raghu

Those who still think that one's varna is based on one's mental disposition, and can thus be changed, should look at the iskcon recension of the bhAgavatam 10.64. I will provide the summary translation from Swami Prabhupada here: Now, I don't think anyone would question the point that the brahmanas' behavior in this case was inappropriate. It was clearly inappropriate and out of character for 2 brahmanas to argue so viciously over a cow. But, the point is that the bhAgavatam still refers to them as brahmanas, and so does Prabhupada in his translation! Maharaja Nrga's situation shows that although the brahmanas were easily offended and behaved out of character, the punishment for offending them even inadvertently was still grave. Hence, these were brahmanas, and they did not cease to be brahmanas despite their wrong behavior.

Please note also that in the verses I quoted earlier, Drona is also referred to indirectly as a brahmana. Drona was born a brahmana but due to his disposition he took to a kshatriya's way of living. He did not get demoted in status to a kshatirya. Throughout the mahAbhArata and the bhAgavatam he is referred to as a brahmana.

You should ask your Gujarati friends for the evidence to support their view. I certainly would like to see it, because the evidence of the bhAgavata clearly supports the opposite - namely, that ashvatthAma was still referred to as a brahmana (and not a shudra) despite his crime: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.7.16 tadā śucas te pramṛjāmi bhadre yad brahma - bandhoḥ śira ātatāyinaḥ gāṇḍīva -muktair viśikhair upāhare tvākramya yat snāsyasi dagdha - putrā O gentle lady, when I present you with the head of that brāhmaṇa , after beheading him with arrows from my Gāṇḍīva bow, I shall then wipe the tears from your eyes and pacify you. Then, after burning your sons' bodies, you can take your bath standing on his head. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.7.19 yadāśaraṇam ātmānam aikṣata śrānta - vājinam astraḿ brahma - śiro mene ātma - trāṇaḿ dvijātmajaḥ When the son of the brāhmaṇa [ Aśvatthāmā ] saw that his horses were tired, he considered that there was no alternative for protection outside of his using the ultimate weapon, the brahmāstra [nuclear weapon]. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.7.35 mainaḿ pārthārhasi trātuḿ brahma - bandhum imaḿ jahi yo 'sāv anāgasaḥ suptān avadhīn niśi bālakān Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: O Arjuna , you should not show mercy by releasing this relative of a brāhmaṇa [ brahma - bandhu ], for he has killed innocent boys in their sleep. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.7.42 tathāhṛtaḿ paśuvat pāśa - baddham avāń - mukhaḿ karma - jugupsitena nirīkṣya kṛṣṇāpakṛtaḿ guroḥ sutaḿ vāma - svabhāvā kṛpayā nanāma ca 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 . Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.7.43 uvāca cāsahanty asya bandhanānayanaḿ satī mucyatāḿ mucyatām eṣa brāhmaṇo nitarāḿ guruḥ She could not tolerate Aśvatthāmā 's being bound by ropes, and being a devoted lady, she said: Release him, for he is a brāhmaṇa , our spiritual master. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.7.48 yaiḥ kopitaḿ brahma - kulaḿ rājanyair ajitātmabhiḥ tat kulaḿ pradahaty āśu sānubandhaḿ śucārpitam If the kingly administrative order, being unrestricted in sense control, offends the brāhmaṇa order and enrages them, then the fire of that rage burns up the whole body of the royal family and brings grief upon all. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.7.49 sūta uvāca dharmyaḿ nyāyyaḿ sakaruṇaḿ nirvyalīkaḿ samaḿ mahat rājā dharma -suto rājñyāḥ pratyanandad vaco dvijāḥ Sūta Gosvāmī said: O brāhmaṇas, King Yudhiṣṭhira fully supported the statements of the Queen, which were in accordance with the principles of religion and were justified, glorious, full of mercy and equity, and without duplicity. Note how in the end, Yudhishthira (who was the son of DharmarAja) actually agreed with Draupadi's point of view. Nowhere in the text does ashvatthAma get referred to as a shudra. You actually would not want someone's varna to be reclassified when they commit a criminal act. In Vedic society, a brahmana would receive the most severe punishment for commiting a crime compared to someone of a lower varna who had done the same. In the mahAbhArata there is a well known story in which both Duryodhana and Yudhishthira were asked to pronounce judgement on a group of criminals consisting of a shudra, a vaishya, a kshatriya, and a brahmana who had conspired to commit murder. While Duryodhana stated that they should all be put to death, Dharmaputra's view was that only the brAhmana should be put to death while the other three received progressively lighter punishments. There is no question that ashvatthAma became degraded by his act, just as there is no question that others can also become degraded regardless of their hereditary standing. But as a matter of convention, they were still referred to by their hereditary varna. There was no referee who determined one's varna status by some other means.

Well if everyone is a liar, then logically it follows that you are a liar. Which means that the above comments are also a lie. So, your position is self-defeating.

LOB launched into the following tirade in response to my comments about neo-advaita as seen below: I am not clear on what his response has to do with what I wrote. My position has alway been pretty consistently opposed to neo-advaita and neo-hinduism as well as blind and cultish thinking, and that is consistent with what I wrote in the arranged marriage thread. If LOB has a problem with my criticism of selective interpretations of Manu Dharma or on ethnocentric criticism of ancient Indian tradition, he is welcome to respond on the Arranged Marriage thread. Preferably it would be nice if he could trouble himself to read what I wrote and respond on a point by point basis. It is true that I don't feel the need to apologize for my culture to people whose judgements are rooted in values based on a different culture. I will explain my culture to those who wish to listen and understand. I will not engage in mud-slinging with self-appointed "rationalists" who cannot even bring themselves to think outside the myopic little box in which they live.

I have asked the same question of indulekhadasi but never got an answer. It's strange to me that they want to identify themselves as shudras, but they still want to argue on the basis of scripture which is the activity of brahmin. Perhaps it's just false humility? If they really believed themselves to be shudras they would be taking instruction instead of giving it. Or at least that's what scriptures teach.

Theist needs to learn to read English. We have been saying that birth is necessary. We did not say birth is sufficient. Look up "necessary" and "sufficient" in an English dictionary.

And once again, religious hatred rears its ugly head.

I'm calling your bluff. Prove to me, down to the Sanskrit, chapter, and verse where the bhAgavatam says that everyone is a shudra by birth in Kali Yuga.

Who here is boasting of their birth right? Who? We are having a discussion on the Vedic point of view regarding varna and birth. No one boasted of anything on this thread. Learn to discuss facts, instead of attributing false motivations to the other guy just so you can duck and evade the issues. Several scriptural quotes were provided supporting the birth-varna relationship and thus far no substantial response about them has been seen.

Why must I explain it? I never claimed that a non-Vaishnava could not become a Vaishnava. I just pointed out the standard in the shAstras is that one is considered to belong to the varna of his birth. I notice that Theist is skirting the issue again with his predictable casteism propaganda and that you are also ignoring the scriptural evidence that I brought up previously. Just out of curiosity, is there any particular rationale you can offer as to why you quote scripture when it suits you and ignore it when it does not?

What a very profound observation. I think you hit the nail on the head. Spiritual political-correctness is invariably the tool of the lazy and uncommitted.

<CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)</CITE> - Cite This Source - <CITE minmax_bound="true">Share This</CITE> <!-- google_ad_section_start(name=def) --> sec·tar·i·an·ism –noun <TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">sectarian spirit or tendencies; excessive devotion to a particular sect, esp. in religion. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <HR class=ety minmax_bound="true">[Origin: 1810–20; sectarian + -ism] <!-- google_ad_section_end(name=def) --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0 minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD minmax_bound="true"><CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.</CITE> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- end luna --> <CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)</CITE> - Cite This Source - <CITE minmax_bound="true">Share This</CITE> <!-- google_ad_section_start(name=def) --> sec·tar·i·an –adjective <TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">1.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">of or pertaining to sectaries or sects. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">2.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">narrowly confined or devoted to a particular sect. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">3.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">narrowly confined or limited in interest, purpose, scope, etc. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>–noun <TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">4.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">a member of a sect. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">5.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">a bigoted or narrow-minded adherent of a sect. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <HR class=ety minmax_bound="true">[Origin: 1640–50; sectary + -an] —Related forms sec·tar·i·an·ly, adverb <!-- google_ad_section_end(name=def) --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0 minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD minmax_bound="true"><CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.</CITE> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Thank you for proving my point, Beggar. Despite what he thought of himself, he carried out his brahmin dharma and wrote Chaitanya-Charitamrta. And a good thing he did, too. Otherwise, iskcon devotees would have one less book on their bookshelves to ignore.

You might as well. You are already making a mockery of your own religion with your confused and sentimental reasoning.

When all else fails, just fall back on the standard iskcon strategy of "ignore all evidence that contradicts my opinion." Yes, you might be 14 years old, but I have been arguing with cbrahma and Theist, and I frankly don't see much difference between their maturity level and yours.

Either you are a brahmin or a shudra. If you are a brahmin you should perform a brahmin's dharma. If you are a shudra you should perform the dharma of shudras, not the dharma of brahmins. You are disobeying Lord Krishna who stated: śreyān sva -dharmo viguṇaḥ para - dharmāt sv - anuṣṭhitāt svabhāva - niyataḿ karma kurvan nāpnoti kilbiṣam 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. So if you say you are a shudra due to having a shudra's mentality, then by your own logic you are performing dharmas that are not prescribed for you.

You are missing the point (again). The point is that it was a dilemma in the first place only because of the fact that ashvathAma was a brahmin. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.7.43 u vāca cāsahanty asya bandhanānayanaḿ satī mucyatāḿ mucyatām eṣa brāhmaṇo nitarāḿ guruḥ She could not tolerate Aśvatthāmā 's being bound by ropes, and being a devoted lady, she said: Release him, for he is a brāhmaṇa , our spiritual master. This clearly shows that ashvatthAma was still referred to as a brahmin despite his heinous act. He did not get demoted to a shudra or less because of his sinful behavior. Also let me again reiterate the other examples which you conveniently ignored: 1) Drona: He was a brahmin but took to the life of a kshatriya due to his warlike disposition. Was he then referred to thereafter as a kshatriya? No. Anyone who has read the mahAbhArata can tell you that the text continued to refer to him as a brAhmana. 2) Arjuna: He demonstrated a propensity towards renunciation when he declined to fight on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. He was ready to renounce everything and just live by begging. Did Lord Krishna accept it? No. He argued that Arjuna was a kshatriya and should fight the battle despite his brahminical disposition. These examples refute your point of view that one's varna changes on the basis of his "mentality." Finally, let us quote other shAstric pramAnas that further refute your point of view: Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 18.47 śreyān sva -dharmo viguṇaḥ para - dharmāt sv - anuṣṭhitāt svabhāva - niyataḿ karma kurvan nāpnoti kilbiṣam 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-gītā As It Is 18.59 yad ahańkāram āśritya na yotsya iti manyase mithyaiṣa vyavasāyas te prakṛtis tvāḿ niyokṣyati If you do not act according to My direction and do not fight, then you will be falsely directed. By your nature, you will have to be engaged in warfare. Why did Lord Krishna say it was Arjuna's nature to fight? And that too despite Arjuna offering to give up everything and take to begging? Because Arjuna was born a kshatriya and he was obligated to follow kshatriya dharma. Arjuna did not get promoted to brahmin status because of his compassion for his family. It is strange to me that on one hand, you claim that you have the mentality of a shudra and should thus be considered a shudra. Yet on the other hand you presume to argue on spiritual topics and instruct others on proper understanding of scripture/philosophy. This is not the activity of a shudra. So, which is it? Are you a shudra or not? Are you performing shudra dharma or not?

Theist and Cbrahma have done quite a job with character assasinations against all those who disagree with their theories on Vaishnavism. At first they labeled their opponents as atheists, but then we saw Hindus disagreeing with them. Subsequently, they dismissed the Hindus objections with the typical prejudiced and condescending remarks which they direct against non-Vaishnavas. But then we started to see Sri Vaishnavas and Tattvavadis disagreeing with them. Then cbrahma and Theist rationalized this by assuming these non-Gaudiyas were just "sectarian" and did not understand the great truth of Caitanya. And now we have initiated Gaudiya Vaishnavas disagreeing with them. Let's see now - atheists, Hindus, Sri Vaishnavas, Tattvavadis, and Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Now that's quite a list of people who disagree. But.... cbrahma and Theist are nothing if not stubborn. "It's not me! Everyone else in the world is crazy!"

Arjuna did not cease to be a kShatriya because he was ready to beg instead of fight on the battlefield. Did you read anywhere in the gItA that Arjuna by the very act of renunciation became a brAhmana? AshvathAma committed the most atrocious act of murdering the sleeping sons of the pAndavas. However, he did not cease to be a brAhamana by the very fact. If you have read the bhAgavatam you will see there Arjuna faced a dilemma of whether or not to kill him because ashvathAma was the son of a brAhmana (Drona) and thus also a brAhmana. That was in spite of the fact that ashvathAma was a murderer. You are defining varna in very abstract terms but the reality was that people were known by the varna of their birth in Vedic civilization. The above examples clearly prove this. On the other hand, your theory that one can change his varna by the basis of his "mentality" are clearly contradicted by the above.

That is indeed sad, since traditional Vaishnavas reject incorrect ideas in favor of correct ones. The tradition of indiscriminate, politically-correct, acceptance of all and sundry religions is the characteristic of neo-Advaitic cults like Sai Baba, Vivekananda, Chinmayananda, etc whose respective audiences consist of those who are trained to avoid critical thinking or thinking of any kind. Apparently, iskcon people desperately want to be counted within this crowd. Well that's fine by me!

No it isn't. These days, to be a brahmana means to be scorned by all and sundry (iskconites included) who would blame all of India's problems on brahmins. A brahmana can never expect to be respected for who he is or what he does, especially in this day and age. Being a brahmana is far more difficult than you can possibly conceive of. Who determines objectively what your mentality is? Frankly, that just sounds like a cop-out to avoid your God-given duties.

Wow, that's deep.

I was specifically referring to brahminical initiation. Obviously some individuals in iskcon act like brahmanas - they perform the archana, give lectures, and then serve as initiating gurus despite not belonging to a brahminical family by birth. What is the paNcharAtric basis of this, if any? This is what I wanted to know.

For you to be called a brahman would not make sense. Equally senseless is for you to state that you are of brahminical birth and then be complacent with acting like a shudra. If you are of brahminical birth then you should take up the duty of a brahmana, instead of saying you are more like a shudra just to avoid your brahminical duties.