Hindutva and Liberalism – Updated

Nice to know that you feel Hindutva isn’t about Hindu identity. But then why call it Hindutva? Give it another name that doesn’t confuse people.

@moonclan

Because I’m not trying to sell my image to anyone, whereas Hindutva needs to do just that.

@moonclan

Dont be ignorant in this matter, some names are kept to fool people. And if you go south..many names appears hindu names but they are practising nothing of it…fooling people is the big business in South of India. they sell their religion in disguise. They will ask you to stop selling hinduism but they are selling their religion in full fledge. In many cases they show off their hindu name and bash hinduism to set example see how you too can deviate from what you are practising. I call them confused converted lot!

I share your thoughts and some of my own uncertainties. My personal identity is partly Indian and also Hindu,however these are have been defined. My identity is also somewhat secular, nationalistic and multicultural. The other significant part of my identity is my economic status and aspiration.
So you see, the equation is very complex.
I cannot say all of these things as simply, if I am a politician going out to gain votes.I would have to be all things to all people.
There seem to be many people whose identity and life is primarily defined by their economic status and aspirations, at the expense of others.

A bold comment relating to the ‘poor= poorly educated’. In some aspects the poor create their own problems, as do the rest of us in different ways. Why do the majority of the poor go to watch and be ‘educated’ by the rubbish that is Bollywood? And why should the goverment offer free meals to a family with 4 or 7 children. Surely the priority should be on family planning in a serious way.So in that sense the poor forgo their freedom.They are easily led and have little insight.

The first step is to UNLEARN what you have learnt over the number of years. UNLEARNING takes more time than EXPLORING this ETERNAL KNOWLEDGE. Once UNLEARNING is done, means half of the job is done already.

Awadhesh , You are taking quotes out of context otherwise lord Krishna wouldn’t be advising Arjun to go forth in battle but instead would be telling him to go and mediate in a cave instead.Sometimes Hindus themselves confuse the Hindu world view with buddhist perspectives without really understanding what essence of Hinduism is itself and that’s why they confuse Maya for being illusion when it really means to measure and for that one has to interact with this world than renounce it to spiritually progress..

@Sabhlok,
“… The SAME resistance is felt by Muslims and Christians to the word Hindutva, and also by many Hindus – who associate it strongly with communal violence, killing of Gandhi, and the demolition of Babri Masjid. I’m personally quite put off by this word, although I know it has many meanings…”

Same thing applies to your heeeero Macaulay.

Unlike you, Most indians hate that incestous, creepy bastard, whom you admire as the world’s most liberal philosopher.

@Amit: You are saying: “For others, there’s Artha. Besides, what path one takes depends on the stage of one’s life as well as on one’s abilities/inclinations.”

Hinduism is one indivisible whole – it does not prescribe two goals of life – one for ascetics and the other for commons. Its vision is one: everybody must strive for liberation from this cycle of birth and death. Trying to seek happiness elsewhere – e.g., in wealth, sex, power, social service — anything other than liberation, according to Hinduism, is foredoomed. Pursuit of Artha, therefore, must be subjected to Dharma. That harmony alone can deliver Moksha, the eternal and ultimate bliss. And subjecting Artha to Dharma means Artha should be earned just to satisfy bare necessities, not for getting comfort, luxury or leisure.

Of course, everybody is free to reject Hinduism and pursue wealth or whatever other goal one wishes. But that would not be sanctioned by Hinduism.

Thus, minimization of desires, detachment and focusing on Self-realization are the core concepts of Hinduism.

@ Arjun: I have never said that Hinduism does not provide for a social order according to its concept of Dharma. In observance of Dharma, Lord Krishna is fully justified to ask Arjuna to fight and kill unjust rulers like Kauravas & their supporters. What I have been emphasizing is that Hinduism is a minimalistic kind of philosophy in so far as worldly activities are concerned – minimum needs, minimum wealth, state rule to maintain basic minimum order in the society, minimum technology. The core of Hinduism is to minimize every worldly activity in order to maximize efforts for Self-realization (Moksha).

But why is Hinduism a minimalist philosophy?

The answer lies in its metaphysics. Hinduism believes that one’s Atman is somehow entangled in the body. As a consequence, it has identified itself with the body. Due to identification, it wrongly starts thinking that the desires of the body are its own desires and starts pursuing those desires. But most of the desires cannot be fulfilled. That results in failure and frustration. Even if some desires are fulfilled after lots of hard work, it gives only momentary happiness. Soon, more desires crop up. Thus this life is spent running after desires, but gaining hardly anything. Just to pursue unfulfilled desires, the Atman is reborn again and again leading to endless cycles of birth and death. This is bondage. Liberation or enlightenment is getting rid of this bondage.

It is this metaphysical stance which logically leads Hinduism to strive for detachment of Atman from the body in order to attain enlightenment. Since Atman has to detach from body, naturally body and its desires are regarded as impediments. But since survival of the body is necessary even for sadhana and eventual enlightenment, existence of the body has to be tolerated out of compulsion. So, only its bare needs for survival have to be fulfilled – nothing more than that. That logically leads to wholesale condemnation of desires.
Thus, entire Hindu way of life can be summed up in two lines of action:
(1) Minimize pursuit of desires and (2) maximize pursuit of self-realization.

@ Bhuvan: The origin of Aryans in India is irrelevant to what I am saying. The Vedic literature is with us. That was written by Aryans. That is sufficient for our discussion on how Hinduism evolved and what is its core philosophy.

Since you have not given any substantive facts or arguments to refute my understanding of Hinduism, there is nothing else to comment upon.

I thought a civilized discussion avoids personal remarks and offensive words.

Awadhesh , Again you are looking at Hinduism from a buddhist and a ascetic perspective .If Hinduism was exactly like you claim then it would have been wiped off from India a long time ago..Hinduism doesnt reject the material world but sees the divine in everything..And its not about getting rid of desires but getting them under control so one can perform their Dharma more clearly which on can clearly see in Krishnas message in the Gita..Then what to expect if you still belive in colonial and nazi theories of Aryans came from the central asia somewhere.You must be reading the wrong books

@Awadhesh

Its true that Hindus may have not kept up with military technology early on but Hindu kings didn’t suffer a series defeats either .How can one forget from Bappa Rawal to Vijananger to the Maharattas and so on as the list is so long which ended up with the muslim empire collapsing till the British came on the scenes who did not rule india for 300 years either so get your facts right.

The West advanced originally out of necessity/survival and then to expand its domain around the world so of course they had to improve their technology and military power but they are also now taking up Hindu spiritual practices up to keep their lives in balance .And none of them are becoming monks renouncing the world and even the ones who did renounce the world like Naga Sadhus often battled Muslim invaders.From Guru Goraknath ( who the Ghurkas are named afte)r or Samarth ramdas who inspired Shivaji and his warriors to fight or the Sikh gurus who took arms themselves shows that the hindu perspective on the world is not like a Buddhist on that you are confusing Hinduism with..

Many inventions including the internet had a military purpose for it .So reasons for inventions can be many and not just based on desire otherwise you might as well open a porn shop if you think that’s going to stimulate everyones desires to invent things..

We dont need any religion but We need people to understand Hinduism and not confuse it with their own wrong interpretations thinking Hinduism is the reason for their own weaknesses

a) The fact that you have mentioned Aryans came from Central Asia and Vedas are written by Aryans are the ridiculous arguments.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
Get ready for the serious stuff.
———————————————————————————————————————————
Lord Krishna to Arjuna (5000 years ago approx) Vedas are eternal and originated from Supreme Lord.

Bhagwad Gita 9/17
pitäham asya jagato
mätä dhätä pitämahaù
vedyaà pavitram oàkära
åk säma yajur eva ca

I am the father of this universe, the mother, the support and the grandsire. Iam the object of knowledge, the purifier and the syllable OM. I am also the Rig,the Säma and the Yajur Vedas.

Bhagwan Ved Vyas explains in the Bhagwatam that 155.52 trillion years have passed since Brahma originally created the planetary system, and this is the present age of Brahma.

The Bhagwatam says, “Brahma’s one day equals to 1,000 cycles of the four yugas (one cycle of four yugas is 4.2 million years). It is called one kalp. There are fourteen Manus in one kalp. For the same length of time there is the night of Brahma. This is called pralaya or kalp pralaya. At that time the earth planet and the sun along with three celestial abodes (bhu, bhuv and swah) enter into the transition period (and become inhabited). During that period Brahma holds within himself all the beings of the material and the celestial worlds in a suspended state and sleeps. (The next day he again produces them re-forms them as they were before) In the way Brahma lives for two parardh (twice of 50 years). After that there is a complete dissolution of the brahmand (the planetary system and its celestial abodes). This is called prakrit pralaya of the brahmand”. (Bhagwatam 12/4/2 to 6)

“Half of Brahma’s life is called parardh. One parardh is finished and the existing kalp is in the beginning of the second parardh (the first day of the 51st year of Brahma). The very first day of Brahma was the day when he himself was created by God Vishnu and it was called the Brahm Kalp. The present running kalp is called Varah kalp (or Shvet Varah Kalp).” (Bhagwatam 3/11/,34,36)

“In this kalp six Manus like Swayambhuv Manu etc. have elapsed. The seventh Manu is the son of Vivaswan. He is the present Manu and is called Vaivaswat Manu”. (Bhagwatam 8/1/4; 8/13/1)

In the Bhagwat Mahatmya Bhagwan Ved Vyas reveals a great secret and says that this is the 28th dwapar (of Vaivaswat manavantar). Not in all, but sometimes at the end of the 28th dwapar of a kalp the supreme personality of God, Krishna in His absolute loving form descends in the world of the land of Bharatvarsh and reveals His supremely charming playful Divine leelas; and that had happened in our age just about 5,000 years ago.

You said-Aryan came to India from outside

Max Mueller the propounder of Aryan Theory which you are referring (Aryans came to India…) flatly denied having even spoken of an Aryan race- “I have declared again and again that if I say Aryans, I mean neither blood nor bones nor hair nor skull; I mean simple those who speak an Aryan language”. In 1890 he even disowned his chronology. In his autobiography published after his death in 1900 he mentioned “As to the actual date of the Veda… If we were to place it at 5000 BC, I doubt whether anybody could refute such a date, while if we go back beyond the Veda, and come to measure the time required for the formation of Sanskrit… I doubt whether even 5000 years would suffice for that.”

Swami Dayananda Saraswati clearly mentioned that “ In none of the Sanskrit or history textbooks has it been stated that the Aryans came from Iran, vanquished the aborigines… and became rulers.” The word Arya is the moral and inner qualities, Aryavartha the home of scholars in the original sense of Vedic Indian.

Swami Vivekananda in a lecture in USA. “ And what your European Pundit say about the Aryans swooping down from some foreign land snatching away the land of aborigines and settling in India by exterminating them , is all pure nonsense, foolish talk. Strange that our Indian scholars too say ‘Amen’ to them. And all these monstrous are being taught to our boys”

Swami Vivekananda again: “According to some of the European scholars the ‘Aryans came from Central Tibet, some say from Central Asia, some say Aryans lived in Swiss lakes and I should not be sorry if they had been all drowned these theory and all….As the truth of these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures not one, to prove that the Aryan even came from anywhere outside India, and in ancient India was included Afghanistan. There it ends…the whole of India is Aryan, nothing else.”

Maharishi Aurbindo said Maharshi Aurobindo said thus: “In India…we are ready to accept all European theories, the theory of an Aryan colonization of a Dravidian India, the theory of Nature worship..of the Vedic Rishies…as if these hazardous speculations were on a par in authority and certainty with the law of gravitation and the theory of evolution.”

In Ramayana, Sri Rama traveled all the way from north India to southern most tip of India. In Mahabharatha, Pandavas traveled from Hastinapura to Kerala.

…and stop using the misleading word ‘Hindu’ or ‘Hinduism’ when you talk about Bhartiya culture and civilisation. This is the misnomer which has stuck or rather carefully nurtured to bring our eternal knowledge and literature at par with man made religions. Pls do not belittle it by bringing it par with some mortals who created ‘RELIGION’ to control masses according to their own terms. Vedic or Sanatan are the right terms to extend this discourse further and it is for all the living and non living beings unlike ‘RELIGON’.

@Bhuvan,

Is there any evidence to support or independently verify this claim:

which is also the absolute age of our sun and the earth planet is 50 years = 155.521972 trillion years.

Thanks! Ignore the comment if you think it is not relevant to topic.

@Bhuvan, In other words, mostly self-referenced claims without any evidence. Irrespective of big-bang etc, I hope there is enough meat in your claims to interest the scientific community so that it can be investigated. Let people discuss the relevant matter on the thread. Thanks.

*** COMMENT EDITED ***

So far, I was dealing with the fundamentals of Hinduism on the basis of basic Hindu texts to counter Shantanu’s statement that Hinduism celebrates wealth. History of Aryans or the universe is totally irrelevant to our discussion because the only way to understand the religion propounded by our ancestors is through study of the books written by them.

Now, I am coming to another point raised by Shantanu: can classical liberalism be logically derived from Hinduism?

The supreme goal of Hinduism is to detach Atman from the mind-body so that Atman regains its original splendor and bliss (Moksha). Atman’s identification with mind-body system and its desires is the main cause of its misery in this world. So, real happiness cannot be achieved by fulfilling the desires for pleasures, comfort and luxury, but by gradually withdrawing from the mind-body system.

Now, how would a society which believes in this sort of philosophy behave economically?

Once body is treated as an evil from which Atman has to be detached, it logically follows that wealth, to the extent it is surplus beyond satisfying bare needs (Aparigrah) is also an evil, because wealth is an extension of body. Car is an extension of legs; computer is an extension of brain; telescope is an extension of eyes and so on. Once surplus wealth is frowned upon, society would be content with subsistence economy.

This is exactly what Mahatma Gandhi, a devout Hindu, wanted. Gandhi was the first person in Indian history who tried to apply the principles of Hinduism in economic field. He wanted people to go back to villages, do farming, spin charkha, make mud-thatched house, drink water from well and for the rest of the time, do bhajan [ dal-roti khao, Prabhu ke gun gao). No need to develop big factories, big machines, big communication systems, foreign imports or exports, surplus wealth and the like, because they are symbols of vice or Parigrah.

See what he is saying in Hind Swaraj:
“Industrialization on a mass scale will necessarily lead to passive or active exploitation of the villagers. Therefore, we have to concentrate on the village being self-contained, manufacturing mainly for use.”

Now, a self-contained village subsistence economy is an economy in which production is made for consumption, not for sale. As such, under such a system, there is no place for industrialists, entrepreneurs, financiers, managers, advertisers and wholesale dealers. Governance is minimal – just a police state to deliver justice [ultimately, even that would be abandoned once everybody, as Gandhi believed, becomes moral and spiritual under the benign devotion to God]. Talking about capitalism or socialism in such a system is meaningless because both deal with the manner in which surplus capital is allocated – either by market or by State respectively. Since there is no surplus capital in Gandhian economy, it can be neither capitalistic nor socialistic.
Gandhian economy could work if all Hindus sincerely pursued its supreme goal – Moksha. But that never happened and it will never happen.

The strong survival and growth instincts of man force him to attend to his growing needs and to achieve that, invent new tools – physical and institutional. Though indulgence in desires and sense-gratification is condemned by Hinduism, it is also accepted by Hinduism that forcing a person to abandon worldly pursuits would not work. So Hinduism says: let people pursue their worldly pursuits, suffer, be reborn and so on – one day they would realize the futility of all their efforts and then only they will start working towards Moksha.

From this acknowledgement of reality by Hinduism, it follows that the economic system should be such that it gives maximum freedom to pursue one’s desires. So we have come to a free market economy model.
So, we may logically derive classical liberalism from Hinduism.

@ Awadhesh Kumar Singh,

“Body is treated as evil …”

Actually, to the best of my knowledge body is neither treated as evil or the ultimate end. All Sant Mahatma`s say human life is a boon, a blessing and one should not waste it. Yes, they also ask us to rise above the animal instincts.

“So, classical liberalism may be derived from Hinduism, but I am not sure how vigorously, how passionately Hindus would pursue wealth, politics, science and technology when their soul is feeling guilty about worldly pursuits due to the teachings of Hinduism.”

Hindus have been pursuing wealth since times immemorial. Why, we worship Goddess of wealth Goddess Laxmi and Lord Venkateshwara. And India was wealthy, very wealthy that is why all the Barbarians set out to steal wealth from India. Just recently Lord Padmanabha Temple`s vaults have been opened and the the world saw the billions of dollars worth treasure stored. Unless the patrons of the temple were wealthy they could not have donated vast wealth. Lets not forget Travancore Kingdom was a small kingdom. And the Vijayanagara Kingdom was one of the most prosperous kingdoms of the period in the world.

India’s GDP as a percentage of world GDP
year 1700 1820 1890 1952

China 23.1 32.4 13.2 5.2
India 22.6 15.7 11.0 3.8
Europe 23.3 26.6 40.3 29.7

I don’t think this would have been possible if Hindus felt guilty about pursuing wealth.

If anything Hindus lead a vigorous life pursuing Dharma, Artha, Kama and finally Moksha.

“the only way to understand the religion propounded by our ancestors is through study of the books written by them”.

@ Awadesh. Who is the founder of your religion? What books did they write?

You have a seriously deluded learning. Read Arthashastra and Rajdharma to know about some ancient economics.

Also read World Economy from Maddison as pre requisite to understand what was economics and India’s GDP from 0-2009 AD.

@ KK your welcome and also refer Chapter 11 and 12 of Srimad Bhagwatam Canto 3.

Well I wanted to see the true face and your last comment have made it possible. Your BG and SB stand was quite clear. Thanks and good bye.

I know you are not even bothered to read the referred bit of BG and SB. But you are happy to ‘debate’ irrationaly. Not too sure whether you have read all the basic theories at all to put you in a position to do comparitive study. Stop following the ‘recommended or renowned’ authorities and do your own research and study but not ‘debate’. When you are equipped to present the both picuture, will be the right time to debate.

You can not expect to go to uni without learning the elementary stuff. Question the stuff which you have already learnt and do not follow everything blindly. In other words avoid brainwashing.

“how passionately Hindus would pursue wealth, politics, science and technology when their soul is feeling guilty about worldly pursuits due to the teachings of Hinduism.”

so basically every invader from the muslims down to british only came to india for just a holiday and to pass some time because there was no wealth as hindus didnt pursue it or celebrate it as they felt very guilty about about it thats why no temples are adorned with riches or any splendour but instead all Hindus were just sitting there living in a mudhut or some cave just meditating to get moksha till the Aryans suddenly turned up from central asia.

@ Malavika and @ Arjun:

Malavika said: “Hindus have been pursuing wealth since times immemorial. Why, we worship Goddess of wealth Goddess Laxmi and Lord Venkateshwara. And India was wealthy, very wealthy that is why all the Barbarians set out to steal wealth from India. ”

Pursuit of wealth and other worldly goals has been there despite teachings of Hinduism, not because of the teachings of Hinduism. I have already explained this in my previous posts and given quotes from Hindu texts to prove how anti-life Hinduism has been.
Just being born in a Hindu family or having a Hindu name does not mean that one has understood basic tenets of Hinduism or is following them sincerely.

I am talking about Hinduism, not actual behavior of those who are born in Hindu families. Hindus behave differently depending on their understanding of Hinduism –
• Some follow it very sincerely (Sadhus, Sanyasins, full time Sadhakas – they are always poor).
• Some approve Hinduism in principle and want to follow it, but are compelled by physical needs of self and family to earn more wealth. Their whole life is spent balancing between these two opposite tendencies – need to earn more wealth and Hindu teaching of being contented. They are typical middle class guys. They keep on praying to god for removal of poverty and also keep on believing that this world is maya-moha ka bandhan!
• Some try to ignore the teachings of Hinduism and follow their ambition and worldly desires. They become well off through their own efforts. But occasionally they feel guilty about what they are doing – so they start giving charities and attending religious sermons, particularly in their old age.
• Some do not believe in the teachings of Hinduism at all. They are atheists or agnostics. They are generally ambitious and go all-out to get what they want. They are successful and wealthy. They never pray.

I have made a compilation of quotes from basic books of Hinduism. Please read them at the following link and see for yourself how Hinduism condemns worldly life – pursuit of desires, wealth, pleasures and sex — in favor of Self-realization:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kTP_oQXIdseiwzZPCqHWXowdZGIwQ63M8h3Cc4hqEJg/edit?hl=en_US

Hinduism, by condemning desires, destroyed the very motive of living beyond survival. That is why India did not develop means of comfort and luxury. All technological inventions were made during the last 300 years in the West. So India was bound to remain poor.

As to worshipping Goddess Laxmi etc., the poorer a society, the more it values God, because for the poor, God is the only hope. When it does not work, people start blaming themselves – that they may not be worshipping God properly; that they must have committed some sin; that God is punishing them for their past karma etc. Worse, they also start changing gods! They think perhaps they were worshipping wrong god, they should worship some other god. Hindu society, being one of the poorest and weakest, therefore fabricated maximum number of gods. Hindus allocated different departments even among gods – one for wealth (Laxmi), another for knowledge (Saraswati), another for removing obstacles (Ganesh), another in charge of water (Varuna), another for killing demons (Ram, Krishna, Durga, Shiva) etc.
This fabrication of super fathers and mothers sitting in the sky [heaven] and “helping” ones who cry for them, throw light on what was going on in the minds of those who fabricated them. Those people must have been really desperate. Poverty made them miserable and worshipping a god did not work. So, they kept on fabricating more and more gods. Their description of heaven [immortal gods with lots of wealth, blessed with Kalptaru (wish-fulfilling tree) and in the company of beautiful ever-young women – Urvashi, Rambha etc and gods having authority over humans etc] expresses their secret desires. These same very desires have been condemned by Hinduism as impediments to liberation of soul!

As to your contention that foreign invaders came to India to plunder the massive wealth of India, it is historically false as explained below:

Islamic invaders, barring a few, came to India primarily to spread Islam and to fulfill their desire to set up or to have a bigger empire. This is why they settled down in India and did not take away wealth from India.

The British too, again barring a few, initially wanted to profit from trade (not plunder). Later on, they found that they could make more money by ruling India. So, they defeated several Hindu/Muslim kings and started earning a lot of revenue through taxes. It was the tax money paid by Indians that lured the British, not some massive treasure of gold stacked by each Indian family.

Whatever little wealth there was in India got accumulated in temples and in the hands of rulers and merchants. People donated whatever little surplus money they had, to temples to appease god so that their poverty is removed by god. Probably, temples were also in the business of money lending as Buddhist Sanghas. Rulers benefitted by tax and merchants by trade. But masses in general were poor.

“Hindus allocated different departments even among gods – one for wealth (Laxmi), another for knowledge (Saraswati), another for removing obstacles (Ganesh), another in charge of water (Varuna), another for killing demons (Ram, Krishna, Durga, Shiva) etc.
This fabrication of super fathers and mothers sitting in the sky [heaven] and “helping” ones who cry for them, throw light on what was going on in the minds of those who fabricated them. Those people must have been really desperate. Poverty made them miserable and worshipping a god did not work. So, they kept on fabricating more and more gods”

I STRONGLY OBJECT to this naive statement which might hurt the sentiments of people believe in Vedic/Sanatan or Hinduis. I demand the withdrawl of such naive and irresponsible statements immediately.

Also I request the modereator Shantanu to delete such irresponsible statement, (if not withdrawn with apologies) which make fun of Indian people faith.

Also I want to ask this person one simple question. Do you have the same intent to write such stuff on some Christian or Islamic blog denigrating their faith.

Once again I condemn such irresponsible statements in the STRONGEST WORDS and demand the withdrawal/deletion.

@ Arjun:
Good question.

Yes, I am in the process of developing a new religion, or rather a world-view based on my experiences of meditation, science and spiritual experiences of Hindu sages.

The greatest discovery of mankind was made by our Hindu sages when they declared in Upanishads: everything is divine; this divinity can be discovered right in this very life by humans through special efforts; and this realization of divinity is pure bliss. I am proud to be an inheritor of this wisdom.

But I want to give a scientific interpretation of this spiritual experience. In fact, I have found the latest scientific facts – Big Bang; evolution of galaxies, solar systems, planets, life & humans; behavior of sub atomic particles/energy; intelligence displayed by nature etc in complete harmony with these spiritual experiences.
Hinduism went wrong when it failed to understand scientifically those complex spiritual experiences happening in the brain. As a result, it ended up giving a false interpretation [soul-entangled-in-body-and-wanting-to-get-out].

I find that fulfillment of desires is necessary to be in a position to experience those great spiritual experiences.

I cannot go into details at this stage. But the world will come to know about my world-view some day.

@ Awadesh,

You still did not explain how a bunch of losers(Hindus) managed to garner a GDP of 22% equivalent of the GDP of entire Europe.

Repeating the same thing again and again without any evidence does not add to discourse.

@ Malavika:
You had written –
“India’s GDP as a percentage of world GDP
year 1700 1820 1890 1952

China 23.1 32.4 13.2 5.2
India 22.6 15.7 11.0 3.8
Europe 23.3 26.6 40.3 29.7”

Talking about GDP as a whole does not give the real picture, because China and India had higher population than that of Western Europe in 1600. The real standing of economies can be found only with reference to GDP per capita. Western European GDP per capita was higher than that of India by 1500 and the gap kept on increasing.

In this connection, I give an extract from Angus Madison’s book, ‘The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective’:

“Population was the main ingredient of GDP, and production was largely agricultural. Since China and India had four times the population of Western Europe in 1600, their GDP was, of course, larger. Even in 1913, when Britain was the world’s leading power, with cutting-edge technology and industrial production and trade many times larger than all of Asia’s, China could claim a greater total GDP.

In studying the preindustrial age, before big government, communications, transport, and broad-based taxation, aggregate GDP alone tells us little about national power or a country’s level of advancement. It doesn’t say anything about the dynamism of the society or its ability to make new discoveries and inventions. And it was mastery in these areas that gave a country new ways to create wealth and its government power.

We get a much clearer picture of the real standing of countries if we consider economic growth and GDP per capita. Western European GDP per capita was higher than that of both China and India by 1500; by 1600, it was 50 percent higher than China’s. From there, the gap kept growing. Between 1350 and 1950—six hundred years—GDP per capita remained roughly constant in China and India (hovering around $600 for China and $550 for India). In the same period, Western European GDP per capita went from $662 to $4,594, a 594 percent increase.*

European travelers in the seventeenth century routinely pointed out that Chinese and Indian living conditions were well below those in northwestern Europe…..”

@ Bhuvan: Thanks for providing the facts and explanation to the questions. According to me, this topic is not to debate, but to explore. Person can debate if he is expert in the field, and I believe nobody is expert on Hinduism, not even the Pundits.

Giri posed a very valid concern that “Hindutva” is identified as Communism.
SV reflected the current scenario of Hindus; uncertainty about Hindu identity.
Avadhesh is in the quest for new religion considering that the Hinduism (or any religion) failed to provide answers to conflicting theories.
Sanjeev is cautioning about the communist angle of Hindutva.
KK is demanding scientific evidence to accept the theology of Hinduism.
Bhuvan regards the word “Hinduism” undermines the essence of “Sanatana Dharma”.
Rest all resonated similar general thoughts.

Let us explore one by one. Firstly lets explore about the connection of Hiudnutva, Hinduism and Hindu identity.
In slide#5 It says; Hinduism is a manifestation of Dharma. “Hindutva” is Indian-ness.
In slide#6&7 it says; Hindutva is neither a faith nor a belief system. It is not about the Hindu identity or Hinduism.
Thus slide 5 is conflicting with slide 6&7.
Let be clear.
Dharma means “value systems”. Hinduism means Sanatana Dharma. Hindu means a person who imbibes Hinduism. Hindutva means advocacy of Hindu nationalism.
If this is clear to everybody then we can move ahead to explore further concepts as mentioned in the next slides.

|| namo bhArataM namo saMskR^itaM ||

*** COMMENT EDITED ***

@Awadesh :

…
Lord Buddha was a Vedic scholar and he wasn’t poor! Before you may say anything related to Buddha, atma and the Vedas, you need to read : http://www.scribd.com/doc/8745921/Buddhism-And-the-NoSoul-Doctrine-version-3
…
I wonder what is there to believe in Maya. It is not a “belief”, but a truth. I don’t think you understand the basic definition of Maya. Here : http://www.chakranews.com/actions-maya-and-the-ultimate-reality/1111
…
You need to understand the difference between shruti and smriti for brushing up on Hinduism.

4. For your basic information, those who do not believe in Hinduism or the Vedas are nastiks and not atheists. Vedas promote the spirit of questioning, science, mathematics, a philosophical enquiry into the nature and raising of one’s consciousness. Therefore astiks are the one who understand and agree with the Vedas after thorough thoughts (refer Isha and Kenopanishad). Nastiks are the ones who do not go by the vedas, and may end up as blind believers. Whereas Atheists are the ones who do not accept anything divine at all. For them the universe is mechanical and material make up which is based in theories and formulaes and that material science will eventually find everything. Thus atheists are no more than blind and superstitous believers in science who treat science religiously without much proper thought into it. They forget that the nature prime numbers, random numbers etc alone have no sequences or formulae and the universe comprises of infinity too which cannot be visualized!

@ Awadesh,

“We get a much clearer picture of the real standing of countries if we consider economic growth and GDP per capita. Western European GDP per capita was higher than that of both China and India by 1500; by 1600, it was 50 percent higher than China’s. From there, the gap kept growing. Between 1350 and 1950—six hundred years—GDP per capita remained roughly constant in China and India (hovering around $600 for China and $550 for India). In the same period, Western European GDP per capita went from $662 to $4,594, a 594 percent increase.*”

Complete nonsense. Europe’s GDP and Per Capita Income grew after 1500s because of Colonization, exploitation of Natives, including Indians, Genocide of Native, North Americans, South Americans and Native Australians. Add Slavery and slave labor to the list.

Excuse us Hindus for not going following the evil Colonizers model for getting wealthy.

A better picture will arise if you look at statistics before 1500.

@ I do not understand your rationale behind editing the comment about defining debate and meaning of exploring and other imp info in response to Aaryan observation.

If I were in your place as a moderator, I would have taken off Aaryan observation as well to balance it (not sure its a fair idea or not).

Secondly,in another scenario, I would not have bothered about these at all but rather would have edited Awadesh Kumar Singh highly offensive and objectionable statment in which he ridiculed about Hindu Gods. Could not understand your rationale in this either.

May be due to time constrict you did not get enough thoughts going to think rationally and priortise editing. Hopefully you will look back into this. Ta.

*** COMMENT EDITED ***

@Awadhesh : I read your points very carefully. Your arguments are indeed intellectual, but they are based on “half-knowledge”. As a result, you seemed to have ended distorting the true aspect of Sanatan Dharma.

While arguing, you have mentioned Gandhi’s quest for promoting Hinduism and “minimalising bodily desires”, but at the same time you divorced the bhramins from the kshatriyas, vaishyas and the shudras, that constitue the human body and the society in general.

Firstly, For your kind information, the so called mahatma Gandhi was much apathetic towards Hindus,
…
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/gandhimistake.html
http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_070120.htm

He also espoused much hatred towards the blacks in South Africa. Such kind of actions are surely not dharmic.

Secondly, you do understand that hinduism promotes “minimalistic need fulfillment”. But at the same time, it doesn’t promote “minimalistic knowledge” and “minimalistic defense”. On the contrary it promotes a detached way to gain knowledge. Hence your conception of “minimalistic desires” is based on half-knowledge.

Karma Yog, Gyaan Yog etc are full chapters of the Bhagvad-Geet. Please refer them. Detachment doesn’t mean to sacrifice your desires, but it is way to know the nature and your body objectively without getting controlled by the material senses. Desires can be material as well as spiritual. Bhagvad Geet indeed praises the thirst/desire for knowledge and spiritual activities, but at the same time teaches detachment from the material desires.

What exactly are material desires? Desire to eat, to have sex, to bath, to generate wealth. Are these bad or is the “attachment to the material desires” bad? What exactly is the “attachment to material desires”? This is nothing but the mind getting controlled by the material senses for the sense-gratification. Whereas, Gita teaches to control the material senses through the mind. This is achieved by detachment.

It is declared the sense are superior but more than the senses the mind is superior but more than the mind the intelligence is superior and more than the intelligence that which is superior is the individual consciousness. (BG 3.42)

Remember, world cannot continue without procreation. Even the sun, plants, animals and the nature works in its own dharmic and detached way procreating and contiuing the spiritual as well as the material momentum, The Purusha and the Prakriti! Sun sacrifices its rays for the benefit of the mankind and hence sun is divine or a “dev”. It doesn’t work on a “minimalistic design” but an “optimized design” for the working of the nature. Had it worked on a minimalistic design, earth would be frozen cold by now.

Now higher knowledge is also achieved by detachment. Higher knowledge can never be achieved if one doesn’t have a will or a desire to know it. ..Today you’ll see many science students addicted to the Big-bang and the evolution theory which have been debunked again and again. Such students cannot see objectively but are rather “emotional” about one aspect of scientific thinking and thus treat science religiously. To know science one needs to rise from that attachment and gain overall knowledge and hence a desire to do the same.

This detached way of gaining supreme knowledge is the way of a Bhrahmin and to protect the society intellectually. Similarly, there exist detached way to perfect the warriorship. It is the way of the Kshatriyas to optimize the body’s physical strength and at the same time not get “carried away or attached” to that power. It is an optimization of physical strength and not maximation, because if you understand the warrioriship, then there need to be a balance between the body’s flexibility and raw power or strength. More power often takes a toll on flexibility, reflexes and speed. Similarly, there exists the detached way to generate wealth without getting attached by it. The three classes above are indeed talented one way or the other. The last class i.e shudras i.e one which do not posses enough intellect and lack talent by their own nature serve the society.

Thus the generation of wealth, body’s physical optimization (increasing of strength and speed,reflexes etc), gaining of supreme knowledge, raising of one’s consciousness to the supreme consciousness should not be confused with material pleasure or “attachment”. But just like science and nuclear weapons can be used for both peaceful and destructive purposes, similarly the knowledge for wealth generation and bodily strength etc can also be used to serve the society or for materialistic sense-gratification. The difference is that the former relates to detachment and the latter to attachment. That difference is very big!

This change of mental state corresponding to detachment or attachment is what changes the complete picture where the knowledge for material, physical or spiritual expansion are just the tools which are to be sharpened. When detachment is there, these are sharpened better and work for humanity. If attachment is there, the expansion stops and the tools exist for one’s own pleasure or sense-gratification. Hence, the desire to gain mental, physical or material knowledge are not harmful or bad by themselves. But it is the attachment which is bad which is devoid of the spiritual element and the objectvity. Thus there has to be a spititual element underlying any sort of activity be it mental, physical or material.

Because of such objectivity and spiritual knowledge underlying all its activities, India is renowned for Yoga, kamasutra, kalarapayattu etc. Again, Kamasutra is a form of knowledge and sex itself is natural. One shouldn’t get attached to it.

*** COMMENT EDITED ***
@Awadesh :

Your reply to Malvika and Arjun is actually full of generalisations and absurd logic as well. If you think that Hinduism is irrelevant for “the pursuit of wealth”, then similarly “religion” is not relevant for the science and technology. But for your information, many of the western scientists were influenced by the core Hindu philosophies. Zero was invented by India and pythagoras is given in sulbha sutras long before pythagoras invented it. You can read the accounts of the famous scientists themselves to see their souls were much Hindu.

Now here are the faulty generalizations you made —
************
• Some follow it very sincerely (Sadhus, Sanyasins, full time Sadhakas – they are always poor).
• Some approve Hinduism in principle and want to follow it, but are compelled by physical needs of self and family to earn more wealth. Their whole life is spent balancing between these two opposite tendencies – need to earn more wealth and Hindu teaching of being contented. They are typical middle class guys. They keep on praying to god for removal of poverty and also keep on believing that this world is maya-moha ka bandhan!
• Some try to ignore the teachings of Hinduism and follow their ambition and worldly desires. They become well off through their own efforts. But occasionally they feel guilty about what they are doing – so they start giving charities and attending religious sermons, particularly in their old age.
• Some do not believe in the teachings of Hinduism at all. They are atheists or agnostics. They are generally ambitious and go all-out to get what they want. They are successful and wealthy. They never pray.
************
1. Your conception of Hinduism seems to be outsourced from movies and videos. Ramdev, Sri Sri, Sathya Sai weren’t poor. It depends how you define the term poor. If you think, begging is called “poor”, then your argument is fully flawed for even Dronacharya and Kripacharya did not beg. If you are comparing it with the rich, then your analysis is relative for those who can meet their daily needs are again not poor and hence most of the Sadhus, Sanyasin and full time Sadhaks can meet their daily needs. And lastly, like I stated, Ramdev sleeps on the floor and has a fan following of millions. He doesn’t use the money for his own personal benefits,a wear Armani suit, redtape shoes, Issey Miyake etc or other fancies but works for the welfare of the people. People like Ramdev and Sathya Sai had opened free drinking facilities and medical care centres. Therefore you need to revamp your generlization which stands factually and logically flawed.

Lord Buddha was a Vedic scholar and he wasn’t poor! Before you may say anything related to Buddha, atma and the Vedas, you need to read : http://www.scribd.com/doc/8745921/Buddhism-And-the-NoSoul-Doctrine-version-3

2. This argument of yours, no offence is utterly naive. There are many middle class people who strive on practicality without praying. They know their ways and have the knowledge of Gita embedded in their hearts and strive for perfection!

I wonder what is there to believe in Maya. It is not a “belief”, but a truth. I don’t think you understand the basic definition of Maya. Here : http://www.chakranews.com/actions-maya-and-the-ultimate-reality/1111

3. Again your argument is sourced from a childish disneyland. The knowledge of the veda and upanishads is embedded in everyone hearts which can be realized by meditation and Yoga alone without reading the Vedas. So even if one ignores the teaching of Hinduism, the highest conception is still the Bhrama which is covered by the effects of Maya. FYI, Bhrama is not a white bearded human shaped guy as you see in movies. It is a concept which encompasses the reality and human existence. ..
You need to understand the difference between shruti and smriti for brushing up on Hinduism.

4. For your basic information, those who do not believe in Hinduism or the Vedas are nastiks and not atheists. Vedas promote the spirit of questioning, science, mathematics, a philosophical enquiry into the nature and raising of one’s consciousness. Therefore astiks are the one who understand and agree with the Vedas after thorough thoughts (refer Isha and Kenopanishad). Nastiks are the ones who do not go by the vedas, and may end up as blind believers. Whereas Atheists are the ones who do not accept anything divine at all. …

You need to understand more on the concept of theism : http://www.chakranews.com/ultimate-reality-and-monotheism/1187

*********
Hinduism, by condemning desires, destroyed the very motive of living beyond survival. That is why India did not develop means of comfort and luxury. All technological inventions were made during the last 300 years in the West. So India was bound to remain poor.
*********
Hinduism only destroys the “attachment” to material desires as I stated before. Sex, eating, drinking water, bathing are the basic material desires without which the world and human life cannot exist. Your conceptions are flawed to the core. Further, Hinduism promotes the highest desire for spiritual knowledge and raising one’s own consciousness to unite with the ultimate consciousness as stated in Bhagvada-geet throughout.

*************
As to worshipping Goddess Laxmi etc., the poorer a society, the more it values God, because for the poor, God is the only hope. When it does not work, people start blaming themselves – that they may not be worshipping God properly; that they must have committed some sin; that God is punishing them for their past karma etc. Worse, they also start changing gods! They think perhaps they were worshipping wrong god, they should worship some other god. Hindu society, being one of the poorest and weakest, therefore fabricated maximum number of gods. Hindus allocated different departments even among gods – one for wealth (Laxmi), another for knowledge (Saraswati), another for removing obstacles (Ganesh), another in charge of water (Varuna), another for killing demons (Ram, Krishna, Durga, Shiva) etc.
*************
Your understanding of even the basic Hindu concepts is absurd. To enlighten would be to start from scratch. Worship in Hindu terminology is to rever and respect. Hindus do not worship Sun which is personfied as Surya-Dev because (as per your childish logic) India is poor in sunlight. Similarly, Varuna and Agni-dev are not worshipped because (as per your logic) India is poor in air or fire.

Every element in the universe be it spiritual or material and promotes human existence is divine in Hinduism. This includes Surya-dev, Agni-dev, Vayu-dev, laxmi (goddess or personificaton of wealth), saraswati (goddess or personification of knowledge). Further, your futile argument is flawed as per your earlier logic also as India was a golden bird. Therefore, even your different flawed logics are contradictory in nature.

…Gita clearly tells that the ultimate reality is formless, unmanifested, impersonal. Do read : http://www.chakranews.com/the-shape-of-the-ultimate-reality/1086
…
Every heard of Jizziya, the Kohinoor diamond. Your argument resemble that of the leftists and JNU students who often seem to have a distorted view of Hinduism and Indian history.

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/india-denial.html
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Islamic_Onslaught2.htm

No offence, but I never found a more distorted view of Hinduism than this.

@ Shantanu. I don’t think one need to apply any science (or rocket science) to establish form the Awadesh kumar Singh statement denigrating and ridiculing Hindu Gods as quoted in my comment no. 54. You can not afford to be selective and ignore the things which you can’t even ignore with closed eyes. Let’s not delude the people with some semantics here.

Secondly, when you are saying “hold off” then why are you allowing yourself to trickle down your views befor the actual consolidation.

Why people should continue with this topic on their blogs, when the actual topic is started on this blog? What if someone do not have his/her own blog. Can’t he/she express his views?

These are the hard questions probably you never have come across before but you need to answer these all if you are running a responsible blog. It’s a double edged sword, no doubt about that.

Please do not trickle with one liner or so. I am happy to wait. This is not the end of the world. Lastly, no hard feelings here. I am just debating ferociously here with lot of conviction (and so is everyone barring few) and not leaving the opportunity in calling spade a spade. Awaiting for your consolidation. Ta.

Dear All: Thanks for the comments…I finally got some time today to go through them. Below are my responses…

@Jay: Thanks Jay. Re. How does one reconcile Sawarkar’s and Golwalkar’s views on Hindutva with your definition? What will be the points of convergence and divergence?, I think this will have to wait until I have properly read and understood their view(s) of Hindutva.
As for Elst, I think this attempt is probably the first step in addressing his criticism that, “Hindutva is a fairly crude ideology, borrowing heavily from European nationalisms with their emphasis on homogeneity. ”

@Bhagwad: Do you mean to say that “Hindutva” has to be about “Hindu Identity” and nothing else?

@@Awadhesh: I beg to differ with you on the following statement: So minimization of needs/desires advocated by Hinduism is a disastrous concept and is one of the main reasons why India has been a poor and weak country.
Not as simple as that..(besides I am not sure the interpretation of minimization of needs is correct either) But let me revisit this point later (although it has been addressed by some of the commentators)
And I hope you realise that the “Aryan Invasion Theory2 has now been rejected even by its most ardent supporters.

@Sanjeev: Good point about “in politics perception is everything.
And yes, you are right that this is prone to mis-interpretation (which is why I had parenthetically referred to it in on e of my tweets as a foolhardy(?) attempt!) ..
No doubt the the quest to “discover a more universal language” will continue

@Bhuvan: Your suggestion of using the term “Sanatan”instead of “Hindutva” is thought-provoking. I will reflect on that..

@Awadhesh, re the points in your comment #36, I do believe that you are mixing up Buddhist teachings with “Hindu” thought…I will avoid commenting on this for now but I am not sure you are on firm ground.
I found these lines intriguing. Can you please cite references to original texts or translations that support this interpretations?
Though indulgence in desires and sense-gratification is condemned by Hinduism, it is also accepted by Hinduism that forcing a person to abandon worldly pursuits would not work. So Hinduism says: let people pursue their worldly pursuits, suffer, be reborn and so on – one day they would realize the futility of all their efforts and then only they will start working towards Moksha.
From this acknowledgement of reality by Hinduism, it follows that the economic system should be such that it gives maximum freedom to pursue one’s desires. So we have come to a free market economy model.
So, we may logically derive classical liberalism from Hinduism.

@Aaryan Re. your comment at #62, pl read the slides carefully. Slide 5 says, “Hindutva is a manifestation of Dharma” (not Hinduism) so I am not sure where the conflict is .

@Prashant: Thanks for the various links in your comments..I hope to go through them later this week/
***
Can I once again request everyone to focus their comments on the points made in the slides (to the extent possible)?