vaidehi Raja's comment

[Guest guest]

At 6:21 AM 01-17-97, I.K. Rengarajan wrote:

>I may think because those non brahmin

>households were not acceptably " conducive" for folks like us to

>interact.

>They were meat eaters basically, and most of them were unclean. I am

>sure this concern would have been the very basis for their abstinence

>from mingling with them. Again it is the " view point". I am sure most

>of you would agree with me.

 

 

Too much has been made of vegetarianism here for this point to go unmade.

We seem to accept vegetarianism as holy writ. Please refer to any of the

many standard texts on the Jaminiya Brahmana (probably the best translated

- though van Buitenen's Vadhula Shrauta Sutra is pretty good too) for proof

of the following facts.

 

We should all be aware the Vedas (and I mean the four - not later

revisionistic Upanishadic afterthoughts) are hymns meant for the rite of

sacrifice.

 

The best kept secret of our religion, the Brahmanas, which are the "formula

books" that expand on the modalities of sacrifice and tell wonderful

archetypal myths connected to the angas of sacrifice provide explicit

directions for :

 

1. The sacrifice of cows

2. The sacrifice of various other animals, including the horse in the ashvamedha

3. Human sacrifice also. Prince Rohita's father had promised him to Varuna,

but the father of Shunahshepa gave him (Shunahshepa) as an acceptable

substitute. This was the Shunahshepa that was adopted by Vishvaamitra and

renamed Devaraata (a slightly more dignified name than Shunahshepa ) and

named him the eldest of his sons.

4. How the products of the sarifice (this means 'unclean meat', folks!)

were to be shared among the brahman, ritvik, adhvaryu, hotri and shamitri

priests - all of whom were definition brahmins =). How about it, folks ?

 

In case you haven't heard, the Brahmanas are accepted as shruti - divinely

inspired, and are included in the general reference to "Vedic" works.

 

The stricture of vegetarianism is a very late development in Hinduism,

probably a reactionary development to Buddhism. In one of the more

obviously later portions of the aanushaasanika parva in the Mahabharata,

Yudishtira recieves advice on the merits of vegetariansim from

Bheeshmachaarya, but not without protestations about how good meat is and

tastes =)

 

In interesting 'caste' links to this story, Shunahshepa declares his father

to be not a brahmin. Though a brahmin by birth, his father agreed to bind

him for teh sacrifice and kill him, in exchange for three thousand cows.

His clan (gotra) sided with Shunashepa in this.

 

Vihswamitra's 50 younger sons refused to accept Shunahshepa as their elder.

The legend says these younger sons were cursed to be barbaras, andhras,

dramidas and other 'inferior' races =).

 

We may have mostly adopted vegetariansim now, but it was not the way it

always was. Let's keep that in mind while tossing around epithets like

"unclean" rather easily.

 

Regards,

 

Sundar

[Guest guest]

Om NamO nAArAAyanAA

 

Dear venerable group members,

I hasten to respond to the remark made by vaidehi raja on the point of

her grand father giving an earful because she dined in a

" non brahmin's " house.

A positive way of viewing this pattern would be to seek the reasoning

for this and other actions. I may think because those non brahmin

households were not acceptably " conducive" for folks like us to

interact.

They were meat eaters basically, and most of them were unclean. I am

sure this concern would have been the very basis for their abstinence

from mingling with them. Again it is the " view point". I am sure most

of you would agree with me.

My maternal side of the family , even today will not go to Tirupati

because way up somewhere in the generation a few of them who took

pilgrimage to Thirumalai never returned. Believe me , they are as pious

as anyone else who visits the thirumalai. And Sri perumal of Tirupati is

the prime deity in the perumal room of the family.

Is the point rational or not ? To them it is because of the view point.

The validity and value of any decision must be looked at from the point

of view of the time period in question. A sauce to a goose is not a

sauce to a gander. What is just and right today may look otherwise down

the road.

When I went to get " samasrayanam" the 44th jeer of ahobhila mutt, a

great scholar, was the saint in charge.

I have seen the jeer raising the voice and the lady by me was so

threatened and started to cry.

we cannot relate that to " customer service " concept of today.

Anything has two sides.

Subham

I.K.Rengarajan