United States or Bangladesh ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
So here I think we get real history; whereas in the stories of republican days we may see the efforts of great families to provide themselves with a great past. But I doubt we could take anything aupied de la lettre; or that it would profit us to do so if we could. Here is a pointer: we have seen how in India a long age of Kshattriya supremacy preceded the supremacy of the Brahmins.
The first section of the vidya tells us that Janasruti bestowed much wealth and food; later on he is represented as sending his door-keeper on an errand; and in the end, as bestowing on Raikva many villages which shows him to be a territorial lord. All these circumstances suggest Janasruti's being a Kshattriya, and hence not a member of the lowest caste.
So we read in the Upanishads of those great Kshattriya Teachers to whom Brahmans came as disciples. Poets made their verses; and what of these were good, really inspired, suitable what came from the souls of Poet-Initiates, would be used at such ceremonies: sung by the assembled multitudes; and presently, by men specially trained to sing them.
This shows that there are connected with the vidya, Brahmanas, and from among non-Brahmanas, a Kshattriya only, but not a Sudra. It therefore appears appropriate to infer that the person, other than the Brahmana Raikva, who is likewise connected with this vidya, viz. Janasruti, is likewise a Kshattriya, not a Sudra. But how do we know that Abhipratarin is a Kaitraratha and a Kshattriya?
The section beginning 'Once a Brahmakarin begged of Saunaka Kapeya and Abhipratarin Kakshaseni while being waited on at their meal, and ending 'thus do we, O Brahmakarin, meditate on that being, shows Kapeya, Abhipratarin, and the Brahmakarin to be connected with the Samvarga-vidya. Now Abhipratarin is a Kshattriya, the other two are Brahmanas.
Probably Valmiki had the other epic before his mental vision when he wrote it; as Virgil had Homer. There are parallel incidents; but his genius does not appear in them; he cannot compete in their own line with the old Kshattriya bards. You do not find here so done to the life the chargings of lordly tuskers, the gilt and crimson, the scarlet and pomp and blazonry, of war.
Also the Buddha was a Kshattriya; so the ancient eminence of the Kshattriyas had to be obscured a little; it was the Brahmans, by that time, who were monopolizing the teaching office. And no doubt in the same way from time to time much has been added: the Brahmans could do this, being custodians of the sacred literature.
This question is answered by the next Sutra. Although all souls are essentially of the same nature in so far as they are parts of Brahman, knowing subjects and so on, the permissions and exclusions referred to are possible for the reason that each individual soul is joined to some particular body, pure or impure, whether of a Brahmana or Kshattriya or Vaisya or Sudra, and so on.
This feature of the ceremony is obviously of Hindu origin and must be a legacy of the days when the Rangaris, not yet converted to Islam, belonged to the Hindu Khatri or Kshattriya caste of Gujarat and Cutch.
Word Of The Day