Misunderstandings - VAD Threads

[Avyaydya]

Here is the beauty of Vedic Dharma. This is the traditional Hindu second birth. Not caste. This is the best way to protect the Vedas from interlopers, it is too dangerous to rely on birth. Here we now have as in this Veda the Upanayana which means sheltering the student in the womb of the Acharya, and from which comes the word Upanishad or sitting near the teacher.

This is traditional Hinduism. By the way, a Brahmin who is Tamil pointed out that the Vedic Upanayana had no investiture of a Yajnopavitam or sacred thread as performed today. This might be an interesting subject of a future thread among Hindu gentlemen.

Reverence be to Rudra, reverence to the takman, reverence to the luminous king Varuna! (Atharva Ved)

Shivafan-ji, this is my view:

You reason well, but reasoning is goal directed thinking. The goal behind your reasoning is desire. The desire to make the highest positions available to people like you. And here comes the most important point: All that have this desire are unfit. All those who want to to be in the highest positions are unfit. Only those who have no want to be in these positions are fit. Because only those understand the heavy burden of responsibility these positions carry and danger they hold.

Great power is the axe made white hot in the fire that burns all but the purest souls. To allow someone in such a position that is unfit, will not only bring harm to society, but will bring great harm to the person himself. He will self-mutilate, even self-destruct. Ambition is the fire that burns ones good qualities.

People born in the Brahmana caste, believing it is their birthright to be Brahmanas, are unfit as well. The Mahabharata tells us about people driven by ambition to acquire positions of power. We have the blind king Dhritirashtra who thinks he is the rightful King because he is the first born son, we have Duryodhana who thinks he is the rightful successor because he is the first son of the first son. They are driven by ambition.

Then we have Karna, who is actually the oldest Pandava and a noble person that is fit to be King. Krishna offers him to take his rightful place as King of Indraprasth, but because he is indeed noble, he refuses. We have grandsire Bhishma who holds more rights than anyone else and is fit, but chooses to be a servant to the throne in stead because he regards the happiness of his father more important than his personal ambition.

Then we have the children made in the image of a jealous God. They claim to love another tradition so much that they offer themselves as stepchildren, though they are no orphans. When they are lovingly accepted, they start demanding rights to positions not even their new parents can give them. Then they become spiteful and threaten with their discontent if the traditions are not changed in their favour. They start arguing they know better, because they already took the liberty to study the highest scriptures and create interpretations that serve their ambitions.

To me this is a clear warning to Hindus. Stop giving people the impression they can convert to Hinduism. Conversion whether to or from Hinduism is the same crime. A tradition that converts is no part of Sanatan Dharm by its own action, no matter what it believes or teaches. Wrong should not be accepted because it looks advantageous.

Because of soul migration people can be born outside of the fold, their soul remains Hindu and connected to Dharm and Devas. They are casteless, but no �outcasts�. If they are true Hindus they easily accept that they are casteless. Then they understand they are in this position by their own actions, either by desire or by fate. They have no reason to feel spiteful.

If they are true Hindu's they also understand that they are not barred from other castes. In next lives they can be born within the fold again. A true Hindu does not live in the perspective of this life, he lives in the perspective of all his lives, past, present and future. That is why he can accept fate and at same time work hard to change it.

Yes, it is possible that a person very young and without education meets a Sage on his path that recognises him as Brahmana even though he is not born in that caste. Hindu's too are born in the image of their Gods. And the Deva's too father children or incarnate, but they would only take such a route for a special reason as they support Dharm. The Varna-system is part of Dharm.

But it is not so that people by arduously studying the scriptures, meticulously performing religious duties can claim the position of Brahmana. Even if you do tapas to the Gods to acquire this, you have to wait to for the next life. If this were not so, Dharm would easily be destroyed by aDharm. Than intelligent adharmic people can strive to be Brahmana's and destroy Hinduism and Dharm from the inside out.

They will become teachers that lead people astray by saying Deva's and Asura's are all the same, and that those who are no monotheists are no Hindu's, and they will quote carefully selected texts to prove their point. They will use their positions to subtly bend the truth. They will bend and bend until truth and untruth are so intertwined common people lose confidence in the Devas and start believing these things.

There is no reason at all why people should want to be Brahmana's. Hinduism offers the finest teachers of all to the Bhakts: The Deva's. They will help people reach any goal without the pitfall of arrogance so dangerously present in studying all of the highest scriptures.

Those who reject this only invite the discontent of the Gods. True Hindu's pay their respect to the Devas as they are related and feel the connection in their heart. Children of the jealous God claiming to be Hindus will incur his wrath if they do this, but the anger of the Deva's if they withhold their respect. Let them return to their own traditions. Hindus will not recognize a tradition without respect for Deva's and the Varna-system. Why should they?

If these people want to follow Dharm without the Varna-system and Deva's they can turn to Buddhism, if they also want to hold the Veda's authoritative, there is Arya Samaj. Plenty of room for such ideas outside of Sanatan Dharm. No reason to change the main branch, as there are enough side-branches that water these fields.

Westerners are free to create a monotheist Vedic religion without having to leave their culture and having to change Hindu tradition. There is no mother church that will try to exterminate them for leaving the true path. Why not call it Western Vedism. Than they can worship Mahajesus as supreme, and anyone can become a member of the pastor-caste and lead the flock-caste to Moksha. At home and in the temple with the cross they can read from the Veda's and Mahabible and happily sing the Mahamantra: "Hare Christus, Hare Christus, Hare Jesus, Hare Jesus". They can do yoga and meditate on the holy trinity Varuna, Jesus, and the holy ghost. As long as they do not insist on calling it Hinduism or Sanatan Dharm I see no problem with it.

And Indeed: Asura-worship also finds its origin in Vedic tradition with Luminous King Varuna.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Please understand that taking sanyas is a different issue, as after sanyas, one leaves his varna dharma and his old identity. Hence for this priority is inner purity.
...
All e.g. like Vishwamitra, SatyakAma JAbAla, VAlmiki, etc of giving sanyas ...

I discussed passage on Satyakama in Chandogya Upanishad.
There it was not said that he has become a sannyasi. It just said that he has become Brahmacharin:

IV-iv-5: The teacher said to him, 'No one who is not a Brahmana can speak thus. Dear boy, bring the sacrificial fuel, I shall initiate you as a Brahmacharin ...

regards

[brahma jijnasa]

It's the kali yuga.

Yes, it is fallen age of Kali.
You know, in my country ISKCON devotees would say "pali u dobu Kali" which sounds like a rhyme in my language (pali -- Kali).
I'm not sure if it also sounds in English as a rhyme, but in translation it would be "fallen in the age of Kali".
This refers to us, the people in the age of Kali who are "fallen in the age of Kali".

regards

[brahma jijnasa]

You are missing a few points:
Satyakama could have been from Brahmana descent. It was unknown, but a real possibility. He was not known to be of other descent.

I am not missing anything here. Satyakama could have been from Brahmana descent. Yes, indeed, he could. But he could also be of any other origin too! He could also be of shudra descent or even mleccha "man of an outcast race" origin.
That is exactly my point! Does not matter which descent he was. It does not even matter at all!!!
Why it does not matter?
It does not matter because nobody could ascertain what was Satyakama's varna by birth (Satyakama's descent)! That's the point!
How can it be important something that can not be determined?
Satyakama's descent could not be determined, so it is quite irrelevant.

Now, the question is: What does it matter then?
The answer is: Only his character is important.
We can see this from the text of Chandogya Upanishad.

Satyakama spoke this way without any kind of training. This is important because it points to an inborn nature.

Of course that it is an inborn nature or his character.

You can not analyse texts as if they are mathematical true/false propositions. for instance: "'No one who is not a Brahmana can speak thus." is clearly untrue if taken literal. You could easily make someone say this. And after having read this text all of us could have said it. So it is clear that these words do not tell the whole story. There is more to it.

In stead of drawing the conclusion Gautama is illogical or untrue, one can say his words are not the whole story ...

There is nothing more to it. It is the whole story because the text says only so much.

regards

[brahma jijnasa]

brahma-jijnasa,

Have you ever actually studied the chAndogya upaniShad? If so, may I ask whose commentary you studied

I have not studied the entire Chandogya Upanishad, nor a commentary on it. But I have studied the topic we discuss, ie how to determine one's varna. I have studied the topic from Gaudiya vaishnavas and from the scriptures and their respective comments by Gaudiyas. So if you want to defeat me, you will have to defeat them actually because what I am presenting here are their views.

To understand the story about Satyakama in Chandogya Upanishad you do not need neo-Hindu diaspora, nor revisionists, nor "a followers of a modern group" etc, but what you need to I would call "some brains" and an explanation of learned acaryas such as Baladeva Vidyabhushana, Jiva Gosvami and Sanatana Gosvami and other knowledgeable Gaudiya vaishnavas.

Is it really difficult to understand this:

Sir, I do not know of what lineage I am.

and then:

No one who is not a Brahmana can speak thus. Dear boy, bring the sacrificial fuel, I shall initiate you as a Brahmacharin, for you have not deviated from truth

Does it requires a lot of brains?

I have seen very few examples of individuals "converting" from the varNa of their birth to another varNa.

You know what? Maybe you'll be surprised when I tell you that I have seen thousands of such examples.
I have seen thousands of Lord Krishna's devotees born in western countries such as Europe and America. It is a well known fact that practically all of these devotees are in fact mleccha-s by birth.
The term mleccha refers to a foreigner, barbarian, non-Aryan, man of an outcast race, any person who does not speak Sanskrit and does not conform to the usual Hindu institutions. Primarily mleccha refers to an outcast (who is untouchable) who is even lower than shudra, who is not even a part of Vedic culture or civilization, who is abominable barbarian and sinner, who is far from being worthy of any process of purification, let alone is worthy to receive Vedic knowledge, or God forbid , the initiation (or diksha) from a guru.
These great devotees or vaishnavas of The Lord are completely transcendental to any notion of varna. They do not belong to any varna. They are beyond any concept of varnas. In fact, they are at the position that is higher than the brahmanas!
This is the point.

Their shudra descent or even mleccha "man of an outcast race" origin does not matter at all.
Why it does not matter?
It does not matter because they do not belong to any varna. They are beyond any concept of varnas. In fact, they are at the position that is higher than the brahmanas!

This is why I find the egocentric approach, i.e. "your caste is whatever you are by quality" is problematic to say the least, because it misses the whole point.

It seems to me that you are the one who misses the whole point.

regards

[philosoraptor]

I have not studied the entire Chandogya Upanishad, nor a commentary on it.

In other words, you have never studied the chAndogya upaniShad, but somehow you know exactly what it has to say.

Thank you. This is all I wanted to establish.

[philosoraptor]

In response to my statement, "So far, in my readings, which I admit are not exhaustive, I have seen very few examples of individuals "converting" from the varNa of their birth to another varNa," brahma jijnasa, ever ready to evade the argument by changing the subject, wrote:

You know what? Maybe you'll be surprised when I tell you that I have seen thousands of such examples.
I have seen thousands of Lord Krishna's devotees born in western countries such as Europe and America. It is a well known fact that practically all of these devotees are in fact mleccha-s by birth.

In other words, he did not challenge my point about the absence of scriptural examples showing mlecchas-by-birth and/or shudras-by-birth becoming brahmins. Instead, he pointed to the example of ISKCON as proof that the practice of converting non-dvijas to brahmins is genuine. Essentially, his argument is that because so many Western people are mlecchas-by-birth (not disputed here), and they became "brahmins by quality" (by taking second initiation in ISKCON), this is proof that you can indeed convert mlecchas or shudras into brahmins. This "proof," of course, requires that you accept that these second-initiated, sacred-thread-wearing devotees are indeed "brahmins by quality."

Now, let me preface my next few comments by saying that I am favorably-disposed to ISKCON. I like their high standard of Deity worship, their insistence on pure devotional service as the means and the end, and their uncompromising view on Vishnu sarvottamatva. I have had the pleasure of meeting a few ISKCON devotees from Western backgrounds who became very sweet devotees. Emphasis on few. I never questioned the varNa status of these individuals, because I felt it was between them, their guru, and Lord Krishna, and that it was none of my business.

That being said, I am hard-pressed to accept brahma jijnasa's claim that most of the 2nd-initiated ISKCON devotees I have met over the years are indeed "brahmins by quality." Bear in mind that it was brahma jijnasa who brought this up, not I. Because he did bring it up, I have to now address the falseness of his claim as it is a major pillar of his argument.

Let me limit myself only to those 2nd-initiated ISKCON devotees who are "devotees in good standing," i.e. who are members of the organization in one capacity or another (management, temple worship, giving classes, leading kirtans, etc). I have been in multiple ISKCON temples in the West, have corresponded with ISKCON gurus/leaders on multiple occasions, and have even been privy to private discussions held by ISKCON gurus on various internet forums through the years. I can honestly say my perspective on ISKCON is a well-informed one.

On the subject of many of ISKCON's "brahmins by quality," I have found that I frankly cannot relate to most of them, as with few exceptions, they tend to indulge in one or more of the following non-brahminical activities or attitudes:

1) watching television
2) talking prajalpa, up to and including the latest football game or serial on television
3) making derisive and immature remarks about homosexuals, Jews, women, etc - this appears to be based on an insecurity these people have about such people and their incompatibility with conservative, Vedic, social standards (I have no problem with conservative Vedic social standards, but I see no rasa in bringing up the sinful habits of other people as a conversation topic).
3a) In fact, on the above subject, I recall hearing a "senior devotee" in ISKCON giving Bhagavatam class on the day of Jagannatha-ratha-yatra, in which he reminisced about his childhood days when he and his boyhood friends used to beat up a Jewish kid in their old grade school back in Germany. I never really figured out why he thought this was relevant to the Bhagavatam.
4) cultish adherence to ISKCON's democratically-based decision-making system about what does, and does not, constitute authentic gaudiya vaishnava siddhanta. Since the knowledge base of ISKCON's leaders is limited, this leads to ISKCON devotees adopting non-vedantic ideas like "fall from Vaikuntha" and becoming very hostile to any scripturally-based discussion which contradicts their "siddhanta." Siddhanta in ISKCON is determined by majority vote among its leaders, and not by study of shAstra.
5) On the subject of ISKCON leaders not knowing shAstra, I was made aware from the minutes of its governing body council that they have a "Sastra Advisory Council" to advise the leaders on the scriptural basis of some views. When I asked a Sri Prabhupada disciple why ISKCON leaders who are gurus and giving classes on shAstra, and who would be expected to know shAstra themselves ("brahmins by quality" remember?) must have a separate council to research shAstric matters, the disciple merely shrugged and gave me that "I don't bother questioning these things anymore" look.
6) I have repeatedly been told by several senior ISKCON devotees that they knew of other senior ISKCON devotees in leadership and managerial positions who were not maintaining the ISKCON standard of 16 rounds (about 2 hours) of harinAma-japa per day, and not maintaining the standard of waking up before sunrise. These are supposed to be brahmins, right?
7) #6 was found out by me in the context of several high-level discussions being had between various ISKCON leaders about cultural standards in ISKCON. It seems that while ISKCON's founder-acharya wanted a standard of Vedic culture for his disciples (i.e. dhoti for men, saris for women, restrained male-female interactions, traditional marriages, no divorces, etc), many ISKCON devotees want official recognition of homosexual marriage, encouragement of dating, forgiving attitude towards illicit sexual relations, Westernization of clothing and habits, etc. This is a major point of contention between conservative and liberal elements in ISKCON, the former being the minority.
8) One high-level ISKCON leader, a well-regarded scholar who did part of their bhAgavatam translation, has many disciples, and is highly influential in ISKCON, has privately opined that ancient Hindus were very forgiving of casual sexual relations. He has endorsed homosexual monogamy (http://www.chakra.org/announcements/persFeb01_09.html) and argued (on the private ISKCON mailing list I was once subscribed to) that ancient Hindu women, including Sita and Radha, walked around bare-breasted, and that the custom of women covering their breasts only came when British people with their prudish Victorian sensibilities came to India. When another list member showed him evidence to the contrary of his position, he acknowledged the evidence but did not recant his views.
9) Another ISKCON leader, also an initiating guru, has published books about UFOs and traveling to other dimensions. He actually claimed he could access other dimensions. After he died of cancer, devotees in the local ISKCON temple deified him as another "Jesus Christ." Needless to say, the conservatives in ISKCON do not like this about him, but they appear to be a vocal minority at best.
10) There is a large contingent of people in ISKCON who like feminism, and consequently, they dislike Lord Rama because of their perception that He tormented Sita. How they can like Lord Krishna but dislike Lord Rama is, needless to say, unclear to me.
11) Some years ago, there was a debate in ISKCON's leadership about allowing women gurus. It seems that the feminists wanted female gurus and felt it was discrimination that women were not allowed to be initiating gurus. Unfortunately, ISKCON preaches that it is following "vedic" culture, and in "vedic" culture, women did not serve as initiating gurus. But never mind that, the feminists had their way, and ISKCON started having female gurus (and still claims to be "vedic"). Ironically, the "Sastric Advisory Council," which provided no examples from "vedic culture" to support the practice, supported the practice anyway. Thus, it appears that ISKCON's "brahmins" tend to make decisions based on political consequences rather than on shAstric or historical precedent.
12) Not exactly related to #11, but I was told by some ISKCON leaders that they were very troubled by a temple president who ran an ISKCON temple in Canada. Specifically, they said that she had embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ISKCON temple, but that she could not be replaced because of the lack of qualified leadership there. I was also told in that same context that this was not the first time an ISKCON president had been caught misusing temple funds.
13) The "brahmin" in a local ISKCON temple I once attended (it was the only Vaishnava temple in that city at the time) who led kirtans every week during their Sunday feast, was exposed as a child sexual abuser who, early in his "devotional" career, had raped a minor. Apparently, this was known about him, but he just moved to this temple and quietly became the bhajan/kirtan leader there. When it was discovered that a known sexual abuser was occupying a position of responsibility and that the leadership was looking the other way, it became a huge scandal. The leaders decided to defuse the tension caused by the scandal by transferring the devotee to another temple - where he became its new president.
14) There is a noticeable tendency among ISKCON "brahmins" to present themselves as authorities on almost any religious subject despite their lack of familiarity with the primary texts. Brahma-jijnasa feels he knows what chAndogya upaniShad has to say about varNa and heredity despite admitting that he never studied the chAndogya upaniShad in its entirety. He similarly tried to argue about baladeva vidyAbhUShaNa's views on anAdi-karma despite not ever having studied baladeva's vedAnta commentary. I see this over and over again among ISKCON devotees who never want to admit when they do not know something, and will always insist on the rightness of what they perceive to be their acharya's views.
15) ISKCON brahmins also believe that Jesus is a "shaktyavesha avatar."
16) ISKCON brahmins also say that Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, who practiced slavery, murder of surrendered prisoners, and preached unprovoked aggression against "idol worshipers."

I could go on and on, but frankly I find this a very distasteful subject, and I feel dirty just for bringing this up. I am sure all religious mathas have their problems, and I never really wanted to pick on ISKCON specifically. But if the ISKCON argument is that "varNa conversion is ok, because ISKCON converts mlecchas to brahmins all the time," then is it not reasonable to question the legitimacy of these so-called "brahmins by quality?" Please note here that I am not claiming that birth makes one a pious person. But if the ISKCON argument is that brahmins should be brahmins by quality only, and then they just produce degraded brahmins who are no better than the fallen hereditary brahmins of Hinduism, then how is that an improvement over the hereditary system?

Please note that I have not even discussed the ISKCON "brahmins" who became degraded and left the organization. I have not mentioned the gurus who abused children in gurukulas, became sexual addicts, involved in criminal activity, etc. My whole point here is simply that ISKCON's "brahmins by quality" are not exactly poster children for the "varNa by quality, not by birth" concept. Now, this is not to say that they cannot become initiated into devotional service. On the contrary, I think it is a great thing that ISKCON wants to bring Krishna-bhakti to mlecchas. But I remain unmoved by their examples as to what constitutes "brahmin by quality."

EDIT: I want to clarify that by no means am I implying that all ISKCON devotees are like this. This is just what I have observed over many years of watching and interacting with them, never as a member, but always in a spirit of a friendly and (casually) supportive observer.

[Ramakrishna]

Sita Ram,

On the subject of many of ISKCON's "brahmins by quality," I have found that I frankly cannot relate to most of them, as with few exceptions, they tend to indulge in one or more of the following non-brahminical activities or attitudes:

1) watching television

What is the shastric basis of watching television as a "non-brahminical" activity?

Jai Sri Ram

[Jaskaran Singh]

4) cultish adherence to ISKCON's democratically-based decision-making system about what does, and does not, constitute authentic gaudiya vaishnava siddhanta. Since the knowledge base of ISKCON's leaders is limited, this leads to ISKCON devotees adopting non-vedantic ideas like "fall from Vaikuntha" and becoming very hostile to any scripturally-based discussion which contradicts their "siddhanta." Siddhanta in ISKCON is determined by majority vote among its leaders, and not by study of shAstra.

Praṇām,

After reading your post, I noticed that this "fall from Vaikuṇṭha" idea seemed vaguely familiar, as if I had previously heard it before from an ISKCON "devotee." I started to do some research and it seems that this anucita concept does seem to come from ISKCON leaders, as is evident in the following lecture by Jayadvaita Swami: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24apWagHe94

Jai Jai Śrī Vṛṣabhānu Dulāri

[Amrut]

Namaste


I discussed passage on Satyakama in Chandogya Upanishad.
There it was not said that he has become a sannyasi. It just said that he has become Brahmacharin:

IV-iv-5: The teacher said to him, 'No one who is not a Brahmana can speak thus. Dear boy, bring the sacrificial fuel, I shall initiate you as a Brahmacharin ...

regards

Namaste,

Thank you for taking time to study Chandogya Upanishad, though up to the point related to varNAshrama dharma and giving your inputs.

I appreciate your honestly.

There are 2 types of Brahmachari-s,

1. Learn and then go back to live family life and life of dharma
2. Never go back home.

If you read the entire upanishad, then you will know that Satyakama Jabala never went home. He became knower of Brahman. He also had many disciples, one among them was Upakosala.

Please read Part 4, Chapters 4 to 10.

IV-iv-5: The teacher said to him, 'No one who is not a Brahmana can speak thus. Dear boy, bring the sacrificial fuel, I shall initiate you as a Brahmacharin ...

This means that he was a sanyasin. He was a Brahma Jnani and received Jnana. The very statement to ask (Birth) gotra or varNa means that there was a normal custom of asking gotra and having a priority on basis of varNa. Else no point asking about varNa.

To read in short, in story form, kindly visit here

Again, if you see no conflict in varNa based on birth and guNa, if you are of opinion that guNa are inherited by birth, then things will be more clear.

Since laymen and morons like me cannot decode veda-s, we common men, take refuge in Great acharya-s, listen to them with reverential attitude and take their words with full faith.

In post #11, #12, #13 of this thread, I hav egiven the opinion of Shri Adi Shankara, Shri Ramajunacharya and Shri Sridhara Swami. As I understand they re of opinion that varNa-s is based on guNa and guNa is inherited by birth.

In VAD part 2 thread, in posts #38 and #39 I have views of Paramacharya and my own.

Since Satay ji wants us to discuss all misunderstandings related to VAD threads and has split thread (which was reason behind disappearing posts ), we are all replying here.

EDIT:

Links for Chandogya Upanishad

Swami Nikhilananda of Ramakrishna Mission

http://www.swamij.com/upanishad-chandogya.htm

Chandogya Upanishad by Swami Krishnananda

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/vaishv_0.html

Chandogya Upanishad with Shankara Bhashya translated to English by Ganganath Jha

http://archive.org/details/Shankara....a.1942.English

Sacred-texts

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/sbe01022.htm

Astrojyoti

http://www.astrojyoti.com/chandogyaupanishad.htm

-------

I only want to say that varNa is by birth.

This is a general rule and it can be override. But everytime we do not put a * and at the footer, in small fonts, we do not write

*conditions apply



Hari OM