Hindu reflections on “The kite runner” and cassandra effect

I half wish I hadn’t seen “kite runner” [GS]. hazAra-s reduced to such a state by the bachChAbaazi bastards (what to speak of the recently converted cousins of the kalAsha)… A good reminder that Islamification will imply a fall for our bloodline’s long term prospects.

It’s always bad to be the “last holdout” or the “most fresh convert” (Think of kAshmIra-paNDita-s or kalasha or nUristAni-s). Our strategy should change with time – we should always try to get the greatest power and influence – for now, it means preparing for the time when most of our fellows (or what remains of them) finally become awake – To exactly avoid the destiny when we are reduced to agreeing that the best we can do is be the most influential dhimmi-s in some not-too-unfriendly rAxasa state (or worse – crypto-convert or really convert). But, I am not clear if the cotton-heads will fall in line in time. 🙁

In more general terms, this is a problem of a prescient minority watching relatively helplessly as a dumb majority continues to compound a folly (a generalization of the classic Cassandra effect). What should the attitude of the prescient be? It is easy to be frustrated and gloomy; but there’s something better –

  • Above all: As baby-rearing guides say: BE CALM BUT FIRM. As NNT would say: Be a very stubborn minority.
  • Try to increase or at least maintain the power (and number) of prescient ones in the meantime – it is a fact of nature that the majority will always be rather dumb in such matters. Change locations, professions etc.. as necessary.
    • Be aware and prepared for unexpected opportunities (which Indian knew that the noble uShasputra-s would sacrifice so much blood to free Asia, including India?) to restore dominance.
  • Till one can restore the natural order of things, accept the dumbocracy as a facet of perturbed nature, much as the uShasputra-s accept and adjust to their lives in a tectonically hyperactive region.

शैवागमेषु वराहपुराणम्

घोराङ्गीरसेन चर्चयता मया दृष्टमेवम्।


वराहपुराणस्य वेङ्कटेश्वरमुद्रणालयप्रकाशितप्रतिकृतौ –

(यामुनाचार्यप्रतिकृतिर् एतत्समीपे ऽभवत्तराम्। विकिस्रोतस्य् अत्र स्थूलाक्षराङ्कनम् पाठस्य साभिप्रायमेव कृतम्।)

शिवो वदति

ये वेदमार्गनिर्मुक्तास्तेषां मोहार्थमेव च ।
नयसिद्धान्तसंज्ञाभिर्मया शास्त्रं तु दर्शितम् ।। ७०.४२ ।।

पाशोऽयं पशुभावस्तु स यदा पतितो भवेत् ।
तदा पाशुपतं शास्त्रं जायते वेदसंज्ञितम् ।। ७०.४३ ।।


य एवं वेत्ति विप्रर्षे परं नारायणं तथा ।
अपरं पद्मयोनिं तु ब्रह्माणं त्वपरं तु माम् ।
गुणतो मुख्यतस्त्वेक एवाहं मोह इत्युत ।।

ऊचुर्मां ते च मुनयो भवितारो द्विजोत्तमाः ।
कलौ त्वद्रूपिणः सर्वे जटामुकुटधारिणः ।
स्वेच्छया प्रेतवेषाश्च मिथ्यालिङ्गधराः प्रभो ।। ७१.४८ ।।

तेषामनुग्रहार्थाय किंचिच्छास्त्रं प्रदीयताम् ।
येनास्मद्वंशजाः सर्वे वर्तेयुः कलिपीडिताः ।। ७१.४९ ।।

एवमभ्यर्थितस्तैस्तु पुराऽहं द्विजसत्तमाः ।
वेदक्रियासमायुक्तां कृतवानस्मि संहिताम् ।। ७१.५० ।।

निःश्वासाख्यां ततस्तस्यां लीना बाभ्रव्यशाण्डिलाः ।
अल्पापराधाच्छ्रुत्वैव गता बैडालिका भवन् ।। ७१.५१ ।।

मयैव मोहितास्ते हि भविष्यं जानता द्विजाः ।
लौल्यार्थिनस्तु शास्त्राणि करिष्यन्ति कलौ नराः ।। ७१.५२ ।।

निःश्वाससंहितायां हि लक्षमात्रं प्रमाणतः ।
सैव पाशुपती दीक्षा योगः पाशुपतस्त्विह ।। ७१.५३ ।।

एतस्माद् वेदमार्गाद्धि यदन्यदिह जायते ।
तत् क्षुद्रकर्म विज्ञेयं रौद्रं शौचविवर्जितम् ।। ७१.५४ ।।



द्वित्रापि निःश्वासागमस्योच्छ्रायस्स्पष्टः – शैवागमान्तरापेक्षया।

वेदविरोधिप्रवृत्तिः शैवेषु कापालिकेषु दृश्यते। तादृशानां विरोधोऽत्रेष्ट इति प्रतिभाति।

Diversity risks: The white hindu case.

The following is an excerpt from a friend’s wise views on the matter:


i’m frankly appreciative of any Hindu who’s doing useful work for dharma. But I’m also pragmatic enough to see that “diversity” comes with its problems 🙂

say a million whites become Hindus tomorrow: nothing vague or “spiritual”; they become your average temple-going, external sign sporting, minimally observant Hindu…where will they stand on issues such as temple sovereignty, the current attempts to destroy sabarimala’s ritual rules (MY NOTE: This is about granting entry to fertile women, viz – http://indiafacts.org/readytowait-campaign-reclaim-hindu-temples-traditions/ ), some state organ choosing priests (MY NOTE: in violation of sacred Agama-s) etc??

I’m not saying that they will all be a problem. But fact is, many of them would probably take a stand against traditional schools and teachers on these issues…

what are they converting to? Is there a fixed, basic “catechism” to which all new converts will subscribe regardless of the particular sect they convert to? That regardless of their (possibly) individualist, egalitarian and liberal background, there are some basics they should not question or attempt to controvert/subvert…


Postscript: It must be noted that white converts to hinduism tend not to be humble supplicants yearning to regain connection with their ancenstors, our noble pagan cousins – rather they’re given to be quite loud mouthed and presumptuous. Not withstanding their ancestors’ miserable failure at saving their pagan religions, they presume to lecture us about how we should run our society and affairs.

kanchi-paramAchArya and the shrIvaiShNava kid

Copying over a narration:

Example of paramacharyas insistence on tradition: a sv pandit’s son had got opportunity to work abroad. His father was a mimamsaka, grammarian, vedantin and dharmashastravid. Father died when boy was in his early teens. The boys vaidika education sorta stagnated after that. Boy’s close friend was a smarta. He took him to kanchi matha one day for some festival (good saappadu was the reason ;))
Apparently, mahaperiyava noted the boy.. Called him in pvt and praised his late father to skies. Then told him that as inheritor of such sampradaya, he can surely expect great things from the boy
Said boy gave up his abroad plans, visited uttamur svami n annangaracharya.. Learned from them.. Became one of the mahapanditas of kanchi. He was from tatarya clan. Went to kanchi matha vidvat sadas one day.. When he was abt to leave, paramacharya called him n asked – i believe u know what u r supposed to do after seeing me.. The boy replied that he is supposed to take bath.. He was a bit unsure abt the reply. Paramacharya told him – i know that u respect me for bringing u on this path. So u hv cancalam in mind whether to do snana or not. My answer- adhere to ur dharma n sampradaya. Give up hesitation.

(Ramanuja tatachar told abt this.. Some narayana tatachar was that boy.)


He also told a saiddhAntika shivAchArya who came to give him the rudraprasAda from a shiva temple as part of a customary honor not to do shASTANGa namaskAram to him as those who received shivadIkSA should not prostrate before adIkSitAs… [सङ्केतः]

A certain tale about vijayendra-tIrtha

(via shrI pAnchajanya)

Actually aft vijayanagara lost in talikota
Local Muslim cantonment of kumbakonam which was under vijayanagara revolted
As people knew that it would take ragunatha nayaka a day to reach kumbakonam from thanjavur aft gathering his forces
They approached vijayendra for help in order to protect the temples
Vijayendra asked representatives from each temple at the town to bring him a bag of coconuts
And on doing so he did a prayoga on the coconuts and asked people to break it when the sulla army approached the temple
As he said when people broke those coconuts broke each and every temple on being invaded by the sulla army they heard the sound of a no of lions roaring simultaneously
Hearing which they were frightened and ran away
Thus the temples were protected and the Sullas were butchered by ragunatha nayaka the next day
So as a mark of respect each and every temple which was present at that time (irrespective of whether it is vishnu, Shiva or Devi) sends it prasada to vijayendra on his aradhane
Which is the day on which he entered brindavana

How much does BG 2.42-2.46 subvert pravRtti-dharma?


I’ve no interest in the Ananda-addiction game. Yet, the desire to understand the exact extant to which bhagavad-gItA-2.42-2.46 (interpreted traditionally) subvert vaidika pravRtti-dharma motivated this study.

Core verses

  • यामिमां पुष्पितां वाचं प्रवदन्त्यविपश्चितः। वेदवादरताः पार्थ नान्यदस्तीति वादिनः॥ 2.42।।
    कामात्मानः स्वर्गपरा जन्मकर्मफलप्रदाम् । क्रियाविशेषबहुलां भोगैश्वर्यगतिं प्रति ॥2.43।।
    भोगैश्वर्यप्रसक्तानां तयापहृतचेतसाम् । व्यवसायात्मिका बुद्धिः समाधौ न विधीयते ॥2.44।।
    त्रैगुण्यविषया वेदा निस्त्रैगुण्यो भवार्जुन। निर्द्वन्द्वो नित्यसत्त्वस्थो निर्योगक्षेम आत्मवान्।।2.45।।
    यावानर्थ उदपाने सर्वतः संप्लुतोदके। तावान्सर्वेषु वेदेषु ब्राह्मणस्य विजानतः।।2.46।।


  • This is but a deprecation of vaidika kriya-s (taken in general) as a means of mokSha or Ananda, since they cater to other lesser ends as well through “kAmya-karma-“s.
  • The Ananda-obsessed sAdhaka (where eligible) is encouraged, with the Ishvara-dedication-attitude, to undertake those vaidika-kriya-s conducive to that Ananda goal (to the neglect of these other “distracting” kAmya-karma-s).
    • shrI-vaiShNava hierarchy reportedly: “Those who dont worship < avaidika worship < vaidika worshippers of other devas < ekantin worship but with kAmyaphala < paramikantin with nishkama worship.”
  • Those that refuse mokSha or deny its existence are called inferior. The fruits of kAmya-karma-s (even a place in svarga) are said to pale in comparison to the fruits of Ananda-addiction yoga/ jJNAna.
  • veda-s as the one reliable source for pravRtti-dharma is *not* challenged. Further, before sannyAsa, while kAmya-karma-s are deprecated, pravRtti-dharma itself is not deprecated as a “distraction” from Ananda-obtainment. Rather, from the context of the verses, they’re encouraged (with the apt “dedication” attitude).
  • Nature of kAmya-karma (partly from other sources):
    • The present verses refer to kAma-primary motivations (bhoga/ aishvarya = consumership / lordship)
    • Anything motivated by dedication to dharma (rather than consumer desire) is not kAmya-karma (even if it results in similar fruits).
    • Proscribed kAmya-karma anecdotally includes effortful endeavors like kAmya iShTi-s, composing mundane kAvya (remembered story of shrIvaiShNava vidvAn), but possibly / seemingly excludes minor pleasures like eating special sweets.


  • Abhinavagupta on 2.46: ” यदि तु वेददूषणपरमेतदभविष्यत् प्रकृतं युद्धकरणं व्यघटिष्यत, वेदादन्यस्य स्वधर्मनिश्चायकत्वाभावात्। येषां तु फलाभिलाषो विगलितः तेषां न वेदाः बन्धकाः।”
  • रामानुजः on 2.45: ” तद्विषया वेदाः तमःप्रचुराणां रजःप्रचुराणां सत्त्वप्रचुराणां च वत्सलतरतया एव हितम् अवबोधयन्ति वेदाः। यदि एषां स्वगुणानुगुण्येन स्वर्गादिसाधनम् एव हितं न अवबोधयन्ति, तदा एव ते रजस्तमःप्रचुरतया सात्त्विकफलमोक्षविमुखाः स्वापेक्षितफलसाधनम् अजानन्तः, कामप्रावण्यविवशा अनुपायेषु उपायभ्रान्त्या प्रविष्टाः प्रणष्टा भवेयुः।  …  एवं वर्तमानस्य ते रजस्तमः प्रचुरता नश्यति सत्त्वं च वर्धते। न च वेदोदितं सर्वं सर्वस्य उपादेयम् “. On 2 .46, he reiterates: “सर्वतः संप्लुतोदके उदपाने  पिपासोः  यावान् अर्थः  यावद् एव प्रयोजनं पानीयम् तावद् एव तेन उपादीयते न सर्वम् एवम्  सर्वेषु वेदेषु ब्राह्मणस्य विजानतः  वैदिकस्य मुमुक्षोः यदेव मोक्षसाधनं तद् एव उपादेयम् न अन्यत्।”
  • शङ्कर on 2.46: “सर्वेषु वेदोक्तेषु कर्मसु यान्युक्तान्यनन्तानि फलानि तानि नापेक्ष्यन्ते चेत् , किमर्थं तानि ईश्वरायेत्यनुष्ठीयन्ते इत्युच्यते ; शृणु — यथा लोके कूपतडागाद्यनेकस्मिन्  उदपाने  परिच्छिन्नोदके  यावान्  यावत्परिमाणः स्नानपानादिः  अर्थः  फलं प्रयोजनं, स सर्वः अर्थः  सर्वतःसंप्लुतोदके ऽपि यः अर्थः तावानेव संपद्यते तत्र अन्तर्भवतीत्यर्थः। एवं  तावान्  तावत्परिमाण एव संपद्यते  सर्वेषु वेदेषु  वेदोक्तेषु कर्मसु यः अर्थः यत्कर्मफलं सः अर्थः  ब्राह्मणस्य  संन्यासिनः परमार्थतत्त्वं  विजानतो  यः अर्थः यत् विज्ञानफलं सर्वतःसंप्लुतोदकस्थानीयं तस्मिन् तावानेव संपद्यते तत्रैवान्तर्भवतीत्यर्थः। …  सर्वं कर्माखिलम् इति च वक्ष्यति। तस्मात् प्राक् ज्ञाननिष्ठाधिकारप्राप्तेः कर्मण्यधिकृतेन कूपतडागाद्यर्थस्थानीयमपि कर्म कर्तव्यम्।।”
    • ie: For a brAhmaNa/ sannyAsi having ultimate understanding, the value of vaidika karma-s (taken in general) pale in comparison to that of brahma-realization. Before such adhikAra is obtained, the lesser (general) vaidika karma (jJNAna not being available) has to be performed as it eventually leads to the “ultimate understanding”.
  • madhva on 2.45: “इतरदपोद्य वेदानां परोक्षार्थत्वात् त्रिगुणसम्बन्धि-स्वर्गादिप्रतीतितोऽर्थ इव भाति। परोक्षवादो वेदोऽयं इति ह्युक्तम्। अतः प्रातीतिकेऽर्थे भ्रान्तिं मा कुर्वित्यर्थः। न तु वेदपक्षो निषिध्यते। वेदे रामायणे चैव पुराणे भारते तथा। आदावन्ते च मध्ये च विष्णुः सर्वत्र गीयते। सर्वे वेदा यत्पदम् कठो.2।15 वेदोऽखिलो धर्ममूलं स्मृतिशीले च तद्विदाम्। आचारश्चैव साधूनामात्मनो रुचि(नस्तुष्टि) रेव च मनुः 2।16 वेदप्रणिहितो धर्मो ह्यधर्मस्तद्विपर्ययः। भाग.6।1।40 इति वेदानां सर्वात्मना विष्णुपरत्वोक्तेस्तद्विहितस्य तद्विरुद्धस्य च धर्माधर्मोक्तेश्च।”  (ie – Don’t think that the obtuse veda-s are about worldy goals, they speak of viShNu only. )
    • JayatIrtha on mAdhva 2.45: “वेद  इति। धर्ममूलं धर्मज्ञप्तेः कारणम्। तद्विदां वेदविदां मन्वादीनां स्मृतिर्ग्रन्थः शीलं मनोगतिः आचारो धर्मबुद्ध्यानुष्ठानम् आत्मनो मनसो रुचिः। विकल्पविषये प्रणिहितो विहितः। तद्विपर्ययः प्रतिषिद्धः विवक्षितयोगविरोधे हि वेदे सिद्धान्तो निषेध्यः स्यात्। नचैवं प्रत्युत तदनुगुण एवेति भावः। धर्मशब्दोऽत्र निवृत्तिधर्मपरः।”
    • JayatIrtha on mAdhva 2.46: ” ननूक्तं काम्यकर्मिणां समाध्यभावेन ज्ञानाभावान्मोक्षो न भवतीति। “अत्रेदमुच्यते – यद्यपि ज्ञानफलं काम्यकर्मिणां न भवति, तथापि तन्निन्दादिकं नोपपद्यते – कुतः? काम्यकर्मिणां फलं स्वर्गादिकं ज्ञानिनां न भवति इति ज्ञानकर्मणोः साम्यमेवे”ति योगानुष्ठाननियमाक्षेपे सतीत्याहेत्यर्थः। … यद्यपि ज्ञानिनः कर्मिणश्चान्योन्यफलाभावः तथापि ज्ञानिनः फलं महासमुद्रोदकमिव महत्त्वात्। कर्मिणां फलं तु कूपोदकमिवात्यन्ताल्पम्।”

Two articles’ take on shaiva siddhAnta

Contrast access-ritual-knowledge-hinduism-case-veda-agama (by the young Āngīrasa) with the-hushed-splendour-of-saiva-siddhanta-will-humanity-realise-its-full-potential (which shrI Jataayu pointed me to) . Both are by tamiL-s, both dealing (in part) with broadly the same topic. The former is honest and clear – it evoked admiration in me. The latter immediately roused suspicion and slight underwhelmedness.
In the latter, the sections “Rejecting scriptural literalism” and “Egalitarianism” had me wondering “so what’s the big deal?”, when I came to “Siva, the go between.” I was thinking: “Why exactly is he writing this article? what’s so remarkable about nindA-stuti”. But when I got to “Against Casteism”, I was dumbstruck by the seemingly shameless misrepresentation of the tradition. Just take a scene or two from a story, scrupulously avoid mentioning *strong support for the varNa system* within the shaiva siddhAnta system (see the appropriate section in the former article) and magically stick the heading “against casteism”.
I suppose that we must be thankful that the author did not reduce the magnificent shaiva siddhAnta tradition to the level of the outright subversive lingAyata system. Assuming that he is just innocently trying to communicate his experiential joy (rather than slyly pushing a favorite agenda), the author would do well to be more honest and careful.
As a side note, looking at today’s नट-विट-शठ-s, we might do well to be a bit wary of “bards and actors”. Their current excessive influence seems to be a sad indicator of the state of hindudom.