On Sanatana dharma controversy

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Do members have any opinions on this recent controversy from Tamil Nadu started by the CM's son? Beating up on the term "sanatanam" or directly at "sanatana dharma" is getting normalized. Why so? Because according to them, it is the bad stream of Hinduism that endorses and justifies varnashrama dharma which is supposedly the root of caste-based discrimination. Therefore they assume the right to call publicly for destroying "sanatanam" or sanatana dharma.

Members who know the language can look at this video of N. Ram of "The Hindu" paper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEqzRRp3nLA

He quotes a past Shankaracharya. Perhaps we should ask whether they contend the Shankara mathas which propagate varnashrama dharma should all be shut down. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[সপ্ত Rishi]

As far as they are concerned,they would want to do that.By the way,what are the astikas tamil nadu doing ?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-oSb0qJp3BEE8WjMGQNWRjYyu%3DLX0%3DQce1xneqiZeNVsg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Raman_M]

namaste,

I dont think this an intellectual discussion that can be won through arguments. The proponents have an agenda and this is a good means to polarise the masses. No amount of arguments is going to help them understand, agree or accept our views. Its perhaps more worthwhile thinking how to build a sustainable moat for the real Hindus (which might be dwindling), aggressively pursuing the same and be insulted from these taunts and troubles.

My personal view

regards

Raman

[সপ্ত Rishi]

True,absolutely.it is a useless discussion to have.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/2e75dfea-905b-4d26-c14f-1055e36a37dd%40gmail.com.

[Aravinda Rao]

Namaste, 

I recently gave a talk which is uploaded just now.

https://youtu.be/VjvPwuGUkpY

It is a little known channel needing speakers. 

Aravinda Rao 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B%3Dj2w-dpxcPikN3CxPRrrsYR5mzLbCrqo9rYyPJroFFANBWiA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Raman-ji,

It is not about them accepting our views. If it is only that much, we might as well not bother about their crowing against us. We have our religion and they have theirs and there is objection of one to the beliefs of another. That would be it. 

Beyond disagreement, the issue is the stated agenda of the "kshatriyas" presently in power that the orthodox Hindu religion (alone) should be eradicated (not merely opposed). "Freedom of religion" goes to the winds in our case, because our religion if it validates varnashrama dharma is inherently evil, the cause for social problems, and hence fit to be destroyed - "like [DMK] dengue, malaria, korona is fit to be destroyed". This is the message being touted in the open and re-doubled over by the TN kshatriyas in power and control over all of society. Why give them the benefit of doubt beyond their stated objective? Their purpose is not merely to polarise society for votes. They are intent on finding ways to eradicate the orthodox religion, including temple traditions based on varna dharma. It goes all the way to telling married Hindu couples at functions they attend to give their new-born "Tamil names" (i.e. not Sanskrit names). The propaganda conditions the minds of the masses to align with their ideology and perspectives that casts the orthodox as inimical to the general social welfare, so that when they do take action on the ground to tear down our religion and its structures or to target the followers in the name of their varna, jati, religion, the conditioned masses will approve or watch indifferently from a distance. These are tried and tested methods.

Those coming out of the orthodox fold (esp brahmins) are also deeply impacted by all this sort of public vilification in that they are guilt-tripped and diffident and are at the forefront of Hindus who hide all sign of their religious identity once outside and even within their own homes, turn into the grand anti-traditional revolutionaries.

Our first business is to state our positions and perspectives in clear terms, for those willing and seeking to learn of them. Our authorities, acharyas, sannyasis have to be willing to address these topics in so far as they can teach our religion correctly (i.e. can be done without delving into the politics of the day, but without fear of public opinion). If the purvapakshin raises their objections, our side should at least be able to articulate its response. People can agree or disagree. We are not calling for anyone to follow the traditional orthodox varnashrama based religion. For those already in it and identifying with their varnas, we have to offer the right understanding as per the shastras etc. How does the insider see it? We may have multiple opinions ourselves, which is fine. But outsiders cannot be defining who we are and what our religion is about, and then denying the legitimacy and right to exist of the orthodox Hindu religion.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/2e75dfea-905b-4d26-c14f-1055e36a37dd%40gmail.com.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Wait for kalavai venkatji's video in sangam talks,i have contacted him.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-rKTCRbT_8pwxnopWmgbsvGRtwxUM7fjfh7-MdrzKNEWA%40mail.gmail.com.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Also,swami ramabhadracharya ji has responded,in a long and clear dialogue.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Also,it is amazing because with names like udaya,karuna,raja,durga,rajendran charity must begin at home.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Rishi-ji,

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 3:12 PM সপ্ত Rishi <saptars...@gmail.com> wrote:

Also,swami ramabhadracharya ji has responded,in a long and clear dialogue.

Saw a small youtube clip on the swami answering a lady journalist. Unfortunately, limited in my Hindi. I like the fact that the Hindi media went directly to a traditional acharya for his thoughts. You can send the longer dialogue if available in YT.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B%3Dj2w_qdbhRx0PrAHoSG8t6Nq2JTNzUis732TVTkGA_%3DcDuAA%40mail.gmail.com.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

https://youtu.be/x9cKAd0xBuM?feature=shared

This is the link to the longer video,problem is puri shankaracharya is at times,having some notions which are flawed,journalist rarely approach him.Whereas ramabhadracharya ji,after his contribution for ramajanmabhoomi has been the go to acharya for discussion.

Also,i like the badri shankaracharya,but he is not supported by puri peeth.It has weakened us smartas over here.And of course in my state,except exceptional grihastha pandits,scholars not a single math makes a sound on it.

It is so sad,since bengal was the place where along with navya nyaya you had the birth of navya smriti paddhati starting from smartacharya sri raghunandana bhattacharya,to pandit ishwar chandra vidyasagar,pandit ramadeva smrititirtha,to the great bharatchandra shiromani.Everyrhing has fallen in bengal.

Just wanted to onow why,sringeri peeth does not hold discussion on the topic of varna ashrama dharma,as i believe they do adhyayanam of dharmashastras.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-ots2VFpAoZH4D5YCGn7ea%3Dz9DZKnkOZ_NpFst1sqyvzg%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Rishi-ji,

Thanks for the video. To the small extent I could follow, his answers are inspiring.

I don't know what the present puri shankaracharya said that you consider flawed. I found this video of him explaining these topics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB1f_nv5V-I He has presented at least 'a' orthodox viewpoint on varna in Hindu society and does not shy away from representing his tradition. For example, varna of a person is known in general through his or her birth family. And varna determines the sva-dharma of the person in terms of the type of work he should do in society. Those who abide are following their svadharma and those who do not are straying into paradharma or adharma, accordingly reaping the results of their karma. 

Suppose I vehemently oppose such ideas (like I also may oppose baptists who think Hindus are devil-worshippers). Even still his community should have the same freedom to believe and practice their religion so long as it does not interfere or obstruct other people's similar rights to their religion. That is why statements such as "we should eradicate that religion" are egregious: such a concept is fundamentally as anti-Hindu as it gets.

Now the issue becomes complicated over institutions like the temple to which different sects go to but which may be maintained by only one sect or according to certain orthodox rules. I may go to a local Vishnu temple run by vaishnavas but if I get it into my head "Why not smartha archaka when we too worship Vishnu?" and create a protest, then it will soon become a mutual headache. Likewise, if the shudra asks "Why can I not learn at these Veda patashalas (or become a jagadguru in shankara mathas)?" There the anti-Hindu forces can amplify their polarising methods, pointing out "discrimination" on the basis of varna or sect. If the institution is private like perhaps a Veda patashala, then it would be easier for the religious sect to follow its own rules without interference; but if it is a public Hindu temple now administered by govt, then the people can be prompted that they have the right to determine how Hindu religion ought to be run there. That the temple that has been following a certain orthodox tradition and Order ought to be forced to de-legitimize its connection to that tradition or particular religious sect and become neutral to it - since worshippers of unorthodox religious persuasion and/or atheists have decided what is valid religion and what is not for that institution. (Somehow the same govt that talks against orthodoxy and proposes interfering in temple traditions is unable to build a single Hindu varna-neutral temple for the community they claim to represent!)

A predecessor to the puri acharya at Govardhan math (1960s) was quoted by N. Ram in the video I sent, that he said dalits can see temples from afar, they would get results from that alone and therefore need not (i.e. should not) enter temples like the upper caste people who will have to do rituals etc. in the temples. Such positions justified in the earlier times as well as quotes from dharma shastras or even shankara's reference to ~ "pour lead in shudra ear for learning vedas" are standard ammunition for opposition to put Hindus on the back foot and make us silent and diffident to present an uttarapaksha even when they call for the eradication of sanatana dharma. The Shankaracharyas of today and we as followers of the shankara sampradaya have to elaborate our positions against the purvapakshin's charges and be strong enough to take a stand where necessary.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B%3Dj2w9XA2d6Dfrt7-evsULG18BmnNMf3q%3DgFxWTJcEAiYDqFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Well,what i was referring to was his statements made on topics of mathematics,and other subjects which are not correct.

Also it seems to me,there is this knuckleheadedness where even after multiple explanations you are still accused of discrimination,i believe what has actually weakened us is our own folks.

So a couple of days ago,in nagpur Rss chief after the dmk,made supportive statements that we kept them like animals though they were part of us,and it is recorded in mahabharata.

Our heads,are since uneducated when it comes to these topics,there is no percolation down to the main stream,about adhikara being competence,i mean for shiva's sake one must read a work written by a great pandit from bengal Pandit rajendranath ghosh,on this topic(he was a shudra by varna).

I believe there are many works in different languages which must get translated and spread so that,people are made steadfast in there dharma.

Well,putranji i would like to refer you a name,halley kalyan ji.He is the best when it comes to dissecting the notions of equality and discrimination.

On Tue, 12 Sept 2023, 08:12 putran M, <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram Rishi-ji,

Thanks for the video. To the small extent I could follow, his answers are inspiring.

I don't know what the present puri shankaracharya said that you consider flawed. I found this video of him explaining these topics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB1f_nv5V-I He has presented s at least 'a' orthodox viewpoint on varna in Hindu society and does not shy away from representing his tradition. For example, varna of a person is known in general through his or her birth family. And varna determines the sva-dharma of the person in terms of the type of work he should do in society. Those who abide are following their svadharma and those who do not are straying into paradharma or adharma, accordingly reaping the results of their karma. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-oLsjJc%2B0-wcydiutcjZmxBE%2Bfjxf_294cMxnBdj-Yp2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Putranji,

It's a pity that many of the christians like Mr. Stalin have their anti-Hndu agenda, and many of our less-educated Hindus can't give fitting reply to them, because most of our Hindus don't know how old is our Sanatana dharma, and when Lord Ram appeared, when Lord Krishna appeared, when  Lord Buddha appeared, and when Adi Shankara appeared etc. . The less educated Hindu brothers and sisters also have not been taught that the Sanatana dharma only classified people. where the educationists were the Brahmins, the administrators and protectors were the Kshatriyas, the agriculturists and traders were the Vaishyas and the Shudras were the assistants of the Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas. The word "caste" came to be used only after this word was introduced by the British  for the census. Megasthenes wrote more than two thousand and three hundred years ago that there was not caste system in India. In the ancient times, the  criminals were punished and some of the worst criminals were ousted from the society, probably because the modern jailing system was not there in the ancient times.

My 2 cents

Sunil K. Bhattacharjy

--

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Putranji,

The Hindu dharma, with the scriptures like the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, the Epics and other dharma shastras such as Manu Smriti, Parashara Smriti etc. is avery 

Sent from my iPhone

--

[putran M]

Namaskaram Sunil-ji,

People can have variant opinions on how varnashrama dharma is a part of the sanatana dharma and follow it accordingly. They can find a guru or sect whose teachings suit them and pursue the path. They are free to think either birth-based varna determination is a misunderstanding, or that varnashrama dharma  is wholly bogus to begin with (like the nastikas may do anyhow). Hinduism is not bothered by that sort of diversity in opinion and debate over issues. We welcome it. But there cannot be open threats and intent to destroy forms of religion that they disagree with. Nor should we tolerate any sort of double-standard in such treatment directed at the Hindu religion alone. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB995_LcCMPRF_gXyyYU3UO8xROFAouUs%3Dp20VEcUFhoPCw%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

The following was sent by Sunil-ji; am posting without the last couple of sentences which talk on date of Shankara (a topic we decided as presently out of scope for list)

Quote

Dear Putranji,

If the educated Hindus are smart enough they would surely give a fitting reply, pointing out the cases like that of Satyakam, where his mother could not tell him as to who was his father, and his sadguru accepted Satyakam  in the Brahmin-fold as he (Satyakam)  never hesitated to tell this truth to his guru. One who cares for the truth, is essentially a brahmin, irrespective of where he takes his birth. 

Let us not forget that Lord Krishna told "Satya is Dharma". 

Unquote

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Raman M-ji had sent the following message to me in private (by mistake, intended to send to group). 

Quote

Dear Putran=ji,

While your intentions are noble and right, I dont think we can make any headway through mere talks. That might seem a lazy comment, but yes, these folks are  not going to listen to anything. Only a powerful is needed to shut them down. Providing logical explanation is like shouting in the ocean. We need to find proper ways to curtail them through legal and legislative means only.

>> The Shankaracharyas of today and we as followers of the shankara sampradaya have to elaborate our positions against the purvapakshin's charges and be strong enough to take a stand where necessary.

this is the last thing we need to do. We should be their (acharyas) protectors, ensuring their physical wellness, so they can help protect our dharma, sastra and anustanams.  As a sequel, if these acharyas tell you that by seeking employment and doing 'services' you have violated your svadharma in the first place, what response would we have to them?

Dragging them into these politics would cause more harm than help to all of us is my humble opinion.

we have more home work to do within ourselves before we venture to take them head on, and it is perhaps too late.

regards

Raman

Unquote

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

I wrote the following to my family-friend group:

-------------

Vedas are the primary scripture. It is called Sruthi (that which is heard) and held to be intrinsically infallible. The Veda are referring to “Ishvara’s eternal Knowledge” in shabda form. It is apaurusheya, uncreated (by any purusha including Ishvara), coeval with Him. Different traditions may have variations in their understanding of the sruthi itself but none of them deny or reject the Veda: it is shabda pramana that is the only means to esoteric knowledge of reality.

The Smriti (that which is remembered (of the Veda) by sages) is a second category of scripture that is paurusheya (has origin in human beings). It is not infallible in so far as human beings are potentially fallible in their judgments and interpretation, or may give context-bound assessments that are limited by factors of time, place, etc. Smritis are accepted in a tradition to the extent they are aligned to the sruthi and illuminate for them the fundamental knowledge of the primary scripture, otherwise have to be suitably contextually understood.

Thus, different traditions may treat different smritis with different levels of importance. Some may give nuanced meaning that aligns with the sruti and their larger tradition. Others may accept the smriti in part and not accept parts that they regard as a limited or mis-understanding. Others may simply bypass it and not regard it to be their essential scripture. 

The smartha sampradaya (generally, orthodox tradition of adi shankara) accepts the smritis as valid scripture aligned to the Veda. So for example, they would accept and not reject the manu smriti. However, even with them, it is important to realize that one cannot simply translate a verse into English, in an isolated manner, and expect that is being taught in that tradition by its acharyas in such manner. Remember, even with Vedanta which is part of sruti, we have multiple sampradayas claiming different meanings to same verses. Likewise, if one comes across complicated or controversial passages in the smriti, it is the acharyas and traditional scholars who have to give the meaning and understanding for them and not your local foreigner. 

Of course, that is not to say the acharya won’t give a heavy orthodox understanding not delectable for outsiders. Not sure how much today, but certainly the paramacharya did in his time. In which case, that is their religion and their right to it. We know our people are already essentially converts to adjunct forms of Hinduism, some by way of life but still deferent to and/or aspiring towards the tradition, and others more formally and consciously in their embrace of eclectic adjustments and the rejection of orthodox religion. That is all part and parcel of flux and influence of modernity and its deliberated coordinated outcomes. Even still, those who hold on to the sruthi+smriti tradition, have their right and freedom to it. You think its evil? Stay away and find your way; don’t make it your business to destroy them.

--------------

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Namaskaram Raman-ji,

While your intentions are noble and right, I dont think we can make any headway through mere talks. That might seem a lazy comment, but yes, these folks are  not going to listen to anything. Only a powerful is needed to shut them down. Providing logical explanation is like shouting in the ocean. We need to find proper ways to curtail them through legal and legislative means only.

What is our talk exactly? Let's first see if we can provide context and perspective ourselves. Frankly we are afraid to discuss among ourselves, what exactly the orthodox sampradaya teaches with regard to inter-varna relations. The "sanatanam" being attacked is directly our shankara sampradaya that endorses varnashrama dharma.

Here is how the opposition (like in my family) works. They will quote you verses from Manu smriti that suggest shudras were maltreated. For example, "2.31. Let (the first part of) a Brahmana’s name (denote something) auspicious, a Kshatriya’s be connected with power, and a Vaisya’s with wealth, but a Sudra’s (express something) contemptible. (jugupsitam)" Then does the tradition disown manusmriti or all such verses in it? If acharyas quote from it positive things and claim that as smriti we regard it to be aligned with the Vedas, then we have to answer the challenging questions regarding the scripture. Or the tradition should tell us which verses are interpolated or misinterpreted, or contextually irrelevant today? Because I don't think sanatana dharma teaches high-low status thinking on account of varna dharma - and in fact we may quote the manusmriti itself for that. But then, we have to also explain for the other verses that suggest high-low attitudes etc. (We can state our truth honestly no matter how harsh it may appear. But silence is not helpful when the tradition is facing brazen attacks on this account.)

See the end of https://mythbusterx.wordpress.com/2020/05/21/manu-smriti-and-untouchables/ for more such quotable quotes. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Whose is this website ?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qd%3DH3PrqoNMjshrM4jLOeV7-TaZj_bbr4Cn4-hKH2Aqw%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 4:17 PM সপ্ত Rishi <saptars...@gmail.com> wrote:

Whose is this website ?

Don't know. But this is the sort of source for anti-sanatana people to prove their point.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Yes,supposedly the verse hints at shudra varna people must use nindavachak shabda,so let's investigate what vidura means,or dharmavyadha(they are the best examples of shudra varna from our epics,as quoted by bhagavan bhashyakara).

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qLupGnWYMTnznqSUo8nTT6PSn%2Bs-U%2BmW4a_LD1jRDyYQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Well as per vs apte,

) विदुर vidura (p. 1439)

विदुर vidura a. [विद्-कुरच् P.III.2.162] Wise, intelligent. -रः 1 A wise or learned man. -2 A crafty man, an intriguer. -3 N. of the younger brother of Paṇḍu. [When Satyavatī found that both the sons begotten by Vyāsa upon her two daughters-in-law were physically incapacitated for the throne-- Dhṛitarāṣṭra being blind and Paṇḍu pale and sickly-- she asked them to seek the assistance of Vyāsa once more. But being frightened by the austere look of the sage, the elder widow sent one of her slave-girls dressed in her own clothes, and this girl became the mother of Vidura. He is remarkable for his great wisdom, righteousness, and strict impartiality. He particularly loved the Pāṇḍavas, and saved them from several critical dangers.] -Comp. -नीतिः, -प्रजागरः N. of chapters 33 to 40 in the 5th Parva of Mahābhārata.

On Sat, 16 Sept 2023, 02:11 putran M, <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qLupGnWYMTnznqSUo8nTT6PSn%2Bs-U%2BmW4a_LD1jRDyYQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

What is our talk exactly? Let's first see if we can provide context and perspective ourselves. Frankly we are afraid to discuss among ourselves, what exactly the orthodox sampradaya teaches with regard to inter-varna relations. The "sanatanam" being attacked is directly our shankara sampradaya that endorses varnashrama dharma.

The kanchi paramacharya of the previous century addressed this issue in his time. 

https://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part20/chap16.htm 

https://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part20/chap17.htm

Also, in https://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part3/chap6.htm he puts the ruin of the varnashrama dharma on the modern brahmin (of the past couple centuries), including the developing feelings of superiority.

That is perhaps a genuinely insider viewpoint of a practitioner of the faith.

The problem is that it sets the general narrative of how things were and ought to be understood as the actual religion in practice, but does not address the specific contradictions in dharma shastras that suggest such ideas predate the British. In the chapter on dharma shastras, he does not address these conflicting verses which in his time itself people were calling for burning the manusmriti for. How do we reconcile his benign picture of the workings of varnashrama dharma in Hindu village societies against the aggressive pictures presented by the manu smriti in certain verses and used by anti-hindus as a weapon against our existence to this day? I mean, if the acharya had to expound on this topic directly, I am sure he would have - but the fact remains it has not been addressed by him. I can only find the puri acharya taking on such questions directly but since the purvapakshin is making big of the smriti and its actual role in Hinduism, that needs to be analysed and countered properly by the siddhantin who accepts birth-based varna determination and yet considers it as not oppressive towards shudras.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Whether or not these were practiced,can only be inquired from a scholar of dharmashastras,whether or not these are balawat vidhis or so.

I would suggest you to contact sri nithin sridhar ji,instead of posting them over here,since here i don't believe others are inclined to discuss intricacies of dharma shastras.

There are also books,such as vratya kayastha chandrika or books of digindranath bidyabhushan,who have discussed these issues extensively,also you could read dharmapradip by pandit ananthakrishna shastri for these verses.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-rssfSRr6%3DyN9Ppkz9N7WGxy-2aiFbmPK9_d6p-TUB5iw%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

The Manu Smriti is the most ancient Smiti text, and  all the societal situations of the present times can't be sorted out by debating on the Manu Smriti alone, and it is a pity that most of our scholars of today are not aware of this. Vedavyasa himself said that though the Manu Smriti is the Adi Smriti, yet different additional smrits have been written for the different yugas, keeping in mind the special situations and needs of the particular yugas.

About fifteen (15) years ago there was a congregation of Vedic scholars In Florida, in USA, where the scholars were trying to find solutions to some of the problems of today,  by using the Manu. At that time I rose and brought the kind attention of the august gathering to explain the need to consider the fact that there are additional appropriate Smritis also to meet the needs of the different yugas. The congregation of the scholars appreciated what I brought up, and had kindly  bestowed on me the title of "Veda Vidya Parangad".

This is just to inform you that just talking about the Manu Smriti alone would not help, in the sutuations of the present times,

My 2 cents

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B%3Dj2w-0%3DL-a8%2BqHtP2aGZq0oVSgOj8wT9E40x81HnC3kFtduQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Sri Putran-ji,

I watched the video of N.Ram and his main point is there cannot be anything that is sanatana (eternal) in the world that is constantly changing and so he says veda/varnasrama dharma cannot be eternal/sanatana. 

But he forgets the fact that the Atman (conscious Self) as a witness of change cannot change and so always remains sanatana or eternal. Veda/dharma that reveals this Self (established in all) also has to be eternal or sanatana at least in a relative sense (until the attainment of the Selfhood). 

Varnasrama dharma is a natural consequence of accepting the society/universe as the body where all the different parts are discharging their respective duty as a service to the Self which is supporting/sustaining it. 

IMHO the absolute nature of the Self which is the essence of Veda, automatically validates Veda and invalidates all other views based merely on anAtma / body. Pundits may disagree but IMHO, all the many different vedantic schools ultimately culminates in the sarvAtmatva of Brahman.

Please let me know if it makes sense. 

Regards,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2023 5:11 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] On Sanatana dharma controversy

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB98w-eQE0wqRcV1k%2BdZg9x4yLaq_GbAc8v3HSp8wNzwEyw%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Suresh-ji,

The main thing that stands out for me in his talk is his tying sanatana dharma to varnashrama dharma in the "worst" way possible by referring the argument of a past shankaracharya for why dalits need not (should not) enter temples. "sanatanam" holds such 'oppressive' rules to be sanatana which is false - that was the thrust of his argument. Of course, he is seeking to justify the blanket call of the politician for the eradication of "sanatanam", but he cannot be scrutinized for his philosophical limitations. 

On the other hand, you are correct that the orthodox tradition has a demanding job to show how its version of vyavaharika satya is consistent and coherent, at the levels of logic and sruthi. We cannot simply quote generally from acharyas without tackling the purvapakshi's arguments directly from our standpoint. Nor can we specially quote dharma shastras as our pramana unless we can also present 1. why they are aligned with sruthi, 2. how they are to be taught and learned, including the various troubling verses that I mentioned in this thread (for manusmriti).

The media, politicians and internet warriors act like the orthodox (and general birth-based varna-dharma society) can be sidelined, invalidated and eventually extinguished. We have to punch back and demand that our right to existence is respected and acknowledged as for any other religion. We are otherwise not seeking these nastikas' approval and praise. To hell with them; just shut up and follow the law and enough of the nonsense about getting rid of our religion.

The reason we get by in the midst of the present nonsense is simply because the larger Hindu community has taken up the cause on behalf of "sanatana dharma". But they do it in a politically-correct manner where the orthodox and birth-based varna dharma are invalid and "real sanatana dharma " is this, is that, is everything else. We have to be happy that we get hush-hushed in the same train.

In order to make our voice heard and our right ackowledged, we must start doing for these topics what we are good at doing in Vedanta: Tarka.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB4516A39D59900F21E5EF7BE2A9F5A%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[putran M]

seeking to justify the blanket call of the politician for the eradication of "sanatanam", but he cannot be scrutinized for his philosophical limitations. 

I meant, it is not that useful in trying to make much of his sense of philosophy.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Sureshji,

Putranji will reply to you and he may add whatever he thinks fit, but I wish to share with you the fact that the compound word: Sanatana-Dharma has not been coined recently. This compound word is a most ancient term used for the Vedic Religion. Even Lord Buddha used this in his statement: "esha dharma sanatanah", more than 37 centuries ago. So it is not possible to remove this, no matter whether someone likes it or not today. The devout Hindus do believe that the Vedas contain the eternal truths.

My 2 cents

Sunil K.B.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB4516A39D59900F21E5EF7BE2A9F5A%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

My cousin (who had earlier sent me the manusmriti quotes) sent me the below email, see in particular part 2:

Quote

Part 1:

In an unmixed society, we can say that it was gold. In a mixed society, which the society has changed into, it is good to admit it is just gold covering.

Say in a company, the CEO and the Peon are doing the same job, but still the company gives different salary, it will be questioned. 

Arguments like 'the British changed the meaning ' is weak.

Arguments like 'we are not following manu' are weaker.

If the cat chooses to close its eyes, it does not mean the world has become dark.

Part 2: 

The Manu Smriti may have been correct according to the circumstances prevailing then. May be it was wrong that time also.

Rama followed Manu Smriti. Infact Lord Rama came in the lineage of Manu.

Krishna's Bhagavad Gita has verses that are synonymous with Manu.

Now  questions are raised  by them -

1. If it was not birth based, allow us also to become priest. Allow us also to become shaastrigal.

2. A section of people are not treated equally. We are addressing this issue for self respect.

3. The earliest known inscriptions in Sanskrit are from the 1st century BCE. In that case, should we even accept the Manu, Ramayana and Mahabharata which are in sanskrit. 

4. We are addressing the majority of Hindus.

5. If you have no answer, either treat us equally or we do not want such a religion or God. We have Thirukkural. That is enough for us.

Unquote

I think the questions are pretty straightforward and can be addressed by the traditionalist giving light to the insider's perspective. If anyone wants to go through the exercise and write a response, please do. I hope to elaborate some of my thoughts later.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

small correction: he sent in two mails; the second one (Part 2) was after I had sent a rejoinder.

[Kalyan]

Dear Sri Putran-ji Namaste

Here is my response -

1. Sanatana dharma cannot be reduced to just varNa dharma. It has a lot more elements than varNa.

2. Entire scriptures of Sanatana dharma cannot be reduced to just a few portions of manusmruti. The Gita, Ramayana, Mahabharata, contain many many more things than just varNa.

3. If we reduce Sanatana dharma to just varNa, we are doing the exact same thing that our intellectual opponents are doing.

Frankly, I am unamused by this excessive focus on varNa. My apologies if I spoke harshly.

Warm Regards

[putran M]

Namaskaram Kalyan-ji,

Yes. The opponents use the birth-based varnashrama dharma as an excuse to attack all of sanatana dharma. For them that is the poison that pollutes and fuels everything else - or so they want to project. But for the orthodox tradition, the anti-Hindu's focusing on varnashrama dharma as a defining feature of sanatana dharma is EXACTLY on TARGET. Because the varnashrama dharma is the orthodox Hindu's pravritti marga, the karma yoga route to chittashuddhi etc. It is the backbone of his religious life. 

However not all Hindus agree with the orthodox viewpoint. Just like, not all Hindus agree with advaita. If some anti-Hindu attacks Upanishad philosophy as mayavada (by conflating it with what is taught by advaitins), naturally the dvaitins get offended. They may say "Hey the Upanishads teach only dvaita. How dare you call it evil!!" What the anti-HIndu needs to understand is that the Upanishads are interpreted in different ways, all of which exist in the umbrella of Hinduism, so he cannot use his grudge against mayavada as an entry point for attacking the Upanishads generally. Everyone is attacked thereby. The dvaitin also needs to understand that much and not pander to the anti-Hindu's attack on advaita. The advaitin needs to step up and defend his understanding of the Upanishads.

In the present topic, not all followers of sanatana dharma consider the varnashrama dharma in the same way or with the same importance. Hinduism accommodates a spectrum of such interpretations of our scriptures. The orthodox tradition based on birth-based varnashrama dharma is also an integral existing part of that spectrum. That much, all HIndus should recognize, accept and affirm - even if they don't agree to it. And if fellow Hindus are not willing to do that and instead join hands with the anti-Hindus, then the job of defending itself falls on the orthodox tradition that is being attacked for its beliefs.

Finally, with regard to your final comment:

It doesn't matter whether you and I are unamused about it. Varnashrama dharma is a central part of the teachings of the shankara sampradaya. We are not going to pretend we can wish it away; and not have the spine to defend our tradition when anti-hindus attack it brazenly. Others can distance themselves as they please. I've already pointed out the well known discourses of the kanchi acharya on the topic; we can take it or leave but the topic of varnashrama dharma is for a large section of advaitins an essential aspect of pravritti marga.. And in their opinion, it was so for traditional Hindu society as well, so to whoever still abides by their varna traditions, the knowledgeable people have the responsibility to convey right understanding when so many do the work of distorting and creating wrong notions about it.

-------

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Kalyan]

Dear Sri Putran-ji , Namaskaaram

Thank you for the reply. Respectfully, I disagree with your approach on this topic. 

Of course, I think it is perfectly fine to cherish and defend yagnopavita, vaidika karma, upAsana, Gayatri etc. that helps in developing chittasuddhi. There is complete agreement from my side that these are among the central aspects of Sanatana dharma. 

Warm Regards

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Sri Putran-ji,

As you have rightly said the current attack is targeted against traditionalists - in particular brahmins who hold on to the birth based varna system. It is going on not only in Bharath but spreading slowly in other countries like USA. So called elite universities like Harvard, Columbia, Stanford and so on are the breeding ground for these anti Hindu/Tradition activities. These attacks against brahmins are not different from the attacks of asuras against devas/rishis as described in the Veda/ithihasa/puranas.

We should be thankful to people like Rajiv Malhotra, Sai Deepak, Sree Iyer and so on for taking on these demons. But we traditionalists also should unite under the umbrella of Vedas and give them a fitting to refute these false ideologies. 

IMHO, looking upon the entire universe as a whole as Ishwara/Shiva/Vishnu/Devi should unite all traditionalist. Every service that is rendered by every person belonging to any varna is ultimately the service rendered to this supreme virAt purusha. This universal vedic view naturally eliminates or digests all non-vedic views. Non-Vedic god wherever he may be, cannot exist outside this supreme Purusha. 🙂

What needs to be eradicated is not the Varna/caste but the false idea of high and low. These Hindu haters are using the purusha sukta and saying that Brahmins are high because they came from God's face and sudras are low because they came from His feet. They have to realize that every part of Vedic God is equally sacred. 

Birth based varna is natural and helps to protect and nurture the trade/skills within the family. Each Varna has its own life style and the child is naturally brought up to pick up these skills. Families will break if there is no birth based varna. Also mix up of varna will produce children with mixed gunas who will be ultimately useless.

Does it mean a sudra's child should continue to be a servant? No, they always have the option to learn and take up any job. Vidura was a sudra but served as the prime minister of kauravas.

At least for learning and protecting vedas and related shastras, brahmins have to follow birth based varna. As Sri Kanchi Paramacharya says, the giving up of sva-dharma is root cause for all the brahmin-hatred that we are seeing in these times. Whether the world around recognizes or not Brahmins have to stick to their sva-dharma, and sincerely engage in yagya/dana/tapasya. When that happens, other varnas will naturally become favorable. 

Namaste,

Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of putran M <putr...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2023 5:07 PM

To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] On Sanatana dharma controversy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-ovpchOnr-di%3DTgQu7bgiR%3D8BkrfE_gBrKUM5VSGPFAYQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Suresh-ji,

I agree with your perspective on how knowledge of Ishvara is at the heart of our abidance in Dharma. Indeed all karma done consciously of Him and His dharmic Order is service or worship. Explaining our philosophical framework is crucial when we seek to discuss with others on the basis of varnashrama dharma.

With regard to whether shudra can learn and take up the job of a brahmana, or vise-versa, whether such is in line with dharma, my opinion is that we have to find out from the tradition or through our acharyas. To my understanding, that is not generally the way varna dharma is understood, though there can be exceptions to the rule. My point here is not to say yes or no but that we have to found our views in proper pramanas and in the tradition as accepted by our acharyas. And there can be difference in opinion among the traditionalists as well. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB451609EEB2C1A274C575C54FA9F4A%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

In the attached file, I give an edited version of a general response to my cousin that illuminates the insider's perspective of how sanatana dharma works, through a couple of examples.

thollmelukaalkizhu

On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 10:15 AM putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

In the attached file, I give an edited version of a general response to my cousin that illuminates the insider's perspective of how sanatana dharma works, through a couple of examples.

Am re-attaching with some random names in place of B., V., J.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Sorry for the repeat mails on this file. Both the examples are taken from "real-life" but take them only as illustrative for highlighting the main topic. I found out that there are some inaccuracies in the second example, especially in the penultimate two lines; but that does not change the main content on sanatana dharma ideal.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Putranji,

The part-I too is not satisfactory. Historically, the British used the word 'caste' as derived from the Portuguese word 'Casta', which means 'breed' or 'variety'.  British used the word 'caste' in the census to categorise the Indians. 'Caste' means quite different from the 'Varna' system. British had done great harm to the Hindus. One should not belittle or ignore this. 

Even in the part-II,  inappropriate assumptions were made. Lord Ram was born in the beginning of the Dvapara yuga, and not earlier. Lord Krishna was born towards the end of the Dvapara yuga. Manu Smriti is the first Smriti and nobody should ignore it. However, for the later yugas, the smritis appropriate for the yugas , should also must be taken into account.

My 2 cents,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-r1j%3DWE98N49W2WKyipMk0QJnNCYaFTnm5oB6vB3X064A%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Sunil-ji, Rishi-ji and others,

We are the "smartha" sampradaya, by tradition accepting the (paurusheya) manusmriti is aligned to sruthi. Is the text taught in a systematic manner somewhere in orthodox circles, or are the only people studying it so diligently the anti-Hindus? I would like to know how the tradition teaches the manusmriti and/or responds when people point out difficult verses from it. Have orthodox acharyas or traditional scholars addressed the controversial portions in it that anti-Hindus keep quoting? Non-orthodox Hindu schools take a pragmatic approach to the smritis but the smarthas seem tied to them by tradition. If we really consider them to be pramana, we need to answer clearly the purvapakshins, at least for ourselves.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB99e1MmiYq2PMvrNJU3TQj%3DWdNrPp-uyNT4HWzmNVfUOQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Putranji,

Vedavyasa, one of the 24 avartaras of Lord Vishnu, himself  had stressed on the need for the Smritis appropriate for the Yugas. However it will be kind of you to let us know, if there is any reference, where it is specifically said that the Manu Smriti alone is to be considered by the Smarta community.

Warmly

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-rXM%2B4JdJFWSN_p-rG3bKcp10tDmaM2KvQ_VA8EtZnLQA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Sunil-ji,

I never said that. Having other smritis does not diminish or undermine manusmriti. It is relevant more so because the purvapakshin quotes from it.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB9-0V2Tp0vebfj56a1OKDrUw%2BcW%2BiPZ7mcnNJA2N9xkCmQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Well,raghunandana bhattacharya of 16th century,our greatest "smartha" was tied to the tradition but also was adept at both navya nyaya and had studied mimamsa shastra,from mahamahoaadhyaya sri vishweshwar bhatta also known as gaga bhatta(the one who coronated chattrapati shivaji maharaj).

Here in bengal,in his ashtavinshati tattva(volume 28 treatises ),using his extensive mimamsa shastra learning alongwith navya nyaya he made same laws and duties for all the varna.

Which is why,first please contact pandits of sampurnananda university kashi or sringeri math sabha pandits,then alone we can solve this issue completely because based on translation where by we are unable to know whether the sentence is meant to be seen as balawat vidhi or just an athavada,we will need their guidance in this case.

It is not helping fighting this case in these email chats.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-rXM%2B4JdJFWSN_p-rG3bKcp10tDmaM2KvQ_VA8EtZnLQA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

Manu Smriti is the first Smriti and nobody should ignore it. However, for the later yugas, the smritis appropriate for the yugas , should also must be taken into account.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Heard about it earlier also.  BTW, which smruti and its injunctions are more appropriate and friendly to ‘all’ in this Kaliyuga??  I heard that parAshara smruti is meant for Kaliyuga, but I hardly know any content of it to argue it is more catholic in its approach when compared to more conservative manu smruti. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of sunil bhattacharjya
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 5:45 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com; hinduciv...@groups.io
Subject: Re: [advaitin] On Sanatana dharma controversy

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB99e1MmiYq2PMvrNJU3TQj%3DWdNrPp-uyNT4HWzmNVfUOQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Putranji,

Yes. In all cases where only Manu Smriti has already been used, there is no question of bringing in the other Smritis.

Sunil KB

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qm7sx%3DNe8r9YpA5x4SD1wzxDvUiW6W6WMSk_zGMdfOfA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

We are the "smartha" sampradaya, by tradition accepting the (paurusheya) manusmriti is aligned to sruthi.

 

• I think we the smartha-s are smart enough to declare : all smruti texts should be aligned and understood in line with shruti when it comes to ‘siddhAnta’ issue (brahma jignAsa) and when it comes to dharma jignAsa texts like shruti and smruti are the ONLY valid source.  And whatever mentioned there with regard to pravrutti dharma and its acharaNa is something like dictates no one should counter it with yukti.  It is there in the scripture so just practise it without any interrogative mindset otherwise just get out  of our system. 

 

Is the text taught in a systematic manner somewhere in orthodox circles, or are the only people studying it so diligently the anti-Hindus? 

 

• I think your latter observation is more correct because I have hardly seen any peetaadhipati-s / official flag holders of sanaatana dharma boldly substantiate and justifying some crucial and (seeming) barbaric practices in smruti texts.  Yes, ofcourse they often quote and propagate smruti texts ( and it is most of the time smruti texts like bhagavad geeta) but hardly you can see some questionable / controversial quotes in smruti texts taken for deeper clarification, justification and its practical applicability in the current social atmosphere. 

 

I would like to know how the tradition teaches the manusmriti and/or responds when people point out difficult verses from it.

 

• I presume they ( the orthodoxies) just point out some other quotes from the same text which are more friendly and flexible and argue like,  see don’t only look at 1,2,3 verses see 4,5,6 verses these verses are more friendly to the society in common 😊 this is just to avoid their inability to address the issues with regard to the verses 1,2,3 and its implications directly.

 

Have orthodox acharyas or traditional scholars addressed the controversial portions in it that anti-Hindus keep quoting?

 

• Frankly don’t think so, except some scholars insisted for the broader outlook of these texts and its injunctions instead of selective quotes. 

 

Non-orthodox Hindu schools take a pragmatic approach to the smritis but the smarthas seem tied to them by tradition. If we really consider them to be pramana, we need to answer clearly the purvapakshins, at least for ourselves.

 

Ø     As I said above, it is more of an in-house arrangement those who consider themselves as sanAtana dharma followers should obey the dictums enshrined in scriptures without voicing their thoughts against any injunctions.  When you are Rome be as Roman that’s it!! and the standard excuse to follow these rules without any cross-quesiton is :  even though today, you don’t know the significance of scriptural system of varnashrama etc. you have to follow it and one fine day you will realize its importance and significance.  So till that time keep practicing it to the extent possible without seeing it in the light of mere logic!! 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

And it is a matter of fact that the followers of sanAtana dharma when it comes to ‘dharmAcharaNa’, we are extensively and obligatorily  dependent on dharma shAstra.  See what bhAshyakAra says with regard to dharmAcharaNa :  ayaM dharmOyamadharmamiti shAstrameva vijnAne kAraNaM, ateendriyatvAt tayOH, ……..tena na shAstrAdrute dharmAdharmavishayaM vijnAnaM kasyachidasti..So we are entirely dependent on shAstra to decide anything on dharmAcharaNa….so obviously shushka tarka (dry logic without the aid of shAstra) would not get entry into the domain of dharmAcharaNa to decide what is dharma and what is adharma.

[Kalyan]

"It is there in the scripture so just practise it without any interrogative mindset otherwise just get out of our system."

Wow, thats a very very harsh statement Sri Bhaskar-ji!!!

Warm Regards

[Bhaskar YR]

"It is there in the scripture so just practise it without any interrogative mindset otherwise just get out of our system."

 

Wow, thats a very very harsh statement Sri Bhaskar-ji!!!

 

praNAms Sri Kalyan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I am sorry if it sounds harsh but this is how system works.  When I have to enter my factory by two wheeler I have to wear full-face helmet, if I am driving car seat-belt is compulsory, entering the factory shop-floor wearing safety measures is mandatory.  And in our ‘factory’ it is the ‘guidelines’ by the management though it is not directly related to my nature of work.  Likewise when we consider ourselves the followers of sanAtana dharma, for the dharmAcharaNa shAstra is the ONLY ultimate pramANa even though ultimate goal is something different than the pravrutti mArga, if we doubt it by the influence of some other seemingly potential source then tradition would say :  sorry, this is not the place for you, if you want to be within this ambit please follow what is dictated in our shAstra because shAstra is the ONLY source for us.  I said the same thing in a rude manner that’s it 😊

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

The Manu Smriti may have been correct according to the circumstances prevailing then. May be it was wrong that time also.

 

Ø     Someone would highlight apashUdrAdhikaraNa in sUtra bhAshya (1-3-34 to 38) to say bhAshyakAra is brAhmaNa pakshapAti ( he is partial and favouring only on varNa against other) because as per dharma shAstra then prevailing and dominating, bhAshyakAra too, it seems giving his concurrence to practices like pouring the molten led into the ears of shUdra who listened to the veda mantra-s, cutting the tongue of the vipra who recited the veda mantra in front / near the shUdra, prohibiting the stree and shUdra from learning veda etc. So, it is clear that even bhAshyakAra bounded by then existing varNa practices and denied veda but granted mOksha (vedAnta jnana) to all the four varNa-s.  But bottom line for the virOdhi-s (objectors) is just that shankara is said something like manu and advocated some barbaric acts in dharma shAstra but compassionately granted jnana through some other sources other than veda mArga to other varNa-s. 

 

Rama followed Manu Smriti. Infact Lord Rama came in the lineage of Manu.

Krishna's Bhagavad Gita has verses that are synonymous with Manu.

 

Ø     Yes it shows the importance of this smruti text then.  But question is how practical these injunctions are today!!??  But at the same time we cannot categorically say it is completely an obsolete text…IMO, some dilemma is still there in defending these texts even within the traditional circle. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Actually,pandit pramathanath tarkabhushan in his giant 100 page introduction to manu smriti with kulluka bhashya has discussed these,also pandit digindranath bidyabhushan,vratya kayastha chandrika,and shudra dharma nirnaya from nirnaya sindhu extensively discuss all smritis and these controversial verses.

These verses reguire mimamsakas to interprpet,and seeing their dwindling number is really sad.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581E572978F27B20E4296A784FAA%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Also why ar we forgetting history of dharmashastras in english by mm.pv kane.His extensive discussion on these verses are available please look at them.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste,

Actually, study of shastra and performance of vaidhika nitya karma does not grant moksha. Non-performance of the same results in pratyavAya papa. After performing nitya karma dvijas have to surrender and serve a bonafide Guru in order to attain moksha. I think shAstra has done upakAra to Sthree and Shudras by exempting them from the hardship of shAstra adhyayana / vaidhika karma anushtAna and have given them adhikAra to directly engage in bhakti/service to a Guru/Ishwara.

Ultimately everybody - irrespective of varna/linga bheda have to surrender and serve a Guru for moksha. The example of Shabari attaining moksha after surrendering to Matanga Rishi and directly serving Ishwara / Sri Rama is good example. 

The fact that Brahman is present completely in all jiva/jada, is another strong point that equalizes all. This needs to be tactfully presented to defeat the Hindu-hating purvapaksha.

Namaste

Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of সপ্ত Rishi <saptars...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 11:03 AM

To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] On Sanatana dharma controversy

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B%3Dj2w8DdMz2rz1x%3DhPv_Az_heqv8WG4Hc7HhwzMAFbkWAqn%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste,

Another important point is:

The benefit of nitya/vaidhika karma performed by dvijas - is reaped by the entire society in the form of proper and timely rainfall, harvest and so on. So, Varna dharma fosters co-operation among devatas/humans/tiryak jivas. Even the phala of doing gayatri japa is reaped by the family and others who are helpful to the dvija. This is because the mantra is plural (dhyaha yah naha)

Namaste,

Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of suresh srinivasamurthy <sure...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:11 PM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB4516D1B1231E41F930BA5C7EA9FAA%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Bhaskarji,

   

Lord Ram had to kill a shudra, who neglected what he was supposed to do and as consequence a boy did not get the required nursing and he died. It is clearly known the areas restricted would be open in the next yug. Of course, people like Satyakam could become Bramin in sny age.

Sent from my iPhone

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65813EE42DC19305B6D5B90784FAA%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

 

 

• I think we the smartha-s are smart enough to declare : all smruti texts should be aligned and understood in line with shruti when it comes to ‘siddhAnta’ issue (brahma jignAsa) and when it comes to dharma jignAsa texts like shruti and smruti are the ONLY valid source.  And whatever mentioned there with regard to pravrutti dharma and its acharaNa is something like dictates no one should counter it with yukti.  It is there in the scripture so just practise it without any interrogative mindset otherwise just get out  of our system. 

 ...

Ø     As I said above, it is more of an in-house arrangement those who consider themselves as sanAtana dharma followers should obey the dictums enshrined in scriptures without voicing their thoughts against any injunctions.  When you are Rome be as Roman that’s it!! and the standard excuse to follow these rules without any cross-quesiton is :  even though today, you don’t know the significance of scriptural system of varnashrama etc. you have to follow it and one fine day you will realize its importance and significance.  So till that time keep practicing it to the extent possible without seeing it in the light of mere logic!! 

 

Thanks for your many detailed answers and mainly for addressing the questions head on. You are explicitly clear about the pramanatvam of the smritis and the detached approach we should have to learning of dharma from them. 

As straightforward as it appears, it is difficult to digest and must be communicated/assimilated carefully. The reason is simple: the “detached” approach is easier said than done when our lives have become complicated and confused by nastika thinking. We have to separate the prescribed action (dharma) from the assumptions of bad intention that get superimposed upon it. This is possible only for the astikas who have shraddha in the pramanatvam of the shastra, and accept that the knowledge and the injunctions obtained from it constitute Ishvara’s Order. And in the common people who have shraddha that their family and social traditions (including traditional varnashrama law and order) are rooted in the Sanatana dharma. That therefore their abidance in such traditions itself is their worship of Ishvara.

The common person (like a shudra) doesn’t have to know the shastras in order to realize that their varna traditions are aligned to dharma. But the passing of that knowledge “My varna tradition is indeed dharma, validated by Shastra” has to be part of their tradition. It is not random, it is sanatanam. Somehow our society, for whatever historical reasons - we can blame the brahmins-kshatriyas who failed their duty to convey that basic knowledge of dharma and Ishvara; we can blame the invaders; we can blame the modern-day anti-Hindu influencers - has become ignorant of the Vedic/dharmic validation of its varnashrama traditions (both dos and don’ts).

Aavarana (veiling of truth) gives way to Vikshepa (projection of falsehood), and the traditions which were seen as dharma are now seen as signposts of discrimination and oppression. Anti-Hindus have a field day and the Hindus are wholly confused by and eventually converted to the viewpoint of the anti-Hindus. They too start thinking Hinduism is wrong, its shastras are wrong, manusmriti is wrong. 

This is of course not merely a shudra problem. It starts at the top. The brahmins-kshatriyas (generally “upper castes”) too have largely lost their shraddha and astika bhava, hence are unfit to uphold several of the shastraic injunctions with respect to the shudras. It won’t be karma yoga for them and the detached following of dharma, but selfish action, prejudice and oppression. Like the corrupt politician whom we vote into power but who abuses that power to subjugate the citizen, the brahmin whom Ishvara has assigned a certain respected role abuses the dharmashastra rules (and traditional privileged status) in order to “persecute” the shudra. Thus the brahmin fails his dharma (to teach dharma) and instead behaves adharmically; and the shudra having become ignorant of dharma and seeing a pretense by adharma in its place loses his astika bhava towards varnashrama dharma (or in worst case, turns anti-Hindu).

Which all become more fuel for the anti-Hindus to blame back on the shastras and Sanatana dharma. 

That is as simple a reason as we need why acharyas don’t attempt to explain ‘controversial’ parts of the smriti. They may be part of Sanatana dharma - like it or not - but are practically irrelevant and misleading to us given the unfit and ignorant condition of society. Therefore the focus is on salvaging the more general facets of dharma, including inculcating right knowledge regarding varnashrama dharma. 

(Unfit does not mean dharma can become paradharma or adharma. Those are rare exceptions at best. A benign example is the following: a brahmana’s svadharma may be vedadhyayana. That does not change in life. But if this guy is entangled in modern life, then the practical instruction would be to start putting on the vibhuti or do the sandhyavandanam once a day. He is presently totally “unfit” to receive instruction that he must be doing vedadhyanana and telling him such a thing may be counter-productive.)

thollmelukaalkizhu

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581E572978F27B20E4296A784FAA%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

 

Ø     As I said above, it is more of an in-house arrangement those who consider themselves as sanAtana dharma followers should obey the dictums enshrined in scriptures without voicing their thoughts against any injunctions.  When you are Rome be as Roman that’s it!! and the standard excuse to follow these rules without any cross-quesiton is :  even though today, you don’t know the significance of scriptural system of varnashrama etc. you have to follow it and one fine day you will realize its importance and significance.  So till that time keep practicing it to the extent possible without seeing it in the light of mere logic!! 

The below was written as a response to my "purvapakshin" cousin, before the replies of Bhaskar-ji. I say "before" because Bhaskar-ji's strong unflinching clarity about the pramanatvam of the smriti, even with regard to "barbaric" suggestions, I was a bit wondering about and hence at that time hesitant to emphasize explicitly to my cousin. That's why I thought it safer to say it should be mediated through acharya (which is anyway not wrong, I think). So below would be a more nuanced approach in the debate, perhaps politically correct but it can end up hiding the thrust of Bhaskar-ji's emphasis. 

Quote

For the orthodox religion, a paurusheya (man-made) text is accepted as scripture provided they consider it is aligned to (their understanding of) the Vedas. But it is a matter of how they find this alignment and how they teach that scripture in the tradition. 

There is no question (afaik) that the svadharma of a shudra is of the form of service. Doing that svadharma in detached manner is his karma yoga. If that is your "thorn" of Hinduism, then that is your problem: the traditionalist does not regard it as a thorn at all. Like I said, this is a religious faith; if that shudra doesn't like it, he can opt out and follow an adjunct form of Hinduism that doesn't stress such svadharma for him. If he accepts that faith, then he will strive to fulfill that kind of svadharma and if he doesn't do so, will know he is straying from dharma. Same for other varnas.

If the issue is about suggestions of ill-treatment, denigration or punishment to the shudras, found in such scripture, then the answer is: we have to learn the scripture from the tradition before concluding how such verses are to be interpreted. For example, the kanchi acharya says in his talks that brahmins should not have contemptuous high-low feelings towards shudras. But Ihen, you claim the manusmriti verses teach a brahmin to ill-treat or demean the shudra. That's a contradiction with the acharya, unless somehow your thorn he re-interprets in some other way that it is a rose. When in such doubt, the followers of the orthodox sampradaya will turn to the acharya for clarification - the scriptures in general cannot be learned independently of the tradition and its acharyas' teachings. If you read on your own and make your conclusions about what Hinduism taught, that is your problem and not the traditionalist's (if his acharya says something different).

Now we can leave out these nuances and simply assume there is some "Manu sampradaya" in the villages, that interprets and quotes manusmriti in exactly the thorny way the anti-Hindu interprets it. Then their religion would fit the oppressive "casteist" label. However, they may truly believe Manu to be the last Prophet and his smriti to be God's word. In that case, it is another form of religion for those who understand and accept its teachings. It can look (in places) abhorrent to the rest of us but the religion's followers including the shudras see God where we see oppression. People have the freedom to follow that religion as any other. What society can seek to ensure is that NO religious sect/community can legally compel its members to follow that religion through force and that the individual has options to pursue other paths if such are not offered to them by that religious community. (Same as before: If that shudra doesn't like it...) This should be made a simple process.

Unquote

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581E572978F27B20E4296A784FAA%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Raman_M]

This probably IS the chief cause for the issues and backlashes.

While the practitioners/traditionalists want to be fully (?) compliant and wanting the rest to be outside the system, there are many unable to not let go off the opportunities around, wanting enhanced material benefits getting alienated by this requirement. The little few who have decided to fully follow the svadharma and be with the tradition are under attack to give up their 'profession' to others.

Brahmins finding it ok to be eligible to be doctors, lawyers, engineers and accountant, but not viewing their profession as do-able by others is the cause for the clash and many of those who are being threatened to be out of the system are now getting to be offensive and questioning the system, which is natural, or rather logical, atleast for them.

rather than being defensive or apologetic, it is better to get offensive and call out all the discrimination and appeasement disguised as reforms, loudly and expose the double standards of the current mischief mongers!

regards

Raman

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65819D1C74E357D4A634983C84FAA%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

The mail you replied to below was not written by me. But can you comment on the following related doubt?

Is it possible that the verses suggesting denigration or especially barbarism, should be considered as some sort of arthaavaada (hyperbole, exaggeration)?  If Shankara quoted any such verse, it can be argued that the only purpose is to emphasize and stress or simply highlight the factual importance of the underlying Varna bheda and bheda in Varna dharma, or how dangerous they considered the breakdown of varnashrama. That otherwise in order to consider the verses as being aligned to Vedas and Vedic culture, we do not take such injunctions literally. (People also point out that there is no historical or scriptural record of these kinds of punishments being applied.)

How do you view this 'yukti' application? Is there pramana in the tradition or it's acharyas for such understanding of the controversial parts?

thollmelukaalkizhu 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65813EE42DC19305B6D5B90784FAA%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[ravi chandrasekhara]

Pranam,

OTOH, Smritis allow other varnas with some restrictions on consuming alcohol and forbid for Brahmins. In fact if a Brahmin drinks alcohol, he needs to drink molten iron/lead as punishment. It is a mahapataka for a Brahmin, even worse than consuming certain types of meat.

Now probably just arthavaada and punishment may not have been meted in prior eras/ages but maybe in paraloka ?

Now I'm sure many Brahmins who drink would like to claim they are Shudras and get double benefit:

No demerit for not performing nityakarmas and no demerit for drinking alcohol !

But Puri Shankaracharya Sri N Saraswati (talks on Govardhan mutt you tube channel) states punishment is based on varna by janma not by karma !

I'm sure many would prefer to drink alcohol rather than listen to Veda 

Ravi Chandrasekhara

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qLAtLg3TG2%2Bo1HkhAoYcxq8AWMm684qUN-iByxzrG2%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Ravi-ji,

Your example though said in a jocular way is significant for this discussion. Indeed I expect people will be more friendly to the notion that such descriptions are arthaavada if they find Brahmins also being subject to them. I am fine with either interpretation if orthodoxy has committed to it, but where uncertain, the arthavada argument may be viable.

Can you cite the specific verses from the Dharma shastras that speak of such 'barbaric' punishment or treatment to Brahmanas or dvijas in general? 

(PS I had sent the above mail to Ravi-ji's email address by mistake. A quick search gave this site https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/48520/is-manu-smriti-anti-brahmin-a-brahmin-who-drank-alcohol-must-drink-red-hot-win that has references. In my opinion, whether the punishment is to be understood literally or as arthaavada, there is no question that the underlying action that prompts such a punishment is of a high category of adharma for that varna. That has to be taken literally.)

thollmelukaalkizhu 

[ravi chandrasekhara]

Pranam Sri Putran,

The shastric prohibition of alcohol consumption by brahmins is provided in the pdf file you sent.

Those are same ones I was going to send.

Ravi Chandrasekhara

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 08:33:05 AM CDT, Viswanath O K <viswana...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste.

I see there are problems, not in the tradition itself, but the characters of those who should have been upholded this equally at all places.

When crimes against illiterate/scheduled people happened in UP, etc., the same voice should have been raised by those who tries to Uphold the Sanatan Dharma when it's name is hit.

Talk have to be on both Tradition and People, but not partial. The Tradition is for the betterment of People, and if questions/voice not raised against violence in UP,etc. by Brahmins, Followers of Sanatan Dharma, etc., then these Dravidians will surely point out those and try to uplift their views.

One's truthfulness towards a Tradition should not be shown up 'in words' but 'in action'. If one had truly acted/questioned against such crimes, even century before against British,etc.. As they hadn't involved much, but only these people had gave lives for Freedom, Voice for crime against Women and Scheduled, etc., their voice is being heard by people.

Nevertheless, it is unwise from their side too. They say Equal treatment, but they create Reservation Schedules like MBC, SC, etc., and give Job, and this is not fair. If those (SC,etc.) people don't have opportunity to educate themselves, then the Govt. should give them higher level of Education, instead of giving them Reservation, because I had seen in many Govt. sectors that they don't learn/develop themselves intellectually enough and always tries to find a way to escape from their work for which they got posted. And Govt. don't try to push them to learn/improve or warn/suspend them but instead attack Manu Dharma to keep people blinded. All Vote Bank Politics.

If here this way, in North, the Vote Bank Politics totally different. They feed Religious Fanaticism but not True Religious Love, to keep slaves for them. Anyone questioned about the Violence has no place there, no freedom for Press,etc., It's true that people have to be put in order, but the Manu/King needs Love for People, not followers.

After all, this is Kali Yuga. Nothing Surprising. Until the next yuga comes, which is within 5 seconds of Brahma Loka, let this pass. 

On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 11:43:20 UTC+5:30 putran M wrote:

Namaskaram,

Do members have any opinions on this recent controversy from Tamil Nadu started by the CM's son? Beating up on the term "sanatanam" or directly at "sanatana dharma" is getting normalized. Why so? Because according to them, it is the bad stream of Hinduism that endorses and justifies varnashrama dharma which is supposedly the root of caste-based discrimination. Therefore they assume the right to call publicly for destroying "sanatanam" or sanatana dharma.

Members who know the language can look at this video of N. Ram of "The Hindu" paper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEqzRRp3nLA

He quotes a past Shankaracharya. Perhaps we should ask whether they contend the Shankara mathas which propagate varnashrama dharma should all be shut down. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/83af68ef-23eb-4662-81ef-3ec99fa15139n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

• Just a quick thoughts from me as little busy at office work.  Next week may get some time to read and reply. 

 

The mail you replied to below was not written by me. But can you comment on the following related doubt?

Is it possible that the verses suggesting denigration or especially barbarism, should be considered as some sort of arthaavaada (hyperbole, exaggeration)? 

 

• If we see the bhAshya bhAga of this adhikaraNa unfortunately we cannot take shelter under this excuse, here siddhAnti comprehensively refuting the pUrvapaxi stand ( shUdra-s have vedAdhikAra) by amply quoting from manu and gautama dharma sUtra.  Here bhAshyakAra himself quotes gautama in justification why  shUdra-s donot have vedAdhikAra and what is the punishment to be given to them if they do so.  bhAshyakAra upholds these smruti vachana-s and insists for shUdra-s ‘shravaNa pratishedha alongwith prohibition of adhyayana, jnana and anushtAna in a vedic way.  Shudra-s have been compared here as mobile graveyard as per some dharma shAstra so he is strictly prohibited from shravaNa, adhyayana, jnana and anushtAna.

 

 

If Shankara quoted any such verse, it can be argued that the only purpose is to emphasize and stress or simply highlight the factual importance of the underlying Varna bheda and bheda in Varna dharma, or how dangerous they considered the breakdown of varnashrama.

 

• varNa saNkara was there even in shankara’s time ( he says about the decline in varnashrama dharma in some bhAshya, dont remember the reference) But opposition would argue that just to uphold the importance of varNAshrama dharma, bhAshyakAra would not have to give acceptance to these barbaric acts in dharma sUstra instead he could have opted for explaining intricacies of varNa-dharma in the light of vedAnta’s pravrutti jnana mArga without vehemently arguing in favour of  these questionable acts.  ( I faced similar criticisms from one of the ISKCONites few decades back 😊)

 

That otherwise in order to consider the verses as being aligned to Vedas and Vedic culture, we do not take such injunctions literally.

 

• In that case we have to categorize smruti texts in such a way that some injunctions are literally applicable to present society and some are just as arthavAda or to be aligned with veda-s to uphold the vedic culture.  But don’t you think then these dharma shAstra-s injunctions would be subjective reading and understanding of different people whereas it is meant for ‘all’ at the time of its origination!!??

 

(People also point out that there is no historical or scriptural record of these kinds of punishments being applied.)

 

Ø     Even though we don’t have records of its practical implementation but that does not mean there was absolutely no chance of these punishment to the violators of these injunctions.  You know, on these lines we cannot convince the outsiders who are suspicious to each and everything about scriptures and its vidhi-s and nishedha. 

 

How do you view this 'yukti' application? Is there pramana in the tradition or it's acharyas for such understanding of the controversial parts?

 

Ø     As I said above, to ‘cover-up’ these diabolical statements and the support by Acharya, we just share the parallel quotes wherein bhAshyakAra grants ‘jnAna’ and ‘mOksha’ to other verNi-s other than dvija-s.  We quote dharma vyAdha, vidura, stree-s, atyAshrami-s etc. and argue see as per Acharya there is no vedAdhikAra to stree and shUdra but they have the equal opportunity to get ‘mOksha’ through other means. 

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

I think in the file posted in the other thread, I address these points in Perspectives 7 and 8. The analysis made sufficient sense to me at least.

Looking at it logically, we are talking three things: "Is the injunction barbaric, diabolical?", "Is the scripture the pramana for knowledge of dharma?", "Should the injunction be understood literally or as adhyaropa?"

1. If the smriti is pramana, the prescribed action should not be considered diabolical/barbaric.

2. If injunction is meant literally and the literal meaning is considered diabolical/barbaric, then the smriti is not pramana.

3. If the smriti is pramana and the literal meaning is diabolical/barbaric, then the injunction should not be understood literally, it is arthavada.

From sampradaya standpoint, 1 and 3 are our viable options.

thollmelukaalkizhu

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB658161685E1474F4CC859B8584FFA%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[putran M]

Modify:

1. If the smriti is pramana and the injunction is meant literally, the prescribed action should not be considered diabolical/barbaric.

2. If injunction is meant literally and the literal meaning is considered diabolical/barbaric, then the smriti is not pramana.

3. If the smriti is pramana and the literal meaning is diabolical/barbaric, then the injunction should not be understood literally, it is arthavada.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Putranji,

Please permit me to add a bit of my perspectives to your following modified conclusions:

1. If the smriti is pramana and the injunction is meant literally, the

prescribed action should not be considered diabolical/barbaric.

2. If injunction is meant literally and the literal meaning is considered diabolical/barbaric, then the smriti is not pramana.

Manu wrote the Manu Smriti for the Satya yuga, and it was fully appropriate for that yuga.

With the passage of time changes do occur, and while the Manu Smriti was used in the Treta yuga

also, it was found that there was need to write additional Smritis for the Tretayuga. One of these, i.e.,

the Smriti of Yajnavalkya is still considered vauable in the present Kali yuga.

For the Dwapara yuga there were additional Smritis, in addition to the Manu Smriti.

For the Kali Yuga the sage Vedavyasa requested his father to write a smriti for the Kali Yuga. When

there was a movement in Bengal to discontinue the "Sati-Pratha", late Shri Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar

pointed out that the Smriti for the Kali yuga supports the remarriage of the widow. Thus the latest

Smriti for the Kali yuga can be called the praman for the Kali yuga, which ended the barbaric custom

of pushing the widows to death.

3. If the smriti is pramana and the literal meaning is diabolical/barbaric, then the injunction should not be understood literally, it is arthavada.

In the ancient smriis there were some directives for stern actions, which at first sight appear to be barbaric, such as if an initiated, i.e., a shudra, reads or listens or follows what is written in the shastras, he has to be given extreme punishment. But these injunctions were mainly preventive in spirit, and it was mainly to keep the shastras safe  from getting altered by the miscreants. For proper interpretation of the Shastras it was a must for one to get trained under a guru, who is an appropriate authority.

Warmly,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-pvRd4x0SJtnzDQHuPM%2B_yfn2JbN-ZEMmrKWLU8%2B8MLzw%40mail.gmail.com.

[skbhattacharjya]

Dear Putranji,,

There was a typo. So kindly reread the following paragraph, as corrected:

3. If the smriti is pramana and the literal meaning is diabolical/barbaric, then the injunction should not be understood literally, it is arthavada.

In the ancient smriis there were some directives for stern actions, which at first sight appear to be barbaric, such as if an uninitiated, i.e., a shudra, reads or listens or follows what is written in the shastras, he has to be given extreme punishment. But these injunctions were mainly preventive in spirit, and it was mainly to keep the shastras safe  from getting altered by the miscreants. For proper interpretation of the Shastras it was a must for one to get trained under a guru, who is an appropriate authority.

Warmly

Sunil KB

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

1. If the smriti is pramana and the injunction is meant literally, the prescribed action should not be considered diabolical/barbaric.

 

• Yes, it was not diabolical / barbaric but quite common and normal mode of punishment prescribed for the ‘dharma drOhi-s’.  Punishments like ‘shiracchedana’ etc.  quite commonly allowed / suggested at that time when ‘kshAtra dharma’ was to uphold the dharma and dharmAcharaNa at any cost. 

 

2. If injunction is meant literally and the literal meaning is considered diabolical/barbaric, then the smriti is not pramana.

 

• These injunctions / punishements meant to prevent the ‘varNa saNkara’ and to protect the varnashrama dharma for which ONLY shAstra is the pramANa.  Draupadi made the pratijnA to drench her hair with the blood of dushyAsana,  it is not barbarism at any stretch of the imagination at that time when a woman’s sanctity of pAtrivratya publicly robbed.   Being a kshatriya woman she took that oath and one of her husbands ‘dharmarAja’ did not even question the appropriateness of this ‘seemingly’ brutal pratijnA by the pativrata stree like Draupadi.    

 

3. If the smriti is pramana and the literal meaning is diabolical/barbaric, then the injunction should not be understood literally, it is arthavada.

 

• Why it is not so I am not able to understand.  Just sharing what I have written privately here :

//quote // IMO, we are seeing the barbarism in purANa and dharma shAstra since we are evaluating these injunctions / punishments through the lens of modern day Hinduism.  But I think these punishments are quite common at that time just like capital punishment of ‘hanging till death’ today ( and I heard that in some Muslim countries even today there is punishments like cutting the hand/leg/stoning the criminal till death etc. for some criminal acts).  See we don’t see any barbarism when Krishna beheaded shishupAla, when Krishna suggested Bheema to make two different pieces of jarAsandha’s body, when bhadrakAli licking the blood of raktabeejaasura, chewing the muscles of rAkshasa-s, breaking their bones and drinking their blood etc., we just see tens and thousands of killings ‘as normal’ in Kurukshetra/rAmayaNa but when dharma shAstra suggested something like this we want to interpret this in a submissive manner because we want to interpret ancient rituals/injunctions in the light of ‘peaceful’ vedic culture at ancient times.  We don’t want to accept the fact that at that time ‘to uphold dharma’ and its AcharaNa some smruti texts suggested some ‘normal’ punishment prevalent at that time as per then existing penal code (rAja neeti / shAsana by ruling kings at that time) 😊 Just my thoughts.//unquote//

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskarams:

The recent controversies brought out in Tamil Nadu focus more on politics than on religion and did not pay attention to the spiritual aspects of Sanatana Dharma.   Politicians who highlighted the quotes from select books did not show any clear understanding of the difference between ‘transition’ and ‘transcendent.’ Prof V. Kriishnamurthy, one of our Senior Moderator of Advaitin and 90+ of age has written lots of articles regarding the scriptural definition of the Varna system and how it got degenerated into the current Caste System.  We can’t clearly point out who was responsible for the degeneration and how did that happen etc.  Foreign invaders and British occupation did play a significant role with full cooperation from the general public!  I am happy to share a brief article that wrote on the basics of Sanatana Dharma.  Essentially, we have been told by our grandparents for generations that we have to make sure that whatever we had experienced in Nature during our lifetime need to be left behind when we die!  Swami Chinmayananda used the pledge – “Give more than what you take!” which is the very essence of Sanatana Dharma!

Sanatana Dharma Basics (Ram Chandran)

Sanatana Dharma looks upon a person as a part and parcel of the mighty Whole, but never regards him/her as “the Measure of all things.”  In the West, “person” is a supreme and final value, while Sanatana Dharma regards person as a part of the Whole, having the same vital essence as all other human and sub-human creatures of the universe.  This cosmic view of Hinduism transcends the sectarian or group dogmas and paves a way for the coexistence of all creatures under the Vedic principle of Vasudev Kutumbhkam, meaning “The Universe is One Family.”  This principle guides the humankind towards universal harmony through acceptance and tolerance.

Sanatana Dharma recognizes that the Ultimate Reality, which is the ground of infinite potentiality and actualization, cannot be limited by any name or concept.  All humans are spiritually united like the drops of water in an ocean.  

Therefore the followers of Sanatana Dharma have the following belief and conviction:

Don't enforce one belief, one way of worship or one code of conduct for all.   Do not attempt to destroy different forms of worship, claiming your own way to be the only right one.  Such enforcement of uniformity would be un-natural and contrary to the Divine Law.  It hinders the progress of a human being in his/her journey to the state of divinity.

 

Give importance to sincerity of heart and nobleness of conduct in the field of religion. 

 

Don't attempt to bound the Boundless God.  Do not force your beliefs and dogmas on others.

 

Give a person freedom to think, freedom to believe, freedom to disbelieve and freedom to adopt a way of worship, which suits his/her temperament.  After all, what is important in worship of God is the sincerity of heart, not the outer form of worship.  

 

The invocation in Isa Upanishad (a Hindu scripture) explains Sanatana Dharma

:  

 Poornam-adah, poornam-idam, poor-nath poornam-udachyate.
Poor-nasya poornam-adaya, poornam-eva-va-sishyate.

 

That is full; this is full.  The full comes out of the full.
Taking the full from the full, the full itself remains.

 

This verse expresses the mystery of creation.  This universe comes forth from the Divine, yet the universe takes nothing from the Divine and adds nothing to It.  The Divine remains ever the same.  Since the universe came forth from the Divine all things and beings are sacred and must be treated so in human thought and action.  The Divine sleeps in minerals, awakens in plants, walks in animals and thinks in humans. The thought that everything is Divine (Sarvam Brahma Mayam) will keep us with the ever fulfilled mind and visualize the Brahman everywhere!

 

I don’t believe that we can even explain satisfactorily to please any politician to make them to change what they believe.  We all know the famous paradox – “No one will ever be convinced by other’s argument!!

With my warm regards,

Ram Chandran

[Ram Chandran]

Please refer to this article by Prof V Krishnamurthy on the Varna system,

https://www.indiadivine.org/content/topic/1060009-the-varna-system/

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

I can accept what you are saying, but there are two points that need clarification.

1. You say the injunction was not diabolical at that time. What about at this time? Has dharma changed now, if so how and why? (I did explain this point in my file but want to know your viewpoint.)

2. Don't you think if these punishments were actually regular practice, then the same itihasas/puranas which go into gory detail over other violent acts would have cited several instances where these punishments on shudras were carried out, given how much they stressed against this adharmic act (learning veda) by a shudra? It seems very curious that apart from an "isolated" event in the Uttarakanda, all our massive scriptural literature has only the fearful prescription of punishment but no other stories of shudras getting punished in such a manner? 

If we take out the "isolated" instance or two, we do not have proper pramana to establish that these punishments were in vogue at any point of time - which lends credence to the view that some of these injunctions were always treated more like arthavada, or simply not practical to implement and were not implemented so far as our records show. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB658103DFCCC6E5F558271E0984FCA%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Ram Chandran-ji,

Excellent challenging discussion/debate led by Chitta-ji. I don't see Prof Vk-ji's article in there.

thollmelukaalkizhu

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/cb242ffb-76da-487a-b944-3ce3b18ec13cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I can accept what you are saying, but there are two points that need clarification.

 

1. You say the injunction was not diabolical at that time. What about at this time? Has dharma changed now, if so how and why? (I did explain this point in my file but want to know your viewpoint.)

 

• Would like to see those explanations.  But I still reiterate that given the socio-religious situation then existing in the law makers book these acts were quite normal just like Narasimha making the garlands of hiraNyakashyapu’s intestines and lakshmaNa cutting the nose of shUrpanakha just for her marriage proposal to the married man 😊 But as the time changes, though dharma and its AcharaNa remains same, for dharma bAhira krutya-s (actions outside the boundaries of dharma or violating the dharma shAsana) punishments have been influenced or restricted by current social-political rules like introduction of penal codes etc. for criminal actions. 

 

2. Don't you think if these punishments were actually regular practice, then the same itihasas/puranas which go into gory detail over other violent acts would have cited several instances where these punishments on shudras were carried out, given how much they stressed against this adharmic act (learning veda) by a shudra?

 

• One of the reasons for not accounting these punishments could be because of the normalcy of these punishments at that point of time.  A remote village in UP or Bihar where outcasted people suffering from jamindaars / land lords and serving like slaves gone unnoticed because of the simple fact that these people ‘used’ to this type of treatment from upper castes.  Kindly note I am just guessing all these excuses.  I don’t have any substance to back it up with scriptural reference. 

 

3. It seems very curious that apart from an "isolated" event in the Uttarakanda, all our massive scriptural literature has only the fearful prescription of punishment but no other stories of shudras getting punished in such a manner? 

• Do we have any mention in the literature where shUdra violated these injunctions and not get punished for his violation?? If not,  then the answer is quite obvious either no shUdra dared to cross the limits in fear of punishment or violation and resultant punishment both gone unnoticed.  I think this is quite logical guess.    

 

 

If we take out the "isolated" instance or two, we do not have proper pramana to establish that these punishments were in vogue at any point of time - which lends credence to the view that some of these injunctions were always treated more like arthavada, or simply not practical to implement and were not implemented so far as our records show. 

 

Ø     Your guess is as good as mine I reckon 😊 but I wish your wish / guess is real and more authentic than mine.