Reincarnation and The Aryan Hereditary Caste System (Jati).
You teach the precarious doctrine of ‘transmigration’ (reincarnation) which is synonymous with ‘pantheism’ (παν = all, Θεος= God), a theory which favours God (Deitastatis), and the material universe (κοσμος) correlative, i.e., the universe is God, or God is the universe.
Seems prima facie to be an appealing, plausible theory, particularly to the undiscerning adherents of the New Age Movement (or neo-paganism); and to some indiscriminate Christians but, exploring into the deeper implications, one will discover some very complex unresolvable issues, e.g., the dichotomy between the inexhaustible infinite Creater (Yahweh ‘asher yihweh’), and the mortal psychophysical organism ‘mankind’ = homo (ανθρωπος σαρξ κ. σωμα); and the universe (κοσμος). They are as different as chalk from cheese. Vis à vis, they are incongruous. How could you hope to succeed in providing a rationale for this dichotomy when centuries of Hindu scholarship have failed? Furthermore, ‘transmigration’ is nowhere to be found in the Vedas (ca. 1500-800 BC); the oldest document in Hinduism (‘Sanâtana Dharma’ (q.v.)). Transmigration was introduced later in the Chândogya Upanishad (900-800 BC q.v.) and the Bhagavad-Gîtâ (400-300 BC q.v.); without theological considerations.
Allied to transmigration is the theory of Karma (or Karman) , which was introduced into northern India, during the Aryan invasion and conquest (1500 BC to 500 BC q.v.) . Caucasian Brahmins assert lineage to those aggressive, illiterate, nomadic invaders; from the south of Russia and Central Asia. Karma is, as I have said in earlier correspondence, an élitist (‘varna’ = ‘colour’ or ‘jâti’ = ‘family lineage’, ‘rank’) racist-based caste system. This was one of the principal tools to maintain socio-economic control, by the conquerors (Aryans) over the conquered; the aboriginals (mistakenly designated “Dravidians”).
The doctrine of Karma served two purposes. Firstly in providing an explanation as to the ‘why(s)’ underlying the apparent mundane inconsistencies with human life. Secondly, by supporting the ‘why(s)’ with the means for their inclusion viz., the ‘how(s)’ into religious dogma, to serve as an exploitative tool imposing social stigma and economic constraints to subjugate the Shûdra (the labouring caste) for exploitative control by the upper class, i.e., the Brahmin priests (q.v.).
For centuries, this system was upheld to maintained the status quo of the hierarchical system of class division (BBC Homepage, 5 March, 2008), or ‘caste’ (jati); viz., the Brãhmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shûdra, and Dalits (Untouchables). Although it was rejected by Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha (circa 563 to 483 BC), Jesus Christ (BC to 26 AD q.l.) (vid: Luke 4.18, Col. 3.22-4.1, and Eph. 6.5-9), and outlawed by the Indian Government in 1947; one hundred and eighty million Dalits continue to be discriminated against today (BBC World News, 14 October, 2006). The doctrine of karma supposedly rationalises life’s inequalities; but has never been substantiated.
Notwithstanding this prolonged caste system of cruel oppression on the Indian subcontinent, you, similar to your late spiritual master Prabhupada, continue to justify the perpetuation of this pitiless dogma and practice. You assert:
“… your situation is due to your own making. It’s your fault. You’re the one who made your present existence by your past activities” (sic.).
‘Understanding Karma’, Science of Identity Foundation, 1995, p.6 .
Likewise, Prabhupada said:
“There are different rules and regulations for different castes or divisions of society, and if a person is able to follow them, he will be automatically raised to the highest platform of spiritual realization”. (sic.).
The Bhagavad-Gïtâ, 16.22 p.764.
You claim that:
“Religious leaders are teaching religiosity rather than real religion [they] are simply misleading people … and not teaching the truth, and so-called modern society is increasingly providing the unwanted stimulus for people to become homosexuals”.
What precisely, in your opinion, is the “real religion” that “religious leaders” are suppose to teach? I don’t believe that “real religion”, and “truth”, are in your mind, the real issues in question. I believe the real issues are: Firstly, your personal Hinduized (q.v.) assumptions as to what you think Christian religious leaders ought to be teaching, viz., your fabrications, machinations, and interpolations of abbreviated forms of selective generalized Hindu doctrines, and beliefs – inherited from the late Prabhupada – into Christianity. Secondly, the presumptuousness of your grandiose monopoly of “truth” from behind the façade of your assumed epithet “Jagad Guru” (“teacher of the whole world”). Accompanied with an over bloated ambition to proselytize wealthy westerners. Mainly unwary Christians, rather than the poor in the underdeveloped countries, to your brand of Hinduism, or to be precise: ‘Butlerism’.
What is this supposed “stimulus” that society provides “… for people to become homosexuals”. Can you be more specific (with evidential supports). Who are the principal ‘providers’ of this “stimulus”, the government or private enterprise? Where does the money come from? The government coffers, or from the private sector? Moreover, how many ‘people … became homosexuals’ during the past twelve month period, as a consequence of these alleged ‘stimuli’
Would you consider “teaching the [whole] truth”, to both your followers and readership, regarding the Hindu rituals of Šâkta, whose devotees consume meat, alcohol, and engaging in ritual coitus (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15 ed, vol. 8, p. 897, 1982).
The “so-called modern society”, i.e., the United States, of which you so glibly refer, has allowed you the freedom, and opportunity, to expand and accumulate considerable wealth, in an insular comfort zone, from where to disseminate your wearisome and repetitious diatribes on “so-called” this, “so-called” that; and “so-called” anything else that is different from ‘Butlerism’; all of which are quite irrelevant to international current events affecting human suffering. You convert your rhetoric into wealth, whilst “so-called” Christians engage in philanthropy.
“So-called modern society” has also allowed you the freedom for your pseudo-religious posturing and strutting ‘homophobic notions regarding society’, ‘clergy not teaching real religion or truth’, whilst you remain silent on real moral and ethical issues concerning human life, e.g., the effects of the current ravages of war and famine. Since May 2003, one hundred thousand (q.l.) lives were lost in Iraq (The Lancet, 2004); to which your lectures, and booklets, have responded to with deathly silence. These concerns are apparently far too large for the “Jagad Guru” (“teacher of the whole world”). Clergy, “So-called modern society”, and ‘homosexuals’ are a far safer and softer target. Far easier to kill a dragon fly (Anisoptera) than a dragon itself; wouldn’t you agree? Any teachings – except ‘Butlerism’ of course! – that prioritizes nit-pickings (of “so-called” this, that; et cetera); over tragedies effecting human life is not “real religion” by any criterion.
The economic and social privileges you now enjoy would have been unachievable on the Indian subcontinent where the national prescribed poverty threshold is set at $0.40 per day [World Bank’s beneficiary recommendation is $1.0 for all undeveloped countries]. A sound economic policy to preach to wealthy westerners than to the poor in the underdeveloped countries; wouldn’t you agree?
Whilst you occupy your sphere of influence (whatever that may be) , vilifying homosexuals, et al., more than 300,000,000 (q.v.) of India’s population are unemployed, probably existing below the poverty line (National Citizens Movement for “Transforming INDIA”). The aggregate of seventy-three million people, in seventy-eight countries, depend on the United Nations World Food Programme (UNWFP) (Al Jazeera, 12 March 2008). How fare your rice bowl, cushioned safe and secure in Hawaii? (or “so-called modern society”), whacking away at homosexuals and other soft targets, with a blind eye on the real issues concerning human suffering.