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

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00029 Feb 2003

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


This is my second time posting this, because I'm not sure if the 
first one went through due to a program glitch. If the first one did 
make it through, then please delete this one.

> >
> http://news.sify.com/cgi-
bin/sifynews/news/content/news_fullstory_v2.jsp?art
> > icle_oid=12564633
> >

> 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.

This sounds suspiciously like a plea for orthodox Hindus to abandon 
Vedic standards of ethical conduct, which many people are already not 
following. By lowering the standards, one can be more inclusive of 
those who are not prepared to follow them.

Yet it remains to be said why such a "religion" should have any 
merit, when the abandoment of dharmic tenets is acceptable for the 
sake of generating numbers. 

There are many references in the Puraanic literature to the 
unfortunate disposition of people in Kali Yuga, specifically in 
regards to our laziness, our tendency to embrace materialism, our 
tendency to cheat, etc. Given this, it goes without saying that 
genuine religion, which discourages materialism and encourages self-
realization, will not be popular among the masses.

> Concepts like castes by birth, upper/lower castes, untouchables and 
dalits
> are expressly prohibited by Rigveda, Ramayana and Shrimad Bhagwat 
Gita.
> 

Although I do not disagree with the conclusion above, I take great 
issue with the methods used to arrive at such conclusions. For 
example: 

> All others (Brahmanas, Upnishads, Puranas, Sutras, Smrities) are 
just
> commentaries, stories mixed with historical accounts and poets'
> imaginations.

This is simply absurd, and the author of this document had better do 
a little more research before he makes wild claims of this kind. In 
the Atharva Veda Samhitaa, we find the following:

R^ichaH saamaani chandaa.msi puraaNa.m yajuShaa saha |
uchchhiShTaaj jaj~nire sarve divi devaa divishritaaH || AV 11.7.24 ||

The R^ig, Saama, Yajur, and Atharva Vedas appeared from the Supreme 
Lord along with the PuraaNas and all the demigods residing in the 
heavenly planets (atharva veda 11.7.24).

This indicates that the Puraanas have the same divine origin as the 
Vedas themselves, and supporting evidence is found also in the 
Chaandogya Upanishad 7.1.2-4. This is hardly consistent with the 
author's theory that Puraanas, Upanishads, etc are merely "poets' 
imaginations." 

Is it not presumptuous that people who do not posess even a hundredth 
the knowledge, austerity, or humility as the great Vedaanta 
commentators will make such statements, in total defiance of the 
conclusions of the same?

> 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.

Yet in the Upanishads we have the following:

sa yathaardraidhaagnerabhyaahitaatpR^ithagdhuumaa vinishcharanti 
eva.m vaaare'syamahato bhuutasya niHshvasitametadyadR^igvedo 
yajurvedaH saamavedao'tharvaaN^girasa itihaasaH puraaNa.m vidyaa 
upaniShadaH shlokaaH suutraaNyanuvyaakhyaanaani vyaakhyaanaani 
asyaivaitaani niHshvasitaani || BU2.4.10 ||

As from a fire kindled with wet fuel, clouds of smoke issue forth, 
so, my dear, verily, from this Glorious Great God has been breathed 
forth the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, Saama Veda, Atharvaangirasa, 
Itihaasa, Puraanas, Science of knowledge, Mystic Doctrines of 
Upanishads, pithy verses, aphorisms, elucidations and commentaries. 
>From Him, indeed, are all these breathed forth 
(bR^ihadaaranyakopaniShad 2.4.10).

Since Mahaabhaarata is one of the Itihaasas, there is no question of 
it having never existed before Vyaasa's compilation of it. Similarly, 
we have it on the authority of Naarada Muni that the Itihaasas are 
part of the fifth Veda:

rigveda.m bhagavo'dhyemi yajurveda.m saamavedamaatharvaNa.m 
chaturthamitihaasapuraaNa.m pa~nchama.m vedaanaa.m veda pitR^iya.m 
raashi.m daiva nidhi.m va kovaakyamekaaayana.m devavidhyaa.m 
brahmavidhyaa.m bhuutavidhyaa.m kShatravidyaa.m nakShatravidyaa.m 
sarpadevajanavidhyaametadbhagavo'dhyemi || CU 7.1.2 || 

Revered master, I know the Rig Veda, the Yajurveda, the Saaamaveda, 
and the Atharvan as the fourth, the Itihaasa, Puraanas as the fifth, 
graammer, the rules for the worship of the manes, mathematics, the 
science of portents, the chronology, logic, the science of ethics, 
etymology, the ancillary knowledge of the Vedas, the physical 
science, the science of war, the astronomy, the science of snake-
charming and the fine arts. This, venerable master, I know 
(chaandogya upaniShad 7.1.2). 

> 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.

Note the implicit prejudice in the above statements, which of course, 
colors the entire argument to follow. He first begins with an 
assertion, "these were written by Brahimins for benefit of Brahinins" 
(sic), which he cannot prove in any meaningful way. 

Note that such a sentiment plays right into the Western egalitarian 
mentality, which often lends itself to moral relativism. We judge a 
person's varna by their conduct and quality (chaatur varnyam mayaa 
sR^iShtaa guna karma vibhaagaShaH....); but if we falsely assume that 
everyone is equal, then we fail to condemn those practices adopted by 
some people that are contrary to dharma (meat-eating, smoking, liquor 
drinking, etc). 

> 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.

First of all, the article attempts to find fault with Manu Smriti for 
the analogy of the different varnas as being like the different parts 
of the body of the Purusha. But then it goes on to cite the 
unscrupulous activities of "greedy priests" who misused the statement 
for material gain. Either the fault is in the text or in the people 
who misused it. The author wants to find fault with the text, but in 
the end, the only criticism he can bring to bear is in reality 
against the "greedy priests" who allegedly misused it. This is hardly 
honest.

We need not selectively interpret scriptural statements so as to give 
ourselves an excuse to criticize them, and in so doing, make a name 
for ourselves. The fact that Brahmins are likened to the mouth, 
Kshatriyas, the arms, Shuudras the legs, etc has abundant truth to 
it. Brahmins are the teachers of society, and without teachers 
civilization wanders blindly with no purpose. I see absolutely no 
problem at all with this.

I also don't see a problem with Shuudras being likened to the legs of 
society. Is it not a fact that we can only function when we have all 
of our body parts in good working order? Who here would gladly 
amputate a leg? The Purusha analogy drives home the point that all 
members of society must cooperate for it to survive. But unscrupulous 
socialist-minded commentators neglect this point, since it is not 
convenient for their criticisms. 

yours,

Krishna Susarla
www.achintya.org






[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