Vedic God Varuna in Oldest Tamil Book

[palindrome]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Kalabhairava,

You did not address this question:

Underlined a point. In fact, it is you who does not know to differentiate at all. You assume anything against brahmanism (put precisely, smartism) is against you as a person. Where do you get that identification from?

 

[renuka]

Reminds me of a telugu group which zealously propagated caste ("pride in caste") as a form of "preserving hinduism". Later I found some of these belonged to a particular organization which in turn is linked to a hindutva outfit.

To drum up zeal for caste does not profit the common man. In everyday life who cares for caste. But politicians wud like us to keep caste. The hindutva lobby wud like us to believe hinduism is under attack. When infact hinduism is very much alive and doing very well.

The only thing colonial period people rejected was the varna system. The varna system went spiralling downwards during that time; and has not recovered still. One just has to read the writings of Sangh leaders to understand their obsession with propagating varna (a)dharma thru a political (hindutva) platform.

Propagating caste zeal helps only politicians these days. I really won't be surprised if someone from that samaj has political or hindutva links.

As long as aryanists and dravidianists exist, india is doomed.

Dear Palindrome,

I went back to that page just to leave some comment but all comments are blocked now!LOL

So I could not tell them "get a hold of yourselves guys! what is this over the limit dialogue"

 

[palindrome]

Dear Palindrome,

I went back to that page just to leave some comment but all comments are blocked now!LOL

So I could not tell them "get a hold of yourselves guys! what is this over the limit dialogue"

There are some viruses who thrive on dividing the country based on religion, caste, creed, gender, strata.

It is not just media, in action too there are culprits who go as far as hoisting a pakistani flag to fester hate-mongering. Link: Navigation News | Frontline

 

[palindrome]

Sharing a book link for readers in case anyone is interested: The Origin of Brahmanism by Martin Haug.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Ref post # 24: Merely by throwing out terms, one may not fool anyone. The social system of organizing jatis is just that - a social system. The rules with which the social system is governed are the laws of the society. Just because some of these rules are written in religious texts, they do not become religious laws. This is not unique to Hinduism. Laws that governed the day-to-day lives of members of a society, are reflected in the scriptures of other major religions too including Christianity and Islam. Historians who researched these religions do not call them religious laws. Neither do they blame religion or the clergy for what was imposed by the society. If anything religious rules are seldom strictly followed, certainly not as strictly as the societal laws. The jatis were not merely occupational categories - membership to a jati was birth-based only and this precedes the varna system. The fact that birth-based caste system continues till today, much after the collapse of the varna system, is proof enough. Varna kind of organizing occupations is not a unique system as is claimed here. I had already pointed out tamil kingdom itself had a class division, with each division a conglomeration of occupational categories only. Guild societies too existed in many parts of the world. Slavery/violence are not products of religion. That is simply a false claim. Neighboring kingdoms were constantly at war with each other and people who lost were enslaved by the victors. The enslaved groups were obviously forced to do occupations serving the victors. When the societies grew, it became necessary to increase food production at a rapid rate and enslaved people were deployed to work in the fields. With the slaves having a lowly status in the society, and a vast majority of them working in the fields, slowly that occupation was moved down the hierarchy. Farming was classified as vaisya duty only in the beginning.

Casteism is not brahminism. That is just prejudiced thinking.

 

[sangom]

The social system of organizing jatis (occupation categories / castes) in a hierarchy, each represented under a varna, is a smriti bastion. Herein, smritis refer specifically to the texts of dharmashastras which smartism uphold verily as the divine (depsite the fact the dharmashastras use / endorse violence to keep people subjugated into slavery). We also have the case of kshatropetabrahmanas (ie, 'kshatriyas' claiming to be of brahmin descent). The Manusmriti places temple priests also in a lowly position. As such, it is very obvious the term 'brahmin' is a very generic one.

My knowledge is only minimal but which Dharmasastra text/s lay down the various castes under each of the four original varnas? To the best of my knowledge the only book of this type is some SAnkarasmriti*** which was accepted in Kerala by the Nambudiris and all other people. But there is enough evidence through official census reports that under each caste (like Nair, Ezhava, Pulaya, KammALan, etc.,) more and more sub-groups originated from within the original castes themselves and within such sub-groups there was untouchability, need to keep distances for the sake of (bodily/ritual) purity, and if this was violated severe penances had to be made. It therefore appears to me that this tendency to form kind of "guilds" and to consider themselves ritually purer than some other groups had been a tendency within the Indian people.

I do subscribe to the Aryan-Dravidian concepts and I feel that the Aryans on coming into this sub-continent, found very many indigenous tribes who were mutually inimical with one another, and the Aryans put these various mutually warring tribal groups under four large labels to which they were possibly accustomed since the Iranian society also had a four-fold classification.

The blame for making castes has however been put on the heads of brahmins because they, as the only group capable of making slokas, sutras, orally memorized texts, etc., put down certain things without giving the whole background.

At the beginning of the 20th. century, the NE areas had very many tribes who were constantly at war with each other and the severed head of an enemy tribal male was a prized possession and a status symbol. Perhaps one can find this same feelings even today among the Nagas of Nagaland, I believe.

In any case more unbiased research needs to be done about caste system in India as distinguished from the four-varnas system, I think.

Note: *** I find it is not even "SAnkarasmriti" which lays down the castes of Kerala but a book called "jAtinirNayaM" of unknown authorship dated 16th. century A.D. (Ref: http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/നമ്പൂത....E0.B5.8D.E0.B4.A3.E0.B4.AF.E0.B4.82..5B14.5D)

 

[prasad1]

There are some viruses who thrive on dividing the country based on religion, caste, creed, gender, strata.

How are you any different? You are trying to pin the blame on brahmins of today.

 

[palindrome]

How are you any different? You are trying to pin the blame on brahmins of today.

What makes you think am blaming brahmins of today? Already made it amply clear am against a particular ideology, which gets propagated thru hindutva and mutt ideology. If you, as an individual, follow the hatered-filled smriti ideology, then yes, i would think you are blame-worthy.

 

[palindrome]

Ref post # 24: Merely by throwing out terms, one may not fool anyone. The social system of organizing jatis is just that - a social system. The rules with which the social system is governed are the laws of the society. Just because some of these rules are written in religious texts, they do not become religious laws. This is not unique to Hinduism. Laws that governed the day-to-day lives of members of a society, are reflected in the scriptures of other major religions too including Christianity and Islam. Historians who researched these religions do not call them religious laws. Neither do they blame religion or the clergy for what was imposed by the society. If anything religious rules are seldom strictly followed, certainly not as strictly as the societal laws. The jatis were not merely occupational categories - membership to a jati was birth-based only and this precedes the varna system. The fact that birth-based caste system continues till today, much after the collapse of the varna system, is proof enough. Varna kind of organizing occupations is not a unique system as is claimed here. I had already pointed out tamil kingdom itself had a class division, with each division a conglomeration of occupational categories only. Guild societies too existed in many parts of the world. Slavery/violence are not products of religion. That is simply a false claim. Neighboring kingdoms were constantly at war with each other and people who lost were enslaved by the victors. The enslaved groups were obviously forced to do occupations serving the victors. When the societies grew, it became necessary to increase food production at a rapid rate and enslaved people were deployed to work in the fields. With the slaves having a lowly status in the society, and a vast majority of them working in the fields, slowly that occupation was moved down the hierarchy. Farming was classified as vaisya duty only in the beginning.

Casteism is not brahminism. That is just prejudiced thinking.

Ah the typical 'circular logic' (in your terms). Yet again.

Casteism is Brahmanism. The origin of Brahmanism, with society organized into 4 varnas represented by numerous jatis within each varna, begins from the Purushasukta wherein the virat purusha got divided into 4 parts -- head for brahmins, arms for ksatriyas, thighs for vaishyas and feet for shudras. All others got outcasted as dAsAs.

Not just Untouchability and Slavery, some groups were considered unseeable, as per dharmashastra laws. This has a social basis with victors ensalving the defeated; but also has a definitive religious basis. As explained here. Untouchables included priests of religions who did support dharmashastras.

From birth to death seperate rules governed the life of an individual. At birth, a baby had to be named as per his/her varna. Even in death, an individual was not spared of his varna. Through life and death different rituals are prescribed for each varna.

Christianity and Islam have laws for its followers versus non-followers. For example, a different set of rules for kafirs (non-muslims) and a different set for its own followers. This does not mean those laws are any better than dharmashastra laws.

The founders of religions, and religious laws, are all males. Sharia is a set of religious laws. Dharmashastras are religious laws. These religious laws thrived on suppression, as also gender bias. Show me works of historians who do not call them religious laws.

The division of tamil society is completely different from the Varna system of dharmashastras. Already described this time and again in various posts. This one was most recent. I ask Kalabhairava the same question I asked here -- Show me any tamil / sangam literature which endorses slavery, and that too using violence.

Caste predates varna. There is no evidence of violence and rigidly fixing birth-based occupations in a clan-based society (i.e., in clans and tribes which had organized themselves on the basis of caste / jati (occupation).) The proponents of varna system were not indigenous. They imposed varna system on indigenous societies.

All this has been discussed time and again in older threads.

Looking forward to your reply to post # 26.

Thank you.

 

[palindrome]

My knowledge is only minimal but which Dharmasastra text/s lay down the various castes under each of the four original varnas? To the best of my knowledge the only book of this type is some SAnkarasmriti*** which was accepted in Kerala by the Nambudiris and all other people.

Sangom Sir,

Since a few months now, there is a definitive change in your posts. For someone who posted threads as this -- http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...i-authored-safeguard-kshatriya-interests.html -- I find it amusing you say your knowledge of dharmashastra is minimal.

Am sure you are aware Manusmriti lists and represents various castes and varnas. Had also discussed Gautama, Apasthamba, Vashista and Baudhayana. You too were part of discussions in a multitude of threads about smritis (dharmashastras). Perhaps this particular post may help.

Regarding sAnkara smriti, am not aware of it. Will try to look up details on it.

But there is enough evidence through official census reports that under each caste (like Nair, Ezhava, Pulaya, KammALan, etc.,) more and more sub-groups originated from within the original castes themselves and within such sub-groups there was untouchability, need to keep distances for the sake of (bodily/ritual) purity, and if this was violated severe penances had to be made.

It therefore appears to me that this tendency to form kind of "guilds" and to consider themselves ritually purer than some other groups had been a tendency within the Indian people.

Am not aware of such an 'evidence' -- please do elaborate on this. I have only read about clans and tribes, and amply discussed their social organization systems in older threads.

I do subscribe to the Aryan-Dravidian concepts and I feel that the Aryans on coming into this sub-continent, found very many indigenous tribes who were mutually inimical with one another, and the Aryans put these various mutually warring tribal groups under four large labels to which they were possibly accustomed since the Iranian society also had a four-fold classification.

Sorry sir, the Iranian society had a 3-fold division not 4-fold. I have no decided views on aryan-dravidian. All my current views are based on currently available information and will change with emerging evidence. So far atleast, I subscribe to the view of Frits Staal, which we already discussed in older threads (this being the latest one).

The blame for making castes has however been put on the heads of brahmins because they, as the only group capable of making slokas, sutras, orally memorized texts, etc., put down certain things without giving the whole background.

Sorry sir, i do not accept this point. The term 'brahmin' is a very generic one. The problem, in my view, is only with the smarta / hindutva ideology of varna vyavastha. Since its genesis in the colonial period, the hindutva ideology has been very problematic. If left unchecked, it will create civil wars in india, just as islamic fundamentalists made pakistan a failed state.

At the beginning of the 20th. century, the NE areas had very many tribes who were constantly at war with each other and the severed head of an enemy tribal male was a prized possession and a status symbol. Perhaps one can find this same feelings even today among the Nagas of Nagaland, I believe.

Head hunting is known to have existed in various parts of the world. Am not sure what connection this has with our current discussion on dharmashastras.

In any case more unbiased research needs to be done about caste system in India as distinguished from the four-varnas system, I think.

I agree.

Note:

*** I find it is not even "SAnkarasmriti" which lays down the castes of Kerala but a book called "jAtinirNayaM" of unknown authorship dated 16th. century A.D. (Ref: ????????? - ???????????)

Thank you for this information. Will read up more on this.

Thank you sir.

 

[Nara]

....Although you wanted a definitive evidence that Agastya was a Brahmin, you yourselves seem to know very little about him when you question "Who was the Agastya who compiled the first Tamil Grammar".

But you jolly well let your speculation run wild by opening up the possibility that he could very well be an extraordinary Siddhar. ReallY ?? Who told you that? Do you have any evidence? If you can speculate in this forum why not others speculate in this forum and other forums?

Dear zebra16, I think you have overlooked two important points that make your objection invalid.

#1. The OP made a definitive claim, "Tamil saint Agastya is considered son of Varuna and Urvasi. This brings Varuna closer to Tamils. Agastya was the one who made a grammar for Tamil language." And then there was this, "How come they don't realize the fact (emphasis mine) that the person who compiled Tamil Grammar was a Brahmin!LOL" from post #4. These are not speculations. This was the context and my comment was to show there was no definitive evidence that Agastya was a Brahmin.

#2. Only to make a definitive claim as was done by the OP and post #4 one needs definitive evidence. To speculate or propose an alternative theory we need only circumstantial evidence, and I submit to you, there are enough textual and iconographic evidence to show the Agstya who compiled Tamil grammar was a Siddhar -- it is not a case of "speculation run wild" as you have accused. In as much as many Siddha texts are attributed to Agastya, whoever he was, he was certainly an extraordinary siddhar.

The way the expected company joins in your evidence-free possibility of Agastya being an extra ordinary Siddhar, it will become an indisputable fact in this forum within a period of six months and this thread will be quoted as Ph.D thesis.

By the way. does the principle of rationality take leave of absence in the case of Siddhars, whether ordinary or extra ordinary? What does science say about existence of siddhis.

I don't understand this tone of sarcasm from you in your entire post. Did I ever treat you with such derision? Please zebra16, let us try to be considerate to each other, if not to everyone in the forum.

best regards ....

 

[sangom]

Sangom Sir,

Since a few months now, there is a definitive change in your posts. For someone who posted threads as this -- http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...i-authored-safeguard-kshatriya-interests.html -- I find it amusing you say your knowledge of dharmashastra is minimal.

Am sure you are aware Manusmriti lists and represents various castes and varnas. Had also discussed Gautama, Apasthamba, Vashista and Baudhayana. You too were part of discussions in a multitude of threads about smritis (dharmashastras). Perhaps this particular post may help.

Dear Palindrome,

I agree that there has been change in my views about "jAthis" vis-a-vis the varnas since the last one year or so. When I joined this forum in May 2010, I was having the impression that the smritis were completely responsible for all the caste panorama that we had/still have in India. But subsequent readings about Kerala as also India, has made me rethink this point.

It is true that "theeNDal" (ritual impurity by simply coming near) is mostly a Kerala-based idea but in one book it was stated that in the north this had undergone a change because of the Mughal rule and has survived as 'from whom we can drink water?' and 'with whom we can eat in the same row or panthi?'. I remember such ideas are still prevalent even among the lowest castes in UP etc., from my old reading.

Am not aware of such an 'evidence' -- please do elaborate on this. I have only read about clans and tribes, and amply discussed their social organization systems in older threads.

I understand that at the dawn of the 20th. century what was then NEFA, had hundreds of tribes most of whom were at war with each other and head-hunting from other tribes was a prestige. This comes from some Malayalam books, written, incidentally by an OBC person.

Because of such new inputs I have started doubting whether at all Manu's delineation of pratiloma unions and their results can be the sole reason for the origin of the myriad of castes, sub-castes and even sub-sub-castes may be or whether Manu was just attempting some labelling of broad categories over and above the original four of the chAturvarNya in order to put the innumerable groups of indigenous people into and some manual of social conduct to be uniformly followed by the Aryan migrants, made in that way.

Sorry sir, the Iranian society had a 3-fold division not 4-fold. I have no decided views on aryan-dravidian. All my current views are based on currently available information and will change with emerging evidence. So far atleast, I subscribe to the view of Frits Staal, which we already discussed in older threads (this being the latest one).

There was this classification in ancient Persia AFAI have read : Arthvan, Rathestar, Vastrayosh & Hutoksha. The last corresponded to the Sudra and denoted, in ancient Persia to the camp followers during travels.
I tend to believe, till some scientific evidence comes up to disprove it, that the vedas, vedic language, its refined sanskrit form and the whole vedic religion were not autochthonous to this sub-continent and were imported by group/s of foreign people who came here and have by now mingled almost completely with the rest of the indian population so that even genetic identification will be next to impossible now. (The only groups which may provide some interesting findings may be the Chitpavan Brahmins and the Namboodiris.)

Sorry sir, i do not accept this point. The term 'brahmin' is a very generic one. The problem, in my view, is only with the smarta / hindutva ideology of varna vyavastha. Since its genesis in the colonial period, the hindutva ideology has been very problematic. If left unchecked, it will create civil wars in india, just as islamic fundamentalists made pakistan a failed state.

The problem you have, seems to me to be that your span of history starts from the so-called "colonial period" and your bete noire is currently the smArtas. Just as in my case your dislike of the smArtas is a somewhat recent phenomenon. But in the beginning of the colonial period (1600 A.D.) only smArta brahmins would have been there and even the kshatropetas were not outside the ambit of smritis, I believe.

The varna vyavastha does not exist now as far as governance is concerned but jAthi or caste is in full swing. But, do you think this caste phenomenon is as bad as the varna vyavastha?

Head hunting is known to have existed in various parts of the world. Am not sure what connection this has with our current discussion on dharmashastras.

Kindly read my post again as a whole. This reference to head-hunting was to support the observation that thousands of years ago this whole sub-continent might also have been in such a social state. Hence it is relevant to my observation that

"I do subscribe to the Aryan-Dravidian concepts and I feel that the Aryans on coming into this sub-continent, found very many indigenous tribes who were mutually inimical with one another, and the Aryans put these various mutually warring tribal groups under four large labels to which they were possibly accustomed since the Iranian society also had a four-fold classification."

 

[prasad1]

What makes you think am blaming brahmins of today? Already made it amply clear am against a particular ideology, which gets propagated thru hindutva and mutt ideology. If you, as an individual, follow the hatered-filled smriti ideology, then yes, i would think you are blame-worthy.

You do not want my opinion about you.
What do you achieve by blaming one set of people for the follies committed thousands of years ago. You just rake up mud to show your "knowledge". Have you done anything for the upliftment of human beings? Your rant on this site against the majority of the site members is pure hatred and nothing else. What I like about history, is to learn from them, and not necessarily live in that period. You on the other hand never came out of it. This living in the past is what drives you.

 

[Nara]

Dear palindrome, I want to let you know there are many here who value your scholarship and contributions. I never miss reading your posts.

Please be selective in who you respond to, there is too much animosity and too little moderation in this forum.

wishing you well ....

 

[prasad1]

Dear palindrome, I want to let you know there are many here who value your scholarship and contributions. I never miss reading your posts.

Please be selective in who you respond to, there is too much animosity and too little moderation in this forum.

wishing you well ....

Are you joining this hate mongering because Palindroneji is against Smarthas? What if she was against Vaishnavas, would you still say the same things? Just be careful, it is dangerous to cultivate poison.

I hate to add in this thread, it has lost its focus.

 

[Nara]

Are you joining this hate mongering because Palindroneji is against Smarthas? What if she was against Vaishnavas, would you still say the same things? Just be careful, it is dangerous to cultivate poison.

I hate to add in this thread, it has lost its focus.

Dear prasad1, you say, "What if she was against Vaishnavas...". You seem to assume I harbor some affinity for Vaishnavam. While I may be guilty of many shortcomings what you suggest is not one of them. If palindrome wishes to discuss Vaishnavam I will gladly join in.

Now, your last two posts in this thread are deliberately offensive in the extreme against palindrome -- whatever may be the disagreement words like "poison" to describe another person is downright mean. Just adding the suffix "ji" does not exempt anyone from the obligation to behave with a modicum of civility. It is a shame that such vitriol directed against a fellow member is tolerated. It is shame indeed.

-- Dileepan

 

[கால பைரவன்]

I tend to believe, till some scientific evidence comes up to disprove it, that the vedas, vedic language, its refined sanskrit form and the whole vedic religion were not autochthonous to this sub-continent and were imported by group/s of foreign people who came here and have by now mingled almost completely with the rest of the indian population so that even genetic identification will be next to impossible now.

If you are basing your opinion on similarity of languages, let me point out that the Dravidian languages are also linked to elamites, who lived in the same Iranian region. Besides, cultural similarities were identified between sumerians, who also lived in the same region, and Dravidian groups.

 

[palindrome]

Dear Palindrome,

I agree that there has been change in my views about "jAthis" vis-a-vis the varnas since the last one year or so. When I joined this forum in May 2010, I was having the impression that the smritis were completely responsible for all the caste panorama that we had/still have in India. But subsequent readings about Kerala as also India, has made me rethink this point.

It is true that "theeNDal" (ritual impurity by simply coming near) is mostly a Kerala-based idea but in one book it was stated that in the north this had undergone a change because of the Mughal rule and has survived as 'from whom we can drink water?' and 'with whom we can eat in the same row or panthi?'. I remember such ideas are still prevalent even among the lowest castes in UP etc., from my old reading.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for the response.

A good many practices such as theendal (ritual impurity) are simply tribal practices. A few years back I was reading a book on pregnancy and child birth. I was amazed so many tribes / cultures across africa, europe, far east asia, observed ritual pollution after child-birth. The concept of 'what is pollution' (ritual or otherwise, by touch or presence) is very varied.

Most certainly, dharmashastras did not create these concepts. Instead selective customs were codifed to represent one's varna through birth and death. Unfortunately, in dharmashastras, varna is based on birth and uses violence to keep varna vyavastha enforced.

I understand that at the dawn of the 20th. century what was then NEFA, had hundreds of tribes most of whom were at war with each other and head-hunting from other tribes was a prestige. This comes from some Malayalam books, written, incidentally by an OBC person.

Head hunting even today is a matter of prestige amongst borneo tribes (last year a christian missionary who visited that place had told me due to conversion to christianity headhunting incidents have markedly decreased, otherwise they were common even 10 years back, even a small rivalry could cause a man to loose his head). There is nothing surprising about it.

Headhunting must have existed in native indian tribes (for whatever reasons of rivalry). Without headhunting how else would some of our gods / goddesses wear a garland of skulls?

Because of such new inputs I have started doubting whether at all Manu's delineation of pratiloma unions and their results can be the sole reason for the origin of the myriad of castes, sub-castes and even sub-sub-castes may be or whether Manu was just attempting some labelling of broad categories over and above the original four of the chAturvarNya in order to put the innumerable groups of indigenous people into and some manual of social conduct to be uniformly followed by the Aryan migrants, made in that way.

Castes certainly existed before the time of Manu and his smriti. At least as per social historians caste is an ancient unit of social organization.

Manu merely tried to represent and organize myriad (pre-existing) castes into his varna scheme. Since he could not represent all under his varna system, he used the term dasas to indicate "everyone else". Manusmriti 10.45 says Mukhabahurupajjanam ya loke jatayo bahih | mlechchavachascharyavachascha sarve te dasyavah smritah || -- everyone outside the mouth, arms, thighs, feet representation are dasas whether they speak aryan or mlechcha.

Obviously before the time of Manu itself different linguistic groups and social organization units such as those based on occupational category (caste) existed.

There was this classification in ancient Persia AFAI have read : Arthvan, Rathestar, Vastrayosh & Hutoksha. The last corresponded to the Sudra and denoted, in ancient Persia to the camp followers during travels.
I tend to believe, till some scientific evidence comes up to disprove it, that the vedas, vedic language, its refined sanskrit form and the whole vedic religion were not autochthonous to this sub-continent and were imported by group/s of foreign people who came here and have by now mingled almost completely with the rest of the indian population so that even genetic identification will be next to impossible now. (The only groups which may provide some interesting findings may be the Chitpavan Brahmins and the Namboodiris.)

Thankyou for the correction sir. Am sorry i was aware only of Atharvas (priests), Rathesthas (warriors), and vastryafshuyans (farmers). Afaik, the term hutoksha does not appear in the zend avesta (please correct me if am wrong). The term hutoksha was merely used to denote everyone else outside the system (just like the term "dasa" of manusmriti).

Slavery, enforced by violence on a group called shudras, afaik is absent in the religion of ahura mazda (again, please correct me if am wrong).

The chitpavans are not brahmins at all. Their claim to brahminhood comes from a select set of interpolations into the skanda purana made during peshwa period, they got all other copies of skanda purana burnt (this we had already discussed).

The namboodiris are a curious set. The only people who perform agnicayana and elaborate yagnas. The only people, who imo, can be called vedic brahmins, simply due to their culture.

The problem you have, seems to me to be that your span of history starts from the so-called "colonial period" and your bete noire is currently the smArtas. Just as in my case your dislike of the smArtas is a somewhat recent phenomenon. But in the beginning of the colonial period (1600 A.D.) only smArta brahmins would have been there and even the kshatropetas were not outside the ambit of smritis, I believe.

It took me a while to understand dharmashastras, a select set of vaidika agamas, some avaidika agamas, and a fair deal of history from various sources, to come to the current conclusions.

I think most problems of present-day india spill over from the colonial period; and hence, the repeated reference to colonial period. I cannot dislike people for their caste (oh please, how cud i dislike my own cousins just for something as dumb as caste). I firmly believe religious ideology of divide and rule, including smriti ideology of varna vyavastha, will not benefit any individual anymore.

The varna vyavastha does not exist now as far as governance is concerned but jAthi or caste is in full swing. But, do you think this caste phenomenon is as bad as the varna vyavastha?

Yes, caste seves no purpose. Jatis (castes) are "former-occupation" categories. Of what use is a former-occupation identity in this century?

We live in a secular world, where everyone receives wages. Women study, earn and inherit wealth. Our children are free to educate themselves into any profession. Then why link them to a "former-occupation" of their great-granddad? What religious or social purpose does it serve? (if for census requirement 'caste' is okay, as demographics are needed for policy-making; but for all other purposes 'caste' is a nonsequitur).

Kindly read my post again as a whole. This reference to head-hunting was to support the observation that thousands of years ago this whole sub-continent might also have been in such a social state. Hence it is relevant to my observation that

"I do subscribe to the Aryan-Dravidian concepts and I feel that the Aryans on coming into this sub-continent, found very many indigenous tribes who were mutually inimical with one another, and the Aryans put these various mutually warring tribal groups under four large labels to which they were possibly accustomed since the Iranian society also had a four-fold classification."

Thankyou for the clarification sir. Yes i see your point. But i thot practices of all sorts, gruesome or otherwise, existed across cultures in the tribal past. Was head-hunting absent amongst aryan speakers?

Scythians are known to have used skulls for drinking. In some ascetic traditions (such as kapalikas) the skull was used as an alms-bowl. Am not sure if any of these can be linked to aryan culture. Perhaps it would be difficult to trace.

Thank you.

 

[palindrome]

If you are basing your opinion on similarity of languages, let me point out that the Dravidian languages are also linked to elamites, who lived in the same Iranian region. Besides, cultural similarities were identified between sumerians, who also lived in the same region, and Dravidian groups.

Perhaps you are confused between Indo-Aryan speakers and Indo-Iranian speakers. Indo-Iranian includes non-indo-aryan speakers (such as the dardic). The term Indo-Aryan refers to a very specific set and culture. Whether this Elamo-dravidian has any connection to Indo-Aryan, we do not know yet. Occupying the same region does not automatically mean they had a common origin or otherwise. Culture tends to have similarities across various regions, and is not always exclusive (though tribes tried creating unique identities or representations for themselves)

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Perhaps you are confused between Indo-Aryan speakers and Indo-Iranian speakers.

My response was specific to Sangom's observations, please. I think Sangom connects "Aryans" to ancient Iranian society because of the class or varna system itself. AFAIK, this four-fold class division did not exist in European societies. The fact that it existed in tamil society points to a strong link to Indo-Iranian Origin as there is linguistic connection between dravidian and elamite systems.

 

[renuka]

The fact that it existed in tamil society points to a strong link to Indo-Iranian Origin as there is linguistic connection between dravidian and elamite systems.

I wonder if everyone was some Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan origin...then who were the original inhabitants of Bharat?

What about the time of Matsya Avatar where there was already Kings and Brahmins in the land known as Dramila(present day Tamil Nadu) and the river Kritamala where the King found Matsya Avatar as a small fish is the present day Vaigai river of Tamil Nadu...so who were the Brahmins at that time then?? Non Aryan??

 

[london swaminathan]

Renuka

I am writing a long article on this subject. Every thing gets confused because of the fake, fictitious, malicious, mischievous, poisonous, parochialistic, chauvinistic,divisive, anti Hindu, anti Indian, destabilizing Aryan Dravidian Race theory. If you drop it, you will be able to decipher Indus script and You will be able to push back Indian history by several thousand years.You will see new meaning in to India and Hinduism. I am not alone. Mahatma Gandhi, Harijan leader BR AMbedkar, Swami Vivekananda and Kachi Paramacharya blasted this theory long ago.As long as one sticks to this there will be heated debates and name callings.
My aim is to smash this and shatter it to 1000s of pieces. Wait and see.

 

[sangom]

If you are basing your opinion on similarity of languages, let me point out that the Dravidian languages are also linked to elamites, who lived in the same Iranian region. Besides, cultural similarities were identified between sumerians, who also lived in the same region, and Dravidian groups.

Dear KB,

I personally would give more importance to linguistic evidence/s. I have not so far gone into Elamite and Dravidian, but if you know aome urls, books, etc., kindly furnish.

Even then, I think the language streams are different in the case of Tamil and sanskrit or vedic. Am I correct?

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Dear KB,
I personally would give more importance to linguistic evidence/s. I have not so far gone into Elamite and Dravidian, but if you know aome urls, books, etc., kindly furnish.
Even then, I think the language streams are different in the case of Tamil and sanskrit or vedic. Am I correct?

Dear Sangom,
Yes, the language streams are different.
For elamo-dravidian info, please refer to work of McAlpin, though there are many scholars who discount that hypothesis. The proto Dravidian languages themselves are distinguished often in terms of region (north, middle, and south india, for example) and there are different theories and they are often connected to different linguistic systems.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

I wonder if everyone was some Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan origin...then who were the original inhabitants of Bharat?
What about the time of Matsya Avatar where there was already Kings and Brahmins in the land known as Dramila(present day Tamil Nadu) and the river Kritamala where the King found Matsya Avatar as a small fish is the present day Vaigai river of Tamil Nadu...so who were the Brahmins at that time then?? Non Aryan??

Dear Doc, There is a tamil saying: ஊருக்கு இளைத்தவன் பிள்ளையார் கோயில் ஆண்டி

Similarly, some people like to blame brahmins for everything.

Consider this tamil poem from the Sangam-age கலித்தொகை

ஆயர் மகன் ஆயின், ஆய மகள் நீ ஆயின்,
நின் வெய்யன்ஆயின், அவன் வெய்யை நீ ஆயின்,
நின்னை நோதக்கதோ இல்லைமன் நின் நெஞ்சம்,
அன்னை நெஞ்சு, ஆகப் பெறின்

காதலியும் காதலனும் ஒரே சாதியாக இருந்தால் காதலியின் தாய் மனம் நோகாது என்று அர்த்தம்.

Is divya's mother in ilavarassan-divya issue different from this mother of sangam age? You described casteism as delusionism but the delusion has been there even in Sangam age