The scientific interpretation of Ganapati's story!

The modern Hindu tries to prove the greatness of Hinduism by interpreting every miracle in mythology with scientific looking claims. E.g. Ganapati's story is glorified by claiming that it was one of the earliest surgical success where ancient Hindu scientists were able to fix an elephant head on human body to save life. I tried to go further on these lines and sought after interpreting the initial birth of Ganapati. It is told that Shiva was gone out of home, since this is mythology and there is a bending of time dimension possible (as speculated by Einstein) in Hindu god's world, he must have gone out for a long period. Meanwhile Parvati is supposed to be bathing, and the dirt on her body is so much that it was enough to create a complete baby boy. Since like a modern Hindu I am suppose to explain this with science and since this is a spiritual story where not everything is physical, I start interpreting that the dirt of Parvati is not a physical dirt but a moral dirt. Moral dirt is nothing but desire and lust, it was so much that by the time Shiva returned she had already given birth to a child. The bath is nothing but an act of getting rid of this moral dirt - desire, lust. I leave the rest of the 'how' details to be explained by a devote modern Hindu. Going further, Shiva was both innocent and merciful. So while he initially got angry by seeing this illegitimate child, the clever Parvati must have made up a metaphoric story of bath and dirt, which convinced Shiva and he ordered the surgery. Ancient Hindus must have been very advanced in science, I only wonder about morality!

What is so wrong with Bhagwad Geeta?

Here's a discussion I had with someone over Bhagwad Geeta on TOI forum (Stop reading now if you don't want to go to the end, it may mislead):

mukunda (Bengaluru) replies to Siddharth

21 Jul, 2011 02:50 PM

Ok,lets read ch 4 verse 13. catur-varnyam maya srstam guna-karma-vibhagasah tasya kartaram api mam viddhy akartaram avyayam "According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the nondoer, being unchangeable." 1st line"catur-varnyam maya srstam" 4 varnas are created by Me(Paramatma),2nd line "guna-karma-vibhagasah" where the vabhajan\categorization is based on one's guna composition and karma composition. 3rd and 4th line states how He is the non doer and unchangable. Sri Krishna says that each living entity is categorized into one of the 4 varnas based ONLY on their previous records of Gunas and their Karma. NOWHERE He mentions about janana\birth as the basis of categorization (example: a son of a brahmana is not a brahmana(by birth), but he becomes a brahmana by his gunas and karma), where as caste system is a system which is categorized purely based on birth(example: a son of a brahmana is automatically placed in the general merit(due to birth in a brahmana family) and a son of a scheduled caste is placed as a scheduled caste(due to birth in a scheduled caste family)). now can you please explain your statement "Gita encourages caste system. How can we allow a book that doesn't consider all humans as equal and believes that the humans are divided in 4 castes." Gita states that you earn your varna due to your previous deeds and guna records. this system is present everywhere. you dont ask a school dropout person to become an IAS officer. he has to earn this position by doing required action(passing IAS exam) and also including his guna composition. NOTE: its very easy to read anti hindu articles on the internet and comment by taking bits and pieces. but Satyameva Jayate, Truth alone triumphs. regards, mukunda

Agree (6)Disagree (6)Recommend (5)Offensive

Siddharth replies to mukunda

11 hrs ago (02:36 PM)

If Varna is NOT determined by birth then tell me how many people were there in our entire history that were the born in the house of shudras but became Brahmins by their deeds? You just can't name it. Because a son of brahmin is always considered a brahmin and it is assumed that he did good deeds in his past life. and same goes for the shudras. Hence, encouragement of caste system.

Agree (1)Disagree (0)Recommend (0)Offensive

Rahul Bhalerao (bglr) replies to mukunda

21 Jul, 2011 10:41 PM

Why doesn't Geeta clearly say that it is not the birth that determines varna? why make ambiguous statements? Previous deeds/karma means what? The deeds/education/skills acquired in this birth or the popular interpretation of previous birth's karma? If deeds decide varna then just like deeds can keep changing why can't a varna change? If it is only the deeds that determine varna, why are the atrocities based on varna justified? Let the incompetent be poor, why do we need to torture them? Why doesn't it acknowledge the scientific and philosophical truth that all human beings are equal? Are all these confusions left like that so that it can be interpreted to justify the injustice in the name of varna and dharma? We don't know of practical goodness of the bright interpretations of Geeta but we certainly know the dark side of it, that varna is birth based and has caused injustice for thousands of years.

Agree (5)Disagree (5)Recommend (3)Offensive

mukunda replies to Rahul Bhalerao

11 hrs ago (02:48 PM)

Namaste Rahul,answers to your queries are below 1:"Why doesnt Geeta clearly say that it is not the birth that determines varna? why make ambiguous statements?" ans: its not ambiguous, in fact Sri Krishna clearly states the definition of varna as based ONLY on guna and karma.example: definition of sphere is : a sphere is a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space, such as the shape of a round ball(wikipedia).here the sphere is defined by categorically placing it in the shape of round and in 3D space. now i would definitely look foolish if i state that its ambigious since it doesnt state anything about squares or rectangle shapes(apart from circular/round). it doesnt include any other shapes since it does not categorically fall in any other shapes. likewise, when Sri Krishna is clearly telling varna is based ONLY on guna and karma, asking the question of janma is irrelevent since this definition is not proof by negation/proof by shortlisting. in ch 18 verse 41, Sri Krishna reaffirms about the varnas "brahmana-kshatriya-visam "O Arjuna, the karma/acitivities of the brahmanas,ksatriyas,vaisyas and sudras are clearly divided according to the gunas/qualities born of their own nature" 2: "previous deeds/karma means what? " again Sri Krishna defines karma as sanchita karma prarabdha karma aagama karma. 1. sanchita karma (karma in storage, karma already done) 2. prArabdha karma (karma that has begun to bear fruit,karma being done) 3. AgAmi karma (karma resulting from future activities). this is a very huge topic to cover here. 3:"If deeds decide varna then just like deeds can keep changing why can't a varna change? " ans:varna does change; a brahmana can become a shudra and vice versa. example: Brahmarishi Vishwamitra was a kshatriya Raja/king and his original name was Kaushika. He was a Kshatriya who became a Brahmana due to his deeds(becoming a Brahmarishi). since nobody is born to any varna, they can change varna depending on their karma and guna. regards,

Rahul Bhalerao:

Mukunda, it is good that you brought the point of altering Varna! I suggest you take a look at the research paper 'who were shudras' by Dr. Ambedkar. There are number of cases where you see varna being changed in mythological history. But the question remains the same, first of all why divide the society in general, and second how did this division became so robust, rigid and remained based on birth for all the practical reality of 3 thousand years? What was it in the religion that caused an apparently mere labor hierarchy into a rigid system of varna and caste that is present in all its glory? Start reading all these mythological scriptures in more un-religious manner and you find the answers. Just like any other society in world, the priest class of brahmins secured unequivocal powers in the times of darkness through religion. Your own Upanishads are the story of competition between kshatriyas and brahmins. Off-course it is not just the Gita that made the varna/caste system the way it is, there has been a steady and well thought process behind it with all the conflict of interests doing their part of the job. Brahmins corrupted Vedas to gain religious sanction for their authority. Kshatriyas in competition with brahmins to control the society made their own versions by posing themselves as the incarnation of Gods. And again brahmins proved their superiority by reciting the brahmin authority through God's own mouth. In order to make sure that the powers of one generation remain reserved for rest of the coming generations of the same class, Varna had to be made rigid. If only Karma was the determinant of one's destiny, then what is the explanation for all the rigidity over thousands of year? Why didn't these apparently great thoughts resulted in a great society? Varna/Caste system as we know and as has existed for thousands of years, is the greatest poison in our society. Now please don't make the futile claims of how great system it used to be and how it must have benefited people. Buddha has already condemned this system very strongly even 2500 years ago. No matter how hard you try to sugar coat a poison, it will still have its effect. The effect is what we have witnessed but the poison is still we deny.

By the way, we don't have problem with round shape being defined specifically and interpreted in one single way without any ambiguity, because there is no way it could be interpreted differently, neither there has been any proof to any interpretation of it being a square. That is mathematical conformance. Coming back to your Varna and Karma and geeta etc., we do know for sure that Varna is indeed practiced based on birth, we all know about the interpretation that the karma of past birth causes one to be born in particular Varna, and the belief that a particular Varna person has particular qualities suitable for that Varna only. All these are well propagated interpretations supporting the rigid system (not flexible as claimed by you) and accepted throughout the Indian society (irrespective of the caste they belonged to or religious practices they had). We don't say Brahmins or Kshatriyas established and manipulated the Varna system for their benefit because they are inherently a cunning race, no, but they did do it certainly and cunningly because they happened to have powers in their hands which made them corrupt. Now that we know the truth of this evident corruption, at least now we can stay away from everything that has caused this corruption in first place. This is the precise reason why no anti-caste movement has ever called for a crusade against brahmins or upper castes but have condemned and burnt all these scriptures that have given opportunity for corruption and caused all the misery.

Out of my 7 questions, only first three were attempted to be answered to some extent, which are appearing non-satisfactory from the above reply. The core of the matter lies in later 4 questions which are not answered by Geeta admirers but better answered through the theory of religion based caste formation for power politics which is well explained by Dr. Ambedkar.

Gods' Religion or Religion's Temples

Father says demolish all the temples, the son goes on demolishing a mosque for building a temple!

This is an English translation of an excerpt from 'Devancha Dharma ki Dharmachi Devle' by Prabodhankar Thackerey. Originally in Marathi, I happened to have read it long back and being awfully astonished by the stark difference between Prabodhankar and his son Bal Thackerey. Luckily found it here.

*Prabodhankar* says:

The all round degradation of Hindus is seen today and Hindu society is unfit for the term ‘society’. Hindu religion is a great Brahminic humbug and Hindu culture is a cracked dented pot with no base. Even during the great famine in whole of India, the Bhats are well fed because of generosity of Bahujans. And the non-brahmins are being crushed in the frank misdeeds of Brahminic terror.

Our religion is no religion at all. It is a humbug to crush the non-Brahmins under the Brahminic burden. In Brahminic humbug the first item of our slavery is the temple. Temples have come to Hindu religion recently. All our gods were shelterless for thousands of years say since 7000 BCE, time supposed to be date of Vedas. Till the end of Buddhism from India, say around beginning of Christian era, there were no temples in India.

Before discussing the methods of disposing of the gods and their temples, it is essential to see their origin from Semitic people, who were also, nomads like Aryans. They seem to be originators of temples.

Broadly speaking, there were no temples in India till 2nd or 3rd century A.D. Old shattered Brahminism defeated new reformist Buddhism and in second century CE, the old editions of ‘Ramayana’ and ‘Mahabharata’ were conflated for Brahminic hegemony and ‘Manusmriti’ was created. But even then there were no temples.

Since Ashoka times, there were caves and temples for Buddhist Bhikshus with images of Buddha. That is the origin of our Hindu temples. In eighth century CE appeared Adi Shankara, the savior of Brahminism. He purified the Scythians and made them Rajputs to kill in mass genocide all the Buddhists. He destroyed Buddhist monuments and banished the Buddhists. He created untouchability among the remaining Buddhists, for the first time in India. He destroyed Buddhist images and established there the Shiva-Lingas and converted some Buddhist images and renamed them as those of Shiva. Thus Buddhist Viharas became Brahmin temples.

Manusmriti, Puranas and temples are the triple noose around the necks of Hindus society. It is because of these three things that the Brahmins maintain their hegemony. If you destroy these three things Brahminism would vanish.

The temples had become the dens of misdeeds till the time of Mohammed of Gazani, who found tremendous wealth just by breaking a Shiva-Linga. Temples are life of religion, the Bhats shout. When omnipotent Somanatha could not protect himself, why the Brahmins fed on kings’ treasury should fight, they ran away. If somebody shows us one single Brahmin fighting for god in the history, we will give him our publications free for one year.

Hindus knew there can be no self-upliftment by worshiping the stone, even then they flock to temples. The secret lies in 18 Puranas created for feeding of Brahmins. All slaves are so mad of god and especially of the amorous ‘*Bhagwat*’, that they prostrate in front of Brahmins and drink water washings of his feet. Many say Puranas are obscenity, I say they are latrines. All lands given to temples are meant for the Brahmins and ornaments of gods are in necks of Brahmin women all the year except on festival days.

Since the Somanatha got the kicks of Mohammed, the temples have become dens of ganja smoking *gosains*, lazy beggars, rowdy goons and well fed-parasitic Bhats. The temples have not contributed anything to progress of Hindu religion or society or justice more than any brothel has done. When 96 percent of population is craving for education, the army of Bhats is feeding on temple property.

Bhats being the born fathers of temples prohibit others to the temples. The dirty stream of Brahmin non-brahmin conflict has its origin in temples. Those touchable and untouchable Hindus who wish to finish this conflict must hammer first on temples. In the name of democracy, as radical reformer, I declare without caring for anybody’s feelings, that these are not temples but the dens of Satan.

In democratic atmosphere today nobody can oppose human rights. Democracy should enter the temples now. People craving for political freedom must destroy all institutions of slavery. We are suggesting three methods of disposing of the Hindu temples.

First, Boycott the temples thinking them as dens of Satan. It is slow process and may take centuries as the Brahmins have accumulated enough wealth that will last them for next thousand years.

Second, ignoring customs and traditions all Hindus including untouchables should, in the name of ‘*hindutva*’, capture these temples. But this is not for reformers. For us, it is preferable to shun away from these centers spreading venom of social hate.

Lastly, the temples got corrupted because the Bhats entered there. They entered because of stone gods therein. If you remove all gods and put all of them from all over the country in one single museum in a city, you can use the empty temples and their property for public good. You may form a committee of Hindus to decide how best these can be used as libraries, research laboratories, hospitals, orphanages, lecture halls, observatories, gymnasiums, community common dining halls and other public purposes. If the Hindus can not show this courage, they are not only unfit for ‘swaraj’ but also are unfit for living.

An angry Brahmin!

Yesterday, on visiting Mathura-Vrindavan, I got one more insight and perspective about the caste society in India. The Brahmin guide, who was picking stories from mythology and engaging people, suddenly got very angry when some visitors raised objections over the service of the tourist agency. I was amazed to see a priest who was giving some calm spiritual speech getting angry so quickly. During the later casual chat, he mentioned that he could not help getting angry, because he was born in a brahmin family. His claim about himself was that a brahmin cannot control his krodh (anger).

It is interesting to know how people believe that their behaviors are attributed to their castes. That too, an anger being associated with the people who control the spiritual aspects of the religion and the only one to have the right to be the priest.

Later, many of the priests insisted on making people worship the way the priests want(i.e. mostly by donations!). But how could I follow them? Being a true atheist, I was there to only see what is there and how it functions.

Thinking is injurious to friendship!

At the mid-night hour, random thought came to my mind..

"Its always good to think twice before you talk, but when you don't need to think while talking to someone.. thats when you have found a real friend.. and probably a real love too!"

There is a saying, "think before you talk, don't talk before you think". Thats actually good, because that prevents you from hurting someone or give wrong impression of yourself. But when it comes to friendship, the rule seems to invalidate itself. How could you hurt your beloved friend? Your instincts should never allow you to do that. Even if it happens, you will surely regret and the true friend will certainly understand. This would strengthen the bond even more. A friend knows you inside out, how could you make wrong impressions? Friends don't mind you eating their cakes. Friends don't mind you turning their requests down. Friends don't mind having different opinions. And friends don't mind putting own life for each other.

So why bother? Actually when you think, its because you are concerned about the worldly rules and customs. Friends simply don't need them. A true love has to be completely free. Free of all the boundaries! Limitless!!

Believe me, its really difficult to find someone that you don't need to think before talking to, but if you do find someone, be assured, thats the real one!

Paper is more patient than man

Today I got my hand on 'The Diary Of A Young Girl", Anne Frank, and I missed a heart bit only on the second page on reading this.. it was so true..

"There is a saying that 'paper is more patient that man'; it came back to me on one of my slightly melancholy days, while I sat chin in hand, feeling too bored and limp even to make up my mind whether to go out or stay at home. Yes, there is no doubt that paper is patient and I don't intend to show this cardboard-covered notebook, bearing the proud name of 'diary', to anyone, unless I find a real friend, boy or girl, probably nobody cares. And now I come to the root of the matter, the reason for my starting a diary: it is that I have no such real friend.

Let me put it more clearly, since no one will believe that a girl of thirteen feels herself quite alone in the world, nor is it so. I have darling parents and a sister of sixteen. I know about thirty people whom one might call friends--I have strings of boy friends, anxious to catch a glimpse of me and who failing that, peep at me through mirrors in class. I have relations, aunts and uncles, who are darlings too, a good home, no--I don't seem to lack anything. But it's the same with all my friends, just fun and joking, nothing more. I can never bring myself to talk of anything outside the common round. We don't seem to be able to get any closer, that is the root of the trouble. Perhaps I lack confidence, but anyway, there it is, a stubborn fact and I don't seem to be able to do anything about it."

Apologies for such a long quotation, but I could not crop any of this part. It is so touching.. even after "I don't seem to lack anything", there is something lacking. No, I did not feel 'alone in the world' when I was a boy of thirteen, I had bestest of my friend circle that time. I can certainly describe that as 'the best days of my life'. But the reason I felt so much for these lines is that, it feels awfully true at twenty-four. The scene of 'I sat chin in hand', resemble to my confusion whether to call someone or not and end up not calling at all. I have so many contacts and friends, but they all seem to be limited to work, jokes and phonebook, where is the real one? The problem seems to come from inside, somewhere.. 'I lack confidence', to be closer. Perhaps, it's not just me. I think, everyone has this utter need of a 'closer than heart' and almost everyone lacks it. May be our own walls of 'self' don't allow us to get any closer. The question is, how to bring the walls down, how difficult is it for a human to connect to other human? Why do people are so less patient even to listen to what other person has to say and express? Really, 'paper is more patient than man!'.

Buddha says..

"This world is sustained by the laws of Nature, hence there is (seemingly) no creator of this universe (Brahma). If Brahma is the creator of world, he would be responsible for the sufferings, found throughout and suffered by all living beings."