Tuesday, May 6, 2014

003 Do SUdras and atheists cause droughts, famines and diseases?

003 Do SUdras and atheists cause droughts, famines and diseases?

Topics for discussion: 003, Sudras, Atheists, Droughts, 8/022
Manusmriti Chapter 8, verses 1 to 150 in Telugu Script for download
Click to download.

Many Universities in India have prescribed for studies as a part of Law Course Syllabus (B.L. or L.L.B.).

We shall see Chapter 8, verse 022, as a test case
yad rAshTram SUdra bhUishTam
nAstikAkrAntam advijam
vinasyatyASu tat kritsnam
durbhiksham vyAdhi pIDitam

English Gist: The State which has 'SUdras' in large numbers,
The State which is full of 'atheists',
The State which in which Brahmins (Hindu Priests) do not reside,
that State will suffer from droughts, famines and diseases.

ybrao a donkey's comments

U.S.A., England, Russia, and 187 other countries do not have Brahmins (Hindu Priests).

Europe, North America and Australia have a large number of atheists. Yet they do not have as many droughts, famines and diseases as India has.

India has a large number of Brahmins (Hindu Priests). Yet, India faces droughts, famines and diseases regularly.

What deduction we can make?

There is no relationship between droughts, famines and diseases, and the Brahmin residences. This verse seems to have been planted by Hindu Priests.

Note to my critics

I am not a Christian Missionary. Nor am an Islamic Cleric. I do not get any payment from them for writing this.

I am born in a Hindu traditional Brahmin family. After studying various Hindu scriptures, I turned into an atheist and Marxist, gradually over a number of years of analyses. Of course, I retained some good qualities and practices which Brahmins have carried along from ancestors, and abandoned some other irrational thought processes and practices which I found among Brahmins and Hindus. I do not find any valid reason for Manusmriti singling out SUdras, atheists, as those who are responsible for droughts, famines and diseases.

About writing about the defects in other religions

This we cannot do deliberately, because Hindus are not in a war with Christianity or Islam. However, whenever, an educated person comes across defects in Christianity or Islam, particularly serious defects, he/she can always point them out in a civilised language, with evidence, and keeping in mind the sentiments of others. This right of expression of genuine criticism, is a human right. However, Governments in numerous countries are not in a position to protect authors/writers/artists, if religious fanatics turn violent and kill their critics. By doing this, such religious critics will be causing much damage to their own religion. A water which does not flow, stagnates at one place, becomes foul smelling with worms crawlng everywhere. Religions have to be in a continuous mode of self-introspection and self-reform, if they are to remain dynamic and proximate to the God whom they profess to pray.

Authors from other religions cannot expect civility from religious fundamentalists and terrorists kill their own people, even for minor deviations from the prescriptions made in their sacred books. Then, where is the question of their caring for civilities?

Governments should try to build rationalist and ethical characteristics in their citizens, with well designed and meticulously implemented secular laws, and a thought-provoking educational system. Besides, citizens are to be kept free from alcoholism, drugs, if they have to continuously think and act applying their minds, with reason.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009


Yastu rajjum ghat`am kuupaat dhareet bhindyaat cha yaa prapaam
Sa dand`am praapnuyaan maasham tachchat tasmin samaahareet.

A king should punish a thief who steals a rope or a pot at a well or breaks them, with a fine of a gold coin (maasha).

What a system of justice!


Topics for discussion: Verse 8/190, Chapter 8, Punishments, Thieves, Pestles
Authority: 8/190 of Manu Smriti.
Skandheenaadaaya musalam lagud`am
vaa api khaadiram
S`aktim ca ubhayatas tiikshn`aam
aayasam dand`ameeva vaa.

A thief should, carrying a pestle - or a log of wood - or a sword like instrument sharp on both sides, should approach a king and ask him to punish.

Barbaric. Outlandish.

*The guilt of the thief, the court has to establish, first of all. How can a thief prejudge himself?