Historical statements/observations-

[Fehu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Please read the historical analysis by Cochrane about Arabian nights.Here is a mention of Tamil brahmins and broadly brahmins.It has been stated that Muslims ,Jains and others like Persians preserved their records.Brahmins did not have records as everything was by "Karna Parampara" .Even the records they had were destroyed by some of them and that is why perhaps there are interpolations in the Manu Shastras. was it done deliberately to twist the verses in the Manu smiriti?

 

[Desi]

It is true that there is devastation in time and by marauding invaders. However our heritage in respect of knowledge has been well preserved by our unique system of Sruthi (given to the successors by word of mouth) and our ancestors have the advantage of Sanskrit that does not lend to corruption. So I would say most of the Vedas (excepting for Atharvana Veda) has come to our generation in tact. And the famous Smrithi Bhagavad Gita is very much in tact.

 

[Fehu]

Atharva Veda contains to the extent of 60% verses from Rig and Yajur Veda.Also several mantras are common to the three vedas except Sama veda. My main reason for posting the info is that there is an accusation that brahmins have destroyed the written manuscripts etc as some of the contents did not tally with their thinking or way of life.

 

[Desi]

Hmm. I learn something everyday!

Dear Fehi,

Who are these guys who accuse the Brahmins?
Regards,
Desi

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Theories Galore

Please read the historical analysis by Cochrane about Arabian nights.Here is a mention of Tamil brahmins and broadly brahmins.It has been stated that Muslims ,Jains and others like Persians preserved their records.Brahmins did not have records as everything was by "Karna Parampara" .Even the records they had were destroyed by some of them and that is why perhaps there are interpolations in the Manu Shastras. was it done deliberately to twist the verses in the Manu smiriti?

It is true that Vedas were only transmitted orally. There is an injunction against committing it to writing. This is because the Vedic Mantras depend on

Correct pronunciation of letters (words) -अक्षर शुद्धिः

Correct duration for utterance of letters (words) – मात्रा शुद्धिः and,

​

Correct intonation of letters, स्वर शुद्धिः

Even other scriptures like Puranas and Dharmasashras were initially only oral tradition. Later on they were committed to writing. Rishis like Vyasa compiled the Vedas and other texts. There have been many Vyasas in history.

That is about the oral transmission of texts.

I am not surprised by the remarks about the Brahmins though the statement about the destruction is a new one.

To understand the relevance of such statements we have to know the religious history of Hinduism.

The history was divided by the early Indologists (based purely on the availability of texts and not on understanding of Hindu religion) as

1. Pre-Vedic period.

2. Early Vedic period. ( Rig Veda and Karma Kanda)

3. Later Vedic period. ( Jnana Kanda)

4. Brahmanical period.( Itihasas and Puranas)

5. Hinduism.

Another more recent classification which is based on an understanding of Hindu religion is

1. Pre-Vedic period.

2. Early Vedic period. ( Rig Veda and Karma Kanda)​

3. Later Vedic period. ( Jnana Kanda)​

4. Period of Itihasas and Puranas.​

5. Hinduism.

These are classifications of scholars. Now in the first classification, the so called Brahminical period aroused a lot of interest. This was the time of the Itihasas and Puranas. Some of the scholars believe that the people of these times were different than the people who wrote the Vedas. That refer to them as Brahmins. Some scholars have come out with theories of Brahmins conquering the Vedic people.

The above statement is part of that theory.

These are all theories based on the reading of many texts and interpretations.

One of the reasons for the seperate clasification as Brahminical is because of the Manu Sastra. Manu Sastra is now generally accepted as the codification of the existing practices prevailing in the different regions of India. Many a times it is also what it should be and not what it is. There are contradictions between Manu, Yagnavalkya and Apasthumba the oldest of the three Smiritis.

Again some modern scholars have classified the evolution as

1. Vedic religion.

2. Brahmanical religion and

3. Hinduism

A good book on History of Indian religions is "A religious history of Ancient India" By Prof. S.R. Goyal Volumes I and II. This is a prescribed text book.

There is an ongoing effort to classify Vedic religion and Yoga as different from Hinduism.

In Yahoo Directory Vedism is a different religion.

http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Faiths_and_Practices/

In the Open Directory Project, Advaita Vedanta, Tantra and Yoga are treated as different from Hinduism.

http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/​

 

[Fehu]

Thank you Nachinarkiniyanji for the elaborate points made in your reply.

I write on relevance to recent facts because history cannot be probed too much without controversy.

I want to confine to issues faced by Tamil brahmins to larger extend and

brahmins to a required extent. Although brahmins worshiped so many gods

because they are Hindus,the vedic theory in Gayathri mantra is quite truly

scientific and tallies with the boundary of knowledge understood so far.The

cosmic effulgence from which we have come and through which we mutate is

highly factual,leaving aside all the poly-theism controversy.Islam still follows

monotheism or monism.Christianity was following dualism of God and

Godhead.Also they accepted dualism after Galileo and Kepler.

Now Pope accepts that science and religion are two different things.Also belief and facts.

Hinduism accepts multiple variations including the dichotomy.But there was an attempt to deify everything.The monism of Islam leads them to believe that faith is supreme and politics economics and everyday rituals are all from God ie one source and the mullah is supreme.


There is recent analysis that because of monism Islam is having highly fundamental character and rigidity and alienation from modern science. Can you advise me how far this monism debate is relevant to brahmins?

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Hinduism has grown by the absorption of hundreds of different faiths from Animism to Advaita. Unlike other religions who impose a particular view, Hinduism accepts all the views. Purva Mimansa by which most the Brahmins swear ( including the Sankaracharyas who are heads of matams founded by Adi Sankara the propounder of Advaita) does not believe in the conception of God. But then we do not follow any philosophy strictly.

Religion is practice of Philosophy. The Brahmins and most of the other Hindus are Monist in the sense that they believe that the God they worship is the Supreme Reality. An oustanding example is the popularity of Saparimalai Ayappan. He is Dharma sastha, but Sastha has two wives Purna and Puskala. He is also similar to Ayyanar and Raja Karuppanna Swamy ( the 18 steps originate with this God). If you accept his having been a son of Pandala Raja, the he is more like Sathya Sai Baba.

But we all worship him though Sastha is a minor deity. He is the Supreme Reality.

We should learn to seperate our religious beliefs from our intllectual analysis. Nachinarkiniyan the Bhakta believes in Asuras and so many other things. But Nachinarkiniyan the Indologist does not believe in Asuras. The moment I enter my puja room I am the Bhakta. This is the case with all the people who practice religion.

 

[Desi]

Dear Nachinarkiniyan,

There is an injunction against committing it to writing. This is because the Vedic Mantras depend on

Correct pronunciation of letters (words) -अक्षर शुद्धिः

Correct duration for utterance of letters (words) – मात्रा शुद्धिः and,

​

Correct intonation of letters, स्वर शुद्धिः

Thanks for letting us know this fact. Much appreciated.

Regards,
Desi

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Nacchinarkiniyan Ji,

Thank you for your views on seperating what is in personal realm of a person from the 'secular' realm (for want of a better word, as some folks in this Forum think that the word is bad). A recent book I have read with which I was impressed with was by a Professor of Religion at Harvard, Diana Eck. Her book 'From Bozeman to Banaras' tries to reconcile the idea of multi religious society in the U.S.A, with all religions being practiced by neighbors. She talks vividly about the differences and similarities between Christ's teachings and our own religion (she had spent a decade in India, studying Hinduism and she is an avowed Christian). The interesting aspect of her thesis is that she rejects the conservative Christian notion that the salvation is only through Christ. She also breaks the perception of Hinduism in the west that Hinduism is polytheistic. Her work is quite scholorly. And what you say about the worship through different forms is what she explains.

I may also add here some ideas referring to what Sri Fehu Ji said about Islam. Islam is a very young religion. At one time it was an intellectually thriving religion. But it's rapid expansion through violence has left it vulnerable for others to usurp it's mantle and crush any human based development in it's theology. We should remember that Christianity is somewhat ahead of this curve of maturation. Instead of killing and converting nowadays, a section of Christianity is also intent on expanding through what they think as 'civilized' means.

Pranams,
KRS

Hinduism has grown by the absorption of hundreds of different faiths from Animism to Advaita. Unlike other religions who impose a particular view, Hinduism accepts all the views. Purva Mimansa by which most the Brahmins swear ( including the Sankaracharyas who are heads of matams founded by Adi Sankara the propounder of Advaita) does not believe in the conception of God. But then we do not follow any philosophy strictly.

Religion is practice of Philosophy. The Brahmins and most of the other Hindus are Monist in the sense that they believe that the God they worship is the Supreme Reality. An oustanding example is the popularity of Saparimalai Ayappan. He is Dharma sastha, but Sastha has two wives Purna and Puskala. He is also similar to Ayyanar and Raja Karuppanna Swamy ( the 18 steps originate with this God). If you accept his having been a son of Pandala Raja, the he is more like Sathya Sai Baba.

But we all worship him though Sastha is a minor deity. He is the Supreme Reality.

We should learn to seperate our religious beliefs from our intllectual analysis. Nachinarkiniyan the Bhakta believes in Asuras and so many other things. But Nachinarkiniyan the Indologist does not believe in Asuras. The moment I enter my puja room I am the Bhakta. This is the case with all the people who practice religion.

 

[Fehu]

Shr Nachiji,(with respects)

You clarification is wonderful.
Purva Mimansa never traced to conception.But later brahmins although philosophical in thinking could not bring that much into bakthi roles as you have rightly told.Thus there is an inner conflict in the concept of brahmin individualism.This has come up because Brahminism believes in self -abnegation and a non-economic basis of life. The lower level brahmins(economically) in the Hindu society and people who are not through Gurukula cannot have time to think about all these and because of mulifarious absorptions the role of a brahmin which mis-understood and has come under scanner. I mean the recent anti-brahminism is because of the divergence and the inner conflicts in the life of brahmins.

Hinduism has grown by the absorption of hundreds of different faiths from Animism to Advaita. Unlike other religions who impose a particular view, Hinduism accepts all the views. Purva Mimansa by which most the Brahmins swear ( including the Sankaracharyas who are heads of matams founded by Adi Sankara the propounder of Advaita) does not believe in the conception of God. But then we do not follow any philosophy strictly.

Religion is practice of Philosophy. The Brahmins and most of the other Hindus are Monist in the sense that they believe that the God they worship is the Supreme Reality. An oustanding example is the popularity of Saparimalai Ayappan. He is Dharma sastha, but Sastha has two wives Purna and Puskala. He is also similar to Ayyanar and Raja Karuppanna Swamy ( the 18 steps originate with this God). If you accept his having been a son of Pandala Raja, the he is more like Sathya Sai Baba.

But we all worship him though Sastha is a minor deity. He is the Supreme Reality.

We should learn to seperate our religious beliefs from our intllectual analysis. Nachinarkiniyan the Bhakta believes in Asuras and so many other things. But Nachinarkiniyan the Indologist does not believe in Asuras. The moment I enter my puja room I am the Bhakta. This is the case with all the people who practice religion.

 

[Ramaa]

Purva Mimaamsa deals purely with karma kaanda of our Veda which clearly say that for every karma there is a fruit of karma. For those who follow this there is no need to look beyond this cause effect theory. I wouldn't say they repudiate Easwara. They merely say that there is no role for Easwara. Adi Sankaracharya who follows Vedantha (uttara mimamsa) defeated the tallest follower of Purva Mimamsa called Viswarupa also known as Mandana Misra who immediately became the sishya of Adi Sankara with the permission of his old Guru Kumarila Bhatta. Actually Sankara sought Kumarila Bhatta for the debate but since Kumarila Bhatta was on death bed he deputed his able sishya Mandana Misra who was defeated by Sankara.

Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimamsa are not the only two branches of Hinduism. Actually there are six branches called 'sat dharshana' - all of whom are based on the Veda. The final dharshana is uttara mimamsa or vedanta and it has been explained by three acharyas in three different ways on the concept of the relation between Paramaathma and jeevathma.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Nacchinarkiniyan Ji,

Based on Sri Ram Ji's posting above, a question arises.

Purva Mimamsa deals exclusively with the performance of Vedic rites as the sole means to enjoy the fruits of one's actions, while the Acharyal introduced the concept of Ishwara as the sole administrator of the fruits of action.

So, the difference between the two Mimamsas. But then, one does not throw away the concept of the vedic rituals either. So, is it enough to understand that Ishwara is the dispenser of Universal justice and do 'nothing' also? Is there not a branch as a part of the saddarshanas that says that one can just live a 'moral' life according to the prevailing customs/laws of the times and do nothing more or less except to offer their work as a service to Ishwara and they will also be 'liberated'?

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Ramaa]

Small correction KRSji.

the Acharyal introduced the concept of Ishwara as the sole administrator of the fruits of action.

Acharyal did not introduce the concept of Easwara but asserted Easwara's role. Please find out how Bhagavan Ramana's Upadesa Saaram came to be.

Regards,

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Ram Ji,

You have stated above:

Small correction KRSji.

Quote:
the Acharyal introduced the concept of Ishwara as the sole administrator of the fruits of action.
Acharyal did not introduce the concept of Easwara but asserted Easwara's role. Please find out how Bhagavan Ramana's Upadesa Saaram came to be.

Regards,

I did not say that Acharyal introduced the concept of Ishwara, but rather He introduced the concept of Ishwara as the sole administrator of the fruits of action.

Please correct me if I am wrong in saying so.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Ramaa]

Easwara's role not only includes dispensing of the fruits of karma but also in srishti, sthithi and samhaaram.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Dear Sri Nacchinarkiniyan Ji,

Based on Sri Ram Ji's posting above, a question arises.

Purva Mimamsa deals exclusively with the performance of Vedic rites as the sole means to enjoy the fruits of one's actions, while the Acharyal introduced the concept of Ishwara as the sole administrator of the fruits of action.

So, the difference between the two Mimamsas. But then, one does not throw away the concept of the vedic rituals either. So, is it enough to understand that Ishwara is the dispenser of Universal justice and do 'nothing' also? Is there not a branch as a part of the saddarshanas that says that one can just live a 'moral' life according to the prevailing customs/laws of the times and do nothing more or less except to offer their work as a service to Ishwara and they will also be 'liberated'?

Pranams,
KRS

Advaita Vedanta is no longer called Uttara Mimansa. The two Mimansas are older classification.

What you are talking about is the concept of Nishkamya Karma. Though Uttara Mimansa does not have a concept of GOD, it believes in Moksha or liberation from the cycle of birth and rebirth. The Vedic rituals are for particular benefits. These get you to Swarga. But to get Moksha you continue to do your Nithyakarmas without any expectations. This alone is sufficient to attain Moksha.

This concept was taken to a much greater height in the Bhagavad Gita which is basically a compendium of Upanishadic thoughts. It is also basically a text based on Sankhya philosophy.

You may find this article by Swami Sivananda a pure Karma Yogi useful.

http://www.dlshq.org/discourse/feb2001.htm

There may be different opinions about some or all my above statements. When it comes to philosophy we all have different opinions. I have been asked to present a paper on Uttara Mimansa in a workshop. Since the paper has to be original work, I may differ from some of the existing interpretations. That is how academics work.

For those who are interested in Philosophy The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy may be of interest. All the subjects in Hindu philosophy have not been covered so far.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

About Karma this book is excellent.

Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions.- Motilal Banarsidass. New Delhi - This is a collection of papers presented at many seminars about the Law of Karma.