Dalit Poverty

Dalit Poverty

 

By Dr. Nellutla Naveena Chandra

(chandraalex@hotmail.com)

 

Indian Economy

 

Poverty of Dalits in India cannot be treated as a snap shot at a given instant of time. The role played by the 1000-year Islamic rule, 200-year Christian rule and 60 year Socialist- Marxist rule must be considered.  A second factor is the economy of the UK itself that resulted in the utter impoverishment of Indian people. Furthermore, one must look at countries like Canada and the US to see if Christianity was blamed for the poverty of nonwhites in these countries. In general, the blame is attributed to the governments and to the religions that propped up these governments. Hinduism never was in power in these 1260 years.

 

The table shows Angus Maddison data plotted below where the x-axis is telescoped at the end.

 

 

Year CE 1 1000 1500 1600 1700 1820 1870 1913 1950 1973 2003
India 32.0 28.0 24.4 22.4 24.4 16.0 12.1 7.5 4.2 3.1 5.5
UK 0.3 0.7 1.1 1.8 2.9 5.2 9.0 8.2 6.5 4.2 3.1
                     
                       
                       
 
 

 

 

 

Notice the following factors from the table:

  1. From 32% of world GDP in 1 CE India’s share fell to 24% in 1700 UNDER MUSLIM RULE.
  2. From this figure, it fell to 4.2% in 1950 under Christian British rule.
  3. It fell further to 3.1% in 1973 under Socialist/Marxist economy of Nehru/Indira Gandhi
  4. UK rose from 0.3% in 1 CE to 2.9% in 1700.
  5. UK continues to rise to 9% in 1870 and falls to 5.6 in 1950 and 4.2 in 1973.
  6. After this UK CONTINUES TO FALL.
  7. INDIA CONTINUES TO RISE.
  8. Indian Economy fell under Muslim, British rule and socialism of Nehru – Gandhi family.
  9. Muslims in 1000 years, Christians in 200 years and Socialists – Marxists in 60 years didn’t better the living conditions of Dalits.

Maddison says on Page 117:

“about three quarters of domestic demand for luxury handicrafts was destroyed. This was a shattering blow to manufacturers of fine muslins, jewelry, luxury clothing and footwear, decorative swords and weapons.’

“The second blow came from massive imports of cheap textiles from England. Home spinning which was a part-time activity of village women, was greatly reduced.”

He does not mention the destruction of steel mills and shipping industry.

After PM Rao introduced economic reforms Indian economy picked up. Dalits who took advantage of free enterprise flourished producing many millionaires in their community.

Sonia Gandhi replaced Mr. Rao with Singh to head a coalition of Congress with Marxist parties that prompted Mr. S. Gurumurthy to coin the phrase “ten-year hiatus of slow growth.”

Sonia Gandhi, a Christian crusader, knew poverty of Dalits was crucial factor in conversions.

Sonia Gandhi invited a Pope who incanted: “First millennium for Europe, second millennium for Americas and Oceania and third millennium for India.”

Dalits Respond Magnificently as Business Beckons

The Dalits faced social and income problems for 1260 years. Independent India’s attempts through reservations in jobs to improve their lot achieved limited success.  Empowerment through democracy and economic opportunities over 20 years saw the emergence of a class – “Dalit millionaires”.

“They have now established a Dalit Chambers of Commerce and Industry in Mumbai. It is no more than a start. But at long last, some Dalits have ceased to be objects of pity, and become objects of envy.” (TOI).

Economic problems of Dalits are not the doings of Hinduism.

Meet the Dalit millionaires, a list that will grow with time.

  1. Ashok Khade –  The tree that keeps growing
  2. Kalpana Saroj –   Unlimited Imagination
  3. Ratilal Makwana – Beating the Boycott
  4. Malkit Chand –   Money grows on Trees
  5. Savitaben Parmar – Coal changed my Fortunes
  6. Bhagavan Bawai –   Rags to Riches
  7. Harsh Bhaskar –    The Science of Success
  8. Devjibhai Makwana – The Threads of Success
  9. Harikrishan Pippal –   Left Home to Conquer the World
  10. Atul Paswar –    Made in Japan
  11. Devikanandan Son –    Gobar Chowki to Taj Plaza
  12. Jisi Phulia –     Ambition Takes Flight
  13. Sarath Babu –     Engineering an Idli
  14. Sanjay Kshirsagar –     From Chawl to Skyscraper
  15. Swwapinal Bhingardevay –  I had a dream too

Read their inspiring stories to learn how they overcame societal and business pressures to become highly successful. Meet Ashok Khade who did not have four annas to replace the nib of a pen, Kalpana Saroj a child bride, or Sanjay Kshirsagar who lived in a 120-foot tenement, who became multi-millionaires.  “The only common thread through these stories is the spirit that if you can imagine it, you can do it.” (Book review)

 

Dalits answer resoundingly to Political Opportunities

In the Governance, the Dalits seized the opportunities to become a Founding Father of modern India, a President of India, a Chief Justice of India, several Chief Ministers of States, Ministers at Centre and in States and several MLAs and MPs.

 

This list by no means is exhaustive. In Telugu language, a Dalit Gurram Joshua became extremely popular as writer and poet and won many awards.

In all spheres of life Dalits progressed and occupied highest positions.

Comparison to Other Jurisdictions:

The genocide of First Nation peoples in Canada and US and eradication of tribes in Australia and New Zealand along with murders, rapes, banishments and other heinous crimes were wrought by Christians. The Residential Schools in Canada are the biggest blot on civilization but we don’t hear criticism of Christianity. Yet any problem with Dalits is thrown at Hinduism.

We know as religions go Christians are better organized and financed than Hindus. The structure works top down and easy to manipulate. There is no central authority in Hinduism from which orders are issued. In any corner of India at any time, a new Swami may crop up and build a group of followers.

There are laws in modern India under which social practices such as untouchability are punishable.

Hindus never governed India since 8th century.

To blame Hinduism under these circumstances for the poverty of Dalits is disingenuous.

Further Reading:

  1. Angus Maddison, The World Economy, 2007.
  2. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/the-economic-history-of-the-last-2-000-years-in-1-little-graph/258676/ Little Graph, World Economy 1-2000 AD, DEREK THOMPSON, June19,2012, ATLANTIC
  3. https://hinduworldvision.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/are-we-heading-towards-a-christian-india-by-francois-gautier/
  4. http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Swaminomics/the-unexpected-rise-of-dalit-millionaires
  5. https://www.amazon.com/Dalit-Millionaires-15-Inspiring-Stories-ebook/dp/B00GZQDIQ6
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dalits

 

Advertisements

Ram was not a misogynist: Stop Spreading Lies

Ram was not a Misogynist- Stop spreading lies, Patnaik.

Dr. Nellutla Naveena Chandra

Article by Devdutt Patnaik:  https://scroll.in/article/801243/why-is-ram-misogynist-but-not-the-buddha

In this rebuttal Patnaik’s text is shown  in underlined italics and my rebuttal in solid black.

Patnaik: It is interesting that in all writings of patriarchy and misogyny related to India, scholars quote the Ramayana and the Manu Smriti, yet historically these were composed after the Vinaya Pitaka.

Who are these scholars?

  1. Someone with a Ph. D. from an ivy league university.
  2. The same with a teaching job in one of these universities.
  3. The same who belongs to “the country club” of American Orientalists.
  4. The same one with the so-called bogus peer evaluationpublicationperpetuation of lies background.
  5. Someone belonging to a coterie of individuals who have not published a new idea since Maxmuller interpreted Hindu history based on the Bible. We must remember that Maxmuller was no historian.
  6. The same gang who write petitions against Prime Minister Modi?
  7. The same clique who under the name of “scholarship” propagate theories without any evidence and ignore the evidence that contradicts their opinions.
  8. The historian-mafia that has so far failed to prove their pet theory “Aryan Invasion Theory”.
  9. The band of bandits who refuse to accept Aryabhata’s date of Kali Yuga (February 18, 3012 BCE) so easily accepted by John Playfair, Jean Sylvain Bailly, Laplace, Cassini, Voltaire among other giants of significant achievements. Who among the herd of orientalists compares with Laplace who stood his ground facing Napoleon when he said he did not need God to calculate the positions of planets but only his knowledge of celestial mechanics most of which he formulated.
  10. The same rambunctious mob of tenure holders who waste tax payer’s money with neocolonialist penchant to denigrate Hindu achievements out of jealousy.

No thank you Devduttji we cannot accept the opinions of this historian-brotherhood who refuse to furnish evidence for AIT and other pet theories.

I will give you the reasons why I will not accept their opinions:

  1. First and foremost, they may have learnt by rote Maxmuller’s unproven ideas on Hindus but they don’t have the adhikara to write anything about us.
  2. They are driven by a thoroughly discredited Marxist Theory. Why is it discredited? It has utterly failed in USSR (leading to its dismemberment), in China (which has since become capitalist arch enemy of Marxism) and in Cuba.
  3. They ignore the genocide in Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand and Churchill’s genocide of more than three million Indians in a famine created by him in 1943, the extermination of races by Spanish and Portuguese the world over.
  4. They blame the phenomenon of Hitler on Sanskrit and Brahmins without evidence.
  5. They ignore the undesirable Bible influence on the US society which rejects Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and cry foul on Hindu society in whatever little mistake they find there.
  6. They collaborate with evangelicals who are bent on converting all Hindus and in breaking up of India.
  7. They have no respect for Hindu sentiments on their Gods, Goddesses, Customs, Rituals and beliefs while respecting worse in Abrahamic religions.
  8. They revere Monotheism a thoroughly violent theory that lead to wars in 2000 years of the miserable existence of Christianity and fourteen hundred years of Islam.
  9. They are in league with theocratic regimes of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and hate India that shining beacon of democracy, diversity and plurality.
  10. They are pedantic and pompous, the prime example being Sheldon Pollock.
  11. They think they are scholars of Sanskrit but have been exposed at their limited skills of translation from that eminent language and they propagate the greatest myth of all the demise of Sanskrit and celebrate, spread, disseminate, broadcast, publicize, proclaim, preach and circulate this lie day in and day out without a shred of evidence.

Did I give enough reasons why opinions of these pseudo scholars without adhikara cannot be accepted in cultured and civilized circles?

Now let us look at the issue of Ram’s misogyny.

Is the current POTUS one of the most notorious women haters? Are the statements attributed to him on famous women and the tweets he issues forth enough evidence?

Now where is the evidence that Ram was a misogynist? Did Ram say anything against women? Can anyone claiming Ram was a woman hater quote a single quotation coming out of his mouth that denigrates women? We must look at Valmiki Ramayana and not any other Ramayana. Anecdotal evidence is often accepted as truth in case of Hindu smritis and shritis and epics and kavyas. Or you form an opinion first and look for the evidence that supports that opinion and totally ignore the evidence that negates that opinion. Sheldon Pollock is an expert in this. He first formulated the theory that Sastras were regressive and no new knowledge was produced as the time went by. All six Darshanas have different ideas and are prime example of production of new knowledge. He ignores this evidence and only writes about ideas were repeated. Repetition of ideas is bound to happen considering the volume of work produced in Sanskrit. Vatsyayana gives a refreshing entirely new outlook on sex. Sheldon Pollock thinks that every Hindu carries a copy of Kamasutra to bedroom every day. He also misquotes to prove a point. In his paper on Sastras published in 1985, he misquotes V.S. Naipaul. Pollock wanted to prove that Hindu sastras were regressive. Naipaul in writing a NY Times review says this of mogul art, “limited by the civilization, by an idea of the world in which men were born only to obey rules.” The glitter of that art without any message to convey and so hollow was the hall mark of Mogul times. Enter Pollock attributing Naipaul’s observation on Muslims to all Hindu sastras. This was intellectual dishonesty raised to the power of infinity. Naipaul a 20th century commentator, Moghul art in the time range of around 1500 CE and sastras were much older at least 500 BCE – all put together only to prove Pollock’s contention that Sastras were regressive. Was Pollock deliberately trying to pass a lie in the prestigious Journal of American Oriental Society (Theory of Practice and Practice of Theory in Indian Intellectual History, Journal of the American Oriental Society 105.3 (1985),pp499-519.)? But how this paper passed “peer evaluation”? This shoddy work is not likely to happen in Physics or Mathematics, but it happens in historical research. It happens more often in Hindu history research.

First the lie is initiated in a journal (scholarly journal?). No body verifies it. Peer evaluation passes it. Then the lie is repeated by a Wendy, a Patnaik, a Mishra, a Vajpayee and it acquires the life of its own and attains the status of truth. That Ram was a woman hater belongs to this category. Ram and Sita live a normal life of love and dedication for more than 4 decades. One instance not borne out of hatred does not mean he was a woman hater. After the war, he wants a fire test to prove her “sheelam”. In his mind, he knew she was chaste. For the sake of onlookers, he asks a fire test. Applying twenty first century morality to Treta Yuga is odd. Joan of Arc was burnt alive by Anglo Saxon Protestants only in 1431. All of us know human bodies cannot survive fire. Valmiki says Agni, fire God Himself, carried Sita and brought her out of the pyre.  Sita came out unharmed, not even a small mark was found on her body and at least Valmiki does not describe any injury. Since we are applying Feminist rules of today to that long-ago period, why we should shirk from applying our knowledge of fire we possess today to that event? To any sane mind, it looks like Sita was never put on fire but made to look like that – it was an illusion. Perhaps created by Ram himself, or Agni. Ram’s relations with Kausalya, Kaikaiyi and Sumitra were based on respect and love. His treatment of Mandodari was that of a perfect gentleman.

He was above all “eka patnee vratah”, that is he had only one wife, and he never committed adultery- how can he be a misogynist? Aren’t these two enough to say he was not a misogynist. Would a misogynist practice monogamy? Would misogynist be non- adulterous? A misogynist can never be a monogamist and chaste. A bigamist and a philanderer must be a misogynist. Rama was a monogamist and was a chaste person – therefore he was not a misogynist. Both the theory and its converse prove Ram was not a misogynist.

Rama was known to be a prime example of devotion to father. In the first instance, he defied his father was when he had only one wife and in the second instance he defied his father was he never committed adultery. For a person who was a role model for pitrubhakti throughout the ages to deviate from his father’s behaviour clearly says he was above all a dharmika person and that for him to respect woman was dharma. He was not a misogynist because he was the embodiment of dharma.

This lie was also initiated by Pollock group and repeated enough number of times to pass it as a truth. Patnaik starts his article with the assumption that Ram was a misogynist without a proof. But that is vintage Devdutt Patnaik. That is the status of research in history as conducted by Americans and Europeans and followed by sepoys like Patnaik.

There are four periods historically in Vedic lore. Krita Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dwapara Yuga and Kali Yuga. Each Yuga had its Dharma Shastra. Manu Smriti was dharmasastra for Krita Yuga. For Kali Yuga Parasara Smriti is dharmasastra. Parasara Smriti allows widow marriage and women having property. Denigrating Manu for the umpteenth time is not going to win any brownie points.

Patnaik: Buddha lived in pre-Mauryan times while the Ramayana, with its concern for kingship, was written in post-Mauryan times. Arguments of oral traditions and astrology-based dating that place Ram to pre-Buddhist times appeal only to nationalists, not historians.

First, what concern Ramayana had for kingship? Here Patnaik completely missed the point. The objective of Avatar of Rama was punishment of Rakshasas like Tataka, Subahu, Mareecha, Surphanaka, and finally Ravana, Kumbhakarna and Indrajit and install Vibheeshan Ravana’s brother, a dharmic Rakshasa on Lanka’s throne. The concern of Ramayana was killing of Ravana and not who will be heir for Ayodhya kingdom, that problem was resolved peacefully, a mark of Hinduism, not normal in Christian Europe and in Muslim world. Rama’s banishment to forest was designed to take him away closer to Lanka. Rama willingly abdicates the throne to keep his father’s promise to Kaikeyi, who wants her son Bharata to be the king because of his love of his father, a fact Marxists don’t mention but see it as weakness. By the time Bharata returns to Ayodhya, Rama had already left. Out of his love for the elder brother, and not wanting to be the king, Bharata chastises his mother and sets out to the forest to bring Rama back and put him on the throne. This mutual love and dedication between brothers is also not mentioned by Marxists, Christians and Muslims. Compare this with what Jahangir, Shah Jehan and Aurangzeb did to their brothers. The fratricidal, and hence barbarian, Moghuls are darlings of Pollock and the group, but not Rama and Bharata. Pollock says Rama was weak and Moghuls were strong. In the forest looking at Bharata from the top of the tree Lakshmana gets excited and says to Rama, “Here comes Bharata to kill all of us. Be prepared, O Rama.” To which the reply from the elder brother, “No, you are mistaken. He is coming here to ask me to go back to Ayodhya and perform coronation of me.” As it turned out Rama was right.

Bharata having requested and refused the return of Rama, then requests and gets Rama’s slippers to be put on the throne in his lieu. Bharata did not become the King. He was in-charge of kingdom. Neither in Europe nor in Arabia, will you find these laudable ethics and morals and hence Ramayana and the principles it stood are strange to them. In Ayodhya all citizens attended “The coronation of Slippers” known as “Paduka Pattabhishekham”, also not comprehended by Pollock. Thus, Ramayana was not concerned with kingship. Ignorance of Patnaik shows so pronouncedly he should stop writing on Ramayana.

A point must be made here. After the war, Ram refuses to occupy or annex Lanka to Ayodhya, saying the riches of lanka he does not like, he prefers home land because, “जननी जन्म भॊष्च स्वर्गादपि गरीयसि”, mother and mother land are superior to Swargam. He was a great patriot of India, perhaps the first, and a great statesman like of which had not been seen in the long Dharmik History.

Patnaik draws a line between nationalists and historians- remember it is his line. On a Venn diagram these are two nonintersecting circles mutually exclusive as portrayed by Patnaik. I can quote any number of names who are nationalists but also historians. However, historians like Pollock are not nationalists as he wants to break up India by creating Aryan-Dravidian division, a Freudian slip by Patnaik. The age of events is determined by astronomical data such as eclipses and positions of celestial bodies as was known to rishis at the time. Let me remind you that in Chandogyopanishad, Nakshatra Vidya is mentioned   as one of the occupations. The practitioners observe Nakshatras and orally record them and pass them on to next generation. It was not astrological data- again a Freudian slip or betrays the ignorance of the author. Long before Greeks knew, Hindus already mapped equinoxes and solstices. The famous death of Bhishma is linked to winter solstice in January when sun enters the northern hemisphere or earth moves south of sun. Now winter solstice occurs in December some 22 days before Makara Sankranti. The winter solstice moved because of precession of earth’s axis and is known as precession of equinoxes. That the day and night are equal on equinoxes and day is shortest on winter solstice and longest on summer solstice was known for a long time. In Telugu Mahabhagavatam these facts are mentioned by the great poet Potana. This book was written around 1500 CE. It is taken from Vyasa’s book written at least two thousand years before. Bhishma’s choice of dying on Uttarayana or winter solstice gives us a tool to determine the date of his death. Since we know the rate of precession, we can estimate the time taken by the earth to move so that winter solstice occurs 22 days earlier. The date is January 17, 3067, when Bhishma niryana occurred. See how close it is to Aryabhatta’s date. Why “historians” refuse to accept the astronomical method of calculating the age of events of the past? Is it the same reason that they refuse to accept the role played by Russians in defeating Hitler but give credit to England ignoring all historical data?

Patnaik: Manu Smriti and other dharmashastras were written in the Gupta era when Brahmins played a key role in legitimising kingship in much of peninsular India.

We need a proof and not the opinions of Maxmuller repeated over and over to say that dharmasastras were written in Gupta’s period. I give four exceptions – Apastamba’s Sulabha sutras were written circa 800 BCE (see Kim Plofker and David Mumford) who say Pythagoras Theorem should be renamed Boudhayana Theorem. Now David Mumford is a famous mathematician who won a Congress Medal and a Shields Medal for Mathematics. The second example is the work of Pingala who was preoccupied with the problem of how many three lettered ganas (words) could be formed using one hrasva and one deergha- a short letter and a long letter. His method was unique- first he found how many one letter words could be formed- obviously only 2. Then he found how many four letters could be formed, which is 4. Then he deduced and proved there were 8 three letter words that could be formed. This was power series of 2. Today this method goes by the name of Pascal’s triangle. Manjula Bhargava, another Fields Medal winner suggests Pascal Triangle should be renamed as Pingala’s Triangle. Then the famous Caraka Samhita and Susruta Samhita on medicine and surgery were written circa 500 BCE. Pingala’s work was about Sanskrit grammar which puts a date for Sanskrit- not 300 CE a favourite date of Pollock. Of course, Chanakya’s Arthasastra was written during Maurya Period. Vedas and Vedangas were written before Apastmbha Sutras that were based on them, therefore they are pre- 800 BCE.

Patnaik: The pre-Buddhist Vedic rituals speak of female sexuality in positive terms as they are concerned primarily with fertility and wealth-generation. The pre-Buddhist Upanishads do not bother much with gender relations and are more interested in metaphysics. Much of Buddhist literature was put down in writing long before Sanskrit texts (Ashokan edicts in Prakrit date back to 2300 years; the earliest Sanskrit royal inscriptions have been dated to only 1900 years ago). This makes Buddhist writings the watershed of Indian literature, after which womanhood came to be seen as polluting, obstacles to the path of wisdom.

One of the Ashoka’s edicts does mention the name of Rama, meaning Ramayana was written before 2300. This fact I mentioned in my rebuttal to Wendy Doniger’s inane article. Also, Sangam literature, the oldest Tamil literature parts of which are as old as 5000 years per some Tamil friends, mention is made of Raman and Sitai’s jewelry. So, Ramayana from two different sources can be traced to very old times, much to the chagrin of Pollock. I have asked a Buddhist friend to check the veracity of Patnaik’s statements on that religion.

Patnaik: We could, of course, argue that that most educated Buddhists were originally Brahmins and so transplanted Hindu patriarchy into Buddhism, that the Buddha had no such intention. We can insist that Vedas and only the Vedas, are the source of misogyny. This follows the pattern of “good” Buddhism and “bad” Hinduism structure we find in most colonial and post-colonial academic papers.

That Vedas are source of misogyny is the most bogus statement even by Patnaik’s standard. Two women Gargi and Mitreyi wrote passages of Rig Veda on the very tough subject of Atma and Brahmam and they wrote commentaries on Brahma Sutras. We hear of women like Kausalya, Sumitra and Kaikeyi wives of Dasharath, Satyavati (Shantanu’s wife) and Kunti (Panduraju’s wife) who never did sati after becoming widows, and of women who left their husbands as they did not agree with each other. Sita left Rama and Ganga left Shantanu, showing again Vedic period was egalitarian as far as gender relations go. Damayanti carries on a very intelligent and free conversation with her husband, Nala pointing out his mistakes. We see many discourses between spouses in many stories as late as Purana period. Draupadi carried on very engaging conversations with all her five husbands. Misogyny is a European and Arabian invention and never a part of Dharma chintana. Hindu heroines were intelligent, well educated, well informed, well respected, equal to their husbands, were fighters- contrary to that happened after Ghazni murdered, pillaged, raped, enslaved and committed unspeakable crimes against humanity- hero to Sheldon Pollock and the process was repeated under Timur, Ghori, Khilji, Moguls and last nut not least British. Hindus could not protect their women who were then confined to house for their safety- their freedom was lost to Muslims and Christians.

 

 

 

 

Ranganayakamma’s Marxist Propaganda on Mahabharatam exposed

ముప్పాళ రంగనాయకమ్మ గారి ఆధారం లేని ఆరోపణలు

డా. నెల్లుట్ల నవీన చంద్ర

  1. ధర్మరాజు మొదటితరగతి కూడా పాసు కాలేని బుద్ధి హీనుడు.

ఉత్తరం: యక్ష ప్రశ్నలూ, వాటికి ధర్మరాజు ఇచ్చిన సమాధానాలు అతడొక మహా మేధావి అని తేటతెల్లపరుస్తున్నాయి. అతడి రాజనీతి అతడిని  ఒక మహా రాజనీతిజ్ఞుడని, చాణుక్యుడి  తో సమానుడని చెబుతుంది.అతడు భీష్ముణ్ణి శాంతి పర్వంలో అడిగిన ప్రశ్నలు అతడెంతో జిజ్ఞ్నాస కలవాడని తెలియబర్చుతున్నాయి. మంచి ప్రశ్నలు అడగడం కూడ తెలివి కల వాళ్ళే చేయగలుగుతారు.

ధర్మ రాజును ఇంత నిర్దాక్షిణ్యంగా విమర్శించేవాళ్ళు ఎవరైనా యక్ష ప్రశ్నల్లో ఎన్నిటికి సమాధానం చెప్పగలుగుతారు?

ఈ ఆరోపణ కు  ఏ అధారమూ లేదు. ఇది హేతువాదులు చేసే పని కాదు. మిడి మిడి జ్ఞానము ఉన్న ఐదేళ్ళ పిల్లలు చేస్తారు నిరాధారమైన ప్రకటనలు.+

  1. ధర్మ రాజు ఒక జూదరి.

ఉత్తరం: ధర్మరాజు రాజుల నియమాలను బట్టి జూదానికి ఒప్పుకున్నాడు. దుర్యోధనుడి  వైపునుండి మేనమామ శకుని పాచికలు వేశాడు. ఇది ధర్మ విరుద్ధం. ధర్మరాజు ఈ మాట అన్నాడు. కాని ఎవరూ వినిపించుకోలేదు- భీష్మ, ద్రో ణ, విదురులుకూడా. శకుని కపట జూదరి. ఎదుటి వారిని ఏవిధంగా రేకెత్తించాలో వాడికి బాగా తెలుసు.ఆ పాచికలు వేసినందుకు ధర్మరాజు చేయి నరికివేయాలని భీముడన్నాడు. క్షత్రియులకు ఉచితంగాని రాజ్య భిక్ష తీసుకున్నాడు పెద తండ్రి చెతులనుండి అతడు ద్రౌపది కి ఇచ్చిన వరాల ద్వారా.”ఈ మాత్రం రాజ్యం మేము గెల్చుకోలేమా రణంలో” అని భీముడన్నాడు. భార్య సంపాదన అధమాధమమని ద్రౌపది ఎత్తిపొడిచింది. తాను తప్పు చేసాడు కనుక తనకు శిక్ష పడాలి. ఆ శిక్ష రెండవసారి జూదం లో పందెం. దానికి సిద్ధపడే పాండవులు వెళ్ళారు- అందరూ, చివరకు ద్రౌపది కూడా. మహా పరాక్రమవంతులూ, జగాన్ని జయించే శక్తి గల భీమార్జునులూ, అధిక నీతిమంతులైన కవలలూ, మహా పతివ్రత ఐన ద్రౌపది ఒప్పుకున్నారు ముందు సాంకేతికంగా, తర్వాత నిజంగా. పన్నెండేళ్ళూ, అరణ్య  వాసమూ, ఒక ఏడు కష్టతరమైన అజ్ఞాత వాసమూ శిక్ష అనుభవించారు. ప్రపంచ సాహిత్యం లో ఏ కావ్యంలో, ఏ నవలలో, ఏ నాటకంలో ఒక నాయకుడు  తన పై తాను ఇంత దుష్కరమైన, ఘోరమైన శిక్ష విధించుకున్నాడు ఒక చిన్న ధర్మోల్లంఘనకు! కృష్ణుడి సహాయంతో కౌరవులను తునాతునకలు చేసి రాజ్యం అనుభవించ వచ్చు. కాని ధర్మజుడది చేయలేదు. అతడు ధర్మాత్ముడు కనుక. తమ్ములదీ, ద్రౌపదిదీ ఏం తప్పని, వారు శిక్ష  పడడం సమంజసమా ? అనే ప్రశ్న కూడా వున్నది. తమ్ములకు ఏ కష్టాలు వచ్చినా తండ్రివలె ఆదుకున్నాడు, చివరికివారు చనిపోతే తన తెలివితో బ్రతికించుకున్నాడు. ద్రౌపది అంటే ప్రాణం- ఆమెకు ఏకష్టాలు వచ్చినా ఆదుకొన్నాడు- వదులుకోలేదు. వస్త్రాపహరణం తర్వాత, సైంధవుని ఉదంతం తర్వాత ఆమెదే తప్పని ఆమెని నిందించలేదు. ఇది ధర్మ వర్తన.

ఈ రెండవ ఆరోపణ కు  ఏ అధారమూ లేదు. ఇది హేతువాదులు చేసే పని కాదు. మిడి మిడి జ్ఞానము ఉన్న ఐదేళ్ళ పిల్లలు చేస్తారు నిరాధారమైన ప్రకటనలు.

  1. ధర్మరాజు ఒక లోలుడు

మీన యంత్రం లో అర్జునుడు ద్రౌపదిని గెల్చుకున్నాక పాండవులందరూ ఆమె తో ప్రేమలో పడ్డారు. దీనికి కారణం ఆమె పూర్వ జన్మ లో కోరిన కోరిక – తనకు ఐదుగురు భర్తలు కావాలని వారు తనతో ఐదు విధాలుగా జీవితం గడపాలని. ఒక జన్మలో కోరిక మరుసటి జన్మలో ఆమెకు సిద్ధించింది. సనాతన ధర్మం లో ఉన్న కార్యకారణ సంబంధం అర్థం చేసుకోక తాగు బోతు ప్రేలాపనలు చేయడం పశ్చిమ రాజ్య చరిత్రకారులకు ఒక పాడు అలవాటు ఐనా  తెలుగు రచయితలు వాళ్ళ వలెనే రాయడం దాస్య భావమూ, భావ దాస్యమూ అని పించుకోబడుతుంది. ఒక విషయాన్ని  గూర్చి రాసేముందు దానిని గూర్చి క్షుణ్ణంగా పరిశోధించి నిజం తెలుసుకుని ఆ నిజం పై ఆధారపడి అభిప్రాయాలను వెలిబుచ్చడం ధార్మికుల, పండితుల లక్షణం. ద్రౌపది యాజ్ఞసేని. అగ్నికుండము లో పుట్టింది. ఆమె మహా పవిత్రురాలు. సీతా, దమయంతీ, సావిత్రీ, మండోదరి లతో ఆసనము తీసుకున్న మహా సాధ్వి. ఆమె మామూలు మానవి కాదు. ఆమెకు మానవ నియమాలు వర్తించవు. ఆమె యెడల లోలత్వము చూపడం అంటే అర్థం లేనిమాట. అల్లాంటి  పాత్ర చిత్రీకరణ ఏ షేక్స్పియరో, ఏ హ్యూగోనో , ఏ డాస్టొయ్  వస్కీయో, ఏహెమింగ్వేఓ, ఏ డికెన్సో చేస్తే చంకలు గుద్దుకుని కాళ్ళ మీద బడుతారు తెలుగు మేధావులు. అదే ఒక వ్యాసుడు రాసాడు కనుక కినుకతో చూస్తారు. దీనినే సమ బుద్ధి లేకపోవడం అంటారు. మన శాస్త్రాలు ఘోషించే  గొప్ప గుణాలలో సమ బుద్ధి అగ్రస్థానము తీసుకుంటుంది- సత్యమూ, అహింసా, ధర్మమూ, ఇంద్రియనిగ్రహమూ తర్వాత. సమబుద్ధి కలవాడు స్థితప్రజ్ఞుడు అవుతాడు. అది లేనివాడు అధోగతి  చెందుతాడు.ముందు ఈ ఆరుగురి మధ్య సంబంధం అర్థం చేసుకొండి. అర్థం చేసుకోడానికి గొప్ప మేధా, గొప్ప సంస్కారమూ, గొప్ప కళాభిరుచీ, గొప్ప ధర్మమూ ఉన్నవాళ్ళే పనికి వస్తారు.

ద్రౌపది ఎడల ఉన్న గౌరవంతో, ఆదరంతో, అనురాగంతో  పాండవులందరూ బ్రహ్మచర్యం పాటించారు పదమూడేళ్ళూ. ప్రపంచ  సాహిత్యం లో ఇలా చేసిన మగ పాత్రలు ఎక్కడైనా ఉన్నాయా?

ఈ మూడవ ఆరోపణ కు  ఏ అధారమూ లేదు. ఇది హేతువాదులు చేసే పని కాదు. మిడి మిడి జ్ఞానము ఉన్న ఐదేళ్ళ పిల్లలు చేస్తారు నిరాధారమైన ప్రకటనలు.

  1. 5. ధర్మరాజు ఒక అబద్ధాల కోరు

ద్రోణున్ని చంపడానికి ఎలా వీలు ఔతుంది అని ధర్మరాజు ఆయననే అడుగుతాడు. తన చేతిలో విల్లు ఉన్నంత వరకూ తనను ఎవరూ జయించలేరనీ, ఒక మహా దుర్వార్త వింటే తాను అస్త్ర సన్యాసము చేస్తాననీ , అప్పుడు  తాను ప్రాయోపవేశం  చేసి యోగ సమాధిలోకి  వెళ్ళి పోతానని, అస్త్రసన్యాసం చేసిన తనను చంపవచ్చనీ చెప్పాడు. యుద్ధంలో ద్రోణుడి చివరి దినం నాడు, కృష్ణుడు అంటాడు అశ్వత్థామ చనిపోయాడు అని ద్రోణుడికి నమ్మకమైన వారు చెబుతే అతడు అస్త్రసన్యాసం చేసి సమాధిలోకి పోతాడని అన్నాడు. భీముడు ద్రోణుడి  తో ఈ మాట అన్నాడు.  అది చెవులకెక్కలేదు . అదృష్టవశాత్తు అశ్వత్థామ అనే ఏనుగు చచ్చిపోయింది. ద్రోణుడడిగితే  ధర్మ రాజు “అశ్వత్థామ   హతోహతః” అని బాగా  అని “కుంజరః” అని నెమ్మదిగా అంటాడు. జీవితమంతా నిత్యసత్య వచనుడు అని పేరు పొందిన ధర్మ రాజు  ఒక “అబద్ధము  కాని అబద్ధము” అన్నందుకు రంగనాయకమ్మగారు ధర్మరాజును అబద్ధాల  కోరుగా చిత్రీకరించారు. ఒక మహా రచయిత్రి అనాల్సిన మాటేనా ఇది? ద్రుపదుడి యెడల, ఏకలవ్యుని విషయంలో, ద్రౌపది వస్త్రాపహరణం జరిగినప్పుడు, అభిమన్యుడి వధలో ద్రోణుడు చాలా దుర్మార్గంగా, అధర్మపరంగా ప్రవర్తించాడు. ఆర్గురు మహా యోధులు ద్రోణుడు,కర్ణుడు,కృపుడు,అశ్వత్థామ, శల్యుడు, దుర్యోధనుడు విరధుడై నేలమీద ఉన్నవాణ్ణీ, చేతిలో విల్లు లేనివాణ్ణి అధర్మముగా చంపారు. ముఖ్యముగా  ద్రోణుడంటాడు ;”వీడు చేతిలో విల్లు ఉన్నంత వరకూ అజేయుడు . ముందునుండి వాడి  విల్లు తీసివేయడం అశక్యం. వెనుకనుండి ఎవరైన   వాడి  విల్లును ఖండించండి . వాడి ని విరథుణ్ణి చేసి చంపుదాం”.ఇది ఒక ఘోరమైన కుట్ర. అప్పుడు కర్ణుడు వెనకనుండి  అభిమన్యుడి విల్లు ఖండించాడు. సారథినీ, గుర్రాలనూ చంపారు. వాడు విరథుడయ్యాడు. అప్పుడు ఆరుగురు ఆ కుర్రవాణ్ణి చంపారు. సేనాధ్యక్షుడిగా ద్రోణుడు ఒక గొప్ప యుద్ధ నేరం చేసాడు. అతడి యెడల ధర్మరాజు “అబధ్ధం  కాని అబద్ధం” పల్కడము చాలా న్యాయమైన విషయం. రంగనాయకమ్మగారు అభిప్రాయములను వెల్లడి చేసేముందు చక్కని పరిశోధన చేస్తే అందరికీ శ్రేయస్కరము. మిడి మిడి జ్ఞానంతో రాయడం అనర్థాలకు దారి తీస్తుంది.

ఈ నాల్గవ  ఆరోపణ కు  ఏ అధారమూ లేదు. ఇది హేతువాదులు చేసే పని కాదు. మిడి మిడి జ్ఞానము ఉన్న ఐదేళ్ళ పిల్లలు చేస్తారు నిరాధారమైన ప్రకటనలు.

  1. వ్యాసులవారే చెప్పారు అశ్వమేధ యాగము అంత గొప్పది కాదని- ఈ వామపక్ష వాదులు మనకు చెప్పాల్సిన అవసరం ఏమాత్రమూ లేదు. ధర్మరాజు చేసిన అశ్వమేధ యాగం అంత గొప్పది కాదని, ఒక అత్యంత పేదవాడైన సక్తుప్రస్థుడితో పోలిస్తే ధర్మరాజు అంత గొప్ప ధర్మ పరుడు కాదని ఒక ముంగిస యజ్ఞ వాటికలో కూడి ఉన్న శ్రోత్రియులకు విశదీకరించి చెబుతుంది. ధర్మ ప్రవర్తన లో అంతస్థులు వున్నాయి – కొందరు ధర్మ పరులు బ్రహ్మలోకానికీ, మరి కొందరు వైకుంఠ -కైలాసాలకూ, వేరే కొందరు ఇంద్ర లోకానికీ, ఇంక కొందరు యమలోకానికీ పోతారు. అంత పేదవాడు సకుటుంబముగా బ్రతికియుండే బ్రహ్మలోకానికి పోతాడు తన ధర్మప్రవర్తన చేత – ధర్మరాజు ఒక ఇంద్రలోకానికి మాత్రమే పోగలిగాడు.

ఈ ఐదవ ఆరోపణ కు  ఏ అధారమూ లేదు. ఇది హేతువాదులు చేసే పని కాదు. మిడి మిడి జ్ఞానము ఉన్న ఐదేళ్ళ పిల్లలు చేస్తారు నిరాధారమైన ప్రకటనలు.

  1. ఇంద్రియ నిగ్రహం లేని ఐదుగురూ మహాప్రస్థానంలో పడిపోయారు. ధర్మనిర్ధారణ కత్తి మొనపై నాట్యము చేయడం లాంటిది.వేడిని భరించలేనివాళ్ళు వంటగదిలో అడుగు పెట్టవద్దు. అగ్ని సాక్షిగా ఐదుగురి భార్య ఐ ఒకడి పై ఎక్కువ అనురాగం చూపడం ధర్మం గాదు. జ్ఞానిననీ, అందగాడిననీ, పరాక్రమవంతుడిననీ  విర్రవీగడం ధర్మప్రవర్తన కాదు. తిండిమీదే యావ ఉండడం చాపల్యం – ధర్మం కాదు. ఇంద్రియ నిగ్రహం కల వాడు ధర్మరాజు ఒక్కడే మహాప్రస్థానం పూర్తి చేయగలిగినవాడు. అతడు కూడా ఇంద్రలోకానికే వెళ్ళాడు కాని బ్రహ్మలోకానికి వెళ్ళలేదు.

ఈ ఆరవ ఆరోపణకు  ఏ అధారమూ లేదు. ఇది హేతువాదులు చేసే పని కాదు. మిడి మిడి జ్ఞానము ఉన్న ఐదేళ్ళ పిల్లలు చేస్తారు నిరాధారమైన ప్రకటనలు.

  1. హిందూ ధర్మము దోపిడీ వ్యవస్థను ప్రోత్సహించిందని ఇంకొక ఆరోపణ. పైన చెప్పినట్లు అన్ని ధర్మ శాస్త్రాలూ సమబుద్ధిని జనం అలవర్చుకోవాలని ఘోషిస్తున్నాయి. భగవద్గీతలో కర్మ సన్న్యాస యోగం అనే ఐదవ అధ్యాయంలో పద్ధెనిమిదవ శ్లోకం ఇలా చెబుతుంది:

విద్యా వినయ సంపన్నే బ్రాహ్మణే గవి హస్తిని|

శునిచైవ శ్వపాకే చ పండితా స్సమదర్శినః||

దీని అర్థం: విద్యా – వినయమూ ఉన్న ఒక బ్రాహ్మణున్నీ, ఒక గోవునూ,  ఒక ఏనుగునూ, ఒక కుక్కనూ,

సంఘం నుంచి వెలి వేయబడ్డ ఒకవ్యక్తినీ పండితులు సమదృష్టితో చూస్తారు.

సమదృష్టిని గూర్చి గీతలో చాలాసార్లు చెప్పబడిఉన్నది . సమ దృష్టి ఉన్నవాడు ఇతరులను దోపిడీ  చేయడు. చేయమని చెప్పడు. దోపిడీ వ్యవస్థ  సనాతన ధర్మానికి విరుద్ధమైన సిద్ధాంతం.  ఉన్నదాంతో సంతృప్తి  పడి, లేని దాని కోసము వృధా మోహం పెంచుకోనివాడు పరిపూర్ణుడు అని చాటి ఎత్తిన ఈ ధర్మంలో దోపిడీ జరగదు.(శాంతి పర్వం చదవండి, భగవద్గీత  అర్థం చేసుకొండి).

 ఏడవ ఆరోపణ కు  ఏ అధారమూ లేదు. ఇది హేతువాదులు చేసే పని కాదు. మిడి మిడి జ్ఞానము ఉన్న ఐదేళ్ళ పిల్లలు చేస్తారు నిరాధారమైన ప్రకటనలు.

ధర్మ రాజు  ను గూర్చి చెప్పినప్పుడు  మనము ఆది శంకరుని భజ గోవిందంలోని ఈ శ్లోకం చెప్పకుంటే పూర్తి గాదు.

“సత్సంగత్వే నిస్సంగత్వం|నిస్సంగత్వే నిర్మోహత్వం|

నిర్మోహత్వే నిశ్చలతత్వం| నిశ్చలతత్వే జీవన్ముక్తి|”

“మంచి వాళ్ళతో ఉంటే విషయాల మీద ఆసక్తి వుండదు. విషయాల మీద ఆసక్తి లేకుంటే మోహం లో పడం. మోహం లో పడకుంటే మనస్సు కదలకుండా వుంటుంది. మనస్సు కదల కుండావుంటే బ్రతికి ఉన్నప్పుడే మోక్షం వస్తుంది.” ధర్మరాజు జీవన్ముక్తుడు. మొత్తం మహా భారతం చరిత్రలో కృష్ణుడు  తప్పించి జీవన్ముక్తుడు ఒక్క ధర్మరాజే! అందుచేతనే అతడు బొందితో స్వర్గానికి వెళ్ళాడు. మహానుభావుడు.

 

గమనిక : రచయిత ను chandraalex@hotmail.com  వద్ద కలుసుకోవచ్చు. రచయిత స్వదేశీ చరిత్ర కారులను సన్మానము చేసేవాళ్ళలో ఒకడు.

 

Seven Pattnaikisms (foolish errors) in blog on Understanding Saraswati

By Ram Jagessar

The blog in question is posted at Devdutt Pattnaik’s  blog site

http://devdutt.com/articles/indian-mythology/shakta/misunderstanding-saraswati.html

 

I detect at least seven Pattnaikisms in this blog, meaning irresponsible, unresearched and nonsensical generalizations about Hinduism that would embarrass any Hindu able to read. There may be more, but I could only stomach these seven. Devdutt is now blocking comments on the site and has cut out the entire comments section. However, he can’t block social media.

 

Pattnaikism 1 “Most Hindus have reduced Saraswati to vocational training — something you learn in school to get a job.”

My response:  No that is wrong. Even Wikipedia says  Sarasvatī) is the Hindugoddess of knowledge, music, arts, wisdom and learning..”  Not vocational training!

 

 

Pattnaikism 2: “She ( Saraswati) belongs to the priests and artists, just as Lakshmi or wealth belongs to baniyas (traders) and Durga or power belongs to kshatriyas (landowners).”

My response:  Nonsense.  Sarawsat1 does NOT belong to priests and artists, nor Lakshmi to traders or Durga to landowners. Where is Pattnaik getting this rubbish from? No research necessary.

 

Pattnaikism 3; “Animals know who they are.“

My response:  Really? How does Pattnaik know this? Is he reading animal thoughts?

 

Pattnaikism 4: “Animals seek food (Lakshmi) and power (Durga) to get that food, or to ensure one does not become food..”

My response: Lakshmi is now food and Durga is power? What is wrong with this man Pattnaik? Again no research necessary to show what foolishness this is.  Lakshmi is food indeed!

 

Pattnaikism 5:   In social sciences, the study of Lakshmi becomes economics and study of Durga becomes politics. The study of Saraswati becomes philosophy.

My response:  In whose social science does the study of Lakshmi become economics, study of Durga becomes politics and study of Saraswati become philosophy?  We Hindus have no such ridiculous social science, so it must be Pattnaik and his guru the sex crazy Wendy Doniger.  Again no  research necessary. This is just more Pattnaik rubbish.

Pattnaikism 6  It (science)  has become about technology (tantra) that enables us to control the world.

My response:  Unbelievable.  Technology is now tantra!!!!!!!  This tantra technology enables us to control the world!!!!!!!  I have to prevent myself from vomiting…

 

Pattnaikism 7. This wisdom-evoking Saraswati is what Brahma does not grasp even though he ‘creates’ the world. Instead, Brahma gets obsessed with controlling the world in fear.

My response:  I had to read this several times before understanding its true lunacy.  He says Brahma who creates the world does not grasp the wisdom inducing Saraswati!   Research time again. This web site http://www.sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_and_goddesses/brahma.htm#.WDnHR9UrLm4

says that in order to create the world  Brahma made a goddess of himself, whom he called  Gayatri but who was also known as Saraswati.  So Saraswati is Brahma, and Brahma does not understand himself!!!  Should I believe the Sanatan Society or Devdutt Pattnaik about who is Brahma and who is Saraswati?  You know the answer.

………………………………………………………………………………

Misunderstanding Saraswati

NOVEMBER 21, 2016 DEVI 0 COMMENTS

saraswati1Published on 20th November, 2016, in Mid-day

 

Most Hindus have reduced Saraswati to vocational training — something you learn in school to get a job. At best, it is extended to the performing arts. Saraswati is associated with books and pens and libraries, the realm of the educated. She belongs to the priests and artists, just as Lakshmi or wealth belongs to baniyas (traders) and Durga or power belongs to kshatriyas (landowners). Yet, Saraswati has more to do with identity (atma-gyan). The quest for identity — who are we? — is what distinguishes humans from animals.

 

Animals know who they are. Or, rather, they need to know their place in the pecking order, and food chain, if they have to survive. A rat needs to know that it becomes food for a cat, else it will not run when it sees a cat. Likewise, a weak lion needs to know it is weak, else it will be mauled by the strong lion in a fight over territory, or mate. This identity is hardwired in animals.

 

In humans, such hardwiring may exist but it is rendered useless by our imagination. We can imagine ourselves to be anyone we want. That is why we resent roles imposed upon us by society. We refuse to do jobs as determined by our lineage (jati/caste system) or by our biology. Our desire to follow our own dreams threatens all attempts to create predictability through law (niti) and tradition (riti).

 

In the Vedas, there is continuous reference to Vak, or speech, and the critical role played by language is determining who we are. For example, in Hindi, we have pronouns that reveal station in society (aap, tum, tu). Also in French (vous, tu). But not in English. Language, i.e. Saraswati, plays a key role in figuring identity. How do others address us? How do we address others?

 

Animals seek food (Lakshmi) and power (Durga) to get that food, or to ensure one does not become food. Without food and power, no one can survive. In social sciences, the study of Lakshmi becomes economics and study of Durga becomes politics. The study of Saraswati becomes philosophy.

 

At one time, study of philosophy included science. Now it does not. Today, science is focusing on the material and the measurable (saguna), while philosophy restricts itself to the non-measurable (nirguna). We study science not to understand ourselves; it has nothing to do with meaning or self-understanding. It has become about technology (tantra) that enables us to control the world.

 

This desire to control the world and nourish ourselves with wealth and power, stems from fear. Saraswati is also the knowledge — the philosophy — that enables us to outgrow that fear. This knowledge of outgrowing fear by understanding the true nature of the world, and so the true nature of our self is called Veda. Veda reveals that fear creates ego (aham) and outgrowing fear enables the mind to expand (brahmana), and discover our true nature (atma), which is tranquil (ananda) and full of love.

 

This wisdom-evoking Saraswati is what Brahma does not grasp even though he ‘creates’ the world. Instead, Brahma gets obsessed with controlling the world in fear. That is why in the Puranas, Shiva beheads Brahma. For the rest of us, she plucks her ik-tara (one-stringed lute) until we discover her.

Master of Self Contradiction Devdutt Pattnaik Forests and Fields

 

Forest and Field in Dharma Discussion

JUNE 9, 2016         By Devdutt Patnaik

A Rebuttal by Dr. N. Naveena Chandra

Below are given the text of the author’s article paragraph wise and comments by the reviewer.

  1. In the Sama Veda, the hymns of the Rig Veda are turned into melodies. These melodies are classified into two groups: aranya-gaye-gana or Forest Songs, and grama-gaye-gana or Settlement Songs.

My Comment: If the author is saying Veda classified them into two categories, he is mistaken as no such classification is found in Sam Veda per Dr. Tulsi Ram. If he knows there is no such classification stemming out of Vedas and still writes about it then he is misleading the reader. Misquoting or misleading both are intellectual dishonesty. At best, it is safe to conclude that it is “half-knowledge”, common also among those who insist on propagating myths like Aryan Invasion Theory and Aryan- Dravidian divide in India both colonial ideas now adopted by neocolonialists of the US in collusion with Evangelists, Muslim Theorists and Marxist Hindu haters.  

People living in forests sang songs in ancient times as they do today. Labourers in villages also sang while working in paddy fields as they still do today.  The great Telugu composer Tyagaraja of nineteenth century composed ragas from the field and forest songs. He also used wind sounds, water sounds, chirping of birds, animal sounds, sky sounds, sounds from the swaying of rice plants, in short, any nature sound. Thus, this classification has no Vedic reference but certainly has social and natural basis.

  1. This divide plays a key role in the understanding of dharma. Forest is the default state of nature. In the forest, there are no rules. The fit survive and the unfit die. The stronger, or the smarter, have access to food. The rest starve. There is no law, no authority, and no regulation.

My comment: It is wrong to say there are no rules in the forest. That is western view and not Hindu view. The western view is founded in the Bible which says nature was created for the use of humans. Clearly the author subscribes to western point of view.

In Chapter nine, verse 10 of Bhagavat Geeta it is clearly stated that Nature created life. Thus, Christian view is opposite to Dharmic view.

मयाध्यक्षेण प्रकृतिः सूयते सचारचरम्

हेतुनानेन कौन्तेय जगद्विपरिवर्तते |

श्री अरोबिन्दो :  Sri Arobindo Translation: Under My presiding control, Nature gives birth to all existences, moving and unmoving; and because of this , O Kaunteya, the world proceeds in cycles. (page 319, 2006).

That the cosmos cannot be without rules is also borne out by Big Bang Theory from the formation of fundamental particles to the formation of galaxies. Biology explains that animal kingdom follows rules to promote good of the forest. Every action in nature like wind action, water action, glaciers, growing plants, land erosion, mountain building, plate tectonics, ocean formation, evolution of life all follow rules. The trophic levels also follow rules of interconnectedness and interdependence the key to sustainability being diversity. Where the author got the idea that the Hindu thought favoured anarchy in forest is any body’s guess.  

Darwin’s theory on Origin of Species says natural selection is the cause of evolution of new species. There is no mention of survival of the fittest in his theory in the sense the author uses as in “might is right”. Survival of the fittest as per natural selection means changed circumstances in nature provoke species change in so far as the new species adapt to the changed conditions and hence survive. In this there is no difference between humans and animals. Richard Dawkins advances the idea that “we, like all other animals are machines created by our genes” (The Selfish Gene, page 2)

If as the current author says might is right, then we should only see the top members of the trophic levels as the lower levels would have been eaten away by now. That is not the case. The sustainability is maintained by the diversity as mentioned above. However, in one case sustainability is thrown out of the window. The intervention of humans into Nature created imbalances resulting in the extinction of some species never to be replaced. Carbon positive environment is a consequence of human activities though the religious types and corporations do not accept it.  

Using paleontology Thomas Henry Huxley applied Darwin’s ideas to humans and concluded that humans and apes shared a common ancestry. This implied that humans did not have a special place in the universe which bothered many Christians brought up in the Biblical tradition. They coined a new phrase “survival of the fittest” and created social Darwinism though they never accepted the scientific theory itself.

In financial world, a big company swallows a small company but in a forest a lion at the top of the trophic levels eats a deer only when hunger prompts, unlike in business world. The smaller company is extinct but deer is not at least not because of being lion’s food. There is no comparison between the two. Nature is much more compassionate and intelligent than humans facilitating the survival of all – weak and strong. In human societies, even in the so called cultured and civilized ones, only strong survive and rule. That is why there is concentration of wealth in the hands of 1% of the population.

In any ecosystem, there are rules obeyed by the members. No more violence is permitted than is necessary for satiating hunger. No unnecessary killing occurs as does in human settlements of cultured men and women.

  1. This is called ‘matsya nyaya’ or law of the fishes, the Vedic equivalent of the law of the jungle. This is prakriti, visualised as Kali, the wild goddess who runs naked with unbound hair, of the puranas.

My comments: In the Maurya period, Kautilya in his Arthasastra expounded the theory of matsya nyaya, that “just as big fish eat small fish in a dried-up lake in periods of drought the strong devour the weak in the absence of a ruler”. Thus , the need for a ruler was absolute.

The “matsya nyaya” cannot be attributed to Vedas as done by the author. This jump from Vedas to Arthasastra is totally unwarranted. In the absence of a ruler chaos occurs. Matsya nyaya applies only in periods of droughts. The author extrapolates its occurrence to all times. These generalizations without evidence make his arguments very weak.

In the Vedic times the great Indo-Gangetic plain in the north and Godavari, Krishna and Kaveri basins in the south were depositaries of lush vegetation and crop growth. There were effective Kings with laws to ensure the security of people who inhabited in the various kingdoms. It was not like Europe where only one crop was cultivated per year or in deserts where paucity of food round the year was a norm. The abundance of food all year round in river basins where civilizations flourished or forests remained pristine precluded the conditions that prevailed in Europe and in deserts.

In Mahabharata in Adiparva a story of Shakuntala and Dushyant is described. Dushyant king of Hastinapur on a hunting trip in a forest became hungry and thirsty. He went in search of food and water and soon he came across a serene and bountiful place in forest. Realizing he was close to an ashram of a muni he set out to explore further. True enough he came to the ashram of Kanva Maharshi.  There he saw elephants and lions, cats and rats, peacocks and snakes – natural enemies playing together as they listened to Sam Gaanam recited by parrots. When he saw this his hunger and thirst were quenched. He was surprised how in the forest the muni managed this harmony between enemies rarely found in Hastinapur the big metropolis.

Thus, contrary to the author’s description of an unruly forest we see a peaceful one where harmony among animals was established.

Naimisharanyam was another forest where thousands of rishis lived establishing peace and harmony.

The forests are described in many Sanskrit kavyas. One is the birth of Swarochisha Manu. There are beautiful, peaceful and harmonious vana devatas as a norm even in the presence of lions and tigers. No kavya mentions a naked Kali in any forest. Neither in Ramayana nor in Mahabharata a vicious Kali is written about.  This author knows something Valmiki and Vyasa didn’t.

  1. Humans domesticate the forest to turn the forest into fields and villages for human settlement. Here, everything is tamed: plants, animals, even humans, bound by niti, rules; riti, tradition; codes of conduct, duties and rights. Here, there is an attempt to take care of the weak and unfit. This is the hallmark of sanskriti or civilization, visualised as Gauri, the docile goddess who is draped in a green sari, and whose hair is tied with flowers, who takes care of the household.

My Comment: This description of a human settlement is so naïve and so untrue. There were crimes such as petty thefts and killings in settlements. As late as nineteenth century, dacoits prevailed in forests in India because of incompetent rulers. Dushyanta the king mentioned above compares the peaceful life in forest to the tumultuous life in Hastinapur. It is a well-known fact that harmony and peace are found more in forest, less in rural areas and least in urban areas. This metaphor of Gauri with cities needs to be referenced.

In Mriccakatika that takes place in Ujjain a famous city, Sudraka tells a story full of petty crimes, conspiracies to kill, false accusations, murder and attempted wrongful conviction – all instances destroying the utopia of this author. This took place in 5th century BCE.

  1. The Ramayana tells the story of Rama who moves from Ayodhya, the settlement of humans, the realm of Gauri, into the forest, the realm of Kali. The Mahabharata tells the story of the Pandavas who are born in the forest, then come to Hastinapur, and then return to the forest as refugees, and then once again return to build Indraprastha, then yet again return to the forest as exiles, and finally, after the victory at war, and a successful reign, they return to the forest following retirement.

My Comment: Rama visits many ashrams more peaceful than Ayodhya at the time a web of conspiracies hatched by Mandhara, a devastated king Dasharatha, an unhappy queen Kausalya, a happy queen Kaikeyee, a disappointed citizenry bent on following Rama to forests. Compare this to Guha the loyal boatman on Sarayu and the ashrams serene and peaceful where Veda classes were being conducted, Sama Vedam was recited and where less was more. The final return of Pandavas to forest was to get away from the tumult of the city to the calmness of the forest which per the author does not exist.

  1. As children, we are trained to live in society – that is brahmacharya. Then we contribute to society as householders — grihastha. Later we are expected to leave for the forest — vanaprastha, and then comes the hermit life or sanyasa, when we seek the world beyond the forest.
  2. According to the Buddhist Sarvastivàdin commentary, Abhidharma-mahavibhàsa-sàstra, forest or vana, is one of the many etymologies of the word ‘nirvana’, the end of identity, prescribed by Buddhist scriptures, which is the goal of dhamma, the Buddhist way.

My comment: What does it prove? As you grow old you seek tranquility and peace that are absent in towns but are plenty in forest. This is not might is right forest model the author wants.

  1. Rama lives in a city, and so does Ravana. But Rama follows rules. Ravana does not care for rules. In other words, Ravana follows matsya nyaya though he is a city-dweller, a nagara-vasi. That is adharma. If Ravana uses force to get his way, Duryodhana uses his cunning, also focusing on the self rather than the other. This is adharma. Dharma is when we function for the benefit of others. It has nothing to do with rules. Which is why Krishna, the rule-breaker, is also upholding dharma, for he cares for the other.

My comment: The author must clarify if Rama following rules in city was dharma or not. His theory that all settlements are peaceful places breaks down in the case of Ravana.  The author betrays himself when he says Ravana not following rules was adharma, establishing a link between the two. Corollary of this is following rules is dharma. Inadvertently the author admits a link between dharma and rules against his favourite theory that dharma has nothing to do with rules.

Matysa nyaya occurs only in droughts as per Kautilya the framer of the phrase. Before using this phrase the author must prove there was a drought in Lanka at the time. Ravana was a great king for his people as per Valmiki. The country was rich, food was abundant, they did not suffer- meaning no matsya nyaya. He also used cunning to kidnap Sita when Rama and Lakshmana were away a circumstance created by Mareecha a relative of Ravana, following a plan hatched by both rakshasas. 

The author in another article”What are Vedic values,aka ‘Indian Ethos of the Hindus’.he

wrote Duryodhan followed rules – here he says entirely opposite contradicting himself.  As postulated by the author Dharma has nothing to do with rules- please cite a Vedic hymn, mantra or phrase as evidence here. The author is at his best – full of contradictions, not citing evidence, highly opinionated, twisting the phrases, quoting the phrases out of context, attributing to Vedas ideas propounded by the author of Arthasastra written many centuries later. The author must specify which rules Krishna broke.

  1. In the forest, everyone is driven by self-preservation. Only humans have the wherewithal to enable and empower others to survive, and thrive. To do so is dharma. It has nothing to do with rules or tradition. It is about being sensitive to, and caring for, the other. We can do this whether we are in the forest, or in the city. And so, it is in the vana or forest, that Krishna dances with the gopikas, making them feel safe even though they are out of their comfort zone.

My comments:  The reader is completely lost here. This is a model that does not follow the reality as in city also everyone is driven by self-preservation. The author destroys his own theory when he says dharma can occur in forest. Gopikas were in Dwaraka a city and not in vana. Gopikas were also in Gokul a village and not a forest.

  1. Without appreciating the forest and the field, Kali and Gauri — the animal instinct and human capability — any discussion of dharma will be incomplete.

My comments: An authoritative reference must be given for this metaphor of forest and field as Kali and Gauri. In the absence of that no intelligent discussion on dharma can be carried out. “Dharma has nothing to do with rules” is an assertion not evidence based. The author contradicts himself on this point in case of Ravana as explained above.

Conclusions: This article contains many a contradiction. On the main proposal that dharma has nothing to do with rules the author says Ravana not following rules is adharma but he is not clear if Rama following rules is dharma.

The author’s another pet theory that there are no rules in forest is a figment of imagination not supported by evidence and its companion thesis that human settlements promote helping others because they have rules is also not borne by evidence. To confound the reader the author says dharma can be attained in forest where as he asserts there are no rules, reversing his earlier suggestion that there can be no dharma in forest.

He does not explain why Ravana living in a city follows adharma contrary to his thesis. Kali running naked in forest and Gauri maintaining peace in city is also a figment of author’s imagination. In Sanskrit kavyas, one does not come across this metaphor.

Samaveda did not divide the two kinds of melodies as asserted here. The village tunes and the tribal tunes have been known to exist for a very long period and were used in developing classical tunes by Tyagaraja who used many natural sounds of forest as well for this purpose.

There are other comments made in the text above that need to be addressed if the author wants the readers to take him seriously. I wonder did the author ever read Panchatantra?

 

 

Three critical comments on Pattnaik’s blog What are Vedic values of the Hindus

Naveen Chandra,  Prabhat gupta and Ram Jagessar  comment on  Devdutt Pattnaik’s blog  “What are Vedic values, aka ‘Indian Ethos’ of the Hindus?”   posted  at http://devdutt.com/articles/indian-mythology/mahabharata/what-are-vedic-values-aka-indian-ethos-of-the-hindus.html  and also reproduced below.

 

Educating Devdutt Patnaik

Dr. N. Naveen Chandra

Under the lofty heading of “What are Vedic values, aka ‘Indian Ethos’ of the Hindus?” Devdutt Patnaik (hereafter referred to as DP) tries to define on 27th August 2016, a subject in a few hundred words (exactly 570) that took Maharshi Vyas 100000 slokas in his magnum opus “Mahabharatam” or Adi Sankara an entire life time in several books, discourses, travels, poems in reviving Hinduism, which he did or Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan several voluminous scholarly books. DP should examine what he wrote and tell himself if he came anywhere closer to define Vedic values. He says, “Sadly, no one is sure what the correct set of rules and values are” and that is why Christians, Jews and Muslims fight.

He says “as we look at the transformation of Hinduism from Vedic to Puranic times” – let us stop here for a moment. WE need a quotation from a scholarly work that there was a transformation of Hinduism between these two periods. Three definitions of transformation are given by Webster: a thorough and dramatic change in form or appearance, a metamorphosis during the cycle of an animal and the induced or spontaneous change of one element into another by radioactive decay. We take the first definition as the other two are not applicable here. Many define Hinduism as Sanatan Dharma which is eternal without a beginning or an end. That means whatever was there is there and will be there. Sanatan Dharma does not change. Obviously then Hinduism did not change from Vedic times to Puranic Times. What Vedas taught Puranas also taught albeit in a different way. The method of Puranas was to convey a message through a story. The story does not change the concepts elaborated in Vedas. Thus, there was no transformation of Hinduism from Vedas to Puranas.

DP says Vedic thought obsessed with Ananta, aneka and anitya is opposite of Abrahamic thought which seeks to “fix” the world by a set of fixed “rules/values.” That means Vedas have no rules or values in the world of DP. This can be proven wrong by citing few phrases from Vedas.

1. अहिंसा परमोधर्मः |“Ahimsa Paramodharmah” | “not doing any injury to any thing is the supreme dharma”

2. सत्यं वद | “Satyam Vada” | “Speak Satyam”

3. धर्मं चर | “Dharmam cara” | “Walk along Dharmam”

4. सर्वेजनाः सुखिनोभवन्तु | “Sarvejanah sukhinobhavantu” | “Let all people be happy”.

5. ॐ असतो मा सद्गमय । OM, asatoma sadgamaya | Lead me from the unreality of Bondage to Reality of Liberation

तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय । tamasoma jyotirgamaya | Lead me from the darkness of Ignorance to the Light of Knowledge

मृत्योर्मा अमृतं गमय । mrityorma amritamgamaya | Lead me from the death of bondage and ignorance to the Immortality of freedom and knowledge

ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥Let there be Peace at three levels. Daivika, Body and Atma.

6. ॐ सहनाववतु |: Om sahanaavavatu | Let us (guru and student) be protected

सहनौभुनक्तु | sahanoubhunaktu | let there be food for us

सहवीर्यं करवावहै | “saha veeryam karvaavahai | Let us together have competence in our endeavours.

तेजस्विनावधीतमस्तु | ,tejasvinavadheetamastu| let there be light in our endeavours

माविदिशावहै maavidvaashavahai” – let us not succumb to hatred.

These teach values and rules. When it says “Speak Satyam and Do Dharmam:’, it is a rule. When it says “sarvejanaassukhinobhavantu” it is a value. There is a lot of philosophical and metaphysical thinking in Vedas but they are not devoid of rules and values. Will DP revise his opinions on this matter for the good of the world? And there are thousands more phrases and mantras in Hindu Library that consists of 500000 texts majority of them not even read yet.

For the Vedas nature came first, before culture, before humans even. What does DP understand of Nature? Aren’t humans part of nature? Inanimate world and animate world are parts of nature. Plants, animals and humans are part of animate world. Per DP “and nature functions as per “law of jungle” where might is right, only the fittest survives and so driven by hunger and fear animals establish food chains, pecking orders, and territories.” Therefore, nature is jungle and there is law of jungle where might is right. Whereas “Humans don’t have to subscribe to this jungle way, thanks to our ability to imagine”. This betrays ignorance without comparison. Where might is not right, can DP give examples? In the “cultured” world of man also might is right. As a matter of fact, humans murder other humans because of “our ability to imagine.” Humans do mass murder because of “our ability to imagine”. Humans enslave other humans because of “our ability to imagine”. Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, Sikander, Gazni, Ghori, Ourangazeb, Clive, Napoleon, Hitler, Pol Pot, Papa Doc, Hiroshima-Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iraq wars, Pakistan, Terrorism, Colonialism, Imperialism, Holocaust, Racism, Oppression, Suppression, Monotheism, rape of ecology, manmade extinctions of species- all happen because of “our ability to imagine”. Vedic thought is contrary to this mayhem created by West. That is true. Count of Monte Christo and Les Miserables show how “our ability to imagine” makes us inferior to animals. Humans have fear and hunger on a scale unheard of in history. We do establish our own food chains, pecking orders and territories. We are the experts in doing this. Your greatest leaders are liars, cheats and murderers.

On the other hand, Nature is the most orderly thing in the universe. Earthquakes, Floods, Volcanoes, Tides and myriad other things are explained by science. There is a rhythm to nature. Falling bodies, rising gases, flowing rivers, erosion of land, deserts are all explained. Evolution is not a jungle law whatever is meant by the phrase “jungle law”. Anytime I prefer nature over human who established an asphalt jungle.

DP analysis of Mahabharata is completely baseless. He says Duryodhan is a villain who obeyed the laws. Duryodhan was manifestation of kama, krodha, lobha, moha, mada, matsarya. He tried to kill Pandavas from the childhood. He was a hood from the beginning. He stole the Kingdom of Pandavas by lying and cheating. Why did he not throw dice? Why Sakuni threw dice? Why did he try to disrobe Draupadi? Why did he renege on the word that after twelve years of Aranya vaasam and one year of Ajnaata vaasam Pandavas will be restored to their kingdom? He said he would not accede even a needle end area of land. He prepared for the war from the childhood. He made friends with the rogue Karna form the beginning in preparation of war. He was not rule abiding- he broke every rule in the book. Now DP seems to have a thing for Krishna. What rules did Krishna break? He gave vastrams to Draupadi. He protected Pandavas from the beginning. He fought against adharma. He established dharma. He punished Sisupala and Dantavaktra and Kamsa and Jarasandha and other bad people. Dharma Raja was embodiment of Dharma. He praised Krishna. Bhishma, Kripa, Drona and Vyasa were devotees of Krishna. Why? Because Krishna was Yogishwareshwar. Only ajnaanees fail to understand Krishna. Giving ten thousand great fighters with astras and sastras to Duryodhan for his war and unarmed Krishna sat as charioteer in Arjun’s ratham as Parthasaarathi. Where else you will find this samadrishti?

It is true the fundamental Vedic rule and value is “know thyself”. Does DP understand this?

__________________________________________________________________________

प्रभात गुप्त Prabhat Gupta • 19 hours ago

Favourite Wendy’s child has tried to copy some, actually plagiarise, of the vidya from writers before him such as Shree Aurobindo, Dharampal, Rajiv Malhotra. However since he is not rooted in this tradition his thin cover is blown. More so that every time he writes an article, trying to look like an erudite scholar he actually is trying to forge a synthetic bond.

I will elborate:

Abrahamic line of thought has no unity within itself –

Jews and christians and muslims do not have the same ideology, though

having common ancestors, so why does Wendy’s child seem to be promoting this nonsense

and trying to forge a synthetic bond which is destined for doom, nay already doomed.

One should also note that due to the infinite gap between Man and god, the “values” that god gives in Abrahamic tradition can never be achieved while on earth. This however is not the case in Dharmic traditions such as Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and Hinduism. The God resides in you but you do not “realise”. This is illustrated by a simple example: When you are a child you do not realise that you have an internal organs such as Lungs, stomach etc. As you grew up you became aware.

The highest point of this awareness is realising that supreme living right inside you. However it comes after sincere meditation and not by “rituals” as Wendy’s favourite child has talked about. A Guru can help to reach this GOD.

Note that there is no concept of GURU in the Abrahamic traditions. It is heresy to claim that you could overcome the gap between divinity and mortal human because of the infinite gap.

The god in Abrahamics has a one way “directive” otherwise called commandments or hadith.

The GOD in Dharma has a dialogue: As in Geeta.

Therefore the “god” of Abrahamics is not the GOD of Dhramic traditions.

Also the context defines ethics, so Krishna *not following the rule* is mis-contextuaised by Favourite Wendy’s child so that he can subvert. Would one not lie to save a woman from bad men, if she was hiding in your house? That is following the “rules” you shikhandi Favourite Wendy’s child

So Favourite Wendy’s child, please go become a Shikhandi (Looks like you are part woman) and try not to dabble here. This is not for you.

see more

__________________________________________________________________________

Ran Nam • a day ago

This man Pattnaik is such a dunce that it/s breathtaking. Proof?

He says the concept of values comes from the corporate world.

What? All values? Hindu values too? Chinese values? Babylonian values? Roman empire values? Australian aborigine values? Values from, cultures that existed long before the corporate world came into existence a mere few hundreds of years ago?

That’s strike one against Pattnaik. He makes wide ranging universal claims that are obviously and clearly wrong, providing no evidence at all for such nonsense claims.

Strike two: He he says these alleged corporate based values have their origin in the Abrahamic concept of commandment where the Jewish God lays down a set of rules or values showing people how to live. Even more absurd garbage. These Abrahamic Jews are now and have been for millenia one of the tiniest and most insignificant religious communities in the world. Yet Pattnaik feels the commandments of these nobodies have influenced the values of the world even in ancient times when most people had never heard of the Jews! These Jewish commandments were taken up by the Christians a mere 2,000 years ago, but Christians even today are only 2 billion out of world population of 7 billion, a very small minority at best. How is it that the commandment structure of these one tenth of one percent Jews and 25 percent Christians is the basis of the values of everybody?

Strike 3: Pattnaik says these values, everybody’s values mind you, which come from the corporate world, and are based on Abrahamic commandment, are transmitted by messengers known as prophets! Who there Nelly. We Hindus, a billion of us, don’t have this prophet scheme, nor the Buddhists, nor the billion odd communists, the atheists and non religious, why even the Muslims say Muhammad was the last prophet and there will be no more. So how are all of us non -prophet accepting billions got our values, and how will be get our values in the future? Should we just borrow them from the corporations or go directly to the Jews and Christians and take them there?

Now these three concepts values, commandment and prophet are the core of Pattnaik’s entire blog, and all that follows hangs on these three matchstick pegs. If these pegs are so absurd, nonsensical and illogical, what are we to make of his idle speculations that follow> You know the answer. Flush. I don’t know who told this Pattnaik character that he has the chops to write on topics like mythology and the Ramayana instead of writing in medical journals how to treat dysentery and infected toenails, but that person should face criminal charges right now!

What are Vedic values, aka ‘Indian Ethos’ of the Hindus?

By Devdutt Pattnaik

AUGUST 28, 2016

http://devdutt.com/articles/indian-mythology/mahabharata/what-are-vedic-values-aka-indian-ethos-of-the-hindus.html

The concept of “values” comes from the corporate world. And every corporate world, even the most corrupt, has “values” printed on its annual general report. This can be traced to the notion of “commandment” which comes from Abrahamic mythology, where God of Abraham puts down a set of rules (and values, when there are no rules) of how humans are supposed to live their life. This set of rules is transmitted by messengers known as prophets. Sadly, no one is sure what the correct set of rules and values are which is why Jewish people fight with Muslims and Muslims fight with Christians. And there are fights between various Jewish, Islamic and Christian subgroups. The “secular” nation state simply replaces God with “We, the People” or the “State” and uses the same model of governance based on a rules/values that everyone is supposed to follow.

The Vedas look at the world differently. As we study the transformation of Hinduism from Vedic to Puranic times, we notice an obsession with concepts such as infinity (ananta), diversity (aneka), and impermanence (anitya). This is the very opposite of Abrahamic or Semitic thought which seeks to “fix” the world by a set of fixed “rules/values”.

For the Vedas, nature came first, before culture, before humans even. And nature functions as per “law of jungle” where might is right, only the fittest survives, and so driven by hunger and fear animals establish food chains, pecking orders, and territories.

Humans don’t have to subscribe to this jungle way, thanks to our ability to imagine. We can help the helpless. We can provide resources to help the unfit survive. We don’t have to form packs, or herds. We don’t have to dominate, or be territorial. We can use our imagination to outgrow our hunger and fear, and help others cope with their hunger and fear. Humans have the ability to think of others (para-atma) and so can reach the infinite divine (param-atma) beyond the self (jiva-atma). When we do that, we are in line with our potential. This is dharma. When we don’t do that, when we are not in line with our potential, we are following adharma.

In the Vedic worldview, the focus is not on rules/values and obedience and punishment. The focus is on engaging with others with awareness and working towards reducing our hunger and fear. High hunger and fear nourish ego or aham, and take us away from divinity or atma. When humans seek to dominate and control other people for self-aggrandisement, it is aham at work. When we enable people to empathise with each other, and seek to delight, rather than defeat and control others, then atma is at work. Rules/values are just hygiene.

And so in Ramayana, we have the rule-abiding hero (Ram) and a rule-breaking villain (Ravana), and in Mahabharata we have a rule-breaking hero (Krishna) and a rule-abiding villain (Duryodhana). The problem is not rule/value. The problem is not obedience or disobedience. The problem is “where are you coming from”, “what is your intent”. Are you working only for self (jiva-atma) or are you concerned about the other (para-atma)? Ram and Krishna work for others, Ravana and Duryodhana work for the self. We are all in between, hopefully moving towards dharma and atma (Ram/Krishna).

Not much hope for unity in Guyana

My comment  on Bill Ramnarace’s Facebook post (reproduced below)  seeking racial unity in Guyana among Indians, Africans and the other four races.

Ram Jagessar
Something that should be remembered is nowhere in history and even today, have the six peoples of Guyana ever been of one mind on anything important. It’s the very opposite.

They have distrusted and misused and sometimes hated each other, and existed in a state of racial hostility or even war for CENTURIES. Don’t believe me? Check the facts.

Before the Europeans came, for several thousand years the native tribes lived mostly in a state of war, raiding and killing each other and staying far apart from each other. Right? Next came the Europeans, who exterminated and misused the natives and stole their land. English, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish all the same.

Then the Europeans brought the African slaves over and treated them like brothers and sisters and family, right? No way. It was slavery and colonization, not unity. Then the Europeans brought the Chinese, Portuguese and the Indians as indentured servants or semi slaves. The blacks and Europeans hated each other and they both despised and distrusted the Chinese and Portuguese and Indians, who in their turn despised the others.

Love and respect there was none, unity there was less than none. It was colonialism, silly, the very opposite of unity and respect in every way. Colonialism ended when Burnham got independence from Britain and nobody will say there was any unity among the races when he was in charge.

We had race war and racialized dictatorship and 400,000 people fleeing the country. Whence came this racial unity that Burnham put in the slogan one people six races? It’s a complete fantasy. For a very very short time there was a semblance of political unity of the blacks and Indians under Cheddi Jagan and the PPP in the early days, but we all know that was no more than a polite fantasy that lasted less than a decade.

Let me ask the uncomfortable question: TODAY do the six peoples in Guyana love and respect each other and unite together? How about like and respect? How about respect alone? How about tolerate each other? You see what I mean.

So how do we go about getting some measure of unity among the six races? I would suggest first item in the new constitution for racial unity would be to recognize there is none and there has never been any. Now that we are back at square one, let’s start again with no assumptions not backed up by hard fact, and move forward from there.

Which political party will buy that approach today? None? I can agree with that. Which religious group? Which social group? Which economic group? Which trade union group? Which media organization? None, none, none, none and none?

Listen guys and girls, we got a lot of work to do. Sixty years of fooling ourselves is a tough barrier to overcome. I know you must always have hope, but in this issue I have to confess I am not finding much for Guyana.

Bill Ramnarace Facebook post
UNTIL GUYANA GETS RID OF THIS …” ONE PEOPLE” MENTALITY…THEY WILL NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCES IN PEOPLE….
WE IN GUYANA ARE NOT ‘ONE’ PEOPLE….WE ARE MANY PEOPLE…SIX RACES WITH THEIR OWN CULTURES AND RELIGIONS.
WHEN GUYANESE UNDERSTAND THIS, THEN THEY WILL TRY TO UNDERSTAND AND LEARN THE DIFFERENCES IN PEOPLE’S BEHAVIOUR, THEIR LIKES AND DISLIKES.
UNTIL THEN…THOSE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE NOT ONE PEOPLE WILL LIVE IN DARKNESS AND IGNORANCE.

Devdutt Pattnaik talks nonsense on forest and field in dharma discussion

Here is Devdutt Pattnaik’s blog on Forest and Field in dharma discussion

http://devdutt.com/articles/indian-mythology/mahabharata/forest-and-field-in-dharma-discussion.html

His full article is reproduced below.

Devdutt  is pontificating on dharma- which he says has nothing to do with rules.

And on the  forest, which he says is a place without rules and the abode of  Kali who runs naked  through it , and the fiield, which is civilized and  full of rules.

Something about this feels  wrong to me.

 

I did a little internet research, which obviously DP has not done, and was shocked at the results.

His idiot distinction between forest as place without rules, wild west style and field as civilized and good, is completely bogus crap he pulled from his rear end.

Forest in Hindu dharma is a revered place as  shown in the Aranyaka forest books of the Vedas, as the place where ascetics and yogis go to find inner peace,  the site of the forest ashramas,

 

We even have a forest goddess Aranyani  as in

 

ARANYANI: Indian/Hindu Goddess of the Forest…

“…Forests have always been central to Indian civilization. It represented the feminine principle in prakrti. In the Hindu pantheon, forests have been worshiped as Goddess Aranyani, the Goddess of the Forests and Animals that dwell within them. Forests are the primary source of life and fertility. The forest as a community has been viewed as a model for societal and civilizational evolution.

 

The Indian civilization was guided by the diversity, harmony and self-sustaining nature of the forest. Aranya means forest. The Aranyakas form the third part of the Vedas. They were developed by the hermits, living in the forests. They reflect an explicit transition in the philosophy of life of man. So ‘Aranya Samskriti’ the culture of the forest was not a condition of primitiveness but one of conscious choice. Indian culture considers the forest as the highest form of cultural evolution.

 

As a source of life nature was venerated as sacred and human evolution was measured in terms of man’s capacity to merge with her rhythms and patterns intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. The forest thus nurtured an ecological civilization in the most fundamental sense of harmony with nature. Such knowledge that came from participation in the life of the forest was the substance not just of Aranyakas or forest texts, but also the everyday beliefs of tribal and peasant society.

 

The forest as the highest expression of the earth’s fertility and productivity is symbolised in yet another form as the Earth Mother, as Vana Durga or Tree Goddess. In Bengal she is associated with Avasthhaor or Banbibi, the lady of the forest. In Comilla, Bangla Desh, she is Bamani, in Assam she is Rupeswari. In folk and tribal cultures especially, trees and forests are also worshiped as Vana Devatas or forest deities. In the Southern Indian states, the concept of Vana Devatas means forest spirits.” (1)

 

What a difference is this from the absolute rubbish of  DP’s pre kindergarten mumblings of  the forest as a place without rules where Kali is running around naked.

 

Ram Jagessar

November 23, 2016

……………………………………………………………………………………………..

Forest and Field in Dharma Discussion
By  Devdutt Pattnaik

lPublished on 8th June, 2016, on speakingtree.in

In the Sama Veda, the hymns of the Rig Veda are turned into melodies. These melodies are classified into two groups: aranya-gaye-gana or Forest Songs, and grama-gaye-gana or Settlement Songs. This divide plays a key role in the understanding of dharma. Forest is the default state of nature. In the forest, there are no rules.

The fit survive and the unfit die. The stronger, or the smarter, have access to food. The rest starve. There is no law, no authority, and no regulation. This is called ‘matsya nyaya’ or law of the fishes, the Vedic equivalent of the law of the jungle. This is prakriti, visualised as Kali, the wild goddess who runs naked with unbound hair, of the puranas.

Humans domesticate the forest to turn the forest into fields and villages for human settlement. Here, everything is tamed: plants, animals, even humans, bound by niti, rules; riti, tradition; codes of conduct, duties and rights. Here, there is an attempt to take care of the weak and unfit. This is the hallmark of sanskriti or civilization, visualised as Gauri, the docile goddess who is draped in a green sari, and whose hair is tied with flowers, who takes care of the household.

The Ramayana tells the story of Rama who moves from Ayodhya, the settlement of humans, the realm of Gauri, into the forest, the realm of Kali. The Mahabharata tells the story of the Pandavas who are born in the forest, then come to Hastinapur, and then return to the forest as refugees, and then once again return to build Indraprastha, then yet again return to the forest as exiles, and finally, after the victory at war, and a successful reign, they return to the forest following retirement.

As children, we are trained to live in society – that is brahmacharya. Then we contribute to society as householders — grihastha. Later we are expected to leave for the forest — vanaprastha, and then comes the hermit life or sanyasa, when we seek the world beyond the forest.

According to the Buddhist Sarvastivàdin commentary, Abhidharma-mahavibhàsa-sàstra, forest or vana, is one of the many etymologies of the word ‘nirvana’, the end of identity, prescribed by Buddhist scriptures, which is the goal of dhamma, the Buddhist way.

Rama lives in a city, and so does Ravana. But Rama follows rules. Ravana does not care for rules. In other words, Ravana follows matsya nyaya though he is a city-dweller, a nagara-vasi. That is adharma. If Ravana uses force to get his way, Duryodhana uses his cunning, also focusing on the self rather than the other. This is adharma. Dharma is when we function for the benefit of others. It has nothing to do with rules. Which is why Krishna, the rule-breaker, is also upholding dharma, for he cares for the other.

In the forest, everyone is driven by self-preservation. Only humans have the wherewithal to enable and empower others to survive, and thrive. To do so is dharma. It has nothing to do with rules or tradition. It is about being sensitive to, and caring for, the other. We can do this whether we are in the forest, or in the city. And so it is in the vana or forest, that Krishna dances with the gopikas, making them feel safe even though they are out of their comfort zone.

Without appreciating the forest and the field, Kali and Gauri — the animal instinct and human capability — any discussion of dharma will be incomplete.