Indian Caste System
The Caste System
In ancient India there developed a social system in which people were divided into separate close communities. These communities are known in English as caste. The origin of the caste system is in Hinduism, but it affected the whole Indian society. The caste system in the religious form is basically a simple division of society in which there are four castes arranged in a hierarchy and below them the outcast. But socially the caste system was more complicated, with much more castes and sub-castes and other divisions. Legally the government disallows the practice of caste system but has a policy of affirmative discrimination of the backward classes.
The Beginning of the caste system
There are different theories about the establishment of the caste system. There are religious-mystical theories. There are biological theories. And there are socio-historical theories.
The religious theories explain how the four Varnas were founded, but they do not explain how the Jats in each Varna or the untouchables were founded. According the Rig Veda, the ancient Hindu book, the primal man - Purush - destroyed himself to create a human society. The different Varnas were created from different parts of his body. The Brahmans were created from his head; the Kshatrias from his hands; the Vaishias from his thighs and the Sudras from his feet. The Varna hierarchy is determined by the descending order of the different organs from which the Varnas were created. Other religious theory claims that the Varnas were created from the body organs of Brahma, who is the creator of the world.
The biological theory claims that all existing things, animated and unanimated, inherent three qualities in different apportionment. Sattva qualities include wisdom, intelligence, honesty, goodness and other positive qualities. Rajas include qualities like passion, pride, valour and other passionate qualities. Tamas qualities include dullness, stupidity, lack of creativity and other negative qualities. People with different doses of these inherent qualities adopted different types of occupation.
According to this theory the Brahmans inherent Sattva qualities. Kshatrias and Vaisias inherent Rajas qualities. And the Sudras inherent Tamas qualities.
Like human beings, food also inherents different dosage of these qualities and it affects its eater's intelligence. The Brahmans and the Vaisias have Sattvic diet which includes fruits, milk, honey, roots and vegetables. Most of the meats are considered to have Tamasic qualities. Many Sudra communities eat different kinds of meat (but not beef) and other Tamasic food. But the Kshatrias who had Rajasic diet eat some kinds of meat like deer meat which is considered to have Rajasic qualities. Many Marathas who claim to be Kshatrias eat mutton. The drawback of this theory is that in different parts of India the same food was sometimes qualified to have different dosage of inherent qualities. For example there were Brahmans who eat meat which is considered Tamasic food.
The social historical theory explains the creation of the Varnas, Jats and of the untouchables. According to this theory, the caste system began with the arrival of the Aryans in India. The Aryans arrived in India around 1500 BC. The fair skinned Aryans arrived in India from south Europe and north Asia. Before the Aryans there were other communities in India of other origins. Among them Negrito, Mongoloid, Austroloid and Dravidian. The Negrito have physical features similar to people of Africa. The Mongoloid have Chinese features. The Austroloids have features similar the aboriginals of Australia. The Dravidians originate from the Mediterranean and they were the largest community in India. When the Aryans arrived in India their main contact was with the Dravidians and the Austroloids. The Aryans disregarded the local cultures. They began conquering and taking control over regions in north India and at the same time pushed the local people southwards or towards the jungles and mountains in north India.
The Aryans organized among themselves in three groups. The first group was of the warriors and they were called Rajayana, later they changed their name Rajayana to Kshatria. The second group was of the priests and they were called Brahmans. These two groups struggled politically for leadership among the Aryans. In this struggle the Brahmans got to be the leaders of the Aryan society. The third group was of the farmers and craftsmen and they were called Vaisia. The Aryans who conquered and took control over parts of north India subdued the locals and made them their servants. In this process the Vaisias who were the farmers and the craftsmen became the landlords and the businessmen of the society and the locals became the peasants and the craftsmen of the society.
In order to secure their status the Aryans resolved some social and religious rules which, allowed only them to be the priests, warriors and the businesmen of the society. For example take Maharashtra. Maharashtra is in west India. This region is known by this name for hundreds of years. Many think that the meaning of the name Maharashtra is in its name, Great Land. But there are some who claim that the name, Maharashtra, is derived from the Jat called Mahar who are considered to be the original people of this region. In the caste hierarchy the dark skinned Mahars were outcasts. The skin color was an important factor in the caste system. The meaning of the word "Varna" is not class or status but skin color.
Between the outcasts and the three Aryan Varnas there is the Sudra Varna who are the simple workers of the society. The Sudras consisted of two communities. One community was of the locals who were subdued by the Aryans and the other were the descendants of Aryans with locals. In Hindu religious stories there are many wars between the good Aryans and the dark skinned demons and devils. The different Gods also have dark skinned slaves. There are stories of demon women trying to seduce good Aryan men in deceptive ways. There were also marriages between Aryan heroes and demon women. Many believe that these incidences really occurred in which, the gods and the positive heroes were people of Aryan origin. And the demons, the devils and the dark skinned slaves were in fact the original residence of India whom the Aryans coined as monsters, devil, demons and slaves.
As in most of the societies of the world, so in India, the son inherited his father's profession. And so in India there developed families, who professed the same family profession for generation in which, the son continued his father's profession. Later on as these families became larger, they were seen as communities or as they are called in Indian languages, Jat. Different families who professed the same profession developed social relations between them and organized as a common community, meaning Jat.
Later on the Aryans who created the caste system, added to their system non-Aryans. Different Jats who professed different professions were integrated in different Varnas according to their profession. Other foreign invaders of ancient India - Greeks, Huns, Scythains and others - who conquered parts of India and created kingdoms were integrated in the Kshatria Varna (warrior castes). But probably the Aryan policy was not to integrate original Indian communities within them and therefore many aristocratic and warrior communities that were in India before the Aryans did not get the Kshatria status.
Most of the communities that were in India before the arrival of the Aryans were integrated in the Sudra Varna or were made outcast depending on the professions of these communities. Communities who professed non-polluting jobs were integrated in Sudra Varna. And communities who professed polluting professions were made outcasts. The Brahmans are very strict about cleanliness. In the past people believed that diseases can also spread also through air and not only through physical touch. Perhaps because of this reason the untouchables were not only disallowed to touch the high caste communities but they also had to stand at a certain distance from the high castes.
The Religious form of Caste System
In Hinduism there exists four castes arranged in a hierarchy. Anyone who does not belong to one of these castes is an outcast. The religious word for caste is 'Varna'. Each Varna has certain duties and rights. Each Varna members have to work in certain occupation which only that Varna members are allowed. Each Varna has certain type of diet. The highest Varna is of the Brahman. Members of this class are priests and the educated people of the society. The Varna after them in hierarchy is Kshatria. The members of this class are the rulers and aristocrats of the society. After them are the Vaisia. Members of this class are the landlords and businessmen of the society. After them in hierarchy are the Sudra. Members of this class are the peasants and working class of the society who work in non-polluting jobs. The caste hierarchy ends here. Below these castes are the outcasts who are untouchable to the four castes. These untouchables worked in degrading jobs like cleaning, sewage etc.
The first three castes had social and economical rights which the Sudra and the untouchables did not have. The first three castes are also seen as 'twice born'. The intention in these two births is to the natural birth and to the ceremonial entrance to the society at a much later age.
Each Varna and also the untouchables are divided into many communities. These communities are called Jat or Jati (The caste is also used instead of Jat). For example the Brahmans have Jats called Gaur, Kokanastha, Sarasvat, Iyer and others. The outcasts have Jats like Mahar, Dhed, Mala, Madiga and others. The Sudra is the largest Varna and it has the largest number of communities. Each Jat is limited to professions worthy of their Varna. Each Jat is limited to the Varna diet. Each Jat members are allowed to marry only with their Jat members. People are born into their Jat and it cannot be changed.
This is the how the caste system is supposed to be in its religious form. But in reality it is much more complicated and different from its religious form.
The Confusing Caste System
The confusion in the caste system begins by the use of the word caste. The Indians in their different languages use the word 'Jat' for any community who have something common like religion, language, origin, similar geographical background and so on. The Indians also use the word 'Jat' for Varna. The Portuguese who were the first European power to arrive in India distorted the word 'Jat' into caste. The British who arrived to India much later after the Portuguese also used the word caste. The British used the word Caste instead of Jat and Varna. And so sometimes in English the caste system is explained in a confusing way according to which, the caste system consists of four castes which are divided into many castes. Sometimes in English the word caste is used for Varna and the word sub-caste for Jat. In this section to prevent confusion we will use the words Varna and Jat.
And now we will see the complication in the caste system itself.
Each Varna consists of many communities called Jats. Each Varna does consist of different Jats but many of these Jats break up into more communities and each such community refers to itself as different or unique Jat. There are different reasons for these different communities within each Jat. One reason can be the different occupations each community within the Jat professes. Other reasons can be inter-Jat political reasons. Many Jats consists of millions of people and it also causes break up of the larger community into smaller communities. There are also Jats which originate from different parts of India and profess the same profession and therefore get a common name, even though they are not one single community. For example the Jats that profess cloth washing are called collectively as Dhobi. For non- Dhobis the Dhobis are one Jat but within them they are not one community.
The hierarchy between the Varnas. All the Jats accept that the Brahman Varna is the highest Varna in the hierarchy and the untouchables are outcast and lowest in the hierarchy. But most of the Jats in different Varnas claim to be superior and higher than other Jats. Some of the Jats as stated earlier break up into smaller communities or Jats. In these Jats that break up into different communities, there are communities that look at themselves as superior or higher in hierarchy than other communities. Among the Brahman Varna, there are Jats that consider themselves as superior than other Brahman Jats. Some of the Brahman Jats break up into smaller communities, and between these communities within the Jat there also exist a hierarchy.
Among the other Varnas there also exists hierarchy phenomenon. Different Jats claim to be superior than the other Jats in their Varna. Some Jats in the Vaisia and Sudra Varnas also claim to be closer or equal in hierarchy to the Brahman Varna. These Jats that claim this status adopted Brahman customs like vegetarian diet and strict observance of purity and cleanliness. Some Jats claim to be closer to Kshatria, which is the warrior class of the Indian society. The Marathas in west India and Reddys in south India were among the Jats which claimed Kshatria status.
Among the outcast there was also the superior status phenomenon in which one outcast Jat considered itself as superior and did not have physically contact with other outcast Jats which it considered as inferior. For example the Mahars in west India considered themselves superior than Dhed and they did not mingle with the Dheds.
Each Jat professes an occupation worthy of its Varna status. In most of the cases there was a connection between a persons profession and his Varna. Among the different Varnas there also developed guilds based on Jat lines, professing specific professions. In west India the Jat that professed oil pressing were called Somwar Teli. Another Jat members were the shepherds of the society and they were called Dhangar. Another Jat members were the cowherds of the society and they were called Gaoli. The Kunbis were the peasants of the society.
But some of the professions had different status in different parts of India and they were located at different levels in the caste hierarchy. For example Dhobis (washers) in north India were seen as untouchables. While in west India they had Sudra status. The oil pressers in east India were seen as untouchables, in central India they had a high status while in west India they had Sudra status.
There were also many cases where the Jat members did not profess occupation worthy of their Varna. Many Brahmans, who are supposed to be the priest and learned of the society, did not find jobs as priests or did not manage to feed their families as priests and therefore worked as simple farmers. On the other hand there were many Brahmans who were landlords and businessmen, professions supposed to belong to the Vaisia Varna.
Also among the other Varnas not all professed the occupations worthy of their Varna. In west India the Maratha were the warriors and the aristocracy. Originally the Marathas belonged to the different Jats in west India. Most of these Jats were in Sudra level. But the Marathas who became the aristocracy of west India claimed and acquired the Kshatria status. In the 17th and the 18th century the Marathas even established an empire which ruled large parts of India. During the Maratha reign members of a Brahman Jat, Kokanastha Brahman, were ministers. From 1750 these Brahmans became the rulers of the Maratha Empire.
Like the Marathas there were other communities which, religiously did not belong to the Kshatria status but acquired this status. The Reddy in Andra Pradesh and Nayar in Kerala are such two examples.
Religiously marriage occurs within the Jat. The different Jats members almost always respected this rule and people who dared break this rule were outcasted. But this rule also had exceptions. Usually the higher Varnas were very strict about this custom. But in some of the higher level Jats of the society, they used to have polygamy. In these cases, because of scarcity of women, men use to marry women from the lower levels of the society.
In some Indian societies between-jat marriage was even an acceptable feature. One such example of marriages existed in Kerala, in south India. In Kerala, Nayar women (aristocracy community) married men from Numbodiri Brahman community.
Another problem considering the Jat marriage was the internal structure of the Jats. As stated earlier some Jats break up into smaller communities. In most of the cases each such community members marry only with members of their own community and not with other community members within the Jat. In some cases there is a hierarchy between the different communities of the same Jat. In such cases a daughter from the lower community could marry a son from the higher community but not vice versa.
Each Varna had different diet. Hinduism has many strict dietary rules. In general the higher Jats are more strict about their dietary customs than the lower Jats. The Brahman Jats have the most strict dietary customs. They will not eat in lower Jats homes or even with lower Jats (because of this reason many restaurants hired Brahman cooks). The Brahman diet is supposed to include only vegetarian food. Jats who claimed Brahman status also adopted vegetarian diet of the Brahmans. But there are some Brahman Jats who traditionally eat meat, fish, chicken and egg (which is considered non-vegetarian). Some Brahman Jats in Kashmir, Orissa, Bengal and Maharashtra traditionally eat meat. But this meat was never cattle meat.
Jat is determined by birth and it cannot be changed. In the beginning the caste system was not a strict system and people could move from one Varna to another. Indologists give different dates to this period of change. Some claim the change occurred around 500 B. C. and other claim 500 A. D. Until then, communities and even singular person moved from one Varna to another Varna, because of their desire to adopt different occupations. There were some kings who belonged the Kshatria (warrior castes) and changed their status to become religious Brahmans. There were also who changed their status to become warriors. And even after the caste system was organized in a strict manner there were many communities who did not always follow their status occupations. There was a case of a Jat that lost its high status because they did not profess the profession worthy of their Varna. The Kayastha of east and north east India originally belonged to the Kshatria Varna (warrior caste). Some time in the past among warriors communities, there developed a bureaucratic unit whose job was writing and listing war events and they were called Kayasthas. Because these unit members were not warriors, they were excluded from the Kshatria status and were given a lower status. But the Kayasthas even today claim Kshatria status.
The Jat status
Jats like Kayastha, Reddy, Maratha, Nayar and others changed the basic four-fold hierarchy caste system. These Jats had high status but their exact status is not clear and different communities give different interpretations to their status of different Jats. As stated earlier different Jats claim theirs to be the superior than the other Jats and therefore the caste system even today is not always interpreted objectively by Indians but subjectively. For example the Kayastha claim themselves to be Kshatria while others do not always agree with this claim. Among the Marathas the confusion is even greater. In the narrow sense the Jat of Maratha applies to 96 clans who ruled and governed the parts of west India. Originally the Maratha clans belonged to different levels of Indian hierarchy. They mostly belonged to different Jats of Sudra. But many Jats of west Maharashtra claim that they are Marathas too. Sometimes the Kokanastha Brahmans (who were ministers of Maratha empire in 18th century and later on continued the Maratha Empire and their reign) are also introduced as Marathas causing a greater confusion in Maratha definition.
The reasons stated above are among the few reasons that causes confusion in caste system.
Untouchables
The untouchablity feature in the caste system is one of the cruelest features of the caste system. It is seen by many as one of the strongest racist phenomenon in the world.
In the Indian society people who worked in ignominious, polluting and unclean occupations were seen as polluting peoples and were therefore considered as untouchables. The untouchables had almost no rights in the society. In different parts of India they were treated in different ways. In some regions the attitude towards the untouchables was harsh and strict. In other regions it was less strict.
In regions where the attitude was less strict the untouchables were seen as polluting people and their dwellings were at a distance from the settlements of the four Varna communities. The untouchables were not allowed to touch people from the four Varnas. They were not allowed to enter houses of the higher Varnas. They were not allowed to enter the temples. They were not allowed to use the same wells used by the Varnas. In public occasions they were compelled to sit at a distance from the four Varnas. In regions where the attitude towards the untouchables were more severe, not only touching them was seen polluting, but also even a contact with their shadow was seen as polluting.
If, because of any reason, there was a contact between an untouchable and a member of the Varnas, the Varna member became defiled and had to immerse or wash himself with water to be purified. In strict societies, especially among the 'Twice Born' (the three top Varnas) the touched 'Twice Born' also had to pass through some religious ceremonies to purify himself from the pollution. If the untouchable entered a house and touched things of a Varna member, the Varna members used to wash or clean the places where the untouchable touched and stepped.
In some incidences the untouchables who associated with the Varna members were beaten and even murdered for that reason. Some higher hierarchy Jats also had servants whose job was to go or walk before the high Jats members and announce their coming to the streets and to see to it that the streets would be clear of untouchable people.
The orthodox Hindus treated anyone who worked in any kind of polluting job as untouchable and did not have any contact with them. According to orthodox rules any one who does not belong to the four Varnas, meaning foreigners, are untouchables.
The non-Hindus in caste system
Religiously anyone who does not belong to the four Varnas is an outcast and untouchable. It means, all foreigners and non-Hindus are all supposed to be untouchables. But in reality neither all foreigners nor non-Hindus were treated as untouchables. Foreigners and non-Hindus were treated differently in different parts of India. Some of the foreigners adopted Hinduism and integrated in the upper level of the Hindu hierarchy.
The Rajputs of Rajasthan belong to the Kshatria Varna (warrior castes). The Rajputs, more than any other Indian Jat, represent the warrior castes of India. Almost any Indian community which claims to be a warrior community, claims a Rajput ancestry. But it is believed that many foreign invaders of ancient India (see- India in the past), like Scythians; Huns; Greeks and others, who adopted Hinduism, integrated in the Rajput community and acquired a Kshatria status (see also Sati - burning of the widow).
The Konkanash Brahmans of west India are also believed to have non- Indian descent. According to a Hindu legend, an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, Parsuram, found on the Konkan beach some dead bodies which were washed to the shore. In order to cremate them Parsuram gathered them on a pyre. These dead bodies woke up on pyre, probably because they were not dead in the first place but were only unconscious. Parsuram converted these people to Hinduism and made them Brahmans. There are other theories about the origins of these Kokanasth Brahmans. Many of these Brahmans have gray-green eyes. Some claim them to be Vikings or of other European origin. In the Konkan coast there is Jewish community called Bene Israel. Some claim that these Jews are from the 'Lost Tribes'. These Jews who arrived in India after their ship-wrecked near the Konkan coast claim that they and the Kokanastha Brahmans are descendants of the survivals from the same ship. And in their version, it was not an incarnation of Lord Vishnu who converted the Kokanastha Brahmans but a local Brahman. Anyway these Jews do not have gray-green eyes like the Kokanastha Brahmans.
Different religion followers got different status in different parts of India. The Jews of west India (called Bene Israel) had a different status from Jews of south India (Cochini Jews). The Bene Israels professed oil pressing and they had a status equal to a Hindu Jat called Somvar Teli, which also professed oil pressing and were part of Sudra Varna. Some orthodox Hindus treated anyone who was a non-Hindu or doing any type as polluting job as untouchable and therefore treated the Jews as untouchables. But even though the Jews in west India had low status there were among them some who were landlords, businessmen and high rank officers in local armies.
Comparing to the Bene Israels, the Jews in south India had higher status. The Jews in Kerala were the business community of Kerala. They even ruled a small kingdom. They had aristocratic rights, such as use of elephants and sedans. They even had servants whose job was to announce their coming to the streets so that the low castes could move away from their way.
The relations between the Jewish communities of India are sometimes explained as affected by the Indian caste system but these relations can also be explained according to Jewish religious laws. There were three main Jewish communities in India. The Baghdadis, the Bene Israels and Cochinis. The Baghdadi Jews were much strict about religious laws than the Bene Israel Jews. The Baghdadis did not mingle with Bene Israel Jews. The Baghdadis did not allow marriages between their children and the children of Bene Israel. They did not eat food prepared by Bene Israel and they refused to count the Bene Israel as part of the Minyan (the ten necessary to start a Jewish prayer). Many explain these relations as an influence of the Indian caste system on the Jewish communities. According to this explanation, the Baghdadi Jews referred to themselves as higher caste than the Bene Israel Jews and therefore did not mingle with them. But these relations between the Jewish communities can also be explained according to the Jewish Halacha laws. The Baghdadi Jews who were much strict about Jewish laws and diet did not mingle with the Bene Israels because the Bene Israels were secular Jews and they perceived in Bene Israel Jews as impure Jews.
The Muslims who arrived in India were strong and powerful to be treated as untouchables. Not only were they strong in the military sense, they also tried to enforce their religion on the Indians. The Indians who converted to Islam in most of the cases remained in the same social status as they had before their conversion to Islam. Hindus from the higher Varnas remained at the higher levels of Indian society. Hindus from the lower levels of the hierarchy thought that by converting to Islam they would come out from the Hindu hierarchy system, but in most of the cases they remained in the same hierarchy level after they converted. Among the Muslims of India there has developed a two-tier hierarchy. The upper class, called Sharif Jat, includes Muslims who belonged to the higher levels in caste hierarchy and also Muslims who arrived to India from foreign countries. The lower class, called Ajlaf Jat, includes Muslim converts from lower castes. As in the world, the upper classes do not have close social relations with lower classes, the same way the Sharif Jat do not normally have close social relations with Ajlaf Jat.
The different Christian communities of India were treated in different ways in different parts of India. The Syrian Christians of Kerala had a high status. Along with the Jews, they were the business communities of Kerala and they too had aristocratic rights. The Indians who were baptized from the 16th century by Christian missionaries remained mostly in the same status they had before. As in the Muslim community of India, the Christians also have a two-tier social hierarchy. Many untouchables who converted to Christianity are still treated as untouchables, sometimes by other Christians.
The European Christians are also supposed to be untouchables to Hindus. Some Europeans in the 17th and 18th century even claimed that they were treated as untouchables. But later on with British rule over India it were the upper level Hindu castes, specially the Brahmans, who adopted the European democratic philosophy according to which all are equal and they introduced it to other Indians.
Other religions which were established in India - Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism - also have some marks of caste system, even though they oppose caste system. Sikhism rejects caste system. But different Jats who adopted Sikhism act according to traditional Jat lines. The different Jats normally marry within caste lines. The Jats which were the elite of the Punjab and converted to Sikhism do not give equal respect to Sikhs who belong to the lower levels of Indian hierarchy. The Jains also have separate communities who marry within the community lines. The Buddhist in India have a two-tier hierarchy and just like in the cases of Christians and Muslims it is also related to the status of the community to whom the person belongs. On the other hand the Mahar community of west India, who were untouchables and converted mostly to Buddhism, prefer, because of different political reasons to recognize themselves as Mahars and not always as Buddhists.
Not all residents of India were part of the caste system. About 7% of India's population are referred to as tribes and not as castes or Jats. These tribes are scattered all around India and they are descendants of communities who were not interested in the Varna hierarchy. They preferred to live away from the main societies deep in the jungles, forests and mountains of India. They survived mostly on fishing, hunting or simple agriculture, and also from stealing, robbing and plundering. These tribes had different religious beliefs and different gods. Some of them had simple beliefs, but others use to sacrifice human beings in their ceremonies. One such tribe, called Gond, had a strong kingdom in central India. Most of the tribes adopted Hinduism, others adopted Islam or Christianity. Some tribes in East India claim to Jewish origin.
Caste system in modern India
The leaders of independent India decided that India will be democratic, socialist and secular country. According to this policy there is a separation between religion and state. Practicing untouchability or discriminating a person based on his caste is legally forbidden. Along with this law the government allows positive discrimination of the depressed classes of India.
The Indians have also become more flexible in their caste system customs. In general the urban people in India are less strict about the caste system than the rural. In cities one can see different caste people mingling with each other, while in some rural areas there is still discrimination based on castes and sometimes also on untouchability. Sometimes in villages or in the cities there are violent clashes which, are connected to caste tensions. Sometimes the high castes strike the lower castes who dare to uplift their status. Sometimes the lower caste get back on the higher castes.
In modern India the term caste is used for Jat and also for Varna. The term, caste was used by the British who ruled India until 1947. The British who wanted to rule India efficiently made lists of Indian communities. They used two terms to describe Indian communities. Castes and Tribes. The term caste was used for Jats and also for Varnas. Tribes were those communities who lived deep in jungles, forests and mountains far away from the main population and also communities who were hard to be defined as castes for example communities who made a living from stealing or robbery. These lists, which the British made, were used later on by the Indian governments to create lists of communities who were entitled for positive discrimination.
The castes, which were the elite of the Indian society, were classified as high castes. The other communities were classified as lower castes or lower classes. The lower classes were listed in three categories. The first category is called Scheduled Castes. This category includes in it communities who were untouchables. In modern India, untouchability exists at a very low extent. The untouchables call themselves Dalit, meaning depressed. Until the late 1980s they were called Harijan, meaning children of God. This title was given to them by Mahatma Gandhi who wanted the society to accept untouchables within them.
The second category is Scheduled Tribes. This category includes in it those communities who did not accept the caste system and preferred to reside deep in the jungles, forests and mountains of India, away from the main population. The Scheduled Tribes are also called Adivasi, meaning aboriginals.
The third category is called sometimes Other Backward Classes or Backward Classes. This category includes in it castes who belong to Sudra Varna and also former untouchables who converted from Hinduism to other religions. This category also includes in it nomads and tribes who made a living from criminal acts.
According to the central government policy these three categories are entitled for positive discrimination. Sometimes these three categories are defined together as Backward Classes. 15% of India's population are Scheduled Castes. According to central government policy 15% of the government jobs and 15% of the students admitted to universities must be from Scheduled Castes. For the Scheduled Tribes about 7.5% places are reserved which is their proportion in Indian population. The Other Backwards Classes are about 50% of India's population, but only 27% of government jobs are reserved for them.
Along with the central government, the state governments of India also follow a positive discrimination policy. Different states have different figures of communities entitled for positive discrimination based on the population of each state. Different state governments have different lists of communities entitled for positive discrimination. Sometimes a specific community is entitled for rights in a particular state but not in another state of India.
In modern India new tensions were created because of these positive discrimination policies. The high caste communities feel discriminated by the government policy to reserve positions for the Backward Classes. In many cases a large number of high caste members compete for a few places reserved for them. While the Backward Classes members do not have to compete at all because of the large number of reserved places for them compared to the candidates. Sometimes in order to fill the quota, candidates from the lower classes are accepted even though they are not suitable. Sometimes some reserved positions remain unmanned because there were few candidates from the lower classes causing more tension between the castes. Between the lower castes there are also tensions over reservation.
In the order of priority for a reserved place of the Backward Classes, candidate from the Scheduled castes is preferred over a candidate from the Scheduled Tribes who is preferred over a candidate from the other Backward Classes. As stated earlier Other Backward Classes are about 50% of India's population but only 27% of the Other Backward Classes are entitled for positive discrimination according to central government policy. Some Other Backward Classes communities are organizing politically to be recognized as Backward Classes entitled for positive discrimination.
The Scheduled Tribes who are seen as the aborigins of India got ownership and certain rights over Indian land. Many communities in India claim also to be aborigins of India and they are claiming the same rights as the Scheduled Tribes.
The caste identity has become a subject of political, social and legal interpretation. Communities who get listed as entitled for positive discrimination do not get out of this list even if their social and political conditions get better. In many cases the legal system is involved to decide if a certain person is entitled for positive discrimination.
But with all this positive discrimination policy, most of the communities who were low in the caste hierarchy remain low in the social order even today. And communities who were high in the social hierarchy remain even today high in the social hierarchy. Most of the degrading jobs are even today done by the Dalits, while the Brahmans remain at the top of the hierarchy by being the doctors, engineers and lawyers of India.
Back To Home Page
Back to Civilisation Page
Email: nirbodh@gmail.com
Friday, May 14, 2010
Why I am an Atheist
Bhagat Singh 1931
Why I am an Atheist
It is a matter of debate whether my lack of belief in the existence of an Omnipresent, Omniscient God is due to my arrogant pride and vanity. It never occurred to me that sometime in the future I would be involved in polemics of this kind. As a result of some discussions with my friends, (if my claim to friendship is not uncalled for) I have realised that after having known me for a little time only, some of them have reached a kind of hasty conclusion about me that my atheism is my foolishness and that it is the outcome of my vanity. Even then it is a serious problem. I do not boast of being above these human follies. I am, after all, a human being and nothing more. And no one can claim to be more than that. I have a weakness in my personality, for pride is one of the human traits that I do possess. I am known as a dictator among my friends. Sometimes I am called a boaster. Some have always been complaining that I am bossy and I force others to accept my opinion. Yes, it is true to some extent. I do not deny this charge. We can use the word ‘vainglory’ for it. As far as the contemptible, obsolete, rotten values of our society are concerned, I am an extreme sceptic. But this question does not concern my person alone. It is being proud of my ideas, my thoughts. It cannot be called empty pride. Pride, or you may use the word, vanity, both mean an exaggerated assessment of one’s personality. Is my atheism because of unnecessary pride, or have I ceased believing in God after thinking long and deep on the matter? I wish to put my ideas before you. First of all, let us differentiate between pride and vanity as these are two different things.
I have never been able to understand how unfounded, baseless pride or empty vanity can hinder a person from believing in God. I may refuse to acknowledge the greatness of a really great person only when I have got fame without doing any serious efforts or when I lack the superior mental powers necessary to become great. It is easy to understand but how is it possible that a believer can turn into a non-believer because of his vanity? Only two things are possible: either a man deems himself to be in possession of Godly qualities, or he goes a step further and declares himself to be a god. In both these states of mind he cannot be an atheist in the true sense of the word. In the first case, it is not an outright rejection of God’s existence; in the other, he is affirming the existence of some kind of supernatural power responsible for the working of universe. It does not harm our argument whether he claims to be a god or considers God to be a reality in existence above his own being. The real point, however, is that in both cases he is a theist, a believer. He is not an atheist. I want to bring home this point to you. I am not one of these two creeds. I totally reject the existence of an Omnipresent, all powerful, all knowing God. Why so? I will discuss it later in the essay. Here I wish to emphasise that I am not an atheist for the reason that I am arrogant or proud or vain; nor am I a demi-god, nor a prophet; no, nor am I God myself. At least one thing is true that I have not evolved this thought because of vanity or pride. In order to answer this question I relate the truth. My friends say that after Delhi bombing and Lahore Conspiracy Case, I rocketed to fame and that this fact has turned my head. Let us discuss why this allegation is incorrect. I did not give up my belief in God after these incidents. I was an atheist even when I was an unknown figure. At least a college student cannot cherish any sort of exaggerated notion of himself that may lead him to atheism. It is true that I was a favourite with some college teachers, but others did not like me. I was never a hardworking or studious boy. I never got an opportunity to be proud. I was very careful in my behaviour and somewhat pessimistic about my future career. I was not completely atheistic in my beliefs. I was brought up under the care and protection of my father. He was a staunch Arya Samaji. An Arya Samaji can be anything but never an atheist. After my elementary education, I was sent to D. A. V College, Lahore. I lived in the boarding house for one year. Besides prayers early in the morning and at dusk time, I sat for hours and chanted religious Mantras. At that time, I was a staunch believer. Then I lived with my father. He was a tolerant man in his religious views. It is due to his teachings that I devoted my life for the cause of liberating my country. But he was not an atheist. His God was an all-pervading Entity. He advised me to offer my prayers every day. In this way I was brought up. In the Non-cooperation days, I got admission to the National College. During my stay in this college, I began thinking over all the religious polemics such that I grew sceptical about the existence of God. In spite of this fact I can say that my belief in God was firm and strong. I grew a beard and ‘Kais’ (long head of hair as a Sikh religious custom). In spite of this I could not convince myself of the efficacy of Sikh religion or any religion at all, for that matter. But I had an unswerving, unwavering belief in God.
Then I joined the Revolutionary Party. The first leader I met had not the courage to openly declare himself an atheist. He was unable to reach any conclusion on this point. Whenever I asked him about the existence of God, he gave me this reply: “You may believe in him when you feel like it.” The second leader with whom I came in contact was a firm believer. I should mention his name. It was our respected Comrade Sachindara Nath Sanyal. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in connection with Karachi conspiracy case. Right from the first page of his only book, ‘Bandi Jivan’ (Incarnated Life) he sings praises to the Glory of God. See the last page of the second part of this book and you find praises showered upon God in the way of a mystic. It is a clear reflection of his thoughts.
According to the prosecution, the ‘Revolutionary Leaflet’ which was distributed throughout India was the outcome of Sachindara Nath Sanyal’s intellectual labour. So often it happens that in revolutionary activities a leader expresses his own ideas which may be very dear to him, but in spite of having differences, the other workers have to acquiesce in them.
In that leaflet, one full paragraph was devoted to the praises of God and His doings which we, human beings, cannot understand. This is sheer mysticism. What I want to point out is that the idea of denying the existence of God did not even occur to the Revolutionary Party. The famous Kakory martyrs, all four of them, passed their last day in prayers. Ram Parshad Bismal was a staunch Arya Samaji. In spite of his vast studies in Socialism and Communism, Rajan Lahiri could not suppress his desire to recite hymns from Upanishads and Gita. There was but only one person among them who did not indulge in such activities. He used to say, “Religion is the outcome of human weakness or the limitation of human knowledge.” He is also in prison for life. But he also never dared to deny the existence of God.
Till that time I was only a romantic revolutionary, just a follower of our leaders. Then came the time to shoulder the whole responsibility. For some time, a strong opposition put the very existence of the party into danger. Many leaders as well as many enthusiastic comrades began to uphold the party to ridicule. They jeered at us. I had an apprehension that some day I will also consider it a futile and hopeless task. It was a turning point in my revolutionary career. An incessant desire to study filled my heart. ‘Study more and more’, said I to myself so that I might be able to face the arguments of my opponents. ‘Study’ to support your point of view with convincing arguments. And I began to study in a serious manner. My previous beliefs and convictions underwent a radical change. The romance of militancy dominated our predecessors; now serious ideas ousted this way of thinking. No more mysticism! No more blind faith! Now realism was our mode of thinking. At times of terrible necessity, we can resort to extreme methods, but violence produces opposite results in mass movements. I have talked much about our methods. The most important thing was a clear conception of our ideology for which we were waging a long struggle. As there was no election activity going on, I got ample opportunity to study various ideas propounded by various writers. I studied Bakunin, the anarchist leader. I read a few books of Marx, the father of Communism. I also read Lenin and Trotsky and many other writers who successfully carried out revolutions in their countries. All of them were atheists. The ideas contained in Bakunin’s ‘God and State’ seem inconclusive, but it is an interesting book. After that I came across a book ‘Common Sense’ by Nirlamba Swami. His point of view was a sort of mystical atheism. I developed more interest in this subject. By the end of 1926, I was convinced that the belief in an Almighty, Supreme Being who created, guided and controlled the universe had no sound foundations. I began discussions on this subject with my friends. I had openly declared myself an atheist. What it meant will be discussed in the following lines.
In May 1927, I was arrested in Lahore. This arrest came as a big surprise for me. I had not the least idea that I was wanted by the police. I was passing through a garden and all of a sudden the police surrounded me. To my own surprise, I was very calm at that time. I was in full control of myself. I was taken into police custody. The next day I was taken to the Railway Police lockup where I spent a whole month. After many days’ conversation with police personnel, I guessed that they had some information about my connection with the Kakori Party. I felt they had some intelligence of my other activities in the revolutionary movement. They told me that I was in Lucknow during the Kakori Party Trial so that I might devise a scheme to rescue the culprits. They also said that after the plan had been approved, we procured some bombs and by way of test, one of those bombs was thrown into a crowd on the occasion of Dussehra in 1926. They offered to release me on condition that I gave a statement on the activities of the Revolutionary Party. In this way I would be set free and even rewarded and I would not be produced as an approver in the court. I could not help laughing at their proposals. It was all humbug. People who have ideas like ours do not throw bombs at their own innocent people. One day, Mr. Newman, the then senior Superintendent of CID, came to me. After a long talk which was full of sympathetic words, he imparted to me what he considered to be sad news, that if I did not give any statement as demanded by them, they would be forced to send me up for trial for conspiracy to wage war in connection with Kakori Case and also for brutal killings in Dussehra gathering. After that he said that he had sufficient evidence to get me convicted and hanged.
I was completely innocent, but I believed that the police had sufficient power to do it if they desired it to be so. The same day some police officers persuaded me to offer my prayers to God two times regularly. I was an atheist. I thought that I would settle it to myself whether I could brag only in days of peace and happiness that I was an atheist, or in those hard times I could be steadfast in my convictions. After a long debate with myself, I reached the conclusion that I could not even pretend to be a believer nor could I offer my prayers to God. No, I never did it. It was time of trial and I would come out of it successful. These were my thoughts. Never for a moment did I desire to save my life. So I was a true atheist then and I am an atheist now. It was not an easy task to face that ordeal. Beliefs make it easier to go through hardships, even make them pleasant. Man can find a strong support in God and an encouraging consolation in His Name. If you have no belief in Him, then there is no alternative but to depend upon yourself. It is not child’s play to stand firm on your feet amid storms and strong winds. In difficult times, vanity, if it remains, evaporates and man cannot find the courage to defy beliefs held in common esteem by the people. If he really revolts against such beliefs, we must conclude that it is not sheer vanity; he has some kind of extraordinary strength. This is exactly the situation now. First of all we all know what the judgement will be. It is to be pronounced in a week or so. I am going to sacrifice my life for a cause. What more consolation can there be! A God-believing Hindu may expect to be reborn a king; a Muslim or a Christian might dream of the luxuries he hopes to enjoy in paradise as a reward for his sufferings and sacrifices. What hope should I entertain? I know that will be the end when the rope is tightened round my neck and the rafters move from under my feet. To use more precise religious terminology, that will be the moment of utter annihilation. My soul will come to nothing. If I take the courage to take the matter in the light of ‘Reward’, I see that a short life of struggle with no such magnificent end shall itself be my ‘Reward.’ That is all. Without any selfish motive of getting any reward here or in the hereafter, quite disinterestedly have I devoted my life to the cause of freedom. I could not act otherwise. The day shall usher in a new era of liberty when a large number of men and women, taking courage from the idea of serving humanity and liberating them from sufferings and distress, decide that there is no alternative before them except devoting their lives for this cause. They will wage a war against their oppressors, tyrants or exploiters, not to become kings, or to gain any reward here or in the next birth or after death in paradise; but to cast off the yoke of slavery, to establish liberty and peace they will tread this perilous, but glorious path. Can the pride they take in their noble cause be called vanity? Who is there rash enough to call it so? To him I say either he is foolish or wicked. Leave such a fellow alone for he cannot realise the depth, the emotions, the sentiment and the noble feelings that surge in that heart. His heart is dead, a mere lump of flesh, devoid of feelings. His convictions are infirm, his emotions feeble. His selfish interests have made him incapable of seeing the truth. The epithet ‘vanity’ is always hurled at the strength we get from our convictions.
You go against popular feelings; you criticise a hero, a great man who is generally believed to be above criticism. What happens? No one will answer your arguments in a rational way; rather you will be considered vainglorious. Its reason is mental insipidity. Merciless criticism and independent thinking are the two necessary traits of revolutionary thinking. As Mahatmaji is great, he is above criticism; as he has risen above, all that he says in the field of politics, religion, Ethics is right. You agree or not, it is binding upon you to take it as truth. This is not constructive thinking. We do not take a leap forward; we go many steps back.
Our forefathers evolved faith in some kind of Supreme Being, therefore, one who ventures to challenge the validity of that faith or denies the existence of God, shall be called a Kafir (infidel), or a renegade. Even if his arguments are so strong that it is impossible to refute them, if his spirit is so strong that he cannot be bowed down by the threats of misfortune that may befall him through the wrath of the Almighty, he shall be decried as vainglorious. Then why should we waste our time in such discussions? This question has come before the people for the first time, hence the necessity and usefulness of such long discussions.
As far as the first question is concerned, I think I have made it clear that I did not turn atheist because of vanity. Only my readers, not I, can decide whether my arguments carry weight. If I were a believer, I know in the present circumstances my life would have been easier; the burden lighter. My disbelief in God has turned all the circumstances too harsh and this situation can deteriorate further. Being a little mystical can give the circumstances a poetic turn. But I need no opiate to meet my end. I am a realistic man. I want to overpower this tendency in me with the help of Reason. I am not always successful in such attempts. But it is man’s duty to try and make efforts. Success depends on chance and circumstances.
Now we come to the second question: if it is not vanity, there ought to be some sound reason for rejection of age-old belief in God. Yes, I come to this question. I think that any man who has some reasoning power always tries to understand the life and people around him with the help of this faculty. Where concrete proofs are lacking, [mystical] philosophy creeps in. As I have indicated, one of my revolutionary friends used to say that “philosophy is the outcome of human weakness.” Our ancestors had the leisure to solve the mysteries of the world, its past, its present and its future, its whys and its wherefores, but having been terribly short of direct proofs, every one of them tried to solve the problem in his own way. Hence we find wide differences in the fundamentals of various religious creeds. Sometimes they take very antagonistic and conflicting forms. We find differences in Oriental and Occidental philosophies. There are differences even amongst various schools of thoughts in each hemisphere. In Asian religions, the Muslim religion is completely incompatible with the Hindu faith. In India itself, Buddhism and Jainism are sometimes quite separate from Brahmanism. Then in Brahmanism itself, we find two conflicting sects: Aarya Samaj and Snatan Dheram. Charwak is yet another independent thinker of the past ages. He challenged the Authority of God. All these faiths differ on many fundamental questions, but each of them claims to be the only true religion. This is the root of the evil. Instead of developing the ideas and experiments of ancient thinkers, thus providing ourselves with the ideological weapon for the future struggle, - lethargic, idle, fanatical as we are - we cling to orthodox religion and in this way reduce human awakening to a stagnant pool.
It is necessary for every person who stands for progress to criticise every tenet of old beliefs. Item by item he has to challenge the efficacy of old faith. He has to analyse and understand all the details. If after rigorous reasoning, one is led to believe in any theory of philosophy, his faith is appreciated. His reasoning may be mistaken and even fallacious. But there is chance that he will be corrected because Reason is the guiding principle of his life. But belief, I should say blind belief is disastrous. It deprives a man of his understanding power and makes him reactionary.
Any person who claims to be a realist has to challenge the truth of old beliefs. If faith cannot withstand the onslaught of reason, it collapses. After that his task should be to do the groundwork for new philosophy. This is the negative side. After that comes in the positive work in which some material of the olden times can be used to construct the pillars of new philosophy. As far as I am concerned, I admit that I lack sufficient study in this field. I had a great desire to study the Oriental Philosophy, but I could get ample opportunity or sufficient time to do so. But so far as I reject the old time beliefs, it is not a matter of countering belief with belief, rather I can challenge the efficacy of old beliefs with sound arguments. We believe in nature and that human progress depends on the domination of man over nature. There is no conscious power behind it. This is our philosophy.
Being atheist, I ask a few questions from theists:
1. If, as you believe there is an Almighty, Omnipresent, Omniscient God, who created the earth or universe, please let me know, first of all, as to why he created this world. This world which is full of woe and grief, and countless miseries, where not even one person lives in peace.
2. Pray, don’t say it is His law. If He is bound by any law, He is not Omnipotent. Don’t say it is His pleasure. Nero burnt one Rome. He killed a very limited number of people. He caused only a few tragedies, all for his morbid enjoyment. But what is his place in history? By what names do we remember him? All the disparaging epithets are hurled at him. Pages are blackened with invective diatribes condemning Nero: the tyrant, the heartless, the wicked.
One Genghis Khan killed a few thousand people to seek pleasure in it and we hate the very name. Now, how will you justify your all powerful, eternal Nero, who every day, every moment continues his pastime of killing people? How can you support his doings which surpass those of Genghis Khan in cruelty and in misery inflicted upon people? I ask why the Almighty created this world which is nothing but a living hell, a place of constant and bitter unrest. Why did he create man when he had the power not to do so? Have you any answer to these questions? You will say that it is to reward the sufferer and punish the evildoer in the hereafter. Well, well, how far will you justify a man who first of all inflicts injuries on your body and then applies soft and soothing ointment on them? How far the supporters and organizers of Gladiator bouts were justified in throwing men before half starved lions, later to be cared for and looked after well if they escaped this horrible death. That is why I ask: Was the creation of man intended to derive this kind of pleasure?
Open your eyes and see millions of people dying of hunger in slums and huts dirtier than the grim dungeons of prisons; just see the labourers patiently or say apathetically while the rich vampires suck their blood; bring to mind the wastage of human energy that will make a man with a little common sense shiver in horror. Just observe rich nations throwing their surplus produce into the sea instead of distributing it among the needy and deprived. There are palaces of kings built upon the foundations laid with human bones. Let them see all this and say “All is well in God’s Kingdom.” Why so? This is my question. You are silent. All right. I proceed to my next point.
You, the Hindus, would say: Whosoever undergoes sufferings in this life, must have been a sinner in his previous birth. It is tantamount to saying that those who are oppressors now were Godly people then, in their previous births. For this reason alone they hold power in their hands. Let me say it plainly that your ancestors were shrewd people. They were always in search of petty hoaxes to play upon people and snatch from them the power of Reason. Let us analyse how much this argument carries weight!
Those who are well versed in the philosophy of Jurisprudence relate three of four justifications for the punishment that is to be inflicted upon a wrong-doer. These are: revenge, reform, and deterrence. The Retribution Theory is now condemned by all the thinkers. Deterrent theory is on the anvil for its flaws. Reformative theory is now widely accepted and considered to be necessary for human progress. It aims at reforming the culprit and converting him into a peace-loving citizen. But what in essence is God’s Punishment even if it is inflicted on a person who has really done some harm? For the sake of argument we agree for a moment that a person committed some crime in his previous birth and God punished him by changing his shape into a cow, cat, tree, or any other animal. You may enumerate the number of these variations in Godly Punishment to be at least eighty-four lack. Tell me, has this tomfoolery, perpetrated in the name of punishment, any reformative effect on human man? How many of them have you met who were donkeys in their previous births for having committed any sin? Absolutely no one of this sort! The so called theory of ‘Puranas’ (transmigration) is nothing but a fairy-tale. I do not have any intention to bring this unutterable trash under discussion. Do you really know the most cursed sin in this world is to be poor? Yes, poverty is a sin; it is a punishment! Cursed be the theoretician, jurist or legislator who proposes such measures as push man into the quagmire of more heinous sins. Did it not occur to your All Knowing God or he could learn the truth only after millions had undergone untold sufferings and hardships? What, according to your theory, is the fate of a person who, by no sin of his own, has been born into a family of low caste people? He is poor so he cannot go to a school. It is his fate to be shunned and hated by those who are born into a high caste. His ignorance, his poverty, and the contempt he receives from others will harden his heart towards society. Supposing that he commits a sin, who shall bear the consequences? God, or he, or the learned people of that society? What is your view about those punishments inflicted on the people who were deliberately kept ignorant by selfish and proud Brahmans? If by chance these poor creatures heard a few words of your sacred books, Vedas, these Brahmans poured melted lead into their ears. If they committed any sin, who was to be held responsible? Who was to bear the brunt? My dear friends, these theories have been coined by the privileged classes. They try to justify the power they have usurped and the riches they have robbed with the help of such theories. Perhaps it was the writer Upton Sinclair who wrote (Bhagat Singh is referring to Sinclair’s pamphlet ‘Profits of Religion’ - MIA transcriber) somewhere “only make a man firm believer in the immortality of soul, then rob him of all that he possesses. He will willingly help you in the process.” The dirty alliance between religious preachers and possessors of power brought the boon of prisons, gallows, knouts and above all such theories for the mankind.
I ask why your Omnipotent God does not hold a man back when he is about to commit a sin or offence. It is child’s play for God. Why did He not kill war lords? Why did He not obliterate the fury of war from their minds? In this way He could have saved humanity of many a great calamity and horror. Why does He not infuse humanistic sentiments into the minds of the Britishers so that they may willingly leave India? I ask why He does not fill the hearts of all capitalist classes with altruistic humanism that prompts them to give up personal possession of the means of production and this will free the whole labouring humanity from the shackles of money. You want to argue the practicability of Socialist theory, I leave it to your Almighty God to enforce it. Common people understand the merits of Socialist theory as far as general welfare is concerned but they oppose it under the pretext that it cannot be implemented. Let the Almighty step in and arrange things in a proper way. No more logic chopping! I tell you that the British rule is not there because God willed it but for the reason that we lack the will and courage to oppose it. Not that they are keeping us under subjugation with the consent of God, but it is with the force of guns and rifles, bombs and bullets, police and militia, and above all because of our apathy that they are successfully committing the most deplorable sin, that is, the exploitation of one nation by another. Where is God? What is He doing? Is He getting a diseased pleasure out of it? A Nero! A Genghis Khan! Down with Him!
Now another piece of manufactured logic! You ask me how I will explain the origin of this world and origin of man. Charles Darwin has tried to throw some light on this subject. Study his book. Also, have a look at Sohan Swami’s “Commonsense.” You will get a satisfactory answer. This topic is concerned with Biology and Natural History. This is a phenomenon of nature. The accidental mixture of different substances in the form of Nebulae gave birth to this earth. When? Study history to know this. The same process caused the evolution of animals and in the long run that of man. Read Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species.’ All the later progress is due to man’s constant conflict with nature and his efforts to utilise nature for his own benefit. This is the briefest sketch of this phenomenon.
Your next question will be why a child is born blind or lame even if he was not a sinner in his previous birth. This problem has been explained in a satisfactory manner by biologists as a mere biological phenomenon. According to them the whole burden rests upon the shoulders of parents whose conscious or unconscious deeds caused mutilation of the child prior to his birth.
You may thrust yet another question at me, though it is merely childish. The question is: If God does not really exist, why do people come to believe in Him? Brief and concise my answer will be. As they come to believe in ghosts, and evil spirits, so they also evolve a kind of belief in God: the only difference being that God is almost a universal phenomenon and well developed theological philosophy. However, I do disagree with radical philosophy. It attributes His origin to the ingenuity of exploiters who wanted to keep the people under their subjugation by preaching the existence of a Supreme Being; thus claimed an authority and sanction from Him for their privileged position. I do not differ on the essential point that all religions, faiths, theological philosophies, and religious creeds and all other such institutions in the long run become supporters of the tyrannical and exploiting institutions, men and classes. Rebellion against any king has always been a sin in every religion.
As regard the origin of God, my thought is that man created God in his imagination when he realized his weaknesses, limitations and shortcomings. In this way he got the courage to face all the trying circumstances and to meet all dangers that might occur in his life and also to restrain his outbursts in prosperity and affluence. God, with his whimsical laws and parental generosity was painted with variegated colours of imagination. He was used as a deterrent factor when his fury and his laws were repeatedly propagated so that man might not become a danger to society. He was the cry of the distressed soul for he was believed to stand as father and mother, sister and brother, brother and friend when in time of distress a man was left alone and helpless. He was Almighty and could do anything. The idea of God is helpful to a man in distress.
Society must fight against this belief in God as it fought against idol worship and other narrow conceptions of religion. In this way man will try to stand on his feet. Being realistic, he will have to throw his faith aside and face all adversaries with courage and valour. That is exactly my state of mind. My friends, it is not my vanity; it is my mode of thinking that has made me an atheist. I don’t think that by strengthening my belief in God and by offering prayers to Him every day, (this I consider to be the most degraded act on the part of man) I can bring improvement in my situation, nor can I further deteriorate it. I have read of many atheists facing all troubles boldly, so I am trying to stand like a man with the head high and erect to the last; even on the gallows.
Let us see how steadfast I am. One of my friends asked me to pray. When informed of my atheism, he said, “When your last days come, you will begin to believe.” I said, “No, dear sir, Never shall it happen. I consider it to be an act of degradation and demoralisation. For such petty selfish motives, I shall never pray.” Reader and friends, is it vanity? If it is, I stand for it.
Why I am an Atheist
It is a matter of debate whether my lack of belief in the existence of an Omnipresent, Omniscient God is due to my arrogant pride and vanity. It never occurred to me that sometime in the future I would be involved in polemics of this kind. As a result of some discussions with my friends, (if my claim to friendship is not uncalled for) I have realised that after having known me for a little time only, some of them have reached a kind of hasty conclusion about me that my atheism is my foolishness and that it is the outcome of my vanity. Even then it is a serious problem. I do not boast of being above these human follies. I am, after all, a human being and nothing more. And no one can claim to be more than that. I have a weakness in my personality, for pride is one of the human traits that I do possess. I am known as a dictator among my friends. Sometimes I am called a boaster. Some have always been complaining that I am bossy and I force others to accept my opinion. Yes, it is true to some extent. I do not deny this charge. We can use the word ‘vainglory’ for it. As far as the contemptible, obsolete, rotten values of our society are concerned, I am an extreme sceptic. But this question does not concern my person alone. It is being proud of my ideas, my thoughts. It cannot be called empty pride. Pride, or you may use the word, vanity, both mean an exaggerated assessment of one’s personality. Is my atheism because of unnecessary pride, or have I ceased believing in God after thinking long and deep on the matter? I wish to put my ideas before you. First of all, let us differentiate between pride and vanity as these are two different things.
I have never been able to understand how unfounded, baseless pride or empty vanity can hinder a person from believing in God. I may refuse to acknowledge the greatness of a really great person only when I have got fame without doing any serious efforts or when I lack the superior mental powers necessary to become great. It is easy to understand but how is it possible that a believer can turn into a non-believer because of his vanity? Only two things are possible: either a man deems himself to be in possession of Godly qualities, or he goes a step further and declares himself to be a god. In both these states of mind he cannot be an atheist in the true sense of the word. In the first case, it is not an outright rejection of God’s existence; in the other, he is affirming the existence of some kind of supernatural power responsible for the working of universe. It does not harm our argument whether he claims to be a god or considers God to be a reality in existence above his own being. The real point, however, is that in both cases he is a theist, a believer. He is not an atheist. I want to bring home this point to you. I am not one of these two creeds. I totally reject the existence of an Omnipresent, all powerful, all knowing God. Why so? I will discuss it later in the essay. Here I wish to emphasise that I am not an atheist for the reason that I am arrogant or proud or vain; nor am I a demi-god, nor a prophet; no, nor am I God myself. At least one thing is true that I have not evolved this thought because of vanity or pride. In order to answer this question I relate the truth. My friends say that after Delhi bombing and Lahore Conspiracy Case, I rocketed to fame and that this fact has turned my head. Let us discuss why this allegation is incorrect. I did not give up my belief in God after these incidents. I was an atheist even when I was an unknown figure. At least a college student cannot cherish any sort of exaggerated notion of himself that may lead him to atheism. It is true that I was a favourite with some college teachers, but others did not like me. I was never a hardworking or studious boy. I never got an opportunity to be proud. I was very careful in my behaviour and somewhat pessimistic about my future career. I was not completely atheistic in my beliefs. I was brought up under the care and protection of my father. He was a staunch Arya Samaji. An Arya Samaji can be anything but never an atheist. After my elementary education, I was sent to D. A. V College, Lahore. I lived in the boarding house for one year. Besides prayers early in the morning and at dusk time, I sat for hours and chanted religious Mantras. At that time, I was a staunch believer. Then I lived with my father. He was a tolerant man in his religious views. It is due to his teachings that I devoted my life for the cause of liberating my country. But he was not an atheist. His God was an all-pervading Entity. He advised me to offer my prayers every day. In this way I was brought up. In the Non-cooperation days, I got admission to the National College. During my stay in this college, I began thinking over all the religious polemics such that I grew sceptical about the existence of God. In spite of this fact I can say that my belief in God was firm and strong. I grew a beard and ‘Kais’ (long head of hair as a Sikh religious custom). In spite of this I could not convince myself of the efficacy of Sikh religion or any religion at all, for that matter. But I had an unswerving, unwavering belief in God.
Then I joined the Revolutionary Party. The first leader I met had not the courage to openly declare himself an atheist. He was unable to reach any conclusion on this point. Whenever I asked him about the existence of God, he gave me this reply: “You may believe in him when you feel like it.” The second leader with whom I came in contact was a firm believer. I should mention his name. It was our respected Comrade Sachindara Nath Sanyal. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in connection with Karachi conspiracy case. Right from the first page of his only book, ‘Bandi Jivan’ (Incarnated Life) he sings praises to the Glory of God. See the last page of the second part of this book and you find praises showered upon God in the way of a mystic. It is a clear reflection of his thoughts.
According to the prosecution, the ‘Revolutionary Leaflet’ which was distributed throughout India was the outcome of Sachindara Nath Sanyal’s intellectual labour. So often it happens that in revolutionary activities a leader expresses his own ideas which may be very dear to him, but in spite of having differences, the other workers have to acquiesce in them.
In that leaflet, one full paragraph was devoted to the praises of God and His doings which we, human beings, cannot understand. This is sheer mysticism. What I want to point out is that the idea of denying the existence of God did not even occur to the Revolutionary Party. The famous Kakory martyrs, all four of them, passed their last day in prayers. Ram Parshad Bismal was a staunch Arya Samaji. In spite of his vast studies in Socialism and Communism, Rajan Lahiri could not suppress his desire to recite hymns from Upanishads and Gita. There was but only one person among them who did not indulge in such activities. He used to say, “Religion is the outcome of human weakness or the limitation of human knowledge.” He is also in prison for life. But he also never dared to deny the existence of God.
Till that time I was only a romantic revolutionary, just a follower of our leaders. Then came the time to shoulder the whole responsibility. For some time, a strong opposition put the very existence of the party into danger. Many leaders as well as many enthusiastic comrades began to uphold the party to ridicule. They jeered at us. I had an apprehension that some day I will also consider it a futile and hopeless task. It was a turning point in my revolutionary career. An incessant desire to study filled my heart. ‘Study more and more’, said I to myself so that I might be able to face the arguments of my opponents. ‘Study’ to support your point of view with convincing arguments. And I began to study in a serious manner. My previous beliefs and convictions underwent a radical change. The romance of militancy dominated our predecessors; now serious ideas ousted this way of thinking. No more mysticism! No more blind faith! Now realism was our mode of thinking. At times of terrible necessity, we can resort to extreme methods, but violence produces opposite results in mass movements. I have talked much about our methods. The most important thing was a clear conception of our ideology for which we were waging a long struggle. As there was no election activity going on, I got ample opportunity to study various ideas propounded by various writers. I studied Bakunin, the anarchist leader. I read a few books of Marx, the father of Communism. I also read Lenin and Trotsky and many other writers who successfully carried out revolutions in their countries. All of them were atheists. The ideas contained in Bakunin’s ‘God and State’ seem inconclusive, but it is an interesting book. After that I came across a book ‘Common Sense’ by Nirlamba Swami. His point of view was a sort of mystical atheism. I developed more interest in this subject. By the end of 1926, I was convinced that the belief in an Almighty, Supreme Being who created, guided and controlled the universe had no sound foundations. I began discussions on this subject with my friends. I had openly declared myself an atheist. What it meant will be discussed in the following lines.
In May 1927, I was arrested in Lahore. This arrest came as a big surprise for me. I had not the least idea that I was wanted by the police. I was passing through a garden and all of a sudden the police surrounded me. To my own surprise, I was very calm at that time. I was in full control of myself. I was taken into police custody. The next day I was taken to the Railway Police lockup where I spent a whole month. After many days’ conversation with police personnel, I guessed that they had some information about my connection with the Kakori Party. I felt they had some intelligence of my other activities in the revolutionary movement. They told me that I was in Lucknow during the Kakori Party Trial so that I might devise a scheme to rescue the culprits. They also said that after the plan had been approved, we procured some bombs and by way of test, one of those bombs was thrown into a crowd on the occasion of Dussehra in 1926. They offered to release me on condition that I gave a statement on the activities of the Revolutionary Party. In this way I would be set free and even rewarded and I would not be produced as an approver in the court. I could not help laughing at their proposals. It was all humbug. People who have ideas like ours do not throw bombs at their own innocent people. One day, Mr. Newman, the then senior Superintendent of CID, came to me. After a long talk which was full of sympathetic words, he imparted to me what he considered to be sad news, that if I did not give any statement as demanded by them, they would be forced to send me up for trial for conspiracy to wage war in connection with Kakori Case and also for brutal killings in Dussehra gathering. After that he said that he had sufficient evidence to get me convicted and hanged.
I was completely innocent, but I believed that the police had sufficient power to do it if they desired it to be so. The same day some police officers persuaded me to offer my prayers to God two times regularly. I was an atheist. I thought that I would settle it to myself whether I could brag only in days of peace and happiness that I was an atheist, or in those hard times I could be steadfast in my convictions. After a long debate with myself, I reached the conclusion that I could not even pretend to be a believer nor could I offer my prayers to God. No, I never did it. It was time of trial and I would come out of it successful. These were my thoughts. Never for a moment did I desire to save my life. So I was a true atheist then and I am an atheist now. It was not an easy task to face that ordeal. Beliefs make it easier to go through hardships, even make them pleasant. Man can find a strong support in God and an encouraging consolation in His Name. If you have no belief in Him, then there is no alternative but to depend upon yourself. It is not child’s play to stand firm on your feet amid storms and strong winds. In difficult times, vanity, if it remains, evaporates and man cannot find the courage to defy beliefs held in common esteem by the people. If he really revolts against such beliefs, we must conclude that it is not sheer vanity; he has some kind of extraordinary strength. This is exactly the situation now. First of all we all know what the judgement will be. It is to be pronounced in a week or so. I am going to sacrifice my life for a cause. What more consolation can there be! A God-believing Hindu may expect to be reborn a king; a Muslim or a Christian might dream of the luxuries he hopes to enjoy in paradise as a reward for his sufferings and sacrifices. What hope should I entertain? I know that will be the end when the rope is tightened round my neck and the rafters move from under my feet. To use more precise religious terminology, that will be the moment of utter annihilation. My soul will come to nothing. If I take the courage to take the matter in the light of ‘Reward’, I see that a short life of struggle with no such magnificent end shall itself be my ‘Reward.’ That is all. Without any selfish motive of getting any reward here or in the hereafter, quite disinterestedly have I devoted my life to the cause of freedom. I could not act otherwise. The day shall usher in a new era of liberty when a large number of men and women, taking courage from the idea of serving humanity and liberating them from sufferings and distress, decide that there is no alternative before them except devoting their lives for this cause. They will wage a war against their oppressors, tyrants or exploiters, not to become kings, or to gain any reward here or in the next birth or after death in paradise; but to cast off the yoke of slavery, to establish liberty and peace they will tread this perilous, but glorious path. Can the pride they take in their noble cause be called vanity? Who is there rash enough to call it so? To him I say either he is foolish or wicked. Leave such a fellow alone for he cannot realise the depth, the emotions, the sentiment and the noble feelings that surge in that heart. His heart is dead, a mere lump of flesh, devoid of feelings. His convictions are infirm, his emotions feeble. His selfish interests have made him incapable of seeing the truth. The epithet ‘vanity’ is always hurled at the strength we get from our convictions.
You go against popular feelings; you criticise a hero, a great man who is generally believed to be above criticism. What happens? No one will answer your arguments in a rational way; rather you will be considered vainglorious. Its reason is mental insipidity. Merciless criticism and independent thinking are the two necessary traits of revolutionary thinking. As Mahatmaji is great, he is above criticism; as he has risen above, all that he says in the field of politics, religion, Ethics is right. You agree or not, it is binding upon you to take it as truth. This is not constructive thinking. We do not take a leap forward; we go many steps back.
Our forefathers evolved faith in some kind of Supreme Being, therefore, one who ventures to challenge the validity of that faith or denies the existence of God, shall be called a Kafir (infidel), or a renegade. Even if his arguments are so strong that it is impossible to refute them, if his spirit is so strong that he cannot be bowed down by the threats of misfortune that may befall him through the wrath of the Almighty, he shall be decried as vainglorious. Then why should we waste our time in such discussions? This question has come before the people for the first time, hence the necessity and usefulness of such long discussions.
As far as the first question is concerned, I think I have made it clear that I did not turn atheist because of vanity. Only my readers, not I, can decide whether my arguments carry weight. If I were a believer, I know in the present circumstances my life would have been easier; the burden lighter. My disbelief in God has turned all the circumstances too harsh and this situation can deteriorate further. Being a little mystical can give the circumstances a poetic turn. But I need no opiate to meet my end. I am a realistic man. I want to overpower this tendency in me with the help of Reason. I am not always successful in such attempts. But it is man’s duty to try and make efforts. Success depends on chance and circumstances.
Now we come to the second question: if it is not vanity, there ought to be some sound reason for rejection of age-old belief in God. Yes, I come to this question. I think that any man who has some reasoning power always tries to understand the life and people around him with the help of this faculty. Where concrete proofs are lacking, [mystical] philosophy creeps in. As I have indicated, one of my revolutionary friends used to say that “philosophy is the outcome of human weakness.” Our ancestors had the leisure to solve the mysteries of the world, its past, its present and its future, its whys and its wherefores, but having been terribly short of direct proofs, every one of them tried to solve the problem in his own way. Hence we find wide differences in the fundamentals of various religious creeds. Sometimes they take very antagonistic and conflicting forms. We find differences in Oriental and Occidental philosophies. There are differences even amongst various schools of thoughts in each hemisphere. In Asian religions, the Muslim religion is completely incompatible with the Hindu faith. In India itself, Buddhism and Jainism are sometimes quite separate from Brahmanism. Then in Brahmanism itself, we find two conflicting sects: Aarya Samaj and Snatan Dheram. Charwak is yet another independent thinker of the past ages. He challenged the Authority of God. All these faiths differ on many fundamental questions, but each of them claims to be the only true religion. This is the root of the evil. Instead of developing the ideas and experiments of ancient thinkers, thus providing ourselves with the ideological weapon for the future struggle, - lethargic, idle, fanatical as we are - we cling to orthodox religion and in this way reduce human awakening to a stagnant pool.
It is necessary for every person who stands for progress to criticise every tenet of old beliefs. Item by item he has to challenge the efficacy of old faith. He has to analyse and understand all the details. If after rigorous reasoning, one is led to believe in any theory of philosophy, his faith is appreciated. His reasoning may be mistaken and even fallacious. But there is chance that he will be corrected because Reason is the guiding principle of his life. But belief, I should say blind belief is disastrous. It deprives a man of his understanding power and makes him reactionary.
Any person who claims to be a realist has to challenge the truth of old beliefs. If faith cannot withstand the onslaught of reason, it collapses. After that his task should be to do the groundwork for new philosophy. This is the negative side. After that comes in the positive work in which some material of the olden times can be used to construct the pillars of new philosophy. As far as I am concerned, I admit that I lack sufficient study in this field. I had a great desire to study the Oriental Philosophy, but I could get ample opportunity or sufficient time to do so. But so far as I reject the old time beliefs, it is not a matter of countering belief with belief, rather I can challenge the efficacy of old beliefs with sound arguments. We believe in nature and that human progress depends on the domination of man over nature. There is no conscious power behind it. This is our philosophy.
Being atheist, I ask a few questions from theists:
1. If, as you believe there is an Almighty, Omnipresent, Omniscient God, who created the earth or universe, please let me know, first of all, as to why he created this world. This world which is full of woe and grief, and countless miseries, where not even one person lives in peace.
2. Pray, don’t say it is His law. If He is bound by any law, He is not Omnipotent. Don’t say it is His pleasure. Nero burnt one Rome. He killed a very limited number of people. He caused only a few tragedies, all for his morbid enjoyment. But what is his place in history? By what names do we remember him? All the disparaging epithets are hurled at him. Pages are blackened with invective diatribes condemning Nero: the tyrant, the heartless, the wicked.
One Genghis Khan killed a few thousand people to seek pleasure in it and we hate the very name. Now, how will you justify your all powerful, eternal Nero, who every day, every moment continues his pastime of killing people? How can you support his doings which surpass those of Genghis Khan in cruelty and in misery inflicted upon people? I ask why the Almighty created this world which is nothing but a living hell, a place of constant and bitter unrest. Why did he create man when he had the power not to do so? Have you any answer to these questions? You will say that it is to reward the sufferer and punish the evildoer in the hereafter. Well, well, how far will you justify a man who first of all inflicts injuries on your body and then applies soft and soothing ointment on them? How far the supporters and organizers of Gladiator bouts were justified in throwing men before half starved lions, later to be cared for and looked after well if they escaped this horrible death. That is why I ask: Was the creation of man intended to derive this kind of pleasure?
Open your eyes and see millions of people dying of hunger in slums and huts dirtier than the grim dungeons of prisons; just see the labourers patiently or say apathetically while the rich vampires suck their blood; bring to mind the wastage of human energy that will make a man with a little common sense shiver in horror. Just observe rich nations throwing their surplus produce into the sea instead of distributing it among the needy and deprived. There are palaces of kings built upon the foundations laid with human bones. Let them see all this and say “All is well in God’s Kingdom.” Why so? This is my question. You are silent. All right. I proceed to my next point.
You, the Hindus, would say: Whosoever undergoes sufferings in this life, must have been a sinner in his previous birth. It is tantamount to saying that those who are oppressors now were Godly people then, in their previous births. For this reason alone they hold power in their hands. Let me say it plainly that your ancestors were shrewd people. They were always in search of petty hoaxes to play upon people and snatch from them the power of Reason. Let us analyse how much this argument carries weight!
Those who are well versed in the philosophy of Jurisprudence relate three of four justifications for the punishment that is to be inflicted upon a wrong-doer. These are: revenge, reform, and deterrence. The Retribution Theory is now condemned by all the thinkers. Deterrent theory is on the anvil for its flaws. Reformative theory is now widely accepted and considered to be necessary for human progress. It aims at reforming the culprit and converting him into a peace-loving citizen. But what in essence is God’s Punishment even if it is inflicted on a person who has really done some harm? For the sake of argument we agree for a moment that a person committed some crime in his previous birth and God punished him by changing his shape into a cow, cat, tree, or any other animal. You may enumerate the number of these variations in Godly Punishment to be at least eighty-four lack. Tell me, has this tomfoolery, perpetrated in the name of punishment, any reformative effect on human man? How many of them have you met who were donkeys in their previous births for having committed any sin? Absolutely no one of this sort! The so called theory of ‘Puranas’ (transmigration) is nothing but a fairy-tale. I do not have any intention to bring this unutterable trash under discussion. Do you really know the most cursed sin in this world is to be poor? Yes, poverty is a sin; it is a punishment! Cursed be the theoretician, jurist or legislator who proposes such measures as push man into the quagmire of more heinous sins. Did it not occur to your All Knowing God or he could learn the truth only after millions had undergone untold sufferings and hardships? What, according to your theory, is the fate of a person who, by no sin of his own, has been born into a family of low caste people? He is poor so he cannot go to a school. It is his fate to be shunned and hated by those who are born into a high caste. His ignorance, his poverty, and the contempt he receives from others will harden his heart towards society. Supposing that he commits a sin, who shall bear the consequences? God, or he, or the learned people of that society? What is your view about those punishments inflicted on the people who were deliberately kept ignorant by selfish and proud Brahmans? If by chance these poor creatures heard a few words of your sacred books, Vedas, these Brahmans poured melted lead into their ears. If they committed any sin, who was to be held responsible? Who was to bear the brunt? My dear friends, these theories have been coined by the privileged classes. They try to justify the power they have usurped and the riches they have robbed with the help of such theories. Perhaps it was the writer Upton Sinclair who wrote (Bhagat Singh is referring to Sinclair’s pamphlet ‘Profits of Religion’ - MIA transcriber) somewhere “only make a man firm believer in the immortality of soul, then rob him of all that he possesses. He will willingly help you in the process.” The dirty alliance between religious preachers and possessors of power brought the boon of prisons, gallows, knouts and above all such theories for the mankind.
I ask why your Omnipotent God does not hold a man back when he is about to commit a sin or offence. It is child’s play for God. Why did He not kill war lords? Why did He not obliterate the fury of war from their minds? In this way He could have saved humanity of many a great calamity and horror. Why does He not infuse humanistic sentiments into the minds of the Britishers so that they may willingly leave India? I ask why He does not fill the hearts of all capitalist classes with altruistic humanism that prompts them to give up personal possession of the means of production and this will free the whole labouring humanity from the shackles of money. You want to argue the practicability of Socialist theory, I leave it to your Almighty God to enforce it. Common people understand the merits of Socialist theory as far as general welfare is concerned but they oppose it under the pretext that it cannot be implemented. Let the Almighty step in and arrange things in a proper way. No more logic chopping! I tell you that the British rule is not there because God willed it but for the reason that we lack the will and courage to oppose it. Not that they are keeping us under subjugation with the consent of God, but it is with the force of guns and rifles, bombs and bullets, police and militia, and above all because of our apathy that they are successfully committing the most deplorable sin, that is, the exploitation of one nation by another. Where is God? What is He doing? Is He getting a diseased pleasure out of it? A Nero! A Genghis Khan! Down with Him!
Now another piece of manufactured logic! You ask me how I will explain the origin of this world and origin of man. Charles Darwin has tried to throw some light on this subject. Study his book. Also, have a look at Sohan Swami’s “Commonsense.” You will get a satisfactory answer. This topic is concerned with Biology and Natural History. This is a phenomenon of nature. The accidental mixture of different substances in the form of Nebulae gave birth to this earth. When? Study history to know this. The same process caused the evolution of animals and in the long run that of man. Read Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species.’ All the later progress is due to man’s constant conflict with nature and his efforts to utilise nature for his own benefit. This is the briefest sketch of this phenomenon.
Your next question will be why a child is born blind or lame even if he was not a sinner in his previous birth. This problem has been explained in a satisfactory manner by biologists as a mere biological phenomenon. According to them the whole burden rests upon the shoulders of parents whose conscious or unconscious deeds caused mutilation of the child prior to his birth.
You may thrust yet another question at me, though it is merely childish. The question is: If God does not really exist, why do people come to believe in Him? Brief and concise my answer will be. As they come to believe in ghosts, and evil spirits, so they also evolve a kind of belief in God: the only difference being that God is almost a universal phenomenon and well developed theological philosophy. However, I do disagree with radical philosophy. It attributes His origin to the ingenuity of exploiters who wanted to keep the people under their subjugation by preaching the existence of a Supreme Being; thus claimed an authority and sanction from Him for their privileged position. I do not differ on the essential point that all religions, faiths, theological philosophies, and religious creeds and all other such institutions in the long run become supporters of the tyrannical and exploiting institutions, men and classes. Rebellion against any king has always been a sin in every religion.
As regard the origin of God, my thought is that man created God in his imagination when he realized his weaknesses, limitations and shortcomings. In this way he got the courage to face all the trying circumstances and to meet all dangers that might occur in his life and also to restrain his outbursts in prosperity and affluence. God, with his whimsical laws and parental generosity was painted with variegated colours of imagination. He was used as a deterrent factor when his fury and his laws were repeatedly propagated so that man might not become a danger to society. He was the cry of the distressed soul for he was believed to stand as father and mother, sister and brother, brother and friend when in time of distress a man was left alone and helpless. He was Almighty and could do anything. The idea of God is helpful to a man in distress.
Society must fight against this belief in God as it fought against idol worship and other narrow conceptions of religion. In this way man will try to stand on his feet. Being realistic, he will have to throw his faith aside and face all adversaries with courage and valour. That is exactly my state of mind. My friends, it is not my vanity; it is my mode of thinking that has made me an atheist. I don’t think that by strengthening my belief in God and by offering prayers to Him every day, (this I consider to be the most degraded act on the part of man) I can bring improvement in my situation, nor can I further deteriorate it. I have read of many atheists facing all troubles boldly, so I am trying to stand like a man with the head high and erect to the last; even on the gallows.
Let us see how steadfast I am. One of my friends asked me to pray. When informed of my atheism, he said, “When your last days come, you will begin to believe.” I said, “No, dear sir, Never shall it happen. I consider it to be an act of degradation and demoralisation. For such petty selfish motives, I shall never pray.” Reader and friends, is it vanity? If it is, I stand for it.
The God of Gods Battles Brahmanism
Home
About
Archives
Contributors
Contact Us
Indian Skeptic
Log In
Blog
Featured Posts
General News
God Watch
Con-Alert
Paranormal
Pseudoscience
Science P.O.V.
Culture
Ethics
Naturalism
Social Action
Creative Arts
Debunked
Humor
Legal Pad
Q & A
Secular Events
Video
Writers
Ajita Kamal
Babu Gogineni
Kedar Kulkarni
Manoj TV
Meera Nanda
Nalini Hebbar
Narendra Nayak
Pankaj Kulkarni
Prabhakar Kamath
Prabir Ghosh
Siddharth Singh
Srinivas Kakkilaya
Sumitra Padmanavan
Sundeep Peswani
Tom Clark
Vinod Kumar Wadhawan
Categorized | Debunked, God Watch, Prabhakar Kamath
: Vaasudeva, Krishna and the Bhagavata Revolution
Written by Prabhakar Kamath , Posted on 01 March 2010
Tags: Bhagavata, Bhagavatism, Brahmanism, God of Gods, Krishna, Vaasudeva
In the previous article, we studied how the Gita became the battlefield on which the Great Sectarian War took place for the Soul of Sanatana Dharma, and how after the wily Brahmins routed naïve Upanishadists once again the Bhagavatas entered the fray. Obviously the power of Super Man (Purushotthama, 15:18) and his “strong weapon” Buddhiyoga (15:3) were no match to the “firm-rooted eternal tree with its roots above and branches below” (15:1-3). A whole new God with terrifying appearance and awesome powers was needed to chop down this rotten tree.
1. Enter God Of Gods
Now Vaasudeva, God of gods, puts on his terrifying appearance, arms himself to his tusks (11:17), and enters the battlefield of the Gita to fight Brahmanism.
11:23-24: Seeing your immeasurable form with myriad mouths and eyes, with innumerable arms, thighs and feet, with countless stomachs, and terrible with many tusks -the worlds are terror-struck, and so am I. When I see you touching the sky, blazing with colors, with mouth wide open, with large fiery eyes, my heart trembles in fear and I find neither courage nor peace.
2. Goals Of Vaasudeva
To establish a Bhagavata Dharma centered on himself. He is the Guardian of the Ancient Dharma (11:18) and Dharma himself (14:27).
To take the place of Brahman (7:19; 10:12; 11:38) and Atman (10:20; 15:15).
To develop the super-weapon Bhaktiyoga by combining Bhakthi with Buddhiyoga (9:26-28; 10:10). Bhakthiyoga would be the new modus operandi by which one could transcend the Brahmanic doctrines of the Gunas and Karma (18:66).
To reduce the Vedas and Yajnas (11:48, 53); the Vedic gods (18:39), the Varna Dharma (9:29-33) and Brahmins (16:21-24).
To swallow up all icons of Brahmanism (11:21-22).
Replace Shokam (grief) and Dwandwam (stress, restlessness of mind engendered by the Gunas) here on earth with Shanthi (peace, 9:31).
Replace heaven as the goal of Action (9:20) with Moksha (18:66).
3. Bhagavata Creed
Bhagavatism was an ancient monotheistic creed centered on Lord Vaasudeva and its mode of worship was known as Bhakthi, which means adoring devotion. This monotheistic cult was popular in western part of north India at least three centuries before the Christian era. Lord Vaasudeva was declared as ‘God of gods’ on the column of Heliodorus situated in Besnaga, five miles from Sanchi, India. This pillar, dated around 113 B. C. E., bears the inscription:
“This Garuda-column of Vaasudeva, the God of gods, was erected here by Heliodorus, a worshipper of Visnu, the son of Dion, and an inhabitant of Taxila, who came as Greek ambassador from the Great King Antialkidas to King Kasiputra Bhagabhadra, the Savior, then reigning prosperously in the fourteenth year of his kingship.”
4. Krishna
Like Vaasudeva, Krishna is even a more ancient name in Brahmanic literature. In the Vedas, someone by the name of Krishna was Indra’s favorite enemy, being the god of the local tribe named after him. Chandogya Upanishad (Ca. 700 B. C. E) (3:17:6) mentions Krishna as son of Devaki and student of Ghora Angirasa. In the early parts of the Mahabharata, he is the younger prince of Yadava confederacy. After the insertion of the Arjuna Vishada, his stature in the Mahabharata grew steadily. In the 4th century B. C. E., Megasthenes the Greek ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya said, “the Sourasenoi (Surasena), who lived in the region of Mathura worshipped Herakles.” This Herakles is usually identified with Krishna (Hari-Kula-Eesha, Lord of Hari Kulam). The word Kulam means family or clan. Somewhere along the way the identity of Vaasudeva merged with that of Krishna.
With these evidences in mind, it is not hard to imagine that the Bhagavata revolution in the Bhagavad Gita, with the goal to establish a broad-based, egalitarian, ritual-free and monotheistic Dharma centered solely on Krishna, might have taken place some time in the second century B. C. E. Centuries later Bhagavatism evolved into Vaishnavism, the sect centered on Vishnu. In the Bhagavad Gita, however, Vishnu was only the foremost among Adityas, the Sun gods (10:21) and Arjuna addresses Krishna as “O Vishnu” (11:24) once. Krishna identifies Vaasudeva as Supreme God by stating, “Vaasudeva is all this is” (7:19), reflecting the Upanishadic dictum, “Brahman is all this is.” Moreover, he announces, “Of the Vrishnis I am Vaasudeva” (10:37). He is referred twice more as Vaasudeva in the Bhagavad Gita (11:50, 18:74). Krishna is declared as “God of gods” thrice in the Bhagavad Gita (11:13, 25, 45).
5. Character Of Krishna
Krishna of the Mahabharata is perhaps one of the most colorful characters in the history of world literature. In his role as prince Krishna he was endowed with wonderful virtues of wisdom, generosity, kindness, mercy, intellect, strength, courage, martial skills, shrewdness, fearlessness, fairness, graciousness, steadiness, level-headedness and many more. He was also noted to be intolerant of fools and evil people. He was ruthless when necessary and cunning at times. Considering all these wonderful qualities attributed to him, no wonder all sides used him to browbeat the other.
6. Five Roles Of Krishna In The Bhagavad Gita
Prince Krishna of Arjuna Vishada: In the Mahabharata epic, he starts outs as the younger prince of the Yadava tribe, who befriends the Pandava princes with a large cache of handsome wedding gifts (1 [13] 191. 15). As prince Krishna, he is very much the defender of Brahmanism. In the Mahabharata (2:26:42:15), just before chopping off Shishupala’s head, he says, “This fool who must want to die, once proposed himself to Rukmini (Krishna’s wife), but the fool no more obtained her than a Sudra a hearing of the Vedas!” As we read earlier, he delivered a lecture on virtues of Varna Dharma to Arjuna in the episode of Arjuna Vishada.
Guru Krishna of the Upanishads (2:7): In an effort to overthrow Brahmanism, Upanishadists appoint him as the anti-Brahmanic Upanishadic Guru who condemns Brahmanism right and left (2:39-53; 15:1-5).
Lord of beings of the Upanishads (4:6-8): In this role, he establishes Upanishadic Dharma resting on the doctrines of Brahman/Atman and Buddhiyoga, and reforms Brahmins by instructing them Jnanayoga and Kshatriyas by Karmayoga.
Lord of beings of Resurgent Brahmanism (17:1; 18:1): In this role he reinstates Yajnas and the Gunas, and destroys everything Upanishadic Lord of beings did.
Vaasudeva, God of Gods (11:13) of Bhagavatas: In this capacity he declares himself as the Eternal Dharma (14:27) and defender of Sanatana Dharma (11:18). He exhorts people to abandon all other Dharmas and take refuge in him alone, and he would deliver them from all evil of the doctrines of Brahmanism (18:66).
7. A New Ideology And Modus Operandi
As we discussed in the previous article, the ideology of Brahman/Atman (”not this, not this”) and modus operandi of Yoga (Sanyasa and Tyaga) were so complex that ordinary people had difficulty grasping it. A simpler ideology and modus operandi was needed. Bhagavata Krishna explains:
9:1-3: To you who do not cavil, I shall surely declare this, the most profound knowledge combined with realization by knowing which you will be released from evil (of the Gunas and Karma). The sovereign science, the sovereign secret, the supreme purifier is this, directly realizable, in accord with Dharma, very easy to practice and imperishable.
Note here that like Upanishadic Lord of beings did (4:1-2), Bhagavata Krishna also identifies Kshatriyas as the originators of his ideology. He points out that unlike Yoga of the Upanishads, his modus operandi is very easy to practice. All you have to do is to dive on the floor before the idol, close your eyes, join your hands and say, “I surrender to you, O Lord!” No thinking is required or necessary.
8. Supreme Lord Replaces Brahman
So, Supreme Lord with infinite attributes (Saguna) replaces Brahman without any attributes (Nirguna). Since Krishna is the embodiment of the Supreme Lord, it is easier for people to visualize and conceptualize him. Arjuna identifies Krishna as the Supreme:
10:12: You are the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Abode, the Supreme Purifier, the Eternal, Divine Purusha, the Primeval Deity, the Unborn, the Omnipresent.
Now Krishna declares that he is Atman in the heart of all people:
10:20, 15:15: I am the Self, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all beings.
9. Bhakthi plus Buddhiyoga Becomes Bhakthiyoga
Krishna explains why a new modus operandi was needed:
12:5: Greater is their difficulty whose minds are set on the Un-manifested (Brahman), for the goal of the Un-manifested is very hard for the embodied to reach.
Bhagavatas combine Bhakthi with Buddhiyoga:
9:14: Glorifying Me always, striving, firm in vows, prostrating before Me, they worship Me with Bhakthi, ever steadfast. 10:10: To those who lovingly worship Me with steadfast Bhakthi, I give the Yoga of Buddhi by which they come to Me. 18:55-56: By Bhakti he knows Me in truth, what and who I am; then having known Me in truth, he forthwith enters into Me (attain Moksha). Mentally resigning all deeds to Me, having Me as the highest goal, resorting to Buddhiyoga, do you ever fix your mind on Me.
Arjuna asks, “Which mode of worship is better, Bhakthi or Yoga?” Krishna explains that when one makes him the object of Yoga, the modus operandi becomes Bhakthiyoga:
12:2: Those who have fixed their minds on me (instead of Brahman), and who, ever steadfast and endowed with supreme Shraddha, worship me -them I do consider perfect in Yoga. 12:4: Having restrained all the Senses (Gunas), even-minded everywhere (becoming Buddhiyukta), engaged in welfare of all beings (and not just the upper classes), verily they also come to Me (gain Knowledge of Me).
10. Krishna Becomes The Guardian Of Sanatana Dharma And Also Dharma Himself
Just as Upanishadists appointed Krishna as Lord of beings to establish Upanishadic Dharma (4:6-8) and protect it from vested interests, now Bhagavatas appoint Lord Krishna as the guardian of Sanatana Dharma as well as the very embodiment of Dharma:
11:18: You are the Imperishable, the Supreme Being to be realized. You are the great treasure house of the universe. You are the Imperishable Guardian of Eternal Dharma. You are the ancient Purusha, I deem.
Krishna affirms: 14:27: I am the Abode of Brahman, the Immortal, and Immutable, the Eternal Dharma and Absolute Bliss.
11. Krishna Declares Prakriti As His Lower Manifestation
To establish his supremacy over Prakriti, Krishna places Himself at the head of every class of living and non-living entity known to mankind. Unlike Brahman’s “Not this, not this!” Krishna says, “I am this and this and this!” Whereas Brahman was Nirguna (devoid of Gunas), Krishna was Saguna (full of good attributes). By doing this, he claimed supremacy over Prakriti and all its manifestations.
7:4-7: Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intellect and egoism; thus is My lower Prakriti divided eightfold. This is My lower Prakriti, but different from it, know, O mighty armed, My higher Prakriti -the life element by which this universe is upheld. Know that these two are the wombs of all beings. I am the origin and dissolution of the whole universe. There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me, O Dhananjaya. All this is strung on Me, as rows of gems on a string.
12. Krishna Offers Himself As Refuge Against The Gunas Of Prakriti
First Krishna declares that the Gunas were his creation but distinct from him. Whereas the Gunas are mutable, he is immutable. It is the deluding power of the Gunas that makes him beyond one’s reach. However, one could cross over their bewildering powers if one took refuge in him.
7:12-14: Whatever beings are of Sattva, of Rajas or of Tamas, know them to proceed from Me. Still I am not in them, they are in Me. Deluded by these threefold dispositions of Prakriti -the Gunas, this world does not know Me, who am above them and immutable. Verily this divine illusion of Mine, made up of the Gunas, is hard to surmount; but those who take refuge in Me alone, they cross over this illusion.
13. Dedicate Deeds To Krishna To Transcend The Law Of Karma
By dedicating one’s deeds to Parameshwara instead of Brahman (5:10) one does not earn any Karmaphalam and so he transcends the Law of Karma and attains Moksha:
9:27-28: Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer in sacrifice, whatever you gift away, whatever austerity you practice, do it as an offering to Me. Thus you shall be free from the bondage of Karma yielding good as well as bad results. With the mind firmly set in the Yoga of renunciation, you shall come to Me (you shall attain Moksha).
8:15: Having come to Me, the great souls are no more subject to rebirth, which is transitory and abode of pain; for they have reached the highest perfection.
Krishna tells Yogis to dedicate their deeds to him from now onwards in order to transcend Samsara:
12:6-7: Those who worship Me, renouncing all Karmaphalam in Me (dedicating all deeds to Me), regarding Me as the Supreme Goal, meditating on Me with singe-minded Yoga, I become to them the deliverer from mortal Samsara.
14. Krishna Absorbs All Brahmanic Elements Into Himself
Now Krishna claims that he is the source of all the Devas and the great sages of Brahmanism:
10:2: Neither the hosts of Devas nor the great Rishis know My origin (for they are deluded by the Gunas); for in every respect I am the source of Devas and the great Rishis.
Arjuna affirms: 11:21: These hosts of Devas indeed enter into You; some in awe extol You with joined palms…. 11:39: You are Vayu, Yama, Agni, Varuna, the Moon, Prajapati, and the Great-grandfather. Salutation, salutation to You, a thousand times, and again and again, salutations to You.
To scare the hell out of Brahmanism, he shows his Universal Form, which is described in great detail. All the Brahmanic elements, “Enter hurrying into your mouth, terrible with tusks and fearful to look at. Some are found sticking in the gaps between the teeth with their crushed to powder (11:27).
15. As The Lord Of All Yajna Krishna Condemns Kamya Karma
Just as Upanishadic Lord of beings declared that all aspects of Yajna is made up of all-pervading Brahman (4:14), Bhagavata Krishna declares that all aspects of Yajna are made up of him. Now he is the lord of all Yajna:
9:16: I am Kratu, I am Yajna. I am Svadha, I am medicinal herb, I am Mantra, I am also the clarified butter, I am fire, I am oblation.
Krishna explains that the problem with Kamya Karma is that earning Karmaphalam merely perpetuates Samsara:
9:20: The knowers of the three Vedas, the drinkers of Soma, (purified from sin), worshipping (Me) Devas by sacrifices (Kamya Karma), pray for the way to heaven. (Having earned Karmaphalam) they reach the holy world of the Lord of the Devas (Indra) and enjoy in heaven the celestial pleasures of Devas.
The sole purpose of the original version of this shloka and the following five shlokas was to show that those who get drunk on Soma and worship Devas by means of Kamya Karma go to heaven and come back to earth again and again; and in contrast, those who worship Krishna alone attain Moksha. Some later ignorant Brahmanic and Bhagavata authors corrupted the above shloka by adding the phrase ‘purified from sin’ and by replacing Devas with ‘Me.’ These dullards did not know that Vedic Yajnas were always dedicated to Devas (4:12; 17: 4, 14), and never dedicated to Krishna, and no one was ever purified of sin by means of drinking Soma and performing Kamya Karma. To Upanishadists and Bhagavatas every Karmaphalam was sin because it perpetuated Samsara. This is a classic example of how various sects recklessly corrupted the Gita without understanding the fundamentals of their own sects. How do we know this to be the case? Krishna explains:
9:21: Having enjoyed the vast world of heaven, they return to the world of mortals on exhaustion of their merits (Karmaphalam); thus abiding by the injunction of three Vedas, desiring objects of desires (lordship and heaven) they come and go (are born again and again).
If these ritualists should not worship Devas by Kamya Karma, how then do they fulfill their desires here on earth and hereafter? Krishna offers to help them out:
9:22: To those men who worship Me alone, thinking of no other (such as Vedic gods), who are ever devoted to Me, I provide gain and security (here on earth).
What if ritualists continued to worship Vedic gods with Shraddha in the mode of the Gunas, as they wanted to in 17:1?
9:23: Even those devotees who, endowed with Shraddha, worship other gods, they worship Me alone, but by wrong method.
Why is this so? Who are you, anyway?
9:24: I am verily the Enjoyer and Lord of all Yajnas. But these men (ritualists) do not know Me in reality (due to ignorance engendered by their attachment to sense objects); Hence they fall (back to earth).
Why is worshipping the Devas (4:12; 17:4), ancestral spirits (1:42) and ghosts (17:4) wrong? Because:
9:25: Votaries of Devas go to Devas (and return again and again as noted above); votaries of Pitrus (ancestral spirits) go to the Pitrus; to the Bhutas (ghosts) go the Bhuta worshippers; My votaries come to Me (attain Moksha and are never born again).
The point Krishna makes in the above six shlokas is that if ritualists want gain and security here on earth and Moksha hereafter, they must worship him alone and no one else. If they want to suffer Shokam, and Dwandwam here on earth and rebirth hereafter, they should worship other gods.
16. Krishna Blasts Brahmins And Declares The Gunas As Gates To Hell!
Addressing those Brahmins who asked permission to perform Yajnas in the mode of three Gunas against the ordinances of Upanishads (17:1), Bhagavata Krishna blasts:
16:21-24: Triple are these gates of hell (the three Gunas), destructive of the self -lust, anger and greed (which are rooted in them, 3:37); therefore one should abandon these three (Gunas). The man who is liberated from these three gates to darkness practices what is good for him (Yoga) and thus goes to the Supreme Good (Moksha). He who, casting aside the ordinances of the scriptures, acts on impulse of desire (performs Kamya Karma) attains not perfection, nor happiness (here on earth) nor the Supreme Goal (hereafter). Therefore, let the scriptures (the Upanishads) be your authority in deciding what ought to be done and what ought not to be done. Having known what is said in the ordinances of the scriptures you should act here.
Countering Brahmanic claim that one can attain Moksha by the Vedic ideology and Yajnas as modus operandi (17:25), and in line with the oft-repeated Upanishadic declaration that one cannot gain Brahman by the Vedas, Krishna declares:
11:48: Neither by the study of the Vedas, nor by Yajnas, nor by gifts, nor by rituals, nor by severe penances, can this form of Mine be seen in the world of men by anyone else but you, O hero of Kurus!
17. Krishna Lambastes Arrogant Kshatriyas Sponsoring Kamya Karma
Krishna mercilessly condemns Kshatriyas who, driven by Kama and Krodha, obsessively performed Kamya Karma disregarding Upanishadic Lord of being’s injunction against it:
16:10-17: Filled with insatiable desire, full of hypocrisy, pride and arrogance, holding evil ideas through delusion, they work (perform Kamya Karma) with impure resolve (to gain sense objects for themselves). Beset with immense cares ending only with death, regarding gratification of lust as the highest, and feeling sure that that is all. Bound by a hundred ties of hope, given over to lust and jealous rage, they strive by unjust means hoards of wealth for sensual enjoyment. “This today has been gained by me; this desire I shall fulfill; this is mine, and this wealth also shall be mine in future. That enemy has been slain by me, and others also shall I slay. I am a lord, I enjoy, I am successful, powerful and happy. I am rich and well-born. What else is equal to me? I will sacrifice, I will give alms, I will rejoice.” Thus deluded by ignorance, bewildered by many a fancy, enmeshed in the snare of delusion, addicted to gratification of lust, they fall into foul hell. Self-conceited, stubborn, filled with pride and intoxication of wealth, they perform sacrifices in the name of ostentation, disregarding ordinances.
18. Krishna Warns Recalcitrant Brahmanic Critics
Vaasudeva Krishna says some very harsh words to those in the Brahmanic fold who opposed him tooth and nail. Lord Krishna issues repeated warnings to those who dared to oppose him or his teachings or his Dharma. He calls them demonic, deluded, fools, vain, and what not.
7:15: The evildoers (those indulging in Kamya Karma), the deluded (by the Gunas), the lowest of men (due to their entanglement with sense objects), deprived of discrimination by Maya (the Gunas) and following the way of the Asuras (demons), do not seek refuge in me.
9:11-12: Fools disregard me as one clad in human form, not knowing my higher nature as the Great Lord of beings. They are of vain hopes, of vain actions, of vain knowledge, devoid of discrimination, partaking verily of the delusive nature of Rakshasas and Asuras.
16:18-20: Given over to egoism, power, insolence, lust and wrath, these malicious people hate me in their own bodies and those of others. Those cruel haters, worst among men in the world, I hurl these evildoers forever into the wombs of the demons only. Entering into the Demonic wombs, the deluded ones, in birth after birth, without ever reaching me, they fall into a condition even lower.
19. Krishna Throws The Doors Of His Dharma Wide Open To All
Defying Varna Dharma, Krishna declares himself as the equalizer of all classes of people:
7:16: Four types of virtuous men worship Me, O Arjuna: the man in distress (Vaishya/Sudra/outcastes), the man seeking knowledge (Brahmin), the man seeking wealth (Kshatriya) and the man imbued with wisdom (Yogi), O the best of the Bharatas.
9:29-33: I am the same to all beings; to Me there is none hateful, none dear (I do not discriminate against people of any particular Varna). But those who worship Me with devotion, they are in Me and I am in them (regardless of their Varna). Even if a man of the most sinful conduct worships Me with undeviating devotion, he must be reckoned as rightly resolved. Soon does he become a man of righteousness and obtains lasting peace. O Kaunteya, know for certain that My devotee never perishes.
For those who take refuge in Me, O Partha, though they may be of inferior birth -women, Vaishyas and Sudras- even they attain the Supreme Goal. How much more then the holy Brahmins and devoted royal saints! Having come into this transient, joyless world, do worship Me.
20. The Secret Code of the Bhagavad Gita:
18:66: Abandon all Dharmas and surrender unto Me alone. I shall liberate you from all evil (engendered by the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma); do not grieve.
This is the profoundest of all shlokas in the Bhagavad Gita, which contains the essence of Bhagavata Dharma as well as the Bhagavata revolution to overthrow Brahmanism. The proper context of this shloka is historical-revolutionary. This shloka does not have Arjuna Vishada context. Let us review the real purpose and spirit of this shloka. Having overthrown Brahmanic Dharma in the Bhagavata Gita, the Krishna summarizes the essence of His revolution:
Abandon all Dharma: Abandon all other Dharmas on the land: Brahmanism and all its sub-Dharmas such as Varna Dharma, Jati Dharma and Kula Dharma (1:43); Dharmas worshiping Pitrus (ancestors, 1:42) and Bhutas (ghosts, 9:25); Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivika, Lokayata, and myriads of other sects, which had arisen in revolt against decadent Brahmanism during the post-Vedic period of 900-200 B. C. E.
Surrender unto Me alone: For, from now onwards ‘I am the Eternal Dharma’ (14:27). If you take refuge in Me alone and no one else (such as Prakriti and Vedic gods), I shall fulfill all your desires (4:11; 9:22) and liberate you from Samsara (12:7).
I shall liberate you from all evil: By taking refuge in Me, I shall liberate you from the three great evils of mankind arising from the Gunas and Karma: Shokam, Dwandwam and Karmaphalam. By taking refuge in Me alone, you shall overcome the doctrine of the Gunas of Prakriti (7:14; 14:20); thus you shall overcome Dwandwam of mind. By realizing Me as the Eternal Atman in everyone’s heart (10:20; 15:15) you shall not suffer Shokam any more. Thus by conquering Shokam and Dwandwam, you shall attain lasting Shanthi (Peace) here on earth (9:31). By dedicating all your deeds to Me alone, you shall not earn any Karmaphalam (sin) and thus you shall defy the Law of Karma, end Samsara and attain Moksha (9:26-28; 12:6-7).
Do not grieve: And those of you who have been aggrieved by the decadence of Brahmanism and inequities of Varna Dharma, verily I say unto you: There is no need to grieve anymore for from now onwards Varna Dharma is irrelevant to those who have transcended the Gunas and Karma by Bhakthiyoga.
21. Is It Blissful Ignorance Or Manipulative Genius?
Today, in thousands of temples across India, Brahmanic loyalists worship Krishna with ostentatious Brahmanic rituals clueless to the fact that the reason why Bhagavatas appointed Vaasudeva-Krishna as the God of Gods in the Bhagavad Gita was to end these very rituals symbolic of decadent Brahmanism! Even though they all claim to revere the Bhagavad Gita, they ignore Krishna’s order to worship him alone and no one else, and worship hundred of gods by means of thousands of rituals. Whether this is a sign of stupendous ignorance or passive-aggressive genius of Brahmanism is anyone’s guess.
In the next article, we will study how Brahmanic editors resorted to extreme editing of the Bhagavad Gita to hide both the Upanishadic and Bhagavata revolutions; and also how medieval Brahmanic commentators, such as Shankaracharya (788-820 A. D), wrote lengthy obfuscating commentaries for the same purpose. The reader will have to decide if he was a manipulative genius who deliberately hid the anti-Brahmanic intent of the Bhagavad Gita in his obfuscating commentaries, or just a clueless Acharya who cooked-up something to cover-up his ignorance about their historical-revolutionary context.
(To be continued)
Dr. Prabhakar Kamath, is a psychiatrist currently practicing in the U.S. He is the author of Servants, Not Masters: A Guide for Consumer Activists in India (1987) and Is Your Balloon About Pop?: Owner’s Manual for the Stressed Mind.
Share This Article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Related posts:
Subterfuge: How Brahmins Destroyed The Bhagavata Revolution
The Origins and Evolution of Brahmanism
Upanishadists Create A New God To Beat Back Brahmanism
Upanishadists Use Arjuna Vishada To Overthrow Brahmanism
The Upanishads Attempt To Reform Brahmanism
The Legacy Of Brahmanism: Abomination of Untouchability And Curse Of Caste System
Brahmanism And Mental Blocks Of Hindus
Politicians Pleasing the Rain-Gods: Religious Backwardness in India
Secularism, Free-thought and the Internet Revolution- An Introduction
Hindu Revisionism: Was Shankaracharya Deceptive Or Just Ignorant?
The Gita Becomes The Battlefield For The Great Sectarian War
How Ashoka The Great Gave Brahmins A Song With Which They Conquered India
The Decay of Dharma and the Rise of Adharma
This post was written by:
Prabhakar Kamath - who has written 17 posts on Nirmukta.
Contact the author
« COMPLEXITY EXPLAINED: 15. Evolution of Cultural ComplexityFreethought Activism In The Tribal Areas Of Madhya Pradesh »2 Responses to “The God of Gods Battles Brahmanism: Vaasudeva, Krishna and the Bhagavata Revolution”
K. P. S. Kamath says:
March 1, 2010 at 7:03 pm
You are right. A particular statement in any scripture makes proper sense only when we know its proper context. Hindu religious leaders who interpret these shlokas without knowing their proper context come across as confused. Naturally, people who read their commentaries also become confused. If we did not know that Krishna was scolding Kshatriyas and Brahmins indulging in hedonistic Yajnas, we would not know who he was scolding and so the whole of the Bhagavad Gita would come across as incomprehensible. You have made very good points.
Reply
lijey.baley says:
March 1, 2010 at 12:47 pm
You are writing a lovely series, Dr. Kamath. I’ve wondered why the Gita had some militant verses (You will only believe in me or else…) that sounded quite similar to violent passages in Christianity/Islam. But when viewed against the right historical context, they seem to make sense.
Krishna wasn’t threatening normal people. He was threatening people who indulged in mindless ritual and yagnic hedonism.
Reply
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Reply
Click here to cancel reply.
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website(OpenID Enabled)
If you have an OpenID, you may fill it in here. If your OpenID provider provides a name and email, those values will be used instead of the values here. Learn more about OpenID or find an OpenID provider.
By posting your comment you are agreeing to comply with our commenting guidelines
Commenting Guidelines
Nirmukta reserves the right to reject, edit or delete any comment.
All comments are moderated and the content of each comment becomes the property of Nirmukta.
Plagiarism will not be tolerated. If you are quoting someone else, the source must be mentioned.
All comments must be respectful. Differentiate between ideas and people. People have feelings. Ideas don't. You may use abusive language within limits, reagarding how you feel about certain ideas. No such abuse will be tolerated in statements addressing people.
Comments containing hateful speech, intimating unlawful activity or making violent threats may not be published. These comments may be used as evidence in a court of law.
No sarcastic belittling of the author will be permitted. If you disagree, make your argument in a respectful way. You may attack the idea, not the author of that idea.
No trolling allowed. A troll is defined as someone who repeatedly provokes the author or other commenters with an intent to annoy and elicit an angry response. Such actions may include repeatedly making unsubstantiated accusations, and repeating the same criticism multiple times using different verbiage in the same thread.
Any unsubstantiated accusations of a serious nature will not be published. We publish reasoned arguments, and we expect the same from those criticizing our ideas.
No soliciting or promotion of any kind will be tolerated.
Comments once published may be taken down on request, at the discretion of Nirmukta.
Commenting may be closed for articles which are old or have a high number of comments.
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail
Popular Featured Comments Tags Subscribe Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanza's Notion of a Conscious Universe
A Scientific View of the God Delusion and it's Implications
Scientists and God: The Indian Scenario
Karen Armstrong's 'The Case For God' (or) Why Science Makes My Head Hurt
Is 'Hindu Atheism' Valid? A Rationalist Critique Of The 'Hindu' Identity's Usurpation Of Indian Culture
Psychic Yoga Challenge: Yogi Ashwini Vs. Rationalists
How Ashoka The Great Gave Brahmins A Song With Which They Conquered India
COMPLEXITY EXPLAINED: 9. How Did Complex Molecules Like Proteins and DNA Emerge Spontaneously?
Review: The God Market- How Globalization Is Making India More Hindu, By Meera Nanda
Reincarnation, Rebirth And Past-Life Regression Therapy In India: A Rationalist Critique
Yogi In Politics: A Rationalist’s Thoughts On Baba Ramdev
Will Astrologer Bhaskar Shetty Keep His Word And Take Up The Rationalists’ Astrology Challenge?
Is The Virgin Mary Shedding Tears? Rationalists Investigate An Alleged Miracle in Kerala, India
Nirmukta Radio Podcast Episode #4: Interview - Blair Scott, Affiliate Director for American Atheists
First Meeting Of The Karnataka Rationalist Association in Bangalore on the 14th of March, 2010.
In Defence of Rationalism
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanza’s Notion of a Conscious Universe
Challenges Issued From Rationalists To Those Claiming Supernatural Powers In Nepal
Annual “Best Scientific Outlook Award” Ceremony And Rationalist Program
A Rational Approach to Understanding the Irrational Behavior of Indians
Manjunath: It is nearly impossible for Indians to change beca...
K. P. S. Kamath: Here is a link to the newspaper article exposing R...
narendra: good one Ajita. Hope it can knock some sense into ...
Anil B. Gowda: Dont blame british for everything. Probably they a...
Vijay Raj: Dont wish to get into long winded arguments but am...
astrology atheist Attacks Basava Brahmanism challenge Chopra Complexity Conference consciousness Darwin Deepak eclipse evolution explained Globalization God hindu hinduism hindus India interview Islam Karnataka Krishna Mangalore Meera morality Nanda narendra Naturalism nayak Nirmukta Premanand Pseudoscience ramdev rationalism Rationalist rationalists religion Science P.O.V. superstition Tour Upanishads yoga Stay up to date
Subscribe to the RSS Feed
Subscribe to the feed via email
Our Flickr Photos - See all photos
Nirmukta Quiz!
Welcome to the quiz section on Nirmukta!
This month's quiz is on Homeopathy in India.
Click on Image
Astrologers Wanted
Nirmukta is looking for astrologers and astrology software to predict the year ahead for noted skeptics from around the world, as well as for the contributors at Nirmukta. If you are interested or have information that could help, please contact us using the form on the Contact Us page. We are interested in having Chinese, Western and Vedic astrologers demonstrate and prove to us the validity of their claims.
Indian CSICOP
Website for the Indian Committee For Scientific Investigation Of Claims Of The Paranormal.
Currently discussed topics on the Indian Atheists Forum
Rent a riot: TV sting exposes Ram Sene's sinister designs Ashish Patil
Irreverence and Indian Science Ashish Patil
I'm not a man, Nityananda told CID sleuths Ashish Patil
India is on a highway to Hell Richard Francis
Blogroll
21 Century Revolution
Bigot Blog
Call for Investigation of Sai Baba
Cultural Naturalism Report
Fiery Scribe
Friendly Atheist
Indonesian Atheists
Me: Unlimited
Memeing Naturalism
New Age Crap
Nitwit Nastik
Rational Thoughts: Unlimited
Smiling Colours
The Church of the Churchless
The Hindu Atheist
Click on the image to join the Nirmukta facebook group!
Our Twitter Feed
Nirmukta Community forums: http://nirmukta.net , our new forums for Indian Freethinkers 2010/03/29
Rationalists investigate alleged miracle of Virgin Mary's tears in Kerala: http://tinyurl.com/ygoolev 2010/03/08
The Nirmukta facebook group has over 460 members and growing fast. Awesome! 2010/02/27
Reader Questions
Check out our Q & A section for advice and information from our panel of contributors and resident skeptics. You may use the Contact Form or email your questions to info@nirmukta.com. Anonymity is guaranteed on request.
Login
Username:
Password:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or login using an OpenID
Remember me
Register
Lost your password?
© 2009 Nirmukta. Powered by Wordpress.
About
Archives
Contributors
Contact Us
Indian Skeptic
Log In
Blog
Featured Posts
General News
God Watch
Con-Alert
Paranormal
Pseudoscience
Science P.O.V.
Culture
Ethics
Naturalism
Social Action
Creative Arts
Debunked
Humor
Legal Pad
Q & A
Secular Events
Video
Writers
Ajita Kamal
Babu Gogineni
Kedar Kulkarni
Manoj TV
Meera Nanda
Nalini Hebbar
Narendra Nayak
Pankaj Kulkarni
Prabhakar Kamath
Prabir Ghosh
Siddharth Singh
Srinivas Kakkilaya
Sumitra Padmanavan
Sundeep Peswani
Tom Clark
Vinod Kumar Wadhawan
Categorized | Debunked, God Watch, Prabhakar Kamath
: Vaasudeva, Krishna and the Bhagavata Revolution
Written by Prabhakar Kamath , Posted on 01 March 2010
Tags: Bhagavata, Bhagavatism, Brahmanism, God of Gods, Krishna, Vaasudeva
In the previous article, we studied how the Gita became the battlefield on which the Great Sectarian War took place for the Soul of Sanatana Dharma, and how after the wily Brahmins routed naïve Upanishadists once again the Bhagavatas entered the fray. Obviously the power of Super Man (Purushotthama, 15:18) and his “strong weapon” Buddhiyoga (15:3) were no match to the “firm-rooted eternal tree with its roots above and branches below” (15:1-3). A whole new God with terrifying appearance and awesome powers was needed to chop down this rotten tree.
1. Enter God Of Gods
Now Vaasudeva, God of gods, puts on his terrifying appearance, arms himself to his tusks (11:17), and enters the battlefield of the Gita to fight Brahmanism.
11:23-24: Seeing your immeasurable form with myriad mouths and eyes, with innumerable arms, thighs and feet, with countless stomachs, and terrible with many tusks -the worlds are terror-struck, and so am I. When I see you touching the sky, blazing with colors, with mouth wide open, with large fiery eyes, my heart trembles in fear and I find neither courage nor peace.
2. Goals Of Vaasudeva
To establish a Bhagavata Dharma centered on himself. He is the Guardian of the Ancient Dharma (11:18) and Dharma himself (14:27).
To take the place of Brahman (7:19; 10:12; 11:38) and Atman (10:20; 15:15).
To develop the super-weapon Bhaktiyoga by combining Bhakthi with Buddhiyoga (9:26-28; 10:10). Bhakthiyoga would be the new modus operandi by which one could transcend the Brahmanic doctrines of the Gunas and Karma (18:66).
To reduce the Vedas and Yajnas (11:48, 53); the Vedic gods (18:39), the Varna Dharma (9:29-33) and Brahmins (16:21-24).
To swallow up all icons of Brahmanism (11:21-22).
Replace Shokam (grief) and Dwandwam (stress, restlessness of mind engendered by the Gunas) here on earth with Shanthi (peace, 9:31).
Replace heaven as the goal of Action (9:20) with Moksha (18:66).
3. Bhagavata Creed
Bhagavatism was an ancient monotheistic creed centered on Lord Vaasudeva and its mode of worship was known as Bhakthi, which means adoring devotion. This monotheistic cult was popular in western part of north India at least three centuries before the Christian era. Lord Vaasudeva was declared as ‘God of gods’ on the column of Heliodorus situated in Besnaga, five miles from Sanchi, India. This pillar, dated around 113 B. C. E., bears the inscription:
“This Garuda-column of Vaasudeva, the God of gods, was erected here by Heliodorus, a worshipper of Visnu, the son of Dion, and an inhabitant of Taxila, who came as Greek ambassador from the Great King Antialkidas to King Kasiputra Bhagabhadra, the Savior, then reigning prosperously in the fourteenth year of his kingship.”
4. Krishna
Like Vaasudeva, Krishna is even a more ancient name in Brahmanic literature. In the Vedas, someone by the name of Krishna was Indra’s favorite enemy, being the god of the local tribe named after him. Chandogya Upanishad (Ca. 700 B. C. E) (3:17:6) mentions Krishna as son of Devaki and student of Ghora Angirasa. In the early parts of the Mahabharata, he is the younger prince of Yadava confederacy. After the insertion of the Arjuna Vishada, his stature in the Mahabharata grew steadily. In the 4th century B. C. E., Megasthenes the Greek ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya said, “the Sourasenoi (Surasena), who lived in the region of Mathura worshipped Herakles.” This Herakles is usually identified with Krishna (Hari-Kula-Eesha, Lord of Hari Kulam). The word Kulam means family or clan. Somewhere along the way the identity of Vaasudeva merged with that of Krishna.
With these evidences in mind, it is not hard to imagine that the Bhagavata revolution in the Bhagavad Gita, with the goal to establish a broad-based, egalitarian, ritual-free and monotheistic Dharma centered solely on Krishna, might have taken place some time in the second century B. C. E. Centuries later Bhagavatism evolved into Vaishnavism, the sect centered on Vishnu. In the Bhagavad Gita, however, Vishnu was only the foremost among Adityas, the Sun gods (10:21) and Arjuna addresses Krishna as “O Vishnu” (11:24) once. Krishna identifies Vaasudeva as Supreme God by stating, “Vaasudeva is all this is” (7:19), reflecting the Upanishadic dictum, “Brahman is all this is.” Moreover, he announces, “Of the Vrishnis I am Vaasudeva” (10:37). He is referred twice more as Vaasudeva in the Bhagavad Gita (11:50, 18:74). Krishna is declared as “God of gods” thrice in the Bhagavad Gita (11:13, 25, 45).
5. Character Of Krishna
Krishna of the Mahabharata is perhaps one of the most colorful characters in the history of world literature. In his role as prince Krishna he was endowed with wonderful virtues of wisdom, generosity, kindness, mercy, intellect, strength, courage, martial skills, shrewdness, fearlessness, fairness, graciousness, steadiness, level-headedness and many more. He was also noted to be intolerant of fools and evil people. He was ruthless when necessary and cunning at times. Considering all these wonderful qualities attributed to him, no wonder all sides used him to browbeat the other.
6. Five Roles Of Krishna In The Bhagavad Gita
Prince Krishna of Arjuna Vishada: In the Mahabharata epic, he starts outs as the younger prince of the Yadava tribe, who befriends the Pandava princes with a large cache of handsome wedding gifts (1 [13] 191. 15). As prince Krishna, he is very much the defender of Brahmanism. In the Mahabharata (2:26:42:15), just before chopping off Shishupala’s head, he says, “This fool who must want to die, once proposed himself to Rukmini (Krishna’s wife), but the fool no more obtained her than a Sudra a hearing of the Vedas!” As we read earlier, he delivered a lecture on virtues of Varna Dharma to Arjuna in the episode of Arjuna Vishada.
Guru Krishna of the Upanishads (2:7): In an effort to overthrow Brahmanism, Upanishadists appoint him as the anti-Brahmanic Upanishadic Guru who condemns Brahmanism right and left (2:39-53; 15:1-5).
Lord of beings of the Upanishads (4:6-8): In this role, he establishes Upanishadic Dharma resting on the doctrines of Brahman/Atman and Buddhiyoga, and reforms Brahmins by instructing them Jnanayoga and Kshatriyas by Karmayoga.
Lord of beings of Resurgent Brahmanism (17:1; 18:1): In this role he reinstates Yajnas and the Gunas, and destroys everything Upanishadic Lord of beings did.
Vaasudeva, God of Gods (11:13) of Bhagavatas: In this capacity he declares himself as the Eternal Dharma (14:27) and defender of Sanatana Dharma (11:18). He exhorts people to abandon all other Dharmas and take refuge in him alone, and he would deliver them from all evil of the doctrines of Brahmanism (18:66).
7. A New Ideology And Modus Operandi
As we discussed in the previous article, the ideology of Brahman/Atman (”not this, not this”) and modus operandi of Yoga (Sanyasa and Tyaga) were so complex that ordinary people had difficulty grasping it. A simpler ideology and modus operandi was needed. Bhagavata Krishna explains:
9:1-3: To you who do not cavil, I shall surely declare this, the most profound knowledge combined with realization by knowing which you will be released from evil (of the Gunas and Karma). The sovereign science, the sovereign secret, the supreme purifier is this, directly realizable, in accord with Dharma, very easy to practice and imperishable.
Note here that like Upanishadic Lord of beings did (4:1-2), Bhagavata Krishna also identifies Kshatriyas as the originators of his ideology. He points out that unlike Yoga of the Upanishads, his modus operandi is very easy to practice. All you have to do is to dive on the floor before the idol, close your eyes, join your hands and say, “I surrender to you, O Lord!” No thinking is required or necessary.
8. Supreme Lord Replaces Brahman
So, Supreme Lord with infinite attributes (Saguna) replaces Brahman without any attributes (Nirguna). Since Krishna is the embodiment of the Supreme Lord, it is easier for people to visualize and conceptualize him. Arjuna identifies Krishna as the Supreme:
10:12: You are the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Abode, the Supreme Purifier, the Eternal, Divine Purusha, the Primeval Deity, the Unborn, the Omnipresent.
Now Krishna declares that he is Atman in the heart of all people:
10:20, 15:15: I am the Self, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all beings.
9. Bhakthi plus Buddhiyoga Becomes Bhakthiyoga
Krishna explains why a new modus operandi was needed:
12:5: Greater is their difficulty whose minds are set on the Un-manifested (Brahman), for the goal of the Un-manifested is very hard for the embodied to reach.
Bhagavatas combine Bhakthi with Buddhiyoga:
9:14: Glorifying Me always, striving, firm in vows, prostrating before Me, they worship Me with Bhakthi, ever steadfast. 10:10: To those who lovingly worship Me with steadfast Bhakthi, I give the Yoga of Buddhi by which they come to Me. 18:55-56: By Bhakti he knows Me in truth, what and who I am; then having known Me in truth, he forthwith enters into Me (attain Moksha). Mentally resigning all deeds to Me, having Me as the highest goal, resorting to Buddhiyoga, do you ever fix your mind on Me.
Arjuna asks, “Which mode of worship is better, Bhakthi or Yoga?” Krishna explains that when one makes him the object of Yoga, the modus operandi becomes Bhakthiyoga:
12:2: Those who have fixed their minds on me (instead of Brahman), and who, ever steadfast and endowed with supreme Shraddha, worship me -them I do consider perfect in Yoga. 12:4: Having restrained all the Senses (Gunas), even-minded everywhere (becoming Buddhiyukta), engaged in welfare of all beings (and not just the upper classes), verily they also come to Me (gain Knowledge of Me).
10. Krishna Becomes The Guardian Of Sanatana Dharma And Also Dharma Himself
Just as Upanishadists appointed Krishna as Lord of beings to establish Upanishadic Dharma (4:6-8) and protect it from vested interests, now Bhagavatas appoint Lord Krishna as the guardian of Sanatana Dharma as well as the very embodiment of Dharma:
11:18: You are the Imperishable, the Supreme Being to be realized. You are the great treasure house of the universe. You are the Imperishable Guardian of Eternal Dharma. You are the ancient Purusha, I deem.
Krishna affirms: 14:27: I am the Abode of Brahman, the Immortal, and Immutable, the Eternal Dharma and Absolute Bliss.
11. Krishna Declares Prakriti As His Lower Manifestation
To establish his supremacy over Prakriti, Krishna places Himself at the head of every class of living and non-living entity known to mankind. Unlike Brahman’s “Not this, not this!” Krishna says, “I am this and this and this!” Whereas Brahman was Nirguna (devoid of Gunas), Krishna was Saguna (full of good attributes). By doing this, he claimed supremacy over Prakriti and all its manifestations.
7:4-7: Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intellect and egoism; thus is My lower Prakriti divided eightfold. This is My lower Prakriti, but different from it, know, O mighty armed, My higher Prakriti -the life element by which this universe is upheld. Know that these two are the wombs of all beings. I am the origin and dissolution of the whole universe. There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me, O Dhananjaya. All this is strung on Me, as rows of gems on a string.
12. Krishna Offers Himself As Refuge Against The Gunas Of Prakriti
First Krishna declares that the Gunas were his creation but distinct from him. Whereas the Gunas are mutable, he is immutable. It is the deluding power of the Gunas that makes him beyond one’s reach. However, one could cross over their bewildering powers if one took refuge in him.
7:12-14: Whatever beings are of Sattva, of Rajas or of Tamas, know them to proceed from Me. Still I am not in them, they are in Me. Deluded by these threefold dispositions of Prakriti -the Gunas, this world does not know Me, who am above them and immutable. Verily this divine illusion of Mine, made up of the Gunas, is hard to surmount; but those who take refuge in Me alone, they cross over this illusion.
13. Dedicate Deeds To Krishna To Transcend The Law Of Karma
By dedicating one’s deeds to Parameshwara instead of Brahman (5:10) one does not earn any Karmaphalam and so he transcends the Law of Karma and attains Moksha:
9:27-28: Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer in sacrifice, whatever you gift away, whatever austerity you practice, do it as an offering to Me. Thus you shall be free from the bondage of Karma yielding good as well as bad results. With the mind firmly set in the Yoga of renunciation, you shall come to Me (you shall attain Moksha).
8:15: Having come to Me, the great souls are no more subject to rebirth, which is transitory and abode of pain; for they have reached the highest perfection.
Krishna tells Yogis to dedicate their deeds to him from now onwards in order to transcend Samsara:
12:6-7: Those who worship Me, renouncing all Karmaphalam in Me (dedicating all deeds to Me), regarding Me as the Supreme Goal, meditating on Me with singe-minded Yoga, I become to them the deliverer from mortal Samsara.
14. Krishna Absorbs All Brahmanic Elements Into Himself
Now Krishna claims that he is the source of all the Devas and the great sages of Brahmanism:
10:2: Neither the hosts of Devas nor the great Rishis know My origin (for they are deluded by the Gunas); for in every respect I am the source of Devas and the great Rishis.
Arjuna affirms: 11:21: These hosts of Devas indeed enter into You; some in awe extol You with joined palms…. 11:39: You are Vayu, Yama, Agni, Varuna, the Moon, Prajapati, and the Great-grandfather. Salutation, salutation to You, a thousand times, and again and again, salutations to You.
To scare the hell out of Brahmanism, he shows his Universal Form, which is described in great detail. All the Brahmanic elements, “Enter hurrying into your mouth, terrible with tusks and fearful to look at. Some are found sticking in the gaps between the teeth with their crushed to powder (11:27).
15. As The Lord Of All Yajna Krishna Condemns Kamya Karma
Just as Upanishadic Lord of beings declared that all aspects of Yajna is made up of all-pervading Brahman (4:14), Bhagavata Krishna declares that all aspects of Yajna are made up of him. Now he is the lord of all Yajna:
9:16: I am Kratu, I am Yajna. I am Svadha, I am medicinal herb, I am Mantra, I am also the clarified butter, I am fire, I am oblation.
Krishna explains that the problem with Kamya Karma is that earning Karmaphalam merely perpetuates Samsara:
9:20: The knowers of the three Vedas, the drinkers of Soma, (purified from sin), worshipping (Me) Devas by sacrifices (Kamya Karma), pray for the way to heaven. (Having earned Karmaphalam) they reach the holy world of the Lord of the Devas (Indra) and enjoy in heaven the celestial pleasures of Devas.
The sole purpose of the original version of this shloka and the following five shlokas was to show that those who get drunk on Soma and worship Devas by means of Kamya Karma go to heaven and come back to earth again and again; and in contrast, those who worship Krishna alone attain Moksha. Some later ignorant Brahmanic and Bhagavata authors corrupted the above shloka by adding the phrase ‘purified from sin’ and by replacing Devas with ‘Me.’ These dullards did not know that Vedic Yajnas were always dedicated to Devas (4:12; 17: 4, 14), and never dedicated to Krishna, and no one was ever purified of sin by means of drinking Soma and performing Kamya Karma. To Upanishadists and Bhagavatas every Karmaphalam was sin because it perpetuated Samsara. This is a classic example of how various sects recklessly corrupted the Gita without understanding the fundamentals of their own sects. How do we know this to be the case? Krishna explains:
9:21: Having enjoyed the vast world of heaven, they return to the world of mortals on exhaustion of their merits (Karmaphalam); thus abiding by the injunction of three Vedas, desiring objects of desires (lordship and heaven) they come and go (are born again and again).
If these ritualists should not worship Devas by Kamya Karma, how then do they fulfill their desires here on earth and hereafter? Krishna offers to help them out:
9:22: To those men who worship Me alone, thinking of no other (such as Vedic gods), who are ever devoted to Me, I provide gain and security (here on earth).
What if ritualists continued to worship Vedic gods with Shraddha in the mode of the Gunas, as they wanted to in 17:1?
9:23: Even those devotees who, endowed with Shraddha, worship other gods, they worship Me alone, but by wrong method.
Why is this so? Who are you, anyway?
9:24: I am verily the Enjoyer and Lord of all Yajnas. But these men (ritualists) do not know Me in reality (due to ignorance engendered by their attachment to sense objects); Hence they fall (back to earth).
Why is worshipping the Devas (4:12; 17:4), ancestral spirits (1:42) and ghosts (17:4) wrong? Because:
9:25: Votaries of Devas go to Devas (and return again and again as noted above); votaries of Pitrus (ancestral spirits) go to the Pitrus; to the Bhutas (ghosts) go the Bhuta worshippers; My votaries come to Me (attain Moksha and are never born again).
The point Krishna makes in the above six shlokas is that if ritualists want gain and security here on earth and Moksha hereafter, they must worship him alone and no one else. If they want to suffer Shokam, and Dwandwam here on earth and rebirth hereafter, they should worship other gods.
16. Krishna Blasts Brahmins And Declares The Gunas As Gates To Hell!
Addressing those Brahmins who asked permission to perform Yajnas in the mode of three Gunas against the ordinances of Upanishads (17:1), Bhagavata Krishna blasts:
16:21-24: Triple are these gates of hell (the three Gunas), destructive of the self -lust, anger and greed (which are rooted in them, 3:37); therefore one should abandon these three (Gunas). The man who is liberated from these three gates to darkness practices what is good for him (Yoga) and thus goes to the Supreme Good (Moksha). He who, casting aside the ordinances of the scriptures, acts on impulse of desire (performs Kamya Karma) attains not perfection, nor happiness (here on earth) nor the Supreme Goal (hereafter). Therefore, let the scriptures (the Upanishads) be your authority in deciding what ought to be done and what ought not to be done. Having known what is said in the ordinances of the scriptures you should act here.
Countering Brahmanic claim that one can attain Moksha by the Vedic ideology and Yajnas as modus operandi (17:25), and in line with the oft-repeated Upanishadic declaration that one cannot gain Brahman by the Vedas, Krishna declares:
11:48: Neither by the study of the Vedas, nor by Yajnas, nor by gifts, nor by rituals, nor by severe penances, can this form of Mine be seen in the world of men by anyone else but you, O hero of Kurus!
17. Krishna Lambastes Arrogant Kshatriyas Sponsoring Kamya Karma
Krishna mercilessly condemns Kshatriyas who, driven by Kama and Krodha, obsessively performed Kamya Karma disregarding Upanishadic Lord of being’s injunction against it:
16:10-17: Filled with insatiable desire, full of hypocrisy, pride and arrogance, holding evil ideas through delusion, they work (perform Kamya Karma) with impure resolve (to gain sense objects for themselves). Beset with immense cares ending only with death, regarding gratification of lust as the highest, and feeling sure that that is all. Bound by a hundred ties of hope, given over to lust and jealous rage, they strive by unjust means hoards of wealth for sensual enjoyment. “This today has been gained by me; this desire I shall fulfill; this is mine, and this wealth also shall be mine in future. That enemy has been slain by me, and others also shall I slay. I am a lord, I enjoy, I am successful, powerful and happy. I am rich and well-born. What else is equal to me? I will sacrifice, I will give alms, I will rejoice.” Thus deluded by ignorance, bewildered by many a fancy, enmeshed in the snare of delusion, addicted to gratification of lust, they fall into foul hell. Self-conceited, stubborn, filled with pride and intoxication of wealth, they perform sacrifices in the name of ostentation, disregarding ordinances.
18. Krishna Warns Recalcitrant Brahmanic Critics
Vaasudeva Krishna says some very harsh words to those in the Brahmanic fold who opposed him tooth and nail. Lord Krishna issues repeated warnings to those who dared to oppose him or his teachings or his Dharma. He calls them demonic, deluded, fools, vain, and what not.
7:15: The evildoers (those indulging in Kamya Karma), the deluded (by the Gunas), the lowest of men (due to their entanglement with sense objects), deprived of discrimination by Maya (the Gunas) and following the way of the Asuras (demons), do not seek refuge in me.
9:11-12: Fools disregard me as one clad in human form, not knowing my higher nature as the Great Lord of beings. They are of vain hopes, of vain actions, of vain knowledge, devoid of discrimination, partaking verily of the delusive nature of Rakshasas and Asuras.
16:18-20: Given over to egoism, power, insolence, lust and wrath, these malicious people hate me in their own bodies and those of others. Those cruel haters, worst among men in the world, I hurl these evildoers forever into the wombs of the demons only. Entering into the Demonic wombs, the deluded ones, in birth after birth, without ever reaching me, they fall into a condition even lower.
19. Krishna Throws The Doors Of His Dharma Wide Open To All
Defying Varna Dharma, Krishna declares himself as the equalizer of all classes of people:
7:16: Four types of virtuous men worship Me, O Arjuna: the man in distress (Vaishya/Sudra/outcastes), the man seeking knowledge (Brahmin), the man seeking wealth (Kshatriya) and the man imbued with wisdom (Yogi), O the best of the Bharatas.
9:29-33: I am the same to all beings; to Me there is none hateful, none dear (I do not discriminate against people of any particular Varna). But those who worship Me with devotion, they are in Me and I am in them (regardless of their Varna). Even if a man of the most sinful conduct worships Me with undeviating devotion, he must be reckoned as rightly resolved. Soon does he become a man of righteousness and obtains lasting peace. O Kaunteya, know for certain that My devotee never perishes.
For those who take refuge in Me, O Partha, though they may be of inferior birth -women, Vaishyas and Sudras- even they attain the Supreme Goal. How much more then the holy Brahmins and devoted royal saints! Having come into this transient, joyless world, do worship Me.
20. The Secret Code of the Bhagavad Gita:
18:66: Abandon all Dharmas and surrender unto Me alone. I shall liberate you from all evil (engendered by the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma); do not grieve.
This is the profoundest of all shlokas in the Bhagavad Gita, which contains the essence of Bhagavata Dharma as well as the Bhagavata revolution to overthrow Brahmanism. The proper context of this shloka is historical-revolutionary. This shloka does not have Arjuna Vishada context. Let us review the real purpose and spirit of this shloka. Having overthrown Brahmanic Dharma in the Bhagavata Gita, the Krishna summarizes the essence of His revolution:
Abandon all Dharma: Abandon all other Dharmas on the land: Brahmanism and all its sub-Dharmas such as Varna Dharma, Jati Dharma and Kula Dharma (1:43); Dharmas worshiping Pitrus (ancestors, 1:42) and Bhutas (ghosts, 9:25); Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivika, Lokayata, and myriads of other sects, which had arisen in revolt against decadent Brahmanism during the post-Vedic period of 900-200 B. C. E.
Surrender unto Me alone: For, from now onwards ‘I am the Eternal Dharma’ (14:27). If you take refuge in Me alone and no one else (such as Prakriti and Vedic gods), I shall fulfill all your desires (4:11; 9:22) and liberate you from Samsara (12:7).
I shall liberate you from all evil: By taking refuge in Me, I shall liberate you from the three great evils of mankind arising from the Gunas and Karma: Shokam, Dwandwam and Karmaphalam. By taking refuge in Me alone, you shall overcome the doctrine of the Gunas of Prakriti (7:14; 14:20); thus you shall overcome Dwandwam of mind. By realizing Me as the Eternal Atman in everyone’s heart (10:20; 15:15) you shall not suffer Shokam any more. Thus by conquering Shokam and Dwandwam, you shall attain lasting Shanthi (Peace) here on earth (9:31). By dedicating all your deeds to Me alone, you shall not earn any Karmaphalam (sin) and thus you shall defy the Law of Karma, end Samsara and attain Moksha (9:26-28; 12:6-7).
Do not grieve: And those of you who have been aggrieved by the decadence of Brahmanism and inequities of Varna Dharma, verily I say unto you: There is no need to grieve anymore for from now onwards Varna Dharma is irrelevant to those who have transcended the Gunas and Karma by Bhakthiyoga.
21. Is It Blissful Ignorance Or Manipulative Genius?
Today, in thousands of temples across India, Brahmanic loyalists worship Krishna with ostentatious Brahmanic rituals clueless to the fact that the reason why Bhagavatas appointed Vaasudeva-Krishna as the God of Gods in the Bhagavad Gita was to end these very rituals symbolic of decadent Brahmanism! Even though they all claim to revere the Bhagavad Gita, they ignore Krishna’s order to worship him alone and no one else, and worship hundred of gods by means of thousands of rituals. Whether this is a sign of stupendous ignorance or passive-aggressive genius of Brahmanism is anyone’s guess.
In the next article, we will study how Brahmanic editors resorted to extreme editing of the Bhagavad Gita to hide both the Upanishadic and Bhagavata revolutions; and also how medieval Brahmanic commentators, such as Shankaracharya (788-820 A. D), wrote lengthy obfuscating commentaries for the same purpose. The reader will have to decide if he was a manipulative genius who deliberately hid the anti-Brahmanic intent of the Bhagavad Gita in his obfuscating commentaries, or just a clueless Acharya who cooked-up something to cover-up his ignorance about their historical-revolutionary context.
(To be continued)
Dr. Prabhakar Kamath, is a psychiatrist currently practicing in the U.S. He is the author of Servants, Not Masters: A Guide for Consumer Activists in India (1987) and Is Your Balloon About Pop?: Owner’s Manual for the Stressed Mind.
Share This Article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Related posts:
Subterfuge: How Brahmins Destroyed The Bhagavata Revolution
The Origins and Evolution of Brahmanism
Upanishadists Create A New God To Beat Back Brahmanism
Upanishadists Use Arjuna Vishada To Overthrow Brahmanism
The Upanishads Attempt To Reform Brahmanism
The Legacy Of Brahmanism: Abomination of Untouchability And Curse Of Caste System
Brahmanism And Mental Blocks Of Hindus
Politicians Pleasing the Rain-Gods: Religious Backwardness in India
Secularism, Free-thought and the Internet Revolution- An Introduction
Hindu Revisionism: Was Shankaracharya Deceptive Or Just Ignorant?
The Gita Becomes The Battlefield For The Great Sectarian War
How Ashoka The Great Gave Brahmins A Song With Which They Conquered India
The Decay of Dharma and the Rise of Adharma
This post was written by:
Prabhakar Kamath - who has written 17 posts on Nirmukta.
Contact the author
« COMPLEXITY EXPLAINED: 15. Evolution of Cultural ComplexityFreethought Activism In The Tribal Areas Of Madhya Pradesh »2 Responses to “The God of Gods Battles Brahmanism: Vaasudeva, Krishna and the Bhagavata Revolution”
K. P. S. Kamath says:
March 1, 2010 at 7:03 pm
You are right. A particular statement in any scripture makes proper sense only when we know its proper context. Hindu religious leaders who interpret these shlokas without knowing their proper context come across as confused. Naturally, people who read their commentaries also become confused. If we did not know that Krishna was scolding Kshatriyas and Brahmins indulging in hedonistic Yajnas, we would not know who he was scolding and so the whole of the Bhagavad Gita would come across as incomprehensible. You have made very good points.
Reply
lijey.baley says:
March 1, 2010 at 12:47 pm
You are writing a lovely series, Dr. Kamath. I’ve wondered why the Gita had some militant verses (You will only believe in me or else…) that sounded quite similar to violent passages in Christianity/Islam. But when viewed against the right historical context, they seem to make sense.
Krishna wasn’t threatening normal people. He was threatening people who indulged in mindless ritual and yagnic hedonism.
Reply
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Reply
Click here to cancel reply.
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website(OpenID Enabled)
If you have an OpenID, you may fill it in here. If your OpenID provider provides a name and email, those values will be used instead of the values here. Learn more about OpenID or find an OpenID provider.
By posting your comment you are agreeing to comply with our commenting guidelines
Commenting Guidelines
Nirmukta reserves the right to reject, edit or delete any comment.
All comments are moderated and the content of each comment becomes the property of Nirmukta.
Plagiarism will not be tolerated. If you are quoting someone else, the source must be mentioned.
All comments must be respectful. Differentiate between ideas and people. People have feelings. Ideas don't. You may use abusive language within limits, reagarding how you feel about certain ideas. No such abuse will be tolerated in statements addressing people.
Comments containing hateful speech, intimating unlawful activity or making violent threats may not be published. These comments may be used as evidence in a court of law.
No sarcastic belittling of the author will be permitted. If you disagree, make your argument in a respectful way. You may attack the idea, not the author of that idea.
No trolling allowed. A troll is defined as someone who repeatedly provokes the author or other commenters with an intent to annoy and elicit an angry response. Such actions may include repeatedly making unsubstantiated accusations, and repeating the same criticism multiple times using different verbiage in the same thread.
Any unsubstantiated accusations of a serious nature will not be published. We publish reasoned arguments, and we expect the same from those criticizing our ideas.
No soliciting or promotion of any kind will be tolerated.
Comments once published may be taken down on request, at the discretion of Nirmukta.
Commenting may be closed for articles which are old or have a high number of comments.
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail
Popular Featured Comments Tags Subscribe Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanza's Notion of a Conscious Universe
A Scientific View of the God Delusion and it's Implications
Scientists and God: The Indian Scenario
Karen Armstrong's 'The Case For God' (or) Why Science Makes My Head Hurt
Is 'Hindu Atheism' Valid? A Rationalist Critique Of The 'Hindu' Identity's Usurpation Of Indian Culture
Psychic Yoga Challenge: Yogi Ashwini Vs. Rationalists
How Ashoka The Great Gave Brahmins A Song With Which They Conquered India
COMPLEXITY EXPLAINED: 9. How Did Complex Molecules Like Proteins and DNA Emerge Spontaneously?
Review: The God Market- How Globalization Is Making India More Hindu, By Meera Nanda
Reincarnation, Rebirth And Past-Life Regression Therapy In India: A Rationalist Critique
Yogi In Politics: A Rationalist’s Thoughts On Baba Ramdev
Will Astrologer Bhaskar Shetty Keep His Word And Take Up The Rationalists’ Astrology Challenge?
Is The Virgin Mary Shedding Tears? Rationalists Investigate An Alleged Miracle in Kerala, India
Nirmukta Radio Podcast Episode #4: Interview - Blair Scott, Affiliate Director for American Atheists
First Meeting Of The Karnataka Rationalist Association in Bangalore on the 14th of March, 2010.
In Defence of Rationalism
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanza’s Notion of a Conscious Universe
Challenges Issued From Rationalists To Those Claiming Supernatural Powers In Nepal
Annual “Best Scientific Outlook Award” Ceremony And Rationalist Program
A Rational Approach to Understanding the Irrational Behavior of Indians
Manjunath: It is nearly impossible for Indians to change beca...
K. P. S. Kamath: Here is a link to the newspaper article exposing R...
narendra: good one Ajita. Hope it can knock some sense into ...
Anil B. Gowda: Dont blame british for everything. Probably they a...
Vijay Raj: Dont wish to get into long winded arguments but am...
astrology atheist Attacks Basava Brahmanism challenge Chopra Complexity Conference consciousness Darwin Deepak eclipse evolution explained Globalization God hindu hinduism hindus India interview Islam Karnataka Krishna Mangalore Meera morality Nanda narendra Naturalism nayak Nirmukta Premanand Pseudoscience ramdev rationalism Rationalist rationalists religion Science P.O.V. superstition Tour Upanishads yoga Stay up to date
Subscribe to the RSS Feed
Subscribe to the feed via email
Our Flickr Photos - See all photos
Nirmukta Quiz!
Welcome to the quiz section on Nirmukta!
This month's quiz is on Homeopathy in India.
Click on Image
Astrologers Wanted
Nirmukta is looking for astrologers and astrology software to predict the year ahead for noted skeptics from around the world, as well as for the contributors at Nirmukta. If you are interested or have information that could help, please contact us using the form on the Contact Us page. We are interested in having Chinese, Western and Vedic astrologers demonstrate and prove to us the validity of their claims.
Indian CSICOP
Website for the Indian Committee For Scientific Investigation Of Claims Of The Paranormal.
Currently discussed topics on the Indian Atheists Forum
Rent a riot: TV sting exposes Ram Sene's sinister designs Ashish Patil
Irreverence and Indian Science Ashish Patil
I'm not a man, Nityananda told CID sleuths Ashish Patil
India is on a highway to Hell Richard Francis
Blogroll
21 Century Revolution
Bigot Blog
Call for Investigation of Sai Baba
Cultural Naturalism Report
Fiery Scribe
Friendly Atheist
Indonesian Atheists
Me: Unlimited
Memeing Naturalism
New Age Crap
Nitwit Nastik
Rational Thoughts: Unlimited
Smiling Colours
The Church of the Churchless
The Hindu Atheist
Click on the image to join the Nirmukta facebook group!
Our Twitter Feed
Nirmukta Community forums: http://nirmukta.net , our new forums for Indian Freethinkers 2010/03/29
Rationalists investigate alleged miracle of Virgin Mary's tears in Kerala: http://tinyurl.com/ygoolev 2010/03/08
The Nirmukta facebook group has over 460 members and growing fast. Awesome! 2010/02/27
Reader Questions
Check out our Q & A section for advice and information from our panel of contributors and resident skeptics. You may use the Contact Form or email your questions to info@nirmukta.com. Anonymity is guaranteed on request.
Login
Username:
Password:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or login using an OpenID
Remember me
Register
Lost your password?
© 2009 Nirmukta. Powered by Wordpress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)