Would this be an intercaste marriage?

[CLN]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Shri sravna ji,

The concept of "complementing" is always taken between TWO things / objects / ideas / persons etc. but in equal status. For, example, a husband and a wife complement each other, but not a master and a servant. When you say the four varnas complement each other, it can, at best, only be taken to mean that the role played by any one varna complements the combined roles of all the other three varnas put together, but this cannot be sustained because of the very way the varnas have been defined and a hierarchy is in-built in the system.

 

[sravna]

Shri sravna ji,

The concept of "complementing" is always taken between TWO things / objects / ideas / persons etc. but in equal status. For, example, a husband and a wife complement each other, but not a master and a servant. When you say the four varnas complement each other, it can, at best, only be taken to mean that the role played by any one varna complements the combined roles of all the other three varnas put together, but this cannot be sustained because of the very way the varnas have been defined and a hierarchy is in-built in the system.

Dear Shri CLN,

A 'complement' is that which completes or makes perfect something else. The key words here are 'complete' and 'perfect'. I don't think the notions of only two things being the parts or they being equal in status is implied. For example in the varna classicication assume the society has none who has the qualities of a brahmin and so those jobs are performed by the members of the other three castes. Then the system is not complete or the qualities of those performing the brahmin job is not complementing the rest. And together they do not make a perfect system.

The notion is that the parts should reinforce each other and make the whole work perfectly or harmoniously.

 

[CLN]

Shri Sravna ji,

THere is no dispute about the meaning of 'complement' referring to 'completing some thing to make the whole thing perfect', but it is about the usage of the word 'complement'. What I had pointed has two aspects - one about the 'number' of parts which can complement and the other about their 'status'. When there are more than two parts, they can only 'contribute' to make the whole, not complement, which is always used only between 'pairs'. When there are more than two parts, it is possible to group all parts except one on one side, say, A, and the isolated part separately, say, B. Now, we can say '' A complements 'B' and vice versa. This is the easy part of the argument.

Taking the other aspect 'status': We cannot combine just any two things and say they complement each other. Only compatible things can complement. 'Complementarity' necessarily requires 'addability'. Hence my examples of the compatible 'husband-wife' pair and the incompatible 'master-servant' pair. We can say 63 kg + 37 kg = 100 kg, but is there any point in adding 63 kg and 37 litres and say that now we have 100 some thing?

... in the varna classicication assume the society has none who has the qualities of a brahmin and so those jobs are performed by the members of the other three castes. Then the system is not complete or the qualities of those performing the brahmin job is not complementing the rest. And together they do not make a perfect system.

You talk of none having the qualities of a brahmin and in the same breath also mention 'those jobs are performed by the members of the other three castes'. It is clear that you are using 'varna' and 'caste' as synonymous terms. I have nothing to say except that I do not accept the two terms to be synonymous.

 

[sravna]

Shri Sravna ji,

THere is no dispute about the meaning of 'complement' referring to 'completing some thing to make the whole thing perfect', but it is about the usage of the word 'complement'. What I had pointed has two aspects - one about the 'number' of parts which can complement and the other about their 'status'. When there are more than two parts, they can only 'contribute' to make the whole, not complement, which is always used only between 'pairs'. When there are more than two parts, it is possible to group all parts except one on one side, say, A, and the isolated part separately, say, B. Now, we can say '' A complements 'B' and vice versa. This is the easy part of the argument.

Taking the other aspect 'status': We cannot combine just any two things and say they complement each other. Only compatible things can complement. 'Complementarity' necessarily requires 'addability'. Hence my examples of the compatible 'husband-wife' pair and the incompatible 'master-servant' pair. We can say 63 kg + 37 kg = 100 kg, but is there any point in adding 63 kg and 37 litres and say that now we have 100 some thing?



You talk of none having the qualities of a brahmin and in the same breath also mention 'those jobs are performed by the members of the other three castes'. It is clear that you are using 'varna' and 'caste' as synonymous terms. I have nothing to say except that I do not accept the two terms to be synonymous.

Dear Shri CLN,

I do agree with the first part of the argument. I would look for only the following aspects in two entities 'A' and 'B' to make them as complements. Is 'A' lacking in something to perform a certain task? Can 'B' fulfill that deficiency? And, do they act in coherence? We see that a master and slave can still complement each other if the above conditions are fulfilled.

 

[CLN]

Shri sravna ji,

My understanding is that a 'master' commands and a 'servant' (I prefer not to use 'slave' because it refers to having no free identity; a slave is more a 'property' than a 'person' or a 'free individual'.) obeys. Their roles are distinct. They continue to be what they are only so long as they stick to their individual roles scrupulously. The moment a master does what a servant has to do he is no more a master. In the same way, a commanding servant is no more a servant. In an inter-mingled condition like this, they become partners who complement each other, because their 'status' (I don't mean their social status, but that of sharing responsibility) can now be equated. For this very reason, in the modern society, there are no masters and no servants. We are all partners in the affairs of the society. So, Varnas, if we take them to mean purely only their roles and duties, they can be taken to play complementary roles, but not as castes, as you are taking them.

 

[sravna]

Shri sravna ji,

My understanding is that a 'master' commands and a 'servant' (I prefer not to use 'slave' because it refers to having no free identity; a slave is more a 'property' than a 'person' or a 'free individual'.) obeys. Their roles are distinct. They continue to be what they are only so long as they stick to their individual roles scrupulously. The moment a master does what a servant has to do he is no more a master. In the same way, a commanding servant is no more a servant. . For this very reason, in the modern society, there are no masters and no servants. We are all partners in the affairs of the society. So, Varnas, if we take them to mean purely only their roles and duties, they can be taken to play complementary roles, but not as castes, as you are taking them.

Dear Shri CLN,

You are reading too much into the words which were not intended to carry any ill import. I would like to clarify now by saying that you may read the word 'caste' mentioned in that post as 'varna'.

In an inter-mingled condition like this, they become partners who complement each other, because their 'status' (I don't mean their social status, but that of sharing responsibility) can now be equated

Now you are giving a new definition for complementarity by saying it is one of being equal wrt sharing responsibility.
Shri CLN,Unless we agree upon these basics required for an argument we cannot proceed meaningfully.

 

[CLN]

Shri CLN,Unless we agree upon these basics required for an argument we cannot proceed meaningfully.

You are right. Perhaps we shall stop 'sparring' this way and give chance for others to record their messages / opinions / views / arguments. But one thing I am puzzled about is why you are writing "Now (emphasis mine) you are giving a new definition for complementarity by saying it is one of being equal in status." I mentioned equality of status right in post #26 itself, my first reply post to you after reading post #25, which was incidentally addressed to Shri Sangom.

By the way, I am not sure if Shri Sangom has taken exception to my coming in the middle, between you two. My interest was more to say when the principle of complementarity works rather than any thing else. Now that you are not agreeing with me, it is better we stop sparring any more, as I said.

 

[sravna]

But one thing I am puzzled about is why you are writing "Now (emphasis mine) you are giving a new definition for complementarity by saying it is one of being equal in status." I mentioned equality of status right in post #26 itself,

Dear Shri CLN,

That is because you didn't use the word "status" in its normally understood sense.But your earlier posts do not seem to indicate this. I have changed the words in my post to unambiguously indicate what you meant.

Some comments though, since the argument itself is on definition and usage. The concept of equality is something that is orthogonal to the concept of complementarity. In equality of any sort you have the same or similar things represented where in complementary things you have those aspects that are missing in the complementary thing represented. For example if A and B are equal , it is like, A has all the qualities as B and vice versa. If A is complementary to B, A has those qualities that are not in B and vice versa. That is the reason complements work well as a group as they do not compete with each other but instead co-ordinate.

 

[sangom]

By the way, I am not sure if Shri Sangom has taken exception to my coming in the middle, between you two. My interest was more to say when the principle of complementarity works rather than any thing else. Now that you are not agreeing with me, it is better we stop sparring any more, as I said.

Not at all CLN, carry on merrily. I will also join. But our friend Inquisitive mind must have become a "confused mind" by now and most probably he might have advised his friend to abandon all ideas of marriage and become an ascetic!!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri CLN,

I have added some comments to my previous post.

Also, reading all your posts together, one would infer that in a complementary arrangement, responsibilities are shared more or less equally. But in a real set up, whether varna or modern that is not possible because extent of responsibility varies according to the nature of the job. Though all have a part to play, some jobs are more critical than others and hence those who perform them share a greater responsibility than the others.

 

[CLN]

Shri Sangom: "our friend Inquisitive mind must have become a "confused mind" by now and most probably he might have advised his friend to abandon all ideas of marriage and become an ascetic!!

Quite so, Sir! Any way, as I have decided and have already expressed my wish to withdraw from the discussion of "complementarity complications" with Shri sravna any more in my post #32, I fervently hope that our "InquisiveMind"ed friend may bring back his friend even now to tie the nuptial knot, in the style of "Kaasi Yaatra"! (I am getting into the mood of the approaching marriage at home, you see! )

 

[pviyer]

I am not sure whether concern is on sagotra marriage or marriage between andhra and tamil brahmins. If it is former it is a messy question and this is why I dont want to comment on it. The better idea is to sacrifice the marriage in the interest of socieity if gotra conflict occurs. If it is the only the latter,then you may want to check if both groom and bride are purely brahmin and if gayatri recitation and upanayanam is held in both families. If yes , please go ahead. The question is very vague

 

[KRS]

Folks,

I am awaiting certain clarifications from Sri InquisitiveMind Ji about his bonafides.

While this topic is innocuous enough, I whiffed a smell of some one else's writing style from the past.

I want to let you all know that while declaring openly in the Forum that he would not mind sharing his particulars with me in confidence, he has since qualified it by refusing to share his real name.

I will let you all know more when I know more.

Regards,
KRS

 

[InquisitiveMind]

Quite so, Sir! Any way, as I have decided and have already expressed my wish to withdraw from the discussion of "complementarity complications" with Shri sravna any more in my post #32, I fervently hope that our "InquisiveMind"ed friend may bring back his friend even now to tie the nuptial knot, in the style of "Kaasi Yaatra"! (I am getting into the mood of the approaching marriage at home, you see!

LOL! Well , Sorry for the delay everybody ! I got busy with work . I do infer A LOT of cross talk coming across here. But any ways constructive thoughts are always welcome and please keep the discussion going .And as someone had asked , I was asking the idea of sagotra marriage out of interest , how pray two people seperated by thousands of miles over generations , are having the probability of being related to each other . Thank you all for your inputs! InquisitiveMind is back.