Let us reclaim our rights

[palindrome]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.

Why do you assume brahmin is an offensive term? Do you think you are a brahmin? If so, why? If you are an Iyengar, from which period do you think your culture was recognized as brahmin? If you are an Iyer, specify if you are a gurukkal or a smartha. If a gurukkal, you are no vedic brahmin -- you are just an agamic priest who had nothing to do with brahmanism (militant subjugation of people). For that matter, Iyengars too were most likely just agamic priests.

Different schools interpreted the term brahmin differently. Agamic priests probably consider themselves brahmin because to them their ritualism involves knowledge of brahman, karma, and appeasement of spirits. But the claim that they are brahmins is just a contention, a claim.

Shudra varna is a class of servants and slaves in the dharmashastras. A class which was tortured into being kept as slaves. It is indeed all about varna. There are no slaves today. Would you dare call someone shudra on their face directly in public today? Do you think you are a 'brahmin' and someone is your slave just because of your birth or their birth? If you think you are a brahmin today, explain in what manner?

 

[palindrome]

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.

I find all Niganthu literature was Jain. Amongst the earliest is Adi-Divakara niganthu dated to 7th century AD (Ref here). According to this source the first lexicon or Nighantu took shape in the Tamil language as an independent and new treatise in the 9th century when Divakara wrote Divakaram.

By 7th century AD varna terms had already penetrated into south, so it not surprising Jaina literature used the terms, shudra and chathurtha, to describe certain people; though of course Jains did not create the class of shudras nor did varna system pertain to their own culture.

If possible, please provide a verse from the divakara or pingala niganthu in which vellalars are mentioned as சூத்திரர் (shudras), or சதுர்த்தர் (chaturthas). It would be interesting to know why Jaina literature categorized Vellalars as shudras in that time period; and also reasons why they were considered so? Would also like to know if velallars were matrilineal, and what connection exists between matrilineal societies and shudra slavery?

Kidnapping brides existed in patrilineal groups too. If your contention be true, then offspring of cattle herding groups who involved in cattle raids and capturing of women, formed the class of slaves or shudras. Since biological descent cannot be proven today, we may have to go by the descent of ritual culture. That means anyone who says keshavam pratigacchati to send oblations to the king from a cattle herding group is a shudra?

 

[sangom]

Sangom #128:

(1)

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.

I am glad to know that brahmin members (including your great self, are only reacting to the so-balled and so-perceived anti-brahmin members' statements and that in reality they don't have any serious and original arguments of their own. Who says "satyamevajayatenānṛtam" is untrue !

(2)

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.

Thanks. Looks like you have had a fresh study of PS. But still, only three of the four vedas seem to come out of the Purusha sacrifice and the fourth one goes outside the "creation of man over the entire universe".! And hence it cannot be said that the vedas were eternal.

Now, coming to the details, the Rk.12, it says —

यत्पुरुषं व्यदधुः कतिधा व्यकल्पयन् ।
मुखं किमस्य कौ बाहू कावूरू पादा उच्येते ॥

yatpuruṣaṃ vyadadhuḥ katidhā vyakalpayan |
mukhaṃ kimasya kau bāhū kāvūrū pādā ucyete ||

yat = when, vyadadhuḥ = they divided, puruṣaṃ = the puruṣa (who was sacrificed), katidhā = into how many parts, vyakalpayan= did they form Him, kim = what was, asya = His, mukham = mouth, face, kau = what two, ucyete = have been called, bāhū =arms, kau =what two, ūrū = thighs, pādā = feet.

Hence it will be seen that there is no express or even implied reference that it is all an imaginary story. To the enquiry about the number of parts to which the cosmic purusha was cut into and what was or became from the different severed parts of the sacrificial pasu, the next Rk (13) gives the answer as follows:

ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमास्सेद्बाहूराजन्यः कृतः ।
ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत ॥

brāhmaṇo:'sya mukhamāsīdbāhūrājanyaḥ kṛtaḥ |
ūrū tadasya yadvaiśyaḥ padbhyāṃ śūdro ajāyata ||

Here, the word āsīd does not mean "became" but rather "was"; to put it in Tamil ப்ராஹ்மணர்கள் அதனுடைய முகமாக இருந்தார்கள் (prāhmaṇarkaḷ ataṉuṭaiya mukamāka iruntārkaḷ). The rAjanyaH or kshatriyas constituted (kṛtaḥ) its arms; those who are (were) the vaiSyas constituted its thighs. The Sudras came out (sprang) from its feet. Such will be a more correct meaning and FYKI I am depending on a book on PS by one Shri B.V. Kameswara Iyer and not Mcdonnell, your new found whipping boy and imaginary adversary who is to be saddled with all the sins

It therefore clearly shows that even if the PS was/is a creation legend and some parts of which may be imaginary, when it comes to answering the specific questions posed in Rk12, the answer given in Rk 13 appears very much to be an iteration of the social set-up of those vedic times. The reference to the sun, moon, agni and wind cannot be taken to mean that it reflects universal creation; on the contrary the sun, moon, wind and fire are known world-wide and the vedic Rishi also therefore knew about these, that was all. As for Indra, this reference once again limits the imaginary creation to within the small vedic compass, since indra, unlike sun, moon, wind or fire is not known outside of the bharatavarsha. Even if we take the circuitous and laborious (like equally circuitous and laborious argument of the kshatriyas and vaisyas blackmailing/threatening the brahmins to write scriptures according to the former's convenience ), way of saying that Indra signifies thunder, we will be left with the accompanying lightning or vidyut! which is not included.

Hence it will be clear to any unbiased observer who is not haunted by any Mcdonnell ghost, that the four classes viz., brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, śūdra, which already existed in the vedic society has been superimposed into the PS by means of this Q & A exercise. Even Shri Kamesvara Iyer, who disagrees with the western orientalists, has this to say:

"Granting then that the caste-system was a human institution or a gradual growth, it must have been in existence (of course only in its broadest outlines) so long before the time of this sukta that it should have been thought at that time to be coeval with the beginning of things."

The names of Rishis and devatas for the various riks were allotted or fixed in a subsequent period and so it may not be easy to prove that Narayana a.k.a Vishnu, himself composed this sukta. There is also the danger then that Narayana becomes a Rishi who possibly participated in the purusha sacrifice in order to create and hence he, Narayana, is not the root cause of this universe. I hope you will have some way to justify your belief, just as it is said to tie a knot between a bald head and the knee (மொட்டைத்தலைக்கும் முழங்காலுக்கும் முடிச்சுப்போடறது).

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.

Just because of the percentages we cannot come to the conclusion that the brahmins consisting of 98% were held to ransom by the 2% NBs. Even if the numbers were reverse, it is quite evident from the social history of India till the 20th. century that the numerically small brahmins commanded the top position in the society and their words were obeyed as divine law. It is only since the last 80 or 90 years that the sand under the brahmins' feet has been washed away and he has been made powerless.

 

[suraju06]

Reference post #153 by Sangom:

I am leaving all the clutter and verbiage in the post under reference and am taking only the substantive arguments for discussion. Hope people learn how to avoid filling up space with clutter.

(1)

Looks like you have had a fresh study of PS. But still, only three of the four vedas seem to come out of the Purusha sacrifice and the fourth one goes outside the "creation of man over the entire universe".! And hence it cannot be said that the vedas were eternal.

No fresh study. I chant PS every day as part of nitya aradanam and as I chant it I live it for I know the meaning well. It is wrong to infer that the three Vedas are referred to by name in purusasuktam. What is referred to as rk, yajus and sAma are the peculiar castings of the hymns at a time when the Vedas had not been classified and grouped. The Vedas were originally a heterogenous and confused mass. Rks were verses with fixed letters. sAma were verses with fixed letters set to music. Yajus were portions with no verses. The vedic metres are seven in number. This interpretation that the Vedas are not referred to here (as it was a confused mass before classification and codification by Vyasa) is accepted by many learned vedic pundits from smartha and vaishnava sampradhaya.

(2)

Now, coming to the details, the Rk.12, it says —
yatpuruṣaṃ vyadadhuḥ katidhā vyakalpayan |
mukhaṃ kimasya kau bāhū kāvūrū pādā ucyete ||
yat = when, vyadadhuḥ = they divided, puruṣaṃ = the puruṣa (who was sacrificed), katidhā = into how many parts, vyakalpayan= did they form Him, kim = what was, asya = His, mukham = mouth, face, kau = what two, ucyete = have been called, bāhū =arms, kau =what two, ūrū = thighs, pādā = feet.

Hence it will be seen that there is no express or even implied reference that it is all an imaginary story. To the enquiry about the number of parts to which the cosmic purusha was cut into and what was or became from the different severed parts of the sacrificial pasu, the next Rk (13) gives the answer as follows:

brāhmaṇo:'sya mukhamāsīdbāhūrājanyaḥ kṛtaḥ |
ūrū tadasya yadvaiśyaḥ padbhyāṃ śūdro ajāyata ||

Here, the word āsīd does not mean "became" but rather "was"; to put it in Tamil ப்ராஹ்மணர்கள் அதனுடைய முகமாக இருந்தார்கள் (prāhmaṇarkaḷ ataṉuṭaiya mukamāka iruntārkaḷ). The rAjanyaH or kshatriyas constituted (kṛtaḥ) its arms; those who are (were) the vaiSyas constituted its thighs. The Sudras came out (sprang) from its feet. Such will be a more correct meaning and FYKI I am depending on a book on PS by one Shri B.V. Kameswara Iyer and not Mcdonnell, your new found whipping boy and imaginary adversary who is to be saddled with all the sins

To understand the meaning and the context you have to go back to Rk 5 with which the process of first creation ends. In Rk 6 there is a lot which makes it a mental sacrifice – purusa himself being offered as havis-the votive food offering, the spring season itself being conceived as the clarified butter or ghee to be poured into the fire (vasantho asyasith Ajyam),the summer being conceived as the dried faggot to be fed into the fire (grIshma idma Asith), the autumn was conceived as the havis (shard havi)-all suggest the process was a mental one. Moreover as the creation had just started and was not yet complete all the sacrificial articles were yet to come and hence in a mental process the gods did this yajna.

Further through Rk 7 where it is again suggested that seven paridhis (here the seven vedic metres according to sAyana) and 21 samidhs (again according to sAyana 12 months,5 seasons 3worlds and the sun) were all used in the imaginary yajna upto Rk 12 sAyana reiterates in his commentary for every Rk that it was only a mAnasa yajna, a mental sacrifice. The flow and sequence of events described gives scope for only this interpretation.

Whether ‘became’ or ‘was’ is the correct meaning is nitpicking. You have not given a single reason as to why you consider the Brahman, kshatriya, vysya and sudra mentioned in PS exactly represents the totemic caste icons you hang on to and use to whip Brahmins with.

And as for the fact that the four divisions mentioned are in a universal context and not in the context of bharathvarsha you have not given any logical rebuttal. So I am ready to leave it to a poll among our members. They can decide as to whether an impartial reader of the relevant Rk in PS would think that it is not presented in a universal context or a Bharathvarsh context.

To sum up it would be clear to any impartial reader who does not carry the burden of half baked understanding of scriptures that the Brahmin, kshatriya, vysya and sudra mentioned in PS are in a universal context without any relation to the totemic castes which were a later addition to the Indian society. I reiterate India is very small part of the universe and PS speaks about the creation of the universe. The caste system in India came many centuries later. PS did not institutionalise the totemic caste system of India. Those who insist otherwise are people who are either myopic and do not understand scriptures or who have a secret political agenda.

The names of Rishis and devatas for the various riks were allotted or fixed in a subsequent period and so it may not be easy to prove that Narayana a.k.a Vishnu, himself composed this sukta. There is also the danger then that Narayana becomes a Rishi who possibly participated in the purusha sacrifice in order to create and hence he, Narayana, is not the root cause of this universe. I hope you will have some way to justify your belief, just as it is said to tie a knot between a bald head and the knee (மொட்டைத்தலைக்கும் முழங்காலுக்கும் முடிச்சுப்போடறது).

I never accepted anywhere that Narayana Rshi was the composer of PS. I do not know where from you got this piece of info. I maintain that Narayana Rshi was only a drashta of the PS. My position is that PS being a part of ever present Vedas (apaurusheya) Narayana Rshi was only a later day drashta of it. Period. If you think this is tying மொட்டைத்தலை with முழங்கால் I will have to conclude that you do not know any of them – the மொட்டைத்தலை, முழங்கால் or முடிச்சு.

I said:

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?


You said: Just because of the percentages we cannot come to the conclusion that the brahmins consisting of 98% were held to ransom by the 2% NBs. Even if the numbers were reverse, it is quite evident from the social history of India till the 20th. century that the numerically small brahmins commanded the top position in the society and their words were obeyed as divine law. It is only since the last 80 or 90 years that the sand under the brahmins' feet has been washed away and he has been made powerless.

I searched for meaning and info in what you had said in reply to what I said. But I found nothing. I found only the adamant reiteration of your pet belief. Keep it and be happy with it. I will not try to pull you out of your comfortable domain.

Cheers.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

For some of the questions that Palindrome raises here regarding origin of shudra category, answers can be found in the article that I have already linked. I would recommend reading that article in detail or if she finds it difficult to read in tamil I kindly suggest that she seeks help. When I mentioned about patrilineal societies gaining ascendancy and degrading matrilineal societies, I was talking about the origin of shudra class. The rigidity of the varna system did not remain the same as some here would like to believe. Over time, one sees different social groups moving up and down the varna ladder. If varna is strictly defined by birth, is this possible? Palindrome herself has written many times about different groups claiming brahmin and kshatirya status. Doesn't this contradict the stand that the varna classification is strictly defined atbirth?

I provided a few examples from nikandu to show the equivalence of the terms vellalar and shudra. References to varna system of tamilakam can be found in other literature right from sangam period -tholkappiam, puRanAnUru (I had given this verse in this forum before: "வேற்றுமைதெரிந்தநாற்பாலுள்ளும்...") through what is called"காப்பியகாலம்" including silappathikAram, maNimEkalai, sIvaka sinthAmani to later day literature such as புறப்பொருள் வெண்பாமாலை and various nikandus. It is dravidianist hogwash that four varna system never existed in TN and that there were only brahmins and shudras.

 

[sangom]

For some of the questions that Palindrome raises here regarding origin of shudra category, answers can be found in the article that I have already linked. I would recommend reading that article in detail or if she finds it difficult to read in tamil I kindly suggest that she seeks help. When I mentioned about patrilineal societies gaining ascendancy and degrading matrilineal societies, I was talking about the origin of shudra class. The rigidity of the varna system did not remain the same as some here would like to believe. Over time, one sees different social groups moving up and down the varna ladder. If varna is strictly defined by birth, is this possible? Palindrome herself has written many times about different groups claiming brahmin and kshatirya status. Doesn't this contradict the stand that the varna classification is strictly defined atbirth?

I provided a few examples from nikandu to show the equivalence of the terms vellalar and shudra. References to varna system of tamilakam can be found in other literature right from sangam period -tholkappiam, puRanAnUru (I had given this verse in this forum before: "வேற்றுமைதெரிந்தநாற்பாலுள்ளும்...") through what is called"காப்பியகாலம்" including silappathikAram, maNimEkalai, sIvaka sinthAmani to later day literature such as புறப்பொருள் வெண்பாமாலை and various nikandus. It is dravidianist hogwash that four varna system never existed in TN and that there were only brahmins and shudras.

Shri KB,

Contrary to what shri Zebra says, I find that of late your observations are nearer to the truth and not blinkered by any overzealous pro-brahmin sentiments. I appreciated the Tamil blog by Shri Pravaahan and also agree with most of your observations above.

In my view the four-varna system existed in the vedic society from time immemmorial and perhaps it is a relic from those ages when the Zend believers (Parsis of today) and the rigvedic people lived together somewhere in Baluchistan or Afghanistan or even Iran itself. The old Iranian caste groups were called asronih in Sassanid Iran (the hereditary priesthood in old Iran), the (r)atheshtarih (nobility, soldiers, and civil servants), vastaryoshih (farmers and herdsmen), hutokshih (artisans and laborers); the three non-priestly classes were formed into an all-comprehensive class among the Parsis (who fled to India in 717 A.D.) known as the behdini (“followers of daena“, or “good religion”).Is Caste Only a Hindu Problem? Potpourri of Castes in India (Part 5) | The Chakra News

All the four categories were considered as part of their society, unlike the Sudras of India, and there was no taboo on the hutokshih; I am not aware, as to whether untouchability was practised. In the Indian context, we find even in the rigveda a special exclusion as regards the fourth category or sUdras. In the PS, one finds that the brahmins, rAjanya and vaisya formed the mouth, arms and thighs of the immolated Purusha whereas the sUdra alone is stated to have sprung (ajAyata) from the feet of that purusha.

Even in the 8th. Mandala of the Rgveda, sukta-35, Rks 16 to 18 we can find the Rishi, SyAvASva, praying to the aswins to please the brahmins, kshatra, the milch cattle (dhEnuH) and the vaiSyas but there is no mention of the sUdra there.

Hence, it appears as if the vedic society considered the sUdras as separate from themselves right from the very early days and this "distancing" took on gradually more and more strength from successive scriptures like the Dharma sastras, the epics, puranas and so on, till a complete "untouchability" concept made its entry.

Though Shri suraju states that the four-fold classification of society is something like a universal law, I feel the Tamil blog to which you referred to (which deals in some details about the caste systems in different African countries) as also available evidence from other sources, indicate that this is not/has not been true of all societies in this world. What looks to me more plausible as a universal rule is that at some stage of development of each human society, it was found that there should be one class to be exploited and others should enjoy the fruits of the toil of such exploited class/groups. These two larger divisions — the exploited and the exploiters — might have taken various shapes in each society; for example, in the traditional hindu society the exploited class (sUdra) was supplied with one echelon even below it, named the "Panchama" or Chandala so that the sUdra might not go out of control of the exploiting classes and be happy to have yet another group at their beck and call. Such a facility perhaps could not happen in some other countries or social formations.

Over time, at least in the Indian hindu society, there has been caste groups moving up as well as down the Varna categories ladder. I have the feeling that each group wanted to climb up the ladder and occupy the highest position (viz., Brahmin varna), the higher castes were always careful to see and ensure that the 'exploited' class or category did not get radically depleted. That is why we see that the rathakAa who had a significant role in the vedic sacrifices, got demoted to sUdra category as time passed. The same applies to many artisans' categories like potters, blacksmiths, goldsmiths, fishermen etc.

Tabras had a facile way of putting all non-brahmins under the umbrella term "soothiran" (சூத்திரன்) in their day-to-day talk. Slowly, this appellation resulted in all Nbs getting more or less identical treatment from the brahmins in their heydays. The OP actually calls upon us to regain our status which we enjoyed in those heydays. But the world has changed topsy turvy and hence imho, it will not be possible for the brahmins to get back what we lost, even if it is the meekness and highly sAtveeki nature of the brahmins (as often repeated by the pro-brahmin group in this Forum) or the power and standing of the kshatriyas and vaisyas which also is perceived as having depended, once upon a time, on the meek and highly sAtveeki brahmins to write out the social codes to help the former to maintain their sway on the society.

Let us accept these truths and move forward to a new world for the brahmin, uncluttered by the baggage of all the past. Let us not dream of reclaiming our rights but establish a new set of rights by virtue of hard work, honesty and freedom from religious clutter (a word which seems to be the favourite of raju, may be because he has an abundance of it in his mind and intellect ;)).

 

[palindrome]

For some of the questions that Palindrome raises here regarding origin of shudra category, answers can be found in the article that I have already linked. I would recommend reading that article in detail or if she finds it difficult to read in tamil I kindly suggest that she seeks help. When I mentioned about patrilineal societies gaining ascendancy and degrading matrilineal societies, I was talking about the origin of shudra class. The rigidity of the varna system did not remain the same as some here would like to believe. Over time, one sees different social groups moving up and down the varna ladder. If varna is strictly defined by birth, is this possible? Palindrome herself has written many times about different groups claiming brahmin and kshatirya status. Doesn't this contradict the stand that the varna classification is strictly defined atbirth?

I provided a few examples from nikandu to show the equivalence of the terms vellalar and shudra. References to varna system of tamilakam can be found in other literature right from sangam period -tholkappiam, puRanAnUru (I had given this verse in this forum before: "வேற்றுமைதெரிந்தநாற்பாலுள்ளும்...") through what is called"காப்பியகாலம்" including silappathikAram, maNimEkalai, sIvaka sinthAmani to later day literature such as புறப்பொருள் வெண்பாமாலை and various nikandus. It is dravidianist hogwash that four varna system never existed in TN and that there were only brahmins and shudras.

The article you linked is this one by a member of SISHRI and pertains specifically to the Nayar community: It is outright silly to expect that all shudras originated from matrilineal societies -- the article itself conveys no such thing.

In matrilineal societies the female could choose her mate. In patrilineal societies a female was property owned by the male -- the male could kidnap a girl, slay her kinsmen, even rape her and then so-called 'marry' her. She was his legal wife. And this is what the dharmashastra manusmriti codifies. Mentally sick barbarians, IMO (esp considering manu also prescribes or accepts pedophilia).

The class of Shudras in the Dharmashastras includes people of a wide variety of occupations -- it was based on occupation fixed by birth. Not just in older threads of this forum, but in several books too, one can find details on the Shudra class. This class was made up of:

(a) males of tribes who did not support the dharmashastra religion. We had earlier discussed how one tribe (either a single tribe or a confederacy) would defeat inimical groups, kidnap their females, subjugate them into concubinage, harems, numerous wives (princely classes had numerous wives, several princely classes and chieftain also claimed to be brahmins).
(b) priests of other religions who did not support dharmashastra religion were classed as untouchables.

Tribes who did not support dharmashastra religion included people of different religions, buddhists, jains, agamic, tribal. It did not depend whether they were matriarchal or patriarchal. They were just enemies of the dharmashastra religion.

Reg varna mobility, time and again, have already said varna was not rigid in the earlier dharmashastra period. A group could go up and down the varna ladder. Even rules of marriage differed in earlier dharmashastras (swagotra weddings were preferred then). In older threads I had already provided excerpts from Rajbali Pandey's book Hindu Samskaras on this. The reasoning of earlier times (imo) was simple, they probably wanted wealth to stay within family.

Varna became fixed in the later dharmashastra period. This was from the time of Manusmriti onwards (from 200 AD onwards) when militant groups claiming to be brahmins created fixed laws -- even a child at birth itself had to be named reflecting his varna. See post # 124. This pertains to patrilineal groups; rules made by them. Indeed the rise of patrilineal groups resulted in gross downgradation, degradation, of the female human species. This must have affected everyone (who fought off dharmashastra proponents) not just matrilineal societies.

There was absolutely no varna system in south India during the sangam period. The first to fall for varna terms was a region in present day andhra during the Shatavahana period. The Tamil region fell only later (IMO in later-Chola period ). This was discussed in several old threads including the one Kalabhairava refers to.

Sangam period literature describes various groups and various occupations. Point to note is:

(a) There is not a single sangam period literature which uses varna terms brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya, shudra; South India was not part of Aryavarta.
(b) No sangam literature slots people rigidly into occupations fixed by birth. This was because prevailing religions in South India then were jain, buddhist, agamic or tribal.There was no dharmashastra religion in Sangam period in Tamilakam.
(c) All Niganthus were Jain, composed after 7th century AD, ie., after varna terms had already penetrated into Tamil regions. So far it appears to me, Niganthus merely borrowed varna terms to include or represent some people in their literature. Am told Niganthus do not categorize offspring of matrilineal societies into shudra. On the contrary, many jain groups were matrilineal themselves.

Kalabhairava's contention that Shudras arose from matrilineal societies has no standing whatsoever. Nor do we have any proof that offspring of kidnapped brides were considered so -- if that be true, then offspring of all cattle-herding communities, including their warriors, priests, traders, etc would be Shudras. And if so, this contention would be problematic to Ayar / aayar communities such as iyers and iyengars themselves.

The only thing am keen on finding out now is whether vellalars were matrilineal in the past. So far I find, the vellalar class arose in different ways. One, from chola harems. Second, from kallars, maravars, agamudaiyars (who rose in social position to claim of themselves as vellalar). Third, from communities of peasants and other occupational groups who in the colonial period claimed to be vellalars.

No one cares about dravidianist hogwash or aryanist hogwash these days. The younger readership is far too open minded to fall for crappy claims.

 

[palindrome]

Sangom Sir,

This query maybe connected to post # 156.

Was reading the Valmiki Ramayan and found some verses that might not go well with some. This particular one stuck me (from Sundara Kanda when Hanuman went to Lanka):
SaDaN^gavedaviduSaam kratupravarayaajinaam |
shushraava brahmaghoSaan sa viraatre brahmarakshasaam || 5-18-2
Meaning:
Hanuman heard Vedic sounds early in the morning of Brahma Rakshasas well versed in six parts of Vedas and those who performed excellent sacrifices.

Many believe brahmins arose from Devas. Or belonged to the Deva faction. Not many accept, the class of Rakshasas and Asuras also had brahmins. What are your views on that?

 

[கால பைரவன்]

There is no use if one insists "நான் பிடித்த முயலுக்கு மூணே கால்". It has been already clarified that just because the exact arya varna terms did not appear in tamil literature, it does not mean varna system did not exist. The equivalent varna terms in tamilakam was அரசர், அந்தணர், வணிகர், வெள்ளாளர். Reference to these terms are in tolkappiyam itself. Is tholkappiyam a sangam age literature or not? When it is being said that the varna system, whether one thinks it is aryan or dravidian, was not rigid and and was changing constantly, claiming that the tamil varna system was different from arya varna system because of the difference in semantic term is a specious argument.

The main duty assigned to vellalars as defined in tamil literature is மேல் மூவர்க்கு ஏவல் செய்தல். Please note that it matches with the duties assigned to people classified as Shudra class. Not only this, even the duties assigned to other tamil varnas match with those what is present in treatises such as artha sasthra and manu dharma sasthra. IMO, rules that were existing in tamilakam were codified into different dharma sasthras. When the rules changed, the sasthras also followed suit.

People who are interested in getting at the "truth" may try to research about what the terms "வேளம்", "வேளாண்மை", "விருந்தோம்பல்" meant actually and try and deduce the connection to வேளாளர்.

The dravidianist trick of putting all the blame on brahmins, on account of dharmasasthras, will no longer work!

 

[palindrome]

There is no use if one insists "நான் பிடித்த முயலுக்கு மூணே கால்". It has been already clarified that just because the exact arya varna terms did not appear in tamil literature, it does not mean varna system did not exist. The equivalent varna terms in tamilakam was அரசர், அந்தணர், வணிகர், வெள்ளாளர். Reference to these terms are in tolkappiyam itself. Is tholkappiyam a sangam age literature or not? When it is being said that the varna system, whether one thinks it is aryan or dravidian, was not rigid and and was changing constantly, claiming that the tamil varna system was different from arya varna system because of the difference in semantic term is a specious argument.

The main duty assigned to vellalars as defined in tamil literature is மேல் மூவர்க்கு ஏவல் செய்தல். Please note that it matches with the duties assigned to people classified as Shudra class. Not only this, even the duties assigned to other tamil varnas match with those what is present in treatises such as artha sasthra and manu dharma sasthra. IMO, rules that were existing in tamilakam were codified into different dharma sasthras. When the rules changed, the sasthras also followed suit.

People who are interested in getting at the "truth" may try to research about what the terms "வேளம்", "வேளாண்மை", "விருந்தோம்பல்" meant actually and try and deduce the connection to வேளாளர்.

The dravidianist trick of putting all the blame on brahmins, on account of dharmasasthras, will no longer work!

It is utter absurdity to claim rules of tamilakam were codified into dharma shastras. As though those who were writing in Tamil suddenly decided to codify laws in Sanskrit

The issue is not just about varna terms or their equivalent in tamil. It is about rigidly clamping down occupations by birth. It is also about description of occupation.

This has been discussed in a number of older threads. Previously, Saidevo and yourself involved in long drawn claims on Tholkappiyam, contending that அரசர் (arasar), அந்தணர் (anthanar), வணிகர் (vanikar), வெள்ளாளர் (vellalar) are the equivalents of kshatriya, brahman, vaishya, shudra respectively. There is no evidence for this whatsoever. Nara sir had shown ample differences previously. Thiruvallular was also discussed previously: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/5557-enge-brahmanana-11.html (the whole thread, especially this post is valuable in understanding the differences and so is this thread).

The anthanar of Tholkappiyam was a native seer and his symbols were "book, jug, trident and wooden plank" -- he was not a brahmin performing vedic sacrifices. Each grouping was associated with some function. The parpanar had 5 functions, the arasar had 6 functions, and so on. The velanmandar not only worked as farmers but were also assigned to take up arms and defend the state (peasant-militias). The farmer in a dharmashastra was a shudra and had no right to arms. Tholkappiyar merely described functions as found in tribal states; or as applicable to outcomes of inter-tribal and internecine warfare of those times.

The tamil society was described with the following divisions: Arivar (knowledgeable men or ascetics), Ulavar (farmers aka vellalar, karalar), Ayar (Aayar or shepherds), Vedduvar (hunters), Kammalar (artisans), Padayatchier (military men), Valayar (fishermen), Pulayar (tanners).

Even the ranking is nowhere close to the dharmashastra ranking. The Ulavar farmers were just next in rank to the Arivar ascetics. Dharmashastras fix occupation by birth; and prescribes violence to clamp down shudras. Sangam literature describes occupational groupings, it does not prescribe violence to clamp down occupation by birth.

The dharmashastras (aka Smartha religion) did not exist in Tamil region during the sangam period.

It may be better if you were to stick to the topic without silly wisecracks from politicians and frequently commenting on dravidianists. Your frequent comments on dravidianists adds no value whatsoever to your posts. It merely shows you in the light of being an equivalent opposite Aryanist.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Follow up

The thread started by Ashwin was abruptly closed. Although the reason behind this action was not provided, I could guess what prompted the closure.

I prepared a reply to one of Sangom's post but was not able to post in that thread; hence I am writing the reply in this thread. This does not touch upon history, which I presume is the reason for closure of the other thread. So I hope this is allowed.

Shri KB,

Contrary to what shri Zebra says, I find that of late your observations are nearer to the truth and not blinkered by any overzealous pro-brahmin sentiments. I appreciated the Tamil blog by Shri Pravaahan and also agree with most of your observations above.

As far as I am aware, I have remained consistent in my views since I started writing in this forum, whether it is about a contemporary problem or about an historical one. The only thing that has changed is the opinion that I had formed about certain other members. That is all. I do not think that the views that I had expressed before were blinkered by anything. I think only Sangom's understanding of my general view has changed.

I am glad to know that brahmin members (including your great self, are only reacting to the so-balled and so-perceived anti-brahmin members' statements and that in reality they don't have any serious and original arguments of their own. Who says "satyamevajayatenānṛtam" is untrue !

Despite this being a brahmins forum, one do not see brahmins spewing venom on other communities. (I can show several non-brahmin blogs that spew venom on brahmins.) There may be exceptions and even in such rare occasions it is only a reactionary effort as Sangom himself has hinted. To describe this as lack of intellect is uncharitable, to say the least, and considering Sangom himself belongs to the opposite group, his remark is quite self serving. On the other hand, one sees routine bashing of brahmins and jingoism by members not necessarily only from the brahmin community. All the talk about "we-ness" are absolute hogwash considering the very same members vociferously support govt discrimination even against the poorest of poor brahmins on all and sundry things. If this hypocrisy is deemed intellect, it is better for the brahmins to not have such intellect.

Let us accept these truths and move forward to a new world for the brahmin, uncluttered by the baggage of all the past. Let us not dream of reclaiming our rights but establish a new set of rights by virtue of hard work, honesty and freedom from religious clutter (a word which seems to be the favourite of raju, may be because he has an abundance of it in his mind and intellect ).

When the OP mentioned about reclaiming rights, he did not specifically mention which rights. Few members including Prasad and myself have raised this question to him. To assume that he wants to resurrect slavery is far fetched and has no basis at all.
I am mostly interested in current issues that too mainly secular issues that affect the brahmin community. I think a majority of my participation has been on those issues. However, when there is deliberate twisting of history, I do not hesistate to write my take on it. The fact is, at present, it is the NB communities that discriminate brahmins. The intellectual justifcation of such discrimination is something worth opposing and is essential for brahmins to keep their liberty.

 

[praveen]

The last post by கால பைரவன்ji is from another thread and has been merged with this closed topic to keep it in loop.