Pranam
1 Q What the elephantine ignoramus does not know is that the 3rd verse
of the Brahma sooktham is a word-for-word reproduction of the last
four lines of T.B. 2.8.8.9 (sorry,* not T.B.2.8.8.2* as I earlier
inadvertently mistyped.)
KR Let the "elephantine ignoramus capricious idiot detractor Sri "
NARAYANASAMY joker does not know is all the sukthams are only extracted
from the Vedas and I am not such to deny it; how ever when KR types BG it
is a grave crime which some other loose nosy tongued fellow also shouted
while the same mistake if committed by narayanaswamy is " I earlier
inadvertently mistyped". Funny joker. Do you understand now? I am also
loudly making it clear to all those who are watching like Bhishma drona
kripa in the mahabharata watching the insult to pandavas at the end met the
fate for the crime. One who always tries to poke in it is not there, sits
silently; another does not open the mouth; another simply sys that thank
god I am not there; all are lders for this society!!. It is just to show
what an idiot can brag without substance.
Does those 4 lines speak that brahmins are by birth or something
else?. Even now the elephantine ignoramus pretend it is so; because many in
this forum either are interested to know or even if attempting does not
know the meaning; and this all the time makes the old to brag as he likes;
many in this forum are carried away either by clan-creed or envy of let him
die attitude, which GUNA is spoken in our scriptures. Then wgu many in this
society walk around as ashadabuthis? No where in any part of the vedic
scriptures Varna is defined as Jati by birth and the word Jati though
existed in sanskrit was entwined by the British to play the political game
which the dravidian parties today are adopting. When Krishna says "Four
varnas are created by me" it meant that as if TATA telling that the
profession in the steel industry waS CREATED BY ME; Just the work norm; if
birth is the criteria then where is Valmiki and Vyasa ?; and this idiot
also writes about the degradation of vyasa as chandala and yet calls
himself as Brahmin from the texts arranged by him without shame. Age does
not grant anything as Bhagavan Krishnar had said that even many yogis had
fallen down from the higher levels who had to come back to this earth. But
all must learn to practice rowthiram lest they lose the title elders to
teach the posterity. (part 1 contd)
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 11:03, Rajaram Krishnamurthy <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Pranam
> 1 Q What the elephantine ignoramus does not know is that the 3rd
> verse of the Brahma sooktham is a word-for-word reproduction of the last
> four lines of T.B. 2.8.8.9 (sorry,* not T.B.2.8.8.2* as I earlier
> inadvertently mistyped.)
> KR Let the "elephantine ignoramus capricious idiot detractor Sri "
> NARAYANASAMY joker does not know is all the sukthams are only extracted
> from the Vedas and I am not such to deny it; how ever when KR types BG it
> is a grave crime which some other loose nosy tongued fellow also shouted
> while the same mistake if committed by narayanaswamy is " I earlier
> inadvertently mistyped". Funny joker. Do you understand now? I am also
> loudly making it clear to all those who are watching like Bhishma drona
> kripa in the mahabharata watching the insult to pandavas at the end met the
> fate for the crime. One who always tries to poke in it is not there, sits
> silently; another does not open the mouth; another simply sys that thank
> god I am not there; all are lders for this society!!. It is just to show
> what an idiot can brag without substance.
> Does those 4 lines speak that brahmins are by birth or something
> else?. Even now the elephantine ignoramus pretend it is so; because many in
> this forum either are interested to know or even if attempting does not
> know the meaning; and this all the time makes the old to brag as he likes;
> many in this forum are carried away either by clan-creed or envy of let him
> die attitude, which GUNA is spoken in our scriptures. Then wgu many in this
> society walk around as ashadabuthis? No where in any part of the vedic
> scriptures Varna is defined as Jati by birth and the word Jati though
> existed in sanskrit was entwined by the British to play the political game
> which the dravidian parties today are adopting. When Krishna says "Four
> varnas are created by me" it meant that as if TATA telling that the
> profession in the steel industry waS CREATED BY ME; Just the work norm; if
> birth is the criteria then where is Valmiki and Vyasa ?; and this idiot
> also writes about the degradation of vyasa as chandala and yet calls
> himself as Brahmin from the texts arranged by him without shame. Age does
> not grant anything as Bhagavan Krishnar had said that even many yogis had
> fallen down from the higher levels who had to come back to this earth. But
> all must learn to practice rowthiram lest they lose the title elders to
> teach the posterity.
> This is TB the relevant part: 2.8.8.8,9 & 10
>
> VERSE: 8 { 2.8.8.8} श्रद्धां मध्यंदिनं परि । श्रद्धाꣳ सूर्यस्य निम्रुचि ।
> श्रद्धे श्रद्धापय_इह मा । श्रद्धा देवान् अधिवस्ते । श्रद्धा विश्वम् इदं
> जगत् । श्रद्धां { श्रद्धा} कामस्य मातरम् । हविषा वर्धयामसि । ब्रह्म
> जज्ञानं प्रथमं पुरस्तात् । वि सीमतः सुरुचो वेन आवः । स बुध्निया उपमा अस्य
> विष्ठाः ।
>
> VERSE: 9 { 2.8.8.9} सतश् च योनिम् असतश् च विवः । पिता विराजाम् ऋषभो
> रयीणाम् । अन्तरिक्षं विश्वरूप आविवेश । तम् अर्कैर् अभ्यर्चन्ति वह्स्áम् ।
> ब्रह्म
> सन्तं ब्रह्मणा वर्धयन्तः । ब्रह्म देवान् अजनयत् । ब्रह्म विश्वम् इदं जगत्
> । ब्रह्मणः क्षत्रं निर्मितम् । ब्रह्म ब्राह्मण आत्मना । अन्तर् अस्मिन्न्
> इमे लोकाः ।
>
> VERSE: 10 { 2.8.8.10} अन्तर् विश्वम् इदं जगत् । ब्रह्म_एव भूतानां
> ज्येष्ठम् । तेन को ऽर्हति स्पर्धितुम् । ब्रह्मन् देवास् त्रयस्त्रिꣳशत् ।
> ब्रह्मन्न् इन्द्रप्रजापती । ब्रह्मन् ह विश्वा भूतानि । नावि_इव_अन्तः
> समाहिता । चतस्र आशाः प्रचरन्त्व् अग्नयः । इमं नो यज्ञं नयतु प्रजानन् । घृतं
> पिन्वन्न् अजरं सुवीरम् ।
>
> 2888 speaks of the creation done with the sraddha the concentration;
> Brahma jagnanam prathamam purastat// Brahma the creator who was ordained by
> the Brahmam taught him the vedas for the creation. The mantras on Brahma
> the Hiranya garbha read with the performing the soma yagnam as plainly
> translated by the west is attached below would indicate thus reciting about
> the soma yajna where starting from Brahma till virgin are sacrificed to the
> Brahman.Brahmin as per veda is one who does the duties assigned to him and
> not bending the rules or flex the muscles. Narayanaswamy had not answered
> why as a Brahmin did he cross the sea and how did he carry the agni brought
> in his birth which should go till death as AGNIHOTRAM was carried on on the
> flight or even by ship?. For those in doubt deivathin kural may be referred
> to. So Brahmin is one who does the qualified performance only hence only
> Valmiki the shudra and the Vyasa the shudra we worship as Brahmins though
> by birth as Narayanaswamy himself says so. It still has the inner
> meanings of yagna. But never ever it speaks of BY BIRTH. It is not RK but
> every one is a brahmin, shatriya ,vysta and shudra according to the acts
> performed and one who touches the satva guna crossing the thamas, and Rajas
> , the knowledgeable alone becomes Brahmin; one who knows the brahman bviz
> AHAM BRAHMASMI is the Brahmin; one who is cat calling others especially RK
> and all those watching around silently are never ever a brahmin satyam is
> missing WHICH IS THE PRIME QUALITY OF A BRAHMIN KR IRs 12121.
>
>
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 09:13, Sithamalli Balasubramanian <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This much bile is not necessary. It is just a meaningless debate.
>> I am thankful that I am out of it all.
>> Skb.
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 06:23, Narayanaswamy Iyer <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dear folks
>>>
>>> "Stormy laughter" capricious idiot Sri Rajaram Krishnamurthy insists
>>> again and again that he is NOT a Braahmana by birth. He is entitled to say
>>> so, and I tend to agree with him. His innate nature (guna) and his overt
>>> actions (karma) only confirm this emphatic denial.
>>>
>>> Some time ago, I wrote the following (in another forum, now closed) in
>>> response to a post by our frequent contributor Si Gopala Krishnan:-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *"With uncanny prescience distressed Pandava warrior Arjuna in the
>>> Kurukshethra battlefield, before internecine fratricidal war starts,
>>> appeals to Bhagavaan Lord Sri Krishna, according to Bhagavad Geetha I 40,
>>> 41:-*
>>>
>>>
>>> *kula-kshaye pranashyanthi kula-dharmaaa sanaathanaaha |*
>>>
>>> *dharme nashte kulam kruthsnam adharmam abhibhavathyutha ||*
>>>
>>>
>>> *adharmaabhibhavaath krishna radushyathi kula-sthriyaha |*
>>> *shtreeshu dushtaasu vaarshneya jaayathe varnasamkaraha ||*
>>>
>>>
>>> *"When a civilised enlightened community ceases to exist the vital
>>> principles and rules of honourable and pious conduct of that
>>> community (kula-dharmam) which have been handed down through countless
>>> generations are destroyed; when such principles and rules die, then the
>>> entire community is enveloped in chaos and social disorder.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *"Oh Krishna born in the Vrishni tribe, because of and in the midst of
>>> such chaos and disorder the females (kula-sthree) born into that community
>>> become depraved, lose their discipline and virtue completely; because of
>>> such depravity irredeemable and permanent miscegenations, widespread
>>> illegitimacy and bastardy will prevail."*
>>> *"In Manusmrithi the children born out of varna-samkaranam are called
>>> chandaalas, especially where the female is of higher varna than the male.
>>> Children born of a Braahmana father and a vaishya mother are called
>>> nishaada or paarashava.*
>>>
>>>
>>> *"The father of 'Veda'-Vyaasa, illegitimate father of Dhritharaashtra,
>>> Paandu, and Vidoora (of Mahaa-Bhaaratham fame) was a nishaada/paarashava.
>>> Vyaasa's mother Durganthi was born of a fish impregnated by a gandharva
>>> passer-by, and was brought up by a fisherman."*
>>>
>>>
>>> In the present circumstances, if my detractor Sri Rajaram Krishnamurthy
>>> chooses to abide by his credo that he is NOT a Brahmin by birth, and elects
>>> to follow the Buddha's teaching that being born from a Braahmana womb does
>>> not make the infant a Braahmana, then by a process of elimination he is
>>> most likely a chandaala masquerading as a true blue-blooded Braahmana.
>>>
>>> My detractor gleefully gloats:-
>>>
>>> *"He (meaning me) asserted that what he quoted is fro Taitria brahmana
>>> 2.8.8.2) There is none as it is in T B. What he had written is the 3rd
>>> verse of the Brahma Suktham "*
>>>
>>> What the elephantine ignoramus does not know is that the 3rd verse of
>>> the Brahma sooktham is a word-for-word reproduction of the last
>>> four lines of T.B. 2.8.8.9 (sorry,* not T.B.2.8.8.2* as I earlier
>>> inadvertently mistyped.)
>>>
>>> The same elephantine ignoramus also does not know that the Bhaagya
>>> Sooktham is a word-for-word reproduction of the Yajur-veda Taittireeya
>>> Braahmanam T.B. 2.8.9.7 (lines 4 - 10),T.B.2.8.9.8 to end of T.B.2.8.9.9."
>>>
>>> The gleeful detractor is constrained to confess:-
>>>
>>> *"Brahma Suktam is a Vedic hymn." *
>>>
>>> This meek mea culpa comes after denying that its fons et origo is none
>>> other than the Yajur-veda Taittireeya Braahmanam as I had written!
>>>
>>> S Narayanaswamy Iyer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:26 PM Rajaram Krishnamurthy <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pranam
>>>> I could not stormy laughter. There is a person in our group who is
>>>> expert in Sanskrit and use to burst out if I write but watching out from
>>>> the fence. Jokers are every where and the Gopatha brahmana vadhyars are
>>>> there as seen right in front. His ignorance is revealed day by day. Nothing
>>>> more to add; Treragni is followed with the agni-hotram, who are not
>>>> supposed to cross the sea. In North India people (especially now in Bhopal)
>>>> people call it as agni- hotram and I do not mean it. Some where else he
>>>> confuses the brahma and the brahmin and asserted that what he quoted is fro
>>>> Taitriya brahmana 2.8.8.2) There is none as it is in T B. What he had
>>>> written is the 3rd verse of the Brahma Suktham; it is not about brahmin but
>>>> about creation undertaken by Brahma or origin of Hiranya Garba. Those who
>>>> knew Sanskrit can get the meaning or even write about it. Brahma
>>>> Suktam is a Vedic hymn that is chanted in praise of Lord Brahma, the
>>>> creator of the universe in Hindu mythology. It is often chanted along with
>>>> Oushadi Suktam (sacred hymn for healing, good health, and redemption) as
>>>> Prayaschitham, meaning redemption or relief from past and future sins.
>>>> Brahma Suktam is mainly chanted for gaining knowledge from Brahma, the
>>>> creator of Vedas or sacred texts. Chanting or listening to this sacred hymn
>>>> can help cleanse one’s self of internal impurities and sins. Let him learn
>>>> Thank you K R IRS 11121
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 at 17:35, Narayanaswamy Iyer <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear folks
>>>>>
>>>>> The demented cat on hot bricks pitifully mews unintelligible gibberish
>>>>> in desperation at being totally exposed in his lack of intelligence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not surprisingly, he has concocted a "Purusha Medham" to give
>>>>> expression to his weird imaginings and his flights of fancy over the
>>>>> cuckoo's nest.
>>>>>
>>>>> *"**As Ashva medha there is one Purusha medha," *solemnly intones
>>>>> the atheist, who (along with his invisible mentor Ambedkar) draws his
>>>>> inspiration from the Buddhists who not only reject all our scriptures
>>>>> and our divinities, but also deny that any legitimate birth given by a
>>>>> Braahmana woman is NOT a Braahmana infant. By necessary implication
>>>>> therefore, all he does is put on permanent record, publish and broadcast
>>>>> *his
>>>>> own personal illegitimacy*, whether he realises this or not!
>>>>>
>>>>> He tries to obfuscate the issue by claiming that, "The quoted (by him
>>>>> only) purusha medha simply......" does not say that brahmin is by birth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, well!
>>>>>
>>>>> He is not averse to dragging our revered Divinity of Learning Goddess
>>>>> Sarasvathi into the affray and trying to highjack our boundless adoration
>>>>> of Her as his unsubpoenaed and unwiling witness to his untruth.
>>>>>
>>>>> The embarrassing (to him) fact is, the last verse of the popular
>>>>> Sarasvathi ashtakam is:-
>>>>>
>>>>> "chathur-mukhasya jaayaa yaa
>>>>> chathur-veda svaroopini
>>>>> chathur bhuja cha saa vyovyaath
>>>>> *chathur varga sarasvathi."*
>>>>>
>>>>> The last line emphasises that the Goddess is the divinity of all the
>>>>> four varnas without distinction. It recalls the first line of the second
>>>>> verse of the ashtakam which is:-
>>>>>
>>>>> *"varna samstaanga roopaaya"*
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, he asks (rhetorically?):-
>>>>>
>>>>> "Is theer any one who does the agnihotram?" (His own misspelling)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there is, my dear befuddled insane asylum resident and master of
>>>>> misrepresentation. If you were not incurably blind and deaf to my earlier
>>>>> postings, you would and could have noticed that I for one perform
>>>>> agnihothrams regularly.
>>>>>
>>>>> So much so that you became unreasonably irritated and publicly
>>>>> castigated "All vaadhyars" and even insulted Brahmarishi Vasishta.
>>>>> Remember your 13 December 2020 rant:-
>>>>>
>>>>> *"All vadhyars who assemble as Veda cultured only to represent the
>>>>> BRAHMA, as Purohit to do the task on behalf of the ejaman whether Kamya
>>>>> karya or not; no vadhyar has any power even if Vasishta."*
>>>>>
>>>>> Some swell-headed turbaned individuals in our midst strut about like
>>>>> fairyland emperors, not realising that they have no clothes on, not even
>>>>> a
>>>>> kaupeenam.
>>>>>
>>>>> The poor pachyderm-skinned souls deserve our pity.
>>>>>
>>>>> S Narayanaswamy Iyer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 1:56 PM Rajaram Krishnamurthy <
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Very interesting! Not even showing the husk leave alone the tip of
>>>>>> the paddy. Bamboozling words of credits to me thank the aviveka. avowed
>>>>>> taxman prostrating toy disciple. Any one can sense anything?. Well
>>>>>> he never did anything so for in getting that evidence. Anyone who can
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> his words may state the pros and cons over the quote of Purusha medha. As
>>>>>> Ashva medha there is one Purusha medha; sacrifice is a word in
>>>>>> English rendering a wrong comprehension. All know only one thing for
>>>>>> sacrifice. It is not exactly meant as English meaning sacrifice; it is
>>>>>> yagnam; medha is intelligence attributed to Saraswathi; there is one
>>>>>> Medha
>>>>>> suktam attributed to Saraswathi. Ashva, Purusha medha are all yagnam.
>>>>>> Yagnam is a kind of work defined. The quoted purusha medha simply says a
>>>>>> long list read with Shatapatha brahamana 13.6.2, stressing each do your
>>>>>> work assigned to you and the list goes broadened. It does not say that
>>>>>> brahmin is by birth.
>>>>>> Alabhate is the root word; who is a brahmin?; one who knows the
>>>>>> Brahman is a Brahmin; so let brahmin keep in line with the Brahman;
>>>>>> kshatriya let him stay with the govt functions; " *THE
>>>>>> (SYMBOLICAL) VICTIMS OF THE PURUSHAMEDHA .*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I. 1. To the priesthood (he consecrates) a Brâhma*n*a--2. To the
>>>>>> nobility a Kshatriya--3. To the Maruts a Vai*s*ya--4. To penance
>>>>>> (hardship, tapas) a *S*idra--5. To darkness a thief--6. To hell a
>>>>>> man-slayer--7. To evil a eunuch--8. To barter an unchaste woman
>>>>>> (ayobhû )--9. To desire a harlot (pu*msk*alû)--10. To the shriek
>>>>>> (atikrush*t*a) a minstrel (mâgadha)--11. To dancing a herald (bard,
>>>>>> sûta)--12. To singing an actor (*s*ailûsha)--13. To the law a
>>>>>> counsellor (sabhâ*k*ara)--14. To joking a timorous man--15. To fun
>>>>>> (narma) a chatterer--16. To laughter (hasa) an artizan (kâri,? singer of
>>>>>> praises)--17. To pleasure (ânanda) a woman's friend--18. To enjoyment a
>>>>>> maiden's son--19. To skill a wheelwright--20. To perseverance a
>>>>>> carpenter--21. To heat (tapas) a potter--22. To craft a mechanic--23. To
>>>>>> handsome form a jeweller--24. To beauty a barber 3
>>>>>> <https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44111.htm#fn_1074>--25.
>>>>>> To the arrow-shot an arrow-maker--26. To the weapon a bow-maker--27. To
>>>>>> work a bowstring-maker--28. To fate a rope-maker--29. To death a
>>>>>> huntsman--30. To the end (antaka) a dog-keeper--31. To rivers a fisherman
>>>>>> (pau*ñg*ish*th*a)--32. To the ogress (of waste lands) a Nishâda --33.
>>>>>> To the man-tiger (? werwolf) a mono-maniac--34. To the Gandharvas and
>>>>>> Apsaras a roving outcast (vrâtya)--35. To the teams (? prayu*g*) a
>>>>>> madman--36. To serpents and demons a blockhead (? apratipad)--37. To
>>>>>> dice a
>>>>>> gambler--38. To impassibility 2
>>>>>> <https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44111.htm#fn_1076> a
>>>>>> non-gambler--39. To the devils (pi*s*â*k*as) a female cane-worker
>>>>>> (basket-maker)--40. To the hobgoblins (yâtudhâna) a female worker in
>>>>>> thorns--41. To intercourse a gallant--42. To the house a paramour--43. To
>>>>>> trouble an unmarried elder brother whose younger brother is married--44.
>>>>>> To
>>>>>> calamity a younger brother married before his elder brother--45. To
>>>>>> failure
>>>>>> 3 <https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44111.htm#fn_1077> the
>>>>>> husband of a younger sister whose elder sister is unmarried--46. To
>>>>>> reparation an artiste in embroidery--47. To agreement a female practiser
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> love-spells--48. To garrulity (prakâmodya) an attendant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The list run so. who is who is the list. It is not just the Taitriya
>>>>>> Samhita alone but runs into satapataha , maha narayana and so on. Sir pl
>>>>>> dont waste time especially yours. Gopatha Brahmana says(2.13) नाना
>>>>>> प्रवचनानि ह व एतानि भुतानि भवन्ति ये चौवसोमपम् याजयन्ति ये च
>>>>>> सुरापम् ये च विच्छिन्नम् ब्राह्मनम्सोमयाजिनम् याजयन्ति॥ गो ब्र २ १३
>>>>>> Those
>>>>>> persons becomes the targets of censure who for the performance of their
>>>>>> yagnas engage such priests who are not worthy of partaking soma or who
>>>>>> resort to drinking wine or who are discarded from the vedic lore
>>>>>> (tradition). What dies it show? A priest who is a brahmin even in that
>>>>>> era
>>>>>> long ago were not considered brahmin even by birth. Purusha medha says
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> that. The same brahamana 2.23 says that A Brahmana who has not kept
>>>>>> ahavaniya agni at his house is not regarded worthy of receiving or
>>>>>> extending his blessings dhanam etc or procuring the fruits of deeds
>>>>>> studies
>>>>>> etc performed by him during the earlier births or earlier period of his
>>>>>> life. Some time back Mr Sithamalli was talking about Pururavus carrying
>>>>>> agbi to Gandhara ; that wa sreally where agni was given to him he made it
>>>>>> into three and carried out; that is termed as TRERAGNI FOR A BRAHMIN;
>>>>>> birth, life and death are attached by agni to a brahmin. Is theer any one
>>>>>> who does the agnihotram?. So it is not the tax officer who says so; your
>>>>>> ancestors said so. K R IRS 11121
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 at 06:51, Narayanaswamy Subramanian <
>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear folks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My favourite obstreperous maverick and jejune genius, the
>>>>>>> all-knowing all-being Sri Rajaram Krishnamurthy I.R.S., once openly
>>>>>>> challenged me to quote the Vedic authority which declares
>>>>>>> unconditionally
>>>>>>> that the Braahmanas are so by birth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His very own ungrammatical and combative words on 23 Oct 2020:-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *"If NS can show me with the evidence form the sacred vedam that
>>>>>>> brahmin is by birth only well lets why let me become his disciple."*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His own rock-hard illusion and delusion was that Lord Sree Krishna
>>>>>>> in the Bhagavath-Geetha denied so. His touted source:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *chathurvarnam mayaasrushtam gunakarmavibhaaga shah: |*
>>>>>>> *thasya karththaaramapi maam viddhyakarththaara mavyayam ||*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Bhagavath-Geetha Cap IV v 13)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The maverick-genius translated this minute extract from the
>>>>>>> miniscule (700 slokams) of the ithihaasa puraanam Mahaa-Bhaaratham as
>>>>>>> incontrovetibly asserting for all time and for all seasons that ONLY by
>>>>>>> innate nature (gunam) and overt acts (karmam) are Braahmanas
>>>>>>> identifiable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He chose deliberately to overlook and totally ignore the hidden
>>>>>>> pre-requisite that these two characteristic features are ADDITIONAL to
>>>>>>> birth, and not substitutes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Certainly, I could have matched him, Puraanam to Puraanam, by
>>>>>>> quoting Sree Lalitha sahasra-naamam from Brahmaanda Puraanam:-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *varnaashrama vidhaayinye namaha*(naama no. 286).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, since he wanted "evidence form the sacred vedam" I quoted
>>>>>>> to him the Purusha Sooktham which clearly declares with unquestionable
>>>>>>> authority that Braahmanas were created from the "mukham" of the virad
>>>>>>> Purusha (and continued their uninterrupted descent from there to the
>>>>>>> present day).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since I did not trust the chameleon in human skin, nor was I
>>>>>>> convinced of his integrity, I declined to accept the awowed taxman
>>>>>>> prostrating toy disciple.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Far from prostrating to and venerating the infallibility of our
>>>>>>> sacred vedams, he appeared (and still appears) to side with the atheist
>>>>>>> dissenting Buddhists whose founder pontificated that shoodra
>>>>>>> vaana-prasthaas were braahmanas and those born from Braahmana wombs were
>>>>>>> not:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pamsukooladharam jantum kisam damanisanthatam
>>>>>>> ekam vanasmim jhaayantham tam aham broomi braahmanam (Dhammapada v
>>>>>>> 395)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> na cha aham braahmanam broooni yonijam mattisambhavam
>>>>>>> bhoovadi naama so hoti sa che hoti sakinchano
>>>>>>> akinchanam anaadaanam tam aham broomi braahmanam (Dhammapada v 396)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The maverick-genius has little if any acquaintance with, much less
>>>>>>> knowledge, of our Yajur-vedam.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, he is obviously unconscious of the Taittireeya Braahmanam which
>>>>>>> further reinforces and supports what already appears in the Purusha
>>>>>>> sooktham:-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *brahmane braahmanamaalabhathe |*
>>>>>>> *kshathraaya raajanyam |*
>>>>>>> *marudbhyo vaishyam |*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Yajurveda Taittireeya Braahmanam "Purusha medhaha" - T.B. 3.4.1.1.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above should hopefully put to rest any illegitimate doubts or
>>>>>>> misgivings implanted or aroused by the thoughtless peregrinations of an
>>>>>>> unprincipled adventurer into our sacred scriptures and traditions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Namaskaarams to elders.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> S Narayanaswamy Iyer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>> Groups "iyer123" group.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>>>> send an email to [email protected].
>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAL5XZorAGf%3DqAzSgv5Zn4bhTv2SR3VdLZPozq4VRr0-OJ8twVQ%40mail.gmail.com
>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAL5XZorAGf%3DqAzSgv5Zn4bhTv2SR3VdLZPozq4VRr0-OJ8twVQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>> Groups "iyer123" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>>> an email to [email protected].
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAL4idhOy5uX87-JfaxhQT8syobtukUs1yqs91WHuNfvNXDZrDw%40mail.gmail.com
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAL4idhOy5uX87-JfaxhQT8syobtukUs1yqs91WHuNfvNXDZrDw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "iyer123" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>> an email to [email protected].
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAL5XZopAaMbw2SVYtG4__6aMQCUECx77WrWrDwHyH1wwt%2BS2KA%40mail.gmail.com
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAL5XZopAaMbw2SVYtG4__6aMQCUECx77WrWrDwHyH1wwt%2BS2KA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "iyer123" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected].
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAOSW9Wuz%3DoaHdqieziHaCQoB3%3DxkQAMzepJ3FKZnBSC8zFPWVQ%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAOSW9Wuz%3DoaHdqieziHaCQoB3%3DxkQAMzepJ3FKZnBSC8zFPWVQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoqFdV28yqAYq1ceZRxO5d1koiG5Y4A6imVMXVrwk_fXDw%40mail.gmail.com.
