Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Caste system ...

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Dear Vijay,

 

> More over, Parasurama identifies him as a kshatriya. Karna did not

> show any hunger for power. He showed the qualities of a sudra/sevaka.

> The only kshatriya quality demonstrated by him is the liking for wars!

 

Loyalty does not make one a shoodra. Loyalty can be shown by people of all

varnas to various people/things. Karna's loyalty was to the person who gave

him status in society. Status in society mattered to Karna. He was also

proud of his ability and superiority in warriorship. These qualities do make

him a kshatriya.

 

BTW, one may have qualities of all the four varnas in different proportions.

But one will be more predominant than others. That will decide one's varna.

 

* * *

 

> Gauthama rejects to teach a boy a he is not a brahmin.

 

On the contrary, Gauthama taught a boy whose mother did not even know who

was the boy's father, after explaining that only a Braahmana can speak truth

like that and not swerve from it even in difficult situations. Rajarshi has

already answered.

 

* * *

 

> Rama killed a sudra (not sure if this was reliable) for doing tapam. How

> do we justify all of these?

 

The story of Shambuka does not appear in the original Valmiki Ramayana

comprising of six kaandas. It appears in the Uttara Kaanda added later on.

Whether that part of Uttara kaanda was really written by Valmiki or added by

some mischievous scholars later on is debatable and scholars hold different

opinions.

 

Valmiki himself was a jaati shoodra (shoodra by birth). Ramayana shows how

Raama was kind to people of various castes. For example, he visited the

ashrama of Matanga maharshi, who was a jaati shudra who did spiritual

sadhana and became a maharshi. One wonders if the story of Shambuka is

correct or added later and/or misrepresented. Unfortunately, this story and

a misrepresentation of BhagavadGita have been used by political leaders of

India to instigate low caste voters against Hindu gods and Hinduism for a

few decades.

 

* * *

 

> Also, Ravana is a brahmin (Rama gets Brahmahatya patakam after killing

> Ravana) even as all he showed is the huger for power and ego. He has learn

> vedas but, mere learning does not make him a brahmana.

 

Ravana did not merely learn to chant Vedas. He understood Vedas. He was a

knower of Brahman with control over senses. He merely played his role (of a

villain) in the divine play of Nature. He is not correctly understood and

what is portrayed in movies and dramas is a caricature. Ravana is different

from Hiranyaksha, Hiranyakashipu, Duryodhana etc.

 

However, I do not want to say more on Ravana, because it is not that useful.

It is more useful to focus your attention on Rama and Krishna and learn from

them, than Ravana.

 

If Ravana is what people understand him to be today, Rama would not have got

Brahma hatya dosha for killing him.

 

* * *

 

> Going by that, Karna acted like a brahmin and learnt quite a few things

> from Parasurama. But, Parasurama calls him a kshatriya and banishes him.

 

One may have qualities of different varnas, but one of them dominates.

 

* * *

 

> Drona was a brahmin, but he showed hatred and anger not suitable for a

> brahmin (towards Drupada).

 

Drona wanted to punish Drupada for his untruthfullness. Whether he was as

angry or hateful as people understand today is debatable. He may have just

been doing his dharma and not seething with anger as people understand.

External actions do not always accurately represent the internal state of

the mind.

 

Though he himself was a great warrior, he never wanted to control others or

show his superiority. He could have fought Drupada himself, but he did not.

Instead, he trained his kshatriya sishyas and made them punish Drupada for

his untruthfulness. Thus, he was a perfect Raja guru.

 

He learnt knowledge, especially knowledge of the fiery kind, taught it to

his sishyas. He showed discrimination in teaching the highest mystical

weapons only to the worthy sishya (Arjuna) and not all.

 

The son of Bharadwaja may have several qualities, but he is essentially a

seeker and teacher of the supreme knowledge of the fiery kind.

 

* * *

 

One does get a caste by one's jaati (birth). That is one's birth caste. That

does have a role and it cannot be dismissed. One surrounded by people always

valuing and pursuing money has a very good chance of growing up with the

same values. However, there are always exceptions.

 

Also, one may be under many influences and have many sides to one's

personality. But some major influences decide what one pursues in life.

 

Best regards,

Narasimha

 

Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam

Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana

Spirituality:

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

 

 

-

" Vijaya Kumara Lakshmi Narayana Rao Pingali " <pvklnrao

 

Wednesday, April 08, 2009 3:07 PM

Cast system ...

 

 

> If casts are determined by the nature, why did Parasurama deny Karna to

> teach. More over, Parasurama identifies him as a kshatriya. Karna did not

> show any hunger for power. He showed the qualities of a sudra/sevaka. The

> only kshatriya quality demonstrated by him is the liking for wars!

>

> Gauthama rejects to teach a boy a he is not a brahmin.

> Rama killed a sudra (not sure if this was reliable) for doing tapam. How

> do we justify all of these?

>

> Also, Ravana is a brahmin (Rama gets Brahmahatya patakam after killing

> Ravana) even as all he showed is the huger for power and ego. He has learn

> vedas but, mere learning does not make him a brahmana. Going by that,

> Karna acted like a brahmin and learnt quite a few things from Parasurama.

> But, Parasurama calls him a kshatriya and banishes him.

>

> Drona was a brahmin, but he showed hatred and anger not suitable for a

> brahmin (towards Drupada).

>

> Best regards,

> Vijay.

> , " Narasimha P.V.R. Rao " <pvr

> wrote:

>>

>> Namaste,

>>

>> Dharma shastras try to define dharma universally, undoubtedly an

>> unenviable

>> task. Even if one does a great job for the given desa, kaala and paatra

>> (place, era and class), the rules given cannot be perfect. They can be

>> taken

>> as a general guideline, but they cannnot be absolute.

>>

>> Regarding non-Brahmins:

>>

>> If a person is interested in Veda and studies Veda, one IS a Brahmana.

>> One

>> who is interested in knowledge and spirituality is a Brahmana. One who is

>> interested in power and authority over others is a Kshatriya. One who is

>> interested in wealth is a Vaishya. One who is interested in pleasures in

>> a

>> Shoodra (that is why phala sruti of Vishnu sahasra naama stotra promises

>> these respective results to the four varnas - see " vedaantago braahmanah

>> syaat... " ). Valmiki was born in a shoodra family, but became a brahmana

>> and

>> a maharshi later. Vishwamitra was born in a kshatriya family, but became

>> a

>> brahmana and a maharshi later and many veda hymns were actually revealed

>> to

>> the world through him!

>>

>> The meaning of saying that only a Brahmana can deal with veda is that

>> only a

>> person interested in knowledge and spiritual progress (and not money or

>> power or pleasures) can learn and teach veda. Others (interested in

>> money,

>> power and pleasures) are not qualified for self-realization. It has

>> nothing

>> to do with the the birth caste.

>>

>> Regarding women:

>>

>> Veda is for self-knowledge. Study and contemplation of Veda is for

>> self-realization. Spiritually speaking, Shiva is the potential energy and

>> Shakti is the kinetic energy. Men are supposed to have more Shiva than

>> Shakti in them and women are supposed to have more Shakti than Shiva in

>> them. If a man is really like Shiva, he can study and experience Veda and

>> realize self and his wife can realize self through him. That would be a

>> good

>> strategy.

>>

>> However, men are hardly like Shiva today. In fact, there is very little

>> Shiva in anyone and there is more Shakti (kinetic energy) in women as

>> well

>> as men today. Moreover, most men do not do any spiritual sadhana at all.

>> The

>> rules make no sense anymore.

>>

>> In the old days, rishis pursued knowledge and spiritual sadhana, while

>> their

>> wives ran the houses. The sadhana of rishis was sufficient for them and

>> their wives. Today's men are different. Whenever I go to a poojas at the

>> houses of friends, I see all women gathering at the pooja and chanting

>> mantras, while all men sit elsewhere and chat about sports, politics and

>> movies. The world is a changed place. Women cannot rely on their men to

>> do

>> spiritual sadhana for them and they are on their own. Men are not like

>> Shiva. Rules composed long back do not apply anymore.

>>

>> Upasani maharaj, who was worshipped by Shirdi Sai Baba himself as god,

>> was a

>> great Vedic scholar who taught veda and yajna to women! I respect his

>> judgment and its relevance today more than the relevance of an ancient

>> dharma shastra. Universal dharma needs to be redefined from time to time

>> by

>> realized souls. It becomes stale otherwise.

>>

>> This is the problem with some religions that are based on a written text.

>> The text may have been good for a specific desa-kaala-paatra, but may

>> have

>> become stale now. Fortunately, sanatana dharma (aka Hinduism) does not

>> depend on one specific text. We emphasize sadhana to realize truth rather

>> than adherence to a text. This emphasis on active sadhana ensured a

>> continuous flow of realized souls. We had many realized souls (like

>> Jnaneshwar Maharaj, Samartha Ramadas, Sai Baba, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa,

>> Ramana Maharshi etc) from time to time and they refined our

>> understanding.

>> Religions that emphasized adherence to a text rather than active sadhana

>> to

>> realize truth depended on an old text put together by one realized soul

>> and

>> they may have become stale now.

>>

>> Best regards,

>> Narasimha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...