The Sadachara part is is a very Hindu innovation that constantly negotiated with diverse local customs and legitimised some, tolerated some and rejected some.
Multiplicity of Smritis also is a proof for the negotiation, tenacity, longevity etc.
+
Today what is happening is that the diversity of Sadachara is being used to portray this impression that - Look there is no one rule. You can do whatever you want.
Sadachara is not Swecchachara i.e, unconstrained freedom to say muh Hinduism muh wish.
+
That we don't know or can't follow our achara is because we are all suffering from a disconnect with our sampradayas and acharas.
But that can't be used as an excuse to recede into Swecchachara.
+
What we are doing now is attempting to sacralise or legitimise Swecchachara.
We say "I am a devout Hindu. My religion is liberal. I can do whatever I want"
If all you need is muh rules. They why do you need religion itself bro. Keep chanting Aham Brahmasmi. You are God. You don't need familial customs, community customs, transcendental customs. Enjoy.
/End
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I referred to this quote attributed to Wittgenstein recently. Worth elaborating in the context of the Rigveda.pdf worldview.
"Tradition is not something a man can learn; nor a thread he can pick up when he feels like it; any more than a man can choose his own ancestors"
+
Most non-missionary / non-proselytising religions operate this way. Even the proselytizing ones work this way for your progeny once you jump ship.
+
However in case of Hindus and other indigenous faiths world over there is no explicit urge to convert others. Hence no urge to codify or uniformize customs into a book based religion and say look here's the book. This is the entirety and essence of my faith.
"The fact is India that is Bharat has always been a pluralistic society" -
Yes but we never had or felt the need for a uniform code to sustain this pluralism as long as the King was Dharmic. No popular demand for uniformity existed ever.
Totalitarian big brother states need control and uniformity.
Not decentralised Dharmic constructs where the head of state can be a sovereign of sorts on top without being a control freak or indulging in micro management
+
The secular state tries to wrest control from religion(s) on the lives of people in the garb of defending individual rights and the autonomy of man. This is a problematic construct. It will only shrink the role of religion more as there is only so much room anyway!
I think we carry a very carefully constructed image of Adi Shankaracharya in popular Hindu psyche today which is very different from traditional commentary. Part of the blame is with the Indological discovery of Shankaracharya in early 18th/19th century or so.
Most traditional commentators are clear that Shankara Advaita style realisation isn't going to be possible for millions in same lifetime. They acknowledge it is not for everyone. The path exists. But not everyone can withstand the ordeal in same lifetime.
+
So they don't portray Shankaracharya discourse as some form of a "Individual is sovereign.This is Hindu liberalism" style construct.
Appreciate all these good folks keeping this kind of research for public access. Remember the times when I used to ask friends and family in universities for PDFs 😁
"From the inception of colonial rule, customary law was applicable on two conditions: (1) that it was not repugnant to justice, equity, or good morality and (2) that it was neither in its terms nor by necessary implication in conflict with any written law"
+
"The application of the repugnancy clause has always been a source of controversy. It was observed that subjecting African customary law to a repugnancy clause and the clause being applied to African customary law by English colonial judges meant two things: "
+
"(1) that customary law was inferior to the common law and (2) that the standard by which the validity of African customary law was to be determined was inevitably to be that set up by English ideas of legal norms, justice, and morality"
"We shouldn’t assume environmental and labor regulations are more stringent, or that mining is thus more responsible, in the global north. Affluent countries have their own regulatory weaknesses"
+
"Take the United States, where the law regulating mining on public land dates to 1872, contains no environmental provisions, and facilitates prospecting for valuable mineral deposits without consulting or even informing Indigenous tribes,"