What qualifies a written work as scripture?

[Seeker]

Namaste fellow seekers.

Do we have to admit that everything written by anyone with past associations to Bharath as ‘scripture’? Who gets to call something a smrithi?

I have difficulty in admitting that Manu smrithi as any kind of scripture – mainly due to the varna system it proposes , and the way it relegates women & vast number of humanity to a position of contempt. There are several such smrithis – Manu’s is just a sample.

Even the Gnani’s of recent times like Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi , Sri Ramakrishna Parama Hamsa , and several others have categorically denounced such practices. Since their utterances have been well documented in recent times , there has been little chance of revising/restating them , and they are available for everyone to read.

Is it possible , these spurious scriptures benefit a small subset , and they promote these as scriptures?

Whenever someone quotes that they can ‘defend varna system’ , or ‘read this script’ , I am saddened by that. I can not even tell them that I have low opinion of those scriptures , lest that I come across as someone thrashing Sanatana Dharma.

How can we say that we are for ahimsa and hence support vegetarianism, but at the same time support the so called varna system and scriptures that propose pouring of molten lead into the ears of a sudra ?

Isnt this the reason that Bhuddha shunned Hindusim the way it was practiced then?

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Seeker: There are lots of different opinions on this, I'm sure, but I agree with you. If a scripture doesn't make sense to me, especially the ones along the ethical lines, I don't pay much attention. Its kind of like the old, "If your friend told you to jump off a bridge, would you?"

The ones along philosophical lines, I'm not so sure about, because until we get much more advanced in our sadhanas, there is no way to verify it or not.

Historically, I have no idea why such things like the Laws of Manu even exist. I've never read it, for the same reason I avoid the news or flip channels when a murder story comes on. It seems like a lot of extra mental dross to have to rid yourself of later. Much of what I've heard sounds absolutely adharmic. Maybe its just there it get people to think.

Aum Namasivaya

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,

Consistency with shruti is what qualifies it ultimately.

As far as Manu is concerned, I don't recall reading anything therein that places women in a position of "contempt." There are verses there saying that women should not be independent, that is true. But then there are also verses saying that the happiness of a household is dependent on the happiness of the women who dwell there.

Obviously, you cannot expect opinions of sages from centuries ago to be in accord with what is considered "politically correct" according to our post-modern culture and values. Our post-modern values are not themselves eternal truths - they are the result of evolving values and have only been in their current form for the last 2-3 decades. We can take it as a given that what is considered "modern" in regards to gender and class relations will continue to change with changing attitudes.

If it bothers you that the Vedas have a system of classifying people into four different classes and organizing their duties according to said classification, then not much can be done about it. But whether we acknowledge castes or not, they will exist, and people will make up their own classifications either implicitly or explicitly unless they are ordained to do otherwise. The Western world is a perfect example of a society in which caste officially does not exist. In spite of this, socioeconomic classes do exist, are differentiated based on petty things like wealth and political power, and do color our perceptions and interactions within society. Those who are in the highest "classes" are not necessarily those who are virtuous and honorable, unlike the Vedic system in which the people at the "top" may be dirt-poor and yet be rich in austerity and spiritual knowledge. And let's not forget slavery, which existed with official sanction as recently as 130 years ago. And that too in a society which officially declared the equality of all mankind.

[Seeker]

Namaste Phil,

This is not mere political-correctness , and these thought processes havent been going around only in the past 2-3 decades.

I have read well about Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi , and read sporadically about Ramakrishma Pramahamsa, Vivekanada , Tagore , Shri Narayana Guru .. there is a list. All these evolved beings rejected cast-ism , and saw godliness in women also. Fact of the mater is they saw the creator in every thing , and their ahimsa emanated from this realization.

I wouldn't sweep it under a broad stroke of 'political correctness'.

[philosoraptor]

Namaste Phil,

This is not mere political-correctness , and these thought processes havent been going around only in the past 2-3 decades.

I have read well about Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi , and read sporadically about Ramakrishma Pramahamsa, Vivekanada , Tagore , Shri Narayana Guru .. there is a list. All these evolved beings rejected cast-ism , and saw godliness in women also. Fact of the mater is they saw the creator in every thing , and their ahimsa emanated from this realization.

I wouldn't sweep it under a broad stroke of 'political correctness'.

Namaste Seeker,

A lot of stereotypes about varnaashrama culture are the result of people not practicing it properly, and also of critics judging it according to the standards of Western culture. This is the main reason why the Neo-Hindu thinkers you mentioned really are not very authoritative in their pronouncements about "caste system." The reality is that Hindu leaders of the last 200 years have been profoundly influenced by Western ideas regarding class and gender relations. Please note that while these ideas are influential, they are not practical. The myth of an utopian, enlightened, classless society in the West is precisely that - a myth. It does not exist now and will never exist in the future.

When you get rid of divinely-ordained castes, you are left with the corrupt social system that we have today, one in which money talks and people with connections get what they want at the expense of those who do not have it. A virtuous sage who is rich with the power of austerity and knowledge will get no recognition or even respect in such a system - unless of course, he has 10,000 followers, a personal webpage, and good prospects for cash-flow.

Both the Bhaagavata and the Vishnu Puraanas uphold the sanctity of the varnaashrama system (as does the Bhagavad-gita). Yet, these scriptures glorify great devotees who do not come from the stereotypical, male, brahmin background. Indeed, the Vishnu Puraana actually extols the advantages of women and shudras, saying that they have it best in Kali Yuga. Both of these scriptures stress on the redeeming power of bhakti, even for those who lack the advantage of noble birth. And all of this is in spite of the fact that they criticize those who don't follow their varnaashrama duties. Now, what of that?

To understand varnaashrama dharma, you have to mentally jettison the baggage of Western post-modernism and secular humanism. You have to recognize that respecting varnaashram does not necessarily mean accepting everything that goes on in the name of caste. Above all, you have to understand that varnaashrama is service to the Lord, and this is something I don't think you can accept from a non-devotional worldview.

When you study any culture, you have to understand that people of that culture may have very different assumptions about the underlying nature of reality. Hence, you have to think as they do, and not merely subject them to an analysis based on your values. People in the West (including people of the East who are influenced by them) value individualism, material education, and the ability to use that education to build a more comfortable lifestyle for one's self. Ancient Hindus, on the other hand, valued duty, devotion to an ideal, and the belief that right actions could lead to emancipation from this world, which they regarded as a place of recurrent suffering. These two sets of assumptions are as different as night and day, and you have to consider that before you try to analyze varnaashrama dharma.

regards,

[shiv.somashekhar]

Namaste Phil,

This is not mere political-correctness , and these thought processes havent been going around only in the past 2-3 decades.

I have read well about Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi , and read sporadically about Ramakrishma Pramahamsa, Vivekanada , Tagore , Shri Narayana Guru .. there is a list. All these evolved beings rejected cast-ism , and saw godliness in women also. Fact of the mater is they saw the creator in every thing , and their ahimsa emanated from this realization.

I wouldn't sweep it under a broad stroke of 'political correctness'.

The system of varna does not come from Manu Smriti. It is seen right from the Rig-veda (Purusa Sukta, etc) and then also in the Bhagavad Gita. If Vivekananda, et al., dismiss the concept, then they are essentially disagreeing with the Veda and the Gita and with thousands of years of tradition.

Caste is a different issue, though often confused with varna, and is not covered in the Manu Smriti.

[charitra]

I have difficulty in admitting that Manu smrithi as any kind of scripture – mainly due to the varna system it proposes , and the way it relegates women & vast number of humanity to a position of contempt. There are several such smrithis – Manu’s is just a sample. Even the Gnani’s of recent times like Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi , Sri Ramakrishna Parama Hamsa , and several others have categorically denounced such practices. Since their utterances have been well documented in recent times , there has been little chance of revising/restating them , and they are available for everyone to read.


Those who support those divisive classifications in current era are, contrary to their own belief, the biggest enemies of Hinduism. Both the exodus of hindus out of Hinduism and the attacks on hindus by outsiders gain legitimacy from the very same divisive tenet nurtured sadly by a few communities. Iam not targeting any one particular community here, for example in telugu region some sudras are equally culpable like the usual others. Proactively all hindus embracing ALL fellow hindus is the only way for the survival of hindu faith in this important millennium.

That said, change in the mindset has already set in motion the much needed positive trends, and gladly we turned a corner in the last few decades. Explosive surge in intercaste marriage is a testament to that irreversible development. Manu, a kshatriya, during his time may not have advocated or foreseen harassment of any one community , eg., when a carpenter/ cobbleris expected to monopolize a skill/ trade and sell the products for a profit then in that system enough safeguards for his preservation were provided. A soldier was supposed to take a salary and fight in a war and get killed if needed. Also a teacher was supposed to accept only donations and never charge a student a fee to teach/ run his ashram. Here in this latter example clearly the ‘profit’ motive was removed and a selfless seva dharma was exemplified.

From the contemporary hindu standpoint, both varna and caste are irrelevant. Youth will not listen to any good explanation in its support, they want it out, discarded. All energies must therefore be spent to spread the hindu doctrines and its philosophy clubbed with sadhana. Ignorance is the huge problem with hindus nowadays. But then we must be careful and should not condemn anyone in a targeted manner, let me point out they (the ones who support the varna system ) are also paradoxically victims of the tradition. Kindness along with persuasion are all thats needed and are clearly already working.
Buddha probably was a reformer to begin with but then he didnt go far enough to qualify to be a hindu, he didnt support vedas and the Brahman/atman concept. He thus left sanatana dharma for good. Namaste.

[Seeker]

Namaste.

Thanks for everyone's contribution.

Going back to my original question, can any of you accord the status of 'scripture' to Manu smrithi or something similar?

[Seeker]

Namaste Phil,

You and I are of different persuasions on this. I will not accept any written material just because it was written in times yonder.

I do not agree in calling someone like Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi as 'neo-hindu thinker'. He doesnt deserve that kind of labeling.

[philosoraptor]

Namaste Seeker,

Like it or not, the phenomenon of "Neo-Hinduism" is well-recognized among both traditional Hindu and secular academic scholars. If you do not believe me, feel free to Google the term (also in use includes "Neo-Vedanta" and "Neo-Advaita"). Academics recognize the fact that many new Hindu thinkers have emerged who have broken with the traditions they represent and introduced new ideas borrowed from outside philosophies. Not that they have a problem with this, since, being mostly left-wing types, they like the new secular humanist streak in Neo-Hinduism which is more friendly towards feminism and antagonistic to casteism. But being Hindus, we aren't doing ourselves any favors by pretending that the ideas of Neo-Hindu thinkers correctly represent the Vedic tradition. I am well aware of the fact that this will be a blood-pressure-raising point for many on this forum. But the reality remains that many Neo-Hindu thinkers, for all their talks on what "Hinduism is," don't actually represent all of Hinduism or even most of Hinduism. They represent a distinct category of new Hindu groups who have mixed in modern ideas with (usually) Advaita.

I also do not accept something as authoritative merely because it was written long time ago. Kama-sutra was written long ago. Nyaya-sutras were written long ago. This does not make them by the very fact, authoritative. Ultimately, contradicting the shruti is a sure fire way of being dismissed when it comes to authoritativeness. However, there is more to it. If a given smRti is referenced in other scriptures of known antiquity, then it follows that the smRti in question is likely authentic. Like it or not, Manu-smRti is referred to in both the bhAgavata purANa and the varAha purANa and has commentaries associated with it. It isn't going to go away merely because we want it to.

As we have just been informed by Charitra that advocating varnaashrama makes one an "enemy of Hinduism," perhaps the individual who made this comment may wish to consider the point that Rig Veda 10:90 (puruSha-sukta) clearly mentions varnaashrama with its origin story for each of the different varnas. If he/she sees that as "divisive," then would he/she clarify whether she finds the Rig Veda to be an "enemy of Hinduism?"

While we're on the subject, how do Charitra and others like here feel about the Raamaayana? Therein, varnaashrama is mentioned numerous times, and it is specifically mentioned that our beloved Lord Raama would ensure that people follow their varnaashrama dharma (vAlmIki rAmAyaNa 1.1.96). Is Raamaayana an "enemy of Hinduism?" Is Lord Raama an "enemy of Hinduism?"

Or how about Bhagavad-gita? Arjuna wanted to renounce his kShatriya duty that would require him to fight with and kill his cousins, but Sri Krishna derided this idea and told Arjuna that following one's own duty is better than adopting the duty of another (see gItA 18.47). Is Bhagavad-gita the enemy of Hinduism?

Like it or not, varnaashrama is well-integrated into many of our cherished, mainstream scriptures. If you discard the authority of our scriptures, you can hardly expect others (Romila Thapar? Wendy Donniger? other anti-Hindu critics) to respect them.

regards,

[shiv.somashekhar]

Namaste.

Thanks for everyone's contribution.

Going back to my original question, can any of you accord the status of 'scripture' to Manu smrithi or something similar?

It depends. In his Brahma sutra bhashya, Shankara specifically quotes these offensive verses about the Sudra being a walking crematorium, etc. So what status do you accord Shankara and his advaita doctrine?

The Mahabharata is a huge text. As Maurice Winternitz remarks, people who have "actually" read the Mahabharata know that it contains quite a bit of unpleasant material which is out of sync with other parts of it. However, most people, including myself, have only read abridged versions, which filter out the unwanted in an attempt to create a homogenous experience and so we do not have the real deal. I have been unsuccessful in my attempt to find a verse by verse version of the Mahabharata and I guess it is the same with most other people - which is why Winternitz makes that comment.

The bottomline is there is a lot of undesirable material in scripture right from the Veda. How you wish to deal with this inconsistence is your own choice.

[devotee]

Namaste,

I think one should VajrashUchika Upanishad to clear doubts on Varna/Caste. This Upanishad rejects the Varna by birth theory. Moreover, if one read Manusmriti with care, one can easily see how the foreigners too were accepted into Hindu society in the past. In fact, some verses which mention Huns and Yavanas make it clear that this scripture has been manipulated over time to suit some vested interests.

OM

[Seeker]

Namaste,

I think one should VajrashUchika Upanishad to clear doubts on Varna/Caste. This Upanishad rejects the Varna by birth theory. Moreover, if one read Manusmriti with care, one can easily see how the foreigners too were accepted into Hindu society in the past. In fact, some verses which mention Huns and Yavanas make it clear that this scripture has been manipulated over time to suit some vested interests.

OM

Namaste Devotee Ji,

Thats my thought too. Unscrupulous characters revised the scriptures and those who got the profit/ privilege/prestige out of that kept pushing the corrupt scripts. That is why I give more credibility to recent sages , where the opportunity to corrupt their utterances are limited. Unfortunately , they are viewed as 'neo-' . 'politically correct' or 'western motivated'.

Furthermore , I do not buy the argument that nothing good comes out of the west . The premise that 'western influenced thought' is somehow unsavory is bunk.

[philosoraptor]

Actually, the conclusions of the Vajra-suchika as quoted here contradict many more mainstream scriptures on this subject. Perhaps the VSU is trying to make the point that a person who is a brahmin should know brahman, which anyone of us would agree with. But to argue that a person can only be a brahmin if he knows brahman would be to propose a standard of identification that is impractical for society. Despite being reasonably well-read, I cannot look at a person and positively conclude that he does or does not know brahman. I am pretty sure the same could apply to most people. If varna-identification becomes subjective, then people will follow whoever they like, regardless of his actual spiritual merits. Moreover, the position of "brahmin" becomes one which anyone can aspire to if they have the ambition, as opposed to a calling where people who follow its dharma do so because it is their duty.

Now, in regards to the numerous pramAnas which substantiate the view that birth did (in most cases), determine varna, here are some:

chAndogya upaniShad 4.4.4-5: This is the story of how Satyakaama got initiated into study of the Veda by Gautama despite not knowing his gotra. Note that gotra is a hereditary designation. If birth was not a prerequisite to study of the Veda, then why did Gautama ask Satyakaama's gotra?



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.


Sri Sankaracharya specifically quotes this story in his Brahma-sutra bhashya to prove that shUdras are not eligible to study the Veda. He explains in his Upanishad commentary that when Satyakaama told the truth, Gautama was able to determine that his lineage was brahminical by virtue of his mystic potency. Sankara does NOT interpret this as meaning that Satyakaama was determined to be a brahmin simply by virtue of telling the truth. Such a conclusion is offensive to non-brahmins, because it implies that they would all lie by the very fact of not being brahmins.

chAndogya upanishad 5.10.7:



V-x-7: Among them, those who have good residual results of action here (earned in this world and left as residue after the enjoyment in the region of the moon), quickly reach a good womb, the womb of a Brahmana, or of a Kshatriya or of a Vaisya. But those who have bad residual results of action quickly reach an evil womb, the womb of a dog or of a hog or of a Chandala.

This explains that one's previous karma leads to certain births, and names births in the womb of brahmin/kshatriya/vaishya women as being the result of good karma. This is not consistent with a view that birth is irrelevant or unnecessary for the acquisition of a certain varna-status.

chAndogya upaniShad 6.1.1:



VI-i-1: Om. Once upon a time there was one Svetaketu, the grandson of Aruna. His father said to him, 'O Svetaketu, live the life of a Brahmacharin. Dear boy, there never is anyone in our family who does not study and is only nominally a Brahmana.'


Here is a clear instance of a child being directed to do brahminical duties based on the fact that he was born a brahmin. Svetaketu's father makes it a point to distinguish between those who are nominally brahmins and those brahmins who actually do their duty - this would make no sense if a brahmin's designation is based solely on his conduct and duty. The conclusion expressed by the scripture is that if one is born a brahmin, he is a brahmin. But that does not exempt him from performing his brahminical duties.

bhagavad-gItA:

The entire scripture is based on Arjuna's dilemma that peforming his birth-based kshatriya duties would lead to sin. The revisionists claim that varna is determined by conduct. Well, Arjuna was prepared to reject the fruits of victory and adopt begging just to avoid doing violence to his kinsmen. What could be more virtuous than that? But Sri Krishna rejected this and implored Arjuna to follow his birth-based duties.



śreyān sva-dharmo viguṇaḥ para-dharmāt sv-anuṣṭhitāt |
svabhāva-niyataṁ karma kurvan nāpnoti kilbiṣam || gItA 18.47 ||

It is better to engage in one’s own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another’s occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one’s nature are never affected by sinful reactions.

Note that, as per the previous evidence of shruti, one gets the birth based on one's nature. Hence, birth-based varNa.

bhAgavata purANa 1.7.42-43: This tells the story from the Mahaabhaarata of how the son of Drona was punished for his murder of the sleeping sons of the Paandavas. Note that Drona was a brahmin by birth, but despite taking to the profession of a kshatriya, he was never regarded as a kshatriya in the text. The same is true of his son Ashvatthaama, who retained his brahminical designation in spite of his heinous crime of murder:



tathāhṛtaṁ paśuvat pāśa-baddham
 avāṅ-mukhaṁ karma-jugupsitena
nirīkṣya kṛṣṇāpakṛtaṁ guroḥ sutaṁ
 vāma-svabhāvā kṛpayā nanāma ca

uvāca cāsahanty asya
 bandhanānayanaṁ satī
mucyatāṁ mucyatām eṣa
 brāhmaṇo nitarāṁ guruḥ

SB 1.7.42 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/42) — Śrī Sūta Gosvāmī said: Draupadī then saw Aśvatthāmā, who was bound with ropes like an animal and silent for having enacted the most inglorious murder. Due to her female nature, and due to her being naturally good and well-behaved, she showed him due respects as a brāhmaṇa.
SB 1.7.43 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/43) — She could not tolerate Aśvatthāmā’s being bound by ropes, and being a devoted lady, she said: Release him, release him, for he is a brāhmaṇa, our spiritual master.

There is another story from the bhAgavata which also illustrates the importance of birth in determining varNa, and that is the story of Mucukunda (bhAgavata 10.51.1-63). Mucukunda was a kshatriya king who aided the devas in a great battle, and was given the boon by them that he could rest in meditation afterwards. When he awoke from that meditation, he had the darshan of Sri Krishna Himself, who told him:



janmany anantare rājan
 sarva-bhūta-suhṛttamaḥ
bhūtvā dvija-varas tvaṁ vai
 mām upaiṣyasi kevalam



O King, in your very next life you will become an excellent brāhmaṇa, the greatest well-wisher of all creatures, and certainly come to Me alone.



Note that He spoke this immediately after complimenting Mucukunda on his devotion. Why then, did He not merely declare Mucukunda a brahmin right then and there? It's all based on conduct only, right?

Let us also deal with Sri Sankaracharya's comments on this topic as revealed in his Brahma-sutra bhasya (VS 1.3.34-38 - translation of George Thibaut at the Sacred Texts website):



34. Grief of him (i.e. of Gânasruti) (arose) on account of his hearing a disrespectful speech about himself; on account of the rushing on of that (grief) (Raikva called him Sûdra); for it (the grief) is pointed at (by Raikva).

(In the preceding adhikarana) the exclusiveness of the claim of men to knowledge has been refuted, and it has been declared that the gods, &c. also possess such a claim. The present adhikarana is entered on for the purpose of removing the doubt whether, as the exclusiveness of the claim of twice-born men is capable of refutation, the Sûdras also possess such a claim.
The pûrvapakshin maintains that the Sûdras also have such a claim, because they may be in the position of desiring that knowledge, and because they are capable of it; and because there is no scriptural prohibition (excluding them from knowledge) analogous to the text, 'Therefore 1 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34103.htm#fn_224) the Sûdra is unfit for sacrificing' (Taitt. Samh. VII, 1, 1, 6). The reason, moreover, which disqualifies the Sûdras for sacrificial works, viz. their being without the sacred fires, does not invalidate their qualification for knowledge, as knowledge can be apprehended by those also who are without the fires. There is besides an inferential mark supporting the claim of the Sûdras; for in the so-called samvarga-knowledge he (Raikva) refers to Gânasruti Pautrâyana, who wishes to learn from him, by the name of Sûdra 'Fie, necklace and carnage be thine, O Sûdra, together with the cows' (Kh. Up. IV, 2, 3). Smriti moreover speaks of Vidûra and others who were born from Sûdra mothers as possessing eminent knowledge.--Hence the Sûdra has a claim to the knowledge of Brahman.
To this we reply that the Sûdras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters; but a Sûdra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecedent the upanayana-ceremony, and that ceremony belongs to the three (higher) castes only. The mere circumstance of being in a condition of desire does not furnish a reason for qualification, if capability is absent. Mere temporal capability again does not constitute a reason for qualification, spiritual capability being required in spiritual matters. And spiritual capability is (in the case of the Sûdras) excluded by their being excluded from the study of the Veda.--The Vedic statement, moreover, that the Sûdra is unfit for sacrifices intimates, because founded on reasoning, that he is unfit for knowledge also; for the argumentation is the same in both cases 1 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34103.htm#fn_225)--With reference to the pûrvapakshin's opinion that the fact of the word 'Sûdra' being enounced in the samvarga-knowledge constitutes an inferential mark (of the Sûdra's qualification for knowledge), we remark that that inferential mark has no force, on account of the absence of arguments. For the statement of an inferential mark possesses the power of intimation only in consequence of arguments being adduced; but no such arguments are brought forward in the passage quoted. 2 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34103.htm#fn_226) Besides, the word 'Sûdra' which occurs in the samvarga-vidyâ would establish a claim on the part of the Sûdras to that one vidyâ only, not to all vidyâs. In reality, however, it is powerless, because occurring in an arthavâda, to establish the Sûdras' claim to anything.--The word 'Sûdra' can moreover be made to agree with the context in which it occurs in the following manner. When Gânasruti Pautrâyana heard himself spoken of with disrespect by the flamingo ('How can you speak of him, being what he is, as if he were like Raikva with the car?' IV, i, 3), grief (suk) arose in his mind, and to that grief the rishi Raikva alludes with the word Sûdra, in order to show thereby his knowledge of what is remote. This explanation must be accepted because a (real) born Sûdra is not qualified (for the samvarga-vidyâ. If it be asked how the grief (suk) which had arisen in Gânasruti's mind can be referred to by means of the word Sûdra, we reply: On account of the rushing on (âdravana) of the grief. For we may etymologise the word Sûdra by dividing it into its parts, either as 'he rushed into grief (Sukam abhidudrâva) or as 'grief rushed on him,' or as 'he in his grief rushed to Raikva;' while on the other hand it is impossible to accept the word in its ordinary conventional sense. The circumstance (of the king actually being grieved) is moreover expressly touched upon in the legend

35. And because the kshattriyahood (of Gânasruti) is understood from the inferential mark (supplied by his being mentioned) later on with Kaitraratha (who was a kshattriya himself).

Gânasruti cannot have been a Sûdra by birth for that reason also that his being a kshattriya is understood from an inferential sign, viz. his being mentioned together (in one chapter) with the kshattriya Kaitraratha Abhipratârin. For, later on, i.e. in the passage complementary to the samvarga-vidyâ, a kshattriya Kaitrarathi Abhipratârin is glorified, 'Once while Saunaka Kâpeya and Abhipratârin Kâkshaseni were being waited on at their meal a religious student begged of them' (Kh. Up. IV, 3, 5). That this Abhipratârin was a Kaitrarathi (i.e. a descendant of Kitraratha) we have to infer from his connexion with a Kâpeya. For we know (from Sruti) about the connexion of Kitraratha himself with the Kâpeyas ('the Kâpeyas made Kitraratha perform that sacrifice;' Tândya. Br. XX, 12, 5), and as a rule sacrificers of one and the same family employ officiating priests of one and the same family. Moreover, as we understand from Scripture ('from him a Kaitrarathi descended who was a prince 2 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34104.htm#fn_228)') that he (Kaitraratha) was a prince, we must understand him to have been a kshattriya. The fact now of Gânasruti being praised in the same vidyâ with the kshattriya Abhipratârin intimates that the former also was a kshattriya. For as a rule equals are mentioned together with equals. That Gânasruti was a kshattriya we moreover conclude from his sending his door-keeper and from other similar signs of power (mentioned in the text).--Hence the Sûdras are not qualified (for the knowledge of Brahman).

36. On account of the reference to ceremonial purifications (in the case of the higher castes) and on account of their absence being declared (in the case of the Sûdras).

That the Sûdras are not qualified, follows from that circumstance also that in different places of the vidyâs such ceremonies as the upanayana and the like are referred to. Compare, for instance, Sat. Br. XI, 5, 3, 13, 'He initiated him as a pupil;' Kh. Up. VII, 1, 1, 'Teach me, Sir! thus he approached him;' Pra. Up. I, 1, 'Devoted to Brahman, firm in Brahman, seeking for the highest Brahman they, carrying fuel in their hands, approached the venerable Pippalâda, thinking that he would teach them all that.'--Thus the following passage also, 'He without having made them undergo the upanayana (said) to them' (Kh. Up. V, 11, 7), shows that the upanayana is a well-established ceremony 1 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34105.htm#fn_229).--With reference to the Sûdras, on the other hand, the absence of ceremonies is frequently mentioned; so, for instance, Manu X, 4, where they are spoken of as 'once born' only ('the Sûdra is the fourth caste, once-born'), and Manu X, 126, 'In the Sûdra there is not any sin, and he is not fit for any ceremony.'

37. And on account of (Gautama) proceeding (to initiate Gâbâla) on the ascertainment of (his) not being that (i.e. a Sûdra).

The Sûdras are not qualified for that reason also that Gautama, having ascertained Gâbâla not to be a Sûdra from his speaking the truth, proceeded to initiate and instruct him. 'None who is not a Brâhmana would thus speak out. Go and fetch fuel, friend, I shall initiate you. You have not swerved from the truth' (Kh. Up. IV, 4, 5); which scriptural passage furnishes an inferential sign (of the Sûdras not being capable of initiation).

38. And on account of the prohibition, in Smriti, of (the Sûdras') hearing and studying (the Veda) and (knowing and performing) (Vedic) matters.

The Sûdras are not qualified for that reason also that Smriti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages: 'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with (molten) lead and lac,' and 'For a Sûdra is (like) a cemetery, therefore (the Veda) is not to be read in the vicinity of a Sûdra.' From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how should he study Scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, an express prohibition (of the Sûdras studying the Veda). 'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.' The prohibitions of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as 'he is not to impart knowledge to the Sûdra,' and 'to the twice-born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.'--From those Sûdras, however, who, like Vidura and 'the religious hunter,' acquire knowledge in consequence of the after effects of former deeds, the fruit of their knowledge cannot be withheld, since knowledge in all cases brings about its fruit. Smriti, moreover, declares that all the four castes are qualified for acquiring the knowledge of the itihâsas and purânas; compare the passage, 'He is to teach the four castes' (Mahâbh.).--It remains, however, a settled point that they do not possess any such qualification with regard to the Veda.


The conclusion of our scriptures is that based on one's nature, one gets the birth as a brahmin, kshatriya, vaisya, sudra, animal, plant, etc, and based on that birth, he is required to uphold the dharma assigned to him. Our ancient sages saw nothing all problematic with this, but as previously noted, their underlying values were very different from ours. There were a few instances where a person's varna changed, such as that of Vaalmiiki (who did thousands of years of penance to go from being a kshatriya to a brahma-rishi), but these seem to be exceptions to the rule. Most of the instances of varna-switching appear to have occurred between kshatriyas and brahmins, between which the boundries seemed somewhat fluid at times. But the general principle appears to be that one's varna was based on one's birth by default. It is very difficult to believe that each and every such reference, especially as many of them are in the shrutis, are the result of opportunistic brahmins creating interpolations.

EDIT: In the above paragraph, I meant to say "Vishvaamitra" instead of "Vaalmiiki."

regards,

[wundermonk]

He explains in his Upanishad commentary that when Satyakaama told the truth, Gautama was able to determine that his lineage was brahminical by virtue of his mystic potency. Sankara does NOT interpret this as meaning that Satyakaama was determined to be a brahmin simply by virtue of telling the truth. Such a conclusion is offensive to non-brahmins, because it implies that they would all lie by the very fact of not being brahmins.

Such a conclusion is unwarranted and fallacious. The question is - "Who is a Brahmin?" The very fact that the lineage was deemed irrelevant by Gautama ought to settle the issue in favour of the varna NOT being decided by lineage. Next, it is question-begging because unless we have answered "Who is a Brahmin?", conclusions like "they would all lie by the very fact of not being Brahmins" are circular and do not help establish the point.


chAndogya upanishad 5.10.7:

This explains that one's previous karma leads to certain births, and names births in the womb of brahmin/kshatriya/vaishya women as being the result of good karma. This is not consistent with a view that birth is irrelevant or unnecessary for the acquisition of a certain varna-status.

The question still is "Who is a Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya?". To quote a verse that says that doing good deeds would land one in the womb of a Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya does not help answer the question. Why? It is still circular and question begging.


chAndogya upaniShad 6.1.1:

Here is a clear instance of a child being directed to do brahminical duties based on the fact that he was born a brahmin. Svetaketu's father makes it a point to distinguish between those who are nominally brahmins and those brahmins who actually do their duty - this would make no sense if a brahmin's designation is based solely on his conduct and duty. The conclusion expressed by the scripture is that if one is born a brahmin, he is a brahmin. But that does not exempt him from performing his brahminical duties.

This ought to be seen in the context of earlier times. There was no job-mobility. There was no public school imparting science/math education as we have now using whose foundation one could take a job as a teacher or an engineer, etc. To make a living, one usually ended up following the occupation of the father. So, this still does not establish that a varna is by lineage.


bhagavad-gItA:

The entire scripture is based on Arjuna's dilemma that peforming his birth-based kshatriya duties would lead to sin. The revisionists claim that varna is determined by conduct. Well, Arjuna was prepared to reject the fruits of victory and adopt begging just to avoid doing violence to his kinsmen. What could be more virtuous than that? But Sri Krishna rejected this and implored Arjuna to follow his birth-based duties.

Nowhere in BG Chapter 18 could I find a verse that states that varna is by birth. Could you point out? In fact chapter 18 clearly propounds in light of the gunas who gets classified how.

[wundermonk]

Here is a syllogism:

(P1)Varna is decided by birth/lineage OR varna is decided by gunas.
(P2)Non-Indian Hindus do not have a birth/lineage of varna.
(P3)Krishna's message on Varnas in Chapter 18 of the BG is applicable to Indians and non-Indians equally.

From this one can conclude the following.

(C1)Non-Indian Hindus' varna is decided by gunas.
(C2)From (P3), because the message applies equally to Indians also, Indian Hindus' varna is decided by gunas.

Now, the conclusions are valid logically (I hope :p). If you disagree with the conclusions, you need to find fault with one/more of the premises. Which premise(s) do you disagree with?

[shiv.somashekhar]

Varna is determined by birth only. There is no other satisfactory criteria to determine one's varna and this has been the traditional position since ancient times. People like Vishwamitra who underwent immense hardships to switch varnas are to be treated as exceptions.

So how does varna apply to those who are from non-hindu lineage? From a traditional perspective, it does not, unfortunately. However, there are modern flavors of Hinduism where this has been adjusted to work at a global level.

Strictly speaking, the philosophy part of Vedanta, including study of veda, bhashyas and prakarana granthas are meant for Brahmanas only - and to be more specific, qualified Brahmanas. For the rest, there are Puranas and other Bhakti based texts like Soundarya lahari, Bhaja Govindam, etc. In his Upadesha sahasri, Shankara first talks about how the Guru should question the gotra of the disciple, check his eligibility and qualifications before instructing him.

Obviously, this would be seen as outdated in today's times and some may even offer conspiracy theories on how Brahmanas with vested interests corrupted a liberal system. But there is no evidence in support of such theories.

[wundermonk]

@shiv.somashekhar:

Just to make sure we are on the same page...

Is your position that the following premise is false:


(P3)Krishna's message on Varnas in Chapter 18 of the BG is applicable to Indians and non-Indians equally.?

If yes, would it be fair to conclude that you do not consider Krishna divine in any sense? Is Krishna the God of Indians alone? Is Bhagavad Gita not applicable to non-Indians?

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,


Such a conclusion is unwarranted and fallacious. The question is - "Who is a Brahmin?" The very fact that the lineage was deemed irrelevant by Gautama ought to settle the issue in favour of the varna NOT being decided by lineage.

As explained to me by my Advaitin comrades, this did not establish that the lineage was irrelevant, only that Gautama was able to determine that it was a brahmin's lineage when Satyakaama spoke the truth.


Next, it is question-begging because unless we have answered "Who is a Brahmin?", conclusions like "they would all lie by the very fact of not being Brahmins" are circular and do not help establish the point.

Nevertheless, when we see a person addressed by their varna in the scripture, it is usually the case that their varna is the same as that of their birth. I don't think we can argue that this is coincidence. Drona was known as a brahmin despite being an accomplished soldier, and so was his son Ashvatthaama despite becoming a heinous murderer. So was Duryodhana despite all his crimes.



The question still is "Who is a Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya?". To quote a verse that says that doing good deeds would land one in the womb of a Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya does not help answer the question. Why? It is still circular and question begging.

Given the examples quoted already, what is the specific objection to calling someone by the varna of his birth, other than that this is offensive to those with more egalitarian views? Wherever we read in Puraanas and Itihaasas and shruti, a person's varna is usually that of his birth. Nothing you or I say is going to change that.


This ought to be seen in the context of earlier times. There was no job-mobility. There was no public school imparting science/math education as we have now using whose foundation one could take a job as a teacher or an engineer, etc. To make a living, one usually ended up following the occupation of the father. So, this still does not establish that a varna is by lineage.

The fact that Svetaketu's father referred to people who are brahmins in name only indicates that there were indeed choices at that time of whether or not to follow brahmin-dharma. More to the point, if birth was irrelevant to determining one's varna, then Svetaketu should not have ordered his son to pursue brahminical study be default.

Can you think of any stories in which a person is presented with the option to become a brahmin, a kshatriya, a vaisya, or shudra independent of his birth? In fact, I can't think of many myself.



Nowhere in BG Chapter 18 could I find a verse that states that varna is by birth. Could you point out? In fact chapter 18 clearly propounds in light of the gunas who gets classified how.

No, you are correct - it clearly speaks of guNa. But it is the guNa from previous lifetime that causes one to become born in the womb of a brahmin, kshatriya, or so on - hence the chAndoga upaniShad 5.10.7. So, by guNa --- > birth ---> varNa ---> dharmas based on that varNa. This is the way traditional commentators appear to have understood it.

Arjuna did not want to fight the battle. Why could he not have been allowed to become a wandering mendicant like a brahmin? He was easily more controlled in his senses than many people who are nominally brahmin. And Krishna did not need him to fight the battle, because in 11th chapter He declares that the Kauravas are already destroyed by Him and Arjuna need only be the instrument. Since Arjuna is displaying a very brahminical quality of compassion and mercy, he should be allowed to adopt a brahmin's profession, right?



Here is a syllogism:

(P1)Varna is decided by birth/lineage OR varna is decided by gunas.
(P2)Non-Indian Hindus do not have a birth/lineage of varna.
(P3)Krishna's message on Varnas in Chapter 18 of the BG is applicable to Indians and non-Indians equally.

From this one can conclude the following.

(C1)Non-Indian Hindus' varna is decided by gunas.
(C2)From (P3), because the message applies equally to Indians also, Indian Hindus' varna is decided by gunas.

Now, the conclusions are valid logically (I hope :p). If you disagree with the conclusions, you need to find fault with one/more of the premises. Which premise(s) do you disagree with?

I think the basic question here is, if you don't know your lineage, can you become a Hindu? I believe most traditionalists would say yes. How they approach the subject of varNa is something I would also like to know.

There are some groups who will initiate such people with sacred thread and claim that they are now brahmins because of their quality. I'm not entirely impressed with this approach, as I've seen many of these "brahmins by quality not by birth" types fall down after a few years and go back to performing all kinds of unspeakable activities.

I don't subscribe to the view that one has to become a brahmin in order to follow Hindu spirituality. The concept of the four varNas coming from the four parts of the puruSha does indicate hierarchy, but it also indicates integration and interdependence. Even the orthodox agree that shUdras are not barred from knowing Brahman from the itihAsas and purANas.

regards,

[shiv.somashekhar]

@shiv.somashekhar:

Just to make sure we are on the same page...

Is your position that the following premise is false:

?

If yes, would it be fair to conclude that you do not consider Krishna divine in any sense? Is Krishna the God of Indians alone?

In the Gita, Krishna talks about the characterestics of each varna. The modern interpretation is that the varna of an individual should be indentified by these characterestics. The traditional interpretation is that Krishna is describing the duties of each varna and one born as a Brahmana should strive to adhere to his dharma to his best capacity.

The modern interpretation is less practical, but more applicable to today's world where the Gita has a much wider and diverse audience. Less practical because, it is simply impossible to accurately identify varna by examining these characterestics. Besides, the same individual goes through different phases in life and by this logic would have multiple varnas, which is a contradiction.

[wundermonk]

In the Gita, Krishna talks about the characterestics of each varna. The modern interpretation is that the varna of an individual should be indentified by these characterestics. The traditional interpretation is that Krishna is describing the duties of each varna and one born as a Brahmana should strive to adhere to his dharma to his best capacity.

I cannot let this point slip by. It is precisely whether one is BORN as a Brahmin by lineage that we are arguing about. Thus, unless this is established, it is question-begging to formulate any conclusion that re-states what we are arguing about in the first place.


Less practical because, it is simply impossible to accurately identify varna by examining these characterestics. Besides, the same individual goes through different phases in life and by this logic would have multiple varnas, which is a contradiction.

Having multiple Varnas at different points in space-time is not a contradiction at all. It WOULD be a contradiction if at the same point in space and time, ONE person had a preponderance of multiple gunas. Having preponderance of different gunas at different points in time is not contradictory at all.

I would also appreciate if you quoted my previous post addressed to you and answer each question directly.

Thanks.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Having multiple Varnas at different points in space-time is not a contradiction at all. It WOULD be a contradiction if at the same point in space and time, ONE person had a preponderance of multiple gunas. Having preponderance of different gunas at different points in time is not contradictory at all.

That is not the traditional position and therefore there is no precedent for such a viewpoint. One individual => one varna. Drona, though engaged in a kshatriya occupation, was a Brahmana by birth and was therefore always seen as a Brahmana. The Haridasas of Karnataka, though ardent devotees were not viewed as Brahmanas. I can go on...



I would also appreciate if you quoted my previous post addressed to you and answer each question directly.

Sure, though they have been addressed earlier.


(P3)Krishna's message on Varnas in Chapter 18 of the BG is applicable to Indians and non-Indians equally.

To be more accurate, this should be Indian hindus and everyone else as we have non-Hindu Indians too. And the answer is NO. The statement on varna does not apply to Hindus who did not obtain a varna at birth.

So does this contradict Krishna's divinity? it does not. This topic of varna in the Gita does not contradict his divinity in anyway.

[wundermonk]

That is not the traditional position and therefore there is no precedent for such a viewpoint. One individual => one varna.

Well, indeed there is. Purusha of the Purusha Sukta.


To be more accurate, this should be Indian hindus and everyone else as we have non-Hindu Indians too. And the answer is NO. The statement on varna does not apply to Hindus who did not obtain a varna at birth.

Could you provide reference from Sruthis/BG that establishes that Hindu philosophy/theology is only applicable to Indian Hindus with an antecedent varna that has been decided by birth?


So does this contradict Krishna's divinity? it does not. This topic of varna in the Gita does not contradict his divinity in anyway.

If Krishna is God of all (atheists, Muslims, Xians, Hindus, Buddhists) AND his message is universal, I see no possible way his message could be made applicable only to Indian Hindus. If indeed a way was possible, it would imply that Krishna is only the God of Indian Hindus. Does Krishna claim so anywhere in the BG?

The only logical way out of this predicament is to bite the dust and accept that varna is decided by gunas. Gunas, being part of Prakriti, are constantly changing/evolving. Thus, varna is not set for life for a person. There are examples and Shruthi support for my position.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Well, indeed there is. Purusha of the Purusha Sukta.

I fail to see the connection. Can you please explain?


Could you provide reference from Sruthis/BG that establishes that Hindu philosophy/theology is only applicable to Indian Hindus with an antecedent varna that has been decided by birth?

Who said anything about Hindu philosophy only being applicable to Indian Hindus? Do not confuse varna specific issues with the broader religion.


If Krishna is God of all (atheists, Muslims, Xians, Hindus, Buddhists) AND his message is universal, I see no possible way his message could be made applicable only to Indian Hindus. If indeed a way was possible, it would imply that Krishna is only the God of Indian Hindus. Does Krishna claim so anywhere in the BG?

As stated above, Krishna's message is universal. Do not generalize the varna issue.


The only logical way out of this predicament is to bite the dust and accept that varna is decided by gunas. Gunas, being part of Prakriti, are constantly changing/evolving. Thus, varna is not set for life for a person. There are examples and Shruthi support for my position.

There is no predicament. On the contrary, your view on varna makes it meaningless. So if you are a kshatriya today and a Brahmana tomorrow, how do you follow Krishna's varna message in the Gita and to what purpose?

And where are the Sruti examples for a dynamic varna system? Also, how do you intend to explain away thousands of years of tradition?

[philosoraptor]

Pranams wundermonk,

The idea of a dynamic varNa system within one's lifetime pretty much renders it meaningless. Yes, guNas change with time, but society does not benefit if it cannot clearly identify who the brahmins, kshatriyas, vaisyas, and sudras are.

Durvaasa and Vishvaamitra were both brahmins despite having a penchant for becoming angry (even after Vishvaamitra became brahamRshi). No one said on this basis that they should be reclassified as kshatriyas.

Arjuna demonstrated compassion and mercy on the battlefield, but no one accepted that it was ok for him to be reclassified as a brahmin.

Duryodhana was guilty of all sorts of crimes, but no one said on this basis that he is suddenly not a kshatriya.

Drona and Ashvathaama were brahmins, and that did not change merely because they did kshatriya work. In fact, Ashvathaama became a murderer, and yet he was still known as a brahmin.

In the BrhadAranyaka Upanishad, there is a story in which King Ajaatashatru became an instructing guru to two brahmins who did not understand the subject of Brahman as well as he did. Nevertheless, Ajaatashatru did not become a Brahmin. In fact, he verbalized a feeling of impropriety that he should instruct the brahmins on this subject despite his superior qualification.

Why is it necessary for someone to change his varNa? This is not taught in any scripture with which I am familiar. Sri Krishna's teaching is that whatever one does, one can dedicate that as His worship.

[wundermonk]

Multiple distortions have been brought up in this thread that need redressal.


The statement on varna does not apply to Hindus who did not obtain a varna at birth.

The above is wrong in light of BG 18:40


There is no creature, either on earth or again among the gods in heaven, that is free from these three Gunas born of Prakriti.

This is quoted right before Krishna expounds how these Gunas bring about the Varnas. So, whether one is a born-Hindu or a converted-Hindu or an atheist or a Xian or a Muslim, Krishna affirms that no one, NO ONE, is beyond classification as a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and a Sudra.

Right from BG 18:19 to BG 18:39, Krishna expounds the nature of Sattvika, Rajasika and Tamasika knowledge/action/agent/Buddhi/pleasure/pain. BG 18:40 is immediately followed by the exposition of how these various gunas and their effects cause someone to be a Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya/Shudhra.


The idea of a dynamic varNa system within one's lifetime pretty much renders it meaningless.

Pray tell me how. According to you, does a "Hindu Indian Brahmin (by birth)" take rebirth again as a "Hindu Indian Brahmin (by birth)"?


Yes, guNas change with time,

And to the extent that one's Varna is decided by the Gunas, so does the Varna whether in this life or the next.


but society does not benefit if it cannot clearly identify who the brahmins, kshatriyas, vaisyas, and sudras are.

Which society are you talking about? Krishna himself mentions in BG 18:40 that no society on earth, whether it is an Islamic society or Japanese society or Indian society or Western society is free from the effect of the Gunas. Explain, please, who are the Brahmins/Vaishyas/Kshatriyas/Shudras in Saudi Arabia, Japan and the United States.

[philosoraptor]

Pray tell me how. According to you, does a "Hindu Indian Brahmin (by birth)" take rebirth again as a "Hindu Indian Brahmin (by birth)"?


Pranams,

What I think is besides the point. The Gita is clear that one's future birth is influenced by the actions one performs in one's current birth. This means that someone who is a brahmin now could be something else in a future birth.

In his previous life, Naarada was a servant-woman's son before he became the devaRshi Naarada we know today. There was nothing inherently abominable about his former position. He took advantage of it and served the sages and heard from them about the glories of nArAyaNa. At the end of that life, he got the direct vision of nArAyaNa Himself. Quite an accomplishment for a shUdra's son, wouldn't you say?



And to the extent that one's Varna is decided by the Gunas, so does the Varna.

There are few examples from our scriptures of a person's varNa changing as his life progresses, but many examples of a person's varNa remaining unchanged despite changes in his manifested guNas. Please see my previous posting on this thread for a partial list of examples.



Which society are you talking about? Krishna himself mentions in BG 18:40 that no society on earth, whether it is an Islamic society or Japanese society or Indian society or Western society is free from the effect of the Gunas. Explain, please, who are the Brahmins/Vaishyas/Kshatriyas/Shudras in Saudi Arabia, Japan and the United States.

All He says is that no one is free of the guNas. This is not the same as saying that everyone belongs to one of these four categories of people.

The shUdra varNa isn't just for anyone not in the higher three categories. Sri Krishna descrbes the shUdra this way in bhAgavata 11.17.19:

śuśrūṣaṇaṁ dvija-gavāṁ
 devānāṁ cāpy amāyayā
tatra labdhena santoṣaḥ
 śūdra-prakṛtayas tv imāḥ

"Service without duplicity to the brāhmaṇas, cows, demigods and other worshipable personalities, and complete satisfaction with whatever income is obtained in such service, are the natural qualities of śūdras."

Thus, the shUdra's position is not merely that of an uneducated brute who wasn't sAttvik enough to be in one of the higher three categories. There are some minimum qualifications which one has to have be considered a shUdra. Thus, if one is born outside of the varNAshrama society, I don't think it's necessarily the case that they would be considered shUdras by default.

regards,

[wundermonk]

This means that someone who is a brahmin now could be something else in a future birth.

Indeed. Birth/death are not the only threshold points wherein one changes from one Varna to another. In fact, you yourself have provided examples of folks changing Varnas within one's lifetime. I rest my case.


All He says is that no one is free of the guNas. This is not the same as saying that everyone belongs to one of these four categories of people.

::Facepalm::

Nice attempt but this is a fail. What is the relationship between 18:40 and the verses beginning 18:41 then? Who are the people being referred to beginning 18:41? Only Indian Hindus?

[philosoraptor]

Indeed. Birth/death are not the only threshold points wherein one changes from one Varna to another. In fact, you yourself have provided examples of folks changing Varnas within one's lifetime. I rest my case.

Pranams,

Those examples are few and far between. I gave many more examples of people whose varNa did not change despite changes in their guNas. What of those? Why no response to those?

If your position is correct, Krishna should have told Arjuna that he was now a brahmin for demonstrating detachment from the fruits of war. But that did not happen.



::Facepalm::

Nice attempt but this is a fail. What is the relationship between 18:40 and the verses beginning 18:41 then? Who are the people being referred to beginning 18:41? Only Indian Hindus?

The verses beginning in 18:41 describe people living in varNAshrama culture/ vedic culture only. Back in those days, civilization had spread beyond India, and there was no concept of "Hindu." So no, I would not call them "Indian Hindus."

I have seen references in shruti to devas being classified as belonging to different varNas. I have also seen references to human beings in other worlds having a four-fold varNa classification. But I've never seen anything anywhere to indicate that people living outside the sphere of Vedic civilization having such a classification.

regards,

[wundermonk]

Pranams,

Those examples are few and far between. I gave many more examples of people whose varNa did not change despite changes in their guNas. What of those? Why no response to those?

Nobody claims that changing one's varna is as easy as changing one's shirt. But the fact that it CAN be changed means that varna is not decided by birth and set in stone for one's lifetime. Can we agree on this?


If your position is correct, Krishna should have told Arjuna that he was now a brahmin for demonstrating detachment from the fruits of war.


Why?



The verses beginning in 18:41 describe people living in varNAshrama culture/ vedic culture only.


Huh? What is your proof for this? It certainly does not follows from 18:40 - THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING VERSE - does it?

The major portion of Chapter 18 is talk about gunas and how no creature on earth or the heavens (whether Indian or Greek or ancient Chinese) is exempt from it. Varnas are described as directly dependent on the interplay between Gunas. What do you dispute here exactly? The case is crystal-clear. Krishna's message is universal - as applicable for Aristotle or Confucius or Adi Shankara.

[philosoraptor]

Nobody claims that changing one's varna is as easy as changing one's shirt. But the fact that it CAN be changed means that varna is not decided by birth and set in stone for one's lifetime. Can we agree on this?


Pranams,

The position of shAstra is that one's varNa generally is determined by birth, which is itself based on one's previous guNas. This is the most conservative understanding of the scriptural statements. There are a few exceptions to the rule, one of which is Vaalmiiki. But generally speaking, one's varNa is that of his birth.



If your position is correct, Krishna should have told Arjuna that he was now a brahmin for demonstrating detachment from the fruits of war.

Why?

Because according to you, one's guNa at any given time determines one's varNa. Arjuna was demonstrating a very detached attitude in not wanting to fight the war for personal profit and glory. And he was quite prepared to live the rest of his life begging. I'm unclear on why he wasn't simply promoted to the status of a brahmin, if what you say is true.


Huh? What is your proof for this? It certainly does not follows from 18:40 - THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING VERSE - does it?

Let us make sure we are talking about the same verse.

na tad asti pṛthivyāṁ vā divi deveṣu vā punaḥ |
sattvaṁ prakṛti-jair muktaṁ yad ebhiḥ syāt tribhir guṇaiḥ || gItA 18.40 ||

All this is saying is that no being either here or in the worlds of the devas who is free from the influence of the guNas.



The major portion of Chapter 18 is talk about gunas and how no creature on earth or the heavens (whether Indian or Greek or ancient Chinese) is exempt from it. Varnas are described as directly dependent on the interplay between Gunas. What do you dispute here exactly? The case is crystal-clear. Krishna's message is universal - as applicable for Aristotle or Confucius or Adi Shankara.

Krishna's message is universal - that is true.

The varNashrama system is meant for humans to follow - this is true.

No one living in the material world is exempt from the influence of the guNas - this is true.

However, not everyone participates in or follows the varNashrama system, because of living outside of Vedic culture. So, despite having certain guNas, it is not the case that a person is by default assigned to one of the four varNas in the absence of his lineage being known.

Let's put it this way. We both know of a certain Abrahamic religion whose followers eat meat, abduct women and rape them as part of the spoils of war, burn down temples and hate "idol worshippers." Would you say that the priests of this religion are "brahmins," the warriors are "kshatriyas," etc? Because frankly, I cannot reconcile such a position with the statements in shAstra about what belonging to one of these varNas entails. Frankly, I cannot even see how they could be classified as shUdras because of their abominable activities. The position of a shUdra is far more honorable than that of one of these mlecchas.

regards,

[shiv.somashekhar]

Multiple distortions have been brought up in this thread that need redressal.



The above is wrong in light of BG 18:40

It is not. No one is saying that non-Indian Hindus do not have gunas. We are only talking about varna and it appears you are confused on what it means. X's varna is the varna of his father. The idea is one's birth into a certain varna is based on past karma.

In today's world, when the Gita has reached out beyond it's original audience, it is not necessary for one to belong to a varna to worship Krishna. This I believe, is not understood by many westerners as they have been led to think it is necessary to belong to a varna. I suppose it is fashionable in some circles of converted Hindus to consider onself to be a Brahmana based on certain characterestics or on the strength of a statement issued by certain Gurus. But none of that is necessary for Krishna Bhakti.

Also, can you respond to the questions I asked you in my previous post?

[smaranam]

Furthermore , I do not buy the argument that nothing good comes out of the west

Hello Seeker,

This statement taken seperately, i agree. In fact, the western society - in particular, American Society, has quite some good things, constantly keeps itself on its toes, demands quality, incorporates creative preventive checks in its systems, has also learned a lot from the past - and you see tht in schools today - compare junior high now and junior high 10 or 20 years ago. Does not mean that other parts of the world don't also have these qualities.

It is a highly dynamic society, and so are some other parts of the world now for that matter.

Some may point out downsides like taking up natural resources, cultural values, but there are several things they are very good at - such as building supportive communities and creating - creative solutions with preventive checks in this world. They are good problem solvers as a community, and they help each other - on a secular level.

This is all about living in this world.

However, in the context of Sanatana Dharama, the concern some people express is about maintaining authenticity of Vedic dharma.



. The premise that 'western influenced thought' is somehow unsavory is bunk.
What they are saying is, the idea of constant change, adaptaion to changing human values, cannot be applied to authentic Sanatan dharma - like having a new version of a software product every fall. You can't have Sanatan Dharma 7.0
OR
The dynamic nature of American values and culture for instance cannot apply here. so-called forward thinking of the material world is not applicable to bend the authority of the Ved.

I am just explaining what the point seems to be, rather than making my own point.

Om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya~
Hare KRshNa

[philosoraptor]

It is not. No one is saying that non-Indian Hindus do not have gunas. We are only talking about varna and it appears you are confused on what it means. X's varna is the varna of his father. The idea is one's birth into a certain varna is based on past karma.

In today's world, when the Gita has reached out beyond it's original audience, it is not necessary for one to belong to a varna to worship Krishna. This I believe, is not understood by many westerners as they have been led to think it is necessary to belong to a varna. I suppose it is fashionable in some circles of converted Hindus to consider onself to be a Brahmana based on certain characterestics or on the strength of a statement issued by certain Gurus. But none of that is necessary for Krishna Bhakti.


Shiva's point here is quote correct. You don't have to belong to a specific varNa to be eligible for Krishna-bhakti. Indeed, in order to understand how precious Krishna-bhakti is, you have to first understand the varNAshrama system and its role in developing bhakti and then understand how Sri Krishna is accessible even to those who do not have the benefit of high birth or good parentage. There are statements in the Bhaagavatam to the effect that Sri Krishna enjoys the spontaneous prayers of the women more than He does the properly pronounced mantras of the brahmin-sages. Then again, there are also statements where He says that the Brahmins are His very self and He would never disprespect them in any way. All of these have to be understood in their context.

The idea of varNa-mobility is, in my frank opinion, missing the point. Sri Krishna wants our surrender, not our social ambitions.

regards,

[wundermonk]

The position of shAstra is that one's varNa generally is determined by birth, which is itself based on one's previous guNas. This is the most conservative understanding of the scriptural statements. There are a few exceptions to the rule, one of which is Vaalmiiki. But generally speaking, one's varNa is that of his birth.

Nice way to destroy your OWN argument. If there is an "exception to the rule", then there is no rule in the first place.


However, not everyone participates in or follows the varNashrama system, because of living outside of Vedic culture. So, despite having certain guNas, it is not the case that a person is by default assigned to one of the four varNas in the absence of his lineage being known.

Sorry, I read the BG again over this but could not find any evidence for the above. Also, as before the conclusion above is begging the question. May I henceforth request you not to use circular arguments? It is precisely whether varnas are determined by birth/lineage that is being discussed here. Thus, I would hope that you do not quote that as the final statement of a paragraph. That gives the impression that the statements preceding it help establish it but, for example, in the paragraph above, this is not the case.


Let's put it this way. We both know of a certain Abrahamic religion whose followers eat meat, abduct women and rape them as part of the spoils of war, burn down temples and hate "idol worshippers." Would you say that the priests of this religion are "brahmins," the warriors are "kshatriyas," etc? Because frankly, I cannot reconcile such a position with the statements in shAstra about what belonging to one of these varNas entails. Frankly, I cannot even see how they could be classified as shUdras because of their abominable activities. The position of a shUdra is far more honorable than that of one of these mlecchas.
regards,

Let's put it this way for a change. Krishna's message is universal. The classification as Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Shudras and Vaishyas is collectively exhaustive of all 7 billion of us on planet earth. Please provide evidence that establishes that Krishna says his message on the varnashrama is only for born Indian Hindus now.

[devotee]

Namaste all,

This topic of Caste and Varna has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum. People who are interested can go through these threads to get an idea what the scriptures say on this issue :

http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=5491

http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=5556

BTW, a few main points to consider :

a) Varna and Caste are not same. Varnas are four but Castes are as many as there are occupations.

b) It is historically true that many foreign tribes which came to India were accepted as Kshatriyas into Hindu society. If anyone needs, he may refer to Manusmriti. The shining examples are KushAns, Huns and Yavanas.

c) It is also historically true that many castes which were once considered as Sudras and similarly many castes which were considered as Vaishyas were accepted as Kshtriyas when they acquired power. In fact, the reverse of this too happened. Many castes who lost power in due course of time and had to take up jobs of "lower category" in the society were relegated to Sudras or even outcastes. Refer to any authentic account of castes and their history in India. If we go strictly by Varna by birth theory then the entire clan of Chandragupta Maurya was sudra. However, they were accepted as Kahstriyas. Shivaji by birth was from caste considered sudra but later on was accepted as Kshatriya and coronated as such by Brahmins.

d) If Manusmriti's version of varna theory is accepted then these great Maharishis were Sudras in real sense :

i) Maharishi Parashar
ii) Maharishi Veda VyAs
iii) The entire clan of Pandavas and Kauravas
iv) Many of the Rishis who wrote Vedas

This is an unending debate. However, there are enough material on this forum itself to go through on this subject.

OM

[shiv.somashekhar]

d) If Manusmriti's version of varna theory is accepted then these great Maharishis were Sudras in real sense :

i) Maharishi Parashar
ii) Maharishi Veda VyAs
iii) The entire clan of Pandavas and Kauravas
iv) Many of the Rishis who wrote Vedas

OM

Why was Parashara a Sudra?
Why are the Pandavas not Kshatriyas?
Who are these Sudra Rishis?

Thanks

[Seeker]

Namaste Phil , Shiv,

Imagine this – when I read Upanishads and see the grandeur of divinity and creators love toward the creations, I see a grand banquet in analogy. When I read about the varnashram , I see a poison in the corner. These two doesn’t mix together at all. Justifying that the ‘scripture says so’ makes me a suspect of the scriptures validity or the script keepers motivation in adulterating the scriptures. It is a lose-lose proposition. I would rather doubt the script keepers integrity (read a small set of Brahmins who will go to any length to profit from their position accorded to them in the initial varnasharama) than the scriptures. Hence my thread starter.

Otherwise , elevating a small varna among Hindus to a premier spot and making everyone else a subservient subset to that varna reeks of bigotry. It spawns the seeds for untouchability and a life of bane. How can we say that we can not harm animals on one hand , but can be cruel to humans on the other hand? I do not think that divine inspired scriptures will be a platform for such apartheid based on religion. I can however see how the small subset that reaps benefit from such an alteration will push the corrupted scripture vociferously.

Though varna has become a hot topic in this thread so far , I feel the same w.r.t treatment of women & widows in some smrithis , while we indulge in Devi worship. These positions do not go together.

[Seeker]

Here is a syllogism:

(P1)Varna is decided by birth/lineage OR varna is decided by gunas.
(P2)Non-Indian Hindus do not have a birth/lineage of varna.
(P3)Krishna's message on Varnas in Chapter 18 of the BG is applicable to Indians and non-Indians equally.

From this one can conclude the following.

(C1)Non-Indian Hindus' varna is decided by gunas.
(C2)From (P3), because the message applies equally to Indians also, Indian Hindus' varna is decided by gunas.

Now, the conclusions are valid logically (I hope :p). If you disagree with the conclusions, you need to find fault with one/more of the premises. Which premise(s) do you disagree with?

Namaste WM Ji,

I can see how your C2 could be a logical position to take.
Thanks.

[Omkara]

Hmm......read this and was going to reply later, but seems like wundermunk has said

To philosophorator.....exceptions?????

a. Aitareya Rishi was son of a Daasa or criminal but became a Brahmin of highest order and wrote Aitareya Brahman and Aitareyopanishad. Aitareya Brahman is considered critical to understand Rigveda.

b. Ailush Rishi was son of a Daasi, gambler and of low character. However he researched on Rigveda and made several discoveries. Not only was he invited by Rishis but also made an Acharya. (Aitareya Brahman 2.19)

c. Satyakaam Jaabaal was son of a prostitute but became a Brahmin.

d. Prishadh was son of King Daksha but became a Shudra. Further he did Tapasya to achieve salvation after repenting.
(Vishnu Puran 4.1.14)
Had Tapasya been banned for Shudra as per the fake story from Uttar Ramayan, how could Prishadh do so?

e. Nabhag, soon of King Nedishtha became Vaishya. Many of his sons again became Kshatriya. (Vishnu Puran 4.1.13)

f. Dhrist was son of Nabhag (Vaishya) but became Brahmin and his son became Kshatriya (VP 4.2.2)

g. Further in his generation, some became Brahmin again (VP 9.2.23)

h. As per Bhagvat, Agniveshya became Brahmin though born to a king.

i. Rathotar born in Kshatriya family became a Brahmin as per Vishnu Puran and Bhagvat.

j. Haarit became Brahmin though born to Kshatriya (VP 4.3.5)

k. Shaunak became Brahmin though born in Kshatriya family. (VP 4.8.1). In fact, as per Vayu Puran, Vishnu Puran and Harivansh Puran, sons of Shaunak Rishi belonged to all four Varnas.

Similar examples exist of Gritsamad, Veethavya and Vritsamati.

l. Matanga was son of Chandal but became a Brahmin.

m. Raavan was born from Pulatsya Rishi but became a Rakshas.

n. Pravriddha was son of Raghu King but became a Rakshas.

o. Trishanku was a king but became a Chandal

p. Sons of Vishwamitra became Shudra. Vishwamitra himself was a Kshatriya who later became a Brahmin.

q. Vidur was son of a servant but became a Brahmin and minister of Hastinapur empire.

[Omkara]

There is also a specific verse in the vedas....cannot find it now which talks about three members of a family and mentions them having different occupations,clearly disproving the varna by birth theory

[philosoraptor]

Nice way to destroy your OWN argument. If there is an "exception to the rule", then there is no rule in the first place.

Namaste, WM

My argument all along was that varNa is generally assigned based on birth, and that there are few exceptions to the rule. I never said otherwise. Many rules unfortunately have exceptions, including, for example, the rule on vegetarianism (meat-eating being permitted in the context of properly performed yagnas). Unfortunately, when we study Hinduism, it is not helpful to our understanding to studiously avoid stating general propositions because of exceptions.

Also, I hope you are not taking any of this personally. You know I respect you as a fellow seeker, and I would like to think we are merely exploring this subject by examining it from all angles. I have nothing to gain from "winning" this argument, other than a love for finding out and explaining the truth. For what it's worth, I used to believe as you did on this subject. But as I read more and more, I came to realize those beliefs were not correct as per our shAstras. Actually, the subject is considerably more complicated than we have discussed so far.


Sorry, I read the BG again over this but could not find any evidence for the above. Also, as before the conclusion above is begging the question. May I henceforth request you not to use circular arguments? It is precisely whether varnas are determined by birth/lineage that is being discussed here. Thus, I would hope that you do not quote that as the final statement of a paragraph. That gives the impression that the statements preceding it help establish it but, for example, in the paragraph above, this is not the case.

Let's put it this way for a change. Krishna's message is universal. The classification as Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Shudras and Vaishyas is collectively exhaustive of all 7 billion of us on planet earth. Please provide evidence that establishes that Krishna says his message on the varnashrama is only for born Indian Hindus now.

I'm approaching it from a pragmatic standpoint - what you are proposing is similar to calling everyone a "Hindu" whether they like to be called that or not. I can certainly believe that all human beings everywhere are descended from one of the four varNas. However, once people leave the sphere of Vedic culture, the rules for intermarriage also change for them and thus their hereditary statuses becomes unclear, even if their lineages were known. I'm therefore not clear on why you would insist that we call everyone as a member of one of these four varNas. What purpose would that serve? Perhaps our difference of opinion here is based on an assumption I am making that the shUdra varNa is an honorable one with distinct duties and qualities above and beyond that which can be found in the general mass of non-Hindu humanity.

More later.

warm regards,

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


The “caste system” (varnashrama dharma) was established since the dawn of time, it is intrinsic to Hindu society. The whole picture is far more complex than we can appreciate, with a matrix of perfect relationships (the body and it’s limbs a perfect example) and actions that enters into all aspects of life.

The rules were not arbitrarily defined by some greedy priest or despotic self-appointed king, but they arose from divine principles, natural necessity, and long practice, as clearly the best practice for the greatest good. And they have been collected in various smRti texts.

For thousands of years, the majority of Hindu society followed the system without question, this in spite of differences in doctrines because Dharma was the principle guidance.

Those who came with ill gotten intention to rule us, found it difficult to control or change the society. The Brits, the biggest class conscious society, the bigots, recognize this so they started spreading the rumor. The only way that the Hindu population could be won over was to destroy the “caste system” and thus diminish the impossible resilience to outside interference shown by Hindu culture. And so the misinformation and vilification campaign began. And here we are now, internally combusting.


To blame the Brahmanas, having vested interest, falsifying Shastra, is baseless and malicious. There is a lot to desire to right the ‘wrong’ that is felt in the society, are due to various reasons. The politics is the worst culprit. Time to change this tune of Brahmna bashing, without whom at the helm, the hindu society simply would not function.
That it is still functioning is testimony to their resilience and dedication, who is prepared to learn Vedas 24/7 leave a simple life in poverty even today? please do not equate them with those highfalutin jet setters.

Whole hindu ethos is based on varna Ashram, one may ask how was it ordained, what is the best possible way the varna of an individual can be recognised?
What are 16 sanskaras? How and what are the names assigned to each child? At what stage the training of child begin? then we might begin to appreciate certain rules.

Varna has traditionally been recognised by birth, birth again is determined by Guna and Karma, so the cycle goes on, until one decide to transcend all designation.

And who else is more qualified then Dharmaraja to assign the Varna? Unless off course we think the Birth is mere product of an accident, then there really is no need for any Dharma let alone Varna.

Jai Shree Krishna

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,




BTW, a few main points to consider :

a) Varna and Caste are not same. Varnas are four but Castes are as many as there are occupations.

We can accept this for the sake of argument, since "caste" is not even a Sanskrit word and applies to many more social categories not mentioned in shAstras.



b) It is historically true that many foreign tribes which came to India were accepted as Kshatriyas into Hindu society. If anyone needs, he may refer to Manusmriti. The shining examples are KushAns, Huns and Yavanas.

I think devotee is half-right on this point. From my readings of the Raamaayana and other smRtis, these tribes are considered fallen descendents of the kShatriya varNa.



c) It is also historically true that many castes which were once considered as Sudras and similarly many castes which were considered as Vaishyas were accepted as Kshtriyas when they acquired power.

Assuming we are talking about examples from scripture, I would be very pleased to know of these so I can add them to my notes.


In fact, the reverse of this too happened. Many castes who lost power in due course of time and had to take up jobs of "lower category" in the society were relegated to Sudras or even outcastes. Refer to any authentic account of castes and their history in India.

Again, I'm sure we would all like to get examples, assuming that we are talking about examples from scripture.



If we go strictly by Varna by birth theory then the entire clan of Chandragupta Maurya was sudra. However, they were accepted as Kahstriyas. Shivaji by birth was from caste considered sudra but later on was accepted as Kshatriya and coronated as such by Brahmins.

I don't understand what that proves. Every single time the subject of Kings in Kali-Yuga comes up in my readings, the attitude towards them is nothing less than scornful. Specifically, I've read many comments in the purANas to the effect that shUdras would take the throne and these were always given in a very negative sense.



d) If Manusmriti's version of varna theory is accepted then these great Maharishis were Sudras in real sense :

i) Maharishi Parashar

Why? He is known to be descended from Vasishtha.



ii) Maharishi Veda VyAs

His father was Paraashara and his mother was Satyavati. Although Satyavati was raised a fisherman's daughter, by birth she was actually a kshatriya as she was known to be born from the seed of Upacari Vasu.



iii) The entire clan of Pandavas and Kauravas
iv) Many of the Rishis who wrote Vedas


I would appreciate some explanation of this.


This is an unending debate. However, there are enough material on this forum itself to go through on this subject.

OM

Sometimes debates are unending because one or the other party does not want to concede in the face of superior evidence. I've given numerous examples of individuals who were known by the varNa of their birth despite engaging in exceptional or nefarious activities uncharacteristic of their varNa. So far, no one has addressed those examples, yet we are being asked to believe that birth has no relevance and no further discussion should be had on the subject. From what I can see, this subject clearly inspires strong feelings among many, but we cannot change what the scriptures say.

regards,

[Believer]

Namaste,

I did not realize many of our members were so well read and so articulate.

One of our priests at the local Gayatri Parivar Mandir is employed as an engineer. He goes to people's houses to perform various ceremonies over the weekends. Being single and living in an apartment, I am sure, occasionally, he picks up the toilet brush and vigorously cleans his toilet. In his spare time, he enjoys some of the sporting events on TV too. So, what varna/catste is he? A brahmin, because he performs pujas/ceremonies, vaishya, becuase he holds a job and probably invests his money in CDs or bonds/equities, or a shudra, because he cleans A toilet, or a kshatriya, because should there be a mandatory draft in the US, he will be shipped off to the battlefront?

Why do some people still have fascination with this varna/caste system, either by birth or by employment? In the US, we don't have janitors coming in to clean our toilets or bathrooms. Everyone, in the course of a day, does some work which belongs to different 'old tradtional' varnas. Why not let go of it? But, most of all, why does the OP bring up this issue? If a scripture does not jive with you, there are plenty of others where you can get spiritual knowledge to elevate yourself. What is the point of this long winded acrimonious debate? If one scripture, or a verse from a scripture is not palatable to you, just move on. Why waste your sadhana time in analyzing, dissecting, trashing, disowning a book that you don't like, or agree with. Sanatan Dharma is a faith to be practiced for spiritual upliftment, not a subject for idle literary research. Let the ones who want to cling to every bit of ancient writings, take their time in getting over the negatives. Why force them to change overnight. That will create nothing but discord. A gentle, loving approach to get them to understand the fallacy of their ways is the only salvation for Hinduism. So, let us stop bickering and instead spend time on our sadhana.

Pranam.

[philosoraptor]

Namaste Phil , Shiv,

Imagine this – when I read Upanishads and see the grandeur of divinity and creators love toward the creations, I see a grand banquet in analogy. When I read about the varnashram , I see a poison in the corner. These two doesn’t mix together at all. Justifying that the ‘scripture says so’ makes me a suspect of the scriptures validity or the script keepers motivation in adulterating the scriptures. It is a lose-lose proposition. I would rather doubt the script keepers integrity (read a small set of Brahmins who will go to any length to profit from their position accorded to them in the initial varnasharama) than the scriptures. Hence my thread starter.

Otherwise , elevating a small varna among Hindus to a premier spot and making everyone else a subservient subset to that varna reeks of bigotry. It spawns the seeds for untouchability and a life of bane. How can we say that we can not harm animals on one hand , but can be cruel to humans on the other hand? I do not think that divine inspired scriptures will be a platform for such apartheid based on religion. I can however see how the small subset that reaps benefit from such an alteration will push the corrupted scripture vociferously.

Though varna has become a hot topic in this thread so far , I feel the same w.r.t treatment of women & widows in some smrithis , while we indulge in Devi worship. These positions do not go together.

Namaste Seeker,

As I have noted previously, many of us are strongly influenced by foreign values when it comes to class- and gender-relations. At the risk of sounding dismissive of your concerns (which I once shared, until I read more), I feel that your perceptions are colored by values that are so entrenched in your psyche that you are having difficulty separating yourself from them and looking at the evidence in its proper, cultural context. Please don't take that in a wrong way. But equating varNAshrama with "bigotry" or misogyny is itself a fairly prejudiced view towards Hinduism. In fact, when you look at all of the evidence on the subject, it is hard to assert bigotry or misogny as being features of varNAshrama. Note that, varNAshrama for the purposes of this discussion is different from "caste system." The latter is a devolved form of the former.

The puruSha-sukta (Rg veda 10.90) explains that each of the four varNas originated from one of the limbs of the puruSha. Now, there is no getting away from the fact that this is a Vedic concept, and that there is hierarchy implicit in it, with brahmins being at the "top" and shUdras at the "bottom." However, it is also fair to say that concepts of interdependence and integration can also be derived from the same creation story. After all, no one would want to live without their feet. Sri Krishna also says in bhagavad-gItA chapter 4, verse 13 that He is the creator of this varNAshrama system based on guNa and karma (cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ / tasya kartāram api māṁ viddhy akartāram avyayam //). The reason He mentions guNa and karma in this context is to head off the objection that He arbitrarily places some people in certain varNas, or that He accrues some karma by the process of creating this system - it is not arbitrary, but done according to the guNa and karma of the jIvas. Based on guNa and karma, one gets the birth in the womb of a woman of a certain varNa - this is mentioned in the chAndogya upaniShad as quoted by me previously.

Even devas have varNas - in the bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad 1.4.10-14 the creation of different devas in different varNas is mentioned. One of the deities - pushan (Earth) is mentioned to be shUdra "For it nourishes all this that exists." No one would argue that we can disrespect Earth because the prevailing deity of the Earth comes from shUdra varNa.

A hierarchy in which an austere and learned class is elevated to the top makes a tremendous amount of sense in a society where people place a premium on spiritual advancement and liberation instead of material accomplishments. To provide spiritual guidance both in teaching and by example, there has to be a class of people who are trained to do this from birth. These must be people who do their duty because it is their duty, and not because they have an ambition to be a great guru or spiritual leader. Without such an orientation, people will by default admire whoever is wealthy and powerful, regardless of virtue, and then they will follow the example of such corrupt people.

Same is true of kShatriyas, since they must execute the law and protect all of society. Same is true of vaishyas, since they will control most of the wealth. Study of veda is not obligatory for shUdras and is in fact forbidden for them, since its study is restricted to those who follow the reformatory samskAras that qualify one for vedic study. However, shUdras are allowed to study itihAsa/purANa and can worship and become devoted to the same Brahman worshipped by the other varNas. Note that, all of this is based on shAstra and on the opinions of the three major vedAnta commentators - these are not my opinions.

Now, none of this will be strictly acceptable to people following a Western, egalitarian view of things, as many educated Hindus are prone to do by default. But our job is not to change our culture to make it more palatable to others. Our religion and culture has its own assumptions about what makes for an ideal society. The Western ideal of a classless society does not exist, and in fact is hypocritical. The Vedic ideal is clearly one of classes organized by birth and prescribed specific duties appropriate to the guNa and karma that resulted in a given birth. The modern Indian caste system is a corrupted form of varNAshrama.

Now one might wonder why it has to be birth. Can't a person's varNa be derived from his actual merits, as the Westerners would have us believe? The problem with that approach is, study of the Veda usually begins between ages 5-8 years according to tradition and goes on for 12+ years and is to be completed prior to entering gRhastha Ashrama (householder stage). At such an early age it is not possible to gauge a person's merits based on behavior. All children behave similarly at that age. The guNa and karma from previous lives are inferred from the birth and children are trained according to those expectations to manifest/take advantage of their prevailing guNa. For brahmins, this means that they are brought up to be very sAttvik. Note that this is not the same thing as saying that a brahmin is by the very fact of his birth, sAttvik - people can and do deviate from their prescribed duties. Note that the same thing happens also to people of other varNas - sometimes a person of a "lower" varNa, due to good karma from a previous life and or performance of yoga in a previous life, manifest sAttvik tendencies despite a "lower" birth, probably due to some unfavorable karma. The most famous shAstric example in this regard is Vidura, who was the son of a shUdra woman. No one doubts the wisdom or the bhakti of Vidura, and it would be the height of stupidity to be derisive towards such a soul based solely on his birth.

Another example of low-birth but high spiritual credentials is Guha, the leader of the Nishaada tribe who had the personal privilege of hosting Sri Raama and His party during the first part of Their forest exile. The same Raama who ensured that people followed their varNAshrama duties, was embraced by and fed by a man who is (as per shAstra) the descendent of a sinful lineage. The same Guha was also ready to selflessly protect Sri Raama when Bharata's army came looking for Him, thinking at first that wrong-doing was going to be done by the latter. He was ready to lay his life down. But then after speaking with Bharata, Guha displayed the intelligence to realize that Bharata's heart was pure. At no point is it mentioned that Guha was or became a brahmin by virtue of his service to Raama... or that he had any kind of change of his underlying social status.

You have to look at examples like this and realize that varNAshrama dharma in its pristine form is more complex than merely hierarchy and top-down organization of labor. VarNAshrama gives a paradigm by which the labor can be organized and the spiritual purity of the most powerful professions can be maintained. But it's not the last word on a person's qualifications, which are themselves as complex as karma is.

regards,

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,


Namaste,

I did not realize many of our members were so well read and so articulate.

One of our priests at the local Gayatri Parivar Mandir is employed as an engineer. He goes to people's houses to perform various ceremonies over the weekends. Being single and living in an apartment, I am sure, occasionally, he picks up the toilet brush and vigorously cleans his toilet. In his spare time, he enjoys some of the sporting events on TV too. So, what varna/catste is he? A brahmin, because he performs pujas/ceremonies, vaishya, becuase he holds a job and probably invests his money in CDs or bonds/equities, or a shudra, because he cleans A toilet, or a kshatriya, because should there be a mandatory draft in the US, he will be shipped off to the battlefront?

It is precisely to avoid this confusion that people are known by the varNa of their birth. Whether or not that person is doing all of his prescribed duties is another matter. Note that, there are allowances in the smRtis for members of each varNa to take up other means of livelihood not normally prescribed for their varNa. But, we don't say that a person's varNa is changed because they do forbidden work. We didn't call Drona a kshatriya merely because he was a soldier, now did we?



Why do some people still have fascination with this varna/caste system, either by birth or by employment?

Because the varNa system is clearly a product of our scriptures, and thus one cannot truly accept the authority of the scriptures if he considers varNAshrama to be evil and cruel. If part of scripture is to be discarded because it is evil, then the rest of the scripture is suspect too. Not to mention that, this is often a sore point for Hindus who must defend their religion in the face of criticism from people of other "religions." In such cases, it is best to know what the scripture actually says, rather than defaulting to a revisionist stance.

regards,

[wundermonk]

My argument all along was that varNa is generally assigned based on birth, and that there are few exceptions to the rule. I never said otherwise.

My point is if a rule has an exception then the causes/conditions leading to that exception should be articulated. In this case, you have not articulated these causes/conditions.


I'm approaching it from a pragmatic standpoint - what you are proposing is similar to calling everyone a "Hindu" whether they like to be called that or not.

::sigh:: Please leave strawmen aside.

My point all along has been reading BG 18:40 and verses beginning BG 18:41 consistently. You are the one claiming that BG 18:41 onward does not apply to non-Indian/non-Hindus. I wanted evidence for that none of which has been forthcoming.


Perhaps our difference of opinion here is based on an assumption I am making that the shUdra varNa is an honorable one with distinct duties and qualities above and beyond that which can be found in the general mass of non-Hindu humanity.

We are arguing whether non-Indians and non-Hindus come under the purview of the varnashrama. You again have made a last statement in the paragraph indicating that they do not. Did we not go through this already where we said circularity and question-begging does not help establish one's point?

[philosoraptor]

We are arguing whether non-Indians and non-Hindus come under the purview of the varnashrama. You again have made a last statement in the paragraph indicating that they do not. Did we not go through this already where we said circularity and question-begging does not help establish one's point?

Namaste,

Just to clarify, I do agree that they *should* come under the purview of varNAshrama - assuming that they are giving up their mleccha beliefs and start practicing Hinduism. Obviously, if they follow mleccha religions, then they will not accept varNAshrama. Every human *should* practice sanAtana-dharma, implict within which is varNAshrama dharma. But most people do not, and it is unlikely that they will in Kali-Yuga.

What I was saying is that I don't see how one knows the varNa of such people given the absence of details regarding their lineage (which, if known, would probably be mixed up anyway). There are some rules in smRiti that deal with situations not dissimilar to this. One such rule says that a lineage can be known as brahminical if seven generations consistently practice... I don't recall the source right at the moment but if I find it I will post it.

regards,

[wundermonk]

Namaste,

Just to clarify, I do agree that they *should* come under the purview of varNAshrama - assuming that they are giving up their mleccha beliefs and start practicing Hinduism. Obviously, if they follow mleccha religions, then they will not accept varNAshrama. Every human *should* practice sanAtana-dharma, implict within which is varNAshrama dharma. But most people do not, and it is unlikely that they will in Kali-Yuga.

What I was saying is that I don't see how one knows the varNa of such people given the absence of details regarding their lineage (which, if known, would probably be mixed up anyway). There are some rules in smRiti that deal with situations not dissimilar to this. One such rule says that a lineage can be known as brahminical if seven generations consistently practice... I don't recall the source right at the moment but if I find it I will post it.

regards,

Whether you or I agree on something or not is irrelevant. I stick to BG 18:40 (which establishes that ALL human beings come under the purview of gunas) and verses beginning BG 18:41. Lord Krishna himself has not made any distinctions between his words being applicable only to Indians or non-Indians.

I think we should let Krishna have the last word.

[philosoraptor]

Whether you or I agree on something or not is irrelevant. I stick to BG 18:40 (which establishes that ALL human beings come under the purview of gunas) and verses beginning BG 18:41. Lord Krishna himself has not made any distinctions between his words being applicable only to Indians or non-Indians.

I think we should let Krishna have the last word.

This is a distortion of my words. I agree that the guNas apply to all and that everyone should follow varNAshrama. I only stated that I don't see how varNa is to be assigned to people living outside the sphere of Vedic civilization and whose lineage is unknown.

I am, as I write this, thinking of one of many famous Hindu organizations that brought its teachings here and held to the view that one's current guNa determines one's varNa, and that birth was not relevant. Within a few years, they were initiating many Westerners as brahmins and then as gurus, saying that they were brahmins by their conduct and quality, which at that time seemed plausible. But within a few years, many of these "brahmins by quality" became engaged in criminal activity and/or became degraded in their sAdhana. I am also thinking of another Hindu organization, also very popular to this day, whose founding member was not a brahmin by birth, but who was given brahminical initiation and later sannyAsa. Some time after he spread his teachings to West, he fell victim to his own lust and sired a child with one of his female servants out of wedlock, then refused to marry her because he was a sannyasi. Now, I don't want to name names, because I don't think any of that is relevant. I just want to point out that the whole "varNa by quality, not by birth" point of view sounds great on paper but may not translate well as anything practical in reality.

It should be "varNa by birth, and by quality."

[wundermonk]

I only stated that I don't see how varNa is to be assigned to people living outside the sphere of Vedic civilization and whose lineage is unknown.

(emphasis mine)

Please do not continue to beg the question.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Whether you or I agree on something or not is irrelevant. I stick to BG 18:40 (which establishes that ALL human beings come under the purview of gunas) and verses beginning BG 18:41. Lord Krishna himself has not made any distinctions between his words being applicable only to Indians or non-Indians.

I think we should let Krishna have the last word.

We already have. With all due respect, the problem here is you do not have a correct picture of varna and its relevance. Your position is flawed for the following reasons -

1. Varna is by birth, period. This is the traditional position since thousands of years and when I questioned you on how you will explain it away, you did not respond.

2. If not by birth, there is no other satisfactory way of determining one's varna and you have not offered any. What would be the criteria used for identification and what is its accuracy? Who created these methods and what were their qualifications?

3. You theorized that multiple varnas are possible, which renders the system pointless. One would have to re-evaluate himself every moment, which would make it impossible to follow his varna dharma.

4. A Brahmana has to have a valid gotra - which is his parental lineage. A converted Brahmana cannot have such a gotra which means he is not a Brahmana. Check Shankara's upadesha sahasri and other sources where the first order of business is to check the student's gotra.

In conclusion, you have an incorrect understanding of Gita 18.40 because your interpretation contradicts other valid sources, while the traditional position of varna by birth, does not. I will repeat once again that the system of varna is irrelevant to people who were not born into it.

Thanks

[Believer]

Namaste,

For the record, we Punjabis have two varnas - white collar and blue collar. So, we are clearly not Hindus in the eyes of some. :)

Sure various scriptures define varnas, as they existed back then. And I don't want to discard it all together. But seriously, who wants the tags now a days? - shudras, so that they can get admission to colleges/universities and get jobs on a preferential basis; and some brahmins who would want extra respect from the society at large for their vocation.

PRaptor, I understand your position of accepting the scriptures in their entirety or rejecting them totally. Those are two extreme positions. As much as I have extreme reverence for our scriptures and am opposed to any revisions, to bring out 'New and Improved' versions, I also tend to gloss over less than meaningful verses without insisting that they be taken out. One has to grind through lot of text to find what resonates with him and helps him in lifting himself. So, why not think about the compromise - leave scriptures as they are without any revisions, and take what you like out of them. In Hinduism, we don't have one shoe fits all type of philosophy. That is why we have Advaitas and Dvaitas and Arya Samajis and Vaishanavas and Shaktas and Shiv pujaris and........... All of them are Hindus and they already accept only parts of our scriptures. So, what I am suggesting is not really going back in time, but accepting what we have evolved into - Hindus with different levels of love for/faith in 'all' their scriptures. This is by no means dishonoring any of them, just picking out the verses/sections/philosophy that helps an individual grow. After all, isn't that the purpose of the whole thing?

Pranam.

[philosoraptor]

PRaptor, I understand your position of accepting the scriptures in their entirety or rejecting them totally. Those are two extreme positions. As much as I have extreme reverence for our scriptures and am opposed to any revisions, to bring out 'New and Improved' versions, I also tend to gloss over less than meaningful verses without insisting that they be taken out. One has to grind through lot of text to find what resonates with him and helps him in lifting himself. So, why not think about the compromise - leave scriptures as they are without any revisions, and take what you like out of them. In Hinduism, we don't have one shoe fits all type of philosophy. That is why we have Advaitas and Dvaitas and Arya Samajis and Vaishanavas and Shaktas and Shiv pujaris and........... All of them are Hindus and they already accept only parts of our scriptures. So, what I am suggesting is not really going back in time, but accepting what we have evolved into - Hindus with different levels of love for/faith in 'all' their scriptures. This is by no means dishonoring any of them, just picking out the verses/sections/philosophy that helps an individual grow. After all, isn't that the purpose of the whole thing?

Pranam.

Pranams,

Well, with all due respect, this is like asking Muslims to let go of the more unpleasant parts of the Koran, like Mohammed executing prisoners of war, Mohammed selling off captured women and children as slaves, Mohammed ordering the burning down of idol-worshippers' temples. At some point, an intelligent person would ask, why follow anything that Mohammed said when he believed in doing all those bad things? After all those things could not be rationalized back then, what to speak of rationalizing them now. And since they are such bad things, it casts doubt on the spiritual credentials of the author.

Similarly, you could argue that varNAshrama is irrelevant today. But if it was such an evil and divisive thing, then one might wonder what kind of sages and gods we follow who endorsed those things in the past. It therefore behooves us to understand varNAshrama properly within its cultural and historical context. Then we can debate its relevance today.

regards,

[Believer]

Namaste,

Please don't bring muslims (or Hitler) into the discussion. ;)

I am not disrespecting any sages/gods as I am not denying anything from our scriptures. It is verses dealing with the non-spiritual aspects of life which have become marginally relevant that I am suggesting glossing over for those who don't want to follow them. All the spiritual knowledge is pristine and eternal. As is evident, everyone is not buying your line for the non-spiritual verses dealing only with the day to day mundane stuff, so, how are you going to MAKE them accept your thinking? Or, are you going to push them out of 'your' faith? :) OR, worse yet, will they throw you out and call you a heathen/kafir? ;)

Pranam.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


Namaste,

----- everyone is not buying your line for the non-spiritual verses dealing only with the day to day life, ----
Pranam.

Who is this everyone? are you suggesting dealing with day to day life is not important? or following ones svadharma irrelevant? may be we should all retire to the forest, like Arjun wanted and be spiritual, not a bad idea me thinks!

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


Whether you or I agree on something or not is irrelevant. I stick to BG 18:40 (which establishes that ALL human beings come under the purview of gunas) and verses beginning BG 18:41. Lord Krishna himself has not made any distinctions between his words being applicable only to Indians or non-Indians.

I think we should let Krishna have the last word.

Not just the humans but everyone that comes in to being of creation, are not devoid of tri guna. Does this follow that all fall in to 4 varnas only?

No because Krishna indicates in BG 5.18 there are those who fall outside scope of varna or choose not to belong.

vidya-vinaya-sampanne
brahmane gavi hastini
suni caiva sva-pake ca
panditah sama-darsinah

The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a chandala [outcaste].

Jai Shree Krishna

[Believer]

Namaste,

Who is this everyone?
Please calm down and take a number. There is no need to jump into a conversation that I am having with PRaptor. When I am done, I might consider listening to you. :)

Pranam.

[satay]

Namaste,
If I may add a couple paises to this conversation, when using one verse or saloka from scripture we have to be careful. We have to take the whole scope and understanding of all different principles of Sanatana dharma. They are all interdependent. Current birth or reincarnation of us is based on karma of previous births and guna. Based on previous karma, its svabhava and guna jiva finds the right womb or god directs the jiva to the appropriate womb so that it can take birth in the appropriate varna. At least this my understanding.

Most knowledgeable westerner Hindus know this and they know that no matter how much sadhana they do some things will not be possible for them to undertake in this life and they must wait for the next life in the appropriate varna to perform rituals. A western naga sadhu once told me this. I still have his pm if anyone is interested in seeing it.

The problem I think most of us living under western influence have is that we start thinking in one lifetime linear, politically correct thinking. In sanatana dharma births are countless and dependent on previous deeds. We are not here just for one lifetime of 100 years or less we are here for eons

Thus if you take reincarnation, karma, guna and svabhava all into consideration and read the verses in that context it makes sense that varna is based on birth which in itself is based on previous karma and influence of guna. That's the only thing that makes sense otherwise the whole system is illogical.

Going back to the op, I don't know about pouring molten lead into Sudra eyes, no person in their right mind would do that to another person. Manu smriti is something Christians hit us over the head with all the time and I rather have nothing to do with Manu but varna is supported by other scriptures which I regularly read yet I don't read Manu and don't care about what he has to say in general. Suffice it to say I have never and I will never pour molten lead into Sudra eyes. First of all I would not even know where to get all that lead.

People outside of varna system actually have it easy, they don't have to worry about it, do as you please, eat sleep drink and smoke :) and I have to worry about my prescribed duty...which if I don't do I will be born as who knows what.

Like I said 2 cents... Take it or leave it. :)

[Seeker]

Namaste Seeker,

As I have noted previously, many of us are strongly influenced by foreign values when it comes to class- and gender-relations. At the risk of sounding dismissive of your concerns (which I once shared, until I read more), I feel that your perceptions are colored by values that are so entrenched in your psyche that you are having difficulty separating yourself from them and looking at the evidence in its proper, cultural context. Please don't take that in a wrong way. But equating varNAshrama with "bigotry" or misogyny is itself a fairly prejudiced view towards Hinduism. In fact, when you look at all of the evidence on the subject, it is hard to assert bigotry or misogny as being features of varNAshrama. Note that, varNAshrama for the purposes of this discussion is different from "caste system." The latter is a devolved form of the former.

The puruSha-sukta (Rg veda 10.90) explains that each of the four varNas originated from one of the limbs of the puruSha. Now, there is no getting away from the fact that this is a Vedic concept, and that there is hierarchy implicit in it, with brahmins being at the "top" and shUdras at the "bottom." However, it is also fair to say that concepts of interdependence and integration can also be derived from the same creation story. After all, no one would want to live without their feet. Sri Krishna also says in bhagavad-gItA chapter 4, verse 13 that He is the creator of this varNAshrama system based on guNa and karma (cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ / tasya kartāram api māṁ viddhy akartāram avyayam //). The reason He mentions guNa and karma in this context is to head off the objection that He arbitrarily places some people in certain varNas, or that He accrues some karma by the process of creating this system - it is not arbitrary, but done according to the guNa and karma of the jIvas. Based on guNa and karma, one gets the birth in the womb of a woman of a certain varNa - this is mentioned in the chAndogya upaniShad as quoted by me previously.

Even devas have varNas - in the bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad 1.4.10-14 the creation of different devas in different varNas is mentioned. One of the deities - pushan (Earth) is mentioned to be shUdra "For it nourishes all this that exists." No one would argue that we can disrespect Earth because the prevailing deity of the Earth comes from shUdra varNa.

A hierarchy in which an austere and learned class is elevated to the top makes a tremendous amount of sense in a society where people place a premium on spiritual advancement and liberation instead of material accomplishments. To provide spiritual guidance both in teaching and by example, there has to be a class of people who are trained to do this from birth. These must be people who do their duty because it is their duty, and not because they have an ambition to be a great guru or spiritual leader. Without such an orientation, people will by default admire whoever is wealthy and powerful, regardless of virtue, and then they will follow the example of such corrupt people.

Same is true of kShatriyas, since they must execute the law and protect all of society. Same is true of vaishyas, since they will control most of the wealth. Study of veda is not obligatory for shUdras and is in fact forbidden for them, since its study is restricted to those who follow the reformatory samskAras that qualify one for vedic study. However, shUdras are allowed to study itihAsa/purANa and can worship and become devoted to the same Brahman worshipped by the other varNas. Note that, all of this is based on shAstra and on the opinions of the three major vedAnta commentators - these are not my opinions.

Now, none of this will be strictly acceptable to people following a Western, egalitarian view of things, as many educated Hindus are prone to do by default. But our job is not to change our culture to make it more palatable to others. Our religion and culture has its own assumptions about what makes for an ideal society. The Western ideal of a classless society does not exist, and in fact is hypocritical. The Vedic ideal is clearly one of classes organized by birth and prescribed specific duties appropriate to the guNa and karma that resulted in a given birth. The modern Indian caste system is a corrupted form of varNAshrama.

Now one might wonder why it has to be birth. Can't a person's varNa be derived from his actual merits, as the Westerners would have us believe? The problem with that approach is, study of the Veda usually begins between ages 5-8 years according to tradition and goes on for 12+ years and is to be completed prior to entering gRhastha Ashrama (householder stage). At such an early age it is not possible to gauge a person's merits based on behavior. All children behave similarly at that age. The guNa and karma from previous lives are inferred from the birth and children are trained according to those expectations to manifest/take advantage of their prevailing guNa. For brahmins, this means that they are brought up to be very sAttvik. Note that this is not the same thing as saying that a brahmin is by the very fact of his birth, sAttvik - people can and do deviate from their prescribed duties. Note that the same thing happens also to people of other varNas - sometimes a person of a "lower" varNa, due to good karma from a previous life and or performance of yoga in a previous life, manifest sAttvik tendencies despite a "lower" birth, probably due to some unfavorable karma. The most famous shAstric example in this regard is Vidura, who was the son of a shUdra woman. No one doubts the wisdom or the bhakti of Vidura, and it would be the height of stupidity to be derisive towards such a soul based solely on his birth.

Another example of low-birth but high spiritual credentials is Guha, the leader of the Nishaada tribe who had the personal privilege of hosting Sri Raama and His party during the first part of Their forest exile. The same Raama who ensured that people followed their varNAshrama duties, was embraced by and fed by a man who is (as per shAstra) the descendent of a sinful lineage. The same Guha was also ready to selflessly protect Sri Raama when Bharata's army came looking for Him, thinking at first that wrong-doing was going to be done by the latter. He was ready to lay his life down. But then after speaking with Bharata, Guha displayed the intelligence to realize that Bharata's heart was pure. At no point is it mentioned that Guha was or became a brahmin by virtue of his service to Raama... or that he had any kind of change of his underlying social status.

You have to look at examples like this and realize that varNAshrama dharma in its pristine form is more complex than merely hierarchy and top-down organization of labor. VarNAshrama gives a paradigm by which the labor can be organized and the spiritual purity of the most powerful professions can be maintained. But it's not the last word on a person's qualifications, which are themselves as complex as karma is.

regards,

Namaste Phil,

Appreciate the calmness & aspect of reason in your reply.

I am still bothered by the fairness aspect of this whole 'varna by birth' concept , though Satay proposes a justifiable explanation. Though I am accorded a higher birth in this life , I have met people far better than I who could recite upanishads and thirumandhiram (tamil work by Tirumoolar) by memory , but would have deserved 'molten lead treatment' from manu.



Even with that kind of explanation , something like Manu smrithi is an abomination

[Seeker]

To blame the Brahmanas, having vested interest, falsifying Shastra, is baseless and malicious.
Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste GP ji,

I am not blaming brahamanas maliciously - I have high reverence for several scholars. God knows how many times I have prostrated at the feet of venerable brahmins. I have my doubts that a small portion of the script keepers could have been corrupt for something like manu smrithi to be veneered the status of 'scripture'.

[wundermonk]

Not just the humans but everyone that comes in to being of creation, are not devoid of tri guna. Does this follow that all fall in to 4 varnas only?

There are many classifications that can be applied on homo sapiens. These include male-female (gender), white-black-brown (skin colour), Portugese-Hindi-Tamilian (language), etc. So, there can be overlapping classifications. There can be a female white Hindi speaker and a male brown Portugese speaker.

The four fold classification of homo sapiens indicated in BG 18:41 covers all 7 billion humans, period. This is the only conclusion to be drawn from reading 18:40 together with subsequent verses and in context.


No because Krishna indicates in BG 5.18 there are those who fall outside scope of varna or choose not to belong.

vidya-vinaya-sampanne
brahmane gavi hastini
suni caiva sva-pake ca
panditah sama-darsinah

The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a chandala [outcaste].

Regarding word "svapake" - could you provide the etymology? Given that there is no word for caste in Sanskrit, I would love to know this. From translations I have, this word is translated as dog-eater.

See above regarding classification. Just like how the same image can be broken up (classified) into different pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, the varna system is one example of such a classification. There can be others as well.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


Namaste,

Please calm down and take a number. There is no need to jump into a conversation that I am having with PRaptor. When I am done, I might consider listening to you. :)

Pranam.

Empty Vessels make the most noise,don't you worry about my calmness. should you feel need to have a private conversation, there is this facility, kindly provided by Satay to use PM. If you are going to include 'everyone' in your post expect a reply. I don't care if you listen to me or not, then there is this other facility called ignore button.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Wundermonk


There are many classifications that can be applied on homo sapiens. These include male-female (gender), white-black-brown (skin colour), Portugese-Hindi-Tamilian (language), etc. So, there can be overlapping classifications. There can be a female white Hindi speaker and a male brown Portugese speaker.

Thanks for the lesson, very informative!! sorry if can't see the relevance



The four fold classification of homo sapiens indicated in BG 18:41 covers all 7 billion humans, period. This is the only conclusion to be drawn from reading 18:40 together with subsequent verses and in context.Yes that is the logical conclusion one can arrive at but what you are failing to acknowledge is that the verse 18.40 refers to all being, perhaps you would like to include the animals as well! the fact that all have certain gunas does not necessary fallow all have capacity to follow social order, that is present in Vedic society, malecha by definition means unclean, during Sutak everyone is unclean, then there are rules to follow to become sudh.

And then there are two types of created beings divine and demonic, we all have gunas, one follows the vedas others do not.




Regarding word "svapake" - could you provide the etymology? Given that there is no word for caste in Sanskrit, I would love to know this. From translations I have, this word is translated as dog-eater.
Sorry no can do, this is the translation in my version of Gita, the Gita that is widely available in Gujarat, produced by Sastu Sahitya organization. I believe they rely mainly on Sankracharya commentry or some times Sridhar swami. i also note Prabhupada translate as dog eater(outcast),
this from Gita society; An enlightened person looks at a learned and humble Braahmana, an outcast, even a cow, an elephant, or a dog with an equal eye. (5.18)

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Seeker ji


Namaste GP ji,

----I have my doubts that a small portion of the script keepers could have been corrupt for something like manu smrithi to be veneered the status of 'scripture'.

A lot of our smriti Shastra has been corrupted that i can not argue with, there are passages one may ignore but there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

That is all really, if i in anyway hurt your feelings please forgive me.

Jai Shree Krishna

[wundermonk]

Thanks for the lesson, very informative!! sorry if can't see the relevance

That is too bad. Here, let me try again. Humanity can be divided based on many different classification schemes. Here are some:

(1)Men, Women, Transgender.
(2)Homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, asexual.
(3)Language - Kannada, Malayalam, Arabic, Portugese
(4)Varna - Brahmin, Kshatriya, Shudra, Vaishya.

The purpose of each classification scheme is to be collectively exhaustive. A person can be a Kshatriya Malayali bisexual man. Whenever a classification scheme is proposed, one should also adumbrate the causative factors of the classification. For Varnas, it is the gunas if one were to take Krishna's words in the BG chapter 18. Also, this works both ways. That is, one is a Vaishya iff (if and ONLY if) certain gunas predominate over others, etc. Note the bidirectional premise.


Yes that is the logical conclusion one can arrive at but what you are failing to acknowledge is that the verse 18.40 refers to all being, perhaps you would like to include the animals as well!

Possibly at a later stage. Let us clear our misconception regarding homo sapiens first.


the fact that all have certain gunas does not necessary fallow all have capacity to follow social order, that is present in Vedic society,

Please enumerate the social order that you have in mind. Give me an example of a Vedic society that is extant.


And then there are two types of created beings divine and demonic, we all have gunas, one follows the vedas others do not.

Please enumerate the criteria by which one can decide whether one ''follows the vedas'' or not. I would like to know whether I would be considered a ''follower of the vedas'' or not.


Sorry no can do, this is the translation in my version of Gita, the Gita that is widely available in Gujarat, produced by Sastu Sahitya organization. I believe they rely mainly on Sankracharya commentry or some times Sridhar swami. i also note Prabhupada translate as dog eater(outcast),
this from Gita society; An enlightened person looks at a learned and humble Braahmana, an outcast, even a cow, an elephant, or a dog with an equal eye. (5.18)

Well, I have Ramanuja's commentary and that translates the word as dog-eater. Are you suggesting that the Sanskrit word for ''outcaste'' (note the emphasis) suitably conjugated is ''svapake''?

ETA: Ah...just noted that you are saying that a dog-eater is an outcast not outcaste - a big difference, do not you think? Can a ''born'' Brahmin become an outcast in one lifetime? What would be the causative factors leading to that?

[Omkara]

To phil....do you realize you are contradicting your own acharya?
From the Intrnet Encyclopaedia of philosophy:
"From a young age he is reputed to have displayed a prodigious intellect and liberal attitudes towards caste. At this time he became friendly with a local, saintly Sudra (member of the servile caste) by the name of Kancipurna, whose occupation was to perform services for the local temple statue of the Hindu deity Vishnu. Ramanuja admired Kancipurna's piety and devotion to Vishnu and sought Kancipurna as his guru-much to the horror of Kancipurna who regarded Ramanuja's humility before him as an affront to caste propriety."

Proof from Shruti against varna by birth:I am a bard, my father is a physician, my mother's job is to grind the corn.
—Rig Veda 9.112.3

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


That is too bad. Here, let me try again. Humanity can be divided based on many different classification schemes. Here are some:


Thanks but this has no relevance on the discussion with varna, it is more complex then what you are trying to propose, although all other classifications are not mutually exclusive.

Varna has been devised by the creator for a purpose, the whole society benefits, it would function perfectly in harmony. Here is the reason, the purpose of it all;

He from whom all beings originate, and by whom all this universe is pervaded; worshipping Him by performing one's natural duty for Him one attains perfection. (See also 12.10) (18.46)

The affect of Kaliyug this is what Tulsidas wrote;
In the age of Kali there ensues a confusion of castes (due to promiscuous
intermarriages) and everyone infringes the sacred laws. Men perpetrate sins and reap
suffering terror, disease, sorrow and desolation. Overcome by delusion they walk not in
the path of Devotion to Hari, conjoined with dispassion and wisdom.a path which has the approval of the Vedas.and invent diverse creeds of their own. (100 A-B)



For Varnas, it is the gunas if one were to take Krishna's words in the BG chapter 18. Also, this works both ways. That is, one is a Vaishya iff (if and ONLY if) certain gunas predominate over others, etc. Note the bidirectional premise.Yes he says Guna Karma Vibhagasya, see BG 4.13

and if you are to accept his words then he clearly say, it is better to do ones duty imperfectly then to accept another and do it perfectly, he repeats this twice.
Further having said that he is the author of Varna, in verse BG4.15 he say ;
evam jnatva krtam karma
purvair api mumuksubhih
kuru karmaiva tasmat tvam
purvaih purvataram krtam

Do your duty as how your ancestor did.






Please enumerate the social order that you have in mind. Give me an example of a Vedic society that is extant.Due to the effect of time the general decline in dharma is there to be seen and thus we have a statement in the Gita ; yada yada hi dharmasya no need to collaborate any further.



Please enumerate the criteria by which one can decide whether one ''follows the vedas'' or not. I would like to know whether I would be considered a ''follower of the vedas'' or not.Just read Chapter 16 1-3 will give you a good idea, if not verse 23 will amply clarify





Well, I have Ramanuja's commentary and that translates the word as dog-eater. Are you suggesting that the Sanskrit word for ''outcaste'' (note the emphasis) suitably conjugated is ''svapake''?
ETA: Ah...just noted that you are saying that a dog-eater is an outcast not outcaste I am not suggesting it but the translation that I read does say chandala.
all these designation indicates as someone undesirable, out side of the Varna, a malecha.

Jai Shree Krishna

[philosoraptor]

Namaste Phil,

Appreciate the calmness & aspect of reason in your reply.

I am still bothered by the fairness aspect of this whole 'varna by birth' concept , though Satay proposes a justifiable explanation. Though I am accorded a higher birth in this life , I have met people far better than I who could recite upanishads and thirumandhiram (tamil work by Tirumoolar) by memory , but would have deserved 'molten lead treatment' from manu.



Even with that kind of explanation , something like Manu smrithi is an abomination

Pranams Seeker,

The statement about wax in the ears actually comes from gautama-smRiti, not manu smRti. The former is quoted by all three of the great AchAryas in their vedAnta-sUtra commentaries to establish that a shUdra by birth is not eligible to study the veda. They don't quote it to establish that kings should actually do that - e.g. pour molten wax into shUdras' ears. Their point was merely of the unsuitability of the shUdra for studying veda.

Still, I also found this statement troubling, so I looked it up in the original text. Sure enough, it was there along with a bunch of other statements unflattering to shUdras (things like, they shouldn't marry a brahmin woman), so no help from context.

But then I considered the broader, cultural context: Why would it be necessary to threaten molten wax in a shUdra's ear to keep him from studying veda? In our culture, one has to have the proper gOtra before one can begin study of the veda under a guru, and because the veda was originally available in oral tradition ONLY, this would pretty much rule out the possibility of any shUdra getting to study the veda in the first place. So why all this talk about molten wax?

Also of note, I have yet to read anywhere in the purANas or itihAsas, any mention of a great "punish-the-veda-studying-shUdras-with-molten-wax crusade." I just find nothing at all that suggests that kings did such a thing. The closest thing I found was an episode in the Uttara-khaNDa of the rAmAyaNa in which Raama was said to have slain a shUdra by the name of Shambuka for *performing austerities*, which was deemed to be the cause of irregular and inauspicious events occurring in the kingdom. Even this episode is controversial because it occurs in the uttara-khaNDa which at least some Vaishnavas consider to be interpolated. Sri Madhvaachaarya appears to accept that the event occurred, but he indicates that Shambuka was actually a demon in disguise as a shUdra, and that he was performing austerities specifically to harm the kingdom, which is the real reason Raama slew him. Whatever the case may be, I can't help but note that the female rishi Svayamprabha was also performing austerities which is not ordained for women, and yet Hanumaan did not kill her on the spot. So, once again, I don't find much consistent evidence for draconian punishments of the "molten wax" type actually being carried out as a general rule against shUdras or others transgressing their varNAshrama prescriptions.

What does come out from my readings of shAstra, time and again, is that a culture of compassion and non-violence is required of all of us. Well, my friend wundermonk would point out that non-violence is not a rule since the exception is allowed for kshatriyas fighting in righteous battle :-) But, the point is, the general principle is clearly towards non-violence and non-aggression towards others. The idea of seizing people and putting molten wax in their ears is very much out of character in that context.

My suspicion, and I admit it's just conjecture on my part, is that the molten-wax thing was not intended to be taken as a literal directive for punitive action, but more in the sense of "it's better to pour molten wax in a shUdra's ear than allow him to study the veda, so don't teach a shUdra the veda in the first place." Again, this is conjecture on my part. Because I just don't know who these brahmins were prior to 8th century who wanted to initiate shUdras into study of the veda.

I think we can all appreciate the disastrous consequences of allowing unqualified individuals (Wendy Donniger? Max Muller?) to study the Veda. Well, that's hardly a fair statement since, in my humble opinion, these meat-eating mlecchas are lower than shUdras. The shUdras are said to be created from the feet of the puruSha, and who but a rascal would fail to consider His feet to be worthy of veneration?

regards,

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,

Please don't bring muslims (or Hitler) into the discussion. ;)

I am not disrespecting any sages/gods as I am not denying anything from our scriptures. It is verses dealing with the non-spiritual aspects of life which have become marginally relevant that I am suggesting glossing over for those who don't want to follow them.

Pranams Believer,

You are obviously not aware that the whole reason the bhagavad-gItA conversation took place is to convince Arjuna to follow his varNAshrama duty. In the fourth chapter, Sri Krishna says that He created this system. In the 2nd and 3rd chapter, He instructs Arjuna on the principle of developing self-realization by following prescribed actions as required under this system. In 18th chapter, He informs Arjuna that he is better off doing his own duty imperfectly than adopting the duties of another.

To say that varNAshrama is non-spiritual or that it is "marginally relevant" is such thick denial that one could cut it with a kinfe. Properly performed, varNAshrama *is* the way we who are engaged in activity are supposed to worship the Lord.



All the spiritual knowledge is pristine and eternal. As is evident, everyone is not buying your line for the non-spiritual verses dealing only with the day to day mundane stuff, so, how are you going to MAKE them accept your thinking?

Popular agreement is besides the point. Telling the truth and winning the popular vote are two different things.

Truth isn't always palatable at first. In the 18th chapter, Sri Krishna explains (BG 18.37) that happiness which in the beginning is like poison but in the end becomes sweet like nectar and leads to self-realization is sAttvik.

No one wants to hear that they have varNAshrama duties assigned to them based on their birth. Our modern-day brahmins would prefer to make money as software consultants and rationalize non-performance of sandhya-vandanam and other obligatory karmas on the basis that they are not "qualified." This may be, but there is no allowance for abandonment of such duties based on those concerns. They should do their karmas and if they feel they are unqualified, let that be a source of humility for them. Humility is good for the soul.



Or, are you going to push them out of 'your' faith? :) OR, worse yet, will they throw you out and call you a heathen/kafir? ;)

Pranam.

My authority is shAstra. My duty is to speak the truth that is in shAstra.

The problem with your position is that, while claiming you accept the authority of shAstra, the reality is that you are disregarding the parts you don't like. This is no different from the modern Muslim disregarding the aggressive parts of the Koran or the liberal Christian disregarding the exclusivist parts of the Bible. When one has a sentimental attachment to his religion, he may be inclined to do that and gloss over his own double-standards. But what do you say to someone who quite reasonably argues that the whole scripture is suspect because of the disagreeable parts that they contain? Note that this is not a hypothetical. People have done precisely that and continue to do so - Google "Why I am not a Hindu" for some examples. What is your response to such people? How do you convince them that shAstra is authoritative when you have already conceded that some of those instructions are not as relevant and spiritual as claimed?

regards,

[wundermonk]

@Ganeshprasad:

(1)I must be dumb or something. None of the verses you referenced from the BG even remotely come close to indicating that varna is based on birth. :dunno:

(2)Also, the purport provided in Ramanuja commentary (I have not looked at other commentaries, but I do not think that would be necessary) goes onto say that the prescribed duties are NOT mutually exclusive. I list below all the prescribed duties in verses 18:42-44. Could you provide a rough mapping of a few token occupations/duties of todays' age and let me know which prescribed duties these would fall under? Also, kindly justify your classification with reasons.

Prescribed duties:

Service, agriculture, cattle-breeding, trade, valour invincibility, steadiness, adroitness and non-fleeing in battle, generosity and lordliness, control of the senses and the mind, austerity, purity, forbearance, uprightness, knowledge, special knowledge, and faith.

Token Occupations:

School teacher in a poor government run school in rural India, School teacher in a rich private school in an upscale suburban New York, doctor, nurse, engineer, accountant, fireman, car mechanic, guy at the front desk of a hotel, software consultant, investment banker on a trading desk of Goldman Sachs

To do well in one's token occupations if it requires one to have gone through or make use of attributes/qualities associated with MORE than one varna, what would you infer?

If I am completely off-base in trying to relate today's job market with the varnashrama system, let me know why.

Perhaps you will quote BG 4:15


Knowing thus, even ancient seekers for liberation did work. Therefore, do your work only as the ancients did in olden times.

But software consultancy was not even a work of our ancients. :( Would it be fair to say, according to you, that "born" Brahmins (thus far in this thread, this is a completely ill-defined term) who are working in TCS, Wipro, Infosys, IBM, Microsoft, Accenture, etc., etc., are outcastes who have relinquished their prescribed duty?:dunno:

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Wundermonk

You certainly are not dumb, it is my misunderstanding, I certainly was not referring to Varna duty from chapter 16.
I am not at home to clear this misunderstanding I wil try address it 2moro
Jai Shree Krishna

[Believer]

Namaste PRaptor,

My suggestion to 'gloss over' was for putting wax/molten lead in somebody's ears because they didn't deserve to hear/study the Vedas. I see that in your earlier post, you seem to take the position that this edict was not to be taken literally, which is the same as glossing over. I see that there is no conflict there.

The Tamil brahmins who literally got forced out of their native land by the forces aligned with E V Ramasami, have become successful businessmen/engineers/doctors/chess champions :) etc. in many Western countries. I am not sure if they are violating the Hindu code because they are not working in their designated field?

Another thing is that in the ancient times, Bramins transmitted the shashtras to successive generations through oral tradition. Now a days everything is digitized. What is needed is people who practice the religion, rather than a group whose sole job is to memorize thousands of scriptures and pass on to the next generation. Many brahmins are leaving their profession because they can't make a living and are not respected much either. With all this going on, I am not sure how do we enforce the varna code? And breaking it is the same as 'glossing over' parts of the scripture. What other choices do we have?

And please, don't compare my statements with the conduct of muslims/xitians. That is hitting below the belt. :)

To recap, we are already breaking some of the shashtric rules, whether we like it or not. Perhaps my choice of words, 'gloss over' is what is causing the anguish? We are just two SD dharmic brothers having the same position, maybe using different language for the 'opt out'.

Pranam.

[philosoraptor]

Namaste PRaptor,

My suggestion to 'gloss over' was for putting wax/molten lead in somebody's ears because they didn't deserve to hear/study the Vedas. I see that in your earlier post, you seem to take the position that this edict was not to be taken literally, which is the same as glossing over. I see that there is no conflict there.

Pranams,

Just to clarify, I think it is important to understand what the author of the statement had actually intended when he wrote that. I don't want to misinterpret his words merely to make myself more comfortable with them. At the same time, I can't help but note that the statements as written seem to contradict many stated principles regarding compassion and non-violence seen in other smRtis. And, there is not much evidence that people did these sorts of draconian things. Hence, my doubt as to what he really meant. I don't wish to "gloss over" those words, certainly. We need to explain them but first we must understand them as the author had intended and their relevance.



The Tamil brahmins who literally got forced out of their native land by the forces aligned with E V Ramasami, have become successful businessmen/engineers/doctors/chess champions :) etc. in many Western countries. I am not sure if they are violating the Hindu code because they are not working in their designated field?


In the 11th skandha of the bhAgavata purANa it is mentioned that people can adopt certain emergency duties to maintain themselves with some restrictions. It's hard to know how engineers and doctors fit in since those are two career choices that are not mentioned. However, I think the principle from smRti is clear that even if you adopt non-prescribed duties due to emergency, you should still hold true to other duties. Which in the case of brahmins means doing sandhya-vandana, studying shAstras, pancha-mahA-yagna, etc. These things can be done even if one pursues a profession as software engineer or doctor.


Another thing is that in the ancient times, Bramins transmitted the shashtras to successive generations through oral tradition. Now a days everything is digitized. What is needed is people who practice the religion, rather than a group whose sole job is to memorize thousands of scriptures and pass on to the next generation.

There is no reason in my mind why cosmopolitan brahmins can't do both.



Many brahmins are leaving their profession because they can't make a living and are not respected much either. With all this going on, I am not sure how do we enforce the varna code? And breaking it is the same as 'glossing over' parts of the scripture. What other choices do we have?

Please note that I never spoke of "enforcement." It's not really clear to me that people were "forced" to do their varNAshrama. Take for example, the case of Drona and Ashvathaama. On the other hand, there are statements that a king should encourage people to follow their varNAshrama. It's hard for be to believe that this meant sending troops into everyone's home and forcing people at spearpoint. It's human nature that you can't force people to do something they don't believe in. It's also not in the character of Hinduism when you look at our history.

The reason for having these discussions is not to force anything on anyone. The best reason is to enlighten people on what our duties are supposed to be. Know the ideal first, without compromise, then decide how best you can try to live up to that ideal. I for one am tiring of the phenomenon in which Hindus of twice-born lineage are utterly clueless about their religious culture, and have to rely on Western Indologists or watered-down Neo-Hinduism for their spiritual knowledge. Equally so with Hindus who habitually engage in tAmAsic habits because of lack of discrimination.



And please, don't compare my statements with the conduct of muslims/xitians. That is hitting below the belt. :)

You are misunderstanding the comparison. The point of the comparison was to illustrate the problem in your thinking. I can't bring myself to believe, as some Neo-Hindus claim, that Islam and Christianity are valid-but-different religions due to the nasty things found in their scriptures. If I have that attitude about their scriptures, then to be consistent, I should either reject our own scriptures, or be able to explain the seemingly "nasty" things from them in their proper context.



To recap, we are already breaking some of the shashtric rules, whether we like it or not. Perhaps my choice of words, 'gloss over' is what is causing the anguish? We are just two SD dharmic brothers having the same position, maybe using different language for the 'opt out'.

Pranam.

It may very well be that, just by virtue of living in this age and outside the sphere of vedic civilization, that we are bound to break some rules. Nevertheless, I don't think we should rationalize breaking other rules on the basis that we can't follow some. Hence, I think these discussions are still very relevant.

Regardless of what profession one follows, is there any reason why we cannot expect twice-born males to continue the tradition of spiritual initiation, daily uttterance of gAyatrI-mantra, daily puja, offering of food stuffs, and study of scripture? Surely at least some of this can be done? If there were more of a mentality of "I'm a brahmin by birth, I should at least humbly do these things for 30 min a day" and less of "Oh well, birth is not relevant, and I have no qualification, so need to do those duties" I think the world would be a very different place. And for the better. Instead, contemprary Hindus have become so apathetic towards religion that they regard people who do these things as highly "religious" or in some other way "not normal."

regards,

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Wundermonk

You had contended and I quote

The four fold classification of homo sapiens indicated in BG 18:41 covers all 7 billion humans, period. This is the only conclusion to be drawn from reading 18:40 together with subsequent verses and in context.

Part of my response to that was and I quote


And then there are two types of created beings divine and demonic, we all have gunas, one follows the vedas others do not. that was meant to say not all humans, would fall under the scope of Varnashram dharma, because they basically rejects the Vedas, that there is no God.

Your response



Please enumerate the criteria by which one can decide whether one ''follows the vedas'' or not. I would like to know whether I would be considered a ''follower of the vedas'' or not.

You tell me how should I have read your question? From where I was standing, it appeared that you are asking me who are the follower of Vedas, what is the criteria, nothing to do with varna, bearing in mind this was in response to my stating, that there are two types of created being. And the answer from chapter 16 is very clear who that is. One would adhere to Vedas and the other that are demonic and atheist would reject the Vedas.
I hope I have made my self clear here.

As for other questions you ask, i think Phil has cleared most of it in his last post

Jai Shree Krishna

[Believer]

Namaste,

Regardless of what profession one follows, is there any reason why we cannot expect twice-born males to continue the tradition of spiritual initiation, daily uttterance of gAyatrI-mantra, daily puja, offering of food stuffs, and study of scripture? Surely at least some of this can be done? If there were more of a mentality of "I'm a brahmin by birth, I should at least humbly do these things for 30 min a day" and less of "Oh well, birth is not relevant, and I have no qualification, so need to do those duties" I think the world would be a very different place. And for the better. Instead, contemprary Hindus have become so apathetic towards religion that they regard people who do these things as highly "religious" or in some other way "not normal."
I can sort of understand your passionate reasoning and feel the pain for the deviation of the code of conduct of the brahmins. The severe dilution of everything we stand for is an ongoing problem. Thanks for taking the time to articulate your views and your reasoning.

Pranam.

[wundermonk]

Part of my response to that was and I quote
that was meant to say not all humans, would fall under the scope of Varnashram dharma, because they basically rejects the Vedas, that there is no God.

As I see it from 18:41 onwards, the duties are:


Service, agriculture, cattle-breeding, trade, valour invincibility, steadiness, adroitness and non-fleeing in battle, generosity and lordliness, control of the senses and the mind, austerity, purity, forbearance, uprightness, knowledge, special knowledge, and faith.

Is your position that those who reject the Vedas (of whom atheists are only a subset) cannot perform the duties mentioned above? If yes, please explain why. If not, then whether they consciously call themselves followers of the Vedas or not, they already may be following the duties based on their gunas.

Again, I reiterate what my point is in this thread:

Classification of someone as Brahmin, Shudra, Vaishya and Kshatriya is based on gunas. It is collectively exhaustive of all 7 billion humans on earth as everyone's nature is based on the preponderance of one guna over another. The classification of humans as followers/non-followers of the Vedas is a different classification of humans.

Also, I claim that the notion of "followers" or "non-followers of the Vedas" is difficult to define and it may or may not overlap with the Varna-classification. A Sunni Muslim in Saudi Arabia may exhibit valour, invincibility, steadiness, adroitness and non-fleeing in battle, generosity and lordliness thereby being a Kshatriya.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


As I see it from 18:41 onwards, the duties are:




Yes they are well defined for each varna, the aspirant would then under go training as prescribed in the Shastra, it is not necessarily assumed that all will succeed or attain the same level of success. The whole purpose of the exercise is to obtain the final emancipation of the soul, if we miss this point then the entire ethos of Varnashram dharma is lost and thus we find the chaos that we witness in today society.

This vocation unlike the university degree is for life, weather we choose to execute our duty perfectly or not we would be judged on our merit at the end of life, the final examination. That in turn again will determine our next vocation according to our desire guna and karma, frankly I can not see any other option that is fair and just.



Is your position that those who reject the Vedas (of whom atheists are only a subset) cannot perform the duties mentioned above? If yes, please explain why. If not, then whether they consciously call themselves followers of the Vedas or not, they already may be following the duties based on their gunas.This is very easy to see, may be I will fail in explaining it, that is my short coming and not the actual fault of Shastra.

That everyone is endowed with gunas and desires, what to speak of humans we can see that in animals also.

to understand our duty we need to know, what 'purpose' that whole sansar revolve around.

As explained by Krishna; there are two type of created being, Devi and ashuri srusti,


An ashura thinks there is no purpose other then enjoying self gratification,
as explained by Gita;

Persons of demonic nature do not know what to do and what not to do. They neither have purity nor good conduct nor truthfulness. (16.07)

They say that the world is unreal, without a substratum, without a God, and without an order. The world is caused by lust (or Kaama) alone and nothing else. (16.08)

Adhering to this view these lost souls, with small intellect and cruel deeds, are born as enemies for the destruction of the world. (16.09)

Filled with insatiable desires, hypocrisy, pride, and arrogance; holding wrong views due to delusion; they act with impure motives. (16.10)

Obsessed with great anxiety until death, considering sense gratification as their highest aim, convinced that this (sense pleasure) is everything, (16.11)

Bound by hundreds of ties of desire and enslaved by lust and anger; they strive to obtain wealth by unlawful means for the fulfillment of desires. They think: (16.12)

This has been gained by me today, I shall fulfill this desire, this is mine and this wealth also shall be mine in the future; (16.13)

Is it enough simply doing DUTY as per our whim? you decide for your self.


1) a Bramana engaged in the study of Vedas, must gain proper education and then use that special knowledge in guiding and educating others, , upholding sat, the sole purpose to obtain brahman
and distributing the grace of brahman (i.e. Shiva or Vishnu) as prasad to the faithful.



1a) a so called person , with no purpose other then self gratification, will only try become intelligent to exploit.

2) a kshatriya who in his execution of his duty with dharma at forefront defends his land, obeys the rules and conduct of Kshatriya dharma.
Take example King Sibi who gave his own flesh to save a dove

2b) a so called Ashura, exhibit valour, invincibility, steadiness, adroitness and non-fleeing in battle etc(I request you to consider their purpose as stated)
Take example, well the examples are horrific, cowards sits in commands centre, bombs indiscriminately, what they call? Oh yes collateral damage.

3) a Vaishya who amess wealth cultivating land and looking after cows, trading.
Even today you will find ashrams, where you can stay for free, anna kshetra, Go Raksha (sigh)
see the glory of Vedic past.

3c) we have mountain of food rotting or thrown in the sea and other half of world population starving. Plight of cows, better not say much, artificially inseminate them to produce the milk like factory production and the calf taken away for what they call veal, to satisfy the tongue.

Do you call this Vedic?

Please try distinguish between Vedic and non Vedic just because everyone has gunas does not follow everyone follow Varnashram Dharma, Dharma being the operative word.
Those who deviate from Varnashram are that, in name only.

Jai Shree Krishna

[philosoraptor]

Pranams, I just saw this message and figured I owed a response.


To phil....do you realize you are contradicting your own acharya?
From the Intrnet Encyclopaedia of philosophy:
"From a young age he is reputed to have displayed a prodigious intellect and liberal attitudes towards caste. At this time he became friendly with a local, saintly Sudra (member of the servile caste) by the name of Kancipurna, whose occupation was to perform services for the local temple statue of the Hindu deity Vishnu. Ramanuja admired Kancipurna's piety and devotion to Vishnu and sought Kancipurna as his guru-much to the horror of Kancipurna who regarded Ramanuja's humility before him as an affront to caste propriety."


Just to clarify a point, Kancipurna, although a shudra, was a great bhakta and thus Ramanuja did respect him, so much so that he was mortified at his wife's lack of regard for him and subsequently took sannyaasa.. However, Ramanuja was not initiated into study of the Veda by Kanchipurna, and on this point, the information above is incorrect. His actual guru was a brahmin.

There is nothing wrong with respecting a great devotee who happens to be of a "lower" birth. In fact, respect for such devotees is ordained in shAstra, and it is certainly abominable to disrespect a great devotee due to low birth.



Proof from Shruti against varna by birth:I am a bard, my father is a physician, my mother's job is to grind the corn.
—Rig Veda 9.112.3

This is not proof of any such thing. Singing, healing, and grinding corn are not varna-specific activities. Nor is it the case that they must be followed only by people who have different varnas. Hypothetically, a brahmin could be a physician, his wife cooks food and in the process grinds corn, and his son sings hymns.

regards,

[PARAM]

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

What you said don't make any sense,
In Bhagwad Gita too Krishna described the importance of duty, and only following the path of Dharma is important. Arjuna wanted to become a beggar that was unaccepted because Brahmans were learned sages and Arjuna never achieved this knowledge despite living a spiritual life in forest, because he was always interested in warfare action. It was Krishna who educated him in this knowledge.

Also don’t miss Sanjay who was Dhritrashtra’s sarthi, and Karna’s father, it was him who narrated Bhagwad Gita live to Dhritrashtra, he also never find even a single word wrong and corrected Dhritrashtra whenever he questioned at any point.

[philosoraptor]

What you said don't make any sense,

Pranams,

Naturally, since you cut it all off and ignored the evidence that was brought up.



In Bhagwad Gita too Krishna described the importance of duty, and only following the path of Dharma is important.

And how is it determined what one's dharma is?


Arjuna wanted to become a beggar that was unaccepted because Brahmans were learned sages and Arjuna never achieved this knowledge despite living a spiritual life in forest,

He achieved the knowledge after being instructed by Sri Krishna in the 18 chapters of Bhagavad-gita, and yet still he did not become a brahmin. Why?



because he was always interested in warfare action.

All evidence to the contrary...



It was Krishna who educated him in this knowledge.

Also don’t miss Sanjay who was Dhritrashtra’s sarthi, and Karna’s father, it was him who narrated Bhagwad Gita live to Dhritrashtra, he also never find even a single word wrong and corrected Dhritrashtra whenever he questioned at any point.

Not sure what the above has to do with anything. Perhaps you could clarify.

regards,

[charitra]

Thats my thought too. Unscrupulous characters revised the scriptures and those who got the profit/ privilege/prestige out of that kept pushing the corrupt scripts. That is why I give more credibility to recent sages , where the opportunity to corrupt their utterances are limited. .


Lets revisit the famous story of none other than AdiShankara, whom I respect a lot for spreading the message of advaita. One day he was walking along with his disciples and met with a chandala in a narrow path outside a small village. The disciples admonished this hardworking chandala, a slaughterer by profession.

“ Don’t you know you should yield way to greater men like us?”. Then the chandala patiently responds,’’ when Brahman resides in all living beings, where is the question of one being turning greater than the other?”, Shakara then quickly realizes the mistake committed and honors the man of lowly profession with all humility. So far so good. Now enter the conniving conspirators who start corrupting the texts. They say that none other than Shiva himself entered the path impersonating as a chandala and conducting a test and made the preachers to realize the importance of respecting fellow human beings with a sense of equality.

If Shiva were to have the wherewithal to show up to humans, a larger task was already cut out for him I am afraid. Around 7th century, during Adi Shankara’s time, not far away, in Asia and europe , Mohammed and his savage armies were genociding large swathes of people in those regions and forcibly converting and enslaving them. Presumably Shiva would have worked on those urgent and pressing problems instead. ( I guess Shiva didn’t intervene because Kaliyuga has already descended by that time and running full throttle. A right time hasn’t arrived, yet.) Namaste.

[philosoraptor]

Lets revisit the famous story of none other than AdiShankara, whom I respect a lot for spreading the message of advaita. One day he was walking along with his disciples and met with a chandala in a narrow path outside a small village. The disciples admonished this hardworking chandala, a slaughterer by profession.

Pranams,

I hate to keep reminding people of this, but Adi Shankara in his Brahma-Sutra commentary accepts the view that varna is based on birth. I have provided the quotes previously.

Note that accepting that someone is a shudra based on his birth is not a conclusive assessment of that person's character. Karma is complex, and it is quite possible for a great and magnanimous soul to be born as a shudra and known as a shudra, and still be great.


regards,

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

How many times will this endless revisiting of this tired question be reintroduced, reinvented, and typically just a sounding board for some who always want to get the last point in, the last lick of the pillar of salt?

The initial question around what is the measure or means that formulizing or authorizing a work as scripture is very interesting, I am very interested in this question myself.

An example of a scripture or claim of scripture which is varna centric is also a good lead into the discussion.

But yet again, the endless caste debate raises the coyotes crying at the moon, and it is boring because I would imagine that even within this forum this question has been throughly discussed and all opinions vocalized.

[charitra]

When Gita itself couldn’t escape the virus, when Vedopanishads could be easily corrupted, how difficult would it be to invade shankara’s writings and doctor them, not difficult at all. The hackers took care to invade and doctor every text out there and made enough provisions to sell the varna system attached to birth.

Here is the problem. They, the hackers didn’t foresee the fall of kings and hinduism. So long as the ‘us’ vs ‘them’ categorization worked in their favor they kept at it and substantiated the fabricated evidence (of birth only varna theory) over and over. In all the history,many good people overlooked this transgression for one reason or the other. Since recently the hindu acharyas started to confronting and dismantling this divisive wall, the self centred hindus started realizing the futility in continuing the old distorted line of argument.

Varna sankaram is ablessing and not a burden for Hinduism.This most important development will keep the hindu flock together, effectively warding off the invasion by the predators. Hybdridization will yield a healthier race as per the social scientists analyses. Pure bread horses can be cloned if one wants them. Besides, no one forces anyone to give up his or her own chosen way of breeding. By all means purity of breeding can continue, after all we live in a free world, dont we. Namaste.



I hate to keep reminding people of this, but Adi Shankara in his Brahma-Sutra commentary accepts the view that varna is based on birth. I have provided the quotes previously.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

Thank you Charitra!

And for the caste-centric extremists, please …

You know most of my entire life I have been a Hindu. I am a stupid Westerner.

And yet, my wife, who comes from a family of Brahmins, she married me.

So this one daughter of this Brahmin family, graced me the caste-less and stupid Westerner --- so then what does that now make her? Shudra?

She comes from a large family – all of which I love. Her father (no longer with us, blessed by the Devas and Devis, you cannot imagine a more strict Hindu, 100% in quality, pure vegetarian, advanced in all knowledge of Sacred Text, and rich in wealth both in means and in spirit) was such an example, wonderful example, of what it is to be a Hindu. But to this day, He looks down at me with love, I can feel his presence. Her mother is the matriarch of the family. She lives for Deva and Devi. She never betrayed me, she never rejected me, and you know she never asked “What caste are you?” …

And what of my child?

And on my side of the family, Westerners, they accept Hinduism, they accept me for being Hindu, they love my wife more than me in fact, our families are one, and we do not engage in such endless discussions or debate about varna or caste.

I am not very impressed by those who are caste-centric extremists who machine gun others with cut-and-paste plethora of outtakes from this scripture or that, because that isn’t the be all and end all of anything and not my life experience of Hinduism. Even accounting for the true value of every word in the Hindu sacred texts, even within one shloka demanding adherence to varna, the very interpretation of it change completely with the next shloka or next bija or the next, and the very next leaf turned there is then a tale of the lowest becoming the greatest by the grace of Deva or Devi.

No I am not impressed at all by those who take this or that verse and use it as graffiti to get the last lick in, because I can only understand my life experience, and in my life experience of which I was graced to personally be in the presence of several renowned Gurus, as well as those less known, NEVER ONCE – never – has anyone of them asked me, “What caste are you?” … “What varna?” … Or, “so you are Hindu, now you must take the varna of (Shudra, or Kshatriya, or whatever….)” …

NEVER. All they have ever offered is to ask me to better learn to renounce the world’s materialistic entrapments, or to meditate properly and seek through such contemplation communion with Deva or Devi, to love God, to practice Bhakti, to seek out the Saints, to rejoice in Their lives, to take Prashadam, to have Darshan of them and their devotees, to Love, to build Jyana ---- OF COURSE I live the Brahmins, of course they have a very, very special and important role for the entire world and our society as the pujaris of our temples, or those who inherit the masterworks and words of the Path and the Histories of God. I will not question that.

Natha gurus refuse to recognize caste distinctions in spiritual pursuits and initiate from the lowest to the highest, according to spiritual worthiness.
But I can only think, what grace is given to me and stupid Westerners such as myself from those who I have met, who have told me the proper way, the Gurus, and so, I don’t care about varna as the end all and be all, I only thank those who have given us the Path afforded us in Hinduism. If those who have given me this do not think varna is all so important, then neither will I.
So I agree with the viewpoint that is expressed by two Gurus, one was Shaiva, the other was Vaishnava.

Subramuniya Swami, a Westerner and a Great Saiva Satguru who is no longer with us rejected many of the notions of caste proponents. Here is a Statement Against Caste-Based Discrimination by Satguru Bodhinathat Veylanswami who is his next disciple:
http://www.hafsite.org/media/pr/caste-statement-satguru-bodhinatha-veylanswami (http://www.hafsite.org/media/pr/caste-statement-satguru-bodhinatha-veylanswami)

I am not ISKCON, but I do admire Prabhupada greatly. Here is the official Statement Against Caste-Based Discrimination by the International Society For Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON):
http://www.hafsite.org/media/pr/caste-statement-iskcon-communications (http://www.hafsite.org/media/pr/caste-statement-iskcon-communications)

Take of it as you will. All I know is, when I die, if as I pray Lord Shiva comes to me at that time, I very much doubt the first thing He will say in my ear at the moment of death is, “What varna are you?” …

OM NAMAH SIVAYA

[wundermonk]

Just to reiterate my earlier point with a different analogy from the area of math in the hope that some folks et al. get the picture.

Person 1 claim: The Dijkstra's algorithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijkstra's_algorithm) applies and can be used to find the shortest path on any graph.

Person 2: Umm...No, there are instances of graphs where the algorithm does not work.

Person 1: You fool. But there are so many graphs on which the algorithm works.

Person 2: Sure, but that does not mean that it works on all graphs. Therefore, you need to reframe your claim. You need to provide the causal conditions/characteristics of graphs on which the algorithm works. Therefore, as it stands now, your claim is false.

Person 1: Well, the algorithm works on every graph which is derived from a larger graph on which the algorithm applied(a complete graph) with appropriately modified edge costs.

Person 2: Well, this still does not answer the question as to which graph the algorithm applies on because in defining the graph on which the algorithm works on, you are appealing to a previously existing graph on which the algorithm applied.

Person 1: Huff, you fool. Why don't you explain which graph the algorithm applies on.

Person 2: Very well. The algorithm applies only on connected graphs where edge costs are non-negative. There, enough said.

So, there are one set of us who are able to define who is a Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya/Shudhra by appealing to gunas - sattva, rajas and tamas, without being circular in our definition. We have scriptural support for our position. Yet why are others here so adamant not to acknowledge this?:dunno:

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

For those who think Gita, Upanishad and just about every scripture is infected by virus,have been corrupted and Varna Shankaram is a blessing, i suppose there remains not much to be discussed.
i suppose those who want no Yam and Niyam can argue on the same ground and then we can have free for all.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


J---
So, there are one set of us who are able to define who is a Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya/Shudhra by appealing to gunas - sattva, rajas and tamas, without being circular in our definition. We have scriptural support for our position. Yet why are others here so adamant not to acknowledge this?:dunno:

Those who think they can do a better job then Dharmaraj in deciding Guna Karma of an individual, good luck to them, frankly i can not see what next person is thinking even if you might have known them all your life.

At what point shell we start making gradation, is this system of yours fluid does it keep changing like we change nappies?

Jai Shree Krishna

[wundermonk]

Those who think they can do a better job then Dharmaraj in deciding Guna Karma of an individual, good luck to them, frankly i can not see what next person is thinking even if you might have known them all your life.

Nobody claimed that they can do a better job than Dharmaraj. The point I am making is that one of the very key characteristics of Prakriti (and its constituents) is its constant change. By the grace of Dharmaraj, one can develop one's gunas appropriately - REGARDLESS OF THE FAMILY OF BIRTH. This applies to all 7 billion of us on earth now.


At what point shell we start making gradation, is this system of yours fluid does it keep changing like we change nappies?

Today in any application form for any job/school/university, no body asks for one's varna/gradation. There is the requirement to mention one's caste (which is a completely different issue) but that is for affirmative action.

Now, this is the situation in India today. Do you like this changed? If so, in what sense and how would you propose the new changed system should be?

I believe you live in the UK (correct me if I am wrong). How would you think we should apply Krishna's words in Chapter 18 of the Gita in the UK? Is the UK following the varnashrama system? What are you doing to ensure you follow Krishna's words in the UK? If I can provide a reference from one of our holy books where it is mentioned that one cannot go outside of India for any work/purpose, how would you respond?

[Twilightdance]

Yet why are others here so adamant not to acknowledge this?:dunno:

Because norms of society, rules of smriti, age old practices are not theorems of mathematics?:dunno:

And, if you keep insisting on your "logical" mathematical approach - don't at least use discrete maths, and logical strictness of what constitutes a mathematical proof. Set statistical tolerance limit for acceptability of hypothesis and allow of statistical oddities, since exact law is unknown.

Gita may say, varna is by guna & karma, you & others may find this progressive stance of the gita encouraging, but the varna in the brahmanical society has been decided by birth - and has been the norm.

And as for the anguish of what will happen to the rest of the 6.2bn people who are not varna hindus - we can rejoice at least one religious supremacist tendencies w.r.t superiority of own beliefs has a different manifestation, trying to keep away people rather than converting them.


I believe you live in the UK (correct me if I am wrong). How would you think we should apply Krishna's words in Chapter 18 of the Gita in the UK? Is the UK following the varnashrama system? What are you doing to ensure you follow Krishna's words in the UK? If I can provide a reference from one of our holy books where it is mentioned that one cannot go outside of India for any work/purpose, how would you respond?
The well established and successful medicine to cure the alleged religious hypocrisy has been to add further religious hypocrisy?

[wundermonk]

Dear sm78,


Because norms of society, rules of smriti, age old practices are not theorems of mathematics?:dunno:

You have made known your dislike for "medieval tarka games" before. But I am just pointing out to you the basic logical fact that if a universal claim is made - one counter example is enough to demolish it. So, the claim needs to be qualified with a caveat. This is true in mathematics or logic or ancient nyaya which our acharyas engaged in.

In any case, I wonder if any of this will have any effect on you. You have made known your dislike of Hindu religion on many occassions. Krishna's words are not divine per you, yes? You do not consider it a pramana. Others here do.


And, if you keep insisting on your "logical" mathematical approach - don't at least use discrete maths, and logical strictness of what constitutes a mathematical proof. Set statistical tolerance limit for acceptability of hypothesis and allow of statistical oddities, since exact law is unknown.

No, the law is well known. Chapter 18:40 onwards...


Gita may say, varna is by guna & karma, you & others may find this progressive stance of the gita encouraging, but the varna in the brahmanical society has been decided by birth - and has been the norm.

What Indians/Hindus do in the name of Dharma is of secondary importance in this thread. I am not denying its importance, but it is secondary. The primary importance is to be able to arrive at a good logical (sorry, logic rules) definition of varna and who gets classified how and to what purpose.

Fortunately or unfortunately, we really are not privy to the exact societal conditions when Krishna descended onto earth to reveal the words of nectar in the BG (if you believe this indeed happened). But there is mention of the varna system there and hence we are going to be debating this endlessly whether it is to our liking or not.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


Nobody claimed that they can do a better job than Dharmaraj.


So when he sends a Jiva to a new birth would that be random or based on it’s Guna and Karma?



The point I am making is that one of the very key characteristics of Prakriti (and its constituents) is its constant change. By the grace of Dharmaraj, one can develop one's gunas appropriately - REGARDLESS OF THE FAMILY OF BIRTH. This applies to all 7 billion of us on earth now.Lets not mix the grace here, regardless of ones birth everyone is capable of reaching the supreme state, what to speak of Brahmanas and saintly sage, says Lord Krishna in BG chapter nine.

Coming back to Prakriti and its constant flux, let us remind our selves we are not the Prakriti, there is that being that is sat chit anand, that is what the whole process is all about, to gain that state of unchanging bliss. The whole exercise is devised and geared towards that goal, there are 16 sanskaras that one has to go through in life, it begins with garbhodan and ends in antim sanskar, two most important here in our discussion is naam karan and upanaya. The tradition has it that the appropriate names are chosen for each varna, if you like I can spell it out for you. Then for Upanaya different age is given for different varna, no other criteria I know has been used towards this training except birth. That is and was the tradition, no conspiracy as someone like to suggest. If you have a better proposal other then what the one that Yamraj ordains(giving appropriate birth) I will be happy to comply.




Now, this is the situation in India today. Do you like this changed? If so, in what sense and how would you propose the new changed system should be?Today the society, not just India, is geared towards chasing after all thing material, all training is towards economics how much will I earn at the end of my degree. Everything is very complex, I have no proposal, you can not fight the head wind, that does not mean I have to give up my tradition.



I believe you live in the UK (correct me if I am wrong). How would you think we should apply Krishna's words in Chapter 18 of the Gita in the UK? Correct, we can all try and learn and apply Lord Shree Krishna’s word as best as we can, problem lies in our understanding of what he says, that includes all of us.



Is the UK following the varnashrama system? What are you doing to ensure you follow Krishna's words in the UK? I do not believe this system was ever established as we know it in Bharat or with Hindus, saying that Britain is the most class conscious society on earth. Even today try buying a house in a particular area, may pose you a problem or two.



If I can provide a reference from one of our holy books where it is mentioned that one cannot go outside of India for any work/purpose, how would you respond?Would not apply to me, I was born outside of India, but I do know about it, I believe Satyamitarandji gave up his post so that he can go overseas.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Seeker]

Lets revisit the famous story of none other than AdiShankara, whom I respect a lot for spreading the message of advaita. One day he was walking along with his disciples and met with a chandala in a narrow path outside a small village. The disciples admonished this hardworking chandala, a slaughterer by profession.

.

Namaste Charitra Ji

I have heard this in a sat sangh , though with a slight variation.

Sankara was walking the banks of Ganges with an entourage of arm bearing Nairs , and the chandala walked toward him on his path with four dogs on a leash. When asked to move away and hide , the chandala posed the classic question regarding whether the body need to move or the Brahman residing in it need to move. On hearing that the chandala was reciting the essence of upanishads , Sankara fell at his feet , and realized that it was Lord Shiva himself with the four vedas symbolized as the dogs.

The satsangh acharya (himself a brahmin) went on to comment , that even a learned person like Sankara accepted Manu smrithi and quoted that in his brahmasutra commentary. Lord Shiva created the scene to teach Sankara that all creations have a right to learn veda , thus correcting his opinion.

This is quiet different from Philisoraptor Jis comment that mlechas learning vedas could be disastrous.

[philosoraptor]

It's amazing that most people seem more interested in quoting rumors and hearsay regarding Shankara's views on varna and jati, rather than referring to his indisputable, written words on the subject. So far, we've heard all sorts of stories, but no one has bothered to actually comment on his writings in Brahma-sutra quoted earlier.

Denial. That's all I can say about this phenomenon.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

I am reading that some are declaring that the Vedas can be DANGEROUS if before the eyes or heard by others whose body is not the same bodily linage declared by birth of a different caste which considers itself having exclusive darshan of the Holy Sound.

Hmmmm...

On this very forum is a Tab entitled the Library.

Dangerously, it could be viewed by the soul in the wrong birth body, the wrong caste, or even worse no caste at all.

For the sake of the danger before all, should this Library be removed?

Perhaps in the Introductions section, a new member should have to fill out a form, where one must declare their birth caste? And then some sections of the forum can be hidden from some, but seen by others?

But of course, there is the question of proof. Just because someone declares they are this caste by birth, or that varna, how will we know they are telling the Truth?

Or even as bad or worse still, THINK they are this color or that birth caste, but actually it was all fakery and bribes of some previous relative?

Could we use quality of character and true knowledge of God and Divine and of our true nature which can be revealed?

I once heard a Guru say, we are not this body.

But which body you are born in seems to be a fixation for some.

I am being told that the soul which is timeless cannot go from the character and realization of the label mleecha to a Brahmin in a single hour within a single life? That karma or grace or results are limited to the jail cell of a body's life and Time is not God but a slave of a mleecha's body and only then when that body is gone that a soul can become realized?

And that a Guru in communion of God who speaks a message by the voice of breath, that it surely is hearsay if not to the expectation of a caste-centric mind?

But I have also been told that the preponderance of Veda is exactly that, hearsay, told from one to the next and until first put to script on the leaf of trees was a spoken darshan with God?

Some Gurus have said that varna is a description of character of a soul and not a color of the body, and that a fixation which is surely and mostly emotion is a quality of a mleecha, for even a Shudra perhaps mentioned 20 times in the Veda was an honorable, hardworking body with a soul that does the honorable and valued labor of our very sad and egoistic world, and in many ways does not have the time to argue with everyone and live so much in the body and not in the dharshan of God which is the rightful door waiting to open whether Time is one million years or one second.

What is a Westerner? What is an Indian?
What is the body?

All I know is I want to sing bhajans. Is this dangerous, too?

Excuse any typos, I am typing from my Android phone, the type is small, my eyes are tired. But every eye is imperfect, and who knows if what the eye reads in scripture are even the very same words on the page.

[charitra]

Namaste Charitra Ji

I have heard this in a sat sangh , though with a slight variation. On hearing that the chandala was reciting the essence of upanishads , Sankara fell at his feet ......This is quiet different from Philisoraptor Jis comment that mlechas learning vedas could be disastrous.



Namaste seeker , I read the story awhile ago,the details are somewhat fuzzy. The thrust of the post was to dispute the very appearance of shiva disguised in a chandala’s form that too so very recently,around 8th century ACE. For hindus that period is very recent, I am sure thatis agreed upon by all of us. In that enthralling incident, a Chandala was brought into the picture and was propmply dismissed as an after thought of sorts . I was stressing that the spindoctors have entered the archives and morphed the story, to make sure no one would raise a finger now that Lord Shiva was made a party to the discrimination.. “Ugh, how can a chandala be so wise that he would enlighten adi shankara acharya and his disciples?” . That said, in all probability the entire chandala episode maybe an add on, a fabricationin in its entirety, I will give you that.

Shiva Fanji,

there are some hindus who harbor a klansman attitude, and living in the US we all know the fate of such groups, do understand the issues are getting resolved without any acrimony. Learned acharyas like vivekananda and dayananda have counterrd such divisive claims erasing the misinterpretations that crept in over the years. Maha vakhyas like 'aham Brahmasmi' and 'Tat tvam asi' are applicable to all the living. The key is to uplift poorer people from the morass they are stuck in.

[philosoraptor]

Once again, here are Sri Sankaracharya's UNDISPUTED writings on the subject of varna and birth. He is very clear in his writings that a person who is a shudra by birth cannot study the Veda. This comes from his commentary on Brahma-sutra, and other acharyas whose writings I have seen follow Shankaracharya's view despite other philosphical differences. Passages in bold indicate the sutras. This particular translation is available online.

I just provide this here for those who want to know what the facts are. Already, I am noticing people alluding to various mythological stories alleging that he had an opinion on this subject contrary to what he wrote. I can't understand why this is. Nor can I understand why Sankaracharya, who actually spoke Sanskrit and wrote commentaries on our scriptures is casually dismissed, whiel people like Vivekananda are elevated "learned scholars." This is just a bit revisionist, to say the least. But needless to say, I don't think anyone disputes Sri Sankaracharya's erudition.



34. Grief of him (i.e. of Gânasruti) (arose) on account of his hearing a disrespectful speech about himself; on account of the rushing on of that (grief) (Raikva called him Sûdra); for it (the grief) is pointed at (by Raikva).

(In the preceding adhikarana) the exclusiveness of the claim of men to knowledge has been refuted, and it has been declared that the gods, &c. also possess such a claim. The present adhikarana is entered on for the purpose of removing the doubt whether, as the exclusiveness of the claim of twice-born men is capable of refutation, the Sûdras also possess such a claim.

The pûrvapakshin maintains that the Sûdras also have such a claim, because they may be in the position of desiring that knowledge, and because they are capable of it; and because there is no scriptural prohibition (excluding them from knowledge) analogous to the text, 'Therefore 1 the Sûdra is unfit for sacrificing' (Taitt. Samh. VII, 1, 1, 6). The reason, moreover, which disqualifies the Sûdras for sacrificial works, viz. their being without the sacred fires, does not invalidate their qualification for knowledge, as knowledge can be apprehended by those also who are without the fires. There is besides an inferential mark supporting the claim of the Sûdras; for in the so-called samvarga-knowledge he (Raikva) refers to Gânasruti Pautrâyana, who wishes to learn from him, by the name of Sûdra 'Fie, necklace and carnage be thine, O Sûdra, together with the cows' (Kh. Up. IV, 2, 3). Smriti moreover speaks of Vidûra and others who were born from Sûdra mothers as possessing eminent knowledge.--Hence the Sûdra has a claim to the knowledge of Brahman.

To this we reply that the Sûdras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters; but a Sûdra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecedent the upanayana-ceremony, and that ceremony belongs to the three (higher) castes only. The mere circumstance of being in a condition of desire does not furnish a reason for qualification, if capability is absent. Mere temporal capability again does not constitute a reason for qualification, spiritual capability being required in spiritual matters. And spiritual capability is (in the case of the Sûdras) excluded by their being excluded from the study of the Veda.--The Vedic statement, moreover, that the Sûdra is unfit for sacrifices intimates, because founded on reasoning, that he is unfit for knowledge also; for the argumentation is the same in both cases 1--With reference to the pûrvapakshin's opinion that the fact of the word 'Sûdra' being enounced in the samvarga-knowledge constitutes an inferential mark (of the Sûdra's qualification for knowledge), we remark that that inferential mark has no force, on account of the absence of arguments. For the statement of an inferential mark possesses the power of intimation only in consequence of arguments being adduced; but no such arguments are brought forward in the passage quoted. 2 Besides, the word 'Sûdra' which occurs in the samvarga-vidyâ would establish a claim on the part of the Sûdras to that one vidyâ only, not to all vidyâs. In reality, however, it is powerless, because occurring in an arthavâda, to establish the Sûdras' claim to anything.--The word 'Sûdra' can moreover be made to agree with the context in which it occurs in the following manner. When Gânasruti Pautrâyana heard himself spoken of with disrespect by the flamingo ('How can you speak of him, being what he is, as if he were like Raikva with the car?' IV, i, 3), grief (suk) arose in his mind, and to that grief the rishi Raikva alludes with the word Sûdra, in order to show thereby his knowledge of what is remote. This explanation must be accepted because a (real) born Sûdra is not qualified (for the samvarga-vidyâ. If it be asked how the grief (suk) which had arisen in Gânasruti's mind can be referred to by means of the word Sûdra, we reply: On account of the rushing on (âdravana) of the grief. For we may etymologise the word Sûdra by dividing it into its parts, either as 'he rushed into grief (Sukam abhidudrâva) or as 'grief rushed on him,' or as 'he in his grief rushed to Raikva;' while on the other hand it is impossible to accept the word in its ordinary conventional sense. The circumstance (of the king actually being grieved) is moreover expressly touched upon in the legend

35. And because the kshattriyahood (of Gânasruti) is understood from the inferential mark (supplied by his being mentioned) later on with Kaitraratha (who was a kshattriya himself).

Gânasruti cannot have been a Sûdra by birth for that reason also that his being a kshattriya is understood from an inferential sign, viz. his being mentioned together (in one chapter) with the kshattriya Kaitraratha Abhipratârin. For, later on, i.e. in the passage complementary to the samvarga-vidyâ, a kshattriya Kaitrarathi Abhipratârin is glorified, 'Once while Saunaka Kâpeya and Abhipratârin Kâkshaseni were being waited on at their meal a religious student begged of them' (Kh. Up. IV, 3, 5). That this Abhipratârin was a Kaitrarathi (i.e. a descendant of Kitraratha) we have to infer from his connexion with a Kâpeya. For we know (from Sruti) about the connexion of Kitraratha himself with the Kâpeyas ('the Kâpeyas made Kitraratha perform that sacrifice;' Tândya. Br. XX, 12, 5), and as a rule sacrificers of one and the same family employ officiating priests of one and the same family. Moreover, as we understand from Scripture ('from him a Kaitrarathi descended who was a prince 2') that he (Kaitraratha) was a prince, we must understand him to have been a kshattriya. The fact now of Gânasruti being praised in the same vidyâ with the kshattriya Abhipratârin intimates that the former also was a kshattriya. For as a rule equals are mentioned together with equals. That Gânasruti was a kshattriya we moreover conclude from his sending his door-keeper and from other similar signs of power (mentioned in the text).--Hence the Sûdras are not qualified (for the knowledge of Brahman).

36. On account of the reference to ceremonial purifications (in the case of the higher castes) and on account of their absence being declared (in the case of the Sûdras).

That the Sûdras are not qualified, follows from that circumstance also that in different places of the vidyâs such ceremonies as the upanayana and the like are referred to. Compare, for instance, Sat. Br. XI, 5, 3, 13, 'He initiated him as a pupil;' Kh. Up. VII, 1, 1, 'Teach me, Sir! thus he approached him;' Pra. Up. I, 1, 'Devoted to Brahman, firm in Brahman, seeking for the highest Brahman they, carrying fuel in their hands, approached the venerable Pippalâda, thinking that he would teach them all that.'--Thus the following passage also, 'He without having made them undergo the upanayana (said) to them' (Kh. Up. V, 11, 7), shows that the upanayana is a well-established ceremony 1.--With reference to the Sûdras, on the other hand, the absence of ceremonies is frequently mentioned; so, for instance, Manu X, 4, where they are spoken of as 'once born' only ('the Sûdra is the fourth caste, once-born'), and Manu X, 126, 'In the Sûdra there is not any sin, and he is not fit for any ceremony.'

37. And on account of (Gautama) proceeding (to initiate Gâbâla) on the ascertainment of (his) not being that (i.e. a Sûdra).

The Sûdras are not qualified for that reason also that Gautama, having ascertained Gâbâla not to be a Sûdra from his speaking the truth, proceeded to initiate and instruct him. 'None who is not a Brâhmana would thus speak out. Go and fetch fuel, friend, I shall initiate you. You have not swerved from the truth' (Kh. Up. IV, 4, 5); which scriptural passage furnishes an inferential sign (of the Sûdras not being capable of initiation).

38. And on account of the prohibition, in Smriti, of (the Sûdras') hearing and studying (the Veda) and (knowing and performing) (Vedic) matters.

The Sûdras are not qualified for that reason also that Smriti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages: 'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with (molten) lead and lac,' and 'For a Sûdra is (like) a cemetery, therefore (the Veda) is not to be read in the vicinity of a Sûdra.' From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how should he study Scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, an express prohibition (of the Sûdras studying the Veda). 'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.' The prohibitions of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as 'he is not to impart knowledge to the Sûdra,' and 'to the twice-born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.'--From those Sûdras, however, who, like Vidura and 'the religious hunter,' acquire knowledge in consequence of the after effects of former deeds, the fruit of their knowledge cannot be withheld, since knowledge in all cases brings about its fruit. Smriti, moreover, declares that all the four castes are qualified for acquiring the knowledge of the itihâsas and purânas; compare the passage, 'He is to teach the four castes' (Mahâbh.).--It remains, however, a settled point that they do not possess any such qualification with regard to the Veda.

[philosoraptor]

Note in the above passage that Shankara states that Janasruti could not have been a shudra by birth because of the indications that he was then a kshatriya. If the revisionist theory is true, and one can be born in one varna and easily change to another varna, then such an argument given by Shankaracharya would not be valid.

Of course, we could just say that Shankaracharya, who propagated a major school of Vedanta, had no idea what he is talking about. After all, what does he know? Let's consult popular opinion instead....

[charitra]

Shankara’s encounter with chandala was mentioned by all his biographers without fail and also we can safely assume that all the biograpahers were his close disciples who loved and respected him (unlikely they are his haters). Why was this story made so prominent. In all likely hood the learned proponent of advaita may have had misgivings and possibly was prejudiced against some of his fellow humans based on their professions. A chandala opened his eyes one day and made him change his ways. Now if we agree on that the relevant question is this. Did he, if at all he wrote them, write those passages before he met the wise chandala. If we analyze wisely it all falls in place without any more wrinkles. ‘Varna by birth only mantra’ was hammered into the texts by a small groups of people all through the hindu history. There are innumerable examples throughout that such dictat was defied by hindus over and over. Nanda dynasty around 3rd century BCE and more recent Vijaya nagara empire ( of Krishn deva raya ) and many such others make examples of how non khatriyas have ruled over hindus. Varna by birth did nt apply disfavorably in all those cases.

Horse lovers can continue to pure breed horses, nothing wrong with the hobby or passion. Only issue is with the bipeds. The latter would jump over the fence and leave the stable in pursuit of freedom, that is what one has to live with and get used to. Acharyadom is a conferred status, if majority agree then one will become and remain an acharya. Shankara was accepted by many and was made an acharya, much later vivekananda was accepted by millions of hindus with same fervor. Birth has no relevance, only acquired gunas mattered in both the cases, just as was preached by untainted texts. Namaste.

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,

The traditional point of view is that one's previous guna and karma determines one's birth, which in turn determines one's varna and hence the duties one is expected to follow. As I understood from Charitra's posting above, birth is not relevant, only one's current guna and karma. The next question that came to mind was, "how does one determine what one's guna, and thus, one's varna is?" But Charitra answered that question too:

"Shankara was accepted by many and was made an acharya, much later vivekananda was accepted by millions of hindus with same fervor. Birth has no relevance, only acquired gunas mattered in both the cases, just as was preached by untainted texts."

So in other words, popular vote. If a person dons saffron, speaks some philosophy, and happens to be charismatic with a popular following, then he is a brahmin. This is what happened to Vivekananda, and this is what Charitra asserts happened to Sankaracharya. Needless to say, there are probably many pious souls with sattvik qualities who don't have large followings and hence, will not be recognized as brahmins for lack of them. But, we will deal with that another time.

Now, let us examine the above viewpoint dispassionately. If one's guna/karma are determined by popular vote, then what happens if one of these "brahmins by quality, not by birth" becomes degraded? Does he cease to become a brahmin at that time (i.e. he was only a brahmin for the time he was doing spiritual activity, and then he loses it) or is that he was never a brahmin, and the people declared him as such wrongly? Think carefully before you answer, because each answer has different but significant implications. If the person was wrongly deemed to be a brahmin, then goes to show that popular vote is inherently unreliable in making such determinations. If the person was a brahmin only temporarily, then the classification is meaningless, being constantly dynamic, and further makes no sense in the context of statements like gItA 18.47 which advises one to do one's own duty, and not the duty of others. Well, I suppose charitra would claim that this is a "tainted source," as he/she would no doubt claim is the case of the Chandogya Upanishad, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the Ramayana, the Vishnu Purana, the Varaha Purana, etc. etc.

I've had much experience with many of these so-called "Brahmins by quality, not by birth." I know of several guilty of sexual indiscretions, another who got involved in drug-smuggling, still others guilty of embezzlement, etc. All of these preached that you are brahmin based on quality and that birth is not relevant. They were all people who had non-brahmin birth, were not raised as brahmins, and thus did not have a brahminical background. But they chanted some mantra, practiced some austerity, and *poof* they are now brahmins by quality and even had many disciples. Only they just did not stay that way. What are they? Are they brahmins? Were they only temporarily brahmins?

Is the fault mine for looking for consistency here? Hindu scriptures are "tainted" according to Charitra, so we can't depend on those. But, if any non-Hindu asserts that the scriptures have objectionable material, we call them "anti-Hindu," "Muslim fundamentalists," etc. Meanwhile, we have the reality that almost anyone these days can become a "guru" by doing some process and getting a popular following, and quite a few of these so-called gurus/brahmins get involved in scandals despite their supposedly having the true qualities that brahmins are supposed to have.

regards,

[charitra]

Questions: 1. Is it just an academic exercise we debate if varna is merely guna based (or birth based), what other applications does it have. One claiming by someone else’s caste is not a serious problem that I can identify. Some popular hindus have been recognized as ‘swami’ Ramdev or ‘mata’ Amritanada mayi,‘maharshi’ Mahesh yogi and the like, but then they didn’t change their birth castes so for as the reporting goes. 2. Next, what is the downside of accepting varna by acquired gunas (of current janma), whilst keeping birth caste intact. 3. Do we expel anyone that crosses the line. Like if a kshatriya becomes a scientist or a Liquor Dealer. 4. Is it a mistake on the part of famous Madhurai Adheenam to name Nityananda as the junior pontiff, since the latter wont qualify as per his birth caste for a pujari post of the Pitam.

Some background now. Historically, varna by Guna (acquired after birth) stopped making sense after Dwapara Yuga. That is the probable reason Krishna ‘had to’ remind his favorite sishya and friend Arjuna his varnadharma. Presumably by then already varna system was on the decline. In Kaliyuga thus, only castes remained alive and varna has disappeared altogether.Ambi made alliances with Alexander (300 BCE) in contradiction to his Kshatriya dharma and weakened a fellowkshatriya’s resistence, king Purshotham or Puros fell victim to this unholy alliance. Muchlater Mansingh (?) became a general in Akbar’s army and additionally Rajputs gave their daughters tothose hatemongering and brutal sultans. Ironicallythe offspring of Rajput women (Humayun, Aurangajeb) genocided hindus and raged mandirs. Not blaming any varna or caste here, merely reciting history to underscore how varna dharma has essentiallydisappeared from hindu society. Thus Kaliyuga witnessed mere presence of castes. A kshatriya is working asa teacher or a clerk or a scientist. Now he is not talking of varna anymore.Merely he mentions his caste, mostly for arranged marriages for his family or whilstreminiscing his ancestral glory.

Also, it cant be applied to a majority of population either, which reduces Hinduisma small private club and we all know Hinduismis an universal faith an inclusive one.Hinduism was never meant to be exclusivist. Those who want to keep their caste don’t need anyone’s approval to maintain their cherished heredity. But if one claims a varna position based on caste then, with allthose tectonic shifts happening in kaliyuga, that courtesy may not be extended anymore. A ruler is an elected representative regardless of his/her caste. Kshatriyas have to move on just as a caste group and remove any thoughts of ownership of the varna. As we see, everyone is a vaisya nowadays running businesses of various sizes and repute. Pujaris more or less still have a monopoly on the profession based on their caste basis. Not much erosion there, although I must mention that there are some exceptions. In Kannada lands both Lingayats and Vakkaligas run their own ashrams and shiva mandirs including conducting puja rituals. Surprised?

Namaste.

[charitra]

there are probably many pious souls with sattvik qualities who don't have large followings and hence, will not be recognized as brahmins for lack of them. But, we will deal with that another time.
This is my theory for Kaliyuga. We divide hindus only based on their Satvic, Rajasic and Tamasic qualities and give them recognition as such. Varnas have been reduced to mere castes and carry no other significance. And castes in turn have minimal impact in hindu mainlands, like arranged marriages maybe? Adjustments and accommodations can be made based on historical sensitivities. Priest caste can continue to carry out Puja rituals in mandirs, interestingly there isnt much opposition to that practice as of now. For all other positions and professions caste turned irrelevant. Varna altogether turned a relic from previous yugas now. Is this arrangement acceptable:) . Namaste.

[philosoraptor]

Questions: 1. Is it just an academic exercise we debate if varna is merely guna based (or birth based), what other applications does it have.

Pranams.

No, it is a very practical debate with real-world applications. The death of spiritual culture today is catalyzed by thousands of Hindus who were born as dvijas, and should be doing their spiritual duties but are instead refusing to do so on the plea that their birth is irrelevant and that they are therefore not qualified. In other words, in the name of a false philosophy, they are rationalizing spiritual laziness. For a brahmin, it's easier to claim he is not a brahmin and thus not do his sandhya prayers, than it is to acknowledge that he is a brahmin and come to terms with his shame and sinful reaction because he has chosen not to do his sandhya prayers.

We all want to blame Christians and Muslims for our problems as Hindus, and certainly these two religions rightfully bear some blame for the historical violence they have perpetrated against Hinduism. But the reality is that Hinduism is dying from within as more and more Hindus rationalize abandoning their duties because of "varna by quality, not by birth" philosophy.



One claiming by someone else’s caste is not a serious problem that I can identify. Some popular hindus have been recognized as ‘swami’ Ramdev or ‘mata’ Amritanada mayi,‘maharshi’ Mahesh yogi and the like, but then they didn’t change their birth castes so for as the reporting goes.


Popular examples are not relevant to determining truth. One look at a democratic election process should be proof positive that charisma, rather than actual qualification, is what wins popularity.



2. Next, what is the downside of accepting varna by acquired gunas (of current janma), whilst keeping birth caste intact.

There are several downsides which have already been discussed.

1) People cannot determine what someone else's varna is based on guna, because they have no objective way of determining what one's guna is. I gave the example of many Western swamis who had large followings but then fell down. Do you think there was a downside to their disciples thinking they had an authentic brahmin guru only to find that it was not the case?

2) If varna is dynamic, which it would have to be if it were always linked to one's current guna at any given time, then one's prescribed duties are also dynamic. In that case, it is meaningless to tell people to do "your" duty and not "someone else's" duty. All duties become accessible and any deviation can be rationalized. Feeling sattvik today? Go do a puja. Feeling irreligious? Then forget the puja and go to the pub and have a beer. It becomes a lazy philosophy where one can rationalize any deviation.

3) Historical precedent: The vast majority of persons mentioned in our epics were known by the varna of their birth despite their qualities. Duryodhana was a kshatriya despite being a murderer, a conspirator, and an arsonist. Drona and Ashvatthama were brahmins despite being warriors. Ashvatthama was a brahmin despite becoming a murderer. Arjuna was a kshatriya despite having no attachment to fighting and winning back his kingdom. The examples go on and on and on and on... must we ignore them just to forge a new, more appealing philosophy?



3. Do we expel anyone that crosses the line. Like if a kshatriya becomes a scientist or a Liquor Dealer.

Based on what I have read in shAstras, such people would be reviled in direct proportion to the magnitude of their deviation. Thus, a kshatriya becoming a scientist would probably not lose much respect, but a kshatriya selling liquor probably would.



4. Is it a mistake on the part of famous Madhurai Adheenam to name Nityananda as the junior pontiff, since the latter wont qualify as per his birth caste for a pujari post of the Pitam.

I wouldn't know. I haven't followed the controversy, but my recollection was that the issue was not his birth.



Some background now. Historically, varna by Guna (acquired after birth) stopped making sense after Dwapara Yuga. That is the probable reason Krishna ‘had to’ remind his favorite sishya and friend Arjuna his varnadharma.

No, that is nothing more than brazen revisionism. The Mahabharata war occurred *in* Dvapara Yuga albeit towards the end. At that time, many individuals were known by their birth varna and it was almost unheard of for people to be known by a different varna. Please note the examples given by me previously. You may now wish to provide examples of your own in which a person's birth in Dvapara Yuga was clearly A, but they were instead known by varna B. Let's see them.



Presumably by then already varna system was on the decline. In Kaliyuga thus, only castes remained alive and varna has disappeared altogether.Ambi made alliances with Alexander (300 BCE) in contradiction to his Kshatriya dharma and weakened a fellowkshatriya’s resistence, king Purshotham or Puros fell victim to this unholy alliance. Muchlater Mansingh (?) became a general in Akbar’s army and additionally Rajputs gave their daughters tothose hatemongering and brutal sultans. Ironicallythe offspring of Rajput women (Humayun, Aurangajeb) genocided hindus and raged mandirs. Not blaming any varna or caste here, merely reciting history to underscore how varna dharma has essentiallydisappeared from hindu society. Thus Kaliyuga witnessed mere presence of castes. A kshatriya is working asa teacher or a clerk or a scientist. Now he is not talking of varna anymore.Merely he mentions his caste, mostly for arranged marriages for his family or whilstreminiscing his ancestral glory.

All of this shows simply that people regardless of their varna have become degraded. It does not show that varnaashrama is irrelevant. If these people had followed their varnaashrama properly, then none of these things would have happened.

Will respond more later when I have time.

regards,

PR

[philosoraptor]

Also, it cant be applied to a majority of population either, which reduces Hinduisma small private club and we all know Hinduismis an universal faith an inclusive one.Hinduism was never meant to be exclusivist. Those who want to keep their caste don’t need anyone’s approval to maintain their cherished heredity. But if one claims a varna position based on caste then, with allthose tectonic shifts happening in kaliyuga, that courtesy may not be extended anymore. A ruler is an elected representative regardless of his/her caste. Kshatriyas have to move on just as a caste group and remove any thoughts of ownership of the varna. As we see, everyone is a vaisya nowadays running businesses of various sizes and repute. Pujaris more or less still have a monopoly on the profession based on their caste basis. Not much erosion there, although I must mention that there are some exceptions. In Kannada lands both Lingayats and Vakkaligas run their own ashrams and shiva mandirs including conducting puja rituals. Surprised?

Namaste,

Charitra, I hate to keep saying this, but your statements are founded on false premises. If I say that only humans are humans, and that lions are not humans even if they change their behavior, it is not "exclusivist" - it is reality. Similarly, if I say that Africans are Africans and Africans are not Indians, that too is reality. These are birth-based categories, and no one would be accused of exclusivism for accepting them as such.

Similarly, varna is a birth-based category that is a fact of life for traditional Hindus. There is no getting around it, and citing the examples of neo-hindu free thinkers, popular vote, and Kali-Yuga history while ignoring shAstric pramANa, purANic history, and the statements of learned vedAnta commentators is simply defeating your own argument. You also never responded to the practical implications of your theory. For example, what is the varna of one born in a non-brahmin varna, but who gets initiation, then sannyasa, and then creates an international Hindu movement and gets popular renown? Is he a brahmin for all the good spiritual work he does for the world? And what if this unnamed Hindu swami falls in love with a female disciple, has sex with her, impregnates her, and then refuses to marry her because he is a "sannyasi?" Is he still a brahmin then? If not, then was he ever a brahmin before when he was giving out thousands of initiations? Why or why not?

Do you still have problems recognizing the flaw in "varna by guna as detemined by popular appeal?" If so, I can give you many more modern examples to ponder.

[PARAM]

Naturally, since you cut it all off and ignored the evidence that was brought up.
You have evidence in Quran, we have in iTihasa



And how is it determined what one's dharma is?
You think I will educate you?




He achieved the knowledge after being instructed by Sri Krishna in the 18 chapters of Bhagavad-gita, and yet still he did not become a brahmin. Why?

Later you will say Ashwatthama should be narrating this. Bhagwad Gita is only for those who surrounded to Krishna.




All evidence to the contrary...
This was too simple to understand, but enough fool will not understand




Not sure what the above has to do with anything. Perhaps you could clarify.
This means your allegations are not welcome.

[PARAM]

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

Don't believe in those who are influenced by Quran and polluting the mind of others by claiming they are racial supremos.

One who eats by glorifying his birth status gotra, family is an eater of his own vomit.( Manu Samriti 3.109)

There are proof of varnashram change in almost every Hindu Scripture.


Vishnu Puran mention King Nedishtha as a kShaTriYa, his son Nabhag as a VaiShYa, Nabhag’s son Dhrist as a BraHmN and his son as Kshatriya


In Vayu Puran, Vishnu Puran and Harivansh Puran, Sage Shaunak is mentioned as BraHmN despite born as kShatriya, and sons of Shaunak Rishi are mentioned in all four Varnas.

According to Ramayana, Prithu's son Trishanku becomes a chandal and Raghu the Great's son Pravriddha become a Rakshasa. kShatriya Vishwamitra become a Brahmin but his sons become ShUdRas.

In Mahabharta Krishna's cousin Shishupal was a Rakshasa. Ved Vyasa accepted to become godfather to the sons of Ambika, Ambalika and Ambika's Maid, and only the maid's son Vidur qualified to become a Brahmin.


There are unlimited examples of VaRnaShRam change in iTihasa.

[philosoraptor]

I am still interested in getting answer to this question


For example, what is the varna of one born in a non-brahmin varna, but who gets initiation, then sannyasa, and then creates an international Hindu movement and gets popular renown? Is he a brahmin for all the good spiritual work he does for the world? And what if this unnamed Hindu swami falls in love with a female disciple, has sex with her, impregnates her, and then refuses to marry her because he is a "sannyasi?" Is he still a brahmin then? If not, then was he ever a brahmin before when he was giving out thousands of initiations? Why or why not?


regards,

[Seeker]

namaste Philiosoraptor Ji,
What was the varna of Lord Sri Krishna by his birth? Was his actions sanctioned by BG & Vedas?

[philosoraptor]

namaste Philiosoraptor Ji,
What was the varna of Lord Sri Krishna by his birth? Was his actions sanctioned by BG & Vedas?

Pranams.

Sri Krishna has no varNa technically speaking, as He is the creator of the varNa system. You can't have a varNa unless you have guNa and karma, and Sri Krishna has neither, being transcendental to such things.

regards,

[Seeker]

Namaste Philosoraptor Ji,
The why do we read in puranas that he was a Yadava (cattle herders) -whom many Brahmins consider Sudhra?

[philosoraptor]

Namaste Philosoraptor Ji,
The why do we read in puranas that he was a Yadava (cattle herders) -whom many Brahmins consider Sudhra?

Yaadavas were not considered shUdras in the texts. At least, not as far as the Bhaagavata or Vishnu Puraanas are concerned. If you have another scriptural reference suggesting otherwise, I would sure like to know. According to the geneaologies given, the Yaadavas were all descendents of Yadu who was a kshatriya. But Sri Krishna is not called a Yaadava because he was a kshatriya - He was merely called this by convention as He appeared in that line. Otherwise, technically speaking, He had no guna/karma and thus was not bound by the varna system.

[wundermonk]

I'll bite.


I am still interested in getting answer to this question


For example, what is the varna of one born in a non-brahmin varna,

Correction - born as a non-brahmin varna. Naught naughty there mr. raptor. You should know better than (here we go again) begging the question. You believe varna is hereditary. I do not. So, when you and I are engaged in Tarka, you should know better than framing a question that (here we go again) begs the question. Now, can you reframe the above hypothetical so that it does not (here we go again) beg the question?

[Seeker123]

Pranams Seeker,

The closest thing I found was an episode in the Uttara-khaNDa of the rAmAyaNa in which Raama was said to have slain a shUdra by the name of Shambuka for *performing austerities*, which was deemed to be the cause of irregular and inauspicious events occurring in the kingdom. Even this episode is controversial because it occurs in the uttara-khaNDa which at least some Vaishnavas consider to be interpolated. Sri Madhvaachaarya appears to accept that the event occurred, but he indicates that Shambuka was actually a demon in disguise as a shUdra, and that he was performing austerities specifically to harm the kingdom, which is the real reason Raama slew him. Whatever the case may be, I can't help but note that the female rishi Svayamprabha was also performing austerities which is not ordained for women, and yet Hanumaan did not kill her on the spot.

regards,

Uttarakanda is considered a later addition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayana#cite_note-sundararajan-106-11
The Valmiki Ramayana book published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan has only 6 kandas. Uttara Kanda is supposed to be the 7th kanda which has the controversial Sita banishing episode. The 62 revered saints of Tamil Nadu had many Sudras. Brahamanas are said to have fallen at their feet. Also Rama's actions becomes inconsistent with what he did with Sabari for example.

In the Gita when Arjuna asks him what if he did not attain Moksha in this lifetime Krishna states good Karma in this birth leads to being born to Rishis/spiritually advanced people or in the family of wealthy people. On this basis one could state that being born to Brahmin parents gives a better starting point for further spiritual evolution. But one's evolution in this life is not dependent on birth alone. To a large extent it also depends on what one does in this life. So a person born as Sudra can evolve to a higher degree than the one born as a brahmin. I see birth Varna as similar to graduating from IIT for example. Sure you have a better chance of success but if you dont use your skills well then some one with a degree from a lower ranked college will become your boss! My argument of course assumes that everyone (regardless of birth Varna) can grow spiritually. I realize traditional Gurus would say Sudras cannot read Veda but even they would agree that Sudras can read Pancadasi, Bhagavad Gita, Yoga Vashistha etc which brings out the knowledge of Upanishads.

[philosoraptor]

Uttarakanda is considered a later addition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayana#cite_note-sundararajan-106-11
The Valmiki Ramayana book published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan has only 6 kandas. Uttara Kanda is supposed to be the 7th kanda which has the controversial Sita banishing episode.

Namaste. As I had indicated, the uttara-khanda is controversial. For whatever it's worth, the Gita Press edition does include it. Also, I've seen references to the Raamaayana as having 7 khandas. But whatever the case may be, I was merely pointing out that, aside from the Shambukha episode, which is itself controversial, there isn't much evidence of people being punished for doing duties outside their birth varna. Hence my doubts about the molten wax thing.



The 62 revered saints of Tamil Nadu had many Sudras. Brahamanas are said to have fallen at their feet.

I can't speak for the Shaivite tradition. However, there is nothing inherently against the idea of birth-based varna in respecting a great devotee who happens to be a shudra. I've said this many times and quoted pramaanas to prove it.


Also Rama's actions becomes inconsistent with what he did with Sabari for example.

I am unclear on why that is. Can you please explain?



In the Gita when Arjuna asks him what if he did not attain Moksha in this lifetime Krishna states good Karma in this birth leads to being born to Rishis/spiritually advanced people or in the family of wealthy people. On this basis one could state that being born to Brahmin parents gives a better starting point for further spiritual evolution. But one's evolution in this life is not dependent on birth alone. To a large extent it also depends on what one does in this life.

I never claimed otherwise, Seeker. Nor did Shiva. You can't advance your own point by knocking down a strawman.



So a person born as Sudra can evolve to a higher degree than the one born as a brahmin. I see birth Varna as similar to graduating from IIT for example. Sure you have a better chance of success but if you dont use your skills well then some one with a degree from a lower ranked college will become your boss! My argument of course assumes that everyone (regardless of birth Varna) can grow spiritually. I realize traditional Gurus would say Sudras cannot read Veda but even they would agree that Sudras can read Pancadasi, Bhagavad Gita, Yoga Vashistha etc which brings out the knowledge of Upanishads.

Shudras are not entitled to study the Veda but they are allowed and even encouraged to read Bhagavatam, Mahabharata, Ramayana, etc. These scriptures are supposed to distill the essence of the Vedas and make them easier to understand, while the Vedas contain many cryptic meanings and require intense discipline and austerity to grasp.

Also, a dvija who properly understands the Vedas should actually relish the message of the Bhagavatam, Mahabharata, Ramayana, etc. This is a point you will not find echoed among some Neo-Hindu groups, who consider the stories to be quaint mythology designed to teach higher truths. To the bhakta, those stories are real and hearing/speaking them puts one on the true path of liberation - hence "janma karma cha me divyam" (gItA 4.9).

[philosoraptor]

I'll bite.

Correction - born as a non-brahmin varna. Naught naughty there mr. raptor. You should know better than (here we go again) begging the question. You believe varna is hereditary. I do not. So, when you and I are engaged in Tarka, you should know better than framing a question that (here we go again) begs the question. Now, can you reframe the above hypothetical so that it does not (here we go again) beg the question?

Er, ok. I'm not really sure what it is you think I did that was so misleading. But my queston still stands. What is the varna of someone who does brahminical work, (i.e. starts an international Hindu movement and initiations hundreds of brahmins and becomes well-renowned as a great spiritual leader), despite not being born as a brahmin (or we can say he was born as a brahmin if you wish), but later falls down after say, a sexual scandal with a female disciple?

Was it that the person was never a brahmin, and his disciples were mislead about his credentials? Or was he temporarily a brahmin while he was doing the brahminical work and lost brahminical status after the scandal? Or, does he remain a brahmin in spite of the scandal? Which is it? I think it's very reasonable question to understand how your theory of varnaashrama is applied practically.

[wundermonk]

What is the varna of someone

For ANYONE, it is based on the interplay between the gunas.


who does brahminical work, (i.e. starts an international Hindu movement and initiations hundreds of brahmins and becomes well-renowned as a great spiritual leader), despite not being born as a brahmin (or we can say he was born as a brahmin if you wish),

I am not trying to be difficult with you here and I hate to keep repeating the same thing over and over again. But this is a very important point and it is still frustrating that you keep missing this point.

When you define "brahminical" work as "starts an international..." you really should not be using the term "brahmin" AGAIN in this definition (see my emphasis above). So, I have to ask you to reframe this hypothetical yet again.


but later falls down after say, a sexual scandal with a female disciple?

As for me, per se, I would not care as long as my teacher had consensual sex with the librarian or doctor or disciple. However, if the teacher is promoting control over the senses in public but letting go his juices in private that would surely be hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is not confined to one varna or the other. In fact, we have a few people here on HDF who talk trash about Mlechhas but yet live comfortably in Mlechha countries! I would see this case also as no different. It is part of the human condition, I guess.


I think it's very reasonable question to understand how your theory of varnaashrama is applied practically.

Last I knew, practically, there are many mlechhas/non Indians/who have preached their own brand of spiritualism and developed a following. This is not the sole provenance of "Brahmins" only by any stretch of imagination.

In any case, I would now like you to outline, PRACTICALLY how you want varnashrama applied in the USA where you live.

[philosoraptor]

Namaste Wundermonk,

I asked a very straight-forward question in order to better understand how your concept of varnaashrama would be applied to the reality in which we live. Instead, you side-swiped that one and asked me how traditional varnaashrama should be applied to our current reality. I will be the first to admit that adapting traditional varnaashrama to our current reality would be difficult to say the least, but I think that subject requires a thread of its own in order to fully explore every facet of the subject. Meanwhile, I would really appreciate getting an answer to the straightforward question I posed:

"What is the varna of someone who does brahminical work, (i.e. starts an international Hindu movement and initiations hundreds of brahmins and becomes well-renowned as a great spiritual leader), despite not being born as a brahmin (or we can say he was born as a brahmin if you wish), but later falls down after say, a sexual scandal with a female disciple?

Was it that the person was never a brahmin, and his disciples were mislead about his credentials? Or was he temporarily a brahmin while he was doing the brahminical work and lost brahminical status after the scandal? Or, does he remain a brahmin in spite of the scandal?"

Merely saying that the varna is based on his gunas does not answer the question. Surely you can appreciate the fact that you are avoiding the question and its implications. Because if you are saying that his guna at that time determines his varna, then the implicit question is "who determines that?" Was the Swami in our example a brahmin because the popular masses accepted him as such? Or was he never a brahmin because of his later fall-down, and the masses were wrong about his gunas? Or was he a brahmin while he was doing the brahmin work but later lost that status?

If Wundermonk is not prepared to answer, I would appreciate getting answers from others who subscribe to his views.

regards,

[wundermonk]

I have been saying all the while that your posts are circular. :banghead: Can you see the circularity or not? We are trying to find out what defines "Brahmin"ness and you have thus far failed to provide a definition that is not circular.

[philosoraptor]

I have been saying all the while that your posts are circular. :banghead: Can you see the circularity or not? We are trying to find out what defines "Brahmin"ness and you have thus far failed to provide a definition that is not circular.

Pranams,

Let me try again.

You assert that one's status as a brahmin is determined by his gunas at that time. But who determines it? Is it self-determined, is it determined by the people in general, or is it determined by his guru at the time of initiation? Or in some other way?

And when his guna changes later, such as by a sexual scandal or committing murder, then does his varna also change, or was the original varna classification of that person wrong?

Hopefully worded this way the question will elicit a meaningful response.

[wundermonk]

You assert that one's status as a brahmin is determined by his gunas at that time.

I assert this because Krishna asserts this in BG chapter 18. Please do not second guess Krishna!


But who determines it?

The gunas determine the varna. Now, I need to ask you for what PURPOSE one would need to determine the varna of another individual? The hypothetical that you want answered is framed in contemporary settings - so I guess what I am asking is - on knowing someone's varna - say as Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or a Shudra, what PRACTICAL use is that going to be put to?


Is it self-determined, is it determined by the people in general, or is it determined by his guru at the time of initiation? Or in some other way?

I think a guru/a knowledgeable person can certainly determine one's varna. We also have scriptural evidence that this has happened before. In today's age, I think the best guide is God's word itself, the BG. Before explaining how the interaction of gunas leads to the 4-fold classification of humans, Krishna also explains in earlier verses of Chapter 18 what constitutes sattvic, rajasic and tamasic action/thoughts, etc.


And when his guna changes later, such as by a sexual scandal or committing murder, then does his varna also change, or was the original varna classification of that person wrong?

You YOURSELF believe one's varna (actually the self does not have a varna - it is the prakriti associated with the self that gives rise to varna) can change across lifetimes (correct me if I am wrong). Additionally we have had cases where people's varnas have changed within one's lifetime. So, there is no biggie here at all.:dunno: Varna can certainly change within one's lifetime. Neither the old nor the new varna are wrong.

Now, could you define who is a "Brahmin" without tying your shoelaces in knots? Since you belive varna is by birth, answer the following questions by filling in the blanks.

(1)Brahmin mom + Kshatriya dad. Kid = _____________ varna.
(2)Kshatriya mom + Vaishya dad. Kid = _____________ varna.
(3)Vaishya mom + Shudra dad. Kid = _____________ varna.
(4)Shudra mom + Mlechha dad. Kid = ______________ varna.

Another hypothetical since you believe Varna is by birth:

Rajan Mukhopadhyay is born to Bengali Brahmins. He hates his religion. He believes the future for India lies in importing ideologies from the erstwhile USSR. So, he reads up a lot of communist literature and embraces communism and believes Hinduism is the biggest opium of the masses. What is his Varna now? He marries a fellow card-carrying communist whom he meets during studies in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). Her name is Fatima Beevi. Before converting to communism, Fatima Beevi was born to Shudra parents who named her Meghana. When Meghana recited the shahada at a local Delhi Mosque (La Ilaha Il Allah, Mohammed Rasool Allah), she was pronounced a Muslimah by the presiding moulvi who changed her name from Meghana to Fatima. Meghana went through the official process of name changing and got it approved by the concerned governmental agencies. Now what is Fatima's (previously Meghana's) varna? Later on, when Fatima attended JNU, she was introduced to communist literature and she eventually gave up on Islam also and she believes that Islam is the biggest opium of the masses. What is her varna now?

Over time, Rajan and Fatima have a child and they name the child (dont hold your breath) Karl Marx.

Now, what is Karl Marx's varna? Explain.

Yet ANOTHER hypothetical:

After the 2006 Tsunami damage, a German couple adopt a Tamil girl (1 year old) from an orphanage in Sri Lanka. The little girl was rescued but unfortunately her parents died untraced. This Tamil girl grows up in the streets of Berlin and speaks very fluent German. She becomes a great mathematician and earns tenure at Stanford. What is her varna?

[philosoraptor]

The gunas determine the varna. Now, I need to ask you for what PURPOSE one would need to determine the varna of another individual? The hypothetical that you want answered is framed in contemporary settings - so I guess what I am asking is - on knowing someone's varna - say as Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or a Shudra, what PRACTICAL use is that going to be put to?

Pranams. That should be obvious. If one wants a guru, one has to go to a brahmin. Surely even you would agree to this, since you define a brahmin based on his qualities. In that case, one should know who is a brahmin. Now that I have answered your question, will you answer mine?


I think a guru/a knowledgeable person can certainly determine one's varna.

Then in the example provided, would you say that the person correctly determined his varna to be that of a brahmin, and then merely lost the status later? Or was he wrong about his varna because later he would be guilty of sexual indiscretion which was unbecoming of a sannyasi? Or does he remain a brahmin even if he has neither the brahmin birth nor the brahminical quality (remember: guilty of sexual indiscretion)? Please try to give a straightforward answer - so far you have been trying to divert the discussion away onto tangents.



We also have scriptural evidence that this has happened before.

Could you please cite scriptural evidence of people determining their own varnas? Thanks.



Now, could you define who is a "Brahmin" without tying your shoelaces in knots? Since you belive varna is by birth, answer the following questions by filling in the blanks.

(1)Brahmin mom + Kshatriya dad. Kid = _____________ varna.

According to the texts like Raamaayana, these people (Sumantra was one example) are referred to as sUta-s. They often get roles as charioteers or ministers. Whether or not that is specifically prescribed for them, I do not know.



(2)Kshatriya mom + Vaishya dad. Kid = _____________ varna.
(3)Vaishya mom + Shudra dad. Kid = _____________ varna.
(4)Shudra mom + Mlechha dad. Kid = ______________ varna.

I don't remember offhand what the progeny of the above matings are considered as. I sometimes find references in my readings to mixed-varna progeny and next time I see one I will post it.



Another hypothetical since you believe Varna is by birth:


It isn't a belief. It is a straightforward conclusion based on on gItA 9.32 referring to vaisyas/shUdras as "pApa-yOnayaH" and gIta 1.42 in which Arjuna expresses dismay that mixing of varnas (varNa-shankaraH) is going to occur, as well as the chAndogya upaniShad pramANas provided previously.



Rajan Mukhopadhyay is born to Bengali Brahmins. He hates his religion. He believes the future for India lies in importing ideologies from the erstwhile USSR. So, he reads up a lot of communist literature and embraces communism and believes Hinduism is the biggest opium of the masses. What is his Varna now?

Just like Ashvatthaama who murdered the sleeping sons of the Paandavas, he is still a brahmin, but a degraded one who will be shunned by orthodox followers of dharma.



He marries a fellow card-carrying communist whom he meets during studies in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). Her name is Fatima Beevi. Before converting to communism, Fatima Beevi was born to Shudra parents who named her Meghana. When Meghana recited the shahada at a local Delhi Mosque (La Ilaha Il Allah, Mohammed Rasool Allah), she was pronounced a Muslimah by the presiding moulvi who changed her name from Meghana to Fatima. Meghana went through the official process of name changing and got it approved by the concerned governmental agencies. Now what is Fatima's (previously Meghana's) varna? Later on, when Fatima attended JNU, she was introduced to communist literature and she eventually gave up on Islam also and she believes that Islam is the biggest opium of the masses. What is her varna now?

She is a shUdra but a degraded one who will be shunned by orthodox followers of dharma.



Over time, Rajan and Fatima have a child and they name the child (dont hold your breath) Karl Marx.

Now, what is Karl Marx's varna? Explain.

His varna is whatever varna the scriptures normally assign to a brahmin-shudra mating. Needless to say, he would be degraded and shunned by orthodox followers of dharma.



Yet ANOTHER hypothetical:

After the 2006 Tsunami damage, a German couple adopt a Tamil girl (1 year old) from an orphanage in Sri Lanka. The little girl was rescued but unfortunately her parents died untraced. This Tamil girl grows up in the streets of Berlin and speaks very fluent German. She becomes a great mathematician and earns tenure at Stanford. What is her varna?

Her varna is unknown, as her lineage is unknown. None of this precludes her from being redeemed by the purifying power of bhakti and the association of bhAgavatas. Her duties will never involve studying and chanting the Vedas, but they don't have to.

Now that I am done answering your questions, now can you stop evading mine and finish answering?

thanks,

[wundermonk]

Pranams. That should be obvious. If one wants a guru, one has to go to a brahmin. Surely even you would agree to this, since you define a brahmin based on his qualities. In that case, one should know who is a brahmin. Now that I have answered your question, will you answer mine?

If one wants a guru, one should go to a knowledgeable person in that field of knowledge. One should not care about his race/age/marital status. Perhaps you do care.


Then in the example provided, would you say that the person correctly determined his varna to be that of a brahmin, and then merely lost the status later? Or was he wrong about his varna because later he would be guilty of sexual indiscretion which was unbecoming of a sannyasi? Or does he remain a brahmin even if he has neither the brahmin birth nor the brahminical quality (remember: guilty of sexual indiscretion)? Please try to give a straightforward answer - so far you have been trying to divert the discussion away onto tangents.

I have answered this directly in my previous post where I have said that varna does change!


Could you please cite scriptural evidence of people determining their own varnas? Thanks.

I had said that there is evidence that a guru can determine the varna of an individual - satyakama jabala story.


According to the texts like Raamaayana, these people (Sumantra was one example) are referred to as sUta-s. They often get roles as charioteers or ministers. Whether or not that is specifically prescribed for them, I do not know.

I asked you this previously also but no answer has been forthcoming. For "sUta-s", what is the interplay of gunas? For the 4 varnas, there is a definite interplay as shown here (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=41787&postcount=11).


I don't remember offhand what the progeny of the above matings are considered as. I sometimes find references in my readings to mixed-varna progeny and next time I see one I will post it.

Ok. Whatever you post, keep in mind that you need to provide the interplay of gunas and how that person gets classified as what. Otherwise you are guilty of imposing your own set of rules onto Krishna's pure and simple message.



It isn't a belief. It is a straightforward conclusion based on on gItA 9.32 referring to vaisyas/shUdras as "pApa-yOnayaH"

9:32 (Ramanuja commentary) is


By taking refuge in Me even men of evil birth, women, Vaishyas and also Sudhras attain the supreme state.

Notice the comma there between "men of evil birth" and other referrents? Do not try to put words in Krishna's mouth, please.


Just like Ashvatthaama who murdered the sleeping sons of the Paandavas, he is still a brahmin, but a degraded one who will be shunned by orthodox followers of dharma.

You need to define a "Brahmin". Go ahead, I am waiting.


She is a shUdra but a degraded one who will be shunned by orthodox followers of dharma.

You need to define a "shudra". Go ahead, I am waiting.


His varna is whatever varna the scriptures normally assign to a brahmin-shudra mating.

Huh? But the parents do not label themselves HINDUS! Are they Hindus, per you? If yes, you need to explain why? If not, you have just punted your earlier arguments that varna is only applicable to Hindus!


Needless to say, he would be degraded and shunned by orthodox followers of dharma.

Who are these "orthodox followers of dharma"? Are YOU one? If not, just maintain a dignified silence on what they should do. No one gave YOU the right to decided what they should do.


Her varna is unknown, as her lineage is unknown. None of this precludes her from being redeemed by the purifying power of bhakti and the association of bhAgavatas. Her duties will never involve studying and chanting the Vedas, but they don't have to.

One's lineage may be unknown but one DOES have a varna. So says Krishna. I also refer you back to the Satyakama Jabala story. She is free to buy, study and chant the Vedas.


Now that I am done answering your questions, now can you stop evading mine and finish answering?

I have provided many answers before. YOU are the one who has thus far failed miserably in defining a "Brahmin" without tying yourself in knots and how the interplay of gunas gives rise to different non-varna people!

Good luck!

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

What qualifies a written work as scripture on other planets, other Lokas, other universes beyond Bhumi Mother Earth?

If scripture does apply, and the Laws of Manu or such are said to be actual scripture, then does every Law of Manu apply on the fourth Loka higher?

Or do they only apply in some places, some times, and a qualified scripture does not necessarily apply everywhere, all places? If so, is being qualified only a qualification?

And, do souls on and within other planets, Lokas, universes, engage in sex from which a baby is born?

And if the idea is to be free from the prison of the body, you may be a first-class prisoner or second-class prisoner, third-class prisoner, but you will remain a prisoner ... ? But if you want freedom, then you must go out of the prison walls? Does this prison pervade many, many universes?

Which is the best way to find an answer to this dilemma, to such questions? Scripture? What is the difference between a sermon, a scripture, and a prayer? Does a prayer need a soul to give a prayer, or can a prayer stand alone in a room on a palm leaf and both are the same?

Who says prayers? And would they have any purpose if there were no one to say them? One day, there may be no one.

If six different Hindus give nine different answers on the very same single word of Sanskrit, but they all live in the same prison, then how am I going to know how to get out of this prison? Maybe this isn't the way to find a resolution at all.

Om Namah Sivaya

[satay]

Admin Note

Members seem to have lost rationality on this thread. I will keep it open for another few days after which it will be closed.

[philosoraptor]

Originally Posted by philosoraptor http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=89765#post89765)
Pranams. That should be obvious. If one wants a guru, one has to go to a brahmin. Surely even you would agree to this, since you define a brahmin based on his qualities. In that case, one should know who is a brahmin. Now that I have answered your question, will you answer mine?

If one wants a guru, one should go to a knowledgeable person in that field of knowledge. One should not care about his race/age/marital status. Perhaps you do care.

Pranams Wundermonk. Please look closely at the words I employed. Surely you can see that you are evading the question again. If you define a varna by its qualities, then when searching for a guru you would want such a brahmin, right? So it becomes important to know how to identify a person based on said qualities as a brahmin, right? So how does one know? Granted we have descriptions of what sattva guna is like, but how does a person look at a prospective guru and say, "He seems sAttvik enough, he must be a brahmin." What if he is wrong? Are you aware of examples in history of people being accepted as brahmins and then becoming degraded later? I know of many such examples from various Hindu movements which I will not name here. Examples in which thousands of non-brahmins were intiated with sacred thread under an idealistic view that birth did not matter, who then went on to become gurus themselves and initiated thousands more disciples each, and then later fell down and became degraded from sexual scandals, criminal activity, drug use, etc etc etc.

Now, if I understood your point correctly, you would put off the question of mistaken identification of brahminical status by saying that their varna could simply change. So, it's not that the future adulterer who today wears saffron and yagnopavitam was mistakenly identified as a brahmin. Rather, he was a brahmin when he was doing the brahminical work and (presumably) controlling his senses, but later lost that brahmin status when he engaged in the degrading/forbidden activities.

Now, this brings up all kinds of interesting questions. For example, if a brahmin falls from his status after initiating disciples, but (according to you) he was really a brahmin for some time, then can his name still be listed in a guru-paramparA? Second, if varna is not constant, then what is the meaning of a guru-disciple relationshp in which the guru is only temporarily a brahmin? Third, can a "brahmin" (literally meaning, one who knows brahman) even fall down ever if he truly is a brahmin by quality? Fourth, what is the advantage of a "varna by quality, not by birth" system when the "brahmins" may only be temporarily brahmins, when the whole reason the "varna by birth" system is criticized is that it means we have to refer to unqualified persons as brahmins? Whether we talk about unqualified, birth-based brahmins, or temporarily qualified brahmins, it seems the net effect is the same: neither system guarantees that the term "brahmin" only applies to a truly qualified individual who will stay fixed on the path of brahma-jnaana.




Could you please cite scriptural evidence of people determining their own varnas? Thanks.
I had said that there is evidence that a guru can determine the varna of an individual - satyakama jabala story.

I'm going to assume that I misunderstood you, and that you were never claiming that a person could determine his own varna. Now, regarding the Satyakaama Jaabaala story, you know that I have already alluded to Shankaraachaarya's and Raamaanuja's comments on that Upanishad; they both assert that Gautama determined that Satyakaama was a brahmin by his lineage, and not that his lineage did not matter. I have quoted Shankaraachaarya's coments several times on this point but have yet to see you or anyone else respond to it. They both agree that a shUdra can never learn the Veda - this position is contradictory to the idea that a shUdra could become a dvija and then learn the Veda. This would have been the place for these commentators to indicate that if that was what they meant all along, but they did not do so. Instead, they both agree that the itihAsa/purANa can be studied by the shUdras who are otherwise unqualified to study the Veda.

So in short, a qualified guru might be able to determine a brahmin's lineage as Gautama did. But this is not the same thing as saying that a person can be determined to be a brahmin independent of his lineage. Such an interpretation does not even make sense in the context of asking for the lineage in the first place.



I asked you this previously also but no answer has been forthcoming. For "sUta-s", what is the interplay of gunas? For the 4 varnas, there is a definite interplay as shown here (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=41787&postcount=11).


I can't give you an answer if the shAstra does not spell it out. All I can tell you, in response to your original question, is that in the rAmAyana, the offspring of a brahmin mother and a kShatriya father is said to be a sUta.



Ok. Whatever you post, keep in mind that you need to provide the interplay of gunas and how that person gets classified as what. Otherwise you are guilty of imposing your own set of rules onto Krishna's pure and simple message.

No I don't, because you are still struggling with the misconception that varnas are defined by their manifest gunas, as opposed to the natures they are born with based on previous gunas. The gItA does not actually define the varNas based on their current gunas. If you look at the original text of BG 18.41-43, it merely states the qualities which constitute the innate nature of these different varNas. Please note the Sanskrit in verse 18.42. The words used are "brahmakarma svabhAvajam." The suffix "-jam" means "born, arising from" and combined with "svabhAva" it means "born of their innate nature." So the verse is translated as "Tranquility, restraint, austerity, purity, forgiveness, and uprightness, knowledge, wisdom, and faith in God (AstikyaM) are the duties of the brahmins, born of their innate nature."

In other words, it is not the case that acquiring these qualities and duties makes one a brahmin, as you have incorrectly understood. Rather, the idea is that a brahmin is born with the innature nature for these things, based on his previous guna/karma as established in the chAndogya upaniShad, and must cultivate these qualities by following the dharmas appropriate for his birth. Otherwise, he risks becoming corrupted and falling from the standard.



9:32 (Ramanuja commentary) is


It appears that your sentence was cut off. I have read Raamaanuja's Giitaa commentary in its entirety. Have you? I don't remember offhand what he said about this verse, but I will get back to you. In the meantime, would you like to comment on his views on brahma-sUtra regarding jaanashruti and shUdras not being qualified to study the veda? Surely you aren't going to use him in one context and disregard his views in the same context elsewhere?



You need to define a "Brahmin". Go ahead, I am waiting.

You need to define a "shudra". Go ahead, I am waiting.


These are traditional understood as such based on heredity, as established previously. See the word "svabhAva-jam" in gItA 18.42



Huh? But the parents do not label themselves HINDUS! Are they Hindus, per you? If yes, you need to explain why? If not, you have just punted your earlier arguments that varna is only applicable to Hindus!

Varnaashrama dharma is only applicable to those who want to practice Hinduism - this was what I said. It was you who posed the question of how we should classify a person's varna if they become an apostate. In such a situation, we can only classify him based on his lineage, just as we do for Ashvatthaama, Drona, and so many others. The term "Hindu" is not found in shAstra and so its useage is fluid. Many people are called "Hindus" from a cultural/ethnic standpoint even when they are atheists or worse - it is similar to the way Jews in America are referred to as Jews even if they are non-practicing atheists. The brahmin's son in your example is a degraded and unqualified brahmin, and when he intermarries with other non-brahmin people, the brahminical status of his bloodline will be permanently lost to history.



Who are these "orthodox followers of dharma"? Are YOU one? If not, just maintain a dignified silence on what they should do. No one gave YOU the right to decided what they should do.

I don't even know why this question arises. My point remains that the orthodoxy (by which I mean those who follow shAstra) will shun a brahmin who is both neglecting his duties and endorsing hostile ideologies. I have no idea why you are becoming so agitated.



One's lineage may be unknown but one DOES have a varna. So says Krishna.

Krishna never specifically speaks of one having a varna despite an unknown lineage. I request you to provide the pramaana if you wish to claim otherwise.


I also refer you back to the Satyakama Jabala story.

Which, as previously mentioned, is quoted by both Raamaanuja and Shankaraachaarya to demonstrate that a shUdra cannot study the veda, because Gautama determined that Satyakaama was a brahmin by birth.



She is free to buy, study and chant the Vedas.

She was always free to do those things. She is also free to tell the traditional commentators to go to Hell. But a traditional guru following dharma-shAstras will not initiate her into study of the Veda, as there is no precedent for it anywhere in shAstra.



I have provided many answers before. YOU are the one who has thus far failed miserably in defining a "Brahmin" without tying yourself in knots and how the interplay of gunas gives rise to different non-varna people!

Good luck!

All I can say is, based on intemperate comments like this, I can see why the moderator is wanting to shut down the thread. Can we not disagree without being disagreeable?

regards,

[Seeker123]

Namaste Phil,

Yes birth determines one's Varna and on average a Brahmin baby starts of at a higher spiritual score than a Shudra baby. There may be anomalies for example if the Shudra birth was the result of some bad past Karma fructifying in this janma in which case the Shudra baby might have a higher score!

Regardless I think you would agree with me that what one does with one's life has much more of an effect on our final spiritual score at the time of death than birth. This view is constantly reinforced when I see in real life non brahmins (by birth) who are very spiritually inclined and brahmins (by birth) who are primarily materially inclined even though they may know Slokas for example. But on average even today I agree that brahmins (by birth) are more spiritually inclined than non-brahmins.

So basically regardless of one's birth one can aspire to grow spiritually. I think this has been accepted through the ages. Going directly to Sanyasa Ashrama is not prohibited for Shudras is it? Also can you point me to Shruthi which disallows Shudras from reading Veda?

HariOm

[philosoraptor]

Regardless I think you would agree with me that what one does with one's life has much more of an effect on our final spiritual score at the time of death than birth. This view is constantly reinforced when I see in real life non brahmins (by birth) who are very spiritually inclined and brahmins (by birth) who are primarily materially inclined even though they may know Slokas for example. But on average even today I agree that brahmins (by birth) are more spiritually inclined than non-brahmins.

So basically regardless of one's birth one can aspire to grow spiritually. I think this has been accepted through the ages.


Namaste Seeker. As indicated previously, I never claimed otherwise. The birth-based system of assigning varna is pragmatic as well. There is never any doubt who is supposed to take up brahmin-dharma, who should take up kshatriya-dharma, etc. Note that the standard is a double-edged sword. In a society which remained loyal to varnaashrama principles, the shame for twice-born members who fail to carry out their varna duties is far greater. Thus, it reinforces itself, but only if people value the principles. When we start rationalizing that birth does not matter, we essentially rationalize laziness, as brahmins can now say they no longer have to wake up at the crack of dawn and do sandhya-vandanam, study vedas, observe so many fasts, etc - birth does not matter, I'm an IT professional and that's what I want to do, etc.

There is a statement in the sixth book of the viShNu purANa which states that shUdras and women have the greatest advantage in kali-yuga. The reason for this is, their duties are easier comparatively speaking to those of dvija males, whose duties require great austerity. The failure to carry out those duties leads to sin, so a brahmin-birth in kali-yuga isn't necessarily a great thing in some ways!



Going directly to Sanyasa Ashrama is not prohibited for Shudras is it? Also can you point me to Shruthi which disallows Shudras from reading Veda?
HariOm

I'm not aware of anything regarding sannyAsa Ashrama for shUdras, for or against. I have been looking though, so if something comes up in my readings I will make a note of it. As far as shruti statements disqualifying shuudras from studying veda, this is implicit in the chAndogya upaniShad when Gautama asks Satyakaama his gotra as a prerequisite for taking initiation. This subject is also covered at length in brahma-sUtras (quotes provided previously), and you may want to read the comments at length. However, most of the explicit statements I have seen to date are in smRti, not shruti. But, at the same time there is nothing in shruti I have seen to date which contradicts that view, and the Satyakaama episode is consistent with that view.

regards,

[wundermonk]

Pranams Wundermonk. Please look closely at the words I employed. Surely you can see that you are evading the question again. If you define a varna by its qualities, then when searching for a guru you would want such a brahmin, right? So it becomes important to know how to identify a person based on said qualities as a brahmin, right? So how does one know? Granted we have descriptions of what sattva guna is like, but how does a person look at a prospective guru and say, "He seems sAttvik enough, he must be a brahmin." What if he is wrong? Are you aware of examples in history of people being accepted as brahmins and then becoming degraded later? I know of many such examples from various Hindu movements which I will not name here. Examples in which thousands of non-brahmins were intiated with sacred thread under an idealistic view that birth did not matter, who then went on to become gurus themselves and initiated thousands more disciples each, and then later fell down and became degraded from sexual scandals, criminal activity, drug use, etc etc etc.

When you need a guru, would you ask for his lineage/race/gender/varna? Are you claiming that non-Brahmins (by birth) are not qualified to be gurus? I have answered this question but it is funny you are dancing around this and other issues.


Now, if I understood your point correctly, you would put off the question of mistaken identification of brahminical status by saying that their varna could simply change. So, it's not that the future adulterer who today wears saffron and yagnopavitam was mistakenly identified as a brahmin. Rather, he was a brahmin when he was doing the brahminical work and (presumably) controlling his senses, but later lost that brahmin status when he engaged in the degrading/forbidden activities.

No problems here. Varna can change. Period.


Now, this brings up all kinds of interesting questions. For example, if a brahmin falls from his status after initiating disciples, but (according to you) he was really a brahmin for some time, then can his name still be listed in a guru-paramparA? Second, if varna is not constant, then what is the meaning of a guru-disciple relationshp in which the guru is only temporarily a brahmin? Third, can a "brahmin" (literally meaning, one who knows brahman) even fall down ever if he truly is a brahmin by quality? Fourth, what is the advantage of a "varna by quality, not by birth" system when the "brahmins" may only be temporarily brahmins, when the whole reason the "varna by birth" system is criticized is that it means we have to refer to unqualified persons as brahmins? Whether we talk about unqualified, birth-based brahmins, or temporarily qualified brahmins, it seems the net effect is the same: neither system guarantees that the term "brahmin" only applies to a truly qualified individual who will stay fixed on the path of brahma-jnaana.

If Brahmin is defined as one who will stay fixed on the path of brahma-jnaana (is this your definition? Because you are completely dancing around this basic issue of the definition), anyone can become fixed on this. There are few prerequisites before embarking on athatho-brahmajigyasa and none of these talk of varna. Sorry.


I'm going to assume that I misunderstood you, and that you were never claiming that a person could determine his own varna. Now, regarding the Satyakaama Jaabaala story, you know that I have already alluded to Shankaraachaarya's and Raamaanuja's comments on that Upanishad; they both assert that Gautama determined that Satyakaama was a brahmin by his lineage, and not that his lineage did not matter. I have quoted Shankaraachaarya's coments several times on this point but have yet to see you or anyone else respond to it. They both agree that a shUdra can never learn the Veda - this position is contradictory to the idea that a shUdra could become a dvija and then learn the Veda. This would have been the place for these commentators to indicate that if that was what they meant all along, but they did not do so. Instead, they both agree that the itihAsa/purANa can be studied by the shUdras who are otherwise unqualified to study the Veda.

And...we are back to square one. You should NOT throw around words like "shudra" or "brahmin" without first defining them. To define a "shudra" as someone born to "shudra" parents is (here we go again) circular and would earn an F(ail) grade in philosophy 101 course.


So in short, a qualified guru might be able to determine a brahmin's lineage as Gautama did. But this is not the same thing as saying that a person can be determined to be a brahmin independent of his lineage. Such an interpretation does not even make sense in the context of asking for the lineage in the first place.

You keep going on and on about lineage...but let me ask you. Practically, how far back does one have to go to establish lineage? This also goes back to my previous question regarding the hypothetical where all Indian Hindus get nuked by enemies. Let us say we want to establish the lineage of a Brahmin. Given that the temporal past is infinite, how many previous generations does one have to state the geneaological tree? How do you go about verifying this of a "guru" that you approach? Is there an objective way to verify that he is not pulling this geneaology out of thin air?


I can't give you an answer if the shAstra does not spell it out. All I can tell you, in response to your original question, is that in the rAmAyana, the offspring of a brahmin mother and a kShatriya father is said to be a sUta.

Thank you for this. I see this as acknowledgement that your position is at odds with that of Krishna in Ch. 18 where he clearly specifies his classification is for all humans and is based on interaction of gunas. I have clearly stated how the 3 gunas give rise to 4 varnas. You are groping in the dark regarding this.


No I don't, because you are still struggling with the misconception that varnas are defined by their manifest gunas, as opposed to the natures they are born with based on previous gunas. The gItA does not actually define the varNas based on their current gunas. If you look at the original text of BG 18.41-43, it merely states the qualities which constitute the innate nature of these different varNas. Please note the Sanskrit in verse 18.42. The words used are "brahmakarma svabhAvajam." The suffix "-jam" means "born, arising from" and combined with "svabhAva" it means "born of their innate nature." So the verse is translated as "Tranquility, restraint, austerity, purity, forgiveness, and uprightness, knowledge, wisdom, and faith in God (AstikyaM) are the duties of the brahmins, born of their innate nature."

I agree with your translation but "born of their innate nature" especially when the innate nature keeps changing (why? because it is based on the interplay of gunas and one of the KEY properties of prakriti is its constant change). So, the varna is not hereditary. It changes as Prakriti changes. There have already been examples provided to you about folks who change varna within a lifetime.


It appears that your sentence was cut off. I have read Raamaanuja's Giitaa commentary in its entirety. Have you? I don't remember offhand what he said about this verse, but I will get back to you. In the meantime, would you like to comment on his views on brahma-sUtra regarding jaanashruti and shUdras not being qualified to study the veda? Surely you aren't going to use him in one context and disregard his views in the same context elsewhere?

Well, if you had read Ramanuja's commentary on the GITA, you would not have put words in HIS mouth and checked before posting. I am hoping you retract your statement and set the record straight that evil births does NOT refer to Vaishyas, Shudras and women. Regarding the commentary of Ramanuja, I have read that but the commentary STILL does not state that varna is by birth! It does state that shudras are not to be initiated, etc. but what we are discussing here is exactly WHO is a shudra. By now, since I have been repeating this for so long, I hope you understand exactly what the controversy is over.


Varnaashrama dharma is only applicable to those who want to practice Hinduism - this was what I said. It was you who posed the question of how we should classify a person's varna if they become an apostate. In such a situation, we can only classify him based on his lineage, just as we do for Ashvatthaama, Drona, and so many others. The term "Hindu" is not found in shAstra and so its useage is fluid. Many people are called "Hindus" from a cultural/ethnic standpoint even when they are atheists or worse - it is similar to the way Jews in America are referred to as Jews even if they are non-practicing atheists. The brahmin's son in your example is a degraded and unqualified brahmin, and when he intermarries with other non-brahmin people, the brahminical status of his bloodline will be permanently lost to history.

Thank you then. Since the term "Hindu" is not found in the shastras, we can then take BG 18:40 to precisely mean that varnashrama applies to ALL human beings. This should further punt your argument that it is by lineage! So, all Indian Muslims/Xians/Jains/Buddhists come under varnashrama, right? Regarding, "bloodline will be permanently lost to history" - this is again question-begging in the context of our discussion. It is only if you presume that varna gets transmitted by heredity that you will state this.


I don't even know why this question arises. My point remains that the orthodoxy (by which I mean those who follow shAstra) will shun a brahmin who is both neglecting his duties and endorsing hostile ideologies. I have no idea why you are becoming so agitated.

You dont know why this question arises or are you purposely avoiding the question? It seems the latter to me. Are YOU an orthodox shastra abiding Hindu? Yes or NO? If not, you are disqualified to comment further on what orthodox Hindus should do or should NOT do. If you are an orthodox Hindu, state so, and then I will give your statements more weightage! Until then, you remain disqualified to comment on how orthodox Hindus should behave.


Krishna never specifically speaks of one having a varna despite an unknown lineage. I request you to provide the pramaana if you wish to claim otherwise.

BG 18:40.

"There is no creature, either on earth or again among the gods in heaven, that is free from these three Gunas born of Prakriti."

Followed by 18:41 which expounds how these gunas lead to varna classifications. I thought we discussed this already on a different thread.


Which, as previously mentioned, is quoted by both Raamaanuja and Shankaraachaarya to demonstrate that a shUdra cannot study the veda, because Gautama determined that Satyakaama was a brahmin by birth.

Huh? Gautama determined that Satyakaama was a Brahmin - period. Satyakaama did NOT know his lineage. That is the whole point of the episode.


She was always free to do those things. She is also free to tell the traditional commentators to go to Hell. But a traditional guru following dharma-shAstras will not initiate her into study of the Veda, as there is no precedent for it anywhere in shAstra.

Are YOU a traditional guru following dharma-shastras? If not, it would be better you do not speak for such folks.

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

Perhaps I can make my point better by approaching the subject from a different angle.

The following Wikipedia link describes in fairly neutral language the guru system of one particular Hindu movement which began initiating non-brahmins (by birth) as brahmins (according to their "quality"). This article describes in some detail the problems that occurred with this system specifically in regards to those "brahmins" who became gurus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISKCON_Guru_System

Note that, for the purposes of this discussion, we can safely assume that the twice-initiated disciples were considered "brahmins" in the movement (however one chooses to define it) because they were given sacred thread initiation and gayatri mantra, and many went on to become gurus.

Note also that this is a fairly neutral (some might say white-washed) article. It does not even delve into the more outrageous scandals, of which there were many, in this organization.

The point of posting this is not to make members of that group feel bad. The point is merely to illustrate the problems of a system in which birth is ignored, and one is merely designated a brahmin based on the guru's perception that the disciple has the right "qualities." That system failed miserably for the organization in question. Since the point of designating varna based on qualities is to escape from a corrupt system in which varna is assigned based on birth regardless of the actual dharma the person follows, one might reasonably question what the point is if we are still left with corrupted "brahmins" who don't follow the principles. If varna is supposed to be determined based on the guru's perception, then what are the implications of the reality in which guru's perception led to outcomes that are no better than those seen in the birth-based system?

In the traditional vedic system, a child's varna was understood based on his birth, and from a very early age he underwent the reformatory practices necessary to cultivate him for a role appropriate to that varna. I think most people looking for a guru would like to find someone who is a brahmin by his qualities and will still remain a brahmin by his qualities for the rest of his life. Is it better to find such a person trained from a young age in a brahminical lifestyle, or is it better to find someone who might have been engaged in all kinds of sinful habitus until just a few years ago when he chanted some mantra and *poof* he is now a brahmin?

I leave it for each individual to decide.

regards,

[Seeker123]

When we start rationalizing that birth does not matter,
I think what I was getting at was birth merely provides a starting score (brahmin starts at a higher score) but a bigger weightage is on what one does with this life which is what determines one's progress towards Moksha.



As far as shruti statements disqualifying shuudras from studying veda, this is implicit in the chAndogya upaniShad when Gautama asks Satyakaama his gotra as a prerequisite for taking initiation.
regards,

The following link states that Sudras also have gotra. If Sudras were not allowed to read Vedas I think it would have been stated in many other portions of the Sruthi. Anyway my 2 paisa - today Vedanta should be (and is) provided to all sincere seekers.

http://www.trsiyengar.com/id273.shtml

Q-31. Do sudras see gothra for marriage?

A-31. Shudras also have gotras, and follow it in marriages. For example a weaver falls under Markandeya gotra. Markandeya was known be a Maharishi and had 60 sons. Marriages are held within Markandeya but never in same family name. So, every weaver falls under one of these gotra. Marriages within the gotra ("swagotra" marriages) are banned under the rule of exogamy in the traditional matrimonial system. People within the gotra are regarded as kin and marrying such a person would be thought of as incest.

[charitra]

I think what I was getting at was birth merely provides a starting score .
no one starts on a higher score by birth into any said caste or varna. Vivekanada, Gandhi, Ambedkar and Gadse, all had started at zero point level at birth, from there they all had built it up on their own. Thy are equal in the eyes of God at birth, their freewill contributed to all their acquired gunas and their karma that accompanied their actions.

[philosoraptor]

The following link states that Sudras also have gotra.


Pranams. Yes, they have gotra, and by the gotra one can tell what one's lineage is. Hence, the question about Satyakaama's gotra. If people of any varna/gotra could study the Vedas, then there is no logical reason to check the gotra prior to intiation.



If Sudras were not allowed to read Vedas I think it would have been stated in many other portions of the Sruthi.

How many times does it have to be stated, exactly, in order to be accepted as truth? And what do you make of the other chAndogya upaniShad references which speak of birth being linked to previous karma, and duties prescribed based on birth? Are we supposed to just ignore those? Meanwhile, are you really going to assert that the real scholars of the Veda like Shankara, Madhva, Ramanuja et al. in addition to the multiple smRitis (gItA, bhAgavata, mahAbhArata, etc) where this is all spelled out, were just wrong all along, while a handful of internet users whose only knowledge of shruti is whatever Sanskrit slogans they read on the website know something that they did not?



Anyway my 2 paisa - today Vedanta should be (and is) provided to all sincere seekers.

In the form of Bhaagavata and Mahaabharata, perhaps. Really, I think people of all varnas should be focusing on these sources.



no one starts on a higher score by birth into any said caste or varna. Vivekanada, Gandhi, Ambedkar and Gadse, all had started at zero point level at birth, from there they all had built it up on their own. Thy are equal in the eyes of God at birth, their freewill contributed to all their acquired gunas and their karma that accompanied their actions.

If it's unthinkable to accept from a religious standpoint that people are born unequal, then is it similarly unthinkable to accept that some people are born with biological or economic advantages? Because I am not clear on why one is hard to swallow while the other is not.

regards,

[philosoraptor]

Meanwhile, I'd be very interested in getting charitra, seeker, and others advocating the "varna by quality" approach to comment on the case-study of the Hindu organization mentioned previously whose "brahmins by conduct only" were involved in sex scandals, child-abuse scandals, embezzlement, etc etc etc. Let's try to have some practical discussion, since the theoretical discussion seems to be pointless as much evidence is simply being ignored by the revisionists for no good reason other than that it is not politically correct.


regards,

[Seeker123]

Pranams. Yes, they have gotra, and by the gotra one can tell what one's lineage is. Hence, the question about Satyakaama's gotra. If people of any varna/gotra could study the Vedas, then there is no logical reason to check the gotra prior to intiation.
regards,
Not necessary. It could be to determine if he was from outside the 4 varnas.




How many times does it have to be stated, exactly, in order to be accepted as truth? And what do you make of the other chAndogya upaniShad references which speak of birth being linked to previous karma, and duties prescribed based on birth? Are we supposed to just ignore those?
regards,
If Sudras are not to study Vedas it would have been stated explicitly in many Upanishads. After all the same subject matter is dealt with in different ways in different Upanishads so why not such an important subject as to who is allowed to read Upanishads.

In my earlier post I already agreed that birth is linked to past Karma (Krishna himself says so in Gita) and yes Varna is based on birth - so no need to set up a straw men. My position is birth has a small weightage than present life's actions as far as spiritual progress is concerned. You perhaps believe birth has a higher or equal weightage to present life's actions. If that is so let us agree to disagree.

Nowadays discourses on Upanishads offered by Swamijis (even traditional ones) is open to everyone.

[Seeker123]

no one starts on a higher score by birth into any said caste or varna. Vivekanada, Gandhi, Ambedkar and Gadse, all had started at zero point level at birth, from there they all had built it up on their own. Thy are equal in the eyes of God at birth, their freewill contributed to all their acquired gunas and their karma that accompanied their actions.

Namaste Charitra,

Rather than react to a phrase try to read all the posts I have made in this thread (#115, #128) and my position will become clearer.

[philosoraptor]

If Sudras are not to study Vedas it would have been stated explicitly in many Upanishads.

Namaste,

If we were not supposed to accept dogs as gurus, it would have been stated so in the Upanishads. Since there is no statement restricting us from accepting dogs as gurus, QED by your logic, it is acceptable to accept dogs as gurus.

regards,

[philosoraptor]

There is no statement in the scripture that we must accept a guru who is living.

Therefore, it is acceptable to take initiation from a guru who is no longer alive.

There are deviant sects of ISKCON who believe this, and use Seeker's logic to assert that there is nothing wrong with their practice of getting "initiation" from a statue or icon of their long-departed acharya.

Of course, Seeker would have absolutely no problems with their logic...

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

I just found another verse that is quite damning to the theory that "birth is not relevant for determining varna."

This is in Raamaayana, Ayodhya-Kaanda, in the chapter in which King Dasharatha narrates the tragic tale of his accidental killing of the risihi boy. This boy was performing austerities in the forest along with his parents who were both elderly and blind. He was serving them in this way faithfully. The poet says that the boy's only wealth was his asceticism. In other words, this boy was brahminical in every aspect of his conduct and qualities.

As he lays dying, his body pierced with Dasharatha's arrow, he is concerned that the king feels he will be punished for the sin of killing a brahmin. The boy then says:



na dvijaatir aham raajan maa bhuut te manaso vyathaa |
shuudraayaam asmi vaishyena jaataH jana pada adhipa || 2-63-53

53. raajan= O, king; janapadaadhipaa= the ruler of the country! aham= I; na= am not; dvijaatiH= a Brahmana; maabhuut vyathaa= let there be no agony; manasaH= in your mind; asmi= I am; jaataH= born; shuudraayaam== through a Sudra woman; vaishyena= by Vysya.

'O, king the ruler of the country! I am not a Brahmana. Let there be no agony in your mind. I am born through a Sudra woman by a Vaishya.

But wait! He is a brahmin by quality, right? So why bother mentioning his birth?

[philosoraptor]

Among other things, what the above verse indicates is that anyone, even the offspring of a vaishya-shUdra pairing, could be a rishi. But that does not make them a brahmin. Also, the father being a vaishya was nevertheless potent enough from his austerities to curse Dasharatha. So varna is linked to birth, but one's spiritual potency is related to one's actual tapasya/merits/etc which has been the traditional position all along.

[satay]

Admin Note

Thread under review.