Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 142

Thread: What qualifies a written work as scripture?

  1. #11

    Re: What qualifies a written work as scripture?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    Namaste.

    Thanks for everyone's contribution.

    Going back to my original question, can any of you accord the status of 'scripture' to Manu smrithi or something similar?
    It depends. In his Brahma sutra bhashya, Shankara specifically quotes these offensive verses about the Sudra being a walking crematorium, etc. So what status do you accord Shankara and his advaita doctrine?

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

    The bottomline is there is a lot of undesirable material in scripture right from the Veda. How you wish to deal with this inconsistence is your own choice.
    http://lokayata.info
    http://shivsomashekhar.wordpress.com/category/history/

  2. #12
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: What qualifies a written work as scripture?

    Namaste,

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

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  3. #13
    Join Date
    March 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    205
    Rep Power
    1329

    Re: What qualifies a written work as scripture?

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    Namaste,

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

    OM
    Namaste Devotee Ji,

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

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

  4. #14

    Re: What qualifies a written work as scripture?

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

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

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

    IV-iv-4: Gautama asked him, 'Dear boy, of what lineage are you?' He replied, 'Sir, I do not know of what lineage I am. I asked my mother; she replied, "I, who was engaged in many works and in attending on others, got you in my youth. Having been such, I could not know of what lineage you are. However, I am Jabala by name and you are named Satyakama". So, sir, I am Satyakama Jabala.'

    IV-iv-5: The teacher said to him, 'No one who is not a Brahmana can speak thus. Dear boy, bring the sacrificial fuel, I shall initiate you as a Brahmacharin, for you have not deviated from truth'. Having initiated him, he sorted out four hundred lean and weak cows and said, 'Dear boy, follow them.' While he was driving them towards the forest Satyakama said, 'I shall not return till it is one thousand.' He lived away for a long time, till they had increased to one thousand.
    Sri Sankaracharya specifically quotes this story in his Brahma-sutra bhashya to prove that shUdras are not eligible to study the Veda. He explains in his Upanishad commentary that when Satyakaama told the truth, Gautama was able to determine that his lineage was brahminical by virtue of his mystic potency. Sankara does NOT interpret this as meaning that Satyakaama was determined to be a brahmin simply by virtue of telling the truth. Such a conclusion is offensive to non-brahmins, because it implies that they would all lie by the very fact of not being brahmins.

    chAndogya upanishad 5.10.7:

    V-x-7: Among them, those who have good residual results of action here (earned in this world and left as residue after the enjoyment in the region of the moon), quickly reach a good womb, the womb of a Brahmana, or of a Kshatriya or of a Vaisya. But those who have bad residual results of action quickly reach an evil womb, the womb of a dog or of a hog or of a Chandala.
    This explains that one's previous karma leads to certain births, and names births in the womb of brahmin/kshatriya/vaishya women as being the result of good karma. This is not consistent with a view that birth is irrelevant or unnecessary for the acquisition of a certain varna-status.

    chAndogya upaniShad 6.1.1:

    VI-i-1: Om. Once upon a time there was one Svetaketu, the grandson of Aruna. His father said to him, 'O Svetaketu, live the life of a Brahmacharin. Dear boy, there never is anyone in our family who does not study and is only nominally a Brahmana.'
    Here is a clear instance of a child being directed to do brahminical duties based on the fact that he was born a brahmin. Svetaketu's father makes it a point to distinguish between those who are nominally brahmins and those brahmins who actually do their duty - this would make no sense if a brahmin's designation is based solely on his conduct and duty. The conclusion expressed by the scripture is that if one is born a brahmin, he is a brahmin. But that does not exempt him from performing his brahminical duties.

    bhagavad-gItA:

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

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


    It is better to engage in one’s own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another’s occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one’s nature are never affected by sinful reactions.
    Note that, as per the previous evidence of shruti, one gets the birth based on one's nature. Hence, birth-based varNa.

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

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


    uvāca cāsahanty asya
     bandhanānayanaṁ satī
    mucyatāṁ mucyatām eṣa
     brāhmaṇo nitarāṁ guruḥ


    SB 1.7.42 — 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 — She could not tolerate Aśvatthāmā’s being bound by ropes, and being a devoted lady, she said: Release him, release him, for he is a brāhmaṇa, our spiritual master.
    There is another story from the bhAgavata which also illustrates the importance of birth in determining varNa, and that is the story of Mucukunda (bhAgavata 10.51.1-63). Mucukunda was a kshatriya king who aided the devas in a great battle, and was given the boon by them that he could rest in meditation afterwards. When he awoke from that meditation, he had the darshan of Sri Krishna Himself, who told him:

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




    O King, in your very next life you will become an excellent brāhmaṇa, the greatest well-wisher of all creatures, and certainly come to Me alone.
    Note that He spoke this immediately after complimenting Mucukunda on his devotion. Why then, did He not merely declare Mucukunda a brahmin right then and there? It's all based on conduct only, right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Sûdras are not qualified for that reason also that Smriti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages: 'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with (molten) lead and lac,' and 'For a Sûdra is (like) a cemetery, therefore (the Veda) is not to be read in the vicinity of a Sûdra.' From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how should he study Scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, an express prohibition (of the Sûdras studying the Veda). 'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.' The prohibitions of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as 'he is not to impart knowledge to the Sûdra,' and 'to the twice-born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.'--From those Sûdras, however, who, like Vidura and 'the religious hunter,' acquire knowledge in consequence of the after effects of former deeds, the fruit of their knowledge cannot be withheld, since knowledge in all cases brings about its fruit. Smriti, moreover, declares that all the four castes are qualified for acquiring the knowledge of the itihâsas and purânas; compare the passage, 'He is to teach the four castes' (Mahâbh.).--It remains, however, a settled point that they do not possess any such qualification with regard to the Veda.
    The conclusion of our scriptures is that based on one's nature, one gets the birth as a brahmin, kshatriya, vaisya, sudra, animal, plant, etc, and based on that birth, he is required to uphold the dharma assigned to him. Our ancient sages saw nothing all problematic with this, but as previously noted, their underlying values were very different from ours. There were a few instances where a person's varna changed, such as that of Vaalmiiki (who did thousands of years of penance to go from being a kshatriya to a brahma-rishi), but these seem to be exceptions to the rule. Most of the instances of varna-switching appear to have occurred between kshatriyas and brahmins, between which the boundries seemed somewhat fluid at times. But the general principle appears to be that one's varna was based on one's birth by default. It is very difficult to believe that each and every such reference, especially as many of them are in the shrutis, are the result of opportunistic brahmins creating interpolations.

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

    regards,
    Last edited by philosoraptor; 14 July 2012 at 08:16 PM.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  5. #15
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: What qualifies a written work as scripture?

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    He explains in his Upanishad commentary that when Satyakaama told the truth, Gautama was able to determine that his lineage was brahminical by virtue of his mystic potency. Sankara does NOT interpret this as meaning that Satyakaama was determined to be a brahmin simply by virtue of telling the truth. Such a conclusion is offensive to non-brahmins, because it implies that they would all lie by the very fact of not being brahmins.
    Such a conclusion is unwarranted and fallacious. The question is - "Who is a Brahmin?" The very fact that the lineage was deemed irrelevant by Gautama ought to settle the issue in favour of the varna NOT being decided by lineage. Next, it is question-begging because unless we have answered "Who is a Brahmin?", conclusions like "they would all lie by the very fact of not being Brahmins" are circular and do not help establish the point.

    chAndogya upanishad 5.10.7:

    This explains that one's previous karma leads to certain births, and names births in the womb of brahmin/kshatriya/vaishya women as being the result of good karma. This is not consistent with a view that birth is irrelevant or unnecessary for the acquisition of a certain varna-status.
    The question still is "Who is a Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya?". To quote a verse that says that doing good deeds would land one in the womb of a Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya does not help answer the question. Why? It is still circular and question begging.

    chAndogya upaniShad 6.1.1:

    Here is a clear instance of a child being directed to do brahminical duties based on the fact that he was born a brahmin. Svetaketu's father makes it a point to distinguish between those who are nominally brahmins and those brahmins who actually do their duty - this would make no sense if a brahmin's designation is based solely on his conduct and duty. The conclusion expressed by the scripture is that if one is born a brahmin, he is a brahmin. But that does not exempt him from performing his brahminical duties.
    This ought to be seen in the context of earlier times. There was no job-mobility. There was no public school imparting science/math education as we have now using whose foundation one could take a job as a teacher or an engineer, etc. To make a living, one usually ended up following the occupation of the father. So, this still does not establish that a varna is by lineage.

    bhagavad-gItA:

    The entire scripture is based on Arjuna's dilemma that peforming his birth-based kshatriya duties would lead to sin. The revisionists claim that varna is determined by conduct. Well, Arjuna was prepared to reject the fruits of victory and adopt begging just to avoid doing violence to his kinsmen. What could be more virtuous than that? But Sri Krishna rejected this and implored Arjuna to follow his birth-based duties.
    Nowhere in BG Chapter 18 could I find a verse that states that varna is by birth. Could you point out? In fact chapter 18 clearly propounds in light of the gunas who gets classified how.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: What qualifies a written work as scripture?

    Here is a syllogism:

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

    From this one can conclude the following.

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

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

  7. #17

    Re: What qualifies a written work as scripture?

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

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

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

    Obviously, this would be seen as outdated in today's times and some may even offer conspiracy theories on how Brahmanas with vested interests corrupted a liberal system. But there is no evidence in support of such theories.
    http://lokayata.info
    http://shivsomashekhar.wordpress.com/category/history/

  8. #18
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: What qualifies a written work as scripture?

    @shiv.somashekhar:

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

    Is your position that the following premise is false:

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

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

  9. #19

    Re: What qualifies a written work as scripture?

    Namaste,

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    Such a conclusion is unwarranted and fallacious. The question is - "Who is a Brahmin?" The very fact that the lineage was deemed irrelevant by Gautama ought to settle the issue in favour of the varna NOT being decided by lineage.
    As explained to me by my Advaitin comrades, this did not establish that the lineage was irrelevant, only that Gautama was able to determine that it was a brahmin's lineage when Satyakaama spoke the truth.

    Next, it is question-begging because unless we have answered "Who is a Brahmin?", conclusions like "they would all lie by the very fact of not being Brahmins" are circular and do not help establish the point.
    Nevertheless, when we see a person addressed by their varna in the scripture, it is usually the case that their varna is the same as that of their birth. I don't think we can argue that this is coincidence. Drona was known as a brahmin despite being an accomplished soldier, and so was his son Ashvatthaama despite becoming a heinous murderer. So was Duryodhana despite all his crimes.

    The question still is "Who is a Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya?". To quote a verse that says that doing good deeds would land one in the womb of a Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya does not help answer the question. Why? It is still circular and question begging.
    Given the examples quoted already, what is the specific objection to calling someone by the varna of his birth, other than that this is offensive to those with more egalitarian views? Wherever we read in Puraanas and Itihaasas and shruti, a person's varna is usually that of his birth. Nothing you or I say is going to change that.

    This ought to be seen in the context of earlier times. There was no job-mobility. There was no public school imparting science/math education as we have now using whose foundation one could take a job as a teacher or an engineer, etc. To make a living, one usually ended up following the occupation of the father. So, this still does not establish that a varna is by lineage.
    The fact that Svetaketu's father referred to people who are brahmins in name only indicates that there were indeed choices at that time of whether or not to follow brahmin-dharma. More to the point, if birth was irrelevant to determining one's varna, then Svetaketu should not have ordered his son to pursue brahminical study be default.

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

    Nowhere in BG Chapter 18 could I find a verse that states that varna is by birth. Could you point out? In fact chapter 18 clearly propounds in light of the gunas who gets classified how.
    No, you are correct - it clearly speaks of guNa. But it is the guNa from previous lifetime that causes one to become born in the womb of a brahmin, kshatriya, or so on - hence the chAndoga upaniShad 5.10.7. So, by guNa --- > birth ---> varNa ---> dharmas based on that varNa. This is the way traditional commentators appear to have understood it.

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

    Here is a syllogism:

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

    From this one can conclude the following.

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

    Now, the conclusions are valid logically (I hope ). If you disagree with the conclusions, you need to find fault with one/more of the premises. Which premise(s) do you disagree with?
    I think the basic question here is, if you don't know your lineage, can you become a Hindu? I believe most traditionalists would say yes. How they approach the subject of varNa is something I would also like to know.

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

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

    regards,
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  10. #20

    Re: What qualifies a written work as scripture?

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    @shiv.somashekhar:

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

    Is your position that the following premise is false:

    ?

    If yes, would it be fair to conclude that you do not consider Krishna divine in any sense? Is Krishna the God of Indians alone?
    In the Gita, Krishna talks about the characterestics of each varna. The modern interpretation is that the varna of an individual should be indentified by these characterestics. The traditional interpretation is that Krishna is describing the duties of each varna and one born as a Brahmana should strive to adhere to his dharma to his best capacity.

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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Christianity & Me
    By Alise in forum Christianity
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 25 January 2011, 05:23 AM
  2. Vedanta Sutra - read this translation
    By Mohini Shakti Devi in forum Vedas & Brahmanas
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03 May 2010, 11:58 AM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 29 December 2009, 10:05 AM
  4. Shiva and Sati - A Question
    By srivijaya in forum Shaiva
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 19 December 2008, 11:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •