Read Book Online : http://www.archive.org/stream/bookofarcherybei00hansuoft#page/n5/mode/2up

Download pdf Book : http://ia360619.us.archive.org/3/items/bookofarcherybei00hansuoft/bookofarcherybei00hansuoft.pdf

@Sushil: Ekalavya was a prince. And Parshuram was against Kashaktriyas, so it was a caste discrimination, not class discrimination. Class is based on wealth and economics, while Caste is based on birth and profession. A Brahmin can be rich (high class) or poor (low class). A Kashaktriya can be of royal blood or wealthy (high class) or poor and uneducated (low class).

Dear Sushil, I have to disagree with you. 1. You said that Drona said that he only teaches Princes. Eklavya was a prince of the Nishada tribe, and a prince none the less, also he took part in the Mahabharata war as an equal. So what I am addressing is that fact that he was a Prince and its taught this way in the Mahabharata. 2. Karna was no doubt ridiculed for being a Sut-Putra or as you say Shudra, even though he was Kunti's illegitimate son. However, addressing your point made earlier Parshurama cursed Karna because he realized he was a Kashaktriya and not a Brahmin, because Karna did not flinch when he was bitten by an insect as Parshurama laid his head in his lap and rested. Thus Parshurama said that only a Kashaktriya would tolerate pain and suffering for others. Hmmm that sounds a lot like caste or Varna rivalry and not class rivalry to me. 3. I don't know why you brought up Hanumanji. 4. Okay, I agree that caste may have not existed in the Ramayana or Mahabharat, but Varnas did. However, your explanation about Caste versus Class is what I did not agree with since Class is based on economics and not Varna or Jatis or castes. 5. I don't think Tapasya was a monopoly of the Brahmins as you stated. Because Vishwamitra was not a Brahmin, he was a Kashaktriya King. Hrianyakashipu (father of Prahlad) was not a Brahmin according to the Srimad Bhagvatam. Maheshasura and so many others the list could go on. Also Shambuka was a Shudra and thats why he was killed for doing Tapasya because he was not "Twice born"...not because was not a Brahmin....he just happened to be born at the bottom of the ladder. Having said that, this story is a latter addition and not part of Valmiki's Ramayan and may actually have been added by Brahmins to, as you say, to elevate their status to semi-Gods or next only to God. Being a latter addition, I think it was politically motivated to add such a horrible story. I agree, its really hard to find original sources these days.

Thanks for the PDF, will definitely look at it.

I am sorry and stand corrected. You are right, Shambuka is in the Valmiki Ramayana. However, what I meant by politics, I mean back in those times the Brahmins may have wanted to emphasize that they had a monopoly on Tapas and the Shudras should not try to cross the line, which clearly is discrimination. About the Aryan thing, I don't agree with the whole Aryan Dravidian divide. Wasn't it disproven a long time back?

I have a question about Valmiki. Wasn't he an Adivasi himself? I know he was a dacoit before becoming a saint.

I have read Romila Thapar's books for Indian Studies at University and Nehru's Discovery of India, both authors I don't really like. I am sending you my mail id. Another question: Shabri was also a shudra, but did Tapasya and also Rama ate her food which she tasted before giving him. So why was she allowed to do Tapas?

Totally agree with you Sushil. We should know everything and question it, otherwise why believe something unless we truly know what it is that we supposedly believe in. Its not that those two were not up to my taste. There were some aspects of Nehru's writings that I do like, but I often found him to be more of a bumbling WOG who really did not understand the soul of India and became PM instead of Sardar Patel (yes I am a Patel fan). Also, his political failures have made a mess that has carried into India today, and he also did not do a good job of bringing the different religious communities together, he just paid lip service. Instead, he writes in a way as if he is an Angrez trapped in the body of a Desi and suddenly discovered India.....disappointing. Compare that to people like Aurobindo Ghosh, Swami Vivekananda, or Maualana Azad's writings (many of which are banned in India) and you have real Indians with real Indian souls speaking for India. As for Romila, I recall everyone, including my white friends in Indian studies class would roll their eyes when we had to study her two volume History of India....it was painful....Stanley Wolpert's History of India was a much better read. Romila just comes off as someone who keeps shoving Colonial theories down our throats when we know there is new evidence to refute many theories of the past.