geeta Archives - VedKaBhed.Com https://vedkabhed.com/index.php/tag/geeta/ Truth About Hinduism Sat, 01 Aug 2020 14:20:14 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.1.1 Vedic Contradiction: How the Creation came into Existence https://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2014/05/15/vedic-contradiction-how-the-creation-came-into-existence/ Thu, 15 May 2014 06:00:55 +0000 http://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2014/05/15/vedic-contradiction-how-the-creation-came-into-existence/ Written by Sulaiman Razvi   The Qur’an states that Allah has created everything, the Bible states that God has created it, every religion whether Islam or Christianity takes a firm stand about the creator of the universe. But Vedas seems to be confused as to who created the universe. Vedas doesn’t answer who is the […]

The post Vedic Contradiction: How the Creation came into Existence appeared first on VedKaBhed.Com.

]]>
Written by Sulaiman Razvi

 

The Qur’an states that Allah has created everything, the Bible states that God has created it, every religion whether Islam or Christianity takes a firm stand about the creator of the universe. But Vedas seems to be confused as to who created the universe. Vedas doesn’t answer who is the creator. There is no unanimous statement about who really created the universe among Hindus, some say Shiva created this entire universe, some say Vishnu or his avatars created it, some claim Brahma created it, All these stories are of Puranas and Upanishads, but we have to see only what the Vedas says about the creator because Vedas are the oldest scripture of Hinduism. Vedas also makes blunder about the process of creation. I won’t be explaining Vedic verses briefly, verses are pretty easy to understand. Readers themselves can draw conclusions after reading the verses. I am using Hindi translations of Swami Karpatri, Shri Ram Sharma and Shripad Damodar.

Veda mentions different gods as the creator of the universe, Rig Veda 2.20.1; 2.13.5 says Indra created the earth, Rig Veda 10.82.1 and Yajur Veda 17.25 says Vishwakarma created the heaven and earth, Rig Veda 10.190.3 says Dhatar created the heaven, earth, sun and the moon. Atharva Veda 9.5.20 says that the breast of the God Aja became the earth, we read in Purusha Sukta that the feet of the lord became the earth, all these Vedic verses contradict each other. Atharva Veda 13.1.6 states that Rohita created the heaven and earth. A verse states that Prajapati created the universe, another verse in Yajur Veda 14.30 states that Prajapati prayed to a Divine Speech and thence earth and heaven were produced. Some also say the creation took place after the association of father and daughter mentioned in Rig Veda 10.61.

 

 

Who created living creatures?

Vedas is confused about who created the humans or all creatures, It’s mentioned in Yajur Veda

Yajur Veda 14.28 With one they praised; creatures were produced…With five they praised; beings were created

https://truthabouthinduism.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/081514_0918_vediccontra1.png?w=625

According to scholars, Prajapati prayed to a divine speech and after that creatures were produced, So Prajapati is the creator of living beings here. Rig Veda says it were Vedic deities Indra and Varuna who created all living creatures,

 

Rig Veda 7.82.5 O Indra-Varuna, as ye created all these creatures of the world by your surpassing might…

https://truthabouthinduism.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/081514_0918_vediccontra2.png?w=625

 

The Atharva Vedas has another story, it says Vedic god Rohita created the creatures,

 

Atharva Veda 13.1.52 Rohita made the earth to be his altar, heaven his Dakshina. Then heat he took for Agni, and with rain for molten butter he [Rohita] created every living thing [or universe].

 

Let’s analyse the Purusha Sukta. Purusha Sukta is often quoted to show the process of creation. Some Hindu scholars even say that scientists must read Purusha Sukta to know about the creation and cosmos, they say this Sukta is very unique. I can’t figure out what’s so unique about this Sukta. Later I found that its uniqueness lies in its riddles, It has so many contradictions. It’s about gods sacrificing Purusha and each of his body part becomes the creation. The word Purusha here may or may not denote Man. Purusha is literally translated as Man, but majority of scholars translates it (in this verse) as Supreme Soul (God), according to Mahidhara and Sayana it is Spirit or Man, other scholars translates it as Almighty God and Universe. If Purusha is the Almighty god then how come the Almighty God (Purusha) himself was born? Veda says,

 

Rig Veda 10.90.5 From him Viraj was born; again Purusa from Viraj was born…

https://truthabouthinduism.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/081514_0918_vediccontra3.png?w=625

 

The word Viraj or Virat here is translated by some as universe. But scholars have different opinion on this word. Majority of scholars including Sayana and Mahidhara say it’s an egg. Some say it’s the egg from which the universe or Men were born, some also say it’s known as Adi Purusa. The word Viraj occurs in Atharva Veda 11.4.12 as Prana (Vital Spirit), in Atharva Veda 9.2.5 Viraj is translated as milch cow, and by Arya Samaj scholars as Splendid Speech [Goddess]. Some interpret Rig Veda 10.90.5 as, The almighty God created Viraj, and Viraj then created the Men (Purusha) or living creatures, they translate the latter word Purusha literally as Men. This is wrong since the creation of men and other living beings occurs in verses 8, 10 and 12. There is also a reference (Manu 3.195) which shows that Viraj had sons. Maharishi Manu also makes blunder about the creation which contradicts Vedas also, but on this Viraj issue he tries to make it simple saying that it was Brahma who produced Viraj, He writes

 

Manu Smriti 1.31-32 But for the sake of the prosperity of the worlds he caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet. Dividing his own body, the Lord became half male and half female; with that (female) he produced Virag.

 

So this affirms the statement of some scholars who say that Purusha is the unborn Almighty God and from him Viraj was born. But it makes the situation more complex because Vedas states in the beginning only Viraj was present and from him Purusha was born,

 

Atharva Veda 19.6.9 In the beginning rose Viraj: Purusha from Viraj was born. As soon as he was born he spread westward and eastward o’er the earth.

https://truthabouthinduism.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/081514_0918_vediccontra4.png?w=625

 

Now this is senseless and as complicated as the saying ”What came first the chicken or the egg?” This is a clear contradiction, because Purusha is unborn they say and from Purusha, Viraj was born. But this verse states the In the beginning rose (Sambhavat) Viraj and from him Purusha was born. To strengthen my argument I would like to quote next two verses of Atharva Veda 19.6.9 which would also clear the mist,

 

Atharva Veda 19.6.10-11 When Gods performed the sacrifice with Purusha as their offering. Spring was the butter, summer was the fuel, autumn was the gift. That sacrifice, first-born Purusha, they hallowed with the sprinkled Rains. The Deities, the Sadhyas, all the Vasus sacrificed with him.

https://truthabouthinduism.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/081514_0918_vediccontra5.png?w=625

 

So this shows that the sacrificed Purusha was born from Viraj. Purusha was the first to take birth from Viraj. So how is it possible that the Almighty God (Purusha) himself was born from an egg (Viraj)?

 

 

Who was Sacrificed?

Rig Veda 10.90.6 When Gods prepared the sacrifice with Purusa as their offering, Its oil was spring, the holy gift was autumn; summer was the wood.

https://truthabouthinduism.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/081514_0918_vediccontra6.png?w=625

 

It is mentioned in Krishna Yajur Veda,

Krishna Yajur Veda 6.3.5 The Sadhya gods were in this world and nothing else living. They offered Agni as a sacrifice to Agni [Fire], for they found nothing else to offer; thence indeed these creatures were born; in that he casts the fire on the fire after producing it, (it serves for) the propagation of offspring.

 

 

How the creation of universe (or of earth) took place?

While Purusha Sukta is often quoted, The Rig Veda 10.72 hymn is often ignored by the scholars. Both have similarity and difference. The similarity is that both these Suktas talk about how the creation took place and the difference is that both these Suktas give a complete different picture about creation of universe. According to Purusha Sukta the earth was gendered from the Almighty god’s feet (Rigved 10.90.14), while the 72nd hymn states that the earth was born from a tree,

 

Rig Veda 10.72.1-4 Let us proclaim with a clear voice the generations of the gods (the divine company), who, when their praises are recited, look (favourably on the worshipper) in this latter age. Brahmanaspati filled these (generations of the gods) with breath as a blacksmith (his bellows) in the first age of the gods the existent was born of the non-existent. In the first age of the gods the existent was born of the non-existent; after that the quarters (of the horizon) were born, and after them the upward-growing (trees). The earth was born from the upward-growing (tree), the quarters were born from the earth; Daksha was born from Aditi, and afterwards Aditi from Daksha. – Tr. Wilson

https://truthabouthinduism.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/081514_0918_vediccontra7.png?w=625

 

Founder of Arya Samaj Swami Dayanand Saraswati argued against the creation of universe out of nothing. He criticized the Qur’an’s concept of creation out of nothing which is similar to this 72nd hymn of Rigved Mandal 10. Hindu scholars gave more importance to the Purusha Sukta and rejected the 72nd Sukta. Both these Suktas of the same Rig Veda are contradictory.

 

 

So who really created the universe?

Rig Veda 10.90.6 When Gods prepared the sacrifice with Purusa as their offering, Its oil was spring, the holy gift was autumn; summer was the wood.

https://truthabouthinduism.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/081514_0918_vediccontra8.png?w=625

Vedas doesn’t give the list of gods who sacrificed Purusha. But it’s mentioned in Atharva Veda 13.1.55 that Rohita brought the world which rose from the sacrifice (of Purusha). It either means that Rohita alone sacrificed Purusha or Rohita was among the gods or Rishis who sacrificed Purusha. Rohita is considered a sage in that verse. It’s mentioned in Rigved,

 

Rig Veda 10.129.6-7 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world’s production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

https://truthabouthinduism.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/081514_0918_vediccontra9.png?w=625

 

Swami Vivekananda’s English translation,

”[6] Who knew the way? Who there declared Whence this arose? Projection whence? For after this projection came the gods. Who therefore knew indeed, came out this whence?

[7] This projection whence arose, Whether held or whether not, He the ruler in the supreme sky, of this He, O Sharman! knows, or know not He perchance”- Rig Veda 10.129.6-7, Tr. Swami Vivekananda. [Source: http://www.swamivivekananda.org.in/main/e-library/hymns/the-hymn-on-creation/ ]

 

When Gods are later than this world’s production then who sacrificed Purusha? As we read in Purusha Sukta that it were the Gods who sacrificed Purusha. According to Vedas It was only after the sacrifice of Purusha that entire universe including this world came into existence. Manu also alludes that the Rishis were born after the creation of universe (Manu 1.34-35). So how is it possible that this creation took place without the gods? And who really sacrificed Purusha then?

When the Vedas which was believed by every Hindu god as highest authoritative text doesn’t have the answer about who really created the universe, then why do you believe it to be the word of god? Some may try to twist and turn these verses to hide the fallacies of Vedas, but truth will remain truth. They may deceive themselves but intellectuals will definitely find the truth. It is clear that the composer or God of Vedas is not the creator. Vedas juggles about the creator, but it’s not difficult to find the real creator of this world.

 

The post Vedic Contradiction: How the Creation came into Existence appeared first on VedKaBhed.Com.

]]>
The roots of Rape in India https://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2014/05/01/the-roots-of-rape-in-india-2/ Thu, 01 May 2014 18:32:23 +0000 http://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2014/05/01/the-roots-of-rape-in-india-2/ Written by Kancha Ilaiah Rape has, of late, become an acute disease in the Indian society. Prima facie, this is a problem arising out of a mental disorder, but there is also a larger cultural context that, to an extent, explains how the Indian male became so brutal. Our cultural upbringing conditions male minds to […]

The post The roots of Rape in India appeared first on VedKaBhed.Com.

]]>
Written by Kancha Ilaiah

Rape has, of late, become an acute disease in the Indian society. Prima facie, this is a problem arising out of a mental disorder, but there is also a larger cultural context that, to an extent, explains how the Indian male became so brutal.

Our cultural upbringing conditions male minds to behave in a cruel fashion with women. Family upbringing, societal conditioning, religious sagas and political animus, all construct our men and women into being what they are — men as aggressive and women as submissive. Which is why men here, in India, are different from men in other countries.


Their cultural milieu is different. Their spiritual systems train them differently. It’s not that only Indian men rape and kill children aged three or five. This happens in other countries too, but they are the rarest of rare cases. Daily reports of infants being raped across the length and breadth of a country is a phenomenon unique to India, a society that’s otherwise highly conservative. Clearly, the institutional upbringing, including that in family, needs to undergo change.

Every time a gruesome rape gets reported, we all are ashamed and angry. That’s one thing; but working out ways and means to eradicate such evil is another thing. We cannot leave it entirely to the police or the judiciary to tackle such heinous acts. For, rape is also a cultural problem; and it is a more serious problem because of the extermination of the victim. We need to treat the malaise from its very roots.

We are a society that derives its sense of good and bad from our mythologies and spiritual ethics. Our gods and goddesses are not only worshipped but also adored. And it is our lifelong endeavour to emulate them. This is the cultural environment that shapes the lives of most people in India. So it’s natural that what gods do influences us much more than the moral lesson at the end. Now consider this: we have gods who, for instance, have cut the nose and ear lobes of a woman who approached them professing her love (Lakshman is depicted as having done this to Shurpanakha), and yet we adore him and see him as a symbol of loyalty, sacrifice and righteous indignation.

Lord Krishna stole the clothes of women while they were bathing in the Yamuna river. He did so to tease them and for the pleasure of watching the beauty of their naked bodies. We hang miniature paintings of the same act in our homes proudly. The young men who grow up seeing this, or listening to the story told in an amused tone are bound to not find such an act abhorrent.

We also have a god, Shiva, who insisted on entering the bathing arena of Goddess Parvati and did so by eliminating a child who was keeping guard at the open door. Lord Ganesha is said to have emerged out of such a union. Is this right or wrong? Our mythology tells us that what a husband does is right, that his will is greater than the woman’s. If a mythological hero is praised for his acts of killing, drinking and fornicating with multiple women (like Indra did with Rambha, Urvashi, Menaka, Tilottama and so on), it is glorification of such behaviour.

When such stories are a part of the mythological texts, they should, at least, be critically evaluated and given a more contemporary, political reading which is rooted in the concept of equality. Instead, the tendency is to not question what our gods did, but simply admire such acts.

Barring a few exceptions, there is no appreciation, per se, of a healthy man-woman relationship which is rooted in the concept of equality. Indian women are shown as lathangi (a person of delicate body), never strong enough to resist her dehumanisation. Though Durga and Kali are shown as strong, in real life such militancy is not seen as feminine.

Now let us turn to the political spectrum. We have had many great men — Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan etc — who got married at a young age with girls of much younger age, went abroad for higher studies, leaving their wives at home totally illiterate or semi-literate. We do not know how these men, or Gokhale and Tilak, treated their wives.

But we know that they were all devotees of the deities mentioned above. The only man who treated his wife as a friend and educated her right from the first day of his marriage, Mahatma Jyotirao Phule, is not taught as an example to be emulated in our texts.  Somehow, in our patriarchal cultural milieu, unkind and inhuman treatment of women has never been a matter of concern. It’s considered sacrilegious, for example, to question Lord Ram for leaving his dutiful wife on the random outburst of a dhobi.

And Sita’s action, in turn, to not question, but to commit suicide, is considered the epitome of all that is pious. Even Gautam Buddha left his young wife, with an infant child. Questioning such acts has never been part of our public discourse.

Or, look at our cinemas. Ever since the industry came into being, silent or talkie, it has used woman’s body as a money-making object. The song and dance sequence that it has adopted as an art form falls into a common pattern — every hero is licensed to misuse the body of the heroine. The romance in our film industry is not romance; it is vulgarity bordering on the criminal.
So is it a surprise that men of this country see it as their right to violate women in all spheres of life?

The writer is director, Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad

The post The roots of Rape in India appeared first on VedKaBhed.Com.

]]>
Mulshankar and Casteism https://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2014/05/01/mulshankar-and-casteism/ Thu, 01 May 2014 13:26:00 +0000 http://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2014/05/01/mulshankar-and-casteism/ Caste and Religion With the onset of British rule in India, which was formalised in 1857, the country witnessed the emergence of new religious movements among both Hindus and Muslims. These movements were related to the race for numbers among Hindu and Muslim elites, with political power for each community in the new dispensation linked […]

The post Mulshankar and Casteism appeared first on VedKaBhed.Com.

]]>
Caste and Religion

With the onset of British rule in India, which was formalised in 1857, the country witnessed the emergence of new religious movements among both Hindus and Muslims. These movements were related to the race for numbers among Hindu and Muslim elites, with political power for each community in the new dispensation linked to its numerical strength. Hindu and Muslim religious revivalist organisations and movements began to vie with each other to bring the oppressed castes into their respective folds. In part, this was clearly motivated by the desire to bolster the political fortunes of the ‘upper’ caste Hindu and Muslim elites, who claimed to speak for all of their co-religionists.

Numerous such movements emerged within the larger Hindu fold at this time. Many of them aimed at Hinduising the Shudras and preventing their conversion to Islam and Christianity. Some of them also sought to woo back into the Hindu fold Hindu converts or their descendants who were now Christians and Muslims. One such movement was the Brahmo Samaj, which was founded in 1830 by Ram Mohan Roy, a Bengali Brahmin. Although Ram Mohan Roy critiqued many superstitious and idolatrous aspects of popular Hinduism, he did not mount a radical critique of the caste system, Brahminism, and Brahminical supremacy. It is said that, following orthodox Brahminical practice, he employed a Brahmin cook, and refused all his life to remove his janeo, the ‘sacred’ thread that is the distinguishing mark of orthodox Brahmins.

Among the major aims of the Brahmo Samaj were defending Hinduism from the criticism of Christian and Muslim missionaries, halting the rapid conversion of Hindus to Christianity and Islam,   Hinduising the Shudras, and, at the same time, preserving the hegemony of the Brahmins. These were aims that it shared with another revivalist neo-Hindu movement that emerged at around this time, the Arya Samaj. This movement was founded in 1875 by a Gujarati Brahmin called Mool Shankar, more popularly known as Dayanand Saraswati. Alarmed by the mass conversion of Shudras, particularly Dalits, to Christianity and Islam, Dayanand sought to prevent them from doing so by offering them the illusion of upward social mobility within the Hindu fold. Thus, for instance, he argued that Shudras, too, had the right to recite the Vedas and don the janeo, and claimed that caste was to be based on worth rather than birth.

At the same time as he sought to appeal to the Shudras, Dayanand firmly upheld the caste system and ‘upper’ caste hegemony. Accordingly, he continued to accept the authority of the Manusmriti, which he profusely quoted in his magnum opus Satyarth Prakash or ‘The Light of Truth’. He approvingly refered to a verse in the Manusmiriti that declares a principal task of the king to be to ensure that all the four varnas strictly abide by their varna-determined duties, that is to say caste-based roles.[i] In a debate in Benaras with Tara Charan, a Sanatani or orthodox Hindu pundit, he rebuffed the latter for seeking to adduce evidence from the Puranas on the grounds that he accepted the authority only of the Manusmriti and certain other texts that he claimed were based on the Vedas.[ii] The question thus arises that if Dayanand considered the Manusmiriti to be authoritative, how could he possibly be thought to have radically critiqued caste, as is commonly claimed? After all, with the exception of a few verses, the only subjects that the Manusmriti talks about are caste, social hierarchy, untouchability, discrimination, Brahminical supremacy and the degradation and exploitation of the Shudras. Given all this, how was it at all possible for the Shudras to find genuine liberation in and through the Arya Samaj?

The fact of the matter is that, despite its claims to social reform and equality, the Arya Samaj stood solidly for caste inequality, discrimination and the varnashrama dharma. In fact, Dayanand Saraswati himself showed no qualms in exhibiting his distaste for Chandals, Shudras and other such so-called ‘low’ castes. For instance, he opined that sinners of a certain sort turned into elephants, horses, lions, wolves, boars and Shudras and Mlecchas[iii], another class into trees, and yet another class into Chandals.[iv] It is true that he declared it permissible for the dwijas, the so-called ‘twice-born’ or ‘upper’ caste Hindus, to eat food cooked by Shudras, but this should not be thought of as a call for radical social equality, for the argument he gave for this was that the dwijas—Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas—had other tasks to do. Further, it is instructive to note that this was not a blanket permission for eating food cooked by Shudras, for Dayanand added that the dwijas should desist from eating food cooked in a Shudra’s house except under dire necessity, and that too if the Shudra had taken a bath and his clothes were clean. He also insisted that if a Shudra were to cook food in an Arya’s home, he should cover his mouth to ensure that his saliva did not touch the food or else it would be contaminated. Moreover, he added, the Shudra must serve food to the Arya and then eat himself.[v]

In response to a query as to whether there was any harm in eating food cooked by any person being irrespective of caste on the grounds that the bodies of all humans, from Brahmins to Chandals, are made of the same flesh and bones and contain the same blood, Dayanand replied, ‘Yes, there is harm. A Brahmin and Brahmini are fed on the very best of foods. Hence, their bodies are formed out of the reproductive elements that are free from impurities and other harmful elements.’ But this, he claimed, was not true of the bodies of Chandals and Chandalnis, or Chandal women, which were, so he put it, ‘simply laden with dirt and other foul matter.’ That is why, he insisted, Brahmins and other ‘upper’ castes must eat together and desist from eating food touched by Chandals, Bhangis, Chamars and other ‘low’ castes. [vi]

Despite projecting himself as saviour of the Shudras, Dayanand actually stood for their continued slavery under Brahminism. It was not, as is commonly thought, that he forcefully condemned Brahminism or that he radically challenged all the various oppressive rules that the Brahmins had devised to subjugate the Shudras. Thus, critiquing followers of the Brahmo Samaj and the Prarthna Samaj for not abstaining from eating with the English, Muslims and Chandals, Dayanand wrote that these groups were deluded if they thought that by flouting the rules of caste, including those related to commensality, they were reforming society. In actual fact, he argued, they were ‘ruining it’.[vii] Consistent with this belief, Dayananad is said to have refused to eat in the house of even a Brahmin if he knew that food had been cooked by a ‘low’ caste man or woman. His biographer Pandit Lekh Ram narrates one such incident. In 1879, while on a trip to Dehra Dun, a Brahmo Samajist named Babu Kali Mohan Ghosh invited Dayanand to his house for a meal. Dayanand replied that he had no qualms in eating in his house but added that he had heard that Brahmo Samajists sometimes employed ‘low’ caste cooks. This, he said, he did not approve of. The Babu admitted that Brahmo Samajists did not consider it wrong to eat food cooked by anyone, irrespective of caste, but said that he himself did not have a ‘low’ caste cook. Thereupon, Dayanand agreed to eat at his house.

The next day, Pandit Lekh Ram writes, his own brother, Har Gulal, informed him that Dayanand had accepted the Babu’s invitation. Hearing this, Pandit Lekh Ram took some food and went straight to Dayanand’s room. He gave the food to him to eat, and told him that he had committed a major blunder by accepting the Babu’s invitation because at one time a Bhangi woman used to cook food in his house. Dayanand replied that he had no knowledge of this and that the Babu had cheated him. He returned to the Babu the food he had sent for him and, instead, ate the food that Pandit Lekh Ram had brought.[viii]

From all this it is clearly evident that Dayanand’s Arya Samaj aimed not at the emancipation, but, rather, at the subordination of the Shudras so as to preserve and promote Hinduism or Brahminism in the face of the challenge of Islam and Christianity. It aimed at keeping the Shudras firmly within the Hindu fold, at the very bottom of the varna hierarchy. Like many other ‘upper’ caste Hindus of his time, Dayanand felt that if the Shudras were not prevented from converting out of the Hindu fold, the very existence of Hinduism would be under under grave threat since the hegemony of the ‘upper’ castes rested on the labour and the degradation of the Shudras. That is why the Arya Samaj appeared to make some minor concessions with regard to the rules of caste and untouchability, although these did not amount to any real threat to Brahminical hegemony. Dayanand, it can be said, established the Arya Samaj only to save Brahminism from death. He tried to interpret the Hindu scriptures in such a way as to kill the rising spirit of revolt among the Shudras, to co-opt them firmly into the Hindu fold, and make them even better slaves of the ‘upper’ castes. 

Just as the Arya Samaj tried to woo the Shudras into its fold, Christian missionaries, belonging to various denominations, sought to do the same across large parts of India. The flood of Shudra converts to Christianity, and, to a lesser extent, Islam, goaded groups such as the Arya Samaj to reach out to the Shudras whom otherwise they might not have been at all concerned about. Christian missionaries brought along with them modern education and medicine, and certainly served the poorest of the poor. Yet, as with the Hindus and Muslims, caste could not be eradicated among the Indian Christians, who continue to be divided on caste lines.

Although the Arya Samajists and the Christian missionaries saw themselves as inveterate foes, they both made concerted attempts to woo Muslims of indigenous Shudra descent and convert them to their respective folds. The Arya Samaj invented the shuddhi ritual to bring into the Hindu fold non-Hindus, including Muslims and Christians who had once been Hindus or who were descendants of Hindu converts. In the early 1920s, they scored considerable success in their missionary endeavours among some isolatednau-musalman groups of ‘low’ caste status who had been only very lightly Islamised over the centuries and who still retained many of their pre-Islamic customs and beliefs. To facilitate this missionary campaign, Arya Samajist scholars penned tracts deeply critical of Islam, and engaged in fierce debates with Muslims on religious matters. Christian missionaries did the same. As a response, various Muslim organisations soon emerged to engage in missionary or tabligh work. Faced with the challenge of the Christian and Arya Samajist missionaries, these Muslim leaders realised that the existence of caste and caste-based discrimination within the Muslim fold left many ‘low’ caste Muslim groups vulnerable to apostasy. This was a clarion call to Muslim leaders to wake up from their deep slumber, to combat the evils of caste in their society, to recognise the acute problems of the ‘low’ caste Muslims, and to try to exemplify, in their own lives and in society at large, the Islamic teachings of social equality and brotherhood.



[i] Dayanand Saraswati, Satyarth Prakash (Urdu translation by Pandit Chamopati and edited by Swami Ved Anand Tirath, Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, New Delhi, n.d., pp.88-91.

[ii] Lala Lajpat Rai, Arya Samaj ki Tarikh (vol.3), (Urdu translation by Kishwar Sultan), National Council for the Promotion of the Urdu Language, New Delhi, 1997, p.53.

[iii] Saraswati, op.cit., p.252.

[iv] Saraswati, op.cit., p.25.

[v] Saraswati, op.cit., p.263.

[vi] Saraswati, op.cit., p.267.

[vii] Saraswati, op.cit., p.360.

[viii] Pandit Lekh Ram, Quoted in Ghazi Mahmud Dharam Pal, Arya Samaj  aur Swami Dayanand, Islamia Press, Lahore, p.430.

The post Mulshankar and Casteism appeared first on VedKaBhed.Com.

]]>
Caste and Racial Discrimination https://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2014/01/01/caste-and-racial-discrimination/ Wed, 01 Jan 2014 09:42:38 +0000 http://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2014/01/01/caste-and-racial-discrimination/ Written by Ibn Muhammad A study of various religions of the world makes it clear that only the Hindu religion sanctions the worst form of discrimination based on one’s birth. May be some followers of other religions also practice some sort of caste discrimination. However, their religious texts do not approve of the caste discrimination. […]

The post Caste and Racial Discrimination appeared first on VedKaBhed.Com.

]]>
Written by Ibn Muhammad

A study of various religions of the world makes it clear that only the Hindu religion sanctions the worst form of discrimination based on one’s birth. May be some followers of other religions also practice some sort of caste discrimination. However, their religious texts do not approve of the caste discrimination. This is not the case with Hinduism though. Hindus derive the caste system directly from their scriptures and their scriptures sanction Caste discrimination.

The Hindu religion, from the very beginning, has sowed division between one human and the other.  Let us take a look at the sanction provided to this discriminatory institution in the Hindu scriptures and also, simultaneously respond to modern Hindu polemics which try to deny Caste System in Hindu Scriptures.

Following is a list of verbatim quotations from Hindu scriptures, which speak of and approve the caste system:

  1. बराह्मणो.अस्य मुखमासीद बाहू राजन्यः कर्तः |
    ऊरूतदस्य यद वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत || 

    “The Brahmana was his [God’s] mouth, of both his arms was the Rājanya made. His thighs became the Vaishya, from his feet the Shudra was produced.”  [Purusha Sukta; Rigveda 10/90/12 and Yajurveda 31/11 and Atharvaveda 19/6/6]
  2. “For Brahman (Priesthood) he binds a Brahmana to the stake; for Kshatriya (Royalty) a Râjanya; for rearing cattle a Vaishya; for Penance a Shudra;” [Yajurveda 30/5]
  3. नृत्ताय सूतं 
    “For Dance, God creates a Soot.” [Yajurveda 30/6] A ‘Soot’ is the son of a Kshatriya and a Brahmin woman who generally does the business of dancing. Here caste and profession is determined by birth. Refer to Manu Smriti 10/11.
  4. गीताय शैलूषं
    “For song, God creates a bard.” [Yajurveda 30/6]
  5. तपसे कौलालं 
    “For penance, God creates a potter’s son.” [Yajurveda 30/7]
  6. वैशन्ताभ्यो वैन्दं 
    “For maintaining small tanks, God creates the son of a Nishada.” [Yajurveda 30/16] A ‘Nishada’ is the son of a Brahmin man and a Shudra woman. Refer to Manu Smriti Chapter 10, verse 8.
  7. ये गर्भा अवपद्यन्ते जगद् यच्चपलुप्यते |
    वीरा ये तृह्यन्ते मिथो ब्रह्मजाया हिनस्ति तान् ||
    “Whatever infants die, untimely born, Whatever herds of cattle waste away, Whatever heroes strike each other dead, the Brāhmin’s wife destroys them.” [Atharvaveda 5/17/7]
  8. उत यत् पतयो दश स्त्रियाः पूर्वे अब्राह्मणाः |
    ब्रह्मा चेद्धस्तमग्रहीत् स एव पतिरेकधा ||
    ब्राह्मण एव पतिर्न राजन्यो न वैश्यः |

    “Even if ten former husbands—none a Brāhmin—had espoused a dame, And then a Brāhmin took her hand, he is her husband, only henot Vaisya, not Rājanya, no, the Brāhmin is indeed her lord: [Atharvaveda 5/17/8-9]
  9. शूद्रार्यावसृज्येताम
    “Shudra and Arya were created.” [Yajurveda 14/30]  Here Shudras and Aryas are clearly differentiated. Thus only Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are considered Arya (translated as ‘Noble’ by Arya Samaj). Therefore, Shudras are ‘Anaryas’.
  10. आर्य ईश्वर्पुत्रः
    Arya’ means ‘Son of God’, according to Nirukt 6/26Combining points 9 and 10, Shudras and other low castes are not sons of God or the beloved of God.
  11.  So, what should be the behaviour of Aryans towards the non-Aryans? Various mantras of the Vedas make it clear that Aryans have the God-given right to oppress the non-Aryans, take their wealth and if they resist, kill them.
  12. In Vedic times, there lived an untouchable people in a village named Kikat, in todays Bihar. The used to rear cattle. Obviously to the Aryans this was a crime. So they invoked their warrior god Indra to wage war against them and loot their cows.किं ते कर्ण्वन्ति कीकटेषु गावो नाशिरं दुह्रे न तपन्तिघर्मम |
    आ नो भर परमगन्दस्य वेदो नैचाशाखं मघवन्रन्धया नः ||

    “O Indra, what do the cows make for you among the Kikatas? They neither yield milk for your offerings, nor do they warm the vessel of libation. Bring to us these cows, bring to us also the wealth of Pramagand (their King). O Brave one, grant us the possessions of the people of low status.” [Rigveda 3:53:14]
    On the basis of this clear pronouncement, non-Aryans and untouchables have no right to keep cows. Aryans, whenever they wish can kill them and appropriate their possessions. Hindu culture thus becomes the culture of the progress, civilization and welfare of the Aryan people alone. The pathetic plight of the untouchables of India was due to instructions like these given by Hindu scriptures.
  13. These non-Aryans have been described at several places in the Vedas as अन्यव्रतम (followers of another religion),अमानुषम (not human), अयज्वानम (not performing Yajna) [Rigveda 8/70/11]
  14. इन्द्रः समत्सु यजमानमार्यं परावद विश्वेषु शतमूतिराजिषु सवर्मीळ्हेष्वाजिषु | मनवे शासदव्रतान तवचं कर्ष्णामरन्धयत | 
    Indra is said to help the Aryan worshippers in battles and punishes the neglector of religious rites, who are said to be having ‘black skin’ (तवचं कर्ष्णाम). [Rigveda 1/130/8]
  15. The maidens of the ‘dark race’ are the free sexual dishes of Aryans. Nirukt 12/13 mentions that ‘Raamaa‘, the lovely maidens belonging to the dark race are only for enjoyment and not for any sacred purpose.
  16. Shudras have no right to read the Vedas according to Hindu scriptures. However, in recent times some modern Hindus who felt ashamed to carry the burden of this clear discrimination and suppression, tried to reinterpret Hindus texts in such a way which allowed Shudras to also read the Vedas. Some Hindu polemicists, present mantra 2 of Yajurveda chapter 26 as proof that all Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishas, Shudras, the kinsfolk allowed to study the Vedas. The Arya samaj translation of Swami Dayanand more or less goes like this,“I do hereby address this salutary speech for the benefit of humanity, for Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, the Shudras, the Vaishas, my women and servants, and the men of lowest position in society. Dear may I be to the learned and the guerdon-giver in this world. Fulfilled be this desire of mine. May I achieve my aim.” [Yajurveda 26/2]
    This new, unique, twisted translation of Swami ji is opposed to common sense. If these are the words of God, according to the Swami, who are the women of God? and who are His servants? When did God get married to have kinsfolk? When God has already named Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishas and Shudras, for what purpose are women and servants  listed separately? Are women and servants outside the castes mentioned? Besides this, the desperation of God that he may be dear to all and his DESIRE be fulfilled , shows him as one craving for fame. This does not behoove God at all.
    All these questions are solved if we take these as not being the words of God. The words are in reality spoken by a Yajmaan (one who is performing the Yajna) asking for his desires to be fulfilled and the food presented in the Yajna be partaken by all. This mantra cannot be used to allow Shudras to read the Vedas.
  17. On the other hand the Hindu scriptures clearly prohibit a Shudra from studying the Vedas. Let us see the commentary on Brahmasutra 1/3/38
    And on account of the prohibition, in Smriti, of (the Sûdras’) hearing and studying (the Veda) and (knowing and performing) (Vedic) matters.
    Adi, Shankaracharya commenting on it writes,
    “The Sûdras are not qualified for that reason also that Smriti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages: ‘The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with (molten) lead and lac,’ and ‘For a Sûdra is (like) a cemetery, therefore (the Veda) is not to be read in the vicinity of a Sûdra.’ From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how should he study Scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, an express prohibition (of the Sûdras studying the Veda). ‘His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.’ The prohibitions of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as ‘he is not to impart knowledge to the Sûdra,’ and ‘to the twice-born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.’–From those Sûdras, however, who, like Vidura and ‘the religious hunter,’ acquire knowledge in consequence of the after effects of former deeds, the fruit of their knowledge cannot be withheld, since knowledge in all cases brings about its fruit. Smriti, moreover, declares that all the four castes are qualified for acquiring the knowledge of the itihâsas and purânas; compare the passage, ‘He is to teach the four castes’ (Mahâbh.).–It remains, however, a settled point that they do not possess any such qualification with regard to the Veda.”
    Acharya Ramanuja commenting on the same Brahmasutra writes,
    “The Sûdra is specially forbidden to hear and study the Veda and to perform the things enjoined in it. ‘For a Sûdra is like a cemetery, therefore the Veda must not be read in the vicinity of a Sûdra;’ ‘Therefore the Sûdra is like a beast, unfit for sacrifices.’ And he who does not hear the Veda recited cannot learn it so as to understand and perform what the Veda enjoins. The prohibition of hearing thus implies the prohibition of understanding and whatever depends on it.”
    So, here we have two of the most influential Hindu schholars and intellectual giants totally prohibiting the Shudras from studying the Vedas.
  18. स्तुता मया कीर्ति वेदमात प्र चोदयन्तां पावमानी द्विजानाम् 
    “Let my libations, giving boons, adoring, further the Twice-born’s (Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishas) song that honours Soma.” [Atharvaveda 19/71/1]
  19. Shatapath Brahman 2/1/4/12 says,
    “With ‘bhûh!’ Prajâpati generated the Brahmin; with ‘bhuvah!’ the Kshatriya; with ‘svah!’ the Vaisya. As much as are the Brahmin, the Kshatriya, and the Vaisya, so much is this universe: with the universe it (the fire) is accordingly established.”
  20. The Upanishads are also supportive of the evil caste system.
    Upanishads clearly spell out that caste is based on birth due to the deeds of previous lives. This is the reason for this idea taking such root in the Hindu society that it continues to divide Indian society even today.

Chandogya Upanishad 5/10/7 says,

“Those whose conduct here on earth has been good will quickly attain some good birth—birth as a brahmin, birth as a kshatriya, or birth as a vaisya. But those whose conduct here has been evil will quickly attain some evil birth—birth as a dog, birth as a pig, or birth as a chandala.”

On one hand Upanishads talk of one Soul permeating all; only Brahma being real and the world being an illusion, while on the other hand they sanction this cruel birth based caste system.

  • Some Hindus give the example of Satyakaam Jabali, who was the son of a prostitute and became a Brahmin. This is an outright lie. If we read carefully the interview of Satyakaam by his would be Guru, Gautama Haridrumata, we find that birth based caste system is again affirmed. When the Guru asked Satyakaam of what family he was, he replied he did not know except what his mother told him. Hearing this straightforward answer, the Guru declared that he was a Brahmin, because NO ONE BUT A BRAHMIN SPEAKS IN SUCH A LANGUAGE. [Chandogya Upanishad 4/4/4-5] Note that the boy had not yet acquired knowledge and thus could not be a Brahmin. The Guru just by listening to his words decalred that he was from a Brahmin FAMILY. This proves that the caste was determined by birth. So this example of the modern Hindu revisionist backfires.
  • Even the ancient books on Sanskrit grammar are not free from the caste mindset. Panini states in his book AshtadhyaayiBook 8, Chapter 2, Sootra 83 that in response to the salution of greeting of a Shudra, one should reply to the salutation without any cheerfulness or being too friendly. However, in the case of the Dwijas/Twice borns, greeting must be returned with a better greeting.
  • Further, the same Panini writes in Ashtadhyaayi 2/4/10 शूद्राणां निरवसितानाम and शूद्राणां अनिरवसितानाम The latter means a Shudra who can take food from the dish of a higher class without permanently defiling the vessel. The former is that Shudra whose touch permanently defiles the vessel in which he takes food.
  • Manu Smriti is the clearest Hindu document which spells out that Shudras are just filthy and have to be enslaved. Many Hindus want to just do away with Manu Smriti but the excerciseis futile. Manu Smriti is authenticated by the Vedas and also the Upanishads.
  • But for the sake of the prosperity of the worlds he caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet. [Manu Smriti 1/31]
  • A low-caste man who tries to place himself on the same seat with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be banished, or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed. [Manu 8/281] Caste is by birth.
  • A Brahmana may confidently seize the goods of (his) Sudra (slave); for, as that (slave) can have no property, his master may take his possessions. [Manu 8/417]
  • But a Sudra, whether bought or unbought, he may compel to do servile work; for he was created by the Self-existent (Svayambhu) to be the slave of a Brahmin. [Manu 8/413]
  • A Sudra, though emancipated by his master, is not released from servitude; since that is innate in him, who can set him free from it? [Manu 8/414]
  • Dr. Surendra Kumar has written a detailed translation of Manu Smriti in Hindi that analyzes each shloka on various parameters and weeds out the verses which he assumed to have been interpolated. He concluded that a certain verse of Manu Smriti was interpolated if it contradicted with the Vedas. Now let us see the how these modern Hindus cremated their own ideology by this misadventure. Manu Smriti 1/96-97 says,“Of created beings the most excellent are said to be those which are animated; of the animated, those which subsist by intelligence; of the intelligent, mankind; and of men, the Brahmins; Of Brahmins, those learned (in the Veda); of the learned, those who recognise (the necessity and the manner of performing the prescribed duties); of those who possess this knowledge, those who perform them; of the performers, those who know the Brahman.”
    Note the bold and underlined text. It clearly implies that a Brahmin is one by birth. That is why is uses the words ‘of Brahmins, the most excellent are those learned (in the Veda)’. For the modern Hindus who assume that caste ACCORDING TO THE VEDAS is not by birth but by qualities, this text of Manu Smriti was an interpolation. Thus they removed it from the Revised Manu Smriti.

However, in their ignorance of the Vedas, they did a blunder. The same text is present in Atharvaveda 12/4/22 which says,
“If hundred other Brāhmins beg the Cow of him who owns her, The Gods have said, She, verily, belongs to him who is learned.”
This mantra also implies that Brahmins are Brahmins by birth and there may be more learned people among them. Now, if the text of Manu Smriti was ousted as an interpolation then by the same standard this mantra of Atharvaveda also is an interpolation.

  • Manusmriti declares that a Shudra cannot marry a girl from outside his caste. But a Brahmin can marry in the other three castes also in addition to his own. Similarly Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are allowed to marry girls from castes lower than their own besides from their own castes. [Manusmriti 3/13]
  • Know that a Brahmana of ten years and Kshatriya of a hundred years stand to each other in the relation of father and son; but between those two the Brahmana is the father.  [Manusmriti 2/135]
  • Manusmriti forbids a Shudra from giving evidence in a law-suit involving Brahmins. Similarly, a Brahmin cannot give evidence in a Shudra’s case. Shudras alone can appear as witnesses in a case involving Shudras and the same rule applies to scavangers also. [Manusmriti 8/ 68]
  • In short, the scriptures provide maximum punishment for Shudras, while the other castes get lesser punishment for the same kind of offence. The tongue of a Shudra who utters harsh words against the twice-born must be cut, says the ‘Manusmriti.’ If a Shudra pronounces the name and surname of a twice-born or utters impertinent words like “Hey Yagnadatt, you are a low Brahmin”, etc., a ten-inch-long, red-hot iron nail is to be thrust into his mouth.
    [Manusmriti 8 / 267 – 268]
  • Ironically, a Shudra is punished even for doing good deeds. Religious preaching was considered to be righteous act. But ‘Manusmriti’ says that hot oil must be poured into the mouth and ear of a Shudra who dares to preach to a Brahmin [Manusmriti 8 / 270 – 271]
  • A Shudra is not to be given good advice. Manu Smriti 4/80 says,“Let him not give to a Sudra advice, nor the remnants (of his meal), nor food offered to the gods; nor let him explain the sacred law (to such a man), nor impose (upon him) a penance.”
  • Let him not allow a dead Brahmin to be carried out by a Sudra, while men of the same caste are at hand; for that burnt-offering which is defiled by a Sudra’s touch is detrimental to (the deceased’s passage to) heaven. [Manusmriti 5/104]
  • Even social reformers like Swami Dayanand could not escape the strong influence of the Shastric injunctions. He too gives some do’s and don’ts in dealing with Shudras. Some of them are as follows:
    1. Eat food offered by Brahmins but don’t eat food offered by the Shudras like Chandals, scavengers, cobblers etc.
    2. Only on the occasion of grave emergency is one allowed to take food cooked in a Shudra’s house.
    3. A shudra who fulfils the conditions needed to pursue the studies of scriptures can be taught all the Shastras except the Vedas. Many religious teachers agree to the fact that a Shudra can pursue studies of scriptures but there can be no sacred thread ceremony for him. Since Swami Dayanand does not refute this attitude of the teachers, it can be inferred that he also subscribes to their views.
    4. The tag ‘Das‘ must be attached to the name of a Shudra (Sanskaar Vidhi  Pg 66)
  • Death is the reward for a Shudra who performs religious rites. An episode in the ‘Valmiki Ramayan’ says that a Brahmin put the blame for the death of his young son on Lord Ram. Then Narad came and explained to Ram that the death was owing to the illegitimate asceticism of a Shudra named Shambhuka.
    In another context, it is said that Ram saw a boy in the direction of South doing penance. When Ram asked the boy the reason for his penance, he replied that he wanted to conquer the ‘Devalok’ and then attain Godhood. He introduced himself as a Shudra named Shambhuka. When Ram came to know the Shudra identity of Shambhuka, he immediately killed him with his sword. And the Gods expressed their gratitude by showering praises on Ram.
  • Did Ram eat the fruit tasted by Shabri ?
    One is prompted to ask the question why Shudras are treated with contempt if, as claimed earlier, Ram ate the fruit offered by Shabri (a Shudra woman)?
    We want to know in which of the ‘Ramayans’ the above episode occurs? Surely, there is no mention about Ram’s eating the defiled fruit in ‘Anand Ramayan’, ‘Manjul Ramayan’ or ‘Tulsi Ramayan’. The mention of Shabri’s low origin does occur in ‘Adhyatm Ramayan’. But it does not say anything about Ram’s eating the plum she offered, after tasting it herself first.
    In ‘Ramacharit Manas,’ the following reference to Shabri occurs in ‘Aranya Kand’. When Ram steps into Shabri’s hut, she is reminded of Sage Matanga’s prediction that Ram would one day visit her hut. Seeing the two brothers (one is dark and the other is fair) with lotus-like eyes, long arms, matted hair and adorned with garlands, Shabri fell at their feet Overwhelmed with love and devotion, she could not utter a word. Instead she prostrated at their feet again and again. Then after washing their feet and offering them honourable seats, she brought lot of fruits and roots for the distinguished guests.
    It becomes clear from this that the question of Ram’s taking fruit tasted by a Shudra woman does not arise. Moreover, the Shastras do not put any restrictions on accepting fruits and roots etc. from low caste people. Therefore, by accepting the fruit offered by Shabri, Ram neither antagonised the Shastras nor did he do anything radical.

 

This being the fact, there are people who claim that in Hindu scriptures, Shudras are treated with equality and love. But apparently those who claim thus have either not read the scriptures properly, or want to keep the Shudras in eternal subjugation, or dare not raise a voice against the inhuman attitude of the Shastras, or want to interpret this discriminating attitude as friendly.

The post Caste and Racial Discrimination appeared first on VedKaBhed.Com.

]]>