Is the Community digging its own grave

[zebra16]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sri Nara,

Vaagmi, you asserted when there is a contradiction Sruti trumps Smriti. Now I have cited Sruti which proclaims that every word of Manu is like medicine. Therefore, there is direct authority from Sruti itself that the rules pertaining to Shudra stated in Manu are valid. If you don't accept these Smriti edicts then you are contradicting Sruti which you said was a higher authority than Smriti. The obvious illogic of these assertions are for you to work out.

I do not get what you mean here. Are you saying that the author of Manu Dharmashastra is the one who is referred to in the brahmanam passage 2.2.10.2 of T.S.?

Sri Sankara and Sri Ramanuja concur with this?

If so please give me the details of the reference in SAnkara bhashyam.

Regards,

 

[Nara]

..I do not get what you mean here. Are you saying that the author of Manu Dharmashastra is the one who is referred to in the brahmanam passage 2.2.10.2 of T.S.?

Sri Sankara and Sri Ramanuja concur with this?,

Dear zebra16 the references to Manu appear from about I.3.36 on both Shankara Bhashyam and Sri Bhashyam.

From Sankara Bhashyam:

... The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages: 'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with (molten) lead and lac,' and 'For a Sûdra is (like) a cemetery, therefore (the Veda) is not to be read in the vicinity of a Sûdra.' From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how should he study Scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, an express prohibition (of the Sûdras studying the Veda). 'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.' The prohibitions of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as 'he is not to impart knowledge to the Sûdra,' and 'to the twice-born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.'--From those Sûdras, however, who, like Vidura and 'the religious hunter,' acquire knowledge in consequence of the after effects of former deeds, the fruit of their knowledge cannot be withheld, since knowledge in all cases brings about its fruit. Smriti, moreover, declares that all the four castes are qualified for acquiring the knowledge of the itihâsas and purânas; compare the passage, 'He is to teach the four castes' (Mahâbh.).--It remains, however, a settled point that they do not possess any such qualification with regard to the Veda.
​

From Sri Bhashyam:

Smriti also declares this prohibition of hearing, and so on. 'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with molten lead and lac; if he pronounces it his tongue is to be slit; if he preserves it his body is to be cut through.' And 'He is not to teach him sacred duties or vows.'--It is thus a settled matter that the Sûdras are not qualified for meditations on Brahman.
​

The translations are from Internet Sacred Text Archive Home

The Manu of Tait. Sm. 2.2.10.2 is indeed the same Manu as in Manu Dharmashastra. The citation for this comes a few verses before the above, I will look for it and get back to you.

best regards ...

 

[kunjuppu]

... and while we are animated about so many things.. i thought it might not be a bad idea, at the moment, midnight aug 15 1947, when something happened, and made it possible, that 65+ years later we can talk about so many things, which was not possible for our grandparents and for hundreds of years earlier...

with much humility and respects to all members of this forum.. here is a dedication

Aaduvom ..

 

[sangom]

Sri Nara,



I do not get what you mean here. Are you saying that the author of Manu Dharmashastra is the one who is referred to in the brahmanam passage 2.2.10.2 of T.S.?

Sri Sankara and Sri Ramanuja concur with this?

If so please give me the details of the reference in SAnkara bhashyam.

Regards,

Only when there is a contradiction (express or implied) between sruthi and smriti, the former becomes overriding. In other cases the smrithis buttress or add to the sruthis, and thus smrithi equals sruthi in validity and importance. That is the settled decision.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

August 5, 2013


is the community digging its own grave?

It is very unfortunate to note large number of brahmins, expecially girls, marrying

outside their caste. The reasons may be due to:

1. Economic independence
2. Lack of faith in the caste
3. Lack of faith in the religion
4. Marriage is not a serious affair
5. Disrespect to parents

since the majority of the people in the world follows paternal system, i don't

know how many brahmin girls after ic/ir marriages, follow brahminical system or

advise their children to follow. It think it is highly impossible, within the religion

or outside.

However, there is no harm if a brahmin boy marrying a nb girl, since the girl will

become a brahmin after marriage, it is exactly on the opposite if a brahmin girl

marrying a nb boy. Hence, we may even encourage a b boy to marry a nb girl.

If the situation is really alarming and brahmins want to maintain their identity,

the need of the hour is:

1. Abolition of various categories of brahmins (iyers/iyengars/madhwa) etc. And
subsects and follow only one system acceptable to all communites. This has
to be done immediately and only by the concerned acharyas and, if not, by the educated brahmin people, both men and women, who have interest in the
community.

2. Identify the brahmins (both men and women) who are seriously interested in the
community and appoint them as caretakers.

3. Conduct meetings at least once in two months and explain the importance of
preserving the identity of the community.

4. Publishing a newspaper exclusively for the community.

5. Take oath from brahmins not to disclose the subsect or category.

6. Common fund for helping poor brahmins.

7. Identify the reasons for ib / ir marriages thru professionals like
psychiatrists, psychologists etc., and try to eliminate them.

8. Give equal importance to women for the empowerment of the community or
even the responsibility of managing the affairs may be given to women.

9. Constant interaction is a must to avoid further erosion.

I am sure the educated and those who have interest will come forward the
stop the erosion.

With warm regards,

s chandrasekaran

 

[Vaagmi]

Nara in 495

Vaagmi, you asserted when there is a contradiction Sruti trumps Smriti. Now I have cited Sruti which proclaims that every word of Manu is like medicine. Therefore, there is direct authority from Sruti itself that the rules pertaining to Shudra stated in Manu are valid. If you don't accept these Smriti edicts then you are contradicting Sruti which you said was a higher authority than Smriti. The obvious illogic of these assertions are for you to work out.

Sruti is apaurusheya (as you are familiar with the term I am using it) and anAdhi. Meaning in English-Vedas were not written by any one, not even by God. So their origin is unascertainable. Now smritis are made by Rshis. So it is derived that srutis preceded smritis. Now you are telling me that sruti has talked of something in a smriti and the name of the smriti karta is talked about in the sruti. Sruti does not speak about such things. It does not speak about who are all going to be born in this world and what all they are going to do etc. Sruti is about rituals and about the God idea. Do you see the contradiction. So I reject what you say about deriving the authority from sruti as unacceptable. If anything it is a smriti’s content and taking or leaving it depends on whether it contradicts sruti’s content or not.

BTW, the chronology of Sruti and Smriti is not a problem for me because I think both Sruti and Smriti are full of interpolations. Lot of people dumped into it a lot of stuff. Some clever Brahmin who wanted to make Manu supreme probably inserted this little nugget into the Samhita. If one is to look at these texts dispassionately one cannot escape the conclusion that neither Sruti nor Smriti is an authority for anything. They both belong to the dustbin of history.

Considering the last sentence of this para you appear to be all knowing. So I have nothing to tell you on this.

But of course if you are a faithful Brahmin, then every word of Sruti is aupurusheya and timeless and therefore immutably true. This applies to the statement about Manu which is to come later. How to reconcile this chronology problem, I am sure the faithful have a boatload of explanations, check with them. To me of course all that is bunk.

Why bother about bunk? Be happy in your own world of intellectual pretensions and arrogance and atheistic shibboleth.

 

[Vaagmi]

Nara in 496 addressed to Zebra16:

p.s. do you really subscribe to this vegetarian-gene theory? I don't have a right to ask this question, so, with a great deal of trepidation I ask you, how come you are not contesting the strange vegetarian gene theory but only about my speculations? A lot is usually made of this putative gang of Brahmin Bashers on the prowl. But the fact is, we openly disagree and challenge each other, a thing that is rarely seen among those who bitterly oppose us the Brahmin Bashers!!!

Poor chap. Dear zebra why don’t you join enthusiastically and forcefully with these BBs and lend them some strength which they appear to lack. That is what is revealed by the admission of the bulwark here. He is appealing for your support.

And what Nara calls vegetarian theory is not that at all. I would suggest that you google the name Robert Boyd and go through the voluminous work done by Robert Boyd the anthropologist from the University of California, LA and his colleagues on the subject of “impact of culture on genes in a fundamental way”. Nara, Sangom(he even trivialized this subject by coining a new term “vaagmi genes”), Renuka and Palindrome are all people who have been asked to refer to this anthropologist’s work. But they have not bothered to do that and are harping on veg genes and vaagmi genes here. When ideas you hold dear to your heart (not brain) are demolished, it is hard to accept it and these people are all standing on the ruins of such a dearly closely held belief system.

 

[Vaagmi]

Zebra16 in 497:

I subscribe to the theory that forefathers of even the most ardent and strident brahmin was once upon a time strictly and purely a meat eater.

I too subscribe to this theory. I am not talking about the ancient man here. I am talking about the values picked up in all this millennium, cultural transformation that has happened in all this millennium and the impact of such influences on the gene of that ancient human being’s genealogical line. Unfortunately the prejudiced minds here are myopic when it comes to understanding this.

 

[Vaagmi]

Nara in 498 to Zebra 16:

that is so true isn't? The reason homosapien came to have a large brain and consequent to that dominate the earth is because our forefathers in Africa at least 200,000 years ago were all meat-eaters. I notice you didn't answer my second question, which I once again acknowledge I have no right to ask.

So the homosapiens having a large brain is because they ate and eat meat. Proof please with chapter and verse.

 

[renuka]

And what Nara calls vegetarian theory is not that at all. I would suggest that you google the name Robert Boyd and go through the voluminous work done by Robert Boyd the anthropologist from the University of California, LA and his colleagues on the subject of “impact of culture on genes in a fundamental way”. Nara, Sangom(he even trivialized this subject by coining a new term “vaagmi genes”), Renuka and Palindrome are all people who have been asked to refer to this anthropologist’s work.

Dear Vaagmi Sir,

I am surprised you quote Robert Boyd over and over again...that too asking me to look at his findings.

For all practical purposes he is a Non Brahmin and according to you the NB gene expresses its way in a different manner as per your theory..so why would you want to use a Non Brahmin Robert Boyd's theory here to support your theory?

I just fail to understand you>

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Vaagmi Sir,

I am surprised you quote Robert Boyd over and over again...that too asking me to look at his findings.

For all practical purposes he is a Non Brahmin and I feel according to you the NB gene expresses its way in a different manner as per your theory..so why would you want to use a Non Brahmin Robert Boyd's theory here to support your theory?

I just fail to understand you>

Dear Renuka Madam,

This surreptitious introduction of "your theory" is not acceptable to me. I have not brought any new theory here. Please understand that first. I quote Robert Boyd because he and his colleagues appear to understand the reality better than all the NBs and BBs here in this forum. Don't feign so much of surprise. And by the way, what have you understood from Robert Boyd's theory? Answer to this question will be more relevant I believe. Thank you.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka Madam,

This surreptitious introduction of "your theory" is not acceptable to me. I have not brought any new theory here. Please understand that first. I quote Robert Boyd because he and his colleagues appear to understand the reality better than all the NBs and BBs here in this forum. Don't feign so much of surprise. And by the way, what have you understood from Robert Boyd's theory? Answer to this question will be more relevant I believe. Thank you.

Dear Vaagmi Sir,

But sir...the fact remains that Robert Boyds's genes and brains are wired different from the rest of the Indian subcontinent.

Imagine if a Brahmin and Non Brahmin gene application in the body differs so much..how much more a Robert Boyd's gene application will differ from the average desi??

So you tell me yaar..how can you accept his theory???

That is why I prefer if there is a Vedic Source to support your understanding.

I prefer some Vedic source.

I hope you would quote some Vedic source to enlighten me.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Vaagmi Sir,

But sir...the fact remains that Robert Boyds's genes and brains are wired different from the rest of the Indian subcontinent.
Imagine if a Brahmin and Non Brahmin gene application in the body differs so much..how much more a Robert Boyd's gene application will differ from the average desi??
So you tell me yaar..how can you accept his theory???
That is why I prefer if there is a Vedic Source to support your understanding.
I prefer some Vedic source.
I hope you would quote some Vedic source to enlighten me.

Dear Renuka madam,

Please let me know whether you have understood anything from Robert Boyd's theory and if so what. Then I will tell you the secret as to why it should be accepted. Answer please. Thank you.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka madam,

Please let me know whether you have understood anything from Robert Boyd's theory and if so what. Then I will tell you the secret as to why it should be accepted. Answer please. Thank you.

Dear Vaagmi Ji,

He claims that culture helps shape human behavior too and not only genes.

I am not surprised by his finding cos I call that cultural conditioning and that shapes some of our behavior.

But to me this is not a lasting permanent effect cos human beings have the MIND which is prone to change as we all know that nothing is ever the same.

So there is no permanent lasting effect of anything..everything besides God is prone to Vikara till we reach the state of Nirvikara.

 

[sarang]

There is only one set of vedas, but srutis are numerous. Even manu of manusmruti says that it has to be interpreted and modified to suit the age and location. There is not a single incident of shudras punished for learning or reciting vedas. All azhwars, nayanmars and virtually all acharyas and mutt heads ensured that vedic knowledge reached all sections of society, irrespective of their varna or social status. Even with our present day legal acts, only a small percentage are put into action and many are irrelevant.

Sruti need not be followed 100%; it was never done in the past and no king has enforced it. Anyway, today, vedas are available to all to buy, study and learn; so what is the issue.

A view of buddha and dharmasastras by Koenraad Elst and Sri Bhart Gupt, both active scholars, from their posts in another forum.

From Sri Elst Koenraad

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Koenraad Elst <koenraadelst@...>
wrote:

Xavier,

please tell us: when did the Buddha break with Dharma? When did he revolt against it? Very many Indians including serious intellectuals like yourself repeat this story, but so far, never has any of them been able to pinpoint an event in the Buddha's life which constituted a break-away from Hinduism. At the fag end of his long life, he described the seven principles by which a society does not perish, and among them are included: repecting and maintaining the existing festivals, pilgrimages and rituals; and revering its holimen. Far from being a revolutionary, the Buddha emphatically outed himself as a
conservative. When he died, the elites of eight cities made a successful bid for his ashes on the plea: "We are kshatriyas, he was a kshatriya, therefore we have a right to his ashes" -- after almost half a century, his disciples still observed caste is a par excellence
Buddhist context. When Buddhism spread to China and Japan, Buddhist monks took the Vedic gods with them and built temples for them. The Buddha was every inch a Hindu.

Kind regards,

KE

(Bharat Gupt)

It is good that the whole misconception of Buddha being against the varna ashram dharma is now being demolished.

The facts are simple. The Bauddhas, Jainas or the Shakta never composed any separate Smritis. They followed Manu and other dharmashastra kaaras and achaara givers.

They did not follow the yajnas and karmas involved with pashu bali, but the social order, now erroneously called the caste system, was never altered by them.

I mention this very clearly in my lecture link given below; The lecture is on 'secularism'
as it prevails NOW after the colonial intervention in Inida and earlier in the
preIslamic and preChristian times.

The Muddle of Indian Secularism delivered in Houston 2012 - YouTube


This was given in the presence of the scholars of dharma shastras and sanskrit scholars
in Houston. Please see the later part of this video which states that the king did
promulgate any social rules according to his sectarian loyalties.

The Indian state was following the standard shastraachaara and the regional
lokaachaara all over India and hence it was secular in the sense that it did not make
the norms of moral conduct for the kingdom. It only enforced through judiciary what was laid down by dharma shastras and local customs.

svasti

Bharat Gupt
Associate Professor (Retd), Delhi University,
Founder member and Trustee
International Forum for India's Heritage.

Nara in 495



Sruti is apaurusheya (as you are familiar with the term I am using it) and anAdhi. Meaning in English-Vedas were not written by any one, not even by God. So their origin is unascertainable. Now smritis are made by Rshis. So it is derived that srutis preceded smritis. Now you are telling me that sruti has talked of something in a smriti and the name of the smriti karta is talked about in the sruti. Sruti does not speak about such things. It does not speak about who are all going to be born in this world and what all they are going to do etc. Sruti is about rituals and about the God idea. Do you see the contradiction. So I reject what you say about deriving the authority from sruti as unacceptable. If anything it is a smriti’s content and taking or leaving it depends on whether it contradicts sruti’s content or not.



Considering the last sentence of this para you appear to be all knowing. So I have nothing to tell you on this.



Why bother about bunk? Be happy in your own world of intellectual pretensions and arrogance and atheistic shibboleth.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Renuka madam,

He claims that culture helps shape human behavior too and not only genes.
I am not surprised by his finding cos I call that cultural conditioning and that shapes some of our behavior.But to me this is not a lasting permanent effect cos human beings have the MIND which is prone to change as we all know that nothing is ever the same.So there is no permanent lasting effect of anything..everything besides God is prone to Vikara till we reach the state of Nirvikara.

That shows you have understood but still want to interpret it in a specious way to suit your entrenched position.
Just I would add this:
'Cultural conditioning' mentioned by you is like writing a line on a page while what Boyd confirms is about the whole book. He says culture is able to permeate the invisible barrier between environment and the gene and write down its message into the genes itself given sufficient time. The two are two different ideas. Hope you think about it and get the true meaning. It is just science and not sociology.

It is indeed a lasting permanent effect on the concerned genes. Lactose intolerance was one such permanent effect on the sample group studied by Boyd and his colleague (it would have been quite interesting if Boyd had taken a large group tabras for his study). And it happened over many hundreds of years. Once the genes were written upon there was no going back. It will take perhaps another many hundreds of years of targeted effort to wipe it out. Do you understand?

'Everything besides God is prone to vikara' is a statement of the obvious and may be an opening gambit to philosophising. I enjoyed the conversation. Thank you.

 

[Nara]

...But to me this is not a lasting permanent effect cos human beings have the MIND which is prone to change as we all know that nothing is ever the same.

Culture having an effect on gene evolution over thousands or tens of thousands of years is well established. One clinching example is the case of lactose tolerance and intolerance among two groups of people, respectively. Scientists have isolated the gene that causes lactose tolerance/intolerance and have shown dietary habits over thousands of years as the cause of the evolution of this gene.

To show that Brahmins have a similar gene, say V-Gene, that makes them natural vegetarians, averse to NV naturally, and that that gene can be traced to their cultural choice of vegetarianism, one has to (i) isolate such a gene and (ii) establish such a gene is turned on among all the members of vegetarian castes with just a few random exceptions, and is turned off among all the members of meat eating NB castes with a few random exceptions.

There are some already known facts that indicate the likelihood of the presence of this culturally engineered V-Gene infinitesimally small. If V-Gene is present it has to manifest in some physically observable way. To be sure the reaction is triggered by genetic disposition and not cultural bias, the reaction must be physically observable, like in the case of lactose intolerance. In other words, if a member of the traditional Veg castes consumes NV there must be some sort of adverse physical reaction. But, we see countless Brahmins enjoy NV with no reaction but satisfied belch. There cases are numerous enough to be dismissed as random exceptions.

 

[zebra16]

Dear Sri Nara,

Dear zebra16, Before I state my response let me first submit that my main argument in that post was the fact that Brahmins eschewing meat was not about compassion, and neither driven by genetic forces like a cow being vegetarian.

As you have rightly noted these are only my speculations, I am not claiming these as irrefutable facts. I am ready to revise me view if reasonable evidence is presented. What you have presented actually supports my view that it was not compassion that drove Brahmins to adopt vegetarianism, but I know, your point is about "time" and "purpose" for adopting vegetarianism.

But zebra16, what you have cited does not say anything about Brahmins adopting vegetarianism, it is all about who is going to do the dirty work. When Brahmins adopted vegetarianism or for what purpose is not addressed at all by the cited text.

Probably you did not give much importance to the thought of the brahmins of the mid vedic period which was excerpted in my original reply, viz. the existence of the reverse world where the animals devour humans, karma produces automatic consequences and killing is necessarily an evil. These ingredients would necessarily propel one towards the direction of non killing of animals unnecessarily and also to eschew such a food.

I feel that you are begrudging to give the credit due to those vedic brahmins. According to me their thought is nothing but the idea of putting oneself in another's shoes and to gauge his feelings. If one goes through the vedas in chronological order (in the order of Rg veda, Yajur Veda etc. and Samhita BtAhmaNam Aranyakam etc. as generally is being done) it is hard to miss that even the act of killing of the sactificial pashu from being openly slaughtered by tying it to the yupasthamba had moved to just snuffing out its breath at a distant place as humanely as possible (I know that you are not going to accept this as a humane act, but for me it was necessarily a progress from earlier crude act) to altogether giving it up in the upaniSad periods.

The only difference is that probably they did not use the sanskrit equivalent of the posh english word "empathy" which makes today's social scientists and activists feel that they (the modernists) are one up on the native herdsmen brahmins.

The joke is, the posh "empathetic" members at large (not pointing out to anyone in this forum) would continue to consume meat even when alternative is available and would dole out words empty words like empathy. sympathy etc and would only mock at the brahmin being a vegetarian by choice.

Regards,

 

[renuka]

That shows you have understood but still want to interpret it in a specious way to suit your entrenched position.




Just I would add this:
'Cultural conditioning' mentioned by you is like writing a line on a page while what Boyd confirms is about the whole book. He says culture is able to permeate the invisible barrier between environment and the gene and write down its message into the genes itself given sufficient time. The two are two different ideas. Hope you think about it and get the true meaning. It is just science and not sociology.

It is indeed a lasting permanent effect on the concerned genes. Lactose intolerance was one such permanent effect on the sample group studied by Boyd and his colleague (it would have been quite interesting if Boyd had taken a large group tabras for his study). And it happened over many hundreds of years. Once the genes were written upon there was no going back. It will take perhaps another many hundreds of years of targeted effort to wipe it out. Do you understand?

'Everything besides God is prone to vikara' is a statement of the obvious and may be an opening gambit to philosophising. I enjoyed the conversation. Thank you.

Dear Vaagmi ji,


Do you understand?? LOL

I can't stop laughing at your choice of words?

Are you a teacher by profession??

BTW I will converse with you more next week..will be flying to India tomorrow..Bye Bye Vaagmi Ji..see you next week.

Will certainly miss you!

 

[Nara]

...Probably you did not give much importance to the thought of the brahmins of the mid vedic period which was excerpted in my original reply...

Dear zebra16 (may I address you as narayan, I don't like zebra16),
I have no problem with Vedic Brahmins, I think they were honest about their beliefs and didn't try to obfuscate anything. There indeed was a push back against animal sacrifices, some of them wanted to replace real animals with animal figurines made of dough. I heard this in one of the Kalakshepams I attended and don't have the exact citation -- dear Shri Sangom if you are reading this please help me out. However, the conservatives won the day, figurines were not accepted.

In any case, whatever our speculations may be, whatever empathetic measures the mid-Vedic people adopted to minimize the pain of animal sacrifice, Brahmins turned to vegetarianism a long time ago, and they have been vegetarians for a long time like the other vegetarian NB groups such as Saiva Pillai and others. I have no quarrel with this. What I find unacceptable is this concept of Brahmin superiority a la Brahmin genetic disposition towards vegetarianism. In other words, I have no quarrel with Vedic Brahmins, my quarrel is only with those Brahmins who want to claim Brahmins are genetically inclined to be natural vegetarians.

Pivoting a little, I have no problem with Adi Shankara and Ramanuja, they presented a cogent argument based on their reverence to Sruti and Smrithi that taught them that Varna system is divinely ordained and sacrosanct. I even sort of understand the present day Brahmins who take the trouble to undergo the troubles of the Brahminical tradition in toto, taking all the hardships without complaint, though I don't agree with their ways. My problem is with the present day weekend and wannabe Brahmins who can't repudiate the words of Adi Shankara and Ramanuja who accepted the vile words of the Dharmashasthras and yet wish to show off that they reject Dharmashashthras. They can't have it both ways. Stand up for your Brahminical tradition and take the bumps, or drum up the courage to reject it. Those who want to straddle ஆத்துல ஒரு கால் சேத்துல ஒரு கால் are the ones I am challenging.

Narayan, the Vedic Brahmins were surely equally thoughtful as their counterparts elsewhere in the Greek and Egyptian world. But I think you have to admit that the present day Brahmins epitomized by the Jeeyars and Acharyas are no match to the cutting edge philosophical thinking by the likes of Peter singer.

So, my point is, take from Shruti and Smriti what makes sense for the present day world and don't let tribal consideration prevent you from throwing aboard what you can't openly admit to in mixed company.

best regards narayan ....

p.s. I am sorry I am not able to cite references from Shaknara or Sri Bhashyam for T.S. 2.2.10.2, I must have got mixed up. I am sorry. But I hope you will concede the overall point that T.S. 2.2.10.2. does refer to the Dharmashastra Manu and the revered acharyas cited Manu as authority for keeping Vedic knowledge, the only recognized knowledge at that time, from the "Shudras" and "Panchamas".

 

[sravna]

In other words, I have no quarrel with Vedic Brahmins, my quarrel is only with those Brahmins who want to claim Brahmins are genetically inclined to be natural vegetarians.

Dear Shri Nara,

Why cannot the inclination to be a vegetarian be the result of the genetic inclination to be sattvic?

 

[renuka]

Dear Shri Nara,

Why cannot the inclination to be a vegetarian be the result of the genetic inclination to be sattvic?

Dear Sravna,

From the philosophical point of view...each human is supposed to reach the state of Nirguna eventually(I am sure you agree with me here).

The process to reach this state might differ...for some it might just even be a Eureka moment and for some it takes a longer time.

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri Nara,

Why cannot the inclination to be a vegetarian be the result of the genetic inclination to be sattvic?

Dear sravna, for you to claim this you need to (i) have a scientific definition of what satvik is, (ii) show that to be vegetarian is satvik, and (iii) isolate the gene that directly links to being satvik. Unless your claims are substantiated with these prerequisites they are nothing but idle speculations.

regards ....

 

[sravna]

Dear sravna, for you to claim this you need to (i) have a scientific definition of what satvik is, (ii) show that to be vegetarian is satvik, and (iii) isolate the gene that directly links to being satvik. Unless your claims are substantiated with these prerequisites they are nothing but idle speculations.

regards ....

Dear Shri Nara,

I think there is no need to create a new scientific definition for sattvic as sattvic is already well defined.

And why is it necessary to isolate the gene directly responsible for being sattvic to understand that being sattvic is a genetic inclination? It is just a predominant quality of your personality and if it is an accepted fact that personality has a genetic component why wouldn't sattvic nature be inherited in many cases?

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

From the philosophical point of view...each human is supposed to reach the state of Nirguna eventually(I am sure you agree with me here).

The process to reach this state might differ...for some it might just even be a Eureka moment and for some it takes a longer time.

Dear Renuka,

Yes I agree but I also think that the process is fair to every soul and there are differences because some souls would have been subject to the process later than others and hence seem to be lagging behind.