Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 Namaskaram, I do not know how many people could see this message below from the website. I have cut & paste for devotees who could not read from the website. This is a very interesting article & hence I am posting the whole article. Some agree & some disagree. Regards, Shobha Srinivasan > http://news.sify.com/cgi-bin/sifynews/news/content/news_fullstory_v2.jsp?art > icle_oid=12564633 > > Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism By O.P. Gupta Over centuries, the percentage of Hindus in the world and even in India has been declining. The share of Hindus in total population of India was 84.98 percent in the 1951 census, 82.7 percent in 1971, 82.6 percent in 1981 and 82.41 percent in 1991. In the 2001 census report (table 24), it has been further revised downwards to 82 per cent in 1991 census. This decline warrants serious introspection and reappraisal of our socio-religious norms. Whereas Islamic and Christian priests have been working overtime to seek new converts so as to increase their demographic weight, bulk of Hindu priests unaware of Rigvedic norms but, armed with Manusmriti have been functioning in such manner over last one thousand that years reduces population of Hindus by making it difficult for a sizeable chunk of Hindus (now called ST/SC/Dalits) to let them remain Hindus with honour and dignity; and, by not seeking new converts to Hinduism. Concepts like castes by birth, upper/lower castes, untouchables and dalits are expressly prohibited by Rigveda, Ramayana and Shrimad Bhagwat Gita. Protagonists of castes by birth cite Purus-Sukta (X.90.12) of Rigveda and slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita. This claim is totally knocked down by other richas of Rigveda, other slokas of Gita and examples set by Lord Rama. There is no birth based caste in Rigveda is evident from simple fact that names of none of Rigvedic rishis carry any present day caste titles like Pandit, Sharma, Tripathi, Chaturvedi, Trivedi, Singh, Gupta and Namboodari. Vedas, Valmiki Ramayan and Gita are three and only three supreme religious scriptures of Hindus. Rigveda has revelations to 414 rishis. Rigveda was composed around 1500 BC but other school believes it to be older than 5000 BC. Rigveda does not mention cotton whereas the oldest cotton seeds found in Afghanistan are carbon dated to 5000 BC. All others (Brahmanas, Upnishads, Puranas, Sutras, Smrities) are just commentaries, stories mixed with historical accounts and poets' imaginations. All writings in Sanskrit are not religious scriptures. Therefore, these latter compositions must yield to supremacy of Vedas. It is not a new assertion as these themselves acknowledge supremacy of Vedas. For example, Manusmriti vide Sloka (II.6), states that Vedas are the primary/first source of authority. So, it is logical that all such slokas of Manusmriti which are violative of Veda stand rejected. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee in his book "Hindu Law and the Constitution" says that by a rule of interpretation, if the shruti (Vedas) and the smriti differ on any point, the former is to prevail. Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed after Vedas. Shrimad Bhagwat Gita is a part of Mahabharata. It is believed that Manusmriti was composed during Kushan period, about 100 years after Chankya/Kautilya. Arthur A. Macdonnel in his book "A History of Sanskrit Literature" (1899 AD) estimates that Manusmriti in its present form was composed near about 200 AD. In his book, Macdonnel warns that the smritis are not on the same footings as law books of other nations as these are works of private individuals (Brahmins); these were written by Brahimins for benefit of Brahinins whose caste pretentions these books consequently exaggerate. None of these books from Manusmriti onwards were approved by any Dharam Sansad (religious congregation). Macdonnel advises to check statements/claims made in smrities by outside sources. Text of Manusmriti has been tampered with was acknowledged by Sir William Jones, an employee of the East India Company who introduced it as the Law book of Hindus in British Indian Courts. As devil is there in the details, let us look at English translations of (X.90.11 & 12). HH Wilson translates "When they immolated Purusa, into how many portions did they divide him? What was his mouth called, what his arms, what his thighs, what were his feet called? His mouth became the Brahmana, his arms became the Rajnya, his thighs became the Vaishya, and the Sudra was born from his feet." Ralph T.H. Griffith translates: "When they divided Purusa how many portions did they make? What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?" The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms Rajnya was made. His thighs became Vaishya, from his feet the Sudra was produced." This context, this background that, division of body of Purusa into four parts was done to kill/ immolate/sacrifice the Purusa has been totally suppressed in Manusmriti. In sloka (I.31), Manusmriti wrongly claims, that for growth of people (lokanbridhi) Brahma created Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra from mouth, arms, thighs and feet. With a view to create hereditary monopoly on easy money of dakshina, greedy priests centuries after Vedas concocted that as Brahman was born from mouth of Purusa, he was the superior most and as Sudra was born from feet which is impure part of body he was impure and the inferior most. Manusmriti (5/132) states that organs above nabhi are sacred (pavitra) and those below are impure (apivatra). There is no sanction for such a hypothesis in Rigveda. What Rishi Narain, composer of (X.90) was revealed is a very simple common sense, that even the most powerful man like Purusa can be immolated/destroyed if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are separated. If we kill a person what do we do? We cut his body into pieces. This is what followers of Manusmriti have been doing over centuries - destroying/immolating Hinduism from within by dividing/separating Hindus among different castes by birth, at fratricidal war with each other, thus, reducing Hindu population. By throwing Sudras out of villages, followers of Manu amputated feet of Hinduism, thus, made Hinduism crippled. Will followers of Manusmriti agree to get their own feet amputated on the same logic that legs are impure parts of their bodies? Another interpretation of (X.90.11 & 12) is creative i.e. emergence of a powerful (virat) man from Yajna. Acharya Shri Ram Sharma of Bareilly translates (in Hindi) "Virat purus kitne prakaroo se utpanna huvey. Unka mukh Brahman, bhuja kshatriye, janghaye vaishya aur charan sudra huye." Acharya translates these on lines of creation not immolation, so, body of Purus is not divided into four limbs. By common sense, a virat Purus is one who is healthy and one is healthy only if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are joined together and work in perfect harmony with each other. Whenever this harmony among different parts of body is disturbed/destroyed, he becomes paralysed and sick. So, what Rishi Narain is saying is that a Society will emerge as the most powerful Society like the Virat Purus only if its intelligentia (educated people i.e. Brahmans), Government (Rajnya), business community (Vaishya) and professionals & workers (Sudra) are joined together and work in as perfect harmony with each other as mouth, arms, thighs and feet of any healthy person work. These two richas, thus, emphasise total equality, perfect unity & complementarity of all the four classes of people to make a Society powerful. In a healthy person, mouth does not claim to be superior to legs, arms do not claim any superiority over legs and arms do not function independently of head (Parkinsons's disease), as each part of a body is composed of identically same materials and is functionally dependent upon each other. No part of body is inferior or superior to other part of body. Each dependent on the other, each complementary to the other. Thus, Purus Sukta commands harmony, unity and equality i.e. none of the four classes is inferior or superior to other and each is dependent on the other for its healthy survival. But, just the opposite interpretation was created by greedy priests and British Courts to divide and rule. Those who say that as Sudra represent feet of Virat Purus, and, as feet is impure so Sudras are impure should know that richa (X.90.14) says that earth was born from same feet of Purusa. So, based on (X.90.14) Sudras will be justified to claim the entire earth as exclusively theirs. There is no stipulation of high or low by birth in Rigveda. Many rishis of Rigveda under current Manusmriti definition were not Brahmins. There are at least ten Rigvedic richas showing that profession was not hereditary. In richas (V.23.1) and (V.23.2) Rishi Dyumna prays to Agni "Bestow Agni, upon Dyumna, a son, overcoming foes by his prowess; one who may with glory subdue all men in battle" (HH Wilson). In (IX.112.3) another rishi says "I am the singer, papa is the physician." So, father of a Rigvedic rishi is a physician but in Manusmriti a physician is a sudra. HH Wilson translates (X.125.5) "I verily of myself declare this which is approved by both gods and men; whosoever I will, I render him formidable, I make him a Brahma, a rishi or a sage." This richa appears in Atharveda (IV.30.03) also. So in Rigveda profession is not hereditary but by training. In (X.98.7) Devapi, is functioning as a purohit to his own brother King Shantanu. Some assert that Arayns were/are fair complexioned people and sudras are dark skinned. They also claim that four varnas were based on colours of skin. This is not true as Lord Rama and Lord Krishna are always depicted in coloured pictures as dark complexioned (shyama varna). Rishi Kanva who richly contributed to Rigveda was himself a dark skinned person vide RV (X.31.11). Higher caste/lower caste and untouchability are in direct contradiction to 12 other richas of Vedas viz. RV (VIII.93.13), RV (X.191), Atharveda III.30 and VII.54 (or VII.52) and Yujurveda (26.02) and (36.18). Unity in diversity is famous Indian motto. Cows of different colours like black, red and spotted ones give white milk (RV VIII.93.13) is a metaphor used in Vedas for diversity yielding to unity. HH Wilson translates (X.191.2): "Meet together, talk together, let your minds apprehend alike: in like manner as the ancient gods concurring accepted their portion of the sacrifice." RV (X.191.3) "Common be the prayer of these (assembled worshippers), common be the acquirement, common the purpose, associated be the desire. I repeat for you a common prayer, I offer for you a common oblation." RV (X.191.4) "Common (worshippers), be your intention; common be (the wishes of) your heart; common be your thoughts, so that there may be thorough union among you." W.D. Whitney & K.L. Joshi translate Atharveda (III.30.1) "like-heartedness, like mindedness, non-hostility do I make for you; do you show affection the one towards the other, as the inviolable (cow) towards her calf when born." (III.30.5): "Having superior intentful, be you not divided, accomplishing together, moving on with joint labour come hither speaking what is agreeable one to another, I make you united, like minded." (III.30.6): "Your drinking saloon be the same, in common your share of food, in the same harness do I join you together; worship you Agni united, like spokes about a navel." (III.30.7): "Untied, like minded I make you, of one bunch, all of you, by (my conciliation; (be) like the gods defending amrita; late and early be well-willing yours." Supporters of casteism oftenly quote slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita to support four castes by birth. In sloka (IV.13) Lord Krishna says: "Chaturvarnyma mayaa sristam gunkarma vibhagsah" i.e. four orders of society created by Me according to their Guna (qualities/behaviour) and Karma (profession/work/efforts). Lord Krishna does not say guna and karma of previous life. In (XVIII.41) Lord Krishna says "Brahmana Kshatriya visham sudranam cha paramtapa, karmani pravibhaktani svabhavaprabhavaigunaih." It means people have been grouped into four classes according to their present life karma (profession/work) and svabhava (behaviour). Had this division been based on birth, Lord Krishna would have naturally used "Janmani pravibhaktani" in (XVIII.41). In (X.20) Lord Krishna says "ahamatama gudakesa sarvabhutaa sayasthitah" i.e. "Arjuna! I am the universal self seated in the hearts of all beings." Here, Lord neither excludes sudra from "all beings" nor excludes Himself from being in hearts of sudra. In (XVIII.61) Lord says "eshwarah sarvabhutaanaam hraddesearjuna tisthati" i.e. Arjuna! God abides in the heart of all living beings." Again, sudras are not excluded. In (XIV.4) Lord Krishna says "of all embodied beings Arjuna, prakrti or nature is the conceiving Mother, while I am the seed giving Father." Thus, Lord Krishna says that he is as much Father of sudras as he is Father of any other Hindu. In (XVI.18) Lord Krishna says: "Given over to egotism, brute force, arrogance, etc. they hate Me dwelling in their own bodies as well as those of others." Thus, Lord Krishna instructs that a Hindu must not hate bodies of others Hindus as He is there in bodies of all so Gita prohibits untouchability. In (XVI.19) Lord curses Manu supporters: "These haters, sinful, cruel and vilest among men, I cast (them) again and again into demonical yonies (wombs)." In (XVI.20) Lord again curses Manu supporters: "Failing to reach Me, Arjuna, these stupid souls are born life after life in demoniac wombs (asura yoni) and then verily sink down to a still lower plane." In (XVIII.71) and (V.18) Lord again instructs equality of all Hindus. Shrimad Valmiki Ramayan (1.1.98 to 100) also says whosoever including sudra reads it will achieve greatness and get rid of all sins. Thus, Vedas, Ramayana and Gita confer authority on sudras to possess and read all these. In Ramayan, Lord Rama has set following two lessons for all Hindus which we witness every year in Ramlilas but never follow in our practical lives. Ravana was a grandson of risi Pulatsya. He was an expert on Vedas too. So, he was a Brahimin by birth under Manu definition as well as a Brahimin (educated) by qualification (veda-gyata) but he and most of his family members were killed by Lord Rama for their wrong doings. So, the first lesson of Ramayana is that everyone is equal before law. Lord Rama visited Shabri, called her a mother (mata); ate food from her hands and washed feet of Nisadraj. Lord Rama lived for years among vanvasi (tribals). So the second lesson of Ramayana is that a true Rambhakta should never discriminate against SC/ST/Dalit Hindus, should never hesitate to visit and dine with them. Mahatma Gandhi always followed both these two lessons of Ramayana. Thus, the central command of the 14 harmony richas and 10 profession not hereditary richas of Vedas is that all Hindus are totally equal by birth, of one bunch, share same water and food, worship together united in same temple, common are prayers, common purpose, common thoughts, united like spokes of a wheel, common oblation and friendly towards each others. One becomes a warrior (Rajnya), Brahman (educated ones) or rishi, not by birth but by his efforts/training (karma) vide RV (X.125.5). No one is superior and no one is inferior by birth. [The writer is the Ambassador of India to Finland and above are his personal views.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 Just one question. If today X wants to become a brahmin, can he choose his gotra too? GV & Shobha Srinivasan <shobha.srinivasan wrote:Namaskaram, I do not know how many people could see this message below from the website. I have cut & paste for devotees who could not read from the website. This is a very interesting article & hence I am posting the whole article. Some agree & some disagree. Regards, Shobha Srinivasan > http://news.sify.com/cgi-bin/sifynews/news/content/news_fullstory_v2.jsp?art > icle_oid=12564633 > > Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism By O.P. Gupta Over centuries, the percentage of Hindus in the world and even in India has been declining. The share of Hindus in total population of India was 84.98 percent in the 1951 census, 82.7 percent in 1971, 82.6 percent in 1981 and 82.41 percent in 1991. In the 2001 census report (table 24), it has been further revised downwards to 82 per cent in 1991 census. This decline warrants serious introspection and reappraisal of our socio-religious norms. Whereas Islamic and Christian priests have been working overtime to seek new converts so as to increase their demographic weight, bulk of Hindu priests unaware of Rigvedic norms but, armed with Manusmriti have been functioning in such manner over last one thousand that years reduces population of Hindus by making it difficult for a sizeable chunk of Hindus (now called ST/SC/Dalits) to let them remain Hindus with honour and dignity; and, by not seeking new converts to Hinduism. Concepts like castes by birth, upper/lower castes, untouchables and dalits are expressly prohibited by Rigveda, Ramayana and Shrimad Bhagwat Gita. Protagonists of castes by birth cite Purus-Sukta (X.90.12) of Rigveda and slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita. This claim is totally knocked down by other richas of Rigveda, other slokas of Gita and examples set by Lord Rama. There is no birth based caste in Rigveda is evident from simple fact that names of none of Rigvedic rishis carry any present day caste titles like Pandit, Sharma, Tripathi, Chaturvedi, Trivedi, Singh, Gupta and Namboodari. Vedas, Valmiki Ramayan and Gita are three and only three supreme religious scriptures of Hindus. Rigveda has revelations to 414 rishis. Rigveda was composed around 1500 BC but other school believes it to be older than 5000 BC. Rigveda does not mention cotton whereas the oldest cotton seeds found in Afghanistan are carbon dated to 5000 BC. All others (Brahmanas, Upnishads, Puranas, Sutras, Smrities) are just commentaries, stories mixed with historical accounts and poets' imaginations. All writings in Sanskrit are not religious scriptures. Therefore, these latter compositions must yield to supremacy of Vedas. It is not a new assertion as these themselves acknowledge supremacy of Vedas. For example, Manusmriti vide Sloka (II.6), states that Vedas are the primary/first source of authority. So, it is logical that all such slokas of Manusmriti which are violative of Veda stand rejected. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee in his book "Hindu Law and the Constitution" says that by a rule of interpretation, if the shruti (Vedas) and the smriti differ on any point, the former is to prevail. Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed after Vedas. Shrimad Bhagwat Gita is a part of Mahabharata. It is believed that Manusmriti was composed during Kushan period, about 100 years after Chankya/Kautilya. Arthur A. Macdonnel in his book "A History of Sanskrit Literature" (1899 AD) estimates that Manusmriti in its present form was composed near about 200 AD. In his book, Macdonnel warns that the smritis are not on the same footings as law books of other nations as these are works of private individuals (Brahmins); these were written by Brahimins for benefit of Brahinins whose caste pretentions these books consequently exaggerate. None of these books from Manusmriti onwards were approved by any Dharam Sansad (religious congregation). Macdonnel advises to check statements/claims made in smrities by outside sources. Text of Manusmriti has been tampered with was acknowledged by Sir William Jones, an employee of the East India Company who introduced it as the Law book of Hindus in British Indian Courts. As devil is there in the details, let us look at English translations of (X.90.11 & 12). HH Wilson translates "When they immolated Purusa, into how many portions did they divide him? What was his mouth called, what his arms, what his thighs, what were his feet called? His mouth became the Brahmana, his arms became the Rajnya, his thighs became the Vaishya, and the Sudra was born from his feet." Ralph T.H. Griffith translates: "When they divided Purusa how many portions did they make? What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?" The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms Rajnya was made. His thighs became Vaishya, from his feet the Sudra was produced." This context, this background that, division of body of Purusa into four parts was done to kill/ immolate/sacrifice the Purusa has been totally suppressed in Manusmriti. In sloka (I.31), Manusmriti wrongly claims, that for growth of people (lokanbridhi) Brahma created Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra from mouth, arms, thighs and feet. With a view to create hereditary monopoly on easy money of dakshina, greedy priests centuries after Vedas concocted that as Brahman was born from mouth of Purusa, he was the superior most and as Sudra was born from feet which is impure part of body he was impure and the inferior most. Manusmriti (5/132) states that organs above nabhi are sacred (pavitra) and those below are impure (apivatra). There is no sanction for such a hypothesis in Rigveda. What Rishi Narain, composer of (X.90) was revealed is a very simple common sense, that even the most powerful man like Purusa can be immolated/destroyed if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are separated. If we kill a person what do we do? We cut his body into pieces. This is what followers of Manusmriti have been doing over centuries - destroying/immolating Hinduism from within by dividing/separating Hindus among different castes by birth, at fratricidal war with each other, thus, reducing Hindu population. By throwing Sudras out of villages, followers of Manu amputated feet of Hinduism, thus, made Hinduism crippled. Will followers of Manusmriti agree to get their own feet amputated on the same logic that legs are impure parts of their bodies? Another interpretation of (X.90.11 & 12) is creative i.e. emergence of a powerful (virat) man from Yajna. Acharya Shri Ram Sharma of Bareilly translates (in Hindi) "Virat purus kitne prakaroo se utpanna huvey. Unka mukh Brahman, bhuja kshatriye, janghaye vaishya aur charan sudra huye." Acharya translates these on lines of creation not immolation, so, body of Purus is not divided into four limbs. By common sense, a virat Purus is one who is healthy and one is healthy only if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are joined together and work in perfect harmony with each other. Whenever this harmony among different parts of body is disturbed/destroyed, he becomes paralysed and sick. So, what Rishi Narain is saying is that a Society will emerge as the most powerful Society like the Virat Purus only if its intelligentia (educated people i.e. Brahmans), Government (Rajnya), business community (Vaishya) and professionals & workers (Sudra) are joined together and work in as perfect harmony with each other as mouth, arms, thighs and feet of any healthy person work. These two richas, thus, emphasise total equality, perfect unity & complementarity of all the four classes of people to make a Society powerful. In a healthy person, mouth does not claim to be superior to legs, arms do not claim any superiority over legs and arms do not function independently of head (Parkinsons's disease), as each part of a body is composed of identically same materials and is functionally dependent upon each other. No part of body is inferior or superior to other part of body. Each dependent on the other, each complementary to the other. Thus, Purus Sukta commands harmony, unity and equality i.e. none of the four classes is inferior or superior to other and each is dependent on the other for its healthy survival. But, just the opposite interpretation was created by greedy priests and British Courts to divide and rule. Those who say that as Sudra represent feet of Virat Purus, and, as feet is impure so Sudras are impure should know that richa (X.90.14) says that earth was born from same feet of Purusa. So, based on (X.90.14) Sudras will be justified to claim the entire earth as exclusively theirs. There is no stipulation of high or low by birth in Rigveda. Many rishis of Rigveda under current Manusmriti definition were not Brahmins. There are at least ten Rigvedic richas showing that profession was not hereditary. In richas (V.23.1) and (V.23.2) Rishi Dyumna prays to Agni "Bestow Agni, upon Dyumna, a son, overcoming foes by his prowess; one who may with glory subdue all men in battle" (HH Wilson). In (IX.112.3) another rishi says "I am the singer, papa is the physician." So, father of a Rigvedic rishi is a physician but in Manusmriti a physician is a sudra. HH Wilson translates (X.125.5) "I verily of myself declare this which is approved by both gods and men; whosoever I will, I render him formidable, I make him a Brahma, a rishi or a sage." This richa appears in Atharveda (IV.30.03) also. So in Rigveda profession is not hereditary but by training. In (X.98.7) Devapi, is functioning as a purohit to his own brother King Shantanu. Some assert that Arayns were/are fair complexioned people and sudras are dark skinned. They also claim that four varnas were based on colours of skin. This is not true as Lord Rama and Lord Krishna are always depicted in coloured pictures as dark complexioned (shyama varna). Rishi Kanva who richly contributed to Rigveda was himself a dark skinned person vide RV (X.31.11). Higher caste/lower caste and untouchability are in direct contradiction to 12 other richas of Vedas viz. RV (VIII.93.13), RV (X.191), Atharveda III.30 and VII.54 (or VII.52) and Yujurveda (26.02) and (36.18). Unity in diversity is famous Indian motto. Cows of different colours like black, red and spotted ones give white milk (RV VIII.93.13) is a metaphor used in Vedas for diversity yielding to unity. HH Wilson translates (X.191.2): "Meet together, talk together, let your minds apprehend alike: in like manner as the ancient gods concurring accepted their portion of the sacrifice." RV (X.191.3) "Common be the prayer of these (assembled worshippers), common be the acquirement, common the purpose, associated be the desire. I repeat for you a common prayer, I offer for you a common oblation." RV (X.191.4) "Common (worshippers), be your intention; common be (the wishes of) your heart; common be your thoughts, so that there may be thorough union among you." W.D. Whitney & K.L. Joshi translate Atharveda (III.30.1) "like-heartedness, like mindedness, non-hostility do I make for you; do you show affection the one towards the other, as the inviolable (cow) towards her calf when born." (III.30.5): "Having superior intentful, be you not divided, accomplishing together, moving on with joint labour come hither speaking what is agreeable one to another, I make you united, like minded." (III.30.6): "Your drinking saloon be the same, in common your share of food, in the same harness do I join you together; worship you Agni united, like spokes about a navel." (III.30.7): "Untied, like minded I make you, of one bunch, all of you, by (my conciliation; (be) like the gods defending amrita; late and early be well-willing yours." Supporters of casteism oftenly quote slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita to support four castes by birth. In sloka (IV.13) Lord Krishna says: "Chaturvarnyma mayaa sristam gunkarma vibhagsah" i.e. four orders of society created by Me according to their Guna (qualities/behaviour) and Karma (profession/work/efforts). Lord Krishna does not say guna and karma of previous life. In (XVIII.41) Lord Krishna says "Brahmana Kshatriya visham sudranam cha paramtapa, karmani pravibhaktani svabhavaprabhavaigunaih." It means people have been grouped into four classes according to their present life karma (profession/work) and svabhava (behaviour). Had this division been based on birth, Lord Krishna would have naturally used "Janmani pravibhaktani" in (XVIII.41). In (X.20) Lord Krishna says "ahamatama gudakesa sarvabhutaa sayasthitah" i.e. "Arjuna! I am the universal self seated in the hearts of all beings." Here, Lord neither excludes sudra from "all beings" nor excludes Himself from being in hearts of sudra. In (XVIII.61) Lord says "eshwarah sarvabhutaanaam hraddesearjuna tisthati" i.e. Arjuna! God abides in the heart of all living beings." Again, sudras are not excluded. In (XIV.4) Lord Krishna says "of all embodied beings Arjuna, prakrti or nature is the conceiving Mother, while I am the seed giving Father." Thus, Lord Krishna says that he is as much Father of sudras as he is Father of any other Hindu. In (XVI.18) Lord Krishna says: "Given over to egotism, brute force, arrogance, etc. they hate Me dwelling in their own bodies as well as those of others." Thus, Lord Krishna instructs that a Hindu must not hate bodies of others Hindus as He is there in bodies of all so Gita prohibits untouchability. In (XVI.19) Lord curses Manu supporters: "These haters, sinful, cruel and vilest among men, I cast (them) again and again into demonical yonies (wombs)." In (XVI.20) Lord again curses Manu supporters: "Failing to reach Me, Arjuna, these stupid souls are born life after life in demoniac wombs (asura yoni) and then verily sink down to a still lower plane." In (XVIII.71) and (V.18) Lord again instructs equality of all Hindus. Shrimad Valmiki Ramayan (1.1.98 to 100) also says whosoever including sudra reads it will achieve greatness and get rid of all sins. Thus, Vedas, Ramayana and Gita confer authority on sudras to possess and read all these. In Ramayan, Lord Rama has set following two lessons for all Hindus which we witness every year in Ramlilas but never follow in our practical lives. Ravana was a grandson of risi Pulatsya. He was an expert on Vedas too. So, he was a Brahimin by birth under Manu definition as well as a Brahimin (educated) by qualification (veda-gyata) but he and most of his family members were killed by Lord Rama for their wrong doings. So, the first lesson of Ramayana is that everyone is equal before law. Lord Rama visited Shabri, called her a mother (mata); ate food from her hands and washed feet of Nisadraj. Lord Rama lived for years among vanvasi (tribals). So the second lesson of Ramayana is that a true Rambhakta should never discriminate against SC/ST/Dalit Hindus, should never hesitate to visit and dine with them. Mahatma Gandhi always followed both these two lessons of Ramayana. Thus, the central command of the 14 harmony richas and 10 profession not hereditary richas of Vedas is that all Hindus are totally equal by birth, of one bunch, share same water and food, worship together united in same temple, common are prayers, common purpose, common thoughts, united like spokes of a wheel, common oblation and friendly towards each others. One becomes a warrior (Rajnya), Brahman (educated ones) or rishi, not by birth but by his efforts/training (karma) vide RV (X.125.5). No one is superior and no one is inferior by birth. [The writer is the Ambassador of India to Finland and above are his personal views.] Srirangasri- Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 There is a serious flaw in the argument advanced by this article. The % will go down as the count goes up in other communities. The number of people who believe in hinduisim has not gone down as this article would suggest. The total number of people has not remained constant. Other communities have grown out of proportion because majority practice birth control and so it happens more hindus practice family planning than other communities. There are other reasons to ponder the rest of the argument, but let us not be alarmed by declining percentage of hindus in the world or India. -- anandavalli dasan --- GV & Shobha Srinivasan <shobha.srinivasan wrote: > Namaskaram, > > I do not know how many people could see this message > below from the website. > I have cut & paste for devotees who could not read > from the website. > > This is a very interesting article & hence I am > posting the whole article. > Some agree & some disagree. > > Regards, > > Shobha Srinivasan > > > > > http://news.sify.com/cgi-bin/sifynews/news/content/news_fullstory_v2.jsp?art > > icle_oid=12564633 > > > > Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism > > > > > By O.P. Gupta > > Over centuries, the percentage of Hindus in the > world and even in India has > been declining. The share of Hindus in total > population of India was 84.98 > percent in the 1951 census, 82.7 percent in 1971, > 82.6 percent in 1981 and > 82.41 percent in 1991. > > In the 2001 census report (table 24), it has been > further revised downwards > to 82 per cent in 1991 census. > > This decline warrants serious introspection and > reappraisal of our > socio-religious norms. Whereas Islamic and Christian > priests have been > working overtime to seek new converts so as to > increase their demographic > weight, bulk of Hindu priests unaware of Rigvedic > norms but, armed with > Manusmriti have been functioning in such manner over > last one thousand that > years reduces population of Hindus by making it > difficult for a sizeable > chunk of Hindus (now called ST/SC/Dalits) to let > them remain Hindus with > honour and dignity; and, by not seeking new converts > to Hinduism. > > Concepts like castes by birth, upper/lower castes, > untouchables and dalits > are expressly prohibited by Rigveda, Ramayana and > Shrimad Bhagwat Gita. > > Protagonists of castes by birth cite Purus-Sukta > (X.90.12) of Rigveda and > slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita. This claim is > totally knocked down by > other richas of Rigveda, other slokas of Gita and > examples set by Lord Rama. > > There is no birth based caste in Rigveda is evident > from simple fact that > names of none of Rigvedic rishis carry any present > day caste titles like > Pandit, Sharma, Tripathi, Chaturvedi, Trivedi, > Singh, Gupta and Namboodari. > > Vedas, Valmiki Ramayan and Gita are three and only > three supreme religious > scriptures of Hindus. Rigveda has revelations to 414 > rishis. Rigveda was > composed around 1500 BC but other school believes it > to be older than 5000 > BC. > > Rigveda does not mention cotton whereas the oldest > cotton seeds found in > Afghanistan are carbon dated to 5000 BC. > > All others (Brahmanas, Upnishads, Puranas, Sutras, > Smrities) are just > commentaries, stories mixed with historical accounts > and poets' > imaginations. > > All writings in Sanskrit are not religious > scriptures. Therefore, these > latter compositions must yield to supremacy of > Vedas. It is not a new > assertion as these themselves acknowledge supremacy > of Vedas. For example, > Manusmriti vide Sloka (II.6), states that Vedas are > the primary/first source > of authority. So, it is logical that all such slokas > of Manusmriti which are > violative of Veda stand rejected. > > Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee in his book "Hindu Law > and the Constitution" says > that by a rule of interpretation, if the shruti > (Vedas) and the smriti > differ on any point, the former is to prevail. > > > Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed after Vedas. > Shrimad Bhagwat Gita is > a part of Mahabharata. It is believed that > Manusmriti was composed during > Kushan period, about 100 years after > Chankya/Kautilya. Arthur A. Macdonnel > in his book "A History of Sanskrit Literature" (1899 > AD) estimates that > Manusmriti in its present form was composed near > about 200 AD. > > In his book, Macdonnel warns that the smritis are > not on the same footings > as law books of other nations as these are works of > private individuals > (Brahmins); these were written by Brahimins for > benefit of Brahinins whose > caste pretentions these books consequently > exaggerate. > > None of these books from Manusmriti onwards were > approved by any Dharam > Sansad (religious congregation). Macdonnel advises > to check > statements/claims made in smrities by outside > sources. > > Text of Manusmriti has been tampered with was > acknowledged by Sir William > Jones, an employee of the East India Company who > introduced it as the Law > book of Hindus in British Indian Courts. > > As devil is there in the details, let us look at > English translations of > (X.90.11 & 12). HH Wilson translates "When they > immolated Purusa, into how > many portions did they divide him? What was his > mouth called, what his arms, > what his thighs, what were his feet called? His > mouth became the Brahmana, > his arms became the Rajnya, his thighs became the > Vaishya, and the Sudra was > born from his feet." Ralph T.H. Griffith translates: > "When they divided > Purusa how many portions did they make? What do they > call his mouth, his > arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?" The > Brahman was his mouth, of > both his arms Rajnya was made. His thighs became > Vaishya, from his feet the > Sudra was produced." > > This context, this background that, division of body > of Purusa into four > parts was done to kill/ immolate/sacrifice the > Purusa has been totally > suppressed in Manusmriti. > > In sloka (I.31), Manusmriti wrongly claims, that for > growth of people > (lokanbridhi) Brahma created Brahman, Kshatriya, > Vaishya and Shudra from > mouth, arms, thighs and feet. With a view to create > hereditary monopoly on > easy money of dakshina, greedy priests centuries > after Vedas concocted that > as Brahman was born from mouth of Purusa, he was the > superior most and as > Sudra was born from feet which is impure part of > body he was impure and the > inferior most. > > Manusmriti (5/132) states that organs above nabhi > are sacred (pavitra) and > those below are impure (apivatra). There is no > sanction for such a > hypothesis in Rigveda. > > What Rishi Narain, composer of (X.90) was revealed > is a very simple common > sense, that even the most powerful man like Purusa > can be > immolated/destroyed if his mouth, arms, thighs and > feet are separated. > > If we kill a person what do we do? We cut his body > into pieces. This is what > followers of Manusmriti have been doing over > centuries === message truncated === Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 Respected Srivaishnavas, I feel the article makes sense over the point that percentage of Hindus is decreasing . The Government policy is that when a Dalit converts to another religion, he loses his concessions as a Scheduled Caste member and will automatically become a Backward Class member. Due to this reason, many of the Harijans, though might have converted to christianity or another religion, still hold themselves as Hindu (for record sake). This is being reflected in the census. In future, if a pro-christian government comes to power in India, they might allot separate percentage for the converted Harijans in which case, they will come out in open with their real religion. Christians are effecting large number of conversions luring people through monetary and other means. The percentage of Hindus in north-east India is fast decreasing. Politicians are doing more damage to the Hindu religion than the missionaries. For example, a known anti-Hindu, anti-Brahmin like Karunanidhi comes out telling that Hinduism insults human beings and remains the property of brahmins. But he says that Acharya Ramanuja is the first known social reformer to come out against caste-based distinctions. Nowadays, we find many articles in 'secular' newspapers like Hindu which almost conclude on their own that Hinduism doesn't believe in equality and alienates people based on caste. Even for the balance of argument, they don't consider that the azhwars, nayanmars and numerous sants have come from various castes and have been respected irrespective of their caste. In this sense, efforts by Sriman Velukkudi Krishnan Swami and others explaining the true nature of our Dharma should be highly appreciated. More efforts should be made to counter the inequality arguments enlightening more people. Adiyen, raghava dAsan. Raman Kannan <rrfamily wrote:There is a serious flaw in the argument advanced by this article. The % will go down as the count goes up in other communities. The number of people who believe in hinduisim has not gone down as this article would suggest. The total number of people has not remained constant. Other communities have grown out of proportion because majority practice birth control and so it happens more hindus practice family planning than other communities. There are other reasons to ponder the rest of the argument, but let us not be alarmed by declining percentage of hindus in the world or India. -- anandavalli dasan --- GV & Shobha Srinivasan <shobha.srinivasan wrote: > Namaskaram, > > I do not know how many people could see this message > below from the website. > I have cut & paste for devotees who could not read > from the website. > > This is a very interesting article & hence I am > posting the whole article. > Some agree & some disagree. > > Regards, > > Shobha Srinivasan > > > > > http://news.sify.com/cgi-bin/sifynews/news/content/news_fullstory_v2.jsp?art > > icle_oid=12564633 > > > > Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism > > > > > By O.P. Gupta > > Over centuries, the percentage of Hindus in the > world and even in India has > been declining. The share of Hindus in total > population of India was 84.98 > percent in the 1951 census, 82.7 percent in 1971, > 82.6 percent in 1981 and > 82.41 percent in 1991. > > In the 2001 census report (table 24), it has been > further revised downwards > to 82 per cent in 1991 census. > > This decline warrants serious introspection and > reappraisal of our > socio-religious norms. Whereas Islamic and Christian > priests have been > working overtime to seek new converts so as to > increase their demographic > weight, bulk of Hindu priests unaware of Rigvedic > norms but, armed with > Manusmriti have been functioning in such manner over > last one thousand that > years reduces population of Hindus by making it > difficult for a sizeable > chunk of Hindus (now called ST/SC/Dalits) to let > them remain Hindus with > honour and dignity; and, by not seeking new converts > to Hinduism. > > Concepts like castes by birth, upper/lower castes, > untouchables and dalits > are expressly prohibited by Rigveda, Ramayana and > Shrimad Bhagwat Gita. > > Protagonists of castes by birth cite Purus-Sukta > (X.90.12) of Rigveda and > slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita. This claim is > totally knocked down by > other richas of Rigveda, other slokas of Gita and > examples set by Lord Rama. > > There is no birth based caste in Rigveda is evident > from simple fact that > names of none of Rigvedic rishis carry any present > day caste titles like > Pandit, Sharma, Tripathi, Chaturvedi, Trivedi, > Singh, Gupta and Namboodari. > > Vedas, Valmiki Ramayan and Gita are three and only > three supreme religious > scriptures of Hindus. Rigveda has revelations to 414 > rishis. Rigveda was > composed around 1500 BC but other school believes it > to be older than 5000 > BC. > > Rigveda does not mention cotton whereas the oldest > cotton seeds found in > Afghanistan are carbon dated to 5000 BC. > > All others (Brahmanas, Upnishads, Puranas, Sutras, > Smrities) are just > commentaries, stories mixed with historical accounts > and poets' > imaginations. > > All writings in Sanskrit are not religious > scriptures. Therefore, these > latter compositions must yield to supremacy of > Vedas. It is not a new > assertion as these themselves acknowledge supremacy > of Vedas. For example, > Manusmriti vide Sloka (II.6), states that Vedas are > the primary/first source > of authority. So, it is logical that all such slokas > of Manusmriti which are > violative of Veda stand rejected. > > Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee in his book "Hindu Law > and the Constitution" says > that by a rule of interpretation, if the shruti > (Vedas) and the smriti > differ on any point, the former is to prevail. > > > Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed after Vedas. > Shrimad Bhagwat Gita is > a part of Mahabharata. It is believed that > Manusmriti was composed during > Kushan period, about 100 years after > Chankya/Kautilya. Arthur A. Macdonnel > in his book "A History of Sanskrit Literature" (1899 > AD) estimates that > Manusmriti in its present form was composed near > about 200 AD. > > In his book, Macdonnel warns that the smritis are > not on the same footings > as law books of other nations as these are works of > private individuals > (Brahmins); these were written by Brahimins for > benefit of Brahinins whose > caste pretentions these books consequently > exaggerate. > > None of these books from Manusmriti onwards were > approved by any Dharam > Sansad (religious congregation). Macdonnel advises > to check > statements/claims made in smrities by outside > sources. > > Text of Manusmriti has been tampered with was > acknowledged by Sir William > Jones, an employee of the East India Company who > introduced it as the Law > book of Hindus in British Indian Courts. > > As devil is there in the details, let us look at > English translations of > (X.90.11 & 12). HH Wilson translates "When they > immolated Purusa, into how > many portions did they divide him? What was his > mouth called, what his arms, > what his thighs, what were his feet called? His > mouth became the Brahmana, > his arms became the Rajnya, his thighs became the > Vaishya, and the Sudra was > born from his feet." Ralph T.H. Griffith translates: > "When they divided > Purusa how many portions did they make? What do they > call his mouth, his > arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?" The > Brahman was his mouth, of > both his arms Rajnya was made. His thighs became > Vaishya, from his feet the > Sudra was produced." > > This context, this background that, division of body > of Purusa into four > parts was done to kill/ immolate/sacrifice the > Purusa has been totally > suppressed in Manusmriti. > > In sloka (I.31), Manusmriti wrongly claims, that for > growth of people > (lokanbridhi) Brahma created Brahman, Kshatriya, > Vaishya and Shudra from > mouth, arms, thighs and feet. With a view to create > hereditary monopoly on > easy money of dakshina, greedy priests centuries > after Vedas concocted that > as Brahman was born from mouth of Purusa, he was the > superior most and as > Sudra was born from feet which is impure part of > body he was impure and the > inferior most. > > Manusmriti (5/132) states that organs above nabhi > are sacred (pavitra) and > those below are impure (apivatra). There is no > sanction for such a > hypothesis in Rigveda. > > What Rishi Narain, composer of (X.90) was revealed > is a very simple common > sense, that even the most powerful man like Purusa > can be > immolated/destroyed if his mouth, arms, thighs and > feet are separated. > > If we kill a person what do we do? We cut his body > into pieces. This is what > followers of Manusmriti have been doing over > centuries === message truncated === Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Srirangasri- Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2003 Report Share Posted February 4, 2003 Dear Shri Raman, may I know why and how you say there is no reason to be alarmed???? the percentage of Hindu's may be very high comparing to other communities as you put it, but the questions should be also how many Hindus really knows values of Sanathana Dharma, one way not knowing much about our own faith can also contribute to subject here. In the real sense one does not become a Hindu by just being born in a Hindu family, but knowing about the principle of Hinduism (Sanathana Dharma) and try to uphold its principles and if need be share it with other communities. ( I am not asking our guys to go out and convert others like Christians and Islam does) Gupta's statement can also be taken in different sense as one who is not very proud of their own religion can also be a catalyst to its down fall, it need be considered as Hinduism will be erased from the face of the earth, that is not going to happen, but inspite of 1 billion people being Hindus and sheer 20-30 million being Jews, we don't need to state who hold better power/saying in the world affairs. So, Mr. Gupta's article should not be thrown into a back burner, but carefully analysed and necessary steps should be taken. Family Planning: we can certainly have 2-3 children per hindu family and have faith that we can certainly provide for their betterment, if not too much materialisic gain. That confidence will come only if there are enough institurion/hospital, exclusively for Hindus, run by Hindu communities, that is the assurance that Hindu Childrens of the future will be taken care. These activities are very common in India for Islamic childrens, and Christians are equally supportive to their own community. One need to see the Nadar Christian community for this, so, they have no worries making more childrens, easily 5 per family. Reality is we don't talk as a community but as an individual, Let us act as a community and you can count my participation in any level. For sure, we have to abandon the Casteism and all Hindus are childrens of same Vedic Faith. hari om Swathi Hong Kong - Raman Kannan <rrfamily GV & Shobha Srinivasan <shobha.srinivasan; <> Tuesday, February 04, 2003 3:26 AM Re: Re: Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism > There is a serious flaw in the argument advanced > by this article. > The % will go down as the count goes up > in other communities. > The number of people who believe in hinduisim > has not gone down as this article would suggest. > > The total number of people has not remained constant. > > Other communities have grown out of proportion > because majority practice birth control and > so it happens more hindus practice family planning > than other communities. > > There are other reasons to ponder the rest of > the argument, but let us not be alarmed by > declining percentage of hindus in the world > or India. > -- > anandavalli dasan > --- GV & Shobha Srinivasan > <shobha.srinivasan wrote: > > Namaskaram, > > > > I do not know how many people could see this message > > below from the website. > > I have cut & paste for devotees who could not read > > from the website. > > > > This is a very interesting article & hence I am > > posting the whole article. > > Some agree & some disagree. > > > > Regards, > > > > Shobha Srinivasan > > > > > > > > > > http://news.sify.com/cgi-bin/sifynews/news/content/news_fullstory_v2.jsp?art > > > icle_oid=12564633 > > > > > > Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism > > > > > > > > > > By O.P. Gupta > > > > Over centuries, the percentage of Hindus in the > > world and even in India has > > been declining. The share of Hindus in total > > population of India was 84.98 > > percent in the 1951 census, 82.7 percent in 1971, > > 82.6 percent in 1981 and > > 82.41 percent in 1991. > > > > In the 2001 census report (table 24), it has been > > further revised downwards > > to 82 per cent in 1991 census. > > > > This decline warrants serious introspection and > > reappraisal of our > > socio-religious norms. Whereas Islamic and Christian > > priests have been > > working overtime to seek new converts so as to > > increase their demographic > > weight, bulk of Hindu priests unaware of Rigvedic > > norms but, armed with > > Manusmriti have been functioning in such manner over > > last one thousand that > > years reduces population of Hindus by making it > > difficult for a sizeable > > chunk of Hindus (now called ST/SC/Dalits) to let > > them remain Hindus with > > honour and dignity; and, by not seeking new converts > > to Hinduism. > > > > Concepts like castes by birth, upper/lower castes, > > untouchables and dalits > > are expressly prohibited by Rigveda, Ramayana and > > Shrimad Bhagwat Gita. > > > > Protagonists of castes by birth cite Purus-Sukta > > (X.90.12) of Rigveda and > > slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita. This claim is > > totally knocked down by > > other richas of Rigveda, other slokas of Gita and > > examples set by Lord Rama. > > > > There is no birth based caste in Rigveda is evident > > from simple fact that > > names of none of Rigvedic rishis carry any present > > day caste titles like > > Pandit, Sharma, Tripathi, Chaturvedi, Trivedi, > > Singh, Gupta and Namboodari. > > > > Vedas, Valmiki Ramayan and Gita are three and only > > three supreme religious > > scriptures of Hindus. Rigveda has revelations to 414 > > rishis. Rigveda was > > composed around 1500 BC but other school believes it > > to be older than 5000 > > BC. > > > > Rigveda does not mention cotton whereas the oldest > > cotton seeds found in > > Afghanistan are carbon dated to 5000 BC. > > > > All others (Brahmanas, Upnishads, Puranas, Sutras, > > Smrities) are just > > commentaries, stories mixed with historical accounts > > and poets' > > imaginations. > > > > All writings in Sanskrit are not religious > > scriptures. Therefore, these > > latter compositions must yield to supremacy of > > Vedas. It is not a new > > assertion as these themselves acknowledge supremacy > > of Vedas. For example, > > Manusmriti vide Sloka (II.6), states that Vedas are > > the primary/first source > > of authority. So, it is logical that all such slokas > > of Manusmriti which are > > violative of Veda stand rejected. > > > > Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee in his book "Hindu Law > > and the Constitution" says > > that by a rule of interpretation, if the shruti > > (Vedas) and the smriti > > differ on any point, the former is to prevail. > > > > > > Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed after Vedas. > > Shrimad Bhagwat Gita is > > a part of Mahabharata. It is believed that > > Manusmriti was composed during > > Kushan period, about 100 years after > > Chankya/Kautilya. Arthur A. Macdonnel > > in his book "A History of Sanskrit Literature" (1899 > > AD) estimates that > > Manusmriti in its present form was composed near > > about 200 AD. > > > > In his book, Macdonnel warns that the smritis are > > not on the same footings > > as law books of other nations as these are works of > > private individuals > > (Brahmins); these were written by Brahimins for > > benefit of Brahinins whose > > caste pretentions these books consequently > > exaggerate. > > > > None of these books from Manusmriti onwards were > > approved by any Dharam > > Sansad (religious congregation). Macdonnel advises > > to check > > statements/claims made in smrities by outside > > sources. > > > > Text of Manusmriti has been tampered with was > > acknowledged by Sir William > > Jones, an employee of the East India Company who > > introduced it as the Law > > book of Hindus in British Indian Courts. > > > > As devil is there in the details, let us look at > > English translations of > > (X.90.11 & 12). HH Wilson translates "When they > > immolated Purusa, into how > > many portions did they divide him? What was his > > mouth called, what his arms, > > what his thighs, what were his feet called? His > > mouth became the Brahmana, > > his arms became the Rajnya, his thighs became the > > Vaishya, and the Sudra was > > born from his feet." Ralph T.H. Griffith translates: > > "When they divided > > Purusa how many portions did they make? What do they > > call his mouth, his > > arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?" The > > Brahman was his mouth, of > > both his arms Rajnya was made. His thighs became > > Vaishya, from his feet the > > Sudra was produced." > > > > This context, this background that, division of body > > of Purusa into four > > parts was done to kill/ immolate/sacrifice the > > Purusa has been totally > > suppressed in Manusmriti. > > > > In sloka (I.31), Manusmriti wrongly claims, that for > > growth of people > > (lokanbridhi) Brahma created Brahman, Kshatriya, > > Vaishya and Shudra from > > mouth, arms, thighs and feet. With a view to create > > hereditary monopoly on > > easy money of dakshina, greedy priests centuries > > after Vedas concocted that > > as Brahman was born from mouth of Purusa, he was the > > superior most and as > > Sudra was born from feet which is impure part of > > body he was impure and the > > inferior most. > > > > Manusmriti (5/132) states that organs above nabhi > > are sacred (pavitra) and > > those below are impure (apivatra). There is no > > sanction for such a > > hypothesis in Rigveda. > > > > What Rishi Narain, composer of (X.90) was revealed > > is a very simple common > > sense, that even the most powerful man like Purusa > > can be > > immolated/destroyed if his mouth, arms, thighs and > > feet are separated. > > > > If we kill a person what do we do? We cut his body > > into pieces. This is what > > followers of Manusmriti have been doing over > > centuries > === message truncated === > > > > > Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus. > > > > Srirangasri- > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2003 Report Share Posted February 4, 2003 Respected Srivaishnavas, It should have been 'doesn't say' in "But he 'says' that Acharya Ramanuja is the first known social reformer to come out against caste-based distinctions". I apologise for the error. Adiyen, raghava dAsan. VS Venkataragavan <raghavan103 wrote: Respected Srivaishnavas, I feel the article makes sense over the point that percentage of Hindus is decreasing . The Government policy is that when a Dalit converts to another religion, he loses his concessions as a Scheduled Caste member and will automatically become a Backward Class member. Due to this reason, many of the Harijans, though might have converted to christianity or another religion, still hold themselves as Hindu (for record sake). This is being reflected in the census. In future, if a pro-christian government comes to power in India, they might allot separate percentage for the converted Harijans in which case, they will come out in open with their real religion. Christians are effecting large number of conversions luring people through monetary and other means. The percentage of Hindus in north-east India is fast decreasing. Politicians are doing more damage to the Hindu religion than the missionaries. For example, a known anti-Hindu, anti-Brahmin like Karunanidhi comes out telling that Hinduism insults human beings and remains the property of brahmins. But he says that Acharya Ramanuja is the first known social reformer to come out against caste-based distinctions. Nowadays, we find many articles in 'secular' newspapers like Hindu which almost conclude on their own that Hinduism doesn't believe in equality and alienates people based on caste. Even for the balance of argument, they don't consider that the azhwars, nayanmars and numerous sants have come from various castes and have been respected irrespective of their caste. In this sense, efforts by Sriman Velukkudi Krishnan Swami and others explaining the true nature of our Dharma should be highly appreciated. More efforts should be made to counter the inequality arguments enlightening more people. Adiyen, raghava dAsan. Raman Kannan <rrfamily wrote:There is a serious flaw in the argument advanced by this article. The % will go down as the count goes up in other communities. The number of people who believe in hinduisim has not gone down as this article would suggest. The total number of people has not remained constant. Other communities have grown out of proportion because majority practice birth control and so it happens more hindus practice family planning than other communities. There are other reasons to ponder the rest of the argument, but let us not be alarmed by declining percentage of hindus in the world or India. -- anandavalli dasan --- GV & Shobha Srinivasan <shobha.srinivasan wrote: > Namaskaram, > > I do not know how many people could see this message > below from the website. > I have cut & paste for devotees who could not read > from the website. > > This is a very interesting article & hence I am > posting the whole article. > Some agree & some disagree. > > Regards, > > Shobha Srinivasan > > > > > http://news.sify.com/cgi-bin/sifynews/news/content/news_fullstory_v2.jsp?art > > icle_oid=12564633 > > > > Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism > > > > > By O.P. Gupta > > Over centuries, the percentage of Hindus in the > world and even in India has > been declining. The share of Hindus in total > population of India was 84.98 > percent in the 1951 census, 82.7 percent in 1971, > 82.6 percent in 1981 and > 82.41 percent in 1991. > > In the 2001 census report (table 24), it has been > further revised downwards > to 82 per cent in 1991 census. > > This decline warrants serious introspection and > reappraisal of our > socio-religious norms. Whereas Islamic and Christian > priests have been > working overtime to seek new converts so as to > increase their demographic > weight, bulk of Hindu priests unaware of Rigvedic > norms but, armed with > Manusmriti have been functioning in such manner over > last one thousand that > years reduces population of Hindus by making it > difficult for a sizeable > chunk of Hindus (now called ST/SC/Dalits) to let > them remain Hindus with > honour and dignity; and, by not seeking new converts > to Hinduism. > > Concepts like castes by birth, upper/lower castes, > untouchables and dalits > are expressly prohibited by Rigveda, Ramayana and > Shrimad Bhagwat Gita. > > Protagonists of castes by birth cite Purus-Sukta > (X.90.12) of Rigveda and > slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita. This claim is > totally knocked down by > other richas of Rigveda, other slokas of Gita and > examples set by Lord Rama. > > There is no birth based caste in Rigveda is evident > from simple fact that > names of none of Rigvedic rishis carry any present > day caste titles like > Pandit, Sharma, Tripathi, Chaturvedi, Trivedi, > Singh, Gupta and Namboodari. > > Vedas, Valmiki Ramayan and Gita are three and only > three supreme religious > scriptures of Hindus. Rigveda has revelations to 414 > rishis. Rigveda was > composed around 1500 BC but other school believes it > to be older than 5000 > BC. > > Rigveda does not mention cotton whereas the oldest > cotton seeds found in > Afghanistan are carbon dated to 5000 BC. > > All others (Brahmanas, Upnishads, Puranas, Sutras, > Smrities) are just > commentaries, stories mixed with historical accounts > and poets' > imaginations. > > All writings in Sanskrit are not religious > scriptures. Therefore, these > latter compositions must yield to supremacy of > Vedas. It is not a new > assertion as these themselves acknowledge supremacy > of Vedas. For example, > Manusmriti vide Sloka (II.6), states that Vedas are > the primary/first source > of authority. So, it is logical that all such slokas > of Manusmriti which are > violative of Veda stand rejected. > > Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee in his book "Hindu Law > and the Constitution" says > that by a rule of interpretation, if the shruti > (Vedas) and the smriti > differ on any point, the former is to prevail. > > > Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed after Vedas. > Shrimad Bhagwat Gita is > a part of Mahabharata. It is believed that > Manusmriti was composed during > Kushan period, about 100 years after > Chankya/Kautilya. Arthur A. Macdonnel > in his book "A History of Sanskrit Literature" (1899 > AD) estimates that > Manusmriti in its present form was composed near > about 200 AD. > > In his book, Macdonnel warns that the smritis are > not on the same footings > as law books of other nations as these are works of > private individuals > (Brahmins); these were written by Brahimins for > benefit of Brahinins whose > caste pretentions these books consequently > exaggerate. > > None of these books from Manusmriti onwards were > approved by any Dharam > Sansad (religious congregation). Macdonnel advises > to check > statements/claims made in smrities by outside > sources. > > Text of Manusmriti has been tampered with was > acknowledged by Sir William > Jones, an employee of the East India Company who > introduced it as the Law > book of Hindus in British Indian Courts. > > As devil is there in the details, let us look at > English translations of > (X.90.11 & 12). HH Wilson translates "When they > immolated Purusa, into how > many portions did they divide him? What was his > mouth called, what his arms, > what his thighs, what were his feet called? His > mouth became the Brahmana, > his arms became the Rajnya, his thighs became the > Vaishya, and the Sudra was > born from his feet." Ralph T.H. Griffith translates: > "When they divided > Purusa how many portions did they make? What do they > call his mouth, his > arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?" The > Brahman was his mouth, of > both his arms Rajnya was made. His thighs became > Vaishya, from his feet the > Sudra was produced." > > This context, this background that, division of body > of Purusa into four > parts was done to kill/ immolate/sacrifice the > Purusa has been totally > suppressed in Manusmriti. > > In sloka (I.31), Manusmriti wrongly claims, that for > growth of people > (lokanbridhi) Brahma created Brahman, Kshatriya, > Vaishya and Shudra from > mouth, arms, thighs and feet. With a view to create > hereditary monopoly on > easy money of dakshina, greedy priests centuries > after Vedas concocted that > as Brahman was born from mouth of Purusa, he was the > superior most and as > Sudra was born from feet which is impure part of > body he was impure and the > inferior most. > > Manusmriti (5/132) states that organs above nabhi > are sacred (pavitra) and > those below are impure (apivatra). There is no > sanction for such a > hypothesis in Rigveda. > > What Rishi Narain, composer of (X.90) was revealed > is a very simple common > sense, that even the most powerful man like Purusa > can be > immolated/destroyed if his mouth, arms, thighs and > feet are separated. > > If we kill a person what do we do? We cut his body > into pieces. This is what > followers of Manusmriti have been doing over > centuries === message truncated === Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Srirangasri- Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Srirangasri- Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2003 Report Share Posted February 5, 2003 Swamin Getting alarmed does not help. Hyperbole does not help either. Hinduism cannot ever die. If there is one good confirming vedic practioner our way of life will survive. The fact that the number of hindus increased from 600 MILL to 800 MILL while say for example all other denominations increased from 100 MILL to 300 MILL the percentages have fallen behind. 600/700 roughly 86% to 800/1100 roughly 73% so we should not fall for the statistician trick present the same set of facts using different norms and inapplicable and imply something very drastic. In the last 50 years population has increased and the rate of growth has decreased. This is what we want. Why should we be alarmed? Now the decadence in Indian mind is indeed alaraming. it is all selfish, going after money that will not follow us one minute when we are dead... this is all very alarming.. ignoring temples, not caring for someone who is suffering and saying that this is all due to caste is alarming. Is it castes that created the difference. Is it not the practioners who ill-treated certain other castes. mindless and politicians without a conscious used it to their benefit. We cannot complain about them either. our religion with caste is a superior way of living. religion without ritual is a brain without a body. religion without philosophy is a body without brain. So our religion has all of this and it is complete. We should be proud to understand and follow to the fullest extent. There is no room for thinking less of another gender or another person. This is not allowed. Anyone who finds a difference in others is not aware of Gita and its basic tenents. The author instead of stating the facts as it is tries to invect useless and misleading numbers in the beginning and then tries to ascribe it to caste which is at best an irrelevant factor. Indian mind is corrupt today including IAS/IFS and all the govt bureacracies. adiyen is first line. We need to change fundamentally. What good is it if we cannot lay proper road? that is where we are... We are also very egotistical we cannot sit down and think about our problems aloud without becoming emotional about it. I can bet that many reading this email will be inflamed and allow my limitations to ruin their afternoon getting mad and angry. They cannot realize I am on the same side as anyone else who loves and adores and respects our way of life, going back to gokulum. adiyen RK --- alambda <alambda wrote: > Dear Shri Raman, > > may I know why and how you say there is no reason to > be alarmed???? > the percentage > of Hindu's may be very high comparing to other > communities as you put it, > but the questions should be also how many Hindus > really knows values of > Sanathana Dharma, one way not knowing much about our > own faith can also > contribute to subject here. > > In the real sense one does not become a Hindu by > just being born in a Hindu > family, but knowing about the principle of Hinduism > (Sanathana Dharma) and > try to uphold its principles and if need be share it > with other communities. > ( I am not asking our guys to go out and convert > others like Christians and > Islam does) > > Gupta's statement can also be taken in different > sense as one who is not > very proud of their own religion can also be a > catalyst to its down fall, it > need be considered as Hinduism will be erased from > the face of the earth, > that is not going to happen, but inspite of 1 > billion people being Hindus > and sheer 20-30 million being Jews, we don't need to > state who hold better > power/saying in the world affairs. > > So, Mr. Gupta's article should not be thrown into a > back burner, but > carefully analysed and necessary steps should be > taken. > > Family Planning: we can certainly have 2-3 children > per hindu family and > have faith that we can certainly provide for their > betterment, if not too > much materialisic gain. That confidence will come > only if there are enough > institurion/hospital, exclusively for Hindus, run by > Hindu communities, that > is the assurance that Hindu Childrens of the future > will be taken care. > These activities are very common in India for > Islamic childrens, and > Christians are equally supportive to their own > community. One need to see > the Nadar Christian community for this, so, they > have no worries making more > childrens, easily 5 per family. Reality is we don't > talk as a community but > as an individual, Let us act as a community and you > can count my > participation in any level. For sure, we have to > abandon the Casteism and > all Hindus are childrens of same Vedic Faith. > > hari om > > Swathi > Hong Kong > > - > Raman Kannan <rrfamily > GV & Shobha Srinivasan > <shobha.srinivasan; <> > Tuesday, February 04, 2003 3:26 AM > Re: Re: Vedas, Hindu > scriptures prohibit casteism > > > > There is a serious flaw in the argument advanced > > by this article. > > The % will go down as the count goes up > > in other communities. > > The number of people who believe in hinduisim > > has not gone down as this article would suggest. > > > > The total number of people has not remained > constant. > > > > Other communities have grown out of proportion > > because majority practice birth control and > > so it happens more hindus practice family planning > > than other communities. > > > > There are other reasons to ponder the rest of > > the argument, but let us not be alarmed by > > declining percentage of hindus in the world > > or India. > > -- > > anandavalli dasan > > --- GV & Shobha Srinivasan > > <shobha.srinivasan wrote: > > > Namaskaram, > > > > > > I do not know how many people could see this > message > > > below from the website. > > > I have cut & paste for devotees who could not > read > > > from the website. > > > > > > This is a very interesting article & hence I am > > > posting the whole article. > > > Some agree & some disagree. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Shobha Srinivasan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://news.sify.com/cgi-bin/sifynews/news/content/news_fullstory_v2.jsp?art > > > > icle_oid=12564633 > > > > > > > > Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By O.P. Gupta > > > > > > Over centuries, the percentage of Hindus in the > > > world and even in India has > > > been declining. The share of Hindus in total > > > population of India was 84.98 > > > percent in the 1951 census, 82.7 percent in > 1971, > > > 82.6 percent in 1981 and > > > 82.41 percent in 1991. > > > > > > In the 2001 census report (table 24), it has > been > > > further revised downwards > > > to 82 per cent in 1991 census. > > > > > > This decline warrants serious introspection and > > > reappraisal of our > > > socio-religious norms. Whereas Islamic and > Christian > > > priests have been > > > working overtime to seek new converts so as to > > > increase their demographic > > > weight, bulk of Hindu priests unaware of > Rigvedic > > > norms but, armed with > > > Manusmriti have been functioning in such manner > over > > > last one thousand that > > > years reduces population of Hindus by making it > > > difficult for a sizeable > > > chunk of Hindus (now called ST/SC/Dalits) to let > > > them remain Hindus with > > > honour and dignity; and, by not seeking new > converts > > > to Hinduism. > > > > > > Concepts like castes by birth, upper/lower > castes, > > > untouchables and dalits > > > are expressly prohibited by Rigveda, Ramayana > and > > > Shrimad Bhagwat Gita. > > > > > > Protagonists of castes by birth cite Purus-Sukta > > > (X.90.12) of Rigveda and > > > slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita. This > claim is > > > totally knocked down by > > > other richas of Rigveda, other slokas of Gita > and > > > examples set by Lord Rama. > > > > > > There is no birth based caste in Rigveda is > evident > > > from simple fact that > > > names of none of Rigvedic rishis carry any > present > > > day caste titles like > > > Pandit, Sharma, Tripathi, Chaturvedi, Trivedi, > > > Singh, Gupta and Namboodari. > > > > > > Vedas, Valmiki Ramayan and Gita are three and > only > > > three supreme religious > > > scriptures of Hindus. Rigveda has revelations to > 414 > > > rishis. Rigveda was > > > composed around 1500 BC but other school > believes it > > > to be older than 5000 > === message truncated === Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.