I said in my book that the Rig Veda was rigged and the same language appears
here
answers.winscommunity.com/2010/12/13/hinduism-do-you-think-that-the-rig-veda-was-rigged

"Hinduism… Do you think that the Rig Veda was rigged?"
......
Is it merely a coincidence


One reader says-
".....I admire you for your great work."

Another reader says -
"..........it will benefit many people....."

one of the well wisher has uploaded my book on filestube
http://www.filestube.com/1gUBhsGekSfGNe8Fylaxbb/What-you-should-not-know-about-India.html


and here also
https://www.firstload.net/index.php?ir=1&fn=%22what+you+should+not+know+about...



Professor Stiglitz (Noble Prize winner on Tunisia )
"Everyone stresses the rule of law, but it matters a great deal what kind of rule of law is established. "
Deep thoughts !
Any comments from people who insist on great Indian culture, culture and heritage which should be adhered to?


------
Professor Stiglitz (Noble prize winner) about Tunisia
"how far beyond the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the country should go in writing its new constitution."

Is it possible to think going beyond Human Rights Declaration?
Is there any other way?
Yes
Its there
I have shown in my book
------------
Stealing???


http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/02/03/idINIndia-54646820110203

"Abdelrahman Hassan told his 9-year-old sister not to cry when he left his home in Alexandria to join the Cairo protests entering what may be their decisive phase.

"I hugged her a lot this morning. I told her I'm going to protect our future because they stole it before and they will do it again," the 28-year-old therapist said in the capital's Tahrir Square."


from page 401 of my book
"That only means that their rights have been stolen. And who can
steal the rights? Only the lawmakers could do it."

same basic idea in two different places!

Another coincidence -
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE71R0AJ20110228
"In Benghazi, Libya's second city, one cartoon on the wall of a state building portrays the Libyan leader as "Super Thief""
In My book on page 403-404
"These lawmakers, the Brahmans, are the people responsible
for resulting in stolen rights. They did it by creating the divine origin
of scriptures composed by them and making people to believe this

divine origin of scriptures. They embedded the laws in scriptures in
the form of functions. And knowing the statecraft did help. Thus,
they are the permanent and traditional thieves of the rights. Swindlers
and thieves - these are the right words to describe them
"

and also
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE71H0N320110218
""Ben Ali's regime stole everything. They had no heart and ignored us poor," said one of the men, who identified himself only as Khaled, 57. "
another coincidence ?
concept of stealing by lawmakers and rulers just goes on!!!

These sentences are not given in blog .
For these you will have to download the book
the available on scribd also
www.scribd.com/doc/47443117/What-You-Should-Not-Know-About-India

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

The Untouchables -6

...According Manusmriti a Brahman should not eat from the vessels which are defiled or contaminated. Here the unclean is different from impure or contamination. The unclean can be cleaned but the impure has to be purified, it cannot be purified by merely a simple act of thorough cleaning. Further an impurity can be introduced by a simple touch of a super clean untouchable. According to Manusmriti a man can become impure due to births and deaths in his families. Further a Brahman is prohibited from taking food from Shudra. This can only be on account on impurities inherent in Shudra because of his impure origin. If the impurity does not spread by touch then here is no reason for a Brahman to not accept the food from any of the Shudra. From impure people comes the impure food which is unsuitable for superior and pure people. It is the fear of becoming impure which is indicated in Manusmriti and an obsession to maintain the purity of Brahmans. The people from whom a Brahman should not accept food are – a carpenter, a usurer, an outcaste, a tailor, a blacksmith, a stage player, a basket maker, a washer man and others. If he happens to take food from such persons then he has to purify himself. The method of purification is that he must fast for three days or must perform some other penance. The garlic, onion and mushroom are not to be eaten by a twice born because they are impure substances. This obsession with purity is overwhelming and not only that it made a living hell out of impure low caste people’s lives. If a twice born eats these things knowingly or deliberately then he has to be made an outcaste. If he does so unknowingly then he only has to purify himself. Therefore there are conditions under which a Brahman can become impure and has to purify himself. This continuous upholding of purity actually led to development of untouchability. There are notions of purity and impurity in Manusmriti along with spread of impurities through touch along with different methods of purifications. The method of purification for a Brahman who has seen impure things is sipping of water and chanting of sacred mantras. So merely seeing impure things can be a source of spread of impurities, touching them ought to be very serious.

A Shudra is not allowed touch the dead of Brahman. Such an act makes ineffective all the offerings made to the manes because they have been contaminated by the touch of Shudra. Thus a certain kind of untouchability exists in the case of Shudra also. In the same vein, the presence of Shudra is not required at the Shraadh ceremony because he may accidentally touch the Brahmanas invited for such an occasion. This will contaminate the Brahmanas and the offerings made to manes. Further the outcastes are impure so they cannot be offered the leftovers of offerings made to God. It seems that untouchability was a logical culmination of this assertion of power through this esteemed and almost divine system of purity and impurity.

Now we come to existence of untouchability in Manusmriti. Untouchability requires that the mere touch of a heathen man can contaminate a pure Varna man requiring his purification. Such a condition is found in case of Chandals who came to be known as scavengers in later times. According to Manusmriti if a Brahman has touched a Chandala then he can become pure by bathing. This makes Chandals a representative of untouchables in Manusmriti. The thing is to be noted that the purification requires not merely sprinkling of water but a full bath. Further, a Brahman should not stay with outcastes, Chandals etc., which again is a practice of untouchability. The Chandals and the outcastes were nearly similar to each other in terms of social treatment meted out to them. The Chandals were offered the remnants of food from a distance which means that going near them was prohibited for the fear of touching them and getting polluted. The food was to be placed at the ground from where they could pick it up. This means that Brahmanas were prohibited from touching Chandals at anytime. But the lawmakers were compassionate enough to throw food at the ground for them. To pick up the food the Chandals had to wait until it was no longer in the hands of twice born. It is also indicated that a pig, a dog and a Chandal must not look at a Brahman while he is eating. It makes Chandals equal to pigs and dog...

No comments:

Post a Comment