From: sp2@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil
Subject: Re: Varna & Brahmins
Date: 16 Aug 1992 21:08:33 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <9208162243.AA03025@ha06.eng.ua.edu> bkannan@ha06.eng.ua.edu (Balaji Kannan) writes:
>
> [ Addressing Meenan Vishnu ]

>  When you feel you have to castigate Brahmins :
>
>   Bhagavad Gita was all great. Krishna meant "Caste by deeds and 
>   not birth" in the Gitopadesh. Brahmins interpolated the texts
>   and continued to misinterpret them.

     I have also read the book "Gita as it was" by Sinha quoted
 in Meenan Vishnu's articles on the Original Gita as claimed by
 Sinha. So a few comments are in order.
     Sinha's claim of original Gita contains just 86 verses. 
 Sinha claims that the original Gita summarises both Sankhya
 philosophy and the (original) yoga sutra of Patanjali. ( He has
 internal evidence from Gita itself. [ Refer to Meenan's postings
 on this book. ] ) In the original Gita (Sinha), no reference to 
 caste is given. Sinha claims that Brahmins interpolated a lot of
 Brahministic verses in the first three chapters and added all the
 other chapters. Hence, you are misquoting Meenan Vishnu in saying

 > Krishna meant "Caste by deeds and not birth" in the Gitopadesh.
 [ There is no reference to `varna' in the original Gita (Sinha).]

    Those who have read books on ancinet civilization in India
 couldn't have failed to notice that there were no castes in India
 in the vedic period but they were developed later by Brahmins.
 Your comment illustrates a poor reading of Meenan's article,
 considering that Meenan posted an entire chapter from Sinha's
 book on the original Gita.
    You are correct, however, in saying that Brahmins interpolated
 a lot of texts in the vedic works. They also misinterpreted Buddha
 in Vishnupurana and Bhagavatham which I have written in my earlier
 article - a follow-up to Meenan Vishnu's article on Gita.

>
>
>  When you feel you have to defend Periyar who trashed religion
>  [we have to agree with him no matter what he says for after
>   all he was the biggest Brahmin hater, right?]:

   Original Gita[ Sinha] is not a religious work as you are
 thinking. I have read it too. It is a rationalist work.
 Whether it is indeed the original gita as Sinha claims is 
 a different matter. But you are criticizing Meenan here only
 on his posting on Sinha's Gita. [ Krishna is not portaryed
 as a God in Sinha's claim of original Gita. ]


>
>
>   Sorry! I beg to disagree. What Periyar says about Krishna has
>   to be right. 
> Krishna is the bigger culprit. He institutionalized
>   casteism [by birth] and Brahmins followed suit.

     The Bhagavad Gita, as available today, is not the original
 Gita mentioned in Meenan's earlier articles. You can't quite
 compare that Gita ( with just 86 verses ) with the current
 Gita which Periyar criticized.     
    I don't see any double standard in Meenan's stand.
    I only wish that you had read Meenan's earlier postings
 first before writing this note of criticism.
>
>  -----------------------------------------
>
>  Way to go!
>  What else  can one expect from a Periyar-cultist who thinks with
>  different halves of his brain at different times on the same issue.

   This is a serious criticism which is in error.
   Better check the facts first before attempting a satire next time. 
                
>
>
>  anbudan,
>  Balaji Kannan
> 
                                                     S.Pandian
                                             sp2@cec1.WUSTL.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil,alt.culture.tamil