Is the Community digging its own grave

[biswa]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Birth varna is like the tuner in your radio.

What?? I didn't understand.

The radio is kind of of obsolete, isn't it? Oh wait, now​ I understand ...

 

[sarang]

Let us for a moment move away from the argument over gunas and karmas and look at the issue from a different angle.

Our parents, ancestors, acharyas and gurus have given us a wonderful tradition several thousand years old that has survived several hostile attacks from enemies of sanatana dharma. It is trust and responsibility that we carry and some of us at least must preserve, practice and transfer to our children and future generations. If vedas are forgotten, they can be learnt; if anushtanams are lost, they are lost for ever - thiruvalluvar (Deivathin kural)

Fortunately, many brahmanas, have become adept in managing a modern loukika life and without giving up brahmana traditions and family ways. There is support from mutts and gurukuls to preserve and teach the old values. Astika folks both from India and abroad donate generously to support vedic learning and decent income for the dedicated. Youngsters too are getting more involved even if the parents are not.

 

[tks]

Criticism of Brahminism and Brahminist behavior is not "hateful posts about Brahmins". Simply branding them as such is at best a tactic to avoid having to address the issues.

tks, when I started this discussion with you I tried to be respectful to you, I only criticized the idea of Guna Brahmana as supremacist and I even conceded you probably didn't see it that way. The response from you was a litany of condescending dismissals of my abilities and accusation that I was a casteist. You are continuing to respond in the same manner, never addressing the issues raised head on, but generous in insulting comments about me. I really don't care about the insults just as long as you would also address the issues.

Post #165 is a post made by me, not you. Also when I click the link it takes me to post #11. In any case, if you think 2.16 of BG supports your Guna Brahmana theory then state your case.

I agree that we need to have a "complete picture" and the complete picture is BG or commentaries of BG by great Acharyas do not support Guna Brahmana. I have already stated my arguments in post #202. Please try to respond to it, throw in your usual insults if you like, but please also state your reasoned rebuttal.


If you think this shows what I said about this verse in post #202 is not true then you have to state it more clearly. Show me why your interpretation of the verse is correct and the commentaries of great acharyas are wrong. Simply asserting that nara doesn't understand or nara is not capable of understanding is not sufficient.

Thanks ...

Nara - I have tough time getting my point across. Let me try once more..

1. I don't know what brahminism is ... If it is what Brahmins - whoever they are - practice then attack on that is attack on Brahmins. We can agree to disagree. If you are against discrimination of any kind we are in the same side. But that is not what I sense.

2. I dont care to have you concede on anything or play victim (which is how your reaction comes across to me).

3. Topics like movies, opinions, politics, general news item - I can discuss these with anyone. If a topic is one that requires understanding and is in the domain of knowledge (I call these serious topics) then I do not enter into debate unless I have something to learn from the other side.

4. I have no confusion or question on anything I have posted on serious topics . I share what I know and take great pain to answer if someone has a sincere question.

5. If someone has a strong position on a serious topic I expect the following from the other side before engagement: a) academic integrity of wanting to know the truth b) demonstrated knowledge that is assimilated c) ability to understand what was said and be able to relate in the response.

As a Professor I am sure you understand what I am saying. Like me you probably are reviewers of journal articles in your area I am sure - we expect certain maturity and understanding of a subject if someone submit a paper for a publication if research is part of what you do.

While this forum is not a place for academic rigor but for discussions at the right level we both have to be at the same level.

From your posts I do not think that it is fruitful for me to discuss topics of this kind with some people. You can call that I am evading, so be it.

I asked you to explain your understanding of some verses in which case I will know that your statements are logical conclusions based on scholarship and understanding. In that case I can try very hard to see your point of view.

I have really nothing to prove to you - what I say is not opinion for most part .. there are some opinions thrown in here and there but for most part I have tried to understand topics of this kind holistically and do not find any contradictions. My background is science, engineering, management , and leadership and I try to go only by facts and reasons. I start out with non-acceptance until I understand. This is just to explain myself and has nothing to do with how others approach which may very well be the same.

If I meet you someday we will have tea or coffee and talk about many other topics

Regards

 

[Vaagmi]

1.Dear Vaagmi, that is very convenient isn't? What you take or not take is not the issue here.

2.Is this "called for" or only you are allowed to issue such admonishments ?


3.Now, the reciting of vedas is about the so called Shudras, not NB.


4.This guy is supposed to be a king, not a Shudra.

5.Satyakama's story is laced with some ugly subtext. All the back and forth is in the archives, I don't want to re-litigate.

6.You have to be more specific than these. Besides, whoever said there is a consistent narrative in these texts, it takes a Suthrakara and/or Bhashyakara to stitch together one and if your view is that there is no scriptural prohibition against "Shudra" reciting the vedas, then your view is not consistent with them. The fact is they are not even allowed to listen to the sound of reciting of the vedas.

7.But, what is this about "seeing" the Vedas, how do you see something that was not written down until relatively recently.

8.If this works for you that is great, for a lot of people what you call Sanatana Dharma aka Brahminism, is like a well with lot of water, but is contaminated water.

9.It is one thing to marvel at Brahmnical vedantam, Dharma, etc., but, one must be tone deaf to not hear what the so called "Shudras" and "panchamas" hear when "Guna Brahmana", "Shudra can become Brahmana", or "Sanatana Dharma is like Banyan tree" are talked about.

Thank you ...

Dear Nara,

1. That was in a context. A reply to your words "I have listened to BG Kalakshepams by eminent SV scholars who have also written excellent books expounding many original texts". If that was relevant then the reply is also relevant as much. Your listening to many kalakshepams from learned SV scholars can be only as much an issue as my listening to kalakshepams.

2. Admonishment is not the right word. I did not exhort you to do any thing. I expressed only a hope that I have.

3. Shudras are NBs. I do not understand what do you mean by your segregating shudras from NBs. And I have mentioned about shudra learning vedas too in my original reply. Why this nitpicking?

4. Alright a King. But an NB. And I was speaking about NBs including panchamans learning vedas.

5. Yes it has such material. But that does not take away the significance of the fact that he learnt vedas and that is just what is relevant to the discussion here. When I am telling Akbar Nama is historical record of Mughal times, you are trashing it saying the man who wrote it did not have a beard like the other members of the Mughal Court at that time-as if that is the most important thing to be analysed. Why this attempt at diluting the focus/obfuscating?

6. Vedas precede all the sutras and the sutrakaras. I am able to discern a consistent narrative in the vedas in many areas and the subject under discussion is one such. If you are unable to see what I see I can only say that it is unfortunate. This repeated harping on the sutras, smritis, bashyas, sastras is not necessary. Please go by vedas. The smritis.... etc., are like the Konar guide for the 12th standard student for Tamil. Dont place too much reliance on them. This is my argument.

7. Don't you know that? Or are you kidding? Vedas are "apaurusheya" and "anaathi". So the mantras are never made by the various rshis but they are called just dhrshtas. I am sure you would have heard a lot more about this in you kalakshepams by SV scholars. Please recall them from your memory.

8. This Sanatana dharma = brahminism is only your perception. What I wrote about the banyan tree is what was told by learned elders long back. What I said about sanatana dharma works for me and many others in this country. May be it does not work for you. With a little more effort it should work.

9. So you have added the "SD is like a banyan tree" to your ready list of condemned untouchables!! I am rather more concerned about the amount of obfuscations, twisting of facts, down right hypocrisy and the unending exploitation of panchamans that goes on in the name of "fighting casteism and brahminism (whatever the later may mean/be)".

Thanks. If you agree I would like to bring this discussion to a close as people's position are all within hardened silos.

 

[sangom]

This is just to remind all readers that we have had thorough discussion on the topic. One very significant post from Shri Saidevo can be found here; this will reveal to any unbiased reader that there has not been any immutable sanatanadharma for all time.

 

[palindrome]

1.Please refer to ChAndOkyam in which a shudra by name jAnasruthi learnt vedas from Raigyava.

2.Please refer to what is said in Rg veda about kakshivanthan, a shudra. He learnt vedas.

3.There is another story of a panchama, Gavasha which also confirms there was no restriction on a panchama learning vedas. Please refer to Rg Veda 7th Ashtaka where the mantras that were 'seen' by Gavasha find a place.

4.Please refer to Chandokya 4th prapAta in which some one whose varna was not known -jApAlan - leaning vedas is mentioned.

For all the above, I request you to provide the relevant verse from the said texts. Thankyou.

 

[palindrome]

Alright a King. But an NB. And I was speaking about NBs including panchamans learning vedas.

Kindly provide the relevant verse which describe 'panchamas' learning vedas.

Please also explain why then in dharmashastras shudras are prohibitted from vedas?

 

[kunjuppu]

For all the above, I request you to provide the relevant verse from the said texts. Thankyou.

pali,

i think, it is useless to quote exceptions. we think nandanar is a saint, and won the grace of god. but how hard he had to work at it. compare that with that of a high caste guy! so even if your request is answered (!), it would be one of a kind. the norm, during peshwa rule, was to pour lead into a dalit's ears, if he heard the vedas, and cut off his tongue if he chanted the gayatri.

in the south, we were better, but ot much; where i was born, the dalit had to yodel to announce his passing, and stand 15 feet away from my grandfather, and cover his mouth when he spoke.

it is the norm to keep 25% of the population outside the varna and treat them worse than animals. atleast at home, cows were fed and taken care, these humans were not even treated as humans. and elements of that treatment still continues.

i wish learned folks would address those issues, instead of obfuscating or ignoring or (worse) shouting out epithets. we cannot wish away the problems. they just come to haunt and these will ultimately win.

 

[palindrome]

Folks,

The Shudra was prohibited from studying (Vedas) and was never released from slavery from birth to death.

The very First Chapter of Manusmriti says:
1.88: To Brahmanas he assigned teaching and studying vedas, sacrificing for their own benefit and for others, giving and accepting alms.
1.89: The Kshatriya he commanded to protect the people, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study vedas, and to abstain from attaching himself to sensual pleasures
1.90: The Vaisya to tend cattle, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study vedas, to trade, to lend money, and to cultivate land.
1.91: One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Sudra, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes.

So it is clear, Manu did not prescribe learning Vedas to Shudras.

The second chapter of Manusmriti says:
2.31: Let the first part of a Brahmana's name denote something auspicious, a Kshatriya's be connected with power, and a Vaisya's with wealth, but a Sudra's express something contemptible.
2.32: The second part of a Brahmana's name shall be a word implying happiness, of a Kshatriya's a word implying protection, of a Vaisya's a term expressive of thriving, and of a Sudra's an expression denoting service.

So a Shudra was recognizable from his very name, given at birth.

The below is just one of the verses which prescribe downgrading a man to shudra if he does not perform his prescribed duties (including worship). I chose the specific verse below because it mentions the rights of an Aryan.

2.103: But he who does not (worship) standing in the morning, nor sitting in the evening, shall be excluded, just like a Sudra, from all the duties and rights of an Aryan.

It is clear the term Aryan was used specifically for the dvija -- the Shudra was excluded from the term ‘Aryan’ and from the duties and rights of a dvija.

Verses specifically prohibiting vedas to Shudras:
4.81: For he who explains the sacred law to a Sudra or dictates to him a penance, will sink together with that man into the hell called Asamvrita.
4.99: Let him not recite the texts indistinctly, nor in the presence of Sudras; nor let him, if in the latter part of the night he is tired with reciting the Veda, go again to sleep.
2.172: He who has not been initiated should not pronounce any Vedic text excepting those required for the performance of funeral rites, since he is on a level with a Sudra before his birth from the Veda.

The shudra was not just prohibited from vedas, but his very life from birth to death was distinctly markedly that of a slave. Even in death, he was not spared:
5.92. Let him carry out a dead Sudra by the southern gate of the town, but the corpses of twice-born men, as is proper, by the western, northern, or eastern gates.

So who are the Shudras in Manusmriti?

3.194: The various classes of the manes are declared to be the sons of all those sages, Mariki and the rest, who are children of Manu, the son of Hiranyagarbha.
3.195: The Somasads, the sons of Virag, are stated to be the manes of the Sadhyas, and the Agnishvattas, the children of Mariki, are famous in the world as the manes of the gods.
3.196: The Barhishads, born of Atri, are recorded to be the manes of the Daityas, Danavas, Yakshas, Gandharvas, Snake-deities, Rakshasas, Suparnas, and Kimnaras.
3.197: The Somapas those of the Brahmanas, the Havirbhugs those of the Kshatriyas, the Agyapas those of the Vaisyas, but the Sukalins those of the Sudras.
3.198: The Somapas are the sons of Kavi (Bhrigu), the Havishmats the children of Angiras, the Agyapas the offspring of Pulastya, but the Sukalins the issue of Vasishtha.

Hence, in Manusmriti the Sudras are Sukalins. The Sukalins are descendants of Sukalin, a son of Vasistha.

To get a better picture, we need to understand why Sukalins got converted into shudra slaves? What led to such a situation? For this, I shall start a seperate thread later when time permits.

 

[Nara]

Nara - I have tough time getting my point across. Let me try once more..

tks, you come across loud and clear, you want to state your opinion and don't wish to be challenged or don't wish to answer the questions raised when challenged.

If you don't know what the term Brahminism means just google the term and read from a variety of sources to get a complete picture. Stated succinctly, Brahminism is the ideology advocated by Dharmashasthras, revered by the Brahminical institutions such as Shankara Matams and SV matams, and practiced to the extent of their conveniences by their followers.

...Thanks. If you agree I would like to bring this discussion to a close as people's position are all within hardened silos.

Vaagmi, you have said that you wish to pick and choose what you want from this tree you call Sanatana Dharma, and that is fine with me, I have no quarrel with that.

If Sanatana Dharma is not equal to Brahminism, and if you can show why this is true -- it is not obvious as only followers of Brahminism seem to use this term -- then I will revise my statement to Brahmnism is like a well with completely contaminated water.

Thank you ...

 

[palindrome]

pali,

i think, it is useless to quote exceptions. we think nandanar is a saint, and won the grace of god. but how hard he had to work at it. compare that with that of a high caste guy! so even if your request is answered (!), it would be one of a kind. the norm, during peshwa rule, was to pour lead into a dalit's ears, if he heard the vedas, and cut off his tongue if he chanted the gayatri.

in the south, we were better, but ot much; where i was born, the dalit had to yodel to announce his passing, and stand 15 feet away from my grandfather, and cover his mouth when he spoke.

it is the norm to keep 25% of the population outside the varna and treat them worse than animals. atleast at home, cows were fed and taken care, these humans were not even treated as humans. and elements of that treatment still continues.

i wish learned folks would address those issues, instead of obfuscating or ignoring or (worse) shouting out epithets. we cannot wish away the problems. they just come to haunt and these will ultimately win.

sigh! true, how i just wish some folks would realize varna thingy was no good and will never be if implemented anywhere anytime. The feudal governance model was an oppressive one and we have moved on ages away. However, every now and then someone comes along and either touts greatness of varna system or makes statements that even shudras could learn vedas.....

 

[palindrome]

Criticism of Brahminism and Brahminist behavior is not "hateful posts about Brahmins". Simply branding them as such is at best a tactic to avoid having to address the issues.

1. I don't know what brahminism is ... If it is what Brahmins - whoever they are - practice then attack on that is attack on Brahmins. We can agree to disagree. If you are against discrimination of any kind we are in the same side. But that is not what I sense

TKS, to the point in bold. First you do not know what brahmanism is, yet you say "if it is what brahmins practice". Please explain what is it that brahmins practice? Kindly elaborate what you wish to say in the context of "against discrimination" - the point above is not clear to me sorry.

Nara sir put it so aptly clearly. But perhaps you have a problem understanding the difference between people and an ideology. Simply put, not all people practice an ideology no matter in which culture they are born. Hope that helps.

Please also note, people like me and Nara sir are not in the minority. As we move on with time, more people will eventually give up caste and varna. Simply bcoz time changes everyone and everything. Personally for me, caste is merely a historical point which can never apply in present and in future. And i find people who think that way everywhere i go, so i know i am not in the minority....

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear palindrome,

It is quite a lengthy quote and I will have to carefully input the sanskrit words. So let me try another way:

1.jAnasruthi and Raigva: the relevant portion starts like this "ததுஹஜாநஸ்ருதி: பௌத்ராயண:ஷட்சதாநிகவாம் நிஷ்கமஸ்வதரீரதம் ததாயப்ரதி சக்ரமே தமஹாம்யுவாத 1. ரைக்வேமநிஷட்சதாநிகவாமயம் நிஷ்கோயம்...................Then in a passage following this Raigva addresses jAnasruthi by word shudra several times and it is clearly said there that he was taught the brahmavidya.

2. kaksheevanthan: Please refer to Rg veda-somAnamswaranam pathikam. Brhaspati is requested to grant the 'prakaasam' just as it was given to kaksheevandan the Shudra who was the son of Usikai.

3. Gavashan the panchaman: Please refer to AitareyabrAhmanam 12-3.

4. Chandokyam 4th prapata for the story of jApAla the man who learnt vedas though he was a chandaala.

If you want the exact verses in full I will have to go back to my archives retrieve the books and copy it for you.

I have already said my view that the dharma shastras take a back seat when they contradict what is found/said in vedas. Period.

Why dharmashastras were written that way? This question lies in the realm of sociology and politics which I do not discuss. Period.

Thanks.

 

[Vaagmi]

Kunjuppu,

Your #233:

i wish learned folks would address those issues, instead of obfuscating or ignoring or (worse) shouting out epithets. we cannot wish away the problems. they just come to haunt and these will ultimately win.

You have prefaced these sentences with a lot of political hype. Now let me answer this quoted sentences of you.

By 'learned folks' if you mean brahmins, then please be aware that an assembly called constituent assembly consisting of many orthodox(this is not a dirty word) brahmins built into the constitution the affirmative action to help these panchaman communities come up and join the main stream. Compare this with the Mandal commission engineered reservations which were too brought into the constitution because of the sheer muscle power and numbers. Brahmins never shouted epithets at panchamans. But you can not say with any certainty that the kshatriyas, vyshyas and shudras too are such angels. Brahmins do not obfuscate anything. It is the thevars, mudaliyars, naidus, vanniars and gounders of TN who obfuscate. When a rare instance of a panchaman standing up to them and questioning their ways is noticed he is killed and mayhem follows. Brahmins are just angels. They do not need any advice from people with a warped sense of atrocities. Thanks.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Nara,

Vaagmi, you have said that you wish to pick and choose what you want from this tree you call Sanatana Dharma, and that is fine with me, I have no quarrel with that.

I did not say that. I note you are trying to put word into my post. I have nothing more to say on this.

If Sanatana Dharma is not equal to Brahminism, and if you can show why this is true -- it is not obvious as only followers of Brahminism seem to use this term -- then I will revise my statement to Brahmnism is like a well with completely contaminated water.

You have said this in another place"Brahminism is the ideology advocated by Dharmashasthras, revered by the Brahminical institutions such as Shankara Matams and SV matams, and practiced to the extent of their conveniences by their followers".

Now that you have come clear with your idea of what is brahminism, please also say what is the ideology advocated that is referred to here by you. There are several idelogies mentioned in the DS. Also please let me know whether you include the saivite matoms like Thiruppananthaal etc., or not, whether you include other matoms like madhva matoms or not etc. so that I can completely understand your view point. I want to know whether you are bracketing only Brahmins with brahminism or others too. Then I will give my reply to you and we can see what is contaminated. That is if you want to continue this.

 

[sangom]

pali,

i think, it is useless to quote exceptions. we think nandanar is a saint, and won the grace of god. but how hard he had to work at it. compare that with that of a high caste guy! so even if your request is answered (!), it would be one of a kind. the norm, during peshwa rule, was to pour lead into a dalit's ears, if he heard the vedas, and cut off his tongue if he chanted the gayatri.

in the south, we were better, but ot much; where i was born, the dalit had to yodel to announce his passing, and stand 15 feet away from my grandfather, and cover his mouth when he spoke.

it is the norm to keep 25% of the population outside the varna and treat them worse than animals. atleast at home, cows were fed and taken care, these humans were not even treated as humans. and elements of that treatment still continues.

i wish learned folks would address those issues, instead of obfuscating or ignoring or (worse) shouting out epithets. we cannot wish away the problems. they just come to haunt and these will ultimately win.

I do not consider myself as one of the "learned folks" referred to by Shri Kunjuppu. Still I want to put in my 2 cents as they say! (why only two cents always, neither one cent or more than two?)

Shudras and panchamas were the slave classes of the ancient hindu society. But, for reasons which are not quite clear now, this slavery part was not explicitly written into the various Dharmasastras. But the fact of slavery in our cedic society is affirmed by P.V. Kane in The History of Dharmasastras, Vol II, pages 180-187. In the ancient Kerala, from Kanyakumari to the northernmost Malabar province, slavery was very common till it was stopped by royal decree in Travancore area in the first half of the 19th. century.

Hence, the exceptional cases which one may find here and there in our scriptures, are evidence only to their exceptional status and these odd references will not prove that the shudras and panchamas were in practice, slaves and were outside the vedic society. Naturally they had no 'adhikaara' to hear or read the vedas.

If we do not accept this, then Sri Rama will become a contemptible personality on account of his Shambuka vadham.

 

[palindrome]

Dear palindrome,

It is quite a lengthy quote and I will have to carefully input the sanskrit words. So let me try another way:

1.jAnasruthi and Raigva: the relevant portion starts like this "ததுஹஜாநஸ்ருதி: பௌத்ராயண:ஷட்சதாநிகவாம் நிஷ்கமஸ்வதரீரதம் ததாயப்ரதி சக்ரமே தமஹாம்யுவாத 1. ரைக்வேமநிஷட்சதாநிகவாமயம் நிஷ்கோயம்...................Then in a passage following this Raigva addresses jAnasruthi by word shudra several times and it is clearly said there that he was taught the brahmavidya.

2. kaksheevanthan: Please refer to Rg veda-somAnamswaranam pathikam. Brhaspati is requested to grant the 'prakaasam' just as it was given to kaksheevandan the Shudra who was the son of Usikai.

3. Gavashan the panchaman: Please refer to AitareyabrAhmanam 12-3.

4. Chandokyam 4th prapata for the story of jApAla the man who learnt vedas though he was a chandaala.

If you want the exact verses in full I will have to go back to my archives retrieve the books and copy it for you.

Unfortunately sir, in translation some of the original meaning may be lost. So can the context. Hence am not comfortable with a Tamil translation of Sanskrit works. I would definitely appreciate the exact sanskrit verses. However, just mentioning the verse number will do. I can find the relevant text.

As for jAnasruthi and Raigva, unfortunately i do not have the Chandokya text with me. Plus, I was not able to find the episode of Kakshivant in the Rig. The only two places where Ushik has been mentioned is this and this. I shall look up the episode of Gavasha in the Aitareyabrahmana shortly. The story of Satyakama Jabala is frought with doubts, does any text say he was a chandala?

All the same, I do not contest that vedic period was markedly different in culture from the upanishad period and then finally the dharmashastra period (since we have female composers, matronymic names for (male) rishis and such variation in the vedic period which is in stark contrast to the dharmashastras).

I have already said my view that the dharma shastras take a back seat when they contradict what is found/said in vedas. Period.

Why dharmashastras were written that way? This question lies in the realm of sociology and politics which I do not discuss. Period.

Thanks.

I respect your decision not to go into sociology and politics. Thankyou Sir.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear palindrome,

Your #236:

However, every now and then someone comes along and either touts greatness of varna system or makes statements that even shudras could learn vedas.....

After reading the proofs I have given above I would expect you to withdraw this statement of you if you have intellectual honesty.

 

[Nara]

Vaagmi, you have to give proper citation, chapter and verse. Also, let us make sure we are on the same page, the question is about Shudra (the 4th varna) and Panchama (avarna), not NB in general.

#1 -- Janasruti was a kshatriya not a Shudra, and #4 -- Gautama first queried Satyakama about his birth and accepted him only because Gautama asserted only a Brahmana will speak the truth fearlessly. So, #1 and #4 do not support your view.

For #2 and #3 you have to provide more precise citation.

Athreya Brahmana has 8 cantos and each canto has 5 chapters. Cite the canto number, chapter number and verse number please. Same for Rg veda citation.

Thank you ...

1.jAnasruthi and Raigva:
2. kaksheevanthan: Please refer to Rg veda-somAnamswaranam pathikam. Brhaspati is requested to grant the 'prakaasam' just as it was given to kaksheevandan the Shudra who was the son of Usikai.
3. Gavashan the panchaman: Please refer to AitareyabrAhmanam 12-3.
4. Chandokyam 4th prapata for the story of jApAla the man who learnt vedas though he was a chandaala.

 

[Vaagmi]

Vaagmi, you have to give proper citation, chapter and verse. Also, let us make sure we are on the same page, the question is about Shudra (the 4th varna) and Panchama (avarna), not NB in general.

#1 -- Janasruti was a kshatriya not a Shudra, and #4 -- Gautama first queried Satyakama about his birth and accepted him only because Gautama asserted only a Brahmana will speak the truth fearlessly. So, #1 and #4 do not support your view.

For #2 and #3 you have to provide more precise citation.

Athreya Brahmana has 8 cantos and each canto has 5 chapters. Cite the canto number, chapter number and verse number please. Same for Rg veda citation.

Thank you ...

Dear Nara,

I gave the details from my notes. If the details that you have asked are to be given I will have to go to Adyar Library(Theosophical Society) and retrieve it. Let me make time. Moreover My reply which you have quoted here was given to Palindrome and that has its roots in a reply I gave to you about NBs studying vedas. Hence I have mentioned all the three castes and the fifth (panchaman) and sixth(one who did not know his caste-chandala) category also just to show that vedas were not the exclusive preserve of brahmins as held by vedas themselves. Thanks.

 

[Nara]

I did not say that. I note you are trying to put word into my post. I have nothing more to say on this.

Vaagmi, here is what you said in post #223:

..... I listen to kalakshepam from learned elders. But I take what is clearly not disputable. The rest I search in the archives myself and come to my own conclusions on the basis of facts.

In what way what I said is differs in essence from what you have said above? Of course I paraphrased you and not quote your exact words, but that does not mean I mischaracterized what you said. So, I standby my observation that you "pick and choose what you want from this tree you call Sanatana Dharma".

I want to know whether you are bracketing only Brahmins with brahminism or others too. Then I will give my reply to you and we can see what is contaminated.

Vaagmi, if I have said it one time I have said it a thousand times, and now, since you are relatively new to this forum you are asking me to repeat it again. I shall oblige, Brahminism is an ideology that is rooted in Dharmashasthras and it is still not only eulogized as the best system, but it is also vigorously practiced in one way or another. It is not the people belonging to Brahmin castes who subscribe to this ideology lot of others do as well. Those who identify with the Varna/jAti system, including those who concoct Guna Varna, irrespective of their own jAti, are part of this. Not only Brahmins drink the rotten water from this well, lot of others do as well.

Thank you.

 

[Nara]

.... that has its roots in a reply I gave to you about NBs studying vedas....

Once again Vaagmi, let us be clear, this is about Shudra and avarna, not the three upper varnas. Let us not use the term NB as it is ambiguous. Let us stick to Shudra and avarnas.

As palindrome has already explained, to fully understand the context you have to provide precise citation. You may avoid a trip to Adayar library by visiting this site Sacred-Texts: Hinduism.

Thank you.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

1. I don't know what brahminism is ... If it is what Brahmins - whoever they are - practice then attack on that is attack on Brahmins.

Dear TKS,
The term "brahminism" is used in place of "casteism" with the only reason to make brahmins the scapegoat. Nothing more, nothing less. You are correct in your assessment that such posts are hateful posts with hate directed against brahmins. This is the technique with which dravidianists were able to villify brahmins and captured power and also were able to protect the "middle" castes as Vaagmi had pointed out here.

 

[tks]

Dear TKS,
The term "brahminism" is used in place of "casteism" with the only reason to make brahmins the scapegoat. Nothing more, nothing less. You are correct in your assessment that such posts are hateful posts with hate directed against brahmins. This is the technique with which dravidianists were able to villify brahmins and captured power and also were able to protect the "middle" castes as Vaagmi had pointed out here.

Thanks KB!
I usually skip or or quickly scan some of the posts. It just pollutes the mind of a reader.

Many are hateful or have origins in hate and this forum provides an opportunity to regurgitate similar messages.

Actually there is a better American expression than messages for these posts - it is translated thus : குதிரை output LoL

 

[palindrome]

After reading the proofs I have given above I would expect you to withdraw this statement of you if you have intellectual honesty.

Sorry Vaagmi, you have not given any form of proof yet. Kindly provide the verse number or the relevant verse.

Point #1 -- I read the Chandogya a few years ago. I do not remember the episode of jAnasruthi and Raigva wherein the word Shudra is used.

Point # 2 - In the Rig, the word Kakshivant appears in the following ways -- kakSIvAnabhipitve (once), kakSIvAnasurasya (once), kakSIvanta (once), kakSIvantam (four times) and kakSIvAnuta (once). I was not able to find the episode as you mention.

Point # 3 - In the Rig (including Aitareya), the word Gavasha appears in the following ways -- gAvashchid (once), gAvashira (once), gAvashirah (four times), gAvashiram (four times), gAvashiro (once), gavastama (once), gAvastarunam (once). I was not able to find the verse wherein Gavasha is called a Panchama.

Point # 4 -- I have not come across any verse wherein Satyakama Jabala is called a Chandala.

Since I have not come across the episodes as you mention, I request you to provide the exact citation. In fact the only place where the word 'Shudra' occurs in the whole of Rig is in the Purushasukta, which some historians consider a late interpolation, since the vedic society at that time did not have a varna system as yet (varna vyavastha came to exist in the dharmashastra period).

Also request you -- Please do not jump to terms like "intellectual honesty". A lot can be said from the other side but i refrain from doing so. Since this is a discussion where we are mutually trying to identify something, please keep it at that only. Thanks.