Nice to see this thread being revived
Dear Sri Raghy ji,
Abt the purushasuktam explanation, a better explanation of the one i have is given, is in this book:
Amazon.com: Kriya Yoga (9788120831414): P. Hariharananda: Books
The monastic folk i have spoken to, do not consider purushasukta as an interpolation into the rigved. Well, since the monastic folk predominantly belong to the yoga, samkhya, vaisheshika, vedanta schools, their interpretation of the purushasuktam, i suppose, is based on their school of thot.
To them, Shudra simply means a person who does not have his desires in control, meaning he does not understand himself. The best way to understanding the self (to them), is sheer surrender.
A Vaishya is one who has some amount of control, understands himself somewhat, but only to the extent that he understand he is self-centered. He has not yet learnt to become the master (kshatriya) of his desires.
While some ekadandis do not speak of jaatis / occupations at all, some do.
Of them, some monastic traditions do accept that gunas / qualities can be applied to professions (the only diff is that they do not believe that jaatis / occupations are fixed and unchangable by birth).
And according to them, when applied to occupations, a shudra, wud mean a servile person. And a vaishya was someone who saved money. A person with enough ability, and savings capacity, can move from being a shudra (an apprentice or a pauper in service) to a vaishya (money owner, better settled person).
In terms of professions professed, there seems to be little diff b/w the vaishya and shudra occupations. Am told that some smrithis consider cattle-tending, farming, etc as jobs of the vaishyas, while some consider the same jobs as that of the shudras. Perhaps the way occupations were defined in diff regional areas of old india varied.
Dear Sri Sankaranarayana ji,
There were 2 sects in the past (pre-shankara period) --
a) the upanishadic type wandering monks or just monks who predominently followed (and follow) the vedanta or uttaramimansa school; and,
b) the ritualistic type stationary priests, who predominantly followed (and follow) the purva mimansa school.
Each has their own explanation of the purushasuktam.
The vedantin or uttaramimansa monks beleive that, in the past, anyone cud be recruited into the profession of priesthood.
It may be possible that they consider it that way because yagas were also performed by some sects of ascetics (monks) in the past, and they wud pass on the knowledge to their students.
Its likely that this was before the days when the society became rigid into the mold where a profession, passed on from father to son, within the family (as also family secrets such as vaidyam (medicine) recipes).
I do not know if the current purvamimansa based schools accept that explanation. As far as i know, no they do not.
Kindly also note that the vedic society (as is debated) supposedly did not have the shudra section, either in terms of occupations (as is considered by the dharmashastras); or in terms of the varna classification itself, since the word shudra is rarely mentioned in the vedas.
Some say 'shudra' in the mahabharat refers to the name of a tribe that was enemies with the vedic tribes; and speculate that this word 'shudra' became applied to define occupations in the dharmashastra times (since the word denoted an outsider or an enemy).
Some say the shudra tribe was also an arya tribe, but non-vedic, like the dasas / dasyus and the panis, and that the scenario actually referred to intra-tribal warfare, meaning like cousin-brothers fighting with one another.
Some say the shudra tribe was one of the many tribes that entered india from the northwest as indo-scythians, but became merged with the existing traditions over time (probably after some resistance).
Whatever it was, today, we all remain mixed some way or the other. In terms of genetics, each of us carry part of the old and part of the new within us.
But based on the idea that the term
shudra did not refer to a varna in any vedic text, some argue that the interpretation of purushasuktam as varnas-related-to-occupations is wrong.
Please also note that Vatsa, a descendant of Kanva, was called a
shudra putra (in rigveda). Also Ambedkar asked in the book 'who were the shudras' about Sudas. He asks, how come Sudas, a shudra, was a composer of rigvedic hyms.
Anyways, what you mention about each profession (caste) performing certain karmas, is based on the dharmashastras. The vedas, as just hyms, poetry, astronomy, or simply as "knowledge texts" do not mention any such thing.
Regards.
