The Role of Shri Raam in preserving the idea of "Dharma"

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

Dharma is set of rules which are devised to accommodate all the components of society which are ready to evolve and adapt.

Those components which do not show this drive to evolve in accordance to time and conditions, they are weeded out.. Trying to preserve such components is adharma because it hinders growth of all others which is not rightful and just. There may be different opinions on how to "weed-out" these anachronistic memes.. But thrown out, they must be...

Now, what matters is, attitude towards weeding them out.. Should every thing be thrown out? or should things that still can be salvaged, be salvaged? India's nature has typically been in favour of latter. We try to preserve as far as possible. Hence we find such a diversity of opinions and traditions and antique-artifacts in India. Because it in our nature to "preserve".

However, when certain factors start hurting and direly threatening this tendency of Indians to "preserve and propagate" all kinds of diverse ideas, those factors are detrimental to very "idea" that India stands for - "Dharma". 

In this case, in modern times and place, those factors are

1. Political Islam aka Islamism and the Qazi-Mullah class (to be differentiated from ordinary Muslims who live and face problems in India just like any other citizen)

2. Foreign Christian missionaries and related NGOs on foreign pay-roll doing forcible conversions in tribal areas (to be differentiated from millions of nationalist Christians who have been living amicably in India for 2000 years and who form integral part of Dharmic India)

3. Indian Communists and Leftists on foreign pay-roll (to be differentiated from nationalistic-leftists which should be preserved at all costs)

These three factors are trying to bring about a kind of "standardisation and homogenization" in India which will destroy not only the diversity of India but also the tendency of Indians to stand and tolerate myriad of different opinions, learn from them, grow with them and co-synthesize newer variants and ideas. In case of standardisation of any kind, what will happen to India can be seen in what is currently happening with Pakistan. Its is a direct litmus test for all indians to see that what will happen to them, if they leave Dharma and if Dharma leaves them.

Sustenance of this "value-system" based of "just-preservation of diverse memes" is "Dharma" and to make it well-established in entire population of India, we need examples. This sustenance requires all sorts of human emotions, sentiments and hence actions. We require anger, violence, love, non-violence, logic, justice, strength, weakness, robustness, delicateness. Various personalities in history and in mythology give example of such conditioned behaviour taken by those personalities which led to preservation of "Dharma". 

Shri Raam is one such epitome of examples which leads and inspire millions to perform all actions (violent/non-violent, attractive/unattractive, good/bad) which are required and demanded by time and environment for preservation of Dharma. Indian mind is usually non-violent. It tends to "adjust" with few "uncomfortabilities" and live on. It requires a very strong justification to carry out an essential but unpleasant task for preservation of this system. Examples like Raam, Krishna, Buddha, Mahaveer, Chaarvak, Adi Shankaracharya, Shivaji, Guru Govindsingh, Rana Pratap, Durga, Kaali, Shiva, Jaichand, Aambhi, Kauravas, Pandavas, Ravana etc give a "perspective" to every Indian mind to justify the necessary action.

As Kapila says in Saamkhya darshan and Krishna in Geeta, without "action" this world and this system won't exist. This is also (in a way) supported by second law of thermodynamics. The system always tends to go towards disorder. We need to keep on doing work "on the system" continuously just to keep it in order. Of course it increases disorder somewhere else, but can't help. 

Raam symbolizes the justification and example of those actions which are required to be performed by every individual, every community, every state and every nation for preservation of "Dharma" as described in earlier paragraphs. He also symbolizes and justifies all those actions which is required to be performed by body, mind, intellect and ego of every individual for preservation of "dharma" within self (Swadharma). 


You see, when idea of "dharma" and "Raam" is relevant and interconnected on so many dimensions, we can't let him go, can we?

Aastikas and Naastikas - System of Religious philosophies in India

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

1. From this previous post, I have argued that there is no term for "religion" in Indian world-view. One can say there was no religion before Islam came.

2. From this another previous post, we have seen that there are dharma-shastras (law-books dealing with societal, judicial, administrative matters etc) , Artha-shaastras (dealing with power, economics, politics, warfare etc), Kaamshastras (dealing with creative faculties of mind - finearts and performing arts), Moksha-shaastras (philosophical schools dealing with nirvana/moksha) in Indian "world-view" and no "one single Book" by "One single  author" to guide people in all aspects of life.

Continuing the line of discussion further, we find out that there were many schools of thought, ideologies, philosophies which were constantly arguing and debating with each other. Every ideology (religion in modern terms) was called as "mat (मत)" by our seers.

Buddhism was called Bauddha-mat (बौद्धमत) - Opinion of Buddhaa

Jainism was called Jaaina-mat -(जैनमत)  - Opinion of Jinendra

Vaishnavism was Vaishnava-mat - (वैष्णवमत)- Opinion of vaishnavas

Shaivism was called Shaiva-mat - (शैवमत) - Opinion of Shaivas

Sikh school of thought is called Guru-mat -(गुरुमत) - Opinion of Guru

So on and so forth for all the ideological schools....

Thus everything was "an opinion" onlee. Although all the philosophies claimed to be stating complete truth, all accepted and understood each-other's position and agreed to disagree without resorting to physical violence.

From this, what we follow is that in Indian system, Conversion == change of opinion. It is as simple as that. If I start finding "opinion of Gurus" logical than others in "given space and time" I will change my opinion and become a Sikh. The classical word used for "conversion" in Indian literature is Mataantar (मतांतर).

The Argumentative Indians:

The Vaad-vivaad (argumentative debate) tradition is age-old in India. The proponents of each schools used to go to other schools and hold debate sessions. There they put-forth the opinions in public forums and argued with each other (usually for days and weeks). 

There are rules of acquiring and displaying knowledge in Indian system. That system is called "Nyaaya (न्याय)". In this, there is categorization of "acceptable valid proof" (Pramaanam प्रमाणं). In that list of acceptable valid proofs, there were certain schools who placed "sentence in Vedas (वेदवाक्यं)" at first position (eg. Mimaamsa मीमांसा). Others place it far below in the list (eg. Saamkhya-Yoga-Vedanta-Vaisheshika). Others do not place it at all (eg. Bauddha, Jaina, Charvaka).

Those people in whose list, "sentence in Veda" finds a mention anywhere (even if bottommost position), those people are called "aastikas". Aastika comes from "Asti (अस्ति) - Yes, it is".

Those people who would cite a reference from Vedas but not consider it as a "Pramaanam" were Naastikaas. "Naa asti (ना अस्ति) - No, it isn't".

The syntax of a typical debate is something like

Statement X - Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma - सर्वं खलु इदं ब्रह्म (Everything that "is" is parabrahman)..

Debater 1 (aastika) agrees. 

Moderator and/or the other party asks," Ko Pramaanam - को प्रमाणं?" (What is the proof?)

Debater 1 - Cites a verse from some upanishada and says "Iti pramaanam - इति प्रमाणं" (here is the proof).

Debater 2 (if he disagrees) - Naasti naasti - नास्ति नास्ति (no it isn't, no it isn't).

Debater 3 (if there and agrees) - Aasti aasti - अस्ति अस्ति (yes it is, yes it is).

Thus Debater 1 and 3 are Aastikas (Yes-sayers) and Debater 2 is Naastika (No-sayer). 

Now, consider a situation in some other time and place when Debater 1 and 3 meet (lets assume 1 is mimaamsak and 3 is Vedantist). They have debate going on for days on whether Veda-vaakyam (Statement in Vedas) should be given the "numero uno" priority as proof or whether it should be one of the subsidiary supporting proofs. The famous example of this kind of debate is the one between Adi Shankara and Mandana-Mishra. Adi Shankara gives "direct experience" more preference than abidance to scriptures. Here both are "aastikas" and yet oppose each other with almost equal vehemence.

The aastika schools of Saamkhya and Yoga are ideologically close to Bauddha school of thought compared to distance between Vedanta and Bauddha. All these schools of vaishnav, shaiv, shaakta, gaanapatya, Bhakti fall under a Sub-class of Vedanta known as "Dwaitmat (द्वैतमत). There are similar vehement arguments between dualists and non-dualists (Advaita-mat). 

Like pH scale if we make a scale from 0 to 10 with adherence/acceptance/influence of principles of Vedas as measuring factor with 0 being least adherence/acceptance/influence, we will find most of the naastika schools from 0 to 2-3. Because there is always some penetration of Vedic philosophy in every indian philosophy (including Islamic Sufism). The position on scale is determined by "to what extent do they allow this penetration/influence". Mimaamsak will fall on 10 (extreme adherence to vedic rituals and philosophies). Others will fall at different places.

This was just to explain the origin of terms like "Aastika" and "Naastika". There is nothing negative about any of them. 

From point of view of a Mimaamsaka, Samkhya and Yogis are Nastikas. from his (mimansak's) PoV, samkhya are "less Naastika" than Bauddha or Jaina. From point of view of Charvaka (sitting on 0), everybody else are aastikas because everybody have accepted some penetration of vedic philosophy to an extent greater than Charvakas. Similarly vice-versa. 

The system is furthermore complex because every individual is free to make and propound his own path (यतो मत, ततो पथ - As many opinions, so many paths). So every individual calibrates his position on the scale and relative to his position, others are Aastikas and Naastikas. The Followers of Ramkrishna mission (advaitists) and ISKCON (Achintya Bhedaabheda Dvaitists) have had similar arguments. Similarly J Krishnamurthy, Rajneesh and other modern philosophers. 

I have been labelled as a Naastika by many vedantists and Bhakti-maargi people in few forums. Some Buddhists label me as Aastika. Likewise I call them by these relative degrees just to know where I stand. This is what it is all about - Recalibration of Self.

Deracination: The loss of this understanding of Aastikas and Naastikas and their misinterpretation as "Theists" and "Atheists" respectively, has led to several instances of misunderstandings of the literature. The belief in god (as implied by the word theism) has nothing to do with "Aastika" and "Naastika" philosophies.  Out of 6 Aastika philosophies, 5 are atheists (they do not believe in existence of "Ishwara"). The term used for them in India is "Nirishwar-vaadi (निरीश्वरवादी)".

Categorization of few of the popular Indian religious philosophies to avoid further misinterpretations and confusions:

1. Aastika Atheist philosophies: Saamkhya, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Purva Mimamsa, Yoga

2. Aastika Theist philosophies: Vedanta (with all its sub-categories)

3. Naastika Atheist philosophies: Buddhism, Jaina, Charvaka, Aajivika

4. Naastika Theist philosophies: Sikhism, Sufism.

Shubhamastu...

What is Existence (Satyam)?

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

What is "Sat"?

Origin of Atheism in India

नासदासीन नो सदासीत तदानीं नासीद रजो नो वयोमापरो यत | 

किमावरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद गहनं गभीरम ||  - Rigveda 10:129:1

THEN was not non-existent (Asatyam) nor existent (Satyam): there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

The primary and most fundamental attribute of "Sat" which is acceptable by all philosophies in India (including Naastika ones like Buddhism and Jainism) is the one that "Exists" in all spaces and times. The Chidaananda attribute is strictly Vedantic interpretation of reality. In a way, the very term "Brahman" is one-sided description of reality. How? Nasadiya answers in following manner.

कामस्तदग्रे समवर्तताधि मनसो रेतः परथमं यदासीत | 

सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन हर्दि परतीष्याकवयो मनीषा | - Rigveda 10:129:4

Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit. Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.

Satya and Asatya are siblings - both came into existence together. The very "Idea" of "existence" comes with a corollary of "Non-Existence". Similarly vice-versa. Both these terms cannot exist without each other. In a way, this is also the origin of our "Saamkhya" philosophy. The sages here are describing a point when there was "Absolute Nothing".  This state of Absolute Nothingness (or what Buddha calls to as Shunyataa) is what is intriguing. 

तिरश्चीनो विततो रश्मिरेषामधः सविदासीत रेतोधाासन 

महिमान आसन सवधा अवस्तात परयतिः परस्तात - 10:129-5

Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it? There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder.

The term Brahman comes from the word-root "BRhat बृह" which means "expansion". One which "expands" is Brahma. One which expands extremely is "Para-Brahma" (usually they are used as synonyms.

This state of "absolute Nothingness" is what yogis, Saamkhyins, Buddhists, contemplate on. But hold on... Was there something even then? Can there be anything else which is more "fundamental" than "Existence"? Furthermore, if Brahman is "Satyam" (as proclaimed by Sri Adi Shankara) then what is "Asatyam"? And both "Satyam (Brahman) and "Asatyam" came into existence simultaneously (this is the "Ved-Vaakyam"). If we assume that time was there then (which isn't the case because the very concept of time requires a 3-D space which wasn't there. 

But for the ease of imagination (since our brains aren't evolved to run the simulations of such complexity to create images in mind) we assume that there is some axis relative to which all this is happening. So at point "X" satyam-Asatyam siblings are born. That means they weren't there "before that point". Thus the very term of "Satyam" is shown as "limited". And since Brahman == Satyam, this applies to Brahman as well. 

In this scenario, the factually correct statement would be "After that point X, Satyam (Brahman) refers to absolute and complete existence. As alluded in previous paragraph, Space-time came into existence after "Sat" came into existence. Thus Sat still holds true when it comes to its definition as "an entity which is changeless and existent in all spaces in all times". But what beyond/before that? Naasadiya leaves the question unanswered - 

को अद्धा वेद क इह पर वोचत कुत आजाता कुत इयंविस्र्ष्टिः | 

अर्वाग देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यताबभूव || RV 10:129:6

इयं विस्र्ष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न | 

यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे वयोमन सो अङग वेद यदि वा नवेद ||RV 10:129:7

Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?

The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?

He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,

Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, [b]he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not

All the Moksha-Maargas of India (aastika and naastika who delve this far) are in fact various approaches taken by different people in the quest to answer this riddle which the sages have put. Every body makes their bunch of assumptions and hypothesis and puts forth a theory. But there is always something which remains. Just as it is described in Purusha-sukta. Hence multiple approach is recommended in Upanishads. 

As far as Advaita is concerned, this is where the anomaly unfolds as both beginning and end. The necessity of the assumption of "Maya" is required here, and with that, we require a concept of "Maayaadhipati Ishwara". This is a very useful assumption (the assumption that Ishwara exists). I guess to be able to imagine this state of "nothingness", our brain needs to be secreting some weird and special neurotransmitters and chemicals in some special part. All the training by Yogis, the meditative practices, the mind-influencing drugs, is perhaps to induce this state in one's brain. It is one of the life-altering experiences (as described by sages). Yogis call it Kaivalya (Only-ness/Singularity), others call is Advaita, Shunyata (zero-ness), Moksha, nirvana, fanaa (by sufis). 

As many saints have said, Bhakti is the simplest way to induce this. You love something which is very grand so intensely that the state is induced and you experienced that which sages state in last two verses of Nasadiya Sukta but couldn't elaborate or explain. But corollary to this is that it would be difficult to be a Bhakta (lover in essence) after knowing that Ishwara (the beloved) is probably just an assumption. But Adi shankara, Santa Gnaaneshwara, Swami Vivekananda and many others have shown that it is possible.


In any case, the spirit of inquiry and scepticism shown in final two verses of Naasadiya Sukta is least common denominator and perhaps the "originator" for all the Indian religions and Indian way of life.

Chitto jetha Bhayashunyo - Where the mind is without fear

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


One of the charismatic poem by Gurudev Rabindranath Thakur from his Geetanjali. On the eve of 64th independence day of India, I convey my regards and wishes to fellow Indians.

Original Bengali version:

চিত্ত যেথা ভয়শূন্য উচ্চ যেথা শির,
জ্ঞান যেথা মুক্ত, যেথা গৃহের প্রাচীর
আপন প্রাংগণতলে দিবস-শর্বরী 
বসুধারে রাখে নাই খণড ক্ষুদ্র করি,

যেথা বাক্য হৃদযের উতসমুখ হতে 
উচ্ছসিয়যা উঠে, যেথা নির্বারিত স্রোতে,
দেশে দেশে দিশে দিশে কর্মধারা ধায়
অজস্র সহস্রবিধ চরিতার্থতায়,

যেথা তুচ্ছ আচারের মরু-বালু-রাশি
বিচারের স্রোতঃপথ ফেলে নাই গ্রাসি -
পৌরুষেরে করেনি শতধা, নিত্য যেথা 
তুমি সর্ব কর্ম-চিংতা-আনংদের নেতা,

নিজ হস্তে নির্দয় আঘাত করি পিতঃ, 
ভারতেরে সেই স্বর্গে করো জাগরিত ||

Devanaagari transliteration

चित्त जेथा भयशून्य ,उच्च जेथा शिर ,
ज्ञान जेथा मुक्त जेथा गृहेर प्राचीर
आपन प्रांगणतले दिवसशर्वरी
बसुधारे राखे नाइ खण्ड खण्ड क्षुद्रकरि,

जेथा वाकय हृदयेर उत् समुखहते
उच्छ्वसिया उठे , जेथा निर्वारित स्रोते
दशे देशे दिशे दिशे कर्मधारा धाय
अजस्र सहसबिध चरितार्थताय-

जेथा तुच्छ आचारेर मरुबालुराशि 
बिचारेर स्रोतःपथे फेले नाइ ग्रासि,
पौरुषेरे करे नि शतधा-नित्य जेथा
तुमि सर्व कर्म चिन्ता आनंदेर नेता-

निज हस्ते निर्दय आधात करि पितः,
भारतेर सेइ स्वर्गे करो जागरित।

Hindi Translation - कवी शिवमंगल सिंह "सुमन" द्वारा

जहां चित्‍त भय से शून्‍य हो 
जहां हम गर्व से माथा ऊंचा करके चल सकें
जहां ज्ञान मुक्‍त हो 
जहां दिन रात विशाल वसुधा को खंडों में विभाजित कर 
छोटे और छोटे आंगन न बनाए जाते हों 

जहां हर वाक्‍य ह्रदय की गहराई से निकलता हो
जहां हर दिशा में कर्म के अजस्‍त्र नदी के स्रोत फूटते हों
और निरंतर अबाधित बहते हों 
जहां विचारों की सरिता 
तुच्‍छ आचारों की मरू भूमि में न खोती हो
जहां पुरूषार्थ सौ सौ टुकड़ों में बंटा हुआ न हो 
जहां पर सभी कर्म, भावनाएं, आनंदानुभुतियाँ तुम्‍हारे अनुगत हों

हे पिता, अपने हाथों से निर्दयता पूर्ण प्रहार कर
उसी स्‍वातंत्र्य स्‍वर्ग में इस सोते हुए भारत को जगाओ

English Translation

Where the mind is without fear 
and the head is held high; 
Where knowledge is free; 
Where the world has not been 
broken up into fragments by the tireless efforts of men; 

Where words come out from 
the depth of truth; 
Where the currents of tireless striving originate 
and flow without hindrance all over;

Where the clear stream of reason and thoughts has not lost its way into the dreary 
desert sand of lowly habits and deeds; 
Where the valour is not divided in 100 different streams;
Where all the deeds, emotions are blissfully given by you

My father, strike the sleeping India without mercy,
so that she may awaken into such a heaven.

Conversation between Chanakya and Ajay - Reflection on Current polity of India.

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

Excerpt from television series of Chanakya. A conversation which touched my heart and set me thinking about its modern relevance in republic of India.





आचार्य विष्णुगुप्त: अजय, पाटलिपुत्र की क्या स्थिति हैं?


आचार्य अजय: विष्णु, पाटलिपुत्र के विद्वान आचार्य, एक एक करके पाटलिपुत्र से प्रयाण कर रहे हैं. 


आचार्य विष्णुगुप्त: क्यों?


आचार्य अजय: अब ऐसा लगने लगा हैं की पाटलिपुत्र में शिक्षक अपनी गरिमाके साथ नहीं रह सकता.


आचार्य विष्णुगुप्त: कारण?


आचार्य अजय:कारण? कारणोंको ढूंढनेका प्रयास करता हूँ तो समझ में नहीं आता दोष नन्द की नीतियों को दूं, या समस्त कारणों को अनिवार्य परिवर्तन समझकर स्वीकार कर लूं. 


आचार्य विष्णुगुप्त: ऐसा क्या हैं जो समझ में नहीं आ रहा हैं, अजय?


आचार्य अजय: विष्णु, शिक्षक को पाटलिपुत्र में इतना असहाय मैंने पहले कभी नहीं देखा था जितना अब देख रहा हूँ. बाल्यकाल से मैं मगध में हो रहे परिवर्तनों का साक्षी रहा हूँ. और जब जब मैंने मगध में हो रहे परिवर्तनों के इतिहास पर दृष्टि डाली हैं तो पाया हैं की समाज को किसी परिवर्तन की प्रतीक्षा थी.और तथागत के धम्म और महावीर के सम्प्रदाय ने मगध को इस परिवर्तन की भूमि प्रदान की. मगध के समाज ने तथागत एवं महावीर के दर्शन को स्वीकार करना प्रारंभ किया. और इन दोनों के विचारों से अनुप्राणित समाज का एक वर्ग उपासक के रूप में उभर कर सामने आया. नविन सम्रदायिक दर्शन और और उपासक वर्ग के उदय के कारण उन परंपराओं और प्रणालियों को ठेंस पहुंची जिनका पालन समाज अबतक करते आया था. धार्मिक क्षितिज पर नविन संप्रदायों के उदय से समाज को ऐसा लगने लगा की अब समाज वर्णबंधन की दासता से मुक्त हो रहा हैं. इन नविन मतों को उनके दार्शनिक धरातलपर कितने लोगोंने स्वीकार किया, यह कह पाना कठिन हैं. पर ये स्पष्ट था की समाज के एक वैभवसंपन्न वर्ग ने पुरातनवादियों द्वारा उत्पीडन और शोषण से मुक्ति एवं सामाजिक समता स्थापित करने के प्रयास में नविन संप्रदायों को स्वीकार किया. और इसी वर्ग ने प्राचीन परंपराओंकी अवहेलना करना प्रारंभ किया. अतः अपनी परंपराओं के प्रति आस्थावान वर्ग ने इन उद्यमान दार्शनिक मतों का खंडन करना प्रारंभ किया. 


परिणामस्वरूप, सांप्रदायिक मतों में घर्षण प्रारंभ हुआ, सांप्रदायिक आस्था के नाम पर समाज में विघटन की प्रक्रिया सक्रिय हुई. और समाज में विभिन्न उपासना पद्धति के उपासकों में भेद होने लगा. व्यक्ति व्यक्ति से कटने लगा. और परंपरावादी वर्ग, इससे पहले की वह इस आघात से संभले, उसपर एक और कठोर आघात तब हुआ, जब अपनी सत्ताको स्थिर करने में प्रयत्नशील मगध के राजपरिवारों ने अपने स्वार्थ के लिए, सम्प्रदायोंके प्रति पक्षपाती दृष्टिकोण अपनाया. और नंदों के शासनकाल में सांप्रदायिक पक्षपात अपने चरमोत्कर्ष पे पहुंचा. नंद्कुल ने परंपरावादियों से अपनी रक्षा के लिए परंपरा विरोधियों को प्रोत्साहन और राजनैतिक संरक्षण दिया. जब की वे भलीभांति जानते थे की मगध की सामाजिक एवं राजकीय परम्पराएं कभी उनके शासन को स्वीकार नहीं करेंगी. और सामाजिक परिवर्तन की प्रक्रिया को रोक पाने में असमर्थ अपनी प्राचीन परंपराओं और जीवन-मूल्यों का निर्वाह करनेवाला वर्ग स्वयं को पराजित महसूस करने लगा. 


आचार्य विष्णुगुप्त: क्या तुम्हे नहीं लगता अजय के  दर्शन के धरातल पर, व्यक्ति व समाज किसीभी सांप्रदायिक मत का स्वीकार करने के लिए स्वतंत्र हैं?


आचार्य अजय: मानता हूँ. पर नवीन और पुरातन का संघर्ष केवल मतान्तरों तक सीमित नहीं हैं, विष्णु. धार्मिक क्षितिज पर परिवर्तन की प्रक्रिया सामाजिक जीवन में धीरे धीरे एक और परिवर्तन ला रही थी. जिसके परिणाम स्वरुप अपनी प्राचीन प्रणाली का निर्वाह करनेवाले छात्रों के अतिरिक्त अब भिक्षुओं के भिक्षापात्र भी भिक्षा के लिए नित्य द्वारों पर उठने लगे. विष्णु, मैं दृढता के साथ तो नहीं कह सकता की इससे पाटलिपुत्र के परिवारों के आर्थिक व्यवस्था पर कितना प्रभाव पड़ा होगा, पर इतना मैं विश्वास के साथ अवश्य कह सकता हूँ की इससे छात्रों के भिक्षापात्र में अन्न का भार कम हुआ हैं. 


पर पाटलिपुत्र का आचार्य-वर्ग इससे विचलित नहीं हुआ. जिस तथ्य से पाटलिपुत्र का आचार्यवर्ग प्रभावित हो रहा था, वो ये की पाटलिपुत्र में अब भिन्न-भिन्न साम्प्रदायिक आस्था वाले परिवारों के द्वार पर छात्रों में भेद होने लगा. और अपने प्राचीन परंपराओं में आस्था रखने वाले छात्र, उपासकों के द्वारों पर भिक्षा मांगनेसे कतराने लगे. और उपासकों की संतानों ने भी भिक्षा मांगने के लिया उपासकों के घरों को प्राथमिकता देना प्रारंभ किया. स्थिति यहाँ तक पहुंची की अब भिक्षा सांप्रदायिक विचारों से अप्रभावित नहीं रहीं. और जब समाज की सांप्रदायिक आस्था में परिवर्तन हुआ, तो ये परिवर्तित वर्ग उन परंपराओं का निर्वाह क्यों करे जिनमे उसकी श्रद्धा नहीं रहीं. और जिनकी अब वेदों में आस्था नहीं रही, वे अब वेदों के अध्ययन और यज्ञ को प्रोत्साहन क्यों दें? और भिक्षा के अन्न से उदार्निर्वाह करनेवाला शिक्षक इन स्थितियों में परिवर्तनों को असहायता पूर्वक देखता रहा. और नाही मगध की सत्ता और नाही मगध का उन्नतिशील समाज इन परिवर्तनों में ये देख पा रहा था की अपनी प्राचीन परंपराओं के प्रति समर्पित मगध के अनेक निर्धन शिक्षक पर्याप्त वेदाभ्यासी छात्रों के अभाव में कठिनाई और आभाव का जीवन जी रहे थे. 


ये कम था, की धन लेकर शिक्षा देनेवाले उपाध्यायों के वर्ग को पाटलिपुत्र के संपन्न वर्ग ने प्रोत्साहन देना प्रारंभ किया. और अपने प्राचीन परंपराओं को छोड़ रहे परिवारों में इन्ही उपाध्यायों से शिक्षा लेनेका प्रचलन प्रारंभ हो गया. शिक्षा स्वर्ण के बदले में सुलभ होने लगी. ब्रह्मचर्य के व्रतों की उपेक्षा होने लगी. और इसी के साथ ब्रह्मचारियों द्वारा भिक्षा मांगकर छात्र-जीवन निर्वाह करने की प्रणालीका टूटना प्रारंभ हुआ. दुर्भाग्य से उपाध्यायों ने आचार्यों सा कठिन जीवन जीने की अपेक्षा सम्पन्नता से जीवन जीने का मार्ग अपनाया. और जो आचार्य इन बदल रही परिस्थितियों से जूझ नहीं पाए, उन्होंने भी उपाध्यायों की जीवन शैली को अपनाना शुरू कर दिया. फलस्वरूप उपाध्यायों की संख्या बढती गयी, छात्र भी इन उपाध्यायों के प्रति आकर्षित होते गए. और इन परिस्थितियों में विष्णु, पिछले कुछ वर्षों में आचार्यों ने काशीकी ओर परायण करना प्रारंभ कर दिया, जहाँ आचार्य परंपरा दृढ हैं. जहाँ वेदज्ञ आचार्यों का आजभी सम्मान होता हैं. 


आचार्य विष्णुगुप्त: और इन परिस्थितियों में पाटलिपुत्र के आचार्य वर्ग ने उपाध्यायों का विरोध भी नहीं किया होगा?


आचार्य अजय: जिसने भिक्षा के अन्न पर पलने की प्रवृत्ति को स्वीकृति दी हो, वह आचार्य उपाध्यायों का विरोध क्यों करेगा? और उपाध्यायों की परंपरा तो अपने समाज में प्राचीन काल से विद्यमान हैं, विष्णु. महत्व और प्रोत्साहन मिलते ही वो आचार्य-व्यवस्था का पर्याय बन गयी. 


आचार्य विष्णुगुप्त: पर इसमें मगध की सत्ता को सर्वथा दोषी कैसे ठहराया जा सकता हैं?


आचार्य अजय: पर मगध की सत्ता ने कभी इन परिवर्तनों का विरोध भी तो नहीं किया. उलटे नंदकुल का राजपरिवार भिन्न-भिन्न संप्रदायों को राजकीय सुरक्षा, अनुदान, समबल प्रदान कर उनका समर्थन प्राप्त करते रहे. उन्हें प्रसन्न करते रहे. धनानंद के राज में शिक्षक पीड़ित हो रहे हैं और नविन संप्रदायों का स्वागत हो रहा हैं. क्यों? क्यों मगध की सत्ता केवल इन्ही संप्रदायों के प्रति उदारता दिखा रही हैं? क्यों मगध की वर्त्तमान सत्ता उनका समर्थन प्राप्त कर रही हैं जो परंपरावादियों का विरोध कर रहे हैं? स्पष्ट हैं, सत्ता उन्हें सुरक्षा दे रही हैं और और वे नंदों के शासन को समर्थन. नंद संप्रदायों का अपने हित के लिए शस्त्रों के रूप में उपयोग कर रहे हैं. और किसीमे साहस नहीं हैं की वह नंदों से टकराए. एक एक कर, आचार्य जा रहे हैं. और शिक्षा पतन के कगार पे खड़ी किसी धक्के की प्रतीक्षा कर रही हैं. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vishnugupta (Chanakya): Ajay, what is the situation in Patliputra?

Ajay: Vishnu, the learned teachers and professors of Patliputra are moving out of Magadh one by one.

Chanakya: Why so?

Ajay: It seems that Teachers can no longer stay in Magadh with dignity.

Chanakya: Why?

Ajay: I don't know whom to blame here? Nanda's policies OR changing tides of time, which have to accept and move on.

Chanakya: What is it that is so difficult to comprehend, Ajay?

Ajay: Vishnu, I have never seen teachers (Brahmins) so helpless in Magadh before. I have been witnessing the changes in Magadhan society since childhood. Upon studying the history of Magadha and the patterns of changes, I have concluded that society was in need of some change. The philosophy and ideology of Siddharta Gautam and Mahavir provided the ground the necessary change in Magadh. The magadhan society started adopting the ideology of Buddha and Mahavir. Inspired by the thoughts of these two great men, a new section of society evolved and came into existence in form of "Upasakas (followers)". Due to the rise of new religious philosophy and followers, the orthodox system and philosophy which was being followed by society till date was hurt. The rise of new religions on the socio-economic horizons of Magadha made people believe that the "Varnashrama system" will collapse. 

I do not know how many people accepted these new "religion" purely on philosophical basis. But what is clear is that a section of rich society started patronizing these new ideologies to get rid of oppression by the orthodox varnashrama system. And this strata of society started castigating the criticizing the orthodox system. As a reply, the upholders of orthodox system started criticizing and debating with the proponents of new system too. This resulted in friction amongst different opinions of society. And fissures based on faith and beliefs started emerging in previously uniform society. There began a system of discrimination amongst believers of different ideologies and individuals started drifting away from each other. Before the orthodox system could recover from this initial blow, a severe blow was dealt upon the orthodox system when the political figures and regal dynasties of Magadh started patronizing the new "religions" to stabilize their rule. This partiality and discrimination in favour of new "upstart" religions reached its Zenith in the regime of Nandas. The Nanda-Dynasty gave patronage, protection and encouragement to the "upstarts" because they very well know that the established orthodoxy would've never recognized the tyrannical rule by Nandas.

Chanakya: But Ajay, don't you fee that people and society should have freedom of choosing their religious and philosophical ideology.

Ajay: I agree. But this strife between old and new wasn't limited to philosophical opinions alone. This was fomenting a new change in the society. Along with the students, the Bhikkhus started appearing on the doors of people for alms. I do not know what effect did the rise of "bhikkhus" had on econimic prosperity of society. But what I know for sure is that the proportion of food in the bowls of Vedic students has decreased drastically. But this change did not affect the orthodox intellectuals and professors of Magadh (Brahmins). What affected them the most was the fact that the discrimination started amongst students while asking for alms (Bhiksha, begging) on the doors of various followers of various religious opinions. The Vedic students started fearing from asking for alms at the doors of Upasakas and vice-versa. The "alms" did not remain unaffected by "change of opinion" by a section of society. And why should that section of society feed Vedic students and encourage study of Vedas when they have lost their faith on supremacy of Vedas (Nastikas)?

To add to the woes, a new class of "tutors" arose amongst influential section of Magadhan society which started imparting education to students in exchange of money. Education became available at a monetary price. The stringency of vows of Brahmacharya became irrelevant and this system based on stringent way of life (that of a brahmin) started breaking. Unfortunately, the Tutors chose to live lavishly as opposed to the stringent life-style of the vedic teachers. And those vedic teachers who could not cope with this change, chose to become tutors and adopt that life-style. The number of tutors increased and students became attracted towards such tutors increasingly. The remaining professors are now slowly migrating to Kashi (Varanasi) where the Orthodox Vedic system is still strong.

Chanakya: And Professors must have chosen not to oppose this change, right?

Ajay: Those who had accepted the lifestyle of living on alms earned by begging, what moral right did they have to oppose the choice of tutors? Furthermore, the system of tutors has been practised in India since ancient times (referring to Drona of Mahabharat). When time and society was favourable, this system propagated profusely.

Chanakya: But how can the Polity of magadh be held guilty for this?

Ajay: The crime of magadh polity lies in the fact that they did not oppose this change. They did not even remain neutral and let ideologies compete with each other on the basis of merit of argument. On the contrary, the Nanda-Dynasty started patronizing all those "upstart" religions which were opposing the established Sanatana Dharma in terms of money, protection and military support. The "Upstarts" recognized the tyrannical rule of Nandas, whereas the dynasty gave them patronage. In the rule of this dynasty, the orthodox Sanatan Dharma is being discriminated and humiliated, where as upstarts are being elevated. Why? Why does the dynasty patronize only the opposing upstart religions? Why is dynasty supporting those who oppose Sanatan Dharma? It is clear, dynasty gives those opponents patronage and the dynasty recieve support of those religions en masse. The dynasty is using the religion as a weapon against Sanatan Dharma and no one is daring to call the bluff of the dynasty and oppose them. The teachers are leaving and Dharma is standing on the a cliff waiting for a final push.