Jahnava Nitai Das Posted July 8, 2001 Report Share Posted July 8, 2001 Here is part two to this article. I didn't want to make the other thread too long to load, so I am posting this separately. Both of these articles are from the Gosai website (Narasingha Chaitanya Matha). THE ONTOLOGICAL POSITION OF THE VAISNAVA OVER THE BRAHMANA [Part Two continued from Part One] OBJECTION: Lord Krsna also tells Arjuna: sreyan sva-dharmo vigunah para-dharmat sv-anusthitat sva-dharme nidhanaa sreyah para-dharmo bhayavahah "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) In light of this, why do you not accept your karma and remain in the position that you were born in, rather than pretend to be brahmanas and attempt to follow brahminical codes? REFUTATION: From this argument it seems that our opponents are requesting us to follow nagna-matrka-nyaya. When the mother was a child she was naked, therefore she should always remain naked. In other words, because some Vaisnavas were born in low-class families, they should remain low-class. Does Madhva suggest that spiritual elevation is the exclusive birthright of those born in the family of a brahmana? By quoting various scriptures, including Sri Madhva, we have previously shown that one's varna is not determined by birth. Therefore it is only logical to assume that one's prescribed duties are also not determined by birth. Rather, they are dictated by one's inherent varna. A similar question could be put to our challengers — "Why don't the young members of your community accept their karma of being born in a brahmana-parivara and attempt to follow brahminical codes? Why are they flying to America to do the jobs of sudras in order to get some money to send home to their parents?" If they wish to rigidly adhere to the rules of the Dharma-sastras by proclaiming that a brahmana is by birth, they should apply the rules of that scripture in toto. They are simply following the ardha-kukkuti-nyaya (the logic of half a hen) — they will take the rear part for the eggs, but they reject the front part because it is too bothersome to feed. What they have failed to understand is that according to the same Dharma-sastras, a brahmana who crosses the ocean loses his caste. This means that those Madhva-brahmanas who have gone to work in foreign countries have become lower than sudras! Only a sudra is allowed to reside outside Arya Varsa when he is in distress for subsisitence. Thus the injunction is given - na sudra-rajye nivasenn-adharmikajanavrte " Let him (a brahmana) not dwell in a land that is governed by sudras." (Manu 4.61) Furthermore, such 'brahmanas' become degraded associating with fallen people (patita-samsargan) at their place of work - uttamanuttaman gacchan hinam hinams ca varjayan brahmanah sresthatam eti pratyavayena sudratam "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) Whether one is a government servant (raja-sevakan), a salaried teacher (bhrtakadhyapakan), a bank-clerk (vanijakan), a doctor (cikitisikan) or a computer programmer or is involved in any other kind of technology (yantra-vidyakan), all of these professions fall under the category of a sudra. A 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 - go-raksakan vanijakan tatha karuka-silinah presyan vardhusikams caiva vipran sudra-vad acaret "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." seva sv-vrttir yair ukta na samyak tair udahrtam svacchanda-caritah kva sva vikritasuh kva sevakah "Those who describe the occupation of a servant to be like that of a dog are unable to give a proper comparison. How can a freely wandering dog be compared to a sold-out servant?" yo'nyatra kurute yatnam anadhitya srutim dvijah sa sammudho na sambhasyo veda-bahyo dvijatibhih "O Brahmanas, one who does not study the Vedas but carefully endeavors for other pursuits is certainly foolish and ostracized from Vedic life. Brahmanas should not speak to such a person." In the case of an emergency then Srimad Bhagavatam (11.17.47) explains that a brahmana may perform another occupation - sidan vipro vanig-vrttya panyair evapadam taret khadgena vapadakranto na sva-vrttya kathancana "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." Srimad Bhagavatam (12.3.35) also states however, that this is one of the symptoms of Kali-yuga - panayisyanti vai ksudrah kiratah kuta-karinah anapady api mamsyate vartam sadhu jugupsitam "Businessmen will engage in petty commerce and earn their money by cheating. Even when there is no emergency, people will consider any degraded occupation quite acceptable." (SB 12.3.35) By eating the food of non-brahmanas, one also falls from his exalted brahminical position (sudranna-pustan) — nadyac chudrasya vipro'nnam mohad va yadi kamatah sa sudra-yonim vrajati yas tu bhunkte hy-anapadi "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) According to the Dharma-sastras, if one does take birth in a brahmana family but does not cultivate scriptural knowledge, he cannot be accepted as a brahmana (svadhyaya-tyagi). This is stated thus — yaitral-laksyate sarpa vrttam sa brahmanah smrtah yatraitan na bhavet sarpa tam sudram iti nirdiset na vary api prayacchet tu vaidala-vratike dvije na baka-vratike vipre naveda —vidi dharma-vit "Religious-minded people should never give even a drop of water to the hypocritical son of a brahmana, the follower of the 'vow of a cat' 7. One should not give even a drop of water to the son of a brahmana who is ignorant of the Vedas or a sinful imposter." (Visnu Dharma-sastra 93.7) yatha kastha-mayo hasti yatha carma-mayo mrgah yas ca vipro'nadhiyanas trayas te nama bibhrati "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." (Manu 2.157) sudrena hi samas tavad yavad vede na jayate "One should know that until a brahmana is qualified in the Vedas, he is on the same level as a sudra." (Manu 2.172) OBJECTION: We agree that we cannot perform all the duties of a brahmana due to other commitments. However, in Bhagavad-gita (9.26) Lord Krsna has said — patram puspam phalam toyam yo me bhaktyam prayacchati tad aham bhakty-upahrtam asnami prayatatmanah "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 - sreyan sva-dharmo vigunah para-dharmat sv-anusthitat svabhava-niyatam karma kurvan napnoti kilbisam "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 (i.e. not performing yajnas (8) , ekadasi-vrata (9) , vedadhyayana (10), sandhya-vandana (11) etc), there is no sin involved because we are at least performing our occupation. REFUTATION: If you are not performing such brahminical duties, then what activities are you performing that makes you a brahmana? You have quoted Gita wherein it says that 'One should perform one's own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly'. We have already shown that according to sastra, you are engaging in another's occupation (which, we may add, you are performing perfectly!). Obviously, the 'other commitments' that you speak of are of more importance in your life than your brahminical svadharma. Therefore, it is said — himsanrta-priya lubdhah sarva-karmopjivinah krsna saucaparibhrasthaste dvijah sudratam gatah sarva-bhaksyaratirnityam sarva-karmakaro'sucih tyakta-vedastvanacarah sa vai sudra iti smrtah "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) We find the opponent's above declaration an extremely feeble excuse given by insincere people who wish to engage in a low-level form of non-commital bhakti, whilst performing mundane activities. Our challengers (and many others throughout the Indian subcontinent) are ignorant of the fact that brahmanism and Vaisnavism are two different things. Brahmanism is a stage or qualification of a Vaisnava and Vaisnavism is the fruit of brahmanism. Therefore it is said - brahmananam sahasrebhyah satrayaji visisyate satrayaji-sahasrebhyah sarva-vedanta-paragah sarva-vedanta-vit-kotya visnu-bhako visisyate "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." (Garuda Purana) We have shown previously, through numerous scriptural quotations, that 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 present in a Vaisnava. For example, in the numbers five and ten, the number five is present in both. Similarly, brahminical qualities are eternally present in the Vaisnava, hence the word 'vipra-samya' is used in describing them. Although they follow brahmincal culture, such Vaisnavas are actually beyond varnasrama-dharma as they have no interest in this material world and it's ephemeral social regulations. The brahminical culture is adopted as it elevates one to the platform of sattva (goodness) which is only a step away from the transcendental platform of pure goodness (suddha-sattva). However, even if one only follows brahminical culture perfectly, one does 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. CONCLUSION: We have shown through sastric injunctions that brahmantva is not simply by birth but by diksa if one exhibits brahminical qualities. Furthermore, we have explained how a real Vaisnava is above all temporary material designations, including that of brahmana, while naturally exhibiting all brahmana-laksanas. Finally we have established that according to their own logic and pramana (i.e. Dharma-sastras (12) ), some of our challengers can only be classified as sudras due to their surly behavior, their low-class occupations, the association they keep, the food they consume, their country of residence and the fact that they are not performing the duties of brahmanas. The Dharma-sastras describe such 'brahmanas' as the worst kind and a disgrace to their lineage (brahmanapasada hyete kathitah pankti-dusakah). This obviously brings into question the potency of the garbhadana-samskaras performed in the brahmana community today. It is hoped that by reading this treatise they will honestly acknowledge the error of their ways and, if indeed they deem themselves as brahmanas, they will reject their lowly employment and resume their brahminical duties in some of the poorly managed Vaisnava temples and mathas in India. In actual fact, the followers of Sri Caitanyadeva do not condemn anyone according to their birth, religion, social status etc. The followers of Mahaprabhu hailed from all walks of life, thus confirming that the transcendental designation of 'Vaisnava' is above the social laws of varnasrama. We have given evidence from Srimad Ananda Tirtha Muni (Madhvacarya) stating that brahmana is not necessarily by birth. This evidence is also acknowledged by many Madhva scholars today. Although Sri Madhvacarya has stated that it is the jiva-svabhava which determines his varna, this is not being followed by the Tattvavadis today. We challenge our opponents to find us one specific quote of Madhva wherein he clearly states that brahmanatva is based upon one's birth. In reality the challenging party is doggedly following in the footsteps of Adi Sankara who shamelessly declares in his Taittiriyopanisad Bhasya that he rejects any Vedic statement that does not suit his philosophy. Similarly, as a frog jumps from one pond to another, our challengers oscillate between denying the smrti when it does not conform to their narrow-minded social dogmas and accepting the smrti when it does. They would do well to learn that their cacophonous croaking does not resemble the sweet vibration of the Vedic literatures, rather it is a disturbance to all sincere devotees of Lord Hari. Brahmana Vaisnava - Part 1 _________________________ FOOTNOTES 7 The 'Vow of a cat' is that of hypocrisy, envy, lies and cheating. 8 agnihotryapavidhyagnin brahmanah kamakaratah candrayanam caren masam virahatyasamam hi tat "A Brahmana who, being an agnihotrin, voluntarily neglects the sacred fires, shall perform the candrayana-vrata for one month; for that (offence) is equal to the slaughter of a son." (Manu Samhita 11.41) 9 vaisnavo yadi bhunjita ekadasyam pramadatah visnu arcana vrtha tasya narakam ghoram apnuyat "If, due to bewilderment, a Vaisnava eats grains on Ekadasi day, then whatever merit has attained by worshipping Lord Sri Visnu becomes fruitless and he falls into hell." (Gautamiya Tantra) 10 yo'nadhitya dvijo vedam anyatra kurute sramam sa jivan eva sudratvam asu gacchati sanvayah "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) 11 In the Visnu Dharma it is stated - yo'nyatra kurute yatnam dharma karye dvijottamah vihaya sandhya pranatim sa yati narakayutam "Any twice-born brahmana who does not perform his sandhya-vandana properly and engages in other activities and vows, goes to hell for one billion years." 12 We have decided not to include the reference to Bhagavad-gita 4.13 as one of our challenger's pramanas since this is their own concocted misinterpretation and is not in line with Acarya Madhva's commentary on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted July 9, 2001 Report Share Posted July 9, 2001 In reality the challenging party is doggedly following in the footsteps of Adi Sankara who shamelessly declares in his Taittiriyopanisad Bhasya that he rejects any Vedic statement that does not suit his philosophy. Which of course, is a bogus claim. To quote an example, In the taittirIya bhASya, his commentary on 1.11.2-4 runs thru several pages where the opponents attempt to show that Sruti is inconsistent and he refutes all these objections by showing that there is no inconsistency in the Sruti. Further, Shankara in his brahma sUtra bhASya refutes some schools on the basis that they are inconsistent. After that a doubt can be raised about the apparent inconsistencies in Sruti by the opponents. Hence 2 whole sections [2.3 and 2.4] are devoted to show that Sruti is consistent and it's purport is uniform. Which does not jell with the above claim made by some gentleman. But then, this claim is made by a set of people who have come out with articles like "Bhagavatam > Vedas", etc, which shows the extant of their scholarship. And knowing something about their own philosophy, one wonders if they even know the meaning of the term vedic? Calling Shankara as shameless [sic] is like the pot calling the kettle black considering some of their own statements like Pejavara swamiji stating that he was like a speck of dust at the feet of prabhupada, chaitanya's evidence was hidden by yoga-maya until the 16th century, etc. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.