Hypothetical scenario for those who believe Varna is by birth

[PARAM]

I don't understand, who are this aDharmis you keep refering too?
History tells us Varna has alway been based on birth, this is the only prerequisite creteria one can safely arrive at classification.

Which proof? iTiHaS tells us Varna was always chose as per the guna-karma-swabhava. Varna change proof are mentioned in different scriptures, you are not answering my question.

I can not comment on something I know absolutely nothing.

This is proof from History, but you don't want to understand?

It would be nice if had quoted the verse, in what context this is said, yes we all have potential to become question is at what point is appropriate?
I can quote you explicitly from Mahabharata when Bhishmapita says it otherwise

Are you sure you will not provide any misprinted quote? Sure there too all those quotes comes from somebody whose clan never changed Varna?

You are changing the context, let us stick to the point, it is explicitly said in shastra that Parshuram anhilated the Kshatriyas 21 times if you have a verse that says otherwise please quote, no point in giving opinions.

You are missing the proof about your own context, first you described Sutji but you missed the brahmin present with sutji was a kShatriYa by birth and his own biological sons were from all Varnas. This is proof from Itihasa, not from somebody's words, translated quotes are not always proper, but real action is the proof.

I do not know what the question is

How come Vishnu Avatara kill any innocent when he in Bhagvad Geeta himself says he take birth to protect nobles and wipe out evil? Krishna lied or he was true?


Parshuram gifted the Shiva Dhanush to kShatRiya king Janak, he was never an enemy of Nobles like Janak.

Parshuram trained and taught Bheesham the best of warfare, he never give up his duty to teach warfare to noble kShatRiya's son.

Parshuram fought against Bheesham for a kShatRiya girl Amba, he take care of kShatRiya woman's dignity.

When Parshuram come to know Karna was a kShatRiya's son, he cursed Karna only for cheating the Guru but did not killed him, he give Vijay Dhanush to Karna and never demanded any Guru Dakshina from him.

There are many more proofs available in itihaas, what proof anyone have by Parshuram's action and not by somebody's claim (most of the translations are already misprinted) It is more like Sutji is saying Parshuram annihilated evil people who were kShatRiyas (warriors).

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Param ji

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, I know there are very few exception to rule, that no one has denied. If you know of an authority that can decide gunas of a person let alone a child, do let me know, untill then only reliable method I know is birth, that again is based on karma unless you think it is just a chance.

Jai Shree Krishna

[MahaHrada]

Hypothetical scenario for those who believe Varna is by birth

I have a problem with the title of this thread it presumes "Varna" exists and that it must be caused, either by birth or by guna.

But Varna is only an idea it is neither caused by guna nor birth it simply does not exist except in the intellect.

What really exists are clans and families, and ethnic groups, and groups bound into an unit by profession, by sect, by common ancestors or common beliefs, all these compete for survival, because they share the same resources, sometimes they work together, and sometimes they fight wars.

It is a melting pot of different elements, for instance Aiyars and Iyengars are both brahmin clans but the orthodox dislike when their offspring marry, though intellectually one could say they belong to one varna but in reality they shun each other because of different sectarian bias and religious duties.

Kerala Brahmins, the Namboothiris again belive that all Tamil brahmins are unclean and must be shunned at least on certain occassions.

One could go on and an on just like that, there is no end to divisons based on birth in a certain community. Sometimes Varna is important sometimes proffession, sometimes sectarian affiliations, sometimes ethnic or regional profiles are dividing the groups.

Then we have to consider the history of India also, Brahmin or vedic community was very small in early times and slowly spread through india from about todays punjab region, and they introduced the concept of varna to other parts of India, before they arrived in a certain region nobody living there had any idea that he belonged to something called a "Varna", and only later slowly these clans and families found a place in the Varna order of society and it was decided to which Varna they belong, After Varna was determined, of course it was not easy to switch to another Varna by single individuals just by their deeds. Then we have certain religious beliefs that never accepted the idea that there is something like Varna, like in ancient tantric Kashmir where there are no differnt varnas everyone is a pandit.

Though Varna by birth certainly became the Rule after some time, there is convincing evidence that when the Vedic community still was very small, all members of the tiny community where called "noble ones" and could have different functions in one birth, but at that time no other ethnic group or clan could assimilate at all into that group and all other ethnics were considered to be existing outside the Varna based society.

In peasant and tribal regions all over India there are still today large groups of tribals that do not care that there is such a thing as Varna and that would not call themselves Hindu.

Also a lot of religious groups did not like the concept of birth based differences at all and like many sects today, maintained that if there is any discrimination or respect for individuals it should be based on deeds rather than birth and these communities lived according to this principle.
One of these groups was the shramanas that gathered around a famous teacher of shramana religion the buddha shakyamuni who said:

27. "Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes an brahman."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...1.07.piya.html

So even at that early time, when Buddha lived, we find:

1. groups of people that belived Varna is only related to birth and acted accordingly
2. groups of People that belived Varna is only by deeds and acted accordingly
3. groups of People that rejected the concept of Varna altogether and acted accordingly.
4. groups of People that have never cared or never heard of the concept of Varna and acted accordingly.
6. All kinds of mixtures of the above.

These are almost all Variations of Varna/Jati that existed in real life in the History of India.

Varna itself does not exist it is only a concept of the mind so one can never decide if it is by birth or deeds, that one is a brahmin or outcaste, one can only say that collecting all evidence, most of the time all these things Varna or Jati, Profession or sect and other circumstances of life customs like marriage, childhood education, death, etc. was determined by birth in a clan or region and it was not easy to decide about one of these factors on ones own, as an individual choice.

That does not mean one way of looking at this subject is right or wrong or useful or hindering, or truth and untruth useful for, or degrading society. I only want to make clear that all of these diffferent ways of treating the subject exist now, have existed in the past and will exist in the future with all their different pros and cons.

So to say, everyone is wrong and everyone is right because all these varieties of Varna existed at some time and will exist in the future in India.

Just to be fair one must say that most of time the single individual could not easily escape his fate and that was strongly determined by birth, and that included more than just Varna but all kind of local customs that one could not just sweep away and ignore without risking to get hit with a stick on the head and dumped in a ditch.

Of course outside of India Varna is virtually non existing, since it is only an idea and an idea needs people that know that such a concept exists.

[philosoraptor]

Well, let it not be said that there isn't an opinion here to suit people of all dispositions....

[wundermonk]

27. "Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes an brahman."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...1.07.piya.html

Beautiful link!

The 9th Avatar of Vishnu has set the record straight!!!

This is well in line with the message of the 8th Avatar, Krishna, in his BG!

[MahaHrada]

Well, let it not be said that there isn't an opinion here to suit people of all dispositions....

It is easy to become a brahmin by birth it hard to remain in that state.
Like the buddha said:

25..... There are brahmans born in the family of preceptors, kinsmen of (veda) hymns.

26. "They are often seen committing evil deeds. In this life itself they are despised, in the next they are born in an evil state of existence. High birth does not prevent them from falling into a woeful state, or from censure.

[philosoraptor]

It is easy to become a brahmin by birth it hard to remain in that state.
Like the buddha said:

25..... There are brahmans born in the family of preceptors, kinsmen of (veda) hymns.

26. "They are often seen committing evil deeds. In this life itself they are despised, in the next they are born in an evil state of existence. High birth does not prevent them from falling into a woeful state, or from censure.

I'm sorry, does this prove something? I never claimed that high birth kept one from falling down. Ashvatthama was born as a brahmin, and he did not wait until his next birth to become a murderer - he did it in that very life itself, and was still known as a brahmin, albeit a sinful one.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

It is easy to become a brahmin by birth it hard to remain in that state.
Like the buddha said:

25..... There are brahmans born in the family of preceptors, kinsmen of (veda) hymns.

26. "They are often seen committing evil deeds. In this life itself they are despised, in the next they are born in an evil state of existence. High birth does not prevent them from falling into a woeful state, or from censure.

Take your pick Wundermonk, this birth is not going to go away, no one argues if we miss the opportunity we get what we deserve.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Omkara]

So people can fall down but not climb up?

[Omkara]

Beleiving in the laq of karma also means beleiving that one can change one's karma.It does not mean fatalism.Karma is dynamic.