Caste System

[coolbodhi]

I think that hindus have had their problems just like any other humans when it comes to knowing the scriptures.

Can the God almighty really say something like this:
O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth--women, vaisyas [merchants], as well as sudras [workers]--can approach the supreme destination.

Bhagavad Gita 9.32

I doubt it, it sounds made up by some men.

[Namo Narayana]

coolbodhi, if you realise god the above verse is hard to be authentic

[sarabhanga]

Namaste,

“O Arjuna, women, Vaishyas, Shudras, as well as those of vile birth, whoever they may be, taking refuge in Me they too attain the supreme goal.”

When you know what it means to take refuge in Lord Krishna, then you might not consider that Hindus are confused about their scriptures!

And when you know what it means to take refuge in Lord Krishna, then you might not consider that the most revered scripture of modern Hinduism has been corrupted!

[coolbodhi]

coolbodhi, if you realise god the above verse is hard to be authentic

sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Could you please explain?

[coolbodhi]

Namaste,

“O Arjuna, women, Vaishyas, Shudras, as well as those of vile birth, whoever they may be, taking refuge in Me they too attain the supreme goal.”


I got the translation of that verse online from Gita as it is by Prabhupada. Could you point me to a better translation then if one exists online?



When you know what it means to take refuge in Lord Krishna, then you might not consider that Hindus are confused about their scriptures!

And when you know what it means to take refuge in Lord Krishna, then you might not consider that the most revered scripture of modern Hinduism has been corrupted!

It seems that I may have offended you when my intention was not offend at all! I do not think that Hindus are confused about their scriptures, if my post implied that I apologize.

I didn't mean to say that the scripture is corrupted but is there a possibility that some translations might be corrupted? Since the truth can not be said these types of corruptions are bound to happen!

Again, I apologize for offending you.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste CoolBodhi,

I have not been personally offended ~ and I must admit that my tone is sometimes rather pedagogic, but I hope that others do not take offence at my correcting words. :)

In this case, there is no serious difference in meaning between your translation and mine, but there are always problems when reading anyone's translation of scripture, which (like poetry) carries multiple levels of meaning that cannot easily be compressed and transcribed into another language.

I can see no particular problem, however, with either translation of this particular line from the Gita.

[Ram]

I think that hindus have had their problems just like any other humans when it comes to knowing the scriptures.

Can the God almighty really say something like this:
O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth--women, vaisyas [merchants], as well as sudras [workers]--can approach the supreme destination.

Bhagavad Gita 9.32

I doubt it, it sounds made up by some men.

Sankrit language is such that the same words can be read to yield multiple translations and meanings.

But this is the same translation that is provided by both Sri Shankara and Sri Ramanuja -- so there is no easy escaping with a new translation. I beleive that Sarabhanga's translation was originally that of Sri Madhva's.(not sure but his translation differered from both Shankara and Ramanuja).

Each of our birth is the result of karma, that is accepted by all Hindus. Bad Karma results in birth in inferior conditions in life, in poverty, in animal and plant kingdom, as an atheist etc.

Everything else remaining the same, a women suffers more brunt than man as it is obvious from observation. It is the woman who is illtreated and undergoes a lot of mental and physical torture from all quarters all through her life. Nature created her weaker and a potential target of exploitation. A woman is prohibited from learning shastras or performing rituals, and even prayers like Sandya Vandana( for even a Brahmin woman).

Similarly, Sudra and Vaisya are traditionally kept out of spiritual activity and not permitted to read scripture. What could be the cause of such a birth? It is classified as a bad karma and hence the above verse.

The unfortunate thing is that caste system is never supposed to be based on birth and ancestary though this practice has been there for a long time. The castes are purely spiritual in nature and the four varnas of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra represent the 8th,9th,10th and 11th stages in the 14 stages of spiritual development of man as he attains realization of Brahman. The 12th, 13th and 14th represent three stages of Brahmavit, also known as an aparoxin. The first seven stages are avarnas, to which most people in the world belong today. If you are a real Shudra as described in this classification, you are a real spiritualist and well on way towards God realization.

A true Brahmin is one who has no eartthly desires but only a longing for liberation and God realization. A true Shudra is one who is interested in matters spiritual but yet is addicted to material desires. No wonder it is a "sinful" birth compared with that of a Brahmin.

Bhagavan says that just by surrendering to HIM, the effects of sins commited in previous births that led to an enferior birth(whatever it is) just get washed away. Sri Ramanuja says that a true Vishnu Bhakta is a Brahmana, irrespetive of his caste, and no one else is a Brahmana( even if he is claims so).

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Ram,

Shri Shankaracarya, Shri Ramnujacarya, and Shri Madvacarya, did NOT make a translation of ANY Sanskrit into English !

The translation that I provided is my own, with reassurance from Jayadayal Goyandka’s Hindi translation and various English renderings (which all give the same basic meaning for this line).

How can anyone claim that women are prohibited from learning the Shastras or performing rituals, when there are well known examples of female Saints and Sages from throughout Indian history? If women have been excluded, it is only a result of a basically patriarchal society for the last few thousand years. Really, it is a social issue, and any kind of injustice or unfair discrimination is shunned by Sanatana Dharma. There are huge numbers of female ascetics in India ~ not so many as the males, and they also tend to stay quietly in ashrams or hermitages, and they generally go unnoticed as “women” in public because they are dressed the same and act the same as any male renunciate.

And the only rule that has prevented non-Brahmans from reading the Vedas is that they are in Sanskrit, and since the most common way of determining knowledge of Brahman, which has always assumed knowlege of the Vedas, was always the first step of understanding Sanskrit!

The verse in question seems quite clearly to state that WHATEVER one’s birth that has absolutely no bearing on Moksha or true knowledge of God ~ and ANYONE who comes to know God (wherever they started from) is in truth a Brahmana.

True “knowledge of God” means more than just remembering God’s name ~ and in fact that can be more of an obstacle to gaining even higher or more intimate knowledge of ultimate God-head (which is beyond any possibility of actually describing or naming).

[rkannan1]

I think that hindus have had their problems just like any other humans when it comes to knowing the scriptures.

Can the God almighty really say something like this:
O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth--women, vaisyas [merchants], as well as sudras [workers]--can approach the supreme destination.

Bhagavad Gita 9.32

I doubt it, it sounds made up by some men.
Om Namo Naaraayanaaya Namah Om
Om Shri Gurubhyo Namah

First know that none of the acharyas(Shankara, Ramanuja or Madhva) ever doubted that Bhagavad Gita was interpolated. That is why it is one among Prasthana Traya.

Hence if one finds something wrong (ethically) it must be that our understanding is improper.

This verse is not very easy for interpretation. Lets see the verse first.



CHAPTER 9, TEXT 32

mam hi partha vyapasritya
ye 'pi syuh papa-yonayah
striyo vaisyas tatha sudras
te 'pi yanti param gatim

SYNONYMS
http://www.asitis.com/gif/bump.gifmam--unto Me; hi--certainly; partha--O son of Prtha; vyapasritya--particularly taking shelter; ye--anyone; api--also; syuh--becomes; papa-yonayah--born of a lower family; striyah--women; vaisyah--mercantile people; tatha--also; sudrah--lower-class men; te api--even they; yanti--go; param--supreme; gatim--destination.

Now let us start with the interpretation of each of the acharyas.

http://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/


English Translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami Gambhirananda

9.32 Hi, for; O son of Prtha, ye api, even those; papayonayah syuh, who are born of sin;-as to who they are, the Lord says-striyah, women; vaisyah, Vaisyas, tatha, as also; sudrah, Sudras; te api, even they; yanti, reach, go to; the param, highest; gatim, Goal vyapasritya, by taking shelter; mam, under Me-by accepting Me as their refuge.


English Translation - of Sri Ramanuja's Sanskrit Commentary - Dr. S Sankaranarayan

9.32 - 9.33 Women, Vaisyas and Sudras, and even those who are of sinful birth, can attain the supreme state by taking refuge in Me. How much more then the well-born Brahmanas and royal sages who are devoted to me! Therefore, roayl sage that you are, do worship Me, as you have come to this transient and joyless world stricken by the threefold afflictions. Sri Krsna now describes the nature of Bhakti:

Now if you see there are two interpretations.

As per Ramanujacharya it is

"Women, Vaisyas and Sudras, and even those who are of sinful birth"

and as per Shankaracharya it is

"ye api, even those; papayonayah syuh, who are born of sin;-as to who they are, the Lord says-striyah, women; vaisyah, Vaisyas, tatha, as also; sudrah, Sudras".

Which is right ?

But in both translations there is a problem. "Women" are mentioned separately as though they do not have any "Varna". Keep in mind that in the next verse Lord Krishna says


kiM punarbrAhmaNAH puNyA bhaktA rAjarShayastathA |
anityamasukhaM lokamimaM prApya bhajasva mAM || BG 9.33 ||

What then of holy brAhmaNa-s, true (sinless) devotees and royal
saints? Having obtained (been born in) this impermanent and
blissless world, worship Me.
Note that Lord Krishna uses the word "punarbrAhmaNAH",
puNyA bhaktA etc.

Now let us combine all these and we will have the following
questions.

Do women have Varnas ?

Yes, women do possess Varnas as per Dharmashastras and is
generally known as per Itihaasas and Puranas that women have
Varnas. One example is Vidura's mother in Mahabharatha

So why did Lord Krishna mention women separately ?

Note that "striyo" refers to all women. Atleast that is the
general false understanding.

Consider verse 9:33 now. In that verse Lord Krishna refers to
all Brahmanas as punarbrAhmaNAH, and his TRUE DEVOTEES as
puNyA bhaktA. No gender is mentioned here and hence we can say
both genders(male and female) are included here.

Now consider a woman like Devaki or Anasuya(Some Rishi's wife,
I forgot whose).

Devaki is a true devotee and so is anasuya (who belongs
obviously to Brahamana Varna). Obviously they are not
considered as sinful.

If we so carelessly interpret as all women, vaisyas, sudras
etc. are included as sinful we will have to say that Lord
Krishna has said contradictory things.

To my knowledge only Shri Madhvacharya has given clear
explanation for the verse. Here it is.

Public username and password: Dvaita

http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_03/msg00183.html


Shri Madhva's Giita-taatpaya.r goes thus :

"paapadikaaritaashchaiva pu.nsaa.n svaabhavikaa api |
vipratvaadyaastatra puNyaaH svaabhavyaa eva muktigaaH ||
yaanti stritva.n pumaa.nso.api paapataH kaamato.api vaa |
na striyo yaanti pu.nstva.n tu svabhaavaadeva yaaH striyaH ||

pu.nsaa sahaiva pu.ndehe stithiH syaadvaradaanathaH |
tajjanmani varaaH paapajaataabhyo nijasatsriyaH |
save.rshhaamapi jiivaanaamantyadeho yathaa nijaH ||
mukthau tu nijabhaavaH syaatkama.rbhogaantato.api cha | "

iti bhavishhyatpava.rvachanaat.h paapayonayaH puNyaa iti
visheshhaNam.h || 32-33 ||

Translation - (I translate using
Shri Jayatiirtha's - nyaayadiipika a commentary on
giitaa-taatpaya.r Shri Raghavendratiirtha's - bhaavadiipa a
sub-commentary on the same.)

For humans there are 2 types of varNas namely :

1. Intrinsic varNa of the jiiva. (svaabhavika varNa)
2. varNa attained by birth. (naimittika varNa) This could
change depending on the puNyaa and the paapa accrued by
the jiiva.

Those who are intrinsically brahmins could be born in any of
the 3 lower varNas if they indulged in sin .(though is not a
rule ).

Those who are intrinsically shuudraas could be born in any
of the 3 upper varNas if they accrue puNya .(though is not
a rule ).

But in mukti they attain/retain their intrinsic varNa.

Similarily the gender system. Every jiva is intrinsically male
or female.(a characteristic of its svaruupa)

Those who are intrinsically male could be born as females by
virtue of sin or desire.

1. Sudyumna(intrinsically male) was born as Ila (woman)
because he sinned.
2. The sons of Agni were born as apsaras because they so
desired.

But those who are intrinsically female are never born as male.
Sometimes by virtue of boons those who are intrinsically
female stay in a male body with the male jivaa (a state called
jiiva-dvaya).

eg. The famous Amba of Mahaabhaarata who performed penance to
bring Bhiishmaa's end did not attain a male body all by
herself. But she entered the male body of sthuunakarNa and
came to be known as shikhanDi.

Those who are born as females by virtue of sin are inferior
to those who are intrinsically female satjiivas. Also those
who are satjivaas but born as females by virtue of sin are
superior to dushhTajivaas who are born with their intrinsic
varNa.

eg. Amba (even though in shikhanDi's body) is superior to
Bhaanumati (Duryodhana's wife who was intrinsically female)
because Bhaanumati was an aasuri stri(dushhTa jiiva).

All jiivas attain bodies of different varNas depending on
their behaviour or svabhaava. They attain their intrinsic
nature in mukti without fail.

- So it has been said in the bhavishhyatpava.r. The
adjectives paapayonayaH and puNyaaH can be applied accordingly.

PaapayonayaH means those who have attained non-intrinsic varNa
or gender like stri, vaishya and shuudra, by virtue of sin.

PuNyaaH means those who have attained their intrinsic varNa by
birth.

They are not to be taken as all women, all vaishyas, all
shuudras.

So the Lord says when such paapayonayaH can attain me by
surrendering to me why not those who are puNyaaH .

[nekozuki]

Actually I think the caste system is just human nature. Would a famous person hang out with us, I think not. In high school if you were popular would be caught dead hanging out with the class nerd, again no. Even here in America poor and rich do not mix.

[rkannan1]

Actually I think the caste system is just human nature. Would a famous person hang out with us, I think not. In high school if you were popular would be caught dead hanging out with the class nerd, again no. Even here in America poor and rich do not mix.

Dear nekozuki,

It is not about our opinions of Varna system(not exactly caste system). It is about how scriptures explain varna system, especially Gita verse. The scriptures divide humanity based on certain characteristics(Guna, Karma, based on preponderance of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas).

It is better to explain as close as scriptures themselves explain. This way we will have some consistency.

[Namo Narayana]

so what is varna ? , kannan

[nekozuki]

But my point being is that it's not just India or Hinduism that divides people up.

[Singhi Kaya]

namaste nekozuki,

Be careful with that "Submit Post" button - don't get impatient and click multiple times. I have suffered quite a bit;).

I fully agree with your view. Just like humans are not 100% anaimals not all humans are of same level of development. No other tradition be it religious or scientific had got the guts to accept this (except fascists and nazis).

The beauty is all have the same potential. And all will reach the same point. It's upto us how the use their vaious births.

Varnasharama is a niece way to split work according to abilities - but restriction to upasana or worship which developed and hardned in a later period is the evil that developed in Hinduism. In this age thankfully caste predujice is reducing.

[rkannan1]

so what is varna ? , kannan

Hari Bol,

The post with the dvaita link makes it clear.

There are two types

1. Svabhavika Varna

This is the intrinsic property of that Jiva itself as per Dvaita. It does not change, although it may be covered and manifest as an altered quality, but in essence remains the same.

2. Naimittika Varna

This changes from one human birth to another human birth depending on Karma and Guna ie. preponderance of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas.

The question is how can we humans know to which one wew belong ?

Dharmashastras offer a solution for dealing with our Naimittika Varna.

There are three factors that have to be simultaneously satisfied to my limited knowledge and practise of scriptures.

1. Birth into a family belonging to the particular Varna
2. All rituals being correctly performed for the child from conception to death.
3. The individual follows all the Dharma as is prescribed for that Varna and possesses the requisite Guna or characteristics as well. The Guna is apparent by the conduct of that individual. Nobody can hide this nature he possesses.

[satay]

Hari Bol,

The post with the dvaita link makes it clear.

There are two types

1. Svabhavika Varna

This is the intrinsic property of that Jiva itself as per Dvaita. It does not change, although it may be covered and manifest as an altered quality, but in essence remains the same.



namaste kanna,

Could you please explain more about this 'intrinsic' property of jiva in your own words?

It is very interesting because I believe that we are all part of the same source of energy but I also feel that "I" have an intrinsic nature that I can not change...I often wonder about this nature...

satay

[rkannan1]

namaste kanna,

Could you please explain more about this 'intrinsic' property of jiva in your own words?

It is very interesting because I believe that we are all part of the same source of energy but I also feel that "I" have an intrinsic nature that I can not change...I often wonder about this nature...

satay

Om Namo Narayanaya Namah Om
Om Shri Gurubhyo Namah

"Intrinsic property" as I understand is something that does not change under external circumstances.

Another way to define is that a change in "intrinsic property" would amount to destruction of that entity.

In material terms mass, charge, magnetic moment etc. constitute such a property. But in matter even these properties change as there are phenomena like beta decay where the particle itself becomes some other particle.

In the case of spiritual things, none of this sort takes place. Jiva has a self-same nature that is eternal and never changes. This is what I refer to as "Intrinsic property" which Shri Madhvacharys refers to as, I think, Visesa.

[coolbodhi]

Thank you everyone for replying. I have been away but you guys have been busy!

[sarabhanga]

मां हि पार्थ व्यपाश्रित्य येऽपि स्युः पापयोनयः ।
स्त्रियो वैश्यास्तथा शूद्रास्तेऽपि यान्ति परां गतिम् ॥९-३२॥
किं पुनर्ब्राह्मणाः पुण्या भक्ता राजर्षयस्तथा ।
अनित्यमसुखं लोकमिमं प्राप्य भजस्व माम् ॥९-३३॥



mām hi pārtha vyapāśritya ye'pi syuh pāpayonayah |
striyo vaiśyāstathā śūdrāste'pi yānti parām gatim ||9-32||

kim punarbrāhmanām punyā bhaktā rājarshayastathā |
anityamasukham lokamimam prāpya bhajasva mām ||9-33||



Translation by Kashinath Trimbak Telang (1882):

For, O son of Pritha! Even those who are of sinful birth,
Women, Vaishyas; and Shudras likewise, resorting to me, attain the supreme goal.

What then (need be said of) holy Brahmanas and royal saints who are (my) devotees?
Coming to this transient unhappy world, worship me. (Place your) mind on me, become my devotee, my worshipper; reverence me, and thus making me your highest goal, and devoting your self to abstraction, you will certainly come to me.



Translation by Sir Edwin Arnold (1885):

O Pritha’s Son! Whoso will turn to Me ~ though they be born from the very womb of Sin,
Woman or man; sprung of the Vaishya caste, or lowly disregarded Shudra ~ all plant foot upon the highest path.

How then the holy Brahmans and My Royal Saints?
Ah! Ye who into this ill world are come ~ fleeting and false ~ set your faith fast on Me!



The second verse (9.33) gives context to Lord Krishna’s words in 9.32, which itself requires more careful consideration ~ and Kannan’s previous post is very helpful.



Translation of 9.32 by Svami Shivananda:

For, taking refuge in Me, they also who, O Arjuna, may be of a sinful birth ~
Women, Vaishyas, as well as Shudras ~ attain the Supreme Goal.



Translation of Shri Shankaracarya’s Commentary on 9.32 by Svami Gambhirananda:

For, O son of Pritha, even those who are born of sin ~
Women, Vaishyas, as also Shudras ~ even they reach the highest Goal by taking shelter under Me.



“Born of sin” may simply indicate “low born” (i.e. neither a King nor a Saint), which includes all Vaishyas and Shudras, and also most women ~ whose gender can only be transcended by “rebirth” as a Sannyasin, or as a male Brahmana who is then more likely to take Sannyasa and achieve final liberation.

As mentioned earlier, the main reason that women have always been less likely to learn Sanskrit or to take Sannyasa is the nature of patriarchal society. The world of Dasanami Sannyasins is theoretically gender free (but in practice predominantly male), and there are various stages of Sannyasa ~ first Brahmacarya, then Hamsa or Avadhuta, and finally Paramahamsa or Naga. And among the Nagas, there has never been any place for women ~ even circumcised men cannot be initiated as Nagas, and it is physically impossible for women!

[Ram]

I missed this post.



Shri Shankaracarya, Shri Ramnujacarya, and Shri Madvacarya, did NOT make a translation of ANY Sanskrit into English !


They did not translate into English( which is clearly understood), but their sanskrit commentaries are clear on this. You just need to grab the commentary and read!



The translation that I provided is my own, with reassurance from Jayadayal Goyandka’s Hindi translation and various English renderings (which all give the same basic meaning for this line).


I think after Sri Madhva's commentary came out people liked his rendering, and perhaps that became the standard for this verse!




How can anyone claim that women are prohibited from learning the Shastras or performing rituals, when there are well known examples of female Saints and Sages from throughout Indian history? If women have been excluded, it is only a result of a basically patriarchal society for the last few thousand years. Really, it is a social issue, and any kind of injustice or unfair discrimination is shunned by Sanatana Dharma. There are huge numbers of female ascetics in India ~ not so many as the males, and they also tend to stay quietly in ashrams or hermitages, and they generally go unnoticed as “women” in public because they are dressed the same and act the same as any male renunciate.


Female saints and sages are people with direct revelation, who cannot be suppressed and oppressed by anybody. Those women without them have been denied knowledge of shastras definitely in the past. It may be a social issue, but you cannot deny it.




And the only rule that has prevented non-Brahmans from reading the Vedas is that they are in Sanskrit, and since the most common way of determining knowledge of Brahman, which has always assumed knowlege of the Vedas, was always the first step of understanding Sanskrit!


Can you please explain why a great Brahmin called Drona, even described as proceeding to the Brahma Loka in the end, cut the thumb of Ekalavya? It was solely because he was not a Brahmin or Kshatriya caste.

Can you please explain why Bhima repeatedly insults Karna by calling him "sut putra"? Karna had to lie to Sage Parashurama that he was a Brahmin to learn from him.

Our scriptures are replete with examples of people being denied education just because they were not Brahmins. Are they real history or do they reflect a social condition prevalent in olden times?



True “knowledge of God” means more than just remembering God’s name ~ and in fact that can be more of an obstacle to gaining even higher or more intimate knowledge of ultimate God-head (which is beyond any possibility of actually describing or naming).

That is only an advaitic view.

What do you think was Krishna's most profound message to Arjuna? Constantly remembeing him, and surrendering his fruits of action to him. Constant remembeing could mean a samadhi in the case of a Yogi, and it could mean constant mediatation in the case of a grihasta Karma Yogi, and for the devotee, constantly rememebering him through the nine modes of Vishnu worship prescribed in the shastras. This is what most people in the world are fit for - if people are robbed of this basic knowledge and misled into higher Yoga for which they are not qualified, they will make a big mess of it. Emphasis should always be on devotion, more devotion, and more,...and leave his fate in Bhagavan's hands.