Who are we?

[murali]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Shanti brahmji,
A very timely post.Thank you.

Kashyap,
flattered to see my name in distinguished company.Hope to reach there some day.

 

[KRS]

Folks,

Sorry for the delay in posting my first topic:

Earliest citations of 'Varnas' in Vedas and Upanishads

Rig Veda, in Purusha Sukta, says:

Verse 13
brAhmaNo asya mukhamAseet | bAhoo rAjanya: krta: |
ooru tadasya yad vaishya | padbhyAm shoodro ajAyata || 12 ||
(asya) His (mukham) mouth (Aseet) became (brAhmaNa)
the Brahmin, (bAhoo) his arms (krta) were made (rAjanya)
Kings. (yad) what were(asya ooru) his thighs, (tad) they were
made into (vaishya) the merchants, (padbhyAm) and from his feet
(shoodro) were the servants (ajAyata) born.

Various scholors cite this as the first instance of the description of the Varna system in our scriptures. But note that the word "Kshatriya' is not used to describe the second Varna. The word 'Rajanya' is used. The significance is that during the period when this hymn was composed the 'Varna' system as understood in later scriptures did not exist.

Next Citation in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:

This Upanishad is one of the oldest (and we need to remember that there were 1000 years minimum that went by between the Rig Veda citation and this one). Here the Creation theory is discussed.

11
In the beginning this (the kshatriya and other castes) was indeed Brahman, one only without a second. He, being one, did not flourish. He projected, further, an excellent form, kshatriyahood—those kshatriyas (rulers) among the gods: Indra, Varuna, Soma (Moon), Rudra, Parjanya, Yama, Mrityu (Death), and Isana. Therefore there is none higher than the kshatriyas. Thus at the Rajasuya sacrifice, the brahmin sits below and worships the kshatriya. He confers that glory on kshatriyahood alone. But brahminhood is nevertheless the source of kshatriyahood. Therefore even though the king is exalted in the sacrifice, at the end of it he resorts to brahminhood as his source. He who slights a brahmin strikes at his own source. He becomes more evil, as one who slights his superior.
12
Yet He (Viraj) did not flourish. He projected the Vaisya caste—those classes of gods who are designated in groups: the Vasus, Rudras, Adityas, Visve—devas and Maruts.
13
Still He did not flourish. He projected the sudra caste—Pushan. This earth is Verily Pushan (the nourisher); for it nourishes all that exists.

There are a few important points to be noted here. while the Brahmin sits below the Kshatria, he is the source of Kshatriya - so a Kshatriya should venerate him. Also note the positive aspect of creation for each Varna after the Brahmin and the most positive aspect of the 'Sudra' as the nourisher.

One has to remember that the Upanishads are Vedanta, there to explain the original texts, created by the then Brahmins, whose job it was to interpret the Vedas.

So, we can conclude that from the Veda days (from the later part of their period), the concept of dividing the human beings in to four 'classes' existed. We can also conclude that all 'Varnas' emanated from the original primordial Man, who sacrificed himself to create this world. So, the basis for the 'Varnas' is the original sacrifice. This is important to keep in mind. Many of us do not understand this concept. Our whole religion, especially the Brahminism is based on sacrifice.

In my next posting, we will look in to the 'role' of each Varna in the society, and what is demanded as 'Dharma'. I will, in particular, focus on the 'Brahminical' Dharma.

NOTE: Folks, I want to restrict the topic here only to answer the question"Who are we?". I know some of you already have your own answers to this question, some based on Indian Government Classification and others in terms of our birth. I request you to please follow this thread along. You will find that the above question is not an easy one to answer as I will be framing the question!

So, I don't want to talk about other religions, other 'secular', 'rationalist' impacts on us to define ourselves. I just want to focus on the 'Brahminism' - what it is, and what it means today.

P.S.: Dear Shanti-Brahma Ji, I salute you. You must have been raised in a very cultured household - you have more or less captured the essence of what I will be saying here! But Of course, I will attempt to provide the background to the best of my abilities.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Shanti Brahm]

Thank you KRS and everyone and especially to Mr. Silverfox for your nice words. I am looking forward to the flow of this thread that KRS has started.

Thanks,

Shanti

 

[silverfox]

Dear Shanti:
With your permission I am copying your entire posting and forward to several of my friends. I was moved by your words and it beautifully puts everything in perspective. It was spiritual, uplifting and enlightening.

 

[hariharan1972]

Lead kindly light !!!!

Verse 13
brAhmaNo asya mukhamAseet | bAhoo rAjanya: krta: |
ooru tadasya yad vaishya | padbhyAm shoodro ajAyata || 12 ||
(asya) His (mukham) mouth (Aseet) became (brAhmaNa)
the Brahmin, (bAhoo) his arms (krta) were made (rAjanya)
Kings. (yad) what were(asya ooru) his thighs, (tad) they were
made into (vaishya) the merchants, (padbhyAm) and from his feet
(shoodro) were the servants (ajAyata) born.

KRS Sir,

Thanks for your efforts in enlightening guys like me who are 'Shastra/Veda illiterate'.

From the reading of the above para, i have the foll doubts

a) Do Vedas / Shastras reflect the 'societal' thoughts at the point of time or do they represent the will of God ? If yes, Does God have a purpose behind such a creation ? Did God want people to be treated differently ? Does God not know that 'differential treatment' would lead to 'resentment' ?

Sorry if i have sounded "DK"ish but my real intent was to understand whether there is a larger, logical & beneficial interpretation of the system & whether the bogey of the KKK about brahmin oppression etc has any merit

b) Second doubt i had was that if all "varnas" originated from Brahma, is there a case that all are "Brahmins" only & it is only the personal choices of what to eat, practices & pursuits which defined caste ?

c) Thirdly, does God send a message that to be "successful" a person should have the qualities of all varnas - that is to say, he should have the intelligence of a brahmin (not sounding casteist here, but just making a conventional interpretation), the strength of a kshatriya, the ability to generate & maintain wealth of a vaishya & the hardwork of a Shudra ?

I don't know whether i am digressing but these are the first thoughts that went thru my mind when i read your first post.

 

[KRS]

Dear hariharan1972 Ji,

I don't claim to be an expert on our scriptures, but for the past decade I have been reading a lot about them. When it comes to the philosophies of how to attain Moksha, they are very consistent. For example, even the three grand schools of thought, viz, Advaitha, Visishtadwaitha and Dwaitha can be seen as the logical interpretations emanating from our scriptual lineage.

But our religion is not like an 'Abrahamic' religion, where a single person (Moses, Christ or Muhammed) hands down the 'Laws'. There were numerous 'enlightened' Rishis and 'educated' Brahmins who added and amplified on the original scriptures: Vedas.

Let me try to answer your questions:

a) Our Gurus have told us and still are telling us to follow the Vedas first. Only when doubts arise about the meaning of Vedas, we are supposed to read the Upanishads and Purans etc. for answers. Well, a seminal, oldest hymn of Rg Veda says about creation:

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence.
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
Who covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?
But, after all, who knows, and who can say,
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
The gods themselves are later than creation,
So who knows truly whence it has arisen?
(Rig Veda, X, 129)

I remeber this hymn always, when I think about what 'God' has stipulated for us.
Varna system is not about individuals. It is about societal formation and governance. And it follows logic, where a society, in a gross manner have to have the four Varnas to function well.
b) Other Varnas DID NOT ORIGINATE FROM THE 'BRAHMIN' VARNA. Each Varna is equal to each other Varna in it's origination. Later, there came a 'Guna' theory, which tied the nature of different folks within these Varnas and their Karma there from. We will get in to detail about this later in our thread. For now, you should know that the 'Brahmins' ate meat and drank 'Soma (akin to alcohol)' in Vedic times. Vegetarinism came later.
c) This is a very good question from you, because this directly addresses the question of this topic: 'Who arde we?". Within the context of our religion, 'Dharma' or duty is very important. And there are two different 'Dharmas'. There a prescribed Dharma for each individual, regardless of Varna, called 'Ashrama' Dharma and there is a superimposed Dharma based on one's Varna, called 'Varna Dharma'. So, when you combine the two, you get 'Varnashrama Dharma' for ecah person. We will delve in to this in our thread as well.

Hope this answers your questions for now.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[hariharan1972]

Thanks

KRS Sir,

Thanks for your response. Looking forward to your next post.

You are most welcome to address me as Hari / Hariharan. "Ji" makes me feel a bit less "younger" than what i actually am.

 

[murali]

This is how i understand the passage from the upanishad.
At the very dawn of civilization there are a few values crystallising,which are essential for civilization.This is embodied in a few enlightened rishis.Political power is not an issue.

As ages roll by,differentiation sets in.Human wants increase.There is specialisation in work.The need for political authority is patent.There are still some rishis around who are well versed in the skills and lore of the day.The king should seek their guidance.

KRS sir,
if you do not like my comments,please feel free to say so.i will stop.Members can draw their own interpretations from the original sources.

There is not such a wide divergence between the purusha suktha/upanishad,except regarding the actual position of the king.and the respect accorded to the vaisya/sudra.Reminds one of shanti brahmji's post.

 

[silverfox]

What does Purusha Suktam stand for? As a boy growing in a very orthodox vaishnava brahmin family, I have recited from memory but don't remember anything at all! Don't they also have 'Sri Suktam'?
Please educate an ignorant fool!

 

[Shanti Brahm]

Dear Shanti:
With your permission I am copying your entire posting and forward to several of my friends. I was moved by your words and it beautifully puts everything in perspective. It was spiritual, uplifting and enlightening.

You have my permission, Silverfox-ji

 

[KRS]

Dear Pappan Sir,

Please feel free to register your opinions - I welcome them. Please, by all means feel free to quote any contradictory texts/scriptures in support of your discussion also.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear Silverfox Ji,

The following explanation is from: http://www.ramanuja.org/purusha/sukta-intro.html#NOTES

"The Purusha Suktam is one of the Pancha Suktams of the Sri Vaishnava sampradaya or tradition. The other four are the Narayana Suktam, Sri Suktam, Bhu Suktam, and the Nila Suktam.
The Purusha Suktam is seen earliest in the Rg Veda, as the 90th Suktam of its 10th mandalam, with 16 mantrams. Later, it is seen in the Vajasaneyi Samhita of the Shukla Yajur Vedam, the Taittriya Aranyaka of the Krishna Yajur Vedam, the Sama Veda, and the Atharvana Veda, with some modifications and redactions.
In South India, the Purusha Suktam, Vishnu Suktam, Sri Suktam, and Narayana Suktam are generally chanted together in paarayanam.
The Sri Rudram, Purusha Suktam, Upanishads, the Gita, and the Vishnu Sahasra Naamam are also recommended for daily paarayanam - chanting.
Since the Purusha Suktam is seen in all Vedas, it is cited as the essence of all Srutis by Veda Vyasa in the Mahabharata. Saunaka, Apastamba, and Bodhayana have also written concerning the use of the Purusha Suktam. "

Pranams,
KRS

 

[NARAS]

SIR - i am NARAS from chennai. to the best of my knowledge any vegetarian who fulfills the following conditions is a brahmin-

1. a person whose parents are both brahmins
2. a person whose father alone is a bramin, even if the mother is a non bramin
3. a woman, even if she is a non bramin, becomes a bramin , if she marries a bramin man
4. a non bramin becomes a bramin, if he or she is adopted by a bramin

to the best of my knowledge, a person cannot convert himself as a bramin from other caste or religion. this does not mean brahmins are greater or superior to other groups. this only means bramins are different or distinct from other.

it is very atrocious to say bramins consumed meat or alcohol. it is my humble opinion that no person who consumes meat, alcohol or smokes can be a bramin.

This is a very simple matter. i dont think this is so complicated that a separate thread should be opened to discuss this threadbare!

 

[KRS]

Dear Naras Ji,

Can you show me where in our Struti and Smiti, the above four assertions of yours about who a 'Brahmin' is cited? In other words, I am asking you to reveal how the 'bext of your knowledge' came to these conclusions, based on what?

I am quoting Rig Veda and other sources to say that in Vedic age EVERYONE ate meat and drank Soma. A whole hymn is dedicated in Rig Veda, extolling the effects of drinking Soma. Again, this is a peripheral issue to the topic of this thread.

Seems to me that you know who is a 'Brahmin'. If you do know that and if you are not interested in reading about such issues as the ones this thread raises, then, please do not respond here. And if you do respond, please validate your opinions by citing sources in our religion that helped you to arrive at the position you are taking. We all can learn from that.

Regards,
KRS

 

[hariharan1972]

A little bit on how Guna evolved ?

KRS Sir,

If we are within the lead time for your next post, can you please elaborate a bit on "Guna" theory - how it evolved ?

At the beginning of human life, i am tempted to think that there would have been no Guna. Initially, i feel it would have been the case of "Survival of fittest" so it would have been a case of each one left to himself.

I think when man tried/decided to co-operate with another, the "guna" of the persons interacting would have come to the foreground.

So is it a case of certain humans having a "homogenous" set of gunas formed a sect or a varna etc....

Also i am interested to know how the "classification" of guna into good & bad would have evolved ? Who would have "judged" it ?

If you feel this is digressing the discussion, you may kindly ignore. If you have the time, would be interested in getting your thoughts on this.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Hari Sir,

Our scriptures say that EVERYTHING in the Universe is made up of 3 Gunas (Sattvic, Rajasic and Tamasic). The composition of these three in every material in the Universe (strangely including Gods), makes the nature of that entity.

For example, it is believed that the 'Brahmins' have an abundance of 'Sattvic' Guna and much less of the other two Gunas, making them in effect 'gentle' and 'pure'. A Kshatriya, on the other hand has mostly the 'Rajasic' Guna and a lot less of the other two, making him a warrior. Tamasic is dark and not 'intelligent' and so a Sudra has the predominance of this Guna. If you apply this to certain domesticated animals, it is observed that a cow is sattvic, a horse is rajasic and an elephant is tamasic.

While this theory is very interesting, in actual practice we see people with one of the three Gunas dominating in their nature in real life, irrespective of their Varna (Jati). I know a lot of 'Brahmins' who are rajasic (even though they are vegetarians) as well as tamasic. I have seen the same thing with folks from other Jatis.

But a school of 'Brahmins' still believe that ALL 'Brahmins' are sattvic. Because, they attach the Karma Phala (the fruit of action) to the Guna and think that to be born as a 'Brahmin' is connected to this and so naturally other Gunas are inferior to 'sattvic'.

This type of thinking is what has brought us as a community to the current situation. This is what I will be exploring in my future postings.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[karthisri]

Dear Sirs,
The explanation on Guna Theory (can we say that!) is excellent, which suited the people during the initial organization of the society. As the society has reorganized itself over a period of time, the Guna Theory should be nullified by now, since you find people with any of the 3 Gunas in any Jati.

We should follow the principle of elimination, remove Guna Theory as a basis of definition for Who are we...and find out actually "who are we vis-a-vis Today".

This is my humble opinion & Kindly ignore the posting if it has deviated your flow.

Thanks
Karthik

 

[NARAS]

Dear Naras Ji,

Can you show me where in our Struti and Smiti, the above four assertions of yours about who a 'Brahmin' is cited? In other words, I am asking you to reveal how the 'bext of your knowledge' came to these conclusions, based on what?

I am quoting Rig Veda and other sources to say that in Vedic age EVERYONE ate meat and drank Soma. A whole hymn is dedicated in Rig Veda, extolling the effects of drinking Soma. Again, this is a peripheral issue to the topic of this thread.

Seems to me that you know who is a 'Brahmin'. If you do know that and if you are not interested in reading about such issues as the ones this thread raises, then, please do not respond here. And if you do respond, please validate your opinions by citing sources in our religion that helped you to arrive at the position you are taking. We all can learn from that.

Regards,
KRS

SIR - Pls. go to http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soma where it has been mentioned that in Atharva veda, soma has been eulogised as a medicine, not as an alcoholic drink. famous political commentator, cho ramaswamy who has been writing about orthdox hinduism for 3 yrs. in his magazine 'thuglak' has also mentioned that bramins never consumed liquor during vedic times.

Mahatma Gandhi, by all ways more educated and knowledgable than you and me, has written that 'the brahmin non brahmin divide started when non brahmins refused to stop eating cow meat.' gandhiji even says the clashes which took place during those times should have been very bitter, culminating in the divide. putting in other words, had non brahmins agreed to be vegetarians, there would not have been any untouchability at all inhinduism. there is a book called 'WHAT IS HINDU DHARMA'? This book contains above views of gandhiji.

just like in U.K. there is an unwritten constitution, it is an unwritten code of conduct for bramins for several centuries, that bramins have to follow a diet based on pure vegeteranism. i dont think there is any need for 'proof' or 'evidence' for this!

there is nothing wrong in quoting sources. but please do not misquote. this sort of campaign will only help 'rationalists' and will also ruin the purpose of this forum.

 

[born_again_aiyer_maami]

Odd ...

KRS-ji
I find it a little odd that the elephant is classified as tamasic -
it is a vegetarian, it is a very intelligent animal, and it is generally quite gentle ...
I am also curious about Soma - I realize that it is extolled in the Vedas.
But I have heard people say "Soma-paanam maha-paapam" - so which has primacy?
Trivial maybe - but it piqued my curiosity.

If you apply this to certain domesticated animals, it is observed that a cow is sattvic, a horse is rajasic and an elephant is tamasic.

 

[lotus_quartz]

Vedic period brahmanas were quite enlightened people.

Not only they were deft in composing long verses in sanskrit , they also took care to see that their voluminous works did not contradict the literary assertions made by their predecessors and peers and also ensured very high level of consistency in quality and calibre.

They did not beleive in imposing restrictions on food and beverages permitted for consumption (soma rus was one of their favourite !)

The restrictive practices of later period brahmanas included disallowing widow remarriage, strict vegetarianism, ban on soma rus consumption and many other beleifs which have survived till date.

KRS-ji
...
I am also curious about Soma - I realize that it is extolled in the Vedas.
But I have heard people say "Soma-paanam maha-paapam" - so which has primacy?

Trivial maybe - but it piqued my curiosity.

 

[murali]

LQ,
i dont that vedic versres were vetted by a committee to confirm to some pre-determined criteria.

We believe they are the outpouring of inspired(and some not so inspired) poetry by seers and poets.

The greatness of vedic poetry is they dont stick to some pre-determined grand design.There will be "inconsistencies" as they are the expressions of poets in different moods,feelings and situations.

KRS sir,
when i see so many clever,fair and earnest minds,surely our community is not in such a bad position.Sure,no room for complacency.

 

[murali]

dear b_a_i_m,
perhaps the elephant,so gentle and wise,was considered taamasic for its sloth.

 

[kashyap]

Let us say Cheers to our enlightened ancestors.!

Vedic period brahmanas were quite enlightened people.

Not only they were deft in composing long verses in sanskrit , they also took care to see that their voluminous works did not contradict the literary assertions made by their predecessors and peers and also ensured very high level of consistency in quality and calibre.

They did not beleive in imposing restrictions on food and beverages permitted for consumption (soma rus was one of their favourite !)

The restrictive practices of later period brahmanas included disallowing widow remarriage, strict vegetarianism, ban on soma rus consumption and many other beleifs which have survived till date.

3 Cheers to our ancestors !!!

Hip hip hooray .

:tea:

Hip hic hooray


.....HIC.... HIC HOOooray

 

[kashyap]

Earliest citations of 'Varnas' in Vedas and Upanishads
Rig Veda, in Purusha Sukta, says:
Verse 13
brAhmaNo asya mukhamAseet | bAhoo rAjanya: krta: |
ooru tadasya yad vaishya | padbhyAm shoodro ajAyata || 12 ||
(asya) His (mukham) mouth (Aseet) became (brAhmaNa)
the Brahmin, (bAhoo) his arms (krta) were made (rAjanya)
Kings. (yad) what were(asya ooru) his thighs, (tad) they were
made into (vaishya) the merchants, (padbhyAm) and from his feet
(shoodro) were the servants (ajAyata) born.

Various scholors cite this as the first instance of the description of the Varna system in our scriptures. But note that the word "Kshatriya' is not used to describe the second Varna. The word 'Rajanya' is used. The significance is that during the period when this hymn was composed the 'Varna' system as understood in later scriptures did not exist.

Next Citation in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:

This Upanishad is one of the oldest (and we need to remember that there were 1000 years minimum that went by between the Rig Veda citation and this one). Here the Creation theory is discussed.

This verse it seems was referred to by Nehru( the pseudo secularist ) in discovery of India to drive home his point that this preaches disparities in the society—that it says some are high and some are low.
One late evening around 8 PM , I was lying on the bed and relaxing. I then started thinking about this verse. Since this verse talks about mouth, shoulder, thighs and feet, I was feeling in my mind about those parts in my body. Then I realized at my position, among these body parts none was higher, none was lower. All are at the same level since I was lying on my back. Then I remembered the figure used to personify the universe—lord Vishnu lying on his back as anantha padmanabha – from whom everything sprouts.

All this is anyway a metaphor—about the beginning of the universe and so on and so forth. So when at the beginning of the universe, if the lord was lying on his back, then nobody is above, nobody is below.

Again all this is metaphor. The scriptures that contain these verses also contain a verse which says the whole universe is nothing but God and all are equal.

Then I spoke over phone to father about this thought. He said the following:
“Non Brahmin colleagues at my work place often quoted this verse to tell that Hinduism preaches that some are low and some are high and used to ask how can they say that shudra originated form the feet etc. So I asked them, Ok, tell me first then when you want to worship God or a great person, ho do you do that? By touching the feet and not touching the mouth or shoulder. That shows how important the feet of god are isn’t it?” And they were all very happy and praised my father saying none gave such an explanation and left.

So the reason why I am narrating this is to point out that there are different ways to see the same thing. People often do not see things holistically and they interpret things selectively and unnecessarily say that Hinduism preaches inequality

 

[KRS]

Dear Sirs,
This is my humble opinion & Kindly ignore the posting if it has deviated your flow.

Thanks
Karthik

Dear Karthik Ji,

Thank you for your contribution - yours has added to the thread, rather than deviating from it.

Pranams,
KRS