Karpatraratnasamuchchaya and Tradition-ism | Including 'Kutarkakootnashak' (Destroyer of False Logic)

Although the article was merely a presentation of Karpatri Maharaj's views, some prejudiced individuals felt that this was an attack on Karpatri Maharaj. Moreover, they felt it was a doctrinal attack on the Smarta tradition. Attaching these imaginary thoughts of their own to the author, they wrote something akin to a refutation and made false allegations against me: Read Here. Even though they veered away from the subject, I shall attempt to review that as well. Here, I will certainly present my views at places. The statements of the opponent are marked in blue, the reviews in black, and video excerpts of the Puri Shankaracharya are marked in red.

Some universal symbols of dharma are: Indian philosophy, Indian tradition, temples, maths, etc. If there are others, what is their source? Rishis, munis, and shastras, or mere emotions and beliefs? The second option cannot hold because of their diversity, nor is there any ground for them to be means of valid knowledge. If the first option holds, individuals like the author attempt to deny them. Furthermore, the very first four lines prove you to be afflicted with doubt and delusion; how can such a person be considered a cause of true knowledge on any subject?

That is correct, the sources of the unbroken tradition of Indian knowledge, meditation, devotion, yoga, etc., are the shastras and rishi-munis, and the originators and carriers of these disciplines are the universal symbols of dharma—not some medieval beliefs pasted onto dharma. Hence, when the universal symbols of dharma are stripped bare, it harms dharma itself. Consequently, when universal gurus of dharma—whose thoughts and discourses resonate universally, everywhere, and in every heart even outside the maths—when those holy personages are subjected to unbridled accusations and abuse beyond all bounds, we too are compelled to take up the pen for the sake of defending the counter-perspective. So I did, but the postal contractors of dharma did not relish this. You say that I am afflicted with doubt and delusion, thereby casting doubt on my true knowledge, but you do not know that true knowledge without direct experience is hollow. I merely expressed some of my own experiences; the experience of them is the evidentiary basis of my knowledge. True explanation is possible not by sitting in a palace, but only after experiencing darkness in a dense forest; the flowering of experiential thoughts involving direct and indirect occurrences is true knowledge.
Furthermore, right at the outset, you laid the groundwork for person-centric sophistry, which you seem to nourish further in the article through ad hominem attacks.

The reason for declaring a person in doubt to be unqualified is that by the end, he forgets his own premise and tends to deviate into irrelevant reasoning and shifting positions. It is written: “Therefore, without praising or condemning, I am presenting some unheard views of Maharaj Ji.” But while writing, the author ends up with (1) “After reading the above views of Maharaj Ji, it becomes clear that all this is unacceptable to a science-oriented person.” (2) Maharaj Ji wrote that the earth is flat (this is nowhere to be found) (3) In this system, devoid of purushartha, without considering capability or incapacity, a creature conforming by birth to its svadharma will be a true Hindu (4) These words prove Maharaj Ji's ideology. It appears Maharaj Ji was more concerned that relationships with other castes should not happen than he was about intra-family adultery. There are numerous such examples through which the author violated his own premise. At many places, Karpatri Ji's words have been removed, new words added, and arbitrary meanings extracted. Such traits are not seen in well-meaning people in the world. Therefore, from the very beginning of the article, his flimsy state is worthy of consideration. Reading the concluding part of the article is utterly essential. Can such a person be a source of any true information?

Riding the boat of person-centric sophistry, you chant the song of irrelevant reasoning. But you do not know the style of presentation: between the quoted statements, the author has to provide brief reviews/clarifications of intent, explaining the core meaning, etc. As is visible, even in the portions from *Karpatraratnasamuchchaya* (where I did not discuss Trad-ism), I tried to remain as impartial as possible. In those words too, I neither condemned nor praised Karpatri Maharaj. If my intermittent direct concluding statements appear to you as condemnation/praise, this is merely your delusion; as stated in the preface, throughout the article I remained firmly resolved. Wherever I quoted Maharaj Ji's words with evidence, it is not mine. At no place have Karpatri Maharaj's words been tampered with. Let us see if you have presented any evidence further down or merely talked in thin air. So far, you have engaged solely in person-centric sophistry. Through this, you have established a prejudice in the reader's mind so that people can be manipulated through pure emotionalism.

The author is calling commemorative volumes authored by Karpatri Ji’s close devotees and reliable persons unauthentic, whereas they can under no circumstances fall into the category of unauthentic. Yet elsewhere, he makes up his own arbitrary interpretation that “Karpatri Maharaj was opposed to shudra temple entry.” We can cite numerous proofs for our side, but what proofs do you have for this side? Some words used by Karpatri Ji are: “To shatter the beliefs and religious sentiments of the faithful, the government wants to barge everyone indiscriminately into the temples” (A.Au.Ra/6/20-29). “Those who used to refute idols by calling them mere stones are today, like orthodox idol-worshippers, proclaiming the necessity of temple entry and darshan of the deity for everyone in order to defile the temples of the gods” (San.E.V./67/1-3). “What is the decorum of temples? How is it to be observed? Who should be allowed entry into them and who not?” (Vi.Pi./362/11-20). “It is a strange thing that even government sadhus and government pandits remain silent on the entry of Harijans into the Vishwanath temple” (Na.Aa./57/25-26). In all these contexts, the word “shudra” is nowhere used. Then on what evidence did you write that “Therefore, shudras and lower castes can only pacify their spiritual yearning through the darshan of the temple spire”? According to his interpretation, shudras and other lower castes were not permitted temple entry by dharma. Thus, talking without evidence, you are proving yourself to be merely a prattler.

You wrote "The author is calling commemorative volumes authored by Karpatri Ji’s close devotees and reliable persons unauthentic," whereas this is a lie; it was never stated or concluded anywhere. I said: "As proof, they cite some commemorative volume that shrouds the truth!" Do you not even know what hierarchy of evidence is? Assuredly, Karpatri Maharaj's self-written books carry a thousand times more importance than books written by anyone else. Over and above that, biographical commemorative volumes authored by his close devotees praising Karpatri Maharaj's life events will always remain suspect in terms of academic impartiality; this is the logical rule. Therefore, I repeat my statement: “Karpatri Maharaj's own literature is an impartial reflection of his ideology.”

The next accusation leveled was that the author made arbitrary interpretations. First of all, I would like to tell you that first a proposition is presented, and then proofs are given for it. For instance, I first put forth the propositional statement that Karpatri Maharaj was opposed to shudra entry. Then I presented eight related pieces of evidence, which are sufficient to prove the statement. The quoted statements of Karpatri Maharaj (which I highlighted) were not tampered with in any way. But you took recourse to etymological sophistry, veered away from the original intent, and started prattling over a single word "shudra"—demanding to show where this word was used. Let us assume the word "shudra" was not used. But what words were used? Answer: "Bhangi", "Harijan", "Antyaja", etc. Now, which varna does a Bhangi—meaning the Valmiki community—belong to? Is this even a question worth asking? In "Harijan", besides many Dalits, antyajas, and chandalas, this terminology is also used for shudras. All these divisions are fluid, and taking advantage of this fluidity, a particular class was historically deprived of entry! Do not play with words like Dalit, antyaja, shudra, anulomaja, pratilomaja, chandala, etc.! Anyway, the entire division is encompassed within the four varnas alone; there is no fifth varna. "Chaturth ekajatistu shudro nasti tu panchamah" Even those so-called "avarnas" distinct from them were once in the category of shudras. And the game of avarna and savarna is merely medieval muck.

Earlier you were striking up the tune of the sanctum sanctorum, saying everyone has the right to temple entry! And now, as your bluff is called, you shift the matter to antyaja and chandala! And now, seizing upon a single word, you lay claim to a false refutation. Let us expose your lies even further.

Doubt:- The Shankaracharya of Puri has considered shudra temple prohibition to be valid; the very title of his video is “Rights of shudras in temple entry.” Resolution:- The task of writing or having titles and subtitles written does not belong to the Acharya of Puri, nor does he have the resources or time. The titles of many videos are indeed wrong. The question asked by the questioner is: “Is there a scriptural prohibition for Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, shudras, etc., regarding temple entry or not?” The person writing the subtitle wrote here: “Can shudras go to temples?” The mistake is obvious. Nowhere in that long video has the Shankaracharya of Puri stated that “shudras have no temple entry, let them do shikhar darshan instead”; rather, contrary to this, statements of numerous shudra individuals are seen stating that the Shankaracharya of Puri gave them initiation, did not stop them when asked about temple entry, etc. Therefore, in the absence of evidence, surmising is not proper.

First of all, the title of the video of the Kaliyuga Prahlada, Shri Shri Puri Shankaracharya, is crystal clear, yet you pointed out a massive blunder in your own camp and made a run for it. No matter, this whitewashing of yours won't last long. Come, readers, let us shed light on the video of the Puri Shankaracharya: (Original video in red font)

Question: Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and shudra......... (low-quality low audio where nothing is clear)... Is there a prohibition in the shastras for him to go into the temple, or can he go inside and perform worship as well, or not?
Maharaj Ji: What is your name?
(Maharaj Ji always asks caste first, in almost all videos; even great nitya sannyasi saints whose stripping of dignity I mentioned in the preface, Maharaj Ji always addresses them with caste-indicative terminology.)
After the questioner states his name:
Maharaj Ji: What did you say? Upadhyaya? Sit down!
You weren't stopped anywhere? You had stopped !! You weren't stopped, alright, huh-hu-hu (laughing)!
(This is also indicative of what kind of Trad-vadi disciples they are! Who stop people from entering temples.)
After quoting a shloka from the Gita, Maharaj Ji explains how the fruit is not theft, and then—the very matter over which all of you were fleeing, the very word "shudra" over which you were spouting falsehoods for so long—Maharaj Ji himself blows the lid off:
Maharaj Ji: "Very good example, leave aside shudras and antyajas, take me for instance, because nowadays in answering such questions—not answering is improper, and if you answer, it's handcuffs in jail straight away, huh-hu-hu (laughing). That is why a style has to be adopted so that no one, right up to the Supreme Court, can trap you and everything is covered; understand? Otherwise we would go to jail every day! Huh-hu-hu (laughing)."

Clearly, listen with your ears wide open: "Shudras and antyajas"—even if we consider them separate, both are spoken of regarding their disqualifications. Shudra is shastric terminology, whereas Chamar, Bhangi, Harijan, Dalit are caste-based practical terms used in general news. According to the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1956, preventing any person from worship in a temple can invite a prison sentence of up to 6 months. Thus, regarding temple entry, moreover Maharaj Ji knows the rules and laws under the courts and the Indian judicial constitution, which is why throughout the video he used only symbolic phrasing! Maharaj Ji, who endlessly harps on about ruling over rulers, what is he afraid of getting handcuffed for? Further on, recalling his so-called political and cultural supreme position, Maharaj Ji reiterates the word "shudra":
Maharaj Ji: "I am a sannyasi, you leave aside shudras and Dalits..."
Why is Maharaj Ji repeatedly repeating the word shudra?
Thus, all your claims are entirely false.
Since you have struck up the tune of the Puri Shankaracharya's video, watch another video:
The Puri Temple Entry Movement of 1932-34 is world-famous. Prior to this, the coming of lower castes into the temple was also prohibited; now all Hindus can enter, only non-Hindus are barred. Among the lower castes, the entry of Kaivarta fishermen such as Gokha, Siyul, Tiyar, Nuliya, Kandra, etc., was strictly prohibited; all these Kaivarta castes are called shudras. The Shankaracharya of Puri explains that temple courtyard entry is no longer shastra-compliant! The rules now are promulgated by the governance system. Explaining this very fact and criticizing the pandas and priests in another video, Maharaj Ji says—

"Pandas and priests who do not have proper knowledge of the shastras, who have absolutely no knowledge; they think that those whose entry is prohibited is a shastra-ordained prohibition. That is not a shastra-ordained prohibition! The shastra-ordained prohibition was implemented in earlier times. Now the prohibitory order or law is being followed as per the Odisha governance system and the courts here. The decorum of the shastras is that those persons who enter the courtyard of the temple through methods sanctioned by the shastras and have the formal darshan of Sri Jagannath Darubrahma, attain the fruit; but those persons who, according to shastric decorum—because in matters of purity and impurity the shastras alone are authoritative............().... For those whom the shastras have prohibited, there is a grace that by having the darshan of the shikhar and doing circumambulation, they attain the exact same fruit; no one is deprived of the fruit."

Shudra temple entry is prohibited; who are those pandas and priests well-versed in Vedas and Vedanta putting up such prohibitory notices outside temples actually inspired by? Eyes do not deceive!

The great Vaishnav acharya Shri Kanakadasa, a disciple of Shripada Vyasatirtha Swami Ji, was born in the shepherd Kuruba caste to Bire Gowda and Bachamma. The Kuruba caste is considered a shudra caste. He is the first shudra equivalent to the Reddy caste and associates himself with "Indra Shudra". Once, at the request of Vyasaraya Swami Ji of the Vyasaraya Math, he came to Udupi. But this was a medieval era when discrimination based on caste by pandits was at its peak. The temple pandas and priests did not allow him to enter the temple because he was a shudra, although Vyasaraya Swami Ji had asked Kanakadasa to go into the temple. Kanakadasa was meditating on Krishna, his Lord, outside the temple and singing songs in praise of Sri Krishna. He did this for weeks, camping outside the temple and cooking his own food. Distressed at being denied entry into the temple, he composed poems and kirtans in praise of Lord Krishna that remain relevant to this day. He sings of how all human beings are equal, just as everyone is born equally physical, everyone shares the same water, and everyone sees the same sun supporting life on earth. Hindu temples and the deities within them always face east. In Udupi, however, Lord Krishna, as a deity, faces west. It is believed that something extraordinary must have happened when Kanakadasa stayed outside the temple for days seeking permission to enter. It is believed that in those days, when Kanakadasa was not permitted to have darshan of Lord Krishna, he consoled his heart by singing kirtans for his beloved Lord. Miraculously, the deity of Lord Krishna turned to face west. Through a crack in the outer walls of the temple, Kanakadasa, an ardent devotee of Sri Krishna, was able to have darshan of his Lord.

This shocked orthodox Trad-vadis as to why such a thing happened. Since then, the deity of Lord Krishna has faced west, although the main entrance faces east. The miracle is not over yet. Today that window (called "Kanakana Kindi") exists as a symbol of tribute to Kanakadasa. Devotees visiting the Sri Krishna Temple in Udupi try to have darshan of Lord Krishna through this small window. It is a memorial to Kanakadasa, and also proof of the liberal Hindu belief that devotion, poetry, and saintliness rise above caste and creed, and certainly above rigid orthodoxy. It is said that Kanakadasa lived in a hut in front of the "Gopura" at this spot. Later, a small shrine was built in his memory and came to be known as "Kanakana Kindi" or "Kanakana Temple". Similarly, Shripada Vallabhacharya appointed the shudra Krishnadasa even as the chief manager of the temple.

Now you Trad-vadis tell me, on the basis of which shastras was the shudra Kanakadasa denied temple entry at that time? Were those shastras lost? Stop making fools of your own people!

Now I don't think there is any need for me to speak further on this subject. The views of Karpatri Maharaj and his followers are clear, and likewise, my article was solely about his views. Anyway, today the tradition of temple disqualification has also been shattered to pieces; everyone has the right to temple entry, whether Harijan, Bhangi, Antyaja, Dalit, or shudra! Everyone has the right to equal temple entry—the foundation of this movement was first laid by Shripada Ramanujacharya. Now the problem for Trad-vadis like you is that you are neither following this nor admitting your mistakes, when such a tradition has sunk into the abyss of time and been declared contrary to dharma by numerous saints and great souls! This tradition no longer survives at all, so what is there to conserve? Because conservation is done for the endangered, not the extinct! Your so-called conservation is solely and purely of false ego! Thus, your pseudo-traditionalism has indeed turned out to be utterly hollow!!

The author does not even know the difference between ordinary terms like asprishya and abhakshya. He is calling discrimination between eatable and uneatable by the name of untouchability, so what on earth will he call untouchability? What fault is there in this? Let this person state where Karpatri Ji has mentioned the word Vaishnavacharya on page 63! This person is busy adding and twisting words of his own accord. He wants to show that respected Vaishnav acharyas too were in favor of reform against the Vedas like him; this will be described in detail later. For now, know this much: “In the Varnashrama Swarajya Sangh and Dharma Sangh, there were also respected acharyas of all Vaishnav traditions.”

How talented you appear—distinguishing between abhakshya and asprishya? Maharaj Ji himself has used this term repeatedly and called untouchability by birth as scripturally proven. They believe that even sharing food should not happen. You keep harping on about a shudra's food, and the audacity you have, fie! Regarding this very shudra's food, the Puri Shankaracharya in a video had criticized even Shri Nrityagopal Das Ji Maharaj, the warrior of Shri Ram Janmabhumi and saint of Ayodhya. If someone says President Ram Nath Kovind is untouchable because he is a shudra by birth, in my view this is not wisdom but self-destruction; here I will certainly write my views.

What have you conjured up of your own accord?? Wherever Karpatri Maharaj's statements were quoted, there was no tampering. Now the author is bound to write something or other between the quotes! Over that, you start crying that these words were twisted! This is your ecological sophistry. The reader will understand it himself. Clearly, any book whose title itself is *Sankirtana Mimamsa* and which describes storytellers, reformers, kirtans, cultural collective chanting of the divine name, etc.—anyone can sniff out who it is a critique of. Their direct intent was toward contemporary Vaishnav acharyas who, forgetting inter-dining, untouchability, caste distinctions, and duties by birth, were promoting Harinam sankirtana for the upliftment of oppressed untouchables. Therefore, keep your sophistry to yourself! And nobody expects to learn about the stances of various Vaishnav acharyas from your mouth—you, whose self-proclaimed universal gurus have already declared Madhvacharya, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, and Goswami Tulsidas to be Smarta Advaitavadis. What the views of Vaishnav acharyas are is not even the subject of discussion right now! For Karpatri Maharaj, even Devala and Medhatithi were reformists contrary to the shastras, so what is there even to say about Vaishnavas! All these matters have nothing to do with the aforesaid article; you are unnecessarily displaying your pseudo-scholarship.

A shudra has not been called untouchable in any shastra; meeting them, etc., does not incur any fault either, so what talk can there be of bathing upon a shadow falling?

Nobody is talking about shastras here! Here the subject is Karpatri Maharaj's views. Over and over again repeating the same sophistry, bringing up extraneous topics that have nothing to do with the article—you have posted an entire evidence-free, subject-evading so-called rebuttal so that the reader might feel: Ah! All these things are wrong!!! As for untouchability, caste-indicative words like Bhangi-Chamar, Harijan, Antyaja, etc., which are commonly used as terminology for shudras—even if they weren't, the observance of the sentiment of segregation in them is borne out by history! Here you are deliberately employing terminological sophistry to dissect words, whereas Karpatri Maharaj explicitly used the word shudra and forbade them from meeting and mingling in kirtans and gatherings. What the shastras say—how much obfuscation are you using to cover it up!

Even if we assume that you only want to talk about extraneous matters, and you claim that a shudra has not been called untouchable in any shastra, then go and start reading the texts. There are explicit statements in the texts: "Sarvam cha shudrasansprishtamapavitram na samshayah" Even among the three things in the world declared impure by the shastras, the shudra is one. "Shva cha shudrah shvapakashcha apavitrani" Since you declared us petty at the very beginning, a grand scholar like you must at least have the competence to know where the above statement is quoted from! If nothing else, even if you don't know the Gautama Dharmasutra, there too is the statement: "Water brought by a shudra becomes polluted!" Therefore, do not entertain your naive readers by manufacturing splits in words, saying: "Look, he didn't write shudra, he wrote Bhangi-Chamar, Harijan-Dalit, Antyaja (though he wrote shudra as well, but you suffer from far-sightedness)! Despite so many lies, how you speak falsehoods regarding the shastras! Fie!

You say there was no untouchability regarding shudras and that people ate their food, so let me tell you a history contained in a Vaishnav text, concerning the Vaishnav acharya Shri Ravidas Ji. Ravidas Ji was a shudra by birth. Aapu hu padaren un bahu dhan patvare, Vipra suni paon dharen, seedhou dai nibariyai. Kari ke rasoi dvij bhojan karan baithe, Dve-dve madhya yo Ravidas ko niariyai. Dekhi bhai ankhen, deen bhavai shiv salai bhaye ~Bhakti Rasa Subodhini Teeka, Bhaktamal At the invitation of the queen, Saint Ravidas Ji arrived in Chittorgarh. There the queen honored him greatly and offered many gifts. On this occasion, the queen also organized a grand community feast for all sadhus and saints. Brahmin guests also came, but the Brahmins who established untouchability by birth objected to eating food cooked in the feast, so the queen arranged raw provisions for them. Thereafter, the Brahmins cooked the food with their own hands, but when they sat down in rows to eat, what do they see—between every two Brahmins sits Saint Ravidas Ji! Seeing the influence of Saint Ravidas Ji, their eyes opened, and in an utterly wretched and pathetic state, they began begging forgiveness of Saint Ravidas Ji!! What shastras were the Brahmins following by behaving like that at the time? Were those shastras lost? Where has that tradition gone today??

Anyway, inter-dining with a shudra is also prohibited according to Trad-vadis. You stray away from the subject and talk about shastras! So let me write a few more things. It is stated somewhere that if a shudra's food remains in a Brahmin's stomach at the time of his death, in his next birth he either becomes a pig or is born in a shudra family ("Shudrannodarsthena yah kashchinmriyate dvijah, sa bhavetshukaro gramyastasya va jayate kule")—such examples are overflowing! Whatever Karpatri Maharaj says is all shastra-approved.

You do not pay attention to your own words, writing that “in this system devoid of purushartha, without considering capability or incapacity,” whereas terms like “learned Brahmin,” “valiant Kshatriya,” etc., are explicitly used in Karpatri Ji's words. Is becoming learned or valiant possible without purushartha?! And tell me, what is purushartha? Arbitrary conduct? Or the desire for dharma, artha, kama, and moksha? If you accept the first, you won't be able to achieve it even taking seven births. If you accept the second, dharma is knowable through shastras, the sources of wealth too mostly lie with Vaishyas and shudras, and moksha too is attained through various means while remaining established in one's svadharma. Therefore, this very system is purushartha; any action done outside of this is blameworthy.

You too should learn to pay attention to words and learn to look with your eyes wide open. Such lies upon lies—you saw "learned Brahmin" and "valiant" but cut out the rest of the sentence entirely! He said, "A learned Brahmin should be made a priest and a Mahamatya. Brahmins alone must be appointed to the posts of chief justice and teacher. A pure, valiant Kshatriya should hold the post of commander-in-chief, and soldiers too should mostly be high-born Kshatriyas." Why did you forget to write that no adjectives were attached to the posts of teacher and chief justice—did you not see "Brahmins alone"? And pray, what kind of qualification is high birth for a commander-in-chief!! And as for those who clean sweep floors and slaves, capability and incapacity are no question at all! After this, the same subject-evading, useless prattle of scholarship; I will not say it repeatedly, we will discuss this at the end, I won't say anything further, the readers are wise.

You do not pay attention to your own words, writing that “in this system devoid of purushartha, without considering capability or incapacity,” whereas terms like “learned Brahmin,” “valiant Kshatriya,” etc., are explicitly used in Karpatri Ji's words. Is becoming learned or valiant possible without purushartha?! And tell me, what is purushartha? Arbitrary conduct? Or the desire for dharma, artha, kama, and moksha? If you accept the first, you won't be able to achieve it even taking seven births. If you accept the second, dharma is knowable through shastras, the sources of wealth too mostly lie with Vaishyas and shudras, and moksha too is attained through various means while remaining established in one's svadharma. Therefore, this very system is purushartha; any action done outside of this is blameworthy.

You too should learn to pay attention to words and learn to look with your eyes wide open. Such lies upon lies—you saw "learned Brahmin" and "valiant" but cut out the rest of the sentence entirely! He said, "A learned Brahmin should be made a priest and a Mahamatya. Brahmins alone must be appointed to the posts of chief justice and teacher. A pure, valiant Kshatriya should hold the post of commander-in-chief, and soldiers too should mostly be high-born Kshatriyas." Why did you forget to write that no adjectives were attached to the posts of teacher and chief justice—did you not see "Brahmins alone". And pray, what kind of qualification is high birth for a commander-in-chief!! And as for those who clean sweep floors and slaves, capability and incapacity are no question at all! After this, the same subject-evading, useless prattle of scholarship; I will not say it repeatedly, we will discuss this at the end, I won't say anything further, the readers are wise

Further, the foolish author committed another audacity: “From the perspective of ‘If even the shadow of a shudra touches , it must be cleansed with water’—even if a shudra’s shadow falls, it must be cleansed with water, such .” Firstly, these words do not belong to Karpatri Ji at all. He wrote that “They say Raghavendra wanted to erase that dejection of the Kewat which society had loaded upon him. He was deprived not just in terms of wealth, but in every way; he was untouchable... ‘He could not even imagine opening his mouth in front of any king’—this is the view of others. In response to this, Karpatri Ji wrote ‘...the storytelling gentleman is no exception to this. But according to them, Ram and Tulsidas ought to have promulgated a new code of conduct. At least they ought to have answered ‘Jasu chhah chhui lei-a’ .’ Now let this foolish author tell where it is written: ‘From the perspective of ‘If even the shadow of a shudra touches , it must be cleansed with water’—even if a shudra’s shadow falls, it must be cleansed with water.’ An author afflicted with such inferiority complex writes that “Therefore, without praising or condemning, I am presenting some unheard views of Maharaj Ji.”

You don't even know how articles are written and how things are read and comprehended through mathematical logic! I never said anywhere in the article that these are verbatim, word-for-word statements of Karpatri Maharaj! I neither put them in bold nor quoted them as such, so why this prattle of yours? Nor did I write any citation number for it! Yet unbridled accusations and sophistry? Your eyes and your intellect have become afflicted with an inferiority complex, seeing Karpatri Maharaj in every statement in the world. You are asking where this is written! O elder brother! You haven't read any article prior to this! This is a statement explaining my intent, placed among several quoted Karpatri statements; that is what I was talking about. Now let us see what this statement is. "Jasu chhah chhui lei-a sincha" is Tulsidas's statement, which undoubtedly signifies that contemporary tradition where people cleansed themselves even if a shadow fell upon them! The literal meaning is precisely that. Now if someone supports this tradition, my brother, what is to be written about them! You people never tire of all this obfuscation! In the end, when Karpatri Maharaj's name wasn't even mentioned, what condemnation and what praise!

What is meant by Karpatri Ji Maharaj's tradition? This is the proven doctrine of the Vedas themselves. Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, Vallabhacharya, Ramanandacharya, Mimamsakas, Naiyayikas, Vaiyakaranas—all accept varna based on birth (by 'based on' is meant birth and corresponding samskaras, etc.). Because of your making far-fetched interpretations of their traditional authoritative statements, you have been proven wrong multiple times by followers of these very sects. You have no study rooted in guru-parampara, nor any stable doctrine. We who remain in contact with the acharyas of every sect also know their views. To cure your personal inferiority complex or malice, do not engage in the malicious attempt to prove the acharyas of our various sects as anti-Vedic.

Do not worry, all your prattle will always remain relevant and will bring you good profit. First of all, all this is not the subject of the article! What these acharyas believe will be told by their followers, not by me! And as for Karpatri Maharaj's views, I have already written them; whether varna is by birth or by karma is not the subject here! And even though other acharyas considered varna to be by birth, all other Vaishnav acharyas are in favor of everyone getting temple entry; none of them supports untouchability by birth! At present, the views of countless acharyas, not just of Vaishnav acharyas but of the Shankar tradition, do not match Karpatri Maharaj even slightly; acharyas connected with the Madhva tradition and Vallabhacharya and others strongly opposed social evils! The Trad-vadis of their time opposed them too; it is clear in the *Chaitanya Charitamrita* how Trad-vadis lodged a complaint with Maulana Qazi, accusing them of breaking dharma! Why? Because Mahaprabhu was giving the Mahamantra to women and lower castes as well! Countless such examples are contained in every sectarian literature. Even Mlecchas were initiated by Vaishnavas, e.g., Kabir, Haridasa Thakura, etc. Therefore, do not hand people the rattle of false equality by showing the acharyas' uniformity regarding varna by birth and their commentaries, thereby erasing their differences on the social plane!

Then after this you cry, bringing up yet another piece of sophistry? Come on, tell me one thing: are you issuing a rebuttal/refutation of the article or of the author? If you are refuting the author, then his article is the evidence for that. Why are you writing all sorts of random things on random subjects based on random prejudices formed in your mind? What has my stance got to do with this article? Wanting to know about me could be a personal matter. Do not talk like a phantasmagoric comic book! What my opinion is has what bearing on this article?

Serving as a servant is only done for money, otherwise there are other sources of income too. Oppression is natural—who said so? By what evidence was it known? There are proofs in the shastras describing that one should keep the slave, the women of the house, and sons hungry before feeding oneself, but never keep the slave hungry; and that giving jewelry, etc., to slaves brings heaven. Will there be oppression in such a case? Why do your hands tremble? People like you who get frightened and tremble at the similarity of words between "gramasimha" and "simha" display a flaw in your understanding. In Sanatana tradition, a slave is like a son; this has no similarity to "slave".

"Why do your hands tremble?" Very well, granted that a ruthless, uncompassionate, heartless, dry creature like you—devoid of mercy and pity—never has his hands trembling at anything, but one who knows history, who knows this with evidence, his hands will certainly tremble. Countless such examples abound where cruelty is mentioned regarding birth-based servitude. There are many examples in history and certainly numerous ones over the last 100 years. But since you have an addiction to subject-evading scholarship, I shall write them down too! Fifteen kinds of slaves have been described in the so-called shastras, among which "Grihe jatastatha krito labdhaah"—meaning born of a house slave/maid, purchased, obtained as profit... these distinctions also exist! That is to say, slaves by birth, and what is more, their buying and selling! Just like a lifeless object! Furthermore, they could never be freed from slavery, not even if the master wished it: "Yatha- tatra purvashchaturvargo dasatvan na vimuchyate, prasadaddhanino'nyatra dasyammesham kramagatam"! Why, even these slaves were examined and then their price was paid! There was a tradition of buying and selling not just male slaves, but female slaves and women! Generally, the testing period for a male slave was 15 days and for a female slave 1 month (Yatha: "Dvipadamardardhamasah syat pumsam tadvigunam striyah")! What is more, if a female slave belonged to a lower varna than the master, the master could also commit rape upon her. And there is no fault in this! Not just a female slave, this could happen with four types of women: 1. Svairini (other than Brahmin: Kshatriya, Vaishya woman, and what to say of lower ones), 2. Courtesan, 3. Female slave, 4. Expelled woman ! At another place it is stated that if a child is born from sexual intercourse with a female slave, the master may, if he wishes, free her from slavery ("Svdasim yastu sangatcchetprasuta cha bhavettatah, avekshya bijam karyah syanna, dasi samanvaya tu sah"). What are the inauspicious duties of a slave? "Guhyadvasparshanochchishtavinyamutragrahanojjhanamishtatah, svaminashchangarupasthanamadhothantatah" Shall I write it down?? You surely know their citation numbers, don't you? Besides these, Manusmriti 8.413~415 also establishes the shudra as a slave; in other words, Brahma created the shudra for the servitude of Brahmins ("Dasyaayaiva hi srishtosau brahmanasya svayambhuva"). The shudra is adorned with adjectives like "Yathakamavadhyah". No matter how much you whitewash this in a shastric manner, history bears witness to the tradition of slavery! My hands will certainly tremble while writing this word.

The Betrayal of India's History and Present by Marxist Ideology