Mind defining Brahmanism?

[LurkerBaba]

Either you are blind.

Or you can please refer to post # 50 and post #76.

I repeat. No historical evidence of Shudras (or any other caste) becoming Brahmins.

Your posts referred to the phenomenon called Sanskritization. Castes could not claim Brahmin status by this method

 

[parijataka]

Skipped from pg 3 to here.

Criticism of Hinduism is not an issue - religion is man made and every faith has some blind spot. For certain members Hinduism is wrong no matter what historical and/or academic proof given. For certain other members blaming one group for all the problems in the country is a constant refrain - peace if that is what makes your day !

 

[warriorextreme]

I repeat. No historical evidence of Shudras (or any other caste) becoming Brahmins.

Your posts referred to the phenomenon called Sanskritization. Castes could not claim Brahmin status by this method

Examples of Varna migration in ancient history

The concept of Varnas – Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra – being merit based and NOT birth based is not merely a theoretical concept. It was practiced in ancient era. The greatest misery befell on us when our misguided ancestors converted this scientific meritocracy into a foolish birth-based system causing all the miseries we face today.
Here are some examples:
a. Aitareya Rishi was son of a Daasa or criminal but became a Brahmin of highest order and wrote Aitareya Brahman and Aitareyopanishad. Aitareya Brahman is considered critical to understand Rigveda.
b. Ailush Rishi was son of a Daasi, gambler and of low character. However he researched on Rigveda and made several discoveries. Not only was he invited by Rishis but also made an Acharya. (Aitareya Brahman 2.19)
c. Satyakaam Jaabaal was son of a prostitute but became a Brahmin.
d. Prishadh was son of King Daksha but became a Shudra. Further he did Tapasya to achieve salvation after repenting. (Vishnu Puran 4.1.14)
Had Tapasya been banned for Shudra as per the fake story from Uttar Ramayan, how could Prishadh do so?
e. Nabhag, son of King Nedishtha became Vaishya. Many of his sons again became Kshatriya. (Vishnu Puran 4.1.13)
f. Dhrist was son of Nabhag (Vaishya) but became Brahmin and his son became Kshatriya (VP 4.2.2)
g. Further in his generation, some became Brahmin again (VP 9.2.23)
h. As per Bhagvat, Agniveshya became Brahmin though born to a king.
i. Rathotar born in Kshatriya family became a Brahmin as per Vishnu Puran and Bhagvat.
j. Haarit became Brahmin though born to Kshatriya (VP 4.3.5)
k. Shaunak became Brahmin though born in Kshatriya family. (VP 4.8.1). In fact, as per Vayu Puran, Vishnu Puran and Harivansh Puran, sons of Shaunak Rishi belonged to all four Varnas.
Similar examples exist of Gritsamad, Veethavya and Vritsamati.
l. Matanga was son of Chandal but became a Brahmin. (Mahabharat Anushasan Parva Chapter 3)
m. Raavan was born from Pulatsya Rishi but became a Rakshas.
n. Pravriddha was son of Raghu King but became a Rakshas.
o. Trishanku was a king but became a Chandal.
p. Sons of Vishwamitra became Shudra. Vishwamitra himself was a Kshatriya who later became a Brahmin.
q. Vidur was son of a servant but became a Brahmin and minister of Hastinapur empire.
r. Vatsa became a Rishi though born to a Shudra (Aitareya Brahman 2.19)
s. Many verses of adulterated Manu Smriti (10.43-44) state that certain castes were earlier Kshtariya but became Shudra later. These verses are adulterated but prove that concept of Varna migration did exist. The castes mentioned are: Paundrak, Audru, Dravid, Kamboj, Yavan, Shak, Parad, Palhava, Cheen, Kirat, Darad, Khash.
t. Mahabharat Anushasana Parva 35.17-18 adds the following to above list: Mekal, Laat, Kanvashira, Shaundik, Daarva, Chaur, Shabar, Barbar.
u. Several gotras are common across Brahmins, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Dalits implying that all of them hailed from same family but rather got entrapped in the stupid casteism.

---------------------------

I had given this to you in previous discussion too

 

[GPM]

With so much beating about every bush, some times created for beating, none has so far put a finger on what is Brahmanism. In fact it is a fictitious term invented by Marxist historians. nay contortorians, to try to show Brahmins as distinct from other Hindus, just to ostracise them socially. It was first used by western scholars like Max Muller whose declared agenda was to undermine Hinduism and Hindu culture and establish xianity.

A gem from him. Vedas were composed about 1,000 BCE, BUT there is no evidence!!!

Rig Veda is a compendium of hymns ONLY, no castes are mentioned. If any one can show me to the contrary I would be grateful.

Traditionally Brahmins, due to knowledge of scriptures, have been priests. Is it any different from kazis, muftis, imams? At the same footing. But never a term imamism been used.

Brahmins have been and are priests to all castes, including shudras. Even shudras aka dalits do not call a kazi for marriages. They call a Brahmin priests. Last rites of all castes are performed by Brahmin priests, never by maulvis or bishops.

 

[warriorextreme]

With so much beating about every bush, some times created for beating, none has so far put a finger on what is Brahmanism. In fact it is a fictitious term invented by Marxist historians. nay contortorians, to try to show Brahmins as distinct from other Hindus, just to ostracise them socially. It was first used by western scholars like Max Muller whose declared agenda was to undermine Hinduism and Hindu culture and establish xianity.

Brahminism was indeed present during times of Gautam Buddha...Gautam Buddha has said that vedas were corrupted by few Brahmins and introduced animal sacrifice, birth based caste system etc...Buddha himself was a brahmin in few of his previous births and studied Vedas...He refused to study vedas in his times as they were corrupted according to him...nonetheless he does not deny knowledge of vedas completely..

In Sutta Nipat 192, Mahatma Buddha says that:

Vidwa Cha Vedehi Samechcha Dhammam Na Uchchavacham Gachhati Bhooripanjo.
People allow sense-organs to dominate and keep shuffling between high and low positions. But the scholar who understands Vedas understands Dharma and does not waver.

Sutta Nipat 503:
Yo Vedagu Gyanarato Sateema "¦"¦.
One should support a person who is master of Vedas, contemplative, intelligent, helpful if you desire to inculcate similar traits.

Sutta Nipat 1059:
Yam Brahmanam Vedagum Abhijanjya Akinchanam Kamabhave Asattam"¦"¦
One gets free from worldly pains if he is able to understand a Vedic Scholar who has no wealth and free from attraction towards worldly things.

Sutta Nipat 1060:
Vidwa Cha So Vedagu Naro Idha Bhavabhave Sangam Imam Visajja"¦..
I state that one who understands the Vedas rejects attraction towards the world and becomes free from sins.

Sutta Nipat 846:
Na Vedagu Diththia Na Mutiya Sa Manameti Nahi Tanmayoso"¦.
One who knows Vedas does not acquire false ego. He is not affected by hearsay and delusions.

Sutta Nipat 458:
Yadantagu Vedagu Yanjakaale Yassahuti Labhe Taras Ijjeti Broomi
I state that one who acquires Ahuti in Havan of a Vedic scholar gets success.

A gem from him. Vedas were composed about 1,000 BCE, BUT there is no evidence!!!

Rig Veda is a compendium of hymns ONLY, no castes are mentioned. If any one can show me to the contrary I would be grateful.

Vedas do not have much mentions of varna system as the aim of vedas is to become arya i.e. noble...

The word shudra appears in only below hymnas of vedas( Yes out of all the four huge vedas)

Rig Veda (10:90:12); Yajur Veda (14:30; 18:48; 20:17; 23:30; 23:31; 26:2; 30:5; 30:22; 31:11); Atharva Veda (4:20:4; 4:20:8; 5:22:7; 10:1:3; 19:6:6; 19:32: 8; 19:62:1).

Traditionally Brahmins, due to knowledge of scriptures, have been priests. Is it any different from kazis, muftis, imams? At the same footing. But never a term imamism been used.

Brahmins have been and are priests to all castes, including shudras. Even shudras aka dalits do not call a kazi for marriages. They call a Brahmin priests. Last rites of all castes are performed by Brahmin priests, never by maulvis or bishops.

Shudras are not dalits...
Dalits were previously Buddhists/ Janis which were outlawed during the sunga period...

One interesting thing I would like to add...who is Brahman according to Buddha?

n the Mahavagga,the Buddha declares:
The one who annihilates the sins in himself,
who is not proud, who is passionless, whose spirit is humble,
who has comprehended the Vedas and is chaste,
for whom no joy exists in the world,:
that one is lawfully called a brahman.

 

[Bhadra]

"Then, if is said that the class by birth (or familial lineage or genus) bears the designation 'Brahmin', then no (i.e., this cannot be true), because there are several non-human species from whom numerous great Sages emerged.
We hear from the sacred texts that
- Sage Rsyasrnga was born of a deer,
- Sage Kausika of the Kusa grass,
- Sage Jambuka from a jackal,
- Sage Valmiki from white termite hill,
- Sage Vyasa from a fisher woman,
- Sage Gautama from the back of a hare,
- Sage Vasishtha from Urvashi- the celestial nymph
- Sage Agastya from a pitcher.
Amongst these, there have been many Sages who have been amongst the foremost of men that have demonstrated spiritual realization.
Therefore, it is not one's class by birth that can be taken as 'Brahmin'."


http://creative.sulekha.com/who-is-a-brahmin-a-scriptural-study_182549_blog

 

[GPM]

Brahminism was indeed present during times of Gautam Buddha...Gautam Buddha has said that vedas were corrupted by few Brahmins and introduced animal sacrifice, birth based caste system etc...Buddha himself was a brahmin in few of his previous births and studied Vedas...He refused to study vedas in his times as they were corrupted according to him...nonetheless he does not deny knowledge of vedas completely..

In Sutta Nipat 192, Mahatma Buddha says that:

Vidwa Cha Vedehi Samechcha Dhammam Na Uchchavacham Gachhati Bhooripanjo.
People allow sense-organs to dominate and keep shuffling between high and low positions. But the scholar who understands Vedas understands Dharma and does not waver.

Sutta Nipat 503:
Yo Vedagu Gyanarato Sateema "¦"¦.
One should support a person who is master of Vedas, contemplative, intelligent, helpful if you desire to inculcate similar traits.

Sutta Nipat 1059:
Yam Brahmanam Vedagum Abhijanjya Akinchanam Kamabhave Asattam"¦"¦
One gets free from worldly pains if he is able to understand a Vedic Scholar who has no wealth and free from attraction towards worldly things.

Sutta Nipat 1060:
Vidwa Cha So Vedagu Naro Idha Bhavabhave Sangam Imam Visajja"¦..
I state that one who understands the Vedas rejects attraction towards the world and becomes free from sins.

Sutta Nipat 846:
Na Vedagu Diththia Na Mutiya Sa Manameti Nahi Tanmayoso"¦.
One who knows Vedas does not acquire false ego. He is not affected by hearsay and delusions.

Sutta Nipat 458:
Yadantagu Vedagu Yanjakaale Yassahuti Labhe Taras Ijjeti Broomi
I state that one who acquires Ahuti in Havan of a Vedic scholar gets success.





Vedas do not have much mentions of varna system as the aim of vedas is to become arya i.e. noble...

The word shudra appears in only below hymnas of vedas( Yes out of all the four huge vedas)

Rig Veda (10:90:12); Yajur Veda (14:30; 18:48; 20:17; 23:30; 23:31; 26:2; 30:5; 30:22; 31:11); Atharva Veda (4:20:4; 4:20:8; 5:22:7; 10:1:3; 19:6:6; 19:32: 8; 19:62:1).



Shudras are not dalits...
Dalits were previously Buddhists/ Janis which were outlawed during the sunga period...

One interesting thing I would like to add...who is Brahman according to Buddha?

n the Mahavagga,the Buddha declares:
The one who annihilates the sins in himself,
who is not proud, who is passionless, whose spirit is humble,
who has comprehended the Vedas and is chaste,
for whom no joy exists in the world,:
that one is lawfully called a brahman.

Brahmins of course did exist during Buddha's time. But where is brahmanvad mentioned in all these suttas.On the other hands, Vedas have not been denigrated and wise knowledgeable Brahmins have knowledge of Vedas have been praised.

Did Buddha refuse to study Vedas [wonder how he concluded that they were corrupted] and yet "did not deny knowledge of vedas". Did you find contradiction in your statement? Buddha was a prince and heir apparent to his father's throne and was such trained to be scholarly and a warrior. Physically, he was a fit and strong man.


Are you sure of RV 10.92.12? Read it here.

12 And may he too give car, the Sage, from far away, the Dragon of the Deep, to this our yearning call.
Ye Sun and Moon who dwell in heaven and move in turn, and with your thought, O Earth and Sky, observe this well.


Where is even varna mentioned?




If shudras are not dalits then there were no dalits in Buddha's period. It was Brahmins who first flocked to Buddhism. Later shirking kashatriyas, bankrupt merchants etc came. Easy life spawned free loaders.

Later when Buddhism was debunked, Brahmins left it first of all. Later others to desrted it and reverted to various varnas.

Buddha gives some characteristics, none condemnatory, of Brahmins. But my question stands: What is Brahmanism? Additionally, where did Buddha mention Brahminism? Where did he mention achchoot ie untouchables. They WERE not there. They are post Buddhist phenomenon.


Btw, chalte chalte. Buddhism was not outlawed during Sunga period. Pushyamitra Sunga assasinated and Mayuryan king and assumed the kingdom. He rejuvenated the economy and military, gone to pieces during later Buddhist Mauryans.

 

[warriorextreme]

Brahmins of course did exist during Buddha's time. But where is brahmanvad mentioned in all these suttas.On the other hands, Vedas have not been denigrated and wise knowledgeable Brahmins have knowledge of Vedas have been praised.

Did Buddha refuse to study Vedas [wonder how he concluded that they were corrupted] and yet "did not deny knowledge of vedas". Did you find contradiction in your statement? Buddha was a prince and heir apparent to his father's throne and was such trained to be scholarly and a warrior. Physically, he was a fit and strong man.


Are you sure of RV 10.92.12? Read it here.

12 And may he too give car, the Sage, from far away, the Dragon of the Deep, to this our yearning call.
Ye Sun and Moon who dwell in heaven and move in turn, and with your thought, O Earth and Sky, observe this well.


Where is even varna mentioned?




If shudras are not dalits then there were no dalits in Buddha's period. It was Brahmins who first flocked to Buddhism. Later shirking kashatriyas, bankrupt merchants etc came. Easy life spawned free loaders.

Later when Buddhism was debunked, Brahmins left it first of all. Later others to desrted it and reverted to various varnas.

Buddha gives some characteristics, none condemnatory, of Brahmins. But my question stands: What is Brahmanism? Additionally, where did Buddha mention Brahminism? Where did he mention achchoot ie untouchables. They WERE not there. They are post Buddhist phenomenon.


Btw, chalte chalte. Buddhism was not outlawed during Sunga period. Pushyamitra Sunga assasinated and Mayuryan king and assumed the kingdom. He rejuvenated the economy and military, gone to pieces during later Buddhist Mauryans.

Sorry for the typo it is actually Purusha Sukta (Rigveda 1.10. 90 - 12)

On topic of Brahminism...earliest Brahminisms have been mentioned by Buddha himself

In "Brahmana Dhammika Sutta" (II,7) of the Suttanipata section of Vinaya Pitaka there is a story of when the Buddha was in Jetavana village and there were a group of elderly Brahmin ascetics who sat down next to the Buddha and a conversation began.

The elderly Brahmins asked him, "Do the present Brahmans follow the same rules, practice the same rites, as those in the more ancient times?"
The Buddha replied, "No."
The elderly Brahmins asked the Buddha that if it were not inconvenient for him, that he would tell them of the Brahmana Dharma of the previous generation.
The Buddha replied: "There were formerly rishis, men who had subdued all passion by the keeping of the sila precepts and the leading of a pure life...Their riches and possessions consisted in the study of the Veda and their treasure was a life free from all evil...The Brahmans, for a time, continued to do right and received in alms rice, seats, clothes, and oil, though they did not ask for them. The animals that were given they did not kill; but they procured useful medicaments from the cows, regarding them as friends and relatives, whose products give strength, beauty and health."
So in this passage also the Buddha describes when the Brahmins were studying the Veda but the animal sacrifice customs had not yet began.

But during time of Buddha animal sacrifice was carried out in the name of vedas...this is clear indication of how Brahminism started out before Buddha's birth.

_____________________________

you are right about untouchability,..it started out much later and shudras are not untouchables....untouchables according to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar had buddhist ancestors and I agree with him....

Buddhism was debunked by adi shankaracharya but during the process Santan Dharma was not preserved and instead new way of life that is current form of Hinduism was formed which has influences of Santan Dharma, Buddhism as well as Janism...

Adi shankaracharya was called as Prachanna Buddha i.e. Buddha in disguise.

 

[Iamanidiot]

You are free to disagree.

The upward mobility in the caste system is clearly recorded.

Shiny brass lota give the references in history if its true

 

[Iamanidiot]

Of those, only the Guptas were a non-Brahmin/Kshatriya dynasty. Mahapadma Nanda, IIRC, was the son of King Mahanandin of Magadha, a kshatriya; it was only his mother who was a shudra. Mauryas were most likely kshatriyas, and this is what the Buddhist and Jain accounts claim. Only the Puranas assign shudra status to the Mauryas, presumably because they supported heterodox sects. The same is also true for Palas; they are referred to as kshatriyas by numerous accounts, including by Tibetan historian Taranatha.

Anyway, the rise and fall of these dynasties do not capture the life of the average Indian. Social mobility throughout the world was highly limited before the modern age due to rigid systems of social and economic stratification. Chaturvarna was only one such system, out of many others.

Chaturvarna Civic is uniquely unique.It can be called subtle and sustainable Nazism.Nazism can also be called crude and vulgar Brahminism

 

[Iamanidiot]

Examples of Varna migration in ancient history

The concept of Varnas – Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra – being merit based and NOT birth based is not merely a theoretical concept. It was practiced in ancient era. The greatest misery befell on us when our misguided ancestors converted this scientific meritocracy into a foolish birth-based system causing all the miseries we face today.
Here are some examples:
a. Aitareya Rishi was son of a Daasa or criminal but became a Brahmin of highest order and wrote Aitareya Brahman and Aitareyopanishad. Aitareya Brahman is considered critical to understand Rigveda.
b. Ailush Rishi was son of a Daasi, gambler and of low character. However he researched on Rigveda and made several discoveries. Not only was he invited by Rishis but also made an Acharya. (Aitareya Brahman 2.19)
c. Satyakaam Jaabaal was son of a prostitute but became a Brahmin.
d. Prishadh was son of King Daksha but became a Shudra. Further he did Tapasya to achieve salvation after repenting. (Vishnu Puran 4.1.14)
Had Tapasya been banned for Shudra as per the fake story from Uttar Ramayan, how could Prishadh do so?
e. Nabhag, son of King Nedishtha became Vaishya. Many of his sons again became Kshatriya. (Vishnu Puran 4.1.13)
f. Dhrist was son of Nabhag (Vaishya) but became Brahmin and his son became Kshatriya (VP 4.2.2)
g. Further in his generation, some became Brahmin again (VP 9.2.23)
h. As per Bhagvat, Agniveshya became Brahmin though born to a king.
i. Rathotar born in Kshatriya family became a Brahmin as per Vishnu Puran and Bhagvat.
j. Haarit became Brahmin though born to Kshatriya (VP 4.3.5)
k. Shaunak became Brahmin though born in Kshatriya family. (VP 4.8.1). In fact, as per Vayu Puran, Vishnu Puran and Harivansh Puran, sons of Shaunak Rishi belonged to all four Varnas.
Similar examples exist of Gritsamad, Veethavya and Vritsamati.
l. Matanga was son of Chandal but became a Brahmin. (Mahabharat Anushasan Parva Chapter 3)
m. Raavan was born from Pulatsya Rishi but became a Rakshas.
n. Pravriddha was son of Raghu King but became a Rakshas.
o. Trishanku was a king but became a Chandal.
p. Sons of Vishwamitra became Shudra. Vishwamitra himself was a Kshatriya who later became a Brahmin.
q. Vidur was son of a servant but became a Brahmin and minister of Hastinapur empire.
r. Vatsa became a Rishi though born to a Shudra (Aitareya Brahman 2.19)
s. Many verses of adulterated Manu Smriti (10.43-44) state that certain castes were earlier Kshtariya but became Shudra later. These verses are adulterated but prove that concept of Varna migration did exist. The castes mentioned are: Paundrak, Audru, Dravid, Kamboj, Yavan, Shak, Parad, Palhava, Cheen, Kirat, Darad, Khash.
t. Mahabharat Anushasana Parva 35.17-18 adds the following to above list: Mekal, Laat, Kanvashira, Shaundik, Daarva, Chaur, Shabar, Barbar.
u. Several gotras are common across Brahmins, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Dalits implying that all of them hailed from same family but rather got entrapped in the stupid casteism.

---------------------------

I had given this to you in previous discussion too

This is pure poppycock at best we do not know their previous identites nor are these independently verified in other texts.Puranas in define anyone as a brahmin if he is supporting brahminism

 

[GPM]

Sorry for the typo it is actually Purusha Sukta (Rigveda 1.10. 90 - 12)

On topic of Brahminism...earliest Brahminisms have been mentioned by Buddha himself

In "Brahmana Dhammika Sutta" (II,7) of the Suttanipata section of Vinaya Pitaka there is a story of when the Buddha was in Jetavana village and there were a group of elderly Brahmin ascetics who sat down next to the Buddha and a conversation began.

The elderly Brahmins asked him, "Do the present Brahmans follow the same rules, practice the same rites, as those in the more ancient times?"
The Buddha replied, "No."
The elderly Brahmins asked the Buddha that if it were not inconvenient for him, that he would tell them of the Brahmana Dharma of the previous generation.
The Buddha replied: "There were formerly rishis, men who had subdued all passion by the keeping of the sila precepts and the leading of a pure life...Their riches and possessions consisted in the study of the Veda and their treasure was a life free from all evil...The Brahmans, for a time, continued to do right and received in alms rice, seats, clothes, and oil, though they did not ask for them. The animals that were given they did not kill; but they procured useful medicaments from the cows, regarding them as friends and relatives, whose products give strength, beauty and health."
So in this passage also the Buddha describes when the Brahmins were studying the Veda but the animal sacrifice customs had not yet began.

But during time of Buddha animal sacrifice was carried out in the name of vedas...this is clear indication of how Brahminism started out before Buddha's birth.

_____________________________

you are right about untouchability,..it started out much later and shudras are not untouchables....untouchables according to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar had buddhist ancestors and I agree with him....

Buddhism was debunked by adi shankaracharya but during the process Santan Dharma was not preserved and instead new way of life that is current form of Hinduism was formed which has influences of Santan Dharma, Buddhism as well as Janism...

Adi shankaracharya was called as Prachanna Buddha i.e. Buddha in disguise.

Brahmins were there when Buddha was even born. Perid.

"Brahmana Dhammika Sutta" (II,7) does not denigrate Brahmins.


It is nobody's case that there was no animal sacrifice in ancient times. It was there. But before Buddha many Upanishads had opposed and condemned the pracrtice. Buddha just repeated that. You talk of "how Brahminism started out before Buddha's birth.". My question is: What is Brahminism? Was it a faith system distinct from that of other varnas? If it was then, there were three not four varnas. If yes, then Brahmins were part and parcel of faith ie dharma.

---

It would be interesting if you people read of philosophical debates between Buddhists and Hindus. It started very soon after Buddha's death, and Buddhism started losing ground by about 200 BCE. By the time of Shankarachaya, it was nearly out, but just gave it last finishing touches.

Shankar was a vedanti of advaita ie monism stream, and his philosphy is the foundation of today's Sanatana Dharma. His teachings have clearly influenced Nanak and Kabir.

 

[warriorextreme]

This is pure poppycock at best we do not know their previous identites nor are these independently verified in other texts.Puranas in define anyone as a brahmin if he is supporting brahminism

It is hard to verify if these varna transitions actually happened or not but nonetheless they do exist in these books and one can not deny that.. fact remains that birth based caste system is not present in Vedas..

 

[GPM]

10.90.10
10 From it were horses born, from it all cattle with two rows of teeth:
From it were generated kine, from it the goats and sheep were born.

This is the creation song.

 

[GPM]

10.90.10
10 From it were horses born, from it all cattle with two rows of teeth:
From it were generated kine, from it the goats and sheep were born.

This is the creation song.

Have you read in Sanskrit?

बराह्मणो.अस्य मुखमासीद बाहू राजन्यः कर्तः |
ऊरूतदस्य यद वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत

Varnas too are not mentioned. Just nomenclature, with no reference to the work allotted.

Btw, VEdas ado not contain much philosophical speculations.

 

[Bhadra]

बराह्मणो.अस्य मुखमासीद बाहू राजन्यः कर्तः |
ऊरूतदस्य यद वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत


This meter from Rudraasthadhyayi of Shukla Yajurved in essense says that Varnas are like the varios parts of the body but all are from the same body. The Brahmins are from the mouth / face and and shudras are from the feet. If one cuts the face or the feet, it is the body which gets dmadged. As no part of the body is superior than the other, all are equal.

This is something like that joke when the ass shuts down and everyone then prays for it to open up.

Why do not you guys close this debate.

 

[GPM]

oops. Duplicate.

 

[GPM]

This is pure poppycock at best we do not know their previous identites nor are these independently verified in other texts.Puranas in define anyone as a brahmin if he is supporting brahminism

BS. Mind posting a quote from any Purana talking of Brahmanism? Please give name of the book, chapter, verse. Complete. I will be grateful.

 

[LurkerBaba]

Examples of Varna migration in ancient history

The concept of Varnas – Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra – being merit based and NOT birth based is not merely a theoretical concept. It was practiced in ancient era. The greatest misery befell on us when our misguided ancestors converted this scientific meritocracy into a foolish birth-based system causing all the miseries we face today.
Here are some examples:
a. Aitareya Rishi was son of a Daasa or criminal but became a Brahmin of highest order and wrote Aitareya Brahman and Aitareyopanishad. Aitareya Brahman is considered critical to understand Rigveda.
b. Ailush Rishi was son of a Daasi, gambler and of low character. However he researched on Rigveda and made several discoveries. Not only was he invited by Rishis but also made an Acharya. (Aitareya Brahman 2.19)
c. Satyakaam Jaabaal was son of a prostitute but became a Brahmin.
d. Prishadh was son of King Daksha but became a Shudra. Further he did Tapasya to achieve salvation after repenting. (Vishnu Puran 4.1.14)
Had Tapasya been banned for Shudra as per the fake story from Uttar Ramayan, how could Prishadh do so?
e. Nabhag, son of King Nedishtha became Vaishya. Many of his sons again became Kshatriya. (Vishnu Puran 4.1.13)
f. Dhrist was son of Nabhag (Vaishya) but became Brahmin and his son became Kshatriya (VP 4.2.2)
g. Further in his generation, some became Brahmin again (VP 9.2.23)
h. As per Bhagvat, Agniveshya became Brahmin though born to a king.
i. Rathotar born in Kshatriya family became a Brahmin as per Vishnu Puran and Bhagvat.
j. Haarit became Brahmin though born to Kshatriya (VP 4.3.5)
k. Shaunak became Brahmin though born in Kshatriya family. (VP 4.8.1). In fact, as per Vayu Puran, Vishnu Puran and Harivansh Puran, sons of Shaunak Rishi belonged to all four Varnas.
Similar examples exist of Gritsamad, Veethavya and Vritsamati.
l. Matanga was son of Chandal but became a Brahmin. (Mahabharat Anushasan Parva Chapter 3)
m. Raavan was born from Pulatsya Rishi but became a Rakshas.
n. Pravriddha was son of Raghu King but became a Rakshas.
o. Trishanku was a king but became a Chandal.
p. Sons of Vishwamitra became Shudra. Vishwamitra himself was a Kshatriya who later became a Brahmin.
q. Vidur was son of a servant but became a Brahmin and minister of Hastinapur empire.
r. Vatsa became a Rishi though born to a Shudra (Aitareya Brahman 2.19)
s. Many verses of adulterated Manu Smriti (10.43-44) state that certain castes were earlier Kshtariya but became Shudra later. These verses are adulterated but prove that concept of Varna migration did exist. The castes mentioned are: Paundrak, Audru, Dravid, Kamboj, Yavan, Shak, Parad, Palhava, Cheen, Kirat, Darad, Khash.
t. Mahabharat Anushasana Parva 35.17-18 adds the following to above list: Mekal, Laat, Kanvashira, Shaundik, Daarva, Chaur, Shabar, Barbar.
u. Several gotras are common across Brahmins, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Dalits implying that all of them hailed from same family but rather got entrapped in the stupid casteism.

---------------------------

I had given this to you in previous discussion too

Again, all these are not historical references. You said it yourself....Puranas are a confusing mess of propaganda.

 

[GPM]

बराह्मणो.अस्य मुखमासीद बाहू राजन्यः कर्तः |
ऊरूतदस्य यद वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत


This meter from Rudraasthadhyayi of Shukla Yajurved in essense says that Varnas are like the varios parts of the body but all are from the same body. The Brahmins are from the mouth / face and and shudras are from the feet. If one cuts the face or the feet, it is the body which gets dmadged. As no part of the body is superior than the other, all are equal.

This is something like that joke when the ass shuts down and everyone then prays for it to open up.

Why do not you guys close this debate.

All the varnas are from the same body of mass of people. So, all are equal.

Have you clearly defined Brahamanism before calling for shutting of the thread?