Qualified brahmin!

[Janaki Jambunathan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

In Food Mood - Maggi ? 2 minutes instant poison - making a change over for better - Instant Rajmaa and Raggi Uppuma - Raggi is better than Maggi and Raggi rhymes well and enjoyable!!

Fun Food is No Sin Food!!

 

[Raji Ram]

.......... It is considered immense merit to do anthima kriya to unknown dead bodies. One of my forefathers (of very long time ago) supposedly did kriya to the body of a certain "Nallan" a dalit which came floating by the river. Hence my lineage hails with the full name of 'Thottam Dhavalasangam Nallan Chakravarthy".. My mother used to say this. So although casteism was widespread in days of yore, somehow they also seem to have recognized the goodness with rendering service to the downtrodden/the dhalits.

Dear Jayashree,

That is great! In Sing. Chennai, there is a brahmin, who helps to do the last rites of poor people, irrespective of the caste!

He actually goes to the mortuary of GH to find out who is in need! It is really amazing to find such persons. :thumb:

 

[sadasivam.sridharan]

He is PUNYAATHMA.

 

[Janaki Jambunathan]

Prescription to keep the agony away has a dose schedule the final dose due today The drug also has an expiray date - that is today!

Brahmin brahmin !
Shades of brahmin!

Who is Brahmin?
Where is brahnin?
Am I brahmin?
Or Antibrahmin?

Brahmin brahmin !
Shades of brahmin!

Conculded - raising questions with no conclusion ! Thinking brahmins will be asking these to themselves to seek an anwer regarding their shade or Varna! Blinking brahmins wii continue to be in the comfort zone of their own paradise ignoring these uncomfortable questions!!

 

[Janaki Jambunathan]

50 shades of Brahmins?

See now 5o shades of Black!! These are not to be brushed aside as Black or Copy Cats !! - Theye are innovations!!

Marlon Wayans to write and star in Fifty Shades of Black | EW.com

 

[vgane]

With each and every community divided by strict sect and subsects, society was more blinkered and dogmatic; no wonder Brahmins were not doing last rites of other communities...But with Brahmins getting less insular and having overcome the barriers of subsects and with other communities needing the services of Brahmins for Vedic rituals it is a sort of win win for both....It is a win win for Hindu way of life!!

 

[sangom]

dear Sangom ji,

Out here in Malaysia TB priests do not for final rites for a Non Brahmin. The TB priest only come for the Karumakiriyai prayers and the yearly Shraadha of the NB.

Its a Non Brahmin "pandaram" who comes to do the final rites and there is nothing Vedic about the rites they conduct.

Most of them would be reciting Om Namah Shivaya on top of their voices sometimes..at times some who know more recite Om Trayambakam Mantra and the rest of the ritual they read some Thevaram verses.

But the North Indian Brahmin priest come for funerals of the North Indian community of any caste.



The TB iyengar priest I know who once did some added prayers 2 weeks after the funeral for my deceased MIL..told me much later that actually a Non Brahmin deceased person does not even need funeral rites..he said its not as if any NB is going to go to Vaikunta or Kailasha.

But surprisingly it was him who recommended some extra prayers and a Homa and wanted Swarna Dhanam and even Go-Dhanam with a big time Dakshina.

If he knew that all these is not needed for a NB..then why did he recommend it in the first place?

Strange but true.

Smt. Renuka ji,

I could not reply to your post yesterday itself, sorry.

The hindu religion, which I would prefer to call the "Religion of the Dwijas" possibly underwent a cataclysmic change soon after 1835, when the Macaulay's minutes on English education got enacted as a law. The higher castes saw English education as a golden opportunity to social climbing up and, soon, the British Government jobs were also offered as a great incentive to those who could read and write English. Since it was the brahmin caste which had traditionally been entrusted with the study and teaching (of the Indian scriptures) in the native system of education, brahmins became the earliest, if not the greatest -in numbers, beneficiaries of Macaulay's plans.

This change happened at the cost of the control of the (brahmin) community over its individual members; people in appreciable numbers took to English education wherever the facilities were available and the regard for the smriti injunctions became as good as nil, in due course of time, after a few generations.

By the early 20th. century, we had the struggle for Independence gaining strength and there were exhortations of people like Subramanya Bharathi in the South and the Brahmo Samaj initiative of the 19th. century, which hastened the downfall of the obedience to the codes of conduct (Smritis) by the upper castes and the brahmin community, in particular. After Independence in 1947, the Smritis play a very insignificant role in controlling the conduct of the upper castes (Brahmins included). The present situation is somewhat like each individual has his/her own smriti and lives according to that; society or community has no control. The Brahmana priest (vedic) is just a service provider very much like the beautician, the shop-keeper, the milkman etc., and he cannot say anything against what the grihastha desires.

When the whole fabric of the community has gone to tatters like this, anything can happen anywhere. (There was a thread regarding a brahmin woman managing/working in an electric crematorium and the reactions of our members to that news may be compared, if you like.) Hence, even brahmana vedic priest may do the last rites for a Sudra, and so on.

But the position according to almost all the smritis is that a brahmana priest should not even step inside the house of a Sudra, let alone officiate in any religious rite in that house. In addition, no mantra should be uttered so as to be heard by a Sudra; so reciting vedic mantras inside a low-caste person is against smriti and hence, becomes a sin!

Since this physical body is the same for people of all castes, and it will have to be disposed of one way or another, and since arrangements exist for such disposal of unclaimed bodies, I personally don't think that the person referred to in post #127, is doing anything great. Many brahmana vedic priests of old did not accept the Dakshinas involved in the last rites and used to pass it on to some poor brahmin willing to accept that; this is also part of the old smriti-based code, because, the belief was that by accepting some of those Dakshinas, the deceased person's Karma (read 'sins') will attach to the priest.

 

[Vaagmi]

Sangom Sirji,

Your words in post # 132:

"But the position according to almost all the smritis is that a brahmana priest should not even step inside the house of a Sudra, let alone officiate in any religious rite in that house. In addition, no mantra should be uttered so as to be heard by a Sudra; so reciting vedic mantras inside a low-caste person is against smriti and hence, becomes a sin!"

Could you please give the relevant smriti passages where this is said. If you could please give the fact from all the smritis as you have claimed that it is said in all smritis.

Just curious. Thank you.

And you also said "The hindu religion, which I would prefer to call the "Religion of the Dwijas....". Did you read my post #96 in this very thread? Do you think smritis are the final say in matters pertaining to Hindu religion?

 

[Vaagmi]

In my village there was no difficulty for the other castes in getting the final rites performed. There were four families of Telugu brahmins who were into Jyotish shastra, martial arts and were also into the purohitam for the finalo rites of other castes. And they were not treated as outcastes by other brahmins. They were respected for their knowledge of jyotisham and were consulted. The women of these families too did not face any discrimination from others.

 

[sangom]

@ The cardinal truth is not that Hindu religion is or was for the three upper caste dwijas.

Shri Vaagmi sir,

I would like to know the basis/reasons, if any, for your above pronouncement or is it just your opinion.

P.S. Somehow I missed this post till I saw post #133; hence the delay.

 

[sangom]

Along with Yajnyavalkya smriti, which he is reading, I would request him to go back a little farther and read the following scriptures also:

a. Chandokya Upanishad IV.2.1-5. Briefly this describes how a Shudra by name Janasruti approached a Brahmin by name Raikva and learned brahmavidya (Vedas).

Shri Vaagmi sir,

You have got the whole thing wrong, but, in your ignorance you feel bold enough to make fun of people whose views differ from you and who are not PIOs (because I find you are a bit more courteous towards them even when you differ!)

King Janasruti, the great grandson of King Janasruta approached Raikva, a cart-driver, to know about the deity whom he (raikva) worshipped. He (Raikva) along with Uddalaka, Prachinshala, Budila, Sarkarakshaya and Indradyumna, who respectively held the earth, heaven (aakaasha), water, space and air to be the substrata of all things; Raikva was one like Indradyumna who held air (vaayu) to be substratum of all things. (courtesy: wikipedia).

There is a swan story as prelude which you will find on googling for Janasruti or Raikva.

Raikva addresses his reply thus:

"तमु ह परः प्रत्युवाचाह हारेत्वा शूद्र तवैव सह गोभिरस्त्विति।..." The use of the word Sudra is explained by commentators as being addressed to the Charioteer of King Janasruti because Raikva could not address the King directly.

The story, if you read a little further, takes an interesting turn. When King Janasruti comes once again, after being rebuffed by Raikva in the first instance, with more cows as also his daughter to be offered as wife to Raikva, and the village also, the latter agrees and imparts his great knowledge (that air or vaayu) is the substratum of all things!

The point now is that inter-caste marriage of a king's daughter to a cart-driver seems to have happened in the olden days. So, how about IC marriages now?

 

[Vaagmi]

Shri Vaagmi sir,

I would like to know the basis/reasons, if any, for your above pronouncement or is it just your opinion.

P.S. Somehow I missed this post till I saw post #133; hence the delay.

Sangom sirji,

It is not my pronouncement. If you read my post #92 carefully you would understand and recall that it was your statement which has been refuted by the sentence you have quoted. You had said the Hindu religion was for the three dwija castes (excluding shudras) only and I quoted four instances from the srutis to tell you that it was not so and why. That was because, between srutis and smritis, srutis are considered authoritative by our scholars. You quoted your smriti and drew a conclusion that hindu religion was for the dwijas only and I quoted the srutis to tell you that you were wrong. Hope you are getting me clear as the reasons and basis for my standpoint has been given.

 

[Vaagmi]

Sangom sirji,

Your post #136 for reference:

....................<clipped>..........................

King Janasruti, the great grandson of King Janasruta approached Raikva, a cart-driver, to know about the deity whom he (raikva) worshipped. He (Raikva) along with Uddalaka, Prachinshala, Budila, Sarkarakshaya and Indradyumna, who respectively held the earth, heaven (aakaasha), water, space and air to be the substrata of all things; Raikva was one like Indradyumna who held air (vaayu) to be substratum of all things. (courtesy: wikipedia).

I do not follow what is given in wikipedia as authoritative in such matters. I prefer to go to the originals. In the original text Janasruti is not addressed as a king with any respect as claimed by wiki or in turn by you. He is clearly addressed straight as a shudra more than once by Raikva. The circumstances in which he is addressed are such that there can not be any mistake in understanding what is meant. Every time he is addressed as shudra the idea as it is apparent is that as a shudra he was shown his place. Only the later day acharyas, smriti kartas and their enthusiastic followers tried to give a cosmetic touch and have tried several contrived interpretations. I give below briefly the passages which will speak for itself:

ததுஹஜாநச்ருதி பௌத்ராயண: ஷட்சதாநிகவாம் நிஷ்கமச்வதாரதம் ததாயப்ரதிசக்ரமே........

1. தமுஹ பர: ப்ரத்யுவாசஹ ஹாரேத்வா சூத்ர தஸ்மை ஸஹகோபிரஸ்த்விதி........

2. தஸ்யாஹ முகமுபோக்ருஹ்ணந்நுவாச ஆஜஹார இமாச்சூத்ராநேநைவ...........

இந்தக்கதையில் ஜானஸ்ருதி சூத்ரன் என்று பலமுறை முனிவர் வாக்கினால் அழைக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறான். ஆனால் இந்த வேத மந்த்ரத்துக்கு பாஷ்யஞ்செய்த ஸ்ரீமதாசார்யபுருஷர்கள் இயன்ற வரை முயன்று ஜானச்ருதியை ஒரு க்ஷத்ரியனாக ச்ருஷ்ட்டித்துவிட முயன்றிருக்கிறார்கள். அதற்காக மூலத்திலுள்ள பதங்களை குறுக்கியும் நீட்டியும் பலவாறு முயன்றிருக்கின்றனர். மூலமந்த்ரம் இவர்களுக்கு மிக முன்னரே பிறந்துவிட்டபடியால் ஸத்தியம் அழியாது நிற்கிறது.

And I have given just three more instances in my post #92 to prove that Shudras learnt Vedas and so they are as much part of the hindu religion as the other three dwijas. Do you have anything to say about them?

The point now is that inter-caste marriage of a king's daughter to a cart-driver seems to have happened in the olden days. So, how about IC marriages now?

Inter-caste marriage have been happening since time immemorial. And they will happen in the future too. That does not mean that inter-caste marriages are the prefered category. That answers your question. Wars have been happening since time immemorial for settling issues. They are going to happen in all time to come. But are they the preferred method of conflict resolution?

 

[sangom]

Sangom sirji,

Your post #136 for reference:



I do not follow what is given in wikipedia as authoritative in such matters. I prefer to go to the originals. In the original text Janasruti is not addressed as a king with any respect as claimed by wiki or in turn by you. He is clearly addressed straight as a shudra more than once by Raikva. The circumstances in which he is addressed are such that there can not be any mistake in understanding what is meant. Every time he is addressed as shudra the idea as it is apparent is that as a shudra he was shown his place. Only the later day acharyas, smriti kartas and their enthusiastic followers tried to give a cosmetic touch and have tried several contrived interpretations. I give below briefly the passages which will speak for itself:

ததுஹஜாநச்ருதி பௌத்ராயண: ஷட்சதாநிகவாம் நிஷ்கமச்வதாரதம் ததாயப்ரதிசக்ரமே........

1. தமுஹ பர: ப்ரத்யுவாசஹ ஹாரேத்வா சூத்ர தஸ்மை ஸஹகோபிரஸ்த்விதி........

2. தஸ்யாஹ முகமுபோக்ருஹ்ணந்நுவாச ஆஜஹார இமாச்சூத்ராநேநைவ...........

இந்தக்கதையில் ஜானஸ்ருதி சூத்ரன் என்று பலமுறை முனிவர் வாக்கினால் அழைக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறான். ஆனால் இந்த வேத மந்த்ரத்துக்கு பாஷ்யஞ்செய்த ஸ்ரீமதாசார்யபுருஷர்கள் இயன்ற வரை முயன்று ஜானச்ருதியை ஒரு க்ஷத்ரியனாக ச்ருஷ்ட்டித்துவிட முயன்றிருக்கிறார்கள். அதற்காக மூலத்திலுள்ள பதங்களை குறுக்கியும் நீட்டியும் பலவாறு முயன்றிருக்கின்றனர். மூலமந்த்ரம் இவர்களுக்கு மிக முன்னரே பிறந்துவிட்டபடியால் ஸத்தியம் அழியாது நிற்கிறது.

And I have given just three more instances in my post #92 to prove that Shudras learnt Vedas and so they are as much part of the hindu religion as the other three dwijas. Do you have anything to say about them?



Inter-caste marriage have been happening since time immemorial. And they will happen in the future too. That does not mean that inter-caste marriages are the prefered category. That answers your question. Wars have been happening since time immemorial for settling issues. They are going to happen in all time to come. But are they the preferred method of conflict resolution?

I suppose that in those days brahmins or sages could have been known generally as "cart-driver" while Sudras going to such cart-driver sages/brahins could offer the village (in which the brahmin resided) itself as a gift to that brahmin. In addition, the sage/brahmin who refused to impart the vedic teaching, could change his mind and teach the vedas to the same Sudra when the latter offers more cows and his own daughter in marrisge to that sage?!

Since the scriptures seem to have that meaning which you intend them to have at each point of time, I have to agree that the scriptures tell exactly whatever you say they tell.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

 

[Vaagmi]

I suppose that in those days brahmins or sages could have been known generally as "cart-driver" while Sudras going to such cart-driver sages/brahins could offer the village (in which the brahmin resided) itself as a gift to that brahmin. In addition, the sage/brahmin who refused to impart the vedic teaching, could change his mind and teach the vedas to the same Sudra when the latter offers more cows and his own daughter in marrisge to that sage?!

Since the scriptures seem to have that meaning which you intend them to have at each point of time, I have to agree that the scriptures tell exactly whatever you say they tell.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

Respected sangom sirji,

1. I look at it as a simple case of knowledge being offered for a price. The price was determined by the seller.

2. A cart-driver is just a profession and not a caste name.

So beyond this what is your problem?

I note that you have traveled far from the original issue.

I repeat: you said the hindu religion was for only the three dwija castes and not for shudras. I gave instances from Srutis, the ultimate authority, where it is clearly stated that shudras, panchamas and even those who did not know their gothra were taught vedas by brahmins and other dwijas. You picked up just one of the four cases presented by me and have tried to find holes where none exist. Leaving aside the inter-caste marriages, the price tag of vedas etc., do you have anything to say which would prove that hindu religion was indeed for the three dwijas only?

I am only trying to explore and I know you are knowledgeable in this subject.

 

[renuka]

Smt. Renuka ji,

I could not reply to your post yesterday itself, sorry.

The hindu religion, which I would prefer to call the "Religion of the Dwijas" possibly underwent a cataclysmic change soon after 1835, when the Macaulay's minutes on English education got enacted as a law. The higher castes saw English education as a golden opportunity to social climbing up and, soon, the British Government jobs were also offered as a great incentive to those who could read and write English. Since it was the brahmin caste which had traditionally been entrusted with the study and teaching (of the Indian scriptures) in the native system of education, brahmins became the earliest, if not the greatest -in numbers, beneficiaries of Macaulay's plans.

This change happened at the cost of the control of the (brahmin) community over its individual members; people in appreciable numbers took to English education wherever the facilities were available and the regard for the smriti injunctions became as good as nil, in due course of time, after a few generations.

By the early 20th. century, we had the struggle for Independence gaining strength and there were exhortations of people like Subramanya Bharathi in the South and the Brahmo Samaj initiative of the 19th. century, which hastened the downfall of the obedience to the codes of conduct (Smritis) by the upper castes and the brahmin community, in particular. After Independence in 1947, the Smritis play a very insignificant role in controlling the conduct of the upper castes (Brahmins included). The present situation is somewhat like each individual has his/her own smriti and lives according to that; society or community has no control. The Brahmana priest (vedic) is just a service provider very much like the beautician, the shop-keeper, the milkman etc., and he cannot say anything against what the grihastha desires.

When the whole fabric of the community has gone to tatters like this, anything can happen anywhere. (There was a thread regarding a brahmin woman managing/working in an electric crematorium and the reactions of our members to that news may be compared, if you like.) Hence, even brahmana vedic priest may do the last rites for a Sudra, and so on.

But the position according to almost all the smritis is that a brahmana priest should not even step inside the house of a Sudra, let alone officiate in any religious rite in that house. In addition, no mantra should be uttered so as to be heard by a Sudra; so reciting vedic mantras inside a low-caste person is against smriti and hence, becomes a sin!

Since this physical body is the same for people of all castes, and it will have to be disposed of one way or another, and since arrangements exist for such disposal of unclaimed bodies, I personally don't think that the person referred to in post #127, is doing anything great. Many brahmana vedic priests of old did not accept the Dakshinas involved in the last rites and used to pass it on to some poor brahmin willing to accept that; this is also part of the old smriti-based code, because, the belief was that by accepting some of those Dakshinas, the deceased person's Karma (read 'sins') will attach to the priest.

Dear Sangom ji,

Thank you for the reply.

I guess times has changed..yesterday I attended the final Havan for my late maternal uncle.
And it was a big Havan at home conducted by a Brahmin priest from Rishikesh where all relatives and friends.. males and females both had to utter the Gayatri Mantra a 108 times while putting oblations into the fire.There were people of various communities,race and religion that attended the Havan.

I was thinking during the Havan "wow many centuries ago..this would have never been possible for people of various castes and gender sitting together reciting the Gayatri Mantra a good 108 times while putting oblation into the fire with a priest"

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom ji,

Thank you for the reply.

I guess times has changed..yesterday I attended the final Havan for my late maternal uncle.
And it was a big Havan at home conducted by a Brahmin priest from Rishikesh where all relatives and friends.. males and females both had to utter the Gayatri Mantra a 108 times while putting oblations into the fire.There were people of various communities,race and religion that attended the Havan.

I was thinking during the Havan "wow many centuries ago..this would have never been possible for people of various castes and gender sitting together reciting the Gayatri Mantra a good 108 times while putting oblation into the fire with a priest"

Smt. Renukaji,

I am not familiar with the kind of last rites that is followed there in M'sia by the hindus. All I can say is that the smritis (at least many of them, if not all) lay down a 13-day mourning after death (for dwijas—male and female) and, on the 13th. day we conduct a Grahayajna (ग्रहयज्ञ in common parlance among TBs, it is க்ரேக்கியம் or க்ரேக்யம்). Gaayatree homa is not part of this; in fact most people have the Sundara Kandam or a part thereof read by a priest and then conduct a hawan by chanting rudram and chamakam, followed by another hawan for the Navagrahas and some people also include a mrityunjaya homam in the belief that more deaths will not happen in that house.

I agree with you that things have changed in the practice of religion and today's position is that each hindu has his or her smriti which alone he or she will abide by, nothing more nothing less (á la Humpty Dumpty!).

My gut feeling is that the priest from Rishikesh must be following the local customs there, which have evolved over the centuries.

According to me there possibly had been no occasion for "people of various castes and gender sitting together reciting the Gayatri Mantra", nor for them to offer oblations into the sacred hawan fire. But if four instances, which again are inconclusive, given by Shri Vaagmi sir for the entire vedic period is to be believed and his dictat followed, may be people of all castes and genders might have sat around a sacrificial fire and offered oblations into it, in the misty vedic past, and this might have been a very common occurrence.

Since Shri Vaagmi says that sruti rules are the ultimate and that Vaishnavas do not follow any smriti (unlike the smaarthas) may be a similar oblation offering (by all castes and males and females, barring non-vaishnavites) is still practised in Vaishnava households and temples; but I have not witnessed any such thing so far.

 

[sangom]

Respected sangom sirji,

1. I look at it as a simple case of knowledge being offered for a price. The price was determined by the seller.

2. A cart-driver is just a profession and not a caste name.

So beyond this what is your problem?

I note that you have traveled far from the original issue.

I repeat: you said the hindu religion was for only the three dwija castes and not for shudras. I gave instances from Srutis, the ultimate authority, where it is clearly stated that shudras, panchamas and even those who did not know their gothra were taught vedas by brahmins and other dwijas. You picked up just one of the four cases presented by me and have tried to find holes where none exist. Leaving aside the inter-caste marriages, the price tag of vedas etc., do you have anything to say which would prove that hindu religion was indeed for the three dwijas only?

I am only trying to explore and I know you are knowledgeable in this subject.

Shri Vaagmi sir,

Firstly, we should be clear about what is "Hindu religion". I have been writing on the basis that this word represents the religion and religious practices given out by the vedas, puranas and itihasas as modified by the smritis. The smritis which are considered to be the recollections of the authoring sages from the practices prevailing in ancient times onwards, are considered as equally important as the vedas though the latter (vedas) are definitely older. The position of women and Sudras, according to these smritis is that both the categories have no significant inclusion in the religious practices; while the women are marginalized, Sudras are, for all practical purposes, excluded. (The position in the case of the Vaishnava Agamas may be different probably because these agamas also include essentials of the Tantra system which was open to both women and the Sudras.

That said, Sir, you have cited only four isolated instances. Of these, the case of raikwa and Janasruti is a doubtful one and even if it was a case of raikva, a cart-driver (a brahmana was not allowed to drive cart, as per the smritis or Dharmasastras, nor was he to teach veda except for service to be rendered to him as a Sishya) teaching his belief system (which looks too silly by today's human knowledge) viz., that Vaayu or air forms the substratum of everything in the universe, it again does not make it a case of Vedadhyayana.

Kaksheevaan belongs to the group उशिजः (uśijaḥ) and is a rishi, and not son of any உசிஜை, as far as I could see from my references. Please see Rigveda IV-1-15, IV-16-6. The word appears in the plural, thus denoting a group.

Kavasha son of ilusha, a Sudra begotten through a Dasi. The story in the aitareya brahmana does not say that Kavasha performed yaga along with other brahmana priests. On the other hand (and if you care to read Aitareya Brahmana, 8th. Adhyaya) the story is that Kavasha dared enter into the Yaagasala on the banks of the Sarasvati river when the Brahmana priests drove him away saying that Kavasha was a "Daaseeputra" and also a known gambler; they drove him off to a distant desert-like place, so that he would die starving of water. But Kavasha prayed to the deva apaamnapaat whereupon the Sarasvati river itself flowed to that place and surrounded Kavasha. Upon seeing this miracle, the Brahmanas understood the greatness of Kavasha and accepted him as a Rishi.
In the above story, an unusual incident, there is nothing to indicate that Kavasha did vedadhyayana nor that he performed yaga.

Satyakaama Jaabaala is the only incident to be taken into account. Here again, it does not say that Sudra was considered but only that the guru Haridrumata was so impressed by Satyakaama's honesty that he felt the student had brahminic character and accepted him as his disciple.

If you read the history of castes and tribes in India, it will be clear that even as late as the early 19th. century, the lower castes (Sudras) of India had their own belief systems, social codes, rules of endogamy & exogamy, and kula devatas which had no relation at all to the mainstream religion practised by the upper castes. But this requires vast reading and not picking out three or four isolated instances from the scriptures and proposing a new theory that hinduism was fully democratic and applicable to all.

 

[prasad1]

I do not know of the Vaishnava practices. I have attended the Iyangars function in Sri Rangam, one of them is related by marriage to us. No NB were allowed in the function (we were the exception to the Iyangar clan).

In the North India Particularly among Arya Samaj groups sillting together and doing a havan with Gayatri mantra is common. That is first time we as TB were exposed to public chanting of Gayatri Mantra by women.

 

[Vaagmi]

Sangom sirji,

Your post #142 for reference:

According to me there possibly had been no occasion for "people of various castes and gender sitting together reciting the Gayatri Mantra", nor for them to offer oblations into the sacred hawan fire. But if four instances, which again are inconclusive, given by Shri Vaagmi sir for the entire vedic period is to be believed and his dictat followed, may be people of all castes and genders might have sat around a sacrificial fire and offered oblations into it, in the misty vedic past, and this might have been a very common occurrence.

In the absence of any recorded evidence about the society in the vedic period, it would be better not to say anything conclusively-particularly sweeping statements like the religion was for only the dwijas etc., The language is such that interpretations can be many.

Since Shri Vaagmi says that sruti rules are the ultimate and that Vaishnavas do not follow any smriti (unlike the smaarthas) may be a similar oblation offering (by all castes and males and females, barring non-vaishnavites) is still practised in Vaishnava households and temples; but I have not witnessed any such thing so far.

(1)It is not Vaagmi who says sruti is ultimate. It had been the accepted practice all along. Please any vedic pundit of any denomination. Please refer to:

வேதா: ப்ரமாணம் ப்ரதமம் ஸ்வத ஏவ தத: பரம்|
ஸ்ம்ருத்யஸ்ச புராணாநி பாரதம் முனிபுங்கவா:|
அந்யாந்யபி முநிஸ்ரேஷ்டா: சாஸ்த்ராணிஸுபஹுநிச|
ஸர்வம் வேதா விரோதேச ப்ரமாணம் நாந்ய வர்த்மனாம்| (ஸ்காந்தம்-ஸூதசம்ஹிதை-சிவமாஹாத்ம்ய காண்டம் அத்யாயம்36-38)

Sri japala said:

ஸ்ருதி ஸ்ம்ருதி விரோதேது ஸ்ருதிரேவ கரீயஸி|
அவிரோதே ஸதாகார்யம் ஸ்மார்த்தம் வைதிகவத்ஸதா|

Meemamsa's nyaya vadhins say "....ஸ்ருதி விரோதே ஸ்ம்ருதி வாக்யமநபெக்ஷ்யமப்ரமாணமநாதரணீயஞ்ச|

(2)I did not say that vaishnavas do not follow any smriti. Vaishnavas follow smriti wherever there is no dispute with srutis. If there is a difference, we discard smritis to that extent and follow sruti.

(3)The concluding ceremony in a vaishnavite home after the mourning period is a subha sweekaram-looking forward to good things. On that day vaishnavites chant along with the vedas the Nalayira divya Prabantha stanzas and every one without any difference can participate if they know Iyarpaa part of the prabantham as that is the part which is chanted usually. So there is no scope for sarcasm. Next time when you go to such an event carry a prabantham book with you and no one will bar you from participating in the chanting.

 

[Vaagmi]

respected sangom sirji,

your post #143 for reference:

Kavasha son of ilusha, a Sudra begotten through a Dasi. The story in the aitareya brahmana does not say that Kavasha performed yaga along with other brahmana priests. On the other hand (and if you care to read Aitareya Brahmana, 8th. Adhyaya) the story is that Kavasha dared enter into the Yaagasala on the banks of the Sarasvati river when the Brahmana priests drove him away saying that Kavasha was a "Daaseeputra" and also a known gambler; they drove him off to a distant desert-like place, so that he would die starving of water. But Kavasha prayed to the deva apaamnapaat whereupon the Sarasvati river itself flowed to that place and surrounded Kavasha. Upon seeing this miracle, the Brahmanas understood the greatness of Kavasha and accepted him as a Rishi.
In the above story, an unusual incident, there is nothing to indicate that Kavasha did vedadhyayana nor that he performed yaga.

It is said kavashan performed along with the repentent rishis the "aponaveeya" yaga. The manthras visualised by Kavashas are part of Rigveda 7th Ashtaka. So there is evidence that Kavasha performed yaga and for that knowledge of vedas was a prerequisite.

When Kavashan proved his worth by calling Sarasvati river, the rishis who offended prayed to him with these words:

...........RishE! namaste asthu maanohimseesthvamvai na:srEshtOsi| yam thvEvamanvEtheetha|............etc., and requested him to save them from the dangers of misperformance of the yagas. (Aitareya Brahmanam 12-3 and2-3-19). Unless one is prejudiced, it would be difficult to miss the fact that stands out -- that a hunter (a panchama) was learned in vedas and was able to perform a yaga along with other rishis.

Satyakaama Jaabaala is the only incident to be taken into account. Here again, it does not say that Sudra was considered but only that the guru Haridrumata was so impressed by Satyakaama's honesty that he felt the student had brahminic character and accepted him as his disciple.

Satyakama was born to a mother who did not know who the father of the child was because she had relations with many men. So he belonged to a class which is not even a panchama but worse than that one who did not have a gothra. And veda was taught to him. That was the point that is known from the vedic passage and that indicates the kind of access everyone had to vedas in the vedic period. That was the point I made.

If you read the history of castes and tribes in India, it will be clear that even as late as the early 19th. century, the lower castes (Sudras) of India had their own belief systems, social codes, rules of endogamy & exogamy, and kula devatas which had no relation at all to the mainstream religion practised by the upper castes. But this requires vast reading and not picking out three or four isolated instances from the scriptures and proposing a new theory that hinduism was fully democratic and applicable to all.

The point was just that vedas were available to every one and so the vedic religion was not the private property of the three dwija castes alone. And knowledge (veda) by its very nature is for only those who seek it. It is not marketed, nor any hard selling done, not solicited, no scholarships and enabling doles given. If a Shudra, a panchaman, a no-gothra milecha etc., are really after knowledge (veda) it was available to them. It was never denied on the basis of caste etc., This is the point made. The four cases are just samples and there are many more which I can present but that would make it too long for this thread. Also women were not barred from vedas as you have alleged. I can give proof for this too. But I stop here. thank you for participating.

 

[renuka]

Smt. Renukaji,

I am not familiar with the kind of last rites that is followed there in M'sia by the hindus. All I can say is that the smritis (at least many of them, if not all) lay down a 13-day mourning after death (for dwijas—male and female) and, on the 13th. day we conduct a Grahayajna (ग्रहयज्ञ in common parlance among TBs, it is க்ரேக்கியம் or க்ரேக்யம்). Gaayatree homa is not part of this; in fact most people have the Sundara Kandam or a part thereof read by a priest and then conduct a hawan by chanting rudram and chamakam, followed by another hawan for the Navagrahas and some people also include a mrityunjaya homam in the belief that more deaths will not happen in that house.

I agree with you that things have changed in the practice of religion and today's position is that each hindu has his or her smriti which alone he or she will abide by, nothing more nothing less (á la Humpty Dumpty!).

My gut feeling is that the priest from Rishikesh must be following the local customs there, which have evolved over the centuries.

According to me there possibly had been no occasion for "people of various castes and gender sitting together reciting the Gayatri Mantra", nor for them to offer oblations into the sacred hawan fire. But if four instances, which again are inconclusive, given by Shri Vaagmi sir for the entire vedic period is to be believed and his dictat followed, may be people of all castes and genders might have sat around a sacrificial fire and offered oblations into it, in the misty vedic past, and this might have been a very common occurrence.

Since Shri Vaagmi says that sruti rules are the ultimate and that Vaishnavas do not follow any smriti (unlike the smaarthas) may be a similar oblation offering (by all castes and males and females, barring non-vaishnavites) is still practised in Vaishnava households and temples; but I have not witnessed any such thing so far.

dear Sangom ji,

It was indeed day 13th.
The priest did do a Navagraha Pooja too and the proceeded to 108 Gayatri and also a good number of times of Mrytunjaya Mantra which everyone was allowed to recite with him.

Then finally everyone had to take turns in doing an Arti facing the picture of the deceased person and sing Om Jai Jagadish Hare at the same time.

Then after the Havan the priest tied a red string to the wrist of each participant and we gave him his Dakshina as he tied it and he would give us the Sujee Halwa and a Barfi as prasad and he would place Kumkum and a grain of raw rice on our foreheads.

This is the second time I am attending such a Havan.

But I liked it cos it felt like active participation of everyone regardless of gender and community..it had the feeling of "short lived" unity.

 

[sangom]

respected sangom sirji,

your post #143 for reference:



It is said kavashan performed along with the repentent rishis the "aponaveeya" yaga. The manthras visualised by Kavashas are part of Rigveda 7th Ashtaka. So there is evidence that Kavasha performed yaga and for that knowledge of vedas was a prerequisite.

When Kavashan proved his worth by calling Sarasvati river, the rishis who offended prayed to him with these words:

...........RishE! namaste asthu maanohimseesthvamvai na:srEshtOsi| yam thvEvamanvEtheetha|............etc., and requested him to save them from the dangers of misperformance of the yagas. (Aitareya Brahmanam 12-3 and2-3-19). Unless one is prejudiced, it would be difficult to miss the fact that stands out -- that a hunter (a panchama) was learned in vedas and was able to perform a yaga along with other rishis.

Shri Vaagmi sir,

I have a book which contains the Aitareya Braahmanam with Malayalam translation and is based on the Saayana Bhaashya book. In this book, the story of Kavasha is given in the second Panchika, Third Adhyaya, First Khanda. Here there is no mention of the portion given by you (viz., RishE! namaste asthu maanohimseesthvamvai na:srEshtOsi| yam thvEvamanvEtheetha|............etc.). For the sake of clarity, I reproduce portions from the relevant Khanda below:

"rishayO vai sarasvatyAm satramAsata tE kavashamailUshaM sOmadanayan daasyaaH putraH kitavO/brAhmaNaH kathaM nOmadhyEadeekshiishTEti taM bahirdhanvOdavahannatrainaM....
. . .
tEvA rishayOabruvan vidurvaa imaM dEvA upEmaMhvayAmahA itinathEtitamupAhvayantE tamupahUyai tadapOnaptreeyamakurvata pradEvatrA brahmaNE gAturEtviti tEnApAM priyaM dhAmOpAgaChasupadEvAnAM"
The portion in blue means that "the rishis then said, "the deva has recognised him. Therefore let us call him back." And everyone agreed. They called him back and performed that apOnaptru, pradEvatrA sUktas which he (Kavasha) had vision of. Due to this they reached the sacred homes of the god of water and other devas.

Hence, if you read this version, just as you have done the Raikva story, there is not a word to indicate that Kavasha was learned in vedas when he was driven out by the other rishis. The story only tells that when Kavasha was dying of thirst when he had the Darsan or vision of the two suktas.

Satyakama was born to a mother who did not know who the father of the child was because she had relations with many men. So he belonged to a class which is not even a panchama but worse than that one who did not have a gothra. And veda was taught to him. That was the point that is known from the vedic passage and that indicates the kind of access everyone had to vedas in the vedic period. That was the point I made.



[/COLOR]The point was just that vedas were available to every one and so the vedic religion was not the private property of the three dwija castes alone. And knowledge (veda) by its very nature is for only those who seek it. It is not marketed, nor any hard selling done, not solicited, no scholarships and enabling doles given. If a Shudra, a panchaman, a no-gothra milecha etc., are really after knowledge (veda) it was available to them. It was never denied on the basis of caste etc., This is the point made. The four cases are just samples and there are many more which I can present but that would make it too long for this thread. Also women were not barred from vedas as you have alleged. I can give proof for this too. But I stop here. thank you for participating.

One swallow does not a summer make, is what I will say. If there is only one or two instances of a non-dwija learning the vedas, and even there, as in the Kavasha story, if there is explicit mention that the sages themselves drove away a non-brahmin due to his being a non-brahmin, etc., what more proof is required to say that even in those times the Sudras did not have access to the study of veda. The smritis must have taken over from where the Purusha suktam said, "Brahmana is His face, raajanyas make up His arms, the Vaisyas His thighs, the Sudras were born out of His feet."

The subtle implication here is that the three dwija castes 'make up' the Purusha's limbs whereas the Sudras do not do so, but are only 'born out of'.

I am not, as you may know already, against Sudras or their learning the veda; I am only saying that the vedas and the religion which evolved therefrom excluded Sudras from its ambit completely.

 

[renuka]

; I am only saying that the vedas and the religion which evolved therefrom excluded Sudras from its ambit completely.

There is no doubt about this.

In fact the Satyakama story itself is not a good example cos Sathyakama was accepted to study the Vedas becos he spoke the truth hence his father had to be a Brahmin.

That directly implies that other Varnas are not capable of speaking the truth..I wonder how come Harischandra not being a Brahmin was known to uphold truth?LOL

But at the same time a point was overlooked..that is Sathyakama's mother being a Sudra spoke the truth herself..saying she has no idea who the father of Sathyakama was.
So it proves that Sudras too can be truthful..so why assume that Sathyakama's father was surely a Brahmin?

And also it looks as if Sathyakama's dad had an illicit relationship with Sathyakama's mother....so why all the praise for being a son of a Brahmin that too a Brahmin who indulges in illicit relationships?

I feel Sathyakama should have been honoured just based on the fact that he was truthful and not link him to any Varna cos for all practical purposes his Varna remained unknown.

I feel this one or two stories about Sudras learning the Vedas does not change the fact that a Sudra has hardly any status or right to Hinduism.

One or two stories does not make a difference..it just covers up the underlying situation..its like Gandhi coining the word Harijan..it never actually addressed the Dalit discrimination.

 

[zebra16]

This post does not address whether Sudras were being taught vedas or not, but the fallacy masquerading as logic.

There is no doubt about this.

In fact the Satyakama story itself is not a good example cos Sathyakama was accepted to study the Vedas becos he spoke the truth hence his father had to be a Brahmin.

In mathematical terms, if "T" is truth and "B" is Brahmin, this can be shortened as T = B is the first assumption.

That directly implies that other Varnas are not capable of speaking the truth..I wonder how come Harischandra not being a Brahmin was known to uphold truth?LOL

Nowhere it states that other varnas are incapable of speaking the truth. Please adduce evidence. The equation only says T = B, it does not state anywhere non B = non T. This extension is used just to load the argument in one's favour.

But at the same time a point was overlooked..that is Sathyakama's mother being a Sudra spoke the truth herself..saying she has no idea who the father of Sathyakama was.

There is no overlooking of anything, because no one said non B = non T. So it is an attempt to derive a logical conclusion from an illogical or ungiven premise.

So it proves that Sudras too can be truthful..so why assume that Sathyakama's father was surely a Brahmin?

Continuation of fallacy. Truthfulness or otherwise of others are not at all flowing from the basic assumption.

And also it looks as if Sathyakama's dad had an illicit relationship with Sathyakama's mother....so why all the praise for being a son of a Brahmin that too a Brahmin who indulges in illicit relationships?

The wording "it looks as if" is presumptive in nature. It might be legitimate or illegitimate in nature. There is also no mention of any force or coercion applied on Satyakama's mother for the supposed "illicit" act. All that is confirms is a consensual act. No one is casting aspersions on her. So there is neither virtue nor vice in the supposed "illicit" act, if it was indeed an illicit act.

I feel Sathyakama should have been honoured just based on the fact that he was truthful and not link him to any Varna cos for all practical purposes his Varna remained unknown.

On the one hand you say the truthful nature of Satyakama's father is *no special virtue* and the whole society did it, but in the next you say Satyakama should be honoured because he was truthful. As honouring is done normally only for exceptional acts, attitudes and aptitudes, does this mean by reverse logic that Sudras were not normally truth speakers?

Whatever it may be, there is no mention of truth speakers or untruth speakers of other varnas in that passage so it is more of a circular logic.

I feel this one or two stories about Sudras learning the Vedas does not change the fact that a Sudra has hardly any status or right to Hinduism.

There are two ungiven assumptions hoisted in the theme.

(i) Learning vedas was mandated to be a Hindu. All the recorded evidences disprove this.

(ii) Mere non-learning of vedas with-held the status or right to Hinduism.

Neither of the statements are true.

Further, how many stories would make it "chunky" to be considered as "norm" rather than one or two stories?

Is it anywhere mentioned in vedas that "ALL" brahmins learned the vedas? I in fact find contrary passages where it is expressly stated that they (meaning not *all*) neither learnt the vedas nor did any sacrifice. So why it cant be dismissed from the contrary passages that brahmins learnt the vedas?

Such logic is termed in legal parlance as attempt to shift to convenience of data in one's favour.

Sri Sangom has has also said either in this thread or elsewhere that Tantra system was the more prevalent form of worship among the non vedic population. History also tells us that many forms of tantra worship were learnt and practiced by brahmins. Though there are "one" or "twp" recorded tales of them being targeted in the past, there is no stigma attached at least to the present right handed tantra practices.

Though only *one* or *two* incidences of ostracism is reported it is not being dismissively used as mere one or two incidences in the same way the veda learning is dismissed.

For me, the story is more of a patriarchal bias of the society prevailing then...