A WAY OF LIFE
1 Even today there is no Hindu Religion. It was named by British, to compare it as inferior to Christianity, unaware of, it breezed to Greece and hopped to Israel under Old Testament and back thro “new one” and strayed to Constantinople as Islam.
2 Kapila’s Sankya Philosophy were considered to be atheism, since, Kapilar Made the unknown as supreme Purusha and for creation brought in Prakrithi. Rig-Veda considered “EKAM”, which in Upanishad-juice of Veda Bhagavat Gita as “MOM EKAM SARANAM VRAJA”.
3. It was/is/will be prescribed that nothing beyond vedam to be said or done. Hence Kapila was extolled and respected as Maharishi , while the Sankya Philosophy was accepted.
4. Atheism is known since the Vedic times when its main proponent was philosopher Carvaka (before 500 BC). His lokayata philosophy , is a version of later Buddhism - everything is void but let's enjoy it! Also later Buddhist philosophies are atheistic. Buddhism represents vikalpa, rejection of the world and materialism propounded by Carvaka represents sankalpa, enjoyment of the world.
5. Adi Sankarar when he wrote Bhashyam to Brahma sutram, considered the earthly creations as Maya. Because of this he was criticized and deferred By Sri Ramanujar and Sri Madwar as MAYAVADI and advaitham was debated. However Many threw the stone and ultimately all came tot the same end of what were denied viz IDOL WORSHIP AS GOD AND RITUALS, which are not advocated in RIGVEDAM at all. Adi Sankarar because of prevailing Buddhism to Kapaliga gave a concise “SHANMATHA’ PRACTICE AS WELL AS Advaitham, to be followed from LKG to PH.D. All the time IT IS A WAY OF LIFE, NO CONVERTIONS, NO COMPULSIONS-which is (may be called) VEDIC RELIGION. IT CAN NEVER DIE.
6. Regarding the word used “UNITY” rig vedam says those who are born in the world are vedics; as an explanation in Bhagavat Gita, it is extended to say that whosoever who are worshipping any kind of prostrations ultimately reach HIM ONLY. Hence there is no conversion and Brahma samajam is of a symbol created. Hence there is no perforce or commercial value embedded. Nyaya sastra had defined the existence and all that is stated then are being discovered, researched and expanded and explained.
7. Manu dharma was based from vedam and varnasrama is followed even now. It is the society function and by birth Brahmin was called Dwija, when he was supposed to follow the toughest principle of life six karmas. Now whosoever does the function are that Varna only. No one spoiled the society except the leaders of Religion creators, defenders and political diplomats. Every new theory founded or AVIVEKA arguments cannot dwindle the way of life and the patience taught in the course of life. Thank u.
Thank u for the view expressed. I am afraid or think whether my expression was wrongly understood as if supporting caste and upholding the Brahmin. NO
At least within the period of 5000 years, many religious and non-religious learned have been recording in praise of VARNASRAMA DHARMAM, including Gandhi. Whereas Nehru was a politician and went for power in spite of Gandhi’s peremptory order, to wind up congress and go for election. Ambedkar as a representative of HARIJAN and learned was inducted in the committee for the law-making of the country. He accepted it and felt honoured, though later he reported otherwise but not at that time. All those are politics.
Caste was the creation of the vested interests from then on till now. That is why, though the lips are compressing for the caste-less society, actions are only towards aggregating them in leaps and bounds. Majority why 95% of the people internally like it and that is why the degradations. THE MORE THE MERRIER. It was SMARTHA (ONE WHO GOES BY SMRITHI) IN VEDIC VARNASRAMA, SPLIT INTO BUDDAH, JAINA, IYENGR, IYER SAIVA ETC ETC. The Buddha cult was the first salvo, which set the blow to varnasrama. Varnasrama was intended as a safe-guard for the society to make one another dependent in cycle. VARNASRAMA IS NOT CASTE-IT IS SAID BY VARIOUS RELIGIOUS AND NON-RELIGIOUS LEARNED, IN SCRIPTURES, VEDA, VEDANGAS.. have unequivocally said at least in the last 5000 years.
So, as per varnasrama a Brahmin must earn for that day by yachakam, ought to be supported by the other three by contributions with the reverence, were breaking by Buddha anti-ritual concept. I am not sitting over judgment on Buddha or Ramanujar, but the fact is they did something to upset the apple cart. I can site today literally what is going on right under our nose. Vaideeka karma prohitas are bargained for a paltry dhakshina, while such of those are shouting for DA rise. So when the Brahmin status is distorted, by others who are supposed to support, how one can say 2% Brahmin in the population distorted the functional society? The loss of interest in 98% because of selfishness and greediness, created the caste pressure. In British days, why even today, Brahmin is called as “samy” by few villagers, who feel will be soft and unrevolting. Why, even The great EVR kept the Brahmins as tenants and when there was specific question about this, EVR asserted that “only he will keep the residence clean’. Hence caste predominance was not brought in by 2% minority Brahmins, over ruling scriptures. However, they became greedy later because of power and wealth, in minority count cannot also be ruled out. Exceptions don’t make the rules. Varnasrama dharma was thrown off by “non-vedic –abiders” later and the majority for selfish purpose, danced around them. All the Brahmins were not the land owners as mistakenly counted upon, as < 25 of the population cannot capture the grace of the kings and the chaturvedi mangalams.
For an example, if 40% were the down trodden 4th community, the Brahmin community living in agraharam, would have been, < 4% in the rest 60%. Then 56% were ruling the roost and the minority were also to the extent of a small part were land lords. So 40% were exploited by 56% plus, category one Brahmin land lords .which makes the theory of oppression by Brahmin only is untrue. It was the THIEVES “LOOTING AND RUNNING” WHILE POINTING OUT THE FINGER ON SOMEBODY AS THIEF-VIZ - A KIND OF POLITICS.