RamaY wrote:JohneeG wrote:
By wearing the Kashaya(Bhagwa/Saffron), he gave an impression that he was a sanyasi(fake one or real one). A sanyasi is prohibited from sex. So, by wearing saffron and giving an impression that he was a sanyasi was the reason his detractors could convince the larger hindu audience by leaking his private moments.
Is it true? Does Hinduism/SD/Vedic-Tradition "prohibits" sex during Samnyasa ashrama?
Then why do almost all Rishis, who are even Brahmarshis, have wifes and hundreds of children? Why Hindu Gods have wives and children?
Is there a difference between Brahmacharya and Samnyasa, if so what is it?
Who/When made Samnyasa a vow for celibacy?
Saar,
It is a misconception among many(including me until sometime back) to think that Rishi means Sanyasi. But, Rishis and Sanyasis are not same. They are completely different. A sanyasi need not be a rishi and a rishi need not be a sanyasi.
A rishi has ati-indriya-darshana-shakti(extra-sensory-sight) to see beyond the ken of senses. If a rishi has the capability to 'see'(or discover) the Mantra, then such a rishi is called drashta(seer). If a king rules in a dharmic manner without any love/hatred and being fair to one and all, such a King is called raja-rishi. Also, when a king performs a rigorous tapas, he can be called raja-rishi.
If someone performs a great tapasya and obtains victory over ari-shad-varga(kama, krodha, lobha, moha, madha, matsarya), then such a one is called Maha-rishi.
If someone performs a great tapasya and is able to experience the Brahman/Atma, then such a one is called Brahma-rishi.
These rishis could be bachelors(brahmachari), house-holders(grihastha or vanaprastha), or sanyasis(renouncers).
As for Gods/Goddesses, they can also be bachelors(brahmachari), house-holders(grihastha or vanaprastha), or sanyasis(renouncers).
Most of the Gods/Goddesses are Grihasthas(house-holders). They are the role-model for others. Moreover, the world is their house. If the Gods/Goddesses become Sanyasis, then the world will not exist.
Even then, there certainly some sanyasi(renunciated) Gods/Goddesses also to provide inspiration(and be a role-model) to Sanyasis. For example: Kapila Maharshi (avatar of Lord Vishnu).
---
RamaY wrote:Thanks for the details Atriji and Agnimitraji.
I agree that Brahmacharya and Samnyasa are two different ashramas. What would be the main difference?
In Ashrama dharma, Samnyasa comes after Grihastha and Vanaprastha asramas thus is a healthy and natural progression. Even then we see people moving from Vanaprastha to Samnyasa as couples (wife and husband) even though they may leave this life separately.
All the creatures of the world have chitta-vrittis(mental/emotional tendencies). There are 2 methods prescribed to handle the situation. These are 2 types of dharma:
a) Pra-vritti (good tendencies)
b) Ni-vritti (no tendencies)
Pra-vritti marga means a way of life which involves cultivating 'good tendencies'. Ni-vritti marga means a way of life which involves discarding all tendencies.
Pra-vritti marga has 4 Purusha-artha-s:
a) Dharma b) Artha c) Kama d) Moksha.
It also has 4 Ashramas: Brahmacharya, Grihastha, Vanaprastha, Sanyasi.
In Ni-vritti marga there is only one goal: Moksha. It is a path of renunciation.
Generally, people get confused because they conflate Pra-vritti marga and Ni-vritti marga. The Dharmas of people in Pra-vritti is different from the Dharma of people in Ni-vritti.
The final goal of all creatures is Moksha. But, in Pra-vritti marga, it is done in a step by step process, while in Ni-vritti marga the concentration and focus is solely on Moksha and Vairagya.
When Lord Brahma created the beings in the beginning, He created 4 Sanath Kumaras and Naradha. All of them chose Ni-vritti marga i.e. they did not take up any household. So, Lord Brahma again created more beings(Swayambhuva Manu, Angira, Kratu, Kardama, ...etc). These people became the procreaters of various creatures. That means these being entered Pra-vritti marga.
When a person of Pravritti marga takes up Sanyas, he is entering Ni-vritti marga. Sanyas means Ni-vritti. In Sanyasa, there is no scope for being married and having a wife, or children or comforts or possessions or sex or friends or enemies or lovers or admirers and so on. The only focus and concentration is on Moksha and Vairagya.
There is a formal procedure to take up sanyasa. It involves shaving the head(shikha), breaking the thread(upanayana thread), giving final pindas to all the forefathers, taking permission to renounce from the wife/parents and giving up feelings of mine/your.
The sanyasa is given by someone who is already a sanyasi. Kashaya/Bhagwa/Saffron is wore by them. A stick is held by sanyasis. (If you carefully observe, Jainism and Buddhism follow most of these rules, particularly shaving the head. This shows that they were initially ascetic sects of Hinduism before they broke up from Hinduism. Instead of Saffron, they took up white. In fact, it seems it is the jains who used to wear the white or go naked. Going naked has a long history starting from Lord Shiva. It seems buddhism copied white from jains. Finally, X-ism also has white because it is crypto-proxy-buddhism).
Generally, everyone is allowed upto Vanaprastha. But, sanyasa was prohibited for women. It seems it is also not allowed for non-dvija-s. Dvija means one with thread ceremony(i.e. Kshatriya, Brahmana, and Vaishya). But, over a period, all the people have been taking up sanyasa. Even then, women were not allowed for a long time. Exceptions do exist, but they are exceptions, not the norm. (Buddhism introduced a new phenomenon by extending sanyasa to women and making them nuns. X-ism also has nuns because it is crypto-proxy-buddhism. As far as I understand, no other creeds have this unique concept of renunciation for women).
Of late, all people are taking up sanyasa without following any formal codes. There is a prevalence of fake sanyasis who wear kashaya but indulge in all sorts of sensory activities and accumulate wealth. It is because the Sanyasis are respected by the mango men.
If you read the bio of Buddha(without going into whether its true or fake), even Buddha joined a school of Sanyasis and tried tapas. Infact, he was inspired to become a sanyasi when he saw a sanyasi while roaming in the town. 3 instances are mentioned which motivated the Buddha:
a) he saw a dead body while roaming in the town.
b) he saw a diseased person writhing in pain while roaming in the town.
c) he saw a sanyasi while roaming in the town.
a) and b) made him lose interest in the world, while c) inspired him to take up sanyasa. Of course, he did not follow the due procedure. He did not take permission of his parents, nor did he take the permission of his wife. He joined a school of sanyasis, but he soon gave up and joined another one. He kept shifting from one to another and rejected them all. Finally, he claimed to get enlightenment and in the process discovered a new path: middle path. So, now he established his own school of sanyasis. The unique point of this school was missionary activity. Buddha sent out missionaries to swell up his numbers. Kings, elite and ordinary folk paid respects and regards to all Godmen even if they did not agree or understand the theology being preached. This is a continuation of Hindu tradition of respecting all sanyasis. There was coaxing to make people join Buddha's sanyasi organization. Even a young child, Buddha's own son, was given sanyasa. All the male relatives of Buddha were given sanyasa. Many of them were forced to take up sanyasa because Buddha's father was the King of Shakyas.
Many of them resented the sanyasa because they had not taken it up voluntarily. Over a period, there was lot of internal politics and bickering in the Buddha's organization. Devadatta, Buddha' cousin, wanted to replace the Buddha as leader of the Sanyasi organization. Buddha refused to give up the leadership of the organization even though Buddha was quite old by that time. Devadatta split the organization into two. Some(Many?) followers of Buddha left with Devadatta and formed a new organization. Devadatta's organization and Buddha's organization competed with each other to swell the ranks and also gain the favour of the King Ajatashatru, ruler of Magadha. There were also plots to murder Buddha. Buddha's right-hand man Sariputra had a fight with Devadatta faction when both of them encountered each other while on their missionary activity. Devadatta was abused by Sariputra. Their was a fight. Sariputra killed some of the opposite faction. But, he was also critically wounded and died as a consequence. Initially, Devadatta acquired the favour of Ajatashatru, but later Buddha was able to charm Ajatashatru.
When Buddha was thus coaxing many people(particularly in his home country) into Sanyasa, the women became desperate and asked Buddha to accept them also into his school. Buddha refused to do so.(This is a traditional hindu position.) But, then Ananda, a close disciple and cousin of Buddha, took up the cause of women by appealing to Buddha on emotional lines. Those women were being led by Buddha's aunt who had raised him after the death of his mother. So, Buddha gave in to the emotional appeal and accepted the women into Sanyasa. But, Buddha warned that his religion which was going to last for 2000 years, would now last only 1000 years because the women have been allowed to join. Then, Buddha puts up many preconditions for nuns. Many of them are quite rigorous and nuns are kept lower in hierarchy then the male sanyasis, even if the nun is a senior in terms of age or knowledge or anything else. This is the unique attribute of Buddhism. Nuns exist only in Buddhism and X-ism, correct me if I am wrong.
If one goes by the bio of Buddha, then Buddha also used to undergo Chaatur-masyas(4 month vows) that has been prescribed for Sanyasis in Hinduism. Chaatur-masya means 4 months. Sanyasis are not supposed to stay at any one place. They should keep roaming. But, in 4 months of rainy season, they should remain at one place(village, town, ..etc). A sanyasi's seniority is judged by the number of chaatur-masyas he has taken up in his life so far.
Buddha lived a long life of 80 years and he had taken up sanyasa quite early(30 years). He claimed to have been enlightened very early. If Buddha is taken as a real historical figure, then his field of action seems to have been limited to few cities in UP and Bihar. Even the populace of these cities did not completely become Buddhists. In fact, even the Kings(like Ajatashatru) did not become total Buddhist supporters. His organization remained a small school among many others. Of course, the bio of Buddha boasts that it had defeated many schools which were taken as prominent in those times. It should be noted that the method of defeat was not discussion or debate. Buddha defeated his opponents or convinced the people of the superiority of his school by performing miracles.(very similar to jesus figure. jesus also purportedly shows miracles to convince people).
----
Adhi Shankara took up sanyasa by following all the formal procedures. He kept roaming all over Bharath. He defeated many scholars of His day and made them accept the superiority of Vedhantha. Finally, He established 4 matas in 4 directions: in Shringeri(Karnataka), in Puri(Odisha), in Dwaraka(Gujarath), in Bhadhari. He also reformed the mode of worship at several temples across Bharath. One of the unique features is that He used to set up people of one place as priests in temple of another place. He was trying to integrate Bharath through such process. This shows(by establishing the maths in 4 directions of Bharatha and integration) that Bharathiyas had an idea of being a single country before muslims or X-ians entered the desh. So, those people who claim that there was no concept of being a single nation before brits or islamics came are wrong. Yes, it may not have been political unity. But, there was a civilizational, cultural, and religious unity. The rashtra is only a shell to protect the desh. Rashtra itself is not a desh.
Adhi Shankara established His 4 disciples as the pontiffs of the 4 matas. These pontiffs were supposed to be Acharyas i.e. they should be role-models for the people in dharma-acharana. They should have Vairagya. Traditionally, Sanyasis have been the pontiffs of these matas. These are the only Sanyasis(mata-adhipathis) who are allowed to have possessions for the sake of dharma-rakshana.
Adhi Shankara lived for merely 32 years. In this short lifetime, He re-established Vedhantha to its pinnacle status. He defeated 72 different creeds of His time and established Hinduism on strong grounds. Many people, including the followers of Adhi Shankara, have been trying to replicate His successes, but have not been able to do so. Many people have imitated Adhi Shankara and have written many commentaries. Many people have also tried to set up Mata-s. Or create new sects or philosophies. They have been largely limited to a small location or specific demography.
Adhi Shankara, on the other hand, has His mark all over Hinduism.
Dashanami sanyasa order was formed in connection with the 4 matas established by Adhi Shankara during Islamic rule. The original 4 matas also established certain branches on the request of the people and appointed a pontiff to these branches. Over a period, some of these branches declared themselves as independent. During Islamic rule, the Bhadhari Mata collapsed and remained defunct. Even the matas in Dwarka and Puri had periods when there was no pontiff for long times. Shringeri managed to have uninterrupted succession of pontiffs. Incidentally, Shringeri happens to be the first mata established by Adhi Shankara.
These matas, their branches and the dashanami sanyasis have played a pivotal role in preservation of Hinduism, particularly in hostile rules. During times of great desperation, these sanyasis also had to take part in politics of the time to protect the Hinduism. So, saffron/Bhagwa/Kashaya which was originally a symbol of renunciation came to be associated with desperate valor.
It was in this manner that Sanyasis came to be introduced into politics...
Due to long hostile rules, the order and hierarchy was broken up. Many new sanyasis came up with no formal sanyasa. These people claimed to be sanyasis. There is also a prevalence of many fake sanyasis. These fake sanyasis cannot be checked by the real sanyasis or the matas or the Hindus because of the laws. Yet, the antics of these fake sanyasis maligns all the sanyasis and Hinduism in general. Anyone can claim to be a sanyasi and do anything. And the detractors of Hindhuism can show such deviant or fake sanyasis to show all sanyasis in poor light.
----
There is another point: Vamachara is considered heretic in mainstream Hindhuism. Adhi Shankara defeated and reformed many tantriks and other cults which were steeped in perversions by calling themselves as Vamacharis.
It is not just sex between opposite gender. Many other kinds of perversions were followed at one time, during Adhi Shankara's period. He ended all such stuff. He established that such stuff is not supported by Vedhas.
Such perversion should not be followed or justified. It is best if such things are not encouraged. The problem is that there is no Hindhu body(comprising of spiritual leaders) which can monitor the Hindhu society. The 4 matas established by Adhi Shankara were supposed to play that role. But, now, it is only the courts that have jurisdiction, even though these are supposed to be religious matters.
For example, there are certain kshudhra pujas(lowly/base rituals) to obtain certain powers. Such activities are prohibited in mainstream Hindhuism. But, inspite of that these activities happen. The worst part is that these activities are shown to malign Hindhuism, even though Hindhuism prohibits them.
---
People being shocked about a Sanyasi having sex is same as people being shocked that a married Guru is having extra-marital affair.
Sex is allowed in Hindhuism. But, within the institution of marriage. Outside marriage, sex is prohibited.
----
Sri Krishna's Raasa Leela is an example of Ni-vritti marga. Sri Krishna plays His flute and all the Gopis leave their respective homes to come to Him. He is still a young boy(less than 16 years). Gopis are of various ages. When they come to Him, the first thing that Lord says is that the Gopis should go back to their respective homes and coming out of their homes in this manner is not correct. Then, the Gopis reply that what the Lord had said is true in case of Pra-vritti marga, but the Gopis have taken up the Ni-vritti marga...
---
johneeG wrote:
Of course, it is well-known that anything and anyone connected to Hinduism is in the crosshairs and will be targeted for real or perceived faults. Even while, there is a conspicuous silence when it comes to abrahan cults.
Infact, the agenda is to equate Hinduism to a superstition. They seek to portray Hinduism as nothing more that superstition. They carefully avoid any such exposure of abrahan cults. This careful portrayal has given rise to interesting trend: many non-X-ist people in desh actually believe that abrahan cults(particularly X-ism) does not believe in 'superstitutions'.
What does superstitution mean?
For example, supersitution can mean ghosts. Many hindus, after being constantly exposed to MSM propaganda, think that X-ists do not believe in ghosts!
Or other such superstitions.
It is a supreme irony because, initially, X-ists used to be called by the Greeks as narrow-minded superstitious idiots. Even today, in west, X-ists are looked at as silly and superstitious. But, in desh, they are given an aura being 'progressive' and 'liberal'.
From the brits times, EJs have been trying to claim the successes of west as successes of their theology. They hide the fact that west started progressing only after it started giving up that theology. And theology had desperately opposed the scientific development. When the theology had reigned supreme for atleast 700 years, Europe was in dark ages. And to impose such superstitions, the knowledge was complete removed from public domain. Ignorance was deliberately perpetuated. Libraries were burnt. Any moderately intelligent or educated person(particularly women) were persecuted on one pretext or the other.
Dark ages started to end when Europe was exposed to oriental ideas through the jihadis. Finally, Europe was enlightened when they where directly in contact with oriental. Europe had to wage a long struggle against the X-ist ideology to obtain freedom from most silly superstitions imposed by it on the society. It is in this background that most of the present Europe(and White America) must be viewed. Ideas and concepts like liberalism, or feminism, or science being atheistic, or secularism were developed to combat the superstitious and narrow-minded theology.
But, in desh, most of these concepts have no relevance. For example, science was never seen as an antonym to religion in desh. Particularly, in Hinduism, knowledge and religion went hand in hand. At least, in case of buddhism, one can claim that perhaps the war-sciences were neglected(or even actively sought to be discouraged). But, there is no such thing in case of Hinduism.
So applying these Europe centric(particularly in the backdrop of the X-ist antics) concepts to desh is a great mistake.
Even in Europe, these concepts themselves take extremist positions. Perhaps, it is done to counter the X-ist extremism. But, most often, they end up being clones of X-ism. For example, communism. Communism is very much similar to X-ism with omission of god, godson, eternal heaven/hell and sin. Same thing applies to other such concepts and ideas which originated in Europe(or White US).
In short, they are unable to break through the mental-framework that X-ism has enforced on them. Even when they create a new cult, it ends up being very similar in essential thought process to that of X-ism. This is happening because X-ism had eliminated all the alternatives. So, there is no alternative idea from which inspiration can be taken.
It is precisely here that the importance of Indic religions lies. Indic religions are perhaps the only alternate model to the Abrahan cults. And are the last resort to all those who want to break free from the abrahan model of thinking. It was not at all coincidence that the grip of watikan started weakening as mango people of the Europe(and White US) were exposed to the Indic philosophies.
I think the only ideologies that are still capable of mounting intellectual, philosophical and social challenge to abrahan model are Indic ones(particularly Hinduism). arbahan models have always relied on eliminating their opposition rather than defeating them. And generally, they try to eliminate the opposition by warming up to the people in power(or by installing their people in power) and/or by deception. When they are in powerful position, they resort to direct action. When are in a weak position, they resort to deception. The same model is being implemented in desh.
Link to original post
X-posting a previous post by Surasena garu in reply to the post of Anand K:
Anand K wrote:The Arab invasions of Egypt, Western Roman Empire, Persia and Chinese Central Asia resulted in a lot of literature which discussed the religious zealotry and an analysis in their own theological terms. The Copts saw the Arabs as instruments of deliverance from Chaldean Church, the Roman church saw it as a punishment for human sins and the Persian sources explicitly mention the religious aspect. The invasion followed the heels of two devastating plagues and a terrible war with Sassanids.... so it fitted with apocalyptic views of Semitic faiths. The Buddhists OTOH also came up with some interesting Mahakal literature; fringe sects but still significant. IIRC the Mihirakula campaign against the Buddhists did produce some texts which discusses the religious zealotry but did the Turk scourge which swept Buddhism away from Kabul to the Meghna produce such analysis?
Similarly, is there any detailed analysis by Hindu sources on the foreign zealotry..... if not by the Arabs, the Turks at least? I mean, in a religious and social perspective? Someone must have noted the new "drives" and the fact that the invaders have mixed demographics and distinctly different social classes (versus their own caste dominated armies)? I mean, it is generally accepted that by the 7th century AD caste system had lost a lot of flexibility...
PS: What did the Jews of 7th-8th centuries think of the Muslims..... I mean, theologically. They were a diaspora by then and did not need to cast them as another Nebuchadnezzar, but still......
Surasena's reply:
The only real challenge to the mata-s based on unmAda has, for a long time, been that of the bhArata-s. Hence, we are not surprised that they have a particular fear of the dharma and work hard to exterminate it. In this regard ekanetra had asked if historically the unmAda-s understood their shared doctrinal weakness when confronted with the robustness of the dharma. This question was particularly pertinent because the general opinion has been that until the late 1800s (e.g. Vakimchandra Chattopadhyay) the Hindus had no proper understanding of the unmAda-s. At least the sister group of the bhArata-s, the yavana-s had a Celsus or a Julian who had produced devastating critiques of the unmAda. But Hindus were not known to have any such.
If this were the case, then how could the unmatta-s feel threatened by the dharma. This prompted us to narrate to ekanetra the case of the relatively obscure internal critiques that arose in the West Asian and European realms, long after the tragic demise of the brave Julian, wherein rare philosophers saw through the madness gripping their people. We had earlier alluded to the Georgios Plethon Gemistos in the Byzantine world of pretonmAda-s. Not only did he see the delusion gripping the Greeks but he also realized that it was not different from the marUnmAda gripping his neighbors. But several centuries before him there was an internal critique right in the maru from Abu al-Husayn Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Ishak al-Rawandi, which is of interest for multiple reasons, one of which is how the transmission of an Indic critique touched a raw nerve simultaneously across all the mata-s based on unmAda.
What ever little is known of al-Rawandi makes a fairly interesting tale, which while commonly known in educated circles, is still worth retelling (One may profitably consult the works of Sarah Stroumsa to glean useful information regarding him). His father was a Judaist and Talmudic scholar, who as a Dhimmi during the Arab conquest of Iran, was obliged to convert to Islam. Moving from one Abrahamism to another with much ease, with a new convert’s zeal, he started a program of refuting Judaic texts and favoring Mohammedanism. His son Abu al-Husayn was well schooled by his father in Koran and Hadiths and was on his way to being a good Mohammedan. However, he drifted away, first moving to the mu’tazilI system of semi-rational Mohammedanism, followed by a stint as a Shia, and then becoming a Manichaean. Finally, he gave up all prophetic Abrahamisms and compiled a piercing critiques of these cults, and thoroughly exposed their shallowness. The Mohammedans termed him al-zindIq and al-mulHid, which are supposed to mean a materialist or atheist who rejects the religions of the book.
Indeed an Islamic apologist says about him: “We have never heard anyone defame the creator (i.e. the Abrahamistic mono-deity) and make fun about him as much as this cursed one (i.e. al Rawandi) did.”
Not surprisingly, his refutation of the Abrahamism, titled the Kitab al-Zumurrud (or the emerald) does not survive in totality. However, we have fragment of it preserved within an Islamic apology written by a Shia hAshIshin (Assassin) missionary to counter it.
The point of interest to us here is his presentation of the critique of prophetic religions that was developed by the barAhima or brAhmaNa-s. Now some western arabologists have tried to deny that barAhima meant brAhmaNa-s or have tried to claim that al Rawandi put words into brAhmaNa-s’ mouths because he was afraid to claim them as his own. These attempts suggest that there is still an underlying fear among the followers of unmAda-mata-s to accept that these critique came from the brAhmaNa-s. After all, unlike some imaginary group, they are still very much alive and can still undermine the philosophical foundations of the unmAda-mata-s. Indeed, this denial is a part of the continuum of trying to deny the Hindu traditions when confronted with their superior robustness (it should be noted that a tangled skein connects some of these arabologists to the indologists like the mahAbhagabhakShakI from Chicago and her relatives). However, a closer look clearly re-affirms the fact that the barAhima were indeed brAhmaNa-s and not anything else, and the critique was not put into their mouths but came from them.
First, in the 900s al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim clearly states that the barAhima are from al-Hind. This establishes that the Arabic writer were talking about Indians not any one else as some western arabologists have tried to claim. Second, as Stroumsa indicates, the Persian mullah Taj al-Din ash-Shahrastani furnishes the term “barAhima sumaniyya aShhAb al-budUd”; thus, clarifying that the brAhmaNa-s and shramaNa-s (bauddha-s) were the categories of idol worshipers. Other Islamic authors place the al-budUd, i.e. the idol-worshipers in al-Hind (the term bud-shikhan or buddha-buster is a general term used by Mohammedans for their iconoclastic ghAzI-s). So it is quite clear that the Moslems were indeed referring to the brAhmaNa-s and bauddha shramaNa-s, whose lands they were intruding into and thus coming in direct contact with them. Third, independently of al-Rawandi, we find the mention of the barAhima as refuting the prophetic religions in both Islamic and non-Islamic Abrahamistic sources, such as the work of the Judaic apologist Dawud ibn Marwan al Muqammash. Among the Judaic and Islamic sources we also have Sa’adya and al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim, which appear to be independent of that of al-Rawandi.
All these sources are distinct but consistent with the statement that the barAhima reject the truth claims of all Abrahamistic prophets and refute the idea the word of a prophet can have soteriological value. These observations, taken together, make it clear that indeed the refutation of the prophetic religions was composed by the brAhmaNa-s: it was lapped up by al-Rawandi and extensively utilized in his own refutation of the Abrahamism, even as the barAhima refutation was attacked by apologists of all three Abrahamistic cults.
Now looking at what survives of the barAhima refutation of prophetism, it is clear that the Arabic writers are talking about sAmkhya-yoga and vedAnta based ideas which were philosophies of the Hindus.
It is notable that al-Rawandi, who was well familiar with the related Greek Neoplatonic thought, especially via its late survival in the city of Harran, refers to the brAhmaNa-s. This, strengthens the idea that he was specifically referring to the philosophy taught by brAhmaNa-s and not a general transmission of this type acquired via the Neoplatonists. The fundamental barAhimA critique of prophetism presented by the Arabic writers is rather destructive (effectively showing their mata-s to be delusions): “If prophets are sent to preach adherence to things that can be established by the use of intellect then the prophets are just like ordinary people. If, of the other hand, they come to preach what contradicts those things – god has made those things to be perceived as proofs; they will not suit anything else except through the altering/perversion of the intellect itself.” The Abrahamistic writers also mention that the brAhmaNa-s denied a role for prophetic declarations (as seen in the pretonmAda and marUnmAda) in determining reward and punishment (i.e. puNya and pApa of Hindus being independent of the prophetic assignment of someone to either to hellfire or 72 girls and 28 boys).The primary thesis of the barAhima presented in the Islamic world by multiple Islamic apologists (Sunni and Shia) is entirely consonant with the idea of j~nAnayoga which widely encountered in Indian advaita vedAnta and bauddha circles.
They view it with much fear because, as noted above, the barAhima view of j~nAna alone being the instrument for soteriology fundamentally overturned the principle of a prophet’s direct line to the Abrahamistic mono-deity: From the Stroumsa’s work one can glean at least 12 Mohammedan authors writing polemics against the barAhima-inspired refutation of Islam introduced into their world by al-Rawandi. This continued long after the death of al-Rawandi and well after the army of Islam had erased the Hindus from the Western expanses of Greater India. Importantly, this fear was not restricted to the Mohammedan – interestingly we find similar reactions from the paleo-Abrahamism to the barAhima, with at least 5 polemical Judaic authors taking up their refutation of prophetism, along similar lines to that of the Sunni and the Shia. Much of this mirrors the earlier attack by the pretAcharin-s on the yavana pagans (e.g. Origen apology for the shavamata and his attack on Celsus). This strongly supports the contention that the fear of the dharma among the prophetic monotheists is a dangerous one. These attacks might also be leveled in a slightly modified form against the secular neo-Abrahamism which emanates from the prophets Marx and Engels (whom DD Kosambi venerated in a very Abrahamistic fashion as the “nUtana-mAnava-samAja-nirmANakAra-s).
That is why we see the liberal Marxists studiously avoid any presentation of the true import of al-Rawandi’s attack on Abrahamism.
Finally, we might ask a question as to how did the knowledge of the brAhmaNa-s reach al-Rawandi. Much after his time, when the accursed Mahmud Ghaznavi was leading the army of Islam against the Hindus, Al-Biruni remarks that the Hindus had “scattered like atoms” their scholars had retreated from the western domains of Greater India. But before the cataclysm of Mahmud, we know that the Hindu presence was still strong in the western domains of bhArata even as the rAjpUt-s stanched the Arabic jihad. However, the jihadic pustules were already scarring lands of the sindhu and bAhlika giving opportunity for transmissions of Indic knowledge to the Mohammedans. The preservation of transmissions to multiple Islamic and Judaic sources around al-Rawandi’s and his Manichaean teacher al Warraq’s times suggest the transmission itself happened before their times. It was probably via a Manichaean or Judaic informant (given that al-Rawandi’s own family had been Judaic before conversion to Mohammedanism). From the location of the early sources in Iran and their association with what is now northwestern Afghanistan, we suspect that brAhmaNa-s were from gandhAra or bAhlika rather than the sindhu. In this context we might look into the case of two other men who gained freedom from Islam.
The first of these, the mathematician Abu’ al Abbas al-Iranshahri from Persia, is mentioned by al-Biruni as being influenced by Hindu thought and he subsequently gave up Islam. He then went on to propose his own religion that was based on a Indic model of sAmkhya with several Iranian elements incorporated into that framework. He in turn inspired the physician and chemist Abu Bakr al Razi (from Ragha near Tehran), who too gave up Islam and took to the study of Neoplatonism preserved by the Harran school and Hindu thought. From that point on he started describing himself as a Neoplatonist or a Pythagorean, but he also incorporated the saMkhya theory in his view of the origin of the world. He states: “The world originated with consciousness uniting with matter. Through higher knowledge the consciousness recognizes is its identity as itself and not as as matter. This he declared is the ultimate wisdom that releases consciousness from the bonds of matter.” He also declared that the divine inspiration is innate in all organisms, including non-human ones and does not require additional revelation of divine directives from prophets.
Thus, he too declared the prophet Abrahmisms as invalid truth claims. Here too, not just the Islamic authors but also the Judaist theologian Maimonides declare al Razi as a dangerous heretic, again illustrating the alignment of basic Abrahamistic thought. What we observe from this is that not just al Rawandi and but also al Iranshahri and al Razi lapsed from Islam under the influence of Hindu thought. Given their links with the North-Western Afghanistan, it again points to Hindu thought being transmitted via that route. The case of these early refuters of Abrahamism parallels the much later rejection of Islam by the Mogol tyrant Akbar under the influence of Hindu scholars and his Hindu friend bIrbal.
Thus,we see two related phenomena play repeatedly over several centuries: 1)The re-acquisition of heathen thought, Hindu and Greek, cured several Abrahamists. This process involved a lapse from Islam towards more robust heathen constructs. 2) Specifically in the zones were Hindus came in close proximity with Moslems there were brAhmaNa refutations of Islam that today are only preserved in Arabic sources but had a strong effect on not just Islam but even Abrahamisms with whom the Hindus were not directly in proximity. This reinforces our view that the West will be unable to critique the religion of peace seriously as long as it does not give up the religion of love at all levels. As a corollary the otherwise disunited Abrahamisms could align against the dharma because they all recognize it as a fundamental problem from their stand point. This lies at the heart of issue which has been diagnosed by Malhotra in his “desert” versus “forest” dichotomy. Finally, we might point out that some of Arun Shourie’s eminent historians claimed that Islam influenced the Hindus during the consolidation of shaMkarAdvaita. As we can see here there is influence no doubt, but the direction was opposite, and it clearly confronted rather than conformed to Abrahamisms.
http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/5030/
Link to original post