ET Issues

[K S Kannan]

To continue the story, Economic Times followed up my answers with another set of questions. I did not reply for two reasons : I was busy with some urgent work, and  I also had apprehensions my position might be misrepresented by filtered quoting.

These are loaded questions, and require loaded answers.

I would be happy if some of our list members can consider these and suggest some good answers (and if possible with good references). 

No more are "they" ignoring us. They are sitting up and taking notice. Hereafter we are going to face more and more questions - many from our own people. 

*****************************************

Below are the words of Economic Times

Thank you for sending me a reply. 

I am sending you my take on your replies and would request you to please respond to the additional facts i have to offer : 

On 1 and 2. You said: "While slavery was prevalent in many parts of the world, many historians have declared that there was no slavery worth the name in India." - How do you assess, label or rank untouchability, manual scavenging and bonded labour - all of which has been recorded as practices associated with the caste system? If such practices  do not signify mental and physical slavery, what does? 

3. You did not give me a direct answer on whether caste system had contributed to the lack of numbers among Sanskrit speakers in the country. Would urge you to please answer that directly. 

On English: Isn't caste a factor that restricted access to schools and English education even during the early decades after gaining Independence to those labelled lower castes?  Or are you saying that every citizen of India had free and equal access to schools for all since Independence; that there was no difference between an upper or lower caste person wanting to study English ? There is evidence to prove that caste restricted access to both Sanskrit as well as English. Please do clarify.   

4. On Monarchy- the context of Sanskrit is relevant only in India. I would have appreciated it if you would have argued to the point. 

 Why would i connect Sanskrit with Arab world? That does not sound logical at all.  

I would like to repeat the question here so that we are more clear.

 Prof Pollock records several instances of Sanskrit being used to glorify Kings in INDIA (Language of Gods) ; i was actually wanting to know whether you have come across this argument specifically, which has a strictly Indian context, and what your response is to the same? 

The interesting aspect here is that as per Prof Pollock's narrative -  in the beginning Sanskrit was the language of liturgy and the denial of access to all people was on account of a notion of worthiness which was again defined by background.  The same language is later appropriated by the royalty and moves into the arena of the political. This is a significant observation because - as per this narrative - the Kings were taking advantage of the fact that the language commanded a history of reverence among people who - despite their own inability to understand the language - connected it with divinity.  So royalty was drawing upon the common man's reverence for the divine by using Sanskrit. 

The gaining of freedom in 1947 and guarantee of equal rights surely gives us the necessary bandwidth to look at the past and wonder why all were not equal in the past and to critique the far less libertarian system of monarchy. And if that system relied on the language that commanded a spiritual connect to perpetuate itself, .is it not important to ask whether this was ethical ? 

Thank you for sharing your views with me. I am seeking clarifications from you only so that i gain a straight and direct response to the points i made.

[Jsr Prasad]

Respected All,

Few first thoughts with respect to the following question by ET:

3. You did not give me a direct answer on whether caste system had contributed to the lack of numbers among Sanskrit speakers in the country. Would urge you to please answer that directly.

This question is entwined with two issues. 1. anatomical structure of caste system in society and 2. its so-called oppressive effect on number of Sanskrit speakers. Let us keep aside the first issue and concentrate on the second for a moment.

The media hype related to number of Sanskrit speakers in our land, is based on Census of India. This is being updated since 1971. Latest survey done was in the year 2011, but we are yet to see the statistics. In a chart of 'comparative speaker's strength between 1971-2001, given by the MoH at its website, following are the details available:

Persons who returned their language as mother tongue:

Language	1971	1981	1991	2001
Sanskrit	2,212	6,106	49,736	14,135

Now, let us see the contrast with our national language:

Language	1971	1981	1991	2001
Hindi	202,767,971	257,749,009	329,518,087	422,048,642

When there has been steady increase in the number of Sanskrit speakers since 1971, how come the number dwindled to 14,135, suddenly in 2001? In contrast to this, there has been steady increase in case of Hindi. Also, another analysis with regard to the percentage of number of speakers to total population is as follows:

Sanskrit: 1971     1981     1991     2001
                 N*         N       0.01       N

*N = negligible

Hindi: 1971     1981     1991     2001
          36.99   38.74    39.29    41.03

So, these are the magic figures that decide the existence of Sanskrit speakers in our country.

Now, the question is how many people wanted to register their mother tongue as 'Sanskrit' in the census forms distributed over all these years. In the 2011 census form column numbers 10 and 11 ask us to specify 'mother tongue' and any two other known languages, respectively.

But when I filled the form in 2011 to be handed over to the census staff, I could not see column number 11. (it's a different case, we could have manipulated the data by writing Sanskrit as mother tongue in column 10).

Is the mechanism of collecting all important data through census is accurate? Why not Linguistic Survey of India or Central Institute of Indian Languages compile the data on native speakers of respective languages. I heard from a friend that through Samskrita Bharati moment, there are at least hundred thousand Sanskrit speakers now in India. Why that number doesn't appear in the census? For that matter, Rashtriya Sanskrit Samsthan can prepare a format and distribute to all Sanskrit teaching institutions (including NGOs) to collect the exact census of Sanskrit speakers in India. Is that too difficult? Can the government take any initiative in this direction?

In ancient India, forget about documenting number of Sanskrit speakers, our ancestors not even worried about attributing creative works to self but rather attributed them to their Guru or a famous kavi/śāstrakāra.

When the above technical process found to be correct/incorrect, then only the oppressive effect of caste on number of Sanskrit speakers, can be addressed properly. For your comments please.

Regards,

Prasad

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Dr. J.S.R. Anjaneya Prasad,
Associate Professor & Head,
Dept. of Sanskrit Studies,
School of Humanities,
University of Hyderabad,
Prof. C.R. Rao Road, Hyderabad - 500 046
Tel: +91-40-2313 3803

।। पुरुषोऽयं लोकसम्मितः ।।

[Nagaraj Paturi]

> I would be happy if some of our list members can consider these and suggest some good answers (and if possible with good references). 

------- Good or not I shall try to respond to these questions.

1. Sanskrit---> Caste----> slavery or slavery-like social practices 

"Caste----> slavery or slavery-like social practices" 

is beyond the scope of the Sanskrit related discussion that all this intended to be and beyond the scope of the forum.

I posted my arguments negating  "Sanskrit---> Caste"

2. Interviewer: You did not give me a direct answer on whether caste system had contributed to the lack of numbers among Sanskrit speakers in the country. Would urge you to please answer that directly. 

----- Direct answer: No.

Details: Lack of numbers among speakers probably means a drastic fall in the number of Sanskrit speakers. First of all as per Prof. Pollock, Sanskrit was just a liturgical language, never a general spoken language. If we go with this for the sake of argument, how can the number fall from zero ? According to the interviewer himself, "It is also well known that the use of Sanskrit was limited to sections of the society, broadly labelled as upper castes; and that the history of exclusion and marginalisation in India is closely linked to the manner in which access to Sanskrit was controlled in the past". If there is a drastic fall in the number of Sanskrit speakers, it means "sections of the society, broadly labelled as upper castes" are the ones who gave up Sanskrit speaking. It is difficult to understand how caste system contributed to sections of the society, broadly labelled as upper castes giving up Sanskrit speaking. As per 'the history of exclusion and marginalisation in India is closely linked to the manner in which access to Sanskrit was controlled in the past', I already showed how this is a wrong perception of the past picture of language speaking in India.  There I argued that as long as the mutual intelligibility between Sanskrit and Prakrits was intact, it is absurd to imagine Prakrit speakers trying to learn Sanskrit and they being stopped from learning. 

Here the interviewer's argument seems to be Sanskrit ----> Caste -------> Lack of numbers among Sanskrit speakers. i.e., Sanskrit is in the course of suicide by means of caste created by itself. Leaving aside the veracity of such an argument, since Sanskrit is our focus,

Caste -------> Lack of numbers among Sanskrit speakers is not our concern for the present. We have already shown that

Sanskrit ----> Caste is wrong.

3. 'Access' to modern school education: The Beautiful Tree: Indigenous Indian Education in the Eighteenth Century

by Dharampal :"This major work entitled "The Beautiful Tree" provides evidence from extensive early British administrators’ reports of the widespread prevalence of educational institutions in the Bengal and Madras Presidencies as well as in the Punjab, teaching a sophisticated curriculum, with daily school attendance by about 30% of children aged 6–15, where those belonging to communities who were classed as Shudras or even lower constituted a good number of students, and in some areas, for instance in Kerala, where Muslim girls were quite well represented." From a review 

As far as British education is concerned, that it is more a sociological issue of occupational shift is evident from the resistance to admission into schools found across the length and breadth of the country, even among orthodox Brahmin families. How herculean a task it has been to persuade people to admit their children into schools has been well documented.

4. The beaten track 'glorification of Kings' /monarchy issue in the next post.

 

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

नमस्ते,

(not intended as a direct answer)

In a battle of wits the more intelligent and resourceful usually have an unassailable advantage. Importantly, they are in a position to institute reward-incentive system (the basis of nearly all human activity). Their idea is to outwit the opposition, and eliminate them or constrain their aspirations ("put them in place"). This almost sounds fair and natural, mirroring the more brutal (honest?) ways (as we have discovered of late) the Homo sapiens won over, and indeed eliminated, other human-ancestries.

Accentuating the fault lines (which we know all societies have had), driving wedges among unsuspecting people, and other more subtle tactics, are some of the methods for implementing the important corollary - "elimination of the stupid" - of the main theorem "survival of the fittest".

This is पूर्वपक्ष, and so the उत्तरपक्ष : what should be the response?

The default response is already known. A BVP member in another thread inadvertently characterised the opponents' side as "liberal". Should this mean that our position is that of being illiberals and regressives (though the member most likely meant "conservative")? This can be, principally, understood as a Brahminical response : "we will continue to stick to our traditions, just like we did in past". After all, we survived many previous onslaughts by sticking by the side of indigenous traditions, didn't we?

Conservatives are needed: they are the safest bet, the repository, of indigenous knowledge systems - in face of the disruptive, persistent, fad called modernity.

However, this is defiance, not response. And the conservatives have historically constituted at the best only the half of the story.

There is nothing conservative in "pornographic art" seen all over the ("sacred") temples and the caves, just to give an example. Traditions are - have always been - furthered by more innovation, and not by more tradition. Innovators have been our tallest leaders and authorities, not the (highly respected) traditionalists.

The response should be : (visioning) more innovation. Safety, paradoxically, lies in uncertainty.

A rediscovery of our lost basics is the right response, but is also an innovation. As an example, let me cite two of the deepest anchors of Indian Thought :

A) Indra drinking Soma, and
B) Sudas Paijavana, the Vedic Chakravartin, being of Shudra.

Here, A) belong to abstract realms, and in my opinion is deeper than anything humanity has come up thus far (inclusive of material sciences). For the present context, however, let us dwell upon the latter anchor point, B).

That a Vedic leader was Shudra can only mean that "Shudra" means some thing else altogether. Purusha Sukta has been long shown to be a post Vedic addition - being of a late Sanskritic orientation, trying to depose Vedic deity Aditi as the overarching deity of the pantheon.

To say the least, a Shudra was not - never has been - the "serving Varna". So the question is, do we need organised research to find out this, or do we need apologists' explaining, "..but the Varna was merit based and anyone could become Brahmin".

Labelling people - on merit or any other yardstick of hierarchy - is immoral, period.

Even Hollywood movies are better than us in attacking some of these questions ("The Divergent, 2014").

To summarise, responding in terms of categories (liberal, conservatives, left, right, etc) or fault lines (castes, driving wedge) drawn by our opponents in the war of wits is a self-defeating approach. The correct response is: embracing uncertainty, and a liberal research driven build up. One of the parameters success would be gaged by is the number of breakthroughs and innovations worked by non-Brahmin (female, minority, tribal, Dalit) researchers of Sanskrit in the present and the future. It was Dr Ambedkar, after all who was the first to write about the anchor B) mentioned above.

The nature of problem is structural, and needs more than quoting texts. At the same time, this very structural depth, because of its synthetic nature, can prove to be inviting to some of the very best of Indian talent in future. This uncertainty is our only answer.

[Rajiv Malhotra]

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would be happy if some of our list members can consider these and suggest some good answers (and if possible with good references). 

------- Good or not I shall try to respond to these questions.

1. Sanskrit---> Caste----> slavery or slavery-like social practices

​Chapter 4 of The Battle For Sanskrit is devoted entirely to this issue. The chapter title is: "Sanskrit considered a source of oppression". It is my response to Pollock's position in his numerous writings.

Rajiv​

 

Language	1971	1981	1991	2001
Sanskrit	2,212	6,106	49,736	14,135

[rniyengar]

Excellent post.  It is only through research driven innovation Indic Traditions including the Sanskritic one can survive the onslaughts.

RNI

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Prof. Kannanji and friends,

It is an irony that the supporters of Sheldon Pollock (to whom the Murtys have given the responsibility of translating the Ramayana, in preference to the Indian scholars), are raising the issue of the so-called caste system and that shows that Sheldon Pollock is totally unaware  as to when and how the ancient Indian society itself  felt the necessity to have the division of work-responsbilities on people depending on  their ability and aptitude, even though the Ramayana itself had discussed this issue in detail. This is the so-called  superficial scholarship od Sheldon Pollock.

Tthe Varna system (not the British-created caste system) was unanimously welcomed by one and all in the ancient society in the Treta yuga, as that was evolved solely for the good of the society. Obviously, the able-bodied people with aptitude for administration and martial activity became the Kshatriyas. As they looked afer the rule of law, they became the most  powerful section of the society. and a glamorous lifestyles went with that too.

Another section included those who could look after trade and business activities and they became the Vaishyas. Because of their nature of occupation they became the rich class of the society, in keeping with the adage"Vanijye Vasati Lakshmi".

The Kshatriyas as well as  the Vaishyas  needed to be given the general education as well as the speciality training for their occupation and that onerous task went the section who were more interested in knowledge and education as well as in teaching, than in gaining personal authority and wealth. They had to live an austere life and their boys were sent to the gurukul for studying under the guru, at an early age of 7 to 8 years. The boys had to live in the ashram for their studies and the serve the guru for as long as 12 years or at times more than that. Eventually the brahmins became the poorest of the lot.

The remainng section of the people did not have the ability and the aptitude to qualify for the work responsibilities given to the Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and the Brahmins and they were called the Shudras. Being unskilled or semi-skilled they were given the responsibilities of "Paricharyaa", and in cases they became the personal or domestic or professional helpers or attendents of the Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas (and not of the brahmins, though falsely alleged by the westerners and their misguided  Indian followers). There could have been stary cases where  some of the shudras could have been ill-treated  by the people, whom they attended to,  but that was never by the brahmins, whom the shudras did not attend to..

The Varna system was not absolutely rigid and there has been cases where people like Satyakam were initiated to be brahmin and Vishwamitra, a Kshatiya king  could become a Brahmin rishi. Further, the Rigveda has the example, where the same  family had the members with different work-responsibilities, appropriate for different varnas..The system of slavery, where the slaves are maltreated, has been the sole legacy of the western society and never of the Indian society. Megasthenes, who came to India more than two thousand and three hundred years ago, did not notice a servant-class in India. The so-called caste system was a creation in paper by the British administration for their census records. 

The Indian society followed the rules of dharma as enshrined in the different smritis respectively appropriate  for the different periods of time. The first Smriti was the Manu Smriti, which was for the earliest Indian society, thousands of years ago. The ignorant and the anti-indian people use the Manu Smriti as the punching bag, even though the Manu Smriti has never been for these days and not even for the  Mahabharata times, some five thousand years ago. .

This discussion will not be complete. without mentioning that there were some people who had to be legally ousted from the society for their grave actions highly injurious to the public welfare and morals and harmful to the state and they had to legally banished or ousted.for limited period or even for life dependinding on the gravity of their actions. In one case, even the great Gautama rishi was ousted from the society for many years and he was taken back in the society only after he did lomg penance.

Hope this will make the intelligent people understand the baseless allegations of the anti-Sanskrit groups and realize that Sanskrit has no role to play in these false allegations against the Hindu society in India.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--

[Shashi Tiwari]

Shri Sunil ji 's article is well written .
Shashi Tiwari

---

From: sunil bhattacharjya
Sent: ‎04-‎05-‎2016 10:32
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} ET Issues

[Sivasenani Nori]

The problem with modern media is that power has corrupted them. It is patently unjust that in scholarly matters, non-scholar journalists and editors want to take the final call. I don't know if journalists of an earlier realized this power vested in them and approached with care and humility, but anecdotal evidence from the last decade or so is that media people actually relish it, abuse it and have institutionalized it. Even a low-ranking person such as a driver of a media van throws his weight around! Reports of blackmail by journalists have become so common that nobody blinks an eye about it any longer. "Earlier we had a naxal problem, now we have a journalist problem - and we will deal with them" seems to be response. 

Anyhow, coming back to journalists arrogating the position of arbiters to themselves, I think scholars should first pose a "balance-test" to any journalist who approaches them. Either directly or indirectly know the views of the journalist and engage with them only if they are genuinely balanced (or sympathetic). Any rejection to engage must specifically state that if at all the scholar's name is quoted saying that he refused, it must be stated that the refusal is based on lack of confirmation of neutrality of the journalist in question. Alternately, the scholar may offer to write a column stating his views within broad word-limits.

It is easier said than done to refuse an offer to appear in a paper with large circulation (everybody has an obligation to serve the organization they are working for by giving it as much publicity as possible), but when it is realized that the very purpose of contact by these unethical journalists is to further an agenda specifically by besmirching one's name, it might be done. For instance, any answer to the second set of questions can be twisted to portray Prof. Kannan in a bad light. The alternate strategy is to take an explicitly worded opposite stance such as "Pollock's real agenda is to kill Hinduism by distorting history and by anchoring your article in such a person's view, you are furthering the same agenda. Please come and attend the seminar on Pollock and then we can discuss the answers in detail."

In fact it is said that Swami Chinmayananda was a sceptical journalist in his purvashrama, got such an invitation to study Bhagavadgita first, and the rest is history.

Regards

N. Siva Senani

--

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste Sivasenaniji,

Your wrote

 <For instance, any answer to the second set of questions can be twisted to portray Prof. Kannan in a bad light>.

In my opinion, Prof. Kannan  should not run away without sending a proper reply to the questions raised in the second set. If he considers what I wrote as sufficient he can send the same, with or without any additional points. It is quite possible that the journalist himself is a victim of false propaganda and further, there could be other people /authority behind the particular journalist and they could be deciding what to publish and what not to. 

Your fear that whatever one writes may be twisted, seems to be too far-fetched. If that really happens, there will always be an opportunity to give a fitting response. In a battle of wit no BVP member can be ignored easily.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharya

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Prof. Kannanji and friends,

There were some typos in the last mail and I am very sorry for that. I am sending a fresh copy of the message, with the typos corrected.

Regards,

SUnil K. Bhattacharjya

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Dear Prof. Kannanji and friends,

It is an irony that the supporters of Sheldon Pollock (to whom the Murtys have given the responsibility of translating the Ramayana, in preference to the Indian scholars), are raising the issue of the so-called caste system and that shows that Sheldon Pollock is totally unaware  as to when and how the ancient Indian society itself  felt the necessity to have the division of work-responsbilities on people depending on  their ability and aptitude, even though the Ramayana itself had discussed this issue in detail. This is the so-called  superficial scholarship od Sheldon Pollock.

The Varna system (not the British-created caste system) was unanimously welcomed by one and all in the ancient society in the Treta yuga, as that was evolved solely for the good of the society. Obviously, the able-bodied people with aptitude for administration and martial activity became the Kshatriyas. As they looked after the rule of law, they became the most  powerful section of the society. and a glamorous lifestyles went with that too.

Another section included those who could look after trade and business activities and they became the Vaishyas. Because of their nature of occupation they became the rich class of the society, in keeping with the adage"Vanijye Vasati Lakshmi".

The Kshatriyas as well as  the Vaishyas  needed to be given the general education as well as the speciality training for their occupation and that onerous task went the section who were more interested in knowledge and education as well as in teaching, than in gaining personal authority and wealth. They had to live an austere life and their boys were sent to the gurukul for studying under the guru, at an early age of 7 to 8 years. The boys had to live in the ashram for their studies and the serve the guru for as long as 12 years or at times more than that. Eventually the brahmins became the poorest of the lot.

The remainng section of the people did not have the ability and the aptitude to qualify for the work responsibilities given to the Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and the Brahmins and they were called the Shudras. Being unskilled or semi-skilled they were given the responsibilities of "Paricharyaa", and in cases they became the personal or domestic or professional helpers or attendents of the Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas (and not of the brahmins, though falsely alleged by the westerners and their misguided  Indian followers). There could have been stray cases where  some of the shudras could have been ill-treated  by the people, whom they attended to,  but that was never by the brahmins, whom the shudras did not attend to..

The Varna system was not absolutely rigid and there has been cases where people like Satyakam were initiated to be brahmin and Vishwamitra, a Kshatiya king  could become a Brahmin rishi. Further, the Rigveda has the example, where the same  family had the members with different work-responsibilities, appropriate for different varnas..The system of slavery, where the slaves are maltreated, has been the sole legacy of the western society and never of the Indian society. Megasthenes, who came to India more than two thousand and three hundred years ago, did not notice a servant-class in India. The so-called caste system was a creation in paper by the British administration for their census records. 

The Indian society followed the rules of dharma as enshrined in the different smritis respectively appropriate  for the different periods of time. The first Smriti was the Manu Smriti, which was for the earliest Indian society, thousands of years ago. The ignorant and the anti-indian people use the Manu Smriti as the punching bag, even though the Manu Smriti has never been for these days and not even for the  Mahabharata times, some five thousand years ago. .

This discussion will not be complete. without mentioning that there were some people who had to be legally ousted from the society for their grave actions highly injurious to the public welfare and morals and harmful to the state and they had to legally banished or ousted.for limited period or even for life depending on the gravity of their actions. In one case, even the great Gautama rishi was ousted from the society for many years and he was taken back in the society only after he did lon
g penance.

[Damodara Dasa]

Hare Krishna.
Respected Scholars,

I may say a word here as I have researched in varnasrama and the caste
system for last 8 years with a view to practically establish it in our
small community village.

[Note: Important point is to have thorough understanding of Indian
culture from parampara and of how really a society works not roaming
in search for an utopian society on paper - afterall thoughts can be
had in few years but the resultant society is tested only in many
generations and the failure is quite disastrous and many time
irreversible. Thus one should be very careful before introducing new
ideas.]

The first misconception about varnasrama (caste system) is that it is
based on birth. This misconception has started far before the mughals
and britishers came. Actually we find in Bhagavad-gita that it is
guna-karma-vibhagasah (Bg 4.13).
Also it is clearly mentioned in Bhagavata Purana --
yasya yal-laksanam-proktam
purusam varnabhivyanjakam
yadyanyatra api drsyeta
tat tenaiva vinirdiset.
There is whole book written by His Divine Grace Bhaktisiddhanta
Sarasvati Thakura on this matter named "Brahmana o Vaisnava" where
this point is thoroughly discussed with inexhaustive quotes from
Vedas, Puranas, and Itihasas. Link:

http://ebooks.iskcondesiretree.com/pdf/Gaudiya_Books%20/Bhaktisiddhanta_Sarasvati_Thakura/Bhaktisiddhanta_Sarasvati_Thakura_Brahmana_and_Vaisnava.pdf

The second misconception about varnasrama is that dasatva of sudras
and others (being servant without salary) is equated with slavery.
This was not the case but later as the society degraded at some places
it was misused and this was propagated as if in whole of India is
slaving people.

Third misconception is that everyone should study academically. It is
not the case. There always is a major part of population who are not
efficient academically but are efficient at other works and thus in
ancient Indian culture this point is considered and they are trained
accordingly. Thus guna-karma-vibhagasah: train them according to their
quality. This doesn't mean that they did not know what's there in the
vedic literatures. They were taught in a different way - by the medium
of kathas and dramas. I have seen that in some villages of North India
still many illiterate people know full Ramayana and also detailed
rules of dharma as given in Manu Smrti. Thus the mode of teaching to
them is informal. One may say that brahmanas and ksatriyas may then,
if they desire, exploit these lower class people also. Yes, there is a
possibility. For that care was taken that no one who has degraged from
the qualities required for brahmanas and ksatriyas are given the post.
A child who was being trained for brahmana or ksatriya was under
strict vigilance and his whole life was kept under vigilance (at least
till they turn 35 years age) even after marriage. Society used to take
this care. Thus there was very less chance of exploitation and you can
see that that system did run for long time. If everyone was just
exploited by few high class all over India, then Indians would have
easily and very quickly accepted the liberalistic society. But it took
an effort of 150-200 years (from institution of Brahma Samaj in 1800)
for changing minds of Indian people (see PV Kane's History of
Dharmasastras, vol.5, part-2, p.1680-1710). Practically only the new
generations trained in modern schools started to some extent changing
the society - the olds did just stick to it; even the so called slaves
were very proud of their slavery to their master and did not give it
up. Anyway this is a big science to be discussed -- how the
generations are trained and thus made sure that the system that is
established goes on as it is for generations. That can be discussed
later.

Fourth misconception is that liberalistic society doesn't support
slavery and exploitation. Everyone knows that it is not the case. On
paper you may have rules but practically it is not the case. In
today's liberal society there is much more corruption and exploitation
-- women's liberation is meant to stop their exploitation. But the
result is (at least in India) that they are more exploited into
prostitution and legalized prostitution in the name of free mixing and
free sex. Legal age limit for marriage is set as 18 years for girl
considering health reasons but anyone who has studied in college can
say that majority of girls have sex much before this age illicitly.
Thus just making rules do not stop the acitivity. women are forced
(out of circumstances) to work for livelihood (in the name of
equality) and for that at many places they need to fulfill their
master illicit demands (they can't speak against it). These would have
been considered utmost exploitation of women in Vedic Indian society.
So we have to accept that there is no utopia and this world is like
that. By introducing democracy the problems have increased in stead of
decreasing (a side point to be discussed in detail). Thus if one
compares then one will surely come to conclusion that previous system,
if established as it is, was the best possible and time tested.

Another misconception is that everyone is equal - even men and women.
This doesn't fit with logic at all. we clearly see that nature has
made differences in the bodily structure, abilities, and mental and
intellectual setup of different persons. Bhagavad-gita calls it
svabhava and one's duties are set based on this svabhava. For instance
by birth women has a particular body that can bear child and upbring
him. If men and women are supposed to have same duties then it should
be that one time father gives birth and another time mother; one time
mother breast feeds child and another time father. This was just a
crude example. Same is the case with different males also - their
svabhavas are different and thus their duties are also different.
Srimad Bhagavatam says -- mukha-bahu-uru-padebhyah -- meaning that
four orders in society are like four divisions of body - brain, hands,
belly, and legs; they all have their functions in the service of the
body and none can be replaced by other. Similarly every society has
four divisions with their works defined. But if the head thinks that
legs are of no use and thus cut them then body cannot function. Thus
when varna just based on birth was introduced society started
degrading -- brahmana's sons although sometimes sudra by nature
started working as brain and thus misguided society. So just by seeing
the vitiated varnasrama system for last 500-800 years one should not
reject the system of varnasrama but understand that it was not
properly followed.

Practical point: Here at our place we are training our children
according to their nature fully based on the instructions of our vedic
literatures and are finding very good results. One child named Nataraj
was not at all interested in academic education and was himself
dissatisfied and troubling others also. As soon as we engaged him in
taking care of cows and agriculture he became very well-behaved and
learned things very fast. Not only that but he understands
instructions of vedic literatures - we informally taught him. He is
happpy.

There may be many points of discussion but I conclude here.

Thankyou,
Damodara Das

> adage"*Vanijye Vasati Lakshmi".*

>> set of questions. *I did not reply* for two reasons : I was busy with

--
+91 9737475085
www.bvks.com

[Jsr Prasad]

Great food for thought is offered by Sri Sunil ji and Sri Damodara Das ji. Actions speak louder than words. Congrats to Damodara ji for practical establishinh of the social system based on 'guNas' in his village.

With regard to the comment on equality of women with men, there could be a distinction at  genetic level itself, in both. As, semen is said to be 'आग्नेय' and ovum is 'सौम्य' in nature. 'रजस्' is predominant in women whereas 'सत्त्वम्' is the dominant guNa in men. Of course, there can be exceptions to this always.

Regards,
Prasad

Sent from my Motorola phone

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 5 May 2016 08:17:34 UTC+5:30, Damodara Dasa wrote:

The first misconception about varnasrama (caste system) is that it is
based on birth. This misconception has started far before the mughals
and britishers came. Actually we find in Bhagavad-gita that it is
guna-karma-vibhagasah (Bg 4.13).
Also it is clearly mentioned in Bhagavata Purana --
yasya yal-laksanam-proktam
purusam varnabhivyanjakam
yadyanyatra api drsyeta
tat tenaiva vinirdiset.
There is whole book written by His Divine Grace Bhaktisiddhanta
Sarasvati Thakura on this matter named "Brahmana o Vaisnava" where
this point is thoroughly discussed with inexhaustive quotes from
Vedas, Puranas, and Itihasas. Link:

http://ebooks.iskcondesiretree.com/pdf/Gaudiya_Books%20/Bhaktisiddhanta_Sarasvati_Thakura/Bhaktisiddhanta_Sarasvati_Thakura_Brahmana_and_Vaisnava.pdf

Dear Damodara Dasa Ji

Have you seen the दुर्गमसङ्गमिनी commentary by जीव गोस्वामी on the भक्तिरसामृतसिन्धुः? In this commentary on 1.1.21 and 1.1.22, जीव गोस्वामी implies that ब्राह्मणत्व and the eligibility for सवन is based on birth only, and even with भक्ति, a जन्मान्तर (birth as a Brahmin) and सावित्र जन्म (sacred thread) is needed for सवन. This interpretation of Jiva Goswami of Varna goes against the modern nineteenth century interpretation by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. 

दुर्गमसङ्गमिनी on 1.1.21 

भगवन्नामश्रवणाद्येकतरात्सद्य एव सवनयोग्यतायाः प्रतिकूलदुर्जातित्वप्रारम्भकप्रारब्धपापनाशपूर्वकसवनयोग्यजातित्वजनकपुण्यलाभः प्रतिपद्यते। ब्राह्मणानां शौक्रे जन्मनि दुर्जातित्वाभावेऽपि सवनाय सुजातित्वजनकसावित्रजन्मापेक्षावत्। तस्माद् `भक्तिः पुनाति मन्निष्ठा श्वपाकानपि सम्भवाद्’ इति तु कैमुत्यार्थमेव प्रोक्तमित्यायाति।

 

दुर्गमसङ्गमिनी on 1.1.22

दुर्जातिरेव सवनायोग्यत्वे कारणं मतम्।

दुर्जात्यारम्भकं पापं यत्स्यात्प्रारब्धमेव तत्॥ १-१-२२ ॥

 

ब्राह्मणानां शौक्रे जन्मनि दुर्जातित्वाभावेऽपि सवनयोग्यत्वाय पुण्यविशेषमयसावित्रजन्मसापेक्षत्वात्। ततश्च सवनयोग्यत्वप्रतिकूलदुर्जात्यारम्भकं प्रारब्धं गतमेव किन्तु शिष्टाचाराभावात्सावित्रं जन्म नास्तीति ब्राह्मणकुमाराणां सवनयोग्यत्वाभावावच्छेदकपुण्यविशेषमयसावित्रजन्मापेक्षवदस्य जन्मान्तरापेक्षा वर्तत इति भावः।

अतः प्रमाणवाक्येऽपि “सवनाय कल्पते” सम्भावितो भवति न तु तदैवाधिकारी स्यादित्यभिप्रेतम्।

Thanks, Nityanand

 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 5 May 2016 10:46:39 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

Have you seen the दुर्गमसङ्गमिनी commentary by जीव गोस्वामी on the भक्तिरसामृतसिन्धुः? In this commentary on 1.1.21 and 1.1.22, जीव गोस्वामी implies that ब्राह्मणत्व and the eligibility for सवन is based on birth only, and even with भक्ति, a जन्मान्तर (birth as a Brahmin) and सावित्र जन्म (sacred thread) is needed for सवन. This interpretation of Jiva Goswami of Varna goes against the modern nineteenth century interpretation by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. 

I can also add that the दिग्दर्शिनी commentary by सनातन गोस्वामी on हरिभक्तिविलास 1.47-55 starting with एवं विप्र एव गुरुः स्यादित्यायातम् states that only a Brahmin can be a Guru for all, and gives a hierarchy on who can give mantra to whom. Does this not show that what you call as misconception (Varna based on birth) is what Sanatana and Jiva Gosvami stated in their commentaries?

 

[Damodara Dasa]

Hare Krishna.
Respected Nityanandaji,

Thankyou very much for raising this question. I was expecting someone
to raise this question so that more of in depth discussion can go on
to dig deep in to the root of the matter. I am now compiling a small
document in reply to this for the perusal of scholars in this group.
It may take a couple of days and thus I beg pardon for not be able to
participate in this discussion till then.

Thankyou,
Damodara Das

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 5 May 2016 11:39:43 UTC+5:30, Damodara Dasa wrote:

Hare Krishna.
Respected Nityanandaji,

Thankyou very much for raising this question. I was expecting someone
to raise this question so that more of in depth discussion can go on
to dig deep in to the root of the matter. I am now compiling a small
document in reply to this for the perusal of scholars in this group.
It may take a couple of days and thus I beg pardon for not be able to
participate in this discussion till then.

Thankyou,
Damodara Das

Sure Damodara Dasa Ji, please take your time. Maybe we can have a separate thread for old and modern interpretations of varna in the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition. 

[Sivasenani Nori]

On May 5, 2016 2:19 AM, "sunil bhattacharjya" <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Namaste Sivasenaniji,
>
> Your wrote
>
>
>  <For instance, any answer to the second set of questions can be twisted to portray Prof. Kannan in a bad light>.
>
> In my opinion, Prof. Kannan  should not run away without sending a proper reply to the questions raised in the second set.

Sir,

May I submit that "run away" is not appropriate with respect to a scholar who is organizing a seminar to counter the poison being spread by Pollock and his ilk?

I would suggest that "strategic retreat" or "considered refusal to engage" is a better choice. If we avoid offensive phrases, it would be easier to get focus on your main point that it is better to engage.

Regards
N Siva Senani

[Jsr Prasad]

Sri Senani's comment has a stance. It may be that Prof. Kannan is running out of time due to his academic commitments, but, not certainly running away from questions. He would not have brought forward the second set, to the notice of the group, had he thought of evading them. We can reduce his burden of thinking over these, by looking into each question, thoroughly. I think, we are already doing that. Later, Prof. Kannan may take well-meant views that suits his thinking.

In the beginning of thread, Prof. Kannan declared that he had apprehensions about his position might be misrepresented by filtered quoting.

Thanks

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste Prof. Prasadji,

Yes, Prof. Kannaji did not want to run away and that is why he gave the second set of questions in his mail to BVP. If we look at it carefully, we will see that the second set of questions was, in fact, embedded in the first set of questions also. What I meant by saying that we should not run away, is that (having already decided to deal with the second set of quesions) Prof Kannnji should not back out, for the fear that whatever he wrote may be twisted by the other party. However, if the opponents continue to be belligerent, the question of strategic planning to deal with them may arise subsequently.

Regards,

--

[K S Kannan]

Dear All,

I am thankful to you all for your comments and suggestions, 

and more importantly, your concern for the cause.

Howsoever well and appositely may we respond, 

the press, with its present predilections and proclivities, 

is but bound to distort. We cannot afford to forget this.

They are worth responding to only if they undertake to print 

the whole set of questions and the whole set of answers.

So then, just as the other camp has its own platform(s) to propagate its ideas,

we shall have our own, too. Rather than reply hurriedly and prematurely 

to their probing queries and teeming teasers,

let us build/strengthen scholarship on our own side first - the tougher task, though it be!

The conference series aims at that - as its top priority business. 

Let our actions speak. 

Let our well-produced volumes (ie in terms of content) speak:

kriyA kevalam uttaram !

Whatever the agenda - latent or patent - of  the Western Indologists be,

blazing trails whether of European or American Orientalism,

they have nevertheless set enviable academic standards -  by no means fit to be ignored.

And further, howsoever their fashions may change, their "designs" remain the same! 

Rather than getting entrapped, therefore, in the clutches of their paradigms and parameters,

we must endeavour to regenerate and rejuvenate our own time-honoured criteria 

in evaluating, edifying, and ennobling  civilisational attitudes 

- all products of little else than hard work.

It is then that the maxim of Manu (2.20) can come true again :

etad-des'a-prasUtasya 

    sakAs'Ad agrajanmanaH /

svam svam caritram s'iks"eran

    pRthivyAm sarva-mAnavAH //;

as, too, the aspiration of the Awake :

bahu-jana-hitAya 

bahu-jana-sukhAya.

My prolixity please be excused.

KSKannan

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:37 PM, K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

Whatever the agenda - latent or patent - of  the Western Indologists be,

blazing trails whether of European or American Orientalism,

they have nevertheless set enviable academic standards -  by no means fit to be ignored.

And further, howsoever their fashions may change, their "designs" remain the same! 

Rather than getting entrapped, therefore, in the clutches of their paradigms and parameters,

we must endeavour to regenerate and rejuvenate our own time-honoured criteria 

in evaluating, edifying, and ennobling  civilisational attitudes 

- all products of little else than hard work.

​Well Said Professor well said!!​

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[rajivmalhotra2007]

I concur with Prof Kannan. He has done more than his part. This is a long term struggle, no easy path, no quick fix. We should encourage others to join in the effort.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

I too understand Prof. Kannan's views now and let us hope that whatever the new strategy is evolved that would pay rich dividends.

Coming to the issue of the so-called caste-system there are lot more, which can be discussed in BVP, should the scholsrs wish, albeit under a separate thread.

Regards,