Re : Atulit Baldhamam - Shani Parihar and Sundar Kanda (Osho Words)

[Guest guest]

Hope there w'd be many wise members with enough study of epics but

however seems nobody has read SundarKand, otherwise, origin and context

of controversial chaupai was presented by members. I am surprised that

nobody has mentioned that the chaupai quoted by Osho is taken from

Sunadar Kanda

 

The people must understand that the context, in which a dialogue between

two patras (characters) begins arguments and counter arguments, such

arguments has momentary significance, Never, no critic takes it as

author's wishfull message, but if somebody has intentions to make

controversy out of the context, instead of the doing an intellectual

healthy criticism of core wisdome of the text, he picks up a sensational

part, like the one Osho has taken.

 

In the description of an incident like a road raze or a scene of fight

when two parties are involved in verbal fighting, a character called

Samudra, doesnt listen to Rama's humble request to give a way to reach

Lanka, lastly, when he is threatened for consequences, Samudra begs

forgiveness from Rama saying - " Oh lord, it's good that i m given lesson

(mind it - " Seekh = learning " ) .

 

Samudra says - " Prabhu Bhal Kinhi, Monhi Seekh Deenhi, Marjada puni

tumhari keenhi, Dhol Ganwar Sudra Pashu Nari, Sakal Tadna Ke Adhikari "

 

Somebody should understand the context, lord Rama had not beaten (beaten

= Tadana) Samudra, but was given a warning, admonishing, Samudra says in

this chaupai, " lord, it's good that i m given a lesson as a drum,

idiot, sudra and women should be given admonishing.

 

Above was not the occasion where Samudra said that, above was not said

either by Rama or Tulasidasa. Pls note that famous shloka that extols

Sri Hanuman Ji - Atulit Baladhamam Hema Shailabhdeham .... is the

written by Tulasi Dasa in the very beginning of sunadar kanda, Osho or

somebody has not commented on that.

 

In another occasion, when Osho wanted to comment on Gandhi, he

criticized goat's milk, these are just ways of expression to achieve a

goal achieved. It's members to decide the validity of making such a

controversy. I wish to make it clear, that I m not against Osho or

anybody but felt there is a need to clarify the matter.

 

Similar things are quoted in western world, John Taylor (1580-1654)

wrote: " A woman, a dog, and a walnut tree,

The more you beat them the better they be. "

 

Utkal.

 

 

Dear All,

Just pasting some words of Osho below.

Regards,

Sreenadh

===================================

To me, just because something is written in a book does not mean that it

has to be right. The criterion for its being right has to be

humanitarian. The Hindu scriptures say that the women have to be

categorized just like animals. The great Hindu saint Tulsidas says that

every woman has to be beaten at least once a week. Just because it is

written by Tulsidas, it does not become a truth. It simply shows the

stupidity of the man, the inhumanity of the man, and his book should be

burned. At least all the women around the country, wherever they find

Tulsidas’ book, should immediately burn it. It is male

chauvinistic. To me, who is not part of any religion, there is no

prejudice. Everything has to be clear-cut and straightforward, no

politics in it. That’s what the Shankaracharya is doing. And

opposing him, another Hindu sannyasin, Swami Agnivesh, is doing the

same. Politics is such a game. It makes people like footballs. Their

interests are different; Agnivesh is against the Shankaracharya. I am

against both, because they are two polarities of the same politics. The

Shankaracharya does not want Hindu harijans to enter into Nath Dwara, a

temple in Rajasthan. And Agnivesh is determined to take a big crowd of

harijans and enter forcibly into the temple, where never in the whole of

history has any harijan been allowed. It is not because of great

compassion that Agnivesh is trying to bring harijans. And the

Shankaracharya is determined that they cannot enter, and he will do

everything to prevent the entry because that will spoil the purity of

the temple. The harijans should see a simple point, that for centuries

Hindus have been entering that temple †" what have they gained

except poverty, slavery, starvation? What are harijans going to gain by

entering in Nath Dwara uninvited, rejected? If they listen to an

unprejudiced approach, they should spit on this temple which has never

in centuries allowed their ancestors to enter. They should refuse. Even

if the Shankaracharya touches their feet and asks them to come into Nath

Dwara, they should not enter such ugly places, so inhuman, so violent

… But the poor harijans will not understand a simple fact: you

have been tortured for ten thousand years and still you go on thinking

of yourselves as Hindu. You are not! Hindus themselves have rejected

you; you are not allowed to enter their temples, you are not allowed to

read their scriptures. On what grounds do they say you are Hindus? They

burn your villages, hundreds of people burned alive †" strangely,

young children, old men. They just save young girls, to rape, and this

has been going on and on for centuries. It is for the harijans to

reject Agnivesh and tell him, “Go and jump into the ocean.

Don’t bother us, we are not Hindus.†And tell the

Shankaracharya, “Why are you unnecessarily making a fuss? Who

wants to enter your temple? Keep your temple!†Harijans should

declare themselves independent from Hindus. They are such a big force

that they will change the whole character of Indian politics. They are

one fourth of all Hindus; one fourth of the power should go to them.

Even Mahatma Gandhi deceived. Before India’s independence, he was

saying that the first president should be a harijan girl. He was

proposing two things: raising the respect towards women and the respect

towards the harijan. And when the country became independent, he forgot

it completely. Again the brahmins, the Nehrus … and they have made

themselves a dynasty. They call it democracy. As an individual, I

don’t belong to any party or to any religion. I am not a

politician and I am not a religious man in the ordinary sense because I

am not Hindu nor Mohammedan nor Christian. I don’t feel that I

have to belong to any organization; I am enough unto myself. And that is

my whole teaching, that you should not belong to any organization; you

are enough. Your splendor has to be independent. The women also have to

come to a conclusive decision that they will not vote for men. Half of

the country belongs to women †" half of the parliament should also

belong to them. They should ask for a separate vote; no woman is going

to vote for any man of any party. It is not a question of party, it is

a question of a long slavery that man has imposed on women. All women

should fight against this slavery. In India, the harijans and the women

are the two most oppressed, insulted, humiliated beings. If they get

together, this country will belong to them. Let these Shankaracharyas

and these Nehrus be forgotten. It is a simple fact that freedom has not

come to the country. Britain has gone but slavery is still here. What

kind of spirituality is it, that does not allow human beings to enter

temples?

(Source:

http://sureslive.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/zen-the-solitary-bird-cuckoo-o\

f-the-forest/

<http://sureslive.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/zen-the-solitary-bird-cuckoo-\

of-the-forest/> )