Friday, September 15, 2006
Why Koran says all idiolators should be slained.? does that include todays hindus also? why they are so protected from outside thoughts? why they are afraid of their priests? more over why they fear God insted of loving him?Because this teaching was necessary at that period of time because men in that area more like animals than man. They had to be uplifted from that level to a little bit civilised animals to live along with the most prominant cultures of that time which included India.So it doesnt mean that all should follow teachings of Koran. In India people are unknowingly leading a life dipped in spirituality which is spread all across the country which acted as an invsible connecting thread between the different coultures of this country.Thus preserving the teachings of vedas for thousands of years.If not what do think about the power which holded together this nation for milleniums.
For a man who lives in a higher level of spirituality, the teachings meant for a lower level is totally unnecessary. I am not a hindu extremist or an arrogant hindu. But i am speaking the truth which is conveniently not spoken because of fear or politis.
In Indian culture spiritual books are divided into two types.
1.Smruthis,
2.Shruthis,
Smruthis are books containing spiritual information for only a period of time and is meant for people who live in a particular area.It will be dealing with problems and situations of that particular sect of people.If it is applied to another set of people who live in a different place in the same time it may not be of great help to raise them to a higher level of spirituality.
Shrutis are books of knowledge which can be applied to any set of people at any time any where in the world. It deals mainly with improving ones spiritual powers and understanding.It may not be an easy task to follow it accuratly,but if follwed it will defenetly give result to the follower.It will raise him or her to what ever level of spirituality.
If we consider Koran it is meant for a particular time period in Middle East when people were living in utmost chaoes and ignorence.They were more animals than men.
Mohammed was given the knowledge of Koran and he started a new religion which prophesed a much more disciplined life.At that time people were good at doing business and it was the main way of living.
So if we notice we can see lot of mentions about doing good business and how to be a honest businessman.Lot of knowledge was talked in a way which can be understood by a common man who followed a life style of that time
.As countries and cultures were not connected at that time it needed special care to make the teachings acceptable to people of that particular intelligence level. For example Koran says that if god bless man he will be given power to do business through out the year , in heat and cold as well.If we consider hinduism , it is a well known and accepted fact that people who follow thier Sadhana or spiritual practices seriously will attain Sidhis or supernatural abilities which will make them free from sensations of heat and cold.This fact was described in Koran in a way which was understandable to men of limited exposure to other customs cultures and teachings.
It asked materialistic people to donate a percentage of their earning to the poor because such actions were rare among the people at that time.
It even told to Kill /Slaine all the idolators,which was mistook by its followers in a later time.It said so because at that time there were private gods created by the rich and powerful inorder to lute the poor and people used to manipulate everythingwith the help of these private gods.Clans were formed after such kinds of gods and wars were frequent.They were so ignorent ,that they never were able to correct themselves.So the only way to avoid their offensive actions were offense itself. And more imortantly ,people who follwed Mohammed and coverted to Muslims were peace lovers and they feared fighting. Koran made them fight for their survival.
They were shown the mightly powers of Allah when a small no.of them fought a big professional army of powerful enemies. The war was won by muslims and that boosted their confidence.
Nothing mentioned in Koran cannot be said as against god.But we have to understand the it was ment for people of that time mostly.People may say that Koran is full of other things that can be used in this period of time too.But see if the verse'slain all the idolators' is being obeyed by all muslims today.They will have to kill 1/3rd of the earth population.
As we take not of actions of Mohammed , we can understand that the confidence somewhere became overconfidence in him, which later on poured to all muslims fanatics throught out the world. He , later on insisted to fight a war which was easily avoided by staying inside his fort.All the older ones suggested that they need not fight it.but Mohammed insisted that Allah helped them before and will help them now too.Here we can see how he understood the Power of God. In the first time the war was necessary and if they wont win they would have been eliminated.N situations like this throughout history God had helped the poor and needy,like Moses ,Kuchela,Pandavas etc etc. But an intelligent person who understand God will never try to do offense n the name of God.
Actually from this historical blunder Mohammed himself started offense against people what he thought was needed.And fanatic muslims are continuing that practice.But they dont realise that in that fatal war Mohammed was badly wounded which lead to his death later on.
This will happen to them also. This is Gods law.It is written clearly in Koran that ;if one kills a man it is like killing all the people of earth; Why dont they read these sentenceses? i wonder.
In Koran it is written that in the end of time everything will be taken back by god as one unit. This is clearly an indication of the ultimate truth of creation and the building units of everything is the same,which even science cannot deny now.We have to have knowledge about all religions and thoughts . Then only we will be able to compare them and find out a greater meaning which will usually hidden inside these kind of books, which is the real meaning.See what Jesus had said.'perls should not be thrown among pigs' where he ment knowledge should not be given to people who dont deserve it.
Once he was questioned as usual by his enemies on why they cannot have five wives when old testament allowed them five wives. The answer of Jesus is Very imprtant in the above said aspect, He said' it was said so because of the hard ness of your hearts' . This indicated how knowledge is given to man.It is given to men who can digest it.Others who dont understand it may mock it.
To receive divine knowledge preparation of mind and body is necessary.This is a major teaching of Vedas in India.If a man's mind and body is not prepared to receive knowledge he or she may misinterpret it and do lot of unwanted things which they think is correct. For example Mohammed after meditation in a remote place understood the power of silence and detatchment. So he brought a new set of rules among Muslims . He insisted that muslims should move away from entertaining their senses.So he asked them to move away from dance,drama,music etc which is practiced even now by hard core Muslims.This is right in case of a man or woman who is taken the spirituality as their destination and salvation their aim. But for a common man this is dangerous.Without these relaxation methods his mind can become insensitive and dry and will do the opposite to what Mohammed had intended.
As i have heard and understood ,Mohammed is the best example of a man who got divine knowledge without proper prepareaton of body and mind.
In Indian culture there are several methods to detoxify ones body and mind so that enables one to receive devinity. this has been mentioned as Yoga which means joing with the almighty.But if one does not practice it as per rules he or she cannot comment on these methods.I suggest all Indian people should try these methods irrespective of religion or cast.Any way Indians are Indians.All Indian knowledge is for them and for the world.There is nothing like only for Hindus or nothing means that Indian is hindu.India is for knowldege. If you cannot get it from India , there is no use in living in it.
Koran entertains accepting other religions.It says that nothing takes place whithout the knowledge of god.so it tells that all religions are made by God.
I HAVE NO TIME NOW TO COMPLETE THIS . PLEASE READ MY OTHER TWO BLOGS TOO.(WHAT SEMETIC RELIGIONS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT HINDUISM, AND KRISHNA AND GOPIS. )
6:34:22 PM
Posted By chith aravind Comments (22) Society
Comments
lalit Friday, September 15, 2006 7:04:45 PM
ab humko unka chit shuddi karne ka hi kaam hai
jj Friday, September 15, 2006 10:59:17 PM
religion is the life and soul of india. Take away the hindu religion and there will be no india leftlook at hinduism. The very embodiment of variety. where life is a celebration. so many cusines, so many gods, so many holy places, so many holy books, so many dance forms, so many forms of music, so many ways to reach god, So many festivalsHinduism is similar to the rainbowIf a dog looks at the rainbow and barks at its sheer variety and criticizes it in the name of idolatory and other thingswe shouldnt bother. Because that is all the dog knows
raj1057 Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:34:43 PM
Hi chith aravind, a very good and honest attempt to understand the different times and surroundings during which religious thoughts and principles emerged. The fact of the matter is no religion advocates violence as the means to the end. Even in hinduism killing is allowed, only when all attempts of reason has failed and to uphold righteousnous. (Dharma). Defenitely not in the name of Jehad. I only hope our staunch muslim brethern ( iam talking about the indian muslim)realise this and learn to live in peace and harmony with thier hindu counterparts. Congrats once again for a very nice article.
q Friday, September 22, 2006 8:56:11 PM
q
Shahul Wednesday, September 27, 2006 11:35:24 AM
Hi chith aravind... The article was very nice. I totally agree with you to some extend. You have explained that all religion made/created by god. But, religion does not depends on the region. It is for all HUMAN KIND in the EARTH. So, you cannot say that indians should follow Hindu and Arabs should follow Islam.Purity of Gold is not verified by calling it by different names in different languages but rubbing it against a Touchstone. In the same way, gold can be called sona in Hindi, gold in English, dhahaba in Arabic. Inspite of knowing all these different names for gold, if a person wants to sell you his gold jewellery and says this is 24 carat pure sona, you will not blindly believe, without verifying it with a goldsmith. The goldsmith confirms whether it is gold or not with the help of a touchstone. The yellow glittering jewellery may not be gold, because all that glitters is not gold.
Guru Friday, December 15, 2006 12:03:16 PM
Hello Chith Arvind...This is again mis-understood. Quraan never says kills idol worshipper..It has been always taken out of context.If it says so then....The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If Quran mentioned kills idol worshipper then there would have no non-muslim in India today.All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Quraan doesnt say Kills idol worshipper.14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians. Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. If Quraan orders to kill Idol worshipper then how these 14 million catholic christians are Arabs
yash Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:14:23 PM
The religion themselves are not wrong...but the followers are. In every religion there are bad guys. But its really unfortunate that one particular religion has too many of them and they are causing all these problem....
AJMAL RASHID Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:38:40 AM
We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: "Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them". Today if I say that the American President said, "Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them" without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war.
AJMAL RASHID Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:39:57 AM
4. Verse 9:5 quoted to boost morale of Muslims during battleSimilarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur’an says, "Kill the Mushriqs where ever you find them", during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur’an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don’t be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them.5. Shourie jumps from verse 5 to verse 7Arun Shourie is one of the staunchest critics of Islam in India. He quotes the same verse, Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 in his book ‘The World of Fatwahs’, on page 572. After quoting verse 5 he jumps to verse 7 of Surah Taubah. Any sensible person will realise that he has skipped verse 6.
AJMAL RASHID Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:41:41 AM
6. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says:"If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum,grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge."[Al-Qur’an 9:6]The Qur’an not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don’t just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security? This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur’an to promote peace in the world.
AJMAL RASHID Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:42:55 AM
I AM AJMAL RASHID.A DISCIPLE OF DR. ZAKIR NAIK.I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD QURAAN VERY WELL.WHAT U ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THE VERSE OF SURAH TAUBA."Kill the mushriqeen (pagans, polytheists, kuffar) where ever you find them."[Al-Qur’an 9:5]2. Context of verse is during battlefieldCritics of Islam actually quote this verse out of context. In order to understand the context, we need to read from verse 1 of this surah. It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriqs (pagans) of Makkah. This treaty was violated by the Mushriqs of Makkah. A period of four months was given to the Mushriqs of Makkah to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them. Verse 5 of Surah Taubah says:"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most merciful."[Al-Qur’an 9:5]This verse is quoted during a battle.
AJMAL RASHID Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:56:43 AM
SO I REQUEST U TO READ QURAAN AND NOT THE BOOKS OF THE CRITICS BEFORE WRITING ANY THING AGAINST ISLAM OR QURAAN.AND WHAT ARE U TALKING ABOUT THE VEDAS.THESE UPPER CASTE AND LOWER CASTE IS A MONOPOLY OF HINDUISM.VEDAS TEACH THAT SHUDRA WEREW CREATED FROMN THE LEGS OF GOD AND THE BRAHMANS FROM THE HEAD.VEDAS PRWEACH THAT THE DALITS ARE UNTOUCHABLES.U CAN GET HUNDREDS OF SUCH REFERENCES FROM THE UPANISHADS,THE VEDAS AND THE MAHA BHARATA.ISLAM AND QURAAN PREACHES THAT NO ARAB IS SUPERIOR THAN ANY NON ARAB OR ANY NON ARAB SUPERIOR TO ANY ARAB.IT STARTYED THE FUNDAMENTAKLS OF HUMAN RIGHTS.AND AFTER THAT U TRY TO BEFOOL OTHERS BY SAYING THAT SHUDRAS COULD ALSO BECOME BRAHMANS BY THEIR WORKS.THEN I ASK U "IS ANY WORK SMALL OR BIG".IS CLEANING OF TOILETS SMALL WORK .WHOM DO U TRY TO BEFOOL.?????
AJMAL RASHID Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:00:49 PM
AND IT IS OPEN TRUTH THAT EVEN TODAY THEY CAN NOT ENTER UR TEMPLKES.THE EDITOR OF DALIT VOICE,MR V T RAJSHEKHAR WRITES THAT THEY ARE BEING BEFOOLED BY SAYING THAT THEY ARE HINDUS.THEY ARE ONLY ENTITLED HINDUS FOR THE SAKE OF VOTE BANK
chith1890 Monday, April 16, 2007 2:49:13 PM
asdf asdf
chith1890 Monday, April 16, 2007 2:55:12 PM
Dear Ajmal rashid,I can understand your frustration and rage.I agree with you regarding what is written about violence. That is why i say that for a new and calm world the teachings are not necessary if it is not interpreted by intelligent people. The reason you can see around you.All the wars and terrorism and killings has connection with the name Muslim.You cannot deny it.if so you are not a person worth talking to.Try to open up and see
Irshad4u Monday, April 16, 2007 2:55:39 PM
Very Well Said Ajmal
chith1890 Monday, April 16, 2007 2:56:28 PM
Dear Ajmal rashid,I can understand your frustration and rage.I agree with you regarding what is written about violence. That is why i say that for a new and calm world the teachings are not necessary if it is not interpreted by intelligent people.
chith1890 Monday, April 16, 2007 2:59:42 PM
Dear Ajmal rashid,I can understand your frustration and rage.I agree with you regarding what is written about violence. That is why i say that for a new and calm world the teachings are not necessary if it is not interpreted by intelligent people. The reason you can see around you.All the wars and terrorism and killings has connection with the name Muslim.You cannot deny it.if so you are not a person worth talking to.Try to open up and see that there are different paths to god.For people like me there is nothing which is helpful in Islam to make my mind evolve to god.But modern physics like theory of relativity and the mysicism of Budhists and vedas give me lot of space and hope.It is again your lack of understanding about vedas and cast system make you think that work is the basis of division. in the modern world you can see this division everywhere.those who are aiming to purify their minds and body are brahmins of course. if you restrain from meat eating and meditation for long periods and live according to the instructions of veda you will also become brahmin.but hindus also misinterpreted it and priests used it to take advantage for themselves. But thank god they didnt ask anyone to fight holywar and kill innocents. Even n Muslims this cast system is evident.According to todays muslims Arabs of saudi are higher than others .Indian muslims are not even considered as muslims.there is shiya sunni.Sufism the only real path with a depth is really ignored.
Irshad4u Monday, April 16, 2007 3:27:08 PM
To chith1890 "If you want your life to be more rewarding, you have to change the way you think."Irshad
chith1890 Monday, April 16, 2007 4:12:06 PM
Dear Ajmal rashid,I can understand your frustration and rage.I agree with you regarding what is written about violence. That is why i say that for a new and calm world the teachings are not necessary if it is not interpreted by intelligent people.
chith1890 Monday, April 16, 2007 4:19:48 PM
I am absolutly sure of how to get rewarded mr isshad.And i dont fear god like you people do. and i dont need the heaven that you are hoping for.I am free and you dont understand that freedom. Dont live life only for rewards. there is a life and deep thoughts of sciece and culture other than you know which practices what it propheces. Which teaches to love all and love the nature and respect the living and the dead because ther is no dead matter in this universe.But people who live like any other animal in the world wont understnad it .Excuse me brother..pls try to broaden your minds.I know it is impossible for you to understand me.But for the wise this will benefit.
MKB Monday, September 3, 2007 6:55:56 PM
Arre bhai, 101 times yeh discussion has been held on this nonsense ndtv blogsite, now u r starting again? Please take a poopcee and do something else
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
dont forget to read the bbook the ridles on rama and krishna by father of our constituton none other than the real great reformer b.r.ambedkar
The Riddle Of Rama And Sita
Quoted from: Appendix No.1 of Part 3 of the book
Riddles of Hinduism 1995
By Dr. Babasaheb B.R.Ambedkar
Ravana was a Buddhist and considered by Dalits as a great hero. He did so much for Sita, who herself had praised Ravana. But the Hindu scriptures have called him a Rakshasa attributing all evils to him. Not only that. Every year during the Ram lila. Ravana is burnt. Dalits have tolerated all of this. They have also tolerated the Ramayana TV serial ridiculing their other tribal hero, Hanuman, as a monkey.
The Riddles in Hinduism is a scholarly work by the greatest intellectual of India, though an Untouchable. The text of his writings on Rama and Krishna are based on Hindu scriptures.
THE RIDDLE OF RAMA AND KRISHNA
Rama is the hero of the Ramayana whose author is Valmiki. The story of the Ramayana is a very short one. Besides it is simple and in itself there is nothing sensational about it.
Rama is the son of Dasharatha, the king of Ayodhya, the modern Banares. Dasharatha had three wives, Kausalya, Kaikeyi and Sumitra besides several hundred concubines. Kaikeyi had married Dasharatha on terms which were at the time of marriage unspecified and which Dasharatha was bound to fulfill whenever he was called upon by Kaikeyi to do so.
Dasharatha was childless for a long time. An heir to the throne was ardently desired by him. Seeing that he was unable to have a son with any of his three wives he decided to perform a Putreshti Yajna and called the sage Shrung at the sacrifice who prepared pandas and gave the three wives of Dasharatha to eat them. After they ate the pandas the three wives became pregnant and gave birth to sons. Kausalya gave birth to Rama, Kaikeyi gave birth to Bharatha and Sumitra gave birth to two sons, Laxman and Satrughana. In due course Rama was married to Sita.
When Rama came of age, Dasharatha thought of resigning the throne in favour of Rama and retiring from kingship. While this was being settled Kaikeyi raised the question of rendering her satisfaction of the terms on which she had married Dasharatha. On being asked to state her terms she demanded that her son Bharata should be installed on the throne in preference to Rama and that Rama should live in the forest for 12 years. Dasharatha, with great reluctance, agreed. Baharata became king of Ayodhya and Rama accompanied by his wife Sita and his step brother Laxman went to live in the forest.
Ravana, the king of Lanka, kidnapped Sita and took her away and kept her in his palace intending to make her one of his wives. Rama and Laxman than started search of Sita. On the way they meet Sugriva and Hanuman, two leading personages of the Vanara (monkey) race and formed friendship with them. With their help they marched on Lanka, defeated Ravana in the battle and rescued Sita. Rama returned with Laxman and Sita to Ayodhya. By the time twelve years had elapsed and the term prescribed by Kaikeyi was fulfilled, with the result that Bharata gave up the throne and in his place Rama became the king of Ayodhya.
Such is the brief outline of the story of the Ramayana as told by Valmiki.
There is nothing in this story to make Rama the object of worship. He is only a dutiful son. But Valmiki saw something extraordinary in Rama and that is why he undertook to compose the Ramayana. Valmiki asked Narada the following question:
Tell me Oh! Narada, who is the most accomplished man on earth at the present time?" And then he goes on to elaborate what he means by accomplished man. He defines his accomplished man as:
"Powerful, one who knows the secret of religion, one who knows gratitude, truthful, one who is ready to sacrifice his self interest even when in distress to fulfill a religious vow, virtuous in his conduct, eager to safeguard the interests of all, strong, pleasing in appearance with power of self-control, able to subdue anger, illustrious, with no jealousy for the prosperity of others, and in war able to strike terror in the hearts of Gods."
Narada then asks for time to consider and after mature deliberation tells him that the only person who can be said to possess these virtues is Rama, the son of Dasharatha.
It is because of his virtues that Rama has come to be defied. But is Rama a worthy personality of deification? Let those who accept him as an object of worship as a God consider the following facts:
Rama's birth is miraculous and it may be that the suggestion that he was born from a pinda prepared by the sage Shrung is an allegorical gloss to cover up the naked truth that he was begotten upon Kausalya by the sage Shrung, although the two did not stand in the relationship of husband and wife. In any case his birth, if not disreputable in its origin, is certainly unnatural.
There are other incidents connected with the birth of Rama the unsavory character of which it will be difficult to deny.
Valmiki starts his Ramayana by emphasizing the fact that Rama is an Avatar of Vishnu, and it is Vishnu who agreed to take birth as Rama and be the son of Dasharatha. The God Brahma came to know of this and felt that in order that this Rama Avatar of Vishnu be a complete success, arrangement shall be made that Rama shall have powerful associates to help him and cooperate with him. There were none existing then.
The Gods agreed to carry out the command to Brahma and engaged themselves in wholesale acts of fornication not only against Apsaras who were prostitutes, not only against the unmarried daughters of Yakshas and Nagas but also against the lawfully wedded wives of Ruksha, Vidhyadhar, Gandharvas, Kinnars and Vanaras and produced the Vanaras who became the associates of Rama.
Rama's birth is thus accompanied by general debauchery if not in his case certainly in the case of his associates. His marriage to Sita is not above comment. According to Buddha Ramayana, Sita was the sister of Rama, both were the children of Dasharatha. The Ramayana of Valmiki does not agree with the relationship mentioned in Buddha Ramayana. According to Valmiki, Sita was the daughter of the king Janaka of Videha and therefore not a sister of Rama. This is not convincing for even according to Valmiki she is not the natural born daughter of Janaka but a child found by a farmer in his field while ploughing it and was presented by him to king Janaka and brought up by Janaka. It was therefore in a superficial sense that Sita could be said to be daughter of Janaka.
The story in the Buddha Ramayana is natural and not inconsistent with the Aryan rules of marriage. If the story is true, then Rama's marriage to Sita is no ideal to be copied.
In another sense Rama's marriage was not an ideal marriage which could be copied. One of the virtues ascribed to Rama is that he was monogamous. It is difficult to understand how such a notion could have become common. For it has no foundation in fact. Even Valmiki refers to the many wives of Rama. These were of course in addition to his many concubines. In this he was the true son of his nominal father Dasharatha who had not only the wives referred to above but many others.
Let us next consider his character as an individual and as a king.
In speaking of him as an individual, I will refer to only two incidents - one relating to his treatment of Vali and other relating to his treatment of his own wife Sita. First, let us consider the incident of Vali.
Vali and Sugriva were two brothers. They belonged to the Vanar race and came from a ruling family, which had its own kingdom the capital of which was Kishkindha. At the time when Sita was kidnapped by Ravana, Vali was reigning at Kishkindha. While Vali was on the throne he was engaged in a war with a Rakshasa by name Mayavi. In the personal combat between the two, Mayavi ran for his life. Both Vali and Sugriva pursued him. Mayavi entered into a deep cavity in the earth. Vali asked Sugriva to wait at the mouth of the cavity and he went inside. After sometime a flood of blood came from inside the cavity. Sugriva concluded that Vali must have been killed by Mayavi and came to Kishkindha and got himself declared king in place of Vali and made Hanuman his Prime Minister.
As a matter of fact, Vali was not killed. It was Mayavi who was killed by Vali. Vali came out of the cavity but did not find Sugriva there. He proceeded to Kishkindha and to his great surprise he found that Sugriva had proclaimed himself king. Vali naturally became enraged at this act of treachery on the part of his brother Sugriva and he had good ground to be. Sugriva should have ascertained, should not merely have assumed, that Vali was dead. Secondly, Vali had a son by name Angad whom Sugriva should have made the king as the ligitimate heir of Vali. He did neither of the two things. His was a clear case of usurpation. Vali drove out Sugriva and took back the throne. The two brothers became mortal enemies.
This occurred just after Ravana had kidnapped Sita. Rama and Laxman were wandering in search of her. Sugriva and Hanuman were wandering in search of friends who could help them regain the throne from Vali. The two parties met quite accidentally. After informing each other of their difficulties, a pact was arrived at between the two. It was agreed that Rama should help Sugriva to kill Vali and to establish him on the throne of Kishkinda. On the part of Sugriva and Hanuman it was agreed that they should help Rama to regain Sita. To enable Rama to fulfill his part of the pact it was planned that Sugriva should wear a garland around his neck as to be easily distinguishable to Rama from Vali and that while the duel was going on Rama should conceal himself behind a tree and then shoot an arrow at Vali and kill him. Accordingly a duel was arranged, Sugriva with a garland around his neck, while the duel was on, Rama, standing behind a tree, shot Vali with his arrow and opened the way for Surgiva to be the king of Kiskinda.
This murder of Vali is the greatest blot on the character of Rama. It was a crime which was thoroughly unprovoked, for Vali had no quarrel with Rama. It was a most cowardly act, for Vali was unarmed. It was a planned and premeditated murder.
Consider his treatment of his own wife Sita. With the army collected for him by Sugriva and Hanuman, Rama invades Lanka. There too he plays the same mean part as he did between the two brothers, Vali and Sugriva. He takes the help of Vibhishana, the brother of Ravana, promising him to kill Ravana and his son and place him on the vacant throne. Rama kills Ravana and his son Indrajit. The first thing Rama does after the fight was to give a descent burial to the dead body of Ravana. Thereafter he interested himself in the coronation of Vibhishana and it was after the coronation that he sends Hanuman to Sita to inform her that he, Laxman and Sugriva have killed Ravana.
Even when the coronation was over he did not go himself but he sent Hanuman. And what was the message he sent him with? He did not ask Hanuman to bring her. He asked him to inform her that he was hale and hearty. It was Sita who expressed to Hanuman her desire to see Rama. Rama did not go to see Sita, his own wife who was kidnapped and confined by Ravana for more than 10 months. Sita went to him and what did Rama say to Sita when he saw her? It would be difficult to believe any man with ordinary human kindness could address his wife in such dire distress as Ram did to Sita when he met her at Lanka if there was not the direct authority of Valmiki. This is how Rama addressed het:
"I have got you as a prize in a war after conquering my enemy, your captor. I have recovered my honour and punished my enemy. People have witnessed my military powers and I am glad my labours have been rewarded. I came here to kill Ravana and wash off the dishonour. I did not take this trouble for your sake."
Could there be anything more cruel than this conduct of Rama towards Sita? He does not stop there. He proceeded to tell her:
"I suspect your conduct. You must have been spoiled by Ravana. Your very sight is revolting to me. Oh you daughter of Janaka! I allow you to go anywhere you like. I have nothing to do with you. I conquered you back and I am content for that was my object. I cannot think that Ravana would have failed to enjoy a woman as beautiful as you are."
Quite naturally Sita calls Rama low and mean and tells him quite plainly that she would have committed suicide and saved him all this trouble if when Hanuman first came he had sent her a message that he had abandoned her on the ground that she was kidnapped. To give him no excuse Sita undertakes to prove her purity. She enters the fire and comes out unscathed. The Gods satisfied with this evidence, proclaim that she is pure. It is then that Rama agrees to take her back to Ayodhya.
And what does he do with her when he brings her back to Ayodhya? Of course, he became king and she became queen. But while Rama remained king, Sita ceased to be queen very soon. This incident reflects great infamy upon Rama. It is recorded by Valmiki in his Ramayana that some days after the coronation of Rama and Sita as king and queen, Sita conceived. Seeing that she was carrying some residents of evil disposition began to calumniate Sita suggesting that she was in Lanka and blaming Rama for taking such a woman back as his wife. This malicious gossip in the town was reported by Bhadra, the Court joker, to Rama. Rama evidently was stung by this calumny. He was overwhelmed with a sense of disgrace. This is quite natural. What is quite unnatural is the means he adopts of getting rid of this disgrace. To get rid of this disgrace he takes the shortest cut and the swiftest means - namely to abandon her, a woman in a somewhat advanced state of pregnancy in a jungle, without friends, without provision, without even notice - in a most treacherous manner. There is no doubt that the idea of abandoning Sita was not sudden and had not occurred to ram on the spur of the moment. The genesis of the idea, the developing of it and the plan of executing are worth some detailed mention.
When Bhadra reports to him the gossip about Sita which had spread in the town, Rama calls his brothers and tells them of his feelings. He tells them Sita's purity and chastity was proved in Lanka, that Gods had vouched for it and that he absolutely believed in her innocence, purity and chastity. "All the same the public are calumniating Sita and are blaming me and putting me to shame. No one can tolerate such disgrace. Honour is a great asset; Gods as well as great men strive to maintain it. I cannot bear this dishonour and disgrace. To save myself from such dishonour and disgrace I shall be ready even to abandon you. Don't think I shall hesitate to abandon Sita."
This shows that he was making up his mind to abandon Sita as the easiest way of saving himself from public calumny without considering whether the way was fair or foul. The life of Sita simply did not count. What counted was his own personal name and fame. He of course does not take the manly course of defending his wife and stopping the gossip, which as a king he could have done and which as a husband who was convinced of his wife's innocence he was supposed to do. He yielded to the public gossip and there are not wanting Hindus who use this as ground to prove that Rama was a democratic king when others could equally well say that he was a weak and cowardly monarch. Be that as it may that diabolical plan of saving his name and his fame he discloses to his brother but not to Sita, the only person who was affected by it and the only person who was entitled to have notice of it. But she is kept entirely in the dark. Rama keeps it away from Sita as a closely guarded secret and was waiting for an opportunity to put his plan into action. Eventually the cruel fate of Sita gives him the opportunity he was waiting for. Women who are carrying exhibit all sorts of cravings for all sorts of things. Rama knew of this. So one day he asked Sita if there was anything for which she was craving. She replied that she would like to live in the vicinity of the Ashrama of a sage on the bank of the river Ganges and live on fruits and roots at least for one night. Rama simply jumped at the suggestion of Sita and said, "Be easy my dear, I shall see that you are sent there tomorrow". Sita treats this as an honest promise. But what does Rama do? He thinks it is a good opportunity for carrying out his plan of abandoning Sita. Accordingly he called his brothers to a secret conference and disclosed to them his determination to use this desire of Sita as the opportunity to carry out the plan of abandoning her. He tells his brothers not to intercede on behalf of Sita, and warns them that if they came in his way he would look upon them as his enemies. Then he tells Laxman to take Sita in a chariot next day to the Ashram in the jungle on the bank of the river Ganges and to abandon her there. Laxman did not know how he could muster courage to tell Sita what was decided by Rama. Sensing his difficulty Rama informs Laxman that Sita had already expressed her desire to spend some time in the vicinity of an Ashram on the bank of the river and eased the mind of Laxman. This confabulation took place at night. Next morning Laxman asked Sumanta to yoke the horses to the chariot. Sumanta informs Laxman of having already done so. Laxman then goes into the palace and meets Sita and reminds her of her having expressed the desire to pass some days in the vicinity of an Ashrama and Rama having promised to fulfill the same and tells her of his having been charged by Rama to do the needful in the matter. He points to her the chariot waiting there and says, "Let us go!" Sita jumps into the chariot with her heart full of gratitude to Rama. With Laxman as her companion and Sumanta as coachman, the chariot proceeds to its appointed place. At last, they were on the bank of the Ganges and were ferried across by the fishermen. Laxman fell at Sita's feet, and with hot tears flowing from his eyes he said, "Pardon me, O, blameless queen, for what I am doing. My orders are to abandon you here, for the people blame Rama for keeping you in his house".
Sita, abandoned by Rama and left to die in a jungle, went for shelter to the Ashrama of Valmiki, which was near about. Valmiki gave her protection and kept her in his Ashram. There in course of time, Sita gave birth to twin sons, called Kusa and Lava. The three lived with Valmiki. Valmiki brought up the boys and taught them to sing the Ramayana which he had composed. For 12 years the boys lived in the forest in the Ashrama of Valmiki not far from Ayodhya where Rama continued to rule. Never once in those 12 years this 'model husband and loving father' cared to inquire what had happened to Sita - whether she was living or whether she was dead. Twelve years after Rama meets Sita in a strange manner. Rama decided to perform a Yagna and issued an invitation to all the Rishis to attend and take part. For reasons best known to Rama himself no invitation was issued to Valmiki although his Ashram was near to Ayodhya. But Valmiki came to the Yagna of his own accord accompanied by the two sons of Sita introducing them as his disciples. While the Yagna was going on the two boys were used to perform recitations of Ramayana in the presence of the Assembly. Rama was very pleased and made inquiries, and he was informed that they were the sons of Sita. It was then he remembered Sita and what does he do then? He does not send for Sita. He calls these innocent boys who knew nothing about their parents' sin, who were the only victims of a cruel destiny, to tell Valmiki that if Sita was pure and chaste she could present herself in the Assembly to take a vow and thereby remove the calumny cast against herself and himself. This is a thing she had once done in Lanka. This is a thing she could have been asked to do again before she was sent away. There was no promise that after this vindication of her character Rama was prepared to take her back. Valmiki brings her to the Assembly. When she was in front of Rama, Valmiki said, "O, son of Dashratha, here is Sita whom you abandoned in consequence of public disapprobation. She will now swear her purity if permitted by you. Here are your twin-born sons raised up by me in my hermitage". "I know", said Rama, "that Sita is pure and that these are my sons. She performed an ordeal in Lanka in proof of her purity and therefore I took her back. But people here have doubts still, and let Sita perform an ordeal here that all these Rashis and people may witness it".
With eyes cast down on the ground and with hands folded Sita swore "As I never thought out of anyone except Rama even in my mind, let mother Earth open and bury me. As I always loved Rama in words, in thoughts, and in deed, let mother Earth open and bury me!" As she uttered the oath, the earth verily opened and Sita was carried away inside seated on a golden simhasana (throne). Heavenly flowers fell on Sita's head while the audience looked on as in a trance.
That means that Sita preferred to die rather than return to Rama who had behaved no better than a brute.
Such is the tragedy of Sita and the crime of Rama the God.
Let me throw some search light on Rama the King.
Rama is held out as an ideal King. But can that conclusion be said to be found in fact?
As a matter of fact Rama never functions as a king. He was a normal King. The administration, as Valmiki, states, was entrusted to Bharata, his brother. He had freed himself from the cares and worries about his kingdom and subjects.
Valmiki has very minutely described the daily life of Rama after he became King. According to that accounts, the day was divided into two parts, up to forenoon and afternoon. From morning to forenoon he was engaged in performing religious rites and ceremonies and offering devotion. The afternoon he spent alternately in the company of Court jesters and in the Zenana. When he got tired of jesters he went back to the Zenana. Valmiki also gives a detailed description of how Rama spent his life in the Zenana. This Zenana was housed in a park called Ashoka Vana. There Rama used to tale his meals. The food, according to Valmiki, consisted of all kinds of delicious viands. They included flesh and fruits and liquor. Rama was not a teetotaler. He drank liquor copiously and Valmiki records that Rama saw to it that Sita joined with him in his drinking bouts. From the description of the Zenana of Rama as given by Valmiki it was by no means a mean thing. There were Apsaras, Uraga and Kinnari accomplished in dancing and singing. There were other beautiful women brought from different parts. Rama sat in the midst of these women drinking and dancing. They pleased Rama and Rama garlanded them. Valmiki calls Ram as a 'Prince among women's men'. This was not a day's affair. It was a regular course of his life.
As has already been said Rama never attended to public business. He never observed the ancient rule of Indian kings of hearing the wrongs of his subjects and attempting to redress them. Only one occasion has been recorded by Valmiki when he personally heard the grievance of his subjects. But unfortunately the occasion turned out to be a tragic one. He took upon himself to redress the wrong but in doing so committed the worst crime that history has ever recorded.
The incident is known as the murder of Sambuka, the Shudra. It is said by Valmiki that in Rama's reign there were no premature deaths in his kingdom. It happened, however, that a certain Brahman's son died in a premature death. The bereaved father carried his body to the gate of the king's palace, and placing it there, cried aloud and bitterly reproached Rama for the death of his son, saying that it must be the consequence of some sin committed within his realm, and that the king himself was guilty if he did not punish it; and finally threatened to end his life there by sitting on a dharana (hunger-strike) against Rama unless his son was restored to life. Rama thereupon consulted his council of eight learned Rishis, and Narada amongst them told Rama that some Shudra among his subjects must have been performing Tapasya (ascetic exercises), and thereby going against Dharma (sacred law), for according to it, the practice of Tapasya was proper to the twice-born alone, while the duty of the Shudras consisted only in the service of the "twice-born". Rama was thus convinced that it was the sin committed by a Shudra in transgressing Dharma in that manner, which was responsible for the death of the Brahmin boy.
So, Rama mounted his aerial car and scoured the countryside for the culprit. At last, in a wild region far away to the south he espied a man practicing rigorous austerity of a certain kind. He approached the man, and with no more ado than to enquire of him and inform himself that he was a Shudra, by name Sambuka who was practicing Tapasya with a view to going to heaven in his own earthly person and without so much as a warning, expostulation or the like addressed to him, cut off his head. And lo and behold! At that very moment the dead Brahman boy in distant Ayodhya began to breathe again. Here in the wilds the Gods rained flowers on the king from their joy at his having prevented a Shudra from gaining admission to their celestial abode through the power of the Tapasya which he had no right to perform. They also appeared before Rama and congratulated him on his deed. In answer to his prayer to them to revive the dead Brahman boy lying at the palace gate in Ayodhya, they informed him that he had already come to life. They then departed. Rama thence proceeded to the Ashrama, which was nearby, of the sage Agastya, who commended the step he had taken with Sambuka, and presented him with a divine bracelet. Rama then returned to his capital.
Such is Rama.
adopted from : http://www.raceandhistory.com/worldhotspots/riddlerama.htm
Saffronization,Hinduization
Or Brahminization?
By Dr. K. Jamanadas
01 December, 2004
Countercurrents.org
These days everybody talks of "Hindutva", they say Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life. What are these concepts? What is the difference? Why this difference? These are questions the Bahujans, SC/ST and religious minorities should ponder over. All these acrobatics in phraseology, are they not just to maintain supremacy of Brahmins? Ranjit Pardeshi has discussed all such issues.
Instead of Hinduization, the other word some times used is 'saffronization''. May be due to RSS flag being of saffron color, this word came in vogue to suggest the effect of Sangh. But even this word conceals the concept of the Sangh. After all, saffron is the color of many other flags not necessarily of RSS ideology. Even the color of robes of Buddhist monks could be saffron. Therefore, neither Safronization nor Hinduization denotes the true concepts the R.S.S. The proper word must be Brahminization.
RSS attempts to reverse the ideology of Phule Ambedkar
Inequality in Hinduism is well known, we do not need to refer to 'shastras' to learn about that. All of the suffering masses know it. To combat this inequality, Mahatma Phule suggested 'satya dharma' and Ambedkar accepted Buddhism as the alternative. Phule and Ambedkar's alternative to Hinduism was based on anti-women-slavery, analysis of Brahmin religion, equality for all, anti caste, anti-brahmin shastras and ignoring idea of god.
The RSS activists equate the Phule Ambedkar's ideas with the Renaissance in Hindu religion,which they claim was brought about by people like Swami Vivekananda and Arbindo etc. During early years of his struggle against Hinduism, Ambedkar DID say that Hindu religion needs reforms. On the basis of that RSS now claims that Ambedkar was also a 'Reformer of Hindu religion'. As a matter of fact, Ramesh Patrange, in his 'Dr. Hedgewar aani Dr. Ambedkar' gives an editorial in 'Bahishkrut Bharat' dated 21st December, 1928 as a whole appendix. In that editorial Dr. Ambedkar had narrated the ill effects of caste system and observed that if you have to avoid the destruction of Hindu religion, you must get rid of Caste System. This perhaps in the eyes of RSS is 'Reformer of Hindu religion' and doing same work as Dr. Hedgewar. Thousand and one times Dr. Ambedkar had said that we - the Dalits - are not interested in reforming Hinduism, but the RSS has got selective amnesia about Ambedkar's teachings and they never project such quotes of Ambedkar. This is one aspect of Hinduization. It is note worthy that RSS never refers to Ambedkar's criticism on Brahminism. They always call it reform of 'Hindu' religion and not Brahmin religion.
The other aspect of Hinduization is whatever Ambedkar said about Islam to show the differences from Brahminism is construed to wrongly project Ambedkar as having anti-Islamic convictions.
It must be remembered in both these examples it is the preservation of vested interest of higher castes that is involved. But it is projected as interests of whole 'Hindu' religion and 'Hindu' people. What Samarasata Manch is doing is the glorification of 'Hindu' identity and propagation of hate of 'Muslim' identity, and their real interest is welfare of higher castes. This internal aspect of Samarasata is always concealed. What they show is just an external aspect like religion, religious symbols, mandir masjid etc.
Because of the concealment of inner real aspects of so called Safronization or Hinduization, the criticism against it is limited to external symbolism and thus RSS succeeds in their politics. They can now take political advantages by limiting the discussion to 'Hindu vs. Buddhists' or 'Hindu vs. Secularists' or 'Hindu vs. Muslims', and never 'Hindu vs. Brahmins', which should be the real contradiction and which was brought forward by Phule, Shahu, Periyar and Ambedkar. It is the duty of Ambedkarite movement -- a movement for transformation of society -- to project these contradictions.
Internal aims are concealed
Because of the projection of only external aspects in contradiction, the RSS can depict religious minorities or secularists as enemies of the majority Hindu 'Nation'. For example, the upper castes, to safeguard their interests with the capitalists or feudal landlords, involve the lower class / caste 'Hindus' in conflict with the anti-Muslim politics. They declare the leftists both Dalit as well as non-Dalit as 'Appeasers of Muslims', and thus gain the sympathy of majority of 'Hindus' And the Dalits or Non-Dalit Lower castes and even the Muslims do not realize the game-plan of RSS and remain divided against their real enemy.
Babari Masjid -- Ram janma bumi contradictions
What is the real contradiction in "Babari masjid Ram janma bhumi" conflict? It appears externally as religious conflict for religious symbolism between the symbols of Hindus and those of Muslims. But is it really so? The real internal conflict is the caste conflict. How many lower caste non-dalits (OBCs) realize this? When V. P. Singh tried to implement Mandal Commission recommendations for the benefit of OBCs, the RSS started the Rathyatra to scuttle this movement. Everybody will remember the words of Bajpai that time, 'because they started Mandal, we started Kamandal', which he said in an open interview. (Dharmayug, 90, q/b Pardeshi p. 15)
Phule denigrated
Second example can be cited of Gangal and Behre criticizing Mahatma Phule as 'foul smelling dirt' about ten years ago. This was the reaction of the conservative upper caste middle class elitists against the Bahujan castes. When protests were made against this by the people in movements against caste, Senior leader of RSS, Gopinath Munde opposed this stand with the backing of second third level workers of lower castes like Dhangar, Mali, Vanjari and other OBCs, under the Brahminic leadership of the Sangh.
Conflict of Riddles misrepresented
When Dr. Ambedkar wrote the Riddles of Rama and Krishna, he utilized the symbolism of Rama and Krishna to represent the Brahminical social order of Chaturvarnya with 'Brahmin' supremacy and not as the symbol caste of Kshatriyas. The movements of transformation, failed to bring forward this aspect of Ambedkar to the 'Hindu' masses and therefore it became easy for RSS to project Ambedkar's writings as an attack on 'Hindu' gods and goddesses, and they succeeded in organizing huge masses of 'Hindu' OBCs against the Dalit Buddhist organizations, with consequent aftermath.
All these are the examples of Brahminization, but are purposefully and wrongly termed and projected as Hinduization or saffronization, thereby shifting the emphasis The real concept that must be projected is that of Brahminization and not Hinduization or Safronization It is absolutely necessary to bring forward the contradictions among the Bahujans and Upper Caste Hindus. Otherwise, it becomes easy for the Sangh forces to bring the common masses under the name of 'Hindu religion' and utilize them against those who want social transformation. The forces acting in Hinduization are not the 'Hindu' Bahujans, but the Brahminic 'Alpajans'. This can be brought forward only by the concept of Brahminization. For that purpose it is necessary to preserve the ideals and idols of our great dignitaries like Phule, Shahu, Periyar Ambedkar etc.
Polarization of society
It must be understood that it is always beneficial for the RSS and the makers of the caste to divide and achieve the polarization of society in two warring groups - 'Hindu' and 'non-Hindu'. The elite Brahmins can then maintain their upper caste grip over the lower caste 'Hindus',-- the Bahujans --, in the guise of expressing the glorification of Hindu identity as opposed to that of Christians, Buddhists and Muslims. This provides them good opportunity for the purpose. Chatrapati Shivaji who was a 'kulvaadi-bhushan' (pride of lower caste kulvaadis), as described by Mahatma Phule,as he came from peasants shudra caste, and rose to power by his own merit and valor. He is now wrongly projected by the Brahminic historians as 'go-brahmin-pratipalak' (protector of cows and Brahmins), which he never was, as proved by Shejwalkar by examining the original letters of Shivaji. It was not Shivaji who called himself 'go-brahman-pratipalak', but it were the Brahmins who called him so, when they approached him for favors. In the coronation seal also it is mentioned 'kshatriya kulvantas' and not 'go-brahmin-pratipalak' The kingdom he established was egalitarian but the Brahmin historians call him founder of 'hindu paatshahi'. They also project it was a kingdom of "Shree", some times they projected Ramdas as Shivaji's guru. Enough has been written to disprove these imaginary stories. Shivaji was never against the Muslims, but they project him as enemy of Muslims and use his name as a symbol for opposing the Muslim identity and instigate the lower caste Bahujans against the Muslims during riots.
Hindus did not exist before Muslim Rule
Before the non-Brahmin castes, the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes were included within the purview of 'Hindu' identity, there was a conflct and struggle between 'brahmins' and 'non-brahmins' in the religion, culture, philosophy, history and the society itself. When there were 'varnas' and not castes, the thumb of Eklavya was cut by Dronachaya to preserve the varna supremacy of Arjuna, in the name of 'guru-daxina' for the education NOT imparted by him. This grave injustice was glorified in the name of great 'guru-bhakti' (devotion to guru). This shows the tendency of Brahminization during those days.
During the Satvahana times in early centuries of Christian era in Maharashtra, there existed a process of Brahminization by assimilating on lower status, of lower castes into same religious stream but it was always seen that the social grading among the various castes was maintained without any change. The author of Dnyankosha - the great Ketkar, explains this. It must be understood the concept Hinduization is not historical. There were no 'Hindus' before the Muslims came and the concept of 'Hindu' came in existence during Turk Moghul era, and not before. Hence, the concept of Hindu can not be used for guidance as a historical tool for transformation of society.
There was an ideological struggle between the Buddhists and the Vedantis, the basis of which was contradictions in Varnas - the Brahmins against the non-Brahmins. But the RSS Brahmin scholars can analyze this as "Hindu Vedantism" against "Non-Hindu Buddhism", and the defiant language of the today's Buddhists can be labeled as "anti-Hindu" and can lead to riots. This is because in the name of 'Hindutva', the Bahujans can be appealed to and organized by causing confusion amongst them on the exploitation of caste - exploitation by the upper castes can be concealed.
Brahminization in ancient times
About the 'Social organization and expansive acts done by Brahmins', Ketkar explains the activities of Brahmins during Vedic period. The aim behind these activities was to maintain the supremacy of Brahmins. It was nothing but Brahminization. The strategy applied during those days and techniques of cheating and deception used that time are still being used by RSS today in a refined manner. These techniques could be summarized as follows:
1. They relate the old stories with the ancestors of original inhabitants and pretend that their religion was same as that of Brahmins. This technique was used during Vedic times. Today, it is being used to show that the Ambedkar's Buddhism is same as old Brahminized Buddhism and aver that Ambedkar's Buddhism is just a part of Hinduism. This is done through various conferences, where even Dalai Lama and Guru Goenka participate.
2. During Vedic times, they performed yajnyas like 'vratya-stoma' etc. to make the ineligible people eligible for yajnyas. Today, they admit ineligible Dalit Buddhists scholars in Samarasta movement and provide them posts, property and prestige in Social organizations, Literary Organizations, Journalism, Universities, Governmental Institutions and the like and use them as propagators of RSS ideology.
3. It was necessary during Vedic times to create a false history and to label the various alien nationalities as prodigal sons and proclaim them to be the progeny of some Brahmin 'rishi' on some non-Brahmin woman. Middle ages saw the corruption of history in formulating origins of great non-brahmin saints, like Raidas and Kabir Today the rebellious Phule is 'accommodated' as son of "Hindu Ishwara', Phule's 'Nirmik' is projected as god, and Dr. Ambedkar as 'a reformer of Hindu India'. These are the new strategies applied these days.
4. Ketkar explains that during the process of Brahminiation, two principles were adhered to.
One - it should be on mass scale, and Two - the relative status of various caste groups must be maintained in new caste situation and Brahmin supremacy not being jeopardized. Today this has been transformed making a vote bank in elections, to control the reservation policy for preservation of upper caste interests, to accommodate the awakened Bahujans' identity in the 'hindutva' at a lower status. While doing all these, to maintain the Brahmin supremacy, is the real challenge for the RSS.
Only the names of Hedgewar, Golwalkar, Deoras, Sawarkar etc. were in the scriptures of Sangh in the past. They had now to add M. Gandhi, Phule, Ambedkar etc. Some share in prestige, power, property has to be given to upwardly mobile people from among the lower castes, but the main principle of 'not disturbing the social order of status of caste' is still rigidly observed. As they have to establish the relation of original inhabitants with their religion, now they started telling a false imaginary story that Ambedkar visited the 'shakha' of RSS and found many untouchable volunteers there. Ketkar had said that in olden times such imaginary stories served a great cause of Brahminization, as some castes like 'Andhra' etc. were called 'Vishwamitra-putra'. So Sangh is now telling us such imaginary stories. But even then, they do not disclose the vested interests of their ruling upper castes in this imaginary unification with lower castes.
this is an extract fro his book.read patiently
APPENDIX I
THE RIDDLE OF RAMA AND KRISHNA
Rama is the hero of the Ramayana whose author is Valmiki. The story of the Ramayana is a very short one. Besides it is simple and in itself there is nothing sensational about it.
Rama is the son of Dasharatha the king of Ayodhya the modern Benares. Dasharatha had three wives, Kausalya, Kaikeyi and Sumitra besides several hundred concubines. Kaikeyi had married Dasharatha on terms which were at the time of marriage unspecified and which Dasharatha was bound to fulfil whenever he was called upon by Kaikeyi to do so. Dasharatha was childless for a long time. An heir to the throne was ardently desired by him. Seeing that there was no hope of his begetting a son on any of his three wives he decided to perform a Putreshti Yajna and called the sage Shrung at the sacrifice who prepared pindas and gave the three wives of Dasharatha to eat them. After they ate the pindas three wives became pregnant and gave birth to sons. Kausalya gave birth to Rama, Kaikeyi gave birth to Bharata and Sumitra gave birth to two sons Laxman and Satrughana. In due course Rama was married to Sita. When Rama came of age, Dasharatha thought of resigning the throne in favour of Rama and retiring from kingship. While this was being settled Kaikeyi raised the question of rendering her satisfaction of the terms on which she had married Dasharatha. On being asked to state her terms she demanded that her son Bharata should be installed on the throne in preference to I Rama and Rama should live in forest for 12 years. Dasharatha with great reluctance agreed. Bharata became king of Ayodhya and Rama accompanied by his wife Sita and his step brother Laxman went to live in the forest. While the three living in the forest Ravana the king of Lanka kidnapped Sita and took her away and kept her in his palace intending to make her one of his wives. Rama and Laxman then started search of Sita. On the way they meet Sugriva and Hanuman two leading personages of the Vanara (monkey) race and form friendship with them. With their help the place of the abduction was located and with their help they marched on Lanka, defeated Ravana in the battle and rescued Sita. Rama returns with Laxman and Sita to Ayodhya. By that time twelve years had elapsed and the term prescribed by Kaikeyi was fulfilled with the result that Bharata gave up the throne and in his place Rama became the king of Ayodhya.
(This is a 49-page typed copy placed in a well-bound file along with the MS of ' Symbols of Hinduism '. This riddle does not find place in the original Table of Contents. Hence this is included as an Appendix to this part.—Ed.
Note: Government does not concur with the views expressed in this Chapter. )
Such is in brief the outline of the story of the Ramayana as told by Valmiki.
There is nothing in this story to make Rama the object of worship. He is only a dutiful son. But Valmiki saw something extraordinary in Rama and that is why he undertook to compose the Ramayana. Valmiki asked Narada the following question*[f75] :
"Tell me Oh! Narada, who is the most accomplished man on earth at the present time?"
and then goes on to elaborate what he means by accomplished man. He defines his accomplished man as:
" Powerful, one who knows the secret of religion, one who knows gratitude, truthful, one who is ready to sacrifice his self interest even when in distress to fulfil a religious vow, virtuous in his conduct, eager to safeguard the interests of all, strong pleasing in appearance with power of self-control, able to subdue anger, illustrious, with no jealousy for the prosperity of others, and in war able to strike terror in the hearts of Gods."
Narada then asks for time to consider and after mature deliberation tells him that the only person who can be said to possess these virtues is Rama, the son of Dasharatha.
It is because of his virtues that Rama has come to be deified. But is Rama a worthy personality of deification? Let those who accept him an object worthy of worship as a God consider the following facts.
Rama's birth is miraculous and it may be that the suggestion that he was born from a pinda prepared by the sage Shrung is an allegorical glass to cover the naked truth that he was begotten upon Kausalya by the sage Shrung although the two did not stand in the relationship of husband and wife. In any case his birth if not disreputable in its origin is certainly unnatural.
There are other incidents connected with the birth of Rama the unsavory character of which it will be difficult to deny.
Valmiki starts his Ramayana by emphasizing the fact that Rama is an Avatar of Vishnu and it is Vishnu who agreed to take birth as Rama and be the son of Dasharatha. The God Brahma came to know of this and felt that in order that this Rama Avatar of Vishnu be a complete success arrangement shall be made that Rama shall have powerful associates to help him and cooperate with him. There were none such existing then.
The Gods agreed to carry out the command of Brahma and engaged themselves in wholesale acts of fornication not only against Apsaras who were prostitutes not only against the unmarried daughters of Yakshas and Nagas but also against the lawfully wedded wives of Ruksha, Vidhyadhar, Gandharvas, Kinnars and Vanaras and produced the Vanaras who became the associates of Rama.
Rama's birth is thus accompanied by general debauchery if not in his case certainly in the case of his associates. His marriage to Sita is not above comment. According to Buddha Ramayana, Sita was the sister of Rama, both were the children of Dasharatha. The Ramayana of Valmiki does not agree with the relationship mentioned in Buddha Ramayana. According to Valmiki Sita was the daughter of the king Janaka of Videha and therefore not a sister of Rama. This is not convincing for even according to Valmiki she is not the natural born daughter of Janaka but a child found by a farmer in his field while ploughing it and presented by him to king Janaka and brought up by Janaka. It was therefore in a superficial sense that Sita could be said to be the daughter of Janaka. The story in the Buddha Ramayana is natural and not inconsistent with the Aryan rules *[f76] of marriage. If the story is true, then Rama's marriage to Sita is no ideal to be copied. In another sense Rama's marriage was not an ideal marriage which could be copied. One of the virtues ascribed to Rama is that he was monogamous. It is difficult to understand how such a notion could have become common. For it has no foundation in fact. Even Valmiki refers*[f77] to the many wives of Rama. These were of course in addition to his many concubines. In this he was the true son of his nominal father Dasharatha who had not only the three wives referred to above but many others.
Let us next consider his character as an individual and as a king. In speaking of him as an individual I will refer to only two incidents one relating to his treatment of Vali and other relating to his treatment of his own wife Sita. First let us consider the incident of Vali.
Vali and Sugriva were two brothers. They belonged to the Vanar race and came from a ruling family which had its own kingdom the capital of which was Kishkindha. At the time when Sita was kidnapped by Ravana, Vali was reigning at Kishkindha. While Vali was on the throne he was engaged in a war with a Rakshasa by name Mayavi. In the personal combat between the two Mayavi ran for his life. Both Vali and Sugriva pursued him. Mayavi entered into a deep cavity in the earth. Vali asked Sugriva to wait at the mouth of the cavity and himself went inside. After sometime a flood of blood came from inside the cavity. Sugriva concluded that Vali must have been killed by Mayavi and came to Kishkindha and got himself declared king in place of Vali and made Hanuman his Prime Minister
As a matter of fact, Vali was not killed. It was Mayavi who was killed by Vali. Vali came out of the cavity but did not find Sugriva there. He proceeded to Kishkindha and to his great surprise he found that Sugriva had proclaimed himself king. Vali naturally became enraged at this act of treachery on the part of his brother Sugriva and he had good ground to be. Sugriva should have ascertained, should not merely have assumed that Vali was dead. Secondly Vali had a son by name Angad whom Sugriva should have made the king as the legitimate heir of Vali. He did neither of the two things. His was a clear case of usurpation. Vali drove out Sugriva and took back the throne. The two brothers became mortal enemies.
This occurred just after Ravana had kidnapped Sita. Rama and Laxman were wandering in search of her. Sugriva and Hanuman were wandering in search of friends who could help them to regain the throne from Vali. The two parties met quite accidentally. After informing each other of their difficulties a compact was arrived at between the two. It was agreed that Rama should help Sugriva to kill Vali and to establish him on the throne of Kishkindha. On the part of Sugriva and Hanuman it was agreed that they should help Rama to regain Sita. To enable Rama to fulfil his part of the compact it was planned that Sugriva should wear a garland in his neck as to be easily distinguishable to Rama from Vali and that while the dual was going on Rama should conceal himself behind a tree and then shoot an arrow at Vali and kill him. Accordingly a dual was arranged, Sugriva with a garland in his neck and while the daul was on, Rama standing behind a tree shot Vali with his arrow and opened the way to Sugriva to be the king of Kishkindha. This murder of Vali is the greatest blot on the character of Rama. It was a crime which was thoroughly unprovoked, for Vali had no quarrel with Rama. It was most cowardly act for Vali was unarmed. It was a planned and premeditated murder.
Consider his treatment of his own wife Sita. With the army collected for him by Sugriva and Hanuman, Rama invades Lanka. There too he plays the same mean part as he did as between the two brothers Vali and Sugriva. He takes the help of Bibhishana the brother of Ravana promising him to kill Ravana and his son and place him on the vacant throne. Rama kills Ravana and also his son lndrajit. The first thing Rama does after the close of the fight is to give a decent burial to the dead body of Ravana. Thereafter he interests himself in the coronation of Bibhishana and it is after the coronation is over that he sends Hanuman to Sita and that took to inform her that he, Laxman and Sugriva are hale and hearty and that they have killed Ravana.
The first thing he should have done after disposing of Ravana was to have gone to Sita. He does not do so. He finds more interest in the coronation than in Sita. Even when the coronation is over he does not go himself but sends Hanuman. And what is the message he sends? He does not ask Hanuman to bring her. He asks him to inform her that he is hale and hearty. It is Sita who expresses to Hanuman her desire to see Rama. Rama does not go to Sita his own wife who was kidnapped and confined by Ravana for more than 10 months. Sita is brought to him and what does Rama say to Sita when he sees her? It would be difficult to believe any man with ordinary human kindness could address to his wife in such dire distress as Rama did to Sita when he met her in Lanka if there was not the direct authority of Valmiki. This is how Rama addressed her*[f78] :
I have got you as a prize in a war after conquering my enemy your captor. I have recovered my honour and punished my enemy. People have witnessed my military prowess and I am glad my abours have been rewarded. I came here to kill Ravana and wash off the dishonour. I did not take this trouble for your sake." Could there be anything more cruel than this conduct of Rama towards Sita? He does not stop there. He proceeded to tell her:
" I suspect your conduct. You must have been spoiled by Ravana. Your very sight is revolting to me. On you daughter of Janaka, I allow you to go anywhere you like. I have nothing to do with you. I conquerred you back and I am content for that was my object. I cannot think that Ravana would have failed to enjoy a woman as beautiful as you are."
naturally Sita calls Rama low and mean and tells him quite that she would have committed suicide and saved him all this if when Hanuman first came he had sent her a message that he abandoned her on the ground that she was kidnapped. To give him no excuse Sita undertakes to prove her purity. She enters the fire and comes out unscathed. The Gods satisfied with this evidence proclaim that she is pure. It is then that Rama agrees to take her back to Ayodhya.
And what does he do with her when he brings her back to Ayodhya. Of course, he became king and she became queen. But while Rama remained king, Sita ceased to be a queen very soon. This incident reflects great infamy upon Rama. It is recorded by Valmiki in his Ramayana that some days after the coronation of Rama and Sita as king and queen Sita conceived. Seeing that she was carrying some residents of evil disposition began to calumniate Sita suggesting that she must have conceived from Ravana while she was in Lanka and blaming Rama for taking such a woman back as his wife. This malicious gossip in the town was reported by Bhadra, the Court joker to Rama. Rama evidently was stung by this calumny. He was overwhelmed with a sense of disgrace. This is quite natural. What is quite unnatural is the means he adopts of getting rid of this disgrace. To get rid of this disgrace he takes the shortest cut and the swiftest means—namely to abandon her, a woman in a somewhat advanced state of pregnancy in a jungle, without friends, without provision, without even notice in a most treacherous manner. There is no doubt that the idea of abandoning Sita was not sudden and had not occurred to Rama on the spur of the moment. The genesis of the idea the developing of it and the plan of executing are worth some detailed mention. When Bhadra reports to him the gossip about Sita which had spread in the town Rama calls his brothers and tells them his feelings. He tells them Sita's purity and chastity was proved in Lanka, that Gods had vouched lor it and that he absolutely believed in her innocence, purity and chastity. "All the same the public are calumniating Sita and are blaming me and putting me to shame. No one can tolerate such disgrace. Honour is a great asset, Gods as well as great men strive to maintain it in tact. I cannot bear this dishonour and disgrace. To save myself from such dishonour and disgrace I shall be ready even to abandon you. Don't think I shall hesitate to abandon Sita."
This shows that he had made up his mind to abandon Sita as the easiest way of saving himself from public calumny without waiting to consider whether the way was fair or foul. The life of Sita simply did not count. What counted was his own personal name and fame. He of course does not take the manly course of stopping this gossip, which as a king he could do and which as a husband who was convinced of his wife's innocence he was bound to it. He yielded to the public gossip and there are not wanting Hindus who use this as ground to prove that Rama was a democratic king when others could equally well say that he was a weak and cowardly monarch: Be that as it may that diabolical plan of saving his name and his fame he discloses to his brothers but not to Sita the only person who was affected by it and the only person who was entitled to have notice of it. But she is kept entirely in the dark. Rama keeps it away from Sita as a closely guarded secret and was waiting for an opportunity to put his plan into action. Eventually the cruel fate of Sita gives him the opportunity he was waiting for. Women who are carrying exhibit all sorts of cravings for all sorts of things. Rama knew of this. So one day he asked Sita if there was anything for which she felt a craving. She said yes. Rama said what was it. She replied that she would like to live in the vicinity of the Ashrama of sage on the bank of the river Ganges and live on fruits and roots at least for one night. Rama simply jumped at the suggestion of Sita and said " Be easy my dear I shall see that you are sent there tomorrow ". Sita treats this as an honest promise by a loving husband. But what does Rama do? He thinks it is a good opportunity for carrying through his plan of abandoning Sita. Accordingly he called his brothers to a secret conference and disclosed to them his determination to use this desire of Sita as an opportunity to carry out his plan of abandonment of Sita. He tells his brothers not to intercede on behalf of Sita, and warns them that if they came in his way he would look upon them as his enemies. Then he tells Laxman to take Sita in a chariot next day to the Ashram in the jungle on the bank of the river Ganges and to abandon her there. Laxman did not know how he could muster courage to tell Sita what was decided about Sita by Rama. Sensing his difficulty Rama informs Laxman that Sita had already expressed her desire to spend some time in the vicinity of an Ashrama on the bank of the river and eased the mind of Laxman. This confabulation took place at night. Next morning Laxman asked Sumanta to yoke the horses to the chariot. Sumanta informs Laxman of his having done so. Laxman then goes into the palace and meets Sita and reminds her of her having expressed her desire to pass some days in the vicinity of an Ashrama and Rama having promised to fulfil the same and tells her of his having been charged by Rama to do the needful in the matter. He points to her the chariot waiting there and says 'let us go!' Sita jumps into the chariot with her heart full of gratitude to Rama. With Laxman as her companion and Sumanta as coachman the chariot proceeds to its appointed place. At last they were on the bank of the Ganges and were ferried across by the fishermen. Laxman fell at Sita's feet, and with hot tears issuing from his eyes he said ' Pardon me, 0, blameless queen, for what I am doing. My orders are to abandon you here, for the people blame Rama for keeping you in his house."
Sita abandoned by Rama and left to die in a jungle went for shelter in the Ashrama of Valmiki which was near about. Valmiki gave her protection and kept her in his Ashram. There in course of time Sita gave birth to twin sons, called Kusa and Lava. The three lived with Valmiki. Valmiki brought up the boys and taught them to sing the Ramayana which he had composed. For 12 years the boys lived in the forest in the Ashrama of Valmiki not far from Ayodhya where Rama continued to rule. Never once in those 12 years this model husband and loving father cared to inquire what had happened to Sita whether she was living or whether she was dead. Twelve years after Rama meets Sita in a strange manner. Rama decided to perform a Yadna and issued invitation to all the Rishis to attend and take part. For reasons best known to Rama himself no invitation was issued to Valmiki although his Ashram was near to Ayodhya. But Valmiki came to the Yadna of his own accord accompanied by the two sons of Sita introducing them as his disciples. While the Yadna was going on the two boys used to perform recitations of Ramayana in the presence of the Assembly. Rama was very pleased and made inquiries when he was informed that they were the sons of Sita. It was then he remembered Sita and what does he do then? He does not send for Sita. He calls these innocent boys who knew nothing about their parents' sin, who were the only victims of a cruel destiny to tell Valmiki that if Sita was pure and chaste she could present herself in the Assembly to take a vow thereby remove the calumny cast against herself and himself. This is a thing she had once done in Lanka. This is a thing she could have been asked to do again before she was sent away. There was no promise that after this vindication of her character Rama was prepared to take her back. Valmiki brings her to the Assembly. When she was in front of Rama, Valmiki said, '0, son of Dasharatha, here is Sita whom you abandoned in consequence of public disapprobation. She will now swear her purity if permitted by you. Here are your twin-born sons bred up by me in my hermitage.' ' I know,' said Rama 'that Sita is pure and that these are my sons. She performed an ordeal in Lanka in proof of her purity and therefore I took her back. But people here have doubts still, and let Sita perform an ordeal here that all these Rishis and people may witness it."
With eyes cast down on the ground and with hands folded Sita swore " As I never thought of any man except Rama even in my mind. let mother Earth open and bury me. As I always loved Rama in words, in thoughts, and in deed, let mother Earth open and bury me! As she uttered the oath, the earth verily opened and Sita was carried away inside seated on a golden simhasana (throne). Heavenly flowers fell on Sita's head while the audience looked on as in a trance.
That means that Sita preferred to die rather than return to Rama who had behaved no better than a brute. Such is the tragedy of Sita and the crime of Rama the God. Let me throw some search light on Rama the King. Rama is held out as an ideal King. But can that conclusion be said to be founded in fact?
As a matter of fact Rama never functions, as a King. He was a nominal King. The administration as Valmiki states were entrusted to Bharata his brother. He had freed himself from the cares and worries about his kingdom and his subjects. Valmiki has very minutely described*[f79] the daily life of Rama after he became King. According to that account the day was divided into two parts. Up to forenoon and afternoon. From morning to forenoon he was engaged in performing religious rites and ceremonies and offering devotion. The afternoon he spent alternately in the company of Court jesters and in the Zenana. When he got tired of the Zenana he joined the company of jesters and when he got tired of jesters he went back to the Zenana*[f80] . Valmiki also gives a detailed description of how Rama spent his life in the Zenana. This Zenana was housed in a park called Ashoka Vana. There Rama, used to take his meal. The food according to Valmiki consisted of all kinds of delicious viands. They included flesh and fruits and liquor. Rama was not a teetotaller. He drank liquor copiously and Valmiki records that Rama saw to it that Sita joined with him in his drinking bouts*[f81] . From the description of the Zenana of Rama as given by Valmiki it was by no means a mean thing. There were Apsaras, Uraga and Kinnari accomplished in dancing and singing. There were other beautiful women brought from different parts. Rama sat in the midst of these women drinking and dancing. They pleased Rama and Rama garlanded them. Valmiki calls Rama as a 'Prince among women's men '. This was not a day's affair. It was a regular course of his life.
As has already been said Rama never attended to public business. He never observed the ancient rule of Indian kings of hearing the wrongs of his subjects and attempting to redress them. Only one occasion has been recorded by Valmiki when he personally heard the grievance of his subjects. But unfortunately the occasion turned out to be a tragic one. He took upon himself to redress the wrong but in doing so committed the worst crime that history has ever recorded. The incident is known as the murder of Sambuka the Shudra. It is said by Valmiki that in Rama's reign there were no premature deaths in his kingdom. It happened, however, that a certain Brahman's son died in a premature death. The bereaved father carried his body to the gate of the king's palace, and placing it there, cried aloud and bitterly reproached Rama for the death of his son, saying that it must be the consequence of some sin committed within his realm, and that the king himself was guilty if he did not punish it: and Finally threatened to end his life there by sitting dharna (hunger-strike) against Rama unless his son was restored to life. Rama thereupon consulted his council of eight learned Rishis and Narada amongst them told Rama that some Shudra among his subjects must have been performing Tapasya (ascetic exercises), and thereby going against Dharma (sacred law); for according to it the practice of Tapasya was proper to the twice-born alone, while the duty of the Shudras consisted only in the service of the twice-born. Rama was thus convinced that it was the sin committed by a Shudra in transgressing Dharma in that manner, which was responsible for the death of the Brahmin boy. So, Rama mounted his aerial car and scoured the countryside for the culprit. At last, in a wild region far away to the south he espied a man practising rigorous austerities of a certain kind. He approached the man, and with no more ado than to enquire of him and inform himself that he was a Shudra, by name Sambuka who was practising Tapasya with a view to going to heaven in his own earthly person and without so much as a warning, expostulation or the like addressed to him, cut off his head. And to and behold! that very moment the dead Brahman boy in distant Ayodhya began to breathe again. Here in the wilds the Gods rained flowers on the king from their joy at his having prevented a Shudra from gaining admission to their celestial abode through the power of the Tapasya which he had no right to perform. They also appeared before Rama and congratulated him on his deed. In answer to his prayer to them to revive the dead Brahman boy lying at the palace gate in Ayodhya, they informed him that he had already come to life. They then departed. Rama thence proceeded to the Ashrama which was nearby of the sage +Agastya, who commended the step he had taken with Sambuka, and presented him with a divine bracelet. Rama then returned to his capital. Such is Rama.
II
Now about Krishna.
He is the hero of the Mahabharata. Really speaking the Mahabharata is principally connected with the Kauravas and the Pandavas. It is the story of the war fought by the two for right to the kingdom which belonged to their ancestors. They should be the principal characters. But they are not. It is Krishna who is the hero of the epic. This is a little strange thing. But what is stranger still is the possibility not being a contemporary of the Kauravas and Pandavas. Krishna was the friend of the Pandavas who had their empire. Krishna was the enemy of Kansa who also had his empire. It does not seem possible that two such empires should subsist side by side at once and at the same time. Secondly, in the Mahabharata there is nothing to show that there was any intercourse between the two empires. The two stories of Krishna and the Pandavas have been mixed together at some later date in order to provide Krishna with a larger theater to play a bigger part. The mixture of the two stories is the result of a deliberate design on the part of Vyas to glorify Krishna and to raise him above all.
In the hands of Vyas Krishna is God among men. That is why he is made the hero of the Mahabharata. Does Krishna really deserve to be called God among men? A short sketch of his life alone will help to give a correct answer. Krishna was born at Mathura at midnight on the 8th day of the month of Bhadra. His father was Vasudeva of the Yadu race, and his mother Devaki, daughter of Devaka, the brother of Ugrasen, king of Mathura. Ugrasen's wife had an illicit connection with Drumila the Danava king of Saubha. From this illicit connection was born Kansa who was in a sense the cousin of Devaki. Kansa imprisoned Ugrasen and usurped the throne of Mathura. Having heard from Narada or Daivavani, a voice from Heaven that Devaki's eighth child would kill him, Kansa imprisoned both Devaki and her husband and killed six of their children as they were born one after another. The seventh child, Balarama, was miraculously transferred from Devaki's womb to that of Rohini, another wife of Vasudeva. When the eighth child, Krishna, was born, he was secretly borne by his father to the other side of the river Yamuna, where Nanda and his wife Yasoda, natives of Vraja, were then living. The Yamuna rolled back her waters to make way for the divine child, the Ananta, the chief of serpents protected him with his ample hood from the heavy torrent of rain that was then falling. By a previous arrangement, Vasudeva exchanged his son for Nanda's newly born daughter. Yogindra or Mahamaya and presented the latter to Kansa as his eighth child, but she flew away, telling him that the child which is being brought up by Nanda and Yasoda would kill him. This led Kansa to make a series of unsuccessful attempts to kill the child Krishna. With this object he sent to Vraja a number of Asuras in various forms. The killing of these Asuras and number of other heroic deeds, impossible for an ordinary human child are the chief staple of the Puranic account of Krishna's early life. Some of them are mentioned in the Mahabharata also. As might be expected, the authorities differ largely in their narration of these facts. I mention only some of them, following chiefly the later authorities.
The first or one of the first of these is the killing of Putana. She was Kansa's nurse and was sent by him to kill Krishna in the form of a female vulture, according to Harivamsa, and of a beautiful woman according to the Bhagavata. As she pretending to suckle Krishna, put her poisoned breast into his mouth, he sucked it so powerfully as to draw out her very life-blood so that she fell down with an yell and died.
Krishna performed another of these feats when he was only three months old. It was the breaking of a Sakata, a cart which was used as a cupboard and had several jars and pans, full of milk and curd, ranged on it. According to the Harivamsa Sakata was an Asura sent by Kansa and had entered the cart intending to crush the infant Krishna by its weight. However, Yasoda had placed the boy under the cart and gone to bathe in the Yamuna. On her return she was told that he had kicked against it and broken it to pieces with all that lay on it. This event surprised and frightened Yasoda, and she offered pujas to avert the evils threatened by it.
When Putana and Sakata's attempts to kill Krishna having failed, Kansa sent another of his emissaries an asura named Trinavarta, to attempt the same task. He came in the form of a bird and carried aloft the divine child, then only a year old. But he soon dropped down dead with the child safe and holding his throat tightly.
The next feat was the breaking of two arjuna trees growing side by side. They are described as the bodies of two Yakshas who were converted into this form by a curse, and who were released by this feat of Krishna. When he had learnt to crawl about and could hardly be kept out of mischief Yasoda tied him with a rope to a wooden mortar and went to mind her household duties. When she was out of sight, Krishna began to drag the mortar after him till it stuck fast between the trees. Still pulling the heavy weight after him, he uprooted the trees and made them fall down with a tremendous noise, himself remaining unhurt by them.
Now these events filled Nanda with fear, and he seriously thought of leaving Vraja and moving to another settlement. While he was thus thinking, the place was infested with wolves which made great havoc among the cattle and made it quite unsafe. This fixed the wavering intention of the nomads and they moved with all their belongings to the pleasant woodland named Vrindavan. Krishna was then only seven years old.
After his removal to this new settlement, Krishna killed quite a large number of Asuras. One of them was Aristha, who came in the form of a bull; another, Kesin, who was disguised as a horse. Five others, Vratrasura, Bakasura, Aghasura, Bhomasura and Sankhasura, the last a Yaksha. More important than these was Kaliya, a snake chief, who lived with his family in a whirlpool of the Yamuna and thus poisoned its water. Krishna one day threw himself on Kaliya's hood and danced so wildly as to make him vomit blood. He would thus have killed him, but on the intervention of the snake's family, he spared him and allowed him to move away to another abode.
The subjugation of Kaliya was followed by Vastra-harana, the carrying away of clothes, a hard nut to crack for worshippers and admirers of the Puranic Krishna. The whole narration is so obscene, that even the merest outlines will, I fear, be felt to be indelicate. But I must give them in as decent a form as is possible, to make my brief account of Krishna's doings as full as I can. Some Gopies had dived into the waters of the Yamuna for a bath, leaving their clothes on the banks, as is said to be still the custom in some parts of the country. Krishna seized the clothes and with them climbed upon a tree on the riverside. When asked to return them, he refused to do so unless the women approached the tree and each begged her own dress for herself. This they could do only by coming naked out of the water and presenting themselves naked before Krishna. When they did this, Krishna was pleased and he gave them their clothes. This story is found in the Bhagavata.
The next of Krishna's feats was the uplifting of the Govardhan Hill. The Gopas were about to celebrate their annual sacrifices to Indra, the God of rain, and began to make grand preparations for it. Krishna pointed out to them that as they were a pastoral and not an agricultural tribe, their real Gods were kine, hills and woods, and them only they should worship, and not such Gods as the rain-giving Indra. The Gopas were convinced, and giving up their intention of worshipping Indra, celebrated a grand sacrifice to the hill Govardhan, the nourisher of kine, accompanied with feasting and dancing. Indra was as he could not but be greatly enraged at this affront offered to him, and as punishment, he poured rain on the Gopa settlement for seven days and nights continually. Krishna, nothing daunted, uprooted the hill and held it up as an umbrella over the settlement and thus protected the Gopas and their cattle from the ruinous effects of Indra's wrath. As to the jealousy between Indra and the Krishna of the Rig-Veda and that between the former and the Vishnu of the Satapatha Brahmana, I have already spoken in my first lecture.
Krishna's youthful career was full or illicit intimacy with the young women of Brindaben which is called his Rasalila. Rasa is a sort of circular dance in which the hands of the dancers, men and women, are joined together. It is said to be still prevalent among some of the wild tribes of this country. Krishna, it is stated, was in the habit of often enjoying this dance with the young Gopis of Brindaben, who loved him passionately. One of these dances is described in the Vishnu Purana, the Harivamsa and the Bhagavata. All these authorities interpret the Gopi's love for Krishna as piety—love to God, and see nothing wrong in their amorous dealings with him—dealings which, in the case of any other person, would be highly reprehensible according to their own admission. All agree as to the general character of the affair—the scene, the time and season, the drawing of the women with sweet music, the dance, the amorous feelings of the women for Krishna, and their expression in various ways. But while the Vishnu Purana tries— not always successfully—to keep within the limits of decency, the Harivamsa begins to be plainly indecent, and the Bhagavata throws away all reserve and revels in indecency.
Of all his indecencies the worst is his illicit life with one Gopi by name Radha. Krishna's illicit relations with Radha are portrayed in the Brahmavaivarta Purana. Krishna is married to Rukmani the daughter of King Rukmangad. Radha was married to..... Krishna who abandons his lawfully wedded wife Rukmini and seduces Radha wife of another man and lives with her in sin without remorse.
Krishna was also a warrior and a politician even at a very early age, we are told, when he was in his twelfth year. Every one of his acts whether as a warrior or as a politician was an immoral act. His first act in this sphere was the assassination of his maternal uncle Kamsa. 'Assassination' is not too strong a term for it, for though Kamsa had given him provocation, he was not killed in the course of a battle or even in a single combat. The story is that having heard God Krishna's youthful feats at Brindaban, Karnsa got frightened and determined to secure his death by confronting him with a great athlete in an open exhibition of arms. Accordingly he announced the celebration of a dhanuryajna a bow sacrifice, and invited Krishna, Balarama and their Gopa friends to it. Akrura, an adherent of Krishna, but an officer of Kamsa. was deputed by the latter to bring the brothers to Mathura. They came, determined to kill Kamsa. He had provoked not only them, but other Yadavas also, whom his persecution had compelled to leave Mathura. The brothers were therefore supported by a conspiracy against him. Having arrived at Mathura, they desired to change their simple Gopa dress for a more decent one, and asked for clothes from Kamsa's washerman, whom they met in the street. As the man behaved insolently with them, they killed him and took from his stock whatever clothes they liked. They then met Kubja, a hunch-backed woman who served as Kamsa's perfumer. At their request she annointed them with sandal paste and in return was cured by Krishna of her bodily deformity. The Bhagvata makes him visit her on a subsequent occasion and describes his union with her with its characteristic indecency. However, on the present occasion, the brothers annointed by Kubja and garlanded by Sudama, a flower-seller, entered the place of sacrifice and broke the great bow to which the sacrifice was to be offered. The frightened Kamsa sent an elephant named Kuvalayapida to kill them. Krishna killed the elephant and entered the arena. There the brothers encountered Kamsa's chosen athletes, Chanura, Mustika, Toshalaka and Andhra. Krishna killed Chanura and Toshalaka and Balarama the other two. Frustrated in his plan of securing Krishna's death by stratagem Kamsa ordered the brothers and their Gopa friends to be turned out and banished from his kingdom, - their herds to be confiscated and Vasudeva, Nanda and his own father Ugrasen to be assassinated. At this Krishna got upon the platform on which Karnsa was seated, and seizing him by the hair, threw him down on the ground and killed him. Having consoled Kamsa's weeping wives he ordered a royal cremation for him, and refusing the kingdom offered him by Ugrasen, installed the latter on the throne and invited his banished relatives to return to Mathura.
The next episode is Krishna's fight with Jarasandha, emperor of Magadha, and Kalayavana. Jarasandha was the son-in-law of Kamsa. Enraged by Krishna's assassination of Karnsa, his son-in-law, Jarasandha is said to have invaded Mathura seventeen times and to have been every time repulsed by Krishna. Fearing, however, that an eighteenth invasion would be disastrous to the city, Krishna removed the Yadavas to Dwarka at the west end of Gujarat Peninsula. After the removal of the Yadavas from Mathura, the city was besieged by Kalayavana at the instigation of Jarasandha. While pursuing the unarmed Krishna, however, out of the city, the invader was burnt to ashes, by fire issuing from the eyes of king Muchakunda, who had been sleeping in a mountain cave and whom he had awakened with a kick mistaking him for Krishna. Krishna defeated the army of Kalayavana but while flying to Dwaraka with the booty, he was overtaken by Jarasandha. He, however, evaded his enemy by climbing a hill and flying to Dwaraka after jumping down from it.
Krishna was now, for the first time, married. He married Rukmini daughter of Bhishmaka, king of Vidarbha. Her father, at Jarasandha's advice, was making preparations to get her married to Sishupala, Krishna's cousin and king of Chedi. But Krishna carried her off on the day before the proposed marriage. The Bhagavata says she had fallen in love with Krishna and had addressed a love letter to him. This does not seem to be true. For Krishna did not remain a true and faithful husband of Rukmini. Rukmini was gradually followed by an enormously vast army of co-wives till the number of Krishna's consorts rose to sixteen thousand one hundred and eight. His children numbered one lakh and eighty-thousand. The chief of his wives were the well-known eight, Rukmini, Satyabhama, Jambavati, Kalindi, Mitrabinda, Satya, Bhadra, and Lakshmana. The remaining sixteen thousand and one hundred were married to him on the same day. They belonged originally to the harem of king Naraka of Pragjyotish whom Krishna defeated and killed at the invitation of Indra, whose mother's ear-rings had been carried away by Naraka. While paying a visit after the battle to Indra's heaven in company with Satyabhama, this lady took fancy to Indra's famous parijat tree. To oblige his wife, Krishna had to fight with the God whom he had just favoured. Indra, though the chief of the Vedic Gods, and though he was helped by the latter on this occasion was indeed no match for the ' Incarnation of the Supreme Being ' and was forced to part with his favourite flower-tree, which was thus carried to Dwarka and planted there. The story of how he obtained his chief eight wives is very interesting. The story of how he got Rukmini is already told. Satyabhama was the daughter of Satrajit, a Vadava chief who gave her away in marriage to Krishna because he was afraid of him and wished to buy his favour. Jambavati was the daughter of Jambavna, a bear chief, against whom Krishna waged a long war to recover a previous gem he had taken away from a Yadava. Jambavana was defeated and presented his daughter to Krishna, as a peace-offering. Kalindi went through a series of austerities in order to get Krishna as her husband and her devotion was rewarded by the marriage she had sought. Mitrabinda was a cousin of Krishna and was carried off by him from the Svayamvara grounds. Satya was the daughter of Nagnajit, king of Ayodhya and was won by Krishna when he had achieved a brave feat of arms, namely, killing a number of naughty bulls belonging to Nagnajit. Bhadra was another cousin of Krishna and was married by him in the usual way. Lakshmana was the daughter of Brihatsena, king of Madra, and was carried off by him from the Swayamavara grounds.
Krishna's part in Arjuna's marriage with Subhadra, sister of Balarama and Krishna's half sister is noteworthy. In the course of his travels Arjuna arrived at the holy place of Prabhasa, and was received by Krishna on the hill of Raivataka. There he was enamoured of Subhadni and asked Krishna how he could get her. Krishna advised him to carry her off as a brave Kshatriya without depending upon the chances of a Svayamvaram, the usual Kshatriya form of marriage. The Yadavas were at first enraged at this outrage, but when Krishna convinced them that Arjuna would be a very worthy husband for Subhadra. and that by carrying her off he had done nothing unworthy of a hero, they consented to the union. And how could they do otherwise? Krishna did not simply argue like us, poor talkers. He, as we have already seen, had backed his precepts by his example.
It is interesting to note how Krishna disposed of Jarasandha and Sishupala who created trouble at the Rajasuya performed by Yudhisthira. Jarasandha had imprisoned a large number of kings and intended to sacrifice them to Rudra. Unless he was killed and the imprisoned princes released and given an opportunity to pay homage to Yudhisthira, the latter's claim as emperor could not be established. Krishna therefore proceeded with Bhirna and Arjuna to Rajagriha, Jarasandha's capital, and challenged him to a single combat with anyone of them he might choose. Such a challenge could not be refused by a Kshatriya, and Jarasandha, at the anticipation of death at his opponent's hand, declared his son Sahadev as his heir apparent and chose Bhima as his opponent. The combat lasted thirteen days, and Jarasandha at length met with a painful death at his rival's hand. Having put Sahadev on his father's throne, and invited the released princes to attend Yudhisthira's Rajasuya, Krishna and his friends returned to Indraprastha.
In due course the Rajasuya came off. Of the various functions and duties connected with the ceremony, Krishna is said to have taken charge of washing the feet of the Brahmans. This is a sure indication of the comparative modernness of the Mahabharata, at any rate, of this story. For in ancient times, even when the supremacy of the Brahmans had been established, the Kshatriyas never paid them any servile honour. However when the sacrifice was over, the time came for Yudhisthira to make presents to the assembled princes, priests and other persons deserving honour. To whom must honour be paid first?
Yudhisthira having asked Bhishma's opinion on the matter, the latter replied that Krishna was the person to be honoured first. Accordingly Sahadeva at Yudhishtira's command presented the Arghya, the mark of honour, to Krishna, and the latter accepted it. This upset Sishupala, who made a long speech, challenging Krishna's right to the honour and abusing the Pandavas for paying any honour and Krishna for accepting it. Bhishma made another speech narrating Krishna's exploits and achievements at length, and declaring his divinity. Sishupala rose again, rebutted Bhishma's arguments one after another, and grossly abused him. It is pointed out by Krishna's recent biographers, that of the charges brought against Krishna by Sishupala, there is no mention of his dealings with the Brindaban Gopis, a sure indication, according to them, that when the Mahabharatha was composed, the story of these dealings of Krishna, a story made so much of by the writers of the Puranas and the later poets, was not conceived. However, at the end of Sishupala's speech Bhishma, who saw that Yudhishtira was afraid lest Sishupala and his followers might obstruct the completion of the ceremony, said, addressing them that if they were resolved to die they might challenge the divine Krishna himself to fight. At this Sishupala challenged Krishna, who rose in response and narrated his opponent's numerous misdeeds. Then with the words, "At the request of his mother, my aunt, I have pardoned a hundred of Sishupala's offences. But I cannot pardon the insulting words he has spoken of me before the assembled princes: I kill him before you all ". He threw his chakra at him and cut off his head
Actions of Krishna during the Mahabharata War may now be reviewed. The following are some of them:
1. When Satyaki, Krishna's friend, was hard pressed by Bhurisrava, son of Somadatta, Krishna induced Arjuna to cut off his arms, and thereby made it easy for Satyaki to kill him.
2. When Abhimanyu was unfairly surrounded and killed by seven Kaurava warriors, Arjuna vowed the death of the ring leader, Jayadratha, next day before sunset, or, failing that his own death by entering into fire. When the Sun was about to set, and Jayadratha remained unslain, Krishna miraculously hid the Sun, on which Jayadratha, having come out Krishna uncovered the Sun, and Arjuna killed Jayadratha when he was unaware.
3. Despairing of Drona being ever killed by fair means Krishna advised the Pandavas to kill him unfairly. If he could he made to cast down his arms, he could, Krishna said, be killed easily. This could be done if he was told that his son, Asvathama was dead. Bhima tried the suggested device He killed an elephant named after Drona's son and told him that Asvathama was killed. The warrior was somewhat depressed by the news, but did not quite believe it. At this juncture he was hard pressed by a number of sages to cease fighting and prepare himself for heaven with meditations worthy of a Brahmana. This checked the hero still more and he applied to the truthful Yudhisthira for correct information about his son. Finding Yudhisthira unwilling to tell a lie, Krishna overcame his reluctance by a long exhortation, in the course of which he announced his ethics of untruth in the following edifying text from Vasishtha's Smriti.
" In marriage, in amorous dealings, when one's life is in danger, when the whole of one's possession is going to be lost, and when a Brahman's interest is at stake, untruth should be told. The wise have said that speaking untruth on these five occasions is not a sin." Yudhisthir's scruples were stifled, and he said to his preceptor, " Yes, Asvathama is killed " adding in a low voice, " that is, an elephant " which last words, however were not heard by Dron. His depression was complete, and on hearing some bitterly reproachful words from Bhima, he gave up his arms, and while sitting in a meditative posture, was killed by Dhristhadyumna.
4. When Bhima was unsuccessfully fighting with Duryodhana by the side of the Dvaipayana Lake Krishna reminded him through Arjuna that he had vowed the breaking of his opponent's thighs. Now striking a rival below the navel was unfair, but as Duryodhana could not be killed except by such an unfair means, Krishna advised Bhima to adopt the same and Bhima did." The death of Krishna throws a flood of light on his morals. Krishna died as the Ruler of Dwaraka. What was this Dwaraka like and what sort of death awaited him?
In founding his city of Dwaraka he had taken care to settle thousands of ' unfortunates ' there. As the Harivamsa said: ' O, hero having conquered the abodes of the Daityas (giants) with the help of brave Yadus, the Lord settled thousands of public women in Dwaraka ". Dancing, singing and drinking by men and women married and prostitutes filled the city of Dwaraka. We get a description of a seatrip in which these women formed a principal source of enjoyment. Excited by their singing and dancing, the brothers Krishna and Balarama joined in the dancing with their wives. They were followed by the other Yadava chiefs and by Arjuna and Narada. Then a fresh excitement was sought. Men and women all fell into the sea and at Krishna's suggestion, the gentlemen began a jalakrida water sport, with the ladies, Krishna leading one party, and Balarama another, while the courtesans added to the amusement by their music. This was followed by eating and drinking and this again by a special musical performance in which the leaders themselves exhibited their respective skill in handling various musical instruments. It will thus be seen what a jolly people these Yadavas were, and with what contempt they would have treated the objections urged nowadays by the Brahmans and such other purists against notch parties and the native theatres. It was in one of these revels—a drunken revel—that the Yadavas were destroyed. They, it is said, had incurred the displeasure of a number of sages by a childish trick played on the latter by some of their boys. These boys disguised Samba, one of Krishna's sons, as a woman with child, tying an iron pestle below his navel, and asked the sages to say what child the 'woman' would give birth to. The enraged sage said 'she' would produce an iron pestle which would be the ruin of the Yadavas. Fearing the worst consequences from this curse, the boys took the pestle to the sea-side and rubbed it away. But its particles came out in the form of erakas, a kind of reeds and its last remaining bit, which had been thrown into the sea, was afterwards recovered and used by a hunter as the point of an arrow; Now it was with these erakas that the Yadavas killed themselves. They had gone in large parties to the holy place of Prabhasa. They indulged in drinking there and this proved their ruin. The evils of drinking there had been found out at length by Krishna and some other Yadava leaders, and it was prohibited on pain of death by a public notification. But the prohibition had no effect. The drunken Yadavas at first quarrelled and then began to fight and kill one another. When some of Krishna's own sons were killed he himself joined in the fight and killed a large number of his own people. He then went in search of Balarama. He found him in meditative posture and saw his spirit passing out of his body in the form of a large serpent i.e., Sesha Naga, the divine snake whom he had incarnated. Krishna now felt that it was time for him also to pass away. He then bade farewell to his father and his wives, telling them that he had sent for Arjuna, who would take charge of them. Then he seated himself under a tree, hidden by its leafy and outstretching branches, and composed his mind in meditation. While thus sitting, a hunter named Jara mistook him for a deer and hit him with an arrow, one pointed with the last remaining bit of the fatal pestle. Discovering his mistake, the man fell at Krishna's feet and was pardoned and flew away to heaven, illumining all sides by its dazzling light. Arjuna came and proceeded towards Hastinapur with the surviving Yadavas men and women. But his good genius having left him he had lost the power of his hitherto mighty arm and his unrivalled skill as an archer. A number of Ahiras, armed only with lathis, attacked his party and carried off many of the women, and he reached Hastinapur only with a small remnant. After Arjuna's departure the sea engulfed Dwaraka, and nothing was left to speak of the Yadavas, their glories, their domestic broils and their revels.
u can read the complete article at ambedkar.org
also visit the below site for some deatailed info about ur rama
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Pantheon/4789/Articles/General/hindu_awake.htm
BEEF EATING RAMA
When God Rama was told to go to forest, he mournfully revealed to is mother: "if has been ordained that I have to lose the kingdom, forego the princely comforts and the tasty, MEAT DISHES. (Ayodha Kandam, 20, 26, 94th Chapters).
RAMA'S MANY WIVES
Mr. C.R. Sreenivasa lyengar's translation of Valmiki Ramayana says: " Though Rama had married Sita to be the queen, he married many other wives for sexual pleasure in accordance with the royal customs. (Ayodha Kandam 8th Chapter, page 28). (The term "Rama's wives" as been used in many places in Ramayan).
also visit
http://repository.tufs.ac.jp/handle/10108/3653
Post a Comment