Shramans and Brahmans

[Prakash Raj Pandey]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Nityananda Misra says Shramans were never at odds --

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2961568934049477 

Earlier Kushagra Aniket had said they were at odds in his article शबरी कौन थी 

Who was Sabari ?, posted on 2025 June 30 on this group.

And I do not know which side I should take.

Regards, 

Prakash Raj Pandey

[Nityanand Misra]

Namaste

I have not said Shramanas were never at odds [with Brahmanas]. This is a misrepresentation of my position. Please watch the full video before concluding anything.  

[Prakash Raj Pandey]

It seems I failed to fully understand the video. Soŕry for that.

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/b2e7983c-abfd-450f-bd74-32d0fc52a559n%40googlegroups.com.

[S.Subrahmanya]

The word Shramana is in the taittiriya aranyaka 2.7 and brihadaranyaka upanishad 4.3.22 - so it from the vedic period itself.  

https://vivekavani.com/bru4c3v22/

Generally, the opposition between a "brahmana" and a "shramana" is  - that the brahmana is a gruhasta and in those times mostly a miimaamsaka. 

the shramana on the other hand would be a sanyasi.  So the "opposites" aspect is based on the fact that one is a house-holder and the other being a sanyasi. 

This would be the context under which Patanjali would consider the two words as opposing - or an oxymoron.

Unfortunately, under the 'influence of indologists -  the term sramana is routinely interpreted as being only a bouddha (or a jaina) and somehow being 

some kind of an opposite to a brahmana.    Bouddhas and Jainas were not the only one's who took up sanyas. 

Is there anything that i am missing ? 

regards

S. Subrahmanya