Shastra and Sagotra marraiges

March 7, 2006

"BVK Sastry" <sastry_bvk

Shastra and Sagotra marraiges - way out RE: Digest Number

287

Namaste

>From within the Shastra, depending upon which model one prefers to

look at

the argument for Sagotra, the 'Yes-No-Doubtful' understanding can be

fished

out. This debate is neither new nor unnoticed. I recall that this issue has

been debated in Kulluka's commentary, Govindarajeeya, and also

Dharma

sindhu/nirnaya sindhu. The previous parama-Acahrya of Sri Sringeri

Peetham

had passed a generic guidance on this. And this should be available as

recorded evidence.

Each historic period and society lives its own version and understanding

of

the Revelations to explore the path leading to the realization of the four

fold values of life.

In summary,

- The 'sapinda' condition guides the current law on 'sagotra' marriage' -

The definition of 'Sapinda' is dynamically linked to contemporary living

conditions, economic styles and human relations.

- If the rule of 'ten days impurity' (dashaaha ashaucha in birth and death

is broken), if the living is under separate roofs and separate family

leaderships (==which is true in many modern families), if the previous

three

generations did not have any 'entanglements of religious, relational or

economic issues).

- And if the primary condition of 'Varna -identity' is lost due to the

conditionalities of 'Vratya', for what ever reasons of individual,

relations, forefathers, parents and the like,

THEN the scope of the rule ab initio is indeterminate.

For there is no bearing to mark the 'Varna' reference so critical for the

operation of the 'sagotra'-sapinda' restrictions. The entire rule base is

'a-varna' according to sahstra frame of thinking.

This calls for an investigation in to at least three family generations of

the bride and the groom. Question is How many have retained this

lineage (

gotra pravara links, names, the family connections and the like)? And

even

if they have, would they allow the investigations ? And eventually if some

thing turns out, how are you going to present it to the modern bride and

groom for the consequences? Why does it matter?

If you investigate further on this, the stress currently being laid on

'Horoscope matching' in modern Hindu society instead of the 'Vamsha-

Gotra'

investigation which was the classical traditional style ( which information

is used in the long chants of the vedic priest in vaidika vivaha samksara,

publicly declared, before the 'muhoorta' -'akshataaropana, seeking the

acceptance of the society members, relatives at large. The farce of

practice

need not be blamed on the design of the system.

This is what I call as the drift from Varna society model to the 'a-varna'

society model. The 'sagotra' marriage issue is one of the sub clauses in

the

Varna model- Aarsha Vaidiak vivaha samskara. Even here, if the parties

/parents opted for other model of vivaha samskra, where a choice from

out of

eight formats is there, the sagotra debate does not find any relevance.

One does not have to be ashamed of the current scenario. Let us just

accept

that as human and intelligent and religious were our forefathers, they

lived

their best version of 'Veda Dharma' and groomed us to be what we are

now. It

is for us now to take the mantle and proceed further. There is no need to

blame the 'Pitru's'. It would be a religious sin.

One may argue out that irrespective of the choice of the vivaha format,

the

'sagotra' issue some how operates from the 'DNA' level! Come on, Get

the

Human Genome level details and analyze the details. Dharma sahstra

kara was

not a gentics expert or Genetics study have any love for the Veda-

dharma

-smriti shastra rules. Prove first that the Gotra has some chemical

component identifiable in the DNA/Genes and that is going to stay for

millennia! And this element is not going to be influenced by

the 'samskara'

and the like, as suggested in the dharma shastra rule books.

In short, the hunch hypothesis linking the 'Sagotra vivaha ban as a

religious practice' is a potential candidate for a high level Human genome

project research. Choices - Either the Bramhins do it in the (survival !?)

interest of their own stock and validating the Dharma shastra rule from

sciences Or wait for others to make suggestions about what is the DNA

parameter linked to 'Bramhana Pravara Gotra' based on a study from

westerns

scholars and orientalist's; and then fight that the Sanskrit translations

are inaccurate.

What one does beyond the shastra frame is a social context issue. If the

majority of society is 'Varna' compliant, then the reference rules would

be

Dharma shastra. The rule base for complying to a Varna standard is

given in

the shastra books. It is individuals choice preference to live that life

style before claiming for a membership stake. If the defaulting members

are

not being eased out in the club, that is a pointer to the lack of authority.

The convenience adopted is 'expand the definition', so that more

numbers

come to the base of the pyramid, without diluting the standards at the

top.

This is how Vedic tradition extends from the 'Rishi' model phase,

Vaidika-avaidiak model (historic 500 BCE period, Buddhism / Jainism) -

Varna-Ashrama model ( guided in its falvors of Puranas, smarta

traditions,

Vaishnava / Shaiva streams, Vedanta flavor identity of Varna, region

flavored identity of varna) till 17th century. In the same period, we have

the 'jati-mata-kula model for the society at large, who do not come under

the 'varna' rule base. Historical transition due to the break down of

rigidity of marriage is varna model density in society changing to

'jati-mata-kula' tags, proliferation of 'jati tags'.

The dahrma shastra addresses this complex balance of society from two

perspectives: If the majority of the society is varna complaint, then the

major prescriptive dharma shastra rule would be for the 'Varna-ashrama'

teams; the exceptional rules would be for the 'avarna society. If the

majority of society is 'a-varna' then the dharma shastra rule would provide

the idealistic model on the Varna ashrama model and suggest that

avarna

society align to the ideals of Vedic purushartha goals. The contextual

parameters operate. The serious error in the current understanding is

drawing the rule of varna model in avarna society and contexts and

debating

in the backdrop of modern social ethics and a society which is 'non-

vedic'.

These directives have been the guideline adopted in practice in the

hindu

communities for centuries beyond the narrow segment of 'bramhin

tagged

groups'. It is presumed that the members of this narrow group have done

their part to retain the membership of the 'bramhin' society - through

diligent observance of the 'Vaidika karma's - which at the barest

minimum is

'Mitra -upaasana' according to the technical word used by Manu ( and

practical terms- doing their sandhya rites-gayatri. The text reads:

kuryaat

anyat na vaa kuryaat, maitro braamhana uchyate).

How a generic human being can move on the ladder of 'Varna' to

become a

'Bramhin', the responsibilities associated with the process and status,

what

causes a fall from this status, how to undertake a religious prayaschitta

and raise back and continue the journey ( in historical reference smrities)

- is a different line of discussion.

(In Sanskrit expression, it means - The Achaarya's (==Dharma-kaama,

alooksha,

sammarshinah, shreyas wishing bramahanas) guides the individual,

family,

society to live its desha-kala - achaara Veda.

Now let us see what are the sub-strands in this debate:

1. Marriage in 'Sagotra' and 'Sapinda' is a linked intricate issue.

2. When the talk of 'shaastra' comes up two points need to be clearly

presented:

2a) Are you talking of the Veda (Shruti segment) - Obviously Not; for

these

rules are not in the scope of this domain.

2b) Understanding of Vedic directive and living it in historic times as

presented in the Dharma shastra/ nibandha works.

This opens up the next options:

2b-i) What is your reference point - historically - Manu, Yajnavalkya,

Haarita, Gautama etc; .. OR the Gruhya sutras of your 'own' shakha?

Subsets of questions:

2b-i- 1)If you accept one of the above why reject others - grounds

2b-i- 2)If you want to put a historic date, how on earth are you going to

fix the dates and value references? Every dharma shastra-smriti kara

points

the nose back to poorvaacharya / Veda; knowing fully well that the their

own

contemporary society has drifted way away from the vedic reference

standards. The rule base gets more and more tightening on the small

segment

of the compellingly rule conforming 'bramhana samaja', causing it to

shrink

in numbers and power by restricting the options in profession-

movement-

education. Do you want to trace this and set right the deviations? That

offends the 'most traditionalists', 'swami's', religious institutions.

2b-i- 3)If you want to pick the latest, then how sure you are that the

selection of 'Dharma sindhu / nirnaya sindu / vaidyanatheeya et al' is

globally (- or even across Indian landscape / communities /

sampradayas/

langauges; or still narrower - within the sub splits of the each Guru (- by

philosophy of Advaita / Vishistadvaita / Dvaita; Vyasaraya - uttaradi

matha

; tengalai -vadagalai; Maharasthrian bramhin vis-à-vis vaishnava bramhin

from Bengal vis-à-vis Namboodri from Kerala vis-à-vis a vadyar /purohota

from other traditions ? ) The facial mark to put on the face of the animal

(elephant) became a prestigious legal issue to be decided in the

Supreme

court! Not to speak of the complications entangling the status

of 'sanyasi'

as the head of institution or a representative of the religious community /

spokes person - signatory for financial resource ? figure head of

institutionalized religions? The debates of many religious institutions

entangled to the properties may be pursued in this regard. The breed of

modern Gurus, global guru's and yogi's of Hinduism blessing all sorts of

marriages and renunciation from family life styles is a different story

altogether!

2b-i-4) How are you going to address the needs of Dharma -artha-kama

where

all three get integrated in the issue of 'marriage' and decide the Varna or

the jati or the kula ? What is the role of Samskara approach?

Looking large, are the Dharam-sahstra addressed to the narrowing lane

of

the 'Bramhin title claimants' (like the Indian Tax laws always encroaching

on the smokers / drinkers and the working class in the employment! )

OR do

they have a larger perspective?

When one starts deliberating on these issues, the need for looking at the

'Dharma-shastra model' for the 'Avarna' society needs to be reviewed and

brought in an updated form. The upgrade from 'avarna society' is a

challenging task.

It sure is a proud privilege to be admitted to the membership of the

'Bramhinical heritage' by birth. It is a parental gift, head start and

golden spoon in the mouth inheritance.

It sure is a privilege to be admitted to the membership of the 'Bramhinical

heritage' by initiation through an Acahrya. It is a parental/ Educators

gift for the next generation in the process of grooming.

It sure is a privilege to be admitted to the membership of the 'Bramhinical

heritage' by contemporary society. It is an achievement through self

effort

and exertion.

One does not guarantee the other or obliterate others. One who has

passed

through all three stages successfully has all reason to be proud and be a

model for the society. That is a sign of 'power of the bramhinical Vidyas

reforming a willing member of the community'.

The worst part is indiscreetly carrying the pride of first part to the last

part without any exertion. The basis for this is the injunction -

'Bramhanena

nishkarano shadango vedo adhyetavyah'. This never meant that the

bramhin had

a religious obligation to live a poor life of subjugation working in a

temple/community priest. Some generations opted for this life style due

to

their preference of the 'Vedanta -philosophical affiliation' and ' as a way

to protect Veda- serve an obligation to society by providing a living model

of Vedic life style'. The historic choice on profession, motivated by a

desire to 'serve the community at the cost of self prestige' for livelihood

is NOT a binding on the Bramhins. There is no dharma shastra rule

asking

bramhin to be a temple priest or a 'purohita'.On the contrary, there are

rules which makes an injunction that a 'bramhin shall not accept the

profession of a temple priest / manager of a charity food service

institution'. The famous line attributed to Acahrya shankara says 'Let me

not have the options of paurohitya (priest service for a fees) and

maathapatya ( head of a religious institution)'. [ Paurohityam rajani

charitam, .. maathapatyam .. janma janmaantarepi maa bhoot]. In spite

of

this, if a narrow segment of Bramhins helped the society in this

direction,

it needs to be appreciated. It is not a matter of shame.

Now let us see - Can the narrow segment of Bramhins dharmically live

without

a temple - temple priest or a religious institution and a sanyasi heading

it? Certainly yes. The prescribed practice of Veda (Svadhyaya) and

performance of Yajna's with mutual community help ( ritviks of bramhin

community) is the prescribed path. Can the large number of 'a-varna'

members of society live dharmically without a temple - temple priest or a

religious institution and a sanyasi heading it? and still calim to be

religious ? Certainly NOT.

Bramhinical religious identity and life style is based on 'apaurusheya'

vedic model. Thus time space-history restrictions do not limit the

bramhinical religious identity. In all other cases, where the religious

identity isderived from the 'hsitory' this problem is unavoidable. When the

'other Varna' identity was postioned in the 'Shruti revelation - Purusha

sukta' to 'Virat Purusha' or in Gita to 'Guna -karma', the reference

transcends the limitation of History.

The history of life styles of vedic traditions in India shows this very

clearly. It is time that historical epithet 'daridro braamhanah' is given

go bye and bring out the vibrant power of the vedic traditions.

If one trusts Veda, then one has to respect why Veda chose Bramhana

and the

promise made there in - 'Vedao ha vai braamhanam aajagaama,

gopaaya maam

shevadhiste ahamasmi' Veda came to Bramhin as a choice selection

and

promised -'Nurture and Protect me; I will bring you welfare (in this world

and beyond)'. It is this balance that is reflected in the statement of the

'Manu' when he says 'Gruhastha' is the support of the three ashramas;

Gruhastha status is linked to marriage; Marriage brings in the issue of

Varna- Gotra compatibility. And the dynamic rules come up from time to

time.

Regards

BVK Sastry

srimodegunta · November 21, 2010

"BVK Sastry" <sastry_bvk
Shastra and Sagotra marraiges - way out RE: Digest Number

287

Namaste

>From within the Shastra, depending upon which model one prefers to

look at

the argument for Sagotra, the 'Yes-No-Doubtful' understanding can be

fished

out. This debate is neither new nor unnoticed. I recall that this issue has

been debated in Kulluka's commentary, Govindarajeeya, and also

Dharma

sindhu/nirnaya sindhu. The previous parama-Acahrya of Sri Sringeri

Peetham

had passed a generic guidance on this. And this should be available as

recorded evidence.

Each historic period and society lives its own version and understanding

of

the Revelations to explore the path leading to the realization of the four

fold values of life.

In summary,

- The 'sapinda' condition guides the current law on 'sagotra' marriage' -

The definition of 'Sapinda' is dynamically linked to contemporary living

conditions, economic styles and human relations.

- If the rule of 'ten days impurity' (dashaaha ashaucha in birth and death

is broken), if the living is under separate roofs and separate family

leaderships (==which is true in many modern families), if the previous

three

generations did not have any 'entanglements of religious, relational or

economic issues).

- And if the primary condition of 'Varna -identity' is lost due to the

conditionalities of 'Vratya', for what ever reasons of individual,

relations, forefathers, parents and the like,

THEN the scope of the rule ab initio is indeterminate.

For there is no bearing to mark the 'Varna' reference so critical for the

operation of the 'sagotra'-sapinda' restrictions. The entire rule base is

'a-varna' according to sahstra frame of thinking.

This calls for an investigation in to at least three family generations of

the bride and the groom. Question is How many have retained this

lineage (

gotra pravara links, names, the family connections and the like)? And

even

if they have, would they allow the investigations ? And eventually if some

thing turns out, how are you going to present it to the modern bride and

groom for the consequences? Why does it matter?

If you investigate further on this, the stress currently being laid on

'Horoscope matching' in modern Hindu society instead of the 'Vamsha-

Gotra'

investigation which was the classical traditional style ( which information

is used in the long chants of the vedic priest in vaidika vivaha samksara,

publicly declared, before the 'muhoorta' -'akshataaropana, seeking the

acceptance of the society members, relatives at large. The farce of

practice

need not be blamed on the design of the system.

This is what I call as the drift from Varna society model to the 'a-varna'

society model. The 'sagotra' marriage issue is one of the sub clauses in

the

Varna model- Aarsha Vaidiak vivaha samskara. Even here, if the parties

/parents opted for other model of vivaha samskra, where a choice from

out of

eight formats is there, the sagotra debate does not find any relevance.

One does not have to be ashamed of the current scenario. Let us just

accept

that as human and intelligent and religious were our forefathers, they

lived

their best version of 'Veda Dharma' and groomed us to be what we are

now. It

is for us now to take the mantle and proceed further. There is no need to

blame the 'Pitru's'. It would be a religious sin.

One may argue out that irrespective of the choice of the vivaha format,

the

'sagotra' issue some how operates from the 'DNA' level! Come on, Get

the

Human Genome level details and analyze the details. Dharma sahstra

kara was

not a gentics expert or Genetics study have any love for the Veda-

dharma

-smriti shastra rules. Prove first that the Gotra has some chemical

component identifiable in the DNA/Genes and that is going to stay for

millennia! And this element is not going to be influenced by

the 'samskara'

and the like, as suggested in the dharma shastra rule books.

In short, the hunch hypothesis linking the 'Sagotra vivaha ban as a

religious practice' is a potential candidate for a high level Human genome

project research. Choices - Either the Bramhins do it in the (survival !?)

interest of their own stock and validating the Dharma shastra rule from

sciences Or wait for others to make suggestions about what is the DNA

parameter linked to 'Bramhana Pravara Gotra' based on a study from

westerns

scholars and orientalist's; and then fight that the Sanskrit translations

are inaccurate.

What one does beyond the shastra frame is a social context issue. If the

majority of society is 'Varna' compliant, then the reference rules would

be

Dharma shastra. The rule base for complying to a Varna standard is

given in

the shastra books. It is individuals choice preference to live that life

style before claiming for a membership stake. If the defaulting members

are

not being eased out in the club, that is a pointer to the lack of authority.

The convenience adopted is 'expand the definition', so that more

numbers

come to the base of the pyramid, without diluting the standards at the

top.

This is how Vedic tradition extends from the 'Rishi' model phase,

Vaidika-avaidiak model (historic 500 BCE period, Buddhism / Jainism) -

Varna-Ashrama model ( guided in its falvors of Puranas, smarta

traditions,

Vaishnava / Shaiva streams, Vedanta flavor identity of Varna, region

flavored identity of varna) till 17th century. In the same period, we have

the 'jati-mata-kula model for the society at large, who do not come under

the 'varna' rule base. Historical transition due to the break down of

rigidity of marriage is varna model density in society changing to

'jati-mata-kula' tags, proliferation of 'jati tags'.

The dahrma shastra addresses this complex balance of society from two

perspectives: If the majority of the society is varna complaint, then the

major prescriptive dharma shastra rule would be for the 'Varna-ashrama'

teams; the exceptional rules would be for the 'avarna society. If the

majority of society is 'a-varna' then the dharma shastra rule would provide

the idealistic model on the Varna ashrama model and suggest that

avarna

society align to the ideals of Vedic purushartha goals. The contextual

parameters operate. The serious error in the current understanding is

drawing the rule of varna model in avarna society and contexts and

debating

in the backdrop of modern social ethics and a society which is 'non-

vedic'.

These directives have been the guideline adopted in practice in the

hindu

communities for centuries beyond the narrow segment of 'bramhin

tagged

groups'. It is presumed that the members of this narrow group have done

their part to retain the membership of the 'bramhin' society - through

diligent observance of the 'Vaidika karma's - which at the barest

minimum is

'Mitra -upaasana' according to the technical word used by Manu ( and

practical terms- doing their sandhya rites-gayatri. The text reads:

kuryaat

anyat na vaa kuryaat, maitro braamhana uchyate).

How a generic human being can move on the ladder of 'Varna' to

become a

'Bramhin', the responsibilities associated with the process and status,

what

causes a fall from this status, how to undertake a religious prayaschitta

and raise back and continue the journey ( in historical reference smrities)

- is a different line of discussion.

(In Sanskrit expression, it means - The Achaarya's (==Dharma-kaama,

alooksha,

sammarshinah, shreyas wishing bramahanas) guides the individual,

family,

society to live its desha-kala - achaara Veda.

Now let us see what are the sub-strands in this debate:

1. Marriage in 'Sagotra' and 'Sapinda' is a linked intricate issue.

2. When the talk of 'shaastra' comes up two points need to be clearly

presented:

2a) Are you talking of the Veda (Shruti segment) - Obviously Not; for

these

rules are not in the scope of this domain.

2b) Understanding of Vedic directive and living it in historic times as

presented in the Dharma shastra/ nibandha works.

This opens up the next options:

2b-i) What is your reference point - historically - Manu, Yajnavalkya,

Haarita, Gautama etc; .. OR the Gruhya sutras of your 'own' shakha?

Subsets of questions:

2b-i- 1)If you accept one of the above why reject others - grounds

2b-i- 2)If you want to put a historic date, how on earth are you going to

fix the dates and value references? Every dharma shastra-smriti kara

points

the nose back to poorvaacharya / Veda; knowing fully well that the their

own

contemporary society has drifted way away from the vedic reference

standards. The rule base gets more and more tightening on the small

segment

of the compellingly rule conforming 'bramhana samaja', causing it to

shrink

in numbers and power by restricting the options in profession-

movement-

education. Do you want to trace this and set right the deviations? That

offends the 'most traditionalists', 'swami's', religious institutions.

2b-i- 3)If you want to pick the latest, then how sure you are that the

selection of 'Dharma sindhu / nirnaya sindu / vaidyanatheeya et al' is

globally (- or even across Indian landscape / communities /

sampradayas/

langauges; or still narrower - within the sub splits of the each Guru (- by

philosophy of Advaita / Vishistadvaita / Dvaita; Vyasaraya - uttaradi

matha

; tengalai -vadagalai; Maharasthrian bramhin vis-à-vis vaishnava bramhin

from Bengal vis-à-vis Namboodri from Kerala vis-à-vis a vadyar /purohota

from other traditions ? ) The facial mark to put on the face of the animal

(elephant) became a prestigious legal issue to be decided in the

Supreme

court! Not to speak of the complications entangling the status

of 'sanyasi'

as the head of institution or a representative of the religious community /

spokes person - signatory for financial resource ? figure head of

institutionalized religions? The debates of many religious institutions

entangled to the properties may be pursued in this regard. The breed of

modern Gurus, global guru's and yogi's of Hinduism blessing all sorts of

marriages and renunciation from family life styles is a different story

altogether!

2b-i-4) How are you going to address the needs of Dharma -artha-kama

where

all three get integrated in the issue of 'marriage' and decide the Varna or

the jati or the kula ? What is the role of Samskara approach?

Looking large, are the Dharam-sahstra addressed to the narrowing lane

of

the 'Bramhin title claimants' (like the Indian Tax laws always encroaching

on the smokers / drinkers and the working class in the employment! )

OR do

they have a larger perspective?

When one starts deliberating on these issues, the need for looking at the

'Dharma-shastra model' for the 'Avarna' society needs to be reviewed and

brought in an updated form. The upgrade from 'avarna society' is a

challenging task.

It sure is a proud privilege to be admitted to the membership of the

'Bramhinical heritage' by birth. It is a parental gift, head start and

golden spoon in the mouth inheritance.

It sure is a privilege to be admitted to the membership of the 'Bramhinical

heritage' by initiation through an Acahrya. It is a parental/ Educators

gift for the next generation in the process of grooming.

It sure is a privilege to be admitted to the membership of the 'Bramhinical

heritage' by contemporary society. It is an achievement through self

effort

and exertion.

One does not guarantee the other or obliterate others. One who has

passed

through all three stages successfully has all reason to be proud and be a

model for the society. That is a sign of 'power of the bramhinical Vidyas

reforming a willing member of the community'.

The worst part is indiscreetly carrying the pride of first part to the last

part without any exertion. The basis for this is the injunction -

'Bramhanena

nishkarano shadango vedo adhyetavyah'. This never meant that the

bramhin had

a religious obligation to live a poor life of subjugation working in a

temple/community priest. Some generations opted for this life style due

to

their preference of the 'Vedanta -philosophical affiliation' and ' as a way

to protect Veda- serve an obligation to society by providing a living model

of Vedic life style'. The historic choice on profession, motivated by a

desire to 'serve the community at the cost of self prestige' for livelihood

is NOT a binding on the Bramhins. There is no dharma shastra rule

asking

bramhin to be a temple priest or a 'purohita'.On the contrary, there are

rules which makes an injunction that a 'bramhin shall not accept the

profession of a temple priest / manager of a charity food service

institution'. The famous line attributed to Acahrya shankara says 'Let me

not have the options of paurohitya (priest service for a fees) and

maathapatya ( head of a religious institution)'. [ Paurohityam rajani

charitam, .. maathapatyam .. janma janmaantarepi maa bhoot]. In spite

of

this, if a narrow segment of Bramhins helped the society in this

direction,

it needs to be appreciated. It is not a matter of shame.

Now let us see - Can the narrow segment of Bramhins dharmically live

without

a temple - temple priest or a religious institution and a sanyasi heading

it? Certainly yes. The prescribed practice of Veda (Svadhyaya) and

performance of Yajna's with mutual community help ( ritviks of bramhin

community) is the prescribed path. Can the large number of 'a-varna'

members of society live dharmically without a temple - temple priest or a

religious institution and a sanyasi heading it? and still calim to be

religious ? Certainly NOT.

Bramhinical religious identity and life style is based on 'apaurusheya'

vedic model. Thus time space-history restrictions do not limit the

bramhinical religious identity. In all other cases, where the religious

identity isderived from the 'hsitory' this problem is unavoidable. When the

'other Varna' identity was postioned in the 'Shruti revelation - Purusha

sukta' to 'Virat Purusha' or in Gita to 'Guna -karma', the reference

transcends the limitation of History.

The history of life styles of vedic traditions in India shows this very

clearly. It is time that historical epithet 'daridro braamhanah' is given

go bye and bring out the vibrant power of the vedic traditions.

If one trusts Veda, then one has to respect why Veda chose Bramhana

and the

promise made there in - 'Vedao ha vai braamhanam aajagaama,

gopaaya maam

shevadhiste ahamasmi' Veda came to Bramhin as a choice selection

and

promised -'Nurture and Protect me; I will bring you welfare (in this world

and beyond)'. It is this balance that is reflected in the statement of the

'Manu' when he says 'Gruhastha' is the support of the three ashramas;

Gruhastha status is linked to marriage; Marriage brings in the issue of

Varna- Gotra compatibility. And the dynamic rules come up from time to

time.

Regards

BVK Sastry