Are the Brahmins Leaders of Hindu Religion?
We are cognizant of the fact that the term 'Hindu religion' can not be found before the arrival of the Europeans in India. We are also aware of the fact that it was the Europeans who coined the term 'Hindu religion' to denote the Indian religions that were originated in India and followed by the Indians.
Since the term 'Hindu religion' denotes all the religions of India together, it cannot refer to any particular religion. And since the term 'Hindu religion' consists of many religions which have different doctrines and are contrary to each other, there will be leaders for each religion and there cannot be a common leader for all the religions since they are controversial to each other.
For instance, how can there be a common leader for both Buddhism and Saivism, which are contrary to each other. Hence the belief that there is a common leader for Hindu religion is superstitious and displays ignorance. Hence, the statement that 'The Brahmins are the leaders of Hindu religion' exhibits ignorance and deceptive.
Who had deceived?
History reveals that the Europeans coined the term Hindu religion and saw nothing wrong in doing so. However, they made the world to believe that the Brahmins are leaders of Hindu religion. Hence, international scholars often write that the Brahmins are the leaders of Hindu religion.
Who was deceived?
All the scholars who say and write that the Brahmins are the leaders of Hindu religion are seen to be the deceived ones.
Who are the ignorant?
Because of the propaganda of the Europeans and the statements of the scholars who ignorantly accepted the ideology of the Europeans that the Brahmins are the leaders of Hindu religion without analyzing the facts, the Indians who accepted and believed the statement mentioned above are seemed to be the blind believers.
If we ask any of the Indians 'Who are the leaders of Hindu religion?', they would immediately reply that the Brahmins are the leaders of Hindu religion. If we ask them to explain and give reasons for their statement, they would laugh and immediately pose a question to us asking whether we were not aware of this simple thing.
Why did the Europeans make the statement that the Brahmins are the leaders of Hindu religion, and why have they propagated this ideology to the world, and then deceived the Indians to believe in this superstition?
The Europeans who came to India in 1498 A.D. for the purpose of establishing trade became the rulers of India. History reveals that the Aryan Brahmins were the supporters and assistants for the Europeans to capture the political power of India and enslave the Indians. It is a political strategy to befriend the traitors within a country in order to get its secrets and capture its political power.
If the history of India is analyzed, it is revealed that the Aryan Brahmins have acted as the traitors through the ages. they also betrayed India to the Europeans. The term Aryans denote the group of people who came to India in different periods without any religion, and they are classified as follows:
1) Aryan Purohits
2) Aryan Kshatriyas
3) Aryan Vaishyas
They captured the religious, political and the economical power of the Indians. They christened the people who accepted their supremacy as 'Sudras' and the leaders and the philosophers of India who opposed them as 'Panchamas' or Untouchables. Thus they have degraded the Dravidians and devised 'Varnashrama Dharma' (also known as Manu Dharma or caste system) on the basis of colour and these have already been elaborated in detail.
Here certain questions may arise such as, 'Who are the Aryan Purohit Brahmins?', and, 'From where did they come ?'.
Amongst the foreign invaders, the Persians were the first invaders of India. Cyrus, who ruled Persia from 558 B.C. to 530 B.C. tried to capture the political power of India but was defeated. After Cyrus, Darius who ruled Persia from 522 B.C. to 486 B.C. established his political power in Northern Punjab of India in 518 B.C.
Historians mention that the invasion of the Persians over North Western India had led to the trade relationship between India and Persia and it had also encouraged other foreigners to launch invasion over India.
"As Persians had establirhed their authority over India and India had become a part of their empire, people were free to travel in any part of India or Persia. The Indian traders started trading with the Persians on a large scale...
...Persian invaders exposed the political weakness of India to all the world. It encouraged the Greeks and the Bactrians to launch invasions over Indian territory.1
The foreigners who were already in the northwestern frontier of India established matrimonial relationship with the Persians after their invasion and it had led to the emergence of various new castes, say the historians.
They have been acting as traitors since then and have betrayed India to the foreigners.
"Various new castes came into being as many foreigners settled on the northwestern frontier of India after the invasion of Persia. They established matrimonial relations and gave birth to several sub-castes. Moreover, they always acted treacherously and joined hands with the invaders who wanted to conquer India from time to time".2
Ambi, who ruled Taxila in India, was the responsible for the invasion of Alexander over India, and the historians say that Ambi was the descendant of the traitors.
"Greeks were the second invaders after the Persians. who had invaded the Indian territory......"3
"The ruler of Taxila fired his ambition and provided Alexander an opportunity to invade India by sending an invitation to him"4
"Ambi has been described as a traitor in the history of ancient India, who for his own selfish ends sent an invitation to Alexander with the evil design of maneuvering the fall of Porus".5
Hence, we can infer from the quotations mentioned above that the foreigners who mixed with the Persians, have been betraying India to the foreigners, and Ambi the descendent of this traitors, betrayed India to Alexander. Sungas and the Kanvas are the descendants of this treacherous group, and they are proud of their white colour their cunning behavior and their act of betrayal.
Pushyamitra, who established the Sunga dynasty, had perfidiously killed Brihathratha, the last king of the Mauryan dynasty, who had trusted and appointed Pushyamitra as the Commander-in-Chief of his army. Thus by treachery he captured the political power and established his dominion over North India.
Similarly the first king of the Kanva dynasty, treacherously killed the last king of the Sunga dynasty who also had appointed him as a minister and he captured the political power.
History reveals that the Aryan Brahmins are the descendants of the Sungas and Kanvas. Since betrayal is their traditional task, it is not new to their nature to betray India to the Europeans, who came for the purpose of establishing trade. Hence, it was the duty of the Europeans to honour the Brahmins and so they made the world believe that the Brahmins are the leaders of Hinduism. Thus they have attributed special qualities to the Brahmins and have deceived the International scholars and the Indians.
There are many similarities between the Aryan Brahmins and the Europeans, and they are as follows:
- The Brahmins were proud of their white colour and devised caste discrimination on the basis of colour. Similarly the Europeans were proud of their white colour and followed colour discrimination.
- The Brahmins came from outside into India and were involved in activities with the motive of enslaving the Indians. Similarly the Europeans also came from outside and were acting like the Brahmins in enslaving the Indians.
- The Aryans prided in their superiority over the Dravidians, though the divine thoughts and the philosophies originated from the Dravidians and not from the Aryans. Similarly the Europeans thought of themselves as superior to the Indians, even though the Indians had unique qualities.
- The concept of the Dravidians is, 'Every country is my country and all are my kith and kin' and they wanted to be affectionate and friendly with everyone. But the Aryans are proud and consider that they are a higher caste by birth and look upon others as inferior to them. The Europeans also had this same feeling and wherever they went they enslaved the people and established their dominion
- The Aryan Brahmins pretended that they were spiritualists (soulists) and claimed that the Vedas which were compiled by a Dravidian, Veda Vyasa, belongs to them and enslaved the people in the guise of religion. Similarly the Europeans claimed that the Bible which was developed from the Dravidian form of worship, belonged to them and showed themselves like spiritualists (soulists) as the leaders of Christianity, while they were involved in activities which enslaved others.
- The Brahmins captured the temple of the Dravidians and prohibited the Dravidians to enter the Sanctum Sanctorum of their own temple. Likewise the Europeans, utilizing the Bible which was developed from the Dravidian race, segregated the Dravidian race in the Christian temples of the Dravidian religion, which were considered as the temples of the white and this is a historical fact.
The facts mentioned above reveal that the Brahmins who were in the spirit of enslaving the Indians and the Europeans who had the same spirit, united together and acted against Indians. It is no wonder that they claimed that they were from the same stock and it is highlighted as follows:
"This work summarizes India's intellectual history, which in its various aspects has been the subject of my studies for slightly more than half a century (1875 to 1926). It sets forth in nine chapters the mental development of the most easterly branch of Aryan civilization since it entered India by land till it came in contact by sea with the most westerly branch of the same civilization after a separation of at least 3,000 years. The four centuries that have since elapsed (1498 to 1926) are here touched upon only as showing the most recent distribution of the Indian vernaculars and the rise of their literature, as well as the process by which the development of the purely indigenous period gradually became known to the new-comers from the west...
These two civilizations, starting from a common source, have after a separation of at least 3,000 years again become united during the last four centuries, representing together a quarter of the total of the earth's inhabitants. During these four centuries the new-comers from the west have gained acquaintance with and recovered the history of India's past mental development. Al this, as set forth in the following pages, will, I trust, contribute something to clearer mutual understanding by two civilizations which in their origin were one and the same".6
Hence, we can also call the Europeans as European Aryans. What was the reason for the Europeans to think that they and the Brahmins were of one race, that is the Aryan race?
If we analyze history, it reveals that the term 'Aryan' includes the group of people who came into India in different periods without any religion viz. Persians, Greeks, Sakas, Kushans and Huns. It is a historical error if we consider and denote them as one race. They are the combination of different races with the motive of enslaving the Indians which is their common feature.
It is also a historical error to believe that Sanskrit is a bridge to unite these races and it is the common language of the languages mentioned above. The Persian language is different from Greek. The language of the Sakas is different from the language of the Kushans. The language of the Huns is different from the other languages mentioned above. They neither spoke Sanskrit nor formed Sanskrit. Sanskrit means, 'Perfectly refined and formed', and it was not a language of the common people and neither was it a mother tongue of any one. The mother tongue or a natural language is a child and it has life. Whereas, a doll is 'made' and has no life. Sanskrit as a language is a doll which was formed and not a mother tongue of anyone. Then why was it formed? And who formed it?
In a country divided by many languages, a common language unites the people. Thus Sanskrit was formed by the scholars who had a motive to spread Early Indian Christianity to other scholars.
At that time, some of the languages which existed in India were Arthamakathi, the language of Jains, Pali, the language of the Buddhists, Tamil the first Dravidian language, Persian and Greek languages, etc. In order to communicate the gospel to the scholars who spoke the different languages mentioned above, Sanskrit was formed as a religious code language or a common link language by the Early Indian Christian scholars.
It has already been mentioned that one of the offshoots of Early Indian Christianity was Mahayana Buddhism which developed from Hinayana Buddhism. While the literature of Hinayana Buddhism were in Pali the literature of Mahayana Buddhism were not written in Pali but in Sanskrit. Historical evidences show that the Mahayana Buddhist's literature and the literature of the Six-fold religion of the family of Siva were written in Sanskrit.
All the Sanskrit scholars Veda Vyasa, Valmiki, Kalidasa... who have written valuable books in Sanskrit viz. were the Dravidians. It was by the Dravidians that the nomadic worship songs were written in Sanskrit and were compiled and classified as the Vedas.
Sanskrit is considered to be the language of the scholars or eminent people since the books written in Sanskrit are in a high standard. Thus Sanskrit was formed by the Dravidian scholars as common link language (religious code language) and was not the language of the foreigners.
However, we can find the influence of the Persian and Greek languages in Sanskrit. Scholars know the development and the difference between the Sanskrit language which was in the early centuries of the Christian era in which the Mahayana Buddhist literature were written, and the Sanskrit which evolved in the Gupta period and Pallava period (between 4th c.A.D. to 6th or 7th c.A.D.) in which the literature of the Six-fold religion of the family of Siva were written. The latter is known as classical Sanskrit.
Owing to the invasion of the Huns after the Gupta period, the kingdoms in the Northern part of India declined Similarly the languages in northern India disintegrated and new languages emerged. Since they disintegrated fell from the heights of the 'perfectly refined Sanskrit', they are denoted by historians as 'Prakrit', which means that they are not in a refined form.
Before the formation of Sanskrit, the languages that were prevalent in India, were united and refined, and Sanskrit was formed as a religious code language. The languages that were prevalent before Sanskrit were also known as 'Prakrit'.
After the development of Sanskrit the languages that emerged were also known as Prakrit. So, it is to be observed that the Prakrit languages which were before the formation of Sanskrit are different from the languages which emerged after the development of Sanskrit, and there is a long interval of time between them.
Historians create a great deal of confusion while discussing the Prakrit languages that were prevalent before the formation of Sanskrit, and those that emerged after the development of Sanskrit. The confusion developed since they were not able to understand the history of Early Indian Christianity, and, they believed the wrong ideologies that were formed and spread by the European Aryans that the Six-fold religion of the Early Indian Christianity is the religion of the Brahmins. Hence, the scholars write that the period of Vedas belong to 1000 B.C., or 2000 B.C., or 5000 B.C..... and this is the first language of the world and it was spoken by the Aryans. Further many erroneously write that the Indian Aryans and the European Aryans were separated from the common Aryan race, and after 3000 years they were united again in India, and the Brahmins are the leaders of the Indian Aryans and Hinduism. Thus wrong ideologies were deliberately spread by the so called European Aryans world wide.
This wrong ideology the Aryans are suferior by birth was spread by the Europeans. This resulted in the Germans to think that they were the most superior amongst the Aryans, and this led to the massacre of millions of Jews by Hitler. Hitler who had the same racial fanaticism was the root cause for the great destruction of innocent lives in many countries during the second world war.
Correlation in language alone cannot denote a racial correlation, says R.S. Sarma,
"Towards the end of the eighteenth century when William Jones discovered that Sanskrit was similar to Greek, Latin and other European languages, it was postulated that the Aryans lived in a area either in central Asia or eastern Europe. They were supposed to have descended from same racial stock. This concept prevailed in the nineteenth century and was used as a powerful political weapon in Nazi Germany during the anti-Jewish campaign launched by Hitler. After 1933 it was declared that the German people constituted a pure Aryan race. In the Nazi view, they occupied the highest place among the Aryans and hence were entitled to hegemony over the world. But scholars who have studied the Aryan problem deeply have come to the conclusion that those speaking the same language need not necessarily belong to the same racial or ethnic stock".7
McDonnell's statement about William Jones, quoted by R.S. Sarma is as follows:
"Sir W. Jones was, moreover, the first scholar who definitely asserted the genealogical connection of Sanskrit with Greek and Latin, and its probable affinity with Persian, German and Celtic".8
Jones has done research in the correlation between Sanskrit and the European languages. Now the question is why he has not done research to correlate between Sanskrit and the Indian languages. If he has deciphered an answer for this question, then he might have given the explanation for the term 'Aryans'. He might also have been relieved from the wrong conception that Sanskrit is of the Aryan race.
It has already been pointed out that the Aryans are not a separate race but a
combination of many races who came to India in different periods of time and had separate
languages and Sanskrit is not their language but it was a religious code language that was
formed by the Indian Dravidians.
It is quite natural that the Dravidian scholars who formed Sanskrit would include certain
words from the existing languages of the time. Hence, it is obvious that the Europeans
found correlation between the Sanskrit, and the Persian, the Greek and the Latin
languages, which were the foreign languages that were prevalent in India at that time as
mentioned earlier.
There is no such race as the 'Aryan race' in India. In order to identify the non-Dravidian, non-Indian foreigners, this term is used, but this term was purposely utilized by the Europeans in order to create a fictitious relationship with the local foreigners. Even though it is a mythical race, in the world historical perspective this term is very important in the history of India, since it denotes the foreigners who came to India, in various periods, without any religion.
Since 'Sanskrit' was formed by the Dravidian Early Indian Christians, it is not found in the pre-Christian era as mentioned earlier. It is thought that the Vedas were written in Sanskrit in the pre-Christian era. However, if Sanskrit was prevalent in the pre-Christian era, king Ashoka would have used Sanskrit in his inscriptions to tell the verdict of cessation of sacrifice since sacrifice was very basic for the Vedic worship. It is to be noted that his inscriptions are in Pali, Aramaic, Greek.... but not in Sanskrit. It has already been mentioned that the ancestors of Sungas and Kanvas mixed with the Persians and the mention of the struggles in the Vedas that had taken place between the two groups, happened in Afghanistan and not in India, says David Frawley.
"Asko Parpolo claims that the struggles mentioned in the Vedas were not in India at all, but in Afghanistan between two different groups of Indo-Iranian peoples".9
Megasthenes mentions about the Arianois who were living near India,
"Megasthenes speaks of `ARIANOIS' as one of the three peoples inhabiting the countries adjacent to India".10
The Arianois, mentioned by Megasthenes were a mixture of Persians. Connection between them and the Persians are pointed out by Khurana.
"........the names of the Sunga rulers (Pushyamitra. Agnimitra, Vasumitra) ended in 'Mitra' i.e.., the sun. As the Persians (Iranians) were the worshippers of the sun, and the Sunga rulers also worshipped sun, it seems that the rulers of the Sunga dynasty were the Persians".11
Khurana denied this later, though historical evidences were not given for his denial.
The Iranians are known as Aryans by the historians.
'That the Aryans were closely related to the Iranians is proved by many resemblance in language and worship, which have been found in the Avesta-the scriptures of the Iranians, and the Rigveda-the most important collection of the hymns of the Aryans".12
The following statement of R.S. Sharma should be noted here.
"The cult of SOMA called HAOMA in the Avestan language, was typical of both the Vedic and the Iranian people".13
The points mentioned above reveal that the Brahmins are traditionally a mixture of the Persians and they have mostly the features of Persians. But, the Asvamedha yajna, which is mentioned in the Vedas does not occur amongst the Persians and it was the Sungas, who started Asvamedha yajna. Hence, the songs about Asvamedha Yajna, in the Vedas belong to the period of Sunga and afterwards.
"Louis Renow holds that the ASVAMEDHA or horse sacrifice was an Indo-European ritual. Clearly, there is no evidence of horse sacrifice in pre-Vedic India".14
"The Indo-Europeans also adopted the use of the horse, but perhaps none of them performed the horse sacrifice which was known as 'ASVAMEDHA' in India". 15
In Vedic times, the king or the chief performed the ASVAMEDHA to assert his suzerainty.16
It is a general notion that the Vedic rituals and tradition can be found more in northern India. However, it is practised only in South India in which the nomadic worship songs were compiled and classified by the Dravidians, says David Frawley.
"The best Vedic Sanskrit, rituals and traditions can be found only in South India."17
The so called European Aryans exalted the Vedas as well as the Brahmins and had propagated that the Aryans are a separate race and also claimed that they also belonged to the Aryan race. Thus, they elevated the Brahmins as the leaders of Hinduism and spread this ideology to the world in order to capture and preserve their political power over India.
The following quotation shows that some of the Europeans go to any extent to elevate their supremacy. They did not care for the historical and archaeological evidences which reveal the greatness of the Dravidians, but in order to exalt their race as superior, they went to such an extent that they elevate the Vedas without concern for any historical or archaeological evidences.
"Broken walls and shreds of pottery, stone knives and aces, after all are voiceless things: they cannot convey to us the actual words of the men. They furnish proof to us that long age communities of men were born and lived and toiled; and with their help we may form some picture of what those men were. The speech of ancient races, however, is first heard by us in the songs of the Aryans; and so it is still true that the more intimate history of India begins with them. The ancient Sumerians and Babylonians made records and chronicles and preserved them on stamped bricks, or in great libraries of baked clay tablets; but the early Aryans were no historians in this sense. They have left us only the hymns which they sang to their gods and the incantations which their priests used at the great sacrifices; yet by studying these hymns and chants in the oldest collection, the Rigveda, we can learn much about the Aryan tribes. We can discover in some degree who they were, whence they came, whither they went, what was their tribal and national constitution, how they lived, and what they thought and did. These ancient Aryans did not write at all. They handed down their sacred lore by oral instruction from preceptor to pupil.
Almost our only authority for this period is the Rigveda, but it will help the student if we describe here, in as few words as possible, all the four Vedas, which form the first and oldest branch of Aryan literature."18
Here are some of the questions that have to be analyzed.
1) Whether the so called European Aryans have spread this ideology without understanding history, or, have they purposely spread this as a political strategy in order to reward the Brahmins since they betrayed India to them?
2) The Europeans had spread the notion that the period of the Vedas is before 1000 B.C. or earlier. However, they never gave any historical, archaeological or epigraphic evidences for the above statement. Why have they exalted the Vedas without any evidences?
3) On what basis have the so called European Aryans spread the ideology that the Aryans and their civilization are superior to the Dravidians and their civilization?
4) Amongst the world religions, the noble divine thoughts and the non-violent religions were the offshoots of the Dravidians.
For example, non-violence and vegetarianism are the basic principles of Jains, Buddhists and the Six-fold religion which are of the Dravidians. However, after the Aryans invasion of India, they destroyed the non-violent religions and enslaved the Dravidians. They corrupted the Six-fold religion through immorality and pornographic sculptures. They have also been influencing the Dravidian youth through sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. The secret circulars of the R.S.S and Brahmin Samaj which are appended in this book are evidences to this fact. Then even though this is a historical fact, then on what basis have the so called European Aryans spread that the Indian Aryans are superior to the Dravidians?
Both the Indian Aryans and the European Aryans have no religion. The Aryans have enslaved the Six-fold religion and the Europeans have enslaved Christianity.
If we ask the European Aryans whether they give more significance to the religion or race, we can infer from their activities that they are giving more importance to the race than to the principles of their religion.
Manusmrthi, which degrades and enslaves the Dravidian race and exalts the Aryans by giving a law based on colour, was greatly appreciated by the Europeans since it elevated the Aryan race extremely, and William Jones, who translated this Manusmrthi from Sanskrit in to English was also highly appreciated and the Europeans boosted him to a high status by erecting a statue of William Jones with Manusmrthi in his hand in St. Paul's Cathedral in London and it reveals how much importance was given to the racial supremacy than to the religion. Is it Christianity or racism? The following quotation explains this clearly.
"In the tradition of Western scholarship, 'these is no work that has had such great fame and has for centuries been considered to be so authoritative as the Manavadharmasastra. Manu was among the first Sanskrit works to be translated into any European language. The earliest translation of the text, published in Calcutta in 1794, was that of Sir William jones, one of the founding fathers of modern Indology; the statue of Jones in St Paul's Cathedral in London holds a volume of Manu in its hand. Jones's English translation was then translated into German and published by J. Chr. Huttner in Weimar in 1797. The rapid appearance of subsequent translations in French, German, Portuguese, and Russian (see the bibliography), and the inclusion of the text in the monumental Sacred Books of the East series edited by F.Max Muller, are testimonials to the historical and religious importance that European Orientalists conferred on the work".19
When sister Nirmala Devi was given a chance to occupy Mother Theresa's post, all the magazines and news papers run by the Brahmins have given much importance to this event, and focused this matter greatly since sister Nirmala Devi is a Nepali Brahmin, an Aryan. Is importance given to race or religion?
The concept of papacy began in the European Church after the 4th c. A.D, and according to their tradition, St. Peter, a non-European of a non-European religion since Christianity was developed after Jesus Christ, a non-European, was the first Pope. However, the position of Pope has been held only by Europeans about 1600 years even though they claimed to be modelled after St. Peter who was a Jew. Why don't we see the non-Europeans groomed as Popes? Is it religion or race?
In 1996 when there was a great confusion in Indian politics and Mr. Atal Bihary Vajpayee of the Bharatiya Janata Party was given a chance to be the Prime Minister of India and requested to prove his majority, Mother Theresa visited Mr. Vajpayee, an Aryan, and congratulated him since he was the Prime Minister at that time and it was focused on the Television extensively. However, when he could not prove his majority and Mr. Deve Gowda became the Prime Minister, we were not informed by any media about Mother Theresa's activities regarding this matter.
In the book titled 'Sacred books of the East', the author Maxmuller explained the Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Manusmrthi etc., but he did not mention any one of the Tamil literature of the East viz. Tevaram, Thiruvasagam, Nalaira Divya Prabhandham etc., which are the foundational religious books for Saivism and Vaishnavisim, that emerged and developed from the East. Why did he neglect the sacred books of the East which are in Tamil and are of the Dravidians.?
The Aryans have an international Organization known as 'International Aryan league' and they work tirelessly together irrespective of religion, nation, language etc. Since their prime motive is to establish their supremacy and enslave others in their thinking and social life, they are united together and put their efforts strongly and sharply.
References:
