What qualifies a written work as scripture?

[wundermonk]

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

[shiv.somashekhar]

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

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

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

Sure, though they have been addressed earlier.

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

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

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

[wundermonk]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[shiv.somashekhar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[philosoraptor]

Pranams wundermonk,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[wundermonk]

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

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

The above is wrong in light of BG 18:40

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, guNas change with time,

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

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

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

[philosoraptor]

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

Pranams,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regards,

[wundermonk]

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

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

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

::Facepalm::

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

[philosoraptor]

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

Pranams,

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

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

::Facepalm::

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

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

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

regards,

[wundermonk]

Pranams,

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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