07-13-2006, 12:13 PM
Post 111:
In another thread, http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...=60&#entry53603, I'd written:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[1200BC...] all brahmana communities then ... as a general rule did not ever practise warfare<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->'General rule': when society was in the correct state, there would be kshatriyas to defend the nation; wars in the Indian subcontinent would leave all non-kshatriya Varnas in peace, in general. Therefore there was no need for the brahmana to take up arms, just like there was no need for farmers and artisans and others to do so either.
Brahmanas weren't compelled to always practise non-violence. There are many examples in our literature and oral tradition of well-trained brahmanas who also served as teachers for kshatriya students. Some of them even wielded weapons in battle (Drona, Parashurama, some whom the ancient Greeks came in contact with and later some communities the Islamised Arabians came across).
However, the Greeks of course did not know that certain parts of Indian society were off limits during war. They assumed everyone was fair game and a potential opponent, when it came to waging war on Indian soil or among Indian communities settled abroad.
Then came Islam. Their Jihad, being an all-out total war, had no respect for those who do not fight back (it had no respect for those who surrendered either). And with that, we can do away with the general rule, as you've indicated by referring to the following and medhatithi:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->when... occupied or under threat from dasyus and mlechChas, it is incumbent on the brAhmaNa to himself take up arms and destroy the enemies of dharma.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->When there is no respect for the position of non-warriors, then everyone should enter into the fight. Unlike the internal battles and wars between Indian kings and Indian states, Islam, being diametrically opposite, poses a war against dharma. I think your phrase 'the brahmana himself' indicates that even the brahmana (of whom non-violence is generally expected) should not sit by idle when dharma is in danger. Hence, I'd say it is incumbent on all Hindus including brahmanas to take up arms and take up the position of kshatriyas, especially since Islam ended most of our old kshatriya communities.
If others are unable, then brahmanas on their own should at least attempt it. Basically, whoever can, should. Period.
It's true that when Jihad is waging outside, it's no time to be preoccupied with the usual duties of brahmanas (although the teachings should still be passed on). If we don't act now, there will be no time for imparting knowledge to following generations in the future.
In another thread, http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...=60&#entry53603, I'd written:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[1200BC...] all brahmana communities then ... as a general rule did not ever practise warfare<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->'General rule': when society was in the correct state, there would be kshatriyas to defend the nation; wars in the Indian subcontinent would leave all non-kshatriya Varnas in peace, in general. Therefore there was no need for the brahmana to take up arms, just like there was no need for farmers and artisans and others to do so either.
Brahmanas weren't compelled to always practise non-violence. There are many examples in our literature and oral tradition of well-trained brahmanas who also served as teachers for kshatriya students. Some of them even wielded weapons in battle (Drona, Parashurama, some whom the ancient Greeks came in contact with and later some communities the Islamised Arabians came across).
However, the Greeks of course did not know that certain parts of Indian society were off limits during war. They assumed everyone was fair game and a potential opponent, when it came to waging war on Indian soil or among Indian communities settled abroad.
Then came Islam. Their Jihad, being an all-out total war, had no respect for those who do not fight back (it had no respect for those who surrendered either). And with that, we can do away with the general rule, as you've indicated by referring to the following and medhatithi:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->when... occupied or under threat from dasyus and mlechChas, it is incumbent on the brAhmaNa to himself take up arms and destroy the enemies of dharma.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->When there is no respect for the position of non-warriors, then everyone should enter into the fight. Unlike the internal battles and wars between Indian kings and Indian states, Islam, being diametrically opposite, poses a war against dharma. I think your phrase 'the brahmana himself' indicates that even the brahmana (of whom non-violence is generally expected) should not sit by idle when dharma is in danger. Hence, I'd say it is incumbent on all Hindus including brahmanas to take up arms and take up the position of kshatriyas, especially since Islam ended most of our old kshatriya communities.
If others are unable, then brahmanas on their own should at least attempt it. Basically, whoever can, should. Period.
It's true that when Jihad is waging outside, it's no time to be preoccupied with the usual duties of brahmanas (although the teachings should still be passed on). If we don't act now, there will be no time for imparting knowledge to following generations in the future.