Was Sanskrit denied? To whom was it denied? (from 'Origins of Vedic language')

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The article in scroll that I shared in the thread on Origins of Vedic language, that makes fun of celebrating Sanskrit by Indians in the form of 16th World Sanskrit Conference includes the following sentence:

Sanskrit is the liturgical language of Hinduism, so sacred that lower castes (more than 75% of modern Hindus) weren’t even allowed to listen to it being recited.  

I made the following points in one of the threads (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/oSQalXcvA7I/Egv6gV2tNgAJ) of BVP on 3rd May 2016:

1. Which people labelled as lower castes wanted to learn Sanskrit and were denied the opportunity? When Sanskrit was spoken in major part of the Indic subcontinent, people labelled as lower castes spoke dialects of Sanskrit that are called Prakrits. Sanskrit was the standard form spoken all over the Sanskrit-speaking areas in the same form whereas the Prakritas spoken by the people labelled as lower castes had regional variations. The situation is similar to a common variety of Kannada being used by the elite all over the places and the non-elite Kannada having regional variations. Sanskrit plays reflect a reality of the Prakrita speaking characters understanding the Sanskrita spoken by the Sanskrita-speaking characters and vice-versa. That was how the reality was in all the Sanskrit-speaking regions. Then why at all do the Prakrita-speaking people labelled as lower castes need to 'learn' Sanskrit when they already understand it and speak it in a different form of their own? Do the speakers of non-elite dialects of  Kannada need to learn the elite Kannada as a course in a school? Don't they understand the elite form and respond to in their own dialect?

2. In other parts of the Indic subcontinent (for example, in south India ),  where Sanskrit was not the spoken language, Sanskrit was used only as a language used for studies, book-writing etc. People labelled as lower castes did not need to communicate in that language or to understand that language., because their way of life did not need the use of Sanskrit.

3. One may argue that the non-Brahmin authors of Sanskrit, are all kings, hence kshatriyas not people labelled as lower castes . But that is not true. In India, kshatiyas find mention only in books. In the actual reality and actual history, kings were mostly people labelled as lower castes that were accorded Kshatriya status after becoming kings. For example, the Reddy kings or Rayala dynasty kings of Vijayanagara were all 'people labelled as lower castes' only.

4 People labelled as lower castes feeling denial of opportunity to learn Sanskrit began only during therecent period of history. But this situation lasted only for a short while. Modern education very soon provided opportunities for all people irrespective of their caste or religion to learn

 

 

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Patuariji,

The perspective which you have presented is valid.  However we need to differentiate between dialects spoken by communities of different castes and those spoken by different tribal communities.  The reason is that these tribal communities have remained on the fringes during the feudal era and were not integrated into mainstream social evolution.  If the evolution or origin of vedic literature was during the period when social organisation had not reached feudal frameworks it would be safe to say that the vedic language evolved from more ancient tribal languages.  These tribal languages though only spoken have an inherent ability of remaining stable over generations.  I have observed that the phonetic effort  exercised by individuals in tribal communities remains unaltered even when they are distributed over a large geographical area as also the transfer of phonological, morphological as well as phonetic characteristics over generations remains unaltered.  I therefore feel that a thorough investigation of the languages of these communities is necessary however unevolved they are.

This investigation I feel will supply the necessary foundation for reconstructing the process of evolution of the vedic language.

With regards,
Achyut Karve.

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

[Kalyan K]

Dear Sri Nagaraj

//Sanskrit is the liturgical language of Hinduism, so sacred that lower castes (more than 75% of modern Hindus) weren’t even allowed to listen to it being recited.//

I dont know if learning Sanskrit itself was denied to anyone, but study of vedas was denied to shudras. There are many references for this in scriptures. Shudras were not allowed to listen, hear or study vedas. Perhaps the reference to Sanskrit was actually a reference to vedas. As to what percentage of the population were regarded as Shudras, that is open to investigation.

Regards
Kalyan

[gobind medini]

Respectable Shri Paturi-ji,

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

The article in scroll that I shared in the thread on Origins of Vedic language, that makes fun of celebrating Sanskrit by Indians in the form of 16th World Sanskrit Conference includes the following sentence:

Sanskrit is the liturgical language of Hinduism, so sacred that lower castes (more than 75% of modern Hindus) weren’t even allowed to listen to it being recited.  

I made the following points in one of the threads (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/oSQalXcvA7I/Egv6gV2tNgAJ) of BVP on 3rd May 2016:

1. Which people labelled as lower castes wanted to learn Sanskrit and were denied the opportunity? When Sanskrit was spoken in major part of the Indic subcontinent, people labelled as lower castes spoke dialects of Sanskrit that are called Prakrits. Sanskrit was the standard form spoken all over the Sanskrit-speaking areas in the same form whereas the Prakritas spoken by the people labelled as lower castes had regional variations. The situation is similar to a common variety of Kannada being used by the elite all over the places and the non-elite Kannada having regional variations. Sanskrit plays reflect a reality of the Prakrita speaking characters understanding the Sanskrita spoken by the Sanskrita-speaking characters and vice-versa. That was how the reality was in all the Sanskrit-speaking regions. Then why at all do the Prakrita-speaking people labelled as lower castes need to 'learn' Sanskrit when they already understand it and speak it in a different form of their own? Do the speakers of non-elite dialects of  Kannada need to learn the elite Kannada as a course in a school? Don't they understand the elite form and respond to in their own dialect?

1) The so called elite, non-elite divisions are there in almost all languages and cultures. The point is, why should such divisions be canonized, and that too on the basis of lineage, by the secondary and/or tertiary scriptures such as in MS 3.156 and BSBh 1.3.38. In fact the former (MS 3.156 along with Medhatithi's commentary) not only prohibited Shudras (backward castes) from learning or hearing of Vedas, but also prohibited the teacher from teaching Sanskrit and related subjects to Shudras. It is also possible to find some other late "book" which expressly prohibited Shudras from uttering a Sanskrit word, though It is not clear to me as to what extent these injunctions were put into practice. For example, I have not heard or read that molten lead was really filled in the ears, or tongue was cut etc. Be that as it may, if such injunctions did exist in books then at least academically they beg the question - why were these injunctions formulated in first place and what purpose they served if they were not put in practice (assuming that they were not put in practice).

 

2. In other parts of the Indic subcontinent (for example, in south India ),  where Sanskrit was not the spoken language, Sanskrit was used only as a language used for studies, book-writing etc. People labelled as lower castes did not need to communicate in that language or to understand that language., because their way of life did not need the use of Sanskrit.

2) Perhaps, we are missing a point here. The validity of birth based classification whereby certain class or castes have to perpetually do only certain type of work and as a corollary they need or need not learn Sanskrit is being questioned here at the basic level. The question is of canonizing (superimposing) something that may happen naturally. Canonization rules out (even) exceptions and thereby prevent the social or upward mobility. Seeking such a mobility is the natural right of all members of a civilized society in modern times. Such a mobility can be denied in the name of stability and individual karma but then we will be talking about two different world-views.

 

3. One may argue that the non-Brahmin authors of Sanskrit, are all kings, hence kshatriyas not people labelled as lower castes . But that is not true. In India, kshatiyas find mention only in books. In the actual reality and actual history, kings were mostly people labelled as lower castes that were accorded Kshatriya status after becoming kings. For example, the Reddy kings or Rayala dynasty kings of Vijayanagara were all 'people labelled as lower castes' only.

3) This point possibly answer your question, at least partly: "Which people labeled as lower castes wanted to learn Sanskrit and were denied the opportunity?"... But more than the answer it again begs the question.. why scripturize something which may happen rightly (naturally) or wrongly (by force when it cannot be prevented)? A man and his kins may usurp the throne by force by violating the injunctions and declare him-self/them-selves as Kshatriyas. Giving social sanctions to such caste conversions only underlines the compulsions and inherent weakness of the system.

 

4 People labelled as lower castes feeling denial of opportunity to learn Sanskrit began only during therecent period of history. But this situation lasted only for a short while. Modern education very soon provided opportunities for all people irrespective of their caste or religion to learn.

4) That is true. However, this denial had symbolic importance.. the "feeling of denial" was about the denial of basic right to pursue the vocation or activity of individual choice. It was not really (or only) about learning Sanskrit. Presently, the backward castes - like almost all others - are more interested in upward mobility (both economic and social) in which learning Sanskrit is not a priority. This again strengthens my earlier point - irrelevance of scriptural injunctions pertaining to the four-fold classifications in the present times. What remains now is to remove their basis from our minds.

regards

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Kalyan-ji,

Let us imagine that in a population which included speakers of a version of Latin in big numbers, a certain Holy Book in Latin was declared inaccessible. That does not mean speaking that version of Latin or Latin language in general was declared inaccessible to that population. 

In a system where preserving, singing/performing  oral texts in a certain language and using those oral texts for ritual mediation is also a hereditary right cum duty of a certain social group, the oral texts are inaccessible to all other  speakers of the language in which the oral texts are, who (which speakers of that language ) do not have preserving, singing/performing  oral texts in a certain language and using those oral texts for ritual mediation as their hereditary right cum duty. These speakers of that language are not denied the right to speak that language. They are denied the right to preserving, singing/performing  oral texts in a certain language and using those oral texts for ritual mediation. 

This is part of all occupations in that system being part of the right cum duty of a certain social group. In the Indian case, that social group was a caste. Elsewhere, it can be a tribe. 

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

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Jigar Jariwala]

Dear scholars,

In ancient times (vedic and puranic) Sanskrit was the major language
for education purposes. If we talk about "lower classes" (so called
lower classes), let me tell you that smithy (blacksmith, copper-smith,
etc.) books were written and taught in Sanskrit (in gurukuls).

The book related to chemistry, architecture, construction, all were in
Sanskrit (ad taught in that sole language)

But with the arrival of British they wanted to destroy our far better
ancient technology, they created a social divide and started
destroying the skills of these people in masses, they labelled these
classes as "lower classes" and edited the social norms so that these
talent could be destroyed..........

Best example is the periyar caste of south India....
Periyar architects built the most magnificent, and beautiful
architecture (palaces and temples). The British laid a direct ban on
them through enforcement of Law....



And such destruction in other parts of India went on....

On 26/06/2017, Achyut Karve <achyut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Patuariji,
>
> The perspective which you have presented is valid. However we need to
> differentiate between dialects spoken by communities of different castes
> and those spoken by different tribal communities. The reason is that these
> tribal communities have remained on the fringes during the feudal era and
> were not integrated into mainstream social evolution. If the evolution or
> origin of vedic literature was during the period when social organisation
> had not reached feudal frameworks it would be safe to say that the vedic
> language evolved from more ancient tribal languages. These tribal
> languages though only spoken have an inherent ability of remaining stable
> over generations. I have observed that the phonetic effort exercised by
> individuals in tribal communities remains unaltered even when they are
> distributed over a large geographical area as also the transfer of
> phonological, morphological as well as phonetic characteristics over
> generations remains unaltered. I therefore feel that a thorough
> investigation of the languages of these communities is necessary however
> unevolved they are.
>
> This investigation I feel will supply the necessary foundation for
> reconstructing the process of evolution of the vedic language.
>
> With regards,
> Achyut Karve.
> On Jun 26, 2017 12:40 AM, "Nagaraj Paturi" <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The article

>> <https://scroll.in/article/737715/fact-check-india-wasnt-the-first-place-sanskrit-was-recorded-it-was-syria>

>> in
>> scroll that I shared in the thread on Origins of Vedic language, that
>> makes
>> fun of celebrating Sanskrit by Indians in the form of 16th World Sanskrit
>> Conference includes the following sentence:
>>
>> Sanskrit is the liturgical language of Hinduism, so sacred that lower
>> castes (more than 75% of modern Hindus) weren’t even allowed to listen to
>> it being recited.
>>
>>
>> I made the following points in one of the threads (
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/oSQalXcvA7I/Egv6gV2tNgAJ) of
>> BVP on 3rd May 2016:
>>

>> *1. Which people labelled as lower castes wanted to learn Sanskrit and

>> were denied the opportunity? When Sanskrit was spoken in major part of
>> the
>> Indic subcontinent, people labelled as lower castes spoke dialects of
>> Sanskrit that are called Prakrits. Sanskrit was the standard form spoken
>> all over the Sanskrit-speaking areas in the same form whereas the
>> Prakritas
>> spoken by the people labelled as lower castes had regional variations.
>> The
>> situation is similar to a common variety of Kannada being used by the
>> elite
>> all over the places and the non-elite Kannada having regional variations.
>> Sanskrit plays reflect a reality of the Prakrita speaking characters
>> understanding the Sanskrita spoken by the Sanskrita-speaking characters
>> and
>> vice-versa. That was how the reality was in all the Sanskrit-speaking
>> regions. Then why at all do the Prakrita-speaking people labelled as
>> lower
>> castes need to 'learn' Sanskrit when they already understand it and speak
>> it in a different form of their own? Do the speakers of non-elite
>> dialects
>> of Kannada need to learn the elite Kannada as a course in a school?
>> Don't

>> they understand the elite form and respond to in their own dialect?*
>>
>> *2. In other parts of the Indic subcontinent (for example, in south India

>> ), where Sanskrit was not the spoken language, Sanskrit was used only as
>> a
>> language used for studies, book-writing etc. People labelled as lower
>> castes did not need to communicate in that language or to understand that

>> language., because their way of life did not need the use of Sanskrit.*
>>
>> *3. One may argue that the non-Brahmin authors of Sanskrit, are all

>> kings,
>> hence kshatriyas not people labelled as lower castes . But that is not
>> true. In India, kshatiyas find mention only in books. In the actual
>> reality
>> and actual history, kings were mostly people labelled as lower castes
>> that
>> were accorded Kshatriya status after becoming kings. For example, the
>> Reddy
>> kings or Rayala dynasty kings of Vijayanagara were all 'people labelled
>> as

>> lower castes' only.*
>>
>> *4** People labelled as lower castes feeling denial of opportunity to

>> learn Sanskrit began only during therecent period of history. But this
>> situation lasted only for a short while. Modern education very soon
>> provided opportunities for all people irrespective of their caste or

>> religion to learn*

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>> email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

>> To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

> email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Kalyan-ji,

It is the right cum duty of Oggu or OggolLu caste to perform the the oral texts of the caste -mythology of the Kuruma caste and to use those oral texts for ritual mediation in the rituals of the Kurumas inside and outside their households. 

It is the right cum duty of Baindla caste to perform the the oral texts of the caste -mythology of the Madiga caste and to use those oral texts for ritual mediation in the rituals of the Madigas inside and outside their households. 

It is the right cum duty of gauDa jeTTi caste to perform the the oral texts of the caste -mythology of the gauDa caste and to use those oral texts for ritual mediation in the rituals of the gauDas inside and outside their households. 

I can give you scores of such examples from the Telugu speaking castes. 

Similar such priestly performing castes playing similar role to certain specific castes is found in many other parts of India.  

 

[Sathya Narayanan N]

As Nagaraj ji said,

This is quite prevalent in Tamilnadu. Even in our ancestors place, we have such temples taken care by certain community.

People from all communities go and worship the deity. Do age old rituals. But the performing rituals and rights are theirs.
But ppl can know the mythology or tradition behind it.


regards,
sathya

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 3:24:19 PM UTC+5:30, Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

Dear Sri Kalyan-ji,

It is the right cum duty of Oggu or OggolLu caste to perform the the oral texts of the caste -mythology of the Kuruma caste and to use those oral texts for ritual mediation in the rituals of the Kurumas inside and outside their households. 

It is the right cum duty of Baindla caste to perform the the oral texts of the caste -mythology of the Madiga caste and to use those oral texts for ritual mediation in the rituals of the Madigas inside and outside their households. 

It is the right cum duty of gauDa jeTTi caste to perform the the oral texts of the caste -mythology of the gauDa caste and to use those oral texts for ritual mediation in the rituals of the gauDas inside and outside their households. 

I can give you scores of such examples from the Telugu speaking castes. 

Similar such priestly performing castes playing similar role to certain specific castes is found in many other parts of India.  

 

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sri Kalyan-ji,

Let us imagine that in a population which included speakers of a version of Latin in big numbers, a certain Holy Book in Latin was declared inaccessible. That does not mean speaking that version of Latin or Latin language in general was declared inaccessible to that population. 

In a system where preserving, singing/performing  oral texts in a certain language and using those oral texts for ritual mediation is also a hereditary right cum duty of a certain social group, the oral texts are inaccessible to all other  speakers of the language in which the oral texts are, who (which speakers of that language ) do not have preserving, singing/performing  oral texts in a certain language and using those oral texts for ritual mediation as their hereditary right cum duty. These speakers of that language are not denied the right to speak that language. They are denied the right to preserving, singing/performing  oral texts in a certain language and using those oral texts for ritual mediation. 

This is part of all occupations in that system being part of the right cum duty of a certain social group. In the Indian case, that social group was a caste. Elsewhere, it can be a tribe. 

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sri Nagaraj

//Sanskrit is the liturgical language of Hinduism, so sacred that lower castes (more than 75% of modern Hindus) weren’t even allowed to listen to it being recited.//

I dont know if learning Sanskrit itself was denied to anyone, but study of vedas was denied to shudras. There are many references for this in scriptures. Shudras were not allowed to listen, hear or study vedas. Perhaps the reference to Sanskrit was actually a reference to vedas. As to what percentage of the population were regarded as Shudras, that is open to investigation.

Regards
Kalyan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Respected Sri Gobind Medini-ji,

You identified the point that I mentioned in my response(s) to Sri Kalyan-ji. The point is that the social system where activities or occupations were part of right cum duty of a social group comes in the way of choice of a person from the hereditary occupation of his social group to that of the other. In the Indian case, this system is the caste system.  

Coming to canonization of such a system, Sanskrit books of code did not deal with the castes such as those I mentioned in my previous posts in this thread. But still the system of reserving different activities, skill or knowledge areas to different castes was followed strictly in numerous castes not covered in these books, across the length and breadth of India. Canonization in this case was maintained through oral texts or memory (smriti in the sense of memory). Caste panchayats executed this code. 

Another point is, caste system (different from varNa system) was not created by Sanskrit code-books. Sanskrit code-books had feeble and a highly indirect influence on a very small portion of these caste-codes. Origin and perpetuation of caste-codes was independent of Sanskrit code-books. The Sanskrit code books  if at all, were looked up for guidance by only a small section of Indian society. So much for the effect of their canonizations.

The following is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti

Scholars doubt Manusmriti was ever administered as law text in ancient or medieval Hindu society. David Buxbaum states, "in the opinion of the best contemporary orientalists, it [Manusmriti] does not, as a whole, represent a set of rules ever actually administered in Hindustan. It is in great part an ideal picture of that which, in the view of a Brahmin, ought to be law".^[74]

Donald Davis writes, "there is no historical evidence for either an active propagation or implementation of Dharmasastra [Manusmriti] by a ruler or any state – as distinct from other forms of recognizing, respecting and using the text. Thinking of Dharmasastra as a legal code and of its authors as lawgivers is thus a serious misunderstanding of its history".^[75]Other scholars have expressed the same view, based on epigraphical, archeological and textual evidence from medieval Hindu kingdoms in Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, while acknowledging that Manusmriti was influential to the South Asian history of law and was a theoretical resource.^[76][77]

  

[Praveen R. Bhat]

​​Namaste Nagaraj Mahodaya,

I could even say so:

• (a) The scriptures deny access of Vedas to a particular varNa. 
  
• (b) The scriptures were in Sanskrit.
• (c) The denial in (a) makes sense only if Sanskrit was known to the varNa, else Sanskrit is denied, Vedas automatically become denied.
• (d) Therefore, Sanskrit was known to the varNa and couldn't have been denied.

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[Shrivathsa B]

hariH OM,

A better way to pose the questions may be:

1. "Now that vedas have been available for at least about 100 years to general public (Aryasamaajis were veda universalizers, Rama Krishna Mission has been teaching veda in many of its schools without consideration of caste), how many from the non dvija castes actually became ghanapaaThis in any single veda?"

Ans: None as far as I know. I don't even know of the rare exceptions.

2. Will someone please tell what dRRiShTa phala viz. getting more money, getting professional status etc. are gained in this day and age by learning veda? Purohitas are finding it difficult to get brides because the "profession" is looked down upon even by brAhmaNas themselves (thus they never give their daughters to purohitas). Their children don't get reservations even if their parents are struggling to make ends meet etc.

What is the purpose of doing this kaakadanta pariikShaNa by websites such as scroll.in and its ideological compatriots? One simple answer is that it is driven towards throwing muck on brAhmaNas and the vedic tradition. That is all.

People gush with enthusiasm when Vedas are given the status of intangible heritage by UNESCO etc. But somehow the custodians of that tradition are the greatest villains.

svasti,

       bhavaaniibhaaratii jayatetamaam,

                                                          shrivathsa.

--

[gobind medini]

Respected Shri Patturi-ji.

I more or less agree with your own observations and the views expressed by David Buxbaum and Donald Davis. I however, don't believe that MS projected exclusively Brahminical vision for following reasons. (From my post of Science-Religion-Philosophy group, dated 9/11/2013):

// smRRiti-s, particularly manu-smRRiti [MS] tried to create a model of ideal (moral) social structure. In this model, Brahmanas could not invest either in political power or any material wealth and had to depend on other classes (particularly administrative class and business classes - i.e. kShatriya-s and vaishya-s) - almost on their alms (daana). Brahmanas according MS and other smRRiti-s was paradoxically to be the most materially and politically constrained group. In return of austerities and poverty they were to be accorded spiritual stature and dignity; and other classes - particularly kShatriya-s were to protect them. This explains the disparity in penalties related to the classes. This is an hierarchical model through-and-through where arrows of spiritualism and materialism directed in opposite directions - so called spirituality defining the hierarchy on paper. I am not sure to what extent this model was successful and whether in its purest form it worked any time in history.

Brahmanas (particularly priests) tried to wriggle out of this constrained situation by increasing the importance of yaGYa-yAga and carved out a stable living for themselves. YaGYa-yAga became a kind of status symbol - both for the king and the rich land-lords and merchants. Brahmana class added political counseling and fortune telling in their armory of traditional skills and tried to invest in political power as well. Brahmanism became a brand rather than a spiritual vocation and even some kings seem to have declared themselves as Bramnana to appropriate both spiritual and worldly power. (An alternative explanation as to why Shunga, Kanva, Shatavahana, Vakatakas etc were Brahmana kings is that the barrier between classes were quite fluid all through the history).

I have not come across specific cases of Shudras being punished severally for minor offenses as prescribed in MS in the history books that I read - but this cannot be ruled out //

Now to add to what I had said earlier..

Sanskrit code-books like MS might had feeble and indirect influence on a very small portion of caste-codes as suggested by you. Yet there is no doubt that there was a group classified as untouchables which was a socially discriminated (segregated) group at least in Common Era. The evidence is available even in history books. In early Vedic civilization however, this four-fold class division wherein this group was heavily segregated is not seen - puruSha-sukta (RV 10.90) cannot be taken as its confirmation for various reasons - both philosophical and philological.

regards,

g

--

[Kalyan K]

//A better way to pose the questions may be:

1. "Now that vedas have been available for at least about 100 years to general public (Aryasamaajis were veda universalizers, Rama Krishna Mission has been teaching veda in many of its schools without consideration of caste), how many from the non dvija castes actually became ghanapaaThis in any single veda?"

Ans: None as far as I know. I don't even know of the rare exceptions.//


This is because in the modern day, knowledge of English and sciences leads to better job prospects rather than vedic knowledge.


//2. Will someone please tell what dRRiShTa phala viz. getting more money, getting professional status etc. are gained in this day and age by learning veda//


Not much material wealth can be gained by vedic knowledge, but this is a modern day phenomenon. In ancient days, knowledge of vedas gave upward mobility and such knowledge was denied to certain sections of the population.


Regards
Kalyan

[Kalyan K]

Dear Sri Nagaraj



//In a system where preserving, singing/performing oral texts in a certain language and using those oral texts for ritual mediation is also a hereditary right cum duty of a certain social group, the oral texts are inaccessible to all other speakers of the language in which the oral texts are, who (which speakers of that language ) do not have preserving, singing/performing oral texts in a certain language and using those oral texts for ritual mediation as their hereditary right cum duty. These speakers of that language are not denied the right to speak that language. They are denied the right to preserving, singing/performing oral texts in a certain language and using those oral texts for ritual mediation. //

A few things don't fit into this scheme -

1. Even though brahmins were preserves of tradition, knowledge of vedas was not denied to kshatriyas and vaishyas.

2. Shudras were not denied access to traditional smriti texts.

Regards
Kalyan

[Achyut Karve]

Respected Scholars,

Two very important questions seem to have been put forth.

1) What use is studying the Vedas or studying Sanskrit in general?

2) Why studying a language as Sanskrit poses problems for the mass of people that only a few even today make it to the level that you all have reached?

The above two questions need to be answered by those who have studied the Vedas or Sanskrit.

With regards,

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Achyutji,

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:47 PM, Achyut Karve <achyut...@gmail.com> wrote:

1) What use is studying the Vedas or studying Sanskrit in general?

​The purpose of studying the Vedas as per the orthodox tradition is either since it is a 

चित्तशुध्यर्थं

​

 कर्तव्यं कर्म or मोक्षार्थम्।

​ The Sanskrit language, as a means of communication would have been a necessity when and where it was a language of communication, but otherwise व्याकरणसहित Sanskrit was only for the purpose of 

stud

​y of ​

शास्त्र

​s since व्यकरणं वेदस्य मुखं प्रोक्तम्।​

 

​Unfortunately, masses do not ask these valid questions. Although it is said प्रयोनमनुदिश्य मन्दोऽपि न प्रवर्तते, yet in such cases, the question as to what my purpose or goal should be, is almost never asked. The thinking is thus: if I've been denied or some one even infers that I may not be eligible, I want to do it just to question/ oppose/ dismiss that. Even if the path to मोक्ष is made easier for someone without elaborate study and practice, one isn't interested. 

I haven't known even one among such who asks why such a व्यवस्था and what do I gain from it. I don't need to do it just because the other does. The other way around of greed leading ब्राह्मण, etc to अब्राह्मणकर्म, etc, may also be true, but most of it was to earn a livelihood in recent times, at least. In that, the tradition-defined goal of life is lost on many.

धन्योऽस्मि।

प्रवीणभट्टः।

[Bijoy Misra]

Friends,

We seem to be obsessed with questions which are better addressed elsewhere.

As I had observed earlier, the forum is getting into social issues than discussing

text and scholarship.  Social issues have religion is them and one might have opinions.

It would help if we redirect ourselves to search the science of language and the

analysis of the texts.

I urge all curious people to read Kane's treatise on Dharmashastra (particularly vol II)

to get an analysis of the social condition during the Vedic period. 

Best regards,

BM

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Kalyan-ji,

> In ancient days, knowledge of vedas gave upward mobility and such knowledge was denied to certain sections of the population.

------ Upward mobility is of several kinds, financial, political, social etc. Different activities/occupations/skills give upward mobility of different kinds in different societies in different periods of history. Apart from the skill of reciting Vedas,  there are many other activities/occupations/skills that gave different kinds of upward mobility in ancient India. In a system where all activities/occupations/skills are hereditary right cum duty reserved for the respective castes, every activity/occupation/skill that gave upward mobility to a certain caste can be viewed as denied to the castes that do not get that kind of a mobility.  

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

[V Subrahmanian]

On 27 Jun 2017 23:51, "Nagaraj Paturi" <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sri Kalyan-ji,

> In ancient days, knowledge of vedas gave upward mobility and such knowledge was denied to certain sections of the population.

------ Upward mobility is of several kinds, financial, political, social etc. Different activities/occupations/skills give upward mobility of different kinds in different societies in different periods of history. Apart from the skill of reciting Vedas,  there are many other activities/occupations/skills that gave different kinds of upward mobility in ancient India. In a system where all activities/occupations/skills are hereditary right cum duty reserved for the respective castes, every activity/occupation/skill that gave upward mobility to a certain caste can be viewed as denied to the castes that do not get that kind of a mobility.  

In this connection this injunction could be useful:

अध्यापनमध्ययनं यजनं याजनं दानं परिग्रहं षट्कर्माणि दिने दिने was for Brahmanas alone. Kshatriya-Vaishyas could perform only adhyayanam, yajanam and daanam and not the other three.

Regards

vs

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sri Gobind Medini-ji,

This thread is limited to the issue of perceptions of Sanskrit being denied .

Purely social aspects belong to other forums.

Social issues so far as related to Sanskrit texts but not to Sanskrit denial do not belong to this thread. 

Regards,

[Achyut Karve]

Dear scholars,

We do not seem to be making use of Sanskrit in modern education. Sanskrit is one of the most compatible languages for human memory.  If we can convert at least our secondary education material especially mathematics, science  social studies into Sanskrit metre or sutras and employ them in education that part of knowledge will remain intact with the child for life.

If a child can learn a foreign language like English children in India can surely learn Sanskrit on condition that the shiksha path is properly oriented for the child so that he can read and write Sanskrit. 
With regards,
Achyut Karve.

[G S S Murthy]

Are prof Kane's tomes on Dharmashastra available online as soft copy? Kindly guide.

Thanks and regards, 

Murthy

[Gaurav Shorey]

Dear all,

Did you know that as per the Census of India 2011, a mere 4.95% of India speaks English fluently and can understand the language as well as the august members of this group?

By that logic, English is denied to a majority of the population and all the members on this group are denying it to the larger population as they write and speak in it every day, but don't "bother" to teach it to others.

Does that make the members of this group downright evil, Selfish, arrogant people who seem to discuss issues that do not concern themselves with the common masses? I would think not.

Every era has had such languages - when my grandfather was in school, it was Urdu. Sanskrit texts were translated into Urdu and can still be seen at the National Museum in Delhi. But yet it was the court language and "denied" to a majority of the population. Latin was taught in the highest temples of learning (including oxford) till a few decades back, but was "denied" to the larger masses.

So wouldn't it be exciting to celebrate the glory of Sanskrit, what it offers, what possibilities it holds for the future?

And now with sustainable development and climate change, it perhaps offers, in its vast voluminous tomes, the only alternative to a sustainable way of life - if there ever was one, it can be found here.

Gaurav Shorey
गौरव शोरी
साधारण नागरिक
नई दिल्ली  
भारत

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Parallel to this thread, there have been many threads running on text and scholarship and many other sspects. Those threads have been receiving wonderful contributions too. As such this or any such single thread does not characterize the nature or direction of the entire forum.

On issues of the kind discussed in this thread, Sanskrit scholars respected by us for their scholarship on texts etc., endorsed the misrepresentations of India in the books meant for children and youngsters due to their lack of proper perspective about their native culture. 

It is hoped that this thread helps in widening the understanding of younger members and the senior scholars of the kind mentioned above.

With this, the thread is being closed.

[Achyut Karve]

Dear Scholars,

Have there been studies relating to syntax while studying the origins of the vedic language?

In Sanskrit as well as in Indian languages the verb comes last.   Which other Indo-European language shares this characteristic.

With regards,
Achyut Karve