Adulteration In Scriptures: The Whole Story

Dr. Nikhil wrote: Padanamaskarams Swamiji! I would like to submit these two verses at Your divine feet. It is with reference to Your answer titled "Contradictions In The Scripture Due To Adulteration" dated November 04, 2018, given in response to my question.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna asked several questions, which the Lord answered in great detail, in the most wonderful manner. Finally, Arjuna was fully convinced. He expressed His full satisfaction and conviction in the words "Nashto mohah...". I feel that the Gita, which is the divine discussion between the Lord and His devotee, is not complete unless the devotee expresses full satisfaction.

Devotees ask You innumerable questions. You answer all of them excellently. The devotees are greatly satisfied with Your answers. Yet their full satisfaction is not expressed at the end of each question, even though most devotees personally express their satisfaction and devotion to You. So on behalf of all devotees, I would like to express this full satisfaction in the following two verses. I am certain that all Your devotees share the same sentiment. Please forgive me if I am being too bold. It is sometimes very difficult to contain my feelings. Your servant, Nikhil

 

Who can reveal the Veda’s true meaning?

Who can expose the adulteration therein?

Who can open the doors of spiritual learning,

To all humanity without bias or censoring?

Who can reform any soul who is willing?

 

He is none but Datta, the Lord of all Creation;

The Source of the Veda, the Knowledge-Ocean.

He restores the loss of each past generation;

Bringing justice and correlation in every situation.

At whose feet every question finds full satisfaction.

We salute to that Datta Swami, the Goal of our devotion.

Datta, the Invisible Speaker

Swami replied: God Datta is very much interested in uplifting the souls in this creation. He is the invisible Speaker (Person), who is delivering this wonderful knowledge through the throat of this visible Datta Swami. The throat is like a mic[1] (microphone) and this Datta Swami is like the stand holding that throat-mic, from which this knowledge is emerging. The real Speaker is God Datta alone. The audience has awareness just like the Speaker. The only inert or ignorant instrument in between God Datta and His live audience is Myself, who lacks even a trace of knowledge. This inert mic (throat) with inert mic-stand (human body) is at a very very low level compared to the wise Speaker and the wise audience. This mic along with mic stand is getting the credit, since the Speaker is invisible. Your student praises you and you pass on that credit to Me. I further pass it on to God Datta, the ultimate deserving reality. God Datta continues to stay in Me in a merged state as long as I am not bent by ego. If God Datta expresses any type of ego, to any extent, it is not ego or self-praise at all! It is simply the reality! But if a soul expresses even a trace of ego, it is totally false!

Revision of Points Related to the Adulteration of Scriptures

Let Me revise this topic once again since it has given you such happiness. This topic is very important for removing the contradictions within Hinduism or within any single religion. If we cannot bring internal unity within our family (Hindu religion), how can we bring external unity between the various families (religions) in our village (world)? This defect of contradictions exists in every religion because of the adulteration of the scriptures done by the followers of that religion.

The Veda is Largely Free of Adulteration

The Veda can be treated to be largely beyond adulteration since it was preserved through the system of recitation and transmission from one generation to the other since ancient times. In ancient times, this system of recitation out of memory allowed error-free transmission in the absence of printing technology. On the other hand, scriptures which were preserved by writing, were prone to damage, destruction and adulteration since very few hand-written manuscripts would be present in olden days. However, today, the memorization and recitation of the Veda is not necessary since it is already well-preserved by large-scale printing. Even though the Veda is generally free of adulteration, we do find some verses in modern poetic meters in the Veda in the Shri Suktam. These verses have even been marked with Vedic accents. Only seven Vedic meters exist throughout the Veda, indicating that these verses must be insertions. Since it is not possible to completely rule out adulteration, it becomes essential to analyze statements and concepts of the Veda to prove that they are not adulterations. Even if adulterations exist in any scripture, we need not mind them as long as they support the right concept. Some verses or statements in the scripture contain prayers to God. In case there is any adulteration in these prayers, there is no disadvantage to the devotee since God continues to grant devotees the appropriate fruit of their recitation of the prayers.

Adulteration in parts of the scripture which are related to the knowledge of nivrutti (spiritual path) is not a major problem. The adulteration in one verse may lead to conflicts with other verses. But these conflicts can be reconciled based on the different levels of eligibility among devotees. So, we can say that the true concepts in the scripture were meant for the most eligible devotees while the less accurate concepts (adulterated) were meant for the devotees with lower eligibility. Eligibility or spiritual maturity means the absence of ego and jealousy. The devotees who are completely free of ego and jealousy are the most highly eligible and can digest the truth as is, while devotees who have ego and jealousy are incapable of digesting the truth. The truth must be modified to make it digestible to these less eligible devotees. The adulteration can be viewed as a dilution of the bitter truth in order to make it more digestible to the less eligible devotees. On the other hand, certain issues related to pravrutti (worldly life of justice), which include issues related to caste, gender and so on, are very delicate. If the correct concepts in these issues are misinterpreted based on the adulterations it can be dangerous. It can result in conflicts within a religion. Such adulterations can disturb the peace of society and in the view of God, maintaining peace is very important.

The Case of Janashruti

Janashruti was a born kshatriya and was overcome by a lot of grief, which comes only from ignorance (Krupayaavishtam...—Gita). The ignorance can only be removed by true spiritual knowledge (kah shokah?—Veda). In that ancient time, caste was not determined by birth but by the person’s qualities and the resulting deeds, as said in the Gita (Gunakarma vibhaagashah). The Veda also does not support the determination of caste by birth. It says that a person who is born in a certain caste but does not have the qualities and deeds which are characteristic of that caste, can only be said to be a relative of the members of that caste (Brahma bandhuriva). He is only a blood-relative of his forefathers, who based on their qualities and deeds, genuinely belonged to that caste. Hence, sage Raikva, correctly called the grieving Janashurti, a Shudra. It is the quality of a Shudra to grieve or worry (shuk) about his materialistic life due to ignorance. Raikva addressed Janashruti as a Shudra owing to his qualities and deeds (grief and worry) alone. Determination of caste by qualities and deeds alone was the prevailing tradition of the sages in that ancient time of true Vedic knowledge.

The culprits, who were masters of adulteration, did not like this true tradition. They blindly believed that a person’s caste should only be determined by birth, even if the characteristic qualities and deeds of that caste are absent in the person. Such egoistic traditionalists tried to introduce their blind concept through adulteration in this place in the scripture. They say here that Raikva called the kshatriya-born Janashruti a shudra not in the sense of his caste but in the sense of a person possessing grief (shuk-Shudra). But the truth is that Raikva called Janashruti a shudra in the sense of caste alone since the caste of a Shudra is decided by the quality of worrying for materialistic things. Their misinterpretation does not stand since Raikva’s identification of Janashruti as a Shudra was on the true basis of the caste system which is the soul’s qualities and resulting deeds. There are some qualities of a soul that appear for a while and then vanish. But there are other inherent qualities which are permanent. They form the innermost personality of that soul. The person’s caste is determined by these permanent inherent qualities. So, we cannot say that a person’s caste changes constantly as different thoughts and mental qualities come and go. The caste based on the permanent inherent qualities of the soul is fixed in spite of changing temporary thoughts and qualities.

Since every child is born ignorant and weeping in the worldly memories of the past birth, every child is said to be a Shudra (Janmanaa jaayate Shudrah). As the child grows, it imbibes qualities from the surrounding people and situations, in accordance with the qualities of its previous birth. Based on the qualities imbibed and the resulting deeds performed, we say that the person has entered that particular caste, which has similar characteristic qualities (Karmanaa jaayate dvijah). The soul is expected to enter higher castes by developing better qualities (dvija). The soul should not continue in the same Shudra caste, filled with materialistic worries throughout its life. It clearly means that a soul is expected to change its caste by imbibing the better qualities and performing the better deeds of higher castes (Karmanaa). We see the case of Vishvaamitra, who was a born-kshatriya but he became a Brahmana. This again indicates that even a soul born in a shudra family can change its caste by its deeds (Karmanaa). This clearly confirms that caste is not by birth but by qualities and deeds only. The facility to change one’s caste and become a Brahmana is not restricted only to kshatriyas as in the case of Vishvaamitra. It applies to a person born into any caste, who by imbibing the qualities and deeds of a Brahmana can become a Brahmana. I do not understand why some people burn the copies of the ethical scripture with the misunderstanding that the ethical scripture preaches caste discrimination. They are perhaps not aware that this verse about changing one’s caste by changing one’s qualities and deeds, comes from the ethical scripture itself!

The Case of Satyakaama Jaabaala

The case of Satyakaama Jaabaala also supports the true tradition of deciding a person’s caste by qualities and deeds alone. Sage Gautama asked Satyakaama Jaabaala to state his caste. Caste by birth also had some general significance because a child born in a certain caste will naturally imbibe the qualities and deeds of his or her family members, who are accustomed to those qualities and deeds for several generations. But the person’s caste is finally decided by the type of qualities and deeds present in the individual. Sometimes, an individual may or may not imbibe the qualities and deeds of the caste in which he was born. So, we cannot say that birth and the surrounding environment alone can decide the person’s caste. We must carefully say that if the qualities and deeds of the surrounding environment (caste) appear in the individual, then that individual belongs to that caste. Sometimes, strong qualities from the previous birth, overpower the qualities and deeds imbibed by the child from the caste into which he or she was born. Even though the child is born in one caste, he or she might be forced by the strong qualities from the previous birth, to adopt the qualities and deeds of another caste. In that case, we cannot say that the caste into which the person is born, is his or her actual caste. The qualities and deeds that finally appear in the person, ultimately decide the person’s caste.

Since the surrounding environment of the caste into which a person is born, influences the qualities and deeds of a person, Gautama asked the boy about his caste (by birth). Gautama was not referring to the exceptional case, when the person’s actual caste can be different from the caste into which the person is born, due to the influence of strong qualities from the previous birth. Such cases are rare. The boy Satyakaama, told the truth that his mother was an unmarried servant who had served in several houses and hence, the caste of his biological father was not known. Gautama did not use his miraculous sight to find out the caste of the biological father and decide the caste of the boy. Gautama decided that the boy was a Brahmana since he spoke the truth. This means that since the boy spoke the truth, he was a Brahmana. It does not mean that since the boy was a Brahmana, he spoke the truth. Note that it had not been established that the boy was a Brahmana by birth through any other type of investigation. The only authority here is the quality of speaking the truth, which enabled Gautama to decide that the boy was a Brahmana. Since the biological father was not known, Gautama decided his caste as Brahmana by the quality of speaking the truth. This quality had certainly been imbibed by the boy from the good surrounding atmosphere in which he grew or from his previous birth.

If the imbibed quality present in the boy were not important in deciding his caste, Gautama would not have taken such a decision. Instead, he would have used his miraculous sight and declared that the boy was a Brahmana since he had found out that his biological father was a Brahmana. But Gautama did not do so. It was totally unknown whether the biological father of the boy was a Brahmana by birth or not. Even without this clear knowledge, Gautama concluded that the boy was a Brahmana simply based on the quality of truthfulness expressed by the boy. This clearly proves that the caste system is based on simply the qualities and deeds possessed and expressed by the individual, and not by birth.

You may say that the biological father of the boy gave the good qualities to the boy through his genes and that the surrounding environment had no influence on him. But it is false as per the science of genetics, which says that only physical characteristics and mannerisms are transferred through genes; not mental qualities. You cannot even say that all good souls are born into certain castes so that those castes contain only good souls. Practical experience tells us that it is not true. Every caste contains both good and bad people. You cannot say that the Veda states that bad people are born in the bad castes whereas good people are born in good castes (kapuuya charanaah kapuuyayonim...). We agree with the Vedic statement since the caste mentioned in it is not by birth, but by qualities. Hence, bad souls are born in bad castes and good souls are born in good castes, where caste is determined by qualities. This Vedic statement actually says that bad souls are born in bad families (Kapuuyayonim). ‘Yoni’, which means ‘womb’, indicates the mother and her surrounding family. It means that a good soul is born into a good family so that the soul gets a congenial atmosphere. The congenial atmosphere is limited to the good family into which the soul is born. It cannot be extended to the whole caste. So, it is not accurate to say that the good soul gets birth in a good caste. Hence, this Vedic statement also supports the determination of caste by qualities and deeds alone.

Although we agree that the family does influence the qualities of the child, the family may not be entirely good or bad. The qualities and deeds of the individual must be the final criterion for determining caste. A family may belong to the caste (community) of teachers. In other words, the members of the family might be teachers by their qualities (proficiencies) and their deeds (profession). But an individual born in that family (and caste) might have a lot of interest in doing agriculture. In that case, the individual belongs to the caste (community) of agriculturists. Caste is a classification of an individual, who possesses a certain set of qualities and deeds. It is not simply a group of people with whom an individual is related by blood, irrespective of the qualities and deeds. Qualities are either imbibed from the surrounding atmosphere in this birth or they can be carried forward from the previous birth. They are not transferred from parents to children through genes. A good soul may be born in a good family. Here the family could be considered to be the caste in a broad sense. The good atmosphere of that family might not necessarily be effective in inducing good qualities in the individual. The individual from that good family could fall into the trap of bad influences from outside the family and grow up to be a bad person. Hence, birth in a family (or caste) cannot be taken as the basis of the individual’s caste unless the individual expresses the qualities imbibed from the atmosphere of that family in the form of deeds.

Shudras Studying the Scripture

The secondary scripture (Smruti) says that Shudras should not hear or read the Veda, but they can read and hear the secondary scriptures, which contain the same knowledge in the same Sanskrit language. The difference between the primary scripture (Veda) and secondary scriptures is only the marked musical accents, which are meant for pleasant hearing. It is the climax of foolishness to differentiate between two scriptures simply based on the presence or absence of these musical accents when the knowledge and language are one and the same! Some scholars say that the accent even decides the meaning of the words as in the case of “Indrashatro vardhasva”. If the accents can change the meaning, how can you say that a Shudra can learn the same knowledge from the secondary scripture, which is not marked with the accents? In fact, the two words ‘Indra’ and ‘shatro’ combined means ‘the enemy of Indra’. If the two words are separated, a different meaning emerges ‘O Indra! O enemy!’. It is not the accents but the gap between the words that changes the meaning based on the rules of grammar.

Later on, even learning the Sanskrit language was prohibited for women. There were only allowed to use Praakrutam, which means the regional languages. In this way, people’s ego led to discrimination and injustice not only in the caste system but also in the gender-system. Shudras are the people who possess the quality of being worried about materialistic things. They can be avoided from spiritual discussions of the Veda since they might brainwash the devoted participants and turn them into materialists! But in fact, the materialist is really in the greatest need for the spiritual knowledge of the Veda for his reformation. As told by Jesus, the patient alone needs the doctor. So, from this point of view, the materialist is the most eligible person for learning the spiritual knowledge of the Veda.

The Veda simply means spiritual knowledge. It does not mean a specific text written in Sanskrit and marked with musical accents. If the true spiritual knowledge exists in any language even without accents or even if it is spoken by a modern person, it shall be called the Veda. When this is the reality, how can the secondary scripture say that a Shudra by birth shall not hear, read or recite the Veda and that if he does so, he should be subjected to barbaric punishments such as pouring molten lead in the ear, cutting the tongue and so on? It is certainly an adulteration of the scripture by a madman! It is totally absurd even from the point of view of basic worldly justice. It must be treated as an insertion made by a culprit belonging to another religion or by an egoistic-foolish priest of the middle ages, with an intention of bringing internal conflicts within the Hindu religion. The pathetic reality is that the person, who is really eligible for reading and hearing the Veda, is said to be eligible for such horrible punishments because he tried to study the holy Veda! With this logic, a patient approaching a doctor for getting cured must also be similarly punished!

Vyaasa and Shankara were Beyond Caste-bias

A few Brahma Sutras in 1^st Adhyaaya, 3^rd Pada, are certainly adulterated since they are caste-biased. It cannot be believed that sage Vyaasa could have been biased by the caste of a person’s birth. Vyaasa himself was the son of Satyavati, who was born in a fishermen-caste! The same sage Vyaasa, wrote in one of the secondary scriptures (Puranams) that Sūta, a person born in a low caste (pot-maker) was selected as the president (Brahma) of a sacrifice. This selection was done by all the wise sages, based on his qualities.

Similarly, Shankara is well-known to be beyond caste-bias. He respectfully fell at the feet of a cobbler, appreciating his excellent spiritual knowledge and treating the cobbler as His spiritual preacher (Guru)! In the beginning of Shankara’s commentary on the Brahma Sutras, He wrote that four good qualities are necessary for studying spiritual knowledge. He especially mentioned that these four qualities alone matter irrespective of the individual’s caste (Apeta BrahmaKshatraadi bhedam). The word ‘Aadi’ indicates that spiritual knowledge is open to all the four castes.

The commentary written by the same Shankara on the later (adulterated) Sutras appears to be quite different. It appears to follow the blind tradition of the priests of the middle ages. Since the Sutras themselves were adulterated, it is possible that the commentary might have also been adulterated suitably by the culprit. Alternatively, knowing that the Sutras were adulterated, Shankara might have chosen to remain silent and not contradict those Sutras directly. In the introduction to His commentary on the Brahma Sutras, Shankara had already expressed His point that all castes are eligible for learning spiritual knowledge as long as they satisfy the four qualities. He might have chosen to not directly go against the blind and biased belief of the traditionalists in His time. So, He might have simply interpreted those adulterated Sutras based on the blind beliefs of the time. If He would have openly declared those Sutras to be adulterations, or if He would have directly contradicted them, it would have raised strong emotional reactions from the traditionalists. The main message that He was trying to convey to them, would have been lost. His main focus at that time was to convince the traditionalists that the knowledge of the Veda is important; not doing rituals blindly. Shri Datta Swami has openly spoken about this adulteration now since the receivers (public) are more enlightened and broad-minded due to well-developed scientific logic.

Restrictions Due to Non-vegetarianism?

In Shankara’s commentary on these adulterated Sutras, the Manusmruti is quoted. As per the quoted verses from the Manusmruti, the reason for prohibiting the Shudras from studying the Veda is their non-vegetarian food habits. These quoted verses too must be adulterations because kshatriyas eating the same forbidden food are eligible to study the Veda! Non-vegetarian food is certainly sinful. The eater of the food also shares the punishment for causing the butcher to kill soft-natured animals for food. If naturally-dead animals are eaten as the Kaapaalikaas do, it is not sin. The sin is not in the actual eating of non-vegetarian food since non-vegetarian food contains the same basic constituents as vegetarian-food. The sin lies in killing a living animal to obtain non-vegetarian food. The angle of sin is thus in a different direction. Plants have life since the process of respiration takes place in them. But this process of respiration is an inert mechanism. Plants do not have awareness (nervous energy) and a mind. As a result, they do not undergo pain. Due to this fundamental difference, all plants come under one group called the plant kingdom, which is the field of botany and all animals having nervous energy come under another group called the animal kingdom, which is the field of zoology.

Anyway, the punishment for the sin of killing animals for food is as follows. The sinner will be reborn as an animal and the killed animal will be reborn as a butcher, who will kill the sinner. Hence, the Sanskrit word for meat or non-vegetarian food is Maam sah. Maam means ‘me’ and sah means ‘he’. As the butcher is killing the animal, the dying animal thinks “As he (sah) is killing me (maam) now, so shall I kill him in the next birth”. This is the thought of every animal that is killed for food. This punishment is inevitable not just for the butcher who directly commits the sin, but also for all those who eat non-vegetarian food. They pay the butcher to kill and so they are promoters of the sin. The scripture says that the direct doer, the indirect doer (owner), the promoter and the supporter of the sin, all have to equally undergo this punishment.

In any case, this is a separate issue of the inevitable punishment for doing injustice in pravrutti (worldly life). It is not linked with Vedic learning in any way. Since non-vegetarian food does not have any basically different constituents as compared to vegetarian-food, it cannot be a reason for prohibiting anyone from learning the Veda. That is why, kshatriyas, who usually eat non-vegetarian food, are allowed to learn the Veda. The study of the Veda or true spiritual knowledge may in fact, bring reformation in a soul who is in the habit of eating non-vegetarian food. He may even stop eating non-vegetarian food. So, just because of the non-vegetarian food habit of a sinful soul, you should never prevent his reformation, which can happen by studying the Veda.

Untouchability

Untouchability is another misunderstanding that has flared up and damaged the unity of Hinduism. This misunderstanding is also the result of adulterations in the secondary scriptures. The Veda only speaks of four castes. There is no reference to this fifth ‘untouchable’ caste. Untouchability has no connection with the caste system. It was only a form of punishment given to extreme sinners belonging to any of the four castes. It was like debarring a student from school to bring some discipline to the undisciplined student. Certain eaters of non-vegetarian food had reached the climax of sin by killing the cows and buffalos in their old age after getting milk from them throughout their life. Similarly, killing bulls and he-buffalos in their old age after getting ploughing work done by them throughout their life is another example of such a climax-sin. Such extreme sinners were expelled from society and were considered as untouchables. But the children of such sinners expelled from society, cannot be untouchables if they too have not committed the same sins. The punishment given to these sinners was not out of vengeance but only out of love for these fellow-souls, so that they may be reformed. Forgetting all this background, an untouchable caste by birth was created. It has led to several internal conflicts within Hinduism.

Shabari was an untouchable by birth, but in her qualities, she exceeded even the sages. She alone got salvation from God Rama, who ate fruits tasted by her. Shankara fell at the feet of a person who was an untouchable by birth, due to the tremendous spiritual knowledge expressed by the untouchable. Kannappa, an untouchable hunter by birth, had such excellent qualities of devotion and sacrifice that he plucked out his two eyes for the sake of God Shiva, and was granted the highest salvation. If we realize that there is no untouchable caste and realize the purpose of expelling some people out of society in ancient times, this problem will disappear. It will greatly help in bringing unity among all Hindus.

Sacred Thread Ceremony

Another foolish issue which divides Hinduism is the holy thread ceremony called upanayanam, which was restricted to the males of the brahmanas, kshatriyas and Vyshaas. Even the females of these three castes were forbidden from undergoing this ceremony due to gender-bias. Upanayanam actually means becoming close to God by singing sweet songs in praise of God. This devotional singing is called as Gayatri. During the upanayanam, the child of about eight years of age (including one year in the womb) is initiated into Gayatri and is also given a three-stranded holy thread to be worn cross-wise across the shoulder. The three strands of the holy thread indicate the human form of God having the three qualities. The three qualities are sattvam, which is awareness, rajas, which is inert energy and tamas, which is inert matter. The initiated child is supposed to hold this holy thread in the hand while performing Gayatri. It only means finding the Human Incarnation of God in order to get correct spiritual knowledge and thereby right direction on the spiritual path. Without revealing this real background, the foolish priests propagated wrong knowledge that led to conflicts. The formal ceremony was given importance, stating that it is the path to salvation. They confined the meaning of Gayatri to mean the recitation of just one specific hymn written in the Gayatri meter. They prohibited all women and Shudras from that formal function. Naturally, all these excluded groups will flare up against these blind priests. If the real meanings of upanayanam, Gayatri and the holy thread are realized, it is clear that the males of these three castes have missed the real path. The women of all castes and śūdras, who were excluded from the formal ceremony, did not lose anything! The devoted ones among them merely sang devotional songs and worshipped the Human Incarnation; not following some formal mechanical procedures, but out of sincere devotion. These devotees are the ones who followed the real path and got real salvation!

Swami Dayananda’s Temporary Solution

Swami Dayananda was also a Human Incarnation of God like Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Ramakrishna and others. An Incarnation comes at a time when a problem shoots up in society. The overall problem may have many aspects, but only one of the aspects might be more prominent. The Incarnation solves the problem in that aspect alone. He neglects other aspects of the same problem and other problems too since they are not that prominent in that time. Swami Dayananda, like any other Human Incarnation, tried His level-best to solve such prominent problems in His time, which were damaging the unity of the Hindu religion.

In that time, devotees were being exploited by the temple-priests. So, Swamiji (Dayananda) eradicated the worship of idols stating that God is always formless. It solved that particular aspect of the problem, which was an urgent necessity at that time. But from another angle, idol worship is actually good. It enables the devotee to develop theoretical devotion for God. The theoretical devotion at a later stage, generates practical devotion towards the human form of God. But this angle was neglected at that time by Swamiji since it was not serious. Similarly, Swamiji stated that anybody interested in the Veda or true spiritual knowledge can perform the holy thread ceremony. After the formal ceremony, that person could be called a Brahmana if the person developed suitable qualities and deeds and not just because he wore the sacred thread. This immediately satisfied the people who had been prohibited from wearing the holy thread.

In fact, people should have asked that even though they were benefited by this ceremony, their forefathers missed the same opportunity and as a result lost the chance for attaining salvation forever. This point will continue the conflict even after formally opening this ceremony to everybody. To remove this unnecessary blame that will continue the conflict, Shri Datta Swami has now revealed the real background behind this ceremony. The essence of this ceremony is that salvation can be attained by true devotion, which begins with singing devotional songs. There is no special relevance of the formal ceremony at all! In all times, everybody from anywhere in the world, always has full freedom to sing songs in praise of God without any restriction based on caste, gender or religion. This interpretation makes Gayatri truly universal. But a question comes as to why Swamiji did not reveal this background in His time itself? Why did the truth come out more than a hundred years later through Shri Datta Swami? Had Swamiji revealed this truth in His time itself, people would have misunderstood that, Swamiji was playing a trick on them. By explaining that the real Gayatri is only singing of devotional songs, He was not letting them perform the formal thread ceremony. They might have thought there is some secret benefit of the formal ceremony, which He was unwilling to share with them. But since Swamiji allowed the formal ceremony for all during His time itself, that misunderstanding will not happen now. One should remember that as per tradition, the holy thread is discarded by a saint. The saint who discards the thread is honoured by all Hindus and treated to be the highest. It means that the truth is that this thread is only a formality. It indicates a true concept and once the concept is realized, the formality can be rejected. God Datta knows exactly which concept should be revealed at what time through His Human Incarnations.

Suppression of Women

Several secondary scriptures say that a father’s property should be given only to his sons. This shows that the woman is suppressed by her father and her brothers. Actually, it is a misinterpretation of the scripture. The word putra means not only a son but also a daughter as per grammar. Yet it was only interpreted to mean ‘son’. Similarly, the wife is suppressed by her husband since the scripture says that a woman should be always a servant to her husband irrespective of his qualities which make him deserving of that respect or not (Karyeshu daasii…). Sita said that her husband was God to her irrespective of His financial status (Diinovaa raajyahiinovaa, yo me bhartaa sa me Guruh). But Rama was an embodiment of all the best qualities. He deserved that respect from His wife. Sita did not say that her husband is God to her whether He possesses good qualities or bad qualities.

In fact, the Veda says that all souls (Prakruti) are females, wives and servants of God, who is the only Male (Purusha) (striyah satiih...)! The real sense here is that the wife or bharya is maintained by the husband, who is called the bhartaa or the maintainer. In fact, it is God who is maintaining all souls irrespective of their gender. In the philosophy of Madhva, every soul is a servant of God. Hence, all verses of the secondary scriptures suggesting the suppression of women are simply adulterations. It is said in the in the Manusmruti that a woman is not to have freedom throughout her life (Na strii svaatantryamarhati). If the word ‘freedom’ has to be understood in its usual sense, it means that the woman would have to be locked in the house all her life! In that case, the verse should certainly be treated as an adulteration. But if the word ‘freedom’ is understood in the sense of going out of the house alone, then the verse is correct. A woman is relatively weak and usually wears a lot of golden jewelry. So, going out alone may attract thieves. Hence the verse says that the girl should be escorted by her father, as a young lady she should be escorted by her husband and as an old lady she should be escorted by her son.

Gender-discrimination is worse than caste-discrimination. Although it is not true, we can for a moment assume that the difference of caste by birth is valid. But surely the women born in any caste belong to that caste alone. Then why do these blind male traditionalists of higher castes, treat the women of their own caste at par with Shudras and prohibit them from wearing the holy thread and studying the Veda? If their own women are of a lower caste, while they (men) are of a higher caste, does it not mean that they have performed an inter-caste marriage, which is wrong according to them? If their women belong to their own caste, how can the thread ceremony be prohibited for them? As per these traditionalist men, Brahmana is the word denoting a group of people by birth. As a word denoting a group (Jaativaachaka) it must mean both male and female. In the ancient Vedic time, there were several women, who were tremendous scholars of the Veda like Gaargii, Maitreyii etc., and the holy thread was allowed to them (Puraakalpe tu naariinaam, mounjiibandhanamishyate). While worshiping the Divine Mother through the sixteen modes of worship, do we not offer Her the holy thread, which is prohibited for women?

In the traditional marriage ceremony, the holy thread of the bride is given to the bridegroom by her father. The married man thus wears a holy thread with six strands; three for himself and three on behalf of his wife. In some states, an additional three strands are also added for not having an upper garment. This custom of a man wearing an additional holy thread on behalf of his wife, is only a matter of convenience. The logic behind it is that the woman cooks food in the home and at that time, the man worships God holding the holy thread. Since the thread worn by him contains the three strands on behalf of his wife as well, he donates half of his merit to his wife just as the wife donates half of the food cooked by her to him. This again shows that a soul (wife) can get the merit of the Vedic ritual even without the holy thread! A saint who leaves this formal holy thread is considered to be in the highest spiritual state, which proves the same fact. Actually, Gayatri means singing any sweet song on God and upanayanam means getting close to God through Gayatri. The holy thread with three strings indicates that a person must find the Human Incarnation having three qualities (Saguna) for worship, since worshipping the unimaginable God (Nirguna) is impossible. Hence, the actual Gayatri is with females alone and not with the egoistic males. Simply reading a hymn written in the Gayatri meter and misunderstanding it to be the real Gayatri is a terrible loss! All the suppressed females and people of lower castes have the real Gayatri with them whereas the upper caste males have missed the real Gayatri! It is the miraculous will of God that a suppressing person always drowns and the suppressed person is always uplifted!

Contradictions Related to Spiritual Concepts

Mutually contradicting statements exist in the Veda and the Gita regarding the subject of nivrutti. But these statements can be correlated. The differences correspond to different philosophical views like monism, dualism etc. which are suitable for devotees standing at different levels of eligibility in the spiritual journey. We cannot say these statements are adulterated. Hence, divine spiritual preachers never found fault with the scripture and they did not claim that the scripture is not genuine. Yet even in these issues of nivrutti, people got into conflicts. They could not understand that the different concepts are useful even for the same person on the spiritual path as he rises from one level to the other.

Conclusion

All this wonderful knowledge (Prajnaanam) spoken by God Datta through Me should be propagated in the world. Each time it is the lack of proper understanding in the basic spiritual knowledge itself that leads to confusion. The confusion misleads people and they go on the wrong path. When the first step of knowledge itself goes wrong, the subsequent steps of devotion and sacrifice of one’s work (service) and the fruit of one’s work (donation) done on that wrong path go to waste. There is no confusion with regard to the second and third steps of theoretical devotion and practical devotion respectively. They are simple and straightforward concepts. There is no need of any further propagation in both these fields. The Human Incarnation comes again and again only for the main purpose of establishing true spiritual knowledge. It is the first step in the spiritual path, which gives the right direction. It is this spiritual knowledge, which has been misinterpreted by ignorant, egoistic and selfish followers.

God Datta merges with a selected devotee to become a Human Incarnation and cooks the food of true spiritual knowledge, which can be eaten by devotees. Similarly, whenever a devotee is ready to serve (propagate) this cooked knowledge-food to other devotees, God Datta also enters and merges with that devotee, and propagates the right spiritual knowledge. This means that God Himself is doing His work of preparing the correct spiritual knowledge and propagating it. In other words, the devotee, who propagates this spiritual knowledge, is also a Human Incarnation of the same God Datta. Instead of using us as His media, God Datta can create new human beings to become His media and do both these tasks of generating the spiritual knowledge and propagating it. But He is using us, already existing devoted human beings, as His media only to uplift us. Hence, we should never think that we are doing God’s work. In fact, we are only doing our own work since during the propagation, we are repeatedly reminded of the concepts in spiritual knowledge and they get properly digested by us. It leads to our reformation after which all our sins are burnt. At least on realizing that the work of propagation of this spiritual knowledge is work which provides benefit to oneself, devotees should come forward for propagation.

The four great multi-dimensional Vedic statements can be applied to any good context. The first statement is “Prajnaanam Brahma” which means that God is an embodiment of excellent spiritual knowledge. In this context, it means that it is God alone who is doing the works of preparation and propagation of the true spiritual knowledge by merging with selected devotees.

The second statement is “Ahaṁ Brahmaasmi”, which means “I am God”. The devotee with whom God Datta has merged for preparing this knowledge becomes God. Through this statement, that Human Incarnation of God is stating that He is God. It means that it is God Datta alone who has spoken such excellent spiritual knowledge through Him. This statement that He is God is also spoken by the same God Datta and it indicates that God Datta has totally merged with Him.

The third statement is “Tattvamasi”, which means that you are God. Through this statement, the above-said Human Incarnation is telling another devotee who is propagating this knowledge that he too is God. It means that God has entered and merged even with the devotee involved in the work of propagation. Hence, the devotee doing the propagation work is also God. He is another Human Incarnation. God can exist as several Incarnations simultaneously due to His unimaginable power.

The fourth statement is “Ayamaatmaa Brahma”, which means that another third person is also God. It means that another devotee (any other devotee) who is also involved in the propagation of this knowledge is also God. He or she is yet another Human Incarnation since God Datta has merged with that devotee too to carry out His work.

The first statement says that God is the possessor of this excellent spiritual knowledge. It is a figure of speech in which the possessor of an item is called as the possessed item. People call out to an apple-seller carrying a basket full of apples as “O apples! Come here”. It does not mean that the possessor of the apples himself is an apple. God is the embodiment of excellent spiritual knowledge (Prajnaanam). It also means that God is the possessor of such knowledge. Wherever such knowledge exists, the container of such knowledge is called God because God alone is the container of such knowledge. Hence, it is true that whoever possesses excellent spiritual knowledge, God exists in that person (medium) in a merged state. The Cook who prepares that knowledge calls Himself as God since the Cook also becomes a container of that knowledge.

God is the Original Container of excellent spiritual knowledge. That God is present in the (body of the) Human Incarnation, who generates the knowledge for propagation as well as the (body of the) Human Incarnation who propagates the knowledge. So, the Human Incarnation is a container that contains the Original Container of the excellent spiritual knowledge. When the container of the excellent spiritual knowledge is called as God, the Human Incarnation can be called as God with double force. We have seen that the possessor can be called as the possessed item. In the case of the Human Incarnation, He does not just possess God externally but in a thoroughly merged state. Hence, He can be called God with double force. The second statement says that the Cook is God.

With the third statement, the Cook is saying that a specific waiter serving the knowledge-food, and standing before the Cook, is God. With the fourth statement, the Cook is saying that any waiter who is away from the Cook, is also God since serving the knowledge-food (propagation) is the sign of the merged God. In the third statement, an ignorant human being like Shvetaketu is called as God. It means that every human being-component in the Human Incarnation is ignorant. The God-component alone is omniscient. The Cook calls Himself as God since in His case, cooking is the sign of the merged God. The result is that the Cook, the waiter present before cook and the waiter far from the cook; all three are God. The final conclusion is that not only is the Cook God, but every waiter is also God. This means that a few blessed devotees are God. We are neither saying that nobody is God nor are we saying that everybody is God. Both extreme ends are avoided. Saying that the Cook alone is God is also not justified because only one devotee is uplifted in that case. Saying that the Cook along with His waiters is God, results in the upliftment of several devotees at the same time.

Hence, not only is the devotee, who prepared the true spiritual knowledge, the Human Incarnation of God Datta, but the devotee who propagates this knowledge, is also a Human Incarnation of God Datta. It means that the devotees participating in this work of God also get the highest fruit of monism with God. God is very much pleased with the work of preparation of the true spiritual knowledge and its propagation to all the souls in this world. This preparation and propagation of spiritual knowledge is called as jñāna yajña, which pleases God to the highest extent (Jnaana Yajnena tenaaham …—Gita). The omnipotent God can do both the tasks of preparation and propagation through a single devotee (Cook). But the work is split between devotees to uplift every devotee participating in the propagation of true spiritual knowledge. By incarnating in human form God restores this true spiritual knowledge once again. Even though God seals this knowledge each time, misinterpretations by some followers also take place each time after the exit of the Human Incarnation. The speed of misinterpretation is very fast. Within a generation a lot of misinterpretation takes place. So, God has to frequently visit this world in every generation. This is the main reason for His frequent visits everywhere in every generation.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★