raghu

Right. He thinks that because Veda means "knowledge" it must therefore mean something other than the mantras we now know as Vedas. In his confused mind, Veda refers to something that can incarnate as Bible, Koran, etc at different times and places and has no form or substance. After all, what we now know as the Veda is in Sanskrit, and as everyone (or at least the expert iskcon theologian) knows, Sanskrit is a dirty, sectarian, Hindu language, and a non-sectarian scripture can't be revealed to us in a sectarian language!

Cbrahma's unwarranted digression aside, the basic point that one needs to consider is that "Hinduism" is not a single religion. It encompasses a number of diverse religious doctrines that all have in theory some basis in the Vedas. The use by iskcon revisionists of "Hinduism" as a pejorative term to refer to non-Vaishnava systems of belief is an historically incorrect useage and should be abandoned. Webster's Dictionary defines "polytheism" as "The doctrine of, or belief in, a plurality of gods." Without quibbling about what "gods" means in this context, one could argue that many Hindu traditions are undoubtedly "polytheistic" since they acknowledge the existence and worship of many devas. Then again, as many have pointed out, the use of a simplistic monotheistic/polytheistic classification fails when approaching Hindu traditions because of their monotheistic conception of Brahman despite the acknowledgement of multiple devas. The Vedanta texts are clear that Brahman alone is worthy of worship while anya-devatas are subordinate beings whose boons are dependent on the good graces of Brahman.

Yeah, we should all stop speculating and just listen to obvious experts like yourself. An expert on Vaishnavism uvAcha: "The point that you have to give up Christianity to practice Vaisnavism labors under the misconception that Vaisnavism is a religion - or that Christianity is a religion, for that matter. That is the essential point." (from http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/446546-universality-transcendance-10.html#post1093717)

I am more than just a bit entertained that some individuals who are now proposing that the Vedas are non-sectarian and universal were formerly the same individuals who derided those who based their religious ideas on the Vedas as narrow-minded and sectarian. "If it's not in my book, therefore it cannot be." (http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/36602-jesus-only-way-2.html#post274915) This was the ridicule this individual had to offer to someone who refused to accept the supposed truth of Jesus' divinity based on the absence of supporting evidence from the Vedas.

I suppose someone should respond to this before the clueless ones trumpet the "defeated" claim. Call me sectarian, Hindu, or whatever is the term we use these days for those who ask inconvenient questions or trouble us for precise evidence but... I don't really see how this verse proves the point that we are all shUdras by birth or that we are all considered to belong to the varna of our "mental disposition." All this verse says (based on the translation, I have not looked at context yet), is that after some time in Kali Yuga there will only be people who live outside the varnAshrama system. Since it mentions 10,000 years, and we are only 5000 years or so into Kali Yuga, I can only conclude that the time it refers to is at least 5,000 (if not more) years away. Verses that are given without precise citations are often spurious in my experience. But anyway assuming its authenticity, this again does not support the claim of iskcon's theologians for two reasons: 1) It says that the brahmanas will "become like impure shudras." It does not say that they are shudras. The translator has very cunningly suggested that this means that they are considered shudras, but that is not what the verse itself says. The verse (as far as i can read without proper transliteration) says that the brAhmanas born in Kali-yuga are impure and certainly like shUdras. 2) The verse refers to the brAhmanas as impure. But the iskcon view is that if they are impure, then they are not brAhmanas. So why does the verse refer to them as brAhmanas? If the iskcon view is correct, then instead of saying "the brAhmanas become impure," it should instead say that there are no brAhmanas in Kali-yuga. This just gets back to what I have been saying earlier - people in Vedic culture are known by the varna of their birth, even if they lose qualification. In a society that judges a person by his/her varna, where is the question of one changing one's varna based on behavior? On the contrary, one's varna remains unchanged, so that the shame of falling from the standard is greater! People like Ajamila, Ashvathama, etc. were known as brahmanas even after their shameful behavior just to emphasize how far they had fallen. Iskcon people favor a "varna based on current behavior" theory because they can use it to rationalize any fall down. If a "brahmana" in their ranks falls down, then he can just write it off by saying he is no longer a brahmana and thus minimize the shame. Not so according to Vedic culture! If you are a brahmana and you fall down, then a brahmana you remain in name only, and society will rightfully regard you with scorn and derision because more was expected of you in the first place. We should all guard against false theories proposed by ex-hippie, pseudo-Vaishnavas that do nothing but serve to rationalize the breaking of sacred vows and abandonment of varnAshrama duties. They simply want a system where they can be as fallen as they want without being put under society's microscope. It is very similar to the fallen iskcon gurus who are suddenly referred to as "retired gurus" or some such nonsense. This is the logical conclusion of "varna by mental behavior" theory!

I don't agree with your theory that this verse shows that everyone is a shudra. Being "reduced to shudra status" is not the same as being a shudra. If one is already a shudra then how does he get "reduced" to such status? This verse is just talking about the Kali Yuga and the faults that will come with it. You stated earlier that the bhAgavatam says that everyone is born a shudra, but there is no such evidence in the bhAgavatam.

I don't understand what this verse, even as translated, has to do with this discussion.

I don't have time to look at the context or give any sort of commentary on this at this moment. For the time being, I will just state the general vedAntic principle that when reference is made in scripture to an entity with attributes of Brahman, even with names that are ordinarily understood to refer to subordinate entities, then one should understand that it is Brahman that is being referred to. Thus, mantras like this are no problem for Vaishnvas. Certainly Vishnu can have names that are also commonly understood to be names of other devas. One has to use context to understand who exactly is being referred to - the paraBrahman or another entity. If in one context Vishnu is referred to by an anya-devata name, and in another context a deity by the same name is spoken of as being dependent on Vishnu, then one should understand that these are two different entitites. It would be illogical to assume otherwise. I suggest you start a new thread if you want to discuss this further.

In the Sanskrit it refers to the "paramam padam" or "supreme abode" of Vishnu. QED Vishnu is the Supreme Deity. Agnir vai devAnAm avamo Visnuh paramas, tadantarena sarvA anyA devatA I don't know if there is an online translation but basically it says that among devas Vishnu is highest and Agni lowest, all others are in between. This refutes the "all gods are the same god" idea that many neo-advaitins have.

I haven't got access to the BORI edition. Recently I saw someone quoting similar verses from a different edition, and I noticed that while the verses seemed to uphold his "varna by conduct" point of view, the context actually upheld the opposite. Without being able to examine the context of these verses for the moment, I suspect that these seeming contradictions are actually acknowledgement of the two different cases, namely (1) the conventional view that one is known by the varna of his birth and expected to follow in that line, and (2) the exceptional cases in which one is known by a varna other than that of his birth, like vishvAmitra and others. You yourself have pointed out that there are two views in the scripture, so how else to reconcile them? Again, this is all a tentative position without having yet read the context.

We accept smritis to the extent that they do not contradict shruti. If something contradicts shruti, then point of view of shruti is upheld. Rejecting something simply because it does not match your views or the views of your favorite sect is highly arbitrary. If you don't accept the supremacy of Vishnu that how do you reconcile your position with RV 1.22.20? Or how about aitareya brAhmana 1.1.1 which explicitly states that Visnu is highest and Agni lowest? There doesn't seem to be much point to further discussion given the lack of agreement on basic pramAnas.

Because most examples in the smritis are not like that of Valmiki, obviously. QED Valmiki is an exception and not indicative of the rule. What about Arjuna? What about Ajamila? Or the brAhamanas who were offended by NRga mahArAja? Or Drona? Or AshvathAma? These are all individuals who had a specific varna by birth but were effectively faced with promotion or demotion of their status based on behavior, yet the texts continue to refer to them by their birth varna. Arjuna's nature was compassionate and forgiving. He was ready to give up fighting which was not consistent with the behavior of a kshatriya, as Krishna Himself stated in gItA 2.2-3, 2.31-33. Thus, when Krishna was rejecting his self-promotion to brahminical renunciation, He was doing so not on the basis of Arjuna's attitude of renunciation but rather on the basis of Arjuna's status as a kshatriya, which was based on his birth. Arjuna did not cease to be a kshatriya because he refused to fight and wanted to be non-violent. There are numerous references throughout the smritis that either directly or indirectly support a social hierarchy. But there is no point in quoting them if you are going to arbitrarily reject whatever you don't like. The question is on what basis do you limit yourself to just certain texts? Why is mahAbhArata acceptable but dharma-shAstras or bhAgavatam not? Merely because you like one and not the other won't cut it. gotra, jAti, and varna are all interlinked.

...in contrast to the more enlightened position of iskcon/prabhupada vaishnavas who argue that one's varna is based on conduct, and yet take up brahminical work while saying they are shudras due to lack of qualification.

I would like to see these. Also, if possible please specify which edition you are quoting from.

What I believe is besides the point. I was asking you to cite the references that support your point of view. There are exceptions in which one's varna got changed from that of his birth varna. VishvAmitra was said to have been a king before he became a rAjarishi and then later a brahmarishi. However, he did not decide this status himself - it was conferred upon him by Brahma. This is hardly consistent with your point of view that: "I don't argue that someone is born into the caste of their parents. This is clear from what Smritis say about individuals like Parashurama (amongst others). Instead, I'd argue that one's varna can change, if they find they are more qualified for another varna (likewise if they choose to follow the varna of their parents, it should be because they feel they are qualified) " I have already cited numerous instances in which one's varna was as a matter of convention considered to be that of his birth.

Guru must be a brAhmana, but it does not follow that a brAhmana is necessarily a guru. cbrahma's argument is just another backdoor attempt to win the varna debate, cbrahma being unable to do that on scriptural grounds. Brahmana is by birth as a matter of *convention,* but one's birth into a brahmana family still requires taking up the necessary duties and vows. Numerous scriptural pramAnas including Swami Prabhupada's own words have already been cited to demonstrate this. If one does not follow the brahminical vows, then he is a brahmana by name only. There is no national association of gurus to legislate who does and does not become guru in Vedic society. Then again, iskcon has that, and they still have bogus gurus all the time. In a culture where varnAshrama is followed almost universally, problems arising from degraded gurus are minimal. In today's society where materialism is rampant, a sishya has got to be that more dedicated to discern a proper guru from a bogus one. This means not only an attitude of personal sincerity and self-restraint, but also applying one's self to study of the shAstra and pointed questions to aggressively remove all doubts. The ox-like mentality of many internet vaishnavas, in which one is expected to simply shut up and accept whatever is spoken, simply will not do. A proper guru can remove all the doubts of the sincere sishya. I realize that "sincere" may also be a term that may mean different things to different people - iskcon people equate "sincere" with "servile." Basically one has to be prepared to submit questions and hear and try to understand the answers. Any guru who bullies is student into avoiding questions and doubts is no guru worth following.

Where in the scriptures you stated that you accept as authority (Vedas, upanishads, and mahabharata) is the above view supported? I would be interested to see clear and explicit evidence - Sanskrit and verse numbers. Thanks.

Even the mahAbhArata refers to individuals by their birth-varna as a matter of convention. Drona was a brAhmana even though he had a kShatriya's disposition, and so on.

One must interpret in the context of the scripture. An incorrect interpretation can be spotted when it is found to be inconsistent with context and/or other scriptures. You are asking if his nature could not be something different from his birth-varna, and that his duties prescribed according to this nature. But there is no evidence that a person's "nature" was determined independently of his birth as a general rule in Vedic society. Even in the bhAgavatam itself we don't see this happening at all. As mentioned already several times, drona and ashvatthAma were both referred to as brAhmanas despite having taken to the kShatirya profession. Even Prabhupada refers to them as such. How do you convincingly explain that away?

The varnAshrama system really recognizes only four varnas - that of the brAhmanas, kShatriyas, vaishyas, and shUdras. Then there are those living outside the scope of the varnAshrama system. Today's caste system certainly originated from varnAshrama system but it does have a lot of embellishments (i.e. subcastes) that are not part of the original system and are thus not based on shAstra. No matter where you go, humans find ways of dividing up into classes, subclasses, etc, and then try to rationalize looking down on each other for some reason or another. It is always wise to remind ourselves that varnAshrama is about having a place in society and having society place expectations on you. It's not about having the ambition to take up another varna's work or earn recognition or social standing.

There are two problems with the above argument. The first is that the Upanishads often speak in mystical language. This Upanishad makes the point that a brahmin is one who knows Brahman, or something to that effect. Certainly that is the etymology of the word Brahmin. But by convention people who were born into that varna and were expected to take up the role of spiritual leaders (knowers of Brahman) were known as Brahmins, whether they really "knew" Brahman or not. Ordinary individuals cannot tell if a given Brahmin really "knows" Brahman or not. From what I have read of it, this Upanishad is not trying to uproot the whole varnAshram system; rather it is taking a mystical approach to understanding the subject matter by delving into categories at a more symbolic level. The second point is that the Vajra-suchika may not really be a genuine shruti. There are many texts that are passed off as "Upanishads" even though they have no known paramparA that preserves them. Many scholars, both secular and Vaishnava, strongly suspect that some of these are authored texts from a relatively recent period. This makes the Vajra-suchika's authority rather questionable to being with. But as always, I am happy to hear of any convincing arguments to the contrary.

Just for the sake of curiosity, I decided to investigate Malati dasi's claim about cbrahma's motivations and found that she is spot on: http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/446356-chant-then-what.html Ditto on theist: http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/446356-chant-then-what-5.html#post1090193 and http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/446356-chant-then-what.html#post1089445 Malati is right. Theist and cbrahma hold to such views as "Vaishnavism is not sectarian,Christianity is another form of Vaishnavism" etc because they regard regulative principles of scripture inconvenient or that they are somehow above them.

Yeah.... I noticed that too. Could that be because he's an atheist?

People can get degraded or reformed, but in Vedic society when someone referred to their varna they referred to them by the varna of their birth. This is also true in the story of Ajamila. The Yamaduttas said: SB 6.1.65 : Because his intelligence was pierced by the lustful glance of the prostitute, the victimized brāhmaṇa Ajāmila engaged in sinful acts in her association. He even gave up the company of his very beautiful young wife, who came from a very respectable brāhmaṇa family. SB 6.1.66 : Although born of a brāhmaṇa family, this rascal, bereft of intelligence because of the prostitute's association, earned money somehow or other, regardless of whether properly or improperly, and used it to maintain the prostitute's sons and daughters. SB 6.1.67 : This brāhmaṇa irresponsibly spent his long lifetime transgressing all the rules and regulations of the holy scripture, living extravagantly and eating food prepared by a prostitute. Therefore he is full of sins. He is unclean and is addicted to forbidden activities. Ajamila was still referred to as a brAhmana despite his degraded activities. It is therefore incorrect to say that one would be considered a shudra for giving up his brahminical duties. Certainly he may become a shudra or worse by nature, and society may acknowledge that, but by convention he was still *referred* to by the varna of his birth. Note that this is not the same as saying that he had the qualifications of his birth varna - in this case Ajamila had clearly lost those.

I never claimed that "nobody ever falls from a Brahmin birth." Clearly there are many fallen brahmins, and Vedic religion has declined. All I have stated is that the shAstras still refer to such people as brahmins by convention. Please consult the numerous scriptural quotes already provided by me earlier and translated by your very own Swami Prabhupada.