Law of Manu - Caste System

[IcyCosmic]

Can someone please explain to me how literal the caste system teachings were in the Law of Manu and was the (man-made caste system as is) meant to be delplyed in Kal Yuga; if not what were the motives behind the text found in Manu. Thankyou

[yajvan]

　
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Please consider the following... from parāśara smṛti :


" All laws arose in the krita age ; all have vanished in the kali age. Expound a part of the rules of conduct fit for the four castes, such as are common (to all).
" In conformity to the character of the age, the rules of law (suitable) for men differ from age to age. The rules for the Krita differ from the treta rules ; the dvapara laws are not identical with the Kali rules`

" For the krita are suited the laws of manu ; for the Treta, thoseby Gautama (are) prescribed ; for the dvapara those by shank and likhita ; for the kali, those by parāśara are prescribed"


praṇām

[philosoraptor]

pranams,

yajvan, thanks for this. Can you give the exact verse numbers in which these statements are found? I also remember hearing that the Paraashara Smriti says this. Now that I've seen it come up again, I'm going to put priority on obtaining a copy.

I still find it odd that any smriti for any age would speak of pouring molten wax in the ears of a shuudra. It seems highly unlikely that people in the Treta Yuga were any more likely to give Vedic knowledge to shuudras than people of the Kali Yuga.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

　
Please consider the following... from parāśara smṛti :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24567432/Parashara-Smriti


praṇām

[dhyandev]

Three allegations on Manu Smriti
There are 3 major allegations on Manu Smriti:
1. Manu founded the caste-system based on birth.
2. Manu legalized harsh punishments for Shudras and special provisions for upper-castes and especially Brahmins.
3. Manu was anti-women and condemned them. He accorded inferior rights to women.
Let us now review these allegations using evidences from Manu Smriti itself.
In this article, we shall review the first allegation – that Manu was founder of birth-based caste system.
We would strongly recommend that the readers review our series on Caste System in Vedas (http://agniveer.com/?series=caste-system-3) to understand the context and definitions of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra as per Vedas. Please review the series at http://agniveer.com/series/caste-system-3/
Manu Smriti and Caste System
1. Manu Smriti hails from an era when even the concept of birth-based caste system did not exist. Thus Manu Smriti nowhere supports a social system based on birth. Maharshi Manu took inspiration from Vedas (refer Rigveda 10.10.11-12, Yajurveda 31.10-11, Atharvaveda 19.6.5-6) and proposed a social system based on qualities, actions and nature of the individual.

2. This is called Varna System. Now the very word Varna derived from root word “Vrinja” means “Choice“. A similar usage happens in common used word “Varan” meaning “choosing” or “Var” meaning a husband chosen by the girl. This also shows that in Vedic system the girl had complete rights to choose her husband.

3. The biggest proof of Manu Smriti proposing Varna System and NOT Caste System is that in the first Chapter of Manu Smriti, there is mention of origin of 4 Varnas and no mention of castes or gotras. Had caste or gotra been important, Manu would have mentioned which castes belong to Brahmins, which to Kshatriyas, which to Vaishyas and which to Shudras.
This also means that those who feel proud in calling themselves Brahmins or upper-caste by birth have no evidence to prove so. They can at best prove that a few generations of their forefathers used to also call themselves upper-caste. But there is no way to prove that they were upper-castes since inception of civilization. And when they cannot prove so, what right do they have to allege that a so-called birth-based Shudra was also not a Brahmin several generations ago? And that they themselves were not Shudras a few generation ago!

4. In fact Manu Smriti 3.109 clearly states that one who eats by glorifying his Gotra or Family is considered an eater of his own vomit. Thus, as per the Manu Smriti that the self-proclaimed birth-based Brahmins or upper-castes believe in, the very act of glorifying their lineage or gotra to demand special privileges makes them deserving of condemnation.

5. Manu Smriti 2.136 states that one earns respect due to wealth, company, age, actions and knowledge in increasing order. There is no mention of family, gotra, caste, lineage and other non-factors to demand or earn respect.

Migration within Varnas
6. Manu Smriti 10.65 asserts that Brahmin can become Shudra and Shudra can become Brahmin. Similarly Kshtariyas and Vaishyas can also change their Varnas.

7. Manu Smriti 9.335: If a Shudra (uneducated) serves the educated ones, is polite, devoid of ego and stays in respectful company of knowledgeable ones, he/ she is considered as having a noble birth and stature.

8. There are several shlokas in Manusmriti that state that a person belonging to high Varna falls down to level of a Shudra (uneducated) if he does not conduct noble deeds. For example,
2.104: A person who does not worship the Supreme Lord twice daily should be considered a Shudra.

2.172. He who has not been initiated with teaching of the Vedas is a Sudra.
4.245: A Brahmin acquires brilliance through company of noble persons and avoiding bad company. On contrary, if he indulges in bad company, he becomes a Shudra.
Thus clearly, Brahmin refers to a scholarly person who conducts noble deeds. And Shudra refers to an uneducated person. This has nothing to do with birth in any manner.
2.168: A Brahmin, Kshatriya or Vaishya who puts efforts in other areas except understanding and following the Vedic precepts becomes a Shudra and his future generations also suffer from ignorance of Vedas.
Thus, as per Manu Smriti, almost the entire population of India today, barring few exceptions, is Shudra because we do not abide by the Vedic concepts and are indulged in anti-Vedic activities – corruption, casteism, selfishness, superstitions, irrationality, gender-discrimination, sycophancy, immorality etc.
2.126: Even if he is a Brahmin otherwise, a person who does not politely respond to a greeting is actually a Shudra (uneducated person).

Even Shudras can teach
9. Though Shudra means an uneducated person, a Shudra can also become a teacher for specific knowledge that he has. For example,
2.238: One should acquire knowledge even from a person born in a low family otherwise. Similarly, one should accept a noble woman as wife even if her family is otherwise not up to mark.
2.241. If needed, one may acquire knowledge from one who is not a Brahmin; and that he shall follow and serve such a teacher, as long as the instruction lasts.

Status of Brahmin is acquired by deeds and not by name
10. As per Manu Smriti, one has to earn the qualification of Brahmin. During childhood, parents are supposed to send their children for specialized education of Brahmin, Kshatriya or Vaishya depending on observed nature of children. So many Brahmin parents may desire that their children also become Brahmins. However that is not sufficient. One becomes Brahmin only if he completes the education and not merely by taking birth in a Brahmin family or taking admission in Brahmin course of a gurukul.
2.157: A Brahmin devoid of education is equivalent to an elephant made of wood or a deer made of leather. They are merely namesake and not real.
2.28: The body is made fit to be called Brahmin only through study of scriptures, discipline, noble selfless deeds, study of duties, science and meditation, charity and goal oriented actions.

Education is true birth
11. As per Manu, actual birth happens after completion of education. All human beings are Shudras or uneducated when born. Those who complete their education are supposed to have a new birth. Thus they are called Dwija or Twice Born. Those who were unable to complete the education remain Shudra. This has nothing to do with birth or heredity. This is pure meritocracy.
2.148: When a teacher who is well-versed in Vedas teaches a student the science of Gayatri (that summarizes all principles of Vedas and rational living), then the actual birth of the student takes place. This birth is free from risks of death or destruction and leads the student to immortality.
Thus, forget about being a Brahmin, Kshatriya or Vaishya, one is not considered even a human unless he/she receives education.
2.146: The teacher who provides education is a father who is much greater than the father who gave birth. The knowledge provided by the teacher remains with the soul even after the death and leads him to immortality. But the body provided by father destroys when death comes.
2.147: The birth that happens from womb of mother after parents desire for procreation is an ordinary birth. Real birth happens when the person completes his education.
Thus, citing lineage to showcase casteist superiority is an extremely foolish act as per Manu Smriti. Instead of quoting the clan, one becomes superior by showcasing that he is more educated.
10.4: Brahmin, Kashtriya and Vaishya take second birth after education. Shudra who could not complete education is fourth Varna. There is no fifth Varna among Arya or noble people.
This also means that merely because a person did not complete education does not make him a villain. He is still regarded as a noble person if his deeds are noble.
And if he completes the education, he can become a Dwija as well. Thus Shudra is an adjective and NOT a nomenclature for any castes.
Never insult anyone born in lower family
12. To further ensure that one is not insulted or denied opportunities merely because he/she was born in a family where others did not excel in education, wealth or other parameters of success in society, Maharshi Manu laid the rule very clearly:
4.141: Never deny respect and/or rights to a person who is handicapped, uneducated, aged, not handsome, not wealthy or coming from a lower family. These are NOT the parameters to judge a person.

Examples of Varna migration in ancient history
13. The concept of Varnas – Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra – being merit based and NOT birth based is not merely a theoretical concept. It was practiced in ancient era. The greatest misery befell on us when our misguided ancestors converted this scientific meritocracy into a foolish birth-based system causing all the miseries we face today.
Here are some examples:
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, son 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. (Mahabharat Anushasan Parva Chapter 3)
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.
r. Vatsa became a Rishi though born to a Shudra (Aitareya Brahman 2.19)
s. Many verses of adulterated Manu Smriti (10.43-44) state that certain castes were earlier Kshtariya but became Shudra later. These verses are adulterated but prove that concept of Varna migration did exist. The castes mentioned are: Paundrak, Audru, Dravid, Kamboj, Yavan, Shak, Parad, Palhava, Cheen, Kirat, Darad, Khash.
t. Mahabharat Anushasana Parva 35.17-18 adds the following to above list: Mekal, Laat, Kanvashira, Shaundik, Daarva, Chaur, Shabar, Barbar.
u. Several gotras are common across Brahmins, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Dalits implying that all of them hailed from same family but rather got entrapped in the stupid casteism.

Respect for Shudras
14. Manu was a great humanitarian. He knew that not all Shudras miss their education deliberately. He also understood that just because one ignored education in early part of his life does not mean that he should be penalized for that mistake for entire life. Thus he ensured that even Shudras get their due respect in society. Thus he never used any insulting adjective for Shudras. On contrary their are several instances of Manu using respectful adjectives for Shudras.
Being vulnerable due to lack of education, Shudras deserve greater sensitivity in treatment from rest of the society as per Manu. We have seen some examples of these earlier.
Here are some more:
3.112: If a Shudra or Vaishya comes as a guest, the family should feed him with due respect.
3.116: A householder should eat from remaining food only after he has fed the scholars and servants (Shudras) to their satisfaction.
2.137: A very old Shudra deserves more respect than anyone else regardless of their wealth, company, age, actions or knowledge. This special provision is accorded only to Shudra.

Vedas are foundation of Manu Smriti
15. No text apart from Vedas is free from potential for interpolations. To understand why Vedas are immune to tampering, please review http://agniveer.com/2697/why-vedas-cannot-be-changed/
That is why Vedas are accorded such high importance in our culture. Vedas form the foundation of everything else and hence if Vedas are conserved, other texts can be derived by seers in future as well.
16. Thus the benchmark for interpreting any other scriptural text is the Vedas. They are to be interpreted and accepted only to extent they comply with Vedas. This is true for ALL texts including Smritis, Brahmans, Mahabharat, Ramayan, Geeta, Upanishads, Ayurveda, Neeti Shastra, Darshans etc.
17. Manu himself announces in the Manu Smriti that Vedas alone form the foundation of Dharma. Refer 2.8-2.11
(Manu 2.8: A learned man after fully scrutinising all this with the eye of knowledge, should, in accordance with the authority of the Vedas, intent on the performance of his duties.)
Thus, it becomes clear that Manu Smriti has to be interpreted ONLY in lines with Vedas.

Shudras have right to study Vedas and conduct Vedic rituals
18. Vedas very clearly provide right to Shudras (and women) – in fact entire humanity – to study Vedas and conduct Vedic rituals like Yajna. Refer Yajurveda 26.1, Rigveda 10.53.4, Nirukta 3.8 etc. Also refer our series on Vedic Caste System at http://agniveer.com/series/caste-system-3/
Thus Manu Smriti also supports the same Vedic truth. That is why nowhere in the context of Upanayan (education initiation) does Manu forbid Upanayan or sacred thread for Shudras. On contrary, one who refuses to accept Sacred Thread of education is called a Shudra!
19. In lines with Vedas, Manu also orders the ruler to ensure that the salary and perks of Shudras be never reduced in any circumstance. (7.125-126, 8.216)

Summary:
To summarize, the assumption of Manu formulating a birth-based caste system is baseless. On contrary, Manu Smriti is vehemently against any reference to family or birth to judge a person. The Varna system of Manu is a pure meritocracy.
Each human has all the 4 Varnas – Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. Manu attempted to organize the predominant Varna of each individual in social context in a manner that aids individual and collective uplift.
We shall review the other two allegations on Manu prescribing harsh punishments for Shudras and preferential treatment for Brahmins; and being anti-woman in subsequent articles.
But we would like to conclude this part from what Manu himself said about fraud and wrong practices.
He says in 4.30 that frauds, wrong practices, deceit, perversion and falsehood should not be respected even by words.
Caste system based on birth is one of the most disgusting fraudulent deceitful perverted and false practices to exist among civilized human beings. And thus, as per Manu and as per Vedas, one should work to destroy this criminal practice by all means – harshest words and strongest actions. To show soft corner to birth-based caste system even in words is against Manu.


sourcehttp://agniveer.com/manu-smriti-and-shudras/

[IcyCosmic]

If the caste system was not meant to be utilized why has it taken so long and still as in issue? There are priests in India who hate untouchables, why are there no learned hindu scholars bringing this information to the forefront?
P.S. Out of curiosity, I'm a sood. What caste would I be?
EDIT : Nvm, warriors according to my mum.

[SanathanaDharma]

Dear Friend,

The main reason for this topic being brought up time and again, is
- the lack of clarity due to improper research
- and half knowledge based self proclaimed intellectual idiots who preach illogical personal opinions for personal gain....

Please note this will be a long post as clarifying this point required lot of
explanation

Lets answer the following questions
- What is the background for the "Varna or so called caste" system?
- Who created this system?
- On what basis?
- Who is the creator of this design?
- Does this mean He actually points out which individual goes where?
- So, what are the varnas and properties of every varna?
- What will be the types of Karma possible by a particular Varna and why?
- Does a hierarchy[superiority and inferiority] exist in the system?
- Is attaing any particular "Varna" the final goal?

Sri Krishna, in Bhagavad Gita, provides complete clarity on this over hyped topic of the day, in a very simple and easily understandable manner....lets try to understand His beautiful words with a simple example....

Example:
Consider a class of 100 students who have joined a school...All the 100 students are put into a single classroom...
at this point each and every student has the same set of teachers,
each and every student gets equal amount of knowledge from the teachers,
each and every student is equally taught,
each and every student gets the same syllabus and text books,
each and every student is made aware of an exam at the "end" and each and every student knows that there will be an exam
each and every student is equally also thought how to study and prepare for the exam
and each and every student gets the same question paper for the final exam....

now among the 100 students,

- 10 of them are very attentive in class, they control themselves, give up other unwanted activities and study hard, they understand the concepts and write the exam really well.....
- 15 of them are almost attentive in class, they study well, in fact they do not understand the concepts instead learn them by heart and write the exams fairly well.....
- 20 of them are usually not attentive in class, on the night before exam, they study hard, try to learn somethings by heart and with very high difficulty manage to complete the exam paper.....
- 25 of them are not at all attentive, they never care about studying and are too lazy to work hard and over the top they, somehow by hook or crook, write the exam......
- the remaining 30 are not at all attentive, they don't care about studying and have absolutely no understood about anything and hence, do very badly in the exams......

Once the results of the exams(after a proper evaluation of papers by an unbiased teacher) are announced, for obvious reasons the first set of 10 get more than 90% and get into a top college, the second 15 get between 75% - 90% get into a very good college, the third set of 20 get between 40%-75% get into a good college, the fourth set of 25 with great difficulty manage to pass and get into a ordinary college and where as the last set are unable to clear the exam and stay at home.(lets forget today's scenario of bribing and influential admissions:))

Now one thing must be very very clearly noted, "any student", it does not matter how good marks they scored in the previous exams, it does not matter how excellent they were in the school, if they do not really work hard, study and understand the concepts in the next stage, they will not be able to get good marks in the college....just because they did well in the previous
class does not make them automatically get good marks in the future....doing well in the previous class only allowed them to understand the concepts better which will be needed in the future...

...and "any student"(even the ones who did not clear), it does not matter what kind of low graded college they are currently in, they can still study really hard, put maximum efforts and get good marks, gain knowledge and get into higher education, and their previous exams will Never matter at all.....

So, lets now understand Sri Vaasudevas words...
- What is the background for the "Varna" system?

Sri Vaasudeva says 18.40

na tad asti prithivyam va
divi devesu va punah
sattvam prakriti-jair muktam
yad ebhih syat tribhir gunaih

"There is no being existing, either here or among the demigods in the higher planetary systems, which is freed from these three gunas born of prakruthi."

- Who created this system?

Sri Paramapurusha says 4.13

catur-varnyam maya srstam

The four Varnas are created by Me....

- On what basis?

guna-karma-vibhagasah

ONLY based on guna-karma....what does this mean...
The gunas are of three kinds...Saatvika, Raajasika, Taamasa...
Saatvika being better of the other two is enlightening, raajasika drags one back to ichcha-dwesha dwandwa[like-dislike duality],
Taamasa leads one to ignorance...

The karmas are also categorised based on gunas,...hence there is saatvika karma, raajasika and taamasa karma...

So, only based on the guna and karma, the varna is decided....comparing it with our school example, only based on the way a student studies through out the year[on which guna, a Jeeva conditions itself through out the Janma] and on the way a student performs in the exams[on what types of karma a Jeeva does], does a student land in a particular college where again knowledge can be gained[only does a Jeeva land into a particular varna to continue to pursuit of gaining knowledge]

For more information on types of karma please refer to this reply http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=55935&postcount=5

- Who is the creator of this design?
tasya kartaram api mam...I am the one who has designed this system

- Does this mean He actually points out which individual goes where?

Sri Vaasudeva beautifully answers in the next line..4.13

viddhy akartaram avyayam

Understand that the Avyaya or Paramathma is not the one who actually pushes anyone anywhere...

what does this mean...Lets get back to our school example..Consider a Government which accredits the schools and colleges...its the Government which is the one which accredits and classifies the schools into different grades[A grade colleges, B grade colleges, etc], but its definitely NOT the Government which performs "the action" of assigning students to particular category college...its completely dependent upon the students hard work and the exam result which allows the student to enter a particular college...its entirely depends on the efforts of the student... hence, Government is the no-doer in sending a particular student into particular college...Similarly, Paramathma is creator of the varna...He has given knowledge about gunas, its left to individual Jeevas to apply efforts..

thus Paramathma is the no-doer of sending someone into a particular varna...
Also Paramathma created different varnas only because its the Jeevas who have created the necessity for such a system..
Government classifies and gives permissions to some lower colleges only because not every student gets
great marks to enter a difficult reputed college...Hence He is akartha and kartha....

- So, what are the varnas and properties of every varna?

Similar to the 100 students at school, all treated equally in every aspect,
everyone studies in the same school, under same teacher and studies the same syllabus and gets the same question paper....
Every Jeeva enters the Prakruthi and every Jeeva gets the right knowledge without any bias at the beginning of its travel...
Some Jeevas simply follow the dharma, do not get into the bewildered mode of illusionary state...and try hard to adher to dharma....
at the very beginning of every Jeeva's trip into prakruthi, when life comes into existence, every Jeeva that comes to existence inside the prakruthi is taught about the reality, everyone gets equal amount of knowledge about Him...everyone is very well informed regarding what is dharma and what is adharma......but every Jeeva, unable to make sure saatvika guna
override the other two, become the slaves of raajasika and taamasa gunas....loose control over mind....and thus
start to commit mistakes...and not follow dharma....

Sri Garudadwaja says 18.41

brahmana-kshatriya-visam
shudranam ca parantapa
karmani pravibhaktani
svabhava-prabhavair gunaih

Please understand this statement very very carefully...
Its the "karma" which divides or categorises a Jeeva into Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras
The "Svabhava" or the Nature of the Jeeva or the features or characteristics of the Jeevas are influenced by the guna in which they were previously conditioned...
Its the results of the exams which classifies or divides the students to particular colleges...
Its the way they studied though out the year that determines the knowledge present in them...

- What will be the types of Karma possible by a particular Varna and why?
18.42

samo damas tapah shaucam
ksantir arjavam eva ca
jnanam vijnanam astikyam
brahma-karma svabhava-jam

Those Jivas who have conditioned themselves with whatever gunas in the previous janma, will accordingly have the following features

peacefulness(does not harm others for food, pleasure or enmity),
has self-control(mind and senses), who always performs tapas(mind, speech and body),
who is pure(inner and outer), who is tolerant(even with the enemies and evil people),
honest(according to dharma), has knowledge(about materialistic duty),
has wisdom(about real knowledge) and is religiousness(follows dharma)
where in all the above are born out of their svabhava...which is a collective conditioning of prvious janmas are "Bramhanas"


18.43
sauryam tejo dhrtir daksyam
yuddhe capy apalayanam
danam ishvara-bhavas ca
kshatram karma svabhava-jam

Those Jivas who have conditioned themselves with whatever gunas in the previous janma, will accordingly have the following
features
will power(to fight against enemies),
has virtue to protect the law,
has determination in making sure he protects others,
even if he needs to give up his life,who shows courage and strength in battle,
who is generous and does daana with whatever extra he possesses and has qualities of a leader,
where in all the above are born out of their svabhava...which is a collective conditioning of previous janmas are "Kshatriyas"

18.44

krsi-go-raksya-vanijyam
vaishya-karma svabhava-jam

Those Jivas who have conditioned themselves with whatever gunas in the previous janma, will accordingly have the following
features
doing business lawfully,
trades goods with minimum profit,
without cheating people provides the commodities required,
does not amass wealth more than required,
where in all the above are born out of their svabhava...which is a collective conditioning of previous janmas are "Vaishyas"

18.44

paricaryatmakam karma
shudrasyapi svabhava-jam

Those Jivas who have conditioned themselves with whatever gunas in the previoius janma, will accordingly have the following
features
physical strength to serve others,
to entertain others,
to help others,
to support others, without gaining wealth more than required,
where in all the above are born out of their svabhava...which is a collective conditioning of previous janmas are "Shudras"

- Does a hierarchy[superiority and inferiority] exist in the system?

The hierarchy exists only in terms of gunas and the karma....
A bramhana doing a saatvika karma of teaching without discrimination and expectation is equal to a kshatriya doing a saatvika karma of fighting a war without conspiracy is equal to a vaishya doing a saatvika karma of doing a fair business without cheating is equal to a shudra doing a saatvika karma of helping others without greedy desires

its the guna and the karma which matters...not the varna....
At the end of the first janma of every Jeeva, based on the "karma" and the "guna" on which the Jeeva was conditioned, the Jeeva takes up birth
in a Varna which it deserves....what really matters is how each and every individual Jeeva fares in the current birth as this will define the future of this Jeeva....

- Is attaing any particular "Varna" the final goal?

DEFINITELY NOT...its Attaining Him which is the final goal for every Jeeva...
an animal, an out caste, a shudra, a vaishya, a kshatriya, a bramhana can only reach Him if they act properly in the current birth, never only by just taking birth in any particular category......if their deeds are bad in this present life, they again take birth in one or the other category based on the deeds performed in this birth....
and one keeps on taking birth again and again until one reaches Him....

[philosoraptor]

These arguments have already been addressed here (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=9782).

Basically, the varNa system was a birth-based system. Specifically, by one's guNa and karma from a previous birth, one gets the birth in the next life appropriate to it. Then he or she is expected to take up the duties and disposition associated with that varNa, without which he or she belongs to that varNa in name only.

There were a few instances in which one changed varNa from that of his birth, but these were the exceptions to the rule, and mostly occurred between kShatriya and brAhmaNa varNas, which indicates that the boundy between them may have been somewhat fluid at one point. In this category of course, is Vishvaamitra (who, by the way, was not accepted as a brahmin by Vasishtha despite already performing austerities and then endeavoring to perform a yagna for King Trishanku... he only got the designation of brahmaRishi after Lord Brahma himself granted it following thousands of years of penance).

On the other hand, there were many more instances in which a person was known by his birth-varNa despite having lower or higher qualities.

1) Arjuna wanted to renounce his kShatriya duties and take up a brahmin's duties - he was qualified for this, having performed austerities for years in vanavasam, but it was not accepted by Sri Krishna.

2) Duryodhana and his Kaurava brothers were all known as kshatriyas despite their wickedness.

3) Karna was not accepted as a kshatriya because he was raised by non-kshatriya parents - Arjuna's protesting of his presence in the arena due to a non-kshatriya lineage led to a decades-long grudge between the two.

4) Mucukunda was a king who had the direct vision of Sri Krishna - he was granted a chance to become a brahmin in his next birth but was not immediately transformed into a brahmin despite his piety and devotion.

5) Drona and Ashvatthaama were brahmins by birth and were known as such despite their predisposition to the fighting arts.

6) Ashvatthaama was known as a brahmin despite his murdering of the sons of the Paandavas - his life was specifically spared on this account.

7) Satyakaama was asked his gotra by Gautama prior to initiation. Since gotra is a hereditary designation, this indicates that the hereditary lineage was a prerequisite for study of the Veda. Note that, Sri Shankara, Sri Ramanuja, and Sri Madhva each quote this story to illustrate the point that a shuudra is not entitled to study of the Veda. They do NOT interpret it as meaning that the lineage does not matter, only that Gautama had ascertained that the lineage was brahminical.

8) Shvetaketu is told by his father to accept a guru and study the Veda because they are brahmins and this is their duty; he is specifically told that he should not neglect this and be a brahmin in name only.

There are so many other examples to illustrate the point that birth generally lead to one's varNa classification, and very few examples suggesting otherwise. We need to get out of this politically-correct idea that birth-based class system is inherently evil. No doubt, it has been corrupted, but such is the case with class systems everywhere - there is no classless system anywhere, nor will there ever be. If divinely ordained classes and the duties assigned to them are not accepted, then people will accept implicit class designations based on materialistic traits instead of true virtues. Thus, we have the crazy system we have today where Hindus earn advanced professional degrees, make money in big companies, and think themselves better than the sincere sages whose only wealth is their austerity. This is also a corruption of the true system.

regards,

[dhyandev]

Basically, the varNa system was a birth-based system. Specifically, by one's guNa and karma from a previous birth, one gets the birth in the next life appropriate to it.


Worth, not birth, decides your position on this earth'
people see this episode & shut ur shrimukhs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hehPjAJynr4&feature=player_embedded
The Sutradhar quoted a mantra from Rigveda in above episode. The same is given hereunder:

कारुरहं ततो भिषगुपलप्रक्षिणी नना। नानाधियो वसूयवोऽनु गा इव तस्थिमेन्द्रायेन्दो परिस्रव॥ [- ऋग्वेद ९.११२.३]

kārurahaṁ tato bhiṣagupalaprakṣiṇī nanā| nānādhiyo vasūyavo'nu gā iva tasthimendrāyendo parisrava|| [- ṛgveda 9.112.3]

"I am a singer, my father is a doctor and my mother pounds rice."

[philosoraptor]

Hmmm, well I guess Dhyandev has a point. Never mind all those Puranas and Upanishads and Mahabharata. TV serial pramana is king!

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

There have been some substantial cut 'n pastes within this string. While mildly interesting, me thinks the HDF community has great interest in what one thinks of the information provided... Quality vs. quantity is of great value here at HDF; a POV with insights is highly attractive.

praṇām

[chandu_69]

These arguments have already been addressed here (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=9782).

....

regards,

Sanatana dharma has made a cogent post(No 7) regarding swabhav determining varna.There are several instances where people with no proper identification based on birth became scripture writers.There are other examples besides dronacharya.

Unfortunately,You response to dhyandev appears to be in poor taste.

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

Well, I'd respond to that last comment, but I don't see it as revealing much interest in actually reviewing the evidence. I can't help but note that, 8 points were raised by me and totally ignored by those who claim that the revisionist position is obviously correct. What to speak of the entire thread where we discussed these things.

Oh well....

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Chandu welcome back
I certainly I do not think post no 7 was particularly made in good taste, logic aside, we can all create a straw man and apply logic, without really answering the questions posed.

Why would anyone respond to a post which begins with and I quote ‘and half knowledge based self proclaimed intellectual idiots who preach illogical personal opinions for personal gain.…’ end quote

Or we should shut the gob supposedly by watching tv serial.

I did not find those remark particularly in good taste either.

Jai Shree Krishna

[wundermonk]

These arguments have already been addressed here.

....

regards,
Sanatana dharma has made a cogent post(No 7) regarding swabhav determining varna.There are several instances where people with no proper identification based on birth became scripture writers.There are other examples besides dronacharya.

Unfortunately,You response to dhyandev appears to be in poor taste.

Bingo!

Even ONE example of a person changing varna within one lifetime is enough to disprove a supposed theorem that varna is determined by lineage/birth.

It is fine to propose a general theorem and then make exceptions but then the causal factors leading to such exceptions need to be explained. Unless such details are provided, we can safely disregard the comments of the proponents of the general theorem.

[PARAM]

There are priests in India who hate untouchables, why are there no learned hindu scholars bringing this information to the forefront? There are even Dalit priests in many temples, many ancient temples were build by the forefathers of those caste based Dalits, there is no priests in India who hate them, this hate is media sponsored. There is no temple where priest ask about caste of any visitor, but Hindu only temples do exist.


Vishvaamitra (who, by the way, was not accepted as a brahmin by Vasishtha despite already performing austerities and then endeavoring to perform a yagna for King Trishanku
Where it is mentioned that "Vishvaamitra was not accepted as Brahmin by Vasishtha"? Vishvaamitra was just not described as "Brahamrishi", because only Brahma bestows this title, and he did penance for this.



Arjuna wanted to renounce his kShatriya duties and take up a brahmin's duties - he was qualified for this, having performed austerities for years in vanavasam, but it was not accepted by Sri Krishna.
Arjun was a kShatriya by his KarMa, he performed austerities for warfare qualities and weapons. What Krishna said is properly mentioned in Bhagwad Gita.


Duryodhana and his Kaurava brothers were all known as kshatriyas despite their wickedness.
Wickedness is not a license of being anything. Duryodhana only wanted to be the king and targeted Pandavs for this. Duryodhana was pure heart for his parents, he always respected Balrama and others, and had pure friendship with Karna. Just being bad to some don't make him non-kShatriya unless he quit his warrior life, he fought till end, this was his kShatriya lifestyle.


Karna was not accepted as a kshatriya because he was raised by non-kshatriya parents - Arjuna's protesting of his presence in the arena due to a non-kshatriya lineage led to a decades-long grudge between the two.
It was Bheem who protested Karna, and that too because Karna was challenging his brother Arjuna, this was Pandav's anger against a challenger. Itihasa show many such claims, even Shakuntala described Dushyanta as Shudra for not remembering her.


4) Mucukunda was a king who had the direct vision of Sri Krishna - he was granted a chance to become a brahmin in his next birth but was not immediately transformed into a brahmin despite his piety and devotion. Bhagwad Gita itself talk about duty seriously, there are countless examples of sacrificing desires to perform duty. Remaining a King instead of becoming a Sage is bad?


5) Drona and Ashvatthaama were brahmins by birth and were known as such despite their predisposition to the fighting arts.
This misses serious facts that Drona and Ashvatthaama were born in the clan of Bhardwaja, who himself was from the same clan that of Valmiki and also a disciple of Valmiki. Both Drona and Ashvatthaama were jobless and they were employed by Duryodhana as his lieutenants.


6) Ashvatthaama was known as a brahmin despite his murdering of the sons of the Paandavas - his life was specifically spared on this account. How can anyone say his life was "specifically" spared on this account? Ashvatthaama was disqualified and banished. If his life was "specifically spared" then what was the reason to fake his death during the war and Kill Dronacharya after disarming him instead of sparing his life too when he was much better and noble?


Satyakaama was asked his gotra by Gautama prior to initiation. Since gotra is a hereditary designation, this indicates that the hereditary lineage was a prerequisite for study of the Veda. Note that, Sri Shankara, Sri Ramanuja, and Sri Madhva each quote this story to illustrate the point that a shuudra is not entitled to study of the Veda. They do NOT interpret it as meaning that the lineage does not matter, only that Gautama had ascertained that the lineage was brahminical.
For this people have to learn what the meaning of Shudra is. Can they tell us Krishna was a kShatriya, so why he supported Brahmins, and so now Yadavs and Jats are kShatriyas or Shudra for being birth based SC/ST/OBC?


Shvetaketu is told by his father to accept a guru and study the Veda because they are brahmins and this is their duty; he is specifically told that he should not neglect this and be a brahmin in name only.
If birth is the answer then Shvetaketu was a born Brahmin without any teachings, yet this was not accepted. Don’t miss Shvetaketu's nephew Ashtavakra, he described all Brahmins in the court of Janak as cobbler for judging by skin, this happened in the front of everyone, and all accepted that only their action can make them Brahmin.


There are so many other examples to illustrate the point that birth generally lead to one's varNa classification, and very few examples suggesting otherwise.
Seriously the opponent to this claim is truth. During the British era when caste system was blooming, most of the reformers used manusamriti to prove that original Varna system was based on deeds and a Brahmin's son is a Brahmin only because he follows the same deeds (and this was constitution). This was rejected by caste supporters who got reservations under British rule and they burned Manusamriti just to stop others understanding the truth of Varna.



We need to get out of this politically-correct idea that birth-based class system is inherently evil. No doubt, it has been corrupted, but such is the case with class systems everywhere - there is no classless system anywhere, nor will there ever be. If divinely ordained classes and the duties assigned to them are not accepted, then people will accept implicit class designations based on materialistic traits instead of true virtues. Thus, we have the crazy system we have today where Hindus earn advanced professional degrees, make money in big companies, and think themselves better than the sincere sages whose only wealth is their austerity. This is also a corruption of the true system.
regards,
We are doing this but it is those so called lower castes that are enjoying birth based reservations and it is they themselves who are promoting birth based system only for their reservation.

[philosoraptor]

Bingo!

Even ONE example of a person changing varna within one lifetime is enough to disprove a supposed theorem that varna is determined by lineage/birth.

It is fine to propose a general theorem and then make exceptions but then the causal factors leading to such exceptions need to be explained. Unless such details are provided, we can safely disregard the comments of the proponents of the general theorem.


Pranams,

Well, OK then. I guess we could similarly argue that there is no need to be honest, or there is no need to be vegetarian, in Hinduism. There is no point in talking about such rules, given the few exceptions that exist - they aren't rules.

And we could similarly argue that one does not have to do one's prescribed duty (gItA 18.47) even though Sri Krishna said it, because there are exceptions to that, too.

[philosoraptor]

Where it is mentioned that "Vishvaamitra was not accepted as Brahmin by Vasishtha"?

Please refer to vAlmIki-rAmAyaNa,bAla-kANDa, 59th sarga:



ukta vaakyam tu raajaanam kR^ipayaa kushika aatmajaH |
abraviit madhuram vaakyam saakSaat caNDaalataam gatam || 1-59-1

"Vishvamitra, the son of Kushi, piteously spoke this mellowly sentence to king Trishanku who spoke thus, and who in reality attained a state of profaner." Thus Sage Shataananda continued his narration. [1-59-1]

ikSvaako svaagatam vatsa jaanaami tvaam sudhaarmikam |
sharaNam te bhaviSyaami maa bhaiSiiH nR^ipa pu.ngava || 1-59-2

" 'Oh, Trishanku, the legatee of Ikshvaku-s, you are welcome. I am aware that you are a highly righteous king. Oh, the best king, you need not be dismayed, for I accord you haven. [1-59-2]

aham aama.ntraye sarvaan mahar.hSiin puNya karmaNaH |
yaj~na saahya karaan raajan tato yakSyasi nirvR^itaH || 1-59-3

" 'I will invite all the sages with pious activities who will render assistance in the ritual, oh, king, then you can perform the ritual self-composedly. [1-59-3]

guru shaapa kR^itam ruupam yat idam tvayi var.htate |
anena saha ruupeNa sa shariiro gamiSyasi || 1-59-4

" 'You can go to heaven with this body of yours, as well as with the form which is deformed by the curse of mentor Vashishta through his sons. [1-59-4]

hasta praaptam aham manye svargam tava nareshvara |
yaH tvam kaushikam aagamya sharaNyam sharaNaagataH || 1-59-5

" 'I deem that heaven is handy to you, oh, king of subjects, as you have approached the all-sheltering Vishvamitra and sought shelter.' Thus Vishvamitra solaced Trishanku. [1-59-5]

evam uktvaa mahaatejaaH putraan parama dhaarmikaan |
vyaadidesha mahaapraaj~naan yaj~na sa.mbhaara kaaraNaat || 1-59-6

"On saying thus to Trishanku that great-resplendent Vishvamitra ordered his highly righteous and astutely brilliant sons to organise the arrangements for the ritual. [1-59-6]

sarvaan shiSyaan samaahuuya vaakyam etat uvaaca ha |
sarvaan R^iSi varaan vashiSThaan aanayadhvam mama aaj~nayaa || 1-59-7

"Vishvamitra calling forth all of his disciples said this sentence, 'invite all the eminent sages who are well-read in many Veda-s, along with their disciples and friends, and their ritwiks, the conductors of rituals, and even the sons of Vashishta, at my order. [1-59-7, 8a]

yat anyo vacanam bruuyaat mat vaakya bala coditaH || 1-59-8
tat sarvam akhilena uktam mama aakhyeyam anaadR^itam |

" 'If someone speaks inconsiderately incited by the forcefulness of my word, whoever speaks it, whichever word it may be, all that is to be reported to me, whatever it is.' Thus Vishvamitra ordered his disciples. [1-59-8]

tasya tat vacanam shrutvaa disho jagmuH tat aaj~nayaa || 1-59-9
aajagmuH atha deshebhyaH sarvebhyo brahma vaadinaH |

"On listening that word of Vishvamitra his disciples went to all directions inviting all by his order, and then the Vedic scholars started to arrive from all provinces. [1-59-9 b, 10a]

te ca shiSyaaH samaagamya munim jvalita tejasam || 1-59-10
uucuH ca vacanam sarve sarveSaam brahma vaadinaam |

"All of the disciples have returned to the fulgently resplendent sage Vishvamitra, and reported the words spoken by all the Vedic scholars. [1-59-10b, 11a]

shrutvaa te vacanam sarve samaayaanti dvijaatayaH || 1-59-11
sarva desheSu ca agacChan varjayitvaa mahaaudayam |

" 'On listening your word all the Brahmans from all provinces have started to come and some have already come, leaving alone Mahodaya, the son of Vashishta.' Thus, the disciples have started to inform Vishvamitra. [1-59-11b, 12a]

vaasiSTham tat shatam sarvam krodha paryaakula akSaram || 1-59-12
yathaa aaha vacanam sarvam shR^iNu tvam muni pu.ngava |

" 'What all said by those hundred sons of Vashishta is explosively worded in their fury, oh, eminent sage, and what all they have said that you may please listen. [1-59-12b, 13a]

kSatriyo yaajako yasya caNDaalasya visheSataH || 1-59-13
katham sadasi bhoktaaro haviH tasya sura R^iSayaH |

" 'A Kshatriya is the officiator, and a profaner is the performer. How then the gods or sages can partake of the remnants of oblations in that ritual-assembly, especially that of a profaner?' Thus, the sons of Vashishta exclaimed. [1-59-13b, 14a]

braahmaNaa vaa mahaatmaano bhuktvaa caNDaala bhojanam || 1-59-14
katham svargam gamiSyanti vishvaamitreNa paalitaaH |

14b, 15a. vishvaamitreNa paalitaaH= by Vishvamitra, [even though] ruled over [rather, embarrassed]; mahaatmaanaH braahmaNaa vaa= great-souled [sages,] Brahmans, either; caNDaala bhojanam bhuktvaa= profaner's, food, by partaking of; svargam katham gamiSyanti= to heavens, how, they go.

" 'Though the Brahmans or the high-souled sages are now embarrassed by Vishvamitra, how can they go to heaven even after their demise, partaking of the food of a profaner? [1-59-14b, 15a]

etat vacanam naiSThuryam uucuH sa.mrakta locanaaH || 1-59-15
vaasiSThaa muni shaarduula sarve saha mahodayaaH |

" 'Oh, tigerly sage Vishvamitra, all the sons of Vashishta including Mahodaya spoke these derisive sentences with their eyes reddening in anger.' Thus, the disciples reported to Vishvamitra. [1-59-15b, 16a]


So, in summary, Vishvaamitra who had not yet attained the rank of a brahmin, was rebuffed by Vaisishta's sons because it was inappropriate for him to perfrom the yagna due to his kshatriya status.


Wickedness is not a license of being anything. Duryodhana only wanted to be the king and targeted Pandavs for this.

So let me see if I'm understanding this correctly. According to you, one's varna is based on ones qualities and actions at any given time. Yet, if a person is wicked and engages in evil deeds like murder, this does not change his varna?



Just being bad to some don't make him non-kShatriya unless he quit his warrior life, he fought till end, this was his kShatriya lifestyle.



This misses serious facts that Drona and Ashvatthaama were born in the clan of Bhardwaja, who himself was from the same clan that of Valmiki and also a disciple of Valmiki. Both Drona and Ashvatthaama were jobless and they were employed by Duryodhana as his lieutenants.

Then by the logic above, why are Drona and Ashvatthama brahmins? They quit their brahmin life and took to the lives of kshatriyas. Do you realize that your position is inconsistent? Please review the above two quotes by you.



How can anyone say his life was "specifically" spared on this account? Ashvatthaama was disqualified and banished.


Please see bhAgavata purANa, 1st skandha, 7th adhyAya:



SB 1.7.34 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/34)— After binding Aśvatthāmā, Arjuna wanted to take him to the military camp. The Personality of Godhead Śrī Kṛṣṇa, looking on with His lotus eyes, spoke to Arjuna in an angry mood.
SB 1.7.35 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/35)— Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: O Arjuna, you should not show mercy by releasing this relative of a brāhmaṇa , for he has killed innocent boys in their sleep.
[B]SB 1.7.36 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/36)— A person who knows the principles of religion does not kill an enemy who is careless, intoxicated, insane, asleep, afraid or devoid of his chariot. Nor does he kill a boy, a woman, a foolish creature or a surrendered soul.
SB 1.7.37 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/37)— A cruel and wretched person who maintains his existence at the cost of others’ lives deserves to be killed for his own well-being, otherwise he will go down by his own actions.
SB 1.7.38 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/38)— Furthermore, I have personally heard you promise Draupadī that you would bring forth the head of the killer of her sons.
SB 1.7.39 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/39)— This man is an assassin and murderer of your own family members. Not only that, but he has also dissatisfied his master. He is but the burnt remnants of his family. Kill him immediately.
SB 1.7.40 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/40)— Sūta Gosvāmī said: Although Kṛṣṇa, who was examining Arjuna in religion, encouraged Arjuna to kill the son of Droṇācārya, Arjuna, a great soul, did not like the idea of killing him, although Aśvatthāmā was a heinous murderer of Arjuna’s family members.
SB 1.7.41 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/41)— After reaching his own camp, Arjuna, along with his dear friend and charioteer [Śrī Kṛṣṇa], entrusted the murderer unto his dear wife, who was lamenting for her murdered sons.
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.
SB 1.7.44 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/44)— It was by Droṇācārya’s mercy that you learned the military art of throwing arrows and the confidential art of controlling weapons.
SB 1.7.45 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/45)— He [Droṇācārya] is certainly still existing, being represented by his son. His wife Kṛpī did not undergo a satī with him because she had a son.
SB 1.7.46 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/46)— O most fortunate one who know the principles of religion, it is not good for you to cause grief to glorious family members who are always respectable and worshipful.
SB 1.7.47 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/47)— My lord, do not make the wife of Droṇācārya cry like me. I am aggrieved for the death of my sons. She need not cry constantly like me.
SB 1.7.48 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/48)— If the kingly administrative order, being unrestricted in sense control, offends the brāhmaṇa order and enrages them, then the fire of that rage burns up the whole body of the royal family and brings grief upon them all.
SB 1.7.49 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/49)— Sūta Gosvāmī said: O brāhmaṇas, King Yudhiṣṭhira fully supported the statements of the Queen, which were in accordance with the principles of religion and were justified, glorious, full of mercy and equity, and without duplicity.
SB 1.7.50 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/50)— Nakula and Sahadeva [the younger brothers of the King] and also Sātyaki, Arjuna, the Personality of Godhead Lord Sri Kṛṣṇa, son of Devakī, and the ladies and others all unanimously agreed with the King.
SB 1.7.51 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/51)— Bhīma, however, angrily disagreed with them and recommended killing this culprit, who had murdered sleeping children for no purpose and for neither his nor his master’s interest.
SB 1.7.52 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/52)— Caturbhuja [the four-armed one], or the Personality of Godhead, after hearing the words of Bhīma, Draupadī and others, saw the face of His dear friend Arjuna, and He began to speak as if smiling.
SB 1.7.53-54 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/53-54)— The Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: A friend of a brāhmaṇa is not to be killed, but if he is an aggressor he must be killed. All these rulings are in the scriptures, and you should act accordingly. You have to fulfill your promise to your wife, and you must also act to the satisfaction of Bhīmasena and Me.
SB 1.7.55 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/55)— Sūta Gosvāmī said: Just then Arjuna could understand the motive of the Lord by His equivocal orders, and thus with his sword he severed both hair and jewel from the head of Aśvatthāmā.
SB 1.7.56 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/56)— He [Aśvatthāmā] had already lost his bodily luster due to infanticide, and now, moreover, having lost the jewel from his head, he lost even more strength. Thus he was unbound and driven out of the camp.
SB 1.7.57 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/7/57)— Cutting the hair from his head, depriving him of his wealth and driving him from his residence are the prescribed punishments for the relative of a brāhmaṇa. There is no injunction for killing the body.


So, in summary, Ashvatthaama was spared the death sentence because he was a brahmin. This is in spite of the fact that he had committed murder.

regards,

[dhyandev]

_/\_
somegot got offended?The more u get offended the more u introspect & more good things come out from urself.
Please be offended:)

[PARAM]

Please refer to vAlmIki-rAmAyaNa,bAla-kANDa, 59th sarga:

So, in summary, Vishvaamitra who had not yet attained the rank of a brahmin, was rebuffed by Vaisishta's sons because it was inappropriate for him to perfrom the yagna due to his kshatriya status.

Big wrong and for a very sad thing is you completely missed conflict and friendship of Vashishtha and Vishwamitra. You read only cursory but not the inner thing. When Brahma himself accepted Vishvamitra as a Brahmin, there you have to understand this, do sons of Vashitha know more than Brahma himself?
There was enmity between Vishwamitra and sons of Vashishtha that was started when Vishwamitra wanted to took away Nandini. And secondly nobody can take mortal body to heaven because death is a must for everyone, King Trishanku wanted to make this possible and Vishwamitra agreed to help him, this was unreasonable. Even sons of Vashishta did not perform any such Yajna for themselves or any other Brahmin.


Referring to rAmAyaNa, what made anyone to claim that Vishwamitra's Yajna was not accepted to Vashishtha, isn't it was Vashishtha himself who supported Vishwamitra's Yajna and made reluctant Dhasaratha to accept Vishwamitra's demand of sending Ram to protect his Yajna?

Bhagwan Ram know laws of Dharma better or you, isn't Bhagwan Ram himself supported Vishwamitra's Yajna instead of questioning it?





So let me see if I'm understanding this correctly. According to you, one's varna is based on ones qualities and actions at any given time. Yet, if a person is wicked and engages in evil deeds like murder, this does not change his varna?

Ultimately it is guna-karma-swabhava that will detemine the varna and not paap or punya. A paap or puna is done and doer will be punished or rewarded for this.

Evil deeds like murder cannot abolish action titles, nobody is 100% good but this is not the end. Duryodhan was a warrior and not a coward, he was not anti Vedas, so he cannot be described as Asura, he was not an illiterate servant to be described as Shudra. His respect to his parents, his true friendship qualities, and his support to Vedas with his action of warrior all this makes him a pure kShatriya.




Then by the logic above, why are Drona and Ashvatthama brahmins? They quit their brahmin life and took to the lives of kshatriyas. Do you realize that your position is inconsistent? Please review the above two quotes by you.

Said already you did not have any question, Drona and Ashvatthama both were poor, but never worked as kShatriya so they were not kShatriyas. They participated in only Mahabharat war and that too they were employed by Duryodhana for being capable of warfare.
If we accept that birth is the Varna quality then they must be a race, and what condition made Bheesham to employ Kripacharya and Dronacharya for the education of Pandavs and Kauravas when he was himself capable in doing so? Read Vidur's great vaani, he was born ShUdra but he was a minister and worked as Brahmin, read the conversion of Sanjay (Karna's father and Dhritrashtra).



Please see bhAgavata purANa, 1st skandha, 7th adhyAya:

So, in summary, Ashvatthaama was spared the death sentence because he was a brahmin. This is in spite of the fact that he had committed murder. Why not Sauptika Parva of mahabharata itself? Where it is clearly mentioned Ashvatthaama was banished.


You missed why Dronacharya was not spared? bhAgavata purANa talks about various deeds of Krishna for life and many quotes are added in later parts. If Krishna spared him then what was the real accounts when Krishna was a kShatriya?

Also lookout what happened when Gandhari cursed Krishna, when Dhritrashtra tried to kill Bheema, what were the special accounts that made Pandavs and Krishna to spare them when they too were involved in the grief of Pandavas?

Ashvatthaama and Kritvarma were Brahmins but Kritvarma was a kShatriya, all of them spared in one account, so what was Kritvarma's account?



_/\_
somegot got offended?The more u get offended the more u introspect & more good things come out from urself.
Please be offended:)

Its Islamic+Christian+Communist claims over Dharma Grantham to offend Dharmiks.
Action of BraHmaN - Support DhaRMa, promote the truth and expose the untruth.
Action of kShaTriYa - Fight for DhaRMa and attack the aDhaRMa.
Action of VaiShYa - Help DhaRMa and make aDhaRMa helpless.
Action of ShUdRa - Serve DhaRMa and no service to aDhaRMa.
but
Action of ASURa - aDhaRMa

[philosoraptor]

Big wrong and for a very sad thing is you completely missed conflict and friendship of Vashishtha and Vishwamitra. You read only cursory but not the inner thing. When Brahma himself accepted Vishvamitra as a Brahmin, there you have to understand this, do sons of Vashitha know more than Brahma himself?

Pranams,

Obviously, you have never read the unabridged Ramayana, so let me fill you in on some historical details. Brahma's acceptance of Vishvamitra as a brahmin occurred *after* Trisanku-yagna. When the sons of Vishvamitra declined to attend Vishvamitra's yagna, it was prior to his brahmin status. Their comments were very clear in the text - they did not acknowledge Vishvamitra as a brahmin at that time despite his austerities and his willingness and ability to perform the yagna. Hence, your theory that one's quality and actions at any given time reflect his varna stands refuted.


Referring to rAmAyaNa, what made anyone to claim that Vishwamitra's Yajna was not accepted to Vashishtha, isn't it was Vashishtha himself who supported Vishwamitra's Yajna and made reluctant Dhasaratha to accept Vishwamitra's demand of sending Ram to protect his Yajna?

Again, you obviously do not know the text. This occurred chronologically *after* Brahma's pronouncement of Vishvamitra's brahminical status. Prior to that, while performing austerities, Vashishtha did not accept him as a brahmin despite his penance which was so austere that it threatened the devas.


Bhagwan Ram know laws of Dharma better or you, isn't Bhagwan Ram himself supported Vishwamitra's Yajna instead of questioning it?

Ram had nothing to do with the Trisanku-yagna. The yagna he protected occurred after Brahma's pronouncement that Vishvamitra was now a brahmin. Please consult the text and inform yourself of the facts.



Ultimately it is guna-karma-swabhava that will detemine the varna and not paap or punya. A paap or puna is done and doer will be punished or rewarded for this.

Evil deeds like murder cannot abolish action titles, nobody is 100% good but this is not the end. Duryodhan was a warrior and not a coward, he was not anti Vedas, so he cannot be described as Asura, he was not an illiterate servant to be described as Shudra. His respect to his parents, his true friendship qualities, and his support to Vedas with his action of warrior all this makes him a pure kShatriya.

Everyone should take note of the astonishingly inconsistent and highly backbending explanation being offered here. According to Param et. al., one's current qualities and actions determine one's varna. Yet, in spite of this theory, a person can commit evil acts like murder and still his varna does not change. How is this significantly different from the casteism you claim to criticize? Either varna is dynamic or it is not. Claiming that guna and karma can change it, and then claiming that murder or other criminal activity does not, is inconsistent.

Note also Param's view in which he equates "illiterate servant" with "shudra." There is no such description in the canonical texts, and as such, his view is both wrong and offensive.


Said already you did not have any question, Drona and Ashvatthama both were poor, but never worked as kShatriya so they were not kShatriyas. They participated in only Mahabharat war and that too they were employed by Duryodhana for being capable of warfare.

Your knowledge of Mahabharata appears to be based on what you watched on television serials and not on the original text, so let me fill you in on some details. First, Drona was engaged in warfare long before his employment by Duryodhana. He was first employed by Bhishma and the other Hastinapur elders to teach the fighting arts to the Pandavas and Kauravas when they were still young. Even at that time, Drona was already known as a master of arms. Later, as his guru-dakshina, he employed the Pandavas to fight with his friend Drupada over an insult and conquered the latter's kingdom, returning half of it later. This was all before the Mahabharata war. In fact, the Mahabharat does not document a history of Drona performing yagnas and other activities appropriate to a brahmin. Yet, he is always referred to as a brahmin despite his vengeful motivation and primarily military activities. So once again, this refutes your theory.



Read Vidur's great vaani, he was born ShUdra but he was a minister and worked as Brahmin, read the conversion of Sanjay (Karna's father and Dhritrashtra).

But neither Vidura nor Sanjaya were referred to as belonging to a varna other than that of their birth. What these examples show is that greatness is a function of one's good deeds and bhakti, and are often independent of one's birth. It does not follow however, that great deeds make you exempt from the varna of your birth.



Why not Sauptika Parva of mahabharata itself? Where it is clearly mentioned Ashvatthaama was banished.

... but not killed, despite committing murder which normally merits a death sentence. Why wasn't he executed? Answer: Because he was a brahmin as stated in the Bhagavata Purana.



You missed why Dronacharya was not spared? bhAgavata purANa talks about various deeds of Krishna for life and many quotes are added in later parts.

You are quite mistaken, and you are simply repeating a secular academic view with no understanding of the facts. The reality is that the Bhagavatam enjoys greater acceptance as pramana than the Mahabharata. In regards to the latter, Madhvacharya noted that it contained numerous interpolations. The Bhagavatam has far fewer changes.


If Krishna spared him then what was the real accounts when Krishna was a kShatriya?

Krishna did not spare or kill Drona. Drona was killed by Drishtadyumna, the son of Drupada, as an act of revenge for Drona's conquering Drupada's kingdom.



Also lookout what happened when Gandhari cursed Krishna, when Dhritrashtra tried to kill Bheema, what were the special accounts that made Pandavs and Krishna to spare them when they too were involved in the grief of Pandavas?

None of it is relevant to the fact that Ashvatthama was specifically spared on account of his being a brahmin.


Ashvatthaama and Kritvarma were Brahmins but Kritvarma was a kShatriya, all of them spared in one account, so what was Kritvarma's account?

Kritavarma was a kshatriya and he was killed later in Dwaraka. He also was not the one caught by Arjuna after the murder.



Its Islamic+Christian+Communist claims over Dharma Grantham to offend Dharmiks.
Action of BraHmaN - Support DhaRMa, promote the truth and expose the untruth.
Action of kShaTriYa - Fight for DhaRMa and attack the aDhaRMa.
Action of VaiShYa - Help DhaRMa and make aDhaRMa helpless.
Action of ShUdRa - Serve DhaRMa and no service to aDhaRMa.
but
Action of ASURa - aDhaRMa

Did Duryodhana fight for dharma? Was he ever regarded as anything other than kshatriya? I rest my case.

[PARAM]

Obviously, you have never read the unabridged Ramayana, so let me fill you in on some historical details. Brahma's acceptance of Vishvamitra as a brahmin occurred *after* Trisanku-yagna. When the sons of Vishvamitra declined to attend Vishvamitra's yagna, it was prior to his brahmin status. Their comments were very clear in the text - they did not acknowledge Vishvamitra as a brahmin at that time despite his austerities and his willingness and ability to perform the yagna. Hence, your theory that one's quality and actions at any given time reflect his varna stands refuted.

This is not the answer of my question

Nothing happened like *after* Trisanku-yagna, this Yajna was failed, can a failed yagna makes some result?

There is difference between Brahmin and Brahamrishi, and even if we accept, Vishvamitra become brahmin only *after* Trisanku-yagna then when Vashishtha himself




Again, you obviously do not know the text. This occurred chronologically *after* Brahma's pronouncement of Vishvamitra's brahminical status. Prior to that, while performing austerities, Vashishtha did not accept him as a brahmin despite his penance which was so austere that it threatened the devas.
Bhardwaja never did Trisanku-yagna, but he was accepted as a Brahmin even when he was a disciple of Valmiki, and even Valmiki never performed Trisanku-yagna like Vishvamitra still he enjoyed full respect from Vashishtha.



Ram had nothing to do with the Trisanku-yagna. The yagna he protected occurred after Brahma's pronouncement that Vishvamitra was now a brahmin. Please consult the text and inform yourself of the facts.

Ram's Birth was pre planned just as KaLkI is for future. Author of Ramayna, Maharshi Valmiki himself become a sage by just chanting mRa mRa (pronounce of rAm), so sorry he never did Trisanku-yagna.



Everyone should take note of the astonishingly inconsistent and highly backbending explanation being offered here. According to Param et. al., one's current qualities and actions determine one's varna. Yet, in spite of this theory, a person can commit evil acts like murder and still his varna does not change. How is this significantly different from the casteism you claim to criticize? Either varna is dynamic or it is not. Claiming that guna and karma can change it, and then claiming that murder or other criminal activity does not, is inconsistent.
Make more clearly, Hiranykshipu born in Kashyap linage but he is mentioned as Asura. His fault was he forced others to pray him and not to pray others, not even Brahma who was the source of his pawer by giving him the boon, still we find his Vishnu devotee clan was described as Brahmin, brahmin children of Asura. Even Matang rishi is mentioned in Ramayana who was born as Chandal but he is described as a Brahmin.


Note also Param's view in which he equates "illiterate servant" with "shudra." There is no such description in the canonical texts, and as such, his view is both wrong and offensive.
You think I will get ashamed by this allegation of yours?
What wrong and what offensive? You believe in birth based system so this is offensive to you because this is birth based right of having reservation. Only an "illiterate servant" is Shudra, an educated and learned is not a Shudra. First you want us to make believe that Varna is birth based, and then there you will go by giving evidence in Dharma Grantham where Shudras are described for service only. Best would be if you read Manu Samriti. Manu is clear that all Varnas are guna-karma-svabhava, and even a Brahmin born is not a Brahmin without similar guna-karma-svabhava. Manu was born as kShatriya, Vishvakarma was his maternal grandfather, but he become a Brahmin. (Read Manu Samriti, don’t burn it)


Your knowledge of Mahabharata appears to be based on what you watched on television serials and not on the original text, so let me fill you in on some details. First, Drona was engaged in warfare long before his employment by Duryodhana. He was first employed by Bhishma and the other Hastinapur elders to teach the fighting arts to the Pandavas and Kauravas when they were still young. Even at that time, Drona was already known as a master of arms. Later, as his guru-dakshina, he employed the Pandavas to fight with his friend Drupada over an insult and conquered the latter's kingdom, returning half of it later. This was all before the Mahabharata war. In fact, the Mahabharat does not document a history of Drona performing yagnas and other activities appropriate to a brahmin. Yet, he is always referred to as a brahmin despite his vengeful motivation and primarily military activities. So once again, this refutes your theory.

Or your knowledge? Was there any other war in which Drona participated before he was employed by Duryodhana?
Drona was employed by Bheeshama for teaching the princes, teaching is a Brahmin’s job, or do you have any proof when Bheesham taught Pandavs and Kauravs all this?
Performing Yagna is duty of everyone and not just for Brahmins. Dronacharya performed yajna with many other brahmins of Bhardawaja clan before accepting job of a teacher by Bheeshama, he performed Yagna even during the education of the Princes. You are missing Drona's life as a teacher and a person.
You forget Drona’s friend Drupada? In warfare Drupada was nothing for Drona, but did dronacharya fought him when he was already known as a master of arms? Or this is just story of serials and not on the original text?





But neither Vidura nor Sanjaya were referred to as belonging to a varna other than that of their birth. What these examples show is that greatness is a function of one's good deeds and bhakti, and are often independent of one's birth. It does not follow however, that great deeds make you exempt from the varna of your birth.
It shows when supporters of birth based system claim that Shudras were servent without right in ancient times by birth, can you claim all those Shudras in ancient times were without good deeds and bhakti?




... but not killed, despite committing murder which normally merits a death sentence. Why wasn't he executed? Answer: Because he was a brahmin as stated in the Bhagavata Purana.
Why Drona was not spared, what is the answer in the Bhagavata Purana?




You are quite mistaken, and you are simply repeating a secular academic view with no understanding of the facts. The reality is that the Bhagavatam enjoys greater acceptance as pramana than the Mahabharata. In regards to the latter, Madhvacharya noted that it contained numerous interpolations. The Bhagavatam has far fewer changes.
It was not Madhvacharya, his disciples claimed this after his death, I can mention better names who will not accept Bhagavatam over Mahabharata.



Krishna did not spare or kill Drona. Drona was killed by Drishtadyumna, the son of Drupada, as an act of revenge for Drona's conquering Drupada's kingdom.
Who advised Pandavs to kill Ashvatthama elephant and shout Ashvatthama is killed? Drona was suspicious and he asked only Yudhishtira, but who did the ShanKhNaD just when Yudhishthira was going to mention it was elephant and not Drona’s son?



None of it is relevant to the fact that Ashvatthama was specifically spared on account of his being a brahmin.
Krishna made Prikshit alive again, he was able to alive anyone who was dead, even Ashvatthama or even Dronacharya, but he did not made anyone alive and not allowed anyone to kill Ashvatthama, this is much important and wide known fact.




Kritavarma was a kshatriya and he was killed later in Dwaraka. He also was not the one caught by Arjuna after the murder. He was caught by Krishna, you are claiming Ashvatthama was specifically spared on account of his being a brahmin but this too by Krishna himself, so what was the specific reason to spare Kritavarma when no Pandav killed him?




Did Duryodhana fight for dharma? Was he ever regarded as anything other than kshatriya? I rest my case.

Duryodhana fought for selfish goal and not to abolish DhaRMa, while Krishna was with DhaRMa only and he supported Pandavs because they were selfless and always pro DhaRMa. Respect parents, unconditional support to whoever is faithful to him, respect true friendship etc his qualities brought him Narayani Sena from Krishna. Or make a claim like you are doing -A person can commit evil acts like murder and still get military support from Krishna?

[philosoraptor]

Param, I'm sure it's probably your dizzying intellect, but I can't seem to read your replies without getting an Excedrin-sized headache. If anyone else can distill what he wrote and explain how it actually is a response to anything I wrote, I would be very happy to see the commentary.

thanks,

PR

[PARAM]

Param, I'm sure it's probably your dizzying intellect, but I can't seem to read your replies without getting an Excedrin-sized headache.
If anyone else can distill what he wrote and explain how it actually is a response to anything I wrote, I would be very happy to see the commentary.

thanks,

You make big claims first, and when you don't have answer then this is how you want to run away.


You forget this thread is made for Manu's Law on caste? How can you know without understanding Manusamriti? You don't have a single example from Law of Manu and all your examples are already answered.

[Vasa]

Namaste.

Both sides bring up good points. My humble question is, is this arguing beneficial to one's sadhana?

[Seeker]

Namaste.

Both sides bring up good points. My humble question is, is this arguing beneficial to one's sadhana?

It is not - any deeply involved debate interferes with meditation and arouses unnecessary passion.

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

Rest assured, I have no passions aroused as a result of this discussion. It's a good point though that I haven't brought up Manu. I could certainly do this if I thought it mattered, that is to say, if I felt I was dealing with someone who was prepared to adjust his conclusions based on evidence. Unfortunately, I brought up numerous other examples from mainstream scriptures for which I have received tangential explanations at best. Now it seems that because I don't want to waste time responding to these sorts of oblique replies, I am "running away" from the discussion. So be it. Let those who want to claim "victory" do so.

regards,

[ShivaFan]

Namaste IcySFX,

Let me ask you an honest question.

Long, long ago Lord Krishna spoke on a great battlefield, and yes He stated a reference to varna in two verses, at which time He stated clearly In the word Chatur(varNyam) FOUR Orders and the word BIRTH was not use, but that the orders are differentiated accordance with the qualities arising from their nature.

But by the time of Manu, not only is there now a FIFTH "caste", caste which is a stupid translation rendered into English by stupid people who also borrowed from just as stupid renderings from the Portuguese, we find not only "untouchables" but the original FOUR are now FIFTY-FOUR! Suddenly Krishna forgot to say it is actually 54, and no longer is it an order defining the nature of work but a category of a birth, and that scripture which teaches you are not this body now takes back-stage to your body now defines you because of birth, your birth is a jail cell that will define what you are no matter what your soul comes to realize within this life and time is now a slave that has to wait until this thing called the body is dead.

By the time of the Kaka Kalalkar the number of castes goes from Krishna's FOUR orders based on Gunas and ones qualities of nature to 54 to over THREE-THOUSAND birth based castes.

Next thing we know, it goes from over 3,000 castes to the modern 6,000 not including various obscure subcastes fussing and feuding about who is better by birth than the next, despicable disgrace against the very human soul and even crimes against humanity, and that karma itself is a slave to your body, to flesh of birth, that it is not possible for a soul to have true realization to take your quality of nature from one artificial designation to the next higher nature within one single hour within the same life you have become realized, but that even that realization is a slave to your body and now must wait until your next lump of flesh which is one of the over 6,000 birth-castes?

So actually you are your body according to such no matter how they coddle it with aspirations of selective Sanskrit and plethora of cut and paste later works or even Veda itself.

For you, there is no longer instant karma, whether you should become accountable for your evil and ignorant deeds and mind, nor even any grace or blessing which all must wait and be subservient to the body and your birth.

But for some other, because they are deemed some higher caste, of which who can even prove what caste is another if it is based on birth and not character or nature simply because of the overwhelming chattel of fakery or bribes of someone's past relative to buy a caste status, to murder as a means of caste promotion, to kill as many of the others they can one caste notch above them among the 6000 castes so that now their birth caste is one notch higher thanks to the demise of another people, for now some of the other higher caste can do anything, rape the female child of the Shudra and for this there is no change in their caste for they are still great in this life and their caste because it is birth that is final, and not how bright is the light of that persons soul.

Everything that comes to you, before you, when it is wronged against you, when evil hurts you or your family or your children, or your love, and so you suffer, is it all due to your own karma? That God, or self-realization does not have a 1000 quivers and a thousand arrows ready by Ram, but only one arrow called karma?

That it cannot be that pure evil alone comes knocking because other fools attached to the body have empowered such evil, and you still stand innocent from its lies, innocent of karma because it is no fault of your own?

Today we find that in the United States of America, a man, with a mind of a monster and sick in the soul, evil walking, went into a movie theatre with his hair dyed red and calling himself the Joker, and starts randomly shooting and murdering everyone in the cinema, more than a dozen killed, more that sixty injured, a six year old girl shot dead in the face right in front of her mother...

Do you believe that for all those killed, that it was their own reward, their own karma?
The six year old, she "had it coming"? It's her karma, right?

There are many arrows, not only one called karma.

Do not let your love, your next child, your life become a jail cell of entrapment to the caste-by-birth extremists. And certainly not your path to God, to Shiva, to your path you are taking, a path larger than your body, and which can be much faster than a single life. A body does not dictate what you are, or can be, which can be 1 million years from now or the very next second of your life.

Do not let four become six-thousand.

And to the "Birthers" wing of the caste-centric extremists attached to the body who want someone else stand off by the side of the road while they pass by, around you are many souls. This soul lives in the United States of America. Yes, and tomorrow another place? But for now, in this place and it may surprise them, but there are more Hindus living here than they may imagine. But whether it be right or wrong, in the United States if you actually tried to enforce such birth based discrimination by whatever means you would try, such crime against humanity would in fact be considered a crime against the law. You can live in your mind the law of Manu all you want, but if YOUR INTERPRETATION of caste were to even be attempted you will find that actually your discrimination is illegal, against the law, and attempting to enforce any such thing by force of hand or any other cudgel on their children will put you in a prison cell and then you can say that is your karma. Not that I would wish so. I am just telling you the truth. And there would still be temples of Lord Shiva and Lord Ram, and Lord Krishna, and Devi, and many Authorized Gurus still standing in the US the very next day.

It's just that ...
There won't be 6000 of whatever those designations are.

Om Namah Sivaya
:)

[IcyCosmic]

Dear ShivaFan, I've been reading all through this thread and your reply (thanks) and I'm going to be completely honest. I have no idea whats going on. I still do not understand whether the caste system was meant to be implemented and if it necessary at all. (In Kal Yuga)
I mean I pay no mind to it. If someone sees, caste, race, religion, creed, origin, ethnicity, whatever. I just see human. I just see children of god. Thats about it. Obviously [respectively] philo. and Param have extensive knowledge on the matter but I can't really break down much of the information because the only scripture I've read is the Gita and I'm reading (rigveda) currently.
I think I should also start reading the Law of Manu and other such related texts both parties have mentioned.

[philosoraptor]

Pranams Icy,

I have yet to read anything, anywhere, that suggests that varNAshrama was not meant to be followed in Kali-Yuga. I have, on the other hand, read many references to the degradation of varNAshrama in Kali-Yuga. Obviously, if degradation of varNAshrama is seen as a bad thing, then its preservation is a good thing.

Seeing all as children of God is a good, and very correct, vision. But one should also include in that category all animals, plants, microorganisms, and in short, any living entity regardless of the body in which it is found. The different bodies in which the jIvas are found are not equal, and their differences are the result of different guNas and karmas from previous lives. Similarly, we can see it as obvious that the bodies of different human beings are not all equal. Some have more intelligence, others have more beauty, others have more strength, etc. Some are born into wealthy families and others are born into poverty. How to account for these differences? Quite simply, they are due to different guNa and karma from previous lives. If we can accept this, then we're already at the point of accepting birth-based varNAshrama. If we accept that guNa and karma from previous lives determines one's present birth, then the only argument left is whether one is considered to belong to the varNa of his birth (i.e. the varNa of his/her parents) by convention, or if birth-varNa has nothing to do with one's ultimate varNa in that very lifetime.

My advice to you at this time is, don't get caught up so much in this technical discussion. First thing is, get familiar with the general principles. I recommend reading Bhagavad-giitaa first, then Bhaagavata Puraana, then Vishnu Puraana, then go back to Bhagavad-giitaa, then Raamaayanam, and then perhaps Mahaabhaarata in its entirety. Right now at this stage in your spiritual life, it's important to understand and follow basic principles (i.e. no meat-eating, no intoxication, no illicit sex, obey/respect elders, maintain basic cleanliness). As you get more understand of why we do these things, you can slowly incorporate other regulations as you become aware of them (and there are many).

If you know for a fact that you are born into a specific varNa, then it's a good idea to try to start doing the duties that are yours by birthright. Failing to perform one's varNAshrama-duties brings sinful reactions. Consider the following examples:

1) A man, born brahmin, has a modern, Western education. He parties in college, drinks beer, has various girlfriends, eats meat, etc all to assimilate with his friends. He has some basic knowledge of Hinduism and knows he is a brahmin by birth. But, he argues, "Being a brahmin is a very great position. It's not determined by birth. Therefore, don't tell me I have to follow all those duties. Because I'm clearly not a brahmin in my conduct. Therefore, I'll go on with my lifestyle and there is no need for me to change it."

2) A second man, also born a brahmin, learns about Hinduism primarily from books. His parents have some knowledge but they emigrated to the West to escape poverty in India. Their son has now grown to a point where he wants to learn his heritage, and in so doing, he realizes that there are fundamental incompatibilities between his brahmin duties and his lifestyle as an IT consultant. He can declare himself unfit to be a brahmin because brahminism is based on conduct, and thus have no motivation to carry out his brahminical duties. Or, he can continue his profession and at the same time take up his brahmin duties like sandhya-vandanam, deity-worship, etc, recognizing that these are means to purification, are his duty based on birth, and will only help him if he does them. More to the point, as he spends more time reading scripture, doing puja, etc, he finds he has less time to watch TV and engage in other materialistic activities.

Which do you think is more conducive to one's spiritual growth? Which person do you think will be a better ambassador of Hinduism to the Western world?

[IcyCosmic]

it's important to understand and follow basic principles (i.e. no meat-eating, no intoxication, no illicit sex, obey/respect elders, maintain basic cleanliness).

I do this all already. Hmm, I will check out the things you have recommended. I find it irritating how no one has a definitive answer regarding this.

[MahaHrada]

If you know for a fact that you are born into a specific varNa, then it's a good idea to try to start doing the duties that are yours by birthright. Failing to perform one's varNAshrama-duties brings sinful reactions.


Why don´t you follow you own advice ? Since you are a white urban convert and therefore avarna or a Mleccha you have absolutely no qualification to read comment or explain shruti or smriti.

Also why do you think you can explain shruti/smriti to people born Indian who according to your own logic have a much higher qualification by reason of birth in a varna, then you will ever have, to understand and explain shastra?

Following your own logic all you can do is shut your mouth and listen and belive if an Indian born person comments on your postings. Instead you give all kind of spiritual advice.

Even if you would have been born a dvija explaining or teaching smriti or shruti to an audience of Mlecchas would also be a grave offence. So according to your own norms based on smriti , however you try to bend reality, you are vilest among sinners.

A self taught w.u.c. trying to follow his self created kind of virtual reality idealized smrtism, divorced from reality of caste based politics, vote banks, reservations, corruption, discrimination and violence as it happens on the street in India, tucked in his closet in america, an armchair virtual future brahmin, (in my next/former life i´ll be /i was, a brahmin), giving advice to Indians, is that already dangerous or only absurd?

[ShivaFan]

Namaste IcySFX

I hear you Icy.

And I really like your reply, thanks – I wish I will actually always see the soul (instead of the body) as clear as you are seeing and I admire you a lot for that.

You are not this body, that is what the true Gurus always say.

And yes, of course you should reach out to all the scriptures and what wonders you will find, it is the path and where you find your soul that is the means and not just the text … Guidance is a sure way to find the key to finding the nature of your soul, and can be the fastest and most direct way by means of Guru which is something you may already be considering or have found already.

Guru is a very important aspect, you already know that. Be careful about disappointments that will surely come at times, frankly it sounds to me you may encounter less of this but for me who has no caste I sometimes (though very, very rarely) encounter such discrimination no matter what I would be or become, it always will come from the caste-by-birth extremists who will even claim that the very scriptures you now explore must be closed to the eyes and ears of someone such as myself. I hope you do not find this the case for yourself. These same extremists not only hide the Lord and the Way from countless other souls, they attack the holy Gurus who bring those such as myself so much change, happiness, and enlightenment. They shun others while only seeing the body of others. They live their sentiment so fixated and so distracted by a constant “patrol of shunning” and trying to police so many, they never have time to even escape from their body.

And also sadly, while this Dharma and what is sometimes called Hinduism by its very spirit and inspiration will always grow across this physical world and all countries of what we now imagine as nations, sometimes these extremists actually accomplish their belief and drive others away in despair, and even fear, to even try to go to God.

But you know what? Even those who I have known that were shunned, and driven into such a state by such extremists, they seem to always come back eventually. It may be many, many years later. But then they read something from Ramakrishna, or other great saints, and again the journey begins.

In the West, a great journey has begun. Thanks in particular to some very special Gurus who brought a means to start this journey, who did not hide anything, did not shun any soul. All these problems and all this irritation will be resolved, and it will be thanks to these Gurus and not fixations on the body and birth.

Om Namah Sivaya

[PARAM]

Pranams,

Rest assured, I have no passions aroused as a result of this discussion. It's a good point though that I haven't brought up Manu. I could certainly do this if I thought it mattered, that is to say, if I felt I was dealing with someone who was prepared to adjust his conclusions based on evidence. Unfortunately, I brought up numerous other examples from mainstream scriptures for which I have received tangential explanations at best. Now it seems that because I don't want to waste time responding to these sorts of oblique replies, I am "running away" from the discussion. So be it. Let those who want to claim "victory" do so.

regards,


You brought only Trishanku and Vishwamitra examples, you were trying to give details of non-evidence on Mahabharata and Ramayana. Trishanku is described as cHanDaL and sons of Vishwamitra were mentioned as sHuDra despite born as kShaTriYa.

There is no reason for a "valueless" victory on someone who is "running away" instead of understand a simple thing and/or giving proper reply and focus on the topic.

[philosoraptor]

Why don´t you follow you own advice ?

Pranams. I do follow my own advice.



Since you are a white urban convert and therefore avarna or a Mleccha you have absolutely no qualification to read comment or explain shruti or smriti.

You've made at least three assumptions there for which you have no basis in fact.



Also why do you think you can explain shruti/smriti to people born Indian who according to your own logic have a much higher qualification by reason of birth in a varna, then you will ever have, to understand and explain shastra?

Following your own logic all you can do is shut your mouth and listen and belive if an Indian born person comments on your postings. Instead you give all kind of spiritual advice.

Even if you would have been born a dvija explaining or teaching smriti or shruti to an audience of Mlecchas would also be a grave offence. So according to your own norms based on smriti , however you try to bend reality, you are vilest among sinners.

A self taught w.u.c. trying to follow his self created kind of virtual reality idealized smrtism, divorced from reality of caste based politics, vote banks, reservations, corruption, discrimination and violence as it happens on the street in India, tucked in his closet in america, an armchair virtual future brahmin, (in my next/former life i´ll be /i was, a brahmin), giving advice to Indians, is that already dangerous or only absurd?

[philosoraptor]

I do this all already. Hmm, I will check out the things you have recommended. I find it irritating how no one has a definitive answer regarding this.

Pranams,

The definitive answer was given, but many don't agree with it. What is true isn't always popular. While many people give opinions, few people are interested in defending opinions based on comprehensive (as opposed to selective) quoting of shAstra. Arjuna was told to fight the war. It was his duty. Why was it his duty? Because he was a kshatriya. Why was he a kshatriya? Because he was steeped in rAjo-guNa? But the characteristics of rAjo-guNa involve action, heroism, fighting to do what is right whereas Arjuna wanted to do none of those things. But in the end, he was still a kshatriya despite his non-violent, sadhu-like solution to the dilemma. Why?

regards,

[MahaHrada]

Pranams. I do follow my own advice.

Since accordding to you all qualification is birth based, then birth in what Varna exactly gives you the adhikara to explain shruti/smriti to a public audience and give advice about proper svabhava dharma to a fellow hindu?




You've made at least three assumptions there for which you have no basis in fact.

You have said about yourself in your introductory posting: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=84485&postcount=1

"I am delighted to say that my search has finally led me to the scriptures of Hinduism. "

Finally means that before you have been a Hindu you must have been following some other philosophy.

A born Hindu and a Brahmin is already a Hindu, even before he is born due to the samskaras performend before his birth.

So there is no way a born Hindu searches and is finally led to the scriptures of Hinduism, this can only happen to a convert.

Accordingly you are either a convert or you are a born Hindu impersonating a convert.

Which means you are either not a born Hindu or you are lying to this audience. Since the episode of Satyakama shows us that a brahmin is truthful, it is only rational to assume that someone impersonating someone else, no matter in which varna he is born, cannot be a true brahmin, and cannot accuse others of being probably sinful. (like you did to icy) or explain shruti/smriti.

So you are either a bhrastha brahmin or a convert, according to the values you pretend to follow it is therefore impossible that you have the qualification to explain shruti to a public audience, if this is even proper at all according to smriti is doubtful anyway. To tell others that their behaviour is probably sinful is outrageous no matter who you are or pretend to be. Definetly you are in need of a sip of your own medicine.

[philosoraptor]

Since accordding to you all qualification is birth based,

Pranams. Let's not misrepresent me on this subject, ok?

According to shAstra, guna and karma lead to the birth - this was already demonstrated by quoting 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.

So the correct understanding is that guna and karma lead to the birth in the appropriate varna. Then, based on said birth, one is enjoined to follow the duties for that varna. This is demonstrated in chAndoga upaniShad 6.1.1 when Shvetaketu is instructed to study the Vedas under a guru because of his brahmin birth:



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.'

I did not make up these statements. They are there in the same shrutis which all traditional schools of Vedaantic Hinduism accept. There is no point in attacking me because you don't like what is in shAstra.


then birth in what Varna exactly gives you the adhikara to explain shruti/smriti to a public audience and give advice about proper svabhava dharma to a fellow hindu?

First, you have your signals crossed. The prime qualification to speak isn't one's varna. Varna merely determines who ideally should speak. But the most important qualification is that one is speaking what is in shAstra. This is only sensible. It is not logical to reject truth merely because it comes from the mouth of someone not normally tasked with the duty of teaching it. I previously gave the example of King Ajaatashatru instructing brahmins in brahma-vidya as described in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

Second, can't you tell what varna I belong it? Since it is your contention that one's current guna and karma determine this, and this seems eminently sensible to you, perhaps you could demonstrate the practicality of this idea by identifying the varnas of myself and other members and see how close you are to reality.


You have said about yourself in your introductory posting: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=84485&postcount=1

"I am delighted to say that my search has finally led me to the scriptures of Hinduism. "

Finally means that before you have been a Hindu you must have been following some other philosophy.

Ahh, I think I can see the reason for your confusion. What I was trying to say in the above statement is, I did not have the disciplined, systematic approach to studying Hindu scripture in the past although nominally I was a Hindu. I had studied other religions, true, but did not find any of them inspiring. I had practiced Hinduism due to my birth, but not as rigorously or with the right conviction as I felt I should have had. I probably should have said "I am delighted to say that my search has finally lead me back to the scriptures of Hinduism" to be clear.



A born Hindu and a Brahmin is already a Hindu, even before he is born due to the samskaras performend before his birth.

So there is no way a born Hindu searches and is finally led to the scriptures of Hinduism, this can only happen to a convert.

Accordingly you are either a convert or you are a born Hindu impersonating a convert.

Which means you are either not a born Hindu or you are lying to this audience. Since the episode of Satyakama shows us that a brahmin is truthful, it is only rational to assume that someone impersonating someone else, no matter in which varna he is born, cannot be a true brahmin, and cannot accuse others of being probably sinful. (like you did to icy) or explain shruti/smriti.

So you are either a bhrastha brahmin or a convert, according to the values you pretend to follow it is therefore impossible that you have the qualification to explain shruti to a public audience, if this is even proper at all according to smriti is doubtful anyway. To tell others that their behaviour is probably sinful is outrageous no matter who you are or pretend to be. Definetly you are in need of a sip of your own medicine.

First, I did not accuse Icy of anything. Icysfx and I have had some friendly conversation via PM when he asked some questions on the forum. Second, your obsession with determining my social status, runs somewhat contradictory to your stated views that birth is not relevant to determining one's varna. When I provided the shAstric pramANas for each and every point I have made, such that you can cross-examine the evidence for yourself, what is the need for determining my varna? Are you saying that, if I repeat what is in shAstra, you will still not accept it because I don't belong to the right varNa? If so, then why do you accept the views of wundermonk, charitra, param, et. al? Did you first determine what their varnas were, and if so, how did you make that determination?

regards,

[MahaHrada]

You get me wrong of course it is predominantley birth that determines Varna, of course there are some exceptions but one cannot generalise, and i have always said that in discussions here on the forum. I read your posts because I was asked by a friend to give a comment on your postings. And i agree with you all in all, you got all your facts right, but what you do is not according to your duties, unless you are a w.u. c. or a w.t.f. (white trash ferengi) they have no duties.
Since i am not a dvija i will abstain from citing, discussing or commenting on shruti or smriti. So please understand, and do not hold it against me that i do not react to your quotings of shastras that apply to your varna, without proper adhikara. You may dísregard your svadharma that does not mean i have to follow suit :)
But let me say one thing, it is abundantly clear from smriti as well as shruti that shruti should not be read, heard, recited, commented upon or even taught before an audience of non dvijas. That is what you do. So in my opinion extending the rules of smriti to Avarnas or nondvijas and citing or explaining shruti to Non dvijas on the internet, is not part of the duty of a brahmin.
Now you can´t go cherry picking and accept only parts of shruti and disregard vital injunctions, just as you seem fit and just take that what pleases you and pretend veda is the bible and preach shruti on the internet and go proselytizing non dvijas and mlecchas when this is strictly forbidden.
What you do is quite the oppositte of the rules of a dvija, you do not need me to quote shruti/smriti in support of this, you know very well yourself that study of shruti is restricted to dvijas, without the help of an Avarna.
Thats why my comment was that you should first of all follow your own advice and act according to the duties of your varna before you give advice to others. But this seems to be a general problem in this forum everyone thinks he can do what he likes and then the postings are deleted.

So again what exactly is your qualification by Varna please, that allows you to do what you do here? Are you a rishi? Have you received a new revealation that allows you to explain shruti to Mlecchas?

[philosoraptor]

You get me wrong of course it is predominantley birth that determines Varna, of course there are some exceptions but one cannot generalise, and i have always said that in discussions here on the forum. I read your posts because I was asked by a friend to give a comment on your postings. And i agree with you all in all, you got all your facts right, but what you do is not according to your duties, unless you are a w.u. c. or a w.t.f. (white trash ferengi) they have no duties.

Pranams,

I don't understand or appreciate the need for such terms, i.e. "w.u.c." or w.t.f." That we are taught to follow our varnaashrama duties, even imperfectly, is no need to be condescending to those born outside the culture of varnaashrama. Really and truly speaking, those of us who follow our dharmas are probably making a lot of mistakes and getting sinful reaction, so it's important to maintain a spirit of humility. But even those sages in ages past who did everything perfectly could still be counted on to show compassion to the downtrodden, and I think we all should do so as well.



Since i am not a dvija i will abstain from citing, discussing or commenting on shruti or smriti. So please understand, and od not hgold it against me that i do not react to your quotings of shastras that apply to your varna, without proper adhikara. You may dísregard your svadharma that does not mean i have to follow suit :)


So far as I have understood them, I have not said or done anything on this forum that is against my dharma. Except, perhaps, for the occasional guilty indulgence in sarcasm or false humility. But we all have our blemishes, I suppose.



But let me say one thing, it is abundantly clear from smriti as well as shruti that shruti should not be read, heard, recited, commented upon or even taught before an audience of non dvijas.

This is not entirely true. The regulation as discussed in the vedAnta-sUtra commentaries of shankara et. al. is that a shUdra should not be initiated into the study of the veda. In other words, he should not be given the sacred thread, should not reside with the guru, should not be instructed in the vedic mantras, and should not be pronouncing the vedic mantras before others. However, there is no injunction against his understanding the essence of knowledge of veda, especially via smRiti.

Unfortunately, in this forum as in so many others, people are ready to reject smRti because of its perceived "sectarian" bias, so one has to either be prepared to quote from shruti to back up one's views, or leave the person unconvinced, even allowing him to spread further misinformation based on his misunderstanding. Based on what I have seen of the conduct of some traditional (not neo-Hindu) acharyas, discussion of shruti in this manner is acceptable, as there is a world of difference between quoting shruti to make a point, and instructing an unqualified person in the entire shruti in a gurukula. The reality also is that most of what we know as shruti is publicly available online even to unqualified persons. Technically, these are not "shruti" as shruti refers to what is heard from the guru, not read on a website or a book, so it is not at all clear that the regulation applies in this context.

regards,

[IcyCosmic]

Pranams,

The definitive answer was given, but many don't agree with it. What is true isn't always popular. While many people give opinions, few people are interested in defending opinions based on comprehensive (as opposed to selective) quoting of shAstra. Arjuna was told to fight the war. It was his duty. Why was it his duty? Because he was a kshatriya. Why was he a kshatriya? Because he was steeped in rAjo-guNa? But the characteristics of rAjo-guNa involve action, heroism, fighting to do what is right whereas Arjuna wanted to do none of those things. But in the end, he was still a kshatriya despite his non-violent, sadhu-like solution to the dilemma. Why?

regards,

My surname is 'Sood'. We are also Kshatriyas. My grandfather (dads side) was a scholar in sanskrit, well versed in every scripture, fluent in 24 languages, you could give him any word from the english language and 90% of the time he could trace it back to the origin. He set up charities, where instead of food - school fees or books were given; he used to give tuitions for free, he was a headmaster for all his adult life before retiring as an education officer. Are you saying this is forbidden because he is not a brahmin? :rolleyes:

[philosoraptor]

My surname is 'Sood'. We are also Kshatriyas. My grandfather (dads side) was a scholar in sanskrit, well versed in every scripture, fluent in 24 languages, you could give him any word from the english language and 90% of the time he could trace it back to the origin. He set up charities, where instead of food - school fees or books were given; he used to give tuitions for free, he was a headmaster for all his adult life before retiring as an education officer. Are you saying this is forbidden because he is not a brahmin? :rolleyes:

Pranams.

No, in fact I am glad you asked that. The *ideal* duty for a kshatriya is warfare and administration. However, each of the varNas is allowed certain other emergency duties. Many of us are probably making our livelihoods through non-ideal, emergency duties. However, for dvijas there is still obligation to study and obey the veda, perform sandhya-vandanam, and other spiritual duties, and this is primarily why I think varNAshrama is still relevant today. Because without people who dedicate themselves to this culture, there really is no hope of preserving it.

That being said, it wouldn't hurt you take some classes in martial arts. :-)

regards,

[IcyCosmic]

Pranams.

No, in fact I am glad you asked that. The *ideal* duty for a kshatriya is warfare and administration. However, each of the varNas is allowed certain other emergency duties. Many of us are probably making our livelihoods through non-ideal, emergency duties. However, for dvijas there is still obligation to study and obey the veda, perform sandhya-vandanam, and other spiritual duties, and this is primarily why I think varNAshrama is still relevant today. Because without people who dedicate themselves to this culture, there really is no hope of preserving it.

That being said, it wouldn't hurt you take some classes in martial arts. :-)

regards,

I have little to no fighting technique, but I have a horrible temper thats usually enough to deter people but I ought to learn tae-kwan-do soon enough for self defence.
Hm....thats interesting what you've said. I'll reserve judgement for now.
Are you non-indian? What 'caste' what you consider yourself?

[philosoraptor]

I have little to no fighting technique, but I have a horrible temper thats usually enough to deter people but I ought to learn tae-kwan-do soon enough for self defence.
Hm....thats interesting what you've said. I'll reserve judgement for now.
Are you non-indian? What 'caste' what you consider yourself?

"fallen and hopeless" caste :-)

But as I've come to realize from study of scripture, I am simply not permitted to accept that and avoid my birth-based duties. Doing so is simply rationalizing laziness.

You may wish to consider Kalari-payattu, one of the traditional martial arts forms of India. Many Eastern forms of martial arts are said to have been imported from India, possibly from Kalari-payattu. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsUai4wt6Yk

[IcyCosmic]

"fallen and hopeless" caste :-)

But as I've come to realize from study of scripture, I am simply not permitted to accept that and avoid my birth-based duties. Doing so is simply rationalizing laziness.

You may wish to consider Kalari-payattu, one of the traditional martial arts forms of India. Many Eastern forms of martial arts are said to have been imported from India, possibly from Kalari-payattu. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsUai4wt6Yk

Uh, so what would you like to become in life, and what do you think of indians that don't let lower castes study scriptures and such.

[MahaHrada]

Based on what I have seen of the conduct of some traditional (not neo-Hindu) acharyas, discussion of shruti in this manner is acceptable, as there is a world of difference between quoting shruti to make a point, and instructing an unqualified person in the entire shruti in a gurukula.


This is just an adaption to modern times and nothing but cherry picking, if it is ok to bend the shruti and smriti to allow preaching it to everybody, reciting explaining and quoting vedas, against the explicit rule against that, then why stop here and not go all the way and decide that Varna is completly unrelated to birth?

Why should stringent supremacist and discriminating rules that are suppossed to be applied only to a tiny brahmin community which makes up only 3 % of the population of India, and of those 3 % only a few ever followed these rules to the profit of the whole community and the rest were and are anyways acting only for their own greed and profit, in a supremacist and detrimental way to the society, why should these norms be force feed as if binding to the whole population of India who have since ancient times regulated their live and society according to the rules of Agama and Tantra and Purana and have quite well lived with that. Let those that must follow and protect their ancient heritage live according to the rules of their community expalin and teach smriti and shruti, but please do not force feed the rest of the indian society with regulations that never applied to them.
If the orthodox brahmin Community wants to live and teach these objectionable rules, that are laid down in smriti, i guess others have no problem with that but why should 98% of the indian society succumb to rules that traditionally have no connection whatsoever to their own community and lifestyle which is dominated by agama purana and tantra?
So do yourself and others and Hinduism a favour and act according to your svadharma teach your discriminatory, objectionable and inhuman content of the smriti to smartas and let other regulate their life according to more developed and humane principles that are relevant in their own communities.

[philosoraptor]

This is just an adaption to modern times and nothing but cherry picking, if it is ok to bend the shruti and smriti to allow preaching it to everybody, reciting explaining and quoting vedas, against the explicit rule against that, then why stop here and not go all the way and decide that Varna is completly unrelated to birth?

Pranams,

You aren't listening. As a result, you have come to incorrect conclusions.

The regulation that I have seen specifically forbids initiating shudras into study of the Veda. It doesn't forbid explaining proper knowledge to the shudra. Vyasa specifically compiled the itihasas and puranas for the benefit of shudras. Please review the quotes I provided from Shankara's BSB in this regard in earlier thread on this subject. If you know of a regulation that forbids *any* sort of spiritual instruction to shudras, please let me know. Until you do, you must acknowledge that your criticisms are based on an unproven premise, and a frankly stereotypical one at that. Again, I will reiterate that I have seen traditional vedAntic scholars quoting shruti in front of public audiences that included non-dvijas. It is one thing to occasionally quote shruti-pramANa to make a point; it is quite another to initiate the shUdra into study of the veda.

As far as the rest of your casteist, divisive remarks are concerned, they are based on the mistaken premise that someone is "forcing" or proposing to "force" them onto people. That is simply beyond delusional. Vedas and other shrutis are all over the internet for public consumption, and no one is "forcing" site owners to remove them, traditional restrictions not withstanding. The Indian government has nothing but disdain for Hinduism, and they certainly aren't "forcing" any sort of traditional restrictions onto people. As far as history is concerned, there are prescriptions for punishments certainly, but there is no historical evidence that traditional gurus ever instructed shudras in vedic mantras, and thus there is no historical evidence that severe punishments of this kind were ever carried out, making their mention something of an anomaly in the dharma-shastras.

In any case, the whole point of studying the Vedas is lost if the knowledge is given to people who "want" it. Vedic knowledge is not for those who want to use it to improve their social standing, nor was it ever. It is specifically meant for classes who were marked for performing various disciplines that most people cannot do, so that society can benefit from these dharmic individuals occupying positions of social importance. As opposed to the current, corrupt system of today where study of dharma, veda, morality, etc is not a prerequisite to have position and importance in society...

[JayaRadhe]

Namaste!
I have not read the Manu Smriti in full, but only portions. I would like to know what it has to say of women in regards to the Varnashrama system, especially in regards to if women are allowed to become dvija or if they are even allowed to study under a guru at all. I have seen images of Kali, Mariamman, etc. in South India wearing the sacred thread, yet I've only ever heard of a few gurus giving the sacred thread to women (e.g.-Anandamayi Maa in Bengal). Does Manu speak on these things at all?

[philosoraptor]

Namaste!
I have not read the Manu Smriti in full, but only portions. I would like to know what it has to say of women in regards to the Varnashrama system, especially in regards to if women are allowed to become dvija or if they are even allowed to study under a guru at all. I have seen images of Kali, Mariamman, etc. in South India wearing the sacred thread, yet I've only ever heard of a few gurus giving the sacred thread to women (e.g.-Anandamayi Maa in Bengal). Does Manu speak on these things at all?

Pranams,

There are two sets of statements that I can recall about women in Manu. One statement holds that a woman should never be allowed to be independent, but should always be under the care of her parents as a child, her husband after marriage, and her sons after she is widowed. The second statement indicates that no household can be prosperous unless the women there are happy, and even goes so far as to say that the yagnas performed in such a household will not be blessed by the devas if the women (including mother-in-law, daughter-in-law, etc) are displeased. These two statements probably summarize in a nutshell what the Hindu scriptural attitude towards women was. To these, I would also add a third set of statements found in the Bhagavatam which extol the virtues of certain great devotees who happened to be women. These include the gopikas of Vrindavan, the yagna-patnis, Draupadi, and Kunti, among others. None of the them were initiated into study of the Veda, but that did not preclude their attainment of that highest goal of human endeavor.

By "dvija," we should understand clearly what is meant. Certain varnas are "dvija" because their males are expected to become initiated into study of the Veda (hence, a "second birth" into spiritual life) and study in gurukula, which involved all sorts of austerities. By this traditional understanding, only brahmins, kshatriyas, and vaisyas are dvijas. Again according to this understanding, women were not initiated with sacred thread or study of the Veda, as this discipline requires austerities which are appropriate for young girls. For example, the guru's pupils had to beg for alms, and they were only allowed to eat after the guru took his meal, and only with his permission. If he forgot to give permission, then the shishyas had to fast that day. To the best of my knowledge, Manu does not anywhere mention or even suggest that girls were also to be initiated into such a system.

Beyond the traditional Vedic system, there was also another system of initiation that allowed shudras to get diksha. The relevant reference is varAha purANa 128.29-36 in the Motilal/Venkateshwara Steam Press edition for those who are interested. Presumably, this diksha is a non-Vedic diksha in which education based on smRti texts is stressed. However, I do not recall reading anything even in this system that allowed for women to take initiation. I don't doubt that there might be such a system, but I do not recall any specific shAstric pramANa certifying it. However, I do recall a reference from the bRhad-AraNyaka upaniShad in which a woman participated in the famous brahminical debate in which sage yAgnavalkya was being questioned - this is in BU 3.8.1-2 for those who are interested. However, it was pointed out to me that the person involved was not a human female but a female celestial like a deva or something similar. That was not obvious to me from reading the text, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

I have also heard it said that for women, marriage constitutes their initiation as the husband is effectively the guru for the woman. Presumably this refers to the traditional system. However, take it with a grain of salt because I honestly can't remember where I read that.

regards,

[Seeker]

Namaste!
I have not read the Manu Smriti in full, but only portions. I would like to know what it has to say of women in regards to the Varnashrama system, especially in regards to if women are allowed to become dvija or if they are even allowed to study under a guru at all. I have seen images of Kali, Mariamman, etc. in South India wearing the sacred thread, yet I've only ever heard of a few gurus giving the sacred thread to women (e.g.-Anandamayi Maa in Bengal). Does Manu speak on these things at all?


Here you go!

1. “Swabhav ev narinam …..” – 2/213. It is the nature of women to seduce men in this world; for that reason the wise are never unguarded in the company of females.
2. “Avidvam samlam………..” – 2/214. Women, true to their class character, are capable of leading astray men in this world, not only a fool but even a learned and wise man. Both become slaves of desire.
3. “Matra swastra ………..” – 2/215. Wise people should avoid sitting alone with one’s mother, daughter or sister. Since carnal desire is always strong, it can lead to temptation.
4. “Naudwahay……………..” – 3/8. One should not marry women who has have reddish hair, redundant parts of the body [such as six fingers], one who is often sick, one without hair or having excessive hair and one who has red eyes.
5. “Nraksh vraksh ………..” – 3/9. One should not marry women whose names are similar to constellations, trees, rivers, those from a low caste, mountains, birds, snakes, slaves or those whose names inspires terror.
6. “Yasto na bhavet ….. …..” – 3/10. Wise men should not marry women who do not have a brother and whose parents are not socially well known.
7. “Uchayangh…………….” – 3/11. Wise men should marry only women who are free from bodily defects, with beautiful names, grace/gait like an elephant, moderate hair on the head and body, soft limbs and small teeth.
8. “Shudr-aiv bharya………” – 3/12.Brahman men can marry Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaish and even Shudra women but Shudra men can marry only Shudra women.
9. “Na Brahman kshatriya..” – 3/14. Although Brahman, Kshatriya and Vaish men have been allowed inter-caste marriages, even in distress they should not marry Shudra women.
10. “Heenjati striyam……..” – 3/15. When twice born [dwij=Brahman, Kshatriya and Vaish] men in their folly marry low caste Shudra women, they are responsible for the degradation of their whole family. Accordingly, their children adopt all the demerits of the Shudra caste.
11. “Shudram shaynam……” – 3/17. A Brahman who marries a Shudra woman, degrades himself and his whole family ,becomes morally degenerated , loses Brahman status and his children too attain status of shudra.
12. “Daiv pitrya………………” – 3/18. The offerings made by such a person at the time of established rituals are neither accepted by God nor by the departed soul; guests also refuse to have meals with him and he is bound to go to hell after death.
13. “Chandalash ……………” – 3/240. Food offered and served to Brahman after Shradh ritual should not be seen by a chandal, a pig, a cock,a dog, and a menstruating women.
14. “Na ashniyat…………….” – 4/43. A Brahman, true defender of his class, should not have his meals in the company of his wife and even avoid looking at her. Furthermore, he should not look towards her when she is having her meals or when she sneezes/yawns.
15. “Na ajyanti……………….” – 4/44. A Brahman in order to preserve his energy and intellect, must not look at women who applies collyrium to her eyes, one who is massaging her nude body or one who is delivering a child.
16. “Mrshyanti…………….” – 4/217. One should not accept meals from a woman who has extra marital relations; nor from a family exclusively dominated/managed by women or a family whose 10 days of impurity because of death have not passed.
17. “Balya va………………….” – 5/150. A female child, young woman or old woman is not supposed to work independently even at her place of residence.
18. “Balye pitorvashay…….” – 5/151. Girls are supposed to be in the custody of their father when they are children, women must be under the custody of their husband when married and under the custody of her son as widows. In no circumstances is she allowed to assert herself independently.
19. “Asheela kamvrto………” – 5/157. Men may be lacking virtue, be sexual perverts, immoral and devoid of any good qualities, and yet women must constantly worship and serve their husbands.
20. “Na ast strinam………..” – 5/158. Women have no divine right to perform any religious ritual, nor make vows or observe a fast. Her only duty is to obey and please her husband and she will for that reason alone be exalted in heaven.
21. “Kamam to………………” – 5/160. At her pleasure [after the death of her husband], let her emaciate her body by living only on pure flowers, roots of vegetables and fruits. She must not even mention the name of any other men after her husband has died.
22. “Vyabhacharay…………” – 5/167. Any women violating duty and code of conduct towards her husband, is disgraced and becomes a patient of leprosy. After death, she enters womb of Jackal.
23. “Kanyam bhajanti……..” – 8/364. In case women enjoy sex with a man from a higher caste, the act is not punishable. But on the contrary, if women enjoy sex with lower caste men, she is to be punished and kept in isolation.
24. “Utmam sevmansto…….” – 8/365. In case a man from a lower caste enjoys sex with a woman from a higher caste, the person in question is to be awarded the death sentence. And if a person satisfies his carnal desire with women of his own caste, he should be asked to pay compensation to the women’s faith.
25. “Ya to kanya…………….” – 8/369. In case a woman tears the membrane [hymen] of her Vagina, she shall instantly have her head shaved or two fingers cut off and made to ride on Donkey.
26. “Bhartaram…………….” – 8/370. In case a women, proud of the greatness of her excellence or her relatives, violates her duty towards her husband, the King shall arrange to have her thrown before dogs at a public place.
27. “Pita rakhshati……….” – 9/3. Since women are not capable of living independently, she is to be kept under the custody of her father as child, under her husband as a woman and under her son as widow.
28. “Imam hi sarw………..” – 9/6. It is the duty of all husbands to exert total control over their wives. Even physically weak husbands must strive to control their wives.
29. “Pati bharyam ……….” – 9/8. The husband, after the conception of his wife, becomes the embryo and is born again of her. This explains why women are called Jaya.
30. “Panam durjan………” – 9/13. Consuming liquor, association with wicked persons, separation from her husband, rambling around, sleeping for unreasonable hours and dwelling -are six demerits of women.
31. “Naita rupam……………” – 9/14. Such women are not loyal and have extra marital relations with men without consideration for their age.
32. “Poonshchalya…………” – 9/15. Because of their passion for men, immutable temper and natural heartlessness, they are not loyal to their husbands.
33. “Na asti strinam………” – 9/18. While performing namkarm and jatkarm, Vedic mantras are not to be recited by women, because women are lacking in strength and knowledge of Vedic texts. Women are impure and represent falsehood.
34. “Devra…sapinda………” – 9/58. On failure to produce offspring with her husband, she may obtain offspring by cohabitation with her brother-in-law [devar] or with some other relative [sapinda] on her in-law’s side.
35. “Vidwayam…………….” – 9/60. He who is appointed to cohabit with a widow shall approach her at night, be anointed with clarified butter and silently beget one son, but by no means a second one.
36. “Yatha vidy……………..” – 9/70. In accordance with established law, the sister-in-law [bhabhi] must be clad in white garments; with pure intent her brother-in-law [devar] will cohabitate with her until she conceives.
37. “Ati kramay……………” – 9/77. Any women who disobey orders of her lethargic, alcoholic and diseased husband shall be deserted for three months and be deprived of her ornaments.
38. “Vandyashtamay…….” – 9/80. A barren wife may be superseded in the 8th year; she whose children die may be superseded in the 10th year and she who bears only daughters may be superseded in the 11th year; but she who is quarrelsome may be superseded without delay.
39. “Trinsha……………….” – 9/93. In case of any problem in performing religious rites, males between the age of 24 and 30 should marry a female between the age of 8 and 12.
40. “Yambrahmansto…….” – 9/177. In case a Brahman man marries Shudra woman, their son will be called ‘Parshav’ or ‘Shudra’ because his social existence is like a dead body.

[JayaRadhe]

Pranams,

There are two sets of statements that I can recall about women in Manu. One statement holds that a woman should never be allowed to be independent, but should always be under the care of her parents as a child, her husband after marriage, and her sons after she is widowed.

Interesting. I'm not sure I fully see this being applicable to modern society, but I can see how it would be in an ancient one.


The second statement indicates that no household can be prosperous unless the women there are happy, and even goes so far as to say that the yagnas performed in such a household will not be blessed by the devas if the women (including mother-in-law, daughter-in-law, etc) are displeased.

I agree with that one 100% :)


These two statements probably summarize in a nutshell what the Hindu scriptural attitude towards women was. To these, I would also add a third set of statements found in the Bhagavatam which extol the virtues of certain great devotees who happened to be women. These include the gopikas of Vrindavan, the yagna-patnis, Draupadi, and Kunti, among others.

Yes, I have read much of the Bhagavatam, as well as many Shakta texts on the subject.


None of the them were initiated into study of the Veda, but that did not preclude their attainment of that highest goal of human endeavor.

By "dvija," we should understand clearly what is meant. Certain varnas are "dvija" because their males are expected to become initiated into study of the Veda (hence, a "second birth" into spiritual life) and study in gurukula, which involved all sorts of austerities. By this traditional understanding, only brahmins, kshatriyas, and vaisyas are dvijas.

I know what dvija means, I just don't understand why a woman of brahmin, kshatriya, or vaishya descent could not study under a guru, but only study under her husband. I feel as though this would be unfair to women who are not marriagable or at least very unlikely to be married.


Again according to this understanding, women were not initiated with sacred thread or study of the Veda, as this discipline requires austerities which are appropriate for young girls. For example, the guru's pupils had to beg for alms, and they were only allowed to eat after the guru took his meal, and only with his permission. If he forgot to give permission, then the shishyas had to fast that day. To the best of my knowledge, Manu does not anywhere mention or even suggest that girls were also to be initiated into such a system.

This isn't practiced anymore by most young boys in India or the Indian diaspora and they still receive the sacred thread. In sects where people are allowed to convert and receive the sacred thread as an initiation, this often isn't even the case. Also, I think mandatory fasting for extended periods of time by any child is detrimental, not just little girls.


Beyond the traditional Vedic system, there was also another system of initiation that allowed shudras to get diksha. The relevant reference is varAha purANa 128.29-36 in the Motilal/Venkateshwara Steam Press edition for those who are interested. Presumably, this diksha is a non-Vedic diksha in which education based on smRti texts is stressed. However, I do not recall reading anything even in this system that allowed for women to take initiation.

Interesting. So, women are not allowed to take even non-Vedic diksha, but shudras are.


I don't doubt that there might be such a system, but I do not recall any specific shAstric pramANa certifying it. However, I do recall a reference from the bRhad-AraNyaka upaniShad in which a woman participated in the famous brahminical debate in which sage yAgnavalkya was being questioned - this is in BU 3.8.1-2 for those who are interested. However, it was pointed out to me that the person involved was not a human female but a female celestial like a deva or something similar. That was not obvious to me from reading the text, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

I believe you may be referring to Gargi or Maitreyi? I remember reading an Upanishad in which a rishi's daughter takes part in the debate. I don't remember the specifics, as I read it about six years ago.


I have also heard it said that for women, marriage constitutes their initiation as the husband is effectively the guru for the woman. Presumably this refers to the traditional system. However, take it with a grain of salt because I honestly can't remember where I read that.

regards,
I have also heard this. However, not all women are in need of or want a husband now, so I don't see how this would apply to the modern world. Also, where does this leave shudra women?

[JayaRadhe]

Here you go!

1. “Swabhav ev narinam …..” – 2/213. It is the nature of women to seduce men in this world; for that reason the wise are never unguarded in the company of females.
2. “Avidvam samlam………..” – 2/214. Women, true to their class character, are capable of leading astray men in this world, not only a fool but even a learned and wise man. Both become slaves of desire.
3. “Matra swastra ………..” – 2/215. Wise people should avoid sitting alone with one’s mother, daughter or sister. Since carnal desire is always strong, it can lead to temptation.
4. “Naudwahay……………..” – 3/8. One should not marry women who has have reddish hair, redundant parts of the body [such as six fingers], one who is often sick, one without hair or having excessive hair and one who has red eyes.
5. “Nraksh vraksh ………..” – 3/9. One should not marry women whose names are similar to constellations, trees, rivers, those from a low caste, mountains, birds, snakes, slaves or those whose names inspires terror.
6. “Yasto na bhavet ….. …..” – 3/10. Wise men should not marry women who do not have a brother and whose parents are not socially well known.
7. “Uchayangh…………….” – 3/11. Wise men should marry only women who are free from bodily defects, with beautiful names, grace/gait like an elephant, moderate hair on the head and body, soft limbs and small teeth.
8. “Shudr-aiv bharya………” – 3/12.Brahman men can marry Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaish and even Shudra women but Shudra men can marry only Shudra women.
9. “Na Brahman kshatriya..” – 3/14. Although Brahman, Kshatriya and Vaish men have been allowed inter-caste marriages, even in distress they should not marry Shudra women.
10. “Heenjati striyam……..” – 3/15. When twice born [dwij=Brahman, Kshatriya and Vaish] men in their folly marry low caste Shudra women, they are responsible for the degradation of their whole family. Accordingly, their children adopt all the demerits of the Shudra caste.
11. “Shudram shaynam……” – 3/17. A Brahman who marries a Shudra woman, degrades himself and his whole family ,becomes morally degenerated , loses Brahman status and his children too attain status of shudra.
12. “Daiv pitrya………………” – 3/18. The offerings made by such a person at the time of established rituals are neither accepted by God nor by the departed soul; guests also refuse to have meals with him and he is bound to go to hell after death.
13. “Chandalash ……………” – 3/240. Food offered and served to Brahman after Shradh ritual should not be seen by a chandal, a pig, a cock,a dog, and a menstruating women.
14. “Na ashniyat…………….” – 4/43. A Brahman, true defender of his class, should not have his meals in the company of his wife and even avoid looking at her. Furthermore, he should not look towards her when she is having her meals or when she sneezes/yawns.
15. “Na ajyanti……………….” – 4/44. A Brahman in order to preserve his energy and intellect, must not look at women who applies collyrium to her eyes, one who is massaging her nude body or one who is delivering a child.
16. “Mrshyanti…………….” – 4/217. One should not accept meals from a woman who has extra marital relations; nor from a family exclusively dominated/managed by women or a family whose 10 days of impurity because of death have not passed.
17. “Balya va………………….” – 5/150. A female child, young woman or old woman is not supposed to work independently even at her place of residence.
18. “Balye pitorvashay…….” – 5/151. Girls are supposed to be in the custody of their father when they are children, women must be under the custody of their husband when married and under the custody of her son as widows. In no circumstances is she allowed to assert herself independently.
19. “Asheela kamvrto………” – 5/157. Men may be lacking virtue, be sexual perverts, immoral and devoid of any good qualities, and yet women must constantly worship and serve their husbands.
20. “Na ast strinam………..” – 5/158. Women have no divine right to perform any religious ritual, nor make vows or observe a fast. Her only duty is to obey and please her husband and she will for that reason alone be exalted in heaven.
21. “Kamam to………………” – 5/160. At her pleasure [after the death of her husband], let her emaciate her body by living only on pure flowers, roots of vegetables and fruits. She must not even mention the name of any other men after her husband has died.
22. “Vyabhacharay…………” – 5/167. Any women violating duty and code of conduct towards her husband, is disgraced and becomes a patient of leprosy. After death, she enters womb of Jackal.
23. “Kanyam bhajanti……..” – 8/364. In case women enjoy sex with a man from a higher caste, the act is not punishable. But on the contrary, if women enjoy sex with lower caste men, she is to be punished and kept in isolation.
24. “Utmam sevmansto…….” – 8/365. In case a man from a lower caste enjoys sex with a woman from a higher caste, the person in question is to be awarded the death sentence. And if a person satisfies his carnal desire with women of his own caste, he should be asked to pay compensation to the women’s faith.
25. “Ya to kanya…………….” – 8/369. In case a woman tears the membrane [hymen] of her Vagina, she shall instantly have her head shaved or two fingers cut off and made to ride on Donkey.
26. “Bhartaram…………….” – 8/370. In case a women, proud of the greatness of her excellence or her relatives, violates her duty towards her husband, the King shall arrange to have her thrown before dogs at a public place.
27. “Pita rakhshati……….” – 9/3. Since women are not capable of living independently, she is to be kept under the custody of her father as child, under her husband as a woman and under her son as widow.
28. “Imam hi sarw………..” – 9/6. It is the duty of all husbands to exert total control over their wives. Even physically weak husbands must strive to control their wives.
29. “Pati bharyam ……….” – 9/8. The husband, after the conception of his wife, becomes the embryo and is born again of her. This explains why women are called Jaya.
30. “Panam durjan………” – 9/13. Consuming liquor, association with wicked persons, separation from her husband, rambling around, sleeping for unreasonable hours and dwelling -are six demerits of women.
31. “Naita rupam……………” – 9/14. Such women are not loyal and have extra marital relations with men without consideration for their age.
32. “Poonshchalya…………” – 9/15. Because of their passion for men, immutable temper and natural heartlessness, they are not loyal to their husbands.
33. “Na asti strinam………” – 9/18. While performing namkarm and jatkarm, Vedic mantras are not to be recited by women, because women are lacking in strength and knowledge of Vedic texts. Women are impure and represent falsehood.
34. “Devra…sapinda………” – 9/58. On failure to produce offspring with her husband, she may obtain offspring by cohabitation with her brother-in-law [devar] or with some other relative [sapinda] on her in-law’s side.
35. “Vidwayam…………….” – 9/60. He who is appointed to cohabit with a widow shall approach her at night, be anointed with clarified butter and silently beget one son, but by no means a second one.
36. “Yatha vidy……………..” – 9/70. In accordance with established law, the sister-in-law [bhabhi] must be clad in white garments; with pure intent her brother-in-law [devar] will cohabitate with her until she conceives.
37. “Ati kramay……………” – 9/77. Any women who disobey orders of her lethargic, alcoholic and diseased husband shall be deserted for three months and be deprived of her ornaments.
38. “Vandyashtamay…….” – 9/80. A barren wife may be superseded in the 8th year; she whose children die may be superseded in the 10th year and she who bears only daughters may be superseded in the 11th year; but she who is quarrelsome may be superseded without delay.
39. “Trinsha……………….” – 9/93. In case of any problem in performing religious rites, males between the age of 24 and 30 should marry a female between the age of 8 and 12.
40. “Yambrahmansto…….” – 9/177. In case a Brahman man marries Shudra woman, their son will be called ‘Parshav’ or ‘Shudra’ because his social existence is like a dead body.
Oh wow! Thank you for this! :)
Does anyone know how old the oldest surviving manuscript of the Manu Smriti is? Does it also contain these statements or are some of them interpolated? Also, what do you all make of these statements from a modern perspective? Thanks for shedding light on the subject!

[ShivaFan]

Namaste and let me wash my eyes after reading this litney of hate against women. I thought I was reading some pamplet from an Islamic Jihadhist terrorist group.

Some are trying to tell me that these laws come from Brahma? Saraswati would have been long gone by then. This is a collection of later date by those who have a lot of personal and frankly tribal self-interests.

Jai Brahma, and Sri Saraswati. Please illumlnate the savages.

[JayaRadhe]

Namaste and let me wash my eyes after reading this litney of hate against women. I thought I was reading some pamplet from an Islamic Jihadhist terrorist group.

Some are trying to tell me that these laws come from Brahma? Saraswati would have been long gone by then. This is a collection of later date by those who have a lot of personal and frankly tribal self-interests.

Jai Brahma, and Sri Saraswati. Please illumlnate the savages.
Indeed! And, here I am, thinking that Saraswati Devi, Savitri Devi, and Gayatri Devi were the goddesses of all knowledge. Silly me! Women can't learn! :rolleyes:

[McKitty]

Vanakkam,

Just one thing...

"12. “Daiv pitrya………………” – 3/18. The offerings made by such a person at the time of established rituals are neither accepted by God nor by the departed soul; guests also refuse to have meals with him and he is bound to go to hell after death."


“Na ast strinam………..” – 5/158. Women have no divine right to perform any religious ritual, nor make vows or observe a fast. Her only duty is to obey and please her husband and she will for that reason alone be exalted in heaven."


This really looks like Islam and Christianity.
And this is frightening to be Hindu and claim that D:


Aum Namah Shivaya

[JayaRadhe]

Vanakkam,

Just one thing...

"12. “Daiv pitrya………………” – 3/18. The offerings made by such a person at the time of established rituals are neither accepted by God nor by the departed soul; guests also refuse to have meals with him and he is bound to go to hell after death."


“Na ast strinam………..” – 5/158. Women have no divine right to perform any religious ritual, nor make vows or observe a fast. Her only duty is to obey and please her husband and she will for that reason alone be exalted in heaven."


This really looks like Islam and Christianity.
And this is frightening to be Hindu and claim that D:


Aum Namah Shivaya
Namaste!
I feel this way as well. This is why I have questioned the date and authenticity of such comments.
Jai Radha-Madhava!
Glory to Radha, the Mother, and Her Husband!

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

I don't think these type of sojourns into what seems obviously too fixated in the material world would be the first thing I would want to share with others as an example of my religion. I wouldn't be running around with such selections from the "Laws" with urgency, "hey, look at this about drinking it up in the castle and the old lady still has to worship you even if you hit her or something" ...

As far as child brides, there could be a place for that, but I really do not want to be fixated on such minutia.

Yes I know, I am not ready and prepared to shower with grace selections of the Sacred Texts, and so that is probably enough to be hated for but I hope some don't prejudge me. Speaking of which ...

You can't judge a book by it's cover - but actually this takes exactly the opposite position. Others would see the content of some of these "Laws" that were shared today as only looking at the cover of the book and not the content.

Maybe others sections are different, and I plead the truth, I *think* I read it once back in the 1970's but I guess it just doesn't want to wear on your sleeve very long before you are reading the Gita, or the Puranas, or Ramayana, or stories by and of the Saints, and such. Even those "not Sacred Texts" by "modern" Yogis and Gurus and Savants and Saints and those who share knowledge about yoga, and self-realization, and such - well, I just tend to forget other things that seem less alive.

And frankly, I don't think I "like" this book very much (is that even the word? Perhaps I have my suspicions regarding it), let's just say it wouldn't be much help to me in regards to God, meditation, and what I should say in public that may give the best, or the worst, impressions of Hinduism.

After reading such, with the sharing about the laws regarding women, here is what I wish to do if it were only possible.

Let me go to Sitamarhi. Let me go there to the very place of great Ambience (hey! sounds like "Amba" is in the word!) as well as sadness for ourselves for having lost a Great Queen because of our very insensibilities that cover our eyes and take away our dubious chances to simply have what is actually so easy to obtain, but seems so far away, when so many opportunities slip away from us to simply be aware of what is right in front of us, the embodiment of the Sun and the Moon, from seeing each other for what we are or can become.

Sitamarhi is where Mother Sita descended into the Earth, at the very spot. It was here that She was abandoned, which must have pleased those who lived in what was a paradise soon to be lost, who simply could not hold their tongues, who thought they were examples of these kind of “Laws” which are laws of men that will keep us as only that, men, and nothing more.

On and on, right in the middle of profound grace, they made their own lives mediocre and day by day, like crows they kept it up, so wise in what is the Law they imagined, and what a waste of their lives which could have been so rich -- but noooooo! … all they could do was try to flatter themselves in their own imaginations, on and on their destitution of what could have been a life living in the brilliance of the Sun of a King with the shine of the Moon as the Queen next to Him, until finally they got what they seemed to want in the end.

Because we always get what we want in the end. The problem is, it’s what we want that is the problem.

And Sita was then abandoned, at the tirtha called Sitamarthi, where She gave birth to Luv and Kush, and then descended into the embrace of Mother Earth.

Now a white temple stands there. That is where I wish I can go right now after what I have read today.

Jai Mother Sita, You descended into the Earth. Personally, I wish You were still here, I wish we didn’t say what we said about You by those who simply called you a woman. All women who worship You, they are very dear to you. Even those women who worship you in secret. I am sure that even to this day, there are so many who will praise those who had so much to say in putting You into the Earth. I am sure there are some who say Ram showed us the Way to put You into the Earth. But the devotees of Ram know otherwise, and even if we do not know anything well nothing is going to change our heart by now. And now we all have so many thousands, and thousands and eons of years to think about what was lost, and think more evenly the nature of what comes out of our mouth and at the ends of our tongue. Maybe that was the reason. But whatever the reason, I wish You stayed longer.

Am I being too sentimental? Opps, sorry! It's time to take rest and forget as much as possible about laws which I think I have read enough of it and frankly it's really boring compared to bhajans and prasham. It makes it sort of hard to meditate, frankly. But there is a lot of air blowing around and I don't want to be a contributor to anyone's tantrums.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Vasa]

Namaste.

According to what Seekerji posted:

If a Brahmin marries a Shudra, his sons are considered Shudra. Wasn't Veda Vyasa's father a Brahmin who married a Shudra, yet the son (Veda Vyasa) was not only considered a Brahmin, but allowed to write down the Vedas? I'm not sure how to reconcile these two points.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


Namaste.
Wasn't Veda Vyasa's father a Brahmin who married a Shudra, yet the son (Veda Vyasa) was not only considered a Brahmin, but allowed to write down the Vedas? I'm not sure how to reconcile these two points.

Actually Parasarmuni did not marry Satyavati, she was an adopted daughter of a fisherman chief but actually she was a Kashtriya.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Vasa]

Namaste Ganeshprasadji,

Thank you, that makes more sense in that case.


Pranam



Actually Parasarmuni did not marry Satyavati, she was an adopted daughter of a fisherman chief but actually she was a Kashtriya.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Eastern Mind]

Oh wow! Thank you for this! :)
Does anyone know how old the oldest surviving manuscript of the Manu Smriti is? Does it also contain these statements or are some of them interpolated? Also, what do you all make of these statements from a modern perspective? Thanks for shedding light on the subject!

Vannakkam: This list (and there are probably more) is the reason many Hindus (including myself) ignore this 'scripture' entirely. We have common sense, and since it contradicts totally our own sense of conscience and reason, we consider it irrelevant. When walking through the streets of India with my redheaded daughter, not too many modern Hindus were running away.

Aum Namasivaya

[IcyCosmic]

Well as much as I want to ignore it, surely if Manusmriti records the words of Brahma...then the scripture has some authenticity to it. I don't know..

[Eastern Mind]

Well as much as I want to ignore it, surely if Manusmriti records the words of Brahma...then the scripture has some authenticity to it. I don't know..

Vannakkam Icy: It's up to each individual, don't you think, as to which scriptures they put high on their lists, or low on their lists? There are way too many scriptures and contradictions within them to deal with them all, or obey them all. I have no problem with anybody using any scripture they want to. Just don't tell me I should be listening to all of them, and I won't tell you. That's when the problems arise, no? I think we can all agree we accept Vedas as authoritative. After that, it get fairly personal.

Aum Namasivaya

[dhyandev]

If we review this original Manu Smriti, one can proudly assert that there is perhaps no other text in world (except Vedas of course!) that accords so much of respect and rights to women. Even the modern feminist books would have to seek further amendments to match up to Manu Smriti.

I am yet to read a text that so unambiguously proclaims that women form the foundation of a prosperous society.

3.56. The society that provides respect and dignity to women flourishes with nobility and prosperity. And a society that does not put women on such a high pedestal has to face miseries and failures regardless of howsomuch noble deeds they perform otherwise.

This is not merely a flattery of womenfolk. It is a truth – very harsh for those who denigrate women and the sweetest nectar for those who glorify the motherly force. This law of nature is applicable to a family, society, cult, nation or entire humanity.

We became slaves despite all our greatness because we neglected this advice of Maharshi Manu. We did not heed to this advice for centuries even after invasions, and hence our situation turned from bad to worse. In late nineteenth century, thanks to efforts of reformers like Raja Ram Mohun Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar and Swami Dayanand Saraswati, we started considering the Vedic message seriously and hence observed a gradual upturn.

Many conservative Muslim countries of today consider women as half-intelligent and unworthy of equal rights at par with men. Hence these places are worse than hell. Europe followed the derogatory Biblical concept of women for ages and hence was among most superstitious places in world. Then, thanks to reformation era, things changed and Bible ceased to be taken seriously. As a result rapid progress happened. But now women is typically stereotyped as a sensual object of pleasure and not as a respectful motherly force. And hence, despite all the material progress, Western world is still inflicted with insecurity and lack of inner peace.

Lets review some more shlokas from Manu Smriti and attempt to imbibe them in our society:

Importance of happy women

3.55. A father, brother, husband or brother-in-law should keep their daughter, sister, wife or sister-in-law happy and pleased through gentle words, respectful behavior, gifts etc. Those who desire prosperity should ensure that women in their family are always happy and do not face miseries.

3.57. A family where women remain unhappy due to misdeeds of their men is bound to be destroyed. And a family where women are always happy is bound to prosper forever.

3.58. A family- where women feel insulted or discriminated against and curse their menfolk- is destroyed in same manner as poison kills all those who eat it.

3.59. One desiring glory should ensure that he keeps women in the family by giving them respect and pleasing them with good ornaments, dresses, food. Women should always be revered under all circumstances.

3.62. A person who does not keep her wife happy causes misery for entire family. And if wife is happy, entire family appears as happiness incarnate.

9.26. Women give birth to next generation. They enlighten the home. They bring fortune and bliss. Hence women are synonymous to Prosperity.

This shloka forms the basis of women being called Ghar ki Laxmi or ‘Goddess of Fortune in Home‘ in India even till today.

9.28. Woman is the source of all kinds of happiness in all generations – be it from children, or from noble benevolent deeds or through conjugal bliss or through service of elders.

In other words, woman is the primary source of bliss in many forms – sometimes as mother, sometimes as daughter, sometimes as wife and sometimes as a partner in spiritual deeds. It also means that participation of women is necessary for conduct of any religious or spiritual activity.

9.96. Man and Woman are incomplete without each other. Hence the most ordinary religious duty would demand participation of both.

Thus, those who deny Vedas or Vedic rituals to women are anti-Hindu and anti-Humanity.

4.180. A wise man should not indulge in fights and arguments with his family members including mother, daughter and wife.

9.4. A father who does not marry his daughter to a deserving groom deserves condemnation. A husband who does not fulfill just demands of her wife deserves condemnation. A son who does not take care of her widow mother deserves condemnation.

Polygamy is a sin

9.101. Husband and Wife should remain together till death. They should not approach any other partner, nor commit adultery. This, in summary, is the Dharma or religion of all human beings.

Thus those societies which justify polygamy or sex-slavery or temporary marriage are bound to suffer miseries because they neglect the core tenet of Dharma.





Autonomy of Women

9.11. Women should be provided autonomy and leadership in managing the finances, maintaining hygiene, spiritual and religious activities, nutrition and overall management of home.

The shloka clearly puts aside false claims that women do not have right to conduct religious rituals of Vedas. On contrary, women should lead such rituals. Thus all those people who suggest that women do not have right to study or practice Vedas are against Manu and Vedas. Such bigoted people are the cause for misery of the nation. We should simply not tolerate such mindsets that demean women.

9.12. A woman who is kept constrained in a home by noble men (husband, father, son) is still insecure. Thus it is futile to restrict women. Security of women would come only through her own capabilities and mindset.

This shloka explains the futility to attempting to restrict a woman to home in name of providing her security. On contrary, to secure her, she should be given the right training so that she can defend herself and avoid getting misled by bad company. The prevailing notion of cornering women within a small home is against Manu’s ideology.



Protection of Women

9.6. Even a weak husband should attempt to protect his wife.

9.5 Women should keep themselves away from vices. Because when women lose character, the entire society is destroyed.

5.149. A woman should always ensure that she is protected. It is duty of father, husband and son to protect her.

Please note that this protection does not imply restriction as clear from verse 9.12 cited in previous section. But a society that does not protect its womenfolk from attacks of perverts writes its own destiny of doom.

It is because of this inspiration that many a brave warriors laid their lives to protect the dignity of their women when butchers from West and Central Asia invaded our nation. The sacrifices of Alha-Udal and valor of Maharana Pratap brings a gush of glory in our blood.

Its a shame that despite such a chivalrous foundation of our culture, we have women either oppressed in backyard of homes or commoditized as sensual-items instigating lust. When we ourselves have turned invaders instead of protectors of dignity of women, who can help us!



Marriage of Women

9.89. It is better to keep the daughter unmarried than force her to marry an undeserving person.

9.90-91. A woman can choose her own husband after attaining maturity. If her parents are unable to choose a deserving groom, she can herself choose her husband.

Thus the concept of parents deciding the groom for their daughter is against Manu. A mature daughter has full rights to choose her husband. Parents act as facilitators for the marriage and not final decision makers, as wrongly practiced in many societies.



Property Rights of Women

9.130. A daughter is equivalent to a son. In her presence, how can any one snatch away her right over the property.

9.131. A daughter alone has the right over personal property of her mother.

Thus, as per Manu, while daughter has equal share as her brothers over property of her father, she has exclusive rights over property of her mother. The reason for this special treatment of women is to ensure that women are never at mercy of anyone. After all happy dignified women form the foundation of a happy society!

9.212-213. If a person has no kins or wife, then his wealth be distributed equally among his brothers and sisters. If the elder brother refuses to give due share to other brothers and sisters, he is punishable by law.

To further ensure safety of women, Manu recommended harsh punishments for those who rob away wealth of a woman, even if they are her relatives.

8.28-29. If a woman is alone because she has no children, or no men to provide for her security in her family, or is widow, or whose husband has gone abroad, or who is unwell, then it is duty of the government to ensure her safety and security. If her wealth is robbed by her relatives or friends, then the government should provide strict punishment to the culprits and have her wealth returned back.



Prohibition of Dowry

3.52. Those relatives who rob away or thrive on wealth, property, vehicles or dresses of a woman or her family are wiliest of people.

Thus any kind of dowry is a strict NO NO as per Manu Smriti. No one should dare attempt to take away the property of a woman.

The next shloka takes this concept further and states that even slightest exchange of tangible items amounts to sale/purchase and hence against principles of noble marriage. In fact Manu Smriti suggests that a marriage along with dowry is marriage of ‘Devils’ or Asuri Vivah.



Strict Punishment for harming Women

8.323. Those who abduct women should be given death sentence.

9.232. Those who kill women, children or scholarly virtuous people should be given strictest punishment.

8.352. Those who rape or molest women or incite them into adultery should be given harshest punishment that creates fear among others to even think of such a crime.

Interestingly, a judge of sessions court suggested today that castration seems the best punishment to prevent alarming increase in rape cases. Refer http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Castrate-child-rapists-Delhi-judge-suggests/articleshow/8130553.cms

We are in agreement with such a law.

8. 275. One should be punished if he puts false allegations or demeans mother, wife or daughter.

8.389. Those who abandon their mother, father, wife or children without any reasonable reason should face severe punishments.



Ladies First

The concept of Ladies First seems to originate from Manu Smriti.

2.138. A man in a vehicle should give way to the following – aged person, diseased person, one carrying burden, groom, king, student and a woman.

3.114. One should feed the following even before feeding the guests – newly married women, girls, and pregnant women.

[philosoraptor]

Interesting. I'm not sure I fully see this being applicable to modern society, but I can see how it would be in an ancient one.

Pranams. Modern or ancient is besides the point. Based on Gita 16.23-24, we must conclude that the authentic scriptural regulations are relevant if we want liberation.

What is germane to the discussion is whether or not those statements are truly authored by Manu, or are the result of recent interpolations. Based on similar statements that I have seen elsewhere, I would have to say that, I don't have any definite evidence that most of these statements are interpolated.



I know what dvija means, I just don't understand why a woman of brahmin, kshatriya, or vaishya descent could not study under a guru, but only study under her husband.

There are several possible rationales. The most obvious one is that society can't function if everyone is trained up the same way - there has to be differentiation and specialization. Another one is the fact that study under the guru meant performance of strict austerities (like begging for alms, fasting when your guru forgets to give permission to eat, etc), and young girls were not subject to these hardships in Vedic civilization. But the most important one is that these are the directions we are given in shAstra, and if we want to please the Lord, we must follow His instructions instead of manufacturing our own.



I feel as though this would be unfair to women who are not marriagable or at least very unlikely to be married.

That is of course, a typical post-modern view, based as it is on a system of values in which one's worth is measured on the basis of what secular duties one does. In Vedic culture, it was attainment of Sri Krishna's grace, not one's position in the social hierarchy, that mattered the most. Hence, shrImad bhAgavata purANa 1.2.8-9:



dharmaḥ svanuṣṭhitaḥ puṁsāṁ
 viṣvaksena-kathāsu yaḥ
notpādayed yadi ratiṁ
 śrama eva hi kevalam

The occupational activities a man performs according to his own position are only so much useless labor if they do not provoke attraction for the message of the Personality of Godhead.

dharmasya hy āpavargyasya
 nārtho ’rthāyopakalpate
nārthasya dharmaikāntasya
 kāmo lābhāya hi smṛtaḥ

All occupational engagements are certainly meant for ultimate liberation. They should never be performed for material gain. Furthermore, according to sages, one who is engaged in the ultimate occupational service should never use material gain to cultivate sense gratification.

The differences between the Vedic system of assumptions and the post-modern one cannot be overstated. Put simply, people subscribing to the latter set of values see unfairness in inequality, whereas those in the former see inequality as a consequence of having a body and previous karma, and take advantage of their station in life by performing devotional service so that they can get liberation.



This isn't practiced anymore by most young boys in India or the Indian diaspora and they still receive the sacred thread. In sects where people are allowed to convert and receive the sacred thread as an initiation, this often isn't even the case. Also, I think mandatory fasting for extended periods of time by any child is detrimental, not just little girls.

Many things are not widely practiced, but that is not by itself a justification for giving up the scriptural regulations. Also, there are still traditional gurukulas where boys do study under the guru and get initiation in the proper way, but these are fewer than prior to the colonial period. Fasting is an austerity that is necessary for developing sense control. Whether you like it or not, it was required for brahmacharis in the Vedic system.



Interesting. So, women are not allowed to take even non-Vedic diksha, but shudras are.

I did not say that. There may be evidence allowing for non-Vedic diksha for women, but I am not personally aware of it. That does not mean anything however, since I don't know everything. I would think that the burden of proof should be on those who claim it is authentic.



I believe you may be referring to Gargi or Maitreyi? I remember reading an Upanishad in which a rishi's daughter takes part in the debate. I don't remember the specifics, as I read it about six years ago.

It was both. Maitreyi was the saintly wife of Yajnavalkya who, after being asked for permission to let him take sannyasa, very intelligently refused the material settlement he offered and instead requested to be instructed in transcendental knowledge. Gargi participated in the brahminical debate with Yajnavalkya in which she and other brahmins were defeated by his superior knowledge of Brahman.



I have also heard this. However, not all women are in need of or want a husband now, so I don't see how this would apply to the modern world. Also, where does this leave shudra women?

The modern world is dysfunctional, so I feel no special need to dumb down shAstric regulations in order to appease a modern audience (as if I had the authority do do that anyway). Whether modern, futuristic, etc, the bottom line is that birth, disease, old age, and death are still a reality for all of us no matter how high-tech our gadgets become, and so the quest for liberation from material suffering is still quite relevant also. Both men and women in general should enter gRhastha Ashrama - that is the culture and there are many shAstric statements glorifying the role of householders in society. Sexual intercourse is only allowed in the context of gRhastha Ashrama, and the only conceivable justification to avoiding it would be to remain a lifelong celibate. Certainly that is possible, but few people can do it.

regards,

[MahaHrada]

Pranams,
You aren't listening. As a result, you have come to incorrect conclusions.
The regulation that I have seen specifically forbids initiating shudras into study of the Veda. It doesn't forbid explaining proper knowledge to the shudra.


You are trying to sell some snake oil to the gullible audience here :

The Shudra who studies the letter of the Vedas.. falls into Vaittarani (hell)...
Garuda Purana

He who instructs Shudra pupils and he whose teacher is a Shudra shall become disqualified for being invited to a shradha.
A Shudra is unfit to receive education. The upper varnas should not impart education or give advice to a Shudra. It is not necessary that the Shudra should know the laws and codes and hence need not be taught. Violators will go to amrita hell.
He must never read the Vedas in the presence of the Shudras.
If the shudra intentionally listens for committing to memory the veda, then his ears should be filled with lead and lac, if he utters the veda, then his tongue should be cut off, if he has mastered the veda his body should be cut to pieces.
Manu Smriti 3- 156. 4 78- 81 4. 99. 12 4

Now in your case we are not only talking about shudras, who are part of the varna order but you even preach the shruti/smriti to Mlecchas. Now in Brihat Parasaras Hora shastra the Varnas are compared to body parts of the Kamadhenu and the shudra is the excrementory organ of the cow and the Mleccha is the hair that grows out of that organ. Maybe not the most authoritative shastra but what a fitting and beautiful description!
Accordingly the sin is even greater preaching veda to the hair on that organ than to the organ itself, imagine the brahmin pronounces into the ear of the shudra and then the organ replies with its own voice, you might think this is bad but imagine what happens if you preach to the Hair on that organ, so instead of amrita hell, i presume the brahmin will end up approximately at the level of Raurava




As far as the rest of your casteist, divisive remarks are concerned, they are based on the mistaken premise that someone is "forcing" or proposing to "force" them onto people. That is simply beyond delusional. Vedas and other shrutis are all over the internet for public consumption, and no one is "forcing" site owners to remove them, traditional restrictions not withstanding. The Indian government has nothing but disdain for Hinduism, and they certainly aren't "forcing" any sort of traditional restrictions onto people. As far as history is concerned, there are prescriptions for punishments certainly, but there is no historical evidence that traditional gurus ever instructed shudras in vedic mantras, and thus there is no historical evidence that severe punishments of this kind were ever carried out, making their mention something of an anomaly in the dharma-shastras.

You misunderstood me, what i was saying is that sectarian scriptures like the smritis, should only be followed by those to whom they apply and that is no more than appx. 3% of the indian population, they are a valid pramana only for that path, that is considered by other shastras as the lowest of all acharas, the vedachara.

Because this partly appalling code of conduct is only valid for a tiny percentage of the indian population, it should be taught only to those that are eligible for it and not to others, while you are forcing these rules and regulation down the throat of all Hindus, no matter what achara they follow.

According to Kularnava Tantra, Bhavchudamani, ManthanBhairava Mahanirvana and other shastras. Smriti, i.e. rules for those following Vedachara only apply to the lowest type of humans that are still in the beginning stages of the spiritual path, and therefore have to judge the eligibility for iniitiation and study according to gender, birth race, color or creed, for others, those following higher more developed codes of conduct like Vaishnavachara, Siddhanta, Vamachara, Dakshinachara, Kaulachara and most other acharas and panths, the Smritis are not considered valid means of knowledge, instead they have been correctly designated as pashushastras, that means shastras that are valid only for humans that have an animal like nature.

[Seeker]

Vannakkam: This list (and there are probably more) is the reason many Hindus (including myself) ignore this 'scripture' entirely. We have common sense, and since it contradicts totally our own sense of conscience and reason, we consider it irrelevant. When walking through the streets of India with my redheaded daughter, not too many modern Hindus were running away.

Aum Namasivaya

Vanakkam EM Ji,

Yours is a sensible approach and I do the same. I do not allow any scripture to override my common sense. I also believe that God has given us enough wisdom to separate the grain from the chaf. Our sadhanas hone our capability to come to the correct conclusion.

That said , none of these bigoted scripts nullify the greatness of Sanathana Dharma. Upanishads portray a grand picture of divinity and how the divinity could be identified with in each and every one of us. Sometime the very same Upanishads are embedded within the few despicable passages even within Vedas. It is up to every individual to be discerning when reading thru these.

As someone else posted, this type of vedic knowledge , rituals & tharkas could be a bane on our progress. Ultimately divine grace and guru’s grace are the ones that will bring awareness of the limitless Self. These graces are not conditional on ones varna or caste. After all Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi bestowed this grace of moksha on a four legged animal – while several humans go thru ions of life cycles to achieve the same.

[JayaRadhe]

Vannakkam: This list (and there are probably more) is the reason many Hindus (including myself) ignore this 'scripture' entirely. We have common sense, and since it contradicts totally our own sense of conscience and reason, we consider it irrelevant. When walking through the streets of India with my redheaded daughter, not too many modern Hindus were running away.

Aum Namasivaya
Indeed. In regards to this especially, I will take the words of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura to heart: "Our shastras do not contain all that we could learn from the infinite Father. No book is without its errors. God's revelation is absolute truth, but it is scarcely received and preserved in its natural purity."

[JayaRadhe]

Namaste!

Pranams. Modern or ancient is besides the point. Based on Gita 16.23-24, we must conclude that the authentic scriptural regulations are relevant if we want liberation.

I am questioning whether it is authentic or not. I have not seen anyone give a date for the oldest version of this scripture and if it also contains these vituperative comments about women. In the Bhagavatam 11.14.4-10, Lord Krishna states to Uddhava that we have so many different Astika (that is, sanctioned by the Vedas) viewpoints, including atheistic and materialistic systems, because of the qualities of the people who received the revelations sent from Brahma. It would seem to me that a text that marginalizes women like this, even if it is the unadultered revelation (which I'm not fully convinced that it is), would be due to it being a revelation to a misogynist.


What is germane to the discussion is whether or not those statements are truly authored by Manu, or are the result of recent interpolations.

Which is what I've already asked.


Based on similar statements that I have seen elsewhere, I would have to say that, I don't have any definite evidence that most of these statements are interpolated.

Do you have evidence that they were not? If you look at the verses quoted by Seeker and the verses quoted by Dhyandev, they contradict each other repeatedly. This leads me to believe there must have been some sort of interpolation. Many scriptures, such as the Bhavishya Purana, have suffered from interpolations due to the abuse of invaders in India. I would be interested to know whether these ideas were in the original scripture or not and how old our oldest copy is of this scripture. Many of the statements sound a lot like the Islamic purdah system, which was not in place in India before the Muslim conquest, but became very popular after the 13th century when Muslims started taking over many Hindu kingdoms. It's not a far stretch to wonder if these misogynistic passages were interpolated into the Manu Smriti by men to justify keeping women in purdah.


There are several possible rationales. The most obvious one is that society can't function if everyone is trained up the same way - there has to be differentiation and specialization.

Why not? Our modern system of education does not discriminate against what certain children are allowed to learn and what certain children are not allowed to learn. They are then allowed to choose what they wish to do with their education. Why is that a problem? Should certain children be restrained from learning what the rest of their peers are being taught?


Another one is the fact that study under the guru meant performance of strict austerities (like begging for alms, fasting when your guru forgets to give permission to eat, etc), and young girls were not subject to these hardships in Vedic civilization.

Yet, young boys were? How much of a difference is their between a six or seven year old girl and a six or seven year old boy in regards to being malnourished?


But the most important one is that these are the directions we are given in shAstra, and if we want to please the Lord, we must follow His instructions instead of manufacturing our own.

I do not believe that the Lord, who loves and created women, would marginalize them in this way. I do not see this as the Lord's unadultered instructions.


That is of course, a typical post-modern view, based as it is on a system of values in which one's worth is measured on the basis of what secular duties one does. In Vedic culture, it was attainment of Sri Krishna's grace, not one's position in the social hierarchy, that mattered the most. Hence, shrImad bhAgavata purANa 1.2.8-9:

How does this answer what I stated at all? I said that I thought it was unfair that a girl who could not get married would be precluded from spiritual training. Then you respond by telling me that a girl who is not marriagable should be precluded because teaching her about Krishna would be based on secular duties. Since when does knowledge of Krishna interfere with secular duties? You then go on to quote Krishna stating that performance of secular duties without knowledge of him is a waste, which is exactly what I was saying.


The differences between the Vedic system of assumptions and the post-modern one cannot be overstated. Put simply, people subscribing to the latter set of values see unfairness in inequality, whereas those in the former see inequality as a consequence of having a body and previous karma, and take advantage of their station in life by performing devotional service so that they can get liberation.

How is she supposed to learn proper devotional service if she does not have a husband, and a woman's husband is her guru?


Many things are not widely practiced, but that is not by itself a justification for giving up the scriptural regulations. Also, there are still traditional gurukulas where boys do study under the guru and get initiation in the proper way, but these are fewer than prior to the colonial period.

Do you send your children to these traditional gurukuls, where food is witheld because they "don't have permission" to fulfill one of the most basic human needs for survival?


Fasting is an austerity that is necessary for developing sense control. Whether you like it or not, it was required for brahmacharis in the Vedic system.

Yes, fasting. Fasting on Ekadasi and Janmashtami, for example. Not witholding food from children because they don't have permission to eat. That is ludicrous.


I did not say that. There may be evidence allowing for non-Vedic diksha for women, but I am not personally aware of it. That does not mean anything however, since I don't know everything. I would think that the burden of proof should be on those who claim it is authentic.

I do not claim it to be "authentic" as we do not have full knowledge of what is and is not authentic to the ages before the Kali Yuga. Our history can only be traced back so far. Also, why do images of Devi wear the sacred thread in South India? Women are not commonly given the sacred thread there and the tradition of putting it on her images is virtually unknown in the north. I would be interested to know where that tradition started.


It was both. Maitreyi was the saintly wife of Yajnavalkya who, after being asked for permission to let him take sannyasa, very intelligently refused the material settlement he offered and instead requested to be instructed in transcendental knowledge. Gargi participated in the brahminical debate with Yajnavalkya in which she and other brahmins were defeated by his superior knowledge of Brahman.

Interesting. She may have been defeated, but she was still allowed to participate. I wonder what the author of the more misogynistic passages of the Manu smriti would have to say on the issue?


The modern world is dysfunctional, so I feel no special need to dumb down shAstric regulations in order to appease a modern audience (as if I had the authority do do that anyway). Whether modern, futuristic, etc, the bottom line is that birth, disease, old age, and death are still a reality for all of us no matter how high-tech our gadgets become, and so the quest for liberation from material suffering is still quite relevant also. Both men and women in general should enter gRhastha Ashrama - that is the culture and there are many shAstric statements glorifying the role of householders in society. Sexual intercourse is only allowed in the context of gRhastha Ashrama, and the only conceivable justification to avoiding it would be to remain a lifelong celibate. Certainly that is possible, but few people can do it.

Well, not everyone has parents who will go out and arrange a marriage for them in our society and not many people are able to just go out there and find their "one true love". That was my point.
Also, once again, where exactly are shudra women left in this equation set out in the Manu Smriti? Their husbands are not allowed to study the Vedas and they are not allowed to study the Vedas. Are their husbands still their gurus? If so, what kind of watered down spiritual instruction do these women get?

[Omkara]

Pranams

The consensus among scholars is that the manu smriti was written in the first century ad and that about one third of the verses in it were interpolated.

The Manu Smriti Is a book of law that prescribes law for all classes of people and not just hindus.What is written there reflects the personal opinion of the autor alone.

In my opinion the vedas , upanishads and agamas , being revelatory literature, alone desrve to be called scriptue.

The Agamas are sufficient to inform hindus how they should behave.

[PARAM]

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


Jai Radhe you have intelligent thoughts and exactly you are brave enough to face those who are spreading rumors in the name of DhaRMa GranThaM (Hindu Scriptures)

There is no noble one in Hinduism who never takes blessings of mother.
"kuputro jayeta kvacidapi kumata na bhavati"
There can be evil sons, but mothers can never be evil.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant etc were educated by several yogis on Bhagwad Gita for many years before they translated Bhagwad Gita. Similar is for all, you have to learn from real Yogis and not hypocrite ply actors. To fight back you have to learn DhaRMa GranThaM from real yogis and not just who think they can laugh at those who do not support birth based supremacy, animal sacrifice in yagyas, ill treat to women and other false related theories.

Those who don’t realize ॐ and Yoga Philosophy, they cannot know the real meaning of Vedas (Rig-Veda 1/164/16)

Manu Samriti is a DhaRMa GranThaM based on Vedas, there is no such idea what people are describing by just copying form anti-Hindu websites without understanding anything.

[IcyCosmic]

If the caste system is a legitimate means to operate society, I think mankind has failed in enforcing at is its movement is so restricted any system which is so rigid is destined for failure from the beginning.

I'm inclined to believe the quote where the castes are bound to different parts of the body - the quote that many brahmins use to justify the system at large is a later interpolation. In any way, if we break down the imagery in the hymn there are many inconsistencies, that is of course my opinion as of today. Only god knows the truth.

There is no doubt though that the law of Karma adds much validity to the caste system.

[satay]

namaste,



You may wish to consider Kalari-payattu, one of the traditional martial arts forms of India. Many Eastern forms of martial arts are said to have been imported from India, possibly from Kalari-payattu. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsUai4wt6Yk

Yes, it was discussed on HDF previously.

http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4072

[philosoraptor]

Namaste!

I am questioning whether it is authentic or not. I have not seen anyone give a date for the oldest version of this scripture and if it also contains these vituperative comments about women. In the Bhagavatam 11.14.4-10, Lord Krishna states to Uddhava that we have so many different Astika (that is, sanctioned by the Vedas) viewpoints, including atheistic and materialistic systems, because of the qualities of the people who received the revelations sent from Brahma. It would seem to me that a text that marginalizes women like this, even if it is the unadultered revelation (which I'm not fully convinced that it is), would be due to it being a revelation to a misogynist.

Pranams,

Even in the Bhagavam there are statements decrying the deluding influence of women on men. Take for example:



SB 8.9.9 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/8/9/9) — The Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the form of Mohinī, told the demons: O sons of Kaśyapa Muni, I am only a prostitute. How is it that you have so much faith in Me? A learned person never puts his faith in a woman.
SB 8.9.10 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/8/9/10) — O demons, as monkeys, jackals and dogs are unsteady in their sexual relationships and want newer and newer friends every day, women who live independently seek new friends daily. Friendship with such a woman is never permanent. This is the opinion of learned scholars.


and



SB 3.31.40 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/3/31/40) — The woman, created by the Lord, is the representation of māyā, and one who associates with such māyā by accepting services must certainly know that this is the way of death, just like a blind well covered with grass.


I have seen numerous, similar statements in other purANas. While one may claim that each and every such statement is "interpolated," such a view becomes less and less believeable when you see how often such statements occur across a wide variety of sources. In any case, we should be honest and admit that those who claim "interpolation" in such cases merely do so because of their personal/modern/Westernized biases, i.e. they think the verses supposedly "marginalize women." They aren't looking at the texts objectively. In reality, the objectionable verses are designed to induce sexual detachment (and hence, the development of jnaana) in the men who read them, and that is their purpose. Arguing that they were intended to "marginalize women" is simply a wrong understanding on so many levels - especially when considering other verses in which female devotees are praised, or when service to mothers is recommended, etc.

If we can accept that these statements are in the Bhagavatam, there is no reason to assume that similar statements in Manu are interpolated.



Do you have evidence that they were not?

Well, aside from the fact that we have similar verses in the Bhagavatam which are not regarded as interpolated:



SB 10.29.24 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/29/24) — The highest religious duty for a woman is to sincerely serve her husband, behave well toward her husband’s family and take good care of her children.


... common sense would hold that the burden of proof is on the challenger. If you don't regard consistency with other sources as evidence of authenticity, then what sort of evidence would you want? A time-stamped video recording of the author while he is composing the objectionable verses?



If you look at the verses quoted by Seeker and the verses quoted by Dhyandev, they contradict each other repeatedly. This leads me to believe there must have been some sort of interpolation.

That would be a fallacious assumption, because the verses quoted by Seeker and Dhyandev obviously did not include context, and it is context which ultimately puts them in the correct light. You also see it as contradiction because you cannot understand how they reconcile. In reality, most of them are no more contradictory than the bedha and abedha shrutis are, but we still reconcile those into a harmonious understanding.

There is no getting around the fact that women had a subordinate role in Vedic civilization (as they did in all other ancient civilizations). But unlike other cultures, the position of a woman is still respected and is earned based on karma, i.e. it is not intrinsic to the soul. It is also a fact that women can attain that highest level of bhakti that the highly learned sages themselves aspire to. How they can be like that, and yet be required to be dependent on their husbands, is something one simply has to reconcile. No one ever claimed that their role could fit nicely into a Westernized conception of "respected and free/independent."



Many scriptures, such as the Bhavishya Purana, have suffered from interpolations due to the abuse of invaders in India. I would be interested to know whether these ideas were in the original scripture or not and how old our oldest copy is of this scripture. Many of the statements sound a lot like the Islamic purdah system, which was not in place in India before the Muslim conquest, but became very popular after the 13th century when Muslims started taking over many Hindu kingdoms. It's not a far stretch to wonder if these misogynistic passages were interpolated into the Manu Smriti by men to justify keeping women in purdah.

In that case, you would have to argue that similar verses in the Bhagavata and Vishnu Puranas are also interpolated. Except that this would be contradicted by the fact that we have manuscripts and commentaries on both which predate Islamic influence. Hence, you are back in square one, and simply have to reconcile with the fact that strI-dharma is a part of sanAtana-dharma.

In response to my comment that there must be differentiation and specialization in order for a society to function, you wrote:



Why not? Our modern system of education does not discriminate against what certain children are allowed to learn and what certain children are not allowed to learn. They are then allowed to choose what they wish to do with their education. Why is that a problem? Should certain children be restrained from learning what the rest of their peers are being taught?

Ok, well, let's take your view as a given. Shouldn't people be allowed to learn the Veda regardless of their birth? Is it not a positive thing when the Max Mullers, the Wendy Donigers, and the Zakir Hussains of the world study Veda and reveal to us what they have "understood?"

More to the point, what if everyone became a brahmin and chanted mantras/taught Vedas/did pujas? There would be no one to protect the state from bandits, no one to carry on the agriculture, etc. What could possibly be wrong with that? Why couldn't such a society function?



Yet, young boys were? How much of a difference is their between a six or seven year old girl and a six or seven year old boy in regards to being malnourished?

Your question suggests that scriptural regulations of this nature require biological rationale. They don't. People in Vedic culture did not subject girls to these sorts of austerities as a matter of routine, whereas such austerities were obligatory on brahmacharis. This is in shAstra. It is also alluded to by Sri Krishna when He meets his dear friend Sudama and recounts a story of how they suffered while trying to serve their guru:



SB 10.80.40 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/80/40) — [Sāndīpani said:] O my children, you have suffered so much for my sake! The body is most dear to every living creature, but you are so dedicated to me that you completely disregarded your own comfort.
SB 10.80.41 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/80/41) — This indeed is the duty of all true disciples: to repay the debt to their spiritual master by offering him, with pure hearts, their wealth and even their very lives.


To understand why the position of a dvija is so important in society, one has to first understand the rigorous training the brahmachari had to undergo. It wasn't just about learning mantras - austerity was very much a part of it.


I do not believe that the Lord, who loves and created women, would marginalize them in this way. I do not see this as the Lord's unadultered instructions.

Belief is irrelevant. The Lord wants our surrender, not our conditions and protests. No amount of believing the verses interpolated is going to change the fact that they are all over the place in smRiti - in purANas, in mahAbhArata, in other dharma-shAstras, etc.



How does this answer what I stated at all? I said that I thought it was unfair that a girl who could not get married would be precluded from spiritual training. Then you respond by telling me that a girl who is not marriagable should be precluded because teaching her about Krishna would be based on secular duties. Since when does knowledge of Krishna interfere with secular duties? You then go on to quote Krishna stating that performance of secular duties without knowledge of him is a waste, which is exactly what I was saying.

You have misunderstood. I said that, according to the dharma-shAstras, women were not intiated into study of the Veda. That is a well-known fact. But this did not mean that girls got no spiritual training.

If you are a Hare Krishna follower, then you surely know this verse by heart:



SB 1.4.25 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/4/25) — Out of compassion, the great sage thought it wise that this would enable men to achieve the ultimate goal of life. Thus he compiled the great historical narration called the Mahābhārata for women, laborers and friends of the twice-born.

These texts like Mahabharata were specifically compiled so that those who don't have the qualification to study shruti could still understand the essence of shruti.



How is she supposed to learn proper devotional service if she does not have a husband, and a woman's husband is her guru?

The same way we all do - she learns from her parents the stories as found in Bhagavatam, Mahabharata, Ramayana, etc, but not study of the Veda within a gurukula.


Yes, fasting. Fasting on Ekadasi and Janmashtami, for example. Not witholding food from children because they don't have permission to eat. That is ludicrous.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. Myself, I tend to be wary of religious groups which on one hand claim to be "Vedic" and then on the other hand, hold that some scriptural regulations are "ludicrous." Suffice it to say that, due to your bias against those regulations, you are reading them in a very unfavorable light. Manu says that the shishyas were supposed to fast if their guru did not give them permission to eat. That is the level of devotion to their guru that qualified them for the knowledge they were to inherit. It does not say that the guru routinely did such things. On the contrary, we know from many texts that the guru and his wife treated he shishyas just like their own children in many ways.



I do not claim it to be "authentic" as we do not have full knowledge of what is and is not authentic to the ages before the Kali Yuga. Our history can only be traced back so far.

By the same logic, you should then reject the Bhagavatam. By what objective standard is Bhagavatam authentic and Manu Smriti not? Can you give an answer without invoking popular appeal? I suspect that you cannot. Bear in mind that we have two commentaries on Manu Smriti dating back to 7th - 11th centuries, which makes it less likely that the verses you object to are interpolated - the current editions we have are based on the manuscript quoted by Medhatithi if memory serves. Also, Manu is quoted by both Shankara and Ramanuja, which further establishes the antiquity of the text. Just out of curiosity, being that you are a Hare Krishna follower (correct me if I'm mistaken), you would no doubt be required to accept the authenticity of the Chaitanya upanishad, yes? This text simply did not exist before the 18th century. I am curious to know whether you would apply the same standard of authenticity you propose for Manu, and thus reject the authority of the Chaitanya Upanishad.


Also, why do images of Devi wear the sacred thread in South India? Women are not commonly given the sacred thread there and the tradition of putting it on her images is virtually unknown in the north. I would be interested to know where that tradition started.

Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. Devi has a sacred thread, so human women should also be initiated in sacred thread. But Devi is also pictured with four arms and riding a tiger. Would this apply to human women also? If not, then I would suggest that the goddess wearing sacred thread doesn't say anything one way or another about whether human women should. On the other hand, do we have evidence of ancient art forms depicting human women wearing yagnopavitam? If we did, that might be more telling.


Well, not everyone has parents who will go out and arrange a marriage for them in our society and not many people are able to just go out there and find their "one true love". That was my point.
Also, once again, where exactly are shudra women left in this equation set out in the Manu Smriti? Their husbands are not allowed to study the Vedas and they are not allowed to study the Vedas. Are their husbands still their gurus? If so, what kind of watered down spiritual instruction do these women get?

Yes, the situation for spiritual people today is dire, as they often lack the family support they are supposed to have. Nevertheless, the regulations are what they are. Manu does not discuss shudra women specifically as his audience appears to be primarily twice-born males. However, we can assume he would have wanted shudra women also to get married, assuming that his thinking was in line with Sri Krishna's. As far as their education is concerned, that was answered previously - they can learn about bhakti through the smRiti texts like Bhagavatam, Mahabharata, etc which are not restricted to twice-born males. Whether their husband is considered guru in this context I do not know.

regards,

[philosoraptor]

You are trying to sell some snake oil to the gullible audience here :

The Shudra who studies the letter of the Vedas.. falls into Vaittarani (hell)...
Garuda Purana

He who instructs Shudra pupils and he whose teacher is a Shudra shall become disqualified for being invited to a shradha.
A Shudra is unfit to receive education. The upper varnas should not impart education or give advice to a Shudra. It is not necessary that the Shudra should know the laws and codes and hence need not be taught. Violators will go to amrita hell.
He must never read the Vedas in the presence of the Shudras.
If the shudra intentionally listens for committing to memory the veda, then his ears should be filled with lead and lac, if he utters the veda, then his tongue should be cut off, if he has mastered the veda his body should be cut to pieces.
Manu Smriti 3- 156. 4 78- 81 4. 99. 12 4

Now in your case we are not only talking about shudras, who are part of the varna order but you even preach the shruti/smriti to Mlecchas.

Pranams. As mentioned previously, these references refer only to the formal educaton of a shUdra in the veda by a guru, by which it is meant residing in the gurukula, rote memorization of the entire veda, and later recitation of the veda as an authority - that is what is forbidden for shudras. These are not referring to the kinds of public discourses held by brahmin males in which one mentions what vedas say about this or that in passing. In regards the latter, we have the authority of gItA 18.68 in which Sri Krishna extols the person who explains this knowledge to the devotees - He does not qualify this by specifying only certain varNas, and in fact states quite clearly in gItA 9.32 that even shUdras can attain Him. In all of the traditional commentaries on gItA, the commentators do reference statements in shruti to make their points. This would not be sensible if even hearing a single statement from shruti as part of an evidence-based presentation was forbidden. Please note that the commentators I am referring to, namely Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva, all upheld the varna-by-birth system, and yet all of them quoted shrutis in commentaries on texts which are meant to be studied by women and shudras also.



Now in Brihat Parasaras Hora shastra the Varnas are compared to body parts of the Kamadhenu and the shudra is the excrementory organ of the cow and the Mleccha is the hair that grows out of that organ. Maybe not the most authoritative shastra but what a fitting and beautiful description!

You are right. It's not not the most authoritative source and I fail to see its relevance here. The purusha-sukta is quite clear that the shudras come from the feet of the purusha. What is the need for ignoring vedas and quoting some other text which says something contradictory?



Accordingly the sin is even greater preaching veda to the hair on that organ than to the organ itself, imagine the brahmin pronounces into the ear of the shudra and then the organ replies with its own voice, you might think this is bad but imagine what happens if you preach to the Hair on that organ, so instead of amrita hell, i presume the brahmin will end up approximately at the level of Raurava

Except that brahmins in traditional sampradayas preach to shudras all the time. So your unique interpretation based on questionable texts is contradicted by historical precedent. Note also that mantras are chanted as part of temple worship, but hardly will you find a temple in which someone forces the shudras and women out during such worship.


You misunderstood me, what i was saying is that sectarian scriptures like the smritis, should only be followed by those to whom they apply and that is no more than appx. 3% of the indian population, they are a valid pramana only for that path,

Manu gives regulations that apply to men, women, brahmins, kshatriyas, vaisyas, and shudras. This is clear from the text. The only people for whom his regulations are not relevant are those who don't follow sanAtana-dharma or, perhaps even, those who were born outside Hinduism and convert.


that is considered by other shastras as the lowest of all acharas, the vedachara.

Please give exact citations for this view. Because mainstream shAstras like bhAgavatam 4.14.18-19, viShNu purANa 2.8.9, viShNu purANa 3.8.6-19 are very clear that the Lord is pleased by the performance of varNAshrama-dharma, and in fact say that varNAshrama-dharma is the way ordinary people worship Him.



Because this partly appalling code of conduct is only valid for a tiny percentage of the indian population, it should be taught only to those that are eligible for it and not to others, while you are forcing these rules and regulation down the throat of all Hindus, no matter what achara they follow.

Nobody is forcing anything on anyone. Falsehoods don't become true simply through repetition. There are plenty of people who profess to be Hindus but don't follow varNAshrama-dharma, and no one is forcing them to do otherwise. On the other hand, whether their practices earn the grace of the Lord is another matter.



According to Kularnava Tantra, Bhavchudamani, ManthanBhairava Mahanirvana and other shastras.

... or in other words, obscure, non-apauruesheya sources with limited, sectarian appeal....



Smriti, i.e. rules for those following Vedachara only apply to the lowest type of humans that are still in the beginning stages of the spiritual path, and therefore have to judge the eligibility for iniitiation and study according to gender, birth race, color or creed, for others, those following higher more developed codes of conduct like Vaishnavachara, Siddhanta, Vamachara, Dakshinachara, Kaulachara and most other acharas and panths, the Smritis are not considered valid means of knowledge, instead they have been correctly designated as pashushastras, that means shastras that are valid only for humans that have an animal like nature.

Aside from the fact that you are ignoring mainstream pramANas in favor of obscure, sectarian pramANas, you are endorsing a view that is not logical. The rules for the training of brahmacharis are clearly not meant for those "in the beginning stages of the spiritual path." The chAndogya upaniShad is very clear that people who got these births did so due to pious activities peformed in previous lives. The gItA 16.23-24 is clear that no one attains the supreme goal if he ignores scriptural duties.



yaḥ śāstra-vidhim utsṛjya
vartate kāma-kārataḥ
na sa siddhim avāpnoti
na sukhaṁ na parāṁ gatim

He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination.

tasmāc chāstraṁ pramāṇaṁ te
kāryākārya-vyavasthitau
jñātvā śāstra-vidhānoktaṁ
karma kartum ihārhasi

One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of the scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated.

Note that this renders your position somewhat nonsensical, since the vast majority of regulations come from smRti, not shruti. Indeed, there are few people who are exempt from regulations. To hold ourselves as being akin to paramahamsas who are somehow beyond the scope of regulative principles is pretty arrogant, to say the least. There are quite a few people here who have basic problems with being vegetarian or celibate. Saying that they are too advanced for scriptural regulations is just bad comedy.


regards,

[Omkara]

Philosoraptor,are you saying the bhagavatam is not a sectarian vaishnava scripture?
And by talking about so-called mainstream scriptures,arent YOU appealing to the popular vote?

[MahaHrada]

This would not be sensible if even hearing a single statement from shruti as part of an evidence-based presentation was forbidden. Please note that the commentators I am referring to, namely Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva, all upheld the varna-by-birth system, and yet all of them quoted shrutis in commentaries on texts which are meant to be studied by women and shudras also.

Shudras and woman were deliberatly kept in an illiterate state and in the past did not study anything, neither were most of them able to read, and the situation has not really improved much today, in general all peasants, servants, sweepers etc. are often illiterate. So do not feed me this nonsense that these commentaries were available to anyone but dvijas.



Except that brahmins in traditional sampradayas preach to shudras all the time. So your unique interpretation based on questionable texts is contradicted by historical precedent. Note also that mantras are chanted as part of temple worship, but hardly will you find a temple in which someone forces the shudras and women out during such worship.

Of course today all this had to be slowly changed, because also low caste persons became rich and influential and to keep donations rolling in was, throughout the history of India always the main interests of traditional maths. Sringeri math has now -last year-admitted a shudra and given diskha, and he is studying and he is living as a resident sannyasin there.
Does that mean that now Varna is not determined by birth anymore ? Or does it mean shringeri is not a traditional math anymore: ) Any rational explanation you can regurgiate for me that fits in with the reverence you have for traditional acharyas?


Manu gives regulations that apply to men, women, brahmins, kshatriyas, vaisyas, and shudras. This is clear from the text. The only people for whom his regulations are not relevant are those who don't follow sanAtana-dharma or, perhaps even, those who were born outside Hinduism and convert.

This is incorrect Manu S. is only a valid means for knowledge in the realm of traditional smarta sectarians that do not make up more than appx 3% of Indias Population, everyone else do not accept and most never even heard of the "authority" of this shastra.



Please give exact citations for this view. Because mainstream shAstras like bhAgavatam 4.14.18-19, viShNu purANa 2.8.9, viShNu purANa 3.8.6-19 are very clear that the Lord is pleased by the performance of varNAshrama-dharma, and in fact say that varNAshrama-dharma is the way ordinary people worship Him.

This is not about V. D. per se it is about the fact that the smritis are pashu shastras and that the conduct of vedachara with its inhuman concepts is inferior to all other 7 Acharas


... or in other words, obscure, non-apauruesheya sources with limited, sectarian appeal....


Just the same i would say about the source you cite : they are exactly that:

obscure, non-apauruesheya sources with limited, sectarian appeal....

....while the Tantras and Agamas are considered shruti, and in doubt are considered as the final authority more authoritative than even the vedas, by those who follow them as pramana.


Note that this renders your position somewhat nonsensical, since the vast majority of regulations come from smRti, not shruti. Indeed, there are few people who are exempt from regulations. To hold ourselves as being akin to paramahamsas who are somehow beyond the scope of regulative principles is pretty arrogant, to say the least. There are quite a few people here who have basic problems with being vegetarian or celibate. Saying that they are too advanced for scriptural regulations is just bad comedy.

Different scriptural regulations are valid in different Acharas. Manu smriti as every sane person can easily discern, is not the crown jewel of Hindu Darshanas, but rather comparable to a bag of household dirt, which you best take with a shovel, close your nostrils, and dump in a ditch opposite your house.

[philosoraptor]

Shudras and woman were deliberatly kept in an illiterate state and in the past did not study anything, neither were most of them able to read, and the situation has not really improved much today, in general all peasants, servants, sweepers etc. are often illiterate. So do not feed me this nonsense that these commentaries were available to anyone but dvijas.

Please cite historical evidence to substantiate your view that "shudras and woman (sic) were deliberaly kept in an illiterate state." Note that saying they were illiterate is not the same thing as saying they were kept that way. Illiteracy was present in all pre-industrial cultures. The point I'm asking you to substiante is your view that force was used to keep people from learning how to read.



Of course today all this had to be slowly changed, because also low caste persons became rich and influential and to keep donations rolling in was, throughout the history of India always the main interests of traditional maths. Sringeri math has now -last year-admitted a shudra and given diskha, and he is studying and he is living as a resident sannyasin there.
Does that mean that now Varna is not determined by birth anymore ? Or does it mean shringeri is not a traditional math anymore: ) Any rational explanation you can regurgiate for me that fits in with the reverence you have for traditional acharyas?

It means that, if true, they have to rationalize their decision based on shAstra. I would like to see them do that.



This is incorrect Manu S. is only a valid means for knowledge in the realm of traditional smarta sectarians that do not make up more than appx 3% of Indias Population, everyone else does not except the authority of this shastra.

So according to you, if a person does not accept the authority of a shAstra, then it is not relevant to him. In that case, how relevant are the tantric texts you quoted from? How many people accept those?



This is not about V. D. per se it is about the fact that the smritis are pashu shastras and that the conduct of vedachara with its inhuman concepts is inferior to all other 7 Acharas

This is nothing more than your own sectarian view, based as it is on texts which are of far more obscure origin than Manu Samhita.



Just the same i would say about the source you cite : they are exactly that:
obscure, non-apauruesheya sources with limited, sectarian appeal....

Except that you would be wrong, since those very texts have been commented on extensively in a variety of different sampradayas.



....while the Tantras and Agamas are considered shruti, and in doubt are considered as the final authority more authoritatuive than even the vedas by those who follow them.

Well, no one ever accused you of having a firm grasp on reality.

regards,

PR

[Omkara]

The manu smriti is known to have been written in the first century ad

[philosoraptor]

The manu smriti is known to have been written in the first century ad

If that's true, I would really like to know how one arrives at that conclusion. Hopefully it's not from the same methodology that holds that Rig Veda was written in 1500 BC.

[Omkara]

The agamas are consideted equal to the vedas and as shruti by all sects except sankara's followers

[Omkara]

The veda quote i had referenced earlier in the thtead makes it clear that medicine singing etc were their respective professions....i was unable to find a better translation

regarding kancipurna,dufferent versions of the story are foumd in biographies of the tenalakai and vadalakai representing the views of those sects

[Omkara]

A large number of verses in the vedas were revealed to woman rishis.How can you then claim that women cannot study the vedas?

[Omkara]

Many if the words used in the manu smriti did nit exist in the sanakrit lexicon before second century bc.also it makes reference to historical eventa happening around the time.the grammar used is obviously and necessaru pst panini and patanjali and probably post kalidasa

[philosoraptor]

Agamas and Tantras are not shruti. The Agamas may be given equal weight as shruti by some sampradayas (just as the Puranas are) but that does not make them shruti. Merely claiming them to be shruti as Maha does, does not make it so.

Yes, some mantras are said to have been revealed to female rishis. But, when in history were women found studying in gurukula and learning veda? I too would like to get clarification on that - were these devarishis, and hence the discrepancy? Because it's a bit hard to swallow that all these acharyas simply had no idea about this for centuries and were just keeping women out of the gurukulas due to misogyny.

The professions referred to in the Rig Veda quote you provided don't correspond to any of the four varnas, so what this actually means is not clear. Meanwhile, it's a bit hard to accept that all other quotes suggesting hereditary basis for varna (i.e. chAndogya upaniShad) are simply wrong.

Your claim was that Manu Samhita was "known" to be authored before first century. But that is not obvious from the subsequent justification given. These philological arguments are based on conjecture. Philology isn't a science. It may suggest certain dates but it is hardly fair to call their conclusions a done deal.

[Omkara]

Philology certainly establishes beyond doubt that the manu smriti was not authored by manu.
Since the acharyas i follow do not share those views, i will let followers of those acharyas speak for them.i consider myself a shaiva,though i have not decided on my sampradaya yet.None of the shaiva acharyas of any sect accepted varna by birth and i share that opinion.neither the puranas nor the mau smriti are part of tge twelve or fourteen depending on the sect canon of shauvism.

I am misspelling some words as i am typing on my mobile.sorry.

[Omkara]

I accept that it is unclear which varnas the professions in the rig veda quote refer to(perhaps someone mote kniwledgeable can help) but it shiws that profession is not decided by birth(at least within a varna)

[Omkara]

Have you read the vajrasuchika upanishad?it discusses the subject in detail.

[MahaHrada]

Please cite historical evidence to substantiate your view that "shudras and woman (sic) were deliberaly kept in an illiterate state." Note that saying they were illiterate is not the same thing as saying they were kept that way. Illiteracy was present in all pre-industrial cultures. The point I'm asking you to substiante is your view that force was used to keep people from learning how to read.


Aww come on... give me a break you want evidence for the obvious, but you do belive that the earth is circling around the sun, or do you prefer the puranic viewpoint?



So according to you, if a person does not accept the authority of a shAstra, then it is not relevant to him. In that case, how relevant are the tantric texts you quoted from? How many people accept those?
This is nothing more than your own sectarian view, based as it is on texts which are of far more obscure origin than Manu Samhita.


So you think one should only acccept those shastras, that the majority accepts? Is that your idea of democrazying dharma? Demographic sanatana dharma ? Secular leftist vote bank based majority ruled vedic achara? Well if that is true what about the Quran or Bible, as your brand new pramana? I guess worldwide the followers of Muhammed and Christ are in the majority, so do you think therefore we must all convert now, because abrahamics are in the majority?
For you maybe the differnence will not be that great, since smartism reminds me a lot of salafism but for me this would make a difference, so- no thank you i cannot accept the demographic way of determining what is satyam and rtam.



Except that you would be wrong, since those very texts have been commented on extensively in a variety of different sampradayas.


No you are wrong :logic:



Well, no one ever accused you of having a firm grasp on reality.

And that from a wtf or a wuc a smarta impersonating a Vaishnava on its way to raurava hell where he will suffer aeons for the sin of teaching shruti to the hair that grows out of the ass of an immortal cow. :Roll:

[MahaHrada]

Agamas and Tantras are not shruti. The Agamas may be given equal weight as shruti by some sampradayas (just as the Puranas are) but that does not make them shruti. Merely claiming them to be shruti as Maha does, does not make it so.

Everyone merely claims! You merely claim and i merely claim, it is also merely a claim that the 4 vedas are shruti, there is no evidence whatsoever that any shastra is shruti-or agama , that is revealead, except the claim of the rishi and the faith of the shisya. What makes your claim more worthy of consideration than that of others? Demographics, a poll? If i see a shastra and my disciple belives that it is revealed, it is shruti, at least for the two of us.

[Omkara]

Agamas are shruti,and they are considered shruti

[Omkara]

Aa a srivaishnava , do you consider the divya prabandham as shruti?

[philosoraptor]

Maha,

Your bluff has been called. Please provide evidence to substantiate your claims that Hinduism has forced shudras and women to be "illiterate." If you have no such evidence, then you should withdraw your accusation.

There is nothing more despicable than a person who criticizes an entire culture based on a strawman. Since your whole argument against varnAshrama dharma seems based on ideas like this one, your ability to prove the accusation is at the very heart of this discussion.

regards,

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,

While we're waiting for Maha to do his Google search to prove what he claims is obvious, I will take this opportunity to quote verses showing that in the traditional Hindu view, varNAshrama-dharma, although hierarchical and birth-based, was still inclusive and compassionate. Unlike Maha, I will resort to fairly mainstream pramANas, meaning those texts which have a long history of being quoted and/or commented on by vedAntic scholars. I will also quote only from those texts which I have studied first-hand.

This is not just to defeat the anti-Hindu propaganda which is being swallowed wholesale by some people. It's also for the sake of establishing a balanced view of what varNAshrama really was. Please note that each of the sources below also upholds varNa by birth.

Evidence showing that members of all varNas can attain the highest goal:

māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśritya
ye ’pi syuḥ pāpa-yonayaḥ
striyo vaiśyās tathā śūdrās
te ’pi yānti parāṁ gatim

O son of Pṛthā, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth – women, vaiśyas [merchants] and śūdras [workers] – can attain the supreme destination. (bhagavad-gItA 9.32)

sve sve karmaṇy abhirataḥ
saṁsiddhiṁ labhate naraḥ
sva-karma-nirataḥ siddhiṁ
yathā vindati tac chṛṇu

By following his qualities of work, every man can become perfect. Now please hear from Me how this can be done. (bhagavad-gItA 18.45)


Evidence showing that the Lord Himself respect members of all varNas:

sarveSaam sa hi dharma aatmaa varNaanaam kurute dayaam || 2-17-15
caturNaam hi vayahsthaanaam tena te tam anuvrataaH |

Rama, the virtuous, had compassion towards all the four classes of men and towards the aged people. Hence, they were all devoted to him. (vAlmIki-rAmAyaNa 2.17.15)


Evidence showing that people of all varNas were included in social gatherings:

Vaalmiiki Raamaayaana 1.13.13-17 shows how the organizers of Mahaaraaja Dasharatha's ashvamedha-yagna made arrangements for members of all varNas to attend and be treated hospitably:

aavaasaa bahu bhakSyaa vai sarva kaamaiH upasthitaaH |
tathaa paurajansya api janasya bahu shobhanam || 1-13-13

"These lodgings are to be arranged with many foods and utilities for the people of this city and for others coming from distant countries, and a very grand food be given in all of them. [1-13-13]

daatavyam annam vidhivat satkR^itya na tu liilayaa |
sarve varNaa yathaa puujaam praapnuvanti susatkR^itaaH || 1-13-14
na ca avaj~naa prayoktavyaa kaama krodha vashaat api |

"Food is to be given dutifully treating all of them well but not just illusively, and the people of all the castes shall be well honoured as they would get their due respect, and no disrespect be shown, even when overcome by passion or anger at anyone. [1-13-14, 15a]

yaj~na karmasu ye vyagraaH puruSaaH shilpinaH tathaa || 1-13-15
teSaam api visheSeNa puujaa kaaryaa yathaa kramam |
ye syuH sa.mpuujitaa sarve vasubhiH bhojanena ca || 1-13-16

"Exceptionally respectable are those men and architects that are preoccupied in the works of the ritual as they deserve, and those men involved in these works shall be well-treated with funds and food. [1-13-15b, 16]

yathaa sarvam suvihitam na ki.ncit parihiiyate |
tathaa bhavantaH kurvantu priiti yuktena cetasaa || 1-13-17

"Thus, as to how all this be well organised without least negligence, thus you all shall administer in all your cooperation and good spirit." Thus Sage Vashishta spoke to the organisers. [1-13-17]

tataH suma.ntram aahuuya vasiSTho vaakyam abraviit || 1-13-19
nima.ntrayasva nR^ipatiin pR^ithivyaam ye ca dhaarmikaaH |
braahmaNaan kSatriyaan vaishyaan shuudraam ca eva sahasrashaH || 1-13-20
samaanayasva satkR^itya sarva desheSu maanavaan |

"Then on calling for Sumantra, Sage Vashishta said these words to him, "Let all those kings of the earth that are righteous be invited, and let all the people from all the kingdoms, say Brahmans, Kshatriya-s, Vyasya-s, Shudra-s be invited in scores duly honouring them." So said Vashishta to Sumantra. [1-13-19b, 20, 21a]

Shriimad Bhaagavata Puraana mentions when Dwaaraka was constructed for Sri Krishna, it was populated by people of all four varNas:

dṛśyate yatra hi tvāṣṭraṁ
 vijñānaṁ śilpa-naipuṇam
rathyā-catvara-vīthībhir
 yathā-vāstu vinirmitam
sura-druma-latodyāna-
 vicitropavanānvitam
hema-śṛṅgair divi-spṛgbhiḥ
 sphaṭikāṭṭāla-gopuraiḥ
rājatārakuṭaiḥ koṣṭhair
 hema-kumbhair alaṅkṛtaiḥ
ratna-kūtair gṛhair hemair
 mahā-mārakata-sthalaiḥ
vāstoṣpatīnāṁ ca gṛhair
 vallabhībhiś ca nirmitam
cātur-varṇya-janākīrṇaṁ
 yadu-deva-gṛhollasat

In the construction of that city could be seen the full scientific knowledge and architectural skill of Viśvakarmā. There were wide avenues, commercial roads and courtyards laid out on ample plots of land; there were splendid parks, and also gardens stocked with trees and creepers from the heavenly planets. The gateway towers were topped with golden turrets touching the sky, and their upper levels were fashioned of crystal quartz. The gold-covered houses were adorned in front with golden pots and on top with jeweled roofs, and their floors were inlaid with precious emeralds. Beside the houses stood treasury buildings, warehouses, and stables for fine horses, all built of silver and brass. Each residence had a watchtower, and also a temple for its household deity. Filled with citizens of all four social orders, the city was especially beautified by the palaces of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Lord of the Yadus.

It is also mentioned (bhAgavatam 10.74.10-11) that people of all four varNas were invited to Yudhishthira's rAjasUya-yagna:

upahūtās tathā cānye
 droṇa-bhīṣma-kṛpādayaḥ
dhṛtarāṣṭraḥ saha-suto
 viduraś ca mahā-matiḥ
brāhmaṇāḥ kṣatriyā vaiśyāḥ
 śūdrā yajña-didṛkṣavaḥ
tatreyuḥ sarva-rājāno
 rājñāṁ prakṛtayo nṛpa

O King, others who were invited included Droṇa, Bhīṣma, Kṛpa, Dhṛtarāṣṭra with his sons, the wise Vidura, and many other brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras, all eager to witness the sacrifice. Indeed, all the kings came there with their entourages.


Evidence showing that all varNas were entitled to certain human rights/protections:

Shriimad Bhaagavata Puraana 11.17.45 mentions in the context of the four varNas that a king must protect all of them:

sarvāḥ samuddhared rājā
 piteva vyasanāt prajāḥ
ātmānam ātmanā dhīro
 yathā gaja-patir gajān

Just as the chief bull elephant protects all other elephants in his herd and defends himself as well, similarly, a fearless king, just like a father, must save all of the citizens from difficulty and also protect himself.

[MahaHrada]

Maha,

Your bluff has been called. Please provide evidence to substantiate your claims that Hinduism has forced shudras and women to be "illiterate."



Yes everybody knows what i did, and that i am also responsible for global warming. But these crimes are just the tip of the iceberg, besides that i am the only jewish aryan bengali shakta nationalist and disciple of the infamous vamachari and uttar kaula pagal baba of ranchi.



If you have no such evidence, then you should withdraw your accusation.

What makes you think that it is up to you to decide what other people do? There is already evidence provided before you even asked, please reread the thread, i am not going to repeat myself.


There is nothing more despicable than a person who criticizes an entire culture based on a strawman. Since your whole argument against varnAshrama dharma seems based on ideas like this one, your ability to prove the accusation is at the very heart of this discussion.
regards,

Criticising an entire culture in a despicable way infamously using strawmen, is the adesha and pasttime of all anti hindu bengali shakta nationalists, jewish, aryan or indian we do that when we have some sparetime and are not engaged in conspiring to widen global warming, raping crocodiles and sacrificing virgins or was it the other way around? Can´t remember exactly, must be my age, btw would you please send me a postcard when you have reached "high moral grounds", the view must be awe inspiring.

[philosoraptor]

So I take it that means you have no plans to substantiate your accusatory statements.

I think an honest approach in this situation would be for you to admit that you merely made that accusation as a gut-reaction, because it's consistent with the prevailing anti-Hindu propaganda, and not because you actually reviewed the evidence yourself. That answer, we could at least respect to some degree.

The attempt to play the wounded party is really trite and unbecoming.

[MahaHrada]

So I take it that means you have no plans to substantiate your accusatory statements.

I think an honest approach in this situation would be for you to admit that you merely made that accusation as a gut-reaction, because it's consistent with the prevailing anti-Hindu propaganda, and not because you actually reviewed the evidence yourself. That answer, we could at least respect to some degree.

The attempt to play the wounded party is really trite and unbecoming.

I admitted all my crimes already and i and my comrades are also responsible that CPMI (maoist) won the elections in kerala and wb. Are you satisfied now? We can also start a poll what have been the worst of my despicable crimes and compare it with your greatest achivements in defending the true sanatana dharma from the vile Adharmis. Maybe you should make some friendship with Param then you can together defend the glorious Dharm grandthas by baselessly accusing others of some assorted and random (but hand picked) anti hindu statements, i imagine that could be great fun and just the right thing for you to do.

[philosoraptor]

If we review this original Manu Smriti, one can proudly assert that there is perhaps no other text in world (except Vedas of course!) that accords so much of respect and rights to women. Even the modern feminist books would have to seek further amendments to match up to Manu Smriti.

Pranams.

Just a few quibbles about your interpretation of some of these verses, most of which I agree with reflect the attitude towards women in Vedic culture.



9.28. Woman is the source of all kinds of happiness in all generations – be it from children, or from noble benevolent deeds or through conjugal bliss or through service of elders.

In other words, woman is the primary source of bliss in many forms – sometimes as mother, sometimes as daughter, sometimes as wife and sometimes as a partner in spiritual deeds. It also means that participation of women is necessary for conduct of any religious or spiritual activity.

This is a good point and all anti-Vedic critics should take note. Many of the obligatory sacrifices within the householder ashrama require the presence of the wife. Even Lord Brahma cannot perform yagna without his wife present. Only sandhya-vandanam requires solitude.


9.96. Man and Woman are incomplete without each other. Hence the most ordinary religious duty would demand participation of both.

Thus, those who deny Vedas or Vedic rituals to women are anti-Hindu and anti-Humanity.

More specifically, those who claim that women cannot hear Vedic mantras are wrong. Women are not schooled in Vedas in the traditional gurukul system - that is true, but they can and in fact should be present during Vedic rituals where the mantras are recited - the restriction against women and shudras is not against casual listening of mantras, but of formal instruction in the gurukula. I provided pramANas already showing that women and shudras were in attendance at many yagnas in which Vedic mantras were chanted and heard by all.



4.180. A wise man should not indulge in fights and arguments with his family members including mother, daughter and wife.

Wise words from Manu. I always lose those arguments anyway. :-)



Polygamy is a sin

9.101. Husband and Wife should remain together till death. They should not approach any other partner, nor commit adultery. This, in summary, is the Dharma or religion of all human beings.

Thus those societies which justify polygamy or sex-slavery or temporary marriage are bound to suffer miseries because they neglect the core tenet of Dharma.

Actually, this is not a statement against "polygamy" per se, but against adultery. Polygamy is technically allowed, and Manu makes allowances for it elsewhere. Maharaja Dasharatha had three wives, and his first wife Kausalya was said to have arranged his marriage to his other two wives Sumitra and Kaikeyi.



Autonomy of Women

9.11. Women should be provided autonomy and leadership in managing the finances, maintaining hygiene, spiritual and religious activities, nutrition and overall management of home.

The shloka clearly puts aside false claims that women do not have right to conduct religious rituals of Vedas. On contrary, women should lead such rituals. Thus all those people who suggest that women do not have right to study or practice Vedas are against Manu and Vedas. Such bigoted people are the cause for misery of the nation. We should simply not tolerate such mindsets that demean women.

This is not actually what that shloka is saying. All it is saying is that women should be involved in arranging religious activities - it says nothing about them being allowed to study the Veda.



9.12. A woman who is kept constrained in a home by noble men (husband, father, son) is still insecure. Thus it is futile to restrict women. Security of women would come only through her own capabilities and mindset.

This shloka explains the futility to attempting to restrict a woman to home in name of providing her security. On contrary, to secure her, she should be given the right training so that she can defend herself and avoid getting misled by bad company. The prevailing notion of cornering women within a small home is against Manu’s ideology.

Actually, this is a misunderstanding. Manu's point here is that a woman cannot be kept virtuous simply by guarding her at home. Rather, she can only be kept virtuous if she herself is practicing the virtues - this is what gives her the moral security (and it is obvious if you read verse 9.13 which speaks of those things women do which ruin them).



Marriage of Women

9.89. It is better to keep the daughter unmarried than force her to marry an undeserving person.

9.90-91. A woman can choose her own husband after attaining maturity. If her parents are unable to choose a deserving groom, she can herself choose her husband.

Thus the concept of parents deciding the groom for their daughter is against Manu. A mature daughter has full rights to choose her husband. Parents act as facilitators for the marriage and not final decision makers, as wrongly practiced in many societies.

Again, this is not a correct understanding. Manu's point is that a woman can choose her husband, "If her parents are unable to choose a deserving groom." In other words, it is their responsibility to do so, but she can do it if they fail to.



Prohibition of Dowry

3.52. Those relatives who rob away or thrive on wealth, property, vehicles or dresses of a woman or her family are wiliest of people.

Thus any kind of dowry is a strict NO NO as per Manu Smriti. No one should dare attempt to take away the property of a woman.

This is not prohibition of dowry per se, but rather of forcible extraction of wealth in the name of dowry or other institutions.

Otherwise, good quotes!

regards,

[JayaRadhe]

Pranams,
Namaste.

Even in the Bhagavam there are statements decrying the deluding influence of women on men. Take for example:

This passage proves exactly what I said in the first place, that the Lord speaks to people based on what their qualities are. He was talking to demons!


and

Go on a little further in chapter three, and you'll also see men called the death of women (3.31.42):
"A woman, therefore, should consider her husband, her house and her children to be the arrangement of the external energy of the Lord for her death, just as the sweet singing of the hunter is death for the deer."

You have to take the passage in context. It is a meditation on mortality, not a superstitious moral injunction like, "One should not marry women whose names are similar to constellations, trees, rivers, those from a low caste, mountains, birds, snakes, slaves or those whose names inspires terror." Oh jeez... We'd better let Lord Balaram know that his choice of Rohini Devi (rohini also being a constellation) was sinful!


I have seen numerous, similar statements in other purANas. While one may claim that each and every such statement is "interpolated," such a view becomes less and less believeable when you see how often such statements occur across a wide variety of sources. In any case, we should be honest and admit that those who claim "interpolation" in such cases merely do so because of their personal/modern/Westernized biases, i.e. they think the verses supposedly "marginalize women." They aren't looking at the texts objectively. In reality, the objectionable verses are designed to induce sexual detachment (and hence, the development of jnaana) in the men who read them, and that is their purpose. Arguing that they were intended to "marginalize women" is simply a wrong understanding on so many levels - especially when considering other verses in which female devotees are praised, or when service to mothers is recommended, etc.
Yeah... I can totally see how such wise injunctions as:
"One should not marry women who has have reddish hair, redundant parts of the body [such as six fingers], one who is often sick, one without hair or having excessive hair and one who has red eyes."
Or:
"Wise men should marry only women who are free from bodily defects, with beautiful names, grace/gait like an elephant, moderate hair on the head and body, soft limbs and small teeth."
... are meant to make men be detached to sexuality. "Only pick the hottest!" Thanks Manu... I'll definitely take that to heart when looking for a potential spouse.


If we can accept that these statements are in the Bhagavatam, there is no reason to assume that similar statements in Manu are interpolated.
If you can't see a difference between the statements in Manu about women and the statements in the Bhagavatam about women, then I really can't help you.


Well, aside from the fact that we have similar verses in the Bhagavatam which are not regarded as interpolated:

How does this verse even compare to the things that Manu says? Where does the Bhagavatam say that she can't study under a guru? Or read the Vedas? Or have a job? Or be cast aside for a new wife because she's not able to get pregnant? Or perform any religious rituals, observe fasts, or make vows? Or any other number of ridiculous injunctions in the Manu Smriti?


... common sense would hold that the burden of proof is on the challenger. If you don't regard consistency with other sources as evidence of authenticity, then what sort of evidence would you want? A time-stamped video recording of the author while he is composing the objectionable verses?
It's not consistent and it even contradicts itself. Common sense would hold that a text that contradicts itself shouldn't be held as the infallible revelation of God. I've asked for the date of the oldest manuscript as well as if these verses were in it. I am waiting for an answer from a more knowledgable devotee, as I have not yet been able to find that answer.


That would be a fallacious assumption, because the verses quoted by Seeker and Dhyandev obviously did not include context, and it is context which ultimately puts them in the correct light. You also see it as contradiction because you cannot understand how they reconcile. In reality, most of them are no more contradictory than the bedha and abedha shrutis are, but we still reconcile those into a harmonious understanding.
"Women should be provided autonomy and leadership in [...] spiritual and religious activities..."
"Women have no divine right to perform any religious ritual, nor make vows or observe a fast."
Please, reconcile just those two statements for me.


There is no getting around the fact that women had a subordinate role in Vedic civilization (as they did in all other ancient civilizations). But unlike other cultures, the position of a woman is still respected and is earned based on karma, i.e. it is not intrinsic to the soul. It is also a fact that women can attain that highest level of bhakti that the highly learned sages themselves aspire to. How they can be like that, and yet be required to be dependent on their husbands, is something one simply has to reconcile. No one ever claimed that their role could fit nicely into a Westernized conception of "respected and free/independent."
How many ancient cultures do you know of that existed before the end Dwapara Yuga, when dharma was already declining? What were these peoples' attitudes toward women?


In that case, you would have to argue that similar verses in the Bhagavata and Vishnu Puranas are also interpolated. Except that this would be contradicted by the fact that we have manuscripts and commentaries on both which predate Islamic influence. Hence, you are back in square one, and simply have to reconcile with the fact that strI-dharma is a part of sanAtana-dharma.
Really? Where in the Vishnu Purana or the Bhagavatam does it forbid, for example, sitting with your mother, sister, or daughter because it will inevitably lead to having impure thoughts about them or worse?

In response to my comment that there must be differentiation and specialization in order for a society to function, you wrote:
Ok, well, let's take your view as a given. Shouldn't people be allowed to learn the Veda regardless of their birth? Is it not a positive thing when the Max Mullers, the Wendy Donigers, and the Zakir Hussains of the world study Veda and reveal to us what they have "understood?"
Honestly, I don't care who reads the Vedas or what they have to say about them. At least they are trying to read about them. Of course, in the case of Wendy Doniger, we can just assume that her misrepresentations of Sanatan Dharma are due to her being a woman (and all that comes along with that, like being stupid and impure by nature).


More to the point, what if everyone became a brahmin and chanted mantras/taught Vedas/did pujas? There would be no one to protect the state from bandits, no one to carry on the agriculture, etc. What could possibly be wrong with that? Why couldn't such a society function?
Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I forgot that getting spiritual instruction and being educated equally meant that you automatically became a brahmin. My bad! You'd better tell that to the members of Kshatriya and Vaishya castes, as well as to every other religious person in the world who lives a normal life!

Your question suggests that scriptural regulations of this nature require biological rationale. They don't. People in Vedic culture did not subject girls to these sorts of austerities as a matter of routine, whereas such austerities were obligatory on brahmacharis. This is in shAstra. It is also alluded to by Sri Krishna when He meets his dear friend Sudama and recounts a story of how they suffered while trying to serve their guru:

This has been taken so out-of-context, it's insane. This verse is Krishna's guru thanking Krishna and Sudama for their service. Tell me, where in this verse does Sandipani say, "And I constantly neglected to feed you, even when you were young children!" Oh, that's right, that's not in this story! Instead, what happened was Sandipani's wife sent the boys to go get firewood, a storm arose, and they got lost in the woods. Sandipani, as a good caretaker, then goes out to find them. Commenting on this instance, Sandipani thanks the boys for all they suffered in completing this (seemingly simple) task for him. This could happen to any child, regardless of how good their caretaker is. Caretakers can't control natural forces. They do, however, have responsibility for the nourishment of the children under their provision.


To understand why the position of a dvija is so important in society, one has to first understand the rigorous training the brahmachari had to undergo. It wasn't just about learning mantras - austerity was very much a part of it.
And, women, being the disgusting whores they are, are incapable of austerity. As are shudras, because they are all idiots who are incapable of higher thought or self-control.


Belief is irrelevant. The Lord wants our surrender, not our conditions and protests. No amount of believing the verses interpolated is going to change the fact that they are all over the place in smRiti - in purANas, in mahAbhArata, in other dharma-shAstras, etc.
Okay, well, at your next family reunion, be sure to try to avoid those pesky female relatives. After all, they might incite you to lust with their overt sexual prowess for male relatives! So, you'd better stop talking to all of them. You know what, it'd probably be safest to not even look at them. After all, you wouldn't want the Lord to be disappointed in you for spending "too much time" with your mother!


You have misunderstood. I said that, according to the dharma-shAstras, women were not intiated into study of the Veda. That is a well-known fact. But this did not mean that girls got no spiritual training.
Yea, they just got a lot less than the boys...


If you are a Hare Krishna follower, then you surely know this verse by heart:

I worship Krishna, but I am not a follower of Prabhupada. Are you a follower of Prabhupada? It would explain many of your views in regards to social stratification based on gender and staunch defense of a system that you are alien to.

These texts like Mahabharata were specifically compiled so that those who don't have the qualification to study shruti could still understand the essence of shruti.
I'm sorry, was the Mahabharata composed in the Satya Yuga, or was it in the Dwapara Yuga when society was already falling apart and the position of women was steadily declining?


The same way we all do - she learns from her parents the stories as found in Bhagavatam, Mahabharata, Ramayana, etc, but not study of the Veda within a gurukula.
Oh okay, I gotchya. So, women who are not born into Hindu families just aren't allowed to convert. That would make sense. I mean, if her husband doesn't want her learning about Krishna, then she does have to obey what he says, otherwise she won't be exalted in heaven. I mean, you know, since: "Women have no divine right to perform any religious ritual, nor make vows or observe a fast. Her only duty is to obey and please her husband and she will for that reason alone be exalted in heaven." Poor Mirabai. I wonder which naraka she's reincarnated in for rejecting her duty to her husband in order to perform religious rituals. :(


I'm sorry that you feel that way. Myself, I tend to be wary of religious groups which on one hand claim to be "Vedic" and then on the other hand, hold that some scriptural regulations are "ludicrous." Suffice it to say that, due to your bias against those regulations, you are reading them in a very unfavorable light. Manu says that the shishyas were supposed to fast if their guru did not give them permission to eat. That is the level of devotion to their guru that qualified them for the knowledge they were to inherit. It does not say that the guru routinely did such things. On the contrary, we know from many texts that the guru and his wife treated he shishyas just like their own children in many ways.
Once again, "Well, Manu Smriti says that Manu says [that people who are more physically or socially powerful than others have the right to abuse people under them], so that makes it okay!" isn't a justification for this text. These are the exact kinds of things that I'm arguing against in the Manu Smriti. Since you brought up the fact that gurus are to treat their disciples as they would treat their own children, please, enlighten me: Would you make your child ask your permission to eat if they were hungry?


By the same logic, you should then reject the Bhagavatam. By what objective standard is Bhagavatam authentic and Manu Smriti not? Can you give an answer without invoking popular appeal? I suspect that you cannot.
Ummm... yeah. The Bhagavatam isn't full of ridiculous superstitions and it doesn't try to marginalize women (as much as some would like to lead us to believe).

Bear in mind that we have two commentaries on Manu Smriti dating back to 7th - 11th centuries, which makes it less likely that the verses you object to are interpolated - the current editions we have are based on the manuscript quoted by Medhatithi if memory serves.
Two commentaries, not the actual text. Does he quote, for example, the verse that says that it's foolish to marry a woman named after a tree (e.g.- Tulasi)? If so, what does he have to say on it?

Also, Manu is quoted by both Shankara and Ramanuja, which further establishes the antiquity of the text.
I'm not disputing the entire Manu Smriti. I am disputing parts that say things like, "If a girl has red hair, definitely put her on the 'do not marry' list."

Just out of curiosity, being that you are a Hare Krishna follower (correct me if I'm mistaken),
I am not a disciple of Prabhupad or a member of ISKCON.

you would no doubt be required to accept the authenticity of the Chaitanya upanishad, yes? This text simply did not exist before the 18th century. I am curious to know whether you would apply the same standard of authenticity you propose for Manu, and thus reject the authority of the Chaitanya Upanishad.

Oh, sorry, I guess I forgot that Lord Chaitanya said that women should have their fingers cut off if their hymens are broken before marriage, or that he forbade marriage to women who don't have brothers! The Chaitanya Upanishad does not preach hatred under the guise of religion. I reject all such belief systems.


Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. Devi has a sacred thread, so human women should also be initiated in sacred thread. But Devi is also pictured with four arms and riding a tiger. Would this apply to human women also? If not, then I would suggest that the goddess wearing sacred thread doesn't say anything one way or another about whether human women should.
And Vishnu is sometimes shown with two, four, eight, eighteen, etc... arms. I guess human men can't wear dhotis because they don't have the right number of appendages and don't stand on lotus flowers. :(


On the other hand, do we have evidence of ancient art forms depicting human women wearing yagnopavitam? If we did, that might be more telling.
We only have art dating from the Kali Yuga onwards... So, really, it's not telling, as society as a whole has been on a steady decline for the past 6,000 years. The reason I mention the images of Devi is because images of deities are eternal and have not been perverted in our age.


Yes, the situation for spiritual people today is dire, as they often lack the family support they are supposed to have. Nevertheless, the regulations are what they are. Manu does not discuss shudra women specifically as his audience appears to be primarily twice-born males. However, we can assume he would have wanted shudra women also to get married, assuming that his thinking was in line with Sri Krishna's. As far as their education is concerned, that was answered previously - they can learn about bhakti through the smRiti texts like Bhagavatam, Mahabharata, etc which are not restricted to twice-born males. Whether their husband is considered guru in this context I do not know.
Excellent! Let's just continue keeping certain people ignorant so that the rest of us can benefit from their ignorance! What excellent Jim Crow Era logic!

[Omkara]

I have posted proof before of the non antiquity of the manu smriti.I would request two esteemed members of this forum to refrain from making personal attacks.

[Vasa]

Ihave posted proof before of the non antiquity of the manu smriti.I would request two esteemed members of this forum to refrain from making personal attacks.

Namaste,

Unfortunately, that evidence has already been rejected without basis, possibly because it would make much of the previous arguing pointless.

^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_Smriti#cite_ref-6) For composition between 200 BCE and 200 CE see: Avari, p. 142. For dating of composition "between the second century BCE and third century CE" see: Flood (1996), p. 56. For dating of Manu Smriti in "final form" to the 2nd century CE, see: Keay, p. 103. For dating as completed some time between 200 BCE and 100 CE see: Hopkins, p. 74. For probable origination during the second or 3rd centuries AD, see: Kulke and Rothermund, p. 85. For the text as preserved dated to around the 1st century BCE. see: Encyclopædia Britannica Concise (http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371223/Manu-smrti), http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371223/Manu-smrti (http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371223/Manu-smrti), retrieved 2007-06-24

Sources

Translation by G. Bühler (1886). Sacred Books of the East: The Laws of Manus (Vol. XXV). Oxford. Available online as The Laws of Manu (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu.htm)
Flood, Gavin (1996). An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-521-43878-0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-521-43878-0).
Hopkins, Thomas J. (1971). The Hindu Religious Tradition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Keay, John (2000). India: A History. New York: Grove Press. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-8021-3797-0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-8021-3797-0).
Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (1986). A History of India. New York: Barnes & Noble. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-88029-577-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-88029-577-5).
Olivelle, Patrick (2005). Manu's Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Mānava-Dharmaśāstra. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-19-517146-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-19-517146-2).
Olivelle, Patrick (2004). The Law Code of Manu (http://books.google.com/books?id=RGPSEuNsPLEC). New York: OUP. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-19-280271-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-19-280271-2). http://books.google.com/books?id=RGPSEuNsPLEC (http://books.google.com/books?id=RGPSEuNsPLEC).
Olivelle, Patrick (to be published). "Dharmasastra: A Literary History". In Lubin, Timothy; Krishnan, Jayanth; and Davis, Jr., Donald R.. Law and Hinduism: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Thapar, Romila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romila_Thapar) (2002). Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-520-24225-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-520-24225-4).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png "The Laws of Manu (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/The_Laws_of_Manu)". Catholic Encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia). New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913.Calling Manusmriti "Vedic" or a "representation" of the "Vedic tradition" doesn't make alot of sense considering the 3000 year gap between such scriptures as BG and Manusmriti, and considering the 1000 year gap between decline of Indus Valley Civilization and composition of Manusmriti, not to mention the fact that many traditions do not count Manusmriti amongst their "must-read" list (are there any that do?) but since arguing about it has no positive effect on my sadhana, I will happily watch others argue as they wish.

[ShivaFan]

Philology certainly establishes beyond doubt that the manu smriti was not authored by manu.
Since the acharyas i follow do not share those views, i will let followers of those acharyas speak for them.i consider myself a shaiva,though i have not decided on my sampradaya yet.None of the shaiva acharyas of any sect accepted varna by birth and i share that opinion.neither the puranas nor the mau smriti are part of tge twelve or fourteen depending on the sect canon of shauvism.

I am misspelling some words as i am typing on my mobile.sorry.

Namaste

I really respect your opinions a lot, especially coming from someone who lives in India and really understands the context of all of this. I am also a Saiva and I love Parvati a lot, and of course Mahadeva. And Mahadeva teaches all of the living, that we should take time in our life to meditate. One of my most beloved aspects of Shiva is the one I wish to see when I die, and that is the Ashen Lord in Meditation on Mount Kailash. That is why I am not going to bother to get into a lot of entrapment into a single thread on the HDF. What I enjoy, and what is very beneficial to me, are those threads which dwell in love, of God, Deva, Devi, Guru and Saints, and in the true nature of how to meditate, how to example our lives on the lives of great Masters and yogis such as Ramakrishna, to listen to Gurus (such as one of the Saiva gurus whom I respect every word without doubt and He was not born as an Indian in India but he had direct and majestic empowerment and union with some of the most elevated yogis of all time who also just happened to not live in India as birthplace but lived in Sri Lanka)...

And yes, I have deep thanks and appreciation to those in India and the Hindus of all "faiths" (schools, sampradayas, and traditions), Mother India is to me a Goddess in Herself. And of course, there are so many Saints, Gurus and yogis and mystics, and Savants who live with the Mother in Bharat which - truthfully - I simply stand silent if I am in their presence and thank my Lord Hanuman that I would have the opportunity simply to hear their words.

Of course I love the Sacred Texts, but I cannot live a soul journey only in that, and I am not qualified to understand every text but I certainly can comprehend the overall spirit, life and light that another elevated soul can share with me, and I am so grateful to such yogis, teachers, gurus, saints and every one of them including so many who carry no "title" at all but simply a happen to be a mother or grandmother of an Indian friend and despite being a "woman" which seems to be degraded by some it is beyond the word "love" to explain their DEEP and PROFOUND knowledge they have and will share with another, and when they DO it is always the RIGHT TIME and RIGHT PLACE and full of grace and dignity, and to gentlemen from India in the USA who became my friend and was just like a brother or father to me and gave me so much - I never even knew if one or the another were this or that caste or no caste at all, all I knew was the amazing soul, deep, deep humanity, and wisdom that came from such men who came and come from all parts of India be it Punjab, Bengal, South India, Bihar, my goodness how many places.

I have spoke of a dear Punjabi Hindu friend, but in this context just as an example, one Brahmin from Kashmir. You know, it is VERY difficult in some ways to be a Brahmin in Kashmir. A land of such beauty, but also division.

Let me tell you, this Brahmin was like the color of white. I do not mean in terms of race or tone. I mean, what came out of him like light. He shared with me and a select one other "Westerner" some amazing words, beyond and from the beyond.

And do you know what? While he was doing that, in a small apartment room where he lived, he was feeding us almonds BY HAND.

We in the West, we are not stupid though I like to use the term "stupid Westerners" off and on in discussions. In terms of capability, foresight and ability, we Westerners are on par with anyone, anywhere. But we are also like children in a way when it comes to religion. When we discover that "India exists" and the vastness of "Hinduism", literally we can be like children yearning for "milk".

I beg all Hindus, please do not abandon us Westerners, do not shun us by notions of caste and other forms of discrimination - in truth, I have spent enough time in India (over 12 journeys so far in my life to Bharat) that I know the body of the great souls in India are not that way. We want to learn from you, not to be shunned. We want to see the light you have, not the darkness. Today, a very strong root of the banyan tree called "Hinduism" is now growing in America and other Western nations. The banyan seed is very small, and becomes the greatest of trees. So, now it will grow, and grow. And if some shun us, it will grow nevertheless, among our own temples and Gurus. We will be great devotees of Mahadeva the Great Lord. Our future is bright because of that. Just as Hinduism grows as a aspect of the nation it has ventured to, as in Bali for example, it will become and is becoming an "American religion" too, and who knows? - one day there may be great tirthas or holy gateways and doors newly created in the Western World by Deva and Devi.

Maybe there are some right now.

So I will leave those who want to focus a lot of time on threads about everything bad about others (including race, or birth, or other bodily things). There are a lot of threads which focus on everything good, and what others can become, and how to find Deva and Devi. So I won't be reading this thread, anymore - but enjoying those threads which bring Westerners such as myself so much joy to discover yet another amazing sharing of blessings that some of us call "Hinduism" even if the word is introduced by scholars who were of other religions but in one way represents the "big tent" of Sanatana Dharma.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Omkara]

Vajrasuchika Upanishad......Everyone read this before commenting

http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/vajrasUchikopan.pdf

Note:The advaitic flavour ha been inserted by the translator.That cannot be used as an argument against this upanishad.

[PARAM]

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


Your sources are not the relevant, their source are anti-Hindus themselves. Wikipedia is a submitted information provider and not a source/proof of anything.

Manu Samriti is a based on Vedas only and it is Vedas that are core of Hinduism, any text. Just like Manu there are other writers who wrote on Vedas and their work is never considered any MUST READ, but they are true translations of Vedas. During the freedom movement in India almost all reformers were using Manu Samriti, this made anti-Nationals of India to denigrate Manu Samriti. Muslims have their own version of all DhaRMa GranThaM (Hindu Scripture) where Manu Samriti is a must, and they claim same outcome from them as mentioned in toilet paper (Qoran).

[PARAM]

Namaste

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

I say this every time, all Hindu scriptures say this. Everyone is equal to and their individual karma will determine what they are. But sadly Muslims have made their base everywhere to make everyone think they are separate race made by Allah.

If anyone talk to you like this, you are welcome to ask me. But don't change your stand. Birth based supremacy, Ill treatment of women, Slaughtering of innocents all these are anti-Hindu and maleccha supported.

sukrityaa mahaan abhya vardhsthah
Only great deeds make an individual great, honourable and respectful. (SamVeda 507)

[Vasa]

Your sources are not the relevant, their source are anti-Hindus themselves. Wikipedia is a submitted information provider and not a source/proof of anything.

Manu Samriti is a based on Vedas only and it is Vedas that are core of Hinduism, any text. Just like Manu there are other writers who wrote on Vedas and their work is never considered any MUST READ, but they are true translations of Vedas. During the freedom movement in India almost all reformers were using Manu Samriti, this made anti-Nationals of India to denigrate Manu Samriti. Muslims have their own version of all DhaRMa GranThaM (Hindu Scripture) where Manu Samriti is a must, and they claim same outcome from them as mentioned in toilet paper (Qoran).

Namaste Paramji,

I can't and won't argue you with you about Manu, because I don't know and I don't care. My post was in support of Omkara who presented information relating a relevantly recent age to Manu, which was dismissed by some without evidence to back up their dismissal.

If you have information that shows the antiquity of Manu please post it here, along with the correct translation since everything else, in your view, was translated by anti-hindus or Muslims. I'm not interested in arguing about this but I'm sure other posters will find your information helpful, especially since those who have yet to master Sanskrit have been reading Muslim mistranslations of every text all of this time.

[philosoraptor]

Dear JaiRadhe,

Responding to your recent remarks is problematic because, like Maha, the relevance of your remarks to what has been written is tangential at best, and their value for an evidence-based discussions seems to have tapered off to virtually zero. Of course, if you think I'm just running away from the discussion, feel free to declare victory.

What is most evident from your last set of comments, and which I would like to draw your attention to, is an apparent double-standard in your thinking. Specifically, you reject Manu Smriti as interpolated, but you accept the authority of the Caitanya Upanishad, which everyone knows was not referred to prior to the 17th or 18th centuries. Manu Samhita was quoted by acharyas as far back as Shankara and commented on as well, so we know it is at least as old as 7th-8th centuries by empirical methods. By contrast, there are no references to Caitanya Upanishad anywhere prior to 17th-18th centuries - not in the Muktika Upanishad which lists 108 Upanishads, not in the writings of the six Gosvamis (whom you presumably follow), not in the Brahma-sutra commentary of Baladeva Vidyabhushana, and in short, nowhere in Gaudiya writings prior to Bhaktivinod Thakur.

The apparent basis you gave for this double-standard is that you don't like what Manu says, but you have no disagreement with what is in Caitanya Upanishad. You have to realize that this reveals an astonishing lack of objectivity on your part - like Maha, you only follow scripture in name only. In reality, you follow scripture only if you like what it says, or can force its statements into conformity with your worldview. I notice that many Hare Krishna devotees do that, which is, among other reasons, why I could never be a follower of that tradition, or for that matter, of any other Neo-Hindu tradition that follows scripture in theory but engages in selective-acceptance in practice.

And now for Omkara, Vasa, et. al: Chemistry is a science. Physics is a science. Biology is a science. I am deeply sorry to say that philology is not a science. The Western, Christian roots of philology are well-known, as are the subjectivity of some of the linguistic assumptions on which it is based. If you are prepared to accept philological arguments as conclusive, then I ask if you are similarly prepared to apply the same argumets in regards to the authenticity of the Ramayana, the Puranas, and finally to the Vedas themselves? Note that philologists also claim that Ramayana is a "layered text," and that the passages depicting Rama as a Vishnu-avatar and other passages extolling devotion are thought by them to be later additions. Because again, it's a double-standard to stand firm on philology for texts you do not like, but then dispense with them for other core texts like the Vedas, which are the foundation for our religious culture. And if, being followers of the religion of philology, you are prepared to argue that even Vedas have a definite origin in time and circumstance, then why even call yourself a Hindu? Don't you think it's a little foolish to revere scriptures that aren't what they say they are, and aren't what the tradition says they are?

Please note that I'm not really attached to Manu Samhita. But the reality is that it was quoted by Shankara and Ramanuja and is referred or alluded to in other smRitis, and so I don't think we can assume it is merely a recent text reflecting newer biases and prejudices. I'm also wary of the revisionist attitude with rejects scriptural authority on subjective grounds, i.e. "Manu prescribes a subordinate role for woman.... that is bad because it will offend the feminists.... so we must now say it is a recent, spurious text so that people of other religions will like us more." To my mind, truth is truth, regardless of popular appeal. It may be that there are many things in Hinduism that won't be liked by materialistic people of other backgrounds, but that is not the same thing as saying that there isn't beauty in Hinduism that can be appreciated on its own merits. Of course, there are those who can trumpet the idea that we follow "sanAtana-dharma," and somehow, incredulously, can argue that what is "sanAtana" can change with the prevailing attitude of the week. But I am not one of them.

regards,

[MahaHrada]

like Maha, the relevance of your remarks
like Maha, you only follow scripture in name only.



Why don´t you rather talk about my habit of raping crocodiles while drinking ice cold beer, it is way more denigrating and this accusation would have the advantage that it is truly related to something i regularly indulge in contrary to these funny quotes and therefore it would be something more substantial we could discuss.

[Believer]

Namaste,

Why don´t you rather talk about my habit of raping crocodiles while drinking ice cold beer, ........
The abilities of some of the forum members are simply astounding!
The graphic presents a great challenge to a human mind, just like the rituals of Ashavmedh yag!!

Pranam.

[ShivaFan]

I say this every time, all Hindu scriptures say this. Everyone is equal to and their individual karma will determine what they are. But sadly Muslims have made their base everywhere to make everyone think they are separate race made by Allah.

If anyone talk to you like this, you are welcome to ask me. But don't change your stand. Birth based supremacy, Ill treatment of women, Slaughtering of innocents all these are anti-Hindu and maleccha supported.

sukrityaa mahaan abhya vardhsthah
Only great deeds make an individual great, honourable and respectful. (SamVeda 507)

Namaste Param

I agree with you, and if I was misunderstood that is my fault in communications.

All I am sayi:o ng is those fixated on their own race, those fixated on birth base entitlements for life which enslaves karma to a particular window in tlme and is the lie of those who want to enslave others and persecute genius, as well as besmerch great saints and yogis and enlightened souls, they are fixated in the body no matter how they present and selectively misrepresent scripture, and such bodily fixations are very difficult yo change and so they will likely not change at all and so rather than waste time with such sad polemics they live in use my time with and for God instead.

I will seek the good being shared, and not live a life in a thread so fill of gixation, bad karma, and time entrapment.

Tomorrow is the very next day. Tomorrow one who has the qualities of such or even worse can the next day realize and obtain the qualities of Brahmana and can worship Deva or Devi and can be called Brahman in the same life. The grace of a Guru can make it so.

Many who call themself Brahmin right now, or any other caste claimed by birth, in fact are simply told they arr this or that by birth when in fact it is the lies of a previous relative in their family line who were a shudra or no caste and obtained such claim by murder, bribe, politics, money, wars and other crimes and their offspring live a life of fantasy. And yet even their own claim to be Brahmin though their family was untouchable can also be true or become true by qualities and instant karma.

So let the debate rage, I want to spend time with the light of Hinduism and not the darkness of sitting in a closet of such fixations such that can happen so easily. The very closet they have locked themselves in was probably built by a "shudra" as was the digital world built overwhelmingly by "non-Brahmans".

I will move over to better threads and welcoming hearts.

Excuse any typos, this comes from my cell phone so I cannot review or correct any errors in such a small screen.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Vasa]

Namaste Phil,

You seem to know more about the scriptures than anyone on this board, and I respect that. However, telling people they are using a double standard is the pot calling the kettle black. You have repeatedly asked Maha for historical evidence of various things, but yet when evidence is given about something you don't like you turn it into a straw man argument, rather than submitting evidence that your view is correct. I could care less about Manusmrti or when it was written, but the evidence that has been presented here, even by yourself, is that it is a much later text than the Vedas or Mahabharata. You have not presented any evidence to the contrary, other than to say that philology isn't a science, and it's a well known fact that philologists are Christians and probably lying. Why are you holding Maha to one standard but you yourself are able to dismiss evidence on a whim?

We know from scriptures Krishna lived around 3000 bc. In your view, that I have seen before in a thread, there is no reason to read anything into the scriptures, so for the sake of discussion let's agree that since Vyasa is a character in Mahabharata, and tradition tells us Vyasa compiled the Vedas, the written form of the Vedas is from that time period. The first known commentaries on Manusmrti, which was presented by you, was around the time of Adi Shankara. Assuming the dating given by historians for Shankara is correct that is almost a 4 millennium difference. Now, Omkara has proposed an even earlier date, and I have provided a list of scholarly works pointing to a composition between 200 bc and 200 ad, even though all scholars are Muslims. Can you provide any evidence that the text is from the Vedic period?

Now, if you have evidence other than your beliefs that Manusmrti is from the Vedic period or the Indus Valley civilization, please present it. Otherwise, I would ask that you adhere to the same standards of proof you ask of others. That is my point, not that you are wrong about the contents of Manusmrti.

[Ekoham]

Namaste,

Tu kehta kagaz ki lekhi, Main Kehta Aankhon ki dekhi
Ek noor se sab jag upja, kaun bhala kaun mande.

You speak of bookish knowledge earned from reading holy books,
I speak from direct experience (of Brahman)
We all came from same divine light
how then can some be called good (high caste) and some bad (low caste)?

Pranam

Ekoham

[philosoraptor]

Pranams all,

I forgot to mention that Raamaayaa itself in several places seems to allude to values which are found in Manu-Samhita. I was reminded of this as I was reading from Ayodhya-Kanda today the heart-breaking chapters in which Dasharatha is manipulated into exiling Rama. After hearing the news, Lord Rama visits Kausalya and tells her of the change in event. She initially forbids him to go, stating that her position as mother must also be respected:

yathaa eva raajaa puujyaH te gauraveNa tathaa hi aham |
tvaam na aham anujaanaami na gantavyam itaH vanam || 2-21-24

“Just as the king, by respectable feeling to you is worthy of worship, so also being your mother, I am worthy of worship to you. Hence, do not go to the forest”

Earlier, Rama said the same thing in regards to Kaikeyi, that because she was mother to him, she was in a sense more respectable, and hence he would accept her instruction for exile despite the fact that Dasharatha himself could not command it.

The Gita Press translator points out that these ideas are based on a shloka from Manu Samhita.

There is no way to get around it. The ideas in dharma-shAstras like Manu are echoed in other places like Ramayana. Will we reject all of those as well? And if we demonstrate that Manu-Samhita is not authentic (and thus, by extension, that Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, et. al. were somehow fooled by this in spite of their great scholarship), then are we prepared to say the same thing about Gautama-dharma-shAstra? Or Apastambha-sUtra? Or Yajnavalkya-smRti?

How many more smRtis will we reject as interpolated because their views on gender relations and class relations are not "politically correct?"

[Twilightdance]

How many more smRtis will we reject as interpolated because their views on gender relations and class relations are not "politically correct?"

How about all of them? We don't need to reject them as interpolated but simply as non authoritative scriptures from the past with no relevance to present societies. That they ever existed and a section still tries to portray them in high regard is a blot on the Indic culture - but no civilization is without blemish.

Those who want to go by them are free to do so, but they should go about it without hypocrisy and evangelism as requested.

[MahaHrada]

Namaste,

The abilities of some of the forum members are simply astounding!
The graphic presents a great challenge to a human mind, just like the rituals of Ashavmedh yag!!

Pranam.

It s not that hard: you have to open the can first and than silently approach from behind, and with the other hand grab it by the neck... but i am still not shure whether there is a textual error in the tantra, probably an interpolation from the muslims, and it should read "rape the virgins and sacrifce the crocodile" :) not "sacrifce the virgin and rape the crocodile" or whether the word panch makara in the text really means 5 crocodiles, or something entirely different :)

But as the saying goes:" guru-mukha-padma-vakya cittete kariya aikya, ara na koriya mane asa" you do exactly as your are told by the Guru.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam


Namaste Param

I agree with -------

Tomorrow is the very next day. Tomorrow one who has the qualities of such or even worse can the next day realize and obtain the qualities of Brahmana and can worship Deva or Devi and can be called Brahman in the same life. The grace of a Guru can make it so.

Yes we can all erect a straw man, bring in the grace of guru, so no one can argue.
It is absolutely true Guru's grace works wonders, I know if I have one I will not waste my time asking to change my varna. Like Sabri, I would seek the darsan of Lord Ram.



Many who call themself Brahmin right now, or any other caste claimed by birth, in fact are simply told they arr this or that by birth when in fact it is the lies of a previous relative in their family line who were a shudra or no caste and obtained such claim by murder, bribe, politics, money, wars and other crimes and their offspring live a life of fantasy. And yet even their own claim to be Brahmin though their family was untouchable can also be true or become true by qualities and instant karma.

So let the debate rage, -----

Om Namah Sivaya

Lots of assumptions being made here,

I don't mind being ridiculed or abused but I sure do take exception when my ancestors are called to question, to be liers.

It also fly in the face, what lord Krishna says
Kuru Karmaiva Tasmat tavam purvaiha Purvataram kratam
Do your action as how the ancient did.

Jai Shree Krishna

[philosoraptor]

Namaste Phil,
You seem to know more about the scriptures than anyone on this board, and I respect that. However, telling people they are using a double standard is the pot calling the kettle black. You have repeatedly asked Maha for historical evidence of various things, but yet when evidence is given about something you don't like you turn it into a straw man argument, rather than submitting evidence that your view is correct.

Excuse me, Vasa, but that is a bold claim, and I dare say a false one as well. What "evidence" did Maha present which I did not give its due? Please quote the strong argument which I failed to provide a convincing answer to and I will go back and address it.

So far as I can recall, the only "evidence" Maha brought up was from esoteric astrological and tantric texts whose origins are far more questionable than Manu-samhita. Come on, Vasa, think about this for a moment. We're going to reject what Manu-samhita says despite knowing that it's at least as old as 1st-2nd century and is quoted/commented on/referred to by acharyas as far back as 7th century. And instead we must accept the opinion of a later text like Brhat Hora Parashara shastra which (per Maha) gives a description of the origin of varnas that (unlike Manu) is contradicted by the Vedas. Seriously, is that your argument?



I could care less about Manusmrti or when it was written, but the evidence that has been presented here, even by yourself, is that it is a much later text than the Vedas or Mahabharata.

It may or may not be later to the Vedas. I merely said it is at least as old as 7th century. Omkar says it is at least as old as 1st-2nd centuries according to philological arguments. It could be older, but we do not know based on empirical methods. What I do know is that I have seen direct and indirect references to Manu Samhita in other scriptures, and I doubt that each and every one of those is also bogus.


You have not presented any evidence to the contrary, other than to say that philology isn't a science, and it's a well known fact that philologists are Christians and probably lying. Why are you holding Maha to one standard but you yourself are able to dismiss evidence on a whim?

Clarity of thinking is necessary for any discussion. Let us begin by clearly discussing the difference between "evidence" and "conclusions." I have not ignored "evidence." What I have done is disagree with certain "conclusions."

Evidence: Manu-Samhita was commented on by Bhaaruchi and Medhatithi. It was quoted by Shankaraachaarya. The dates for all three figures are not known with certainty, but Shankara's dates are best thought to be between 7th and 8th centuries.

(1) Conservative conclusion: Manu-Samhita is at least as old as 7th-8th century.

(2) Unfounded conclusion: Manu-Samhita was written in 7th-8th century.

This is the problem I see with philologists, and with those like you who consider their conclusions as "evidence." They confuse (1) and (2) which in reality are different statments. (2) is consistent with (1), but (1) does not necessarily imply (2).

Nevertheless, using their methods, I have observed that philologists and other indologists will take liberties with their conclusions that do not clearly follow from facts. Take for example, this point of view:

1) Rig Veda mentions horses.
2) There is currently no archaelogical evidence of horses in India before 1500 BC
3) Rig Veda is an authored work.
4) Therefore Rig Veda was written in 1500 BC

The conclusion #4 (which you would refer to as "evidence") is not acceptable according to a conservative understanding of the scientific method. First, while #2 could imply that there is no evidence of horses, it could also imply that there is such evidence which just has not been found yet. #3 of course, rests on the idea that the veda has authorship to begin with. In other words, the possibility of the vedas being breathed out by a Supreme Deity as they themselves claim, is simply discounted without explanation.

The philologist's argument is that certain styles of writing belong to certain time periods, and thus the use of certain writing styles indicate authorship within a certain period. I understand that argument. But it discounts the possibility of an author deliberately using different styles of writing within the same work for his own purposes. Imagine if he started writing a book, put it down for 6 months, and then later added introductory chapters to the book, a concluding chapter, and a few more chapters in between. The philologist would wrongly conclude that the book had multiple authors, when in fact the author may have written different portions at different times. This is merely one example of the limitations of linguistic analysis.



We know from scriptures Krishna lived around 3000 bc.

Minor quibble: that date actually comes from a scholarly work by Arya Bhatta.


In your view, that I have seen before in a thread, there is no reason to read anything into the scriptures, so for the sake of discussion let's agree that since Vyasa is a character in Mahabharata, and tradition tells us Vyasa compiled the Vedas, the written form of the Vedas is from that time period.

This does not follow from the premises we agree on. All we know is that Vyasa divided and compiled the Vedas in that time period. We don't know when the written form came into existence. Unless you can provide shAstric pramANa documenting that he put them into written form at some time.


The first known commentaries on Manusmrti, which was presented by you, was around the time of Adi Shankara. Assuming the dating given by historians for Shankara is correct that is almost a 4 millennium difference. Now, Omkara has proposed an even earlier date, and I have provided a list of scholarly works pointing to a composition between 200 bc and 200 ad, even though all scholars are Muslims.

From this, several possible conclusions follow:

1) The philologists are correct, and the Manu Samhita was put into written form between 200 BC and 200 AD.

2) The philologists are not correct, and Manu Samhita was put into written form earlier.

Note that #1 has two possible subconclusions, if you will. (1a) Manu Samhita was actually composed between 200 BC and 200 AD, and (1b) Manu Samhita actually existed prior to this date (perhaps in oral form like so many other scriptures, or perhaps in a written form that did not survive until today) and was merely put into its current, written form between 200 BC and 200 AD. Note that while both subconclusions are consistent with Manu not being shruti, they don't both lead to the same conclusion that MS is not "authentic."

Hence, I have pointed out that a conservative look at the evidence is needed, not merely one that earns a publication credit to advance one's academic career because of its novelty.


Can you provide any evidence that the text is from the Vedic period?

Now, if you have evidence other than your beliefs that Manusmrti is from the Vedic period or the Indus Valley civilization, please present it. Otherwise, I would ask that you adhere to the same standards of proof you ask of others. That is my point, not that you are wrong about the contents of Manusmrti.

Vasa, no one to the best of my knowledge has a time-stamped, video recording of the composition of Manusmriti as it was taking place. Nor do we have such evidence in regards to the creation of the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, or the 18 Puranas. Nevertheless, the traditional view is that these scriptures were authored by the same sages who knew the Vedas and upheld their conclusions. It is also the traditional view that their authority is dependent on not contradicting the shruti. It appears that you are confusing "being from the Vedic period" with "authenticity." These are orthogonal issues. Something could be written in the Vedic period and still not be authentic, i.e. because it contradicts shruti. Similarly, something could theoretically be put into written form *after* the Vedic period, but still reflect authentic teachings that existed earlier in a primordial form. An example of the latter are the Puranas, which both ascribe their authorship to Vyasa but also indicate that they existed earlier at the time of Brahma and were revealed by him. Do I have "proof" that that is what actually happened? No, but neither do the philologists - all they have is conjecture, and that was my point all along.

Let me clarify where I am coming from. I have started the discussion accepting as a given the traditional paradigms of our scriptures' origins. I have only delved into analyzing indological paradigms when these were brought up by others in a contrary spirit. I do not myself accept indological paradigms as conclusive, for reasons already given. But, I remain open to belief as I do see merits in the scientific method.

Now, if you don't mind me bringing up an uncomfortable question. I just want to understand where you are coming from. If you believe philology is conclusive with regards to Manu-Samhita, then do you similarly accept the mundane origins of Vedas, Ramayana, Puranas, etc as also concluded by philologists? Or is that philology is only useful for discounting a politically-troubling text like Manu? Please clarify your view on this.

regards,

[philosoraptor]

How about all of them? We don't need to reject them as interpolated but simply as non authoritative scriptures from the past with no relevance to present societies. That they ever existed and a section still tries to portray them in high regard is a blot on the Indic culture - but no civilization is without blemish.


The only problem with that view is, we would also have to reject bhagavad-gItA:

Bg 16.23 (http://vedabase.com/en/bg/16/23) — He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination.
Bg 16.24 (http://vedabase.com/en/bg/16/24) — One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of the scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated.

Because the scriptural injunctions being referred to are mostly found in those "politically incorrect" smRtis.

[Equinox]

There we go again. For heaven's sake, enough already! :coffee:


Aum Namah Shivaya

[Vasa]

Namaste Phil,

I'm not accepting the philologists view, I'm accepting that it is a start, and these people have done their research, which may have led to a wrong conclusion, but unless you have done equivalent research, rejecting their findings out of hand is not fair. We will have to agree to disagree on this.

A minor quibble of my own, if Vyasa divided and compiled the Vedas, what does that mean exactly? You are implying that it doesn't mean he wrote them down, did he "divide and compile" them in his head? What use would that have been? I am not following your logic here. The only logical thing I can think of is that you are assuming when I say "Vyasa wrote down the Vedas" that I am implying he authored them. I realize the Vedas were not authored, but tradition does tell us that Vyasa was the one who wrote them down from the oral tradition that they initially had been kept in prior to Kali Yuga.

I had a longer post but Omkara summed it up much better than I could, you can reply to his post if you wish.

[MahaHrada]

So far as I can recall, the only "evidence" Maha brought up was from esoteric astrological and tantric texts whose origins are far more questionable than Manu-samhita.

You misunderstand me , it was in total agreement with your position that i quoted B.P.H.S. I only wanted to remind you what could happen if you preach veda to the shudra, which is against the rules laid down in Smriti and only enhanced the Manu smriti with the beautiful analogy of the Kamadhenu were a noble brahmin fittingly described the nature of the shudra, it clearly shows, collaborating the evidence of the Manu samhita with that of the BPHS that shudras cannot receive any education because in which way could an excrementory organ reply to the noble voice of the brahmin and repeat the lesson heard?

You must admit that it is not possible.

So in my opinion it is entirely clear by testimony of Smriti and BPHS that you cannot go on explaining the Manu smriti to the audience of shudras and mlecchas at HDF unless you want to be caught in the act of talking to the bum of a cow by your fellow dvijas. You might think that posting on an internet forum is anonymous but god sees all and maha never forgives,so you cannot escape your fate.

[charitra]

If you have information that shows the antiquity of Manu please post it here, along with the correct translation since everything else, in your view, was translated by anti-hindus or Muslims. I'm not interested in arguing about this but I'm sure other posters will find your information helpful, especially since those who have yet to master Sanskrit have been reading Muslim mistranslations of every text all of this time.

At the riskof being accused of heavy speculation, I say, most of us who are stressing on ‘varnaby acquired gunas in this janma only’ are from the so called upper castes. Call us liberals if you will but do not call us the aggrieved party, for it is not true. We feel it is our dharma to embrace all hindusand assuage the hurt souls. An apology of sorts if you will. During 1998, Ramakrishna math of Hyderabad had honored a cobbler caste district collector, whilst sitting in the lecture hall I was surprised when a brother of my close friend was angered with the honor, ’whychoose a cobbler (for the honor)?’, he fumed. This kind of swipe made hinduismto lose its adherent members steadily. During the time you became a hindu, youmust understand, 1000 hindus have embraced Christianity. Why so? It is thehistorical grief for which they areturning away from Hinduism, not for any contemporary shortcomings. Hindus are the singlemost source of contributors to Christian ranks in the last 50 years. When something this big is going onyou cant look away. I will be very glad to declare Manu is adharmic, if youwill. As Param said Manu’s present varna chapter is a muslim conspiracy hatchedsome 800 years ago to divide hindus, to wean them away from hinduism.

Your demandfor scriptural quotes is very understandable, but then there is problem thatweighs in here in a big way. The scriptures are not what they were several millenniaago. Additions and deletions have taken place, albeit in a small way. Especially in the chapters of Varna there was a frenzy of activity that wenton and on for several centuries. Its true that no one took note of appearance of these divisive alterations ever.Hindus only recently noticed that these seemingly discriminatory diktats would turn the nemesis of the faith. As a result an attempt is made by all hindus to redress the grievances of the aggrieved parties.As a westerner hindu you don’t fall in the classification of caste and varna.But what about those castes who demand ‘equal’ rights. As good and civilized hindus it is our dharma tohear them out and look for ways to bring them back to thedharmic path they belonged to all along. There never was anydiscrimination at the beginning anyways. A few men for whatever justifiable reasons they have had, goneahead and divided hindus into groups.The basis for their divisive argument is‘varna by birth only’. Manu was talking about perfection of a skill/ a trade/ aprofession. If people of same trade comingle and intermarry then their collective experience wouldnaturally further boost the said skill. The final shape of this social organisationis the ‘birth of caste’ solely centered around professional lines. Still there was nt any problem or grievance there, akshatriya was trained in warfare and a carpenter trained his kids (only) inwood based industry, they both are happy to continue in their professions. With800 years of recurrent barbaric invasions, the harmony and balance was disrupted, theeconomy tanked and castes turnedprotectionist. Some castes lost all the revenue and were denied of any rights,socially they were marginalized. The dissent soared.

Having gotten rid of marauders, Hindus quicklygotten down to business and institutedcorrective measures to rectify the situation. Varna by birth was ignored and all hindus were constitutionally enabled to take up any profession they want to and are capable of. Reservation system in the nameof social justice was implemented. In the large interest of Hinduism thereservation system must be implemented but first plugging all the loopholes in it. My relatives pay a price but that is a loss I will accept. By merely abolishing‘varna by birth only mantra’ no one islosing anything and no one gains either, for everyone gets to keep his caste. Withlarge number of intercaste marriages thecaste is already losing its grip on hindu society. Namaste.
PS: since the time I wrote this post, i stepped out and got back, more discussion happened....but then i print this anyway.

[Vasa]

Namaste.

For the record, I wasn't disagreeing with Param, I just find it odd that every time someone disagrees with him, they are Muslim conspirators, and every translation into English is wrong and Muslim influenced. If there is some huge Muslim conspiracy then great, but just saying that over and over doesn't solve anything. Realistically, if the translations are Muslim influenced, and he has unmuslim translations, it is his duty to share these with the rest of us.

[JayaRadhe]

Dear JaiRadhe,

Responding to your recent remarks is problematic because, like Maha, the relevance of your remarks to what has been written is tangential at best, and their value for an evidence-based discussions seems to have tapered off to virtually zero. Of course, if you think I'm just running away from the discussion, feel free to declare victory.

Oh, I apologize so deeply if I got defensive after you repeatedly accused me of being a poor devotee because I disagree with you over a text which states that if a woman's hymen is ruptured before marriage, then she should be physically mutilated and then publicly humiliated.


What is most evident from your last set of comments, and which I would like to draw your attention to, is an apparent double-standard in your thinking. Specifically, you reject Manu Smriti as interpolated, but you accept the authority of the Caitanya Upanishad, which everyone knows was not referred to prior to the 17th or 18th centuries. Manu Samhita was quoted by acharyas as far back as Shankara and commented on as well, so we know it is at least as old as 7th-8th centuries by empirical methods. By contrast, there are no references to Caitanya Upanishad anywhere prior to 17th-18th centuries - not in the Muktika Upanishad which lists 108 Upanishads, not in the writings of the six Gosvamis (whom you presumably follow), not in the Brahma-sutra commentary of Baladeva Vidyabhushana, and in short, nowhere in Gaudiya writings prior to Bhaktivinod Thakur.

The point is that the Chaitanya Upanishad is a devotional text that is not filled with hateful remarks about women. Honestly, I do not care if others believe that the Chaitanya Upanishad is an official Upanishad or not. It's a nice devotional work glorifying Lord Chaitanya. Whether it was written in ancient times or not is not my concern. It does not, unlike certain parts of the Manu-Smriti, attack women or "low caste" people. It does not infringe on others' basic rights.
I do not think that people should live their lives by a book that says not to marry girls with red hair, allergies, names like Rohini or Tulasi, brotherless girls, etc... I think that's ridiculous and I think it's self-evident that those are not the Lord's edicts, but rather ridiculous superstitions that have perverted what was once a revealed scripture. I am not arguing that the Manu Smriti does not contain some truth in it. I am arguing that passages that contradict each other (such as when it says that women are to never perform religious rituals and should only worship their husbands, and then goes on to say that women should have the freedom to perform religious rituals) are interpolated. I do believe that the Manu Smriti was, at one point, a righteous scripture of God. However, I believe that it has been severely mishandled and passages that justify mistreating anyone based on how they were born should be ignored. I hope that has served as a clarification for you.


The apparent basis you gave for this double-standard is that you don't like what Manu says, but you have no disagreement with what is in Caitanya Upanishad. You have to realize that this reveals an astonishing lack of objectivity on your part - like Maha, you only follow scripture in name only. In reality, you follow scripture only if you like what it says, or can force its statements into conformity with your worldview. I notice that many Hare Krishna devotees do that, which is, among other reasons, why I could never be a follower of that tradition, or for that matter, of any other Neo-Hindu tradition that follows scripture in theory but engages in selective-acceptance in practice.

I guess you skipped over the part of my response where I made it amply clear that I am not a "Hare Krishna". I worship Radha-Krishna and respect the Gaudiya Acharyas, but I definitely have never followed Prabhupada. I will, however, leave you with a quote by Bhaktivinode Thakur in regards to the subject at hand:
"Our Shastras, or in other words, books of thought, do not contain all that we could get from the infinite Father.
No book is without its errors.
God's revelation is absolute truth, but it is scarcely received and preserved in its natural purity. We have been advised in the 14th Chapter of 11th Skandha of the Bhagavata to believe that truth when revealed is absolute, but it gets the tincture of the nature of the receiver in course of time and is converted into error by continual exchange of hands from age to age. New revelations, therefore, are continually necessary in order to keep truth in its original purity. We are thus warned to be careful in our studies of old authors, however wise they are reputed to be."

[Omkara]

Pranams
I did not legitimize philology.I have many problems with their methodology too.I reviewed the evidence, and found the evidence valid in my estimation.
I agree that I am not an expert in the field, though I have read quite a few books in the field.I am open to corrections.But if so, please refute the proof.

As for your strawmen about the puranas and the vedas,

I disagree with the dates given for the puranas for the simple reason that the chandogya upanishad, dated by them to 800 bc (disagree with that too) secifically mentions the itihasas and puranas, proving that they existed then, even if they were not commited to writing there.
I accept that the puranas and he itihasas are 'layered texts', a fact that even madhawacharya accepts.The mahabharata itself says that the original work written by vyasa covers only the 18 days of the war and had 8800 verses and was called jaya.Later authors expanded on the work and increased its size to todays approximately 100,000 verses.

As for the vedas , you yourself created such a wonderful thread containing proof of the eternality of the vedas.As a hindu, it is axiomatic for us to believe that the vedas are eternal.

The justification which you have given for 1500 bc is the modern fig leaf, slightly less illogical than the original method that the date was arrived at.

Way back in the 19th century, the renowned German scholar Max Muller dated the Vedas to circa 1200 BCE. This he did on a very ad-hoc basis. Having accepted that the Sµutra literature could be as old as the sixth century BCE, he assigned a duration of two hundred years to each of the preceding periods, namely those of the Araynakas, Brahmanas and Vedas. Thus, 600+200+200+200= 1200 BCE was his ready-made date for the Vedas.

However, when his contemporary scholars, such as Goldstucker, Whitney and Wilson raised objections to this kind of ad-hocism, he relented and came out with the following statement:

“I have repeatedly dwelt on the merely hypothetical character of the dates, which I have ventured to assign to the first periods of Vedic literature. All I have claimed for them has been that they are minimum dates, and that the literary productions of each period which either still exist or which formerly existed could hardly be accounted for within shorter limits of time than those suggested.”

But when even this explanation-cum-apology did not satisfy the scholars, Max Muller threw up his hands in sheer desperation. His confession, as follows, is worth noting (Max Muller 1890, reprint 1979):

“If now we ask how we can fix the dates of these periods, it is quite clear that we cannot hope to fix a terminum a qua [sic]. Whether the Vedic hymns were composed [in] 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000 BC, no power on earth will ever determine.”

In so far as Max Muller was concerned, the matter was closed from his side. But the greatest irony is that his original fatawa of 1200 BCE, given in the 19th century, is sill ruling the roost in certain quarters even in the 21st century!

Certain interesting facts you may not know. Do you know that vyasas disciple jamini also wrote a mahabharata?Only the ashwamedha parva of that survives.The contrast with the text the mainstream mahabharata that is in use today is massive.

In the mainstream mahabharata which i will henceforth call the vyasa mahbharata though not all of it was written by vyasa arjuna is still the ultimate alpha male during the time of yudhishtira's ashwamedha yagna.He conquers all of india with ease.However, in thge very next parva , he is depicted an an aging warrior who is not willing to accept that he is past he prime and has to literally be forced by yudhishtira and vyasa to give up the gandiva bow. Contrast this with the jamini ashwamedha parva. In it , arjuna repeatedly loses the same battles he had been depicted as winning easily in the mainstream mahabharata and requires to be rescued again and again by krishna.It is karna's son and ghatokachas son(both part of the pandava party) who are the heroes of the ashwamedha.

Arjuna is depicted as an aging warrior past his prime who is however still in denial that he is now too old to fight.Which version seems more authentic to you given the events that occur afterwards?

Texts get modified with time and any story reflects the views of the storyteller.However any scholar excepts that hindus have gone all out and through very rigorous methods, protected shruti unadulterated.Every scholar , pro hindu or anti hindu accepts that the vedas are not interpolated.That need not be true for smriti(authored works)

Your comment from the gita regarding scriptural injuctions is also a strawman.Here you have to determine what scripture means.Is the manu smriti scripture?NO.

[Omkara]

A tough question for you.You said biology is a science. In that case do you accept evolution? You are on record saying that you dont.
I am saying again, I do not legitimize philology.When I agree or disgree with a certain claim of philology,I do so because I find arguments against the philological method.In short, I am clear as to WHY I reject the philological conclusion.If you reject MY conclusion, fell free to do so.But provide legitimate arguments against my conclusion.
An argument must be refuted on the basis of its worth, not on who makes it. Lets say philologists are anti hindu. In that case wouldnt they try to make MS seem like a more ancient and authoritative scripture than it really is?

Any bias would be in the direction of an older, more authoritaive manu smriti legalizing, in their eyes , oppression.

Dont get me wrong. I agree with vast parts of the manu smriti and disagree with only a little.But, in my eyes, it is not an authoritative scripture.

[Twilightdance]

The only problem with that view is, we would also have to reject bhagavad-gItA:

Bg 16.23 (http://vedabase.com/en/bg/16/23) — He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination.
Bg 16.24 (http://vedabase.com/en/bg/16/24) — One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of the scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated.

Because the scriptural injunctions being referred to are mostly found in those "politically incorrect" smRtis.

I am not rejecting scriptural injunctions on own whims [it is common sense this will not do any good], but I am simply not taking smriti as the scripture - this view too has scriptural support.

[Omkara]

Another interesting link.Do you still feel the puranas and itihasas are not 'layered'?

http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=1769

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Ganeshprashad

Quote - “I sure do take exception when my ancestors are called to question, to be liars. It also fly in the face, what lord Krishna says Kuru Karmaiva Tasmat tavam purvaiha Purvataram kratam - Do your action as how the ancient did.”

... and so I break a promise to myself that I would move on and away from this thread. That I did not, only shows my character to not be a "Brahmin", certainly Rama teaches me to live by my "oaths", and that I did not.

But I "accidently" looked (I promise, I won't do that again!) and on the page was a very interesting comment, which you made and does have a lot of value in it though I take exception. No doubt you will take exception to my exception, but you are not going to change me, because I take my queues from others who are great Hindus and some are Gurus. And yes, a Guru CAN work wonders!

Obviously Krishna is the authority, and yes we must do our actions as how the ancient did. Because so much of what we have came as a gift from those before us. But what does this have to do with the false dichotomy of “birth based” varna?

Was it our ancestors wish that FOUR becomes 6 THOUSAND?
And obbviously we need to respect ancestors --- what does this have to do with the false dichotomy of “birth based” varna which is a caste system? The word “birth” isn’t used in context.

Obviously we need to respect ancestors --- do you respect mine?

I really do not know you, so do not take anything personal. In fact, things personal are not of my interest, and that is another problem with the “birthers” is they see everything as personal due to fixation on the body. Some think, if I even just walk into a room where they are, that is personal. But in regards to such bithers, do they respect mine?

I don’t think so. Because if you subscribe to the “birthers” interpretation, and even worse subscribe to some of the disgusting and body-based materialistic “laws” which we have read posted on this thread, and would be extremist enough to try to actually enforce such crimes against human beings, children, newborns and women in the United States or for that matter in most any other nation which now includes India as well, you would not only be guilty of a hate crime but if actually someone put a hand on someone else to put in force any such molestation or personal assault you would also be facing prison time.

I respect your ancestors. To deny the overwhelming history of enslavement and misuse of humanity coming from all sides in such ideations is only enabling through such false birth-based sanctimony the very reason why the long and very tired history of bribes, fakery, wars, tribal conflict, foreign conquests, enslaving, yoking and burdening those who speak another language of which there are many in India, all of this is the very reason why Brahmin is simply a title claimed by someone because their parents say they are, but of which hordes of such numbers actually do not have any firm foundation for such a claim at all since their parents before, and before that, and ever since the middle ages, such entitlement is gained by murdering another village, by fakery and conquest, by lies and bribes, by rape and plunder, and simply being told by your elder really can be very, very questionable indeed.

If four varnas are qualities of character, then truth can be clear. But it is the very bondage of cloaking four varnas and gunas to birth and sentencing any varna even as Brahmin to an entire life while denying that a soul can go from the lowest quality and character to esteemed and even enlightened state within one life or even within one hour is a very denial of the power of Hinduism and Brahmanism itself. It becomes nothing but the body, it claims that karma itself is a slave to the time frame of a human’s life and does not move and stake claim at every moment, that instant karma exists, that Deva and Devi have to simply wait until two partners have sex and then another is born before any reward comes. But it isn’t even a question of “reward” at all. Karma has nothing to do with “reward”.

Our forefathers, our ancestors gave been through so much. Not all of what they have done is good. In fact, as an Aryan, probably one of my ancestors might have been pointing an enfield rifle at one of your ancestors in the past. And maybe one of your ancestors was pointing a spear at a innocent Tamil fisherman. I don’t know. And in fact, you really don’t know, either. It is very, very dubious who and what your ancestors were since too much of flesh is fixated in the body, is corrupt, are liars, and will do whatever it takes to be the next chink up on the chain of “castes” to survive or to in some cases simply be lazy.

In fact, one of my ancestors may have been one of your ancestors by birth. History is not as vast as some think, and 5 thousand years is not as long as some imagine.

So I hope the “birthers” come to respect my family and never try to stand in the way of our seeking of Guru, of Shiva, of Devi, of Ram, of Hanuman, of Muruga, of Valli, of the Saints and yogis including those majestic savants of South India and Sri Lanka. But it won’t matter anyway. Because every single human in this world has a lot more they share with each other, including the suffering of this very body but also the joys of something as seeing their own children and even obtaining enlightenment --- and if that child is lame, it is still to be loved, be it Brahmin or mleecha. And if that child is blind, it is still to be loved, be it Brahmin or mleecha. And if that child is dark in flesh, it is still to be loved, be it Brahmin or mleecha. Whether poxed or not.

If is funny in one way. I love the Brahmins so much. But claiming “Brahmin” and claiming Guru, well that is two very different things.
Because I love them, for there as so many so dedicated to a commitment to a temple, to protecting a temple and its holy residence, in minding the finances involved, in one way I do not see a problem of such dedication going from one generation to the next. I truly am grateful to so many of them.
But what is sort of funny is, for example a couple of awkward moments in India. It is so typical, that those who are “birthers” are the very same sad people who then read some scripture or some later writing that is not actually scripture at all and it doesn’t matter if it carries a title of some ancient sage (I can show you books claiming the title of Elvis long after he was dead, it means nothing) but were simply works from a time in the middle ages when there was great stress in society, when invasions were occurring, fear was running rampant, famines and pestilence – then you sees such things put on a banana leaf and entitled “the Ways of Bhisma” but Bhisma was dead a long time ago. And so there were those couple of awkward times, a very nice Brahmin who is very proud of his “color” (lighter skin), and believing “varna” is in fact “color” as in skin, and who really doesn’t like those “Oriyas” who are “darker”, and I happen to be around and the very nice man almost wants to be my friend. Why? Because my skin is even whiter, much more so, than his.

But you know, I also felt for him. I also even admired him. Because he did know so much.

I would not take away anything from the any Brahmins who live in character the example of the Vedas and of Sanatana Dharma. And if such character is honored by their children and worn as a true mantle of Dharma and Guna, then I say leave them to continue on.

I do not support reservations. No way. God knows, I have seen the bad effects of “affirmative action” here in the US when it turns into reverse discrimination. In India, the maya or reservations not only has even worse consequences, now we see Brahmins being abused, insulted, their thread almost pulled off from their body by low-class idiots. No – no one who is a Hindu wants to see that. Never. To be truthful, I love the VHP.

But do not also tell me what I am. Until you know me, you do not know.

With best regards

Om Namah Sivaya

[Vasa]

The only problem with that view is, we would also have to reject bhagavad-gItA:

Bg 16.23 (http://vedabase.com/en/bg/16/23) — He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination.
Bg 16.24 (http://vedabase.com/en/bg/16/24) — One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of the scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated.

Because the scriptural injunctions being referred to are mostly found in those "politically incorrect" smRtis.

Namaste.

So Bhagavad Gita is universally accepted by all Hindus? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but since some Saivite traditions reject the avatar doctrine, don't they also consider BG to be itihasa and not sruti? Are these Saivites not entitled to follow their own traditions? Not everyone is a Vaishnava.

My point is not to dispute the Gita, personally the BG changed my life and my thinking in many ways. However, who is it decides, aside from sruti, what all Hindus must follow? Who is it that can say that their sect is the "true" Hinduism and that the other sects are poor devotees for having slightly different beliefs?

[Omkara]

Other than a few vaishnava schools even those sampradayas that accept theBG consider it smriti.It is called the smriti prasthana of the prasthanatrayi with the brahmasutras being the nyaya prasthana and the upanishads being the shruti prasthana.

[Aum]

Jai shree Krishna!

Not sure if its a good idea to give my opinion on this thread as I am not as knowledgeable as others. But will give it anyway :)
Our great rishis and acharyas have smartly divided shrutis and smritis. There are hundreds or probably thousands of texts that fall under the smritis, accumulated over so many years. This only is possible because our rishis and acharyas were constantly thinking about the preservation of dharma and how to carry it forward in this ever changing world without loosing the essence of dharma. I read somewhere that would it not be a more beneficial for the hindu dharma if it continues this tradition of composing smriti for the current age whilst keeping the essence of the vedic dharma. This would be a sort of a 'Renaissance' of dharmic teaching. Ofcourse this would require someone with emmense sadhna but why cant we think towards that direction instead of debating on something which is not going to be accepted by a vast majority. Would it not be more constructive to have a "new" smriti that would serve the current problem of the world from a dharmic philosophy without diluting anything, which is clearly has so much to contribute on a global scale?
Just my two cents :)

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: I think all Hindus, at least those that are literate, and do read some scripture, accept that BG is a common scripture. What varies is the degree of importance attached to it. That is true for all scriptures. From this thread, some obviously put a higher degree of importance on the Manu Smrti than others.

But one thing I see that is forgotten is that many Hindus still learn stuff orally, follow along to temples, listen to parents advice, practice dharma naturally, yet just don't read any scripture at all. So the very idea of scripture itself is of lesser importance to some. Its only one aspect (yes, an important one) of the religion.

Aum Namasivaya

[Omkara]

Sorry for going off topic, but Eastern Mind, didnt your guru Satguru Sivaya Subramaniyaswami reject the Bhagavad Gita? At least that is what I read in his book Dancing With Shiva. Apologies in advance if I am mistaken.

[Eastern Mind]

Sorry for going off topic, but Eastern Mind, didnt your guru Satguru Sivaya Subramaniyaswami reject the Bhagavad Gita? At least that is what I read in his book Dancing With Shiva. Apologies in advance if I am mistaken.

Vannakkam: Yes you are mistaken. The BG is used as scriptural support quite often in "Dancing With Siva" . The so called 'rejection' was the same as my stance, which is that the BG is not the absolute true scripture for all sects of Hinduism. But of course those with a very strong stance on how important BG is objected, as I still get objections here. It's a matter of how much importance one puts on it, just as some people put more importance on philosophy, while others put more importance on bhakti. Here's an example from 'Dancing With Siva' ... scroll to the bottom. http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/dws_mandala-12.html

At one time, somebody (I can't remember the specifics) was trying to use the BG for justification of one of today's wars. It may even have been the Sri Lankan war, or perhaps a call to arms to invade Pakistan. I really don't know the specifics.

Aum Namasivaya

[Omkara]

Though there are two excellent shaivite commentaries on the bhagavad gita and shaivism on the whole does a much better job of explaining the puranas than vaishnavism, that too without rejectimg some as tamasic or rajasic,the shaivite canon of smritis consists of only 12 or fourteen books depending on the sect.In my recollection gurudeva says something like 'Despite the many good teachings within it, on the whole, I felt I could not accept it. 'I will recheck the book.

He also said that only the vedagamas must be considered scriptutes, if I recall correctly.

Thanks for replying.
.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam omkara: I think many believe that just the Vedas and Agamas are sruti, and the rest are smrti. But I'm know there is disagreement all over the place, from sect to to sect. At least gone are the days when the disagreements disintegrated into physical sparring and deaths; now there is only verbal sparring.

Clearly, different sampradayas do get along as brothers as seen here. http://himalayanacademy.com/blog/taka/2012/06/09/vaishnava-swami-from-mayapur-visits/

Aum Namasivaya

[Omkara]

I think you got it the other way round there.

Your comments are always insightful.

I think discussion and debate must be carried out with the aim of searching for the truth and not simply to burnish one's ego, and that one must always refrain from name calling and insults.

[Eastern Mind]

I think you got it the other way round there.


Vannakkam: Shows how much I remember, but I switched it around now. :)I'm just not that big on scripture. Quite frankly, I'd rather be sitting in a quiet spot in the temple, or having coffee or a nice lunch with family members. If it made the lunch taste better, the conversation more stimulating, or the temple shakti more scintillating, I'd be all for it.

Aum Namasivaya

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

A lot of points have been made here, some relevant, others tangential, and some based on wrong assumptions about my motives while others seems to be delving into hazy reasoning. I will try to respond to the most significant points in a single posting.

First, there is the point that defending Manu-Samhita's authenticity is somehow "evangelical" or "forcing" its views on others. This is silly, and I request participants to have done with such childish and insecure arguments. For what it's worth, I have no special "feeling" for Manu-Samhita either way. I don't fantasize about a new world order in which everyone follows the principles laid out by Manu. The most obvious reason being that how others conduct themselves really isn't too relevant to my own personal search after moksha - it's the way I conduct myself that matters. If anything, the social degradation and dysfunction typical of the modern age, which some appear to think is more "evolved" than the standard of ancient times, makes me that much less likely to be attached to this world and more likely to seek escape.

It is the "modern Hindu" who, having made post-modern values about gender- and class-relations as his own, finds Manu to be a troubling thorn in his side. This then leads him to make other statements about Hinduism aka sanAtana-dharma which assuage his guilt and shame about Manu et. al. but don't serve as factual representations of the tradition. "Many Hindus today don't believe in or follow Manu Samhita" we are told. That is true, but it's not the same thing as saying "Manu Samhita is not relevant to Hindus today." It is clear that it has little relevance for those who don't share its underlying assumptions about the nature of life, karma, and the quest to escape it. But it's not clear that it was irrelevant to those who followed the culture of the veda-s, purANa-s and itihAsa-s. Rather, the reverse appears to be true when one actually studies these texts.

The authenticity of a scriptural text cannot be dependent on popular vote, as popular attitudes change every few decades. Nor is it the case that a religion, especially an eternal religious tradition, is whatever its followers claim it to be, for it would then change with the prevailing attitudes of the time. Note that this is not the same thing as saying that every regulation was meant for every person at all times. What I am merely saying is that people are not the authority on sanAtana-dharma. ShAstra is. Specifically, shruti is authority, and those smRtis which uphold the views of shruti are also authority in a dependent sense. History also plays a role, in as much as it gives us a clue how those principles in shruti were interpreted.

Note that, whether a given smRti has "layers" or interpolations is a distinct issue. No one doubts that the Mahaabhaarata is a standard authoritative text on Hinduism, but no one claims that the Mahaabhaarata is in pristine form either. Its authority depends on not contradicting shruti, and it is therefore accepted in a dependent sense. Same with Raamaayana. Same with the Puraanas. Now, why should Manu-Samhitaa be any different? It can't be because of philological arguments establishing that it has layers and that it is post-Vedic, because the same arguments say the same things about other smRitis which are commonly accepted by Hindus who reject Manu. It can't be because its views on gender- and caste-relations are unique, because those same view are found in other revered texts. It can't be because no one has quoted or reference it, because in fact the principle Vedanta commentators have quoted it, and all in the exact same context.

Why is any of this important? Imagine if a Muslim were to claim that all acts of terrorism are un-Islamic, and that Islam as revealed in the Koran was actually a "religion of peace." How many people would jump forward and call him a revisionist, citing Koranic passages which endorse violence against idol-worshippers and polytheists? And they would be right do that.

Now, let's say we as Hindus are called upon to defend our tradition. Let's just say we are having a debate on the anti-Hindu biases in American educational textbooks, and that we, as legitimate representatives of Hinduism, are seeking to change that. And in order to do that, we have to convince the judge that we know the subject better than the "objective" non-Hindu academics for whom there are no sacred cows. How authoritative are we going to look, when we claim that there were no castes and men and women were treated equally in Hinduism, when the facts from multiple scriptures clearly say otherwise? Are we legitimate heirs to the tradition when we ignore scriptural statements because they lack political correctness? Who decides what is correct?

The arguments regarding the (generally) hereditary basis of varNa have been given already here (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=9782). Let those who do not believe them, read and address each and every piece of evidence quoted from mainstream Hindu scripture and explain how heredity is not actually understood from them, before they conclude that the facts are otherwise by quoting from non-standard sources. Let them also be the first to explain why Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva, who otherwise disagreed with each other on so many other points, and who agreed with each other on this point, and whose erudition is well-known being the propagators of the three principle schools of Vedanta, are nevertheless wrong on this point. Let them also read and acknowledge other pieces of evidence such as the one given here (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=89072&postcount=94) in which, in spite of its hierarchy, varNAshrama culture was still shown to be inclusive rather than exploitive as the nay-sayers have claimed. Let them also be the first to say that brahmins-by-birth are right in forsaking their spiritual duties because of "birth is not relevant philosophy" and that this is actually good for Hinduism. In short, let them acknowledge the reality and facts found in scripture, before assuming that varNAshrama = modern caste system and taking Romila Thapar and others of her ilk as a metric by which we must measure out what is and is not true about sanAtana-dharma. We cannot have a factual discussion if people refuse to acknowledge the facts from scripture. And we cannot appear as authorities on our religion if we aren't prepared to acknowledge and authoritatively explain the scriptural evidence that our enemies will use against us.

I am sure there are more points to be made, but this is really the sum and substance of what I have been getting at all along. I apologize if I've not given some point or question its due, but it's been a long and tiring day.

shrI kRiShNArpaNam astu

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam
Well I thought since Shiva fan, wold not perhaps look at my reply, what is the point in my wasting time responding but then he has made unsubstantiated assumptions that has no bases and complete lack of evidence. That is not to say in the resent past, under the subjugation of brutal and cunning enemies, attempt were made to undermine dharma, with lies, misinformation, divide and rule tactics no wonder we are still feeling the affect. Perhaps this was a dark period in our history.Not  for a minute do I think that is the fault of varna. Karma the self regulatory concept would see to that an individual would take responsibility for his action, it is naive to think those in the know of Dharma would behave in a way to undermine it.

 I really have no desire to change his or anyones mind.

We are all indebted to devas, gurus our Janani and our ancestors


For all intent and purpose there are only four varna, if people further sub divided it is only that in name no more no less. Off course there are those who belong to no varna but that is another issue.

As a Hindu we respect all, they all played their part in the glorious past that it was. To protect that they laid their life on line, how can I not respect. 

By shouting  'false dichotomy of Varna by birth ' does not make it false, there is no other criteria one can use to determine a varna of a child, birth is no accident, following in the footstep of our forefather is a duty I should do to  complete my obligation. I will be failing in my duty if I did not honour them. Everyone is proud of their heritage no matter who they may be, we offer our pinda, oblation to our pitrus, kula parivar that is how our identity gets established 
Kuru Karmaiva Tasmat tavam purvaiha Purvataram kratam - Do your action as how the ancient did.”  So when I read this instruction of lord Krishna, i feel proud to honour the history of our glorious past but particularly I have to remain true to my line that I can identify with.


.

He has accused us of fixated on body, because we happen to believe in birth base varna, how far from truth can that get? That is what the tradition view is that is what the ground reality still exist. Weather you like it or not we are trapped in this body by our past sanskara. Only way out is by the grace and our desire to overcome the gunas and do our duty in the service of the lord, following our dharma by referring to Shastra. None of the people I know flaunt their varna, lord it over or lament their position but put it down their position to their karma. It is a big responsibility, higher it is, the greater  the responsibility  



I respect your ancestors. To deny the overwhelming history of enslavement and misuse of humanity coming from all sides in such ideations is only enabling through such false birth-based sanctimony the very reason why the long and very tired history of bribes, fakery, wars, tribal conflict, foreign conquests, enslaving, yoking and burdening those who speak another language of which there are many in India, all of this is the very reason why Brahmin is simply a title claimed by someone because their parents say they are, but of which hordes of such numbers actually do not have any firm foundation for such a claim at all since their parents before, and before that, and ever since the middle ages, such entitlement is gained by murdering another village, by fakery and conquest, by lies and bribes, by rape and plunder, and simply being told by your elder really can be very, very questionable indeed



Respect! What respect?you make the mulas sound like angles. You have singled out Brahmin for the ill of the society,there is no bases for your innuendoes. You are simply parroting age old british propoganda.As if to say the whole Hindu society was corrupt and based on false pretence, especially the brahmins who had the weight of the burden of great responsibility studying Vedas with very little reward, obliged to beg for living.
 You see they did this not for material gain but the selfless love to preserve Dharma, in-turn that required one to live a pious life, life of austerity. Failure in this duty   Brings bigger fall down, who in their right mind who had 'material desire' would choose this path. People have found this scape goat, in today's secular india Hindu is a dirty word and within that Brahmin is a pariah. This is a result, as we choose, evermore all thing material.
Nothing to do with varna birth or otherwise, people all over the world rebel and blame someone else for their predicament. No one can ever convince me that my birth is not based on guna and karma, I have a responsibility to carry on from where I left off, that is what my birth affords me that is what Krishna says
On taking such a birth, he again revives the divine consciousness of his previous life, and he tries to make further progress in order to achieve complete success, O son of Kuru.bg6.43

Jai Shree Krishna

[Omkara]

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_kishw_mythic_frameset.htm
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_karan_caste_frameset.htm
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_hobso_caste_frameset.htm

A bunch of vital articles every hindu should read

[Omkara]

to philosophorator:
As i a bit busy nowadays I cannot post a detailed rebuttal now, but will do it soon.

the itihasas and puranas are regarded as authorised texts as they are endorsed by the upanishads(Chandogya Upanishad 7.1.2).
no such endorsement for the manu smriti exists in shruti or smriti, as far as i know.

I most certainly do not confuse varnashrama dharma with the modern day jati system.I have nothing against varnashrama dharma.All I am saying is that there is no scriptural injuction saying that varna is by birth.Also, in the ancient days, before the stratification of caste, it was possible for a person to change varna(Something that even known hindu-baiters like Romila Thapar et al accept).

In a pre industrial society, it is only natural for people to follow the professions of their ancestors.This has nothing to do with scripture, but rather to do with economics and sociology. Heredity in professions existed throughout the ancient world,and is not unique to India or Hinduism.

In fact, Indian society has historically been more socially mobile than most other societies.THERE IS NOTHING IN SCRIPTURE PREVENTING ANYONE FROM CHANGING HIS OR HER VARNA, IF THEY SO WISH.

[philosoraptor]

to philosophorator:
As i a bit busy nowadays I cannot post a detailed rebuttal now, but will do it soon.

the itihasas and puranas are regarded as authorised texts as they are endorsed by the upanishads(Chandogya Upanishad 7.1.2).
no such endorsement for the manu smriti exists in shruti or smriti, as far as i know.

Manu's writings are mentioned in both the bhAgavata purANa and varAha purANa. If I find the references again I will post them here.



All I am saying is that there is no scriptural injuction saying that varna is by birth.

Omkar, I don't have any time or desire to repeat the same arguments and facts over and over again. Before you make this statement, please go through the evidence already discussed earlier in this thread and on the "What Makes a Written Work Scripture" thread. So far, you've quoted from non-standard sources but have steadfastly avoided all of the evidence which contradicts your view.

None of this is to say that varNa cannot be changed. Certainly it can in exceptional cases. But the general rule was that one's varna was based on his birth.

[Omkara]

And you have not bothered to rebut antything that I have said at all. If you look back,you will see that I have only quoted the rig veda,which is,by any standard,an authentic text.On the other hand,I questioned your claim that others have quoted non standard texts and also questioned the authenticity of some of the texts which you quoted,to which you offered no reply except mere rhetoric.I also questioned the unfounded conclusions tht you drew from the texts you did quote.There is not a single scriptural quote posted by you which says explicitly that a person is restricted to his birth varna.You only quoted texts which simply show that progeny generally followed the varna of their parents,which as I have pointed out is the norm in pre industrial societies and has nothing to do with hinduism.You have also refused to define what constitutes a so called exceptional case.Can you quote a dingle verse from a universally accepted scripture that says explicitly that a person has to follow his parents varna alone.

[Jetavan]

For converts to Hinduism, does the varna system have any practical use?

[philosoraptor]

Pranams Omkar. I am sorry to say this, but you have a very tenuous grasp on recent history.

My position all along was that the scriptures consider that a person was generally restricted to the varna of his birth, not that it could not change in exceptional circumstances. I don't need to have an exact definition of an exceptional circumstance in order to assert that there were exceptional circumstances in which one's varna could change. This is obvious from looking at the scriptural examples, assuming you could just stop ignoring them long enough to see what I am saying. Perhaps you could begin with chAndogya upaniShad 4.4.4-5 in which Gautama requested Satyakaama for his "gotra" which is a hereditary designation. That would be a strange question for a guru to ask if birth had no relevance to varna, don't you think? While you're at it, you could also review Shankara's comments on this in his Brahma-sutra bhashya - he asserts that Satyakaama's lineage was brahminical and further states that a shUdra by birth cannot study Veda. Same position is taken by Raamaanuja and by Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana. You may also want to look at chAndogya upaniShad 5.10.7 in which prior karma is said to be the cause of birth in the womb of a vaishya, kshatriya, or braahmana - another very clear reference to birth. And again in chAndogya upaniShad 6.1.1 in which Shvetaketu is instructed to study the Veda because he was born a braahmin and should not merely accept that he is one nominally.

There are many arguments already brought forward which the revisionists have not even bothered to touch. When arrows are raining down on you from all sides, the solution is to counter them first before launching more of your own. Please review the evidence and comment on each specific example and show how it is brought in line with your theory. Merely stating that it was the standard in pre-industrial societies does not help your argument when the standards are mentioned in scripture. I could just as easily argue that the pre-industrial standard which happens to be mentioned in scripture is the standard, and that ignoring one's birth varna is merely the standard of post-industrial societies which ignore scripture. In the end, one goes to scripture for the authority, and the vast majority of examples show varna based on heredity, whereas only a handful of examples show varna being independent of heredity.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=87766&postcount=14
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=87794&postcount=25

In the course of providing these postings with the evidence you ignored, I found a posting of yours which I apparently missed in which you "proved" your case. Let me address it now:



a. Aitareya Rishi was son of a Daasa or criminal but became a Brahmin of highest order


Please cite your evidence for this statement.


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)

I checked your source and the claim was not there. Aitareya Braahmana 2.19 is about a shUdra by the name Kavasha who was expelled from the association of the rishis because he was not fit for initiation. While in the wilderness, Kavasha saw the mantra by which he summoned the devas and Sarasvatii River. The rishis called him back, but nothing is mentioned therein about him becoming a braahmin or an aachaarya. Here is the link I reviewed: http://books.google.com/books?id=btvVwUvMgLUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=twopage&q&f=false



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

This is false. I have read the relevant portions of chAndogya upaniShad. Nowhere is it mentioned that he was son of a prostitute. Shankaraachaarya asserts that Gautama determined his lineage to be brahminical and specifically uses this story to refute the idea that a shudra can study veda in his brahma-sutra commentary.



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?

Prishadhra was actually the son of Vaisvata and thus a kshatriya by birth but became a shUdra after inadvertently killing a cow. FYI, his performance of penance is not mentioned in this chapter (see http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp093.htm). If you don't mind me asking, since it's obvious you have not read these texts, could you tell us where you copy-cut-pasted this entire list from?

In any case, I have read the text, and I do recall Prishadra becoming a shUdra due to the sin of cow-killing. He was still in that birth a kshatriya, so performing austerities to atone for his sin would not be forbiden for him. I'm not actually even clear that shudras are specifically forbidden from performing austerities per se. The only thing clear to me from the texts is that they are forbidden to study the Vedas.



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

This is indeed mentioned. As I've noted, this is an exceptional case. Why is it exceptional? Just read the text - almost everyone else in the lineage is a king. When a king gives birth to a lineage of many kings, only one of whom becomes a vaisya while one other becomes a shudra due to a curse, is it not legitimate to say that birth generally determines one's varna and the few cases where this was not so were exceptional?



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

What is actually stated in the text is, "The son of Nabhága was Nábhága; his son was Ambarísha; his son was Virúpa; his son was Prishadaśwa; his son was Rathínara, of whom it is sung, "These, who were Kshatriyas by birth, the heads of the family of Rathínara, were called Ángirasas (or sons of Angiras), and were Brahmans as well as Kshatriyas." (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp094.htm)


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

I assume you meant VP 4.2.23. If you had actually read viShNu purANa you would know it only contains 6 books.

These are one of the exceptional cases I noted in my reading notes. The vast majority are not like this.



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.

Please cite the verses.



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

Which is really another example of the Nabhaaga line covered previously.



k. Shaunak became Brahmin though born in Kshatriya family. (VP 4.8.1).

Another exceptional case obviously. Again, my point was not that it never happened, only that it was unusual. If you had actually read the geneaologies in the viShNu and bhAgavata purANas, you would note in most cases people followed the varNa of their birth.



In fact, as per Vayu Puran, Vishnu Puran and Harivansh Puran, sons of Shaunak Rishi belonged to all four Varnas.

This appears to be directly copied from H.H. Wilson's foot note. Unless, you happen to have explicit references?



Similar examples exist of Gritsamad, Veethavya and Vritsamati.

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


Please cite your sources.



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


False. He was born from Pulastya but his rAkshasa designation was racial and had nothing to do with varNa classification. It is nowhere stated in any text which I have studied that his rAkshasa status invalidated his brahminical lineage.



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

Because of a curse, and hence not relevant to the current discusson. Please read the sources instead of copy-cut-pasting off of the internet.



o. Trishanku was a king but became a Chandal

Again, because of a curse.



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

Sons of Vishvaamitra becoming shudras is not mentioned in the rAmAyaNa. Vishvaamitra did become a brahmin, but he performed several thousand years of penance and had to get the grace of Lord Brahmaa to accomplish this. Would you not say that this is exceptional?


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

False. He was the son of Vyaasa and a servant-woman, but he was never described as a brahmin. The position of minister is also not caste-specific. In the texts, such a position was often occupied by a brahmin, sometimes a kshatriya, and sometimes a person of mixed lineage (i.e. brahmin-kshatriya pairing known as sutas, of which Sumantra, the minister/charioteer of Dasharatha was one example).

Now, if you don't mind, would you please explain away the examples and questions I previously posed?



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.


All I am looking for is consistency with the evidence.

regards,

[Omkara]

I admit to the cut and paste job.I was a bit busy, so I simply googled and pasted the examples instead of searching them out myself.I have read all the aforementioned texts though,except wilson's translation.

You were the one who posted anecdote after anecdote without clarifying how they align with your theory when a simpler explanation is clearly available.

Your arguments with respect to the satyakana jabala incedent have bben adequately addressed in the thread bhagavad gita:varna system misunderstanding.

[philosoraptor]

I admit to the cut and paste job.I was a bit busy, so I simply googled and pasted the examples instead of searching them out myself.I have read all the aforementioned texts though,except wilson's translation.

Come on Omkar, it's obvious that you have not read any of them. I found an exact listing of these points on a Facebook page elsewhere. All you did was copy-cut-paste it verbatim here.

In particular, I have yet to see the evidence from Aitareya Braahmana substantiating your claims. I actually would like to see that evidence, if it indeed exists, to say that a shudra became a brahmin and an acharya, but it just isn't there.



You were the one who posted anecdote after anecdote without clarifying how they align with your theory when a simpler explanation is clearly available.

Wow, seriously? So, your view in summary is that:
a) Satyakaama being asked to demonstrate hereditary lineage as a prerequisite to brahminical initiation is not relevant to establish that birth determines varna classification,
b) CU explaining that birth into the wombs of specific varnas is said to be due to good karma is not relevant to establishing that birth determines varna classification,
c) Shvetaketu being told to engage in brahmin-dharma because he was born a brahmin is not relevant to establish that birth determines varna classification,
d) Arjuna being forbidden from taking to renunciation and begging and instead to perform his birth-based kshatriya duty is not relevant to establishing that birth determines varna classification,
e) King Mucukunda being blessed by Sri Krishna Himself to be born as a brahmin in his next life, as opposed to being immediately transformed into a brahmin, is not relevant to establishing that birth determines varna classification,
f) Duryodhana being an arsonist and a murderer yet still being a kshatriya is not relevant to establishing that birth determines varna classification,
g) Drona being a brahmin yet engaged in kshatriya duties and still being called a brahmin is not relevant to establishing that birth determines varna classification,
h) Ashvatthaama being born a brahmin and later becoming a murderer and having his life spared on the count that he was a brahmin, is not relevant to establishing that birth determines varna classification,
i) The fact that there is no objective way to determine one's guna/karma other than birth, is not relevant to establishing that birth determines varna classification.

I guess I could go on and on, but the bottom line is you don't feel you need to explain any of this away, do you?



Your arguments with respect to the satyakana jabala incedent have bben adequately addressed in the thread bhagavad gita:varna system misunderstanding.

They aren't my arguments. There were given by each of the principal Vedanta commentators. If I understood you correctly, Shankaracharya, Ramanuja, Madhva, and all other Vedanta commentators were merely giving "inane" arguments. Maybe we should analyze our own position first before making such statements. Just saying is all....

p.s. You really should quote your sources as requested previously.

[Omkara]

None of those examples establish that there is a specific scriptural injunction stating that one must follow one's birth varna.

If you claim there is a scriptural injunction stating that one's varna is decided by the family of one's birth,then there can be no exceptions.

[Omkara]

All that these examples only demonstrate is that people in that particular era generally followed the varna of their birth,but were allowed to change varna if they so wished.There is no scriptural injunction anywhere that says that one must remain in the varna of one's birth.

[philosoraptor]

None of those examples establish that there is a specific scriptural injunction stating that one must follow one's birth varna.

Except for the entire Bhagavad-gita. Otherwise why couldn't Arjuna just become a brahmin and escape the battle? Explanation please.

And why did Gautama ask Satyakaama his gotra? Gautama could have simply said, "well, you could be a shudra's son, but anyway you can change your varna, so let's do that now and then I can teach you veda."

Perhaps before we continue this discussion, we can first find out what scriptures you have read in their entirety, and then confine our discussion to those sources. The copy-cut-paste approach did not work out for you obviously.

[Omkara]

Note:The source for the cut and paste job is agniveer.com,and they are generally reliable

[philosoraptor]

Note:The source for the cut and paste job is agniveer.com,and they are generally reliable

I've already pointed out several discrepancies in that list, but you still find them reliable. Ok...

Will you be answering any of the questions I posed in the posting immediately prior? They are kind of central the discussion.

[Omkara]

Because Arjuna was a kshatriya both by birth and guna,notwithstanding his temporary loss of nerve,as is obvious from reading the mahabharata.

The satyakama episode has been discussed in full in a previous thread.Anyways, the gist of the argunent there was that asking satyakama his lineage was a fornality that is to be followed naturally in the course of an introduction.

[Omkara]

If you would take the trouble of looking at the title of the thread,the topic if thread is the authenticity of the manu smriti,which you were unable to defend.I have certainly read every text YOU have quoted from so far.A question to you.Have YOU read the Mahabharata?The whole thing? Which translation?Do you know how Magadha was founded and what the name means(It is relevant to the discussion,by the way)

[Omkara]

With regard to two examples by agniveer

aitreya-why is aitreya called aitreya mahidasa then? Can you please explain?

Matanga- he was the son of a shudra mother and a vaishya father.As to references, will have to search.

What about the vedic rishi lopamudra?another exception?

[Omkara]

From Radhakrishnan:The principal upanishads

Vatsa, a descendant of Kanva RV 6.1; 8.8 etc; was called a Shudra-putra (Panchavimsha Brahman 14.66).
Kakshivat,was the son of Dirghatamas by a Shudra maid servant(Brihaddevata 4.24-25). According to Mahabharata (Anushasana Parvan 53.13-19), Sage Kapinjalada was a Chandala and Sage Madanapala was the son of a boatwoman.

[philosoraptor]

Because Arjuna was a kshatriya both by birth and guna,

Here is the key point - you claim he was a kshatriya by guna. But he was prepared to renounce the battlefield and thus the spoils of war, unlike Duryodhana who was also a kshatriya. He had already accepted exile and was living in the forest for much of that time. He was prepared to do without the kingdom and had no interest in winning back his princely life. Why do you say that by guna he was a kshatriya? In fact, his manifest qualities are not that of a kshatriya, as Sri Krishna suggests at the beginning of chapter 2.


notwithstanding his temporary loss of nerve,as is obvious from reading the mahabharata.

Arjuna didn't "lose his nerve." He felt compassion for his relatives and did not want to kill them, as they were worthy of his respect. This is clearly stated in chapters 1-2 of bhagavad-gItA. If you don't mind me asking by the way, have you read bhagavad-gItA?

This will be my third or fourth time asking this - if you say Arjuna was a kshatriya based on his current guna, then what was Duryodhana's varna and guna? If one's manifest guna determines one's varna, then if Duryodhana was also a kshatriya, then one must conclude that his manifest guna is the same as Arjuna's although the former was a murderer while the latter wanted to spare his kinsmen -this is an untenable conclusion. The only other way for your theory to stand is for it to be demonstrated that Duryodhana was not actually a kshatriya. Have you any evidence to support that?

While we're on the subject, what was Ashvatthaama's guna/varna prior to murdering the Paandavas' sons and also after?



The satyakama episode has been discussed in full in a previous thread.Anyways, the gist of the argunent there was that asking satyakama his lineage was a fornality that is to be followed naturally in the course of an introduction.

What a creative interpretation! Sadly, it's not consistent with context, as a significant portion of that section concerns his unknown gotra and his request to know it before seeking initiation. There is also the fact that Gautama asked him his gotra first before teaching him. An awful lot of emphasis, don't you think, for a mere formality?


If you would take the trouble of looking at the title of the thread,the topic if thread is the authenticity of the manu smriti,which you were unable to defend.

Not true. The title is "Law of Manu - Caste System." It was you who argued that Manu was not authentic because of philological arguments dating it to 1st-2nd centuries. I pointed out that these arguments, aside from being flawed, could just as easily be used against any other smRiti, including your favorite shaivite texts. If memory serves, you had no comment to that. What is it going to be? If we believe in the religion of philology then we must subject even the vedas to them. It surely cannot be the case that we only single out texts we don't like for linguistic analysis while sparing those we agree with.



I have certainly read every text YOU have quoted from so far.A question to you.Have YOU read the Mahabharata?The whole thing? Which translation?Do you know how Magadha was founded and what the name means(It is relevant to the discussion,by the way)

I will answer your questions after you answer mine. You will forgive me for saying this, but I can't help but not notice that you repeatedly avoid answering some key questions posed earlier. After watching your unsuccessful copy-cut-paste job, I think we all need to know what scriptures you have a basic fluency with so that we can figure out where you are coming from.

regards,

[Omkara]

With regards to Satyakama's ancestry:Chandogya Upanishad says :I was attending to guests when I conceived you.What do you make of that?

[philosoraptor]

From Radhakrishnan:The principal upanishads

Vatsa, a descendant of Kanva RV 6.1; 8.8 etc; was called a Shudra-putra (Panchavimsha Brahman 14.66).
Kakshivat,was the son of Dirghatamas by a Shudra maid servant(Brihaddevata 4.24-25). According to Mahabharata (Anushasana Parvan 53.13-19), Sage Kapinjalada was a Chandala and Sage Madanapala was the son of a boatwoman.

I'm not familiar witht he first two references. I'm going to take a lucky guess here and assume that you aren't either. As far as the Mahabharata reference is concerned, I plan to look that one up. But aren't you begging the question by relying on Mahabharata, which even you admit to be interpolated, and avoiding discussing the mantras of chAndogya upaniShad explicitly linking birth to guna/karma and duty to birth?

[philosoraptor]

With regards to Satyakama's ancestry:Chandogya Upanishad says :I was attending to guests when I conceived you.What do you make of that?

I make of it that there is no explicit reference to being a prostitute.

[Omkara]

With respect to your comment about philology being applied to 'my favourite shaivite texts' I did not understand the context here.I most certainly did not quote any shaivite rexts here, and they are all smriti texts anyway.

With regards to your unnecessary quibbling about terminology,I did not use the term failure of nerve to insinuate that arjuna was scared of the enemy.I have noticed that vaishnava commentaries tend to make much of arjuna's emotional outburst at the start.I would recomnend reading swami chinmayanada's commentary for a different perspective.

[Omkara]

Interesting.Then how do you explain her not knowing the identity of satyakama's father Obviously she had multiple sexual partners.

[Omkara]

I replied in full to your comment on applying philology to our scriptures.I suggest you look it up.

[philosoraptor]

I am familiar with Swami Chinmayananda's commentary. He basically compares Arjuna to a psychiatric patient and makes other unwarranted digressions.

Your explanation for the selective use of philology is unacceptable for reasons already given - several times.

What is "obvious" to you can only be credited to your fertile imagination. Nowhere in the chAndogya upaniShad is it stated that Jabala was a prostitute, or that she was having "multiple sexual partners." Shankaracharya writes in his commentary that she was busy in her serving duties and did not have time to to ask her husband what his gotra was prior to his death. Every Vedaanta commentary I have seen to date uses this episode to establish that Satyakaama was truly a brahmin by birth and that a non-brahmin by birth cannot study the veda. Again, it's you and the Neo-Hindu revisionists against the traditional commentators, just to put this in perspective. Which is not to say that all those erudite scholars who read, wrote, and spoke in Sanskrit, and actually read/heard the relevant pramANas couldn't be wrong, in contrast to someone centuries later with access to Google pramaana...

I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why Duryodhana and Arjuna are of the same varna despite their different guns, why Ashvatthaama was a brahmin despite being guilty of murder, and the other chAndogya upanishad mantras linking birth to previous guna/karma and duty to birth, among others. And I am still interested to know what scriptures you have actually studied. Surely you have read at least one in its entirety?

regards,

[Omkara]

I refuse to respond to personal attacks.

You have not provided any answer to my reply to the accusation of selective use of philology.

I have made my position pretty clear.I am not one of those who claimed that people wake up with a different varna each day based on their gunas.

Since you do have not bothered with replying to any of the several questions I have asked you throughout this thread-go back and check,insist on making unwarranted personal attacks,and this discussion has degenerated into jalpa vada and we are simply talking past each other, I wish to quit thus discusdion.Declare victory if you want.

I did not claim that a person's varna changes again and again.I only said that a person could change varna if he wanted to.

Since you have not bothered to reply to my posts and we are simply talking past each other,I am leaving.The others had the sense not to waste their time arguing with you.I will not make that mistake.

[Omkara]

It is evident that you do not bother to read replies, as shown by your calling JayaRadhe an ISIKCON member twice despite his clarifying twice that he was not one,and your selective replies to posts while refusing to answer uncomfotable questions like your disputing the conclusions of biology after calling it a science as compared to philology,which you felt was not one.

It is unreasonable to call people in direct disciplic succession from sankaracharya neo-hindus.

You have repeatedly misrepresented my position and have refused to acknowledge this even when corrected numerous times.You have failed to come up with even one explicit reference from shastra supporting your conclusion,and accrpt others to uncritically accept your unfounded inferences when more obvious explanations are easily available.

[philosoraptor]

I'm sorry that you perceived something I said as a personal attack. There is still no explicit reference to prostitution or multiple sexual partners in the Chandogya Upanishad, and thus your theory on Jabala's background is simply wrong. Your theory that asking gotra is a mere formality is not sensible in the context in which it is found. You have all but ignored the two Chaandogya Upanishad references to (1) guna/karma leading to birth, and (2) duty being prescribed based on birth. You still haven't explained how Duryodhana and Arjuna can both be kshatriya despite their different gunas. Or for that matter how Ashvatthaama can be a brahmin despite being a soldier by profession and a murderer by criminal intent. You haven't responded to my question about whether you would subject acceptable smRitis and Vedas to philology analysis, yet you expect me to accept your conclusion that philology conclusively proves Manu to be inauthentic. You haven't responded to the multiple other examples I quoted from the puraanas, such as Mucukunda et. al. showing the link between varna and birth. You haven't provided the Aitareya Braahmana reference showing a shudra becoming a brahmin and an acharya, whereas I showed you the link to a translation in which no such thing is mentioned. You have not cited explicit references to multiple other claims of people changing their varnas based on birth despite my repeated prompting.

Above all else, you still have not revealed what pramaanas you have studied. Combined with your "you can't prove me wrong, because I can't see anything you post" approach, this leads me to believe that your entire argument is based on copy-cut-paste rather than on actual study of primary sources. My suggestion is merely that you spend some time doing your homework. That's all.

Have a nice day.

[Omkara]

Jabala being a prostitute is not 'my theory'.It is there in practically every translation ir commentary on the upanishads I have read,by members of various sampradayas and by non hindus as well.

I have replied in detail to your question on philology.If you did not bother to read my rebuttal or still refuse to check back.

Most of the examples in the agniveer cut and paste were dismissed as exceptions by you.Regarding matanga and aitreya rishi or lopamudra,these are well known cases which you should know about if you are as well read as you claim to be. It is not always possible to remember where someone has read something.A simple google search should threw up multiple hits.Regarding the gotra question,I only summarized an explanation given by others,one which has been discussed and dissected over several pages in a previous thread.

Considering that you refused to even comment on the fact that the manu smriti refers to events that took place in the 3rd century bc and the fact that you did not know that the agamas are considered shruti by nearly every sect of hinduism does'nt say much for your knowledge of scripture.

[Omkara]

As to the quote from aitreya brahmana,I apologize for not having deleted that.It is a priduct of the arya samaj's rather peculiar interpretation of the vedas.Agniveer is associated with arya samaj.

[philosoraptor]

Jabala being a prostitute is not 'my theory'.It is there in practically every translation ir commentary on the upanishads I have read,by members of various sampradayas and by non hindus as well.

May I ask which sampradayas are those? I have translations representing Shankara and Ramanuja, and there is no mention of her being a prostitute in either one. Feel free as always to ignore the question.



Most of the examples in the agniveer cut and paste were dismissed as exceptions by you.

Naturally, since you didn't bother to mention the more numerous examples often in those same quotes where people were assigned to the varna of their birth. 1 in 100 is hardly representative of a trend, don't you think?



Regarding matanga and aitreya rishi or lopamudra,these are well known cases which you should know about if you are as well read as you claim to be. It is not always possible to remember where someone has read something.A simple google search should threw up multiple hits.


I'm just not convinced that you ever bothered to read any of these sources. It seems like you derive the vast majority of your understanding from what you read on Hindu revisionist websites. But whatever the case may be, were the situation reversed, I would not expect you to accept something as evident if I could not furnish explicit references. But I can accept that I'm not as well-read as I want to be. However, I am basing my understanding of varNAshrama to date on the following sources which I have studied in their entirety: bhAgavata purANa, viShNu purANa, varAha purANa, rAmAyaNa, chAndogya upaniShad, bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad, (and most of the remaining principle upanishads), bhagavad-gItA, and to a lesser extent on vedAnta-sUtras, mahAbhArata, manu-saMhitA and other dharma-shAstras. Do you mind my asking once again (since you returned after your last YAGE), what sources you have studied from start to finish and upon which you are basing your understanding of varNAshrama-dharma?



Regarding the gotra question,I only summarized an explanation given by others,one which has been discussed and dissected over several pages in a previous thread.

I'm sorry, but I just don't consider pages and pages of discussion to be ipso facto proof of correctness.



Considering that you refused to even comment on the fact that the manu smriti refers to events that took place in the 3rd century bc

The Bhaagavatam refers to events taking place afters its compilation too. This include the reign of Chandragupta and the overthrow of his predecessor. Yet it is traditionally considered the authored work of Vyaasa somewhere around the beginning of Kali-Yuga.



and the fact that you did not know that the agamas are considered shruti by nearly every sect of hinduism does'nt say much for your knowledge of scripture.

I checked in several Sri Vaishnava sources (Sri Vaishnavas have the highest regard for pancharAtra-Agama) and although I found their arguments establishing pancharAtra as authoritative, I found nothing establishing that they are shruti. I will be the first to correct my point of view when confronted with the evidence, but thus far you have given me no reason to do so other than, "nyah nyah, your beliefs don't agree with mine so you don't know much."

By the way, I just thought of yet another bhagavad-gItA verse which contradicts your theory: doShAir etAiH kulaghnAnAM varNasaMkarakArakAiH / utsAdyante jAtidharmAH kuladharmAsh cha shAshvatAH (gItA 1.43). Strange that Arjuna would be so worried about "mixing of castes" as a consequence of the war, when birth according to you is not relevant to one's varna. But, as you have rightfullly observed, I don't know much. Perhaps I should start a discussion about it and conclude that the truth is whatever the majority feel about it, eh?

[Omkara]

I considered your insinuation that I had not actually read any scripture to be a personal attack.

A few more points-
It would be very easy for me to say that your wondering over ved vyasas avatarhood in another thread shiws that you have not biyhered to read your beloved bhagavatam properly.

Also,not only is the pancaratra claimed to be shruti,it is actually claimed to be part of a lost shakha of the vedas called the ekayana shakha.Support is claimed for thus from the same chandogya you arexsi fond of throwing at ne.Can you tell me which passage is used to dupport thus claim?:D

[Omkara]

The bg argument has been dealt with in the same thread,as well as several you havent thought of yet.If you are too lazy to go and check it out....

[philosoraptor]

I considered your insinuation that I had not actually read any scripture to be a personal attack.

Maybe that's because you have not read the sources and you don't want to admit it publicly, yet you want your views to be accepted as factual.



A few more points-
It would be very easy for me to say that your wondering over ved vyasas avatarhood in another thread shiws that you have not biyhered to read your beloved bhagavatam properly.

Go right ahead. I've read and noted what the puraanas say on this subject, and to me it's not very clear whether the vyAsa is nArAyaNa Himself or a shaktyAvesha. I would be very greatful if you could show me how exactly the shlokas clearly explain this one way or another.



Also,not only is the pancaratra claimed to be shruti,it is actually claimed to be part of a lost shakha of the vedas called the ekayana shakha.Support is claimed for thus from the same chandogya you arexsi fond of throwing at ne.Can you tell me which passage is used to dupport thus claim?:D

From memory, no. But I would be greatful to see the evidence. By evidence, I mean explicit shAstric pramANas, which I always appreciate getting (even if they seem to contradict my present understanding), and not from revisionist websites which claim that Sri Krishna really did not have 16000+ wives and that there is no polygamy in Hinduism.

regards,

[Omkara]

Narada says he learnt the ekayana science along with the vedas.This is regarded as a reference to the pancaratra.Advaitins have a different inyerpretation of the word ekayana,of course.

[philosoraptor]

The bg argument has been dealt with in the same thread,as well as several you havent thought of yet.If you are too lazy to go and check it out....

Wow, nice jab, that one, and coming from a guy who complains of being personally attacked no less! Just out of curiosity, are you really 18 years old?

BTW, in addition to the chAndogya upaniShad reference, I would really like to see the reference as to who is claiming pancharAtra as shruti for my education.

regards,

[Omkara]

Good night :)
Its gotten very late here.Will talk to you later.

[Omkara]

Yes.Had my birthday two months ago.Am on mobile right now.Will put the document up here as an attachment tommorow or day after.I really need to sleep now.

[philosoraptor]

Pranams.

I just realized that if I wanted an answer from Omkar, I probably ought to just Google search it. Hence, I searched "ekayana science" and found this document in the old Bhakti list archives: http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/ramanuja/archives/may02/msg00006.html

I skimmed through it, and the closest thing I found to equating pancharAtra to shruti is saying that the pancharAtra is "shruti-rooted." It seems strange to me that if pancharAtra is obviously shruti, and those of us who don't know that are just ignorant, then why does the author fail to make that point?

Just FYI, Naarada also says he learned the itihaasa/puraaNa, vyAkaraNa, and other ancillary sciences in the CU. Yet we don't consider all those shruti.

[philosoraptor]

By the way, you can add claims that Sri Krishna never had any love sports with the gopis to the increasing list of revisionist claims found on Agniveer.com....

[Omkara]

Nope,not that one.I will post it as soon as I get on a computer.Time is rationed :-((
Im not actually supposed to have internet on my phone either ;-S so goodnight

[Omkara]

A bunch of new links I found now (these are not the documents i was going to upload)


http://www.srivaishnava.org/scholars/agovind/panca.htm
http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/feb98/0018.html
http://www.indianetzone.com/48/vaishnavism_agamas.htm

[Omkara]

Will these do?I guess I'm done with this discussion once and for all

[Omkara]

Just read through the links I posted and seem to have shot myself in the foot again
Will post my document tomorrow.

[philosoraptor]

A bunch of new links I found now (these are not the documents i was going to upload)


http://www.srivaishnava.org/scholars/agovind/panca.htm
http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/feb98/0018.html
http://www.indianetzone.com/48/vaishnavism_agamas.htm

Namaste Omkar,

At the risk of inciting your anger, may I ask if you actually read the content at these links? Remember - your specific claim was that the pancharaatra was shruti and my not knowing that indicated serious knowledge deficiency on my part.

Link #1 does mention that pancharaatra is "shruti-rooted," but does this also in the context of itihaasa and puraana, which are said to be fifth veda but are not shruti.

Link #2 suggests that pancharaatra is derived from shruti and is thus eternal, but then it says, "There are two types of literature on pAncarAtra - those inspired or divine origin, and those derived from these and of human origin." Shruti does not have an origin, not in the writings of God and certainly not by humans. Furthermore, at this link it is written, "The other distinguishing feature attributed to the ekAyana is that unlike the veda-s which can only be studied by those who are qualified to perform the rituals prescribed therein, the ekAyana is meant for all those who are eligible to realize final emancipation." That makes it hard to believe that they are shruti, when they are not subject to the same restrictions as other shrutis in terms of who can study them.

Link #3 ascribes human origin to many pancharaatras.

So far, all the these links (well, the first two) prove to me is that pancharaatra should, like the itihaasa and puraana, be revered on the same level as the veda. They don't quite say that pancharaatra is shruti.

[philosoraptor]

the itihasas and puranas are regarded as authorised texts as they are endorsed by the upanishads(Chandogya Upanishad 7.1.2).
no such endorsement for the manu smriti exists in shruti or smriti, as far as i know.

Namaste, I checked my home library as promised and can safely say that the above is incorrect. The reference is from varAha puraNa 137.119:

"This is not ordained by Vishnu or Shiva, nor do we find it in the dharmashAstra of Manu." (this is from the Motilal translation)

I found another reference in viShNu purANa 3.2.45:

kR^ite kR^ite smR^itervipra praNetA jAyate manuH |

"In every Krta age the Manu (of the period) is the legislator or author of the body of law, the Smriti" (this is from the Parimal Publications revised version of H.H. Wilson's translation)

So Omkar is quite incorrect. Manu Smriti is mentioned in at least 2 different puraanas. Actually, there may be other references also that I am not aware of. I definitely recall a reference in the Bhaagavatam somewhere. But the point is, it clearly passes the test of being referred to in other known scriptures.

[philosoraptor]

From Radhakrishnan:The principal upanishads

Vatsa, a descendant of Kanva RV 6.1; 8.8 etc; was called a Shudra-putra (Panchavimsha Brahman 14.66).
Kakshivat,was the son of Dirghatamas by a Shudra maid servant(Brihaddevata 4.24-25). According to Mahabharata (Anushasana Parvan 53.13-19), Sage Kapinjalada was a Chandala and Sage Madanapala was the son of a boatwoman.

I checked the Mahabharata reference. I tried to use the edition I have from Parimal, but unfortunately my kids insisted on sitting on my lap. So I checked the online one at Sacred Texts http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13b018.htm

There is nothing in that chapter about a Sage Kapinjalada who was a Chandala and a Sage Madanapala who was the son of a boatwoman. I checked the chapters immediately before and after, but still could not find mention of the individuals you referred to.

[Omkara]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/101596893

is the url

Specifics: Ekayana Shakha of gthe Shukla Yajur Veda

[philosoraptor]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/101596893

is the url

Specifics: Ekayana Shakha of the Shukla Yajur Veda

Omkar, look at #8: "Relationship between the Agamas and the Vedas." There it says that the pancharaatra originated with the ekAyana shAkha of the vedas, but then it says that this is ekAyana shAkha is no longer extant. If ekAyana shAkha is not extant, but pancharAtra is, then it follows that what we know as pancharAtra is in some way different from the ekAyana shAkha from which it was said to have originated. Are you with me so far? Because if the ekAyana shAkha is no longer extant, then the pancharAtra Agamas cannot be shruti. Because at some point someone had to take the contents of the ekAyana-shAkha and fix them in the form of the pancharAtra. If he did this without any changes in language or wording, then it is not correct to say that ekAyana-shAkha is no longer extant - the part existing as pancharAtra is extant. But if he changed it somehow, such as putting it into a format by which non-dvijas could read it (your article states that it is not restricted to dvijas only), then it cannot be shruti by definition.

If there is some other statement explicitly equating pancharAtra to shruti, then I missed it. Pancharaatra is clearly revered as being on par with Vedas, but such praise is not exclusive to pancharaatra, nor does it make the text shruti. To give you an example, the puraanas and itihaasas are sometimes said to have been created from portions of the Veda after Vedavyaasa compiled the first four vedas, and are thus called as fifth Veda. Yet those (i.e. Gaudiiyas) who hold to this view do not say that the puraanas and itihaasas are shruti.

regards,

[dogra]

I've already pointed out several discrepancies in that list, but you still find them reliable. Ok...

Will you be answering any of the questions I posed in the posting immediately prior? They are kind of central the discussion.

If you do then why dont you go to Agniveer site and challenge the examples given, cmon lets see you put your statements to the test and challenge the Agniveer site
Varna is not birth based, anyone can be anyone regardless of birth as Lord Krishna says:


In The Bhagawad Gita, sloka 20, Chapter 10, Lord Krishna says,

"I am the Self seated in the heart of all creatures. I am the beginning, the middle and the very end of all beings". All beings have, therefore to be treated alike.




and then:

Supporters of casteism oftenly quote slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita
to support four castes by birth. In sloka (IV.13) Lord Krishna says:
"Chaturvarnyma mayaa sristam gunkarma vibhagsah" i.e. four orders of
society created by Me according to their Guna (qualities/behaviour) and
Karma (profession/work/efforts).

Lord Krishna does not say guna and karma of previous life. In (XVIII.41)
Lord Krishna says "Brahmana Kshatriya visham sudranam cha paramtapa,
karmani pravibhaktani svabhavaprabhavaigunaih." It means people have been
grouped into four classes according to their present life karma
(profession/work) and svabhava (behaviour).

Had this division been based on birth, Lord Krishna would have naturally
used "Janmani pravibhaktani" in (XVIII.41).

In (X.20) Lord Krishna says "ahamatama gudakesa sarvabhutaa sayasthitah"
i.e. "Arjuna! I am the universal self seated in the hearts of all beings."
Here, Lord neither excludes sudra from "all beings" nor excludes Himself
from being in hearts of sudra.

In (XVIII.61) Lord says "eshwarah sarvabhutaanaam hraddesearjuna tisthati"
i.e. Arjuna! God abides in the heart of all living beings." Again, sudras
are not excluded.

[dogra]

Lets have some more :


Cows of different colours like black, red and spotted ones give white milk
(RV VIII.93.13) is a metaphor used in Vedas for diversity yielding to unity.

HH Wilson translates (X.191.2): "Meet together, talk together, let your
minds apprehend alike: in like manner as the ancient gods concurring
accepted their portion of the sacrifice." RV (X.191.3) "Common be the
prayer of these (assembled worshippers), common be the acquirement, common
the purpose, associated be the desire. I repeat for you a common prayer, I
offer for you a common oblation." RV (X.191.4) "Common (worshippers), be
your intention; common be (the wishes of) your heart; common be your
thoughts, so that there may be thorough union among you."



Well any comments, oh wait, these verses are wrong too hey, well...

[dogra]

How about these then:


There is no stipulation of high or low by birth in Rigveda. Many rishis of
Rigveda under current Manusmriti definition were not Brahmins. There are at
least ten Rigvedic richas showing that profession was not hereditary.

In richas (V.23.1) and (V.23.2) Rishi Dyumna prays to Agni "Bestow Agni,
upon Dyumna, a son, overcoming foes by his prowess; one who may with glory
subdue all men in battle" (HH Wilson).

In (IX.112.3) another rishi says "I am the singer, papa is the physician."
So, father of a Rigvedic rishi is a physician but in Manusmriti a physician
is a sudra.



Primal points of beautiful faith of sanatan Dharma:
1) Moksha -merging back with god, but only if you lead a noble life, now question would be how can one discriminate by stopping others being whatever profession they choose given their training and education, this would be inoble, and hence no moksha, does that make sense, nope

2) Karma Yoga-Selfless service without expectation of rewards, now question why selfless service, does not reconcile to birth based caste
3) Lord Krishan states:


In The Bhagawad Gita, sloka 20, Chapter 10, Lord Krishna says,

"I am the Self seated in the heart of all creatures. I am the beginning, the middle and the very end of all beings". All beings have, therefore to be treated alike.



Now question how can there be birth based if god resides in hearts of all beings, how can one stop another human from being a different profession to their parents, makes sense, nope