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

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

How the system worked ?- 2

...All prevailing presence of Brahmans all over India is the result of their cultural hegemony and not of any conquest. The cultural hegemony of the Brahmanas is very ancient and evident from the fact that by 200 BC they were performing Yagyas for Dravidian kings in deep south. For this they gained land grants and acceptance of their superiority. If one agreed with superiority of Vedas then one automatically agreed with the inherent superiority of Brahmans. This superiority was imparted to them by Purusha sukta of Rig Veda. Nobody could argue with the Word of God. It is also clear in the performance of Ashwamedha ceremony in the Yajur Veda. This ceremony adds nothing to the respect of either king or queen. However it tells that the Veda–vakya or Veda statements were taken as Word of God and followed to the last detail. This was a matter of faith in divinity of Vedas and also a matter of faith in divine retribution. If the kings could be made to go through this insulting ceremony then the honor of other Varnas had to be worthless. This also indicates general absence of pride in the Hindu society.

Any lower Varna individual worth his ego was a threat to dharma and had to be molded into a meek follower by invoking the authority of Vedas. And also by invoking the meek conduct of his forefathers whom he revered. Of course the threat of mutilation by dharmic kings was also there along with a threat to ostracization. The mutilated Shudras gave a sense of jubilation to higher Varnas. Many mutilations were not needed. Actually few mutilated Shudras were sufficient to put a sense of helplessness and fear among rest of the Shudras. The Shudra kings were a different preposition; they were pacified and convinced by grant of Kshatriya status. Of course Brahmanas got land grants in return for elevating their status. However the soldiers of these Kshatriya kings were not granted Kshatriya status because most probably they could not offer land grants. Brahmans spread from land to land through invitations to them by the Shudra kings interested in Yagyas and elevation of their status. These established social, religious and spiritual authorities were invited by local rulers to help them in ruling their land according to dharma. Brahmans not only raised the Shudra kings but also upheld their divine right to rule over everybody except Brahmans.

One of the reasons for the ultimate victory of Sanatana dharma over Buddhism was the relative importance given to the welfare of king by the former. Buddhism does not believe in authority of Vedas and denies the existence of God or soul altogether. Buddhism became widely prevalent all over India because of its opposition to Vedic philosophy of animal sacrifice in performing Vedic ceremonies. The upsurge and great popularity of Buddhism and its strong opposition to useless animal sacrifices indicates and excessive of animal sacrifices. These sacrifices were excessive and defenders of Varna dharma are in a constant state of denial of practice of meat eating and beef eating in Vedic society. If they are right then it only means that the Brahmans performed Yagyas involving sacrifice of innumerable animals excluding cows. And after that the dead animals were thrown away. However, these offerings never reached the gods until Brahmans ate them. If they were thrown away then the gods could not be appeased. Therefore they were necessarily eaten. Since there is no mention that the cows should be excluded from these; it can be safely assumed that they were eaten also. However such a great destruction of cattle stock meant a great loss to agriculture because it used animal power extensively. It created resentments among Vaisyas who were still agriculturists and cattle herders. All the animals to be sacrificed ultimately came from the Vaisyas which increased the burden of taxes on them. The philosophy of Ahinsa (nonviolence) of Buddhism attracted them since it reduced taxes on them by prohibiting animal sacrifices. Further the Yagyas served the purpose of augmenting the wealth and welfare of Brahmans and Kshatriyas. The real producers stood to lose from such ceremonies. Further Buddhism promised Nirvana or salvation to Shudras that was denied to them under Vedic dharma. But this salvation was available only when they joined sangha. There was no Varna within Buddhist Sangha. Anybody from any Varna could join Sangha and aspire for Nirvana. However Buddhism did not deny the existence of Varnas altogether. Buddha held that Kshatriya was a superior Varna compared to Brahman. However he denied the determination of Varna by birth. The Varna was dependent on one’s Karrma. Further according to Buddhist tradition the Bodhisattvas could take birth only in Brahman or Kshatriya Varna. The lower castes were excluded from this event. Thus, the Varna dharma was not denied; it only became based on deeds or Karma. That essentially meant a Varna system based on birth. It was actually a grossely insufficient attack on Varna dharma. There was no fundamental attack on Varna dharma. There was no special emphasis on alleviating the sufferings of Shudras. The Brahmans exploited the weakness of this attack and returned with full vigor. Even Buddhism could not solve the problems of occupations, inter dining and marriages. The Varna was not important in Sangha because occupation and marriages were not involved. If one did not marry then it was mainly useless from the point of Varna dharma; there was no threat of Varna-Sankars. If one got his food through begging or donations then there was no question of transgressing on others’ occupations. Becoming a monk or a member of Sangha was like becoming an ascetic. One ceases to really matter to society and to its members. All the Buddhist people who remained outside the Sangha retained their inherited Varna. There was no way in which they could give up their inherited Varna. The first two Varnas were not willing to give up their Varnas. The Vaisyas, the third Varna, could become Buddhist but could not get the rulership like Kshatriyas because it needed the use of arms. They also could not become lawmakers and attain the highest social status. They could not raise their Varna if the higher two Varnas who still had respective powers were not willing to accept them as their equivalent. This problem of acceptance is perenennial in Hindu society. The higher Varna is not ready to accept lower Varna as its equal...

No comments:

Post a Comment