Is god a slave owner?

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

This thread has been started as per Smt. JR's request in this post here.

I would like to share an email received from a friend of mine:


​​ஸ்வாமி என்றால் என்ன?
< Clipped >

Shri Balasubramani Sir,

The sanskrit word "swam" means, most appropriately, "one's own" and swami means one who owns or, as is said in the e-mail, udaiyon. The idea of a god who is the 'owner' of the devotee (and, by misplaced religious zeal, as the 'owner of everything' in this world, etc.) is but a throw-back to the ancient times of slavery, when the owner really 'owned' all his slaves and enjoyed undisputed powers including the right to kill, over them as if they were mere cattle or dead assets.

With the invasion of the mainstream hindu religion by this bhakti cult, professing ideas like "prapatthi" etc., the downfall of the religion (and the country) started and people, while becoming more intense 'bhaktas' lowered themselves to the mental, physical, intellectual etc., levels of mere slaves. It is significant that the spread of the bhakti movement was closely followed by a series of invasions by foreign muslim invaders. India and indians have been slaves, not to their so-called "udaiyon", but to one foreign invader after another.

If, as the e-mail (erroneously) says, all humans are the 'assets' of god, why is it that god seems incapable of managing all his assets with equal care and diligence, as some 'assets' are completely neglected despite all the prapatthi, etc., done by them whereas some other assets who don't even subscribe to this prapatthi business, like the US citizens, thrive. Either god is lacking in his ability to manage ever so many 'assets' or else god prefers the non-prapatthi-speaking westerners to those who swear by prapatthi. Not subscribing to this "prapatthi' idea is, in either case, preferable therefore.

It will, therefore, be good, at least for the younger (coming) generations to give considered thought to this idea of prapatti, god-as-the-owner, etc., ideas. (I am aware that the older generations have been irrecoverably brain-washed with such defeatist ideas and even for expressing this sane advice, many brick-bats will come from the faithful slaves.)

 

[sangom]

Dear Sir

Ideas like Prapatti...surrender...etc have nothing to do with the downfall of a religion/country. Islam itself means *Absolute surrender* and yet you mention Muslim Invaders.
The first Islamic rulers of Delhi were all slaves of other Muslims !!

Not sure whether I am a *brickbat throwing faithful slave* but certainly I seem to belong to the younger generation

This is in reply to your above post under another thread. Since Smt. JR requested that my post be removed from there, I have complied with her request.

Prapatti and surrender are not the same, I think. The sanskrit word prapatti indicates fly away ; to hasten forwards, hasten away ; to fly down, rush or dart down ; to fall down, fall ; to fall into ; to come to ; to fall from, be deprived of, lose, etc. Islam, the arabic word denotes "becoming peaceful, acceptance, submission, self-surrender"; there is no sense of "absolute surrender" there. Therefore, the "prapatti" concept appears to be one of pra + (root) pat which will mean 'prakarshena patana' or falling down specially. In other words, as you say, absolute surrender. But even among the vaishnavas, there are two philosophies of marjara kishora nyaya and markata kishora nyaya, isn't it? Possibly this absolute surrender concept may not sync with the markata kishora nyaya. I would like to know your views pl.

The early muslim invaders, as different from the first sultanate of Delhi, were not slaves, I think. Mahmud of Ghazni, Mohammad Ghori themselves were not slaves. It was only later in the 13th. century that the slave dynasty started ruling the Delhi Sultanate. It will perhaps be right to say that our country had been so much emaciated by the intervening few centuries that even a slave of a muslim ruler (and not Allah, their god— no 'prapatti there, please note) was considered enough to conquer this country!

You don't seem to be throwing 'brickbat' but definitely a handful of grime! And, if, as you say, you "seem to belong to the younger generation", then this country will have to wait for yet some more centuries to get out of its 'slave mentality' engendered by the bhakti cult.

 

[KRN]

This is in reply to your above post under another thread. Since Smt. JR requested that my post be removed from there, I have complied with her request.

Sir - You have stated that professing ideas like Prapatti have led to the downfall of the hindu religion / country. I dont see the correlation. Please state your reasons / logic.

Prapatti and surrender are not the same, I think. The sanskrit word prapatti indicates fly away ; to hasten forwards, hasten away ; to fly down, rush or dart down ; to fall down, fall ; to fall into ; to come to ; to fall from, be deprived of, lose, etc. Islam, the arabic word denotes "becoming peaceful, acceptance, submission, self-surrender"; there is no sense of "absolute surrender" there. Therefore, the "prapatti" concept appears to be one of pra (root) pat which will mean 'prakarshena patana' or falling down specially. In other words, as you say, absolute surrender. But even among the vaishnavas, there are two philosophies of marjara kishora nyaya and markata kishora nyaya, isn't it? Possibly this absolute surrender concept may not sync with the markata kishora nyaya. I would like to know your views pl.

So you have shown

Prapatti = Absolute surrender to God
Islam = Submission & self-surrender to God

I say that the Muslim invaders themselves were professing a religion of surrender. Leaving out the dictionary meaning etc for a moment I dont think any Muslim would disagree that his is a religion of surrender. It is indisputable that Islam is a thriving religion even now. I have raised this as a counter example to your statement on Prapatti and other hindu ideas on surrender as having led to the downfall of the country.

The early muslim invaders, as different from the first sultanate of Delhi, were not slaves, I think. Mahmud of Ghazni, Mohammad Ghori themselves were not slaves. It was only later in the 13th. century that the slave dynasty started ruling the Delhi Sultanate. It will perhaps be right to say that our country had been so much emaciated by the intervening few centuries that even a slave of a muslim ruler (and not Allah, their god— no 'prapatti there, please note) was considered enough to conquer this country!

Sir - I still fail to see the correlation between bhakti / prapatti and Muslim invasion. As you have admitted... the first muslim ruling Sultanate of Delhi was called the Slave sultanate. Mahmud Ghazni was the son of a slave by the way.

You don't seem to be throwing 'brickbat' but definitely a handful of grime! And, if, as you say, you "seem to belong to the younger generation", then this country will have to wait for yet some more centuries to get out of its 'slave mentality' engendered by the bhakti cult.

I regret to see you profess such views. I understand you are distressed at the downfall of the religion and I too agree to some extent. I merely differ with the reasons you attribute to it - hope you could cite your reasons / facts that led you to this conclusion.

 

[KRN]

Concepts like Prapatti are as old as the Ramayana.

One of the most celebrated statements by Lord Rama has often inspired Bhaktas.

Sakrdeva PRAPANNAYA Tavasmiti cha Yachate |
Abhayam sarvabhoothebhyo dadamyetad vratam mama ||

Similarly in the Bhagavad Gita Arjuna makes the below moving submission before the Lord:

Sishyasteham saadhi maam PRAPANNAM.

In secular literature too... we have the Mahakavi KALIDASA. The very name shows him as a dasa - of - Kali - inspiring surrender to the divine Mother. Kalidasa is given various dates - most accepted ones being 4th Cent CE and 1st cent BCE.

 

[KRN]

Both Prapatti and Islam mean *surrender*. So is our God a slave owner? In reply to the Topic heading I briefly mention below a few stories as in the scriptures.

1. Rshi Durvasa gets angry with King Ambareesha a devotee of Vishnu. Sudarsana chakra destroys the Krtya sent by Durvasa and chases him. Neither Brahma nor Siva were able to protect him. Vishnu tells him *I am helpless too - myself a SLAVE of my devotees* - So only Ambareesha can help you.

2. King Mahabali is sent to Suthalam. Vishnu stands as his Gate Keeper for the whole kalpam - until when Mahabali gets a chance to become Indra himself.

3. In a spate of anger Rshi Bhrgu places his feet on Vishnu. Vishnu falls on his feet and after assuaging his anger Vishnu takes the foot mark as a ornament on his heart.

May be mere stories but the point is - they illustrate the relationship between Bhagavan and Bhakta in Hinduism.

 

[renuka]

I feel its humans that want to be slaves becos that removes responsibility!

A slave always has a master...so he just has to follow the rules laid down by the master.

The brain is in auto-pilot mode and actions become mere reflexes that does not even need a twitch of a neuron anymore and people wrongly call this Bhakti.

I feel the "Bhakti Marg" is the most misunderstood Marg.

People feel that they can leave their brains behind and jump around in ecstasy and reach the highest peak of devotion.

But sadly this is not as easy as it seems..everyone feels those with Bhakti requires no thinking and no action but just reflexes.

Bhakti does not mean Brain Dead..in fact Bhakti needs total surrender of Ego and that needs your brains!

To surrender ego is one of the hardest thing to do.

Bhakti marg requires that but no one is actually surrendering their ego..when the word Surrender is used by people its not any submission..its a cool calculated move to secure "favors" from God.

Its a fake act of devotion and many can act so well that they will give SRK a run for his money!

If you carefully observe..those who talks the most of surrender have only the highest of egos..they have never surrendered anything...their egos keep getting stronger and stronger and nothing else.

But not many will want to admit this and keep thinking they have surrendered everything.

Personally I feel Bhakti Marg is the most difficult Marg becos one needs a perfect understanding that the ego needs to be surrendered only then Bhakti can be felt.

Now what people call Bhakti is just disguised 'desires' drama and nothing more.

 

[Vaagmi]

Renukaji,

I like your new avatar-the toad. Yeah. If someone can have a monkey why not a toad. Hi Toad!! you are welcome. LOL.

 

[KRN]

Surrender can come in a split second. Man is such a complex animal. A man conditioned by certain experiences for yrs suddenly gets a different experience. It evokes powerful emotions from within. He is unsure of what to do. Surrender happens.

In Victor Hugos *Les Miserables* (based on a real story) Jean Valjean steals bread for the sake of the starving children of his sister. Gets caught and due to repeated failed escape attempts spends a total of 19 yrs in prison. When he successfully escapes he has become more animal than man. A bishop offers him asylum and he steals the Bishops silver candlesticks. He is caught and brought before the Bishop. The Bishop says that he had actually gifted the silver and asks to let Jean valjean go. Jean is overcome by emotion and surrenders mentally to the Bishop. (I know its a well known story - just typed for fun)

Greatest warrior of his time - Arjunas ego makes him tell Krishna to get in front so he can survey his victims. Gets Vairagyam in the battlefield. Overcome by powerful emotions and rendered inactive. Surrenders to his friend.

Angulimala and Buddha. Guess..no need to tell the story !

 

[KRN]

I agree...bhakti marga has the maximum number of hypocrites. When it comes from within its so beautiful.

 

[JR]

I agree...bhakti marga has the maximum number of hypocrites. When it comes from within its so beautiful.

I loved KRNji's posts in this thread - they were gems filled with wisdom, particularly the examples of Ambarisha, Vishnu guarding Mahabali's world, etc aptly used conveys the message of prapatti very, very well.

However I beg to differ regarding bhakti marga... it is not that 'those in bhakti' are hypocrites, it is just that some hypocrites who see bhakti marga to be an influential means for getting things done in their favor via contacts and associations from those well placed in society, grab the opportunity and fake 'bhakti'.

That said, what is the qualification to be a 'bhakta'? Should one have 'completely surrendered the ego'?? Nope. Anyone can be a true bhakta, as their bhakti grows, their own sadhana and the grace of god put together, gets them in the right track.

 

[sangom]

Sir - You have stated that professing ideas like Prapatti have led to the downfall of the hindu religion / country. I dont see the correlation. Please

state your reasons / logic.



So you have shown

Prapatti = Absolute surrender to God
Islam = Submission & self-surrender to God

I say that the Muslim invaders themselves were professing a religion of surrender. Leaving out the dictionary meaning etc for a moment I dont think any Muslim would disagree that his is a religion of surrender. It is indisputable that Islam is a thriving religion even now. I have raised this as a counter example to your statement on

Prapatti and other hindu ideas on surrender as having led to the downfall of the country.

Shri KRN Sir,

I agree that, generally speaking, Islam can be termed as religion that not only advocates surrender to their only god Allah, but also demands unquestioning compliance to the religious edicts contained in the Holy Quran and the Hadiths, etc. But this situation has, curiously, prompted some western scholars to postulate that the bhakti cult of Indian sub-continent itself got its 'big push' after the Muslim invaders started their pillage and plundering and, in that process, many of our own people of the lower & untouchable castes got their first exposures and entry, into another religion without any caste divide in it. I do not therefore want to discuss more about the surrender aspect of islam.

The bhakti movement (vaishnavism) did not emphasize the absolute surrender or prapatti concept in its nascent stage and this is a later entrant. Even now there is difference of views on this prapatti among the two kalais. Be that as it may, the bhakti cults - both the nayanmars' and the alwars' - propagated some kind of religious ecstasy and not mere religious worship. Although their objects of veneration, viz., Siva and Narayana were considered to be loving gods, at least some of these preachers were strong anti-buddhist/anti-jain and sometimes anti-each other also. It is also a fact that the avatara concept was a sine qua non for the vaishnava bhakti cult. Such cultic systems did provide entry, at least marginally, to the lower and untouchable castes of the vedic varnasrama system (mainstream hindu religion), but at the same time these cults sapped the entire fighting spirit of the ordinary masses and made them supine with the result that the foreign marauders (though they too professed a religion of self-surrender to a god, their religion exhorted them to jihad as a punyakarma) found it very easy to conquer the sub-continent and its people who had in their passion for absolute self-surrender to their god/s, expected their god to take yet another avatar and save them from the evil invaders!

The kings who were supposed to be commanders, leading their fighting armies had also become influenced by the bhakti cult and so they also looked more towards their god, to whom they had completely surrendered, to come and make them win the war. The bhagavadgita example of the reluctant warrior Arjuna was their main motto in this regard. In the process, even the apparent lesson of the bhagavadgita which says one should fight and not flee away, was given the go-by.

The net result was that this sub-continent saw invader after invader from the 7th. century onwards, until international developments, especially the post WW II situation compelled the british to divide this country into two warring factions and gave them the so-called 'Independence'. If only our kings and their fighting men (in historical times, many of our native kingdoms did not have a standing army; people were exhorted by drumbeats and other methods to join the army to fight an invading enemy) were not influenced by this debilitating bhakti cult, chances were that not many of the invaders would have been able to enter.

Sir - I still fail to see the correlation between bhakti / prapatti and Muslim invasion. As you have admitted... the first muslim ruling Sultanate of Delhi was called the Slave sultanate. Mahmud Ghazni was the son of a slave by the way.

Mahmud Ghazni was not a slave, he became a king, so why should we consider whether his father was a slave or not? Incidentally, Abu Mansur was a slave soldier which is something like the mamluk. In places such as Egypt from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be “true lords", with social status above freeborn Muslims. (wikipedia)

I regret to see you profess such views. I understand you are distressed at the downfall of the religion and I too agree to some extent. I merely differ with the reasons you attribute to it - hope you could cite your reasons / facts that led you to this conclusion.

The rigvedic religion was one of near-equality with their devas who are at times addressed even as "sakhaa" or companion. The impression given by rig- as well as yajur- vedas is one of a warrior-like people who prayed for long life as brave soldiers (śataṃ jīvema śaradassuvīrāḥ etc.). But once the bhakti cult together with the concept of avatara took hold of the religion, the downfall started. In the place of devas or gods who would come and grace the (vedic) sacrifices and grant the boons requested for by the sacrificers, god or the avatar-god became a super-entity and to that extent the disciple was lowered in status. Ramayana contains the germinal surrender concept, as you say, but it became a mass religious phenomenon only with the later spread of the bhakti cult. The vedic people were successful in fighting and subduing their enemies as is reflected in hymns like "Indra fought and destroyed the enemies in the east, west and north", etc. But after the advent of the itihasas and the bhakti culture the only war won was the legendary Lanka battle, that too with the help of an army of monkeys (vanara sena). All these lead me to the conclusion that by the time of the Azhvars and the Nayanmars (the 9th. century A.D.) Christianity might have impacted the vedic religion and given shape to the monotheistic cult-like formations within it.

Concepts like Prapatti are as old as the Ramayana.

One of the most celebrated statements by Lord Rama has often inspired Bhaktas.

Sakrdeva PRAPANNAYA Tavasmiti cha Yachate |
Abhayam sarvabhoothebhyo dadamyetad vratam mama ||

Similarly in the Bhagavad Gita Arjuna makes the below moving submission before the Lord:

Sishyasteham saadhi maam PRAPANNAM.

In secular literature too... we have the Mahakavi KALIDASA. The very name shows him as a dasa - of - Kali - inspiring surrender to the divine Mother. Kalidasa is given

various dates - most accepted ones being 4th Cent CE and 1st cent BCE.

The Sudra caste was ordained to have only surnames such as "Dasa" in our Dharma Sastras and that is why we still find surnames like Das in some parts of the country. Kalidasa's dasa has, therefore, no immediate relevance to his 'surrender' to Kali. In the legend Kalidasa makes fun of Kali first and after getting her boon, he praises her in his maiden composition of Shyamala Dandakam. There is no reference to his surrender nor of his taking the name of Kalidasa on that account.

What Rama or Krishna is reported to have uttered is part of the respective composition and I do not believe in the historic authenticity of any such statement.

 

[KRN]

Sri Sangom Sir

Thanks for the elucidation. Made interesting reading. As I am using a smartphone I will respond part by part.

 

[KRN]

Shri KRN Sir,

I agree that, generally speaking, Islam can be termed as religion thatnot only advocates surrender to their only god Allah, but also demands unquestioning complianceto the religious edicts contained in the Holy Quran and the Hadiths, etc.But this situation has, curiously, prompted some western scholars topostulate that the bhakti cult of Indian sub-continent itself got its 'big push' after the Muslim invaders started their pillage and plundering and, in that process, many of our own people of the lower & untouchable castes got their first exposures and entry, into another religion without any caste divide in it. I do not therefore want to discuss more about the surrender aspect of islam.

Sir, I mentioned Islam in this context - that despite being a religion that enforces strict submission / surrender it apparently didnt lose any of its martial quality and also happens to be thriving till today. That said, I too dont want to discuss Islam here.

The bhakti movement (vaishnavism)did not emphasize the absolute surrender or prapatti concept in its nascent stage and this is a later entrant.

Which period would you call nascent period of Vaishnavism and roughly when - according to you - did Prapatti concept come in? Where is the evidence for this?

Even now there is difference of views on this prapatti among the two kalais.

Advaitins have many divisions too - yet the Advaita Siddhantam could not be called a later development by any means !

I have quoted Prapatti slokas from Ramayana and Mahabharata and Gita. You need not believe that Rama existed - however these books do exist and must have been written on some date or period. A dramatist like Bhasa who has been placed at 4th BCE has extensively used material from the Ramayana and MBH for his dramas. Scholars have estimated these works to have been compiled to the present condition by the 1st CE and even after considering minor alterations definitively place the last redacted period of these works as 4th CE coinciding with the heyday of the Gupta period. Now that is several centuries before the Muslim invasion of India. In fact the forefathers of these Muslim invaders - the Huns (Hephthalites) invaded India in the 5th - 6th CE and were soundly defeated by Baladitya and Yasodharma. The remaining Huns were assimilated in the population and even the inscriptions of such Hun invaders like Mihirakula show the strong influence and surrender to our Pauranika deities!! So how could it be concluded that Prapatti / surrender has led to a weakening of our martial instinct? Even much later we had strong rulers like Harshavardhana and Lalitaditya. Lalitaditya defeated the Arabs and utterly destroyed them to such extent that Arab historians mention thus *in fear of Lalitaditya's prowess the Arabs never ventured into the Indian subcontinent for the next 2 centuries!!* Lets not forget that these Arabs were the all - conquering warriors of the time - who had conquered Spain, Andalus and parts of Italy and instilled fear in the Christian nations!! Lalitaditya of the 8th Century - (Bhakti cult period according to you) - had his kingdom stretching upto Iran.

 

[KRN]

Be that as it may, the bhakti cults - both the nayanmars' and the alwars' - propagated some kind of religious ecstasy and not mere religious worship. Although their objects of veneration, viz., Siva and Narayana were considered to be loving gods, at least some of these preachers were strong anti-buddhist/anti-jain and sometimes anti-each other also. It is also a fact that the avatara concept was a sine qua non for the vaishnava bhakti cult. Such cultic systems did provide entry, at least marginally, to the lower and untouchable castes of the vedic varnasrama system (mainstream hindu religion), but at the same timethese cults sapped the entire fighting spirit of the ordinary massesand made them supine with the result that the foreign marauders (though they too professed a religion of self-surrender to a god, their religion exhorted them to jihadas a punyakarma) found it very easy to conquer the sub-continent and its people who had in their passion for absolute self-surrender to their god/s, expected their god to take yet another avatar and save them from the evil invaders!

These are a lot of assumptions without basis. Worship of Krishna as a powerful God was mentioned by Patanjali (circa 2nd or 4th BCE). Also, Megasthenes a Greek traveller (4th BCE) mentions in detail about the childhood exploits of Krishna like lifting the Govardhana Parvatham with a finger etc. These show that Krishna as a God was worshipped in a vast area long before the Christian Era. Also Krishna, a son of Devaki is mentioned in the Upanishads. So there is continuity and Vaishnava bhakti has a very old history. There is literally no evidence to show that

"Vaishnava bhakti sapped the entire fighting spirit of the ordinary masses and made them supine before foreign marauders."

In fact the emphasis throughout was on Kshatriya dharma which expects one to never run away from battle and promises Swargam if one dies in the battlefield (akin to the dreams sold to Jihadis!!!)

Even in the period of the Alwars and Nayanmars you refer to, the South Indian kings were incessantly fighting (Cheras Cholas Pandyas Pallavas) and ventured into expeditions overseas...they conquered Southern and Eastern kingdoms in Lanka, Malaya, Bali, Java, Srivijaya etc and spread their culture far and beyond Indian shores. To this day we can see in these places evidence of Chola and Pandya expansionism and Hindu cultural artifacts. There was compulsory military service to meet the army demands.

 

[KRN]

The kings who were supposed to be commanders, leading their fighting armies had also become influenced by the bhakti cult and so they also looked more towards their god, to whom they had completely surrendered, to come and make them win the war.

On the contrary they used to passionately fight as per Kshatriya dharma and built temples to commemmorate their victories. There are thousands of inscriptions dating to before as well as after 10th Cent CE.

The bhagavadgita example of the reluctant warrior Arjuna was their main motto in this regard. In the process, even the apparent lesson of the bhagavadgita which says one should fight and not flee away, was given the go-by.The net result was that this sub-continent saw invader after invader from the 7th. century onwards,

Kindly read what is documented about Lalitaditya and his encounter with the Arabs. According to Arab accounts themselves (and Chinese accounts).

 

[KRN]

until international developments, especially the post WW II situation compelled the british to divide this country into two warring factions and gave them the so-called 'Independence'. If only our kings and their fighting men (in historical times, many of our native kingdoms did not have a standing army; people were exhorted by drumbeats and other methods to join the army to fight an invading enemy) were not influenced by this debilitating bhakti cult, chances were that not many of the invaders would have been able to enter.

I have already answered above. In the thousands of inscriptions scattered in the country, celebrating war victories, the Prapatti to our Gods, our Puranic deities is evident.

Mahmud Ghazni was not a slave, he became a king, so why should we consider whether his father was a slave or not? Incidentally, Abu Mansur was a slave soldier which is something like the mamluk. In places such as Egypt from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be “true lords", with social status above freeborn Muslims. (wikipedia)

My point was, slavery has been an integral part of medieval Islam. As mentioned earlier I merely referred to its surrender aspect.

The rigvedic religion was one of near-equality with their devas who are at times addressed even as "sakhaa" or companion.

Sometimes - but not always. In Rig veda too we have Gods of fearsome aspect. We see worshippers quaking with fear.

The impression given by rig- as well as yajur- vedas is one of a warrior-like people who prayed for long life as brave soldiers (śataṃ jīvema śaradassuvīrāḥ etc.). But once the bhakti cult together with the concept of avatara took hold of the religion, the downfall started.

Again, a sweeping yet vague assertion without substantiating facts ! I have shown above that Patanjali, Megasthenes, Bhasa and many others of the pre Christian era mention Krishna bhakti. The Islamic invasion came a millennium later.

 

[KRN]

In the place of devas or gods who would come and grace the (vedic) sacrifices and grant the boons requested for by the sacrificers, god or the avatar-god became a super-entity and to that extent the disciple was lowered in status. Ramayana contains the germinal surrender concept, as you say, but it became a mass religious phenomenon only with the later spread of the bhakti cult.

The vedic people were successful in fighting and subduing their enemies as is reflected in hymns like "Indra fought and destroyed the enemies in the east, west and north", etc. But after the advent of the itihasas and the bhakti culture the only war won was the legendary Lanka battle, that too with the help of an army of monkeys (vanara sena).

Really Sir? How about Raghuvamsam where Kalidasa beautifully writes about King Raghu's victories against the Persians and Greeks (Yavanas)? How about King Yudhistira's victory over the Yavanas and Scythians as mentioned in MBH? How about Bappa Rawal who chased away the Arabs? As mentioned earlier, how about the great Lalitaditya Muktapida, the Indian Alexander who according to Chinese accounts, "ordered the Turks defeated in war to shave off their heads in submission"? More recently, how about the victory of our King Ranjit Singh against the Afghans after which he ruled from Kabul?

 

[KRN]

Ranjit Singh's accomplishment is considered very rare and hence absolutely great - as defeating the Afghans in Afghanistan is a very formidable challenge. The British couldnt do it. The Soviets and the Americans couldnt too!

 

[SANDHYAV]

Christian

So Jesus was more than a slave? and his followers can at best be slaves? but can never be crucified as a criminal?

Really sorry to butt in. I just wanted to degust ( just taste a little bit using one's gustatory sense ) a bit of philosophy here. My understanding of the concepts mentioned here have a score of about 0.0. If i want to give myself a better score i intend to pray God this December especially the ones with cakes, puddings and socks.

Slave owner, interesting concept. I don't intend to answer the question with an yes or a no. From the look of it it looks like yes. Because most explanations allude to the words like assets, maintenance, surrender etc.

I intend to be spectators of historians whenever history crosses beyond 1900 AD. Again something tells me to apologize again, coz the system seems to be allowing me to type more, when i know this is all gibberish aka INTENSE in my diction.

Anyway Merry Christmas if i don't see you again in this thread!

 

[JR]

I have quoted Prapatti slokas from Ramayana and Mahabharata and Gita. You need not believe that Rama existed - however these books do exist and must have been written on some date or period. A dramatist like Bhasa who has been placed at 4th BCE has extensively used material from the Ramayana and MBH for his dramas. Scholars have estimated these works to have been compiled to the present condition by the 1st CE and even after considering minor alterations definitively place the last redacted period of these works as 4th CE coinciding with the heyday of the Gupta period. Now that is several centuries before the Muslim invasion of India. In fact the forefathers of these Muslim invaders - the Huns (Hephthalites) invaded India in the 5th - 6th CE and were soundly defeated by Baladitya and Yasovardhana. The remaining Huns were assimilated by the populace and the inscriptions of Huns like Mihirakula show the strong influence and surrender to our Pauranika deities!! So how can it be concluded that Prapatti / surrender has led to a weakening of our martial instinct? Even much later we had strong rulers like Harshavardhana and Lalitaditya. Lalitaditya defeated the Arabs and utterly destroyed them to such an extent that Arab historians mention *in fear of Lalitadityas prowess the Arabs never ventured into the Indian subcontinent for the next 2 centuries!! Lets not forget that these were the all - winning Arab warriors of the time - who had conquered Spain Andalus and parts of Italy and instilled fear in the Christian nations!! Lalitaditya of the 8th Century - (Bhakti cult period according to you - had his kingdom stretching upto Iran. ]

I would also like to add/support to the above view that 'prapatti' to god does not in any way weaken one's innate quest for freedom and the fighting spirit for a just cause, including seeking the freedom of one's mother country. This cause is strongly rooted in Garuda's story - when he comes to know his mother Vinata is enslaved by Kadru out of trickery, Garuda fights for the cause of freeing his mother even if it involved fetching the hard-to-get Amrut from Vaikuntha for the cause.

If anyone will read the thread 'Thulukka Nachiyar of SriRangam' at the 'Religion' section, one would know the tale where Muslim invaders tried to take down the temple of SriRangam and how the brave acharyas of the temple built a wall around the main sanctum sanctorum and prevented the invaders from ruining the archa and aradhana vigrahas. When finally the Muslim invaders found them after a couple of days, they were slaughtered, the archagas and bhaktas did definitely know they would come to this fate once they were found out, but they gave up their lives in saving the vigrahas rather than fleeing. This shows how much importance to bravery is given by true bhaktas and true bhakti and prapatti only cultivates good instincts and does not take them away!

 

[KRN]

All these lead me to the conclusion that by the time of the Azhvars and the Nayanmars (the 9th. century A.D.) Christianity might have impacted the vedic religion and given shape to the monotheistic cult-like formations within it.

Sorry to state, Sir that your assertions are without basis and hope I have given enough examples to convince you to the contrary. I doubt whether Christianity would have had any significant influence on our religion at that point of time. I would wait for evidence pointing out the same.

The Sudra caste was ordained to have only surnames such as "Dasa" in our Dharma Sastras and that is why we still find surnames like Das in some parts of the country. Kalidasa's dasa has, therefore, no immediate relevance to his 'surrender' to Kali. In the legend Kalidasa makes fun of Kali first and after getting her boon, he praises her in his maiden composition of Shyamala Dandakam. There is no reference to his surrender nor of histaking the name of Kalidasa on that account.

Where is the evidence that Kalidasa was a Sudra? You are quoting a legend. Fine. But that same legend also emphatically states that he was a Brahmana who adorned the court of King Vikramaditya of Ujjain!!

As for the epithet Dasa - yes, the Dharmasastras recommend it for naming a Sudra. But internal evidence in Abhijnana Sakuntalam tells us that Kalidasa lived in a period before the Dharmasastras were codified! In Sakunthalam it's mentioned that the punishment for theft is death. This is a pre-Dharmasastra rule. The Dharmasastras have modified it to a lesser punishment. This is an important clue for scholars in identifying the probable date of Kalidasa. So, clearly your reference to the Dharmasastra as a proof that Kalidasa was a Sudra due to the "Dasa" in his name, cannot be accepted.

In addition, kindly refer the Nataka Mudrarakshasam by Visakhadatta. In it we see a protagonist of the Vaishya caste using a name Chandana dasa. This shows that, even long after the Dharmasastras were codified, such naming conventions were not followed.

Now, leaving aside legends and Dharmasastra if we directly look into his works, the internal evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of him being a Brahmana. In Malavikagnimitram and Sakuntalam he refers to palace intrigues in such detail as is possible only to a Brahmana (and never a Sudra) given the social situation of the time. The Kavyas also indicate an erudition on the Vedas and Darsanas which could not be associated with a Sudra who traditionally is not expected to learn the Vedas.

Since Kalidasa could not be a Sudra, the 'dasa' in his name does indicate what I mentioned earlier - a Dasa of Kali. This is a Prapatti to the Divine Mother.

What Rama or Krishna is reported to have uttered is part of the respective composition and I do not believe in the historic authenticity ofany such statement.

I find it amusing that you have chosen to give credence to a legend of unknown historicity, about Kalidasa and yet do not do so with respect to the Ramayana and Mahabharata, texts revered by millions through ages!! Anyway my point was this - whether Rama said it or not - the book is there for all to see. Scholars have identified that this book Ramayana was compiled definitely before a certain date which is many many centuries prior to the date of Islamic invasion of India. Hence - going back to our original point of discussion - the concept of Prapatti as given in these books has also been in circulation for countless centuries before the foreign invasion, with Rama/Krishna worship itself having a very long history - and in the intermediate period much events have occurred, when our kings achieved significant success in wars within and abroad - and hence no correlation can be made.

 

[KRN]

I loved KRNji's posts in this thread - they were gems filled with wisdom, particularly the examples of Ambarisha, Vishnu guarding Mahabali's world, etc aptly used conveys the message of prapatti very, very well.

Thank you for the comment.. though I am not an Iyengar I enjoy reading the Bhagavatham very much.

However I beg to differ regarding bhakti marga... it is not that 'those in bhakti' are hypocrites, it is just that some hypocrites who see bhakti marga to be an influential means for getting things done in their favor via contacts and associations from those well placed in society, grab the opportunity and fake 'bhakti'.

I said *the maximum no: of hypocrites are in bhakti marga* - not that *those in bhakti are hypocrites*. Hope you perceived the difference. It is easier to fake bhakti marga than Jnana yoga...

That said, what is the qualification to be a 'bhakta'? Should one have 'completely surrendered the ego'?? Nope. Anyone can be a true bhakta, as their bhakti grows, their own sadhana and the grace of god put together, gets them in the right track.

I agree..in the Gita the lord mentions 4 kinds of bhaktas...Aarthas (the distressed) Artharthis.(those seeking wealth).. Jijnasus (seekers of Knowledge) and Jnaanis. (Knowers) and give equal respect to them all. All are equal before the lord !!

 

[JR]

Thank you for the reply, KRN ji. Thanks for such a knowledge-filled discussion. (And thanks to Sri Sangom ji for opening this thread).

 

[renuka]

Renukaji,

I like your new avatar-the toad. Yeah. If someone can have a monkey why not a toad. Hi Toad!! you are welcome. LOL.

Hi Vaagmi Ji,


My new Avatar is a frog and not a toad.

The frog is sitting in a meditation post.

I am preparing myself to be a Mataji..my name will be Mataji Kupa-Mandukeshwari.

You are welcomed to my ashram as I need a Kapi-dwaja as an emblem.

 

[Vaagmi]

Easwariji a doubt. Please clarify.
Why the frog mahodaya is throwing up his/her hand in despair? Is it becos he/she has not attained samadhi yet. LOL