pots, brahmin names, and potters
N. Ganesan
naga_ganesan at HOTMAIL.COM
Wed Dec 30 19:32:15 UTC 1998
Dr. S. Palaniappan writes:
<<<
I do not know why potters should be considered "undeserving hosts". J.
A.
Schoterman says, "Being the offspring of an illicit union of a Brahmin
and a
Vaizya-female (Kane II-1: 78) they are regarded as bhojyAnnas, i.e.,
food
prepared by them could be paratken by Brahmins (Kane
II-1:122)".(SaTsAhasra
saMhitA, p. 8) Note however that the marriage is still anuloma.
>>>
[...]
<<<
On the other hand, I think what the mahAbhArata story reveals is a rare
glimpse of what the society really had been instead of what the
brahminic
authors usually wanted it to be. It will be a mistake to rely on the
status
of castes as propounded by brahmanic law-givers.
>>>
[Explanation of how the brahmanic law as applied to every Hindu
(strictly
all Non-Muslims) may have undesirable rigidity - snipped]
> From another followup mail by SP
<<<
While I have not researched the heritage of other artisans as much as
that
of
the potters, I am on firmer ground when it comes to potters and
brahmins. My
analysis of the words suggest, that the culture of pre-Vedic Dravidian
culture
was not hierarchical as the tri-partite Aryan culture was supposed to
be.
The
semantics of the word vEL signifying priests, warriors, and potters
suggests
this. (On the other hand according to the IA system, each of these
would
have
had to belong to a separate class.) The earliest technologists of the
early
Dravidian culture might have been potters who were also priests.
(Probably
other artisans developed out of this group later on.) A section of these
native potter-priest-warriors must have adopted the IA culture very
early.
These became the bhRgus, etc. The entry into brahminhood must have been
going
on even after Vedic period. These acculturated potter-brahmin-warrior
Dravidians must have adopted the tri-partite Aryan class system (later
expanded to four classes) and manufactured enough textual "evidence"
that
they
succeeded in elevating themselves above the rest of their original
cohorts!
>>>
I think these thoughts are essential to the understanding
of the varNa formation. The modification of Indian society
into what L. Dumont calls as Homo Hierarchicus society would
have been accomplished along these lines.
Pl. see B. K. Smith, Classifying the Universe, Oxford UP, 1994.
Prof. Smith notes in p. 10 that Vedic literature represents
a world view of its authors, the Brahmins which need not
adequately
reflect the world views of other strata, particularly the lower
strata of Shudras.
Even yesterday in Indology, quite an elitist view of Hindu
religion was presented from an Ivory tower. As I try to
explain, these are not the majority Indian viewpoint.
In my view, "outsiders" view for the last few centuries
have revealed the real India much more than if it was
left to ahistorical thinking of Hindu dominant elites
whose views on advaita is understood very little even by
themselves. eg., They will brush aside Tamil as a mere Prakrit!
They often claim Dravidian language family is "Maayaa", a
sabotage on India let loose by Missionaries (cf. Indigenous
Aryan school publications). I have not seen any Hindu elite
considering
"Money is Pure Maayaa". It is a lipservice then and now.
Show me one if there is any. For example, Sankara mutts,
true heirs to advaita, seek big money and (polical) power all
the
time. They hobnob with politicians frequently. (cf. major
newspapers from India's cities). While there is pushing
down the throats of unwilling people, a date of Giitaa
as 3102 BC (not at all accepted by the West), there is heavy,
urgent
rush to emigrate and get the money/job from the West whose
inventions
directly come from scientific thinking and which all humankind
enjoys.
With a date of Giitaa as 3102 BC or for Bodhayana as 8000 BC,
will e-mail sattra like this become ever possible??
So, Hindu elites compartmentalize their actions:
1) to get a job in the West; 2) to push unsustainable
dates for Veda, Giitaa, Westward expansion of Sanskrit from IVC
..
These are two different things. I think one should practice
what s/he preaches. Once an Indologist wrote here something like
"if Rajaram designs an aeroplane, it will fall like rain drops".
The pioneering studies from Prof. B. K. Smith, data from Indus
valley, and Sangam Tamil texts must be co-studied together.
It is interesting that farm laborers are asked: "What vakuppu
are you?" by Landlords, usually Vellala castes. vakuppu is
division in Tamil. Jaati and varNa are based on birth and
color (race) respectively and are Aryan words. These foreign
loans exist in Dravidian. The horizontal emerging divisions
('vakuppu') based on labor differentiation is transformed into
a vertical, rigid hierarchy, obviously for the benefit of
those at the top of the caste pyramid.
What is striking about Indus valley culture is the total
absence of palaces and temples there. No Kings' tombs either.
I hear that IVC is different from other ancient civilizations
in that there is not much social stratification found
by archaeology.
The earliest IA texts are full of varNa hierarchy (cf.
G. Dumezil, W. Doniger, B. K. Smith, J. C. Heesterman, ....)
Read Sangam texts. Not much of social stratification. The
PaaNar, musician-bards are often poor, but they dine
and party with the highest of kings. The great poet,
Kapilar, a brAhmaNa says that his teeth are worn out
by eating fat, tender meat at the king's feasts;
he enjoys fine liquor, exchanging 'cheers` with the
kings.
The IVC data, Sangam Tamil texts, IA text studies
(eg Smith), etymological/textual pointers (eg. S. Palaniappan's
posts) all point to a good understanding of the earliest
India. This territory is mostly uncharted and new paths
are just beginning to emerge.
Summary: In the dominant Aryan worldview, 'potters'
are "undesrving hosts" while it is NOT so in the subaltern
Dravidian worldview.
Any corrections, additions, references are welcome.
With kind regards,
N. Ganesan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
History of Religions, May 1997 v36 n4 p393(3)
Classifying the Universe: The Ancient Indian
"Varna" System and the Origins of Caste. (book reviews)
By Brian K. Smith. New York: Oxford University Press,
1994. Pp. xv + 408. $24.95 (paper).
In the five years that have passed since publication of
his splendid Reflections on Ritual, Resemblance, and
Religion, Brian Smith has brought out a number of
articles
that suggest he is expanding his research on the logic
of
homology and preparing to engage a vast and daunting
topic--the Vedic classificatory system of varna
("caste"
or, more literally, "color") in all its diverse
applications, with particular attention to its
treatment
of (and importance for) the social order.(1)
Classifying
the Universe fulfills the promise of that earlier work,
and it does not disappoint. Indeed, even those who
could
see that Smith was up to something big, and who hold
his
scholarship in high regard, may not have been prepared
for
what an extraordinary piece of work this book would be.
To
my mind, it is nothing short of a landmark achievement,
for here he demonstrates in absolutely conclusive
fashion,
first, that Vedic knowledge was no hodgepodge of random
details but was absolutely systemic and, second, that
this
system served to anchor and buttress a rigid social
hierarchy by providing it with an elegant ideological
justification of virtually all-encompassing scope.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Journal of the American Oriental Society, April-June
1996 v116 n2 p344(3)
Classifying the Universe: The Ancient Indian
Varna System and the Origins of Caste. (book
reviews) Frederick M. Smith.
The next time you run into a neo-Hindu chauvinist - say
on
a train between Varanasi and Lucknow, or at a health
food
store in New Mexico - who delivers an impromptu (and
unwanted) lecture on the unity of all the peoples of
ancient India and the absence of the evil of the caste
system in the Vedas, you can come prepared to beat this
benighted perpetrator of bliss and harmony into
submission
with a copy of Brian K. Smith's Classifying the
Universe.
For B.K.S.'s primary contention, which he pursues
relentlessly, is that not only was the varna system
thoroughly in effect in the "Vedic Age," but it served,
at
least in the Vedas, as the primary means of organizing
and
thinking about nearly everything imaginable. Varna was,
he
contends, "a totalistic classificatory system" (p. 8).
[...]
More generally, accepting as
support Dumezil's tripartite division of religion and
society, B.K.S. advocates that religious discourse can
be
reduced to its social bases.
J. C. Heesterman's Broken World of Sacrifice: An Essay
in
Ancient Indian Ritual (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1993; [...]
Heesterman reads Vedic myth as thinly veiled history,
Brian Smith as thinly veiled sociology. Both studies
are,
however, strongly influenced by the idea that violence
lies at the root of their subject: physical,
sacrificial
violence in Heesterman's case ("anthropophagy cannot be
ruled out" [p. 176]), and the violence of word,
ideology,
and class oppression in Brian Smith's case ("the vis or
'masses' are regarded as the special delicacy of the
Kshatriyas" [p. 47]). Heesterman's Veda seems guided by
the intoxicating aroma of roast beef, Brian Smith's by
the
insatiable quest for status and power. Nevertheless,
class
and sacrifice commingle closely in the Veda, as both
Heesterman and Brian Smith are fully aware. So there is
a
complementarity in their work, even if neither would
claim
bandhuta with the other.
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
More information about the INDOLOGY
mailing list