Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

[Agnimitra]

may be true but it can't be fit into reductionist objective frame work and hence hard to explain to an average mini Macaulay of today's India.

I think you're being needlessly whiny in the face of the imagined "abrahamic" or "mini-macaulayite". The processes have objectively measurable end phenomena. This is key.

Key lies in what you say " proper educational processes of self-knowledge" but then it is self knowledge, can't be imparted from outside or by some state owned agency in the absence of self initiative and vicious cycle continues .

That applies to any kind of education. Religion brainwashed families may shudder at the thought of sending their children to "secular" schools also, lest they start believing in heresies like Darwinian evolution, etc.

The need for a social/institutional system for delivering processing is there. Acharyas like Madhva are explicit about this. This is because there is, both, a personal and impersonal aspect to the Method. The institutional facility is the latter.

The important thing is accountability. Transparency in assigning responsibility, including personal responsibility and initiative taken by the candidate, and measurable end phenomena, must be made plain. It is a contractual obligation, but it is different from normal material contracts and responsibilities. No doubt, subjective factors play a big part here.

[Sushupti]

What about the carry over from previous life?. If only Physical body gets destroyed at the time of death while subtle and casual bodies remain intact deciding the surroundings for the next physical body above can't be true. And this is the main argument of missionaries i.e. as long as you believe in the reincarnation how can you do away with caste system?. Therefore, if one believes in what Gita says about the birth less eternal "Aatma" taking many bodies then caste system is inevitable from Christian/Abrahamic point of view.

It is psycho-physical, so the sookshma-sharIra is included in that "janmanA" of the first line. However, that does not inextricably tie varNa to janma at all. The "Abrahamic point of view" is trying to oversimplify the issue, and that's probably what misguided Indics historically did, too. The second line of that verse is about "samskAra", about psycho-spiritual processes. In the absence of these processes, there will probably be a hardening of the link between janma and the manifestation of "acquired guNa" and vocation, and this can be seen in any society (not just Indic). Problem was that in India people encased this natural tendency in perverted shastric armour. But with the application of proper educational processes of self-knowledge, the game changes completely.

Even such a thing as universal material education is a process that has changed things drastically in many societies, including modern India. The full spectrum of holistic education processes would go a lot deeper in its cause and effects.

Sorry, i don't want to divert the thread but to my understanding "sookshma-sharIra" and "Karana-Sharira" neither take birth nor die. Specially "sookshma-sharIra", it just evolves over many births. Are you saying that journey from Shudratva to Brahmantva happens over many births, or each time physical body is gained a new "sookshma-sharIra" is gained as well?. Just a dumb question if you don't mind answering it.

[Agnimitra]

Sorry, i don't want to divert the thread but to my understanding "sookshma-sharIra" and "Karana-Sharira" neither take birth nor die. Specially "sookshma-sharIra", it just evolves over many births. Are you saying that journey from Shudratva to Brahmantva happens over many births, or each time physical body is gained a new "sookshma-sharIra" is gained as well?. Just a dumb question if you don't mind answering it.

Yes I agree that the sookshma-sharIra only undergoes transformations, and does not just disappear. Just like the material aspect (body), the material and energy itself don't disappear, they just transform, such as from a human form going back to 'dust', prana going back to the universal prana, etc.

The sookshma carries over from one birth of the sthoola-sharIra to another. Under a material hierarchy of precedence, its transformations are limited by the births and deaths of the sthoola. So, according to this theory, what happens subliminally between one such sthoola 'death' and 'birth' is an important factor in the gradual evolution of the sookshma. However, can that window be brought within the consciousness of the human being during his or her earthly life itself, so that it can be consciously reprogrammed? According to adhidaivika and adhyatmika laws, it can, by changing the frames of reference.

You say the sookshma-sharIra "evolves over many births". By 'birth', do you restrict the meaning the lifetime of the physical form only? Can't one overload the term 'birth' at a sookshma level of operation, too? That is necessary if one wishes to perform sadhana on that level, rather than just physical repetitions of some 'process'. If that can be done, then the sookshma-sharIra and other koshas be transformed - this process being nested within the current iteration of the physical form itself. That's my understanding.

Without this change of reference frame and genuine sookshma process, the qualities manifested by people are "passively acquired guNas". This is a pseudo-varNa. Real varNa manifests at kArana-sharIra level, IMHO.

[Sushupti]

You say the sookshma-sharIra "evolves over many births". By 'birth', do you restrict the meaning the lifetime of the physical form only? Can't one overload the term 'birth' at a sookshma level of operation, too?

Over many births i mean many births of Sthoola Sharira. Regarding second sentence, i would say this(as devil's advocate or a purva paksha of missionary position on Hinduism): Suppose ones sookshma sharira is full of "Shoodra" impressions when it is about to manifest as "sthoola" sharira, so how you think this about to be manifested "sthoola sharira" will be fit to play the role of a brahamin?. Let me repeat again, this is the main allegation against the philosophy of eternal, birthless Aatma of Gita by missionaries. I am yet to come across any satisfactory answer to this allegation which can satisfy an objective and rational mind.

[Agnimitra]

Regarding second sentence, i would say this(as devil's advocate or a purva paksha of missionary position on Hinduism): Suppose ones sookshma sharira is full of "Shoodra" impressions when it is about to manifest as "sthoola" sharira, so how you think this about to be manifested "sthoola sharira" will be fit to play the role of a brahamin?. Let me repeat again, this is the main allegation against the philosophy of eternal, birthless Aatma of Gita by missionaries. I am yet to come across any satisfactory answer to this allegation which can satisfy an objective and rational mind.

An impression by itself is varNa-neutral. The impressions themselves are all made by the same substance - pain and unconsciousness. They just assume different shapes and become associated with different external environmental restimulators.

The difference between context and contents is relevant here. The context of consciousness informs the contents, rather than the other way round. This is the proper perspective that should answer that question.

The idea is to find a universal solvent for one's impressions. Different modes of consciousness/Dharma (which forms the context of thought and action) can be used to dissolve and work out different impressions. For example, a piece of sodium put into water will cause a reaction where the sodium melts with some fire and fizzle. Same sodium lump in kerosene context will appear healthy, fit to be observed and stored.

The question is, what is one's own purpose with the sodium lump. If it is to finish it off, then the water reaction may be more appropriate even though it may not be preservative on a material level.

śreyān sva-dharmo viguṇaḥ
para-dharmāt sv-anuṣṭhitāt
svabhāva-niyataḿ karma
kurvan nāpnoti kilbiṣam

"It is better to engage in one's own Dharma, even though one may perform it "imperfectly", than to accept another's Dharma and perform it "perfectly". Duties prescribed according to one's nature are never affected by sinful reactions." - Bhagavad Gita 18:47

So the discovery of one's own Dharma is important here. In the absence of that, the mind mocks up a false self that acquires the dharma of those one is taught to identify with or admire. that mock-up self may present its inner impressions to the world "perfectly", but it is spiritually less desirable that one's true self working out those impressions, howsoever "imperfect" it may appear from a worldly perspective. Eventually it all works out to smooth perfection. Only the cleansing phase can be a rocky journey.

Finding that true purpose is the beginning of the manifestation of one's native varNa, which comes shining through. This model also explains all the ideas of "sin", which go back to this understanding of the guNas (sattva, rajas, tamas) as contents versus context. Madhva explains that no amount of "rebirth" OR of "original sin" ideas can explain a person's karmic tendencies or trajectory. Only the existence of those same guNas in the spiritual world can explain it.

[brihaspati]

Model :
Atman is neutral but a repository of all experiences in a form that is beyond the normal five senses. Thus when this repository is accessed in human physical form - it has to be translated into images or sensory inputs that is interpretable by the conscious brain.

At physical birth atman sends out filaments from itself into physical body - and as such it retains parts of the general cumulative experiences from the repository, as well as specifics that may concern more an individual in a past manifestation.

In order to survive cosmic catastrophes, the repository had evolved to be non-interacting with all the basic physical forces/interactions. If you do not have mass, gravity cannot do anything. No charge, electricity cannot do anything. Etc.

If the repository is completely non-interacting it is not able to check whether it exists or not - only by interacting, by adding to the repository, by changing it - one can become aware that it is still "there". Thus the repository has evolved also to continuously generate new experiences. Since the repository itself is interaction neutral, one mechanism is to interface through a living body, from which sensory inputs can be converted into a form fit for the repository.

Sometimes this filamental connection to the repository can be activated while the body is still alive leading to visions and imagery of things happening at a distance or separated in time, or communications. [the feeling that you "suddenly know" in an instant, say that your dad has passed away or is passing away - a thing you could not have predicted, and not anticipated, and no physical or material means of communication at the level of simultaneity observed].

When the body dies, [or the filament and repository decides that a fresh body is needed to continue the process or complete the experience gathering thread started by this particular body but needs more time] the filament withdraws with its coded experiences back into the repository.

Thus it is more the curiosity and the desire of the part of the filament and the repository attached to the physical body which will determine how far the experiment will be continued.

The independent karma based theory is flawed, in that it will be necessarily dvaita -where an independent system or entity has to exist as the record keeper as well as the judge and an independent set of values by which actions in one life in one historical period can be compared in value - a consistent utility theory of karma based on timelessness version or time/society adjusted "prices" and reward/penalty.

This would then by an application of Godel's incompleteness result presuppose existence of unprovable axioms that determine arbitrary value-systems - that is "a" "God".

[Agnimitra]

The independent karma based theory is flawed, in that it will be necessarily dvaita -where an independent system or entity has to exist as the record keeper as well as the judge and an independent set of values by which actions in one life in one historical period can be compared in value - a consistent utility theory of karma based on timelessness version or time/society adjusted "prices" and reward/penalty.

This would then by an application of Godel's incompleteness result presuppose existence of unprovable axioms that determine arbitrary value-systems - that is "a" "God".

B ji, by "dvaita" I take it you mean it in its normal sense of atyanta-bhinnam (extreme difference), rather than to Madhva's particular school of Vedanta. Because Madhva has explicitly stated what you did above. As I mentioned, he explicitly trashes the theory of Karma as an explanation for theodicy. He considers it only a model of time and movement, and decisively says that the karmic trajectory is a perverted reflection that has its reality in the existence of those very modes within the spiritual world, with which the individual is at one (not in a numeric sense). But God does exist and encompasses what can be known as well as what cannot be.

[Prem]

Worth listning , its all about Prem
[youtube]__tncpNDWXU&feature=related[/youtube]

[brihaspati]

The independent karma based theory is flawed, in that it will be necessarily dvaita -where an independent system or entity has to exist as the record keeper as well as the judge and an independent set of values by which actions in one life in one historical period can be compared in value - a consistent utility theory of karma based on timelessness version or time/society adjusted "prices" and reward/penalty.

This would then by an application of Godel's incompleteness result presuppose existence of unprovable axioms that determine arbitrary value-systems - that is "a" "God".

B ji, by "dvaita" I take it you mean it in its normal sense of atyanta-bhinnam (extreme difference), rather than to Madhva's particular school of Vedanta. Because Madhva has explicitly stated what you did above. As I mentioned, he explicitly trashes the theory of Karma as an explanation for theodicy. He considers it only a model of time and movement, and decisively says that the karmic trajectory is a perverted reflection that has its reality in the existence of those very modes within the spiritual world, with which the individual is at one (not in a numeric sense). But God does exist and encompasses what can be known as well as what cannot be.

yes atyanta-bhinnam. It will become necessary to have a kind of comparator scale that works across different social states over historical time periods. How will you judge what was evil in one period and which might not remain evil in another period - etc. Which necessitates an entity which is atyanta bhinna from that which it judges.

It is the existence of "God" bit that I want to keep as something that is neither accepted nor rejected. Just to make sure that we are not falling into the trap of our own modelling of the non-self as a conscousness merely because it appears to be overwhelmingly "rational" [the system tries to optimize some value/function - from the physics and quantum mechanics level to massive collection of apparently independent human agents called societies or large scale geological processes] and seems to be responding to our individual actions. Actually the system might simply be seeking its physical optimum as we as individuals change the collective scenario.

Let us not make "God" a permanently solved question, rather leave it open - neither accepting nor rejecting the possibility. Our imagination or others imaginations and interested tactical calculations may desperately need to establish what they think or need to be shown as "God" - and in that case we will be stuck with a falsity of our own creation.

At the same time rejecting the possible existence of a "God" who is nothing like what has been claimed so far - should not be ruled out either.

The yatri must never stop in his quest for the truth, even if that truth is relative and changing.

[Agnimitra]

Let us not make "God" a permanently solved question, rather leave it open - neither accepting nor rejecting the possibility. Our imagination or others imaginations and interested tactical calculations may desperately need to establish what they think or need to be shown as "God" - and in that case we will be stuck with a falsity of our own creation.

At the same time rejecting the possible existence of a "God" who is nothing like what has been claimed so far - should not be ruled out either.

The yatri must never stop in his quest for the truth, even if that truth is relative and changing.

I agree completely, and to be clear so does Madhva's Tattvavada (Dvaita) religion. One can either take an agnostic position on the term 'God', or alternatively one can say that 'God' encompasses what one knows one knows, what one knows one doesn't know, and what one doesn't know one doesn't know. This epistemological definition is equivalent to reluctant agnosticism, or perhaps even more comprehensive and holistic.

[johneeG]

Was there a reference in the epic to a pralaya or a cataclysmic event earlier than the Mahabharata war? Or the Puranas?

Currently, 50 years of Brahma have elapsed and we are in the first Day of the 51st year. This Brahma's day, Kalpa, is named as ShvetaVaraha Kalpa. Within this Day, six Manvantaras have already elapsed and we are in the seventh Manavatara, named as - Vaivasvatha Manvantara (or Sraddhadeva Manavatara). Within the Vaivasvatha Manavantara, 27 Mahayugas (4 Yugas together is a Mahayuga), and the Krita, Treta and Dwapara Yugas of the 28th Mahayuga have elapsed. We are in the Kaliyuga of the 28th Mahayuga. This Kaliyuga began in the year 3102 BC.

That means Pralaya has happened 108 times already in current Manvantara (which belongs to Vaivasvat manu). There are 14 manvantaras in each Kalpa (day of brahma). At the end of each Kapla, there is a very huge pralaya.

Pralaya (small one) happens at the end of every yuga. The pralaya which happened around 3102 was MBH was and dessication of saraswati. At the end of a Chaturyuga (4 yuga cycle), there is a bigger prayala. There are 100 chaturyuga cycles in an "Manvantara".

Currently, we are in seventh manvantara. So Pralaya has happened 2508 times (or in that order). The current Kalpa (day) of Brahmadeva is called shveta varaaha which comprises of 4.32 billion human years.

All those who survive are descendants of Manu. Hence are called "Maanavas". There is description of others like Adityas, Davanas, daityas, rakshasas etc. But we do not find them around today. Today, only Maanavas exist.

Traditional view(to the best of my knowledge):
Adityas, Danavas, Daityas, Rakshaasas, Yakshas, Kinneras, Nagas, Kimpurushas, ...etc still are supposed to exist even today. It is just that Maanavas cannot see/contact them. Just as Maanavas cannot see microbes with naked eye and need special instruments(like microscope) to see microbes/bacteria/germs. Similarly, Maanavas need special merit (acquired through Tapas, Mantra, Gyana, Upasana, ...etc) to see/contact/listen to these races.

Indra is the King/Ruler/Lord of Adityas whose capital is Swarga or Amaravati.
Kubera is the King/Ruler/Lord of Gandharvas(including Kinneras and Kimpurushas), Yakshas and certain Rakshaas. Their capital is Alakapuri in Himalayas near the Kailas.
Nagas reside in Netherworlds. It seems Takshaka or Vasuki is the King/Lord/Ruler of Nagas.
Bali is the King/Ruler/Lord of Danavas & Daityas who presently resides in Paatala(Netherworld). Lord Vishnu acts as the guardian/protector of Bali.
Vibhishana is the King/Ruler/Lord of Rakshaas whose capital is Lanka(the one conquered by Shri Rama). Lanka is supposed to be under the sea(perhaps in netherworld, I am not sure).

-------

The Maha-Pralaya occurs at the end of a Kalpa(one day of four-headed Lord, Brahma). After a Kalpa, Brahma retires into Sri Maha Vishnu. All creatures are in unmanifest state within Lord Sri Maha Vishnu.

There is only water everywhere. And on the water, there is leaf floating on which Vishnu is resting in the form of a small child. Because He is surrounded by the waters, He is also called Narayana.

Smaller Pralayas occur at the end of Mahayuga. Change of Yuga (from Krita to Kali) entails erosion of Dharma, lifetimes of creatures, strength and stamina of creatures, the size of creatures, ...etc. Wars and famines may occur during change of Yugas.

-------

It seems in Vedic Maths, according to Katapayadhi system, some vowels of sanskrit are assigned a particular value. This is used to transmit mathematical formulae, constants and methods to students. In that method,
The letter
क्ष is equivalent to zero. Also, the word क्षुद्र is equivalent to zero.

So, my guess based on this is that kshudra signifies the lowest on the scale. It seems to me that in a scale of varna:
a) Brahmanas are those who follow the Brahmana(part of Veda) to conduct rituals and rites.
b) Kshatriya are warriors/politicians. I don't know the etymology, but I remember that Vidhura is frequently called as 'Kshatri' by Dhritarashtra in Mahabharata.
c) The rest are kshudra, the common class(the masses) who are the lowest on the scale.

The common class, kshudra are further divided into:
a) Vaishya, the business class. I don't know the etymology but the word is close to vishesha(special). Perhaps, indicating that they are 'special case' in the commons.
b) Kshudra are the common class(the masses) who are the lowest on the scale.

------

Personal View:
It is quite obvious that the varna system is based on division of labour. And I don't think anyone has any problem with division of labour. It is a natural system. I think the gripe is with varna being decided based on genealogy and not merit. That means, the division of labour should have been on merit and not based on birth.

It seems there are certain shlokas/mantras that talk of caste being decided based on character(merit) rather than mere birth. It seems there are also certain shlokas/mantras that insist that caste is decided only based on birth.

Of course, the traditional view is that the caste is based on birth.

An interesting point:
If the caste is decided based on birth, then the scriptures should have clearly mentioned which clans/families/communities belong to which caste. That means, the scriptures should have clearly given a list of families/clans/communities that belong to Brahmin caste, and those that belong to Kshatriya caste, and those that belong to Vaishya caste. The rest would be Kshudras. The scriptures do not seem to have done so. This omission, some argue, indicates that the caste is not decided based on birth.

Another point:
If the caste is decided based on birth, then whose caste will the progeny acquire: Mother's or father's? It seems the caste is decided based on Mother's caste and not father's caste. The father of Vidhura, Dhritarashtra and Pandu is Vyasa. But, Vidhura was still considered lower caste than Dhritarashtra and Pandu.

One more point:
It seems Brahmins are expected to perform upanayana(thread ceremony) to their child and teach him Veda at most before he is 16 years of age. Then, the child is expected to perform various rites and rituals everyday(specially Sandhya Vandana). A Brahmin who does not perform the rites and rituals regularly or who has not had upanayana(thread ceremony) before he was 16 years is called 'Brahma Bandhu'(relative of Brahmins) to show that he is merely a relative of Brahmins(based on birth) and that he himself is not Brahmin anymore.

Last Point:
Adi Shankaracharya's biography tells of a circumstance where Lord Shiva disguised as a chandala(I think it means a dog-meat eater/one who works in crematoriums) tests Adi Shankara Bhagavatpada. At that time, Adi Shankara sings Maneesha Panchakam where the refrain is 'If someone has acquired Brahma Gyanm, then where he be dvija(one who had a thread ceremony) or chandala, I consider him my Guru(teacher/elder)'.

In short, once the Brahma Gyanam is acquired, a person becomes most respectable regardless of his birth, caste, or life-style.

---------

Can someone please give some info about Brahmi Script and its relation to Devanagari Script?
Bji, I'd appreciate your views on Brahmi script...

[ManishH]

The common class, kshudra are further divided into:
a) Vaishya, the business class. I don't know the etymology but the word is close to vishesha(special). Perhaps, indicating that they are 'special case' in the commons.

Nope. 'vaiśya' derives from 'viś' (earlier settlement or tribe, later house). See:
"Ethnology of ancient Bhārata", RC Jain.

b) Kshudra are the common class(the masses) who are the lowest on the scale.

This is very irregular. No other sanskrit word I know of turns a root with kṣ into ś. In sanskrit, words actually change meaning drastically between retroflex ṣ and fricative ś.

Otherwise, very informative post and good points.

[brihaspati]

Yes, ks cannot be turned into s here. Just as -tra and -dra.

[brihaspati]

johneeG garu
Ah - Brahmi script! What if a LTTE-II takes offence with what we come up with as speculation?

[johneeG]

johneeG garu
Ah - Brahmi script! What if a LTTE-II takes offence with what we come up with as speculation?

Bji, I have absolutely no idea about Brahmi script. So, I couldn't catch your suggestive post...

Could you be a little more elaborate. Please...

[brihaspati]

^^^There is a mighty touchy spot about any discussion on Brahmi in Kumarikandyam. Because of suggestions that it could have connections to Tamil pre-history [or proto-history].

[johneeG]

Just prepared this. I wonder why these numerals are not taught in Indian schools(not even in the non-convent schools). It is not really difficult to teach or learn these. One can learn it in a day. But, Indian education system pretends that these don't exist. I wonder why these things are a taboo in Indian schools?!

-----
Bji,
could you point to some material about Brahmi Script? It need not be indepth. Just to get an elementary knowledge.

[brihaspati]

johneeG garu,
look at this as a starting point.
http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/scripts.html

For controversial aspects look at "Tocharian/North Turkistani Brahmi", Tamil-Brahmi, and the Brahmi-Kharosthi pointer to Indian origins versus alphabetic symbolic similarity in some symbols as claimed Semitic origins.

[brihaspati]

3102 BCE is approximately a period of global mini-ice age of roughly 400 years, when temperatures tumbled down almost instantly [lush vegetation perma-frosted in Andes]. There was some kind of a climatic disruption but no indications of rapid sea-level rise or any floods. The last peak rise before was 5700 BCE, after which levels fall somewhatto the modern period. One suggested hypothesis to explain the global disturbances in geological sedimentation and temp records is that a large meteorite crashed somewhere in the Levant.

However the three dates that crop up - may actually indicate the three layers in which the epic was constructed, at different periods. Its final form was likely given around 1400-1500 BCE, with elements from the pre-SSC and post SSC phases punched into the narrative. Many details were added numerically to encode astronomical information. It could also be having elements from the 5700 period.

[ramana]

Klaus, From this link

johneeG garu,
look at this as a starting point.
http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/scripts.html

For controversial aspects look at "Tocharian/North Turkistani Brahmi", Tamil-Brahmi, and the Brahmi-Kharosthi pointer to Indian origins versus alphabetic symbolic similarity in some symbols as claimed Semitic origins.

I came to this one on Telugu:

http://www.teluguworld.org/Telugu/telug ... ory_2.html

It has some speculations on Pisacha language to add to your database.

I dont know the veracity of this phrase from Gunadhya but its revealing:

While writing Bruhatkadha, Gunadya said the following:

"samskruta, pra'kruta, dESi Ba'sha lanu parityajimci nEnu paiSaci Ba'shalO bruhatkadhanu vra'stunna'nu."

I am writing Bruhat katha in Paisaci instead of Sanskrit, Prakrit or Desi languages!

[brihaspati]

ramana garu,
Germans are studying these languages - especially, Brahmi roots and its spread over CAR. Some have been querying about Paisachi to me discreetly. Dont know how much to encourage them though. They are becoming increasingly politically aware of the consequences, but not "against" us.

[ramana]

Bji, Satyameva Jayate. I really want to know what language Gunadhya wrote in. I want to know what happened to the Paisachi speaking people who appear in India from Mahabharata times to Satavahana times. Atleast our Indians will never study them as long as INC is ruling and psec mentality infects the intellectuals. So let the Germans study them.

However please do tell us what you passed to them.

[ManishH]

At the same time, one should keep in mind that scripts have limited use in studying origin of languages. It is often that the first attestation of a language happens in a script that is borrowed from another culture. Case in point : Kikkuli's horse training manual is in Hittite (an Indo-European language) but uses cuneiform script.

Diachronic study of phonology offers better tools for studying language origin and spread.

[Agnimitra]

An interesting creation myth tidbit from Islamic hadith, as narrated by Abu Hamza Thumali and 'Ali: On Adam and Eve being send down from Heaven after tasting the fruit, the question was asked where on Earth they landed. The answer given was that Adam landed on the southern tip of India, near "Serendip" (Lanka). But Eve landed in Arabia, near Mecca. Then Adam goes up through India searching for her, and takes the overland route via Persia to Arabia, and finds her there on the plateau of 'Arafat (from 'arafa - where he "recognized" her). Then he brought her back to India and settled down there and started the first family. Subsequently over generations, there is a migration of Adam's offspring out of India!

[Agnimitra]

ManishH ji, what did you think about that piece of speculation about the origins of the word shUdra - from proto-Turkic?

[ManishH]

Possible, but should be cross-checked with someone who has knowledge of Altaic languages.

[Atri]

ManishH ji, what did you think about that piece of speculation about the origins of the word shUdra - from proto-Turkic?

really? I never thought of this etymology..

The "rebel" scholars (kancha ilaih types) equate dasyu's with Shudras. These two are delinked.

[ManishH]

Also notable is that the early Buddhist texts (pāli canon) go to great lengths to list lower castes. eg. Vinaya Piṭaka lists these as hinasippāni: potter, weaver, leather worker, barber. Another Buddhist text considers carpenters and chariot makers lowly. Whereas these are esteemed in Vedic tradition.

And somehow, the modern political landscape sees a faction using Buddhism as an egalitarian religio-political system to overthrow the so called discriminatory brahminical (sic) order.

Ref: 'Śūdras in Ancient India' by R.S. Sharma

[Agnimitra]

ManishH ji, what did you think about that piece of speculation about the origins of the word shUdra - from proto-Turkic?

really? I never thought of this etymology..

The "rebel" scholars (kancha ilaih types) equate dasyu's with Shudras. These two are delinked.

I had speculated on it in an earlier post on this thread, here:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1268004

The relevant portion is here:

Perhaps the root lies in a non-sanskrit language. The words 'mleccha' or 'yavana' also occur heavily in sanskrit literature, yet don't have any satisfactory etymologies in purely sanskrit roots.

That's possible. According to Turkic etymology:

http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/respon ... oot=config

Proto-Turkic "südre": 1. to pull, tug 2. belt for fastening loads.

Variants of the above are apparently found in all modern Turkic languages.

OARN, according to a Wiki article on Scythians, an Old Iranic name for the Scythians was "Skudra".

Since the mentality of members of such semi-nomadic tribes is characterized by...
(a) energetic tunnel-vision,
(b) result-oriented zeal,
(c) pride in skillsets and "technos",
(d) worldview defined primarily by 4 pursharthas,...
...it is quite possible that a generic ethnonym for such inner Asian tribes came to define a certain mode of human consciousness, and gave its name to a Vedic varNa.

I think historically, shudratva begins in a military sense of footsoldier, and Turkic and other inner Asian tribes have always been mercenary migrants to major Eurasian civilizations. Then from that point of entry they assimilated and diversified their line of occupation into various other crafts and trade. Over generations of inculturation, they also begin to climb the varNa scale. We have seen this process even over the last 1400 years.

Of course, the same line of assimilation into Arya culture could have been taken by other semi-nomadic tribes in the belly of Bharat itself, but the original name for that class may well have been from proto-Turkic ethnonym.

In medieval Persian Islamic poetry, ethnic stereotypes were used for different types of mentalities, and the stereotype of the "zealous Turk" and the "code-bound Arab" was very much used in the above sense, whereas the Persian saw himself as a more intellectual and originally creative type of man.

[brihaspati]

Also notable is that the early Buddhist texts (pāli canon) go to great lengths to list lower castes. eg. Vinaya Piṭaka lists these as hinasippāni: potter, weaver, leather worker, barber. Another Buddhist text considers carpenters and chariot makers lowly. Whereas these are esteemed in Vedic tradition.

And somehow, the modern political landscape sees a faction using Buddhism as an egalitarian religio-political system to overthrow the so called discriminatory brahminical (sic) order.

Ref: 'Śūdras in Ancient India' by R.S. Sharma

In fact while writing my draft text on Buddhism-to-Muhammad I have included the passages that I hinted of before on the forum : that early Buddhist texts use Brahmin and Sraman almost equivalently, they list explicit "heena" professions.

In fact my hypothesis is that untouchability based on fixed inherited professions, and explicit tagging of specific work as "uttama" and "adhama" started off from Buddhist concepts on karma, and especially violence. For example all professions related to killing - human or animals became adhama. This would cover a wide variety of agricultural and pastoral jobs.

[ramana]

So meat eaters/processors could have been shifted down the value chain during the Buddhist interlude?


Recall in the Mahabharata the sage is sent to a butcher Dharmavyadhi to learnt he tenets of dharma.

[Agnimitra]

^ Yes but even then the sage is surprised that a butcher like dharmavyadhi could be a teacher of dharma.

[ramana]

So hinaizing started back then!

[SaiK]

I have heard stories that brahmins were meat-eaters eons back.. and after a curse? or event, they stopped eating. Anyone knows more about this event?

[Agnimitra]

Brahmins were meat eaters until pretty recently, just a few centuries.
And even today many Brahmin communities perform animal sacrifice on certain occasions once or twice a year.
Even in a Vaishnava temple like the Jagannath Temple at Puri (Odisha), they sacrifice goats and partake of the meal on the temple premises on a particular day of the year honoring Durga ji. Of course, several other Vaishnava groups protest the action.

I think a more comprehensive and nuanced moral guide on meat-eating needs to be explained to people on the basis of Veda, science and history. Most Hindus eat meat anyway (not just lower castes), though they are somewhat apologetic about it. They're just confused, since no context is provided.

[SaiK]

This goat sacrifice has invaded into jewish people as well.. or is it the other way?

well, I was looking for that event (normally we have stories for all things). that turned brahmins into vegetarians.

Are you sure couple of centuries only ago? Of course if you take statistics, then population of meat eaters would be always higher, since evolution began.

[Agnimitra]

In terms of Brahminical sampradayas, the last canonical interdiction to replace the acknowledged past practice of animal sacrifice was with Madhvacharya (1300's). He suggested the yajnas be held using an animal-shaped flour doll instead. Thereafter the different movements allied to different sampradayas continued to extend and renew this interdiction. For instance in Bengal, the Vaishnava movements pushed for that, and the more hardcore strains even banned fish-eating. This helped differentiate themselves from other non-Vaishnava or "less pure" groups, and of course from the Moslems.

However, apart from a reference to the time of the yuga, etc, I haven't found any sound explanation of the principles underlying the changing law. Worse, most public literature on the subject is a demagogical tirade against "cruelty", or a flat denial that Vedic shastras ever had anything to do with meat eating in general (much less beef eating). In this information age, the result is confusion.

[Prem]

Parag Tope came up with the theory that Asuric nature people always build great monuments while Dharma base society do not allow such use of labor and money . Looking at Chinese and others , his theory has few merits. The absence of huge monuments in ancient india explain the nature of the society.

[brihaspati]

So hinaizing started back then!

Not necessarily! The final form could be reflecting sentiments at the time of writing of the narrative - a lot in MB appears to be wonder and consequent difficulty in the latest narrator - to explain away something no longer acceptable. So these final comments could belong to the proto-Buddhist stage.

It might be better to have a model by which proto-Buddhism was a strand that developed post SSC, from the Upanishadic - among others - sharing the space with Jainas/Ajivikas. The reasons as to why this development - between 1500 BCE to 500 BCE, would go against violence and bloodshed, and vegetarianism, could actually be stemming from the specific conditions of the collapse of a mercantile+maritime-trade urban culture through a devastating long period drought.

Animals require - 5-6 times the basic grain that sustains human lives, and therefore, in periods of decreased productivity, it is likely to have induced thoughts on vegetarianism. Violence and bloodshed has been observed in all phases of declining urban cultures of the period of the mega-drought between 2100-1800, that affected the Akkadian and Egyptian cultures.

A society trying to regroup and recover from that may turn towards vegetarianism and anti-bloodshed memes.

If the latest overlay for MB was the beginnings of this moral concern, possibly in the post SSC phase of around 1500-1300 BCE, then it explains why the epic was structured in its final form as a self-consistent lesson in morality, with strong emphasis on karma-linked penalties and rewards, based on a much more ancient history prevalent among the people and the scribes. If one reads between the lines, MB always punishes "violence" - even if "lord" himself decided it was necessary. This might be the result of intellectuals of the period needing to construct a new instruction book for budding politicians.

[Agnimitra]

But the Buddhist period was supposedly one of prosperity, not drought or the immediate aftermath of decline and dissipation. So how does that explain the anti-meat eating meme? Its more like the peacenik meme in Vietnam era America, as a reaction to the excesses of an adrenalized society, and against a war-loving military-industrial elite.