A relatable post. The journey should be to eventually move away from corporate culture & hedonist lifestyles. These are in direct opposition to tradition & traditionalist lifestyle. The end goal is to orient ourselves according to our vishesha Dharma. If not possible in present generation, then definitely in future generations.
Yes, that would be a topic for another article & internal churn within tradition. The reason I wrote this article was about how traditionalist youth can find discipline in practice in modern, non-traditionalist settings. Individual practice needs to get consistent. Vyashti must be rooted in strength and discipline — only then can Samashti flourish.
I grew up quite trad, and I'm now much older. There are significant downsides to seeing things as an obligation and inheritance instead of seeing inherent meaning in them. If you're just doing some few random things, sure, you can keep it going. But living a lifestyle of austerity conflicts pretty hard, not with modernity, but with life itself. You need to have a strong motivation and strong reasoning for doing something, otherwise you will basically be larping at it. And it'll be near impossible to pass it on to the next generation if you don't have things reasoned out.
The thing most missing is bhakti. If you're doing this because "inheritance" or "obligation" and not bhakti, it'll start to feel pointless. You have to really believe. None of us believe as much as our ancestors did. Other than life wearing you down, I don't know other ways to inculcate bhakti.
"Mother giving food".... yeah this is the whole problem. I've been a stay-at-home mom myself, and it's something that can easily get taken for granted. No one values family members who aren't making money, and work traditionally seen as women's work is devalued and made into an obligation instead of being seen as work in its own right. All your gender tropes come from the west and I don't think any of us even are aware of pre-islamic gender relations much. Not that it would matter, life is insanely different today. This needs significant rethink and borrowing western tropes, even to derided them, isn't going to help. Your trad life can't be based on the work of women you take for granted.
Even if you say trad, exactly what are you doing? You can't have the trad diet of a bodybuilder, the trad lifestyle of an actor and the trad sedentary job of an accountant. You could mimic what your grandpa did maybe, but grandpa was coming off of centuries of colonialism and was probably not in the 12% of literate folks in 1947, and he probably wasn't that aware of what he was doing. Maybe he was a maverick in his own right, you'd never know.
There are lots of things wrong with the trad mindset which we've improved on. I don't think it was encouraged in my trad family to ask too many probing questions, and I found other trad settings even more suffocating if you questioned things. You can also see for instance in trad art traditions how teachers who gatekept things misused their positions and took their own ego trips. If you lionize that lifestyle without examining it's pitfalls, it's not going to last too long.
You gotta have clarity on what you're doing and why. There's no point of replicating Islamic colonial era social dynamics and being mad that the rest of free society doesn't care for what you're doing.
You argue that inheritance and obligation without bhakti is meaningless or empty. At least that is what you imply. But this assumes a very modern Protestant-influenced notion of “sincerity” as interior emotion, and that unless one is "feeling" devotion deeply, practice is meaningless.
This is not the Hindu way.
In our tradition, bhakti is cultivated through practice, not merely felt spontaneously. The Sandhyā, the vratas, the nitya karmas — they are not meant to wait for bhakti to arise before being performed. They are the means through which the heart is prepared to receive grace. To insist that only those who feel bhakti can begin the journey is a counsel of despair that shuts the door on transformation. Calling traditional practice “LARPing” if not driven by intense personal emotion is again a category error. Traditional societies don’t function on individualistic authenticity; they function on structure, rhythm, and submission to an order larger than the self.
That structure may at times feel burdensome—but it keeps life aligned. Aśrama-dharma doesn't wait for your mood. If the cowherd doesn’t wake at dawn, the cows go unfed. Tradition is meant to form the person, not flatter their feelings.
Also, the idea that you're "just doing some random things" misses the integrality of traditional practice. Sandhyāvandana is not random. Nor is ekādaśī. Yes, women’s work has been historically undervalued, especially in the modern economy. But to acknowledge its centrality to gṛhastha life is not to take it for granted—it is to give it the dignity of being irreplaceable.
To cook with pākasuddhi, to raise children with saṃskāras, to maintain the home’s spiritual atmosphere—these are not trivialities. They are core pillars of dharma-anchored life. Modernity reduces all work to wage-labor; tradition understands the sacredness of service, whether done by men or women. The traditionalist must honour women's contributions, not by adopting Western feminist tropes, but by restoring sacral value to these roles.
To question is not un-traditional. But to question with humility, to seek through right means, and to receive answers from pramāṇic sources—that is the way of our tradition. Self-assertive cynicism is not questioning. It is ego.
Gatekeeping in art traditions like Carnatic music is essential to preserve their sacred core and spiritual integrity. Carnatic music is not mere entertainment—it is a form of bhakti sādhana. Without gatekeeping, opportunists strip it of its devotional essence and hijack it for personal or political agendas, as seen with TM Krishna. True gatekeeping ensures that only those aligned with the tradition’s ethos—not just its technique—represent it, protecting its continuity, sanctity, and soul.
In conclusion, my lifestyle will be guided by Śāstra and Guru. Patronising individuals giving advice, while often well-meaning, are—from my point of view—misguided. I do not expect non-traditionalists to be sympathetic to our worldview, nor do I seek their validation. I walk a path where clarity matters more than approval, where fidelity to dharma takes precedence over modern comfort.
Also TM Krishna is from one of the most gatekept families in Carnatic music and he passed all the gatekeeping to achieve success and then he became what he is. The whole point of Carnatic music isn't to create perfection, it is to praise the Gods and tell their stories with bhakti.
Are Ranjani-Gayatri musically better than TM Krishna? Possibly, possibly not. But the one thing they have that he doesn't is Bhakti. That makes all the difference.
Folks without bhakti bhava are just autists obsessed with some notion of perfection and easy to nerd-snipe with obscure arguments. Those folks just get confused about what is "right" and can't get along with people of different traditions. It usually comes from learning from perfectionist gurus or cold parents who have no idea of what they are doing, but are strict about "traditions". This stuff dies pretty quick.
You can follow gurus or whatever for a bit, but you've to be driven by your own bhakti eventually. It's the difference between doing engineering because your dad wants you to vs doing engineering for the money vs doing it for the love of the game. You can wait for the love of the game to show up, but if it doesn't, you're better off moving to some other game you love.
"Carnatic music is not mere entertainment—it is a form of bhakti sādhana. Without gatekeeping, opportunists strip it of its devotional essence and hijack it for personal or political agendas, as seen with TM Krishna. True gatekeeping ensures that only those aligned with the tradition’s ethos—not just its technique—represent it, protecting its continuity, sanctity, and soul."
I am literally making the point that bhakti is central to Carnatic music & TM Krishna, by showing his disrespect to that tradition of Bhakti, vulgarised & disrespected it. Exactly the case why gatekeeping is required to preserve the ethos, telos, and spirit of high culture. Instead of reading properly what I wrote, you seem to argue with a point which I haven't even made. Neither in the article, nor in the comments.
You ask: “What if the love never shows up?” But love already shows up — in the act of returning again and again, even when it’s hard. The person who bows every day, who cooks for the deity, who chants the names, who raises their children in the dharma — this is bhakti. Not your romanticised metric of “authenticity” or visible passion.
As for your comparison — doing engineering for the love of the game — the analogy fails because you treat spiritual practice as a hobby. But for the traditionalist, it’s svadharma, not a career choice. We don’t switch deities or duties like people switch jobs. You follow the path because it is yours. Because the ancestors walked it. Because the Guru affirmed it. Because śāstra sanctifies it.
If you don't believe in your ancestors, why do you do the tarpanam? Why do you do funerary rituals adequately if you don't believe in their power? Why do you celebrate festivals if you don't believe in the Gods? Why do you do things at appropriate times of day if you don't believe in the power of the planets? The one thing I notice in any older person who persists in their ways is their utter devotion. The devotion is the north star around which everything else is structured. If you don't believe in any of this, it won't sustain for very long and won't sustain through difficult times and you won't even do it properly. If you believe you are celebrating krishna's birthday, the foods you cook for the occasion will be made correctly. If you're just doing it for the sake of doing, you won't give it your best.
If yoga is an obligation to you, it'll be a chore. If it's a way for you to prepare your mind to commune with the Gods and execute your dharma, you'll see it as a necessary addition in the context of your life.
The way you approach it essentially makes everything a chore. It'll last about six months or the next crunch time at work before you say fuck it. I
If you've been doing this for a while and still you don't have bhakti, ask yourself why not.
If you'd paid attention to what I actually wrote, you’d notice that śraddhā is central to it. That is devotion — a quiet, interior trust and reverence for śāstra and Guru. When I speak of nitya karma and kula ācāra, I’m not talking about dry mechanical acts. I’m talking about a life lived with śraddhā — which, in our tradition, is the very root of both knowledge and action.
You seem to think that unless someone speaks your language of emotionally expressive bhakti, they lack sincerity. But I follow the path laid down by my ācāryas. I do what must be done because it is dharma, not because I need an emotional high to motivate me. And it is this śraddhā, this grounding in duty and reverence, that sustains practice in the long run — through difficulty, silence, and doubt.
This essay was written for traditionalists who understand these categories. I don’t expect everyone to resonate with it, and I don’t need them to. But don’t mistake your unfamiliarity with the traditional vocabulary for its absence.
If you'd actually read what I wrote, you’d see that śraddhā is central to my worldview. That is devotion — a deep, interior faith in śāstra and Guru. It’s not about performative emotion, but about unwavering commitment to one’s svadharma and kula-ācāra. When I speak of nitya karma, I don’t mean hollow ritual — I mean sacred duty that binds me to the cosmic order, performed not for reward but because it must be done. What is this strange insistence that if I perform something as a duty, it must mean I lack devotion? Do you think I would follow my duties if I didn't have belief in the texts which actually prescribe duties?
Your idea of devotion seems narrowly defined by sentimental fervour. But in the Gītā, Bhagavān is crystal clear:
niyataṁ kuru karma tvaṁ karma jyāyo hy akarmaṇaḥ;
śarīrayātrā’pi ca te na prasiddhyed akarmaṇaḥ. (Gītā 3.8)
Perform your prescribed duty, for action is better than inaction. Even the maintenance of your body would not be possible without action.
That’s the spirit in which I live: not waiting for emotional validation, but obeying what must be obeyed. This is a path sustained not by mood swings but by conviction — the kind passed down in families, taught by gurus, and etched into daily practice.
This essay was not written for modern casuals who dabble for vibes. It’s for those rooted in something older, deeper, and harder. I don’t expect everyone to resonate with it, and I don’t need them to. But don’t mistake your unfamiliarity with the traditional vocabulary for its absence.
I think we're both saying the same thing. Anyway. Point is, don't get caught up in process (that's very catholic) and don't rely too much on scripture (that's very protestant). That's the shit that makes people atheists in 2-3 generations. Mostly because the people who get super serious about this tend to be low-key autistic and fail to understand the higher meaning of things and drive people away. Figure out how to be emotionally mature about being trad. I don't see much evidence of that in your post or your arguments, but maybe that's just the medium of writing that is to blame.
A relatable post. The journey should be to eventually move away from corporate culture & hedonist lifestyles. These are in direct opposition to tradition & traditionalist lifestyle. The end goal is to orient ourselves according to our vishesha Dharma. If not possible in present generation, then definitely in future generations.
This was so eloquent and beautiful.
I felt called out at many points while reading ngl, but I also resonate with the underlying thought and duty of what we must do!
One also needs to eventually work on making an organisation that works bringing back dharma, even by political means if necessary.
Because the reason tradition has reached this low point is due to ignoring the Societal discourse and politics.
Without State support only some embers will survive.
To make it into a forest fire, working on bending the state to support us is necessary.
Yes, that would be a topic for another article & internal churn within tradition. The reason I wrote this article was about how traditionalist youth can find discipline in practice in modern, non-traditionalist settings. Individual practice needs to get consistent. Vyashti must be rooted in strength and discipline — only then can Samashti flourish.
I grew up quite trad, and I'm now much older. There are significant downsides to seeing things as an obligation and inheritance instead of seeing inherent meaning in them. If you're just doing some few random things, sure, you can keep it going. But living a lifestyle of austerity conflicts pretty hard, not with modernity, but with life itself. You need to have a strong motivation and strong reasoning for doing something, otherwise you will basically be larping at it. And it'll be near impossible to pass it on to the next generation if you don't have things reasoned out.
The thing most missing is bhakti. If you're doing this because "inheritance" or "obligation" and not bhakti, it'll start to feel pointless. You have to really believe. None of us believe as much as our ancestors did. Other than life wearing you down, I don't know other ways to inculcate bhakti.
"Mother giving food".... yeah this is the whole problem. I've been a stay-at-home mom myself, and it's something that can easily get taken for granted. No one values family members who aren't making money, and work traditionally seen as women's work is devalued and made into an obligation instead of being seen as work in its own right. All your gender tropes come from the west and I don't think any of us even are aware of pre-islamic gender relations much. Not that it would matter, life is insanely different today. This needs significant rethink and borrowing western tropes, even to derided them, isn't going to help. Your trad life can't be based on the work of women you take for granted.
Even if you say trad, exactly what are you doing? You can't have the trad diet of a bodybuilder, the trad lifestyle of an actor and the trad sedentary job of an accountant. You could mimic what your grandpa did maybe, but grandpa was coming off of centuries of colonialism and was probably not in the 12% of literate folks in 1947, and he probably wasn't that aware of what he was doing. Maybe he was a maverick in his own right, you'd never know.
There are lots of things wrong with the trad mindset which we've improved on. I don't think it was encouraged in my trad family to ask too many probing questions, and I found other trad settings even more suffocating if you questioned things. You can also see for instance in trad art traditions how teachers who gatekept things misused their positions and took their own ego trips. If you lionize that lifestyle without examining it's pitfalls, it's not going to last too long.
You gotta have clarity on what you're doing and why. There's no point of replicating Islamic colonial era social dynamics and being mad that the rest of free society doesn't care for what you're doing.
Lila ji,
You argue that inheritance and obligation without bhakti is meaningless or empty. At least that is what you imply. But this assumes a very modern Protestant-influenced notion of “sincerity” as interior emotion, and that unless one is "feeling" devotion deeply, practice is meaningless.
This is not the Hindu way.
In our tradition, bhakti is cultivated through practice, not merely felt spontaneously. The Sandhyā, the vratas, the nitya karmas — they are not meant to wait for bhakti to arise before being performed. They are the means through which the heart is prepared to receive grace. To insist that only those who feel bhakti can begin the journey is a counsel of despair that shuts the door on transformation. Calling traditional practice “LARPing” if not driven by intense personal emotion is again a category error. Traditional societies don’t function on individualistic authenticity; they function on structure, rhythm, and submission to an order larger than the self.
That structure may at times feel burdensome—but it keeps life aligned. Aśrama-dharma doesn't wait for your mood. If the cowherd doesn’t wake at dawn, the cows go unfed. Tradition is meant to form the person, not flatter their feelings.
Also, the idea that you're "just doing some random things" misses the integrality of traditional practice. Sandhyāvandana is not random. Nor is ekādaśī. Yes, women’s work has been historically undervalued, especially in the modern economy. But to acknowledge its centrality to gṛhastha life is not to take it for granted—it is to give it the dignity of being irreplaceable.
To cook with pākasuddhi, to raise children with saṃskāras, to maintain the home’s spiritual atmosphere—these are not trivialities. They are core pillars of dharma-anchored life. Modernity reduces all work to wage-labor; tradition understands the sacredness of service, whether done by men or women. The traditionalist must honour women's contributions, not by adopting Western feminist tropes, but by restoring sacral value to these roles.
To question is not un-traditional. But to question with humility, to seek through right means, and to receive answers from pramāṇic sources—that is the way of our tradition. Self-assertive cynicism is not questioning. It is ego.
Gatekeeping in art traditions like Carnatic music is essential to preserve their sacred core and spiritual integrity. Carnatic music is not mere entertainment—it is a form of bhakti sādhana. Without gatekeeping, opportunists strip it of its devotional essence and hijack it for personal or political agendas, as seen with TM Krishna. True gatekeeping ensures that only those aligned with the tradition’s ethos—not just its technique—represent it, protecting its continuity, sanctity, and soul.
In conclusion, my lifestyle will be guided by Śāstra and Guru. Patronising individuals giving advice, while often well-meaning, are—from my point of view—misguided. I do not expect non-traditionalists to be sympathetic to our worldview, nor do I seek their validation. I walk a path where clarity matters more than approval, where fidelity to dharma takes precedence over modern comfort.
Also TM Krishna is from one of the most gatekept families in Carnatic music and he passed all the gatekeeping to achieve success and then he became what he is. The whole point of Carnatic music isn't to create perfection, it is to praise the Gods and tell their stories with bhakti.
Are Ranjani-Gayatri musically better than TM Krishna? Possibly, possibly not. But the one thing they have that he doesn't is Bhakti. That makes all the difference.
Folks without bhakti bhava are just autists obsessed with some notion of perfection and easy to nerd-snipe with obscure arguments. Those folks just get confused about what is "right" and can't get along with people of different traditions. It usually comes from learning from perfectionist gurus or cold parents who have no idea of what they are doing, but are strict about "traditions". This stuff dies pretty quick.
You can follow gurus or whatever for a bit, but you've to be driven by your own bhakti eventually. It's the difference between doing engineering because your dad wants you to vs doing engineering for the money vs doing it for the love of the game. You can wait for the love of the game to show up, but if it doesn't, you're better off moving to some other game you love.
"Carnatic music is not mere entertainment—it is a form of bhakti sādhana. Without gatekeeping, opportunists strip it of its devotional essence and hijack it for personal or political agendas, as seen with TM Krishna. True gatekeeping ensures that only those aligned with the tradition’s ethos—not just its technique—represent it, protecting its continuity, sanctity, and soul."
I am literally making the point that bhakti is central to Carnatic music & TM Krishna, by showing his disrespect to that tradition of Bhakti, vulgarised & disrespected it. Exactly the case why gatekeeping is required to preserve the ethos, telos, and spirit of high culture. Instead of reading properly what I wrote, you seem to argue with a point which I haven't even made. Neither in the article, nor in the comments.
You ask: “What if the love never shows up?” But love already shows up — in the act of returning again and again, even when it’s hard. The person who bows every day, who cooks for the deity, who chants the names, who raises their children in the dharma — this is bhakti. Not your romanticised metric of “authenticity” or visible passion.
As for your comparison — doing engineering for the love of the game — the analogy fails because you treat spiritual practice as a hobby. But for the traditionalist, it’s svadharma, not a career choice. We don’t switch deities or duties like people switch jobs. You follow the path because it is yours. Because the ancestors walked it. Because the Guru affirmed it. Because śāstra sanctifies it.
If you don't believe in your ancestors, why do you do the tarpanam? Why do you do funerary rituals adequately if you don't believe in their power? Why do you celebrate festivals if you don't believe in the Gods? Why do you do things at appropriate times of day if you don't believe in the power of the planets? The one thing I notice in any older person who persists in their ways is their utter devotion. The devotion is the north star around which everything else is structured. If you don't believe in any of this, it won't sustain for very long and won't sustain through difficult times and you won't even do it properly. If you believe you are celebrating krishna's birthday, the foods you cook for the occasion will be made correctly. If you're just doing it for the sake of doing, you won't give it your best.
If yoga is an obligation to you, it'll be a chore. If it's a way for you to prepare your mind to commune with the Gods and execute your dharma, you'll see it as a necessary addition in the context of your life.
The way you approach it essentially makes everything a chore. It'll last about six months or the next crunch time at work before you say fuck it. I
If you've been doing this for a while and still you don't have bhakti, ask yourself why not.
If you'd paid attention to what I actually wrote, you’d notice that śraddhā is central to it. That is devotion — a quiet, interior trust and reverence for śāstra and Guru. When I speak of nitya karma and kula ācāra, I’m not talking about dry mechanical acts. I’m talking about a life lived with śraddhā — which, in our tradition, is the very root of both knowledge and action.
You seem to think that unless someone speaks your language of emotionally expressive bhakti, they lack sincerity. But I follow the path laid down by my ācāryas. I do what must be done because it is dharma, not because I need an emotional high to motivate me. And it is this śraddhā, this grounding in duty and reverence, that sustains practice in the long run — through difficulty, silence, and doubt.
This essay was written for traditionalists who understand these categories. I don’t expect everyone to resonate with it, and I don’t need them to. But don’t mistake your unfamiliarity with the traditional vocabulary for its absence.
If you'd actually read what I wrote, you’d see that śraddhā is central to my worldview. That is devotion — a deep, interior faith in śāstra and Guru. It’s not about performative emotion, but about unwavering commitment to one’s svadharma and kula-ācāra. When I speak of nitya karma, I don’t mean hollow ritual — I mean sacred duty that binds me to the cosmic order, performed not for reward but because it must be done. What is this strange insistence that if I perform something as a duty, it must mean I lack devotion? Do you think I would follow my duties if I didn't have belief in the texts which actually prescribe duties?
Your idea of devotion seems narrowly defined by sentimental fervour. But in the Gītā, Bhagavān is crystal clear:
niyataṁ kuru karma tvaṁ karma jyāyo hy akarmaṇaḥ;
śarīrayātrā’pi ca te na prasiddhyed akarmaṇaḥ. (Gītā 3.8)
Perform your prescribed duty, for action is better than inaction. Even the maintenance of your body would not be possible without action.
That’s the spirit in which I live: not waiting for emotional validation, but obeying what must be obeyed. This is a path sustained not by mood swings but by conviction — the kind passed down in families, taught by gurus, and etched into daily practice.
This essay was not written for modern casuals who dabble for vibes. It’s for those rooted in something older, deeper, and harder. I don’t expect everyone to resonate with it, and I don’t need them to. But don’t mistake your unfamiliarity with the traditional vocabulary for its absence.
I think we're both saying the same thing. Anyway. Point is, don't get caught up in process (that's very catholic) and don't rely too much on scripture (that's very protestant). That's the shit that makes people atheists in 2-3 generations. Mostly because the people who get super serious about this tend to be low-key autistic and fail to understand the higher meaning of things and drive people away. Figure out how to be emotionally mature about being trad. I don't see much evidence of that in your post or your arguments, but maybe that's just the medium of writing that is to blame.