Brahmins and Kshatryias

[Guest guest]

I don't know if it would interest the group to know, but the Mohyal Brahmins are

the only Brahmin-Warrior caste of its kind in India. http://www.mohyals.com/

 

These Brahmins have traditionally been warriors and have followed, till a few

decades back, a marked leaning toward the defence forces in keeping with the

vocation of their ancestors.

 

Smarth

 

 

 

elzirai <elzirai wrote:

INDOLOGY, "Yogesh Deshpande"

wrote:

> There are also lot of kings who were Brahmins, the teachers of the

> pandavs and Kauravas, guru Dronacharya also was a brahmin.

>

> Yogesh

>

> INDOLOGY, "ymalaiya" wrote:

> > There are quite a few such cases of Brahma-kshatriyas.

> >

> > Some of the Rajput clans are thought to be of Rishi-kula, i.e.

> > derived from Brahmins.

> >

> > Rani of Jhansi was a brahmin.

> >

> > Yashwant

> >

 

Thank you for your replies. The main question, however, remains

unanswered. What does this mean for our mainstream understanding of

Indian society? Does this mean that there is a huge gap between,

say, the varna theory and social reality? What are the implications

of such a "promiscuity" between the Brahman and Kshatryia categories

for Indian studies? What happens to Dumont, V. Das, and hundreds of

other authors whose theoretical constructions heavily depend on a

clear demarcation between the two areas?

 

Best regards

E. Rai

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDOLOGY/

 

 

INDOLOGY

 

Your

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "elzirai" <elzirai> wrote:

> The main question, however, remains

> unanswered. What does this mean for our mainstream understanding of

> Indian society? Does this mean that there is a huge gap between,

> say, the varna theory and social reality? What are the implications

> of such a "promiscuity" between the Brahman and Kshatryia

categories

> for Indian studies? What happens to Dumont, V. Das, and hundreds of

> other authors whose theoretical constructions heavily depend on a

> clear demarcation between the two areas?

 

Indo-European tripartite classification

extended to include the low caste shudras is developed

in the Indologist's book, Brian Smith, Classifying the universe.

See profs. Deshpande & Witzel mentioning the scheme,

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/wa?A2=ind9605&L=indology&P=R576

 

In the South India, in the oldest Sangam texts available,

the varNa system is not described as that in Sanskrit texts.

Dravidologists like Zvelebil have taken the few instances

in old grammar book as late interpolations. Tamil castes do not

wear the sacred thread except the Brahmins.

The tripartite dvija castes sporting the yajnopavita is not

found in many southern states. Terms like antaNan, ampaNavan,

ampaTTan,...

are the old Tamil terms of dalit priests.

CTamil/message/611

CTamil/message/632

 

In Maharashtra, there is resistence to the varNa system of

classifications. See a translation from Marathi,

http://www.ambedkar.org/jamanadas/shivdrama.pdf

 

Perhaps the solution is in making Sanskrit manuscript reading

ability accessible to all in India and worldwide, and the

prestigious priests' and mutt heads' jobs open to all castes

will help in their preservation.

 

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

Dear N Ganesan,

 

Ref msg # 4096.

 

<<<In the South India, in the oldest Sangam texts available, the

varNa system is not described as that in Sanskrit texts.

Dravidologists like Zvelebil have taken the few instances in old

grammar book as late interpolations.>>>

 

Ever since the days of Galileo, prophetic revelations have been

replaced by reasoning in the West. Of course, in ancient Greece, the

spirit of inquiry was quite vibrant, as it has always been in India.

So, mere citing of names is never going to clinch the case. Arguments

and facts alone are important.

 

Zvelebil's speculation that references to varnasrama in Tolokappiyam

are later day interpolations, is not backed by any factual argument.

He starts with the unproven (and incorrect) premise that the brahmins

moved into the South at a certain time frame, imparting their Aryan

culture to the native people (who supposedly possessed a distinct

culture), thus resulting in references to varnasrama in Sangam texts.

There are many pitfalls to this speculation:

 

1. There is absolutely no evidence that the brahmins intruded into

the Tamil society (which had a distinct culture). None of the oldest

Tamil texts perceive brahmins as intruders. The earliest extant

corpus is aware of brahmins, and they have the most revered position

in the society.

 

2. References to varnasrama are not only to be found in Tolkappiyam

but also in other anthologies like Purananuru. Many such references

to varnasrama abound epics like Silappadikaram, that belonged to the

same period as Sangam era. Likewise, Sangam texts also tell us that

there were even kings that performed veda yajnas -- rajasuya.

 

To propose that brahmins brought in a new culture, but none of the

texts is even aware of such intrusion would be preposterous. To

propose that the brahmins will interpolate references to unconnected

diverse genre like puram, akam, kavya and grammar is equally

ridiculous. So, Zvelebil's unsubstantiated proposition must be

discarded, his more useful contributions in other areas

notwithstanding. He is entirely speculative and incorrect here. Using

one speculation as the basis for another is bad methodology.

 

Now to some (of the very many) references to varnasrama and veda in

Sangam era:

 

a. Tolkappiyam -- Ezhuttu 102 -- discusses about various sabda, and

classifies them them into the sabda of the vada mantras -- the hidden

chants of the brahmins -- and the ones that are represented through

aksharas -- the subject of the treatise.

 

b. Tolkappiyam -- Porul, Marabiyal -- also explicitly says that the

society is divided into 4 varnas. It also prescribes the duties for

each varna.

 

c. Purananuru -- 166 -- describes Siva as the one who chants the

shatanga veda all the time.

 

d. Avvaiyar -- Purananuru 367 -- sings that the 3 Tamil kings were

united together like the 3 vedic fires in the houses of the dvijas.

 

f. Maduraikkanchi -- 468 onwards -- describes the veda chanting of

the brahmins.

 

g. Purananuru also clearly mentions that the society had a 4 fold

varna classification, and implies that the professions were

hereditary.

 

I can go on and on, but this should suffice. The very fact that so

many references to varnasrama, vedas and brahmins (as the ideal)

occur very casually in multiple contexts -- love songs, poems of

heroics, grammar -- is proof enough that these weren't interpolated.

 

<<<Tamil castes do not wear the sacred thread except the Brahmins.>>>

 

Incorrect. Even today, some jatis like asaris (carpenters) wear the

sacred thread.

 

<<<Terms like antaNan, ampaNavan, ampaTTan,...are the old Tamil terms

of dalit priests.

CTamil/message/611

CTamil/message/632>>>

 

This also belongs to the realm of unsubstantiated, untenable

speculations. While I admire your imaginative attempts at etymology,

I am afraid that your speculations are unsound. The words --

ampaNavan, ampaTTan -- have *not* been used even once in the entire

Sangam genre. Non-existent words can't be the basis of meaning. :-)

 

Also, antaNan is *not* a term for Harijan priest. It *never* was. It

has only stood for the brahmin -- priest or otherwise. Kapilar, the

Sangam poet, and a brahmin, was not a priest but was called antaNan.

There are countless references in Sangam texts, Tirukkural and Kavya

which associate this word only (and unmistakeably) with brahmins. In

all likelihood, this word is a direct adaptation into Tamil of a pre-

Paninian word form -- aNanat: (veda) anta + aNanat. That is why

Nacchinarkkiniyar has correctly translated this word as "those who

had mastered the vedanta".

 

<<<Perhaps the solution is in making Sanskrit manuscript reading

ability accessible to all in India and worldwide, and the prestigious

priests' and mutt heads' jobs open to all castes will help in their

preservation.>>>

 

Romila Thapar (and other JNU Leftists) strongly opposed teaching of

Sanskrit. Thapar has dismissively said that there are mathas and

pithas to teach Sanskrit and JNU can't teach the same. The

Dravidianist politics in Tamilnadu has effectively destroyed the

tradition of Sanskrit learning, and banished its teachings from

schools. If you say that these people are wrong, and they should

rather support Sanskrit education, I welcome that. :-)

 

I am yet to figure out how opening Mathas' and pithas' appointments

to all jatis will improve Sanskrit learning among the common people.

Many of the Vellala dominated Saiva mathas of Tamilnadu are rabidly

anti-Sanskrit. They've banished all vestiges of Sanskrit in their

premises. Reality presents a picture contrary to what you hope to

see. :-)

 

Thanks.