Para-Pashyanti-Madhyama-Vaikhari : Four types of speeches in Sanatana Dharma

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

क्षेमालागी जीव

उतावीळ माझा

म्हणवोनि स्फुरताती बाहो

क्षेम देऊ गेले तव 

मी ची मी एकली

आसावला जीव राहो...

“My jīva & hands were so eager to embrace Him. But when I actually did I found out that I was the only One there. Whilst I experienced the advaita, I still yearn for dvaita”

पाया पडू गेले तव पाऊलचि न दिसे

उभाचि स्वयंभू असे

समोर कि पाठिमोरा न कळे

ठकचि पडिले कैसे....

“I tried to touch His feet. But I could not see His feet nor the base. He was standing on His own, unsupported by any foundation. I could not even make out which way He was facing”

शब्देंविण संवादु 

दुजेंवीण अनुवादु

हें तंव कैसेंनि गमे

परेहि परतें बोलणें खुंटलें

वैखरी कैसेंनि सांगें

“The conversation that we had was wordless. There was no ‘pashyanti’ to translate. When the ‘parā’ was active, all speech ceased. How then can I describe it in ‘vaikhari’?

There are four “layers” of “speech” in dharma. 

1. Vaikhari : one which we talk in to discuss routine things. Origin - Indriyas

2. Madhyamā : One which we utter after putting significant adhidaivik thought. Origin - manas / buddhi

3. Pashyanti : the vāNi which originates from the deepest core of our prakruti. Origin - ahamkāra

4. Parā : the vāNi that comes straight from the chètanā. The seer. Purusha. Ātmā. This vāNi comes from beyond the realms of prakruti.

I pray I get to hear at least one syllable in parā vāNi in this birth. 

The primordial syllable... 

ॐ.....

Thoughts on Importance of Surya Upaasanaa

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

I dream of all six darshans and all five dèvatā sampradāyas (Sūrya, vishNu, shiva, dèvī, gaNapati) flourishing in India. We need Sānkhya-nyāya-vaishéshika-mimāmsā to find guru-shishya tradition again. We need a strong resurrection of independent saura and gāNapatya sampradāyas. 

Sūrya = hiraNyagarbha = brahmadèva = creator 

viShNu = investor = sustenance

shiva = destruction

dèvī = māyā

gaNapati = anugraha

Sūrya upāsanā is upāsanā of hiraNyagarbha brahmā

All five are important. We have focussed a lot on sustenance and destruction in past 1000 years. Times were such. Sustenance and destruction were key traits needed to Hindus. Hence vishNu and shiva are the most prevalent dèvatās in last 1000 years. Dèvī is extremely prevalent too. Māyā needed to maintain the dvaita and do required puruShārtha and parākrama to defend dharma. gaNapati prevalent only in mahārāshTra. And here and there in other KrishNa-Godāvari basin states. 

Other regions have very few temples where gaNapati is the main presiding deity (except those built by Marathas). But anugraha part is at least alive in some parts of India. But the creation or the creative part is sūrya-brahmadèva. Now brahmadèva in his four-headed form cannot be worshipped widely (BhRgu’s shāpa). But we used to worship creator/creativity in form of sūrya nonetheless. There is a reason why Shruti calls viranchi as hiraNyagarbha. Hindus have neglected it in last 1000 years. 

Hindus need to worship and invoke the creator now. Rest of India needs to worship and invoke anugraha kāraka gaNapati now (happening slowly in cities - surprisingly thanks to Bollywood actually - but I will take it). I believe preserving gāNapatya tradition gave a certain edge to western coast of India in medieval times as opposed to rest of India. First deed that Shivaji did was jīrNoddhāra and punah-prāNapratishTHāpanā of a desecrated and abandoned gaNapati in Pune. 

We need to popularise sūrya upāsanā to jumpstart Hindu creativity. We need to popularise gaNapati upāsanā in rest of India to jumpstart Hindu “awakening”. Yes. When Hindus gave up daily sandhyā Vandana (which is mandatory to every Hindu), we threw away our best asset. Even Brahmins are giving it up now, kicking away the ladder that put them where they are. And looking at this downfall of Brahmins, others feel it’s OK too.

Surya upasana is important for Hindu creativity in sense of Hindu birth-rate too. Hindus need to produce more "suprajaa" (good offspring). The issue of "suprajaa" (not just numerical but qualitative too) is most important. 

I wish and pray that surya upasana revives again in India with fervor.

How Buddhism is (was) an attack on the very foundation of sanatana aastik dharma

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Since time of siddhārtha Gautama himself the aastika and naastika “split” happened. It is based on much deeper level of drashTā. The split manifested on sociopolitical level too. Look at behaviour of Buddhists when Menander invaded India.

The urge to “overthrow restrictions of varNāshrama” using some adhyātmik experiences of siddhārtha gautama is very old. Many wanted to “use” this to stage a coup. Hence bauddha darshan was one of THE biggest challenges thrown to sanātana dharma on far deeper level of existence. It is very myopic to look at all dèvatās which are common & then claim ki see how much similarity

Even Sānkhya prescribes worship of all these dèvatās and many more w/o acknowledging existence of Īshwara. That is NOT the focal point of this “revolt” against vèda & varNāshrama. The split not just happened on level of adhyātma. As I said it manifested on social and political and economic level too. Because a section of public was chaffing to rebel against varNāshrama. Why rebel? Because of the restrictions that the system puts on “YOLO” type people. 

The tension between Kshatriya and brāhmaNa was always there. Bound to be there. Perhaps that is the whole point - that all powerful Kshatriyas remain subservient to beggar Brahmins. This has manifested many times in past. Whole vashishTHa-vishvāmitra feud is precisely this. Parshurāma comes in this line only. Rāma was coordinator and restored balance. 

But after MBH Great War, and mass-deaths of Kshatriyas on kurukshètra, this balance was almost skewed. Rise of vaishya+shudra kings (mahā-padmananda) is another defining point who were chaffing. It is this class which joined the Buddhist bandwagon en masse when Ashoka embraced bauddha-darshan as his “adhyātmik mārga”. These & YOLO type freeloaders too.

It became a difficult problem because it attacked vaidika system not from outside, but from inside. At level of drashTā. It is a very curious case of an adhyātmik experience being used to stage a sociopolitical and economic coup in India. Very unique. And very much dhārmik or Hindu.

The only problem which manifested was, the teachings of Buddha could not produce more Buddhas. 😊

This has very briefly (and a bit shallowly) addressed by Hermann Hesse in Siddhartha. The path taught by Buddha cannot grant that final liberation. Because even Shruti declares it is very fickle and one cannot hope to make a syllabus and a SOP to attain moksha (what Buddha did). Just as by giving a textbook and printed instruction manual does not make role of guru redundant, same this happened here. 

Mind you, People who joined Buddhist bandwagon were not shallow people. They understood the meaning and importance of adhyātma. They just wanted to make this process free of some “shrotrīya and brahmanishTHa guru” who will address their needs as per their guNa-karma composition. In long run we know, it does not work that way. While vashishTHa-vishwāmitra feud ended in vishwāmitra becoming a great brahmarShi, similar things did not happen here. 

Because we CANNOT wish away a guru and replace him with SOP. Took centuries to understand this.

The chaffing of the YOLO type people under sobering responsibility that varNāshrama forces people to own-up has its root in one more deeper question. kriyamāNa karma Vs prārabdha/Sanchita karma. Or as Abrahmics like to put it - question of free-will. YOLO emphasises, prima-facie, on importance of kriyamāNa karma over Sanchita. Which is absolutely true. KriyamāNa is the only thing we have in our hand, since Sanchita is already done and awaiting to bear fruits.

But YOLO (includes Abrahmics) tries to wipe-out Sanchita. The argument looks very “sexy” when it hits you. The patron hero of YOLO is karNa who proudly claims :

सुतोवा सुतपुत्रोवा योवाकोवा भवाम्यहम्

दैवायत्तं कुले जन्म: मदायत्तं तु पौरुषम् 

(Whether a suta or sutaputra, whoever I am. My Birth is up to fate, but my valor is up to me)

We applause and cheer this for we are educated under influence of liberty-fraternity-equality values of modern education. But while karNa accepts “दैवायत्तं कुले जन्म:” part, his kriyamāNa karma doesn’t correct it. For all his life he lamented this fight against his Sanchita. Abrahmics, in the name of free-will, offer to completely wipe-out Sanchita (if one chooses to accept the messiah). An easy cop-out. Similar to how Ashoka might have attracted to Buddha dharma (as per popular narrative of Kalinga war effect on him). By overthrowing varNāshrama, there is a way out to overthrow Sanchita karma. As if nothing matters. Complete reset, all that is said and done in past is erased. 

Now bauddha Darshana is inherently a dhārmik darshana so it does not overrule karma. But this urge to “have a clean slate” is enticing nevertheless. With varNāshrama constantly reminding one that “whatever you are is effect of your own karma” - forces one to take up responsibility of whatever that is happening to us as fruit of our own doing. It is not surprising that there always was, is and will be a section who would wish to overthrow this constant reminder (like a teenager kid wanting to rebel/overthrow disciplining parents meaning good).

Samartha Rāmadāsa Svāmī beautifully explains this : 

जननी-जनक माया लेकरू काय जाणे

पय न लगत मूखीं हाणितां वत्स नेणे

“What does a child know the love of parents - who like a cow pushing/disciplining her ignorant calf so that it can drink milk properly”

Except here, the “cow” is our own past karma, not some external God with grand plan. The fact of the matter is - there is no escaping from Sanchita karma. It improves (and deteriorates) slowly and requires consistency in kriyamāNa karma. And irrespective of the quality of your consistent kriyamāNa karma, you still HAVE TO face the fruits of your Sanchita. The moment this truth seeps in deep and realisation dawns, is the moment when we attain the second of the three “shānti” that we chant after every recitation of every stotra there is. 

The adhidaivika shānti : 

of manas-buddhi and ahamkāra. 

Of chitta. 

Of antahkaraNa. 

Moral of the Story : 

So in the end know that

1. Dèvatā (including big 3 or 5) are not main focus of sanātana dharma.

2. Chètana DrashTā (ātman/purush/Indra) and his moksha/kaivalya is the main focus. Because that chètanā is raison d’être

3. Guru, varNāshrama, Īshwara are there to help achieve 2

4. Guru and varNāshrama (based on past+present karma) are absolutely essential. Contrary to popular belief, even Īshwara can be optional (not recommended but each to his/her own prakruti)

5. When you realize that drashTā is sitting behind ALL the layers of prakruti, you are free.

PS :

No matter how wildly one differs with fellow dhārmik on ideological and adhyātmik or social issues, DO NOT betray them by colluding with mlechha. Some Buddhists in their blind hatred of varNāshrama dharma, did that too. They were first to die under mlechha or yavana yoke. It is very sad (for me personally) to see great human beings (nāgārjuna for example) colluding/giving upadèsha etc to mlechha invaders due an “adhyātmik disagreement”. 

it affected political scenarios in India. Same thing repeated in Sindh and Bengal. There always is a section of bauddhas who, out of their absolute dislike towards vedas and varNashrama, end up helping absolute worst invaders. this is an example of same mentality. But then she is a globalist and not a nationalist (Communism, Xianity and Islam are globalist ideas - All land belongs to God/Proletariat, hence we do not believe in petty nation-states. Islam and Communism more so). It is painful to see dharmik people (i.e. a section of people belonging to dharmik darshans like Buddhism, Sikhism) indulge in same narrative and effort.

Eventually what happens is varNashrama saves Vaidik Hindus, but it  obliterated these sampradayas. In Sindh, after generations of Bauddha darshan following kings, a brahmaNa named Chaacha became a king and started reinstating vaidik hindu dharma. Result, at opportune moment (after successfully stopping Arabs for 80 years), seeing Qasim win at Deval, a section flipped. Resulted in absolute wipeout of dharmik power. Hindus at least survived because they ghettoed themselves in their strongholds (and Rajput + Chalukya response began from interior). 

But seeing Hindus cannot be obliterated, they turned towards Buddhists & destroyed them instead. Those who could not fight, converted en masse. Same movie repeated almost painfully similarly (in broader strokes) in Bengal 500 years later. After Buddhist Paala empire, Senas (Vaidik hindus) conquered Bengal and started reinstating mainstream hindu dharma there. Before job was completed, Khilji raid occurred, Senas retreated to east of Ganga (which was predominantly buddhist)

West of Ganga remained Hindu (mostly) - due to reinstatement of Vaidika Hindu dharma by Senas. East of Ganga, job was half-done perhaps. Almost all converted slowly. Dalits and Neo-Buddhists buying into friendship with MIM like parties should read this history. Jogendra Mandal is too recent an example. But this is one mistake these people have been repeating again and again.

Ideas are powerful. Do not let them be too powerful. 

Experience and Anubhuti trumps ideas. 

श्रीराम.... 

Yoni and Importance of sustainability and manushya janma

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Due to human activity, many jīva-s who should have spent more time in pashu-yoni are being born as humans. Because humans have made extinct so many pashu-yonis, the jīva-a cannot spend their karmic backlog there & “earn” human birth. Hence so many animals among humans these days. 

Availability of a “right yoni (womb)” is very critical for all of us. We have spent lot of time, many times, either due to our ability of choice (some adhyātmikally progressed ones) or due to compulsions of our own past karma (most of us) - finding the right yoni so get a body. Availability of yonis (good, puNyavāna) is the biggest filter in the journey of every jīva towards moksha. This is one more reason why Hindu numerical (and qualitative) superiority is essential.

So many talented jīva-s (who were destined to shine due to their sanchit) missed out on being born in the yoni of a Hindu mother : because of limited availability of Hindu mothers in some parts of subcontinent. Since prevalent abrahmic system in those places no longer permits “तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय” journey, they shine once like fireflies and die-out - rescinding back to lower yonis (or more destitute humans). 

This is why is yoni utmost important? 

Because - शरीरं आद्यं खलु धर्मसाधनम् (Physical body is the primary asset of achieving Dharma). 

Let us try and make our boys and girls “puNyavāna” - so that they in turn become conduits for great-jīvas to find body - shine - and move upward.

Thoughts on Durga and Athena

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

I find story of Durgā very interesting. And the seed of this new understanding is actually in Stephen Fry’s observation on Sherlock Holmes - he is born a fully developed character the moment we meet him first. He doesn’t “grow” in story to become a great detective. We see Sherlock Holmes for the first time we meet him - as a fully formed, fully armed character. He stays like this throughout. 

Stephen Fry likens Holmes to Greek Goddess Athena. Her birth story is fascinating. She emerges from Zeus’s head - fully armed, all wise, fully formed. 

I have read Durgā saptashati many times (all Hindus should - especially during Chaitra and Ashwin navarātra). I always wondered how dèvī (in her Durgā form) just comes into being - all-knowing fully armed (by all dèvatā- for one purpose - to kill mahishāsura). We all know the story. So I won’t repeat it. 

Other avatāra (with exception of Narasimha, kūrma and varāha) have a growth story. How they eventually grew (physically, in character sense, in sense of a journey in life). They did many things. Apart from their momentous task. 

But not Durgā. SHE just comes into being. All powerful, all-armed, all knowing - for one single purpose. WAR and Destruction of mahishāsura. That’s it. This single-agenda of durgā (also varāha-narasimha-kūrma) avatarāra is what really sets HER apart. From other avatāra.

Beautifully captured in famous Marathi ārati of durgā

हारि पडिलो आता संकट निवारी

(I am about to lose now, just remove the sankaTa) 

चारही श्रमले परंतु न बोलवे काही

सहाही विवाद करता पडले प्रवाही 

(Vedas are tired now, cannot be uttered. All six darshans argued but to no avail). When all our world-views (darshans) argue, brain-storm and fail at finding an amicable, sustainable and dhārmik resolution to problem of asuras... 

When it starts threatening to the very existence of Shruti... That is when Durgā appears. For complete physical destruction.

It is important that the due process of argumentation, brainstorming, experimentation and genuine conflict resolution is tried out first. Most of the problems (even a fundamental one like Buddha) was solved this way. 

Not everyone is Durgā. Heck - even dèvī is not Durgā every time. When times are so bad (or about to be so bad) that it denies any scope of organic response to asuras, that is when Durgā comes into existence. For one single purpose. 

I shudder to think what happens then. We don’t want HER to be coming into existence every now and then, do we?

On avatāra and concept of Gods in Dharma

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

This thread started as a discussion on Bharat Rakshak (as is the case with most of my posts). Then was published on twitter. It was received well there. So posting it here for posterity and ease of access. 🙏🙏

—————————————————

We have begun to think of “God” as Abrahmics (Xians and Muslims). We Hindus should try and unlearn this meticulously. For it is affecting us. Just after Duryodhana tried to arrest Krishna, he had seen his virāTa-rūpa. He knew this is vishNu himself. Yet it didn’t bother him much. Because we view “God” very differently. God IS NOT above karma. If you have done a karma (good bad whatever), nothing in this existence has power to stop its consequences getting back to you. Not even an all powerful omnipotent omniscient omnipresent Lord.

Which leads to the question whether the said entity is actually “omni- all that” at all? So Duryodhana’s journey after being revealed that Krishna is vishNU - actually teaches how Hindus view Gods and Deities. Gods can’t interfere in cycle of Karma. Duryodhana is part of a karmic chain reaction started long ago with Shantanu’s decision to deprive Bhishma of kinghood. Only Duryodhana could’ve stopped it if only he had decided not be an asshole & let pānDavas be at peace after partition.

But molestation of Draupadi had sealed his fate. No matter what, Kauravas were marked men, the moment they touched Draupadi. Even Krishna knew it during his final attempt for peace that was impossible to stop this chain reaction just before the final explosion. It was inevitable. Only question was - will Duryodhan take only 102 men down with him (karNa and Shakuni included) or will Duryodhana take down 4 million men down with him. He very methodically tied his fate with other 4 million poor buggers. Duryodhana thought that by tying himself with the system, he would become “too big to fail”. I cannot blame him for thinking this way. This is what we see in our daily lives.  And the system had become so rigid that they could not uncouple the karma of this marked person with other 4 million bystanders. Their karma. What else.... He just misjudged the purpose of avatāra - to reset the order. Not to just troubleshoot and bug fix.

Hence dear Hindus : Never wish for an avatāra

You never know what all you will lose, in short and long term if vishNu decides to “come down” and do the system reset. Just do your job & hold the dharma as long as you can (one birth at a time) & keep vishNu asleep in Kshirasāgara. It’ll happen when it has to happen. Only Muslims and Xians wish to hasten their judgement day. They remind me of Duryodhana. Unfortunately our lives are tied with them in given times. So if their Qayamat happens, they will die. That is what they want. We will be left with damaged earth. If abrahmic qayamat has to happen, the question in front of us is how to keep us and our sacred land and dharma relatively untouched for as far as possible. Then There is always a possibility of some ātatāyi terrorist like ashwatthāma to pull the trigger of doomsday weapon.

So the question arises - whom do we pray to? What do we pray for? What is the role of dèvatā in our existence?

we pray to our ishtadevata, kuladevata, vāstudevata, sthānadevata, grāmadevata and others too. What do we usually pray for? Do we pray to save our souls (SOS)? Or do we pray for us getting anything and everything along with moksha? In my opinion, it is Latter. Herein lies main difference. In dire need, we also pray for saving us too difficult situations too. Eg. gajéndramoksha. When divine intervention happens in such instances, it is usually via some agent or direct. But will you call shri Hari saving Gajendra from crocodile as him taking an avatāra? No. Moment we are relieved of our predicament, we thank the gods for their help and move on with our karma. If there is no intervention, we accept it as our Sanchita-karma and move on with strife.

Avatāra happens when things are broken so badly that it is hopeless. Things broke so badly and things became so hopeless because? Because we (ancestors, previous births) did not do our karma and did not upheld the dharma by doing the right thing. Tell me if Bhishma had not taken than vow, would mahabhārata happen? If Shantanu had kept control over his desires? If citizens of mathurā had rebelled and overthrown Kansa after his adhārmik usurping of power, will shri Hari need to come down? It is when we abandon the right path and things start getting hopelessly bad that avatāra needs to happen. Because there are some things more valuable than existence of Srishti which needs to be protected. It is to save that thing.

ParitrāNāya sādhūnām doesn’t translate as “to save good people”. Rather it is very lazy translation. It actually means to save that/them which/who is/are so exalted and sacred that its worth saving at all costs. Even if that cost is pralaya. Or world war. Or systemic reset. All those who died in presence of bhagawaan went to swarga. But all of those who died then were ill-fated (due to their past bad karma) to live in such adhaarmik times where even the queens are disrobed in public and suffer the consequence of that age and times. If such thing can happen to a lady as exalted as Draupadi what must be ordinary women going through? All those who got to see hear touch Krishna in Mathura and Vrindavan must have gotten good gati and it was as a result of some powerful accumulated puNya.

But they had to live under tyrants like Kansa and Jarasandha who sent assassins to murder new born kids en masse. Think of how many murders Putanā committed before meeting her end at hands of Krishna? What about those parents who were fortunate enough to live in presence of bhagwaan.  But unfortunate enough to lose their new born babies? Do you call it a good fortune? 😊 Is it not better if one by one’s sādhana gets a similar good gati, perhaps darshan of that same devatā while living in a dhārmik society. Instead of living in turbulent times invited by our own actions or inactions?

मा ते संगोस्तु अकर्मणिं..... Never indulge in Akarma (dodging one’s duties and responsibility towards dharma).

Critique on Savarkar's ideas - Hindutva in proper perspective

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Regarding Savarkar's definition of "Who is Hindu".

The original definition from his famous "Hindutva", for the consideration of reader, goes like this - 

आसिन्धु सिन्धु पर्यन्ता यस्य भारत भूमिकाः

पितृभूः पुण्यभुः च एव, स वै हिन्दुरीति स्मृतः 

One who considers this land from Indus to southern ocean (poetic way of saying entire Indian subcontinent, no need to take it literally) as "India" and regards this country as  his "pitRu bhumi" (land of forefathers) and Punya-bhumi (difficult to translate this one), he is "Hindu"

About Fatherland - It is translation of original sanskrit word - Pitrubhumi (Land of Pitaras - forefathers). India is land of my forefathers. Ever since human being entered Indian subcontinent from Africa 1 lakh years ago, all my ancestors were from this subcontinent. So India is my pitrubhumi (Purkhon ki zameen in common hindi). All the places, rivers, mountains which I consider valuable and am ideologically and emotionally attached to, are in Indian subcontinent. Hence, India is my Punyabhumi as well. All those who share opinion with me are Hindus. 

Julia Roberts may be a Vaishnavaite, but her pitrubhumi is somewhere else. She is dharmik, but not Hindu. Tarek Fatah and some Muslims like him (many are my friends) openly and proudly say that India is their Pitrubhumi and Punyabhumi, are Hindus. In their opinion, Mecca is just a place and over reverence to a place is non-islamic. On the other hand, culturally they  are of this land and identify with Ayodhya, Kurukshetra, Ramsetu etc. They do not worship those places, but then nor do many Nirishwarvadi (non-theistic) Hindus. Whatever Subramanian Swamy said in his DNA article, is what Savarkar said in 1920s. Hindutva is Dharmarthik (socio-politico-economic) concept. It should not be made OR treated as an Adhyatmik (vaguely "spiritual") concept. 

Hindu and Hindutva ARE geographical confined terms. Hindu comes from Sindhu and means Indian. With Muslim rule, it came to be associated with Indian faiths and with British rule, it was confined to Indian aastika faiths (segregating Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs and tribals). GOI continued this. But people did not. Please do not think of Hindu and Hindutva as Adhyatmik terms. They are purely geographical and hence ethnocentric terms meant for describing Hindus of India. Those who have accepted some other land as their Punyabhumi and are interested only in adhyatmik traditions of Dharma, need not pay attention to what Savarkar says. It is not applicable. 

These terms "Hindu" and "Hindutva" are for denoting dharmarthik aspirations of native brown Indic people from Indian subcontinent who consider Indian subcontinent as their native land and revered land. Hindutva is a subset of Dharma. Dharma is for entire humanity. Hindus (or the ethnic group which today is known as Hindus) are the last custodians and as well as originators of meme-complex of Dharma. 

Remembered following quote from the film Good Shepherd (a fantastic film to watch, BTW)

Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something... we Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland, Jews their tradition; even the blacks, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you (WASPs) have?  

Edward Wilson: We have United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.

Here "we" are "hindus". And "we" have and ought to have "India". Rest are welcome, but are just visitors. In future when this Nation-state based polity will crumble and the very concept of "Nation-state" will fade, "Hindu" tag will fade along with it and so will "Hindutva". So, in another words, Hindutva is also one of the few Indic responses to "nation-state" concept imposed upon India by Brits after 1857. 

Until nation-state exists, Hindus (brown indic people of Indian origin living in India and considering India as their native land and revered land) will have to ensure that their traditions and models (dharmik, aarthik, Kaamik and mokshik) are protected and implemented and their population well-versed with these traditions and models in geographical confines of "nation-state", that is today's "Republic of India".

I hate to speak in terms of skin color (too simplistic for my mind), but this will be the last time I will use this just to make myself and my understanding of Savarkar clear. 

Native Indic Indian people believing in integral India as their native land and revered land, are Hindus and the nation-state of India (with her establishments, institutions, constitution and outlook) should be built as per the traditions, values, customs and four-fold Purushartha models of Indic origin. This is "Swa-Tantra" (self system). And this is what Savarkar's Hindutva (or anybody else's Hindutva including RSS) demands.

The Tale of Two Butchers - A lesson on Satya and Ahimsa

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Some times, best of the lessons are learnt and taught, not in classrooms but in times and places where the distinction between life and death, is murkiest. Consider the example of Bhagvad Geeta - Who would have thought that the sublime song would be sung on the battlefield which saw death of forty lakh soldiers? Yet it did. This post today, will recount a tale of two such unlikely teachers who taught the characters in the story (and us, the readers and onlookers) the quintessential lesson of Dharma and Duty. 

Tale One - Dharma Vyadha (धर्मव्याध) - From Mahabharata (Book three, chapters 206-216)

As a typical Indian story begins, once upon a time there was a poor Brahmin named "Kaushika". He learnt all that was to learn from Vedas and decided to do a "Tapas" to sharpen his Yogic prowess and gain knowledge and Siddhis. He began his Tapas. Years passed by. The glow of the penance started showing on his face and his very aura started becoming radiant. One day, while he was meditating under a tree, his concentration was disturbed when a sparrow started making noise while trying to build a nest on the tree. Angry, Kaushika glanced at the sparrow causing nuisance and lo! sparrow turned to ashes that very instant. 

Pleased by his progress, he went to a town nearby to ask for Bhiksha. While asking for alms on one door, the lady of the house took long time to answer his call and give the alms. This angered our Kaushika who threatened to curse the lady and burn her down with his Yogic Powers. But to his surprise, the lady replied that she was neither a crow nor a sparrow, to be burnt. Kaushika is amazed to see that an average housewife had such sophisticated Yogic powers without having to do the stringent austerities. The Lady replied that by doing one's duty, one can achieve all that is to be achieved. She redirected Kaushika to a butcher living in the city of Mithila who, according to lady, would impart knowledge unto this learned Brahmin. 

Curioser and curioser, Kaushika decides to check out this Butcher whom the lady referred to as "Dharma-Vyaadha". He reaches Mithila, tracks down the meat-shop of the said butcher and is horrified at the sight of blood and meat and death around. He gives up the expectation of gaining any knowledge, but now that he had come this far, he decides to atleast meet and talk with this butcher. The Butcher, however, guesses the intent of this brahmin and requests him to wait until his shop is closed, so that he can instruct the brahmin about the intricacies of Dharma as told by the housewife in another city. Kaushika gets second surprise of his life and his arrogance is thoroughly grounded and replaced by genuine curiosity, befitting an ideal student. 

DharmaVyaadha starts his instruction,"Oh tapasvi, I will instruct you upon the nature of Dharma and Ahimsa by my own example. I am in this business because my family has been in this business for generations. Upon careful thinking, I found out that this business suits me well. I devote all my time to ensure that my customers are satisfied with my service. Furthermore, it allows me to take care of my old parents as well as family while ability to have a decent life in this good city. Do not judge an act as good OR bad. No act is of higher OR lower stature. It is higher OR lower based on the driving force behind that act. Right action is achieved by the means of coordinated efforts in two directions - Controlling the six enemies (Kaama/Krodha/Lobha/Moha/Mada/Matsara) and strengthening Dharmik intent of the mind. Any action under influence of these six enemies is bad action. 

Ahimsaa (nonviolence) and Satya (truth) are the two main pillars of Dharma. A decision on what is truth, under difficult circumstances, should be made by choosing that course of action which would lead to highest good of all that is (Bhuta). And Ahimsa is when person wishes and acts for benefit of all keeping the true understanding of Justice (Nyaya) and virtues (GuNa)." 

Knowledge and bliss dawns upon Kaushika who thanks the Butcher and bid him farewell. Butcher gives him final lesson,"Oh learned Brahmana, in quest of mastering Vedas and acquiring Yogic Siddhis, you have neglected your duties towards your parents, your family and have become ascetic. You learned from me, but you also have to learn from the housewife who sent you here. Dharma and knowledge can be achieved perfectly by staying in the society and fulfilling all the duties and earning all the Purusharthas. You have to pay back the dues to parents, to society before you are liberated (Mukta). Quit Sannyasa, go back home, take care of your parents, start family. You have my blessing, knowledge will shine upon you."

It is both interesting and humbling that one of the finest lesson on Non-violence given to a brahmin, not by some enlightened mahatma, but by a Butcher who's occupation is to kill animals. There is an elaborate story where the butcher tells Kaushika about is past life and how Shudras and brahmins are defined. They arrive upon a conclusion that good conduct alone determines who is brahmin and who is not. And good or bad is, is determined by the bold part in quote above. Possession of qualities like Purity, Discipline and adherence to truth alone makes one a brahmin, irrespective of the caste a person is born into and not the birth.

Tale Two - The story of Gopalchandra Mukhopadhyay aka Gopal Patha

Gopal `Patha' Mukherjee, Gopal the Goat was among the most feared of Calcutta's musclemen, with 800 boys at his command. He was an emperor and they were his army. Gopal Patha he got the name because his family ran a meat shop on College Street was, at the time of partition, a protector of his community.  

When Direct Action Day unleashed communal rioting in Calcutta, Gopal Patha assembled his force. In his words, "It was a very critical time for the country. We thought if the whole area became Pakistan, there would be more torture and repression. So I called all my boys together and said it was time to retaliate. If you come to know that one murder has taken place, you commit 10 murders. That was the order to my boys.'' 

The words are uttered so softly, it takes a while for their import to sink in. Calcutta was in flames and Gopal Patha, in effect, took the opportunity to douse the city in kerosene. "It was basically duty,'' he said. "I had to help those in distress." Patha ripostes that his boys were always selective. "We only fought and killed our attackers. But why should we kill an ordinary rickshaw-wallah or hawker who happens to be a Muslim?" 

"An year later when Mahatma Gandhi came to city appealing for peace, people came with their weapons and placed them at the feet of Gandhiji. Shabbily-dressed people came with swords, daggers and country-made guns. However not me. Gandhi called me twice, but I didn't go. The third time, some local Congress leaders told me that I should at least deposit some of my arms. I went there. I saw people coming and depositing weapons which were of no use to anyone out-of-order pistols, that sort of thing. 

Then Gandhi's secretary said to me: "Gopal, why don't you surrender your arms to Gandhiji?" I replied, "With these arms I saved the women of my area, I saved the people. I will not surrender them. Where was Gandhiji during the Great Calcutta Killing? Where was he then? Even if I've used a nail to kill someone, I won't surrender even that nail.'' - click to view source of this story

I find a strange connection in these two stories. I think Gopal Patha understood the crux of Satya and Ahimsa in far better proportions than Gandhiji during those difficult times. The more I think about it, the more I realized that the words of Dharma-Vyaadha resonated in essence from words and actions of criminals and butchers like Gopalchandra Mukherjee. 

As Dharmavyadha said in first tale, it is the driving force behind the action which determines its moral position. Satya is choosing a course of action which would lead to higher good in long term of living beings in the frame of reference. And Ahimsa is acting for benefit of all with true sense of Justice and Virtues. 

What eventually happened to Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh? And What has happened to Muslims in India? This is the frame of reference to judge the higher an long-term good of humans. And this should be frame of reference while using the terms like Satya and Ahimsa in context of socio-politico-economic events happening in Indian subcontinent.

Parshuraam ki Pratiksha - Ramdhaari Singh "Dinkar"

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

हे वीर बन्धु ! दायी है कौन विपद का ?

हम दोषी किसको कहें तुम्हारे वध का ?

यह गहन प्रश्न; कैसे रहस्य समझायें ?

दस-बीस अधिक हों तो हम नाम गिनायें।

पर, कदम-कदम पर यहाँ खड़ा पातक है,

हर तरफ लगाये घात खड़ा घातक है।

घातक है, जो देवता-सदृश दिखता है,

लेकिन, कमरे में गलत हुक्म लिखता है,

जिस पापी को गुण नहीं; गोत्र प्यारा है,

समझो, उसने ही हमें यहाँ मारा है।

जो सत्य जान कर भी न सत्य कहता है,

या किसी लोभ के विवश मूक रहता है,

उस कुटिल राजतन्त्री कदर्य को धिक् है,

यह मूक सत्यहन्ता कम नहीं वधिक है।

चोरों के हैं जो हितू, ठगों के बल हैं,

जिनके प्रताप से पलते पाप सकल हैं,

जो छल-प्रपंच, सब को प्रश्रय देते हैं,

या चाटुकार जन से सेवा लेते हैं;

यह पाप उन्हीं का हमको मार गया है,

भारत अपने घर में ही हार गया है।

है कौन यहाँ, कारण जो नहीं विपद् का ?

किस पर जिम्मा है नहीं हमारे वध का ?

जो चरम पाप है, हमें उसी की लत है,

दैहिक बल को रहता यह देश ग़लत है।

नेता निमग्न दिन-रात शान्ति-चिन्तन में,

कवि-कलाकार ऊपर उड़ रहे गगन में।

यज्ञाग्नि हिन्द में समिध नहीं पाती है,

पौरुष की ज्वाला रोज बुझी जाती है।

ओ बदनसीब अन्धो ! कमजोर अभागो ?

अब भी तो खोलो नयन, नींद से जागो।

वह अघी, बाहुबल का जो अपलापी है,

जिसकी ज्वाला बुझ गयी, वही पापी है।

जब तक प्रसन्न यह अनल, सुगुण हँसते है;

है जहाँ खड्ग, सब पुण्य वहीं बसते हैं।

वीरता जहाँ पर नहीं, पुण्य का क्षय है,

वीरता जहाँ पर नहीं, स्वार्थ की जय है।

तलवार पुण्य की सखी, धर्मपालक है,

लालच पर अंकुश कठिन, लोभ-सालक है।

असि छोड़, भीरु बन जहाँ धर्म सोता है,

पातक प्रचण्डतम वहीं प्रकट होता है।

तलवारें सोतीं जहाँ बन्द म्यानों में,

किस्मतें वहाँ सड़ती है तहखानों में।

बलिवेदी पर बालियाँ-नथें चढ़ती हैं,

सोने की ईंटें, मगर, नहीं कढ़ती हैं।

पूछो कुबेर से, कब सुवर्ण वे देंगे ?

यदि आज नहीं तो सुयश और कब लेंगे ?

तूफान उठेगा, प्रलय-वाण छूटेगा,है

जहाँ स्वर्ण, बम वहीं, स्यात्, फूटेगा।

जो करें, किन्तु, कंचन यह नहीं बचेगा,

शायद, सुवर्ण पर ही संहार मचेगा।

हम पर अपने पापों का बोझ न डालें,

कह दो सब से, अपना दायित्व सँभालें।

कह दो प्रपंचकारी, कपटी, जाली से,

आलसी, अकर्मठ, काहिल, हड़ताली से,

सी लें जबान, चुपचाप काम पर जायें,

हम यहाँ रक्त, वे घर में स्वेद बहायें।

हम दें उस को विजय, हमें तुम बल दो,

दो शस्त्र और अपना संकल्प अटल दो।

हों खड़े लोग कटिबद्ध वहाँ यदि घर में,

है कौन हमें जीते जो यहाँ समर में ?

हो जहाँ कहीं भी अनय, उसे रोको रे !

जो करें पाप शशि-सूर्य, उन्हें टोको रे !

जा कहो, पुण्य यदि बढ़ा नहीं शासन में,

या आग सुलगती रही प्रजा के मन में;

तामस बढ़ता यदि गया ढकेल प्रभा को,

निर्बन्ध पन्थ यदि मिला नहीं प्रतिभा को,

रिपु नहीं, यही अन्याय हमें मारेगा,

अपने घर में ही फिर स्वदेश हारेगा ?

Dvija - Rescuing Varna from Jaati

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Thoughts continued from these previous posts.

1. India - A civilizationial state

2. Parashuraama - Metaphor bridging Varna and Caste system

3. Few thoughts on Varnashrama Dharma

4. Engineered language of Sanskrit

My Priya Bandhujan,

Upanishad Ganga has begun churning minds. Here is a snapshot of this ongoing manthana in my mind after watching the episode of Chanakya and Varna-Vyavastha. More than the episode itself, this bharatvaakya of the episode had a lasting impact.

जन्मना जायते शूद्रः. संस्कारात् द्विजं उच्यते |

वेद-पाठात् भवेत् विप्रः ब्रह्म जानाति ब्राह्मणः| स्कंदपुराण ६.२३९.३१

Everyone is Shudra by birth. With Sanskaras (the system of 16 sanskaras in dharma) makes a person "Dvija". Mastering Vedas (knowledge) makes one "Vipra". One becomes a "Brahmana" as he attains "Brahma-Jnana".

applying modern context - 

Everyone is Shudra by birth. After enrolling in school (Upanayana sanskara) and graduation (Samaavartana) one becomes Dvija (twice born). After becoming a "master" of a particular stream of knowledge, one becomes a "Vipra". And after attaining "Brahma-Jnaana" one becomes Brahmana.

If one looks at most of the Smriti verses dealing with "dharmaarthik" theories pertaining to Purushaartha-trayi (Dharma-artha-kaama i.e. politics and economy, jurisprudence, personal lifestyle), the most frequent term used is "Dvija". 

Dvija is one who has initiated his formal education in an institution which is recognized by sociopolity of given space and time. Initiation of education is marked by Upanayana Sanskaara (admission to primary school in modern context) and Samaavartana sanskaara (graduation - HSC OR Bachelor's degree). All scriptures are unanimous at giving these two sanskaras to three varnas. In modern context, we have amended it to include all 4 Varnas (a welcome decision). 

In days of current dharma-shaastra (constitution of India and Hindu civil code suite), all those who have completed formal education up to at the least HSC and at the most Bachelor's level is a "Dvija". 

As far as Brahmanas are concerned, well, that is subjective. But all know such Brahmanas in and around our lives and times. That is "Adhyatmika" aspect and falls outside the scope of my capability and experience. Hence I respectfully tiptoe and desist speaking about it, until I have credible "Pratyaksha Pramaana".

Those who choose to specialize and become authorities in a particular field of knowledge (PhD, Post-Doctoral researcher, associate/assistant/ full professor, having published the fruits of his/her deliberations in a peer-reviewed platform) can be called as a "Vipra" (vip + ra - vaguely translated as praiseworthy brightness). In all these, categories, a person is expected to live on donations by parents, society, King and Vaishyas. And even in modern times, these guys do live off the donations (we call is grants). Ironically, the fact that most of our "vipras" now a days are busy applying for grants here and there, instead of spreading their luminescence (research), shows that this system too has begun its decline and will shed and evolve into something else shortly. 

In none of the above categories, does (rather SHOULD) one really care about "Jaati". One beautiful sentence from TV series Upanishad ganga - 

जो सत्य कह सके, सत्य सून सके, सत्य धारण कर सके, श्रेष्ठ ज्ञान का अधिकारी वही होता है   One who can speak truth, listen to truth, bear the truth, only he can attained greater knowledge.

This actually gives us platform to serially dismantle this distorted system. Jaati-System is here to stay. One has to dissociate the word "brahmana" from various jaatis like "Muhiyal", "Bhumihar", "Chitpavan", "Deshastha", "Vaidiki", "Niyogi", "Iyer", "Aiyangar", "Namboothiri" so on and so forth. All these are merely "jaatis" and should have no right to place the word "Brahmana" after them, unless they really follow the "dharma of brahmana varna". Of course, thanks to Britishers  the words Brahmana and Kshatriya are perhaps tainted permanently, we may need to find a new word which imply the meaning depicted in the opening Shloka of this post.

Varnashrama functions on ratio of Varnas in society. With onslaught of Saif-ud-Deen (sword of faith), this ratio was disturbed. The specialized Kshatriya classes of India either fell fighting OR migrated after defeat OR converted to newer faith OR retained their way of life by compromising on their Dharma and living to see next day. Same applies for other specialized classes, one of which is Brahmana Varna.

Looking logically, none of these responses are illogical and condemnable. All of us have had ancestors who compromised on Dharma and lived on (hence we exist) and some other ancestors who chose one of the other three options. 

The word "compromise" elicits a strong emotion, so does the word "selfish". But are these really "bad" words? What would one call of a "Jaati-dhaari Brahmin" (not varna), who took decisions which resulted in great troubles for some people of lower castes in his vicinity, but also preserved a rare manuscript(s) at the cost of his life, his property and even his honor from predatory hands of invader? What about those Veda-shaalas who kept the oral tradition of vedas alive, by gulping up the resources from local vaishya OR king instead of helping farmers in famine, probably by threatening him of religious excommunication and at times blackmailing the traders OR at times even legitimizing the deeds of a "Muslim ruler" committed against his fellow Hindu bretheren?

There are many such complex points in history where choices of individuals arose out of the "cost-benefit ratio" calculations being played out in his mind and he taking the decision based on his understanding of this equation and grasp over situation. In fact, this entire domain of history wherein the flame of Dharma was kept burning (at least the memory and resources required to resurrect it when time is ripe) at "ALL COSTS" is full of such instances. Hence it makes it difficult to categorize them as "good" or "bad".

Dharma sustained due to these so called compromisers. Dharma also sustained due to so called "Aakramana-Kaari". There is space-time for "compromise" and there is space-time for "Aakramana". Those who keep on compromising (or advocate doing so) in space and time of "Aakramana" are real Dhimmis. Those who advocate Aakramana in space and time of "compromising" are real "Martyrs". And both "Dhimmis" and "Martyrs" are necessary as "examples" so that the message of Dharma is delivered and wheel of Dharma starts rotating (Dharma Chakra Pravartana).

The moral of the story is, we need to dismantle this distorted understanding of varna and "brahmin" and need to rebuild the cadre by drawing and training individuals from wide spectrum of Jaatis. May be a new word, but the connection between Jaati and Brahmin should and will severe.

Purva-Paksha analysis of Islam using Tarkashastra of Saankhya-Yoga

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

I have previously written three essays on similar topic. I would request gentle readers to go through them before you read on this essay.

1. Memetics and Islam

2. Brief story of Islamic Socio-political power structure and its expansion

3. Islam and Communism - Comparing the fundamentals

Offering my Pranaama to Mahakaala, I now begin this essay. In essay no. 2 cited above, I arrived at a conclusion quoted below.

The power-structure in Islam is inherently linked with the nature and Chitta-Vritti of Prophet Muhammad himself. Belief in Allah is not enough to ensure the place in heaven. One has to depend upon Muhammad's favours and his influence on god to go to heaven. Thus, Muhammad made himself more powerful than Allah. Thus, in Islam for all practical purposes, Muhammad, the Rasool, is supremely powerful figure. This is as perfect and complete as it can get. Muhammad will only talk to Allah about you if you were a true Muslim. 

But who determines who the true-Muslim is and who is not, herein lies the real crux of the issue. A Qazi or a Mullah controls the social matters and ascertains the "report-card" of spiritual progress of ordinary Abdul. And sad part is ordinary Abdul in India can't even think of rebelling because if he does, he will be branded as "enemy of Islam" by power-establishment and will bring "Islam in danger". 

Islam, when initiated, introduced sort of standardization of ideas in otherwise free-thinking and dispersed Arabs. Standardization perhaps helped in efficient survival where resources are scarce and cost of living in terms of energy is high. Civilizations like India where resources are abundant and cost of living in terms of energy is ridiculously low, are better off being free-thinking and non-standardized. Violent suppression of critical faculties lead to conflict between free-thinkers (Indic people) and standardised products (Muslims in general and those from Deobandi and Wahabi schools in particular).

Re-reading above analysis it seems that the Wahabi/Deobandi groups are like regression in the progression of Islam. Study of history from this perspective, seems to give out a signal of future decay/demise when fundamentalists/conservatives take over as it halts the progress or linear march of a movement. But is this movement of Wahabandi (Wahabi+Deobandi) groups to the center-stage really a regression?

My attempt at Purva-Paksha of Islam from Point of view of Saankhya-Yoga epistemology. 

I have numbered the "Purva-Paksha Sutras" and "Teeka (commentary)" follows. For those who are not aware of Indian Tarka-Shaastra OR dialectics, please follow this wiki link.

1. Any meme which wishes to survive beyond era of its inception has to have an infallible core.

2. Muslims are caught between "drive to live/evolve/excel" and "drive to be righteous (according to book)".

In Dharmik system, these two drives are not at loggerheads with each other. In fact, in Dharmik systems, we have separate "shastras" to deal with both these drives. (Artha and Dharma respectively. I am not even bothering to use the word Moksha and Adhyatma for Islam). The inherent "separateness" of these two Purusharthas (They are linked and move in parallel, not completely severed like in Secularism) makes it difficult for a dharmik to comprehend the nature and magnitude of churning which goes on in Muslim mind. Unlike Dharma, Deen and Daulat cannot be separated in Islam (as in all abrahmic faiths). 

3. In Islam, their "infallible" (Qur'an and hadith) is almost a universal set. Shruti, which is Indic infallible core, is not.

Furthermore, Shruti is a work of thousands of seers, criticized and peer-reviewed by thousands of other seers, all this process being extended over thousands of years of continuous composition, has enough material which can very effortlessly sustain and hold together vastly contradictory ideas and memes. There is plenty of "digestion time" spent in the process. Something which did not happen and is impossible to happen in one man's life-time (no matter how talented he is). Even if we see Islam as continuity of Judaic tradition extending over millennium and half prior to birth of Muhammad, it still does not pass the crucial criteria of "rigorous peer review" by multiple composers. This peer-review is missing in Judaic tradition.

4. In Saankhya-Yoga, there are at the least three acceptable "Pramaanas" - Pratyaksha (direct experience/observation), Anumaana (logical inference/interpretation from observed data) and Shabda (word in literature). 

While examining Shruti, a Dhaarmik is expected to give importance to Pratyaksha Pramaana, but here "pratyaksha", means direct experience. Then comes Anumaana and then one has to test what Shruti (Shabda) has to say about a question.

There are no tools OR permissions to "examine" Deen, per se. But if one wishes to do so, one is supposed to give primary importance to Shabda (words written in good book). Second is Anumaana (various Firqas and sects and their interpretation of the infallible core) and last is Pratyaksha (the qalandars, sufis, who are detested by all good muslims who believe in supremacy of "Shabda-Praamanya" (word in Qur'an)).  

So, when this conflict between drive to live and drive to be righteous arises, a Muslim who has understood the "essence" of dharma simply deletes (in his mind) those parts of "Deen" which comes in way of his "drive to live/evolve/excel". This is what we call as "Swadharma" in Sanskrit - the drive which made us utter "Tamaso Maa Jyotir gamaya". 

For most muslims, Deen being infallible is beyond question - they follow orders/interpretations of Mullah in matters of religion. Those who do question these interpretations, are caught in dilemma - Whether to give primary importance to Pratyaksha pramaana and have courage to delete those ideas in Deen which do not conform with one's "Anubhava" OR to give primary importance to "Shabda praamanya" as Mullah and Deen recommends.

5. Dharmik individuals give importance to Pratyaksha Pramana and then Anumaana while testing the efficacy of Shabda.

Rest who cannot muster courage to test Deen with their experience and rely on Shabda (for which they have to depend upon a mullah who understands Arabic) have to undergo one further test. The qualitative difference in "shabda" (the infallible core) as discussed in commentary of sutra 3, is to be applied here. When testing efficacy of Shabda alone, Dharmikness of individual depends upon dharmikness of Shabda under consideration. Shruti is inherently "Dharmik" in character due to its limited scope and robustness in accommodating multiplicity of opinions in that narrow scope of human experience. Deen, on the other hand, is monopolistic with universal scope covering entire spectrum of human experience and hence Aasurik.

6. How to prioritize Anumaana pramaana (various interpertations) is the next test.

Wahabis are those Muslims who eliminate this second Pramana as well (to highest extent) and rely only and solely on "Shabda Pramaana". No interpretations, only to take literal meaning, and one gets what the shabda really means and wishes to say. 

From Deen's perspective, those giving primary importance to Pratyaksha Pramanas are Kafirs 1.0. Later, once these are removed, those relying on Anumaana Pramaana (which is subjective and determined by demographic factors in given "desha") are kafirs 2.0. This is a the crunch situation when expansion-based sociopolity of Deen cannot be continued. What remains thereafter, is utopia of true believers.  

Thus the phenomenon of Wahabism taking center-stage is in fact progression and not regression when we view Deen from Saankhya point of view. Wahabism a logical conclusion to Deen.

Phalashruti - Vast majority of Muslims in Indian subcontinent are like stones lying in Ganga river. For millennia, they have been surrounded by Dharma and Dhaarmiks just like water surrounds these pebbles all the time. Yet when we break these pebbles, we see that the core is still dry. Similarly this sense of Dharma has not percolated in Indian Muslims. They have remained "dry" in spite of being in water.

One look at the typical Sufi argument:

This argument is typically put forth by those who are either genuine travelers of Tasawwuf OR are Islamists hiding under Sufi garb. 

Here's an interesting ayat, often quoted by Sufis which goes somewhat near to Indic concept of Pramaana. Qur'an 17:36 

"And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the core of the heart - about all those [one] will be questioned."

The Ibn Katheer commentary mentions that the order of pramanas here is significant - hearing, sight, and core of the heart. Therefore the sufi will proceed accordingly. However, "popular theologians" for the masses always emphasize on "faith over reason". In Islam, this is by far the predominant view, since it is a cult engineered for social control and mobilization.

So even among most Sufis who take a view of pramanas that is somewhat like Indic philosophy, their orientation is such that it ultimately reinforces doctrinal affiliation and communal identification over other human dynamics. We see this a lot with many Indic people who pursue their spiritual effort within the context of a particular school or maTha. They ultimately come around to affirming their maTha. But because of the long and variegated traditions that are woven to make up Indic traditions, a stable context is available in which these statements can be evaluated neutrally - i.e. separate from group-identifications. But Islam lacks that.

Ibn Katheer in fact corroborates what I said above. Relying on what one hears (shabda from Qur'an) is more important than one's pratyaksha anubhava in "core of your heart". Popular theologians, too basically say the same thing  - To rely on Shabda (Qur'an). 

This again underlines the natural progression of Islamic society towards Wahabism.