Archive for the Category » Posts by Dharma «

Stri-dharma — the Culture of Vedic Women

Friday, August 13th, 2010 | Author: Dharma
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 hari 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, rights, 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 many 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  | 12 Comments

Vedic Social Hierarchy – A Response.

Thursday, June 10th, 2010 | Author: Dharma

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: , , , ,  | 3 Comments

Modern War as Purge of the Unwanted.

Thursday, March 11th, 2010 | Author: Dharma

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: , , ,  | 3 Comments

Er vedisk tradition egalitær?

Saturday, April 04th, 2009 | Author: Dharma

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: Dharma

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