• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

purushasuktam - varna

Status
Not open for further replies.
happyhinduji does not recognise grihya suthras as authorities. Does he mean that the samskaras enjoined therein need not be performed by any varna?
Did i say so? So far i have only been talking abt the law portions of smrithis. And no, i do not think laws of the BC times or the 2nd century can be applied in the 21st century. Nor do i think any constitution of the world wud want its people to live in antiquated ages.

happyhinduji also rejects the opinion of Shankar mutts that the poorva mimamsa is essential in as much as it helps in getting chitha suddhi whch in its turn helps in following the tenets of vedantha. Why? Just because they are shankar mutts? There have been many mahapurushas as the matadhipathis and the shankar math statement is born out of experience. So, this fact gives a weightage to their statement.

Rejection of the purva mimansa is what a section a monks follow. They are not asking shankara mutts (or anyone) to follow their ideology or accept that only they are "right". If shankara mutts follow the POV that purva mimansa helps in shudhi, then its their POV. They too cannot expect others to accept that only their own POV is "correct". There are Mahapurushas in other philosophical systems too...
 
That does not matter saptha. Anyone can write the same sentence in a few diff ways. And its not for us to decide whether the meaning changes or not.
You were the one who said it matters, and said that the meaning differed. All I am asking is how does it change the meaning.

I am really interested to know how it changes the meaning.
 
You were the one who said it matters, and said that the meaning differed. All I am asking is how does it change the meaning.

I am really interested to know how it changes the meaning.

We will come to that point soon.

But first, can i have the source from where you got that verse?

I wud like to show it to some people.

Badrayan wrote 'Athatho Brahmajigyasa' and everyone follows that. Though the sentence can be written in a diff ways, hindus do not alter it. Alteration is not a general practice with hindu scriptures. And its not about just the meaning alone. I suppose you know that.

So, please, can i have the source?

Regards.
 
Last edited:
Dear Saptha, Greetings!

I think our discussion is petering out. This shall be my last response and I will give you the last word. I am also planning to make one additional post addressed to everyone later today.

Points for you to note:
  • I am not saying Manu is recommending violence against women. My contention is the verse and both your interpretation and the literal meaning HH presented, are just begging to be used as justification for such violence.
  • IPC deals with much more than just code of conduct, it deals with evidence and court procedures etc. Therefore IPC can be abstruse needing some interpretation. The proper comparison for Manu's laws is Thirukkural.
  • Even if you compare it to IPC, I don't think IPC uses language that is demeaning, unless a learned and scholarly lawyer comes along with interpretation based on deep hidden knowledge or whatever.
  • If Manu wants men to be independent and objective with everyone including mother and sister, it is easy enough to say so. Why say don't be alone with them? Does Manu think there is no need to warn men to be independent if someone else is also present? Makes no sense.
  • Writing down code of conduct that is not vile is not impossible, Thiruvalluvar did it. So, your comment about "case by case" is not valid.

BTW, I don't know why you are not providing the reference HH is asking for repeatedly. You have one, isn't?

Alright, that is it, I will concede the last word to you. But expect one more post from me addressed to everyone.

Cheers!
 
Some notes on law codes:

1) Law codes of smrithis are not the oldest in the world.

2) The oldest law codes were written in the middle-east. Examples of law codes that predate the smrithis (some by several centuries or a millenia) are

a) Laws of Urukagina, written before 2000 BC.

b) the Code of Ur-Nammu in Sumerian language, written before 2000BC: The Ur-Nammu law code and Code of Ur-Nammu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

c) the Code of Lipit-Ishtar, dated before 1500BC: Code of Lipit-Ishtar @ Gavel2Gavel.com ||| Summary and Full Text

d) Laws of Eshunna, dated before 1500BC: http://openlibrary.org/b/OL2526364M

e) the Code of Hammurabi, dated before 1500BC (the complete code can be read here: Online Library of Liberty - The Code of Hammurabi )

f) Code of Assura dated before 1000 BC.

Points to note are:

a) Law codes are always written in a direct language. Use of script leading to allegorical meanings is rare.

b) Law codes of the middle-east were usually inscribed on stone tablets. Their script was not permitted to be altered. Generally, all law-codes are not considered alterable.

But ancient indians are not considered to have inscribed laws on stone tablets as a common practice. In the absence of the original script, additions and deletions into the scripts cannot be ruled out, considering the antiquity of the law scripts and changes over time. And this updating (additions / deletions) is considered to have happened to babylonian laws too (eg: laws of eshunna).

c) All law codes in the ancient world were considered divine in nature, inspired by God. However, despite all the aura of divinity centered around these codes, new sets of law codes came to be written under different kings, with the old being discarded or put to disuse.

d) Going by evidence found, it is apparent that the culture context of social organization was present in the middle-east long before such organization become evident in the areas of old india.

e) It is argued that the system of social organization of people (based on occupation) began in ancient india after population inflow from the northwest happened (that is, long before the later-time influxes of central asian / northwestern hordes happened). And law codes were written after the influx of the central asian / northwestern hordes happened.

f) There is some amount of commonality in some law codes of the middle-east and those of the smrithis, esp wrt to creation of the world, and laws pertaining to women.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
Hello everyone:

There are more than 9000 members in this forum. Almost 1000 are active. At any time there are about 50 people visiting apparently reading some of what we write. So, permit me to direct this one to those of you who read what passes here for debate and chuckle.

Manu is widely revered by “Hinuds”
The four Vedas are the foundation upon which the so called Sanatana Dharmam rests. Since the Vedas are remote to ordinary folks, many subsidiary texts were written. Among them are Smrithees, Ithihasas, and Puranas. Of these, the most important is Manu Smrithi. Manu’s laws are supreme for orthodox Brahmnical vaideekas. It seems Manu is held in high esteem even by other schools of reformist genre. For instance, Wikipedia says Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the founder of Arya Samaj, holds Manu as authentic and authoritative. I am mystified by this though, as I thought Arya Samaj, while believing in Varna, does not believe in birth based varna. So I went to the Arya Samaj web site and I found this article that characterizes Manu as, “Manu Maharaj,the greatest law maker and law giver mankind has ever come across.”

In any case, we can conclude that Manu is an important text for Hindus and cannot be just wished away. We must confront it head on and deal with it.

Manu Smrithi and Shruthi
The validity of Manu is supposed to be derived from Shruthi. Manu himself makes this claim by citing the Rg Vedic verse in the very first Chapter, verse #31.
लोकानां तु विवृध्दि - अर्थ मुख -बाहु - ऊरु - पादत: ॥
ब्राह्मणं क्षत्रियं वैश्यं शूद्रं च निरवर्तयत् ॥
(But for the sake of the prosperity of the worlds he caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet.)
Further, all Brahmnical Vaideeka sects tout the validity of Manu based on its fidelity to the Vedas. So, anything that is accepted as valid from Manu is because of its faithfulness to the Vedas.

Manu's Varna
Manu almost always uses the term "Varna" in the text, and the term Jati is used just here and there. Even a quick glimpse of the text will show that there is no question that Manu's Varna is birth based and it is hierarchical. Right at the very start Manu makes sure of the gradation among Varnas (#1.92). Then, starting from verse #93, Manu goes on to exalt Brahmanas -- they are the lords of this earth and the Shudras are fit only for meek servitude #1.91). In fact, verse after verse, and chapter after chapter Manu puts forth a code that not only deals with Brahmins leniently, but puts down Shudras in the most vile terms. Here is a sample from here.

  • (name) a Sudra('s) (something) contemptible. (2.31)
  • (Let him not entertain at a Sraddha one who) .. a breeder of sporting-dogs, a falconer, one who defiles maidens, he who delights in injuring living creatures, he who gains his subsistence from Sudras, ... (3.164)
  • A once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin. (8.270)
  • A Brahmana may confidently seize the goods of (his) Sudra (slave); for, as that (slave) can have no property, his master may take his possessions. (8.147)
  • The son whom a Brahmana begets through lust on a Sudra female is, (though) alive (parayan), a corpse (sava), and hence called a Parasava (a living corpse). (9.178)
  • He who has slain a Sudra, shall perform that whole penance during six months, or he may also give ten white cows and one bull to a Brahmana. (11.131)
  • Having killed a cat, an ichneumon, a blue jay, a frog, a dog, an iguana, an owl, or a crow, he shall perform the penance for the murder of a Sudra; (11.132)
There is much more, page after page.

This is not division of labor for the harmonious functioning of society, it is division of people into a graded system of masters and servants, oppressors and oppressed. It appoints people to tasks not based on their aptitude, but by birth. Look at the monstrosity this system has given us. If you hate the reservation system and the seemingly ever present Brahmin bashing, it is Manu you must blame.

I am sure many of you have lots of very good friends born into shudra varna. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you then like this text that the Brahmnis seem to hold with utter reverence even if they do not follow every last edict? The answer, I am sure, is a resounding no.

Some argue that Manu gives us rules for good conduct, a prerequiste for Moksha. Come on my friends, do you really think a text that says a Shudra is fit only for meek servitude can tell us anything sublime? Just think about it. Don't get swayed by the conservatives for whom blind obedience is a mark of supreme spirituality.

I am sure that a vast majority of TB's reject Manu's ideas. Only the very orthodox Vaideekas and may be few others who long for a vision of Brahminism that may never have existed, still long for the Varnashrama system. Just consider this. Manu says,

Let him not dwell in a country where the rulers are Sudras, nor in one which is surrounded by unrighteous men, nor in one which has become subject to heretics, nor in one swarming with men of the lowest castes. (4.61)
Can you think of a single orthodox Brahamana who is able to to follow this edict?

What most Brahmins cherish, I think, is day-to-day customs and traditions, and may be, may be, some vague concept of performing duty without attachments etc. All of this can be had without Manu. Brahmin children are the ones who will increasingly turn against Brahmin tradition as long as Manu is given a place of reverence in the orthodoxy. It does not matter whether Manu is strictly followed or not, it is the symbol of Brahmins, the Albatross around Brahmin's neck. So, if you want the benign Brahmin traditions such as cooking, language, festivals to survive, cast aside this Albatross.

There is precedence for this. They say Dharma changes from one Yugam to the next. In this kali yugum nama sankeerthanam is enough they say. This is the precedence you need for watering down strict requirements. So, let the Brahmins declare that Manu's laws are not valid for the Kali Yuga. There is no need to call Manu any names, just say his laws were for a bygone era. For the yugum we live in, apply what Azhvars said about caste in the most expansive sense, not in the most narrow sense. Look for reformer texts among the Smartha Brahmins, I am sure there are some, and apply them in the most expansive way possible.

We are in a most critical moment in history. If the Brahmin community elders side with the reactionary elements, the most likely outcome is TB community will dwindle and go extinct. This process may be slow initially, but once it gains critical momentum, the end will come pretty fast.

Some may be tempted to respond with personal episodes, and half measures here and there. If you think that is sufficient, I can only say, think again. Nothing short of the total abandonment of Manu can have a chance to save Brahmin traditions.

Cheers!
 
If you need any more proof that Manu belongs to the dust bin of history here is an inspiring news story about a female loco driver.

Cheers
 
Dear Shri Nara, Greetings!

Though you have given me the last word, I would not use it to counter your post. I just dont see the need.

Thanks & Regards,

.........................................................................

A ramble...

Humans, in different times, decide on which is right for them and wrong. This being the case, a majority may decide something as wrong, which may the right tomorrow. Deciding by numbers of shifting logic is transient.

Spiritualism is different from Materialism.

Today, the society is oriented towards a materialistic outlook. The brahmins, can only revere Manu in his mind, for the circumstances do not allow him to follow most other.

People are often tempted to interpret all NBs as shudras. It is not so. I dont know whether the dalits are shudras or not - it is of recent origin. So I wont intrepolate or extrapolate here.

Shudhras are not the only one expected to servitude, but Kshathriyas and Vaishyas too! In return, the Brahmana has to procure his food through alms (not through an overbearing attitude). Is it not a mutually dependent structure?

But, the shasthras generally seem to say that the thamo gunam or ignorance is the predominant guna of the shudra. Vedhas could be twisted by such minds, as it happens even now, to instigate people against our premises.

I like the Rama of Ramayana, who even though an avathaar, stuck to duty and obedience. Even if such obedience meant servitude.

I like his dedication to Manudharma, his tendency never to break a promise.

Even if it be a wrong way (in the eyes of others), even it be a harsh life (for me), whatever is endorsed by Rama, is eternal. To think that only by abandonment of Manu, we gain equality in thoughts is a self-centred, materialistic view.

I do not ask anything from anybody. It is one's own fate and karma. Decide what you will, and reap accordingly.

It is my svabhava to follow the shasthras, operationally, to the extent possible, and the rest in intent.
 
Saptha,

I repeat my request.

Can you please give me the source of this verse.

स्वभाव एष नारीणां नराणामिह दूषणम्
अतोर्थान्न प्रमाध्यन्ति प्रमदासु विपश्चित:

Thanks.
 
This post somewhat reflects rightwing extremism (my apologises to saptha for using this post to show RVR ji and Pannvalan ji a few things. Please note: am not saying saptha is a rightwing activist; an only using some points in this post to convey some things).


Shri RVR and Shri Pannvalan,

You were talking about removing only evil effects of the caste system. I request you to shed the idea of being a human for a while, and see this as just a soul (with no name or identity). Please try to see what 'exactly' is not going right --

1) Saptha Says: The brahmins, can only revere Manu in his mind, for the circumstances do not allow him to follow most other.

This is what rightwing activists say. That they are not allowed to follow the smrithis (or their 'dharma') in the present day because of "secularism". So their stand is that of anti-constitution (read: anti-secularism). And rightwing activists do not mind shedding blood anymore, to ensure that they get their "rights" to follow their "dharma".

And why did this happen? -- one reason (and a very unknown one) is because there are so called "holy" institutions that ask people to follow smrithis (have explained this below).

2) Saptha says: But, the shasthras generally seem to say that the thamo gunam or ignorance is the predominant guna of the shudra. Vedhas could be twisted by such minds, as it happens even now, to instigate people against our premises.

So saptha has decided that he is a brahmin and other are shudras; though others might not consider saptha as a brahmin. And the argument is that "such minds" instigate against "our premise" (the premise being the jathi dharma).

Sri RVR ji, Some of you seemed to think that i was against a particular acharya. No sir i am not. I still have a pic of the acharyas in my prayer, despite coming to terms with some troublesome stuff. The prob is this :-

A guru comes along. Prescribes a remedy for the turmoil we are in. And leaves.

He did not intend for his words to be used for extremist thought in any form. He did not expect his directives for a harmonious society wud get (mis)used by some certain individuals for the exact opposite.

It does not matter to the right wing extremism school of thought (the 'abnormals') that a guru prescribed a way of life for brahmins. The abnormals leave all that out. They ignore the directive to live a simplistic life and a truly brahmanical life (they ignore the fact that if they did, there wud be no probs as envisaged by the guru).

They may talk about seeking a livelihood thru alms, but that kind of humility is too far. They won't even follow the very basics of any directive, such as learning vedas. The claim is that they are not materialistic, but they do run after materialism (and claim it to be "livelihood" though a brahmanical life itself is of aparigraha), and they ofcourse involve in political thought.

The abnormals seek 'equality' from the government which actually translates to 'let me be allowed to follow dharmashastras'. They feel persecuted that they are unable to follow the directives of smrithi law codes of conduct.

The abnormals will pick on only certain things the guru said. They will hold on to the ideology that a brahmin is by birth, because it helps their stand of seeking to implement the shastras with themselves as brahmins on top of the varna pole (as "all-important" people) with everyone else below it.

They will ofcourse, claim that jati-dharma is all about equality and provide many scriptural references to justify that - however, the "ego" of identity remains their motivation to involve in rightwing thought.

They seek to reverse the clock and take the word back to an anachronistic age or medieval times.

And their superiority stand gets expressed in various forms, sometimes as arguments on the benefits of shastras, sometimes as victimhood, or sometimes as sheer brazen superiority (like in the case of some banned posters we saw here).

An aside::
If one were to think it is a disgrace to admit all to veda patshalas, they too in a way are actually exhibiting a superiority stand. The idea of feeling persecuted comes from this very deep rooted stand; that seeks to maintain exclusivism. The result is a fragmented disunited society. This stand not unique to elderly folk alone. But its sorta worrisome if younger folk exhibit it.

Civilizations have kept creating codes of conduct for each age or for each kingdom, all in the name of divinity or divine law. In kaliyuga, we have stopped writing codes suitable to this age because we have no divine ppl of that kind or of that caliber. And in such a scenario, we keep wanting to impose old antique laws of the BC or early AD times in an age of robotics and space travel.

Am going to stop posting on this forum in a few weeks (after providing feedback on the MS to saptha). So i have taken the liberty to freely point out a few things in the past month or so. I have already told Praveen to delete any of my posts found offensive on this forum. I do expect certain responses on this particular post too. As a former watcher of extremism, i felt it right on my part to point out these things to sane folk. Nothing personal.

Best wishes and regards.
Peace to all.


Dear Shri Nara, Greetings!

Though you have given me the last word, I would not use it to counter your post. I just dont see the need.

Thanks & Regards,

.........................................................................

A ramble...

Humans, in different times, decide on which is right for them and wrong. This being the case, a majority may decide something as wrong, which may the right tomorrow. Deciding by numbers of shifting logic is transient.

Spiritualism is different from Materialism.

Today, the society is oriented towards a materialistic outlook. The brahmins, can only revere Manu in his mind, for the circumstances do not allow him to follow most other.

People are often tempted to interpret all NBs as shudras. It is not so. I dont know whether the dalits are shudras or not - it is of recent origin. So I wont intrepolate or extrapolate here.

Shudhras are not the only one expected to servitude, but Kshathriyas and Vaishyas too! In return, the Brahmana has to procure his food through alms (not through an overbearing attitude). Is it not a mutually dependent structure?

But, the shasthras generally seem to say that the thamo gunam or ignorance is the predominant guna of the shudra. Vedhas could be twisted by such minds, as it happens even now, to instigate people against our premises.

I like the Rama of Ramayana, who even though an avathaar, stuck to duty and obedience. Even if such obedience meant servitude.

I like his dedication to Manudharma, his tendency never to break a promise.

Even if it be a wrong way (in the eyes of others), even it be a harsh life (for me), whatever is endorsed by Rama, is eternal. To think that only by abandonment of Manu, we gain equality in thoughts is a self-centred, materialistic view.

I do not ask anything from anybody. It is one's own fate and karma. Decide what you will, and reap accordingly.

It is my svabhava to follow the shasthras, operationally, to the extent possible, and the rest in intent.
 
Last edited:
This post somewhat reflects rightwing extremism (my apologises to saptha for using this post to show RVR ji and Pannvalan ji a few things. Please note: am not saying saptha is a rightwing activist; an only using some points in this post to convey some things).
Dont worry, you are free to show where I stand in your eyes. But that does not alter things and neither does it alter my view of things.

This is what rightwing activists say. That they are not allowed to follow the smrithis (or their 'dharma') in the present day because of "secularism". So their stand is that of anti-constitution (read: anti-secularism). And rightwing activists do not mind shedding blood anymore, to ensure that they get their "rights" to follow their "dharma".
You are very generous in twisting things to appear out of context. Secularism applies for the govt., and not for the common man and his practices. It means that the govt. would not allow religious considerations to interfer in its administration.

However, if a govt., takes on the administration of religious institutions, then the credentials of secularism has to be questioned!

So saptha has decided that he is a brahmin and other are shudras;
So you have decided that apart from brahmins, all others are shudhras????

though others might not consider saptha as a brahmin.
That is immaterial; if somebody considers you as a retard, you would probably accept it.

Accepting others' remarks as a guide to understand the society is the requisite. To take them as the ultimate truth is a folly. Today, the society thinks in one way, tomorrow it may think differently. We can adapt our societal attitude to reflect it, but not our spiritual practices.

A guru comes along. Prescribes a remedy for the turmoil we are in. And leaves.
Everybody cannot be a guru. Only those are gurus who prescribe means according to the shruthis.

It does not matter to the right wing extremism school of thought (the 'abnormals') that a guru prescribed a way of life for brahmins. The abnormals leave all that out. They ignore the directive to live a simplistic life and a truly brahmanical life (they ignore the fact that if they did, there wud be no probs as envisaged by the guru).
This is quite a distorted opinion - there are practices for all the abnormals, not just one section. So, if some abnormals comment on brahmins alone, it just means that their house is not in order.

Enough said about all abnormals. Each have their own rights and preferences. It is improper for one to tag the other based on a narrow view.
 
You are very generous in twisting things to appear out of context. Secularism applies for the govt., and not for the common man and his practices. It means that the govt. would not allow religious considerations to interfer in its administration.

However, if a govt., takes on the administration of religious institutions, then the credentials of secularism has to be questioned!
Thank you for confirming what was suspected all along.

It is expected from 'regular' 'brahmins' after some folk in ******* have gone and aligned with right wing folk.

That is immaterial; if somebody considers you as a retard, you would probably accept it.
I probably wud accept it on your behalf or on the behalf of rightwing activists or on the behalf of leftwing (dalit) activists...god help the population masses stuck in between the rightwing brahmins and leftwing dalits...both will drag the country to the dogs.
 
Last edited:
Happy Hindu gave the meemamsa interpretations and tried to explain that the suktam indicated the functions of the different parts of the body. But if one reads the Purusha Suktam as a whole, without restricting to the one suktam beginning "braahmaNOasya mukham Aseeth...", one will see that there is a question preceding it which is as under:

yath purusham vyadadhu: | katidhA vyakalpayan |
mukham kimasya kau bAhoo | kavUrU pAdA uchyethe ||

This means, into how many pieces did they divide this purusha?
What did they shape it into? What became its face, its hands?
What do they call its thighs, its feet?

The sukta in question is in answer to these queries and has
to be understood in that way only. It will be seen that while
talking of the brahmin and kshatriya castes, the composer of the sukta
uses the verbs 'aseeth=were, became', 'kritaha=made', and by
implication, the same verb 'kritaha' will apply in the case
of vaisya as well. but when we come to the Sudra, the sukta cleverly
makes a subtle distinction and says 'padbhyAg^m SUdrO ajAyatha', meaning
'from the feet were born the SUdrA'. Thus while the three upper castes
continued to form the anatomy of the purusha, the SUdra sprang out
(was born and hence was separated from the purusha). This aspect
has been admitted by learned vedic scholars also, not my original
finding, and this used to be adduced as yet another 'pramANa' for the
superiority of the upper castes in the olden days.

Now of course things have changed and we may not like to call
a spade a spade.
 
Happy Hindu gave the meemamsa interpretations and tried to explain that the suktam indicated the functions of the different parts of the body. But if one reads the Purusha Suktam as a whole, without restricting to the one suktam beginning "braahmaNOasya mukham Aseeth...", one will see that there is a question preceding it which is as under:

yath purusham vyadadhu: | katidhA vyakalpayan |
mukham kimasya kau bAhoo | kavUrU pAdA uchyethe ||

This means, into how many pieces did they divide this purusha?
What did they shape it into? What became its face, its hands?
What do they call its thighs, its feet?

The sukta in question is in answer to these queries and has
to be understood in that way only. It will be seen that while
talking of the brahmin and kshatriya castes, the composer of the sukta
uses the verbs 'aseeth=were, became', 'kritaha=made', and by
implication, the same verb 'kritaha' will apply in the case
of vaisya as well. but when we come to the Sudra, the sukta cleverly
makes a subtle distinction and says 'padbhyAg^m SUdrO ajAyatha', meaning
'from the feet were born the SUdrA'. Thus while the three upper castes
continued to form the anatomy of the purusha, the SUdra sprang out
(was born and hence was separated from the purusha). This aspect
has been admitted by learned vedic scholars also, not my original
finding, and this used to be adduced as yet another 'pramANa' for the
superiority of the upper castes in the olden days.


Now of course things have changed and we may not like to call
a spade a spade.

Are your feet seperated from your anatomy?

Please let me know which vedic scholars mention this. If they are from the purva mimansa school then don't bother to write - because we will end up going in circles.

And do not ignore the fact that Vatsa, was called a Shudra putra. So everyone who is of the Vatsa, Kanva, SriVatsa, (and in that line) were not born of the Purusha's anatomy?

Please do explain the Purusha's anatomy to me first. And also explain the "superiority" please?
 
purusha is a imaginary body,like the celestial zodiacs.wonder what the purushee will think of purusha sooktham?:(
 
To Happyhindu,

Pl. try to read carefully what I have written. Of course, the feet of Purusha form part of Its anatomy. But the difference comes when we see that while brahmana was 'aaseet', kshatriya and vaisya were 'kritaha', sudra was 'ajaayata'-born out of. When something is born out of something else the thing which was born separates from the mother entity and does not continue to remain as part of that mother entity. Here brahmana, kshatriya and vaisya are picturised as 'forming' the respective limbs, just like we may say, 'the army, navy and air force form the three wings of our defence force'.

I find that there are many members in this forum who cannot be polite in expressing their differences. I feel these members have closed their minds to new interpretations and new knowledge and would like best to hold on to what they think is correct and nothing more. In the circumstances, I regret having become a member of this forum a few days ago and am completely withdrawing from it.

FYI, the view given by me was from what I have heard in personal conversations with old people who were knowledgeable. Also you will find this view in the book, "Purusha Sukta, Translated and explained by B.V. Kameswara Aiyar, M.A.," and published by G.A. Natesan & Co., Madras in 1898.
 
To Happyhindu,

Pl. try to read carefully what I have written. Of course, the feet of Purusha form part of Its anatomy. But the difference comes when we see that while brahmana was 'aaseet', kshatriya and vaisya were 'kritaha', sudra was 'ajaayata'-born out of. When something is born out of something else the thing which was born separates from the mother entity and does not continue to remain as part of that mother entity. Here brahmana, kshatriya and vaisya are picturised as 'forming' the respective limbs, just like we may say, 'the army, navy and air force form the three wings of our defence force'.

I find that there are many members in this forum who cannot be polite in expressing their differences. I feel these members have closed their minds to new interpretations and new knowledge and would like best to hold on to what they think is correct and nothing more. In the circumstances, I regret having become a member of this forum a few days ago and am completely withdrawing from it.

FYI, the view given by me was from what I have heard in personal conversations with old people who were knowledgeable. Also you will find this view in the book, "Purusha Sukta, Translated and explained by B.V. Kameswara Aiyar, M.A.," and published by G.A. Natesan & Co., Madras in 1898.

Am sorry my post sounds rude, bcoz i thot you are an old poster impersonating as a new one.

Irrespective of whether knowledge is old or new, it should make sense, is it not?

If old folk have accepted such an interpretation, then Sri Kameswara Aiyar should have also written that the following gothras are Shudras:

1) Gothras of Kanva, Vatsa (a descendant of Kanva as per rigved 6.1; 8.8 who was called shudra-putra in panchavimsha brahman 14.6.6 of samaveda).

2) the people in Vatsa's line are: Bhargava, Jamadagni, Srivatsa (from brighu and Valmiki), syavana, Aplanavana, etc

I suppose it shd not be a surprise that most of these gothras are supposedly found more in southindia...

Regards.
 
Shrimati. HH. Just found out from your post that I am a NB as my gothra is Srivatsa.:). Anyway, doesn't matter.
 
Shrimati. HH. Just found out from your post that I am a NB as my gothra is Srivatsa.:). Anyway, doesn't matter.

no anand, you are not a NB.

i plan to post on wars in the vedic period based on regionalism / socio-political ideology that gave rise to such designations to shri saidevo soon...
 
Sri.Sangom said:-

I find that there are many members in this forum who cannot be polite in expressing their differences. I feel these members have closed their minds to new interpretations and new knowledge and would like best to hold on to what they think is correct and nothing more. In the circumstances, I regret having become a member of this forum a few days ago and am completely withdrawing from it.

Sri.Sangom, Greetings. New ideas and new explanations are not accepted in a hurry. This forum members are not different to others. Kindly continue to post, please. You would not have failed to see Sri.Kunjuppu voicing his views in suppoert of you; there are others too who would not standby when a member fail to be polite. So, kindly rest your doubts, please. Thank you.

Cheers!
 
.... In the circumstances, I regret having become a member of this forum a few days ago and am completely withdrawing from it.

Dear sangom, Greetings!

Contrary voices do bring a level of push back that sometimes may seem to cross certain bounds of sensitivity. In the few months I have been active in this forum I have also had my share of incivility, but with a little bit of patience everyone comes around.

Also, written communication being a uni-dimensional mode of communication words may across impolite even when it was not intended. Something written in jest may be taken seriously, etc. This is why both sides must take extra care with the words they write. Emoticons are helpful, but overuse can be annoying as well.

sangom, you bring an important critical voice and much needed balance here. I request you to reconsider your decision to withdraw. If you stay away you will be missed.

Cheers!
 
To Nara,

I have replied to your communication received through my private e-mail. Thank you for your kind words. When joining this forum (of Tamil Brahmins), I thought the high standards expected of brahmins will be evident here, unlike in various other (cosmopolitan) forums dealing with Hinduism etc. Anyway, I have now realised the actual position and will continue to participate in the discussions.

Thanks and regards,

Sankar
 
sangom,

please if i may intervene re your feellings about the tone of some posts:

all of us have a handicap. we communicate in english, in which we believe we are adept. very seldom any doubt about that.

however i feel, that the written mode hides the feelings, intonations and above all the level of displeasure/pleasure. so, what might have been a mild disagreement, in our mental translation, becomes a repetition of another remembered harsh interaction.

nevertheless, folks sometimes speak out in the heat of an arguement with somewhat akin to fight in a fishmonger market (apologies to the fishmongers :).

i hope a sojourn in this forum, would give you some interesting past time as well as some kneading to your grey cells. dealing with anti socials might be looked upon as a challenge - i believe that with some perseverence, anyone here can be moulded into models of etiquette. all it takes is an effort and forbearance.

to put it short, hope you stay.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top