2

As per smritis only people born to parents who are both Brahmin parents can be Brahmins. For example, in Manusmriti 10.5, 10.10 and 10.14 it says:

सर्ववर्णेषु तुल्यासु पत्नीष्वक्षतयोनिषु । आनुलोम्येन सम्भूता जात्या ज्ञेयास्त एव ते ॥ or Among all castes, those ONLY who are born of consorts wedded in the natural order, as virgins of equal status, are to be regarded as the same (as their father)

विप्रस्य त्रिषु वर्णेषु नृपतेर्वर्णयोर्द्वयोः । वैश्यस्य वर्णे चैकस्मिन् षडेतेऽपसदाः स्मृताः ॥ or "Children of the Brāhmaṇa from the three lower castes, of the Kṣatriya from the two lower castes, and of the Vaiśya from the one lower caste,—these six have been declared to be ‘LOWBORN’"

पुत्रा येऽनन्तरस्त्रीजाः क्रमेणोक्ता द्विजन्मनाम् । ताननन्तरनाम्नस्तु मातृदोषात् प्रचक्षते ॥ or The sons of twice-born men from women of the next lower caste, who have been enunciated in due order, are CALLED BY THE NAME of the lower caste, on account of the taint attaching to their mothers.

  1. Vedas were revealed to a variety of people like Jabala (unknown father, shudra mother), Vatsa (shudra mother), Vishwamitra (kshatriya parents), Ailusa (shudra mother) etc. These people were all Brahmins, but would not be as per smritis.

  2. Agamas/Tantras are directly revealed, sometimes to people not born by Brahmins.

  3. Puranas & Mahabharata are by Vyasa, a mixed-caste, who was born to varnasankara or mixed-caste mother - Satyavati.

So why even one type of scripture, except Ramayana, is not written by people born to both Brahmin varna parents? Does this mean smritis are not accurate or interpolated?

(NOTE: Caste/Smriti supporters or apologists please don't downvote or close this question. If you have problem, please say it in comments)

7
  • 5
    There is no law preventing a Sudra from acquiring the qualities of a Brahmana. But it is almost impossible to do so within the same Janma cos it requires immense tapas. And your birth is no accident, nor random. Your current varna is a result of your varna+karma+guna in previous birth. And your next birth too is determined by whether you follow your varnashram dharma in current birth.
    – mar
    Jun 11 at 0:17
  • 1
    There is a divine reason behind these examples you mention. Jabala's father might have been a brahmana for all we know. Vishvamitra was destined to become brahmana because the charu/payas prepared by Richeeka got mixed up with Parashuram (who became kshatriya despite being brahmin). Vyasa's mother Satyavati was a Kshatriya (daughter of Uparichara vasu), hence it is a Anuloma type marriage. And Vyasa was an avatar of Bhagavan, so normal rules do not apply. We cannot use exceptions of divine avatars to transgress human rules
    – mar
    Jun 11 at 0:27
  • 3
    You have framed your question with a tonal difference and prejudice against the Vedas (I might be wrong though, might be a honest mistake) - You write for the Vedas: "Vedas are written by a variety of people" while on the other hand, for the Agamas: "Agamas/Tantras are directly revealed" . No where does it say that Vedas are witten, Vedas are authorless (they're felt or experienced by seers in highest state of austerity, even out of that a 0ne-fourth is only revealed, due to material limitations of jeeva). I'd suggest you to please edit it neccesarily.
    – peace
    Jun 11 at 5:58
  • 1
    Intresting qn ! Jun 11 at 6:59
  • 1
    @R.Kaushik - Smritis are Hindu scriptures. Not sure what you mean when you say 'Smritis are against Hindu scriptures'
    – mar
    Jun 12 at 16:54
0

There is a widespread notion that Hindu rishis were non Bramhan and often dalit however this is completely a false notion.

Vyasa is not a Varnasankar but rather a proper Bramhan the Skand Puran Avantaya Khanda Reva Khand Chapter 97 verse 18 clearly states that mother of Vyasa was not a fisherwoman but a princess. Further in Mahabharata Santi Parva Chapter 296 it has been clearly stated that children born to rishis always become rishis no matter who the mother is. Maharishi Atreya was a Bramhan as well not some mix breed this has been stated clearly in the Skand Puran Mahesvar Khanda Kumarika Khanda Chapter 42 verse 240.

Jabala was also a Bramhan. This has been stated by Acharya Medadhiti in his Manubhasya of the Manusmriti Chapter 10 verse 5.

None of the rishis are dalit or Varnasankar.

2
  • 1) You haven't read my question since manusmriti says all these people are NON-BRAHMINS they are LOWBORNS. 2) I never used the word "dalit" or said satyavati was a fisherwoman. 3) Jabala's father was a rapist/adulterer certainly not a Brahmin and his mother was not either so as per smritis he can't be 4) This is not an answer to my question, it shows you have not read question & it is political propaganda against non-Brahmin borns, based on zero evidence 5) You have evaded smritievidence & talked of Mahabharata (which has lots of examples of varna change). Reported & downvoted for trolling
    – R. Kaushik
    Oct 2 at 23:06
  • @R.Kaushik all these smartas just trust every single word of smritis, these people still believe that 10000 years old documents like manusmriti etc, are not interpolated whereas there is lot of evidence that smritis are very much interpolated , and only ved samhitas are to be trusted blindly.
    – user25787
    Oct 3 at 3:44

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .