Wednesday, October 5, 2011

रा.स्व. संघाचा हिंदु धर्माशी संबंधच काय?

(हिंदू धर्मासमोरील समस्या - 7)


वैदिक धर्माभिमानी जरी आज स्वत:ला हिंदु समजुन घेत असले तरी तसे वास्तव नाही. मुलत: यद्न्यप्रधान वैदिक धर्म आणि मुर्तीपुजकांचा शैवप्रधान धर्म हे पुर्णतया स्वतंत्र धर्म होते व आहेत. हिंदु नावाखाली हे दोन्ही धर्म सध्या एकत्र नांदत असल्याने एक विचित्र धार्मिक गोधळाची परिस्थिती निर्माण केली गेली आहे. त्यामुळे या धर्माच्या समस्यांची उकल होण्याऐवजी त्या वाढतच चालल्या आहेत हे लक्षात येईल. उदा. बराचसा ब्राह्मणवर्ग हा घरात व स्वजातीयांसाठी वैदिक असतो तर बाहेर समाजात शैव वा वैश्णव (मुर्तीपुजक) असतो. कोणी कोनता धर्म पाळावा हा ज्याचा त्याचा प्रश्न असला तरी ब्राह्मणेतर समाज हा अवैदिक परंपरांचाच हिंदु धर्म पाळतो हे लक्षात ठेवणे आवश्यक आहे. द्विराष्ट्रवादाप्रमाणेच खरे तर हा द्विधर्मवाद वैदिक धर्मियांत जपला जात आहे व त्यातुन मुर्तीपुजक अवैदिक हिंदुंचे शोषण व दिग्भ्रमण केले जात आहे आणि ही चिंतेची बाब आहे.

येथे हे लक्षात ठेवले पाहिजे कि वैदिक धर्मात एकच स्रुष्टीनिर्माता परमेश्वर, आत्मा, मोक्ष, पुनर्जन्म. मुर्तीपुजा, संन्यास ई. बाबींना स्थान नाही. येथे वैदिक धर्म चांगला कि वाइट यावर भाष्य अभिप्रेत नाही. कोणी कोणत्या धर्माचे पालन करायचे तो प्रत्येकाचा व्यक्तिगत प्रश्न आहे. परंतु हिंदुत्ववादाच्या नावाखाली नेमका वैदिक धर्माचा व संस्क्रुतीचाच प्रचार प्रसार केला जातो हे मला येथे लक्षात आणुन द्यायचे आहे. आणि त्यामुळेच हिंदु धर्माच्या एकुण विकासातच अडथळे निर्माण झालेले आहेत.

हिंदु धर्माचे रक्षण व विस्तार आणि प्रखर हिंदुराष्ट्रवाद हे दोन मुख्य मुद्दे घेवुन राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघाची स्थापना १९२५ मद्धे झाली. प्रखर हिंदुत्व हा या संघाचा मुलाधार आहे हे उघड आहे. परंतु रा.स्व. संघाचे हिंदुत्व हे पुर्णतया वैदिकप्रधान हिंदुत्व आहे हे गोळवलकर गुरुजींचे विचारधन नुसते चाळले तरी कोणाही सुद्न्य वाचकाच्या लक्षात येईल. रा.स्व. संघाला वेदमान्य वैदिक महता असणारे हिंदुत्व हवे आहे. रा.स्व. नेहमीच ज्या संस्क्रुतीबाबत बोलत असतो, गौरवगान गात असतो ती संस्क्रुती म्हणजे वैदिक संस्क्रुती होय. सरस्वती नदीच्या काठी वेदरचना झाली म्हणुन सरस्वती देवीचे पुजन हा त्यांच्या विगताच्या आत्मगौरवाचा भाग बनतो, म्हणुन भाजपाच्या सत्ता जेथे येतात तेथे शाळांतुन सरस्वतीपुजन आवश्यक बनुन जाते. वेदांमद्धे सर्व आधुनिक द्न्यान-विद्न्यान ठासुन भरले आहे असे दावे त्यांचे असंख्य साहित्त्यिक/विचारवंत करत असतात. सिंधु संस्क्रुती ही पुर्णतया अवैदिक असुन तिचे अपहरण करण्याचे कार्यही सद्ध्या मोठ्या प्रमानावर चालु आहे. सिंधु संस्क्रुतीचे निर्माते याद्न्यिक वैदिकच होते असे धादांत खोटे त्यांचे विद्वान सांगत असतात. हेच विद्वान एके काळी आर्य सिद्धांत डोक्यावर घेत सिंधु संस्क्रुती आक्रमक आर्यांनी नष्ट केली असे सांगत असत. नष्ट करणारे निर्माते कसे झाले...या बदलामागे वैदिक श्रेष्ठतावाद आहे हे लक्षात घेणे अत्यावश्यक आहे.

अवैदिक देवतांचे अपहरण हा तर फार मोठा आणि गंभीर विषय आहे. तर्कतीर्थ लक्षमणशास्त्री जोशी शिव या देवतेबद्दल म्हणतात, शिव ही देवता पुर्ण अवैदिक होती. परंतु पुढे वैदिकांनी त्याची ऋग्वेदातील रुद्र या देवतेशी साधर्म्य प्रस्थापित करुन त्या देवतेचा स्वीकार केला. थोडक्यात शिवाचे वैदिकीकरण करण्यात आले. तसेच ते पार्वतीचे आदितीशी तर विट्ठलाचे विष्णुशी तादात्म्य साधत अपहरण करण्यात आले. खरे तर मुर्तीपुजा ही वैदिक धर्माला मुळात मान्य नाही, पण कालांतराने त्यांचे यद्न्यच बंद पडल्याने त्यांना मुर्तीपुजक शैवप्रधान धर्मात यावे लागले. असे करतांना त्यांनी आपली वैदिक धर्मीय पाळेमुळे मात्र पुर्णतया तोडली नाहीत. वेदमाहात्म्य, वेदमान्यता, वैदिक श्रेष्ठत्व, वेदांचे अपौरुषेयत्व ते सतत सांगतच राहिले. पण वेद इतर समाजाचे कधीच नव्हते, त्यांना ते वाचायला-ऐकायलाही बंदी होती यावरुन अन्य समाज हा कधीच वैदिक नव्हता हे सिद्ध करते. यद्न्य म्हणजे अग्नीच्या माध्यमातुन हवी-द्रव्ये-समीधा अर्पण करत अवकाशस्थ देवतांना आवाहन करणे आणि ईष्ट कामना सिद्धीची प्रार्थना करणे एवढाच होता. त्यात काही वावगे आहे असे मी कोठेही सुचवलेले नाही. प्रत्येक धर्माचे एक कर्मकांड असते तसे ते वैदिक धर्माचे होते. पण वेद समाजधारणेसाठी मार्गदर्श्क तत्वे कोठेही सांगत नाही हे वास्तव आहे एवढेच मला स्पष्ट करायचे आहे.

गुढता, सांकेतिकता हा जवळपास सर्वच धर्मांत आढळते हे खरेच आहे. वैदिक धर्मही त्याला अपवाद नाही. दीर्घतमस ऋषिचे सुक्त त्या द्रुष्टीने अभ्यासनीय आहे. परंतू सर्व धर्मांत या सांकेतिकता पुरोहित वर्ग आणतो वा मित्थके तयार करतो ते धर्मविषयक गुढादर वाढवण्यासाठी. जनसमुहाला धर्मनिष्ठ बनवण्यासाठी. तुलनेने ऋग्वैदिक धर्म अत्यंत सोपा होता. प्राचीन काळी तेवढे अवडंबर नव्हते पण पुढे ब्राह्ज्मण कालात (इसपु ८०० च्या आसपास) यद्न्य हे अवडंबरच झाले. वर्षानुवर्ष चालू ठेवावे लागत असल्याने ते खर्चिक बनले. सामान्यांच्या आटोक्याबाहेर गेले. हैहय राजे तर यद्न्य करून कंगाल झाले हा इतिहास आहेच. वैदिक धर्माचे पतन तेथेच सुरू झाले. शेवटचा यद्न्य श्रुंग राजांनी दुसर्या शतकात केल्याची नोंद आहे.

खरे तर ऋग्वैदिक मंत्ररचना कोठेही समाजाला मार्गदर्शक म्हणुन नाही. ऋग्वेद म्ह्णजे जवळपास ६०० देवतांना यद्न्यप्रसंगी आवाहन करणा-या मंत्रांचा (ऋचांचा) संग्रह आहे. इतिहासदर्शक काही सुक्ते आहेत ती फक्त दाशराद्न्य युद्धाशी निगडीत आहेत. थोडक्यात तो निखळ यद्न्यधर्मियांचा एक प्रकारचा प्रार्थनासंग्रह आहे. यद्न्यासाठी या मंत्रांची गरज होती म्हणुन ते बनवलेही गेले. समाजबांधणी करण्यासाठी ते लिहिले असे म्हनण्याऐवजी ती धार्मिक निकड होती असे म्हनणे संयुक्तिक राहील. दुसरे असे कि दुध ते तुप हा क्रम येथे येत नाही. तत्वद्न्यांसाठीच तो फक्त लागू करता येतो...धर्मद्न्यांसाठी नाही, कारण धर्म ही मानवी समाजाला विशिष्ट धार्मिक आचार-विचार व्युहात बंदिस्त करण्यासाठी असतो, तो बव्हंशी बंधनात्मक असतो. उदा. ऋग्वेदात व्रत करणारे व्रात्य, व्यापार करणारे पणी, संन्यास घेणा-या श्रमनांवर तसेच शिवावर यथेछ्छ टीका केलेली आहे. गणपतीला तर मुंजवत पर्वतावर हाकलुन लावण्यासाठीच्या अनेक ऋचा ऋग्वेदात आहेत कारण वैदिक धर्मियांसाठी गणपती (विनायक) हा विघ्नकर्ता होता, विघ्नहर्ता नव्हे. म्हणजेच प्रत्येक धर्म व धर्मद्न्य हा अन्य धर्मियांबद्दल कसा असहिष्णु असतो याचे हे उदाहरण नव्हे काय? अयद्न्य लोकांची, मुर्तीपुजकांची (शिस्नपुजकांची) भरपुर नालस्ती ऋग्वेदात आहे.

थोडक्यात रा.स्व. संघाचा हिंदुत्ववाद हा मुलत: वैदिकवाद आहे हे येथे स्पष्टपणे लक्षात घेणे आवश्यक आहे. ऋग्वेद, सामवेद व यजुर्वेद यांचा मुर्तीपुजक शैवप्रधान हिंदुंशी काहीएक संबंध नाही. हे वेद सरवस्वी यद्न्यांद्वारे आपल्या जवळपास सहाशे देवतांना आहुत्या देत संतुष्ट करत इहलोकी सुखाची कामना करणा-या धर्मियांशी संबंधीत आहेत. वैदिक संस्क्रुती ही सर्वत: स्वतंत्र असुन त्या संस्क्रुतीची पाळेमुळे वेगळी सहज दाखवता येतात. आजही या ६०० तर सोडाच, वैदिकांच्या इंद्र, वरुण, अदिती, मित्र, नासत्य, प्रजापती इ. देवतांची अन्य कोणीही पुजा करत नाही वा त्या देवता महत्वाच्या वाततही नाहीत, त्यांची मंदिरेही कोठे नाहीत.

त्यामुळे रा. स्व. संघाचा हिंदुत्ववाद स्वीकारता येणे शक्य नाही. तो कोणी स्वीकारुही नये. रा. स्व. संघाचा हिंदुत्ववाद हा हिंदु नावाखाली घेतलेला वैदिक बुरखा आहे. इस्लाम-ख्रिस्तीद्वेषाच्या नावाखाली हिंदुंना भयभीत करुन अवैदिक हिंदुंना आपल्या कळपात ओढण्याची ती चाल आहे. रा. स्व. संघाला खरे तर गोहत्याबंदीची मागणी करण्याचा कसलाही नैतीक अधिकार नाही कारण यद्न्यात गोवंशबळी व आहार ऋग्वेदात ठायीठायी आहे. बुद्ध धर्माच्या उदयानंतर गोहत्या वा अन्य पशुहत्या वैदिकांना सोडाव्या लागल्या असल्या तरी आज मुस्लिम लोक गोहत्या करतात त्यांना विरोध म्हणुन धर्म व संस्क्रुतीचे नाव सांगत गोहत्याबंदीची मागणी ते करत असतात. स्त्रीयांबद्दलचा त्यांचा वैदिक द्रुष्टीकोण आजही बदललेला नाही. उदा. रा.स्व. संघात स्त्रीयांना प्रवेश नाही. सती प्रथेचे उदात्तीकरण केले जाते. उद्या हे स्त्रीयांना द्न्यानबंदी पुन्हा घालतील अशी रास्त शंका वाटणे स्वाभाविक आहे. अवैदिक प्रथेतच स्त्रीयांना समता आहे हे लक्षात ठेवले पाहिजे.

स्ध्या ब्राह्मण-ब्राह्मणेतर वाद चालु आहे असे जे समजतात वा तशा चलवळी करतात त्यांचे आकलन अत्यंत च्घुकीचे आहे. खरा संघर्ष वैदिक विरुद्ध अवैदिक असाच आहे आणि पुरातन काळापासुन हाच संस्क्रुती संघर्ष होता. आता हिंदुत्वाचे नाव घेत जो वैदिक वर्चस्वतावाद वाढवला जात आहे त्याचा प्रतिकार करणे अत्यावश्यक बनुन गेले आहे.

हा लेख संपवत असता मला मागील लेखांवर रा.स्व.संघाबाबत प्रतिक्रिया दिल्या होत्या त्यावर थोडे विवेचन करतो. रा.स्व. संघ आपल्या काही उपसंघटनांमार्फत आदिवासी-वनवासींसाठी खुप काम करतो तर तो वाईट कसा हा तो प्रश्न. खरे तर एक गोष्ट सारे विसरतात ती ही की भारतातील आदिवासींचा हिंदु (वैदिक/अवैदिक मुर्तीपुजाप्रधान) काहीएक संबंध ब्नाही. ते मुळात हिंदुच नाहीत. त्यामुळे ज्या कारणासाठी ख्रिस्ती मिशनरी त्यांचे धर्मांतर करत आहेत त्याच कारणासाठी संघ त्यांचे वैदिकीकरण करत आहे. त्याचा हिंदु धर्माशी वा त्याच्या वाढीशी संबंध नाही. आदिवासींसाठी काम करण्यामागे काही मानवतावादी द्रुष्टीकोन असता तर त्याचे अवश्य स्वागत करता आले असते हे लक्षात घेणे गरजेचे आहे.

थोडक्यात संघ, सनातन प्रभात, अभिनव भारत इ. हिंदुत्ववादी संघटना ज्या हिंदुत्वाचा घोषा लावत अवैदिक हिंदुंना फसवत दिशाभुल करत आपल्या वैदिक कंपुत ओढण्याचा प्रयत्न करत असतात त्याबाबत सावध होणे आवश्यक आहे. एका अर्थाने असे केल्याने धर्मांतर्गतचे (दोन्ही धर्मांना एकत्रीत हिंदु म्हटले जात असल्याने...पण ते खरे वास्तव नाही...) धर्मांतर होते आणि त्याला रोखने अवैदिक हिंदुंच्या द्रुष्टीने अत्यावश्यक आहे.



102 comments:

  1. रा.स्व. संघात स्त्रीयांना प्रवेश नाही. सती प्रथेचे उदात्तीकरण केले जाते. उद्या हे स्त्रीयांना द्न्यानबंदी पुन्हा घालतील अशी रास्त शंका वाटणे स्वाभाविक आहे.
    ===============================================
    कॉमेडी एक्सप्रेसचे लेखक होत आहात तुम्ही ...

    तुम्हाला दुर्गा वाहिनी म्हणजे काय ते माहीत आहे का ?
    सती प्रथेचे उदात्तीकरण संघाने केले याला पुरावा काय ?
    स्त्रियांना ज्ञानबंदी करणार अशी केवळ शंका तुम्ही घेत आहात , परंतु तसे असते तर केवळ मुलींसाठी हजारो शाळा निर्माण केल्या असत्या का रा स्व संघाने ...

    काहीतरी आपल .....थोडा तरी अभ्यास करावा माणसाने

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. जाउदे हो उदय जी. कुठे सिरीअसली घेताय... संघाचं काम वर्धिष्णू आहे. त्याच्या वाढीवर लक्ष केंद्रित करुया. आणि मुळात जिथे सावरकर, गोळवलकर गुरुजी यांचेच विचार वाचून होत नाहीत पूर्ण तिथे हे कुठे वाचत बसताय...!!!

      Delete
    2. कुणी काही ही बोंबलो
      पण वास्तुशांती करताना वैदिक देवतांची पूजा होतेच

      Delete
  2. आदिवासींसाठी काम करण्यामागे काही मानवतावादी द्रुष्टीकोन असता तर त्याचे अवश्य स्वागत करता आले असते ...
    ==============================================
    तुमच्या स्वागतासाठी कोणीही असुसलेले नाही .आदिवासी हे हिंदुच आहेत . ते स्वत: तसे मानतात . या देशात उपासना स्वातंत्र्य आहेच . म्हणून जर कोणि हिंदू म्हणून उपासना करत असेल तर तुम्हाला काविळ होण्याची गरज नाही .

    आदिवासी संघाला मानतात हे सत्य काही पुरोगाम्यांना पचत नाही .

    मुळात स्वत:ला पुरोगामी म्हणवणार्‍या कोणालाही संघासारखे संघटन निर्माण करता आले नाही तसेच सेवा भारती किंवा वनवासी कल्याण आश्रम यांसारखे कार्य करता आलेले नाही .
    साधे महाराष्ट्रात उदाहरण घ्या . सातपुडाच्या जंगलात , मेळघाटात का या संघ विरोधकांचे कार्य पोहोचले नाही .
    का संघ विरोधकांना यमगरवाडी सारखा एकही प्रकल्प उभा करता आला नाही ?
    याचे उत्तर शोधल्यास संघाचे नाव जळल्याचा वास का येतो हे सुद्धा कळून चुकेल ..

    ReplyDelete
  3. उदयजी, रा.स्व. संघात फक्त पुरुषांना प्रवेश आहे आणि हा लेख मी रा.स्व.संघाबद्दल लिहिला आहे. दुर्गा वाहिनीच्या किती शाखा आहेत? त्यांची सदस्य संख्या किती आहे हे माहित आहे काय? ती सदस्यसंख्या आहे फक्त ८००० च्या आसपास. गुजरातमद्धे दंग्यांत सक्रीय भाग या दुर्गा वाहिनीने घेतला होता हेही आपणास माहित असेलच! रा.स्व. संघाचे २६ ते २७ लाख पुरुष स्वयंसेवक आहेत. महिला ८०००....यातच काय ते समजावुन घ्यावे. गुजराथमद्धे रा.स्व. प्रणित शालांतील अभ्यासक्रम वाचा...त्यात बाबरी मशीद ते सती प्रथेबद्दल काय लिहिले आहे आणि प्रश्नावलींत काय आहे ते वाचा. मुलींना शिक्षण देणे आणि द्न्यान देणे यात फरक आहे. मुलींवर या शाळांत काय सनातनी संस्कार केले जातात हे प्रत्यक्ष पहा. आणि त्या हजारो शाळा नाहीत...फार कमी आहेत...आकडेवारी कळवतो पुढील लेखात. पुरुषप्रधान व्यवस्था हे रा.स्व. चे व्यवच्छेदक लक्षण आहे आणि तेच काय सत्य आहे.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :)) अहो हे २६-२७ लाख घरच्या स्त्रियांच्या जीवावरच काम करतात! स्त्रियांना माहित असतं आपला नवरा संघाचं काम करतोय ते! कारण हे अभिमानाने करण्याचं काम आहे. लपूनछपून नव्हे. असो. तुम्ही शाखेत गेला आहात काय?

      Delete
  4. good article Sanjay, just one question, you are supporter of theory that Aryans weren't from foreign land but they too are Indian, you also preach the original or in the very beginning India had shaiv dharma. I want t ask how if the vaidik (Bramhins) weren't from foreign land they made a exactly opposite dharma than shaiv dharma and WHY? and how come the vaidik dharma people are only Bramhins...
    If we put Vaidik as outsider then it seems natural that they have different religion, also we got a reason how and why they made inhuman laws for these who weren't Vaidik (Bramhin)

    ReplyDelete
  5. संजयजी, आपला लेख चांगला आहे. तथापि काही मुद्दे मांडतो. पहिली गोष्ट म्हणजे कुठलाही धर्म हा खऱ्या अर्थाने static नसतोच. त्यात बदल होत जातात. वैदिक धर्माचा मूर्तीपुजेशी समन्वय ह्याच पद्धतीने झाला नसेल काय? तसेच उपनिषदांचे काय? भगवद्गीता, जी सरळच उपनिषदांवर आधारित आहे. (उदा. कठोपनिषद कित्येक श्लोक जसेच्या तसे दुसऱ्या अध्यायात दिसतात.) त्यात भृगुकुलाने उपनिषदांमधून घेतलेल्या तत्वज्ञानावर वैष्णव-भागवत परंपरेचे कलम करण्यात आले. तेव्हा भगवद्गीता हाही एक समन्वयाचा अविष्कार होय. ज्याला आज हिंदू धर्म म्हटले जाते तो कुणी एक हाती बनवलेला धर्म नव्हे तर इतिहासाच्या वेगवेगळ्या टप्प्यांवर अनेक विचारसरणी सामावून घेत पुढे गेलेला एक प्रवाह आहे (त्याचा प्रवाहीपणा पुढे संपुष्टात आला हेही सत्य आहे.) आदी शंकराचार्यांचे सर्वच तत्वज्ञान बौद्ध विचार स्वीकारून त्यावर अद्वैताचे कलम करून पुढे गेले आहेत. त्यांना प्रच्छन्न बौद्ध म्हणत असत हे तुम्हाला माहीतच आहे. विठ्ठला मध्येही जैन आणि भागवत परंपरेचा समन्वय दिसतो ही रा. चिं ढेरे ह्यांची मांडणी ही आपण पाहिली असेल. हा असा सर्व इतिहास असताना आजच्या काळात वैदिक विरुद्ध मूर्तिपूजक असा वाद निर्माण करण्यात काय point आहे? जे कुठले फरक होते, ते कालौघात पुसून गेले. आणि धर्म हा साराच श्रद्धेचा मामला असल्यामुळे आज जिवंत असलेल्या लोकांना तो जसा दिसतो तसाच तो असतो, हेच अंतिम सत्य ठरते. मागे काय होऊन गेले, ह्यापेक्षा आज लोकांची श्रद्धा काय आहे हे पाहावे. आणि अर्थात ही श्रद्धा आकाशातून पडलेली नाही. ती शतकानुशतके त्या विचारांवर जी पुटे चढत गेली त्याचा एकत्रित परिणाम आहे. ह्यातला मागचा कोणता तरी एक कालखंड वेगळा काढणे ही गोष्ट फारशी सयुक्तिक नाही, कारण आजची स्थिती त्या साऱ्याच आधारावर आरूढ झालेली आहे. संघाचे राजकारण ही एक वेगळी गोष्ट आहे. गोळवलकर वैदिक असतीलही, पण ते मूर्तिपूजक ही होतेच! ते आणि अन्य सर्व संघाचे नेते ह्या समन्वित हिंदू धर्माचाच वारसा सांगतात. तसेच तुम्ही म्हटले आहे, संघात २६-२७ लाख स्वयंसेवक आहेत. एवढे संघटन जर त्यांचे खरोखर असते, तर संघ ही आज भारतातील सर्वात प्रभावी संघटना ठरली असती. परंतु वस्तुस्थिती तशी नाही. असो. माझा मुद्दा वेगळा होता. जेवढे केवढे स्वयंसेवक संघात आहेत ते सर्व वैदिक आहेत कि काय? ह्यांच्यातल्या ९९ % लोकांना वेद म्हणजे काय ह्याचे फारसे ज्ञान नाही हे निर्विवाद सत्य आहे. ते सारे पारंपारिक मूर्तिपूजक हिंदूच आहेत. तुमच्या आमच्या सारखेच, ह्याच समाजातील लोक. फार तर असे म्हणू कि त्यांच्यात मुख्यतः ब्राह्मणांचा भरणा आहे, पण तरीही त्याने काहीच बदलत नाही. खरे सांगायचे तर हे सर्व कालबाह्य झालेले लोक आहेत. त्यांची मती कुंठीत झाली आहे. पुढे काय करावे हे त्यांना सुचत नाही. भाजप मध्ये ह्या गोंधळाचे हुबेहूब प्रतिबिंब दिसते. संजयजी, ह्या धर्मात पंथोपपंथ अजून वाढवून काहीच मिळणार नाही असे मला वाटते. हे सारेच कालबाह्य आहे, ह्या पुढच्या जगाला मार्गदर्शन करण्याची ताकद ह्या धर्मात नाही. तरीही धर्माची समाजावरची पकड एवढ्यात संपणार नाही. तेव्हा साऱ्याच प्रवाहांना हळू हळू सहिष्णू होण्याकडे वळवणे हाच ह्यापुढील प्रबोधनाचा मार्ग होय असे मला वाटते. साप ज्या प्रमाणे निरुपयोगी झालेली कातडी कात म्हणून टाकून देतो, तसेच हे सारे पुढे गळून पडेल.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Zen, आर्य हा वंश नसुन त्यांनी भारतावर आक्रमण केले असा एकही पुरावा उपलब्ध नाही हे खरेच आहे. "आर्य" हा शब्द ऋग्वेदात फक्त ३४ ऋचांत ३६ वेळा येतो आणि तोही आदरार्थी संबोधन म्हणुन. तरीही शैवप्रधान प्रतीकपुजी/मुर्तीपुजा प्रधान धर्माची एक प्रतिक्रिया म्हणुन उत्तर सिंधु काळात सरस्वती नदीच्या काठी यद्न्याभोवतीचे कर्मकांड असणा-या वैदिक धर्माची निर्मिती झाली हेही वास्तव आहे. याचे ठलक पुरावे असे...इंद्र, वरुण, अग्नी, मित्र ई. वैदिक देवतांना ऋग्वेदात अनेक वेळा आदराने "असुर" असे संबोधन वापरलेले आहे. शैवप्रधान असुर संस्क्रुतीतुन फुटतांना मुळ रुपांचे भान लगेच सुटत नाही तसेच हे आहे. उदा. गौतम बुद्ध इंद्र, वरुणादी वैदिक देवता व आर्य हा शब्द नवीन धर्म स्थापन करत असतांनाही सोडु शकले नाहीत. एकाच प्रकारच्या जनसमुदायातुन नवीन धर्माचा उदय होतो तेंव्हा काही जुन्या संकेतांना जपले जाते. उदा. पैगंबरही इस्लाममद्धे अल-लत, अल उझा, मन्नत या पेगन देवतांचा त्याग करु शकले नाहीत. वैदिक धर्म हा परंपरागत असुर संस्क्रुतीच्या शैव धर्माविरुद्धची प्रतिक्रिया होती असे एकंदरीत पुराव्यांवरुन दिसते. जसजसा वैदिक धर्म वाढु लागला त्यांनी "असुर" संबोधन पुर्णपणे वगळुन टाकले आहे हेही यथे लक्षात घ्यायला हवे. मग वैदिकांना ही सांस्क्रुतीक अपहरणाची/वर्चस्वाची संधी कशी मिळाली हा प्रश्न उपस्थित होतो. माझ्या मते पहिल्या सहस्त्रकातील अनेक सांस्क्रुतीक व राजकीय घटना त्याला जबाबदार आहेत. या काळात असंख्य पंथांचे प्रस्थ माजले. नास्तिक ते वासुदेव, पांचरात्र, नारायणीय अशा अनेक पंथांनी त्या काळात वर्चस्व गाजवले आणि नष्टही झाले. पण त्याच मध्यात जैन व बुद्ध धर्माचा उदय होवुन मुर्तीपुजक काय वा यद्न्यकर्ते काय, दोन्ही धर्म पिछाडीला गेलेले दिसतात. त्यापैकी शैव धर्माचे पुनरुत्थान झाले खरे पण यद्न्य धर्म मात्र कर्मकांडाणी संपला व शब्दप्राम,आण्यरुपाने मात्र जीवित राहिला. या सांस्क्रुतीक गोंधळ, सरमिसळ, बौद्ध धर्माचा पुन्हा अस्त ई घटनांमुळे ब्राह्मण वर्गाला पुरान्ण व स्म्रुतीरचनांच्या माध्यमातुन फायदा घेता आला असे दिसते. यावर मी पुढील लेखांत सविस्तर लिहितोच...कारण या काळाचे पुरेपुर विश्लेषन केल्याखेरीज चुक नेमकी कोनाची होती हेही ठरवणे अन्यायाचे होईल.

    ReplyDelete
  7. संदीपजी, सविस्तर विचार मांडल्याबद्दल मी आपला खरेच आभारी आहे. स्रवप्रथम मी नमुद करु इच्छितो कि वदिक धर्माचा मी कोठेही अधिक्षेप केलेला नाही. भारतातच निर्माण झालेला तो एक धर्म होता. भारतात वरील माझ्या प्रतिक्रियेत लिहिल्याप्रमाणे एक-दोन नव्हे तर असंख्य संप्रदाय-विचारधारा होवुन गेलेल्या आहेत. सहा दर्शने, उपनिषदे, ब्रम्हसुत्रे, गीता ते पुराणे व तंत्रशास्त्रे अशे ही अवाढव्य परंपरा आहे. माझा आक्षेप ब्राह्मण समाजाबद्दलही नाही, कारण आपण म्हणता त्याप्रमाने खुप जनांना वेदांत नेमके काय आहे हे माहित नाही याचा अनुम्बव मी अनेकदा घेत असतो. प्रस्तुत लेखमालिकेचा हेतुच हा आहे कि हिंदु धर्माचा प्राचीन काळापासुनचा आढावा घेत, सर्व तत्वद्न्यानांची चर्चा करत त्यातील मुख्य समस्यांची चर्चा करत उत्तरे शोधने. रा. स्व. संघाचा जो हिंदु संस्क्रुतीवाद आहे तो मात्र पुरेपुर वैदिकसंस्क्रुतीवाद आहे याबाबत माझ्या मनात तीळमात्र शंका नाही. आणि तोच धोका लक्षात येत असल्याने सर्वच हिंदु त्यांच्या पठडीत जात नाहीत...त्यामुळेच त्यांना धर्मांतर्गतचे धर्मांतर करावे लागत आहे. त्यांची हजारो पुस्तके प्रसिद्ध झालेली आहेत, होत असतात...ती पाहिली तर मी काय म्हणतो ते लक्षात येईल. म्हनजे धर्मात फुट पाडण्याचेच हे कार्य आहे म्हणुन मी हिंदु धर्माशी त्यांचा संबंधच काय असा प्रश्न उपस्थित केला आहे. मुर्तीपुजा केल्यानेच हिंदु होता येते असे काही नाही. त्या द्रुष्टीने हा सैल धर्म आहे. आणि ते चांगलेच आहे. मी शैव विरुद्ध वैदिक असा वाद पेटवत नसुन उलट वैदिक वर्चस्वताधारित धर्म म्हणजे हिंदु धर्म ही व्याख्या मान्य करण्याच्या विरोधात आहे कारण तसे धार्मिक वास्तव नाही वा तसा इतिहासही नाही. या धर्माची मुलतत्वे तत्वद्न्यानाच्या पातळीवर व्यापक तर व्यवहारात अत्यंत क्रुपण आहेत. त्याच्या ऐतिहासिक कारणांचाही शोध घेतो आहे. धर्मात जेही काही अशुद्ध वा चुकीचे आहे त्यावर चर्चा केल्याखेरीज व त्यावर उपाय शोधल्याखेरीज आपण पुढे कसे जावु शकतो? त्यासाठी ही आधी चिकित्सा आहे. वेदांचे महत्व त्यांच्या जागी ठेवून ज्या दैवतांचा वेदांशी संबंध नाही, असु शकत नाही तो निर्माण करुन वेदमहत्ता सिद्ध करण्याचा प्रयत्न असांस्क्रुतीक असेल व तो धर्मासाठी अयोग्य आहे. आजवर हिंदु धर्माच्या अवनतीचे खरे कारण या वर्चस्वतावादात आहे एवढेच मला या लेखात स्पष्ट करायचे आहे. सर्वच ब्राह्मण मुर्तीपुजक आहेत, एकाचेही कुलदैवत इंद्रादि देवता नाहीत...आहेत त्या शैव परिवारातीलच आहेत...पण तरीही वैदिकत्वाचा अभिमान आहे हा विपर्यास केल्याने त्यांचेही नुकसान होत नाही काय? मी याबाबत "हिंदु धर्माचे शैव रहस्य" या पुस्तकात खुपच विस्ताराने लिहिले होते व ब्राह्मण समाजाने त्याचे स्वागतच केले हेही मी येथे आवर्जुन नमुद करतो. ही लेखमालिका त्या पुस्तकाचा पुढील भाग असुन हिंदु धर्मासमोरील समस्यांचा चिकित्सक आढावा घेत उत्तरे शोधण्याचा प्रयत्न करायचा आहे...फुट पाडण्याचा नक्कीच नाही.

    ReplyDelete
  8. हिंदु धर्माच्या या सध्याच्या व्याख्या आहेत. त्या मान्य करता येत नाहीत. मी या लेखमालिकेत हिंदु धर्माची एकुण लक्षणांवरुन व्याख्या करण्यासाठी कोणत्या मुद्द्यांचा अंतर्भाव व्हायला हवा यावर चर्चा केली आहे.
    १. जो वेदप्रामाण्य मानतो, भगवद्गीतेवर श्रद्धा ठेवतो, श्रुती-स्म्रुती-पुराणोक्त जीवनयापन करतो त्यास हिंदु म्हणावे." - लो. टिळक
    २. जो हिंदुस्थानात रहातो, पुरातन संस्क्रुतीचा अभिमान बाळगतो, अखंड हिंदुस्तानाचे स्वप्न पहातो त्यास हिंदु समजावे- गोळवलकर गुरुजी.
    ३. हिंदु हा धर्म नसुन एक जीवनपद्धती आहे. - सुप्रीम कोर्ट
    ४. जे जैन, बौद्ध, मुस्लिम, शिख, ख्रिस्चन नाहीत ते सर्व हिंदु समजावेत. (ब्रिटिश राज कालीन व्याख्या.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. उदा. गौतम बुद्ध इंद्र, वरुणादी वैदिक देवता व आर्य हा शब्द नवीन धर्म स्थापन करत असतांनाही सोडु शकले नाहीत. एकाच प्रकारच्या जनसमुदायातुन नवीन धर्माचा उदय होतो तेंव्हा काही जुन्या संकेतांना जपले जाते
    ==================================================
    मग ऋग्वेद लिहिणाऱ्यांनी स्वतःला असुर का नाही म्हटले?????? स्वतःला आर्य पण देवतांना मात्र असुर म्हणतात....याला काय अर्थ आहे?

    ReplyDelete
  10. आणि जर इंद्र खरच असुर होता तर मग ऋग्वेदात इंद्र-वृत्रासुर युद्ध का झाले? दोन असुरांचे युद्ध? आणि इंद्राने युद्ध केले, आणि ते पण स्वतः असुर असूनही यज्ञ धर्मीयांच्या रक्षणासाठी? काही मेळ बसत नाही.....

    ReplyDelete
  11. आणि जर यज्ञ धर्माच्या आधी एक मूर्तिपूजक धर्म होता तर मग कुठल्याही archaeological excavations मध्ये वेगवेगळ्या मूर्ती का नाही सापडल्या????
    तुम्ही म्हणता ऋग्वेद २५०० इसवि सन मध्ये रचण्यास सुरुवात झाली....म्हणजे त्याआधी या देशात असुर संस्कृती असायला पाहिजे...म्हणजे तिचे अवशेष हे हडप्पा मध्ये पण सापडायला पाहिजे कारण हडप्पा सुद्धा त्याच काळात होते... पण अशा कुठल्या मूर्ती का नाही सापडल्या?

    ReplyDelete
  12. वैदिक ऋषी स्वत:ला कोठेही आर्यही म्हनत नाहीत आणि असुरही. आर्य हा शब्द ऋग्वेदात ३६ वेळा येतो आणि तो फक्त सुदास राजा व त्याच्या वंशजांना उद्देशुन. तुमच्या माहितीसाठी ऋग्वेदाच्या द्रुष्टीने यदु (ज्या कुळात क्रुष्ण जन्मला), इक्ष्वाकु (ज्या कुळात राम जन्मला...) अनार्यच आहेत! एकाच संस्क्रुतीतुन निर्मान झालेला हा नवा यद्न्य धर्म...त्यांच्यात धार्मिक कारणांमुळे वैमनस्य होतेच...त्यामुळे व्रुत्रासुराशी वा नमुचीशी युद्धे होणे क्रमप्राप्त होते. सुरुवातीला वरुण व इंद्रादि देवतांना आदरानेच असुर हे संबोधन वापरलेले आहे. (वैदिक संस्क्रुतीचा इतिहास-तर्कतीर्थ लक्ष्मणशास्त्री जोशी.) हडप्पा-मोहेंजोदरो येथे हजारोंनी शिवलिंगे मिलालेली आहेत, योगीश्वर व पशुपती रुपातील शिवमुद्रा सापडलेल्या आहेत तसेच मात्रुदेवतांच्या प्रतिमाही मिळालेल्या आहेत. मंदिरे बांधायची प्रथा तेंव्हा होती कि नाही हे अवशेषांतुन समजणे अद्याप शक्य झालेले नाही पण घराघरांत लिंगपुजा होत होती. याचे मात्र भरपुर पुरावे आहेत. गोंधळण्याचे कारण नाही.

    ReplyDelete
  13. संजयजी, आपल्या उत्तरात आपण मांडलेले मुद्दे मला मान्यच आहेत. आणि धर्माची चिकित्सा करू नये असे माझेही म्हणणे नाही (जरी कदाचित माझे टिपण वाचून कदाचित आपला तसा समज झाला असेल.) खरे तर आपण, संघाने वैदिक धर्माचे अनाठायी महत्व वाढवून त्या ध्वजाखाली लोकांचे अंतर्गत धर्मांतर चालवले आहे हा मुद्दा मांडत होतात. (हे मला कळले, पण) माझा असा समज झाला कि आपण वैदिक धर्माविरुद्ध शैव धर्माचा ध्वज उभारू पाहत आहात. तो चुकीचा होता हे आता कळले. धर्मचिकित्सा करणे हाच आपला हेतू आहे आणि तो मला पूर्णपणे मान्य आहे. आपल्या लिखाणाचा मी एक चाहता आहे. आपला ब्लोग नेहमी वाचत असतो. माझे ही स्वतःचे काही वाचन करत असतो. पण परदेशात राहत असल्यामुळे ते तेवढे जमत नाही. असो.

    आजच्या धर्माचा संबंध ओढून ताणून वैदिक धर्माशी लावण्याचा प्रयत्न केला जातो आहे असे आपले म्हणणे आहे. म्हणजे मी जो समन्वयचा मुद्दा मांडला होता, त्याऐवजी आपल्याला असे म्हणायचे आहे, कि हा साऱ्याचा मिळून बनलेला एक प्रवाह नसून हे सारेच वेग वेगळे प्रवाह आहेत, आणि त्या प्रवाहांची ही जोडणी करणे चुकीचे आहे. पण मुळात हे जोडणी का होते? तुम्ही ज्या व्याख्या दिल्या आहेत त्यातल्या काही व्याख्यांनुसार हिंदू धर्माची व्याख्या सर्वसमावेशक होऊन जाते. (अर्थात त्यातही सोय, राजकीय अजेंडा ह्या साऱ्या गोष्टी असतात हे खरे आहे.) पण ही सांगड कुठे तरी सर्वांच्या मनात नाही काय? सनातनी ब्राह्मणांच्या वर्चस्वाला आव्हान देणारे शाहू महाराजही वेदांना एवढे मानत होते कि वेदोक्ताच्या अधिकारासाठी त्यांनी मोठी झुंज दिली, पुढेही क्षात्र पुरोहित, क्षात्र जगद्गुरू ही पदे निर्माण केली. त्यांना simply हे सारे ब्राह्मणी आहे, म्हणून सारेच टाकून देउ या असे म्हणता आले असते (जे जोतीराव फुल्यांनी केले), पण त्यांना वेदांचा वारसा हवा होता. आर्य समाजाच्या धारणेतून त्यांचे हे विचार बनले होते. आर्य समाजाने जो प्रयत्न केला तो आणि संघाचा प्रयत्न एकच नव्हे, हे लक्षात घेतले पाहिजे. संघ वेदांकडे जर जात असेल (असे तुमचे म्हणणे आहे, माझी तशी खात्री नाही) तरी तो मधली सारी परंपरा सोडून तिकडे जात नाही. त्याला हे सारेच आपले म्हणायचे आहे. तुम्ही ह्या लोकांची मांडणी जर नीट पाहिली तर (उदाहरणार्थ विवेकानंदांची मांडणी) तर त्यात तुम्हाला मी म्हणतो त्या समन्वयाचीच मांडणी दिसेल. वेद आमचे, चार्वाक ही आमचा, मध्वाचार्य, शंकराचार्य हेही आमचे, महावीर जैन आमचेच आणि गौतम बुद्ध तर विष्णूचा नववा अवतार ! ही सबगोलंकारी वृत्ती हा साराच फक्त ब्राह्मणांचा कावा आहे असे म्हणता येईल का? ते सोडा. हाजी मलंग आणि सुफी संतांनाही तेवढेच मानणारा आमचा समाज आहे. माझ्या मते हे आपल्या रक्तातच आहे. ह्याचे एकेक धागे वेगळे काढण्याचा तुम्ही प्रयत्न करीत आहात तो स्तुत्यच आहे. माझाही ह्या विषयावर अभ्यास चालूच आहे. पण मला एवढेच वाटते, कि ही चिकित्सा एक ऐतिहासिक चिकित्सा म्हणून करावयची आहे, कि आजच्या समाजावर धर्माचे (आपल्या मते योग्य असणारे) वेगळे संस्कार करण्यासाठी? का फक्त संघाच्या राजकीय उद्दिष्टाला पराभूत करणे एवढाच मर्यादित उद्देश आहे? हे जाणून घेणे मला आवडेल. आपल्या लिखाणातून मला खूप शिकायला मिळते. आपल्याशी वाद घालत असलो तरी कधीच आपला अपमान करण्याचा हेतू नाही. तसे चुकून माझ्या हातून लिहिले गेले असल्यास क्षमस्व.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear Sandeep ji, if you go through th following article, I hope you will get all answers. I will clarify other remqining questions if these are not satisfactory. Thanks. And no, you have not at all insulted me in any manner...rather this is leading to a good discussion.


    http://sanjaysonawani.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-post_11.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. एकाच संस्क्रुतीतुन निर्मान झालेला हा नवा यद्न्य धर्म
    ==================================================
    rigved is nothing but a scripture written by purus or bharatas..that is why all others will be naturally termed as 'anaryas' that doesn't tell that a new yadnya-dharm was being born.

    ReplyDelete
  16. सुरुवातीला वरुण व इंद्रादि देवतांना आदरानेच असुर हे संबोधन वापरलेले आहे.
    ================================================
    काय हो....असुर शब्दाचा अर्थ हा फक्त एकाच अर्थ होतो का?

    असुर शब्दाचा अर्थ जीवन देणारा किंवा प्राणवान असा पण होतो....तो अर्थ इथे का नाही लावायचा?

    ReplyDelete
  17. हडप्पा-मोहेंजोदरो येथे हजारोंनी शिवलिंगे मिलालेली आहेत, योगीश्वर व पशुपती रुपातील शिवमुद्रा सापडलेल्या आहेत तसेच मात्रुदेवतांच्या प्रतिमाही मिळालेल्या आहेत.
    ==================================================
    आणि तिथेच प्रश्न येतो कि ती शिवलिंगे कहरच कुठल्या 'असुर संस्कृती' ची आहेत का तो काल पण वैदिक काळ होता.....कारण फक्त तुम्ही म्हणता ऋग्वेद इसवी सन २५०० ला लिहिला गेला....कारण ऋग्वेदाचा काल हा ४०००-८००० इसवी सन पण असू शकतो........टिळकांनी कृत्तिका नक्षत्राबद्दल लिहिले आहे ते माहितच असेल ( बाकी ऋग्वेद हा आर्क्टिक मध्ये लिहिला गेला ते सोडून द्या !! )..

    ReplyDelete
  18. मी तुम्हाला परत विचारतो
    मान्य कि यज्ञ प्रथा आणि मूर्तीपूजा वेगवेगळे आहेत..म्हणून त्या प्रथा वेगवेगळ्या लोकांनीच निर्माण केल्या असे कशावरून? त्याच लोकांनी त्या निर्माण केल्या नाही असू शकत?

    your argument is such that it's converse can also be true that both the rituals were developed by one and the same people bcoz scriptures don't make any distinction between these two rituals and their inventors

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dear Ash...if what you state was true...but it is not a fact...not a history...and not accepted by all the historians. Every society has its own rituals made and worshipped. The fire woership and idol worship are altogether different and unique religious methods. One might like to find unity in the said opposing rituals and thoughts ...but it is not the fact at all...the fact is uniting both sides while deceiving every side makes a conjecture that have made present Hinduism. You need to understand why and how religious rituals are real product of basic philosophy of any religion....one religion doesnt produce opposing rituals...

    ReplyDelete
  20. And Ash, you with all imagination can stretch times of Veda'sd as you like...but the fact is the Times of writing( or composition of Veda's) was somewhere between 2500 BC till 1750 BC.

    ReplyDelete
  21. may i know what is SO OPPOSING in the fire ritual and idol worship?

    ReplyDelete
  22. And Ash, you with all imagination can stretch times of Veda'sd as you like...but the fact is the Times of writing( or composition of Veda's) was somewhere between 2500 BC till 1750 BC.
    ================================================
    the main problem is that u can also be correct and even i can be correct
    dating of rugved is such a controversial thing that this thing should not be used as a well proven fact to prove other things..so it's better we chuck out this argument and don't decide anything on the basis of the age of rigved.

    ReplyDelete
  23. and another thing...even if this system of worshiping idols and lingas can be old but isn't it possible that the same people later developed a yadnya system while continuing the idol worship?
    it can be that a section of the whole ancient group could have started the yadnya system and then the whole society would have accepted that..there is absolutely no need to make separate religions or to show that the society was not homogeneous.
    take for example the vaishnav,shaktya,shaiv traditions...first people were worshipping all the tridev and devi..later they formed specialized sects but still the people remained same...no new introduction of a different community was there...

    ReplyDelete
  24. you urself have said that as the civilization progresses there are obvious changes in the rituals...why can't the same people have changed the rituals?
    i accept that originally people start worshiping nature and other forces,etc..and so the whole idol worship,etc could have come up...but later the whole system could have changed or just modified...
    remember the rigved still has hymns praising forces of nature but just in some other way of pouring ghee and other things in the fire altar i.e yadnya system
    so the worship could have remained same but just the method would have changed

    ReplyDelete
  25. if u read atharva ved, you will come to know that most of it contains all sorts of magic mantras to cure things,to bring peace..an obvious indication of a still developing and partially mature civilization...bcoz only such people will engage in such acts of jaadu-tona. and later the whole system changed and brought in yadnya system..
    bcoz atharvaved can be older than rigved as it's composers bhrugu and angiras have their descendants composing verses in rigved.
    such an obvious indication of changing rituals

    ReplyDelete
  26. and then came the whole era of upanishads where people actually started developing philosophy and started understanding who god is..there is absolutely no need of developing a new religion..

    ReplyDelete
  27. मी परत तोच प्रश्न विचारात आहे.....
    तुम्ही म्हणता कि भृगु लोकांनी यज्ञाचा विरोध केला.....
    पण ऋग्वेदात अशा कितीतरी रुचा आहेत ज्या सांगतात कि भृगुंनी यज्ञवेदीत अग्नी स्थापन केला, ३ प्रकारचे अग्नी निर्माण केले,ई...
    संदर्भ- ऋ ( १.५८.६/ १.६०.१/ १.१२७.७/ १.१४३.४/ २.४.२/ ३.२.४/ ३.५.१०/ ४.७.१ व ४/ ४.१६.२०/ ६.१५.२ )


    अंगिरस,वसिष्ठ,ई लोक यज्ञ धर्मी होते....आणि यज्ञात सोम रस पान होयचे...पण आश्चर्य म्हणजे भृगंनी सोमाच्या प्रशंसेत जास्त रुचा रचल्या आहेत
    अंगिरस- ३६१९ पैकी २७२ सोमाच्या रुचा आहेत
    वसिष्ठ- १२७६ पैकी ७४ सोमाच्या आहेत
    पण भृगु मध्ये ४७३ पैकी चक्क १५२ रुचा सोमाच्या आहेत....मग खरच भृगु यज्ञ विरोधी म्हणायचे?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dear Ash, pls go through the following link where there is article on Bhrugu's and their clan including their branches and sojourn in Persia...and back to India after millenium...I am sure that will clear most of the doubts you have about Bhrugu's.

    http://sanjaysonawani.blogspot.com/2011/07/blog-post_22.html

    ReplyDelete
  29. sir, i have already went through that link..i have told u that i accept that bhrugus were from central asia and later were assimilated into vedic stream. but there is absolutely no proof that they introduced a new idol worship system...reason is- my previous post where i have given the verses in rigved which state that bhrugus introduced the fire in whole yadnya system and did not introduce some idol worship ritual....pls see my comments on 'asur parashuramache rahasya'..i had posted there 5-6 days ago,on the same issue...

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dear Ash, main confusion occurs here because the timeline is not observed. Sindhu culture was of idol worshppers. Rugvedik people too belonged to Sindhu culture, however in later course of time, as a reaction to idol worshipping religion the formed yadnya religion. True that Bhrugu (very ancient person) brought fire on earth...but he was not founder of Yadnik religion. Bhrugu clan was a large group of people and some had entered yadnya religion. But you must note that in the battle of Ten kings, Bhrugu's (not all, some branch of Bhrugu's) fought against Sudasa and were defeated and this branch was migrated to Persia and then later to Phrigia. The other clans of Bhrugu's stuck to the idol worshippers religion. Atharva Veda is proof to this. Atharva veda got status of fourth Veda in very later times. Idol worshipping is as ancient as mankind...and ewxisted in entire world...including Greek, Maayan's and Egyptians and evn Arabs till date of Islam. Buddha religion is nothing but developed form of Yadnya religion...Buddhya denounced yadnya and animal sacrifice, but adhered to the basic pjhilosophy of yadnik religion i.e. no beleif in aatama, moksh, paramaatmaa etc. This is only religion who accepts all vaidik Gods like Indra, Varuna etc. (See Milind Panh)

    ReplyDelete
  31. True that Bhrugu (very ancient person) brought fire on earth...but he was not founder of Yadnik religion
    ===========================================
    rigved says that bhrugu not only brought fire but also but separated it into 3 forms which ARE used in yadnya system. RV(1.58.6)
    plus verses like 1.127.7 say that not bhrugu alone but the whole bhrugu clan established the fire..

    ReplyDelete
  32. according to me, bhrugu clan itself was yadnya dharmi and then due to the dashradnya war, they were forced to migrate and there they became the purohits of the asurs..but later on returned back to india as we can see from the increasing verses of bhrugus in rigved....
    that is why even atharvaved was not accepted as a ved but was given the status later on.
    again i am saying, whatever u are saying can also be possible for a homogeneous society..
    there is absolutely no need to assign different traditions to different people..

    ReplyDelete
  33. with absolutely no attestation from any of the scriptures right from the vedas to the purans, i still don't know why are you making the shaiv-yadnya argument.......
    even many verses of atharva ved mention about sacrifice in yadnya,mention gods like brihaspati,ashwins,etc who are mentioned in rigved and have absolutely NO connection to idol worship....but still u are making this argument...
    and if really there were a separate group of idol worshipers, then why isn't this fact mentioned in any of the scriptures? leave rigved and purans,but not in atharva ved also? and not in any so-called asur dharmi scripture ( if it exists) ??????

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av/index.htm

    go through this link...it contains the index of atharva ved...pls tell me where do you get to see idol worship and shiv-shakti??????

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dear Ash, Rugveda certainly mentions Lingapujak's. (Shisnadeva) Sinve Vaidik religion ritually and philosophically differes from Idol worshipping people one cannot expect much mention of opposing religion. Atharvaveda clearaly mentions Shiva-shakti, Atmaa etc. The Richa's related tpo Yadny has been added in later times when Vaidik's started givig it a status of Forth Veda. Yuo pls read Tarkteerth Lakshmanshaastri Joshi's "Vadik Sanskruticha Itihas".

    ReplyDelete
  35. Well I am not supposing they were attackers….attack is not the only form for foreigners to invade. British never attack India, nor does Parsi’s….but still them were foreigners…and when British got power they made same rule like Bramhins made for non-bramhins….

    You said as a reaction of saivdharma /statue worshipped vaidik dharma developed…I want to ask WHY? Why a group of people denied existing sahiv dharma or whatever dharma and stat a new one especially opposite or entirely different than the shaiv dharma…..intrestingly they not only made new dharma but divide the people in clans bramhins and non-bramins …Whether bramhin clans too have divided into different sects but they never degraded as non-bramhins….Also significant reason needed for vaidik erase “Asur” denotation…

    What I want to say here that if we put Bramhins as foreigners they it’s easy to answer why the smrutis and puranas were against non-bramhins.
    Bramhis behave like they were foreigners in their smritis and puranas…If the bramhans were natives then the question arise why they got feeling of that much superiority than the other natives….

    But studying history is not an easy task, if Bramhins were natives too and there are proofs we must accept it...just answers should be given to question put them into foreigner /invaders

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dear Zen, we need to go to the fundamentala....who are or were foreighners? What is real definition of foreigner? The fact is none is native and none is foreigner. In the course of time there has been frequent changes in the dominians. There are claims Dravidians too are not aboroginals of India...they invaded here from Africa...Aryans from northern part of the world...
    My argument is then who were the dwellers of this part of the earth before anyone ale did invade? Why they migrated from their original homelands? Did any naturat or political calamity did befall upon them? but since know history is sileny upon those arguments, whay we are searching for another theories those cant be substantiated by proofs or even logic? I am trying to find a sollution...can you pls help me?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Rugveda certainly mentions Lingapujak's. (Shisnadeva)
    =================================================
    shishnadeva is mentioned in (X.99.3),VII.21.5,X.27.19, I.105.8,X.33.3,
    but only in two verses have they been associated with asurs..and shishna deva does not mean linga pujaks but many from griffith to monier have translated it as कामविकारी, which could very well be the epithet for asurs even if the society were homogeneous and asurs were completely different set of people...so both sides can be true...and hence mentioning asurs as shishnadevas does not give any definite conclusion

    ReplyDelete
  38. Atharvaveda clearaly mentions Shiva-shakti, Atmaa etc.
    ================================================
    where sir? yesterday i gave you the index of atharva veda....almost all are related to magic tricks or sacrifice...i could have missed the word..so pls can u give me the hymn where shiv shakti are mentioned??????????????

    ReplyDelete
  39. The Richa's related tpo Yadny has been added in later times when Vaidik's started givig it a status of Forth Veda.
    ================================================
    isn't it extremely easy to dismiss an argument by calling it as a 'later addition' ????
    firstly, atharva ved is a smriti..no verses can be added or deleted from it...
    secondly, just have a look on the number of verses dedicated to the so called yadnya dharmi people...
    out of the 6000 verses,
    609 for dev gans in general
    574 for agni
    339 for soma,etc
    if what u r saying is true,then is it logical to accept that more than 1000 verses were added later on? does it sound logical at all?
    and compared to all these, are verses mentioning shiv-shakti reaching to even 10????

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Dear Zen, we need to go to the fundamentala....who are or were foreighners? What is real definition of foreigner? The fact is none is native and none is foreigner.In the course of time there has been frequent changes in the dominians"

    I agree with this as in that period of time there were no nations etc...But I used outsider or foreigner denotation as to show that they were later comes to this land and before them group of people already settled here and already develops their own customs, beliefs, etc (what we called religion). The religious literature called as bramhin literature or Aryan literature was made as reaction to the previous one (you called it shaiv) and might be that’s why they degraded native ones (who were settle here before them) a lot and lot… If we see it this way then we can see how and why the degradation of native ones and praise for Bramhins (A clan who believe they were from outside, in other words arrives later here)

    That’s why may be they grant the same status to 14 foreigners who said to be first chitpavan. They never gave such status to native ones. Same happens later in modern India Sawarkar,Golvarkar, Chiplunkar proposed the British or Germans were their brothers

    You said:- “There are claims Dravidians too are not aboroginals of India...they invaded here from Africa...Aryans from northern part of the world... “

    Did you see any literature/customs from Dravidians where they degrade another clan/ group of people and praise Dravidians (race) only? (Don’t know race is right word)

    Sanjay, I am not supporting the foreigner theory BUT nor denying it too…I am trying to see how and why there is a lot and lot degradation/insults/inhuman laws were written in religious scriptures of Bramhins… 'If' we put later arrived theory (foreign/outsider) it’s easy to see how and why one group of people feel themselves superior and degrade another…same we see when British comes to india and they made same laws for natives, similar is happens to afro Americans….here afro Americans (black people) arrived later and same humiliation/inhuman laws were made for them by Americans(priviously settle)…those Americans when arrived America they called natives (already settle ones) Indians and act as brutal to them….

    You said:- “I am trying to find a sollution...can you pls help me?”

    You are doing a great job. But for solution we need to understand what the problem is, if we can see clearly what the problem is, solution is there then…Anyway I am helping myself to understand the problem…might be it will help you too.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @zen
    i can show you tens of references in purans where we get to see a flexible varna system....u r talking as if brahmins have been suppressing others right from start.....and if that was true, why do you think brahmins will praise ram and krishna? why will they accept scriptures written by valmiki and vyas?????
    and most importantly, does any scripture attest the fact that brahmins are outsiders???

    ReplyDelete
  42. flexible varna system? Mr.Ash kindly show those tens of references.It would be a great pleasure.

    ReplyDelete
  43. sure.....
    vishwamitra- born a kshatriya,became brahmin madbhagwat ( 9.16.28)
    grutsamad,shaunak- born kshatriya,became brahmin
    madbhagwat(9.17.3)
    kanva,medhatithi,praskanva were puruvanshi kshatriyas but became brahmins (9.20.7)
    gargya,aruni,kavi,pushkarni were kshatriyas and all became brahmins (9.21.19 & 20)
    ajameedh became a brahmin ( 9.21.21)
    krupi,daughter of shantanu was married to dronacharya (9.21.36)
    mudgal was a kshatriya but became a brahmin (9.21.33)
    yayati married devayaani, daughter of shukra
    valmiki was a lower caste but became a brahmin and wrote ramayan
    jamadagni's mother was a kshatriya named satyavati ( 9.15.5)
    dushyant married shakuntala who was a brahmin
    bharadwaj's wife was a kshatriya called veera
    as also you find bharadwaj gotra among kshatriyas and vaishyas too
    chayvan rishi married sukanya, daughter of sharyati a kshatriya who himself was a composer in rigveda ( 9.3.1 & 9.3.9)
    vyas' mother satyavati was a lower caste (9.22.20)

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ash, although I need to check the exact references and context.
    I would like to say when Aryan 'race' or 'invasion' theory (I don’t support it nor oppose it) get examined by people they count how much time the word Aryan comes into Vedas…this helped them to show non-importance of the word and they also check the context and proofs…Must say it’s a good practice….

    If we apply same here I must say in the vast literature of Aryan very few clear reference are there and they too mention Kshtriya got accepted as Rishi (Rishi=Bramhin?) that too with lot of struggle. Not only struggle but Indra and all try to spoil them from their path…Vishwamitra were prime example of this.

    Vishwamitra was the great Kshtrya king and if he can force Brahmin to accept him as Bramha-Rishi (bramhan?) it’s no wonder.
    Bramhin dint hesitate to praise most influential Kshtriya kings like Rama, Krishna, and Sidharth Gautama they even accept as incarnation of Vishnu…BUT they accept them with lot of alteration and prorating them as a savior of Brahmin only….
    In recent era same was happened to chatrapati Shivaji…some even try to portray Chatrapati Shivaji an incarnation (making shivaji’s portrait having four hands)That too from an historian....

    We dint get any references were Vaisha became Bramhin and needless to say Shudra became Bramhin…..

    Although there were reference were Bramhin got married kshtrya girl later on smruti’s declare bramhi can marry any varna girl but other varna cannot marry Bramhin girl…they do this because they wanted to get purity in their clan as they believe themselves superior …
    Again Influential kshtrya kings dare to marry Bramhin girls…But we don’t have Vaisha married to Bramhin and Shudra married to bramhin…So your "varna flexibility" went only second verna….that too few….

    My question is why all this separation and superiority? if all are from same land and culture….

    In history we see everyone who was foreigner (whether comes first or later) consider others as inferior and whenever got power make inhuman laws for them….IF we put this on Brahmins we can see WHY they acted as superior…might be they weren’t from foreign land but the writers or Aryan literature write like they consider themselves as foreigner…and Sawarkar, chiplunkar, tilak , Glowarkar like modern Brahmins too praise this theory lot and lot….

    Jain literature said: - Bramhins come later,
    http://mahavichar.blogspot.com/2011/07/blog-post_3119.html

    I also read that Bramhin ask for exemption for tax ziziza

    http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ixCyd2lByggC&pg=PA312&dq=brahman+tax+Jizya&hl=en#v=onepage&q=brahman%20tax%20Jizya&f=false

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dear Zen, I am almost in agreement with you. Our friend at one hand states that Vishvamitra was Bhrugu and was involved in composing of Rigveda and at other hand the fact remains that One Vishvamitra had to struggle whole life to attain status of Brahmarshi. It looks like that the truth is not easily acceptable and what is praised is all polluted versions of all Veda's. The separation is on the ground of different religious cviews and as racist theory has already been abandoned by all anthropologists throughout the world, we can still look at migrations of different group of people in and out of India. For that matter even Mulanivasi concept too is of no help. But there is no coparable literature throughout the world in the world as Rigveda. There is no fire worshippers religion like of Vaidik people to be found elsewhere. The Persians were fire worshippers...true...but they hated Deva's and worshipped Asura's. Importantly this religion originated somewhere arounf 600 BC. vaidik people claim Veda's being as ancient as 8000 BC, (the last claim is 2500 BC) If this is so, we can see no influence or encraochment from that part of the world from where vaidik Aryans entered India...Interestingl;y Rigveda mentions Jharathrishta...how it could be if Rigvedaa remained all the time un-altered? So these fake information and egotism has influenced vaidiks so much so that still they think vaidik's religion has created this culture...which has no substantial proof. Govalakar or his Guru Sawarakr all the time talk about Vaidikism while talking about the Hinduism of their dream. I will be writing shortly about it.

    Also there are two different definations of Brahmin. Rigvedik defination is "who compose mantra is Brahmin." Upanshdik defination is "the person who knows Brahma...(not brahmadeva here) is Brahmin. Mahabhataa gives one another defination..."the person who is generous, knowledgeble and compassionate is Brahmin..." Purana's have gave birthright to the present Brahmins....the person is born to a brahmin is Brahmin. So if we look at older definitions none is Brahmin in that sense. And if there are they are not considered as Brahmins. If they rise above the Brahmanical people then the false stories are created like the biological fathers of such people were Brahmins. This has done about Vyasa, Rama, Shivaji, Babasaaheb Ambedkar, and who not? Most of the playwright and musicians of the past were non-brahmins by birth. For example kalidasa. But the egotism and writing false history to support their wicked desires to anyhow control the people has marrd not only spirit of India but their own as well. Pls await my next articles in which I am gpoing to prove how Sawarkar and Golawalkar intended the vaidik philosopy to be enforced via their so called Hindutva.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @zen
    i completely agree that surely restrictions were there on caste......but atleast to some extent the varna system was flexible but later on became very rigid.....
    u said that vishwamitra was a glaring eample of people struggling to become a brahmin...but rather, his is the ONLY example.....if you have another, pls share it.....
    and secondly, whether superior or not, it does not prove that brahmins are outsiders.....technically, european feudal lords considered themselves superior than common people..that does not make them outsiders...

    ReplyDelete
  47. biggest example of shudra becoming a brahmin is valmiki and kalidasa...

    ReplyDelete
  48. Our friend at one hand states that Vishvamitra was Bhrugu and was involved in composing of Rigveda and at other hand the fact remains that One Vishvamitra had to struggle whole life to attain status of Brahmarshi
    ==================================================
    excuse me????????
    it was YOU who has written in 'asur parshuramache rahasya' that vishwamitra was a bhrugu.....
    it was me who said vishwamitra was a puruvanshi not BHRUGU

    ReplyDelete
  49. .how it could be if Rigvedaa remained all the time un-altered? So these fake information and egotism has influenced vaidiks so much so that still they think vaidik's religion has created this culture...
    =================================================
    pls read this......although this site is a typical 'aryasamaji' site, this article is quite informative....you will automatically come to know why vedas weren't altered....

    http://agniveer.com/2697/no-textual-corruption-in-vedas/

    ReplyDelete
  50. If they rise above the Brahmanical people then the false stories are created like the biological fathers of such people were Brahmins.
    =================================================
    lolz.....you are talking as if all the lifes of ancient brahmins were spent in proving themselves superior...just read the upanishads and the different smrutis of rishis...they did a hell lot of other GOOD things in philosophy...
    i do agree with the fact that brahmins surely were striving for superiority...
    BUT PLEASE, IT'S BETTER YOU DON'T GENERALISE THIS FOR ALL BRAHMINS AND ALSO DON'T EXAGGERATE THE FACT...SURELY BRAHMINS HAVE CLAIMED THEMSELVES SUPERIOR,THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU EXAGGERATE THE FACTS TO SUCH A LEVEL THAT YOU START DEGRADING THE GREAT COMPOSERS OF UPANISHADS AND OTHER PHILOSOPHIES...
    from past few days i am seeing this....people are hyping the so called 'wicked' desires of brahmins to such a level that people have suddenly claimed that brahmins are outsiders or brahmins are some cruel group of people who don't have any contribution towards ancient india....

    ReplyDelete
  51. bhagwat geeta also gives a slight clue of how idol worshipping started....this could be the case of yadnya people who established idol worshipping

    BG says that
    "It is much difficult to focus on God as the unmanifested than God with form, due to human beings having the need to perceive via the senses." BG chapter 12,verse 5

    ReplyDelete
  52. Dear Ash, thanks that at least you don't deny the fact that Brahmins were striving for superiority. I have no objection on this as for that matter as it is humane innate desire to prove superiority over others. But had it been in real sense none would have opposed it...but by craeting false stories, by malicing the facts and by polluting the original texts, and denying others to read or hear it was certainly an cultural offence. The main iota of the article is being neglected and I dont understand why. And you are wrong here that I blame all Brahmins...no my dear friend...I only blame all those Brahmins those have done this mischief. I know very well that most of the commin Brahmins have ancestral pride, they hardly know anything about religion. They (Even Rigvedi Brahmins) hardly have gone through Rigveda or any Brahmin related with Rigveda. You here all of sudden are talking about Upanisada's. YOu state adamantly that I am degrading composers of Upanisada's. No. Upanisada's (52 in total...not all...) is not creation of Brahmins at all. I nowhere have stated that Brahmins are outsiders. If one believes in that cliam then all Kshatriya's, Vaishya's and Shudra's too, being within the boundatries of four Varna's are outsiders. Why only Brahmins?

    But unfortunately, both sides...Brahmins and Nonbrahmins have taken a cultural war and I am just against Vaidik superiority that in fact doesnt exist. I don't like your argument that Vaidiks later on devel;oped idon worshipping and how it is not possible? My dear friend, had it been the case that vaidik people developed idol worshipping in latter times, they would have been pleased to establish idols of their own Gods...like Indra...Varunaa etc. But is it a case? All the Gods being worshipped today and from milleniums are Non-Vaidik...

    YOu need to think on this. The Upanisada's are creation of non-brahmins. Smriti's are creation of Brahmin religious heads. The all non-vedik philosophies belong to non brahmins...may it be Shramana, jaina, or buddhist philosophies.

    And you know which philosophies are favored most by the world....even India.

    Where you can show existance of so called Hindu philosophy? What is it? Savarkar again takes us back to vadikism...and so Golvalkar...

    And yet both tell us there is no definition of Hinduism....I will look forward to your comments on this.

    ReplyDelete
  53. MR. ASH FLEXEBILITY OF VARNAS DOES NOT MAEN JUSY DESCRIBING SOMEONE AS A BRAHMIN.INFACT IT MEANS RAGARDING SOMEONE AS A BRAHMIN.ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION NO.2 OF THE WORD BRAHMIN TOLD MR.SANJAY SONAWANI IN HIS EARLIER POST ABOVE, WERE THE NON BRAHMINS LIKE VISHWAMITRA ,TUKARAM,CHAKRADHAR SWAMI ,RAVIDAS, KABEER ETC. ACCEPTED AS BRAHMINS?MR. ASH THE FACT IS THAT THEN AND EVEN TODAY THERE ARE RACIST PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT GOOD/BAD QUALITIES COME FROM BLOOD WHICH IMPLIES THAT BRAHMINS HAVE QUALITIES OF BRAHMINS,KSHATRIYAS OF KSHATRIYAS AND SO ON.... ALL KSHATRIYAS ,VAISHYAS,SHUDRAS MAY NOT BE BRAHMINS AS PER ABOVE DEFINITION,BUT THEN THE QUESTION IS:ARE ALL BRAHMINS BRAHMINS?DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENJOY THE PREVELEGES OF THOSE BRAHMINS?DONT YOU THINK THIS IDEOLOGY BREEDS INEQUALITY AND INJUSTICE?IS IT GOOD FOR HINDUISM?

    ReplyDelete
  54. And you are wrong here that I blame all Brahmins...no my dear friend...I only blame all those Brahmins those have done this mischief. I know very well that most of the commin Brahmins have ancestral pride, they hardly know anything about religion. They (Even Rigvedi Brahmins) hardly have gone through Rigveda or any Brahmin related with Rigveda. You here all of sudden are talking about Upanisada's. YOu state adamantly that I am degrading composers of Upanisada's. No. Upanisada's (52 in total...not all...) is not creation of Brahmins at all. I nowhere have stated that Brahmins are outsiders. If one believes in that cliam then all Kshatriya's, Vaishya's and Shudra's too, being within the boundatries of four Varna's are outsiders. Why only Brahmins?
    ==============================================
    what ever i said in my last post was not for you sir......it was for others......

    ReplyDelete
  55. My dear friend, had it been the case that vaidik people developed idol worshipping in latter times, they would have been pleased to establish idols of their own Gods...like Indra...Varunaa etc. But is it a case? All the Gods being worshipped today and from milleniums are Non-Vaidik...
    ==================================================
    quite possibly, the worship of these gods died down...as we see, they are not worshiped today at all....so as idol worship came later, came shiv,shakti,etc........

    I HAVE ANOTHER ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.....BUT I KNOW IT THAT YOU WON'T BELIEVE IN IT..AND EVEN I DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT 'PRACTICAL' EVIDENCES TO BACK IT.......
    if u might have heard, indra,varuna,manu,etc (excluding all bhagwans like shiv,shakti,vishnu,brahma,laxmi,ganpati,etc)were all living beings and lived in a place called swarga ( which IS on earth only..not in space, which some crackpots claim)
    but you know sir, i can provide scriptural references but unfortunately, not much has been researched on it......
    so sir, in this case i prefer not to indulge in a debate....

    ReplyDelete
  56. WERE THE NON BRAHMINS LIKE VISHWAMITRA ,TUKARAM,CHAKRADHAR SWAMI ,RAVIDAS, KABEER ETC. ACCEPTED AS BRAHMINS?
    =================================================

    firstly, lets be clear of which era are we talking about...
    i am talking of ANCIENT INDIA....in medieval india, casteism was there.....i am saying that varna system was a bit flexible in ANCIENT INDIA....
    so pls don't bring in tukaram,kabir,etc......talk only of vishwamitra and ancient people...

    ReplyDelete
  57. The all non-vedik philosophies belong to non brahmins...may it be Shramana, jaina, or buddhist philosophies.
    =================================================
    dignaga,dharmakirti,nagarjuna,vasubandhu,assaji,Buddhaghosa,Naropa,Tilopa,Shantideva,Saraha,Sariputta,Maudgalyayana,Mahākāśyapa,Kaundinya were all brahmins converted to buddhism....non brhmins surly have a huge contribution to buddism....but brahmins too have contributed....that doesn't make buddhist philosophy a COMPLETE non brahmin philosophy...

    ReplyDelete
  58. And you know which philosophies are favored most by the world....even India.

    Where you can show existance of so called Hindu philosophy? What is it? Savarkar again takes us back to vadikism...and so Golvalkar...
    ==================================================
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_philosophy

    this is hindu philosophy
    and secondly, i am quite amused to hear that upanishads are creations of non brahmins...they do have references to kings but max are composed by brahmins only...
    may i know why are you so much interested in savarkar and golwalkar? why just can't u read the philosophical scriptures for urself? you will automaticlly come to know what hindu philosophy is.......no need to credit everything to non brahmins...

    ReplyDelete
  59. as also regarding the reference of shiv-shakti in upanishads
    rigved,samved,yajurved combine have much large shiv and shaktya upanishads ascribed to it....

    RIGVED- shaktya upanishads are
    Tripura, Saubhāgya, Bahvṛca
    shiv upanishads are
    Akṣamālika (Mālika)

    YAJURVED- shaktya upanishads
    Sarasvatīrahasya
    shiv upanishads
    Kaivalya, Kālāgnirudra, Dakṣiṇāmūrti, Rudrahṛdaya, Pañcabrahma

    SAMVED- shaiv upansihads
    Rudrākṣa, Jābāla

    and finlly ATHARVA VED
    SHIV UPANISHADS- Śira, Atharvaśikha, Bṛhajjābāla, Śarabha, Bhasma, Gaṇapati
    SHAKTI UPANISHADS- Sītā, Annapūrṇa, Devī, Tripurātapani, Bhāvana

    SO IN TOTAL,
    rig+sam+yaju have 11 shiv-shakti upanishads and even atharvaved has 11 shiv shakti upanishads
    so shiv shakti was equally popular in the so called yadnya dharmis

    ReplyDelete
  60. Well I am lost in long discussion...

    Just want to ask if your "flexible varna" is just one example were Kshtriya Vishwamitra struggle for Bramharishi {status..struggle begin for kaamdhenu...}and full life he struggle and get disturbed by Indra a vedik God... later on he accepted as Bramhin...actually Bramh Rishi don't know bramhin and bramha rishi is same or not...

    His long struggle and Indra's efforts to disturb him is enough evidence there were no "varna flexibility"

    Another thing, flexibility must be two ways means if a lower varna can be upper then there must be vice versa...Bramhin or kshtriya should became vaisha or shudra if their deeds are like him...hope you will have example for this too...

    There is a story when Satyakaam Jabaali was asked who is his father and he said his mother said to him she cant be sure as she was in contact with many men...now he was declared as bramhin ...WHY because he was so brilliant...I guess same was happened to Valmiki ...after his ballad became famous it will be duty of bramhins to at least declarer him as bramhin so they can claim superiority....same for kalidas...story was he was {biological} son of a bramhin and lost his parents....

    Now in recent times Chatrapati Shivaji....

    There were no flexible varna in ancient India...all is just manipulation of a cast or clan who felt extremely superior to others..

    This is insane...Question is why they [writers of aryan/Hindu literature] feel themselves {all Bramhins} superior than others and that to biologically ...what make them separate...

    Might be they were migrated people might be not...but they act always act like that....and support it a lot......

    ReplyDelete
  61. Just want to ask if your "flexible varna" is just one example were Kshtriya Vishwamitra struggle for Bramharishi {status..struggle begin for kaamdhenu...}and full life he struggle and get disturbed by Indra a vedik God... later on he accepted as Bramhin...actually Bramh Rishi don't know bramhin and bramha rishi is same or not...

    His long struggle and Indra's efforts to disturb him is enough evidence there were no "varna flexibility"
    =============================================
    try to understand.....i have already mentioned that there were many kings who became brahmins later..but there is no reference of them facing any problems...it is only vishwamitra who faced the problem.....i said, vishwamitra is just one case where there was a problem in becoming brahmin..so this is not at all ENOUGH evidence to disprove the flexible varna system at least between brahmins and kshatriyas...

    ReplyDelete
  62. Another thing, flexibility must be two ways means if a lower varna can be upper then there must be vice versa...Bramhin or kshtriya should became vaisha or shudra if their deeds are like him...hope you will have example for this too...

    There is a story when Satyakaam Jabaali was asked who is his father and he said his mother said to him she cant be sure as she was in contact with many men...now he was declared as bramhin ...WHY because he was so brilliant...I guess same was happened to Valmiki ...after his ballad became famous it will be duty of bramhins to at least declarer him as bramhin so they can claim superiority....same for kalidas...story was he was {biological} son of a bramhin and lost his parents....
    ================================================
    so what is the problem if brahmins declared valmiki as a brahmin after he wrote the ramayan???
    at least they did not disown the ramayan just bcoz it's writer was a non brahmin....so the opposite is proven that since valmiki had proven his knowledge, he was granted the status of a brahmin..i.e flexible varna..

    ReplyDelete
  63. Ash please use your words carefully there is a world of difference in flexible and a bit flexible.First you decide varna system in 'ancient' India was how much flexible.Secondly if you go through fundamentals you can understand that varna system cannot be flexible because chaturvarna as embedded in vedas{vedas were not written in medieval period}declares it as a patterrn of a society based upon graded inequality.chaturvarna was a fixed order never to be changed.once a brahmin always a brahmin. once a shudra always a shudra.so the system can NEVER-EVER BE FLEXIBLE.BUT BEORE IT BECAME A SYSTEM IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT CASE.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Ash said:-“try to understand.....i have already mentioned that there were many kings who became brahmins later..but there is no reference of them facing any problems...”

    First I would like to know “MANY” kings who became bramhin…who are they…what they did to became a bramhin…and as Vaidik were ritualistic people I would like to know what is the ritual of converting kshtriya (any kshtriya can get converted or OR only KINGS? ) into Bramhins…Also want to know once kshtrya get converted into bramhin , what about their descendants…is they too were considered as Bramhin …means Bramhin descendants automatically became bramhin by birth…whether they proved it by deeds (according to some definitions good deeds make some one bramhin ) or not …is same rule also applicable to converted kshtrya

    Ash said:- “i said, vishwamitra is just one case where there was a problem in becoming brahmin”
    Would like to know if his deed were enough to turn him Bramhin ‘THEN’ why there is problem….is conversion into Brahmanism was depends upon some other factors/on some one’s will….

    Ash said:-so what is the problem if brahmins declared valmiki as a brahmin after he wrote the ramayan???

    In recent times there is a effort to declare Chatrapati Shivaji as Bramhin….same was happened to DR. Ambedkar…same was true for Bajiprabhu Deshpande….even lata mangeshkar…research and the list would be long enough…interestingly Chatrapati Shivaji and Dr Ambedkar were much victims of NON-Flexible varna system…. Tilak said in vedokt chapter that ‘we’ “Bramhin” gave temporary Kshitrya status to Chatrapati Shivaji….and Chatrapati shahu can have it if we Bramhin grant him too, as he is ruler…but his relatives…brothers etc cannot claim it….(Bramhins weren’t ready to give kshtrya status to kshtriya funny)
    So that’s a problem…first they reject the every possible right and when someone gets famous even in extreme situations then call him “Bramhin” this is not a flexibility of verna but a 'conspiracy' to claim in other verna no one could have talent…if anyone is having he must be Bramhin….Styakaam Jabali was GREAT example of it…so do others….

    Now about Ramayana….Valmiki’s Ramayana get accepted by Bramhins only after lot of corruptions… they needed “SHAMBUKH” VADH (vadh= killing of evil) by Ram…They needed Shrungi rishi (A Bramhin) as biological father of Rama, Laxman, Bharat, and shatrughan…NIYOG what they called it….and that too is not seems enough they needed a new version of Ramayana by a Bramhin….Tulsidas …..Tulsidas wrote Ramcharit manas…praising lot and lot Bramnical theories and now in today’s world every Bramhin praise Manas not Valmili’s Ramayana…Original is just faded by duplicate… research and you will find out every one is riding on Manas…..

    Above all…please provide examples were this flexibility of verna make Bramhin into Shudra….and Shudra into Bramhin….for flexibility this must be a case…

    Also show the religious ritual of transformation of Verna…..Or else please don’t spread lie…

    ReplyDelete
  65. Ash please use your words carefully there is a world of difference in flexible and a bit flexible.First you decide varna system in 'ancient' India was how much flexible.Secondly if you go through fundamentals you can understand that varna system cannot be flexible because chaturvarna as embedded in vedas{vedas were not written in medieval period}declares it as a patterrn of a society based upon graded inequality.chaturvarna was a fixed order never to be changed.once a brahmin always a brahmin. once a shudra always a shudra.so the system can NEVER-EVER BE FLEXIBLE.BUT BEORE IT BECAME A SYSTEM IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT CASE.
    ==============================================
    i accept that varna system was 'bit' flexible...
    and may i know where do vedas say that chaturvarna system is based upon a pattern of social inequality?

    ReplyDelete
  66. First I would like to know “MANY” kings who became bramhin…who are they…what they did to became a bramhin…and as Vaidik were ritualistic people I would like to know what is the ritual of converting kshtriya (any kshtriya can get converted or OR only KINGS? ) into Bramhins…Also want to know once kshtrya get converted into bramhin , what about their descendants…is they too were considered as Bramhin …means Bramhin descendants automatically became bramhin by birth…whether they proved it by deeds (according to some definitions good deeds make some one bramhin ) or not …is same rule also applicable to converted kshtrya
    ===============================================
    grutsamad,shaunak,mudgal,haritas,kanva,praskanva,gargya,pushkarni,kavi,ajameedh all were 'other' examples of kshatriyas becoming brahmins
    in most of cases, when a kshatriya gets converted into a brahmin, he continues to be a brahmin..but in cases of satyadhruti who was son of shatanand, a brahmin became a kshatriya..
    there is no such ritual mentioned in purans of converting a kshatriya into a brahmin.....

    ReplyDelete
  67. Would like to know if his deed were enough to turn him Bramhin ‘THEN’ why there is problem….is conversion into Brahmanism was depends upon some other factors/on some one’s will….
    ==================================================
    it was vasisht rishi creating hurdles in the path of vishwamitra bcoz of their rivalry.......nothing else..

    ReplyDelete
  68. In recent times there is a effort to declare Chatrapati Shivaji as Bramhin….same was happened to DR. Ambedkar…same was true for Bajiprabhu Deshpande….even lata mangeshkar…research and the list would be long enough…interestingly Chatrapati Shivaji and Dr Ambedkar were much victims of NON-Flexible varna system…. Tilak said in vedokt chapter that ‘we’ “Bramhin” gave temporary Kshitrya status to Chatrapati Shivaji….and Chatrapati shahu can have it if we Bramhin grant him too, as he is ruler…but his relatives…brothers etc cannot claim it….(Bramhins weren’t ready to give kshtrya status to kshtriya funny)
    ===============================================
    i think so i have clarified that i am talking of ancient era........how many times have i to tell this?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Now about Ramayana….Valmiki’s Ramayana get accepted by Bramhins only after lot of corruptions… they needed “SHAMBUKH” VADH (vadh= killing of evil) by Ram…They needed Shrungi rishi (A Bramhin) as biological father of Rama, Laxman, Bharat, and shatrughan…NIYOG what they called it….and that too is not seems enough they needed a new version of Ramayana by a Bramhin….Tulsidas …..Tulsidas wrote Ramcharit manas…praising lot and lot Bramnical theories and now in today’s world every Bramhin praise Manas not Valmili’s Ramayana…Original is just faded by duplicate… research and you will find out every one is riding on Manas…..
    ================================================
    firstly, there are no corruptions in the valmiki ramayan....the other ramayans have been written by other people...that does not mean that valmiki ramayan is corrupt..
    and for ur kind information,valmiki ramayan itslf says that valmiki had done a sin of stealing food from a rishi and after aplogising for that,rishi adviced him to write about ram..so it's not the case that brahmins later on accepted it or something...a brahmin himself had adviced him to write about it.......
    and while talking of shringi rishi, what is wrong in niyog?? it was a method at that time...and i am quite unsure if this is written in valmiki ramayan...if written by another author, then surely it's wrong..but that does not mean u term everything as an act of brahmins showing their superiority...and if this is written in valmiki ramayan, then let me clarify..niyog was a way of conceiving at that time..no need to make such a hullagallo of it..
    and talking of manas, it has been lifted bcoz it is in hindi and in recent days hindi literature has reached it's zenith....and since valmiki ramayan is in sanskrit, it's study and popularity has lagged....also it tells ramayn in a very spiritual way an hence has become famous among religious people......

    i think so i should give you a " infinite situations one answer" machine.........for any situation you input, only one answer comes....BRAHMIN CONSPIRACY.....grow up.......

    ReplyDelete
  70. Ash asked-Where do Vedas say that Chaturvarna system is based upon a patten of social inequality? =================================================="THE BRAHMINS HAD NOT ONLY A THEORY OF AN IDEAL RELIGION AS CONTAINED IN THE VEDAS BUT THEY ALSO HAD A THEORY FOR AN IDEAL SOCIETY.THE PATTERN FOR THIS IDEAL SOCIETY THEY NAMED CHATURVARNA.IT IS EMBEDDED IN THE VEDAS AND AS THE VEDAS ARE INFALLIBLE AND AS THEIR AUTHORITY CANNOT BE QUESTIONED SO ALSO CHATURVARNA AS A PATTERN OF SOCIETY WAS BINDING AND UNQUESTIONABLE.THIS PATTERN OF SOCIETY WAS BASED UPON CERTAIN RULES. THE FIRST RULE WAS SOCIETY SHOULD BE DIVIDED INTO FOUR CLASSES:[1]BRAHMINS;[2]KSHATRIYAS;[3]VAISHYAS;AND[4]SHUDRAS.THE SECOND RULE WAS THAT THERE CANNOT BE SOCIAL EQUALITY AMONG THESE FOUR CLASSES.THEY MUST BE BOUND TOGETHER BY THE RULE OF GRADED INEQUALITY"----From Chapter 3,page no.87,line19-34 of THE BUDDHA AND HIS DHAMMA BY DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR.

    ReplyDelete
  71. "THE BRAHMINS HAD NOT ONLY A THEORY OF AN IDEAL RELIGION AS CONTAINED IN THE VEDAS BUT THEY ALSO HAD A THEORY FOR AN IDEAL SOCIETY.THE PATTERN FOR THIS IDEAL SOCIETY THEY NAMED CHATURVARNA.IT IS EMBEDDED IN THE VEDAS AND AS THE VEDAS ARE INFALLIBLE AND AS THEIR AUTHORITY CANNOT BE QUESTIONED SO ALSO CHATURVARNA AS A PATTERN OF SOCIETY WAS BINDING AND UNQUESTIONABLE.THIS PATTERN OF SOCIETY WAS BASED UPON CERTAIN RULES. THE FIRST RULE WAS SOCIETY SHOULD BE DIVIDED INTO FOUR CLASSES:[1]BRAHMINS;[2]KSHATRIYAS;[3]VAISHYAS;AND[4]SHUDRAS.THE SECOND RULE WAS THAT THERE CANNOT BE SOCIAL EQUALITY AMONG THESE FOUR CLASSES.THEY MUST BE BOUND TOGETHER BY THE RULE OF GRADED INEQUALITY"----From Chapter 3,page no.87,line19-34 of THE BUDDHA AND HIS DHAMMA BY DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR.
    ===========================================
    and from where did ambedkar got this reference????? i want the reference from vedas.not from someone's book......

    ReplyDelete
  72. Dear Ash, pls refer Purushsukta that appears in Rigveda's tenth mandala. I have proved that is an polution in the veda's that took place in later times to give sanctity to the Varna system, as if Veda's pronounce it. If you could read all previous articles in the present series, it would be better. Coming back to the point, I affirm that except this Purusha sukta, Rigveda doesnt approve at all the varna based society. If it existed it was a very loose system and anybody could be anyone in that system. But the influence of the added Purushsukta in later times certainly did divided society in four varnas and change of Varna became impossible. Story of Vishvamitra suggests that only.

    Your another claim is there is no addition in Walmiki Ramayana...if you accept this then you will have to accept riddles of Ramayana by Dr. Babasaheb. For your information Walkimi Ramayana directly states that in the story of Ahalya that she, even knowing she is sleeping with Indra, enjoyed the mating as if it was her first night. YOu will have to accept that rama indeed killed Shambuka for his so called offence of tapa. Also (and surely every Vedik mind corrupted by this...) that Rama and his brothers were biological off-springs of Rishyashrunga. And that Sita was attracted towards Rawana and etc.etc.

    Hence either you accept Ramayana is polluted or it is as pure as it was written singlehandedly by walmiki and is yet remains unaltered. Choice is yours.

    What I prefer to say is the polutting the epic was not done intelligently and was thought whole coming generations will beleive what is written in the so called sacred text and wont detect the later additions. There are hundreds of discripancies in ramayan and even in the character building of rama, his brothers and Sita and in Ravana.

    ReplyDelete
  73. 1]Interesting there are no rituals they made for transfer of varna...in the history of 5000/8000 year no single ritual were made by most ritualistic people...WOW

    2]Vashistha [successfully] oppose vishwamitra who is trying to became bramhana aka varna flexibility..WHY..because of personal rivalry to vishawamita even he was doing what automatically should make him Bramhan....WOW...means varna transfer-ability was depend upon if a established Bramhan dint oppose...its not automatic...nor any ritualistic.. Just took favor or you cant get it... GREAT FLEXIBILITY

    3]Shambhuk was killed because he was doing varna transfer...even before Valmiki's time... Good Varna flexibility...

    4]no single mention of when Bramhan became shudra...whether bramhan do the karma of shudra....Good flexibility...

    5] Advocate of varna flexibility himself admit its "bit" flexible WOW....

    One group of Bramhan {today's bramhan} pose a question 'WHY WE SHOULD WE SUFFER FOR BAD DEEDS OF OUR FOREFATHERS AND WHAT INHUMAN RULES THEY MADE'..

    Another group propose there were 'no' INHUMAN LAWS written by our forefathers infact they were flexible
    enough [BIT]... don't blame them...

    In other words 'THEY' {forefathers} was not responsible..and 'WE'{Today's bramhan}also not responsible... actually no one is responsible...WOW...that is called "BUDDHI-BHED"

    Is there is one solution for every problem...BRAHMIN CONSPIRACY...NOW what to do....if bramhin sins are that much ...if count it seems..exaggerating...

    In the process of growing up one must dare to say what he see/feels...even if it seems exaggerating....process is going on....

    ReplyDelete
  74. Ash if you can't believe that Vedas propagated inequality when it is so clearly stated in' THE BUDDHA AND HIS DHAMMA'how can you believe that there was a[bit]flexibility in the vedas[DURING ANCIENT PERIOD}stated in 'PURANAS'.If you put THE BUDDHA AND HIS DHAMMA'under a microscope,why do you believe the puranas?Is it because your interests are related with what is said in PURANAS?Common Ash that's not a sign of a grown up person.Friend zen shows signs of growing up.He puts very sensible questions and witty points.Think on it if you believe in growing up.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Your another claim is there is no addition in Walmiki Ramayana...if you accept this then you will have to accept riddles of Ramayana by Dr. Babasaheb. For your information Walkimi Ramayana directly states that in the story of Ahalya that she, even knowing she is sleeping with Indra, enjoyed the mating as if it was her first night. YOu will have to accept that rama indeed killed Shambuka for his so called offence of tapa. Also (and surely every Vedik mind corrupted by this...) that Rama and his brothers were biological off-springs of Rishyashrunga. And that Sita was attracted towards Rawana and etc.etc.
    ===============================================
    sry for late reply........i was reading the purans.....i think the whole episode of shambuk vadh was added later...bcox even bhagwat and vishnu purans who mention about the life story of ram don't mention about shambuk....
    regarding rishyashringa rishi.....he was not the biological father of ram...dashrath had preformed the putrakameshthi yadnya from him and hence dashrath got ram....pls check it in the bhagwat puran....
    regarding ahalya, indra had ome to her in the disguise of gautam rishi.....she did not indulge with him on her own...she thought it was gautam rishi....

    ReplyDelete
  76. 1]Interesting there are no rituals they made for transfer of varna...in the history of 5000/8000 year no single ritual were made by most ritualistic people...WOW
    ===============================================
    even i find it interesting.....but what to do......we cannot deny the clear references of at least some people who changed their varna......

    ReplyDelete
  77. 2]Vashistha [successfully] oppose vishwamitra who is trying to became bramhana aka varna flexibility..WHY..because of personal rivalry to vishawamita even he was doing what automatically should make him Bramhan....WOW...means varna transfer-ability was depend upon if a established Bramhan dint oppose...its not automatic...nor any ritualistic.. Just took favor or you cant get it... GREAT FLEXIBILITY
    ================================================

    THATS IT.........

    i think so i have clarified this 100 times that it was ONLY vishwamitra who faced problem....even shaunak,kanva,grutsamad,etc,etc changed their varna but they NEVER faced any problem.........

    don't come on a conclusion just because there is just one lame example.......

    i think so you people just crave to find one point to BASH BRAHMINS....AND EVEN IF I GIVE 1000 EXPLANATIONS FOR IT, STILL YOU WILL NOT LEAVE IT.....

    i am telling this for the last time,
    YES vishwamitra faced problems and it was a BRAHMIN VASISHTA WHO CREATED PROBLEMS....but others did not face any kind of problems at all...so stop deducing ur own conclusions.....

    and after all this, i you don't understand, then it's better you just don't discuss......
    i will not answer this again if someone posts it....

    ReplyDelete
  78. One group of Bramhan {today's bramhan} pose a question 'WHY WE SHOULD WE SUFFER FOR BAD DEEDS OF OUR FOREFATHERS AND WHAT INHUMAN RULES THEY MADE'..

    Another group propose there were 'no' INHUMAN LAWS written by our forefathers infact they were flexible
    enough [BIT]... don't blame them...

    In other words 'THEY' {forefathers} was not responsible..and 'WE'{Today's bramhan}also not responsible... actually no one is responsible...WOW...that is called "BUDDHI-BHED"
    =============================================

    lol...........i liked ur 'buddhi bhed'.....
    rarely there will be a brahmin today who doesn't oblige that his ancestors had once created a good varna system but it was spoilt by the same ancestors......
    so stop ranting.....

    ReplyDelete
  79. Is there is one solution for every problem...BRAHMIN CONSPIRACY...NOW what to do....if bramhin sins are that much ...if count it seems..exaggerating...

    In the process of growing up one must dare to say what he see/feels...even if it seems exaggerating....process is going on....
    ================================================
    oh...and who decided that brahmins have done LOT of sins??
    i agree that brahmins have done wrong in troubling the lower castes...but was it only brahmins????? think.......

    ReplyDelete
  80. Ash if you can't believe that Vedas propagated inequality when it is so clearly stated in' THE BUDDHA AND HIS DHAMMA'how can you believe that there was a[bit]flexibility in the vedas[DURING ANCIENT PERIOD}stated in 'PURANAS'.If you put THE BUDDHA AND HIS DHAMMA'under a microscope,why do you believe the puranas?Is it because your interests are related with what is said in PURANAS?Common Ash that's not a sign of a grown up person.Friend zen shows signs of growing up.He puts very sensible questions and witty points.Think on it if you believe in growing up.
    ==============================================

    my dear satya,
    do you know the difference between purans and ambedkar's book?????

    purans are categorized as historical scriptures whose antiquity is well proven......
    ambedkar's book is a recent book.......

    so if i want to deduce anything about indian history, i take the help of purans and not any recent book, whether of ambedkar's or savarkar's..

    that is a thing of common sense why every historian cites an ancient scripture to prove something..

    PS- if you don't have any reference from vedas, don't come up with funny arguments like this....even mr sonawni will agree with me in sense of which book to cite..whether an ancient scripture or a recent book...

    ReplyDelete
  81. Ash antiquity of puranas might have been proven but not its authenticity.And I hope you understand well that antiquity and authenticity are two different things.For examle the Greek Classics are antique but are they authentic?Can you believe that Hercules carried the globe over his shouders?Purans might be historical but they are also mythological.The cunning people very craftily blended mythology and history in our country. And the ignorant ones believe and propogate myths AS TRUTHS by pointing out at the historical facts in the so called HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES.Ash please tell me who have categorised puranas as historical sriptures. secondly,historical scriptures doesnt mean always truthful scriptures.keeping personal interests in mind history can be distorted and misrepresented.so be careful about your "historical scriptures".MY approach for deducing abOut Indian/World history is not by disriminating between ancient and recent but by trying to understand which one speaks the truth.My arguments might seem funny to you but don't think the same about Mr. Sonawani.you are not his advocate.Infact he has also very clearly stated in his last post that change of varnas has become impossible.will you accept that?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Ash said:-"even i find it interesting.....but what to do......we cannot deny the clear references of at least some people who changed their varna...."

    What to do....??? Simple dont spread lie.... if there is no such ritual then dont spread lie that at ancient time varna vayavashta was flexible...it was not ....some kings

    who have enough power and influence title themselves what they want that doesn't mean flexibility...

    Ash said"don't come on a conclusion just because there is just one lame example......."

    Lame example? funny you dint understand...this example shows what happend if a bramhan by birth oppose...no matter how much influantial someone he cant get his goles ....

    Also you said Puranas as historical..check shrimadbhagwat story of king bain and birth of nishad...skandh 4 adhayay 14,birth of janak skandh 9 adhayay 13, male gives birth story of yuavanshv skandha adhaya 6, birth of krupacharya and krupi, Skandh 9 Adhayay 21... all purana were full of such nonsense stuff...if you considered them as historical books then am very sorry about you...

    As you said "regarding ahalya, indra had ome to her in the disguise of gautam rishi.....she did not indulge with him on her own...she thought it was gautam rishi..."

    your must check valmiki ramayana:-

    tasya antaram viditvaa tu sahasraakSaH shacii patiH |
    muni veSa dharo bhuutvaa ahalyaam idam abraviit || 1-48-17

    Meaning:-"On knowing the meantime of Gautama's availability at hermitage, Indra, the husband of Shaci Devi and the Thousand-eyed god wearing the guise of sage Gautama and becoming such a sage, approached Ahalya and said this to her. [1-48-17]

    "R^itu kaalam pratiikSante na arthinaH susamaahite |
    sa.ngamam tu aham icChaami tvayaa saha sumadhyame || 1-48-18"

    " Meaning:-'Oh, finely limbed lady, indulgers do not watch out for the time to conceive, as such oh, slender-waisted one, I desire copulation with you. [1-48-18]

    "muni veSam sahasraakSam vij~naaya raghuna.ndana |
    matim cakaara durmedhaa deva raaja kutuuhalaat || 1-48-19"

    Meaning:-"Oh, Rama, the legatee of Raghu, though knowing him as the Thousand-eyed Indra in the guise of her husband Gautama, she is inclined to have intercourse ill-advisedly, only to satisfy the impassion of the King of Gods. [1-48-19]

    "atha abraviit surashreSTham kR^itaarthena a.ntaraatmanaa |
    kR^itaarthaa asmi surashreSTha gacCha shiighram itaH prabho || 1-48-20
    aatmaanam maam ca devesha sarvadaa rakSa gautamaat |"

    Meaning:-"She felt fulfilled in her heart of hearts and then she said this to that best god Indra, 'I am gratified in complying with your wish, oh, best of gods, get going oh, lord, from here quickly, oh, ruler of gods, always safeguard yourself and me from Sage Gautama.' Thus, Ahalya said to Indra. [1-48-20, 21a]

    "indraH tu prahasan vaakyam ahalyaam idam abraviit || 1-48-21
    sushroNi parituSTo asmi gamiSyaami yathaa aagatam |"

    Meaning:-"Indra on his part smilingly said this word to Ahalya, 'oh, well-hipped lady, I am quite delighted, here I go as I have came.' [1-48-21b, 22a]

    ReplyDelete
  83. satya

    To the neglect the legitimate history books, the ItihAsa-PuraNa literature, i.e. the Epics and the Puranas is like ignoring the historical Bible books (Exodus, Joshua, Chronicles, Kings) to draw ancient Israelite history exclusively from the Psalms, or like ignoring the historians Livius, Tacitus and Suetonius to do Roman history on the basis of the poet Virgil. What would be dismissed as “utterly ridiculous” in Western history is standard practice in Indian history.
    Essentially the same remark was already made by Puranic scholar F.E. Pargiter. It was dismissed by some, with the remark that the Puranas are even more religious and unhistorical than the Vedas.However, that does injustice to the strictly historical parts of the Puranas, mixed though they are with religious lore. No serious historian would ignore the Exodus narrative simply because it also contains unhistorical episodes like the Parting of the Sea and the voice from the Burning Bush.
    The Bible provides another important parallel with the Epics and Puranas: most historians now accept the basic historicity of the Biblical account of Israelite political history from at least king David until the Exile, yet it is almost completely unattested in non-Biblical documents, just as ancient Indian history as narrated in the Epics and Puranas (and glimpsed in the Vedas) is practically unattested in non-Indic literature. The non-attestation of Israel’s history in the writings of its highly literate neighbours is more anomalous than the non-attestation of early Indian history in the writings of other literate cultures, which were more distant from India geographically and linguistically than Babylon was from Jerusalem. So, if Biblical history can be accepted as more than fantasy, the same credit should be given to the historiographical parts of the Epics and Puranas.

    now you understand why we consider purans as an authentic source of history?
    it surely has religious lore and uncomprehending things...but that does not mean it does not contain authentic history.

    ReplyDelete
  84. What to do....??? Simple dont spread lie.... if there is no such ritual then dont spread lie that at ancient time varna vayavashta was flexible...it was not ....some kings
    =-========================================
    so is it necessary that for changing varna, a ritual must be there???????????

    and most importantly, when scriptures themselves say that people changed varna,where is the scope of denying it just bcoz some ritual is not present?

    ReplyDelete
  85. who have enough power and influence title themselves what they want that doesn't mean flexibility...
    ===============================================
    can you say the same thing for shudra converting to brahmin??????

    ReplyDelete
  86. and zen,
    even if we accept that ahalya incident is a corruption, but see one strange thing

    brahmins corrupted scriptures to show their superiority.. but this corruption actually downplays brahmins as it shows how bad ahalya was. so can it really be a corruption or a true event?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Ash said:-"so is it necessary that for changing varna, a ritual must be there???????????and most importantly, when scriptures themselves say that people changed varna,where
    is the scope of denying it just bcoz some ritual is not present?"

    Yes. Religious ritual are means to make religious laws and they are extremely important to people who believes in rituals.{There must be reason most ritualistic people never made a single varna transfer ritual 5000/8000 years}...Even they made a smruti called deval smruti for re-converting the people who left hindu dharma...its another thing that they dint forget to made a law that for reconverting bramhin must get lots and lots offering....

    Its other thing if influancial king want to calls himself rishi and its other thing if religious literature had some religious ritual for so called varna transfer.
    Without religious ritual it wont accepable in society otherwise they would made some way [ritual] for it...but they don't and thats what we see how our socity became means of exploitation....

    Ash said:-"can you say the same thing for shudra converting to brahmin??????"

    ASH, Priviously I asked a question to you about shudra became bramhin....you first agree that varna transfer was only present kshtriya into bramhin later on you put kalidasa and valmiki as an example of shudra became bramhin...FACT is for kalidasa they made stories that kalidasa was born bramhin but lost his parents....now its easyt to accept him as bramhin...they did same for satyakaam jabali, and same in modern time to chatrapati shivaji....

    For valmiki they made curruptions as shudra shambuka vadh...if your theory is right for even sake of debate...shudra shambuka era was befor valmiki and hence shambuka get killed doing bramhins job...you varna transfer theory have no base....

    So when Valmiki's ballad became famouse they alter it according to them ands 'THEN'accept it...may be valmiki's ballad was not in written form but memorize by natives and populared in socity....they written it and corrupt it...FUNNY you priviously

    refuse to accept there is a currption....now you must have to answer shamuka vadh theory...as he was just doing varna transfer....BEFOR VALMIKI'S TIME

    Ash said:-"and zen,
    even if we accept that ahalya incident is a corruption, but see one strange thing

    brahmins corrupted scriptures to show their superiority.. but this corruption actually downplays brahmins as it shows how bad ahalya was. so can it really be a

    corruption or a true event?"

    Strange you are saying ahilya incident was currption...but you dint say word for shambhuk vadha....Priviously you refuse there is any currption at all...at least discussion force you to accept...GOOD
    Ash in the bramhnical liturature women whether she is from Bramhin or another clam always portrated as bad and characterless... or not trustful no wonder how bramhin declarer even bramhin female as 'SHUDRA' and reject every right to her including read and write....smruties manusmrities and all and even modern condition is great example....
    Also you must clarify purush sutra...what is it....

    Another thing you said varna vavashta was for making a system...you failed to give single example where Bramhin were treated as shudra..."A Varan transfer"

    ReplyDelete
  88. Question to Sanjay On Purush Sutra:-

    Sanjay many believes Purush sukta was later added to Veda... I want to ask when according to your study...
    The oldest written copy of veda available not older than 800/1000 year...[correct me if am wrong]so its clear that veda weren't always a written literature but memorize...but none of veda copy is without purush sutra...[are there any?] so the addition/corruption whatever is, done long before vedas put on written form....

    My question is if purush sukta addition/corruption were from that much long then it make no deference if once veda's weren't had purush sukta.... the very effort of adding it shows the effort of making society unequal is form very long time...

    ReplyDelete
  89. Yes. Religious ritual are means to make religious laws and they are extremely important to people who believes in rituals.{There must be reason most ritualistic people never made a single varna transfer ritual 5000/8000 years}...Even they made a smruti called deval smruti for re-converting the people who left hindu dharma...its another thing that they dint forget to made a law that for reconverting bramhin must get lots and lots offering....
    ================================================
    very true that there exists no such ritual. but there exists textual evidence that people shifted their varna.no one can deny that.

    ReplyDelete
  90. , Priviously I asked a question to you about shudra became bramhin....you first agree that varna transfer was only present kshtriya into bramhin later on you put kalidasa and valmiki as an example of shudra became bramhin...FACT is for kalidasa they made stories that kalidasa was born bramhin but lost his parents....now its easyt to accept him as bramhin...they did same for satyakaam jabali, and same in modern time to chatrapati shivaji....
    ===============================================
    all right....if u want more examples of shudra becoming a brahmin, here they are....
    rishi matang ( varaha purana 1.139.91)
    rishi kapinjalada
    rishi madanpal (both from mahabharat,anusaran parva 53, 13-19)
    vatsa ( panchavimsha brahman 14.66)
    for shudra to become a kshatriya,
    king sudas ( mahabharat shanti parva)
    lopamudra and sulabha maitreyee are examples of kshatriya women becoming a brahmin.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Ash in the bramhnical liturature women whether she is from Bramhin or another clam always portrated as bad and characterless... or not trustful no wonder how bramhin declarer even bramhin female as 'SHUDRA' and reject every right to her including read and write....smruties manusmrities and all and even modern condition is great example....
    Also you must clarify purush sutra...what is it....
    ================================================
    that is ur biggest misconception....if that was the case, then huge literature of ramayan and mahabharat wouldn't be composed bcoz both the events took place for sake of revenging what was done to sita and draupadi.
    there are verses where even women are treated equal
    "The way I gave this knowledge of Vedas for benefit of all humans, similarly you all also propagate the same for benefit of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Shudras, Vaishyas, Women and even most downtrodden. The scholars and the wealthy people should ensure that they not deviate from this message of mine."
    yajurved 26.2

    verses like " yatra nari pujyate,tatra ramanti devatah" wouldn't be composed.

    i do agree that in some places women have been given a low position but there are scriptures where women have been elevated too......
    generalizing is detrimental in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Strange you are saying ahilya incident was currption...but you dint say word for shambhuk vadha....Priviously you refuse there is any currption at all...at least discussion force you to accept...GOOD
    ==================================================
    hahahaha.....infact i am saying that the ahalya incident is a true incident and not a corruption...i just accepted that shambhuk vadh as a corruption...read properly...

    ReplyDelete
  93. Also you must clarify purush sutra...what is it..
    ==================================================
    have you ever read it??

    purushsukta ( RV 10.90.12) just says that from vishnu's mouth brahmins were born,from arms kshatriyas were born,from thighs vaishyas were born and from feet shudras were born....there is absolutely nothing about discrimination...
    infact from later vedas i can cite verses where actually all 4 varnas have been given equal position..

    Yajurved 18.48:
    O Lord! Provide enlightenment/ compassion to our Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. Provide me also with the same enlightenment so that I can see the truth.

    Yajurved 20.17:
    Whatever crime we have committed against my village, forest or committee; whatever crime we have committed through our organs, whatever crime we have committed against Shudras and Vaishyas, whatever crime we have done in matters of Dharma, kindly forgive us relieve us from the tendency of the same.

    Atharvaved 19.32.8:
    O Lord! May I be loved by everyone – Brahmin, Kshatriya, Shudra or Vaishya. May I be admired by everyone.

    Atharvaved 19.62.1:
    May all noble people admire me. May kings and Kshatriyas admire me. May all look at me with admiration. May the Shudras and Vaishyas admire me.

    ReplyDelete
  94. “From the Supreme Being arise the Holy Sages
    From the Supreme Being (arise) these Kshatriyas
    From the very same Supreme Being are born the Brahmins
    From the Supreme Being (arise) the food producing third caste (Vaishyas).”
    “The Supreme Being are indeed these Shudras serving the Kshatriyas,
    The Supreme Being are all they who perceive (i.e. all living creatures).
    The Supreme Being are all these benevolent officials
    The Supreme Being are all these members of the assembly.”
    “The Supreme Being are the fishermen,
    The Supreme Being are the servants,
    The Supreme Being indeed are these gamblers.
    Man as well as woman originate from the Supreme Being
    Women are God and so are men.”
    Atharvaveda (Paippalada Samhita) 8.9.8-10



    “If one’s birth were to decide one’s caste, then all should be Brahmins because all humans beings have one Father- Prajapati (God, the protector and master of all creatures).”
    Shukraniti, Chapter 1


    “Vyasa, born of a dancing girl, became a great Rishi;
    Hence, it is tapas that makes one a Brahmin, and not his birth.
    Sakti, born of a Chandala woman, became a great Rishi.
    Hence, it is tapas that makes one a Brahmin, and not his birth.
    Parasara, born of SwapAki, became a great Rishi;
    Hence, it is tapas that makes one a Brahmin, and not his birth.
    Vyasa, born of a fisherwoman, became a great Rishi;
    Hence, it is tapas that makes one a Brahmin, and not his birth.”
    Bhagvat Puran

    ReplyDelete
  95. and for ur age old argument of satyakam jabala
    here is what chandogya upanishad says


    "I do not know this, Sir, of what family I am. I asked my mother. She answered me: 'In my youth, when I went about a great deal serving as a maid, I got you. So I do not know this, of what family you are. However, I am Jabala by name; you are Satyakama by name.' So I am Satyakama Jabala, sir." To him he then said: "A non-brahmin would not be able to explain thus. Bring the fuel, my dear. I will receive you as a pupil. You have not deviated from the truth."
    Chhandogya Upanishad 4.4.1-5

    ReplyDelete
  96. Ash I already stated that Puranas might be historical.But that doesn't mean that they are completely historical and truthful .And even you agree with this.now the question is:how much part of them is hitorical and how much is fantasy?secondly what have been the influence of that literature on the whole society?who have been the benefeciaries and who have been the losers?has that knowledge helped us to live and grow in the light of scientific attitude?Ash if this knowledge has not helped us why dont we do away with it[the useless part
    ]?if there is really something noble in them we should propagate it but not the whole part,and that should be done impartially.and please dont mix up the four vedas with upanishad because they express contradictory ideas.both cannot be right at the same time.And what you call as religious lore and uncomrehending is not so simle and ignorable.actually there lies the crux.if you are impartial you should take even that part seriously and before singing praises of vedas and puranas consider on the effects of what you call as religious lore and uncomrehending part.is it just traditional RELIGIOUS knowledge?before even accepting that have you ever thought on what is religious in them?does religion and ritual mean the same?

    ReplyDelete
  97. रा.स्व.संघाचे संस्थापक डा.हेडगेवार यांनी स्वत:च राष्ट्रीय सेविका समितीची स्थापना केली होती.विपश्यना आचार्य शांतिबेन शाह या तिच्या सदस्य होत्या.आपल्या देशातील चूल-म्ल संस्कतीमुळे ह्या समितीची तिच्या पुरूष शाखे एवढी वाढ झाली नाही.उमा भारती,साध्वी ऋतंभरा,सुषमा स्वराज,वसुंधरा राजे,विजयाराजे सिंधिया,सुमित्रा महाजन,इ.अनेक कर्तबगार स्त्रिया संघ परिवारात आहेत.मायावतीजींना चारही वेळेस संघापरिवाराशी संबंधित लोकांनीच मुख्यमंत्री होण्यासाठी सहकार्य केले.

    ReplyDelete
  98. रा.स्व.संघ हि संघटना सध्या कशी आहे.

    ब्राह्मणांना चांगल्या नोकऱ्या या संघटनेत काम केल्याने मिळायची शक्यता वाढते असा ब्राह्मण तरुणांचा समज आहे .
    काही लोक इथे त्या आशेने पाट्या टाकतात !
    याकडे तरुण लोक आकर्षित होत नाहीत.अति उच्च शिक्षित लोक तर या संघटनेला हास्यास्पद मानतात.
    मध्यम आय क्यू असलेल्या ब्राह्मणांना त्यांच्या सर्व्हायव्हल साठी कदाचित यांचा उपयोग होत असेल .
    रा.स्व.संघ हि अतिशय कालबाह्य झालेली अडगळ आहे.

    यांचा खूप गांभीर्याने विचार करणे अनावश्यक आहे,

    तसेच मागास जाती , दुर्बल घटक यांना घटनेने भरपूर दिले आहे .पूर्वी ब्राह्मणांचे चराऊ कुरण आता त्यांच्या ताब्यात आहे.
    खरे हुशार उच्च वर्गीय देश सोडून जात आहेत ! त्यांना इथल्या सडलेल्या व्यवस्थेची किळस आली आहे !
    त्यामुळे सगळ्यांनाच सगळे भरपूर मिळते आहे.
    शहरे वैभवाने ओसंडून वाहात आहेत. ज्याची कसून काम करायची तयारी आहे त्यांना मरण नाही .
    जे आळशी आहेत त्यांना
    एक निळा झेंडा लावला कि सरकार फुकट पोसायला तयार दिसते आहे.

    धर्म हि गोष्टच कालबाह्य आहे .आणि देव हि कल्पनापण !

    मी या जन्मात देव या गोष्टीच माझ्या जीवनातील स्थान नाकारले तर काय घडेल ? मी हे सभ्यपणे नि नम्रपणे लिहित आहे !

    देव हि माणसाला सुचलेली कल्पना आहे ! इतकी साधी गोष्ट आजकालच्या तरुणांना देखील समजत नाही .
    जिकडे तिकडे बघावे ते असुरक्षिततेच्या वातावरणामुळे शानिपुढे रांगा वाढत आहेत.
    दत्ता ला हार घातला कि माणूस पैसे खायचे ड्रावर खुलेआम उघडे ठेवत आहे.जास्त पैसे यशस्वीपणे खाता आले तर मग
    दत्त महाराज पावले म्हणायचे का ?जे घडायला हवे ते घडावे म्हणून आपण देवळात जाऊन काय करतो ! देवा ,परमेश्वरा,
    इतके झाले तर तुला इतके अमुक करेन - कमाल आहे ! यांना संसारसुखा शिवाय काहीच प्यारे नाही .
    यांच्या भावना या असुरक्षिततेच्या दडपणाने मेल्या आहेत का ?

    ReplyDelete
  99. हिंदू म्हणजे जगण्याची समृद्ध अडगळ असे जे भालचंद्र नेमाडे म्हणतात ते खरेच आहे !

    ReplyDelete