what is truth, where is it?

[maadhav 0]

what is truth?

 

it is something, knowing which, and living by it one gets real happiness. doing so - living by the truth - one can never harm the suras, nor ofend devatas or god.

 

where is truth?

 

it is every where, in different effects.

 

history shuld tell the truth, if the historians are the truth tellers.

 

archeology should tell the truth,

if the archeologies are unbiased and the tellers of truth.

 

phylologists -linguists - should also be the tellers of truth, and their method proven perfect.

 

scientists also should be truth tellers.

 

teachers and profesors also shpld be truth telelrs.

so also politicians and dharma gurus.

 

book writers and movie makers should tell the truth.

journalists also should tell the truth.

 

you see, we have to hear or read or directly experience the truth. even if it happens, some may not be able to recognise the truth. this is due to maya.

 

people like sukadev goswami, narad, etc. are selfless.

theri interest is that all enjoy the bliss and never be unhappy. so they tell the truth, and many cnnot accept it. this is maya.

 

most worldy people want to know the truth,

but do not want to tell the truth,

perticularly the people with demoniac mentlity.

 

the barbaric demonic invaded india from the desert.

they saw a totally diferent culture, and they did not like it. their book never telels them to be tolerant to people like us. so, they destroyed places and people and things where we find the truth.

 

scriptures, vedic libraries, they burnt/destroyed.

 

temples - religious institutions where we can find truth, htey destroyed, and built mosques on top of them.

 

brahmanas, who tell the truth, they slaughtered in millions.

 

khsatriyas - the protectors, they killed them.

(and gandhi made khsatriyas into cowards.

the ony bravery they have now is to do corruption.)

 

our archeologycal evidences that tell the truth of our past is being stolen and estroyed or distorted.

 

we are shown anti vedic moves so that we may never nknow the truth.

 

real history of india is not taught in india schols an colleges. truth is kept out and away from the hindus.

 

america wants to see iran westernized, free form teh hold of islam. interviewing iranians, the western reportes ask,

"do young people do sex before marrrige?

is alcohol sold freely?"

 

in iraq, the news says, the minority xians are in fear.

they sell alcohol, and islam does nto allow it.

well that is one good thing about islam,

as far as i know.

 

truth, that drug/alcohol is not good is hidden.

why, because there is fear that if otehrs get more sober that us, then they will advance more than us (materially).

spiritual advancement, they do not care.

 

truth is silent.

it has to be realized -felt- experienced,

by a living being, us.

to know the truth, we need to acquire soke skills and some qualifications, else we will not know the truth even whenit is in front of us.

differnt yoga pricesses are ways to realize the truth.

 

that is why the scripturees say:

dharmaH raksitah rakshati.

 

so, whenyou knwo the truth, live by it,

and get a direct experience that it reallly is the truth.

then tell it to others,

by various ways.

 

now, some things need to be kept secret from the asuras.

this is the teaching of chanakya pandit.

this is khsatrya art./ rajkaran.

 

scriptuers say:

 

satyam vada

priyam vada.

 

it is very niec if we can tell the truth and also in a pleasing manner. but some time it is not possible.

then we must tell the truth.

unfortunately some just tell the pleasing lies.

 

as one advnces spiritully,

one become expert in telling the truth

ferlessly, and mostly can tell the truth.

 

parbhupada told the truth, but he would not care if the manner was pleasing. e.g. he would say, "just ask some one if krishna is god. if he says no, then he is a rascal."

he told the truth bery bravely, fearlessly.

hardly any guru i have herd was that bold.

becaue of his works, now millions all over the world do krishna bhakti.

 

asato maa sat gamaya

 

just kowing the truth is not enough.

we have to live by it.

 

 

[Guest guest]

"parbhupada told the truth, but he would not care if the manner was pleasing. e.g. he would say, "just ask some one if krishna is god. if he says no, then he is a rascal."

he told the truth bery bravely, fearlessly.

hardly any guru i have herd was that bold.

becaue of his works, now millions all over the world do krishna bhakti."

 

 

be loyal , do not use prabhupada for your political, nationalist, hinduistic, ant muslim propaganda... prabhupada has never spoken for these purposes

 

do not mix saints with your materialistic views

[maadhav 0]

i respect him for telling the truth about bhakti and krishna.

 

he never said only a few people have the monopoly to praise him or talk about him.

 

just as i said, truth is in front of you,

but you cannot see it. pray krishna.

 

 

[barney 0]

Vedas, Hindu Scriptures Prohibit Casteism

 

By O.P. Gupta

 

Over centuries, the percentage of Hindus in the world and even in India has been declining. The share of Hindus in total population of India was 84.98 percent in the 1951 census, 82.7 percent in 1971, 82.6 percent in 1981 and 82.41 percent in 1991.

 

In the 2001 census report (table 24), it has been further revised downwards to 82 per cent in 1991 census.

 

This decline warrants serious introspection and reappraisal of our socio-religious norms. Whereas Islamic and Christian priests have been working overtime to seek new converts so as to increase their demographic weight, bulk of Hindu priests unaware of Rigvedic norms but, armed with Manusmriti have been functioning in such manner over last one thousand years reduces population of Hindus by making it difficult for a sizeable chunk of Hindus (now called ST/SC/Dalits) to let them remain Hindus with honour and dignity; and, by not seeking new converts to Hinduism.

 

Concepts like castes by birth, upper/lower castes, untouchables and dalits are expressly prohibited by Rigveda, Ramayana and Shrimad Bhagwat Gita!

 

Protagonists of castes by birth cite Purus-Sukta (X.90.12) of Rigveda and slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita. This claim is totally knocked down by other richas of Rigveda, other slokas of Gita and examples set by Lord Rama.

 

There is no birth based caste in Rigveda is evident from simple fact that names of none of Rigvedic Rishis carry any present day caste titles like Pandit, Sharma, Tripathi, Chaturvedi, Trivedi, Singh, Gupta and Namboodari.

 

Vedas, Valmiki Ramayan and Gita are three and only three supreme religious scriptures of Hindus. Rigveda has revelations to 414 rishis. Rigveda was composed around 1500 BC but other school believes it to be older than 5000 BC.

 

Rigveda does not mention cotton whereas the oldest cotton seeds found in Afghanistan are carbon dated to 5000 BC.

 

All others (Brahmanas, Upnishads, Puranas, Sutras, Smrities) are just commentaries, stories mixed with historical accounts and poets’ imaginations.

 

All writings in Sanskrit are not religious scriptures. Therefore, these latter compositions must yield to supremacy of Vedas. It is not a new assertion as these themselves acknowledge supremacy of Vedas. For example, Manusmriti vide Sloka (II.6), states that Vedas are the primary/first source of authority. So, it is logical that all such slokas of Manusmriti which are violative of Veda stand rejected.

 

Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee in his book “Hindu Law and the Constitution” says that by a rule of interpretation, if the shruti (Vedas) and the smriti differ on any point, the former is to prevail.

 

Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed after Vedas. Shrimad Bhagwat Gita is a part of Mahabharata. It is believed that Manusmriti was composed during Kushan period, about 100 years after Chankya/Kautilya. Arthur A. Macdonnel in his book “A History of Sanskrit Literature” (1899 AD) estimates that Manusmriti in its present form was composed near about 200 AD.

 

In his book, Macdonnel warns that the smritis are not on the same footings as law books of other nations as these are works of private individuals (Brahmins); these were written by Brahimins for benefit of Brahinins whose caste pretentions these books consequently exaggerate.

 

None of these books from Manusmriti onwards were approved by any Dharam Sansad (religious congregation). Macdonnel advises to check statements/claims made in smrities by outside sources.

 

Text of Manusmriti has been tampered with was acknowledged by Sir William Jones, an employee of the East India Company who introduced it as the Law book of Hindus in British Indian Courts.

 

As devil is there in the details, let us look at English translations of (X.90.11 & 12). HH Wilson translates “When they immolated Purusa, into how many portions did they divide him? What was his mouth called, what his arms, what his thighs, what were his feet called? His mouth became the Brahmana, his arms became the Rajnya, his thighs became the Vaishya, and the Sudra was born from his feet.” Ralph T.H. Griffith translates: “When they divided Purusa how many portions did they make? What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?” The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms Rajnya was made. His thighs became Vaishya, from his feet the Sudra was produced.”

 

This context, this background that, division of body of Purusa into four parts was done to kill/ immolate/sacrifice the Purusa has been totally suppressed in Manusmriti.

 

In sloka (I.31), Manusmriti wrongly claims, that for growth of people (lokanbridhi) Brahma created Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra from mouth, arms, thighs and feet. With a view to create hereditary monopoly on easy money of dakshina, greedy priests centuries after Vedas concocted that as Brahman was born from mouth of Purusa, he was the superior most and as Sudra was born from feet which is impure part of body he was impure and the inferior most.

 

Manusmriti (5/132) states that organs above nabhi are sacred (pavitra) and those below are impure (apivatra). There is no sanction for such a hypothesis in Rigveda.

 

What Rishi Narain, composer of (X.90) was revealed is a very simple common sense, that even the most powerful man like Purusa can be immolated/destroyed if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are separated.

 

If we kill a person what do we do? We cut his body into pieces. This is what followers of Manusmriti have been doing over centuries - destroying/immolating Hinduism from within by dividing/separating Hindus among different castes by birth, at fratricidal war with each other, thus, reducing Hindu population.

 

By throwing Sudras out of villages, followers of Manu amputated feet of Hinduism, thus, made Hinduism crippled. Will followers of Manusmriti agree to get their own feet amputated on the same logic that legs are impure parts of their bodies?

 

Another interpretation of (X.90.11 & 12) is creative i.e. emergence of a powerful (virat) man from Yajna. Acharya Shri Ram Sharma of Bareilly translates (in Hindi) “Virat purus kitne prakaroo se utpanna huvey. Unka mukh Brahman, bhuja kshatriye, janghaye vaishya aur charan sudra huye.”

 

Acharya translates these on lines of creation not immolation, so, body of Purus is not divided into four limbs.

 

By common sense, a virat Purus is one who is healthy and one is healthy only if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are joined together and work in perfect harmony with each other.

 

Whenever this harmony among different parts of body is disturbed/destroyed, he becomes paralysed and sick. So, what Rishi Narain is saying is that a Society will emerge as the most powerful Society like the Virat Purus only if its intelligentia (educated people i.e. Brahmans), Government (Rajnya), business community (Vaishya) and professionals & workers (Sudra) are joined together and work in as perfect harmony with each other as mouth, arms, thighs and feet of any healthy person work.

 

These two richas, thus, emphasise total equality, perfect unity & complementarity of all the four classes of people to make a Society powerful.

 

In a healthy person, mouth does not claim to be superior to legs, arms do not claim any superiority over legs and arms do not function independently of head (Parkinsons’s disease), as each part of a body is composed of identically same materials and is functionally dependent upon each other.

 

No part of body is inferior or superior to other part of body. Each dependent on the other, each complementary to the other. Thus, Purus Sukta commands harmony, unity and equality i.e. none of the four classes is inferior or superior to other and each is dependent on the other for its healthy survival.

 

But, just the opposite interpretation was created by greedy priests and British Courts to divide and rule.

 

Those who say that as Sudra represent feet of Virat Purus, and, as feet is impure so Sudras are impure should know that richa (X.90.14) says that earth was born from same feet of Purusa. So, based on (X.90.14) Sudras will be justified to claim the entire earth as exclusively theirs.

 

There is no stipulation of high or low by birth in Rigveda. Many rishis of Rigveda under current Manusmriti definition were not Brahmins. There are at least ten Rigvedic richas showing that profession was not hereditary.

 

In richas (V.23.1) and (V.23.2) Rishi Dyumna prays to Agni “Bestow Agni, upon Dyumna, a son, overcoming foes by his prowess; one who may with glory subdue all men in battle” (HH Wilson).

 

In (IX.112.3) another rishi says “I am the singer, papa is the physician.” So, father of a Rigvedic rishi is a physician but in Manusmriti a physician is a sudra.

 

HH Wilson translates (X.125.5) “I verily of myself declare this which is approved by both gods and men; whosoever I will, I render him formidable, I make him a Brahma, a rishi or a sage.” This richa appears in Atharveda (IV.30.03) also.

 

So in Rigveda profession is not hereditary but by training. In (X.98.7) Devapi, is functioning as a purohit to his own brother King Shantanu.

 

Some assert that Arayns were/are fair complexioned people and sudras are dark skinned. They also claim that four varnas were based on colours of skin. This is not true as Lord Rama and Lord Krishna are always depicted in coloured pictures as dark complexioned (shyama varna). Rishi Kanva who richly contributed to Rigveda was himself a dark skinned person vide RV (X.31.11).

 

Higher caste/lower caste and untouchability are in direct contradiction to 12 other richas of Vedas viz. RV (VIII.93.13), RV (X.191), Atharveda III.30 and VII.54 (or VII.52) and Yujurveda (26.02) and (36.18). Unity in diversity is famous Indian motto.

 

Cows of different colours like black, red and spotted ones give white milk (RV VIII.93.13) is a metaphor used in Vedas for diversity yielding to unity.

 

HH Wilson translates (X.191.2): “Meet together, talk together, let your minds apprehend alike: in like manner as the ancient gods concurring accepted their portion of the sacrifice.” RV (X.191.3) “Common be the prayer of these (assembled worshippers), common be the acquirement, common the purpose, associated be the desire. I repeat for you a common prayer, I offer for you a common oblation.” RV (X.191.4) “Common (worshippers), be your intention; common be (the wishes of) your heart; common be your thoughts, so that there may be thorough union among you.”

 

W.D. Whitney & K.L. Joshi translate Atharveda (III.30.1) “like-heartedness, like mindedness, non-hostility do I make for you; do you show affection the one towards the other, as the inviolable (cow) towards her calf when born.” (III.30.5): “Having superior intentful, be you not divided, accomplishing together, moving on with joint labour come hither speaking what is agreeable one to another, I make you united, like minded.” (III.30.6): “Your drinking saloon be the same, in common your share of food, in the same harness do I join you together; worship you Agni united, like spokes about a navel.” (III.30.7): “Untied, like minded I make you, of one bunch, all of you, by (my conciliation; (be) like the gods defending amrita; late and early be well-willing yours.”

 

Supporters of casteism oftenly quote slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita to support four castes by birth. In sloka (IV.13) Lord Krishna says: “Chaturvarnyma mayaa sristam gunkarma vibhagsah” i.e. four orders of society created by Me according to their Guna (qualities/behaviour) and Karma (profession/work/efforts).

 

Lord Krishna does not say guna and karma of previous life. In (XVIII.41) Lord Krishna says “Brahmana Kshatriya visham sudranam cha paramtapa, karmani pravibhaktani svabhavaprabhavaigunaih.” It means people have been grouped into four classes according to their present life karma (profession/work) and svabhava (behaviour).

 

Had this division been based on birth, Lord Krishna would have naturally used “Janmani pravibhaktani” in (XVIII.41).

 

In (X.20) Lord Krishna says “ahamatama gudakesa sarvabhutaa sayasthitah” i.e. “Arjuna! I am the universal self seated in the hearts of all beings.” Here, Lord neither excludes sudra from “all beings” nor excludes Himself from being in hearts of sudra.

 

In (XVIII.61) Lord says “eshwarah sarvabhutaanaam hraddesearjuna tisthati” i.e. Arjuna! God abides in the heart of all living beings.” Again, sudras are not excluded.

 

In (XIV.4) Lord Krishna says “of all embodied beings Arjuna, prakrti or nature is the conceiving Mother, while I am the seed giving Father.” Thus, Lord Krishna says that he is as much Father of sudras as he is Father of any other Hindu.

 

In (XVI.18) Lord Krishna says: “Given over to egotism, brute force, arrogance, etc. they hate Me dwelling in their own bodies as well as those of others.”

 

Thus, Lord Krishna instructs that a Hindu must not hate bodies of others Hindus as He is there in bodies of all so Gita prohibits untouchability.

 

In (XVI.19) Lord curses Manu supporters: “These haters, sinful, cruel and vilest among men, I cast (them) again and again into demonical yonies (wombs).” In (XVI.20) Lord again curses Manu supporters: “Failing to reach Me, Arjuna, these stupid souls are born life after life in demoniac wombs (asura yoni) and then verily sink down to a still lower plane.” In (XVIII.71) and (V.18) Lord again instructs equality of all Hindus.

 

Shrimad Valmiki Ramayan (1.1.98 to 100) also says whosoever including sudra reads it will achieve greatness and get rid of all sins. Thus, Vedas, Ramayana and Gita confer authority on sudras to possess and read all these.

 

In Ramayan, Lord Rama has set following two lessons for all Hindus which we witness every year in Ramlilas but never follow in our practical lives.

 

Ravana was a grandson of risi Pulatsya. He was an expert on Vedas too. So, he was a Brahimin by birth under Manu definition as well as a Brahimin (educated) by qualification (veda-gyata) but he and most of his family members were killed by Lord Rama for their wrong doings. So, the first lesson of Ramayana is that everyone is equal before law.

 

Lord Rama visited Shabri, called her a mother (mata); ate food from her hands and washed feet of Nisadraj. Lord Rama lived for years among vanvasi (tribals). So the second lesson of Ramayana is that a true Rambhakta should never discriminate against SC/ST/Dalit Hindus, should never hesitate to visit and dine with them. Mahatma Gandhi always followed both these two lessons of Ramayana.

 

Thus, the central command of the 14 harmony richas and 10 profession not hereditary richas of Vedas is that all Hindus are totally equal by birth, of one bunch, share same water and food, worship together united in same temple, common are prayers, common purpose, common thoughts, united like spokes of a wheel, common oblation and friendly towards each others.

 

One becomes a warrior (Rajnya), Brahman (educated ones) or rishi, not by birth but by his efforts/training (karma) vide RV (X.125.5). No one is superior and no one is inferior by birth.

 

[The writer is the Ambassador of India to and above are his personal views.]

 

 

[Guest guest]

"he never said only a few people have the monopoly to praise him or talk about him."

this is right... mine was an invitation.. you're obviously free

 

just as i said, truth is in front of you,

but you cannot see it. pray krishna.

..many things we do not see, so we take shelter on people who see, the masters.. not that the masters have to take our shelter and listen our advices on politics

[Guest guest]

 

Your right.

 

 

ys, Govindaram.

[maadhav 0]

dear guest,

 

you are not an ordinary person.

please pick a user name.

then we can talk more.

 

you sure have a point, but i would try to make some effort to be understood.

 

 

[maadhav 0]

thanks govindaram ji.

 

unless one has cultivated the habit of telling the truth and in pleasing manner, it is very difficult to do,

perticularly when you have less time to make your point.

 

that is how it was for prabhupada.

if anyone attacked bhakti or krishna or gita, etc.

he had no time to respond in polite manner.

 

this great man has never lost a debate with any one.

jai sri prabhupada!