dvija varNa

[Yashwant Malaiya]

Swaminathan Madhuresan <smadhuresan at YAHOO.COM> wrote:

>N. Chandran wrote:
>>> So it is next to impossible for Gautama to have had brahmin teachers
>>> if he wasn't a dvija.
>
>S. Hodge wrote:
>>Pardon my ignorance, but I though "dvija" meant one was a brahmin.
>>You were saying (probably correctly) that the Buddha was a k.satriya
>>earlier so when did this transmutation occur ?
>
>For all the three var.nas, except the Shudras, "dvija" (twice-born) is
>applied. A good study of how this works in N. India:

Gautama Buddha (Shakyamuni) was a Shakya, who were a branch of
Ikshavakus, thus (always) a Kshatriya. The previous Buddhas were
either  Brahmin or Khatriyas. Most of the immediate disciples of Gautam
Buddha were Brahmin, as were a majority of the leaders of the
Indian Buddhist Sangha.

While Dvija really means any of the three higher varnas, since they can
wear the upavita, if is sometimes used only for the Brahmins.

Other than Brahmins, very few other communities in Indian have
traditionally worn the sacred the thread. By the traditional
brahmaical view, most of the so-called "upper castes" are sachchhUdra.
It is practically impossible to show with absolute certainty
that a supposed Vaishya or Kshatriya community was Vaishya or Kshatriya
in antiquity (That is why some scholars have declared in the past that
the two middle varnas have ceased to exist). It is also true for several
Brahmin communities. Thus at the present time, the existence of four
distinct varnas is  a myth.

Mahatma Gandhi combined the attributes all four varnas. Born a "vaishya",
he defined dharma like a rishi, commanded a nation like a kshatriya, and
cleaned toilets like a shudra. Perfectly acceptable. Varnas are no longer
separated. (Gandhi's son married daughter of a very brahmanical brahmin,
and it hasn't been considered to be pratiloma.)

Yashwant