Bṛhat

Preliminary Schema for Synaptic Reconnection, Part 1
A preliminary schema to reconnect with civilizational consciousness. Developing a complete Ontology, Epistemology and Teleology for Bhārata.

Like atheism, decolonization is a rejection, a creation of empty space. But unlike atheism, decolonization carries a forward implication. The empty space created must be filled with a native lens. In the Indian context we speak of a Dhārmika OET- ontology, epistemology, teleology¹. These technical terms make for a psychological and cultural paradigm, connecting things that are core to existential human queries. Simply put, ontology describes what we know- things that make up reality, epistemology studies how we come to know- the methods of acquiring knowledge, and teleology points us to purpose or value- what do we do with this knowledge, or what is it for?

Decolonization is the installation of an alternative psychological and cultural operating system, in our case one encoded with Dhārmika OET. And Dhārmika code is written in the language of Sanskrit. This is not a claim of superiority to inflame Sanskrit vs. Tamil debates, it is a simple statement of fact. The Indian civilizational consciousness has emerged with Sanskrit as its root, even as it has naturally found expression and aesthetic in a wide variety of languages.

What this means is that a Dhārmika OET must question hitherto innocuous paradigms- Sacred, God, Technology, Reality, Disruption, Progress, etc.- in native code. For us to reconnect to our civilizational consciousness, we must be able to deploy and derive from a native-rooted framework. Such a framework would, in turn, help reconnect synaptic nerves to the civilizational consciousness. In three essays of which this is the first, we propose a preliminary schema for this endeavor. The terrain is inevitably technical, and the attempt here leans on generalizations and reductive descriptions for ease. It will thus overlook nuances that the technically-informed may consider salient, and we apologize for the licence.

Synaptic Reconnection: Meaning

Graham Hancock is right- we are a species with amnesia. And among our species, Indian consciousness is arguably the most broken and ruptured of them all. One of the only few pre-Abrahamic civilizations left, it has suffered incalculable ravages in recent memory. A damaging consequence of this has been severance with our civilizational code- Sanskrit. The revival of Sanskrit into contemporary language is a fair and valid mission, but even short of that there are other ways to engage with it.

The crux of this is in internalizing a Sanskritic mindmap– the installation of a base firmware built on ontology and semantics rooted in Sanskrit.

To whatever extent it is true that language shapes reality, Sanskrit’s profound rooting and etymological web gives more insight into reality (cognitive reality, even if not the manifest) than does any other language. And by synaptic reconnection we mean the re-establishment of civilizational cognition, as it might have existed among our ancestors. What did the ṛgvedic ṛṣi hold in his mind’s eye when he chanted on Indra or Agni? What did the upaniṣadic guru mean by the advaita brahman and ātman? When our ancestors turned to īśvara and when they thought of bhagavān, what were the differences internalized in their minds, the ones all diluted to us in the modern world by speaking only of “god?” Not that ready answers are forthcoming in this piece. These questions reflect a larger intent that requires a personal learning curve and much project work, only a preliminary schema for which is being proposed here.

In doing so we follow ancient footsteps, such as those of Amarasiṃha who wrote the Amarakoṣaḥ Nāmaliṅgānuśāsanam- a Sanskrit thesaurus with words classified into ontological categories. Even prior, systems such as Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika bequeathed well defined ontologies. And of course, we always live under the high shadow of Pāṇini, Yāska, Bhartṛhari and more- the earliest known linguist ṛṣis of India. As far as generalizations go, it is safe to say that Indian ontology is a flat one, relatively non hierarchical. It distinguishes only between that which is real – सत्, and that which is not – असत्². Even when it argues for the existence of more than one ontological, as Sāṅkhya does with puruṣa and prakṛti, the real is still the unchanging, the underived. Dualism/ non-dualism, monism, substance essentialism- all these and more have been considered by Indian thought over its long existence, and even if there are disagreements here and there, a coherence does emerge. Let us see how.

Preliminary Schema: Objective and Overview

In its preliminary form, the schema is envisaged as a combination of classifying/qualifying layers and the design principles embedded in them. The first two layers are ontological classifications of reality. Doing this over two instead of one layer allows us to bring in the dimension of ontical vs. ontological- a distinction cardinal to the field ever since Martin Heidegger. In reductive terms, ontical describes objective, clinical categorisations- stuff that makes up existence; while ontological describes existing- Being- what a thing/entity is to itself, its innate nature or properties.

To Heidegger, ‘ontical’ signified specific and tangible reality while ‘ontological’ referred to the deeper, underlying structures of reality in comprehension of their own existence. Rendered in native terms, the ontical refers to categories that come into being- bhavat (भवत्), while ontological refers to being-ness itself- as/sat (अस्/सत्). Our first ontological layer is thus an ontical classification, of categories of reality. The second layer is ontological in earnest- reality as classified by the Self. Both are patterned alike, the difference being that the latter occupies a subjective vantage point.

The third layer is epistemological, outlining an Indic framework to qualify sources of knowledge and methods of acquiring it. The fourth layer deals with teleology, the purpose of knowledge and being- or what is called artha in Sanskrit. The four layers together thus propose a schema for OET, rooted in Dharma. And in detailing these layers we are informed by Indic design principles, or what we call sūtramaṇḍalas. The entire framework is represented in this diagram:

To bring the Indian centrality of Mind into focus, our two-fold ontological classification is split along ṛta, the Natural Order, and ātma, the Self. Thus these levels are called Ārtava and Ātmya respectively (of ṛta and of ātma). A significant chunk of whatever we know is predicated upon our means of acquiring knowledge, or on how we know what we know. Another way of approaching this is looking for what we derive certitude from, of what constitutes to us as yielding truth, satya. Design principle 3 will lead the way, giving to us layer 3 and thus called Āsita, the seat (of truth). But there must be a purpose to this intellectualisation, a value we can derive from it. Drawing from design principle 4, we do thus under teleology and create layer 4, suitably called Pauruṣārthika.

What we seek here is a kind of civilizational parser and compiler– a schema where we could input any value and extract in return what Indian civilizational consciousness would make of it.

For native notions, such as deva or ṛta, the schema should show us their true place within the Indian ontological context. For non-native notions, the schema must compile them into indigenous cognition, or at least highlight pathways to take for compilation. Bear in mind the raw nature of this schema. It is to be taken as a presentation of a project at ideation stage. The test of its validity is whether-

  1. Rooting our thinking in Sanskrit opens new pathways, or seeds reconnection to civilizational core; and
  2. Doing so enables us to approach modern problems with novel cognition.

At all levels, the key thing to do is examine core Sanskritic etymologies- for the Pāṇinian dhātu’s potency in re-establishing synaptic connections is, as yet, unrealised. We will do this through processes of ontical bloom/ ucchvas- a term used here to mean the generation of hitherto dormant cognitive pathways, which in turn bring new realizations on matters of being, reality, and existence. In this essay, we will detail layers 1 and 2- the ontical and the ontological.

Sūtras, or Design Principles

As Shri Shivakumar expertly details in this article, sūtras represent an essential unit of Bhāratīya cognition. They are aspects of ṛta encoded in aphorisms or principles in concise, computational forms. Using sūtras we can generate objects- or ontical forms- representing the same truth a given sūtra contains. To quote from the article:


At times, these Sūtras are too specific and limited in scope. At times, they expand themselves into containing very large parts of the universe and hence they assume the form of a Fundamental Principle/Mūla Tattva.


Shivakumar GV

What’s being described above is a generative fractal. Bhāratīya consciousness displays multi-level coherence precisely because it is encoded with sūtras- fundamental elements that represent a universal or essential aspect of ṛta and/or sat (ऋत, सत्) . An example of a system that’s generated with interplay of such sūtras is Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī, which with its derivational system as applied to dhātus informs much of our schema. We refer to such an internally-coherent string of sūtras as a sūtramaṇḍala, or a set of design principles. Such a set can be of two types:

  • A conceptual set, one that represents fundamental reality without any recourse to action, and has ontologically generative properties.
  • An operational set, describing principles that can be felt, seen, validated and deployed in the material world.

Another way to understand these are as ṛtasūtramaṇḍalas and kṛtasūtramaṇḍalas. Ṛtasūtramaṇḍalas, or conceptual sūtra sets, simply are- they generate and exist to a code of their own. Kṛtasūtramaṇḍalas, or operational sūtra sets, enable us to manifest/generate aspects of truth in this realm. Ṛtasūtramaṇḍalas describe existence, kṛtasūtramaṇḍalas prescribe being. While Indian civilizational consciousness is generated by a ṛtasūtramaṇḍala (as we will come to see), a schema to reconnect to it must necessarily be operational. In this context it becomes a set of design principles- a cognition/awareness to embed into the entire system to give it consistent generative properties.

Indeed, it can be said that colonization is the internalization of foreign design principles by another civilization.

It follows naturally then that decolonization is the return to native design principles. Some such design principles are known to us as mahāvākyas. Others are found uttered pithily in forgotten ślokas of civilizational memory. There are four that we take as guiding in construction of our schema, to be visited in Part 2 of this series. They thus form a kṛtamaṇḍala- an operational set of design principles that can be deployed and/or implemented. In turn, such deployment to the 4 layers of our schema can return a ṛtasūtramaṇḍala, or a generative set of design principles that describe aspect(s) of reality. This essay will conclude with a critical ṛtasūtramaṇḍala.

Schema Layer 1 – Ārtava (of ṛta; ontical categories)

Ṛta, or the Natural Order. The cakra of being and existence. Given that dharma is the Indian endeavor to organize life and society in consonance in ṛta, and that this consonance at various levels is indeed the civilizational imperative that makes it a coherent fractal, at L1 we organize things by their positioning within or in context of ṛta. And since the goal here is seeding synaptic reconnections, we design a dhātu-led consistency. Dhātus are represented in standard form as prefixed with the √ symbol, such that a dhātu will be represented as √dhā. In addition, the primary classificatory categories- or notions to wrap our thinking around- are represented as {category}. These are simplistic visual aids to give some tether to cognition as it travels through technical terrain. There are seven proposed ontical categories:

1- {ṚTA}
Derived from √ṛ

Everything pertaining to emergent and perceived reality- the natural order. Ex: nature, cosmos, consciousness.

That which exists independent of humanity. It is what the Western mind understands as reality– “that which doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.”

2- {KṚTA}
Derived from √kṛ

Everything that is kṛta, or done/ created, by life forms- where they are the kartā.

This includes information, except that of exclusive qualia classified separately. Some art will be a part of {kṛta}, but others could be in the next two categories.

Commerce, trade and economic activity are also {kṛta}

3- {DHṚTA}
Derived from √dhṛ

All things phenomenologically part of humanity- culture, history, tradition- or displaying aspects of emergence.

Is Marxism a {kṛta} or a {dhṛta}? We decide on the basis whether something is a created ideology vs. whether it is emergent, and it should be clear where Marxism slots, for example.

4- {GHṚTA}
Derived from √ghṛ

The best, most exceptional products of humanity- be they things or ideas. The most ghṛta, well refined or clarified like ghee, output of the ongoing mānava yajña. A ranking category to separate some {kṛta} from others.

This category is essential to our objective, for it helps understand what Indian civilizational consciousness values, and what it would not.

5- {BHṚTA}
Derived from √bhṛ

Stuff pertaining to leadership, governance, policy, education and learning- institutional and individual human endeavors to bear, to lead, to be bhartṛs (bearers) or bharaṭas- potters that shape clay. Usage of this category helps us internalize the self-identity of Bhārata.

6- {MṚTA}
Derived from √mṛ

Things of mortal concern- to individual, nation, species or planet. A callout category to highlight the most pressing dangers and threats. Things that could bring death, or martya. All akṛta, adhṛta, aghṛta or abhṛta things- by definition.

7- {ANṚTA} or {NṚTA}
Derived from √ṛ or √nṛ

Everything else- stuff that cannot be classified into any of the previous. It is a nartaka- a dancer that defies category. It mimes, it tricks and deceives. It is both this and that. The category of mystery and ambiguity, of unknown unknowns. Of things for which we’re unsure- are they even ṛta to begin with?

What Value Does Such Classification Have?

For one, notice that it contains the seemingly hard boundaries of humanity, nature and man-made. But an ontic bloom happens at the borders, pivoting around a range of prefixes to the roots, such as- ati, adhi, pra, abhi, anu, upa, ud, prati, vi among others, and a compact but versatile set of rules to derive verb forms. Coherence maintains across the spectrum, found at any level we look at. The root of √dhṛ expands to dhartṛ, dharma, dharmatvam, dhāraṇa, dharita, dhārmika and more. The seemingly incoherent sound √bhṛ becomes bhartya, abhartya, bhārata, bharaṇa and more.

There is a built-in qualification of human output- a sensitivity increasingly lost in the modern world of technology and disruptive innovation. It also allows for differences or nuances by dimension. For example, capitalism- as an idea- is simply {kṛta}. But for the factory worker or the delivery rider, or even an entire forest tribe, it could be {mṛta}, while appearing to society as {anṛta}. This allows us to reflect on the kind of world we’re hubristically creating, where convenience and innovation imply subserving a large part of the nation’s young male populace into delivering material to consumers within record timings – as one example. Notice also the distance built-in between {kṛta} and {dhṛta}, which in turn yield karma and dharma- it’s important to distinguish between things that humans do or create (like religion) and things that are emergent in humanity (like culture and civilization).

It makes sense to have {mṛta} as a separate category- especially in the modern world with stuff like singularity and climate catastrophe looming large- for it directs at least part of our vision towards things that could kill us or the planet. Lastly, notice the civilizational cores built into this classification. {Ghṛta}, or ghee, or the clarified output from the yajña, is in fact a metaphor for the purified consciousness each of us can generate within us, the agni of our personal yajñas. {Ghṛta} is extracted through tapasyā, through pariśrama, through havana and yajña. As we laud the latest technological inventions, as we remember how great a product manager Steve Jobs was, we should take time to also ask- is humanity even producing {ghṛta} now? What would {ghṛta} of the 21st century look like? All of this ought to be parsed to detail, but in this essay we leave it here and move to layer 2.

Schema Layer 2 – Ātmya (of ātma; ontological categories)

Notice a cognitive elegance to these derivations:

√kṛ, manin : karma
√dhṛ, maniṇ : dharma
√bṛh, man : brahman
√at, manin : ātman

No matter which angle we approach from, the Indian civilization makes it abundantly clear that at its center lies Mind, or Consciousness, or Intent– √man (considering, knowing, thinking).

This is not a solipsistic paradigm, but one of extreme responsibility, engagement and empowerment³. It also affirms that, as much as dharma is predicated upon community and tradition, it has exalted space for the individual. We give accord to this in L2 by affixing subjective meaning to the natural and lived orders, ie, mapping meaning along subjective aspects that differ person to person. Indeed, what is considered a technological {ghṛta} of humanity often leads to severe {anṛta} conditions for the individual. Our matrix must be able to capture these kinds of dissonances, because dissonance is antithetical to the civilizational imperative of being in consonance with ṛta- it is {anṛta} by definition.

We design this layer along the pattern set in the previous one. Every category in reality- the ontical- has a certain form in the experience of being- the ontological. Ever since Martin Heidegger used these notions, the Western mind has been trying to come to terms with them. But the Indian mind has grappled with the fact of consciousness long ago and to profound detail. The anecdote abounds that late in his life, when Heidegger encountered Zen Buddhism, he remarked- “this is what I’ve been trying to say all my life.”

1- {SMṚTA}
Derived from √smṛ

Things of the inner mind-space, ie, thoughts, feelings and emotions- the felt-experience of consciousness. Not as a phenomenon, but as a subjective experience of being. The same thing can leave different impressions on different people- creating as many {smṛta} categories.

For example, there are today 3 fundamentally different Indias, when classified by {smṛta}. There is an India, a Bhārata, and a Hindustan.

2- {ṚCA}
Derived from √ṛc

Things you/I create, or conduct racanā of. Things we fasten together, bind or bring into existence. A subjective order equivalent to {kṛta} of L1, where something of the {smṛta} category is brought to life/form.

We may argue to eschew this category and simply allow for two {kṛta} classes, but in doing so would miss a vital chink in the ontic bloom of ṛ > ṛc > ṛcas > rac > ratha > artha and a lot more, which we will come to.

3- {DṚTA}
Derived from √dṛ

The innate skills and traits in us, the individual selves. Our emergent personalities and behaviors- the fundamental reason why being you and being me are different things- our svabhāva (though not our svadharma).

4- {ŚṚTA}
Derived from √śṛ

The best, most refined aspects of us- or the L2 equivalent to the {ghṛta} of L1. All of Pāṇini’s {smṛta}, for example, is a distilled {śṛta} into his opus- Aṣṭadhyāyī.

It is the stuff that emerges in us after pariśrama, a miśṛt output of our self-application, or adhyātma. Many of us go though lives never caring to produce {śṛta}, and thus never experience the reward of a personal yajña. The qualification allows us to understand why śruti is given greater accord than is smṛti in Indian tradition. It is the clarified output- {ghṛta}- of mind.

5- {PṚTA}
Derived from √pṛ

Things of love, affection, fulfillment and nourishment. A way for us to qualify the soundarya and rasa of our lived experience. This may appear quite different to {bhṛta} of L1, but in reality we are led by, informed by and find basis in {pṛta} much like civilization is led, informed by and finds basis in {bhṛta}.

It can be said that the objective of {bhṛta} is to create a situation when denizens are able to live in and enjoy {pṛta}. The first cakravartin, Pṛthu Vainya, is lauded in the Purāṇas for bringing joy to his people.

6- {VṚTA}
Derived from √vṛ

Things of personal subsistence, activity and commerce- the dincaryā. Stuff of vartana, or movement, or of dealing, day-on-day, with vartamāna- the present. Stuff we do for vetana- wages.

Though the connection to {mṛta} of L1 is tenuous, we make it because the mindless, drone-like {vṛta} of modern world are indeed akin to {mṛta}- or death of the self. True death is that which dies inside of us while we are still alive, and who would disagree that most {vṛta} of the modern world are soul crushing.

7- {SṚTA}
Derived from √sṛ

Stuff that distracts, tempts and misguides us, for example drugs to the addict. Stuff that deceives us into thinking it gives us pleasure/benefit but in reality eats away the ātma. It sways this way and that, like a sarpa. This ambiguity allows us to correlate it to {anṛta} of L1. The phonetic closeness to {śṛta}, which is a positive category, helps reiterate a degree of ambiguity and iterates caution.

This preliminary schema is a top-down design patterned to what is emergent bottom-up. There is bound to be over-engineering at this stage, but we can whittle that away as the project progresses. For now, we’ve kept as many ātmya classes as ārtava ones, and drawn correlations between the two. What we try to capture is both the sum of parts and the parts themselves- the pūrṇamaṇḍalam. Both the ārtava and ātmya layers classify meaning along the same paths, except in the former we speak of meaning as general, and in the latter it is meaning as understood/realized by the individual.

Setting a coherent classification matrix, or ontology, rooted in Sanskrit allows us to move a step deeper- to how meaning is arrived at in the first place, or to put it simply- to epistemology. Beyond that we would have to tackle with purpose, or teleology.

It is with all four layers that the schema begins to show shape, but not before the layers are placed across some universalizing principles. That is the road ahead, for Parts 2 and 3. By the end of Part 3, we would have also seen some examples of how to use this schema. But recalling the diagram shared earlier, one output of such a schema is a-

Ṛtasūtramaṇḍala, a set of generative design principles that we are calling the 4 aphorisms of civilizational consciousness. Let us conclude with them, so that by Part 3 we may recapitulate back to an established tether.

__________

Ṛtasūtramaṇḍalas, and Civilizational Consciousness


Civilization begins to appear when a workable system for living, that is a proper relationship between man and nature, is established in accord with the features of a given region.


Yasuda Yoshinory

In this quote, though Prof. Yasuda Yoshinori speaks of the ancient Jomon civilization, he gives us a glimpse into why our ancestors called dharma “sanātana”, and why they conceived of a word such as ‘saṃskṛti’ long before the French conceived ‘civilisé.’ The “proper relationship between man and nature” may well be translated as yuktaḥ bhavati svadharmaḥ ṛtam- ie, it connects directly to an ontical core of Bhāratīya saṃskṛti. We are confronted here with the notice of emergence- the origination of new categories, categorial novum- properties or behaviors in a whole that are not found in its parts. Simple examples of emergence are the fractal patterns of a snowflake, or the jagged yet elegant hills of a termite colony. Complex examples of emergence are life and consciousness.

Reducing a wide range of ‘scientific’ opinions on the nature and etiology of consciousness to a generalization, consciousness is what is thought to emerge when information inside a closed system is processed in increasingly complex ways- giving rise to “novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self organization.” It is what information “feels like,” to “itself.” Five generally accepted qualities of emergence are:

  • Radical novelty,
  • Coherence, correlation,
  • A global, or macro level- ie, a property of wholeness
  • Evolution through dynamic processes
  • Ostensibility- ie, can be perceived

We can see that consciousness, at least of the human variety, satisfies these speculated conditions. In fact, some thinkers have seriously contended that property 5 alone is enough as proof and description of consciousness, echoed famously in Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am.” On the matter of civilization, though debates abound, we should take information from Huntington’s definition of civilization as “the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have, short of that which distinguishes humans from other species.” This definition is helpful because it facilitates the application of a design principle and the retrieval of a generative insight- yathā piṇḍe tathā brahmāṇḍe, and vice versa. Thus:

If consciousness is what emerges when information inside an individual is processed in increasingly complex ways, then civilization is what emerges when information inside a collective/group is processed in increasingly complex ways.

Among known life forms, the emergent phenomenon finds maximum expression in homo sapiens. Among known collective groups, it finds maximum expression in civilizational super-aggregates.

This is how over a long course of time (itihāsa) a civilization (Bhārata) has come into consciousness (dharma). And this emergence is along four principles, or sūtras.

1
यथा स्मृति: चैतन्यं चैतन्य: जीवं च। तथा इतिहास: संस्कृतिं संस्कृति: समूहं च।।

yathā smṛtiḥ caitanyaṃ caitanyaḥ jīvaṃ ca tathā itihāsaḥ saṃskṛtiṃ saṃskṛtiḥ samūhaṃ ca

Or, as memory is to consciousness and consciousness to the individual, so history is to civilization and civilization to the group.

Sūtra 1

Memory is core to the conscious experience. You feel you because of an unbroken memory chain that goes deep into your childhood. You identify as that same person, through the years, because it is your mind where the chain of imprints resides. This memory underpins your consciousness, which in turn makes you you.

In similar form, history- or more accurately itihāsa- is core to the civilizational experience. A civilization, or a samṣkṛti, emerges because of an unbroken aitihāsika chain that goes indeterminably far back in time- such that it can only be conceptualized as sanātana. We call the samūha’s trajectory over thousands of years an unbroken civilizational chain, because it is in the civilizational psyche where the chain resides. The itihāsa underpins the civilization, which emerges in form of saṃskṛti.

Profound realizations dawn with even this single principle internalized. Broken memories, false memories, implanted memories, subverted memories, contested memories- these are some ways a consciousness can be disturbed, limited and manipulated. Broken histories, false histories, implanted histories, subverted histories, contested histories- these are some ways a civilization can be disturbed, limited and manipulated. To subvert an individual, to make them doubt their sense of self, to bring their self-identity into question, we may toy with their memory. To subvert a civilization, to make it doubt its existence, to bring its self-identity into question- we may toy with its history.

We use the word samūha for collective/group to evoke phonetic kinship with saṃskṛti- it is our collective kṛti. And just like consciousness, though phenomenological, it is a unique felt-experience. Decolonisation is shedding the acquired syntactic-semiotic-semantic memeplex of teṣāṃkṛti – their kṛti- or a foreign civilization.

2
यथा चैतन्य: उभावस्ति कर्ता कृत्यं स्मृते:। तथा संस्कृति: उभावस्ति कर्ता कृत्यं इतिहासस्य।।

yathā caitanyaḥ ubhāvasti kartā kṛtyaṃ smṛteḥ tathā saṃskṛtiḥ ubhāvasti kartā kṛtyaṃ itihāsasya

Or, as consciousness is both the observer and the subject of memory, so civilization is both the observer and the subject of history.

Sūtra 2

We form within our mind’s eye a vision of ourselves- the brain looking at a self-model, the homunculus inside the gray matter. And we are in conversation with it, such that memory and consciousness are in constant interplay. We recollect images and impressions from our memory bank as conscious reflection in the present, and the memory bank is where all conscious experience is stored to create who we are. There is conscious experience even if memory is broken, but it contributes nothing to the sense of self, dissipating ephemerally if not stored in the bank. Similar is itihāsa to the civilisational consciousness, as Prof. Vishwa Adluri writes-


Itihāsa represents the empirical world aesthetically to problematize both being-in-the-world and the relationship of ontology, text, and the world. In other words, itihāsa is history that has overcome historicism: history that has become critical and self-conscious.

Itihāsa is the “mempool” that Indian civilization is in constant conversation with. It can recollect images, memes and impressions for conscious reflection in the present. Indeed, this is what older generations of Indians do on a daily basis. Regular conversations refer to the pledge of Bhīṣma, the vengeance of Karṇa, the greed of Duryodhana or the perseverance of Rāma, and more.

Now, when our access to and traditional engagements with the mempool are broken, our civilization moves forward aimlessly, pulled in the sway of “development, progress and technology” that may land a future Bezos or Musk a lordship over Asteroid X1A21, but we have no vision of where it may land us. What Adluri writes above is in fact the very process these principles highlight- the emergence of self-consciousness through information being processed in complex ways, over a long period of time. When a civilization is in conversation with its past, it generates learnings and ethicality. When a civilization approaches it only as an academic discipline, it may remember the exact date when Columbus landed on a new world, but is bound to repeat the same evils again.

3
यथा जीव: युक्त:भवति स्वधर्म: ऋतं सचेतं स्मृत्या। तथा संस्कृति: युक्त:भवति सामान्यधर्म: ऋतं सचेतं इतिहासेन।।

yathā jīvaḥ yuktaḥbhavati svadharmaṛtaṃ sacetaṃ smṛtyā tathā saṃskṛtiḥ yuktaḥbhavati sāmānyadharmaṛtam sacetaṃ itihāsena

Or, as an individual yokes self-conduct to the natural order through conscious memory, so too a civilization yokes self-conduct to the natural order through conscious history.

Sūtra 3

This sūtra highlights the parallelism between individual and collective- vyaṣṭi and the samaṣṭi, or the jīva and the samūha. It brings into focus the emergence of dharma- the imperative to be in consonance with ṛta, and points to the true purpose and benefit of historical memory. Individuals can use memory as a process of conscious reflection and self-correction, ultimately to yoke themselves, via yoga, to the natural order. Such is the purpose of itihāsa as well- to inform the samūha in yoking itself to the natural order. This is why the Indian literature of itihāsa-purāṇa cares less for historia than it does for ethics; less for dates and chronologies than it does for deeds and consequences.

If our date of birth wasn’t recorded by our parents, would we even know it? And if we didn’t know it, would it negate our felt experience and mean that we were never born? If these questions point to the absurd, we must relate the same for civilization as well. Thus is dharma called sanātana, thus are our earliest ṛṣis called mānasaputras, and thus is Brahmā himself known as the svayambhu. We care more for the lessons our ancestors embedded into lore, for the things our history can teach us, than we do for the intricacies of historia. For both individual and collective, the purpose of itihāsa is a rooting to dharma, it is the very means to self-conscious reflection.

4
यथा चैतन्य: युक्ते ऋतं स्वपूर्णमण्डलयति कश्चितवस्थायाम्। तथा संस्कृति: युक्ते ऋतं संपूर्णमण्डलयति कश्चित्वस्थायाम्।।

yathā caityanyaḥ yukte ṛtaṃ svapūrṇamaṇḍalayati kaścitavasthāyām tathā saṃskṛtiḥ yukte ṛtam sampūrṇamaṇḍalayati kaścitavasthāyām

Or, as a consciousness in yoke to natural rhythm is wholly coherent in any state, so too a civilization in yoke to natural rhythm is wholly coherent in any state.

Sūtra 4

The final principle represents the end-state, the ideal that is aspired to even in the pauruṣārthika frame of mokṣa. It highlights what Hinduism maintains- a human birth is special, since it provides opportunity for ultimate union. But humans are a social species, there is a samūha beyond the jīva, and we desire for both to be in consonance with ṛta.

Such consonance, this principle asserts, puts individual consciousness in a state of coherence, or what could be called sambodhya. The being is complete in itself, or thus svapūrṇa. Similarly, it puts collective consciousness, one operant on sāmānyadharma, in a state of coherence- yoked to ṛta, as-above-so-below realized at the level of civilization. Thence does the samūha become sampūrṇa, a samaṣṭi of vyaṣṭis, a fractal maṇḍala.

Emergence is real, but even the farthest reaches of science cannot tell us what the precise laws of emergence are. This is because the emergent can never completely understand the processes preceding it, or underlying it, just like the tree never knows the seed that birthed it. The seed may be gone in corporal form, but what was once materially real is now manifestly so in form of the tree. The best the tree can do, and the best that trees do, is conform to the seeded order- the tree follows its own dharma.

And thus must the jīva and samūha follow their dharma, or the path of consonance. Thus must {kṛta}, {smṛta}, {dhṛta}, {ṛca} and every other phenomenon we can influence- including saṃskṛta, resonate with {ṛta}. The unbounded reality allows us to do as we wish of course, but the core and continuing realization of our civilization is that in desire, in play, in profit, in pleasure, in performance, we must aim for the resonance. For freedom, that is mokṣa. For transcending of √bhū and union with √sat.

This is the way.

With this, we arrive at the moment of pause.

Having begun with a grand ambition of outlining the schema for synaptic reconnection to civilizational consciousness, we have arrived at describing the principles that generate such consciousness to begin with. But we haven’t lost sight of the original aim- the parser and compiler we seek to build. In Part 2 we detail layers 3 and 4 along with a base kṛtamaṇḍala that underlines all four layers. Beyond that, in the concluding Part 3, we will engage in application and examples.

Notes:

1. The more common third is theology, but for reasons we explain in due time, our preference is for teleology.
2. There is also a third, māyā, but we take reductive liberty here.
3. We sidestep a number of technical and grammatical considerations here and articulate in reductive generalization. The “man/manin” referred to is an affix, or pratyaya, and Mind- √man– is a dhātu. Our generalization leans on the contentious nature of the Uṇādi Sūtras (where derivations of these words are given) to highlight a larger, glaring symmetry.
madroa (1)
On Statecraft: Madhava Rao's Hints on the Art and Science of Government
Madhava Rao is widely hailed as a foremost statesman of nineteenth century India. While there may be...
conv
Conversion to Hindu Dharma 2: An Example from Eugene, USA
We read here a personal account from Smt. Kate Herse, and find that being born in the United States did...
shakta2 (1)
A Glimpse into Śākta Worldview and Practice
When Devi or supreme Goddess is worshipped as the primary power, how is the primacy of Devi established...
meaning making (1)
Art and Meaning Making
There is a reason that as a culture we were more interested in ‘what happens’ than ‘what happened’. ‘What...
quantum physics (1)
When Quantum Physicists Read the Upaniṣads
Western science, built on reason, made a shocking discovery in the 20th century that rocked it to its...
quest for harmony
Quest for Harmony
In our introductory essay, Pankaj Saxena tells us what the cultural imperative is, and the redemption...
the sacred everywhere
The Sacred Everywhere
The sacred in life, nature and the cosmos is made by that invisible, all-pervading consciousness, which...
reclaiming medical ethics
Reclaiming Medical Ethics
The medical ethics was an important feature of the Āyurvedic curriculum, duly emphasized by ancient practitioners....
ecofem
Eco-feminism: Roots in Ancient Hindu Philosophy
Eco Feminism, stemming from the Upanishads is the natural consequence of looking at the world as the...
learningmethods
The Ideals of Learning, Learners, and Methods in Ancient Indian Education
Learning has long been valued and pursued in India, not only as part of dharma and philosophy, but for...
swami vivekananda (1)
Swami Vivekananda’s School of Hindu Renaissance
The renaissance started by Swami Vivekananda was not just political or socio-cultural in nature, it was...
Conserving the Texts, Transmitting the Knowledge The Place of Gurus in Ancient Indian Education
Conserving the Texts, Transmitting the Knowledge: The Place of Gurus in Ancient Indian Education
The uninterrupted transmission of knowledge would not have been possible without the intervention of...
Sri Aurobindo's School of Bhavānī Bhāratī
Sri Aurobindo's School of Bhavānī Bhāratī
The 2nd in our schools of thought series is on Sri Aurobindo, who gave us the method of attaining true...