dEAR all
There is one thing called perverted intelligence; many we are seeing
in the world and groups; but Ambedkar who was biased against the vedas,
cultured habitat of the British, unelevated by his good knowledge,
descended down stooping so low; and turned abuddist a kind of religion;
contracting himself. His book on riddles of vedas, where there are >26
riddles, was read by me and countered in parts from today. We have many
theists also who used to talk that way so the counters provided are for
such also. We may develop our thoughts by relevant Q and A also, from
readers.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ambedkar describes the Vedas - generally considered among the most sacred
of the Hindu texts - as "worthless". He describes the Purusha Sukta as an
interpolation in the Vedas, and states that the only reason the Brahmins
portray the Vedas as infallible is because this hymn grants them
superiority over others.
Ambedkar states that he is well aware of the risk of writing such a
controversial book, but asserts that this is necessary to liberate the
Hindu mind.
Part I: Religious
Riddle No. 1: The difficulty of knowing why one is a Hindu
Ambedkar discusses the vagueness of the term "Hindu": one cannot be called
a Hindu for following a certain set of beliefs, because Hindu beliefs and
practices vary widely (for example animal sacrifice and non-violence). He
states that the Christians and the Muslims have more in common than the
Hindus have in common with each other. Hindus include monotheists,
polytheists and pantheists; even monotheist Hindus do not worship the same
god. Several Hindus worship Muslim figures such as Pirs and Christian
figures such as Mant Mauli. Ambedkar further states that the observance of
the caste system does not make one a Hindu, because many Indian Christians
and Indian Muslims also observe the caste system.
KR Thank GOD Ambedkar spoke only about a HINDU a phrase coined by
the Muslim followed up by the British which is about 400 year old.
Subramanya Bharathi harangued:
பாரதியார் கவிதைகள் தேசிய கீதங்கள் 1. பாரத நாடு
வந்தே மாதரம் என்போம் - எங்கள் மாநிலத் தாயை வணங்குதும் என்போம். (ந்தே)
ஈனப் பறையர்க ளேனும் அவர்
எம்முடன் வாழ்ந்திங் கிருப்பவர் அன்றோ?
சீனத்த ராய்விடு வாரோ? - பிற
தேசத்தர் போற்பல தீங்கிழைப் பாரோ? (வந்தே) 2
ஆயிரம் உண்டிங்கு ஜாதி - எனில்
அன்னியர் வந்து புகல் என்ன நீதி? - ஓர்
தாயின் வயிற்றில் பிறந்தோர் - தம்முள்
சண்டைசெய் தாலும் சகோதரர் அன்றோ? (வந்தே) 3
Hindu is not created by Indian Vedic. It is the format derived by
the hero-worshipped Ambedkar suit minded British who imbibed Ambedkar to
use it for his convenience. Jati is a manmade, never made by the Vedic.
Suppose I mean AMBEDKAR means “on the bed doer”, and so many thinks and
follow so; is that the mistake of the society originated or that of mine?
So, if Ambedkar so think there are so many varieties in the Indians so
called HINDUS , and it is not like Muslim or Christian, then what he learnt
as a Buddhist is that Buddhism is also an Hinduism, but he desired it; why?
The National Classification of Occupations (NCO) 2015 outlines job
descriptions for 3600 civilian occupations across 52 sectors in the Indian
Central Government. The NCO-2015 is an update to the previous NCO-2004,
which detailed 2945 occupations. And there will be sub divisions of posts
also; but all of them are only tagged as central Govt employees only. So
castes comes only under one head, like Muslim or Christian and so Name
HINDU is only a group head. So many had written also why “I AM PROUD TO BE
A HINDU?”; SO, OPINION OF AMBEDKAR DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL. Also, even many
religions have similar divisions or factions, which are as akin to the word
JATI pronounced here, however hard, they name it differently. Divisions are
man-made in every religion so attributions to HINDUISM is erroneous.
Riddle No. 2: The origin of the Vedas: The Brahminic explanation or an
exercise in the art of circumlocution
Ambedkar questions the origins of the Vedas, and discusses the Manu smriti
commentator Kulluka Bhatta's description of the Vedas as "eternally
pre-existing" (sanatana). According to Kulluka Bhatta, when the universe is
dissolved in a pralaya, the Vedas are preserved in the memory of Brahma,
and reproduced at the beginning of each new era (Kalpa). Ambedkar states
that the Vedas could not have come into being ex-nihilo, and questions why
the Brahmins do not openly state who created them.
1 KR: How far Mr. Ambedkar is sure of the words of Buddhism he
adopted as told only by Buddha? Similar issues would arise of NABI AND
JESUS also. Meaning of SANATANA IN SANSKRIT IS WIDELY KNOWN AS: “Sanātana (
सनातन):—[from sana] eternal, perpetual, permanent, everlasting, primeval,
ancient, [Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa]
And what is sanatana?
“Brahman is infinite, and omnipresent. It is absolute, and it is
the cause. It is truth. It is the whole universe.” (IS THIS THE MONOTHEISM
OR OTHERWISE AS DESCRIBED BY Mr AMBEDKAR?) Brahman is described as Neti
Neti – “not this, not this”. It is beyond names, forms, attributes and all
limitations. The Kaushitaki Upanishad says: “Brahman is neither gross nor
minute, neither short nor long, neither red color nor oiliness, neither
shadow nor darkness, neither air nor ether, unattached… unseen but seeing,
ungrasped but grasping, without taste or smell, eternal wise, without inner
organs, ever speaking, without contact or distinction.” Despite being
formless and attributeless, Brahman also manifests as the physical universe
and every soul within it. The Chandogya Upanishad states: “Verily, in the
beginning all this was Brahman alone… It thought, may I become many. It
created all that exists.” All names and forms ultimately belong to Brahman.
The Mundaka Upanishad proclaims: “Everything in this universe is pervaded
by Brahman. He who sees all beings in Brahman and Brahman in all beings
knows Brahman.” Sanatana Dharma teaches that an individual soul or atman
is ultimately identical to Brahman. The core teaching “Tat Tvam Asi” –
“Thou Art That” sums this up. Realizing this unity with Brahman leads to
moksha or liberation from the cycle of rebirth. [ TVAM OR AHAM IS NOT THE
BODY NOR THE LIFE PERISHAABLE BUT THE IMPERISHABLE ATMA THE MANIFESTATIONS
OF ONE BRAHMAM] The Bhagavad Gita describes Brahman as the supreme goal of
spiritual knowledge: “Upon knowing which nothing more remains to be
known…The Supreme Brahman, imperishable, Supreme.” [one starts learning
one from the other by questioning as next and next; when one does not find
an answer to one next and stand still that is the Bramham] The Upanishads
use many metaphors to help describe Brahman. It is compared to the ocean
which, though one in essence, gives rise to endless waves without losing
its own unity. Brahman is the source from which all beings emerge, yet
remains untouched and unchanged by them. Mantras and sacred syllables like
Om represent attempts by the intellect to grasp the ungraspable nature of
Brahman. The Mandukya Upanishad says: “Om is Brahman… Nothing that exists
is separate from Om.” Because Mr. Ambedkar was a son to one, a nephew to
another, husband to one , father to some, elder to some and younger to
some, in may forms, can he be said to be many divisions who is not THAT ONE
AMBEDKAR? Fotmats and branches are grown out of a seed only; and since
seed is not seen, can the tree be said is many formats which is also true
in a perception from one view only? Sanatana is that seed; in B G Krishna
says that only “I AM THE BHEEJA”.
K Rajaram IRS 2725 part 1 to be contd
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZooO%3DWU%2BDyByDLRi6f2yXjwBcFFrrRKrPLtmumEb7%3DCnpg%40mail.gmail.com.
