shUdras Not Qualified For Vedic Meditation

[Guest guest]

[Moderator Note: As a courtesy, I will allow this to go through. But I will not continue to approve postings that are forwarded in from someone else and which require responses from this list to be forwarded out. Either join the list and take part or cease and desist.]

 

Hare Krishna,

 

> > Sri Baladeva follows the very same position followed by all

other

> > Vedantic schools, that shUdras do not have Veda-adhikAra, and

are

> not

> > entitled to have saMskAras performed for them.

>

> I have also studied this part of Baladeva's commentary, and so far

I

> do not see anything there that is contradictory to the Gaudiiya

> position - shuudras should not study the Vedas.

>

> > My question to you, which you can ask on the Gaudiya forums is -

on

> > what basis have recent Gaudiya acharyas taken the position of

> saying

> > that birth does not determine the varNa at all, it is ONLY the

> > qualities and karmas which do?

>

> In the Gita, Krishna says that He created the varnaashrama system

on

> the basis of guna and karma, but birth is not mentioned. If birth

is

> an absolute prerequisite for varna, then where is this stated in

> scripture?

 

Here is the reply forwarded:

 

This is not to refute what you are saying, but to state what

Madhvacharya's position is on verse 4.13. The word "svabhaavajam"

indicates that the designations of brahmanas, kshatriyas, etc has to

do with the svabhaava of the soul rather than something attached to

body. In other words, it is possible for a brahmana soul to be born

in a shudra body and vice versa.

 

However, the problem comes when one talks of doing upanayanam at the

age of 8 yrs as recommended in shaastra. At that tiny age, who can

determine the svabhaava of the child and how? Rather, everyone will

want to show that their child is a brahmana. It is practically

impossible to determine the svabhaava of a person before upanayanam.

It was not the norm that gunas decided the varna even in the times

of Mahabharata, as the example of Vidura shows.

 

Moreover, even if this verse doesn't say that birth is the criterion

for deciding the svabhaava, it also doesn't say that birth is

unimportant to determine the varna. All Krishna says is that the

varnashrama "system" was created as per guNa and karma. He says

nothing about how to take a child and determine his varna.

 

Let us take what Sri Baladeva says in Brahma Sutra 1.3.38. Can you

explain -

1. What does Sri Baladeva mean when he says (speaking about moxa for

shuudras) - "phale tu taaraatamyam bhavi". Is this not an indication

that he accepts a hierarchy of knowledge and bliss in moxa, with

brahmana souls having a higher position?

2. If qualities can make a person become a brahmana from a shudra,

why does Baladeva try to justify that Vidura's knowledge did not

come from a study of Veda in his present life, but from his past

life (when he was not a shudra)? What in your view is the

purvapaksha he is addressing (if not the one that says "We have

examples of shuudras like Vidura who studied the Vedas" as Baladeva

says before beginning commentary on 1.3.34)? I am sure that you

accept that qualities-wise, Vidura was as good as any brahmana.

3. Why does Baladeva say that a shudra falls down as soon as he

studies the meanings of the Vedic words? (veda-akshara-vichaareNa

shuudraH patati tat-kshaNaat) Wouldn't it be purifying to hear and

understand the Vedic words?

4. In sutra 1.3.35, Baladeva justifies why Janashruti was a

kshatriya and not a shudra. Note that the indication here is purely

of birth, since Janashruti's acts of getting jealous of Raikva's

aura from the birds, and trying to purchase Raikva hardly befitted a

kshatriya. Then why should Baladeva justify how he was a Kshatriya

by birth (thus justifying how Janashruti deserved to get shruti

knowledge from Raikva), even after Raikva called him a shuudra?

 

>

> The position of other schools (and even

> > of past gaudiya acharyas like Baladeva Vidyabhushana) is that

birth

> > has a crucial role in determining the varNa.

>

> This is not the position that is articulated by Baladeva. All that

is

> being said in the commentary is that shuudras do not have

> qualification to study the Vedas.

 

I would also like to understand your views specifically on the

comments about Vidura by Baladeva, which I have put as a question

above. I would be convinced only if you are able to explain it. Of

course, all schools say that shuudras do not have qualification to

hear Vedas, but the example of Vidura given by Baladeva (and Madhva

too) in 1.3.38 suggests that even exalted souls like Vidura could

not study the Vedas because they were shuudras.

 

Whether or not being born in a

> shuudra family forever condemns one to being a shuudra is not

really

> discussed there.

> One could infer that position, but it certainly was

> not explicit. Many Gaudiiya braahmanas do not really study the

Vedas

> either, so Baladeva has not really said anything earth-shattering

> here.

 

By the example of Vidura, it is clearly discussed. Note that

Baladeva explicitly raises this purvapaksha in the introduction to

his commentary on this adhikaranam, in the words -

 

puraaNaadiShu viduraadiinaam brahmavittva-darshanaat cha

so'dhikriyate iti praaptau |

 

"In the Puranas, etc, we find persons like Vidura and others

described as possessing knowledge of Brahman. Therefore, a shuudra

has Veda-adhikaara."

 

Note that in 1.3.38, Baladeva doesn't say that Vidura was not a

shuudra for having brahminical qualities, rather he says that

Vidura's knowledge came from his past life, not from this life by

studying the Vedas. Thus, he very much treats Vidura as a shuudra.

 

By the way, please don't accuse Tattvavadis of malintentions here,

since Srisa Chandra Vasu's translation of Baladeva's commentary

makes it even more explicit (that is how I came to my position, not

by the influence of Tattvavadis). So you should take it as an

objective objection rather than questioning the intentions of those

who raise it.

 

 

What was the reason he justified Vidura's knowledge coming from past

life? Note that if you agree that Baladeva followed Madhva here,

then that is precisely the position.

 

>

> A person born in a

> > brAhmaNa family may not have the qualities or do brahminical

work,

> in

> > which case you can disqualify him from that status if he

flagrantly

> > violates the standard - that seems acceptable. But to say that a

> > shUdra who has the qualities of a brAhmaNa becomes a brAhmaNa is

> going

> > against your own acharya who has established your siddhAnta (Sri

> > Baladeva).

>

> So what of Vyaasa, who was born of a braahmana and a fisherman's

> daughter?

 

Vyaasa was not born of a fisherman's daughter. Satyavati was the

daughter of Uparichara Vasu, as a reading of any recension of

Mahabharata will clearly say. The king gave his girl in gratitude to

the fisherman for returning back the twin boy and girl of the king

who he found inside a fish (the whole story is in the Adi Parva). So

Satyavati was a kshatriya by birth and the fisherman was well aware

of it. For some reason, this fisherman has been confused to be her

biological father Uparichara Vasu in this commentary

(http://vedabase.net/sb/1/4/14/) Would you agree that this is an

error that needs correction?

 

Strange that the Lord would take the role of a braahmana

> when the parentage is not consistent with that. What of Vaalmiiki?

He

> was a hunter before he composed the Raamaayana. What of

Vishvaamitra?

 

Valmiki composed the Ramayana which is not a shruti. So his example

doesn't prove anything. Honestly speaking, I do not know the exact

position on Vishvamitra, though I know there is an explanation given

by dvaita. I will need to find out.

 

> He became a brahmarishi after thousands of years of penance. What

of

> Satyakama Jabala? His ancestry and gotra were totally unknown, and

> yet his guru accepted him as a braahmana.

 

Here too, one can argue that his birth was as a brahmana. I will

find out explanations for Vishvamitra and Satyakama's example.

However, Baladeva's words, and the Sutras of the adhikaranam, still

need explanation from you.

 

>

> If birth is an absolute prerequisite for varna, then these

examples

> cannot be explained away convincingly. If birth is only generally

> predictive of varna but not an absolute prerequisite, then this

would

> be more consisent with the history.

 

Birth is not an absolute prerequisite for determining the svabhaava,

and this part is well-accepted by dvaita. What they disagree with is

that there is a systematic methodology to determine the svabhaava of

a child before upanayanam. Given the lack of it, one should follow

the birth-based system, since that has been the norm always

including in Krishna's time.

 

>

> Also, I have a question for you - if one is born a braahmana but

> neglects his braahminical duties and violates the standards, can

his

> children reclaim their braahminical status?

 

I have read that it is indeed so for 7 janmas (after which the

lineage is no more called a brahmana). But I do not remember the

reference from the dharma-shastra - which exactly it was.

 

Based on what you have

> said above, I would think not, since you feel that birth in a

> braahmana family is an absolute prerequisite, and those who are

born

> into such families but not acting in that capacity are not

> braahmanas.

 

Yes, but the issue of whether their children can or cannot become

brahmanas by upanayanam is a different issue. Such brahmanas would

lose their brahminical status at some point after having first got

it (at the time of upanayanam). But that does not imply their

children are automatically disqualified.

 

As the well-known shloka goes (i Believe also quoted by Prabhupada)

 

janmanaa jaayate shuudraH

saMskaaraat dvija uchyate

veda-paaThena vipra syaat

braahmaNo brahma-vedanaat

 

which indicates that one becomes a dvija by samskaaras (not by

qualities). The question is how long can one perform samskaaras, and

from what I remember, it is upto 7 generations (after a lineage

deviates from its occupational duties).

 

>

> Also, what is the standard for determining whether one has lost

his

> braahminical status? If he forgets to chant gayatri mantra once,

then

> does it happen then? Or what if he chants but does not study the

> Vedas? Or what if he studies the Vedas but articulates atheistic

> conclusions?

 

Forgetting to chant Gayatri does not cause one to lose brahmana

status. The way one truly loses status by such things is getting a

shudra birth in next life (since he did not make use of the

opportunity he got in his past life to devote himself to Veda-

adhyayana). One place this is discussed is in Uma-Maheshvara Samvada

in Anushasana Parva of Mahabharata.

Those atheistic conclusions and lack of karmas may reflect that he

is not a braahmana by qualities. But they do not cause him to lose

brahminical status since even asuras can have Veda-adhikara and

brahminical status by their birth. (Note that brahmana here is in

the aupadhika sense, not in svabhaava sense).

>

> What if he chants gayatri and studies Vedas, but comes to USA to

> pursue job in software engineering? Can he still be a braahmana

then?

> Why or why not? Please answer objectively, without taking a

position

> based on personal opinion.

 

I thought that a braahmana is allowed to work for others though it

is not the ideal standard. Drona did the same when it came to

providing for his family.

 

If you are by the way alluding to Shrisha Rao, he is neither a

software engineer, nor in the US. He is settled in India pursuing

teaching as a profession (he came to the US for a masters and Ph.D).

 

>

> > This is one reason VyAsa wrote the Puranas and Itihasas (SB

> 1.4.25) -

> > for women, shUdras, etc, these take the position of the vedas,

and

> > they can get moxa through the study of the smritis.

>

> Does this apply to children of braahmanas who give up their

> prescribed duties to become educated professionals in the secular

> world? Or do they get to study shrutis? I would really like to

know.

 

I do not know if you have read the online book "Hindu Dharma" by

Chandrashekhara Saraswati. It has an elaborate description of varna

dharma, much of which is common to traditional schools. There, he

says that he grants (as a compromise) that brahmanas can join jobs

and give worldly education to their children (he does indicate it is

not the ideal standard, but a position of compromise he can grant).

However, he makes it mandatory that they should side-by-side educate

their children in Vedic shaastras and yagnas.

 

>

> It's not enough to destroy someone else's position. You must

provide

> a convincing, alternative position that is consistently applied

also.

 

Actually, I didn't intend to "destroy" your position. I merely

questioned it, and I personally think the issue is very complex. It

is not as easy as it sounds merely by reading 4.13, since this verse

doesn't say anything about how to determine the svabhaava or varna

of a child.

 

An alternative position is given in the Hindu Dharma book, and in

Vishvesha Tirtha's Gita Saroddhara.

 

> If the end result of this discussion is that hardly anyone here or

> there is a braahmana, then it is mostly pointless discussion

anyway,

> since what would any of us know? On the other hand, if your

position

> is that the software engineers on Dvaita List are braahmanas but

not

> so the dedicated ISKCON pujari whose only fault is lack of

> brahminical birth, then it is certainly begging the question.

 

You can call it a technical position but there is a mistake you do

in assuming that an ISKCON pujari who lacks brahminical birth is put

lower than a brahmana. The issue is not of whether the pujari has

qualities or not - he may very well be a Vaishnava. But being a

brahmana and being a vaishnava are not the same. A shudra can be

higher in qualities than a brahmana. But this doesn't mean that the

brahmana is not a brahmana, or that the shudra has become a brahmana

in this very birth. One cannot switch up and down the varna system

by appeal to qualities, as there will be chaos, with everyone trying

to show he is brahmana (and who will evaluate their claims and

how?). Who will want to be a shuudra? Like Vidura who stayed shudra

all his life even though he was by qualities way above many

brahmanas, this birth-based system seems the most stable when you

look at it objectively. There is no competition, no profession is

left neglected.

 

>

> > Please note that stray references from the interpolated Puranas

> > wouldn't be satisfactory

>

> By "interpolated," I assume you mean any Puranic quote that

expresses

> conclusions inconvenient to your thesis.

 

No, I mean Puranic quotes that are not agreeable to other schools. I

am also trying not to quote any verses you find not authoritative.

 

Also, in the Bhaagavata verse I pointed out, it is clearly mentioned

that women do not have Veda-adhikaara. Leaving aside the issue of

shuudras for now, you would agree that for women, there is no

dispute about what is meant by the word "strI" in SB 1.4.25. What

would you then say about women being given Gayatri?

 

>

> This is why I find it mostly pointless to have these sorts of

> discussions. If the standard is going to be "prove your position

to

> me, but only with evidence that is prefiltered for my

sensibilities,"

> then why bother? Years ago, Mukunda Datta Prabhu had this exact

same

> discussion on the Dvaita List, and he quoted mainstream sources

like

> Mahaabhaarata several times over to support his position while the

> Dvaitins gave oblique quotes from Manu Dharma-shaastra to support

> theirs. Then the Dvaitins asserted that smriti quotes were not

> acceptable (by which they meant that it was unacceptable for

someone

> else to quote smriti to disagree with them, although it was ok for

> them to quote the same smritis). Finally, they just kicked him off

> the list because the "quality" of his evidence was somehow not up

to

> their standard (in other words, he politely won the discussion and

> they could not have him sowing doubts). Subsequently, they even

> deleted the postings to erase any memory of it. What can I say?

> Tattvavadi intellectualism at its finest...

 

I will ignore these personal comments, as I do not wish to get

sidetracked. Both schools accept the Gita, Bhagavata, 10 Upanishads,

Mahabharata, Ramayana and Brahma Sutras as pramanic texts. So I do

not have any problems if you quote from these.

 

>

>

> (moreover the statement in SB 1.4.25 is clear

> > enough), because ultimately, you have to rely on the Brahma-

Sutras

> for

> > doing nirNaya of your siddhAnta, and Sri Baladeva has outlined

what

> > the Gaudiya position is based on the sUtras.

>

> Here is an another instance of a double-standard that the

Tattvavadis

> have for Gaudiiyas. When Baladeva says that shuudras cannot study

> Vedas, Gaudiiyas should follow that or be criticized. But when the

> same Baladeva gives his disciplic succession from Madhva,

Gaudiiyas

> who follow that will also be criticized.

 

I do not see a double standard here, as the two issues are

different. In case of Veda-adhikara, Baladeva is in agreement with

other schools (with your answers to my questions pending) and if

this is true, then Gaudiyas would naturally be expected to follow

him. (there is no disagreement between Baladeva and Madhva here, so

why should Madhvas have a problem with Gaudiyas following Baladeva

here)

 

But when you look at the disciplic succession, there is a conflict

in tenets, and this time, we have different positions from Baladeva

and Madhva. Naturally, Madhvas have a right to object to Baladeva on

this issue (and therefore also with those Gaudiyas who follow him).

 

Why would you want Madhvas to either completely agree or completely

disagree with Baladeva? Is there no intermediate ground?

 

>

> Ultimately, I don't think you care about Gaudiiyas' fidelity to

> Baladeva. Rather, it seems to me that you will use Baladeva when

it

> is convenient to you but discard his relevance when it is not.

>

> As always, please correct me if I have misrepresented you in any

way.

 

Let us not focus on motives. I do not think it helps. Why attribute

malice to something that can be attributed to ignorance?

[Guest guest]

I'm not really planning an in-depth discussion on this topic,

especially if the person starting the discussion is a phantom who

doesn't even to the list. Since the question is about

Gaudiya practice, let an initiated Gaudiya Vaishnava handle it.

 

But my questions still go unanswered - when dharma-shaastras

prescribe what a braahmana can and cannot do, how can one maintain

that a so-called braahmana who abandons his prescribed duties to go

to USA and become a software professional is still a braahmana?

 

What objective basis is there for saying when a person is and is not

a braahmana? Does birth alone make one a braahmana? If not, then what

additional factors make him a braahmana? Where is this stated in

scripture? At what point does he lose his brahminical status?

 

Your friend quoted several sources that he would accept as evidence

for such a discussion. But Madhvacharya quoted from many more

sources - why not include these also?

 

If a braahmana is someone who is initiated at age 8, then what of

families whose children are initiated earlier or later? Do they cease

to be braahmanas?

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

pamho

 

Before 2-3 years I wrote an essay about brahmanical standards and reading now the same essay I think it is not so nicely composed - I would write it now differently and reconsider whether to keep the part about grihastha life.. But I don't have time. Anyway, when I wrote the essay, it was a cause of a controversy and turmoil. But whatever, because It answers some of the points raised in this discussion I am offering the essay to you for consideration.

 

I hope the lenght will be not a problem or put parts of it.

 

BRAHMANICAL STANDARDS AND THE VAISNAVA

Lord Krsna told Arjuna: "It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though faultily, than another's duties perfectly. Destruction in the course of performing one's own duty is better than engaging in another's duties, for to follow another's path is dangerous." (Bhagavad-gita 3.35)

Now we could ask a question — "Why some brahmana initiated devotees get the jobs of sudras in order to get some money when they take up family life? Is it proper to do that or no?" To clarify this question let us consider some scriptural quotes and the teachings of Srila Prabhupada. "

Hari-sauri: Where will we introduce the varnasrama system?

Prabhupada: In our society, amongst our members.

Hari-sauri: But then if everybody’s being raised to the brahminical platform…

Prabhupada: Not everybody. Why you are misunderstanding? Varnasrama, not everybody brahmana.

Hari-sauri: No, but in our society practically everyone is being raised to that platform. So then one might ask what is…

Prabhupäda: That is… Everybody is being raised, but they’re falling down. (Febryary 14.1977 Mayapura)

That a Brahmana should never depend on others for maintenance is obvious from the following Statements of Srila Prabhupada.

“A brahmana will not work under anybody. A ksatriya will not work under anybody.” ( September 21, 1973, Bombay)

“So one who is depending on job, he’s a sudra…brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya—they will create their own means of livelihood.” (Morning Walk April 7, 1975, Mayapur)

“Even one is born of a brahmana family, he is looking after some good job. That is sudra mentality. That is not brahmana’s business.” (lec. SB 1.7.16)

“The sudra, he has to work under the order of the master. Master says, “Do this”: he’ll do it.” (Room Conversation January 26, 1977, Puré)

"If a brahmana disassociates himself from lower caste people and associates only with higher caste people, he attains greatness. If he does the opposite, he becomes a sudra." (Manu 4.245)

"A brahmana who without studying the Vedas who labors for other things – wealth, position, adoration, and other opulences, becomes a sudra along with all his family members." (Manu Samhita 2.168)

Therefor, the brahmana never takes employment from anyone (especially from those who are sudras and lower). He must be independent. This is explained in the Kurma Purana : "Those brahmanas who make a living from protecting cows, engage in trade, become artists, take the occupation of servants, and loan money on interest are no better than sudras."

In the case of an emergency then Srimad Bhagavatam (11.17.47) explains that a brahmana may perform another occupation: "If a brahmana cannot support himself through his regular duties and is thus suffering, he may adopt the occupation of a merchant and overcome his destitute condition by buying and selling material things. If he continues to suffer extreme poverty even as a merchant, then he may adopt the occupation of a ksatriya, taking sword in hand. But he cannot in any circumstances become like a dog, accepting an ordinary master." Therefor, Srila Prabhupada to brahmana grhasta mostly recommended works like book, prasadam or incense business or making mrdangas or opening a restoran. Here are few famous instructions: “Actually all our devotees are supposed to be brahmanas. A brahmana's business is to preach the glories of the Lord, to learn the essence of Vedic knowledge--Krsna Consciousness--and to teach others of the same knowledge. (Letter to: Jayagovinda Los

Angeles 18 April, 1970) If we do business we must do it independently, without any assistance from outsiders. (Letter to: Brahmananda Montreal 28 June, 1968) Therefor, to one of His grhasta disciple Lord Caitanya said that the symptom of a Vaisnava is that he gives up the association of non-devotees.

There is a following prediction in the Srimad Bhagavatam (12.3.35) which is one of the symptoms of Kali-yuga -"Even when there is no emergency, people will consider any degraded occupation quite acceptable." (SB 12.3.35)

Actually, grhastha life is not easy when one takes to such work mixing with sudra-like people. Srila Prabhupada writes: “Generally a person cannot make much advancement in spiritual consciousness if he is married. He becomes attached to his family and is prone to sense gratification. Thus his spiritual advancement is very slow or almost nil.” (C.C Antya 13.112) In the Smrti literature it is also mentioned that in this world of duality, family life is the cause that spoils one’s spiritual life or meditation.. (SB 7.15.30, Purport) Therefor, no one should waste his time in the so-called happiness of materialistic household life. In the Vedic civilization, this type of crippled life is allowed only until one’s fiftieth year, when one must give up family life and enter either the order of vanaprastha (independent retired life for cultivation of spiritual knowledge) or sannyasa (the renounced order, in which one completely takes shelter of the Supreme Personality of

Godhead). (SB 5.18.13, Purport)

Narottama dasa Thakura states that to accept renounced order of life, or to remain in householder life, that does not matter. If he is actually taking part in the movements of Caitanya’s sankirtana activities and actually understanding what it is, he is taking sport in the waves of such devotional ocean, then such person is always liberated. (Purport to Gaurangera Duthi Pada Los Angeles, January 6, 1969) And in the Cc. Madhya 8.128 it is also said that one may be a grhastha or sannyasi—it doesn’t matter—but he must be Krsna-tattva-vit. He must know the science of Krsna. That is required.

According to the scriptures if one does not cultivate scriptural knowledge, he cannot be accepted as a brahmana and so he will be inclined to hypocrisy, envy, lies and cheating. The Manu Samhita 2.157 explains: "A brahmana who does not study the Vedas is similar to a wooden elephant or a deer made of skin, which are an elephant or deer only in name but do not effectively function as such." Moreover,

"One should know that until a brahmana is qualified in the Vedas, he is on the same level as a sudra."

The prepared food which one buys in the shop is certainly not made with devotion to Krsna what is the reason why Krsna accepts the offerings of his devotees. The scriptures explain that by eating the food of non-brahmanas, one also falls from his brahminical position. Here is an iteresting quote: "A brahmana should never eat food cooked by a sudra. If other than in an emergency one either willingly or mistakenly does eat food cooked by a sudra, then as a result of eating such food he is born as a sudra." (Kurma Purana)

Here somebody may put up an objection: “We agree that we cannot perform all the duties of a brahmana due to other commitments. In Bhagavad-gita (9.26) Lord Krsna has said : "If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it." In other words, one should perform his duties as much as possible. The main point is that they should be done in devotion. Sri Krsna further states: "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-gita 18.47)

So even if we are performing our brahminical duties imperfectly there is no sin involved because we are at least performing our occupation.

However the reply is “If you are not performing brahminical duties, then what activities are you performing that makes you a brahmana. Are the 'other commitments' that you speak about are of more importance in your life than your brahminical duties? Therefore, it is said : "Brahmanas who live a life of violence, lies, and greed, who are impure and indulge in all kinds of karmic activity in order to maintain their lives are degraded to the status of sudras. Such a person, who eats anything and everything without discrimination, who is attached to worldly things, who will accept any occupation just to make money, who has given up Vedic dharma and proper behavior is called a sudra." (Mahabharata, Santi Parva 189.7)

This above statement is too extreme still everything is possible and therefor, one should be very careful about his activities.

Brahmanical culture is a stage or qualification of a Vaisnava and Vaisnavism is the fruit of brahmanical culture. In the Garuda Purana it is said: "Out of thousands of brahmanas, one is qualified to perform sacrifices, and out of many thousands of such qualified brahmanas expert in sacrifices, one learned brahmana may have passed beyond all Vedic knowledge. Among many such brahmanas, one who is a devotee of Visnu is the best." This is just what Srila Prabhupada means when he say that when one becomes a devotee it is understood that he performed all kinds of sacrifices in his previous lives.

Of course, Vaisnavas born in families lower than brahmanas are equal to brahmanas and superior to them if such a brahmana is not a Vaisnava. This is because brahminical qualities are automatically and eternally present in a Vaisnava. Although the real Vaisnavas follow brahmincal culture, such Vaisnavas are actually beyond varnasrama-dharma and above all temporary material designations, including that of brahmana, while naturally exhibiting all qualities of a brahmana. They have no interest in this material world and it's ephemeral social regulations. Still, for one who is not transcendental brahminical culture should be adopted as it elevates one to the platform of goodness which is a stepping stone to the transcendental platform of pure goodness.

But if one only follows brahminical culture perfectly without being a Vaisnava, one will not attain the suddha-sattva platform since the mode of sattva is also a material mode of nature. One can only attain the suddha-sattva level of consiousness by associating and serving higher Vaisnavas — this is pure goodness, or Vaisnavism.

Although a Vaisnava's activities may appear to be similar to those following the system of varnasrama, in reality it is totally different since whatever actions he performs are only for the pleasure of the Lord and His devotees.

Why one can be classified as sudra is due to behavior, their low-class occupation, the association he keeps, the food he consumes, and the fact that he is not performing the duties of brahmana.

Actually the followers of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu do not condemn anyone according to their birth, religion, social status work etc. because the transcendental designation of 'Vaisnava' is above the social laws of varnasrama.

 

ard

 

 

 

 

 

 

How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

I am hoping that this discussion can continue through me, since I

have clarified to Krishna Susharla prabhu what issues there are.

---

 

 

achintya, avadhuta raya <avadhutaraya

wrote:

>

> Hari bol

> pranams

>

> According To Quality, Each Varna Is Known. A Sudra May Not Utter

Vedic Mantras. (Vs. 1.3.36)

 

The first part of your sentence is not part of the Sutra at all. The

Sutra is:

 

saMskAra parAmarshAt tad-abhAva-abhilApAt cha |

 

Because there are references [in the scriptures] to purificatory

rites [as prerequisite to study of Veda] and because of the

declaration of their absence [for the shUdra], [they do not have

Veda-adhikAra].

 

> Now, if the sudra shows a brahmanical inclination he is treated

differently.

 

And what do you call brahminical inclination? Do you think there is

any way to determine the brahminical inclination of anyone before

they begin their study [barring exceptional cases]?

 

For example, suppose you conduct a test of honesty, and the child

passes that test. How do you know he won't fail that test for some

other issue? In other words, how do you know his honesty is not time-

dependent or circumstance-dependent? How do you know he has other

qualities?

 

 

> Without any purification (in Kali yuga by pancaratrika system),

>the Vedic mantra says: "a sudra immediately becomes degraded if he

>studies the Vedic words." According to my understanding the sudra

>because of his impure intelligence will misinterpret and even

>blaspheme the Vedas what is an immediate cause of his degradation

>often seen nowadays Good examples are some useless

> Gita interpreters and its readers.

 

This is not an explanation, because there are so many brahmanas who

misinterpret the Vedas and blaspheme the Vedas. You can't generalize

that shUdras will misinterpret the Vedas any more than brahmanas

(merely because of absence of purification by pancharatrika system).

 

Yours,

 

Anant

[Guest guest]

In BG krishna says that the varnashrama dharma

"System" is based on GUNA and KARMA and i amnt sure if

we can extend those to the people born in those

families!

The system is bases on guna and karma.

 

I feel the discrimination is mostly on an occupational

level.

I am yet to hear about the spiritual practises

prescribed for the so called lower class people.

i suppose harinama is universal, escpecially for

kaliyuga and is the gateway to mukti for all beings!

Thanx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

pamho

 

Let's Srila Prabhupada seak out the truth.That everybody can attain perfection is nicely explained by Srila Prabhupada in his following room conversation in Mayapur (february 14. 1977) eight months before the finishing of his pracar lila-preaching pastime (mission)

 

Prabhupada: Not that a sudra man is by force become a brahmana. You cannot improve. That is not possible. But even if he remains a sudra and does accordingly, he will get the same position as devotee. Sva-karmana tam abhyarcya sam... He’ll get the perfection. At the present moment the idea is: if one remains a sudra, then he cannot get perfection. No. Even a sudra can get perfection provided he does the work of a sudra perfectly.

Hari-sauri: For Krsna.

Prabhupada: Therefore why a sudra artificially should be a brahmana? Let them, let him remain a sudra, and if he follows strictly the rules and regulation of sudra, he’ll also be as good as a brahmana. The same example: Just like head is as important as my leg. It is not that because it is leg, it is less important than my head. And if you ask the head, “Do the work of a leg,” it is impossible. And if you ask the leg to work as a brain, that is impossible. Let him remain brain, let him remain leg, and do your duty and you become perfect.

Satsvarupa: Today you’ve been saying that the Vaisnava is the highest, above the brahmana. But then we’ve also understood that everyone in ISKCON is a Vaisnava.

Prabhupada: Yes. Vaisnava everyone, even if he’s not brahmana. Jivera svarupa haya nitya-krsna-dasa [Cc. Madhya 20.108-109]. But you have to gradually bring him to that pure consciousness that “I am servant of Krsna.” Here the bodily conception is going on, “I am American,” “I am Indian,” “I am this,” “I am that.”

Satsvarupa: If in our society we say, “Srila Prabhupada wants some to be sudra...”

Prabhupada: No, no, no. I don’t want. I want everyone to become Vaisnava. But because he’s a sudra, it is not possible to bring him immediately to the platform of brahmana, or Vaisnava. Therefore falling down. Therefore system must be. But even if he remains a sudra, he’s a Vaisnava.

Hari-sauri: So we’d have to completely revise the whole system that we have now.

Prabhupada: No. Whatever we have, that is all right. But we see by experience that they’re falling down. There must be systematic. Why falling down? Because he was not fit for the position, therefore he has fallen. Better remain in his position and become perfect. Why artificially bring them? There is no need. Krsna says. Bring that Bhagavad-gita. Sve sve karmany abhiratah?

Hari-sauri:

sve sve karmany abhiratah

saàsiddhià labhate narah

sva-karma-niratah siddhià

yatha vindati tac chrnu

“By following his qualities of work, every man can become perfect. Now please hear from Me how this can be done.”

Prabhupada: Yes. He is sudra, clerk. He can... As a sudra, he can get the perfection. Why he should artificially become a brahmana and sannyasi and fall down? This has to be checked.

Hari-sauri: So that depends upon our men who are giving recommendations.

Prabhupada: So that recommendation is not good. Bible is giving so many recommendation. He’s also not following them. (laughs)

Hari-sauri: Following them. So how will we implement? Right now we have.... Every temple president can...

Prabhupada: That is supposed. Where there is no tree, a castor seed tree is very big tree. That is going on.

Satsvarupa: If there’s no tree?

Prabhupada: You know castor seed tree, a plant? it does not grow.

Satsvarupa: Small.

Prabhupada: Small. So there is no banyan tree. It is taken—“Oh, it is very big.”

Hari-sauri: I don’t follow the analogy.

Satsvarupa: In the complete absence of trees, then a small tree is considered big.

Hari-sauri: Oh. (laughs) Well, say, like here in Mayapura now we have a situation...

Prabhupada: No, no. Why? Why one should stress to become big tree? Here it is clearly said even if you are small tree, you can get perfection. So we should take that.

Hari-sauri: So in Mayapura here now we have that situation, that so many....

Prabhupada: Everywhere, wherever, Mayapura or anywhere. Question is that here it is clearly said, sve sve karmany abhiratah. Brahmana has his duty, ksatriya has his duty, vaisya has his duty, sudra has his duty. And if he performs his duty nicely, then he also becomes perfect. So why artificially he should be called a brahmana? Let them do, according to sastra, the work of sudra, or vaisya. He’ll get the perfect. Perfection is not checked. But why artificially he should be made a brahmana or he should be made a sannyasi and fall down and become a ludicrous? That is the point. Better let him live in his position and become perfect. That’s good. That looks very nice. And that is possible. That is possible. Varnasramacaravata purusena parah puman visnur aradhyate. Visnu, Lord Visnu, can be worshiped if you perfectly follow the rules and regulation of four varnas and four asramas. Here it is also said, sve sve karmani. You work as a perfect brahmana or a perfect ksatriya,

perfect sudra; you get perfection. The perfection is available in your natural life. Why should artificially you become unnatural and fall down and become ludicrous? Perfection is not checked.

ard

 

RAJGOPAL <scooty_ram > wrote: In BG krishna says that the varnashrama dharma

"System" is based on GUNA and KARMA and i amnt sure if

we can extend those to the people born in those

families!

The system is bases on guna and karma.

 

I feel the discrimination is mostly on an occupational

level.

I am yet to hear about the spiritual practises

prescribed for the so called lower class people.

i suppose harinama is universal, escpecially for

kaliyuga and is the gateway to mukti for all beings!

Thanx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to .

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

pamho

According To Quality, Each Varna Is Known. A Sudra May Not Utter

Vedic Mantras. (Vs. 1.3.36)

 

The first part of your sentence is not part of the Sutra at all.

A: Yes you are right. The statement is just the conclusion of the previous

sutras. I included it here as a reason why sudras cannot chant Vedic mantras.

For example, sudra means to be in tamas according to the Gita. The word

itself comes from the Words suk meaning grief and dravati - to go. Grief is

not the necessary state of mind for chanting the Vedic mantras. The mind

has to be in sattva. Of course, chanting the Hare Krishna maha mantra is

for anybody and Lord Caitanya distributed it even to the mleccas.

Because there are references [in the scriptures] to purificatory

rites [as prerequisite to study of Veda] and because of the

declaration of their absence [for the shUdra], [they do not have

Veda-adhikAra] .

 

 

A: I am not sure what you want to say here but the Vaisnavas give the

same purificatory process for everybody. Chanting the holy name what

is the only way to attain perfection. It will also purify the intelligence for

better understanding of the sastra.

Harer nama harer nama harer namaiva kevalam

Kalu nastieva nastieva nastieva gathir anyatha

> Now, if the sudra shows a brahmanical inclination he is treated

differently.

 

And what do you call brahminical inclination?

A: If you want to know then read the Bg sloka 18.42.

Do you think there is any way to determine the brahminical inclination

of anyone before they begin their study [barring exceptional cases]?

A: Yes, during a long period of time you can observe how much above

qualities are there in the child (Gita 18.42).

 

For example, suppose you conduct a test of honesty, and the child

passes that test. How do you know he won't fail that test for some

other issue? In other words, how do you know his honesty is not time-

dependent or circumstance- dependent? How do you know he has other

qualities?

A: I am not a gurukula teacher or a father but I think cultivation of honesty

and other brahmanical qualities should go on already before education

starts. The qualities of a brahmana are important. These are the qualities

in the mode of goodness – the qualities that also Vaisnavas have. But just

by teaching how to be a Vaisnava one will get also brahmanical qualities.

You can rectify me if I am wrong.

 

> Without any purification (in Kali yuga by pancaratrika system),

>the Vedic mantra says: "a sudra immediately becomes degraded if he

>studies the Vedic words." According to my understanding the sudra

>because of his impure intelligence will misinterpret and even

>blaspheme the Vedas what is an immediate cause of his degradation

>often seen nowadays Good examples are some useless

> Gita interpreters and its readers.

 

This is not an explanation, because there are so many brahmanas who

misinterpret the Vedas and blaspheme the Vedas.

A: Actually why should we call them brahmanas? They are not even sudras

but Mlechas. Real, good sudras have respect to the Vedic literature. They

like to listen Krishna katha because they know this is how they can become

spiritually elevated. Anybody without this quality is only a mleccha.

You can't generalize that shUdras will misinterpret the Vedas any more than

brahmanas (merely because of absence of purification by pancharatrika system).

A: Yeah, good point. But again this kind of sudras and brahmanas you speak

about are actually mlecchas.

The desire to make advancement in spiritual life implies the need for pancaritriki

purification. You prove your seriousness. Pancaratriki is especially for Kali-yuga

meant for any varna (most are born as sudras (me like meccha) kalau sudra

sambhava )

Nama – receiving the holy name to chant Hare Krishna and receiving a

personal name indicating him/her as servant of Krishna or Vispu;

Tapa – performing austerities and in South Indian traditions also implies getting

markings of the vaisnava on the body, such as conch and cakra.

Urdhva pundra: decorating the body with vaisnava tilaka.

Mantra: Receiving the gayatri mantra to perform

Yaja: Deity worship

Hoping this meets you in good mood

Hare Krishna

ard

 

 

 

Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Guest guest]

PAMHO

Hare Krishna

 

The question being asked is why should the majority of the humanity, who are

shUdras by guna and karma (and maybe by "biological positioning") are denied

study of the Vedas. Brahma Sutras without any ambiguity denies veda-adhikara

to shUdras. Many have questioned the authority of Brahma Sutras and also

that of its author for this illegitimate denial of the fundamental right of

all human beings, irrespective of his external designations such as varNa or

guna or karma, of self realization bestowed by the Vedas itself.

 

For example consider this verse:

 

"I do hereby address this salutary (Vedic) speech for the benefit of

humanity – for the Brahmanas, the Kshatriyas, the Shudras, the Vaishas, the

kinsfolk and the men of lowest position in society. May I be dear to the

learned in this world." -(White Yajur Veda 26.2 as seen in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varnas ).

 

If shruti-shAstra says - aShTa-varShaM brAhmaNam upanIyata tam adhyApayed

ekAdeshe kShatriyaM dvAdashe vaishyam (One should perform the saMskAra and

teach a brAhmaNa boy when he is eight years old a kShatriya boy when he is

eleven years old, and a vaishya boy when he is twelve years old) – it

indicates only external rituals. (I don't know whether brAhmaNam translates

to brAhmaNa 'boy' and so on...). There seems to be no explicit directive in

the shruti to keep ShUdras away from the Vedas. Given this scenario does

Bhrama Sutras or even the Puranas have the authority to deny veda-adhikara

to the shUdras? This requires some thought.

 

As neither the author of Brahma Sutras nor its commentator, Srila Baladeva

Vidyabhusha are ordinary human beings, and therefore they can not be wrong

in stating that sHudras are not qualified for vedic meditation.

 

If it is understood that saMskAras (purificatory rituals) are external and

more important is the surrender of the individual (girl or boy) to the

spiritual master who can give her or him a 'second birth', it will become

very clear that shUdras are those who have not surrendered to a genuine

spiritual master. The only condition then the Brahma Sutras demands is this

surrender – and thereby loosing one's shUdrahood – to qualify for Vedic

meditation. Going back to Godhead is the divine right of every individual,

but some conditions do apply. Surrender is one such condition. For any

reasons if this too is also not possible, as is the case of the vast

majority of human beings, who elect themselves to be shUdras, then spiritual

advancement is possible by meditation on puraNas, which being non-different

from Vedas are quite suited for all in this age, including the shUdras.

shUdras of the previous yugas, before Puranas were made available, indeed

did not have any other recourse, other than finding a spiritual master.

Study of puraNas if done in the right earnest will lead one to a genuine

spiritual master – and performing the belated saMskAras - as the case of

Vidura amply proves.

 

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not recommend varNashrama based formulations for

spiritual enlightenment. He asked the spiritual seekers to find a pure

devotee and follow him. He even let loose the a sruti mantra freely into a

world dominated by shUdras. If a shUdra can meditate on the Hare Krishna

mahamantra, what prevents her or him from meditating on the rest of the

Vedas? Is the mahamantra the least significant of all the sruti mantras?

 

But methodology to be followed in recognizing the varNa of an individual is

described variously. BG mentions guna and karma. In Mahabharata Yudhisthira

mentions right conduct. Gautama inquires the gotra of JabAla, and the

inferred truthfulness of the answer (nAham etad vede bho yad gotro .aham

asmi) is taken as proof of brAhmaNahood. The spiritual master does seem to

have a good amount of discretionary powers here. That biological position is

only effective method of establishing the varNa -as expressed by some in

this list and elsewhere – is by their own admission based on reasoning

(mental speculation) based on lack of other proofs. This also amounts to

questioning the spiritual master's discretion in accepting disciples.

 

As alleged one member here (and many others outside), this is not a 'recent'

Gaudiya practice disobeying Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana's injunctions. Lord

Chaitanya did indeed accept Haridasa Takura, Ramanada Raya and many others

as his disciples. The lineage of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana therefore has

as many "biological sHudras" before him, as there are more after him.

Ramunjacharya established Srivaishnavism based on the same criteria even

before Lord Chaitanya's movement began.

 

That only "biological brAhmaNas" are qualified for Vedic meditation even if

accepted in its face value, requires concrete proof that the individual has

a unbroken blood line from Lord Brahma. How many have such a sound

genealogical record with them to qualify as pure, genuine brAhmaNas?

 

Women not qualified for Vedic Mediation – The pointed reference to Gaudiya

practice by a member of this list also requires elucidation from senior

members and scholars.

 

T.Harikrishnan

[Guest guest]

Pamho

Hare Krishna

 

Sri Anant Shenoy with the help of his Madhva friend had posted some comments

(through a couple of posts) in which there are certain points that needs

more discussion, clarification and inputs from all as these points are in

fact taken as the only correct understanding of Vedas by many sambradayas

for many centuries now. That these were part of the tradition will not by

itself make any of these observations infalliable. Sound shastric (sruti to

start with) evidences are required.

 

>This is not to refute what you are saying, but to state what

>Madhvacharya's position is on verse 4.13. The word "svabhaavajam"

>indicates that the designations of brahmanas, kshatriyas, etc has to

>do with the svabhaava of the soul rather than something attached to

>body. In other words, it is possible for a brahmana soul to be born

>in a shudra body and vice versa.

 

brAhmaNa soul? varNa based on guNa and karma are supposed to be

materialistic designations. Does Atma have such designations? Is there any

sruti evidence for available for this? What exactly is "svabhaava"? How is

it related to guNa and karma mentioned in BG?

 

>What does Sri Baladeva mean when he says (speaking about moxa for

>shuudras) - "phale tu taaraatamyam bhavi". Is this not an indication

>that he accepts a hierarchy of knowledge and bliss in moxa, with

>brahmana souls having a higher position?

 

brAhmaNa souls in the state of moxa? Is there varNashrma dharma in Vaikunta

too? Is is an eternal, infallible and spiritual construct? If so what are

the relevant sruti evidences?

 

>Birth is not an absolute prerequisite for determining the svabhaava,

>and this part is well-accepted by dvaita. What they disagree with is

>that there is a systematic methodology to determine the svabhaava of

>a child before upanayanam. Given the lack of it, one should follow

>the birth-based system, since that has been the norm always

>including in Krishna's time.

 

Any sruti proofs for these conclusions, i.e,

 

(a) there is no systematic methodology to determine the svabhaava of child

 

(b) since the above is lacking follow the birth-based system

 

>I have read that it is indeed so for 7 janmas (after which the

>lineage is no more called a brahmana). But I do not remember the

>reference from the dharma-shastra - which exactly it was.

 

Explicit sruti proofs for these facts are required for:

 

(a) brAhmaNa lineage exists through bloodline

 

(b) that such a lineage can have gaps of a maximum of 7 generations

 

>Those atheistic conclusions and lack of karmas may reflect that he

>is not a braahmana by qualities. But they do not cause him to lose

>brahminical status since even asuras can have Veda-adhikara and

>brahminical status by their birth. (Note that brahmana here is in

>the aupadhika sense, not in svabhaava sense).

 

Kindly explain the difference between a aupadika brAhmaNa and svabhaava

brAhmaNa with the help of sruti references.

 

>I do not know if you have read the online book "Hindu Dharma" by

>Chandrashekhara Saraswati. It has an elaborate description of varna

>dharma, much of which is common to traditional schools. There, he

>says that he grants (as a compromise) that brahmanas can join jobs

>and give worldly education to their children (he does indicate it is

>not the ideal standard, but a position of compromise he can grant).

>However, he makes it mandatory that they should side-by-side educate

>their children in Vedic shaastras and yagnas.

 

Do sruti and dharma-shastras which apparently do not offer any compromise

for souls born in sHudras families for Vedic mediation, offer compromise for

only individuals born in brAhmaNa families in engaging in sHudraic karma to

support their material enjoyment? Does any specific sruti evidence for this

apparently one-sided approach?

 

>But being a

>brahmana and being a vaishnava are not the same.

 

What are the exact differences? Understanding this may help in understanding

varNa.

 

>One cannot switch up and down the varna system

>by appeal to qualities, as there will be chaos, with everyone trying

>to show he is brahmana (and who will evaluate their claims and

>how?). Who will want to be a shuudra?

 

Obviously the bRamNas (biological) who want to improve the quality of their

material lives, as seen commonly today. Apparently these "brAhmaNas" are

permitted to take the positions of sHudras to keep up their material

enjoyment (eating, sleeping, defending and mating), whereas sHudras

(biological) should not take the positions of brAhmaNas by giving up

material enjoyment to pursue spiritual enlightenment. This seems to be a

strange to Vedic understanding, even though this has indeed been practiced

historically for a long time now.

 

>Like Vidura who stayed shudra

>all his life even though he was by qualities way above many

>brahmanas, this birth-based system seems the most stable when you

>look at it objectively. There is no competition, no profession is

>left neglected.

 

Since the time this birth-based system was made the order of the day,

braHmaNa profession has been neglected, we hardly get to see any braHmaNas,

and also the meditation on the Vedas non-existent. If birth based varNashrma

is the most ideal, perfect and stable system, what we see today would not

have been the state of Vedic religion.

 

The following, two points I set aside for better people to deal with:

 

1. Biological positions of Vyaasa, Vishvamitra and Satyakama Jabala.

2.

>Also, in the Bhaagavata verse I pointed out, it is clearly mentioned

>that women do not have Veda-adhikaara. Leaving aside the issue of

>shuudras for now, you would agree that for women, there is no

>dispute about what is meant by the word "strI" in SB 1.4.25. What

>would you then say about women being given Gayatri?

 

As I mentioned in my earlier post, are "Women not qualified for Vedic

mediation"? This also requires more elaboration.

 

T.Harikrishnan

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

achintya, avadhuta raya <avadhutaraya

wrote:

>

> Hare Krishna

> pamho

>

> Let's Srila Prabhupada seak out the truth.That everybody can

attain perfection is nicely explained by Srila Prabhupada in his

following room conversation in Mayapur (february 14. 1977) eight

months before the finishing of his pracar lila-preaching pastime

(mission)

 

Whatever I say below does not take for granted that all that Srila

Prabhupada said is correct (as many Gaudiyas assume). His statements

in a room conversation need to be evaluated in the light of shAstra.

 

>

> Prabhupada: Not that a sudra man is by force become a brahmana.

You cannot improve. That is not possible.

 

Here, what does he mean? Why cannot a shudra become a brahmana by

improving his qualities?

 

This statement is true only if you assume that the quality of being

shudra is part of the svabhAva of the soul (which cannot be

changed), in which case, this is the dvaita position.

 

> But even if he remains a sudra and does accordingly, he will get

>the same position as devotee.

 

This is the position of Madhvacharya also.

 

> Sva-karmana tam abhyarcya sam... He'll get the perfection. At the

>present moment the idea is: if one remains a sudra, then he cannot

>get perfection. No. Even a sudra can get perfection provided he

>does the work of a sudra perfectly.

 

This is also the position of Madhvacharya.

 

> Hari-sauri: For Krsna.

> Prabhupada: Therefore why a sudra artificially should be a

brahmana? Let them, let him remain a sudra, and if he follows

strictly the rules and regulation of sudra, he'll also be as good as

a brahmana.

 

"As good as brahmana" does not mean that he can adopt the profession

of a brahmana or that he "is a brahmana". The "as good" can very

well be in terms of the qualities (as in Vidura's case). But this

doesn't mean that he is now authorized to do what a brahmana does,

which is not his svadharma.

 

> The same example: Just like head is as important as my leg. It is

>not that because it is leg, it is less important than my head. And

>if you ask the head, "Do the work of a leg," it is impossible. And

>if you ask the leg to work as a brain, that is impossible. Let him

>remain brain, let him remain leg, and do your duty and you become

>perfect.

 

Good so far.

 

> Satsvarupa: Today you've been saying that the Vaisnava is the

highest, above the brahmana. But then we've also understood that

everyone in ISKCON is a Vaisnava.

> Prabhupada: Yes. Vaisnava everyone, even if he's not brahmana.

>Jivera svarupa haya nitya-krsna-dasa [Cc. Madhya 20.108-109]. But

>you have to gradually bring him to that pure consciousness that "I

>am servant of Krsna." Here the bodily conception is going on, "I am

>American,I am Indian,I am this,I am that."

> Satsvarupa: If in our society we say, "Srila Prabhupada wants

some to be sudra..."

> Prabhupada: No, no, no. I don't want. I want everyone to become

>Vaisnava. But because he's a sudra, it is not possible to bring him

>immediately to the platform of brahmana, or Vaisnava. Therefore

>falling down. Therefore system must be. But even if he remains a

>sudra, he's a Vaisnava.

> Hari-sauri: So we'd have to completely revise the whole system

that we have now.

> Prabhupada: No. Whatever we have, that is all right. But we see

>by experience that they're falling down. There must be systematic.

>Why falling down? Because he was not fit for the position,

>therefore he has fallen.

 

Now the question is - "who appointed him to that position?" Did

Prabhupada not know that so many of his disciples are not fit for

that position?

 

> Better remain in his position and become >perfect. Why

>artificially bring them? There is no need. Krsna says. >Bring that

>Bhagavad-gita. Sve sve karmany abhiratah?

> Hari-sauri:

> sve sve karmany abhiratah

> saàsiddhià labhate narah

> sva-karma-niratah siddhià

> yatha vindati tac chrnu

> "By following his qualities of work, every man can become

perfect. Now please hear from Me how this can be done."

> Prabhupada: Yes. He is sudra, clerk. He can... As a sudra, he

>can get the perfection. Why he should artificially become a

>brahmana and sannyasi and fall down? This has to be checked.

 

Then why were they appointed as brahmanas and sannyasis?

 

> Hari-sauri: So that depends upon our men who are giving

recommendations.

> Prabhupada: So that recommendation is not good. Bible is giving

so many recommendation. He's also not following them. (laughs)

 

This is precisely the point of all other schools - if you make the

varna system based on qualities, then it is inevitable that everyone

will be free to recommend anyone they like or feel to the position

of a brahmana. Instead of accepting that whatever varna one is born

into is a prasAda of the Lord, and being satisfied doing one's

prescribed duty as per that varna, everyone will compete to somehow

want to be recommended to position of brahmana, and people who

cannot judge the qualities of a person will recommend them.

 

> Hari-sauri: Following them. So how will we implement? Right now

we have... Every temple president can...

> Prabhupada: That is supposed. Where there is no tree, a castor

seed tree is very big tree. That is going on.

> Satsvarupa: If there's no tree?

> Prabhupada: You know castor seed tree, a plant? it does not grow.

> Satsvarupa: Small.

> Prabhupada: Small. So there is no banyan tree. It is taken—"Oh,

it is very big."

> Hari-sauri: I don't follow the analogy.

> Satsvarupa: In the complete absence of trees, then a small tree

is considered big.

> Hari-sauri: Oh. (laughs) Well, say, like here in Mayapura now we

have a situation...

> Prabhupada: No, no. Why? Why one should stress to become big

tree? Here it is clearly said even if you are small tree, you can

get perfection. So we should take that.

 

Since even shudras can get perfection, why recommend them to

position of brahmana?

 

> Hari-sauri: So in Mayapura here now we have that situation, that

so many...

> Prabhupada: Everywhere, wherever, Mayapura or anywhere. Question

>is that here it is clearly said, sve sve karmany abhiratah.

Brahmana >has his duty, ksatriya has his duty, vaisya has his duty,

sudra has >his duty. And if he performs his duty nicely, then he

also becomes >perfect. So why artificially he should be called a

brahmana? Let them do, according to sastra, the work of sudra, or

>vaisya. He'll get the perfect. Perfection is not checked. But why

>artificially he should be made a brahmana or he should be made a

>sannyasi and fall down and become a ludicrous? That is the point.

 

My question here is - what about those sannyasis who Prabhupada

appointed himself and who fell down? Was that not artificial to

appoint them?

 

>Better let him live in his position and become perfect. That's

>good. That looks very nice. And that is possible. That is possible.

>Varnasramacaravata purusena parah puman visnur aradhyate. Visnu,

>Lord Visnu, can be worshiped if you perfectly follow the rules and

>regulation of four varnas and four asramas. Here it is also said,

>sve sve karmani. You work as a perfect brahmana or a perfect

>ksatriya,

> perfect sudra; you get perfection. The perfection is available in

>your natural life. Why should artificially you become unnatural and

>fall down and become ludicrous? Perfection is not checked.

 

Yours,

 

Anant

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

achintya, avadhuta raya <avadhutaraya

wrote:

>

> Hare Krishna

> pamho

>

> According To Quality, Each Varna Is Known. A Sudra May Not Utter

> Vedic Mantras. (Vs. 1.3.36)

>

> The first part of your sentence is not part of the Sutra at all.

> A: Yes you are right. The statement is just the conclusion of

the previous

> sutras. I included it here as a reason why sudras cannot chant

Vedic mantras.

 

I actually contest the above, that your statement is the conclusion

of the previous sutras, since Baladeva Vidyabhushana says no such

thing. Rather, even his justification for why Janashruti was a

kshatriya (in the prior sutras) has nothing to do with Janashruti

having the qualities of a kshatriya (he tried to bribe Raikva which

is against kshatriya quality), and rather is *completely* based upon

the family to which Janashruti belonged.

 

If you still want to claim that your statement is the conclusion of

the previous sutras, then you should explain the previous sutras,

and at least acknowledge that you do not agree with Baladeva's

explanations. (or show me where I am going wrong in understanding

Baladeva's statements)

 

> For example, sudra means to be in tamas according to the Gita.

The word

> itself comes from the Words suk meaning grief and dravati - to

go. Grief is

> not the necessary state of mind for chanting the Vedic mantras.

 

This is an explanation of why Raikva called Janashruti a shudra,

even though he was not a shudra by varNa. Baladeva says that

Janashruti was NOT of shudra varNa, since Janashruti was a

kshatriya, which Baladeva establishes using reasons purely based on

Janashruti's family.

 

Thus, your quotation of the meaning of shudra is actually going

*against* the case that you're arguing, if you look at the context.

Baladeva gives the meaning of shudra (which you have quoted)

precisely to establish that it is NOT to be understood as the

varNa "shudra".

 

The mind

> has to be in sattva. Of course, chanting the Hare Krishna maha

mantra is

> for anybody and Lord Caitanya distributed it even to the mleccas.

 

Note that Hare Krishna maha mantra (even accepting that Chaitanya

Mahaprabhu's actions cannot be questioned) is not a shruti mantra.

 

>

> Because there are references [in the scriptures] to purificatory

> rites [as prerequisite to study of Veda] and because of the

> declaration of their absence [for the shUdra], [they do not have

> Veda-adhikAra] .

>

>

> A: I am not sure what you want to say here but the Vaisnavas

give the

> same purificatory process for everybody.

 

The above is a translation of the Sutra 1.3.36 as per Baladeva's

commentary. It is saying that since upanayanam or sacred thread

ceremony is NOT prescribed for shudras, they do NOT have Veda-

adhikAra (since upanayanam is necessary for Veda-adhyayana).

 

Vaishnavas in Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita schools do not give

upanayanam to females or to those in shudra or mleccha classes. And

Baladeva is putting the very same position as his position too.

 

We are not talking about purificatory rites based on smritis here.

Those may be for everyone.

 

Chanting the holy name what

> is the only way to attain perfection. It will also purify the

intelligence for

> better understanding of the sastra.

 

This is again not relevant to the issue under discussion, since

names of the Lord are present in the smritis also which everyone has

access to. So there is no disagreement over this.

 

>

> Harer nama harer nama harer namaiva kevalam

> Kalu nastieva nastieva nastieva gathir anyatha

>

> > Now, if the sudra shows a brahmanical inclination he is treated

> differently.

>

> And what do you call brahminical inclination?

>

> A: If you want to know then read the Bg sloka 18.42.

 

This shloka merely says that the qualities and karma of a brahmana

come from his svabhAva (precisely the dvaita position). However,

there is no means to determine the svabhAva of a person. It is

possible that Bin Laden may be a brahmana by svabhAva who has been

temporarily overcome with Asuric influence. There is no set means to

determine the svabhAva of a person, which means that the notion of

making someone a brahmana based on his "manifested behavior" or

inclinations is a highly unreliable notion.

 

>

> Do you think there is any way to determine the brahminical

inclination

> of anyone before they begin their study [barring exceptional

cases]?

>

> A: Yes, during a long period of time you can observe how much

above

> qualities are there in the child (Gita 18.42).

 

Given that Baladeva himself quotes a verse that says that a brahmana

child should be initiated at the age of 8 years, what is that "long

period" of time that you will observe him for, and what will you

observe from his behavior? Who will be the observer and what tests

will he use? (Given that the child has no guru before upanayanam,

for sure, the parents who are very attached to the child will want

him to be labelled a brahmana) 18.42 says that j~nAnam and vij~nAnam

are the svAbhAvic qualities of a brahmana, which he would get only

AFTER completing his study of Veda. Do you expect these qualities to

be already there in a 7 yr old child?

 

Also, to determine that someone is a kshatriya, by the same

standards, do you expect to send the child to a war to see if he has

the qualities of "yuddhe apalAyanam"?

 

Would you call Arjuna a brahmana or a kshatriya? If you say

brahmana, then you would be going against the word of Krishna

Himself in Gita (and the entire Mahabharata), and if you say he was

a kshatriya, I could very well use your own arguments above to

contradict you (since Arjuna had all the qualities of a brahmana

described in 18.42).

 

>

> For example, suppose you conduct a test of honesty, and the child

> passes that test. How do you know he won't fail that test for

some

> other issue? In other words, how do you know his honesty is not

time-

> dependent or circumstance- dependent? How do you know he has

other

> qualities?

>

> A: I am not a gurukula teacher or a father but I think

cultivation of honesty

> and other brahmanical qualities should go on already before

education

> starts.

 

How can honesty start before education starts? On what basis is

honesty imparted if not on an educational foundation? The qualities

develop as a result of education, not before education begins.

Moreover, the real test of character comes when one is in his late

teens, when proper exposure to the world around starts, and when one

becomes mature to make choices for himself (as opposed to parents

making all the choices).

 

The qualities of a brahmana are important. These are the qualities

> in the mode of goodness – the qualities that also Vaisnavas

have. But just

> by teaching how to be a Vaisnava one will get also brahmanical

qualities.

> You can rectify me if I am wrong.

 

That is true. However, the question here is of determination of

one's varNa. A shudra is encouraged to develop the qualities of a

brahmana, but if he doesn't have them, it is still not a violation

of shudra standard. And even by having brahminical qualities, it is

not sufficient grounds (unless one is a great devatA or someone to

see the svabhAva of someone) to conclude that it is part of his

svabhAva so that he can change his varNa from shudra to brahmana.

 

>

> > Without any purification (in Kali yuga by pancaratrika system),

> >the Vedic mantra says: "a sudra immediately becomes degraded if

he

> >studies the Vedic words." According to my understanding the

sudra

> >because of his impure intelligence will misinterpret and even

> >blaspheme the Vedas what is an immediate cause of his

degradation

> >often seen nowadays Good examples are some useless

> > Gita interpreters and its readers.

>

> This is not an explanation, because there are so many brahmanas

who

> misinterpret the Vedas and blaspheme the Vedas.

>

> A: Actually why should we call them brahmanas? They are not even

sudras

> but Mlechas. Real, good sudras have respect to the Vedic

literature. They

> like to listen Krishna katha because they know this is how they

can become

> spiritually elevated. Anybody without this quality is only a

mleccha.

 

Then maybe I should ask you whether Duryodhana, Ravana and

Hiranyakashyipu were brahmanas/kshatriyas or not. They were averse

to Krishna Katha, and did some of the most abominable things that

even Western non-believers of Veda wouldn't do. Their actions were

dead against the injunctions of the Vedas, and yet Duryodhana was

even trained with great care by Balarama. They may not have the

svabhAva of a brahmana/xatriya but this doesn't mean their varNa was

mleccha. Never ever in the Mahabharata or Bhagavata does anybody say

that they did not belong to the varNas they did. Hatred of Vishnu is

worse than mere misinterpretation of Vedas. Yet these haters-of-

Vishnu belonged to the brahmana/kshatriya varNas.

 

>

> You can't generalize that shUdras will misinterpret the Vedas

any more than

> brahmanas (merely because of absence of purification by

pancharatrika system).

>

> A: Yeah, good point. But again this kind of sudras and brahmanas

you speak

> about are actually mlecchas.

 

Which is against the shAstras, since Duryodhana then should have

been not trained in dhanurvidyA at all by Drona and Balarama. Vidura

should not then be called a shudra. But Baladeva is very strong that

Vidura had no Veda-adhikara for being shudra. While your words speak

about what you think is "desirable" and "pleasant", the fact is that

the apa-shudra-adhikaraNam of BrahmaSutras is against the system you

have in mind. And so are Baladeva's explanations of the adhikaraNam.

That is what I am seeking an explanation from you on. I am claiming

that Baladeva is saying the same thing I am saying.

 

> The desire to make advancement in spiritual life implies the

need for pancaritriki

> purification. You prove your seriousness. Pancaratriki is

especially for Kali-yuga

> meant for any varna (most are born as sudras (me like meccha)

kalau sudra

> sambhava )

 

PancharAtra, being smritis, can sure purify any varNa, including

mlecchas. We are only talking about shrutis here.

 

>

> Nama – receiving the holy name to chant Hare Krishna and

receiving a

> personal name indicating him/her as servant of Krishna or

Vispu;

> Tapa – performing austerities and in South Indian traditions

also implies getting

> markings of the vaisnava on the body, such as conch and cakra.

> Urdhva pundra: decorating the body with vaisnava tilaka.

> Mantra: Receiving the gayatri mantra to perform

> Yaja: Deity worship

 

Sure - no problem with any of this.

 

>

> Hoping this meets you in good mood

 

Definitely. As long as I am not blamed for my motivations, or other

personal accusations, I do not mind any amount of philosophical

criticism of what I am saying.

 

Yours,

 

Anant

[Guest guest]

> Mantra: Receiving the gayatri mantra to perform

 

Actually, even this would be problematic if by Gayatri, you mean

the "shrauta gAyatrI" and not the "smArta gAyatrI". Receiving Shrauta

Gayatri mantra is only applicable for dvijas, not for shudras and

women as per the system of Veda-adhikAra. SmArta GayatrI can be

chanted by anyone.

 

Yours,

 

Anant

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna Sri Harikrishnan,

 

achintya, "Harikrishnan T"

<t.harikrishnan wrote:

>

> PAMHO

> Hare Krishna

>

> The question being asked is why should the majority of the

humanity, who are

> shUdras by guna and karma (and maybe by "biological positioning")

are denied

> study of the Vedas. Brahma Sutras without any ambiguity denies

veda-adhikara

> to shUdras. Many have questioned the authority of Brahma Sutras

and also

> that of its author for this illegitimate denial of the fundamental

right of

> all human beings, irrespective of his external designations such

as varNa or

> guna or karma, of self realization bestowed by the Vedas itself.

 

Note that objectively speaking, it cannot be said that shudras are

denied a "fundamental right" since no one says that Vedas are

necessary to get moxa. Moxa-adhikAra and Veda-adhikAra are two

orthogonal issues. Unless the Vedas had been giving some benefit not

available through the smritis, this objection is not valid.

 

>

> For example consider this verse:

>

> "I do hereby address this salutary (Vedic) speech for the benefit

of

> humanity – for the Brahmanas, the Kshatriyas, the Shudras, the

Vaishas, the

> kinsfolk and the men of lowest position in society. May I be dear

to the

> learned in this world." -(White Yajur Veda 26.2 as seen in

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varnas ).

>

> If shruti-shAstra says - aShTa-varShaM brAhmaNam upanIyata tam

adhyApayed

> ekAdeshe kShatriyaM dvAdashe vaishyam (One should perform the

saMskAra and

> teach a brAhmaNa boy when he is eight years old a kShatriya boy

when he is

> eleven years old, and a vaishya boy when he is twelve years old) –

it

> indicates only external rituals. (I don't know whether brAhmaNam

translates

> to brAhmaNa 'boy' and so on...). There seems to be no explicit

directive in

> the shruti to keep ShUdras away from the Vedas.

 

But the mantra-draShTas of the Vedas wrote the smritis, so on what

basis would you be willing to accept the mantras they saw as shruti

and not accept their explanations of the mantras in the smritis.

Krishna also gives Brahma-Sutras authority in the 13th chapter of

Gita. The shruti says that upanayana is necessary for study of Veda,

and that shUdras have no upanayana. What does this imply?

 

Given this scenario does

> Bhrama Sutras or even the Puranas have the authority to deny veda-

adhikara

> to the shUdras? This requires some thought.

 

This does not require thought if you accept the Bhagavad Gita and

BhAgavata as pramANa compositions of VyAsa. The Bhagavad Gita

mentions the Brahma Sutras, and so Krishna gives authority to the

Brahma Sutras. You could potentially say that all the verses

referring to lack of Veda-adhikAra for shudras are interpolations,

but there would be no basis for saying so without denying the

authority of the entire Gita or BhAgavata (as otherwise it would

amount to selectively choosing what is convenient) and also of

Baladeva.

 

>

> As neither the author of Brahma Sutras nor its commentator, Srila

Baladeva

> Vidyabhusha are ordinary human beings, and therefore they can not

be wrong

> in stating that sHudras are not qualified for vedic meditation.

 

Baladeva Vidyabhushana could be wrong as per other schools, but

sure, as a Gaudiya you could take the position that he is right in

everything he has said (in the light of shAstras). I was pointing

out that his explanations of apa-shUdra-adhikaraNam do not match up

with the notions of the varnashrama system that one finds commonly

floating around in ISKCON circles.

 

>

> If it is understood that saMskAras (purificatory rituals) are

external and

> more important is the surrender of the individual (girl or boy) to

the

> spiritual master who can give her or him a 'second birth', it will

become

> very clear that shUdras are those who have not surrendered to a

genuine

> spiritual master.

 

However, the Brahma Sutras do not say that samskaras are external,

or that having a spiritual master overrides the injunctions of Veda-

adhikAra. The sutras say that the absence of samskaras for shudras

implies that they do not have Veda-adhikAra. Neither does the

BhAgavata verse ( 1.4.24) say anything like that - rather it says

that Vedic karmas for moxa are meant only for Veda-adhikAris, and

for the Veda-anadhikAris Vyasa wrote the Mahabharata so that

everyone could read it and get moxa.

 

The only condition then the Brahma Sutras demands is this

> surrender – and thereby loosing one's shUdrahood – to qualify for

Vedic

> meditation.

 

This is mere speculation - you have to establish this through the

sutras and not just imagine them to be saying such things.

 

> Going back to Godhead is the divine right of every individual,

> but some conditions do apply. Surrender is one such condition.

 

And going "back to Godhead" [note that other schools reject that

there is ever a falldown] has nothing to do with having Veda-

adhikAra.

 

For any

> reasons if this too is also not possible, as is the case of the

vast

> majority of human beings, who elect themselves to be shUdras, then

spiritual

> advancement is possible by meditation on puraNas, which being non-

different

> from Vedas are quite suited for all in this age, including the

shUdras.

> shUdras of the previous yugas, before Puranas were made available,

indeed

> did not have any other recourse, other than finding a spiritual

master.

 

First of all, a spiritual master is needed whether or not one has

Veda-adhikAra. Secondly, before Kali-Yuga, literatures were always

passed by word of mouth not by writing, so regardless of whether it

is shruti or some itihAsa/PurANa, one would have to learn it from a

guru. There is no such thing as "meditating on Puranas" and getting

moxa merely by that, without learning from a guru.

 

> Study of puraNas if done in the right earnest will lead one to a

genuine

> spiritual master – and performing the belated saMskAras - as the

case of

> Vidura amply proves.

 

Vidura did not have "belated samskaras". He had no samskaras -

period. He was a shudra till the end, even though by svabhAva, he

was an aMsha of Yama himself.

 

>

> Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not recommend varNashrama based

formulations for

> spiritual enlightenment.

 

Varnasharama is essential as per shAstra whether or not he

recommended it. Krishna never says in Gita that varnasharama is not

necessary for spiritual enlightenment, nor does the BhAgavata say

any such thing.

 

> He asked the spiritual seekers to find a pure

> devotee and follow him.

 

If he is a pure devotee, he will recommend you to follow your varna

dharma, whatever it is, and not appoint you a brahmana if your varna

is not that of a brahmana.

 

>He even let loose the a sruti mantra freely into a

> world dominated by shUdras. If a shUdra can meditate on the Hare

Krishna

> mahamantra, what prevents her or him from meditating on the rest

of the

> Vedas? Is the mahamantra the least significant of all the sruti

mantras?

 

Just for your information, the Mahamantra is not a shruti mantra.

Even granting the authenticity of Kali-Santarana Upanishad,

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not give that mantra as it is, but changed

it and gave it (by reversing the order of Rama and Krishna). Why do

you think he gave it only after changing it and not directly?

 

>

> But methodology to be followed in recognizing the varNa of an

individual is

> described variously. BG mentions guna and karma. In Mahabharata

Yudhisthira

> mentions right conduct.

 

Those are the "expected" conduct/qualities of the varnas, not the

criterion for deciding someone's varNa. Note that the Brahma Sutra

is the text that does nirnaya of the interpretations of the shAstra,

and you cannot arbitrarily derive interpretations that go against

the sutras.

 

Gautama inquires the gotra of JabAla, and the

> inferred truthfulness of the answer (nAham etad vede bho yad

gotro .aham

> asmi) is taken as proof of brAhmaNahood.

 

By the way, I asked someone how Satyakama's and Vishvamitra's

examples are explained and this is what he said:

 

1. The varNa and Ashrama-s are present both in svAbhAvika way and

aupAdhika way.

 

2. The aupAdhika varNa and Ashrama-s are what is determined from

birth.

 

The ideal situation is to go by svAvbhAvika varNa and Ashrama-s.

However that

will lead to lot of misuse and chaos as every one can claim that

he/she is

what he/she likes to be. Thus it is suggested that as a will of God,

accept

what is given as aupAdhika as the prasAda of the Lord, unless Lord

Himself

wills someother way for some strong reason and comes from high

authority

like Brahma or God himself, but not human self-appointed

authorities. To

demonstrate this, the highly knowledgeable Vidura himself

demonstrated

this principle (by his not giving vedopadesha to others and his not

doing veda-adhyayana, though he is Yama's amsha.)

 

That should be a lesson for those who try to misuse this "svabhAva

varNa".

 

Now coming to the episodes of VishvAmitra and SatyakAmajAbAla.

 

1. The king Gadhi, gets a daughter Satyavati. A rishi, by name

R^ichIka,

asks Gadhi for his daughter in marriage. By fulfilling the

conditions

of Gadhi, he marries her. RichIka's father Bhr^igu visits his son

and

seeing his daughter-in-law confers a boon. She asks for a son for

herself

and also her mother. He gives two vessels with some pudding

(oblatory

offering) and instructs that they should bathe, get ready fo

pumsavana,

her mother should embrace an Ashvattha (peeple) tree and she an

udumbara

(fig) tree respectively and they have to be very careful with

everything.

 

As God wills it, they exchange the containers and they embrace the

trees also other way around. Bhrigu revisits them and reveals what

happened and tells them that Satyavati's son, though BrahmaNa will

act

like xatriya and her mother's son, though xatriya, will turn out to

be BrahmaNa. She prayes to him that her grand son may become like

that instead of her son and Bhrigu says "OK".

 

Thus Gadhi's wife gets Vishvamitra as son (and as Bhrigu mentioned

that the bIja is BrahmaNa bIja) and so he eventually becomes

BrAhmaNa and that too after a great penance and not just like that.

Satyavati's son is Jamadagni and his son is ParashurAma.

 

2. SatyakAma JAbAla does not know his gotra, etc and after asking

his mother, who also does not know, he goes to Gautama. He honestly

tells his position to Gautama, who recognizes that he is BrahmaNa.

He agrees to give him Upadesha. When satyakAma jAbAla roams around

in forest, he gets Upadesha from various gods, unasked. When he

returns to Ashram, seeing his tejas, gautama asks him the reason

an finds out what happened and says that he does not need any more

instruction. But SatyakAma jAbAla says that he wants instruction

from his own guru, gautama and recives instruction from him.

So, the above two cases are out of ordinary and not to be emulated

by one and all. The Vidura's case must be a guideline and the

simple understanding that ther is no need for Veda to get moxa,

one can continue sAdhana as per God's will.

 

Then the issue of software professionals. Infact it does not matter

if one is software professional or doctor or engineer or teacher

or gas station operator or business man or mine-worker or car

mechanic. It is important whether he is doing his brahminical

duties to a great extent. If not, such are brahmabandhu-s.

Acharya has excluded brahmabandhu-s also. So, birth alone

is not the criterion. Birth and adherance - both are needed.

Birth - because of our inability to gauge the svabhAva.

Adherance - a reasonable factor, which also stresses that

birth alone does not help.

 

The spiritual master does seem to

> have a good amount of discretionary powers here. That biological

position is

> only effective method of establishing the varNa -as expressed by

some in

> this list and elsewhere – is by their own admission based on

reasoning

> (mental speculation) based on lack of other proofs.

 

It is ironical that after speculating yourself, you are claiming

that I am speculating. You have not attempted *at all* to explain

how your statements are in line with Baladeva's own admissions in

his commentary on Brahma-Sutras. Unless you do that, it is your

statements that are speculative. I am claiming authority from

Baladeva's commentary on the apashudra-adhikaraNam.

 

> This also amounts to

> questioning the spiritual master's discretion in accepting

>disciples.

 

No it doesn't. Accepting disciples and giving Veda-adhikAra to

disciples are two different things, and if you do not see the

difference, then at least you should desist from claiming that

others are merely speculating while your own acharya Baladeva

couldn't be clearer in laying down his position.

 

Vyasatirtha had Kanaka Dasa (a shudra) as his disciple. But Kanaka

Dasa did not study the Vedas under him, though he and Purandara Dasa

were Vyasatirtha's favorite disciples.

 

>

> As alleged one member here (and many others outside), this is not

a 'recent'

> Gaudiya practice disobeying Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana's

injunctions. Lord

> Chaitanya did indeed accept Haridasa Takura, Ramanada Raya and

many others

> as his disciples.

 

Again, these are irrelevant statements. Accepting disciples and Veda-

adhikAra are completely different things. And Chaitanya himself

changed the Mahamantra from the shruti before giving it out. And as

far as I know, neither Haridas Thakur nor Ramananda Raya did Veda-

adhyayana.

 

>The lineage of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana therefore has

> as many "biological sHudras" before him, as there are more after

>him.

 

Even if this statement was true (note that the arguments given by

you to establish your conclusion are incorrect), you would need to

say that Baladeva didn't know what he was writing about when he

wrote the commentary on the Sutras.

 

> Ramunjacharya established Srivaishnavism based on the same

>criteria even

> before Lord Chaitanya's movement began.

 

Ramanuja did no such thing - he did not give shudras Veda-adhikAra.

He gave them rights that they shAstrically deserved, which they were

being denied. Vishishtadvaitins to this day follow the birth-based

varNa system.

 

>

> That only "biological brAhmaNas" are qualified for Vedic

meditation even if

> accepted in its face value, requires concrete proof that the

individual has

> a unbroken blood line from Lord Brahma. How many have such a sound

> genealogical record with them to qualify as pure, genuine

brAhmaNas?

 

I am sure they would attempt to present concrete proof (a sound

genealogical record) if you can get them DNA from the blood sample

of Lord BrahmA.

 

Every brahminical lineage maintains its gotra and Veda-shAkhA that

it is supposed to preserve. That is considered sufficient. Some may

try to get around it, like Karna, but since the Lord is the

originator of this system, he would also arrange for liars to be

exposed, as He exposed KarNa.

 

>

> Women not qualified for Vedic Mediation – The pointed reference to

Gaudiya

> practice by a member of this list also requires elucidation from

senior

> members and scholars.

 

I am also waiting for that elucidation.

 

Yours,

 

Anant

[Guest guest]

PAMHO

Hare Krishna

 

How is varNa determined? Is is on the basis of guNa and karma as mentioned

in BG or on janma (birth) as inferred from certain specific examples in the

puraNas? The BG dictum (4.13):

 

"According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated

with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me."

 

is very explicit and matter of fact. But some examples such as that of

Arjuna etc have been usually taken to prove that birth is quite adequate and

accurate in determining varNa. While no proper and convincing argument

exists for rejection of BG 4.13, there is not even a shred of evidence,

other than the alleged puraNic practices, to prove that janma is very much

important or the sole arbitrator in determining a person's varNa. If janma

determines one's varNa as argued, then the entire Vedic literature have this

glaring omission in failing to explicitly mention this important fact and

asking each one to meticulously maintain the family genealogy. It is not

even stated that janma is one among the many factors that can be taken into

account in determining varNa.

 

How did shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa deal with this contentious issue?

Examine his commentary on VS 1.3.8:

 

How to determine Janashruti's varNa?

 

shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa says:

 

"JAnashruti is understood to be a kShatriya. He possesses religious faith

and a host of other virtues. He is very charitable. He gives charity

generously. He is the ruler of the people. For these reasons it is said that

he is a kShatriya. Because he sent (a messenger to search for Rai~Nka) and

because he gave cows, necklaces, chariots, his daughter, and many other

things in charity, it is said that he is a kShatriya. It is not possible for

anyone but a kShatriya to possess these qualities. Because he thus displays

the qualities of a king, JAnashruti should be understood to be a kShatriya."

 

varNa is thus determined by guNa – karma:

 

1.

 

He possesses religious faith and a host of other virtues. (guNa)

2.

 

He is very charitable. (guNa)

3.

 

He gives charity generously. (guNa)

4.

 

He is the ruler of the people. (karma)

5.

 

He sent a messenger to search for Rai~Nka (spiritual master). (guNa)

 

shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa continues:

 

"At the end of the story, where the description of saMvarga-vidyA is

concluded, there is mention of the kShatriya status of a person named

AbhipratArI Caitraratha. In the concluding passage a brahmacArI begged alms

from shaunaka KApeya and AbhipratArI KAkShaseni when these two were serving

food to others."

 

"If someone objects: "In this passage the status of AbhipratArI as either a

kShatriya or caitraratha is not proved in any way," then the sUtra answers:

li~NgAt (because of a clue). The clue that shaunaka KApeya and AbhipratArI

KAkShaseni were friends proves it. The TANDya BrAhmaNa (20.12.5) says:

caitena caitrarathaM kApeyo ayAjayan (The members of the KApeya family made

Caitraratha perform a sacrifice). In this way the shruti maintains that

because of his relationship with the KApeyas, AbhipratArI must have been a

Caitraratha."

 

"That the Caitraratha family were kShatriyas is confirmed by the words

tasmAc caitrarathir nAma kShatra-patir ajAyata (From him was born another

kShatriya of the Caitraratha family). In this way his kShatriya status is

clearly proved."

 

Again varNa is determined by:

 

1.

 

The members of the KApeya family made Caitraratha perform a sacrifice

(karma)

2.

 

Because of his friendship with the KApeyas, AbhipratArI is a

Caitraratha (guNa – friendship with others of same varNa)

 

The statement "From him was born another kShatriya of the Caitraratha

family" could be used to argue that hereditary status is in fact important.

Here the purport is that "he fathered another kShatriya" or that "from him

was born one more kShatriya". The usage "another kShatriya" is taken as a

clue that the father is also a kShatriya. However the statement "That the

Caitraratha family were kShatriyas is confirmed ......" can give rise to the

doubt that anyone born in the family can be kShatriyas, or that

kShatriya-hood is the hereditary status of this particular family etc. But

what is explicitly stated here is simply that members of Caitraratha family

are kShatriyas.

 

Now let us consider JabAla's case:

 

"In the ChAndogya UpaniShad (4.4.4-5) (when asked about his caste, JAbAli

said) nAham etad vede bho yad gotro .aham asmi (I do not know into what

caste I was born). These truthful words convinced the sage Gautama that

JAbAla was not a shUdra. Gautama then said naitad abrAhmaNo vivaktum arhati

samidhaM saumyAhara tvopaneShye na satyAd agAH (One who is not a brAhmaNa

cannot speak in this way. O gentle one, please bring the sacred fuel and I

shall initiate you as a brAhmaNa. You did not deviate from the truth)."

 

The points to be stressed here are:

 

1.

 

I do not know into what caste I was born.

2.

 

These truthful words convinced the sage Gautama that JAbAla was not a

shUdra.

 

Therefore it is established that truthfulness (guNa), not gotra is taken as

proof of varNa.

In all the above cases family history, blood line and hereditary status are

not at all considered in determining varNa.

 

T.Harikrishnan

[Guest guest]

I am not satisfied with the answers offered to my questions. There

are several issues here:

 

1) Can children born into shuudra families be trained in a

brahminical lifestyle and become known as braahmanas?

 

My impression so far considering the evidence is yes, in theory. I am

as always prepared to change my view based on the standard of

evidence presented. Satyakama Jabala was accepted as a braahmana

solely on the basis of his telling the truth about not knowing his

ancestry. Vaalmiiki became a brahmarishi even though he was

originally a kshatriya. Vyaasa comes from a mixed parentage -

ordinarily one is not accepted as a braahmana if he is born in the

womb of a non-braahmana woman.

 

2) Are such braahmanas eligible to study the shrutis?

 

Again, I could be wrong here, but my impression is that these kinds

of braahmanas (outside of the seminal system) do not study the

shrutis.

 

3) What pramaanas are to be used to determine the above?

 

Answer to question #3 is especially important. Between a Tattvavadi

and a Gaudiya I do not see how there can be any agreement on what

constitutes valid evidence, because on one hand Madhva himself quoted

many obscure sources (Brahma-tarka? Vishnu Upanishad?) to support his

postion, but on the other hand Gaudiyas can only quote from a

preselected list given by the Tattvavadis. And then again, if they

quote something from that list that disagrees with the Tattvavadi

conclusion, it will be branded as "interpolation." Hence Anant

preemptively asks us to quote only from "non-interpolated" sections

of the Puranas, by which he means that if we present a quote that he

does not like, he will just dismiss it as "interpolation."

 

4) This is the most important question as far as I am concerned: what

is the status of braahmanas who give up their traditional callings

and, for example, pursue software engineering in USA? If a braahmana

is known as such by both his birth and his qualification, then why

are all these software engineers on the Dvaita List to be considered

braahamanas, while the American devotee who faithfully follows his

saadhana and is engaged full-time in Deity worship not a braahmana?

 

At what point does a brahmin's son cease to be a braahmana if

brahminical conduct is also a prerequisite to being called a

braahmana? I don't accept Anant's response that the book released by

an Advaitin guru gives permission for braahmanas to be engaged in

materialistic work and still be braahmanas. This strikes me as

nothing more than a concession given to worldly-minded persons with

absolutely no basis in shruti or dharma-shaastras. What objective

evidence is there that one can still be a braahmana even if he is not

following his brahminical duty? What objective evidence is there that

one can be a braahmana even if he is violating Vedic standards of

etiquette, such as for example associating with worldy-minded

persons, eating in restaurants, watching television, etc? This is a

perfectly reasonable question because many "brahmins" in India and

here in USA are doing just that. Yet many of them are also following

some of their dharmas, like doing sandhya vandanam. Can someone be a

brahmin if he does sandhya vandanam but also watches TV?

 

It's all very nice to give all these points about what constitutes a

braahmana, but I think it is very one-sided to only subject Gaudiyas

to the microscope. I do not understand why it is ok for seminal-

brahmanas to compromise and accept secular work, but on the other

hand it is absolutely anathema for someone from a non-brahmana family

to be trained as a brahmana. I am not one to claim that all such

brahmanas are strict, and that all seminal-brahmanas are not strict.

But the fact is that I have seen "converted" brahmanas who are far

more strict in their sadhana and daily living than many whose claim

to brahminical status lies in their birth.

 

What is missing here is an objective standard of brahminical status

that is consistently applied across the board. So far, we are told

that we must follow shruti and dharma-shastras and not initiate

shudras into brahminical status, but then again we are told the

pronouncements of a Jayendra Saraswati can negate those same shrutis

and dharma-shastras when it comes to seminal-brahmanas accepting

shudra work.

 

I want to be convinced, but I'm not. Surely anyone can see the double

standard.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna Sri Krishna Susharla,

 

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla wrote:

>

> I am not satisfied with the answers offered to my questions. There

> are several issues here:

>

> 1) Can children born into shuudra families be trained in a

> brahminical lifestyle and become known as braahmanas?

 

The answer is no in practice.

 

>

> My impression so far considering the evidence is yes, in theory.

 

It is yes in theory, but in practice it is no, because it requires

exceptional qualifications (aparoxa j~nAna) to be able to see the

svabhAva of the person.

 

I am

> as always prepared to change my view based on the standard of

> evidence presented. Satyakama Jabala was accepted as a braahmana

> solely on the basis of his telling the truth about not knowing his

> ancestry.

 

But at the same time, it can be argued that one instance of

truthfulness does not prove much. Gautama being an exceptional guru

could see the svabhAva of SatyakAma and not just his truthful reply.

This is corroborated later by the devatAs' giving upadesha unasked

to SatyakAma, which is a very important point to note. This

justifies Gautama's decision. If the devatAs are coming and giving

any person among us Veda upadesha unasked, sure - such a person

deserves to be initiated as a brahmana.

 

And speaking of telling the truth, here is a test you can apply on

those who you feel deserve brahminical status in ISKCON. Show them

the Mahabharata and ask them to read about Satyavati. Then ask them

whether they are willing to accept that equating Uparichara Vasu

with the fisherman is an error or not here -

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/4/14/en and let us see them correct the

error in the next edition of Bhagavatam. This will show their

adherence to truth, and willingness to admit flaws in something they

identify personally with. (I could have given other more serious

examples, but I thought this is a good one since it has nothing to

do with philosophy and there is no possibility of trying to wriggle

out of it).

 

> Vaalmiiki became a brahmarishi even though he was

> originally a kshatriya.

 

You probably referred to Vishvamitra. I have already given the

answer to Vishvamitra and Satyakama's examples in a previous

posting - both are exceptional cases as you can see from there.

 

Vyaasa comes from a mixed parentage -

> ordinarily one is not accepted as a braahmana if he is born in the

> womb of a non-braahmana woman.

 

No, if one is born from a brahmana father and xatriya woman (like

VyAsa), he is considered a brahmana. It is only for vaishya and

shudra mothers that the child adopts the caste of the mother. This

is brought out quite explicitly by Bhishma to Yudhishthira in his

upadesha after the battle.

 

>

> 2) Are such braahmanas eligible to study the shrutis?

>

> Again, I could be wrong here, but my impression is that these

kinds

> of braahmanas (outside of the seminal system) do not study the

> shrutis.

 

If they are brahmanas, they can study the shrutis. If they are not

brahmanas, they cannot study the shrutis.

 

>

> 3) What pramaanas are to be used to determine the above?

>

> Answer to question #3 is especially important. Between a

Tattvavadi

> and a Gaudiya I do not see how there can be any agreement on what

> constitutes valid evidence, because on one hand Madhva himself

quoted

> many obscure sources (Brahma-tarka? Vishnu Upanishad?) to support

his

> postion, but on the other hand Gaudiyas can only quote from a

> preselected list given by the Tattvavadis.

 

So the solution is for you to establish it based on the Brahma

Sutras which sets the rules of interpretation of the whole shAstra.

As far as I can see, Baladeva's position is identical to Madhva's in

its spirit.

 

Also note that many of Madhva's so-called obscure sources have been

quoted by many others before and just after him. More importantly,

Madhva does not establish the core of his philosophy on obscure

sources. Even if you were to take away those sources, the framework

of dvaita would be unaffected. Those obscure sources only embellish

his position, not establish it. On the other hand, the core of

Gaudiya philosophy - Radha-Krishna worship or Krishna being the

original form seems to me to be established entirely on obscure

sources. Even the BhAgavata does not even mention the name of RAdhA.

 

And then again, if they

> quote something from that list that disagrees with the Tattvavadi

> conclusion, it will be branded as "interpolation." Hence Anant

> preemptively asks us to quote only from "non-interpolated"

sections

> of the Puranas, by which he means that if we present a quote that

he

> does not like, he will just dismiss it as "interpolation."

 

I think I have made my point above. Let us look at the Sutras for

resolution, since that is the very purpose of the Sutras.

 

>

> 4) This is the most important question as far as I am concerned:

what

> is the status of braahmanas who give up their traditional callings

> and, for example, pursue software engineering in USA?

 

Perhaps you missed the answer to this question that I gave embedded

in one of my previous replies that just got posted.

 

If a braahmana

> is known as such by both his birth and his qualification, then why

> are all these software engineers on the Dvaita List to be

considered

> braahamanas, while the American devotee who faithfully follows his

> saadhana and is engaged full-time in Deity worship not a

braahmana?

 

As long as one is practicing his brahminical duties like sandhyA-

vandanam and shAstra adhyayana and other subsidiary nitya karmas, it

makes no difference whether one is a software engineer or not.

Orthodox sannyasis like Chandrashekharendra Saraswati have also

granted this in Hindu Dharma book, like dvaita/vishishtadvaita

traditions.

 

>

> At what point does a brahmin's son cease to be a braahmana if

> brahminical conduct is also a prerequisite to being called a

> braahmana? I don't accept Anant's response that the book released

by

> an Advaitin guru gives permission for braahmanas to be engaged in

> materialistic work and still be braahmanas.

 

Then how do you accept Dronacharya being called a brahmana, given

that the sole reason for him to enter the palace of Hastinapur was

to provide for his son and to take revenge on Drupada?

 

Also note that if you insist that following every single thing in

the dharma-shastras is necessary to retain the status of a brahmana,

and that performance of even 75% of duties disqualifies him from

remaining a brahmana, then what about injunctions like not even

living in a country where shudras rule? ISKCON devotees don't live

in a country ruled by brahmanas, even if they live in India. What

about performance of the pancha-maha-yajnas and sandhya vandanam

which ISKCON devotees look down as karma kanda? What about study of

the shrutis which ISKCON devotees do not do? What about the daily

recitation of the Vedas?

 

> This strikes me as

> nothing more than a concession given to worldly-minded persons

with

> absolutely no basis in shruti or dharma-shaastras.

 

Neither is there any basis in the dharma-shastras for not doing any

of the above (which ISKCON devotees do not do).

 

What objective

> evidence is there that one can still be a braahmana even if he is

not

> following his brahminical duty?

 

You seem to say that if one is not 100% following his brahminical

duty then he is not even a brahmana. In that case, neither are your

ISKCON devotees brahmanas. Where in the dharma shaastras is it

mentioned that book distribution (a form of trade) is a substitute

for begging? Where is it said that a brahmana can give up his

sandhya-vandanam in favor of chanting Hare Krishna?

 

> What objective evidence is there that

> one can be a braahmana even if he is violating Vedic standards of

> etiquette, such as for example associating with worldy-minded

> persons, eating in restaurants, watching television, etc? This is

a

> perfectly reasonable question because many "brahmins" in India and

> here in USA are doing just that. Yet many of them are also

following

> some of their dharmas, like doing sandhya vandanam. Can someone be

a

> brahmin if he does sandhya vandanam but also watches TV?

 

Since TV did not exist earlier, there isn't any basis for you to say

that it is forbidden by dharma shastras. It depends on what you

watch on TV.

 

Also, are you trying to that one wrong (considering people who are

only brahma-bandhus and not brahmanas to be brahmanas) can be

corrected by another wrong (considering shudras, etc as brahmanas)?

 

>

> It's all very nice to give all these points about what constitutes

a

> braahmana, but I think it is very one-sided to only subject

Gaudiyas

> to the microscope.

 

It is also one-sided to only subject a handful of Tattvavadis under

the microscope. There are as many brahminical duties even a serious

ISKCON devotee doesn't do as you may find lacking in a Tattvavadi in

the US. (Note that I am not saying they are the ideal example of

brahmanas, but I certainly don't agree that they are disqualified

from brahminical status itself for just doing a software job, even

if they are doing their other duties)

 

I do not understand why it is ok for seminal-

> brahmanas to compromise and accept secular work, but on the other

> hand it is absolutely anathema for someone from a non-brahmana

family

> to be trained as a brahmana.

 

The seminal brahmanas have at least not been given sannyAsa and made

into gurus, and then exposed as being you know what.

 

I am not one to claim that all such

> brahmanas are strict, and that all seminal-brahmanas are not

strict.

> But the fact is that I have seen "converted" brahmanas who are far

> more strict in their sadhana and daily living than many whose

claim

> to brahminical status lies in their birth.

 

Strictness in sAdhanA does not qualify one to become a brahmana. The

Pandavas were very strict in their sAdhanA and so was Vidura, and so

was the Dharma-VyAdha butcher (who Baladeva also cites). None of

them were called brahmanas just for that reason. This point has been

coming up repeatedly - we agree that sadhana towards moxa is

everybody's fundamental right - why do you keep mixing up strictness

in sadhana to justify a change of varNa? (Sure, if someone can do

thousands of years of penance like Vishvamitra, and have the strange

circumstances of birth that he had, we would accept his case as an

exception)

 

>

> What is missing here is an objective standard of brahminical

status

> that is consistently applied across the board.

 

The objective standard is birth + samskaras and adherence to duties.

The adherence to duties need not be 100% but the major nitya karmas

should be there.

 

So far, we are told

> that we must follow shruti and dharma-shastras and not initiate

> shudras into brahminical status, but then again we are told the

> pronouncements of a Jayendra Saraswati can negate those same

shrutis

> and dharma-shastras when it comes to seminal-brahmanas accepting

> shudra work.

 

It wasn't Jayendra Saraswati but Chandrashekharendra Saraswati. And

as I mentioned, there are several things that are part of

brahminical duties. As much as performing only a few of them does

not make one a brahmana, nor does not performing a few of them mean

they are not brahmanas (provided they are doing their major nitya

karmas). For the same standard can be applied to ISKCON devotees as

well, who sell books to shudras and live in temples where money

comes from people who work for shudras, do not do sandhya-vandanam,

do not study shrutis at all, live in cities and countries ruled by

shudras, etc.

 

>

> I want to be convinced, but I'm not. Surely anyone can see the

double

> standard.

>

 

I too want to be convinced, but I'm not since anyone can see the

double standard.

 

 

Yours,

 

Anant

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

So far, no one has come forward to explain Baladeva's comments on

Vidura. I hope someone will do that.

 

> How is varNa determined? Is is on the basis of guNa and karma as

mentioned

> in BG or on janma (birth) as inferred from certain specific

examples in the

> puraNas?

 

Which specific examples in the Puranas are you talking about? The

examples of Vidura and Dharma-vyAdha are from Mahabharata, as much

as the Gita is from Mahabharata.

 

The BG dictum (4.13):

>

> "According to the three modes of material nature and the work

associated

> with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me."

>

> is very explicit and matter of fact. But some examples such as

that of

> Arjuna etc have been usually taken to prove that birth is quite

adequate and

> accurate in determining varNa.

 

Again, you are just mixing svAbhAvika varNa with aupadhika varNa.

Birth is NOT taken as adequate and accurate in determining

svAbhAvika varNa (which BG 4.13 is talking about). In Arjuna's case,

his svAbhAvika and aupadhika varNa coincide. In Vidura's case, they

don't. But both follow their aupadhika varNa nonetheless.

 

> While no proper and convincing argument

> exists for rejection of BG 4.13, there is not even a shred of

evidence,

> other than the alleged puraNic practices, to prove that janma is

very much

> important or the sole arbitrator in determining a person's varNa.

 

1. The "rejection of BG 4.13" is in your own imagination. No one has

rejected it.

2. The "alleged Puranic practices" are from Mahabharata itself, the

same text from where you have quoted BG 4.13.

 

If janma

> determines one's varNa as argued, then the entire Vedic literature

have this

> glaring omission in failing to explicitly mention this important

fact and

> asking each one to meticulously maintain the family genealogy.

 

Since birth does not determine svAbhAvika varNa, there is

no "glaring omission". Since birth does determine "aupadhika varNa"

the first thing that you will be asked (as Gautama asked Satyakama)

will be your gotra. It happens in any traditional temple to this

day.

 

Also, if you are aware of the population genetics literature on

Indian populations based on various varNas and castes, they have

been determined to be highly differentiated for the last 10,000

years, which goes against the quality-based varNa-determination

system that you imagine, which should produce highly homogeneous

genetic data due to admixture of caste lineages.

 

> It is not

> even stated that janma is one among the many factors that can be >

taken into

> account in determining varNa.

 

So Baladeva was going off track when he justified Vidura as having

brahma-j~nAna from study of Vedas in previous birth and not by a

study of Vedas in this life?

 

>

> How did shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa deal with this contentious

issue?

> Examine his commentary on VS 1.3.8:

 

It is 1.3.38 not 1.3.8.

 

>

> How to determine Janashruti's varNa?

>

> shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa says:

>

> "JAnashruti is understood to be a kShatriya. He possesses

religious faith

> and a host of other virtues. He is very charitable. He gives

charity

> generously. He is the ruler of the people. For these reasons it is

said that

> he is a kShatriya. Because he sent (a messenger to search for

Rai~Nka) and

> because he gave cows, necklaces, chariots, his daughter, and many

other

> things in charity, it is said that he is a kShatriya. It is not

possible for

> anyone but a kShatriya to possess these qualities. Because he thus

displays

> the qualities of a king, JAnashruti should be understood to be a

kShatriya."

>

> varNa is thus determined by guNa – karma:

 

This is a fallacious conclusion of yours after quoting Baladeva.

Baladeva is NOT saying that Janashruti's guNa and karma were used to

*determine* his varNa before he became a king. He is saying that

Janashruti was a kshatriya by birth, since if he wasn't a kshatriya

by birth, he would not be able to become a generous giver of wealth,

rule a kingdom and possess other characteristics of a king such as a

chamberlain, giving cows, necklaces, chariots, etc as alms. In

short, if he was not a kshatriya by birth, he would not have been a

king and cultivated the guNa-karmas of a king. The very fact that he

is a king means he is a kshatriya.

 

A person born a kshatriya should cultivate the guNas of a kshatriya

and perform the karmas of a kshatriya, and Baladeva is merely saying

that Janashruti did do them, which shows that he was a kshatriya by

varNa.

 

What you are trying to say would have been applicable if Janashruti

was NOT BORN A KSHATRIYA BUT A SHUDRA and still Baladeva had given

the same arguments. Thus, this does nothing to prove your case.

 

In fact, Janashruti's behavior with Raikva was hardly befitting the

true qualities of a kshatriya - as he first offered bribes to Raikva

to teach him brahma-vidyA. But because he was a king, Raikva finally

taught him when he approached him the right way.

 

A minor correction - it is Raikva, not Rai~Nka (as you say it).

 

> Because of his friendship with the KApeyas, AbhipratArI is a

> Caitraratha (guNa – friendship with others of same varNa)

 

This is again wrong.

1. There is no guNa like "friendship with others of same varNa".

2. Kapeyas and Abhipratari were NOT of the same varNa. Kapeya was a

brahmana and Abhipratari was a kshatriya.

 

>

> The statement "From him was born another kShatriya of the

Caitraratha

> family" could be used to argue that hereditary status is in fact

important.

 

Not "could be" but it IS used to argue that. The straightforward

proof that is given is -

1. Kapeyas (a brahmana) and Abhipratarin (whose varNa is to be

inferred) were sitting together, implying some connection between

the two families.

2. Tandya Brahmana says "Kapeyas made Chaitraratha perform

sacrifice" implying that Kapeyas brahmanas are connected to

Chaitrarathas kshatriyas. (That Chaitrarathas are kshatriyas is

proven by a text which equates the two terms by saying -- "a prince

who was Chaitraratha was born")

3. A brahmana family is always connected with a kshatriya family and

not with more than one kshatriya family.

4. In this Chandogya story, Kapeyas is connected with Abhipratarin.

5. Thus, the inference is that Abhipratarin is a Chaitraratha.

 

Thus, there is ONLY janma used in the inferential proof here.

 

> Here the purport is that "he fathered another kShatriya" or

that "from him

> was born one more kShatriya". The usage "another kShatriya" is

taken as a

> clue that the father is also a kShatriya.

 

No. The plain sentence is "from him there descended a Chaitraratha

who was a prince". This proves that Chaitrarathas are kshatriyas.

 

However the statement "That the

> Caitraratha family were kShatriyas is confirmed ......" can give

rise to the

> doubt that anyone born in the family can be kShatriyas, or that

> kShatriya-hood is the hereditary status of this particular family

etc. But

> what is explicitly stated here is simply that members of

Caitraratha family

> are kShatriyas.

 

What is stated here is that members of Chaitraratha lineage are

kshatriyas. "Chaitrarathas are kshatriyas". Period. Your statements

about guNas, etc do not come into the picture in this proof at all.

 

>

> Now let us consider JabAla's case:

>

> "In the ChAndogya UpaniShad (4.4.4-5) (when asked about his caste,

JAbAli

> said) nAham etad vede bho yad gotro .aham asmi (I do not know into

what

> caste I was born). These truthful words convinced the sage Gautama

that

> JAbAla was not a shUdra. Gautama then said naitad abrAhmaNo

vivaktum arhati

> samidhaM saumyAhara tvopaneShye na satyAd agAH (One who is not a

brAhmaNa

> cannot speak in this way. O gentle one, please bring the sacred

fuel and I

> shall initiate you as a brAhmaNa. You did not deviate from the

truth)."

>

> The points to be stressed here are:

>

> 1.

>

> I do not know into what caste I was born.

> 2.

>

> These truthful words convinced the sage Gautama that JAbAla was

not a

> shUdra.

>

> Therefore it is established that truthfulness (guNa), not gotra is

taken as

> proof of varNa.

 

This again is fallacious reasoning. This story is as much compatible

with the birth-based system as with the system you are proposing

(which is why your so-called proof is not a proof but only your own

way to reconcile the story with your system)

 

Consider this example from a birth-based system.

1. SatyakAma expresses a desire to study the Vedas to his mother

Jabala, and asks her what his gotra is, so that he can tell the guru

when he asks for it. If he was a shudra by birth, his mother would

say "you cannot study the Vedas, my dear child". But because he is a

brahmana by birth, she says no such thing. But at the same time,

gotra is asked when you approach a guru and she does not know the

gotra of her husband's family, so she tells the boy to just say that

he is SatyakAma Jabala.

2. SatyakAma then approaches Gautama. Gautama asks him for his

gotra. SatyakAma says his mother told him that she does not know his

gotra, and asked him to just say SatyakAma Jabala when he approaches

a guru.

3. Gautama infers "If he was a shUdra by birth, he would have cooked

up a gotra to get access to Vedas, since he would know very well I

do not teach shUdras. But he so honestly told me that he doesn't

know what his gotra is, at the risk that I may turn him away. Thus,

he must be a brahmana, otherwise he would have lied."

 

> In all the above cases family history, blood line and hereditary

status are

> not at all considered in determining varNa.

>

 

In all the above cases, family history is considered in determining

varNa. And I see a glaring omission of Baladeva's comments on

Vidura - is there any reason you didn't try to explain that?

 

Yours,

 

Anant

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla wrote:

 

> 2) Are such braahmanas eligible to study the shrutis?

>

> Again, I could be wrong here, but my impression is that these

kinds

> of braahmanas (outside of the seminal system) do not study the

> shrutis.

 

Dear HKS prabhu and Anant Shenoy prabhu:

 

Anant ji made this interesting point, and HKS prabhu seems to be

agreeing. As a matter of practical importance, could you both

please clarify the above point? These days its possible to download

shruti texts and their commentaries off the internet! For instance,

is it appropriate for me to study the Upanishads (I'm not brahmin by

caste, not even by any system of second initiation)?

 

How can one fully study, say, Shrimad BhAgavataM without knowing

what the Brahma-sutra is? And how can one approach Brahma-sutra

without referring to the Upanishads (and so on)? If there's one

thing that MadhvAcArya demonstrated through his prolific works, it

is that Vedic Ontology, Cosmology and Theology (and related Tantra)

are an inter-related whole, and together form the complete context

of the Vedic system.

 

However, it is also clear that there are "grades" of knowledge, and

shruti may be last in terms of approach. But how can this

accessibility be based on janma alone? How does janma alone

disqualify a candidate from attempting to qualify for a study of

shruti, while smRti is open to all?

 

I thought vedAdhikAra refers to the necessary qualifications for

study, including, for example, knowledge of certain disciplines like

semiotics, logic, etc (so as not to foolishly derive wrong meanings

from shruti-texts), as well as qualities of character (which

condition one's use of logic and make one fit for experience). But

that would also be a function of, and evident from, a candidate's

guNa-karma. Then why is janma such a definitive determinant here?

 

I thought a candidate would be put through stages in which he/she is

tested according to various psycho-intellectual criteria, and then

based on that he/she earns the adhikAra to study some body of

knowledge. In this case, there is no risk of "everyone" enviously

CLAIMING to be "brAhmaNa", as Anant ji suggests, just like there is

no question of everyone "claiming" to be a connoisseur of classical

music or a rocket-scientist.

 

NOTE: None of this goes against the idea of a constitutional varNa

for the jIva. Moreover, while it is misleading to reach a conclusion

about someone's svAbhAvika varNa by his/her conditioned behaviour,

it is also wrong to suggest that the conditioning has absolutely

nothing to do with the svAbhAvika nature. In fact, MadhvAcArya's

classification of souls is partly in response to the problems raised

by theodicy.

 

As I understand it, doubts are also a type of prasAda from Krsna,

which are to be burned in the fire of knowledge, just as gross anna

consumed in the fire of the digestive system provides nourishment to

the physical body. Based on their metabolic constition, different

people have different appetites. Similarly, to the extent one has

doubts, one has to turn to the Veda to process and digest those

doubts. That forms the basis of different types of study. But each

person finds fulfillment according to his appetite, and so self-

realization is subjective and accessible to all, and is NOT a

function of an objective intellectual criteria. The problem arises

when one's curiosity is off-balance, driven largely by an agitated

mind, and not balanced by introspection or necessary qualities. But

vedAdhikAra, if implemented properly, monitors the psychological

qualities as much as anything else. Janma into a particular family

certainly plays a role in shaping the qualities of head and heart of

a candidate, but right now I'm not able to understand how it can be

such a definitive factor.

 

Anant ji's plea that, given the risk of mis-identifying svabhAva-

varNa through conditioned behaviour, janma-siddha adhikAra is

the "easiest" method is not convincing. I don't know of any other

instance of exercising discretion in spiritual life where one takes

the "easiest" route. In fact, I don't know of anything in spiritual

life that is black-and-white. Its usually the cloudy-grey areas that

produce new qualitative knowledge in the form of insight. In this

Age of Kali-"kalilaM", there is all the more reason to NOT take a

black-and-white approach based on material appearances. Therefore, I

find Anant ji's PATTERN OF ARGUMENT resembles that of ShukrAcArya,

who also quotes shAstric rules profusely in order to argue for a

line of action that requires the least acknowledgement of

Parabrahman's Will and Intent.

 

Also, historical examples where janma was adhered to as a decisive

factor - AFTER all other variables lead to a stalemate - maybe seen

in the socio- historical context of that time and place, as well as

the intent of the actors. To give another example Anant ji

raised: "Why did Prabhupada give people the position of brAhmaNa and

then lament their fall?" the answer could be because this "caste

system" was such a sore point with non-Hindus, that nothing but a

practical lesson and demonstration would bring to light the concept

of adhikAra.

 

These are just my arbitrary thoughts, but could someone please

clarify the above issues. Can some of us try to include texts like

the Upanishads in our study, after duly following the route outlined

by the vaiSNava acaryas? This is of practical importance to many

of us.

 

harE kRSNa,

Carl

[Guest guest]

 

krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla >

achintya

Thursday, November 9, 2006 10:44:09 AM

Re: shUdras Not Qualified For Vedic Meditation

 

"This is the most important question as far as I am concerned: what

is the status of braahmanas who give up their traditional callings

and, for example, pursue software engineering in USA? "

 

I think best example to consider and discuss would be Ajamilan who was born as a brahmin but deserted his wife and lived with a prostitute!

Now what does purana call him as? Is he referred as Brahamana or an outcaste?

 

 

Thus points to ponder over is if a person born in brahmana family can regain his society status by following the varnic principles again after he had fallen!!

 

Can a person from other caste be tagged as brahmana if he follow brahmnical principles?

[Guest guest]

Hari bol,

pamho

 

Here are some quotes to consider

 

Svado 'pi sadyah savanaya kalpate. One may be born in a family of dog-eaters, but he can perform sacrifices simply by chanting the maha-mantra.

 

The Brihat Gautamiya Tantra says, "Now I shall tell you about Sri Krishna mantras, receiving which the sages have become easily delivered. Householders, vanaprasthis, sannyasis, brahmacaris, women, sudras, etc., everyone is eligible to receive this mantra.

(Hari Bhakti Vilas 1)

 

2. Those who are observing sacred vows, sudras who are religious and engaged in serving the brahmanas, chaste women and even candalas and other low class people are eligible to receive this mantra which reveals the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The source of all incarnations is Sri Krishna and His mantras are more powerful than any other mantra.

 

Srimad Bhagavatam

1.4.25:

 

strisudradvijabandhunam trayi na srutigocara

karmasreyasi mudhanam sreya evam bhavadiha

iti bharatamakhyanam krpaya munina krtam

 

"Out of compassion, the sage thought it wise

that this would enable men to achieve the

ultimate goal of life. Thus he compiled the

great historical narration called the Mahabharata

for women, laborers, and friends of the twice

born, who are not qualified to study the

Vedas."

 

In Mahabharata (Vana Parva

180.25,26), Yudhisthira Maharaja describes who is

a qualified sudra to King Nahusa:

 

sudre tu yad bhavellaksma dvije tacca na vidyate

na vai sudro bhavecchudro brahmano na ca brahamanah

yatraitallaksyate sarpa vrttam sa brahmanah smrtah

yatraitanna bhavet sarpa tam sidramiti nirdiset

 

"If the qualities like truthfulness, and

control of the mind and senses are found in a

sudra, then he is to be considered a brahmana

and not a sudra. On the other hand, if a brahmana

does not have these qualities he is to be

accepted as a sudra.

"O Snake, anyone who has the qualities of

truthfulness, control of the mind, and so on is

to be considered a Brahmana, and that person

devoid of these qualities is a sudra.

Therefore, although the Itihasas and Puranas

are considered the fifth Veda, still a

qualified person like Suta Gosvami has the right

to study them. Suta Gosvami himself acknowledges

this in Srimad Bhagavatam 1.18.18, "O how

wonderful! although we are born in a mixed

caste, we are still promoted in birthright

simply by serving and following the great who

are advanced in knowledge. Even by conversing

with such great souls, one can without delay

cleanse oneself of all disqualifications

resulting from lower births".

 

 

ard

 

 

 

Check out the all-new Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla wrote:

 

> 1) Can children born into shuudra families be trained in a

> brahminical lifestyle and become known as braahmanas?

>

> My impression so far considering the evidence is yes, in theory.

 

I was just listening to Prabhupada this morning on this very subject.

He states that within strict Vaidic-vidhi regulations, no. However,

arcording to Pancaratriki-vidhi (which we follow), yes.

 

If you have the Folio, find this class: Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.6.7

(Vrndavana, December 9, 1975).

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

PAMHO

 

Ramanuja, varNa and jati

 

 

> Ramunjacharya established Srivaishnavism based on the same

 

>criteria even

 

> before Lord Chaitanya's movement began.

 

 

|Ramanuja did no such thing - he did not give shudras Veda-adhikAra.

 

|He gave them rights that they shAstrically deserved, which they were

 

|being denied. Vishishtadvaitins to this day follow the birth-based

 

|varNa system.

 

 

Sri Anant Shenoy's view is in fact upheld by most of the modern

Srivaishnavas, who enthusiastically support birth based brahmanahood and

deny veda-adhikara to all those borne in lower castes. But a few in private

do hold the view that present day Iyengars have a mixed origin. But the

theory wherever stated definitely differentiate varNa and jati. I reproduce

some sections from a publication 'RAMANUJA DARSHANAM':

 

(

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=11&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fsripedia%2Framanuja%2Fmagazine%2FRD_0102_online_vers.pdf&ei=4ZxYRdeaFJXisALXkqmLBg&usg=__eqz903dyKKM0omj-cdwgNCrMfd4=&sig2=aA0FlSd34rxgFDroW9jZ-w)

 

Q & A: CASTE SYSTEM

 

*Mukundan Pattangi *

 

*The truth about Varna (Occupation) and JAti (Caste)*

 

 

*Question: *What is VEDICS view on Caste system? Is it true that the

 

Vedic religion divides people based on birth?

 

*Answer: *Popular misconceptions say that the Vedic religion encourages

 

division of human beings based on one's birth. As a result, some people

 

have been kept backward and uneducated while others have abused this

 

misconceptions and misinformation for personal gains. Much of this

 

misconception can be attributed to the use of the words 'Varna' and 'JAti'

 

interchangeably. A closer analysis will reveal just how wrong these

 

misconceptions are.

 

 

*Question: *What is *Varna*?

 

*Answer: *The root word for *Varna *is '*Vri*' which means one's occupation.

 

 

The *Varna *system was hence originally based on division of labor. Those

 

whose duties were to protect the men, animals and properties were

 

called as '*Kshatriyas*', the warriors. Those who had skills in teaching and

 

scholarly thought were '*Brahmins*' and so on.

 

The Varna system was solely based on the attitude of an individual and

 

his/her propensity for performing certain duties. The source of these

 

identified in the Srimad Bhagavad Gita as being the gunas, or inner

 

qualities, that were the result of the karmas of each individual from

 

previous lives. Those who had more of *Sattva guna *were Brahmins,

 

those who had *Rajasic Guna *were *Kshatriyas *and so on.

 

 

*Question: *Is that just your opinion or there is any proof for this?

 

*Answer: *To quote from Lord Krishna's words in Chapter 4, Verse 13 of

 

*Sri mad Bhagavad Gita*:

 

*catur-varnyam maya srstam guna-karma-vibhagasah *

 

*tasya kartaram api mam viddhy akartaram avyayam *

 

The Lord says that according to the three modes of material nature and

 

the work associated with them, He created the four divisions of human

 

society.

 

 

*Question*: Are there any examples of great scholars who were not born

 

in *Brahmin* families?

 

*Answer: *We have instances from p*urAnas *of many who were not born

 

from *Brahmin *parents actually teaching Brahmins and Kshatriyas. For

 

example, Sri Vedavyasa was the one who actually compiled 4 Vedas. But

 

he was not born to *Brahmin *parents

 

At first, the people had more or less a right to choose over their *Varna*

 

based on their *karmas *and their interests. However, over time, fathers

 

began to expect their sons to take over the duties of their specific

calling.

 

Due to the continual aspect of the son taking over father's duties in the

 

society, the 'work associated' became a matter of birth and in later days,

 

became identified as a birth right.

 

*Question: *And what is *jAti*?

 

*Answer: *The root for *jAti *is '*jan*', which means birth. It might have

 

happened that due to a continual devolution of one's father's duty to his

 

son over many years, Varna became confused with jAti and we know

 

where we are now.

 

Instead of having four divisions of labors, we now have several dozen

 

jAtis, each competing with one another for special rights, and each

 

blaming the other for the problems of society. So, even though two jAtis

 

may actually belong to one varna, they may see each other as being two

 

different castes. It is this which has led to the degradation of the varna

 

system and a general disrespect for the Vedas.

 

While it may not be possible to move completely away from the equating

 

of varna and jAti, we must recognize that when our *pUrvacharyas*

 

referred to *Varna*, they literally meant two things:

 

1. One's attitude (*Sattvic, Rajasic *and *Tamasa Gunas*)

 

2. The duties the individual held in the society.

 

What is important to recognize that, in line with Vedic teachings, our

 

*pUrvacharyas *refused to acknowledge one Varna as being greater than

 

another, or one being lower than another. All people, irrespective of their

 

Varna are equal in their ability to do Good for this world, and in their

 

ability to obtain salvation through surrender to the Lotus Feet of *Sriman *

 

*Narayana*.

 

 

In many of the *Sri Vaishnava *works such as *Sri Vachana Bhushanam*, it is

 

clearly emphasized that a *Sri Vaishnava *, irrespective of race, caste, or

 

gender should be revered and respected as '*ThirumAl adiyAr*' (a servant

 

of the Lord of *Lakshmi*)

 

Consequently, while we must respect and perform the duties and

 

obligations of our specific *varna*, we must not divide ourselves by *jAti*.

 

 

We are all one family bound together by *Sriman Narayana *and His

 

Unconditional Love for each and every one of us.

 

 

*Question: *In recent years are there examples of *Non*-*Brahmin* born

 

Scholars who in turn had *Brahmin* born students? (Your previous

 

example of Veda Vyasa is very old, thousands of years ago)

 

*Answer: *4000 Years ago: *Svami Satagopan (Nammazhvar) *was born into a

 

family belonging to 4th

 

*Varna*, *Sudra*. Despite this, he is the regarded to

 

be the greatest among the 10 Azhvars and is also the most important

 

*AchArya *of our lineage of teachers, who revealed the essence of the *Vedas

*

 

and *Upanishads to all of us. *

 

Most of the *Azhvars *(Approx dates: 10000 BC to 600 AD) are not born in

 

*Brahmin *families, but we keep their idols in the temple and homes and

 

worship them. This clearly shows that in *Sri Vaishnava *tradition, caste is

 

 

irrelevant; being a devotee of the Lord is what matters. (Any living being

 

is equally qualified to be His devotee)

 

 

*Question*: Are there any examples in the last few hundred years?

 

*Answer: *Yes, there are many examples in *Sri Vaishnava Acharyas. *The

 

noted scholar *Sri Pillailokacharya *lived in *Srirangam *throughout his

life

 

and was a strong believer, preacher & propagator in equality of various

 

varnas in the eyes of God. One of his foremost disciples was a *Harijan*,

 

called v*ilAncolaippiLLai*, who became very learned and, in his turn, had

 

many *Brahmins *as his disciples. In the eyes of the Lord all are same and

 

everyone has been given this blessed birth. This is an opportunity to fall

 

in love with God, and realize our true purpose of life, irrespective of

 

race, caste, or gender.

 

 

T.Harikrishnan

[Guest guest]

[For Moderator: Please delete my earlier post, as it was clicked on by

mistake. This post contains the intended message - T.Harikrishnan]

 

Hare Krishna!

PAMHO

 

 

achintya, "anantshenoy2000"

<anantshenoy2000 wrote:

 

> Note that objectively speaking, it cannot be said that shudras are

> denied a "fundamental right" since no one says that Vedas are

> necessary to get moxa. Moxa-adhikAra and Veda-adhikAra are two

> orthogonal issues. Unless the Vedas had been giving some benefit not

> available through the smritis, this objection is not valid.

 

The question being asked is "Are we understanding the statement -

shUdras Not Qualified For Vedic Meditation – in the right sense, in

the way UpaniShads, brAhma sUtras etc have taught us? Who are sHudras?

If only certain families can study the Vedas, is it a kind of

hereditary property? Is the tyranny of caste system justified by the

Vedas themselves? Since most of the caste brAhmaNas are generally

spiritually degraded today, will there be any Vedic study in future?

Is it not important that there should be some brAhmaNas to study the

vedas or not?

 

Just worry about your moxa – this does not seem to the right approach,

at least for Gaudiyas.

 

 

> But the mantra-draShTas of the Vedas wrote the smritis, so on what

> basis would you be willing to accept the mantras they saw as shruti

> and not accept their explanations of the mantras in the smritis.

> Krishna also gives Brahma-Sutras authority in the 13th chapter of

> Gita. The shruti says that upanayana is necessary for study of Veda,

> and that shUdras have no upanayana. What does this imply?

 

I am pointing out the paradox between the mantra and their

explanations. Therefore are we missing something? Are we understanding

the real implications of the word shUdra? What is that the the

mantra-draShTas trying to tell us? Keep the vedas within your family –

is it this they are trying to teach us? Is this the vedic spirituality

all about?

 

Let us contemplate on this verse:

 

"As the son of Shudra can attain the rank of a Brahmin, the son of

Brahmin can attain rank of a shudra. Even so with him who is born of a

Vaishya or a Kshatriya" -ManuSmriti X:65 (as seen in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India#Varnas_.28Classes.29__and_J.C4.81tis_.28Castes.29

)

 

 

>

> This does not require thought if you accept the Bhagavad Gita and

> BhAgavata as pramANa compositions of VyAsa. The Bhagavad Gita

> mentions the Brahma Sutras, and so Krishna gives authority to the

> Brahma Sutras. You could potentially say that all the verses

> referring to lack of Veda-adhikAra for shudras are interpolations,

> but there would be no basis for saying so without denying the

> authority of the entire Gita or BhAgavata (as otherwise it would

> amount to selectively choosing what is convenient) and also of

> Baladeva.

>

 

An answer of this paradox of shUdraic veda-adhikAra, which is true to

the Vedas, BrAhma sUtras and the commentary of shrIla Baladeva

VidyAbhUShaNa is all that is sought.

 

 

>

> Baladeva Vidyabhushana could be wrong as per other schools, but

> sure, as a Gaudiya you could take the position that he is right in

> everything he has said (in the light of shAstras). I was pointing

> out that his explanations of apa-shUdra-adhikaraNam do not match up

> with the notions of the varnashrama system that one finds commonly

> floating around in ISKCON circles.

 

ISKCON understanding of apa-shUdra-adhikaraNam may not in consonance

with the tyrannical caste system of India. But then it is this

obscurantism of caste system that gave us the great Bakthi movements

of India. shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa belongs to such a tradition

and therefore did not propagate the Vedic authenticity of caste system.

 

> >

> > If it is understood that saMskAras (purificatory rituals) are

> external and

> > more important is the surrender of the individual (girl or boy) to

> the

> > spiritual master who can give her or him a 'second birth', it will

> become

> > very clear that shUdras are those who have not surrendered to a

> genuine

> > spiritual master.

>

> However, the Brahma Sutras do not say that samskaras are external,

> or that having a spiritual master overrides the injunctions of Veda-

> adhikAra. The sutras say that the absence of samskaras for shudras

> implies that they do not have Veda-adhikAra. Neither does the

> BhAgavata verse ( 1.4.24) say anything like that - rather it says

> that Vedic karmas for moxa are meant only for Veda-adhikAris, and

> for the Veda-anadhikAris Vyasa wrote the Mahabharata so that

> everyone could read it and get moxa.

 

One commentator of brAhma sUtras – Ramanuja – also says: "Does the

wearing of a sacred thread make one a Brahmin? One who is devoted to

God (Narayana) alone is a Brahmin." (as seen in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanuja )

 

>

> Vidura did not have "belated samskaras". He had no samskaras -

> period. He was a shudra till the end, even though by svabhAva, he

> was an aMsha of Yama himself.

>

 

If caste system is correct, why is this son of a brAhmaNa always

called a shUdra?

 

>

> >He even let loose the a sruti mantra freely into a

> > world dominated by shUdras. If a shUdra can meditate on the Hare

> Krishna

> > mahamantra, what prevents her or him from meditating on the rest

> of the

> > Vedas? Is the mahamantra the least significant of all the sruti

> mantras?

>

> Just for your information, the Mahamantra is not a shruti mantra.

> Even granting the authenticity of Kali-Santarana Upanishad,

> Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not give that mantra as it is, but changed

> it and gave it (by reversing the order of Rama and Krishna). Why do

> you think he gave it only after changing it and not directly?

>

 

Jati brAhmaNas in the eastern parts of India chant this mantra in the

similar way (Krishna – Rama). Non brAhmaNas in many other parts of

India use Rama – Krishna format. So which is the non-reversed form? If

a shruti mantra can be chanted by reversing the sequence, i.e., if it

is allowed, can Veda-anadhikAris study the vedas from back to front?

 

>

> Ramanuja did no such thing - he did not give shudras Veda-adhikAra.

> He gave them rights that they shAstrically deserved, which they were

> being denied. Vishishtadvaitins to this day follow the birth-based

> varNa system.

> > That only "biological brAhmaNas" are qualified for Vedic

> meditation even if

> > accepted in its face value, requires concrete proof that the

> individual has

> > a unbroken blood line from Lord Brahma. How many have such a sound

> > genealogical record with them to qualify as pure, genuine

> brAhmaNas?

>

> I am sure they would attempt to present concrete proof (a sound

> genealogical record) if you can get them DNA from the blood sample

> of Lord BrahmA.

 

An interesting observation, actually. DNA studies can indeed prove the

racial purity of jatis. One such study (Genetic structure of four

socio-culturally diversified caste populations of southwest India and

their affinity with related Indian and global groups -

http://vetinarilord.blogspot.com/2006/03/multiple-origins-of-mtdna-9-bp.html

) for example concludes:

 

"Our study also indicates a heterogeneous origin for Lyngayat and

Iyengar owing to their genetic proximity with southern populations and

northern Brahmins. The high-ranking communities, in particular,

Iyengar, Lyngayat, Vanniyar and northern Brahmins might have

experienced genetic admixture from East Asian and European ethnic groups."

 

Lyngayats off course agree that they have a heterogeneous origin. Many

Iyengars do object to this view. But at least one Iyengar friend of

mine has admitted to this as being historically true.

 

I agreetaht some Madhavas may have an apparent theoretical problem in

accepting guNa – karma as the basis for varNa. because:

 

"Madhvacharya differed significantly from traditional Hindu beliefs in

his concept of eternal damnation. For example, he divides souls into

three classes, one class which qualify for liberation, Mukti-yogyas,

another subject to eternal rebirth or eternally transmigrating due to

samsara, Nitya-samsarins, and significantly, a class that is

eventually condemned to eternal hell or Andhatamas, known as

Tamo-yogyas." ( as seen in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhvacharya )

 

and

 

"The teachings of Sri Madhvacharya were in many ways quite radical for

his times. One example is his doctrine of eternal damnation. This idea

which is prevalent in Abrahamic religions, is generally not endorsed

by most schools of Hindu philosophy. Many Western scholars see this

and the importance given to Mukhyaprana - as the mediator to Brahman -

as Christian influence. But Dvaita scholars argue that Madhva has

derived these concepts from within the Vedic framework. There are many

instances in the Upanishads and Gita that support Madhva's position.

They also argue that since the knowledge of whether a Jiva is

Muktiyogya (liberation-worthy) or Tamoyogya (damnation-worthy) is not

accessible to the Jiva himself, this philosophy does not discourage

sadhana for anyone." ( as seen in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhvacharya )

 

Since a the svabhaava of a jiva can not be known by any means, birth

should be taken as a indication . This is a less than perfect system

as Madhvacharya himself teaches:

 

"Madhva interprets the concept of VarNa mentioned in the Vedas

(Purusha Sooktha) as not being defined by birth, but by the nature of

a Soul. For example a Soul having the nature of a Brahmin could have

been born as a Shudra and vice versa. The caste system decided by

birth is actually Jaati and not VarNa." ( as seen in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhvacharya )

 

 

T.Harikrishnan

[Guest guest]

achintya, "anantshenoy2000"

<anantshenoy2000 wrote:

> > 1) Can children born into shuudra families be trained in a

> > brahminical lifestyle and become known as braahmanas?

>

> The answer is no in practice.

 

Well in practice, I would have to say yes, since this has happened,

and remarkably well in some cases.

 

> > My impression so far considering the evidence is yes, in theory.

>

> It is yes in theory, but in practice it is no, because it requires

> exceptional qualifications (aparoxa j~nAna) to be able to see the

> svabhAva of the person.

 

I don't really know how to answer this. If a person doesn't have

aparoxa j~nAna that I don't see how he can objectively say that

someone else who initiates people either does or does not have it.

 

> I am

> > as always prepared to change my view based on the standard of

> > evidence presented. Satyakama Jabala was accepted as a braahmana

> > solely on the basis of his telling the truth about not knowing

his

> > ancestry.

>

> But at the same time, it can be argued that one instance of

> truthfulness does not prove much. Gautama being an exceptional

guru

> could see the svabhAva of SatyakAma and not just his truthful

reply.

 

First of all, this argument is based on conjecture. You don't know

this, and if memory serves, the text mentions nothing about

him "seeing the svabhAva" of SatyakAma at all - only that he agreed

to initiate SatyakAma after hearing him tell the truth about his

unknown ancestry. There would have been no need to inquire about his

ancestry if he could already see the svabhAva of the disciple.

Furthermore, you have argued that one's status as a brahmana is

based on both his conduct and his behavior. SatyakAma was not

conceived after due process of garbhodhana samskaara as brahmins are

supposed to do. The text indicates that his mother did not know who

his father was because she bore him while attending so many other

duties - a nice way of saying that she had had illicit conjugal

relations with more than one man.

 

Now, are you going to claim that one can be born a brahmin even

though he is born out of wedlock and without the proper samskaaras?

I am of course aware of exceptional cases like that of Vyaasa, but

in general, can one be born a brahmin if he is born out of wedlock

and without the requisite samskaaras? I somehow doubt it.

 

> This is corroborated later by the devatAs' giving upadesha unasked

> to SatyakAma, which is a very important point to note. This

> justifies Gautama's decision. If the devatAs are coming and giving

> any person among us Veda upadesha unasked, sure - such a person

> deserves to be initiated as a brahmana.

 

All the above proves is that the devatAs approved of him becoming a

disciple. It doesn't prove that he was a brahmana by birth. Let us

not extrapolate needlessly; let us discuss based on conservative

interpretations of the text.

 

> And speaking of telling the truth, here is a test you can apply on

> those who you feel deserve brahminical status in ISKCON. Show them

> the Mahabharata and ask them to read about Satyavati. Then ask

them

> whether they are willing to accept that equating Uparichara Vasu

> with the fisherman is an error or not here -

> http://vedabase.net/sb/1/4/14/en and let us see them correct the

> error in the next edition of Bhagavatam. This will show their

> adherence to truth, and willingness to admit flaws in something

they

> identify personally with. (I could have given other more serious

> examples, but I thought this is a good one since it has nothing to

> do with philosophy and there is no possibility of trying to

wriggle

> out of it).

 

I am not really clear on what any of this childish nonsense has to

do with the discussion re: qualifications on becoming a brahmana. I

am not a member of ISKCON. And for the record, I have

met "brahmanas" from other sampradayas (including your own) who

happily colored the truth in order to support their own agendas.

When Tattvavadi acharyas wrote letters supporting the view that

Gaudiya parampara is a branch off of Madhva's parampara, many of the

brahmins on your Tattvavadi list openly lied by claiming that the

Tattvavadi acharyas were coerced into saying this, or were tricked

into saying this, or some such thing. Are they still brahmins? If an

ISKCON brahmin lies, and this proves that he isn't deserving of

brahminical status, then why does the same standard not apply to a

Tattvavadi brahmin?

 

Let us keep this discussion focused on the issue. ISKCON was only

brought up because it is a fact that there are non-brahmins who

become initiated by ISKCON and behave like the best of brahmins.

Certainly this is not the case for all ISKCON brahmins, just as it

is not the case with all Tattvavadis. But if birth is a necessary

prequisitie for brahminical status, then some convincing explanation

must be provided for these brahmins who excel in their duties

despite coming from non-brahmin families.

 

If you want to turn this into a discussion on ISKCON, you will have

to go elsewhere.

 

> > Vaalmiiki became a brahmarishi even though he was

> > originally a kshatriya.

>

> You probably referred to Vishvamitra.

 

Quite right, I meant Vishvaamitra.

 

I have already given the

> answer to Vishvamitra and Satyakama's examples in a previous

> posting - both are exceptional cases as you can see from there.

 

Anant, if it is a rule that one must have brahminical birth before

having brahminical status, then there must not be an exception. As

soon as there are exceptions, then the statement ceases to be an

absolute rule or standard.

 

It is downright silly to label any contradictory evidence to your

position as an exceptional case. You must at least admit that

brahminical birth is not always necessary for brahminical status.

 

> Vyaasa comes from a mixed parentage -

> > ordinarily one is not accepted as a braahmana if he is born in

the

> > womb of a non-braahmana woman.

>

> No, if one is born from a brahmana father and xatriya woman (like

> VyAsa), he is considered a brahmana.

 

Just for my edification, can you please mention the explicit

evidence that says that Satyavati was a kshatriya woman? I apologize

if I missed it.

 

It is only for vaishya and

> shudra mothers that the child adopts the caste of the mother. This

> is brought out quite explicitly by Bhishma to Yudhishthira in his

> upadesha after the battle.

 

OK, first of all, what is the exact pramaana, and secondly, is

smriti now acceptable as pramaana for these discussions? Or will it

suddenly be unacceptable if I quote the same source tomorrow?

 

> > Again, I could be wrong here, but my impression is that these

> kinds

> > of braahmanas (outside of the seminal system) do not study the

> > shrutis.

>

> If they are brahmanas, they can study the shrutis. If they are not

> brahmanas, they cannot study the shrutis.

 

Are kshatriyas and vaishyas not also initiated into the sacred

thread? Krishna and Balarama "learned" the Vedas under Sandipani

Muni as children of Vasudeva's dynasty.

 

> > 3) What pramaanas are to be used to determine the above?

> >

> > Answer to question #3 is especially important. Between a

> Tattvavadi

> > and a Gaudiya I do not see how there can be any agreement on

what

> > constitutes valid evidence, because on one hand Madhva himself

> quoted

> > many obscure sources (Brahma-tarka? Vishnu Upanishad?) to

support

> his

> > postion, but on the other hand Gaudiyas can only quote from a

> > preselected list given by the Tattvavadis.

>

> So the solution is for you to establish it based on the Brahma

> Sutras which sets the rules of interpretation of the whole

shAstra.

 

And yet, brahma-sutras are not shruti. So again, who is the basis

for your epistemology? You can't take the position that we should

only depend on shruti if you must rely on brahma-sutras.

 

> Also note that many of Madhva's so-called obscure sources have

been

> quoted by many others before and just after him.

 

That seems to be a convenient fiction designed to elude what is

otherwise a very reasonable objection to this double-standard of

pramaanas. What other Vedaantists quote from and accept quotes from,

say, the Brahma-tarka?

 

You should be honest and admit that many of Madhva's sources are

only accepted by him and members of his line.

 

More importantly,

> Madhva does not establish the core of his philosophy on obscure

> sources. Even if you were to take away those sources, the

framework

> of dvaita would be unaffected. Those obscure sources only

embellish

> his position, not establish it. On the other hand, the core of

> Gaudiya philosophy - Radha-Krishna worship or Krishna being the

> original form seems to me to be established entirely on obscure

> sources. Even the BhAgavata does not even mention the name of

RAdhA.

 

The core of Gaudiya's devotional philosophy and achintya bedha

abedha including Krishna as original form are all based on

statements found in the Bhaagavatam. Other obscure sources quoted by

Gaudiyas only embellish this position, not establish it. Bhaagavatam

does not directly mention Raadha's name, but then again it does

mention the gopikas and the rasa-lila, which are very much at the

core of Gaudiya theology. I would say that for the Bhagavatam to

mention the importance of the gopikas, while another source like the

Padma Purana to mention the name of the one those gopikas, is a

refinement.

 

You'll forgive me if I seem unimpressed by your take on what

constitutes an "obscure source." Like the word "interpolation," you

will just use that to dismiss anything that presents evidence that

you do not like. Madhva himself quotes from the Puraanas when it

suits him, but when Puraanas are quoted regarding the existence of

Radha, you and other Tattvavadis just dismiss it without a further

thought. If Puranas are only acceptable when your acharya quotes

them, then why quote them at all? Just believe whatever the acharya

says and have done with the Puranas.

 

> I think I have made my point above. Let us look at the Sutras for

> resolution, since that is the very purpose of the Sutras.

 

The sutras are a terse commentary on Vedanta and do not establish

every minute point of varnaashrama-dharma or other aspects of

morality and day-to-day life. And the reality remains that even your

acharyas have quoted from other non-shruti sources to support their

stance - how convenient to your position to suddenly say that we

will not consider these sources anymore, only the sutras, which are

themselves terse and not exhaustive on every aspect of varnaashrama-

dharma, which is what this discussion is about.

 

> > 4) This is the most important question as far as I am concerned:

> what

> > is the status of braahmanas who give up their traditional

callings

> > and, for example, pursue software engineering in USA?

>

> Perhaps you missed the answer to this question that I gave

embedded

> in one of my previous replies that just got posted.

 

No, I just rejected it as highly arbitrary, unconvincing, and

lacking in solid foundation in shaastra.

 

> If a braahmana

> > is known as such by both his birth and his qualification, then

why

> > are all these software engineers on the Dvaita List to be

> considered

> > braahamanas, while the American devotee who faithfully follows

his

> > saadhana and is engaged full-time in Deity worship not a

> braahmana?

>

> As long as one is practicing his brahminical duties like sandhyA-

> vandanam and shAstra adhyayana and other subsidiary nitya karmas,

it

> makes no difference whether one is a software engineer or not.

 

Manu disagrees with you. The dharma-shaastras condemn in very strong

terms the brahmins who accept non-brahminical duties. Check out the

2nd and 3rd chapters. The things he says about such brahmins are so

nasty that one could almost read Manu dharma-shaastra as an "anti-

brahmin" book!

 

And in any case, you still have not explained what happens to the

brahmins who have the birth but don't do all these things. What are

they then? What if they eat meat or drink liquor? Are they still

brahmins?

 

> Orthodox sannyasis like Chandrashekharendra Saraswati have also

> granted this in Hindu Dharma book, like dvaita/vishishtadvaita

> traditions.

 

I don't accept Chandrashekhara Saraswati pramaana. I don't accept

that he is speaking objectively. It seems to me that he is just

compromising with modern sentiments. Therefore, I require an

objective source to answer this question definitively.

 

> > At what point does a brahmin's son cease to be a braahmana if

> > brahminical conduct is also a prerequisite to being called a

> > braahmana? I don't accept Anant's response that the book

released

> by

> > an Advaitin guru gives permission for braahmanas to be engaged

in

> > materialistic work and still be braahmanas.

>

> Then how do you accept Dronacharya being called a brahmana, given

> that the sole reason for him to enter the palace of Hastinapur was

> to provide for his son and to take revenge on Drupada?

 

In the same light that software engineers who eat meat and drink

liquor are called brahmanas by the GOI for reservation purposes. It

is a term of social convenience, not a theological one. Drona's

departure from the prescribed duties of a brahmin is also not looked

upon very favorably in the few occurrences I have seen where this

subject is discussed in the MBh.

 

In the Bhaagavata, Abhimanyu was still referred to as a brahmana and

a son of a brahmana even though he committed the unforgiveable act

of murdering the 5 sleeping sons of the Pandavas. It is a term of

social convenience; it does not imply that he is on the same level

as a braahmana who does his duties.

 

Just as it is possible for braahmanas to become degraded, the

question naturally arises as to whether or not it is possible for

non-braahmanas to be upgraded to the status of braahmanas. We have

at least a few cases in the scripture that illustrate that this can

happen. Call them "exceptional" if it makes you feel better. My

point is only that it does happen.

 

> Also note that if you insist that following every single thing in

> the dharma-shastras is necessary to retain the status of a

brahmana,

> and that performance of even 75% of duties disqualifies him from

> remaining a brahmana,

 

In fact, I have insisted on no such thing, because so far no one has

really presented an objective, across-the-board standard. I only

brought up dharma-shaastras because Tattvavadis previously brought

up the rule found in dharma-shaastras that a brahmin must be

initiated at 8 years of age - it was from this that they inferred

that ISKCON brahmins are not brahmins. Why only bring up dharma-

shaastras when it's convenient but dispense with it when it is not?

Actually, I am not aware of the dharma-shaastras saying that one is

not a brahmin for doing all these things, but considering the fact

that it talks about such "brahmins" as if they are the greatest

rascals, I think it not unreasonable to read between the lines.

 

You have claimed that one can only be a brahmin by birth as well as

conduct. Yet Satyakama Jabala, who was an illegitimate son born out

of wedlock, clearly did not have the former. Drona did not have the

latter, since he took to the soldier's profession. Yet you consider

both brahmanas. Your definition is inconsistently applied.

 

Another Tattvavadi, Suresh by name, also posted to the effect that

just having brahmin birth makes one a brahmin. According to him,

people who do not follow their brahmin-dharmas are just "bad

brahmins," so conduct does not figure into his definition at all,

which clearly differs from yours. Do you both need time to discuss

what your position is on this and get back to us? Anyway, I didn't

approve his posting because he didn't present any evidence - he just

stated his opinions. But, in all fairness, his position seems to be

an easier one to take, since a bloodline is more objective than

questions of "conduct" or "behavior." Then again, one's blood line

doesn't say anything about him as a person? I meet "brahmins" (by

this definition) who marry Christians and Muslims all the time. I

wonder what their children are? What about Christians and Muslims

who were formerly Hindu Brahmins? Are they still Brahmins after they

give up Hinduism? Why or why not?

 

then what about injunctions like not even

> living in a country where shudras rule? ISKCON devotees don't live

> in a country ruled by brahmanas, even if they live in India.

 

Neither do other Vaishnavas, since the GOI is so corrupt that just

coming to the standard of a Ravana-rajya would be a major

improvement.

 

What

> about performance of the pancha-maha-yajnas and sandhya vandanam

> which ISKCON devotees look down as karma kanda?

 

Looking at something as karma-kanda is not the same as looking down

on it. Many bhaktas do things that are in the karma-kanda as per

their definition. I'm actually not sure if these two things are

regarded as karma-kanda by Gaudiya acharyas, but I do know that many

Gaudiyas do these things, and I know of Gaudiyas who do these things

better than their Indian/Hindu/brahmin counterparts. Which again

raises the question of birth as an absolute prerequisite for varna.

 

What about study of

> the shrutis which ISKCON devotees do not do? What about the daily

> recitation of the Vedas?

 

Well, if they study shruti, then the Tattvavadis will cry foul on

the count of they not being born as bramhins. So they're damned if

they do and damned if they don't. Meanwhile, hardly anyone raises

such a hue and cry when Tattvavadi brahmin children get raised in

United States, associate with meat-eating karmis, eat at Pizza Hutt,

and dilute their brahmin beliefs due to such bad habits and

association.

 

> > This strikes me as

> > nothing more than a concession given to worldly-minded persons

> with

> > absolutely no basis in shruti or dharma-shaastras.

>

> Neither is there any basis in the dharma-shastras for not doing

any

> of the above (which ISKCON devotees do not do).

 

So you agree with me then, that there is no objective, scriptural

standard that clearly delineates "brahmin" from "non-brahmin," and

that all we have are prescriptions for what brahmins *ideally*

should do?

 

> What objective

> > evidence is there that one can still be a braahmana even if he

is

> not

> > following his brahminical duty?

>

> You seem to say that if one is not 100% following his brahminical

> duty then he is not even a brahmana. In that case, neither are

your

> ISKCON devotees brahmanas. Where in the dharma shaastras is it

> mentioned that book distribution (a form of trade) is a substitute

> for begging? Where is it said that a brahmana can give up his

> sandhya-vandanam in favor of chanting Hare Krishna?

 

I don't know where these things are stated. I also don't know where

it is stated that one give up his sandhya vandanam because he

doesn't have time for it due to spending 14hour days trying to

design the newest generation of video cards. Or that he can drink

coffee and tea because, "we have to be practical."

 

All I know is that the word "brahmin" conjures up a specific image

of a person engaged in spiritual pursuits, and yet the word gets

thrown around a lot to include a lot of atheistic people purely by

accident of birth.

 

By the way, on the Hindu Civilization list, there is one of these so-

called "brahmins" who does his sandhya vandanam but openly admits to

being an agnostic. He feels that agnosticism and atheism are the

basis for understanding the Vedas. He also feels that Buddhism is a

more refined form of Vedanta. He feels that ideas from Kama-sutra

are acceptable to most Hindus while Gita and Bhagavatam are of

marginal relevance to them. I don't even know if he is a vegetarian,

but I do know that he has the birth thing going for him. So, despite

being a nastika whore, he's a brahmin, right?

 

> > What objective evidence is there that

> > one can be a braahmana even if he is violating Vedic standards

of

> > etiquette, such as for example associating with worldy-minded

> > persons, eating in restaurants, watching television, etc? This

is

> a

> > perfectly reasonable question because many "brahmins" in India

and

> > here in USA are doing just that. Yet many of them are also

> following

> > some of their dharmas, like doing sandhya vandanam. Can someone

be

> a

> > brahmin if he does sandhya vandanam but also watches TV?

>

> Since TV did not exist earlier, there isn't any basis for you to

say

> that it is forbidden by dharma shastras. It depends on what you

> watch on TV.

 

Well, let's say he watches the latest Bollywood heroine shaking her

hips on Z-TV or whatever. Is he a brahmin as long as he still does

his gayatri in the mornings?

 

> Also, are you trying to that one wrong (considering people who are

> only brahma-bandhus and not brahmanas to be brahmanas) can be

> corrected by another wrong (considering shudras, etc as brahmanas)?

 

No, I'm trying to get someone to provide a clear and consistently

applied definition as to what constitutes being a brahmin. I'm

trying to find out where one should draw the line between being

a "brahmin" and being a "brahma-bandhu."

 

If you want to know where I stand on this so far, I would say that I

have met genuine brahmins. The starving brahmins whom I saw at Sri

Rangam, begging for alms and enduring so much humiliation yet

studying Vedas and following their varnashrama-dharmas - those

people I have no problem calling genuine brahmanas. But when it's

someone who compromises with the standards to grab a job that pays

in American dollars, and then justifies it with dubious logic, then

I reserve the right to judgement.

 

> > It's all very nice to give all these points about what

constitutes

> a

> > braahmana, but I think it is very one-sided to only subject

> Gaudiyas

> > to the microscope.

>

> It is also one-sided to only subject a handful of Tattvavadis

under

> the microscope.

 

No one here was subjecting the Tattvavadis to any microscope on the

varna issue until you came here and brought up the subject, Anant.

 

There are as many brahminical duties even a serious

> ISKCON devotee doesn't do as you may find lacking in a Tattvavadi

in

> the US.

 

Agreed. The truth of the matter as far as I can see is that each

sampradaya's leaders tend to more or less pick and choose what they

will or will not follow, unfortunately. Otherwise, why do different

brahmins traditionally follow different dharma-shastras?

 

(Note that I am not saying they are the ideal example of

> brahmanas, but I certainly don't agree that they are disqualified

> from brahminical status itself for just doing a software job, even

> if they are doing their other duties)

 

Precisely my point. When it comes to Western devotees born into

mleccha families, you are pretty clear that these are not brahmins,

period. But when it's a Tattvavadi who comes to USA and drinks tea,

you're happy to say that they're brahmins, just not ideal brahmins.

 

Why not be similarly forgiving to American devotees? Why only

compromise when it comes to Tattvavadis? Why it is so much more

abhorrent from a brahminical standard to come from a mleccha family

than it is to watch Bollywood movies or work for cow-eaters? Why

wouldn't you be happy to regard a practicing, American twice-born

Vaishnava as a "brahmin, just not the ideal exampe..." as you would

for a non-practicing Indian who is the son of a Tattvavadi family?

 

> I do not understand why it is ok for seminal-

> > brahmanas to compromise and accept secular work, but on the

other

> > hand it is absolutely anathema for someone from a non-brahmana

> family

> > to be trained as a brahmana.

>

> The seminal brahmanas have at least not been given sannyAsa and

made

> into gurus, and then exposed as being you know what.

 

Er... well there was Vidyabhushana Tirtha, the famous singer and

publisher of so many cassettes, who was given sannyasa and then was

struck by Cupid's arrow during a visit to a householder's family.

His marriage was attended by the then Pejavar Swami and he still

does the devotional cassettes.... under the name "Vidyabhushana."

 

Anyway, we're comparing apples and oranges. Most people initiated

into brahmin culture don't come from brahmin families and lack the

benefit of a proper upbringing. That is a given. The question you

should be asking is why all of these people aren't "exposed as being

you know what." Or, is it your position that none of them are

genuine, and all of them are degraded or will become degraded?

 

> I am not one to claim that all such

> > brahmanas are strict, and that all seminal-brahmanas are not

> strict.

> > But the fact is that I have seen "converted" brahmanas who are

far

> > more strict in their sadhana and daily living than many whose

> claim

> > to brahminical status lies in their birth.

>

> Strictness in sAdhanA does not qualify one to become a brahmana.

The

> Pandavas were very strict in their sAdhanA and so was Vidura, and

so

> was the Dharma-VyAdha butcher (who Baladeva also cites). None of

> them were called brahmanas just for that reason.

 

There is no need to be deliberately obtuse just to be argumentative.

Clearly, I was referring to strictness in executing brahminical

sadhana.

 

This point has been

> coming up repeatedly - we agree that sadhana towards moxa is

> everybody's fundamental right - why do you keep mixing up

strictness

> in sadhana to justify a change of varNa?

 

You yourself claimed that both birth and conduct were integral to

being called a true brahmin. When you previously said that, why now

is strictness of sadhana not an issue? On what objective basis do

you draw the line that one can do certain amounts of his duties and

not others and maintain his varna identification?

 

Doesn't your position just serve as a convenience for those brahmins

who want to take it easy but still be called brahmins?

 

(Sure, if someone can do

> thousands of years of penance like Vishvamitra, and have the

strange

> circumstances of birth that he had, we would accept his case as an

> exception)

 

The difference between a rule and a generalization is that an

exception turns the former into the latter. Birth is either an

absolute prerequisite or it is not. Vishvaamitra was either a

brahmin by birth or he was not. There is no need to obfuscate the

issue.

 

> > What is missing here is an objective standard of brahminical

> status

> > that is consistently applied across the board.

>

> The objective standard is birth + samskaras and adherence to

duties.

> The adherence to duties need not be 100% but the major nitya

karmas

> should be there.

 

What is this objective standard based on? Perhaps I was not clear,

but by "objective" i meant that it should also be clearly enunciated

in some mutually acceptable source.

 

By the standard above, many brahmins that I meet are not brahmins,

despite having the birth. They don't perform the samskaras necessary

prior to conception. They don't adhere to all their duties. They

only do their sandhya vandanam once a day, if at all. I am not clear

on who or what determines what percentage of their duties must be

adhered to, but once again it seems subjective based solely on the

whims of the person making the claim.

 

> as I mentioned, there are several things that are part of

> brahminical duties. As much as performing only a few of them does

> not make one a brahmana, nor does not performing a few of them

mean

> they are not brahmanas (provided they are doing their major nitya

> karmas).

 

Why cannot one forego all of them and still call himself a brahmana?

In what scripture is it laid down that one who does at least X% of

the duties is still a brahmana? Who defines which are the major

nitya karmas and which are not? Your definition, far from being

clear, is itself subject to interpretation.

 

For the same standard can be applied to ISKCON devotees as

> well, who sell books to shudras and live in temples where money

> comes from people who work for shudras, do not do sandhya-

vandanam,

> do not study shrutis at all, live in cities and countries ruled by

> shudras, etc.

 

Money for all temples comes from shudras who do not do sandhya-

vandanam. I don't understand why that specifically disqualifies

ISKCON temples. India is ruled by shudras, so again, I don't know

why this only disqualifies ISKCON temples. Book-distribution is

something that ISKCON people do, but it's a form of instruction. If

book distribution is wrong, then what about the public Hari-kathas

that are also done by traditional brahmins in India?

 

> > I want to be convinced, but I'm not. Surely anyone can see the

> double

> > standard.

> >

>

> I too want to be convinced, but I'm not since anyone can see the

> double standard.

 

When you start off trying to refute the Gaudiya position, but end up

falling back on some premise that Tattvavadis are being persecuted

or whatever, it just reveals the weakness in your overall position.

 

I am not a member of ISKCON. I do not necessarily agree or disagree

with everything that is done in ISKCON. Attacking ISKCON will not

help you.

 

And yes, I am far from convinced by your position that it's ok for

Tattvavadis to compromise on issues of duty and still be brahmins,

but Westerners cannot compromise on issues of birth and still be

brahmins. That is a double standard. There is no need as far as I'm

concerned for you to enumerate on the faults of ISKCON (of which I

probably no way more than you) since, as per your views, they aren't

real brahmins anyway. So no need to compare yourselves with them. In

fact, since Tattvavadis consistently present their position as being

the most logical and authentic, I am always expecting them to take

the position that is clear, consistent, and objective. But so far it

has raised more questions than it has answered.

 

regards,

 

K

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla wrote:

>

> Another Tattvavadi, Suresh by name, also posted to the effect that

> just having brahmin birth makes one a brahmin. According to him,

> people who do not follow their brahmin-dharmas are just "bad

> brahmins," so conduct does not figure into his definition at all,

> which clearly differs from yours. Do you both need time to discuss

> what your position is on this and get back to us? Anyway, I didn't

> approve his posting because he didn't present any evidence

 

How about these?

 

Ch.4.13

cātur-varṇyaḿ mayā sṛṣṭaḿ

 

guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ

 

tasya kartāram api māḿ

 

viddhy akartāram avyayam

 

***Caste System was created by the Lord.****

 

Ch.18.7

niyatasya tu sannyāsaḥ

 

karmaṇo nopapadyate

 

mohāt tasya parityāgas

 

tāmasaḥ parikīrtitaḥ

 

****The Lord says prescribed duties should never be abandoned. There

can be no prescribed duties without respective castes associated with

them. Which means, a person born as brahmana must perform duties

pertaining to his brahmana caste. If caste system were fluid, the

above statement by the Lord would make no sense, plus there would be

no prescribed duties to begin with. XYZ may be shudra by birth and he

may perform his duties, but one fine day, he listens to susarla or

whoever and 'decides' to become brahmana, so his 'prescribed duties'

will change overnight. Next day, he might want to become kshatriya,

and his prescribed duties will undergo changes for a third time. This

may continue for a lifetime, and the jiva can NEVER do sadhana if

caste system were fluid.*****

 

Ch.18.41

 

brāhmaṇa-kṣatriya-viśāḿ

 

śūdrāṇāḿ ca parantapa

 

karmāṇi pravibhaktāni

 

svabhāva-prabhavair guṇaiḥ

 

****Need I say more?****

 

Ch.18.42-44

 

śamo damas tapaḥ śaucaḿ

 

kṣāntir ārjavam eva ca

 

jñānaḿ vijñānam āstikyaḿ

 

brahma-karma svabhāva-jam

 

śauryaḿ tejo dhṛtir dākṣyaḿ

 

yuddhe cāpy apalāyanam

 

dānam īśvara-bhāvaś ca

 

kṣātraḿ karma svabhāva-jam

 

kṛṣi-go-rakṣya-vāṇijyaḿ

 

vaiśya-karma svabhāva-jam

 

paricaryātmakaḿ karma

 

śūdrasyāpi svabhāva-jam

 

****Here, the Lord clearly outlines the prescribed duties of the

respective castes. But this has been misunderstood by susarla and his

iskcon friends. For instance, the prescribed duty of a shudra is to

serve other castes. But iskconites have (mis)understood it to mean

that he who serves other castes are shudras!

 

Aside from scriptural evidence (which has come from the Lord Himself,

not from obscure sources), common sense suggests that caste system is

birth-based, for how else can the poor jiva do sadhana? Birth-based

caste system gives a proper foundation for the jiva to do sadhana,

because the duties and objectives of each caste are clearly enunciated.

 

*******The core of Gaudiya's devotional philosophy and achintya bedha

abedha including Krishna as original form are all based on

statements found in the Bhaagavatam. Other obscure sources quoted by******

 

There is no mention of Radha's name in Bhagavatam. And Gaudiyas

worship Radha, if I am not mistaken. Or, have gaudiyas rejected her,

because she's not mentioned in scriptures, particularly bhagavatam?

Besides, even in obscure scriptures you people quote from, there is no

evidence to suggest that she is the Lord's consort.

 

but when Puraanas are quoted regarding the existence of

Radha,*****

 

Let's consider a small example to understand this. Sri Madhva's view

that Laxmi Devi is the Lord's consort is all over the place-in the

itihaasas, puranas. So why would maadhvas quote obscure sources, when

their viewpoint is well established by scriptures? But gaudiyas, on

the other hand, are forced to rely on obscure sources, because

bhagavatam doesn't mention radha at all!