[Advaita-l] The 'Snake-and-ladder' game - The Spiritual path

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2018, Kalyan via Advaita-l wrote:

> This is probably the dumbest defence of scriptures I ever came across. 
> It goes to show that too much faith in tradition makes a man not only 
> dumb but also blind to the sufferings of others.


There is a large middle ground between being blind to the suffering of 
others and gullibly accepting all claims of alleged suffering.  How about 
employing some of that skepticism you prescribe for others?


> No archeological evidence needs to be found if the shudra's body is cut 
> into pieces or if his tongue is cut.No evidence needs to be found if lac 
> or lead is poured in the ear, for it goes inside and kills the man.

I suggest you acquaint yourself with modern archaeological methods.  It is 
certainly possible to detect if a corpse contains lead or lac even in 
ashes if it was cremated.


> There need not be any literary records if this is the norm, rather than 
> the exception.

Occams razor suggests a simpler explanation.  There are no records because 
it never happened.


> However, people are ignoring the most important point here. Such 
> statements institutionalize violence against an entire community.


An old assertion of the Marxists but one that does not bear scrutiny.

For a start there is no "Shudra community"  There are many jatis in the 
various regions of India that could fall under that banner but they vary 
greatly on a spectrum between inarguably oppressed to dominant socioeconomic 
powers.

Secondly there is plenty of evidence of nonantagonistic relations between 
various dvija and Shudra jatis.  A blanket assumption that the only (or 
even primary) relation was one of violence is bogus.

Raghava gave the example of the Reddys of Andhra Pradesh which aptly 
illustrates these two points.

That there is intergroup violence in India is not in itself controversial. 
Blaming it on the Manusmrti is a leap too far.  Some apologists go too far 
in the opposite direction by trying to minimize the importance of Manu as 
an embodiment and examplar of Dharma but the fact is his influence is 
chiefly among the relatively small circle of experts.  The Manusmrti 
itself does not have direct influence for the simple reason that 
historically 99% of the Indian population have been illiterate.


> centuries.Now it is my turn to say - Ishwara, who encourages torture of 
> his own people and sanctions the institutionalization of violence 
> against shudras, is unfit to be worshipped.

Well it's a good thing we don't worship such an Ishwara.  Still nothing to 
do with the Manusmrti though.


> Here are the instances of cutting off of Sudras' tongues under Maratha rule

But none of anyone having lead poured into their ears or lac into their 
mouths right?  Thankyou for proving me right.

> (it is from an article by Dr B R Ambedkar). I suggest apologists to read the
>entire article - http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/57.%20Manu%20and%20the%20Shudras.htm

It's telling that you quote a politician not a historian but ok let's take 
a look.


> Under the Maratha rule any one other than a Brahmin uttering a
> Veda Mantra was liable to have his tongue cut off and as a matter of fact
> the tongues of several Sonars (goldsmiths) were actually cut off by the
> order of the Peshwa for their daring to utter the Vedas contrary to law.


I did some research on this.  So apparently there are several jatis called 
Sonar in Maharashtra but the specific one refered to here are actually 
called Daivajna Sonars and claim to be Brahmanas.  See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daivadnya_Brahmin

(It is not the most reliable source but gives some background.)

http://daivajnakarkiswamiji.blogspot.com/2014/08/history-daivajnya-brahmins-sonars-or.html

(This is better on most details but poor on history)

These Daivajnas were originally from the Konkana but migrated into 
interior Maharashtra and Karnataka due to Portuguese Christian persecution 
in Goa.

In the Mahratta Empire it was not Brahmanas in general but specifically 
the Chitpavana jati who had social power.  The Chitpavanas did not 
want to accept the dvijatva of the Daivajnas and the latter insisted upon 
it.  Nowhere in any of the arguments is the Manusmrti mentioned.

There you have it.  This isn't a case of upstart Shudras being oppressed 
in the name of Manu.  This is a power struggle between two Brahmana jatis. 
Which has its own problems but it doesn't prove the point you (or 
Ambdedkar) are trying to make.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>