Considerations on the Aryan question
Posted on February 25, 2021 by Elements of Racial Education
Right-wing historiography, in order to write the history, say of the First or the Second World War, is not based and has never dreamed of relying on the propaganda, academic, journalistic or other literature of the Allies. , which she rightly criticizes and whose contradictions, lies, superstitions and impostures she reveals, using only the data that betray them. Right-wing historiography does not show as much common sense when it comes to the Aryan question, oblivious as it is to what, as the British Indianist FE Pargiter points out in Chapter XXVI of Ancient Indian Historical Tradition(1922), entitled “The Ancient Brahmans and the Veda”, if “[t] he historical tradition can teach us anything about the condition of the oldest Brahmans and the composition of the Rig-Vedaand other Vedas [it is necessary] here to start from the principle that it is futile to expect priestly literature to shed light on these questions, for it was composed after the Brahmins had made their demands and their demands. claims on the Vedas. Naturally, they would present their own version of what they knew at the time (and what they wanted others to believe) on these issues and would not say anything that could harm them […] Facts or traditions which proved to be troublesome for their great claims would not be admitted […] There was nothing strange in such conduct. It was simply what the priesthood had always done and the Brahmins were a supreme caste in regard to position and education, pride and influence.The views expressed here are not the result of hypothetical speculation, but have gradually sprouted from all previous investigations and are all based on specific statements, which are cited. They all come from traditions which could not have been fabricated at a later time […] but which are ancient and of which the Brahmans were the guardians for more than two thousand years. They are a good illustration of the fact that the Brahmans preserved ancient traditions in Puranic and epic literature, quite unaware that these traditions contradicted the Brahmanic claims that were put forward later ”(1). By showing the same discrimination against Brahmanic literature,"Notes on the Ancient History of North India" (2) shows the Aryan question in a new historical, racial and cultural light, far from the fantasies of a neo-Aryan apologetics to hard-boiled romanticism. In the same revisionist spirit, the present notes submit for an in-depth examination two of the main theories of Aryanist racism as they appear in J. Evola in particular: the Aryan origin of "the 'pagan' unity of the two powers, spiritual and temporal ”and the racial basis of the Brahmanic caste system.Evola in particular: the Aryan origin of "the 'pagan' unity of the two powers, spiritual and temporal" and the racial basis of the Brahmanic caste system.Evola in particular: the Aryan origin of "the 'pagan' unity of the two powers, spiritual and temporal" and the racial basis of the Brahmanic caste system.

During the early Vedic period (1750-1000 BCE), the Aryans were a semi-nomadic people who were distinguished from their Dravidian and Kolarian neighbors not only by their skin color, but also by their tribal structure. Their system was patriarchal and the unity of the tribe was the griha (3). “Each griha was a world apart; he had his own traditions and his own cult, which centered on the fire of the hearth ”(4). The chief, namely the father ( grihapati ) (5). Several families formed a grâma (village), which was fortified ( durg ) and beyond which was the forest ( aranya ); several grâma formed a gâna(clan) (6), or vish . Originally, belonging to a gâna was determined not by territorial ties but by kinship or blood tie; all the members of a gâna descended from the same ancestor; they were even (7). Nothing shows that there were serfs or slaves (8).
According to the Mahâbhârata , primitive Aryan society did not know either sovereign or governed (9). The Greek historians who accompanied Alexander in his Asian campaign noted on their arrival in India that the largest Aryan clans, who were also the most warlike, were indeed " kingless " ( arashtraka) (10). There was no state. For there to be one, there would have had to be an administration. There were none. All military, social, economic and religious functions were exercised by councils known under the names of sabha , vidata , samiti , chaired by an elected râjan , whom Rhys Davids compares to the Greek Archon and the Roman consul (11) and whose the function was to protect the clan, function for which it received a bali ("homage"). The penalties were imposed according to a principle which resembles that of the old Germanic law, according to which the social rank of an injured or killed man determined the compensation which was due to him or which was due to his heir. Therajan was considered the servant of the vish , an idea which remained long after the establishment of kingship and, for a long time also, it seems that the vish had the right to depose the king, if he failed in his duties (12).
The wealth of the Aryans consisted of cattle, cows, goats, horses, they depended little on agriculture for their livelihood. "In such a society, land and cattle were owned in common by the clan [..]" (13). “At the dawn of Indian civilization, when iron was unknown, plowing virgin land was a difficult task. It naturally required the organized work of the whole community and collective ownership of the land was therefore the rule ”(14). “We do not find any reference to the transfer of land in the Rig-Veda, nor proof of the existence of large landowners at that time ”(15). Should we therefore see a "primitive communism" in the way of life of the first Aryans, of which, it should be noted? the tribes did not exceed a few thousand individuals, to say nothing of the grâma, which numbered between one hundred and two hundred (16)? The (Indian) Marxists themselves are rare to risk it (17). “Under these primitive conditions, individual qualities [on their own] could not provide abundance and pleasure. Whether in terms of hunting or breeding, security or colonization, the whole tribe had to work together. The fruits of labor were therefore distributed equally among all members of the clan. 'For the acquisition of goods must be done with the same spirit, the same voice and the same determination and must give rise to an equal distribution ( samanâmastu )', - thus says the "Samjhana-Sûkta" of the Rig-Veda . The tribe was of the same bloodand obeyed the same rules of discipline. It was not run by an individual or a class ”(emphasis added). "There were no real economic classes" (18). The only distinction at the beginning of the Vedic period was that which existed between the Arya and the Dâsa or Dasyu ”(19), aborigines whom they had conquered and subjected to their arrival in India.
The tribal structure of the Aryans began to crumble as soon as they passed definitively (20) from pastoralism to sedentary agriculture around the 12th century BCE; "[T] he land [then] became the most precious possession" (21). Over time, “new methods of agricultural production were developed. Animal labor was replaced by human labor […]. It was now possible to use and feed the men and women captured in the tribal feuds. The animal was harnessed to the plow and the captive was harnessed behind. Like animals, man too became a booty and a useful article. The defeated enemy was not killed. He was in chains and became a productive force. 'The vanquished is the slave of the victor, - such is the law of war', - says the Mahabharata(IV. 33. 59 et seq.) ”(22). “Agriculture and the slave system simplified the problem of life. In the Stone Age, man had to strive to work together. All were hunters and warriors and all were to participate in the tribe's businesses, symbolized by the yajna[sacrifice]. Life became easier with the successive introduction of fire, animal, slave, and iron [as part of the agricultural economy]. Subsistence no longer required the collective hard work of all the people. The emergence of slavery, the division of labor and differences in industrial skills caused the bonds of tribal solidarity to loosen. Skill and organizational capacity came to count and it was those who showed it who began to surround the chief of the tribe ”(23). The new conditions in which agriculture was practiced meant that the spirit of enterprise, which until then had been collective out of necessity, gradually became, if not individual, at least familial (in the almost modern sense).
The passage from collective ownership to private ownership of land and cattle was in fact accompanied by the substitution, as a fundamental parental unit, of gotra (24) and kula , then from vamsa to griha . A gotra was made up of several distinct families united by blood ties and which bore the name of a common ancestor; the kula was an undivided family whose members lived together under the authority of the same chief in the same geographical location and under the same roof (25). The end of the Vedic period was marked by the disintegration of the tribe into a smaller unit, the vamsa., which "is the whole of the patrilineal descent except for the collateral branches" (26). There were several priestly and royal vamsa , which were closely associated with each other (27). "What was previously the property of the whole tribe became the property of individual families" (28) like these vamsa .
"At the time when the Brahmanawere written [1000-800 before our era], the land was considered as an asset which could be alienated, parceled out or given as a gift ”(29). As the ownership of land passed from the hands of the clan as a whole to those of several individual families, some gotras were dispossessed, either by force (30) or indirectly, under the pressure of taxes or debts. (31), of their arable land, which was sold or rented to those who had the means to buy them and which often happened to be the same. Landholdings thus became larger, and the larger they became, the more cheap labor was needed to operate them.
There was thus created a group of large landowners, within which soon a circle of magnates, mainly bankers, who were to exercise a hold over agriculture, was formed, then, as soon as, at a later time, they had developed, on industry and commerce (32). Rivalry and competition set in between the great land aristocrats and these magnates (33), who, however, had a common goal: to get rid of the gâna for good.. “There was no question for them to let the members of the tribe or the clan enjoy the fruits of their collective efforts. They were in favor of a political organization that would support the idea of ​​personal property. Such an organization was only possible under a king who did not belong to the same clan or to the same tribe as the people. So [the idea of, then] private property eventually wins out over tribal property. In this struggle, therefore, the victory of a territorial monarchy was in fact the victory of a new economic concept ”(34). As he ruled over several tribes and clans and his function had become hereditary, the king could easily make this new concept triumph. Under the Mauryas (321-185 before our era), the rule, intended to fight against absenteeism of landowners,was that the land was to be given to those who could make the best use of it, but at the same time it was established that the land ultimately belonged to the State, which could dispossess some for the sake of it as it wished. assign to others (35). The state was then not only the largest landowner, but also the largest industrialist and entrepreneur (36).
The vish , originally one, thus ended up being divided into two great economic layers, the second of which was subdivided into two: on the one hand, the rajanîya , "the upper layer, the landowners and, on the other hand, [the vish ,] the lower strata, made up of sharecroppers and agricultural workers, who, also oppressed by heavy taxes, were forced to retrain in other rural trades ”(37). They were later given the name Vaishya. Their status was hardly superior to that of the Dasyu; in Aitareya Brahmana, the Vaishya are described as "dependent on one another" ( anyasya balibrit ), "servants of one another" ( anyasya presya) and can "be oppressed at will" ( yathâkamajyeyah ), "expelled at will" ( kâmotthapya ) and "killed at will" ( yathâkâmavadhya ) (38). So, only the skin color theoretically separated the Vaishya from the Dasyu from this point of view: the Vaishya, being Aryans, were white. However, it is likely that "some of the members of [this] class [of] commoners owned a great deal of land and livestock, which formed the basis of the class distinction in the predominantly agrarian economy [of the mid-era]. Vedic and consequently enjoyed a higher status than that of others ”(39).
Due to the rise of agriculture and the specialization that it brought about, a hierarchical division of Aryan society according to the type of activity therefore imperceptibly replaced the original, more or less watertight, racial separation between the Aryans and the Dasyu. This hierarchical division was to petrify into varna (castes) and jâti (sub-castes) at a later time. At first, most jâti "were complementary within the agrarian economy and their complex interconnections blossomed into an almost organic structure of social relations, sometimes called jajamani  " (40). The jajamani , Hindi term derived from Sanskrit "  yajamana "," Head of the family who employs priests for a ritual ", is theorized in the Purusha-Sûkta . These were “reciprocal social and economic arrangements between families of different castes within a village community […], whereby one family exclusively provided certain services to another, such as performing the ritual or providing agricultural labor, in exchange for wages, job protection and security. These relationships were expected to continue from generation to generation and payment was normally made in the form of a fixed share of the harvest rather than in cash ”(41). "So the jajamani systemon the one hand prevented the mobility of labor and on the other hand reinforced the idea of ​​the organic unity of society, which was the most crucial aspect of the [later] hierarchical caste system ( 42). But the professions were not yet hereditary and did not determine social rank; "Members of the same family exercised different jobs, which were not synonymous with belonging to such or such social class" (43). “The social status of an individual was determined by the place he occupied in the agrarian economy and the power he exercised in the socio-political context of this economy. Even craftsmen such as the rathakâra (wheelwright), the karamâra (blacksmith), the govikartana (hunter) and the palâyala(messengers), who were subsequently placed among the shudra, enjoyed a high social status simply because they played an indispensable role in the essentially agrarian economy of the end of the Vedic era ”(44). It was only later, in the Brahmanic period, that "the classification of functions corresponded more and more to differentiations of rank" (45) and that, as a consequence, the hereditary divisions of society in principle became strictly closed in their organization, their uses and their own rights, at a time when "priests took over the management of affairs in the context of the emergence of social and economic differentiations in the nascent urban culture" (46), an urban culture which has its origin in the chain reaction that the production of surplus produced.
As long as Aryan society was founded on subsistence agriculture, the scarce surpluses were reserved for local consumption. But "due to the introduction of more powerful iron tools, man was able to clear vast tracts of forest, cultivate larger areas and (with the help of irrigation techniques) produce more food" (47), until agricultural production leaves him a surplus.
Hence the development of trade;
booming markets;
the expansion of crafts and non-agricultural industries, expansion due mainly to the efforts of those Vaishya who, as explained above, no longer able to live by working the land, had had to change their profession, or even create new ones. news, first in the countryside, then in urban areas.
Hence, therefore, the development of trade, the rise of markets, the expansion of handicrafts and non-agricultural industries and, once money had established itself as a medium of exchange around the sixth century BC. our era, the substitution of the market economy for the subsistence economy and the transformation of the industrial product, previously a simple source of exchange, into capital in the form of commodities. This series of repercussions led to the appearance of real cities around the 8th or 7th century BC and of States in the 8th century BC (48).
"The ease with which it was possible to earn money through trade, crafts and even intellectual achievement, which the city greatly stimulated, led to the emergence of an idle class, whose demands gave a new boost to various luxury goods industries. Money became the new criterion of social competence ”(49). Both agricultural production and commercial enterprises were in the hands of this class, whose members lived and did their business in cities, where 'their surplus was used to buy luxury goods and engage in unproductive activities such as alms or hoarding '”(50). Neither was subject to tax (51). In short, “[t] he surplus of wealth was devoted to the maintenance of two new castes orvarna , namely the Brahmins and the Ksatriya, who were not distinguished by their skin color but by their profession ”(52). The Manusmriti had advised the Brahmins and the Kshatriya to form an alliance in their common interest. Such an alliance, they say, would secure them enormous gains in this world and the next, failing which both varna would perish (53). Of the two, the Brahmin caste was undoubtedly the one which profited the most from this alliance and, by far, the most idle (54).
In Hellenic Greece there were priests, but no priestly caste (55). In ancient Rome and among the ancient Germans, there was a priesthood, but “the head of the family was endowed with a priestly character […] it is this head of the family who presides over worship, who pronounces the prayer and consults the gods […] The family […] did not obey any foreign priest; she had her priesthood within her, and her head was at the same time her priest ”(56). Indeed, "the head of each family was the only priest of this one and he had no superior in matters of religion" (57), who "was not the invention of any priest" (58). Among the early Aryan tribes, there was simply no priesthood or even priests (59) and, as a result, there were no temples either (60).
“Daily worship was practiced in every house, both morning and evening; it consisted of throwing into the sacrificial fire ghee, milk, meat, soma juice and other items which were their usual food. From time to time, special sacrifices were made and goats, cows, bulls and horses were slaughtered to be offered to the gods and guests. The Vedic hymns were intended to be sung during sacrifices ”(61). Although often poetic in nature, these sacred hymns relate mainly to everyday life; it is asked to possess cattle, fixed dwellings, a long life and a numerous posterity, and to be protected against enemies. “They do not have the depth of religious sentiment that is expressed in the Babylonian hymns long before.The instincts which led to the creation of the Hindu theocracy and the remarkable aptitude for religious speculation which the Brahmins subsequently displayed were not among the initial qualities of the Arya ”(62).
The Vedic hymns were composed and sung by the rishis and it was the devas who made blood sacrifices an integral part of the worship. Originally, the Aryans were neither hymn composers nor hymn singers (63) and rarely performed bloody sacrifices. Neither the rishis nor the devas, who each professed a different doctrine (64), seem to have been of Aryan extraction (65). “Hindus today imagine that the rishi was a man of divine wisdom who led a life of tapas [ascetic] or great austerity in the isolation of the forest. Therefore, what the rishis are said to have said is considered to be something sacred that no man should question. Of course, there were exceptionally tall and wise men (and also women) among the rishis.But they lived like the rest of the tribe with their wives and children, accumulating property, cultivating land and owning large herds of cattle. Some rishis lived in the palaces of chiefs or kings and conducted sacred ceremonies for them, in return for which they received rich rewards of hundreds of cows, gold coins and cloth. The rishis were also formidable warriors who fought the aborigines and killed them by the hundreds and thousands. With the exception of their education, they were in every other respect like other men and women in society ”(66). They were part of thecultivated land and owned large herds of cattle. Some rishis lived in the palaces of chiefs or kings and conducted sacred ceremonies for them, in return for which they received rich rewards of hundreds of cows, gold coins and cloth. The rishis were also formidable warriors who fought the aborigines and killed them by the hundreds and thousands. With the exception of their education, they were in every other respect like other men and women in society ”(66). They were part of thecultivated land and owned large herds of cattle. Some rishis lived in the palaces of chiefs or kings and conducted sacred ceremonies for them, in return for which they received rich rewards of hundreds of cows, gold coins and cloth. The rishis were also formidable warriors who fought the aborigines and killed them by the hundreds and thousands. With the exception of their education, they were in every other respect like other men and women in society ”(66). They were part of theThe rishis were also formidable warriors who fought the aborigines and killed them by the hundreds and thousands. With the exception of their education, they were in every other respect like other men and women in society ”(66). They were part of theThe rishis were also formidable warriors who fought the aborigines and killed them by the hundreds and thousands. With the exception of their education, they were in every other respect like other men and women in society ”(66). They were part of thevish .
This was not exactly the case with the Brahmins, who claimed to be descended from the rishis (67) and who, like them, do not seem to have been of Aryan origin - in the Rig-Veda many are described as having skin swarthy, even black, with a flat nose and full lips (68). “It seems […] that at the beginning of the period when the hymns of the Rig-Vedawere composed, the Brahmins were not an institution; there were not many families of Brahmins and, of these, only a few were families of priests […] it was only in theory that the Brahmins formed a caste. They did not have well-structured bodies with a chief and a council. It was a group of priests who studied and meditated on the Vedas and offered sacrifices to the gods ”(69). However, it seems that only a few devoted themselves entirely to Vedic ritual, while most engaged in other activities; unlike the rishis, it does not appear that they were engaged in agricultural work, nor that they had warlike occupations, at the beginning of the Vedic era (70). This radically distinguished them from the rishis, who, like the Aryans,"Hardly seem to have believed in the hereafter, in the immortality of the soul or in a future state of rewards and punishments" (71), was their asceticism (72), coupled with contempt not only of the world, but also of men, non-Brahmins.
Initially, the Aryan chiefs hired Brahmins to officiate as priests, while "viewing them with a certain contempt as mere mercenary priests, who were guilty of an unforgivable supposition, if they attempted to establish themselves on an equal footing with (them) "(73). In time, however," they recognized the Brahmins as the only agents between man and the deity; as the only priests authorized to offer sacrifices. Henceforth they were identified with the Aryan invaders and each conquest carried out by the [Aryans] was followed by the introduction and establishment of the Brahmanic hierarchy ”(74).Do they last this elevation to the deep impression that their rituals and their austerities made on the Aryans (75)? Supernatural powers were lent to them and they did nothing to dispel this belief, which "they exploited in many subtle and unscrupulous ways" (76), stoking superstitions: "A priest," says theMânava Dharma Sâstra(XI, 30) who knows the law well does not need to complain to the king of a serious injury, since, even by his own power, he can chastise those who hurt him ”. That the following lines (XI, 31) are placed immediately after those which have just been quoted was not made to reassure the king: “his own power, which depends only on him, is more powerful than the royal power, who depends on other men; by his own power, therefore, a Brahmin can coerce his enemies. So, "[t) he interest of the nonbrahmans was to reconcile them, not to arouse their anger, and to take advantage of their powers as much as possible" (77). But, in the end, the ceremonies of the Brahmins could only make a strong impression on the Aryans because,not having been able to live "for many centuries in the mild climate of [the] valley [of the Ganges] without losing their vigor and virility, as they gained knowledge - and civilization" (78) , they had become impressionable; and, if they had become impressionable, how could one fail to think that this was due to crossbreeding with indigenous populations (79)?
But the main reason for the rise of the Brahmins undoubtedly resides in the increasingly important part that agriculture had taken in the economy of the Aryan tribes, which in turn can be explained by two reasons: the first is that the ritual took on an increasingly agrarian character and that, since rites were necessary for each agricultural operation (sowing, harvesting, etc.), their number increased, making the presence of priests even more sensitive and even, metonymically, even more visible, with the construction of temples in all village communities (80). More or less like, later, in Rome, “each family, as soon as it had a fixed abode, had an altar which was the stone of the hearth […] where the fire was perpetually kept up, the first fruits were laid before each meal. food ; before drinking,a libation was poured into it ”(81) and the rite ended there. It now invades all space and all the time. The second is that the Brahmin imposed himself as the armed wing of the great landowners and tribal chiefs, helping them to subdue the vashya jacqueries, for which he received large rewards which made him economically superior to the latter ( 82). By a kind of chain reaction, "the accumulation of wealth by the [nobles] favored the division of labor between [the Aryans] and allowed the Brahmins to devote themselves entirely to their activities" (83) and to enrich themselves in their turn.by helping them to subdue the jacqueries of the vashya, for which he received large rewards which made him economically superior to the latter (82). By a sort of chain reaction, "the accumulation of wealth by the [nobles] favored the division of labor between [the Aryans] and allowed the Brahmins to devote themselves entirely to their activities" (83) and to enrich themselves in their turn.by helping them to subdue the jacqueries of the vashya, for which he received large rewards which made him economically superior to the latter (82). By a kind of chain reaction, "the accumulation of wealth by the [nobles] favored the division of labor between [the Aryans] and allowed the Brahmins to devote themselves entirely to their activities" (83) and to enrich themselves in their turn.
Giving gifts to the Brahmins was an inalienable religious duty. These gifts were a necessary part of the atonement and sacrifice. The rituals "accompanied by feasts, music, drinks and other pleasures, which sometimes lasted several days and several months […], inevitably ended with the ostentatious presentation of rich gifts to the priests" (84). As their appetite came while eating, it was in their interest not only to increase the number of sacrificial rites and ceremonies (85), but also to develop them and therefore complicate them: at leisure (86). Further, “(i) tis enveloped these ritualistic ceremonies in a mystery so obscure that only professional adepts could interpret them correctly. So,the cult […] of the primitive Indo-Aryan turned into an arid religion of sacrifice and penance (Brahmanism). Liturgical treatises, known under the name of Brahmana, containing elaborate rules for the execution of sacrifices, were drawn up. The most minute rules were formulated to do penance, not only for errors made and observed in the performance of a sacrifice, but also for hypothetical omissions which might have escaped the observation of the priests. Thus, liturgical literature became so heavy and the sacrificial ceremonial so complex that the kshatriya and Vaishya were forced to leave them in the care of the Brahmans, who thus became the sole custodians in some way of the religious well-being of the twice-born classes. and that,by the nature and importance of their function, occupied the highest social rank ”(87). Thus, “[the] employment ofpurohita (royal Brahmins) or family priests, once optional, became a sacred duty, if sacrifices were not to fall into disuse. The Brahmin obtained the monopoly of priestly functions and a breed of priestly specialists was created… ”(88) There were henceforth Brahmans attached as public priests to village communities, domestic priests attached to the families of clan chiefs and purohita and, While, for a time, everyone had been able to become a Brahmin (89), there came a time when this brood "continually tended to tighten its ranks against the intrusion of strangers" (90).
It was not enough to make the performance of rituals a profession, to make it the profession par excellence, it was still necessary to make it hereditary (91). To do this, the Brahmans succeeded in persuading the non-Brahmans that “it was not virtue that made the Brahmin, but birth. Mixed marriages with other members of the Aryan community were first discouraged, then completely prohibited, and so gradually developed the rigid law of endogamy, which distinguishes the Indian caste system from other apparently forms. similarities of social hierarchy ”(92). The Brahmans owed "their supremacy not to the purity of their descendants, but to their monopoly on Vedic traditions" (93), as we will see below. The Kâthaka Samhitâdoes he not assert that what matters is knowledge and not descent (94)?
The Brahmans had an exclusivist conception of the hereditary principle: they reserved its application to themselves, as the dysgenic logic which underlies the Brahmanic concept of "second birth" shows. This "second birth", reserved for the first three castes, is described in various Brahmanic writings as dependent on the acquisition of sacred knowledge and advancement in virtue. “He (the Twice Born) must strive both to acquire the knowledge of God and to recite the Vedas, 'duties the fulfillment of which assures him endless bliss,' but that, if he is a kshatriya or a Vaishya, he can only study with the help of a Brahmanic tutor ”(95). "Just like," declares Evola, of whom nothing shows that he had knowledge of the details of this ritual (96),Baptism is the indispensable condition for becoming an integral part of the Christian community, initiation is the means of entering effectively into the great Aryan family. Initiation determines the 'second birth', it creates thedvija , 'one who is born twice' ”. However, he adds, “[it] differs from the Catholic view in that it is not a sacrament that can be administered to anyone, regardless of blood, race and caste. , thus leading to a democracy of the mind ”(97). In which he is sorely mistaken, for, as Hewitt explains in "Notes on the Ancient History of North India", dikshana(initiation) was also open to all, whatever their race; it had been conceived from the outset as a way of integrating influential non-Aryans into the Aryan community and came into effect from the day "the most important Aryans first understood that it would be easier to conquer the mighty tribes. non-Aryan by admitting them into the Aryan community only by fighting them… ”Now, according to the British Indianist, it was the Rishi Vishvamitra who helped them“ to grasp [this] idea ”(98).
As “[t] he ritual extended to almost every hour of the day and to all the functions of nature and society […] those who were the only judges and orderers of these complicated and interminable duties could only have an enormous influence on the mentality of the people ”(99). The immense influence that the Brahmins exerted on the whole population was also due to their image, which they "carefully cultivated" (100), as guardians and exclusive interpreters of sacred science. It was not just a picture: Brahmins, Kshatriya and Vaishya can study the Vedas, but only the former are allowed to teach it, while the shudra are absolutely forbidden to read them. That was not all. "The curious doctrine of transmigration [,complement that of karma] satisfied the unfortunate by explaining to them that their present misfortunes were the result of their own actions in a previous life and that they would avoid suffering others in their future lives by being liberal towards them. priests in the present life ”(101). “Here again we are confronted with the astonishing eclecticism of resources and skill of management which have always characterized the Brahmins. The doctrine of the transmigration of souls took root in the country very early on; the Brahmins very discreetly integrated it into their system and adapted it to their caste system in such a way as to give it additional strength and importance; they strengthened the caste hierarchy by teaching their followers the ideology of karma;they made each priest understand the need to pay special attention to the duties of his caste, threatening him with the fearful prospect of reborn shudra as a punishment for his neglect; they urged the shudra to redouble its zeal in carrying out its obligations - which were especially to provide for all the needs of the Brahmins - by assuring it that it could be rewarded at its next birth by the elevation to the rank of 'twice born' ”(102). As for the Vaishya and the Kshatriya, the Brahmins controlled them through education (103).they urged the shudra to redouble its zeal in carrying out its obligations - which were especially to provide for all the needs of the Brahmins - by assuring it that it could be rewarded at its next birth by the elevation to the rank of 'twice born' ”(102). As for the Vaishya and the Kshatriya, the Brahmins controlled them through education (103).they urged the shudra to redouble its zeal in carrying out its obligations - which were especially to provide for all the needs of the Brahmins - by assuring it that it could be rewarded at its next birth by the elevation to the rank of 'twice born' ”(102). As for the Vaishya and the Kshatriya, the Brahmins controlled them through education (103).
The Brahmanic schools taught the Vaishya, for the most part farmers, traders or herders, the techniques relating to these trades and to the kshatriya military tactics, diplomacy and political science; and, "as in the Mahâbhârata , Drona is the Brahmin who teaches the Pandavas the handling of the bow and other weapons of war, so the Brahman diplomat and politician was at the head of the royal council" (104) - he was also the tutor of the royal children. The remark that “it is remarkable that the Brahmins never invested themselves with royal power (105) may seem irrelevant; it is not any more when one reads, in the Manusmriti(I, 99): "For a Brahmin by birth is born in the first rank on this earth, lord of all creatures, (attendant) in the custody of the treasury of the sacred law" (106). As the sole interpreters of the laws, the Brahmins held de facto judicial power and legislative power (107). “The code was already perfect and complete, since it emanated from the divine Being and could in no case be interpreted other than in the sense that it pleased the Brahmins to impose. The king was little more than a servant of the Brahmins ”(108). The purohita marked the ascendancy he had over him with a gesture he made during the royal enthronement ritual: he silently hit him with sticks (109).
The Manusmriti(I, 100-101; 37-38) say: “Everything that this world contains is in a way the property of the Brahmin; by his primogeniture and by his eminent birth, he has a right to all that exists. "" The Brahmin eats only his own food, wears only his own clothes, gives only his own; it is through the generosity of the Brahmin that other men enjoy the goods of this world ”(110). “When an educated Brahmin comes across a once buried treasure, he can take it all; for he is the lord of all that exists; But when the king finds a treasure formerly deposited in the ground, and which has no master, let him give half of it to the Brahmans, and let the other half enter his treasure ”(111).The feeling of absolute superiority which is expressed in these passages and in many others of Brahmanic literature and the capacity of the Brahmans to persuade others of their own superiority (112) partly explains the establishment of thechaturvarna , whose deep roots in Indian society are proof of their effective ancestry. Indeed, "the Brahmans did not invent the castes, but the hierarchy of the castes" (113).
Pandit Bhattacharya, while acknowledging that "caste undoubtedly has its origin in Brahmanic legislation", asserts that "... there is no basis for the doctrine that it is the result of the politics embodied in the maxim Machiavellian 'divide and conquer'. There is no need to think much to realize that the caste system introduced and applied by the Brahmanic Sastras cannot be the cause of any social fracture ”(114). The facts speak for themselves, however: the caste system “liberated the forces of disintegration and mutual rivalry […] in the country. In a few centuries it became fashionable all over the country to form exclusive social groups and to refuse to associate with others, under one pretext or another. Sometimes it was a conflict between the leaders,sometimes it was the dignity of a rich family; sometimes again, it could be a case of a caste conflict; - whatever the provocation or the justification, the ignorant spent their time arguing for social priority claims or attributing social inferiority (to this or that other group than the one to which they belonged) and dividing themselves into 'castes' who refused to cooperate with each other. The Brahmins encouraged these divisions, as each additional caste strengthened the system as a whole and enabled the ruling Brahmins caste to increase its security and influence. Kings enforced these differences with ruthless severity ”(115).- whatever the provocation or the justification, the ignorant spent their time arguing for social priority claims or attributing social inferiority (to this or that other group than the one to which they belonged) and dividing themselves into 'castes' who refused to cooperate with each other. The Brahmins encouraged these divisions, as each additional caste strengthened the system as a whole and enabled the ruling Brahmins caste to increase its security and influence. Kings enforced these differences with ruthless severity ”(115).- whatever the provocation or the justification, the ignorant spent their time arguing for social priority claims or attributing social inferiority (to this or that other group than the one to which they belonged) and dividing themselves into 'castes' who refused to cooperate with each other. The Brahmins encouraged these divisions, as each additional caste strengthened the system as a whole and enabled the ruling Brahmins caste to increase its security and influence. Kings enforced these differences with ruthless severity ”(115).the ignorant spent their time arguing for social priority or attributing social inferiority (to this or that other group than the one to which they belonged) and dividing into distinct 'castes' which refused to cooperate with each other. The Brahmins encouraged these divisions, as each additional caste strengthened the system as a whole and enabled the ruling Brahmins caste to increase its security and influence. Kings enforced these differences with ruthless severity ”(115).the ignorant spent their time arguing for social priority or attributing social inferiority (to this or that other group than the one to which they belonged) and dividing into distinct 'castes' which refused to cooperate with each other. The Brahmins encouraged these divisions, as each additional caste strengthened the system as a whole and enabled the ruling Brahmins caste to increase its security and influence. Kings enforced these differences with ruthless severity ”(115).Kings enforced these differences with ruthless severity ”(115).Kings enforced these differences with ruthless severity ”(115).
For a long time, the kshatriya, who, along with the Brahmins, held the people under their domination, were themselves subject to the Brahmins (116). They were literally so, following the stinging defeat which the Brahmins, at the head of an army apparently composed of nine groups of shudra, had inflicted on them at the battle of Kurukshetra (around the tenth century BC), unleashed in l instigated by Sri-Krishna, a kshatriya under the influence of priests (117). Decimated and even almost exterminated (118), the kshatriya did not however disappear from the face of the earth and a reaction, which René Guénon was not afraid to call “The Revolt of the kshatriyas” (119), ended up taking place. The kings, while conforming externally to the prescriptions of their purohita, came to dispute with them about the efficacy of the sacrifices in a number of writings known as the Upanishad (800-500 BCE), a dispute which echoed and amplified the quarrel, recounted in the Vedas, in the Râmâyana as well as in the Mahâbhârataand to which we have seen Hewitt return at length, between the Brahmin Vashishtha and the kshatriya Vishvamitra on the subject of the dogma that only a son of a Brahmin could exercise priestly functions. In reality, much more than this controversy and even the Upanishads (120), which, besides later Buddhism, epitomizes the antagonism between the kshatriya and the Brahmins is the idea, which, by the way, confirms the hypothesis that the priesthood in India was a pre-Aryan institution, that “the Brahmins were the priests of the demons, that the demons themselves were Brahmins” (121) and the fact that in the Rig-Veda , Indra is often praised for killing demons and the Brahmin Vrtra (122).
A theory of the two powers similar to that of the two swords of Pope Gelasius I is set forth in the Brahmana and in the "Samhita" of the Rig-Véda , where the union of the sacerdotium ( brahma ) and the regnum ( ksatra ) is compared to a marriage, as highlighted by Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory of Government(123), exhaustive study of the texts relating to the conception of the relationship between temporal power and spiritual authority in ancient India. However, it is significant that there is nowhere mention of the "Aryan chakravartin, holder of two powers and king of kings" (124). To be sure, Evola "did not invent it" (125). However, the title of chakravartin seems to have been imposed only under Buddhism (126). In any case, there could be no unity of the two powers in the first Aryan communities, since, as we have shown above, they had neither priesthood nor kingship.From the foregoing concerning the hierarchical caste system it also emerges beyond doubt that it is incorrect that it was established shortly after the entry of the Aryan tribes into the Indian peninsula and that it was established for certain reasons. purely racial. The ethnographer and colonial administrator Sir Herbert Hope Risley (1851–1911) and René Guénon perfectly sum up the general conclusion to be drawn, when they first observe that “similar legends (the orthodox tradition found in the Manu's laws, theMahâbhârata , the Purâna , the Jâtimâlâ and the Garlands of the castes ), as lacking as they are of historical precision, nevertheless serve to throw some light on the probable origin of the system of the castes in general and of the caste of the Brahmins in particular [ and] […] clearly show that the early Indian tradition presupposes the substantial unity of the Aryan race ; that it considers kings and priests as men of the same barrel and that caste distinctions do not exist from all eternity, but have been introduced gradually ”(emphasis added) (127); the second that “the caste […] is a social function determined by the specific nature of each human being. Wordvarna, in its primitive sense, means 'color', and some have wanted to find here a proof or at least a clue of the supposed fact that the distinction between castes was originally based on racial differences, but it is not is nothing, because the same word has, by extension, the meaning of 'quality' in general, hence its analogical use to designate the particular nature of a being, what can be called its 'individual essence', and this is what determines caste, without the consideration of race having to intervene other than as one of the elements which can influence the constitution of individual nature ”(128). If again each caste had corresponded to a particular race, but this was obviously not the case: from the start, there were, as noted above, Brahmins of non-Aryan origin and, very quickly, there werethere was, through thedîkshana , "twice born" kshatriya of non-Aryan extraction, until the kshatriya caste itself racially resembles the aristocracy in Europe since at least the 19th century (129); it is not until the shudra which, for some, were not white (130).

BK, “Considerations on the Aryan Question”, extended translation of “Appendix 2: On the Early History of Northern India”, in Julius Evola, Synthesis of the Doctrine of Race , Cariou Publishing, 2020.

(1) FE Pargiter, Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, Oxford University Press, London, 1922, p. 303.
(2) https://elementsdeducationraciale.wordpress.com/2018/09/30/notes-sur-lhistoire-primitive-du-nord-de-linde-1/ .
(3) Praphullachandra Basu, Indo-Aryan Polity: Being a Study of the Economic and Political Condition of India as Depicted in the Rig Veda, 2nd ed., Considerably increased, PS King & Son, Limited, 1925, p. 112. The equivalent of the griha in ancient Rome could be the domus (Kishore Mohan Chatterje, The Law Relating to the Transfer of Immoveable Property, Inter Vivos, sl, 1887, p. 14). Today we would say 'extended family', knowing that '[w] e have little chance of understanding the nature of the archaic family if we refer to it by that term. Not only is the word family, or Familia, hopelessly ambiguous, but the archaic home is essentially different from the family, as we understand it. Beyond the external similarities that exist by the very nature of the case,this Foyer hardly resembled what one finds in modern society. It was based on a theory that our beliefs reject. He was aiming at an object that we can hardly understand. It was based on a mechanism that we have long passed. The theory on which it was based was the primary and continuing obligation of ancestor worship. The practical object he aimed at was the regular and correct execution of the sacra, that is to say the worship proper to the home. The mechanism by which the sacras were maintained was the collective character of the Home and the perpetual succession of the Father of the Home ”(William Edward Hearn, The Aryan Household: Its Structure and Its Development, London and New York, Longmans, Green, and Co, 1891, p. 63)It was based on a theory that our beliefs reject. He was aiming at an object that we can hardly understand. It was based on a mechanism that we have long passed. The theory on which it was based was the primary and continuing obligation of ancestor worship. The practical object he aimed at was the regular and correct execution of the sacra, that is to say the worship proper to the home. The mechanism by which the sacras were maintained was the collective character of the Home and the perpetual succession of the Father of the Home ”(William Edward Hearn, The Aryan Household: Its Structure and Its Development, London and New York, Longmans, Green, and Co, 1891, p. 63)It was based on a theory that our beliefs reject. He was aiming at an object that we can hardly understand. It was based on a mechanism that we have long passed. The theory on which it was based was the primary and continuing obligation of ancestor worship. The practical object he aimed at was the regular and correct execution of the sacra, that is to say the worship proper to the home. The mechanism by which the sacras were maintained was the collective character of the Home and the perpetual succession of the Father of the Home ”(William Edward Hearn, The Aryan Household: Its Structure and Its Development, London and New York, Longmans, Green, and Co, 1891, p. 63)The theory on which it was based was the primary and continuing obligation of ancestor worship. The practical object he aimed at was the regular and correct execution of the sacra, that is to say the worship proper to the home. The mechanism by which the sacras were maintained was the collective character of the Home and the perpetual succession of the Father of the Home ”(William Edward Hearn, The Aryan Household: Its Structure and Its Development, London and New York, Longmans, Green, and Co, 1891, p. 63)The theory on which it was based was the primary and continuing obligation of ancestor worship. The practical object he aimed at was the regular and correct execution of the sacra, that is to say the worship proper to the home. The mechanism by which the sacras were maintained was the collective character of the Home and the perpetual succession of the Father of the Home ”(William Edward Hearn, The Aryan Household: Its Structure and Its Development, London and New York, Longmans, Green, and Co, 1891, p. 63)The mechanism by which the sacras were maintained was the collective character of the Home and the perpetual succession of the Father of the Home ”(William Edward Hearn, The Aryan Household: Its Structure and Its Development, London and New York, Longmans, Green, and Co, 1891, p. 63)The mechanism by which the sacras were maintained was the collective character of the Home and the perpetual succession of the Father of the Home ”(William Edward Hearn, The Aryan Household: Its Structure and Its Development, London and New York, Longmans, Green, and Co, 1891, p. 63)
(4) James Kennedy, The Aryan Invasion of Northern India: An Essay in Ethnology and History. In The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, October 1919 [p. 493-529], p. 509.
(5) Suvira Jaiswal, The Changing Concept of 'Grihapati', in Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol. 53, 1992, p. 87-96, is of the opinion that, in the Rig-Véda, the grihapati "was not the head of a common patriarchal family, but the head of a clan which lived under the same roof and formed a social unit , economic and ritual ”.
(6) Rana Singh, Geographical Thoughts in India: Snapshots and Visions for the 21st Century, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle Upon Thyne, 2009, p. 307.
(7) Romila Thapar, The Penguin History of Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300, Penguin Books, 2003, p. 147.
(8) Rai Lajpat, The Political Future of India, 1st ed., Outlook, Frankfurt am Main, 2020, p. 30.
(9) “There are passages in the Mahabharata which explicitly indicate that, at the beginning, Indian society knew neither ruler nor ruled. At that time, that is, in krita yuga, there was no state, no king, no punishment, no punisher. All men protected each other with the Dharma ”(K. Damodaran, Indian Thought. A crititical Survey, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1967, p. 57; AC Bhaktivedanta Swami, Śrimad Bhagavatam: The creative impetus [Fifth Canto - Part Two ], The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1975, p. 541). The author, who was one of the founders of the Indian Communist Party, refers to the Shanti Parvan (Book of Consolation), the twelfth book of the Mahâbhârata, where it is indeed a question of a time when there was no of kings in India. Bhishma,one of the most powerful warriors in this epic tale, exposes two theories on the origin of royalty. According to one, the era before the birth of kingship was characterized by insecurity for the weak and unlimited power for the strong; the other considers it a time of peace and tranquility.
(10) James Kennedy, op. cit., p. 509; see also Rai Lajpat, op. cit., p. 29 and sqq. and Narendranath Law, Ancient Indian Treatises of Peace and KP Jayaswal, The Hindu Parliament under Hindu Monarchy. In Modern Review, vol. XXVII, n ° 1-6, January-June 1920 [p. 55]; [p. 125-33].
(11) Quoted in Rai Lajpat, op. cit., p. 30. “The Vedic communities were ruled in particular by a rājan [/ -rāj], which we translate as 'king', although some scholars have rightly hesitated on this translation and preferred 'chief'. No translation really captures the extent or nature of the office, as the rājans apparently ruled over various social groups or confederations. A rājan could lead a number of clans or a tribe or an alliance of tribes. Likewise, the responsibilities of a rājan might depend on the purpose for which a confederation or alliance had been formed. Finally, the process of appointing a rājan could also depend on the size of the group over which he ruled and possibly also on the period of Rig-Vedic history.The rājan performed his duties in times of sedentarism as well as in times of nomadism, but opinions differ as to whether there was a single rājan in post both in periods of sedentarism and in periods of nomadism or so different. rājan were appointed at different times or even if several rājan were in office at the same time ”(Joel P. Brereton and Stephanie W. Jamison, The Rigveda. A Guide, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2020, p. 37-8)Brereton and Stephanie W. Jamison, The Rigveda. A Guide, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2020, p. 37-8)Brereton and Stephanie W. Jamison, The Rigveda. A Guide, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2020, p. 37-8)
(12) Rai Lajpat, op. cit., p. 31.
(13) Jaimal Raj, The Rural Urban Economy And Social Changes In Ancient India, 300 BC to 600 AD, 1974, Bhāratīya Vidyā Prakāshan, Vārāṇasī, 1974, p. 301. Collective ownership of the tribe or village community existed among other peoples of Aryan origin. “There is ample evidence that the ancient Greeks and Romans were organized into village clans, with common land holdings. Morgan says the Athenian people, or clan, in some cases at least, held property in common. Thucydides speaks of these communities as independent systems of local government and it seems that at one time there was no city of Athens, but many village communities in Attica. The people of Rome were also in possession of common lands, with a common clan name,common religious rites, a burial place, etc. Mommsen describes 66 village communities on the banks of the Tiber, from which Rome was born. There is no doubt about the existence of these clan villages ”(Charles Morris, The Aryan Race: Its Origins and Its Achievements, 2nd ed., SC Griggs and Company, Chicago, 1892, p. 119; see also Édouard Gauckler, Recherches sur collective property in Rome and its influence on the law, Nancy, 1883).1883).1883).
(14) Jaimal Raj, op. cit., p. 14.
(15) Ibid., P. 301.
(16) MK Dhavalikar, The Aryans: Myth and Archeology, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 2007, p. 91.
(17) SA Dange, one of the founders of the Indian Communist Party, risked it, in a book called precisely India: From Primitive Communism to Slavery (1951), of which the Marxist-sensitive polymath DD Kosambi (1907–1966) says , in his review of it (Marxism and Ancient Indian Culture, in DD Kosambi and Anees Jahan Syed, DD Kosambi on History and Society: Problems of Interpretation, University of Bombay, Bombay, 1985, p. 73), which he "would not have deserved a review, if it were not for the fact that it would be discrediting Marxism not to refute such a piece of bravery". “Marxism,” he adds, “is not a substitute for reflection, but an instrument that must be used, with a minimum of skill and understanding, to analyze appropriate material.To intersect unfounded conjectures with quotes from Engels is not enough ”(ibid., P. 78); “Marxism,” he continues, “can be applied to the study of Indian culture. It can be very effective if used correctly. Matriarchy did exist, but not among the Aryans at the time when Dange would have it existed among them; time is a given that does not mean much in his book, chronology is irrelevant to him. We know a great deal about the actual functioning of the Indo-Aryan tribes, in particular the Vajji and the Licchavi, but not from the Vedas and not about the primitive times. These oligarchs, who have held their name high for at least a millennium, are the vratya [itinerant ascetics] and, contrary to what Dange asserts,they do not belong to the Vedic period, which shows that the sources he uses are as incorrect as his analysis is. But he is so keen to identify [in Indian history] the general stages defined by Engels that atrocious inaccuracies can be found on almost every page ”(ibid., P. 77); with regard to the above-mentioned thesis of vulgar Marxism, he argues that "not everyone [had] an equal right to all products" (DD Kosambi, Combined Methods in Indology and Other Writings, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, p. 25,But he is so keen to identify [in Indian history] the general stages defined by Engels that atrocious inaccuracies can be found on almost every page ”(ibid., P. 77); with regard to the above-mentioned thesis of vulgar Marxism, he argues that "not everyone [had] an equal right to all products" (DD Kosambi, Combined Methods in Indology and Other Writings, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, p. 25,But he is so keen to identify [in Indian history] the general stages defined by Engels that atrocious inaccuracies can be found on almost every page ”(ibid., P. 77); with regard to the above-mentioned thesis of vulgar Marxism, he argues that "not everyone [had] an equal right to all products" (DD Kosambi, Combined Methods in Indology and Other Writings, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, p. 25,http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/ddkindoparto ne.pdf; see also Bibhuti Bhushan Kundu, Was India in Primitive Communism in the Early Vedic Period? In Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, vol. 66, n ° 1/4, 1985 [p. 63-83] and E. Washburn Hopkins, Land-Tenure in Ancient India. In Political Science Quarterly Political Science Quarterly, vol. 13, n ° 4, December 1898 [p. 669-86]). It would be more accurate to say that everyone, within the strict limits of the clan to which they belonged , had an equal right to all products: samanâmastu .
It is worth noting one of the peculiarities that are encountered among Marxist or Indian Marxist authors, some of whom have been called upon here: their historical analysis takes into consideration the class struggle, the modes of production and the social relations of production, categories interpretations of canonical Marxist historiography, but also race. Finally, the consideration of economic factors in history is not reserved only for Marxist or Marxist authors, as evidenced by David Astle's penetrating study entitled The Babylonian Woe (see https://elementsdeducationraciale.wordpress.com/ 2015/10/18 / sparte-les-pelanors-la-riches-et-les-femmes / )
(18) AN Bose, Evolution of Civil Society and Caste System in India. In International Review of Social History, vol. 3, n ° 1, 1958 [p. 97-121], p. 98.
(19) Jaimal Raj, op. cit., p. 301.
(20) “The Indo-Aryans have never practiced exclusively herding herds and have therefore never been pure nomads in their long history. On the contrary, pastoralism and agriculture have always been present in their lives, but in varying proportions ”(Gyula Wojtilla, Agriculture Versus Pastoralism in Indo-Aryan Prehistory. In Chronica 11, 2011, January [p. 62-70] , p.70; see also Childe V. Gordon, The Aryans: A study of Indo-European origins, Kegan Paul, 1926).
(21) Ibid., P. 14.
(22) AN Bose, op. cit., p. 99-100.
(23) Ibid., P. 100.
(24) “'Gotra', 'stable', is a term that appeared in the early days when cattle shared the family home and, by analogy, it also referred to the home shared by an apprentice and his master. Blood kinship was not initially the fundamental principle of gotra […]. Pāṇini and Patañjali both define gotra as the relationship between those who observed the sacrificial ritual of a particular rishi, chosen to be the spiritual patriarch of that gotra ”(Benjamin Walker, Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism, vol.1 : AL, Routledge, 2019, p. 247).
(25) Irawati Karve, Kinship Organization in India, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 2nd ed. Review, 1965, p. 123. "Kulam" is one of the three terms, along with "jâti" and "jâta", for "caste" (ibid., P. 5). Originally, the system of tribal organization known as "gotra" was peculiar to the Brahmins (ibid., P. 48); whether it was gotra or vamsa, the group was referred to by the name of the common male ancestor, while many kula were named after the locality in which they resided (ibid., p. 123). A particularly detailed study, of which long extracts are quoted below, showed that they must have a strongly matriarchal character.
“'Kula' is equated with an expanse of kneaded or cultivated land. Nirukta (VI.26) explains that the epithet of the Vitasta river is 'maha-kula', which means 'to have mighty or high banks'. Here, 'Kula' is also pronounced as 'kula'. Therefore, the compound maha-kula must mean 'river bordered by a vast expanse of cultivated land. Patanjali, commenting on Panini VII 3.1, remarks that rice was grown on the banks of the Devika River (Devika-kulah salayah). RS Sharma observes: 'Due to the relative insufficiency of the artificial means of irrigation, the main hope of the peasants lay in the flooding of their lands by the swollen rivers during the rainy season.We find an indication of this in a grammatical illustration which informs us that the banks of the Devika River were particularly suited to the cultivation of rice. '
“In his commentary on Panini I.1.24, Patanjali calls the canals which irrigated the rice fields, kuhas (Salartham kulyah praniyante). Pali uses a revealing term for a channel, namely 'matika'. Buddha speaks of fields blessed by canals (khettam matika-sampannam hoti). According to the commentator Buddhaghosa, 'matika' means 'mother' (Matika'ti mataro janettiyo'ti attho). “Early Buddhist philosophy used it as a synonym for 'cause', 'matrix of effects'.
“'Kulya' meant a basket and a measure of corn equal to 8 drona or 16 maund.
“Manu (VI II 19) enjoins a king to remunerate the services of the lords of ten and twenty-five villages with respectively one and five kula of land […]
“'Kulam', '(as many lands as there are) families', is actually a technical term as Medh. explained by 'ghanta', a word common in some districts. Gov., Kull, Nar. and Ragh. claim that this is double an average plow, that is, what can be cultivated with twelve oxen, while Nand. gives it the meaning of 'part of a farmer'.
“VS Agrawal thinks 'kula' was the equivalent of two plowed lands, Manu refers to a measure of land called 'kula' and equivalent to two plowed lands… like the dohalika of land grants.
[…]
“'Kula' means 'woman' in Tantrism, which is agricultural magic. D. Ghattopadhyaya defines agricultural magic as follows: 'Agricultural magic is based on the principle that the productivity of nature - mother earth - can be brought about or increased by imitating human reproductive functions. Conversely, human fertility is considered to be dependent on natural fertility. Briffault has conclusively proven that agriculture, everywhere in the world, was the invention of women […]. This is why the Vedic agricultural magic ritual called Sîta was, according to Altekar, exclusively a woman's affair: some sacrifices could only be offered by women until 500 BC The Sita, intended to favor a rich harvest,was one of them… It is possible that the performance of these sacrifices was reserved for women… due to the theory that since they are intended to promote a bountiful harvest and fertility, they must be performed by women alone, who are their visible symbols'.
“Kautalya (11:40) ordered that sowing should always be preceded by the invocation of Sita, the Vedic deity of agriculture.
“The Atharva hymn 1.14 is meant to be a magical incantation against a girl 'kula-pa' (kanya). Whitney translates kula-pa as 'servant', while he renders the same word in Rk VII. 72.2 by 'head of family'. This term is generally given the meaning it has in this hymn as well as in Rk VIII. 80, X. 39, 40, of 'celibate', or 'unmarried woman forced to keep her father's house and to grow old there. But, the literal meaning of the word is 'protector' or 'chieftain'.
[…]
“This means that the head of a kula was a woman who, as the priestess of the clan, performed agricultural magic operations in order to ensure and promote the fertility and productivity of the kula land” (Sharad Patil, Some Aspects of Matriarchy in Ancient India: Clan Mother to Tribal Mother. In Social Scientist, vol. 2, n ° 4, November 1973 [p. 42-58], p. 45-6, p. 47-8).
(26) Irawati Karve, op.cit., P. 44.
(27) Jaimal Raj, op. cit., p. 22.
(28) Ibid., P. 24.
(29) Ibid., P. 28.
(30) Ibid., P. 38.
(31) Jeannine Auboyer, Daily Life In Ancient India, translated from French by Simon Watson Taylor, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1961, p. 200.
(32) Jaimal Raj, op. cit., p. 44.
(33) Ibid., P. 45.
(34) Ibid., P. 46.
(35) Ibid., P. 49. See, on the subject of state formation in India, the overview given by AN Bose, op. cit., p. 101 and sqq.
(36) Jaimal Raj, op. cit., p. 179.
(37) Ibid., P. 108.
(38) Cited in ibid., P. 109 and 111.
(39) Ibid., P. 307.
(40) Ibid., P. 99.
(41) Jajmani system. In Britannica [online]. [accessed February 22, 2021]. Available at https://www.britannica.com/topic/jajmani-system/ .
(42) Jaimal Raj, op. cit., p. 99-100.
(43) GC Chauhan, op. cit., p. 36.
(44) Jaimal Raj, op. cit., p. 311.
(45) GC Chauhan, op. cit., p. 36.
(46) Ralph Edmund Turner, The Great Cultural Tradition, vol. 1: The Ancient Cities, McGraw-Hill, 1941, p. 386.
(47) Jaimal Raj, op. cit., p. 148.
(48) Ralph Edmund Turner, op. cit., p. 378-9. Indra, one of the very few truly Aryan gods in the Rig-Veda, “is the 'city breaker' (puramdara) [and] neither Indra nor any of his followers is described as a city builder or owner. . None of them has ever built anything hard ”(DD Kosambi, Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1975, p. 94),
(49) Jaimal Raj, op. cit., p. 166.
(50) Quoted in ibid., P. 205-6.
(51) Jean C. Darian, Social and Economic Factors in the Rise of Buddhism. In Sociology of Religion, vol. 38, n ° 3, autumn 1977 [p. 226–38], p. 230.
(52) AN Bose, op. cit., p. 103. See, regarding the Brahmins, infra, note 68 and, regarding the kshatriya, infra, note 79.
(53) Rajendra Nath Sharma, Brahmins through the Ages: Their Social, Religious, Cultural, Political, and Economic Life, Ajanta Publications, Delhi, 1977, p. 49. For the same reason, the dharmasastra (legal treatises), including the Manusmriti, made the suppression of all forms of atheism and the severe punishment of atheists a major political duty of the king.
(54) The Brahmans, it is said without gossip among the Paraiyar, Tamil caste of southern India, "were created to do nothing" (Robert Deliège, Les Mythes d 'origin chez les Paraiyar (South India). In L'Homme, 1989, t. 29, n ° 109 [p. 107-16], p. 112).
(55) See Gustave Glotz, Greek History, vol. 2, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1986.
(56) Fustel de Coulanges, Researches on some history problems, 2nd ed., Librairie Hachette et Cie, Paris, 1894, p. 222.
(57) Ibid.
(58) T. Childe Barker (Rev.), Aryan Civilization: Its Religious Origin and Its Progress, Based on the Work of De Coulanges, Parker, London, 1872, p. 15.
(59) FE Pargiter, op. cit., p. 309; George William Cox (Rev.), The Mythology of the Aryan Nations, vol. 1, C. Keegan Paul and Co., 1878, London, p. 21; John Lubbock Bart (Sir), The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Man, 5th ed., Considerably increased, D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1889, p. 376.
(60) Frank Deaville Walke, India and Her Peoples, Cargate Press, 1928, p. 22.
(61) Swami Dharma Theerta, History of Hindu Imperialism, Dalit Educational Literature Center, Madras. 1941, p. 15.
(62) James Kennedy, op. cit., p. 508-9. What the author judges here to be a minus is obviously a plus from the Aryan point of view, simplicity being one of the original qualities of this strain.
(63) FE Pargiter, op. cit., p. 310.
(64) “The Vedic religion had two different forms, namely Arsha and Daiva, respectively professed by the Rishis and the Devas. The first was philosophical, while the second was popular; the Rishis aimed at moral bliss - a highly reasoned existence, while the Devas aimed at the excellent performance of Vedic rites with a view to eternal bliss ”(Swami Dharma Theerta, op. cit., p. 258 ff). The opposition of the rishis to the introduction by the devas of bloody sacrifices into the cult caused a rupture between them and games that were in no way oratory (ibid.).
(65) Rig-Vedic traditions describe some rishis as black-skinned individuals (see GC Chauhan, The Making of Sudra: as Reflected in Early Indian Literary Traditions. In IJIRAS, vol. 2, n ° 3, March 2015, p. 36.
(66) Swami Dharma Theerta, op. cit., p. 15.
(67) Ibid., P. 267. “But the Rishis composed satirical hymns against the Brahmins, which have been preserved to this day. They compared the penances of the Brahmins to the heat which the frogs suffer during the dry season; and they compared the words of the Brahmins during their sacrifices to the croaking of the same animals. In addition, they ridiculed the vows of celibacy that Brahmin sages sometimes took with humorous depictions of the complaints of neglected wives ”(J. Talboys Wheeler, The History of India from the Earliest Ages, vol. 3, Trübner & Co., London , 1874, p. 82).
(68) Rajendra Nath Sharma, op. cit., p. 4-5. See also Ram Sharan Sharma, Material Culture And Social Formations In Ancient India, Macmillan India, 2007, p. 22. DD Kosambi (Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1975, pp. 94-100), based on Patanjali, as well as on various Upanishad, such as Brihadâranyaka and Chândogya, proposes “l 'interpretation according to which Brahmana means a follower or a descendant of Brahma and that the whole sect is pre-Aryan ”.
(69) Rajendra Nath Sharma, op. cit., p. 27.
(70) Jaimal Raj, op. cit., p. 108-9.
(71) J. Talboys Wheeler, op. cit., vol. 2, Trübner & Co., London, 1869, p. 435. It would be more accurate to say: "What radically distinguished somebrahmins of the rishis ”because not all Brahmins were ascetics. There existed, as the Buddhist literature particularly attests, two types of Brahmins, namely the priests and those (called muni, sramana and who existed before the arrival of the Aryans in the Indian peninsula) who meditated and had renounced the world and whose the former disapproved of the way of life (Romila Thapar, Householders and Renouncers in the Brahmanical and Buddhist Traditions, in TN Madan [ed.], Way of Life: King, Householder, Renouncer: Essays in Honor of Louis Dumont, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi , p. 276; David J. Kalupahana, Buddhist Philosophy: A Historical Analysis, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1976, p. 3)
(72) See Johannes Bronkhorst, The Two Sources of Indian Asceticism, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, Delhi, 1998; GS Ghurye, Ascetic Origins, In Sociological Bulletin Sociological Bulletin, vol. 1, n ° 2, 1952 [p. 162-84]
(73) J. Talboys Wheeler, op. cit., p. 82.
(74) Ibid., P. 80.
(75) See ibid., P. 79-80.
(76) Swami Dharma Theerta, op. cit., p.34.
(77) See Johannes Bronkhorst, On the origins of Indian philosophy, Epub, 2008.
(78) Romesh Chunder Dutt, A History of Civilization in Ancient India, ed. review, vol. 1, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co., Ltd, London, 1893, p. 7. “As they settled further upstream of the river, they manifested less and less the vigor of the conquering races. The royal courts of the Videha and the Kâsi were learned and enlightened, but contemporary literature does not bear witness to their warlike qualities. The Kosala, too, were a polite nation, but the traditions of this nation, preserved in the second national epic of India, the Râmâyana […], show a great attachment to social and domestic duties, to obedience to priests and respect for religious forms more than they bear witness to the robust valor and ardent jealousies of the Mahabharata ”(ibid.).
(79) See M. Rama Rayo, Iksvakûs of Vijayapurî, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, 1967, p. 2-3. In fact, the Aryans are said to have intermingled with other races already as early as the early days when they had not yet migrated to India and reportedly lived in Central Asia (see DP Mishra, Studies in the Proto-History of India, Orient Longman, New Delhi, 1971). Rama, the son of Dasharatha, is described in the Rig-Veda as "Shyama", that is, as having a "dark" complexion, just like Krishna, the descendant of the Yadu, another Aryan clan (BR Ambedkar , Who Were The Shudras ?, Thackers, 1946, p. 76).
(80) David Ludden, An Agrarian History of South Asia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999, p. 80-1. (82) Jaimal Raj, op. cit., p. 317-8.
(81) sv “Ara”, DARG, t. 1, Part 1, Hachette et Cie, Paris, 1877, p. 347.

(83) Pramatha Nath Bose, History of the Caste System in India. In Journal of the National Indian Association, London, 1878, p. 162.
(84) Swami Dharma Theerta, op. cit., p. 32. By way of example, the Sattapatha Brâhmana stipulates that a priest should not officiate during a Soma sacrifice for remuneration of less than one hundred cows (Thakur Harendra Dayal, The Visnu Purana, Sundeep Prakashan, 1983, p. 191).
(85) Ibid.
(86) “Thus, each Arya, in addition to making daily offerings, had to perform the Sthalipaka twice a month, the seven Grihya Sansthas and other special sacrifices such as the Shula-gava, another for the birth of one son, another for the prevention of disease or famine, etc. For the greatest family sacrifices, it sometimes took up to sixteen priests ”(Swami Dharma Theerta, op. Cit., P. 33).
(87) James Kennedy, op. cit., p. 509.
(88) Herbert Hope Risley (Sir), The Tribes and Castes of Bengal, vol. 1, Calcutta, 1892, p. 143.
(89) “The Satapatha Brâhmana said:“… And formerly, only the Vasistha knew these words; and this is why one of the Vasistha families became a Brahmin, but for some time anyone can study them, anyone can become a Brahmin ”(Rajendra Nath Sharma, op. cit., p. 27). (91) At the beginning of the Vedic period and even long afterwards, “[hereditary] occupation is therefore not yet a recognized principle, much less an established fact. What one can say is that there were recognized professions such as the priesthood or distinctions of nobility and that in many cases they tended to become hereditary ”(Rajendra Nath Sharma, op. Cit. ., p. 28)
(90) Herbert Hope Risley (Sir), op. cit., p. 143. (92) Herbert Hope Risley (Sir), op. cit., p. 143. Contrary to the opinion of Evola (and others), according to which “… each caste could be considered as 'pure', because the law of endogamy, of unmixedity, applied to all ”,“ everything shows that, [in practice], the prohibition of mixed marriages between different classes was never considered and even that they were in fashion. The marriage of members of the three upper classes with Shudra was indeed frowned upon, but it was not strictly forbidden ”. (RC Majumdar, Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi, 1952, p. 91). (93) Jaimal Raj, op. cit., p. 300-1.

(94) Arthur Anthony Macdonell and Arthur Berriedale Keith, Vedic Index of Names and Subjects, vol. 2, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi, 1995 [1912], p. 259.
(95) Robert Rickards, India; Or, Facts, Smith, Elder, and Co, London, 1828, note 1.
(96) “The priests ensure that the one they initiate becomes again (through the Dîkshâ ceremony) an embryo (that is to say, they make him reborn). They sprinkle it with water, for water is a seed. By having thus provided him with a seed (for his new birth), they initiate him. They coat it with fresh butter (navanîta). The butter of the gods is called âjya, that of men surabhi ghritam, that of the âyuta manes and that of navanita embryos. That is why, by anointing it with fresh butter, they cause it to develop on its own. They smear her eyes with eye drops. Because this balm gives radiance to both eyes. By giving him luster, they make him a Dîkshita. They clean it with twenty-one handfuls of the Darbha weed. By having thus made him pure and clean, they make him a Dîkshita.They bring him into the place intended for the Dîkshita. Because it is the belly of the Dîkshita. By making him enter the place intended for the Dîkshita, they bring him into his own womb. In this (place) he sits down as in a safe abode, then leaves it. The embryos are then placed in the uterus as in a safe place, and then they are brought into the world (like fruit). This is why, at sunrise and sunset, he must not be in any place other than the place assigned to the Dîkshita and no one should speak to him (in case he is forced to leave this place). They cover it with a cloth. For this fabric is the strainer (ulba) of the Dîkshita (in which he will be born, like a child); they therefore cover it with a strainer. The exterior (of this tissue) is lined (by them) with the skin of a black antelope.Because the placenta (jarâyu) is outside the strainer. Thus, they cover it (symbolically with the skin of the antelope) with the placenta. He closes his hands. Indeed, the embryo is inside (the uterus), the hands closed; the child is born with closed hands. By closing his hands, he holds the sacrifice and all his deities in his two closed hands. They allege as the reason (that the Dîkshita must close both hands) that (of two people who sacrifice in the same place and at the same time), the one who is admitted first to the Dîkshâ (initiation) is not guilty ( of sin) of “confusion of libations” (samsava). For he holds his sacrifice and the gods (in his hands); and (therefore) he does not suffer from the same deprivation as one who is admitted to the Dîksha later. After removing the skin of the black antelope,he goes down to bathe. Then the embryos are born after being separated from the placenta. He goes down to bathe, wrapped in the linen (which has been put on him). Then a child will be born in a strainer ”(The Aiteraya Brahmanam of the Rigveda, vol. II, translated by Martin Haug, Trübner and Co., London, 1863, p. 8-10. A full description of this ritual, with text in Sanskrit opposite, can be found in Max Müller, A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, Williams and Norgate, London, 1859, p. 390 et seq.). Because of its symbolism so explicitly feminine and even morbidly maternal, "[i] t is impossible that the rite and the consequences which flowed from it had their origin in the Aryan tribes of pure blood" (wrapped in the linen (which was put to him). Then a child will be born in a strainer ”(The Aiteraya Brahmanam of the Rigveda, vol. II, translated by Martin Haug, Trübner and Co., London, 1863, p. 8-10. A complete description of this ritual, with the text in Sanskrit opposite, can be found in Max Müller, A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, Williams and Norgate, London, 1859, p. 390 et seq.). Because of its symbolism so explicitly feminine and even morbidly maternal, "[i] t is impossible that the rite and the consequences which flowed from it had their origin in the Aryan tribes of pure blood" (wrapped in the linen (which was put to him). Then a child will be born in a strainer ”(The Aiteraya Brahmanam of the Rigveda, vol. II, translated by Martin Haug, Trübner and Co., London, 1863, p. 8-10. A complete description of this ritual, with the text in Sanskrit opposite, can be found in Max Müller, A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, Williams and Norgate, London, 1859, p. 390 et seq.). Because of its symbolism so explicitly feminine and even morbidly maternal, "[i] t is impossible that the rite and the consequences which flowed from it had their origin in the Aryan tribes of pure blood" (with the Sanskrit text opposite, is found in Max Müller, A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, Williams and Norgate, London, 1859, p. 390 et seq.). Because of its symbolism so explicitly feminine and even morbidly maternal, "[i] t is impossible that the rite and the consequences which flowed from it had their origin in the Aryan tribes of pure blood" (with the Sanskrit text opposite, is found in Max Müller, A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, Williams and Norgate, London, 1859, p. 390 et seq.). Because of its symbolism so explicitly feminine and even morbidly maternal, "[i] t is impossible that the rite and the consequences which flowed from it had their origin in the Aryan tribes of pure blood" (https://elementsdeducationraciale.wordpress.com/2018/09/30/notes-sur-lhistoire-primitive-du-nord-de-linde-1/ ). It is even legitimate to wonder if it did not have the opposite effect of that which Evola praises, by determining a real regression in the one who accomplished it.
(97) Julius Evola, Grundrisse des Faschistischen Rassenlehre, Runge-Verlag, Berlin, 1943, p. 69 (Grundrisse des Faschistischen Rassenlehre will be published in French under the title of Fondements de la Doctrine Fasciste de la Race during the year)
(98) https://elementsdeducationraciale.wordpress.com/2018/09/30/notes -on-the-primitive-history-of-north-india-1 / .
(99) The Family Cyclopedia, Cincinnati, OH, 1889, p. 158.
(100) See Johannes Bronkhorst, op. cit.
(101) TW Rhys Davids, Buddhism: Being a Sketch of the Life and Teachings of Gautama, the Buddha, new. ed., journal, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, 1894, p. 24.
(102) James Vaughan (Rev.), The Trident, the Crescent, and the Cross, Longmans, Green, and Co., London, 1876, p. 35.
(103) PL Rawat, History of Indian Education, Ram Prasad and Sons, 1963, p. 35; Kananur V. Chandras, Four Thousand Years of Indian Education: A Short History of the Hindu, Buddhist, and Moslem Periods, R&E Research Associates, San Francisco, 1977, p. 42.
(104) Ernest Binfield Havell, The History of Aryan Rule in India, from the Earliest Times to the Death of Akbar, Frederick A. Stokes Company, New York, 1918, p. 39.
(105) The Family Cyclopedia, p. 156.
(106) The Laws of Manou, translated from Sanskrit by G. Strehly, Ernest Leroux, Paris, 1895, p.16. (108) The Family Cyclopedia, p. 156. “According to the Dharmashastra, the king could not decide on religious matters and had no legislative power” (Nalini Rao, The Hindu Monastery in South India: Social, Religious, and Artistic Traditions, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD , 2020, p. 66). (109) Satapatha Brâhmana, Kânda 5, Adhyâya 4, Brahmana, 7, in F. Max Müller (ed.), The Sacred Books of the East: The Satapatha-Brâhmana, vol. XLI, Charendon Press, Oxford, 1894, p. 108; see also Rajendra Nath Sharma, op. cit., p. 42. (110) Auguste Loiseleur Deslongchamps, Laws of Manou: including the religious and civil institutions of the Indians, Paris, 1843, p. 22. (111) Ibid.
(107) “The political influence of the Brahmins is often illustrated by cases prejudicial to the interests of society and to the personal well-being of the sovereign […] They all continually annoy their prince to obtain land grants for themselves and the sanctuaries to which they are attached; and every chief, as well as every influential servant, takes advantage of ephemeral favors to increase the endowments of his tutelary deity ”(James Tod, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, vol. 1, 2nd ed., Higginbotham and Co, Madras, 1973, p . 440-1).

(112) “… the extravagant prerogatives of the Brahmin caste demonstrate that the development, but not the origin, of the caste system is largely due to the ambition and selfishness of the Brahmans. The position of the Brahmins in Hindu society could not be what it is according to the Sanskrit law books […], if the Brahmins had not made all possible efforts to inculcate the doctrine of their own superiority in the spirit of the people ”(M. Winternitz, Hindu Castes and Sects. In Nature, October 14, 1897, n ° 1459, vol. 56, p. 561-2,).
(113) Ebenezer Sunder Raj, The Origins of the Caste System. In Transformation, vol. 2, n ° 2, 1985 [p. 10-4].
(114) M. Winternitz, op. cit., p. 360.
(115) Swami Dharma Theerta, op. cit., p. 44-5. “As if caste distinctions weren't enough to divide society, even people of the same caste, mostly Hindu villagers, are divided by dalladoli, or faction. If a villager violates a religious or social custom and the entire rural Hindu community agrees that his act amounts to an outright denial of this custom on a very important point, he is excommunicated, that is, say that he is forbidden to marryor to eat with members of his caste. The washermen and barbers would refuse to serve him. In the event of a difference of opinion as to the correctness of his conduct, his supporters and opponents form two opposing parties, which cease to take their meal together. Such is the reverence accorded to custom, the energetic measures generally adopted to preserve it intact!
There are not only accidental but permanent causes of social division between people of the same caste. For example, the Brahmans are either Rari or Varendra, depending on whether they are descended from the first settlers of the west or east bank of the Ganges, Koolin or Suritriya; the former belong to the brotherhood of noble Brahmins, created by Ballal Sen, the last Hindu ruler of Bengal, the latter do not. Around 900 AD, King Adisur of Gour, eager to perform sacrifices for which the Brahmins of Lower Bengal were not competent, summoned five Brahmins from Kanauj. According to the purity of their descendants from these emigrants and the places where they had settled, their descendants were called Rari or Varendra.The competing claims of old and new settlers quickly became a source of national concern, and two centuries later Ballal Sen found it necessary to settle questions of precedence through a comprehensive classification of his Aryan subjects. Several mixed castes come from the followers of the Kanauj Brahmans, such as the Kayastha. Koolinism […] at one time proved to be a prolific source of outrageous polygamy, pecuniary abuse and misery for Koolin wives (many of whom, having 80 or 100 co-wives, could only rarely see their husbands) … ”(Kailas Chundra Kanjilal, The Ins and Outs of Bengali Life. In The Calcutta Review, vol. 100, January 1895, p. 289).Ballal Sen found it necessary to settle questions of precedence by an exhaustive classification of his Aryan subjects. Several mixed castes come from the followers of the Kanauj Brahmans, such as the Kayastha. Koolinism […] at one time proved to be a prolific source of outrageous polygamy, pecuniary abuse and misery for Koolin wives (many of whom, having 80 or 100 co-wives, could only rarely see their husbands) … ”(Kailas Chundra Kanjilal, The Ins and Outs of Bengali Life. In The Calcutta Review, vol. 100, January 1895, p. 289).Ballal Sen found it necessary to settle questions of precedence by an exhaustive classification of his Aryan subjects. Several mixed castes come from the followers of the Kanauj Brahmans, such as the Kayastha. Koolinism […] at one time proved to be a prolific source of outrageous polygamy, pecuniary abuse and misery for Koolin wives (many of whom, having 80 or 100 co-wives, could only rarely see their husbands) … ”(Kailas Chundra Kanjilal, The Ins and Outs of Bengali Life. In The Calcutta Review, vol. 100, January 1895, p. 289).pecuniary abuse and misery for Koolin wives (many of whom, having 80 or 100 co-wives, could rarely see their husbands)… ”(Kailas Chundra Kanjilal, The Ins and Outs of Bengali Life. In The Calcutta Review) , vol. 100, January 1895, p. 289).pecuniary abuse and misery for Koolin wives (many of whom, having 80 or 100 co-wives, could rarely see their husbands)… ”(Kailas Chundra Kanjilal, The Ins and Outs of Bengali Life. In The Calcutta Review) , vol. 100, January 1895, p. 289).
(116) Romesh Chunder Dutt, op. cit., p. 8.
(117) See Christoffer H. Grundmann, Beyond 'Holy Wars': Forging Sustainable Peace through Interreligious Dialogue - A Christian Perspective, Pickwick Publications, 2014.
(118) Golâpchandra Sarkâr Sâstri, The Hindu Law of Adoption, Thacker, Spink and Co., Calcutta, 1891, p. 158.
(119) From what period does Guénon date this “revolt”? In Le Sanglier et l'Ourse (Traditional Studies, vol. 41, n ° 200-201, August 1936), he asserts that [t) he first manifestations of this revolt, in fact, go back much further than history usually. known, and even later than the beginning of Kali-Yuga, in which it was to take its greatest extension ”; however, some fifteen years earlier, he warned, in the opening pages of Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power (1929), in which precisely the chapter entitled The Revolt of the Kshatriyas is to be found, that, will follow, we do not intend to go back to the origins in this way, and all our examples will be borrowed from times much closer to us,included even only in what we can call the last part of Kali Yuga, that which is accessible to ordinary history, and which begins exactly in the sixth century before the Christian era ”. Consequently, when he writes (p. 62) that "history brings a striking confirmation to what we said above, that the temporal power destroys itself by ignoring its subordination vis-à-vis the spiritual authority… ”, that“… the Kshatriyas, no longer content to occupy the second rank in the hierarchy of social functions, although this second rank included the exercise of all the external and visible power, revolted against the authority of the Brahmans and wanted to free themselves from any dependence on them ”(p. 61-2),it can only refer to the refusal of the kshatriya to accept Brahmanic ritualism any longer, because the last Upanishad, in which this refusal is expressed, were composed precisely in the sixth century BC. But this is where things get complicated (see infra, note 120).
(120) Things get complicated when we look at the question of extracting the historical authors of the Upanishads. “We can note that some, such Asvapati of Kekaya, Janaka of Videha, Pravâhana Jaivali of Panchâla and Ajâtasatru of Kâsi were rather royal sages than Brahmin priests. Even though the Kshatriya played an important role in the Upanishadic movement, it is not correct to argue that there was a systematic rivalry between them and the Brahmins or that Upanishadic philosophy was a revolt of the Kshatriya against the ritualistic religion of the Brahmins. Several 'scholars' have relied on some passages of the Upanishad to argue that these express a revolt against the priestly system of the Brahmans and also a revolt of the Kshatriya against the Brahmin priests. But,as pointed out by Prof. GC Pande,only the panchâgnividyâ is specifically attributed to the Kshatriya . On the other hand, a number of Upanishadic philosophers such as Yâjnavalkya and Uddalaka Arupi were Brahmins ”(emphasis added) (SR Goyal, A Religiours History of Ancient India [up to 1200 AD], vol. 1, Kusumanjali Prakashan, Meerut, 1984, p. 108-9). It follows - which could make noise in the Guénonien Landerneau - that it would be appropriate to speak of “rebellion of the Brahmans” (of certain Brahmins against others) rather than of “revolt of the kshatriyas”. (122) “Vedic and epic traditions provide ample evidence that Indra was a Brahmicide and that his main enemy, Vrtra, was a Brahmin” (Ram Sharan Sharma, Material Culture And Social Formations In Ancient India, Macmillan India, 2007, p. 22).
(121) FE Pargiter, op. cit., p. 307.

(123) Ananda K. Coomaraswamy and Keshvaram N. Iengar (eds.), Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory of Government, eds. journal, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994, [1942].
(124) Quoted in Julius Evola, Men among the Ruins, Inner Traditions, 2002, p. 67. (126) Still does not mean that the two powers are united in the one who wears it, because, at the birth of the Buddha, the sage Asita interpreted the marks on the body of the child as a sign that 'it was intended either for spiritual sovereignty or temporal sovereignty (emphasis added) (Robert Beer, The Handbook of Tibetan Buddhist Symbols, Serindia, Chicago, IL, 2003, p. 36).
(125) Id., Heathen Imperialism, Cariou Publishing, 2020 [2007], p. 63.

(127) Herbert Hope Risley (Sir), op. cit., p. 142. Wanting to warn against the democratization of the idea of ​​race by attributing equal dignity to all members of the Voksgemeinschaft, Evola attacks those "who assumed that the ancient Aryans felt different of other races, while feeling equal among themselves, forgetting even the caste distinctions that existed in the community of the purest arya ”(Grundrisse…, p. 82). In doing so, he forgets that, as we have shown, castes are an essentially Brahmanic construct posterior to Aryan origins.The fact remains that it is aberrant to transpose the reality which was that of a people of a few tens of thousands of relatively homogeneous individuals from the racial point of view to a people of several tens of millions of individuals. diverse ethnicities and who was already quite Slavic.
(128) René Guénon, General Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines, Marcel Rivière, Paris, 1921, p. 191. It should just be observed, on the one hand, that, if race is "one of the elements which can influence the constitution of individual nature", this element is undoubtedly the most determining, because, in the individual, “hereditary traits […] always represent the primary, original, essential and invulnerable element” (Julius Evola, Grundrisse…, p. 8) and, on the other hand, that the idea of ​​“proper nature of each human being ”, of“ individual essence ”, the Brahmans obviously exploited it above all in its applications to the hierarchical system of the castes, by establishing a correspondence between guna and castes. “Hindu doctrine,” explains Guénon (op. Cit., P. 45-6), considers three gunas,constitutive qualities of beings in all their states of manifestation: sattwa, conformity to the pure essence of the universal Being, which is identified with intelligible light or knowledge, and represented as an upward tendency; rajas, the expansive impulse, according to which the being develops in a certain state and, as it were, at a determined level of existence; finally, tamas, obscurity, assimilated to ignorance, and represented as a downward trend. The gunas are in perfect equilibrium in the primordial indifferentiation, and any manifestation represents a rupture of this equilibrium; these three elements are in all beings, but in various proportions, which determine the respective tendencies of these beings. In the nature of the Brahman, it is sattwa that predominates,orienting it towards supra-human states; in that of Kshatriya, it is rajas, which tends to the realization of the possibilities included in the human state. The predominance of sattwa corresponds to that of intellectuality; with the predominance of rajas, that of what we can, for lack of a better term, call sentimentality ”. Apart from what, in truth, the Manusmriti say that sattwa predominates in the nature of the Brahmin, that the nature of kshatriya is a mixture of sattwa and AAA rajas, that of Vaishya a mixture of rajas and AAA tamas, and that tamas predominates in the nature of shudra (Matthias Vereno, On the Relations of Dumézilian Comparative Indo-European Mythology to History of Religions in General, in Gerald J. Larson, Myth in Indo-European Antiquity, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA,1974, p. 187), the point is that "[t] he Rig and Yajurveda did not come up with a concept that could relate to the three Gunas" (Rajendra Verma, Vedic Cosmology: Creation Ideas in the Ancient Vedic Religion: a Hermeneutic Study, New Age International, 1996, p. 120), a concept that first appears in the dualistic Sâmkhya philosophy, codified in the 4th or 5th century BC in the Sâṃkhyakârikâ. Moreover, “[in] various passages of the Brahmana, epic poems and Purána, the creation of mankind is […] described without the slightest allusion to a separate production of the progenitors of the four castes. And while, in the chapters where they relate the distinct formation of castes, the Pûrana […] attribute different natural dispositions to each class,elsewhere they represent the whole of humanity as being characterized at creation by rajas, passion ”(Golâpchandra Sarkâr Sâstri, op. cit., p. 155).
(129) The Kshatriya caste was distorted as "various people who were engaged in politics or belonged to the military, including Vaishya, Shudra, indigenous non-Aryan tribes, as well as migrants and invaders, proclaimed kshatriya. The resulting degradation of this varna and the fact that many new dynasties acquired their status as kshatriya through Brahmanic rites enabled the Brahmins to supplant the kshatriya as the dominant varna. The Brahmins justified the introduction of new clans into the varna kshatriya on the pretext that these people were originally kshatriya, but that they had become vratyas, outcasts,because of their neglect of the rites and duties of their caste and that they could be rehabilitated by performing rites of purification. To reinforce this claim, the Brahmins invented appropriate legends and genealogies to relate these clans to the solar or lunar lineage, the two great kshatriya lineages of the Epic and Puranic traditions. Many ruling families on the subcontinent were thus made kshatriya over the centuries. In northern India, many migrants and tribal members who were given the status of khatriya by this process were called Rajputs, a people totally unknown before the 6th century AD, but who at the beginning of the Middle Ages , was considered the very embodiment of varna kshatriya.This people was obviously transformed into a kshatriya by the Brahmanic rites ”(Abraham Eraly, The First Spring: The Golden Age of India, Viing, 2011, p. 302-3).
(130) See, concerning the Arya reduced to the condition of shudra, Ram Sharan Sharma, Śūdras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order Down to Circa A. D. 600, 2nd ed., Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi, 1990. Given the importance of the question in Aryan studies and the number of ready-made ideas which surround it by parasitizing it, it is necessary to re-establish some facts. “It is interesting to note, writes Professor GC Chauhan, that historians and sociologists invariably equate caste with 'color' (varna). In fact, in ancient Indian literary traditions, caste was referred to by the unique term varna. As this term well indicates the color in several hymns of the Rgveda,Western scholars are of the opinion that the Shudra were the original inhabitants of India and that this dark-skinned people were defeated and subjugated by the white-skinned Arya. They base their argument on the identification of the Shudra with the Dasa and Dasyu, peoples of color who are mentioned repeatedly in the hymns of the Rgveda. But the Shudra cannot be identified with either the Dasa or the Dasyu, except perhaps when 'shudra' is used to negatively qualify the appearance, the language and the beliefs of the Dasa and the Dasyu […] It is not indicated nowhere did the Vedic deities use their lethal weapons against the Shudra as they did against the Dasa and Dasyus ”(GC Chauhan, op. cit., p. 36). In fact, “The Shudra are not mentioned in the list of non-Aryans,which, however, included groups such as the Pulinda and the Sabar; they are still located in the northwest and there is evidence that they settled on the shores of the Saraswati, an area that was the center of Aryans' activity ”(ibid.). Then “… the Shudra did not emerge as a social class until towards the end of the Atharva Veda period [beginning of the tenth century BCE], but, in this context, 'the term' shudra 'does not apply. relate not to a varna, but to a tribe '. There is no evidence of any racial, linguistic or territorial differentiation between the Aryans and the Shudra […] 'in the light of the available data, one can think that the tribe of the Shudra had some affinity with the Aryans' . During the time of the first Aryans,the Shudra were to be seen more as a tribal entity than as a social class, and, if one relies on the evidence from the literary traditions of this period, there is no evidence of any class hostility between the Shudra and the Aryans for a period of six to seven hundred years ... "(ibid., P.36) It has been suggested, on the basis of the passage from the Shanti Parva of the Mahâbhârata where Paijavana is described as a king Shudra," that the Kshatriya were reduced to the status of Shudra following their long struggle against the Brahmins, who ended up depriving their opponents of the right to the Upanayana ”(ibid.). In any case,“There is reason to believe that it was religious considerations and the diktat of legislators that were at the origin of the creation [of the caste] of the Shudra in primitive Indian society…” (ibid., P. 39; see also BR Ambedkar, op. cit., whose thesis, richly documented, is that (1) the shudra were Aryans; (2) the shudra were of the Kshatriya class; (3) the shudra were a subgroup of the Kshatriya (so important that some of the most prominent and powerful kings of the ancient Aryan communities were shudra); 4. The shudras were deposed by the Brahmins in retaliation for the humiliating treatment they suffered. The following passages from the Manava Dharma Sâstra will give an idea of ​​the severity of their revenge:“Let the Brahmin give a drudra neither advice nor leftovers from his meal…; he should not teach him the law or any practice of expiatory devotion ”(IV, 80). “The body of a deceased Sûdra must be transported out of the city by the Porte du Midi; and those of the Dwidjas, according to the order of the classes, by the gates of the west, the north and the east ”(V, 92). “One should not have the body of a Brahmin carried to the cemetery by a drunkard when people of his class are present; because the funeral offering being polluted by the contact of a soûdra, does not facilitate the access of Heaven to the deceased ”(V, 104.). "The remains of the Brahmins must be the food of the sudras" (V, 140.). "When a king suffers that a drudra be judge, his kingdom is in distress like that of a cow in a quagmire" (VIII, 21).“Let the judge make a Brahmin swear by his veracity; a kchatriya by his horses, his elephants or his weapons; a Vaisya by its cows, its grains and its gold; one will be drunk by all crimes ”(VIII, 173). The tongue is cut or a burning iron stylet is inserted into the mouth of the shudra which calls out a dvija (VIII, 270 and 271). It is a crime for a shudra to sit next to a Brahmin (quoted in M. Eschbach, General Introduction to the Study of Law, 3rd ed., Cotillon, Paris, 1856, p. 587-8) .It is a crime for a shudra to sit next to a Brahmin (quoted in M. Eschbach, General Introduction to the Study of Law, 3rd ed., Cotillon, Paris, 1856, p. 587-8) .It is a crime for a shudra to sit next to a Brahmin (quoted in M. Eschbach, General Introduction to the Study of Law, 3rd ed., Cotillon, Paris, 1856, p. 587-8) .
Under the Mauryas, “the placing of people in slavery or in mortgages for a certain period of time became very common. The Manusmriti, first codified towards the end of the first millennium BC, probably at the time of the Brahmanic revival under Pushyamitra Sunga in the second century BC and whose final text was established at the beginning of the Christian era, distinguished between the bought slave (krita) and the unpurchased slave (akrita). The former could be bought and sold as movable property. Whether purchased or not, the sudra was to render its services (dasyan); for he had been created to serve the Brahmin! Service was the consecrated duty of shudra (nisargaja dharma). And not only the Aryan shudra, but even the Aryan Brahmins were, during difficult times,sold or mortgaged ”(K. Damodaran, op. cit., p. 65).