12-24-2006, 10:33 AM
Arun Gupta's interesting post regarding jaati-kula-varna dharma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ss/message/3023
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Re: Report on the Second Dharma and Ethics Conference at Kuvempu University
It is always risky to be bolder than Balu, but I'd say that at one time
jati-dharma
kula-dharma
varna-sankara
were all intelligible to the audience of the Gita even though that may not be the case today.
I'd also add that one clue may be the concern for the cessation of water and pinda offerings to ancestors. It seems to have been one of the concerns of the authors of the Dharmasastras, so that a man without a male issue could nominate a daughter who would or whose son would perform these rites.
In any case, inter-varna marriages are recognized as realities by all the Dharmasastras, even though some were certainly frowned upon.
As an example of what might be included in jati-dharma might be the laws of inheritance.
Reproduced here is a bit of "Women in the Sacred Laws" by Shakuntala Rao Shastri.
"[the text] unmistakably points to the Vedic custom of installing an only daughter in the position of a son and of giving her the right to perform funeral oblations, which a father could do by the mere expression of his wish and by saying to her 'Be thou my son' [Putrika]. The Rig-Vedic tradition is thus maintained by Vasistha, and the other Northern law-givers. So we find Vasistha giving a third place among heirs to an only daughter, and he declares, on the authority of the Vedas, that such a maiden belongs to her father's family and becomes the son of her parents. Even Manu states in unmistakeable terms that the property should not be appropriated by anybody when there is a daughter. The evidence for the existence of such a custom is further corroborated by the incidents mentioned in the Rajatarangini and by its prevalance in Kashmir even in recent times.
The Southern law-givers, however, reject it; for the earliest writer of the South, Baudhayana, discards Putrika in clear terms...."
I'd venture a guess that the customs of marriage, remarriage, inheritance, funeral etc., were not varna-specific, but jati-specific. For example, validity of the custom of marriage of a girl to her maternal uncle and cousin marriage is debated in the literature, is e.g., invalid in my jati, is permitted in various southern jatis, and we are told eg., "Baudhyana sanctions it on the strength of its popularity in the particular part of the country, though it is frowned upon elsewhere. When a custom is thus sanctioned by tradition, it becomes a law".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Further, I'd say that since the 19th century, the British, and subsequently in independent India, a codification and unification of "Hindu law" has been taking place, and subsequently kula-dharma, jati-dharma are fading away<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ss/message/3023
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Re: Report on the Second Dharma and Ethics Conference at Kuvempu University
It is always risky to be bolder than Balu, but I'd say that at one time
jati-dharma
kula-dharma
varna-sankara
were all intelligible to the audience of the Gita even though that may not be the case today.
I'd also add that one clue may be the concern for the cessation of water and pinda offerings to ancestors. It seems to have been one of the concerns of the authors of the Dharmasastras, so that a man without a male issue could nominate a daughter who would or whose son would perform these rites.
In any case, inter-varna marriages are recognized as realities by all the Dharmasastras, even though some were certainly frowned upon.
As an example of what might be included in jati-dharma might be the laws of inheritance.
Reproduced here is a bit of "Women in the Sacred Laws" by Shakuntala Rao Shastri.
"[the text] unmistakably points to the Vedic custom of installing an only daughter in the position of a son and of giving her the right to perform funeral oblations, which a father could do by the mere expression of his wish and by saying to her 'Be thou my son' [Putrika]. The Rig-Vedic tradition is thus maintained by Vasistha, and the other Northern law-givers. So we find Vasistha giving a third place among heirs to an only daughter, and he declares, on the authority of the Vedas, that such a maiden belongs to her father's family and becomes the son of her parents. Even Manu states in unmistakeable terms that the property should not be appropriated by anybody when there is a daughter. The evidence for the existence of such a custom is further corroborated by the incidents mentioned in the Rajatarangini and by its prevalance in Kashmir even in recent times.
The Southern law-givers, however, reject it; for the earliest writer of the South, Baudhayana, discards Putrika in clear terms...."
I'd venture a guess that the customs of marriage, remarriage, inheritance, funeral etc., were not varna-specific, but jati-specific. For example, validity of the custom of marriage of a girl to her maternal uncle and cousin marriage is debated in the literature, is e.g., invalid in my jati, is permitted in various southern jatis, and we are told eg., "Baudhyana sanctions it on the strength of its popularity in the particular part of the country, though it is frowned upon elsewhere. When a custom is thus sanctioned by tradition, it becomes a law".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Further, I'd say that since the 19th century, the British, and subsequently in independent India, a codification and unification of "Hindu law" has been taking place, and subsequently kula-dharma, jati-dharma are fading away<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->