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

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

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

Shastram vs. Sampradayam

Status
Not open for further replies.

CLN

0
For any Hindu ritual we take guidance from two important sources - SHASTRAM and SAMPRADAYAM. Which is more important or more fundamental is a very difficult question to answer; it is akin to the age-old question: which came first - the egg or the chick? We have a parallel in literature too: which came from which - LITERATURE (Ilakkiyam)? Or, GRAMMAR (Ilakkanam)?

As a matter of fact, in most situations, 'Shastram' and 'Sampradayam' may totally agree with each other. Even in others, there might be a more-than-ninetyfive-percent agreement. But it is that thin slice of just five percent which may start at times huge contraversies, bickerings, bitterness, ego-clashes and the like!

I would very much like to know what the worthy members of this august forum feel about the matter. Please feel absolutely free and frank in expressing your thoughts, opinions and arguments.
 
Dear Sri CLN,

Sampradayam is convention which is unwritten and Sastram is codification of rules on the basis of Sampradayam. Thus both are/should be same.

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.
 
From what Mr. kr subramanian has clarified, it is the collection of the time-tested practises which constitute 'sampradayam' and the rules evolved grow in stature to be venerated as 'shastram'. On the other hand, Mr. Brahmanyan has sought to point out that both 'sampradayam' and 'shastram' are/should be same!

Well, I think the choices of "are" and "should" have great significance. Following the same line of thought of Mr. Brahmanyan, 'sampradayam', being an unwritten convention, is not rigid and is liable to get mutated with passing times, but 'shastram', being a codification of rules, tends to very rigid, so much so, a situation may arise where the two do not necessarily suggest the same course of action. In such a moment, which path should one take? Go along with 'sampradaya' ignoring what 'shasthram' dictates, or, break 'the 'sampradayam' and obey the 'shastram'? Difficult to decide, isn't it?

The choice is not easy, for another reason too. 'Shastram', by its very nature, is brief, generalised and rigid. So, to understand it properly, it becomes necessary to be interpreted by an "expert", unlike 'sampradayam, which can be easily understood by the common man. But, how dependable is the interpretation of an expert? It is NOT unknown that two experts, though stalwarts and scholars in their own individual rights, differ greatly while interpreting some tenets of the SAME ''shastram', just because they come from two different religeous schools of thought! It is not always that 'sampradayam' and 'shastram' point out the same thing.

So, we come back to the fundamental question - what does a common man do? Follow the 'sampradayam' largely pactised in the society, or, 'accept the dictates of the interpreter of the 'shastram' and even defy, 'sampradayam', if need be? Any comments?
 
From what Mr. kr subramanian has clarified, it is the collection of the time-tested practises which constitute 'sampradayam' and the rules evolved grow in stature to be venerated as 'shastram'. On the other hand, Mr. Brahmanyan has sought to point out that both 'sampradayam' and 'shastram' are/should be same!

Well, I think the choices of "are" and "should" have great significance. Following the same line of thought of Mr. Brahmanyan, 'sampradayam', being an unwritten convention, is not rigid and is liable to get mutated with passing times, but 'shastram', being a codification of rules, tends to very rigid, so much so, a situation may arise where the two do not necessarily suggest the same course of action. In such a moment, which path should one take? Go along with 'sampradaya' ignoring what 'shasthram' dictates, or, break 'the 'sampradayam' and obey the 'shastram'? Difficult to decide, isn't it?

The choice is not easy, for another reason too. 'Shastram', by its very nature, is brief, generalised and rigid. So, to understand it properly, it becomes necessary to be interpreted by an "expert", unlike 'sampradayam, which can be easily understood by the common man. But, how dependable is the interpretation of an expert? It is NOT unknown that two experts, though stalwarts and scholars in their own individual rights, differ greatly while interpreting some tenets of the SAME ''shastram', just because they come from two different religeous schools of thought! It is not always that 'sampradayam' and 'shastram' point out the same thing.

So, we come back to the fundamental question - what does a common man do? Follow the 'sampradayam' largely pactised in the society, or, 'accept the dictates of the interpreter of the 'shastram' and even defy, 'sampradayam', if need be? Any comments?

CLN,

There is this injunction "atha yadi te karmavicikitsā vā vṛttavicikitsā vā syāt...". The guru says to the brahmachaarin on his successfully completing gurukulavaasam, "if you have any time any doubt about what is the proper thing to do (kartavya) or about what is the good way of doing anything (sadaachaara), consult a braahmana who is of noble thinking, knowledgeable and skilled in giving advice, of good deeds and thoughts, keeps good relationship with all (is not quarrelsome) and who follows dharma, and seek his advice.

Hence, I think the upanishad envisages a proper mix of both saastra and sampradaaya.

There is another advice, usually quoted by elders, to the effect that it is good to ask old ladies about "aachaaram" since they have the ability to memorize all the peripheral things (except the mantras-which are denied to them) and ask for their suggestions/advice.

In actual practice "saastram" ranks secondary, practice overrules it. Take for example the point made about shaving the beard, raised in another thread here. Shri Sarma Sastrigal has declined to support his edict with references. If we go through our ancient practices we will find that the vedic people had a sort of love-hate relationship with reference to hair in general; while "kudumi" was a must, and removal of kudumi was tantamount to total disgrace for a dvija, sampradaayam has now virtually wiped it out. Even the way in which the kudumi was kept, depended on 'family practice' or sampradaayam. Some had "mun kudumi", some had "pin kudumi" while some others had "ucchikkudumi". These were more important than whatever was in the saastras.

Shaving, keeping moustache, beard, etc. were also like that. Practice overrules law but law or saastras are not rewritten to keep pace with practice.
 
I think the illustrations given by Sangom are enlightening and help to bring out the dilemma faced by the seeker more to the front. Gone are the days when a newly initiated brahmachari, when in doubt, could turn to "a braahmana who is of noble thinking ........ and seek his advice". While I would not venture to say that it is impossible, it is a great challenge to seek a real "braahmana" who has all the attributes contained in those words of wisdom, today and in coming times.

The same thing goes with the other suggestion of consulting "old ladies". I don't wish to sound cynical or pessimistic or offensive to women, but this source for consultation too is fast vanishing. While today's "young ladies" will certainly grow older in time, how many of them in how many families will really qualify as sources of reference for deciding "aachaaram" is some thing I am not sure about.

I think Sangom's suggestion about "saastram" ranking secondary, but practice overruling it should be examined in greater depth, maybe, with more real-life examples. We cannot expect any uniformity or universality in guidelines to be followed because neither shastras are interpreted by all scholars in the same way, nor are sampradayas uniform in all places and among all people.

Where do we go from here?
 
Welcom sri CLN,

When we say sastram, we mean dharma sastram. There are many formulated and
codified by great and enlightened rishis. We follow these normally.

Sampradayam is close to sashtram but it differs from one place to another and from
one family to another. Here we follow what is being followed by our ancestors.

In cold places like Himalayas, the priests wear clothes and sweaters; in the south
the priests do not. In the north some priests smoke also to keep them warm. Here
it is not needed. Many instances of this type can be pointed out to illustrate this
point.

In the south marriages are performed during the day and in the north in the night.
We have jaanvaasam which is called as bhaaraat in the north and in the south,
on the day following the marriage, we send the girl to the boy's house with kattu
saadam. In the north, they have a similar function called vidaay.

In the olden days , we used to have five days marriage function with a lot of rituals
and now it is reduced to one day , more as a social function with vedic rituals
taking a back seat. We are living with this also.

In Tamil nadu, rituals differ from one district to another. North Arcot's procedures are
different to Tanjore's. When you go deep south it is much more different .

In Madras, you can go to temple , sanctum santorum included, with shirts on. But.
in kerala, you will have to enter the temple without shirt, angavasthram permitted.

In North, you can do puja yourself touching the Shiva Linga, but you cant do it here,
not even imagine it. People forget here that in the north, they do punyavachanam
at noon and after noon you are prohibited from going near the deity.

There are variances in practice from place to place and from family to family but
these pertain to certain procedures only, but basically we all adhere to the
fundamental principles.

We all know about mangalsutra - thaali. In the south the married ladies wear it
always till her death or her husband's death. In the north, they do not do so. A
married lady, when queried, told me that her mangalsutra is kept safely in the locker !
 
Last edited:
Dear Sri CLN,

Without going into details, I would rather agree with Sri "Sangom" and go with Sampradayam based on conventions. Sampradayam is sruthi, passed on orally from generation to generation by word of mouth. Many vrathams/nonbu, Pondugal, and functions like Nalungu, Valaikappu follow conventions or sampradayam.
I wish to hear more from our knowledgeable members in this regard.

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.
 
I think the illustrations given by Sangom are enlightening and help to bring out the dilemma faced by the seeker more to the front. Gone are the days when a newly initiated brahmachari, when in doubt, could turn to "a braahmana who is of noble thinking ........ and seek his advice". While I would not venture to say that it is impossible, it is a great challenge to seek a real "braahmana" who has all the attributes contained in those words of wisdom, today and in coming times.

The same thing goes with the other suggestion of consulting "old ladies". I don't wish to sound cynical or pessimistic or offensive to women, but this source for consultation too is fast vanishing. While today's "young ladies" will certainly grow older in time, how many of them in how many families will really qualify as sources of reference for deciding "aachaaram" is some thing I am not sure about.

I think Sangom's suggestion about "saastram" ranking secondary, but practice overruling it should be examined in greater depth, maybe, with more real-life examples. We cannot expect any uniformity or universality in guidelines to be followed because neither shastras are interpreted by all scholars in the same way, nor are sampradayas uniform in all places and among all people.

Where do we go from here?

Shri CLN,

I think we need not "go anywhere"; changes come in almost all aspects of our living, including the religious rites/functions about which this thread is. What I missed writing in my last post was that, though practice overrules law or saastra in such matters, the new and accepted practices are not enshrined as law - as one finds in Banking, for example. Here in the religious field, our laws stand as ancient light houses, once spreading powerful beams (of wisdom and practice) dilapidated now and just interesting only the researchers.

As for examples one can cite innumerable items. One is that in the olden days - about 50 or 60 years ago, that is - the "braahmanas" coming for sraaddham used to come, apply oil given by the "karta", take bath in the house of the karta and then only take part in the sraaddham. Today even the main vadhyar comes in a car or scooter through all sorts of crowd, and some of them do not even care to wash their feet, hands, and face, apply vibhuti afresh, before starting the ritual (forget all about the so-called "madi" notion). In one house they arranged for the meals to be served for the brahmanas to be brought by a caterer, the vaadhyaar questioned the propriety and then they replied firmly that if the vadhyar and brahmanas are prepared to come, take bath, wear fresh veshti etc., (madi), they will also arrange for good brahmin cooks - in 9 yards pudavai and all - to cook everything "madi" at home. There was not a murmur thereafter! And everyone knows here that all brahmin caterers employ the lower castes from TN, as cooks and servers because they are obedient and demand less wages! Give them some training in the local brahmin "tamilspeak" and a "poonal", you will not be able to find out who is brahmin (by birth) and who is not!!

Going to another dimension, for tarpanam vadhyars do not insist on "koorcham" now; rather they encourage "kattai pullu" (piece of darbhai) and in the mantras, the more sincere and knowledgeable ones substitute "asmin koorche" with "asmin darbhakhaNDe" or "asmin darbhasthambhe". Actually darbhai is in great short supply now - at least in TVM - and there are few people who are willing to venture into the areas because usually snakes abound where darbha grass is abundant. So vadhyars have to pay more; in shops some grass looking like darbhai is sold. That is the reason why vadhyars scrimp on darbhai for koorcham and advocate kattaippullu.

Even historically, no dharmasastra mentions "taali kettu". It is not there in the north. But has it not become the most important part of south indian marriages? Where were the law enforcers who could have disallowed it and thus helped parents of girls from giving the gold for it?

So, IMO, let us go by current practice which appeals to us as egalitarian and eclectic and not bother about what "saastram" says. It is not necessary, in such a case to find out a real braahmana as defined in the upanishad. But frankly don't we find that it is the womenfolk who tend to decide everything in any religious ritual? For example, it is the ladies only who will know/remember what items are "musts" in the family for sraaddham, what are not allowed in that family (even if generally allowed) and so on? In a marriage (daughter's, I mean) what role does the father play except as financier and figurehead?

But there are still some people who would like to do everything according to "saastram" although they themselves do not know what it is. When some such queries are raised, I do reply by giving what exactly the dharmasastras/grihya sutras prescribe.
 
Last edited:
Dear sri Sangom,

You are right. These so-called vaadhyars are mostly half-baked and are more
commercial now-a-days. At times, we have to tell them the procedures and
even the mantras they gloss over. Normally, it is our family custom to offer
havis to three generations - father, grand father and great-grand father. But
the vaadhyaar stopped with one and when questioned he said - ithu pOrunna !
We have to smile and keep quiet because we do not get vaadhyaars

One vaadhyaar was having breakfast - you know what, roast masala dosai- before
going to a house to perform shraaddha !!.
 
hi
there is a great poet in sanskrit called MAHAKAVI KALIDASA....according to him in kumarasambhava....i think...there is beautiful quote...

SRUTHERIVARTHAM SMRITI ANVAGACCHHAT.....means smriti followed as the meaning sruti..means vedas....so like wise sampradayam

should be based on shastram....genenrally it follows....but many sampradayas different from shastram.....generally sampradayam

based on desa kaala samayanusaram....means based on place and time....so shastram is basically based on dharmasastram....

but sampradayam based on places and time... can be change depends....shastram cannot change....we many ppl generally

follow many family sampradayas than the shastram...but we confused the both without proper knowledge... i may be wrong..

my 2 cents....


regards
tbs
 
Dear Sri CLN,

Sampradayam is convention which is unwritten and Sastram is codification of rules on the basis of Sampradayam. Thus both are/should be same.

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.
I'm not sure when you say that sastras are codification of sampradayas. To the extent I know, Sastras draw from other sources that are considered immutable.

Smritis can vary from region to region.

A greater clarity is required..

Rgds.,
 
Going to another dimension, for tarpanam vadhyars do not insist on "koorcham" now; rather they encourage "kattai pullu" (piece of darbhai) and in the mantras, the more sincere and knowledgeable ones substitute "asmin koorche" with "asmin darbhakhaNDe" or "asmin darbhasthambhe". Actually darbhai is in great short supply now - at least in TVM - and there are few people who are willing to venture into the areas because usually snakes abound where darbha grass is abundant. So vadhyars have to pay more; in shops some grass looking like darbhai is sold. That is the reason why vadhyars scrimp on darbhai for koorcham and advocate kattaippullu.

Aren't darba found in the beds or on banks of Karamana or Neyyar? It is that like us they don't take the hardship of locating them? Snakes were there even in earlier times too.

Most vadhyars just cut the length of thread for making "yagnopaveetham" rather than drawing threads with charka, thakli or just by rolling the hand.

Rgds.,
 
I'm not sure when you say that sastras are codification of sampradayas. To the extent I know, Sastras draw from other sources that are considered immutable.

Smritis can vary from region to region.

A greater clarity is required..

Rgds.,
Saastra is the word commonly used to refer to what the smritis say;smritis say what the compilers (of those texts) recall from memory of theirs and also, perhaps, their gurus, ancestors (father, grandfather usually).
 
Sir,

Manu smriti is quite famous codifying what should be done, how it is to be done,
what things should be avoided etc, in addition to various other topics. Sri Adi
Sankara , in his upanishad bashyas, quotes from Manu extensively.

Yagnavalkya smriti is partially adopted in our constitution also. Sutrams like
Apastamba, Bhodayana and others lay down detailed procedures. But basically
they do not differ much from the smritis although , as I said earlier, the practices
vary from place to place , from family to family.
 
Aren't darba found in the beds or on banks of Karamana or Neyyar? It is that like us they don't take the hardship of locating them? Snakes were there even in earlier times too.

Most vadhyars just cut the length of thread for making "yagnopaveetham" rather than drawing threads with charka, thakli or just by rolling the hand.

Rgds.,

Dear Shri Swami,

'yajnopaveetam' in fact refers to an 'upper garment' (upa +veeta) to be used compulsorily during any vedic sacrificial ritual by the "yajamaanan". neevee was the lower garment of those vedic days. References to a custom of wearing an upper cloth or a thread, at all times is not found in the earliest scriptures. In the sutra period, by which time perhaps the thread had come into vogue, there is specific mention of "upaveetam" in the times of Manu. I give below the relevant portion of Manu Dharma Sastra:

41. Let students, according to the order (of their castes), wear (as upper dresses) the skins of black antelopes, spotted deer, and he-goats, and (lower garments) made of hemp, flax or wool.
42. The girdle of a Brahmana shall consist of a of a triple cord of Munga grass, smooth and soft; (that) of a Kshatriya, of a bowstring, made of Murva fibres; (that) of a Vaisya, of hempen threads.
43. If Munga grass (and so forth) be not procurable, (the girdles) may be made of Kusa, Asmantaka, and Balbaga (fibres), with a single threefold knot, or with three or five (knots according to the custom of the family).
44. The sacrificial string of a Brahmana shall be made of cotton, (shall be) twisted to the right, (and consist) of three threads, that of a Kshatriya of hempen threads, (and) that of a Vaisya of woollen threads.
45. A Brahmana shall (carry), according to the sacred law, a staff of Bilva or Palasa; a Kshatriya, of Vata or Khadira; (and) a Vaisya, of Pilu or Udumbara.
46. The staff of a Brahmana shall be made of such length as to reach the end of his hair; that of a Kshatriya, to reach his forehead;
(and) that of a Vaisya, to reach (the tip of his) nose.
47. Let all the staves be straight, without a blemish, handsome to look at, not likely to terrify men, with their bark perfect, unhurt by fire.
48. Having taken a staff according to his choice, having worshipped the sun and walked round the fire, turning his right hand towards it, (the student) should beg alms according to the prescribed rule.
49. An initiated Brahmana should beg, beginning (his request with the word) lady (bhavati); a Kshatriya, placing (the word) lady in the middle, but a Vaisya, placing it at the end (of the formula).
50. Let him first beg food of his mother, or of his sister, or of his own maternal aunt, or of (some other) female who will not disgrace him (by a refusal).
51. Having collected as much food as is required (from several persons), and having announced it without guile to his teacher, let him eat, turning his face towards the east, and having purified himself by sipping water.
52. (His meal will procure) long life, if he eats facing the east; fame, if he turns to the south; prosperity, if he turns to the west; truthfulness, if he faces the east.


It will be seen that reference is made to a girdle (very much like the Kusti of the Parsis at the time of their initiation into the Parsi religious fold - see here for details and how closely it resembles the upanayana). The general instruction regarding the yajnopaveeta (I can't say when the ancient 'girdle' changed to 'cross belt') is that if it falls below the navel it becomes impure. You will find even today that Namboodiris wear an angavastram neatly rolled into a rope-like form and wear it on their (left) shoulder with a "brahma mudicchu" to keep it secured to the body, when doing any rites at home or in a temple.

Hence, it is salutary that the length of the poonal is suitably curtailed.

Do you know that most vadhyars get the thread wholesale from Madurai and upaveetham is made as a household manufacture by women sitting at home? These women are supplied with the thread and paid at piece-rates. In TVPM there is a small factory manufacturing cycle tyres and strong, reinforced cotton-rayon mix yarn is used there. Some vadhyars here get the thread from that factory - on payment, of course - and use it because the poonals will not normally break for one year.

Coming to "darbhai" I am surprised by your statement "Snakes were there even in earlier times too." I wonder in what an insulated world you are, that you seem to be unaware of the profound changes our kerala has undergone socially in the last few decades.

In earlier times there were people who had their avocations decreed by the caste system and they had to do certain jobs (only) or beg/starve. Today the Kerala people can take up any secular employment. Many have done that and gone to the gulf countries, and their gennext have done the same; even those who did not go out, do not have to take up this risky job for earning their livelihood. And, they just no longer believe that the few thousands of "cross-belted swamis" doing some abracadabra is of any relevance to or has any impact on their well-being.

Darbhai growing areas have vanished due to large scale reclamation of hill sides for housing, farms and what not. Very few people need to do this and so vadhyars have to cajole the few fellows and keep them in good humour if some supply is to come. So the supply is very limited, cost high.

The shortage of persons is not only for this; it is felt in getting supplies of ayurvedic herbs, skilled workers like masons, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, tile-layers, even unskilled labour for concreting, maids for household jobs, etc. Surely Kerala is moving towards the egalitarian west.
 
Last edited:
I presume that none will grudge the exalted position we give to ‘dharmashastram’, - the great compilations of smritis and sootras handed down to us from great maharshis of the distant past. But how did they get them, in the first place? They must have obviously got them from their gurus. But those gurus – where did they get the smritis from? In the same way, of course. But, can we do this ‘backward’ counting ad infinitum? Is it logical to do so?
An essential and unquestioning belief of all Hindus – across all divisions of the followers of Hindu Philosophy – is that the Vedas are the fundamental pramanam for the Hindu way of life. Vedas are not believed to be ‘authored’ by any individual or even groups of individuals, but are created by ‘Parabrahmam’ itself. The question now is: however sanctified the ‘smritis’ might be, can we place them in the same pedestal with Vedas? I am afraid not.
One may wonder what exactly is the need for discussing Vedas and Smritis in the same breath here. I am coming to the crux of the matter. If ‘smritis’ were not made by God, then they must have been made by men – men of infinite wisdom foresight and far sight, but men, nevertheless. What did they base their dictates on? I venture to suggest that they must have formulated their tenets on the basis of the customs and practices prevailing in their times – collectively, the ‘sampradayas’ of their times!
I might be sounding presumptuous and even iconoclastic to put forth the suggestion that ‘shastras’ – however venerated they might be – have been derived from ‘sampradayas’ only. But, however shocking and unpalatable it might be, there can really be no escaping the fact! Not only that. As sampradayas tend to change with time, though not abruptly or drastically, ‘even ‘shastras’ must have mutated, albeit ever so slowly, in ancient days. I have no proof to offer, but can anyone offer a counter-proof? The reason is very simple. In Hinduism, the search for the Ultimate Being has always been at individual level, thereby never really requiring any mass following, as in other religions. Our ancestors never believed in making any physical record of what they created – in mind or matter. Our sacred Vedas, smritis, sookthams and Puranas – all were transmitted down to the descendents only through Guru – Sishya karnaparampara. So, even if changes had actually occurred, we have no means of knowing much about them.
Where does all this leave us?
I tend to believe that in the formative years ‘shastras’ dictated codes of conduct and behavior to establish ‘sampradayas’; ‘sampradayas’, in turn, did influence subtle changes in ‘shastras’ too, with passage of time. The coming of institutions of mass learning like Takshasila, Nalanda and the like must have somehow brought in more rigidity in the coded practices and inhibited freedom to change with times. So, ‘shastras’ remained immutable while ‘sampradayas’, unfettered by any codification have always been evolving and mutating, slowly but surely.
I welcome comments and observation from learned forum members.
 
I presume that none will grudge the exalted position we give to ‘dharmashastram’, -
Yes, dharmashastras do occupy a central and exalted position within Brahminism.


.. across all divisions of the followers of Hindu Philosophy – is that the Vedas are the fundamental pramanam for the Hindu way of life. Vedas are not believed to be ‘authored’ by any individual or even groups of individuals, but are created by ‘Parabrahmam’ itself.
The orthodox position is it is simply unauthored, not even by Parabrhman. Otherwise, one will get stuck in a circular logic of validation for authenticity.

The question now is: however sanctified the ‘smritis’ might be, can we place them in the same pedestal with Vedas? I am afraid not.
Well, the Brahmin orthodoxy believes dharmashasthras reflect the extracted essence of the Vedic teachings, especially Manu. In other words, the Brahmin orthodoxy does not see any inconsistency between Vedas and Dharmashasthras, and therefore, the question whether Vedas occupy a higher pedestal is moot.

I might be sounding presumptuous and even iconoclastic to put forth the suggestion that ‘shastras’ – however venerated they might be – have been derived from ‘sampradayas’ only.
To be a true iconoclast you need to go further, and reject all the holy cows. It is not just the smrithis that are a record of what people, extraordinary they may have been in their times, but people nevertheless, were thinking, but even the venerable Vedas themselves are nothing more than a record of what mere mortals dared to speculate. They were extraordinary men (mostly men, some women as well), but humans nevertheless.

It is possible that these people had a higher good in mind when they came up with the rules laid down in dhramashstras, but IMO it is unlikely. They were moved more by sustaining their own elevated social status. I base this opinion on the fact that around the same time egalitarian ideas were forcefully expressed by the likes of Thiruvalluvar.

In summary, Vedas or smrithis, for Brahmins the teachings of both are immutable.

Cheers!
 
Sir,

Manu smriti is quite famous codifying what should be done, how it is to be done,
what things should be avoided etc, in addition to various other topics. Sri Adi
Sankara , in his upanishad bashyas, quotes from Manu extensively.

Yagnavalkya smriti is partially adopted in our constitution also. Sutrams like
Apastamba, Bhodayana and others lay down detailed procedures. But basically
they do not differ much from the smritis although , as I said earlier, the practices
vary from place to place , from family to family.

Shri Ranganathan,

It is perhaps pardonable if we tend to write from mere "impressions" and "vague notions" while posting in forums like this, but the exalted qualities brahmins that most of us here tom-tom about, requires that we stick to facts.

FYI, Sankara does not quote "extensively" from Manu Dharma Sastra (MDS) in his upanishad bhashyas. The statistics is as under:


1. Mundakopanishad Bhashya - 3 (13)
2. Mandukya - 1 (144)
3. Taittiriya - 2 (58)
4. Aitareya - 1 (54)
5. Brihadaranyaka -7 (264)
6. Isavasya - 0 (9)
7. Kena - 0 (52)
8. Katha - 0 (14)
9. Prasna - 0 (15)
10. Chandogya - 0 (87)
_______
Total - 14 (710)

Thus, out of a total of 710 citations/references in the 10 upanishad bhashyas, only 14 are from MDS. If one takes the Gita and Brahmasutra bhashyas also, the ratio falls to 23 out of a total of 2697.

What I would entreat all our members is, instead of making empty boasts that as brahmins we are heirs to the great legacy of our scriptures, etc., (which are so esoteric/mystical that we should not even try to understand them) and blindly believing what some mutts and other interested people like pravachanakartas tout, please start an attempt, however feeble, to actually read our scriptures or different translations on them and try to use the rational faculty to sift the actual content from the religious rhetoric and thus contribute to a new awakening.
 
In earlier times there were people who had their avocations decreed by the caste system and they had to do certain jobs (only) or beg/starve. Today the Kerala people can take up any secular employment.

Darbhai growing areas have vanished due to large scale reclamation of hill sides for housing, farms and what not. Very few people need to do this and so vadhyars have to cajole the few fellows and keep them in good humour if some supply is to come. So the supply is very limited, cost high.

The shortage of persons is not only for this; it is felt in getting supplies of ayurvedic herbs, skilled workers like masons, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, tile-layers, even unskilled labour for concreting, maids for household jobs, etc. Surely Kerala is moving towards the egalitarian west.

Sir,

I just made an enquiry, but you seem to taken it as an assertion.

Shortage of labour is growing, particularly in south. As a result, Biharis, and illegal migrants from Bangladesh (perhaps now regularised by an disingenuous legislation) are filling up, particularly in the construction sector.

It may gladden many that we are going the egalitarian ways of the west, but it is highly doubtful we have inculcated the professionalism required for the jobs.

As for darbai, still there are plenty of hill tracts in the neighbouring Kanyakumari and Tirunelveli with prospects -- though some of them may be in the reserved forest zones. Of-course there is cost involved in transportation and have to factor in the CITU union for unloading.

My father used to say ithat in the olden times the vadhyars, perhaps with their apprentices would themselves gather darbai from fields, river banks and beds. The conditions, needless to say has changed.

I have learnt that incidences of snake-bites is higher in Kerala compared to that in other states.

Regards,
 
Shri Ranganathan,

It is perhaps pardonable if we tend to write from mere "impressions" and "vague notions" while posting in forums like this, but the exalted qualities brahmins that most of us here tom-tom about, requires that we stick to facts.

FYI, Sankara does not quote "extensively" from Manu Dharma Sastra (MDS) in his upanishad bhashyas. The statistics is as under:


1. Mundakopanishad Bhashya - 3 (13)
2. Mandukya - 1 (144)
3. Taittiriya - 2 (58)
4. Aitareya - 1 (54)
5. Brihadaranyaka -7 (264)
6. Isavasya - 0 (9)
7. Kena - 0 (52)
8. Katha - 0 (14)
9. Prasna - 0 (15)
10. Chandogya - 0 (87)
_______
Total - 14 (710)

Thus, out of a total of 710 citations/references in the 10 upanishad bhashyas, only 14 are from MDS. If one takes the Gita and Brahmasutra bhashyas also, the ratio falls to 23 out of a total of 2697.

What I would entreat all our members is, instead of making empty boasts that as brahmins we are heirs to the great legacy of our scriptures, etc., (which are so esoteric/mystical that we should not even try to understand them) and blindly believing what some mutts and other interested people like pravachanakartas tout, please start an attempt, however feeble, to actually read our scriptures or different translations on them and try to use the rational faculty to sift the actual content from the religious rhetoric and thus contribute to a new awakening.

Dear Shri Sangom,
I would say one should first try to understand scriptures through the commentaries already existing before embarking on one's own. It is better to debate these different schools of thought and decide which one is the most coherent. Though I seriously doubt any new metaphysics is going to emerge out of this, I however think the knowledge may be used to derive important practical uses. Research in that direction in my opinion is a very worthwhile endeavor and may contribute to scientific knowledge even.
 
Dear Shri Sangom,
I would say one should first try to understand scriptures through the commentaries already existing before embarking on one's own. It is better to debate these different schools of thought and decide which one is the most coherent. Though I seriously doubt any new metaphysics is going to emerge out of this, I however think the knowledge may be used to derive important practical uses. Research in that direction in my opinion is a very worthwhile endeavor and may contribute to scientific knowledge even.

Dear Shri Sravna,

You seem to have "cautioned" me already once before - in another thread - against any commenting of our scriptures, this being the second warning; I was not giving any commentary here in this thread and so I don't understand the relevance of your learned warning here. I am waiting for the third warning now, and then perhaps... what??

You say very confidently that "one should first try to understand scriptures through the commentaries already existing before embarking on one's own." Is it that you want only the existing commentaries should be allowed and no new commentary should be permitted? What if someone feels like writing a commentary - we won't know if he/she has even looked into the existing ones - on one of the texts? So long as Shri Praveen and the moderators allow what I write to remain in these pages, why should you be so concerned about my "new commentary"?

I suspect that your knowledge and belief of scriptures is very fragile. When you find that there is no such great, invaluable and esoteric material in it and there are several mundane inconsistencies in the scriptures, you somehow want to desperately establish that it is not so. And the best way is to shut out the source of light that you find uncomfortable to your eyes.

I do not know whether any new metaphysics (the philosophical study of being and knowing) will come out of this, but surely some people at least may come to know a little more about the texts which are deliberately kept unread and not understood, so that the gullibility of the people is ensured and they are led to believe that these sacred texts are something very very mysterious, divine and so on.

The only practical use of our scriptural texts today is that some people get their higher degrees and doctorates by using them; nothing else will come out of these. As for scientific knowledge, I feel same position applies.
 
06_02_2011_420_003.jpg
 
The pdf document, I just loaded via the previous post was excerpted from the supplement of New Indian Express of 6th Feb. 2011.

Readers need to enlarge the font size to read the ones in fine print.

I found it interesting.....
 
Dear friends,

I have been following the commentaries of the contributors to this thread avidly, due to my personal interest in general, and, as the initiator of the thread, in particular. My intention to start this thread itself was with the very aim of generating a lively discussion and hearing out the thoughts and opinions of worthy and learned contributors. After all, we are all Seekers of Truth, in some way or the other. Even if we differ in our opinions, our basic objective is the same – to seek Truth. So, it is all the more important that we must all exercise necessary restraint and display the noble spirit of ‘agreeing to disagree’, without intending any offence to each other. I am sure, everyone will agree that pursuit of Truth and Wisdom is more important at any time than our own individual egos.

In my humble opinion, there is much validity in the point of view that the commentaries of the renowned bhashyakaras of the gone by era cannot be simply bluntly and brusquely set aside, just because in some aspects and from some angles their sayings might appear anachronistic, contradictory and even inconsistent. They may, perhaps, require closer examination, with a more tolerant frame of mind. But, on the other hand, it is nothing short of a myopic blunder if one denies one’s own innate intellectual urge to delve into the scriptures in an attempt to find new meanings and contemporaneous interpretations in them, simply because some die-hard adherents – among them some revered and respected scholars included – vociferously advocate blind obedience, holding on like monitor lizards (Udumbu in Tamil) to the dictum “(only) Old is (always) good”.

In our euphoria to glorify the past, we cannot forget that however great and exalted a personality from the past could have been, he could have made his assertions only on the basis of the prevailing standards, codes, mores, beliefs and customs of his times and not out of a vacuum. It is an unassailable fact that very few things really remain immutable and unchanged with time. So, to hold old legacies as sacred simply because they are old, need not always be all right; and certainly not to the extent of decrying any novel attempt by a seeker of the modern day, downgrading it simply as a form of disrespect to our ancestors.

If a son achieves more than his father, the latter only feels proud, but not jealous of him. This logic applies not only to individuals but to societies too. If a contemporary commentator can come up with a novel interpretation, more suitable and better applicable to present day needs, I am sure that the spirits of our worthy ancestors would only bless him for the achievement and not curse!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top