Dear Shri PVIyer Ji,
As regards one vedic group having the freedom to learn an other veda, i am not talking of current practices. Instead I would like to know if in the ancient past clans used to teach abhicharas and ritualism with others (that is, with those outside their own family / clan); even if they were 'vedic'.
If this were not true, the concept of chaturvedi , dwivedi.trivedi etc would never arise.
Among the upanishads translated by shankara, ramanuja and madhva the upanishads are representative of more than one vedas. How is it possible if this were not the case. However if we look at the clan of any brahmin, they are always affiliated to one veda alone. So there may be some specific clans who may not want to be teachers or students of another. But the tradition of learning other vedas besides one's own is evident. So I am sorry this is not a valid statement. Tradition of learning atharvaveda partially or in greater detail was always common. Even some decades back there were men even in the villages of tamilnadu who used to recite mantras from atharva veda for curing snake bites. These people had learnt the mantras traditionally, and this wouldnt have become tradition if had not been been part of tradition.
I would like to reiterate that for the last 200 years , all kinds of accusations have been hurled at the vedic sampradaya by the western influenced sociologists that people were always in a backfoot. Typical questions like "prove this is in your tradition! Current practices dont indicate past adherence etc". They built theories after theories, got their own mutual agreement on what was reasonable or unreasonable. Then they said to the vedic people, your beliefs dont match with our understanding, if we should consider your case then prove it. I would like to ask you happyhindu , before giving me some quotes of people, whether the people whom you quote have recorded evidence in tradition. If you analyze it always boils down to guesswork based on supposed interpretation of scriptures. I already gave you the proof that people even 1000 years back learnt vedas from other family streams. My request from you, is if you think this is not the case, give me an authentic acceptable evidence that these cases were exceptions and typically majority of the people were not allowed to learn atharva veda. I have one more good reason for raising the question on the validity of your question, that apart from known tradition the smritis dont indicate that one should not learn vedas of another stream. The atharva veda argument humbug has largely been ignited by christian propaganda people . Typically they laid claim that atharvaveda was all black magic etc. We have sayana the greatest interpretor of vedas in recent centuries, can you please quote from him and let us know why atharva veda was rejected by many brahmins or outclassed? Dayanada saraswati, the reformer does not question atharva veda either. You are reading scholars of the previous decades who were directly or indirectly influenced by the british thinkers on aryan theory and confusing yourself and raising questions which have no relevance to our tradition. It is good to ask questions but when asking for evidence from one group who know no other tradition , you should also determine whether there is enough evidence to even hold on to the reverse question - Is there evidence that atharvaveda was prohibitted from tradition if so what are the smrithis or what are the puranas, if so what does sayana say!
Sir, there is enuf info on the Chitpavans, Niyogis and Bhumihars on the
[COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]internet[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR]. These are groups that were warrior type but claimed to be brahmins. Even the Kanyakubjas are taken to be a more recently brahmanized group. They came on the scene after Bengali society (which was heavily if not fully buddhist) was reorganized after the downfall of buddhism (kanyakubjas were mostly made of buddhists who defected into hinduism and tribal priests who brahmanized themselves). You can read about various such brahmanization events in the book "A Social History of India" by SN Sadasivan.
In the internet there is enough info on hollow earth theory! I very well know that lot of theories floating around their origin. Can you prove that these are not any more than guesswork . Can you prove that there was a recorded tradition that these groups themselves were otherwise., I have read his book(sadasivan),you may be impressed, but there is nothing of worth in this book according to me to qualify. I dont mind a separate thread on the valdity of his arguments. Let everyone read his book and come to a conclusion how much of his is truth or pure guesswork. We need the evidence of real traditions , supported by inscriptions or general traditions of others(not of their group) who surround them. Regarding chitapawans , they are a much maligned group, my intuition and strong observation on meeting them, indicate that they are mixed groups of brahmins , nothing more , nothing less. They definately have a strong genetic origin in brahmins whoever else they may have married and however frequent it was, I dont know. It needs to be proven that at the time they became brahmins , that the majority of males were not brahmins. I see no evidence of that! Genetic theories have come long way since 2005, and latest studies in 2010 indicate that the majority of Indians have been largely living in India for atleast 50000 years. Taking genes, making percentage affinity with other far away groups, dont impress me.Humans have come from the same tree, and they are bound to have common material between them. If I allow my mind to be swayed by changing theories, I would end up a fool. I dont see proof in history, tradition of many of these things being claimed around. I would definately keep reading these genetic theories but unless I can find an explanation which reveals all the assumptions made in deriving the result, how do you expect me to swallow it. When scientists dont accept the acharyas on their spiritual vision and experiences which contradict science, how do u expect accept others with some forms of spiritual experience, to gobble up what these scientists have to say, without going trough the whole framework of evidences and assumptions. Truth is not built on one claim alone. There are a whole basket of evidences that need to be weighed before making judgments. It is self evident that chitpawans have a foreign mixture but I know chitpawans , many who have no semblence of foreign colored eyes or skin or features. Infact the study itself indicates a diverse group. So the onus here is to prove that the chitpawans were really never brahmins in the first place, that they usurped this title by just learning vedas. There must be proof. You know what the deshastha take on this seems to indicate that the original sahayadri kund contained stories of brahmins in konkan marrying off their children with foreigners. So you still cannot explain away their brahmin origins! With Niyogis there is nothing unusual about these folks. They have a clear tradition that many centuries back brahmins took up clerical occupation. You need indicate evidences from real traditions that they were clearly not brahmins but kshatriyas. As far as I am aware in the sound Indian lands as far as vindhyas and all places that come below it,there was no genuine kshatriya. The proof is in the pudding. If there was a kshatriya they would have held the yagnopaveetha ceremony. Kerala vermas made themselves into kshatriyas by taking the help of some non keralite brahmins.
Sir, please tell me what is the brahmana way of life? There seems to be varied definitions.
There are sufficiently consistent opinions on who a brahmin is , if you care to look at what shankara , madhwa , ramanuja , tradition have to say. There are other traditions but difference is essentially over the point of "whether it is by birth or by karma". The reformist tradition are right when they say that krishna says "guna karma vibhagacha"- divided based on gunas and karmas. This is the most universal truth and holds across time and space, in times even when there is no caste or religion or family structure in society. But look at the question deeper.
What is karma, Karma refers to the complete past and present.
Guna refers to a person's nature.
Can you appoint anybody on this planet who is capable of judging what is the complete basket of someone's karma? Can you appoint anybody on this planet who is capable of judging someone's gunas? People can only judge based on outwardly show and pretenses. So unless it is divinely constituted it has no validity. If it is divinely constituted and suppose it is not meant to be heriditory- any logical thinking person will say that the ways of divine is funny and atrocious. If a person whose main gunas and karmas is that of a kshatriya and he is born in a vaishya family. What will the father teach him from birth- he will teach how to make money, how to save and how to never indulge in violence. The child grows in a confused state. Like arjuna he will always be unsure of war and whether to fight or not. The worse part as a king, he will like to make business have business holding promote the interests of his son, who wants to be a businessman. Is this right for a king. The worst part is when a neighboring king attacks the population he will target the family of the peasant. Why? He is also a potential enemy because he/his son can take up the duty of a kshatriya and attack him.Is this a good moral order. Varna dharma is a profound subject whose evidence in its establishment can only be proven if all the 4 yugas come to a pass, and if the worst of kali, when varna will eventually have to dissappear comes to pass, to compare and contrast. I dont want to discuss anything more, as the proof is in the lives that people are leading, their dharma, their egos everything.
I think in your previous reference , you referred to this post
.In his Dasakumaracaritra, the great Sanskrit writer Dandin, who is said to have lived at the Pallava court about the middle of the 7th Century A. D, wails over the miserable plight of the Brahmins who lived in forests among the kiratas, eating their food and obeying their orders. Ketana of the 13th century who translated Dasakumaracaritra into a Telugu poem actually says that the Brahmins became teachers of the Boyas. It is not unreasonable to assume that Dandin described the conditions prevailing in the neighbourhood of the kingdom where he was living. The Dasakumaracaritra may thus be taken to give us a clue to the mastery of the Boya priests over vedic lore and their skill in performing Vedic rituals. It may be remembered that the age of the Pallavas was a period of vigorous Brahmanisation in the South.
Ketana of the 13th century who translated Dasakumaracaritra into a Telugu poem actually says that the Brahmins became teachers of the Boyas
What is wrong if brahmins became teacher of some tribals?
In his Dasakumaracaritra, the great Sanskrit writer Dandin, who is said to have lived at the Pallava court about the middle of the 7th Century A. D, wails over the miserable plight of the Brahmins who lived in forests among the kiratas, eating their food and obeying their orders.
This is again a proof that this was not a traditional practice - of living under the rules of kiratas and following their orders!
It is not unreasonable to assume that Dandin described the conditions prevailing in the neighbourhood of the kingdom where he was living. The Dasakumaracaritra may thus be taken to give us a clue to the mastery of the Boya priests over vedic lore and their skill in performing Vedic rituals.
Isnt this the author's interpretation?
I again reiterate that even if such isolated events are true to what they are claimed to be, then also it needs to be proven that it was common place.
Further to this though I hold on to the hereditary practice of brahminhood, I dont see the whole point in all this discussion on loukika brahmins or brahma kshatriyas. If somebody is a brahmin he is a brahmin, he will do the things a brahmin is supposed to do. There are things a brahmin must do, and somethings which he must not do. If somebody is a kshatriya and he claims he is a brahmin, even if cheats some other brahmins and passes of one, I dont see how long his progeny and descendants can possibly stay in vaidika margam. To me position is clear, a vaidika brahmin is a brahmin. If there were corruptions in his lineage, it will show sooner or later. So I am not worried. What I am worried of is mass corruptions. Because that means those families who were unfortunate in such marital alliances, will have their seeds completely separated from veda margam and mass corruptions means danger is to the whole clan. But that is an eventuality because there is sooner or later, not going to be any material incentive to learn and preserve vedas.
If a brahmin is fallen or an intermarried brahmin or a deceptive brahmin time will correct itself according to the true nature of those individuals.
If a person is a vaidika , who has that heritage, whose ancestors and himself learn vedas, not with the primary motive of making money or not for other allures in society, who sincerely follow that adhyayana he can certainly consider himself a brahmin. His root is in order if he is in order.
Thats all I can say. So the question really should be who can be a brahmin and I have expressed my view which is consistent with what paramacharya says and is also consistent with bhagwat gita. The opinion of paramacharya himself is consistent with what the shastras and traditions say!
