"Which literature written by brahmins supports caste by temperment and not family of birth? The author of Bhagavad Gita claimed that brahmins are endowed with certain qualities. But those qualities are said to be in a man since his birth and inherited and honed by the environment in which he is raised."
Wrong. The reference I showed clearly pointed to attributes being born of the individual's own nature. In short, they define the traits that make up a brahmin. And that is exactly the way Arya Samaj, ISCKON see it too.
Now your point of argument here seems to say the everyone else, save yourself, got the BG wrong. Is it?
You gave the reference of Bhagavad Gita which the orthodoxy takes to mean caste by birth. Either you will need to accept that the explanation give by Chandrashekhara Swami is wrong and/or you need to provide proof from vedic literature / history that there was a time in history when the hindu chaturvarna system was based on temperment.
And these people didn't become kshatriyas just like that either - they rose to prominance with the help of their mentors too. Happyhindu, the DK or yourself may be interested in vilifying the brahmins, but the community does have a legacy way beyond casteism or the mutts and that is something you refuse to see.
How did the warriors 'rise to prominence' due to their mentors? Did the brahmin mentors train the rulers or their armies in the usage of various arms, in battle-strategies, in organizing various supplies for a battle, in building forts, in administration of provinces, etc. Just how did these mentors help the rulers?
But they were significant part of social revolutions way before colonial India, which is something you won't accept as you pin blame on them.
Brahmins were part of which social revolutions before colonial india?
Not just the mutts - all of society. Mutts (run by brahmins) is one side of the equation, which is what you are ignoring.
Sorry the social stand taken my mutts / orthodoxy matters the most.
People who ill-treat dalits, contrary to what you said of climibing up a ladder, do so from their own pleasure in abasing those under them. And why should DK or yourself, make this look like it is exclusively a brahmin issue? Why are you justifying it to be that way?
Sorry, but its undeniable that the 'low-castes' became designated as 'low-castes' in the shastras. And it is due to the shastras that they cud not change caste in pre-colonial india (bcoz practically all kingdoms followed such 'shastras'). In the present time, the orthodoxy still holds on those labour-laws as some sort of 'divinity'. If anyone changed caste in pre-colonial india, it had to be done on the sly. Only in colonial india, caste changes (and claims) became openly known and common.
I provided you reference. And indeed what is relevant is DK and tamil society at present.
None of your so-called 'references' on DK are valid in this discussion where the context is pre-colonial hindu history of the shastras. We can do DK-bashing later. First let us resolve whether or not the shastras breed casteism.
I spoke of Sangom, not to attack him or hurt him - but to point correctly the trend of thinking among some TBs. My posts are here for all to read.
Please do not make comments directed at Sangom sir or Nara sir on posts addressed to me.
It wasn't, and I guess that is where we will disagree. To me Arya Samaj's movement was one of revival, not social pressure. Do you have anything to say the Chaturvarna system all of a sudden came to assigned people occupations and then forced them to follow it heriditary?
In any case, to me the definition of brahmin I have pointed in BG, and I think brahmins need to go by ideas in the scriptures (written over various eras) which they can discern for themselves.
We can agree to disagree where there is an amount of equitable weightage on both sides of a viewpoint. Here you are merely making empty claims (with no references) and are expecting your claims to be given equal weightage to something that has ample proof all over history and vedic literature.
It does not matter what Arya Samaj is personally to you. It remains a fact that it is a sprout of colonial india.
From the historic pov, the chaturvarna system began from the grihyasutra and dharmashastra periods; and was non-existant before that. Ever since the chaturvarna system was created it has always been on family of birth and not on temperment. There was no point in time when temperment gave way to a heredity basis. If there was, then you need to prove it by providing relevant proof from relevant vedic texts and/or historical texts.
"In buddhism, character / temperment decided caste and not the family of birth. Hence in buddhism martial clans like mauryas were called kshatriya although they were not dvijas from the vedic pov."
That was the case in all of early Indian society. The BG too speaks clearly of the individual's nature.
Please don't just repeat claims without references / proof. Please provide proof from relevant vedic texts and/or historical texts that the vedic chaturvarna system was based on character / temperment and not family of birth.
They influenced India and the world at too though. You and I wouldn't be discussing them here if they didn't influence.
Please do not just blame without proof. Please tell me in what way did the teachers of Arya Samaj influence politicians or the indian constitution ?
They already have made a difference. The mutts are echoing the bias of society, as its speakers nothing else. What I don't understand is why casteism for you or DK is merely related to the mutts or denial of temple entry - its much more than that, which is what you need to open your eyes to.
Sorry Arya samaj has not been able to remove caste-discrimination. They have not been able to make any difference and will not be able to make any difference as long as the orthodoxy continues to propagate caste-discrimination.
I never claimed that. Even buddhist monks who didn't study sanskrit were called brahmins, but the legacy of brahmins does extent to earlier times too. As I said, your idea of religions being community markers was not so prevailant among brahmins which is why you can have father, son, grandson, in different faiths. In those times (as I believe it should ideally be even now), it was an individual's choice. Today due defining communities on those basis (the result of modern day politics), things are different.
Ofcourse you claimed this about Chitpavans -- "And that makes them brahmins nevertheless". Please tell me how can sanskritized groups claim to be brahmins? Please stick to the vedic religion. If you want to support Buddhism / Buddhist concepts / Buddhist texts, you might as well state that you are supporting Buddhism. If you want to talk about vedic religion, then stick to vedic texts.
Nobody reads the scriptures and develops their sense of bias. The true reason, is the same for societies - people tend to develop a sense of bias because of their own wish to exploit.
How do people develop a sense of bias? Why do they feel that "those people" are "low-castes" ? How did the "low-castes" get designated as "low caste"? Who teaches bias to young children if not elders / parents? How did the elders / parents themselves get the opinion that "those people" are "low castes"? Why are they regarded as "low caste"?
This happens because they are incapable of projecting their being into the others. That is exactly why Krishna says in the BG to look at others as one looks at him (Krishna). The morals of the Upanishads are not some rosy things laid for the sake of it - they represent the early thought of brahmins, and what was considered ideal in India once.
Seriously do you think everyone is capable of projecting their being into others? Did brahmins themselves follow that in historical time? Which upanishad says caste is based on temperment and not family of birth?
Arya Samaj is very much voicing from brahmin literature, why does this not influence people ill-treating others? You can only get to the reality of this if you stop blaming TBs and start seeing casteism for what it is. See casteism for what it is, mutts are only part of present day social reality.
Arya Samaj is trying to propagate the vedas by first trying to circumvent the bad portions of the dharmashastras. Surendra Kumar of Arya Samaj came up with a publication in hindi claiming that many portions of Manusmrithi are interpolations. But he does not answer a crucial question -- even if those verses were interpolations, who gained from it if not brahmins? And what really is brahmin literature btw?
"Yes there was no mutts in vedic religion. Nowhere in puranas, itihasas, vedas, do you find rishis living in monastries. Rishis lived in ashrams .. concept of mutts happened in the "vedism" in the post-buddhist times."
From my understanding too it came lateer as you say. It is all the more reason you should accept what I am saying about the mutts and their practices not being the entireity of brahmin culture or tradition.
Are you saying mutts and their practices do not represent the entirety of brahmin culture? Please can you define what is 'brahmin culture' first?
"To the vedic religion, the man who performs yaagams (follows brahmanical texts) is a brahman (this is the purvamimansa school). But to the vedantins, the man who has attained a particular state of mind is a brahman (this is the uttaramimansa school)."
This is exactly what I meant when I said the scriptures are varied. But there is one point when you say "there is no connection", the point is the mutts or arya samaj both regard the vedas - only they come to conclude different things.
Sorry, i already explained in a previous thread to you how the uttaramimansa school itself is a new one.There is no basis for anyone to claim that "scriptures are varied" since an ancient past; and hence definitions of brahmins are varied since an ancient past. This "varied' definition of a 'brahmana' came only in the vedanta period.
There was nothing called vedanta or the prasthana trayi texts in the vedic period. Most upanishads were written after the vedic period. It is well established that Badrayana wrote Brahmasutra after the vedic period.
On what basis do you say that mutts and arya samaj "both regard the vedas" and "conclude different things" ?
And Yoga is much more than asanas. =)
Non-sequitur again. Everyone knows yoga is more than asanas. You need to provide proof which vedic texts espouse yoga before patanjali.
Those who espoused an idea of pre-aryan and post-aryan or DK's idea of aryan and dravidian are of a separate era.
Sure sure and everything you claim without any shread of evidence from vedic literature / historical texts, is the infallible truth, just bcoz you claim so. Are you able to provide proof that yoga is mentioned in the 4 vedas?
Someone on wikipedia has claimed that ascetics were mentioned in the samhitas and brahmanas (in the article on Yoga). Just bcoz ascetics were mentioned in samhitas and brahmanas does not mean that the vedic people and their gods approved of ascetism. Just because vedic samhitas contain references to shishnadeva (linga) does not mean the vedic people approved of it or liked it (they clearly had disdain for it).
And you are mistaken to think there were any one particular group called "vedic people". If you are speaking of those who regarded the vedas, there is huge variety in their own conclusions. If you read Siddhartha Gautama's own journey you will see he went to astika schools where ideas of yoga were relevant - including breathing techniques (as in Arda Kalam's place) like pranayam, anapanasati, samadhi.
There were several groups that were not vedic (that did not offer fire sacrifices to the vedic gods). Jainism is non-vedic. Jainism is older than Buddhism (and it remains a fact that the vedic religion borrowed heavily from everywhere). So Buddha's visits are not a surprise. For you to prove your claims all you need to do is provide proof if yoga was mentioned and approved of in the 4 vedas.
Wrong. It only means the mission is not over though started by others. The point also is DK, nor yourself can come to accept brahmins fighting against casteism as their doing - you can go to call it as "sprout of colonial India" or having done under "social pressure" to justify your biases.
The 'mission' will never be over until the orthodoxy gives up caste-discrimination.
What matters socially is not what orthodoxy propogates but what society comes to think. Orthdoxy is changed by eras, hetrodoxy and even revivals are the ones that change an era though. That has been part of brahmin tradition too.
Sorry what the orthodoxy propagates matters the most. If the orthodoxy propagates 'divine' labour-laws, they need to take responsibility for it. Everyone in a society is not well versed in the shastras. They merely follow what others follow. People regards some as "low-caste" without even knowing why they regard them as "low-caste".
So now you are claiming that that revivals and changes in orthdoxy is part of "brahmin tradition"? May i know how?
They were peacock herders. They were not a previlaged group at the time of the Nandas.
Are you saying the Mauryas were transformed from Peacock herders into a martial group because of Chanakya? Did Chanakya train Chandragupta in the usage of arms? Did Chanakya create and train the vast Maurya army, the sort that was capable of invading other powerful kingdoms successfully?
Get out of your brahmin-hating shell. Its not about "nice qualities" they spoke of themselves, its about traits which suited a particular role in society.
Are you saying that brahmins had traits suitable for a particular role in the society? Which role? Were all those kshatropeta dvijatayahs (military brahmins) endowed with such wonderful qualities and nice temperment as described for brahmins by the Bhagavad Gita? Well its obvious all those verses on the wonderful qualities of a brahmin in the BG are merely self-serving ones.
No because the accepted the astika school. Brahmanas are mentioned, are in other schools like buddhism too, so don't confuse yourself.
So if anyone accepts astika school, they can become brahmin iyers? Were all Jains converted into iyers this way?
Really, on what basis can you claim that your family was converted from jains into brahmin iyers? And that too at the time of Chandragupta Maurya? To top it, you claim (without any basis) that during the Maurya rule, there was an "original varna system" where caste was based on temperment and not family of birth. Wow really.
"Anyone who is interested in this topic (ie, history of vedic religion) will know the difference between the vedic period and the itihasa period and how the usage of the terms "arya" and "anarya" changed by the time it came to the itihasa period. It is also well known that Mahabharat was interpolated / modified / written over a long period of time"
I have read till present day researches which put to doubt earlier ideas of the 20th century. You are saying this sudden change came about in meaning because Indians suffered a blow in the head and didn't recover from amnesia? lol.
The point is the ved samhitas, as well as the epics, as well as non-hindu literature which used the term - always, through history gave only one meaning of "arya". The second meaning came from Europe only much later.
Regards,
Vivek.
Sure you can have your lol. Your outlandish claims notwithstanding, i would give a lot more credit to the intelligence of the readers than to your claims. Especially since this is an era where information is easily available for cross-checking on google books or any library.
Regards.
