India and Hindus in the Mahabharata

[Hindu_Nutcase]

India and Hindus in the Mahabharata

One may come across the opinion today that India was never really a nation but that its nationhood was only recently invented by the British, through their definition of the region as part of their empire. Similarly, we are told that Hinduism was up to recently not a religion at all but merely various local cults and that Hinduism as a single religion was an idea developed along with the idea of India as a nation that as a religion Hinduism is basically a creation of modern political interests. These ideas are often used to discredit India as a real country or Hinduism as a valid religion. They are used by Marxist and leftist elements or by non-Hindus to draw Hindus into their fold. However, such ideas are clearly refuted by the most important work of literature that we have from India, the Mahabharata.
The Mahabharata of 1000,000 verses dates from at least two thousand years ago, though portions of it are much older, and its story goes back perhaps more than thirty-five hundred years. A version of it was noted in the Tamil Nadu region of South India as early as the first century BC. Mahabharata literally means "Great India" as Bharata is the traditional name for India.
The Mahabharata presents peoples from the entire subcontinent of India. The story centers on the conflict between the Kauravas and Pandavas, who were members of the same ruling family of the Kuru-Panchala kingdom which extended through the Ganges-Yamuna region. The mother of the Kauravas was Gandhari of Gandhara, which is now Pakistan and northeast Afghanistan. The mother of the Pandavas was Kunti of the Yadava line of what would now be Madhya Pradesh. The Pandavas were allied with Krishna who was originally a king of Mathura on the Yamuna south of Delhi, but moved his capital to Dwaraka in the southern part of his kingdom in Gujarat. Krishna's main enemy Jarasandha, King of Magadha (Bihar). Kings of all India participated in the Mahabharata war including from Pragjyotish (Assam) and Sind. In their pilgrimages (tirthayatras) And victory marches (digvijayas) the Pandavas traveled all over India from Afghanistan in the west, to Tibet in the north, Assam in the east, to Kanya Kumari in the south. Sri Lanka is also mentioned.
Whether the Mahabharata is an historical account or a mere story makes no difference in this issue. The existence of such a story factually or on a literary level proves the same thing-that the idea of the subcontinent of India as a cultural unit clearly existed at a time contemporaneous with the Roman empire-long before any of the modern nation-states had come into being and long before most of Europe was even populated.

The Mahabharata reflects that India as a cultural unit already formed some two thousand years ago. In this regard no nation, subcontinent or religion has an epic of such proportion or which reflects the integration of such a large region as India through the Mahabharata. There is no such epic as Great Europe or Great China. There is no great epic of Christianity or Islam that encompasses such a clearly defined cultural region which still exists today.
Based on the evidence of the Mahabharata it could be argued that India is perhaps the oldest nation in the world. It is the same case with Hinduism as a religion. Hinduism as we know it today is basically the same religion taught in the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata presents a synthesis of the worship of the great Hindu Gods of Shiva, Vishnu and the Goddess (Devi), as well as the lesser figures of Ganesh, Skanda, and Surya. Their worship is integrated on a similar basis and a respect for the Vedas, the Vedic Rishis and the Upanishads, which includes the great truths of Vedanta. The Mahabharata makes Krishna into a great teacher and avatars as well as recognizes Rama and the other avatars of Vishnu. The Mahabharata presents a synthesis of the teachings of Vedanta, Sankhya and Yoga. It contains teaching on the duties of kings, classes and stages of life, medicine and astrology.
In fact it compasses all the domains of knowledge and all the issues of human life and culture. It is not just a religious book but the document for an entire civilization. Interestingly the Mahabharata does not present itself as a new religion or cultural document but as a development of the older Vedic tradition. Even in the order Upanishads and the Brahmanas kings and sages are mentioned from such diverse regions as Gandhara (Afghanistan), Videha (eastern Bihar and Nepal) and Vidarbha (Maharashtra). This is a considerably larger region than the Bible which reflects mainly the people of the small country of Palestine or the Koran which reflects and Arabs of Mecca and Medina. The Vedas also present a much great diversity of personages, with many great sages and yogis, rather than a few prophets only.
We must note that when the Mahabharata was televised in India a few years ago, the entire country was mesmerized. Trains stopped. Government offices were closed to allow people to watch the program. A comparable phenomenon has never occurred in the West when films of the Bible were shown on television, not has any other national epic so gripped the attention of any country.
This shows that the Mahabharata still unites the country and is indeed a national epic. Those who would deny any real history to India as a nation or Hinduism as a religion have only to look at the Mahabharata to see the absurdity of their views. Even the title of the book challenges their view.
[/img]

[desispeed]

interesting topic and analysis, I experienced the same trains stopping phenomenon while in Mumbai in the early 90's when Ramayan premiered. Very eerie seeing a city of 15 million soo quiet.

[methodman535]

This article does not closely examine the accusation that the british re-invented the hindu religion by coddling brahmans and brahmanism, placing themselves at the top of the "varna pyramid". If I am not mistaken the revisionist theory asserts that brahmanism and even the vedic scriptures were just part of many cults/sects of a broader hinduism. The british liked brahmanism the best for obvious reasons and rewrote the past.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

This article does not closely examine the accusation that the british re-invented the hindu religion by coddling brahmans and brahmanism, placing themselves at the top of the "varna pyramid". If I am not mistaken the revisionist theory asserts that brahmanism and even the vedic scriptures were just part of many cults/sects of a broader hinduism. The british liked brahmanism the best for obvious reasons and rewrote the past.

you don't expect to get every crank theory that has ever been created to be refuted by one article do you? This article deals specifically with the (very significant) bearing that the Mahabharata, the largest surviving literature in the entire world from that era, has on the issue of India's civilisational continuity.

[methodman535]

This article does not closely examine the accusation that the british re-invented the hindu religion by coddling brahmans and brahmanism, placing themselves at the top of the "varna pyramid". If I am not mistaken the revisionist theory asserts that brahmanism and even the vedic scriptures were just part of many cults/sects of a broader hinduism. The british liked brahmanism the best for obvious reasons and rewrote the past.

you don't expect to get every crank theory that has ever been created to be refuted by one article do you? This article deals specifically with the (very significant) bearing that the Mahabharata, the largest surviving literature in the entire world from that era, has on the issue of India's civilisational continuity.

I consider that to be the most important revisionist theory regarding hinduism. I dont dismiss it as a crank theory as easily as you do. Yes, the article doesnt deal with it you are right.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

This article does not closely examine the accusation that the british re-invented the hindu religion by coddling brahmans and brahmanism, placing themselves at the top of the "varna pyramid". If I am not mistaken the revisionist theory asserts that brahmanism and even the vedic scriptures were just part of many cults/sects of a broader hinduism. The british liked brahmanism the best for obvious reasons and rewrote the past.

you don't expect to get every crank theory that has ever been created to be refuted by one article do you? This article deals specifically with the (very significant) bearing that the Mahabharata, the largest surviving literature in the entire world from that era, has on the issue of India's civilisational continuity.

I consider that to be the most important revisionist theory regarding hinduism. I dont dismiss it as a crank theory as easily as you do. Yes, the article doesnt deal with it you are right.

People like you, descended from Hindus, but not yourself Hindu are always looking for ways to deconstruct Hinduism, to make yourselves feel better about your ancestors decision (perhaps under coersion) to leave the fold. You will always bring up negative crank theories in any discussion about anything Hindu.

Sorry - just saying what I feel :)

[methodman535]

This article does not closely examine the accusation that the british re-invented the hindu religion by coddling brahmans and brahmanism, placing themselves at the top of the "varna pyramid". If I am not mistaken the revisionist theory asserts that brahmanism and even the vedic scriptures were just part of many cults/sects of a broader hinduism. The british liked brahmanism the best for obvious reasons and rewrote the past.

you don't expect to get every crank theory that has ever been created to be refuted by one article do you? This article deals specifically with the (very significant) bearing that the Mahabharata, the largest surviving literature in the entire world from that era, has on the issue of India's civilisational continuity.

I consider that to be the most important revisionist theory regarding hinduism. I dont dismiss it as a crank theory as easily as you do. Yes, the article doesnt deal with it you are right.

People like you, descended from Hindus, but not yourself Hindu are always looking for ways to deconstruct Hinduism, to make yourselves feel better about your ancestors decision (perhaps under coersion) to leave the fold. You will always bring up negative crank theories in any discussion about anything Hindu.

Sorry - just saying what I feel :)


Good that you let out your pent up feelings. If you can control yourself and come up with a rational rebuttal of the THEORY instead of focusing on my hidden agendas then let everyone know.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

This article does not closely examine the accusation that the british re-invented the hindu religion by coddling brahmans and brahmanism, placing themselves at the top of the "varna pyramid". If I am not mistaken the revisionist theory asserts that brahmanism and even the vedic scriptures were just part of many cults/sects of a broader hinduism. The british liked brahmanism the best for obvious reasons and rewrote the past.

you don't expect to get every crank theory that has ever been created to be refuted by one article do you? This article deals specifically with the (very significant) bearing that the Mahabharata, the largest surviving literature in the entire world from that era, has on the issue of India's civilisational continuity.

I consider that to be the most important revisionist theory regarding hinduism. I dont dismiss it as a crank theory as easily as you do. Yes, the article doesnt deal with it you are right.

People like you, descended from Hindus, but not yourself Hindu are always looking for ways to deconstruct Hinduism, to make yourselves feel better about your ancestors decision (perhaps under coersion) to leave the fold. You will always bring up negative crank theories in any discussion about anything Hindu.

Sorry - just saying what I feel :)


Good that you let out your pent up feelings. If you can control yourself and come up with a rational rebuttal of the THEORY instead of focusing on my hidden agendas then let everyone know.

if you actually mention any premise upon which the shite theory is based, then the points can be rebutted individually. As it stands your post is just a wild shapeless comment from a bitter individual.

[NumbaOneStunna]

Seems like the writer himself is confused as to whether Mahabharata actually happened or is just a fable. If that in itself is debatable then how can one ascertain the actual time period when this was written?

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Seems like the writer himself is confused as to whether Mahabharata actually happened or is just a fable. If that in itself is debatable then how can one ascertain the actual time period when this was written?

Its actually very simple. The earliest found manuscript containing the story has been carbon-dated. Doesn't require rocket science. Apart from that the numerous astrological references the text contains can be used to compute rough dates for the occurrences of the events. The author himself (David Frawley) has written and reseached on the actual dates of events...all he is saying is that in this argument it doesn't matter whether the story is factual or not, which is true.

[NumbaOneStunna]

Seems like the writer himself is confused as to whether Mahabharata actually happened or is just a fable. If that in itself is debatable then how can one ascertain the actual time period when this was written?

Its actually very simple. The earliest found manuscript containing the story has been carbon-dated. Doesn't require rocket science. Apart from that the numerous astrological references the text contains can be used to compute rough dates for the occurrences of the events. The author himself (David Frawley) has written and reseached on the actual dates of events...all he is saying is that in this argument it doesn't matter whether the story is factual or not, which is true.
So how old is the earliest found manuscript? Can you give me some legitimate links on it?

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Its about 2000 - 2200 years old. I haven't got any links on it. I read it in a book, which I'm not about to copy out of. The book is called "Search for the Cradel of Civilization" by George Feurstein, David Frawley and Subhask Kak.

I do have a link to an article regarding astronomical dating of the Mahabharata:

http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305835

Enjoy!

[NumbaOneStunna]

So you say the oldest copy of the mahabharata is 2000 years old and according to the article the mahabharata happened around 3500 BC.

That means there is a gap of 3500 years from the actual event and the oldest written account of it.

hmm

[Hindu_Nutcase]

So you say the oldest copy of the mahabharata is 2000 years old and according to the article the mahabharata happened around 3500 BC.

That means there is a gap of 3500 years from the actual event and the oldest written account of it.

hmm

The book is an epic with teachings on how to live...its not meant to be a historical account of those events.

And just because the oldest version of it is carbon dated to 2000 years old - it doesn't mean that copies of it havent existed b4 - as you will be aware, paper doesn't last for that long. The fact that a 2000 year old manuscript survived is relatively rare in itself.

The point of the original article is that the existence of the account even on a literary level proves the idea of India as a cultural unity is very ancient. That is all the article is trying to say. If you genuinely want to read more about attempts at dating and reconstruction of the period the epic alludes to I can provide you the links (its your heritage as much as mine).

[nikhil25]

So you say the oldest copy of the mahabharata is 2000 years old and according to the article the mahabharata happened around 3500 BC.

That means there is a gap of 3500 years from the actual event and the oldest written account of it.

hmm

no, not the "oldest written account" of it. just the oldest written account that has been safely discovered. what kind of logic is that?

EDIT: WHO THE FUCK IS THAT IN MY AVATAR? LOL, i never uploaded a pic.

[NumbaOneStunna]

So you say the oldest copy of the mahabharata is 2000 years old and according to the article the mahabharata happened around 3500 BC.

That means there is a gap of 3500 years from the actual event and the oldest written account of it.

hmm

The book is an epic with teachings on how to live...its not meant to be a historical account of those events.

And just because the oldest version of it is carbon dated to 2000 years old - it doesn't mean that copies of it havent existed b4 - as you will be aware, paper doesn't last for that long. The fact that a 2000 year old manuscript survived is relatively rare in itself.

The point of the original article is that the existence of the account even on a literary level proves the idea of India as a cultural unity is very ancient. That is all the article is trying to say. If you genuinely want to read more about attempts at dating and reconstruction of the period the epic alludes to I can provide you the links (its your heritage as much as mine).
First of all nowhere in that article does it mention that the oldest surviving written version of mahabharata has been carbon dated to the 1st century AD. Provide some links for that.

Secondly, you say that the existence of such an account on a literary level proves the idea of India as a cultural unity. Well what makes you think the idea was widely popular and not one man's obsession. I can write a novel about world unity today but that doesnt mean there is infact any such thing. Even then i dont see South India as part of this cultural unity you are talking about. If i am not mistaken Mahbharata generally takes place in north India (if it infact did take place).

Yeah please do provide links because from what i have read so far, actual scientific research has failed to prove anything as to the authenticity of this supposed event.

[paulie walnuts]

So you say the oldest copy of the mahabharata is 2000 years old and according to the article the mahabharata happened around 3500 BC.

That means there is a gap of 3500 years from the actual event and the oldest written account of it.

hmm

The book is an epic with teachings on how to live...its not meant to be a historical account of those events.

And just because the oldest version of it is carbon dated to 2000 years old - it doesn't mean that copies of it havent existed b4 - as you will be aware, paper doesn't last for that long. The fact that a 2000 year old manuscript survived is relatively rare in itself.

The point of the original article is that the existence of the account even on a literary level proves the idea of India as a cultural unity is very ancient. That is all the article is trying to say. If you genuinely want to read more about attempts at dating and reconstruction of the period the epic alludes to I can provide you the links (its your heritage as much as mine).
First of all nowhere in that article does it mention that the oldest surviving written version of mahabharata has been carbon dated to the 1st century AD. Provide some links for that.

Secondly, you say that the existence of such an account on a literary level proves the idea of India as a cultural unity. Well what makes you think the idea was widely popular and not one man's obsession. I can write a novel about world unity today but that doesnt mean there is infact any such thing. Even then i dont see South India as part of this cultural unity you are talking about. If i am not mistaken Mahbharata generally takes place in north India (if it infact did take place).

Yeah please do provide links because from what i have read so far, actual scientific research has failed to prove anything as to the authenticity of this supposed event.

ouch, that hurts me in my heart bro

[desperado]

hindus in mahashitbarath......like rotten shit in gutter

[Hindu_Nutcase]

hindus in mahashitbarath......like rotten shit in gutter

grow up u twat !

Jai Durga Ma

[Hindu_Nutcase]

I can write a novel about world unity today but that doesnt mean there is infact any such thing. Even then i dont see South India as part of this cultural unity you are talking about. If i am not mistaken Mahbharata generally takes place in north India

One man's dream is not preserved all these years. Only literatire which had wide-spread patronage/support amongst rulerz are capable of surviving the sands of time. South India was part of this unity simple as...I'm redaing the hench 4000 book now, and there are enough references to places in Kerala and Pilgrimage in Tamil Nadu (Kanya Kumari). Other ancient literature also supports the the idea of the entire India as a cultural unity.

Eg. the former Muslim, Anwar Shaik writes:

First hymn, Book Xll of the ATHARVA VEDA, comprising sixty-three verses,referred to as Bhumi-Sukta, describes the celestial reverence that the Vedas attach to India.

That this hymn is about Bharat Mata (the undivided India), is borne out by
the facts especially connected with this country. Verse no. 3 states:

"In whom the sea, and Sindhu, and the waters, in
whom our food and corn-lands had their being"

Note - from the Sindhu in the North to the sea in the south has been the classical defining feature of what was considered India.

More of Anwar Shaikh's article from which I quoted on:
http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1995_11/msg00014.html

[methodman535]

This article does not closely examine the accusation that the british re-invented the hindu religion by coddling brahmans and brahmanism, placing themselves at the top of the "varna pyramid". If I am not mistaken the revisionist theory asserts that brahmanism and even the vedic scriptures were just part of many cults/sects of a broader hinduism. The british liked brahmanism the best for obvious reasons and rewrote the past.

you don't expect to get every crank theory that has ever been created to be refuted by one article do you? This article deals specifically with the (very significant) bearing that the Mahabharata, the largest surviving literature in the entire world from that era, has on the issue of India's civilisational continuity.

I consider that to be the most important revisionist theory regarding hinduism. I dont dismiss it as a crank theory as easily as you do. Yes, the article doesnt deal with it you are right.

People like you, descended from Hindus, but not yourself Hindu are always looking for ways to deconstruct Hinduism, to make yourselves feel better about your ancestors decision (perhaps under coersion) to leave the fold. You will always bring up negative crank theories in any discussion about anything Hindu.

Sorry - just saying what I feel :)


Good that you let out your pent up feelings. If you can control yourself and come up with a rational rebuttal of the THEORY instead of focusing on my hidden agendas then let everyone know.

if you actually mention any premise upon which the shite theory is based, then the points can be rebutted individually. As it stands your post is just a wild shapeless comment from a bitter individual.

Firstly its not clear why you think I am bitter? Is it not you, oh noble and for centuries opressed hindu, who is to play the part of the bitter one in this play of history and politics, having just unchained yourself less than a century ago? I thought all muslims were the invaders, looters, plunderers, murderers...what do we have to be bitter about Im curious...

Anyway you are right it is a vague comment but one I would very much like to explore so let me start by stating a couple of points and see how you rebutt them:

1. The brahmans, practice hinduism with a caste system incorporated in their religion. Or at least they did until partition, and in this caste system they are right at the top of the food chain an all the other castes are inferior by blood and spiritually as well, since according to brahmin doctrine it takes many many reincarnations for a human to become brahmin finally.

2. The british, after they graduated from humble traders affiliated with the east india company, decided to coddle with the brahmin intelligencia and made them their administrators throughout the territories that they anexed after defeating the military forces that got in their way.

3. The brahmans, while under the mughal yoke, even though allowed to practice their own religion were not allowed to dictate the social order inside the mughal empire according to their own whims as they did before the mughal empire decided to use islam as the semi official form of govt and their official state religion.

4. The brahmans, at one point in time were a distinct racial, linguistic and of course religious group that was constantly spreading and settling over northern india and was also warring with other factions. This is ancient history too I know but I think its important to note that brahmins, being a distinct and strict caste, were practically a different religion in a political sense because you could not convert into "brahmanism" from any other group.


Lets see what you have to say about these premises and then I will build my case accordingly.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Makes you feel uncomfortable with the idea of Hindus (what you may have been) were not really that bad. Its not nice for you to hear that perhaps Hindus weren't living in perpetual darkness.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Your premises were based on extreme stereotype, in the Mahabharata it even says explicitely in a conversation "what makes a Brahmin - birth, training or deeds" - and the answer was the latter of the three. By me giving simple answers I don't think you will be convinced - so get your teeth stuck into this article as it gives an articulated reason to re-think most of your simplistic positions.


Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, vol. 77, 1996, pp. 235-240

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


No aspect of Indian society is as poorly understood as its social organization. Gloria Goodwin Raheja rightly points out (1): The ritual centrality of the village cultivator, or of the king in Indic textual discourse, has been virtually ignored in anthropological and Indological debate concerning caste and kingship, in favor of a view that founds caste and ritual solely upon considerations of hierarchy or rank." Her own research in Pahansu in Saharanpur district in Uttar Pradesh revealed the signi cance of daana in the relationship between the dominant cummunity of Gujars and the other communities. Her work supported the theory of Hocart (2) that at the village level the cultivator is analogous to the king and that there exists an ordering of the castes where priest, washerman and drummer are all treated alike, for they are all priests." But on one point Hocart and Raheja are of the mark, and this is in seeing the relations as being part of a ritual where the inauspiciousness associated with daana is fundamental in structuring the social order. It seems to me that viewing the relations in terms of ritual is just a gloss to explain a complex tradition, although this gloss has been used in Indian texts also. If ritual described in Vedic texts was the main idea behind the connections, as Heesterman (3) and Raheja argue, then similar customs within Muslim communities of India would be unexplainable. And how would one then explain a similar tradition of giving and receiving within a Hindu community with no caste distinctions, namely the Kashmiris?

The caste system, as described in Indian textbooks, is a creation of the anthropologists and sociologists of the nineteenth century who were then studying the bewildering complexity of Indian society. The informants of these social scientists used the theories of the archaic dharmasaastras to fit the communities in a four-varna model. Although such classifcation was wrong, it has been used by generations of Indologists and filtering into popular books it has, by endless repetition, received a certain validity and authority. In an example of reality being fashioned in the image of a simulacrum, many Indians have started believing in the enduring truth of this classifcation!

An analysis of Vedic texts does not support a hierarchical model of caste(4). In this note I shall take the specific example of Kashmiri Hindus. It is generally accepted that all the Kashmiri Hindus belong to the same community or jati. Is that because they belong to a single caste or varna a resulting from the conversion of the other castes to Islam? Does this represent a variant of Hindu religion where the caste system does not exist? There is considerable evidence that the theory that all but the brahmins were converted to Islam in Kashmir is wrong. The Kashmiri Hindus preserve appellations, such as rajanaka, that represent non-priestly functions.

Let me first deal with the designation Pandit that is applied to Kashmiri Hindus. According to Henny Sender(5), this designation was requested by Jai Ram Bhan, a Kashmiri courtier in the Mughal court, in Delhi, of the Emperor Muhammad Shah (1719-1749), and it was granted. Apparently, before this period both Kashmiri Hindus and Muslims were addressed as khuajah in the Mughal court.

Kashmiri Hindus call themselves batta, from the Sanskrit bhartri, meaning master. Such an appellation may be a reection of the community's self-image that emphasizes success and excellence and it need not have any sociological implications. T.N. Madan quotes (6) the idea of the identity with Siva - Sivoham as being basic to the Kashmiri's notion of bhattil, his self-identity. Siva, the principle of consciousness, is universally present in all humans.

Two subgroups of Kashmiri Hindus, that were sometimes considered to be separate, are buher, and purib: buher (from the Kashmiri word for grocer) and purib (for easterner). It appears most likely that these subgroupings, that have all but disappeared now, reected the profession of business in the case of one, and ancestry that could be traced to an immigrant from east India in the case of the other.

Kashmiri Hindus have other names that indicate ancestry outside India; for example, the names Turki, Kashgari, or Ladakhi. It is sometimes suggested that these are nicknames indicating family sojourn in these regions and this might indeed have been the reason in some cases. But that is not so always is established by the Turkish physiological type amongst the Kashmiri Hindus. Evidently, the community of Hindus has been uid and it has admitted those who wished to belong to it. It is an accident of circumstances that all these Hindus, of diverse origins, have seen themselves to belong to the brahmin category.

The dominant philosophical and religious system current in Kashmir is that of Saivism. According to the texts of the Saivites all those who accept the kula (Saivite) dharma become kauls, obliterating their previous jati. According to its doctrine of recognition (pratyabhijna) one should recognize as one's true identity a single, autonomous consciousness. The Saivite initiation has always been open to everyone and that includes women. There are accounts of how Abhinavagupta, the great Saivite philosopher who lived about a thousand years ago, had several women disciples. Later, Kashmir had great women sages such as Lallesvari and Rupa Bhavani.

The fact that Kashmiri Hinduism is universal does not mean that social inequity did not exist in Kashmir. Such inequity reected the social and political ideas of its times and it did not spring from any fundamental religious considerations.

So is Kashmiri Hinduism different from Hinduism elsewhere? The answer is no! There is evidence that there was no caste system based on birth in the Vedic times. The Puranas say that during the golden age (Satya Yuga) everyone was a brahmin. That these categories mean mental states is illustrated by Brahma Purana (Chapter 7) where two people are described who were first vaisya and then became brahmin. The purusa sukta hymn of the Rigveda (10.90) speaks of the brahmin, rajanya (kshatriya), vaisya, and sudra as having sprung from the head, the arms, the thighs, and the feet of purusa, the primal man. This mention of varna as has been taken to indicate that a caste system existed in the Vedic times. But it is repeatedly mentioned elsewhere that each human is in the image of the purusa which would indicate that each human internalizes aspects of all the varnas. The Vedic gods are themselves classed as belonging to different varnas in different situations. So the label of a specific varna applied to a person may have implied a certain personality type. Later texts speak of how everyone is a sudra when born, implying that the yajnopavita (mekhala) ceremony was open to everyone. A girdle was also tied in a ceremony to girls.

Texts proclaim that one's nature alone, and not birth, determines to which varna one belongs. In the famous dialogue between Yudhisthira and Yaksa in the Mahabharata, Yudhisthira is asked whether a person is a brahmin based on "birth, learning, or conduct" and his answer is that only "conduct" makes a person a brahmin and not birth. It is no wonder then that brahmin is not a racial category emerging from a mythic fair race; some of the darkest Indians are brahmins.

In the ancient Aryan society the varnas were functional groupings and not closed endogamous birth-descent groups. It has been suggested that the jati system in its modern form developed very late perhaps not before 1000 A.D. The Chinese scholar Hsuan Tsang in the seventh century was not aware of it. As a response to historical events one might then credit the emergence of the modern jati system to the next fundamental change in the Indian polity that occurred with the invasions of the Turks.

There is no synonym for caste in any Indian language. The Indian words that caste supposedly translates are jatis, which means a large kin-community or descent-group, and varna, which implies a classifcation based on function. The dynamics between the jatis has been influenced a great deal by historical and political factors. During the periods of economic growth, the jatis have been relatively open-ended; during periods of hardships the jatis have tended to draw in for the sake of survival. The word 'caste' comes from the Portugese casta, a word that was meant to describe the jati system, but slowly it has come to have a much broader connotation.

Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador to India about 2,300 years ago, noted the existence of seven classes, namely that of philosophers, peasants, herdsmen, craftsmen and traders, soldiers, government offcials and councillors. These classes were apparently jatis. Van Buitenen7has argued that these classes were treasury or tax categories. Nowhere does Megasthenes speak of four varnas.

In its long history India has had diverse social and religious currents. It is only in the exception that the reality has conformed to the theory of the conservative dharmasastras. The dharmasastras have a considerable amount of contradictory ideas so it will be useful to find, using appropriate criterion of consistency, their 'original' forms before interpolations that have become part of the standard versions. In other words, one will have to go to a layer of texts prior to that of popular commentators.

The Vaisnavas emphatically define varna based on one's actions. This is repeated by the Bhagavad Gita and the Bhagavata Purana. The Brahma Purana (Chapter 223) says, "People are classed differently according to their nature. Conduct is the cause for brahminhood, not birth, sacramental rites, revelation, lineage. When established in a brahmin's conduct, even a sudra becomes a brahmin." The Saivites, likewise, do not subscribe to a caste system. Those who follow the conservative law books have always been a miniscule minority of the population.

Although jatis may pay lip service to the priest as an intermediary to the gods when it comes to ritual, each community considers itself to be the highest. The priest need not be a brahmin. Most jatis do not know where they belong in the theory of four varna classifcation since such categorization is meaningless. Although current self-identities of the communities are generally a snapshot freezing the equations and attitudes of the late nineteenth century, when caste classifcation was sought by the British, changing economic and political equations are having an effect on class equations.

But in the equations between the communities hierarchy is not clear. If the brahmins were to be accepted as the highest community then other communities would have no hesitation in giving their daughters to the brahmins. But in reality they do not. The Rajputs consider the brahmins to be other-wordly or plain beggars; the traders consider the brahmins to be impractical; and so on. In classical Sanskrit plays the fool is always a brahmin. In other words, each different community has internalized a different outlook on life but these outlooks cannot be placed in any hierarchical ordering. The internalized images of the other must, by its very nature, be a gross simplification and it will never conform exactly to reality.

The French sociologist Louis Dumont claims that the castes are separate but interdependent hereditary groups of occupational specialists. He postulates that the principle of purity-impurity keeps the segments separate from one another. In this system each jati closes its boundaries to lower jatis, refusing them the privileges of intermarriage and other contacts defined to be polluting. Facts go against the Dumont theory: Indian Muslims and Christians also have castes. The eighteenth century German society was divided into princes, nobles, burghers, peasants and serfs between whom no marriage other than morganatic was possible. Korea and Japan also had the practice of untouchability. The Buddhist dogma about non-killing appears to have led to the ostracization of those people whose trades involved hunting, slaughtering animals and so on.

One might wonder why the communities in India turned inwards. It has been argued that European and Western traditions, owing to their exclusivist nature, set out to obtain uniform belief and practices. The inclusivist nature of the Indian religions, on the other hand, places each group in a larger system.

M.N. Srinivas has pointed out that a process of Sanskritization is responsible for movement within the jati system. Sanskritization implies emulating a dominant caste of any high varna. One should add that there also exists the dynamic of fragmentation. As proclaimed by the Manu Smriti 10.42: "In age after age the communities are pulled up or pulled down in birth among men here on earth." Furthermore, there are also transformations within a lifetime.

The social structure of India reects no single ideology which is why no single theory has proved to be rich enough to describe the system. The system represents several symbiotic ideologies. These ideologies are balanced by political and economic forces. The ideologies of the brahmin, the warrior, the trader, and the commoner were all proclaimed to be equivalent in their effectiveness in obtaining knowledge: this was reflected in the paths of jnana yoga, karma yoga, raja yoga, and bhakti yoga. Even festivals like Sarasvati puja, Dassera, Divali, and Holi celebrate the different attitudes.

The Vedas do not sanction the notion of caste as it has been understood in recent times. New technology, science, and political organization is changing the social institutions of India. In many ways the modern Indian castes are no more than the ethnic communities in the West.

To return to the question I posed in the beginning of this note, Hindus do not have a hierarchical caste system although, as in societies elsewhere in the world, there are communities which are more powerful than others. The landholding community is the dominant community in the rural India; in modern urban India the communities are to be viewed primarily as ethnic groups.

Notes

1. G.G. Raheja, The Poison in the Gift. Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1988.

2. A.M. Hocart, Caste: A Comparative Study. Methuen, London, 1950; A.M. Hocart, Kings and Councillors. Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1970.

3. J.C. Heesterman, The Inner Conict of Tradition. Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1985.

4. S. Kak, \Understanding caste in India," Mankind Quarterly, vol 34, pp. 117-123, 1993; S. Kak, India at Century's End. VOI, New Delhi, 1994.

5. H. Sender, The Kashmiri Pandits. OUP, New Delhi, 1988.

6. T.N. Madan, Family and Kinship. OUP, New Delhi, 1965, 1989.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Methodman

Any reply on my last article ?

[Ac89]

even before the Mahabharatha...was The Ramayan and Om Namah Shiva...

those you'd have to include as the epics that still dominate Indian society today

[typeOnegative]

The book is an epic with teachings on how to live...its not meant to be a historical account of those events.

And just because the oldest version of it is carbon dated to 2000 years old - it doesn't mean that copies of it havent existed b4 - as you will be aware, paper doesn't last for that long. The fact that a 2000 year old manuscript survived is relatively rare in itself.

The point of the original article is that the existence of the account even on a literary level proves the idea of India as a cultural unity is very ancient. That is all the article is trying to say. If you genuinely want to read more about attempts at dating and reconstruction of the period the epic alludes to I can provide you the links (its your heritage as much as mine).FYI - the Chinese invented paper. And the Mahabharat was first sung and only then put down on any solid medium.

Also, please read Iravati Karve's book on the Mahabharat to get a better understanding of the epic. And quit your stupid chest thumping. There are tonnes of books from different cultures which are as great as the Mahabharat. Ever heard of the Gilgamesh?

Another FYI, the original name of the Mahabharat is 'Jaya' meaning victory ... the connection to the Hindu religion was made much later. The Mahabharat is a rich epic. Don't spoil its appeal by limiting it's importance to your childish views of Hindu spirituality and Indian nationhood.

[adren@line]

People like you, descended from Hindus, but not yourself Hindu are always looking for ways to deconstruct Hinduism, to make yourselves feel better about your ancestors decision (perhaps under coersion) to leave the fold. You will always bring up negative crank theories in any discussion about anything Hindu.

Sorry - just saying what I feel :)

bingo.

This is especially true with Muslims.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Also, please read Iravati Karve's book on the Mahabharat to get a better understanding of the epic. And quit your stupid chest thumping. There are tonnes of books from different cultures which are as great as the Mahabharat. Ever heard of the Gilgamesh?

Another FYI, the original name of the Mahabharat is 'Jaya' meaning victory ... the connection to the Hindu religion was made much later. The Mahabharat is a rich epic. Don't spoil its appeal by limiting it's importance to your childish views of Hindu spirituality and Indian nationhood.

What chest thumping? A Hindu tries to give their views on something, and it doesn't fit in with yours, so u resort 2 neo-intellectual swearology. The chest thumping is all yours.

I already knew about the original name ofthe epic being Jaya (as I have read the Epic, yes, all 100,000 verses, and it says this in the first Parva). But how can u say the "connection to the Hindu religion was made much later". That is a pure idiotic statement. When the epic was called "Jaya" it was as much Hindu as when it became called the "Mahabharata" (2400 years or so ago). So your idiotic statement "connection with the Hindu religion was mde much later" is just another attempt at trying to deconstruct the Hindu legacy (which clearly includes the Jaya).

As for their being "tonnes of books from other cultures as great as the Mahabharata" - that depends what yardstick u are using to judge. Talking about sheer size, there is nothing that comes remotely close to the Mahabharata. And as for representing a cultural identity that is still alive and kicking today - certainly not.

You're just a sh1t chatter who gets an itch up their arse when views are being expressed that are different to your own.

[dEsI_sHeR86]

w-sup Nut, nice article, 110% Vande Mataram

[typeOnegative]

What chest thumping? A Hindu tries to give their views on something, and it doesn't fit in with yours, so u resort 2 neo-intellectual swearology. The chest thumping is all yours. Nice word. :) Want to know whether I swore though. :lol: And where I was demonstrating chest thumping you are alluding to.


I already knew about the original name ofthe epic being Jaya (as I have read the Epic, yes, all 100,000 verses, and it says this in the first Parva). But how can u say the "connection to the Hindu religion was made much later". That is a pure idiotic statement. When the epic was called "Jaya" it was as much Hindu as when it became called the "Mahabharata" (2400 years or so ago).

So your idiotic statement "connection with the Hindu religion was mde much later" is just another attempt at trying to deconstruct the Hindu legacy (which clearly includes the Jaya).
The point nutcase is whether the Mahabharat was initially Hindu or the otherway round. :)

You also have not noticed that I had mentioned that the Mahabharat was first sung. And then written. Which means that the essence of the Mahabharat 'could' have been changed significantly. I do not detract from it being a great epic. IMHO, it is deeper and richer than even the Illiad or the Odyssey. But by putting the religious spin on it you are sort of demeaning the depth of this work. Indian culture yes. Hindu religion maybe. In my opinion it is the Ramayan which more definies Hindu religion than the Mahabharat does. And that is because it is 'ideal' like the 'holy books' of other religions. The Vedas are more representative of Hindu religion. And that is a no brainer.

On the otherThe Mahabharat is more human and realistic - making it not a Hindu book, but something that can be read and appreciated by anyone.

The Bhagwad Gita clearly is an addition to the Mahabharat at a later stage. That maybe obvious to me because I am not religious. You I know are never going to believe it.


As for their being "tonnes of books from other cultures as great as the Mahabharata" - that depends what yardstick u are using to judge. Talking about sheer size, there is nothing that comes remotely close to the Mahabharata.
Example of the chest thumping I was talking about. Next I am going to hear from you that ancient Indians could fly, and monkeys can talk because it is written in the Ramayan. No matter how you twist and turn, I know you have brought this topic up because you want to prove superiority of your religion/culture making you no better than the Muslim/Sikh/Other nutcases on this forum.


And as for representing a cultural identity that is still alive and kicking today - certainly not.
How sure are you that the 'culture' you are talking about was the same as during the time of the Mahabharat?


You're just a sh1t chatter who gets an itch up their arse when views are being expressed that are different to your own.Wanna scratch the itch? :lol:

[typeOnegative]

Oh and btw, nice to know that you know that the Mahabharat was called Jaya .... :thumbleft

[DJDaNGeR]

im confused, is typeOnegative suggesting that Mahabharata has no references to Hinduism? what about the vedas being mentioned numerous times, the presence of Krishna, the yagnas etc?

[typeOnegative]

im confused, is typeOnegative suggesting that Mahabharata has no references to Hinduism? what about the vedas being mentioned numerous times, the presence of Krishna, the yagnas etc?Please do keep in mind, that the Mahabharat 'could' (if I say has, I will be flamed ;) )have been changed significantly.
:rolleyes: Please do read the book by Iravati Karve called - Yuganta (The end of an age). You will then get a much broader perspective.

[DJDaNGeR]

if u are suggesting that all the references of Krishna, vedas and numerous other hindu specific symbols (mahabharata in the current version is full of hindu symbols) have been added later on, it could be said about any religious book. i could very well say that the Koran was just a book about something else and all references to allah, mecca etc have been added later on. same about the bible. so going by ur logic u can contest the authenticity of any ancient book (even 500 yr old) in the world

[typeOnegative]

so going by ur logic u can contest the authenticity of any ancient book (even 500 yr old) in the world
Most certainly so. You are welcome to in fact. And that is what I believe - that no religious book is 'correct'. But be ready for the flames (not from me) if you do. :lol:

[typeOnegative]

if u are suggesting that all the references of Krishna, vedas and numerous other hindu specific symbols (mahabharata in the current version is full of hindu symbols) Sorry for creating a new post, but regarding the reference to Krishna - Krishna as a character did exist in the Mahabharat (or Jaya), but Krishna the God was most probably created later. Think of the Mahabharat as an amazing story about a fight between two great warrior clans and you can start accepting the fact that it occurred. Put in flying demons (Ghatotkach) and deadly weapons (the Brahmastra) and then things start getting a bit weird. Atleast for me ... :)

[adren@line]

Most certainly so. You are welcome to in fact. And that is what I believe - that no religious book is 'correct'. But be ready for the flames (not from me) if you do. :lol:

I too share this belief.

I do not believe in divine revelation, prophets, nor do I believe in any one correct religious book.

[typeOnegative]

I too share this belief.

I do not believe in divine revelation, prophets, nor do I believe in any one correct religious book.Cool. :)

[Hindu_Nutcase]

The point nutcase is whether the Mahabharat was initially Hindu or the otherway round. :)

U idiot. It is Hindu by default, because the definition of "Hindu" naturally encompasses all aspects of Indian culture and religion that does not fit into any other compartmentalised category.

I do not detract from it being a great epic. IMHO, it is deeper and richer than even the Illiad or the Odyssey. But by putting the religious spin on it you are sort of demeaning the depth of this work. Indian culture yes. Hindu religion maybe. In my opinion it is the Ramayan which more definies Hindu religion than the Mahabharat does. And that is because it is 'ideal' like the 'holy books' of other religions. The Vedas are more representative of Hindu religion. And that is a no brainer.

On the otherThe Mahabharat is more human and realistic - making it not a Hindu book, but something that can be read and appreciated by anyone.


Why can't anybody appreciate any Hindu book without having to try and define it as non-Hindu? "Hinduism" is not a religion that has dogmatic adherence to any particular text (the Vedas even question their own authority), neither does it divide into believers and non-believers (so non-Hindus such as yourself have no reason to feel threatened by appreciating a Hindu epic). The Mahabharata is a Hindu text through and through. It is quite perverse logic to say that because a story is "human and realistic" it can't be Hindu. The Vedas are not more representative of POPULAR Hindu religion than the Mahabharata. That is trash. Popular Hinduism of the masses focuses more on the Mahabharata, Ramayana and the Puranas.

The Bhagwad Gita clearly is an addition to the Mahabharat at a later stage. That maybe obvious to me because I am not religious. You I know are never going to believe it..

You're jumping to conclusions. I see it as quite plausible that the Bhagavad Gita was added into the Mahabharata as a summary of Vedantic teaching (so once again, you are wrong). You're trying to read what I'm going to think, and doing it very unsuccesfully. Because u automatically think that the view of a "hardcore Hindu" is going to be similar (dogmatic) like their Muslim counterpart. Whereas nothing could be further from the truth.

Example of the chest thumping I was talking about. Next I am going to hear from you that ancient Indians could fly, and monkeys can talk because it is written in the Ramayan. No matter how you twist and turn, I know you have brought this topic up because you want to prove superiority of your religion/culture making you no better than the Muslim/Sikh/Other nutcases on this forum.

What, so to say that the Mahabharata is the "LARGEST" epic in the world is chest thumping? Seriousle, get off your high horse and listen to what u're saying. And stick to the topic - what has monkeys flying got to do with anything I have said so far. U're just proving your contempt of the concept of a Hindu having a modicum of pride in his religion by bringing unrelated stuff into it. No and for the record, I find it unlikely that ancient Indians could fly, although I do believe in some things that seem supernatural could be achieved as a side effect of intense yoga practice.

Gotta get back 2 class, more 2 come shortly ;)

[typeOnegative]

U idiot. It is Hindu by default, because the definition of "Hindu" naturally encompasses all aspects of Indian culture and religion that does not fit into any other compartmentalised category.If you stick to the name calling, then I will have to respond like that too. :) Be warned. The Mahabharat is Indian by default for me ( a non-Hindu). If it is Hindu to you by default and that makes you happy, then cool. :)


Why can't anybody appreciate any Hindu book without having to try and define it as non-Hindu?

Have problems with that?


"Hinduism" is not a religion that has dogmatic adherence to any particular text (the Vedas even question their own authority), neither does it divide into believers and non-believers (so non-Hindus such as yourself have no reason to feel threatened by appreciating a Hindu epic). The Mahabharata is a Hindu text through and through. It is quite perverse logic to say that because a story is "human and realistic" it can't be Hindu. The Vedas are not more representative of POPULAR Hindu religion than the Mahabharata. That is trash. Popular Hinduism of the masses focuses more on the Mahabharata, Ramayana and the Puranas.
suit yourself. :) You have not disagreed that the Mahabharat was changed from an epic in the oral tradition to a religious text. And yet contend that it is Hindu. Very well.


You're jumping to conclusions. I see it as quite plausible that the Bhagavad Gita was added into the Mahabharata as a summary of Vedantic teaching (so once again, you are wrong). You're trying to read what I'm going to think, and doing it very unsuccesfully. Because u automatically think that the view of a "hardcore Hindu" is going to be similar (dogmatic) like their Muslim counterpart. Whereas nothing could be further from the truth. Appreciate your open mindedness. And I am happy you have proved me wrong. But define me dogma. And tell me if only Muslims are dogmatic.


What, so to say that the Mahabharata is the "LARGEST" epic in the world is chest thumping?
What were you trying to prove by saying so?


Seriousle, get off your high horse and listen to what u're saying. And stick to the topic - what has monkeys flying got to do with anything I have said so far.
I was talking about ancient Indians flying and monkeys talking ... :) Well lets hear it from you. Its there in the Ramayana. And once again, whats the topic?


U're just proving your contempt of the concept of a Hindu having a modicum of pride in his religion by bringing unrelated stuff into it.
A Hindu having pride in his religion is not a topic for serious discussion. That of course is my opinion. You are not obliged to share it. :)


No and for the record, I find it unlikely that ancient Indians could fly, although I do believe in some things that seem supernatural could be achieved as a side effect of intense yoga practice. So what else can one achieve by intense yoga? Come to think of it your next topic is going to be how Yoga is the best thing that India has ever given to the world.[/quote]


Gotta get back 2 class, more 2 come shortly ;)
[/quote] Nice to know you are studying hard? ;) Waiting for more rants.

[dopekhor]

isnt the Mahabhrat a fable?

[adren@line]

isnt the Mahabhrat a fable?

depends on who you ask.

[typeOnegative]

isnt the Mahabhrat a fable?Most definitely not. There are certain mythical characters added to it and certain things are definitely from the realm of fantasy. But it is in essence a true story. Even an agnostic like Jawaharlal Nehru has agreed that it is in reality based on a true story. The embellishments to the original are I guess added to bring the book in line with Hindu philosophy, which in no way detracts however from the fact that it is one of the greatest epics in the world. A deeper study of the story actually will tell you the essence of life in ancient India.

If you get a chance to read the book 'Yuganta' by Iravati Karve, please do so.

[methodman535]

Methodman

Any reply on my last article ?


You mean that little novelette that you copy and pasted? That does a somewhat mediocre job of refuting the first of my four points which you were supposed to deconstruct. Here once again is my comment regarding your initial article on the mahabharata:

This article does not closely examine the accusation that the british re-invented the hindu religion by coddling brahmans and brahmanism, placing themselves at the top of the "varna pyramid". If I am not mistaken the revisionist theory asserts that brahmanism and even the vedic scriptures were just part of many cults/sects of a broader hinduism. The british liked brahmanism the best for obvious reasons and rewrote the past.


Now....you went through your usual rituals dismissing me as a bitter individual but you didnt address the issue at all. Here once again are 4 of the premises that I feel you have dodged, perhaps because they have proved unpleasant to debate in the past:



1. The brahmans, practice hinduism with a caste system incorporated in their religion. Or at least they did until partition, and in this caste system they are right at the top of the food chain an all the other castes are inferior by blood and spiritually as well, since according to brahmin doctrine it takes many many reincarnations for a human to become brahmin finally.

2. The british, after they graduated from humble traders affiliated with the east india company, decided to coddle with the brahmin intelligencia and made them their administrators throughout the territories that they anexed after defeating the military forces that got in their way.

3. The brahmans, while under the mughal yoke, even though allowed to practice their own religion were not allowed to dictate the social order inside the mughal empire according to their own whims as they did before the mughal empire decided to use islam as the semi official form of govt and their official state religion.

4. The brahmans, at one point in time were a distinct racial, linguistic and of course religious group that was constantly spreading and settling over northern india and was also warring with other factions. This is ancient history too I know but I think its important to note that brahmins, being a distinct and strict caste, were practically a different religion in a political sense because you could not convert into "brahmanism" from any other group.




Throwing a 2 page article and asking me to dig my teeth in it doesnt address these points at all. If you dispute anything a person challenges you with then you should be able to counter with your own facts in your own words.