shUdras Not Qualified For Vedic Meditation

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

> 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':

 

1. Please note that such online publications may not necessarily be

the traditional position of the sampradAya itself, as you may have

experienced even within Gaudiya sampradaya. It is remarkable that in

this article, there is not a single quote provided from any of the

purvacharyas' works in the Ramanuja tradition that birth does not

determine one's varNa. The only quote provided is that people of all

varNas are allowed to become great devotees of the Lord, which no

one disputes in any case.

 

2. Even giving the article consideration for whatever is written in

it, it is quite disappointing and does not shed any light on the

issue. Rather, in the name of supplying proof from the Gita, it ends

up contradicting the Gita by saying that jAti is based on birth but

varNa is not.

 

Consider the first chapter of the Gita itself.

 

Arjuna says that by the pollution of women, there will be "varNa-

sa~Nkara" [which means "mixing of varNas"]. As I have pointed in my

reply to Krishna Susharla-ji, Bhishma elaborates on the topic of

varNa-sa~Nkara by enumerating the different types of sa~Nkara, all

resulting when a woman in one varNa marries a man in another

forbidden varNa. (such as a shudra man marrying a brahmana woman,

etc) This section points clearly to the birth-based determination of

varNa.

 

This is further corroborated by Arjuna a few verses later where he

says that the result of varNa-sa~Nkara is that jAti-dharma and kula-

dharma get destroyed.

 

The word "jAti-dharma" has been interpreted as follows:

1. Sridhar Svami says jAti-dharma = varNa-dharma

2. Baladeva Vidyabhushana says jAti-dharma = xatriya-Adi-dharma (in

other words, varNa dharma)

3. Madhusudana Saraswati says jAti-dharma is xatriya-Adi-varNa-

dharma.

4. Raghavendra Swami says jAti-dharma is xatriyatva-Adi-dharma

 

Thus, all the commentators that have explained this word (across

different schools) have equated it with varNa-dharma. Thus, to say

that jAti is birth-based but varNa isn't is baseless for they are

equated in the Gita by even the Gaudiya commentators.

 

> *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

 

Again, I don't see the point of wasting time quoting the same old

statements with the same old mistakes.

 

 

>

> 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.

 

As usual, no evidence given for the above statement that at first,

people chose their own varna. There cannot be, because there was a

birth-based system as Mahabharata depicts clearly.

 

> *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.

 

Mere speculation with no evidence (and lot of evidence that refutes

this, even from the Gita), sadly passed of as "Ramanuja Darshanam".

 

Yours,

 

Anant

[Guest guest]

Ram Ram

pranam

 

The following are the slokas of Vajrasucika Upanisad 3 - 9.

 

If someone says A particular person is a brahmana because he is a

brahmana spirit soul" then the scripture replies No That is not so The

soul remains the same even though because of karma it transmigrates into

many different kinds of material bodies Therefore it is not that certain

spirit souls are brahmanas by nature and others are not."

 

If someone says A particular person is a brahmana because he has the

body of a brahmana,¢ then the scripture replies No That is not so All

classes of human beings down to the lowest outcaste have the same kind of

material body made of five material elements and subject to old age death

and other changes in exactly the same ways Neither is it true that

brahmanas have fair complexions ksatriyas ruddy complexions vaisyas yellou

complexions, and sudras darë complexions Therefore there is no such thing

as a brahmana body It is not the body that is a brahmana."

 

If someone says One becomes a brahmana by taking birth in a brahmana

family,¢ then the scripture replies No That is not so A brahmana may be

born in any kind of family Indeed many great brahmana sages were not born

from brahmanas Rsyasrnga Muni was born from a doe Kausika Muni was born

from kusa grass Jambuka Muni was born from a jackal Valmiki Muni was born

from an anti-hill Vyasa Muni was born from a fisherman's daughter Gautama

Muni was born from the side of a rabbit Vasistha Muni was born from Urvasi

Agastya Muni was born from a pot of water All this is described in the

Sruti-sastra Thus many great brahmana sages although not born in brahmana

families are accepted as great brahmanas because of their spiritual wisdom

Therefore it is not birth in a brahmana family that makes one a brahmana."

 

If someone says A particular person is a brahmana because he has

knowledge,¢ then the scripture replies No That is not so Many ksatriyas

and others have true knowledge and understand the final goal of life but

they are still not brahmanas Therefore it is not knowledge alone that

makes one a brahmana."

 

If someone says A particular person is a brahmana because he performs

his prescribed duties,¢ then the scripture replies No That is not so Many

pious living entities alike perform the prescribed duties resulting from

their previous karma but that does not make them all brahmanas Therefore

it is not performance of prescribed duties that makes one a brahmana."

 

If someone says A particular person is a brahmana because he performs

pious deeds,¢ then the scripture replies No That is not so Many ksatriyas

and others gave gold in charity and performed many pious deeds but that

did not make them brahmanas Therefore pious deeds alone do not make one a

brahmana."

 

Then someone may ask Who is a brahmana then?¢ The scriptures answer A

brahmana directly sees the Supreme Personality of Godhead who has no rival

who is never born never touched by the modes of material nature and never

trapped in material actions who is free of the siø material waves and the

siø material states of being who is free of all defects whose form is

eternal limitless and full of knowledge and bliss who is free of material

dualities who is the resting place of all that exists who is the Supersoul

residing in the hearts of all living beings who is everywhere within and

without everything like the great sky who is a loom on which everything is

woven whose bliss never ends who is invisible who is seen only by His own

consent and who voluntarily appears before His devotees and becomes like a

walnut grasped in their hands Also a brahmana is free of lust attachment

and other vices is endowed with peacefulness self-control and other

virtues is free of envy hankering illusion and other defects and has a

heart untouched by pride and false ego The Sruti Smrti Puranas and

Itihasas declare that such a person is a brahmana A person who does not

have these qualities cannot be a brahmana A brahmana always meditates on

the Supreme Personality of Godhead who has no rival and is eternal and

full of knowledge and bliss A brahmana always meditates on the Supreme

Personality of Godhead who is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss Thus

the Upanisad is spoken.

 

ard

 

 

 

Cheap Talk? Check out Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Guest guest]

Ram Ram

pranam

 

Here are some quotes related to the topic:

 

"sugasya tadanadara-sravanat sucyate hi"

nasau pautrayanah sudrah sucad-bravanam eva hi suda tvam

raja pautrayanah sokac-chudroti muninoditah prana-vidyam-avapyasmat

param dharma-vaptavan

The following story is from the Chandogya Upanisad (Saavarga-vidya 4):

There was a great king named Janasruti Pautrayara, who was famous for his

good works. Two rsis wanted to create a desire for spiritual knowledge in his

heart and they took the form of swans to accomplish this. One of them praised

the king while the other contemptously accused him of lacking spiritual knowl-

edge. The swan then praised the sage Raikva for being very learned. Upon

hearing this the king was smitten with grief and approached the sage Raikva

with presents seeking spiritual knowledge from him. Raikva twice addressed

the king sudra. "O Sudra, you have brought all these presents, and now you

want me to instruct you?" Thereafter, Raikva taught him the spiritual science.

The Brahma-sutra says: "Raikva addressed Janasruti Pautrayana as sudra

because Pautrayana was overwhelmed with sorrow." The use of the word sudra

in this verse does not mean that Janasruti was a sudra at birth, but that he was

lamenting. The purport is that those who are overwhelmed by lamentation are

known as sudras. It is written in the Padma-Purana that King Pautrayana was a

ksatriya and that because of his lamentation, Raikva Muni called him a sudra.

[The word sudra, therefore, means "one who laments."] Later, Pautrayana gained

knowledge of the ultimate goal of life and the supreme religion from Raikva.

(Brahma-sutra 1.3.34)

Madhvacarya's Commentary, Quoting from Padma-Purana

14.48

"ksatriyatvavagates ca uttaratra caitra-rathena lingat" bhasye:

"ayam asvatariratha iti citraratha samvandhinitvena lingena

pautrayanasya ksatriyatvavagates ca rathastvasvatariyuktascitra

ityabhidhiyate iti brahme yatra vedo rathas tatra na vedo yatra no ratha iti

ca brahma-vaivarte"

The Brahma-sutra says: "That Janasruti was ksatriya and not a sudra is

understood from the rest of the story, where he is described along with a ksatriya,

Abhipratmrin, who was a Caitra-ratha." [because Janasruti was a ksatriya and

not a sudra by quality, he was fit for hearing spiritual knowledge from Raikva

Muni, who would not have instructed him if he actuallly was a sudra. The pur-

pose of Raikva Muni's calling him a sudra was simply to illustrate that constant

lamentation is the quality of a sudra, and that if he were to instruct Janasruti,

the king would have to rid himself of the tendency toward lamentation. That

Raikva did instruct Janasruti is proof that the king freed himself from the ten-

dency, and was not a sudra, but was qualified to study the Vedas. Those who

have the qualities of sudras are forbidden to study the Vedas because they will

pervert the meaning of the Vedas.] The whole point is that one may know a

person's varna from his qualities.

 

 

ard

 

 

 

 

 

Access over 1 million songs - Music Unlimited.

[Guest guest]

PAMHO

 

Hare Krishna

 

Ambassador O P Gupta, IFS, lists out the following shUdras seen in Vedas

 

(source http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13167991 )

 

 

(i) Risi Kavas Ilusu was revealed Suktas (X.30) (X.31) (X.32) and (X.33) of

Rigveda and sloka 453 of Samveda. Risi Ilusu Aksova mojvan was revealed

Sukta (X.34) of Rigveda. Both, under current Manusmriti definition were

sudra.

 

(ii) In Tandya Brahman (14.66) risi Vatsa has been called a sudra-putra.

Revelations to risi Vatsa are there in Rigveda, (VIII.6) (VIII.11), Samveda

(8,20,137,143, etc) and Yaj (IV.16-36), (VII.40), (XXVI.15).

 

(iii) Risi Kaksivat was son of risi Dirghatamas by a sudra maid servant

(Brihaddevata IV.24.25). Risi Kaksivat was revealed many richas in RV

(I.119to 125).

 

(iv) Maharisi Vedvyas compiled all richas into four Vedas in the format

currently available. He also composed Mahabharat, Shrimad Bhagwat Gita and

all the Puranas. He was born to Satyawati daughter of a fisherman by risi

Parasar. He was of dark complexion (Krishna Dwaipayan). Thus, as per

Manusmriti definition, he was a dalit Hindu/Varna-sankar by birth. As we

know, Kauravas and Pandavas were descendants of this Satyawati through

Vedvyasa. But, Kauravas and Pandavas are accepted as Kshatriyas not on basis

of birth but on the basis of their occupations (as rulers/kings).

 

(v) Maharishi Mahidasa Aitereya, a Maharastrian Sudra (perhaps a Mahar),

composed Aitereya Brahman and chapters I, II & III of Aitereya Aryanaka. His

mother was a maid named Itara.

T.Harikrishnan

[Guest guest]

Shri Anant wrote:

 

>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?

 

shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa says:

 

"Some souls, such as Vidura and others, although born as shUdras,

become elevated by their attainment of perfect transcendental

knowledge. By hearing and understanding the PurANas and other

transcendental literatures, shUdras and others can become liberated.

The only real classes of higher and lower among men are determined by

the final result of their lives."

 

But as shrIla Prabhupada explains:

 

"Vidura, born in the womb of a sudra mother, was forbidden even to be

a party of royal heritage along with his brothers Dhrtarastra and

Pandu. Then how could he occupy the post of a preacher to instruct

such learned...? Answer is that even though it is accepted that he was

a sudra by birth, because he renounced the world for spiritual

enlightenment by the authority of Rsi Maitreya and was thoroughly

educated by him in transcendental knowledge, he was quite competent to

occupy the post of an acarya or spiritual preceptor." Vidura was a

sudra, born sudra. Then how he became a preacher?

 

So the reason is... "According to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, anyone who

is conversant in the transcendental knowledge or the science of

Godhead, be he a brahmana or sudra, a householder or a sannyasi, is

eligible to become a spiritual master." Not that because he was born a

sudra, he cannot preach, he cannot take the post of acarya or

spiritual master. "That is not Caitanya philosophy. Caitanya

philosophy has nothing to do with this body, external body. Caitanya

philosophy is concerned with the soul. This movement is the movement

of elevating the soul, saving the soul from degradation. Therefore

people sometimes are surprised. The bodily concept of life, the same

activities will be karma. And on the platform of spiritual life, the

same karma will be bhakti. Same karma will be bhakti. So bhakti is not

inactivity. Bhakti is all active. Yat karosi yaj juhosi yad asnasi yat

tapasyasi kurusva tad mad-arpanam. This is bhakti, bhakti-yoga. Krsna

says to everyone, "If you cannot give up your karma, then that's all

right. But the result of your karma, give to Me. Then it will be

bhakti."

 

.........

 

"The conclusion is that Vidura was never a sudra, but was greater than

the purest type of brahmana."

 

(as seen in http://iskcon.krishna.org/Articles/2000/08/00092.html )

 

He remained a shUdra for a part of his stay in earth, during which he

was not qualified for learning Veda, but later ".... by the authority

of Rsi Maitreya and was thoroughly educated by him in transcendental

knowledge, he was quite competent to occupy the post of an acarya or

spiritual preceptor" This was Vidhura's second birth.

 

T.Harikrishnan

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

PAMHO

Avadhuta Raya Prabhu has opined that:

 

>Now, in Kali yuga everybody is born as a sudra but by the

pancaratriki system of

>purification (not the Vaidic) one can become elevated to sattva guna where

>proper understanding of Vedic wisdom becomes clear. The stage of being one step

>to God realization.

 

1. "Pañcaratra is a pre-Puranic form of Hinduism, which equated

Narayana with Vishnu. They later merged with the Bhagavata and evolved

into present-day Vaisnavism." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancaratra

). Pancharatriki system is commonly understood as a simpler form of

worship of the Supreme, as compared to vedic system. Purification

processes are also included here. Even though most Gaudiaya brahmanas

do not study vedas, it is not due to absence of Vedadhikara, rather it

is due to the fact that vedic system is considered not suitable for

this age of Kali. But it can be argued by orthodox brahmanas that

pancaratriki system being outside the vedic system cannot bestow

vedadhikara to anyone.

 

2. Purification by Vedic system could also be possible for everyone

including those borne of Shudra parents. Here are some (quite

extensive) quotes from the book "WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS? by Dr B.R.

Ambedkar (http://www.dr-ambedkar.com/writings/38A.%20Who%20were%20the%20Shudras%20Preface.htm)

 

"The Dharma Sutras say that a Shudra is not entitled to the Upanayana

ceremony and the wearing of the sacred thread. But in Samskara

Ganapati there is an express provision declaring the Shudra to be

eligible for Upanayana."

 

"The Dharma Sutras say that a Shudra has no right to perform Vedic

ceremonies and sacrifices. But Jaimini, the author of the Purva

Mimarnsa mentions an ancient teacher by name Badari— whose work is

lost— as an exponent of the contrary view that even Shudras could

perform Vedic sacrifices. The Bharadvaja Srauta Sutra (v.28) admits

that there exists another school of thought which holds that a Shudra

can consecrate the three sacred fires necessary for the performance of

a Vedic sacrifice. Similarly, the commentator of the Katyayana Srauta

Sutra (1.4.16) admits that there are certain Vedic texts which lead to

the inference that the Shudra was eligible to perform Vedic rites."

 

"The Dharma Sutras say that a Shudra is not entitled to the sacred

drink of Soma. But in the story of the Ashvins, there is definite

evidence that the Shudra had a right to the divine drink of Soma. The

Ashvins, as the story goes, once happened to behold Sukanya when she

had just bathed and when her person was bare. She was a young girl

married to a Rishi by name Chyavana who at the time of marriage was so

old as to be dying almost any day. The Ashvins were captivated by the

beauty of Sukanya and said "Accept one of us for your husband. It

behoveth thee not to spend thy youth fruitlessly." She refused, saying

"I am devoted to my husband." They again spoke to her and this time

proposed a bargain: "We two are the celestial physicians of note. We

will make thy husband young and graceful. Do thou then select one of

us as thy husband." She went to her husband and communicated to him

the terms of the bargain. Chyavana said to Sukanya "Do thou so"; and

the bargain was carried out and Chyavana was made a young man by the

Ashvins. Subsequently, a question arose whether the Ashvins were

entitled to Soma, which was the drink of the Gods. Indra objected

saying that the Ashvins were Shudras and therefore not entitled to

Soma. Chyavana, who had received perpetual youth from the Ashvins, set

aside the contention and compelled Indra to give them Soma."

 

"It is, however, interesting to refer to the view of Prof. Weber when

he comments on the passage from the Satapatha Brahmana (i.1.4.12)

where it says that different modes of address should be adopted

inviting the sacrificer to proceed with the sacrifice, addressing him

as 'come' if he is a Brahmin, 'hasten hither' if he is a Kshatriya,

'hasten hither' if he is a Vaishya and 'run hither' if he is a Shudra.

Prof.Weber says :

 

"The entire passage is of great importance, as it shows (in opposition

to what Roth says in the first Volume of this Journal, p. 83) that the

Shudras were then admitted to the holy sacrifices of the Aryans, and

understood their speech, even if they did not speak it. The latter

point cannot certainly be assumed as a necessary consequence, but it

is highly probable and I consequently incline to the view of those who

regard the Shudras as an Aryan tribe which immigrated into India

before the others.""

 

" To assume, as the objection does, that from the very beginning the

Aryan Society treated its different classes differently in the matter

of Upanayana is to my mind a very unnatural supposition. Primitive

society does not begin with differentiation. It begins with uniformity

and ends in diversity. The natural thing would be to suppose that in

the matter of the Upanayana the ancient Aryan society treated all its

classes on the same footing. It may however be argued, on the other

side, that such an original tendency in favour of uniformity need not

be accepted as being universal, that it may well be that in the

ancient Aryan society the Shudras and the women were excluded from

Upanayana. Fortunately for me, it is not necessary for me to rely on

logic alone though I contend that logic is on my side. For there is

ample evidence both circumstantial as well as direct to show that both

Shudras as well as women had at one time the right to wear the sacred

thread."

 

"That the ancient Aryan society regarded Upanayana as essential for

all will be evident if the following facts are borne in mind.

 

Upanayana was allowed for the deaf, the dumb, the idiot and even the

impotent. A special procedure was prescribed for the Upanayana of the

deaf and dumb and idiots. The principal points in which their

Upanayana differs from that of others are that the offering of Samidh,

treading on a stone, putting on a garment, the tying of mekhala, the

giving of deer skin and staff are done silently, that the boy does not

mention his name, it is the achary a himself who makes offering of

cooked food or of clarified butter, all the mantras are muttered

softly by the achary a himself. The same procedure is followed as to

other persons who are impotent, blind, lunatic, suffering from such

diseases as epilepsy, white leprosy or black leprosy, etc.

 

The six anuloma castes were also eligible for Upanayana; this is clear

from the rules [f21] for the Upanayana of Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and of

mixed castes like Rathakara, Ambashtha, etc,

 

Upanayana was permitted to Patitasavitrikas. The proper age for the

Upanayana of a Brahman boy was 8th year from birth, of a Kshatriya

11th year and of a Vaishya 12th year. But a certain latitude was

allowed so that the time for Upanayana was not deemed to have passed

upon the 16th, the 22nd and the 24th year in the case of Brahmins,

Kshatriyas and Vaishyas respectively. After these years are passed

without Upanayana taking place, a person was held to have become

incompetent thereafter for learning the Savitri (the sacred Gayatri

verse). Such persons were then called Patitasavitrika or

savitripatita. According to the strict interpretation of rules, no

Upanayana is to be thereafter performed for them, they are not to be

taught the Veda, nor is anyone to officiate at their sacrifices and

there is to be no social intercourse with them (i.e., no marriage

takes place with them). But even in their case, there was readiness to

relax the rules [f22] subject to certain penances.

 

Upanayana was permitted in the case of Brahmaghnas. A Brahmaghna is a

person whose father or grandfather had failed to perform Upanayana.

The original rule [f23] was that if a person's father and grandfather

also had not the Upanayana performed for them then they (i.e., the

three generations) are called slayers of brahma (holy prayers or

lore); people should have no intercourse with them, should not take

their food nor should enter into marriage alliance with them. But even

in their case the rule was relaxed and they were allowed Upanayana if

they desired, provided they performed the prescribed penance.

 

A further relaxation was made in the case of a person whose generation

beginning with the great grandfather had not the Upanayana performed

on them. [f24] Even they were allowed to have their Upanayana

performed if they desired, provided they performed penance which

included studenthood for twelve years and bath with the Pavamani, and

other verses. On his Upanayana, instruction in the duties of the

householder was imparted to him, and though he himself could not be

taught the Veda, his son may have the samskara performed as in the

case of one who is himself a patitasavitrika so that his son will be

'one like other Arya'.

 

Upanayana was permitted to the Vratyas. It is difficult to state

exactly who the Vratyas were, whether they were Aryans who had for

more than three generations failed to perform the Upanayana or whether

they were non-Aryans who were never within the Aryan fold and whom the

Brahmins wanted to convert to the Aryan faith. It is possible that it

included both. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that Upanayana was

open to the Vratyas provided they performed Vratyastomas. Vratyas were

those who lead the Vratya life, were base and were reduced to a baser

state since they did not observe studenthood (brahmacharya) nor did

they till the soil nor engage in trade. There were four Vratyastomas,

the first of which is meant for all Vratyas, the second is meant for

those who are Abhishasta who are wicked or guilty of heavy sins and

are censured and lead a Vratya life, the third for those who are the

youngest and lead a Vratya life and the fourth for those who are very

old and yet lead a Vratya life. In each of the four Vratyastomas,

Sodasastoma [f25] is always performed. It is by the Sodasastoma that

they can attain this (superior status). The Sodasastoma was supposed

to have the power to remove the guilt of these. By performing the

Vratyastoma sacrifice, they should cease to be Vratyas and become

eligible for social intercourse with the Orthodox Aryas, to have the

sacrament (samskara of Upanayana) performed of them and then be

eligible to study the Veda.

 

In the Vratyata-shuddisamgraha [f26] provision is made for the

purification of Vratyas even after twelve generations subject to

appropriate penances.

 

Upanayana was so highly thought of that Baudhayana (ii.10) allowed

Upanayana for the Asvattha tree.

 

Given these facts, it is difficult to believe that the women and

Shudras were excluded from the Upanayana by the Aryan society from the

very beginning."

 

"It is, however, not quite necessary to depend upon circumstantial

evidence. There is enough direct evidence to show that there was a

time when both women and Shudras had the right to Upanayana and did

have it performed.

 

As to the Upanayana of women the statements [f27] contained in the

Hindu religious books are quite explicit. Anyone who examines them

will find that Upanayana was open to women. Women not only learned the

Vedas but they used to run schools for teaching the Vedas, are even

known to have written commentaries on the Women Purva Mimamsa.

 

As to the Shudras, the evidence is equally positive. If Sudas was a

king, if Sudas was a Shudra, if his coronation ceremony was performed

by Vasishtha and he performed the Rajasuya Yaga, then there can be no

doubt that the Shudras did at one time wear the sacred thread. In

addition to circumstantial evidence and the evidence of the authors

mentioned before, the Sanskara Ganapati cited by Max Muller [f28]

contains an express provision declaring the Shudra to be eligible for

Upanayana."

 

[ [f28] - History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (1860), p. 207.]

 

"Those who, in spite of the evidence to which I have referred, think

that they must insist upon their objection should remember the

weakness of their side. Assuming that the Shudras had never had the

benefit of Upanayana, the question they have to face is why were the

Shudras not allowed the benefit of the Upanayana. The orthodox theory

merely states the fact that there is no Upanayana for a Shudra. But it

does not say why the Shudra is not to have his Upanayana performed.

The explananation that there was no Upanayaa of the Shudra because he

was a non-Aryan is a modern invention which has been shown to be

completely baseless. Either there was once an Upanayana and it was

stopped or the Upanayana was from the very beginning withheld. Either

may be true. But before one or the other is accepted to be true, it

must be accompanied by reasons. There being no reason why the benefit

of the Upanayana was withheld from the Shudra, the presumption must be

in favour of my thesis which states that they had the right to

Upanayana, that they were deprived of it and gives reasons why they

were deprived of its validity."

 

"When Upanayana was open to everyone, Aryan or non-Aryan, it was not a

matter of social significance. It was a common right of all. It was

not a privilege of the few. Once it was denied to the Shudras, its

possession became a matter of honour and its denial a badge of

servility. The denial of Upanayana to the Shudras introduced a new

factor in the Indo Aryan society. It made the Shudras look up to the

higher classes as their superiors and enabled the three higher classes

to look down upon the Shudras as their inferiors. This is one way in

which the loss of Upanayana brought about the degradation of the

Shudras."

 

"Let me begin by listing in one place the riddles of the Shudra. The

following include the most important of them :

 

(1) The Shudras are alleged to be non-Aryans, hostile to the Aryans,

whom the Aryans are said to have conquered and made slaves. How is it

then that the rishis of the Yajur Veda and the Atharva Veda should

wish glory to the Shudras and express a desire to be in favour of the

Shudras?

 

(2) The Shudras are said not to have the right to study the Vedas.

How is it then that Sudas, a Shudra, was the composer of the hymns of

the Rig Veda?

 

(3) The Shudras are said to have no right to perform sacrifices. How

is it that Sudas performed the Ashva-Medha sacrifice? Why does the

Satapatha Brahmana treat the Shudra as a sacrificer and give the

formula of addressing him?

 

(4) The Shudras are said not to have the right to Upanayana. If this

was so from the very beginning, why should there be a controversy

about it? Why should Badari and the Samskara Ganpati say that he has a

right to Upanayana?

 

(5) The Shudra is not permitted to accumulate property. How is it

that the Maitrayani and Kathaka Samhitas speak of the Shudras being

rich and wealthy?

 

(6) The Shudra is said to be unfit to become an officer of the State.

How is it then that the Mahabharata speaks of Shudras being ministers

to kings?

 

(7) It is said that the duty of the Shudra is to serve, in the

capacity of a menial, the three Vamas. How is it then that there were

kings among the Shudras as testified by the case of Sudas and other

cases mentioned by Say ana?

 

(8) If the Shudra had no right to study the Vedas, if he had no right

to Upanayana, if he had no right to sacrifice, why was he not given

the right to have his Upanayana, to read the Vedas and to perform

sacrifice?

 

(9) The performance of Upanayana of the Shudra, his learning to read

the Vedas, his performing the sacrifices, whether they were of any

value to the Shudra or not, were certainly occasions of benefit to the

Brahmins in as much as it is the Brahmins, who had the monopoly of

officiating at ceremonies and of teaching the Vedas. It is the

Brahmins who stood to earn large fees by allowing the Shudra the right

to Upanayana, the performance of sacrifices and the reading of the

Vedas. Why were the Brahmins so determined to deny these concessions

to the Shudras, when granting them would have done no harm and would

have increased their own earnings?

 

(10) Even if the Shudra had no right to Upanayana, sacrifices and

Vedas, it was open to the Brahmins to concede him these rights. Why

were these questions not left to the free will of the individual

Brahmins? Why were penalties imposed upon a Brahmin if he did any of

these prohibited acts?"

 

Another piece of evidence is from Sree Vidyadhiraja Parama Bhattaraka

Chattampi Swamikal (1853 - 1925)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattambi_Swamikal), an eminent saint

and social reformer from Kerala, India. His work "Vedadhikara

Nirupanam" (in Malayalam) also tries to prove vedadhikara for all,

including the sHudras. (I am not sure whether an English translation

of this text exists, but some references are given below):

 

"....[He] expressed his ideas in his works Prachina Malayalam,

Vedadhikara Nirupanam, and Advaita Chinta Padhathi. In Prachina

Malayalam he rejected the legend of Parasurama and the popular concept

of Caturvarnya and asserted that the criterion of caste is not birth

but an individual's Karma. Vedadhikara Nirupanam made a scathing

attack on religious superstition and sacerdotal dictatorship of

Brahmans. Chattambi Swamikal took a very critical attitude towards the

scriptures as well as the notion that the Vedas were the sole preserve

of the Brahmans. He also asserted that the non-Brahmans too had the

right to install idols of Vedic deities. Thus he was the first

intellect who questioned the scriptural hegemony of Brahmans."

 

Source - http://www.keralahistory.ac.in/casteandsocial.htm

 

"Till recent times scholarship was considered the monopoly of the

Brahmins. It is

therefore no wonder that the study and the teaching of the Vedas were the close

preserve of the members of that community. Among the few non-Brahmins who had

dared to trespass into the forbidden ground was Thunchath Gurupadar.

 

Chattambi Swamigal was filled with a firm determination to break into

the citadel of orthodoxy

and establish the right of everyone to study the Vedas. He had spent

years in making

himself conversant with sacred books and the culture of ancient times.

His Vedadhi-

karanirupanam was a work capable of being published in two or three volumes.. Of

this treatise, written by him in pencil, we have got only a part in

book form. The rest

of the book has been lost to us.

 

The traditional view was that Brahmins can learn and teach the Vedas,

Kshathriyas

and Vaisyas can only learn them, and Sudras can neither learn nor teach them.

Swamiji has successfully exposed the error of this view with abundant

evidence cited

from ancient books."

 

Source - www.scholarswithoutborders.in/KnowledgeBeforePrinting&After.pdf

 

T.Harikrishnan

[Guest guest]

Some comments/clarifications on Sri Anant Shenoy's post:

 

>So far, no one has come forward to explain Baladeva's comments on

>Vidura. I hope someone will do that.

 

Srila Prabhupada has dealt with that, the gist of which I have already posted.

 

>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.

 

Superficial reading of Puranas may highlight the idea that birth is

indeed paramount in deciding varNa. Since your argument rests on

practices followed in the Purana – Itihasas, I only suggested a deeper

understanding of such practices. For example:

 

"In the religious scripture Mahabharata, Yudhisthira, is questioned by

Yama in the form of a Yaksha, about what makes one a Brahmin.

Yudhisthira, without hesitation, said that it is conduct alone that

makes one a Brahmin." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varnas)

 

>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.

 

The differentiation 'svAbhAvika varNa - aupadhika varNa' seems to be

non-shastric. Please establish the Vedic foundation of it's use and

practice.

 

>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.

 

1.If not reject, you are diluting the by bringing in the concept of

'svAbhAvika varNa - aupadhika varNa'.

2."alleged Puranic practices" alludes to misunderstanding Puranic

practices due to superficial readings of the same.

 

>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.

 

What was the varNa that Gautama determines? svAbhAvika varNa or

aupadhika varNa? What gotra was Satyakama ultimately assigned to?

 

>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.

 

Please provide the references.

 

>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?

 

No. Vidura studied Vedas in previous birth, but neglected the same in

his present birth – at least for a long time.

 

>It is 1.3.38 not 1.3.8.

 

Sorry. I stand corrected.

 

>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.

 

1.I could not get where Srila Baladeva said that Janashruti was a

kshatriya by birth. Shastra says one becomes kshatriya by second

birth, not the first.

2.Does not Vedas, Puranas and Dharma shastras also refer to shUdra kings?

 

>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.

 

Which varNa - svAbhAvika varNa or aupadhika 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.

 

Shastra says that everyone is born as shUdra – She/He is again born as

brahmana, kshatriya and vaisya. Some remain shUdra. If you agree to

this, then yes it proves my 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.

 

He was sent away the first time because Janashruti was "overcome by

grief". He did not accept the gifts too. When approached again, he

accepted him; but the gifts were refused.

 

>A minor correction - it is Raikva, not Rai~Nka (as you say it).

 

Sorry about that too. My mistake.

 

This is again wrong.

>1. There is no guNa like "friendship with others of same varNa".

 

"Sadhu Sanga" is often referred to as a good habit to cultivate.

Therefore I correct it "friendship with brahmana varNa". Sadhu Sanga,

a guNa? Why not?

 

>2. Kapeyas and Abhipratari were NOT of the same varNa. Kapeya was a

>brahmana and Abhipratari was a kshatriya.

 

I stand corrected. It was "Sadhu Sanga".

 

>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.

 

This is the second proof that was given. Even if it is acceded that

janma is important, this should have been used as the first proof.

 

>No. The plain sentence is "from him there descended a Chaitraratha

>who was a prince". This proves that Chaitrarathas are kshatriyas.

 

Brahmana can also father a prince. The statement "caitrarathir nAma

kShatra-patir ajAyata (From him was born another kShatriya of the

Caitraratha family)" proves that the father was also a kshatriya and

not of brahmana varNa (for arugument's sake).

 

>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.

 

Correct. How they came to be called as kshatriyas are not mentioned

here. That guNa is considered is not at all mentioned. So too with

janma.

 

>

>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."

 

You are reading too much into the text that is quite straightforward by itself:

 

1.SatyakAma's mother forgets her husband's gotra or has not heard

about it at all. (You have mentioned in a previous post "Every

brahminical lineage maintains its gotra and Veda-shAkhA that it is

supposed to preserve." And at least one exception is seen here. )

2.Gautama thinks: All those begotten of shUdras are crooks, they cook

up gotras at will.

3.Gautama also thinks: Those begotten of brahmanas have this sterling

quality of not lying.

 

What is this varNa that Gautma determines? svAbhAvika varNa or

aupadhika varNa? svAbhAvika varNa cannot be determined by mere

mortals, of which Gautama is one. aupadhika varNa can only be

determined by janma (which is not ascertained here, since gotra is

missing) and not by qualities such as 'not lying'. Does it seem that

under exceptional situations, a third category of varNa can be

possible?

 

Now that SatyakAma is initiated as a brahmana he should have a gotra

and Veda-shAkhA, isn't? What will that be?

 

>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

 

1.At least brahmana SatyakAma can not claim an unbroken family

lineage, a sound history as proved by his gotra and Veda-shAkhA.

2.I have posted some comments on Vidura separately.

 

T.Harikrishnan

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

PAMHO

 

Sri Anant Shenoy had posted this regarding "RAMANUJA DHARSHNAM"

 

 

>1. Please note that such online publications may not necessarily be

>the traditional position of the sampradAya itself, as you may have

>experienced even within Gaudiya sampradaya. It is remarkable that in

>this article, there is not a single quote provided from any of the

>purvacharyas' works in the Ramanuja tradition that birth does not

>determine one's varNa. The only quote provided is that people of all

>varNas are allowed to become great devotees of the Lord, which no

>one disputes in any case.

 

>2. Even giving the article consideration for whatever is written in

>it, it is quite disappointing and does not shed any light on the

>issue. Rather, in the name of supplying proof from the Gita, it ends

>up contradicting the Gita by saying that jAti is based on birth but

>varNa is not.

 

[and]

 

>The word "jAti-dharma" has been interpreted as follows:

>1. Sridhar Svami says jAti-dharma = varNa-dharma

>2. Baladeva Vidyabhushana says jAti-dharma = xatriya-Adi-dharma (in

other words, varNa dharma)

>3. Madhusudana Saraswati says jAti-dharma is xatriya-Adi-varNa-

dharma.

>4. Raghavendra Swami says jAti-dharma is xatriyatva-Adi-dharma

 

>Thus, all the commentators that have explained this word (across

>different schools) have equated it with varNa-dharma. Thus, to say

>that jAti is birth-based but varNa isn't is baseless for they are

>equated in the Gita by even the Gaudiya commentators.

 

I also find lack of quotes for your conclusions given above. Moreover

your arguments, as you have said earlier, owes much to the book "Hindu

Dharma" by Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi. Let us examine the

relevant parts of this book and how much scriptural evidences he has

given: [please excuse me again for the rather extensive quote]

 

"Some concede that Bhagavan does not deny caste differences, but

however argue that, according to the Lord, caste is not based on birth

but on the individual qualities of people. In support they quote this

line from the Gita. "Caturvarnyam mayasrstam guna-karma-vibagasah".

 

When do we come to know the qualities that distinguish an individual?

At what age does he reveal his nature? How are we to determine this

and impart him the education and training necessary for the vocation

that will be in keeping with his qualities? Take, for instance, the

calling of the Brahmin who has to join the gurukula when he is seven

or eight years old. His education covers a period of twelve years;

after this alone will he be qualified for his vocation which includes,

among other things, teaching. If a man's occupation were to be fixed

until after his character and qualities are formed, it would mean a

waste of his youthful years. Even if he were to learn a job or trade

thus at a late age it would mean a loss not only to himself but also

to society. The Lord speaks again and again that we must be constantly

engaged in work and that we must not remain idle even a moment. How

then would he approve of an arrangement in which every individual has

to be without any work until his vocation is determined according to

his character?

 

Does this mean that the Lord lends his support in theory alone to the

system of vocations according to the differing qualities of people and

that in actual practice he wants occupations to be based on birth? But

he is not like a politician [of these days] speaking one thing and

doing something entirely different.

 

What do we see in Krsna's own life as a divine incarnation? When

Arjuna refuses to fight saying that it is better to become a mendicant

than spill the blood of friends and relatives even if it be to rule

over an empire, what does the Lord tell him? He urges Arjuna to fight.

"You are born a Ksatriya and you are duty-bound to wage war. Take up

your bow and fight".

 

Here too it may be argued thus: "Arjuna was a great warrior and a

great hero. His reluctance to take up arms against friends and

relatives must have been a momentary affair. His inner quality and

temperament were that of a man of valour. So the Lord enthuses him to

go to war. What he refers to as Arjuna's svadharma (own duty) cannot

be the same as his jati dharma (caste duty). The Lord must be

referring to Arjuna's natural character as his svadharma. "

 

If such an argument is correct, what about the character of

Dharmaputra (Yudhisthra)? From the very beginning he is averse to war

and anxious to make peace with the Kauravas. Does he not go so far as

to say that he would not insist on half the kingdom but he would be

satisfied with just five houses? Krsna goes to the Kauravas as his

envoy [of peace] but is himself dragged into war by them. Earlier he

encouraged Yudhisthra to subjugate all his neighbouring kingdoms to

become an imperial ruler and perform the rajasuya. Does Dharmaputra

desire such glory? His inner character and temperament show that he is

not warlike by nature nor do they suggest that he desires the status

of a mighty imperial ruler. Sri Krsna Paramatman makes such a man

practice his dharma of a Ksatriya. All this shows that by svadharma it

is jati dharma that the Lord means. Men like Dronacarya were born

Brahmins but they took up the duty of Ksatriyas. Bhagavan does not

deprecate them since they were otherwise great men, but all the same

he does not show any displeasure when Bhima taunts Dronacarya for

having forsaken the dharma of his birth. Thus we have confirmation

that by svadharma the Lord means the jati dharma of birth.

 

Then, why does he use the phrase "guna-karma-vibhagasah" in the Gita?

 

It is jatidharma that goes to make the inner guna (inner quality or

nature) of an individual. So Sri Krsna's dictum in the Gita that the

caturvana division is in accord with the gunas and the idea that the

caste is based on birth are one and the same. There is no conflict

between the two. You cannot find fault with Sri Krsna for his practice

being at variance with his precept.

 

Parasurama and Dronacarya were Brahmins but they were Ksatriyas by

nature. On the other hand, Visvamitra, a valorous Ksatriya king known

for his violent and passionate temperament, became a Brahmin rsi.

Cases like this are extremely rare, and are exceptions to the rule of

jati dharma. On the whole we see that the Lord functions on the basis

that, whatever be the outward qualities of individuals, their inner

quality is in keeping with their hereditary vocations.

 

How can birth be the basis of the quality on which one's occupation is

based? Before a man's individual character develops, he grows in a

certain environment, the environment evolved through the vocation

practiced in his family from generation to generation. He adopts this

vocation and receives training in it from his people. It is in this

manner that his guna is formed, and it is in keeping with his work.

Everybody must have the conviction that he is benefited by the

occupation to which he is born. When people in the past had this

attitude in the past they were free from greed and feelings of

rivalry. Besides, though they were divided on the basis of their

vocations, there was harmony among them. Children born in such a

set-up naturally develop a liking and aptitude for the family

vocation. So what is practised according to birth came to be the same

as that practised according to guna. Whatever the view of reformers

today, in the old days an individual's ability to do a job was in

accord with his guna; and in the dharma obtained in the past a man

practised his calling according to his guna. Now it has become

topsy-turvy.

 

What is the view of the psychologists on this question? According to

them, heredity and environment play a crucial part in determining a

man's character, abilities and attitudes. In the past all vocations

were handed down from grandfather to father and from father to son.

Besides, each group practising a particular occupation or trade lived

in a separate area in the village. The Brahmins, for instance, lived

in the agrahara and, similarly, each of the other jatis had its own

quarter. So the environment also helped each section to develop its

special skills and character. These two factors - heredity and

environment - were greatly instrumental in shaping a person's guna and

vocation.

 

Instead of speaking about the subject myself, I will cite the views of

Gandhiji who is much respected by the reformists: "The Gita does talk

of varna being according to guna and karma, but guna and karma are

inherited by birth." So the fact that Krsna Paramatman's practice is

not at variance with his doctrine is confirmed by Gandhiji. Modernists

should not twist and distort the Vedas and sastras and the

pronouncements of Krsna Paramatman to suit their own contentions.

 

Krsna is usually imperative in his utterances. "I speak, you listen,"

such is his manner. But when he speaks of people and their duties, he

does not inpose himself saying "I speak thus", but instead he points

to what is laid down in the sastras to be the authority. During

Krsna's own time the various castes were divided according to birth:

we learn this, without any room for doubt, from the Mahabharata, the

Bhagavata and the Visnu Purana. I mention this because some research

scholars today are likely to put forward the view that caste based on

birth evolved after the time of Krsna. The epic and the Puranas

mentioned above declare categorically that during the age of Sri Krsna

Paramatman the sastras dealing with varnasrama were the authority for

dharma. It was at such a time, when an individual's vocation was

determined by birth, that the Lord declared in clear terms :

 

Yah sastra -vidhim utsrjya vartate kama-karatah

Na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukham na param gatim

Tasmacchastram pramanam te karyakaryavyavasthitau

Jnatva sastravidhan oktam karma kartum iha'rhasi

-Bhagavadgita, 16. 23 & 24.

 

Who so forsakes the injunctions of the sastras and lives according to

his own desires does not obtain liberation, finds no happiness. (The

Sastras determine your work, what is right and what is wrong. You must

know the way shown by the sastras and pursue the work - vocation -

according to them.)

 

Sri Krsna establishes that an individual owes his caste to his birth.

There should not be the slightest doubt about it."

 

Sources: (http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part20/chap2.htm) and

(http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part20/chap3.htm)

 

How much shastric evidences are given for the assertions that:

 

1.quality does not determine vaRna.

2.Dharmaputra's inner character and temperament show that he is not

warlike by nature [a successfully determination of the svAbhAvika

varNa]

3.it is jatidharma that goes to make the inner guna (inner quality or

nature) of an individual [guNa is bestowed on an individual by jati]

4.Sri Krsna's dictum in the Gita that the caturvana division is in

accord with the gunas and the idea that the caste is based on birth

are one and the same

5.by svadharma the Lord means the jati dharma of birth

6.exceptions can be there to the rule of jati dharma

7.On the whole we see that the Lord functions on the basis that,

whatever be the outward qualities of individuals, their inner quality

is in keeping with their hereditary vocations. [but exceptions are

possible]

8.what is practised according to birth came to be the same as that

practised according to guna.

9.heredity and environment play a crucial part in determining a man's

character, abilities and attitudes

10.Before a man's individual character develops, he grows in a certain

environment, the environment evolved through the vocation practiced in

his family from generation to generation. He adopts this vocation and

receives training in it from his people. It is in this manner that his

guna is formed, and it is in keeping with his work. [Which in essence

means guNa is developed after the birth of an individual in the

environment where he is brought up]

11.Everybody must have the conviction that he is benefited by the

occupation to which he is born.

12.These two factors - heredity and environment - were greatly

instrumental in shaping a person's guna and vocation. [Which means

guNa is partially developed at birth, and later on matures in the

environment.]

 

Convincing scriptural evidences are expected here in support of the

above rather than Gandiji's statement "The Gita does talk of varna

being according to guna and karma, but guna and karma are inherited by

birth." Madhvacharya will not approve many of the above conclusions

because [i once again quote]:

 

"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. The VarNas simply define the

disposition of the Soul, for example a Soul classified as BrahmaNa

VarNa is disposed towards learning, a Kshatriya Soul is disposed

towards administration and a Shudra Soul is disposed towards

performing Service."

 

(Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhvacharya)

 

So to begin with if we can have some quotes from Madhvacharya, to

support the above statements from "Hindu Dharma", it may perhaps

enrich the debate.

 

 

T.Harikrishnan

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

PAMHO

 

PancharAtra and Vedas

 

Avadhuta Raya prabhu remarked:

 

>Now, in Kali yuga everybody is born as a sudra but by the

pancaratriki system of

>purification (not the Vaidic) one can become elevated to sattva guna where

>proper understanding of Vedic wisdom becomes clear. The stage of being one step

t>o God realization.

 

and Bhava Dasa prabhu added:

 

>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.

 

Sri Anantji however gave the rejoinder:

 

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

 

>mlecchas. We are only talking about shrutis here.

 

What is the actual position of the PancharAtras? Some pointers:

 

1. "Paramatma Sandarbha, annucheda 18, and Mahabharata both declare:

pancaratrasya krtsnasya vakta tu bhagavan svayam

Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, spoke the Pancaratra"

(as seen in source http://www.salagram.net/Gayatri-Mantraratha-dipika.htm)

 

2. "The pancaratrika system has the most authorized codes for

transcendental devotional service. Without the help of such codes, one

cannot approach the Lord, certainly not by dry philosophical

speculation. The pancaratrika system is both practical and suitable

for this age of quarrel. The Pancaratra is more important than the

Vedanta for this modern age."

(Srimad-Bhagavatam 1:5:38 Purport )

 

3. "The scriptures known as the Pancaratra-sastras are recognized

Vedic scriptures that have been accepted by the great acaryas. These

scriptures are not products of the modes of passion and ignorance.

Learned scholars and brahmanas therefore always refer to them as

satvata-samhitas. The original speaker of these scriptures is

Narayana, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is especially

mentioned in the Moksa-dharma (349.68), which is part of the

Santi-parva of the Mahabharata. Liberated sages like Narada and Vyasa,

who are free from the four defects of conditioned souls, are the

propagators of these scriptures. Sri Narada Muni is the original

speaker of the Pancaratra-sastra"

(Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi lila 5:41 )

(Both the quotes above as seen at

http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/gss/sastra/vedas/pancharatra.htm )

 

4. "Historically, there was a lot of resistance to the Agama-s from

the vedAntins. There were even texts which said that the pAncarAtrins

should not be invited to partake in SrAddha meals, people should not

talk to them, etc., alongside the texts that supported the Agama

adherents. There was also counter-attack from the pAncarAtra camp,

including statements calling the veda-s as perverted texts incapable

of fulfilling the human values (purushArthAproyojaka).

It is in this atmosphere that SrI yAmuna-muni undertook his valiant

defense of the pAncarAtra through his work Agama-prAmANya, to bring

about reconciliation between the two camps. He pointed out that the

pAncarAtra and the veda-s both originated from SrIman nArAyaNa, and

were complementary to each other. Inevitably it was a very sensitive

undertaking, since it touched on the sensitivities of both the

opposing camps. Then there came the time when the pAncarAtrins claimed

superiority over the veda-s saying that the pAncarAtra was more

ancient, and the veda-s came later. Perhaps in this atmosphere, SrI

vedAnta-deSika endeavored to bring a balance between the veda-s and

the Agama-s, quoting passages from the pAncarAtra text Lakshmi-tantra)

that the wise man should never transgress even in his thoughts the

conduct prescribed in the veda-s. It cannot but be noticed that our

great pUrvAcArya-s have done exceptional service in bringing about the

reconciliation between the vedanta adherents and the Agama group,

trying to make sure that people don't succumb to self-destruction

through disunity.

( As seen at Source: http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/cgi-bin/kbase/Pancaratra )

 

5. "Hari Om! The wisdom and performance of eternal spiritual

principles as given in the Vedic scripture Pancaratra which Lord

Krishna aeons before had instructed in initiation to Brahma, Shiva,

Indra and Surya the sun-god is again being explained to the Pandavas

as the eternal principles of the Bhagavad-Gita which is the abridged

form of the Pancaratra and the essence of all Vedic scriptures. The

manner in which the demi-gods, the great sages, the saintly kings and

how human beings should achieve Vedic wisdom by performing karma yoga

in Satya, Treta, Dwarpa and kali yugas or the four measurements of

Vedic duration comprising a period of 1, 360, 000 years. All these

things are explained in the Bhagavad-Gita. From Arjuna to Manu, all

perform karma yoga and gain Vedic wisdom as prescribed in the

Bhagavad-Gita. The Brahma Vaivarta Purana states that there is no

Vedic scripture superior to the Bhagavad-Gita. The Pancaratra which is

supplementary to the four Vedas should be learned and assimilated in

its entirety and the Bhagavad-Gita is its essence. Thus there is

nothing that can compare to the illustrious Bhagavad-Gita."

(from Madhvacarya's Commentary to BG 4.3 as seen in source

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-04-03.html )

 

Therefore, if PancharAtras are the 'essence of all Vedas' and

PancarAtras do not 'transgress the conduct prescribed in the veda-s.',

then something permitted/approved by PancharAtras should be have been

permitted/approved by the Vedas too. Due to the fact that presently

only 6% of the Vedas are available, a real understanding of Veda

dharma is possible only through scriptures like PancharAtras.

PancharAtra dharma on purification of shUdras is therefore is in

conformity with that of Veda dharma.

 

T.Harikrishnan

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

achintya, "Harikrishnan T"

<t.harikrishnan wrote:

>

> Shri Anant wrote:

>

> >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?

>

> shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa says:

>

> "Some souls, such as Vidura and others, although born as shUdras,

> become elevated by their attainment of perfect transcendental

> knowledge. By hearing and understanding the PurANas and other

> transcendental literatures, shUdras and others can become

liberated.

> The only real classes of higher and lower among men are determined

by

> the final result of their lives."

 

Here, Baladeva is confirming that shUdras attain knowledge and moxa

through the Puranas, not through Vedas.

 

>

> But as shrIla Prabhupada explains:

>

 

The very word "but" indicates that you are implying Srila

Prabhupada's words are opposed to Baladeva's words.

 

> "Vidura, born in the womb of a sudra mother, was forbidden even

to be

> a party of royal heritage along with his brothers Dhrtarastra and

> Pandu. Then how could he occupy the post of a preacher to instruct

> such learned...? Answer is that even though it is accepted that he

was

> a sudra by birth, because he renounced the world for spiritual

> enlightenment by the authority of Rsi Maitreya and was thoroughly

> educated by him in transcendental knowledge, he was quite

competent to

> occupy the post of an acarya or spiritual preceptor."

 

Please note that Vidura went to Maitreya towards the end of the

Mahabharata, when the Kuruxetra battle happened. Vidura's greatness

is all manifested even before he learnt from Maitreya. Even before

he was "thoroughly educated by Maitreya in transcendental

knowledge", he was quite competent to occupy the post of an AchArya.

But the fact is that he did not factually occupy the post of an

AchArya because as a shUdra, to perform the duty of a brAhmaNa would

be against his varNAshrama-uchita-niyata-karma.

 

> Vidura was a

> sudra, born sudra. Then how he became a preacher?

 

Vidura (as a shUdra) was no more a preacher than Yudhishthira (as a

xatriya) was a preacher. The issue at hand is that Vidura was a

shUdra, not a brAhmaNa. His preaching to Dhritarashtra is irrelevant

to his varNa-status. Dhritarashtra was not a disciple of Vidura, nor

did Vidura adopt the position of a brAhmaNa and initiate disciples.

Just because he preached to Dhritarashtra does not mean he was a

brahmana.

 

>

> So the reason is... "According to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, anyone

who

> is conversant in the transcendental knowledge or the science of

> Godhead, be he a brahmana or sudra, a householder or a sannyasi, is

> eligible to become a spiritual master." Not that because he was

born a

> sudra, he cannot preach, he cannot take the post of acarya or

> spiritual master.

 

Because he was a shUdra, he did not take the post of a brAhmaNa.

That is the point.

 

"That is not Caitanya philosophy. Caitanya

> philosophy has nothing to do with this body, external body.

Caitanya

> philosophy is concerned with the soul. This movement is the

movement

> of elevating the soul, saving the soul from degradation.

 

It is the main exponent of Caitanya philosophy - Baladeva - who says

that even when shUdras get mukti, there is a tArAtamya in the phala

they get. Thus, there is also a varNa classification at the level of

the soul, even as per Baladeva. (Note that this classification is

not the aupadhika classification)

 

Therefore

> people sometimes are surprised. The bodily concept of life, the

same

> activities will be karma. And on the platform of spiritual life,

the

> same karma will be bhakti. Same karma will be bhakti. So bhakti is

not

> inactivity. Bhakti is all active. Yat karosi yaj juhosi yad asnasi

yat

> tapasyasi kurusva tad mad-arpanam. This is bhakti, bhakti-yoga.

Krsna

> says to everyone, "If you cannot give up your karma, then that's

all

> right. But the result of your karma, give to Me. Then it will be

> bhakti."

 

What is the purpose of quoting this?

 

>

> ........

>

> "The conclusion is that Vidura was never a sudra, but was greater

than

> the purest type of brahmana."

>

> (as seen in http://iskcon.krishna.org/Articles/2000/08/00092.html )

 

As if mere declarations make something a truth. Yes, Vidura was not

a shUdra as a soul, but his aupadhika varNa was shUdra, and he lived

perfectly according to it. Rather than following him, what is the

benefit in using him to bolster a varNAshrama-viruddha-avaidika way

of life?

 

>

> He remained a shUdra for a part of his stay in earth, during which

he

> was not qualified for learning Veda, but later ".... by the

authority

> of Rsi Maitreya and was thoroughly educated by him in

transcendental

> knowledge, he was quite competent to occupy the post of an acarya

or

> spiritual preceptor" This was Vidhura's second birth.

 

A figment of your imagination, that's all. Where is the pramANa to

show that Vidura initiated disciples as a brAhmaNa, or that he

learnt the Vedas and taught the Vedas to others after learning from

Maitreya? And what does preaching to others have to do with being a

brAhmaNa who does Veda-adhyayana? Vidura preached to Dhritarashtra

both before and after learning from Maitreya. So what? He did not

adopt the position of a brAhmaNa and study the Vedas, even after

learning from Maitreya.

 

Yours,

 

Anant

 

>

> T.Harikrishnan

>