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.
No comments:
Post a Comment