karthik_v

Aren't you presumptuous in assuming that he has a mind in the first place?

Theist prabhuji, A very nice source for finding an answer would be the ancient Tamil literature, both devotional and social. Shudras were not only paid but they indeed owned agricultural land. They sustained the Brahmins, who rendered spiritual service. Most of the scholars who created the literary works hailed from the shudra communities. Brahmin scholars and saints were at best only 15% of the total in that category. The question of a person spending the money unwisely because he was born into a certain community doesn't even arise, shastrically speaking, as the varna is decided by guna alone and not birth in itself. For the most part, the shudras were far more opulent than the Brahmins. Only after the Muslim invasion and the subsequent killing of the Brahmins and Kshatriyas, did the large scale decline in Hindu society start. This resulted in such despicable practices as untouchability and bonded labour. Even then, slavery [modern English definition] never existed in India. After the advent of the Muslims, a few renegade Brahmins on the payroll of the Mughals created their own versions of Manusmriti and Arthashastra [and of course Allah upanishad] and forcibly interpolated such Islamic tenets as slavery into them. Even then, they did fail miserably, as they ended up adopting the Persian words for slave tax. Imagine Chanakya Pandit or the original Manu using a mix of Sanskrit and modern Persian for writing their codes /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif Till the 17th century, education was made available to ALL varnas, shudras included. If somebody believes that shudras are just interested in eating, sleeping...[ESMD], then they must understand that such a belief has no foundation in the reality that existed in India before the advent of the Muslims and the likes of Saint, my left foot, Xavier. Also, one must remember that most of our saints have been from the shudra community. I don't recall using vile language against Jesus or anybody for that matter.

J N Das prabhuji, I agree with you that SP's intention must have been to bring the Africans to a level of higher knowledge so that they can guide themselves. In Lilamrta volume II, he does say [indirectly] that the white people [implied] have no understanding of God [because there are churches for homosexuals] and should take guidance from a tradition that knows who God is. So, here too he might have been talking of a THOSe Africans who end up in shanty town, without any recourse to education and who often resort to violence. Not that I ever thought that SP was a racist. Nevertheless, this thread did serve 1 purpose - it brought out some nice explanations from you. Have you ever come across any mention of slavery in the 4 vedas or the 13 principal upanishads? I am curious because you implied that slavery existed in India during the vedic times. There is no mention of slavery in the ancient Tamil literature either. Here I am using the modern English definition of slavery, that is treating a human being as an expendable commodity that can be sold and the slave himself denied the right of independent existence. You would agree with me that the shudras were never denied ownership of land - in fact, they owned most of the land. Many of them, like the Azwars and Nayanmars, were even acaryas who produced the bulk of Hindu religious literature. Theist prabhuji, Dear prabhuji, Another devotee originally suggested that Jesus supported slavery. I just produced the references from the Bible in support of it. I didn't initiate it in this thread or the other thread. Once I did use harsh words against Jesus and you threatened to quit. I apologized and requested you to return. I don't know if you read it. I have nothing but contempt for the church, which has been inimical to my religion and nation. I being a human, it sometimes gets expressed as a criticism of Jesus. That is not justified, but that shouldn't make you to avoid any discussion with me. If you point out, I will definitely apologize, if I had hurt you. You will agree with me that it is alright to point out facts about Jesus and the Bible, though politely. Honestly, I find it strange that in ISKCON several folks deride Shiva as a demi-God, Sankara as a false propagandist but hail Jesus as the Son of the God, without batting an eyelid. I disagree with that and hence my opposition.

Theist prabhuji, I understand. I was curious to know the Sanskrit work's name from which this is quoted. Of course, I understand that in a conversation, the source is not always mentioned as is done in a paper. There was a British Governor in India who remarked that the entire literary and spiritual collection of India in all these millennia is no match to a shelf of books in a British school library and that a British school student has more knowledge of science, maths and astronomy than what can be found in the so-called treasures of India. Only when we research into the treasures we can find what they contain. The civilizations of Africa and South America and many parts of Asia have been raped by the fanatical church and the mosque. A lot of it might have been lost. I have listened to some soul-searching music and a translation of their lyrics from Congo and from Romania [gypsies]. Well, these are the people, whom many might consider barbaric. J N Das prabhuji, It is not my intention to win points here. The simple fact is that SP said that the Africans are meant to be slaves. I have asked for the entire context and it would be better if Theist prabhu or someone can provide it, instead of all this meaningless speculation. If you have read Gone with the wind, you will know that many whites then thought that they treated the black slaves as their family members. That, in my opinion, was merely a condescending attitude. We can't decide what others aspire for and then claim that we have provided it. In GWTW, a terse conversation reveals what the reality was. When a neighbour tells Scarlett that the Yankees are saying that the black slave men can even marry a white woman, Scarlett screams in disbelief. What? They.....sleep with.....a white woman? Frankly, I have not reached any conclusion about what SP meant. I am looking for the entire context, so that I can really know. I am not even sure that SP would have said that. I earnestly believe that he was a man above all such racism. He was a 70 year old man who cooked prasadam for 50-60 blacks, Puerto Ricans, whites, hippies and even washed the plates after they were gone. Many of them were just hippies. He initiated blacks as sannyasis. I am very skeptical that he would have made such a remark. ISKCON has had its share of useless fellows who became sannyasis and somebody with a racist mindset could have doctored these things. Or if it is a tape, might have selectively edited the content. Isn't there a controversy that BBT and GBC selectively edited SP's books? Agreed. Sorry for not reading more carefully. Still, I don't understand in what way a European is/was superior to an African. How come karmic reactions don't apply to them and they end up as slaves?

J N Das prabhuji, He never said Africans alone are meant to be slaves. That is your misunderstanding. Well, in the quotation by Theist, SP just says that Africans are meant to be slaves. He doesn't talk of any other people that way. So, I don't know what my misunderstanding is. The African culture is and has been for thousands of years a very tamasic culture, making the overall population shudras by qualification. Has the African culture, today or before, been any more tamasic than the western or Islamic culture? If they are fortunate, their king would be Dhruva or Prahlada, and they would be greatly fortunate. If they are unfortunate, their king would be the British or French,and they would suffer unlimitedly. First part is fine, not the second. Even if they are unfortunate, why should they have the tamasic French or British as their rulers. In what way the Africans are less qualified than these that they can't rule themselves? I just want to know shastrically. Theist prabhuji, Prabhupäda: Yes. Kiräta-hüëändhra-pulinda-pulkaçä äbhéra-çumbhä yavanäù khasädayaù. So the Kirätas, they were always slaves of the Äryans. The Äryan people used to keep slaves, but they were treating slaves very nicely. Later on it degraded. Otherwise, slaves were kept just like family members. Where is this Sanskrit quote from? I don't even see the word Arya in the verse. Guest, It was however the Mongoloids who entered the land through the eastern mountainous passes who were to almost overrun the land long before the time of the compilation of the Hindu religious literature known as the Vedas around the 10th Century BC. The Vedas called the Mongoloids Kiratas.. How do you know that the mongoloids entered Assam from elsewhere and displaced the local population? Is there any archeological evidence to support your claim? Please tell me where in the 4 vedas, the Assamese are referred to as Kiratas. How do you know that the vedas were compiled around the 10th century BCE? Awaiting objective responses from you. You have also stated that the Aryans enslaved Australoids. Can you please provide me evidence for the same from the 4 vedas?

Guest, You start with a silly accusation that the moderators will delete your thread because they don't want to accept the facts. You have not presented any facts in the rest of your post, so where is the question of either agreeing or disagreeing with them? It would certainly help if you could compile your posts in a decent English, so that they can be understood. I don't understand what the child abuse case has got anything to do with the Gujarati congregation. Are you under some impression that the abusers were Gujaratis? Most ISKCON temples in the west are supported by the Gujaratis, because of a few reasons. First, they have some money. Second, even though the south Indians build grand temples all over, they are almost not to be seen in IsKCON. They prefer to build their own traditional temples. Punjabi Hindus are not really known to build temples. That leaves only Gujaratis to donate. The reality is that most ISKCON temples in the west were built during the times of Srila Prabhupada or completed right after. Almost all of them are struggling to sustain themselves. Very few new temples have been built in the recent years. And Gujaratis donate just enough to sustain the temple on its recurring expenditure. Nothing more. I wouldn't know if you have anything against Gujaratis.

Hari Bol J N Das prabhuji, those in Africa were meant to take such a service, as it would be for their own welfare and interest. In that case, who would be their kings, priests or teachers [brahmins] and vaisyas? Would they be non-Africans or Africans themselves? If they could be Africans [though not restricted to them], then the statement that Africans are meant to be slaves is wrong. If they have to be non-Africans [leaving Africans out], then that is pure racism, because as per BG varna is not based on birth but one's gunas. Above all, I would like to know why Africans alone are meant to take such a service, while not others. If Africa is in strife today, let us not forget that the whole of Europe was almost like this [remember the plague?] and every form of class divide existed. So, why Africans alone should become slaves? I think it would be better to have the entire conversation so that we can understand the context clearly, instead of speculating. No, I am not thrusting my definition on the words spoken by SP. This is a very serious issue to me and I will not do that. I would rather wait for the context. If you say that his definition of the word slave was different, then I would like to ask how do you know. Do you have the entire conversation? But what I am saying is the servants of the kings did have these rights. Did they have the right to challenge the king? I doubt. Sure, there was no slavery in India, but I am under no illusion that the king's servants had many rights. On the contrary, a person who works for GOI can challenge his employer openly and still not lose his job. He can quit the job if he chooses to. The ideal king, in my opinion, belongs to the epics. In the real world, they almost always never existed.

Hari Bol J N Das prabhuji, perhaps taking a single sentence out of context has led to confusion. Quite possible. Theist prabhu quoted this. That is the end of what I know on this. What was the context in which SP said this? Can either you or Theist prabhu, please post the entire conversation? Even then, here the reference is very clearly to the Africans and it says that they are meant to be slaves. It doesn't say that unintelligent people shouldn't become kings or rulers. So, let us have the entire context and evaluate. Also, there is a big difference between a job with the Indian government and being a slave. When you work for GOI, you are paid better than the national average, you have legal protection and every right that the private sector doesn't provide. A slave never had these rights. Yes, Africa is having strife. It needs better governance. You may seek a saintly king and I may seek the elimination of dictators and installation of democracy. Both of us will agree that slavery is not the answer. Slavery never benefitted the Africans. It only benefitted their Arab, Roman and white masters. They were cheap labour, ill-treated and had no rights. General comment: How would you feel if your wife is taken away by the master and your son and daughter sold away to another and you are asked to go away 500 miles to work in a farm? That was what slavery was all about. It was never benevelont, despite what Gone with the wind attempted to feed you. It is baloney to claim all that some people, Africans here, want is food and shelter. People want freedom above all. They go to any extent to safeguard their family, unless they have been brainwashed. During the WW II, several Indian families fled Burma as refugees. I vividly remember a black & white photo of a woman who had been shot, had lost her leg and was bleeding to death. She was carrying her new born and was breast feeding her, even as she was dying. You know why? She desperately hoped that her son would survive and be free and would never have to flee as a refugee. So, I am very shocked that SP made such a statement. I would honestly seek the context and hope that it was something different. At the bare minimum, I would hope that these were interpolations from some bigot.

Hari bol J N Das prabhuji, The modern historians have clumped all buddhas together as one person, making it difficult to differentiate between them now. This, I agree with you. Many buddhas have existed before SG. No doubt. Certainly, missionary historians have clumped together any name that sounds similar. Yet, in the SB verse in question, SP mentions about the SG who lived 2600 years ago. This is the period according to the historians that SG lived. So, is he not referring to the same SG? If so, then my question still remains valid.

Hari Bol Theist prabhuji, My question can be answered by refuting the condoned existence of slavery in vedic culture by citing the vedas. How can refute a negative? If slavery doesn't even find a mention in the vedas and the upanishads, it simply means that vedas don't talk of them. If someone claims that vedas supported slavery, just as Bible and Quran did and just as Jesus and Mohammad openly suported it, then is it not upto that person to come up with evidence? J N Das prabhuji, Srila Prabhupada's use of the word "slavery" isn't exactly in line with our concepts of slavery. Here is what Theist quoted from the words of SP: Prabhupäda: Yes. Slaves? This word is used in Vedic language also, slave. The Africans, they were meant for becoming slaves. How do we even attempt to explain this? Do you also believe that Africans were meant to become slaves? Does this not fly in the face of our claim that varna isn't by birth, but only by guna?

Hari Bol Theist prabhuji, You have said that slavery is accepted by the vedas. Can you show me even 1 reference from the 4 vedas or the principal 13 upanishads or even BG, in support of your claims? Please don't quote the words of SP alone. With due regards, I must point out that his words don't automatically become vedas. Vedas are apaurusya. Period. The same goes for human sacrifice or purusa medha yagna. you have just quoted a verse from SB, which is not the vedas. If you want to substantiate your claim that the vedas supported human sacrifice or slavery, you must quote form the vedas. Quoting from puranas is not a substitute. It is a baloney that the slaves and the servants were ever well treated. Sir, may I ask you if you have ever empathised with the pains of a slave or an untouchable? A true devotee is the one who displays the courage to stand up against that inhuman practice. Sri Ramanujacarya did that.

Theist prabhuji, Prabhupäda: Südra is to be controlled only. They are never given to be freedom. Just like in America. The blacks were slaves. They were under control. And since you have given them equal rights they are disturbing, most disturbing, always creating a fearful situation, uncultured and drunkards. What training they have got? They have got equal right? That is best, to keep them under control as slaves but give them sufficient food, sufficient cloth, not more than that. Then they will be satisfied. Oh, my God! Did SP really say this or is this a concoction by somebody in ISKCON? Don't you find this sickening and racist? Do you really support this and agree with this? Have you seen Amistad? What do you think of the Indians who revolted against the British? Some British governors thought that the Indians were uncivilised, worshipped satan, must be kept on a tight leash, are dark and ugly, are incapable of writing any worthy book, cannot rise above the level of an animal [that is eating, sleeping...] and must be "civilised". How do you feel about that? As an Indian, I never felt great to read that Saint, my left foot, Xavier called my ancestors dark brutes and felt that their women can be taken by the "civilized" Europeans while their men are to be burnt. Do you think that an African American would be thrilled to read this alleged writing of SP? If he indeed write these words, I am wondering as to why he opened temples in Africa and initiated them as sannyasis. Why not just give them food and keep them "happy"? You have said that slavery is accepted by the vedas. Can you show me even 1 reference from the 4 vedas or the principal 13 upanishads or even BG, in support of your claims? Please don't quote the words of SP alone. With due regards, I must point out that his words don't automatically become vedas. Vedas are apaurusya. Period.

Hari Bol J N Das prabhu and Shvu, I am not sure that SB mentions Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. Are you mentioning about the verse 1:3:24? If so, I am not sure it refers to Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. Here are my reasons: As we know from history, Siddhartha's mother was Maya and father Suddhodhana. There was an Anjana who was his maternal grandfather. But, this verse doesn't say Anjana-pautra, but only says suta. Also, SGB, as per history, was born in Lumbini in Nepal and not Gaya. So, the Buddha in SB is not the same SGB. I am not saying that historians are correct in tracing the family lineage of SGB. There are several assumptions and they can be wrong. Since SP has accepted the western historians stance that SGB was born 2600 years ago, I am curious to know why he considers Anjana as his mother and Gaya as his birth place. Has he quoted any tradition? If so, I have no problem in accepting such a tradition over the speculations of the western historians. Here is the url I was talking about where Jiva Goswami seems to think that SGB was not the Buddha of SB [i don't know if this site is authentic]: http://www.buddhaavatar.org/ba/ Please read the answer to the question: Is there more than one avatar incarnation of Buddha? Hari Bol Theist prabhuji, SG or Buddha didn't decry the vedas nor did he reject them. He only rejected them as THE AUTHORITY. In the oldest Buddhist traditions, including Mahayana [which came later], they do have Gayatri Mantra, which originates from Rk veda. Yes, SGB definitely challenged the ceremonial sacrificies, though he didn't reject meat-eating. In fact, he even allowed his renunciates to accept meat and eat them, provided they weren't cooked exclusively for them. Oh yes, Jesus definitely supported slavery and even came out with codes. I am not blaming him. He, like Prophet(!) Mohammad, was a product of his times. Those were the times when the Jews were under the Roman empire, which institutionalised slavery. This is certainly an anti-Christian site, but I give it as reference only for convenience. I checked against the Bible and this site is accurate: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0401/slavery.html As a conformist Jew, who never once rebelled against the Jewish practices, Jesus did accept slavery as a normal thing in life. Just like he accepted many other things which we consider abominable today. I am sure that had Jesus been born in the 1960s, he wouldn't have supported slavery. I think it is a travesty to even talk of Jesus and Buddha [sG] on the same level. SGB rebelled against the system that had been corrupted. He stood for the truth and displayed courage. He rose beyond the ordinary trappings of race, creed and language. He pursued enlightenment and gave it to anyone [and didn't deny it to other races as Jesus did]. Jesus is no comparison to SGB on any of these counts. But for the ruthless Roman power and the unscruplous Vatican and all the inhuman inquisitions and wars, Christianity would have never been a religion to contend with. The success of that religion doesn't owe anything to Jesus or his theology, but to these uncivilised forces.

Dear Guest, if Jesus was prevented from seeing his father, Lord Jagganatha, then the whole place should have been destroyed. Wow! Caitanya Mahaprabhu does seem to have thought so. Was his beloved and great saint Haridasa Thakur, a Muslim by birth, ever allowed into Puri temple? Did Mahaprabhu order that the temple be razed? I think we are having a great difficulty projecting Jesus as compatible with Vaishnavism /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

Dear Gauracandra prabhuji, Basically he saw the priests using the temple as a business, treating the disenfranchised poorly etc… So he spoke out against it basically saying that if this was their religion, then it was useless. I don’t remember where I read or heard this, its just a recollection. Eventually they ran him out of town. I think this portrayal of the evil Brahmin is an entirely missionary creation of the past few centuries. Historically, Brahmins had neither been rich nor oppressive. If we see the oldest extant Tamil literature and the undoctored Sanskrit works, we don't see any hint of the animosity between brahmins and others. The entire concept of untouchability took roots only after the Muslim and European invasion and more specifically due to the Zamindari system. Economics was at the root of it. Old literature tell us that the brahmins and the so-called disenfranchised poorly people worshipped and bathed together. Traditionally, priests of the temples have never even debated with anyone on theology. That was done only by the acaryas. The priests only performed puja. They were dependent on the king and the temple mudalis for their survival. So, the argument that the arrogant priests disallowed someone in the olden days is just a myth. And the question of Jesus debating with them is equally out of question. Buddha is not considered an avatar by Sri Vaishnavas. Balarama is. Buddhism had a very limited presence in the south. Not that it had any mass appeal in the north either, but atleast there a few kings patronised it. I have also read that Jiva Goswami discounted Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. I wouldn't know the authenticity of that source. I can share if anyone is interested.

Bengal has produced some of the finest intellectuals and spiritual leaders. At the same time, it was the centre of the British rule in India. In the last 2 centuries, many Bengali spiritual leaders have indeed imbibed some western thoughts and mixed the same with our religion. For example, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa once claimed to have met Jesus and Prophet Mohammad in his yoga and to have had discussions with them. Indirectly, he lent some credibility to those religions. The same with Gaudiya Vaishnavism also. When it got rejuvenated, the Macaulayan education was set in place. Everything that was Hindu was derided. Bengal, especially, had quite a few tantric sects and they were looked down upon. Naturally, the GV acaryas distanced themselves from those and at the same time tried to create some parallels between GV and Christianity. For example, BVT depended entirely on western writers' translations when he wrote initially about the date of the vedas etc.. I consider even the greatest human being such as Srila Prabhupad to have some material flaws. Only Krishna is perfect. So, I won't take any such glorification of Jesus or Mohammad too seriously. Getting a bit objective, 16 years in the life of Jesus, from the age of 13 to 29 are unaccounted for. Qumran scrolls tend to shed some information, but even they don't suggest that Jesus came to India. He might have, but there is no evidence. I would also take the utterances of the Sankaracarya of Puri with a bit of skepticism. He is known to be political. In the humid climate of India, no manuscript could have survived beyond 200 years. So, any claims of going through 2000 year old manuscripts is outlandish. I am also very skeptcal that a temple of Lord Jagannath existed in Puri 2000 years ago. It might have, but there is hardly any mention of a Rath yatra in any other work from that period. Nor do the Buddhist suttas make any such mention. One can be a perfect Vaishnava or an Advaitin without having to justify his practice w.r.t. Jesus or without making any parallels. Jesus was a conservative Jew and practised and preached a sect of Judaism, with all its merits and ills. What we know of as Christianity today, evolved over 1200 years and Jesus himself has had little role in it - either in its philosophy or its outcome. Srila Prabhupad had to glorify Jesus, because he was preaching in the west. The same with Ramakrishna, as his mission was also evangelical. There is no need for us to do that. Even SP or RKPH might not have mentioned a word about Jesus, if they had to preach only to Indians. Or if India had never been colonised by the Europeans. MOD: A reminder in advance that attacks on Krishna's servants,from any religion will not be tolerated here. Please keep the mood audarya.

Good points J N Das prabhuji. Further when we notice that the traditional Mudali system of Sri Rangam temple, which has its origins in the days of Ramanujacarya, has conferred the honours on non-Brahmins for most part, it is only logical to conclude that the Sri Vaishnava acaryas have advocated varna which is based on guna and not birth.

Hari Bol, May I request that whenever you post from BG or SB or any other scripture, you also post the verse number and English translation. Those who are pious Hindus here can figure out what you are talking about and cross-reference. But, most visitors may not be knowledgeable of these scriptures. So, it will encourage them to participate, if your posts are more explanatory. More so, when the threads are intitiated by guests and visitors.

Ram, Then by chanting, I try to understand that it is due to my impurity that the karma is having effect. Are you implying that the effects of karma get diminished just because a person is transcendental? I am skeptical. Nobody in this world would question the intense piety of Srila Prabhupad. Yet, he suffereed heart attacks and went through many material sufferings. Everyone would accept that Kanchi Paramacarya was a great saint. Yet he had to be operated for cataract. Historically, many Hindu saints have been kiled by the Muslim invaders. Many Christian saints like Thomas Beckett have been murdered. What I think is that karma nevertheless has its impact even on a transcendental person. But, such a person doesn't see that as a suffering. Anything material doesn't bother him. I request every one to post their understanding - especially those who are advanced in realization. Yes, I have done so /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

Ram, as'ocyan anvacos tvam prajna vAdams ca bhAshase| gatAsU agatAsums ca nAnu socanti panditah|| How do I apply this ? I take counsel from devotees who have helped me solve the problem spiritually or through subtler means like astrology. Thus the Lord protects me from bad decisions through the guidance of devotees whose intention is your welfare. As you have pointed out, the realized pandita doesn't worry about anything material - whether it is good or bad. Either way, it has no impact on him. So, even if you are afflicted by a material distress, a transcendental person doesn't care to resolve it. His concern is not you material welfare - pandita samadarshinah. So, I am not sure that deploying something like astrology can be construed as spiritual. For a pandita, the only course which matters is that which leads you to transcendence. Why would he even care if you meet with material pleasures or sufferings en route? At a higher level, once a person is transcendental, would he even care about anything material? Or, would he even perceive another jiva? From the Vaishnava perspective, the answer would be yes. The realized person still cares for the spiritual advancement of another jiva out of mercy. The advaitic argument would be that for a realized person there is nothing else to perceive and hence the question of showing mercy to another jiva doesn't arise. Any thoughts on this?

Shvu, I just cannot imagine traditional Braahmanas accepting one who does not have a gotra, Shaaka, etc as a Braahmana. What is even more critical is whether it has the support of the shastras. If not, the stance of traditional Brahmanas has no merit. From the epithets and inscriptions of the ancient Tamil kings through the middle ages [including the times of the Maratha rule of Tanjore], many non-Brahmins had been initiated as Brahmins at the direction of the king and their progeny accepted as Brahmins. Your point on shaaka is valid. I would like some more information on this. When Raja Raja Chola brought in Dikshits from UP for Chidambaram temple, did they still maintain their original shaaka or did they embrace a different one? I have searched for any information on this, but couldn't find any. If they embraced a different one, then it atleast points to a precedence, if not shastric basis, where even shaaka is not rigid. Do you have any information on this? Gotra has signified ancestry right from the days of the Tandya Braahmana of the Sama veda to the present times. Even if we were to assume that one can *become* a Braahmana by virtue of his qualities, he will still not have a valid Braahmana gotra, which ipso facto makes him a non-Braahmana. Is there any shastric basis to assume that a gotra is specific to Brahmanas or others? What exactly happened when other non-Brahmins were initiated by the Tanjore kings or when Ramanujacarya initiated non-Brahmins? What happened to their gothras? Again I have very little information on this. The Gita only describes the qualities of the four varnas. It cannot be taken to mean that the Gita sanctions the possibility of Braahmana qualities in one who was born to parents of a different varna. Why not? If birth determines one's varna, don't you think Krishna would have said so? Instead of saying "guna karma vibagasah", he could have said "guna janma vibagasah", right? In the least, if one argues that varna is birth based, he cannot find any support in BG. Nor in the vedas and the upanishads. In the story of Satyakaama Jaabaala [Chaandogya upanishad, 4.4.1-5], the Guru says "A non-Braahmana will not be able to say this...I will initiate you for you did not depart from the truth". Shankara interprets this verse literally and says straightforwardness is a characterestic of the Braahmana varna and not of others. Also in his upadesha saahasri, Shankara says this in the opening verses: "The means to liberation should be explained to a Braahmana disciple....who has been examined by the Guru in respect of his caste, profession, conduct, learning and parentage" The same Sankara also says in his bhashya to Vedanta sutras that the ways to liberation are to be made available to everyone, including a shudra. So, how can we argue that here when he says Brahmana, he referes to a Brahmana by birth alone? Yes, all the above you have mentioned from upadesha saahasri are important, but the critical question is whether restricted that access to only those who are Brahmins by birth. I don't think so. Can't one argue that Sankara was referring to initiating one who has qualified himself as a Brahmana? Finally, the orthodoxity of Vaishanavas [Raamaanuja and Maadhva sampradaayaas] is well known. Given the above, I fail to see any scriptural support to any view other than the stringent, traditional view. (This should not be mistaken to mean, I am in favor of this view) Your disposition understood. We also need to note that this orthodoxy crept into the Sri Vaishnava tradition only much after the time of Ramanujacarya. In the past 5 centuries, there have not been many prominent non-Brahmin saints in this tradition, whereas, before the time of Ramanujacarya, most of them, such as Azhwars, have been non-Brahmins. So, this rigid orthodoxy in the post-Muslim era is by no means a guide to the original mindset that prevailed. Nor is that a validation of a shastric basis.

Shvu, I didn't say that birth is unimportant - I meant that it is not the sole deciding factor for one to become a Brahmana. Birth certainly is important. If we accept the concepts of karma and reincarnation, then it logically follows that our birth into a particular family is an outcome of that karma. But, birth alone doesn't render someone a Brahmana. This is evident from the fact that one becomes a dvija only after a sacred thread ceremony, which is in reality initiation by a guru so that he can chant the Gayatri mantra. So, a person becomes a Brahmana or even a dvija upon receiving the mantra and not by the virtue of his birth. BG 4.13 clearly says that one's varna, be it Brahmana or otherwise, is only by the virtue of his choice of guna and karma. It doesn't even talk of birth. Hope that clarifies.

Guest, Bhaktijoy asked: "My dear Guest where do you get your information?People have become foolish in India that's the problem.Conditioned by powerful maya they do not understand.Although there are many brahman families they are no better than shudras.Indians are very racist people.Why?Because they have lost all knowledge due to misused intelligence. " You replied: The Rig Veda My rejoinder: Can you please quote from Rk veda to support your claim? Please remember that this is a serious discussion forum and everything needs to be backed up with references. Every participant is expected to display a deep understanding of what he is writing. Jndas said: "In ancient times we find some brahminical sages such as Vyasa were also black." You replied: Veda Vyasa was not born in al brahminical family. My rejoinder: Please read again the highlighted portion of J N Das' statement. It says brahminical sages and not "a sage born into a Brahmana family". So, your answer is irrelevant. It also shows that your comprehension is inadequate. Just to get you to think here are a few teasers: A brahminical person need not be born into a brahmana family. A brahmin need not be born into a brahmin family. One doesn't become a brahmin just because he is born into a brahmin family. If they trigger some thoughts in your brain, please start reading Bhagavad Gita and you would certainly gain.

Theist prabhuji, First of all, thanks for starting a nice thread. Can one be a racist and still be on the spiritual platform?Seems like a contradiction to me. I don't believe that those acrayas who are spiritually liberated would have ever been a racist. When you look at great saints like Sankara, Ramanua, Srila Prabhupad or even Caitanya Mahaprabhu, they were all towering personalities spiritually, but were almost powerless in the material sense. They didn't have the support of the kings, didn't possess money and yet they embraced the weakest person, IRRESPECTIVE OF HIS BIRTH, if he was even a bit inclined spiritually. But an ordinary aspiring devotee can possibly be a racist as he can be having other vices too. But in most cases, our prejudices are due to the lack of familiarity with another culture. Mostly, we are just toursists or window shoppers who never try to understand another culture in depth. Naturally, prejudices surface. A white friend of mine from New Mexico once said that in rural New Mexico the lifestyle is very different from what we see in Seattle. He said that family bondages are much stronger there than you see in Seattle. I might have never known about this had I not interacted with him. How do those in Indian bodies feel I wonder?Do you look down on those who are of a different race or born in different lands outside of India? A few decades ago, they would have certainly done so. Now, with exposure their mindset is changing. Even then, it is still prevelant. For most Indians, the west is what they see in Hollywood movies. So, even when they come across a nice devotee, a bit of suspicion still remains. In India, collective thinkng takes precedence over individuality. So, any deviation from the norm is looked down upon. Most traditional Indians won't sip the glass while drinking water. They kind of hold it high over their lips and pour the water down. Now, you may be a very nice western devotee, but if you sip the glass or touch food with your left hand the first reaction will be: "Oh, how come you haven't learnt these basics? You may not be good religiously too". Now, I am not being critical of Indians either. That is how societies where families form a cohesive unit think. Gauracandra prabhuji, Now to Indians they might think I'm being rude. But really I'm not. Indians tend to (from my vantage point) want to sit around and chit chat, while I just want to get in, do my thing, and get out. But they aren't racist if they think "Westerners are really unfriendly and rude." They just see it differently. You are correct. When somebody is businesslike or reserved, he is perceived as being rude and selfish. Indians take liberties and expect you to do the same. For example, if you stay with an Indian family, if you take the liberty of advising their son who is younger than you, on his studies, they like it. And be prepared when someone older lectures you on anything. To an American kid, the very thought that some stranger would chastise him for not doing well in high school mathematics would be a shock. There it means that you really care. At the same time I will say that my view is that Indians are absolutely ATROCIOUS when it comes to time. Indians believe that time is eternal /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif Atmaji, And Indians HAVE a problem with time, they relax too much, they eat very late and they're very racist. To be FAIR is the max there. Many devotees there told me that I won't have problem with my daughters'marriage because they look white and I won't have to give dowry, Marwaris would pay me to married them to their sons! I saw and heard indian devotees lamenting for the color of their daughter's skin. Too black, means more dowry, unless you get a white idealistic sincere boy that won't care about color and dowry. You are correct. It is very sad that modern Indians are so obsessed with skin colour. If we look at older literature, this hardly mattered. I would think that this mindset started creeping in during the colonial days. The Europeans thought that the white skin was superior and it rubbed it on their colonial subjects. Tyrants like Malik Kafur and Xavier [they call him a saint] looked down upon dark skinned people. Since they were successful, their notions took deep roots in India. J N Das prabhuji, We find that many of the brahmanas of South India have the darkest skin, and this has been the case for thousands of years (we can see descriptions in various biographies). Color has nothing to do with caste. Very ture. Not only in the south, even in Bihar or Bengal you will find that most Brahmins are of a dark complexion. Interestingly, many tribals, such as the ones in Nilgiris, in Tamilnadu are very fair skinned.

Hari Bol Ethos, You are indeed correct and I was wrong. Krishna indeed urges Arjuna to fight the battle as a sacrifice to Him. So, the Pandavas were definitely fighting for the Lord. Thanks for correcting. I was only skeptical of justifying every violent, as we can often see in the material world, as a service to Lord or as carrying out His wishes. I don't understand your last line on BTG. What is that?