My thoughts on Sanskrit-Prakrit:
Sanskrit is the refined or standard form, while Prakrit is the natural way that people talk. Each person talks in a specific manner(introducing some corruptions which become his signature). Generally, these corruptions are subtle and not noticeable.
But, certain corruptions become more pronounced and acquire a new form. Such ones are called Prakrit. Prakrit is rustic Sanskrit. Actually, Prakrit is the way general people generally spoke Sanskrit. I think all people spoke Prakrit in their daily life.
This phenomenon, I think, can be seen any language. People like to speak in their specific lingo even if they know the standard version. For example, no one speaks chaste hindi, or telugu or english in their day-to-day lives. They speak it in their particular local lingo, even if they know the standard version.
Sanskrit is the refined form of Prakrit. That means Sanskrit preserves the original sounds/pronunciations of the words intact. While, the Prakrits were allowed to transform and evolve. Just as Sanskrit preserves the sound/pronunciations, the Vedas preserve not only the original sounds/pronunciations, but also the original intonations(i.e. Svara).
My understanding is that the whole humanity is speaking a single language. The standard version of this language is Sanskrit, which preserves the original pronunciation/sounds of the words mostly. The various human 'languages' are nothing more than various Prakrits i.e. various dialects/lingos(with their unique corruptions/variations) of the standard(Sanskrit).
Which existed first: Sanskrit or Prakrit?
I will give an analogy: Sanskrit is like rain water and Prakrit is like ponds and lakes. The water from ponds and lakes is evaporated by Sun and transforms in rain water. The same rain water fill the ponds and lakes. Which came first rain or water in ponds?
Similarly, the Sanskrit and Prakrit are inter-related. The Prakrit is based on the natural pronunciations of the people. While, Sanskrit is the standard form. Both, co-exist.
I think to understand the languages, one has to first identify the sound corruptions that are possible.
johneeG wrote:
The words for 'Yes' in different languages:
Hindi(Indian) -> Han
Japanese -> Hai
Cantonese(Chinese) -> Hai
French -> Oui
English -> Aye
Telugu(Indian) -> Sye
Mandarin(Chinese) -> Shi
Latin -> Sic
Italina -> Si
German -> Ja
All of these seem to be related to each other phonologically. Here, Ya, Ja, Aa, Ha, and Sa are seen. It seems Sa is the primary sound which gets corrupted into Ha. Then, Ha gets corrupted into Ya or Aa. Ya can further get corrupted into Ja.
The exceptions seem to be:
Hebrew -> Ken
Russian -> Da
EDIT: Or maybe, the Da(russian) is not an exception. Ha may have become Da.
Some general corruptions in the sounds are:
Sa -> Sha Eg: Sama -> Shama
Sha -> Sa Eg: Shyama -> Syama, Ashashin -> Assassin
Ba -> Va Eg: Jambu -> Jamvu
Va -> Ba Eg: Vedi -> Bedi, Vanga -> Banga
Ra -> La Eg: Rama -> Lama
Pa -> Fa Eg: Hapta -> Hafta
Fa -> Pa Eg: Soft -> Sopt
Tha -> Ta Eg: Thara -> Tara
Ta -> Tha
Ya -> Aa Eg: Shyama -> Shama
Ya -> Ja Eg: Yehova -> Jehova, Yeshu -> Jeshu
Ya -> Ha
Ha -> Ya
Ha -> Aa Eg: Hashashin -> Ashashin
Sa -> Ha Eg: Sapta -> Hapta
Da -> Dha
Dha -> Da
Ma -> Na
Na -> Ma
Cha -> Ka
Any half consonant followed by ra -> full consonant followed by ra. Eg: Free -> Feree.
EDIT:
Tha -> Dha Eg: Thatha -> Dhadha
Pa -> Ba Eg: Papa -> Baba
Za -> Sha
Za -> Sa
Za -> Ja Eg: Hazar -> Hajar
Probable corruptions:
Ra -> Da
Va -> Aa
Va -> Ya
Aa -> Ha
Aa -> Ya
Ka -> Cha
Sha -> Za
Link to Original Post
Some More Possible corruptions:
Da -> Ra
Ka -> Ga
Ga -> Cha
Once the possible sound corruptions are identified, then two ways are possible:
a) Start from Sanskrit and introduce corruptions into the Sanskrit words and match them with the words in Prakrit(all the human languages).
b) Start from Prakrit(all the human languages) and back trace to Sanskrit by deducting corruptions.
To do that, one has to first identify the root words in various Prakrits(all the human languages). For example, take a english dictionary, identify all the root words. Then deduct the sound corruption from those root words to either back trace to Sanskrit or introduce sound corruptions in various sanskrit words and see which ones match with the english root words. One can write some sort of software program for such purpose.
Some examples:
Pithr(Sanskrit-Father)->Pitha(Hindi-Father)->Padre(Italian/Spanish-Father)->Pater(Latin-Father)->Pedda(Telugu-Elder)->Pedar(Persian-Father)->Pere(French-Father)
Pater(Latin-Father)->Pedar(Persian-Father)->Father(English-Father)
Pater(Latin-Father)->Bater->Vater(German-Father)->Validi(Arabic->Father)
Arya(Sanskrit-Respected)->Ayya(Telugu-Father)->Appa(Tamil-Father)->Abba(Arabic/Korean-Father)
Appa(Tamil-Father)->Papa->Pai(Portuguese-Father)
Papa(Pappa)->Bappa(Marathi-Father)->Bapu->Baba(Chinese-Father)
Thatha(Sanskrit-Father)->Thatha(Telugu-Grand Father)->O Tats(Russian-Father)
Thatha(Telugu-Grand Father)->Dhadha(Hindi-Grand Father)->Dada(Father).
Amba(Sanskrit-Mother)->Amma(Telugu/Tamil-Mother)->Ammi(Arabic-Mother)->Mama(many langs- Mother)->Ma(Hindi-Mother)->Eom Ma(Korean-Mother)
Mathr(Sanskrit-Mother)-Matha(Hindi-Mother)->Madar(Persian-Mother)->Mother(English-Mother)
Sutha(Sanskrit-Son)->Zadha(Persian-Son).
Duhitha(Sanskrit-Daughter)->Daughter(English-Daughter)->Doxtar(Persian-Daughter).
Back tracing method:
In Telugu,
Koduku(Son), Kodelu(Daugher-in-law), Kode laga(Calf), ...etc have the root word Kode. This root word Kode may be related to Kumara(Young one) or Kishora(Adolescent).
Kode(Telugu-Young one)->Kurra(Telugu-Young one)->Kumara(Sanskrit-Young one).
Similarly, the word Nalla(Telugu-Black)->Nila(Sanskrit-Blue/Black).
----
About the Chatur-Varna:
I think one of the first things to realize is that the present Hindu society is not following Chatur Varna system. It is following Jati system. 'Ja' means birth/born in sanskrit. So, the word 'Jati' denotes that it is related to the birth. The word 'Kula' means family in sanskrit. It seems earlier the Kula referred to the family of students of a Guru.
Anyway, as I said I think you are describing the 'Kula' phenomenon. All the disciples of a particular rishi form a Kula. That rishi would be called Kulapati.
Ramayana Link I heard that a 'Kula' is a group of approx. 1000 disciples.
Heard the word 'Guru
kul'? That word is very illuminating. It shows that all the disciples of a guru come under that 'Kul'. I think that is thew origin of 'Kula' grouping.
Also another word, 'Kulaguru'. This word implies that a 'Kula' has a guru. So, the two words 'Gurukul' and 'Kulaguru' show that they are mutually related. Kula is related to Guru (not necessarily a rishi).
Link to original post
The word 'Varna' means color in the sanskrit. It refers to the Gunas. There are 3 Gunas: Sattva(denoted by white), Rajas(denoted by Red) and Tamas(denoted by Blue or Black).
According to Hinduism, the species are divided into 4 categories: Celestial(Deva), Human, Demon(Rakshasa) and animals.
Animals are tamasic;
Humans are Rajasic;
Demons(Rakshasa) are rajas and tamas;
Celestials(Devas) are sattvic.
The above are the dominant gunas in various species. The other 2 gunas also exist. All 3 gunas exist in all beings in prakruti(Nature). Nature itself is made up of these 3 gunas. The world/nature(prakruti) does/will not exist without these gunas or when they are in complete balance. The world/nature(prakruti) comes into existence when there is some imbalance in these 3 gunas. And the existence of all the 3 gunas is also necessary(for the creation to continue).
The 3 gunas are managed by the Trimurtis.
a) Rajas(Creation)-Brahma
b) Sattva(Sustenance)-Vishnu
c) Tamas(Destruction)-Shiva
These Trimurtis maintain the 3 gunas in their respective modes. No guna is allowed to be eliminated(thats why even the Rakshas are not allowed to be eliminated). In Krita Yuga, the Sattva is dominant. In Treta Yuga, a mixture of Sattva and Rajas are dominant. In Dwapara Yuga, mixture of Rajas and Tamas are dominant. In Kali Yuga, Tamas is dominant.
What is sattva, rajas and tamas?
Sattva is 'as it is' i.e. the knowledge of a thing as it is.
Tamas is ignorance of what it is.
Rajas is the misunderstanding or wrong knowledge about a thing.
To give an analogy:
Imagine a plane glass windows of a car. The person outside can clearly see the person inside the car and the person inside the car can clearly see the person outside the car. This is sattva. Clarity, transparency, and hence no confusion.
Imagine a dark glass windows of a car. The person outside cannot see anything about the insides of the car. He does not anything. The insides of the car are concealed. This is tamas. Ignorance and concealment.
Imagine a tinted glass windows of a car. The person outside can see his own reflection on the window, but he cannot see anything about the insides of the car. So, the inside is concealed and new image(reflection) is projected. This is rajas. Rajas acts on the base of tamas. Rajas cannot exist devoid of tamas. Rajas means wrong knowledge and confusion.
Generally,
Sattva means doing a thing the way it needs to be done without attachment(or aversion) and without indolence.
Rajas means passion, avarice, ego, creation.
Tamas means indolence, lazyness, sadism, destruction.
Tamas means materialistic/hedonistic(i.e. related to bodily pleasure).
Rajas means intellectual(i.e. related to mental/emotional pleasure or ego massage).
Sattva means spiritual(i.e. beyond materialistic and intellectual).
Examples of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas in animals:
Cow - Sattva.
Horse - Rajas.
Buffalo - Tamas.
When it is said that the Trimurtis are the managers of the 3 gunas, it means that they control the gunas(it does not mean that the gunas control them). There is a secret here. Tamas means ignorance. Tamas literally means darkness in Sanskrit. This Tamas is the key ingredient in the creation of the world. Without Tamas(ignorance), the world will not exist. The tamas conceals the reality and allows the confusion/illusion(Rajas) to play out. There is no chance of confusion/illusion if the reality is not concealed in the first place. The same one(Shiva) who conceals, also reveals. So, the same Lord Shiva is also the giver of Gyana because just as He can conceal, He can reveal. So, in tradition, Shiva is seen as Gyana dayaka(knowledge giver).
Now, rajas is the dominant aspect in all humans. Among humans, further categorizations are made based on these divisions.
(Don't know whether the following divisions are the same outside India)
Those with Sattva predominance among humans are called Brahmans.
Those with Rajas predominance among humans are called Kshatriyas.
Those with a mixture of Sattva and Rajas predominance are called Vaishyas.
Those with Tamas predominance among humans are called Shudras.
Here, Sattva, Rajas and Tamas means spiritual, mental(or ego) and material. Those seeking spiritual endeavors are called Brahmans. Those seeking mental or ego satisfaction are called Kshatriyas. Those seeking both spiritual and ego satisfaction are called Vaishyas. And those seeking material comforts are called Shudras.
This is the chatur varna system(4 varnas). In BG, Sri Krishna clarifies that the varnas are based on Guna and Karma. Karma means actions. Actions flow from gunas and/or actions can transform the degree of gunas. So, one can perform sattvic karmas and acquire sattvic guna(even if he was not originally sattvic). One can perform tamasic Karmas and acquire tamasic guna(even if he was not originally tamasic). Similarly, if one is sattvic, then such a person is likely to perform(if left on his own) sattvic gunas. But, neither guna nor the karma are permanent attributes. They only denote the present situation of a being.
Infact, they do not even show the present situation. They are indicators of what happened in the past. It is like a report card after having written exams. Imagine that someone has to write exam every week on sunday. The marks for one exam are given one week later i.e. the marks for previous sunday are given today. But, one should not mistake the past sunday's marks for this sunday. That means even if you failed in the last sunday's exam, you can still write today(sunday's) exam very well. Similarly, the present gunas one is born with are the result of the past life. Strictly speaking, it is not even the past life, but accumulated result of many past lives. It is result of past. It is not an indicator of present or future. It is not even an accurate indication of the past. And it is not permanent or unalterable either.
Was the original chatur Varna system based on birth or not?
If the system was based on birth, then it should have listed the various clans/families that belong to the various varnas. As far as I know, there is no ancient Indian scripture that lists out all the the families/clans that belong to various Varnas. This is important point to understand that the system of Varnas are not based ONLY on birth. If birth was the only criteria, then the scriptures would have listed out all the families(sir-names) that belong to different Varnas. The scriptures don't do any such thing. Instead, time and again, the scriptures stress on the qualities/vocations/behaviours of the Varna.
Anyway, the chatur varna system is not followed by Hindus today. The system that is followed by Hindus is the same system that is followed universally: Jati system(system of clans/families). Each clan or family jostling to perpetuate its power(and social stature) and increase it(through nepotism, if need be).
Chatur Varna system, it seems to me, broke down long long ago. I think, towards the end of Dwapara Yuga varna system was gone. Gradually, the chatur varna system turned into a jati-kula system.
In MB(Mahabharata), Bhishma explains the Jati-Kula system of that time. There are about
Anushasanika Parva
SECTION 48
"Yudhishthira said, 'Through inducements offered by wealth, or through mere lust, or through ignorance of the true order of birth (of both males and females), or through folly, intermixture happens of the several order. What, O grandsire, are the duties of persons that are born in the mixed classes and what are the acts laid down for them? You please discourse to me on this!'
"Bhishma said, 'In the beginning, the Lord of all creatures created the four orders and laid down their respective acts or duties, for the sake of sacrifice. 1 The Brahmana may take four wives, one from each of the four orders. In two of them (viz., the wife taken from his own order and that taken from the one next below), he takes birth himself (the children begotten upon them being regarded as invested with the same status as his own). Those sons, however, that are begotten by him on the two spouses that belong to the next two orders (viz., Vaishya and Shudra), are inferior, their status being determined not by that of their father but by that of their mothers. The son that is begotten by a Brahmana upon a Shudra wife is called Parashara, implying one born of a corpse, for the Shudra woman's body is as inauspicious as a corpse. He should serve the persons of his (father's) family (lineage). Indeed, it is not proper for him to give up the duty of service that has been laid down for him. Adopting all means in his power, he should uphold the burden of his family. Even if he happens to be elder in age, he should still dutifully serve the other children of his father who may be younger to him in years, and bestow upon them whatever he may succeed in earning. A Kshatriya may take three wives. In two of them (viz., the one taken from his own order and the other that is taken from the order immediately below), he takes birth himself (so that those children are invested with the status of his own order). His third wife being of the Shudra order is regarded as very inferior. The son that he begets upon her comes to be called as an Ugra. The Vaishya may take two spouses. In both of them (viz., the one taken from his own order, and the other from the lowest of the four pure orders), he takes birth himself (so that those children become invested with the status of his own order). The Shudra can take only one wife, viz., she that is taken from his own order. The son begotten by him upon her becomes a Shudra. A son that takes birth under circumstances other than those mentioned above, comes to be looked upon as a very inferior one If a person of a lower order begets a son upon a woman of a superior order, such a son is regarded as outside the pale of the four pure orders. Indeed, such a son becomes on object of censure with the four principal orders. If a Kshatriya begets a son upon a Brahmana woman, such a son, without being included in any of the four pure orders, comes to be regarded as a Suta The duties of a Suta are all connected with the reciting of eulogies and encomiums of Kings and other great men. The son begotten by a Vaishya upon a woman of the Brahmana order comes to be regarded as a Vaidehaka.
The duties assigned to him are the charge of bars and bolts for protecting the privacy of women of respectable households. Such sons have no cleansing rites laid down for them. 2 If a Shudra unites with a woman belonging to the foremost of the four orders, the son that is begotten is called a Chandala.
Endued with a fierce disposition, he must live in the outskirts of cities and towns and the duty assigned to him is that of the public executioner. Such sons are always regarded as wretches of their family (lineage). These, O foremost of intelligent persons, are the offspring of intermixed orders. The son begotten by a Vaishya upon a Kshatriya woman becomes a
Vandi or Magadha. The duties assigned to him are eloquent recitations of praise. The son begotten through transgression, by a Shudra upon a Kshatriya women, becomes a
Nishada and the duties assigned to him have reference to the catching of fish. If a Shudra happens to have intercourse with a Vaishya woman, the son begotten upon her comes to be called
Ayogava. The duty assigned to such a person are those of a
Takshan (carpenter). They that are Brahmanas should never accept gifts from such a person. They are not entitled to possess any kind of wealth. Persons belonging to the mixed castes beget upon spouses taken from their own castes children invested with the status that is their own. When they beget children in women taken from castes that are inferior to theirs, such children become inferior to their fathers, for they become invested with the status that belongs to their mothers Thus as regards the four pure orders, persons beget children invested with their own status upon spouses taken from their own orders as also upon them that are taken from the orders immediately below their own. When, however, offspring are begotten upon other spouses, they come to be regarded as invested with a status that is, principally, outside the pale of the four pure orders. When such children beget sons in women taken from their own classes, those sons take the status of their sires.
It is only when they take spouse from castes other than their own, that the children they beget become invested with inferior status. As an example of this it may be said that a Shudra begets upon a woman belonging to the most superior order a son that is outside the pale of the four orders (for such a son comes to be regarded as a
Chandala who is much inferior). The son that is outside the pale of the four orders by uniting with women belonging to the four principal orders, begets offspring that are further degraded in point of status. From those outside the pale of the four orders and those again that are further outside that pale, children multiply in consequence of the union of persons with women of classes superior to their own. In this way, from persons of inferior status classes spring up, altogether fifteen in number, that are equally low or still lower in status. It is only from sexual union of women with persons who should not have such union with them that mixed classes spring up. Among the classes that are thus outside the pale of the four principal or pure orders, children are begotten upon women belonging to the class called
Sairindhri by men of the class called
Magadha. The occupation of such offspring is the adornment of the bodies of kinds and others. They are well-acquainted with the preparation of unguents, the making of wreaths, and the manufacture of articles used for the decoration of the person. Though free by the status that attaches to them by birth, they should yet lead a life of service. From the union of Magadhas of a certain class with women of the caste called Sairindhri, there springs up another caste called Ayogava. Their occupation consists in the making of nets (for catching fish and fowl and animals of the chase). Vaidehas, by uniting themselves with women of the Sairindhri caste, beget children called Maireyakas whose occupation consists in the manufacture of wines and spirits. From the Nishadas spring a caste called
Madgura and another known by the name of
Dasas whose occupation consists in plying boats. From the Chandala springs a family (lineage) called
Swapaka whose occupation consists in keeping guard over the dead. The women of the Magadhi caste, by union with these four castes of wicked dispositions produce four others who live by practising deceit. These are
Mansa, Swadukara, Kshaudra, and Saugandha. From the Vaideha springs up a cruel and sinful caste that lives by practising deception. From the Nishadas again springs up the Madranabha caste whose members are seen to ride on cars (chariots) drawn by asses. From the Chandalas springs up the caste called Pukkasa whose members are seen to eat the flesh of asses, horses and elephants. These cover themselves with the garments obtained by stripping human corpses. They are again seen to eat from broken earthenware 1. These three castes of very low status are born of women of the Ayogava caste (by fathers taken from different castes). The caste called Kshudra springs from the Vaidehaka. The caste called
Andhra 
which takes up its residence in the outskirts of towns and cities, also springs up (from the Vaidehakas). Then again the Charmakara, uniting himself with a woman of Nishada caste, begets the class called Karavara. From the Chandala again springs up the caste known by the name of Pandusaupaka whose occupation consists in making baskets and other things with cleft bamboos. From the union of the Nishada with a woman of the Vaidehi caste springs one who is called by the name of Ahindaka. The Chandala begets upon a Saupaka woman, a son that does not differ from the Chandala in status or occupation. A Nishada woman, by union with a Chandala, brings forth a son who lives in the outskirts of villages and towns. Indeed, the members of such a caste live in crematoria and are regarded by the very lowest orders as incapable of being numbered among them. Thus to these mixed castes spring up from improper and sinful union of fathers and mothers belonging to different castes. Whether they live in concealment or openly, they should be known by their occupations.
The duties have been laid down in the scriptures for only the four principal orders. As regards the others the scriptures are entirely silent. Among all the orders, the members of those castes that have no duties assigned to them by the scriptures, need have no fears as to what they do (to earn their livelihood). Persons unaccustomed to the performance or for whom sacrifices have not been laid down, and who are deprived of the company and the instructions of the righteous whether numbered among the four principal orders or out of their pale, by uniting themselves with women of other castes, led not by considerations of righteousness but by uncontrolled lust, cause numerous mixed castes to come into existence whose occupations and abodes depend on the circumstances connected with the irregular unions to which they owe their origin. Having recourse to spots where four roads meet, or crematoria, or hills and mountains, or forests and trees, they build their habitations there. The ornaments they wear are made of iron. Living in such places openly, they betake themselves to their own occupations to earn their livelihood. They may be seen to live in this way, adorning their persons with ornaments and employed in the task of manufacturing diverse kinds of domestic and other utensils.
Without doubt, by assisting kine and Brahmanas, and practising the virtues of abstention from cruelty, compassion, truthfulness of speech, and forgiveness, and, if need be, by preserving others by laying down their very lives, persons of the mixed castes may achieve success. I have no doubt, O chief of men, that these virtues become the causes of their success. He that is possessed of intelligence, should, taking everything into consideration, beget offspring according to the ordinances of the scriptures, upon woman that have been declared proper or fit for him. A son begotten upon a women belonging to a degraded caste, instead of rescuing the sire, brings him to grief even as a heavy weight brings to grief a swimmer desirous of crossing water. Whether a man happens to be possessed of learning or not, lust and wrath are natural attributes of humanity in this world. Women, therefore, may always be seen to drag men into the wrong path. This natural disposition of women is such that man's contact with her is productive of misery to him. Hence, men possessed of wisdom do not suffer themselves to be excessively attached to women.'
"Yudhishthira said, 'There are men who belong to the mixed castes, and who are of very impure birth.
Though presenting the features of respectability, they are in reality disrespectable. In consequence of these external aspects we may not be able to know the truth about their birth. Are there any signs, O grandsire, by which the truth may be known about the origin of such men?"
Footnotes 31:1 i.e., each order was created for performing sacrifices. The Shudra is competent to perform sacrifice.
Only his sacrifice should be by serving the three other orders.
31:2 For them there is no investiture with the sacred-thread.
33:1 Broken earthenpots are always cast off. They are some times utilised by persons of the lower orders.
Based on K M Ganguly's Translation. I made some changes(like replacing the old english with new english).
According to Bhishma,
Brahmin(man):
a) Brahmin (woman) -> Brahmin (Pure)
b) Kshatriya (woman) -> Brahmin (Pure)
c) Vaishya (woman) -> (Impure)
d) Shudra (woman) -> Parashara (Impure)
Kshatriya (man):
a) Kshatriya(woman) -> Kshatriya (Pure)
b) Vaishya (woman) -> Kshatriya (Pure)
c) Shudra (woman) -> Ugra (Impure)
d) Brahmin (woman) -> Suta (singing eulogies of Kings)
Vaishya (man):
a) Vaishya (woman) -> Vaishya (Pure)
b) Shudra (woman) -> Vaishya (Pure)
c) Brahmin (woman) -> Vaidehaka (nuts and bolts)
d) Kshatriya (woman) -> Vandhi or Magadha (Praising others)
Shudra (man):
a) Shudra (woman) -> Shudra (Pure)
b) Brahmin (woman) -> Chandala (Public Excutioner and lives on outskirts of towns and villages)
c) Kshatriya (woman) -> Nishada(hunting fish)
d) Vaishya (woman) -> Ayogava (carpenter)
Bhishma describes about 20 Kulas-Jatis based on birth only. He declares that the scriptures have no duties laid on the all other Jatis except the 4 Varnas(here Varnas are identical with Jatis). So, the rest of the people can do whatever they want, no restrictions on them, according to Bhishma.
So, by the time of Bhishma himself, the chatur varna system was replaced with a Jati-Kula system derived from Varnas. In modern times, it is being assumed that Shudra refers to all those who are not Brahmins, Kshatriyas or Vaishyas. But, that does not seem to be the view of the Bhishma. Just as Bhishma has given the list of various Jatis and their birth, the scriptures should have listed which jatis belong to which varnas. This is not done at all. So, Varna was not based on birth earlier. Later, a jati system was developed out of the 4 Varnas(towards the end of Dwapara Yuga i.e. approx 5000 yrs ago). The newer Jatis were kept out of the 4 Varnas. After the MB war, the varnas were complete gone and replaced only with jatis.
At the start of Mahabharatha war, Arjuna does not want to fight the war. Primarily, he gives two reasons for his disinclination to fight:
a) He does not want to kill his own kith and kin.
b) He fears that this war would completely shatter the varna system because all the males would die. And it would lead to unrestrained intermingling of the varnas.
It is of note that Lord Krishna does not refute this fear. He does not say that this fear is unfounded or that it will not happen. So, there is every chance that Arjuna's assessment may have come true, particularly because the entire 18 Akshauhini army is reported as annihilated i.e. the soldiers and warriors on both sides died except a few handful of individuals. And remember that all the Kshatriyas of the world participated in the Mahabharatha war except two: Rukmini's brother(Rukmi) and Arjuna's son(Chirtrangadha). After such slaughter, the society would be plunged into upheaval. So, if the the last vestiges of Varna system broke down after Mahabharatha war, it must have been replaced by the Kula/jaathi system. So, even this Jati-system completely broke down and ended up creating several Jatis.
This Jati-Kula system was continued in the aftermath of MB. It became more rigid during Buddhist period. It seems to me that Kula/jaathi is strictly birth based. Further, unlike the Varnas, it is difficult to say whether the Kula/jaathi allowed mixed marriages and if it did what the rules were. It seems to me that the rules were arbitrary and changed according to whims and fancies of the people involved. Sometimes, mixed marriages were not allowed and sometimes allowed. Sometimes, the children of these mixed marriages were deemed to belong to mother's Kula/jaathi and sometimes to father's Kula/jaathi. It seems that, of late, increasingly, the child is considered to belong to the Kula/jaathi of the father. The modern Indian law follows this principle. The child's caste is inherited from the caste of the father.
Within MB, there are indications that the Varna-Jati system was already close to collapse. For example, in Mb, there is repeatedly a story of Prahladdha's son Virochana who competes with a Brahmin Sudhanwan for a bride. Prahladdha accepts that the Virochana is at fault for competing with Sudhanwan and that Sudhanwan had the first right to marry the bride. This story is told to teach a moral that the Brahmin has the first right. Yet, we witness that in MB itself, during Draupadhi swayamvara, Arjuna, who is in the guise of Brahmin, is attacked by the Kshatriyas(Kings). So, the varna system was more or less gone and replaced by the Jati system derived from the Varna system based on birth and only birth. There was no question of Karma or Guna or anything else.
Actually, it seems like in MB period the rigidization of the castes(Jatis) had happened with strict and discriminatory rules. Yet, there also seems to be hypocrisy and nepotism(typical symptoms of Jati-clan system). For example, Ekalavya, the Nishada prince is rejected by Dhrona. Yet, there is a story about Nala, the Nishada king, who is gloriously described. Even in Ramayana, Sita amma compares Her relationship with Sri Rama to that of Nala and Damayanti. But, Nala is a Nishada King! In Ramayana, Sri Rama moves quite freely with Guha. Of course, Sri Rama does kill Shambuka(a shudra).
Even the Jati System that Bhishma described is not followed in the MB. Dhrona becomes the ruler of north Panchala(which he obtained after Arjuna defeated Drupada). He also fought in the war. Karna of Suta caste becomes the King of Anga and Vanga. He also fights in the war. Basically, the rules are bent or abandoned when there is need. But, theory is propounded quite strictly. Infact it seems to me that the rules were completely flouted because the rules were strict. It seems as if the rules were only good for theory, not practice.
After the MB war even this semblance of the Varna system was gone and replaced completely with the Jati system only. There are no rules for Jati system in the scriptures. A jati is free to follow whatever they want to do, because the Varna is not identifiable. So, different jatis claimed to belong to different jatis. Newer jatis were formed from time to time. And older jatis merged into some others. This is the evolution of Jatis. The stature of Jatis is based on the social circumstances and not on scriptures.
The present day castes are based on Kula/Jaathi. Kula/jaathi is equivalent to a clan/tribe. They should not be confused with varna.
The transformation in Kula/jaathi, in the history, is very difficult to track. Newer Kula/jathi are also born from time to time. The above study breaks up the data in terms of kula/jaathi and yet it talks about 'ancient India'(when supposedly, Varna system was followed). The present day Kula/jaathis are not the same as ancient ones. Many newer Kula/jaathis have sprung up. The relationship between different Kula/jaathi has also been constantly evolving and continues to evolve. Since, the scriptures don't layout any particular rules for interaction between Kula/jaathi, the rules of engagement have been based on convenience, power equations, social status and such arbitrary variables. As the variables vary, the relationships have also varied. Scriptures only layout rules for the interaction of only 4 varnas and not various Kulas/jaathis. The various Kulas/jathis are free to act in whatever manner they want to.
Which kula/jaathi belonged to which Varna in which period is not an easy question to answer. One would have to take the claims of that particular kula/jaathi at face value unless they are opposed by the claims of another kula/jaathi(even then there is no sure-shot way to resolve the issue one way or the other). This is particularly important because the scriptures do not enunciate which kula/jaathi belongs to which Varna. History can only tell us whether a particular kula/jaathi belonged to a particular varna in particular period or not. It cannot inform us about the origin of the kula/jaathi unless that Kula/jaathi was born in recent history.
Even in Adi Shankara time, it was not Varna, but Jati that was prevalent with all the associated discriminations. It is seen in the Chandala episode. Even in Shivoham song, Adi Shankara mentions Jati-bedha, but does not mention Varna. It is interesting that Adi Shankara mentions not just Jati, but Jati-bedha(division among Jatis or discrimination among Jatis). Essential point being that Jatis by nature, tend to be discriminatory and nepotistic.
Kula/jaathi have been rigidly endagamous in the past 1000 years. Yet, this has also been the time of explosion in the total number of Kula/jaathi. Many new Kula/jaathi have been born during this period.
The conclusion is that the Varna system was gone long long ago. What we have today is Jati system that is constantly changing based on social factors. It is not possible to revive the varna system because it is not possible to determine the gunas of the people. Any determination of gunas has to be based on their vocation or present social situation. Essentially, any attempts to recreate the Varna system will lead to strengthening of the existing Jathi system or creation of new Jathi system.
---
Carl wrote:shaardula wrote:ravi, i dont know, there may be something to what vidyaranya had to say? perhaps we can build on that? he actually faced conditions that were fairly similar to ours. he had to build a coalition of all sorts of theorists. he went about his task without any appeal to "integral unity".
may be a purely empirical existential argument is possible? i dont know, i have not much to say.
shaardula, you would also recall that Vidyaranya did debate and accept the philosophy expounded by the Dvaita exponent Jayatirtha, though he maintained his affiliation with Advaita. Moreover, another such debate was adjudicated in favour of Dvaita by the great Vishishtadvaitin Vedantadeshika, even though Dvaita is also scathingly critical of some practices of Vishishtadvaita. Thus, we can see that the 3 main schools have their differences, yet their exalted exponents could see eye to eye and even admire one another.
So there's no need to fall into the trap of saying that Hindu philosophy is incoherent and self-negating. Rather, the 3 philosophies are orthogonal to one another, but they help set the co-ordinates for a more rounded understanding of reality.
Link to Original Post
The Madhva Dvaitas claim that one Akshobhaya Tirtha(not Jayatirtha) defeated Vidyaranya.
It has been claimed that Sri Vidyaranya was defeated in a debate by one Madhwa Yati Akshobhya Tirtha. The books published from Madhwa mutts also describe that this debate was conducted in the presence of Sri Vedanta Deshika, a follower of Sri Ramanuja. It is claimed that the debate was regarding the Mahavakya 'Tattvamasi' and that Sri Vedanta Deshika declared Akshobhya Tirtha as the winner. Madhwacharya explains this Mahavakya as 'a-tattvamasi' whereas Srimadacharya Shankara and Sri Ramanuja explain the same as 'Tattvamasi'. Assuming that Sri Vedanta Deshika, a great scholar and an ardent devotee of Sri Ramanuja, would accept views opposing those of his own Guru is foolish. Sri Vidyaranya, the architect of Hindu Samrajya in south India preached unity among Hindus and was instrumental in resisting Muslim invasions. In those times, when the Indian culture was being torn apart by Muslims, would Sri Vidyaranya spend time in dry debates abusing other paths and views? The truth in this imaginary story is thus clear.
Link
Vidyaranya is the most important and famous Guru after Adi Shankara in Advaita tradition. If Vidyaranya had actually accepted the defeat and acknowledged the superiority of Dvaita stand on thathvam asi Mahavakya, that would be mortal blow to Advaita Tradition. So, if such a thing happened then it would be the single most powerful weapon in the hands of all opponents of Advaita. Vidyaranya actually wrote, commentaries on Vedas itself.
If any person defeated such a celebrated scholar in a debate, then such a person would become hugely famous. But, no one knows about this Akshobhaya Tirtha. Even Carl ji, got his name wrong. On the other hand, Vidyaranya is famous by his acts(like establishing Vijayanagara through Hukka and Bukka) and penning many scholarly works. So, this is simply a dubious sectarian claim and nothing more.
----
brihaspati wrote:"sarva dharman parityajya mamekam smaranam vraja"
Hindu-Indic-Bharatyia, and even "dharmik", are approximations, attempts to interface with something that goes even beyond those approximations. Hence the "neti-neti" approach proved so attractive. This "beyond every categorization" something is more easily approached by trying to grasp as to what it is not, rather than what it is.
Hence we find repeatedly being forced to define ourselves by what we are not, how we are different from those who are "different", and why it is so difficult to put us into neat little boxes. This has been our greatest weakness on practical terms because it seemingly makes our base intangible, and therefore not a concrete basis for action.
However this is what is also our greatest strength, because anyone who does not understand the quoted line at the top of this post, is never able to model the reservoirs of strength and retribution that we may have in reserve.
I think we have had enough of hair-splitting. I am not a theist, never a deist, and not even sure of my advaita. But the earliest words I remember uttering before even I learned anything about Sanskrit, or evne the meaning of the words I was uttering was this (and another was "dharma sams..."). In my childhood I was shielded from any of this literature because of predictions still kept from me, so I could not have heard it. I must have remembered it from another lifetime. I did not hear these lines in myself for a long time. Recently I have heard the words again inside me. I sense, that these words hold a clue to the future. All else should be left behind - all the labels, boxes, epithets, classifications, dresses, adjectives, names, others gave to us, and we gave to ourselves - out of fear, out of compromise, out of desire for peace, or shame, or profit, or pride, or envy, or greed, and revisit every such item we carry as baggage. We revisit because we want to and not because others mock us, want us to, or threaten us not to.
The intensity of quest for that very old, and very new - path, and what lies beyond should be the cleansing our society needs, in which any accumulated dirt and old clothes "vsamasi jeernani" are swept away. In all the above discussions, I pateinetly and eagerly waited for that joy. But there is no sense of this joy in our posts, the joy of a waiting rebirth - of new life force and spirit, that which does not hold on to the jeerna vaasa for dear life out of shame. Joy, "ananda" is the key to what we are, what we have been, and the core word of our spiritualism as well as values. We are looking for a cut and dry constitution, a samvidhana of spirit?!!! We are fighting over labels?
I don't know what lies beyond, but it beckons. A renewed search and quest, that even is not confined to the terms of "dharma", is what is hinted at when even all "dharman" is asked to be "parityajya". I would urge people, those who can, go out in groups - take a chance - and sing "hari haraye... " in public. If possible. Let streams and rivulets start. Let it start raining. Let it become a flood.
Link to original post
Bji, I fully support your hari-sankeerthana decision. But, one nit-pick:
"sarva dharman parityajya mamekam smaranam vraja"
It is not 'smaranam', but 'sharanam'. This is shloka comes in the 18th(final) chapter of BG. In the final chapter, Sri Krishna is concluding His teachings by summarizing all the various paths He has taught so far. He gives a short gist of each path. This particular verse comes when He is giving the final remarks on path of Bhakti. In the path of Bhakti, Sri Krishna says that those who surrender to Him, need not worry about anything else. It does not mean that they don't have to follow Dharmas. Here the word Dharma means, other occupations. He is saying, "forget everthing else, and surrender to Me."
Does that mean, one can surrender to Him and do Adharmas? Here surrender(Sharanagati) is a very exalted state of mind, where a person is not cognizant(or interested) in anything other than Bhagawan. In such a state, one is in almost a Samadhi. For such person, definitely, there is nothing to be done. Even if they miss, some Dharmas, it is alright. But, those who are not in such state cannot use 'sharanagati' to forego Dharmas.
---
brihaspati wrote:Is "his creation" (maya srastam) of "catur varna" part of "dharma"? or outside of "dharma"? is his "creation" part of himself or outside himself? Decide carefully - for in the end he asks you to abandon/reject "sarvan dharman" and only remember/take recourse to him. Either way - quoting BG to defend such theses could be fatal.
Link to original post
Bji,
this is a complicated and delicate point. I'll post briefly on this, because this post is already too long. Briefly: Brahman(Purusha) does not do anything. It is Maya(Prakruti) that creates, sustains, destroys, binds and liberates. But, Maya(Prakruti) is inert without Brahman. Maya(Prakruti) is the ahamkara(the sense of 'I') of Brahman. When, the Brahman says 'I', the Maya(Prakruti) is born. Otherwise, it is latent within the Brahman. Truly, Maya is illusory. It appears to exist, but does not exist. Brahman alone exists. It does not act.
Link to a post that is related to Purusha-Prakruti
---
About Brahma - Saraswati:
In Bhagavatam(I am not able find the link right now), Brahma looks at Saraswati as wife. But, Saraswati is born from the thought of Brahma. So, other Rishis do not appreciate this behaviour. So, Brahma commits suicide. And takes up new body. Since the body from which Saraswati is born is dead and a new body is acquired, the relationship is not wrong now. Also, incest with daughter(or daughter like relative) becomes punishable by death. Sri Rama enforces this on Vali.
