purushasuktam - varna

[happyhindu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Shri Sangom,

I must profusely thank you for these highly informative and insightful posts. I will try to get more info on the paishacha group.

Sir, i do agree that there was subjugation of shudras at some point or the other. This is evinced not only by the presence of PS (or its interpretation favoring the varna system) but by other writings / observations as well.

If, therefore, we take the statements contained in the M. Bh.
to unravel who were the original SUdras, we will be trying to
look at what happened some 1000 or 1500 years before the M.
Bh. through its slOkas and that will only lead us to erroneous
conclusions. We will then have to concede that the PS was
interpolated into the RV after the time of M.Bh. This will be
highly improbable in view of the fact that there are
'anukRamaNis' which are supposed to be of the late vEdic
period. So, IMO, we should not consider the puraNa evidence
at all to decide a matter such as this.

Yes sir, i do think the PS was added into the RV after the time of Mahabharat (or perhaps even later (??)).

So far, from the evidence of
(1) the geographical location of the Shudras (north-west india) and
(2) the fact that the incoming hordes from the steppes were in conflict with them,
i do think that the early shudras mentioned in the Ramayana and Mahabharat were the Abhiras.

So far, from what i know, they are the only folk termed as Shudrabhira directly. Ofcourse, they must have had allies also termed as shudras (as a blanket term). I do not think the term Shudra was derogatory during the itihasa period (I think the Mahabharat was written over a long period of time). Ramayana only locates the Shudrabhira region and says nothing negative.

I do not think Shudra was a term 'created' by the indo-iranians either. The shudra tribe already existed as a kingdom (possibly living their lives as a perfectly respectable kingdom (??)).

It is interesting that the location of the Shudra kingdom is in the IVC region. The lives, the trades and the culture of the IVC is proving to be very interesting indeed from what has been gleaned so far (will be interesting with more to come).

These abhiras (or shudras) were not ethnically different from the indo-iranians. The cattle grazing shudra herdsmen only arrived before the indo-iranians into the indian land. And yes they were vedic (old aryan). To substantiate this, I wud wait for more research in the scytho-dravidian linguistic group. This wud help solve the puzzle of the pre-split days when vedic gods, Indra, varuNa and mitRa were considered to be asuras or ahuras.

Leads from the elamo-dravidian linguistic group wud also be needed. I suspect, these old aryans were associated with the atharva veda; as also with either the M9 (HapK) or the M69 (HapH) group, or both.

These old aryans were the people who forcibly admixed with the native hunting-fishing tribes (mundari-austroasiatic linguistic groups). So they were not the first arrivals into the indian heartland.

To me, the difference between both the indo-aryans (the abhiras or shudra-indians and indo-iranians) was merely based on political ideology created from cultural differences that prevailed at that time.

I do think the dharmashastras were written after the Shudras were defeated. The stance that a shudra must not listen to vedas (and all those punishments) must have come from laws enacted at that time.

I do not think prohibitting the "veda" in the dharmashastras relates to the veda (spiritual side) - i mean, if i were a king, i wud be happy if my enemy goes off in search of moksham rather than create a power-struggle problem for me.

Veda as a general term wud have also included the knowledge of the victorious kingdoms' functionaries. Say, today if india defeats pakistan and takes them as prisoners of law - are we going to share our military secrets with them? If they hear the secrets (or the veda at that time), would we not punish them?

I suppose the idea of cutting off tongue for speaking the secrets and making one deaf by pouring lac / lead for listening to the secrets, were the instituted penal law at that time, for such acts.

That however does not mean that such acts were continuously followed. There are clues to a slow and gradual assimilation of the subjugated tribes.

Wrt to occupations, the older writers such Panini called the Abhiras as Shudras and Katyayana called the Abhiras as Mahasudras. But later law-makers such as Manu, elevated cow-rearing and farming to the vaishya position. This would have meant that the (now mixed) folk came in contact with other indians as they moved into the indian heartland.

At the same time, the (now mixed) folk wud have also spread outward into southern europe and persia; from the region which today is Afghanistan-Pakistan-Gujarat-Rajasthan-Kashmir; so those folk were called mlecchas.

However, it is not necessary that there was just a single major move. People could very well have kept dribbling downward into the indian heartland (even during the vedic period resulting in acculturation of the indigenous folk) or moving outward into southern europe.

All ancient stuff. And irrelevant today i suppose.

More on your other points later..

 

[nachi naga]

everybody talks abt invasion from north west north east etc but actually ground reality is,maha bharat had a chakravarthi system,and many smaller kings came under their purview.today middle east is claiming that they are not part of india or there is no evidence.how evidence will be there,when systematic destruction took place or the sciptures looted and taken with them translated into arbic,and then claim we did this and that.oil could not even be harnessed by arabs,only christians or west has made them as prosperous as they are today.similiarly arabs killed evrybody and thats how they ruled india,decapitating afghanistan,turkmenistan,kazhakstan...etc

mlechas or foreigners,alien to our spiritual ways of life after the sindhu saraswathi river...which mlechas proptly could not pronounce made us hindus....either they are deaf bums or deliberately refuse to pronounce properly,its a sicko trait inherent in them as asura gunam.

in fact the very word brahmaa has been anagrammed into other languages as abraham.we are the originators of all religion in the world today,barring scientology prolly .

ps talking about personality traits or area of governance as brahman kshatri vaishya shudra.....by birth we all are equal and continue to be equal even when we grow up as adults.but only when you divide,you can rule.so rulers use this ploy even today,even though we call elected democratically...all this is nothing but a set up...what democracy,elections are being rigged....people dont even know truth...ignorance is bliss,i guess.

 

[happyhindu]

everybody talks abt invasion from north west north east etc but actually ground reality is,maha bharat had a chakravarthi system,and many smaller kings came under their purview.today middle east is claiming that they are not part of india or there is no evidence.how evidence will be there,when systematic destruction took place or the sciptures looted and taken with them translated into arbic,and then claim we did this and that.oil could not even be harnessed by arabs,only christians or west has made them as prosperous as they are today.similiarly arabs killed evrybody and thats how they ruled india,decapitating afghanistan,turkmenistan,kazhakstan...etc

mlechas or foreigners,alien to our spiritual ways of life after the sindhu saraswathi river...which mlechas proptly could not pronounce made us hindus....either they are deaf bums or deliberately refuse to pronounce properly,its a sicko trait inherent in them as asura gunam.

in fact the very word brahmaa has been anagrammed into other languages as abraham.we are the originators of all religion in the world today,barring scientology prolly .

ps talking about personality traits or area of governance as brahman kshatri vaishya shudra.....by birth we all are equal and continue to be equal even when we grow up as adults.but only when you divide,you can rule.so rulers use this ploy even today,even though we call elected democratically...all this is nothing but a set up...what democracy,elections are being rigged....people dont even know truth...ignorance is bliss,i guess.

Regarding rulership, one does not need to divide to rule.

He who knows to serve, verily rules. The message of surrendering one's ego and sense of self is not a simple one. Its a test of time, imho.

The political leadership today is not based on personal conviction. It is based on corruption of the self.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,
So who were the earliest shudras (during the late vedic period ??)...

Please have a look at the Sudra kingdom here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/EpicIndia.jpg

In the sabha parva chapter 31 of the mahabharat Sudra and Abhira are described as tribes residing on the banks of Saraswati (very close neighbours). Alternatively in the same Chapter 2, the Abhiras are also called Shudrabhira as a single word as people residing on the banks of saraswati where the river ends:

gaNAnutsava sa~NketAnvyajayatpuruSharShabha .
sindhukUlAshritA ye cha grAmaNeyA mahAbalAH .. 8..\\
shUdrAbhIra gaNAshchaiva ye chAshritya sarasvatIm .
vartayanti cha ye matsyairye cha parvatavAsinaH .. 9..\\

Vishnu Purana also calls Abhiras as Shudras dwelling on the banks of Narmada (VP.4.24.66). The Kishkinda Kanda of the Ramayana also uses the single term "sudrabhira" for a country or region. Patanjali bhasya describes the abhiras as shudras whose duty lay in rearing cattle (Shudrabira go bali bardhanau). Please read more about the abhiras here (p.192-193).

To me, it is clear that the abhiras were the early shudras. Cud it be likely that the dharmashastras refer to these very people as the enslaved shudras? Or perhaps the ones defeated and enslaved at the end of the vedic period were shudras (referred to as such based on their region of origin)?

If the Abhiras were Shudras, it wud mean that the hordes of the vedic Indra(s) (asuras) were in frequent confrontation with the combine of Yadu (sura) allies. It is apparent that during the vedic period, Indra (asuras) and his men won. At the end of the Vedic period (vedanta period), the Yadus won in the Mahabharat war (for this scenario to exist, the mahabharat should have happened after the vedic period not before).

The Shanti parva of mahabharat allows the shudras to accumulate money for religious purposes. They were eligible for yagya and to give alms. These were not deprived from them though put in the servile category.

Dear HH,

I was not able to find any mention of SUdra or Abheera in the page for which you gave the link (The Mahabharata in Sanskrit: Book 2: Chapter 31). Still, I overlooked it while replying to you because there are several versions of M.Bh. and you and I may not have the same one. But now I get a doubt whether there really is a reference to SUdrAbheera or whether it is SUrAbheera. My doubt arose because I could trace the wikipedia page to which the map is annexed. In the wikipedia page on sudra kingdom (Sudra Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) mentions sura-abhira,and sura and abhira only. So, I would like you to give the parva, adhyaya for the two stanzas cited by you; you have simply said "in the same Chapter 2", but it contains 72 chapters, you see.

As you know, the puraNas have different rescensions and the copy of VP that I have shows a reference to SUdrAbheera as also AbheeraSUdrA as given below:

sourAshTRAvantyaSUdrAbheerAnnaRmadAmarubhUvishayAmSca vRAtyadvijAbheeraSudrAdyA bhOkshyanti | VP.4.24.68
....
EtE ca tulyakALAssaRvE pR^tHivyAm bhUbhujO bhavishyanti |VP.4.24.70

This means, to the best of my knowledge, that sourAshTRa, avanti, SUdra, Abheera kingdoms and the desert areas near naRmada,will be ruled by SUdras, Abheeras (which seems to have been erroneously or intentionally put as SUdrAbheeras by someone to show that Abheeras were all SUdras, and this has been profusely copy-pasted in internet pages), vRAtyas, dvija(brahmin) Abheeras, SUdras, etc. (SUdrAbheera in the domain list in the first half and AbheeraSudra in the list of the rulers in the second half will not make any sense; similarly 'vRAtya dvija' is not a proper samAsam and, additionally, vRAtya is a category already known for a very long time.)

vrātya, m. a man of the mendicant or vagrant
class, a tramp, out-caste, low or vile person (either
a man who has lost caste through non-observance of
the ten principal samskaras or a man of a particular
low caste descended from a Sudra and a Kshatriya) ;
according to some ' the illegitimate son of a Kshatriya
who knows the habits and intentions of soldiers;' in
AV. xv, 8, I ; 9, I,

Hence it appears as though there were brahmin Abheeras as distinct from other Abheeras forming part of the Abheera domain. If so, they were just another area or state, if you read the whole chapter, like naishadha, naimishika, kAlakOSa, mushika, trairAjya etc.,(all specifically stated as janapadas) mentioned therein. But I am open to correction on this. Hence we cannot say that Abheeras were the original SUdras. Since there is a mention of SuUdras as a separate state or area in the second half of the line, we can concede that possibly there was a separate kingdom for SUdras exclusively(which is highly improbable)or,a dynasty of SUdras ruling over a domain. In any case I feel your premise of Abheeras having been the original SUdras gets weakened.

You will also observe that this same chapter talks about yavana, turushkAra and muNDa. Hence this portion at least (if not the major portion of VP) must have been compiled after Alexander's conquest (320 B.C.E.); if we take turushkAra also, then the date would advance to the 11th. century C.E. (Mahmud Ghasni first plundered Somnath in 1026 C.E.). In that case it will not be correct to make a judgement of the earlier periods based on the basis of these verses.

You may download Vishnupurana pdf file from the Maharishi University website and check for yourself.

As to your statement that "...The Shanti parva of mahabharat allows the shudras to accumulate money for religious purposes. They were eligible for yagya and to give alms. These were not deprived from them though put in the servile category.", the English meaning of the relevant portion in that Chapter is as follows (I have indicated some lines with emphasis) :

"I should tell thee, O Bharata, what the duties of a Sudra are. The Creator intended the Sudra to become the servant of the other three orders. For this, the service of the three other classes is the duty of Sudra. By such service of the other three, a Sudra may obtain great happiness. He should wait upon the three other classes according to their order of seniority. A Sudra should never amass wealth, lest, by his wealth, he makes the members of the three superior classes obedient to him. By this he would incur sin. With the king's permission, however, a Sudra, for performing religious acts, may earn wealth. I shall now tell thee the profession he should follow and the means by which he may earn his livelihood. It is said that Sudras should certainly be maintained by the (three) other orders. Worn-out umbrellas, turbans, beds and seats, shoes, and fans, should be given to the Sudra servants. 1 Torn clothes which are no longer fit for wear, should be given away by the regenerate classes unto the Sudra. These are the latter's lawful acquisitions. Men conversant with morality say that if the Sudra approaches any one belonging to the three regenerate orders from desire of doing menial service, the latter should assign him proper work. Unto the sonless Sudra his master should offer the funeral cake. The weak and the old amongst them should be maintained. 2 The Sudra should never abandon his master, whatever the nature or degree of the distress into which the latter may fall. If the master loses his wealth, he should with excessive zeal be supported by the Sudra servant. A Sudra cannot have any wealth that is his own. Whatever he possesses belongs lawfully to his master. 3 Sacrifice has been laid down as a duty of the three other orders. It has been ordained for the Sudra also, O Bharata! A Sudra, however, is not competent to titter swaha and swadha or any other Vedic mantra. For this reason, the Sudra, without observing the vows laid down in the Vedas, should worship the gods in minor sacrifices called Paka-yajnas. The gift called Purna-patra is declared to be the Dakshina of such sacrifices. 4 It has been heard by us that in days of old a Sudra of the name of Paijavana gave a Dakshina (in one of his sacrifices) consisting of a hundred thousand

p. 132

[paragraph continues] Purnapatras, according to the ordinance called Aindragni. 1 Sacrifice (as has been already said), is as much laid down for the Sudra as for the three other classes. Of all sacrifices, devotion has been laid down to be the foremost. 2 Devotion is a high deity. It cleanses all sacrificers. Then again Brahmanas are the foremost of gods unto their respective Sudra attendants. They worship the gods in sacrifices, for obtaining the fruition of various wishes. The members of the three other classes have all sprung from the Brahmanas. 3 The Brahmanas are the gods of the very gods. Whatever they would say would be for thy great good. Therefore, all kinds of sacrifices naturally appertain to all the four orders. The obligation is not one whose discharge is optional. The Brahmana, who is conversant with Richs, Yajuses, and Samans, should always be worshipped as a god. The Sudra, who is without Richs and Yajuses and Samans, has Prajapati for his god….”

You will see what freedom the Sudra was allowed and whether it is sufficient to support your observations which give a picture as though the Sudras were more or less equally treated with respect to the other three categories.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Dear HH,
I was not able to find any mention of SUdra or Abheera in the page for which you gave the link (The Mahabharata in Sanskrit: Book 2: Chapter 31). Still, I overlooked it while replying to you because there are several versions of M.Bh. and you and I may not have the same one. But now I get a doubt whether there really is a reference to SUdrAbheera or whether it is SUrAbheera.

Am sorry I did not match the english translation The Mahabharata, Book 2: Sabha Parva: Jarasandhta-badha Parva: Section XXXI with the sanskrit version (The Mahabharata in Sanskrit: Book 2: Chapter 31). Am yet to go thru all the chapters in the sanskrit version on sacred-texts. But am providing some of the verses mentioning shUdrAbhira (in the next paragraph) below.

My doubt arose because I could trace the wikipedia page to which the map is annexed. In the wikipedia page on sudra kingdom (Sudra Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) mentions sura-abhira,and sura and abhira only. So, I would like you to give the parva, adhyaya for the two stanzas cited by you; you have simply said "in the same Chapter 2", but it contains 72 chapters, you see.

Someone from the IP add 99.6.135.131 seems to have manipulated the text in the wiki article and changed Shudra to Sura everywhere. The Sanskrit version clearly mentions shUdrAbhira. So am doing a match-to-match for each of the paragraphs on the wiki article with the Sanskrit version:

1) From WIKI:

References in Mahabharata
There are the Sura-abhiras, the Dardas, the Kasmiras, and the Pattis; the Kshatriyas; the Atreyas, the Bharadwajas, the Stanaposhikas, the Poshakas, the Kalingas, and diverse tribes of Kiratas; the Tomaras, the Hansamargas, and the Karamanjakas among the kingdoms of Bharata Varsha (6:9).

The Sanskrit version clearly says Shudra-Abhira not Sura-Abhira:

64 yavanāś ca sa kāmbojā dāruṇā mleccha jātayaḥ
sakṣaddruhaḥ kuntalāś ca hūṇāḥ pāratakaiḥ saha
65 tathaiva maradhāś cīnās tathaiva daśa mālikāḥ
kṣatriyopaniveśāś ca vaiśyaśūdra kulāni ca
66 śūdrābhīrātha daradāḥ kāśmīrāḥpaśubhiḥ saha
khaśikāś ca tukhārāś ca pallavā girigahvarāḥ
67 ātreyāḥ sa bharadvājās tathaiva stanayoṣikāḥ
aupakāś ca kaliṅgāś ca kirātānāṃ ca jātayaḥ

64 यवनाश च स काम्बॊजा दारुणा मलेच्छ जातयः
सक्षद्द्रुहः कुन्तलाश च हूणाः पारतकैः सह
65 तथैव मरधाश चीनास तथैव दश मालिकाः
कषत्रियॊपनिवेशाश च वैश्यशूद्र कुलानि च
66 शूद्राभीराथ दरदाः काश्मीराः पशुभिः सह
खशिकाश च तुखाराश च पल्लवा गिरिगह्वराः
67 आत्रेयाः स भरद्वाजास तथैव सतनयॊषिकाः
औपकाश च कलिङ्गाश च किरातानां च जातयः

The English translation on The Mahabharata, Book 6: Bhishma Parva: Jamvu-khanda Nirmana Parva: Section IX mentions:

These countries are, besides, the abodes of many Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra tribes. Then again there are the Sudra-abhiras, the Dardas, the Kasmiras, and the Pattis; the Khasiras; the Atreyas, the Bharadwajas, the Stanaposhikas, the Poshakas, the Kalingas, and diverse tribes of Kiratas; the Tomaras, the Hansamargas, and the Karamanjakas.

This shows that there were other Sudra tribes plus also "Shudra-Abhiras" (unless the underlined sentence was a later interpolation).

This link where Sanjaya is describing Bharatvarsha to Dhritrashtra The Mahabharata in Sanskrit: Book 6: Chapter 10 mentions:

45 mallāḥ sudeṣṇāḥ prāhūtās tathā māhiṣa kārṣikāḥ
vāhīkā vāṭadhānāś ca ābhīrāḥ kālatoyakāḥ
46 aparandhrāś ca śūdrāś ca pahlavāś carma khaṇḍikāḥ
aṭavī śabarāś caiva maru bhaumāś ca māriṣa

This shows that the Sudras were a tribe and a kingdom similar to abhira, pahlava, etc that existed in bharatvarsha. Some say Sura, Shudra, Abhira were different tribes and close allies. However, they are often mentioned as surAbhira or shUdrAbira leading scholars to believe that they are one group. This is blostered by the fact that the mahabharat mentions "Shudras" seperately and "ShudrAbiras" seperately. Some say that the parts which seek to portray sudra as a varna was added to the mahabharat later. Because in the Mahabharat the Kshatriyas are also mentioned as a tribe or a kingdom of people. In anycase, we see that the tone for the Shudra changes from an ally in the earlier chapters to an inimical people later. More on all this in the next post.

2) From WIKI:

Expeditions of Nakula
Nakula brought under subjection the mighty Gramaniya that dwelt on the shore of the sea, and the Suras and the Abhiras that dwelt on the banks of the Saraswati, and all those tribes that lived upon fisheries, and those also that dwelt on the mountains, and the whole of the country called after the five rivers, and the mountains called Amara, and the country called Uttarayotisha and the city of Divyakutta and the tribe called Dwarapala (2:31).

The Sanskrit version from http://www.hindunet.org/mahabharata/txt/02.txt provides this:

shUdrAbhIra gaNAshchaiva ye chAshritya sarasvatIm .
vartayanti cha ye matsyairye cha parvatavAsinaH .. 9..\
[The shudrabhiras live on the banks of Sarasvati...]

Here again, they have not differentiated between Shudra and Abhira separately. They are referred to as neighbours and in the same vein as one people, ShudrAbhira.

3) From WIKI:

Pilgrimage along Saraswati river
Bala Rama proceeded to Vinasana where the Saraswati hath become invisible in consequence of her contempt for Suras and Abhiras. And since the Sarasvati, in consequence of such contempt, is lost at that spot, the Rishis, for that reason, always name the place as Vinasana (9:37). The allegations on Suras for the drying up of the river could be latter interpretations. However the mention of the drying up of river Saraswati close to the Sura-Abhira kingdoms has great geogrhapical and geological significance.

The English translation mentions: The Mahabharata, Book 9: Shalya Parva: Section 37

Vaishampayana said, "Then Valadeva, O king, proceeded to Vinasana where the Sarasvati hath become invisible in consequence of her contempt for Sudras and Abhiras. And since the Sarasvati, in consequence of such contempt, is lost at that spot, the Rishis, for that reason, O chief of the Bharatas, always name the place as Vinasana. Having bathed in that tirtha of the Sarasvati, the mighty Baladeva then proceeded to Subhumika, situated on the excellent bank of the same river.

The Sanskrit version mentions:
śūdrābhīrān prati dveṣād yatra naṣṭā sarasvatī
yasmāt sā bharataśreṣṭha dveṣān naṣṭā sarasvatī

Here too the Shudra-Abhira are referred to as one set of people in the same vein of blame.

4) From WIKI:

Tribute to king Yudhisthira
The Sura kings that dwelt in the regions on the seacoast, brought with them hundred thousands of serving girls of the Karpasika country, all of beautiful features and luxuriant hair and decked in golden ornaments; and also many skins of the Ranku deer as tribute unto king Yudhishthira (2:50).

Translation from Translation of Mahabharata of Vyasa by Kisari Mohan Ganguli , Stories and Characters from Mahabharata, Mahabharatam in Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, Hindi.. regarding the crowds that came for the Yudhishtara’s coronation and could not be accommodated:

And hundred upon hundreds of Brahmanas possessing wealth of kine and living upon the lands that Yudhishthira had given them, came there with their handsome golden Kamandalus. Sudra kings that dwelt in the regions on the seacoast, brought with them, O king, hundred thousands of serving girls of the Karpasika country, all of beautiful features and slender waist and luxuriant hair and decked in golden ornaments; and also many skins of the filled with clarified butter. And though they had brought such tribute, they were refused admission into the palace. And the Ranku deer worthy even of Brahmanas as tribute unto king Yudhishthira..

Other translation from http://www.mahabharataonline.com/translation/mahabharata_02032.php :

Sahadeva, saying,--'Despatch thou, without loss of time, messengers endued with speed to invite all to the sacrifice. And Sahadeva, hearing these words of the king, despatched messengers telling them,--'Invite ye all the Brahmanas in the kingdom and all the owners of land (Kshatriyas) and all the Vaisyas and also all the respectable Sudras, and bring them hither!'

You can find the Sanskrit version of the chapter 2 is here: Mahabharata: Sabhaparvan

upājahrur viśaś caiva śūdrāḥ śuśrūṣavo 'pi ca
prītyā ca bahumānāc ca abhyagacchan yudhiṣṭhiram
brāhmaṇakṣatriyaviśāṃ śūdrāṇāṃ caiva yoṣitaḥ
tataḥ prāsādajālāni utpāṭyāvaraṇāni ca
śūdrā viprottamārhāṇi rāṅkavāny ajināni ca
te sarve pāṇḍuputrāya dvāry atiṣṭhan didṛkṣavaḥ

5) From WIKI:

In Kurukshetra War
The Madras, the Trigartas the Amvashthas, the Westerners, the Northerners, the Malavas, the Surasenas, the Suras the Maladas, the Sauviras, the Kaitavas, the Easterners, and the Southerners placing Duryodhana and Karna at their head, forming the rear guard, gladdened warriors of their own army (7:7). The Kalingas, the Singhalas, the Easterners, the Suras, the Abhiras, the D3aserakas, the Sakas, the Yavanas, the Kamvojas, the Hangsapadas, the Surasenas, the Daradas, the Madras, and the Kalikeyas, with hundreds and thousands of elephants, steeds, cars, and foot-soldiers were stationed at the neck of the Kaurava battle-array (7:20).

The Sanskrit version mentions: Mahabharata: Dronaparvan

śibayaḥ śūrasenāś ca śūdrāś ca maladaiḥ saha
sauvīrāḥ kitavāḥ prācyā dākṣiṇātyāś ca sarvaśaḥ


It is clear that someone has changed the word SUDRA or SHUDRA everywhere in the wiki article to SURA.

Wrt the rest of your post, will post more later. Am sorry i shd have put it all on one page but due to lack of time am doing it in diff posts.

I will make the rest of the posts next week. In the meantime, i please request you to look into google books with the terms sudrabhira or shudrabhira or dravidabhira ...

 

[happyhindu]

As you know, the puraNas have different rescensions and the copy of VP that I have shows a reference to SUdrAbheera as also AbheeraSUdrA as given below:

sourAshTRAvantyaSUdrAbheerAnnaRmadAmarubhUvishayAmSca vRAtyadvijAbheeraSudrAdyA bhOkshyanti | VP.4.24.68
....
EtE ca tulyakALAssaRvE pR^tHivyAm bhUbhujO bhavishyanti |VP.4.24.70

This means, to the best of my knowledge, that sourAshTRa, avanti, SUdra, Abheera kingdoms and the desert areas near naRmada,will be ruled by SUdras, Abheeras (which seems to have been erroneously or intentionally put as SUdrAbheeras by someone to show that Abheeras were all SUdras, and this has been profusely copy-pasted in internet pages), vRAtyas, dvija(brahmin) Abheeras, SUdras, etc. (SUdrAbheera in the domain list in the first half and AbheeraSudra in the list of the rulers in the second half will not make any sense; similarly 'vRAtya dvija' is not a proper samAsam and, additionally, vRAtya is a category already known for a very long time.)

vrātya, m. a man of the mendicant or vagrant
class, a tramp, out-caste, low or vile person (either
a man who has lost caste through non-observance of
the ten principal samskaras or a man of a particular
low caste descended from a Sudra and a Kshatriya) ;
according to some ' the illegitimate son of a Kshatriya
who knows the habits and intentions of soldiers;' in
AV. xv, 8, I ; 9, I,

Hence it appears as though there were brahmin Abheeras as distinct from other Abheeras forming part of the Abheera domain. If so, they were just another area or state, if you read the whole chapter, like naishadha, naimishika, kAlakOSa, mushika, trairAjya etc.,(all specifically stated as janapadas) mentioned therein. But I am open to correction on this. Hence we cannot say that Abheeras were the original SUdras. Since there is a mention of SuUdras as a separate state or area in the second half of the line, we can concede that possibly there was a separate kingdom for SUdras exclusively(which is highly improbable)or,a dynasty of SUdras ruling over a domain. In any case I feel your premise of Abheeras having been the original SUdras gets weakened.

Dear sir,

In the previous post, i have put in some details for shudrabhira as a kingdom and a people (indeed the usage is shudrabhira). We do not know if the kingdom of abhiras had brahmins in them as yet. We shall discuss the possibilities and non-possibilites of the same in later posts.

However, my basis for considering the shudra-abhira as a kingdom opposed to the incoming neo-indoiranians was based predominantly on its geographical location in the northwest india. And the fact that the shudra tribe / kingdom / grouping is actually located within the regions of IVC.

Some points to ponder are:

a) It is obvious that the neo-indo-iranians wanted to keep the old-aryans down or subjugate them as much as possible. If the old-aryans were weak, the subjugation wud be easy to accomplish. There was no need to make harsh punishments and keep them servile, which i think came from fear for their strength to re-assemble and counter attack.

b) Why are all old dharmashastras corresponding with the geographical position of north india. The reach of the dharmashastras did not go beyond the Karnata-Andhras into the south. Only the brahmins who came into the tamil-chera kingdoms later brought the dharmashastras and applied it to those that they considered non-vedic (were the tamil-cheras inimical to the incoming brahmins - if not, then what was the need to apply the shastras in those regions). I think it wud be worthwhile to research in the direction of the shudrabhira in connection with the dravidabhira.

You will also observe that this same chapter talks about yavana, turushkAra and muNDa. Hence this portion at least (if not the major portion of VP) must have been compiled after Alexander's conquest (320 B.C.E.); if we take turushkAra also, then the date would advance to the 11th. century C.E. (Mahmud Ghasni first plundered Somnath in 1026 C.E.). In that case it will not be correct to make a judgement of the earlier periods based on the basis of these verses.

You may download Vishnupurana pdf file from the Maharishi University website and check for yourself.

Perhaps its a case of later day addition?? The puranic period is supposed to be from abt 800 BC to the 15th century AD....

As to your statement that "...The Shanti parva of mahabharat allows the shudras to accumulate money for religious purposes. They were eligible for yagya and to give alms. These were not deprived from them though put in the servile category.", the English meaning of the relevant portion in that Chapter is as follows (I have indicated some lines with emphasis) :

"I should tell thee, O Bharata, what the duties of a Sudra are. The Creator intended the Sudra to become the servant of the other three orders. For this, the service of the three other classes is the duty of Sudra. By such service of the other three, a Sudra may obtain great happiness. He should wait upon the three other classes according to their order of seniority. A Sudra should never amass wealth, lest, by his wealth, he makes the members of the three superior classes obedient to him. By this he would incur sin. With the king's permission, however, a Sudra, for performing religious acts, may earn wealth. I shall now tell thee the profession he should follow and the means by which he may earn his livelihood. It is said that Sudras should certainly be maintained by the (three) other orders. Worn-out umbrellas, turbans, beds and seats, shoes, and fans, should be given to the Sudra servants. 1 Torn clothes which are no longer fit for wear, should be given away by the regenerate classes unto the Sudra. These are the latter's lawful acquisitions. Men conversant with morality say that if the Sudra approaches any one belonging to the three regenerate orders from desire of doing menial service, the latter should assign him proper work. Unto the sonless Sudra his master should offer the funeral cake. The weak and the old amongst them should be maintained. 2 The Sudra should never abandon his master, whatever the nature or degree of the distress into which the latter may fall. If the master loses his wealth, he should with excessive zeal be supported by the Sudra servant. A Sudra cannot have any wealth that is his own. Whatever he possesses belongs lawfully to his master. 3 Sacrifice has been laid down as a duty of the three other orders. It has been ordained for the Sudra also, O Bharata! A Sudra, however, is not competent to titter swaha and swadha or any other Vedic mantra. For this reason, the Sudra, without observing the vows laid down in the Vedas, should worship the gods in minor sacrifices called Paka-yajnas. The gift called Purna-patra is declared to be the Dakshina of such sacrifices. 4 It has been heard by us that in days of old a Sudra of the name of Paijavana gave a Dakshina (in one of his sacrifices) consisting of a hundred thousand

p. 132

[paragraph continues] Purnapatras, according to the ordinance called Aindragni. 1 Sacrifice (as has been already said), is as much laid down for the Sudra as for the three other classes. Of all sacrifices, devotion has been laid down to be the foremost. 2 Devotion is a high deity. It cleanses all sacrificers. Then again Brahmanas are the foremost of gods unto their respective Sudra attendants. They worship the gods in sacrifices, for obtaining the fruition of various wishes. The members of the three other classes have all sprung from the Brahmanas. 3 The Brahmanas are the gods of the very gods. Whatever they would say would be for thy great good. Therefore, all kinds of sacrifices naturally appertain to all the four orders. The obligation is not one whose discharge is optional. The Brahmana, who is conversant with Richs, Yajuses, and Samans, should always be worshipped as a god. The Sudra, who is without Richs and Yajuses and Samans, has Prajapati for his god….”

You will see what freedom the Sudra was allowed and whether it is sufficient to support your observations which give a picture as though the Sudras were more or less equally treated with respect to the other three categories.

This Shanti Parva is chapter 13. From chapter 9 onwards, the tone for shudra changes.

Reg, in days of old - how old?

Reg gods of the very gods, who wud do such self-praise?

It is obvious these chapters were later additions. More on this next week.

 

[sangom]

The usage of SUdrAbheera may be because the two groups SUdras and Abheeras were adjacent and the usage might have become common. If we do not accept that they represented two different groups and that there were dvija Abheeras also, it may not be possible to find a satisfactory meaning for the vishnu purANA stanza which you had cited.

"This Shanti Parva is chapter 13. From chapter 9 onwards, the tone for shudra changes.

Reg, in days of old - how old?

Reg gods of the very gods, who wud do such self-praise?

It is obvious these chapters were later additions."

I have just given the English translation of the very chapter which you had cited in support of your view that SUdras were allowed to accumulate wealth, do yajnas etc. Your above remarks look as if you are countering something which I have supplied in support of my stand. Pl. make the position clear.

 

[happyhindu]

The usage of SUdrAbheera may be because the two groups SUdras and Abheeras were adjacent and the usage might have become common. If we do not accept that they represented two different groups and that there were dvija Abheeras also, it may not be possible to find a satisfactory meaning for the vishnu purANA stanza which you had cited.

"This Shanti Parva is chapter 13. From chapter 9 onwards, the tone for shudra changes.

Reg, in days of old - how old?

Reg gods of the very gods, who wud do such self-praise?

It is obvious these chapters were later additions."

Yes ofcourse sir i do agree that Sudras Abheeras were diff groups and neighbours; and increasingly became referred to as a common group.

I request you to go thru the post: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/49288-post180.html

We shall discuss the following point from that post next week (am sort of busy until this weekend).

1) This shows that there were other Sudra tribes plus also "Shudra-Abhiras" (unless the underlined sentence was a later interpolation).

2) This shows that the Sudras were a tribe and a kingdom similar to abhira, pahlava, etc that existed in bharatvarsha. Some say Sura, Shudra, Abhira were different tribes and close allies. However, they are often mentioned as surAbhira or shUdrAbira leading scholars to believe that they are one group. This is blostered by the fact that the mahabharat mentions "Shudras" seperately and "ShudrAbiras" seperately. Some say that the parts which seek to portray sudra as a varna was added to the mahabharat later. Because in the Mahabharat the Kshatriyas are also mentioned as a tribe or a kingdom of people. In anycase, we see that the tone for the Shudra changes from an ally in the earlier chapters to an inimical people later. More on all this in the next post.

If we do not accept that they represented two different groups and that there were dvija Abheeras also, it may not be possible to find a satisfactory meaning for the vishnu purANA stanza which you had cited.

I do not know if there were dvija abeeras. I am searching for the links too. Apart from the Vishnu purana, are there (more susbtantial) links to show there were dwijas among the abhiras at the time of Mahabharat ??

If there were dvijas, why wud the Kshatriyas; the Atreyas, the Bharadwajas, the Kalingas,, etc be mentioned as diverse tribes / groups. Why is there no mention on dvijas among abhiras? Why are the atreyas, bhradwajas, etc grouped seperately and not linked with Abhiras?

64 yavanāś ca sa kāmbojā dāruṇā mleccha jātayaḥ
sakṣaddruhaḥ kuntalāś ca hūṇāḥ pāratakaiḥ saha
65 tathaiva maradhāś cīnās tathaiva daśa mālikāḥ
kṣatriyopaniveśāś ca vaiśyaśūdra kulāni ca
66 śūdrābhīrātha daradāḥ kāśmīrāḥ paśubhiḥ saha
khaśikāś ca tukhārāś ca pallavā girigahvarāḥ
67 ātreyāḥ sa bharadvājās tathaiva stanayoṣikāḥ
aupakāś ca kaliṅgāś ca kirātānāṃ ca jātayaḥ

We wud need to look more into the mahabharat (it is huge and i have not read it fully yet. Even if i start reading next week, it will still take time) - if we cannot find clues within mahabharat first, then we shall proceed next to the puranas (hope that is ok). I request other members also to join in and provide clues please.

I have just given the English translation of the very chapter which you had cited in support of your view that SUdras were allowed to accumulate wealth, do yajnas etc. Your above remarks look as if you are countering something which I have supplied in support of my stand. Pl. make the position clear.

Sir, while you had mentioned your points, me too am highlighting this:

For this reason, the Sudra, without observing the vows laid down in the Vedas, should worship the gods in minor sacrifices called Paka-yajnas. The gift called Purna-patra is declared to be the Dakshina of such sacrifices.

It wud mean that the shudra was still allowed in the mahabharat for minor sacrifices and a minor form of dakshina, or not? This comes in the Shanti Parva. Why did they want it "to be declared" as such? Were they fixing something after a war? Again, i request other members also to join in and provide appropriate clues with translations..

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Shri Sangom,

I have a request from you.

Just as you, i too think there were dvijas amongst the dravidabhira or shudrabhira.

As i mentioned in an earlier post, i feel they were associated with the atharva veda. The culture of idol worship and tying thali is present in atharva but not in other vedas. The dravida culture has always been temple-oriented....

Also, the atharva is said to represent an assimilation of indigenous cults. It is supposed to have connection with serpent hymns (i think the biggest sarpa kavu happens to be the sesha hills of thirumala).

The atharva mentions the trikuta of ceylon, so the atharva veda might have reached ceylon or had something to do with it (??) a long time back. All in all, the atharva veda appears to have reached the deep south before the rig or yajur.

If not mahabharat, we may have to look into the atharva for clues, imho. I therefore request you to try to look into the atharva for more details (or perhaps the other vedas too), to see if there were dvijas amongst the dravida tribes... If you do come across something, please do let me know.

Regards.