@ Sri Sangom - Debate is a BIG word, I would say "Ask questions" to the maths =)
"I get a feeling that you mix philosophy with the social rules, including varna and jaati classifications. IMO philosophies have had nothing to do with the latter."
You mean what was written in scriptures was not meant to be practiced but merely called "philosophy"? That doesn't make sense to me.
I clearly understand the distinction between philosophy, and social rules - this is why I am opposed to using the term "brahminism" to speak of caste discrimination because the varna system was a construct of our society (as a whole), its not like brahmins assigned everyone their "caste". It seems to have evolved by itself as how we would consider occupations in today's world.
Shri Vivek,
Scriptures, according to my knowledge, means "Any writing that is regarded as sacred by a religious group". These need not propound any philosophy. At the same time texts containing philosophy are part of the scriptures. Vedas are mostly a compilation of diverse items, but the philosophical content in the samhitas themselves is very little. The Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads often interpret the polytheistic and ritualistic Samhitas in philosophical and metaphorical ways to explore abstract concepts such as the Absolute (Brahman), and the soul or the self (Atman). Even these (Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads) contain philosophy and religion in different proportions.
Ill-treatment too, has been practiced by all castes in previlaged positions - and that is just central to human tendencies.
Today, even Dalit leaders in power are misusing state funds, indirectly being the reason for the poverty of people. Should this also be called "brahminism"? The biases under which TN society is in, with its politics and the sense of guilt by which people like Nara seemed to have grown in for being brahmin is what makes them accept such a worldview to see every single mistake of our civilization as starting and ending with us.
I find there is a mix-up of one caste which is in a privileged position framing rules for oppressing other caste/s and Dalit leaders in power misusing state funds. If you are trying to make this misuse as the cause for poverty in India, it is the Dalits who are still one of the poorest sections of Indian society. So, this becomes a case of one section of Dalits oppressing their own caste people. Secondly, you are conveniently foegetting that the names of people with huge balances in foreign banks; it will definitely contain names of all castes, I feel. So, how will you interpret that?
Time to become more mature and level-headed for people like Nara, to understand ill-treatment in society, in any form, for what it is.
This is a direct remark for Shri Nara himself to answer. But I feel I would think twice before branding him as not level-headed. (FYI, we had some serious differences lately.) He has his own pov and puts it very honestly. I do differ from his views on many topics but that does not make me consider him as not level-headed.
Now you and I do not seem to agree on many points here but I do not doubt that your thinking is skewed. Yes it is opposite to mine but it is for me to convince you of my pov. If I am unable to do so, we will agree to disagree and leave the topic at that.
"And today, if you see, nobody - even brahmins - learn the actual philosophical texts like brahmasutra and its bhashyas which are the core texts of the "vedanta" (interestingly, you know
the word vedanta can also mean "end - demise - of the veda"!)."
That makes little sense because none of the vedanta commentators, nor Adi Shankaracharya said the vedas had to be abandoned/destroyed/considered obsolete.
They only claimed the contary.The only meaning that has come out of it seems to say it was the conclusion of the vedas. But this etymology is interesting in how it becomes able for us to translate it as two completely opposite things. =)
If you see little more in detail into the brahmanas and upanishads (I would recommend the satapatha brahmana and brihadaranyaka upanishad to start with) you will find how they go about with what we generally call high philosophy, etc. The reason why Adisankara did not decry the vedas, or "abandon/destroy/consider obsolete" was his "desire" and eagerness to propound his own philosophy. The reason/s might or might not have been eclectic but it was an eagerness nevertheless and for anyone who has really had 'brahmajnaana' such desire was unbecoming, in my opinion.
We have to contrast Sankara's action here with that of Gaudapada, whose mandukya karika was the primal source from which Sankara's advaita took shape. gaudapada did not attempt to "reform" hinduism, nor did any of his disciples including govinda bhagavatpada, though they must have been taught the mandukya karika.
Gaudapada adopts in the fourth chapter - Alatasanti Prakarana - a Mahayana Buddhist style of dialectic quite distinct from the other chapters to explain the relativity of our phenomenal experience and establishes the Atman or soul as the only reality underlying the phenomenal existence. ...Gaudapada shows the deepest respect for the Buddha whom he salutes repeatedly, and quotes freely from Vasubandhu and Nagarjuna. (here) Hence I feel Sankara modified the core outlook of mandukya karika and presented it in such a manner that it was not rejected by the orthodox pūrvamīmāmsakas as heterodox.
As to Sankara's dependence on vedas proper, it is interesting to note that he never once cited the rigveda in his bhashyas, he cites Taittiriya Samhita in 8 instances in two of his bhashyas - Gita and Brahmasutra bhashyas, whereas the maximum reliance he places is on brihadaranyaka (976) followed by chandogya (709) out of a total of 2697 references.
"Within that vedic religion, the six "darsanas" got a place but none of them challenged the caste system-in fact they could not do so while still claiming adherence to vedism."
What is caste system? Today our society has people of various professions, should we challenge this and say all people should be of one profession, or without profession? Obviously, it makes less sense to fight against a social order, when its intergral to society's functioning.
What matters from a moral pov however is giving people chance and how we treat them.
Yes, our society today consists of people engaged in various professions, and every society is, was and will be like that. And no one has said that "all people should be of one profession, or without profession". You are cleverly side-tracking the main point here. It is that people are "born" into particular castes and though they now - under the constitution - enjoy the right to pursue any lawful occupation. But the caste does not change. This social set-up does not seem to be "integral to society's functioning". If at all the caste system is to be termed as "varna" system and made justifiable, all people will need to be reclassified according to their occupation (this is your theory also I think) and caste will be decided by the occupation which one takes up as an adult. This may suit the brahmins now, probably, but the privileged castes of today will not agree.
Hypothetically, if we suppose that this rule comes into force now, how many of the present day brahmins by birth will be ready to accept change-over to sudra, vaisya or kshatriya castes?
"If your objection is to the terms used by Shri Nara which makes you call for a split and group formation, without defeating Shri Nara in debate and making him accept your pov"
If Nara can explain why caste ill-treatment ought to be called "brahminism" when so many others (every upper caste) practiced it, he would have a point against me. So where is the "debate"?
I feel brahmins should take the blame or at least the lion's share of the blame, because the caste system owes its origin, growth, etc., to the purushasukta in rigveda and the various dharmasutras.
There is really no debate with Nara. He spells his bias out openly without seeing how casteism (ill-treating on basis of caste) exists throughout Indian society - and doesn't even find reference in many philosophical works of brahmins. Clearly, their philosophy was their message to the world - only Nara can explain why he wouldn't call that "brahminism", but even a NB upper caste ill-treating a dalit as "Brahminism".
Philosophy as you call it, and even the religion was not applicable to sudras and dalits (in fact they were punished for any violation), but the caste segregation definitely applied to them and was not made inapplicable to them.
"one, that maneeshaapanchakam (mp) is as much an authoritative scriptural text like the vedas and all, and two, Adisankara could not have contradicted himself because it would then make him look silly, and hence it is not possible."
Which contradictions exist? I didn't say there wouldn't be any contradictions because it would "make him look silly", but because the matter of his philosophy had/has been throughly studied/debated for ages, which makes it less likely for it have internal contradictions. In anycase, since you said so point out what you think these are.
Further, I point to the Manisha Panchakam for us to take it as important to carry out the message to fight casteism in the very platform of othrodoxy.
Such a world view is highly blinkered, it seems to me. I had stated that Ramanuja questioned the very tenability of advaita doctrine. The dispute is going on till today and advaitins are not yet able to defend themselves and prove the coherence of advaita, they are unable to question visishtadvaita of its untenability, if any. Ramanuja's doctrine convinced many and gave rise to the vaishnava sect.
If these are not sufficient to you as evidences for the flaws in advaita, you may pl. read the thread "Advaita and its fallacies".
"But to debate with the head of a matham, and to establish your pov, this is not at all sufficient. When I saw your suggestion for such a debate, I expected that you are well-versed in our scriptures, religious lores and the tarkasaastra, the rules of which have to be followed in any
religious debate of value."
What is a debate? Is a string of questions, which critically question an idea of the matham head, a debate? This is what I thought myself (and anyone here) should consider doing. When engaging in all out debate, there is a matter of victory and defeat. Going like a discipile with queries, and putting your answers to the math like queries makes them see your pov and what you understand, without them thinking you came with a challenege.
If anyone is of course confident of their knowledge of the scriptures they could enter a debate.
I would like you to attempt putting the "string of questions" to the head of any matham and see the experience before advising that step.
"Perhaps if you engage in any clash of ideas with the present mainstream mathams, religious heads etc., it will be necessary also to establish the importance of mp first, before going further."
*On what basis does one scripture become more important than the other?
Was Adi Shankaracharya falsely speaking when he composed the manisha panchakam? If not, how is it that we don't employ treating people as individuals and not based on their caste identity, it in our practice of daily life?
These questions is what I would ask, or I would think other should be asking within our community.
mp is not considered as authority in matters relating to caste divisions, the injunctions in the dharma sastras, etc. Even independently, does the mp specifically ordain that there are no caste differences? It only repeatedly proclaims the qualities of a preceptor with the refrain "caṇḍāloऽstu sa tu dvijoऽstu gururityeṣā manīṣā mama" in the first and second verses. Nowhere does it say that a caṇḍāla can study and chant the vedas, perform vedic rituals, and so on. The purport of mp, IMO, is that if, by chance, a caṇḍāla happens to be as enlightened as described in those verses by Sankara, then such a caṇḍāla can also be considered a guru.
"For example, you say. "any philosophical text written by past brahmins because not doing that is to ignore what others have said (in the past from which we quote)"and then cite only BG. It is appropriate to give at least a few instances of the philosophical texts, past brahmins, etc."
Because what I speak is free to check up in the net =)
Since you ask: Varna (Hinduism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are other instances too - Chanakya for instance taking a boy of the most humblest origins to make him king would have made do so only after believing that it was possible. If he was a casteist bigot, he wouldn't have tried his revenge against the Nandas through Chandragupta. Its also an openly acknowledged fact that Dalits of today come from lineages that were historically of various castes - they became "dalits" due to their economic, and thereby social conditions.
This looks like sailing on two boats simultaneously; one the varna prescription based on occupation when it suits the purpose, and two, the caste-by-birth norm when such an approach benefits. Here Chanakya cannot be considered a brahmin because he was not confining himself to the six occupations allowed to brahmins by the Dharmasastras, two, he exhibited extreme taamasa guna in
burning with vengeance against the Nandas (Brahmins are considered to be those with satvika nature only), and, three, he was a coward to be considered as Kshatriya; if he were one he would have created an army and fought the Nandas himself. So, what such a "fallen" brahmin did does not merit quoting.
I am not convinced of the truth of the statement that "Its also an openly acknowledged fact that Dalits of today come from lineages that were historically of various castes - they became "dalits" due to their economic, and thereby social conditions."
"I am not very clear as to how "people" doing certain professions becoming "communities" and whether these communities were the euivalents of today's castes. A little elaboration will be of help pl."
In earlier days a profession related to not just a job, but a way of living. This is what formed seperate cultures and thus communities. Take Rajputs, Thevars (kshatriyas) or Iyers or Chettiyars (any groups) etc. Right from the houses, surroundings to what they regarded important, to eating they were different.
These formed communities on the basis of what they shared in common - which became community boundaries. I thought you should have figured that out.
Regards,
Vivek.
I wonder how "a profession related to not just a job, but a way of living"; it is possible that the way of living got related to a job or profession.Rajputs claim kshatriyahood based on a conversion of a few hundreds or thousands of people by a Kashmiri king. Naturally, therefore, they would have had a common way of living.
But about chettiars, thevars or Iyers can we say the same thing? Perhaps these groups, hemmed in by the caste-barrier, developed by inter-marriages and, in course of time the differences in their ways of living got ironed out. But even now, one finds many differences in the ways of living of brahmins even within Tamil Nadu.
