http://nirmukta.com/2010/04/13/legacy-of-ancient-religions-of-india/

http://nirmukta.com/2009/10/19/a-rational-approach-to-understanding-the-irrational-behavior-of-indians/

A Rational Approach to Understanding the Irrational Behavior of Indians

Written by Prabhakar Kamath , Posted on 19 October 2009 Tags: behavior, Indians, irrational, psychology

As a practicing psychiatrist in the U. S. A., it is my job to get to the root of my patients’ ‘irrational behavior.’ There is always an explanation, rooted in the patient’s past, why a patient behaves the way he does. But the patient is not aware of it. Making the patient aware of the reason behind his current irrational behavior often changes his behavior, provided he is an open-minded person capable of developing a trusting relationship with the doctor. For example, a woman does not know why she breaks up with men who become seriously interested in her. Once she realizes that this has to do with her irrational fear of rejection, rooted in her childhood rejection by her father, she could learn to trust men once again.

Delusions are beyond reason

Some irrational behaviors are based on delusions, and are not amenable to reason. For example, one cannot reason with a man who believes that for the past three years Mafia has been trying to kill him, by telling him, “If the Mafia really wanted to kill you, it would take only three minutes to do so.” This person has a fixed irrational belief, which serves him a specific purpose. Likewise, you can’t reason with a deluded Jihadist that the seventy-two women he hopes to meet in heaven after achieving martyrdom cannot be virgins in view of the fact that several thousands of brainless Jihadists like him have preceded him there.

Like individuals, every society on earth has its own set of irrational beliefs and behaviors. Some of these behaviors are universal, namely, they are shared by all societies on earth. A common example is religion. Most people on earth swear allegiance to one religion or another, one god or another. The degree of irrationality in religious beliefs varies from religion to religion. In one religion, people meet for prayer once a week, sing together, socialize and go home. On the other extreme, in another religion, people dance in trance-like state, holding poisonous snakes in their hands. Sometimes they die from snakebites.

Irrational thinking is culture-specific

Very often, irrational thinking is culture-specific. For example, insisting that the guest eat and drink something at the host’s house before leaving, is a type of irrational behavior widespread in India, but not in America. In India, a guest refusing food or drink would certainly make the host very angry. Almost all Indian hosts are beyond any reasoning in this matter. Even if the guest says that he is so full that if he ate even one piece of sweetmeat he would vomit, would make no difference in the behavior of Indian hosts. Few Indians know how this irrational behavior started. Here is the true reason: For thousands of years, there was always food shortage in India. The guests did not want to strain the host’s food supply and the hosts did not want the guests to go hungry. So, both of them played this little mind-game: guests pretended to refuse food and hosts insisted they eat. Now, in the twenty first century, food is aplenty. Besides, everybody has weight problem. Yet, the mindless forcing of the guests to eat continues unabated. The host neither listens to nor believes what the guest says. His own agenda is to prove what a wonderful host he is. He is least bothered if the guest drops dead after eating at his house.

Customs are nothing but dead habits

In India as well as in America, even the most educated and accomplished Indians behave in irrational manner like this. I can give you thousands of examples of mindless behaviors in Indians, all of which had a very good reason in the beginning. The only problem is that that reason has no relevance to the current reality. Let me give you a few examples:

1. It is a custom in a certain family to put a cat under a basket during the Ashtami Pooja ceremony. Just before the Pooja, the family would borrow a cat from a neighbor for the purpose. When asked about this irrational behavior, the head of the house said that it was a custom the family had followed from as far back as he could remember. An elder in the family knew how this custom started. Some fifty years ago the family had a cat, which ate the sweetmeat meant for the idol. So they had to put the cat under a basket till the Pooja ceremony was over. Now, the brainless householder felt compelled to continue this irrational tradition even if it meant borrowing a neighbor’s cat for the purpose.

2. After the death of the eldest brother in the family, the surviving brothers and their children met to decide in whose house the annual

Ganesha Pooja ceremony should

be held. None of them wanted to take the responsibility for the ceremony, but all of them expressed great concern for their own welfare if one of them did not perform the annual ritual. All the people involved were highly educated people, but were belaboring under the irrational fear that something terrible would befall them if they did not perform the Pooja as per the family tradition. In other words, they thought that Ganesha would be angry with them for failing to continue this mindless tradition. Their befuddled mind, under the weight of irrational fear, did not understand that performing this ceremony without the mental commitment, merely to protect themselves from Ganesha’s wrath, was worse than not performing it at all. These people had no idea whatsoever about the fundamental idea of god. Obviously, they thought that god would be pleased even if they performed the Pooja without their heart in it and out of fear of punishment!

3. A man goes to the local temple, circles the idol seven times and falls on the ground before the stone idol. When asked, where is his god, he shouts, “God is here, there and everywhere!” If you asked him, “If he is everywhere, why do you go to the temple? Can you not pray at home?” he would reply, “My father did this before me. I have done this for fifty years. I don’t feel good if I didn’t do it now.” Obviously, this man is a creature of his habit. Even though he said that God is everywhere, he did not mean it at all as evidenced by his behavior.

Currently clueless

In all these and thousands of other examples, the following factors become evident:

1. All current irrational behaviors are based on a good reason sometimes in the remote past.

2. Both these were reinforced by an authority figure such as a parent, a priest, a Swami or a Guru. These authority figures had vested interest in perpetuating these behaviors even though these behaviors were irrelevant now.

3. The person indulging in the irrational behavior does not have a clue as to why he is behaving in this way. In fact, he does not think of his behavior as irrational at all even though he cannot explain the rationale for it.

4. He has now become a mindless creature of dead habit, incapable of independent thinking and rational behavior.

Trapped in the ancient mindset

Let us now see how these observations can be applied to Hindu fundamentalists who are attacking women in the restaurants, Christians in the churches and Muslims women in schools:

1. These people are acting on their irrational belief that Hindu religion is under attack and so they need to protect it. This irrational fear is rooted in the history of India. Over the past two thousand five hundred years, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity continually threatened Brahmanism, the decadent Dharma that pervades every atom of present day Hinduism.

2. During the post-Vedic period of 500 B. C. E to 600 A. D., most major kingdoms of India ignored Brahmanism and promoted Buddhism. During the medieval period, Islamic kingdoms attacked Brahmanism and supported Islam. And during the last three centuries, European colonial governments ignored Brahmanism and supported Christianity. So now they do not trust the Indian Constitution to support or promote Brahmanism.

So, they think, they need to attack those who are violating the values of their Dharma, attack those of other Dharmas, and attack anyone seen as

supporting the people of other Dharma. Here let the reader remember that right-wing Hindu fanatics assassinated Gandhi for “siding with Muslims.”

Obviously, these religious fanatics are living in India of the past two thousand five hundred years. They do not realize that the Dharma they should protect now is the Constitution of India. The ancient term, “Dharmo Rakshathi Rashathah” means “The Law protects him who protects Law.” These fanatics have no idea that in the modern world this means, “The Constitution protects him who protects the Constitution.” To them, whose allegiance is to Brahmanism, it is impossible to conform their behavior to India’s Constitution. If we tell them that the Indian Constitution, the Dharma of modern India, considers their behavior as anti-social and treasonous, they would not believe us. They all consider themselves as pukka patriots.

To make matters even worse, these ignoramuses have no knowledge of either the origins of Brahmanism three thousand five hundred years ago or its fundamental tenets. So they depend on what their equally ignorant religious leaders and political supporters tell them what Brahmanic Dharma is. And based on their faulty knowledge and irrational belief, they act in a manner detrimental to the nation.

Obsessive-Compulsive Religion

Written by Prabhakar Kamath , Posted on 06 November 2009 Tags: hinduism, India, irrational, OCD, religion

The solution to a social problem has itself become a problem

In my previous article I wrote that all current irrational beliefs, and behaviors rooted in them, served a perfectly rational purpose some time in the remote past, but they serve no useful purpose in the present time. What we call religion today was in the ancient times a solution for some grave societal problem, which was creating serious chaos in it. In a sense religion was the Constitution of the ancient society. However, even though all religions served useful purposes during the time they were invented they have now themselves become sources of serious conflicts, chaos and destruction in the world. This is an example of how a solution for a serious problem itself could become a problem. Why then does religion exist? Well, once a solution for a problem is found out, it becomes a source of livelihood for the priestly class, who claim custody of the religion. The priests of every religion have developed vested interest in keeping the masses deluded in order to make a comfortable living and enjoy a superior status in the society. This is true of all religions. Even the very educated amongst us can be deluded by their shenanigans.   

Helplessness to resist evil forces and taking refuge in a higher power

The belief system of Hinduism is characterized by multiple gods, and worshiping these gods by means of Poojas, Yajnas, Abhishekas and thousands of other mindless rituals. These are behaviors meant to please a particular god, either to fulfill one’s desires

(wealth, success, power, child, job, etc.), or for protection from evil (illness, failure, loss, death, etc.). For example, if we ask a Hindu why he worships Ganesha, his ready answer would be something like, “I worship Ganesha because he is Vighneshwara, Lord of Calamities! If I invoke him before my daughter’s wedding ceremony, he will prevent Vighnas (calamities). There is no doubt about it!” Obviously, this man believes that there is some kind of evil lurking out there, which is ready to ruin his daughter’s wedding ceremony, and he has been brainwashed into believing that he is totally helpless to prevent it. He never bothers to ask himself, “What is this evil that could ruin my innocent daughter’s wedding? Why should I feel so helpless against anything going wrong? What proof is there that there is a god by the name of Ganesha and how can he ward off evil?” He is not used to this kind of rational thinking. It takes too much mental energy to think and question deep-rooted beliefs. Instead, he resorts to taking refuge in Ganesha, whom he has never met, to protect him from the unknown evil. He does not mind spending any amount of money to perform elaborate Pooja of Ganesha’s

idol. He does not think twice about dumping toxic, mercury-smeared Ganesha’s clay idol into the pristine water of his well or the local river.

Roots of helplessness in Hindus

The roots of this pervasive feeling of helplessness in the face of evil go back to three thousand five hundred years ago. Brahmanism, which was the Dharma during the Vedic period (1500-1000 B.C. E.), brainwashed people into believing that everyone was completely helpless against the irresistible force of the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma (BG: 3:5, 27, 33; 18: 59-60). This they did to bring order into a society, which was in turmoil due to successive waves of immigrant minorities mingling with the society of the locals called Dasyus. They divided the society into four great classes based on these doctrines (BG: 4:13). The doctrine of the Gunas and Karma were literally the two gods of Brahmanism. No one, they said, not even their petty gods, could defy these two forces. Those who defied this dictum were declared as deluded by Ahamkara (egoism, self-centeredness), and were shamed and dishonored in the society and condemned to hell (BG: 2:33). Over the next thousand years, Brahmanism became decadent due to its obsession with corrupted Yajnas known as Kamya Karma. The Dharma, which had been invented to bring stability to the ancient society itself, became the problem.

The Upanishadic rationalists create a superman to counter Brahmanism

Decadence of Brahmanism created tremendous turmoil in the society. A large section of Brahmanic society abandoned it and started various rationalist Dharmas such as Buddhism and Lokayata. During this time, Upanishadic rationalists, with the intent of overthrowing decadent Brahmanism, declared both the Gunas and Karma as evil, which one should transcend (BG: 2:45) or even slay (BG: 3:41, 43). They created a Super Man (Purushotthama, Brahman) to counter the force of the Gunas. They created a Super Weapon (Buddhiyoga, Yoga of Reason) to break the shackles of Karma. They said one could conquer these evil doctrines by taking refuge in Brahman, and by using Buddhiyoga as a weapon (BG: 2:39-53; 15:1-5).

Brahmanism launched a counterrevolution and did everything within their powers to counter the Upanishadic revolution. They neutralized Brahman and Buddhiyoga by adding pro-Brahmanism shlokas in the Upanishads as well as the Bhagavad Gita. This necessitated creation of an even greater force to combat Brahmanism. This is how the real god of Hindus, Parameshwara, was invented. Parameshwara, the Great Lord, of the Bhagavathas, took the place of Brahman, and Bhakthiyoga became the weapon against the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. The ultimate shloka of the Bhagavad Gita reveals this theme par excellence: 18:66: Abandon all Dharma (Brahmanism and all its sub-Dharmas such as Varna Dharma, Jati Dharma, Kula Dharma) and take refuge in me alone. I shall liberate you from all evil (of the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma). Do not grieve (for them).

Brahmanic subterfuge

Brahmanism would have none of it. They resorted to extreme editing of the text of the Bhagavad Gita and concealed the Upanishadic and Bhagavatha revolutions. They retained the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma and all the evil caused by it such as Varna and Jati system. They continued to drum in the doctrine of helplessness in the minds of people and offered various gods such as Ganesha, Hanuman, Shiva and the like to take refuge in. Even after two thousand five hundred years, we can see this pervasive feeling of helplessness against evil and taking refuge in a higher power in most Hindus even in their daily lives. If they encounter an evil official who refuses to oblige without a bribe, they take refuge in a person they perceive as more powerful to “influence” the corrupt official to do their bidding, or they take refuge in the greatest force on earth, even more powerful than any god: bribery.

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

There is a psychiatric disorder in which we see this type of delusional thinking and consequent irrational ritualistic behavior. It is called Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). In this disorder, the patient has a fixed belief, which forces him to indulge in fruitless repetitive ritualistic behaviors. For example, he might believe that his hands are contaminated with germs (evil) and he must take refuge in washing hands hundreds of times a day. His gods are soap and water. If he does not wash his hands with soap and water, his fear of dreadful disease would bring on a panic attack. Some time in the remote past, this patient experienced an event in which his hands were grossly contaminated by feces of an animal. He had then every reason to wash his hands very scrupulously. This event left such a bad memory in his subconscious mind that now he has become obsessed with it. Now he compulsively washes his hands hundreds of times a day, resulting in denudation of the skin of his hands. If ever he fell ill, he would blame it on his not washing his hands well enough. Now soap and water have created a new problem for the patient. Not only do his gods cost him a lot of money, but also now he has to spend money on psychiatrists and dermatologists.

Obsessive-Compulsive Religion

Careful examination of Hindus indicates that most of them indulge in some type of “fearing evil and taking refuge in a higher power” pattern of behavior every single day. There are thousands of superstitions floating around in India, and educated and well-to-

do classes are as likely to fall prey to them as poor and illiterates. I know a brilliant doctor who feels compelled to move his car forward even if it is just one half inch before driving it in reverse out from his garage. His explanation is that that would ward off evil. Now his relatively more rational wife has followed suit. So, OCD can be contagious. Here in America, highly educated Hindu women exchange coconuts with other women once a year during Gowri Pooja season. If you ask them why they do it, they have absolutely no idea. However, if they don’t do it, they begin to feel very anxious. I know an educated man who unfailingly mistreated his mother during her entire life, and yet he travels all the way to India every year to officiate her annual  ‘Kriya.’ If you ask him why he does it, his answer is “If I don’t do it, it does not feel right.” What he is not saying is that he fears his mom’s ghost would come back to haunt him. Taking full advantage of such disorder in Hindus, crackpot astrologers and fraudulent Swamis are inducing them to perform expensive Poojas, Yajnas or Abhishekas. Recently, here in St. Louis, Missouri, thousands of Hindus performed Kumbhabhishekam of the god in the Hindu temple under the delusion that the “power of god has diminished in the idol over the years. So we need to perform rituals to reinstall the idol and bring god’s power back into it.” Some fraud told them this and they believed him. The priests of Hinduism have succeeded in creating an Obsessive-Compulsive Religion. Look at the throngs of mindless people crowding the streets shouting, “Ganapathi bappa Morya!” Or look at the thousands of worshippers of Sai Baba pulling his chariot, while he is laughing all the way to the bank. In their literature known as the Upanishads as well as the Bhagavad Gita, the rationalist of ancient India referred to these ritual-addicted Brahmins and Kshatriyas as ignorant, fools, dullards, idiots, stupid, degraded, blind, worst among men, so on and so forth.

Double Jeopardy

In the case of the man we discussed above, his fear of evil has become an obsession and taking refuge in Ganesha has become a compulsion. So, if we tell this man not to worship Ganesha at all before any ceremony, he would suffer from a panic attack due to fear of evil befalling him any time, or due to fear of Ganesha’s wrath for failing to please him. The Hindus constantly find themselves in this double jeopardy. In fact, if something bad did happen to him shortly after failing to invoke Ganesha, he would certainly conclude that either the evil force has succeeded in ruining him, or Ganesha was punishing him for

failing to perform his worship. Even if no evil struck him, he would constantly be looking for some bad omen (Apashakuna) indicative of some evil about to befall him. If during this period his doctor diagnoses him with high blood pressure, he would surely blame it on his omission of Ganesha Pooja rather than on his irrational fear of both the evil and Ganesha. He is so thoroughly brainwashed that he is now incapable of rational thinking whatsoever. Almost all Hindus I know are slaves to this double jeopardy predicament. It is impossible for us to convince them not to perform rituals they are addicted to. Just as a drug addict suffers withdrawal symptoms when he quits drugs, ritualists suffer from anxiety and panic if they quit performing the mindless rituals.

Almost total loss of critical thinking leads to parrot-like talk

When it comes to their religion, most Hindus suspend their critical thinking capacities even though they put on a perfectly intelligent façade while dealing with their fellowmen. If we ask a Hindu religionist, “Why do you practice all these mindless rituals?” he might babble something like, “Oh, our Sanatana Dharma is the greatest religion ever! In fact, it is a way of life! All these rituals had great significance to our ancestors!” or some such hyperbole. He is merely repeating parrot-like whatever his elders told him while growing up. He is absolutely clueless as to what Sanatana Dharma is; nor does he have any understanding as to why his ancestors performed these rituals; nor does he ask the question, “What relevance do these rituals have for me in my present life circumstance?” This kind of questioning takes too much mental energy. He wants to take the path of least effort. Recently, when I asked a highly educated Hindu, “Who wrote the Mahabharata epic?” he shot back without bothering to think even for a second, “Was it not dictated by Vyasa and written by Ganesha?” On the screen of his unthinking mind he was perhaps visualizing a short, potbellied man with a disproportionately large elephant’s head -not to mention a golden crown on it- sitting on a small mouse and taking dictation from an old, half naked ash-smeared sage with matted hair and long grey beard, sitting on deer skin in Yogic position. If you listen to Hindu religionists’ conversations, most of what they say appears to be parrot-like utterances devoid of much thoughtfulness. Most of what they talk is so automatic that when I listen to them my head starts spinning.

Rational approach is needed

If rationalists are to put some sense into the heads of these religious people, simply telling them that their belief in god is a grand shared delusion, and their religious behavior is irrational, will not change them. In fact it will only harden their attitude. Rationalists must give them rational explanation with valid evidence straight from the scriptures regarding the origin of Hindus’ feelings of helplessness against evil forces and the reason for inventing god as a refuge to ward it off. Since we have no way of traveling back in time to interview our ancestors who invented god and religion, we can only depend upon dispassionate study and analysis of ancient scriptures, such as the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, to get insight into their thinking and methods of solving societal problems. Our approach should be to review them as valuable documents, which reveal various historical events and forces, and not as religious scriptures promoting god and religion. It is like an architect studying an ancient temple to understand the origins of

temple-building art taking into account religious beliefs that might have shaped the architecture. The rationalists’ formidable task is to teach the unthinking religionist to think outside the “ancient culture box.” However, this is easier said than done. Entrenched beliefs and behavioral patterns are extremely difficult to change.

Why facts can’t compete with belief

Here is an excerpt from The Atlantic by Lane Wallace, which sums up the difficulty a rationalist faces:

“Why do people cling to an opinion even after they are presented with contradictory evidence?” said Lane Wallace. “The easy answer, of course, is simply that people are irrational.” But the way in which they are irrational is telling. In a new study, social science researchers have found that people employ “motivated reasoning to fend off any evidence that their strongly held beliefs are wrong. Many people feel that they are their opinions, and hate to lose arguments; as Vince Lombardi once said, “Every time you lose, you die a little.” So when confronted with new, troubling information, ideologues selectively interpret the facts or use “contorted logic” to make conflicting evidence just go away. In the study, even when presented with “compelling, factual data” from a trusted source, many subjects “still found ways to dismiss it. ” In fact, researchers found that exposing people to contradictory information actually “intensified” their existing beliefs, making them more rigid and entrenched. Needless to say, the findings do not offer much hope of “changing anyone else’s mind with facts or rational discussion.”

So, in the articles to follow, I will analyze the origin of religion and gods in India, hoping that at least one ritualist Hindu could be converted to thinking Hindu.

A Rational Approach to the Problem of Obsessive Compulsive Religion

Written by Prabhakar Kamath , Posted on 11 November 2009 Tags: Brahminism, India, rationalism, religion

In my previous article I described Hinduism as Obsessive Compulsive Religion, and that its practices are rooted in the antiquated belief system of Brahmanism, the prevalent religion of India three thousand years ago. This explains why India has more gods, more mindless rituals, more bizarre superstitions and more fraudulent “holy men” than the rest of the world put together and why there is the pernicious caste system. The reality is that today more than ever before, highly educated people in India have fallen prey to the relics of Brahmanism such as superstitions, Yajnas, Poojas and Abhishekas dedicated to their personal gods. More than ever before, there is such frenzy in India to build huge ornate temples, some of which are covered with gold. More than ever before, today millions of Hindus are thronging to temples and donating their life-savings to them. And more than ever before religious frauds are thriving in India and abroad.

A comprehensive approach is needed

What factors in India’s ancient history contributed to these phenomena? What meaningful and sustainable remedies can we come up with to deal with these truly mind-boggling issues?

For one thing, without understanding the religious, psychological and historical bases for the irrational practices of Hindus, rationalist won’t be able to put forth an effective and scientifically sound solution, which engenders least amount of unintended negative consequences. Therefore, a detailed history of Hinduism going back to three thousand five hundred years ago; the process by which it came to be possessed by Brahmanism even after it separated itself from Brahmanism; a detailed study of all failed attempts in the past to overthrow Brahmanism, and, finally, a realistic assessment of why Brahmanism continues to have formidable influence on the psyche of Hindus, are essential for any rationalist to formulate a viable solution.

Never underestimate the formidable power of Brahmanism

Rationalist should never underestimate the indomitable power of Brahmanism. Brahmanism’s victory against every single adversary -Buddhism, Jainism, Lokayata, Ajivika, Upanishadism, Bhagavathism, Dasa movement- was always decisive and absolute as evidenced by its continued stranglehold on all aspects of Hindu society -cultural, social, religious and psychological. Today Brāhmanism pervades every atom of Hinduism. Hinduism, as we know it today, is the supreme symbol of how Brāhmanism prevailed through invasions, conquests, occupations, revolts, revolutions, reforms; how it tenaciously hung on to its hollow cultural traditions and mindless rituals; how it promoted the class and caste system just to maintain superiority of Brāhmins; how it destroyed religious adversaries entirely, and engulfed religious reformers completely; how it suffocated all dissenting sects and stifled dissident groups, and absorbed them all into its ever-resilient body; and how it inexorably dug its powerful nails deep into the body of the ever-assimilating and all-inclusive Hindu Dharma which succeeded it. It is also a testament to the infinite sustaining power of Brāhmanism, whose iron hand has had such ruthless grip on the psyche of a whole Indian nation for over three thousand and five hundred years.

Brahmanism’s “Deshabhaktha“ goons

Even in the twenty-first century, Brahmanism has millions of mindless goons ready to be summoned instantly to do the bidding of Swamis and Gurus, not to mention their political patrons. These goons have formed paramilitary outfits named after their gods and heroes. In the garb of Deshabhakthas, these miscreants will not hesitate for a moment to rush into their critics’ offices, destroy their property, manhandle their staff and set their building on fire. Little do these ignoramuses know that their true identity is that of Deshadhrohis, not Deshabhakthas. They have little regard for the long-term consequences of their criminal actions on the well-being of the democratic, diverse and freedom-loving India.

A scientifically sound approach

This being the case, what should be a rational and scientifically sound approach to this problem? Instead of engaging Brahmanism in sporadic and local skirmishes, we need to develop broad array of strategies and tactics based on fairly accurate assessment of the problem and realistic and achievable goals. Below, I have suggested a few broad strategies and tactics in dealing with the mindboggling problem we face in India. Other rationalists are welcome to add to or delete from this list their ideas based on their experience and expertise.

Suggested broad strategies:

1.    It should be persistently pointed out to the religionists that their current belief system and practices are rooted in the remote past and they have little relevance to their present life circumstances. They will neither fulfill their desires nor protect them from the unknown evil. Practicing this religion is like flying a Boeing 747 using the flight manual from Kitty Hawk.

2.    To buttress our point of view, we should systematically expose the literary fraud perpetrated by Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya who misinterpreted, misrepresented and obfuscated various literatures of the ancient anti-Brahmanic movements such as Upanishadism.

3.    We should educate the religionists that their current Dharma is India’s Constitution. They should be encouraged to abandon all Dharma and seek refuge in the Constitution of India alone. The Constitution will give them all opportunities to lawfully fulfill their own desires, and protect them from all evil forces (corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, police, etc.).

4.    Dharmo Rakshathi Rakshatah: This Dharma will protect him who protects it. Protecting this Dharma consists of exercising their right and carrying out their responsibilities as enlightened citizens of a civilized modern Nation.

Suggested tactics:

1. Empathize: We cannot change religionists by confrontation, argument, threats or condemnation. We must show empathy for their predicament. They are no different than patients I see who are trapped in their mindless rituals. We must avoid ridiculing their beliefs, gods and practices. No one can be changed by means of these methods. We must win their respect and trust by our own scientific temperament, honesty and rational behavior. The religionists should have faith in the purity of our intentions and fairness in our approach. Besides, we must accept the reality that deep-rooted beliefs and behavioral patterns are extremely difficult to change. And so we must be patient.

2. Educate: We must attempt to enlighten the educated people about the irrationality of their behaviors by means of sensible articles, books, seminars, and public discussions.

Rationalist activists must have good knowledge of the historical roots of people’s current irrational behavior. We cannot just tell them, “Stop behaving this way!” We must show them why it is in their own best interests to do so. Very often just knowing the basis of one’s irrational behavior is enough to give it up. We must then give them a realistic alternative belief system and rational behaviors rooted in them. Exposing Brahmanic fraud against anti-Brahmanic literature will be part of this effort.

3. Demonstrate: Rationalists should hold public demonstrations for the benefit of less educated Hindus to debunk tricks and magic by which “holy men” bewilder people and swindle them. Many rationalists have been doing this very successfully all over India.

4. Promote the Constitution: Rationalists should educate people about the fact that the Constitution of India is their New Dharma and its practice consists of defending, protecting and strengthening it by constantly exercising their rights and responsibilities as citizens. If there is an organization dedicated to protecting the Constitutional rights of people, such as Civil Liberty Union, we should support it wholeheartedly.

5. Fight injustice: We must recognize the fact that the widespread corruption we encounter with bureaucrats (modern day Brahmins) and politicians

(modern day Kshatriyas) has its roots in the corruption evident in the nexus of Brahmins and Kshatriyas three thousand years ago. Rationalists should be at the forefront of movements, which expose fraud and corruption practiced by the elected officials, bureaucrats, judges and police, who are all supposed to be the guardians of Indian Constitution. Corruption and oppression undermines rationalists’ work to instill faith in the Constitution. It is a sad commentary that people have more faith in the fraudulent guardians of Brahmanism than these crooked public servants. Consumer movements to fight political and bureaucratic corruption and Human Rights movements to fight oppression should be part of rationalist movement.

6. Promote social activism: We need to induce people to invest their energies into socially relevant tasks such as improving civic amenities, sewage system, garbage

collection, water supply, electricity supply and the like instead of wasting them in mindless rituals. Service of people is service of their new Dharma.

7. Moral education: Brahmanism had one major advantage over the Constitution of India: it had literature, such as the Mahabharata, which taught people morals. Since the Constitution does not teach people morals, but merely punishes them for breaking the law, some non-religious system to educate people to distinguish right from wrong must be developed. History teaches us that without a strong moral foundation all societies perish. Parents and teachers should start teaching children morals at an early age. There is an urgent need for a Book of Virtues, a Book of Morals and a Book of Etiquettes for young Indians. Success of all civilized societies rests on these three foundations. To its credit Hinduism did have a strong tradition of teaching morals, which more recently has fallen by the wayside due to its preoccupation with mindless rituals. We must identify moral moorings of ancient India and readily acknowledge them. We should not throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater.

8. Fight caste system: We must expose the irrationality and anachronism of caste system. We must come to the assistance of those who have suffered injustice on account of their supposed “lower caste” status.

9. Identify the wisdom from India’s past. It is said that wisdom comes from experience; experience comes from stupidity. We are all products of India’s past. While we should reject mindless rituals and fraud associated with Hinduism, we should diligently search in India’s past any wisdom we can use in the present instead of condemning all of it as obsolescent. For example, the Upanishadic wisdom, which was directed toward corrupt Brahmins and Kshatriyas, that their obsession and entanglement with wealth, power, people, honor, title, heaven and the like led to their self-destructive and evil acts, is as true today as it was twenty-five hundred years ago, and will be as true twenty-five hundred years from today.

10. Be careful: While attempting to reform society, all rationalist must keep in mind the dictum that all solutions for societal problems, no matter how noble their original intents were, become problems themselves sooner or later. This is especially true in India. Don’t be surprised that someday in the future Rationalism will become a religion riddled with gods and mindless rituals! People bring into organizations their own unconscious beliefs and behaviors rooted in them and destroy the original goals of the organization. That is exactly what happened to Buddhism, which was born from revolt against ritual-ridden Brahmanism. Brahmins infiltrated Buddhism and made it into the mirror image of Brahmanism.

The Origins and Evolution of Brahmanism

Written by Prabhakar Kamath , Posted on 20 November 2009 Tags: Brahmanism, hinduism

In my previous articles (1,2,3) I asserted that all religions came into being to solve some pressing societal problems. In the process, the problem solvers created gods to fulfill their own desires and to take refuge in them for protection from a specific evil. Let us now examine if we can apply these observations to Brahmanism. Around 3500 years ago, Northwest India saw waves of immigrants known as the Arya from north of the Himalayas. Their culture was remarkably distinct from that of the local people whom they disparagingly referred to as the Dasyu. The earliest Arya settlers in the region of the Punjab faced two major questions in their new land: 1. How are we going to cope with and harness the forces of Nature (Prakriti) such as rains, floods, famine, fires and storms? 2. How are we going to deal with the Dasyu who are hostile and evil?  They experimented with many solutions over the years and finally came up with a brilliant solution. The result of their experimentation was Brahmanism.

Coping with Prakriti: Creating Devas (gods) and worshiping them by Yajnas

Since Prakriti was too strong to resist and it gave them sustenance such as water and food, and grass for their cattle, they began to view it as their divine ally rather than their adversary. To make sense of the intangible forces of Prakriti such as wind, water, rain, thunder, fire and the like, they created gods (Devas) such as Vayu, Varuna, Parjanya, Indra and Agni to represent them in their consciousness. They created Lord of beings whom they named Prajapati. Even though these entities were Devas (”bright ones”), they were still subject to the fundamental laws of Prakriti (BG: 18:40). They worshiped these gods by fire sacrifices known as Yajna. They burnt their surplus food in the fire believing that the ensuing smoke would carry it to the Devas. The Rig Veda is full of pleadings such as the one below addressed to Indra, the Lord of the Devas:

Rig Veda: Giver of horses, Indra, giver, thou, of cows, giver of barley, thou art Lord and guard of wealth. Man’s helper from of old, not disappointing hope, Friend of our friends, to thee as such we sing this praise. Well pleased with these bright flames (of Yajnas) and with these Soma drops, take thou away our poverty with seeds and cows.

Quid pro quo

The Bhagavad Gita explains this quid pro quo between the Arya and their Devas: BG: 3:10-12:

Having created mankind in the beginning together with Yajna, the Prajapati (Lord of beings of Brahmanism) said: “By this (arrangement) you shall propagate; this shall be the milch cow of your desires. Nourish the Devas with this; and may the Devas nourish you. Thus nourishing one another, you shall reap the supreme welfare (of mankind). Nourished by Yajna, the Devas shall bestow on you the enjoyments you desire.”

The Vedas and Brahmins

The Brahmanic priests praised the Devas in orally transmitted hymns, the massive collection of which came to be known as Rig Veda. The shamans of this Dharma ‘got

stoned’ on Soma, a hallucinogenic drink made up of a mountain herb, and claimed that they could communicate and mingle with the Devas. Soma itself became a god. In their drug-induced trance they invoked by means of Mantras a mysterious spirit known as Brahman. The meters of their Vedic verses became a god. Even the word invoking Brahman -OM- became sacred. Since they were capable of being possessed by Brahman, they came to be known as Brahmana or Brahmin. Since Brahmins became the brokers between men and gods, now they too became sacred. Over the years, Brahmins claimed magical and supernatural powers and thus they became holy like the holy cows of Hinduism. Anyone harming them ran the risk of losing his head and going to hell.

Coping with Dasyu

Initially the Arya saw the Dasyu as hostile enemies whom they should conquer or destroy completely. Even though the Arya were better armed on account of their horses, chariots and weapons, the Dasyu were more in number. So, feeling helpless in the face of overwhelming number of Dasyu, they took refuge in Indra, the supremo of the Devas to protect them from the evil Dasyu. Rig Veda is full of petitions of the Arya to Indra seeking his help in destroying the Dasyu:

Rig Veda: With Indra scattering the Dasyu through these (Soma) drops, freed from their hate may we obtain abundant food. He verily, the God, the glorious Indra, hath raised him up for man, best Wonder-Worker. He, self-reliant, mighty and triumphant, brought low the dear head of the wicked Dasa. Indra the Vṛtra-slayer, Fort-destroyer, scattered the Dasa hosts who dwelt in darkness.

This is how the Brahmanic system of fulfilling desire by worshiping gods and taking refuge in them for protection from evil came into being.

The Arya decide to coexist rather than fight

In the course of time, however, the reality dawned the Arya that they must coexist with Dasyu. The challenge before them was how to live in peace with Dasyu while still maintaining their distinct racial identity. So they created a class system based on the color (Varna) of skin, known as Varna Dharma. In its most primitive form there were only two classes: white (immigrant) and black (locals). However, when Aryan men comingled with Dasyu women, they produced children of varying hues of skin color and so it became difficult to classify people by skin color. By now the Arya society had become more complex. A new class system based on one’s profession came into being. The word Varna now took the meaning of Class rather than color. In this more refined Varna system, the Arya considered themselves as the elite and occupied the upper two classes.

The doctrines of the Gunas and destiny of Karma

To justify this Varna system, the brilliant priests of the Arya culture came up with two astounding doctrines: the doctrines of the Gunas of

Prakriti and destiny of Karma. Brahmanic priests claimed that Prakriti manifested itself in the body of humans in the form of three Gunas (Qualities): Sattva (knowledge, culture, joy), Rajas (passion, greed, drive) and Tamas (ignorance, sloth, laziness). Based on these doctrines, Brahmanism divided the society into four classes: Brahmins (the priestly class of Sattva Guna), Kshatriyas (the warrior class of Rajas Guna), Vaishyas and Sudras (the trader and labor class of Tamas Guna) (BG: 18: 41-44).

Brahmanism creates helplessness to repress resistance to its doctrines

They claimed that the Gunas were the source of all Actions (Karma). Everyone was totally helpless in the face of the Gunas. The product of one’s action was known as Karmaphalam (fruit of action). All actions, except for Yajna, accumulated Karmaphalam (BG: 3:9). If one did good deeds, he earned good Karmaphalam (Punyam); if one did bad deeds, he earned bad Karmaphalam (Papam). After death, one’s soul was reborn on earth in a higher or lower social status depending upon the quality of his deeds. They called this cycle of birth, death and rebirth Samsara. Brahmanism brainwashed people into believing that everyone’s life situation, societal status, and quality of action, was determined by the dictates of the doctrines of the Gunas of Prakriti and destiny of Karma. One who defied this concept was branded as one deluded by Ahamkara (egoism), the worst title one could earn in the Brahmanic society:

BG: 3:5: None can ever remain really action-less even for a moment; for everyone is helplessly driven to action by the Gunas born of Prakriti. BG: 3:27: The Gunas of Prakriti (and not you) perform all Karma. With delusion engendered by Ahamkara, man thinks, “I am the doer.” BG: 3:33: Even a wise man behaves in conformity with his own nature (Guna); being follow nature; what is the point of resisting this notion? BG: 18:40: There is no being on earth, or again in heaven amongst the Devas, that is liberated from the three Gunas born of Prakriti. 18:60: Bound by your own Karma born of your nature (Guna), that which from delusion (of Ahamkāra) you wish not to do, even that you shall do helplessly against your own will!“

Brahmanism forbids class admixture

To protect the purity of their elite status, Brahmanism forbade class admixture (Varnasankara). An upper class man could marry a lower class woman, but vice versa was forbidden. Those who defied this rule were condemned to hell (BG: 1:38-44). In the course of time, Brahmanism came up with an extremely complex Jati system based on distinct trades and professions.

It took about 500 years for Brahmanism to perfect this system. In its mature form, Brahmanism rested on the doctrines of the Gunas of Prakriti and destiny of Karma; and it was held up by four great pillars: the sanctity of the Vedas, Yajnas as the means of worship of Devas, Varna Dharma consisting of four great classes and supremacy of Brahmins in the hierarchy of class system. The noble goal of this system was to counter chaos and bring Law and Order in the society. Because there was no single ruler who could administer justice, it fell on Brahmanism to develop a primitive Constitution and a System of Justice. Brahmanism had no power to arrest wrongdoers and deliver them corporal punishment. However, they had even greater power than corporal punishment: dishonor here on earth and Papam (bad Karmaphalam) hereafter. Those impertinent people who refused to perform their Varna-designated Karma were sure to face the music like the reluctant Arjuna did on the battlefield. This concept is beautifully illustrated in the following verses, which explain the fate of those who defied the dictates of Varna Dharma:

BG: 33-36: If you refuse to fight this righteous war, forfeiting your own Duty and Honor, you will incur sin (bad Karmaphalam). People will forever recount your infamy. To the honored, infamy is worse than death. The great charioteers will see you as one fled from the war out of fear; you that were highly esteemed by them will be lightly held. Your enemies will slander your strength and speak many unseemly words. What could be more painful than that?

In the next article, we will study how Brahmanism became thoroughly corrupted and became even greater problem than the problem it was supposed to solve.

(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.

The Decay of Dharma and the Rise of Adharma

Written by Prabhakar Kamath , Posted on 30 November 2009 Tags: Adharma, Brahmanism, Brahmins, Dharma, hinduism, Kshatriyas

In my previous article, we studied how Brahmanism originated and evolved to fulfill the desires of Arya people and protect them from evil of Dasyu. In this article we will study how in the course of next thousand years this Dharma decayed and itself became the evil that one needed protection from. We have witnessed this phenomenon of noble institutions decaying in the course of time even in our own lifetime. Congress Party, which was invented in the 19 th century with the noble intention of winning independence from the British, itself became the ultimate symbol of corruption after India won independence in mid 20th century. Opposing political parties with lofty ideals, such as Bharatiya Janata Party, which were created to overthrow Congress Party, became even more corrupt and divisive -if that is possible- than Congress Party!

Greed takes roots in the heart of the upper classes

As the semi-nomadic tribes settled down and became civilized, kings became powerful and very wealthy. They fought wars with their neighboring kings to enhance their wealth and power. Brahmins made their living by performing petty Yajnas to please gods on behalf of Kshatriya royals to fulfill their desires and to protect them from evil. In other words, they made their living by eating the crumbs fallen from the tables of Kshatriyas. Now greed and jealousy sprouted in their hearts. Driven by these twin scourges of mind, Brahmins thought, “These Kshatriyas are wallowing in wealth while we Brahmins are living hand-to-mouth. Why can’t they share some of their wealth with us?” Begging for money was too demeaning as Kshatriyas already had low opinion of Brahmins. They must induce Kshatriyas to use their special ritual skills in return for hefty fees. The clever Brahmins told Kshatriya royals, “If you perform great sacrifices, not only will your prestige increase in the society, but also you will earn good Karmaphalam and enjoy a great life in your next birth on earth.” When some skeptic royal –mind you, there was no dearth for skeptic royals in ancient India- asked, “What if I earned more Karmaphalam than I can enjoy in my next life?” Brahmins scratched their baldheads and came up with a brilliant response (BG: 9:20): “Don’t worry. After your death, the surplus Karmaphalam will enable you to enjoy the company of gods in heaven before returning to enjoy life here on earth.” This was like telling a rich man, “If you donate ten lakh rupees to Congress Party, not only will your prestige increase in your own community, but also you will be the personal guest of the Prime Minister for three days. You will meet all political heavy weights before returning to your hometown.”

Yajnas become corrupted

Satisfied by this assurance, the royals began to perform various elaborate and ostentatious Yajnas with the goal of enhancing their prestige among their peers, earning for themselves a vacation in heaven after death, and enjoying power, wealth and happiness in their next life here on earth. They performed obscenely ostentatious Yajnas such as Ashvamedha, Rajasooya, and Vajapeya. These grandiose desire-driven Yajnas, performed against the ordinances of scriptures, came to be known as Kamya Karma (desire-fulfilling Yajna). Krishna, as the Upanishadic Guru leading the Upanishadic revolution to overthrow Brahmanism, explains the stupidity of these royals:

BG: 2:42-43: These ignorant people, who delight in the flowery words disputing about the Vedas say that there is nothing other than this (earning Karmaphalam by means of Kamya Karma). These desire-ridden ritualists perform various specific sacrificial rites to gain Karmaphalam such as pleasure and lordship here on earth and heaven hereafter.

In the words of the Buddha :

“Then came their ruin. Seeing bit by bit their king expand, with his finely decked women, his well-wrought chariots yoked with thoroughbreds, his colorful stitching, his palaces and well-laid-out chambers, thriving with herds of cows, waited on by bevies of comely women, those Brahmins began to covet that vast human luxury. They composed mantras then and there, approached Okkaka (king) and said, ‘Your riches are abundant. Sacrifice. You have much wealth. Sacrifice. You have much money!’ Prompted by the Brahmins, that king, a bull among warriors, sacrificed up horses, humans, and animals and offered Vajapeya in unbridled fashion; and he gave riches to the Brāhmins: cows, beds, clothes, finely decked women, etc.”

Ritualists become thieves

Thus the Yajnas originally meant to return the debt to the Devas for their bounty, turned into merry barbecue parties. Krishna, as the leader of Upanishadic revolution to overthrow Brahmanism, does not mince words when it comes to condemning the greedy ritualists who corrupted the ancient Dharma:

BG: 3:12-13: A thief verily is he who enjoys what is given by the Devas without returning them anything. The good that eat the remains of the Yajna (after sacrificing the main portion of materials to the Devas) are freed from all sins (bad Karmaphalam); but the sinful ones who cook food only for themselves (= who desire Karmaphalam for themselves), they verily eat sin (they earn bad Karmaphalam). 3:16: He who does

not follow on earth the wheel thus revolving (= People-Yajna-gods-rains-food-people), sinful of life and rejoicing in the sensual pleasures lives in vain.

As the hero of the revolution to overthrow Brahmanism, Krishna scolds these ritualists mercilessly as infirm in mind (2:41), ignorant (2:42; 3:26), desire-ridden and addicted to sacrificial rites (2:43), devoid of discrimination (2:44), despicable (2:49), thieves (3:12), sinful (3:13; 4:36), vain (3:16), unwise (3:25), egoistic (3:27), dullards (3:29), men of small intellect (7:23), men who fall or perish (9:24), hypocritical, proud and arrogant (16:10), self-conceited, stubborn and ostentatious (16:17), insolent and egoistic (16:18); worst among men (16:19), so on and so forth.

Jealous rage (Krodha) enters the hearts of Kshatriyas

Sometimes the royals performed these Yajnas out of jealous rage against their rivals, thus destroying the purity of purpose of Yajnas. Krishna explains the perverted mentality of these haughty Kshatriyas:

BG: 16:12-16: Bound by a hundred ties of hope, given over to lust and jealous rage, they strive to secure by unjust means (Kamya Karma) 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 (life). That enemy has been slain by me, and I shall slay others also. I am a lord, I enjoy, and I am successful, powerful and happy. I am rich and high born. Who else is equal to me? I will sacrifice, I will give alms, I will rejoice.” Thus deluded by ignorance (engendered by Kama and Krodha), bewildered by many a fancy, enmeshed in the snare of delusion, addicted to the gratification of lust, they fall into foul hell.

Animal sacrifices become rampant

To top it all, driven by greed to earn Karmaphalam, gruesome animal sacrifices became even more rampant and important part of Vedic sacrificial rites. Thousands of innocent horses, cows, buffaloes, bulls, goats, and birds were slaughtered mercilessly every year all over the land of Arya. Occasionally even humans were sacrificed. As described in Suttanipata:

“Cows sweet as lamb, filling pails with milk, never hurting anyone with foot or horn -the king had them seized by the horns and slaughtered by the sword.” This is how “Kshatriyas and self-styled Brahmins and others protected by rank destroyed the repute of their caste and fell prey to desires.”

Unholy nexus of Brahmins and Kshatriyas

As we read earlier, the first quid pro quo of Brahmanism was between the upper classes and their gods. Now a second quid pro quo came into

being: between Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Since they needed each other in this whole sacrificial farce there developed an unholy nexus -I scratch your back and you scratch mine. Hankering after hefty fees, Brahmins performed various grandiose Vedic sacrifices against the ordinances of scriptures (16:23) for the benefit of vain Kshatriya nobles, and Kshatriya nobles deluded themselves that they would go to heaven and enjoy wealth and lordship in their next life on earth.

It is the same unholy nexus of politicians (modern day Kshatriyas) and bureaucrats (modern day Brahmins) that has today corrupted India’s government machinery (Yajna) and undermined India’s Constitution (Dharma). The machinery (Yajna) originally meant to nourish citizens (by serving them) and be nourished by them in return (by payment of taxes), has been converted into self-serving and corrupt machinery geared to exploit citizens. The government machinery (the police) designed to protect citizens from evil (thieves, murderers and other anti-social elements) has itself become evil. Amazing how the decadent ancient Brahmanic Dharma is still alive and well amidst us even after three thousand years!

Brahmins and Yajnas now control the entire universe!

There came a time when the greedy priests gave so much importance to the performance of the increasingly complicated Yajnas in violation of their original intent that they claimed that without their performance the universe itself would be destabilized! The performance of sacrificial

rites became more important than even the gods for whom they were supposed to be dedicated! Besides, for every affliction of society, there was only one cure: performance of sacrifices (2:42); more sacrifices, and more elaborate, expensive, vulgar and pompous sacrifices:

BG: 16:15-17: Thus deluded by ignorance, bewildered by many a fancy, enmeshed in the snare of delusion, addicted to the gratification of lust, they fall into foul hell. Self-conceited, stubborn, filled with the pride and intoxication of wealth, they perform sacrifice in the name of ostentation, disregarding ordinance.

Society suffers from Shokam, Dwandwam and obsession with Karmaphalam

The net result of all this was that epithets such as Kama (lust for wealth), Krodha (jealous rage against enemies), Sangas (attachment to sense objects), Moha (delusion of possession) and Sankalpa (design of Yajna for a specific fruit such as wealth, children), came to be associated with the decadent Brahmanism in general and performers of Kamya Karma in particular. Due to their attachment to wealth, power and heaven, the upper classes suffered from Dwandwam (restlessness, stress, mental fever, instability of mind, loss of wisdom); and gaining Karmaphalam by means of Kamya Karma became an obsession with them. At the same time, helplessly witnessing the loss of innocence and decline of the ancient Dharma, a large section of the society suffered from Shokam (grief). In the Bhagavad Gita, as the spokesperson of the Upanishadic and Bhagavatha revolutionaries, Krishna tirelessly condemns the Brahmanic doctrines of the Gunas and Karma as the cause of these three maladies (Tapatraya) of mankind.

Discerning eyes can see the same three maladies in modern India. The rich minority is Dwandwam-ridden due to their entanglement with wealth and power, and is obsessed with earning Karmaphalam in their actions. The poor majority is suffering from Shokam due to loss of faith in their own government.

Society polarizes

As the nexus of Brahmins and Kshatriyas developed pathological vested interest in perpetuating the class system, there brewed much disaffection for Brahmanism in the society. Due to their elitism the upper classes became progressively alienated from the rest of the society. Besides, as more people were born from class admixture, the population of the outcastes increased. The lower classes suffered untold injustice in the hands of the upper classes. We can see such injustice even in the 21st century India. To no small extent this

exclusivity led to the revolt and establishment of egalitarian Dharmas such as Buddhism and Jainism. Buddhism insisted that one must be judged by his conduct and character, not his birth class. In fact, Hinduism, which was born out of this chaos, made a special effort to be an inclusive Dharma (BG: 7:21-23; 9:32) devoid of class and caste, before Brahmanism thoroughly corrupted it.

The ancient Dharma becomes Adharma

Gradually the sacred ancient Vedic Dharma, known as Sanatana Dharma, which was invented to bring Law and Order in the chaotic society, itself degenerated into despicable Adharma. The Brahmanic Dharma that was created to fulfill people’s desires and protect them from evil had now become the evil one must get rid of.

Now you know the true meaning of the revolutionary shloka uttered by Krishna as the Lord of beings of the Upanishads:

BG: 4: 7-8: Whenever there is decay of Dharma and rise of Adharma, then I take birth. I take birth age after age for the protection of the innocent and destruction of the wicked and to establish Dharma.

Suffice it to say that by 500 B. C. E. Brahmanism was on deathbed and north India was in turmoil. And out of this chaos was born India’s freethinking spirit. There were revolts, rebellions and revolutions in the air. A thousand new ideas and philosophies burst forth from the fertile soil of India’s intellect. There were brilliant rationalists, atheists, agnostics, nihilists, ascetics, sophists and mendicants all over the land. In the articles to follow, we will review these ancient movements whose main goal was to neutralize or overthrow Brahmanism, and discover how Brahmanism survived all these attempts and systematically crushed them one by one. The modern day rationalists have a lot to learn from the genius of Brahmanism and the mistakes of their equally brilliant opponents!

The Upanishads Attempt To Reform Brahmanism

Written by Prabhakar Kamath , Posted on 16 December 2009 Tags: Brahmanism, hinduism, reform, Upanishadism, Upanishads

We read in the previous chapter how Brahmanism decayed due to the upper classes’ obsessive attachment to power, wealth and heaven, and compulsive performance of Kamya Karma to gain them. Not only did Brahmanism become irrelevant but also it was identified as the source of much social strife. The age of the Vedas ended and post-Vedic age of uncertainty, insecurity and disillusionment followed. These were the ominous

times when the ancient tribes were breaking up; kings were being dethroned, and kingdoms were being swallowed up. The world, made up of various perishable forms of Prakriti and dubious Brahmanic elements, was seen as a miserable place to live (Maitrayani Up: 1:3-4). Rebellion hung in the air like the thick fog in the cool autumn dawn. Thousands of wandering sophists, known as Parivrajaka, crisscrossed the country challenging everyone to debate them or follow them. The first attempt to reform Brahmanism sprang up from within its own ranks. A section of Brahmanic society, mostly Kshatriya intellectuals, became disgusted with the decadence of Brahmanism and developed a whole new set of doctrines, which they propounded in treatises known as the Upanishads. The purpose of this brief article is not to expound the mindboggling and esoteric Upanishadic philosophy, but to expose its hidden intent.

Upanishads Were Mostly Products Of Kshatriya Intellect

Who were these great philosophers, who wanted to bring sanity and ethics to Brahmanism? Most of them were royal sages. Even Bhagavad Gita declares this in 4: 1-2, 9:2. The Upanishads give many examples of Brahmins learning from Kshatriya royals. It is possible that this was a ruse by dissenting Brahmin authors to escape from Brahmanic wrath and retaliation.

Chandogya Up: 5:3:7: Then he (king) said, “As (to what) you have said to me, Gautama (Brahmin), this knowledge (of Brahman) did not go to any Brahmana before you, and therefore this teaching belonged in all the worlds to the Kshatriya class alone.”

Disgust With Kamya Karma

The general disgust with Brahmanism’s obsession with Kamya Karma could be discerned in the passages such as this:

Mundaka Upanishad: 1:2:5-10: If a man performs his sacred works (Yajnas) when these flames are shining, and oblations follow at the right time, then they lead him as sun-rays to where the one Lord of the Devas (Indra) dwells. “Come hither, come hither!” the brilliant oblations say to him, and carry the sacrificer on the rays of the sun, while they utter speech and praise him, saying, “This is Brahma-world (Svarga, heaven), gained by the good works (Yajnas).”

But frail, in truth, are those boats, the sacrifices, the eighteen, in which this lower ceremonial has been told. Fools, who praise this as the highest good, are subject again and again to old age and death. Fools dwelling in darkness, wise in their own conceit, and puffed up with vain knowledge (of the Vedas) (read also Katha Up: 2:1:5; BG 2:42), go round and round staggering to and fro, like blind men led by the blind. Children, when they have long lived in ignorance, consider themselves happy. Because those who depend on their good works (Yajnas) are, owing to their passions, improvident, they fall and become miserable when their life (in the world which they had gained by sacrifices) is finished. Considering sacrifices and good works as the best, these fools know no higher

good, and having enjoyed (their reward) on the height of heaven, gained by good works (Yajnas), they enter again this world or a lower one.

The Essence Of The Upanishads

The Upanishads put forward the doctrines of Knowledge of Atman/Brahman and Yoga of Buddhi for the purpose of transcending the doctrines of the Gunas of Prakriti, and Destiny of Karma and to dismantle the entire superstructure of Brahmanism. They theorized as follows:

1. Atman, man’s soul (essence) located in his heart, a piece of all-pervading Universal Soul, Brahman, is trapped within the body by the bewildering power of the Gunas. Atman is the seat of Absolute Bliss by virtue of the fact that it has everything and it wants nothing and needs nothing. If one gets in touch with it, it would fulfill all his desires and he would not need to perform Yajna at all. Man becomes ignorant of Atman within him because he is deluded by the Gunas of Prakriti. By means of their functions -desire, attachment, and possessiveness- man becomes entangled with wealth, power and heaven. This results in man suffering from Shokam (grief) and Dwandwam (stress, loss of wisdom). If man can detach himself from all the worldly things, that is conquer the Gunas, he would get in touch with Atman and enjoy its Bliss. He would then not crave for any sense objects here on earth or yonder.

2. By the power of Dwandwam of gain and loss, Atman suffers the consequences of man’s selfish acts. This results in accumulation of Karmaphalam, which, in turn, leads to the cycle of birth, death and rebirth (Samsara) on this miserable earth. If man can give up fruits of action, he would no longer gain Karmaphalam. Thus having subjugated the Gunas, and amortized Karmaphalam over several lifetimes, Atman is finally liberated to join Brahman, of which it was originally a part (E. T. goes home!). One no longer take birth on earth again and again.

3. The solution to liberate Atman from the clutches of the Gunas of Prakriti and Destiny of Karma is Yoga of Mind. This consists of steadying the Mind by yoking it to Buddhi (inner wisdom) and withdrawing the Senses -one’s attachment to wealth, power, heaven, etc. This part of Yoga is known is Sanyasa. Sanyasa gives man immunity against Shokam and Dwandwam, and leads to Knowledge and Bliss of Atman. That is why it is also known as Jnanayoga. The solution to avoid gaining Karmaphalam in action is to perform all action with total indifference to gain or loss (=without Dwandwam). This part of Yoga is known as Tyaga. It is also known as Nishkama Karma or Karmayoga. This is how Yoga of Mind, also known as Buddhiyoga, conquers the three great maladies of man -Shokam, Dwandwa and Karmaphalam- caused by the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma.

4. Since the Vedas mainly concerned themselves performing Yajnas to fulfill one’s desires, both of them are useless in gaining knowledge of Brahman/Atman. Since Brahman is equally distributed in all, the hierarchical Varna Dharma resting on unequal distribution of the Gunas and Karma, and superiority of Brahmins in that system, is utterly meaningless. To a man who has conquered his Gunas and Karma, Varna, Jati, Kula, etc. means nothing.

Secret Doctrine (Rahasya)

Thus by means of the doctrines of Knowledge of Brahman/Atman and Yoga of Buddhi, the Upanishads surreptitiously attempted to dismantle the entire foundation of Brahmanism and its four pillars. It is important to note here that while these royal sages subtly declared the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma as evil, they did not declare them as fraud like the later heretics did. Instead they developed highly sophisticated theories, strategies and tactics to discredit these Brahmanic doctrines and to transcend, circumvent or cross over them. They went about their tasks by very subtle and devious means. They did not go around in public condemning Brahmanism as evil, like the Lokayatas did later on. Frontal attacks against Brahmanism, such as the ones in Swasanved Upanishad and the above-quoted one from Mundaka Upanishad, were exceptions rather than the rule. Instead, the Gurus quietly and in a roundabout way indoctrinated their eldest sons or devoted students with their theories in private conversations, no different than a learned psychiatrist passing on to his devoted resident-trainees his psychological insights in private supervisory sessions (Mundaka Up: 1:12-13; BG: 4:34). Secrecy was maintained to prevent the knowledge of Brahman from being trivialized, misunderstood and misapplied. This was how the knowledge of Brahman/Atman and Yoga came to be known as Secret Doctrine (Rahasyam).

Metaphors, Parables, Symbols And Demonstrations

The Upanishadic sages used metaphors, symbols, parables, words and phrases with multiple meanings, and simple demonstrations to explain their truly mindboggling concepts of Brahman, Atman and Yoga to their students. Even when they exposed hypocrisy of Brahmins, they did so ever so gently and ambiguously. For example, in the well-known parable of Satyakama Jabala (Chandogya Upanishad), the illegitimate son of a housemaid (Dasi of Sudra origin), risks outright rejection by a prospective Upanishadic

Guru, by truthfully confessing ignorance about his pedigree. He tells the Guru that his mother conceived him in the course of her service in different households of the upper classes. The Guru readily accepts Satyakama as his student saying laconically that no one but a true Brahmin would thus speak out the truth. All Brahmanic loyalists could take this as a compliment to the truthfulness of Brahmins. However, this knife had another edge, which only those with discriminating eyes could see. The fact was that Satyakama’s mother, a humble Dasi, was so fully taken advantage of by her countless Brahmin masters she served that she could not identify the man who fathered her child. In other words, all the highborn Brahmins indulging in immoral behaviors such as this were, in effect, not true Brahmins at all. Without exception Hindu interpreters of such anecdotes completely miss the deeper implications of parables such as this. They also miss the point that the Guru asked the boy the question, “Of what family are you, my friend?” to demonstrate that one’s character, not his pedigree was what mattered most in the admission process. This Guru was trying to break the pernicious Brahmanic tradition, which is still prevalent in the 21st century India, of not allowing the “lower classes” to become enlightened or get employment no matter how well qualified they were. Later in this episode, the boy discounts the knowledge of Brahman he gained from Vayu, Agni and Surya, and insists on learning the same knowledge from his enlightened Guru. Hindu commentators seem to miss the fact that this was a snub against Vedic gods, the objects of Kamya Karma, who are portrayed as ignorant of true knowledge of Brahman and are thus not qualified to teach it. So, in understanding the true intent of the Upanishads, not only must one pay attention to what was said, but also how it was said, what was left unsaid, and what was implied between the lines in that context. The Upanishads have many, many layers, which only people not blinded by Brahmanic hubris could fathom.

Countering Brahmanic Fraud With Upanishadic Fraud

If one reads the Upanishads carefully, one cannot escape the reality that the original authors had no choice but to tackle the Brahmanic doctrines of the Gunas of Prakriti with the Upanishadic doctrine of Brahman and Atman. They took the two ancient Brahmanic entities, Brahman (the spirit Brahmins invoked during Yajnas dedicated to Vedic gods) and Atman (soul that took birth again and again), and greatly increased their stature and made them into a divinity. Whereas Brahman was the External Reality, Atman was the Internal Reality. The point is, Atman and Brahman are one and the same. Their only Quality (Guna) was that they had no quality (Nirguna). These “invisible, eternal, indestructible, all-pervading” entities were most certainly tongue-in-cheek way of countering the “all-powerful Gunas of Prakriti,” which were allegedly the prime motivators of man, and also the sources of desire, attachment and delusion as well as sense objects. For, they were described in exactly opposite terms from the manifestations of Prakriti: free from birth, desire, attachment, delusion, pain, pleasure, sickness, grief and death. Anyone who asked, “What does Brahman look like?” the answer was, “We don’t know what it looks like! It has no form, shape, size, color, volume, weight or anything by which one could perceive it.” Since one’s Senses were not able to perceive them, they were defined as, “Not this! Not this!” Often, even the Upanishadic sages could not decide what Atman was like as evidenced by their confusing description of it such as, “Having the breadth of a thumb, within the span of the heart in the body, who is smaller

than small, he obtains the nature of the Highest; there all desires are fulfilled.” (Maitrayani Up: 6:38). At once Atman was measurable and at once it was not. If someone asked, “How then can we get to know Brahman?” the answer was, “the heat you feel when you touch the skin, and the noise of burning fire you hear when you plug your ears is Brahman.” Or, “First you must subjugate the Gunas and Karma.” “How do I subjugate the Gunas?” “Well, you must first control your Senses (=give up desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of sense objects and live a simple life of a Yogi). If you succeed in doing this, in due course you will get in touch with Atman dwelling in your own heart.” “How do I transcend destiny of Karma?” “Well, you need to give up all desire for fruits in action, or give up all fruits you have gained in action.”

Reading between the lines, discerning readers could recognize that all the Upanishadic seers, at least the original ones, knew the mind game they were playing. They explained their concepts by means of parables using common objects such as rivers, fruit seed and salt. Critics and doubters of Brahman and Atman were told that they must cultivate Shraddha (faith) if they wanted to learn these doctrines.

Yoga As The Weapon To Transcend The Gunas And Karma

The Upanishads did a better job with their other invention: Yoga of Mind. They recommended this tool to enable one to transcend the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. Yoga was also known as Buddhiyoga because its fundamental goal was to induce man to resort to reasoning, an essential element of Buddhi, rather than falling prey to the Senses (desires). A person whose mind was thus steadied by Buddhi was known as Buddhiyukta. The Upanishads designed Yoga to tackle two primary aspects of decadent Brahmanism: They countered Sanga (attachment) to sense objects such as wealth, power and heaven, adiwith Sanyasa (detachment from sense objects); and they countered Sankalpa for fruits by means of Tyaga (renunciation of fruits of action). Much later in the Bhagavad Gita, Sanyasa became Jnanayoga and Tyaga became Karmayoga.

The Mind According To The Upanishads

The Upanishadic exponents were great psychologists. With remarkable degree of accuracy, they described the hierarchy of mind’s components and their specific functions in great detail in order to explain their theory of Yoga.

Katha Up: 1:3:10; BG: 3:42: The Senses are superior (to body and sense objects); the Mind is superior to the Senses; the Intellect (Buddhi) is superior to the Mind, and Atman is superior to Buddhi. (See picture on the left)

The sense objects are tangible ones such as wealth, house and people; intangibles ones such as honor, title, heaven, etc. The functions of the Senses are desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of sense objects. The functions of the Mind are thinking (likes and dislikes), feeling (pleasure and pain) and action (gaining and losing). These pairs of opposites are known as Dwandwam. This word also stands for unsteady mind and loss of wisdom engendered by Mind’s entanglement with sense objects. Actions are mediated by means of Karmaendriyas (Organs of Action), hands, legs, mouth, anus and genitals. Buddhi (Wisdom) is the seat of reasoning, judgment, insight, knowledge, memory of lessons learned, moral values and noble virtues. Atman is the seat of Absolute Bliss engendered by the total absence of the Gunas (desire, attachment, possessiveness, Dwandwam, Shokam, and Karma and Karmaphalam).

Brahmanism Versus Upanishadism.

Problem: Brahmanism. Solution: Upanishadism. Problem: Prakriti, the all-powerful force of Nature. Solution: Brahman the

Supreme, the all-pervading life force of all matter. Prakriti is subservient to Brahman.

Problem: Worship of the Devas by means of Yajnas. Solution: Worship of Brahman by means of Yoga.

Problem: The purpose of Yajna was to gain wealth and power here on earth and heaven hereafter. Solution: The purpose of Yoga was to attain the Bliss of Atman here on earth and Nirvana hereafter.

Problem: The Gunas representing Prakriti in the body. Solution: Atman representing Brahman in the body.

Problem: The Gunas are the source of desire, attachment, possessiveness, pain, grief, and death. Solution: Atman is completely free from all these.

Problem: Doctrine of Karma: One earns good or bad Karmaphalam based on the Guna of his action. Solution: Action in the spirit of Buddhiyoga (evenness of mind, indifference to success or failure) by which one earns neither good nor bad Karmaphalam.

Problem: Samsara (cycle of birth, death and rebirth) due to accumulating Karmaphalam. Solution: Nirvana (liberation of Atman from the clutches of the Gunas and ending the cycle of Samsara) due to amortization of Karmaphalam.

Problem: Kamya Karma (desire-driven Yajnas). Solution: Nishkama Karma (desire-less Karma or Yajna) or Karmayoga (service without desire for fruits).

Problem: Attachment (Sanga) to sense objects: wealth, power and heaven. Solution: Sanyasa: Detachment from sense objects.

Problem: Sankalpa (design or desire for fruits in Yajna). Solution: Tyaga (renunciation of fruits in Yajna).

Problem: Hierarchical Varna Dharma based on the unequal distribution of the Gunas and Karma. Solution: Egalitarianism, based on the equal distribution of Brahman in everyone. Enlightened people see the same Brahman in outcastes and even animals. Read: Those who treat “outcastes” as inferior to them are totally ignorant.

Problem: The Vedas are supreme knowledge. Solution: The Vedas are “lower knowledge.”  The Upanishads are higher knowledge.

Problem: Supremacy of Brahmins due to their claim of being possessed of Brahman. Solution: Brahman is in every living being.

By Trying To Solve One Problem, The Upanishads Created An Even Greater Problem

The problem with creating Brahman was the fact that the Upanishads gave birth to the first great god of India. Little did they know then that this negative entity “Nirguna Brahman” would someday in the future become Purushotthama (Superman), and then “Saguna” Ishwara, one with many attributes, and then the terrifying Parameshwara, the God of Gods, who revealed his Universal Form to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita using Krishna as the medium. From this God of Gods emanated hundreds of other gods who allegedly bore their own unique attributes: Ganesha who protects people from evil, Hanuman who is the personification of strength, obedience, duty and loyalty, and the like.

Brahmanism Swallows The Upanishadic Reforms

To the Brahmanic upper classes the very intent of performing various Yajnas was to fulfill their desires, earn Karmaphalam, enjoy prestige, pleasure, power and wealth here on earth, and heaven hereafter. The Upanishadic teachings of detachment from sense objects, selfless Karma, liberation from Samsara, the need to transcend the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma and the like, struck at the very heart of the Brahmanism. To contain this threat, Brahmanic loyalists incongruously interpolated large amount of pro-Brahmanic (Maitrayani Up: 4:3-4) or irrelevant stuff (Brihad. Up: 6:6-10) into the texts, declared them as Shruthi (revealed knowledge like the Vedas), and renamed them Vedanta, the end part of the Vedas or the “culmination of Vedic wisdom!” They did this even though the fundamental principles of Upanishadism were diametrically opposed to those of Brahmanism. Since Shruthis were off limits to people other than Brahmins and Kshatriya royals, in the course of time the Upanishadic knowledge fell into disuse (BG:

4:2) -that was until it was revealed centuries later by some clever and very bold Upanishadic seers into the 64 shloka-long Brahmanic Gita, which was part of Mahabharata, a Smrithi (remembered scripture), to which all classes of people had access. We will discuss more about this in a later chapter.

Why The Upanishadic Reforms Failed

The Upanishadic revolt failed for many reasons:

1. The concept of “all-pervading, invisible Brahman without any quality” and its representative in the body Atman was too dubious or complex for even knowledgeable people of the time (BG: 2:29; 12:1-5). If anyone doubted the existence of Brahman or Atman, the answer was, “Have Faith (Shraddha) in Atman! Practice Yoga and you will find it in your own heart in due course!” Asking people to have Shraddha in something that is beyond the Senses was nothing short of fraud to skeptics who were, in fact, in the majority around this time.

2. Giving up attachment to sense objects (practicing Sanyasa) to avoid Dwandwam and Shokam, and giving up fruits of action (practicing Tyaga) to avoid earning Karmaphalam, were beyond the capacity of people who lived in the everyday material world. This was like asking the greedy CEOs of banks and investment companies to give up their hefty bonuses and lavish lifestyle, and offer their services for free. Only saintly people could become Yogis.

3. Brahmanism loyalists buried their essential message under large amount of pro-Brahmanic stuff.

4. Brahmanism declared the Upanishadic secret doctrine an even greater secret by promoting them as Shruthi, to which only Brahmins and Kshatriyas had access.

5. They ruled that only after thoroughly learning the art of Vedic rituals could one become eligible to learn the secret doctrine of Brahman and Yoga. In other words, one must be a card-carrying member of Brahmanism before he could study the Upanishads.

6. Those who wrote self-serving commentaries on the Upanishads centuries later were all Brahmanic Acharyas, who focused on the apparent contents of the texts -Brahman/Atman and techniques of Yoga- rather than their hidden intent -to reform or even overthrow Brahmanism. In the end, few seemed to know and even fewer seemed to care. Thus the Upanishads became integral part of Brahmanism, and their anti-Brahmanic spirit died -for the time being.

The Great Nastik Revolt

Written by Prabhakar Kamath , Posted on 22 December 2009 Tags: Brahmanism, Buddhism, Carvaka, hinduism, Jainism, Lokayata, Nastik, Sramana

(Note: This is the 7th article in the series on the evolution of early religious thought in India, by Dr. Prabhakar Kamath. The previous article in the series can be accessed here. All Dr. Kamath’s previous articles can be accessed from this page where you can also sign up for Dr. Kamath’s RSS feed.)

Intellectual Ferment

By 600 B.C.E. a great intellectual ferment was brewing across the Indo-Gangetic plain the likes of which India has not seen since. Countless different Kshatriya-inspired philosophies sprang up from the agitated intellect of the Indo-Gangetic Civilization. During this period (900-500 B.C.E), thousands of wandering sophists, known as Parivrajaka, crisscrossed the country questioning anything and everything, including the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, the Vedas, Vedic sacrificial rites, animal sacrifices, Varna Dharma, and supremacy of Brahmins. They engaged each other in robust public debates on every topic on earth. They challenged their adversaries to either win them over in debate or to follow them. These ‘argumentative Indians‘ came to be known as ‘ ‘Hair splitters’ or ‘Eel wigglers.’ The public halls all over Aryavarta were packed with curious people eager to learn and experiment with new ideas to cope with life’s vicissitudes. New Age Philosophies thrived everywhere. They were all sick and tired of Brahmanism’s remedy for every problem in the world: Perform sacrifices!

The Rise Of Heterodox Dharmas

This was the period in India’s history when massive winds of change were blowing through the land resulting in the overthrow of the decaying old social, political, and religious orders. Disgusted and disenchanted by Brahmanism, the opposition gradually coalesced into a number of reactionary groups over the centuries following the Vedic period. These reactionaries could be broadly classified into two groups: The Upanishadic sages, who attempted to reform Brahmanism from within (as we studied in the previous article), and Nastiks, nonbelievers, who rejected the essential elements of Brahmanic Dharma, and abandoned it altogether. Those days the epithet Nastik did not mean Atheism since the concept of God was still very nebulous. The Upanishadic entity Brahman, being free from any positive attributes, did not qualify to be a true God. Kshatriya nobles led the heterodox groups just as they did the Upanishadic effort to reform Brahmanism.

Two Nastik Groups

Within the Nastik movement itself there were two distinct groups: Sramanas (monks) who renounced worldly pleasures, and Lokayatas (worldly) who embraced them. A detailed discussion of the principles of these groups is beyond the scope of this article.

The main purpose of this article is to show how they arose in reaction to the decadence of Brahmanism and what their legacies are and what lessons we could learn from them.

1. Sramanas: This group resorted to Sanyasa- literally, “throwing down”- and renounced not only all material comforts but also all socially obligated duties (Karma). Within this group, four distinct sub-sects emerged:

A. Jainism: The first subgroup, following the philosophy of Mahaveera, later on formed Jainism. The hallmark of this religion was absolute

Jain Temples in Rajastan

nonviolence toward all living things. This religion was clearly reacting to the horrors of animal sacrifices emblematic of Brahmanism. Some of these monks walked around naked as an expression of their complete renunciation of material things and accidental violence against living creatures. Jainism gained many adherents, mostly in the business class. It got a huge boost when Chandragupta Maurya abandoned his throne and joined it in 298 B.C.E. He retired to a Jain hermitage at Shravana (Sramana) Belagola in what is today Karnataka State, and starved himself to death in the manner of Jain saints.

B. Ajivika: The second of these Nastik groups was Ajivika, founded by Gosala, a contemporary of both Mahaveera and the Buddha. This sect believed that everything in this world was predetermined (Niyati). Destiny, not man’s actions, determined the outcome of one’s soul. Their philosophy can be summed in one line: Go with the flow. Chandragupta’s son Bindusara (ruled 298-272 B. C. E), who boasted the title of Amitraghatha, meaning Slayer of Foes, abandoned Brāhmanism and embraced Ajivika sect. He detested Brahmanism and yet he did not care for Buddhism and Jainism as they were too nonviolent to suite his title or

Mauryan Empire during Ashoka's rule

temperament. He believed in his destiny as the emperor of the largest empire ever in India. In fact, his empire was larger than present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh combined!

C. Buddhism: The third subgroup, following the teachings of Gautama Buddha, later developed into Buddhism. This was essentially a rational Dharma that emphasized right thinking and conduct. Buddhists rejected all aspects of Brahmanism except for the doctrine of Karma. Right conduct, not birth-class, should decide one’s status on life, they said. Morality, not class system and rituals, defines a true Dharma. As we will study in our future articles, Upanishadism and Buddhism had many things in common. The Buddhist monks were known as Bhikkus as they made their living by begging. Beggars became holy and begging became fashionable in India. Buddhism’s Three Fundamental Laws, Four Noble Truths, and Eight Noble Paths arose in reaction to the decadence of Brahmanism. From the Buddhist point of view, man created God to meet deep psychological needs such as to fulfill desires and protection from evil. Buddhism gained royal patronage for nearly 1000 years. Ashoka the Great (ruled 272-232 B.C.E.) abandoned Brahmanism and embraced rationalist Buddhism, which he referred to as the true Dharma (Dhamma). He was singlehandedly responsible for making Buddhism the predominant Dharma of India till the 8th century A.D., and into a World Religion.

D. Asceticism: The fourth subgroup of Sramanas consisted of individual Ascetics (Munis, the Silent Ones), who renounced everything and wandered in search of the Ultimate Reality. These people often practiced severe austerities (Tapas) in the form of self-denial and self-torture as the means of mastering their senses to achieve personal liberation from Samsara. Half-naked Sadhus and Sanyasis, who stick long needles into their tongue and cheeks; who hang from trees by means of hooks, and who stand on one leg for years, belong to this subgroup (BG: 17:5-6). We can find true as well as false Ascetics, Swamis and Gurus such as these all over India and abroad to this day.

Dharma of Brahmanism versus Dharma of Buddhism

Both Brahmanas and Buddhists used the term Dharma to promote their own agendas. To Brahmins, Dharma meant people of each class (Varna) faithfully and helplessly performing their class-designated duties as per their specific Guna (Sattva, Rajas, etc.). For example, a Kshatriya’s Dharma was to invade his enemy’s territory, steal his cows, burn his buildings, kill him and acquire his wealth. This was exactly what Ashoka did when he invaded Kalinga. To emphasize this, prince Krishna often addresses Arjuna as Dhananjaya (Conqueror of Wealth, BG: 1:15) and Paranthapa (Scorcher of Foes, BG: 2:3), and Arjuna addresses Krishna as Madhusoodana (Slayer of Madhu) and Arisoodana (Slayer of Foes, BG: 2:4). If a Kshatriya refused to fight for a ‘righteous cause’, whatever that phrase meant, then he was considered as one who had abandoned his Kshatriya duty, as did Arjuna in the Original Gita, before he was brought to his senses by prince Krishna. Such a Kshatriya was described as unmanly, impotent, cowardly, dishonorable, and the like (BG: 2-3). He would suffer dishonor in the society here on earth and hell hereafter (BG: 2:33). There was no room for compassion, mercy, kindness, etc. when a Kshatriya performed his Dharma. And it did not matter who the identified enemy was -Guru, uncle, great uncle, grandfather, cousins- one must give up his Ahamkara (I, me and mine) and perform his Dharma as defined by his Varna. No guilt or sin would arise from such actions (BG: 18:17). Likewise, a Brahmin’s Dharma was to chant the Vedic hymns, perform Yajnas, kill animals and sacrifice them in the fire to please the gods. Their logic was that all Dharmas are attended with some evil like smoke enveloping fire; that is no reason to abandon them (BG: 18:48). It is better to perform one’s own Dharma imperfectly than to perform another’s perfectly because in the former case one goes to heaven and in the latter case one goes to hell (3:35). The ultimate goal of all classes was to gain perfection here on earth by performing faithfully and helplessly his class-designated Dharma (BG: 18:45). Therein lay the stability of the society -and supremacy of Brahmins in the Varna system.

To Buddhists, on the contrary, Dharma meant ethical principles such as nonviolence, truthfulness, generosity, kindness, tolerance, equality, goodness and mercy, which people of all classes should practice. The Dhamma (ethics) of a Brahmin should not be different from that of a Sudra. In fact, such class distinction should not exist at all. Furthermore, one must respect sanctity of life and not kill animals for the sake of sacrifice. Even burning rice kernel with chaff was not good. To them Vedic rituals were useless as compared to the practice of ethics. Ashoka says:

Rock Edict # 9: Other ceremonies (rituals of Brahmanism) are of doubtful fruit, for they may achieve their purpose, or they may not, and even if they do, it is only in this world. But the ceremony (practice) of Dhamma is timeless. Even if it does not achieve its purpose in this world, it produces great merit in the next, whereas if it does achieve its purpose in this world, one gets great merit (here on earth) and there (in heaven) through the ceremony (proper practice) of the Dhamma.

2. Lokayata: The second major Nastik reactionary group, known as the Lokayatas, also known as Charvakas or Materialists, went in the opposite direction. The most prominent

Lokayata philosopher was Brihaspati who lived around 600 B. C. E. We can get glimpses of this great man’s thinking from a quote in Madhvacharya’s Sarva Darshana Samgraha (early 14th century):

“There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another world, nor do the actions of four castes, orders, etc. produce any real effect. The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic’s three staves, and smearing one’s self with ashes, were made by nature as the livelihood of those destitute of knowledge and manliness. If a beast slain in the Jyotisthoma rite will itself go to heaven, why then does not the sacrificer forthwith offer his own father? If the Shraddha produces gratification to beings who are dead, then here, too, in the case of travelers when they start, it is needless to give provisions for the journey… While life remains let man live happily, let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debt; when once the body becomes ashes, how can it ever return again? If he who departs from the body goes to another world, how is it that he comes not back again, restless for love of his kindred? Hence it is only as a means of livelihood that Brahmins have established here all these ceremonies for the dead, -there is no other fruit anywhere…”

The amazing thing about the above statement is that this man, who lived 2600 years ago, appears to be so modern and rational in his thinking! If we met this man in the street today, we might have a conversation with him like we would with an enlightened man of 21st century. As regards living on borrowed money, which I think was a rhetorical statement, I am sure there are a lot of followers of this particular aspect of Lokayata philosophy all over the world.

Legacy Of, And Lessons From, Sramana Sects

Jainism: Jainism has lingered on as a minor religion in India to this day, patronized over the centuries by minor royal houses and rich merchant class in the western and southern India. Jainism did not have a great royal patron like Buddhism did in Ashoka the Great. Jainism did not pose a significant threat to Brahmanism and so it has survived in India to this day. Even though a minor religion, the influence of Jainism on Brahmanism and the rest of the world was as profound as Buddhism, if not more. It was Jain philosophy of Ahimsa (nonviolence), which led to Brahmanism finally giving up animal sacrifices and embracing vegetarianism. Mahatma Gandhi’s Satyagraha movement during India’s independence struggle was rooted in the Jain philosophy of nonviolence. Dr. Martin Luther King’s successful struggle to emancipate African-Americans in America was patterned after Gandhi’s nonviolent method in India.

Ajivika: Ajivika sect lingered on till 13th century and met its Destiny in the dustbin of history thereafter. However, its theory of Destiny (Niyati), which is often interpreted as fatalism, occupies the intellect of many Indians to this day. We can frequently get glimpses of Ajivika philosophy in conversations with Indians: “No one can change one’s Destiny.” “Whatever is destined to happen, will happen.” “All this is a play of Fate!” “Whatever is written on your forehead cannot be changed!” Complete acceptance of Destiny gives one complete peace of mind as well as absolute passivity!

Buddhism: For 1000 years after the Buddha’s death, Buddhism spread in leaps and bounds under the patronage of great royal houses: Maurya,

Indian Buddhist Monk

Greco-Bactrian, Kushana, Gupta, Maukhari, Pala and the like. Resurgence of Brahmanism began in the early centuries of Christian era, probably under the patronage of the Guptas. By the time of Harshavardhana of the Maukhari house (590-647 A. D.), its lobby was strong enough to attempt his assassination for patronizing Buddhism. Another development that enhanced decline of Buddhism was revival of Brahmanism led by Shankaracharya (788-820 A. D.). He singlehandedly revived Brahmanism from ts deathbed by means of his great intellect, and even greater gift of the gab, and perhaps the greatest duplicity of all the Acharyas in interpreting anti-Brahmanic literature such as the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. In the course of our quest for truth, we will study some examples of his deliberate misinterpretations and nonsensical commentaries on the anti-Brahmanic shlokas of the Bhagavad Gita. By doing so, he converted the Bhagavad Gita, ‘The Manifesto of the Revolution to Overthrow Brahmanism’, into ‘The Standard Handbook of Brahmanism’. After the arrival and spread of Islam (10 th -12th A. D.), Buddhism disappeared from India altogether. Brahmanism absorbed what little was left of it and half-heartedly declared the Buddha as the ninth avatara of Vishnu. A section of Brahmanism continued to vilify him as one born to mislead Nastiks to hell. Regardless, Buddhism became the World Religion, thanks to two great Chinese pilgrims to India and innumerable Bhikkus who spread the message of the Buddha all over Far East and Middle East. I will not be surprised if some day some open-minded Christian scholar will trace the origin of Jesus’ ’show him the other cheek’ philosophy to that of the Buddha, exported to Middle East by Ashoka’s emissaries in the 3rd century B. C. E. In fact, Jesus’ revolt against Orthodox Judaism, and subsequent birth of Christianity, followed the blueprint laid by the Buddha.

Legacy And Lessons From Sramanas

The lesson to be learned from all the above Sramana sects is that any attempt to bring sanity into Brahmanic Dharma should be characterized by purity of purpose, speech, thought and action. The rationalist activist must be perceived by his target population as a person who is rational, reasonable, good, honest, nonviolent and free from common human weaknesses such as anger, hatred, greed, selfishness, arrogance, and deceitfulness.

Nothing hurts a reform movement like the perception by the target population that the activist himself is not of exemplary behavior. In other words, all reformation movements are nothing but exercise in self-improvement. Without trust in the reformer’s bona fides, his attempts will not bear any fruits. A rationalist’s approach should be one in which he comes across as genuinely interested in helping the religionists in overcoming their irrational fears and insecurities, which are the basis of their irrational beliefs and behaviors. This reminds me of the anecdote in which a psychotic patient tells his psychiatrist that he lives on the moon. The psychiatrist empathically plays along and even accepts the patient’s invitation to visit him on the moon on a certain date. On the designated day of the visit to moon, the psychiatrist says, “All right, I am ready. Let us go.” The patient surprises the psychiatrist by asking him, “You mean you really believe that I live on moon?”

Lesson From Lokayatas

Lokayata philosophy was largely misunderstood, ridiculed and hooted off the Indian stage of philosophy by Brahmins as it struck at their very livelihood. Most of what we know of its fundamental beliefs comes to us from its staunch Brahmanic critics, and therefore is of dubious value. Many of their tenets were deliberately or out of ignorance misinterpreted by Brahmanic commentators. Its literature was available to scholars at least till 17th century. It disappeared entirely over the past few centuries. Either Brahmanic loyalists destroyed it, or the palm leaves rotted away or were eaten by termites. Prakriti has a way of destroying everything, especially in India!

As the reader can discern, the Lokayata philosophers did not mince words. They indulged in frontal attacks against what they considered as Brahmanic fraud. However, frontal attacks, such as those launched by the Lokayatas against essentially irrational beliefs of Brahmanism rarely, if ever, get desired results. Logic, facts, and reasoning are no match to deep-rooted beliefs of delusional proportion, which majority of Hindus have. When Mahmud of Ghazni stormed the temple of Somanatha in 1025 A. D., he found 50,000 deluded Brahmins and devotees crying with their hands wrapped around their necks and repeatedly pleading with the stone lingam (phallus) of Shiva to save them as well as their rich temple from the sword of Mahmud. Mahmud, though no less deluded by his own religion, had more faith in his own sword. He gladly obliged the Brahmins and devotees to chop their bobbing heads off. Till the last man the devotees refused to believe that the stone lingam had no power to protect them. It didn’t occur to their deluded intellect that if the Shiva lingam did not save them from Mahmud’s sword after one pleading, repeat pleadings would not make any difference. Such is the deluding effect of religion on one’s reasoning powers.

Changing Beliefs And Behaviors Is A Mighty Task

Man is essentially a creature of well-established beliefs, habits and behavioral patterns and it is mighty hard to change these. For example, people, who are always late for parties, as is the case with the vast majority of Indians I know in America, rarely change their behavior no matter how well one reasons with them. When confronted, they give

one or more totally irrational explanations for their tardiness. They might need a combination of insight into their unconscious belief system (such as “I have to keep my ‘dignity’ by showing up late”, or, “If I show up on time my host might think I am dying to eat his food”) and incentive to change (such as “Sorry, all freshly made Jelebis were gone an hour ago! You are too late!” or a note on the door, “Sorry, the party ended an hour ago. We have gone for a walk.”). It takes a lot of mental energy for people to adopt a new belief system (such as “It is a sign of utter disrespect for the host if I don’t show up on time”) and conform their behavior to their new beliefs (such as “I must show up for the party on time”).

Most People Are On Autopilot

It takes a highly “aware” person to transcend the power of childhood indoctrination and resort to reasoning. Most Hindu religionists I know do not fall in this category. Even a confirmed Atheist might reflexively exclaim “Oh, my God!” when he witnesses a tragedy or when he has an extremely pleasurable experience. That does not make him a believer in God. It simply proves that deep-rooted behaviors are often on autopilot and are very difficult to remove. Very high level of self-awareness and reasoning power are needed for one to change one’s irrational behavior. As a psychiatrist, I can attest to the fact that majority of my highly educated patients are unable to change their well-established behavioral patterns in spite of many attempts and reminders even in the context of a trusting relationship.

In the next article, we will study the role Ashoka the Great played in the decline and subsequent rise of Brahmanism.

How Ashoka The Great Gave Brahmins A Song With Which They Conquered India

Written by Prabhakar Kamath , Posted on 10 January 2010 Tags: Ashoka, Brahmanism, Buddhism, hinduism, Kalinga, Krishna, Kshatriya, Varna Dharma

(Note: This is the 8th article in the series on the evolution of early religious thought in India, by Dr. Prabhakar Kamath. The previous article in the series can be accessed here. All Dr. Kamath’s previous articles can be accessed from this page where you can also sign up for Dr. Kamath’s RSS feed.)

We all know that Ashoka the Great gave Buddhism the gift of making it the dominant Dharma of India for a thousand years and one of the great World Religions to this day. However, few people know that he gave a wonderful gift to Brahmanism as well. He offered them his personal image of a renegade and fallen Kshatriya as the blueprint on which to base a parable in the form of a beautiful song, the Gita, by which Brahmins conquered back everything they had lost and more. A remorseful Ashoka overwhelmed by sorrow, self-doubt and the horror of war on the battlefield of Kalinga became the

model for distraught Arjuna overwhelmed by sorrow, self-doubt and horror of war on the battlefield of Kurukshetra in the parable of Arjuna Vishada. This is a classic example of how Brahmanism used their adversaries themselves to beat them over the head. As we go along, we will study several more examples of such incredible feats by Brahmins in the defense and promotion of their archaic Dharma.

Ashoka Ascends The Throne Of Magadha

The Mauryan Empire during the rule of Ashoka stretched from modern day Iran and Afghanistan to Bangladesh and Tamilnadu.

In 298 B. C. E. Chandragupta abandoned Brahmanism and became a Sramana of Jainism. He retired to Sramana Belagola in what is today Karnataka State and starved himself to death. His son Bindusara abandoned Brahmanism and embraced Ajivika sect. Bindusara’s son Ashoka usurped the throne of Magadha following the death of his father in 272 B. C. E. even though his older half-brother Susima was ahead of him in line for it. His claim to the throne was based on his assertion that he was a better administrator than Susima on account of his being posted to Taxila and Ujjain for many years during his formative years. That there was a succession struggle between him and his half brothers is suggested by the fact that he was not formally crowned till around 269-68 B. C. E. He killed almost all his half-brothers and exiled his only younger brother. One half-brother escaped to the neighboring kingdom of Kalinga. Sri Lankan legend has it that Ashoka’s path to his throne was liberally stained with “the blood of his hundred brothers.”

Ashoka was no different than any other king during his early years of rule. True to Kshatriya Dharma he was not averse to whatever means necessary to gain wealth and consolidate his power. He was both Dhananjaya (Conqueror of Wealth) and Paranthapa (Scorcher of Foes), the epithets by which Krishna often addressed Arjuna in the Gita to remind him of the true nature of Kshatriya Dharma. There is no evidence that Ashoka was ever engaged in a truly ghastly war before he ascended the throne of Magadha. Apparently his reputation preceded him wherever he went to quell uprisings and the rebels surrendered without a fight.

Carnage Of Kalinga

Eight years after ascending the throne of Magadha, Ashoka attacked Kalinga to his east. The exact reason for this attack is not clear. Perhaps he literally saw Kalinga as a thorn on his side, being the only unconquered kingdom in the north. Legend has it that he was in hot pursuit of his half-brother hiding there. Ashoka considered Kalinga as practically his second home having spent two years there in exile a few years before he came to power, and having married a fisherwoman from that region by the name of Kaurwaki. Being a proud, freedom-loving people, and in a display of extraordinary courage or foolhardiness, Kalingans put up a brave fight against the mighty Maghadan. Ashoka was merciless in wreaking vengeance against his weaker adversary. Sheer bloodbath followed. Legend has it that his wife Devi, a Buddhist at heart, was so horrified by the devastation that she abandoned Ashoka forever.

Ashoka’s Remorse

As the legend goes, Ashoka went to the devastated battlefield to inspect the valiant deeds of his brave soldiers. He did not see any sign of victory. All he saw were heaps of rotting and burning corpses and half-dead bodies of injured people wailing in pain. Severe sorrow and remorse gripped his conscience. Ashoka himself pours out his heart in these words:

Ashoka’s Rock Edict 13: “Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, conquered the Kalingas eight years after his coronation. One hundred and fifty thousand were deported, one hundred thousand were killed and many more died (from other causes). After the Kalingas had been conquered, Beloved-of-the-gods came to feel a strong inclination towards the Dhamma, a love for the Dhamma and for instruction in Dhamma. Now Beloved-of-the-Gods feels deep remorse for having conquered the Kalingas.

Ashoka’s Famous Dwandwam

What Ashoka meant was, “If this is my Dharma, what then is Adharma?” This sight of devastation of men and materials made him sick and he cried the famous Dwandwam-ridden monologue:

“What have I done? If this is a victory, what’s a defeat then? Is this a victory or a defeat? Is this justice or injustice? Is it gallantry or a rout? Is it valor to kill innocent children and women? Do I do it to widen the empire and for prosperity or to destroy the other’s kingdom and splendor? One has lost her husband, someone else a father, someone a child, someone an unborn infant…. What’s this debris of the corpses? Are these marks of victory or defeat? Are these vultures, crows, eagles the messengers of death or evil?”

Ashoka’s Obsession With Karmaphalam Of War

Artistic Representation of the Kalinga War

The horror of this ghastly war was a life-altering experience for Ashoka. Apparently he had severe flashbacks of the tragedy till the very end of his life. It is very possible that this war, instigated by his desire to kill one of his surviving half-brothers, brought up to the surface repressed guilt over killing his own siblings to gain his throne during the struggle for succession ten years earlier. Modern psychiatrists would certainly diagnose him as suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder, a serious anxiety disorder often seen in soldiers severely traumatized by the horror of war. As if to atone for his horrible deeds he let his sorrow and remorse known to all his subjects personally, by designated messengers, and by means of his Rock Edicts. He explained the horrible consequences (Karmaphalam) of any war:

Ashoka’s Rock Edict # 13: Indeed, Beloved-of-the-gods is deeply pained by the killing, dying and deportation that take place when an unconquered country is conquered. But Beloved-of-the-gods is pained even more by this - that Brahmans, ascetics, and householders of different religions who live in those countries, and who are respectful to superiors, to mother and father, to elders, and who behave properly and have strong loyalty towards friends, acquaintances, companions, relatives, servants and employees - that they are injured, killed or separated from their loved ones. Even those who are not affected (by all this) suffer when they see friends, acquaintances, companions and relatives affected. These misfortunes befall all (as a result of war), and this pains Beloved-of-the-Gods.

Philosopher-King And A Transformational Figure

Ashoka became a philosopher-king, who ruled by being an example of rectitude and selfless service to the people. He embraced the basic principles of Buddhism. Ashoka’s Dharma was based on the principles of non-violence, tolerance, piety, mercy, kindness, generosity, truthfulness, forgiveness, purity, gentleness, goodness and peaceful coexistence of all religions. He made known Buddha’s philosophy to the population across the land by a cadre of special agents known as Mahamatra, Yukta, Rajjuka and Pradesika. In the manner of newly converted zealots, he even sent emissaries to foreign countries to spread the message of Dhamma. He discouraged people from killing animals for food and sacrifices, and even burning kernel of grains. He declared that good behavior earns fruits here on earth and hereafter far better than performing Yajnas. He had his edicts carved in stone all over his kingdom. In these edicts, he spoke plainly in their own

language. He made sure that all people across his vast empire knew exactly what he thought and what he expected of them.

How Brahmins Avenged Ashoka The Great

Ashoka vastly underestimated the weed-like sustaining power of Brahmanism. Brahmins hated Ashoka and everything he stood for. In their eyes he was a renegade and fallen Kshatriya. To them a Kshatriya, who grieves on the battlefield, suffers self-doubt and worries about the consequences of war, is unmanly and cowardly. Since they could not resort to their usual cloak and dagger methods of getting rid of him, Brahmins’ invented a stealth weapon to destroy him and promote their own Dharma: A parable in the form of a beautiful song. The palm leaf became their bow, the quill became their arrow, and a song became the arrowhead. Like a haunting song of a Bollywood movie, everyone could easily remember and sing it. They inserted this brief parable into the body of the ever-expanding Mahabharata epic, which by now was very popular with the masses, like its serial would be on television 2250 years later. In this parable, known as Arjuna Vishada, (Arjuna’s sorrow, despondency, dejection) the brave and noble Kshatriya prince Arjuna suddenly becomes distraught just as the Great War was about to begin on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, and he wishes to abandon his Kshatriya Dharma out of compassion for his ninety-nine cousins and one brother, close relatives, friends, Gurus and elders. In contrast to Ashoka, however, Arjuna redeems himself by surrendering to Varna Dharma after being shamed, scolded and lectured to by prince Krishna.

Remorseful Ashoka Becomes The Model For Despondent Arjuna

1. Whereas, according to the legend, Ashoka had to get rid of “ninety-nine half-brothers and one real brother” to inherit his father’s kingdom, Arjuna had to get rid of ninety-nine cousins and one brother to regain his father’s kingdom.

2. Whereas Ashoka spent thirteen years in exile before ascending his throne, Arjuna spent thirteen years in exile before waging the war to gain back his throne.

3. Whereas Ashoka inspected the carnage on the battlefield after the war, Arjuna inspected the battlefield before the slaughter began (BG: 1: 21-25).

4. Whereas Ashoka lamented over killing innocent people living in his enemy’s kingdom, Arjuna’s despaired over having to kill his own people who had turned against him, living in his own lost kingdom (BG: 1:26-27, 33).

5. Whereas Ashoka suffered from severe posttraumatic stress disorder after witnessing the slaughtered enemies on the battlefield, Arjuna suffered a massive panic attack (BG: 1:28-30) anticipating the slaughter of his enemies on the battlefield.

6. Whereas Ashoka suffered from severe remorse and sorrow on the battlefield after the war, Arjuna suffered from severe despondency and sorrow before the war (BG: 1: 27, 47).

7. Whereas Ashoka suffered from severe Dwandwam of mind while inspecting the carnage on the battlefield, Arjuna suffered from severe Dwandwam while inspecting the enemy arrayed against him on the battlefield (BG: 1:31-36).

8. Whereas Ashoka expressed horror over the consequences (Karmaphalam) to himself and the society as a result of war, Arjuna expressed fear of serious consequences (Karmaphalam) to himself (1:36-37, 45) and to Brahmanism (1:38-44) that might result from the war.

9. Whereas Ashoka expressed that killing people was Adharma and felt enormous remorse for doing so, in his distraught state of mind Arjuna thought that killing his own people was Adharma for which he would incur great sin (1:36, 45).

10. Whereas Ashoka gave up violence and embraced nonviolent Dharma after the war, Arjuna threatened to give up violence and embrace nonviolent Dharma before the war (1:46, 2:5).

Prince Krishna As The Counterforce To The Buddha

In this allegorical parable, Arjuna’s discomfiture on the battlefield gives prince Krishna, as the defender of Brahmanism and counterforce to the Buddha, the opportunity to give him a sound scolding and a crash course on the fundamentals of Varna Dharma. Note here that in the story of Arjuna Vishada, Krishna is merely a wise prince of Yadava tribe, somewhat like Chanakya in temperament. Like Chanakya he is not averse to trickery and scheming to achieve his goals. To him ends should justify means. He is not yet the Upanishadic Guru (2:7), Lord of beings of the Upanishads (4:6-8), or Parameshwara (11:3) of the Bhagavathas. These stepwise enhancements in Krishna’s stature were made later on by anti-Brahmanism revolutionaries for the purposes of using him to overthrow Brahmanism. From the beginning to the end of the Arjuna Vishada parable, Krishna is equal in stature to Arjuna. The only difference is, whereas in the beginning Arjuna was tainted (Chyuta) due to his Ahamkara (I, me and mine), Krishna remained Achyuta (untainted) from the beginning (1: 21) to the end (18: 73).

The Original Gita: The Essence Of The Varna Dharma

Now prince Krishna delivers his lecture to sorrowful Arjuna: Your dejection is unmanly, shameful, Unarya, heaven barring, cowardly and is indicative of

a feeble heart not befitting a Kshatriya noble (2:2-3). Nothing should be more desirable to a Kshatriya than a righteous war (2:31). You should look at it as an unsought opportunity to gain heaven (2:32). Victorious you would inherit your kingdom; dead you would go to heaven (2:37), which means there is no loss of attempt either way. If you gave up fighting, people would mistake it for cowardice and your peers and enemies alike would forever hold you in contempt; such a situation is worse than death (2:34-36). Thus forfeiting your duty and honor, you would incur sin (2:33). None can ever refrain from performing his Dharma-bound Karma, as one is totally helpless in the face of Gunas of Prakriti (3:5). One’s Ahamkara makes one think he is the doer (3:27). Even wise people conform to the dictates of their Guna; what is the point of resisting it? (3:33). When even the Devas are subject to the Gunas and Karma, how could you not be? (18:40). When you give up your Ahamkara and perform your duty as per your Guna, you would not incur sin even if you kill your own people (18:17) because it is not Adharma to do so. If you still refused to perform your duty due to your Ahamkara, you should remember that by the dictates of your Guna and Karma, you would helplessly perform your duty even against your own will (18:59-60). Remember that one’s own Dharma performed however imperfectly is better than performing another’s Dharma perfectly; for, dying in another’s Dharma is full of fear of going to hell (3:35). As regards the evil of animal sacrifices, all Dharmas are attended with evil of one kind or another, like fire is enveloped with smoke; that is no reason to abandon it (18: 47-48).

Prince Krishna then goes on to explain the distinct duties of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras as per the Varna Dharma in 18:42-44, and declares that only by performing one’s own Varna Dharma could one attain perfection (18:45). He follows this lecture by asking Arjuna if his teaching had removed his ignorance engendered by his Ahamkara (18:72). A shamed, humbled and browbeaten Arjuna meekly affirms, claims that he has regained his memory of his Dharma, and he no longer suffers from panic and doubt. He thanks Achyuta (one who is not tainted) for his grace (18:73). Now you know the historical context of the Original Gita.

The Original Gita Becomes Manifesto of Varna Dharma

Ashoka's Lion Capital at Sarnath, now the National Emblem of India

This brief parable of Arjuna Vishada in the form of a song, then known simply as the Gita, became Brahmanism’s Manifesto of Varna Dharma and clarion call for Kshatriyas and people of all classes not to abandon their Dharma, and to return to the fold of Brahmanism if they had already done so. Ashoka’s Edicts carved in solid rocks were no match to Brahmanism’s Song seared on the impressionable and confused minds and malleable brains of generations of Hindus. Brahmanism has hung on to this Manifesto of Varna Dharma, Ashoka’s great gift, with dear life for 2250 years. Even though anti-Brahmanic forces (The Upanishadists and Bhagavathas) made two successive attempts to overthrow Brahmanism by interpolating hundreds of anti-Brahmanic shlokas into the Original Gita, Brahmanism managed to neutralize them by launching its own counterrevolution in the text. Brahmins hid both anti-Brahmanic revolutions by masterful editing of the text; by adding counterrevolutionary shlokas; and by obfuscation, misinterpretation, and misrepresentation of the true intent and spirit of the revolutionary shlokas. Due to these socio-religious revolutions and counterrevolutions, over the centuries the 76-shloka long Original Gita bloated to 700-shloka long incoherent and disjointed collection of contradictory shlokas, which came to be known as the Bhagavad Gita. The fact that Sanskrit language is extremely complex, and that there were not many non-Brahmins who had mastery over it, helped them in this process. People’s irrational respect for anyone wearing saffron clothes also contributed to acceptance of any Brahmanic statement, however ridiculous, without critical scrutiny. Besides, in a highly shame-oriented society, anyone questioning Brahminic interpretation of shlokas could risk being accused of suffering from the delusion of Ahamkara. That fear was enough to silence any inquisitive mind.

Ashoka’s Pyrrhic Victory

As for Ashoka the Great, for all his heroic efforts to cleanse Brahmanism of its worst aspects, his name disappeared into the dustbin of history for over two thousand years until it was discovered in Buddhist literature of Sri Lanka less than one hundred years ago. Indians honored him rather belatedly, and that too only after foreigners did so first, by adopting his Lion Capital as the Emblem of Republic of India and his Chakra (Wheel of Righteousness) as the centerpiece of India’s flag. Be assured, you will be hard put to find politicians (modern day Kshatriyas) or bureaucrats (modern day Brahmins) in India who follow the principles of Ashoka’s Dhamma. Hindus have perfected the art of paying lip service to all those myriad of people who tried to reform Brahmanism -Upanishadists, Bhagavathas, Buddha, Ashoka, Kanakadasa, and Gandhi- while continuing to do exactly what they have been doing for over three thousand five hundred years: Preoccupation with Jati, Kula, Yajna, Pooja, gods, rituals, temples, Swamis, astrology and whatnot.

In my next article I will reveal how some bold Upanishadists launched a revolution to overthrow Brahmanism by using the Original Gita itself as the vehicle.

Upanishadists Use Arjuna Vishada To Overthrow Brahmanism

Written by Prabhakar Kamath , Posted on 17 January 2010 Tags: Arjuna, Baghavad Gita, Brahmanism, Buddhiyoga, Guru Krishna, Kamya Karma, Upanishads, Vishada

In the previous article we read how around mid 3rd century B. C. E. Brahmanism created the Original Gita consisting of Arjuna Vishada and inserted it into the ever-expanding Mahabharata epic to reverse the trend of Kshatriyas abandoning decadent Brahmanism and joining heterodox Dharmas such as Buddhism and Jainism. This hauntingly beautiful song, expounding merits of Varna Dharma, became the rallying point for Brahmanism in its struggle against the onslaught of heterodox Dharmas.

Upanishadists Decide To Overthrow Brahmanism

We read in an earlier article how Upanishadists attempted to reform Brahmanism but failed to do so because Brahmanism checkmated them by declaring the Upanishads as Shruthis. However, they succeeded in interpolating the outlines of the concepts of Sankhya and Yoga into the Mahabharata epic, but without much impact (3 [29] 2: 15-75). To Upanishadists, who were still in the fold of Brahmanism, Arjuna Vishada was an ominous development, and at the same time, a wonderful opportunity to reveal their Secret Doctrines to the public, and attempt to browbeat Brahmanism once again.

As we read earlier, the Upanishadists felt nothing but disgust with the Vedas and Vedic doctrines (2:52-53). They correctly diagnosed the true cause of all the turmoil in the society: decadence of Brahmanism obsessed with earning Karmaphalam by means of ostentatious Kamya Karma (2:43). They came to the conclusion that Brahmanism itself had become Adharma (4:7); and it must be overthrown; Kamya Karma must be

condemned (2:47-49); Karmaphalam must be declared as evil (4:16); Gunas and Karma must be discredited (2:45; 3:28-29); the importance of the Vedas must be reduced (2:46, 52-53), Varna Dharma must be made irrelevant (5:18-19), Yajnas must be declared as useless (3:17-18), and a new Dharma (4:8) with Upanishadic doctrines of Knowledge of Atman and Buddhiyoga must be established (2:39-40).

Upanishadic Theory

It is important to remember here that unlike the Lokayatas, Upanishadists did not consider the doctrines of the Gunas of Prakriti and Law of Karma as humbug. They simply declared the Gunas as evil and enemy of man (3:28-29, 34, 37-43) since they are hotbed of various human weaknesses such as Kama (selfish desire), Krodha (jealous rage), Sanga (attachment), Moha (delusion), Dwandwam, Ajnana, etc. The Gunas made ritualists become attached to sense objects and thus suffer from Shokam and Dwandwam here on earth. They declared the Law of Karma as evil since it made ritualists seek Karmaphalam by means of Kamya Karma to enjoy power and pleasure here on earth and heaven hereafter (2:43). This meant, whoever earned Karmaphalam suffered from Samsara, the never-ending cycle of birth, death and rebirth. Kama-ridden Brahmins and Krodha and Sankalpa-ridden Kshatriyas must be given new modus operandi by which they could transcend these doctrines, find Bliss here on earth (5:21) instead of Shokam and Dwandwam; and attain Nirvana (final exit) hereafter (6:15) instead of Karmaphalam-induced Samsara (revolving door).

Two Clever Strategies

1. Until the Arjuna Vishada was inserted into the Mahabharata, which was a Smrithi (remembered scripture), all Vedic scriptures and doctrines were kept away from the public by being declared Shruthi (that which was heard =revealed) scriptures. Only the top echelons of Brahmins and Kshatriyas had access to them. Now that Brahmanism decided to reveal their doctrines of the Gunas of Prakriti and Law of Karma in the Mahabharata epic, Upanishadists questioned, “Why can’t we also reveal our doctrines of Knowledge of Atman/Brahman and Buddhiyoga to the public?” However, this raised two questions: “How could we do this without coming across as irrelevant and impertinent? In what context could we reveal them?”

2. The shrewd Upanishadists noticed that the post-Vedic society at large suffered from the same three maladies Arjuna did: Whereas the upper

Arjuna and Krishna in the Mahabharata

classes (Brahmins and Kshatriyas) suffered from severe Dwandwam (restlessness, stress and loss of discrimination) due to their attachment to wealth, power and heaven (2:44), and they obsessively sought these Karmaphalam (fruits of Yajna) by means of ostentatious Kamya Karma (2:43), the rest of the society suffered from Shokam (grief) over steady decadence of once-noble Dharma, as evidenced by mass exodus from Brahmanism to heterodox Dharmas.

It is important to note here that in the Arjuna Vishada episode, which was 100% Brahmanism, prince Krishna had already given Arjuna absolutely the best advice any warrior could get any time on any battlefield on earth, and not a penny’s worth of more advice was needed. As we will see, no warrior in his sane mind could apply any of the advice the Upanishadic Krishna pretends to give Arjuna (2:38). Krishna hints this to shrewd readers by referring to Arjuna as sinless (3:3). This is like a father scolding his noble son within the earshot of an errant nephew. The advice was not meant for the noble son, but for the waywardly nephew. Obviously, in the Upanishadic Gita, the advice Krishna gave to sinless Arjuna was not meant for him but was meant for sinful Brahmins and Kshatriyas indulging in Kamya Karma.

Tactics

In an authoritarian culture, the only way one could attack authorities is by means of stealth. Just as Brahmanic loyalists used Arjuna Vishada as a stealth weapon against Ashoka the Great, the Upanishadic loyalists used surreptitious means to attack Brahmanism. They adopted tactics that were common in ancient India: double entendre, metaphors, pun, and code words. I have given a few examples of these tactics at the end of this article. They added shlokas that superficially appeared to address Arjuna, but were in reality meant to overthrow Brahmanism. They took full advantage of the dual

meanings of words such as Karma, Dharma, Shruthi and the like, to convey their message. This gave Brahmanism enough room to save face, just in case they felt too threatened by the Upanishadists. They carried out their revolution in several steps. In the process they converted the Original Gita into the Upanishadic Gita. Here are the twenty steps of the first stage of the Upanishadic Revolution.

1. Upanishadic Format: Prince Krishna Becomes Upanishadic Guru

Whereas the Brahmanic format was a lecture by an all-knowing wise man to ignorant ones (which is still the case in India), the Upanishadic format was a discourse between a learned Guru and a devoted student. The Upanishadists define this format to Brahmins in 4:34: Seek that enlightenment (Knowledge of Atman/Brahman) by prostrating, by questions and by service. The wise (the Upanishadic Gurus), the seers into the True (Brahman) will instruct you in that knowledge.

Accordingly, the Upanishadists elevated prince Krishna to the position of the Guru and demoted Arjuna to the position of his devoted student: 2:7: Arjuna said: I surrender unto you. Make me your pupil, correct me and tell me for certain what is good for me.

2. Shokam, Dwandwam And Karmaphalam Are Reintroduced

To make their intrusion into the Arjuna Vishada look legitimate, Upanishadists reintroduced the three maladies of Arjuna in the following Upanishadic shlokas.

A) Shokam: 2:8: I do not find any remedy to the Shokam that is drying up my Senses, even if I were to gain unrivalled prosperity and power here on earth and sovereignty over gods hereafter. The point made here is that both these Brahmanic rewards of Yajna are useless in alleviating Shokam. In other words, Kamya Karma cannot solve the problem of Shokam. In fact Kamya Karma was the cause of Shokam. Therefore we need a new remedy to address Shokam: Knowledge of Atman.

B) Dwandwam: 2:6-7: Whether we should conquer them or they should conquer us -I do not know. My nature is weighed down with the taint of feeble-mindedness; my understanding is confused as to my duty. The point made here by Upanishadists is that attachment to sense objects disconnects one’s Mind from his Buddhi so badly that he, a great warrior, is unable to decide even the purpose of the war! Dwandwam is the sign that the Mind is disconnected from the stabilizing effect of Buddhi (see below). Therefore, one must detach his Mind from sense objects if he wants to reconnect his Mind with his Buddhi.

C) Karmaphalam: 2:6: These very sons of Dhritharashtra stand before us, after slaying whom we should not care to live. The point made here is, suicide might be preferable to living with pervasive sense of sinfulness (bad Karmaphalam). This is a veiled reference to Sramanas of Jainism, who committed slow suicide by starvation as if to atone for their sins. Chandragupta Maurya was but one example of Kshatriya royals who did this. The

hidden meaning of this shloka is, “Tell me how I could perform Karma without incurring sin (bad Karmaphalam).”

These statements of Arjuna gave Guru Krishna the pretext to introduce the Upanishadic doctrine of Knowledge of Atman, which gave one freedom from Shokam and Dwandwam; and doctrine of Buddhiyoga, which taught one how to act without earning any Karmaphalam whatsoever.

3. Knowledge of Atman Is Given On The Pretext Of Countering Shokam

Now Guru Krishna delivers the theoretical Knowledge of Atman: Shokam (grief) is the sign of ignorance of the eternal nature of Atman within the body due to the deluding power of the Gunas (3:38-40; 5:15). Unlike the body made up of perishable Prakriti, Atman is indestructible, eternal, ancient, immeasurable, unthinkable, immutable, impervious to forces of Prakriti such as wind, fire, water, etc. (2:11-13; 16-30). Unlike the Gunas, Atman is free from birth and death, pain and pleasure, gain and loss (Action). The action of killing is the function of the Gunas. Atman does not kill. Being killed is the function of the body made up of Prakriti. Atman cannot be killed. Having thus established supremacy of Atman over the Gunas of Prakriti, Guru Krishna says: 2:39: This Knowledge of Atman (which shall be the counterforce against the Gunas of Prakriti from now onwards) has been declared to you as per Sankhya philosophy.

4. Now Guru Krishna Explains Dwandwam

2:14: The contacts of the Senses with their objects create feelings of heat and cold, of pain and pleasure (Dwandwam). They come and go and are impermanent. Bear them patiently. How does one bear with Dwandwam patiently? Well, just as attachment to sense objects causes Dwandwam (I like this, I don’t like this; I feel good about this, I feel bad bout this; I gained this, I lost this), detachment from them connects the Mind to Buddhi and steadies it. Dwandwam disappears. This is the essence of Sanyasa, the first part of Buddhiyoga. Later on, (Chapter Four) Sanyasa becomes Jnanayoga.

5. Guru Krishna Explains How To Avoid Karmaphalam In Action

2:15: That man, O the best of men, is fitted for immortality (he is freed from the cycle of birth, death and rebirth by not earning Karmaphalam in action), whom these (Dwandwam: pairs of opposites) do not torment when he acts, who is balanced in pain and pleasure and steadfast (has become Buddhiyukta). The point made here is, when one acts without the Dwandwam of gain and loss, he earns no Karmaphalam (2:38). This is the essence of Tyaga, the second part of Buddhiyoga. Later on (Chapter Three) Tyaga becomes Karmayoga.

It is important to remember here that whereas Brahmanism was in favor of earning as much Karmaphalam as possible by means of war and Yajna, Upanishadism considered all Karmaphalam as sin since it promoted Samsara (cycle of birth, death and rebirth). This is a fundamental difference between the two sects.

6. Guru Krishna Introduces Buddhiyoga To Tackle Law of Karma

Having given the theoretical knowledge of Atman, now Guru Krishna gives Arjuna the principles of practice of Buddhiyoga: 2:39: Now hear me instruct you in the practice of Yoga of Buddhi. (By acting with your mind) Yoked to Buddhi, you shall break the bonds of Karma (earn no Karmaphalam in action and thus defy the Law of Karma). The point made here is that when the Mind withdraws the Senses from sense objects (says ‘No’ to desires), it becomes yoked to Buddhi and becomes Buddhiyukta (steadied by Buddhi). As we noted above, when one performs any action with a steady mind, he does not earn any Karmaphalam.

7. Guru Krishna Now Compares Buddhiyoga To Kamya Karma

2:40: In this (practice of Buddhiyoga unlike Kamya Karma) there is no loss of attempt (since nothing was desired); nor is there any adverse effect (such as Dwandwam or Karmaphalam). The practice of even a little of this Dharma protects one from great fear.

While performing Kamya Karma the performer might not obtain anything he craves for, and thus all his effort might be a total loss. In contrast, while practicing Buddhiyoga, there is no scope for loss of effort and consequent grief as absolutely no sense object was desired in the effort, and so nothing was lost. Whereas Kamya Karma is associated with the side effects of Dwandwam (due to attachment to sense objects) and Karmaphalam (due to desire for fruits), Buddhiyoga is free from these side effects of attachment to sense objects and selfish action to gain them.

Regarding the phrase, “The practice of even a little of this Dharma protects one from ‘Mahato Bhayat’ (great fear)” means, “If you practice Buddhiyoga of Upanishadism, you will not incur Karmaphalam of any kind whatsoever, and so you don’t need to fear going to hell for abandoning Kamya Karma.” The fear mentioned here is not the fear of Samsara, as claimed by Brahmanic commentators. This shloka was addressed to Brahmanic ritualists who constantly craved to go to heaven and be born again and again

(2:43). What Vedic ritualists feared the most was going to hell for abandoning Brahmanism (3:35).

8. Guru Krishna Comes Out Swinging At Vedic Ritualists

2:41-44: To the firm in mind (Buddhiyogi), there is in this (Dharma) but one goal (to gain Knowledge of Atman); (in contrast) many branching and endless (wealth, pleasure, lordship, children, gold, cows, heaven, etc.), indeed, are the goals of the irresolute (Dwandwam-ridden ritualists attached to these). The ignorant ones (Vedic ritualists who are ignorant of Atman due to their attachment to sense objects) delighting in the flowery words disputing about the Vedic doctrines (of the Gunas and Karma) proclaim that there is nothing other than this (gaining sense objects by means of Kamya Karma); who are desire-ridden, whose goal is to attain heaven and rebirth as its Karmaphalam, who are addicted to many specific sacrificial rites (such as Ashvamedha, Rajasooya, Jyotisthoma) with the goal of enjoyment and power. The wisdom of these (ritualists) who cling to pleasure and power are stolen away (they become Dwandwam-ridden due to their attachment) and they are not able to attain steadiness of Buddhi needed for deep meditation (required to attain Atman).

9. Guru Krishna Warns Ritualists Of Consequences Of Attachment To Sense Objects

2:62-63: Obsessing over sense objects (wealth, power, heaven) man develops attachment to them; from attachment arises desire to have them. From desire arises jealous rage (against other Kshatriyas). From jealous rage proceeds delusion (I am rich, I am powerful); from delusion confused memory (for one’s Dharma). From confused memory ruin of reason (one becomes irrational in his actions), and due to ruin of reason man perishes (because he indulges in stupid acts).

These two shlokas represent the essence of the Upanishadic wisdom directed toward Vedic ritualists. When the Mind becomes entangled with sense objects it becomes disconnected from Wisdom. Stupid acts follow. We can see around us people who have ruined themselves due to their entanglement with various sense objects such as wealth, money, women, etc. The essence of these shlokas is that when man who acts under the direction of his Buddhi he becomes Buddha. One who acts under the influence of his Senses (Gunas) becomes Buddhu.

10. Guru Krishna Attacks The Gunas And Law Of Karma

Guru Krishna summarizes whatever he has taught so far: 2:45: The three Gunas (whose functions are desire, attachment and possessiveness) are in the sphere of the Vedas. You should transcend these three Gunas. Being free from Dwandwam (arising from attachment induced by the Gunas); being constantly established in goodness (instead of Kama, Krodha, Sangas and Moha rooted in the Gunas); being unconcerned with getting (earning Karmaphalam) and keeping (being possessive of them), be centered in Atman (so you shall be free from the Gunas as well as Shokam arising from it).

11. Guru Krishna Expresses Disgust With The Vedas And Vedic Doctrines

2:46: To an enlightened Brahmin (one who has conquered the Gunas and gained Knowledge of Atman) all the Vedas are as useful as a tank of water (meaning, they are practically useless) when there is flood (vast knowledge of Brahman) all around.

2:52-53: When your Buddhi transcends the thicket of delusion (engendered by the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma) then you will be disgusted by Shruthis yet to be heard (that were being churned out by beleaguered Brahmins around this time to shore up Brahmanism) as well as Shruthis you have already heard (the Vedas). When your Buddhi, disregarding the bewildering Vedic doctrines (of the Gunas and Karma), stands firm and unmoving in deep meditation, then you shall attain Yoga.

The point made here is that for a Vedic ritualist to become a Yogi, he must first completely disregard the Vedas and Vedic doctrines and actions based on them. The phrase ‘Shruthis yet to be heard’ refers to the fact that around this time (probably around 200 B. C. E) Brahmins were furiously ‘manufacturing’ Shruthis, such as Brahmanas, to shore up Brahmanism. Guru Krishna tells people to disregard them completely.

12. Guru Krishna Lays Down The Law: Do Not Crave Karmaphalam

Now Guru Krishna literally lays down the Law: 2:47-49: Your Adhikara (entitlement as per ancient scriptural ordinances) is only to perform Yajna and never at any time to its fruits (for fruits are supposed to go to the Devas, 3:10-16). Never let Karmaphalam be your motive (for if you take Karmaphalam for yourself you are a thief, 3:12); however, do not become attached to inaction (like Sramanas who do nothing at all except beg). Perform Yajna renouncing attachment (to Karmaphalam), being fixed in Yoga and being even-minded in success and failure (free from Dwandwam). Such equilibrium (of mind) is verily Yoga. Motivated Karma (Kamya Karma) is far inferior to that performed in the spirit of Buddhiyoga; take refuge in Buddhi; despicable are those (Vedic ritualists) who are motivated by Karmaphalam.

For a ritualist to become a Yogi, he must give up his attachment to sense objects as well to fruits of action. This would give him Evenness, Equanimity and Equilibrium of Mind (Three Es) engendered by Buddhiyoga.

13. Guru Krishna Explains The Benefits Of Buddhiyoga Here And Hereafter

Guru Krishna explains the difference between Kamya Karma and Buddhiyoga. In Kamya Karma, the ritualist earns Karmaphalam here on earth and hereafter. In contrast, the Buddhiyogi earns Karmaphalam neither here nor hereafter.

2:50-51: The one whose mind is steadied by being yoked to Buddhi frees oneself in this life from the consequences of good deeds as well as bad (earns neither good nor bad Karmaphalam). Therefore, devote yourself to Yoga. Work done skillfully (without the side-effects such as Dwandwam and Karmaphalam) is verily Yoga.

Just as a surgeon avoids side effects such as excessive bleeding and infection while performing surgery, a Yogi avoids side effects such as Dwandwam and Karmaphalam while performing any action including Yajna.

The wise (Buddhiyogis), their mind steadied by Buddhi, renouncing attachment to Karmaphalam, are freed from bondage of rebirth and attain the abode that is free from pain (attain Nirvana).

14. Yajnas Are Useless To Enlightened People

A man who has conquered his Gunas finds the peace engendered by complete absence of desire, attachment and possessiveness. Such a person has no use of Yajnas whatsoever.

3:17-18: A man who rejoices in Atman, satisfied with Atman, and is centered in Atman, to him there is no need for any Yajna (because his happiness comes from within him). There is no object for him to acquire in this world by performing Yajna, nor is there any loss by not performing it; nor does he have to depend on anybody (such as Devas or their brokers, the priests) for anything.

15. Enlightened People Do Not Need Varna Dharma

Varna Dharma is based on unequal distribution of the Gunas and Karma (4:13) among the classes. However, a person who has conquered the Gunas develops ’same-sightedness’ on all people because he sees the same Brahman in all.

5:17-18: Wise men (Buddhiyogis who have conquered the Gunas) see the same (Atman) in an educated and cultured Brahmin, a cow (the animal of Brahmins), an elephant (the animal of Kshatriyas), a dog (the animal of Vaishyas as Sudras), and a dog eater (the outcaste of the lowest kind).

Even here on earth, one conquers rebirth when one’s mind is established in equality (of all people). Brahman is flawless and the same in all; therefore, they are all established in Brahman.

5:25: The seers whose evils (such as arrogance, rooted in the Gunas) have been destroyed, whose Dwandwam has been severed, whose selves (body, the Senses, the Mind and the Intellect) have been controlled, who delight in the welfare of all people (not just the upper classes), attain the Bliss of Brahman.

16. Guru Krishna Recommends Chopping Down The Rotten Tree Of Brahmanism

By means of the following four metaphorical shlokas, Guru Krishna finally orders that the rotten tree of Brahmanism should be chopped asunder by the axe of Buddhiyoga.

15:1-5: They speak of an eternal Ashvattha tree (a metaphor for Brahmanism) with its root above (in heaven) and branches below (on earth). Its leaves are Vedic hymns (uttered during Kamya Karma); he who knows it is the knower of the Vedas (Brahmins and Kshatriyas). Below (in the world of men) and above (in heaven) spread its branches, nourished by the Gunas (desire, attachment and possessiveness); sense objects (wealth, lordship and heaven) are its buds; and below in the world of men stretch forth the roots engendering (Kamya) Karma. Its real form is not perceived as such in this world (because it has been corrupted beyond recognition), neither its end (anta, referring to Vedanta principles) nor its beginning (adi, referring to its original purpose), nor its existence (everyone is thoroughly bewildered by it). Having chopped down this firm-rooted Ashvattha tree with the strong axe of non-attachment (the Upanishadic doctrine of Buddhiyoga), then that Goal (Abode of Brahman) should be sought for, going whither, they do not return again (attain Nirvana). I seek refuge in the Primeval Purusha (Brahman) whence streamed forth Eternal Activity.

Note here the paradigm shift in the source of all Eternal Activity. Primeval Purusha, not Prakriti, shall be the source of all activity from now onwards.

The Upanishadic Gita is full of wonderful metaphors such as the above, which all Brahmanic commentators misinterpret as pro-Brahmanism. Here are some other ways by which the Upanishadists tried to make Brahmanism obsolete.

17. Another Metaphor

2:22: As a man casting off worn-out garment puts on new ones, so the embodied (Atman), casting off worn out bodies enters into others that are new.

Even a child can understand the literal meaning of this shloka. However, the phrase worn-out garment here is a metaphor for worn-out (decadent) Brahmanism. To Brahmanism, Atman was merely a soul that transmigrated from body to body carrying with it Karmaphalam earned during the previous life. To Upanishadism, on the contrary, Atman was a part of all-pervading Brahman in the body, a counterforce to the Gunas and the seat of Absolute Tranquility engendered by total absence of desire, attachment and possessiveness. There is a paradigm shift in the concept of Atman. The hidden meaning of this shloka is that Atman is now discarding the worn-out and decadent Brahmanism and entering into a New Dharma: Upanishadism.

18. Code Words

2:23: Weapons do not cleave Atman, fire burns it not, water wets it not, and wind dries it not.

The literal meaning of this shloka is obvious to everyone. All Brahmanic commentators stick to the literal interpretation. However, this shloka’s hidden meaning is that Atman is impervious to Vedic gods of Prakriti: Indra wielding his weapon, Vajrayudha, Agni who burns, Varuna who wets and Vayu who blows. The Upanishads mention how these Vedic gods run away in fear of Brahman. Also, these forces of nature could be perceived by means of the Senses, but Atman is beyond the Senses (the Gunas).

19. An Example Of Using Dual Meanings

2:29: One beholds Atman as wonderful; another mentions of it as marvelous; another again hears of it as strange; though hearing yet another knows it not at all.

In this shloka, Upanishadists ridicule Vedic scholars, who have not gained Knowledge of Atman even after hearing about Atman. One Vedic scholar who hears of it is baffled by it. Another Vedic scholar who hears of it does not get it. Here the dual meanings of the word Shruthi, hearing as well as the Vedas, are cleverly used to convey the message that Shruthis (the Vedas) are useless in gaining Knowledge of Atman. The Upanishads never get tired of saying this in the Upanishads, “Atman cannot be gained by the Vedas.”

20. An Example Of Using Dual Meaning As Pun

2:52: When your Buddhi transcends the thicket of delusion (engendered by the Gunas), they you shall be disgusted (Nirvedam) by things you are yet to hear and things you have already heard.

In this shloka the word Nirvedam means disgust as well as Vedalessness. The phrase ‘things you have already heard’ refers to the Vedas (that which was heard -Shruthi). The point made here is that once one transcends the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, the Vedas would disgust him.

This concludes the first stage of the Upanishadic Revolution in the Bhagavad Gita, designed to overthrow Brahmanism. In the next article, we will study the next step Upanishadists took to protect their revolution from being destroyed by Brahmanic loyalists and to rehabilitate Brahmanism’s Old Guard: Brahmins and Kshatriyas.

Upanishadists Create A New God To Beat Back Brahmanism

Written by Prabhakar Kamath , Posted on 31 January 2010 Tags: Arjuna, Brahmanism, hinduism, Krishna, Upanishads

(Note: If the image resolution is too low for your browser, you may click on the image and open it to its full size)

In the previous article, we read how Upanishadists launched a revolution to overthrow Brahmanism and establish Upanishadism in its place using Arjuna Vishada as the vehicle. In this article we will study how they consolidated their revolution.

Every revolution, whether military, political, social, religious or sectarian, is followed by two early preemptive measures: 1. Protecting the revolution from the attacks of well-entrenched vested interests. 2. Destroying, reforming or retiring the recalcitrant Old Guard. The stranglehold of the vested interests on Brahmanism was so strong that Upanishadists had to create a whole new god to accomplish these goals: Lord of beings (4:6). We read elsewhere the two main reasons why people create gods: fulfill their desires and for protection from evil. Presently Brahmanism’s upper classes were obsessed with fulfilling its desires by means of Kamya Karma, and Upanishadists were busy protecting their revolution from the evil of Brahmanism. It is important to note here that the new god’s mandate was only to protect and promote Upanishadism centered on Brahman and to destroy the evildoers (4:7-8). He was not the god of Upanishadism, but just its facilitator. He repeatedly identifies Brahman as the supreme divinity (5:21, 24-26; 6:27-28).

1. Protecting The Revolution: Upanishadists Promote Guru Krishna To Lord of beings

That there was considerable amount of carping going on against the first stage of the Upanishadic revolution could be discerned by several warnings Upanishadic Lord of beings issues to Brahmanic loyalists such as this:

3:32: But those who carp at my teaching (that they should give up Kamya Karma and embrace Buddhiyoga) and act not thereon, deluded (by the Gunas) in all knowledge and devoid of discrimination, know them to be ruined!

Once they realized that opposition was brewing, Upanishadists moved very quickly to protect the revolutionary shlokas from being destroyed by Brahmanic forces. They elevated Guru Krishna to the position of Lord of beings. This Upanishadic Lord of beings was distinctly superior to the Vedic Lord of beings (Prajapati) by virtue of his ability to subjugate the Gunas of Prakriti (4:6). They made all future revolutionary shlokas come out of his mouth to guarantee that no one would dare to destroy them. Upanishadists made clear the purpose of Guru Krishna being elevated to godhood:

4:7-8: Whenever there is decay of Dharma (Brahmanism) and rise of Adharma (as exemplified by Kamya Karma and Varna Dharma), I take birth age after age, for the protection of the good (Upanishadists) and destruction of evildoers (Brahmins and Kshatriyas indulging in Kamya Karma) and for establishing Dharma (resting on the doctrines of Knowledge of Atman/Brahman and Buddhiyoga).

As Lord of beings, Krishna knocks down one Brahmanic element after another. He subjugates Prakriti, the ultimate divinity of Brahmanism (4:6); declares Brahmanism as Adharma (4:7); identifies Vedic ritualists as evildoers (4:8), deluded, unwise, and ignorant (3:25-26, 29); pronounces the Gunas as the enemy of man (3:34); condemns Karmaphalam as evil (4:16); demotes Brahmanic Lord of beings (3:15); declares Yajna as useless (3:17-18), and neutralizes Varna Dharma (5:18-19).

2. Reforming The Old Guard

Upanishadic Lord Krishna’s goals were to replace Yajna of Brahmanism with Yoga of Upanishadism, and convert hedonistic Vedic ritualists (3:16) into Spartan Upanishadic Yogis (4:19-24). Whereas Prajapati was the creator of Yajna (3:10), he declares himself as the creator of Yoga (4:1-2) To be as specific as possible he splits Buddhiyoga into Jnanayoga (Sanyasa) and Karmayoga (Tyaga):

3:3: There is this two-fold path taught by me to the world, O sinless one, since ancient times: The Yoga of Knowledge (Jnanayoga) for the followers of Sankhya (discerning Brahmins), and Yoga of Action (Karmayoga) for the followers of Yoga (active Kshatriyas).

Note here how Krishna refers to Arjuna as sinless. This is to hint that this shloka was meant for the upper classes busy earning sin (Karmaphalam). Now he goes about transforming Brahmins into Jnanayogis and Kshatriyas into Karmayogis. Sanyasa means detachment from sense objects, and so he gives Jnanayoga to Brahmins who were

attached to, and constantly hankering after, cows, gold, land, etc. as the fee for officiating Yajnas (Chapter Four). Tyaga means giving up Karmaphalam of Yajna, and so he gives Karmayoga to the Kshatriyas who were hankering after Karmaphalam such as wealth, power and heaven (2:43) by sponsoring ostentatious Kamya Karma (Chapter Three).

A Hitch: The Need To Study Chapter Four Before Chapter Three

Guru Krishna was elevated to the position of Lord of beings in Chapter Four of the Bhagavad Gita (4:6). However, if you study Chapter Three, in it Krishna is already acting in the capacity of Lord of beings, and it mentions what Krishna uttered (3:1-2) in Chapter Four. Besides, as we will read below, Chapter Four begins where Chapter Two left off. Therefore, originally Chapter Four, in which Brahmins were taken to task, must have come before Chapter Three in which Kshatriyas were chastised. The final editor switched around these chapters for reasons known only to himself, which has resulted in much unnecessary confusion for everyone, including Gurus, studying the Gita. Perhaps the purpose of doing this was to force confused students to take refuge in a Brahmanic Guru for a thorough brainwashing. Or perhaps the editor wanted brawny Kshatriyas to take the whippings first. We will identify many, many such deliberately devious tactics by the final editor of the Bhagavad Gita to confuse readers and thereby conceal the Upanishadic and Bhagavatha revolutions. To complicate matters even further, the final editor interpolated several Bhagavatha shlokas in these essentially Upanishadic chapters. I have eliminated them from this article to avoid making bad matters even worse.

Reforming Brahmins: Chapter Four

1. Krishna Declares That He Is The Author Of Yoga

Chapter Four begins by Krishna explaining the history of Yoga he had taught Arjuna in Chapter Two:

4:1-2: This Imperishable Yoga (Buddhiyoga of Chapter Two) I declared to Vivasvat (Sun god); Vivasvat taught it to Manu (the Lawgiver); Manu told it to Ikshvaku (the king who originated Sun dynasty). Thus transmitted in regular succession the royal sages (not Brahmins) knew it. This Yoga, by long efflux of time decayed in this world.

As you can see, now Krishna is not merely a mortal Upanishadic Guru, but he is the immortal divine Guru of Sun god Vivasvat. Besides, he confirms the fact that Kshatriyas, not Brahmins, transmitted this knowledge of Yoga, and that it fell into disuse over long period of time. Why? Because it was kicked upstairs as Shruthi by Brahmanic vested interests for over five hundred years before it was liberated from the clutches of Brahmanism and revealed in the Gita, a Smrithi.

When Arjuna expresses his puzzlement over Krishna being older than Sun god, the latter explains:

4:5-6: Many are the births taken by you, O Arjuna and me. I know them all while you know not, O Scorcher of foes. Though I am unborn, imperishable and the Lord of beings, yet subjugating my Prakriti (Gunas), I come into being by my own Maya (magic, illusion).

Now Krishna proclaims his supremacy over Prakriti, which was practically the ultimate divinity of Brahmanism. By claiming magical power to subjugate Prakriti, Krishna immediately asserted his supremacy over all Vedic gods, including Prajapati, who were subject to the Gunas of Prakriti (18:40). How did he accomplish this fantastic feat? Well, by his magic. No wonder all the Babas, Sadhus and Sanyasis wandering all over India fleecing naïve people by their magic are great Bhakthas of Lord Krishna the magician. Now, having conquered the supreme god of Brahmanism, he has gained authority to destroy Brahmanism and promote Upanishadic Dharma and no one could question him. In India no one questions magicians.

2. True Purpose Of Dharma

We read in shlokas 4:7-8 in the second paragraph above the true purpose of Guru Krishna’s elevation to godhood: To protect the good, destroy the evildoers and to establish Dharma. The true purpose of all Dharmas is to help people eliminate all deep-rooted evils in their hearts, such as Kama (lust), Krodha (jealous rage), Sanga (attachment), Moha (delusion), Mada (arrogance), Matsarya (envy) and Bhaya (fear, insecurity), and become good people so they could live in harmony and peace with others as equals in the civilized society. However, what today’s civilized society considers as evils were once essential tools for survival for evolving humans in the wilderness, and they became hard-wired into their psyche, and encoded in their genes, and became the life-preserving force, which Brahmanism called the Gunas of Prakriti, roughly Force or Quality of Nature. The roots of these “evils” go back to millions of years. The veneer of civility promoted by various rules, regulations, traditions and rituals of Dharma, which have been around for less than ten thousand years, temporarily moderates or covers up these tenacious evils. When tempted by circumstances, these evils resurface leading to evil acts. Brahmanism became Adharma because it fell prey to these evils rooted in the Gunas, lost the veneer of civility, encouraged selfishness (3:16) and evil acts (3:36-40) in the upper classes, and, falling prey to man’s impulse to dominate others, blatantly perpetrated injustice against the lower classes by means of Varna Dharma. When society reacts severely, these stupid and evil acts become the cause of self-destruction (2:62-63).

The Upanishadists correctly identified the Gunas as the source of these evils (3:28-29; 34, 36-40). The Upanishadic Dharma’s goal was to give the fallen upper classes Yoga as a tool to control these hard-wired, Guna-based evils, and learn to behave in a civilized manner towards others by seeing their own Self in others (6:29, 32). In this Dharma, unlike in Brahmanism, there was no room for selfishness and discrimination against others in the society as Brahman was the same in all (5:19). Upanishadism was trying to eliminate the decadent Brahmanic Dharma based on the Gunas (desire, attachment, possessiveness) and Karma (selfishly gaining this or that thing) and to establish a new Dharma resting on totally desire-less state known as Atman -which was nothing but the

mind devoid of the evils; and Buddhi, which is the seat of moral values, noble virtues, sound reasoning, clear insight, good judgment, proper knowledge of the world within and without, and memory of lessons learned (experience). Archaic Brahmanism and enlightened Upanishadism were light years apart. Yet, Brahmanism claims Upanishadism as its part.

3. Krishna Offers His Divine Self As A Model Of Selfless Action

4:13-14: I created the fourfold Varna by the different distribution of Guna and Karma. Though I am the author thereof, know me to be eternal non-doer (I act so selflessly that it is as if I did nothing at all). Nor do my actions taint me (I am not bound by Karmaphalam), nor is Karmaphalam desired by me. He, who thus knows me (follows my example of selfless action), is not bound by Karma (does not earn any Karmaphalam).

This shloka has three main agendas: 1. Krishna, as Upanishadic Lord of beings, takes responsibility for creating Varna Dharma and so Brahmanism has no more say in it. 2. Since he created this system without any desire for fruit, any good or bad Karmaphalam arising from it will not taint him. He can also eliminate it without anyone questioning him. 3. Since he neither desires Karmaphalam nor earns it when he acts, he offers himself as a model of selfless action for Brahmins to emulate. In this shloka, Krishna is not promoting Varna Dharma like all Brahminic commentators claim. In fact, as we will read below, his goal is to destroy it by dismantling its very foundation: the Gunas and Karma. He is merely giving it as an example of selflessness in action. His goal is to convert hankering Brahmins into selfless Yogis. How do we know this to be the case?

4. Krishna Offers Brahmins A Refresher Course In Performing Yajna

4:15-17: Having known thus (that one should perform Karma neither desiring fruits nor gaining them) even the ancient seekers after liberation (from the debt of gods) performed Yajna; therefore you should perform Yajna as did the ancients in olden times.

In this shloka Krishna recommends that they should revert back to doing Yajna like ancient Brahmins did, merely to liberate themselves from the debt of the gods (3:10-14). The liberation mentioned here is not Moksha like Brahmanic commentators claim.

Even (contemporary) sages are confused as to what (proper) Yajna is (because they are deluded by their desire for and attachment to Karmaphalam) and what Akarma is (referring to disgusted Sramanas who gave it up). Therefore, I shall explain to you what (the right way of performing) Yajna is, knowing which you shall be liberated from the evil (of Karmaphalam). One must know the nature of (proper) Yajna, Vikarmanas (wrong Yajna, meaning Kamya Karma) and Akarma (no Yajna, as is the case with Sramanas), for inscrutable are the ways of Yajna.

The ways of Yajna, as created by Prajapati (3:10), are too complicated for these dull-witted ritual-obsessed Brahmins to understand. Therefore, Upanishadic Lord of beings will have to explain the three kinds of sacrifices: Proper way (the original), wrong way

(Kamya Karma) and no way (Sramanas). Note here that thus far Krishna’s goal is limited to taking away the element of greed from Yajna. He does not want to shock them by dismissing Yajnas as useless all at once.

5. Perform Knowledge Sacrifice, Not Fire Sacrifice

Now Krishna attempts to replace Yajna with Yoga. He does this by using the term Brahmins are most familiar with: Yajna. He starts out by telling them to perform Jnana Yajna (Knowledge Sacrifice) instead of Dravya (material) Yajna. What is Knowledge Yajna? This is nothing but Jnanayoga in disguise. In this Yajna one sacrifices his deep-rooted evils noted above:

4:19-24: He whose actions (Yajnas) are all devoid of Sankalpa (design to gain Karmaphalam in Yajna) and desire for personal gains (”I want gold, cows, land”), and whose Karmaphalam are all burnt by the Fire of Knowledge of Atman (instead of gaining them in the Fire of Yajna), him the sages call wise (Jnanayogi).

In this picture, on the left is the mind of a non-Yogi. In the center is the mind of practicing Yogi: Sense objects have become less important; his attachments to them have diminished; his Senses are withdrawing; his Mind is girdled with Buddhi, and his Dwandwam has diminished. On the right is the mind of the Self-realized Yogi: Sense objects have become unimportant, the Senses are completely withdrawn, the Mind is centered on Buddhi, and Buddhi is centered on Atman. (Click on Image for larger size)

Note here how Upanishadists use fire as metaphor. Fire of Kamya Karma earns Karmaphalam; Fire of Knowledge (Yoga) burns it. What else does one burn in the Fire of Knowledge?

Having abandoned attachment to Karmaphalam, ever content (with what he has), depending on nothing (such as fee), though performing Yajna, verily he does not do anything (does not earn any Karmaphalam). Craving for nothing (such as cows, gold, land), his mind and self controlled (being Buddhiyukta), having abandoned all possessions, performing Yajna by body alone (without emotional element such as Kama and Sankalpa for fruit), he incurs no sin (Karmaphalam).

Content with what he obtains without effort (manipulations and coercion), free from Dwandwam (”I like this, I don’t like that; I want this, I don’t want that”), without envy (”why does that Brahmin have more cows and gold than I?”), balanced in success and

failure (”If I get it, fine; if I don’t, that is fine, too), though performing Yajna he does not earn Karmaphalam.

Of one unattached (to sense objects), thus liberated (from Dwandwam), with mind absorbed in Knowledge of Atman, performing work for Yajna (worship) alone (and not for personal gains), his entire Karmaphalam (both good and bad) melts away.

The basic goal of the above shlokas is to encourage Brahmins to give up their evils while performing Yajna. By removing any selfish motive in Yajnas, Krishna reduced them to meaningless petty rituals. So, Knowledge Yajna is nothing but Knowledge Yoga (Jnanayoga) by means of which one burns his hard-wired weaknesses one by one in the fire of Knowledge of Atman. His next step is to eliminate Yajnas entirely.

6. All Elements of Knowledge Sacrifice Are Made Up Of Brahman

4:24: The oblation is Brahman, the clarified butter is Brahman, offered by Brahman in the fire of Brahman; unto Brahman verily he goes who cognizes Brahman alone in his Yajna.

In this metaphoric Fire of Knowledge (Jnana Yajna), all its aspects are made up of all-pervading Brahman. In this Yajna there is no real altar, no real fire, no real oblation, no real ghee, no real burnt offering, no nothing. Whereas the goal of Kamya Karma was to please Vedic gods (Indra, Varuna, etc.) to fulfill one’s desires here on earth, the goal of Knowledge Yajna is to attain Bliss of Brahman here on earth (5:21). The performer of Kamya Karma goes to heaven of the Devas (or at least that is what he hopes) hereafter; the performer of Knowledge Yajna goes to Brahman hereafter, meaning he attains Nirvana. The remnant of Kamya Karma is whatever food is left after the Yajna (3:13); the remnant of Knowledge Yajna is whatever remains after a Yogi sacrifices the functions of the Senses, the Mind and the Intellect. That remnant (nectar) is Atman (4:31). What Krishna is telling these Brahmins is that instead of performing material Yajna take up Knowledge Yajna, that is Jnanayoga. He then gives them a list of “Knowledge Sacrifices” (4:25-30), which represent Yoga, all of which culminate in Knowledge of Atman.

7. Jnana Yajna (Jnanayoga) Is Superior To Material Yajna

4:33: Jnana Yajna (Jnanayoga), O scorcher of foes, is superior to material Yajna (sacrificing grains, ghee and animals). All Jnana Yajna in its entirety, O Partha, culminates in Knowledge of Atman.

Jnanayoga is superior to material Yajnas in which materials (ghee, animals, etc.) are sacrificed. Why? The side effect of material Yajna are Shokam, Dwandwam and Karmaphalam engendered by attachment to sense objects and Karmaphalam. Jnana Yajna has no such side effects (2:40).

8. Krishna explains to Brahmins The Benefits Of Jnanayoga

4:35: Knowing this, you will not again fall into this confusion (caused by the Gunas); by this (Knowledge of Atman) you will see the whole of creation (Brahman) in your Atman and in me. (Mundaka Up: 3:2:9: Aham Brahmasmi -I am Brahman).

This is the ultimate goal of Upanishadism: Seeing one’s own Self in everyone else and everyone else’s Self in one’s own Self (6:29, 32). Such a person develops ’same-sightedness’ -Samadarsheenah- toward all living beings (5:19). This person is said to be Self-realized.

9. Krishna Teaches Sinful Brahmins How To Redeem Themselves

4:36: Even if you are the most sinful of all sinners (who have accumulated a lot of Karmaphalam by indulging in animal sacrifices, etc.), yet you shall cross over the (river of) sin by the raft of Jnana (of Atman).

Note here the metaphor of raft by which one crosses over the river of sin. This is a veiled reference to the flowing river of blood of countless animals routinely sacrificed at the altar of Kamya Karma.

4:37-38: Just as the blazing fire (of Yajna) reduces fuel to ashes, so does the fire of Jnana reduce all your sins to ashes. Verily there is no purifier in the world like Knowledge of Atman. He who is perfected in Jnanayoga realizes Atman in his own heart in due time.

The Fire of Kamya Karma merely burns fuel to ashes; the Fire of Knowledge burns all Karmaphalam and deep-rooted evils to ashes, because one neither desires nor gains fruits while performing it. In these and several shlokas, fire is often used as metaphor. By giving up desire, attachment, possessiveness, the Jnanayogi realizes Atman in his heart. The Upanishadic seers believed that Atman resided in the heart.

1O. Krishna Tells Skeptic Brahmins To Cultivate Faith To Counter Their Doubt

4:39-42: The man of Shraddha (Faith), devoted to the Knowledge of Atman, the master of the Senses (the Gunas), obtains the Knowledge of Atman. Having obtained that Knowledge he goes promptly to Peace Supreme (here on earth and hereafter). The ignorant (one who is deluded by the Gunas), the man devoid of Shraddha (to this Dharma), and the doubting self (ritualists) go to destruction (as explained in 2:62-63). The doubting self has neither (the Bliss of) this world, nor the next (Abode of Brahman). With work absolved in Jnanayoga, and doubts (about Atman arising from the Gunas) rent asunder by Knowledge of Atman, actions do not bind him (he earns no Karmaphalam) who is poised in Atman. Therefore, severing with the sword of Jnana this ignorance-born (Guna-born) doubt about Atman that is dwelling in your heart, be established in Jnanayoga. Stand up, O Bharata!

Note here how Upanishadists introduce a new concept “Shraddha” (Faith). This is the predecessor of Bhakthi of the Bhagavathas. We will read later how Brahmanism used

Maya (Magic) and Shraddha (Faith) to delude the masses and make them unthinking zombies.

Reforming Kshatriyas: Chapter Three

We read in article # 9 how Guru Krishna laid down the Law to Kshatriya ritualists:

2:47: Your entitlement is only to perform Yajna, never at any time to its fruits (for fruits belong to the Devas, 3:10-14). Never be motivated by Karmaphalam when you perform Yajna (and if you do, you are thieves, 3:12); and yet never become attached to inaction (do not become Sramanas who do nothing useful at all.)

The questions arose: “If we have no right to its fruits, what is the point in performing Yajna? What are we to do with our boundless energy? Since we cannot become Brahmins, and we know no other trades, do we become Sramanas?” Just as he told Brahmins to perform Yajna like the ancients did in olden times (4:15), Lord Krishna tells Kshatriyas to do what they were supposed to do in the first place: Serve their subjects selflessly and guide them by exemplary behavior. He calls this Karmayoga.

1. Mere Sanyasa And Tyaga Are Not Enough For Perfection

3:4: By merely abstaining from Yajna one does not necessarily become free from Karmaphalam; nor does he attain perfection by renunciation (of sense objects) alone.

The point is Kshatriyas must do constructive work selflessly and guide their subjects if they want to redeem themselves.

3:7-9: He excels, Arjuna, who, restraining the Senses (desires, impulses and cravings) by the Mind (which is superior to the Senses), unattached (to wealth, power and heaven), willfully directs his Organs of Action to the path of (selfless public) work. Engage yourself in your obligatory Kshatriya duty, for action is superior to inaction, and if inactive, even mere maintenance of your body would not be possible. The world is bound by actions other than those performed (selflessly) for the sake of Yajna. Therefore earnestly perform your obligatory Kshatriya duty as if it is Yajna, but free from attachment.

The point is Kshatriyas are not helpless at all in the face of the Gunas as declared by Brahmanism in 3:5, 27, 33, and 18:59-60. They are quite capable of restraining their Senses (desires) and redirecting their energy. Now they can define the quality of their actions, not the Gunas.

2. Krishna Explains The Original Purpose Of Yajnas To The Ignorant Kshatriyas

3:10-12: Having created mankind in the beginning together with Yajna, (Vedic Lord of beings) Prajapati said: ‘By this you shall propagate; this shall be the milch cow of your desires (rains, food, etc.). Nourish the Devas with this (Yajna); and may they nourish you

(with rains); thus nourishing one another, you shall reap the supreme good (of the society). Nourished by Yajna, the Devas shall bestow on you the enjoyment you desire.’ 3:14: From food beings become; from rain food is produced; from Yajna rain proceeds; Yajna is born of Karma (”sacrificial works”).

In the ancient times, this well-oiled Wheel of Yajnas was a quid pro quo system between the gods and people for mutual benefit and welfare of all in the society (5:25). It was not meant to fulfill selfish desires of just the upper classes.

3. If You Take Karmaphalam Of Yajnas You Become Thieves

3:12-13: A thief verily is he who enjoys what is given by the gods without returning them anything (for this is a breach of contract). The good that eat the remains of Yajna (as a sign of gratitude and humility) are freed from all sins (since they have not earned any Karmaphalam); but the sinful ones who cook food only for themselves (perform Yajna only for personal benefit), they verily eat sin (earn Karmaphalam). 3:16: He who does not follow on earth the Wheel thus revolving, sinful of life and rejoicing in the Senses, he lives in vain.

These Yajnas were not meant to be drunken barbecue parties.

4. Krishna ‘Upanishadizes’ Vedic Yajna

As he did in shloka 4:24, Krishna appoints Brahman as the object of Yajna in the place of Devas. Once Brahman enters into the equation, Yajna becomes Yoga.

3:15: Know Karma (sacrificial activities) to have risen from Brahma (Prajapati), and Brahma from the Imperishable (Brahman). The all-pervading Brahman (not Vedic gods) is, therefore, ever centered in Yajna

5. Krishna Now Drops The Bomb: Yajnas Are Useless To Enlightened People

Remember Krishna telling Brahmins the Vedas are useless to enlightened people (2:46, 52-53)? Now he tells Kshatriyas that Yajnas are useless to people whose satisfaction comes from within. Krishna’s message to Kshatriya ritualists is loud and clear: Go back to doing what you were supposed to do and serve your subjects selflessly and guide them.

3:17-19: But the man who rejoices in Atman, is satisfied with Atman, and is centered in Atman, for him verily there is no obligatory Yajna. For him there is in this world no object (wealth, power and heaven) to acquire by doing a sacrificial act; nor is there any loss by not doing a sacrificial act (since there was no desire for anything to start with); nor has he to depend on anybody (the Devas or their brokers, the priests) for anything. Therefore, constantly perform your obligatory (Kshatriya) duty without attachment (to fruits), for by doing so man verily obtains the Supreme (Brahman).

6. Krishna Gives Kshatriyas A Model To Follow

Just as he posed as the model of selfless action for fallen Brahmins to emulate (4:13), Krishna gives corrupt Kshatriyas Janaka, the king of Videha, Rama’s father-in-law in Ramayana, as an example to follow:

3:20-21: Janaka and others indeed achieved perfection by (selfless) action; having an eye to the guidance of men you should also perform (selfless) action. Others follow whatever a great man does; people go by the example he sets up.

Note here that even though Ramayana was well known at the time of composition of this shloka, Krishna does not recommend Rama as the model to follow. The obvious reason for this is that whereas king Janaka was a brilliant Upanishadic royal sage endowed with superb faculties of critical and freethinking (Brahadaranyaka Upanishad 4:1:1), Rama was quintessentially a Brahmanic Kshatriya, albeit a great wielder of weapons (10:31), who meekly and helplessly submitted to the dictates of Brahmanism. He was not above trickery in conflicts (as in the case of Vali-Sugreeva conflict), ruthlessness in dealing with the lower classes (as in the case of punishing Sudras for asserting themselves), and cowardly to boot before public opinion (as in the case of exiling his wife Sita). Also note here how Janaka and ‘others’ resemble Ashoka the Great in every respect.

7. Change People Only By Your Exemplary Behavior

Krishna tells Kshatriyas not to unsettle unwise, ignorant and dullard ritualists except by being models of exemplary behavior. All activists and reformers must heed to this advice. No one can change others without being models of rectitude themselves. All movements begin with self-improvement.

3:25-26: As the unwise (ritualists) act (perform Kamya Karma) from attachment to action (Karmaphalam), O Bharata, so should the enlightened (Karmayogi) act (do obligatory Kshatriya duties) without attachment, intending to maintain the welfare of the people.

Let not the wise man unsettle the mind of ignorant people (ritualists deluded by the Gunas) attached to (Kamya) Karma. Let them perform all Yajnas for their enjoyment while the wise man performs his actions in a disciplined manner.

3:29: Those deluded by the Gunas of Prakriti (ritualists) get attached to the function of the Gunas (desire, attachment and possessiveness). The man of perfect knowledge (Karmayogi) should not unsettle the dullards (ritualists) whose knowledge is imperfect (due to the deluding effect of the Gunas).

8. Know Your Mind

If one wishes to conquer the force of the Gunas, he would first need to know the hierarchy and function of various component of min

d. We studied this in the article titled Upanishads Attempt To Reform Brahmanism. Krishna now teaches Kshatriyas the structure of the mind and how to destroy Rajas Guna, the Guna assigned to Kshatriyas:

3:42: The Senses are said to be superior (to the body and sense objects); the Mind is superior to the Senses; the Intellect is superior to the Mind; and what is superior to the Intellect is He (Atman).

9. Rajas Guna Is Your Enemy O Kshatriyas!

Arjuna poses a highly suggestive question:

3:36: But compelled by what irresistible force does a man, though unwilling, commit evil act?

The write up under this picture is: Sense objects dominate this person's life, and his attachments to them are strong; the Senses dominate his Mind; the Mind suffers from severe Dwandwam, and it is disconnected from both Buddhi and Atman.

Krishna identifies Rajas Guna as the foe of Kshatriyas. This is the Guna assigned to them by Brahmanism. Krishna gives a predictable reply:

3:37-40: It is Kama (lust for sense objects), it is Krodha (jealous rage against other Kshatriyas) begotten by the Rajas Guna, all consuming (like the fire of Yajna), all sinful (incurring Karmaphalam), know this (Rajas Guna) as the foe here on earth. As smoke envelops fire, as dust covers mirror, as womb surrounds an embryo, so is this (Knowledge of Atman) covered by that (Rajas Guna). Knowledge (of Atman) is covered, O son of Kunti, by this insatiable fire of desire (Rajas Guna), the constant foe of the wise. The Senses, the Mind and the Intellect are said to be its seat; by these it deludes man by veiling his Knowledge (of Atman).

Note here how smoke, dust and embryo are used as metaphor for the Gunas, which keep one in darkness (ignorance).

10. Slay Rajas Guna If You Want To Redeem Yourself

3:41: O Eminent of the Bharatas, first master the Senses (learn to say NO to your desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of sense objects), and slay Rajas Guna, the destroyer of Knowledge of Atman and its realization.

Anyone wishing to overcome Rajas Guna must train himself to say NO to his cravings for this material thing or that, and give up desire for fruit in his actions. How does one learn to say NO?

3:43: Knowing Him (Atman) as superior to the Intellect, restraining the self (Senses, Mind and Intellect) by Atman (which is totally desire-less), slay, O mighty armed, the enemy (Rajas Guna) in the form of desire, (which is very) difficult to overcome.

The trick to destroy Rajas Guna is to control the lower components of mind by means of the higher components. Once a Kshatriya gives up Rajas Guna, his thirst for power, wealth and heaven disappears and he becomes a royal sage like Janaka or Ashoka the Great. Note here how though Brahmins looked down upon Ashoka the Great as a fallen Kshatriya, Upanishadists would consider him as an ideal Karmayogi. In fact, several of Upanishadic shlokas in the Bhagavad Gita resemble Ashoka’s edicts. This is not surprising because most teachings of Buddhism were derived from the Upanishads.

The True Purpose Of Yogas In The Upanishadic Gita

As you can see these Yogas were not meant for Arjuna on the battlefield. No warrior in his right mind could go to war being a Sanyasi or Tyagi. A Kshatriya was expected to perform his duty (fight) for wealth, honor, glory and victory here on earth, or gain heaven if he died performing it (2:31, 37). This is the best advice for any warrior anywhere in the world. An Upanishadic Karmayogi, on the contrary, was told to fight without regard to victory or defeat, gain or loss, pleasure or pain, heaven or hell (2:38)! What is he fighting for? To him a clod, a stone and a piece of gold are the same (6:8). This is the worst advice for any warrior in any setting. A Brahmanic Kshatriya was expected to avoid dishonor among his peers (2:34-36). To an Upanishadic Karmayogi honor and dishonor meant nothing (6:7). He is the same to agreeable and disagreeable, censure and praise,

honor and dishonor, friend and foe (14:24-25). Obviously, these Yogas were not meant for Arjuna the warrior, but were designed to reform corrupt upper classes of Brahmanism obsessed with gaining wealth, power, honor, glory and heaven.

Monumental Ignorance Leads To Nonsensical Commentaries

If you now read commentaries on Chapters Three and Four by Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya, or by anyone else such as Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, you will realize how senseless they come across for the simple reason that all of them are totally ignorant of a) the three distinct Gitas embedded in the text of the Bhagavad Gita: Brahmanic, Upanishadic and Bhagavatha; b) the three distinct pairs of doctrines: the Gunas and Karma of Brahmanism; Knowledge of Atman/Brahman and Buddhiyoga of Upanishadism; Lord Krishna as the Supreme Lord and Bhaktiyoga of the Bhagavathas; c) the three distinct contexts and goals: The goal of the Original Gita (Arjuna Vishada) was to stop the exodus of Kshatriyas (3:35; 18:48); the goal of the Upanishadic Gita was to overthrow decadent Brahmanism mired in Kamya Karma and Varna Dharma (2:39-53); the goal of Bhagavatha Gita was to destroy Brahmanism’s counterrevolution and end Brahmanism once and for all (18:66).

To these Acharyas and countless other commentators who blindly followed them, the Bhagavad Gita is a monolithic text, written in one stretch by

one author (Vyasa), with one context (Mahabharata), with all three pairs of doctrines thoroughly scrambled for no particular reason, and Lord Krishna delivering his hodgepodge of Yogas to Arjuna on the battlefield to serve one goal -to motivate him to fight! If Brahmanism believed in its own doctrines, there would be no need for all these Yogas: 18:60: “Bound by your own Karma born of your Svabhava (Guna), that which from delusion (of Ahamkara) you wish not to do, even that you shall do helplessly against your own will, O Kaunteya!”

Nor, if I may add, were these commentators aware of the five distinct roles Krishna played in the text of the Bhagavad Gita: Prince Krishna of the Mahabharata (1:22), Guru Krishna of Upanishadism (2:7), Lord of beings of Upanishadism (4:6-8), Lord of beings of Brahmanism (17-1; 18:1-3), and Supreme Lord (Parameshwara) of the Bhagavathas (11:3). They have no clue that in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna comes across as one suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder: Saying one thing now and exactly opposite the next moment! Either they were totally unaware of the anti-Brahmanic tenor of the Upanishadic and Bhagavatha Gitas, or they simply did not want to acknowledge it: A denial of psychotic proportion. The result is cartloads full of nonsensical commentaries.

How Upanishadists Unwittingly Gave Brahmins Two Powerful Weapons

First, Upanishadists created a god endowed with the supernatural power, Maya (magic, illusion). Next, they created Shraddha (Faith) in the religion of that god. Even though these two concepts were created to reform the upper classes of Brahmanism, just as they used Ashoka’s negative image to beat him over the head, clever Brahmins used these two weapons to capture the minds of Hindus over the next two thousand years. To this day, people such as Sai Baba have effectively used these two weapons to make zombies out of even so-called intellectuals of India. Every day, ministers, bureaucrats, politicians, scientists, professors, doctors, software engineers, bankers, industrialists, businessmen, stockbrokers, NRIs and who is who of India go to him, patiently stand in line hoping to be called by him for a personal Darshan! Oh, what an honor it is even if he so much as glanced at them! Better if he produced a Swiss watch, a plastic Ganesha or some stupid ash by the sleight of his hand! Wonders of Maya and Shraddha -two great gifts Upanishadism gave to Brahmanism!

We will study in the next article how the incorrigible Brahmins used this very term -Shraddha- to beat Upanishadists over their heads (17:1); engineered a counterrevolution; reintroduced the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma into the text, neutralized Brahman and Yoga, and took back the Gita, which they considered legitimately theirs.

The Gita Becomes The Battlefield For The Great Sectarian War

Written by Prabhakar Kamath , Posted on 17 February 2010 Tags: brahmin, gita, rationalists, sectarian, Upanishads

In the previous article we studied how Upanishadists elevated Guru Krishna to the position of Lord of beings in order to protect their revolution and to reform corrupt Brahmins and Kshatriyas. In this article we will study the last stage of the Upanishadic revolution and how, shortly thereafter, the Gita became the battlefield on which Brahmins on one side and the Upanishadists and Bhagavathas on the other fought a great Sectarian War for the Soul of Sanatana Dharma (11:18). The story of that sectarian war, hidden in plain sight from the public thus far, is revealed in this article for the very first time in the history of the Bhagavad Gita. But first, let us briefly review the final stage of the Upanishadic revolution.

1. The Final Stage Of The Upanishadic Revolution

In the final stage of the Upanishadic revolution in the Gita, Upanishadists elaborated on various Upanishadic concepts (Chapter Eight, Thirteen and Fifteen). They gradually converted genderless Brahman into Parama Purusha (Super Man, 8:8-9) and then Parameshwara (the Great Lord, 13:22). They countered every pro-Guna and Karma shloka in the Arjuna Vishada with opposing Upanishadic shlokas: 2:37 versus 2:38; 3:5

versus 3:7; 3:27 versus 3:28-29; 14:5-18 versus 14:22-25; 18:59-60 versus 18:61-63, etc. They explained the fundamental purpose of the Upanishadic revolution:

13:34: They who perceive with the eye of wisdom (Jnana) this distinction between Kshetra (Prakriti, 13:1), and Kshetrajna (Atman/Brahman), and deliverance of beings from Prakriti (by Yoga), they go to the Supreme (attain Self-realization here on earth and Nirvana hereafter).

Note here the operative phrase: Bhuta Prakriti Moksham -being liberated from Prakriti (the divinity of Brahmanism). Finally they incorporated Prakriti into the Upanishadic ideology as the lower entity (13:5-6, 19-23).

Countering Brahmanic Krishna’s stern message that one is totally helpless before the force of the Gunas of Prakriti and Law of Karma (18:60), Upanishadic Krishna delivers the ultimate message:

18:63: Thus I have declared to you more profound wisdom than all profundities. Reflect upon it and act as you choose!

At the end of Upanishadic revolution, Arjuna Vishada became: The Gita-Upanishad: The Doctrines of Knowledge of Atman/Brahman and Buddhiyoga as the Tool for Liberation from the Gunas of Prakriti and Law of Karma.

Basically all this meant ending Brahmanism rooted in the darkness of the Vedic Age and beginning a new Dharma appropriate for the enlightened Upanishadic Age.

2. The Secret Code of the Upanishads

The Gita-Upanishad thus finally revealed the essence of the all the Upanishadic wisdom as well as their revolutionary intent, which had appeared in the form of a Sutra in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad several centuries earlier. A Sutra is a highly compressed statement. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: 1:3:28:

Asato Ma Sat Gamaya: Lead me from the Unreal to the Real,

Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya: Lead me from Darkness to Light,

Mrityor Maamritam Gamaya: Lead me from Death to Immortality.

Lead me from Asat (the Unreal) to Sat (the Real).

Asat stands for the Unreal, Prakriti, Brahmanism’s ultimate divinity, and its various manifestations such as sense objects, the body, the Senses and the Guna (13:1-6). These are considered as perishable parts of a person (Kshara Purusha, 15:16). Asat, in this context, does not mean untruth.

Sat means The True or The Real. It stands for the Ultimate Reality of Upanishadism -Atman/Brahman. These are considered as imperishable or immortal entities (Akshara Purusha and Purushotthama) (15:16-17). In this context, Sat does not mean Truth, as many Hindus mistakenly believe.

Guru Krishna explains to Arjuna the difference between the Asat (body, Prakriti), and Sat (Atman):

2:16: Asat (the Unreal, the body and other things made up of Prakriti) has no (permanent) existence; Sat (the Real, Atman) never ceases to be (it is immortal). The perceivers of this truth (Tattva) have realized the certainty of both these propositions.

So the real meaning of this line is: Lead me from Asat (Prakriti) to Sat (Atman/Brahman).

Lead me from Tamas (Ignorance) to Jyothi (Knowledge).

To Upanishadists Tamas (Darkness) meant ignorance (Ajnana, Avidya) of Atman due to one’s desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of sense objects engendered by the Gunas (7:13). It does not refer to any generic ignorance.

Jyothi (Light) stood for Knowledge of Atman, not just any generic knowledge. This concept is explained by the following shlokas of the Bhagavad Gita:

13:17: The Light of lights (Jyothisham api taj Jyothis), Atman is beyond Tamas (darkness, ignorance); it is Knowledge, Knowable, the goal of Knowledge, which is seated in the hearts of all.

3:39-40: The insatiable fire of desire (the Gunas, 3:37), which is the constant enemy of the wise, covers the Knowledge (of Atman). By occupying the Senses, the Mind and the Intellect, it deludes man’s Knowledge of Atman.

5:15-16: Knowledge (of Atman) is veiled by Ajnana (engendered by the Gunas); mortal are thereby deluded. But those in whom the Jnana of Atman destroys the Ajnana, his Supreme (Atman) shines like the sun.

We read in the previous article how one could overcome the delusion of the Gunas by means of Jnanayoga (detachment from sense objects). So the real meaning of this line is: Lead me from the Ignorance of Atman engendered by the Gunas to Knowledge of Atman.

Lead me from Mrithyum (mortality) to Amritham (immortality).

The word Mrithyum here stands for death of the body followed by Atman entering into another body as per the Law of Karma.

2:13: As the indweller (Atman) in the body experiences childhood, youth and old age, he passes on to another body. The serene one (who has Knowledge of Atman) is not affected thereby. 2:22: As a man casting off worn-out garments puts on new ones, so the embodied, casting off worn-out bodies enters into others that are new. 2:27: Death is certain to that which is born; birth is certain of that which is dead.

Amritham literally means Immortality. To Upanishadists, this word meant Brahman state (Brahmanirvana, 2:72): Katha Upanishad: 2:5:8: That, indeed, is the Bright, that is Brahman, that alone is called Immortal. Attaining immortality meant one’s Atman uniting with Brahman after leaving the perishable body made up of Prakriti. This is also known as Nirvana (6:15). It simply means Atman would not have to go through another cycle of death and rebirth (Samsara).

To achieve Nirvana, one must avoid earning Karmaphalam when he acts. This is accomplished by acting with Buddhiyukta mind, that is, without Dwandwam (I want this, I don’t want this; I gained this, I lost this) engendered by attachment (2:14). Thus released from the bondage of Law of Karma one attains immortality.

2:15: That man is fitted for immortality (Amritham) whom Dwandwam does not torment when he acts and who is balanced in pain and pleasure and is steady-minded (Buddhiyukta when he acts).

2:51: The wise, acting with Buddhiyukta mind, renouncing Karmaphalam in their actions, are freed from the bondage of the cycle of birth and death and they attain painless state (immortality).

We read in the previous article how Karmayoga (giving up fruits of action) led to the end of Samsara. So the real meaning of this line is: Lead me from Samsara to Nirvana.

By means of these three lines, the Upanishads spelled out the formula to overthrew the very foundation of Brahmanism: Prakriti (Asat), the Gunas of Prakriti (Tamas), and the Law of Karma (Mrithyum). So the hidden message of this entire Sutra was:

Lead me from ignorant Brahmanism to enlightened Upanishadism.

3. Conflict Spills Over Into The Public Arena

Until now Brahmanism and Upanishadism had fought their battles privately in Shruthis. Upanishadists did not suffer fools and they never missed an opportunity to express their disgust with Brahmanic ritualists obsessed with Vedic sacrifices:

Mundaka Up: 1:2:7-8: Fools who praise this (Yajna) as the highest good, are subject again and again to old age and death (for they earn Karmaphalam). Fools dwelling in darkness (engendered by the Gunas), wise in their own conceit, and puffed up with vain knowledge (of the Vedas), go round and round (the sacrficial altar) staggering to and from, like blind men led by the blind. (Also Katha Up: 1:2:5)

Upanishadists condemned Vedic ritualists’ habit of delighting in the flowery words disputing about various Vedic doctrines embellishing Kamya Karma:

Brihadaranyaka Up: 4:4:10: All those who worship what is not knowledge (Avidya) enter into blind darkness (Tamas=they become ignorant of Atman). Those who delight in knowledge (the Vedas), enter, as it were, into greater darkness (they become even more ignorant). (Also BG: 2:42).

Occasionally they even ridiculed priests who were obsessed with food while performing Yajnas:

Chandogya Upanishad: 1:12:1-5: Now follows the Udgita of the dog. Vaka Dalbhya, or as he was also called, Glava Maitryea, went out to repeat the Veda (in a quiet place). A white dog appeared before him, and other dogs gathering around him, said to him, “Sir, sing and get us food, we are hungry.” The white dog said to them, “Come to me tomorrow morning.” Vaka Dalbhya, or as he was also called, Glava Maitryea, watched. The dogs came on, holding together, each dog keeping the tail of preceding dog in his mouth, as the priests do when they are going to sing praises with the Vahishpavamana hymn. After they had settled down, they began to say hymn: “Om, let us eat! Om, let us drink! Om, may the divine Varuna, Prajapati, Savitri bring us food! Lord of food, bring hither food, bring it, Om!”

Brahmanism’s response to all these ridicule and put downs was to interpolate pro-Brahmanic verses into the Upanishads whenever opportunity arose, which made the Upanishads ever more inscrutable and unintelligible. They insisted that to qualify to gain Knowledge of Atman, one must first master the art of Yajna. From time to time they made peace with their Upanishadic critics as evidenced by such verses as the one below: in

Katha Upanishad: 2:6:19: May He protect us both! May He enjoy us both! May we acquire strength together! May our knowledge become bright! May we never quarrel! Om! Peace! Peace! Peace!

4. Yoga Cannot Fill One’s Stomach!

When their conflict finally spilled over into the public arena -the Gita- it must have created incredible amount of anxiety and anger among Brahmanic loyalists. They had no problem accepting Brahman or Parama Purusha or even Parameshwara as the Supreme God. They already had dozens of gods and one more god would not make much of a difference. However, they had serious issues with Yoga as modus operandi because Yoga’s main goal was to transcend the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma on which rested the whole farce of Brahmanism. Brahmins made their living by deluding people with the promise that worshipping gods by Yajnas on earth one obtains quick success in this world of men (4:12) and gains one heaven hereafter (9:20). They maintained their high status in the society (14:6, 11, 14; 17:23; 18:42) by shoring up Varna Dharma

resting on the Gunas and Karma (4:13), and by discouraging admixture (Varnasankara) of the classes (1:38-44).

Upanishadic Krishna’s advice to Brahmins was that they should perform Knowledge Yajna (Jnanayoga) dedicated to Brahman (4:24) instead of material Yajna (4:33) dedicated to the Devas. In Jnana Yajna there was no fire, no oblation, and no burnt offerings (4:24-33), and above all, no food or fee for service! Instead of craving gold, cows, land, clothes, and food as fee, they were told to be satisfied with knowledge and wisdom and look at gold as if it is no different than clod of earth or stone (6:8); and be satisfied with the Bliss of Atman (5:21)! The idealistic Upanishadists apparently did not realize that Brahmins could not fill their stomach with clod of earth! It was like President Obama telling fat cat Bankers living high on the hogs to sleep on the cold floor in a tent and eat carrots for dinner. Ultimately stomach, not the brain, dictates all behaviors.

5. Brahmanic Fruit Growers Cooperative Is Threatened

Yoga as the tool of worship meant the Vedic gods would be in the doghouse and thousands of extremely complex and ostentatious rituals (16:16-17), which Brahmins had cleverly contrived to fleece royals as well as ordinary people on the pretext of bringing them fruits of Yana (Karmaphalam) would be obsolete. It was like President Obama telling the U. S. Air Force top brass that their billion-dollar-a-piece supersonic aircrafts flown by hotshot pilots, who cost them 10 million per pilot to train, will never be allowed to fly from now onwards, as the tiny unmanned Drones would do the job just as well and more safely. This would mean their Military-Industrial complex would be dismantled, and a lot of workers building these useless aircrafts for a living would be unemployed. Giving up the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, Yajnas, Varna Dharma and supremacy of Brahmins meant certain death for the ancient Dharma dominated by Brahmins, which was the very fabric of the increasingly decadent Aryan society for nearly 1800 years. This would be catastrophic for Brahmins who made their living by deluding the naïve public and keeping them in a zombie-like state, no different than what the fraudulent Babas, Swamis and Gurus are still doing in India and abroad 2500 years later. Go to any of the Hindu gatherings around these Babas and triple Sri Swamis and all you see are zombies who have lost almost all their critical thinking faculties.

6. Brahmins Strike Back

Now Brahmins faced a serious challenge: How could they continue to perform Yajna against the ordinances issued by Upanishadic Lord of beings? How could they reintroduce the doctrine of the Gunas? How could they neutralize Yoga?

Brahmanic loyalists knew they could not destroy the anti-Brahmanic shlokas from the Upanishadic Gita as the latter declared that the Lord of beings himself delivered them. However, just as Upanishadists revealed their doctrines in Arjuna Vishada, Brahmanism decided to reinstate their doctrines in the Gita-Upanishad. They accomplished this by resorting to a subterfuge.

A. First they introduced the doctrine of the Gunas in shlokas 14: 5-18 claiming that that knowledge led to Moksha (14:2)!

B. Next, they made Arjuna ask Krishna two duplicitous questions regarding Yajna. The intent of the these two questions was to introduce the Yajnas in the mode of three Gunas:

17:1: Arjuna asks Brahmanic Krishna: What is the nature of Shraddha (Faith) of those, O Krishna, who though disregarding the ordinance of Shastras (meaning the Upanishadic injunction), perform sacrifice with Nista (dedication)? Is it one of Sattva, Rajas, or Tamas?

This is like a robber, who has been lectured to by a stern judge to faithfully follow the Law and not rob people anymore, asking him: “Your Honor, what is the nature of the Faith of those robbers who, disregarding the Law, rob people with dedication? Is it good, bad or the ugly?”

Now they made their Krishna answer this question with pro-Yajna shlokas (17: 2-4; 7-28). He describes in these shlokas various aspects of Yajna performed in the mode of three Gunas. Forget what Upanishadic Krishna said about transcending the three Gunas.

C. Next, they made Arjuna make the following duplicitous statement to Krishna:

18:1: I desire to know severally, O mighty armed, the truth of Sanyasa, O Hrishikesa, as also of Tyaga, O slayer of Kesi.

This statement suggested that whatever Upanishadic Krishna said so far about Sanyasa and Tyaga was false. In response, their Krishna assigns Gunas to various aspects of Yoga, thus effectively canceling it out.

D. Next, to decry Varnasankara they surreptitiously inserted 3:24 between two Upanishadic shlokas. This made Upanishadic Krishna come across as if he was constantly working to keep people from falling prey to class admixture! Upanishadists never worried about Varnasankara. To them all people were equal due to equal distribution if Brahman in them.

To promote Varna Dharma they inserted shloka 18:46 between two pro-Varna Dharma shlokas. This Upanishadic-like shloka told people to dedicate their Varna Dharma-based deeds to Brahman, completely disregarding the fact that for one to dedicate his deeds to Brahman, he must first transcend the Gunas (5:10).

E. Furthermore, they destroyed the true meanings of the word Sat and Asat. Now Sat meant “Yajna performed for the Lord.” (17:27). Asat meant Yajna performed without Shraddha (17:28).

F. They rededicated their Yajnas to Vedic gods (17:4, 14) disregarding Upanishadists’ injunction that they should be dedicated to Brahman (3:15; 4:24).

By the time they were through with the Gita-Upanishad, every single aspect of Upanishadic revolution had been destroyed.

7. The Gita Becomes A Jumble Of Contradictions

The Gita now became the battleground on which opposing factions settled old scores. All these manipulations simply made the Upanishadic Gita a jumble of Brahmanic and Upanishadic shlokas contradicting each other. Even astute scholars of the Gita, unaware of the battle between Brahmins and Upanishadists, must have felt completely bewildered by the confusing and contradictory shlokas, which attempted to cancel-out each other. Krishna came across saying one thing from one side of his mouth now and exactly opposite from the other. For example, Upanishadic Krishna told Brahmins and Kshatriyas to abandon Yajna (3:17-18; 4:24-34) and take up Yoga instead. Brahmanic Krishna openly acknowledged this (18:3) but told them not to abandon Yajna but to keep performing it (18:5).

8. Bhagavathas Enter The Fray

Young Brahmin Priest- Image Dated 1907

At this critical point in the battle between Upanishadists and Brahmins, the adherents of the monotheistic sect known as Bhagavathas, complete outsiders to Brahmanic culture, entered the fray on the side of the Upanishadists. The Bhagavathas and Upanishads had a lot in common. Upanishadists were monists; Bhagavathas were monotheistic. Upanishads faithfully worshipped their Lord with Yoga; Bhagavathas devotedly adored their god with Bhakthi. Upanishads as well as Bhagavathas hated rituals. In fact, Bhagavathas’ dislike for Brahmanism was even greater than that of Upanishadists!

Bhagavathas attacked Brahmanism and Vedic ritualists with greater vehemence than Upanishadist ever dreamed of. They attacked every single Brahmanic shloka with such ferocity that poor Brahmanic editor scattered Bhagavatha shlokas all over the text to dilute their impact, and hid some of them in the innocently titled Chapter Sixteen. The Bhagavathas declared the three Gunas as “three gates to hell” (16:21). They called Vedic

ritualists by every bad epithet in Sanskrit language as possible: Evildoers and deluded (7:15), ignorant (7:20), dullards (7:23), unintelligent (7:24), fools (9:11), of vain hopes, vain knowledge, deluded, demoniacal (9:12), hypocritical, arrogant, desire-ridden (16:10), conceited, arrogant (16:17), insolent, malicious (16:24), worst among men (16:19), so on and so forth. They forbade Brahmins from performing Yajnas against the ordinances of scriptures (16:20-24). They declared that one couldn’t attain Moksha by means of the Vedas, Yajnas, Tapas, Dana, etc. (11:48, 53); worshipping Vedic gods was wrong (9:23); and Krishna was the Lord of all Yajna (9:24). They declared that their God of gods Vaasudeva was Krishna (7:19; 10:37), and Krishna was Parameshwara himself (11:3), who offered himself as a refuge for one to transcend the Gunas of Prakriti (7:13-14) and Law of Karma (9:28; 18:66). They said the Prakriti was Krishna’s lower aspect (7:5). They pronounced Krishna as the Dharma (14:27). They introduced Bhakti, adoring devotion (9:26), as the new mode of worship. They countered every single shloka of resurgent Brahmanism in addition to promoting Bhagavatha Dharma. Finally they made Krishna utter the most profound of all shlokas in the Bhagavad Gita:

18:66: Abandon all Dharma (Brahmanism and all its sub-Dharmas) and take refuge in Me alone; I shall liberate you from all evil (Shokam, Dwandwam and Karmaphalam arising from the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma). Do not grieve (for the demise of Brahmanism)!

By the time Bhagavathas were through with the re-Brahmanized Upanishadic Gita, it became: The Bhagavad Gita-Upanishad: A Treatise on the Doctrines of Lord Krishna and Bhakthiyoga as the Tool for Liberation from the Doctrine of the Gunas and the Law of Karma.

If you now read commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita by the great and not-so-great commentators it will become evident to you that none of them was aware of this battle between Brahmanism on one side and Upanishadism and Bhagavathism on the other. These commentators tried to explain these blatant contradictions by means of long-winded, illogical and duplicitous commentaries, besides stupidly applying them to Arjuna’s dilemma on the battlefield. When two diametrically opposite views must be explained as perfectly compatible and complementary, the inevitable result is utter nonsense. To make bad matters even worse, they even interpreted blatantly anti-Brahmanic shlokas as pro-Brahmanic. We will examine some of these obviously ignorant and laughable interpretations in a future article.

9. Lessons For Rationalists

Rationalist should note here the genius of Upanishadists. They did not merely attempt to discredit and dismantle the archaic ideology (Prakriti/Gunas) and its outmoded modus operandi (Kamya Karma), but also they gave people a whole new ideology (Brahman/Atman) to transcend and replace the old one, and a new modus operandi (Buddhiyoga) to replace the old one (Kamya Karma). Ideology and modus operandi are two railings of the rickety bridge of human behavior over the river of life.

A. New Ideology (Dharma): Rationalists and Atheists attempting to discredit and dismantle religion in India must impress upon people that the Constitution of India is their new ideology or New Dharma, which was conceived to guarantee them liberty, equality and security to fulfill their desires; and protect them from evil by means of justice system. This Dharma should gradually replace Hinduism. It is important to impress upon Indians that what they practice today as Hinduism is nothing but antiquated Brahmanism in disguise, riddled with thousands of superstitions, Jatis, gods and rituals, all of which were designed to solve some pressing societal problems three thousand years ago, and that these relics of their past are albatross around their necks in the modern world. Clever and greedy Brahmins have perpetuated this evil system to modern times purely for selfish reason.

B. New Modus Operandi: Rationalist should point out to people that their new modus operandi should be to constantly exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens of an independent modern nation to protect, defend and promote the Constitution of India. This is consistent with the ancient wisdom: Dharmo Rakshathi Rakshatah (Law will protect him who protects Law). Using this single slogan Rationalists could gradually change the perspective of Hindus. It is important to impress upon the people that their current modus operandi, such as performing mindless Poojas, Yajnas, Abhishekas and the like are relics of Brahmanism more suitable to three thousand years ago than to the modern times, and they are the evidence of loss of critical thinking needed for peaceful life in the new age. It is the job of the activist to point out to people the fact that it is not enough if one walks around with a huge Nama over his forehead as a sign of one’s religiosity; what is important is how he behaves in the society and relates to his fellow beings. This is what Upanishads, Buddhists and Ashoka the Great told Indians in the ancient times.

10. Upanishadists’ Mistakes In Hindsight

A. Too complex ideology: In hindsight, the mistakes Upanishadist made were their new ideology, Atman/Brahman was too complex even for knowledgeable people to understand (2:29; 12:5).

B. Their new modus operandi, Buddhiyoga, was extremely difficult even for highly motivated people to practice (6:32-36). It required people to give up attachment to people, power, money, title, etc. Few could practice this advice. When the modus operandi is too hard to follow, people give it up quickly.

C. Initially Atman and Brahman were conceived merely as negative images (Nirguna) of the Gunas and Prakriti. However, these “negative entities” gradually grew into positive entities of greater complexity, attributes and powers: Atman (”the size of the thumb residing in the cave of the heart”), Paramatma (Supreme Atman), Akshara (Imperishable) Purusha (”from whom streamed forth the Eternal Activity”), Parama (Highest) Purusha, Purushotthama (Supreme Purusha), Brahman, Param Brahman, Ishwara, Prabhu, Parameshwara (13:22). Obviously things got pretty much out of hand.

D. They introduced Maya (magic) by which Krishna subjugated Prakriti, and Shraddha (Faith) by which people related to Upanishadic concepts. Both these concepts were needed at that time to counter Brahmanism. However, Brahmanism latched on to them and liberally abused them to delude people.

Thus, that which started out as an ideology and modus operandi to counter the doctrine of the Gunas of Prakriti and Law of Karma ended up as inscrutable and esoteric theology few ordinary people could relate to. In the next article, we will study in detail how Bhagavathas engineered a robust revolution to uproot resurgent Brahmanism and establish in its place a new Dharma centered on Krishna.

The God of Gods Battles Brahmanism: 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

1. To establish a Bhagavata Dharma centered on himself. He is the Guardian of the Ancient Dharma (11:18) and Dharma himself (14:27).

2. To take the place of Brahman (7:19; 10:12; 11:38) and Atman (10:20; 15:15). 3. 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).

4. 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).

5. To swallow up all icons of Brahmanism (11:21-22). 6. Replace Shokam (grief) and Dwandwam (stress, restlessness of mind engendered

by the Gunas) here on earth with Shanthi (peace, 9:31). 7. 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

1. 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.

2. 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).

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

Subterfuge: How Brahmins Destroyed The Bhagavata Revolution

Written by Prabhakar Kamath , Posted on 14 March 2010 Tags: Bhagavata, Bhakti, Brahmanism, destroyed, hinduism, Krishna, revolution

In the previous article, we read how Bhagavatism, the religion centered on Krishna-Vaasudeva, promised people that if they took refuge in him, he would fulfill their desires (9:22) and liberate them from all evils of Brahmanism, namely doctrine of the Gunas of Prakriti (7:14), Law of Karma (9:28), and Shokam, Dwandwam and Samsara (arising from Karmaphalam). In other words, this Dharma’s goal was to end the elitist Brahmanism obsessed with Kamya Karma (corrupted Yajnas) and hierarchical Varna Dharma (class and caste system), and establish in its place Bhagavatism resting on ritual-free Bhaktiyoga (9:26) and equality of all classes based on the premise that the same god resided in everyone’s heart (10:20; 15:15). The essence of Bhagavata Dharma as well as its revolution to overthrow Brahmanism was stated in the form of a Sutra -the Secret Code of the Bhagavad Gita: 18:66: Abandon all Dharma and surrender unto me alone; I shall liberate you from all evil (aspects of Brahmanism). Do not grieve (for its demise).

In this article, we will study how Brahmins converted ‘The Manifesto Of The Revolution To Overthrow Brahmanism’ into ‘The Handbook Of Brahmanism’; and literally beat a petrified Krishna over his head with thoroughly corrupted form of Bhakti. Such is the genius of Brahmanism.

1. Brahmanism’s Predicament

After Bhagavatas took over the Gita, decadent Brahmanism found itself in great quandary. Accepting Krishna’s recommendation meant certain death for ritual-obsessed Brahmanism. Brahmins made their living by performing complicated Kamya Karma for Kshatriyas as well as other classes obsessed with gaining wealth, power and heaven, and maintained their high status in the society by being the creators, interpreters and guardians of sacred scriptures. If Brahmanism were to survive, they must accept Bhagavata Dharma but somehow subvert its anti-Brahmanic tenor and Brahmanize Bhakti.

2. Extreme Editing

Brahmanic loyalists always had two secret weapons in their armory by which they dealt with their opponent’s literature: Destroying the literature they hated, and interpolating pro-Brahmanism verses into the literature they feared. In the case of the Bhagavad Gita, however, they could not resort to either of these tactics for fear of getting their “heads crushed to powder and stuck in the gap between the Krishna’s teeth.” Nor did they want to be like the “moths rushing headlong into the blazing fire for their destruction.” They had no choice but to come up with a new tactic, which looked perfectly innocent and legitimate to the naïve: Extreme editing.

1. The goal of extreme editing was nothing short of Mission Impossible: To convert ‘The Manifesto of Bhagavata Revolution to Overthrow Brahmanism’ into ‘The Standard Handbook of Brahmanism.’ This meant:

2. Hiding two successive revolutions to overthrow Brahmanism. 3. Hiding the fact that decadence of Brahmanism was the cause widespread Shokam,

Dwandwam and obsession with Karmaphalam. 4. Preserving all aspects of Brahmanism: The doctrines of the Gunas of Prakriti and

Law of Karma; Varna Dharma based on these doctrines; Yajnas to fulfill desires and protection from evil; supremacy of Brahmins, and sanctity of the Vedas.

5. Creating the false impression that the Bhagavad Gita represented one consistent philosophy without any internal conflict.

6. Hiding the fact that Bhagavad Gita identified Brahmanism as the evil.

Hypothetically this was no different than Germans resorting to extreme editing of a book titled ‘The History of World War II: How Americans and Allies Defeated Germans.’ If one reads this hyper-edited hypothetical book, one would find no evidence of World War II, and Germans, Americans and British are all portrayed as living in perfect harmony as brothers. Who were the ‘Gestapo’ the original authors were referring to in this book? Well, they were some unknown demons that came to the earth from another planet.

Extreme editing resulted in the text of the Bhagavad Gita coming across as incoherent, repetitive, illogical, confusing, self-contradicting and almost incomprehensible. This did not bother the editors one bit because it served the purpose of Brahmanic loyalists extremely well, indeed. Obfuscation and confusion are the strategies of all frauds that want to hide their misdeeds. They simply passed a dictum that the Bhagavad Gita should not be studied except under the supervision of a Guru. And they lined up a whole cadre of Gurus to bewilder even the most erudite among scholars. Here are various editorial steps they took to conceal the true intent and spirit of the Bhagavad Gita:

A. Isolating Anti-Brahmanic Shlokas

Brahmanic editors neutralized the impact of Krishna’s harshest criticism of Vedic ritualists by putting those shlokas in Chapter Sixteen, innocently titled ‘The Yoga of Division Between The Divine and Demonical.’ This chapter consists of shlokas chastising Kshatriyas (16:11-20) and scolding Brahmins (16:21-24) in the harshest language possible. We read these shlokas in the previous article. Chapter Sixteen should have followed Chapter Seventeen as it contained harsh response to the resurgent Brahmanism’s shlokas 17:1-4; 7-28. By putting Chapter Sixteen before Chapter Seventeen, no one could know whom Krishna was scolding. Just in case anyone wondered who were these “cruel haters, worst among men and evildoers” whom Krishna threatened with “eternal damnation in the wombs of demons,” they created elaborate myths of various demons that Krishna killed during his illustrious career as Slayer of Foes (2:4). However, they could not explain why in the face of Magadha king Jarasandha’s repeated attacks the great Slayer of Foes fled Mathura lock, stock and barrel, and retreated to Dwaraka, which was as far to the southwest from Mathura as he could go! In this particular case Brahmins could not go back and rewrite Mahabharata without looking rather stupid.

B. Switching Chapters To Confuse Readers

They switched the order of presentation of chapters Three and Four. Logically Chapter Four should have preceded Chapter Three as Guru Krishna announces in that chapter that he takes birth whenever there is decay of Dharma and rise of Adharma to reestablish Dharma, and to protect the good and destroy the evildoers (4:7-8). Also Chapter Four begins with Lord Krishna announcing that it was he who taught Sun god the imperishable Yoga referred to in Chapter Two. Besides, Chapter Three starts with references (3:1-2) to issues raised in Chapter Four, as if it followed Chapter Four. For example, he refers to himself as the Lord of beings who gave to the world two paths of Yoga (3:3). This switch of chapters created a whole lot of confusion in readers, which served Brahmins well. Now they could brainwash people by means of long-winded explanations, which, luckily, never fail to put one to sleep.

C. Scrambling Chapters

The Brahmanic editors carefully scrambled chapters belonging to the three separate sects, making it almost impossible to figure out their chronology. Chronologically all

Bhagavata chapters (Seven, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve and Sixteen) should have come after all resurgent Brahmanic chapters (parts of Fourteen, Seventeen and parts of Eighteen). Unless the reader is thoroughly familiar with the three distinct pairs of doctrines of the three distinct Dharmas, he is certain to be thoroughly bewildered by this Brahmanic sleight of hand. For example, most students of the Gita do not know that Krishna retired Brahman and replaced him with himself.

D. Scattering Shlokas

They scattered Brahmanic, Upanishadic and Bhagavata shlokas all over the text in bits and pieces. Shlokas on Prakriti and Purusha were scattered incongruously in chapters Eight (8:4, 8-10, 22), Thirteen (13:1-23) and Chapter Fifteen (15:16-18). They scattered shlokas promoting the Gunas over three chapters (3:5, 27, 33; 14:5-18; 18:17, 18:40-45, 59-60). They scattered Bhagavata shlokas into essentially Upanishadic chapters (2:61; 3:22-23; 4:3, 9-11). Unless one is thoroughly familiar with the distinct core doctrines of these three Dharmas, one would be totally bewildered. This, of course, was the goal of the final editor.

E. Using Opponent’s Shlokas To Legitimize Their Own

The final Brahmanic editors of the Bhagavad Gita deviously attempted to legitimize the doctrine of the Gunas by transposing the following four Bhagavata shlokas (14:1-4) before the fourteen Brahmanic shlokas (14:5-18) embellishing the three Gunas. These four Bhagavata shlokas most likely preceded shlokas 7:4-14 dealing with Bhagavata Krishna’s Lower and Higher Prakriti. By doing so, they created the illusion that Krishna was telling the readers that the Knowledge of the Gunas helped one to attain Moksha. The main goal, however, was to establish supremacy of Brahmins (14:6, 11, 14, 18).

14:1-4: Lord Krishna said: I shall again declare that supreme knowledge, the best of all forms of knowledge; by knowing which, all the sages have passed from this world to the highest perfection (attained Moksha). They, who, having devoted themselves to this knowledge, have attained to unity with Me (attained Moksha), are neither born at the time of creation, nor are they disturbed at the time of dissolution. My womb is the Mahat Brahma (Prakriti); in that I place the germ; thence, O Bharata, is the birth of all beings. Whatever forms are produced, O Kaunteya, in any wombs whatsoever, the great Brahma (Prakriti) is their womb, I the seed giver.

Naïve readers could believe that the above four shlokas were meant to say that Knowledge of the Gunas led to Moksha. How do we know that this tactic was blatantly deceptive? Well, read shlokas 14:19-27. These nine shlokas describe these very Gunas as evil, recommend that they should not be allowed to move one, and that one could transcend them by taking refuge in the Lord.

3. Beating Krishna Over His Head With Ritualized Bhakti

Pretending to be great Bhaktas of Krishna, Brahmins infiltrated the Bhagavata Dharma. They deleted Yoga (Sanyasa and Tyaga) from Bhaktiyoga, and attached Yajna to Bhakti. Since Krishna hated Yajna (11:48), they introduced Yajna in its disguised form: Pooja. They replaced the detachment from sense objects part (Sanyasa) of Yoga with attachment to wealth, power and heaven. They replaced the renunciation of fruits of Yajna (Tyaga) with desire to gain these fruits by Pooja. In other words, just as they corrupted selfless Yajna (Nishkama Karma) into selfish Yajna (Kamya Karma, 2:43), they corrupted selfless Bhakti into selfish Bhakti (Kamya Bhakti). Now in this corrupted form of Bhakti, which I refer to as Bhaktipooja, one dedicates mindless rituals to various gods with the intention of gaining money, power, title, promotion, son, son-in-law, heaven, etc. seeking protection from evil.

In this Brahmanized Bhagavata Dharma, Brahmanism no longer identified itself as the evil. So they had to invent new evil. Now the evil was some unseen misfortune (Adrashta). They created obstacles (Vighna) produced by unknown evil forces. They created a whole new god -Ganesha- to take care of any Adrishta and Vighna. Thus another money spinning business was invented. Then they came up with bad planetary movements (Grahachara) as the cause of misfortunes. Now Astrology became a “science” by which thousands of Astrologers made their living. Then Brahmins started spinning more and more superstitions so people could perform various rituals to ward of evil spirits. So thousands of superstitions sprouted across India the sole goal of which was for Brahmins to make money. Today crooked Brahmins routinely dupe even highly educated Hindus into performing various fraudulent and worthless rituals.

A. Taking Krishna Literally

When Bhagavata Krishna rhetorically said, “Whoever offers me with devotion a leaf, a flower, a fruit or water, I accept that as the pious offering of the pure in heart (9:26),” he was merely telling Vedic ritualists “Bhakthi -sincere devotion with purity of heart- is more important than ostentatious rituals. If you feel compelled to offer me something as a symbol of your Bhakthi, just a leaf, a flower, a fruit or even a spoonful of water would do. Even poor people could afford them.” To those who insisted on performing Yajna he said: 9:27: “Whatever (Yajna) you do, whatever (remnant) you eat, whatever (material) you offer in Yajna, whatever (customary) gift you give away, whatever Tapas (austerity) you practice, do it as an offering to me and no one else, for I am the enjoyer and lord of all Yajna (9:24).”

This was all these ritual-obsessed Brahmins needed to hear.

B. Yajna Infiltrates Bhakti In Disguised Forms

1. Since Krishna was nowhere to be seen, they created idol to represent him. Now a whole new business venture began: Carving idols of Krishna in clay, wood and stone.

2. To house these idols they built temples of mud bricks, wood and stone, which became increasingly ornate over the centuries. Now temple building business

gave a lot of people jobs. Just as they convinced kings in ancient times to perform ostentatious Yajnas, Brahmins convinced various kings to build magnificent temples dedicated to gods such as the ones in Belur in Karnataka, Puri in Orissa and Tanjavoor in Tamil Nadu. Some of these temples stand to this day as testament to man’s creative energy motivated by devotion.

3. They replaced worship by Yajna with worship by Pooja. The Poojari (priest) warmed the idol by moving the fire of Aarthi round and round in front of it.

4. Since Krishna told them to offer him leaves, flowers and fruits, they offered him Tulasi leaves, marigold, coconuts and bananas during the Pooja service.

5. In the place of remnant (Yajnashista) of Yajna, they distributed Prasadam of Pooja for devotees to eat.

6. Since water was needed to wash Prasadam down devotee’s throat, they served Theerth, sacred water, which they generously adulterated with cow’s urine. Why cow’s urine? Well, the cow was the living symbol of cowherd Krishna, and since Krishna’s urine was not available, cow’s urine would do just as well.

7. Since Krishna asked them to offer him water, they started giving his idol baths several times a day, which they called Abhisheka. They built ponds next to temples to assure regular water supply.

8. After the bath with the dirty temple pond water, they anointed his idol with sandalwood and Chandan paste as deodorizer.

9. Following Krishna’s instruction in 9:27, before every meal, they said “Krishnarpana” (”I offer this meal to Krishna”).

10. Since Krishna said that donations that were customarily made to Brahmins after Yajna should be made as an offering to him, they installed a big donation box in front of god’s image in every temple. You see, temples need a lot of money to keep Krishna bathed, clothed, fed and protected. They made provision for tips for Poojaris also. Poojaris sat at the foot of the idol with plates holding coins and notes, seeking tax-free donation in Krishna’s name.

11. They offered a small amount of sandalwood paste to devotees to apply it over their forehead as Nama, the symbol of Krishna’s name. Thus Nama became the outward sign of every Bhakta of Brahmin Krishna.

12. Instead of chanting Vedic Mantras, they told devotees to chant Krishna’s name bobbing their heads left and right, which they titled Bhajan, meaning devotional singing, “Hare Rama, Hare Krishna…”

4. Bhakti Rituals Become Ostentatious

Now greed sprouted in the hearts of Brahmins. Just as in the ancient times Yajnas became more and more ostentatious, Bhaktipooja also became more and more ostentatious. Brahmins tempted rich people to sponsor ostentatious rituals in the temple. They gave devotees a long list of complicated Poojas, Abhishekas and other rituals with a price tag.

1. On the pretext of displaying their extreme Bhakti for Krishna, they offered him emerald leaves, ruby flowers, and diamond studded fruits and nuts.

2. Instead of bathing Krishna with just dirty temple pond water, they decided to bathe him with milk, honey and coconut juice. The stench of this decaying syrup became the olfactory evidence of holiness of Hindu temples.

3. Just in case Krishna wanted to go for a ride to escape from the stench of temple, they built him a golden palanquin and a silver chariot.

4. Just in case some deranged atheist or fanatic of another religion attacked him during his sojourn they covered his chest with gold armor studded with precious stones.

5. They installed big diamonds in Krishna’s eyes to intimidate any impertinent Bhakta who dared to cast an evil eye on him.

6. To make Krishna feel quite at home, they plated the whole temple with gold. 7. For a fee the priests offered to place the lord’s crown on the head of Bhaktas. This

became the ultimate symbol of dupe of Brahmanism.

5. Corrupted Bhagavatism Evolved Into Vaishnavism

Over the centuries, this thoroughly corrupted Bhagavatism evolved into Vaishnavism in which Krishna was reduced to being just one of nine Avataras of Vishnu. He now stood side by side with a fish (Matsya), a tortoise (Coorma), a pig (Varaha), a midget (Vamana), half-lion (Narasimha), a quintessential Kshatriya-hating Brahmin (Parashurama), and a quintessential Kshatriya king (Rama) and the Buddha. Vaishnavism in turn became a sect of a newly evolving inclusive Dharma, which foreigners labeled as Hinduism -that which is practiced by people living beyond the Sindhu (Indus) River. Brahmanism infiltrated this Dharma also, kept their doctrines of the Gunas and Karma alive and well; and promoted Varna, Jati and Kula Dharmas based on these discredited doctrines, if only to maintain their superiority among the four classes. They kept stigmatizing those born from Varnasankara (class admixture), which resulted in burgeoning of a whole class of untouchables. Today millions of these people, who go by the epithet of Dalits, suffer the same injustice in the hands of the upper classes as they did centuries ago.

6. The Business Of Temples

Today Hindu temples have become the hotbeds of moneymaking rituals of Brahmanism. Visit any of the famous temples of India, and you will see evidence of degradation of Hindu Dharma. The behavior of Hindu priests in these temples is despicable. The Tirupati temple is an example of this decadence par excellence. Here one can buy preferential viewing of the Lord’s idol by buying a special ticket. Krishna temple of Udupi is another classic example of corruption of Bhagavatism. Until recently, this temple forbade entrance to people of “lower classes.” Yet, the temple credits it fame to a “miracle” performed by a shepherd Bhaktiyogi by the name of Kanaka Dasa about four hundred years ago. If there was ever a god in these and other temples, he ran as far away as he could from them, and I won’t be surprised if he is now hiding on the Chinese side of the Himalayas! And now both the naïve and the crooked, the meek and the mighty, flock by the millions to these symbols of religious decadence in India.

7. Class And Caste System: A Slap In The Face To Krishna

The hallmark of Bhagavatism was egalitarianism. Because Bhagavatism destroyed the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, Varna Dharma became irrelevant. However, Brahmins carefully hid this fundamental aspect of Bhagavatism from the public and continued to practice the Varna Dharma. Ignoring the egalitarian messages of both Upanishadic (5:18-19) and Bhagavata (9:29-33) parts of the Bhagavad Gita, they focused on the importance of continuing the class system and performing one’s Duty as per his class as enunciated in its Brahmanic part (18:42-45). They continued to harp on the dangers of class-admixture (Varnasankara, 1:38-44; 3:24), thus condemning millions of so-called outcastes to miserable life here on earth. They destroyed Krishna’s call to abandon all Dharma by declaring that it was meant for Arjuna and not for them!

The net result of all these tactics is that today Hinduism is steadily decaying just as Brahmanism did in the post-Vedic society. That is why today we see in India widespread Shokam (grief) in the disenfranchised; and Dwandwam (mental unrest) in the upper classes due to their entanglement with wealth and power; and obsession to gain these Karmaphalam by hook or by crook in almost everyone else.

In the next article, we will study how Shankaracharya singlehandedly revived Brahmanism from its deathbed by means of his duplicitous commentary on the Bhagavad Gita.

Hindu Revisionism: Was Shankaracharya Deceptive Or Just Ignorant?

Written by Prabhakar Kamath , Posted on 25 March 2010

In the previous chapter we studied how Brahmins of ancient India destroyed both the Upanishadic and Bhagavata revolution by resorting to extreme editing of the text of the Bhagavad Gita, and corrupting Bhakti by eliminating Yoga and attaching Yajna to it in disguised form.

In this article we will study how Shankaracharya further contributed to this process by means of his commentary in which he obfuscated, misinterpreted and misrepresented the revolutionary shlokas of the Bhagavad Gita. By a typical Brahmanic sleight of hand, he singlehandedly revived Brahmanism from its deathbed. Biography of Shankaracharya makes very interesting reading, but is beyond the scope of this article. 

1. Three Basic Tactics Of Latter Day Acharyas

In the course of next few centuries since the Bhagavata revolution, the latter day Brahminic Acharyas came up with three ingenious, self-serving tactics to conceal the Upanishadic and Bhagavata revolutions to overthrow Brahmanism.

A. The need to study under a Brahmanic Guru: They declared that all those who wanted to study the Bhagavad Gita must do so under the tutelage of a Brahmanic Acharya. This was in keeping with the dictum that all Upanishadic secret doctrines should be studied only under the tutelage of a learned Guru (BG: 4:34; Mundaka Up: 1:2:12-13). This gave Brahmins the opportunity to deliver soporific discourses to their bewildered listeners. They obfuscated the all-round anti-Brahmanic diatribe in the Bhagavad Gita by means of ample verbosity, high-sounding Sanskrit words, and quotations from obscure and latter day scriptures such as Puranas.

B. Hanging on to Arjuna Vishada context: They hid the historical-revolutionary context by explaining all anti-Brahmanic shlokas in the Arjuna Vishada context only. This required them to indulge in much tongue-twisting verbosity and mind-bending logic. When they could not explain an anti-Brahmanic shloka in Arjuna Vishada context, they just gave its literal meaning in total isolation. Thus the later generation of Acharyas did not learn the true meaning or context of anti-Brahmanic shlokas. Like their Gurus, each generation of Acharyas faithfully passed on to their students their ignorance of the historical-revolutionary context.

C. Writing long-winded commentaries: They wrote long-winded commentaries in which they obfuscated, misinterpreted and misrepresented the meanings of anti-Brahmanic shlokas. This made already complicated matters even worse. We will read below several examples of this tactic.

2. The Three Great Acharyas Who Destroyed The Bhagavad Gita

Over the past twelve hundred years, numerous commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita have been written both by Brahmanic loyalists and Western authors. During the medieval times, three great Brahmanic Acharyas wrote lengthy and “authoritative” commentaries (Bhashya) on the Bhagavad Gita, all of which glorified Krishna while systematically undermining every one of his fundamental teachings: Give up rituals; give up Gunas and Karma; and give up class system based on them. These three Acharyas were Shankaracharya (788-820 A. D.), Ramanujacharya (1017-1137 A. D.) and Madhvacharya (1238-1317 A. D.). It is possible that these Brahmanic commentators were not aware of the historical-revolutionary context at all as evidenced by their tendency to view the Bhagavad Gita as a monolithic text written in one stretch by one author, its only context being Arjuna Vishada. Very often their commentaries on the same shloka are extremely divergent from each other’s.

To readers who are aware of the two distinct contexts of the Bhagavad Gita -Arjuna Vishada and Historical-Revolutionary- these great Acharyas come across in their commentaries as thoroughly confused. For example none of these Acharyas seemed to know, or they refused to acknowledge, the fundamental fact that the Upanishadic doctrines of Atman/Brahman and Buddhiyoga’s purpose was to transcend the doctrines of the Gunas of Prakriti and Law of Karma, and therefore, they are mutually exclusive terms. Krishna repeatedly tells readers that one must transcend all three Gunas in order to gain knowledge of Brahman (2:45; 14:20), and transcend Law of Karma to attain

Nirvana (2:15, 51). Yet, these Acharyas keep promoting both the Brahmanic and Upanishadic doctrines at the same time. At times all three Acharyas are blatantly fraudulent when interpreting shlokas, as we will study below. After reviewing Shankaracharya’s interpretation below, let readers decide to which category Shankaracharya belongs.

3. Modern Day Nonsensical Commentaries

Imagine a pro-Confederacy author writing a commentary on President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, ignorant of, or unwilling to acknowledge, the fact that it

was a speech delivered to dedicate thebattlefield to soldiers who gave their lives to abolish slavery in the United States. To explain away Lincoln’s every laconic sentence, the pro-Confederacy author would have to cook up something to support the Southern Cause. He would interpret the phrase “All men are created equal” as meaning, “All white men are created equal” or, “All men are separately created equal.” The situation is identical with all Brahmanic commentators of the modern times. Ignorant of, or unwilling to acknowledge, the fact that the anti-Brahmanic shlokas in it are the evidence of a sectarian war between Brahmanism on one side and the Upanishadism and Bhagavatism on the other, they wrote mindboggling and nonsensical commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita, applying all shlokas to Arjuna’s predicament on the battlefield.

Two popular modern “commentaries,” which fall into this category are ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and ‘The Bhagavad Gita -God Talks With Arjuna’ by Sri Sri Paramahamsa Yogananda. Space does not permit me to go into details about the nonsense in these two commentaries. Let the reader be assured that other available commentaries are not any better. Skeptics among the readers of this article should compare my interpretation given below with those in currently available commentaries. Also, I recommend that readers encourage Brahmanic loyalists and scholars to read this article and encourage them to counter my thesis with sensible articles.

4. Five Upanishadic Shlokas and One Bhagavata Shloka

In this article I will discuss five anti-Brahmanic Upanishadic shlokas and one Bhagavata shloka in their historical-revolutionary context. The only goal of the first four Upanishadic shlokas shown below (2:47, 3:15; 4:31, and 4:32) is to eliminate Vedic Yajnas centered on Vedic gods and replace them with Upanishadic Yoga centered on Brahman. The goal of the fifth Upanishadic shloka (5:18) is to eliminate Varna system. The goal of Bhagavata shloka shown below (18:66) is to replace all Dharma of the land with Bhagavata Dharma centered on Krishna.

As we will read below, Shankaracharya’s goal was to completely neutralize the respective goals of these shlokas. People believed anything he said in keeping with the mindless Hindu tradition of uncritically accepting any nonsense uttered by a saffron-clad Sanyasi. This was even more so in the case of Shankaracharya, as he had gained great moral authority by means of his heroic deed of rescuing Brahmanism from the jaws of death.

5. Shloka 2:47: Kshatriyas’ Entitlement Is To Perform Yajna Only But Not To Its Fruit

Let us now examine the most quoted and utterly misunderstood shloka of the Bhagavad Gita:

2:47: Your entitlement is to Karma alone, and never at any time to its Phalam (fruits). Never be the cause of Karmaphalam. However, never become attached to inaction.

This shloka has no Arjuna Vishada context. In this shloka, Guru Krishna tells corrupt Kshatriyas indulging in Kamya Karma that whereas they have the entitlement to perform various Yajnas (Karma) as per the ordinances of scriptures, they have no right to Karmaphalam thereof. The Karmaphalam of Yajna belongs to the Devas. If they keep the Karmaphalam to themselves, they become thieves (3:12). Earning Karmaphalam condemns them to the eternal cycle of birth, death and rebirth. So they should not indulge in Yajna, which earn them Karmaphalam. However, just because they have nothing to gain from Yajna, they should not become Sramanas who do nothing.

The key to understanding this shloka lies in the following six shlokas in which Krishna explains to corrupt Kshatriyas indulging in Kamya Karma the original purpose of Yajna:

3:10-11: Having created mankind in the beginning together with Yajna, the Prajapati (Brahma) said, “By this shall you propagate; this shall be the milch cow of your desires. Nourish the Devas with this (Yajna) and may those Devas nourish you (in return); thus nourishing one another, you shall reap the supreme welfare (of the society). Nourished by Yajna, the Devas shall bestow on you the enjoyments you desire.”

What happens to those who take away the fruits of Yajna for their personal use?

3:12-13: A thief verily is he who enjoys what Devas give him without returning them anything. The good that eat the remains of Yajna are freed from all sins (Karmaphalam);

but the sinful ones who cook food only for themselves, they verily eat sin (earn Karmaphalam).

What is this quid pro quo between Vedic ritualists and Devas? Guru Krishna explains the Wheel of Yajna:

3:14: From food beings become; from rain food is produced; from Yajna rain proceeds.

3:16: He who does not follow on earth the Wheel (of Yajna) thus revolving, malicious and delighting in the Senses, he lives in vain.

The above shlokas condemn Vedic ritualists who corrupted Yajnas by stealing Karmaphalam for themselves as thieves, malicious and vain.

Now, to put the shloka 2:47 in proper perspective, let us now quickly review the eight revolutionary shlokas leading up to it. In 2:39 Guru Krishna introduces the doctrines of Knowledge of Atman and Buddhiyoga to replace the Brahmanic doctrine of the Gunas of Prakriti and Law of Karma. In 2:40, he explains the advantages of Buddhiyoga of Upanishadism over Kamya Karma of Brahmanism. In 2:41-44, he condemns Vedic ritualists as ignorant, desire-ridden and fickle-minded due to their obsession with earning Karmaphalam (pleasure, lordship and heaven) in Yajna. In 2:45, Guru Krishna recommends transcending all three Gunas and Law of Karma. In 2:46, he downgrades the Vedas as useless to enlightened people. Now in shloka 2:47, Guru Krishna lays down the law to the corrupt Vedic ritualists:

2:47: Your entitlement is to Karma alone, and never at any time to its Phalam (fruits). Never be the cause of Karmaphalam. However, never become attached to inaction.

So if these Kshatriyas gave up sinful Kamya Karma and not become inactive like Sramanas, what would they do to keep themselves occupied? Krishna, as the Upanishadic Lord of beings, tells them to become Karmayogis (3:7-9; 19-23), and willfully redirect their energies in guiding the masses:

3:25: As the unenlightened (Vedic ritualists) perform Yajna with attachment to Karmaphalam, O Bharata, so should the enlightened (Karmayogis) act (perform their obligatory Kshatriya duty) without attachment to Karmaphalam, desirous of the guidance of the masses.

What does Krishna advice Brahmins who want to continue to perform Yajna?

4:15: Having known thus (that Yajnas should be performed without motive for Karmaphalam) even the ancient seekers after liberation (from debt to the gods) performed Yajna. Therefore, you should perform Yajna (selflessly), as did the ancients in the olden times.

Krishna follows this advice by giving the fallen Brahmins a crash course on proper performance of Yajnas in 4:16-24.

Obviously, this shloka has nothing to do with Arjuna’s predicament whatsoever. Besides, the word Karma in this context does not mean Action, but Yajna. If one thinks that this shloka’s context is Arjuna Vishada and the word Karma means Action, the whole shloka’s meaning is distorted. This is exactly what Shankaracharya does in interpreting shloka 2:47:

“You have the right only to perform Karma and not to undertake the discipline of knowledge (You can practice Karmayoga but not Jnanayoga!). While doing works (Shankaracharya does not explain what the word ‘works’ means in this context), do not think you have the right to claim their fruits. Never, in any state of life whatsoever, should you crave for the fruits of your works (Can warrior follow this in reality?) -this is the idea.

Shankaracharya goes on: When you crave for the fruits of your works (such as your kingdom), you make yourselves liable to reap fruits; but you should never be the cause of such fruit-gathering, for when one works, impelled by the craving for fruits, one has to reap the fruits of such works, namely, birth in the world (Correct). ‘If the fruits of works are not to be desired, why should painful works (meaning war) be undertaken at all?’ This thought should not tempt you, Arjuna, to withdraw from all works, either (Clearly he is addressing Arjuna’s predicament and he does not explain what he meant by ‘all works’).”

Shankaracharya identifies Arjuna Vishada as the context of this shloka when he tells Arjuna that his entitlement is only to become a Karmayogi, and not a Jnanayogi! He did not know the fact that the call to become Karmayogi was directed to errant Kshatriyas in the historical context and not to Arjuna. Strangely, the great Acharya did not seem to realize that the ultimate goal of both Jnanayoga and Karmayoga was to attain Knowledge of Brahman. Jnanayogis attain it by giving up attachment to sense objects (Sanyasa), and Karmayogis attain it by giving up fruits of their action (Tyaga). In practice this meant giving up Kamya Karma: 18:2: Giving up Kamya Karma is Sanyasa; giving up fruits of all works is Tyaga. Telling Arjuna that his entitlement is only to Karmayoga and not to Jnanayoga is, to put it mildly, ignorant and childish as Krishna himself says:

5:4-5: Children, not the wise, speak of Sankhya (Jnanayoga) and Yoga (of action, Karmayoga) as different; he who is truly established in one obtains the fruits (Knowledge of Atman) of both. The state (of Brahmajnana) reached by the Jnanis is also reached by the Karmayogis. He sees who sees Jnana and Karmayoga as one. Obviously Shankaracharya did not see this or pretended like it.

Thirdly, even if we apply this shloka to Arjuna Vishada context, telling Arjuna that ‘his entitlement is only to fight but never, in any state of life whatsoever, should he crave for the fruits of his works’ makes the entire Mahabharata war a sham. If this were true, what was the point of waging the ghastly war? Isn’t this exactly what the Duryodhana had

been telling Pandavas all along? “Listen, Pandavas. You can claim all the entitlement to wage this war against us, but you have no right to this kingdom!” What was the great Acharya thinking?

Fourthly, when it comes to fighting, no one could give Arjuna better advice than Brahmanic prince Krishna as he did in Arjuna Vishada:

3:37: Slain you will gain heaven; victorious you enjoy the earth. Therefore rouse up O son of Kunti, resolved to fight.

Who could improve upon this advice? Obviously, Shankaracharya did not know that the true context of this shloka was historical-revolutionary and its true purpose was to induce corrupt Kshatriyas to give up Kamya Karma. If he knew this fact, he chose not to reveal it to his audience. Now, that is duplicity.

6. Unfortunate Result Of Misinterpretation

One unfortunate result of such Brahmanic misinterpretation is that millions of Hindus wrongly believe that they have only the right to act but no right to expect results. Even eminent scholars such as A. L. Bhasham misunderstood this shloka to mean, “Your business is with the deed, and not with the result.” Imagine a surgeon whose only concern is with his deed and not the result! Again, imagine a man taking a bath in a dirty pond and claiming, “My business is to take the bath; not the result thereof.” This attitude makes all actions mere rituals. Not only should one do the best one could but also one must be result-oriented. The question is whether this much-quoted shloka has any relevance in our daily life.

First of all, the word ‘entitlement’ in this shloka has a very specific context. It refers to the entitlement granted to certain Kshatriyas by Brahmins to perform certain Yajnas as per the ordinances of scriptures (3:10-14). In our everyday life, with rare exceptions, no one has the ‘entitlement’ or ‘right’ to act. One acts only because one chooses to act as the situation demands. For example, if one donates money to a cause or lends money to a relative, or volunteers to help someone, he does so not because he is entitled to but because he chooses to.

Secondly, any person who acts without expecting results from his action is a fool. Even when we do volunteer work, we expect to get results from our service. However, almost all Hindus take this distorted meaning of shloka 2:47 without critical analysis.

However, this shloka could be applied to corrupt politicians (modern day Kshatriyas) and bureaucrats (modern day Brahmins) of India. The message to them is that they are entitled to perform their Karma (their works as politicians and bureaucrats) but they have no right expect fruits of their toil for themselves. The fruits (national progress) belong to the people. If they take bribes for their services, they become thieves. The other context in which this shloka could be applied in civilian life is in Social Activism.

“Your entitlement as a Social Activist is only to serve the people, and never to benefit personally from its results (fruits), for fruits should go to the people you have chosen to serve. Never indulge in activities with motivation for personal gains. However, just because there is nothing in it for you personally, do not give up your Social Activism.”

Here we must assume that the Social Activist has earned his ‘entitlement’ by virtue of his expertise in, and dedication to, a particular cause. This dictum would make an ideal guide for Social Activists anywhere in the world. This is the essence of Karmayoga.

7. Shloka 3:15: Vedic Devas Are Out, Upanishadic Brahman Is In

3:15: Lord Krishna says: Know Karma (’ritual works’) to have risen from Brahma (the Vedic god Prajapati, 3:10); Brahma arose from the Imperishable (Brahman the Supreme of the Upanishads). The all-pervading Brahman (not the Vedic gods) is, therefore, ever centered in Yajna.

The real purpose of this shloka is to appoint Brahman over the Vedic Lord of beings, Prajapati; to make Brahman as the object of worship in the place of the Vedic gods. The Upanishads describe how these Vedic gods “run away in terror” before Brahman (Katha. Up: 2:6:2-3). When Brahman becomes the object of Yajna, Yoga automatically becomes the modus operandi, for Brahman could be obtained only by Yoga (Sanyasa and Tyaga) and not by the sacrifices based on the Vedas (Mundaka. Up: 3:2:2).

Let us examine the context of this shloka. This shloka is in Chapter Three, titled Karma Yoga, which is dedicated to converting Kshatriyas performing Kamya Karma into Karmayogis performing Nishkama Karma. This shloka has no Arjuna Vishada context. In this shloka, Krishna, as the Upanishadic Lord of beings, decides to end Vedic Yajnas dedicated to the Vedic gods once and for all, because they earn Karmaphalam and thus perpetuate the evil of Samsara (9:20-21). He declares that the Upanishadic divinity Brahman should be the object of all Yajnas instead of the Vedic gods. His logic is this: All ritual activity arose from Brahma (Prajapati), Brahmanic Lord of beings (3:10); Brahma himself arose from the Upanishadic divinity Brahman the Supreme. This being the case, Brahman should be the center of all Yajna, not the Vedic gods. Once Brahman becomes the goal of Yajna, it becomes Nishkama Karma. Why? Well, to attain Brahman, one must first practice Sanyasa or Tyaga; that is, giving up desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of fruits of action.

Here is how Shankaracharya subverts this Upanishadic intent with a superb sleight of hand:

“Know that this work (meaning Yajnas) is born of the Vedas (Not Brahma), and that the Vedas are born of the Imperishable Reality (Brahman). Therefore, the all-pervading Vedas are eternally rooted in sacrificial work.”

Shankaracharya follows this fraudulent interpretation with even more duplicitous commentary to embellish the Vedas:

“Work is born of Brahman (Not Brahma), Brahman is the Veda. ‘Born of Veda’ means revealed by the Veda (Nowhere does it say born of the Veda). Work, in this context, is of this description. Again, Brahman or Veda is born of the Imperishable or Brahman the Supreme Self (Now Shankaracharya creates a Paramatma above Brahman). That Brahman here means the Veda is the sense. Since Brahman, the Veda, is directly derived from the Supreme Self, the all-revealing and eternal Veda is established for all times in sacrificial work, the latter being a dominant theme of the Vedas.”

Listen to the incredibly twisted and fraudulent logic of Shankaracharya: First of all, he does not even mention Brahma the Brahmanic Lord of being as the originator of Karma. Secondly, he straightaway declares that Vedas and Brahman are the same. Now this Brahman is derived from another Brahma above it -Paramatma. Now the “eternal Vedas are all-pervading.” How utterly nonsensical!

In all ancient scriptures, the term “all-pervading” applies only to Brahman the Supreme. Brahman and Paramatma are one and the same. The term “all-pervading” applies neither to Vedic god Brahma nor the Vedas. The Upanishads repeatedly pronounce the Vedas as the “lower knowledge” and that one could never obtain Brahman by means of the Vedas:

Mundaka Upanishad: 1:1:4-5: Two kinds of knowledge must be known, this is what all who know Brahman tell us, the higher and the lower knowledge. The lower knowledge is the Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Vyakarana (grammar), etc. etc.

Mundaka Upanishad: 3:2:3, Katha Upanishad: 1:2:23: Atman/Brahman cannot be gained by the Vedas, nor by understanding, nor much learning (study of the Vedas).

Guru Krishna declares in the Gita: 2:46: To an enlightened Brahmin (one who has gained Knowledge of Atman and Brahman) all the Vedas are as useful as a tank of water (meaning, they are practically useless) when there is flood (vast knowledge of Brahman) all around.”

Guru Krishna expresses even disgust with the Vedas: 2:52: When your Buddhi transcends the thicket of delusion (engendered by the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma) then you will be disgusted by Shruthis yet to be heard as well as Shruthis (Vedas) you have already heard.

In fact, the Upanishadic Lord Krishna declares: 6:44: Even he who merely wishes to know of Yoga rises superior to performer of Vedic rites.

Even Bhagavata Krishna declares: 11:48: Neither by the study of the Vedas, nor by Yajnas, nor by Dana, nor by rituals, nor by severe austerity can this form of Mine be seen in the world of men by anyone else but you (My Bhaktha), O hero of the Kuru.

It is obvious that the great Acharya he was deceitfully subverting the Upanishadic intent to overthrow Vedic sacrifices, or he had no clue that the purpose of appointing Brahman

as the center of Yajna was to convert Yajna into Karmayoga. You decide which of these statements applies to him.

8. Shloka 4:32: Give Up Vedic Yajna And Take Up Upanishadic Yoga

4:32: Various Yajnas such as these are spread out before Brahman. Know them all to be born of Karma (’selfless ritual works’); and knowing thus you shall be liberated (from bonds of Karma).

The goal of this shloka is to replace Yajna, which binds people to Karmaphalam to Yoga, which liberates them from the bonds of Karma. To appreciate the extent of Shankaracharya’s duplicity in interpreting this anti-Brahmanic shloka into pro-Brahmanic one, we need to first thoroughly study the context of this shloka. This shloka is found in Chapter Four, which is titled: Yoga of Renunciation of Karma (Yajna) in Knowledge (Jnana). Obviously, this shloka has no Arjuna Vishada context. The goal of this shloka is to renounce Vedic Yajna (Karma) centered on Vedic gods and take up Upanishadic Jnana (Knowledge) Yajna centered on Brahman. Jnana Yajna is nothing but Jnanayoga in disguise. To refresh the memory of the readers: The goal of Vedic Yajnas was to please Vedic gods and earn Karmaphalam; the goal of Jnana Yajna is to gain Knowledge of Atman/Brahman.

Let us briefly review shlokas leading up to shloka 4:32:

In shloka 4:15, Krishna tells Brahmins to perform Yajnas selflessly like the ancients did. In 4:16-18, Krishna explains various types of Yajnas: Proper Yajna (selfless), improper Yajna (Kamya Karma) and non-Yajna.

In 4:19-23, he explains the basics of Jnanayoga: Renunciation of Sankalpa (design), desire (Kama) for and attachment (Sanga) to fruits.

Krishna explains in the following shlokas that when one renounces these impurities of the heart, one does not earn any Karmaphalam.

4:23: Of one unattached (to sense objects), liberated (from Dwandwam thereof), with mind absorbed in Knowledge (of Atman), performing work for Yajna alone (and not for personal gains), his entire Karmaphalam (both good and bad) melts away.

What are various constituents of the so-called Jnana Yajna (Knowledge Sacrifice) centered on Brahman?

4:24: The oblation is Brahman, the clarified butter is Brahman, offered by Brahman in the fire of Brahman; unto Brahman verily he goes who cognizes Brahman alone in his Karma (Yajna).

Obviously, Jnana Yajna is a metaphor for Jnanayoga. Unlike in Vedic Yajna, all constituents of the metaphoric Jnana Yajna -oblation, ghee (clarified butter), the offering person, fire, object of sacrifice- are all made up of all-pervading Brahman. Krishna recommends Brahmins to recognize “Brahman alone in Yajna.” There is a paradigm shift of the object of Yajna from Vedic gods to Brahman. All selfless Karma, with or without a fire, shall be known as Jnana Yajna from now onwards.

Who are various performers of Jnana Yajna? In 4:25-29, Krishna describes various types of Yogis who perform Jnana Yajnas in which they sacrifice impurities of heart and mind, and concludes:

4:30: All these (Yogis) are knowers of (Jnana) Yajna, having their sins (Karmaphalam) destroyed by (Jnana) Yajna.

In all these so-called Jnana Yajnas there is no altar, no fire, no sacrifice of materials such as food and animals. In these Yajnas one sacrifices or renounces one’s impurities (desire, attachment, etc.) residing in the Senses, the Mind and the Intellect. What remains after one has sacrificed his mental impurities in Knowledge Yajna?

4:31: The eaters of the immortal remnant of Jnana Yajna go to the Eternal Brahman. This world is not for non-sacrificer, how then the other (Abode of Brahman)? O best of the Kurus?

Whereas the remnant of Vedic Yajna is burnt food, the immortal remnant of Upanishadic Jnana Yajna is whatever remains after one has sacrificed the impurities of the heart and mind -Atman. One who gains Atman, the immortal nectar, gains Eternal Brahman.

These “Yajnas” are Yoga in disguise. Lord Krishna calls these Yogic renunciations Jnana (Knowledge) Yajna, for in this type of Yajna instead of gaining Karmaphalam one is liberated from the bonds of Karma, and one gains Knowledge of Atman. Having said all this, Krishna now comes to the point:

4:32: Various (Jnana) Yajnas such as these are spread out before Brahman (the Upanishadic divinity). Know them all to be born of Karma (’selfless ritual works’); and knowing thus you shall be liberated (from bonds of Karma).

And Krishna concludes:

4:33: Jnana Yajna (Jnanayoga), O Scorcher of foes, is superior to Dravya (material) Yajna. All (Jnana) Yajnas in their entirety culminate in Jnana (of Atman).

With this background information let us now review how, by a sleight of hand, Shankaracharya neutralized shloka 4:32:

“Thus have many sacrifices been spread out in the pages of the Veda (He decides the word Brahman means the Vedas). Know them all to be born of works (What kind of work?). Knowing thus will you be liberated (from what?).“

Shankaracharya continues:

“As stated, many sorts of sacrifice have been ’spread out’ -set forth- in the Vedic path. Those, which are known by means of the Vedas are said to be ’spread out’ in ‘the face’ of the Vedas; for example, “we sacrifice the vital breaths in speech” (Ait. A. 3:26). Know all of them to be born of works -born of exertions of the body, word and mind, and not of the Self. For the Self works not. Therefore, thus knowing, you will be released from evil. Knowing, “these are not my activities; I exert not, I am indifferent” -due to this right perception, you will be released from ‘evil’ or the bondage of empirical life. This is the idea.”

Here is how Shankaracharya subverts the whole shloka whose goal is to establish Brahman as the center of all Yajna and convert Kamya Karma, which earns bondage of Karma into Nishkama Karma, which does not.

1. He interprets Brahmanomukhe -from the face of Brahman- into ‘the face of the Vedas’ and ‘Vedic path’, even though this shloka’s goal was to overthrow Vedic Yajna. The Upanishads repeatedly pronounce: One cannot obtain Brahman by the Vedas! He has no clue, or he refuses to acknowledge, that the “Yajnas” listed in 4:25-29 are not Vedic sacrifices at all but they are Upanishadic Jnana Yajnas. In his zeal to promote the Vedas, he does not even mention Brahman. His adherence is not to truth but to the Vedas. It is impossible to believe that Shankaracharya did not know the true meaning of this shloka.

2. He then says that if a person fooled himself into believing, “these are not my activities” he will not earn Karmaphalam due to “right perception.” What he should have said was, “If you perform Karma (Yajnas) centered on Brahman in the spirit of Yoga, that is without the impurities such as Sankalpa, Kama and Sangas for fruits (4:23), then you would not earn any Karmaphalam, and therefore you will be liberated from the evil of Samsara. This is Jnana Yajna; this is Jnanayoga.”

How do we know that Shankaracharya was hell bent on preserving the Vedic Yajnas? Let us review his commentary on shloka 4:31, which we read above.

9. Shloka 4:31: Immortal Remnant Is Atman, Not Food

4:31: The eaters of the immortal remnant (Yajnashistamrita) of (Jnana) Yajna go to the Eternal Brahman. This world is not for non-sacrificer, how then the other (Abode of Brahman)? O best of the Kurus?

What is the remnant after one has sacrificed food and animals in Vedic material sacrifice? It is the remaining food (Yajnashista), which the sacrificer consumes at the end of Yajna as a sign of humility and gratitude. What is the remnant of Jnana Yajna after one has sacrificed impurities (desire, attachment, etc.) residing in one’s Senses, Mind and Intellect? That immortal remnant (Yajnashistamrita, nectar) of Jnana Yajna is Atman. Here Krishna is trying to show that the end result of Jnana Yajna (Jnanayoga) is attainment of Atman/Brahman and liberation from Samsara.

What is the meaning of the word Yajnashistamrita? This word means ‘immortal remnant.’ This is not just Yajnashista food of Vedic sacrifice (3:13). The clue to this word’s special status is in the word Amritham (nectar of immortality). Here is how Shankaracharya dismisses this profound shloka with a very superficial explanation:

“The remains of sacrifices are what is left over; it is ambrosia. The sacrificer partakes of it. Having performed the sacrifices enumerated above, they eat, according to the Vedic injunctions, the ambrosial food and they repair to the Eternal Brahman, in case they seek liberation. From the logic of the situation it follows that this happens in course of time.

Obviously, the great Acharya completely missed the whole point of the above nine shlokas (4:23-30, 32), which is that these sacrifices are not Vedic (material) Yajnas but Jnana Yajnas of the Upanishads. As we read above, the nectar (Yajnashistamrita) mentioned in the above shloka has nothing to do with the leftover food of the Vedic (material) Yajnas (3:13). The word Yajnashistamrita is a metaphor for immortal Atman, which is the remnant of Jnana Yajnas. There is no real food here to “eat according to the Vedic injunctions” after Jnana Yajna, as there is no fire, no burnt offerings, and no ceremony. The great Acharya has no clue about this. And the phrase, “they repair to Brahman in case they seek liberation,” is indicative of this. He is simply not able to think outside his “Vedic box” even though he apparently knew the Upanishads inside out. This is because Shankaracharya mistakenly believed that the Vedas and the Upanishads are one and the same, not antagonistic to each other.

10. Shloka 5:18: Brahman The Equalizer

5:18: The sages perceive the same truth in Brahmins rich in knowledge and culture, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater.

In this shloka the point made is that an enlightened person sees the same Brahman in a highly cultured and educated Brahmin on the one extreme and an ignorant dog-eating outcaste on the other, and even in the animals owned by the lower classes in between. Here cow is the animal of Vaishyas; the elephant is the animal of Kshatriyas; the dog is the animal of Sudras. Conversely, when a person is deluded by even one of the three Gunas, he is not able to see the sameness or equality of all people.

The sole purpose of this Upanishadic shloka was to overthrow the Brahmanic Varna system based on unequal distribution of the Gunas and Karma (4:13) in the four classes, and replace it with an egalitarian system based on the equal distribution of Brahman in people of all classes (5:18-19).

Here is how Shankaracharya promotes supremacy of Brahmins while obfuscating the true intent of this shloka:

“Knowledge and culture” -culture consists in restraint -rich in these is the Brahmana who knows and is cultured. In him, in a cow, elephant, dog and outcaste the sages behold the same Reality (True). In the Sattvika Brahmana (Here he hangs on to the Guna), endowed with knowledge and culture, who has the best latent impressions of life’s experiences, in an intermediate being like the cow that is Rajasic (Cow is not Rajasic; tiger is) without such impression, and in the low merely Tamasic beings like an elephant etc. the sages are trained to perceive the same single, and immutable Brahman, wholly unaffected by constituents like the Sattva and by the latent impression they generate.

In the above commentary, Shankaracharya does not seem to understand the fundamental fact that an enlightened sage does not see a Brahmin as Sattvic, a Kshatriya as Rajasic, Vaishya, Sudra, and an outcaste as Tamasic. All he sees in them is Brahman. One cannot attribute a Guna to a creature and see Brahman in it at the same time. The Gunas and Brahman are mutually exclusive entities. His ignorance of this fact is evident in his statement: “Sages are trained to perceive the same single and immutable Brahman, wholly unaffected by constituents like the Sattva and by the latent impression they generate.

11. Shloka 18:66: Abandon All Dharma

Let us take up Shloka 18:66, the Ultimate (Charama) Shloka of the Bhagavad Gita.

18:66: Abandon all Dharma and surrender unto Me alone; I shall liberate you from all sins. Do not grieve.

As we read the true purpose of this shloka in the article titled ‘God of Gods Enters The Battlefield To Fight Brahmanism.’ It encapsulates the essence of the entire text as well as the revolution to overthrow Brahmanic Dharma. This shloka has nothing to do with Arjuna Vishada context. After knocking off all other Dharmas of the land, Bhagavata Krishna declares himself as THE DHARMA (14:27), and asks everyone to abandon their Dharma and embrace his Dharma.

This Ultimate (Charama) shloka, asking everyone to abandon all Dharmas, has baffled all Brahmanic commentators as evidenced by their confusing, misleading and utterly nonsensical commentaries on it. It is obvious that they were not aware of the historical-revolutionary context and true intent of this shloka.

What is the correct meaning of the word Dharma in this context? The word Dharma has many meanings, such as religion, Law, righteousness, Duty, obligatory sacrificial duty (Kriya, Karya), a discipline of knowledge, a system, and the like. In the above shloka the word Dharma stood for religion or sect such as Brahmanism and Buddhism. If one took any one of these alternative meanings to the phrase ‘all Dharmas’ and applies it to the context of Arjuna Vishada, it means Arjuna should give up all Dharma -righteousness and performance of his obligatory duty as dictated by his Dharma. This is exactly what all Brahmanic commentators say in their commentaries. Here is what Shankaracharya says:

“Giving up all Dharmas (acts of righteousness), seek refuge in Me alone; I shall liberate you from all sins; grieve not.

‘All Dharma or acts of righteousness’-Dharma (righteousness) here includes Adharma (unrighteousness) also. What is sought to be conveyed is the idea of freedom from all works (Dharma here means Karma).”

Shankaracharya wants Arjuna to give up all Karma- righteous as well as unrighteous! Unaware of the historical-revolutionary context of this shloka, the great Acharya thinks that the word Dharma in it means Karma, not religion or sect. He tries to back up this outlandish claim by fourteen pages of long-winded and inscrutable explanations quoting various scriptures, which no Ph. D. candidate of religious studies, leave alone a humble student, could digest. This is a classic example of baffling one with bullshit when one cannot dazzle one with his brilliance. It is obvious that the Acharya was baffled by Lord Krishna’s call for one to “give up all Dharma.” Without realizing that Lord Krishna’s call was not meant for Arjuna at all, but was directed toward all people of various diverse Dharmas in the turbulent post-Vedic society, he must have thought, “How could the Lord ask Arjuna to give up all Dharma? The Lord must have meant Karma when he said Dharma.” So, he said that Arjuna should “give up all Karma -righteous as well as unrighteous.”

If the Acharya had said, “perform righteous Karma but abandon all Karmaphalam” (2:50; 9:28) instead of saying “give up all Karma” he would have made better sense, even though that was not what Krishna meant here. His interpretation implies that Arjuna should give up even righteous Karma (fighting for a right cause). Arjuna had already said he wanted to do just that when he said in 2:9 “I shall not fight” knowing full well that his was a righteous cause. Prince Krishna did a splendid job of dissuading him from giving up his Dharma-designated Karma (2:31-37). Obviously, Shankaracharya’s interpretation of this shloka makes mockery of the Mahabharata war as well.

No religion, no matter how profound its philosophy might be, tells its followers to give up righteous Karma. In all the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, there is not one single call for anyone to give up righteous Karma though there is plenty of call to give up Adharma, namely Kamya Karma (2:47-49; 4:7), and fruits of Karma. However, one must perform his Karma with indifference to personal gain or loss of fruits (3:19) if he does not want to earn Karmaphalam. Krishna never gets tired of telling people how important it is to be active all the time:

3:8: Engage yourself in Dharma-bound action, for action is superior to inaction, and if inactive, even the mere maintenance of your body would not be possible.

The entire Bhagavad Gita is about performing Karma in a righteous manner, meaning doing the right thing but without selfish motive. All three Gitas attest to this wisdom.

1. In Arjuna Vishada, prince Krishna asks Arjuna to perform his Karma as per his Dharma (2:37) giving up his self-centeredness failing which he would incur sin (2:33).

2. In the Upanishadic Gita, Guru Krishna tells Arjuna to perform his obligatory Karma as per Kshatriya Dharma without Dwandwam (2:38) and for guidance of the masses (3:20).

3. In the resurgent Brahmanic Gita, Lord Krishna tells people to selflessly do their duty as assigned by their class (18:45) and attain perfection.

4. In the Bhagavata Gita, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna to dedicate all Karma to him in order to free himself from the bondage of Karma (9:27-28). Even after showing Arjuna His Universal Form, Krishna says: 11:33: Arise and attain fame! By Me have your enemies been verily slain already. You be merely an outward cause, O Savyasachin! Lord Krishna did not tell Arjuna, “Give up all Karma and go home, for I have already killed them all!”

All this shows that shloka 18:66, in which Lord Krishna exhorts Arjuna to abandon all Dharma, was not applicable to Arjuna in the Mahabharata context at all, and that its real context was historical-revolutionary. Shankaracharya’s explanation of this shloka makes mockery of both the Mahabharata epic and all the fundamental teachings of the Bhagavad Gita: Never abandon the path of righteous Karma; but perform it with complete indifference to fruits.

12. How Could Hinduism Be Based On Misinterpretation Of Its Most Sacred Scripture?

Hinduism, or more correctly Brahmanism, as practiced today is largely based on Shankaracharya’s interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita. Like Shankaracharya did, every Brahmanic commentator misinterpreted all anti-Brahmanic shlokas of the Bhagavad Gita. Such erroneous, and often blatantly deceptive, interpretations of shlokas to shore up Brahmanism are the hallmark of all Brahmanic commentaries. All right-minded Hindus, who practically consider the Bhagavad Gita as the Handbook of Hindu Dharma, must ask, “How can we practice Hindu Dharma based on such erroneous and false

interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita by Brahmanic Acharyas and Swamis whom we revere?”

In my next article, I will discuss the pernicious legacy of Brahmanism on modern India.

Legacy Of Ancient Religions Of India

Written by Prabhakar Kamath , Posted on 13 April 2010 Tags: Ancient, Brahmanism, hinduism, India, Legacy, Religions

Note: All articles in Dr. Kamath’s series on The Truth About The Bhagavad Gita can be accessed from here.

In this article in our series on Brahmanism, we will review its legacy, the evidence of which we can see all around us even in modern times. Just about every single malady we see in India today -communal disharmony, caste-based politics, untouchability, illiteracy, poverty, superstitions, irrational fear of authority, passivity, widespread corruption, Hindu fundamentalism, priestly misconduct in and out of temples, goondaism of para military armies, antisocial behaviors of politicians, bureaucrats and police, fleecing of bewildered people by Babas and Swamis, and many more problems- could be directly traced to the doorstep of corrupt Brahmanism. All these are Karmaphalam (fruits of misdeeds) of three thousand years of Brahmanic legacy Indians eat every day. 

1. Rise And Fall Of Buddhism 

As we read earlier, Buddhism, Jainism and other heterodox Dharmas arose in reaction to decadence of Brahmanism in the post-Vedic period of India’s history. From third century B. C. till 8th century A. D. Buddhism’s prestige steadily rose in India due to widespread royal patronage. Even though Buddhism started out as a rational Dharma opposed to mindless rituals, soon Brahmins infiltrated it, and it degenerated into just another ritual-ridden Dharma.

 ”Although originally a rationalization of human condition and a code of ethics, both of which largely ignored deities and rituals associated with conventional religion, Buddhism had been assuming the trappings of orthodox religious practice ever since the Buddha’s death…. Indeed Buddhist icons of Pala period are so anatomically exaggerated and so generously provided with extra heads and arms that only a trained eye would identify them as Buddhist.”

-John Keay

 Buddhism’s teachings of compassion, ethical behavior and nonviolence were not suitable for kings who must protect their kingdom from enemies, conquer them, and administer law ruthlessly. Ashoka’s empire, softened by Buddhist philosophy, fizzled out within

fifty years of his death in 231 B. C. Following Ashoka, various kings of north India patronized Buddhism and none of them lasted long, including Harshavardhana. Religion had a way of sapping out the strength of Kshatriyas. Referring to the effect of Buddhism on the once mighty Pala kingdom R. C. Majumdar writes:

 ”Seemingly it disintegrated under a succession of rulers of a pacific and religious disposition.”

 Referring to the demise of Pala rule John Keay adds, “One renounced his throne to become an ascetic, others attended to their spiritual advisers and to the welfare of the monastic establishment which still flourished in the Pala heartland of Bihar and Bengal.”

 History has repeatedly taught us the danger of mixing religion and politics. Yet, Indian politicians, most of whom are uneducated in history, have not learned this lesson.

 2. Brahmanism During The Quiescent Period

 Overshadowed by Buddhism, Brahmanism weakened as political power and remained quiescent till Guptas came to power around 320 A. D. During this quiescent period, though Brahmanism appeared to be in deathbed its brain kept on ticking. Brahmins did not let their dormancy come in the way of producing various mesmerizing mythical works such as the eighteen Puranas (Ancient Stories), the main goal of which was to quietly promote Brahmanism and supremacy of Brahmins in the scheme of things. They further expanded the Mahabharata epic. They incorporated various regional sub-sects into Brahmanism and developed the basic tenets of Vaishnavism and Hinduism. Impressed by their erudition and literary skills, prominent royal houses began to come under the sway of Brahmins. South India was almost completely converted to Brahmanism, with the exception of a few smaller kingdoms, which embraced Jainism. As the fortunes of Buddhism declined, those of Brahmanism rose steadily. By the time of Harshavardhana (606- 647 A. D.) Brahmins were strong enough to attempt his assassination for his obvious bias for Buddhism. Harshavardhana executed the leader of the conspiracy and exiled five hundred Brahmin co-conspirators (Keay).

 3. Grave Consequences Of Brahmanic Manipulation Of The Gita

We read in our previous articles how:

1. Brahmanic seers edited the Bhagavad Gita to hide both Upanishadic and Bhagavata revolutions and project is as a monolithic text.

2. Shankaracharya misread, misrepresented and obfuscated the true meanings of revolutionary shlokas.

3. Brahmins corrupted Bhagavatism by eliminating Yoga in Bhaktiyoga and attaching Pooja to it, which was nothing but Yajna in disguised form.

 All these Brahmanic manipulations resulted in serious long-term consequences for India.

1. Thousands of temples were built all over the country to house thousands of idols. This temple building frenzy continues to this day.

2. Millions of people visited these temples and donated generously to their upkeep. Temples became fabulously rich. This practice is going on to this day.

3. Temple wealth attracted the attention of Islamic adventurer Mahmud of Ghazni and others such as Sultan of Ghor.

4. Misinterpretation of Karmayoga and Bhaktiyoga undermined the Code of the Warrior and weakened the resolve of Hindu warriors.

 4. Temple Building Frenzy

From seventh through tenth centuries, Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas of Karnataka, Pallavas of Kanchi, Cholas of Tanjore, and Pandyas of Madurai built great

temples dedicated to Hindu gods. Chalukyas even established a school for temple-building arts at Aihole and Pattadakal in Karnataka. Some of the finest examples of temple building experiments survive to this day in these two sleepy little towns. In north, central and east India, temple building frenzy began a little later. By 13th century both north and south India were dotted with thousands of beautiful temples to house multitude of idols.

Gifts to Brahmins running these temples and donations to these temples based on the literal interpretation of shloka 9:27 (”Whatever Dana (gift) you give away, do it as an offering to Me.”) became common practice. In the course of time millions of people, induced by greedy Brahmins and deluded by the alleged magical powers of the idols in Hindu temples, began to donate enormous amount of gold, silver, precious stones, coins and jewelry to these temples hoping that in return these gods would fulfill their desires (9:22) and protect them from evil (18:66).

The tragic irony of all this was that none of these illiterate, semi-literate, and even educated masses knew that when Krishna said in 18:66, “I shall liberate you from all evil, do not grieve!” the “all evil” he was referring to were Shokam (grief), Dwandwam (restlessness of mind) and obsession with earning Karmaphalam (wealth, power, heaven) in Yajna arising from the twin doctrines of Brahmanism, namely the Gunas of Prakriti and Law of Karma; and the inequities of Varna Dharma based on these two evil doctrines.

5. Temples Bloat With Wealth

In north India, which will be the focus of our discussion, Hindu devotees in Multan, Mathura, Kanauj, Thaneshwar, Somanath, and thousands of little towns built magnificent temples. As money poured in, all these temples became obscenely ostentatious in keeping with Brahmanism’s addiction to ostentation. On the one hand Brahmins attached to these temples professed austerity, wore saffron or white clothes and seemingly led simple lives. On the other hand they demanded or extorted donations and fees from patrons, performed ostentatious Poojas, and induced kings to build gargantuan temples. To manage the flocks of mindless pilgrims whole townships grew around these temple complexes. Thousands of Brahmins attached themselves to these great temple complexes like blood-sucking leaches. They offered to perform hundreds of complicated rituals of graded complexity to please gods and sponsors, and above all, themselves. Annual pilgrimage to these holy temples became a compulsive ritual for millions of Hindus, no different than what we see today all over India.

To attract pilgrims to their temples Brahmins did not hesitate to use any means necessary. As reported by a thirteenth century Arab author, Brahmins of Somanatha temple even managed to levitate the lingam of Shiva in the air by surrounding it with an elaborate magnetic contraption (R. Thapar). If this was true, it must have been a great scientific achievement by any measure, not to mention how Brahmanism used science to delude people as far back as eleventh century. As we will read below, the naïve belief of Brahmins in the magical power of levitating lingam had disastrous consequences when in 1025 A. D. Mahmud of Ghazni entered the compound of the temple to steal its enormous wealth and knock it down.

6. Mahmud Makes Annual Pilgrimage To Pillage And Plunder

The fabulous wealth in these temples was safe from other kings of India most of whom were Brahmanic or Buddhist by faith. Soon the fame of these vast idle

treasures reached far and wide. When the greedy

Mahmud of Ghazni heard about the fabulous treasures of India, he decided that he, too, was going to make annual pilgrimage to these temples, but with more sinister motives. Being a fanatical Muslim, he cloaked his greed with religious zealotry. He declared that it was his religious duty to destroy the idols and temples of Hindus. Just about every harvesting season, Mahmud descended from his mountainous capital in Afghanistan to the plains of India, attacked the temples, killed Brahmins in thousands, and took the enormous loot back to his kingdom. He expanded his kingdom with the money he had stolen from India. When in 1025 A. D. Mahmud raided Somanatha temple, he mercilessly massacred fifty thousand deluded Brahmins who had absolute faith that the levitating lingam of that temple would protect them from evil Mahmud of Ghazni. Their blind faith in their god was such that there were no warriors protecting the temple when Islamic raiders showed up at the gate.

Between 1001 and 1027 A. D. Mahmud of Ghazni raided Indian temple towns seventeen times and Indian kings were impotent against the relatively smaller forces of Mahmud. There was neither one strong emperor ruling India around this time to oppose him, nor a united front. During the previous two centuries the petty kings who ruled the border kingdoms had ignored the growing menace of Islamic kings from the west. They neither studied the doctrines of Islam nor the methods of warfare of Islamic kings.

7. Brahmanic Hubris

In spite of the predictable annual raids by Mahmud, or perhaps because of them, Brahmins kept urging people to donate to these temples and people obeyed them blindly. Their haughtiness and complacency were well summed up by Al Biruni who was then in India as part of Mahmud’s entourage:

“There are other causes, the mentioning of which sounds like a satire -peculiarities of their national character, deeply rooted in them, but manifest to everybody. We can only say, folly is an illness for which there is no medicine, and the Hindus believe that there is no country but theirs, no nation like theirs, no kings like theirs, no religion like theirs, no science like theirs. They are haughty, foolishly vain, self-conceited, and stolid. They are by nature niggardly in communicating that which they know, and they take the greatest possible care to withhold it from men of another caste among their own people, still much more, of course, from any foreigner. According to their belief, there is no other country on earth but theirs, no other race of man but theirs, and no created beings besides them have any knowledge or science whatsoever. Their haughtiness is such that, if you tell them of any science or scholar in Khurasan and Persis, they will think you to be both an ignoramus and a liar. If they travelled and mixed with other nations, they would soon change their mind, for their ancestors were not as narrow-minded as the present generation is…. Now such is the state of things in India.”

With this kind of know-it-all attitude, they learned nothing from their mistakes.

8. The Code Of The Warrior

 Practice of Brahmanism in the third century B. C. basically consisted of two codes: The Code of the Brahmin, which consisted of ritual-related duties of Brahmins, such as performing Yajnas, and the Code of the Warrior, which consisted of duties of Kshatriyas as warriors. 

Code of the Warrior is summed up in the following two shlokas in the Arjuna Vishada part of the Bhagavad Gita: 

2:37: Slain you will gain heaven; victorious you will enjoy the earth. Therefore rouse resolved to fight. 2:33: But if you will not wage this righteous warfare, then forfeiting your own duty and honor, you will incur sin.

 This code rewarded warriors with wealth here on earth and heaven hereafter for their bravery, and punishment with dishonor here on earth and hell hereafter for cowardice. The original Brahmanic Code of the Warrior as enunciated in Arjuna Vishada required the warrior to be both Paranthapa (Enemy Burner) and Dhananjaya (Conqueror of Wealth). As we read in an earlier article, Brahmanism hated Ashoka the Great because he rejected the Kshatriya Dharma out of compassion for his enemies. They branded him as one suffering from Ahamkara (egoism, self-centeredness) for abdicating his Kshatriya Dharma. Arjuna Vishada was composed to condemn this “compassionate Kshatriya” concept. Brahmanism was absolutely correct that as long as a king stuck to the Code of the Warrior, his kingdom was safe from foreign invasion. Rajputs who ruled the kingdoms bordering Afghanistan practiced this Code of the Warrior to its perfection till 10th century. 

9. Rajputs: True Practitioners Of The Code Of The Warrior  

The western region of India -what is now Rajasthan and parts of Pakistan- was then ruled by fierce warrior kings who perhaps originated from the settled tribes of the Hunas whom Kumara Gupta had fought in the 5th century A. D. Wisely, Brahmanism absorbed them into the mainstream of the society by conferring on them Kshatriya status by means of a great fire sacrifice performed at Mount Abu. These tribes later came to be known as Rajputs (sons of kings). Like all new converts to any religion, these Kshatriyas staunchly adhered to Brahmanic Code of the Warrior. They considered it an ultimate insult to die in bed. The following shloka of Arjuna Vishada seemed to be their anthem: 

2:32: Happy are the Kshatriyas who obtain such warfare that comes unsought as an open gate to heaven.

 Their allegiance to Brahmanism was so strong that they followed Brahmanic injunctions to the letter of the law. Women of these tribes even indulged in Jauhar (mass suicide by jumping into the collective funeral pyre), or Sati (individual suicide by being burnt with husband’s dead body). This ancient practice was perhaps rooted in the severe proscription Brahmanism expressed against Varnasankara resulting from the death of men in war. Arjuna laments the consequences of decline of family when men die in war:

 1:40-44: In the decline of a family, its time-honored usages perish; with the perishing of sacred rites impiety overtakes the entire family. With the growth of impiety, the family women become unchaste; and women getting corrupted, caste admixture ensues. Hell is verily the lot of the family destroyer through Varnasankara (class admixture); for their ancestors fall deprived of manes-cakes and libations. The everlasting Jati (caste) virtues and Kula (family) virtues become ruined due to Varnasankara created by the bad deeds of family destroyer. Hell is verily the long lasting abode of men whose family religious practices have been broken.

 The importance of the above information lies in the fact that by 8 th century, Gita had gained recognition as the handbook of Brahmanism and Kshatriyas implicitly accepted its Code of the Warrior as sacred.

10. Taking Advantage Of Complexities Of Sanskrit Language

By 10th century, the Bhagavad Gita was widely known as the handbook of Hinduism as attested to by Al Biruni in his famous book Kitabu’l Hind. When I read the following passage in it, I was dumbstruck because I had reached the same conclusions while studying the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads.

“If you want to conquer this difficulty (i.e. to learn Sanskrit), you will not find it easy, because the language is of an enormous range, both in words and inflections, something like the Arabic, calling one and the same thing by various names, both original and derived, and using one and the same word for a variety of subjects, which, in order to be properly understood, must be distinguished from each other by various qualifying epithets. For, nobody could distinguish between the various meanings of a word unless he understands the context in which it occurs and its relation both to the following and preceding parts of the sentence. The Hindus, like others, boast of this enormous range of their language, whilst in reality it is a defect.”

Brahmins took full advantage of this “defect” in their “perfect” language to explain away internal contradictions in the Bhagavad Gita. Their primary goal was to hide both the Upanishadic and Bhagavata revolutions to overthrow Brahmanism, and project the Gita as a monolithic document representing a monolithic philosophy. This, as we will see soon, undermined Brahmanism’s own Code of the Warrior.

11. Beliefs And Behavior

All our actions are based on underlying beliefs. A change in our belief results in corresponding change in our behavior. For example, if you believe that your doctor is extremely trustworthy, you would take any medicine he gives you without hesitation. However, if someone you trusted told you that your doctor had killed several of his relatives due to incompetence, a seed of distrust is now sowed in your mind about your doctor, and your behavior toward him would change correspondingly. You would not accept his treatment as readily as you did before.

 Likewise, if a warrior were indoctrinated into believing that it is his bounden duty to fight and win or die fighting, his belief in this doctrine would reflect in his heroism in war. If the same warrior were indoctrinated that he should fight but be indifferent to victory or defeat, and gain or loss, he would certainly come across as indifferent while fighting. If the same warrior were indoctrinated into believing that he should surrender his action to the lord and not worry about the outcome, the warrior’s action would reflect that fatalistic attitude.

 Let us now see how a seed of doubt was sowed into the Code of the Warrior due to erroneous interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita. 

12. Potpourri Of Three Codes: A Recipe For Disaster 

Many reasons have been forwarded to explain why capable Hindu kings commanding vast armies lost to Muslim invaders who began to make deeper forays into India: Disunity, pathological jealousy, tendency to enjoy adversary’s discomfiture in the hands of enemies, lack of awareness of seriousness of threat, lack of effective strategy, haughtiness, inability to learn from mistakes, etc. However, I think there is an additional, thus far unexplored, cause, which we need to look at closely. This is purely a psychological issue arising from the misinterpretation of the Gita by Brahmanic seers beginning with Shankaracharya in early 9th century. Let us examine this issue in greater detail.

 A. The Brahmanic Code of the Warrior: In the In Arjuna Vishada, the term Karma unequivocally stands for Action as in fighting. The message to Arjuna in the Mahabharata context and to renegade Kshatriyas in the historical context is clear as daylight:

 2:37: Slain (while fighting) you will gain heaven; victorious (in fighting) you will enjoy earth. Therefore rouse up, O son of Kunti, resolved to fight. 2:33: But if you will not wage this righteous warfare, then forfeiting your own duty and honor, you will incur sin.

 There is no ambiguity in this message. A warrior’s duty is to kill his enemies and plunder his property. In other words, his job is to gain Karmaphalam in action. There should be no hesitation or doubt about this in the minds of the warriors. The warrior is rewarded for his heroism. In fact, he would incur dishonor and sin if he did not fight. Rajputs followed this advice when they fought war with their neighbors. As long as Hindu warriors fought in this spirit, they were second to none.

 B. The Upanishadic Code of Karmayogi: In the Upanishadic Gita, the concept of selfless action (Karmayoga) was introduced to counter selfish Yajna (Kamya Karma) of decadent Brahmanism. Here the word Karma meant Yajna, not Action as in fighting. In order to condemn Kamya Karma, Upanishadists declared Karmaphalam as sin. The only way to avoid earning sin is to perform Yajna with indifference to gain or loss (2:48-51). However, to legitimize interpolation of Karmayoga into Arjuna Vishada, Upanishadists pretended as though they were advising Arjuna to do so on the battlefield:

 2:38: Treating alike pain and pleasure, gain and loss, victory and defeat, engage yourself in the battle. Thus you will incur no sin (Karmaphalam).

 If applied to a Kshatriya, this shloka said that gaining and winning earned him sin. To avoid earning sin, he should be indifferent to gain or loss, and victory or defeat. How do we know that this shloka’s real purpose was to introduce Buddhiyoga (Karmayoga and Jnanayoga) to replace Kamya Karma (desire-driven Yajna) and not to apply it to fighting? Well, in shlokas 2:39-53 that follow Upanishadists introduce Buddhiyoga as the alternative to Kamya Karma and soundly condemn all aspects of Brahmanism. Obviously, the advice given to Arjuna by Upanishadists in 2:38 was merely a pretext to introduce Buddhiyoga into the Gita with the sole purpose of overthrowing Brahmanism. In fact, it is diametrically opposite to the Code of the Warrior in 2:33 and 37, and is impossible to apply in warfare. No one in his right mind could go to war with an attitude of indifference to pain and pleasure, gain and loss, or victory and defeat. Karmayoga has no place in the battlefield. If a king has been brainwashed into believing that he should engage in battle with indifference to gain or loss, victory or defeat, and that gaining anything is sinful, he is doomed to lose the battle.

 The true intent of 2:38 becomes evident in shloka 2:47 in which Upanishadists lay down the law that Kshatriyas performing Kamya Karma have no right to its fruits:

 2:47: Your entitlement is only to Karma (Yajna) and never at any time to its fruits (for fruits belong to the Devas: 3:10-14). Never be the cause of Karmaphalam (when you act, for by doing so you will suffer rebirth); and never be attached to inaction (just because there is nothing in this for you, do not become an inactive Sramana).

 Yet addressing Arjuna the Kshatriya, Shankaracharya says: 2:47, “Never, in any state of life whatsoever, should you crave for fruits of your works -this is the idea.” His advice goes directly against the Code of the Warrior as stated in 2:37. He failed to tell Kshatriyas the truth about this shloka, which is:

 ”Warriors, this shloka was inserted into Arjuna Vishada by Upanishadists during the post-Vedic period with the goal of weaning away corrupt Kshatriyas from performing Kamya Karma, and to covert them into selfless Karmayogis (3:17-26). Karmayoga cannot be applied in warfare. You need to follow the Brahmanic Code of the Warriors when you fight.”

 Admitting this truth meant admitting that there existed a revolution against Brahmanism. Shankaracharya would have none of it. Or, equally likely, he did not know about it.

 C. The Bhagavata Code of Bhaktiyogi: In the Bhagavata Gita Krishna tells people:

 18:66: Abandon all Dharma and take refuge in me alone; I shall liberate you from all evil. Do not grieve.

 Left alone, this shloka would not have undermined the Code of the Warrior. However, as we read in the previous article, because Shankaracharya did not want to admit that the phrase ‘all Dharma’ in this shloka meant all contemporary religions of the post-Vedic period including Brahmanism, he decided to misrepresent this phrase as ‘all Karma,’ and he said to Arjuna: ‘Give up all righteous as well as unrighteous Action.’ He never bothered to explain what he meant by this statement. Shankaracharya said this as if it was applicable to Arjuna in the Mahabharata context, and by extension, to all Kshatriyas.

 Had Shankaracharya understood this shloka accurately, he would have said,

 ”Warriors, when Krishna said ‘abandon all Dharma’ he did not mean you should abandon your Code of the Warrior. Krishna wanted people of post-Vedic period to abandon their religions - Brahmanism and all its sub-Dharmas, and also Buddhism, Jainism and all assorted Dharmas, which had arisen in reaction to decadent Brahmanism- and embrace Bhagavatism, which is his Dharma. Rise up and fight as exhorted by him:

11:33-34: ‘Rise and obtain fame. Conquer the enemies and enjoy the unrivalled kingdom… Slay Drona, Bheeshma, Jayadratha, Karna and other brave warriors who are already doomed by me. Be not distressed with fear. Fight and you will conquer your enemies in battle!’ “

 13. Confusion Reigns Supreme

 Alas, this was not to be. By 10th century, Shankaracharya’s fame had spread far and wide. Now Hindu kings, almost all of whom had been mesmerized by Shankaracharya’s teachings or that of thousands of his saffron-clad followers, had to decide what belief system to adopt in fighting their enemies. Brahmanic interpreters of the Bhagavad Gita either did not know, or they refused to acknowledge, that there were three distinct Gitas embedded in its text giving three contradictory messages to the warriors who looked upon the Gita as their guide in warfare.

1.  Arjuna Vishada: “Do your duty helplessly as per your Rajas Guna, fight to gain wealth, or die fighting and gain heaven.”

2.  Upanishadic Gita: As interpreted by Shankaracharya “Never, in any state of life whatsoever, should you crave for fruits of your works -this is the idea.” Why? “Well, because all Karmaphalam is sin and it leads to Samsara.”

3.  Bhagavata Gita: As interpreted by Shankaracharya: “Give up all righteous and unrighteous Action.” Why? “Well, because when Krishna said ‘all Dharma,’ he meant ‘all Karma.’ ”

 If one mixes up the above three contradictory messages, the listener is bound to become confused. This is like a father giving mixed messages to his son, “If the bully comes at you, boldly fight back and knock him down; but be indifferent to the outcome of your fight; and don’t indulge in righteous or unrighteous action.” The correct and

unambiguous message should have been, “If the bully comes at you, beat the crap out of him and make sure he will never again bother you; you understand?”

 Careful study of history of wars between Hindu kings and Islamic kings between 10 th

and 16th century reveals a change in the belief in the minds of Hindu warriors regarding the Code of the Warrior as evidenced by their altered behavior. Increasingly, there entered into their principles of warfare a streak of reckless fatalism, smug indifference to victory, hesitancy in killing Mlecchas (foreign-born outcastes), ambivalence about violence, cowardly retreat, beliefs in superstitions, and blind faith in god’s ability to save them from evil.

 14. Decisive Debacle

 Here is the brief story of one of the most decisive battles in the history of India in which Rajputs were routed by a much smaller force of Muhammad of Ghor in 1192,

heralding the Islamic rule in India. Prathviraj Chahaman, the charismatic Rajput king put together the most formidable Rajput confederacy on record. He had beaten back Muhammad in an earlier war on the battlefield of Tarain. By any reckoning, he should have been able to rout Muhammad of Ghor again. Instead, apparently he sued for a truce. Muhammad agreed to a truce and tricked Prathviraj into believing that his enormous army intimidated him. Naively believing this, Prathviraj’s army was lulled into a “night of riots and revelry.” When the droopy-eyed Rajputs got up in the morning to go to the toilets, Muhammad’s formidable army surprised them. As Ferishta puts it:

 ”The disorder increased everywhere until at length the panic became general. The Muslims, as if they only now began to be in earnest, committed such havoc that Prathviraj’s prodigious army, once shaken, like a great building tottered to its fall and was lost in its ruins.”

 Here is the tragedy of it all: For the first time in history, Prathviraj had succeeded in putting together a formidable army of united Rajputs, and yet, he decides to sue for peace, implicitly trusts Muhammad’s assurance, spends the night reveling and changes India’s history for the worse forever. Even when Rajputs had clear edge over the invaders, they failed to take the initiative and attack and destroy them. Gradually Muslim kings conquered one vacillating Hindu kingdom after another.

 15. Muslim Rule Takes Roots And Ruins India

 In the aftermath of the disastrous war, thousands of Hindus abandoned Hinduism to escape from stifling caste inequities and embraced egalitarian Islam. One such converted Hindu by the name of Malik Kafur led several raids into deep south, looted rich temples, destroyed ancient kingdoms, and returned to Delhi with, “612 elephants, twenty thousand horses, ninety six thousand mans of gold (241 tons), and countless boxes of jewels and pearls.” Delhi had never seen such loot in recorded history.

 The fundamental policy of first Muslim rulers of India was to strip Hindus of all wealth to stifle any resistance to their rule. The cruelest of them all, Alau-d-din Khalji, declared:

 ”Be assured, then, that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they were reduced to poverty. I have therefore given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year of corn, milk and curds, but they shall not be allowed to accumulate hoards and property.”

 Grinding poverty became the hallmark of India until just a decade ago. To this day, the vast majority of Indians live in dire poverty. Reflecting on the long-term effect of such economic and physical devastation of India by Islamic rulers, Will Durant observes:

 ”This is the secret of political history of modern India, Weakened by division, it succumbed to invaders; impoverished by invaders, it lost all power of resistance, and took refuge in supernatural consolations; it argued that both mastery and slavery were superficial delusions, and concluded that freedom of the body or the nation was hardly worth defending in so brief a life. The bitter lesson that may be drawn from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its powder dry.”

 The British, who took full advantage of every weakness in Hindus as well as by now mellowed Muslim kings, ruled India for ninety years before Indians fought them with a united front. Ironically, independence was won not by the Code of the Warrior, which some naïve militant patriots recommended, but by militant nonviolence, a weapon developed by combining Jain philosophy of nonviolence and Jesus’s philosophy of love, self-suffering and forgiveness.

 In the next article, we will study the legacy of caste system in modern India.

http://nirmukta.com/2009/11/28/is-hindu-atheism-valid-a-rationalist-critique-of-the-hindu-identitys-usurpation-of-indian-culture/

Is ‘Hindu Atheism’ Valid? A Rationalist Critique Of The ‘Hindu’ Identity’s Usurpation Of Indian Culture

Written by Ajita Kamal , Posted on 28 November 2009 Tags: Christianity, Culture, group, hinduism, identity, India, Islam, label, philosophy

Many Indians intellectuals who don’t believe in supernatural gods or powers fail to separate their non-belief from the ‘Hindu’ identity. The desire to belong to a dominant cultural group is so strong in us that these so-called ‘Hindu Atheists’ invent the most convoluted justifications for their acceptance of the Hindu label. But does it really make sense to call oneself a Hindu Atheist? What does one truly mean by the word Hindu in this context? The object of this article is to get rationalists and atheists from India who identify themselves as ‘Culturally Hindu’ to question this label with which they are associating themselves.

To make my position clear at the outset, I will state my fundamental claim below.

Fundamental Claim

Hinduism is a meaningless religious label. It is not an ancient philosophy that originated in India. In fact, the word Hindu is not even an Indian word. It is a superficial group identity that was concocted relatively late in the history of India. Rather than being the unified philosophy or way of thought that it masquerades to be, Hinduism is a semantic impediment to the natural evolution of cultural knowledge in India.

Introduction

“The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”

Georgia Harkness

Religions have always benefited when the facts are ambiguous. One such religion-driven ambiguity is in the definition of the notion of religion itself. This is the first place to start any such discussion on religion.

From a scientific point of view, we can define religion as a sub-group within a culture, possessing certain specific traits. The most fundamental of these traits is the strong group identity that religion strives to instill in its followers. In this sense, religion can be observed as a set of memes. The evolution of a religion can be studied through the memetic evolution of individual religious ideas, including the central meme that holds the

religion together- the group label. The most successful religions are those that have managed to extend the label of the religion over the entire cultural spectrum of a population. The religions that manage to do this have achieved a stranglehold over the cultural evolution of that group of people. This is the most powerful strategy that religious memes have at their disposal. The way a culture gets out from under the burden of repressive religious labels is by denying religious memes their hunger for co-opting the knowledge attained by rational discourse. That is, religion is designated a limited status, separate from factual aspects of the culture in which it exists. In most Western countries, the role of religion has been mostly designated to non-rational affairs. This removal of the repressive influence of religion from fact-based aspects of human culture has been the greatest achievement of reason. Unfortunately, In India the ‘Hindu’ meme has successfully prevented many rationalists from differentiating between the religious memes of the group label ‘Hinduism’ and the rest of Indian culture.

In my article Hinduism: Religion, Culture or Way of Life, I identify three qualities possessed by religions that define them: group identity, authoritarian organization, and the tendency to increase the ability for belief in conflicting ideas (followed by cherry-picking). In that article, I demonstrated how Hinduism is similar to Islam and Christianity in these respects- not surprising since Islam and Christianity provided the conditions for the development of institutionalized Hinduism. In the same article, I also point to how Hinduism is a religion in the same sense that all of Greek philosophy and mythology is one self-contained religion. That is to say that this idea of Hinduism is not really a religion. It is simply the cultural history of a group of people, Indians. Considering a rational standardized view of what does and what does not comprise a religion, there are two distinct faces that wear the mask of ‘Hinduism’. One is religious, and the other is a lie. I intend on exposing the lie.

In this article we will see how what we label today as Hinduism was developed as a reaction to the threat of cultural irrelevance posed first by Islam and later by Christianity, and how this label has been packaged as a cultural competitor to these two ’super-religions’. Further, we will see how this meaningless and concocted label ‘Hindu’ may have served India well over the past centuries by keeping dangerous ideologies at bay, but may well have outlived its useful phase. Finally, we will see why it is necessary for us Indian rationalists to take a step back and evaluate the usefulness of the term ‘Hindu’ itself.

Note: I do not intend on discussing any actual theology here. If that is your area of interest, there are perhaps other venues more suitable for you. This article is concerned with the cultural and sociobiological impulses behind the development and evolution of the label ‘Hinduism’. It is written as a work of critical examination of certain specific ideas from an academic perspective. No malice is directed towards any particular group of people. Similarly, commenters are encouraged to treat ideas with irreverent skepticism and people with respect and kindness.

The Usurpation of a National Identity by a Meaningless Label.

India has seen numerous belief systems come and go. The nature of cultural evolution in a relatively ‘free-society’ (the definition of this phrase can be debated) is that ideas challenge each other and compete for belief space when they are in natural conflict. The result is a progressive and self-correcting cultural framework within which civil society flourishes. Ancient India was no stranger to this cultural mechanism of innovation, introspection, elimination and growth. Thousands of ideologies, philosophies and schools of thought have been built up and torn down over the centuries. All of this co-existed with the thousands of deeply-rooted superstitions and mindless rituals that pervaded the land.

Despite this diversity of opinion and the competition for cultural success between different belief systems within India, the people who inhabited the sub-continent had much in common with each other. This is only natural. Many of the local cultures shared common ancestry. Even iron-age people traveled a bit, and eventually there was a continuous distribution of cultural traditions throughout India. The natural barriers that cut off the subcontinent from its neighbors also helped the societies that evolved in India to develop a distinct cultural flavor. Any visitor to the land would have been struck by how different the set of beliefs were from their own. This is exactly what happened when the travelers from the West and from the East laid their weary eyes on the people and cultures of ancient India. These visitors needed a word to describe the people who lived in this part of the world- to set them apart from themselves, and consequently from everyone else. The many words they came up with were lost in memetic dead-ends. Until one stuck.

The origins of the word ‘Hindu’ lie in the Persian word for the river Indus. The people who lived east of the Indus river (Sindu in Sanskrit) were called Hindus by the Persians. This is also similar to the Arabic term for Indians. Some sources credit Alexander, the Greek invader, as the source of the word Hindu, but there is little evidence for this claim. The term ‘Hindu’ entered India with the arrival of the Mughals. It was not in common use within the subcontinent until the 14th century, long after many of the major texts of what is known today as Hinduism were composed. Islam, the religion of the Mughal invaders, poised itself as a sufficiently separate belief-system from the collective Paganism that the Mughals perceived in the local population. To the Muslims, all the

local beliefs and practices of the inhabitants of the subcontinent comprised a primitive out-group. To the Indians, Islam was an alien ideology which was capable of replacing all local knowledge and culture with it’s own self-contained narrative. Their response was the formation of a reactionary element against Islam from within the Indian community (this happened by cultural evolution over many generations, as well as by concerted efforts of individuals and groups). This part-organic, part-organized movement adopted the label conferred on it by this enemy. Hinduism was born.

In the more recent past the Christian colonialists continued to use the label ‘Hindu’ to denote the people of India. Often, they used this label on any Indian who was not White. The Hindu revival movement was born in the 19 th century, as a nationalistic response to British rule. This is the real origin of the modern phenomenon that we call Hinduism. Tapio Tamminen writes

“Hindu revivalists argued that the national identity could be recovered only by seeking the fundamental religious and cultural truths again. They idealized the past, and demanded a return to the older and purer forms of Hindu culture that had degenerated under foreign rule….

According to many leading revivalists, Hindu society had degenerated, because Hindus no longer followed ‘dharma’. They claimed that India could not regenerate itself unless dharma was properly observed. For example Aurobindo Ghose emphasized that ‘all great awakenings in India, all her periods of mightiest and most varied vigour have drawn their vitality from the fountainhead of some deep religious awakening’ (Purani 1964: 81). Aurobindo Ghose and other revivalists shared the view that a good society can exist only when it is based on the correct principles of dharma.

The ‘Dharma-karma’ concept was adjusted for political purposes mainly by three persons: Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902), Aurobindo Ghose (1872-1950) and Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920). They all legitimated their religious and political ideas by the ‘Bhagavad Gita’. According to Aurobindo Ghose, the nation was a divine expression of God. That is why he could emphasize that ‘nationalism is a religion that has come from God’. (Andersen and Damle 1987: 13-16).

According to Girilal Jain (1994: 45), there are three notable points in Swami Vivekananda’s ‘religion of patriotism’: firstly his identification of Mother India with the supreme God, secondly his attempt to reintroduce the Kshatriya element in the Hindu psyche, and thirdly his conviction that India was destined to be a teacher of the human race in the spiritual reality.”

Thus the entire early history of India had become synonymous with a religious ideology by the time India gained independence from Britain.

This etymology of the word ‘Hindu’ is the currently accepted version among scholars, but there have been attempts to present a more ancient indigenous origin for the term. Many such attempts have involved verses alleged to be Vedic that refer to Indians as

Hindu, but none of these verses have been verified. These attempts show the extent to which people will go to defend a meaningless label, even to the point of manufacturing evidence to cover up the irrelevance of that label.

The Biology of Groups:

The biological reasons that drove the evolution of the label Hinduism can be studied using sociobiology. Briefly, the field of sociobiology is concerned with how human behavior (of individuals) evolved due to environmental pressures over the ages. In the case of group identity, the primary environmental pressure is the group- the society of humans. As people developed complex cultures, cultural group labels came to replace older forms of group identity such as kinship and tribe identity. In this context, group labels become an important determinant in the evolution of human behavior. This behavior is shaped by the interaction between primitive human instincts and the evolving language of identity.

Robin Allott writes:

“National, international, local and social history is largely the record of the consequences of groupism, a biologically necessary (no doubt) product of the evolution of the species. If groups are formed, group interests are bound to diverge and can result in Crusades, concentration camps, football hooliganism, Waco, city riots - or even sociology v evolutionary psychology. Groupism is a central aspect of human evolutionary psychology. Nations, societies, or states are ingroups on the largest scale, formed of multiple subsidiary ingroups and regarding other nations, societies or states as outgroups. Consideration of smaller groups can throw light on the cohesion of the largest groups. The obverse of the unity of the group is the potential for intergroup conflict. Social identity plays an important role in ingroup-outgroup relations, the distribution of resources, self-categorization, and expectations for behavior. It is an automatic redefinition of “self” in terms of shared group membership.”

This tendency for group identity is the main reason why Hinduism came to be accepted as an all inclusive tradition in India. I have written about this here:

“The Hindu identity is in part a reaction to the collective out-group status assigned to the practices that were different from Islam and Christianity.”

The sociobiological perspective is an objective scientific way of studying the evolution of complex cultural and behavioral trends, although its reach may be limited. In the case in question, this perspective offers unique insight into the development and perpetuation of the ‘Hindu’ label.

The Benefits of the Label:

The ‘Hindu’ identity has had a strong positive influence on Indian culture in one major respect. It has kept Islam and Christianity from spreading more than they already have on

the subcontinent. An analysis of other cultures with animistic beliefs that were later invaded by Islamic or Christian cultures demonstrates how easily the ’super-religions’ were established in these new pastures. The development of the ‘Hindu’ label has

preserved, at least in part, many of the ancient philosophical treatises and art relics of our great culture. The so-called ‘Pagan’ cultures of Europe, Africa, South America and the Middle East were often decimated by Christianity and Islam.

However, the benefits conferred to Indian culture by adopting the label ‘Hinduism’ faded away with the end of British rule and the development of a secular constitution.

Think of a sapling that is planted in the ground. A tough wire mesh placed surrounding the young plant can protect it from grazing animals and bad weather. After the sapling grows into a young tree with a hardy constitution, it does not need the wire anymore. The same wire mesh can now choke the tree’s growth and be its downfall. Hinduism is the wire mesh that is closing in around our growing Indian culture. The mesh is not necessary anymore for support and protection and is only a danger to the health of the tree. But the steel wire is embedded deep in the soft growing wood and needs to be cut out with care and determination.

The Two Faces of Hinduism:

From the very beginning Hinduism has maintained two completely different portfolios. On the one hand, it is an organized religion, like Islam and Christianity (again, I have explained why here ). On the other, the label of Hinduism deceptively and falsely encompasses all of Indian culture, except for the beliefs and practices of distinct major religions (and even among these, Buddhism and Jainism are considered branches of Hinduism by some). On one hand, ancient philosophical schools such as the atheistic Carvaka school which predates the label ‘Hindu’ by centuries, are falsely appropriated by Hinduism. On the other, you have Hindus insisting that there are certain core beliefs in Hinduism, beliefs that no atheist would associate with. The two faces of Hinduism are a

reflection of the fact that the notion of Hinduism is a cobbled together nationalistic ideology that incorporates aspects of older religious traditions as well as non-religious cultural elements within it.

It is the interplay between these two-faces of Hinduism that is responsible for much of India’s troubles. There is a semantic deception played by Hinduism that maintains a seemingly cohesive and self-contained image, one that disingenuously encompasses the two faces of the label ‘Hindu’. This is a lie that is perpetuated to dissuade criticism and foster ignorance. It is this lie that we must expose if we wish to restore rational discourse to Indian thought. I propose a conscious restricting of the label ‘Hindu’ to only those aspects of Indian culture that are actually religious in nature. The rest must be embraced by rationalists as part of greater Indian culture.

Hinduism the Religion:

Dr. Prabhakar Kamath is writing a series of articles here on Nirmukta about the history of Hinduism. He begins with the ancient religion of Brahmanism and traces the evolution of the religious power structure over the centuries. His article Obsessive Compulsive Religion contains a brief description of part of the power struggle between ancient religious memes in India (edited here):

“The doctrine of the Gunas and Karma were literally the two gods of Brahmanism…. Over the next thousand years, Brahmanism became decadent due to its obsession with corrupted Yajnas known as Kamya Karma. The Dharma, which had been invented to bring stability to the ancient society itself, became the problem…Decadence of Brahmanism created tremendous turmoil in the society. A large section of Brahmanic society abandoned it and started various rationalist Dharmas such as Buddhism and Lokayata. During this time, Upanishadic rationalists, with the intent of overthrowing decadent Brahmanism, declared both the Gunas and Karma as evil, which one should transcend (BG: 2:45) or even slay (BG: 3:41, 43). They created a Super Man (Purushotthama, Brahman) to counter the force of the Gunas. They created a Super Weapon (Buddhiyoga, Yoga of Reason) to break the shackles of Karma. They said one could conquer these evil doctrines by taking refuge in Brahman, and by using Buddhiyoga as a weapon (BG: 2:39-53; 15:1-5). Brahmanism launched a counterrevolution and did everything within their powers to counter the Upanishadic revolution. They neutralized Brahman and Buddhiyoga by adding pro-Brahmanism shlokas in the Upanishads as well as the Bhagavad Gita. This necessitated creation of an even greater force to combat Brahmanism. This is how the real god of Hindus, Parameshwara, was invented. Parameshwara, the Great Lord, of the Bhagavathas, took the place of Brahman, and Bhakthiyoga became the weapon against the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma.”

Dr Kamath places these events in context and provides more detail in his later articles (1,2). His focus in these articles is on the dominant religion of ancient India, Brahmanism. According to Dr. Kamath, it is the core principles of Brahmanism that evolved into the grander ideology of Hinduism. He says of Hinduism:

“…its practices are rooted in the antiquated belief system of Brahmanism, the prevalent religion of India three thousand years ago”

If you are interested in learning about the origin and evolutionary history of what is today considered the religion of Hinduism, Dr. Kamath’s articles are an excellent resource.

The events involving the evolution of Brahmanism occurred BEFORE modern Hinduism was born. Today, it is impossible to separate ancient Indian religious sects from what is labeled as Hinduism. All sects, including those which predate the ‘Hindu’ label by thousands of years, are brought under the umbrella of ‘Hinduism’. As discussed above, the impetus behind this amalgam was the relative in-group status that these local beliefs systems had in relation to Islam and Christianity. This tendency continues today, with Hindus at pains to distinguish Hinduism from the Semitic faiths. Meera Nanda in her book ‘The God Market’ writes about the ‘theology of hatred’ that factions of the Hindutva movement have constructed to target Islam and Christianity. She writes:

” To convert the diffused cultural majoritarianism of Hindus into a unified political majoritarianism which openly reduced non-Hindus to the status of second-class citizens has been the fond dream of the Hindu right. Towards that end, there are voices within the Hindutva camp that are openly fermenting hatred of Islam and Christianity”

In putting religion in it’s place, we can yet concede that the co-opting of all the ancient Indian religious sects under the banner ‘Hindu’ is ‘acceptable. After all, this is how religions evolve. However, since the meme ‘Hinduism’ is defined only in relation to the Semitic faiths, we rationalists must extricate ourselves from under this label. This is the only way we can objectively observe the inevitable clash of religious ideologies while being active participants in mitigating the harm done by them.

The Looting of Indian Philosophy (and art, science and everything else):

The successful marketing of Indian philosophy as ‘Hindu Philosophy’ is one of the most disgraceful accomplishments of modern Hinduism. In recent years the history of Indian philosophy has almost always been presented through the lens of Hinduism, to the extent that wikipedia lists the schools of Indian philosophy as ‘Hindu Philosophy‘. Interestingly, wikipedia also has a page on Indian philosophy, where it distinguishes between orthodox and non-orthodox schools.

It does not seem to matter that these schools labeled as ‘Hindu philosophy’ comprise the entire spectrum of the intellectual history of ancient India. They include the ideas of fervent atheists who were staunchly against superstition. Many of these atheists would have undoubtedly been aghast at the thought of being represented under the same banner as the true believers. At a time when their world was often limited to the cultures of ancient India, they stood as far apart as they could from the religious beliefs around them. It is certainly logical that were these scholars alive today they would reject the oppressive and meaningless label of Hinduism. Many of them were diametrically opposed to the idea of organized religion. Yet, their ideas are collectively delegated to the status of ‘religion’, only due to effective propaganda by those who subscribe to the ‘Hindu’ label. This idea that Indian philosophy is Hindu philosophy has become so entrenched in the modern language that the very beginning of naturalistic thought in India is attributed to Hinduism!

However, rejecting the idea that the Nastika schools are part of Hinduism is simple enough. After all, these schools reject the authority of the Vedas. Moreover, Buddhism and Jainism are sufficiently separate out-groups and so it is easy for Hindus to reject them as lying outside the ‘Hindu’ label. What about the Astika schools? Three of the six Astika schools do not deal with traditional religious questions at all.

From wikipedia:

Nyaya, the school of logic

Vaisheshika, the atomist school

Samkhya, the enumeration school

The truth is that the Vedas, like all philosophical works, were originally not created as part of one dogmatic religious group identity. They were developed by many people as part of the general cultural and philosophical thought at a time  in history when religion was indistinguishable from the greater culture. The Vedic schools of thought have been wholly co-opted into the ‘Hindu’ label although they predate the label by thousands of years along with the Nastika schools and various other philosophical aspects of Indian culture.

In modern times, the term ‘Hindu’ has gained notoriety for stamping itself on any Indian tradition or accomplishment that has been influenced by

Indian philosophy. Famous Indian rationalists have adopted the label ‘Hindu’, for example Amartya Sen and Periyar. Even some European thinkers have adopted the ‘Hindu Atheist’ label to express their affinity for Indian philosophy, without giving thought to the legitimacy of the label they are endorsing.

India today is (unfairly) not generally hailed as a country with a magnificent philosophical tradition. If you bring up ancient atheistic philosophy, most people think of Greek philosophy. In fact, few atheists are aware that the early Indian materialists almost certainly predated the Greek materialist philosophers by a century or two (India’s enlightenment period was ahead of Greece’s golden age of philosophy). Western philosophical traditions have consistently ignored Indian philosophy. Considering the present day domination by the West in the field of philosophy, it is understandable that most people are unaware of India’s early contributions in the area. Most Westerners are accustomed to thinking of Indian philosophy as Hindu philosophy. This allows them to continue to present their biased Eurocentric timeline for a global history of philosophy, relegating the Indian achievements in this department to religion and not to Indian philosophy itself.

Hindus are content in having India’s philosophical tradition being labeled internationally as ‘Hindu Philosophy’. This is an outrage that we rationalists must be up-in-arms about. Other such major aspects of Indian culture that have been stolen by the Hindu label include ‘The Hindu Calendar‘, which is a takeover of a product of ancient Indian astronomy that has been modified multiple times over many different historic periods, and ‘Hindu Mathematics’, which appropriates a field of ancient Indian knowledge that is responsible for giving the world the zero. Indian mathematics also gave the world what are mistakenly referred to as ‘Arabic Numerals’. Today, instead of thinking of these achievements as the results of free expression and a spirit of exploration that prevailed in ancient India, we are taught to repeat the Hindu lies.

What’s wrong with the ‘Hindu’ label?

The most general criticism of the ‘Hindu’ label applies to all religions. It is a critique of the nature of religious belief itself. We will forgo this discussion here and instead focus only on those aspects of the ‘Hindu’ label that are harmful to the culture and people of India.

The Hindu label provides cover to all those things that we rationalists are concerned with. It would take many pages to simply list all the regressive aspects of Indian culture for which the ‘Hindu’ label provides protection against criticism. The lack of criticism that results from this protection allows malignant beliefs to fester and erode Indian culture from within.

It is a commonly known fact that India is a land of superstition. The tackling of these superstitions is our number one agenda here on Nirmukta.

Despite the long rationalist philosophical tradition in India, these superstitions continue to persist, and even flourish. New superstitions are invented every day and old ones rehashed in new contexts. A well-known social ill that plagues the country is the religious caste system. Primitive medical systems such as Ayurveda and Siddha are guarded from scientific analysis, and mass delusions such as astrology and numerology pervade every aspect of Indian culture. In effect, Indian culture is heavily polluted by these superstitious beliefs and practices. It continues to harbor these leeches that drain away humanity’s brightest achievements in reason, thanks to the protection provided to these superstitions by the meaningless group-identity of ‘Hinduism’.

Another important criticism of the ‘Hindu’ label is the propensity of this label to selectively reject ideas that it perceives as foreign, often when the foreign idea may actually be beneficial to the people. All religions are hypocritical in this regard. A religious label will tend to accept a foreign idea if it benefits from it. If, however, the idea is harmful to the religious label, it will be rejected as alien even if it benefits the culture and people that the religion preys upon. This is the duplicitous behavior that allows religious memes to survive in the age of reason. In the context of Hinduism, we see this

behavior when it comes to the advances of science. Hinduism’s war on science is more nuanced than that of the Semitic religions. It involves strategies that attempt to co-opt science into the religious texts, while disregarding scientific implications regarding the supernatural beliefs that form the core of its belief structure. Meera Nanda writes:

“The presumed scientificity of Hinduism is a source of much pride for modern Hindus as it sets their faith apart from that of the religions of the book which appear more dogmatic.”

Of course, those who make such claims about the Hindu texts have no clue as to what science actually is. They mistake the knowledge gained from the scientific method as being science itself, and completely misrepresent the essence of this knowledge in order to co-opt it into their brand of mysticism.

On a national level, the most dangerous aspect of the ‘Hindu’ label is the politicization and commercialization of religion. This subject is covered in depth in Meera Nanda’s latest book ‘The God Market’. Dr. Nanda devotes an entire chapter to what she calls the ‘State-Temple-Corporate Complex’. She writes:

“What may seem like a paradox, the resurgence of popular Hindusim is happening not against the grain of Indian secularism, but because of it. The Indian brand of secularism has allowed the state to maintain an intimate and nurturing relationship with the majority religion. As the neo-liberal state has entered into a partnership with the private sector, a cozy triangular relationship has emerged between the state, the corporate sector, and the Hindu establishment.”

Dr. Nanda goes on to provide details in specific areas such as education and tourism where this relationship between religion, government and private enterprise has grown in recent years. This unwelcome influence of the ‘Hindu’ label must invoke strong reactions in all rational people. The soft brand of Indian secularism that Meera Nanda talks about must stop providing its tacit approval of the ‘Hindu’ label. This is the challenge that we have ahead of us.

The Irony of Hindu Rationalism

A common defense heard from apologists of Hinduism is that you can be an atheist/rationalist and yet culturally and philosophically be Hindu. All Hindus use this argument to deflect criticism of Hinduism coming from those rationalists who do not subscribe to the label. In fact, this sort of lumping together of atheism, reason and religion under the banner of ‘Hinduism’ has prompted many Hindus to attack any criticism of Hinduism as Christian or Islamic, without understanding the objective scientific perspective that lies outside of their myopic little world-view.

The ‘Hinduism-is-not-just-a-religion’ argument is also a common defense used by ‘Hindu’ intellectuals and even ‘Hindu atheists’. It is this self-identification of Indian intellectuals with a meaningless religious label that inspires these folk to ignore or even

defend the barbarism and superstition that exists within Indian culture. The most depressing thing for a rationalist is to live in a society where there is little cultural significance associated with her/his core beliefs- where everything of social value is tied to a repressive ideological label. It is even more depressing to see a rationalist actively choose to be represented by that label, simply because mimicking the sheep offers some temporary respite from the tribulations of living in such a culture.

Why do we see so many atheists and rationalists subscribing to the ‘Hindu’ label? The main reason is that the marketing of the label has been so complete that it often does not strike most folk  to question the reach of the label. However, there may be other reasons. For one, many atheists and rationalists in India may feel an in-group affinity with the other proponents of the ‘Hindu’ label (as opposed to competing religious identities), even if these other proponents are utilizing the label for exactly the opposite purpose from the one that the rationalists endorse. Some Indian thinkers refer to themselves as Hindus because they have not really given much thought to the label. Others have given it thought and have decided that the personal benefits of identifying with the ‘Hindu’ label outweigh the satisfaction of opposing irrational ideologies of the kind perpetuated by religious memes. Most however, emerge into reason from their religious stupor and choose not to cut the umbilical cord that ties them with their families and friends. They accept the deceptive narrative Hinduism has pushed on them and think not to differentiate between such a label and the larger cultural context that enriches India.

An Alternative Narrative

An alternative cultural identity is essential if we are to move away from the religious labels that have dictated so much of Indian culture in recent years.

If we create awareness of the fact that all those ancient atheistic/rationalist philosophers that modern Hindus gather under their banner would probably have shuddered at the thought of sharing stage with those who form the core of the Hindu religion (or any religion for that matter), that few of them had probably even heard the word Hindu, that without the external pressure of Islam and Christianity Hindu revivalism would not have essentially invented a religion from the multiple sects, cultures, beliefs and philosophies that were found in India, then perhaps we can persuade some of the rational elements who have refrained from questioning the label ‘Hindu’ to start doing so. We can show how this sort of religious label restricts the natural process by which bad ideas are eliminated in culture- through discussion and social damnation. More importantly, we can provide rational ’Hindus’ with an alternative narrative that is more real, in place of the meaningless in-group label by which they identify themselves.

The alternative to religion is reason. At first glance it is obvious that this rational alternative is more representative of the great cultural traditions and philosophical works of India than a meaningless label. Indian rationalists must reject such silly memes as ‘Western medicine’ and ‘Western science’ and embrace Nehru’s vision of a country that embodies the spirit of inquiry. We must focus our ire on such primitive means of cultural domination as religious identities and strive to make India relevant in the international science community. After all, even those rationalists who have not shrugged off the ‘Hindu’ label will agree that the future of our country depends on the scientific education of its people. We must not hesitate to point out how the label of ‘Hinduism’ is a barrier to the advancement of India in the modern world.

We can still appreciate and gain immense pleasure from the practices and philosophies that are part of India’s glorious past. These ideas may lie today within the grasp of institutionalized Hinduism, but we cannot allow this tyrannical label to deny us our heritage. Appreciation of Indian art and culture is our right just as much as it is to those who label themselves ‘Hindus’. The rational inclusion of these aspects of our history into our lives can be a fulfilling experience. The fact that we reject the label ‘Hindu’ does not mean that we cannot participate in certain festivals and social rituals that are part of our culture. Ancient myths are fun from a cultural perspective. We can learn to enjoy them for what they are without assigning any factual significance to them. The art, architecture and culture inspired by the ancient Greek and Egyptian myths are just as powerful reminders of human achievement today as they were when those myths were believed as fact.

In abandoning the ‘Hindu’ label, we are keeping India from descending into a cultural black-hole. We are liberating Indian culture from the still sickness of ideology by embracing the freedom of thought that creates a dynamic and progressive society.

In a way, this is an issue of patriotism (of the rational and thoughtful kind). Indian culture is being hijacked by a label- an idea that is itself a reaction to Islam and Christianity. It is a label that keeps us from absorbing beneficial things from other cultures and ridding our culture of harmful ideas from within it. In essence, Hinduism retards healthy cultural growth. Hinduism is unpatriotic. This is the new paradigm that rationalists must endorse to break the spell of ‘Hinduism’ that is slowly choking India.

Hindu Revisionism: Was Shankaracharya Deceptive Or Just Ignorant?

Written by Prabhakar Kamath , Posted on 25 March 2010

In the previous chapter we studied how Brahmins of ancient India destroyed both the Upanishadic and Bhagavata revolution by resorting to extreme editing of the text of the Bhagavad Gita, and corrupting Bhakti by eliminating Yoga and attaching Yajna to it in disguised form.

In this article we will study how Shankaracharya further contributed to this process by means of his commentary in which he obfuscated, misinterpreted and misrepresented the revolutionary shlokas of the Bhagavad Gita. By a typical Brahmanic sleight of hand, he singlehandedly revived Brahmanism from its deathbed. Biography of Shankaracharya makes very interesting reading, but is beyond the scope of this article. 

1. Three Basic Tactics Of Latter Day Acharyas

In the course of next few centuries since the Bhagavata revolution, the latter day Brahminic Acharyas came up with three ingenious, self-serving tactics to conceal the Upanishadic and Bhagavata revolutions to overthrow Brahmanism.

A. The need to study under a Brahmanic Guru: They declared that all those who wanted to study the Bhagavad Gita must do so under the tutelage of a Brahmanic Acharya. This was in keeping with the dictum that all Upanishadic secret doctrines should be studied only under the tutelage of a learned Guru (BG: 4:34; Mundaka Up: 1:2:12-13). This gave Brahmins the opportunity to deliver soporific discourses to their bewildered listeners. They obfuscated the all-round anti-Brahmanic diatribe in the Bhagavad Gita by means of ample verbosity, high-sounding Sanskrit words, and quotations from obscure and latter day scriptures such as Puranas.

B. Hanging on to Arjuna Vishada context: They hid the historical-revolutionary context by explaining all anti-Brahmanic shlokas in the Arjuna Vishada context only. This required them to indulge in much tongue-twisting verbosity and mind-bending logic. When they could not explain an anti-Brahmanic shloka in Arjuna Vishada context, they just gave its literal meaning in total isolation. Thus the later generation of Acharyas did not learn the true meaning or context of anti-Brahmanic shlokas. Like their Gurus, each generation of Acharyas faithfully passed on to their students their ignorance of the historical-revolutionary context.

C. Writing long-winded commentaries: They wrote long-winded commentaries in which they obfuscated, misinterpreted and misrepresented the meanings of anti-Brahmanic shlokas. This made already complicated matters even worse. We will read below several examples of this tactic.

2. The Three Great Acharyas Who Destroyed The Bhagavad Gita

Over the past twelve hundred years, numerous commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita have been written both by Brahmanic loyalists and Western authors. During the medieval times, three great Brahmanic Acharyas wrote lengthy and “authoritative” commentaries (Bhashya) on the Bhagavad Gita, all of which glorified Krishna while systematically undermining every one of his fundamental teachings: Give up rituals; give up Gunas and Karma; and give up class system based on them. These three Acharyas were Shankaracharya (788-820 A. D.), Ramanujacharya (1017-1137 A. D.) and Madhvacharya (1238-1317 A. D.). It is possible that these Brahmanic commentators were not aware of the historical-revolutionary context at all as evidenced by their tendency to view the Bhagavad Gita as a monolithic text written in one stretch by one author, its only context being Arjuna Vishada. Very often their commentaries on the same shloka are extremely divergent from each other’s.

To readers who are aware of the two distinct contexts of the Bhagavad Gita -Arjuna Vishada and Historical-Revolutionary- these great Acharyas come across in their commentaries as thoroughly confused. For example none of these Acharyas seemed to know, or they refused to acknowledge, the fundamental fact that the Upanishadic doctrines of Atman/Brahman and Buddhiyoga’s purpose was to transcend the doctrines of the Gunas of Prakriti and Law of Karma, and therefore, they are mutually exclusive terms. Krishna repeatedly tells readers that one must transcend all three Gunas in order to gain knowledge of Brahman (2:45; 14:20), and transcend Law of Karma to attain Nirvana (2:15, 51). Yet, these Acharyas keep promoting both the Brahmanic and Upanishadic doctrines at the same time. At times all three Acharyas are blatantly fraudulent when interpreting shlokas, as we will study below. After reviewing Shankaracharya’s interpretation below, let readers decide to which category Shankaracharya belongs.

3. Modern Day Nonsensical Commentaries

Imagine a pro-Confederacy author writing a commentary on President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, ignorant of, or unwilling to acknowledge, the fact that it

was a speech delivered to dedicate the

battlefield to soldiers who gave their lives to abolish slavery in the United States. To explain away Lincoln’s every laconic sentence, the pro-Confederacy author would have to cook up something to support the Southern Cause. He would interpret the phrase “All men are created equal” as meaning, “All white men are created equal” or, “All men are separately created equal.” The situation is identical with all Brahmanic commentators of the modern times. Ignorant of, or unwilling to acknowledge, the fact that the anti-Brahmanic shlokas in it are the evidence of a sectarian war between Brahmanism on one side and the Upanishadism and Bhagavatism on the other, they wrote mindboggling and nonsensical commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita, applying all shlokas to Arjuna’s predicament on the battlefield.

Two popular modern “commentaries,” which fall into this category are ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and ‘The Bhagavad Gita -God Talks With Arjuna’ by Sri Sri Paramahamsa Yogananda. Space does not permit me to go into details about the nonsense in these two commentaries. Let the reader be assured that other available commentaries are not any better. Skeptics among the readers of this article should compare my interpretation given below with those in currently available commentaries. Also, I recommend that readers encourage Brahmanic loyalists and scholars to read this article and encourage them to counter my thesis with sensible articles.

4. Five Upanishadic Shlokas and One Bhagavata Shloka

In this article I will discuss five anti-Brahmanic Upanishadic shlokas and one Bhagavata shloka in their historical-revolutionary context. The only goal of the first four Upanishadic shlokas shown below (2:47, 3:15; 4:31, and 4:32) is to eliminate Vedic Yajnas centered on Vedic gods and replace them with Upanishadic Yoga centered on Brahman. The goal of the fifth Upanishadic shloka (5:18) is to eliminate Varna system. The goal of Bhagavata shloka shown below (18:66) is to replace all Dharma of the land with Bhagavata Dharma centered on Krishna.

As we will read below, Shankaracharya’s goal was to completely neutralize the respective goals of these shlokas. People believed anything he said in keeping with the mindless Hindu tradition of uncritically accepting any nonsense uttered by a saffron-clad Sanyasi. This was even more so in the case of Shankaracharya, as he had gained great moral authority by means of his heroic deed of rescuing Brahmanism from the jaws of death.

5. Shloka 2:47: Kshatriyas’ Entitlement Is To Perform Yajna Only But Not To Its Fruit

Let us now examine the most quoted and utterly misunderstood shloka of the Bhagavad Gita:

2:47: Your entitlement is to Karma alone, and never at any time to its Phalam (fruits). Never be the cause of Karmaphalam. However, never become attached to inaction.

This shloka has no Arjuna Vishada context. In this shloka, Guru Krishna tells corrupt Kshatriyas indulging in Kamya Karma that whereas they have the entitlement to perform various Yajnas (Karma) as per the ordinances of scriptures, they have no right to Karmaphalam thereof. The Karmaphalam of Yajna belongs to the Devas. If they keep the Karmaphalam to themselves, they become thieves (3:12). Earning Karmaphalam condemns them to the eternal cycle of birth, death and rebirth. So they should not indulge in Yajna, which earn them Karmaphalam. However, just because they have nothing to gain from Yajna, they should not become Sramanas who do nothing.

The key to understanding this shloka lies in the following six shlokas in which Krishna explains to corrupt Kshatriyas indulging in Kamya Karma the original purpose of Yajna:

3:10-11: Having created mankind in the beginning together with Yajna, the Prajapati (Brahma) said, “By this shall you propagate; this shall be the milch cow of your desires. Nourish the Devas with this (Yajna) and may those Devas nourish you (in return); thus nourishing one another, you shall reap the supreme welfare (of the society). Nourished by Yajna, the Devas shall bestow on you the enjoyments you desire.”

What happens to those who take away the fruits of Yajna for their personal use?

3:12-13: A thief verily is he who enjoys what Devas give him without returning them anything. The good that eat the remains of Yajna are freed from all sins (Karmaphalam); but the sinful ones who cook food only for themselves, they verily eat sin (earn Karmaphalam).

What is this quid pro quo between Vedic ritualists and Devas? Guru Krishna explains the Wheel of Yajna:

3:14: From food beings become; from rain food is produced; from Yajna rain proceeds.

3:16: He who does not follow on earth the Wheel (of Yajna) thus revolving, malicious and delighting in the Senses, he lives in vain.

The above shlokas condemn Vedic ritualists who corrupted Yajnas by stealing Karmaphalam for themselves as thieves, malicious and vain.

Now, to put the shloka 2:47 in proper perspective, let us now quickly review the eight revolutionary shlokas leading up to it. In 2:39 Guru Krishna introduces the doctrines of Knowledge of Atman and Buddhiyoga to replace the Brahmanic doctrine of the Gunas of Prakriti and Law of Karma. In 2:40, he explains the advantages of Buddhiyoga of Upanishadism over Kamya Karma of Brahmanism. In 2:41-44, he condemns Vedic ritualists as ignorant, desire-ridden and fickle-minded due to their obsession with earning Karmaphalam (pleasure, lordship and heaven) in Yajna. In 2:45, Guru Krishna recommends transcending all three Gunas and Law of Karma. In 2:46, he downgrades the Vedas as useless to enlightened people. Now in shloka 2:47, Guru Krishna lays down the law to the corrupt Vedic ritualists:

2:47: Your entitlement is to Karma alone, and never at any time to its Phalam (fruits). Never be the cause of Karmaphalam. However, never become attached to inaction.

So if these Kshatriyas gave up sinful Kamya Karma and not become inactive like Sramanas, what would they do to keep themselves occupied? Krishna, as the Upanishadic Lord of beings, tells them to become Karmayogis (3:7-9; 19-23), and willfully redirect their energies in guiding the masses:

3:25: As the unenlightened (Vedic ritualists) perform Yajna with attachment to Karmaphalam, O Bharata, so should the enlightened (Karmayogis) act (perform their obligatory Kshatriya duty) without attachment to Karmaphalam, desirous of the guidance of the masses.

What does Krishna advice Brahmins who want to continue to perform Yajna?

4:15: Having known thus (that Yajnas should be performed without motive for Karmaphalam) even the ancient seekers after liberation (from debt to the gods) performed Yajna. Therefore, you should perform Yajna (selflessly), as did the ancients in the olden times.

Krishna follows this advice by giving the fallen Brahmins a crash course on proper performance of Yajnas in 4:16-24.

Obviously, this shloka has nothing to do with Arjuna’s predicament whatsoever. Besides, the word Karma in this context does not mean Action, but Yajna. If one thinks that this shloka’s context is Arjuna Vishada and the word Karma means Action, the whole shloka’s meaning is distorted. This is exactly what Shankaracharya does in interpreting shloka 2:47:

“You have the right only to perform Karma and not to undertake the discipline of knowledge (You can practice Karmayoga but not Jnanayoga!). While doing works (Shankaracharya does not explain what the word ‘works’ means in this context), do not think you have the right to claim their fruits. Never, in any state of life whatsoever, should you crave for the fruits of your works (Can warrior follow this in reality?) -this is the idea.

Shankaracharya goes on: When you crave for the fruits of your works (such as your kingdom), you make yourselves liable to reap fruits; but you should never be the cause of such fruit-gathering, for when one works, impelled by the craving for fruits, one has to reap the fruits of such works, namely, birth in the world (Correct). ‘If the fruits of works are not to be desired, why should painful works (meaning war) be undertaken at all?’ This thought should not tempt you, Arjuna, to withdraw from all works, either (Clearly he is addressing Arjuna’s predicament and he does not explain what he meant by ‘all works’).”

Shankaracharya identifies Arjuna Vishada as the context of this shloka when he tells Arjuna that his entitlement is only to become a Karmayogi, and not a Jnanayogi! He did not know the fact that the call to become Karmayogi was directed to errant Kshatriyas in the historical context and not to Arjuna. Strangely, the great Acharya did not seem to realize that the ultimate goal of both Jnanayoga and Karmayoga was to attain Knowledge of Brahman. Jnanayogis attain it by giving up attachment to sense objects (Sanyasa), and Karmayogis attain it by giving up fruits of their action (Tyaga). In practice this meant giving up Kamya Karma: 18:2: Giving up Kamya Karma is Sanyasa; giving up fruits of all works is Tyaga. Telling Arjuna that his entitlement is only to Karmayoga and not to Jnanayoga is, to put it mildly, ignorant and childish as Krishna himself says:

5:4-5: Children, not the wise, speak of Sankhya (Jnanayoga) and Yoga (of action, Karmayoga) as different; he who is truly established in one obtains the fruits (Knowledge of Atman) of both. The state (of Brahmajnana) reached by the Jnanis is also reached by the Karmayogis. He sees who sees Jnana and Karmayoga as one. Obviously Shankaracharya did not see this or pretended like it.

Thirdly, even if we apply this shloka to Arjuna Vishada context, telling Arjuna that ‘his entitlement is only to fight but never, in any state of life whatsoever, should he crave for the fruits of his works’ makes the entire Mahabharata war a sham. If this were true, what was the point of waging the ghastly war? Isn’t this exactly what the Duryodhana had been telling Pandavas all along? “Listen, Pandavas. You can claim all the entitlement to wage this war against us, but you have no right to this kingdom!” What was the great Acharya thinking?

Fourthly, when it comes to fighting, no one could give Arjuna better advice than Brahmanic prince Krishna as he did in Arjuna Vishada:

3:37: Slain you will gain heaven; victorious you enjoy the earth. Therefore rouse up O son of Kunti, resolved to fight.

Who could improve upon this advice? Obviously, Shankaracharya did not know that the true context of this shloka was historical-revolutionary and its true purpose was to induce corrupt Kshatriyas to give up Kamya Karma. If he knew this fact, he chose not to reveal it to his audience. Now, that is duplicity.

6. Unfortunate Result Of Misinterpretation

One unfortunate result of such Brahmanic misinterpretation is that millions of Hindus wrongly believe that they have only the right to act but no right to expect results. Even eminent scholars such as A. L. Bhasham misunderstood this shloka to mean, “Your business is with the deed, and not with the result.” Imagine a surgeon whose only concern is with his deed and not the result! Again, imagine a man taking a bath in a dirty pond and claiming, “My business is to take the bath; not the result thereof.” This attitude makes all actions mere rituals. Not only should one do the best one could but also one

must be result-oriented. The question is whether this much-quoted shloka has any relevance in our daily life.

First of all, the word ‘entitlement’ in this shloka has a very specific context. It refers to the entitlement granted to certain Kshatriyas by Brahmins to perform certain Yajnas as per the ordinances of scriptures (3:10-14). In our everyday life, with rare exceptions, no one has the ‘entitlement’ or ‘right’ to act. One acts only because one chooses to act as the situation demands. For example, if one donates money to a cause or lends money to a relative, or volunteers to help someone, he does so not because he is entitled to but because he chooses to.

Secondly, any person who acts without expecting results from his action is a fool. Even when we do volunteer work, we expect to get results from our service. However, almost all Hindus take this distorted meaning of shloka 2:47 without critical analysis.

However, this shloka could be applied to corrupt politicians (modern day Kshatriyas) and bureaucrats (modern day Brahmins) of India. The message to them is that they are entitled to perform their Karma (their works as politicians and bureaucrats) but they have no right expect fruits of their toil for themselves. The fruits (national progress) belong to the people. If they take bribes for their services, they become thieves. The other context in which this shloka could be applied in civilian life is in Social Activism.

“Your entitlement as a Social Activist is only to serve the people, and never to benefit personally from its results (fruits), for fruits should go to the people you have chosen to serve. Never indulge in activities with motivation for personal gains. However, just because there is nothing in it for you personally, do not give up your Social Activism.”

Here we must assume that the Social Activist has earned his ‘entitlement’ by virtue of his expertise in, and dedication to, a particular cause. This dictum would make an ideal guide for Social Activists anywhere in the world. This is the essence of Karmayoga.

7. Shloka 3:15: Vedic Devas Are Out, Upanishadic Brahman Is In

3:15: Lord Krishna says: Know Karma (’ritual works’) to have risen from Brahma (the Vedic god Prajapati, 3:10); Brahma arose from the Imperishable (Brahman the Supreme of the Upanishads). The all-pervading Brahman (not the Vedic gods) is, therefore, ever centered in Yajna.

The real purpose of this shloka is to appoint Brahman over the Vedic Lord of beings, Prajapati; to make Brahman as the object of worship in the place of the Vedic gods. The Upanishads describe how these Vedic gods “run away in terror” before Brahman (Katha. Up: 2:6:2-3). When Brahman becomes the object of Yajna, Yoga automatically becomes the modus operandi, for Brahman could be obtained only by Yoga (Sanyasa and Tyaga) and not by the sacrifices based on the Vedas (Mundaka. Up: 3:2:2).

Let us examine the context of this shloka. This shloka is in Chapter Three, titled Karma Yoga, which is dedicated to converting Kshatriyas performing Kamya Karma into Karmayogis performing Nishkama Karma. This shloka has no Arjuna Vishada context. In this shloka, Krishna, as the Upanishadic Lord of beings, decides to end Vedic Yajnas dedicated to the Vedic gods once and for all, because they earn Karmaphalam and thus perpetuate the evil of Samsara (9:20-21). He declares that the Upanishadic divinity Brahman should be the object of all Yajnas instead of the Vedic gods. His logic is this: All ritual activity arose from Brahma (Prajapati), Brahmanic Lord of beings (3:10); Brahma himself arose from the Upanishadic divinity Brahman the Supreme. This being the case, Brahman should be the center of all Yajna, not the Vedic gods. Once Brahman becomes the goal of Yajna, it becomes Nishkama Karma. Why? Well, to attain Brahman, one must first practice Sanyasa or Tyaga; that is, giving up desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of fruits of action.

Here is how Shankaracharya subverts this Upanishadic intent with a superb sleight of hand:

“Know that this work (meaning Yajnas) is born of the Vedas (Not Brahma), and that the Vedas are born of the Imperishable Reality (Brahman). Therefore, the all-pervading Vedas are eternally rooted in sacrificial work.”

Shankaracharya follows this fraudulent interpretation with even more duplicitous commentary to embellish the Vedas:

“Work is born of Brahman (Not Brahma), Brahman is the Veda. ‘Born of Veda’ means revealed by the Veda (Nowhere does it say born of the Veda). Work, in this context, is of this description. Again, Brahman or Veda is born of the Imperishable or Brahman the Supreme Self (Now Shankaracharya creates a Paramatma above Brahman). That Brahman here means the Veda is the sense. Since Brahman, the Veda, is directly derived from the Supreme Self, the all-revealing and eternal Veda is established for all times in sacrificial work, the latter being a dominant theme of the Vedas.”

Listen to the incredibly twisted and fraudulent logic of Shankaracharya: First of all, he does not even mention Brahma the Brahmanic Lord of being as the originator of Karma. Secondly, he straightaway declares that Vedas and Brahman are the same. Now this Brahman is derived from another Brahma above it -Paramatma. Now the “eternal Vedas are all-pervading.” How utterly nonsensical!

In all ancient scriptures, the term “all-pervading” applies only to Brahman the Supreme. Brahman and Paramatma are one and the same. The term “all-pervading” applies neither to Vedic god Brahma nor the Vedas. The Upanishads repeatedly pronounce the Vedas as the “lower knowledge” and that one could never obtain Brahman by means of the Vedas:

Mundaka Upanishad: 1:1:4-5: Two kinds of knowledge must be known, this is what all who know Brahman tell us, the higher and the lower knowledge. The lower knowledge is the Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Vyakarana (grammar), etc. etc.

Mundaka Upanishad: 3:2:3, Katha Upanishad: 1:2:23: Atman/Brahman cannot be gained by the Vedas, nor by understanding, nor much learning (study of the Vedas).

Guru Krishna declares in the Gita: 2:46: To an enlightened Brahmin (one who has gained Knowledge of Atman and Brahman) all the Vedas are as useful as a tank of water (meaning, they are practically useless) when there is flood (vast knowledge of Brahman) all around.”

Guru Krishna expresses even disgust with the Vedas: 2:52: When your Buddhi transcends the thicket of delusion (engendered by the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma) then you will be disgusted by Shruthis yet to be heard as well as Shruthis (Vedas) you have already heard.

In fact, the Upanishadic Lord Krishna declares: 6:44: Even he who merely wishes to know of Yoga rises superior to performer of Vedic rites.

Even Bhagavata Krishna declares: 11:48: Neither by the study of the Vedas, nor by Yajnas, nor by Dana, nor by rituals, nor by severe austerity can this form of Mine be seen in the world of men by anyone else but you (My Bhaktha), O hero of the Kuru.

It is obvious that the great Acharya he was deceitfully subverting the Upanishadic intent to overthrow Vedic sacrifices, or he had no clue that the purpose of appointing Brahman as the center of Yajna was to convert Yajna into Karmayoga. You decide which of these statements applies to him.

8. Shloka 4:32: Give Up Vedic Yajna And Take Up Upanishadic Yoga

4:32: Various Yajnas such as these are spread out before Brahman. Know them all to be born of Karma (’selfless ritual works’); and knowing thus you shall be liberated (from bonds of Karma).

The goal of this shloka is to replace Yajna, which binds people to Karmaphalam to Yoga, which liberates them from the bonds of Karma. To appreciate the extent of Shankaracharya’s duplicity in interpreting this anti-Brahmanic shloka into pro-Brahmanic one, we need to first thoroughly study the context of this shloka. This shloka is found in Chapter Four, which is titled: Yoga of Renunciation of Karma (Yajna) in Knowledge (Jnana). Obviously, this shloka has no Arjuna Vishada context. The goal of this shloka is to renounce Vedic Yajna (Karma) centered on Vedic gods and take up Upanishadic Jnana (Knowledge) Yajna centered on Brahman. Jnana Yajna is nothing but Jnanayoga in disguise. To refresh the memory of the readers: The goal of Vedic Yajnas was to please Vedic gods and earn Karmaphalam; the goal of Jnana Yajna is to gain Knowledge of Atman/Brahman.

Let us briefly review shlokas leading up to shloka 4:32:

In shloka 4:15, Krishna tells Brahmins to perform Yajnas selflessly like the ancients did. In 4:16-18, Krishna explains various types of Yajnas: Proper Yajna (selfless), improper Yajna (Kamya Karma) and non-Yajna.

In 4:19-23, he explains the basics of Jnanayoga: Renunciation of Sankalpa (design), desire (Kama) for and attachment (Sanga) to fruits.

Krishna explains in the following shlokas that when one renounces these impurities of the heart, one does not earn any Karmaphalam.

4:23: Of one unattached (to sense objects), liberated (from Dwandwam thereof), with mind absorbed in Knowledge (of Atman), performing work for Yajna alone (and not for personal gains), his entire Karmaphalam (both good and bad) melts away.

What are various constituents of the so-called Jnana Yajna (Knowledge Sacrifice) centered on Brahman?

4:24: The oblation is Brahman, the clarified butter is Brahman, offered by Brahman in the fire of Brahman; unto Brahman verily he goes who cognizes Brahman alone in his Karma (Yajna).

Obviously, Jnana Yajna is a metaphor for Jnanayoga. Unlike in Vedic Yajna, all constituents of the metaphoric Jnana Yajna -oblation, ghee (clarified butter), the offering person, fire, object of sacrifice- are all made up of all-pervading Brahman. Krishna recommends Brahmins to recognize “Brahman alone in Yajna.” There is a paradigm shift of the object of Yajna from Vedic gods to Brahman. All selfless Karma, with or without a fire, shall be known as Jnana Yajna from now onwards.

Who are various performers of Jnana Yajna? In 4:25-29, Krishna describes various types of Yogis who perform Jnana Yajnas in which they sacrifice impurities of heart and mind, and concludes:

4:30: All these (Yogis) are knowers of (Jnana) Yajna, having their sins (Karmaphalam) destroyed by (Jnana) Yajna.

In all these so-called Jnana Yajnas there is no altar, no fire, no sacrifice of materials such as food and animals. In these Yajnas one sacrifices or renounces one’s impurities (desire, attachment, etc.) residing in the Senses, the Mind and the Intellect. What remains after one has sacrificed his mental impurities in Knowledge Yajna?

4:31: The eaters of the immortal remnant of Jnana Yajna go to the Eternal Brahman. This world is not for non-sacrificer, how then the other (Abode of Brahman)? O best of the Kurus?

Whereas the remnant of Vedic Yajna is burnt food, the immortal remnant of Upanishadic Jnana Yajna is whatever remains after one has sacrificed the impurities of the heart and mind -Atman. One who gains Atman, the immortal nectar, gains Eternal Brahman.

These “Yajnas” are Yoga in disguise. Lord Krishna calls these Yogic renunciations Jnana (Knowledge) Yajna, for in this type of Yajna instead of gaining Karmaphalam one is liberated from the bonds of Karma, and one gains Knowledge of Atman. Having said all this, Krishna now comes to the point:

4:32: Various (Jnana) Yajnas such as these are spread out before Brahman (the Upanishadic divinity). Know them all to be born of Karma (’selfless ritual works’); and knowing thus you shall be liberated (from bonds of Karma).

And Krishna concludes:

4:33: Jnana Yajna (Jnanayoga), O Scorcher of foes, is superior to Dravya (material) Yajna. All (Jnana) Yajnas in their entirety culminate in Jnana (of Atman).

With this background information let us now review how, by a sleight of hand, Shankaracharya neutralized shloka 4:32:

“Thus have many sacrifices been spread out in the pages of the Veda (He decides the word Brahman means the Vedas). Know them all to be born of works (What kind of work?). Knowing thus will you be liberated (from what?).“

Shankaracharya continues:

“As stated, many sorts of sacrifice have been ’spread out’ -set forth- in the Vedic path. Those, which are known by means of the Vedas are said to be ’spread out’ in ‘the face’ of the Vedas; for example, “we sacrifice the vital breaths in speech” (Ait. A. 3:26). Know all of them to be born of works -born of exertions of the body, word and mind, and not of the Self. For the Self works not. Therefore, thus knowing, you will be released from evil. Knowing, “these are not my activities; I exert not, I am indifferent” -due to this right perception, you will be released from ‘evil’ or the bondage of empirical life. This is the idea.”

Here is how Shankaracharya subverts the whole shloka whose goal is to establish Brahman as the center of all Yajna and convert Kamya Karma, which earns bondage of Karma into Nishkama Karma, which does not.

1. He interprets Brahmanomukhe -from the face of Brahman- into ‘the face of the Vedas’ and ‘Vedic path’, even though this shloka’s goal was to overthrow Vedic Yajna. The Upanishads repeatedly pronounce: One cannot obtain Brahman by the Vedas! He has no clue, or he refuses to acknowledge, that the “Yajnas” listed in 4:25-29 are not Vedic sacrifices at all but they are Upanishadic Jnana Yajnas. In his zeal to promote the Vedas, he does not even mention Brahman. His adherence is not to truth but to the Vedas. It is impossible to believe that Shankaracharya did not know the true meaning of this shloka.

2. He then says that if a person fooled himself into believing, “these are not my activities” he will not earn Karmaphalam due to “right perception.” What he should have said was, “If you perform Karma (Yajnas) centered on Brahman in the spirit of Yoga, that is without the impurities such as Sankalpa, Kama and Sangas for fruits (4:23), then you would not earn any Karmaphalam, and therefore you will be liberated from the evil of Samsara. This is Jnana Yajna; this is Jnanayoga.”

How do we know that Shankaracharya was hell bent on preserving the Vedic Yajnas? Let us review his commentary on shloka 4:31, which we read above.

9. Shloka 4:31: Immortal Remnant Is Atman, Not Food

4:31: The eaters of the immortal remnant (Yajnashistamrita) of (Jnana) Yajna go to the Eternal Brahman. This world is not for non-sacrificer, how then the other (Abode of Brahman)? O best of the Kurus?

What is the remnant after one has sacrificed food and animals in Vedic material sacrifice? It is the remaining food (Yajnashista), which the sacrificer consumes at the end of Yajna as a sign of humility and gratitude. What is the remnant of Jnana Yajna after one has sacrificed impurities (desire, attachment, etc.) residing in one’s Senses, Mind and Intellect? That immortal remnant (Yajnashistamrita, nectar) of Jnana Yajna is Atman. Here Krishna is trying to show that the end result of Jnana Yajna (Jnanayoga) is attainment of Atman/Brahman and liberation from Samsara.

What is the meaning of the word Yajnashistamrita? This word means ‘immortal remnant.’ This is not just Yajnashista food of Vedic sacrifice (3:13). The clue to this word’s special status is in the word Amritham (nectar of immortality). Here is how Shankaracharya dismisses this profound shloka with a very superficial explanation:

“The remains of sacrifices are what is left over; it is ambrosia. The sacrificer partakes of it. Having performed the sacrifices enumerated above, they eat, according to the Vedic injunctions, the ambrosial food and they repair to the Eternal Brahman, in case they seek liberation. From the logic of the situation it follows that this happens in course of time.

Obviously, the great Acharya completely missed the whole point of the above nine shlokas (4:23-30, 32), which is that these sacrifices are not Vedic (material) Yajnas but Jnana Yajnas of the Upanishads. As we read above, the nectar (Yajnashistamrita) mentioned in the above shloka has nothing to do with the leftover food of the Vedic (material) Yajnas (3:13). The word Yajnashistamrita is a metaphor for immortal Atman, which is the remnant of Jnana Yajnas. There is no real food here to “eat according to the Vedic injunctions” after Jnana Yajna, as there is no fire, no burnt offerings, and no ceremony. The great Acharya has no clue about this. And the phrase, “they repair to Brahman in case they seek liberation,” is indicative of this. He is simply not able to think outside his “Vedic box” even though he apparently knew the Upanishads inside out. This is because Shankaracharya mistakenly believed that the Vedas and the Upanishads are one and the same, not antagonistic to each other.

10. Shloka 5:18: Brahman The Equalizer

5:18: The sages perceive the same truth in Brahmins rich in knowledge and culture, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater.

In this shloka the point made is that an enlightened person sees the same Brahman in a highly cultured and educated Brahmin on the one extreme and an ignorant dog-eating outcaste on the other, and even in the animals owned by the lower classes in between. Here cow is the animal of Vaishyas; the elephant is the animal of Kshatriyas; the dog is the animal of Sudras. Conversely, when a person is deluded by even one of the three Gunas, he is not able to see the sameness or equality of all people.

The sole purpose of this Upanishadic shloka was to overthrow the Brahmanic Varna system based on unequal distribution of the Gunas and Karma (4:13) in the four classes,

and replace it with an egalitarian system based on the equal distribution of Brahman in people of all classes (5:18-19).

Here is how Shankaracharya promotes supremacy of Brahmins while obfuscating the true intent of this shloka:

“Knowledge and culture” -culture consists in restraint -rich in these is the Brahmana who knows and is cultured. In him, in a cow, elephant, dog and outcaste the sages behold the same Reality (True). In the Sattvika Brahmana (Here he hangs on to the Guna), endowed with knowledge and culture, who has the best latent impressions of life’s experiences, in an intermediate being like the cow that is Rajasic (Cow is not Rajasic; tiger is) without such impression, and in the low merely Tamasic beings like an elephant etc. the sages are trained to perceive the same single, and immutable Brahman, wholly unaffected by constituents like the Sattva and by the latent impression they generate.

In the above commentary, Shankaracharya does not seem to understand the fundamental fact that an enlightened sage does not see a Brahmin as Sattvic, a Kshatriya as Rajasic, Vaishya, Sudra, and an outcaste as Tamasic. All he sees in them is Brahman. One cannot attribute a Guna to a creature and see Brahman in it at the same time. The Gunas and Brahman are mutually exclusive entities. His ignorance of this fact is evident in his statement: “Sages are trained to perceive the same single and immutable Brahman, wholly unaffected by constituents like the Sattva and by the latent impression they generate.

11. Shloka 18:66: Abandon All Dharma

Let us take up Shloka 18:66, the Ultimate (Charama) Shloka of the Bhagavad Gita.

18:66: Abandon all Dharma and surrender unto Me alone; I shall liberate you from all sins. Do not grieve.

As we read the true purpose of this shloka in the article titled ‘God of Gods Enters The Battlefield To Fight Brahmanism.’ It encapsulates the essence of the entire text as well as the revolution to overthrow Brahmanic Dharma. This shloka has nothing to do with Arjuna Vishada context. After knocking off all other Dharmas of the land, Bhagavata Krishna declares himself as THE DHARMA (14:27), and asks everyone to abandon their Dharma and embrace his Dharma.

This Ultimate (Charama) shloka, asking everyone to abandon all Dharmas, has baffled all Brahmanic commentators as evidenced by their confusing, misleading and utterly nonsensical commentaries on it. It is obvious that they were not aware of the historical-revolutionary context and true intent of this shloka.

What is the correct meaning of the word Dharma in this context? The word Dharma has many meanings, such as religion, Law, righteousness, Duty, obligatory sacrificial duty (Kriya, Karya), a discipline of knowledge, a system, and the like. In the above shloka the

word Dharma stood for religion or sect such as Brahmanism and Buddhism. If one took any one of these alternative meanings to the phrase ‘all Dharmas’ and applies it to the context of Arjuna Vishada, it means Arjuna should give up all Dharma -righteousness and performance of his obligatory duty as dictated by his Dharma. This is exactly what all Brahmanic commentators say in their commentaries. Here is what Shankaracharya says:

“Giving up all Dharmas (acts of righteousness), seek refuge in Me alone; I shall liberate you from all sins; grieve not.

‘All Dharma or acts of righteousness’-Dharma (righteousness) here includes Adharma (unrighteousness) also. What is sought to be conveyed is the idea of freedom from all works (Dharma here means Karma).”

Shankaracharya wants Arjuna to give up all Karma- righteous as well as unrighteous! Unaware of the historical-revolutionary context of this shloka, the great Acharya thinks that the word Dharma in it means Karma, not religion or sect. He tries to back up this outlandish claim by fourteen pages of long-winded and inscrutable explanations quoting various scriptures, which no Ph. D. candidate of religious studies, leave alone a humble student, could digest. This is a classic example of baffling one with bullshit when one cannot dazzle one with his brilliance. It is obvious that the Acharya was baffled by Lord Krishna’s call for one to “give up all Dharma.” Without realizing that Lord Krishna’s call was not meant for Arjuna at all, but was directed toward all people of various diverse Dharmas in the turbulent post-Vedic society, he must have thought, “How could the Lord ask Arjuna to give up all Dharma? The Lord must have meant Karma when he said Dharma.” So, he said that Arjuna should “give up all Karma -righteous as well as unrighteous.”

If the Acharya had said, “perform righteous Karma but abandon all Karmaphalam” (2:50; 9:28) instead of saying “give up all Karma” he would have made better sense, even though that was not what Krishna meant here. His interpretation implies that Arjuna should give up even righteous Karma (fighting for a right cause). Arjuna had already said he wanted to do just that when he said in 2:9 “I shall not fight” knowing full well that his was a righteous cause. Prince Krishna did a splendid job of dissuading him from giving up his Dharma-designated Karma (2:31-37). Obviously, Shankaracharya’s interpretation of this shloka makes mockery of the Mahabharata war as well.

No religion, no matter how profound its philosophy might be, tells its followers to give up righteous Karma. In all the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, there is not one single call for anyone to give up righteous Karma though there is plenty of call to give up Adharma, namely Kamya Karma (2:47-49; 4:7), and fruits of Karma. However, one must perform his Karma with indifference to personal gain or loss of fruits (3:19) if he does not want to earn Karmaphalam. Krishna never gets tired of telling people how important it is to be active all the time:

3:8: Engage yourself in Dharma-bound action, for action is superior to inaction, and if inactive, even the mere maintenance of your body would not be possible.

The entire Bhagavad Gita is about performing Karma in a righteous manner, meaning doing the right thing but without selfish motive. All three Gitas attest to this wisdom.

1. In Arjuna Vishada, prince Krishna asks Arjuna to perform his Karma as per his Dharma (2:37) giving up his self-centeredness failing which he would incur sin (2:33).

2. In the Upanishadic Gita, Guru Krishna tells Arjuna to perform his obligatory Karma as per Kshatriya Dharma without Dwandwam (2:38) and for guidance of the masses (3:20).

3. In the resurgent Brahmanic Gita, Lord Krishna tells people to selflessly do their duty as assigned by their class (18:45) and attain perfection.

4. In the Bhagavata Gita, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna to dedicate all Karma to him in order to free himself from the bondage of Karma (9:27-28). Even after showing Arjuna His Universal Form, Krishna says: 11:33: Arise and attain fame! By Me have your enemies been verily slain already. You be merely an outward cause, O Savyasachin! Lord Krishna did not tell Arjuna, “Give up all Karma and go home, for I have already killed them all!”

All this shows that shloka 18:66, in which Lord Krishna exhorts Arjuna to abandon all Dharma, was not applicable to Arjuna in the Mahabharata context at all, and that its real context was historical-revolutionary. Shankaracharya’s explanation of this shloka makes mockery of both the Mahabharata epic and all the fundamental teachings of the Bhagavad Gita: Never abandon the path of righteous Karma; but perform it with complete indifference to fruits.

12. How Could Hinduism Be Based On Misinterpretation Of Its Most Sacred Scripture?

Hinduism, or more correctly Brahmanism, as practiced today is largely based on Shankaracharya’s interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita. Like Shankaracharya did, every Brahmanic commentator misinterpreted all anti-Brahmanic shlokas of the Bhagavad Gita. Such erroneous, and often blatantly deceptive, interpretations of shlokas to shore up Brahmanism are the hallmark of all Brahmanic commentaries. All right-minded Hindus, who practically consider the Bhagavad Gita as the Handbook of Hindu Dharma, must ask, “How can we practice Hindu Dharma based on such erroneous and false interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita by Brahmanic Acharyas and Swamis whom we revere?”

In my next article, I will discuss the pernicious legacy of Brahmanism on modern India.