Jump to content

An Article On The Sanataan Psyche.

Recommended Posts

What do you think of this article from tisarpanth? Apparently a sequel is also being prepared.

A fundamental cognitive of contemporary moot, the term ‘Sanataan’ has engineered a superficial dichotomy over its own definition and emotive(s). Generally employed to express historicity, the term has fallen prey to Anglophonic re-moulding and intensive twisting. Vedic initiatives define it as depicting eternity/immortality, whereas pseudo-scholars employ it to distinguish between puritanical Sikhi and contemporary Sikhi (1). Via the latter’s purpose, the preliminary version housed Vedic elements which fell prey to the nefarious whims of varied extreme reformers(2). A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami and his colleagues however argue the term to encapsulate ‘Dharma’ or righteousness. Though Anglophonic elements have easily replaced righteousness with religion, the article still holds its magnetic authenticity. ‘Dharma’ is a primary symbiotic partner of ‘Sanataan’ formulating a ‘Sanataan Dharma’ or eternal righteousness(3). The latter concept could easily be interpreted as being the principle foundation of all faiths which essentially attempt to propound, what they view, as being logic in the illogicality of creation. On par with the almost seamless Mesoamerican civilizations(4), the concept of ‘Sanataan Dharma’ birthed the perspective that a linear conjuncture would run parallel with the evolutionary modes of creation. It would be interrupted via several specific extrapolations which would redefine the entire ethos and/or birth resurgence in the very concept itself. It was such a perspective which the puritanical elements of the Khalsa employed to disseminate their unique dichotomous code to their neighbouring sub-continental denizens. Even contemporarily the Akali-Nihangs retain this historic view, especially whilst employing the writings of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. As S.J.S Pall summarizes, the latter’s employment of Chandi* and an esoteric narrative to penetrate the Nihang psyche lead the latter to form an opinion ‘that they (the Nihungs) existed even in ancient times when they had fought on the side of Durga. This view is an extended thinking of their viewpoint that Sikh Dharma was always there in the form of Sanataan Dharma. Guru Nanak and his successors bought revolutionary necessary changes as was the need of the time.’ (5)

Whereas the slander of preliminary sub-continental warriors/mythic characters has become an ironic commonality contemporarily, the puritanical Khalsa schools hold the latter to be ancestral inheritors of the ‘Dharma’ mantle which they now possess. The latter historically refused to recognise any defining alienation which would highlight the orthodox divisions between sub-continental creeds. The preliminary sub-continental denizens often adhered to Vedic dictums which paradoxically devised them into separate sub-sectional elements. Although it is argued that the latter stratification was more a division of labour, rather than any individual disbandment the ‘Bhagvad Gita’ alleges otherwise. It seems the latter text draws an almost biased division between what it views as being the spiritually enlightened and the ignorant adherent, ‘he (God) is therefore the creator of the four divisions of the social order, beginning with the intelligent class of men, technically called the Brahmins due to their being situated in the mode of goodness. Next is the administrative class, technically called the Kstariyas due to their being situated in the mode of passion. The mercantile men, called the Vaisyas, are situated in the mixed modes of passion and ignorance, and the Sudras, or labourer class are situated in the ignorant mode of material nature.’(6) What however bound all these divisions together was their similar principle of ‘Dharma.’ The Brahmins subtly engineered themselves in a position of power via which they decisively corrupted their scriptures to ensure their hierarchical dominance, yet failed to birth any collective identity which could define the entire ‘Sanataan’ formulative. Thus despite there being no collective sense of assimilation there was also no presence of any identifying divisional sentiments at the time. In a parallel vein, the Khalsa adopted many of the preliminary sub-continental figures as ancestral predecessors or fellow warriors who reflected their multi-faceted form of ‘Dharma.’(7) Contemporarily this has lent great credence to the fact that the Khalsa is a ‘Hindu branch,’ yet the Khalsa puritanically denies any notion or recognition of ‘Hinduism.’

Contemporary 'Hinduism' belies any modern, substantial taxonomizing initiatives. Ardent scholars have exhaustively declared it as being a multi-faceted composition of Vedic adherents, one which is paradoxically divergent and geographically indigenous. Even the fundamental definition, and historicity of the parent term, 'Hindu' meets with great apprehension and scrutiny. Suryanarayan frustratingly decries it as being a 'meaningless term' (8), granted undue credence at the behest of the sub-continental polity from '20-25 centuries past.' (9) His analysis however falls prey to his predecessor, Lala Lajpat Rai's preliminary thesis on the matter. The latter, an ardent reformer and staunch militant activist, purloined Islamic exegesis(s) and rained fire and simultaneous brimstone upon the article'Hinduism' and it's subsequent cognitives'. 'Some people, according to the author, say that this word Hindu is a corrupt form of Sindhu. But Sindhu was the name of the river and and not our community! Moreover, it is correct that this name has been given to the original race of the region by Muslim invaders to humiliate them.' (10) Ardent Islamists, and their simultaneous apologists, have perpetually criticized Lala for birthing such a discriminatory declaration yet it's fundamental factors remain unblemished. Arab colonists plagiarized the term from the ancestral Persians and employed it as a colloquialism to distinguish between the believer and the infidel.** It's subsequent usage, it seems, was vented upon the Utopian denizens (of the sub-continent) as a distinguishing aid to enliven the'Dar-al Harb' (11) and evolve the latter into a 'Dar-al Islam' (12). The common denominator which bound the multifarious'Hindu's' in a singular entity, via an Islamic perspective, it seems was the latter's almost universal purport on the practice of polytheistic idolatry. Although accepting a paradoxical form of monotheism, coupled with Alexandrian ingenuity (13), the latter were ardent devotees of a varied pantheon which incensed the religiosity of the foreign Islamists, as Vincent Smith summarizes 'the Muslims of the fourteenth century were still dominated by the ideas current in the early days of Islam, and were convinced that the tolerance of idolatry was a sin.' (14) Von Stietencron subtly, although flatteringly, proposes an almost collateral theory as to the general Islamic view on the'Hindu' populace; 'the term Hindu itself is a Persian term. Used in the plural it denotes the people of Hind, the Indians, and in this sense it occurs in the inscriptions of Darius I and other rulers of ancient Persia from the sixth century B.C. onwards. It certainly goes to the credit of Persian scholars like Al-Biruni, Abul al-Qasim, Al-Masudi, Al-Idrisi and Shahrastani that they knew and distinguished different religions among the Hindus. Administrators were less exact or they saw no need for such differentiation between Hindus for taxation purposes.' (15)

If Stietencron's rationality is anything to go by, than extensive light is shed on the matter of 'Hinduism' in the eyes of the preliminary Khalsa. Accepting the paradoxical diversity of the sub-continental ethnography, the Islamic administration nonetheless generally taxonomized the latter's cognitives as 'Hindus.' Subsequently, the emergence of the primary Khalsa ethos belied an almost distinct iconoclastic homogeneity, found lacking in parallel traditions. Nonetheless the latter was traditionally categorized as a 'Hindu philosophy' on it's geographical merits, thus it is no surprise that the zealot Jahangir unceremoniously bestowed the nomenclature upon Guru Arjan Dev Ji; 'in Goindval which is on the river Beas, there resides a Hindu named Arjan.' (16) The latter ethos rejection of 'Hindu' and contemporary Islamic norms however soon manifested an expression of self-identification and political norms. The Gurus, although accepting a subsequent par with parallel 'Hinduism,' went to ultimate lengths to distinguish their hierarchical ideology from the constraints of both Islam and other sub-continental traditions. The linear perspective however was an orthodox repository of the Gurus' dissemination(s), with the latter identifying several individuals preceding them who followed a primary amalgamation of their perceived ethos. The subsequent militarization of the Khalsa nation, at the behest of the Islamic polity's midwifery, resulted in a dichotomy being birthed where the sub-continental denizens readily attempted to expel the Islamic constraints placed upon them. It seems the latter movement birthed an almost primary nationalism which attempted to ingrain the title 'Hindu' to remind the infidel of the perpetual insult bestowed upon him by the adherents of the prophet. Subsequently the unflattering term 'Turk'(17) became a perpetual cognitive of the diverse sub-continental vernacular in order to identify and insult an adherent Islamist.*** Ultimately Guru Gobind Singh Ji sealed the matter of diversity via his prophetic utterance in 'Uggardanti'(an ode to she of the Chaotic Canines), 'Arise the Khalsa panth, the tisar (the third) panth.' (18)****

Continued in Part 2, 'The Primary Narrative...'


(1) Singh, N. (n.d.) Misunderstandings. Retrieved from http://SanataanShastarVidya.org/misunderstandings.html.

(2) ibid.

(3) Bhaktivedanta, A.C. (1972). The Bhagvad Gita As It Is. International Society for Krishna Consciousness. New York City, NYC: Macmillan Publishers.

(4) Stuart, D. (2011). The Order of Days.New York City, NYC: Random House-Harmony 2011.

(5) Pall, S.J.S (2007). The Beloved Forces of the Guru. Amritsar, B. Chattar Singh, Jiwan Singh publishers; pg. 33.

(6) Bhaktivedanta, A.C. (1972). The Bhagvad Gita As It Is. International Society for Krishna Consciousness. New York City, NYC: Macmillan Publishers.

(7) Pall, S.J.S (2007). The Beloved Forces of the Guru. Amritsar, B. Chattar Singh, Jiwan Singh publishers; pg. 33.

(8) Suryanarayan, R.N. (1952). Universal Religions. Mysore; pg. 1-2.

(9) ibid.

(10) Rai, L. (1898). Maharishi Sri Dayanand Sarswati and his actions. Lahore.

(11) Warraq, I. (2003). Why I am not a Muslim. New York City, NYC: Prometheus Books.

(12) ibid.

(13) Philips, G. (2010). Murder in Babylon. Virgin Books.

(14) Warraq, I. (2003). Why I am not a Muslim. New York City, NYC: Prometheus Books; pg. 222, Vincent Smith (1985 A.D.).

(15) Lorenzen, N.D. (1999). Who Invented Hinduism? Cambridge University Press; pg. 31, Heinrich von Stietencron.

(16) http://archive.org/stream/tuzukijahangirio00jahauoft/tuzukijahangirio00jahauoft_djvu.txt

(17) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turk

(18) Uggardanti, Stanza 6.


* An universal notion composing significant mechanics of metaphysical science.

** Via the latter perspective, the world is composed of two significant semblances. The Umma (the Islamic community) and the non-Islamic community.

*** Sub-continental history evidences an event where Maharana Pratap after refusing to submit to the Apostate monarch, Akbar, insulted him via taxonomizing the latter as a 'Turk.'

**** Often it is argued that the Khalsa is the symbiotic panth attached with Hinduism. This pays put paid to the notion however as the Guru recognises three panths (emphasis ours) Hinduism, Islam and the Khalsa with the latter being an undiluted semblance of the authentic Sanataan Dharma.
For those wishing to read this article with pictorial breaks, here is a link to the original on the blog.
If you wish to contact these guy(s) on facebook, here is a link to their fb page.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres the sequel:

The primary Khalsa imbued the esoteric Linear narrative, yet amalgamated the latter with additional dilutions. Whereas the Gurus advocated dichotomy from 'Hinduism' in a mannerism of beliefs, it is extensively plausible that the latter simultaneously paid heed to the geographic taxonomization, 'Hindu' although not in a politico-patriotic sense*. Even the father of Sikh reformation, Bhai Vir Singh had to admit such a decisive point in subtle terms. 'To apply the term Hindu to us (Sikhs) to distinguish between Semitic and Aryan races is proper. But to call oneself an idol worshipping Hindu is wrong.' (1) The personal prose of the tenth master is an infallible tome of ethnographic/religio'Hinduism' with the latter ardently indicating an end to the religio-political combat plaguing both ideologies whilst cautioning the Khalsa against following the latter's operations. (2) Envisioning an ethnographic expansion of 'Hindu Dharma' or otherwise sub-continental perspective, the master predicts an ample extrapolation of Khalsa warriors and the conclusive demise of both 'Hinduism' and subsequent Islam. (3) The general precept, via a layman's perspective, is essentially self-contradictory, yet with the employment of parallel commentaries and ardent records straightens out. Varied European colonists and geographers acknowledged the pluralistic homogeneity of the Khalsa which stratified it from it's simultaneous 'Hindu' counterparts, as Jadhunath Sarkar evidences the homogeneity bestowed by Guru Gobind Singh presented plausibly the sub-continent's first and only united egalitarian agency; one which was not fettered by any inter-factional disparities, 'the martial religion of Guru Govind had knit the Sikhs together into organized bands of soldiers, with perfect brotherhood in their ranks and freedom from the distinctions of caste, social gradation, and food, which embarrassed and divided the orthodox Hindus (in a geographical sense).' (4)

The ascension of colonial supremacy in the mid eighteenth century depicted an almost successive evolution of the linear psyche. Gone were the inter-relating conjunctures previously present. Besot with censorial norms, the latter polity intensively taxonomized the varied sub-continental creeds on their respective ideological reflections and inherent ethos. Via this end the Khalsa was declared a nation, in the aftermath of it's empire's annexation, and a divergent tradition from what the European psyche deemed as being 'Hinduism.' The latter possessed administrators of a more relaxed bent than their Islamic predecessors, who scrupulously analyzed their sub-ordinates and bestowed upon them what was then considered insignificant titles. Whereas ardent anthropologists, in a parallel vein to Robert Frykenberg, have been known to vocally delcare 'no one so-called religion moreover can lay exclusive claim to or be defined by the term 'Hinduism,'' (5) their colonial predecessors had already sown the seeds of dissent. Engaging in an arduous bid to 'globalize' Indic traditions, the colonial administration unleashed a viable campaign against the'Sanataan' psyche. Out of the innumerable sub-continental globalizers, the Arya-Samaj emerged as a crushing force which soon declared the entire sub-continental historicity, ethnography and elementary to be nothing more than an evolving limb of 'Hinduism.' The latter term manifested a veritable Pandora's box which saw inter-factional rivalry emerge among the various factions composing the Arya-Samaj. Plausibly the most under-rated and intensively ridiculed component, the Khalsa cognitive embarked upon a divergent course after debating with Vedic theology and the Samajist declaration of the Khalsa Gurus as being insignificant caricatures of sub-continental society. (6) The latter declaration was an arduous attempt to blatantly re-mould the Khalsa's rejection of what was perceived as being'Hindu' theology and state it as an inherent martial integument of the ever-greater Hindu psyche. The subsequent split of the Khalsa from the greater Samajic ranks, soon saw it birth the Singh-Sabha movement. A parallel revivalist/reformist agency which aimed to eradicate all 'Hindu' influences from the panthic psyche. What is essential to note here that whereas the geographic label 'Hindu' was fundamentally accepted by the Khalsa, it's pseudo-evolution into a term defining 'the synonymity of Indian civilization with Hinduism' (7) subsequently lead it to abhor and discard the term. What initiatives led to the formulation of such fundamentalist views, imbued with the occasional sprinkling of ardent nationalism, is unsure yet the latter's effect is well recorded. Preliminary diversity was replaced with a an obsessive push for a fascist homogeneity, with 'Hinduism' becoming a subtle term for defining Indian nationalism. With the birth of 'Hindutva' (extreme ardents) revolutions, 'Hinduism' was propagated as an ardent system which had once prior uplifted and ruled the universal psyche. As Swami Ram Teertha essays, the latter construing of 'Hinduism' was a decisive attempt to propagate an incessant need for universal domination in a parallel vein to missionary faiths. His view can easily be authentic, as periodically even Islam, Christianity and Judaism have expressed similar sentiments. (8)

This authoritarian version of 'Hinduism,' via it's Arya Samaj masters despite falling foul of indigenous elders was ardently received by the youth. The latter were on the hunt for a practicality which would grant them an ideological nationalism which would ultimately evolve into a religious practicality of it's own. Besot with anti-colonialism and ardent anti-Semitism, the pseudo'Hindus' subsequently gained a Goliathian foothold over the national manifesto and ultimately preceded to 'rejuvenate' what they saw as being 'Sanataan dharma.' Via their perspective, the latter was nothing more or nothing less than neo-'Hinduism' which in it's varied forms had given birth to numerous ideologies. As Paine evidences, such a concept was nothing short of a fundamental religion, one which was exclusively missionary in intent, 'every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God (the Arya Samaj are heavily ambiguous on this point, whether their version of Hinduism is monotheistic or polytheistic in nature, see appendix for more information regarding monotheism and Vedic philosophy).' (9) The outbreak of the second World War, and the simultaneous propagation of Hitler's Nazism, fuelled the intensive 'Hinduism fire.' Swami Ram Teertha construes the entire affair to be a Brahminical affair, in his analysation of 'Hindu' imperialism he argues that 'Hinduism' was constructed to retain the hierarchical grip possessed by the Brahmins over the sub-ordinate proletariat. He argues with an unabated fervor that, 'the distinction if any between Brahminism and Hinduism is only academical.' (10) The adoption of Nazism as a state ethos, with the periodical sprinkling of the mis-purported'Sanataan Dharma,' conclusively saw the manifestation of an advanced ideologue based more upon baseless paranoia than any cemented fact. Matriarchal characters such as Savitri Devi swiftly encompassed the latter ideologue and disseminated it in recruitment camps and subsequent conferences, 'in the civilized countries where religion and nationality, church and state, creed and nationality are separate and always were, inspite of infructuous efforts to establish state dogmas. But culture and nationality are not separate; civilization and nationality, are not and never will be!' (11) It was however left up to Madhav Sadashiv Gowalkar to deliver the final nail in the nationalistic coffin via the formulation and expansion of the RSS. An authoritarian organisation dedicated to the preservation of pseudo-Hinduism. 'To keep up the purity of the race (a far step from Bhai Vir Singh's early quote) and it's culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races. Especially the Jews. Race pride at it's highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-neigh impossible it is for races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole. A good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.' (12) Ultimately a list was manifested to exclude and include 'Hindu' hegemonic creeds into a singular formalist whole. To this end it was decided that creeds devoid of any Vedic influence would be brought in line with later ideologues whether by hook or crook. To this end, in the aftermath of independence, the Khalsa nation was intensively taxonomized as a part and parcel of the greater 'Hindu' ethos. A paradoxical antonym especially in face of the latter's rejection and non-recognition of neo-'Hinduism.' Ironically however such a decisive propagation was to serve as a catastrophic catalyst for an intensively larger division. The 'Khalistan' movement.

With the advent of an Indian state which essentially supported a 'Hindu' theocracy, an inevitable division manifested itself between the numerous minorities and the majority of the neo-'Hindu' populace. Via subtle Orwellian tendencies, the various national polities ingrained the 'Hindu' ideal into the proletariat psyche whilst pertaining to be fervently religious. An inter-contradictory reiteration, especially in contrast to Krishna's uttered dictums, 'a human being who identifies this body made of three elements with his self, who considers the byproducts of the body to be his kinsmen, who considers the land of birth worshippable, and who goes to the place of pilgrimage to simply bath rather than meet men of transcendental knowledge there, is to be considered like an ass or a cow.'(13) Subsequently the suppression of the Khalsa's autonomy, and the execution varied offenses against the latter's historicity, subsequent ethos and unique ethnography ultimately catalyzed in a territorial restriction and division of Punjabi territories. Subsequently, the Khalsa unleashed an independence movement aiming to achieve an indigenous autonomy of sorts in a constrained Punjab. Subsequent vilifications and physical attacks ultimately saw the rise of Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Bhindranwale, a leader whose image despite falling prey to state propaganda nonetheless retains it's magnetic appeal. Countering state policies the latter ultimately became an extensive veil for the national polity, who employed him via subtle procedures to excuse it's own terrorism. Simultaneously Sant Bhindranwale and ardent members of the Khalsa polity via their appeal to the Khalsa youth adopted various manifestos to formulate an independent Khalsa domain in case if the national polity decided upon launching a military offensive against their autonomous policies. The subsequent bloodbath launched by the Indian polity-cum-security under the guise of'national security' proved to be the final division for Sikh-Hindu relations. The conclusive attempts at eradicating Khalsa homogeneity in the name of nationalism, did not bode well with the Khalsa whose adherents ultimately declared Sant Bhindranwale and his companions veritable martyrs. Even contemporarily various sub-continental organizations are hell-bent upon annihilating Khalsa homogeneity and ultimately ending the latter's distinct ethnographical homogeneity. The latter movement has only served to split the Khalsa from it's 'Sanataan'predecessors, a split which it seems will periodically only increase rather than mending.

(1) Singh, V. (1991). Suraj Prakash Granth, edited edition. Punjab. Bhasha Vibhag, verse 4468.
(2) ibid.
(3) 'Throughout the world the Khalsa Panth will be prominent. The Hindu Dharam will prevail, and the Turks will be in flight.' Uggardanti.
(4) Sarkar, J. (n.d.). Chronology of Indian History. pg. 237.
(5) Lorenzen, N.D. (1999). Who Invented Hinduism? Cambridge University Press; pg. 31, Robert Frykenberg.
(6) Dayanand, S. (1875). Satyarth Prakash.
(7) Chaturvedi, B. (1990) Dharma: The individual and the world order. India International Center Quarterly.
(8) Warraq, I. (2003). Why I am not a Muslim. New York City, NYC: Prometheus Books.
(9) ibid, pg. 223.
(10) Teertha, R.S. (1946). The Menace of Hindu Imperialism. Lahore, Happy Home Publications.
(11) Savitri, D. (1939). A Warning to Hindus. Calcutta, pg. 29.
(12) Gowalkar, M. S.(1938). We or our nationhood defined. Nagpur, Bharat Publicatons, pg. 27.
(13) Srimad Bhagvatam.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...