Aryan and Non-Aryan

[Ashish Chandra]

Samar Abbas wrote on Dec 04 :


 There is no reason to suppose that caste was based on profession at any
time in ancient India. Caste arose whenever members of one race conquered
members of a different race. The different castes in India can still be
distinguished as to when they entered India. Thus, Ahirs are Avars,
Thakurs are Tokharians, Jats are Getae and the Rajputs are all Indo-Scyth.
Each now forms a separate caste. Moreover, the Sudras are the Negroid
inhaitants of India who were subjected to the lowest caste. A caste
systems have arisen in the southern US, etc. I have given more replies
below:

For your information, Thakurs are Rajputs. I confess that I have no idea of
who the Avars, Tokharians and the Indo-Scyth people are.

On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Ashish Chandra wrote:
> N. Ganesan wrote :
>
> Social reformers in the South have been calling for reforms within
> Hinduism. That is, Priesthood and Sankaracharyaship should become
available
> for any Hindu, not for a particular group determined just by birth. For
> Hinduism to become modern, the only qualifications  to be a priest or a
> Sankaracharya, must be 1) be a Hindu

Hindu is taken as a synonym for Aryan nowadays.

Really. I thought you mentioned in one of your emails that Hindu is a
Persian-Arabic word. How ,then, can it be Arya since all the Muslim
invaders were considered Mlechhas and hence not Aryan ? On what basis do
you make the statement that Hindu and Aryan are synonymous words ?

> and 2) be proficient in Samskrit and
> few more Indian languages.

 But the texts of the Dravidian Shaivite religion are in Dravidian
languages.

    What you suggest goes against the sacred Aryan Hindu
scriptures, which forbid a non-Aryan from doing these things.

I challenge you to produce anything from the Vedas that says anything about
Sudra not being allowed to read this scripture or that. As a matter of
fact, Rishi Vashishta was born out of marriage, Sage Narada, was born to a
maidservant out of wedlock, Rishi Valmiki was a robber and there are
various instances. Even if these people never existed, their very lineage
points to the fact that there was no such thing as knowledge to the
"Brahmins" alone i.e. there is nothing in the Vedas that prevents a Sudra
from reading them and then a Brahmin sitting at the feet of this Sudra and
gaining knowledge. In fact, and you have criticized Vaishanavism as bigoted
Arayan discrimination, was spread in no uncertain means by Ramanujacharya,
one of whose earliest teachers/guide was a Sudra preist named Kanchipurna.
He lived in or around Kancheepuram. It was Ramanuja who created the custom
in Sourthern India of allowing Sudras into temples wherein they had been
hitherto been forbidden from attending.


>
>
> I could not agree more. In fact, one should take process a step further
and
> base the interpretation of caste purely as our scriptures define them,
i.e.
> not by birth but intellectual/physical inclinations.

 Show me one person who has changed his caste. The fact is, it is racial
in basis.

Why do you make this so simple for me. If you only bother to read history,
you will realise that Adi Shankaracharya converted whole tribes of Baluchis
into Rajputs. He converted a lot of Rajputs into Sannyasins which was not
so prevalent in his time when only Brahmins were undertaking the quest of
Jnana through Sannyas. These Rajputs carried Trishuls and other weapons
woth them even though they were Sannyasis. These customs are visible even
today and the only reason for carrying a trident (Trishul) is not just that
one is a Saivite.

> There is no need for
> people like Mulayam Singh Yadav to be considered a backward caste just as
a
> so-called forward caste can't be one just by being born into one of the
> Traivarnikas.

The scriptures state that only Aryans can belong to the three varnas or
colours. This was meant to prevent racial mixing, and is advocated by
eugenicists today.

Which scriptures state that "Aryans" can belong to the three top Varnas. If
you have read any of the Hindu scriptures, you will realise that the Hindu
society was into divided into Varna, Jati and Kula. But nowhere have any of
the Vedic scriptures mentioned birth. It is only later on in the Puranas
that we see some of the texts from Vedas being contradicted. Whereas in the
Vedas it was said that one should attain knowledge from anyone who holds
it, the Puranas have differentiated this and laid down which parts of the
Vedas are for which Yuga i.e. Satya, Dwapar, Treta and Kali. It is also
said in the Puranas that so and so lived for thousands of years when the
Vedas clearly declare that man lives for 100 years. It is taken for granted
that Vedas are the authority and anything that contradicts them later on
should be rejected. So take your eugenicists and stuff them.

> A Brahmin engaged in trade is not a Brahmin anymore and
> should not consider himself as such.

But he is still an Arya. A negroid Sudra obviously cannot become and
Aryan, whether in India or in the US South.

Actually, there are no more Aryans(noble men) left in India as we have been
under the rule of Mlecchhas for a very long time. There is an instance of a
Hindu Brahmin priest who left Bharat with Alexander and after he realized
that the food he was consuming had been prepared in an impure way by a
Mlecchha, he immolated himself. Then we have the example of Kumarila Bhatta
who studied the Buddhist scriptures from a Buddhist guru, with an eye to
propound his philosophy of Purva Mimamsa and after he had learnt everything
about them, he used his own counter arguments to defeat the Buddhist
scholars in a debate. After that, to expiate for his sin of Gurudroha
(treachery against one's own Guru), he immolated himself in a fire of
Tusha. By being under the rule of Mlechhas for so long, we are no more
Arya. So technically and scripturally, a person is not an Arya throughout
his/her life but that fact is determined by his/her actions.

> Of course, this process will take
> decades if not centuries but it is an ideal well chosen and based on our
> own scriptures.

Then you are talking about some `new' religion. It is not Aryan Vaishnava
Orthodoxy, which is as strong as ever.

As a matter of fact, India has not one but many religions. But unlike
Islamic monotheism, a person can be pursuant of Advaita school of
philosophy and yet be worshipping Lord Siva or Lord Visnu. There have been
umpteen instances wherein scholars of Advaita school have been worshippers
of Vishnu. And when you call it Vaishnava Orthodoxy, I am not sure what you
mean because there are millions of people who are Vaishnava, Saiva and
Shaktas at the same time. And then there are people who are Vaishanava
alone and Shaktas alone. Each of these have their own ways and rituals. SO
which one are you exactly talking about because I am not sure I am aware of
the fact that Vaishanava "Orthodoxy" has been imposed on any section of
Indian society. And there is no such thing as Aryan Vaishnavism. If there
is anything that you want to call Arya, it is Vedanta and Vedanta alone,
something that is Upanishadic. All the sects and religions that arose in
Bharat have based their birth on some interpretation of these Upanishads.
So are you calling them Orthodox. Yes, then that they are indeed - Orthodox
and The most sublime literature that ever graced mankind.

>
> Ashish
>

Samar

And might I add at this point. Are you aware of an Upanishad called
Allopanishad ? It was written at the time of Akbar and at his request. It
talks of Prophet Mohammed as Rajasulla. Even though it is not considered
amongst the 108 Orthodox Upanishads, it is still an Upanishad. And many
more can be written as Upanishad merely means Come near, Sit and Listen. So
one might advise you to get your facts in order and not throw your mental
garbage out here.


Ashish