Who is a Brahmin ?

[devotee]

Namaste,

Who is a Brahmana (or brahmin) ? Does one become a Brahmana by birth, by knowldge, karma or tapas ?

VajraSuchika Upanishad ( Sam Veda) deals with this subject in a logical manner :


I shall set for Vajrasuchi (the diamond needle) which pierces ignorance, rebukes the ignorant and ornaments those who have wisdom as eye.

The Smritis affirm, following the Vedas that the Brahmana is the most important of the four castes. It must be asked, ‘Who is a Brahmana’ – the self, body, class, knowledge, action or virtue ?

The soul is not a Brahmana because the soul is the same in all bodies past and future. The same person takes many bodies according to karma, nor is the body Brahmana – the body is the same from the Chandala (to the highest caste) being made of the five elements and is seen to have old age, death etc., alike. There is no fixity (of colour) such as Brahmana is white, Kshatriya is red, Vaishya is yellow and Sudra is black; also when the father’s body is cremated, the son etc., may be guilty of killing a Brahmana.

Nor is the class a Brahmana. Then there would be many classes within the classes. Many are the great sages: Rishyasringa born of a deer, Kausika of reed, Jambuka of a jackal, Valmiki of an ant-hill, Vyasa of a fisher-girl, Gautama of a hare’s back, Vasistha of Urvasi, Agastya of a pot according to tradition. These are not Brahmanas by birth but by their knowledge.

Nor is knowledge Brahmana: Kshatriyas and others also have knowledge. Nor is karma: all creatures are seen to have similar karma of Prarabdha etc., and all creatures act being impelled by karma. Nor is a man of virtue: There are many givers of gold – Kshatriyas etc.

{The true Brahamana is} :

"One who has directly realized, like the berry in the palm, the Atman without a second, devoid of class, quality and action and of defects like the six waves (like hunger), the states (like birth and death), of the nature of truth, knowledge and bliss, free from adjuncts, the basis of all thoughts, immanent in all creatures, present inside and outside like space. Bliss impartite, beyond (ordinary) knowledge, to be realized by experience alone – and having become successful, free from lust etc., rich in mental control, without greed etc., mind untouched by hypocrisy etc."

This is the intention of Veda etc. Otherwise the nature of Brahmana cannot be achieved.

One should contemplate one’s self as the spirit without a second, truth, knowledge and bliss.

[vcindiana]

Namaste,

Who is a Brahmana (or brahmin) ? Does one become a Brahmana by birth, by knowldge, karma or tapas ?

VajraSuchika Upanishad ( Sam Veda) deals with this subject in a logical manner :




Thank you D, for your wonderful quote from the Vedas.
Do'nt you think true Brahmana is the “Ideal” thing, but the reality is no human being ever can reach those qualities. The very mental process of some thing to become like Brahmana itself is defeating, not that one should not try. Any one can become Brahmana at least to some extent, in this world by having a sense of Humility (I know this but I may be wrong) and be Gracious to others no matter who he/she is. This very much applies to me.
Love................VC

[vcindiana]

Geeta says "Whatever I am offered in devotion with a pure heart -- a leaf, a flower, fruit, or water -- I accept with joy.” It is clear it is not material but it is the Heart that matters the most. Personally, I can understand my own heart (???Brahmana’s) only when I express my gratitude towards God or my fellow human being.

Love..........VC

[devotee]

Do'nt you think true Brahmana is the “Ideal” thing, but the reality is no human being ever can reach those qualities. The very mental process of some thing to become like Brahmana itself is defeating, not that one should not try. Any one can become Brahmana at least to some extent, in this world by having a sense of Humility (I know this but I may be wrong) and be Gracious to others no matter who he/she is.

Namaste Vcindiana,

Brahamanahood is a stage where everyone is destined to reach. There have been n number of Brahmanas in the past & there would be again ... this is a continuous endless process.

Sri Ramkrishna Paramhans, Swami Vivekananda, Maharishi Ramana, Adi Sanakaracharya, Jesus Christ, Lord Buddha, Maharishi Paramhans Yogananda , Lahiri Mahasaya, Sri Yukteswar, Mahavtar Babaji, Baba Golaknath, Kabir, Lord Mahaveer, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Wei-Wu-Wei, Lao-Tse-Ju, Ramesh Balsekhar etc. etc. ... are well known Brahmanas. This list is a very tiny sample. There are many living enlightened souls in various religions. In Buddhism they are called 'Living Buddha".

What I am saying is that attaining Brahmanahood is not an impossible phenomena. It is happening all the time. It appears almost an impossiblity for us but really it is not.


Any one can become Brahmana at least to some extent, in this world by having a sense of Humility (I know this but I may be wrong) and be Gracious to others no matter who he/she is.You are absolutely right ! The humility is very important & real humility strikes us when we acknowledge that there is no one who is "low" or "high" in status, no one is "good" or "bad" .... everyone is manifestation of the same Brhaman. Till we stick to our ignorance, we keep sticking to our "ego" -- the "Ahamakaar" ---- & that makes us see the differences where there is none in reality.

Regards,

OM

[raghu_001]

Namaste,

Who is a Brahmana (or brahmin) ? Does one become a Brahmana by birth, by knowldge, karma or tapas ?

VajraSuchika Upanishad ( Sam Veda) deals with this subject in a logical manner :




The Vajra Suchika "Upanishad" may not actually be a real Upanishad. There are a number of spurious texts of relatively recent origin which have been given the status of "Upanishad" but which are not actually quoted by the original Vedanta commentators. This is just an FYI.

Now as far as the VSU's position that a brahmin is one who knows Brahman (and consequently is free of all vices, etc), certainly we know that this is the etymology. However, in a society that requires that people be divided into different varnas and that those varnas be recognizable as such, the characterization of someone as a "brahmin" based on an abstract metaphysical principle is not practical. Obviously, most people do not know Brahman, and so most people cannot based on their perception alone know who is a brahmin.

A society that functions on spiritual ideals, as ancient Hindu society was, requires that brahmins be recognized as such and trained from a very early age to take up the profession of studying and teaching about Brahman. It is not true to say that brahmana status is a siddhi. It is in fact a social category, and there is no implication that by belonging to it one is already on the perfect stage of self-realization.

[raghu_001]

Dear Raghu,

I don't know how to react to your posts, dear ! What is your problem ? Whether an Upanishad is an authority or not cannot be decided at your level. Moreover, I don't find anything written in this Upanishad which is contrary to the idea of Shruti.

I did not say that it was "contrary" to shruti, nor am I determining the authority of the text. I only repeated the generally held view among orthodox Vedantins and academic thinkers alike that these other so-called "Upanishads" are authored texts of relatively recent origin.

Upanishads as you know are shruti and un-authored. This is why they are pramaana. The mere fact that a text is called by someone as an "upanishad" does not make it so. We know for a fact that there are spurious "upanishads" in existence - the so-called "Allah Upanishad" is a perfect example.

For the most part, traditional commentators have confined themselves to the principal 11 Upanishads. Vajra-suchika is not one of them. The shrutis are passed down in oral tradition and remain preserved across different sampradayas. This is why they are acceptable pramaana to different Vedanta schools. VSU on the other hand is not studied like that, so its authority will be at least questionable to a traditional Vedanta commentator.

regards,

Raghu

[atanu]

A society that functions on spiritual ideals, as ancient Hindu society was, requires that brahmins be recognized as such and trained from a very early age to take up the profession of studying and teaching about Brahman. It is not true to say that brahmana status is a siddhi. It is in fact a social category, and there is no implication that by belonging to it one is already on the perfect stage of self-realization.

Namaste Raghu,

As per shruti, Brahmana represents the head of Purusha (Narayana), or is knower of Brahman or is ever truthful.

If Vajrasuchika is not an authority in your view then show us one shruti authority, which says that Brahmanas need not have the knowledge of Brahman? Show us one shruti that states Brahmana status is a mere social category. On the other hand, Brahmana as Purusha's head amply supports the view of Vajrasuchika. You also seem to neglect the fact that wisdom is acquired through several births and thus karma, varna, and jati are not un-interlinked.

As per Kanchi Seer, Brahmana is the conduit through which the knowledge of Brahman reaches the ignorant. So, Brahmana, from the first principle, should have the wisdom of Brahman. The wisdom itself ensures placement of such a soul in an appropriate environment as teacher of Brahman.

The second case of a Brahmana student is also expemplified in another Upanishad wherein Jabala, a casteless, is granted admission based on his adhering to the truth.

I am not arguing that the traditional varna system as associated with birth is wrong. I am not denying that Brahmana represents a social category. Far from it. I am saying that something more is there. Karma/varna/jati are not un-interlinked. And true Brahmana is one who is representative of Narayana's thoughts/wisdom or one who abides by the truth.

Om

[raghu_001]

Namaste Atanu


Namaste Raghu,
If Vajrasuchika is not an authority in your view

It is not a question of "my view." As I have said previously, it may not be considered acceptable among traditional Vedantin commentators for the reasons already mentioned.



then show us one shruti authority, which says that Brahmanas need not have the knowledge of Brahman?

This was not my view either.

My point was simply that for there to be a varnAshrama system, the people must be able to readily recognize who belongs to what varna. Thus, the varnas must be based on some concrete criteria that are readily knowable. Simply saying that no one is a brahmin unless he knows Brahman (while ideally true) does not make for a practical means by which one can judge who is and who is not a Brahmin.

So given that society must have some criteria for assigning people to one varna or another, the question becomes this - what is the criterion by which one is recognized as belonging to this or that varna?




The second case of a Brahmana student is also expemplified in another Upanishad wherein Jabala, a casteless, is granted admission based on his adhering to the truth.

The boy/student was Satyakama - his mother was Jabala. He was not casteless. The problem was that he did not know his gotra, and so he could not prove his brahminical lineage. When he truthfully told this to his guru, the guru accepted him as a brahmana, saying that no other than a brahmana could have answered thus.

Sri Sankaracharya in his commentary to that Upanishad upholds the view that the boy was of a brahminical lineage. It is not correct to say that his birth was overlooked in favor of truth-telling. If his lineage were not necessary, then the guru would never have asked the gotra in the first place.



And true Brahmana is one who is representative of Narayana's thoughts/wisdom or one who abides by the truth.


Again, this is a nice ideal, but it does not make for a practical criterion by which the common man in society can identify who is and is not a brahmana.

regards,

Raghu

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu

This was not my view either.



Namaste Raghu,

This solves it.

Om

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu

Sri Sankaracharya in his commentary to that Upanishad upholds the view that the boy was of a brahminical lineage. It is not correct to say that his birth was overlooked in favor of truth-telling. If his lineage were not necessary, then the guru would never have asked the gotra in the first place.

Raghu

Namaste,

That only shows the strength of karma. A Brahmana by birth might not speak the truth. Whereas, a student of unknown father spoke the truth and was counted as a Brahmana. The lack of evidence of Gotra (which is determined by karma) was still over-ridden.

Om

[raghu_001]

Namaste,

That only shows the strength of karma. A Brahmana by birth might not speak the truth. Whereas, a student of unknown father spoke the truth and was counted as a Brahmana. The lack of evidence of Gotra (which is determined by karma) was still over-ridden.

Om

Atanu, I was simply explaining to you what Sri Sankaracharya's opinion was.
regards,

Raghu

[atanu]

Atanu, I was simply explaining to you what Sri Sankaracharya's opinion was.

regards,

Raghu


There is no shruti evidence that birth determines karma directly. There is shruti evidence that karma determines varna/gotra. And karma is not merely of the present incarnation. Anf further, karma, performed while situated in a particular gotra determines the future varna/gotra. That is essentially the karma philosophy.

Regards

[raghu_001]

My friend,

I can ask you the same question. I can ask you why despite logic and shruti you cannot agree that Brahmana is Lord's head, as per Purusha Sukta of Veda?

Om

When did I supposedly disagree with the description of the brahmana being from the head of the Purusha?

[atanu]

Why it is difficult for you to accept that despite non-confirmation of varna, jabala satyakama was confirmed as Brahmana?

Om

[raghu_001]

Why it is difficult for you to accept that despite non-confirmation of varna, jabala satyakama was confirmed as Brahmana?

I already indicated that Satyakama Jabala was confirmed as being of a brahmana lineage despite his gotra not being known. I also alluded to Sri Sankaracharya's commentary on the same, which you obviously did not agree with. What exactly is the nature of your disagreement now?
Raghu

[atanu]

I already indicated that Satyakama Jabala was confirmed as being of a brahmana lineage despite his gotra not being known. I also alluded to Sri Sankaracharya's commentary on the same, which you obviously did not agree with. What exactly is the nature of your disagreement now?
Raghu

Namaste Raghu,

It is your view that I did not agree with Shankara whose view is well known in Manisha Panchikam also.

I do not have any disagreement. But yes, satyakama's lineage was decided upon by his abidance by truth, though he and his mother did not know the father.

Om

[raghu_001]

Namaste Raghu,

It is your view that I did not agree with Shankara whose view is well known in Manisha Panchikam also.

I do not have any disagreement. But yes, satyakama's lineage was decided upon his abidance by truth, though he and his mother did not know the father.


Here is a translation of the relevant portion of the Chandogya Upanishad 4.4.1-5 (this one done by the RK Mission).

IV-iv-1: Once upon a time Satyakama Jabala addressed his mother Jabala, ‘Mother, I desire to live the life of a celibate student of sacred knowledge in the teacher’s house. Of what lineage am I ?’
IV-iv-2: She said to him, ‘My child, I do not know of what lineage you are. I, who was engaged in many works and in attending on others, got you in my youth. Having been such I could not know of what lineage you are. However, I am Jabala by name and you are named Satyakama. So you speak of yourself only as Satyakama Jabala.’
IV-iv-3: He went to Haridrumata Gautama and said, ‘I desire to live under you, revered sir, as a Brahmacharin; may I approach your venerable self (for the same) ?’
IV-iv-4: Gautama asked him, ‘Dear boy, of what lineage are you ?’ He replied, ‘Sir, I do not know of what lineage I am. I asked my mother; she replied, "I, who was engaged in many works and in attending on others, got you in my youth. Having been such, I could not know of what lineage you are. However, I am Jabala by name and you are named Satyakama". So, sir, I am Satyakama Jabala.’
IV-iv-5: The teacher said to him, ‘No one who is not a Brahmana can speak thus. Dear boy, bring the sacrificial fuel, I shall initiate you as a Brahmacharin, for you have not deviated from truth’. Having initiated him, he sorted out four hundred lean and weak cows and said, ‘Dear boy, follow them.’ While he was driving them towards the forest Satyakama said, ‘I shall not return till it is one thousand.’ He lived away for a long time, till they had increased to one thousand.

Note that it is gotra which is being translated as "lineage." Why bother asking about gotra if birth does not matter? Perhaps a creative person can come up with some answer to explain this away.

Now for Sri Sankara's commentary (translated by Swami Gambhirananda of the RK mission):

"When Jabala was asked thus, she said; to this one, her son; "O my son I do not know this the lineage to which you belong." 'Why don't you know?' Being asked so, she said, I while perfroming many kinds of service in the house of my husband, serving many guests and visitors, I remained engaged in my duties. My mind being occupied with service, I had no idea of asking about your lineage. I got you during that time in my youth. At that very time your father departed. So I became desolate. Being in that condition as I was, I do not know this the lineage to which you belong." (commentary on 4.4.2)

In other words, Satyakama was not "casteless." He was a brahmin but his mother did not know his gotra for the reasons mentioned above.

In his commentatry on 4.4.4, Sri Sankara writes, "A disciple whose family and lineage are known is to be initiated." This is clearly a reference to the birth-based system of varna - if birth were not important in his view then there would be no need of inquiring about gotra/lineage.

In his commentary on 4.4.5, Sri Sankara writes, "Tam, to him; Gautama uvAcha ha, said; 'abrAhmaNaH, a non-brahmin; na arhati, will not be able; vivaktum, to say; etat, this clearly in a truthful way, because the Brahmins are straightforward by nature, not others. Since na agAH, you did not depart; satyAt, from truth, which is a virtue of the brahmin-caste; therefore upaneShye, I sahll initiate; tvAm, you, who are a brahmin."

Now, that is Sri Sankara's view. Whereas you claim that it was his behavior that made him a brahmin, Sankara's view is that his behavior revealed his brahminical lineage and was acceptable in place of knowing his gotra.


regards,

Raghu

[atanu]

Here is a translation of the relevant portion of the Chandogya Upanishad 4.4.1-5 (this one done by the RK Mission).

IV-iv-1: Once upon a time Satyakama Jabala addressed his mother Jabala, ‘Mother, I desire to live the life of a celibate student of sacred knowledge in the teacher’s house. Of what lineage am I ?’
IV-iv-2: She said to him, ‘My child, I do not know of what lineage you are. I, who was engaged in many works and in attending on others, got you in my youth. Having been such I could not know of what lineage you are. However, I am Jabala by name and you are named Satyakama. So you speak of yourself only as Satyakama Jabala.’
IV-iv-3: He went to Haridrumata Gautama and said, ‘I desire to live under you, revered sir, as a Brahmacharin; may I approach your venerable self (for the same) ?’
IV-iv-4: Gautama asked him, ‘Dear boy, of what lineage are you ?’ He replied, ‘Sir, I do not know of what lineage I am. I asked my mother; she replied, "I, who was engaged in many works and in attending on others, got you in my youth. Having been such, I could not know of what lineage you are. However, I am Jabala by name and you are named Satyakama". So, sir, I am Satyakama Jabala.’
IV-iv-5: The teacher said to him, ‘No one who is not a Brahmana can speak thus. Dear boy, bring the sacrificial fuel, I shall initiate you as a Brahmacharin, for you have not deviated from truth’. Having initiated him, he sorted out four hundred lean and weak cows and said, ‘Dear boy, follow them.’ While he was driving them towards the forest Satyakama said, ‘I shall not return till it is one thousand.’ He lived away for a long time, till they had increased to one thousand.

Note that it is gotra which is being translated as "lineage." Why bother asking about gotra if birth does not matter? Perhaps a creative person can come up with some answer to explain this away.

Now for Sri Sankara's commentary (translated by Swami Gambhirananda of the RK mission):

"When Jabala was asked thus, she said; to this one, her son; "O my son I do not know this the lineage to which you belong." 'Why don't you know?' Being asked so, she said, I while perfroming many kinds of service in the house of my husband, serving many guests and visitors, I remained engaged in my duties. My mind being occupied with service, I had no idea of asking about your lineage. I got you during that time in my youth. At that very time your father departed. So I became desolate. Being in that condition as I was, I do not know this the lineage to which you belong." (commentary on 4.4.2)

In other words, Satyakama was not "casteless." He was a brahmin but his mother did not know his gotra for the reasons mentioned above.

In his commentatry on 4.4.4, Sri Sankara writes, "A disciple whose family and lineage are known is to be initiated." This is clearly a reference to the birth-based system of varna - if birth were not important in his view then there would be no need of inquiring about gotra/lineage.

In his commentary on 4.4.5, Sri Sankara writes, "Tam, to him; Gautama uvAcha ha, said; 'abrAhmaNaH, a non-brahmin; na arhati, will not be able; vivaktum, to say; etat, this clearly in a truthful way, because the Brahmins are straightforward by nature, not others. Since na agAH, you did not depart; satyAt, from truth, which is a virtue of the brahmin-caste; therefore upaneShye, I sahll initiate; tvAm, you, who are a brahmin."

Now, that is Sri Sankara's view. Whereas you claim that it was his behavior that made him a brahmin, Sankara's view is that his behavior revealed his brahminical lineage and was acceptable in place of knowing his gotra.


regards,

Raghu

Namaste Raghu,

Thank you for the initiative. The blue fonts indicate what I have said again and again and still maintain ----- The Truth and nothing but the Truth.

The Truth and nothing but the Truth is the theme of Sataptha Brahmana.

With due regards, I wish to point out that the red fonts indicate your interpretation and is not what Shankara has purported. I maintain that being from Purusha's head, the truth characterises Brahmana (primarily).

--------------------------------

I wish that this post should be stopped here unless it be dragged unnecessarily.

Regards

Om

[atanu]

Now, that is Sri Sankara's view. Whereas you claim that it was his behavior that made him a brahmin, Sankara's view is that his behavior revealed his brahminical lineage and was acceptable in place of knowing his gotra.
Raghu

Namaste Raghu,

Please check what I have written above and that you have cited also. I wrote: "But yes, satyakama's lineage was decided upon (by) his abidance by truth, though he and his mother did not know the father."

Ommission of (by) was a mistake, which has been edited in the original post.

Whereas the blue fonts above show how things are getting complicated post after post.
---------------------------------

Request for Satay: The post may please be stopped so that it is not dragged unnecessarily.

Om

[raghu_001]

Atanu,

I have nothing further to say regarding this. The meaning of Sankara's comments is obvious. If you cannot accept this, feel free to go to the Kanchi Math and then you will get the refutation you so desire.

Raghu