Who was Karsandas Mulji?

Who was Karsandas Mulji?

[@optimistshrishti7672]

we need to be daring and educated like him ✨🔥

[@pks2648]

The film focuses extensively on falsehoods about Karsandas Mulji, presenting him as a devout follower of Lord Krishna and a believer in Puranic deities, which contradicts historical records and his own statements in Maharaj Libel case. In reality, Karsandas Mulji was a critic of Puranic deities and did not believe in the stories of Lord Krishna's Ras Leela, which he described as false and amorous. His statements during the Maharaj Libel case, documented in his Gujarati newspaper "Satya Prakash" on October 21, 1860, reflect his disbelief in the Puranic texts and his systematic attack on Hinduism as part of a broader British colonial conspiracy. 1. Karsandas Mooljee’s allegation that all the Hindū Sanātana sects arisen in KaliYug are false “…the sect of the Maharajas has arisen in the KaliYug, therefore, according to the doctrines of the Shastras, it must be false ...” - “Satyaprakash” Gujarati Newspaper of 21st Oct, 1860 by Karsandas Mooljee 2. Karsandas Mooljee’s allegation that the stories of Lord Krishna, Gopees, Raas lila are false and amorous. “…The story of the "gopees" and the incarnations of Vishnoo are believed in by several sects, but are opposed to the ancient religion. The Shaivites believe in the incarnations of Vishnoo equally with the Vaishnayas. As far as I have reacl, all the sacred books do not contain amorous passages. I am not aware whether Sir William Jones has said that "Krishna is to this day the darling god of Hindū women." I have heard the story of Brahma coming out of an egg after remaining three millions and millions of years. I do not believe in the modern stories in books which are written after the Veds, which 1 have not read. The stories are considered by most Vaishnavas are literally true…” - Karsandas Mooljee, cross-examination by Mr. Bayley as part of Maharaj libel case proceedings (Maharaj libel case proceedings, pg. 249) 3. Karsandas Mooljee accepting that he has not read the Hindū Sanātana texts and does not believe in any texts apart from Veds. Hindū Sanātana believes in multiple texts as its foundational and core texts including Ved, Puranas, Smriti, Tantra agama, Itihaas, and Vedant. “…I do not believe in the modern stories in books which are written after the Vedas, which 1 have not read…” - (Maharaj libel case proceedings, pg. 249) Inaccuracies in the movie (as compared to Maharaj Libel case proceedings) The movie contains several inaccuracies regarding the beliefs and practices of the Pushtimarg sect. During the trial, the movie shows Karsandas explaining the correct meaning of Brahma Sambandh to the court, which was that all things are to be offered only to Lord Krishna and not to the Maharaja. However, this stand was actually taken by Jadunathji Maharaj in the real-life proceedings of the Maharaj Libel case. In fact, Karsandas Mulji maliciously and scandalously tried to prove to the court, by mistranslating the commentary verses of the Brahma Sambandh mantra by Gokulnathji (one of the Acharyas of Pushtimarg), and twisting the translation to mean that everything should be offered to the Maharaja and not to Krishna. This portrayal presents views that are far from the reality about Karsandas. The dialogues delivered on Brahma Sambandh by Karsandas in the movie were actually said by Jadunathji Maharaj as per the Maharaj Libel case proceedings. In the film "Maharaj," the facts of the historical Maharaj Libel case have been significantly distorted, especially in the pivotal trial scene. The movie inaccurately portrays the dialogue exchange between Karsandas Mulji and Jadunathji Maharaj concerning the Brahmasambandha mantra, thereby misleading the audience about the actual events and character representations. Misrepresentation of Dialogues In the movie, the dialogues between Karsandas Mulji and Jadunathji Maharaj during the trial are swapped, leading to a skewed portrayal of their respective positions. The film shows Jadunathji Maharaj accepting the Brahmasambandha mantra to mean that followers must offer their wives to the Maharajas. This is a gross mis-presentation of the historical records. In reality, it was Karsandas Mulji who presented this erroneous and defamatory interpretation in the court, not Jadunathji Maharaj. Historical Facts According to the actual case proceedings, it was Karsandas Mulji who twisted the meaning of the Brahmasambandha mantra to suggest that the entire sect, including its original Acharyas, endorsed heretical practices. This misrepresentation aimed to malign the Pushtimarg sect and its spiritual leaders. Karsandas's allegations were part of a broader attempt to depict the sect as morally corrupt and its practices as deviant. Jadunathji Maharaj's Defense Contrary to the film's portrayal, Jadunathji Maharaj defended the true meaning of the Brahmasambandha mantra in court. He clarified that the mantra meant all offerings should be made to Lord Krishna, not to the Maharajas. Furthermore, Jadunathji Maharaj acknowledged in the court that he was not a deity but a guru, emphasizing his role as a spiritual guide rather than a divine figure. This critical defense by Jadunathji Maharaj was aimed at correcting the false narratives presented by Karsandas Mulji and maintaining the integrity of the Pushtimarg sect's teachings. Character Assassination The film's portrayal of Jadunathji Maharaj as a manipulative and heretical figure is a severe mischaracterization that strays far from the documented reality. By depicting him as someone who endorses immoral practices, the film unjustly vilifies him and misrepresents the true nature of his statements during the trial. This distortion not only damages his reputation but also misleads the audience about the fundamental principles of the Pushtimarg sect.

[@pks2648]

Please stop spreading misinformation about Karsandas Mulji. Karsandas Mulji was highly influenced by British Protestant Christianity. His work "Niti Vachan" or Moral training (1859) is full of his ideas of what reform to him meant i.e Christian Protestant ethics, virtues and self-discipline. So, his critique of the Pushtimarg was coming from a Christian perspective rather than from the view point a Hindu reformist saddened by the state of affairs in his religion. Also, the film has removed the character of John Wilson, a scottish christian missionary who was projected by the court as a indologist and a scholar of pushtimarg. During the trial, he made several objectionable remarks on Lord Krishna. Also, the judgement vilifies Krishna specifically and all Krishna Bhakti sampradyas in general by accusing them of being driven by lust and encouraging debauchery. Not to mention that the whole case was based on hearsay incidents narrated by witnesses like Lakshmidas Khimji and Mathuradas Lowjee. In short none of the witnesses actually saw the so called "charanseva". Hence, there were no "criminal charges" pressed against the maharaj, which is claimed in the movie.

[@agnelo000]

He was a reformer and saving women from fake baba

[@pks2648]

@@agnelo000 fake baba?? do you know anything about pushtimarg or vaishnavism how have you come to the conclusion that he was fake??