Misunderstandings - VAD Threads

[satay]

namaste Chrritra,
You bet. Please feel free to post. However, if you are expecting me to change my personal position on it then you will be very disappointed. Don't say I didn't warn you ahead of time.

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

[satay]

namaste,
Okay ShivaFan.

I think the word Advanced is a better fit, not superior. \Om Namah Sivaya

[philosoraptor]

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.

Some Hindus who are deeply ashamed of their religion cannot help but hang their heads in shame whenever their religion is discussed. They feel they must first have an emotional catharsis of sorts in which they express sorrow that their religion was used for all kinds of bad things.

But what these people are not understanding is that the bad things that are done or are alleged to have been done in the name of shAstra are not endorsed by shAstra. There is nothing to be ashamed of here for one who has done no wrong. The shame belongs only to those who have committed the sinful act.

shAstra-s are clear that varNAshrama is hereditary, and that based on hereditary status one is assigned different duties based on the guNa one is born with as reflected by their jAti-varNa. shAstra-s are also clear that a culture of inclusiveness and compassion is to pervade the otherwise hierarchical varNa system. It is dishonest to criticize one part (i.e. the birth-based varNa) and then ignore the other part (viz, the culture of oneness and compassion).

What all of this means in summary: if one cannot discuss his religion honestly and openly, but instead must hang his head in shame in order to impress his egalitarian-minded, ignorant Western friends, then he may wish to excuse himself and spare us the expression of his deep-seated insecurities.

[Amrut]

Namaste,

If the word 'superior' is controversial, then I think 'pure' would suit better.

Please note that Intelligence is not connected with mind. Also intelligence is not connected with spirituality or material success. An IITian (I have personally worked with them IIT-Bombay) is India's Top Brain, but not all are religious. All IITians, specially BTechs have excellent recitation and concentration power. I have seen that BTechs would take photocopies of notes, study 1 night before exams and after writing papers, they simply leave the books in the corridor, the way they have left just before entering examination hall. They are so confident about passing and they do pass with top grades.

But this has nothing to do with spiritual / religious inclination. I have seen some IITians wearing black clothes walking barefoot (devotees of shabarimala). They may be able to memorize veda-s, but that does not make them pure. it is the intention with which one does any karma is important than the karma itself. Inner purity is something different. It happens by the grace of God and the life we live . The more you live for God and the more you leave for God determines your spiritual inclination.

The idea is the have less desires and just fix our mind on Bhagavan. Living a pure and ascetic life does not involve intelligence, though strong recitation power and high intelligence are an asset when you are ordered to sit on Vyas Peeth.

Everywhere mind is talked and not being intelligent. Vivek is not intelligence but power of discrimination. Infact in bhakti, chanting of God's name dragge all sattvik guna-s and even the 4 qualities and Shatsampatti-s without consciously working on them. The only thing you need is have strong faith and strong surrender, live for God and only God. If mind is not attached to worldly objects then it is automatically attached to God, as it needs something to be attached to.

Sure Brahmins have to bare responsibility for whatever happens to other 3 varNas-, be it the creation of their own or some foreign forces. They have to lead by example in spiritual matters. they should also oppose anything that is evil. But a we know this world is plunging deep into darkness as time passes. So the situation is getting worse with passing of time.

If we are not confident that VarNa by Birth is a better system and will bring universal well being and peace, then we (masses) are not going to fully accept it. On the other hand, masses do not have courage to give up customs, like having a look at shubh muhurata (auspicious time), etc

Aum

[Amrut]

Charitra ji, Swami Chinmaya and Srila Prabhupada has done great job in spreading their Sampradaya, but in this attempt, they have to attract masses. Hence you will find some statements in Swami Chinmaya's Gita commentary (audio). I have already shown about Srila Prabhupada's personal inputs in earlier post. Hence, in case of conflicts, we have to take opinion or interpretation of founding acharya-s as authentic and supreme. In this case it will be Adi Shankara, though is not founder, he is considered as an authority as far as advaita is concerned.

Adi Shankara did not gave sanyas to any women, but Swami Chinmaya did. Also note that till date any Shankaracharya is a Brahmin. A Gaudapadacharya is always a Gaud Saraswat Brahmin. I know that Sanyas is above varNa. But before giving sanyas, this trend shows that still the current Shankaracharyas think that Brahmins have inwardly pure then other varNa-s.

As Far as sanyas and spiritual progress is concerned, it is more connected with mental purity than varNa-s, but the distribution of work i.e. upholding of dharma like vedic rites, which sanyasins are told to renounce, are distributed to a particular varNa.

*I also agree with PR that Vedanta gives completeness to Veda.

Aum

[charitra]

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".

Very True. For eight hundred years hindu lands faced unremitting savage invasions which went on and on ( sadly no one talks about that important historical era at all). Hindus were already by then into a laid back dharmic way of life and never forsaw what was coming their way and hence were not prepared for any largescale adharmic warfare, especially religion based wars. With these attacks their morale weakened, the hindu psyche took a big hit. Collective responsibility became a thing of the past. As a sense of despair and low self esteem that engulfed them, and slowly undesirable disharmony entered their society and frank neglect of some communities ensued. I think it is more like omission than commission, looking away ignoring their own duty became the norm.

On an aside if you can lay your hands on a small book called Candide by Voltaire please do read it, it will provide a graphic picture of what was happening in 1700s Europe, the human condition is appaling. Adharma was at its peak as recently as that in those lands. The book is so tiny and absorbing that one can finish it in one afternoon. Whereas, long before that hindus have established a very civilized rule in their land.

BTW when I said ' others', (''....Two wrongs don't make one right, what others did elsewhere wont absolve hindus what they did to their own.")I didnt mean outsiders on hindus, I was talking about 'others on others' like racial discrimination in the USA for example, I was referring to Avyavadhar's post in that context, he was justifying that since more atrocities happened elsewhere, the atrocities on hindus on hindus was much less severe, he meant hindus mustnt feel guilty for what they did on their own..
Namaste.

[charitra]

Charitra ji, Swami Chinmaya and Srila Prabhupada has done great job in spreading their Sampradaya, but in this attempt, they have to attract masses. Hence you will find some statements in Swami Chinmaya's Gita commentary (audio). I have already shown about Srila Prabhupada's personal inputs in earlier post. Hence, in case of conflicts, we have to take opinion or interpretation of founding acharya-s as authentic and supreme. In this case it will be Adi Shankara, though is not founder, he is considered as an authority as far as advaita is concerned. Aum

Namaste,
Lets consider an example not involving the above two gurus for argument sake. In the past, three acharyas have given us bhashya (commentary) on same ten Upanishads and all these three men used their commentaries to substantiate their three different sampradayas; they supported their philosophies very devotedly and passionately. Adi Shankara was the first to translate the dashopanishads (Isa, kena, Katha, Prasna, Munda, Mandukya, Taithari, Aitareya, Chandogya, Briahadarnayaka ) and was content to stop with above ten. Shankara’s advaita philosophy was structured around his bhashya of the big ten.
In the later era Ramanuja has commented on the same dashopanishads and drew from them heavily to support his visishta advaita (qualified non dualism) vedanta. Finally Madhva did take pains to repeat the onerous task and again packaged his Dvaita (dualism) doctrine using his own bhashya.

Point is in the realm of Sanskrit text based wisdom, many gurus can depend on the same bunch of texts and conceptualize their own philosophy that may not concur with that of others. Are the texts wrong? Or alternatively are the gurus wrong?
There is no easy way to say who is authentic and who is not, personal prejudices and preferences may play a significant role in those instances.

[charitra]

Adi Shankara did not gave sanyas to any women, but Swami Chinmaya did.
Aum

Brihadarnayaka Upanishad highlights the presence of two women as Brhma vadinis: Gargi and Maithreyi. They were permitted to sit with other philosophers and were able to debate theology in ancient times. It doesnt say clearly if they were given sanyasa diksha or not. But we must make a note that they havent been outed just because they were women. Chinmaya did the right in treating women as equals to men in so far as sanyasa is concerned. Woman is Shakti as we all know and she can be a sanyasin in the similar fashion if she wants to. Namaste.

[Amrut]

Point is in the realm of Sanskrit text based wisdom, many gurus can depend on the same bunch of texts and conceptualize their own philosophy that may not concur with that of others. Are the texts wrong? Or alternatively are the gurus wrong?
There is no easy way to say who is authentic and who is not, personal prejudices and preferences may play a significant role in those instances.

Namaste,

I understand. You may have chimed in late. If you are not aware, I have already put the commentaries of Sri Adi Shankara, Sri Ramanuja, Sridhar Swami and Keshav Kashmiri (of Nimbarka's lineage). The commentaries were on gita 18.41 (page #2). Later on I have also put commentary of Adi Shankara on BG 4.13. 3.35 may also be of interest. the point is to do whatever we want or follow what our rishis want us to follow (for good of mankind)

Regarding Women and sanyas, I personally have no problem them taking sanyas. Even if they take sanyas they have to be kept in separate maths so that both sexes do not interact each other. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had renounced a disciple because even after his instruction he interacted with women. The point is

1. He was instructed to stay away from women
2. He did not follow Guru's instruction after he was warned.

If we go beyond our dharma and look into Buddhism, then even Lord Buddha did not wished to give sanyas to women. After avoiding it for a few years, he gave sanyas, but then said that now our dharma will last for 500 years (instead of 1000 years). Women needs protection. One cannot ask her to rome in forests alone. I am not downgrading women.

I agree that both Maitri and Gargi were tatva Gnanis. No one is denying them of tatva Jnana. In fact women are always spiritually advanced and more deserving then man. What men has to struggle to achieve, women have these qualities by birth (by the grace of God).

After marriage, women leaves her own house and accepts a completely new environment. she has ability to adjust to a new environment.

--> Tyaga and adaptability is present by birth in each women.

She adjusts to completely new customs and way of life. In case of inter-caste and inter-religious marriage, she has more trouble adjusting with in-laws and marriage life.

--> Acceptance is present by birth

Women is devoted to husband

--> One pointedness is present or develops

Wife follows command of husband and in-laws

--> she has qualities of disciple

Wife prepares food, not only for her, but for entire family. she eats last.

--> seva-dharma. If one appreciates food made by her, she gets trupti, ananda and she is satisfied by eating less (because of tripti and ananda). Another spiritual guna. spiritual progress is natural.

women is completely dependent upon husband upon survival

--> depending upon Guru and God is case of Sanyasins. No freedom.

A husband has to not only take care of his wife but her spiritual progress too. After marriage, a husband has to wear another set of 3 threads for her wife. After this whatever husband does is shared with his wife. If a husband performs a ritual, the benefits or merits of this rituals are shared with wife, even if wife is not directly involved. Her progress is very graceful and natural.

A wife binds the whole house with bhava. When she happily cooks food (and chants mantras), she protects bodies of whole family. (Food prepared with negative emotions is not good for mental health). She actually binds the whole society. Maintaining house is not an easy task. It is only today that we think of some work as only deserving for illiterate village women.

Life of widow compared with that of Sanyasin

Only one cloth (white) --> sanyasin also wears one coloured cloth

No social interaction --> same with sanyasins

Cook food herself or food given in her room. This means disassociation with family members --> renunciation. Sanyasin should renounce family ties

After death of Husband, only God is her own --> same in case of sanyasin

widows are told or read Gita and other gratha-s --> same life as that of sanyasins

All these but with the protection of family i.. they stay in family and hence are protected. They do not need to go to forest to develop these guna-s. Her training happens in the very house she is living with family and relatives used by God for her mental training. Sanyasins are thrown in society for same purpose.

--------

Did you notice that totally reverse happens today. This is said in puranas and happening in kalyuga. No offences please. From practical POV, what women are doing is right, but from spiritual POV, they are at a loss. *In spirituality it was 'Advantage Women' but they are losing this advantage to stand on equal ground as men. Nobody questions their capacity, but today, only material part is concentrated, not spiritual part. I know there was reason for this revolution.

According to me, women does not need to take sanyas. She also needs protection. Our dharma has accordingly made arrangements for women, for her safety and her spiritual progress. She has to make less efforts to progress spiritually. What to say if they choose to take tough way.

Actually I see it pointless to take sanyas. One tries to achieve certain object if one does not have it in possession. But what if one already has it? All those austerities are done for some purpose. Men are to develop certain guNa-s. Women have them by birth. To me, it does not make any sense to achieve what you already have. Infact today's modern women are losing all the edge. Yogo nasTa parantapa. Our ancient seers were much more intelligent then us. Whatever they must have developed, must be for our benefit. There is no denying of exceptions.

There is no question of downgrading her, as we worship female form of Gods (Goddesses).

Evils are not given in shastra-s. They are men made.

EDIT: If you have noticed, all instructions about restrictions are for men and not women. does it mean that

There is no place for women in spirituality OR
They do not need to follow them and yet they progress spiritually

some think that men is general term and applies to women also.

I have heard that in tantra women are given sanyas.

Aum

[philosoraptor]

Brihadarnayaka Upanishad highlights the presence of two women as Brhma vadinis: Gargi and Maithreyi. They were permitted to sit with other philosophers and were able to debate theology in ancient times. It doesnt say clearly if they were given sanyasa diksha or not. But we must make a note that they havent been outed just because they were women. Chinmaya did the right in treating women as equals to men in so far as sanyasa is concerned. Woman is Shakti as we all know and she can be a sanyasin in the similar fashion if she wants to. Namaste.

This is a perfect example of Westernized, Neo-Hindu logic. So in summary, as per charitra:

1) Women in ancient times participated in brahminical debates, see bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad.

2) Therefore it is reasonable to give women sannyAsa

3) Not giving sannyAsa to women is ipso facto discriminatory to women

If you see no connection between point #1 and point #2, and between point #2 and point #3, it is because there is none.

In bhagavad-gItA, Sri Krishna defines sannyAsa differently from its conventional usage. Specifically, (in chapter 18) He speaks of sannyAsa as renunciation from the fruits of action and from the sense of agency, in other words, renunciation in a sAttvik fashion. This definition of sannyAsa is significant, because it is more of a metaphysical, devotional concept that is relevant to everyone, as opposed to an institution designated by the donning of saffron robes and the carrying of the tri-daNDa (or eka-daNDa as per some sects).

Now, the institution of sannyAsa, which implies formal acceptance of the above principle, is restricted to males by convention, and possibly also to just brahmin males. Why is this? I am not entirely sure, but it is. It's not a question of some people pulling rank over others. Again, charitra and others who think according to Western paradigms of thinking, are completely missing the point here. varNAshrama-dharma is not about attaining some rank in the social hierarchy. brAhmaNa men can accept sannyAsa, but they cannot accept the white sari of a widow. Similarly, only women can bear children - men cannot do that. What is the use of trying to equalize people? In the material universe of guNa and karma, *we* *are* *NOT* *equal!* This concept of equality is a fundamental misconception of Western people, and Hindus like charitra who unconsciously accept Western values of egalitarianism as the unquestioned, default standard of thinking, are not realizing how incompatible they are with vedAnta.

Remember, as per vedAnta, we are not "created" equal. We are not "created" at all. We have existed eternally, without beginning, and without end, being conditioned without beginning by guNa and karma. Over time, each person's guNa and karma will be different from everyone else's, and this is what accounts for the variety of births and life-situations one experiences. Separated from our guNa/karma (i.e. in the purified, liberated state), we are all equal for all practical purposes, but that is only at the liberated state. Living in this world means accepting that you have different birth and life circumstances from others based on your previous guNa/karma. Equality is not possible in this world.

Now, your Western friends may not like that explanation, but that is the reality. Why are some countries like United States wealthy while others like Bangladesh are poverty-stricken? Why are some people born into free countries while others are born into oppressive totalitarian environments? Inequality is a fact that cannot be disputed even by the most hardened of atheists.

Our shAstra-s, while prescribing general principles that apply to most or all (like what is sAttvika-thyAga and how it can be performed), nevertheless prescribe certain institutional practices which are meant only for people of certain varNa-s and genders, which are themselves due to guNa and karma. This is a reformatory process that is appropriate for us based on our latent psycho-physical conditioning. Sri Krishna does not approve of people transgressing their duties and adopting the duties of others.


śreyān sva-dharmo viguṇaḥ para-dharmāt sv-anuṣṭhitāt |
svabhāva-niyataḿ 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. (bhagavad-gItA 18.47 - BBT)

This is because we are supposed to be satisfied with what is allotted for us, rather than lusting for the perceived benefits of someone else's duties. This is a form of ego-conditioning. If we say we are surrendered to the Lord, but don't want to follow His instructions because they are not "fair," then how "surrendered" are we, really?

I cannot fathom why charitra would extol the greatness of some Swamis who gave women sannyAsa. It is a well known fact that men in the renounced order of life should not be associating so intimately with women, and intimate association is exactly what happens when so-called progressive spiritual leaders start initiating "sannyAsini-s." I, for one, will not sing the glories of any "progressive" swami who impregnates his female disciple and covers it up to protect his reputation as a "sannyAsi."