The origin of the human race (as distinct from our evolution as the human species) is an engaging metaphysical mystery for many of us, but not for Abrahamists whose dogma unravels it authoritatively for them.
The Holy Bible asserts that Jehovah created man in his own image.The woman was created from man. In whose image is woman created is not stated, but she is not in Jehovah’s image.
The Holy Koran has Allah fashioning man too, but not in his own image. The woman was created from man, and of course she is not in Allah’s image.
Either way, the Abrahamisms are clear that it is the male human who is god’s direct creation. The Abrahamisms do not recognize or acknowledge female divinity. The female human is a subordinate creation, from man, the gender implications of which are another story.Since the same Abrahamisms in their defining texts quite explicitly exclude from their god’s grace those of us who are not Abrahamists, how then were we created?
Hindu Dharmic texts discuss various possibilities, including Rig Veda 10.129 which honestly admits we do not know. We can speculate – the human is stated to have buddhi and so can think (dhiyo you nah prachodyat, Rig Veda 3.62.10) but this is a most unsatisfactory worldly situation for Abrahamists, because it suggests we humans can decide our own destiny, rather than their Jehovah / Allah do so for us.
Since the Abrahamic gods are by self-definition all-knowing and all-powerful, it follows that the very existence of non-Abrahamists diminishes to that extent the fearsomely jealous omnipotence of the Abrahamic gods, and by derivation that of their faithful on earth.
So, who created us nonbelievers? Who are we? When our own texts and our own interpreters are uncertain, and when we are now educated to seek and prefer certainty, we need those with certitude to educate us. And who can be more certain in educating us than Abrahamists, especially White Abrahamists? And, of them, who is more qualified and capable than the eminent internationally-acclaimed American Indologist, Prof Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty?
Prof Doniger O’Flaherty with great erudition has been educating us Hindus for many years about the reality of our beliefs. In “The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology” she educates us about our creation. She tells us that
“……evil spirits (Guhyakas) arise from Krsna’s private part (guhya), his penis or anus, and injury, misfortune, death, and hell derive from the rectum of the creator.3 Other forms of anal creation may be seen in the widespread Hindu belief that Brahma eats rice and then emits us, as well as in the statement that Brahma created the demons (Asuras) in the form of a breath (asu) from his rectum.4 Thus man is a cosmic turd, and though the theological implications are not entirely clear, demons would appear to be of less consequence, or at least less substance – no more than a celestial fart.”
i. Brahmavaivarta 1.5.60-61; Bhagavata 2.6.8
ii. Linga 1.70.199.
Therefore, who is a Hindu? And Doniger O’Flaherty enlightens us –
Hindus believe they are cosmic turds.
Ipso facto, a Hindu is a cosmic turd.
So, fellow Hindus, now you know!
We Hindus are turds.
We are worse than demons, who are merely farts. Hindus are solid shit, demons are just smelly air. And to repeat we have this on the impressive authority of the Mircea Eliade Distinguished Service Professor in History of Religions at the University of Chicago, Prof Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty.
That established, now what would you who are about 55 per cent of the world’s divinely-fashioned population do with the 13 per cent or so who are peristaltically-expelled turds?
What would you do with a real turd?
That’s easy, and you don’t need a Doniger O’Flaherty to tell you that you must flush it away.
But how would you do this with what this distinguished Abrahamist identifies as living turds, namely, Hindus?
Read for yourself what the defining texts of the 55 per cent have to say for us of the 13 per cent.
Hate. Kill. Proselytisation. Jihad. They strive 24/7 to flush us away.
But that violence is only the most apparent form of their purging the earth of us.Very much part of the pattern for eliminating us are subtle forms of indoctrination. The dominating one today is Macaulayanism,which teaches us to loath ourselves, and this is where cunning White Abrahamists like Doniger O’Flaherty come in as teachers.
Shrewdly, she implies to us Hindus that we need not look into a mirror to recognize ourselves. We need only to look into a latrine.
Because we are turds.
Are you surprised that the Bible and the Koran refer to us in terms of disgust and opprobrium?
Therefore, we deserve to be flushed away.
Doniger O’Flaherty’s very dramatic print equivalent of a sound bite is no un-scholarly witticism. It is a deliberate political statement to calumniate Hindus and Hinduism, entirely in consonance with Abrahamic scripture, and she makes it early enough in her book so that it is captured and retained by the reader. It is deliberate because she knows it is false.
She cites the Linga Purana in claim of “widespread Hindu belief” because the etymology there she can use to suit her case – but how many Hindus are familiar with the Linga Purana?She rejects the Ramayana, which is really widely believed in,because the etymology there does not suit her case. Why is she conflating popularity of belief with accuracy of etymology? The former is not dependent on the latter. And she knows this because, 200 closely-printed pages later in the same book, she casually tones down the sweeping generalization to an occasional one and that, 20 pages still later, she drops altogether.
It is political because she explicitly and most approvingly connects it to the appeasement politics of Gandhian ahimsa.
“Gandhi’s nonviolence enabled him to see `how much of what we ascribe to the Devil’s wiles or to the id’s inexorable demands can be tolerated, if absorbed by love rather than negated by violent moralism.’ This final acceptance is the great achievement of Gandhi, an achievement of personal as well as political significance…the hateful person continues his hate and learns to `love the opponent as human’”.
The lesson behind that confusing psychoanalytical jargon is simple – whether we Hindus are hateful or the Bible and Koran are full of hate for us, it is we who must learn to love those who are violently moral against us. Hindus must love missionaries and jihadis even though it is their avowed objective to destroy us.
Such love – Hindus giving ourselves up to Abrahamists –is the Gandhian way and so,rather than the reciprocity that both the Bible and the Koran advocate through their lextalionis, a craven surrender is the desirable way for us Hindus in dealing with the ordinances of the Bible and the Koran against us.
Abrahamists mince no words in telling us off scatalogically and worse. They are 55 per cent of the world’s population, and growing. Nowhere in their lands do they give us any right greater than their own, and often it is a lesser right. And we, who are 13 per cent, suicidally privilege them as a minority over ourselves in our own land.
For the faithful of the Bible and the Koran, the Gandhian bleat of ishwar allah tero naam is blasphemy,punishable with excommunication or death. Both the Bible and the Koran definitively, categorically and emphatically reject as applying to themselves the Gandhian idiocy of sarva dharma samabhava that Hindus parrot, even as Abrahamists exploit it to the full in Hindustan.
As a Hindu, ask yourself a simple question. If Abrahamists respect Hinduism as “equal”, why do they need to convert us?
1.Genesis 1.27 http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Genesis-1-27/ ;
2.Genesis 2.7 http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-2-7/;
3. Genesis 2.22 http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Genesis-2-22/ ;
4. Koran 23.12-14 http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/023.htm;
5. Koran 39.6 http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/039.htm;
6. Koran 42.11http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/042.htm ;
7. Koran 112.4 http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/112.htm.
9. Of course, it is irrelevant that, for “widespread Hindu belief”, from the over onethousand texts claimed to have been sourced, she can cherry-pick just one reference, and the meaning (a-sura) given by the Ramayana she rejects as “a false etymology” – Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, “The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology”, (Delhi: MotilalBanarsidass, 1976:140, 60-61). It is just as irrelevant that, for “asura”, Monier-Williams says nothing of turdness –http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/ebooks/mw/0100/mw__0154.html – col.1
13. “just as the universe is sometimes visualized as the excrement of God” – p.341; “the individual is merely a particle of cosmic power, a manifestation of an entity (neither good nor bad) that behaves in accordance with the consequences of other cosmic entities” – p.363, italics added.
14. p.359, italics added.
17. Hindu behaviour before Whites is expected to be of humility, of abject and grateful servility – http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=300&Itemid=55.
19. See the first two of Jehovah’s Ten Commandments – http://www.godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/#.VSnuj9x85gs – and like commandments in the Koran – 4.116 http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/004.htm , .106 http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/006.htm , 112 http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/112.htm.
20. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarva_Dharma_Sama_Bhava and the opening paras of http://indiafacts.co.in/god-constitution-india/.