• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Let us reclaim our rights

Status
Not open for further replies.
கால பைரவன்;182840 said:
In tamilakam, there were social groups that followed patrilineal hierarchy and there were other groups that followed matrilineal hierarchy. Social laws and conducts expected out of males and females are different in each society.

ஆண் ஆதிக்கச் சமூகம் என்றால் ஒருத்திக்கு ஒருத்தன் என்பது. But the man has no such restrictions. பெண் தலைமைச் சமூகத்தில் பெண்களுக்கு இப்படியான கட்டுப்பாடு இல்லை. நாயர்களின் திருமண முறையான தரவாடு பற்றி இத்தளத்தில் ஏற்கனவே பேசப்பட்டிருக்கிறது.

Reference here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/7318-wikipedia-article-about-kerala-iyers-4.html

Even after the patrilineal societies gained ascendancy, there were groups which continued to remain matirlineal. The progenies born to the women of such societies were the ones who were called shudras. This was true in even western countries. Women who practiced polyandry were decried by the male-dominant society. The dharmashastras or the hindu/brahmin religion did not create such a category.

In continuation of the above post, social groups which followed matrilineal hierarchy were degraded after patrilineal societies gained ascendancy. (Before ridiculing it is worth while to read other's views fully). This happened not just in India but elsewhere. There is lot of research material available in the web about why patriarchy came to rule the roost.

In our society, some social groups continued to retain some features of matrilineal system.

In the case of Karaikat Vellalars (kaarkaatha vellalar) whenever an estate is likely to descend to a female in default of a male issue, she is forbidden to marry an adult; but goes through the ceremony of marriage with some young male child or in some cases with a portion of the fathers dwelling -house on the understanding that she shall be at liberty to abuse herself with any man of her caste to whom she may take a fancy and her issue so begotten inherits the property which is thus retained in the woman's family. (Surgeon Major W.R.Cornish: Census of Madras Presidency 1871, Vol.I, as found in J.H.Nelson's Madurai Manual, Vol.II, pg.55)

An interesting account written by lieuftenant Ward in 1824 of the Karaikat Vellalar of Palani Hills is referred to in the Madurai Manual. Widows are free to remarry and wives are accustomed it is supposed to grant the last favour to their husbands' relatives. Adultery outside the husband's family entails expulsion from caste. This custom is probably the survival of fraternal polyandry. (Madras census report 1891, pg.232)

Please keep in mind that the social classification in tamilakam, according to tolkappiyam and other tamil literature, puts vellalar as the fourth class.
 
கால பைரவன்;182764 said:
பிறப்பின் அடிப்படையிலான சாதி முறை உருவாகக் காரணம் இந்து மதம் தான் என்று உறுதியாக சொல்ல முடியாது.

Those interested, please refer to article in the link below. It is quite a long article written by one Mr. Pravaahan. If time permits, I will summarize the main points later.
Africavil Saathi Murai

I think your earlier posts showed far more maturity. Do you really think the intended readers are not aware of it?

It is the fervent wish of a select few to SET THE AGENDA of this forum to the single point of BRAHMIN BASHING. The people who spend hours and hours in populating this forum with posts that contain the supposed atrocities of brahmins right from dinosaur's era are more CASTISTS themselves than the forum brahmins they would like to bash about. The proof is in the forum posts itself.

Sri Sangom in his various posts here has said that (i) early vedic brahmins were cattle raiders as also women abductors; (ii) the very word vivAham means and signifies abduction, the authority of such interpretation being ATR (he didnt highlight on the word "pAnigrahaNam" sanskrit synonym of vivAham and we might have a new and revised interpretation as "seizing of the hand forcibly" etc.) (iii) Sri Sangom has also given the mantras of vedic mantras especially those that are chanted during tarpanam and shraddham.

Dear Shri Narayanan (Zebra),

Your observations given above shows what your own agenda is. It is rather characteristic of many of the self-professed brahministic members here to imagine for themselves a very glorious and blameless past for the (vedic) brahmins. But the available evidence from our many scriptures reveals that the various pronouncements regarding castes or varnas (as originally found in the Purushsukta of the Rigveda) have emanated under the authorship of people who are considered to be the authors of the various Dharma Sastras, Puranas (all but one, believed to be written by one veda vyAsa: we may, for the sake of our avowed aim of bailing out brahmins from any blame for anything wrong or unseemly, intentional or unintentional, hereafter, brand Vedavyasa or Krishnadwaipayana, as one may choose, as a fisherman!!) and other scriptures are all held to be either Rishia or brahmins.

The self-professed brahmin-savers including yourself possibly had been finding solace for quite sometime now, by insisting that all such scriptures which established the caste system and the more pernicious untouchability, were written by the meek, sAttveeki brahmins under threat and compulsion from the other two forward castes, viz., the kshatriyas and the vaisyas. May be now your group will have to substitute this with a new story that the migrant Africans kept their swords to the necks of the kshatriyas and the vaisyas and compelled them to compel the brahmins to write all such scriptures, dharmasutras, etc.;) Still, it will be worthwhile because the braahmins will remain blameless. I am reminded of the similarity of this with a saying which means that "a loose-moralled woman covers her face with her "chElai" so that her identity is not revealed".

My agenda was not and is not brahmin-bashing, but, the truth. If we inherited the caste system and untouchability from the Africans so be it, and I am not uncomfortable with it, but I will not like to hide the fact that our scriptures endorse these two.

You have mentioned about "pANigrahaNa" as a panacea to wriggle out of the difficulty posed by the word "vivAha". Please carefully listen to the vAdhyAr in any tabra marriage function and see whether he utters "pANigrahaNa muhUrtta" or "udvAha muhUrtta " when the gifts are presented or even on other occasions. Again, you seem to have forgotten the injunction in our Dharmasastras which say that a woman may have had husbands from any of the castes but once a brahmin catches hold of her hand, then onwards he is her husband. So much for the exalted concept of "pANigrahaNa".
 
கால பைரவன்;182845 said:
In continuation of the above post, social groups which followed matrilineal hierarchy were degraded after patrilineal societies gained ascendancy. (Before ridiculing it is worth while to read other's views fully). This happened not just in India but elsewhere. There is lot of research material available in the web about why patriarchy came to rule the roost.

In our society, some social groups continued to retain some features of matrilineal system.

In the case of Karaikat Vellalars (kaarkaatha vellalar) whenever an estate is likely to descend to a female in default of a male issue, she is forbidden to marry an adult; but goes through the ceremony of marriage with some young male child or in some cases with a portion of the fathers dwelling -house on the understanding that she shall be at liberty to abuse herself with any man of her caste to whom she may take a fancy and her issue so begotten inherits the property which is thus retained in the woman's family. (Surgeon Major W.R.Cornish: Census of Madras Presidency 1871, Vol.I, as found in J.H.Nelson's Madurai Manual, Vol.II, pg.55)

An interesting account written by lieuftenant Ward in 1824 of the Karaikat Vellalar of Palani Hills is referred to in the Madurai Manual. Widows are free to remarry and wives are accustomed it is supposed to grant the last favour to their husbands' relatives. Adultery outside the husband's family entails expulsion from caste. This custom is probably the survival of fraternal polyandry. (Madras census report 1891, pg.232)

Please keep in mind that the social classification in tamilakam, according to tolkappiyam and other tamil literature, puts vellalar as the fourth class.

There is no smriti, purana, or any shastra AFAIK which says offspring of matrilineal tribes are shudras. So if your contention is true, you may need to address reasons why matrilineality and/or polyandry was downgraded by dharmashastras, or Did patrilineal tribes subjugate matrilineal tribes in the dharmashastra period.

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad there are about forty sages with matronymic names. Some examples of matronymic names are:
Dirghatama Mamateya (Rg.I.158.6 ), Kutsa Arjuneya (son of Arjuni, Rg.IV.26,1, VII.19.2, VIII.1.11), Kaksivat Ausija (son of a woman called Usik, Rg.I.18.1, Vaj. S, III. 28), Prahlada Kayadhava (son of Kayadhu, Tai. Br. I, 5. 10), Mahidasa Aitareya (son of Itara, Chan. Up. III. 16.7).

Where is the proof from shastras that offspring of matrilineal societies were categorized as shudras; or put specifically, ONLY children of matrilineal socities were shudras?
 
I think your earlier posts showed far more maturity. Do you really think the intended readers are not aware of it?

It is the fervent wish of a select few to SET THE AGENDA of this forum to the single point of BRAHMIN BASHING. The people who spend hours and hours in populating this forum with posts that contain the supposed atrocities of brahmins right from dinosaur's era are more CASTISTS themselves than the forum brahmins they would like to bash about. The proof is in the forum posts itself.

Who are you to comment about other members' maturity? Do you think you have more grey matter more than anybody else? And what exactly is your agenda in this forum? Please have the courage to spell it out. But prepare to get bashed if it doesn't adhere to our grey matter standards. The virulence you show in each of your posts is simply astounding.
 
Who are you to comment about other members' maturity? Do you think you have more grey matter more than anybody else? And what exactly is your agenda in this forum? Please have the courage to spell it out. But prepare to get bashed if it doesn't adhere to our grey matter standards. The virulence you show in each of your posts is simply astounding.
Luv it :). Nothing like calling a spade a spade.
 
Who are you to comment about other members' maturity? Do you think you have more grey matter more than anybody else? And what exactly is your agenda in this forum? Please have the courage to spell it out. But prepare to get bashed if it doesn't adhere to our grey matter standards. The virulence you show in each of your posts is simply astounding.
Mr. Biswa,
Telling it like it is.
Majority of members here are brahmins, and they come to the site because of the name. Some come because of curiosity.
There are few who come purely to bash Brahmins. We have every right to chastises this brahmin bashers, India bashers etc. But we have accept divergent views among us.
 
The theory of dravidianists and brahmin bashers is that eveything was hunky dory in ancient tamilakam and people were living peacefully with each other with no social stratification and it is the "evil" aryans (i.e. brahmins) who came from outside with varna and jaati classification, enslaved all the rest of tamil population by hoodwinking them or by force of sword, to follow this system rigidly which held sway until very recently. It is this foundation on which brahmin bashing is built. They of course deny the bashing part and the rest are led to believe that what they indulge in is "pursuit of truth". It is an acceptable theory for them that birth based social stratification came from outside as long as it came from arya brahmins. But the suggestion that it came from african tribes is something they scoff at because it is inconvenient to them (:-)) eventhough several similarites can be found between caste systems that exist(ed) there and here.
 
There are many who read up this forum. I doubt if a population which claims to be 3% can contribute even 50% of website traffic. I suspect the largest readership are non-brahmins.

There are 2 types of people in this world.

One is the I-set. This set may have a disproportionate sense of 'I'-ness. Hence, they care a lot for image., ie., self-image. They have a particular vision of who they are; and may not tolerate those who do not describe things in a manner suiting their self-image (the I-set would like to chastise anyone who does not suit their self-image). This set may claim to have divergent views but within 'themselves', within rules and boundaries set by them. This set may be very concerned about their ritual identity; and may like to promote, justify, or validate social infection just so that they can keep their identities intact. This set may not want to provide solutions; and may consider any form of social responsibility somebody else's problem but never their own. This set most often is made up of brahmins (of this forum), elderly non-brahmins (outside this forum) who care a lot for their self-claimed sampradayam, and rural people across social strata who do not (and cannot) open their mind.

The other set is the We-set. This set may have a disproportionate sense of We-identity (in the sense of being indignant, or 'how can we be like that'). They care 2 hoots for image. They would rather investigate how outcomes came about and find if fixes exist for problems. They have a particular vision of how we all could be. They cannot tolerate anyone who seeks to promote or justify social infection' no matter if it be family members themselves. This set would like to have divergent views without being censured. This set may consider social responsibility their own problem. This set may consist of non-religious nationalists, urban people, moderates, and most often younger population (below age 30).

All people who take part in this forum may belong to one of these two sets, or specific points therein in varying degrees. So does the readership.
 
Last edited:
Where is the proof from shastras that offspring of matrilineal societies were categorized as shudras; or put specifically, ONLY children of matrilineal socities were shudras?

I have seen circular logic like this before. It is not my contention but the contention of the dravidianists and brabas that dharmasasthras classified certain groups as shudras. My opinion is that the classification already existed in society. Dharmasasthras did not create this classification. As I said before, the social rules, laws and requisite conduct for patrilineal society is different from that of matrilineal society. In modern times, both polygamy and polyandry, or sexual union outside marriage for both men and women is something that disgusts most people. Our value systems have changed. That was not the case then. This is something that was discussed before when the issue of nayar marriages came up. One often finds severe criticism of namboodhiris for their exploitation of nayar women whereas the system of tharavad existed before the time of namboodhiris and whatever arrangement that was there suited nayars because they were a matirlineal society. When the patrilineal societies gained upperhand, it is they who degraded the matrilineal societies to Shudra status. In the article I linked, the author points to the connection between the words "caste" and "chaste" and it is worthwhile to note that the fundamental difference between the said societies are related to கற்பு நெறி of womenfolk. In some cases, a matrilineal structure was also forced on some sections. This is because tribes were constantly at war with each other and the winning tribe completely destroyed all men of losing tribe, enslaved women folk and kept them in their harems as concubines. Without support of men, these enslaved womenfolk could have taken up to a matrilineal structure. This, IMO, is the origin of shudra classification. In Tamilakam, Vellalar is the term used for fourth varna. References to நாற்பால் i.e. அரசர், அந்தணர், வைசியன், வெள்ளாளர் can be found from the times of sangam literature. Varna system was not always rigid. During some periods we see the rigidity increasing. Some groups got elevated, some others got degraded and religion was used as a tool.
 
கால பைரவன்;182914 said:
I have seen circular logic like this before. It is not my contention but the contention of the dravidianists and brabas that dharmasasthras classified certain groups as shudras. My opinion is that the classification already existed in society. Dharmasasthras did not create this classification. As I said before, the social rules, laws and requisite conduct for patrilineal society is different from that of matrilineal society. In modern times, both polygamy and polyandry, or sexual union outside marriage for both men and women is something that disgusts most people. Our value systems have changed. That was not the case then. This is something that was discussed before when the issue of nayar marriages came up. One often finds severe criticism of namboodhiris for their exploitation of nayar women whereas the system of tharavad existed before the time of namboodhiris and whatever arrangement that was there suited nayars because they were a matirlineal society. When the patrilineal societies gained upperhand, it is they who degraded the matrilineal societies to Shudra status. In the article I linked, the author points to the connection between the words "caste" and "chaste" and it is worthwhile to note that the fundamental difference between the said societies are related to கற்பு நெறி of womenfolk. In some cases, a matrilineal structure was also forced on some sections. This is because tribes were constantly at war with each other and the winning tribe completely destroyed all men of losing tribe, enslaved women folk and kept them in their harems as concubines. Without support of men, these enslaved womenfolk could have taken up to a matrilineal structure. This, IMO, is the origin of shudra classification. In Tamilakam, Vellalar is the term used for fourth varna. References to நாற்பால் i.e. அரசர், அந்தணர், வைசியன், வெள்ளாளர் can be found from the times of sangam literature. Varna system was not always rigid. During some periods we see the rigidity increasing. Some groups got elevated, some others got degraded and religion was used as a tool.
Circular logic most probably applies more to aryanists and puranic composers; for the very fables they contrived with the idea of controlling society perhaps. Anyways, lets set aside aryanists AKA brahmin saviors as well as dravidianists AKA brahmin bashers; for they are not any different from each other. Just equal reciprocals. Sometimes wish God saved India from both of them.

Coming to the topic, I had already mentioned or discussed the rise of patrilineal tribes, subjugation of women from inimical tribes into concubinage or sexual slavery, creation of harem or vellalars from chola harems etc in older threads. Also already mentioned tribalism is older than brahmanism, just that brahmanism codified stuff useful to them for self-propagation. If any other set had won, we might have had a different set of laws back then. Anyways...

Your perspective requires clarification please. I would like to know if vellalars of sangam period are the same set as vellalars of later-chola period?

WRT sangam period vellalars:
There is not a single sangam period literature which uses the term 'varna'. So, the claim that Vellalar is a term for fourth varna or shudra varna is misplaced. What is the need to apply varna terms to those who do not and did not belong to varna culture? The Vellalar of sangam period were keezhor (low people) because they were farmers; as compared to melor (high people) who were land-owners. No sangam period literature slots rigidity of occupation by birth. Already discussed that here: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/7646-politics-thirukkural-6.html

WRT chola period vellalars:
We do not know if the Chola period harem products were considered illegitimate at that time. Kidnapping women from several tribes and producing offspring from them was not seen as a censurable practice back then (btw, even Krishna of Mahabharat did it) The practice of kidnapping cattle and women existed in cattle herding tribes, so if your contention be true could we say aayar products are shudras? I did not find evidence in Chola edicts that Vellalars were slaves in their time. On the contrary, the vellalars of chola period were land-owners.

Varna was not rigid in the earlier dharmashastra period. It became rigid and strictly birth enforced from the manusmriti and later-dharmashastra period onwards. This too (if I remember right) was discussed in older threads.

Manusmriti slotted several occupational castes in the shudra or non-dvija category; with nothing to indicate they were derived from matrilineal groups. On the contrary, it seems varna always depended on the varna of the father; except in cases where a dvija woman produced offspring from a non-dvija. Am not sure how that fits into your contention that matrilineal structure was the origin of shudra slaves.
 
Last edited:
Who are you to comment about other members' maturity?

The member to whom this post was addressed has responded. You need not have to be his self appointed attorney. And who are you to question me about my comment?

Do you think you have more grey matter more than anybody else?

Are you under the delusion that you are the sole repository of all the grey matter in the world?

And what exactly is your agenda in this forum? Please have the courage to spell it out.

To bash the brahmin bashers. Very clear.

But prepare to get bashed if it doesn't adhere to our grey matter standards.

Just bring it on. Do not issue idle threats.

The virulence you show in each of your posts is simply astounding.

If it appears virulent let it be so. It has to match the sarcasm of some of the posters like you.
 
Brahmins have never abducted any girl or woman. I am waiting for the confirmation that ravana is a brahmin and abducted sita.
 
Many vaishnavite literature refer to fourth varna as vellalar; even today articles in vaishnava journals, only the term 'vellalar' is used.

கால பைரவன்;182914 said:
References to நாற்பால் i.e. அரசர், அந்தணர், வைசியன், வெள்ளாளர் can be found from the times of sangam literature. Varna system was not always rigid. During some periods we see the rigidity increasing. Some groups got elevated, some others got degraded and religion was used as a tool.
 
கால பைரவன்;182914 said:
I have seen circular logic like this before. It is not my contention but the contention of the dravidianists and brabas that dharmasasthras classified certain groups as shudras. My opinion is that the classification already existed in society. Dharmasasthras did not create this classification.

This is what Palindrome herself stated in message no. 122:

The dharmashastra religion codified / legitimized a tribal practice.

Codification is possible only of the extant laws, i.e. such laws were in force. Here is a link to the Merriam-Webster dictionary for a clear definition of the word "Codify"Codify - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

BBs in their enthusiasm would have us believe that it was forced down the throat of the ever gullible public with a sword held at their neck, by creation of a new dharmashastra religion (whatever that is).


 
Last edited:
We have many foreign workers from Pakistan,Bangladesh who come here to work and they end up marrying or cohabiting with Indonesian foreign worker ladies and produce babies.

I was just wondering..God knows who migrated where in yesteryears and we humans might just be some genetic soup of many types of blood for all we know.
 
Last edited:
Many vaishnavite literature refer to fourth varna as vellalar; even today articles in vaishnava journals, only the term 'vellalar' is used.
Perhaps Vaishnavite literature does not want to use the word Shudra as it is legally banned (?). Nevertheless, the point is Varna terms are not applicable to those who did not follow the Varna (aka dharmashastra) culture.

This is what Palindrome herself stated in message no. 122:
The dharmashastra religion codified / legitimized a tribal practice.

Codification is possible only of the extant laws, i.e. such laws were in force. Here is a link to the Merriam-Webster dictionary for a clear definition of the word "Codify"Codify - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

BBs in their enthusiasm would have us believe that it was forced down the throat of the ever gullible public with a sword held at their neck, by creation of a new dharmashastra religion (whatever that is).


Already described twice in this thread itself that tribalism predates brahmanism. Yes ofcourse tribal practices were extant. Brahmanism codified what suited them. Please do not assume public is gullible. At least the youngsters of today are intelligent enough to know Aryanists (Brahmin Saviours) and Dravidianists (Brahmin Bashers) both sought (and still seek) political dominance -- and they know where they should stand; whether it be feudalism, secularism, democracy, dharmashastra religion (aka Smartism or autocracy), or other means of governance. Its only a matter of time before Aryanists and Dravidianists both become irrelevant, due to time, changing practices and mores of living.
 
Banned? Enda jati perai solli thittinalum fir can be registered.
If someone wants to call himself adi dravida kulakozhundu, no one will object. You must ask the peopl what they want to calll themselves instead of gurgitating wiki. All my friends call themselves as chetttiars or vanniyar or kallar.

Our land tenents for 4 generations were kallars; we sold them the land they tilled. Now they too have sold the land for developers and have settled in UK, USA and bangalore. Still they have their kuladeiva song as the caller tone. They are proud of their jati and community and have married among their clans only. As I am proud to be a brahmin, they too are proud of their jati and traditions.

Don't waste time on useless study of castes. Truth is far far different from what you read on the net.

Perhaps Vaishnavite literature does not want to use the word Shudra as it is legally banned (?). Nevertheless, the point is Varna terms are not applicable to those who did not follow the Varna (aka dharmashastra) culture.


Already described twice in this thread itself that tribalism predates brahmanism. Yes ofcourse tribal practices were extant. Brahmanism codified what suited them. Please do not assume public is gullible. At least the youngsters of today are intelligent enough to know Aryanists (Brahmin Saviours) and Dravidianists (Brahmin Bashers) both sought (and still seek) political dominance -- and they know where they should stand; whether it be feudalism, secularism, democracy, dharmashastra religion (aka Smartism or autocracy), or other means of governance. Its only a matter of time before Aryanists and Dravidianists both become irrelevant, due to time, changing practices and mores of living.
 
Brahmins have never abducted any girl or woman. I am waiting for the confirmation that ravana is a brahmin and abducted sita.

The Atharva supposedly belonged to the Asuras. The term Asura in Atharva was not as opprobrious as in the Yajur. Some Atharva verses praise ''Asura, the father'' :Ásura: In Early Vedic Religion - W. Edward Hale - Google Books

The Atharva had knowledge of all 4 vedas; unlike Rig, Sama, Yajur vedins who did not know Atharva abhicharas (even Hanuman supposed to be a vedic scholar knew only 3 vedas). The atharva is associated with secrecy. Ravana was well versed in all 4 vedas and was a brahmin: Valmiki Ramayana - Bala Kanda

The atharva gained ascendency during the time of Mahabharat when sorcery began to be recognized as good: The Mahabharata: A Critical Study 1934 - Promatha Nath Mullick - Google Books

There was a long standing war between the kshatras (kshatriyas) and brahmans. IMO during the itihasa period of Ramayana, the trayivedic group of kshatras (of Rama) upstaged the brahmans; and during the itihasa period of Mahabharat, the brahmans gained ascendency (which can be naturally expected as kuru-panchala is associated with the creation of brahmanas-sacrifical compositions).

The definition of who is a brahman was neither constant over the years nor did different schools share the same opinion on it. The list of gotrakarins as expected differed over years as well; which imo simply means different groups were considered brahmins in different periods of history, all thru tribal period to current. For all you know, the Pulayas might have been brahmins once (IMO they were).
 
Last edited:
Banned? Enda jati perai solli thittinalum fir can be registered.
If someone wants to call himself adi dravida kulakozhundu, no one will object. You must ask the peopl what they want to calll themselves instead of gurgitating wiki. All my friends call themselves as chetttiars or vanniyar or kallar.

Our land tenents for 4 generations were kallars; we sold them the land they tilled. Now they too have sold the land for developers and have settled in UK, USA and bangalore. Still they have their kuladeiva song as the caller tone. They are proud of their jati and community and have married among their clans only. As I am proud to be a brahmin, they too are proud of their jati and traditions.

Don't waste time on useless study of castes. Truth is far far different from what you read on the net.
Jati is not the same as varna. Shudra is a varna term or position; and means a slave or servant. Shudra is an offensive term. Nobody is a slave to anybody in today's times.

Please do not advice me what to do. I neither give you the right nor the position to advice me on things.
 
I am reminded of a joke from S.Ve.Sekhar's drama, wherein he wonders whether tamils need oxygen to survive as oxygen is an english word!

The term Shudra need not have been used to indicate the presence of varna system when the equivalent term vellalar was already in vogue. The term might have been banned today but one can refer to various tamil literature and nikandus published over various times to prove the equivalency of the terms.

For example, one can find the following in divakara nikaNdu, listing the following words for Velaalar:
வினைஞர், சூத்திரர், பின்னவர், சதுர்த்தர், வளமையர், வேளாளர், மண்மகள் புதல்வர், வார்த்தைத் தொழிலோர், (வண்) களமர், உழவர், (சீர்த்த) ஏரின் வாழ்நர், காராளர்.

Bingala NikaNdu says this:
பின்னவர், சதுர்த்தர், பெருக்காளர், வளமையர்,மன்னமுத் தொழிலர், மண்மகள் புதல்வர்,உழவர், ஏரின் வாழ்நர், காராளர்,வினைஞர், மேழியர், வேளாளரென்றிவை
தொகுபெய ரெல்லாஞ் சூத்திரர் பெயரே

As one can see the term Vellalar was synonymous with Shudra. Also refer to the term "சதுர்த்தர்", which indicates the fourth class or varna.
 
கால பைரவன்;182975 said:
I am reminded of a joke from S.Ve.Sekhar's drama, wherein he wonders whether tamils need oxygen to survive as oxygen is an english word!

The term Shudra need not have been used to indicate the presence of varna system when the equivalent term vellalar was already in vogue. The term might have been banned today but one can refer to various tamil literature and nikandus published over various times to prove the equivalency of the terms.

For example, one can find the following in divakara nikaNdu, listing the following words for Velaalar:
வினைஞர், சூத்திரர், பின்னவர், சதுர்த்தர், வளமையர், வேளாளர், மண்மகள் புதல்வர், வார்த்தைத் தொழிலோர், (வண்) களமர், உழவர், (சீர்த்த) ஏரின் வாழ்நர், காராளர்.

Bingala NikaNdu says this:
பின்னவர், சதுர்த்தர், பெருக்காளர், வளமையர்,மன்னமுத் தொழிலர், மண்மகள் புதல்வர்,உழவர், ஏரின் வாழ்நர், காராளர்,வினைஞர், மேழியர், வேளாளரென்றிவை
தொகுபெய ரெல்லாஞ் சூத்திரர் பெயரே

As one can see the term Vellalar was synonymous with Shudra. Also refer to the term "சதுர்த்தர்", which indicates the fourth class or varna.
Interesting.

Please let me know (a) to which time period are the divakara nikandu and bingala nikandu dated (b) in which region or kingdom were they composed (c) who composed them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great find! Shudra is not an offensive term; in fact you people consider brahmin as an offensive term. Everyone is inferior or superior as he views himself to be. You can now start from ana, aavanna! There are enough posts buried in the archives to copy and paste. When nobody is a slave what is the point in saying i am backward, i am a slave, i need reservation and so on.

If a master treats his servant as a slave he can be arrested, prosecuted and put in jail This applies to a shudra enslaving a shudra too. It is nothing to do with the varna. You will be hard pressed to find any brahmin keeping slaves in any period of time.

Jati is not the same as varna. Shudra is a varna term or position; and means a slave or servant. Shudra is an offensive term. Nobody is a slave to anybody in today's times.

Please do not advice me what to do. I neither give you the right nor the position to advice me on things.
 
Palindrome,

#124: Palindrome:
(1)
Untruths happen when certain people seek to conceal their doing. Whether it be colonial period or a time period little earlier to that. Prejudice is all over the dharmashastras. All over society. Instead of seeking to cure and remove infection; there are people who wish prejudice is fed milk, grows or remains; because it is all about their own self-claimed birth position within the hijacked term 'hinduism'. This applies to jaundiced people of any dwelling, urban or rural; or any current classification, B or NB.

This para is an enigma wrapped in invisible paper. Going by what is written here, untruths, if they happen, do they not become truth. Who are these “certain people”? What is the prejudice in Dharma shastras? Who wants to feed which prejudices with milk? Unless we get what is in your mind clearly we won’t understand what you have written here and so can not answer. Please elaborate. Please come out in the open with your formulations avoiding oblique references. You will get an answer.

(2)
Birth stratification was never entrenched in societies where social organization was based on clan kinship. It was non existent in Sangam period in Tamil regions. This was already discussed in this forum earlier. Some links are A Few Glimpses from South Indian History and Politics of Thirukkural

What is this clan kinship? What is the difference between this and castes? Please elaborate.

(3)
Dharmashastras codified selective tribal practices, ie., practices which helped self-survival of those who followed it. They must have been written in various places in northern parts of India. There is no evidence to show dharmashastras were written or followed in Sangam period in South India. The penetration of varna terms happened from the Shatavahana period in Andhra and was non-existent in Andhra also before that.

What is the meaning of the word “kulam” (குலம்) in Tamil? Please give an answer. I will deal with your contention after getting your answer to this.


Palindrome # 134

There are 2 types of people in this world.
One is the I-set. This set may have a disproportionate sense of 'I'-ness. Hence, they care a lot for image., ie., self-image. They have a particular vision of who they are; and may not tolerate those who do not describe things in a manner suiting their self-image (the I-set would like to chastise anyone who does not suit their self-image). This set may claim to have divergent views but within 'themselves', within rules and boundaries set by them. This set may be very concerned about their ritual identity; and may like to promote, justify, or validate social infection just so that they can keep their identities intact. This set may not want to provide solutions; and may consider any form of social responsibility somebody else's problem but never their own. This set most often is made up of brahmins (of this forum), elderly non-brahmins (outside this forum) who care a lot for their self-claimed sampradayam, and rural people across social strata who do not (and cannot) open their mind.

I remember what an economist said in a forum. The economists put everything that they did not understand in Economics into a pigeon-hole and labeled it ‘inflation’. They thought they had successfully dealt with and contained inflation.

The possibility that the I set you have mentioned may have among themselves brilliant people who can look at things in their proper perspective and yet have an I-ness, a self-esteem, a realistic assessment and awareness of their own strengths and weaknesses even while having a clear understanding of the weaknesses and strengths of others in the society has completely escaped your comprehension. That is unfortunate and that makes your argument hollow. Just as you have a particular vision and you feel passionate about its correctness others also may have their own visions. What is your qualification to say that their vision is ‘Brahmin’ (and hence wrong) vision and your vision which identifies and names it is a superior vision?


The other set is the We-set. This set may have a disproportionate sense of We-identity (in the sense of being indignant, or 'how can we be like that'). They care 2 hoots for image. They would rather investigate how outcomes came about and find if fixes exist for problems. They have a particular vision of how we all could be. They cannot tolerate anyone who seeks to promote or justify social infection' no matter if it be family members themselves. This set would like to have divergent views without being censured. This set may consider social responsibility their own problem. This set may consist of non-religious nationalists, urban people, moderates, and most often younger population (below age 30).
All people who take part in this forum may belong to one of these two sets, or specific points therein in varying degrees. So does the readership.

There are contradictions in your statement. If this set, which you call We-set, is indignant it would mean they care for the image. With whom are they indignant? You are saying they can not tolerate any one who seeks to promote or justify social infection (whatever it means, I take it here as caste system). Don’t you understand that the ‘social infection’ is not a newly acquired syndrome, that it is a given condition about which humanity can not do much? People with different abilities to do different professions is a given condition. Non-religious nationalists, urban people, moderates and younger population (age <30) all mean nothing. These are also people with different abilities and so can fall into any of the four castes. The bottom line is that caste is not equal to an icon in a totem pole and different castes do not mean anything superior or inferior between them. With this perception please look at the whole thing. If you still find enough incendiary material to set the globe or Bharatvarsh on fire please understand that it is all politics and that you have been brain washed by politicians..
 
Sangom #128:

(1)
Your observations given above shows what your own agenda is. It is rather characteristic of many of the self-professed brahministic members here to imagine for themselves a very glorious and blameless past for the (vedic) brahmins.

If anti-brahmin members have the characteristic of crediting the Brahmins with all the cunningness, devilish intents, a blameful, infamous/notorious and regrettable past, it is the right of Brahmin members to think about themselves the other way. So don’t mourn so loudly now and then about what these Brahmin members say here. Cut the clutter and put forward your arguments and they will be accepted or rejected on the basis of their inherent strength and reason because Brahmins here have the maturity and broad mind to accept constructive criticism if supported by logic and reason.


(2)
But the available evidence from our many scriptures reveals that the various pronouncements regarding castes or varnas (as originally found in the Purushsukta of the Rigveda) have emanated under the authorship of people who are considered to be the authors of the various Dharma Sastras, Puranas (all but one, believed to be written by one veda vyAsa: we may, for the sake of our avowed aim of bailing out brahmins from any blame for anything wrong or unseemly, intentional or unintentional, hereafter, brand Vedavyasa or Krishnadwaipayana, as one may choose, as a fisherman!!) and other scriptures are all held to be either Rishia or brahmins.

Basic problem is that the varna that you understand is the divisive one with totemic higher and lower positions, the ‘difference’ automatically getting translated into superior and inferior connotations and the resultant exploitation and atrocities. You are so much sold on this kind of varna system that you (like all the casteist politicians) look for supporting evidences from the scriptures to strengthen your prejudice. Scriptures being mostly shrouded in enigmatic Sanskrit you collect material to fatten your perception and then come here to unload all that accumulated ‘wisdom’. In your mission you also rely heavily on foreign authors like A.A. Macdonnell (Vedic Reader) who was a confused man himself. Because you have been repeatedly quoting from Purusasukta in support of your views about castes and Apaurusheyatvam of the Vedas I am dealing with it first here. Macdonnell said that Purusasukta not only presupposed a knowledge of
the three oldest Vedas which it referred by name but also that for the first and only time in the Rg veda mentioned the four castes. He also said the material out of which the world is made was the body of a primeval giant named Purusa. This is exactly like saying Shivling means the phallus of Shiva (this meaning has been accepted by many westernized intellectuals in India). I am not going into the other untruths said by Mcdonnell. I take up only the castes part of it here as you have repeatedly quoted this. In Purusasukta the caste system unique to India is not referred to. The hymn deals with cosmic creation and it is absurd to limit it to India. The four universal kinds of occupations which prevails and must prevail for all time, not only in this world but in all the worlds are meant here. 1. Brahmins are those inclined to spiritual and intellectual pursuits 2. Kshatriyas are those engaged in governing countries and large bodies of men and military. 3. vaisyas are persons engaged in agriculture and commerce 4. Sudras are those engaged in menial services. Please refer to Mahabharata, Santiparva, adhyaya 192 where this division is applied even to gods. There are people who have a habit of interpreting our scriptures with the help of foreign languages and with foreign minds. They have even gone to the extent of saying that Purusasuktam speaks about human sacrifice. This is the hangover of the political subjugation of India by the British. Purusasuktam expressly mentions that the sacrifice referred to therein is a kalpana, purely imaginary.
Purusasuktam just says :

asya mukham-the face of the virat purusa; brahmanaha AsIth-became the Brahmin;
bAhu rAjanya kruthaha-both arms were formed into the kshatriya; asya yath UrU thath vysyaha-His thighs were made into vysya; pathbyAm-from his feet; sUdra ajAyatha-was born the sUdra;

This(Rk 13) and succeeding verses are the replies of BrahmavAdins to the questions posed in Rk 12. The answers start with the creation of man over the entire universe. Hence those who want to deduce the institution of the caste system in India from this Rk like professor Macdonnel and you are entirely wrong. The context is about the cosmic creation of universe and not India. The caste system came much later. The Rk refers to the four kinds of activities of men which are valid at all times in all worlds. In the Rk 13 all the four orders are stated to have sprung alike from the limbs of Purusa. Moreover there is nothing good or bad, superior or inferior between face, arms, thighs or feet of God unless you approach the subject with an ulterior motive and secret agenda. If you need proof that the context is indeed cosmic creation and not creation of Bharatvarsh the next Rk goes on to speak about creation of moon, sun, Indra, Agni and wind. I am sure you and your friend Mcdonnell will agree that it was not Indian moon, Indian Sun, Indian Agni or Indian vAyu that is talked about. The Rsi, the seer of the Purusasukta was Narayana Rsi. That settles the question of apaurushEyatvam of Vedas squarely. This is the meaning of ‘Aham Veda’ in the first word of Rk 16 of PS.



The self-professed brahmin-savers including yourself possibly had been finding solace for quite sometime now, by insisting that all such scriptures which established the caste system and the more pernicious untouchability, were written by the meek, sAttveeki brahmins under threat and compulsion from the other two forward castes, viz., the kshatriyas and the vaisyas.

Whether you like it or not that is unfortunately the truth. The numbers speak for themselves. 2% and 98%. Can you give a concise and reasoned answer to this simple paradox with numbers?

Cheers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top