varNASrama dharma & bhAgavata dharma

[Guest guest]

I do not want to stir up controversy in this discussion,

but I feel certain points should be made. Not everyone

will be pleased with what I am about to say.

 

Several people have either implied or stated that there

is nothing objectionable about varNASrama dharma as passed

down by the SAstras, and that a prapanna or bhAgavata

can adhere to all the smriti codes pertaining to varNa

dharma and still be a good prapanna.

 

I must respectfully disagree. VarNASrama dharma is not

a black and white thing. There are good parts as well

as bad parts, a few of which I shall cite below.

In contrast, the code of conduct for a bhAgavata or

prapanna is always conducive of the highest good.

When these come in conflict, the latter must prevail.

 

One of our members has cited an episode from the life

of Thirumazhisai Azhvar, where the saint came across

a group of brahmins who were chanting the Vedas.

The brahmins suddenly stopped, seeing that the Azhvar

was a non-dvija and in their opinion barred from any

contact with the Vedas. We are told further that the

fact that the brahmins stopped chanting was

bhAgavata-apacAram, a great insult to a devotee of the

Lord, and that they felt very embarrassed upon realizing

the greatness of the Azhvar.

 

But what were the brahmins to do? According to Gautama

Dharma Sastra, in a passage quoted by both Sankara and Ramanuja,

severe punishments are to be meted out to the Sudra who

perchance hears the Vedas. The text says that the Sudra's

ears are to be filled with molten lead, lest he hear any more,

and that his tongue be cut off, lest he repeat what he heard.

 

Where did the brahmins go wrong, then? Were they not doing

what the SAstras taught? How are we to reconcile such

a conflict of dharma?

 

The higher dharma in such an instance is the dharma of

the prapanna, the dharma of the Vaishnava, what Sri Azhagiya

Manavala Perumal Nayanar calls the way of the tirumantra.

VarNa dharma in such an instance is to be eschewed by

the devout, for it goes against the very grain of seeing

the Lord everywhere and realizing his Seshitva.

 

Similarly regarding the RNas, or three debts: one

should perform these tarpaNams, etc., merely as worship to God

following His command -- sri bhagavad ajnayA, we say, and

not with the intention that we are pleasing our ancestors,

devas, or discharging our debts. After all, our ancestors,

presumably prapannas themselves, are enjoying the bliss

of service to the Lord, and have no desire nor need to come

here to receive our offerings of rice, etc.! These offerings

are historical remnants of the varNa dharma followed by

non-prapannas, who believe that their ancestors are in svarga.

 

Someone who performs these karms with the idea of

discharging debt is following a lower form of dharma. Someone

who realizes the true recipient of all this worship is

Narayana and does it as worship of Him is following prapanna

dharma.

 

nama: sarva RNa vimocanAya nArAyaNAya,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Mani wrote

*********

 

At 10:34 PM 9/30/96 -0700, you wrote:

>One of our members has cited an episode from the life

>of Thirumazhisai Azhvar, where the saint came across

>a group of brahmins who were chanting the Vedas.

>The brahmins suddenly stopped, seeing that the Azhvar

>was a non-dvija and in their opinion barred from any

>contact with the Vedas. We are told further that the

>fact that the brahmins stopped chanting was

>bhAgavata-apacAram, a great insult to a devotee of the

>Lord, and that they felt very embarrassed upon realizing

>the greatness of the Azhvar.

*****

 

You are wrongly quoting the story. The brahmins did not stop chanting but

they forgot how to continue the chanting.

 

>But what were the brahmins to do? According to Gautama

>Dharma Sastra, in a passage quoted by both Sankara and Ramanuja,

>severe punishments are to be meted out to the Sudra who

>perchance hears the Vedas. The text says that the Sudra's

>ears are to be filled with molten lead, lest he hear any more,

>and that his tongue be cut off, lest he repeat what he heard.

>

>Where did the brahmins go wrong, then? Were they not doing

>what the SAstras taught? How are we to reconcile such

>a conflict of dharma?

 

Again a mis-perception of the dharma smritis. A trivarnika cannot teach a

NOn-trivarnika vedas. IT does not mean that a non-trivarnika should not hear

vedas!

 

I am not saying that it is difficult to follow smritis. But they are clear

regarding this. The practice is not very difficult to follow, what is

difficult is to keep up with one's dharmas

 

Dasan Krishna Kalale

Krishna Kalale

619-658-5612 (phone)

619-658-2115 (fax)

[Guest guest]

Sri Krishna Kalale (kkalale) wrote

 

* Mani wrote

* *********

*

* At 10:34 PM 9/30/96 -0700, you wrote:

*

* >One of our members has cited an episode from the life

* >of Thirumazhisai Azhvar, where the saint came across

* >a group of brahmins who were chanting the Vedas.

* >The brahmins suddenly stopped, seeing that the Azhvar

* >was a non-dvija and in their opinion barred from any

* >contact with the Vedas. We are told further that the

* >fact that the brahmins stopped chanting was

* >bhAgavata-apacAram, a great insult to a devotee of the

* >Lord, and that they felt very embarrassed upon realizing

* >the greatness of the Azhvar.

* *****

*

* You are wrongly quoting the story. The brahmins did not stop chanting but

* they forgot how to continue the chanting.

 

Mani is right. The brahmins STOPPED chanting because

they didn't want the low caste aazhvaar to listen to

them. Then they couldn't pick up from that place as the

flow had stopped. At least this is what is found in the

books that I have.

 

[...]

 

* Again a mis-perception of the dharma smritis. A trivarnika cannot teach a

* NOn-trivarnika vedas. IT does not mean that a non-trivarnika should not hear

* vedas!

 

Sri Shankara emphatically quotes from the Manu Smriti(?)

in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya that if a sudra HEARS the

vedas, molten lead should be poured into the ears. I

can't provide them offhand, but can quote the relevent

passage when I get my hands on the bhashya again.

 

--badri

 

-----------------

Badri Seshadri

Graduate Student

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Cornell University

-----------------

[Guest guest]

I did not want to get into this debate, as it is never conclusive, but I

thought of making a few points.

 

On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Krishna Kalale wrote:

>

> Again a mis-perception of the dharma smritis. A trivarnika cannot teach a

> NOn-trivarnika vedas. IT does not mean that a non-trivarnika should not hear

> vedas!

 

In the context of the Vedas, there is an intimate connection between

hearing and teaching them. Hearing the Vedas is the only orthodox way of

learning them. There are quite a few smr.tis prescribing punishments for a

SUdra (by birth) who happens to hear the Vedas. The punishments were

explicitly meant to guard against the possibility that a SUdra would learn

the Vedas surreptitiously by listening to them.

 

However, there have always been regional and personal variations. If a

teacher of the Vedas admits a student of non-dvija parentage, and teaches

him the Vedas, the student becomes a dvija after the appropriate

initiation. This is left to the judgment of the teacher. Other teachers

may not agree with this judgment, but that is a different issue. There are

historical instances of such situations. As Mani has pointed out, there

is a legitimate question of conflict of dharma in such cases.

 

That said, it must be recognized that notwithstanding what Sankaracarya

and Ramanujacarya quote from the dharmasUtras, it has become common

practice nowadays to recite the Vedas in public, at our mathas and

temples. I have not seen anybody keeping non-traivarNikas away from the

site of a yajna, even in as orthodox a center of Brahminism as the

Sr.ngeri maTha. The Vedas are recited publicly in these yajnas and I have

seen SUdras attending them. I'm sure a similar situation exists in many

other centers today. I also know of a highly respected Srotriya in

Bhadravati (Karnataka), who has taught a girl the yajurveda and also to

recite ghanapATha, and she is reportedly better than his male students.

These may be purely modern phenomena, but obviously, the smr.ti codes are

being violated, and nobody. not even the AcAryas, seem to be too concerned

about it.

 

What is prescribed in the smr.tis is subject to change, and in the matter

of SUdras hearing/learning the Vedas, it seems to be changing in the

present time. It may come as a surprise to many that not all authors of

dharmaSAstras are agreed on this issue. I remember reading from the

"History of Dharmasastra" of P. V. Kane, that there is one dharmasUtra

text which allows SUdras to be vAjasaneyakas, i.e. entitled to the

samskAras of Sukla yajurvedins. I'll post the reference later, if anybody

is interested. Different kinds of dharmas tend to conflict. Faced with

a conflict between two different kinds of dharma, Arjuna turned to

Krishna for advice. Similarly, when there is conflict in dharmas, our

present day AcAryas who hail in the direct traditions of the great vedAnta

teachers are the most competent to decide how the smr.ti prescriptions

must change. These sticky issues are best decided according to their

personal judgment and guidance. Of course, this assumes that there are

people who wish to live according to the dictates of the smr.tis. This is

a population that is becoming quite extinct.

 

Best wishes,

 

S. Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

 

Sri Krishna Kalale (kkalale) wrote

 

* Mani wrote

* *********

*

* At 10:34 PM 9/30/96 -0700, you wrote:

*

* >One of our members has cited an episode from the life

* >of Thirumazhisai Azhvar, where the saint came across

* >a group of brahmins who were chanting the Vedas.

* >The brahmins suddenly stopped, seeing that the Azhvar

* >was a non-dvija and in their opinion barred from any

* >contact with the Vedas. We are told further that the

* >fact that the brahmins stopped chanting was

* >bhAgavata-apacAram, a great insult to a devotee of the

* >Lord, and that they felt very embarrassed upon realizing

* >the greatness of the Azhvar.

* *****

*

* You are wrongly quoting the story. The brahmins did not stop chanting but

* they forgot how to continue the chanting.

 

Mani is right. The brahmins STOPPED chanting because

they didn't want the low caste aazhvaar to listen to

them. Then they couldn't pick up from that place as the

flow had stopped. At least this is what is found in the

books that I have.

 

[...]

 

* Again a mis-perception of the dharma smritis. A trivarnika cannot teach a

* NOn-trivarnika vedas. IT does not mean that a non-trivarnika should not hear

* vedas!

 

Sri Shankara emphatically quotes from the Manu Smriti(?)

in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya that if a sudra HEARS the

vedas, molten lead should be poured into the ears. I

can't provide them offhand, but can quote the relevent

passage when I get my hands on the bhashya again.

 

--badri

 

-----------------

Badri Seshadri

Graduate Student

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Cornell University

-----------------

 

 

Yes A a Sudra by birth is barred from hearing the Vedas. That is confirmed in the smritis. The Brahmins there are on the right path. They have stopped the chanting only because of the fact that it is barred. But the Brahmins were not aware of the greatness of the alwar. So there is also a quote that Baagavataapachaara can be waved off by praying to the lord himself. This act is done by every Brahmin every day in the Morning, Afternoon and evening. So there is no problem as Mani thinks.

 

Thanks,

Kadambi Krishnan

[Guest guest]

1. Thirumazhisai Azhvar was a non dwija. He is not supposed to hear the Chanting of the devine Vedas. This is the gourava given to the Veda mathe ie the Respect given to the Veda mathe. So what the Brahmins did was giving respect to Veda mathe which is right. Stopping chanting of the Vedas if it was a Dwija was a disrespect shown to the Baagavatha. But in this case, he is not a Dwija. So where is the question of Baagavataapachara? It is actually a respect shown to the Veda mathe.

 

2. Regarding the tarpanams, you have miss understood the whole concept. What ever we do in our everyday life, it is all by the command by the lord. That is why there is a saying, Tenavina TruNam api na Chalati. So what ever we do, we should tell Sri Bhagavat Agnaaya. By saying this we are not pleasing any one and also we need not.

Regarding the rice offerings you do, did you think that your fore fathers will come and part take them? If you have thought so, you have been miss guided. NO WHERE IN THE SCRIPTURES HAS IT BEEN TOLD THAT THE FORE FATHERS WILL COME AND TAKE FOOD OFFERINGS. It is the Pitru Devatha who comes to take the offerings. Our fore fathers who are prappannas will be doing nitya kainkaryam in Tiru Vaikuntam. So the pitru devatas will come and take the food offerings done in the form of a Crow. That is what is stated in the Shastras and Scriptures.

 

Thanks,

Krishnan Kadambi

[Dasarathy 0]

Dear Sri Krishna Kalale,

Adiyen Dasarathy from Sath Sampradaya. I wish to correct the Vaibhavam of Thirumazhisai azhwar so that there is no mis givings.

Thirumazhisai Azhwar was born to a Maharishi and was left in a Perambu forest, adopted by a Chatur varni and brought up. Due to that he was branded an Abhramana. Having said, one day he was passing through a place where Bhramanas were chanting Krishna Yajur veda. On seeing Thirumazhisai Azhwar, they had a thought that, this person is an abhramana and we should not allow the vedas to reach his ears. They stopped so that once Azhwar passes through the place, they can resume the left portion. Understanding this Azhwar quickly passed them. Suddenly when they tried to resume, nothing came to their memory due to the apacharam they have committed towards Azhwar.

On seeing this, Thirumazhisai Azhwar took a small grass, split it into two halves and threw it besides him. This was a symoblic way of stating the place where they had stopped the recitation (Adiyen couldn't quote the exact phrase but its available in Yatindra Pravana Prabhavam - The authentic source of Azhwar Acharyas Vaibhavam).

Understanding their apachara they apologized to azhwar.

Another instance:

Few of the Bramanas who knew the mahatmiyam of Thirumazhisai azhwar, requested him to accept respects as a part of Yagna. But majority of the Bhramanas opposed it (Citing the varna dharma).

On seeing this, the devoted bhramanas requested Thirumazhisai Azhwar to show his swaroopam (He has mastered Antharyami yogam). On seeing this Azhwar asked emperuman to show his glow inside him.

Utkidandha vanname puram posindhu kaatave. (Oh Lord, show me the glow that you have inside me to these people exactly).

On hearing this, perumal expressed his full jyoti swaroppam to all of the Bhramanas gathered there. Seeing this, all of these samanya dharma following Bramanas apologized to Azhwar.

 

One important thing to note:

None of the Azhwars though were masters of Saram of Veda vedanta crossed their varna limits in reciting Vedas explicitly. Be it thirumazhisai Azhwar or Nammazhwar or Paan perumal.

To quote this, Azhagiya manavala perumal Nayanar in his Acharya Hrudayam shows the greatness of Thiruvaimozhi over Vedas. For vedas the most crucial thing is Om (A vu maa -> Three syllables).

In his first thiruvaimozhi first paasuram, Nammazhwar says A vu Ma (To being any veda we have to start with Om), in a different order. So that, the veda samyam for Thiruvaimozhi is not lost and at the same time Varna dharma is not breached.

He says Uyar vara uyar Nalam udayavan Yavanavan (Uyar -> Madyama padam of Om : Ukaram)

Mayar vara Madhi nalam arulinan yavananvan (Mayar -> Charama Padam of Om :Makaram)

Ayarvarum Amamarargal Adhipathi Yavananavan (Ayarvaraum -> Pradama Padam of Om: Akaram)

Akara ukara Makara ithi Thanegatha Samaprath thathe thatom ithi ithyathi sruthi vachanam.

Same way Paan perumal organized his Amalan aadhi piran paasuram so that akaram ukanaram and makaram are cited separately and not together as Om).

Again all these are to show the greatness of Dravida Vedha over Vadamozhi vedam. Because Dravida vedha never has the restriction of Trivarnika adhikaram, its greater than Vadamozhi vedam.

This clearly shows that Varnashrama Dharma clearly prohibits the adhikaram of People outside traivarnam to it.

 

Adiyen

Dasarathy

 

Mani wrote

*********

 

At 10:34 PM 9/30/96 -0700, you wrote:

 

>One of our members has cited an episode from the life

>of Thirumazhisai Azhvar, where the saint came across

>a group of brahmins who were chanting the Vedas.

>The brahmins suddenly stopped, seeing that the Azhvar

>was a non-dvija and in their opinion barred from any

>contact with the Vedas. We are told further that the

>fact that the brahmins stopped chanting was

>bhAgavata-apacAram, a great insult to a devotee of the

>Lord, and that they felt very embarrassed upon realizing

>the greatness of the Azhvar.

*****

 

You are wrongly quoting the story. The brahmins did not stop chanting but

they forgot how to continue the chanting.

 

 

>But what were the brahmins to do? According to Gautama

>Dharma Sastra, in a passage quoted by both Sankara and Ramanuja,

>severe punishments are to be meted out to the Sudra who

>perchance hears the Vedas. The text says that the Sudra's

>ears are to be filled with molten lead, lest he hear any more,

>and that his tongue be cut off, lest he repeat what he heard.

>

>Where did the brahmins go wrong, then? Were they not doing

>what the SAstras taught? How are we to reconcile such

>a conflict of dharma?

 

Again a mis-perception of the dharma smritis. A trivarnika cannot teach a

NOn-trivarnika vedas. IT does not mean that a non-trivarnika should not hear

vedas!

 

I am not saying that it is difficult to follow smritis. But they are clear

regarding this. The practice is not very difficult to follow, what is

difficult is to keep up with one's dharmas

 

Dasan Krishna Kalale

Krishna Kalale

619-658-5612 (phone)

619-658-2115 (fax)