The Vedic Pakhtas

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,608
USA
"Bishnoi (also known as Vishnoi) is a religious sect found in the Western Thar Desert and northern states of India. They follow a set of 29 principles/commandments given by Guru Jambheshwar."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishnoi

Bishnoi = Twenty + Nine commandments.

I am from Rajasthan and perhaps know Bishnois better than you do. Sure, they worship Lord Vishnu and other Gods and Goddesses too.
Sure you know Bishnois better than I do. I stand corrected on the meaning of Bishnoi. Thank you for the correction.

However, how does this even make a relevant example for what I asked. The Guru of this tribe established the belief only a few centuries ago. Moreover, the name of the Guru is also Aryan. So how on earth is this a non-Aryan tribe that imparted vegetarianism to Vedic religion?
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,845
New Delhi, India
Eh, after 3,000 years or more of mix-ups, who knows who is Aryan to what extent or not?
Sages, sadhus, shramanas, scriptures, rise of Vaishnavism (Srimad Bhagawatham) - they told Indians to refrain from meat. Many people in all tribes and castes agreed (just like the Bishnois). Were we not after spiritual development all the time? It is not that a particular caste was against meat. Mainly the brahmins and vaishyas are vegetarian in North India.
 
Last edited:

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,608
USA
Eh, after 3,000 years or more of mix-ups, who knows who is Aryan to what extent or not?
Sages, sadhus, shramanas, scriptures, rise of Vaishnavism (Srimad Bhagawatham) - they told Indians to refrain from meat. Many people in all tribes and castes agreed (just like the Bishnois). Were we not after spiritual development all the time? It is not that a particular caste was against meat. Mainly the brahmins and vaishyas are vegetarian in North India.
Precisely. That is what I was trying to drive home. Vegetarianism was an internal and organic change in the Aryan culture of India.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,845
New Delhi, India
Sadhus and shramanas were never a part of Aryan life. Even many of the Aryan sages (Kavis, Richakaras) married umpteen times. Yajnavalkya married twice and Kashyapa had thirteen wives, and I am sure, he did not top the chart. Apart from Sanatkumaras and Narada, I cannot think of any other sage who did not marry. Narada also would have married if it were not for the treachery of Lord Vishnu :). Therefore, the origin Sadhus and shramanas is indigenous. Why do you deny interaction of Aryans with other (indigenous) people of India? Were the Aryans an island to themselves?
 
Last edited:

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,608
USA
Sadhus and shramanas were never a part of Aryan life. Even many of the Aryan sages (Kavis, Richakaras) married umpteen times. Yajnavalkya married twice and Kashyapa had thirteen wives, and I am sure, he did not top the chart. Apart from Sanatkumaras and Narada, I cannot think of any other sage who did not marry. Narada also would have married if it were not for the treachery of Lord Vishnu :). Therefore, the origin Sadhus and shramanas is indigenous. Why do you deny interaction of Aryans with other (indigenous) people of India? Were the Aryans an island to themselves?
There are no Sramanas and Sadhus in any corner of India that is non-Aryan. Give me a solid example and I am game for a debate. You will find munis in Rig Veda. What more do you need?

You find Jadabharata, Dattatreya, Shuka and many others in the Sadhu/avadhuta league (You already mentioned Sanatkumara). Where are the non-Aryan people here?

Parshvanatha, Mahavira, Buddha were Aryan too. What on Earth does "indigenous" mean here? Aryans were indigenous to India. Their prime locations were Brahmavarta and Aryavarta. They spread to the other parts of the world from there.

I am hearing your argument of indigenous culture from loooong ago, but I have yet to see any meaningful example from you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ksk

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,845
New Delhi, India
"Shuka is convinced by Janaka to follow the ashrama tradition, and returns home to marry and follow the path of yoga. He has five children with his wife Pivari—four sons and a daughter." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devi-Bhagavata_Purana

For me Vyasa, Shuka, and Suta (Sutradhara) denote very different things. They are part of the story telling tradition. Vyasa being the knower (also the expander) of the story, Shuka being the narrator and Suta being the coordinator of the performance in a Jatra/Pandavani/Kathakali/Padh fashion. Later these positions were imagined as Sages. Of course, you will differ.

Jada-Bharata story in Srimad Bhagawatham is created to explain a philosophical position in Hinduism. I quote:

"When a second time this chastisement happens, Jadabharata, for the first time in his life, opens his mouth. This portion in the Bhagavatam, going through four chapters, is one of the most treasured pieces in the whole work.

My dear King, says Jada-bharata, whatever you have spoken sarcastically is certainly true. Actually these are not simply words of chastisement, for the body is the carrier. The load carried by the body does not belong to me. There is no contradiction in your statements because I am different from the body. I am not the carrier of the palanquin; the body is the carrier. Certainly, as you have hinted, I have not labored carrying the palanquin, for I am detached from the body. Your words about my stoutness or otherwise are befitting a person who does not know the distinction between the body and the soul. The body may be fat or thin, but no learned man would say such things of the Atman. As far as the Atman is concerned, I am neither fat nor skinny; therefore you are correct when you say that I am not very stout. Also, if the object of this journey and the path leading there were mine, there would be many troubles for me, but because they relate not to me but to my body, there is no trouble at all. .."
Story of Jada Bharata, from Bhagavatam

I take it to be a beautiful story. Many people take it as a fact of history.
 
Last edited:

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,608
USA
"Shuka is convinced by Janaka to follow the ashrama tradition, and returns home to marry and follow the path of yoga. He has five children with his wife Pivari—four sons and a daughter." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devi-Bhagavata_Purana

For me Vyasa, Shuka, and Suta (Sutradhara) denote very different things. They are part of the story telling tradition. Vyasa being the knower (also the expander) of the story, Shuka being the narrator and Suta being the coordinator of the performance in a Jatra/Pandavani/Kathakali/Padh fashion. Later these positions were imagined as Sages. Of course, you will differ.

Jada-Bharata story in Srimad Bhagawatham is created to explain a philosophical position in Hinduism. I quote:

"When a second time this chastisement happens, Jadabharata, for the first time in his life, opens his mouth. This portion in the Bhagavatam, going through four chapters, is one of the most treasured pieces in the whole work.

My dear King, says Jada-bharata, whatever you have spoken sarcastically is certainly true. Actually these are not simply words of chastisement, for the body is the carrier. The load carried by the body does not belong to me. There is no contradiction in your statements because I am different from the body. I am not the carrier of the palanquin; the body is the carrier. Certainly, as you have hinted, I have not labored carrying the palanquin, for I am detached from the body. Your words about my stoutness or otherwise are befitting a person who does not know the distinction between the body and the soul. The body may be fat or thin, but no learned man would say such things of the Atman. As far as the Atman is concerned, I am neither fat nor skinny; therefore you are correct when you say that I am not very stout. Also, if the object of this journey and the path leading there were mine, there would be many troubles for me, but because they relate not to me but to my body, there is no trouble at all. .."
Story of Jada Bharata, from Bhagavatam

I take it to be a beautiful story. Many people take it as a fact of history.
Sutas were Puranikas, i.e. narrators of story. Shuka is called "Muni".
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,845
New Delhi, India
Vyasa: Literally expander, master of the story, makes changes if any required.
Shuka: Parrot, repeats what he has learned.
Suta: Literally the string. One who holds the string. Anchor, Presenter, watches the progress, Sutradhara, interjects if required.

Even today, in all religious Dance-dramas/Jatras, this format exists.
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,608
USA
Vyasa: Literally expander, master of the story, makes changes if any required.
Shuka: Parrot, repeats what he has learned.
Suta: Literally the string. One who holds the string. Anchor, Presenter, watches the progress, Sutradhara, interjects if required.

Even today, in all religious Dance-dramas/Jatras, this format exists.
Here are the actual meanings:

Vyasa: Arranger/compiler (Veda Vyasa arranged the Vedas)
Shuka: Poet
SUta: They were progeny of Kshatriya man and Brahmin woman. They were confined to jobs such as charioteers or story tellers (Puranikas). Romaharshana I believe was a Puranika.

P.S.: Sutra is thread, not SUta.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,845
New Delhi, India
Vyasa: diameter, arranger, division, compiler, separation, distributing, breadth, prolixity, disjoining, brahmin who recites or expounds the puranas in public, kind of drawl, diffusion, width, extension, detailed account, severing.
Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit
Sūtra (thread) is Sanskrit. It becomes Sūta in colloquial.