Misunderstandings - VAD Threads

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

There is no such thing as brahmins having "Deva blood" as if their blood is different from anothers blood.

Now brahmins are demanding reservations. One Hindu will say brahmins are superior, another will say all varnas are equal in value, other Hindus will say a brahmin who thinks he is superior to others is not a Brahmana, not a Knower of the Brahman.

There is no finality of this until there is no more rebirth.

Om Namah Sivaya

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

All writings in Sanskrit are not religious scriptures. There are schools in Hinduism that say the Vedas are the authority, if the shruti (Vedas) and the smriti differ on any point, the former is to prevail.

Vedas are in a sense written by the Shri Devas even though heard, and committed to "writing" afterwards. However many smritis are not on the same footing as these are works of private individuals called brahmins, these were written by brahimins for benefit of brahinins whose own class or group were both the audience and the benefactor, thus one can argue in fact these later works are more befitting to the interests of brahmins specifically and not others. These later books consequently exaggerate and focus on their own concerns and not the broader world.

Books such as Manusmriti were approved by any Dharam or Samsad of traditions I learn from, so they mean nothing to me, zero, and actually my understanding is it is irrelavent as there is going to be a new "Law book" from Manu for the current stage of Kali Yuga, though your sect may not believe or await that.

Talk about jesus this or abhramic western religion that, or jewish other, has nothing to do with me or my position that varna is not "by birth only" or a "caste" that locks a jiva soul to a conditional state of initiation (or non-initiation as would some try to force upon me) or vocation within a single life.

I reject it as false.

I am a Hindu.

Om Namah Sivaya

[philosoraptor]

Why read these particular texts? They have little practical contribution to Dharm. To reach Moksha? That is not a duty. Or so they can bring others to enlightenment? Then I do not agree. Enough Brahmins already take care of worthy pupils. Only few are needed for that. Most Brahmins have more simple duties like doing rituals in temples and at home than assisting people in reaching Moksha. I think the shastras are more important to their Dharm.

upaniShad-s are foundational texts in vedAnta, and vedAnta is right knowledge. Without upaniShad-s, there is no vedAnta, and without vedAnta to give right knowledge, one will lack the mental convictions and context into which to place the need for right action. With Right Knowledge one can engage in Right Action with full benefits. Without Right Knowledge, one may engage in Right Action but without the full benefit. In bhagavad-gItA, kRiShNa tells arjuna initially to fight the battle first for materialistic reasons (i.e. to enjoy the kingdom) and then later explains the doctrine of the soul and explains how to fight with detached interest in the fruits for the goal of attaining self-realization. This is an example of how the correct action can lead to two different fruits, depending on whether it is performed in full cognizance of Right Knowledge.

dharma without upaniShad-s/vedAnta is like religiosity without philosophy. Without philosophy to guide religious activities, people fall from the standard of religion because they lack the mental conviction guiding their actions and expectations of their consequences.

The need for attaining mOkSha is an implicit duty for all human beings who recognize the ephemeral nature of life, with its transitory pleasures and pains. This conviction is enshrined in the first vedAnta-sUtra "athAto brahma-jij~nASA" and occurs after one has performed vedic sacrifices for their immediate, temporary fruits, and has understood that such fruits are of limited value, and that something more lasting and beneficial should be attained.

As Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj once said: it is harder to find a worthy pupil than it is the find a good master. They are so extremely rare and such people are so near to breakthrough that they will often enlighten themselves before they find a master.

Postulating the possibility of self-enlightenment (which is somewhat of a paradox - how does one in mAyA enlighten one's self?), downplays the significance of submission to a qualified guru. But more importantly, brahmin-s have always served the role of moral exemplars in Aryan society, even if only engaged in archana, yagna, yOga, etc. While not every brahmin can be a guru, this does not preclude the need for study of vedAnta for those wishing to understand about mOkSha and the philosophical context within which to perform right actions. Furthermore, merely focusing on karma-kANda for its limited fruits will ultimately lead to fall-down. Hence, the IshopaniShad:

andhaḿ tamaḥ praviśanti ye 'vidyām upāsate |
tato bhūya iva te tamo ya u vidyāyām ratāḥ ||

As we read in one of the Upanishads a Pupil went to a Brahmin to learn and all he made him do was maintain the fires. For years he did nothing else, until the fires began to speak to him and he thus got enlightened. Only then did the Brahmin start his teaching.

It is not by teaching that people get enlightened but by walking the path of Dharm over the course of many lives. It can not be hastened by teachings, and teaching to people unworthy has disastrous consequences.

The following of dharma does not directly lead to enlightenment. It is the grace of brahman that directly leads to enlightenment. Hence:

nAyamAtmA pravachanena labhyo na medhayA na bahunA shrutena |
yamevaisha vR^iNute tena labhyaH tasyaisha AtmA vivR^iNute tanUM svAm || KaU 2.23 ||

teṣāṁ satata-yuktānāṁ bhajatāṁ prīti-pūrvakam |
dadāmi buddhi-yogaṁ taṁ yena mām upayānti te || gItA 10.10 ||

To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me. (bhagavad-gItA 10.10 - BBT)

By walking the path of dharma, i.e. varNAshrama and so on, one regulates the attachment to the pleasures of the senses which obstructs the development of transcendental knowledge. In so doing, one gains the understanding that material pleasures, even those allowed by varNAshrama and yagnas, are temporary, and one cultivates knowledge of the self culminating the understanding that even this self is the sharIra of the paramAtmA, and is meant for serving Him. By serving Him, one qualifies one's self to be the recipient of His grace, and then by His grace one gets the knowledge by which one comes to Him.

Krishna himself gives the example how this knowledge should be passed on. Firstly he says that Arjuna is worthy and that only one in many millions is worthy. Than he transfers the knowledge from the mouth of the master to the ear of the disciple. That is what Shruti really means, it must not be read, it must be heard from the mouth of a true Master. After that he impresses on him to keep this knowledge secret to anyone not worthy (Only one in many millions).

That is correct. shruti should be heard from the master, not read on one's own. That being said, we are living in a different world where the words of shruti are all over the internet and in print, where people with no knowledge or bhakti are now misleading the public about the meaning of the shruti, and where brahmins unengaged in their traditional dharma-s are aloof from both sva-dharma-s and the vedAnta upon which it is based. Therefore, one should approach a guru and study under his direction.

But Brahmins are not like that. Their responsibility is not to educate people that are interested in the highest knowledge. They rather guard that this knowledge does not fall in the wrong hands. Because higher knowledge in the hands of people with insufficient character and consciousness is seriously dangerous. Such people not only form a danger to society, they ultimately destroy themselves. Ravan is an example of that, a Brahmana and master of the Veda's, but so lacking in character he still remains ignorant, and so powerful he becomes the biggest threat to Dharm.

And what to speak of Ravana, there are also the likes of Max Muller, Wendy Donniger, H. Withernitz, et. al.

That being said, brahmins are supposed to both guard the highest knowledge and impart it to qualified pupils. The former is no longer entirely possible, since veda-s are all over the place. But still, brahmin gurus should reserve their teaching for the sincere and qualified. None of this preludes study of vedAnta, only that its teaching should be restricted for the seriously inquisitive.

[satay]

Namaste,
Brahmins and Brahmin birth is superior. They have earned that position due to spiritual activities and pious karma in previous births. Brahmin is the head of the vedic society and all other Varnas are supposed to protect him.

I don't know why people are having a digestion problem about this.

[charitra]

I feel really ashamed to be the only person to speak out against what had been widespread 'social evil' of olden times, practiced by Brahmanas. You said, "untouchability was created by Westerners in India". * * *

Absurd claims are made by some dumb individuals, and for the record as you rightly did, others must contradict such claims. You are so very right that atrocities were/are committed in the name of caste in south Asia.

No you are not alone, there are almost one billion hindus who will stand with you and bend their head in shame for all those crimes perpetrated on their fellow hindus. Two wrongs don't make one right, what others did elsewhere wont absolve hindus what they did to their own.

[satay]

Namaste ShivaFan,
You may reject the varna by birth and thus implicitly reject the whole karma theory, both fundamental tenets of Hinduism. No problem.

my position that varna is not "by birth only" or a "caste" that locks a jiva soul to a conditional state of initiation (or non-initiation as would some try to force upon me) or vocation within a single life.

I reject it as false.

I am a Hindu.

Om Namah Sivaya

[charitra]

Namaste ShivaFan,
You may reject the varna by birth and thus implicitly reject the whole karma theory, both fundamental tenets of Hinduism. No problem.

Varna by birth is rejected by many acharyas.
I shall post an excerpt from swami chinmayanada's book soon

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Satay

Obviously if we discount the symantecs of all the factors that would earn one the title, such as the question of "by birth only", and if one has truly tranformed to a state of Brahmana, then one has made a great achievement worthy of honor.

So obviously such a soul would be more advanced than a soul which only wants to eat, sleep and drink.

I think the word Advanced is a better fit, not superior. In English, the word superior doesn't fit the concept of many Hindus that all varnas have equal value in making the entire schematic work.

But yes, I would say a true Brahmana is more Advanced than a Vaishya for example. Sorry, I would not use the English word superior. Also there are some Rishis or even devotees who are considered Advanced, more advanced than a temple priest for example, and it is their relationship with the Lord or their state of Yoga or their benevolence or light which emits that is superior, not their body.

IMHO So for example, there are Vaishnavas (I am not a Vaishnava) that have a yoga where as a devotee theynalways want to be separate from Krsna in individuality or "body" so they can always be one in love with Krsna (duality, or otherwise how can there be the loved one and the lover?). This state or relationship could then be termed superior, but it is the state that is superior and not the devotee who will always be humble and a servant to the Divine as well as all other devotees. This devotee does not go about and say "I am superior" but rather "please chant the Name of the Lord and relish!" (the state).

No devotee is superior, they are all servants and address each other as such by calling the other "Master" viz Prahbu, which is not saying "superior"but acknowledging oneself as servant to every other devotee and to the Lord.

So in this example, one can say this state is superior, but the devotee himself (or herself) would never say "I am superior" They would only say "I am the servant of the servant".

Again, such a devotee is more advanced than others.

....

Om Namah Sivaya

[Sudas Paijavana]

what others did elsewhere wont absolve hindus what they did to their own.

Pranam-s,

What Hindus did to their own is vastly, potently, astronomically, and vehemently outnumbered by what others (outside forces) did to Hindus.

Would you like me to make you a list?

And, if anyone should accept fault and blame first, it should be these outside forces - or as you said: "others". But, it's not progressive to hold onto the past blindly. Let's forgive and move on and try to better the diverse world.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

I would certainly agree with SP that enemies of Dharma or Hinduism have done more harm, and everyone knows my bias that I would put the finger on Islamic oppression. But there were others, too. In one way, some adherents to Buddhism can be guilty (distingushing them from the Buddha whom some Vaishnavas consider an incarnation of Vishnu, p.s. I am a Saiva and do not share this in such a manner).

Sometimes fellow Hindus are accused of being the greatest uf enemy, yet since I see Hinduism as vastly diverse and appreciate it as such, I see so-called enemy as only expressing their teachings and this diversity.

Probably the great enemy (of manynat this time) is politicians whu exploit diffusion.

Om Namah Sivaya