1. Points in such books are to be divided into two categories: observations and explanations. 

2. Explanations can be again divided into two kinds: 1. substantiated from previous sources 2. Author's own conjectures, guesswork  etc.

3. These observations seem to be focused on /limited to social relationships among Brahmins of different parts of India. 

3. "Gurjaras are included among Drāviḍas" - observation; one would ask for corraboration from other sources since this is not 'established' /well known/popular. 

4.  other Drāviḍas do not have any educational, ritual or marriage relations with them- observation; gujarati (garjara = gujarati? or western Indian?)-south Indian social relationships were not very intense, probably. 

5. Intrigue of the author making him for look for explanations: 'why no social relationships of south Indians with Gurjaras though they are co-draaviDas?'

6. Gaurjaras are similar to gauDdes'a Brahmins or Kerala Brahmins in having 'anācāra'-observation used as explanation for the above observation' . 'anācāra' is not immoral but violative of (Brahmin) religious code. .'anācāra is perception. 

7. Ācāryaśāpa  is the explanation probably invented by those sharing the perception of 'anācāra.'

8. Fish-eating among Bengali Brahmins,  marital relationships of Kerala Brahmins as part of the matrilinear system of certain non-Brahmin communities could be the perceived  'anācāra.'



On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:27 PM, K S Kannan <ks.kannan.2000@gmail.com> wrote:
Issues, perhaps, of kali-varjya practices?

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh@umich.edu> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,

     In one of the curious passages of the Vedavicāra (written by Śāmaśāstrī Draviḍa Dvivedī) that I am editing, the author says that though the Gurjara's are included among Drāviḍas, other Drāviḍas do not have any educational, ritual or marriage relations with them, because like the Gauḍadeśa, there is too much anācāra "immoral behavior" among them, and like the Brahmins of Kerala, they were cursed by an Ācārya, and therefore, other Drāviḍas do not have any relations with them.  Here is the passage from the text:

यथा गुर्जराणां द्राविडान्तःपातिनामपि द्राविडैः सह भोजनादिसंव्यवहारादिकं नास्ति, तथैवाध्ययनादिकमपीति ज्ञेयम् । कुतो गुर्जराणां संव्यवहाराभाव इति चेदुच्यते । गौडदेशवद्गुर्जरदेशेऽप्यनाचारबाहुल्यात् तेषामाचार्यशापदग्धत्वात्केरलदेशीयब्राह्मणादिवत्संव्यवहाराभाव इति संक्षेपः । 

If anyone has a clue as to what this Ācāryaśāpa refers to, it would help me make better sense of this passage.  Similarly, it is not clear what anācārabāhulya he is referring to in the Gauḍa/Gurjara and Kerala regions.  Any suggestions will be helpful.  Best,

Madhav Deshpande
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvparishat@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvparishat@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Nagaraj Paturi
 
Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.


BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies
 
FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,
 
(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )