Time to expose the lies of the internet scholars. The quoted message assumes smugness and almost accusing the other party that he does not have evidence and such smugness has to be demolished.
My note to you was not personally insulting so this is not appreciated. If i follow your route, then i would say, brahmin smugness and accusing the other party of not having evidence has to be demolished. Perhaps KRS sir has set off the trend of indirectly calling names by alluding to smugness and arrogance in
this post, but Zebra has made it open and direct. Between the two i wud appreciate Zebra more, for atleast he has been direct. In KRS's post, i was left wondering where / in which direction, does he see the smugness and arrogance.
Zebra, already told you i have no probs with whatever system existed. The last thing i want to ever bother, is about what is done after someone is already dead. Hope you get the point. Am glad to see the evidence you produce in this post and do appreciate it much. Wish you had mentioned it earlier itself.
Before asking the question "Do you have evidence or not" two other questions have to be addressed. Is there an evidence or not? and whether evidence is needed or not.
Anyone who has some understanding of sanskrit, had he/she glanced through the printed text either purchased or borrowed from a library, would have known even after glancing a few pages, that indeed in taittiriya samhita brahmanam portions are found and in taittiriya brahmanam, samhita or mantra portions are interspread. In such cases evidence or proof is not needed. After all we do not need the use of mirror to look at our fingers on hand.
As regards whether evidence is there, let me quote what Michael Witzel, Wales Professor of Sanskrit, Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University:
"Though the prose portions of the Taittiriya Samhita serve as its primary brahmana, there also exists a Taittiriya brahmana with additional commentary and mantras".
This is a red-herring. Why should go about providing evidence for any brahmana existing in samhita period itself? I had restricted my comment to taittiriya shaka of krishna yajurveda.
But here also uncomfortably for internet scholars, evidence exists. Quoted below are five passages from the same source of Michael Witzel:
"(1) The Yajur Veda is a complex entity, consisting of several partly parallel texts, most of which mix mantras (i.e. veda-text-type) with prose commentary (brahmana-text-type).
(2) It is the black (krsna) YV that contains the mixture of text types.
(3) All these texts must have been preceded by an even earlier stage of brahmana style discussion, see Hoffmann 1969, apparently that of the lost Caraka school, cf Witzel, 1982
(4) At some period following the RV, a number of mantras from the RV and others from an unknown, separate priestly tradition were joined to form the corpus of Adhvaryus, the main “acting” priests. Apparently, the Rgvedic hymns had such a high prestige already that they were necessarily incorporated into the YV texts, to enhance the status of the Adhvarya ritual. In a way the Adhvaryus formed their own small samhitas.
(5) While the stage was set at that time and the YV mantras as well as the lost brahmanas composed, the ritual developed for a long time afterwards all through the YV Samhita and the Brahmana periods. "
All useless stuff, not even remotely connected with the discussion on hand.
Either you did not read the "few books/commentaries" properly or they were authored by internet scholars.
I think it would be a challenge for you to give the name of the book and author, because as on today there is no complete book of taittiriya brahmanam with commentary, in any language, except in sanskrit.
[...]
Yes, it would not take any time or energy at all. Just copy and paste with the motto of "garbage in, garbage out"
[...]
This lie (brahmanas being invariably of a later period to samhitas) has already been nailed in the preceding reply.
The notes of this section only (until i address zebra below) are meant for those who cannot differentiate between samhitas and brahmanas and wish to know more.
Folks,
The oldest portions of the vedas are samhitas. They are hyms following a metrical scale, on various things, ranging from nature to the mundane. This vedic period is lost in history to us.
Texts pertaining to elaborate ritualism (yagnas) were composed later, and such texts were called 'brahmanas' (like aitareya brahmana, shatapatha brahmana, etc).
The Samhitas were used as the primary source of hyms in the period when the Brahamas (texts) were created or composed. That is, the Samhitas were used for the purpose of ritualism as 'Brahmanas'.
Brahmanas (texts) have additional mantras not found in Samhitas. Such additional mantras were composed to aid performance of yagnas. Or to demarcate a ritual life for a brahmana - meaning, brahmanas are texts of Dos and Donts in ritualism (example - Taittariya Brahmana says achamana should not be done with water from a cleft of the earth, etc).
The Brahmanas (texts) are considered to be commentories on hymns from the Samhitas. Because they are ritual texts going into minute details, and specify which mantra (or hymn) must be repeated how many times using what, doing what, etc.
The period of composition of the Brahmanas (texts) also marks the period of creation of elaborate yagnas. Texts like Taittariya Brahmana specify which verses should be told by a rathakara while kindling fires, what a brahmana must say, and who should do what. That is, it assigns and specifies ritualism for specific castes and varnas.
Such ritual texts of Brahmanas did not exist in the Vedic (Samhita) period.
After this (composition period of Brahamanas) came the period of composition of Aranyakas and after that came the period when Upanishads were composed.
There is also the line of thot, that the failure of Brahmanas (texts) indirectly lent support to non-vedic thot, and hence Buddhism and Jainism, both centered around Ahimsa, spread rapidly.
Interested readers can go thru thru the book "History of Dharmashastras" by P.V.Kane. In that book, Kane has given info about the Taittariya Brahmana (TB) and Taittariya Samhita (TS). The TB has content indicating later development, which the TS does not have.
The Taittariya Brahmana speaks of kurupanchalas, and is infact the text which clearly mentions brahmana are divine varna whereas shudras are asurya varna
Then again, Taittariya Brahmana mentions 'brahma' and 'kshatra' collectively for brahmans and kshatriyas. It says vaishyas are born from rik, yajurveda is origin for kshatriyas, and samaveda is source for brahmanas. It also asks the 'Vis' to go away and reside seperately from brahmans-kshatriyas
It says the brahmana is the supervisor over all people (no better really, than the aitareya brahmana which says the might of the ksatriya is under the control of the brahmana).
Well, you see folks, the Taittariya Brahmana (TB) has content which the older composition, Taittariya Samhita does not have. (btw the TB has purushamedha, asvamedha and such stuff).
But there are also similarities between TB and TS. In both these texts, the shudra occupies the same position as the dharmashastras (smrithis). Funnily the TB mentions the Dasa and the Kaivratha in lowly terms (the Kaivrata asked to change their caste name to Mahishya in the colonial period - Sigh! )
Just concentrate on only one mantra "ye agnidagDha, ye an-agni dagDha
It was increasingly becoming obvious that you will ultimately lay the blame on the brahmanas for your lack of understanding. Do not despair. Here is yet another quotation from the ubiquitous Michael Witzel in plain english that cremation was order of the day during rg vedic period.
Quote: "The RV funeral hymns clearly describe cremation, though in other parts of the RV burial seems to be indicated (cf. Keith, ERE X!, 842). Sati seems not to have been practiced; in fact there is evidence for levirate marriage; see Schmidt 1987"
Zebra,
Out of all the adhoc comments you make, the only one point worth this discussion is this particular point in bold. I shall definitely look up Keith. Lokks like both existed side by side. However, please do not put words into Witzel's mouth as though he meant cremation was the "order of the day"
In fact after making the post to you yesterday i came across a publication "Annals of the Bhandarkar oriental research institute", vol 83. The book says it was a Dasa custom to erect mounds, or build a mound on the site where the bones are buried after cremation. Bhandarkar also says a variety of funeral practices were followed by the Souma Aryans in the Swat Valley (Pakistan) and excavations there also confirmed it. There were various ways of disposing the dead, of which cremation was one. Unfortunately we have no such confirmation in India as yet, of early cremation practices.
But Monier Williams in sanskrit-english dictionary has specifically mentioned the meaning of "agnidagDha" in RV 10.15.14 to mean "cremated pitrs". If your sanskrit is as good, if not better, you would be reading the sanskrit texts in original and not relying on translated cut and paste internet english passages of original sanskrit texts.
I should suggest the same to you infact. Instead of quoting Keith and Witzel, please produce the actual hyms in sanskrit from various samhitas, instead of going on repeating agnidagdha, or holding on to one single verse from rigveda. Anyways, i shall definitely look up Keith and Witzel's sources.
As of now, it seems the Rig verses of cremation were practiced by a set of people in the Swat, and it got copied into the Taittariya Brahmana of Krsna Yajur. It would be interesting to note when? (was it during the period when the yajurvedis rose in power and the rigvedis kinda cudn't match up?? am reminded of Staal's commentary on the rise of the Yajurvedis...)
I realised it after two posts or so, that in fact you were on the look-out for readers who were subscribing to your pet theory of cremation being of later period origin and that cremation was a consequence of sadhus digging out the corpses and that Sushruta probably developed medicine by adopting this method.
Pet theory? LOL. Please read the first and the last sentence of that post :
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philos...brahamin-religious-practice-5.html#post112605
