Read - Polis: Fill & Download for Free

Moving away from Vedic and Sanatan Hinduism towards more progressive societyVeershaiva was already existing religion with Shaivate follower but Basavanna allowed people from other classes to join . He used monotheistic thought and concept of Shiva but he created complete non-vedic religion . He denounced Veda’s , Varana and formed completely brand new religion which is called Veershaiva /Lingayat. As he denounced Varna’s , Lingayat can not come in hierarchy of Hindu Varna system so we can not compare them .Though today , Lingayat consider themselves as superior as Brahmins .At the Basavanna's time Buddism was almost diminished and replaced with more rigid , orthodox , vedic , sanatan traditions which were non-human and filled with superstitions .It was poly-theistic society which was divided in four classes or varna s called Brahmin (priests ), Kshatriyas (rulers ) , Vaishyas (merchants )and Shudras (all others). At that time society was so degraded that Brahmin used to treat all other peoples as sub-humans and Shudras considered as animals , Brahmin even not tolerated even shadow of such people.For example , following evil traditions were in practices in Vedic society at that time1 Polytheism , idol worship , complex priestly craft and traditionsPeople used to worship all gods including sun , wind , moon , snake or any god they can imagine .Example : They used to kill living snake but used to pour milk on idol of snake god . This was oxymoron.People used to keep food for idol but not used to give food to hungry beggar .2 Woman were treated as sub-human . They did not have right wear sacred thread , education , or re-marry after death of husband .Example : When husband dies , they have to shave their head hairs and wear white clothes . People used to throw them in funeral pyre of husband .There was evil Sati practice in India3. Common people did not read or listen Veda's which was considered as privilege knowledge of Brahmin.Example : If Shudras read Vedas then their eyes were removed with hot iron . Such cruel punishment were in practice to deter Non-Brahmin from any intellectual activity . They remained in dark ages of ignorance because of fanatic , rigid priests.4. Shudras were not allowed to enter temples or places of worship .Example : They are barred from villages and only allowed to build house in outskirt.5. People used to sacrifice animals .Example : For getting more rain , get rid of disease they used to sacrifice or immolate animals like goat , water-buffaloes. Even human sacrifice was done to get male child.6. People used to do Havan and Yagnas where they used to waste food and immolate animals .Example : To get rain they used to throw pure butter , food , animals in fire .7. Democracy was not even thought by anyone .Example : Society was thrown in dark edges by Brahmin or priestly class . Common people were punished in eternal damnation of ignorance. Common people did not have choice to propound their opinions or choose trade of their choice or to go to school.8. People were not allowed to choose field of their choice for work .Example : If your father is shoe-maker , you are pre-destined to shoe-making .So there was utter darkness , exploitation and ignorance was prevailed in society which was designed and schemed by Brahmin or priestly classes ."Basavanna" himself from Brahmin class realized how people from his own priestly class oppressed people in name of religion and god. He determined to root out all those evils and form most forward thinking new religion through democratic discourse . ( “Anubhav Madapa” was first parliamentary/democratic system to decide tenets of new religion.)"Basavanna" 300 years before Martin Luther stated that to reach god common man does not need Brahmin or priest in between .He can reach to god directly .without any agent in between .There is even no need to go to any temple . You can just wear Ista-Linga(Shiva) god around your neck and pray him daily . Consider you daily work as worship (Kayakave Kailasa ) to god there is no need to do complex , crazy things to appease the god . The message was simple but powerful .So same things preached by Martin Luther in Europe 300 years after Basavanna . So Martin Luther should be called as Basavanna of Europe.Main points of his teachings1. Formed monotheistic religion or society . He believed in formless , one god Shiva .Example : There is only one god called Shiva (in form of Ista Linga and not as idol) . Do not worship idols . Formed monotheistic society .2. Compete removal of Brahmins from religious activities .Example : He kept all religious activities simple and with any superstitious activities .He stated those in local language from said now common people or ( from his own new religion Lingayatism ) are on par with Brahmin class.3. Treat all people with kindness and all people are equal in front of god so this is basis for equality in society or across classes and genders . Foundation for classless society .Example : All people are created by god so all must me equal . Not birth but ability of person will decide who he/she is .4 . Treat women on par with men and involve them in decision making . Do not restrict them to household work.Example: Women can wear sacred thread like that of men . Women re-marry if her husband dies. Sati tradition , he banned 500 years before British made law in India.5. Do not sacrifice animals in temples or Havans or Homa or in Yagnas . Do not waste food in fire . Treat animals with kindness as another human being .Example : Do not follow traditions only because somebody says to you . Follow traditions which you believe are correct.6. People can work in any field and it is not deiced by their varnas or classes or castes .Example : Rejected evil Varna system of Vedic society . Also he rejected all four pollutions at time of birth, death , menstrual cycle and blah blah blah7. Do not follow any superstition like astrology , black magic etc . Only follow thing which are accepted your inner conscience .Example : Not to believe on Solar eclipse or fortune tellers . Fortune telling of business of crooked priestly class.8. Instead of reading Veda's written in alien language of Sanskrit follow Vachana which were written their own local language .Example : No need to pray in language which you do not understand . Pray in your own local language . He written his teachings in local languages so common people can follow it .9. He formed “ Anubhava Mantapa” which was like people's parliament in 11th century when he as chief minister of kingdom of Bijjala.Example : This early parliament included around 770 presentative from all walks of life which includes whopping number of 70 women member. He discussed his progressive thoughts about new religion and all accepted it . It was first democratic system which India experienced in 11th Century which was 100 years before Magna Carta .After creating such values or writing Vachana's which stipulated same thoughts as stated above he gathers group of people from all walks of life (though majority joined from Shaiva Brahmin and Jain religion ) and formed new progressive religion called Lingaytism. Lingayatims follows simple practices and do not allow Brahmin or priest to perform their religious task . Thus thus progressive religion eliminated all evils of Vedic Hindu traditions also barred Brahmin from interfering in their religion .Basavaans new progressive society has above 20 million followers across Karnataka, Maharshtra , Telangana , Andhra Pradesh , Tamil Nadu , Kerala and other remaining states .Veershaivism sect was already existed before Basavanna , but He revived it , added new progressive values and taken to all common people which now collectively called Lingayatism.Cultural Differences with BrahminsThough both wear sacred thread , In Lingayat woman are allowed to wear sacred thread or Linga. Though concept of sacred thread for Lingayat is completely different .They believe in formless god in form of Ista-Linga . and no other idol .They believe that Work is worship principal.Linga initiation ceremony can be done after birth , there is no need to wait 5–10 years .In marriage , they do not create Home they use water with five vessels representing five peethas of Lingayat faith .Marriage style is completely different than traditional Hindu marriages. Brahmin do not have rights to perform Lingayat marriage .After death they are buried in Dhyana-Mudra with Linga in hand or they have given Samadhi or called Lingaekya or merger in god Linga .Brahmin do not have rights to perform Lingayat death rites .Brahmin priests are not allowed to do any ritual for Lingayat events like birth , marriage , death or any other religious activity . Main reason is that they denounced Varna system of Vedic society .They are suggested to donate additional wealth for “Dasoah” which is used for welfare of other people from Lingayat faith .They have to wear sacred thread or linga around the neck.People from other caste can convert to Lingayat by Diksha of Ista-Linga .There is no concept of hell or heaven . Or life cycle of soul like 84 yonis. etc . All truth /good deeds are heaven while all lie/bad deeds are hell. There is no need to go and dip in holy river to dissolve the sins . In first place lead simple life of truth and good deeds as per laid by Vachanas written by Basavanna.

Q. Why was democratic representation considered to be the ideal way to govern in Western political philosophy but not Eastern philosophy?(1) Western Philosophy Journey(1a) In Ancient Greece philosophy, ideas on how an individual can live The Good Life, rolled up to Political philosophy on how to organize and manage society to sustain the Good Life. The primacy was on societal well-being. The Polis (the city-state, the body of citizens). The demos.(1b) Following the Reformation and the English Civil War, the 1600–1700’s saw a very different approach to politics. Wishes of the individual became all-important, if not sacrosanct.Political structures were justified on the basis of a Social contract between individuals. Individual rights and freedoms were hot.Western philosophy flowered on a high bed of rah rah Individualism. Ala Nietzsche's soaring Übermensch, the overman, the superman. An enforced individualism. Collective communitarian shared values meaning to life fell away.YOU are unique on this planet.What is YOUR purpose and meaning in life?1,001 places to visit before you die.1,001 books to read before you die.1,001 movies to watch before you die.New experiences, new relationships. Just do it! Keep on movin' on.Pressure, pressure, pressure!(1c) Corresponding diametrically opposite this development of heightened individualism is the festering distrust for the collective, and by extension, collective structures such as the State.Tyranny of the stateTyranny of the majorityMontesquieu'sSeparation of powersThree branches of governmentCHECKS and BALANCESNatural and legal rightsIsaiah Berlin's Two Concepts of Liberty(1d) Perversely, Western Democracy was built on a bedrock of high distrust of the collective in whatever form, most notably the state, to yield a robust trusted system!(1e) Democracy by its very nature is competitive, animated, boisterous, colorful, and often loud and rowdy. It is 'regulated disorder'. This disorder must sit on a foundation of underlying order, otherwise disorder upon a bedrock of disorder will bring chaos and mayhem.Underlying order comprises the following.Rule of law, to constrain the power of the political leadership, and the state.A functional state capacity (aka state machinery, Civil Service, bureaucracy) for the political leadership to execute economic/social programs, and to deliver public services.(1f) Western European Developmental Journey(1f-1) This was the Western, primarily Western European evolution to functional democracy, more specifically to the idealized ‘western Liberal democracy’ we speak of lovingly today. The process started from, say, the 1215 Magna Carta, if we are pressed to pinpoint a wellspring moment.Contrary to popular notion, Western Europe achieved economic development prosperity before it solidified democracy. Not democracy brought prosperity. Prosperity created the new economic and social classes to challenge the power elites.Ancient Greece (12th–9th centuries BC to end of antiquity (c. 600 AD) → From mythology-based beliefs to systematic use of Reason to acquire knowledge. What constitutes The Good Life?Roman Republic (509 BCE - 27 BCE) → Models for Government and LawChristendom (from 401 AD) → Paved way from theological law to eventual secular Rule of law.Magna Carta (1215) → First baby steps to Rule of Law.More: Sam Qwato's answer to Was John Locke influenced by the Magna Carta?Black Death (1346–1353) → Disrupted the Landowners-Peasants power equilibrium, in peasants’ favor. Strike #1 in masses vs elites.More: Sam Qwato's answer to Was the Black Death a disaster?Renaissance (1300s - 1600s) → Reason and science over religion. A reboot of intellect.Glorious Revolution (1688) → Evolution of the respective powers of Parliament and Monarch. Forerunner to modern day Legislature-Executive Separation of powers.English Bill of Rights 1689 → Basic Civil rightsEnlightenment (1700s) → Aka Age of reason. Reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy. Ideals: Liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government, Separation of church and state.Industrial Revolution (from 1760) → Created Middle and Working classes to challenge Capitalist power elites. Strike #2 in masses vs elites.Protestant work ethic → Martin Luther’s Reformation from 1517. No nonsense worldview on disciplined hard work, achieving prosperity, as a sign of God’s favor. Western Europe, US settler era.More: Sam Qwato's answer to Does religion shape economic growth?Western philosophy → Morphed from Ancient Greek primacy of societal well-being (The Good Life, the Polis, the Demos) to the soaring rah rah primacy of the Individual.More: Sam Qwato's answer to What are the classics of political philosophy?(1f-2) Western European countries such as the UK, France, Germany, the Benelux countries, the Nordics, etc, and by heritage projection, the New World Anglosphere, experienced the above medley of events, either directly, or indirectly. Thus, they developed liberal democracy evolutionarily over eons. This was not necessarily without disruption, mayhem, bloodshed. But, such tumult, such ‘transaction cost’ was conveniently expended a long time ago, so nobody remembers them today, and it’s taken for granted that western liberal democracy just bloomed from the get-go as the chosen system of the universe.(1f-3) The following European and European-heritage countries did not experience, or did not experience the full extent, of the above Western European developmental trajectory. Examples:The Black Death did not ravage Eastern Europe to the same extent as Western Europe. It did not upset the Eastern European feudalism landowners-peasants power equilibrium applecart.Greece was alienated from Europe during its Ottoman era. No Renaissance. No Enlightenment. No Industrial Revolution. Poor bastards, that’s what they got for igniting European Civilization! (More: Sam Qwato's answer to How do Greeks view the Byzantine Empire?).The Industrial Revolution was essentially in Western/Northern Europe, not Southern/Eastern Europe.Protestantanism, in relation to the Protestant Work Ethic, took root in Western/Northern Europe only.Southern Europe: CatholicEastern Europe: OrthodoxThese countries struggled, or continue to struggle till today, to bed-down, stabilize democracy.Hitler’s Germany (More: How Hitler came into power: Sam Qwato's answer to Is the atmosphere in America today similar to Germany in the 1930s? How concerned should we be that Americans will experience the same evolution of fascism?)Mussolini’s Italy (More: Italy the laggard in Western Europe: Sam Qwato's answer to Why is Italy poorer and more underdeveloped than other European countries?)Franco’s Spain eraSalazar’s Portugal eraGreek military dictatorship era (military junta of 1967–1974)Putin’s Oligarchic Russia (More: Sam Qwato's answer to Why is Russia, with this great potential (140 million intelligent people, large country with natural resources, great geography and climate etc.) still relatively poor?)UkraineBelarusMany other ex-USSR republicsEuropean-dominant heritage Latin America: military dictatorship erasArgentina (1976 Argentine coup d'état, Dirty War)Uruguay (Civic-military dictatorship)Pinochet’s Chile(2) Eastern Philosophy Journey(2a) As the Eastern scope is broad sweeping, we will focus on the East Asian heritage experience as the primary illustration vehicle (just as we focused on the Western European heritage experience in the above).(2b) Simply, these're the Eastern-Western key contrasting characteristics. (Eastern characteristics listed first below.)Confucian versus Judeo-Christian heritage. Refer below for details.Primacy of societal well-being over primacy of rah rah individualism.As a consequence of their primacy biases, enforced Communitarianism over enforced individualism. To be fair, both sides have their excesses and flaws.East Asian heritage has a tradition of a strong 'Weberian state' (sociologist Max Weber), dating back to the first modern state in the world, the Chinese civilization Qin dynasty (221 BCE).The concept of civilization-state instead of the relatively young Westphalian sovereignty (1648) Nation-state.East Asian heritage of a Confucianesque paternally-benevolent strong state capacity inevitably overwhelms Rule of law (RoL), from the perspective that RoL is a constraint on power (read: distrust) on the political leadership. Western RoL was solidified from a foundation of Christendom theological law, evolving to secular law.Strong state capacity delivered economic miracles:Japan, from Meiji Restoration modernization drive through post-WW2 economic miracleChina, from Deng eraAsian TigersSouth KoreaTaiwanHKSingapore (74% ethnic Chinese majority).No compelling Industrial Revolution disruption to create the Middle (skilled) and Working classes, to challenge the power elites, to solidify democracy. Asian industrialization came much later, mostly post-WW2. This is the reason why Left-Right political delineation never did solidify in Asian politics, even in leading light, Japan.Simply, East Asian heritage did not ride the Western economic, social and political developmental arc outlined in (1f-1) above.(2c) Confucian Ethics(2c-1) More on Confucian ethics and its shaping force.The family unit aggregates and rolls-up to community, then society.The ruler is the dad, the subjects the children.Dad rules.Dad/ruler and children/subjects have their Duty and Obligation cut out for them. These are taken seriously, on a bedrock of eons of tradition.Shame-based ("OMG, where am I going to put my face?"), versus guilt ("I am guilty as charged. Let's move on") morality.Is it conceivable that, as a going-in position, the children mistrust dad (notwithstanding that there're bad dads)?Do you instinctively mistrust your dad (read: Tyranny of the State)?Is it conceivable that you impose constraints (read: RoL) on your dad's parenting?(2c-2) In a nutshell, this is the Eastern-Western psyche gap.Implicit trustversusinherent distrust.(2d) Other Eastern HeritagesThis answer, somewhat unfairly, generalizes the Eastern experience to the East Asian heritage.For completeness, the following covers South Asia (Indian Subcontinent, primarily India), and the Arab world.India versus China comparison, what's the big diff? Sam Qwato's answer to Why is autocracy in China better than democracy in India or is it vice versa?Arab world - Western contrast, a Clash of Civilizations perspective: Sam Qwato's answer to Are Western culture and Arabic culture compatible?

This is a rather loaded statement of my position, but I’ll play along.The colonies were never sovereign until they broke from Britain. All were subject to the British crown and parliament.Being busy with a desperate war that could send their leadership the gallows, I suspect most colonials didn’t spend a lot of time worrying about the niceties of political theory and nomenclature. The general sense was (and the Articles of Confederation bear this out) that the colonies were separate polities joined, in some ad hoc way, in a common cause. Franklin put the matter in typically pragmatic terms when he said, "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."The Articles of Confederation were simply unusable as a basis for a shared government. It was a 13-headed hydra that was destined for dissolution unless radically changed. So the Constitutional Convention was mandated to fix the obvious problems. Once that body met, they came to the conclusion that a simple fix wasn’t going to cut it, so they proposed scrapping the Articles altogether. A high-risk strategy, but they were pretty daring folk.The result was the US Constitution, whose preamble clearly invests sovereignty in the people of the United States. There is no other way to read the document. The document also clearly states that, if ratified, it would constitute the supreme law of the land. It then goes on to create one of the most remarkable experiments in human history: a three-branched federal government that would assume the essential chores of a nation-state (taxation, defense, foreign relations, and arbitration between subsidiary governmental entities (inter-state disputes)). The powers not accorded to the federal government were reserved for the states.A note of reality for people who want to find absolute, mathematical certainty in their visions of government: The Constitution was a sketch, an outline of a government. Everybody involved knew it was a shaky endeavor that would have to be brushed in as time passed. That is why it was so critical that George Washington was going to be the first President. People were scared to death of a tyrannical executive (thank you, King George), and they wanted to know that the initial phases of this wild new experiment would be conducted under the steady hand and good heart of a man everyone trusted.Did everyone who walked out of the hall at Philadelphia have the same notion of what they had signed? Certainly not. Did some Framers change their views of the endeavor over time? Absolutely. Were the relationships between the states and the Federal government adequately defined? Nope. That’s been a work in progress for two centuries or so.What is clear is that the people of the United States (as then defined – i.e., white males) had a perfectly fair and open chance to review the document and decide its fate. A Federalist group argued for it, an anti-Federalist group spoke against it. It was a near-run thing, but the Federalists won – most critically in Virginia under James Madison. That was the clincher. The US was born, as defined in the Constitution. Sovereignty, as I mentioned before, was vested in the people of the United States. There is no higher authority mentioned. There is certainly no statement that the individual states remain sovereign nations that can withdraw at will. And no sane person can maintain that the powers that are reserved to the states at the end of the document include the power to ignore the document altogether. That would be an infringement on the sovereignty of the people of the whole United States.To be fair, there was nothing to stop states who were dissatisfied with the experiment from creating a means of withdrawing: a provision for amendment has been there from the beginning and is wholly unlimited. We can vest the sovereignty of the US on odd-numbered days to people named Ken if we feel like it. But the argument that the reserved power of the states guarantees a free ride out of the Union at will is malarkey.Not that malarkey doesn’t sell. During the War of 1812, a lot of New Englanders thought Mr. Madison’s war was a fool’s errand and began to rumble about secession. But no one took any concrete steps in that direction. In 1832, South Carolina decided that it didn’t really need to obey federal law if it didn’t feel like it. Andrew Jackson said that they were free to try it, but he would show up directly with an army and navy to show them the error of their ways.Now, we come to Secession, the full monte. This was, in a remarkable phrase I cannot track down, a “pre-emptive counter-revolution.” Basically, the leadership of the South thought they saw the clock running out on their favorite institution, chattel slavery. It was the source of their individual wealth and of the South’s wealth and power overall. It was also the largest capital investment in the United States at the time. Lincoln’s election spooked them – despite his and the Republican Party’s express assurances that they had no intention of messing with the foul institution where it was protected by the Constitution. The Republicans accepted the continuation of slavery in states where it existed, but they were quite clear that they did not want the practice to spread through the western territories.Those assurances were for naught. The slave-owning leadership of the South decided to bolt and took most of their non-slave-owning peers with them. (Though upland regions where slavery was not heavily practiced voted solidly against Secession, witness Eastern Tennessee, West Virginia, etc.)Were the states “sovereign nations” that could go their own way? Not really, but you have to remember that public opinion at the time came from the pulpit, the newspapers, and from the political leadership, all of whom had been selling Southern nationalism for years. Also, most Southerners did not walk around with a copy of the Constitution in their pockets. They bought what their leaders told them. Did the average Southerner believe in the right of Secession? Probably. Does the highly technical legality of the matter actually matter? Not really. In times of crisis, people vote with their hearts, not their political science degrees. Decades of tension between the states had soured everybody to some degree, both North and South. So when the hotheads in Charleston said, “Let’s leave!” they started a serious bolt for the door. Out went the Lower South.Then the true, deep folly of Sumter happened. If Jefferson Davis and his pals had laid low, the North would probably have pretended not to notice the Confederacy, and every day the new “nation” existed was a day that increased its chances. Lincoln had a great deal of patience and an inflated sense of Southern Unionist sentiment. He hoped that the Lower South would change its mind. He also had a 17,000-man army spread over two million square miles of the West, which meant that he had no means of coercing any body of people larger than an Indian tribe. And, as a capper, there was simply no responsible party in the North who wanted to start a war. There was a lot of anger, yes, but no one was looking for a fight. Until the deeply stupid bombardment of Sumter, that is.When people try to kill your young men, the political calculus changes. People in the North who were ashamed of slavery and wanted the South to leave switched overnight to a firm determination to uphold the Union.None of the above actions on either side relied on some Casaubon-like, all-inclusive search for justification in political theory. Defining the ins and outs of “sovereignty” is an interesting parlor game or a good topic for a poli sci thesis. Or, more malignly, it can be used as an excuse to justify an attempt to destroy the United States in order to keep an entire people in bondage. No matter. What actually does matter when bullets start to fly is a wide spectrum of feelings, perceptions, and customary responses, as well as studied judgments. Real people in the real world had to weigh their feelings about race, history, and loyalty to state and/or country, and then make their move.The upshot was that the Union prevailed, and with it came the validation of Washington’s, Madison’s, Webster’s, and Lincoln’s vision of the Union. And added to that vision – at long, long last – was a vision of an America without slavery.That’s sovereignty enough for me.