Avadhut Joshi, Room No.202, Aviraj Lodge, 11, Mrutyunjaya Colony, Karve Road, Pune -411029 Mobile- +91 8806712048 avadhut2012@rediffmail 05 Sept 14 To The H’ble Prime Minister of India (Who so ever receives this e-mail for the H’ble authorities; kindly give proper attention to my request and communicate to the H’ble Authorities at the earliest. The subject of the e-mail must have made you aware of the nature and gravity of the issue.) (Copy submitted with respect to the President, VP, H’ble Home Minister and Law Minister, President of BJP on behalf of NDA, President of INC on behalf of UPA, Presidents of other parties and to SHRI P. SREEDHARAN for forwarding to H’ble Prime Minister and to all H’ble MPs for information and necessary action also) Sub- 1) Request Number Fourteen regarding ‘SEOMWIGS’ 2) Further Injustice in court cases 3) Our dream for ‘United India and Great India’ Ref- 1) My Request No.13 dated 29 Aug 14 and all other references mentioned in it. Respected Sir In my previous request, I told about quotes of Dr.Ambedkarji. I also expressed my view about him as the main hurdle in our dream. I am not critical about him because he is from lower caste. I am against him because he was a big bluff and is mainly responsible in misguiding the most important people of the nation, i.e. common man. As our system was a caste based system, we can say that he is misguiding the lower caste people. All the prowess and so called greatness about Dr.Ambedkarji is a blind faith. With cheating, hatred, rudeness and ego, he himself lowered his position in lower castes also. I am talking about his position in his period. I am not talking about his artificially created greatness. No doubt that once he was undisputed leader of the lower castes and the ‘Round Table conference’ was his peak period. His journey to that position involves his own status as the first lawyer from his community and help of the so called higher caste people who encouraged him. Majority of higher caste people were supportive to him. They were not jealous about him. They were not against him. That period was greatly influenced by the French revolution. All over world, there was a general anger against suppression and oppression of poor and labor communities. India was not exception for it. However the process of the revolt took different turn in India and other places. The person who brought this change was Dr.Ambedkarji. However the change is not positive for the society and is basically negative in nature. All over world, the process of social change is same. What so ever injustice/ suppression may be there and on any person, class/caste/community, finally it takes place with blessings of the ruler. Other wise such thing is not possible. When such injustice is prolonged, some one from society comes forward and leads the struggle against it and for betterment. Generally initiation comes from the social reformers and a leader takes lead in the struggle. Even the reformist may turn in to leader for good cause. Hence we must understand the concept of a social reformist. An ideal social reformist is a person who seeks social change for overall betterment of the society. Ideal social reformist is against the injustice, bad procedures and bad precedents. Ideal reformist is not interested in the doer of this. He or she is interested in a better change. The most essential quality in him is his realistic approach and unbiased view. Function is priority than individuals. And we had Dr.Ambedkarji, a social reformist cum leader cum champion of all things. And Dr.Ambedkarji was not an ideal social reformist. He was a dirty politician right from the beginning. He used the mask of social reformist for achieving his personal aspirations and for satisfying his hatred. With help of society and British government, he kept on rising. He was at peak of his career when ‘Round Table conference’ took place. This conference opened up the eyes of the other leaders in freedom struggle. They realized that for freedom, such ‘division minded’ process must be checked. Once there was change in their policies, there was decline in political career of Dr.Ambedkarji. When British gave up its control on India, i.e. in 1947, Dr.Ambekarji was no where. Or we can say that Dr.Ambedkarji did not remain a political force of cognizance. The leaders of freedom struggle, under leadership of Gandhiji, brought majority of lower caste people in to freedom struggle. Dr.Ambedkar’s proprietorship as lower caste leader was reduced to a considerable extent. However at the time of freedom, still Dr.Ambedkar was same with his hatred for Brahmins and Hindu religion. Though his influence over lower castes was reduced, he had followers. So the Congress leaders thought of bringing him and his followers in to the main stream. Today the term ‘Main stream’ is utilized in different sense. It is an initiation or preparation for asking reservation. Sir! Working in administrative chain is not a main stream. Living together happily in a nation is main stream. Hence the Congress leaders decided to invite Dr.Ambedkarji for the positions of the ‘head of the Constitution Committee and law minister’. All other political parties supported with same intension. All wanted to remove the hatred. It was a token of love and brotherhood of Hindu society as a whole for Dr.Ambedkarji and lower castes. To be frank, it was a grave mistake. All were aware of the past and nature of Dr.Ambedkarji. However I treat it as a ‘Humanitarian Foolishness’ with good intension. Gandhi, Neharu, Patel, Sawrakar and majority of top freedom struggle leaders were good at heart. Generally speaking, in revolutions, in freedom struggles, the persons at top are with high emotional quotient. Generally they are weak in system establishment and administration. Hence there is time between freedom and system establishment. Any how they chose Dr.Ambedkarji for the most crucial position and officially validated his ‘So called greatness and his status of ‘Champion of everything’. Now, in one sense, it was an opportunity for Dr.Ambedkarji to consolidate his position with this ‘God Gift/ Buddha Gift’. The only and only proper way for doing this was joining the main stream. It means, he should have left behind his hatred and welcomed the broad minded gesture of the Hindu society. But he took it in different way. Sir! There is no any relation between wisdom and Ambedkarji. He tried to consolidate his political position in different way. He thought of himself as an indispensible force and kept his nature of hatred. The rivalry came to a very bitter end………. Dr.Ambedkar challenged the Congress leaders………… ‘If I am defeated in the election in my home ground, my fort, in my area of people and influence, I will wear the Gandhi Cap’. What was the outcome? Dr.Ambedkar lost the election in a bad way. And hence he decided to pull his so called trump card of conversion. Hence this so called social reformer, so called lover of Buddha religion and self proclaimed student of Buddha converted to Buddhism in 1956. So! was it love for Buddha? No way, it was proper treatment of him by Hindu society which forced him for conversion. It was his attempt for reconsolidating his position. He thought that as usual Congress leaders would approach him; Neharu may offer him minister ship. But he lacked in wisdom. He did not understand the difference in circumstances. Congress tried to please him because people were after him. British were in support for prolonging their control. But he forgot that Gandhiji and others won the hearts of lower caste people with love and affection. There was reduction in his followers. The government was 100% Indian Government. All Hindu were aware that Buddha religion is a different form of Hindu religion. So his so called lethal weapon in pre-Independence period was harmless in post Independence period. I strongly feel that this failure affected his health. Why I wrote this all? In my last request, I told that I would continue the ‘story of the book Buddha and his Dhamma’. I was to do it. But as I am reading the book, I have understood that this book is difficult to read. I am not able to speed up the reading. The book is full of absurdity in the name of scientific approach. Any sensible and logical person will get irritated after reading this book. The author has tried to establish that Buddha was like Newton or Einstein. Buddha can be another name for ‘Logical and rational’ way. The author has tried to establish that Brahmins and Hindu religion was/is another name for stupidity and foolishness. Where as truth is this. Buddha was a person of great wisdom. He did not hesitate to use illogical and irrational ways for bigger benefit of the society. Buddha was very much aware about his specified and limited task. He was totally focused on his specified target of bringing the society back to middle path or in tolerable zone. He was manipulative to some extent with noble intension. The author is full of hatred for Brahmins and Hindu religion. I have confirmed that Dr.Ambedkarji is the author of this book. (Please refer Buddha and his Dhamma by Dr.Ambedkarji.JPG. It is taken from the site Ambedkar.Org which gave speeches and writing of Dr.Ambedkarji.) And as per him Dhamma is great than Hindu religion. Rather comparison is also wrong. The author says that ‘Hindu religion’ or any religion which believe in soul is useless. Any religion which believes in representative of god or life after death is useless. In short, all religions except Buddha’s Dhamma are useless. Author praises Buddhas Dhamma as scientific and based on logical, rational way. It is very scientific. In my opinion, there is no religion on earth which can pass the scientific approach. And Dr.Ambedkarji converted to Buddhism after Hindu religion was reformed by law. Let us check his actions with teachning of Lord Buddha. We all know that Buddha religion/ teaching is famous for non-violence. So let us start with non-violence theory. This is from part 4 of the book. ( Refer 1 Part 4 -True meaning of Ahimsa and difference between rule and principle 12. It is quite clear that Buddha meant to make a distinction between will to kill and need to kill. 13. He did not ban killing where there was need to kill. 14. What he banned was killing where there was nothing but the will to kill. 15. So understood there is no confusion in the Buddhist doctrine of Ahimsa. 16. It is a perfectly sound or moral doctrine which everyone must respect. 17. No doubt he leaves it to every individual to decide whether the need to kill is there. But with whom else could it be left. Man has Pradnya and he must use it. 18. A moral man may be trusted to draw the line at the right point. 19. Brahminism has in it the will to kill. 20. Jainism has in it the will never to kill. 21. The Buddhas Ahimsa is quite in keeping with his middle path. 22. To put it differently the Buddha made a distinction between Principle and Rule. He did not make Ahimsa a matter of Rule. He enunciated it as a matter of Principle or way of life. 23. In this he no doubt acted very wisely. 24. A principle leaves you freedom to act. A rule does not. Rule either breaks you or you break the rule. The author is telling that ‘Ahimsa’ of Buddha was different than other religions. He had given examples of extremes. As per author ‘Brahmanism has in it the will to kill.’. I have never read more foolish thing than this. What does it mean by will to kill? I have never seen any Brahmin wandering with sword and killing people as hobby. I never read any story in Hindu religion; telling about ‘Brahmin Killer’ and killing as a hobby. Auhtor is telling that Buddha permitted killing if there was need and the need was to be governed by the person itself. Can you give a name of single religion which allow killing as a hobby? No religion allows such killing. In all religions there is punishment/some sort of reprimand even for a justified killing. All religions allows killing of enemy in wars. Then what is the difference between Buddha’s Ahimsa and Ahimsa of other religions? Let us take a case of animal sacrifice. All such animals are consumed as divine food….Prasad. The name to this non-vegetarian food is different. But finally it is for human consumption. However Buddha used to consume non-vegetarian food provided it comes as alms. Buddha permitted the Bhikhus for consuming such food if they were not a party in animal killing. What is this? Sir! Is it possible for your party to take donation from a professional killer? Even if your party is not involved in a crime, your party will not take donation from such person because by accepting such donation, indirectly you support the crime. Does not same principle is applicable for Bikhus and Buddha? This sort of Ahimsa is only a comedy. Sir! Please give a sincere consideration to further lines. To put it differently the Buddha made a distinction between Principle and Rule. He did not make Ahimsa a matter of Rule. He enunciated it as a matter of Principle or way of life. 23. In this he no doubt acted very wisely. 24. A principle leaves you freedom to act. A rule does not. Rule either breaks you or you break the rule. The architect of our constitution, a great lawyer, a great philosopher and what not…….is telling that principles are not for following and rules are for following. Does he understand the process of law/rule making? All laws and rules are made for bringing some principles in practice. All courts reject the laws if the laws are not in line with the accepted principles. The government can not interfere in one’s privacy by making a law. Why? Because it goes against the general principle of freedom. So in law process, principles always ride over laws. The laws must be in tune with principle. If some principle is accepted and there are no laws and rules for practicing the principle, the system is inadequate. There is no meaning for acceptance for the principle. And our great architect of constitution is telling that principles are not for following. This is ridiculous. This is shame for the nation that such person has written our constitution. Destroy it and as early as possible. The author has praised Buddha as a rational and logical person. Author tells that Buddha’s way and approach was very scientific. Author praises Buddha as a great teacher. In the same book, author also tells that there is confusion in Buddhist over the principle of Ahimsa. Please read the following examples. (Refer 2 Part 4 Different interpretations of Ahimsa doctrine) 8. The monks of Ceylon fought against and asked the people of Ceylon to fight against the foreign invaders. 9. On the other hand the monks of Burma refused to fight against the foreign invaders and asked the Burmese people not to fight. 10. The Burmese people eat eggs but not fish. 11. This is how Ahimsa is understood and followed. 12. Recently the German Buddhist Association passed a resolution by which they accepted all the Panch Silas except the first which deals with Ahimsa. 13. This is the position about the Doctrine of Ahimsa. So this is position of Ahimsa doctrine of Buddha. Now tell me………what sort of scientific approach, rationality and logic do you find? What is science? What is scientific approach? All over world, Newton’s law of motion are same. All over the world laws of thermodynamics are same. That is science and scientific approach. In India, Fule- Ambedkar used these words…science and scientific approach as tools for their dirty politics and with zero knowledge of science. Sir! Both are not social reformers. Ambedakr was always in a role of a lawyer. In any court case there is one victim and there is one offender. That is ground reality. In any court case one party is wrong and one party is right. That is ground reality. Any lawyer can take a job for any party and pleads for the party. That is his profession. So a lawyer is not at all interested in truth. A lawyer is interested in his customer and loyal to his fees. So he pleads for wrong side also. Similarly Ambedkar always adopted a lawyer’s role for the fees. What was his fee? His fee was a supreme position in India. The immature person like Ambedkar, acquired infinite ego due to his status as first lawyer from his community. He got unprecedented praise from all. He could not digest it. In addition to it, there was pampering from his family. He was supposed to be a great person as per dream of his mother. His father’s divine incident with snake was confirmation to the dream. Right from his childhood he was conditioned for such status. But once he came across the world, he found that there was so much of talent in the world and more than his ability. He turned to unfair tactics. British supported him. He became a sole proprietor of low caste people. He accepted the case and started attacking Brahmins and Hindu religion. I would like to tell one ground reality and truth. At any given instance, 50% lawyers are 100% wrong. It is a reality as one lawyer pleads for untruth and wrong side. Respected sir! You have many times told that you won’t tolerate corruption. It means you do not do it and you do not allow it. If you adopt Buddha’s policy as taught by Dr.Ambedkar, you can enjoy with corrupt money, have parties, foreign trips, lavish home, only and only if you are not directly involved in it. It will be a similar case to Buddha’s non-vegetarian food as alms and Bhikkhu’s enjoyment with non-vegetarian food; provided they were not a party in killing. And still you can boast yourself as a clean politician…..and you can proudly say……..Satymev Jayate……..You can proudly say ‘ Garvse kaho hum Hindu hai!’….. Even though Brahmins kill people as a hobby. There is one more difference between Dhamma and Hindu religion. Hindu religion believes in soul and also believes that the soul adopts another body and there is rebirth. Where as Buddha denied it. He did not believe in soul and rebirth. But the book says that Buddha did not believe in rebirth and believes in rebirth. Author explains it. Further author tells that after death energy inside the living creature joins the energy in universe. And on this account Ambedkarji had termed Hindu religion as useless as it is not a scientific one. (Please refer from the part 4 web page-PART II : HOW SIMILARITIES IN TERMINOLOGY CONCEAL FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE,Section I—Rebirth,1. Preliminary.2. Rebirth of What?3. Rebirth of Whom?) 7. According to the Buddha there are four elements of Existence which go to compose the body. They are (1) Prithvi ; (2) Apa ; (3) Tej ; and (4) Vayu. 8. Question is when the human body dies what happens to these four elements? Do they also die along with dead body ? Some say that they do. 9. The Buddha said no. They join the mass of similar elements floating in (Akash) space. 10. When the four elements from this floating mass join together a new birth takes place. 11. This is what the Buddha meant by rebirth. 12. The elements need not and are not necessarily from the same body which is dead. They may be drawn from different dead bodies. 13. It must be noted that the body dies. But the elements are ever living. 14. This is the kind of rebirth in which the Buddha believed. Also refer this. 37. Thus amplified, the real answer to the question : What happens when the body dies ? is : The body ceases to produce energy. 38. But this is only a part of the answer. Because death also means that whatever energy that had escaped from the body joins the general mass of energy playing about in the Universe. 39. Annihilation has therefore a two-fold aspect. In one of its aspects it means cession of production of energy. In another aspect it means a new addition to the stock of general floating mass of energy. 40. It is probably because of this two-fold aspect of annihilation that the Buddha said that he was not an absolute annihilationist. He was an annihilationist so far as soul was concerned. He was not an annihilationist so far as matter was concerned. 41. So interpreted it is easy to understand why the Buddha said that he was not an annihilationist. He believed in the regeneration of matter and not in the rebirth of the soul. 42. So interpreted, the Buddhas view is in consonance with science. 43. It is only in this sense that the Buddha could be said to have believed in rebirth. 44. Energy is never lost. That is what science affirms. Annihilation in the sense that after death nothing is left would be contrary to science. For it would mean that energy is not constant in volume. 45. This is the only way by which the dilemma could be solved. So with this theory Dr.Ambedkarji told that Dhamma is a scientific one. So I also use scientific method for checking his claim that Dhamma is scientific and Hindu religion is useless and cheat. Let us put the product human being as equation. Human= Physical body + soul………..Equation 1-as per Hindu philosophy Human= Physical body + energy………Equation 2-.as per Buddha’s scientific Dhamma. Both religions launch something to space after death. Hindu religion launches soul and Buddha launches energy. Now in equation number 1 and 2, left side is same and hence right side must be same. So we get the third equation. Physical body + soul= Physical body + energy If I bring the physical body of Buddha equation to left side, it will be negative. (Physical body-physical body) + soul=Energy Or Soul=Energy…………that is what we get finally. So sir! What is the difference between Hindu religion and Dhamma. Today you and your party won. You are a successful person of your profession. Do you claim that you invented elections? Do you claim as an inventor of concepts like political parties, ballot box etc.? So by just changing terms from soul to energy, no one can become an inventor. By improving diesel engines and petrol engines no one can claim as an inventor of diesel and petrol engines. Further Ambedkarji had explained the rebirth. As per interpretation of Buddha religion by Ambedkarji………the physical body elements join with elements in universe. The energy joins the universal stock of energy. Then the four elements (1) Prithvi ; (2) Apa ; (3) Tej ; and (4) Vayu. Come together, but from different dead bodies. Energy is induced in it. And there is rebirth. What Hindu religion says............. The soul escapes and joins universe soul( Atma and Paratma) and at some time soul capture some another body. So there is rebirth. Do you find any difference in both concepts? And DR. Ambedkarji is declaring Buddha’s Dhamma as scientific and Hindu religion as useless. So who is cheat? Is it Hindu religion? Is it Buddha? Or is it Dr.Ambedkar? I do not say that Hindu religion does not have any wrong concept. What I want to say is this. All religions/human society has evolved from scratch to present day. All the religions are human creation. So all religions are supposed to make mistakes at some place or on some concepts. That is equality. Dr.Ambedkar is denying this equality. He is attempting to establish inequality between Hindu religion and Dhamma by claiming Buddha’s Dhamma as something superior. That is wrong. The hatred for Hindu religion and built in jealousy of Ambedkar towards Brahmins is wrong. One thing we must be understood. Whatever is there in Hindu religion, it may be wrong or right, it is original creation. It is different from Ambedkar, who acquire all the knowledge from traditional education and from his library containing 50000 books. After all it is similar to alms. I once again claim that all the right and good concepts of Ambedkar are not original and what is original of Ambedkar is wrong. And he never practiced any good concept. He just used lower caste people as medium. His real customer was British Government and his sole interest was his fee. Please refer 3 Part 3 What is not Dhamma. Dr.Ambedkarji is trying to ridicule Hindu religion and is trying to establish Hindu religion as something useless. Refer 4 Part 3 4 Part 3 Any religion based on Brahma is useless. Is there, Vasettha, a single one of the Brahmanas upto the seventh generation who has seen Brahma face to face? 41. No, indeed, Gautama. 42. Well then, Vasettha—did the ancient Rishis of the Brahmanas—did even they speak thus, saying : We know it, we have seen it, where Brahma is, whither Brahma is ? 43. Not so, Gautama. 44. The Buddha continued his questioning of the two Brahmin boys and said : 45. Now what think you, Vasettha ? Does it not follow, this being so, that the talk of the Brahmanas about union with Brahma turns out to be foolish talk ? 46. Just, Vasettha, as when a string of blind men are clinging one to the other, neither can the foremost see, nor can the middle one see, nor can the hindmost see—just even so, methinks, Vasettha, is the talk of the Brahmanas all but blind talk? The first sees not, the middle one sees not, nor can the last one. The talk of these Brahmanas turns out to be ridiculous, mere words, a vain and empty thing. 47. Just, Vasettha, as if a man should, say, How I long for, how I love the most beautiful woman in this land. 48. And people should ask him, Well ! good friend ! This most beautiful woman in the land, whom you thus love and long for, do you know whether that beautiful woman is a noble lady or a Brahmin woman, or of the trader class, or a Sudra ? 49. But when so asked, he would answer: No. 50. And when people should ask him, Well ! good friend ! This most beautiful woman in all the land, whom you love and long for, do you know what the name of that most beautiful woman is, or what her family name, whether she be tall or short or of medium height, dark or brunette or golden in colour, or in what village or town or city she dwells ? But when so asked, he would answer : No. 51. Now what think you, Vasettha? Would it not turn out that being so, that the talk of that man was foolish talk ? 52. In sooth, Gautama, that would be so, said the two Brahmins. 53. So Brahma is not real and any religion based upon it is useless. Sir! In Vedas of Hindu religion, Hindu thinks that the world/universe is a creation of Brahma. As per book, Buddha denied such religion on scientific base. Buddha argued that no one has seen Brahma. No one knows its size and shape. Ambedkar also agreed to Buddha and declared Hindu religion as useless. What Buddha did? Buddha avoided answers on creation of world. He told that such information was not profitable to human kind. This is either incapability of Buddha or he did it with purpose. He was focused on specific problems in society and the problems were enormous greed, jealousy, ruthless completion between Kings for expansion. But Dr.Ambedkar is joyful as he denied Vedas. In next lines the author wrote 4. Belief in Soul is Not Dhumma 1. The Buddha said that religion based on soul is based on speculation. 2. Nobody has seen the soul or has conversed with the soul. 3. The soul is unknown and unseen. 4. The thing that exists is not the soul but the mind. Mind is different from the soul. 5. Belief in soul He said is unprofitable. 6. A religion based on soul is therefore not worth having. 7. It only ends in creating superstition. Why Dr.Ambedkar is not asking the same question to Buddha? Have you seen mind? Does science recognize mind or does it recognize brain with different cells or sections? Does Buddha saw the shape and size of the mind? Why the self proclaimed Einstein …..Dr.Ambedakr is not declaring Buddha religion as useless as no one has seen mind. No one knows size and shape of mind. Is this equality? Was he a social reformer or a lawyer or a lawyer cum dirty politician or a traitor for this nation? Was he interested in general welfare of the society or was he more interested in pulling crowd behind him? Even our scientists of today and tomorrow are not going to achieve anything on creation of universe. It is simple logic. We create something from something. So behind new something, there will be one hidden something. It will be an unending process. If scientists agree on creation out of nothing, we are in same position like ‘Swayambhu’ or Bramha. I will continue this book in next request. The special practice of Buddha teachings by Dr.Ambedkar is very interesting story. Today I will give one example of it. Buddha taught for achieving perfection in the job/task/work in hand. Dr.Ambedkar had criticized Brahmins, Yeshu, Mohamad, Jain tirthkars while comparing them with Buddha. What perfection was revealed by Dr.Ambedkar in his constitution? He did not even change the initiation date of the laws for an independent nation. Sir! Once again I am requesting you all for taking Dr.Ambedkarji in a sincere and serious way. Acceptance to his theories is wrong. Indirectly we are declaring others as fools and stupid. Take an example of Munshi Premchand. Do you agree with him? If you are in agreement with Premchandji…………are you in agreement with Dr.Ambedkarji? Ambedkar and his community lived for thousand years in poor state and did not learn anything. So you have to accept only one theory. If Ambedkar theory is right, Shri.Premchandji is making mockery of sorrow of lower caste people. WE should ban Premchandji. Even Neharuji expressed similar thought. Neharuji told that problems and difficulties are essential in life. It boosts the energy. It helps in uplifting. As per Ambedkar theory, this thought is impractical. So either dump Premchandji and Neharuji or dump Ambedkar. Sir! We have given an official recognition to him and in a way to his idiotic theories and concepts. All his theories were formed for splitting the Hindu society. With growing education in lower caste communities, we are allowing spread of hatred. We are ruining our foundation. Kindly pay serious attention for the foundation. And similarly to my issue also. After all my issue has same foundation like your own..i.e. State of Gujarat. Also give consideration to my personal issue. I do hope for communication at the earliest. Thanking you Yours faithfully Avadhut Joshi
Posted on: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:29:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015