A Review of The Jedi in the Lotus

Sunday, April 15th, 2012 | Author:

There is something magic, something mesmerising, about the Star Wars saga. Many young viewers, after having seen the films, have a desire to experience some of the adventure that the heroes in Star Wars experience, and imbibe the chivalrous ideals exhibited by them. In other words, they desire to become like the Jedi knights in the films. Painfully aware that this is not possible (due not least to the absence of wookies, light sabres and star fleets in our part of the galaxy) they disappointedly get on with their lives in the ‘real world’, which seems grey and shallow by comparison to the Star Wars universe. However, a new book was recently published by Arktos Media about the Jedi religion and culture, which, according to the book, are based to a large extent on the Vedas, particularly on the kshatriya way of life and the stories of the रामायण Ramayana and महाभारत Mahabharata. The book I am referring to is The Jedi in the Lotus by Steven Rosen. In this article I will, on the basis of Rosen’s book, present some themes in the Star Wars films which I found inspiring and which could, perhaps with a little help from their source – the Vedic tradition –, be applied in the lives of idealistic Westerners like the readers of Aryavarta.

Rosen's new book

Before discussing how one can, in spirit, adopt some of the ‘ways of the Jedi’ I would like to start with a disclaimer. With the word ‘Jedi’ we generally associate a person with a hood, light sabre and the ability to levitate objects. There have been cases of such ‘Jedi knights’ in the UK – one of whom was requested to leave a supermarket because he refused to remove his hood, another facing the same problem at a job centre. Apart from the question of what business a Jedi has in a super market or a job centre I would like to emphasise that it is not this form of ‘Jediism’ I am going to discuss in this article. Another example of phenomena that this article will not be concerned with is modern ‘Jedi churches’, such as the Canadian ‘Temple of the Jedi Order‘ whose ‘Jedi Creed’ reads:

 

“I Believe in The Living Force Of Creation;

I am a Jedi, an instrument of peace;

Where there is hatred I shall bring love;

Where there is injury, pardon;

Where there is doubt, faith;

Where there is despair, hope;

Where there is darkness, light;

And where there is sadness, joy.

 

I am a Jedi.

I shall never seek so much to be consoled as to console;

To be understood as to understand;

To be loved as to love;

For it is in giving that we receive;

In pardoning that we are pardoned;

And in dying that we are born to eternal life.

 

The Living Force Of Creation is always with me; I am a Jedi.”

 

Whilst this credo is deeply profound (and hence quoted it in its entirety) – perhaps even revealed to the Council of the Temple of the Jedi Order by the hidden workings of the Force itself – this article should not in any way be misunderstood to advocate such ‘Jediism’ (nor, for that matter, any other ‘Jediism’).

Stormtroopers marching towards Washington D.C. Calling upon all Jedis to defend our civil liberties.

 

 

Adventure, heroism, idealism

One of the themes Rosen considers in his book is heroism. In Part IV of Star Wars, the first part of the original trilogy, Luke is torn between going with Obi-wan Kannobi to save Princess Leia (the adventurous, heroic path) and staying behind to help his uncle at his “moisture farm” (monotonous day-to-day life). It turns out Luke is left with no choice. Imperial “storm-troopers” raid the farm and kill Luke’s uncle and aunt. He therefore decides to go with Kannobi to try to save the princess. In so doing he not only experiences great adventure – he comes to live a truly meaningful, idealistic life; he gains realised metaphysical knowledge of the Force; and ends up saving the whole universe from an evil, despotic emperor.

The film is a classic.

Apart from this being part of a good story, it prompts us to introspect and ask ourselves: are our lives truly meaningful? In other words, are we living lives of conformity to the modern world, doing whatever everyone else is doing – “girlfriend”, “for the time being permanent life partner” or current wife, career, mortgage, one or two children, flat-screen television, and big car – or are our lives dedicated to a struggle for a higher ideal, something which is our primary focus in life, and which we are willing prioritise over everything else?

 

This is a question I myself have struggled with for some time. I am still not sure what the exact solution to this dilemma is – and perhaps it’s different for different people –, but I am quite sure that I will not live a life of conformity only to bitterly regret having done so at the time of death.

 

 

Being guided by the Force

Rosen identifies the Force with two phenomena in Vedic philosophy: the Force in its impersonal aspect is identified with योगमाया Yogamaya (the light side) and महामाया Mahamaya (the dark side), and in its personal aspect as परमात्मा Paramatma (the ‘Super-soul’). The dark side of the Force is characterised by anger, greed, lust for power, and, at a deeper level, attachment to sense objects. We see this in Part III, where Anakin Skywalker (soon to become Darth Vader) consults Yoda about his fear of losing Padmé during childbirth. Yoda tells him that the cause of his anxiety is attachment to (love for?) Padmé. Anakin suffers from a fear of losing what he is attached to. This anxiety – along with his arrogance, blind ambition, and lust for power and recognition – eventually result in his ‘turning to the dark side’. He becomes the servant of the emperor and helps him bring most of the galaxy under the emperor’s control.

Darth Vader

The lesson here is to avoid the ‘dark side’ and instead live in accordance with the the ‘light side’. How is this done? It cannot be learned simply by watching Star Wars. It requires deep introspection and strict spiritual discipline under the guidance of a bona fide spiritual master. Yogamaya – the ‘light side’ – is characterised by detachment, self-discipline, clarity of mind, compassion and philosophical understanding. By cultivating the ‘light side’ one may benefit greatly. The storms of life in this world will not affect one as much and ultimately detachment leads to inner peace and joy. Compassion gives one the ability to serve a higher cause without one’s ego getting in the way – something a lot of mini-Führers in the nationalist milieu could learn from.

 

Der Führer

Another aspect to this is taking guidance from the Paramatma. Paramatma means Vishnu, God. He resides in His fullness in every atom, binding the universe together, and within the heart of each living being. He is the cause of phenomena like inspiration, and He gives us, at times, intuitive knowledge of the right course of action to take. However, Rosen points out that there is a danger in ‘searching your feelings’ and listening to your heart in that sometimes that voice is not the voice of the heart-of-hearts (Paramatma) but that of the restless, hankering mind.

 

Without the help of a bona fide tradition we cannot imbibe the ‘light side’. And without the ‘light side’ we are vulnerable to become victims of the ‘dark side’ – of passion, attachment, and desire for self-promotion. These make us deeply unhappy because our desires are bound to be frustrated and we are all destined to be separated (at the time of death or sooner) from the objects and persons we are attached to. We need spiritual support to make our lives meaningful, to give us direction and to engage us in selfless service to the higher cause.

 

 

The culture of the क्षत्रियाः kshatriyas

The Jedis – although perhaps less so than the kshatriyas – are depicted as fearless, determined, idealistic and serious. They are not allowed to marry, instead practicing ब्रह्मचार्य brahmacharya (celibacy); they are taught from a young age by their गुरवः gurus (masters), whom they must obey; and they do not indulge in frivolous activities like parties, unnecessary violence,  and party democracy (nor, for that matter, food shopping and salaried employment).

 

I admit that the practice of celibacy can be difficult. For those who are not capable the very respectable institution of marriage is available.

The interesting thing here is that a lot of so-called revolutionaries today consider themselves to be ‘kshatriyas’, or something of the sort, identifying themselves with the ancient Germans, or whatever, while not at all living like the ideal kshatriya is supposed to. Instead, they have illegitimate connections with women – sometimes resulting in illegitimate offspring, which by the way the Bhagavadgita describes as “unwanted population” –; they consider themselves totally independent – perhaps even more so than the modern shudra – refusing to submit to any authority; and, apart from going to modern ‘parties’, rock concerts and the like, live a very ‘ordinary’ modern life, which in this abominable age implies American culture, food, slang, mannerisms and the rest.

 

No one has a right to call himself a right-wing revolutionary until he submits to a higher spiritual authority, exhibits self-control and ceases to indulge in the culture of the shudras. I am not saying that everyone reading this should become an ascetic warrior-monk, but at least those who are serious should marry, surrender to a spiritual authority and imbibe, to the extent possible, real kshatriya culture. (I will write a separate article on this.)

 

Right wing revolutionaries should not try to change things through modern politics.

 

Conclusion – should you buy the book?

I think Rosen’s book is worth reading by anyone interested in Star Wars as well as anyone interested in the Vedas – although there are much better books on the latter subject, particularly Bhagavadgita As It Is.

 

Whilst the book enables you to draw some ‘lessons’ from the Star Wars films, which were perhaps not meant to be purely entertainment, it suffers from being, at times, overly academic. Rosen seeks to show that Star Wars was influenced largely by the Vedic literature. That’s all good and well, but – I am tempted to respectfully ask – so what? It would have been better, in my opinion, if Rosen had taken it upon himself to lead today’s ‘Jedis’ out of the job centres, and out of the Temple of the Jedi Order, and shown them the real thing.

 

The Real Thing

Nonetheless, it’s definitely a good read.

 

Category: Uncategorized  | 29 Comments

Professional Sisyphus

Sunday, September 11th, 2011 | Author:

The Executive has called a meeting. All the Managers take their hard-bound Franklin-Covey diaries under their arms and, with dignified looks on their faces, walk together towards the Executive’s room in a professional manner.

The Executive is sitting on his chair. He is irritated. He has seen the latest numbers. Gesticulating his arms he explains his ideas, lists his priorities and listens to inputs from the subordinates. One of them is trying to reason with the Executive. The executive is sitting with one of his feet on his knee and practising active listening. The Executive rubs his fingers against his chin as he concentrates intently. The subordinate is trying to ‘be the solution’. But it’s not working. The Executive looks down while he massages his forehead with the tips of his fingers. He pops a de-stressing pill into his mouth and swallows it with oxidised Aqua Vitæ mineral water. The subordinates are frantically writing down action points in their diaries. One of them is minuting the meeting.

The Corporate Meeting

Isn't it just revolting?

I sit opposite the Executive’s glass office in my little cubicle. I see the drama unfolding inside. I look to my right. My line manager is on the phone with an important stake-holder, holding his Cisco IP phone against his shoulder while using his hands to type an email and juggle priorities. He hangs up the phone. He breathes deeply – rapidly inhaling and exhaling – while typing up an email before going to his next meeting with a sense of purpose. I frown, open my journal and continue my daily treatise on life in the corporate world. I do this to stay sane.

Impersonal Meeting

The impersonal nature of corporate culture

One of my team mates comes up to me. She is wearing trousers, sandals, and one of those shirts for women. She says “hi, how are you?” I say “fine, how are you?” She says “fine”. Conversation ends.

I start pondering what I hate about this place the most: is it its dehumanised impersonalism, its hollow jargon or just the fact that every interaction is a hypercritical drama? Is it the fact that nothing this company does, nor its goals, does the least bit inspire me, or is it just the meaninglessness of it all? I think it’s probably the lack of inspiring ideological aims.

The Corporate Hero. All glories to him (and her).

My line manager comes back with a smile on his face. His meeting went well. His 60-hour weeks have paid off. The Company has – through its alter ego in the form of its executives – expressed its pleasure with him. I close my journal, look at my work, and begin wondering whether there is any way of laying it off for tomorrow. I kill time. The time approaches 5.00 p.m.. I put my things into my bag. The time is exactly 5.00 p.m.. I get up and run!

I come in the next day, as late as I can without being shouted at. I spend an hour surfing the internet, killing time, complaining to my colleagues about my life. The girl from yesterday comes over. Today she’s also wearing trousers specifically designed to reveal the shape of her gluteus maximus, sandals and one of those corporate shirts for women. She smiles in that formal-professional way and says something about how wonderful the firm is. She is (i) naive, (ii) stupid, (iii) unaware that she is being exploited, and, worst of all, (iv) behaving in the way she thinks she is supposed to behave in a professional environment because she is a lemming and never questioned whether one should behave like that. I tell her politely that I am busy with my work. She goes back to her seat and continues demonstrating her commitment to the firm. I start rolling my rock up the hill.

Team Stupid

Corporate lemmings.

An hour into the ordeal my boss calls me to his desk. He asks me about the work tracker, an excel sheet that tracks whether we have been working hard enough. Because he is frustrated with his life and angry that I left on time yesterday (instead of showing my commitment to the firm) he has found some inconsequential non-issue in the tracker to whine about. I tell him the truth: “Whether I fill it in as I have or as you now (and not previously) say I should it won’t matter a fig because it will give you the same information”. Exhibition of common sense gets him even more irritable. “Just do as I say”. “Yes your worshipfulness”, I think to myself, and go back to my desk to continue pushing my rock, taking regular intervals to stare out the window (I am very fortunate to actually sit close to one).

My boss takes me into a meeting room. He is unhappy that I have been leaving on time regularly for the past couple of days. What would happen if others started doing the same? Then the company would not get the maximum out of the fraction of its revenues it was mercifully throwing at us. We can’t have that. Therefore I shall henceforth be doing some extra work for some other team that has nothing to do with my job. He grins at his victory.  Speechless, I ponder my course of action in response to his institutionalised assholeism. Should I refuse, pick up the chair and throw it at him with all my might, complain to higher management which will always take his side, throw my self out of the window (the office is on the 10th floor), or just go along with it? I get up and leave the room without a word. Shortly thereafter, fuming with anger and disgust, I tell him I don’t feel well, go home and let some other idiot push my rock for the day.

Based on a true story.

* * *

What’s the moral of the story? How does a traditionally-minded person react to a working culture like this? Personally, I resigned and am currently serving my notice period. I’ll be a free man by October. What should you do? Well, the basic options are:

1. Get a government job. Although the ideas underpinning modern states are far from shastric (or traditional), it is in my experience still much more inspiring to work in a government department where you serve the community and administer the powers of the state than to work for a profit-maximising venture.

Government jobs are more relaxed

An alternative to this is to re-qualify and work for a small, local, family-held firm. They are usually much less influenced by American corporate culture than the big ones are.

2. Start your own business. This requires a lot of focus and discipline, and is  not something everyone can do. However, if you belong to the category of people who can pull it off, then this is the best option for you.

3. Live off government benefits. This can only be done in a so-called welfare state. Personally I would find it degrading, but I know some people who do it and spend their time on more meaningful activities than work. God bless them.

Not everyone can stomach it.

4. Endure until you have enough money to stop working, then become a full time revolutionary. Get the most high-paying job you can find. Don’t take jobs which are grossly unethical (such as working for a tobacco company or a fast-food chain). Work hard, but don’t work more than you have to. Pray for the ability to forgive your corporate bosses for the trauma they inflict upon you in the process.

Think different.

Whichever option you go for take up traditional spirituality. I would suggest Krishna bhakti, or devotional service to Krishna. Chant the holy names daily. Read the scriptures. This will give you a sense of detachment from the world and increase your bull-shit tolerance levels.

The next step is to save up all your money, except such as you absolutely need to spend on life’s necessities. Don’t drink (even out of frustration), don’t eat meat, don’t buy unnecessary gadgets, live frugally. Invest your money, but be careful with stocks. You never know when the Wall Street bankers will intentionally or recklessly screw the system for their own gain as they did in 2008.

Once you have a large amount of money become a full-time revolutionary. Enjoy the fact that your life has meaning. Take power. Order the public execution of all corporate bosses and institute an agrarian society. Ban all international corporations. Rule supreme.

Krishna kills a miscreant with his sudarhana chakra.

Category: Uncategorized  | 24 Comments

Race, Identity and the Soul

Saturday, May 21st, 2011 | Author:

Most members of the ‘scene’ would probably describe themselves as ‘revolutionary’, ‘nationalist’, ‘patriot’ and so forth. They consider the survival of their people (and in some cases also culture), which they regard as being under threat from mass-immigration and the degeneracy of modern anti-culture, to be the most important aspect of their ‘struggle’. What would the world be like without their particular people and culture? These revolutionaries have their differences – some say the Jews are the cause of their misfortune, others consider the Muslims to be so; some have a so-called scientific outlook on life, others identify themselves as ‘Christians’ or ‘Odinists’. But the concern that unites them, the thing they all consider to be of prime importance, is the ‘struggle’ for biological (racial) survival.

This paradigm, or view of life, simply lacks substance. Most of its proponents have not taken the time to consider fundamental questions like “who am I?” and “why have I come into this world?” very seriously; those who have, have done so not with the aim of discovering the fundamental reality or truth underlying all things, but with the desire to justify or put a philosophical gloss on their racial views. Thus, certain persons have postulated semi-metaphysical concepts like the ‘race soul’ that somehow just exists, but have not had adequate pity upon the non-adept like ourselves, who don’t just instinctively know what such persons are talking about, to explain the concept in more detail, including what this racial soul is, what it does, how it came into being, and how it may be discovered. Another, perhaps more tenable, example is William Pierce’s, who claims that the white race’s raison d’être is to consciously evolve into a kind of faustian super race. Why? For the sake of greatness. While this is a little bit more refined than the race soul idea it still lacks substance because at the end of the day (i) any human society, no matter how materially advanced, will always have sense-gratification as its underlying purpose, and (ii) the whole theory about the Creator and the conscious evolution of the white race is nothing more than a creation of Pierce’s mind, somewhat inspired by a couple of Western writers, but certainly not something that any a person without ‘racial feelings’ (or some other reason to oppose immigration) would accept as objective truth, simply on faith. In other words, the semi-metaphysical theories put forward by racialists exist simply because the people who make them would like them to be true, not because they are. And in case anyone should protest that a futuristic version of 1950s American society (which is a somewhat simplified description of what Pierce wanted) wouldn’t be centered on sense-gratification, I would like to point out that Pierce was not puritan in his thinking: he didn’t think there was anything wrong in e.g. premarital sex. However, sense-gratification is not necessarily so gross. Desiring a nice job, a good position in society, a big house, a beautiful wife, and pure-bred high IQ white children also comes within the ambit of sense-gratification. These are all material desires. So is the desire for one’s race to become the apex of the evolutionary process (“I am part of the greatest race ever” – quite literally).

William Pierce with cat

For the avoidance of doubt there is nothing wrong from the Vedic point of view with having some sense-gratification. The Vedic shastras (scriptures) prescribe what sense-gratification is sanction, and what is forbidden. However, even as we are practical and get on with our lives in this world we should have no illusions as to what are material desires to satisfy the senses or the mind, and what are spiritual desires to satisfy the Supreme Personality of Godhead – what is the Truth revealed by God or His representatives, and what is “truth” concocted by a man with an agenda.

* * *

Now, coming back to the matter at hand, let us consider the most fundamental aspect of our being: consciousness. Every living entity has consciousness. We all experience things, continuously. Our experiences are ‘inner’ and ‘outer’. ‘Within’ we perceive emotions, thoughts, ideas; and ‘out there’ we see, hear, smell, taste and touch different phenomena such as our friends and belongings.

But who experiences, perceives, feels, thinks, sees, hears, and so forth?

The answer is: the actual person (आत्मा aatma). The actual self, the conscious being, is different from the body. This can be understood easily by anyone with a bit of introspection. Srila Prabhupada writes in his commentary to verse 2.17 of his Bhagavad-gita As It Is: “This verse clearly explains the real nature of the soul, which is spread all over the body. Anyone can understand what is spread all over the body: it is consciousness … each and every body is the embodiment of an individual soul, and the symptom of the soul’s presence is perceived as individual consciousness”. The self is also different from his thoughts, memories, feelings, and ideas. The self simply perceives them. One way of realizing this fact is by thinking back on one’s childhood. When you were a toddler you were the same person as you are now. Yet your body, as well as your thoughts, your desires, and your outlook on life, is completely different now from what they were then. The constant is the ‘experiencer’, and the ‘experiencer’ is known by consciousness. That is the real self, not the body or the mind. (Applying the same reasoning, there is no reason to assume that the conscious self came into existence concomitantly with the body, and that it will cease to exist when the body perishes. To the contrary, it seems more reasonable to think otherwise.)

If you, the ‘experiencer’, are different from your body and mind then that has some major implications on how you should view the world. One of them is that your identity is different from the identity of the body. You have no reason to think that you are actually Swedish, Russian or anything else. Actually you are not. The body is. Why, then, do you spend so much of your time and energy fighting for something which is not your real self? Why fight for the survival of a bundle of genes just because you happen to be associated with it for a couple of decades?

Germanic man

Lest I upset my readers unnecessarily by my blatant disregard for their Brekeran devotion, I would like to clarify that I am not saying that race is completely irrelevant, that we are all God’s children, that people from all nations should simply come together, hold hands and dance in a circle, or any such thing. I would also like to concede that aesthetically the Nordic race has a lot of merit. The point I am seeking to make is simply that race – being a purely material phenomenon – is peripheral; it is subordinate to higher things, such as धर्म dharma (the culture and religion of the Aryans), मोक्ष moksha (liberation from the circle of birth and death), and भक्ति bhakti (the re-establishment of one’s intimate relationship with Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead – the highest stage of self-realisation). A society based on the principles of dharma and connected to the Divine through the spiritual power of bhakti is always superior, regardless of its racial composition, to a white society based on sense-gratification, no matter how subtle. Srimad Bhagavatam 10.84.13 demonstrates this very nicely:

“A human being who identifies this body made of three elements with his self, who considers the by-products of the body to be his kinsmen, who considers the land of birth worshipable, and who goes to the place of pilgrimage simply to take a bath rather than meet men of transcendental knowledge there, is to be considered like an ass or a cow.”

There does not seem to have been much patriotic sentiment in the ancient Aryans.

Krishna with His friends

* * *

What, then, would I suggest you do other than fighting for the survival of the white race and a future for white children? Every person who considers himself to be an idealist should adopt the ways, customs and spirituality of the Vedic Aryans in their pure form, as passed down by the sacred Vaishnava परम्परा parampara. Only through genuine spiritual advancement can you raise above the material, sense-gratificatory level and the politics power-hungry, self-deluded hypocrites within the ‘scene’, set a higher example, and inspire people to adopt a higher culture. Only once higher religion, philosophy and culture are established can we even begin thinking of a revival of the West. Such a revival will never happen under the aegis of the present world-view, which is the natural result of confusing the body with the self.

Category: Posts by Dharma, Posts in English  | 19 Comments

Stri-dharma — the Culture of Vedic Women

Friday, August 13th, 2010 | Author:
A question has been raised concerning the status of women in Vedic society. Sriman Kalki was planning to write an article on it, but since he’s caught up in other matters I will write a on it. I will give a brief explanation of स्त्रीधर्म stri-dharma – the culture and religion of Vedic women –, discuss some cultural abuse-of-power-prevention mechanisms and compare the Vedic paradigm with the modern one. I think I can safely say that this article will not appeal to feminists.


Traditional Vedic woman in sari

The Characteristics of Vedic Women
The qualities of Vedic ladies are exemplified in the story of Kardama Muni in third canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, who was to marry the daughter of Svayambhuva Manu, Devahuti:
विश्रम्भेणात्मशौचेन गौरवेण दमेन च ।
शुश्रूषया सौहृदेन वाचा मधुरया च भौः ।। २ ।।
viśrambheṇātma-śaucena gauraveṇa damena ca |
śuśrūṣayā sauhṛdena vācā madhurayā ca bhoḥ ||
TRANSLATION
O Vidura, Devahuti served her husband with intimacy and great respect, with control of the senses, with love and with sweet words.
PURPORT
Here two words are very significant. Devahuti served her husband in two ways, visrambhena and gauravena. These are two important processes in serving the husband or the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Visrambhena means “with intimacy,” and gauravena means “with great reverence.” The husband is a very intimate friend; therefore, the wife must render service just like an intimate friend, and at the same time she must understand that the husband is superior in position, and thus she must offer him all respect. … The natural instinct is that the husband wants to post himself as superior to the wife, and this must be observed. Even if there is some wrong on the part of the husband, the wife must tolerate it, and thus there will be no misunderstanding between husband and wife. Visrambhena means “with intimacy,” but it must not be familiarity that breeds contempt. According to the Vedic civilization, a wife cannot call her husband by name. In the present civilization the wife calls her husband by name, but in Hindu civilization she does not. … Damena ca [means that] a wife has to learn to control herself even if there is a misunderstanding. Sauhrdena vaca madhuraya means always desiring good for the husband and speaking to him with sweet words.  (SB 3.23.2)
The wife must be humble towards the husband and treat him (quite literally) as a representative of God. This is corroborated by the Manusamhita (5.154): “Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure (elsewhere), or devoid of good qualities, (yet) a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife.” To show respect to the husband, the wife never addresses him by name. Instead she uses words like पतिदेव pati-deva (‘husband-god’), प्रभु prabhu (‘my lord’), आर्य arya (‘your highness’) or स्वामी swami (‘master’, ‘proprietor’).
She is also the deer friend of the husband. After a long day at work he returns to a warm, clean home, is greeted with sweet words (the Kama-sutra even prescribes a foot-bath) and served a freshly cooked (not in the micro wave) meal.
Because the woman takes a subordinate position the relationship functions well. Even though the husband ultimately has the right to make all family-related decisions he has a duty to consult the wife and give fair consideration to her view. This leaves little scope for quarrel.


Vedic women cover their hair with a thin cloth to express modesty, shyness and piety.

Other essential qualities are chastity and excellent cooking skills. One of the reasons Kardama Muni accepted Devahuti was that “she was a virgin girl” (3.22.15, purport). Vedic ladies do not interact with men other than their husbands and close family members. Particularly, they do not go anywhere alone, are never alone with any man in a room of their house and do not have close friendships with men. This is to ensure that no one can question their chastity and avoid intimate feelings developing towards other men. Whilst this may sound a bit harsh to a modern person, the result of this separation was that adultery by women was practically unheard of in India in pre-modern times.
As to cooking, Vedic girls were traditionally taught cooking from a young age. This was somehow considered more useful than sending them to do a Harvard MBA or for training as a commercial pilot of special forces commando. In Vedic culture food is almost sacred. It is offered to the deities, people discuss it (not the weather), and traditional families have eating competitions complete with a standing-in-a-swimmingpool-for-forty-minutes interval to help digestion.
These institutions are meant primarily for the woman’s benefit, and not for the husband’s, because by serving the husband as a representative of God the wife makes steady progress on the spiritual path. The wife – by putting the husband above her own ego – learns to become selfless and self-controlled and she becomes a great example for her children, who feel inspired to follow in her foot-steps and continue the sacred traditions (parampara). For ladies pati-seva (‘husband-service’) is a question of honor and a sacrifice they eagerly perform.
Personalism as a prevention-of-abuse mechanism
It is quite apparent from the above description that there is plenty of scope for the husband to misuse his position vis-a-vis the wife. Being worshipped like a god can lead to arrogance.
However, Vedic institutions do not work in a vacuum. Prior to the wedding the husband would have received training in how it is appropriate to behave towards his wife. Traditionally young boys aged six were sent to the गुरुकूलम् gurukulam (the ‘guru-school’) – a kind of traditional boarding school where they would learn proper conduct. Alternatively they would (and still do) learn Vedic norms and values at home. These systems are still in place in India, albeit becoming increasingly rare.


Men learn the Vedic philosophy, rites, customs and traditions from a young age.

Traditional Vedic education puts emphasis on character building and spiritual values – including humility – above theoretical knowledge. The centre of Vedic education is culture, which is to say, the codes of proper behavior and etiquette towards the guru, one’s parents, other superiors, equals, subordinates – and one’s wife. At the centre of Vedic culture is the notion of ‘non-envy’, that is, the culture of genuine respect, of not exploiting others, and of being others’ well-wisher. The philosophical basis of this culture is called personalism or the culture of respecting people as persons as opposed to objects meant for one’s enjoyment. Having been trained in the culture of personalism the husband will know how to understand his wife’s heart, ensure that she is happy and satisfied, and how not to let his ‘husband-god’ status go to his head.
The Vedic versus the Modern
Having explained some of the intricacies of the culture of Vedic women and their relationship with Vedic men, let us compare this system to the modern one, which today is most prominent in the West. This modern anti-culture hardly needs any description. I’m sure all Motpol’s readers are very intimately familiar with it.
The basis of modern ‘civilisation’ is sense-gratification. Modern culture is on the level of the dogs and hogs in that the greatest values in western ‘culture’ are (i) sense-gratification, (ii) prestige. Sense-gratification means that modern people seek to maximise the extent to which they experience material enjoyment by gratifying their sensual desires. These vary from very gross (e.g. sex) to more subtle (e.g. the desire to own a nice car). The desire for prestige is basically an egoistic urge to be worshipped (figuratively speaking) by others.
Thus, women see it as their right to enjoy the bodies of as many men as they can get to wiggle their tales at them. It goes without saying they’re not too interested in chastity. A lot of them still manage to confine themselves to enjoying one male body for a given period of time, but even that is changing. And when they no longer derive pleasure from the body of their temporary partner they ‘break up’ and find a different one. From the Vedic point of view, such degraded behavior is nothing more than unpaid prostitution.


The shopping religion is the meaning of life to some.

Sense-gratification is also very subtle. A woman may become attached to a man because he is able to satisfy certain psychological needs. But at the end of the day it’s still all about her, and if she wakes up one day and feels she doesn’t ‘love him anymore’, it’s over, and a new adventure can begin. It’s a bit tough for the children, but what the hell they’ll get over it.
Then there is the quest for recognition. “Hey, look at me, I’m Ms CEO of McCorporation”. The other aspect of that is, of course, that she is independent of her husband (or “partner”), which is simply another way of saying that no one can control and thereby limit her sense-gratification.
I’m not trying to only blame the women here. The men are also degraded. In this respect we seem to have achieved true gender equality anno 2010: equal degradation. Just like the women want to enjoy the men’s penises or his money or whatever, the men accept female partners on the basis of their bra sizes (in some cases the panty size is also an important consideration). And as with women, they want to use their partners’ bodies to gratify their senses and gain prestige by showing off their beautiful free prostitutes (“girlfriends”) to others.


Modesty, shyness and piety are not among the qualities of modern women.

I know this is a simplification, but lets not cloud the issue with all sorts of subtleties that don’t change the ultimate conclusion: modern gender philosophy has destroyed the institution of marriage and replaced it with temporary, selfish sense-enjoyment cum prostitution. Contrast this with the Vedic idea of God-centred personalism and overcoming one’s selfishness by serving the pati-deva, ‘husband-god’.
If I ask myself: which way of life, which view of women, which culture, which kind of relationship is superior and worth modeling one’s life by? Is it the view that women are objects of enjoyment, or the one that they are persons with consciousness like myself and therefore worthy of empathy and respect? Is it the culture of ‘do whatever you feel like regardless of how it effects others (except to the degree I feel sorry for them)’, or is it the culture of self-control, purity and modesty? Is it the relationship without any firm commitment based on service to the genitals, or the strong relationship for life based on selfless service and passing down the sacred etiquettes and traditions to the next generation?
Personally, I have no hesitation in saying ‘the latter’.
Category: Modern society, Posts by Dharma, Vedic Society  | 31 Comments

Vedic Social Hierarchy – A Response.

Thursday, June 10th, 2010 | Author:

I promised, I think it’s been a year now, to respond to comments made by Rimfaxe to my post on hierarchy in Vedic society.

Rimfaxe thought Vedic culture was problematic, for the following reasons:

1. Vedic culture is contrary to the ‘nordic spirit’ in its view of women (” föraktet gentemot kvinnan”).

2. The “egalitarian ideal of the brahman caste” (purportedly supported by BG 14.22-26)

3. ‘Denial of life on earth’ or “resentment against life”.

4. The inability of the soul to act or the perceived fatalism of the Vedic philosophy.

I would like to address each of these points with support from the shastra (scriptures), but I think addressing them all in one post would be rather ambitious. Since Sriman Kalki is planning to address the point concerning the position of women in Vedic culture, I will leave that out, and in this post respectfully show that Rimfaxe has misunderstood much of the philosophy of the Bhagavadgita in general, and BG 14.22-26 in particular.

BG 14.22-26 is rendered as:

“He who is fixed in his svarupa, is equal in sorrow and joy, who sees a lump of earth, a stone and gold as the same, who regards causes of hapiness and distress as the same, who sees the difference between atma and prakrti, and who regards criticism and praise of himself as the same, is said to be beyond the gunas. One who remains unaffected when respected or disrespected, who is equal to friend and foe, and who has given up all extraneous undertakings is said to be beyond the gunas. He who serves Me [Krishna] alone in pure devotional service surpasses the gunas and becomes endowed with his spiritual nature.”

Vyasadeva - the transcriber of the Vedas

Vyasadeva - the transcriber of the Vedas

Rimfaxe’s argument is that to asses whether something is ‘egalitarian’ or ‘elitist’ one has to look at its ideals. The ideals of modern society are clearly egalitarian because it has ideals like “everyone should be treated equally”, “everyone is equal to the law”, etc. He then claims that BG 14.22-26 contains, or presents, an egalitarian ideal, the ideal of the brahman caste that since you “ought to” or “should” be equal to everyone, including friend and foe (“…who is equal to friend and foe“), or see “a lump of earth, a stone and gold as the same” then the Vedic tradition is fundamentally egalitarian. It may be that it has some un-egalitarian aspects, but essentially, this is the ideal.

My basic argument is that Rimfaxe has confused ‘is’ and ‘ought to’, and thus erred. There are no ‘ideals’, no ‘oughts’, no ethical precepts in BG 14.22-26. Rather, BG 14.22-26 is a description of a particular type of human being – or, you could say, a human being on a particular level consciousness. Let me describe this argument in detail.

First things first, in Vedic tradition if you want to know something (as opposed to have a subjective opinion about it) you have to look to the Veda (‘knowledge’), or ‘shastra‘. In this regard Rimfaxe is – I am pleased to say – very much in tune with Vedic methodology when he quotes from the Gita. However, to properly understand the shastra one has to look at the bona fide commentaries of the spiritual teachers in the disciplic succession, or Parampara. Only authorised commentaries should be studied to understand the meaning of the shastra.

There are a number of bona fide commentaries on Bhagavadgita, including ancient commentaries like the Vishisthadvaita Bhasha of Sripad Ramanuja Acharya;  the medieval commentaries of Sripad Madhava Acharya, Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura and Baladeva Vidyabhushana; and the contemporary Bhagavadgita As It Is by Sripad A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. I have consulted the three later mentioned commentaries in writing this reply concerning the meaning of BG 14.22-26.

Baladeva Vidyabhushana comments on the verses that:

“Because he is fixed in his svarupa (sva-sthitah) or atma, he is equal in happiness and distress, since he knows that those are not part of the atma. Because of recognizing them as inferior things, he considers earth, stone and gold the same. He considers objects which yield happiness and distress (priyapriyah) as equal to a lump of earth. He is expert at seeing the difference between jiva and prakrti (dhirah). He is equal in criticism or praise of himself, becuase those faults or good qualities which are causes of criticism or praise are not constitutional to the atma. Such a person is beyond the gunas.”

Sripad Baladeva Vidyabhushana gives a further description of the person who is situated in transcendence. He says that such a person is not bothered by what is not part of the “atma“, or soul. Because he has no attachment for the material world, and no desire for material sense-enjoyment, he does not get excited by seeing, or owning, gold. He does not care whether others dishonor him because he knows that they are criticising “faults… which are … not constitutional to the atma“, or in other words they are criticising his body, and not his real self.

Because he is detached from the material world he does not hate anyone, including his enemy. If he is a kshatriya it is his duty to fight, and he will fight fiercely – not out of personal hatred, but out of spiritual understanding. This was actually exactly what Arjuna did after the Gita was sung to him by Lord Krishna.

Sripad Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada comments the same verses like this:

“The materially situated person is affected by so-called honor and dishonor offered to the body, but the transcendentally situated person is not affected by such false honor and dishonor. He performs his duty in Krishna consciousness and does not mind whether a man honors or dishonors him. He accepts things that are favorable for his duty in Krishna consciousness, otherwise he has no necessity of anything material, either a stone or gold. He takes everyone as his dear friend who helps him in his execution of Krishna consciousness, and he does not hate his so-called enemy. He is equally disposed and sees everything on an equal level because he knows perfectly well that he has nothing to do with material existence. … He does not attempt anything for his own sake. He can attempt anything for Krishna, but for his personal self he does not attempt anything…”

It’s very much in the same spirit, but with a slightly different emphasis. Prabhupada emphasises not just the selflessness of the perfect devotee, but also the fact that he acts according to his “duty in Krishna consciousness” with detachment towards its results (honor or dishonor, etc). He may accept gold if it can be used in Krishna’s service, e.g. to build a temple, but he does not want it for his own pleasure.

Now, someone might say that being equally disposed towards everyone implies an egalitarian society. In fact, as can be seem from many Vedic shastras, it is not so. As I said before, the devotee is equally disposed not due to idealism, but due to detachment from matter, due to not being influenced by lower desires like greed and hatred. He acts out of pure duty. Certainly, an ‘equal disposition’ of a small number of self-realised individuals does not imply that society should be organised according to egalitarian ideals. To the contrary, according to the Vedas a hierarchical society is absolutely necessary, prescribed by God Himself, and the beginning of civilisation. Further, it is clearly described in the Vedas that even though a fully self-realised devotee ‘sees’ everyone equally he still ‘acts’ according to the etiquette of the hierarchical varna-ashrama (or ‘caste’) society around him. He will not speak in the same way to the shudra as he would to the king.

I hope this clarifies the meaning of BG 14.22-26.

A lot more could be said on these topic. I will only make two points in passing, as I don’t want to make this post too long. Firstly, it is not correct that the self-realised devotee is ‘against life’ or ‘against action’. The path of the Bhagavadgita is to continue acting, but changing the aim of one’s actions. For most people the aim of an act is the “fruit” (phalam), or the benefit they personally get out of it, e.g. sense-pleasure or money. The Gita prescribes acting for Krishna’s pleasure, selflessly. The Gita, therefore, is not opposed to ‘life’. In fact, a devotee has a much more exciting, adventurous and joyful life than every single wage-slave on earth because devotees live to act for Krishna with the aim of creating a cultural and spiritual revolution, e.g. through dynamic preaching, organising cultural events, presentations and debates and otherwise trying to influence public opinion.

HH Bhaktivikas Swami Maharaj giving a class

HH Bhaktivikas Swami Maharaj giving a class

Secondly, the Gita does not recommend ‘extinguishing’ one’s existence by merging with Brahman. It is a possibility for those who want it, but the Gita’s highest recommendation is to act in such a way as to regain one’s primordial, pure consciousness and, after leaving one’s temporary body – something we all, after all, have to do – exist in Krishna’s spiritual abode, which is permanent, and completely devoid of suffering, forever.

Category: Posts by Dharma  | Tags: , , , ,  | 10 Comments

Why Sanatana-Dharma Matters to a Westerner

Tuesday, June 08th, 2010 | Author:

Please allow me to introduce myself, as the newest writer on this Blog. First things first – why the name Heliodorus? Not much is known about Heliodorus, unfortunately, apart from the fact that he was a Greek ambassador to King Kasiputra Bhagabhadra of the Sunga Empire in India, circa 110 BC. Nothing at all would be remembered about Heliodorus were it not for the fact that he left a pillar of stone in the city of Vidisha which was dedicated to Vasudeva, which is one of the names of Vishnu, and which remains standing to this day. Although the most remarkable aspect of the pillar for me is its inscription, which strongly suggests in its language that Heliodorus was a Vaishnava – a devotee of Vishnu. If so, not only would this indicate that Western practitioners of Vedic philosophy (Sanatana-dharma) date back to the Classical Age, it is also the earliest reference to Vaishnavas in general. It is quite possible, then, that Heliodorus was the first Westerner to take up the practice of bhakti-yoga, which is the practice of the Vaishnavas, referring to the yoga of devotion.

The Pillar of Heliodorus, still standing after more than two thousand years.

While I certainly do not see myself as a pioneer – thousands of Westerners, particularly in recent decades, have made the choice to practice Vedic spirituality – I do see myself as following in Heliodorus’ footsteps. To be honest, if someone had told me five years ago that I would one day soon be living in India as a Vaishnava, I would have thought them quite insane. At that time, I was living a typical Western lifestyle – working a dull office job by day in the United States, and only indulging in my interests in traditionalist spirituality and ‘New Right’ political philosophy after hours. I think this is the situation for most people of our inclination in the West today. But, slightly over one year ago, I chucked the job, ditched most of my worldly possessions, and am now living in a Vaishnava temple in Mumbai, India. And I do not regret this decision for one moment.

A natural question at this point would be to ask what led to such a drastic change. Without going into too many boring details, the most important factor for me was that I could no longer stand the contradiction between my supposed beliefs and my lifestyle. Although I was reading authors such as Evola and Guénon, who railed against the modern world, and fully agreed with them, my life, apart from my reading habits, was mostly indistinguishable from those masses of men who embody modernity. And as time went on, this contradiction began to bother me more and more. On one hand, the life I was living was relatively safe and comfortable – I didn’t want for much, in a material sense, and I didn’t have to fear for my job or my safety. In other words, I had ‘made it,’ as my fellow Americans would say. But as I began to absorb both the traditionalists and some actual, sacred texts, such as Bhagavad Gita As It Is and others, I began to wonder – is it enough to just take the scholarly approach, and see these texts as something ‘interesting’, perhaps even truthful, but dismiss them as being too impractical for life in the modern age and leave it at that? Certainly, the great Acharyas of the Vaishnava tradition would not agree. They would say that scholarly knowledge without devotional practice, which includes living your life in accordance with the scriptures, is absolutely pointless. Worse than pointless, really, since I was absorbing the sacred knowledge without implementing it, and in fact living contrary to its precepts in several respects. And the fact was that I was not really happy – comfortable, yes, but comfort and happiness often do not go hand-in-hand in this world. Material success, by the modern definition, was not bringing me any satisfaction – it was only making me feel all the more acutely that there must be a more fulfilling way of life out there, and the traditionalists seemed to be pointing the way to it.

Therefore I finally made the decision to leave my old lifestyle behind and embrace the Vaishnava lifestyle fully. Not only that, but I left the West behind completely for India. I realize that such a choice may seem undesirable for those of a Rightist/Identitarian inclination. However, I maintain that I am still following the same path I always have, and I am no less concerned about the future of the West now than ever. How can this be, when I am now living among the brown-skinned Indians, in a traditional Indian manner and following Indian scriptures?

A Westerner adrift in the world of Tradition.

My first argument should not come as a surprise – namely, that the link between Vedic spirituality and European culture has been an established fact since the Nineteenth century – the ‘Indo’ half of Indo-European. Second, while I agree with the beliefs of many European Identitarians, I feel that they do not go nearly far enough in their revolt against the modern world. This is not entirely their own fault, but primarily because, as Evola has written, they lack the proper referents. Genuine Tradition has been a thing of the past for so long in the West that it takes a great deal of effort to remember what it even means. Issues of race, immigration, day-to-day politics and so forth are certainly relevant to the problems of modernity, but by themselves they do not offer a solution to the host of problems that the modern West is facing.

The fate of Tradition in Kali Yuga.

To really challenge the forces of modernity head-on, traditionalists must first get their souls back. The basis of the West that we love is its culture, and this culture has always been based in turn on its once-profound spirituality and discipline. It is not possible to speak of defending Western values until one has personally reconnected with the world of the spirit and the regulation of one’s life that this entails. In order to achieve this, Western traditionalists must be willing to divorce themselves as much as possible from the corrosive effects of consumer culture. In effect, in the modern world, this means embracing as little of the modern lifestyle as possible – even down to career choice and spouse, ideally. Evola would no doubt counter that there is nowhere that is free from the effects of Kali-Yuga, and while this is true, there is still the matter of degree. Living in the U.S.A., as I was doing, was akin to staying on the lip of the volcano, rather than staying down near the base where one at least has a possibility to avoid the floods of burning lava. While India is certainly trying to modernise as rapidly as possible, it is still far removed from the continuous assault of materialism to which Western consumer culture constantly subjects us, particularly if one spends all of one’s time in the company of devotees such as Vaishnavas. There are still pockets of genuine Tradition available to us if only we choose to look for them, especially in a place such as India where the force of modernity has not had as long to do its damage as it has in the West. The effects of bringing such a change into one’s life are almost immediate and are astoundingly powerful. Within a few months, one doesn’t even crave the TV or junk food at all, and one finds that one’s mind takes to spiritual practice much more easily and completely than when it is distracted by so many modern influences. One may claim that embracing such a tradition is not as good for a Westerner as following a more thoroughly genuine Western tradition such as Catholicism or heathenism. That may or may not be true – I believe it is up to the individual to judge. However, the power of these traditions in places such as India is unmistakable, and I believe that it is urgently necessary for Westerners to get in touch with the sacred in their lives in any way possible, even if it means leaving the West behind for a time.

I am not saying that one must abandon everything and move to India or some other land that is more closely in touch with its ancient traditions, although that is certainly a possibility if you are fortunate enough to have the means. One must at least find his ‘inner India’ – a way of living which allows you to reconnect with Traditon as fully as possible. I am also not saying that Vaishnavism, or even Vedic culture more generally, is the only way of life (although it is an extremely good one). But any major Tradition demands that its followers immerse themselves in its philosophy and practices. The Japanese samurai spoke of the need for a ‘harmony of pen and sword’ – in other words, in order to live a complete life, one must live in all aspects of daily life and govern one’s actions according to the same ideals that one espouses in writing and in speech. Compartmentalising one’s life into ‘modern’ and ‘traditional’ components simply isn’t sufficient, and indeed the idea that one can do so is one of the principal fallacies of the modern view of life.

This is not simply a matter of personal beliefs, but rather a necessary first step towards the sort of restructuring of society for which the Western Right has been aiming for many years. It is my contention that the primary reason for the failure of the Right over the past half-century has been the lack of qualified individuals to fight for it. There are many who have claimed to represent the Western tradition, but few who have exemplified it, it must be said. This is because so many individuals on the Right have fallen victim to the trap of seeing a separation between the sacred and the secular. Many have believed that it was only necessary to mouth the ideas, but not to live by them. Once one fully absorbs an authentic Tradition, one’s behavior is inevitably changed. Then, issues such as trust, reliability, dedication, honour and self-sacrifice become a matter of course. In this way, any sociopolitical movement can be strengthened. A movement can have the noblest of ideas, but it is only as effective as the quality of the men and women who comprise it. I can think of no better way to infuse the power of example into the European Right than to fill its ranks with those whose lives are dedicated to the sacred principles which transcend their own, limited individual lives. If the Right is to survive into the most dangerous era it has witnessed in recorded history, it will need the power of Tradition behind it – otherwise, it will be further relegated to the margins of society or worse. However, we should take up our duty secure in the knowledge that we cannot fail, since we represent everything that is transcendental and eternal, while our opponents, while they may win temporary victories, are inevitably destined to fail since they only put their faith in what is material and temporary. It is only necessary for us to develop the will to stand for our beliefs, despite the vast armies arrayed against us.

In future installments I will discuss why Vaishnavism is a particularly useful means for achieving this. Until then, I urge all readers to consider the propositions I have outlined above, and think seriously about the role the sacred plays in your own life.

Category: Introductions, Posts in English  | Tags: , , ,  | 12 Comments

Modern War as Purge of the Unwanted.

Thursday, March 11th, 2010 | Author:

Sometimes what goes on in international politics these days seems incredibly puzzling. If you look at contemporary wars as an example it seems that the “bad guys” are fighting other “bad guys”, while both sides are claiming to be fighting for a righteous cause. In this article I will attempt to give an explanation as to what the underlying reason for these wars is.

Modern War & Ideology.

Most of the readers of this blog are aware of the fact that there were no “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq and that the American government knew it before invading Iraq. The so-called weapons were just a pretext. They were part of the rhetoric about protecting the ‘free world’ (especially the United States) from the ‘evil dictator’, Saddam Hussein, who could ‘threaten our freedom’ to consume what we like in unlimited quantities and thus our very ‘way of life’. Thus, Mr. Saddam was declared part of the ‘Axis of Evil’ and removed by the righteous forces of ‘God’s own country’. The same thing happened in Afghanistan and may or may not happen in Iran.

If we asked the Taliban why they are fighting the Americans, or if we asked Mr. Ahmadinejad why he is so hostile towards them, then I am sure they would say that the Americans are the actual axis of evil (or the “big Satan”), manipulating their allies (the “small Satan”) into fighting for them for an unrighteous cause.

Superficially it seems that there are conflicting views and ideologies causing conflicts and wars.

Ideology: Real or Pretext?

On one level this is certainly correct. But I think most of the readers of this blog will agree with me that neither side really is righteous by any real standard. It is probably not necessary to discuss the American situation in detail save to say that its government is among the most degraded in the world, being habituated as it is to lies, manipulation, double-standards, cultural imperialism, and deep hypocrisy. The above example concerning ‘weapons of mass destruction’ is sufficient to show that.

American soldiers

American soldiers fighting the unholy war

What about Iran and the others? Are they righteous? I wish they were, but it really seems doubtful. Saddam was just a petty old-fashioned megalomaniac dictator – nothing righteous about him. The Taliban? Well, in my understanding genuine religious governments (for the most part even Islamic ones) were, in the ancient world, always rather liberal. The reason is that the rules of a religion are followed due to cultural conditioning – people follow the tenets of religion because they were brought up with them and because the rest of their family and society around them do. The culture – not external force – was what maintained the sanctity, decency and morality of traditional, religious societies. It was therefore never (or rarely) necessary in Islamic societies to forbid men from shaving or to collapse walls on top of barbers, to shoot or harass girls studying in primary school or dismember women who chose to wear jeans (the last example, to be fair to the Taliban, is from Iraq). Then there is the fact that the rules the Taliban are enforcing are almost certainly not genuinely Islamic. So the Taliban cannot be said to be righteous.

The Islamic Republic? This is probably the one with the most legitimate claim to being a righteous government. On the face of it they have a semi-traditional political system, where the clerics supervise the politicians and make sure all law is within the purview of Islamic teachings. But in practice in Iran’s Islamic teachings are often pushed on a partially unwilling population in a forceful manner – often leading the teachings to be followed in an external, ritualistic way by people who by mentality are modern and would not have cared for tradition if not for state enforcement. This enforced conformity was amply demonstrated with the latest rigged elections and the way demonstrators were brutally arrested, tortured, and even killed. It’s not really that the Iranian opposition is less Islamic than the current conservative government. So if the present conservative, Revolutionary Guard-led government were really concerned about Islam (rather than their own interests) why would they cling to power so desperately? So, even if Iran is better than the others I still think they are at most only 50% righteous.

In conclusion, one could say that although the different parties accuse each other of being unrighteous and use some ideology to justify their war they fall short of the standards they purport to be setting themselves. The whole thing appears to be nothing more than a simple struggle between power-hungry men with big words and big egos but no sense of ‘practice what you preach’.

The Bhagavat Explanation

So, what does this all mean? The ‘bad guys’ are fighting the ‘bad guys’. But what is the underlying reason for it, other than ideological differences? This Srimad Bhagavatam verse, commenting on the battle of Kurukshetra, gives an answer:

“The Lord [Sri Krishna] was pacified after killing those kings who were burdensome to the earth. They were puffed up with their military strength, their horses, elephants, chariots, infantry, etc. He Himself was not a party in the fight. He simply created hostility between the powerful administrators and they fought amongst themselves. He was like the wind which causes friction between bamboos and so sparks a fire.”

In the purport to this verse Srila Prabhupada comments:

“He does not favor either of the unwanted administrators but by His potential power He creates hostility between such unwanted administrators as the air creates fire in the forest by the friction of the bamboos. The fire in the forest takes place automatically by the force of the air and similarly the hostility between different groups of politicians take place by the unseen design of the Lord. The unwanted administrators puffed up by false power and military strength thus become engaged in fighting amongst themselves over ideological conflicts and so exhaust themselves of all powers.”

The purport goes on to explain that the materialistic politicians of today are “the lowest of mankind” because they, being materialistic “fools of the first order” and having a “demoniac mentality”, do not take interest in the “supreme science”. Their interest is limited to things which are temporary and “end with the end of the material body”. (His Divine Grace, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 1, Chapter 11, Text 34.)

What does this mean? Since all the worlds’ governments have been corrupted by either the demoniac spirit of democracy or some brutal dictator dressed as a saint there are no righteous governments in existence today. Why do they go to war? By the arrangement of Sri Krishna, who causes friction among un-aryan leaders to wear them down through war. Thus, modern war is a manifestation of Krishna’s divine mercy, by which He kills the unrighteous and protects “the sane portion of humanity” for the eventual re-establishment of dharma.

Vishnu

The Supreme Vishnu

Category: Modern society, Posts by Dharma, Posts in English  | Tags: , , ,  | 5 Comments

Er vedisk tradition egalitær?

Saturday, April 04th, 2009 | Author:

Jeg har fået en del opfordringer siden jeg skrev min ‘introduktion’ til at skrive på et nordisk sprog, så jeg vil skrive dette indlæg på dansk. Jeg håber dette vil være til glæde for Aryavarta’s læsere.

Jeg er i tidens løb stødt ind i et par folk, som tror at “hinduisme” er en slags demokratisk religion, hvor alle er ‘lige’, at religionens højeste påbud er, at man skal være blødsøden, og at enhver kan tro på hvad han (eller hun) har lyst til. Disse misforståelser skyldes nok i højgrad Gandhi, som jo er kendt for sin ikke-voldssekt. At Gandhi – som var kendt for altid at have ‘Bhagavad Gita med sig hvor end han gik’ – skulle basere sin filosofi på Bhagavad Gita er i øvrigt besynderligt, fordi bogen – fra kapitel to til den slutter – er en dialog på en slagmark, hvor Krishna forsøger at overbevise krigeren Arjuna om, at han skal kæmpe. I det første kapitel udtrykker Arjuna sin modvilje mod kampen, men i løbet af de følgende sytten kapitler får Krishna ham overbevist, og resultatet er, at Arjuna går i krig og dræber ca lige så mange, som der døde i løbet af hele Anden Verdenskrig (mange milioner). Dette har fået en ortodoks brahmin til at kommentere, at Gandhi måtte have nøjes med kun at læse det første kapitel. Under alle omstændigheder findes der denne her new-age-agtige idé om, at vedisk religion er noget blødsødent, demokratisk noget, der handler om at være lige venlig over for alle mennesker, især de kasteløse, fordi vi jo alle er Guds børn. 

Det er rigtigt at vi alle er ‘Guds børn’ (hvis man vil udtrykke det på denne måde). Og ‘ahimsa’ (‘ikke-vold’) er da også en dyd ifølge Bhagavad Gita, om end den kultiveres ikke på samme måde af en brahmin, som af en kshatriya (kriger, statsman – i bedre tider to sider afsamme mønt). Men dette betyder ikke, at alle er lige gode, og burde behandles på samme måde eller have samme rettigheder.

Bhagavad Gitaens indfaldsvinkel på lighedsspørgsmålet kan reduceres til to grundlæggende principper:

1.   Alle levende væsener er (ikke ‘har’) en sjæl, og alle sjæle er i princippet lige. 

2.   Men alle betingede sjæle er bundet til en krop, som ikke er lige i forhold til andre kroppe.

Lad os se på et eksempel. Krishna siger i 9.32, at:

“BG 9.32: O son of Pṛthā [Arjuna], those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth — women, vaiśyas [merchants] and śūdras [workers] — can attain the supreme destination.”

Når jeg læser dette kan jeg næsten se for mig en frustreret45-årig pebermø og feminist sige: “se, alle kan opnå det højeste åndelige mål, det er ligemegetom man er kvinde, eller afsåkaldt lavere fødsel”. Dette er både rigtigt og forkert. Det er rigtigt, at kvinder og de lavt-fødte kan opnå åndelig success. Men læg mærke til, dette kan opnås “på trods af” og ikke “lige så godt af”. Der ligger en slags ‘nåde’ i, at selv kvinder og sudras kan opnå ‘the supreme destination’. Det er altså ikke rigtigt, at det er lige meget, hvem man er – eller rettere, hvad for en slags krop man er i. Den højeste destination eller lettere opnåelig for nogen, end andre.

Derudover er der selvfølgelig “kastesystemet” (Vedaerne bruge udtrykket’varna-asrama-dharma’), som påbydes i Gita:

BG 18.41: Brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras are distinguished by the qualities born of their own natures in accordance with the material modes, O chastiser of the enemy.

BG 18.42: Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, knowledge, wisdom and religiousness — these are the natural qualities by which the brāhmaṇas work.

BG 18.43: Heroism, power, determination, resourcefulness, courage in battle, generosity and leadership are the natural qualities of work for the kṣatriyas.

BG 18.44: Farming, cow protection and business are the natural work for the vaiśyas, and for the śūdras there is labor and service to others.

Det er selvfølgelig rigtigt at det nuværende kastesystem i Indien ikke repræsenterer det system, Krishna påbyder i Gitaen, men til gengæld må man påpege, at Krishna ikke ligefrem anbefaler ‘frihed, lighed og broderskab’ eller ‘én person – én stemme’. Tværtimod.

Der er mange andre eksempler. Når Arjuna af sentimentale grunde ønsker at forlade slagmarken frem for at kæmpe siger Krishna:

BG 2.2: My dear Arjuna, how have these impurities come upon you? They are not at all befitting a man who knows the value of life. They lead not to higher planets but to infamy.

BG 2.3: O son of Pṛthā, do not yield to this degrading impotence. It does not become you. Give up such petty weakness of heart and arise, O chastiser of the enemy.

Ordet oversat til ‘a man who knows the value of life’ fra Sanskrit er i øvrigt ‘an-arya’ – ikke-arisk.

Så jeg ved ikke, hvor de bløde idéer er kommet fra. I hvert fald ikke fra Bhagavad Gita. Og heller ikke fran oget andet vedisk skrift jeg har læst. Den blød sødne snak om demokratisk, egalitær ‘hindusime’ er altså ikke andet end ‘grama-katha’ – landsbysnak – ideas without substance.

Jeg kan i øvrigt henvise til bloggen The Vaishnava Traditionalist, som går til angreb på de demokratiske og egalitære tendenser som gennemsyrer det moderne samfund.
Kalki (an Avatara of Krishna) slays the miscreants.

Category: Indlæg på dansk, Posts by Dharma, Vedic Society  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 3 Comments

Introducing Dharma

Saturday, March 28th, 2009 | Author:

Teens

As far back as I can remember I’ve always been opposed to the way society functions – its unspoken rules – stubbornly refusing to conform to them. It really began in my early teens, when I began questioning things that everyone else took for granted. I would wear different clothes from everyone else, not carrying much for their notions of fashion; I would listen to different music, mostly heavy metal and rock; by the time I was sixteen I thought the very notion of modern life to be completely meaningless. My peers at the time were very enthusiastic about going to parties, going out with girls, getting drunk and competing for being the leading male in the herd. I always found this to be so shallow. An orgasm, after all, only lasts for a couple of seconds, and after that you’re back where you started. ’Time is moving’, I thought, ‘the days are going by – before they know it these people will find themselves married, looking for a job, having children, and living a possibly even more meaningless 9 – 5 life, each day being a replica of the previous one’. I read Sartre and, understanding that ‘life is absurd’, became a nihilist.

Although Sartre was the starting point for me (in case Sartre makes my readers frown, I say in my defense that I didn’t know about his communist association at the time) I quickly gained an interest in other philosophers. Plato, in particular, but also Kant and others influenced my thinking at the time. Still unsure of what it all meant, and gazing at the stars like a child, wondering what is out there and how it all came about, I started searching for answers. I thought there must be something here to make life meaningful and worthwhile.

I was into black metal and related genres in my nihilist days and so naturally took an interest in Varg Vikernes. This is where my ideological journey started. I read Vikernes’ own ‘Vargsmål’ and ’Lords of Chaos’ by Michael Moynihan. I was quite impressed at the time, but then – not being from a Scandinavian background – didn’t really feel I could relate to Varg’s notions of religion, nor did I really feel that interested in it, even as a subject. Varg did influence me to look into National Socialism, though, as well as my own, Slavonic pagan pre-history.

My Slavonic phase was short-lived as there is very little information on Slavonic mythology. The Christians destroyed most of the documents associated with it, and so all we know is what was passed down by Christian chroniclers and folk customs, none of which is particularly reliable, or, for that matter, complete. My interest in National Socialism (and related ideologies) did stick for awhile, however, and led me to join the National Alliance, then led by Dr William Pierce.

I was 18 at the time – very idealistic, and hopeful that I had found my purpose in life: to save the white race from extinction. ‘How could there be anything more important that this?’, I thought. But it was not just about race. It was also about the moral decay of the West, the ignorance of my peers of what was going on in the world, and a vision of a greater, more ideal society based on higher values. Science, of course, helps establish that whites have higher IQs than blacks and all that, but what really inspired me to join and begin developing a Danish National Alliance chapter was a speech by Pierce called ‘Our Cause’, where Piece talks about getting back to the essentially religious path of conscious evolution of the race, the gradual realisation of ‘the Creator’. With time however, I got disillusioned with the movement. I felt something was lacking, and Pierce’s ‘Creator’ didn’t really satisfy my existential search. When Pierce died I left the movement.

Integral Tradition

At about this time a close friend of mine began reading authors like René Guenon and Julius Evola. When I read Evola’s ‘Revolt Against the Modern World’ my worldview completely changed. As I read each page I felt that this was something I had always known to be true. At the same time the Guenonian notion that one has to follow a spiritual path to gradually increase one’s understanding of the ultimate Truth really resonated with me. When my interest in philosophy first started I felt helpless: I could see how philosophy couldn’t bring one to realise anything – if one could read two equally persuasive philosophers with opposite conclusions then how could one know which one is actually correct? But Guenon and Evola were saying that one could come to ’realise’ what the truth was.

I felt drawn to spirituality for the first time in many years. But which spirituality? I had come from a Catholic background, but had a lot of reservations about Catholicism and especially about Jesus. At the same time I still felt it was a Semitic religion – and I wanted something Aryan. I did give Christianity a half-hearted chance but in the end came to the conclusion that it just wasn’t for me. I was about 21 at this time.

The Aryan Tradition

In the mean time, a friend – the same one as above – had given me some books on Vedic philosophy, which he was now practicing. I read the books, liked them and thought: ‘the Vedic tradition is the only bona fide living tradition among the Aryan ones which still exists – I have to give it try’. I did – in 2004 – when I went to a temple in London (of all places). It was a bit exotic – they had deities of Radha and Krishna, the divine couple, I had come late in the evening, and the deities were being worshipped with ghee lamps – but at the same time I was very moved by the experience and decided to begin following this path shortly thereafter.

Krishna and Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra

Modern Society

My views on morality, society, politics, and so on, developed in parallel to my philosophical search – although the different ideologies I followed are not as different from each other as their  epistemologies. I always had a vision of a better society, based on something deeper, and I always felt disgusted about modern society, with its petty mass politics, mass production and mass consumerism.

This is the realm of ‘becoming’, as Evola says – or, as the Vedas put it, the realm of the ‘chewing the chewed’. Modern life is a constant repetition growing up, finding a partner, having sex, having children, who in turn grow up and propagate while you grow old, get sick and die. Surely there is a way of organising society so that both it, and the individual, can ‘tap into’ that higher consciousness – the realm of ‘being’ – which gives meaning to life, frees one from the circle of samsara (or becoming) and leads one to know the Absolute Truth.

In this blog I will be considering how such a society is organised, and how it is different from the present one, which I will be analysing ‘with a hammer’.

Dharma

Category: Introductions, Posts by Dharma, Posts in English  | Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,  | 12 Comments