tapase "suudram [aalabhate] in TB 3.4.1.1ff / VS 30 (was "taxonomy question")

[Lubin, Tim]

tapas here ought to be understood as 'pain', 'suffering' -- e.g., from mundane labor, just as you suggest -- without the notion of ascetic discipline

Tim Lubin

From: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 9:02 PM
To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Fwd: [INDOLOGY] taxonomy question

The following is interesting.

"10. For the priesthood he seizes a Brâhmana, for the Brâhmana is the priesthood: he thus joins priesthood to priesthood 2<http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44111.htm#fn_1064>;--for the nobility he seizes a Râganya, for the Râganya is the nobility: he thus joins nobility to nobility;--for the Maruts (he seizes) a Vaisya, for the Maruts are the clans (peasants): he thus joins peasantry to peasantry;--
p. 410
for (religious) toil (he seizes) a Sûdra, for the Sûdra is toil: he thus joins toil to toil;"

...
"THE (SYMBOLICAL) VICTIMS OF THE PURUSHAMEDHA 1<http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44111.htm#fn_1072>.
I. 1. To the priesthood (he consecrates) a Brâhmana--2. To the nobility a Kshatriya--3. To the Maruts a Vaisya--4. To penance (hardship, tapas) a Sidra--"

Why is Śūdra equated to (religious) toil/penance/tapas  - not just mundane labor? How does this relate to the ban on Śūdra performing Tapas as in the case of Śambuka in Rāmāyaṇa?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Palaniappan


-----Original Message-----
From: Herman Tull <hwtull at MSN.COM>
To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2011 7:35 am
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Fwd: [INDOLOGY] taxonomy question
There is, but it is rather elaborate.

See Satapatha Brahmana 13.6

for Eggeling’s translation, http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44111.htm

Herman Tull
Princeton, NJ

From: Slakter, David
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:10 PM
To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Fwd: [INDOLOGY] taxonomy question

Is there no hierarchy within the category of humans for the Vedic sacrifice?  That is, if you're going to sacrifice a human, will any human do?

David Slakter
________________________________
From: Indology [INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk] on behalf of George Thompson [gthomgt at GMAIL.COM]
Sent: 23 August 2011 14:01
To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Fw: Re: [INDOLOGY] Fwd: [INDOLOGY] taxonomy question
Dear List

Maybe nobody noticed my mistake, or maybe many of you did, but you decided to forgive me.  In any case, the Vedic hierarchy of sacrificial victims is not:

5. sheep
4. goat
3. cattle
2. horse
1. human

It is instead:

5. goat
4. sheep
3. cattle
2. horse
1. human

I make this mistake all the time.  It is clear that in my urban world the value of the goat and the sheep is negligible.  But this is not true of the Vedic clans.

Best,
George

!SIG:4e559f0f52546481060558!


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20110828/d7a4228e/attachment.htm>