वर्णानाम् ब्राह्मणो गुरुः

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 11:01 AM 'Vishal Agarwal' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

He and a few others (not the rest) are referred to as 'Brahmana Supremacists' on some lists because they believe like modern colonialists that they were a civilizing force for the rest of us.

नमस्ते,

This topic came up in a thread on misinformation on recent papers pertaining to Aryan invasion - I thought it fit to start a separate thread should participants care to discuss it further. For my part, I will present the paxa I favor:

It is abundantly clear from shAstra-s (right from veda-s to later dharmashAstra-s) that brAhmaNa-s were indeed a civilizing, conservative force and a harmonizing influence on society. For example, a famous saying goes: "गुरुरग्निर्द्विजातीनां वर्णानां ब्राह्मणो गुरुः । पतिरेव गुरुः स्त्रीणां सर्वस्याभ्यागतो गुरुः ।।".

As I mentioned earlier, "Conservation of core vaidika ideas over millennia and across genepool-shifts involved evolution of a well-developed and influential ritualist caste (brAhmaNa-s) with a powerful oral tradition and specifically a grammatical tradition that allowed preservation of the language, especially in ritual." If Hindu India is considered a single civilization (unlike - say Europe), it is due to the brAhmaNa glue. This is akin to the role of the strong ritualist guild among the Lithuanians (the last major European pagan tradition to fall to Christianity) or the fairly successful Iranian ritualist guild.
Being mostly non-threatening to the ruling elite, they facilitated the gradual Aryanization (= vedicization) of various host populations - even in the languages.

That this uncontroversial fact is rejected by some, rankling them to the extant of triggering abuse and scorn is remarkable.

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

[venkat veeraraghavan]

Dear Shri Vishvas ji-

I am of two minds regarding this because my mind is not made up about this aspect. Although adhyayana and adhyapana were two of the duties of Brahmans, there is extensive evidence in Mahabharata of Kshatriyas transmitting knowledge

1. Arjuna to Gandharva Chitraratha (Giving him Agneyastra along with the hymns to transmit and recall)

2. Pradyumna to Upa-Pandavas and Abhimanyu

3. Krishna to Arjuna 

A friend and good acquaintance told me that Bhishma despite being competent did not instruct the Kuru princes and instead devolved that duty upon Krpa and Drona as an acknowledgement of the pre-eminence of Brahmanas in the matter of Knowledge transmission.

This assertion however is not borne by the other incidents in the epic some of which I have mentioned above.

If a Brahmana alone was to be sought for knowledge, why did the Pandavas go to Bhishma in the matter of neeti Rajyadharma etc instead of resorting to Vyasa who was available to them or even Dhaumya who was their priest?

Anyone can be accused of anachara these days but surely this could not apply to the Pandavas. 

There are wheels within wheels here that we may never fully understand until we get back our achara and the original context.

varNa is not well understood even now. And if the Yaksha Prashna is any indication, it is conduct and tapascharya alone that marks out a Brahmana and not mere birth as per Dharmaraja Yudhisthira himself. This answer also finds approval with Lord Yama.

That pretty much hits the issue out of the park for me.

Kind Regards,

Venkat

[venkat veeraraghavan]

Its interesting that you should bring this up at a time when I ran across something written by Sarvesh Tiwari/BharatenduH on twitter.

He has looked at the same aspect from a different angle. Instead of looking at who is the Guru, he has looked at what is to be considered as pramaNa.

I quote him below:

QUOTE

"In the सूत्र “वैदिकमीश्वरोक्तत्वात्सर्वमेव प्रमाणम्”, the definition of the nyAyakAra is focusing on two things:

- ईश्वरोक्त - सर्वं  

He says “because Ishvara uttered it”, its “entire corpus” is प्रमाण"

now bhagavadgītā also is प्रमाण surely, but not because of being वैदिकवाक्यं, and also not every utterancebof it. We should use the next sUtra given by अन्नम्भट्ट - लौकिकं त्वाप्तोक्तं प्रमाणं। Because कृष्ण is an आप्तपुरुष what he says is प्रमाणं। It might also be argued

that कृष्ण’s utterances are ईश्वरोक्तं and is therefore equivalent to वेदवाक्यं itself (as per the previous sUtra) and thus प्रमाणम्। On the other hand, arjuna is not an आप्तपुरुष। his utterances are not ईश्वरोक्तानि। that neither qualifies for प्रमाणम् by the first nor the 2nd.

UNQUOTE

Although Arjuna and Krishna were both Mahapurushas by modern and ancient standards only one is considered Apta.

You could investigate further along those lines/definitions to come to a resolution in this matter. Maybe some of the scholars on this forum can throw more light on आप्तपुरुष and the qualities to identify such a one.

[venkat veeraraghavan]

Another view on this matter from Chaitraratha Parva (MB)

Arjuna-Angaraparna samvada

[Arjuna]

      कारणं ब्रूहि गन्धर्व किं तद् येन स्म धर्षिताः

      यान्तो ब्रह्मविदः सन्तः सर्वे रात्राव् अरिंदम​

  २ [Gandharva]

      अनग्नयो ऽनाहुतयो न च विप्र पुरस्कृताः

      यूयं ततो धर्षिताः स्थ मया पाण्डवनन्दन​

  ३ यक्षराक्षस गन्धर्वाः पिशाचोरगमानवाः

      विस्तरं कुरुवंशस्य श्रीमतः कथयन्ति ते

 ब्रह्मचर्यं परो धर्मः स चापि नियतस् त्वयि

     यस्मात् तस्माद् अहं पार्थ रणेऽस्मिन् विजितस् त्वया

 १३ ब्रह्मचर्यं परो धर्मः स चापि नियतस् त्वयि

     यस्मात् तस्माद् अहं पार्थ रणे ऽस्मिन् विजितस् त्वया

 १४ यस् तु स्यात् क्षत्रियः कश् चित् कामवृत्तः परंतप​

     नक्तं च युधि युध्येत न स जीवेत् कथं चन​

 १५ यस् तु स्यात् कामवृत्तो ऽपि राजा तापत्य संगरे

     जयेन् नक्तंचरान् सर्वान् स पुरोहित धूर् गतः

 १६ तस्मात् तापत्य यत् किं चिन् नृणां श्रेय इहेप्सितम्

     तस्मिन् कर्मणि योक्तव्या दान्तात्मानः पुरोहिताः

 १७ वेदे षडङ्गे निरताः शुचयः सत्यवादिनः

     धर्मात्मानः कृतात्मानः स्युर् नृपाणां पुरोहिताः

 १८ जयश् च नियतो राज्ञः स्वर्गश् च स्याद् अनन्तरम्

     यस्य स्याद् धर्मविद् वाग्मी पुरोधाः शीलवाञ् शुचिः

 १९ लाभं लब्धुम् अलब्धं हि लब्धं च परिरक्षितुम्

     पुरोहितं प्रकुर्वीत राजा गुणसमन्वितम्

 २० पुरोहित मते तिष्ठेद् य इच्छेत् पृथिवीं नृपः

     प्राप्तुं मेरुवरोत्तंसां सर्वशः सागराम्बराम्

 २१ न हि केवलशौर्येण तापत्याभिजनेन च​

     जयेद् अब्राह्मणः कश् चिद् भूमिं भूमिपतिः क्व चित्

 २२ तस्माद् एवं विजानीहि कुरूणां वंशवर्धन​

     ब्राह्मण प्रमुखं राज्यं शक्यं पालयितुं चिरम्

[Venkata Sriram]

Namaste,

When Romaharsha, a sUta, was killed by Balarama with kusha grass, the sages who were present around enaged in sacrifices, uttered in agony and pain as “O Balarama ! Alas ! you have unknowingly killed a sage, a brahmana, who was occupying the position of ‘brahmAsana’ ie., an elevated position meant for learned brahmaNa ; thus, by killing him, sin of killing a brahmana has been incurred..

अस्य ब्रह्मासनं दत्तं अस्माभिर्यदुनन्दन ।

आयुश्चात्माक्लमं तावद् यावत् सत्रं समाप्यते ॥ ३० ॥

अजानतैवाचरितः त्वया ब्रह्मवधो यथा ।

योगेश्वरस्य भवतो नाम्नायोऽपि नियामकः ॥ ३१ ॥

यद्येतद् ब्रह्महत्यायाः पावनं लोकपावन ।

चरिष्यति भवांल्लोक सङ्ग्रहोऽनन्यचोदितः ॥ ३२ ॥

 

Note: Romaharsha was a sUta and was the disciple of Veda Vyasa.  He was killed by Balarama because he didn’t stood up in respect when Balarama entered the place of sacrifice when rest of the sages paid respect. 

My sanskrit teacher used to say that ब्राह्मणाः who are by वर्णः, are the 'custodians of brahma-vidya' and should protect the scriptures, uplift the rest to their stature rather than debarring them from the sacred knowledge.  The above episode from Bhagavatam clearly indicate that a sUta was given 'ब्रह्मस्थानम्' among the assembly of scholars present there; and, his death lead to ब्रह्महत्यादोषः.  Thus, there is a मर्यादा for all to behave properly as per the scriptures.   

rgs,

sriram

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 5:38:26 PM UTC+5:30, venkat veeraraghavan wrote:

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 5:38 PM venkat veeraraghavan <vvenk...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Vishvas ji-

I am of two minds regarding this because my mind is not made up about this aspect. Although adhyayana and adhyapana were two of the duties of Brahmans, there is extensive evidence in Mahabharata of Kshatriyas transmitting knowledge

Dear shrI venkat,

Exceptions do not a norm make. And we are talking about brAhmaNa role in conserving and propagating vedic worldview (veda-s, itihAsa-s, purANa-s, the basic vedAnga-s including the divine language, vedic and Agamika rituals), not arts like warfare, painting, weaving or animal husbandry. This role is attested both by shAstra-s/ kAvya-s as well as by the ultimate deeds. As far as the former is concerned, they performed a splendid job. Everything has its shortcomings and areas for improvement, of course. Our enemies (be it portuguese or muslim sultans) recognized this important role quite quickly and targeted them, producing heaps of janeu-s and pyramids of skulls. Of course, this can only happen with full support of other varNa-s, especially the warriors - कालो वा कारणं राज्ञो राजा वा कालकारणम् । इति ते संशयो मा भूत् राजा कालस्य कारणम् ॥, शस्त्रेण रक्षिते राष्ट्रे शास्त्रचिन्ता प्रवर्तते।

Still, to not recognize this critical role of the brAhmaNa-s and be grateful to them is a blindness brought about by post-modernist subalternist subversion. Some prolific commentators here are victims of this. Gratefulness is a basic route to happiness and fulfilment (not to mention continued success) enjoined by the sages - for example in the form of the daily panchamahAyajJNa-s to offset debts to the manes/ ancestors, Gods, sages, men and beings. Unable to retain equanimous objectivity, twisted arrogant minds view this sadbhAvana crookedly (aisaan faraamoshi or whatever), just as they mock other positive attributes (parAkrama, vIrya etc..).

[Sivasenani Nori]

Sri Vishvas

Let us say that the role of Brahmanas in conserving and propagating the Vedic world view is agreeable to any person or group. 

All that can be reasonably expected, then, is that such agreement or lack of it be expressed, or, in other words, the role of Brahmanas be acknowledged, or denied. This is something which can have a binary outcome. 

Demanding gratitude is a different thing. Gratitude depends on the individual concerned, how he or she thinks etc; also other aspects could overpower the need for gratitude. To cite an example, some might feel and express gratitude to the Monier-Williams dictionary project; others might see it as a part of a larger evangelical project and feel that no gratitude is due.

Regards 

N Siva Senani 

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAFY6qgHWKG0jrunhanq0f_KkMBQQgyyR5QozH_KDkOHBDe4-yg%40mail.gmail.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:55 PM Sivasenani Nori <sivas...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sri Vishvas

Let us say that the role of Brahmanas in conserving and propagating the Vedic world view is agreeable to any person or group. 

All that can be reasonably expected, then, is that such agreement or lack of it be expressed, or, in other words, the role of Brahmanas be acknowledged, or denied. This is something which can have a binary outcome. 

Demanding gratitude is a different thing. Gratitude depends on the individual concerned, how he or she thinks etc; also other aspects could overpower the need for gratitude. To cite an example, some might feel and express gratitude to the Monier-Williams dictionary project; others might see it as a part of a larger evangelical project and feel that no gratitude is due.

I don't demand gratitude or acceptance of any fact; and people are free to believe and feel anything according to their cognitive and sentimental capacities. However, the noble shAstra-s and sages do suggest that for our *own benefit and wellbeing*, one must ever be grateful. (The generations of brAhmaNa-s or the species of cows don't become any smaller because of the stunted mentality of some person. The flawed person is the biggest looser.) This being the case, I feel it quite appropriate to contest any negation or ridiculing of our respectful gratitude for brAhmaNa contributions, calling it "brahmin supremacy" etc. - lest it become the "politically approved" fad here as well.

[venkat veeraraghavan]

Dear Shri Vishvas ji-

The question of gratitude is moot since we as a rule in sandhyavandana pray for the wellbeing of cows and brahmanas as phalashruti. So essentially we live in a perennial state of gratitude rather than remember them now and then to thank them.

The best way of thanking them is to keep up the highest standards possible of personal achara and nityakarma. When we perform Brahmayajna as you pointed out we repay rshi rNa along with deva and pitru rNas. 

Now, the definition of "brahmana" may vary given the current state of confusion.

The BG gives a clear definition as do most of the itihasa puranas on the lakshaNas.

As Sriram Garu pointed out even a suta ( a product of varNasankara) was given the status and seat of Brahmana by even the rshis (not normal jAti Brahmins)  in a bygone age

The other issues which need to be considered :

1. Why expect gratitude when what we do is our meagre effort at saving dharma ? We only did our duty here. Nothing special.

2. The rshis imho are much beyond notions of gratitude and keep giving like the Sun does. 

3. Gratitude invites grace automatically. It is an individual characteristic and cannot be demanded en-mass. 

4. Taking the analogy in the purusha sukta, the hands take food to the mouth ..so also the kshatriyas protect the Brahmanas who in turn nurture and protect the other three varNas. So, whatever  "dharma" has been saved till date, all 4 varNas who performed their assigned duties with perfection have equal hand in this. 

I am not saying this to be poltically correct or to appear intellectual (never cared for pretenses).

Kind Regards,

Venkat

My original posts were targeted towards the title  वर्णानाम् ब्राह्मणो गुरुः..

Warfare also

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/Fk23Mvx6VjM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAFY6qgFU7ra7ucM_3MeiwdQ2RXcdABrUpoW3%2B1PXt-%2Bu4jeSbA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sivasenani Nori]

On Tue, 17 Sep, 2019, 1:44 PM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki), <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't demand gratitude or acceptance of any fact; and people are free to believe and feel anything according to their cognitive and sentimental capacities. However, the noble shAstra-s and sages do suggest that for our *own benefit and wellbeing*, one must ever be grateful. (The generations brAhmaNa-s or the species of cows don't become any smaller because of the stunted mentality of some person. The flawed person is the biggest looser.) This being the case, I feel it quite appropriate to contest any negation or ridiculing of our respectful gratitude for brAhmaNa contributions, calling it "brahmin supremacy" etc. - lest it become the "politically approved" fad here as well. 

I can agree with the above whole heartedly. 

Regards 

Senani 

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:07 PM venkat veeraraghavan <vvenk...@gmail.com> wrote:

Main points first:

 

4. Taking the analogy in the purusha sukta, the hands take food to the mouth ..so also the kshatriyas protect the Brahmanas who in turn nurture and protect the other three varNas. So, whatever  "dharma" has been saved till date, all 4 varNas who performed their assigned duties with perfection have equal hand in this.

 

This is patently wrong. All of humanity (from the lowliest baker to Kepler) had a role in Newton's discoveries ("standing on the shoulder of giants", but where would he be but for the bread to eat). But they did not have "equal hand" - Newton's hand deserves the most credit, Kepler and co next, some random baker very little. If we say "राजा कालस्य कारणम्", we mean that the king has the greatest hand in how his times will turn out, the hand of some small bureaucrat is relatively very minor. In the same sense, the hand of the revered brAhmaNa-s is the orders of magnitude larger in forming hinduism and bringing forth the vedic world view down to us than the many times more populous businessmen and artisans (who anyway oft more freely engaged with shramaNa counter-religions).

 

3. Gratitude invites grace automatically. It is an individual characteristic and cannot be demanded en-mass. 

No question of demand - rather one of observation. That regard and respect which was once the norm, is now considered by some so-called enlightened-hindu-warriors as something backward and counterproductive.

Subsidiary points:

The question of gratitude is moot since we as a rule in sandhyavandana pray for the wellbeing of cows and brahmanas as phalashruti. So essentially we live in a perennial state of gratitude rather than remember them now and then to thank them.

 

Just because one chants something, it does not necessarily mean that one feels it. Also, the above only applies to upanIta dvija-s, whereas in days past, even others (women and shUdra-s) had enough sense to feel this gratitude and sense of duty.

 

The best way of thanking them is to keep up the highest standards possible of personal achara and nityakarma. When we perform Brahmayajna as you pointed out we repay rshi rNa along with deva and pitru rNas. 

True - to add - diminishing them and their contributions is a way of denying this debt even as one acts as if one is repaying those debts.

 

Now, the definition of "brahmana" may vary given the current state of confusion.

The BG gives a clear definition as do most of the itihasa puranas on the lakshaNas.

As Sriram Garu pointed out even a suta ( a product of varNasankara) was given the status and seat of Brahmana by even the rshis (not normal jAti Brahmins)  in a bygone age

You and Sriram are mistaken here. If you want to believe the purANa-s, the great son of hermit lomaharShaNa, ugrashravas or sauti or sUta was not the product of pratiloma marriage involving either a vaishya or kShatriya male. The itihAsa-s and purANa-s are "sanitized" in that sense - for better examples one might need to dig the veda-s. Anyway, the identity of the "brAhmaNas" is a bit orthogonal to (acknowledgement of) their contributions.

[venkat veeraraghavan]

My responses below yours-->

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:55 PM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:07 PM venkat veeraraghavan <vvenk...@gmail.com> wrote:

Main points first:

 

4. Taking the analogy in the purusha sukta, the hands take food to the mouth ..so also the kshatriyas protect the Brahmanas who in turn nurture and protect the other three varNas. So, whatever  "dharma" has been saved till date, all 4 varNas who performed their assigned duties with perfection have equal hand in this.

 

This is patently wrong. All of humanity (from the lowliest baker to Kepler) had a role in Newton's discoveries ("standing on the shoulder of giants", but where would he be but for the bread to eat). But they did not have "equal hand" - Newton's hand deserves the most credit, Kepler and co next, some random baker very little. If we say "राजा कालस्य कारणम्", we mean that the king has the greatest hand in how his times will turn out, the hand of some small bureaucrat is relatively very minor. In the same sense, the hand of the revered brAhmaNa-s is the orders of magnitude larger in forming hinduism and bringing forth the vedic world view down to us than the many times more populous businessmen and artisans (who anyway oft more freely engaged with shramaNa counter-religions).

 -->This is not a case of standing on the shoulders of giants in the sense of Newton--Raphson, Poincare et al.....(Surely Newton did not mean the baker when he said "giants")

         The performance of a sacrifice required meticulous cooperation from all varNas especially kshatriyas...There are specific rules that a King can employ a Brahmana who has fallen off his nityakarma in the capacity of a shudra..so kshatriyas specifically Kings were a huge causal factor in protection of Dharma ..YES the Brahmanas were the thin end of this wedge, but this would have been impossible without the support of other varNas that lent strength and wieldability to that sword.  

This is evidencially borne out by the wholesale slaughter of kshatriyas at Kurukshetra right before the start of this epoch and that has causally lead to the decline in Brahmanas and dharma as a whole.

3. Gratitude invites grace automatically. It is an individual characteristic and cannot be demanded en-mass. 

No question of demand - rather one of observation. That regard and respect which was once the norm, is now considered by some so-called enlightened-hindu-warriors as something backward and counterproductive.

--> Some "Brahmins" went and complained to the Seer of Kanchi HH Chandrasekhara Sarasvati about the Periyarites. HH had a simple question "How many of you perfrom trikala sandhyavandana?" Not one dared  to raise their hand. 

    Many statistics claim that the percentage of Brahmins in India is around 1%. My guesstimate is that the real % is close to 0.001% if the minimum standard is sva-shakha adhyayana and  trikala sandhya.

The problem is that dharma is not the preserve of a few but that of whole society. Even within Brahmana kulas how many are ready to let their daughters get married to boys who have done veda-adhyayana? When the people inside Brahmanakula have such scant respect for Veda-vids? Why are we complaining aboout lack of respect or appreciation from without? 

 When a few are left to carry dharma on their shoulders, it is not surprising that Brahmanakulas are generally held in low regard.

The disregard is for modern jAti Brahmins (Brahmana-bandhus) and not for the ancient Seers whom all sensible people (barring a few) agree are Supermen. Even within this forum there are respected people who can hold their heads high in any sabha. This was earned by blood and sweat and sheer merit.

Subsidiary points:

The question of gratitude is moot since we as a rule in sandhyavandana pray for the wellbeing of cows and brahmanas as phalashruti. So essentially we live in a perennial state of gratitude rather than remember them now and then to thank them.

 

Just because one chants something, it does not necessarily mean that one feels it. Also, the above only applies to upanIta dvija-s, whereas in days past, even others (women and shUdra-s) had enough sense to feel this gratitude and sense of duty.

--> The innermost idea and basic assumption within shabda-mantra yoga is that the japa is done with complete awareness and ekagrata. As for the rest I agree.  

 

The best way of thanking them is to keep up the highest standards possible of personal achara and nityakarma. When we perform Brahmayajna as you pointed out we repay rshi rNa along with deva and pitru rNas. 

True - to add - diminishing them and their contributions is a way of denying this debt even as one acts as if one is repaying those debts.

   --> No one is denying or diminishing them. Atleast not me. I just came out of a severe disagreement with a gentleman who claimed that Maricha wore wigs to fool Rama which automatically puts the lie at Valmiki's door.... :) 

 

Now, the definition of "brahmana" may vary given the current state of confusion.

The BG gives a clear definition as do most of the itihasa puranas on the lakshaNas.

As Sriram Garu pointed out even a suta ( a product of varNasankara) was given the status and seat of Brahmana by even the rshis (not normal jAti Brahmins)  in a bygone age

You and Sriram are mistaken here. If you want to believe the purANa-s, the great son of hermit lomaharShaNa, ugrashravas or sauti or sUta was not the product of pratiloma marriage involving either a vaishya or kShatriya male. The itihAsa-s and purANa-s are "sanitized" in that sense - for better examples one might need to dig the veda-s. Anyway, the identity of the "brAhmaNas" is a bit orthogonal to (acknowledgement of) their contributions.

-- > I am unsure of what you are suggesting here..

 

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/Fk23Mvx6VjM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAFY6qgG0Z5S7BLQvnVjXX0Um8_hYBJAA8FEED81TOtU6iCstJQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vishal Agarwal]

Different sections of the Hindu society have contributed to the sustenance and growth of our Dharma in their own way. Some communities may have contributed disproportionately. Others were sometimes prevented from developing their full potential and thereby contributing to their fullest capacity. In our curriculum on 'Sadaachaara', we use the textbook at the link below. I wrote this textbook. The dates and region columns are meant to guide classroom exercises on drawing up timelines, fill out maps and so on. And as the preface says: "The personalities discussed in this book are women as well as men, rich and poor, ancient and modern, Indian and non-Indian and are from humble or privileged family backgrounds. The episodes from their lives discuss how they reacted to or impacted different life situations, and provided us with ideal examples to live by. Hindu scriptures say that we must “never investigate the origins of Rishis, noble women or rivers” because most of them actually had very humble origins. They became great not because of where they were born but because of their wisdom, knowledge, character and teachings. "

Dharma_8_HinduHeroes.pdf

Dharma_8_HinduHeroes.pdf

The book of course did not have a column on the 'varna-jaati' of those featured, because 'we must not investigate the source of Rishis, virtuous women and rivers'.

I do wonder though whether churches and mosques are cropping up everywhere in India because 'Non Brahmanas have lost respect for the Brahmanas'. Just two days ago, a Pakistani Hindu family approached me that their son was very disturbed after watching the movie 'Article 15' and is questioning his Hinduness. They asked me for help. Guess what will happen if I tell him that we must show gratitude towards Brahmanas because they are superior among all varnas. BTW, the raw data of the recent genetic study being discussed last week had a category of 'Vaidik_Brahmana'. Interestingly, its Central Steppe MLBA proportion was slightly _lower_ than that expected for the baseline Indian population. Perhaps, the following letter by several academics criticizing David Reich might therefore put the entire thing in perspective:

Opinion: How Not To Talk About Race And Genetics

Opinion: How Not To Talk About Race And Genetics Race has long been a potent way of defining differences between human beings. But science and the categories it ...

Jaati is only one factor that determines who we are; the other two are environmental factors and one's svabhaava (spiritual genes - samskaras/vasanas). The last two can quite easily overcome the first if enough opportunity is provided. Or may be I have no right or authority (or 'intellectual capacity') to speak on this matter, because I was not born in a Brahmana household.

Regards,

Vishal 

[venkat veeraraghavan]

Dear Shri Vishal ji-

Agree with the bulk of what you say except the following:

" Or may be I have no right or authority (or 'intellectual capacity') to speak on this matter, because I was not born in a Brahmana household."

Can you stop doing that please?

Let us discuss the merits of arguments and leave the personalities alone.

Regards,

Venkat

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 10:37:06 PM UTC+5:30, Vishal Agarwal wrote:

Different sections of the Hindu society have contributed to the sustenance and growth of our Dharma in their own way. Some communities may have contributed disproportionately. Others were sometimes prevented from developing their full potential and thereby contributing to their fullest capacity. In our curriculum on 'Sadaachaara', we use the textbook at the link below. I wrote this textbook. The dates and region columns are meant to guide classroom exercises on drawing up timelines, fill out maps and so on. And as the preface says: "The personalities discussed in this book are women as well as men, rich and poor, ancient and modern, Indian and non-Indian and are from humble or privileged family backgrounds. The episodes from their lives discuss how they reacted to or impacted different life situations, and provided us with ideal examples to live by. Hindu scriptures say that we must “never investigate the origins of Rishis, noble women or rivers” because most of them actually had very humble origins. They became great not because of where they were born but because of their wisdom, knowledge, character and teachings. "

Dharma_8_HinduHeroes.pdf

Dharma_8_HinduHeroes.pdf

The book of course did not have a column on the 'varna-jaati' of those featured, because 'we must not investigate the source of Rishis, virtuous women and rivers'.

I do wonder though whether churches and mosques are cropping up everywhere in India because 'Non Brahmanas have lost respect for the Brahmanas'. Just two days ago, a Pakistani Hindu family approached me that their son was very disturbed after watching the movie 'Article 15' and is questioning his Hinduness. They asked me for help. Guess what will happen if I tell him that we must show gratitude towards Brahmanas because they are superior among all varnas. BTW, the raw data of the recent genetic study being discussed last week had a category of 'Vaidik_Brahmana'. Interestingly, its Central Steppe MLBA proportion was slightly _lower_ than that expected for the baseline Indian population. Perhaps, the following letter by several academics criticizing David Reich might therefore put the entire thing in perspective:

Opinion: How Not To Talk About Race And Genetics

Opinion: How Not To Talk About Race And Genetics Race has long been a potent way of defining differences between human beings. But science and the categories it ...

Jaati is only one factor that determines who we are; the other two are environmental factors and one's svabhaava (spiritual genes - samskaras/vasanas). The last two can quite easily overcome the first if enough opportunity is provided. Or may be I have no right or authority (or 'intellectual capacity') to speak on this matter, because I was not born in a Brahmana household.

Regards,

Vishal 

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019, 07:26:49 AM CDT, venkat veeraraghavan <vvenk...@gmail.com> wrote:

My responses below yours-->

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Namaste,

Steppe_ancestry or such terms are mathematical creations: taken as basis population. The fact is you can make up your own basis populations.
In the end it is just mathematical modeling: there is no way to be sure in reality as to who is the ancestor of whom.
So one needs to understand that the kind of modeling done in the present studies was to confirm a particular world-view. Also note that the present genome-wide technique is adopted (with e.g. Swat valley in fact showing up "female Aryan invasion" of sorts) after the earlier haplogroup methods (focusing on R1a for example) began to indicate Iranian home for P.I.E. (not acceptable to that world-view).
Personally I tend to think of castes such as Bhumihars (whom I've observed for long) as more typical of Adi-brAhmaNa-s than any other; not to speak of a general South Indian bias I see here on any topic in general.
Varna-s are higher modes of Nature. Among the warriors, for example,
A Kshatriya knows how to fight
A Shudra knows how to defend
A Brahmin knows how to kill

There are no restrictions on who can do what. Historically also that's the case.

P.S. ignore this post if it doesn't connect

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 11:30 PM Kalicharan Tuvij <kalich...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste,

 Steppe_ancestry or such terms are mathematical creations: taken as basis population. The fact is you can make up your own basis populations.
  In the end it is just mathematical modeling: there is no way to be sure in reality as to who is the ancestor of whom.
  So one needs to understand that the kind of modeling done in the present studies was to confirm a particular world-view. Also note that the present genome-wide technique is adopted (with e.g. Swat valley in fact showing up "female Aryan invasion" of sorts) after the earlier haplogroup methods (focusing on R1a for example) began to indicate Iranian home for P.I.E. (not acceptable to that world-view).

(I won't belabour corrections to the above (again) misleading information and gross misrepresentation so as to not facilitate thread-hijacking but..)

Caveat emptor!

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:56 PM venkat veeraraghavan <vvenk...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Some "Brahmins" went and complained to the Seer of Kanchi HH Chandrasekhara Sarasvati about the Periyarites. HH had a simple question "How many of you perfrom trikala sandhyavandana?" Not one dared  to raise their hand. 

I am sure lots of hands would have gone up if he asked about dvikAla sandhyAvandana.

Anyway, निरस्तपादपे देशय् एरण्डोऽपि द्रुमायते। How many vaishya-s and kShatriya-s exercise their right (and duty) to do adhyayana of veda-s? Forget that, what about sandhyAvandana? At least some kShatriya clans have stemmed degeneracy enough to atleast undergo the upanayana saMskAra (even if they don't follow up on it in daily practice). Which shAkhA of the veda or major shAstra has survived because of the toil (rather than general sponsorship) of vaishya-s, shUdra-s and kShatriya-s?

 

Even within Brahmana kulas how many are ready to let their daughters get married to boys who have done veda-adhyayana? When the people inside Brahmanakula have such scant respect for Veda-vids? 

Why are we complaining aboout lack of respect or appreciation from without? 

So, just because lots of shUdrified brAhmaNa-s don't appreciate the critical role of their erstwhile varNa in society - rathern than include them in the population of brutes who need to be educated better, we should stop correcting mistaken proclamations and attitudes of people from other jAti-s? Doesn't compute.

 

 When a few are left to carry dharma on their shoulders, it is not surprising that Brahmanakulas are generally held in low regard.

The disregard is for modern jAti Brahmins (Brahmana-bandhus) and not for the ancient Seers whom all sensible people (barring a few) agree are Supermen.

Wrong - the disregard is also for the brAhmaNa varNa and jAti as it stood over the millennia - not just modern brahma-bandhu-s who can't say a mantra properly (who are in fact not even in the picture as far as much of the criticism is concerned).

 

Even within this forum there are respected people who can hold their heads high in any sabha. This was earned by blood and sweat and sheer merit.

Often grounded upon pride in their family and tradition, and a sacred sense of duty. If brAhmaNa archaka-s serve in those village temples suffering paltry salaries lower than what the watchman or sweeper gets, it is because of kulAbhimAna and sense of heridetary duty than anything else. Were it not for this familial urge and pride, the shAkha-s of veda which have come down to us would not at all have survived. (To illustrate the point, now that anyone can go to certain veda-pAThashAla-s and study the veda-s, relatively speaking, how many non-brAhmaNa-s have taken to them fully?)

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:37 PM 'Vishal Agarwal' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Different sections of the Hindu society have contributed to the sustenance and growth of our Dharma in their own way. Some communities may have contributed disproportionately. Others were sometimes prevented from developing their full potential and thereby contributing to their fullest capacity.

The last sentence above is very misleading. It would be all-right to say - or atleast add: "Others were sometimes not given adequate opportunity to develop their full potential and thereby contributing to their fullest capacity." It is not as if "others" demanded and sought advancement in contributing to dharma in the form of warriorship or scholarship or whatever, but were "prevented" by evil backward people. Think about it - who prevented vaishya-s from mastering veda-s and shAstra-s? Why is it so much easier to find a shUdra mastering nyAyashAstra and being honoured in the vAkyArthasabhA of shRngeri than a vaishya or kShatriya?

Yes, the system was and is suboptimal and can be subject to improvement - that's true of *any system*. That should not give one license to declare it more broken than it actually was (especially when it was a key to past successes).

 

Hindu scriptures say that we must “never investigate the origins of Rishis, noble women or rivers” because most of them actually had very humble origins. They became great not because of where they were born but because of their wisdom, knowledge, character and teachings. "

Even though it is odd to pick up one subhAShita while ignoring lots of other sayings: "Because most of them actually had humble origins" should be corrected to "Because some of them actually had humble origins". That's the most that can be said.

 

Dharma_8_HinduHeroes.pdf

The correct assessment of the extant and relative importance of the role of the brAhmaNa-s cannot be ascertained just by picking an eclectic assemblage of "saints", since it ignores the contributions of the vast majority of shAstra-kAra-s and regular brAhmaNa-s who went about their 6-fold duties.

Since you've indicated some knowledge of statistics, I present this analogy. You have a scatter plot to which you can fit a 80 degree line. Yet, you choose outliers closer to the x-axis, fit a line to it - and voila - you got a 45 degree line.

I do wonder though whether churches and mosques are cropping up everywhere in India because 'Non Brahmanas have lost respect for the Brahmanas'.

Rather, the converse. Because of churches cropping up everywhere, and because chruch doctrine finds its ways into so-called enlightened hindus, respect for brAhmaNa-s drops. Practicing brAhmaNa-s themselves (such as sendAlankAra jeer - http://www.vsktamilnadu.org/2016/08/hindu-seer-turned-tables-on-jihadi.html or pejAvara svAmi or the kAnchi seers or TTD trust ) are at the forefront of countering churches and mosques. If the churches and mosques find it nearly impossible to encroach into the periphery of tirumala or shabarImala, it is because of the power of the respective brAhmaNa-ritualist-led cults. Were it not for the brAhmaNa conservative core, Hindu society would have fallen like so many "folk" paganisms (nAgas, kuki-s, mizo-s, assorted african tribes, amerindians, papuans vs say the meiteis or balinese).

 

Just two days ago, a Pakistani Hindu family approached me that their son was very disturbed after watching the movie 'Article 15' and is questioning his Hinduness. They asked me for help. Guess what will happen if I tell him that we must show gratitude towards Brahmanas because they are superior among all varnas. 

Just two days ago, I walked into my cousin's home where they were watching "Super 30" and noted a couple of dialogues where the hero (Hritik Roshan?) gets told that he best focus on educating the children of privileged people because mahAbhArata (citing ekalavya story) and purANa-s says so. Does such propaganda mean that one should stop referring to mahAbhArata and purANa-s with high regard? Ditto with anti-brAhmaNa and anti-FC propaganda.

Anyway, not denying that dosage of truth should be administered with careful consideration of the damage done to the victim of anti-hindu poisoning.

 

BTW, the raw data of the recent genetic study being discussed last week had a category of 'Vaidik_Brahmana'. Interestingly, its Central Steppe MLBA proportion was slightly _lower_ than that expected for the baseline Indian population. Perhaps, the following letter by several academics criticizing David Reich might therefore put the entire thing in perspective: Opinion: How Not To Talk About Race And Genetics

No it doesn't - I cannot even see how that's relevant to the prior thread. Since you've posted it as a "BTW" unconnected with this thread, we best drop it anyway.

 

Jaati is only one factor that determines who we are; the other two are environmental factors and one's svabhaava (spiritual genes - samskaras/vasanas). The last two can quite easily overcome the first if enough opportunity is provided.

On the other hand, look up "Son also rises" by Gregory Clark - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2Ugb4VKH8 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8S-_L4eZQ4 for example. Also, saMskAra-s are highly inheritable even if not fully genetically inheritable.

Not to deny exceptions (eg: Narendra Modi), of course, but as a general rule.

[venkat veeraraghavan]

responses below yours--> You are one  persistent young man!

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:56 AM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:56 PM venkat veeraraghavan <vvenk...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Some "Brahmins" went and complained to the Seer of Kanchi HH Chandrasekhara Sarasvati about the Periyarites. HH had a simple question "How many of you perfrom trikala sandhyavandana?" Not one dared  to raise their hand. 

I am sure lots of hands would have gone up if he asked about dvikAla sandhyAvandana.

---->Apologies for my typo above correct " trikala sandhyavandana " to "sandhyavandana"

--> I am not exaggerating when I say I am in touch with and know of 5-6 families where no sandhyavandana is done..and I live in dravidadesha where supposedly achara exists in its most pristine form. My mama started doing "sandhyavandana" and "Brahmayajna" after his sadhabhisheka (apparently someone told him it was good for his grandchildren). I have put "" on the rituals since i do not want to know what exactly he does in the name of those rituals. As long as he was doing shraaddham he never did sandhyavandana and now he has stopped doing shraddham also.

 I get laughed off by my cousins' children when I try to tell them about sandhyavandana because their parents are more interested in their promotion and faux social status rather than their achara. I have spoken to 2/3 friends who have fallen in with false Gurus and have wasted 10-15 years of their life. I openly told them this would never have happened if they had not ditched their achara for other pastures. How is one to tell a "gaddha" that without some sort of chittashuddhi one cannot even recognise a real Guru? "paani peejai chaankar guru keejai jaankar"--Kabir 

One of them has started avoiding me on whatsapp whenever I say hello.

Notoriety is my only karmaphala.

Anyway, निरस्तपादपे देशय् एरण्डोऽपि द्रुमायते। How many vaishya-s and kShatriya-s exercise their right (and duty) to do adhyayana of veda-s? Forget that, what about sandhyAvandana? At least some kShatriya clans have stemmed degeneracy enough to atleast undergo the upanayana saMskAra (even if they don't follow up on it in daily practice). Which shAkhA of the veda or major shAstra has survived because of the toil (rather than general sponsorship) of vaishya-s, shUdra-s and kShatriya-s?

 --> I agree with that but I was focusing on Brahmans from the principle of "charity begins at home"

 

Even within Brahmana kulas how many are ready to let their daughters get married to boys who have done veda-adhyayana? When the people inside Brahmanakula have such scant respect for Veda-vids? 

Why are we complaining aboout lack of respect or appreciation from without? 

So, just because lots of shUdrified brAhmaNa-s don't appreciate the critical role of their erstwhile varNa in society - rathern than include them in the population of brutes who need to be educated better, we should stop correcting mistaken proclamations and attitudes of people from other jAti-s? Doesn't compute.

 --> I am saying this only--> Let us correct ourselves first. And others later.

 

 When a few are left to carry dharma on their shoulders, it is not surprising that Brahmanakulas are generally held in low regard.

The disregard is for modern jAti Brahmins (Brahmana-bandhus) and not for the ancient Seers whom all sensible people (barring a few) agree are Supermen.

Wrong - the disregard is also for the brAhmaNa varNa and jAti as it stood over the millennia - not just modern brahma-bandhu-s who can't say a mantra properly (who are in fact not even in the picture as far as much of the criticism is concerned).

---> When the erstwhile seer of Kanchi was asked why his disciple left his danda and walked away? He answered "must be some deficiency in my tapasya"...I am not trying to vie with his holiness here but frankly trying to correct others is a waste of time. The only thing I can correct is myself and hope and pray that good sense and dharma dawns on others too. 

 

Even within this forum there are respected people who can hold their heads high in any sabha. This was earned by blood and sweat and sheer merit.

Often grounded upon pride in their family and tradition, and a sacred sense of duty. If brAhmaNa archaka-s serve in those village temples suffering paltry salaries lower than what the watchman or sweeper gets, it is because of kulAbhimAna and sense of heridetary duty than anything else. Were it not for this familial urge and pride, the shAkha-s of veda which have come down to us would not at all have survived. (To illustrate the point, now that anyone can go to certain veda-pAThashAla-s and study the veda-s, relatively speaking, how many non-brAhmaNa-s have taken to them fully?)

--> Not sure..:)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/Fk23Mvx6VjM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAFY6qgEbob1pabxFGJYan8E%2BJ2MiEMf1%3DGi%3D1-tU8Q-G6ztAdA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dr BVK Sastry]

Namaste

 

This debate here is a < beginning less- endless> debate which makes relevance only when placed in a 'framed context'. 

The exchange of posts keep  shifting the ' framed context in sliding scales of < time-text-practice- relevance> as suits their convenience of charge and response.

What I get confused in going through this series of exchanges makes me seek position clarification for the following questions to firm up the 'frame of debate'.

 

Here below are the questions:

 

A) When the thread is around the theme < वर्णानाम् ब्राह्मणो गुरुः > , what is the  referential frame work of < Varna- Brahmana> definition  by which this debate stands?

 

            A-1) 'Varna' categorization as a socio-historical tag of post Mahabharata / Kalyuga/ Gita  where ' Birth base' is NOT  the factoring list !  Why leave it fuzzy ??

                                                                        OR

                   'Varna' categorization as a socio-historical tag of post Buddhist period / Puranas/ Vedanta-Acharya Sampradayas culminating in a reference book like  'Dharma-

                    Sindhu'  which anchors ' Janma, Achara and Samskara' together  'for the ' Brahmana + Varna  Tag'  and locks it to Manu smriti ! 

 

Clarity on this helps to respond clearly on : Socio-spiritual intertwine in this discussion.

 

B)  Why clamor or regret to become and be a Brahmana  and point to those ' temple anchored archaka community'  as ' best samples of Brahmanas' ?

 

  Clarity on this helps to respond clearly on : Spiritual and Sanatana Dharma sampradaya  intertwine in this discussion. The role of ' Guru's become clear in this debate.

 

C) Has anyone worked on the  'History and  Dynamics of the Brahmana Jeevikaa Vruttis'   across India, in three segments of  (B-i) Colonial rule (B-ii) Independent India (B- iii) Globalized  India where NRI's are seeking vedic authority on ' Who is Brahmana? How'- using Colonial translations and lens?

 

Clarity on this helps to respond clearly on : Global Religion-Caste  intertwine and 'social challenges of being a stickler to 'brahmana-achara'  in this discussion.

 

I understand that there are no simple straight forward answers for this. But without addressing these issues, using a medley of preferential quotes and texts  will not help to firm up and  frame-context of debate.

 

If one considers that this debate is of critical interest to the 1% ( .001%) members of Hindu community, it is much more important and critical for the rest of the 99% Indians and Hindus at  India and Globe. So, why is this discussion getting made in a truncated scale ??

 

Regards

 

BVK Sastry