Wednesday, April 28, 2010

#000B Continuation of reply to Mr. Krishna

Blogger Krishna said...

Mr Yb, the chronology of important events in the history are known to us by the study and analysis of so many scholars. There are innumerable books available which explains the logics behind those conclusions. Now, which of these schools of thoughts are acceptable is up to the individual's conviction. You want proof for Gita's existence before Budhism. Do you have proof to prove otherwise? Without that proof when you say Moksha came from Budhism, and imply that Budhism existed before Gita and Upanishads it is falsification.

To prove the hipocracy (sic) of Swami Vivekananda you quote few lines from his letters and speeches..At the same time you yourself say that "First of all, it is difficult to ascertain how many speeches of Vivekananda were genuine and not made up". If you are not sure of the genuineness of his literature, there is no point in analyzing them. All of them could be just a heap of manipulated stuff!

I have listened many discourses by scholars and have read many books explaining the difference between 'Caste' and 'Varna'. My understanding is that Gita does'nt talk about caste, only talks about Varna. Your understanding makes u believe that Varna is caste, and the "whole Gita smacks of casteism". I see innumerable slokas in Gita highlighting the oneness of universe and the existence of God in everything in equal measure etc! "Samam Sarveshu bhuteshu...", "Iswara Sarva bhuthanam.." are examples of these.
For you, Krishna is not real Paramathma...But for me and innumerable other people he is... Since we do not have any common ground for discussions, I believe it is a waste of time arguing on these...

Anyways I wish you all luck to find the 'truth' you are seeking...


Dear Mr. Krishna : 1. The historicity of Mahabharata, the Archaeological Society of India has already denied in Ramasetu case before the Supreme Court. Mahabharata and Gita have therefore only fictional or mythological value. Not historical value.

2. Assuming that Mahabharata and Gita have happened, the next question is the period of the evolution of the books Ramayana and Mahabharata. The happening of the taking shape of the books is not myth. Many historians felt that Ramayana, Mahabharata and our other Puranas have evolved during the Gupta period i.e. 3 to 6th Century A.D. By this time, Buddhism became a reality and exchange of culture has taken place between the two philosophies. An attempt was made in the Vaishnava books to denigrate Buddhists calling them as Pashandas. The Vaishnava books undermined even Siva and Brahma. The Gujarat-Rajasthan-Punjab-MP-UP area kings of those days tried to project themselves as the incarnations of Vishnu and they engaged the puranic scholars on a propaganda that the ancestors of the kings were also Vishnu's amsas. Thus Rama and Krishna evolved as Gods equivalent to Vishnu.

For the purpose of this Vivekananda blog, whether Gita was ancient or Buddhism was ancient, is not really very important. What I wanted to point out was that Sanyasa was not a part of Vedic Religion. Vedic Religion essentially consisted of pleasing Gods (yaja, yagna) through sacrifices of different varieties. The performers of the sacrifices were married and were householders. None of them were sanyasis (monks). Our Rishis (sages) were not monks. The practice of wearing ochre robes was also not in vogue.

Hence I appeal to you, to get free from the confusion many readers fall in. Here is the clearer picture I wish to present: The actual happening of preaching Gita consisting of 715 approx. verses at the battlefield was doubtful because it would take more than 2 days to preach it in an audible and comprehend-able way. Obviously, it was an insertion in the text. The period of its insertion into the text can and could have taken place during the Gupta period, which is subsequent to Buddhism. Thus Gita belongs to a later period. The actual period of happening of the Mahabharata war is not under test because it has no historicity.

About Caste and Varna confusion :

The words varna and caste were used in an inter-substitutable manner. Varna referred to color. Caste referred to the occupation. Aryans insisted that both will come by birth (jaati ). Aryans did not want to dilute their white color. Aryans did not want to undertake the inferior occupations like 'seva' (servile jobs involving physical labor). They initially prescribed the the third varna/caste vysyas to do agriculture and animal husbandry. At that time there were only three castes or varnas and the lowest Vysyas were asked to do. All the three varnas had thread ceremony, and some entitlement to study Vedas, which was a restricted knowledge. Sudras were defeated persons, admitted later to the Aryan Society. They were therefore given the inferior functions of service, physical labor, agriculture and dairying. The Vysya traders have become rich and they were hesitant to undertake physical labor involved in farming and dairying. The fifth were the outcastes born from illicit relationships between a lower varna man and a higher varna woman (viloma vivaaha) and they were driven out of the village to join the slaves , dasyas and tribals.

Every attempt was made in all the puranas particularly Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Mahabhagavata to impose this four castes + outcaste chand`aala system. Those kings who protected this system were regarded as great saviors of righteousness and virtue. Even the bird Jatayu was made to present the varna-caste system as God-given. You can straightaway reply this question: Why Indian four castes alone were born from the head, chest, thighs and the feet of the God? From which part of the God the American Indians (Red Indians), Europeans, Central Asians, Africans, South East Asians were born? This, the kings, priests and the scripture writers did not know and did not bother to enquire.

When new races invaded India, new castes and subcastes were admitted into the Kshatriya Kings by performing new sacrifices. This priests would do to satisfy the new invader kings, otherwise the priests would not get gold and they will lose their lives. Some historians felt that Krishna was a Greek king like Minander or a knight like Hercules. These are indefinite. One thing was definite: Krishna was not God. The writers, and Priests of Mahabharata and Bhagavata writing period, tried to project him as God.

Mohammadan invaders and the British invaders had their own religions and they tried to impose it on the Indians.

...highlighting the oneness of universe and the existence of God in everything in equal measure etc! "Samam Sarveshu bhuteshu...", "Iswara Sarva bhuthanam.."...

These are only preachings. Practice is different. Every religion including Christianity and Islam preaches equality, dharma, peace, love etc. There is no religion which preaches only (repeat only) hatred. Christianity preached love and the Church encouraged slave trade. At the same time every religion wants to kill infidels. This grand variance between theory and practice extended to Vivekananda also. Why Vivekananda? To all religious institutions of all religions. For example Ramakrishna religion claimed before Supreme Court that RK religion was different from Hinduism and that RK Religion was entitled to minority rights. Then where was the samabhava (equality and universality of religions)?

your remark: To prove the hipocracy (sic) of Swami Vivekananda you quote few lines from his letters and speeches..At the same time you yourself say that "First of all, it is difficult to ascertain how many speeches of Vivekananda were genuine and not made up". If you are not sure of the genuineness of his literature, there is no point in analyzing them. All of them could be just a heap of manipulated stuff!

I have made it clear many times in these posts, that I am working on limited material of evidence. The letters of Vivekananda can be taken as 'first hand evidence' to the extent that they are presented as Complete works. The letters, speeches and writings wherever they have been amended/modified (excised-- word used by Ramakrishna sectarians), partially lose their dependability. Then historians have to break their heads on what part might have been real and what part might have been 'edited'.

Sectarian hagiographers or the hagiographic sectarians cannot do full justice to facts or history because they are weighed by the devotion. Besides, the employer who engages writers/authors decides what is to be presented and what is not to be presented. The money-payer decides how the information is to be colored and presented. It is like this: If Valmiki lives in Rama's kingdom, receives invitations from Rama for horse sacrifices, receives cows etc. from Rama , Valmiki cannot write a Ramayana which shows Rama in bad light. If Yadavas or Paramaras or Guptas ask Vyasa or his disciples to write Mahabharata, Vyasa or other authors cannot write verses which displeases their employers.

Seeking truth is always an activity different from belief, faith. A truth-seeker may make mistakes. I or any other truthseeker cannot be error-free. Yet the sametime, we work with open eyes and try to deduce what might have happened from the circumstances.

Now I ask you one straight question? Here is a person who eats shad fish, turtles, mutton and beef (cow's meat) and claims to be monk preaching compassion. The Hindus including the R.S.S wants ban of cow-slaughter. Here is a person who calls his motherland the dirtiest and unhealthiest hole in the world! Here is a paramahamsa who called India a rotten corpse and jellyfish! Now, how this Nation is going to celebrate the 150th Anniversary with Prime Minister as the Head of the Organising Committee and spending millions/billions of Rupees?

There is a great demand for Godmen in this country. Shirdi Saibaba and Satya Sai Baba enjoy God status and temples are built for them even on highways. People worship them like goats without bothering to search for truths. They become devotees just by reading hagiographies. This is because, they believe that with the help of Godmen, desires get fulfilled and sins will go. So, expectation is the key! If Lord Venkateswara does not fulfil their desires, they will shift to Christ and if Christ does not fulfil their desires, they will shift to Shirdi Saibaba or Ayyappa. It is how the human helplessness or human opportunism works.

(This subject to further editing and corrections, depending on readers' opinions.)

1 comment:

balaji said...

Why dont u dare to talk about Quran and Bible why do u talk only about Hinduism.. why dont u speak about that If u have the real guts my friend..dont jus speak about one religion if ur idealogy is common then apply to all religions if u are speaking only about hinduism then ur idealogy is not common its only a Anti-Hindu idealogy do u understand!!!!!
What service have u done to world dont just sit and speak as if u can question anything and everything...