Worlds first anti-war activist was burnt alive by brahmins

In the mahabharata one finds mention of the great saint Caraka who was killed because he opposed war..

The great gambler and war monger Yudhisthira who was one of the five pandavas ,most likely played a role in his death

Carvaka had founded a great school of thought

http://www.humanistictexts.org/carvaka.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvaka

http://www.marxist.com/philosophy/indian_islamic_philosophy.html



Some quotes attributed to Caraka

The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic's three staves, and smearing oneself with ashes,—Brihaspati says, these are but means of livelihood for those who have no manliness nor sense.

he who departs from the body goes to another world,
how is it that he come not back again, restless for love of his kindred?
Hence it is only as a means of livelihood that Brahmans have established here all these ceremonies for the dead, —there is no other fruit any where.

The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons.

 

It was the priestly class that had Jesus crucified too.

 

The person who wrote this obviously has not the slightest understanding of the mahabharata, the bhagavad gita, or of any vedic literature. I have no desire to even bother to argue with such ignorance.

 

Maybe they have their own understanding which is different from yours.

 

Anyone who knows the mahabharata can testify that every effort was made byt he pandavas to avoid war. However, when it became impossible to do so, they fought and they won. Only a fool would oppose such a war, especially when, in the fight, no civilians, no children, no women were involved. Even the warriors only fought with other warriors of equivalent rank. Before the war, both armies' soldiers were given the choice to leave or to change sides if their convictions supported it. This is dharma yuddha and it was necessary.

Callign Yudhishthira a war-mongerer is also totally ignorant. He went so far as to accept 12 years of anonymous exile in the forest in order to avoid the war.

 

I'll let Mick Jagger explain this one - You cain't alwaiys get whatcha want, honey.

 

This is ridiculous!, He had to fight , it was a dharma yudha, a war to establish dharma and he didn't go to war because he wanted to kill, he went to war because he didn't have any other choice. He was even going to settle for 5 small villages that are not even noticable... because he had to rule something, he was a kshatriya and that was his dharma. And yes Brihaspati is right, sitting and doing nothing when something needs to be done is impotence on the part of the doer. If you have a job that needs to be done, do it!.

 

I don't think it matters in the context of HH's post whether or not the war was just - the point is they burned a man to death for speaking his mind. (correct me if I'm wrong HH)

 

i dont' want to sound like I am damning free press or something but really some one who yells fire in a theatre is also speaking his mind, it does not make it okay, it is the same thing here.

 

Calling Vedic authors buffoons, demons and knaves is not speaking his mind, it is destroying everything they believed in, worked so hard for, the very basis of society was based on this. It is like calling a revolution to overthrow the US President, burning constitution in the streets and yelling die america die, its not right- no matter how much you hate or love (go figure) america.

 

Yes but that person won't be burned at the stake for his misdeed.
That's what's bad - the fact that what we today consider a barbaric abuse of human rights was committed. No crime or action can warrant such a penalty, and those carrying it out would have to be vicious sadists or psychopaths.
Just imagine the horror of such an event.

 

Without fully reading the mahabharata and the background of this person I would not see fit to pass judgement on the punishment meted out. But Yudhishthira was the embodiment of dharma and if he ruled on something, it was with just reason. Those reasons I would have to explore the mahabharata before giving you.

 

I don't think it matters what the background is. There are no circumstances under which such a punishment could ever be justified.

 

Right BBB

Jedi and Bhaskar will get a reply when I have more time on hand.....

 

So you're saying that all the demons Krishna slayed... that was wrong? Would you have spared hitler's life? Such blanket statements are rarely true.

 

Yes - I would have spared the life of Hitler. I am opposed to the death penalty period. I would have locked him up. I have no time for motives of petty vengance. To have caught and killed Hitler at the end of the war would not have changed a thing, other than to show that the allies were not so very much better than the Nazis. If the Neuremberg trials were held today in Europe, there would be no question of the death penalty, as it is banned in all EC countries. That IMHO is a tiny bit of progress Europe has made since 1945.

However, this is even worse than the ordinary death penalty - as it is an extremely inhumane way to kill someone. If we accept that it was ok for these brahmins do act thus, then it's highly likely some 'bright spark' will want to imitate them and bring back such barbarism. They may even think it's right to do so, or that God desires such things.

It is hardly the moral high ground to go about burning people, no matter what they have done.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

See - every time a man is put to death, it's another repeat of the crucifixion - if you believe God is within all beings, then what else is it? If you burn someone, then your burning God too.
Here in Europe we had a lot of it at one time - heretics, scientists, 'witches' etc were all summarily burned. Often by priests etc, as in this case. It didn't make for a very pleasant or enlightened society, and now the representatives of those very priests in the shape of the modern church has had to apologize and admit errors were made.
Christ Himself said 'if you do it to the least of mine, you do it to me'.

 

If you choose it may also be seen as a subjective symbol, within. The dissenting voice, the tiny voice that speaks out against our known convictions, has to be burnt and destroyed voice of reason and dharma.

 

It's perhaps not the best way to symbolize such things. Also, the idea or conception of 'truth' may be quite subjective, so rather than incinerating falsehood they would be incinerating a different truth which didn't accord with their own. Just like the rennaisance church burning Bruno. They believed they were burning a vile heresey. In other cases, like Joan of Arc and Jaques de Molay, the burning was done under a mask of 'heresey' but the object in both cases was purely political. And once you normalize such things, they will inevitably be used in just that way.

Either way, I think it's a mythological story. It only becomes dangerous if people think it gives a realistic model of the way human life should be conducted in the real world of today. Such things as burnings etc are repellant to the sensitivities of most contemporary people, and rightly so.

 

The burning would not have happened, had they understood that the peaceful anti-war activist was none other then another form of god... as one enters the one consciousness one naturally falls in ahisma, nonviolence... The yoga sutras speak of this, ahimsa just happens... why would the left arm cut off the right arm over something like speaking one's mind about nonviolence? such things occur through ignorance and delusion. There are many issues in the so called holy books, but there is also much wisdom.

We must evolve... and not be so reliant on holy books... let us be reliant on the holy presence of the one conciousness that is all in time/space and beyond time/space... let that be the authority, not ancient texts or modern texts... then the holy books will be put in thier proper place as guides, but not authorities.