You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - Feb 2003

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00022 Feb 2003

 
Feb 2003 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Respected Srivaishnavas,
I feel the article makes sense over the point that percentage of Hindus is 
decreasing . The Government policy is that when a Dalit converts to another 
religion, he loses his concessions as a Scheduled Caste member and will 
automatically become a Backward Class member. Due to this reason, many of the 
Harijans, though might have converted to christianity or another religion, 
still hold themselves as Hindu (for record sake). This is being reflected in 
the census. In future, if a pro-christian government comes to power in India, 
they might allot separate percentage for the converted Harijans in which case, 
they will come out in open with their real religion. Christians are effecting 
large number of conversions luring people through monetary and other means. The 
percentage of Hindus in north-east India is fast decreasing. 
Politicians are doing more damage to the Hindu religion than the missionaries. 
For example, a known anti-Hindu, anti-Brahmin like Karunanidhi comes out 
telling that Hinduism insults human beings and remains the property of 
brahmins. But he says that Acharya Ramanuja is the first known social reformer 
to come out against caste-based distinctions. Nowadays, we find many articles 
in 'secular' newspapers like Hindu which almost conclude on their own that 
Hinduism doesn't believe in equality and alienates people based on caste. Even 
for the balance of argument, they don't consider that the azhwars, nayanmars 
and numerous sants have come from various castes and have been respected 
irrespective of their caste. In this sense, efforts by Sriman Velukkudi 
Krishnan Swami and others explaining the true nature of our Dharma should be 
highly appreciated. More efforts should be made to counter the inequality 
arguments enlightening more people.
Adiyen,
raghava dAsan.
Raman Kannan <rrfamily@xxxx> wrote:There is a serious flaw in the argument 
advanced
by this article.
The % will go down as the count goes up
in other communities.
The number of people who believe in hinduisim
has not gone down as this article would suggest.

The total number of people has not remained constant.

Other communities have grown out of proportion
because majority practice birth control and
so it happens more hindus practice family planning
than other communities.

There are other reasons to ponder the rest of
the argument, but let us not be alarmed by
declining percentage of hindus in the world
or India.
--
anandavalli dasan
--- GV & Shobha Srinivasan
<shobha.srinivasan@xxxx> wrote:
> Namaskaram,
> 
> I do not know how many people could see this message
> below from the website.
> I have cut & paste for devotees who could not read
> from the website.
> 
> This is a very interesting article & hence I am
> posting the whole article.
> Some agree & some disagree.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Shobha Srinivasan
> 
> 
> >
>
http://news.sify.com/cgi-bin/sifynews/news/content/news_fullstory_v2.jsp?art
> > icle_oid=12564633
> >
> > Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By O.P. Gupta
> 
> Over centuries, the percentage of Hindus in the
> world and even in India has
> been declining. The share of Hindus in total
> population of India was 84.98
> percent in the 1951 census, 82.7 percent in 1971,
> 82.6 percent in 1981 and
> 82.41 percent in 1991.
> 
> In the 2001 census report (table 24), it has been
> further revised downwards
> to 82 per cent in 1991 census.
> 
> This decline warrants serious introspection and
> reappraisal of our
> socio-religious norms. Whereas Islamic and Christian
> priests have been
> working overtime to seek new converts so as to
> increase their demographic
> weight, bulk of Hindu priests unaware of Rigvedic
> norms but, armed with
> Manusmriti have been functioning in such manner over
> last one thousand that
> years reduces population of Hindus by making it
> difficult for a sizeable
> chunk of Hindus (now called ST/SC/Dalits) to let
> them remain Hindus with
> honour and dignity; and, by not seeking new converts
> to Hinduism.
> 
> Concepts like castes by birth, upper/lower castes,
> untouchables and dalits
> are expressly prohibited by Rigveda, Ramayana and
> Shrimad Bhagwat Gita.
> 
> Protagonists of castes by birth cite Purus-Sukta
> (X.90.12) of Rigveda and
> slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita. This claim is
> totally knocked down by
> other richas of Rigveda, other slokas of Gita and
> examples set by Lord Rama.
> 
> There is no birth based caste in Rigveda is evident
> from simple fact that
> names of none of Rigvedic rishis carry any present
> day caste titles like
> Pandit, Sharma, Tripathi, Chaturvedi, Trivedi,
> Singh, Gupta and Namboodari.
> 
> Vedas, Valmiki Ramayan and Gita are three and only
> three supreme religious
> scriptures of Hindus. Rigveda has revelations to 414
> rishis. Rigveda was
> composed around 1500 BC but other school believes it
> to be older than 5000
> BC.
> 
> Rigveda does not mention cotton whereas the oldest
> cotton seeds found in
> Afghanistan are carbon dated to 5000 BC.
> 
> All others (Brahmanas, Upnishads, Puranas, Sutras,
> Smrities) are just
> commentaries, stories mixed with historical accounts
> and poets'
> imaginations.
> 
> All writings in Sanskrit are not religious
> scriptures. Therefore, these
> latter compositions must yield to supremacy of
> Vedas. It is not a new
> assertion as these themselves acknowledge supremacy
> of Vedas. For example,
> Manusmriti vide Sloka (II.6), states that Vedas are
> the primary/first source
> of authority. So, it is logical that all such slokas
> of Manusmriti which are
> violative of Veda stand rejected.
> 
> Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee in his book "Hindu Law
> and the Constitution" says
> that by a rule of interpretation, if the shruti
> (Vedas) and the smriti
> differ on any point, the former is to prevail.
> 
> 
> Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed after Vedas.
> Shrimad Bhagwat Gita is
> a part of Mahabharata. It is believed that
> Manusmriti was composed during
> Kushan period, about 100 years after
> Chankya/Kautilya. Arthur A. Macdonnel
> in his book "A History of Sanskrit Literature" (1899
> AD) estimates that
> Manusmriti in its present form was composed near
> about 200 AD.
> 
> In his book, Macdonnel warns that the smritis are
> not on the same footings
> as law books of other nations as these are works of
> private individuals
> (Brahmins); these were written by Brahimins for
> benefit of Brahinins whose
> caste pretentions these books consequently
> exaggerate.
> 
> None of these books from Manusmriti onwards were
> approved by any Dharam
> Sansad (religious congregation). Macdonnel advises
> to check
> statements/claims made in smrities by outside
> sources.
> 
> Text of Manusmriti has been tampered with was
> acknowledged by Sir William
> Jones, an employee of the East India Company who
> introduced it as the Law
> book of Hindus in British Indian Courts.
> 
> As devil is there in the details, let us look at
> English translations of
> (X.90.11 & 12). HH Wilson translates "When they
> immolated Purusa, into how
> many portions did they divide him? What was his
> mouth called, what his arms,
> what his thighs, what were his feet called? His
> mouth became the Brahmana,
> his arms became the Rajnya, his thighs became the
> Vaishya, and the Sudra was
> born from his feet." Ralph T.H. Griffith translates:
> "When they divided
> Purusa how many portions did they make? What do they
> call his mouth, his
> arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?" The
> Brahman was his mouth, of
> both his arms Rajnya was made. His thighs became
> Vaishya, from his feet the
> Sudra was produced."
> 
> This context, this background that, division of body
> of Purusa into four
> parts was done to kill/ immolate/sacrifice the
> Purusa has been totally
> suppressed in Manusmriti.
> 
> In sloka (I.31), Manusmriti wrongly claims, that for
> growth of people
> (lokanbridhi) Brahma created Brahman, Kshatriya,
> Vaishya and Shudra from
> mouth, arms, thighs and feet. With a view to create
> hereditary monopoly on
> easy money of dakshina, greedy priests centuries
> after Vedas concocted that
> as Brahman was born from mouth of Purusa, he was the
> superior most and as
> Sudra was born from feet which is impure part of
> body he was impure and the
> inferior most.
> 
> Manusmriti (5/132) states that organs above nabhi
> are sacred (pavitra) and
> those below are impure (apivatra). There is no
> sanction for such a
> hypothesis in Rigveda.
> 
> What Rishi Narain, composer of (X.90) was revealed
> is a very simple common
> sense, that even the most powerful man like Purusa
> can be
> immolated/destroyed if his mouth, arms, thighs and
> feet are separated.
> 
> If we kill a person what do we do? We cut his body
> into pieces. This is what
> followers of Manusmriti have been doing over
> centuries 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Srirangasri-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list