Daily Archives: January 10, 2018

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….