Monthly Archives: January 2018

Sulba Sutras & the Indic Approach to Engineering — 1

source: http://vigyanprasar.gov.in/digital-repository/posters/maths-indian-heritage/

How great is the science which revealed itself in the Sulba, and how meagre is my intellect! I have aspired to cross the unconquerable ocean in a mere raft". 
-Bibhutibhushan Datta, Science of the Sulbas.

Summary

In this short introductory post, we share the motivation behind the study of Ganita in ancient Indian works such as Vedanga Jyotisha and Sulba Sutras, before delving deeper into the geometrical science of the Sulbas in Part-2. This self-study gives us a rough understanding of traditional Indic Engineering and its methods. We further develop these ideas in the third and final part and apply it toward solving challenging contemporary problems.

Introduction

The Sulbasutras are comprehensive reference manuals to plan, align, measure, compute, layout, and construct structurally stable Vedic Altars required for the proper performance of Yagnas. The Sulbas belong to the Srauta Sutra section of the Kalpasutras, which are one of the six Vedangas attached to the Vedas.  The Sulbas provides the required spatial and directional parameters for constructing the altars while the time-keeping calculations in the Vedanga Jyotisha decide the temporal parameters of the Yagna. The position vector coordinates consisting of orientation, location, and time (dik-desa-kaala) can be decided using these texts.

Sulba primarily means measurement [1], which is done using the measuring cord called the Rajju, although sometimes these two terms are used interchangeably. An early Hindu term mentioned in the Sulba Sutras is Sulba Vijnana, roughly the ‘science of the Sulba’, measurement science, or the geometrical sciences [1], which also became known later as kshetraganita [2]. Part-2 has a more complete discussion of these terms.

Seven Sulba Sutras are available today, and the three earliest Sulbas are listed below (earlier first), noting that the dating of the early Sulba to 800 BCE is tentative and only provides the latest date when the Sulbas were compiled. The organization of these three Sulbas are given below [1].

Baudhayana Sulba Sutra

This is considered the world’s earliest systematic treatise on Geometrical Sciences, but like the Vedanga Jyotisha, contains pre-existing ideas from more ancient Vedic works that date back to the 2nd-3rd millennium or earlier. Interestingly, the pythagorean theorem is first stated by Baudhayana.

The Sulba content also serves as the oldest known reference text for Engineering.

Chapter 1: 116 sutras
Topics: measures, geometrical rules of altar construction, relative positions and magnitudes of the various Vedis.

Chapter 2:  86 sutras
Topics: spatial relations in the constructions of the agnis (Vedic fire altars),
and the construction of the two simplest agnis, i.e., Garhapatya and Chandas (Veda mantras replace bricks).

Chapter 3: 323 sutras
Topics: Seventeen different kamyagnis, which involve complex and highly specific constructions.

Apastamba Sulba Sutra

6 sections, 21 chapters and 223 sutras in total.

This work also discusses the methods of construction.

Katyayana Sulba Sutra

7 sections, 90 sutras. 48 verses.
The content is partly in sutra form and part verse. Additional topics include attributes of Sulba expertise, and the rules of ethical conduct for those involved in altar construction.

The other available Sulba works include those of Maanava, Maitraayana, Vaaraaha, and Vaadula.

Available commentaries on the three Sulbas (likely date: post Aryabhata)
BS: Dvarakanatha Yajva, Venkateshvara Dikshata
AS: Kapardiswami (before 1150 CE), Karavindaswami, Sundararaja (prior to 1600), Gopala
KS: Rama Bajapeya (1449 CE) who made new contributions and improved the accuracy of √2 up to 7 decimal places, and Mahidhara (1589 CE, Banaras, based on Rama’s work).

Why Study the Sulbas?

The Sulbasutras have been popular as a mathematical research area since the 19th century CE. There exist several works by acclaimed scholars that summarize the mathematical content and astronomical connections of the Sulba texts through books and video lectures, and can be found within the reference section at the end of the post.  Here, we study the Sulba content to try and delineate an Indic approach to Engineering and where it differs from the western method.

Our primary references for this effort are the seminal 1932 work of Bibhutibhushan Datta on the Sulbas [1], the 1979 book of ancient Indian Geometry by Saraswati Amma [2], the 1997 publication of Kapila Vatsyayan’s work on Indic Art [3], and several other textual and non-textual resources. Bibhutibhushan Datta (who later became Swami Vidyaranya) and Saraswati Amma were Sanskrit scholars in addition to their mathematical expertise. Barring exceptions, scholarly works adopt a reductionist ‘secular mathematical’ view of the Sulbas, ignoring its Vedic basis as simply irrelevant, or dismissing it as pre-rational mystic rituals.

Questions

  • What is the wrong with adopting such a Euro-centric approach? Why move toward an Indic perspective?
  • What is the practical benefit of studying the content of such ancient Hindu texts?

The responses to these questions given by learned Indian scholars inspired us to ask similar questions of our own professional domain:

  • Is there such a thing as a traditional Indic approach to Engineering? If so, what are the principles of this Indic Engineering Practice? How is it even relevant today?

We turn to Dharampal for answers.

Bharatiya Chitta and Kaala

In his writings [11], Dharampal explains the value and need for studying ancient Indian texts from an Indic perspective: “One understands others only from one’s own perspective. Attempts to live and think like the others, to transport oneself into the Chitta and Kaala of others, lead merely to delusion… In fact, the process of understanding the Indian Chitta and Kaala cannot possibly begin without some understanding of the vast corpus of literature that has formed the basis of Indian civilisation and regulated the actions and thoughts of the people of India for millennia

...If we wish to affirm the validity of Indian consciousness, of Indian Chitta and Kaala, we can do so only by establishing the Indian way of life in the present-day world. And, this re-assertion of India in the present context is the major task today which Indian scholarship, Indian politics, Indian sciences and technologies, Indian arts, crafts and other diverse skills must accomplish. 

Dharampal emphasizes the time-criticality and practical requirements of this task.

what is urgently needed is not high scholarship, but a rough and ready comprehension of ourselves and the world. We need a direction, a vision, a conceptual basis, that is in consonance with the Indian Chitta and Kala, and through which we can proceed to understand the modern world and the modern times

Keeping this challenging goal in mind, we have studied the technical aspects of the Sulba Sutras not in isolation, but relative to and serving its primary objective.

Preliminaries

The overarching objective of the Sulba Sutras is to establish the proper construction of Vedic altars in order to ensure the correct performance of Yagna, which unites mankind to the devatas [4]. The keywords listed below give us a limited but useful idea of the Sanskrit non-translatables employed in this context of Yagna.

Agni: Fire altar constructed using layers of bricks of different types and dimensions.

Citi: A layer of Agni

Vedi: The raised area where the Yagna is performed, including the agni and where the participants are seated.

Yagna sala layout. Source: Square and Circle of Arts (1997)

Syena (Falcon-shaped) fire altar. [3].
It is known that these profound Sanskrit terms associated with Yagna have multiple meanings relating to transformation, consciousness, and knowledge. Hence, Agni is not simply fire, Citi is not merely a brick layer, and Vedi is not only a raised platform. The Sulba Sutra is not just a collection of results from geometrical science, and Yagna is not the same as sacrifice in the western sense [4]. The writings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who popularized transcendental meditation, point to the deeper role of the Sulba Sutras that includes a description of consciousness itself [12]. Therefore, to better understand the Sulbas, we have to study the transformative power of Yagna.

Indic Engineering Practice as Yagna

Integral Versus Fragmented Knowledge

The Vedic Cosmology is embedded in every aspect of the altar constructions. Every grain of sand, brick, citi, and the altars of various shapes correspond to some aspect of the cosmos. These correspondences or Bandhus bind the universe in an integral unity. Rajiv Malhotra coined this term in his book ‘Being Different [4]: “The integral unity of the whole manifests itself in the parts, and they in turn aspire to unite with the whole; this principle is reflected in every domain of dharmic knowledge, including philosophy, science, religion, ethics, spirituality, art, music, dance, education, literature, oral narratives, politics, marriage rituals, economics, and social structures. Each domain of dharmic knowledge is itself a jewel in Indra’s Net, and reflects all the others. In other words, the same underlying principles are represented in these specialties in different ways.”.

Prof. Subhash Kak in his path-breaking work [5] states that the agnicayana altars symbolize the universe; the five layers of the Ahavaniya represent the earth, space, and sky through the first, third, and fifth layer, with the intermediate layers linking these elements. He asserts that knowledge is gained through altar construction. The knowledge obtained through Yagna is integral and not fragmented since the traditional Indic approach is not to “disentangle and differentiate conceptually different entities & notions, but to realize their connections (bandhus) [5]”.

For example, the circadian biological cycle is synced with earth’s rotational cycle through Ritam (from the Rig Veda, nature’s ordering principle [4]). The press release for the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physiology starts with “Life on Earth is adapted to the rotation of our planet“, and concludes with “indications that chronic misalignment between our lifestyle and the rhythm dictated by our inner timekeeper is associated with increased risk for various diseases.“.  The deficiency in the inherently fragmented western approach is apparent in this ‘new’ finding based on inner and outer correspondences.  In contrast, in ‘Being Different‘, Rajiv Malhotra gives examples of Ayurveda’s integral unity. Ayurveda, an Upaveda of the Vedas emphasizes the importance of adopting the right, sustainable lifestyle for an individual.

Science rooted in a vedic framework can lead to sustainable solutions to many such important problems. The Indic engineering system designed and built to work in harmony with Ritam will benefit both man and environment, while also serving a higher, transcendental objective. The traditional Indic practitioner would not look at his/her field in isolation but could draw inspiration, ideas and methods from seemingly unrelated disciplines, which in reality are interlinked knowledge systems that are integrally united [4].

Lacking this deeper dharmic unity,  western attempts to unify separate fields of knowledge is evident in new-age ideas such as ‘combinatorial creativity‘, and the ‘generalized specialist’. Professional certifying examinations in the west tend to reward practitioners having a T-shaped skillset in the workplace and reduce the proportion of ‘one legged men in ass-kicking contests‘. Despite such efforts, the splintered view of knowledge, which tends to be profitable in the short-term, is not only dominant but gaining ground in western higher education, culminating in ‘fragmentversities‘.

Certitude and Uncertainty

Indic scholars have presented many more examples of such Bandhus in the altar construction: Kapila Vatsyayan [3] mentions that in certain constructions, there are 108,000 lokamprna bricks corresponding to the number of muhurtas in a basic 360-day Vedic year. There are 396 yajumati bricks in some constructions which corresponds to the 360 days + 36 intercalary days of a Vedic calendar. Similarly, certain Kamyagnis have a surface area of 108,000 (sq.) Angulas [5].

In the Chandasciti, Vedic mantras are considered equivalent to and replace the consecrated bricks, where the construction is no longer physical, but at the level of consciousness [12]. An altar of mantras is a representation of the Rig Veda. Correspondences are established using Ganita Sastra and Sulba Vijnana, resulting in accurate calculations and precise measurements. However, such decisive alignments and careful stacking of bricks do not signify a quest for an unnaturally perfect order. The altar construction reflects nature’s geometry that balances smoothness (certitude) and roughness (uncertainty).

The role of uncertainty is recognized and incorporated into the altar through the sprinkling of sand and interspersing the orderly chant of Vedic mantra with inarticulate sounds. Yagna combines order and chaos [4].  The amicable sharing of sacred space by doubt and surety suggests an early Indic grasp of the fallibility of the scientific claim, and the unavoidable imprecision in calculation and measurement. We can see the tangible value of this ‘bandhutva’ with uncertainty in the results of the Sulba sutras in part-2. On the other hand, without uncertainty, there can be no useful science. Engineering in the Sulbas also views uncertainty as an opportunity to innovate. This will be covered in part-3.

This 'concession' to fallibility is not a weakness, but a contributor to Bharata's dynamism and civilizational continuity through its demonstrated ability to continually reform and transform from within and be reborn. This is Bharata's own Natyam through the ages; a Yagna performed on India's sacred geography, its altar constructed on a cosmic level using bricks from Bharatiya Chitta and Kaala. Every Bharatiya who participates in this Yagna is transformed, thereby transforming the national consciousness.

Sulba Vijnana: From Art to Engineering

Toward obtaining a more comprehensive view of the Sulba science, we learn from the art perspective of the Sulbas and Yagna presented by renowned art scholar Kapila Vatsyayan, and is summarized below. If Yagna is a basis for Indian art, architecture, and sciences, then the vijnana of the Sulbas will be reflected in all these fields, and the engineer will be able to learn a lot from such art.

  1. Elements of Geometry and Algebra emerge from the Bandhus, the system of correspondences established during the Yagna

The Indian way of viewing nature, and their inclination to look for Bandhus [4] is nicely captured by Vatsyayan ji when she states that “anything that is visible can have layers of meaning, and also has validity for itself… the visible is not just visible but is the very aid to the invisible.” During the Yagna, a link is created between finite and infinite, between the precisely measured that are defined by name and form (namarupa) and that beyond definition and the formless (pararupa and arupa).

Bandhus in the form of geometrical metaphors can be identified here. Fundamental geometric entities starting from a single ‘dimensionless’ point (Bindu), the one-dimensional line that emerges from a moving point, the two-dimensional figures such as triangle, square, and circle that emerge from moving lines, etc. are all symbols having multiple meanings.  Sophisticated principles from the Vedas and Upanishads are contained within the circle and its geometrical properties [3]. Bindu also denotes a center or origin, and all notions of time and space are comprehended through itAnother Bandhu described by Vatsyayan ji is in the form of the botanical metaphor of the seed or Bija [3], which motivates Bija Ganita (algebra), the earliest notions of which are to be found in the geometrical methods of the Sulba Sutras.

Every math student in the world is replicating the first step of Vedic Yagna when they draw the perpendicular X-Y axes on graph paper, intersecting at the origin with the X-Y axis arrowhead pointing eastward. Vedic Altar construction begins by identifying the east-pointing E-W line (Praci) using the instrument Sanku [14]. The basic geometrical construction of the Sulbas is the perpendicular bisector, yielding the north-south line.

2. The geometrical and algebraic ideas that emerge from the Sulbas are transferred to the sacred Indian artforms.

Vatsyayan ji traces the methodology (viniyoga) of human movement evolved in Indian arts to its interconnections with the vidhi of the yagna. She notes the importance of trigonometry and geometry to science as well as art, and states that the system of solving linear equations by moving from one known to many unknowns represents both a mathematical and artistic understanding.  This algebraic layer “gives the Indian arts the capacity to concretise the notions of the one and the many as also abstract and concrete, the measurable and beyond measure finite and infinite” [3]. Thus, Indic art reflects the findings of the Sulba Sutras. Kapila Vatsyayan remarks that a careful study of the Sulba Sutras can tell us exactly how those Sulba principles were transferred into the artistic domain.

In her award-winning research paper at the third Swadeshi Indology conference (Chennai 2017), danseuse and aerospace engineer Prakruti Prativadi has discussed Bharatanatyam as Yagna. She has reviewed the necessary conditions for a recital to qualify as a Bharatanatyam performance. When the sacred artistic recital is of high caliber and the audience too is receptive to the performance, the performer and the audience unite as participants in a Yagna [8]. 

"The purpose of Bharatanatyam is not only to produce an aesthetic effect but to transform the consciousness of the onlooker to experience the Paramatma through Rasa." [10]. The participants are thus reborn.

Ganita’s place value systems and Sanskrit itself are algebraic in nature [4]. In the decimal place value system, the value of a digit such as ‘1’ is variable and can be any integral power of 10 (1, 10, 10², 10³, …) and is fixed only when its place is specified. Similarly, a Sanskrit word or verse can have a whole range of meanings. The Sanskrit Pandit can narrow down the appropriate meaning depending on the context of usage [4]. A misunderstanding here can produce silly interpretations (e.g. “Beef in the Vedas“).

Professor Amartya Kumar Dutta at the Indian Statistical Institute in his excellent survey of ancient Ganita prior to the common era [13], quotes Swami Vivekananda on the decimal system. This quote by Swamiji highlights the integral unity of Ganita and Sanskrit: “… the ten numerals, the very cornerstone of all present civilization, were discovered in India, and are, in reality, Sanskrit words.”. Where does Sanskrit end and Ganita begin, and where does Ganita end and Sanskrit begin!

3. Engineering as an integral discipline emerges from Sulba Vijnana (with Ganita from Vedanga Jyotisha as pre-requisite).

From the artistic domain of Bharatanatyam, the connection can be made to Silpa Sastra and sacred architecture and sculpture: Vatsyayan ji quotes the renowned danseuse Balasaraswati who explains how a Bharatanatyam recital is structured like a great temple [3] affirming that both Indic art and sacred architecture are based on a system of correspondence established through Vedic yagna.  Sulba Vijnana is used in the construction of Hindu Mandirs. The calculating expertise comes from Ganita, the science of computation. The Sulba Sutras along with Vedanga Jyotisha form the basis of Engineering as an integral discipline.  Indian history is full of amazing feats of engineering that stand out for the harmony of construction with nature.

Reclaiming the Sacred Space

The present rupture [7] in India’s epistemological continuity has resulted in a significant number of Indian elites transporting themselves to live in the socially profitable Chitta and Kaala of the West [11]. The situation is direMany of us have lost the depth of insight available to our ancestors by limiting ourselves to living with this reductive, fragmented mindset. The Indic practitioner’s effortless and refined improvisation in-context while remaining anchored in the Raaga and Taala of Bharatiya Chitta and Kaala is achieved through Shraddha and Saadhana. Without this anchor, there is an overemphasis on text and theory over embodied knowing [4], with contextual ethics [4] giving way to moral relativism. The net result is a rootless, jarring remix of uninspiring engineering and myopic profiteering.

There are multiple paths to recovery, and we discuss one such path. As Dharampal pointed out [11], rather than weep over the lakhs of manuscripts that are lost to us, we can learn from what is already available. The several Sulba works, Jyotisha redactions, and the Natyasastra text, and the various commentaries, and dozens of books on these topics are all available online. By incorporating these Indic methods into our professional practice and daily life, we can slowly relocate our westernized selves back into India’s Chitta and Kaala.

A long and circuitous journey has to be undertaken by the hard-working Karthikeyas in order to return home to Shiva and obtain the Jnana-phala. Blessed are those Vinayakas who are already in the right space and time!

Understanding the principles of Indic art and dramaturgy can give engineering students a more rounded view of their discipline. Like a genuine Bharatanatyam performance, the sculpting of Devi’s Murthi, or constructing a Kovil/Mandir, Indic Engineering takes up a project as a sacred task that transforms the consciousness of the participants and end users, yielding sustainable, dharmic development. This goal can be achieved if the project is in harmony with Rtaaccepting only shubh labh (as opposed to unbridled profit), with all the stakeholders functioning as an integrally united team based on the dharma of collaboration.

There is no I or U in team, but there must be IU.

The construction of Rama Sethu in the Ramayana forever serves as the ideal to emulate. Even the tiny squirrel that contributed its expertise to the Sethu was transformed by Sri Rama’s divine touch.

References:

(Partial list only. Full list will be shared along with Part-3).

  1. Bibhutibhushan Datta (Swami Vidyaranya). The Science Of The Sulba: A Study In Early Hindu Geometry. University of Calcutta. 1932.
  2. Saraswati Amma. Geometry in Ancient and Medieval India. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. 1979.
  3. Kapila Vatsyayan. The Square and the Circle of the Indian Arts. Abhinav Publications. 1997.
  4. Rajiv Malhotra. Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism. Harper Collins. 2011.
  5. Subhash Kak. The Astronomical Code of the Ṛgveda (Third Edition). 2011.
  6. Rajiv Malhotra. Indra’s Net: Defending Hinduism’s Philosophical Unity. Harper Collins. 2014.
  7. Kosla Vepa. The Origins of Astronomy, The Calendar, and Time (Second Edition). 2010.
  8. Prakruti Prativadi. Rasas in Bharatanatyam: First in a Series on Indian Aesthetics and Bharatanatyam. Creative Space. 2017.
  9. N.R.I Pathi. Dharmic Development. Andhra Cultural Portal. 2014.
  10. Prakruti Prativadi. The Bharatanāṭyaṃ Yajña. Swadeshi Indology-3 Information Handout. 2017.
  11. Dharampal. Collected Writings in 5 Volumes. Other India Press. 2000.
  12. John Price. Applied Geometry of the Sulba Sutras. Department of Mathematics, Maharishi University of Management, Iowa. 2000.
  13. Amartya Kumar Dutta. Was There Sophisticated Mathematics During Vedic Age? in ‘An anthology of disparate thoughts at a popular level‘. ISIREA, Kolkata, 2016.
  14. K. Ramasubramanian. The Origin and Growth of Mathematics in India. R C Gupta Award Lecture, IIT Bombay. 2010.
Acknowledgments:
Thanks to the ICP editor for his valuable suggestions and patiently reviewing this work.

The Modern “Hindu” is a Charvaka

Prior to this Post, we published The Descent of Man — Stages of Charvaka-ism. It explored how men & women of whatever caste and whatever background can descend from Daiva Bhakti to Asura Bhaava.

Those of you long time readers may recall our previous piece: The “Modern” Hindu is a Spoiled Brat. We concluded by stating that the degree of his selfishness was greater than others, and that this was due to mummy-approved egos. While there is truth to that, the reality is in fact even deeper. There are plenty of mama’s boys the world over. What makes ours so particularly unctuous is their embrace of “mujhe kya mila” ultimately rooted in Rnam krtva, ghrtam pibet

The Charvakas, sad to say, in fact won…likely a long time ago. As hard as it is to believe it, as much as “official” history belies it, the reality is the Charvaka philosophy is not only returning, but has in fact become the moola-mantra for the Modern Hindu of all castes: Rnam krtva ghrtam pibet.

The Charvakas are often conflated with the School of Lokayata, associated with Acharya Chanakya, and ultimately originating with Brihaspati, but they are in fact a different branch. Neither Chanakya nor Brihaspathi are nastikas—that is, both upheld the authority of the Vedas and also believed in the Supreme Being, however ruthless their politics may be. Brihaspathi is the preceptor of the devas, after all.

But Charvakas are something quite different, and quite a bit more insidious. The term itself means “sweet speech”, as they aim to deconstruct by the means of sweet voiced nothings that reduce societies to nothing. Rajiv Malhotra famously wrote on Charvakas 2.0, and the Return of the Charvakas. But the truth is, they never really left. After all, what better way to quietly assert your influence than to convince the world you don’t exist.

“There is no outside-text”

Textualists say “look at the text”—as if there is nothing above it. Do you know who else says that?—Cultural Marxists. Traditional Acharyas always emphasise sadhana & shraddha (along with study) to intuitively gain the true meaning.

Interestingly enough, there has long been an association and mutual fascination between the charvaka & the marxist. Derrida famously wrote “il n’y a pas de hors-texte“. Though some quibble that this means “there is no outside text“, the net effect remains “there is nothing beyond the text“. As such, each is free, whether materialist or spiritualist, traditional pandit or atheist scientist, to impute his or her meaning into the text itself. Original canonical interpretation is not what matters, but strategic interpretation to produce atrocity literature or social misfiture.

This is the problem with textualist twits. These murkhapanditas say “look at the text”, not realising Rishis purposefully recorded key texts in metaphor so idiots who misuse power/authority don’t get mantraphala (fruit of mantra).

Furthermore, many original manuscripts have been tampered with. So there is no point in saying “this is so-and-so’s own commentary!”, because the original words may have been changed to suit another agenda. That is why tapasya, shraddha, sadhana, all matter.

The problem is, the so called “Hindu RW” is filled with Charvakas—who say, “there is nothing beyond the text”. Egotists align exactly with Derrida who wrote exactly that. But along with text of Dharma is the Spirit. Letter can get corrupted, not Spirit.

For some, corruption of letter can result in financial remuneration. And then? Rnam krtva, ghrtam pibet.

You may assert, “Well, the average Hindu is known for his wise management of family money”—yes, of family money. He isn’t so stupid as to (as a general rule) get his family into debt so that he can drink ghee. No, he sells off the state or national interest instead! After all, “mujhe kya mila?”

Somebody is doing something useful? Should we promote? No, “mujhe kya mila?”. But if I promote foreign Acharyas, I will be seen as part of the popular “in crowd”. Popularity, you see, is also a form of ghee-shakkar. American high schools of the 90s may have become the embodiment of popularity contests, but Indian social media is no stranger—willing to barter even the national interest in the process.

It is true that around the world “normie twitter” is pretty much the same—disconnected from reality and focused on trivial things like food, celebrities, sports, etc. But the key difference is between Internet Hindu Twitter and the rest of the world. Internet Hindu twitter is very much a product of high school popularity contests. Short term gains rather than long term interests.

Even rhetoric too.

He is the ruthlessly unsentimental sentimentalist. His high minded values that are publicly professed allow him to be a low level charvaka unsentimentally focused on Rnam krtva ghrtam pibet.

Why else is “infotainment” so popular? Not enough to get information—nooo!—you must be entertained while you get it. “Amuse me”.

Bandhutva

I have purposefully used the term bandhutva rather than the usual point on casteism because in reality, casteism is just a specific form of bandhutva. For others it is language or region or frat house camaraderie, or some cases all three. This matters because it is demonstrative of the fact that it is not some sacred sense of duty that binds all these people together (sellouts happily sell off dharma to pay of rna). No, it is because any form of bandhutva rather than being the organic group they emanate from  is in fact an extension of their own self.

It’s why an idiot movie like Dangal can become popular not just in India but China, because the modern people of these  countries think there is something noble in a tyrannical father forcing his daughters into wrestling so he can be vicariously victorious through them. Children are but extensions of the parent’s self, rather than a true bandhu bound by blood and  reciprocal duties. Rather than loving the child for her own sake, it’s loving the child as the extension of one’s own self. That’s why parents often get hyper-competitive in making their kids compete with others.”Sharma ji ka beta…”.So naturally, those who are “not the self” become rivals in an ever-worsening zero-sum game for solipsism.

Casteism is merely another group extension of the self. It’s also why certain castes are famous for having vicious fights within, despite unity when collective interests are threatened. Jackals too, behave the same way. Mafias too operate that way. Varying degrees of this misconception of the self result in self-centeredness and eventually, the worst variety of selfishness known to mankind. Others may say more horrible crimes are committed by other communities—and this is true. But this is not out of selfishness—it is out of a topsy turvy sense of morality. Within a given conception of morality, the Hindu has become the most selfish.

Opportunist to the extreme, he is the ultimate fence-sitter. “Which side is winning?”—I will join that side. “Who cares if something is useful, I don’t have time to help build something someone else is doing. Give me something ready made, with a good ROI, and then I will join”—because, mujhe kya mila?

Prefer cozy digital salons to active useful action cause, Rnam krtva ghrtam pibet

Outrage and bluster instead of concerted societal action cause, Rnam krtva ghrtam pibet

Pay lip service to high minded ideals but in your private life, Rnam krtva ghrtam pibet

Naxalism or Nationalism,why care,as long as its casteism cause,Rnam krtva ghrtam pibet

Whine about conversion but utilise Catholic indulgences cause, Rnam krtva ghrtam pibet

Give legitimacy to criminal families for selfserving politics cause,Rnam krtva ghrtam pibet

No wonder “Rna creates Dharma” for a set of charvakas masquerading as brahmanas. Their own policy is in fact, Rnam krtva ghrtam pibet.

It’s why they can mistranslate madhuparka as beef

It’s why they can mistranslate sringara as sensuality/eroticism

It’s why they can falsely assert alternative lifestyles are not prohibited by Dharmasastra

It’s why they can malevolently attack Rajiv Malhotra in favour of Phil Goldberg

It’s why they can misguide the Hindu population on behalf of Sheldon Pollock & Co.

Rnam krtva, ghrtam pibet.

Secularists themselves have admitted as much for their philosophy. But what about so called “RW”ers. Nationalism being—temporarily—oh so popular these days. Let’s leave aside the normie twitter crowd. Why is internet hindu twitter so vacuous. Yes I mean you, quietly reading this article while publicly pretending not to (we see the link clicks).

It’s not that you don’t see what’s going on. It’s cause you prefer to do what’s popular, rather than what is principled. It’s understandable if you don’t have critical thinking skills—the education system (especially in India) was designed to deny you that. It’s understandable if you don’t have courage of conviction, after all 70 years of “pata hai mera baap kaun?”.

Others of course love to point to British Colonialism or Turkic Invasion, and there is some truth to that.  It is understandable if there is a sense of survival instincts, but for treachery to become a way of life long after at least nominal independence smacks of something deeper. If treachery is seen as mere transactionalism, and transactionalism the national policy, then it can only mean one thing: Rnam krtva, ghrtam pibet.

Even most ladies aren’t innocent. We’ve generally been understanding of the woman’s  predicament with the modern male—but the modern female is not much better. For all her high-minded talk of Romance, she doesn’t actually want real romance, but the possession of it for showcase. “See, I too HAVE someone who loves me that much. I too POSSESS such a Love”. It’s romance as consumption.

As Bhavabhuti showed, real Romance is selfless—not selfish. It’s not “I did this for you, so you do this for me”—that is the very  embodiment of transactionalism. It is also emblematic of how rather  than elevating men to the intuitively spiritual level of women, modern women have descended to the selfishly material level of men.

And people accept it, not because of conditioning (though there is some of that), not because of misquotation (though there is some of that), and not cause of peer pressure (though there is some of that)—they accept it because they want to.

In all fairness, who doesn’t want to enjoy? Everyone has some sense of wanting to enjoy either their youth or their family life or their retirement—etc. But the question is how much and at what cost?

“If you sell out your conscience, then you can enjoy!“

“If you sell out your self-respect, then you can enjoy!“

“If you sell out your principles, then you can enjoy!“.

“If you sell out your religion, then you can enjoy!“

“If you sell out your country, then you can enjoy!“

“If you sell out your state, then you can enjoy!“

“If you sell out your family, then you can enjoy!“

“If you sell your soul… then you can enjoy!“

“If you sell your mind…. then you can enjoy!“.

When is the cost too much?!!! That is the question not only Hindus or Indians, but all people of the world must ask. That is the moral of the story in the Ramayana—no cost is too high to bear…not for enjoyment…but for principles…for upholding one’s Dharma. Life treated both Sita and Rama unjustly. No average human should be asked to pay the cost they paid. You saw in the Uttararamacharita just the level of the love between them. And yet, Dharma had to come first. You rank cowards can’t even avoid selling off your own minds, your own free will to think as independent human beings worthy of respect—because you have no self-respect.

Groveling has not only become your way of life, or even a legal argument in courts, but even your religion!

Don’t blame Dharma—madde snanam is justified nowhere, and Sambha’s 1 off case involved rishis not saamaanya brahmanas (traditional or otherwise).

Self is not material. The self is spiritual—consciousness incarnate. And this why ultimately the Charvakas not only have returned, but in fact won long time back and are now running the show. They can sell off to colonial (or neo-colonial) invaders, not only cause “rnam krtva, ghrtam pibet”—but because they believe in the material self rather than the spiritual self.

That is why bandhutva matters to them—because (material) blood is thicker than spirit. Because rather than various levels of community-hood united in spirit, it is a brotherhood of self-proclaimed “eugenically” enhanced thievery—because Rnam krtva, Ghrtam pibet.

It is material self-hood, the ultimate egotism that has replaced the spiritual self-hood. One believes the self is only the physical body (with nothing much beyond), and the other believes the self to be the jeevatman—and emanation of the Ultimate self, Paramatman. It is the difference between the Asuric and the Daivic. One need not be an Asura worshipper—one need only believe ‘this is it, nothing more”’

Bhagavad Gita 2:42-43

yam imam puspitam vacam
pravadanty avipascitah
veda-vada-ratah partha
nanyad astiti vadinah
kamatmanah svarga-para
janma-karma-phala-pradam
kriya-visesa-bahulam
bhogaisvarya-gatim prati ||

Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this.

Charvakas come in different varieties. It all depends on the degree to which their sense of self-hood extends or to what extent they define their blood-based bandhutva. For some it is just themselves, for others just family, for others caste, and for others region. None of this is to say that any sense of bandhutva is wrong—only that it explains their behaviours. It’s why some self-proclaimed nationalists can still in fact be rabid casteists and also charvakas promoting beef in Vedas. It is “our empire after all”. And they can also whine about AIT’s effect on their state’s own sect while subtly promoting a bloviating blogger who promotes it —why?—”cause he is our own man“. Rnam krtva ghrtam pibet.

And if that doesn’t pay off—well then, one can still partner with the foreign charvakas to keep the chote log down. Treachery after all, is but mere transactionalism to them. Rnam krtva ghrtam pibet.

It’s why charvakas frequently masquerade as “by birth” brahmanas, embarrassing fellow brahmins with their pompous propaganda. Recognising that brahmanas and women were protected classes in ancient India, they cynically seek the protection of the very Dharma they are slowly destroying like termites.

But whether it was Charvaka or Ravana or even a woman like Tadaka, all those who aim to destroy Dharma will ultimately be destroyed by it. 

It’s also why this spiritual samgraam can’t be about caste vs caste,but Dharma vs Adharma.

There are those who will argue, “Well, aren’t Asuras spiritual beings rather than material?”. Well, the truth is more complicated. There are the pure “rationalist”/”empiricist” materialists of western or westernised nature who believe “disembodied beings” are balderdash. But then there are the ancient Indic materialists who emphasise only the material, while subverting aspects of the spiritual to their own Egos. And that is what it fundamentally means to be an Asura.

Asuras want to “run alongside God” with the aim of ultimately replacing God. Devas, whatever their flaws, however much they like to enjoy, don’t seek to replace God, but be one with God.

This is the true root of transactionalism, the shopkeeper mentality, because there are no consequences once life is over. YOLO! Life itself is the ultimate transaction, why not try everything on the buffet! So promote fraudacharyas you know in your heart are compromised. Anoint foreign Acharyas while insulting your own native ones. After all, you can drink the benefits of digital popularity!

So eat, drink, and be merry now cause you know not what comes tomorrow! Rnam krtva ghrtam pibet….

The Descent of Man — Stages of Charvaka-ism

http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/gita-126.jpg

There is an old story about a Brahmana who had traveled to Greece and was conversing with a Sophist. The Sophist said that the Greeks had separated God from studying Science so that their rational temper would not be clouded by their Spirituality. The Brahmin laughed, saying in order to understand Science correctly, you must first understand God.

While it is true that many quantum physicists are known to be religious, this story is less a riposte to agnostics than it is to atheists. After all, according to western logic, the agnostic position is indeed the most “rational” as based strictly on scientific evidence (i.e. primarily pratyaksha) God can’t be “proven”. Nevertheless, Indic logic recognises Sabda pramana as well—sabda in this case referring to the Veda, as well as the word of Enlightened Spiritual beings living the Dharmic tradition. As such, Indic logic is more robust as it doesn’t suffer from the solipsistic arrogance of modern man (who believes unless a phenomenon (divine or otherwise) makes itself observable—it must not exist). Interestingly, modern man echoes many of the views of Ancient Charvakas.

Despite having many agnostic and even a few atheist friends, we will, in the spirit of civilized discourse (and indeed, due to the impending technology-driven doom of mankind), give a structured rebuttal to the popular notion that God does not exist—or even that God-worship has caused mankind’s “social evils” (aka “religion is the opiate of the masses”). Those who know the difference between Dharma and religion may indeed believe the latter to be an opiate, but the former is not. This is because it doesn’t emphasise burdens of “dogma”: 1 way, 1 book, 1 person, 1 jealous god.

This is less a remark towards the religious of other religions—for at this stage, it may be (and that’s a big “may be”) better for a man to be religious than irreligious. It is simply a necessary tangent regarding the difference between Dharma and religion. The problem is, under the pretext of criticising religion, or superstition, one often finds the subtext of criticising God-worship or worship of the Divine. This is the moola-mantra of the Marxist. It is why both the Charvaka & the Marxian drive the descent of man into societal destruction.

But before Bernie bros get their boxers in a twist, we will focus not on Socialism (which has already been deconstructed here), but on how the Charvaka view of God-denial drives the demoniac.

The thought process of man’s descent into societal destruction:

God-harmony -> Ahamkar -> “Mujhe kya mila” -> Physical Fixation-> Sensuality -> Lust -> Hedonism -> Everyone is doing it -> Cruelty -> Inhumanity

After all, an egotistical person inherently is not in complete God-harmony as he believes “Aham-kaar!“. If I am the one who is deterministically doing this and that, then don’t I have the right to demand mujhe kya mila (what’s in it for me?). Does this not then lead to fixation on the physical (excessive focus on the erotic) or material (general greed for ‘things’)? Isn’t the result then sensuality then lust then hedonism (i.e. anything goes/sukham jivet rnam krtva) ignoring karmic debt, then finally mindless mob-thinking, then cruelty (the mark of the asura), then finally inhumanity (rakshasa-tattva)?

Thus, from Deva-bhakti man descends into Asura-bhaava. A slow but sure progression, duly aided by Yavat jivet.

If God-harmony is the goal, then what are the various motivations that influence whether or not society avoids or ambles toward destruction?

Bhakti -> Love of Truth -> Sadhachara -> Cultural Norms / Moral Living -> Ethical Living -> Legalist Living -> Groupthink -> Charvaka-ism -> Nihitha Svaartha -> Asura-bhaava

That is how mankind descends from manava-tattva to rakshasa-tattva. And it is not just men; many women are guilty of this too—Exhibit A: Golddiggers.

In fact, the seed of man’s problem is in the denial of woman. When “we” is reduced to “me”, the natural Rta between microcosmal-shiva & microcosmal shakti becomes discordant (much to the chagrin of Macrocosmal Shiva and Macrocosmal Shakti). It is this spanda (vibration) that emanates from bindu to become naadha, that determines our mentality. Is it a discordant one (with a wild amplitude and irregular frequency) or is a harmonious vibration (operating at a more sonorous frequency)? If Kaali is wild and untameable and yet a promoter of harmony it is because she only mates with Shiva. Thus, it is her mono-andry that ironically makes her stable and free. Her creation and her desires are subject to her will, rather than her will being subject to desire. It is the slavery to senses and sense gratification that prevent women from attaining the state of Kaali (or more specifically Shakti) & that certainly prevent men from attaining the state of Kaala or Shiva.

Abhicharakas and practicioners of all sorts of “black magic”—may or may not be superstitious, but their Egos and rootedness in the “I” over the “We” is what destroyed the sanctity of the Tantric tradition. It is the espousal of the material over the spiritual and the denial of each microcosmal Pinda-Shiva needing a specific sviya Shakti (and vice versa) that opens up a panoply of never-ending sensual possibilities rather than seeking merger with Parama-Shiva (macrocosmal) and Paraa-Shakti (macrocosmal). It is this “me” that separates sex from “we”. It is also this first separation of “we” that makes splitting a potato more difficult (for men).

Through this egoism (which eventually becomes egotism), any and all possibilities become plausible, because yavat jivet sukham jivet rnam krtva ghrtam pibet  (Be happy as long as you are alive, if need be go into debt to enjoy ghee). Forget the sukham of others’ happiness, even the rnam of karmic debt is forgotten, because not only the most personal “we” with respect to jeevatman, but the overarching “We” of paramatman is denied—so who or what’s to stop us from the deliciously endless buffet of buffoonery?

Much like nitwit Nazis who see national socialism as the solution to Communist Hedonism, many Charvakas are like rakshasas manipulated by greater asuras—picking only choice A or choice B, rather than thinking outside the box. These scientism-advocates believe science to be the key to perfecting man rather than spirituality. But Nazi Nationalists are as dangerous to any society as are individualistic Liberal hedonists. Both destroy the decentralisation of society that defends against tyranny, and exhort the reduction of worship to mere ritual, and religion or Dharma to mere tribalism.

But piety is not virtue. Indeed, with “piety” again one finds ego. True spirituality & true Dharma is rooted in humilityVinayasya moolam vruddhopa seva. When one is more interested in petty ambition than seva, humility which would come through serving elders, does not flower. Thus vinayam is absent in such social misfits.

But leave aside humility, where is humanity? Where is mankind today? Whether humans (of all nationalities) wish to admit it or not, they are flirting with (if not wholesale embracing) inhumanity. Whatever the sloganeering of “insaniyat” in the quest for “kashmiriyat”, mankind has forgotten its maana-tattva. It is why Aurobindo referred to modern civilization as not civilization, but “a carefully ordered barbarism”. And that is why, what humanity is in the midst of is not a clash of civilizations, but a clash for civilization.

After all, it is human cruelty that distinguishes the barbarian from the Aryan, or any civilised person for that matter. If civilization is a mega-culture, then what many people call “culture” is in fact merely so in an anthropological sense. Even if arts exist in such a society, its aesthetic is driven by the predatory, and thus, unworthy of being called ‘sanskriti‘. Sanskriti literally refers to refinement—if predator societies insist on calling what they have ‘culture’—perhaps it may indeed be best to restrict it to its anthropological sense, and assert Sanskriti as another ‘non-translatable’.

Real culture is not simple pack mentality, emblematic of the behaviour of predators. What is a predator in a suit and tie but merely a predator in more pompous clothing?

vivekanandagentlemen

Real culture recognises the Dignity of every Man and every Woman.

Abandoning of elderly mothers, bahu slapping saas, women using men, men exploiting women, brother usurping from brother, even the foundational relationships of mother & son or father & daughter are being destroyed in the name of “rnam krtva ghrtam pibet”. Society is literally eating itself out.

Though ethics and genetics can explain why many of these are wrong (especially the latter two), it was the concept of God/Paraa-Shakti/ParaBrahman that gave sanctity to all these relationships in the first place. By “Invading the Sacred”, the sanctity of life and living right has been lost, in favour of living pleasant. Preyas has finally and completely obliterated Shreyas. But all the plastic surgery in the world cannot hide the ugliness that humans have on the inside.

Without+photoshop+_305e904f954ae7c6b82bd7893278408d

Does Nastika simply mean heterodox/denying Veda or actual atheism?

In fact, the Sanskrit word for orthodox is nisthavaan. So the question of orthodoxy vs heterodoxy is not necessarily rooted in astika and nastika.

As a person who embraces the Veda as apaurusheya, one might venture to ask this question: Is all that’s happening today why great saints condemn denial of God?

It is true that there can be good, ethical individuals who happen to be atheist. It is also true that if one is to live by strictly “rational” or “scientific” standards, agnosticism (as opposed to atheism) is the more empirical position (as it admits we don’t know—not enough evidence). But the question isn’t what happens when very good or even the best people take atheist/agnostic positions—it’s whether Pandora’s box has been opened for the middling or the very worst to behave as they please.

Despite being a person who revers the Veda as sacred, one might ask  whether the greater sinner is in fact not the Veda Virodhaka , but the Deva Na-asti-ka..

Is this what the Puranas meant when they said that “popular preachers” in the Kali Age would be…”Naastikas” and Pashandas—those skilled at feeding both their bellies and their genitals?—because whatever Vedic ritual they do…they don’t believe God exists.

After all, if life is in the material (rather than the conscious spirit), then there is nothing after death (it’s lights out). So technically speaking, setting aside the very good and very bad people, how will very “average” people behave? There is nothing wrong in being “average” or wanting to appreciate all aspects of life. But when one is just “average” in virtue or Dharma, that means he or she is only as good or as bad as society allows him or her to be. Such a person simply wants to “get along, and live comfortable life without hurting othersif possible…”.

So with no aspiration to live an exemplary life, life essentially becomes a matter of triangulation: “Eh I don’t really care to be a Sati-Savitri, but I don’t want to be a Surpanakha either—what’s everyone else doing?”. But as society slowly but surely dilutes the definition of bad (“there is no good/bad, just perspective), men and women slip more and more towards the bad (because, “neethulu koodu guda pettavu” until finally…“rnam krtva ghrtam pibet”).

It is of course also important to note that by Deva na-asti-ka, we refer not to just those who reject the possibility of any deity, but rather, those denying the existence and agency of Paramatman or ParaBrahman or Paraa-Shakti.

Many charvakas in fact masquerade as (small d) deva-worshippers while overcompensatingly boasting about virility (again, small d…or in this case, no d). This in turn drives the sadism of their views and espousal of nazi theories, and the distinctly un-dharmic concept of “patriarchy”. It is a denial of Veda by denying Vedanta (which is more than just a school of philosophy (Uttara Mimamsa, or higher investigation)—but the literal “end” purpose of the Veda). Real rishis know this, and thus tell the followers of Purva Mimamsa (earlier/beginning investigation) to “proceed further”. But this attachment to ritual, privilege, and ritual privilege has led to an espousal of materiality, ironically on religious grounds. It is also why a real rishi like Ramana maharshi is often insulted by them—it is no different than the charvaka of old misguiding the masses and falsely portraying others. This segues to our conclusion.

We conclude as we began. An important point need be stressed about deity-worship, as all deities are not benevolent. And Dharma is not paganism It is true that Vedanta (‘literally the End of the Vedas’) emphasises that there is a Supreme Brahman which is the pervading and active spirit in all beings. Modern Charvakas often attempt to conflate this either with 1 true God-ism, or non-theism (giving some inert non-autonomous quality to it). This is typically done as it then gives justification to the Asuric—that is non-benevolent, or even malevolent deities that egotistically manipulate human beings for their own ultimate Supremacy—in defiance of the Supreme.

After all, many of the devas (i.e. Varuna) were originally Asuras. Regardless of paying lip-service to the Devaraja, such worship is usually characterised by imbalance, and even if the masculine is balanced by the feminine—it is done cynically, debasing both in the process. Whatever “we” that is there is contractual, terminating with its conditions, and reverting back to the original egotistical “me”. In fact, while much may not be known today about the historical Charvakas, the Mahabharata provides a parable for the modern reader that is particularly prescient. And we will end with that:

After the great Kuruksetra war, when the Pandava brothers were returning
triumphantly, thousands of brahmins gathered at the city gate to bestow their blessing on Yudhisthira. Among them was Charvaka. He moved forward and
without the consent of the rest of the brahmins, he addressed the king thus:

A little while after when the Brahmanas had become silent, a Rakshasa of the name of Charvaka, who had disguised himself as a Brahmana, addressed the king. He was a friend of Duryodhana and stood therein the garb of a religious mendicant. With a rosary, with a tuft of hair on his head, and with the triple staff in his hand, he stood proudly and fearlessly in the midst of all those Brahmanas that had come there for pronouncing benedictions (upon the king), numbering by thousands, O king, and all of whom were devoted to penances and vows. That wicked wight, desirous of evil unto the high-souled Pandavas and without having consulted those Brahmanas, said these words unto the king.’

Charvaka said, ‘All these Brahmanas, making me their spokesman, are saying, ‘Fie on thee! Thou art a wicked king. Thou art a slayer of kinsmen. What shalt thou gain, O son of Kunti, by having thus exterminated thy race? Having slain also thy superiors and preceptor, it is proper for thee to cast away thy life.’ Hearing these words of that wicked Rakshasa the Brahmanas there became deeply agitated. Stung by that speech, they made a loud uproar. And all of them, with king Yudhishthira. O monarch, became speechless from anxiety and shame.’

“Yudhishthira said, ‘I bow down to you and beseech you humbly, be gratified with me. It doth not behove you to cry fie on me. I shall soon lay down my life.’ 1

“Vaisampayana continued, ‘Then all those Brahmanas, O king, loudly said, ‘These are not our words. Prosperity to thee, O monarch!’ Those high-souled persons, conversant with the Vedas, with understanding rendered clear by penances, then penetrated the disguise of the speaker by means of their spiritual sight.’ And they said, ‘This is the Rakshasa Charvaka, the friend of Duryodhana. Having put on the garb of a religious mendicant, he seeks the good of his friend Duryodhana.

We have not, O thou of righteous soul, said anything of the kind. Let this anxiety of thine be dispelled. Let prosperity attend upon thee with thy brothers.’

“Vaisampayana continued, ‘These Brahmanas then, insensate with rage, uttered the sound Hun. Cleansed of all sins, they censured the sinful Rakshasa and slew him there (with that very sound). Consumed by the energy of those utterers of Brahma, Charvaka fell down dead, like a tree with all its sprouts blasted by the thunder of Indra. [1]

Unfortunately, many such Rakshasas disguising themselves as Brahmanas have been subtly disseminating Charvaka beliefs by misinterpreting texts and misguiding the naïve, trusting, and the devoutly orthodox. The time has come to expose them and their misguiding malevolence, before all of Hindu Society not only descends into Charvaka-ism, but is destroyed by it.

References:

  1. The Mahabharata. Shanti Parva. Section 36. Page 82.http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12a038.htm