1. And that’s the reason I decided to take up on this issue here. No one who has gone through even one or two texts of Shri Ram Swarup Ji will say that he only anchors on Śatrubodha or recommends to develop own identity (Svayamabodha) through the enemy’s identity (Śatrubodha).
2. In the past one and a half years I have taught two courses on the works of Shri Ram Swarup Ji, and the very structure course is divided in two very equal parts of Svayamabodha and Śatrubodha with four chapters each.
3. In fact going by total number of pages written, SRS’s text actually tilts more in favor of Svayamabodha than Śatrubodha. No one who has read him deeply will define his own Hindu identity by the identity of the ‘other’ or the Śatru.
4. So one very honest advice of mine to you is to read his texts before claiming that any of his texts encourages anchoring identity on Śatrubodha only.
5. His exposition of Islamic theology is only in that context where he identifies the missing spiritual theory and praxis and yet the ever present politico-religious law which seeks to enforce arbitrary laws upon hapless individuals without giving them any means for spirituality.
6. I understand the fear of anchoring one’s identity on what one is not, especially when our own identity is that of the great Sanātana dharma and Bhāratavarṣa.
7. There are many political Hindus or Artha-Sarvopari Hindus who define themselves only as the antithesis of the ‘other’ and thus end up with ‘anything goes’ idea of Hindu dharma. They are actually nihilists influencers with a thin décor of pop-Hinduism.
8. In fact the whole reason I bring up the Svayamabodha and Śatrubodha framework is to make folks realize we need to know ourselves as much as we need to know the other.
9. And the method to know ourselves is to do dhyāna sādhanā and perform required and necessary rituals as per our kartavyas.
10. But just as we don’t need to define ourselves in the opposite image of our enemies, we also don’t need to define ourselves in their image, even where it seems there are ‘similarities’.
11. For example, adherence with a text may seem to be a similarity from outside, but actually there is no similarity at all in the way the Muslims adhere to the Quran and the way the Hindus adhere to the Vedas. Here is how.
12. Yes, respect for the Vedas is a universal for all Hindus, no questions there.
13. But this respect is hinged upon the possibility that any individual can meditate under the guidance of guru, follow necessary rituals and arrive at the absolute truth, truth described in the Vedas and the Upanishads.
14. And in fact, millions upon millions during our glorious history have meditated, followed the rituals and realized the truth described in our texts.
15. And thus our ‘adherence’ is subject to pramāṇa, and it is the testimony of thousands upon thousands of Jñānīs and Jīvanamuktas who have reached the highest level, realized the absolute truth and confirmed that the Vedas are actually right, and so are all other of our texts.
16. This is the reason of the absolute centrality of the Vedas to the Hindu citi. Not a single adhikārī has come out saying that the Vedas are not pramāṇa or they are false.
17. Is that the same for Islam, Muslims and the Quran? Absolutely not. A Muslim is just supposed to ‘believe’, with no possibility of any self-confirmation ever of the ‘truth’ propounded in a historical text. In fact it is forbidden for him to even try to do so.
18. Even a thought like that is blasphemy and doubt in God’s design. So a Muslim’s ‘adherence’ to a central text is DESPITE of any self-confirmation.
19. A Hindu’s ‘adherence’ to a central text (or texts) is BECAUSE of the fact that self-confirmation is possible and keeps happening in every era by thousands upon thousands of Jīvanmuktas.
20. No need to go deep into it now, but suffice to say that where our texts say that self-realization is something everyone has to do it for himself, the Islamic texts say that it is the responsibility of Islamic state to realize ‘truth’ for everyone (hence the Book).
21. And moreover, it is prohibited for anyone to even try to discover the truth by himself. ‘Discovering truth’ is the sole prerogative of the Prophet, and the only duty of Muslims is to follow him.
Where is the similarity between the two ‘adherences’, here?
Where is the similarity between the two ‘adherences’, here?
22. Like I said, it is equally wrong for Hindus to define themselves through seeking ‘similarities’ with Prophetic Monotheistic sects. Any similarity is peripheral and result of copying outer symbols of a true religion like Hindu dharma, for the purpose of the masquerade.
23. About the next claimed ‘similarity’ of ‘rules and regulations’ present in both of the religions, it is another fallacy. One needs to delve just a little to know this similarity is also peripheral and the ‘other’ masquerading to mimic a real dharma like Hindu dharma.
24. The rules laid down in Hindu Smritis are the result of our great Ṛṣis perceiving the cosmic rhythms and aligning human life according to the timeless but invisible cosmic rhythms so that all human life is ultimately oriented towards the highest goal of self-realization.
25. These rules are not arbitrary. They exist. They are just perceived by our great ṛṣis and presented to Hindus as rituals and customs.
26. On the other hand, rules in Islamic Shariat or a Church canon are the result of the idiosyncrasies of a single person or a political office, which are historical in origin, and have nothing to do with either cosmic rhythm or the internal rhythms of its adherents.
27. They are just political laws masquerading as divine sanctions and forced upon individuals by a political militant state in the name of the God. There is no truth in them. They are no different than a court summon of a modern secular court.
28. Yes, our dharma influences our choices in eating, dressing and mating and pretty much everywhere else.
29. But it takes its authority and validation from the fact that these ‘rules’ are ‘influences’ are the result of great draṣṭās perceiving patterns of eternal truths and creating guide books for human society to follow the path towards truth with least resistance.
30. You don’t need to tell me the guidelines that Tantra provides in the smallest of matters. I know, by practice. But Tantra doesn’t seek the intervention of the State or paramilitary to enforce those guidelines.
31. Our deities and gurus are more than capable enough to do that, with a direct connect with the individual under discussion.
32. In social matters too, it is not the State which intervenes directly but the community and sampradāya which takes centre stage. There too, their way is social ostracism.
33. Social ostracism is a great way to shame the transgresser and to bring him back to the inner fold at the same time.
34. Only when some individuals or communities threaten to break down the entire social order and trample upon universal rituals and customs, then the State has to intervene.
35. Again, no ‘similarity’ between Islamic State’s interference into private and public lives of individuals and nations (as they have no means to elevate individuals or societies to higher states of consciousness).
36. A Hindu system’s (Tantra’s for example) intervention in private lives, which hinges upon 1. a sādhanā paddhati, 2. the connection of the deity to the devotee and 3. guru’s connection to the śiṣya, scarcely requiring State’s or military’s intervention.
37. Lastly, Secular vs. Sacred division is the result of the evolution and survival of Christian theology in the context of European history. Hindu dharma has nothing to do with that. Islam on the other hand, always conflated the two powers secular and sacred.
38. Does that make it similar to Hindu dharma? Absolutely not, and here is how.
39. Islam is not just interested in political, economic, personal and sexual affairs, but the individuals and institutions advising and executing laws in all these spheres are one and the same, making it a Kangaroo court where judge jury and executioner are on and the same.
40. Contrast that with the Hindu system of varṇāṣrama dharma, where the class which actually dictates all the worldly laws, the Brahmins, have no real stake in all worldly affairs. They are the ones advising the king, but never want power for themselves.
41. And that is why this system is so beautiful. Jñānīs were always advising the king in his statecraft.
42. But this sacred land of Bhāratavarṣa actually came upon a system which created an entire class – of Brahmins – which lived an extremely difficult and frugal life themselves, and had no personal stakes in the affairs of the State, and yet were able to advise the King.
43. That is why we did not have totalitarian monsters like Stalin and Hitler; that is why we did not have totalitarian dictators like even China (which failed to create a Brahmin varṇa).
44. It is this religion (based on strength of varṇāṣrama dharma and a varṇa like Brahmins) which has the authority to advice individuals in their private affair and not Islam which has absolutely no praxis of spiritual evolution and no social system like varṇāṣrama dharma.
45. There is no ‘similarity’ between the two ‘interests’ and ‘interventions’.
46. So to reiterate the larger point, even a semblance of acquaintance with Shri Ram Swarup’s text will tell you it does not hinge upon creating one’s identity on Śatrubodha.
47. He just warns Hindus to have or develop Śatrubodha, but equally and even more intensely recommends to develop Svayambodha by sādhanā, all the while endorsing all traditional systems including varṇāṣrama dharma and all its attendant institutions, texts and traditions.
48. Nowhere in his text, or my exhortation of SAS (Svayambodha-Śatrubodha framework) will you find negation of Svayamabodha, only an exhortation to not neglect Śatrubodha, while having a robust Svayamabodha.
49. Like I always tell people, please read Shri Ram Swarup Ji.
50. Your concern would find a valid subject in criticizing the artha-sarvopari political Hindus, who, riding on YouTube videos of Bollywood lyricists claim ‘anything goes’ status for Hindus. They are the ones who think Śatrubodha is enough.
51. I am the one shaking people up saying, you can’t neglect Svayambodha, or consider it one bit less important than Śatrubodha. And you know where I learned it from? You got it – from none other than Shri Ram Swarup Ji.
---END---
---END---
Loading suggestions...