Cow and the protagonists of apartheid in Hinduism!

There is a basic doubt whether cow’s milk is vegetarian or not. If milk is considered to be vegetarian, I am a pure hereditary vegetarian and I am really happy to remain so. Consequently, I am for the protection of not only cow but all animals and would also be happy to lend a helping hand in spreading vegetarianism, even as a cult. But I do not think that I should hang my head in shame if my forefathers had swallowed animals. My sentiments are not hurt just because the history books carry the facts pertaining to the beef eating behaviour of my ancestors, in the days of yore.

Because, they are facts. I simply do not want to follow the habits of those ancestors. That is my right. Everybody knows, even without the help of the text books, that my ancestors had once wandered around without any clothes. I do not want to emulate them now. But I seriously want the history books carry this fact also about my ancestors. I am, therefore, annoyed at the way the Hindu religious fanatics work over time in the Osmania University, Indian Council of Historical Research and other places to bury the facts.

If  my ‘Hindu compatriots’ feel offended on this score, I would like to know from them the date on which they discovered that cow – and cow alone - was holy. There is clear evidence that the Hindus, especially, the Hindu clergy, the only beneficiaries of the Hindu religious set up, had taken to cow-eating very fondly.

Mahabharatha, which is a post-Buddhist (c.500 B.C) and post-Ramayana (c. 400 B.C) story contains references to the eating of cow’s flesh and drinking of cow’s soup by the Brahmins. Megadooth, a literary work of the poet Kaalidasa contains references to it too.

Mahabharatha describes how 2000 cows were killed every day in the palace of the king Randhidevaa. The skins were kept heaped near the kitchen. The liquid which oozed out of those skins had been flowing like river. It was, poetically, named as a river originating from the skin. Because, the river was emanating from the skin of the cows kept in heaps near the kitchen. The ‘river’ was christened as Sarma nvadhi , meaning ‘emanating from skin’. That was how Vyas has described it.

Moreover, it is on record that there had been more number of Brahmin guests than anticipated for the dinner arranged by the king. So, announcements were made politely in the dinner hall requesting the guests to eat less flesh and drink more soup. These facts are found recorded in the chapter ‘Vanaparva’ 208: 8-10 of Mahabharatha.

Besides references to the eating of cows flesh are available in Shantiparva-23-29, Dronaparva 67, 1-2, Dronaparva 67, 17-18. and the works of Kaalidasa.

Kaalidaasa has also eulogized the king Randhideva in his work ‘Meghdoot’ for having created the Sarmanvathi by killing cows. [Meghdoot 1.45].

The famous writer Rahul Sankritiyayan has extensively quoted these passages in his work “From the Volga to the Ganges”.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Indian Constitution has in his book, The history of untouchables, recorded extensively how the Brahmins, had been eating cows during the Vedic and post –Vedic eras. It is not that the cow was not sacred during the Vedic era. It was held sacred and that was why it was killed and eaten. It has been recorded thus in Vajsanei Samhita – cited by Dr. Ambedkar in the said book in Chapter11. Abasthamba , Veri suthra –says, “Cow and Ox are sacred. So they must be eaten” (Lines 14,15,29)


There are many evidences in the Rig Veda that the Vedic Aryans killed cows for food. (X. 91.14). Cows were killed with swords and axes (X. 72.6)

Thaithreeya Braahmana prescribes what sort of cows must be sacrificed at the altar of which god. A black cow must be offered to Purush and a red cow to Rudra.

The fundamentalists feel that the history books are irksome.  The nation stands warned. Only those who want to repeat the history deny the history. The following event would show how the fundamentalists use public meetings to change the facts of history in the text books.

Mr. M M Joshi, the then Minister for HRD, had “lamented” that the history book writers “claimed that ancient Indians ate beef – something “against the Hindu culture” (The Times of India – January 10, 2002).

Mr. Joshi tried to feel the pulse of the crowd once again. "They  claimed that in Vedas it was written that Hindus ate beef. Do you believe that?" He waited for a response.  "NO" said some from the crowd. "Aap chahte hon ke main inhe mita du? (Do you want me to delete such portions?)", he paused again. "Yes", came the reply. "Lo! I have deleted them." Claps from the audience. (Asian Age 17.2.2002).

How can the nation be safe in the hands of such history tamperers?
=======================================
An update in December 2014

More than 250,000 animals are being lined up for slaughter as Nepal embarks on a two-day religious festival where buffalo, birds and goats are sacrificed to appease a Hindu goddess.

Millions of Hindus flock to the ceremony, which is held every five years at the temple of Gadhimai, the goddess of power, in Bariyarpur, Nepal, near the Indian border.

The last time the festival was held, in 2009, more than 250,000 animals were killed, according to animal rights organisation PETA, who is campaigning to put a stop to the practice

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2852739/Nepal-devotees-sacrifice-thousands-animals-Hindu-ritual.html#ixzz3KfKnjJK6
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

But, the saffron terrorists in India keep quiet cunningly. 

Sanatana (A)dharma

"I realised what the Hindu religion meant. We speak often of the Hindu religion, of the Sanatan Dharma, but few of us really know what that religion is. Other religions are preponderatingly religions of faith and profession, but the Sanatan Dharma is life itself; it is a thing that has not so much to be believed as lived." 

(From the speech of Aurobindo. 

Ref: Karmayogin, vol. 2 Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library 

(Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry, 1972), pp. 1-15.

What is Sanatana Dharma then?

Mahabharata refers not only to the seizing of women by force but also to their sharing. 

“Draupadi was shared by the five Pandava brothers and had five sons from them.(Adi Parvan-CCXXI).

Kunti was shared by Dharma, Vayu and Indra and gave birth to Yudhistira, Bhima and Arjuna from them(Adi Parvan-CXXIII) and Madri who gave birth to Nakula and Sahadeva was shared by the Ashwini Kumaras(Adi Parvan –CXXIV).

Justifying this custom, Yudhisthira not only states that it was a righteous practice followed by the ancestors of the Pandavas, but he even refers to Gautami being the wife of seven rsis (rishis) and Vurski being shared by the ten pracetasa brothers in the past(Adi Parvan –CXCV. CXCVII). 

Vyasa has described this practice as Sanatana Dharma (Adi Parvan. CXXII, CXCVII). 

The historian L B Keny also emphasizes that “the dialogue between Pandu and Kunti confirms the existence of this Sanatana Dharma where society had no sex-restrictions and women roamed about freely seeking satisfaction of their sex desires” Pages 30-33-Bharata war and Puranic Genealogies- Paper presented by L B Keny and edited by D C Sirkar and published by the University of Calcutta’s Centre of Advanced Study in Ancient History and Culture). 

DC Sirkar is also of the same opinion.

====================================

=========================================
Quotes from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar:

"Valmiki has very minutely described the daily life of Rama after he became King. According to that account the day was divided into two parts. Up to forenoon and afternoon. From morning to forenoon he was engaged in performing religious rites and ceremonies and offering devotion. The afternoon he spent alternately in the company of Court jesters and in the Zenana. When he got tired of the Zenana he joined the company of jesters and when he got tired of jesters he went back to the Zenana.

Valmiki also gives a detailed description of how Rama spent his life in the Zenana. This Zenana was housed in a park called Ashoka Vana. There Rama, used to take his meal. The food according to Valmiki consisted of all kinds of delicious viands. They included flesh and fruits and liquor. Rama was not a teetotaler.

He drank liquor copiously and Valmiki records that Rama saw to it that Sita joined with him in his drinking bouts. From the description of the Zenana of Rama as given by Valmiki it was by no means a mean thing. There were Apsaras, Uraga and Kinnari accomplished in dancing and singing. There were other beautiful women brought from different parts. Rama sat in the midst of these women drinking and dancing.
They pleased Rama and Rama garlanded them. Valmiki calls Rama as a 'Prince among women's men '. This was not a day's affair. It was a regular course of his life."

 - Dr. B. R. Ambedkar - Riddle of Rama and Krishna.

===========================================

In fact, Rama told more, as per Valmiki Ramayana, but Ambedkar himself edited it . Those sentences are given as under, as excerpted from the article of S.V. Raju, a prominent member of the Swatantra Party, who also served as the editor of the magazine Freedom First for many decades. 
A piece from the page of Ramayan of Valmiki printed by him in his magazine of April 1988. 

He accepted the fact that the sources of Ambedkar were 'unimpeachable". 

Utterances of Rama to Sita:

“Standing (unabashed) before me, even though suspicion has arisen with regard to your character, you are extremely disagreeable to me even as the light to one who is suffering from sore eyes. (17). Therefore, go wherever you like, O Janaka’s daughter; I grant you leave to do so this (very) day. (All) these (ten) directions are open to you. O good lady! No more purpose of mine remains to be served by you. (18).

“What man of spirit and born in a noble family for his part would take back with an eager mind a woman who has dwelt in another’s house, (simply) because she has been kindly disposed towards him (in the past)? (19).

While boasting of my lineage, how can I accept again you who were squeezed into the arms of Ravana (while being borne away by him) and regarded (by him) with an evil (lustful) eye? (20).

That object (viz, the retrieval of my lost honor) for which you have been won (back) by me, has been achieved by me.  There is no more attachment for you (in my heart). You may (therefore) go wherever you like. (21). Hence this utterance has been made by me today, resolved as I am to act accordingly. Set your mind on Laksmana or even on Bharata according to your pleasure. (22) (Nay) fix your mind on Satrughna or even on Sugriva or on the ogre, Vibhishana, O Sita, or do as it pleases your mind. (23). Seeing you, who  are endowed with a charming exterior and are (so) soul-ravishing detained in his abode, Ravana could not have endured your separation for long, O Sita!” (24). 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Translation in Tamil: 

“உன் பண்பு மீது எனக்கு ஐயப்பாடு வந்தபின்னரும் கூட வெட்கமின்றி என்முன்னே நின்று கொண்டிருக்கும் உன்னை எனக்குக் கட்டோடு பிடிக்கவில்லை. கண்ணில் நோய் வந்தவனுக்கு வெளிச்சத்தைப் பார்க்கும்போது எப்படிக் கூசுமோ அப்படி எனக்கு உள்ளது.

உயர்குடியில் பிறந்த எவனாவது மற்றவர்களுடைய வீட்டில் வாழ்ந்திருந்த ஒரு பெண்ணை அவள் கடந்த காலத்தில் தன்னிடம் அன்பாக இருந்தாள்  என்ற ஒரே காரணத்திற்காக மறுபடியும் சேர்த்துக் கொள்வானா?

என்னுடைய குலப்பெருமை பற்றி உயர்வாகப் பேசிக் கொள்ளும் நான் இராவணனால் தூக்கிச் செல்லப்படும் பொழுது அவனது கைகளில் கசங்கியவளான, அவனுடைய காமக் கண்களால் பார்க்கப்பட்டவளான உன்னை எப்படி மீண்டும் ஏற்றுக்கொள்ள முடியும்?

உன்னை இராவணன் கொண்டு சென்றதால் நான் இழந்த புகழை அவனிடமிருந்து உன்னை மீட்டு அதன்மூலம் எனது புகழை மீண்டும் பெற வேண்டும் என்று நினைத்த எனது குறிக்கோள் நிறைவேறி விட்டது. அதற்குமேல் எனது இதயத்தில் உன் மீது எந்தப் பாசப் பிடிப்பும் கிடையாது அதனால் நீ எங்கே போகவேண்டும் என்று நினைக்கிறாயோ அங்கே நீ போகலாம். அதனால்தான் நான் இன்று இப்படிச் சொல்லியுள்ளேன் அதன்படிச்  செயல்படவும் தீர்மானித்துள்ளேன்.

வேண்டுமானால் லட்சுமணன் மேல் ஆசை வைத்துக்கொள்! அல்லது பரதன் மேல் வேண்டுமானாலும் உன் விருப்பப்படிஆசை வைத்துக்கொள்! இல்லையேல் சத்துருகனன் மேல் வேண்டுமானாலும் ஆசை வைத்துக்கொள்! அல்லது சுக்கிரீவன் மேல் வைத்துக்கொள்! அல்லது அந்த இராட்சசன் விபிஷணன் மேல் வேண்டுமானாலும் வைத்துக்கொள், ஓ சீதா! அல்லது உனது விருப்பப்படி எப்படி வேண்டுமானாலும் செய்து கொள்! கவர்ச்சியான வெளித்தோற்றத்துடனும்  மனதை மயக்கும் அழகுடனும்  இருக்கும் உன்னை தனது இருப்பிடத்தில் வைத்திருந்த இராவணனால் உன்னை ரொம்ப நாளைக்குப் பிரிந்து இருந்திருக்க முடியாது, ஓ சீதா!.”

 S.V.Raju was on the cover of his magazine after his death. 

Rajaji said Rama's act was "disgraceful"

In regard to the book Riddle of Rama and Krishna by Ambedkar, S. V. Raju wrote as under: 

“This is not the first time that someone has taken a swipe at Rama or Krishna. Compared to what some others have said, Dr. Ambedkar is mild. Rama’s conduct in slaying Vali and Sambuka has been criticised time and again and his treatment of Sita, compelling her to undergo an ordeal by fire after her release from captivity, was characterised by Rajaji as ‘disgraceful conduct.’ “

==============

Next Mr. C.R. Sreenivasa Iyengar:
Mr. C.R. Sreenivasa lyengar's translation of Valmiki Ramayana says: " Though Rama had married Sita to be the queen, he married many other wives for sexual pleasure in accordance with the royal customs. (Ayodhya Kandam 8th Chapter, page 28). (The term "Rama's wives" as been used in many places in Ramayan).

===================

Next the most important: 

Yagnavalkiya and Mandlik permit three wives for Brahmins. "Three, two or one wife to the Brahmanas, Kshatriayas and Vaishyas is laid down according to the priority of classes and respectively, i.e, to a brahmana, a Brahmana, Kshatriya and Vaisya wives and so on; to the Sudra is a wife born in the same class" (Yagn. I. 56-57).
This "Dharmasastra" says that Brahmins can have three wives, one from the Brahmin clan, the other from Kshatriya and the third one from Vaishya clan. It also shows that Sudras were not permitted to marry outside their varna and that too only one in their own Varna.
But, Manu mentions Sudra wife as allowable for the Brahmins. (Mandlik 168).
Manu in Chapter III Sloka 13 says as follows: " It is declared that a Sudra woman alone (can be) the wife of a Sudra, she and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Vaisya, those two and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Kshatriya, those three and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Brahmana."

He, thus, permits four wives for Brahmins. Maybe, this is the reason the Kaavis are yearning for Manu raajya, while ridiculing other religions, simultaneously. 

=================
Please be aware of these facts, my dear friends!

Tilak Vs. 'Lower' castes and Women.

Bal Gangadar Tilak was vehemently working against the emancipation of women of India. He was very critical of the demand for equality among the people of all castes. He wanted the British to quit and the Brahmins to rule India. His agenda is being enforced at present. The Ministry of External Affairs, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Research & Ananlysis Wing and the Intelligence Bureau are all monopolized by the people of only one varna. And,they commit all the crimes to retain that hold forever. It is in that context, the historical facts relevant to the emancipation of the suppressed people of India are brought to the knowledge of the present generation of these suppressed people through the Voice of OBCs. First, in this series is on the role played by Tilak:

Educated women would run away from home

British government wanted to provide education to the female children of India and a Bill for this purpose was introduced in the year 1880.  That was all. Tilak became enraged. How dare the British do that? He shot out a vehement letter to the British and Irish MPs on 19.03.1880 not to meddle with Indian education system. He said that the educated women would run away from home. His letter was shown to have been written on behalf of the millions of the inhabitants of India although it represented only the reactionary groups among the orthodoxy in India.  His letter was titled “An Appeal to the Free Electors of Great Britain and Ireland from Their Fellow Subjects, the Unrepresented Millions of the Inhabitants of India.” His letter was vehemently opposing women’s education. “Start with founding a high school for girls and it would soon lead to women running away from home”, (Page 36 – Tilak and Gokahle – Stanley A Wolpert –Oxford – 1961.). 

Adharma Sastras were called Dharma Sastras

One girl Rakhamabai was the educated daughter of a physician in Mumbai. Her father had promised a much older Dadaji that she would be given in marriage to him. But, the father died all of a sudden, in 1887. Dadaji wanted the girl to live with him. But, she refused. Dadaji filed a suit stating that the girl became his property. Justice Rao Bahadur Ranade upheld the stand of the girl, as per the English law that was in force. But, “Tilak defended Dadaji’s  position by insisting that a case of this kind be tried according to Hindu dharma shastra instead of English common law”. He charged that Ranade “had no business interfering with the dharma shastra”.

Tilak said, “If a woman does not go to her husband she should be punished by the king and if she disobeys the king’s order she should be imprisoned” (Bapat II – 550). (Page 37 – ibid.)

Arrogating the right to talk on behalf of  ‘public’

He claimed that his stand is supported by the public and wrote, “We agree with public opinion that government should not interfere with our customs which have been carried on from time immemorial”. (Report of the Director of Public Instruction, Bombay 1877-78).

Preferred British rule than to forego caste system

Tilak was prepared even to abdicate the independence struggle led by the Congress when the privileged social status of his community was sought to be dethroned in the proposed independent India. He did not bother about even splitting the Congress for that purpose. It was left to the lower classes to stomach the insult and co-operate with the others to fight the British, even though they knew very well that the people like Tilak were not ready even to discuss about the eradication of caste system.

“It was customary to hold a separate session for social reform immediately after the Congress in the same pandal. Even this was objected to by the political radicals and social tories ‘like Tilak and others in the Congress who threatened to burn the pandal if allowed to be used by the Social conference.

In a letter to Mr. Ranade, Mr. Surendranath Banerjee wrote: “The raison de’tre for excluding social questions from our deliberations is that were we to take up such questions it might lead to serious differences ultimately culminating in a schism, and it is a matter of the first importance that we should prevent a split...”-Page 51- B.R. Ambedkar – The politics of emancipation- A. M. Rajasekhariah – Sindhu Publications Private Ltd. Bombay)

Beware of propaganda

It is time the oppressed and suppressed people realized the iniquitous role played by Tilak who wanted continued subjugation of the OBCs,SCs and STs. They must assess their leaders for what they really were. They must take into account the virtuous as well as the vicious acts of the Indian leaders and form their opinions objectively, as said by the great poet Tiruvalluvar.

Always, the public opinion must be based on facts and not on propaganda.

Religion Vs. God

Does religion really lead one to God? No. A resounding ‘No’ is the answer. That is what the Bible says; that is what the Quran says. That is what the real thinkers who were really interested in the welfare of the mankind have expounded.

Christianity

Abou Ben Adam awoke one night from a deep dream of peace. There was beautiful moonlight. A star was flickering in the sky and it was getting bigger and bigger. Soon, he saw that the star was an Angel flying towards his room. It sat on the windowsill of his room and started writing something in a book of gold. Adam asked what it was. The Angel replied that it was a list of “those who loved God”. “Is my name in that list?” he enquired. “No”, replied the Angel. Adam said, “Okay, please write against me as a person who loves humanity”.

The Angel wrote down his name in a separate list as he desired and vanished. “The next night it appeared again and sat on the windowsill. There were three lists in its hand. Adam was curious what the third one was. The Angel said, “This is a different list. This contains the names of those who are loved by God”.  Adam said, “Is my name there in that list?” The Angel said, “Yes, on the top of it.”

Thus, Christianity shows that the outward appearances of being God-loving or proclaiming to the world that one is God-fearing, or doing all the rituals, performing all the penance, etc., do not really matter, and one cannot go to heaven just by flattering God.

Islam

There was a Mullah in a village. He was just doing his work in the mosque. The villagers had been indulging in various sinful activities, like theft, adulteration, cheating, adultery, etc., But, the Mullah who was aware of the entire on goings did not come forward to inform the villagers of their folly. He did not make any efforts to reform them. He thought that none would listen to him. He, however, guarded himself not to commit any such sinful activity.

Soon, there was flood. It washed away the entire village. It took away the Mullah too. All of them appeared before God. God punished everybody according to the nature of his or her crime. When Mullah presented himself last, he was imposed double the punishment. Mullah pleaded that he had not committed any sin and that he had been doing only the work for God in the mosque. God did not agree. It was the duty of the Mullah to inform the villagers of their wrongs. The villagers were not aware of the extent of their sin. To some extent they were ignorant too. But the Mullah was an informed man. He was, therefore, duty-bound to inform the others. Whether the others would listen to him or not was a different issue. Mullah had not done his duty and had not made any efforts in that direction. God said that he, therefore, deserved double penalty. “When a sin is committed before an individual or a group and they do not prevent it, in spite of having the capability, then Allah inflicts a severe punishment on them…” (Virtues of Tabligh -- Chapter II – Sayings of the Prophet).

Thus, Islam shows that even a priest cannot go to heaven unless he discharges his inherent duty when on earth. Generally, no one would observe the religious formalities more punctually and more systematically than the priest. Yet, the doors to heaven do not open to those who observe only those formalities and do not perform their duties towards humanity.

Saivism

In Tamil Saivism, the Siddha Saint Sivavaakkiyar says,

இருக்கு நாலுவேதமும் எழுத்தை அறவோதினும்

பெருக்கு நீறு பூசினும் பிதற்றினும் பிரான்இரான்

உருக்கி நெஞ்சை உட்கலந்திங் குண்மைகூர வல்லிரேல்

சுருக்க மற்ற சோதியைத் தொடர்ந்து கூடலாகுமே.

According to Sivavaakkiyar, the outward appearances of the so-called pious man do not count for anything. The religious formalities observed by him would not carry him anywhere. What counts is that one must be honest and truthful.

Poet Bharathiyar says that it is a folly to resort to the formal prayer without having any love and affection towards fellow human beings. His poem ‘kolamittu vilakkinaiyetri…’ describes the concept very forcefully and effectively.

கோலமிட்டு விளக்கினை ஏற்றிக் 

கூடிநின்று பராசக்தி முன்னே 

ஓலமிட்டுப் புகழ்ச்சிகள் சொல்வார் 

உண்மைகண்டிலர் வையத்து மாக்கள் 

ஞாலமுற்றும் பராசக்தி தோற்றம்  

ஞானமென்னும் விளக்கினை யேற்றிக் 

காலமுற்றும் தொழுதிடல் வேண்டும் 

காதலென்பதோர் கோயிலின் கண்ணே 

There is, therefore, nothing to feel pride of oneself about one’s being a theist. There is also nothing to fell ashamed if one chides another to be an atheist. The issue is totally irrelevant either for the present world or for the next world.

Ramalinga Adihal and Vivekananda have also said a lot on these lines. Be a theist or atheist! That is not an issue at all. But, be a humanist. Do your duty towards the humanity. That alone - and nothing else - decides whether you can reach Heaven.

" படமாடக் கோயில் பரமற்கு ஒன்று ஈயில்
நடமாடக் கோயில் நம்பர்க்கு அஃது ஆகா
நடமாடக் கோயில் நம்பர்க்கு ஒன்று ஈயில்
படமாடக் கோயில் பரமற்கு அஃது ஆமே "

-திருமூலர்.