How to retain our left out community???

[zebra16]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

That is so incredulous. According to Sravna's belief, it has to be decided according to the level of maturity. So, how does one decide the level of maturity? Can you elaborate?

I am totally incapable of elaborating Sri Sravana's posts/beliefs because I am completely out of depth in his spirtuality or advaitac view points.

 

[renuka]

Frankly speaking what difference does it make if Varna is a based birth based classification or a Guna based classification.

All humans go thru stages of birth,existence and death.

So what is the big deal?

 

[auh]

In the Aashvamedhika parva, it says,

Durvrtta vaa suvrtta vaa praakrta vaa susamskrtaah.
Brahmanaa naavamantavyaa bhasmacchanna ivaagnayah.

Meaning given: Whether the brahmanas are of evil of of good character, whether they are crude or cultured, they should never be insulted, because they are like the fire concealed under the ash.

 

[auh]

...It has been on the basis of birth alone at least in the last 100 years or so.

I think you missed a zero at the end there...

 

[auh]

It is easy to get the intellect clouded in the other way too. Remember Vidura Neeti? It was a treatise for kings written by a so called low-class Shudra.

Vidura would have been a better choice than Dhridhrashta.... if we were to consider the guna varna theory....

The great Bhishma himself did not do that.

 

[zebra16]

I have read and heard that purva mimamsa was all ritualistic and uttara mimamsa was the beginning of the surfacing of the philosophical.

It is not so. PUrva-mImasiks analyzed the mantra corpus (contained in samhitAs, brAhmaNams, Aranyakams and also upaniSads) and deigned which were mantrAs, which were vidhis or nishedas (rules and injunctions) and which were mere artha-vAdAs (mostly eulogy or praise).

You can find a lot of philosophical thoughts in vedAs proper in the brAhmaNam passages, which generally precede with the disclaimer: brahma vAdino vadanti - meaning "so said brahma-vAdins" or philosophers of yore or at that time.

This was followed up in the upAsana type of texts contained in the AranyakAs. Some of the texts in AranyakAs are more philosophical than what is contained in upaniSads.

But many of the thoughts of the so called "brahma vAdins" were idle speculations, not backed up by anything substantial and some explanations were downright silly too.

As the bulk of the (or almost all) upaniSadic portions of vedAs were discarded by pUrva-mImasakas as mere "artha vAda", it was taken up by the uttara mImasakas for exploration and trying to arrive at reconciliation or "samanvaya" of apparent contradictions in vedAs.

Latching on to upaniSads gave an excuse for the philosophers (the modern twentieth century ones) not to explain the incongruities in vedAs and they sort of disowned the vedAs except paying it lip service.

 

[auh]

Poorva Meemaamsa prescribed a certain set of yaagas. Anyone performing all these yaagas during one's life time here was imagined to adorn the front seats in the Pitru Loka and hobnob with the "angirases", the foremost of the pitrus who are supposed to be more or less equivalent to the Devas themselves.

At the other extreme were the "avara" pitrus (refer to the Tarpana Mantra उद् ईरतां अवर उत् परास उन् मध्यमा पितरः सॊम्यासः (ud īratāṃ avara ut parāsa un madhyamā pitaraḥ somyāsaḥ)) who fail to do any of these yaagas during their life time here (i.e., brahmins of the last few centuries at least, including Vaideekans & Vaadhyars but who did not perform any yaaga out of their own moneys! Such pitrus seem to occupy a status similar to Sudras in the Pitruloka and hence the prayer उद् ईरतां अवर = let (them) get the best of havis, even for one's Pitrus who have become the lowest class there in the Pitru Loka. Please note, incidentally, that all three categories — the highest, the lowest and the in-betweens — are all सॊम्यासः or fond of the Soma drink!

Dear sir,

It seems that various interpretations are being given to colour the original practice of birth based seggregation over the centuries while conveniently following the same method in reality.

I feel that we like to quote scriptures to support our view in an argument just to prove a point but have been (and are) incapable of implementing the ideals in practice.

The examples shown in this forum is itself a birth based criteria and not a guna based. Otherwise would we be worried about intercaste marriages? My case, I feel, is proved.

 

[auh]

It is not so. PUrva-mImasiks analyzed the mantra corpus (contained in samhitAs, brAhmaNams, Aranyakams and also upaniSads) and deigned which were mantrAs, which were vidhis or nishedas (rules and injunctions) and which were mere artha-vAdAs (mostly eulogy or praise).

The word meemaamsa in both apte and mw gives the same definition that it was also called the karma meemaamsa by Jaimini and was concerning itself chiefly with the correct interpretation of the vedic ritual and text.

 

[zebra16]

Do you mean to say that there was a jati brahmana and a varna brahmana at any point of time? Was there a mechanism that was used to distinguish this? And how was it followed and, if abandoned, when and why?

Of course. Please refer to rg vedic mantra 9.112.3 (popularly known as Soma PavamAna) which says:

I am a bArd, my father a physician (healer), my mother grinder of corn etc. - which case is not possible for a jAti brAhmaNan.

Hymn 7.6.(iv) of Prapathaka VII of Kanda V also asks for luster to brAhmins, kshatriyAs, vysyAs and sUdrAs without any differentiation.

It appears that a jAti brAhmaNan was not recognized as a brAhmaNan in the rg vedic times.

The caste system became rigid with profession becoming hereditary the beginings of which can be seen in yajur vedA periods.

 

[rishikesan]

my best.My deAr friend Mr. Bala is the fittest person & all of us follow him . Su.ch an initiative , I am sure would instil cofidencce can try to take in enthusiastic brahmins rom wherever possible.?
A. srinivasan
Let me briefly say the real position obtained, based on Krish about change / mode of dressing of T.B. Ladies visiting U,S
1) since we experience avoidable MARRIAGES OF brahmin girls to non Brahmins , unable to curta''

but Pparents visit grand children & see places of interest & tirelessly talk to others in India.

Change of mind. Set gains momentum in U. S. Fast & we have no control. Let us take it in right spirit and follow the same .
3)we can seek the opions of those who are growing up in U.S , since there are mature enough to discuss pros & cons. Of the success & failures.
I requstKrish & Balu to find ways to contact a few of them in U.S.
A.Srinivasan

Ht


succumb to pressure & Love
2) when parents in India, in the cases of Marriage ofm their Daughters, agree with her choice,Girl& Boy feel v frny happy & it makes way for all things going very smooth Viz. Both side visiting U.S in turns to take care of grand children

F grand children.
Besides,



for the girl, who happens even the Bread winner in many families .
Such number is not alar

 

[zebra16]

Dear sir,

It seems that various interpretations are being given to colour the original practice of birth based seggregation over the centuries while conveniently following the same method in reality.

It is injustice to the spirit of inquiry to say various interpretations are being GIVEN that too to colour something. The fact of the matter is THAT SO MANY INTERPRETATIONS EXIST.

I feel that we like to quote scriptures to support our view in an argument just to prove a point but have been (and are) incapable of implementing the ideals in practice.

At least I am not interested in winning any argument. But I do not want to be irrational to the extent of trashing everything that exists or existed to just go and give out a rosy utopian view of a single world-wide community.

 

[auh]

Of course. Please refer to rg vedic mantra 9.112.3 (popularly known as Soma PavamAna) which says:

I am a bArd, my father a physician (healer), my mother grinder of corn etc. - which case is not possible for a jAti brAhmaNan.

Ok, but what are we to interpret this as? Please elaborate. I do not see this as an indication of jati and kula brahmana being accepted in society.

Hymn 7.6.(iv) of Prapathaka VII of Kanda V also asks for luster to brAhmins, kshatriyAs, vysyAs and sUdrAs without any differentiation.

Even in the phalashruti of the sahasranamam we see various benefits for all the varnas, and it does not indicate that the society accepted guna brahmanas or guna shudras.

It appears that a jAti brAhmaNan was not recognized as a brAhmaNan in the rg vedic times.

The above quotes do not seem to be conclusive evidences, imo.

 

[zebra16]

The word meemaamsa in both apte and mw gives the same definition that it was also called the karma meemaamsa by Jaimini and was concerning itself chiefly with the correct interpretation of the vedic ritual and text.

I have not said anything different. The brAhmaNam portions (which inter alia included philosophical concepts) were classified as artha vAda by PMs.

 

[auh]

It is injustice to the spirit of inquiry to say various interpretations are being GIVEN that too to colour something. The fact of the matter is THAT SO MANY INTERPRETATIONS EXIST.

But what purpose do these various interpretations serve then? Let us not pretend to be so naive to ignore the factual positions.

At least I am not interested in winning any argument. But I do not want to be irrational to the extent of trashing everything that exists or existed to just go and give out a rosy utopian view of a single world-wide community.

So I presume that you do not wish to live life based on an ideal. That is fine with me, and if you think that I am irrational, that is also fine with me.

 

[zebra16]

[/B]But what purpose do these various interpretations serve then? Let us not pretend to be so naive to ignore the factual positions.

It simply means that society accepts changes only gradually. One cannot expect total acceptance pronto by all the members of the society.

So I presume that you do not wish to live life based on an ideal. That is fine with me, and if you think that I am irrational, that is also fine with me.

One can be only as ideal as the circumstances let him be, may be he can get a bit more with a lot of more struggle. It is totally irrational to expect that world will be a single unified living place with total merger of different identities any time soon.

 

[zebra16]

Ok, but what are we to interpret this as? Please elaborate. I do not see this as an indication of jati and kula brahmana being accepted in society.


The above quotes do not seem to be conclusive evidences, imo.

The interpretation as my simple mind would understand is as follows:

The seer or mantra-drishtA or composer of the hymn is a vedic rishi. He does not claim to be an offspring of another rishi but of a healer or physician, definitely not a rishi. His mother was an ordinary agricultural labourer grinding corns, so not a brAhmaNi by any means. Such a common person came to be accepted as a vedic rishi and so accepted as a brAhmaNan. Hence jAti brAhmaNan concept was absent, only varNa during Rg vedic period.

With my limited reading only this much I could glean. This was sufficient for me to surmise that at least during Rg vedic period jAti was not a criterion. This was coupled with the sage VishwAmitrA case, who by all accounts was a kshatriya and not a brAhmaNan, and it is he, who gave the famed gAyatri mantra.

For me these instances were sufficient and conclusive. There is nothing to show these were exceptions and were not the rule.

 

[auh]

It simply means that society accepts changes only gradually. One cannot expect total acceptance pronto by all the members of the society.

I am sorry that I do not see that as a logical conclusion. We can agree to disagree.

One can be only as ideal as the circumstances let him be, may be he can get a bit more with a lot of more struggle. It is totally irrational to expect that world will be a single unified living place with total merger of different identities any time soon.

There is no great catastrophe that pushes one to stick to a particular community based on birth, in the current time.

The change that you have mentioned perhaps would be due to such irrational minds that seek to address humans as humans.

 

[auh]

The interpretation as my simple mind would understand is as follows:

The seer or mantra-drishtA or composer of the hymn is a vedic rishi. He does not claim to be an offspring of another rishi but of a healer or physician, definitely not a rishi. His mother was an ordinary agricultural labourer grinding corns, so not a brAhmaNi by any means. Such a common person came to be accepted as a vedic rishi and so accepted as a brAhmaNan. Hence jAti brAhmaNan concept was absent, only varNa during Rg vedic period.

With my limited reading only this much I could glean. This was sufficient for me to surmise that at least during Rg vedic period jAti was not a criterion. This was coupled with the sage VishwAmitrA case, who by all accounts was a kshatriya and not a brAhmaNan, and it is he, who gave the famed gAyatri mantra.

For me these instances were sufficient and conclusive. There is nothing to show these were exceptions and were not the rule.

Going by the meaning you have given, it is only fair to conclude that this particular person was treated as a rishi. We cannot surmise about his placement in society relative to the others. It is also not a conclusive proof to say that jati brahmanan was absent. Just as you have cited the Vishwamitra case (Which is an exception and not a norm) this could very well be another one.

As the story goes, Vishvamitra had to undergo severe tapas to gain the status of a brahma rishi. So you see there were various rishis such as raja rishi, brahma rishi etc., which were according to the birth. Is this not a clear evidence that birth based varna reigned supreme?

Will the acharyas of today accept any guna brahmana as a true brahmana eligible for the "dwija" status and prescribe upanayanam for him? That would be the acid test.

 

[zebra16]

Going by the meaning you have given, it is only fair to conclude that this particular person was treated as a rishi. We cannot surmise about his placement in society relative to the others.

Onus is on you to prove that there were two categories of rishis. One, born rishis and two rishis or ordinary persons with special talent who were treated as rishis (like some sort of officiation). Rg veda itself doesnt say that one was a true rishi and one was an officiating rishi or one bestowed with a rishi status. For argument sake you have hyphenated a rishi category who are somehow different to other rishis named in Rg veda. You need a proof for your pre-conceived notion that jAti brAhmanan concept existed and this particular rishi was not among them. Such a proof cannot come by for self imposed conditions.

Just as you have cited the Vishwamitra case (Which is an exception and not a norm) this could very well be another one.

Again it is own pre-conceived notion that VishwAmitrA was an exception and not the rule. Nowhere in Rg vedA it says he was an exception enrolled into brAhmin fold. He was a kshatriyA and continued to be venerated notwithstanding not being a brAhmaNan.

As the story goes, Vishvamitra had to undergo severe tapas to gain the status of a brahma rishi. So you see there were various rishis such as raja rishi, brahma rishi etc., which were according to the birth. Is this not a clear evidence that birth based varna reigned supreme?

PurAnic stories are very many (and very contradictory too) and I am not sure if this story of vishvAmitrA performing severe tapas etc. finds a mention in Rg vedA and its brAhmaNam. I have not touched upon any purAnic concept in this thread.

Will the acharyas of today accept any guna brahmana as a true brahmana eligible for the "dwija" status and prescribe upanayanam for him? That would be the acid test.

Guna brAhmaNa is an alien concept for vedAs.

 

[zebra16]

The change that you have mentioned perhaps would be due to such irrational minds that seek to address humans as humans.

Those irrational minds that seek to address humans as humans do not want to go the whole way.

Those irrational minds will quote puruSa sUktam only for the purpose of showing that all the four castes were born of puruSA.

puruSA sUktham also says that aSwA (horse) and gau (cow) were born out of the same same sacrifice that humans were born.
"tasmAdSwA ajAyantA.....gAvO ha jagyire tasmAth"

Why not stay in horse stable or cow pen too or conversely bring those animals to our flats..?

Selective quoting of scriptures for colouring/for the argument is the charge adduced against the defender of the religion, but it is most blatantly used by the chargers.

 

[auh]

Onus is on you to prove that there were two categories of rishis. One, born rishis and two rishis or ordinary persons with special talent who were treated as rishis (like some sort of officiation). Rg veda itself doesnt say that one was a true rishi and one was an officiating rishi or one bestowed with a rishi status. For argument sake you have hyphenated a rishi category who are somehow different to other rishis named in Rg veda. You need a proof for your pre-conceived notion that jAti brAhmanan concept existed and this particular rishi was not among them. Such a proof cannot come by for self imposed conditions.

It was you who claimed that brahmanas were not because of jati. Not me. So you have to prove that all along the centuries till now there were brahmanas that existed not by birth. I dont have to prove a thing. Birth based is what is practised.

Besides, I could find this english translation though I could not find any other source giving the original and the translation"

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv09112.htm

[h=3]HYMN CXII. Soma Pavamana.[/h] 1. WE all have various thoughts and plans, and diverse are the ways of men.
The Brahman seeks the worshipper, wright seeks the cracked, and leech the maimed. Flow, Indu, flow for Indra's sake.
2 The smith with ripe and seasoned plants, with feathers of the birds of air,
With stones, and with enkindled flames, seeks him who hath a store of gold. Flow, Indu, flow for Indra's sake.
3 A bard am I, my dad's a leech, mammy lays corn upon the stones.
Striving for wealth, with varied plans, we follow our desires like kine. Flow, Indu, flow for Indra's sake.
4 The horse would draw an easy car, gay hosts attract the laugh and jest.
The male desires his mate's approach, the frog is eager for the flood, Flow, Indu, flow for Indra's sake.

I think the boldened is what you are referring to? If yes, that does not prove a thing, my dear sir. I am sorry to say, it just seems a ramble.

Again it is own pre-conceived notion that VishwAmitrA was an exception and not the rule. Nowhere in Rg vedA it says he was an exception enrolled into brAhmin fold. He was a kshatriyA and continued to be venerated notwithstanding not being a brAhmaNan.

NO. You are hiding from reality. I say he was the exception because I have not seen anywhere a kshatriya or other varna being converted into a brahmana and accepted by society regularly. If there is any pre-conceived notion, it seems to be yours.

PurAnic stories are very many (and very contradictory too) and I am not sure if this story of vishvAmitrA performing severe tapas etc. finds a mention in Rg vedA and its brAhmaNam. I have not touched upon any purAnic concept in this thread.

Well, that is what I have heard, and nobody has contradicted it. If you wish, you can let me know how Vishwamitra became a brahmana and to give the gayathri to the rest of the brahminfolk.

Guna brAhmaNa is an alien concept for vedAs.

It seems to me that barring a few sanskrit translations and inferences, you are pretty much in line with the same thoughts as me.

 

[auh]

Those irrational minds that seek to address humans as humans do not want to go the whole way.

Those irrational minds will quote puruSa sUktam only for the purpose of showing that all the four castes were born of puruSA.

puruSA sUktham also says that aSwA (horse) and gau (cow) were born out of the same same sacrifice that humans were born.
"tasmAdSwA ajAyantA.....gAvO ha jagyire tasmAth"

Why not stay in horse stable or cow pen too or conversely bring those animals to our flats..?

Two things here. First the logical - you are going the illogical way asking anyone who wants to treat humans as humans, to treat animals also as humans. Because of purushasukta. I do not believe in it but gave a reference in reply to Sravna who perhaps believes that men are born into different castes by divine will, and hence deserve to be treated differently. Moreover, it is against nature to force an animal to our house. If an animal asks us to let it in our house, I think we should. "Jeevakaarunyam" is something universal.

Second - people take in cats, dogs, cows, parrots, pigeons etc into their house and treat it as a member of the family. So, in a way, I think the "purusha" has granted your wish also!

Selective quoting of scriptures for colouring/for the argument is the charge adduced against the defender of the religion, but it is most blatantly used by the chargers.

Where have I selectively quoted. I have been transparent and am willing to change my stance if you can irrefutably prove the point that:

1) Society, as a norm, accepted brahmanas other than by birth.
2) Birth was/is not the criteria for varna
3) Explain, why characters in epics like ramayana and mahabharatha were not treated otherwise than by birth.
4) The present mutts would be willing to accept this definition and practice it. Otherwise, this could very well fall under the "creative interpretations" that you mentioned earlier.

 

[zebra16]

Well, that is what I have heard, and nobody has contradicted it. If you wish, you can let me know how Vishwamitra became a brahmana and to give the gayathri to the rest of the brahminfolk.

At least on this aspect, we seem to be talking in circles.

Please allow me to clarify.

VishwAmitrA was a kshatriya and remained a kshatriyA, notwithstanding exposition of gAyatri mantrA. He became a rAjarishi, brahmarishi etc. all right by accounts of episodes in various purANams, but his status remained a kshatriya.

There were other rishis too who were of kshatriyA origin both in Rg vedic times and during the upaniSad times. Two names immediately come to my mind, those are that of rishi kaNva and rishi gritsamada.

It was not necessary that all vedic rishis were brAhmins (by birth). My opinion, therefore, was that as they were not jAti brAhmins, they were varNa brAhmins.

 

[tks]

At least on this aspect, we seem to be talking in circles.

Please allow me to clarify.

VishwAmitrA was a kshatriya and remained a kshatriyA, notwithstanding exposition of gAyatri mantrA. He became a rAjarishi, brahmarishi etc. all right by accounts of episodes in various purANams, but his status remained a kshatriya.

There were other rishis too who were of kshatriyA origin both in Rg vedic times and during the upaniSad times. Two names immediately come to my mind, those are that of rishi kaNva and rishi gritsamada.

It was not necessary that all vedic rishis were brAhmins (by birth). My opinion, therefore, was that as they were not jAti brAhmins, they were varNa brAhmins.

I applaud your effort to do research before presenting your points! Hence a Thumbs up from my side

 

[tks]

I got this link about Atri Smriti from the net. http://vedicreserve.mum.edu/smriti/11Atri_Smriti.pdf

Perhaps you could go through the pdf and tell me where your cited para appears. I could not find it. Or maybe there is another source? All I could see was that the verse you have quoted is referenced widely in the internet.

Next is that notwithstanding the genuineness of the verse, it seems to have delved into the deepest graves of the vedic people. I do not recollect this system being followed in Ramayana where during Sita Kalyanam, the lineage of both the kings are given !! A kshatriya begets a kshatriya, a brahmana begets a brahmana, a vysya begets a vysya, a shudra begets a shudra - this was how it was/is.

Next is the Mahabharatha where we find Karna possessing qualities of a Kshatriya (in fact he is) but we find everyone scorning him as a soota putra. I do not see the great Krishna himself who supposedly gave the Bhagavad Gita, addressing the public that qualities define the varna, and hence Karna is a Kshatriya.

Please step down from your lofty thoughts about the varna system.

There is nothing to step down because they are not my thoughts. They are my understanding of our scriptures.
What is lofty or not is your judgement based on your background.

Let me quote the reference you asked for, primarily so that the original intent of the thread can get back to its objectives.

Before that let me clarify a few points:

1. For topics involving understanding knowledge-scriptures historical analysis is not useful. If there is an assertion of a timeless truth then that truth need to be available for understanding today. The verse I quoted is subject to understanding if one truly understands the difference between the Sanskrit words Varna and Kula.

2. The confusion of usage of terms Brhamana, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Sudra etc have to be understood in context whether they refer to Kula or Varna . Your examples refer to Kula definition of these terms

3. The ongoing confusion of these two terms has caused enormous issues in the society of recent past including today and hence clarity here is critical

B.Gita is considered to teach the essence of Upanishads though it is s Smriti. What Sri Sankara has done is to refer to verses from various Upanishads so that the teachings are connected to truths asserted in Upanishads.

These truths are subject to understanding here and now and not for just referring to a verse and declaring that it is right because it is said so in B. Gita.

To do justice to properly explain the verse and varana reference will require 10 hours or more of lecture time to do justice even with my relatively minimal knowledge. I am saying this only to communicate the depth of preparation and effort needed to properly understand these verses. This forum is not a practical means to communicate all that. One does not have to take my word but they have to put in the time to discover this for themselves.

Here all I want to do is cite the verse to show Varna is not connected to birth.

चातुर्वर्ण्यं मया सृष्टं गुणकर्मविभागशः ।तस्य कर्तारमपि मां विद्ध्यकर्तारमव्ययम् ॥ ४-१३॥


Simple translation: The world created by me has four Varnas (groups) divided according to qualities (Guna) and actions (Karma).
Even though I am the creator, know me to be an eternal non-doer.

Here is a reference for another translation :
http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-04-13.html

There is no mention of Janma in this definition of Varna.


I hope we can get back to the original intent of this thread!