A relook at women in Indian mythology

[கால பைரவன்]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

One can argue endlessly and seek the support of the scriptures for his own deductions.

DronAcharyA was not a born kshatriya as per the narration in mahABhArathA. His father BhAradwAjA (by most accounts a Brahmin) went to the river Ganga to do ablutions and being unable to control his desire at the sight of GritAchi, an apsara, discharged reproductive fluid which was caught by him in a pot/vessel which was known as "DronA" at those times.

If a non-kshatriyA, DrOnachAryA could be a warrior of par excellence capable of vanquishing 60,000 kshatriyAs single-handedly there is no reason why a sUta-putrA could not do so.

Of course this aspect of DronA being a non-kshatriyA would be dismissed out of hand as a case of "exception " and the incidence of "karNA" would be touted as the case that proves the rule.

But if one were to even jockingly allude that DrOnAchAryA was the first case of a test tube baby the scientists in this forum would jump up demanding proofs.

Yes. There are many other angles too.

sUta-putra or not, Karna did become the King of Anga Desa. He fought the Mahabharatha war as the king and ruler of that province. If Karna remained a Shudra despite his warrior capabilities and if Karna's case is taken as a rule, then it could be argued that there is no restriction in a Shudra becoming a King; so the varna system at the time of Mahabharatha was not exploitative.

IMO, the Mahabharatha war is about retaining the kshatriya status of the Pandavas. Pandavas when they returned from exile wanted their share of empire to which Duryodana refuses. Krishna says there will be great destruction in case of war and asks Duryodhana to give Pandavas at the least five villages, one for each brother. Why? Because each brother needs to be a ruler of at least a village to retain their kshatriya status. If birth alone was enough to guarantee their kshatriya status, there would have been no need for war. The position that jAti determined by birth and occupation determines varna seems to be the correct one. Of course, when jAtis determined by birth are classified/ordered in the varna system, it gives a mirage that varna is determined by birth.

 

[auh]

Yes. There are many other angles too.

sUta-putra or not, Karna did become the King of Anga Desa. He fought the Mahabharatha war as the king and ruler of that province. If Karna remained a Shudra despite his warrior capabilities and if Karna's case is taken as a rule, then it could be argued that there is no restriction in a Shudra becoming a King; so the varna system at the time of Mahabharatha was not exploitative.

There was no restriction of only kshatriyas fighting. Karna was humiliated that a kshatriya can fight only with a kshatriya and not a soota putra. It means that one should fight at their level. The concoction that you have given is not valid in this case, imo.

IMO, the Mahabharatha war is about retaining the kshatriya status of the Pandavas. Pandavas when they returned from exile wanted their share of empire to which Duryodana refuses. Krishna says there will be great destruction in case of war and asks Duryodhana to give Pandavas at the least five villages, one for each brother. Why? Because each brother needs to be a ruler of at least a village to retain their kshatriya status. If birth alone was enough to guarantee their kshatriya status, there would have been no need for war. The position that jAti determined by birth and occupation determines varna seems to be the correct one. Of course, when jAtis determined by birth are classified/ordered in the varna system, it gives a mirage that varna is determined by birth.

So, when they lost their kingdom, did they become brahmanas or shudras? Did they change their varna? If varna is so fleeting that one could change it to their convenience, it is all the more reason that it cannot stand the test of logic.

In the forest, when the brahmin asks for help to get his arani stuck on the antlers of a deer, the pandavas lament how they have degenerated. This is to highlight that their kshatriya dharma is to help anyone seeking it. Surely that could only mean that they have not lost their kshatriya status because of exile !!

When Krishna went to ask land, he asks for villages so that the pandavas could rule. Being warriors, they could then push their boundaries. But according to you, they had already lost their kshatriya status, and hence in the battlefield, krishna should not have commanded arjuna to do his duty (to fight) and leave the rest to him.

As I asked before, how is it possible to identify the varna based on guna?

 

[auh]

One can argue endlessly and seek the support of the scriptures for his own deductions.

DronAcharyA was not a born kshatriya as per the narration in mahABhArathA. His father BhAradwAjA (by most accounts a Brahmin) went to the river Ganga to do ablutions and being unable to control his desire at the sight of GritAchi, an apsara, discharged reproductive fluid which was caught by him in a pot/vessel which was known as "DronA" at those times.

If a non-kshatriyA, DrOnachAryA could be a warrior of par excellence capable of vanquishing 60,000 kshatriyAs single-handedly there is no reason why a sUta-putrA could not do so.

You must be well aware of the anuloma-pratiloma logic. Top down is somehwhat allowed; bottom-up is not ! A CEO can do the job of a peon, but a peon cannot do the job of a CEO. It seems that soota putras were allowed to fight. But that is not the issue here. The issue is that even though people had similar skills, it was put down due to status of birth.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

There was no restriction of only kshatriyas fighting. Karna was humiliated that a kshatriya can fight only with a kshatriya and not a soota putra. It means that one should fight at their level. The concoction that you have given is not valid in this case, imo.

Is it not a fact that Karna became the king of Anga desa? Is it not a fact that Karna did fight against Pandavas and their armies? These are facts, not concoctions. So the logical conclusion is that Karna became a kshatriya after Duryodana made him a king and hence was able to fight in the Mahabaratha war along side kshatriyas against other kshatriyas. If you disagree and claim that Karna remained a Shudra on account of his birth, then it follows that a shudra could become a king and rule. Where is the concoction here?

So, when they lost their kingdom, did they become brahmanas or shudras? Did they change their varna? If varna is so fleeting that one could change it to their convenience, it is all the more reason that it cannot stand the test of logic.

My point is that if the Pandavas had lost their kingdom permanently, they would have lost the kshatriya status. There are examples of kshatriya dynasties losing wars, getting enslaved and becoming shudras. If birth alone determined one's kshatriya status, this would not be problem. But it is not; hence the Pandavas were in danger of losing the status. Varna is not so fleeting but it does not mean that one's varna stays the same on account of one's birth. I do not think your usage of the term "logic" is correct here.

In the forest, when the brahmin asks for help to get his arani stuck on the antlers of a deer, the pandavas lament how they have degenerated. This is to highlight that their kshatriya dharma is to help anyone seeking it. Surely that could only mean that they have not lost their kshatriya status because of exile !!

No. It only means that the Pandavas wanted to remain true to their legacy even in exile. If you are under the impression that Pandavas would have remained kshatriyas as long as they merely wanted to remain kshatriyas, you would be wrong.

When Krishna went to ask land, he asks for villages so that the pandavas could rule. Being warriors, they could then push their boundaries. But according to you, they had already lost their kshatriya status, and hence in the battlefield, krishna should not have commanded arjuna to do his duty (to fight) and leave the rest to him.

I did not say that they lost kshatriya status. Please read my initial part of this post above. Krishna's advice is that Arjuna should fight if they were to remain kshatriyas.

 

[renuka]

LOL!

I had written before in forum for all the talk Yudhisthira had with the Yaksha about who is a Brahmin blah blah blah...yet Yudhs went about calling Karna a sutraputra even though Karna was displaying Kshatriya qualities.

It only reinforces the fact that Varna is by birth.

The great Yudhs even after the war did not want to perform the final rites for Karna stating he is a Sutaputra..and then Kunti had to reveal her secret and Yudhs goes "OMG" and becomes all sentimental.

Kya Drama yaar!LOL

Varna is clearly by birth for practical reasons..but for intellectual discussions it is always made to be as if its by Guna.

We just need to get real..Varna IS by birth.

There is no use trying to deny it.

 

[Vaagmi]

LOL!

I had written before in forum for all the talk Yudhisthira had with the Yaksha about who is a Brahmin blah blah blah...yet Yudhs went about calling Karna a sutraputra even though Karna was displaying Kshatriya qualities.

It only reinforces the fact that Varna is by birth.

The great Yudhs even after the war did not want to perform the final rites for Karna stating he is a Sutaputra..and then Kunti had to reveal her secret and Yudhs goes "OMG" and becomes all sentimental.

Kya Drama yaar!LOL

Varna is clearly by birth for practical reasons..but for intellectual discussions it is always made to be as if its by Guna.

We just need to get real..Varna IS by birth.

There is no use trying to deny it.

For intellectual hot air it is made to be as if it guna based. LOL

 

[auh]

Is it not a fact that Karna became the king of Anga desa? Is it not a fact that Karna did fight against Pandavas and their armies? These are facts, not concoctions. So the logical conclusion is that Karna became a kshatriya after Duryodana made him a king and hence was able to fight in the Mahabaratha war along side kshatriyas against other kshatriyas. If you disagree and claim that Karna remained a Shudra on account of his birth, then it follows that a shudra could become a king and rule. Where is the concoction here?

Even after Karna is crowned king, Bheema abuses Karna as a soota putra when adiratha embraces him. Karna remains stung by it.

Apart from Duryodhana who debated that Karna is and equal to Arjuna since he is a king, is there any other mention anywhere that a shudra becomes a kshatriya if he fights? The duty of a shudra is to serve the other three varnas

The concoction is that you are deducing that a shudra was allowed to become a king quoting the example of mahabharatha, but you forget that it was an exceptional action by Duryodhana to pull Karna to his side. Besides, even if there was a shudra king, he does not become equal to that of a kshatriya.

My point is that if the Pandavas had lost their kingdom permanently, they would have lost the kshatriya status. There are examples of kshatriya dynasties losing wars, getting enslaved and becoming shudras. If birth alone determined one's kshatriya status, this would not be problem. But it is not; hence the Pandavas were in danger of losing the status. Varna is not so fleeting but it does not mean that one's varna stays the same on account of one's birth. I do not think your usage of the term "logic" is correct here.

How did the pandavas get their kshatriya status in the first place?

I did not say that they lost kshatriya status. Please read my initial part of this post above. Krishna's advice is that Arjuna should fight if they were to remain kshatriyas.

During the thirteenth year, when the kauravas abduct cows from Virata's kingdom, the pandavas go to find (disguised as they are). The kauravas are defeated. After this there is a disagreement between the kauravas and the pandavas as to whether they were recognized or not during the thirteenth year. Hence, Duryodhana refuses to yield. According to Pandavas they had fulfilled their exile, and hence were entitled to their kingdom and wealth (which were given back to them during the dice game). So, they are only claiming what was rightfully theirs. There is no question of khatriya status here.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

I feel we are going in circles. I can also see that there are some terminology issues that can cause some misunderstanding. Hopefully, I can summarize my opinion and also try and say where I differ with respect to this argument.

Jatis are based on birth. These Jatis were arranged in Varnas based on Occupation mainly but sometimes culture together with occupation also could be a determinant. Because Jatis are based on birth, when they are grouped into varnas, it creates a mirage that Varna is based on birth. Varna is not fleeting but it is possible for Jatis to move up and down the varna scale. There are several examples that can be quoted. Zebraji gave an example of how the charioteers who enjoyed high Varna status during Rig Vedic became low status in Yajur Vedic. There are other examples too.
வேளாண் செட்டி Who belonged to Velala (shudra) Varna became பூ வைசியர் (Vaishya Varna). Ambattars were once regarded to be in the Andhanar Varna. Kuyavars were regarded as vEtkOvars and were classified as vaishyas. There are various evidences to support that Parayars, who are SC now, enjoyed high Varna status during sangam age. Is any of these possible if varnas were rigidly determined by birth? Varna is flexible, not rigid.

Of course, the movement along the Varna scale that I am talking about happens as a group. So when i say வேளாண் செட்டி becoming vaishyas everyone in the community becomes vaishyas. I think this is where the differences in terminology creep up.

All the examples from scriptures quoted in this discussion are for individuals whether it is Karna or Vishwamitra or Drona or Vidhura. These are examples of a kshatriya becoming a brahmana, one shudra becoming a kshatriya etc. The individual cases have to be exceptional by definition. So if that is the argument going to be made, i do not know why one should bother to bring it up at all. But the exceptions do prove the limits of the rules.

 

[zebra16]

I feel we are going in circles. I can also see that there are some terminology issues that can cause some misunderstanding. Hopefully, I can summarize my opinion and also try and say where I differ with respect to this argument.

Jatis are based on birth. These Jatis were arranged in Varnas based on Occupation mainly but sometimes culture together with occupation also could be a determinant. Because Jatis are based on birth, when they are grouped into varnas, it creates a mirage that Varna is based on birth. Varna is not fleeting but it is possible for Jatis to move up and down the varna scale. There are several examples that can be quoted. Zebraji gave an example of how the charioteers who enjoyed high Varna status during Rig Vedic became low status in Yajur Vedic. There are other examples too.
வேளாண் செட்டி Who belonged to Velala (shudra) Varna became பூ வைசியர் (Vaishya Varna). Ambattars were once regarded to be in the Andhanar Varna. Kuyavars were regarded as vEtkOvars and were classified as vaishyas. There are various evidences to support that Parayars, who are SC now, enjoyed high Varna status during sangam age. Is any of these possible if varnas were rigidly determined by birth? Varna is flexible, not rigid.

Of course, the movement along the Varna scale that I am talking about happens as a group. So when i say வேளாண் செட்டி becoming vaishyas everyone in the community becomes vaishyas. I think this is where the differences in terminology creep up.

All the examples from scriptures quoted in this discussion are for individuals whether it is Karna or Vishwamitra or Drona or Vidhura. These are examples of a kshatriya becoming a brahmana, one shudra becoming a kshatriya etc. The individual cases have to be exceptional by definition. So if that is the argument going to be made, i do not know why one should bother to bring it up at all. But the exceptions do prove the limits of the rules.

Actually, it is a very simple thing. The first Backward Class Commission which submitted its report in March 1955, it reported that there were over 2200 backward classes alone (not counting sub classification among them) and also not counting any forward caste. Why were there only 4 varNas when there were so many jAtis and everything was jAti based ?

But there have been just four varNas since time immemorial and all these castes were fitted into varNas, may be at times arbitrarily. It is common sense to understand that the castes would be moving up and down the varNa ladder.

Even today we find that many castes which are backward or "scheduled" in some states are forward in other states. Those castes which were deemed to be forward in some states have or should have moved up the "varNa" ladder but havent done so in the states that where they remained backward.

Any example can be only be "individualistic". Just because Rg veda has composition by Brahmin rishis (hypothetically) it does not mean that all brahmins were rishis during rg vedic period. I do not know why they do not ask "proof" for all brahmins being rishis. There were about 300 vedic rishis during Rg vedic period. If the brahmin population was around say 100,000, I can be equally dismissive of the claim as 0.3% of total population hardly constitutes a thresh-hold figure.

If the claim is that they were working or engaged as priests, it is also ludicrous because what were they doing before vedic hymns were composed?

A non-historical writing like Rg veda or mythology driven MbH will capture only a portion of the whole picture, after all it is not a BG narration of Sanjaya uvAchA.