This refers to article by Ms. Dorothy Anne Masters of London (DV Feb 1, 2010, p. 12) and rejoinder by Gopinath Meppayil (DV April 1. 2010, p.5)
Bhagwat Gita has four and not three Varnas.
Krishna cannot be the author of the Bhagwat Gita. The caste rules of Brahmins do not allow a son of a Yadava, deemed to be a shudra, to narrate the tenets of religion. A shudra cannot teach religion, or even hear the scriptures, let alone preach it. Hundreds of examples can be quoted in this support. So modern scholars like Salunkhe complain that the profile of the Bahujan hero like Krishna was spoilt by the Brahmins
INTERPOLATIONS
So, whatever the Brahmin might have been the author of the Gita, sometimes around the beginning of the Christian era, did he not know that the purush-sukta is the interpolation in the Rigveda? So why he said four instead of three varnas?
Kaegi puts the purush-sukta in the list of interpolations in the Rigveda, and further clarifies:
“The modern, pantheistic Purusha-sukta, 10, 90, ‘the Magna Carta’ of Brahmanism (Haug), which tries to explain and justify the already existing division of the state into the four castes (v. 11 of.: “When they divided the original creature, (Purusha) (I.e. ‘man’), the Brahman was his mouth, the Rajanya became his arms, the Vaishya was his thighs, from his feet sprang the shudra”. [Kaegi: 1972: 180] [Kaegi Adolf, & R Arrowsmith, Amarko Book Agency, New Delhi – 24, First published in India 1972 – original in 1880 second edition]
SATI
That there is only a difference of a small circle on the tip of common slanting dash in Agne and Agre, in Nagari script is well known. The point is who and why put this corruption in the original script of the Rigveda. And still more important point is why and how did the “learned” Brahmins allowed and tolerated this corruption and acted upon and behaved according to the corrupted text for centuries. Who brought the corruption in the Rigveda to the notice of scholars? And why? Why the corrupted texts were not discarded by the religious authorities? Whose duty was this? Who is responsible for acting on the corrupted texts? Or rather, is it still accepted by the authoritative dignitaries like Shankaracharyas and mathadipatis that the texts were corrupted at all, or is it only because the western scholars pointed out, Brahmins now think that the texts were corrupted?
TANTRAS ARE ANTI-BRAHMIN
The Tantras, originally were pure and advising the five Ms. (panch- makkaras). It could be conceded, as Brother Gopinath points out, that the roots of Tantras could be found in Indus Valley Civilization, which was a non-Brahmin, Shramana culture but the bloomed Tantras started sometimes after death of Harshavardhan in the 7th century during the period of decline of Budhism. And the practice Tantras started with the Budhists first and was later taken over by the Brahmins. In any case the Tantras were non-Brahmanic or rather anti- Brahmanic, why were they maligned as obscene and dirty, was because they were Budhists, though it has amply been shown that the real meaning of five MS is entirely different that the literal meaning This is because of the sandhya bhasha used by the Siddhas – the originators of Tantras in 8th to 12th centuries. Same language style could be seen in later Nathas and medieval saints like Guru Kabir and others. The origin of Tara worship started much later around 15th – 16th century due to copying from the Tibetan pantheon of Ugra Tara.
MAHAYANA DESTROYED BUDHISM
The point is why the Brahmins copied the Tantras from the Budhists. We feel that Brahmins started Mahayana to destroy Budhism. The trick did not succeed. So, they started copying the Siddhas and corrupting the original Tantras to literally taking the meaning of five makkaras
Why not see original texts? Brother Gopinath does not like Ms. Dorothy quoting Western scholars, he wants us to use original texts, he thinks the original Rigveda does not mention four varas, he feels the Rigveda does not advise sati but advises widow to go ahead with the brother of the deceased, he feels original Tantras are not supporting women, wine etc. etc.
WHY BLAME BRAHMINS?
Probably he means that the present- day practitioners of religion are to be exonerated for the wrong practice of religion. This argument we hear many times from the supporters of the Brahmin religion. Some people also try to tell us that the texts are out of date or they say the tormenters are not Brahmins who are no more seen in villages, so why blame them.
When Dr. Ambedkar criticized the original texts in his undelivered speech Annihilation of Castes, Gandhi, the Baniya supporter of Brahmanism, took cudgels and argued, saying the texts are not authentic. Then he said who should interpret the texts, not the scholars but the saints and a lot of hocus- pocus.
It is assuring that at least Brother Gopinath does not take that stand. He says use original texts and not commentaries by Western scholars. I have a feeling that using original texts gives a false impression as Brahminical scholars give different interpretations, sometimes even ridiculous ones. The books from Gorakhpur are notorious about it. So, I feel one must use the writings of Western scholars, who interpret the texts as they are practiced.
DOROTHY’S MISTAKES
It must be admitted that there are some minor mistakes in Sister Dorothy’s narration, like including name of Tilak in the list of reformers, assigning the authorship of Manusmriti to Manu instead of to the Brahmin Bhrugu etc. But it must be realized that people like Dorothy or for that matter people like Mahatma Phule or Dr. Ambedkar do not write about Brahmin religion for the sake of fun. They wish the Hindu populace should know the true picture of their slavery due to religion and do something to amend the ways the religion is practiced. It is not surprising that Sister Dorothy finds Hindu concepts confusing.
STOP THESE KUMBHA MELAS
Dr. Ambedkar wrote Riddles of Hinduism, no Brahmanic scholar has yet attempted to solve them She must study Dr. Ambedkar Sister Dorothy talks of many subjects like caste, gods, Sati
Kumbha, Tantras etc. I have dealt with all these subjects elsewhere. [See my Decline & Fall of Buddhism – a tragedy in ancient India, Blumoon Books, New Delhi, 2003 and Devadasis Ancient & Modem, Gyan Books New Delhi, 2005]. Here I only like to ask one thing. That is about Kumbha Melas.
Whatever may have been the rationale of starting Kumbha Melas, what purpose are they serving today except feeding of some officers on the state budget? I know the govt. officers vie with each other to get transferred to that place during the years of Kumbha. Is it not time that some sane brains think of stopping these Melas?
HINDUISM DYING
All said and done, the fact remains that the Hindu religion is fading away. OBC Shiv Dharmi leaders, claim to have parted their ways away from Hinduism, at least in theory. Why? They give ten reasons. Dr. A. H. Salunkhe, the brain behind this new religion, writes: The reasons of denying Brahmanism The reasons behind our declaration are already clear but again as a summery, I mention them below:
- This Hindu religion is not created by us. It has not voluntarily sprung up from amongst us. We have not accepted it ourselves of our free will. It has been thrust upon us from outside.
- We have no authority to frame its rules or to change them as need arises. We have no freedom to analyze it.
- It does not think of our welfare or well-being. But it is tyrannical to us. It erodes away the feeling of humanity from within us.
- It compels us to commemorate the moments of our defeats as our festivals and celebrations
- It impresses on our minds the sanskaras of self-indignity such that we should denounce our own forefathers and worship the immoral forefathers of Brahmins.
- It distorts the History.
7.It does not believe that all people in our own religion are equal as human beings.
- It deprives us from all proper opportunitieas of development.
- It has tortured all those who have tried for our cultural freedom. And this tendency has not changed even now.
- In this religion, there are no sanskaras to give proper respect to women.
Many more reasons could be narrated but as guide lines, these would be enough. From all these reasons, I declare my verdict again that, one thing is certain: This is not our religion.
