Brahmarakshas in Valmeeki Ramayana_Follow-up

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Hi all,

There is no use having "heated" exchanges about what one person said when and so on. This thread was started by me just to give my reply on the point (reference to brahmarakshas in valmiki ramayana).

Now, coming to Palindrome's post #2 above, reproduced below, I give my comments:

Thank you sir. Very informative.

Kindly clarify if this is the Smartha view? Is it the reason why they avoid temples? Would it be acceptable to Agamic view?

I cannot say if it is a "smartha" view; tantrics do opine like this and astrologers very often find the main idols in temples to be "possessed" by brahmarakshases as a result of which all the poojas etc., are said to be not "reaching" the concerned deity and "deivakopam" (anger of the deity) results, bringing various troubles and calamities to the family (in the case of temples maintained by a family or kuladeivam temples), or to the community at large in the case of public temples which are now generally administered by the Devaswom Boards in Kerala.

Again, hardly any bahmin, smartha or non-smartha, today avoids going to temples; what I said was about some persons in the earlier generations who were very orthodox otherwise.

In Indonesia, capturing a spirit in stone was common amongst farming clans. Spirit stones called Kateda were placed around fields to protect the crop. Though a dying tradition today, some farming communities (all muslims now) still practice it. Just that instead of being called agama; it is now called ilmu where quranic verses are recited.

This point was told to me by an Indonesian farmer. Undoubtedly, illiterate and poor farmers are aware of islam prohibiting idol worship. They feel they are not committing idol worship as long as they do not venerate idols. Yet offerings are made to kateda stones (they managed to merge an agamic practice with islam, i feel, simply by substituting mantras with quranic verses). Well, as farmers they are just want to protect their crops...In pre-islamic days, Ancestral spirits captured in stone were venerated. I think in older threads we had discussed origin of temples.

Though the procedure adopted in both the cases appear to be generally the same, there could be differences in details; for example, in the case of the brahmarakshas, the concerned person who is chosen for the purpose is expected to observe "vratam" for certain number of days and it is usually a brahmin and not a person of any other caste. This person, after completing the initial formalities and poojas goes to a flowing river and has to go as deep as possible (swimmers are usually kept ready in case the person is unable to manage) and then take a dive into the water chanting the appropriate mantras, get hold of a stone from the river bed and come up. This stone is not to be kept anywhere till the diver reaches back the temple and then the stone is kept in a particular base and then only the procedure for the AvAhanam of the brahmarakshas commences. On the brahmarakhsas having completely vacated the idol, this smooth stone is "installed" just like a new deity at a place in the temple or its outer premises, as directed once again by astrological indications.

Could you please post why (in your personal view) there was so much antipathy towards idol worship (in effect towards atharvans?) by trayi-vedic people?

I have not read much about atharva veda or the atharvans. From what little I know, it was the trayee-vedists who were lenient towards idol worship though they did not embark on a large scale in creating stone idols and in building temples till a very late stage. This was one of the important reasons for the split between the vedists and the avestans or Zoroastrians or their ancestors.

The atharvans possibly were a late batch of migrants from the NW and though initially there might have been antipathy between the trayee-vedists and the atharvans, it looks as though the former accepted the latter because the "brahman" priest in the vedic sacrifices who had the overall supervision of the whole sacrifice, was required to be an atharva vedin or that he should be well-versed in atharva veda. I believe that the vedic people during the phase of the "engulf & devour" of various native belief systems must have accepted the fourth veda also. Possibly this must have happened before Mahabharata, imo.

Please also clarify the following:

Did the same meaning apply in the past?

"past" is a very general term; I don't know for sure what the meaning was, for example, in valmiki ramayana times.

Is this a point of contention between karmakanda ritualists and gnanakanda ascetics? What is the advaitin view on this?

Again, I don't know. But BTW, I do not think there was any sharp dividing line between karmakanda ritualists and gnanakanda ascetics; all that hinduism had was a brahmin class and various kinds of religious & philosophical speculations emanated from this brahmin group. The karmakanda ritualists had their "brAhmaNa" texts which contained a good amount of intellectual speculations while the so-called jnAnakANDa ascetics including Adi Shankara were following the karmakanda scrupulously up to a point. Both these groups assimilated some components of the tantra also in their rituals. Hence it was all a total Kerala "avial"!

Since the brahmarakshas in Valmiki Ramayan were chanting vedas, performing sacrifices, would't it mean brahmins were also rakshasas, and thus belonged to the asura groups?

Thanks.

Possibly the statement "brahmins were also rakshasas" cannot be proved by support from our scriptures but it would appear that "rAkshasas had a brahmin class among them" is nearer to the truth as per valmiki ramayana, since rama is supposed to have removed the "brahmahatya dosha" on account of his killing the brahmin ravana, by praying to siva in Rameswaram.

Rakshasas, as you know, are a sub-group of the asuras. Utaara ramayana gives the following account of the origin of the rakshasas:—

rākṣasa. A particular sect of asuras. The ancients
had ordained that rākṣasas should not be killed at dusk
(Valmiki Ramayana, Balakanda, Canto 22, Verse 22).

uttararāmāyaṇa contains the following story about the
origin of rākṣasas. When Brahma was reciting the
Vedas at the beginning of kṛtayuga he felt very hungry
which made him angry; certain forms emanated
from his face. Those who were born from his anger
assumed the form of rākṣasas
and those from his hunger that of yakṣas. The
rākṣasas turned out to be evil folk, killing and eating
cows and brahmins. Praheti and Heti were the
first born rākṣasas, the latter of whom wedded Bhayā,
daughter of Kāla, and to them was born a son called
Vidyutkesa. He married sālakaṭaṅka, daughter of
sandhyā. Though a child was born to them they
forsook it in the Himalayan slopes and went their own
way.

At that time śiva and pārvati came that way and after
blessing the child returned to Kailasa. The child was
named sukeśi. He married Devavati, daughter of the
Gandharva called Manimaya and three children were
born to the couple, viz. Mālyavan, Sumāli and Mali.
They did tapas to propitiate Brahma and when he
appeared, they requested him thus : "We must defeat yakṣas,
kinnaras, gandharvas, cāraṇas, siddhas, vidyādharas, yama,
kubera, vāsavas, nāgas and daityas and dānavas
and we must not be defeated by any one of the above. We must
kill all enemies and they shall not kill us. We three
shall never quarrel among ourselves."
Brahma granted all their prayers. The three, proud and
haughty due to these boons, began roaming about consuming
cows and brahmins. They asked viśvakarmā
to build a city for them and he built for them Lanka
on Mount Trikuta in the south sea. The three brothers
took their abode in Lanka; Mālyavan, Sumāli and Mali
married respectively Sundari, Ketumati, and
vasudhā, daughters of the Gandharva woman named narmadā.
mālyavān and Sundari, had seven sons named vajramuṣṭi,
virūpākṣa, durmukha, suptaghna, yajñakośa, matta and unmatta, and also
a daughter called Nala. To sumālī were born of Ketumati
ten sons and also four daughters.
Four sons were born to Mali of his wife vasudhā, and
they became the ministers of vibhīṣaṇa.
Then, thousands of rākṣasas were born as sons, grandsons,
brothers, nephews, etc. to the above and they lived
in Lanka, as a terror to the whole world.

While the daughters of sumāli, named vekā, puṣpotkaṭā,
kaikaśī and kumbhīnasi were once walking in the
forest they saw kubera in all his pomp and glory,
on a visit to Brahma . They understood that kubera owed
his pomp and glory to his being the son of viśravas and
therefore, the next day one of the four, kaikaśī, went
to viśravas’s āśrama and prayed for children by him.
Three sons called rāvaṇa, kuṃbhakarṇa, vibhīṣaṇa
and a daughter called śūrpaṇakhā were born to
her by viśravas. They secured boons by performing
tapas and lived in Lanka, rāvaṇa as king of the
rākṣasas.

viśravas : is the son of brahma's son pulastya and his wife
havirbhuk. viśravas’ wives were iḍabiḍā and kaikaśī; to iḍabiḍā was born vaiśravaṇa and to kaikasī were born rāvaṇa and his siblings.

From the aforesaid accounts, it will be observed that the rākṣasas were closely related to vaiśravaṇa. Mahabharata, ādi parva, states that rākṣasas, yakṣas, kinnaras and vānaras were born from pulastya. So, in the ultimate analysis all these might have been different kinds of population groups, each with its own characteristics and plus and minus points. Our epics happen to depict the rākṣasas who were inimical to them, as very bad characters. That is all. The social organization in all these population groups within the sub-continent and the island of Srilanka might have been similar and the priestly classes might have been called brāhmaṇa and the brāhmaṇas among the rākṣasas as brahmarakṣas or brahmarākṣas.

The word rakṣaḥ in the ṛgveda also depicts some inimical entities and the rakṣoghna and apratiratha mantras seek protection from the rakṣases.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Sangom,
You keep quoting Tantra and tantric texts and also temple rituals and beliefs. These are specific only to Kerala and nowhere else. The Kerala Tantra has no relevance to the main core of Tantra. They are more like the Aagma texts rather than the Tantras.

The belief in Brahmarakshas is only in Kerala. As per the Kerala beliefs none of the temples like Kasi, Jwalamukhi and other temples where the Deity is touched by the Devotess as a normal routine would be even considered a temple.
The concept of Dhurdevata is peculiar to Kerala. Deities worshipped in the rest of India are considered Dhurdevatas in Kerala.

The Hinduism of Kerala is totally different from the rest of the country. Kerala is the only place where the Brahmins could even restrict the right to get married. This is a fundamental right of all the Hindus. No Dhrmasasthra is followed in Kerala. In fact they follow their own texts written by them in the 12 and 13 th century. None of the religious movements of the rest of India has been allowed to even enter Kerala. Surprising that Madhavacharya and Ramanujacharya could not get a single follower in Kerala.

The Hinduism and beliefs of Kerala being totally different, we can not apply it to rest of India. Kerala is the only place where none of the Hindu festivals are celebrated. I am writing this only to point out that the Kerala beliefs are not that of main stream Hinduism followed by the rest of India.

 

[sangom]

Sangom,
You keep quoting Tantra and tantric texts and also temple rituals and beliefs. These are specific only to Kerala and nowhere else. The Kerala Tantra has no relevance to the main core of Tantra. They are more like the Aagma texts rather than the Tantras.

The belief in Brahmarakshas is only in Kerala. As per the Kerala beliefs none of the temples like Kasi, Jwalamukhi and other temples where the Deity is touched by the Devotess as a normal routine would be even considered a temple.
The concept of Dhurdevata is peculiar to Kerala. Deities worshipped in the rest of India are considered Dhurdevatas in Kerala.

The Hinduism of Kerala is totally different from the rest of the country. Kerala is the only place where the Brahmins could even restrict the right to get married. This is a fundamental right of all the Hindus. No Dhrmasasthra is followed in Kerala. In fact they follow their own texts written by them in the 12 and 13 th century. None of the religious movements of the rest of India has been allowed to even enter Kerala. Surprising that Madhavacharya and Ramanujacharya could not get a single follower in Kerala.

The Hinduism and beliefs of Kerala being totally different, we can not apply it to rest of India. Kerala is the only place where none of the Hindu festivals are celebrated. I am writing this only to point out that the Kerala beliefs are not that of main stream Hinduism followed by the rest of India.

Shri iniyan,


I agree with much of what you say, and I had mentioned in an earlier post that this notion of brahmarakshas is not followed in TN. While Ramanuja did not have many followers in Kerala, I think many Namboothiris were converted to staunch Vishnu worship (from their earlier Saiva attitudes) either by Ramanuja or by Madhvacharya; the latter (Madhvacharya)'s influence has been and still is visible from the large numbers of Tulu Pottis and embrans who are avowed Madhvas even today.

I would therefore submit that just like Andhra, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Bengal and so on caught hold of some aspects of the changing hindu religious patterns, Kerala also grabbed some aspects but it was largely isolated because of the western ghats. But to say that "Kerala beliefs are not that of main stream Hinduism followed by the rest of India." may be an overstatement. Kerala, like Assam celebrates "vishu" which is not so important in TN; the ADi amaavaasya is also important here, but we don't celebrate deepaavali or kaarthikai, except the Tabras who migated here. More or less similar peculiarities exist in different parts of India and even the same festival (say, the Holi) takes slightly different emphases and observances in some parts where it is celebrated.

The tantra here in Kerala is, as you rightly say, not like the tantra in other parts and it mostly deals with some specific ways of temple worship and in exorcising evil spirits etc. But the question was about the concept of "brahmarakshas" and I wrote that this word has certain meanings in the tantric system of Kerala, that was all. But I cannot agree that hinduism followed by the rest of India is "uniform" whereas Kerala is a lone exception.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Kerala was always isolated. The isolation did not start with the migration of Namboothiris into Kerala around 12th century. It was part of the Chera Kingdom. It was ruled by the Cheras till the 9th century and later. Thiruvanchikulam temple was visited by Sundaramurthy Nayanar.

Hinduism in Kerala is strange in the sense that the entire religion was modified to suit the needs of one community. Basic Hindu laws were rewritten to ensure the dominence of one community. Marriage and inheritance rules were rewritten to ensure that the Kings and the Soldiers all had Brahmin ancestery. The children of Brahmins became Kings and soldiers.

The Tulu Potthis and Embrandhiris are later day migrants from Karnataka. They were brought in to officiate in temples as priests. They were accepted because they thy accepted the superiority of the ruling community. Still they were never considered as equal to the Namboothiris. Only now inter-marriage is being accepted.

New year is not a festival. Kerala does not have Deepavali and Navarathri which is celeberated by every Hindu. Surprising that there are thousands of Devi temples in Kerala. They celeberate Navarathri. The individuals do not celeberate any festival. And Kerala is the only state in which no non-Brahmin community does Puja at home. Puja at home is totally prohibited for every one other then Brahmins.

Hinduism in Kerala is dominated by fear. Mantrikam was another way of keeping the locals under control. Fear was inculcated. Even today it is Fear which is the predominent emotion in Kerala religion.

The Bhakthi movement tried to counter this fear. But this movemnet was resricted to Vishnu worship. It never entered Saivism and Devi worship and the vast majority of the temples were Siva and Devi temples. Vaishnavism did not spread because if the Namboodiris had become Vaishnivites they would have lost control of the Siva and Devi temples.

Unlike rest of India in Kerala it is the temples which controlled the country. They were the power source. This was not so during the Chera period.

I have written all these because there is an impression that Hinduism in Kerala is Orthodox and pure. Far from it. It is the only place where the Brahmins changed the entire basic Hindu laws at their whim and fancy. Where GODs/Goddessses became just entities which could be controlled with Mantras. Where a deity like Varahi who is the Commander in Chief of Lalitha Tripurasundari became a dreaded Dhurdevata. Varahi worship is part of Sri Vidya. In Kerala they made their own rules, definitions and scriptures. This is all history.

 

[sarang]

Very interesting. What is the contribution of kerlite brahnins and others to the vedanta part of hinduism? Are there any bhashyas and vyakyanams for the scriptures?

Kerala was always isolated. The isolation did not start with the migration of Namboothiris into Kerala around 12th century. It was part of the Chera Kingdom. It was ruled by the Cheras till the 9th century and later. Thiruvanchikulam temple was visited by Sundaramurthy Nayanar.

Hinduism in Kerala is strange in the sense that the entire religion was modified to suit the needs of one community. Basic Hindu laws were rewritten to ensure the dominence of one community. Marriage and inheritance rules were rewritten to ensure that the Kings and the Soldiers all had Brahmin ancestery. The children of Brahmins became Kings and soldiers.

The Tulu Potthis and Embrandhiris are later day migrants from Karnataka. They were brought in to officiate in temples as priests. They were accepted because they thy accepted the superiority of the ruling community. Still they were never considered as equal to the Namboothiris. Only now inter-marriage is being accepted.

New year is not a festival. Kerala does not have Deepavali and Navarathri which is celeberated by every Hindu. Surprising that there are thousands of Devi temples in Kerala. They celeberate Navarathri. The individuals do not celeberate any festival. And Kerala is the only state in which no non-Brahmin community does Puja at home. Puja at home is totally prohibited for every one other then Brahmins.

Hinduism in Kerala is dominated by fear. Mantrikam was another way of keeping the locals under control. Fear was inculcated. Even today it is Fear which is the predominent emotion in Kerala religion.

The Bhakthi movement tried to counter this fear. But this movemnet was resricted to Vishnu worship. It never entered Saivism and Devi worship and the vast majority of the temples were Siva and Devi temples. Vaishnavism did not spread because if the Namboodiris had become Vaishnivites they would have lost control of the Siva and Devi temples.

Unlike rest of India in Kerala it is the temples which controlled the country. They were the power source. This was not so during the Chera period.

I have written all these because there is an impression that Hinduism in Kerala is Orthodox and pure. Far from it. It is the only place where the Brahmins changed the entire basic Hindu laws at their whim and fancy. Where GODs/Goddessses became just entities which could be controlled with Mantras. Where a deity like Varahi who is the Commander in Chief of Lalitha Tripurasundari became a dreaded Dhurdevata. Varahi worship is part of Sri Vidya. In Kerala they made their own rules, definitions and scriptures. This is all history.

 

[tbs]

Kerala was always isolated. The isolation did not start with the migration of Namboothiris into Kerala around 12th century. It was part of the Chera Kingdom. It was ruled by the Cheras till the 9th century and later. Thiruvanchikulam temple was visited by Sundaramurthy Nayanar.

Hinduism in Kerala is strange in the sense that the entire religion was modified to suit the needs of one community. Basic Hindu laws were rewritten to ensure the dominence of one community. Marriage and inheritance rules were rewritten to ensure that the Kings and the Soldiers all had Brahmin ancestery. The children of Brahmins became Kings and soldiers.

The Tulu Potthis and Embrandhiris are later day migrants from Karnataka. They were brought in to officiate in temples as priests. They were accepted because they thy accepted the superiority of the ruling community. Still they were never considered as equal to the Namboothiris. Only now inter-marriage is being accepted.

New year is not a festival. Kerala does not have Deepavali and Navarathri which is celeberated by every Hindu. Surprising that there are thousands of Devi temples in Kerala. They celeberate Navarathri. The individuals do not celeberate any festival. And Kerala is the only state in which no non-Brahmin community does Puja at home. Puja at home is totally prohibited for every one other then Brahmins.

Hinduism in Kerala is dominated by fear. Mantrikam was another way of keeping the locals under control. Fear was inculcated. Even today it is Fear which is the predominent emotion in Kerala religion.

The Bhakthi movement tried to counter this fear. But this movemnet was resricted to Vishnu worship. It never entered Saivism and Devi worship and the vast majority of the temples were Siva and Devi temples. Vaishnavism did not spread because if the Namboodiris had become Vaishnivites they would have lost control of the Siva and Devi temples.

Unlike rest of India in Kerala it is the temples which controlled the country. They were the power source. This was not so during the Chera period.

I have written all these because there is an impression that Hinduism in Kerala is Orthodox and pure. Far from it. It is the only place where the Brahmins changed the entire basic Hindu laws at their whim and fancy. Where GODs/Goddessses became just entities which could be controlled with Mantras. Where a deity like Varahi who is the Commander in Chief of Lalitha Tripurasundari became a dreaded Dhurdevata. Varahi worship is part of Sri Vidya. In Kerala they made their own rules, definitions and scriptures. This is all history.

hi nachi sir,
i born and brought up in kerala....i visited from kasargod to trivandrum....even i stayed some months in alappuzha/kollam...

i had namboothri friend...his father was priest in temple... he was studying with me in veda patashala.....its very peculiar

hindu system....not the same as main stream hinduism....i never had ramanuja/madhavacharya in kerala....even tambra

brahmin gramam....the temple priests are namboothiris...i myself wondered many times....just info....

 

[sangom]

Kerala was always isolated. The isolation did not start with the migration of Namboothiris into Kerala around 12th century. It was part of the Chera Kingdom. It was ruled by the Cheras till the 9th century and later. Thiruvanchikulam temple was visited by Sundaramurthy Nayanar.

Hinduism in Kerala is strange in the sense that the entire religion was modified to suit the needs of one community. Basic Hindu laws were rewritten to ensure the dominence of one community. Marriage and inheritance rules were rewritten to ensure that the Kings and the Soldiers all had Brahmin ancestery. The children of Brahmins became Kings and soldiers.

The Tulu Potthis and Embrandhiris are later day migrants from Karnataka. They were brought in to officiate in temples as priests. They were accepted because they thy accepted the superiority of the ruling community. Still they were never considered as equal to the Namboothiris. Only now inter-marriage is being accepted.

New year is not a festival. Kerala does not have Deepavali and Navarathri which is celeberated by every Hindu. Surprising that there are thousands of Devi temples in Kerala. They celeberate Navarathri. The individuals do not celeberate any festival. And Kerala is the only state in which no non-Brahmin community does Puja at home. Puja at home is totally prohibited for every one other then Brahmins.

Hinduism in Kerala is dominated by fear. Mantrikam was another way of keeping the locals under control. Fear was inculcated. Even today it is Fear which is the predominent emotion in Kerala religion.

The Bhakthi movement tried to counter this fear. But this movemnet was resricted to Vishnu worship. It never entered Saivism and Devi worship and the vast majority of the temples were Siva and Devi temples. Vaishnavism did not spread because if the Namboodiris had become Vaishnivites they would have lost control of the Siva and Devi temples.

Unlike rest of India in Kerala it is the temples which controlled the country. They were the power source. This was not so during the Chera period.

I have written all these because there is an impression that Hinduism in Kerala is Orthodox and pure. Far from it. It is the only place where the Brahmins changed the entire basic Hindu laws at their whim and fancy. Where GODs/Goddessses became just entities which could be controlled with Mantras. Where a deity like Varahi who is the Commander in Chief of Lalitha Tripurasundari became a dreaded Dhurdevata. Varahi worship is part of Sri Vidya. In Kerala they made their own rules, definitions and scriptures. This is all history.

Shri iniyan,

Since you seem to have very good knowledge about Kerala history as also about hinduism as practised in Kerala, I would like to hear from you answers to the undernoted points:

1. Chera was one of the three potentates of old Tamilagam right from the Sangam period, I think. The borders of these three kingdoms did not remain constant and in different times places went from one to another. (This is what I have read, but may be all these are incorrect.) If so how come the Kerala part of the Chera kingdom alone remained isolated from the rest of Tamilagam? It looks from Chilappatikaram, Vanchikkandam, that Kannaki had no difficulty in proceeding to Vanchinadu (Kerala) and then ascending to heaven; does this not reveal that Vanchinadu was held in high esteem by Tamilians?

2. The worship of "saptamaatrukaas" is not uncommon in Kerala. Even in the temples these seven stones can be found invariably on the southern side. This despite Adishankara having said that those who worship the saptamaatrukaas, Ganesha, etc., never attain liberation, or something like that. Hence, I think "vaaraahee" is considered as both good and bad. And we have Shankara himself standing against the saptamaatrukas.

3. I know many Nair tarvads had their own temples within their (usually) very large estates surrounding the ancestral house or Taravaads. I don't know the ancient practice, but even about 100 years ago, the poojas were done either by the "kaaraNavar" or male head of the family (in some cases) and by appointed poojaris (usually the Tulu Pottis, but in some cases nair priests also were there). And, I have not read anywhere that the Namboothiris or kings prohibited ordinary NBs from doing any pooja at home.

What was/is the position in this regard among the non-brahmins in the rest of the country? Especially, Tamil Nadu? I would like to know.

4. The New Year in Kerala is the first of the Chingam (AvaNi month of the Tamilians). Chingappiravi is observed but the typical Keralite does not make a hullabaloo about that day. Mostly, people take bath early morning as usual and visit their favourite temples and offer archanai or some other Vazhipaadu according to their ability. Many homes will prepare pAyAsam (usually milk and rice with sugar) and this part (making pAyAsam) is observed even in some christian homes AFAIK.

5. I believe hinduism has fear as its integral part throughout India and Kerala is not an exception to this general rule. Luckily, Kerala has come out of many of those superstitious fears and ritual killings of boys and girls which we hear about from other states is comparatively much less in Kerala. Northern parts lying adjacent to Karnataka have still such incidents because of intermarriages and general mobility of population between Kerala and Karnataka regions. Tantrics, not only of the kerala kind of Tantra but the various kinds of Tantras practised in different parts of our country, are the sources for such "narabali" incidents, imo.

6. I would like to know as to how you say that the Namboothiris migrated into Kerala in the 12th. century A.D. Whence did they migrate? Most probably from the adjacent Tamil Nadu. If so what happened to the Namboothiri population in Tamil Nadu? Were they all killed as a genocidal programme of the Tamilians or the Tamil kings? If so how come only the Chera king gave them unrestricted powers and protection?

7. Reference to Chera is as old as the Mahabharata. So, it would appear that the North Indian Aryans were not ignorant of this region. If that was the case how was it that the ancestors of the present day Tabras waited as late as 17th. or 16th. century A.D. to trickle down into Kerala, even though the Namboothiris who were sporting "munkuDumis" (front pigtails) migrated, en masse, into Kerala in the 12th. century, according to your version? Were they afraid of something which the Namboothiris were not afraid of and what was that?

 

[palindrome]

Though the procedure adopted in both the cases appear to be generally the same, there could be differences in details..

Yes Sir, even within Indonesia, different tribes and cultures have / had different practices. In India, no one knows how many tantras exist. Some say 64 shakta agamas exist based on a verse from saundaryalahiri. But IMO 64 is the number of vaidika agamas. Nobody has counted how many avaidika agamas exist. Vaidika agamas accept svadharma and the suzerainty of dharmashastras; whilst avaidika agamas do not.

There must have been fights between different tribal cultures; such that those which did not accept authority of dharmashastras remained avaidika agamas. Though the texts are divided into Agama (Shiva replying to Parvati), Nigama (Parvati replying to Shiva) and Samhita (Vaishanva tantric texts), the whole culture is dubbed 'tantric' or 'agamic'.

Some say tantric culture and all tantras are pre-vedic (the Narayaneeya claims vedas originated from yamala class of tantras); though undoubtedly some were composed in different periods of post-vedic history. IMO, some tantras were composed in the epoch when native agamic priests and their deities were absorbed and elevated into the indo-aryan fold.

Tantricism has its origins in shaman / shramana culture of tribal periods and were independent of religion at first. It was later absorbed by various religions, hence, one cannot expect culture to be the same. Even without a religion or religious laws; as a tribal faith system itself, tantric culture is varied. The usage of mantras, method of worship, the story associated with a given deity, etc was never homogeneous.

Bhagavathy Amman of Kerala and Kali Ma of Bengal have nothing in common. They are invoked differently, supplicated with different verses, and each is associated with a different legend. There is no evidence to show priests ever had a common origin. Priests arose from different cultural sets of people. It was only in the Gupta period, the earliest attempt was made to rope in regional feminine deities into a single entity, Devi. IMO all unification attempts, whether of pre-gupta period or post-gupta period, are linked with political power; and so is the absorption or elevation of some agamas with dharmashastras.

I have not read much about atharva veda or the atharvans. From what little I know, it was the trayee-vedists who were lenient towards idol worship though they did not embark on a large scale in creating stone idols and in building temples till a very late stage. This was one of the important reasons for the split between the vedists and the avestans or Zoroastrians or their ancestors.

I request more info on this. How, in your opinion, were trayee-vedists lenient towards idol worship ?

In earlier threads there were heated discussions on, prohibition of idol worship in trayee-vedas; such as, verses in Rig looking down upon Sisnadeva (linga) worship, vedic aryans looking down upon worship practices of dasyus, quotes like na pratima asti to denote lack of idol worship in yajur, the case of Dayanand Saraswati quoting from vedas to reject presence of idol worship in vedas, etc.

We had also discussed differences between Atharva and the trayi-vedas earlier. In this thread we had also dealt with changing form of worship; ie., how it differed in the samhita period and the brahmana period. Quite apparently, there was an absorption scenario, where purvamimansa became an outcome of brahmanas (texts); and purvamimansa priests absorbed native deities in their fold. This IMO is linked to absorption of specific agamas (which came to be dubbed vaidika agamas) and their native priests into the purvamimansa fold; which happened in the post-brahmana period (must be long after the brahmana texts were composed).

So we have a 2-way situation here. One, of agamas accepting authority of dharmashastras such that native priests were absorbed or elevated into Indo-aryan ritual fold as vaidika agama priests. Two, of purvamimansa priests absorbing native deities in their fold.

The atharvans possibly were a late batch of migrants from the NW and though initially there might have been antipathy between the trayee-vedists and the atharvans, it looks as though the former accepted the latter because the "brahman" priest in the vedic sacrifices who had the overall supervision of the whole sacrifice, was required to be an atharva vedin or that he should be well-versed in atharva veda. I believe that the vedic people during the phase of the "engulf & devour" of various native belief systems must have accepted the fourth veda also. Possibly this must have happened before Mahabharata, imo.

I agree sir.

Again, I don't know. But BTW, I do not think there was any sharp dividing line between karmakanda ritualists and gnanakanda ascetics; all that hinduism had was a brahmin class and various kinds of religious & philosophical speculations emanated from this brahmin group.

The karmakanda ritualists had their "brAhmaNa" texts which contained a good amount of intellectual speculations while the so-called jnAnakANDa ascetics including Adi Shankara were following the karmakanda scrupulously up to a point. Both these groups assimilated some components of the tantra also in their rituals. Hence it was all a total Kerala "avial"!

Priests of different cultures were not a common class. Those who became brahmins, obviously got to be so because of social power or victorious outcomes of tribal wars; irrespective of whether they arose from agamic groups or from purvamimansa groups. The gnanakanda ascetics on the other hand, were always, a markedly different class. Also, there have been very many different schools and cultures of asceticism.

The disagreement between Karmakanda ritualists and Gnanakanda ascetics was also discussed in older threads. Gnanakanda ascetics have more in common with non-vedic sharamana traditions. The ultimate goal itself; being Moksha for Gnanakanda ascetics is markedly different from the pitruloka of karmakanda ritualists. Asceticism is not acceptable to Karmakanda.

Obviously, Adi Shankara was the first who made an attempt to merge gnanakanda asceticism with karmakanda ritualism (with regard to this, i doubt if certain verses of Brahmasutra bhasya were written by Adi Shankara at all, or were interloped into the text by later day writers, probably during vijayanagar period, to justify establishment of 4 institutions..).

Also, I do not understand the point "all that hinduism had..". am not sure what is the definition of hinduism.

... it would appear that "rAkshasas had a brahmin class among them" is nearer to the truth as per valmiki ramayana, since rama is supposed to have removed the "brahmahatya dosha" on account of his killing the brahmin ravana, by praying to siva in Rameswaram...

If rakshasas also had a brahmin class, obviously, the brahmin class was neither common in origin nor in culture. We had discussed earlier about Indra killing brahmans (like Vritra, who was a Naga and a Brahmana). It appears to me, the austroasiatic nagas were the original inhabitants and there was a prolonged war between indo-aryan speakers against the austroasiatic speakers (the latter constituting brahman rakshasas).

Mahabharata, ādi parva, states that rākṣasas, yakṣas, kinnaras and vānaras were born from pulastya. So, in the ultimate analysis all these might have been different kinds of population groups, each with its own characteristics and plus and minus points. Our epics happen to depict the rākṣasas who were inimical to them, as very bad characters. That is all. The social organization in all these population groups within the sub-continent and the island of Srilanka might have been similar and the priestly classes might have been called brāhmaṇa and the brāhmaṇas among the rākṣasas as brahmarakṣas or brahmarākṣas.

The word rakṣaḥ in the ṛgveda also depicts some inimical entities and the rakṣoghna and apratiratha mantras seek protection from the rakṣases.

I agree. I think those depicted as "bad characters" were merely people of a different culture. It would be sad to juxtapose culture with character; and hold on to terms, meanings, character as described in the epics and vedas; as something relevant today. Even the gods we worship, Shiva, Parvathy, Perumal, Krishna, are non-vedic. In today's time, i feel, every indian is an agglomerate of different cultures, a bit of indo-aryan, a bit of rakshasa, a bit of yaksha, and so on.

Thank you.