sangom
0
This is in reply to Smt. Palindrome's post here since that thread has been closed now.
At present the word brahmarakṣas means the prEtha or ghost of a devout, orthodox brahmin who errs in some small way from the rigors prescribed by the scriptures. Usually, astrologers and tantric books look at these brahmarakṣases as the souls of brahmins who take to sannyaasa while alive, but fail to follow the rules of sanyaasa (especially the brahmacharya part of it) and even a momentary lapse in this regard by word, deed or thought makes the departed soul of the sanyaasi into a brahmarakṣas; that is the present belief and that is one reason why our tabra elders of the previous generation never encouraged their sons to take up sannyaasa, imo.
This brahmarakṣas just does not get out of that state easily but most often such brahmarakṣases start inhabiting the idols in the sanctum sanctorum of the temples, since they consider themselves eligible for all the respects and poojas which are made to the deities themselves. This is why some of the older generation tabras studiously avoided temple visits, because going and visiting and doing poojas and archanas to an idol "infected" by brahmarakshas will only take away one's punyas, they believed. I understand that outside Kerala, this kind of belief in brahmarakṣas infecting the temple idols is practically not there and the people just don't bother. In most Kerala temples which are run on tantric basis one will find a small sanctum somewhere for brahmarakṣas and sometimes there will be many small stones resembling Shivalingas inside; each of this is a brahmarakṣas identified as having infected one worshipped idol or another of the temple, and found out in the dEvapraSna (aShTamangalya praSna) which is conducted periodically in most Kerala temples. There are prescribed procedure to get the infecting brahmarakṣas into such a stone - referred to as "ozhuku Silai" (a stone lying on the river bed smoothened by the running water).
We cannot be sure whether this was the concept regarding brahmarakṣas during valmiki's time. It appears to me that the residents of Lanka were considered to be rAkShasas and those rAkShasas who chanted aloud the vedas were sarcastically called brahmarakṣas; it is pertinent to note that even valmeeki (or the kshatriyas and vaisyas who compelled him to write the rAmAyaNa in a way suiting their ulterior motives, if we go by the pro-brahmin members of this Forum!) thought that only the brAhmins among the rAkshasa population in rAvaNa's kingdom could legitimately chant the vedas ! The hold of the brahmins in the minds of even a hunter-killer like rathnakaran is evident from the above sloka, imho.
For reference, I give below what three commentaries on the valmeeki ramayana have to say on this point:
रामकृता तिलकाख्या टीका
विरात्रॆ रात्रिविपर्यासे । अपररात्र इत्यर्थः । ब्रह्मरक्षसाम् तदेव स्पष्टीकृतम् — षडङ्गेत्यादिना ॥
रामायण शिरोमण्याख्या टीका
षडङ्गेति । षडङ्ग वेदविदुषां वेदवेदित्ॠणां अत एव क्रतुप्रवरयाजिनां ब्रह्मरक्षसां ब्राह्मण राक्षसानां ब्रह्मघोषान् वेदनिनदान् विरात्रे रात्र्यवसाने शुश्राव हनूमानिति शेषः ।
श्री गॊविन्दराजीया भूषणाख्या टीका
ब्रह्म रक्षसां ब्राह्मणत्वविशिष्टरक्षसाम् ।
(rāmakṛtā tilakākhyā ṭīkā
virātre rātriviparyāse | apararātra ityarthaḥ | brahmarakṣasām tadeva spaṣṭīkṛtam - ṣaḍaṅgetyādinā ||
rāmāyaṇa śiromaṇyākhyā ṭīkā
ṣaḍaṅgeti | ṣaḍaṅga vedaviduṣāṃ vedavedit–ṝṇāṃ ata eva kratupravarayājināṃ brahmarakṣasāṃ brāhmaṇa rākṣasānāṃ brahmaghoṣān vedaninadān virātre rātryavasāne śuśrāva hanūmāniti śeṣaḥ |
śrī govindarājīyā bhūṣaṇākhyā ṭīkā
brahma rakṣasāṃ brāhmaṇatvaviśiṣṭarakṣasām |)
Smt. Palindrome,
At present the word brahmarakṣas means the prEtha or ghost of a devout, orthodox brahmin who errs in some small way from the rigors prescribed by the scriptures. Usually, astrologers and tantric books look at these brahmarakṣases as the souls of brahmins who take to sannyaasa while alive, but fail to follow the rules of sanyaasa (especially the brahmacharya part of it) and even a momentary lapse in this regard by word, deed or thought makes the departed soul of the sanyaasi into a brahmarakṣas; that is the present belief and that is one reason why our tabra elders of the previous generation never encouraged their sons to take up sannyaasa, imo.
This brahmarakṣas just does not get out of that state easily but most often such brahmarakṣases start inhabiting the idols in the sanctum sanctorum of the temples, since they consider themselves eligible for all the respects and poojas which are made to the deities themselves. This is why some of the older generation tabras studiously avoided temple visits, because going and visiting and doing poojas and archanas to an idol "infected" by brahmarakshas will only take away one's punyas, they believed. I understand that outside Kerala, this kind of belief in brahmarakṣas infecting the temple idols is practically not there and the people just don't bother. In most Kerala temples which are run on tantric basis one will find a small sanctum somewhere for brahmarakṣas and sometimes there will be many small stones resembling Shivalingas inside; each of this is a brahmarakṣas identified as having infected one worshipped idol or another of the temple, and found out in the dEvapraSna (aShTamangalya praSna) which is conducted periodically in most Kerala temples. There are prescribed procedure to get the infecting brahmarakṣas into such a stone - referred to as "ozhuku Silai" (a stone lying on the river bed smoothened by the running water).
We cannot be sure whether this was the concept regarding brahmarakṣas during valmiki's time. It appears to me that the residents of Lanka were considered to be rAkShasas and those rAkShasas who chanted aloud the vedas were sarcastically called brahmarakṣas; it is pertinent to note that even valmeeki (or the kshatriyas and vaisyas who compelled him to write the rAmAyaNa in a way suiting their ulterior motives, if we go by the pro-brahmin members of this Forum!) thought that only the brAhmins among the rAkshasa population in rAvaNa's kingdom could legitimately chant the vedas ! The hold of the brahmins in the minds of even a hunter-killer like rathnakaran is evident from the above sloka, imho.
For reference, I give below what three commentaries on the valmeeki ramayana have to say on this point:
रामकृता तिलकाख्या टीका
विरात्रॆ रात्रिविपर्यासे । अपररात्र इत्यर्थः । ब्रह्मरक्षसाम् तदेव स्पष्टीकृतम् — षडङ्गेत्यादिना ॥
रामायण शिरोमण्याख्या टीका
षडङ्गेति । षडङ्ग वेदविदुषां वेदवेदित्ॠणां अत एव क्रतुप्रवरयाजिनां ब्रह्मरक्षसां ब्राह्मण राक्षसानां ब्रह्मघोषान् वेदनिनदान् विरात्रे रात्र्यवसाने शुश्राव हनूमानिति शेषः ।
श्री गॊविन्दराजीया भूषणाख्या टीका
ब्रह्म रक्षसां ब्राह्मणत्वविशिष्टरक्षसाम् ।
(rāmakṛtā tilakākhyā ṭīkā
virātre rātriviparyāse | apararātra ityarthaḥ | brahmarakṣasām tadeva spaṣṭīkṛtam - ṣaḍaṅgetyādinā ||
rāmāyaṇa śiromaṇyākhyā ṭīkā
ṣaḍaṅgeti | ṣaḍaṅga vedaviduṣāṃ vedavedit–ṝṇāṃ ata eva kratupravarayājināṃ brahmarakṣasāṃ brāhmaṇa rākṣasānāṃ brahmaghoṣān vedaninadān virātre rātryavasāne śuśrāva hanūmāniti śeṣaḥ |
śrī govindarājīyā bhūṣaṇākhyā ṭīkā
brahma rakṣasāṃ brāhmaṇatvaviśiṣṭarakṣasām |)
Last edited:
