<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is King Yayati referring to Brahmana Jati or Brahmana Varna. It is clear from the context that he is talking about people of Brahmana Jati who have Tamasa Guna. Does this refer to people of Brahmana Jati today? The answer is a big no!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As to the interpretation and speculation here is the whole story. The speculation seems to be a conscious or unconscious distortion. Such distortions will only lead to Brahmin-hating and not lead towards reconstructing or showing what the ancient seers had thought. If we read a little above and below the quotes provided in the previous post, it shows what Yayathi actually means:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01082.htm
"Yayati, thereupon, replied, 'Beautiful one, I do not deserve thee. <b>Thou art the daughter of Sukra far superior to me. Thy father cannot bestow thee even on a great king.</b>' At this point, Yayati is not talking about Karma or Guna, but by associating Devayani as the *daughter* of Shukracharya, he is refering to her birth and lineage. He also acknowledges Shukracharya being *far superior* to himself. He goes further to say that Shukracharya can't bestow Devayani to even a "Great King". Based on what? If it was ust Guna, then Yayathi was a Gunavaan and a Dharmavaan. Why would he raise an objection?
To this Devayani replied, 'Brahmanas had before this been united with the Kshatriyas, and Kshatriyas with Brahmanas. Thou art the son of a Rishi and thyself a Rishi. Therefore, O son of Nahusha, marry me.'Here is Devayani refering to guna/karma or janma-Brahmana? For she says *in reply* to Yayati's objection that she is the *daughter* of Shukracharya. She says Brahmanas and Kshatriyas have intermarried before. Is it Guna Brahmana and Guna Kshatriya? If it were so, the words *<b>Therefore, O Son</b> of Nahusha* would be superfluous.
Yayati, however, replied, 'O thou of the handsomest features, <b>the four orders have, indeed, sprung from one body. But their duties and purity are not the same, the Brahmana being truly superior to all.</b>' (Here, there is no fundamentalist reading. It is pasted/posted as is.) Having said that, my interpretation is as follows.... Here, the word "sprung" from one body refrs to Purusha Sukta. The 'duties and purity' refers to Karma and Guna respectively. The Brahmana (by Guna) being superior to all is Yayathi's opinion.
Devayani answered, 'This hand of mine hath never been touched before by any man save thee. Therefore, do I accept thee for my lord. How, indeed, shall any other man touch my hand which had before been touched by thyself who art a Rishi?
Yayati then said, '<b>The wise know that a Brahmana is more to be avoided than an angry snake of virulent poison, or a blazing fire of spreading flames.'</b> this is the quote pasted above - with a speculation of Thamasic nature of Brahmanas. We shall see as we progress as to why the speculation above was erroneous and substandard.
Devayani then told the monarch, 'O bull amongst men, why dost thou, indeed, say that Brahmana should be more avoided than an angry snake of virulent poison or a blazing fire of spreading flames?'
The monarch answered, 'The snake killeth only one. The sharpest weapon slayeth but a single person. The Brahmana, <b>when angry</b> destroyeth whole cities and kingdoms! Therefore, O timid one, do I deem a Brahmana as more to be avoided than either. I cannot hence wed thee, O amiable one, <b>unless thy father bestoweth thee on me.</b> This is the reason Yayathi feared Brahmanas. Angering a Brahmana such as Shukracharya and stealing away his Daughter without his permission would amount to destruction of Yayathi and his clan. The avoidance is not owing to Shukracharya's tamasik nature. Yayathi wants to AVOID PROVOKING the Brahmana's anger. This is the same concern that Yama Vaivasvatha expresses in Katha Upanishad after starving a Brahmana for three days and three nights. The mal-speculation of the so-called thamasic nature so much talked about in dailtstan and other sites does not befit this forum. Intellectual integrity is appreciated.
Devayani then said, 'Thou art, indeed, chosen by me. And, O king, it is understood that thou wilt accept me if my father bestoweth me on thee. Thou needst not fear to accept my poor self bestowed on thee. Thou dost not, indeed, ask for me.'
As to the interpretation and speculation here is the whole story. The speculation seems to be a conscious or unconscious distortion. Such distortions will only lead to Brahmin-hating and not lead towards reconstructing or showing what the ancient seers had thought. If we read a little above and below the quotes provided in the previous post, it shows what Yayathi actually means:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01082.htm
"Yayati, thereupon, replied, 'Beautiful one, I do not deserve thee. <b>Thou art the daughter of Sukra far superior to me. Thy father cannot bestow thee even on a great king.</b>' At this point, Yayati is not talking about Karma or Guna, but by associating Devayani as the *daughter* of Shukracharya, he is refering to her birth and lineage. He also acknowledges Shukracharya being *far superior* to himself. He goes further to say that Shukracharya can't bestow Devayani to even a "Great King". Based on what? If it was ust Guna, then Yayathi was a Gunavaan and a Dharmavaan. Why would he raise an objection?
To this Devayani replied, 'Brahmanas had before this been united with the Kshatriyas, and Kshatriyas with Brahmanas. Thou art the son of a Rishi and thyself a Rishi. Therefore, O son of Nahusha, marry me.'Here is Devayani refering to guna/karma or janma-Brahmana? For she says *in reply* to Yayati's objection that she is the *daughter* of Shukracharya. She says Brahmanas and Kshatriyas have intermarried before. Is it Guna Brahmana and Guna Kshatriya? If it were so, the words *<b>Therefore, O Son</b> of Nahusha* would be superfluous.
Yayati, however, replied, 'O thou of the handsomest features, <b>the four orders have, indeed, sprung from one body. But their duties and purity are not the same, the Brahmana being truly superior to all.</b>' (Here, there is no fundamentalist reading. It is pasted/posted as is.) Having said that, my interpretation is as follows.... Here, the word "sprung" from one body refrs to Purusha Sukta. The 'duties and purity' refers to Karma and Guna respectively. The Brahmana (by Guna) being superior to all is Yayathi's opinion.
Devayani answered, 'This hand of mine hath never been touched before by any man save thee. Therefore, do I accept thee for my lord. How, indeed, shall any other man touch my hand which had before been touched by thyself who art a Rishi?
Yayati then said, '<b>The wise know that a Brahmana is more to be avoided than an angry snake of virulent poison, or a blazing fire of spreading flames.'</b> this is the quote pasted above - with a speculation of Thamasic nature of Brahmanas. We shall see as we progress as to why the speculation above was erroneous and substandard.
Devayani then told the monarch, 'O bull amongst men, why dost thou, indeed, say that Brahmana should be more avoided than an angry snake of virulent poison or a blazing fire of spreading flames?'
The monarch answered, 'The snake killeth only one. The sharpest weapon slayeth but a single person. The Brahmana, <b>when angry</b> destroyeth whole cities and kingdoms! Therefore, O timid one, do I deem a Brahmana as more to be avoided than either. I cannot hence wed thee, O amiable one, <b>unless thy father bestoweth thee on me.</b> This is the reason Yayathi feared Brahmanas. Angering a Brahmana such as Shukracharya and stealing away his Daughter without his permission would amount to destruction of Yayathi and his clan. The avoidance is not owing to Shukracharya's tamasik nature. Yayathi wants to AVOID PROVOKING the Brahmana's anger. This is the same concern that Yama Vaivasvatha expresses in Katha Upanishad after starving a Brahmana for three days and three nights. The mal-speculation of the so-called thamasic nature so much talked about in dailtstan and other sites does not befit this forum. Intellectual integrity is appreciated.
Devayani then said, 'Thou art, indeed, chosen by me. And, O king, it is understood that thou wilt accept me if my father bestoweth me on thee. Thou needst not fear to accept my poor self bestowed on thee. Thou dost not, indeed, ask for me.'