to religion – the words not being inter-changeable. An Indian is most definitely capable of being Adharmic also. Similarly, a westerner can be dharmic. But the major contrast is that even when a Westerner is performing a dharmic act, he or she will not identify it as dharmic, if they are not exposed to this Indic category. They would instead consider it a noble act or a religious act or good etiquette etc. depending on the context of the act in question, because the Western Civilization does not have an experience paralleling Dharma.

To illustrate the above point, let us consider a simple thought exercise. Let us suppose there exists a normal healthy person who is not colour blind. However, the culture in which he has grown up and his language is such that all the colours that surround him are explained in just five categories – Black, White, Blue, Green and Red. It is not that he cannot differentiate between different colours, but is conditioned by his culture to call them by one of the above five colour words. Thus, the colours Violet and Indigo, though can be clearly distinguished by the said person (let us say he is looking at a rainbow), he might still call them Blue (as different shades of blue), because he does not have distinct words for these two colours in his language.

Objection 3 - Dharma is a Vedic position and those viewpoints that do not accept Vedas as a Pramana should not be considered Darshanas. This is especially the case with self-styuled gurus and god-men who teach their own interpretations or rituals and yoga. These are not Dharma.

I would like to explore here the difference between Dharma and a Dharma claim. Dharma, as I had mentioned in the previous write-up is that which maintains the universal order (Rta). Thus, it is a common thread that binds all existence. However, each one of us could have very different view of what it is. The position that Vedas are the ultimate source of Dharma is the Astika position. However, this position is not given to the Vedas by the Nastika Darshanas like Buddhism and Jainism. However, they do explicitly acknowledge the category called Dharma and give their own view of it. Thus, even when a vaidika considers Veda to be the ultimate source of Dharma, this is still a Dharma claim, just like Buddhism and Jainism have their own Dharma claims. Similarly, the modern gurus who give their own interpretations of Dharma, are also giving their Dharma claims. Ultimately, each school should do a Purva Paksha of these various claims and establish for itself which claims represent Dharma and which do not. This comes out through the process of dialogue.

Objection 4 - Western religions and other ideas like Christinity, Communism, Capitalism etc. cannot be considered darshanas because they do not explain all that a darshana should explain. As examples, a system like communism would not talk about jiva or Ishwara at all, as it is more concerned with other things.

As we have already seen, West does not have an experience equivalent to Dharma and thus does not have a word for it. However, it has, through its own experience, come up with various categories that explain different things. For instance, while Christianity does not have Jiva, Ishwara etc., it does have Soul and God. Now, obviously these categories do not exactly map to each other. Jiva is not Soul nor is Ishwara God. Similarly, some of the ideas like Capitalism and Communism do not aim at expounding all that a traditional Darshana does, but take only a limited aspect of public life, namely, distribution of wealth and means of production and have their own models for them.

My calling these Darshanas does not mean I consider their truth claims valid. Nor is it my claim that they explain all that a traditional Darshana does. However, from the perspective of Purva Paksha, it is essential that all that needs to be discussed be brought on the discussion table first. Then one argues them out and validates and invalidates their truth claims. To say they are not fit to be called Darshanas would be to pre-maturely take them off the radar and the much needed Purva Paksha of these ideas would not happen.

As an example, I would consider the text Sarva Darshana Sangraha by Swami Vidyaranya. Swami was an Advaitin. Advaita considers six Pramanas (Pratyaksha, Anumana, Upamana, Arthapatti, Anupalabdhi and Shabda) as valid. In contrast, the Charavaka system uses only the Pratyaksha Pramana. Being such, Charavaka system would not have had ideas like Jiva, Ishwara etc. It also would not have had ideas like svarga. Thus from an Advaitic perspective, this would be an incomplete viewpoint. However, Swami Vidyaranya still takes this non-vedic and incomplete viewpoint as a Darshana in Sarva Darshana Sangraha. This, I think, is the proper Purva Paksha position to take, even if the viewpoint being considered is incomplete or Nastika. Their incompleteness should be brought out as part of the arguments against their position and not used them to disqualify as a Darshana itself.

Objection 5 - Inclusion of Dharmic darshanas like Buddhism and Jainism alongside non-Dharmic western and other ideas collectively under Nastika darshanas

This is something I agree that needs clarification. I do agree that traditional Nastika Darshanas of India like Buddhism and Jainism are markedly different from the Western and other non-Indic ideas. The difference is primarily in their recognition of Dharma as a category. Thus, even being Nastika, they are Dharmic. I used the Astika and Nastika classification because it is a traditional one. And when it is extended for modern times, naturally the Western viewpoints or Islamic viewpoints would fall under the Nastika category. But we can certainly categorize them in two different ways:

First way would be to do it the way I did, and then further divide the Nastika Darshanas into two sub-groups, one that recognizes Dharma and another that does not. Buddhism, Jainism etc. would come in the first sub-group.

Second way would be to do a first level classification of schools that recognize Dharma and those that do not. In the former, we would have both Astika Darshanas and Nastika ones like Buddhism. And in the latter group, we would have the Western and Islamic ideas. Then the first group can be further classified as Astika and Nastika.

I think the type of categorization we choose would depend on what we want to achieve through the classification. It is similar to how a tomato gets botanically classified as a fruit, but culinarily as a vegetable.

There were also two questions that I would like to clarify.

Question 1 - What are Dharma and Sanatana dharma? Are they same or different?

Both are the same. Here, the usage Sanatana Dharma does not mean there is something like a non-Sanatana Dharma. It is just added as a description of the nature of Dharma.

Question 2 - We often hear Bauddha Dharma, Jaina Dharma etc. What does dharma mean in this context?

As I had explained, there is only one Dharma, the Sanatana Dharma. And different darshanas try to explain it in their own way. The above usages mean Dharma according to the Bauddhas and Dharma according to the Jainas. It is their viewpoint, just as the Vaidikas would have Vaidika Dharma.

(CHAKRA) I would like to discuss briefly my ideas on the English terms like religion, faith and culture and Indic terms like dharma, sanatana dharma, vaidika dharma etc. and also touch upon what we should call ourselves.

Different cultures have had different experiences which have conditioned them in different ways, and thus the categories they create to analyze the world also are very different. For instance, west as we know it is a synthetic combination of Christianity and Greco-Roman traditions. Since probably the times of Renaissance, the idea of the separation of religious and secular affairs, the former dealing with church affairs and the latter dealing with outside the church affairs has taken a strong root in western society. As a result of this, a large group of people have emerged that see the world purely from a “secular” worldview, removed of any church influence in their lives. This is the primary motivation for seeing the world of human affairs through a divided paradigm of religion and culture.

Indian history of ideas has had a different trajectory. Here, we have not had the overpowering control of churches, but rather, the philosophical schools that emerged were more abstract and tried to explain, rather than control the way the society functions. As a result of this, the strict division between religion and culture did not exist. Instead, we have a radically different formulation: the notion of dharma, that permeates the ideas of Indians. However, due to western education becoming the norm in India since the times of the British, it has become a norm for even Indians to see their own tradition in terms of western categories like culture and religion, instead of rightly viewing not just our society but also others in terms of our paradigm of dharma. Now that we are independent of foreign rule for the past 65 years, we should also take the next rightful step of reclaiming our own categories and using them to view the world.

So what is dharma? Dharma literally means that which supports or upholds or maintains the order of the Universe (called Rta). This is a much more far reaching categorization than religion or culture. While religion in the western sense typically refers to an institutionalized framework where a church maintains a list of commendments to follow, dharma is a more deeper principle and is not applicable to humans alone, but pertains to everything in existence. So for instance, what upholds an atom or maintains its existence? It is that the sub-atomic particles in the atom are adhering to their dharma (of doing what they ought to be doing). When we come to the human realm, we all humans have our own social identities. Not one, but several. We carry these as various kinds of labels, depending on where and to what parents we were born, what we studied, what professions we chose, what organizations we choose to belong to, what kind of relationships we enter into with other human beings etc. For instance, we all would be, in relation to other people, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, friends, co-workers, fellow citizens, and so on, at the same time. We could belong to birth based groups (jAtis) or membership based groups (sanghas). What “upholds” all these labels then is the dharma of human beings. My brotherhood to my sibilings is upheld by my properly adhering to brotherly dharma. My sonhood to my parents is upheld by my properly adhering to filial dharma. My citizenship to my country is upheld by my adhering to the dharmas of the citizenry and so on and so forth. Thus, the separation between religion and culture would be a meaningless thing in our viewpoint, because dharma encompasses both these western categories. So, a westerner might consider his eating etiquette at a dinner table as belonging to the realm of culture and a secular act, while going to church on sunday with his family as a religious act. But from our viewpoint, both are acts of dharma – the former a dharma to be followed at the dinner table as by adhering to it, he/she is upholding good relations with those who are eating with him (as it is expected behaviour at the table) and the latter upholds the institution called the church, which is a membership based group he/she belongs to.

Next coming to the question of what to call our “religion” (I put it in quotes because I just discussed that we should not use that word to describe ourselves). Now, as we see, dharma is a universal principle. And the illustrious beings that have gone before us have also identified this dharma to be ever-existing. After all, even if humans do not exist, there could be animals and insentinent creatures, which would have their own dharma. Even if earth itself ceases to exist, so many things exist in the universe, like the stars and various galaxies, adhering to their dharma. Even if the entire universe gets unmanifest, the unmanifest Prakriti is also adhering to her dharma of pulsating between manifestation and unmanifestation and so on. Thus, dharma is certainly eternal. This is why dharma is given an adjective of Sanatana. So, Sanatana Dharma is not an object different from dharma – it is dharma itself, but explained by adding an adjective to it, describing its property of being eternal. So, it certainly does not refer to any religion in the western sense. So, how did we categorize ourselves then in the past? How for instance, are the differences between Buddhism and Jainism and Vedic thoughts expressed in Indic categories? Here comes the term called Darshana. Darshana is literally seeing. It desribes a particular coherent way of viewing dharma. For instance, all schools of thought which take the texts called vedas as an inviolable source (they could have others sources also like smritis, puranas, itihasas etc. in addition to Vedas) are called vaidika darshanas or Astika darshanas. Those that do not give this position to vedas are called avaidika darshanas or nAstika darshanas. And each of these darshanas, try in their own way, to explain what dharma is. As examples, vedic schools would say performance of the yajnas prescribed in the Vedas is a Dharmic act. Or Buddhist schools would say adhere to the Noble eightfhold path. These exhortations thus are different in the various schools. But they all are attempts to explain the single Sanatana dharma. While each school could claim that its explanation is the actual Sanatana dharma, it is very important to see the difference between Sanatana dharma itself and the various competing claims to Sanatanahood of the various darshanas. This appreciation should exist, even when we consider our own darshana as the actual Sanatana Dharma (after all, each one of us considers his or her view the right view, don’t we?).

Now, we are in times, where we commonly consider ourselves to belong to a religion and we call this religion Hinduism. And in these times, different darshanas, for various socio-political reasons do not want to associate with the word Hindu. In this scenario, Hinduism has come to mean not the traditions of all people of India, but have come to have a limited sense of referring only to Vaidika darshanas. Hence, it would be incorrect to call this limited term Hinduism as Sanatana dharma. This is not to say that we cannot consider our own Darshana’s standpoint as the real Sanatana Dharma. In fact, we should most definitely do so, as it would be meaningless to claim to belong to a darshana, when we at the same time hold some other Darshana to be more correct than our own. But it certainly means that we should recognize the difference between Sanatana Dharma as an abstract all-encompassing principle, and our own claim to represent this Dharma. So, the best name that we can give ourselves is to identify our Darshanas with unambiguous terms. So for instance, Vaidika Darshana could be a common apellation to a large variety of darshanas. Within Vaidika darshanas would be the Vedanta Darshanas like Advaita, Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita, etc. We could even have a view different from all these traditional schools and still consider ourselves vaidika. In that case, it would be our own personal Darshana. Similarly, we should also be able to say what darshana someone else belongs to (as part of viewing the world outside also in Dharmic terms). Thus within Nastika darshanas, we can have a big family of western darshanas and Christianity (with all its denominations), secularism, capitalism, communism, feminism and so on would all count as darshanas in this western darshana group. Similarly, Islam would form a large darshana group within which we could have Sunni Darshanas, Shia Darshanas, Sufi Darshanas, etc. In my opinion, it is only when we learn to remove our western lens and start viewing ourselves in such traditional categories, and also use these categories to understand the rest of the world, that the real Independence of our civilization is achievable.

I am deeply thankful to the very insightful book Being Different by Shri Rajiv Malhotra, from which I have learnt a lot about the need for a reverse gaze at the west and also about the nature of the western society and they reflect is this write-up.

Also read the 2nd part Dharma and Religion – A Rejoinder which covers some of the objections and questions left in the comments.

Caste or Class Systems versus India in Global Perspective – CHAPTER SEVEN

Chapter Seven – Section A

(CHAKRA) Dr. S. Radhakrishnan who does not need any introduction; late President of India and an unparalleled daunting philosopher, teacher and academician has suggested the value of religion in the society in his lectures compiled in the book, “Religion and Society”. In his very first lecture starting in the winter of 1942, he stresses on the need for religion where he describes, “Every civilisation is the expression of a religion, for religion signifies faith in absolute values and a way of life to realise them.” He elaborates further that the civilisation is a way of life, a movement of the human spirit. Its essence lies not in any biological unity of race, or in political and economic arrangements, but in the values that create and sustain them (P 21).

In his third lecture on “Hindu Dharma” while elaborating on ‘The Concept of Dharma’, he defines, “The principles which we have to observe in our daily life and social relations are constituted by what is called dharma. It is truth’s embodiment in life, and power to refashion our nature (P 104). He says further, “Man is a teachable animal, socially controlled. The fashion of our clothes, the food we eat, the way we go about the world, are all social products which we acquire by training.” He continues, “We can be made to do anything, if we are given powerful suggestions and moral clothings which will create in us an attitude of consent. Slavery, infanticide, the inquisition, witch-burning, were all accepted as honourable to human dignity even as wars are today.”

“Under the concept of dharma, the Hindu brings the forms and activities which shape and sustain human life (P 105).” Dr. Radhakrishnan stated. He clearly mentioned, “Hinduism is not based on any racial factor… The different communities which accepted Hinduism rose to the level of the society around them, educated themselves in its spirit, took on its colour and contributed to its growth. The epics of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata describe the spread of Hindu ideals, though in them the facts of history are obscured in a haze of legend.”

In continuing his third lecture on “Hindu Dharma” and under the sub caption, “Caste and untouchability” (P 129 – 135), he has painstakingly expressed his  ideas in good bit of details quoting various scriptures and it is worth reproducing them in his own words in entirety that are unsurpassed in their own style and purport.

Caste and Untouchability     

NB: The apostrophed numbers and the descriptions or slokas in parenthesis are from the footnotes from original text in the book – Religion and Society.

(P – 129) Caste divisions are based on individual temperament² (Sattvadhiko brAhmanah syAt ksatriyastu rajodhikah. Tamodhiko bhaved vaisyo gunasAmyattu soodratA), which is not immutable. In the beginning there was only one caste. We were all Braahmins³ (BrihadAranyak Up., I. 4. 11-5; Manu, I. 31. Cp. Also MahAbhArata, XII. 188: Na visesosti varnAnAm sarvam brAhmam idam jagat. brahmanA poorvasrstam hi karmabhir varnatAm gatam) or all Sudras. A smrti text says that one is born a Sudra, and through purification he becomes a Braahmin⁴ (janmanA jAyate soodrah samskArair dvija ucyate). People were divided into different castes according to social needs and individual actions. The Braahmins are the priests. They should have neither property nor executive power. They are the seers who constitute the conscience of the society. The Kshatriyas are the administrators, whose principle is reverence for life. The Vaishyas are the traders and craftsmen, men of technical ability who aim at efficiency. The routine workers, the proletariat, are the Sudras. They take no interest in their work as such, where they carry out instructions and contribute only a fraction. They lead a life of innocent impulse and adopt traditional ways. Their joy is in the fulfilment of family obligations of marriage and parenthood, and other personal relationships. The caste groups are more trade guilds in charge of the cultural, political, economic and industrial sections of the community. Hinduism has drawn to its fold the Aryan, the Dravidian and the Mongoloid races which had drifted (P – 130) into the Ganges valley from the East, and the Paarthian, Scythian and Hun invaders from beyond the Himaalayas. It brought into its fold a great variety of different peoples and conceded to its converts, though always with a change of form, the retention, within the new religion, of rites and traditions belonging to their old faiths. In the Mahaabhaarata, Indra tells the emperor Maandhaatr to bring all foreign people, like the yaavanas, under the Aryan influence¹ (SAntiparva, 65.). Hinduism has a bewildering variety of racial types at all levels of development. In the period of the Rg Veda we have the distribution between aarya and daasa, and there were no rigid divisions among the Aaryans themselves. In the time of the Braahmanas, the four classes became separated into rigid groups dependent on birth. As arts and crafts grew in number and complexity, castes based on occupations developed. The smrtis trace the innumerable castes to intermixture of the four varnas, by means of anuloma and pratiloma marriages. When the Vedic Aaryans found a heterogeneous population of various tribes and classes of different races and colour, worshipping different gods and spirits, following diverse customs and habits of life, and filled with the spirit of tribalism, they attended to fit them all into an organic whole by the adoption of the fourfold classification. The four orders supercede the original racial differences. It is a classification based on social facts and psychology. The recognition of the spirit in man is the essential feature of Hindu religion, and in this respect all men are equal. Caste is diversity of function, and the goal of life is a transcendence of caste diversity by disinterested service. The caste scheme is meant to apply to all mankind. In the Mahaabhaarata we are told that the Yaavanas (Greeks), the Kiraatas, the Darads (Dards), the Chinas (the Chinese), the Sakas (Scythians), the Pahlavas (Parthians), the Savaras (Pre-Dravidian tribes), and several other non-Hindu peoples, belonged to one or the other of the four classes² (SAntiparva, 55. Manu, X. 43-44.).  These foreign tribes were absorbed into Hindu society. The sort of social adjustment, by which foreigners are admitted into the Hindu fold, has taken place from very early times. So long as the foreigners followed the general tradition and common law of the society, they were treated as Hindu. The great empire-builders, the Nandas, the Mauryas and the Guptas, were according to the orthodox view low-born. The Gupta emperors married Licchavis, who were regarded as Mlecchas. Latterly, some Hindus have married European and American (P – 131) women. Though strong racial differences operate, intermarriages have not been unsatisfactory. If social conditions are helpful, they will be more successful¹ (Lord Bryce, an excellent observer, said of Brazil: “Brazil is the one country in the world, besides the Portuguese colonies in the east and west coasts of Africa, in which a fusion of the European and African races is proceeding unchecked by law or custom. The doctrines of human equality and human solidarity have here their perfect work. The work is so far satisfactory that there is little or no class friction. The white man does not lynch the Negro; indeed, I have never heard of a lynching anywhere in South America except occasionally as part of a political convulsion. The Negro is not accused of insolence and does not seem to develop any more criminality than naturally belongs to any ignorant population with loose notions of morality and property. What ultimate effect the intermixture of blood will have on the European element in Brazil I will not venture to predict. If one may judge from a few remarkable cases it will not necessarily reduce the intellectual standard.” – South America, Observations and Impressions, pp. 477, 480.). The system was designed to unite, first the heterogeneous population of India, and then of the whole world, in one economic, social, cultural and spiritual bond. By assigning definite functions and duties, and according rights and privileges, the different classes were expected to work in co-operation and to achieve a racial harmony. It is a mould into which all human beings can be poured, according to their vocational aptitude and temperament. The basis of the Varna dharma is that every human being must try to fulfil the law of his development. We must discipline our life in conformity with the pattern of our being, instead of wasting our energies in following those which we lack.

(Author: In BG 3:28 Slok “Tatwavittu mahaabaaho gunkarma vibhaagayoah, gunna gunneshu vartanta iti matwaa na sajjate” – is meaning Hey Mahaabaaho [Arjun]! Who know the difference of devotional (nishkaama) and materialistic (sakaama) karmas, those few seers of such profound truths; they never indulge in the indriya or sensual pleasures only to satisfy their indriyas or senses. This clearly states the individual goals for every one without reference to even any Varna or Jaati. It is such high ideals that have accrued it the epithet of ‘Sanatana Dharma or Perennial Belief” expounded through the Vedas.)

While it was the intention of the scheme to develop the requisite spirit and tradition in the members of the classes by a proper employment of the forces of heredity and education, it was not viewed in a rigid way. In special cases individuals and groups changed their social class. Vishvaamitra, Ajaamidha, and Puraamidha were admitted to the Braahmin class, and even composed Vedic hymns. Yaaska, in his Nirukta, tells us that of two brothers, Santanu and Devaapi, one became a Kshatriya king and the other a Braahmin priest. Kavasha, the son of the slave girl Ilusha, was ordained as a Brahmin priest at a sacrifice² (Aitareya BrAhmana, II. 19.). Janaka, a kshatriya by birth, attained the rank of a Braahmin by virtue of his ripe wisdom and saintly character³ (Ramayana. BAlakAnda, 51-55.). The Bhaagavata tells of the elevation of the Kshatriya clan named Dhashtru to brahminhood. Jaatyutkarsha is provided for. Even though a Sudra, if you do good, you become a Braahmin⁴ (ebhistu karambhir devi subhair Acharitais tathA. sudro brAhmanatAm yAti, vaishyAh kshatriyatAm vrajet.).  We are Braahmin not on account of birth or the performance of (P – 132) rites, not by study or family, but on account of our behaviour¹ {(nayonir nApisamskAro nAshrutam nacha santatih; kAranAni dvijatvasya vrttam eva tu kArnam).

And again:

(Sarvoyam brAhmano loke vrattenacha vidhiyate

Vrttisthitastu shudropi brAhmanatvam niyacchati – AnushAsanaparva.)}. Even if we are born Sudras, by good conduct we can raise ourselves to the highest status² (shudrayonau hi jAtasya sadgunAn upatishthatah; Vaishyatvam labhate brAhmam kshatriyattvam tathaiva cha; Arjave vartamAnasya brAhmanyam abhijAyate – Aranyaparva.).

Chapter Seven – Section B

Dr S. Radhakrishnan continued

The human being is always becoming. His essence is in movement, not an arrested movement. There was healthy social mobility, and for long varnas did not become hereditary, crystallised castes. The occupational divisions, however, did not work, even from early times. Megasthenes gives us a division different from the caste groupings. He puts the class of statesmen and officials at the top, and hunters and junglemen as the sixth division. Patanjali refers to Braahmin kings, and Manu to Sudra rulers. There were Braahmin soldiers in the time of Alexander, as there are today. Whatever the intentions were, caste developed a false sense of pride, and led to the humiliation of the lower classes. In the Raamaayana Raama kills Shambhuka for performing austerities³ (Kalidasa on Raghuvamsha (XV. 42. 57), and Bhavabhuti, in UttararAmcharita, put him in heaven.). Manu’s unfortunate references to the Sudras were perhaps motivated by his opposition to Buddhism, which allowed them the highest religious life of learning and monasticism. These were for Manu the Sudras, who assume the airs of the twiceborn⁴ (shudrAmsh cha dvijalinginah.). Manu limits the right to study the dharma-shastras to Braahmins, while Sankara holds that members of all castes can read them. When excessive formalism overtook the early scheme, protests were uttered by the followers of Jainism and Buddhism, who emphasised the ideal of maitri or human brotherhood. Especially those who were denied opportunity to rise to the full heights of their powers accepted the new faiths. Hindu aacharyas denounced the spirit of caste separatism. Vajrashchikopanishad holds that many who were born of non-braahmin women had risen to the rank of Braahmin saints⁵ (jAtyantaresu anekajAtisambhavAt maharshyayo bahavas santi vyAsah kaivartakan-yAyam, vashistha urvasyAm … agastyah kalashajAta iti shrutatvAt.). But soon caste bigotry and prejudices asserted themselves, and drove many of those subjected to them into the fold of Islam. To rekindle the dying embers of life and light in Hindu society, preachers of human (P – 133) brotherhood like Raamaananda and Chaitanya, Kabir, Naanak, Daadu, and Naamdev arose. As the result of the liberalising influence of Western civilisation, caste customs are being slowly modified, and connubial restrictions are getting slackened. Ram Mohan Roy, Dayaanand Sarasvati and Gandhi, among others, contributed to the silent revolution¹ (P 133) (Even the Hindu Mahaasabhaa resolved: “Whereas the caste system based on the birth as at present existing is manifestly contrary to universal truth and morals: whereas it is the very antithesis of the fundamental spirit of the Hindu religion: whereas it flouts the elementary rights of the human equality ….. this all India Hindu Mahaasabhaa declares its uncompromising opposition to the system and calls upon the Hindu society to put a speedy end to it.”). They found much support in the spirit of the ancient scriptures. A vipra is so called because of his Vedic learning, and a Braahmin because of his knowledge of God² (vedapAthena viprostu brahmjnAnAt tu brAhmanah.) A famous verse of Mahaabhaarata makes out that we are all born Braahmins, and happen to belong to the different classes on account of our conduct and occupation³ (Cp. The popular verse: anAdAv iha samsAre dur ‘Are makardhvaje; kule cha kAminimule kA jAti parikalpanA.). The whole world was of one class, and the four groups became established on account of their conduct⁴ (eka varnam idam purvam vishvam Asid yudhisthira; karmakriyAvishesena chAturvarnyam pratisthitam. – Aranyoparva.). The Hinduisation of aboriginal tribes has been going on slowly and unobtrusively, through the natural attraction of the superior ideals. For it to be speedy and successful, the caste Hindu should give up their spirit of aloofness and haughtiness. Caste divisions have prevented the development of homogeneity among the Hindus. To develop a degree of organic wholeness and a sense of common obligation, the caste spirit must go. We have to get rid of the innumerable castes and outcastes, with their spirit of exclusiveness, jealousy, greed and fear.

Physical purity (saucham) is a means to inner purity. Cleanliness is a first aid to godliness. Our ideas of cleanliness must become more scientific. In olden times the Braahmins, the Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas could eat food cooked by each other. Manu says that a twice-born man should not eat food cooked by a Sudra, ⁵ (Manu. IV. ₂₃₂; Gautama, xvii. I.) but that which is prepared by a slave, by a family friend and co-sharer in the profits of agriculture, could be taken⁶ (Manu. IV. ₂₅₃; Apastamba, I. 18. _{9, 13, 14.}). In our times such distinctions are untenable and irritating, and restrict free social movement. In ancient times meat was used by the Braahmins also. The old Vedic religion included the sacrifices of five kinds of animals: (P – 134) goats, sheeps, cows, or bulls, and horses¹ (P. 134) (I. _{17. 30, 37.}). Under the influence of Buddhism, Jainism and Vaishnavism, the practice became discredited. Manu and Yaajnavalka impose so many restrictions about meat eating that they discourage it. In some parts (Bengal, Kashmir), even today, Braahmins take meat, while in others (Gujarat) even the lower castes abstain from it. Our habits are to be based on principles of cleanliness, not on taboos. Pollution by touch must be given up. Untouchability arises in many ways: by the violation of caste rules, by the pursuits of certain occupations, by the adoption of certain non-aaryan faiths. The sin of untouchability is degrading, and the prejudice should be removed. The Bhagavadgeeta points out that there are only four varnas based on natural aptitude and vocation,² (chAturvarnyam mayA srshtam gunakarmavibhAgasah. Bhagavad Gita) and two classes of persons, divine (daiva) and demoniac (aasura) ³ (Gita: XVI. 6. dvau bhuta sargau loke ‘smin daiva asura eva ca; daivo vistarasah prokta asuram partha me srnu- Translation: O son of Prtha, in this world there are two kinds of created beings. One is called the divine and the other demoniac. I have already explained to you at length the divine qualities. Now hear from Me of the demoniac.). Manu states that there are only four divisions and no fifth ⁴ (brAhmanah kshatriyo vaisyas trayo varna dvijAtayah; chaturthA ekajAtis tu sudro nAsti tu panchamah. – X. ₄.). Any discrimination against the Harijans is unjustified. If a Samkara avoided an ‘untouchable’ it was only to be told that it is improper⁵ (annamayAd annamayam athavA chaitanyam eva chaitanyAd; Dvijavara durikartuvAnchasi kim bruhi gaccha gaccheti. At the Round Table Conference in London (1931) Gaandhi said: Let this committee (minority committee) and let the whole world know that there is a body of Hindu reforms who feel that untouchability is a shame, not of the untouchables, but of orthodox Hinduism, and they are therefore pledged to remove this blot….I far rather that Hinduism died than untouchability lived…. I want to say with all the emphasis that I can command that if I was the only person to resist this thing, I would resist it with my life.”). Places of worship, public wells, and public utilities such as cremation grounds and bathing ghats, hotels, and educational institutions, should be open to all. Reform in these matters has been more effective in the Indian states ruled by Indian princes⁶ (The Late Mahaaraajaa Gaekwar of Baroda introduced very many salutary reforms, and declared that the Hindu temples under state management shall be open to all classes of Hindus, including the Antyajas. On 12th November 1936, H.H. the Mahaaraajaa of Traavancore issued the following proclamation:

“Profoundly convinced of the truth and validity of our religion, believing that it is based on Divine guidance and on an all comprehending toleration, knowing that, in its practice, it has throughout the centuries adopted itself to the needs of changing times, and being solicitous that none of my Hindu subjects should by reason of birth or caste or community be denied the consolations and solace of the Hindu faith, I have decided and hereby declare, ordain and command that, subject to such rules and conditions as may be laid down and imposed for preserving their proper atmosphere and maintaining their rituals and observances, there should henceforth be no restriction placed on any Hindu by birth or religion on entering or worshipping at the temples by Government.”) What is being done today is a question not of justice or charity, but of (P – 135) atonement. Even when we have done all that is in our power, we shall not have atoned even for a small fraction of our guilt in this matter. Thus summarises it Dr. S. Radhakrishnan on caste and untouchability issue in his lectures delivered way back in the winter of 1942 in the Universities of Calcutta and Benares – for Kamala Lectureship organised in memory of his beloved daughter by Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee; on some aspect of Indian Life and Thought, the subject to be treated from a comparative standpoint to be delivered by a distinguished scholar in the field on invitation from The Special Committee of the Calcutta University.

The contemporary as well as the ancient Hindu society has been fairly well aware of and their attempts to eradicate this evil of caste system which has come to survive against all odds despite their best efforts to eliminate it, are laudable and self evident. This also stresses on the fact that certain situations in the human society get entrenched and manage to thrive once it becomes a convention even against the wishes of the responsible stalwarts in that society. There are always clash of vested interests of some isolated powerful sections which take advantage of otherwise helpless ecclesiastical modes. It puts the entire community on shame. In the current global diverse and highly competitive and chaotic social mechanisms and engineering, it has assumed the most virulent and malignant proportions where one is more interested in finding faults than help eliminate them. The weaker one pays the price as per the law of nature. Hindu society is no exception to it due to its mismatched ideology of peace and love in the present scenario where the opposite, like violence and envy has taken over its upper hand of pride and grandeur.  This is part of a continuing struggle for survival inherent from its very inception all over the world and is equally true for Hindus in the human society with its caste stigma.

Wheel of Dharma (Dharma Wheel)

Wheel of Dharma or Life, also known as Dharma Chakra is a symbol that has represented dharma, the Buddha’s teaching of the path to enlightenment, since the early period of Indian Buddhism. A similar symbol is also in used in Jainism and the Dharmic faiths. It is one of the Ashtamangala symbols.The Dharma Chakra symbol is represented as a chariot wheel (Sanskrit cakram) with 8 or more spokes. It is one of the oldest known symbols in Buddhism found in Indian art, appearing with the first surviving post-Harappan Indian iconography in the time of the Buddhist king Asoka.

Buddhists borrowed the Wheel of Dharma symbol from a Hindu (Sanatan Dharma) symbol that represented “samsara” (the cycle of rebirth/reincarnation), but have re-interpreted the symbol as a wheel the overcomes all obstacles.

On 2 July 2011 Castewatch held another of its typical hatefests in Coventry . Ostensibly designed as always to discuss caste discrimination in Britain , it once again degenerated into the usual fulminations against the evils of Hinduism and Hindus. This is why Hindus are only welcome at such events if they “know their place” and avoid indulging in the twin evils of talking and speaking too much. It is therefore fortunate that Castewatch have had the stupidity to brazenly advertise the anti-Hindu views of this very Neo nazi skinhead rally style conference on their own website at: http://www.castewatchuk.org/CasteWatchUK-Conference-Report-2nd-July-2011.pdf

Sinna Mani (President of BOPIO and ex-Mayor of Lewisham) stated the following in his speech at the CasteWatchUK Conference July 2nd, 2011.

“We do not have to follow the bogus gurus. Most of the Hindu Gurus are bogus charlatans and they have no spirituality. Hinduism cannot provide the kind of spirituality required by equality of opportunities. Hinduism is a religion of inequality. Everything you do is Dharma or Karma, it is all bullshit. This is no disrespect to my Hindu friends sitting here.

I am a Hindu myself & I read Bhagwad Gita. Hindu literature is full of wisdom and it is the oldest religion in the world. But our brothers and sisters who departed from Hinduism, be they Sikhs, Muslims, Christians or Buddhists, they did for a good reason.

Perhaps by the time you read this they would have taken it down or removed the offending portions, as is the case when hate groups get exposed. Now one first gets an indication of how things are going when Baroness Flather blames Hindu Forum and Hindu Council as being organisations formed by upper caste Hindus. This is normal in a discourse which seeks to rubbish the Hindu voice in order to suffocate it at source, and is commonly done by Indians who are only Hindu name but use the Hindu label when it suits them. We find this even more with the speech by Sinna Mani, president of the BOPIO (British Organisation of People of Indian Origin). In an utterly racist diatribe Mani said caste was embedded in the DNA of every single Indian. His eugenics was complimented by a crass racial mythology in which he claimed Brahmins had pleaded with Alexander the Great no to dismantle the caste system when he conquered India . But the Macedonian conqueror had never actually done any of this and historical records are clear that he was actually defeated in his attempts to subdue the entire subcontinent.whites only events. Would she therefore also agree that Mr. Mani’s anti-Brahmin poison coated rhetoric was racist? Reena Jessiah disgustingly links the whole Hindu ethos to anti-Semitism in her poem which is an almost exact replica of that by Pastor Martin Niemoller who was incarcerated by the Nazis for speaking out against them – even though he initially hailed Hitler as a German messiah and felt Jews had too much power. Rena Annobil then recites a poem in which she claims the existence of the barbaric “Aryan” race.

read full article at the original source Hinduhumanrights.info