Talk:Shudra/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Misinterpreted Facts

Maharishi Ved Vyasa should be considered a Shudra. There is some reference that Satyavati was daughter of Kshatriya handed over for caring to Nishada, in some other text and not in Mahabharata itself. Why would Vyasa hide the fact? Also was it marriage to Sage Parashara legitimate? Satyavati was a strong women who was known for her beauty. She lived and worked as a fisherwoman and not as a Kshatriya. Her meeting with King Shantanu happened during one such event. Thus Satyavati is a fisherwoman, based on argument - that Vishwamitra is considered a Sage a Brahmin although born a Kshatriya. According to Manusmriti a the seven generations of Brahmin marrying a Shudra woman would be considered Shudras. Thus Ved Vyasa is a Shudra. Also it is mentioned that Ved Vyasa was dark in color - which should puncture the notion of fair bodied Aryans invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitpandey7 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the following from the "avatar" section for the following reasons:

"*Maharshi Veda Vyas, fisherman, composed the Mahabharata, considered an avatara of Vishnu. Maharishi Ved Vyas, who is credited to have compiled/edited all the four Vedas in present format and who is believed to be author of Mahabharata, Shrimad Bhagwat Gita and all the Purans has himself laid down (Mahabharata: 1-V-4): that `whenever there is conflict between what is declared in the Vedas and provisions in any of the Smritis, Puranas, etc., what is declared in the Vedas shall prevail.` Furthermore, Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita (10.37) says, "Of the descendants of Vrishni I am Vasudeva, and of the Pandavas I am Arjuna. Of the sages I am Vyasa, and among great thinkers I am Usana.""

Vyasa Maharshi was the son of a Brahmin rishi Parashara...in no way is he a Shudra. His mom was a Shudra but he takes the line of his father in addition to doing the purificatory rites "samskaras" to become a Brahmin.

Shri Ved Vyas's mother was not Shudra. She was in care of Nishad who was Shudra but he was not her father. She was of Khastriya origin as her father was Khatriya. Ref: Devi Bhagvat Puran. As the material is scattered in various scriptures so for normal readers it is dificult to know lot of stuff.

"*Narad Muni, was son of maidservant who became a Brahmana and was taught by Vaishnava gurus, wrote the Narad Bhakti Sutra. He is mentioned as one of the 25 avatars of Lord Vishnu.[1] Krishna also says in the Bhagavad Gita (10.26)[2], "Of all trees I am the banyan tree, and of the sages among the demigods I am Narada. Of the Gandharvas I am Citraratha, and among perfected beings I am the sage Kapila.""

Narada was the son of Brahma. A person's caste is not determined by what his birth was in the previous birth. It is what his birth is in the present that actually matters. Here he is a Brahmana from birth itself. But yes, he was a Gandharva who got cursed to be a Shudra and THEN got the most enviable birth.

"*Sukhdevji, the son of the great guru and avatar of Sri Vishnu, Veda Vyasa. He stayed inside mother's womb for sixteen years. He was the first one to say Bhagavata Purana to the great Raja Parikshita in last seven remaining days of king's life. Thus the king attained self-realization."

Again, Sri Suka, who belongs to the son of Vyasa Maharshi, gets the line of his father, which makes him a Brahmana from birth itself.

How about adding Matanga Muni here? He was the son of a Brahmin female and a Sudhra male(apparently when she was "intoxicated" she had sex with that guy(!)) and he was born as a Chandala. But I guess he rose to the level of a Brahmin(I don't know is that true? Or did he just become a Maharshi?). Whatever it is I feel Shudras should be proud of their position. It is without them that the others castes cannot survive. I am a Brahmana saying this.193.188.105.20 (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Pusan

The word Pusan appears in a Vedic era Upanishad, meaning "nourisher" and associates it with the creation of earth and production activities that nourishes the whole world, and the text calls this Pusan as Shudra.

That last phrase could be clearer. Is it saying that the Upanishad explicitly gives pusan and śūdra as synonyms, or that the text defines pusan in a way consistent with later definitions of śūdra, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done, We can't add more than what the sources are stating, due to WP:OR concerns. Hope the added sentence provides the Vedic context and makes it a bit clearer. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Section on Vedic references to Shudras seems incomplete

The subsection titled "Vedas" talks about the one and only reference to the term "Shudras" in Rig Veda, but there is no discussion of whether and what the other 3 Vedas mention about Shudras. Vedas are considered the oldest texts of Hinduism, and also the most important and sacrosanct by many Hindu spiritual leaders, so a good understanding of the evolution of varna system and the position of shudras in ancient India is not possible without knowing what each of the 4 Vedas tell about the varnas in general and the shudras specifically — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.120.11.167 (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Well, I have created a section for it. Content still needs to be added. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)