Jnanasambandar: Nanda Chandran's question

[nanda chandran]

>he claims that Sasanka was an astik smartha and not a nastika Shaiva.
>Indeed it appears from the URL that the Shaivas were more tolerant than the
>Buddhists or Jainas, who were in turn more tolerant than Vaishnavas and
>Vaidiks.

All this is just purely political. When Vaishnavism openly defines itself as
Ubahya VedAnta and Shankara who was an orthodox brahmin is generally
regarded as a Shaivite and JnAnasampandhar was a brahmin, how can such
claims be justified?

In todays India, if you're anti brahmin and can also prove that your
people were "persecuted" by brahmins, you can enjoy the benefits of
the reservation system etc So to that extent everybody is eager to
prove that they were "persecuted" by brahmins. In such a claim they
also seek support of other groups, who also for the same reason claim
priveleges.

So in the quoted sentences the equation is that,

Vaishnavas and Vaidiks = brahmins

Buddhist and Jainas = brahmins + upper castes + few lower castes

Shaivas = Saiva SiddAntists (who have a strong non-brahmin following
                             in Tamil Nadu, many of whom enjoy the
                             privelege of the "backward" or "other
                             backward" caste status and also are a
                             powerful political force.)

So if you're a Dalit, how would you present your case? You raise a
big cry about brahmanic oppression and side with the BCs and OBCs to
derive political and economic mileage.

But what the Dalits don't realize or probably do - but don't
want to acknowledge it at present, is that the brahmins only have a
religious bias against them. They simply do not care what the Dalits
do in terms of profession or economic prosperity etc But that's what
the BCs and OBCs are interested in and in the long term this will
bring both sections in direct confrontation with each other. It's
already happening - with the clashes between the Dalits and upper
caste Tamils on the increase. And it is not that the BCs and OBCs are
egalitarian either. Their casteism and discrimination against the Dalits is
even worser than the brahmins and would be even more acutely felt by the
Dalits since it will be in the economic and social sphere.

The so called persecution by the brahmins is itself a Marxist innovation,
which gives them a reason to exist in India. For in reality, brahmanic
oppression was never economic, with the brahmins themselves having renounced
wealth voluntarily.

And the Muslim interest in this whole affair is that they don't want the
Hindus to come together and turn on them for all their past atrocities. So
it is in their interest that the Hindus - upper and lower castes - are kept
busy, fighting each other.

A few months back somebody replying to a post by Vishal which was
deliberately misinterpreted as a physical threat, said they didn't think
that something as harmless as Indological studies can be so dangerous - well
for foreign professors sitting in foreign lands it sure isn't - but in India
the so called "Aryan invasion" has a devastating effect - which has resulted
in social discord and cultural decay - for it is perceived that everything
"Aryan" is wrong. And while the professor in a foreign university speculates
about the Aryanization of India with a glass of scotch, he doesn't realize
or maybe doesn't even care, that his speculations cause economically poor,
harmless "Aryan" brahmins to be abused - physically, socially and
economically.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com