This is understandable, who would want to be associated with Manu in this day and age. If Swami Vivekananda rejected Manu I salute him. That makes him
not a Vaideeka. I challenge you Sir, ask any orthodox Vaideeka to repudiate Manu Smirthi. Paramacharya did not. None of the present day Sankaracharyas will repudiate it. None of the other brahmincal orders would repudiate it.
The Manu smrithi is loaded with interpolations. According to some, the interpolations stand out because they do not correspond to the kind of old sanskrit used in other parts of the text. The interpolations, am told, is in a slightly diff kind of sanskrit that came to be used in the later times (yet to verify this explanation though).
Anyways, Buhler and Sanskrit scholars explained the interpolations in the 1908 publication of the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay. According to the wiki article on Manusmrithi, Surendra Kumar considered 1,214 verses are authentic and the other 1,471 as interpolations.
[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
However, some sections do not consider them 'interpolations'. Instead they consider them as reflecting changes in the society. The interpretation also seems to vary. Parts of the manu smrithi to sections of the yoga sect seem to mean a very different thing than the external varna system. They consider all 4 varnas as existing within one's own self.
I do not understand wht you mean by repudiating manu smrithi. imho, each sect or school seems to interpret it differently; and surely each has its own right to do so.
Several monastic traditions do not follow the Manusmrithi, they are certainly Vaideeka. On what basis wud you say that rejecting Manu smrithi is equivalanet to not being a vaideeka (request you to elaborate on what you mean or consider as 'vaideeka' ).
Well, this is distinction without a difference. In any case, Sri Krishna says female, Vaisya, and Shudra are born out of sinful Yoni, whereas the brahmana and kahstriya are born out of puNya. Look up what Yoni means and make up your own mind as to what is meant.
This explanation too varies in the monastic and purvamimansaka traditions. Can you please explain why you think papayonah refers to a 'sinful' yoni ? And did the verse say that females, vaishyas and shudras are born of a papayonah?
Which is the verse that says brahmana and kshatriyas are born of punya? And on what basis would you think that brahmana refers to the priestly sections (esp when krishna said 'of the sages i am narada', obviously narada was not from the priestly section), and what wud you consider the term 'kshatriya' as referring to (btw, can you please point out to me who or which are the kshatriya or kshatriya communities in present day and past day india).
From what i understand is that the Mahabharat is not free from interpolations either. And the interpretation of certain purvamimansakas reg the bhagvad gita verses so far has found a few supporters only from a few swamis of the ramakrishna mission (which is quite out-of-place since they are supposed to be following the teachings of the Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda).
Spoke to sections such as the arya samaj, avadhoota tradition, some yoga traditions, and a few other dashanami traditions, but none consider varna and jaati as the same. Also, gathered from them that none of the uttaramimansaka vendanta monastic traditions of india consider varna and jaati as the same. This does not mean they are not vaideeka ofcourse.
Further, Arjuna declares in Shloka 41 of Chapter 1 that Varna Sankraha, i.e. mixing of
Varna, will result if the women of the clan become blemished. Further, in the next Shloka, Arjuna says that due to the mixing of Varna, the virtues of
Jati and Kulam (clan) that have existed from beginning-less time, will be destroyed. In this Shloka, Arjuna makes a clear connection between Varna and Jati. Finally, in Shloka 44, Arjuna cites the authority of clan elders for this position. So, Arjuna claims, on the authority of elders, mixing of Varna/Jati will result if the chastity of women is not preserved.
Reg the chapter 1 you are referring to, is it the same as Book 1 paushya parva? Could you provide the sanskrit shlokas please?
Btw, at the end of the war, hordes of men folk from every tribe that took place in the war were killed (no saying what happened to the womenfolk and children). Atleast tehre is some idea that the vrishni women were tried to be settled in gujarat (btw, the vrishni men were wiped out in the war, so which community do you think the womenfolk and children merged into). A war event always seems to signify 'inter-mixing' to some extent or the other (what ppl fought and died for might have been unpreventable after a war was over, same applies to the hindu-muslim fights in the later day india).
If Varna is strictly determined by one’s guna and conduct and is not a function of one’s birth, why does he need to protect the chastity of women?
Any woman wud want her chastity protected irrespective of guna, varna, etc.
In the seventeen chapters that follow, Lord Sri Krishna never once disputes Arjuna on this issue of connection between Varna and birth. He dispels Arjuna of many of his delusions, yet the Lord chooses not to dispel him of this one. The Lord does speak of Varna several times in the course of his teachings to Arjuna, yet, never once does he correct him on this connection. Instead he reinforces the connection between Varna and birth in Chapter 9.
Please can you provide the shlokas from the specific chapters you are mentioning?
If Varna system is strictly based on gunas, then who is to tell who has brahmana gunas and who has khstriya gunas, etc.? Or, is it based on one's occupation he/she stumbles upon? Then we can't claim it is based on gunas; it is based on the occupation one happens to be in irrespective of gunas. Or, is Varna just the nature of a person not supposed to be known to others? Then, this elaborate classification system has no practical value.
On a personal note, i beleive its an other matter that the classification system was understood and interpreted differently by certain sections. But yes, i do beleive whatever was the classification system, it has no practical value today, since we are not living in some archaic age without computers, banks, etc.
The Vaideeka brahmanas don't care what other people think. They proudly hold on to the hoary supremacist and patriarchal brahmnical tradition and culture that views Varna as birth based. I do think they are otherwise good and kind people, but this religious tradition makes them unapologetically hold on to this supremacist ideology.
If the vaideeka brahmanas you are referring to are the priestly sections, then may i ask on what basis can a priest be called a brahmin, esp if the ritualist schools did not even beleive in the existence of 'brahman' in the past (if am not wrong, the uttramimansaka idealogies of 'brahman' was not adopted by the ritualists even in the age of jaimini and badrayana, and instead it came to be adopted by them in the Shankara and bhakti period; and until then the vedic homams did involve animal sacrifice).
And does being a priest mean that the person has understood 'brahman'? If you were to ask a uttaramimansaka monk, he wud say all world is brahman and all humans are capable of being brahmin, tehrefore all humans are brahmin (just as they are the other 3 varnas too).
However, this is rather embarrassing to the brahmins educated in secular institutions with advanced degrees in science and arts. So they try their darnedest to separate the Varna system from the jati system. But there is ample evidence, both textual and practical, that Varna and Jati are one and the same. Just go back and look at both Tamil and Sanskrit literature. They speak for themselves.
If you are from the purvamimansaka schools, ofcourse to you jaati and varna wud mean the same. This ofcourse does not mean that the uttaramimansaka vedantins or monastic traditions who consider jaati and varna as two different things, are wrong.
Cheers!
Which part of this are you really questioning, "very small percentage" or "top of caste hierarchy"? Consider the following verse from Manu Smrithi.
