PDA

View Full Version : Capitalism & ignorance



yajvan
17 July 2011, 08:40 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

The following are some ideas I have been pondering for a while. It is not a critique or political statement
on what system is better or worse, but observations I have entertained and lived in.

By observation it is my opinion that Capitalism works well and is fueled by the fundamental principle of malam ajñāna . That is, the blemish (mala) of ignorance ( ajñāna ).

Capitalism suggests the individual reaps the benefits of his/her actions. That one's own effort is rewarded.
Others are viewed in a like manner - 'you have the same opportunities as me to move ahead, so take
advantage of it, do not depend on me, you are your own captain'.

It is this ignorance of viewing oneself as completely individual , not connected to the whole that capitalism has been successful. Even when help is given to others it is still of the notion of self-interest. I am helping you so
you are not a burden on me or the community that in the end effects my productivity, my happiness,
or my forward motion. It is my opinion that capitalism is the right system for a society that is predicated on
malam ajñāna.

If forms of socialism are introduced there is push back... the logic is, 'if I work for my progress and livelihood so should you -
there are no free-loaders'. It makes little sense to offer a robust system of socialism to a society that sees themselves as a collection of unique individuals.

This ( IMHO) is why Communism fails again and again. People are still of the orentiation of one-off individuals.
The greater good are words and is not a direct personal experience.

Perhaps you have an idea or two regarding this matter?

What of a society of the enlighted? What system would be adapted and work well ? I have a few thoughts
and will offer them in the next post.

praṇām

Friend from the West
17 July 2011, 09:08 PM
Namasté to all,
Yajvan, my only regret is I have to get off HDF here in about 10 minutes and get on for only about five a little later. I am very much looking forward to your next post. What an interesting thread.

NayaSurya
17 July 2011, 09:17 PM
As a child I was only given staunch republican view of this world. I was in this box of my birth...the box filled with things which my parents uttered and I took for truth.

But, dwelling here amongst the masses of peoples all gathered from every sundry location of the world...a port of call for military and their families...

I experienced righteousness which I could not deny within these peoples so impoverished. My box began to shatter from this exposure and I began to feel with all my heart to do only good together.

My views became as a mother, very socialist inclined...to share this food, this warmth with every living being<3 I want to give everything to this realm until nothing remains left of me but perhaps this Love.<3

These children, the prayers to this world, full of Love and they will go out and will continue this legacy of Love in whatever way they can.

I do think society and the country mature slowly into higher ideals. But, when harsh economic times come...they often revert back to the primitive ways...just as one could get trampled at a sporting event...it happens when times get difficult.

But, this should be when we become our best...it is an opportunity to show Beloved we understand.

I think a hybrid mix of these structures you listed above would be very goodly...in harsh times and good. Commerce and free markets plus a caring infrastructure to help all achieve safety, security and prosperity...and of course...spirituality<3.

Eastern Mind
17 July 2011, 09:53 PM
Vannakkam: I love the social democracy I live in. There is much I see wrong with capitalism. The destruction of the planet in the name of gain is a starter.

On the other hand, communism, in its truest sense, has always gotten a bad rap. Many do not even know what it means. I recall my conversation in Grade 7 with my cousin. We had both been programmed by parents.

Him: Communism is bad.
Me: Tell me one thing about communism.
Him: It's bad.
Me: Can you name one communist leader?
Him: You can love it all you want, but I never will because its bad.

It was a valuable lesson for me, realising that simplistic thinkers existed. A veritable eye-opener.

Now I see things far more balanced, without the programming. Some mix, some middle path works best for me. The group helps the individual, and the individual helps the group.

Aum Namasivaya

yajvan
17 July 2011, 10:54 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;



On the other hand, communism, in its truest sense, has always gotten a bad rap.
From a Capitalistic POV we can see why Communism is not an attractive approach ( again, a word of caution I am not taking sides ):

Carl Marx's ( along Friedrich Engels) manifesto outlines the following:

• The redistribution of land
• Equalizing wealth through a heavy progressive or graduated income tax
• Abolishing all rights of inheritance
• Confiscating property from emigrants and rebels
• Factories and instruments of production should be owned by the State
• All credit should be in State banks
• All people are equally obliged to work
• All children should receive free education in public schools

The key points on what are attractive: the equalization of wealth, land, resources. Yet to a society that is driven by individual attainment and self-sufficiency these ideas are antagonistic.

praṇām

Ramakrishna
18 July 2011, 12:53 AM
Namaste Yajvanji,

You raise some good points. I identify as a democratic socialist. I am against both capitalism and communism, and I see democratic socialism as a sort of middle ground between the two. I don't think a truly communist society is possible, at least in the foreseeable future, and there has never been one on a large scale. I believe capitalism, especially completely unrestrained capitalism, leads to widespread inequality and poverty, due to what many call human nature.



What of a society of the enlighted? What system would be adapted and work well ? I have a few thoughts
and will offer them in the next post.


This is interesting, and something I have been thinking about. Perhaps a completely dharmic society, comprised by a vast majority of people who adhere to dharma, would be able to transcend what many call human nature. That is, feelings of selfishness and only looking after the individual self-interest at the cost of others.

It would be interesting to see the type of economic system that Indian societies had in the previous yugas, in the times of yore when dharma and the values of Sanatana Dharma resonated throughout all of society.

Jai Sri Ram

Ramakrishna
18 July 2011, 01:13 AM
Namaste Yajvanji,

Just an expansion on my previous post.



Capitalism suggests the individual reaps the benefits of his/her actions. That one's own effort is rewarded.
Others are viewed in a like manner - 'you have the same opportunities as me to move ahead, so take
advantage of it, do not depend on me, you are your own captain'.

It is this ignorance of viewing oneself as completely individual , not connected to the whole that capitalism has been successful. Even when help is given to others it is still of the notion of self-interest. I am helping you so
you are not a burden on me or the community that in the end effects my productivity, my happiness,
or my forward motion. It is my opinion that capitalism is the right system for a society that is predicated on
malam aj&#241;āna.



The problem in capitalistic societies is that eventually not everyone has the same opportunity. Many people end up taking advantage of the capitalist system, become rich, and then do their best to become even richer while making sure that others don't have the same opportunities that they have. At least this has been the case in the country I live in, the United States.

So I don't believe that others are viewed in a like manner. If anything, the capitalistic system would increase ignorance by leading people to become rich and wealthy, which in turn leads many to become egoistical and selfish and obsessed with money and materialism. Of course there are many great wealthy philanthropists, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and many others. But for every one of them there are just as many egoistical and selfish people who become wealthy and don't help other people and try to make sure that others cannot become successful like they have.

Ideally, I wouldn't be against capitalism or a system similar to it. But due to "human nature" as many people call it, I don't think it is right. As I said before, perhaps an "enlightened" society that adheres to dharma and true morality would be able to transcend these tendencies of selfishness and egoism. But there is no society like that in this Kali Yuga, and therefore I believe it's necessary to have lots of restraints and regulations on capitalism as well as extensive government welfare services. I am interested in seeing what you have to say in your next post.

Jai Sri Ram

Eastern Mind
18 July 2011, 08:06 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


From a Capitalistic POV we can see why Communism is not an attractive approach ( again, a word of caution I am not taking sides ):

Carl Marx's ( along Friedrich Engels) manifesto outlines the following:

• The redistribution of land
• Equalizing wealth through a heavy progressive or graduated income tax
• Abolishing all rights of inheritance
• Confiscating property from emigrants and rebels
• Factories and instruments of production should be owned by the State
• All credit should be in State banks
• All people are equally obliged to work
• All children should receive free education in public schools

The key points on what are attractive: the equalization of wealth, land, resources. Yet to a society that is driven by individual attainment and self-sufficiency these ideas are antagonistic.

praṇām

Vannakkam Yajvan: Yes, I understand this. What I meant by bad rap is the stuff that came out of US propaganda during the Cold War. This was the simplified version I related earlier in the discussion with my cousin. But a well thought out critique such as you present here isn't objectionable.

The black white Abrahamic philosophy ruled the day "It's all bad", when in fact communism presents some excellent ideas. After all the root word is the same as community, and no one objects to that word.

My personal biggest problem with communism is the abolishment of religion, and the idea that it has to be done by force. My biggest problem with capitalism is the unfair distribution of wealth which creates a sustained class structure where movement up is nigh impossible unless you're an athlete or an actor.

My personal ideal political society would be where distribution of wealth happened because of a spiritualising of the wealthy, and kindness and giving became the order of the day. But at this point in the planet's evolution, the Kali yuga, anava and maya are everywhere.

Aum Namasivaya

Eastern Mind
18 July 2011, 09:12 AM
Vannakkam: Here is the classic anti-capitalism poster:
http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://anti-capitalism.org/Anti-capitalism_color.gif&imgrefurl=http://anti-capitalism.org/&h=866&w=700&sz=390&tbnid=DXLR-kMDtMQqTM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=74&prev=/search%3Fq%3Danti%2Bcapitalism%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=anti+capitalism&usg=__wOpQOPOpvlBYvKbtVjxCgkSsjXw=&sa=X&ei=UDAkTq2FD8qs0AH7ycXEAw&ved=0CDoQ9QEwAw&dur=2195

But as I said before, I don't totally support either extreme system. I totally agree with Ramakrishna's post above.

Aum Namasivaya

yajvan
18 July 2011, 12:13 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;



This is interesting, and something I have been thinking about. Perhaps a completely dharmic society, comprised by a vast majority of people who adhere to dharma, would be able to transcend what many call human nature. That is, feelings of selfishness and only looking after the individual self-interest at the cost of others.


Good opinions and observations have been offered above...

I think when a dharmic society unfolds many things will change as one would expect. The one that is top of mind is that of laws and the amount of them. Within an enlightened society people become untethered,
and are no longer considered paśu&#185;.

Today there are thousands of laws that are on the books. Why is that? because people (in ignorance) do not know how to act without guidance. Within a enlightened society people will be aligned to Universal laws. People begin to spontaneously act according to the laws of nature, laws of the cosmos. Education of this knowledge, of proper action will be most fruitful. Laws will not be about what you cannot do, but what is possible to accomplish in harmony with the world.

Since the society as a whole would be in-line with Universal principles - the rains will come on time, harvests will be full, a balance in nature with humans and with the Divine unfolds. That influences commerce and how things are traded, sold, given and offered. What occurs? balance returns to the system... the right things at the right time.

Above all my teacher talked of nations being invincible . So invincible that no troubles come their way because enemies are not made. That suggests the $ billions that are spent on the military can be re-directed for the upliftment of the family of man.

Yet what would trade look like ? What occurs, what is commerce?

praṇām


words

paśu पशु - any tethered animal ; with māheśvara-s and pāśupata-s the individual soul as distinct from the divine Soul of the universe

wundermonk
18 July 2011, 02:53 PM
I consider myself libertarian and hence will point out certain fundamental contradictions/problems with communism/Communism/Marxism.

First, I would like to draw a distinction between communism (the theory) and Communism (the political means of implementing communism).

(a)communism sounds great. But nearly inevitably a society that is founded on this principle degenerates into Communism (command economy, politburo politics, etc.)
(b)Communism, as that developed in Soviet Russia was ANYTHING but equal. Although equality was what was pushed to the masses, the elite in the Communist scheme of things (politburo, scientists, etc.) got to enjoy a quality of life that the proletariat werent even aware of. Examples include the many dachas in remote parts of Soviet Union were the elites regularly retreated and spent time.
(c)Another problem with Communism is that it leads to gerontocracy within the party structure. For this, you can look at the leaders of Communist parties in India.
(d)When the State sets the prices of commodities it inevitably leads to distortion because the government is lousy at setting prices. A free market with as few information assymetries as possible leads to quickest price discovery. During the oil embargo of the 70s, the US ended up with price controls on gas at the gas stations. This led to (and will always inevitably lead to) rationing, huge waiting times to get a refill and general decrease in quality of life. The prices in an economy are best set by buyers and sellers with as few middlemen between them as possible.
(e)Geopolitically, I notice that Communism comes a complete cropper against radical Islam. For instance, the hatred that Communists exhibit towards Israel is probably even greater than the hatred that Muslims exhibit towards Israel! Communists ought to believe that ALL religion is the opiate of the masses, but many of them (Naom Chomsky, etc.) are open supporters of Palestine and anti-Israel. Communists ought to be against theocratic states of all kind yet their unique hatred of Israel is indeed one of a kind.
(f)Animal Farm is an old film but it is spot on on its portrayal of Communism.

Friend from the West
18 July 2011, 09:12 PM
namaste yajvan HDF members,
No pressure yajvan, I cannot wait (if I sound like a school child so be it) for your thoughts on last two questions or any other's thoughts.
Rich

Mana
19 July 2011, 03:48 AM
Namast&#233; All

We can talk all that we wish about Capitalism and Communism, until we realise that it is our selves we have to change nothing will move.

To my mind, we need to think very hard about the way we educate and for what reasons.

For example can anyone here explain the Dharma of the system we call "Money"? We are taught nothing of Money and then are expected to pass our entire lives in the pursuit of it.

Until we are educated as to what it is and how it works we will never have a balanced system.

Money in its current form is an extremely powerful form of mAyA which by its very nature is designed to stimulate Rajas action and store it. Until there is monetary reform we will not have peace as money in its current form creates imbalance by its very nature.

Why should we abandon totally a tool which can serve us well?

Nothing is stopping us from removing its power, changing it to a Sattva state. Currently intrinsically Rajas it is creating an all consuming inflation.

Who will teach these economists of the Dharma that has led to the ecolution of there very own language to reinforce there delusion?

This tool must be yoked or it no longer serves us, it has grown to become our master. Worshipped by millions who are completely blind to mAyA or worse addicted to her subtitle Power oblivious to those who truly wield it.

Here is a vid of two seers discussing this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLFkQdiXPbo)

We could try to live in a commune which uses capital to stabilise the elements?

Here is an interesting video. An artists impression of an extremely interesting speech on education. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U&feature=player_embedded)

It is some what more relevant to the West, however I do believe that we can all learn from this our disastrous example, the adharma is so apparent for those who chose to see it.


Peace

Mana

TheOne
19 July 2011, 07:02 AM
The term capitalism is not a good one so I will use the term free market. The free market is simply voluntary interactions between people based on needs and wants. What we have now in America is NOT capitalism, we currently have a system which only exists because of the coercion of the state.

"There is much I see wrong with capitalism. The destruction of the planet in the name of gain is a starter."

The market is the number 1 driver of advances in technology, while the government is the number 1 enabler of corporations that Emmit CO2.

"On the other hand, communism, in its truest sense, has always gotten a bad rap."

Communism is the belief that you are not entitled to the fruits of your labor and that it belongs to the state / everyone. There has NEVER once been a collectivist society which hasn't gone into mass starvation or failed completely.

"If anything, the capitalistic system would increase ignorance by leading people to become rich and wealthy, which in turn leads many to become egoistical and selfish and obsessed with money and materialism. "

Do you think a changing of the economic conditions would change human nature? No, it wouldn't, but what we have now in America and abroad is a bastardization of the free market where there are literally thousands upon thousands of regulations that stifle economic, technological, and societal growth. Do you think pointing guns at people will solve complex social problems? I will assume you say no. Well, that's what the state does everyday, it points guns at people, demands money and obedience, via taxation and laws, and if they don't obey they either get shot or spend time in jail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4&feature=channel_video_title

yajvan
19 July 2011, 03:38 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;

There are some very good discussions that are occurring on this thread. The key here is ignorance vs. enlightenment. Different systems have their pluses and minuses, I think we all agree - yet at the end of the day we get what we deserve.

This is a very hard thing to swallow , yet we as a society have a collective consciousness that is a great influence on the quality of life. The collective consciousness works at the family level, community level , national level and global level. It is what goes on in aggregate that becomes the ~collection~ no? If people are in strife, unhappy, stressed, rago-guna driven individually, what then can we expect at the collective level ? The same.

So where does change come from? It must start at the individual level. Balance, sattva, unfoldment of the Divine, upliftment of higher values must start with the individual, then the family, community, the nation. Like that change occurs. Yet many think the way to change is to protest, demand, revolt, push back, etc. These are the tools of ignorance. The tools of knowledge is to change the quality of the person, of society , from the inside out.

Where must this start? The mahābhārata suggests it is the duty at the leadership level ( kṣatria&#185;) to create this orderly society. It seems we must put these people in the leadership positions that have enlightened vision. Yet is this occurring? I do not see it. Why so ? We are not ~growing~ these types of people in our society, in our communities in our educational system in mass to make this occur.
Yet here is the pickle. When society is steeped in ignorance how will these people know there is a purely better way to lead and live ? It becomes the duty of those that are enlightened to bring a better vision and uplift the individual the best they can.

praṇām





words
kṣatria - governing , endowed with sovereignty

Eastern Mind
19 July 2011, 05:17 PM
Communism is the belief that you are not entitled to the fruits of your labor and that it belongs to the state / everyone.

Vannakkam: I once read a very detailed case study of a village in China during the years and days prior to and including the Maoist revolution.

The motto that was repeated over and over an over was "Who should benefit from the fruits of our labour?" Now of course they weren't trying to overthrow capitalism at the time, but just wanted a life beyond the Emperor's control. The rich poor divide at the time was worse than 1% owned 99% while the other 99% owned 1%. We have no death statistics for this time, nor do we for feudalism, but one can only imagine.

At the rate of change in US version capitalism, it will still be awhile before the rich - poor gap gets that wide, but unless something stops that train, that is where we are headed.

Please don't get me wrong. I don't like communism any better than capitalism.

The solution lies in SD, where souls change, one at a time. Economically, it is somewhere in the middle.

In the meantime, we need to study the role of propaganda on both sides. We are all victims of it.

Aum Namasivaya

yajvan
19 July 2011, 10:31 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;

In the age of ignorance we are ~things based~ - objects of achievement to be gained . It doesn't matter if its capitalism or communism - the primary interest is material gain, and how things are divided up for one's consumption; spiritual development is secondary. In capitalism the citizen has now become the ~consumer~.

In an Enlightened time, spiritual development is primary and the pursuit of material gains is secondary. It is not that material gain is not valued, but it does not have the strangle-hold on the individual . One is not measured by the amount of material goods one has amassed.

In ignorance the world is seen as fractured, in parts, limited and material attainment reins supreme. The individual is at the core. In an enlightened time it is consciousness and knowledge that rein supreme. The wholeness of society reins and is of key import. But way so? One views the world as an extension of their own Self. There is no-thing that is not a part of my Being.

Just this one principle , this reality that the world is an extension of my own Self changes all the values of the society. How others are treated ( including all of nature), how commerce is performed ( the highest level of fairness) , how nations view nations ( respectful & with no fear).

What to say of sadācāra ? That of virtuous conduct , good manners , well conducted. People would rejoice in the understanding of who owns what: He who 'owns' all is īśāvara; of what part can we say we own, until we associate completely with the Divine?

praṇām

Ramakrishna
19 July 2011, 10:53 PM
Namaste TheOne,




Do you think a changing of the economic conditions would change human nature?

No, I don't think so and I never said that. Capitalism preys on human nature, employing a dog eat dog approach, leading to a select number of people becoming rich and powerful at the cost of others. Socialism does the opposite, not by changing human nature, but by offsetting the effects of it.

When I refer to democratic socialism, it is a rather "mild" form of Marxism, such as what we see in social democratic countries today like Sweden, Finland, and even Canada. They do not strive for some "utopian" classless society like communism would envision, but rather a common sense middle ground between a completely free-market capitalist state and a communist state.

The whole rationale behind capitalism is doing whatever it takes at whatever cost to people, the environment, etc. to make a profit. Socialism puts people above profit.


Do you think pointing guns at people will solve complex social problems? I will assume you say no. Well, that's what the state does everyday, it points guns at people, demands money and obedience, via taxation and laws, and if they don't obey they either get shot or spend time in jail.


What are you talking about?

Jai Sri Ram

TheOne
20 July 2011, 09:14 AM
> Socialism does the opposite, not by changing human nature, but by offsetting the effects of it.

No it doesn't, in every country it has either
a) Reduced the quality of life beyond measure
b) Taxed the hell out of its people which inhibits innovation and growth(both technologically and socially)

>The whole rationale behind capitalism is doing whatever it takes at whatever cost to people, the environment, etc. to make a profit. Socialism puts people above profit.

You define Capitalism as people exploiting other people and the environment. The free market is based on the idea of voluntary interactions between people for mutual benefit. Neither you, nor anyone else has provided a rational argument for capitalism "failure".

>What are you talking about?
Let's take this in baby steps using a moral argument.

Step #1 : Treated others as you would like to be treated. This is the basic moral law which is solid in every respect and can be used to solve the simplest moral problem and the most complex one.

Step #2 : Stealing is wrong. Stealing is morally wrong because it is the forceful extraction of something or another from another person. This also builds off of step 1. You shouldn't steal because think of how you would feel if the same was done to you.

Step #3 : Organizations like the Mafia are inherently evil, because they rely on operations based on coercion of others. Whether it is going to another neighborhood and killing then, or whether it is requiring people to either pay protection money or end up dead, it is based on a moral wrong. The Mafia is innately evil because of its reliance on coercion to achieve its goals.

Step #4: The State is essentially an immoral institution. The reason for this is because it relies on coercion via taxation to provide funds for its activities. Now you may say that we can choose to pay taxes or not, but that is a false choice because if we don't we are hunted down and put into jail for a very, very long time.


Step #5: Now that we realize that the state is an institution based on the initiation of force to achieve its goals the ONLY morally upright goal regarding it, is the elimination of it.


I have a hundred logical rational proofs for the free market and what you would call "Anarchy", below is just one video describing the fallacies attributed to the free market.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAnXK0_d_T8&feature=channel_video_title

BryonMorrigan
20 July 2011, 10:18 AM
This is getting ridiculous. Neither Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, or any other modern Western economic ideology is 100% compatible with Dharma, which is why most sensible people, (including pro-Hindu groups in India like the BJP) recognize that a completely different solution is necessary. Read this: http://www.bjp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=134&Itemid=442

Arguing about whether Capitalism or Communism is better, from a Hindu standpoint...is like arguing about whether hamburgers or cheeseburgers are more compatible with Dharma.

yajvan
20 July 2011, 12:49 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;

I mentioned the following,


In the age of ignorance we are ~things based~ - objects of achievement to be gained .


The upaniṣad-s deal with the notion of ignorance (avidya&#185;) and use different ways of describing this condition. Moha is one name as it suggests a level of delusion of what is real and unreal. The deluted ones are known as mūḍha-s मूढ perplexed or confused.

The īśāvā upaniṣad&#185; suggests the a mūḍha is one that is ātmahantā&#185; or ātmahanuka - the one that kills the Self. In the kaṭhopaniṣad this condition of ignorace is liked to a child - bāla.

Now why do the wise choose this word - bāla ? Could it be due to the notion of immaturity? Pehaps not fully-grown or developed? The kaṭhopaniṣad suggests the notion of bāla is one that goes after external pleasures. That is, like a child they are enamored with external objects of color,size, shapes, noise.
The object feeds the mind and entertains it. But yet the senses are easiy coaxed from object to object with the notion that the next 'thing' will bring more pleasure or enjoyment then the last, just a the child goes from toy-to-toy.

Now enter the wisdom found in the chāndogya upaniṣad&#185;, where sanatkumāra-ji is instructing nārada-ji and says, nālpe sukham asti or finite (alpa) things do not (na) contain happiness (suka). What then becomes of the framework of capitalism or communism ( or any system) when all the things amassed do not advance one's happiness?

This is my point. No bombs or riots are needed other then the realization of the truth for a shift in society to occur. One needs to experience a higher level of Being, of Consciousness and find that it is home... that all the possessions are not contributing to one's essential betterment, to one's happiness.

praṇām

words

avidya - unlearned, unwise of the Truth
ātmahantā is ātma +hantā
ātma or ātman is the essence of the individual , the Self +
hantā is hana or killing
īśāvā upaniṣad - 3rd śloka.
bāla - young , childish , infantine , not full-grown or developed
bālā - as an fyi is a young female child
nālpe sukham asti

nālpe = na or 'no'
alpa = trifiling. small , minute
sukham is sukha - happy, prosperous
asti = set aside , given up , cease , vanish , perish
Chāndogya Upaniṣad - Chapter 7.23.1

Mana
20 July 2011, 01:04 PM
Namast&#233; yajvan.

May I ask you to expand a little on Moha and mAyA. Are they self similar or is there a large distinction between the two words?

Thank you kindly.

Pranam

Mana

TheOne
20 July 2011, 01:22 PM
>Arguing about whether Capitalism or Communism is better, from a Hindu standpoint...is like arguing about whether hamburgers or cheeseburgers are more compatible with Dharma.

I respectfully disagree. One of the systems clearly advocates violence and coercion whereas the other is based on voluntary economic interactions between consenting individuals.

Yes, party politics disgusts me as it is completely fraudulent, but actively pursuing a system which is less coercive then the other is a moral responsibility to our children.

yajvan
20 July 2011, 01:47 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;



May I ask you to expand a little on Moha and mAyA. Are they self similar or is there a large distinction between the two words?

Lets see if I can offer a perspective on this...

moha is bewilderment , perplexity , error. Some like to say it is the darkness or delusion of mind preventing the discernment of truth and leading people to believe in the reality of worldly objects.

0&#37; knowledge + 100% ignorance = pure moha
Some knowledge + some ignorance = doubts and this person can be called a śiṣya ( some write śishya) or student, or tapasvin&#185;
100% knowledge + 0% ignorance = brahmanirvāṇain or muniWhen one has doubts it suggests that the intellect is at work probing, questioning and discovering. This is healthy. When there are no doubts, no insight, just thickness of dullness and mis-undersanding ( and thinking this mis-understanding is correct) is moha. One does not even know what he/she does not know.

Let's go a bit further and bring in māyā

What is this māyā ( there are many posts on this subject) ? It is rooted ( √ ) in mā or measuring and this 'yā' is restraining .
Yet many say māyā is the notion of illusion. How are these two i.e. illusion and measuring/restraining , connected?

Māyā is the illusion that the Infinite can be measured out or restrained. It is the idea that this Infinite Being that we experience
as the universe ( and what it contains) is made of parts, finite items, zillions of them, but still finite , within boundaries.
It is the boundless measured into the boundaries , this is the illusion of avidya ( ignorance).

I look at an iceberg and see only the top sticking out of the water. I think oh that is all there is to this mountain of ice. Yet I miss that the mass of this iceberg which is below the surface - the full stucture that only a piece appears above the water. It is the illusion I am seeing the whole thing by only seeing a part.

In ignorance māyā drives individuality; yet one that is fully realized, this māyā becomes the joy of diversity on how many ways this Being expresses itself in Fullness. Then one 'sees' sarvaṁ sarvātamkam or everything is everything else. The unity of creation. In kaśmir śaivism this transformation of māyā (of limits) becomes the play and display of śakti.

Now the question...
Is māyā and moha related? I can be the tapasvin&#185;, knowlegable about the ved, āgama-s, etc. I can be outside of moha, but still inside of māyā. I know what it is (māyā) but still live in a world of diversity.
Yet if I am totally deluded ( moha) māyā is not even a subject that enters my mind to consider.
In both cases they are the children of ignorance.

praṇām

words
tapasvin - still practicing ; working with and practicing tapas or austerity , penance , deep meditation , special observance, etc

Mana
20 July 2011, 02:24 PM
Thank you Yajvan,

For your wisdom, beautifully clarified.

Is √ a Sanskrit Letter or symbol? I believe that you use it from time to time.

Pranam

Mana

Sahasranama
20 July 2011, 02:34 PM
This is getting ridiculous. Neither Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, or any other modern Western economic ideology is 100&#37; compatible with Dharma, which is why most sensible people, (including pro-Hindu groups in India like the BJP) recognize that a completely different solution is necessary. Read this: http://www.bjp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=134&Itemid=442

Arguing about whether Capitalism or Communism is better, from a Hindu standpoint...is like arguing about whether hamburgers or cheeseburgers are more compatible with Dharma.

Thank you for posting that link.

You are right, none of the arabic, greek, european, american polical ideologies can be compared with the teachings of dharma. It is important that Hindus and Indians develop their own political ideology based on dharmic teachings.

yajvan
20 July 2011, 02:53 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;


Thank you Yajvan, For your wisdom, beautifully clarified. Is √ a Sanskrit Letter or symbol? I believe that you use it from time to time.
It is the root sysmbol - a quick way of saying 'the root of' , just like saying the square root in mathmatics. I use it to hopefully ( some day ) just say agni is √ ag , fire. Then I will not have to write so much. So I am trying to prepare the reader for a future writing style.

praṇām

Ramakrishna
20 July 2011, 02:58 PM
Namaste TheOne,



Step #5: Now that we realize that the state is an institution based on the initiation of force to achieve its goals the ONLY morally upright goal regarding it, is the elimination of it.



One of the systems clearly advocates violence and coercion whereas the other is based on voluntary economic interactions between consenting individuals.


Bryon is right, this is getting ridiculous. I don't want to pollute HDF with some pointless political debate that ultimately leads nowhere. Obviously if you advocate the elimination of the state and think that all forms of socialism advocate violence, then you are living in your own little world. One day you will see the world for what it really is, not black and white, and learn about it from other sources besides Youtube videos.



This is getting ridiculous. Neither Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, or any other modern Western economic ideology is 100&#37; compatible with Dharma, which is why most sensible people, (including pro-Hindu groups in India like the BJP) recognize that a completely different solution is necessary. Read this: http://www.bjp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=134&Itemid=442

Arguing about whether Capitalism or Communism is better, from a Hindu standpoint...is like arguing about whether hamburgers or cheeseburgers are more compatible with Dharma.

I have actually been studying this philosophy over the past several weeks. It's very intriguing, and I completely agree about the need for Indians and Hindus to develop their own political ideology, as none of the western ones are fully compatible with Sanatana Dharma. Sort of like my first post when I wondered about the economic systems of the ancient Indian societies in the times of yore. The main thing I like about Integral Humanism is it's view of the individual man in society. Capitalism views the individual as an "economic man" only after material gain and wealth, whereas socialism views the individual as an "abstract man", lacking many senses of individuality and seemingly being a tool of the state. Integral Humanism views the individual as an "Integral Man", and (rightfully so) this system would only work successfully in a dharmic society that embraces the values and precepts of Dharma and realizes the true nature of Man.

Jai Sri Ram

TheOne
20 July 2011, 06:35 PM
>Bryon is right, this is getting ridiculous. I don't want to pollute HDF with some pointless political debate that ultimately leads nowhere

If a healthy discussion about the morality of an institution of a system is considered "pollution" then that is ignorant.

>Obviously if you advocate the elimination of the state and think that all forms of socialism advocate violence, then you are living in your own little world.

The very existence of a state is based on an involuntary social contract which is immoral since there was no choice involved. If you dispute one of my claims, please provide a counter claim otherwise all you are doing is an ad hominum attack.


>One day you will see the world for what it really is, not black and white, and learn about it from other sources besides Youtube videos.

Yes, the world is not black and white, but that does not mean we can't make claims about the morality of an institution. Like I said, you have yet to make a counter claim and continue with the ad hominum attacks

Friend from the West
20 July 2011, 08:49 PM
Namaste all,
My intent is not to step on toes, even though I recognize that conflict/friction can be healthy as well. To paraphrase the knower of the original question, respectfully he has the ability to correct my paraphrasing and to a poster, he has the same ability.
As a spectator, I viewed yajvan say as an example of two systems he has knowledge of and than expound from there. Essentially, I saw his post asking, "What of a society of the enlighted?" What system would be adapted and work well ?" Additionally, I saw this question posed to us from a SD perspective. Personally, did not see Byron dog anyone's comments but say Isms (present systems) out there are not compatible with why we are all here. He than offered a view that exists. Nothing more nothing less.
What an intriguing question posed by yajvan. With all of my weaknesses and prejudices, I thought yajvan asked us to think outside the box with all openness and create. Is it something that exists as a system already that needs tweaked, is it something that will be driven only by those that recognize the Divine in things as we do, to include ourselves and work on ourselves (as a Divine portion) in this, is it a different system that has not been tried, is it a present system that has been bastardized, etc.? We have been given the sense of the most absolute Divine, how can we help manifest this best in our society/world? In my present, I do not have the wisdom to even take a shot at this and I respect those that do in that it keeps thoughts going towards this most worthwhile goal.
I apologize if I am off the mark on this and I recognize that I have plenty of limitations in understanding of so much, but what a grand question posed by yajvan.

Eastern Mind
20 July 2011, 08:55 PM
Vannakkam: I always though ancient kingdoms with the provision that the king is fair and just worked quite well. Of course he had his advisors. Even the Tirukkurral has verses advising the King how to manage his country in a fair and just way.

Aum Namasivaya

yajvan
20 July 2011, 10:25 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Think of a nation ruled by the likes of yudhiṣṭhira-ji¹, the son of dharma. His advisors would be the brāhmaṇa-s¹.
What then of a society that would be on the right path ?

praṇām

words



yudhiṣṭhira - the eldest pāṇḍu . He is often called dharma-putra or dharma-rāja
brāhmaṇa - one who has divine knowledge ; a brahman , a man belonging to the 1st of the twice-born classes

Friend from the West
20 July 2011, 10:32 PM
Most certainly, but in a rough modern example of Tito, what happens when he crosses over? What is plan next to continue this?

TatTvamAsi
21 July 2011, 04:15 AM
Capitalism is the economic variant of the principle of "survival of the fittest". Of course, that fittest could mean smartest, most industrious, more resourceful, and more entrepreneurial etc. These qualities lead to monetary gains. The question is what kind of environment is needed for those qualities to be fully realized or come to the surface?

In my experience, America has the best environment for this to happen. I live in the Silicon Valley and I've met scores of people who've come from humble means and become multi-millionaires through hard work, perseverance, and a never-ending desire to improve their lot.

This constant drive for improvement and self-aggrandizement, is antithetical to Hindu Dharma. While the former relies on individuality and self-aggrandizement, Hinduism is the path to dissolve any semblance of individuality in the end. Of course, this is an Advaitic viewpoint but it is not too far off from other Hindus' views.

Hindu kings of the past have always been measured by how much they did for society. In fact, that is the yardstick to measure anyone trying to get into power IMO. The common man should be able to see how much the candidate has dedicated himself to the betterment of others and their lot. Without selflessness, governance is lost. Those who proclaim that successful businessmen can be great leaders (politically) are sorely mistaken. A business and a country (even state) are two entirely different things. To make a business more streamlined and financially robust, a businessman may lay off hundreds or thousands of people he feels are not contributing to the betterment of the company. What can a leader do to people who are the same way with respect to the state? Jettison them into the ocean?

This is why the gurukula needs to be re-established and holistic learning/education needs to be enforced. Hindu schools FTW! :D

A nation that follows Hindu Dharma, and India was such a nation, can truly realize the full potential of humanity, again, as India did in her glorious past. It is self-evident that India needs to be publicly and forcefully declared a Hindu nation in principle, character, and action.

BryonMorrigan
21 July 2011, 08:06 AM
...and the Internet said, "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TatTvamAsi again." ;)

TheOne
21 July 2011, 10:09 AM
>Capitalism is the economic variant of the principle of "survival of the fittest". Of course, that fittest could mean smartest, most industrious, more resourceful, and more entrepreneurial etc

That, is social Darwinism, a theory REGARDING capitalism but not capitalism itself. Capitalism in the true sense of the word w/o government intervention in the market is based on the idea that voluntary interactions between individuals can be mutually beneficial. Let's say you want a jug of wine from your neighbor and let's say you both agree on a currency(copper wire) you give him xx amount of currency for yy amount of product. Both people end up happy and both have benefited.

>In my experience, America has the best environment for this to happen.

Of course, America does have the best enviroment for this to happen but it's steadily decreasing because since at least 70 years ago the government started interfering with the economy(income taxation, Federal Reserve, abolitment of the Gold Standard) all these things have not only seen an enourmous decline not only in economic productivity, but they have INCREASED the amount of people in poverty.

yajvan
21 July 2011, 11:47 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;



Think of a nation ruled by the likes of yudhiṣṭhira-ji&#185;, the son of dharma. His advisors would be the brāhmaṇa-s&#185;. What then of a society that would be on the right path ?


What would yudhiṣṭhira-ji form as his base line principle of his nation ? I am of the opinion he would consider the following as a guiding light from the ṛṣi śamvanana.


From the the ṛg (rig) ved , the ṛṣi is śamvanana&#185;, agni is devatā, the meter (chandas) is triṣṭubh.

Meet together, talk together, let your minds apprehend alike;
In like manner as the ancient gods concurring accepted their portions at the sacrifice.

Common be the prayer of these assembled worshippers, common be the acquirement, common the purpose, associated by the desire. I repeat for you a common prayer, I offer for you with a common oblation.

Common be your intention, common be the wishes of your hearts, common be your thoughts,
so that there may be thorough union among you.

The wisdom offered by this ṛṣi is wholeness, fullness of the human race. This is why sanātana dharma is so noble and holds the highest and most esteemed place on this good earth.

praṇām

words
ṛṣi śamvanana - from the family of a&#241;grias has a beautiful name:

śam ( to prepare, arrange) +
vana (plenty, abundance) +
na (a jewel or pearl - this is the 3rd derivation of na).
ṛṣi śamvanana is the jewel that prepares in abundance. What is he preparing? The mantra-s and śloka-s of the saṁhita