Saturday, April 16, 2016

Hinduism, brAhmanism, brAhminism, paraSurAma, and rAma rAjya

I wanted to release this article on srI rAmanavamI. Apologies for the delay.

In this article, I will try to describe the words in the title. The first three are "isms",  the fourth the name of an individual, and last but not the least a term that is nearly always used to imply and mean an ideal "state".

Regarding the first, there will be little quibble, my interpretation of the character  of the person named in fourth might raise small eyebrows, though it will show why it needed another rAma to establish rAma rAjya.

The real (potentially) explosive part, I suspect, will be the treatment of the second and third terms. While I may appear to be slippery/slimy in wordplay, I have not found any better way (yet) to understand the conflict that is going on, and in addition a plausible remedy.

While the article is not meant to be a dissing of paraSurAma, it surely is intended to be a warning about perils of brAhminism.

So for whatever it is worth, let me begin.


The term Hinduism is closely associated with sanAtana dharma. The term Hindu was used for us by foreigners. Just as we might call all Europeans goras, or whatever, the foreigners called all of us "Hindus". Thus, in that sense, Hinduism as a term, referred to a combination of belief-system, "religion", other practices, etc. of Hindus. However, when later foreigners saw the things a bit more closely, they wanted to distinguish between "religion" of those following only "austere monks", and of those following the "ritualistic priestly class". The former was called "Shamanism" (from Shamans, referring to Buddhist monks or also possibly Jain monks), while the latter was called "Brahmanism" or the "religion of the (or administered by) Brahamanas).

In that sense, we can take Hinduism and Brahmanism as terms used by foreigners to denote us for their own usage. And as terms, they can still be used fairly neutrally. Now, we as sanAtana dharma Hindus may want to prefer the term Brahamanism over Hinduism to differentiate ourselves from Shamana-Hindus (Buddhists, Jains and such). We can exclude Sikhs also from "Brahamanism" and include them under Shamanism, though Sikh Gurus did not emphasize monkhood as was done by Buddhists and Jains.

Now, however, the most pertinent question therefore is, what is Brahmanism. It is easy to notice that it is related to the term Brahmana, and thus the subsequent question becomes, "who/what is a Brahmana?". Probing further, we find that sanAtana dharma enshrines varNAshrama as model for social life; and "Brahmana" occurs as one of the "varNa". Thus who is, or can be a brAhmana becomes an important question. Now, answering this question will involve understanding the principles or varNAshrama dharma deeply and completely.

This is beyond the scope and purport of the present article. What I want to emphasize is, let us assume that the question "who is a brAhmana" has a legitimate, correct, and benign answer. In the tradition of satyam shivam sundaram, that is an answer that is True, is Beneficial, and is Beautiful too.

It is another matter that we may, in practice as of now, be far from such a good answer. It may need a lot of debate, possibly even bloody wars, to arrive at a even reasonable understanding and mutual agreement. That is why, I skirted the issue and suggested that we assume that such an answer is possible. Please notice that if we assume that such an answer is NOT possible, we would be nearly implying that Hinduism (as it was being practiced then) was mostly full of "evil practices" and "foreign invasion" was a boon which came to liberate the oppressed majority. Also, I emphasize that I, in no way, surmise that what was being practiced was "best" or even "desirable", for we did lose wars. So we did do a few, if  not many, things wrongly. Yet, I would also emphasize that, if only, we had corrected ourselves in time, we would not have lost the crucial wars. Please note that winning or losing war is not being considered the central issue here. What I am emphasizing is that a significantly negative connotation regarding what existed exits because wars were lost and the winners wrote as they deemed fit.

Thus even for a semblance of fairness, we must surely consider it to be possible that it WAS possible not to lose those wars.

Here I slip in my crucial bit. Assume that we did not lose those wars. May be we would still be having our share of problems, including social and cultural problems, and our current generation of strategists would be mentating on possible and likely solutions thereof. But there will be a BIG difference. We would NOT mind practicing the continuation (however much modified by the thinkers, leaders, and other such luminaries of the intervening period) of Brahmanism. Or let us from here on use the phonetically lucid brAhmanism.

Will such a brAhmanism be totally different from (say) Secular-Humanism? I emphatically surmise YES. Will such a brAhmanism be "casteist"? I strongly believe NO. Will it be totally non-discriminatory (with discrimination defined by Marxists, Femisnists, and Critical Theorists, etc)? I don't care, but I hope NOT. For, in my humble and arrogant opinion, fair discrimination is the salt of Civilization. And a contrived totally non-discriminatory society is UNFAIR to all its members except a few who profit from parading such non-discrimination.

So let us summarize here: Hinduism (a la brAhmanism) is/are term(s) to denote us, though initially used by foreigners. If we believe (as I do) that it was possible for us then not to lose those wars and survive (in a much larger sense than we are surviving now), then we would still be practcing brAhmanism, something which is true, benign and beautiful; though we may not know (as of now) how to detail it.

So the question also arises, if brAhmanism was so, why did Shamanism arise or happen? A simple and direct answer would be that since brAhmanism would have accorded a whole lot of freedoms (including the freedom to disagree), Shamanisms happened because they were possible! However, I would also like to present a somewhat different answer, as yet hypothetical, though to me which seems more plausible.

In one of the previous paragraphs I mentioned that fair-discrimination is the salt of Civilization. Herein enters the danger. In any society there are always sinister groups who would like to misuse or distort mechanisms/protocols used to administer fair-discrimination to the advantage (or better still monopolize) for their own group. Such subversion are possible, are happening all the time, including the present times, and thus could easily have happened. What is the nature of such sinister groups? Where do they come from? How do they form? How do they hide? How do they thrive? These are questions to be answered by abler minds. I posit that such are possible, ubiquitous, and could easily have happened in the past.

One more thing we can guess (or otherwise hypothesize) is that since the sought after advantages would be "material" (whether in terms of privileges or property), their group adhesion would also have a largely material basis. Endogamy, strategic inter-marriage with other groups, genetic infiltration of elites of other groups to subvert rival groups, etc. would seem likely common techniques. I also hypothesize that since brAhmana, in some sense did refer to certain type of elites (by merit), there unfortunately arose the fake-elite brAhmin (by subversion). Sometimes meritorious brAhmana fell for greed and possibly colluded with brAhmin (though in the strictest sense they ceased to be brAhmana as soon as they fell for greed). But we must remember that social life depends upon many approximations. Just as it is not possible to easily determine whether a player really played badly as mistake, or a  bad day, or whether he played badly as part of match-fixing, it is often not possible to determine whether it was a mistake by a brAhmana or whether he had already changed into a brAhmin.

I must clarify here that I am using the terms brAhmana and brAhmin in an arbitrary manner. Both the terms are commonly used as synonymous, so in that sense I AM introducing an artifical difference. But my point is, this difference is essential to understanding how a potentially good thing can turn into a bad thing. And that two very similar looking things can be largely, nay, overwhelmingly different.

I need to mention that in the preceding two paragraphs I have already defined what I mean by brAhmin (and by extention brAhminism). Just as brAhmin is a fake-brAhmana; brAhminism is a fake-civilization perpetrated by brAhmins. Fake-civilization? What would that mean?

I am not arrogant enough to claim that I can define here in a few words, what civilization is. This is despite the fact that I wrote that fair-discrimination is the salt of a Civilization. However, if we agree that a Civilization (at the very least) provides "quality of life" and "sustenance" to its members; a fake-civilization provides a fake-quality of life and that too such a thing is short-lived. This point must seem fairly obvious to most people, as in modern times we seem to be enjoying "fake" things while we (even if unknowingly) perceive impending doom.

And thus, if I am allowed to make a somewhat sweeping generalization, there is this eternal war between brAhmanism and brAhminism. I surmise that it is not unlikely that Shamanism arose as a reaction to some perceived brAhminism, though it reduced itself to its own version of brAhminism. A cursory look at both Buddhism and Jainism (at present) will betray this reality. And it is not surprising that notwithstanding the fact that both Buddha and Teerthankaras emphasized pursuit of liberation, the modern Buddhist and Jain monks often thrive only in "brAhmanism hatred", even though they call it "brAhmin hatred".


So in all this, where does paraSurAma come in? First of all I need to put a few things straight. paraSurAma is considered an avatAra of Ishwara, and I accept that. Unlike many other "isms" including "Secular-Humanism", my brAhmanism gives me right to critique (even if unfairly) even an incarnation of God. In that sense there is something truly great about the "religion" in which paraSurAma is called an avatAra.

My understanding of paraSurAma is quite limited. And interestingly it is limited by the behavior and performance of paraSurAma admirers, a whole lot of who are (understandably) brAhmins. A part of my understanding is supported by writings of shrI pundita rAmakinkara upAdhyAya. A friend of a friend of mine introduced me to his writings, and I found them awesome. shrI RU was awarded Padma award sometime when Hajpeyi was PM. Though, from what I have read of RU, he was a greater human being than mere Padma something. But that is another matter. Pt RU was a brAhmana, and if we are not sure, we can also call him a brAhmin. Though his life (I am told) was far from being brAhminical. Be that as it may, if whatever I am writing about paraSurAma, contains small morsels of truth, I owe it largely to Pt RU. The errors and omission are largely mine. 

A detailed treatment of paraSurAma and rAma rAjya is beyond the scope of this article, and possibly also beyond the scope of its author. Nonetheless, let me present a few salient points.

paraSurAma (his name was also rAma), was the son of sage jamadagni. A king kArtvIrya arjuna killed jamadagni to take away a celestial cow that the sage was granted. paraSurAma was on a pilgrimage then. On his return when he discovered the story, he was filled with rage, and he decided to punish all kshatriyas. He DID have a point, that kshatriyas then (who were duty bound to fight for dharma) did not object to or resist or fight kArtavIrya arjuna. And thus goes the story that paraSurAma killed kshtriyas (male kshatriyas) from all over the world twenty one times.

While Indian admirers of Abrahamic logicians might be wondering why he needed to ethnically cleanse 21 times, whether once was not enough? The simple answer is paraSurama did not kill infants or women (so pregnant women survived and gave birth to children which included male children).

Why paraSurAma stopped his war etc is an interesting anecdote in itself, so please do look up relevant books.

So in crude terms paraSurAma was one of the old "genociders". He punished the whole "races" for the crime(s) of one (or a few). And thus (as Pt RU would often say), while there was already a rAma (who indeed could have defeated and killed rAvaNa; just for reference, kArtvIrya arjuna had defeated rAvaNa easily), rAvaNa also thrived, and it required another rAma (dAsarathi rAma) to be born to euthanize rAvaNa. Not just that, rAma had to "fight" with paraSurAma before he fought rAvaNa. And while paraSurAma was so enraged by kArtvIrya arjuna killing his father, he was almost unconcerned while rAvaNa destroyed yajnas and killed many brAhmanas. In short, paraSurAma had soft corner for rAvaNa (depite rAvaNa being bad, for he was son of a brAhmana, sage pulastya). 

To be fair, after the rAma-rAma samvada (dialogue between dAsarathi rAma and paraSu rAma), paraSurAma is supposed to have realized that the purpose of his own avatAra was over, and he transferred all his powers/weapons to dAsarathi rAma, and retired for a meditative and austere life. paraSurAma is a chiranjIvi (will live until the dissolution) and so is alive even today. Though, please don't ask me how you could meet him, for I don't know. But I do believe that it MUST be possible.

To return to the main theme, to the paraSurAma-admiring-brAhmins, paraSurAma is brAhmin avatAra for brAhmins. And thus if brAhmins unite, they can still exterminate the whole creation. While other avatAras are for "all". In such interesting attitudes one can see how seeds of "brAhminisms" operate.Such brAhmins often overlook that kshatriya devotee ambarIsha did not want to punish all brAhmanas for transgressions by sage durvAsa. Or that brAhmin (paraSu) rAma was unable to establish rAma rAjya, etc.

The main point is NOT about paraSurAma, or superiority/inferiority of one or many "castes" over the others. The point is brAhmin attitudes (which result in brAhminism) are antithetical to Civilization, which in our case, we can term as "brAhmanism".


Now look at the present situation, and as it has been since quite some time. How meritorious people have been rising against all odds, often to be subverted by scheming adversaries.

Imagine (and analyze) how invaders would have tried to destroy our Civilizational merit-system and replaced it with their doctored, subverted (and self destructing) fake-merit-system.

Notice, how in most walks of life, (in very highly paying, highly powerful, highly long-term influencing walks like "films, music, entertainment", "politics", and "think-tank/academics") strategic intermarriages between people happen (the alleged incestuous clubs are indeed so). How, upright people are shunted and destroyed, and how compromising people thrive and rise. And mind you, if you incorporate "illegitimate" offspring, the picture will corroborate even more!

And just as paraSurAma was; even now, a lot of brAhmanas have soft corner for brAhmins because they have some blood-based kinship. A brAhmana, when he sides with a brAhmin, is actually destroying brAhmanism, and erecting brAhminsm.

Look at how JNU-kinds are always fighting against "brAhmanism", and if you notice closely, the intellectual power comes from, guess who, brAhmins!

Notice your neighbours Sharmas, Dubeys, or Vaidyanathans, who consider muslims as their allies in their "power struggle" against "savage" OBC's. Observe your neighbor OBC's who consider "muslims" as their allies in their "War" against "brAhmanism".

And most of all, look how all the anti-Hindu forces, especially those which are supported by foreign-funds and abetted by sold-out traitors are fanning these fissures. And also don't forget to notice how many of these are "brAhmins".

Look how anyone who has any merit, is being incentivized to become a brAhmin, while if even a brAhmin wakes up to the horror and wants a course correction is shunted out mercilessly.

Look how "discrimination" is a bugaboo; and how our ancient Civilization is portrayed as "anti-women", "anti-Dalit", anti-what-not.

Look at how those who have converted to Islam and Christianity, continue to have "Hindu names" and pontificate on "evils of Hindu society".

Look at the "caste" of Yechuries, and Karats, and see what kind of brAhmin is lurking behind their anti-brAhmanism. Look at brAhmin Trupti Desais, Medha Patkars, etc., and wonder why they are doing what they are doing.

Look how "Hindutva Right Wing" is Israel-Nationalist instead of being Hindu-Civilizationist. Look at those who are becoming "self appointed" voices of Hindus, and how they want to (re)define Hinduism.
Look at BJP-brAhmins who are always ashamed of "beastly Hindu traditions", and look at Congi-brAhmins who are professing for minority rights, so that minorities can practice their traditions.

Look at those brAhmins who are inciting Hardik Patels against brAhamanical tyranny. Look at those brAhmins who are telling OBC's that they have practiced "untouchability" against "dalits" for "thousands of years".

Look at history debates, where when it is a matter of fixing era of Hindu scriptures, they are dated (at best) 500 AD, etc; but when it comes to denouncing the Hindus for "atrocities on Dalits" the same "scriptures" imply that the atrocities were formulated and were practiced for (tens of) thousands of years.

In short, notice and understand how brAhmanism is being subverted by brAhminism. Notice how foot-soldiers are expected to behave like duty-loving (duty not for "reward" of heaven, but for the sake of "truth") brAhmanas, while their leaders behave like brAhmins, always cornering the best for their own. How leader after leader rises selling himself as a "brAhmana" (check Naeemuddinbhai Damn-Another-Ass Mohammadi, aka NaMo), and then quickly changes chameleon-like into a brAhmin.


The fight against brAhminism too is fraught with deception. There are those who fight against brAhminism because they want to be included in the brAhminism circle. Laloo Prasads, Nitish Kumars are examples.

The real fight against brAhmins and brAhminism can only be fought by brAhmanism-followers (who to say the least love duty for the sake of truth as a way of life), and that is why it is so important for anyone who wants to be a real warrior to understand and practice brAhmanism.

Unfortunately, more often than not, and especially in horrid times like present, brAhmanas seem divided by petty egoes, while brAhmins thrive with a no-holds-barred unity for self perpetuation.

In my opinion, in the present situation, brAhmanas need to unite and rise against brAhmins, so that brAhminism can be dethroned and brAhmanism can be enthroned. And mind you, I am not indulging in mere play of words. Think about it.

Disclaimer: The ideas presented in the article are still in crude form, and they might require a lot of polishing. However, if I have been able to communicate even a hint of the basic underlying message, I would consider myself sufficiently rewarded.

May Hindu-Civilization thrive and prosper again over extended akhand bhArata, as sanAtana bhArata.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are not moderated. Please read the About Us page. If you have outright disagreement, then you may not have much use commenting. You are free to record your disagreements in a civil manner. Repeated abuse, and irrelevant postings will be removed. Please avoid advertisements.

This blog does not honor political correctness. If your comment is posted, this does not mean that this blog endorses your views.

While I allow anonymous comments, please quote your twitter account if you want to have a referenced discussion.

There is a Suggestions Page, please post your suggestions regarding this blog as comments on that page.