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:

The King continued, "In spite of all this, unfortunately one of the brahmana's cows chanced to enter amongst my other cows. Not knowing this, I again gave it in charity to another brahmana. As the cow was being taken away by the brahmana, its former master claimed it as his own, stating, 'This cow was formerly given to me, so how is it that you are taking it away?' Thus there was arguing and fighting between the two brahmanas, and they came before me and charged that I had taken back a cow that I had previously given in charity." To give something to someone and then to take it away is considered a great sin, especially in dealing with a brahmana. When both the brahmanas charged the King with the same complaint, he was simply puzzled as to how it had happened. Thereafter, with great humility, the King offered each of them 100,000 cows in exchange for the one cow that was causing the fight between them. He prayed to them that he was their servant and that there had been some mistake. Thus, in order to rectify it, he prayed that they would be very kind upon him and accept his offer in exchange for the cow. The King fervently appealed to the brahmanas not to cause his downfall into hell because of this mistake. A brahmana's property is called brahma-sva, and according to Manu's law, it cannot be acquired even by the government. Both brahmanas insisted that the cow was theirs and could not be taken back under any condition; neither of them agreed to exchange it for the 100,000 cows. Thus disagreeing with the King's proposal, both brahmanas left the place in anger, thinking that their lawful position had been usurped.

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!

At this time, Lord Krsna was present among His relatives who were members of the ksatriya class. To teach them through the exemplary character of King Nrga, He said: "Even though a ksatriya king may be as powerful as fire, it is not possible for him to usurp the property of a brahmana and utilize it for his own purpose. If this is so, how can ordinary kings, who falsely think of themselves the most powerful beings within the material world, usurp a brahmana's property? I do not think that taking poison is as dangerous as taking a brahmana's property. For ordinary poison there is treatment--one can be relieved from its effects; but if one drinks the poison of taking a brahmana's property, there is no remedy for the mistake. The perfect example was King Nrga. He was very powerful and very pious, but due to the small mistake of unknowingly usurping a brahmana's cow, he was condemned to the abominable life of a lizard. Ordinary poison affects only those who drink it, and ordinary fire can be extinguished simply by pouring water on it; but the arani fire ignited by the spiritual potency of a brahmana can burn to ashes the whole family of a person who provokes such a brahmana." (Formerly, the brahmanas used to ignite the fire of sacrifice not with matches or any other external fire but with their powerful mantras, called arani.) "If someone even touches a brahmana's property, he is ruined for three generations. However, if a brahmana's property is forcibly taken away, the taker's family for ten generations before him and for ten generations after him will be subject to ruination. On the other hand, if someone becomes a Vaisnava or devotee of the Lord, ten generations of his family before his birth and ten generations after will become liberated." Lord Krsna continued: "If some foolish king who is puffed up by his wealth, prestige and power wants to usurp a brahmana's property, it should be understood that such a king is clearing his path to hell; he does not know how much he has to suffer for such unwise action. If someone takes away the property of a very liberal brahmana who is encumbered by a large dependent family, then such a usurper is put into the hell known as Kumbhipaka; not only is he put into this hell, but his family members also have to accept such a miserable condition of life. A person who takes away property which has either been awarded to a brahmana or given away by him is condemned to live for at least 60,000 years as miserably as an insect in stool. Therefore I instruct you, all My boys and relatives present here, do not, even by mistake, take the possession of a brahmana and thereby pollute your whole family. If someone even wishes to possess such property, let alone attempts to take it away by force, the duration of his life will be reduced. He will be defeated by his enemies, and after being bereft of his royal position, when he gives up his body he will become a serpent. A serpant gives trouble to all other living entities. My dear boys and relatives, I therefore advise you that even if a brahmana becomes angry with you and calls you by ill names or cuts you, still you should not retaliate. On the contrary, you should smile, tolerate him and offer your respects to the brahmana. You know very well that even I Myself offer My obeisances to the brahmanas with great respect three times daily. You should therefore follow My instruction and example. I shall not forgive anyone who does not follow them, and I shall punish him. You should learn from the example of King Nrga that even if someone unknowingly usurps the property of a brahmana, he is put into a miserable condition of life."

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.

This so called "Hindu-wall" happens to be where your own religion finds it origins.

 

Some Gujarati friends of mine have told me though one is born into a caste, he can change castes, and actually used Ashvathama as an example, claiming he had fallen from the status of a Brahmin after attempting to murder an unborn infant.

 

Because you know, all Vaishnavas are Gaudiyas

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:

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.

I have met many people in my life and have still to find one person who is truthful.All ive come across are liars and cheaters.If a person can be truthful to himself God dwells in his heart.It doesnt matter to him what people call him sudra, brahmana etc.

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

That's pretty rich indeed, coming from a self-appointed Vaishnava apologist!

You're one to talk, having quite adequately provided everyone with a glimpse of how rational, thoughtful and discerning you yourself were on the "Arranged Marriage" thread, with that outrageous display of backward, reactionary, apologetic pietism in which you indulged. Vaishnavism is no different from any of the paths the gratuitous decrying of which you seem to revel in, demanding as it does, almost unquestioning faith in a whole range of notions that do nothing except violate common sense and reason. I generally speak from a basically Advaitin viewpoint on these forums, but to be completely upfront, I am more of an agnostic than anything else, and in fact I relentlessly strive to make rationality prevail over doctrinal belief, whenever I happen to contemplate on the kind of theme being discussed on these spaces or any other topic for that matter. I personally have no opinion, whether positive or negative, on Christ, since he holds no specific interest for me, but for a geezer like yourself to accuse others of not thinking critically is the height of grotesquerie truly, as you have more than abundantly demonstrated the negligible role that rational thinking plays in your own particular instance.

 

And yes, I'm ready to bet that if you do respond to this post, you'll in effect be bringing grist for my mill, and furnish even further evidence in attestation of the narrowness and worthlessness of your cult.

in response to my comments about neo-advaita as seen below:

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!

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.

If you really believe your intelligence is to a Shudra level, then on what basis are you making arguments? With your low intelligence most of what you say will be incorrect.

 

Or in truth you do not really believe your intelligence is down to a Shudra level. You have been told that for a number of years and you just started repeating it.

 

Which one is it?

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.

The foolishness of caste by birth theory is easily seen in this example.

 

A neurosurgeon has a son. Does that mean that all he has to do is grow up and he will automatically be accepted as a neurosurgeon? Hardly.

 

He will have had the advantage of his father being able to sow seeds of medical knowledge into the boy as he grew and inspire him to go to medical school himself but that will be the extent of the advantage. If the boy does not himself take the training to be a neurosurgeon but his only claim is that "I was born in a neurosurgeons family" will any of the participants in this thread consider him a surgeon and allow him to operate on their own brain.

 

Some people here need to gain a little more practical intelligence in this matter.

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.

Here in conversations like the past few days do we see the nearly impenetrable wall of Hindu hodge podge nonsense that blocks the adherents from transcendence.

 

Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc. have their walls also but in many ways the Hindu wall is the thickest.

And once again, religious hatred rears its ugly head.

My understanding is that in Srimad Bhagavatam Krishna says that basically everyone in Kali-yuga is a sudra by birth. What varna did Krishna assign to you and how do you know it was Krishna assigning that to you?

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.

I don't feel the least bit inferior. Those who boast of their birth right are laughable. I actually find caste arrogance in Kali Yuga quite entertaining and so NOT Vaisnava. The fact that these self-promoters don't realize it, is even more laughable.

 

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.

Yet Hari das Thakur was born a Muslim and Mahaprabhu made him namacarya.

How to explain in your paradigm?

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?

On the other hand if we go outside of the Hari Bhakti Vilas definition by Srila Sanatan Goswami:

 

"One who is initiated into the Vaishnava mantra and who is devoted to worshipping Lord Vishnu/Krishna is a Vaishnava. One who is devoid of these practices is not a Vaishnava." (quote from Hari-bhakti-vilas,11, quoted from Padma Purana)

 

and worship a "random God" as what CBrahma and theist are insisting then what does Krishna really mean from the quote below from the BHagavat :

 

(Bhag. 9.4.68):

 

 

 

 

sAdhavo hRdayaM mahyaM sAdhUnAM hRdayaM tv aham

mad-anyaM te na jAnanti nAhaM tebhyo manAg api

 

 

 

“The pure devotee is always within the core of My heart, and I am always in the heart of the pure devotee. My devotees do not know anything else but Me, and I do not know anyone else but them.”

 

Know why theist and cbrahma keep harping around these topics, krishna-jesus, christianity is vaishnavism, etc? It is because they want to be accepted as Vaishnava without doing the hard work, like following the shastra's injunction of taking mantra initiation , doing daily sadhana, jap, puja, etc. Just go through their posts in the past and you will know their real agenda.

 

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.

I think we can agree that the worship of Lord Vishnu (or a form of Him) is an essential part of Vaishnavism. May be that some other conditions are also needed but this much at least is essential.

But, what is sectarianism?

<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>

<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD>Ādi-līlā</TD><TD class=m>Chapter 5: The Glories Of Lord Nityānanda Balarāma</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 5.205

jagāi mādhāi haite muñi se pāpiṣṭha

purīṣera kīṭa haite muñi se laghiṣṭha

SYNONYMS

jagāi mādhāi — the two brothers Jagāi and Mādhāi; haite — than; muñi — I; se — that; pāpiṣṭha — more sinful; purīṣera — in stool; kīṭa — the worms; haite — than; muñi — I am; se — that; laghiṣṭha — lower.

TRANSLATION

I am more sinful than Jagāi and Mādhāi and even lower than the worms in the stool.

 

 

This was written by Srila Krsna das Kaviraja. Do you think that he should have taken up worm dharma?

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 know, I totally agree. I should definitely start mocking every religion I don't happen to agree with

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

I noticed you missed my point also. You totally ignored it.

Congratulations for fighting with someone who is 14 yrs old.

Perhaps you should find some intellectuals to fight with? Now that you tell me, shouldn't I be doing something brahminical instead of fighting with great personalities like youself?

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.

I may do brahmana like things like chanting and reading sastra but at the same time I have a fault finding mentality. And that means I *do the action* of faultfinding. Which is an act of sudras.

Brahmanas can not be two-sided. They are very pure and are respected by the Supreme Lord Himself.

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:

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.

If you properly understood the pastime, Ashwathama was killed and not killed. He was not killed because by birth he was a brahmana, but he was able to be "killed" in other ways because in all other respects he was NOT a brahmana.

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.

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:

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!"

Look, despite my mentality I am not giving up my duties. You seriously need to stop jumping to conclusions.

At the same time, even while doing my duties I have a fault finding mentality then how can I be called a brahmana? Does that make any sense?

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.

Oh yes, it's so sad that there are open-minded Vaishnavas who are willing to accept others and their beliefs

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!

Being a brahmana is not so easy.

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.

I can do my duties, fine. But if my mentality is that of a sudra, then I am a sudra no matter what my occupation is.

Who determines objectively what your mentality is? Frankly, that just sounds like a cop-out to avoid your God-given duties.

Yah me and Lord Caitanya.

Wow, that's deep.

First of all, the term "brahminical initiation" is a misnomer. It is actually diksa (upanayana), and in the Vedic system all three higher varnas are eligible for it.

 

Gaudiyas were giving diksa irrespective of caste for a very long time, since the times of Mahaprabhu. But the function of an initiating guru was generally reserved only for the brahmana Vaishnavas. That might have been more a matter of sensitivity to social convention than scriptural understanding.

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.

Techinically by birth I am a brahmana. But I act like a sudra. So how can I be called a brahmana? It just doesn't make any sense.

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.