The corruptibility of the Varna and Inequality in Varna - excerpts from the posts

[Guest guest]

Sri Chittaranjan,

 

This is an excerpt from your post (and debate) on

Varna system:

> Thank you for the information. So, the Shiva Purana

> is a corruption.

> The Mahabharata is not what we think it is. Was the

> Bhagavad Gita

> also a later addition to the Mahabharata?

>

> Where did this Raja Bhoja suddenly appear from?

> Should the hierarchy

> of texts now be like this – first Shruti, then Raja

> Bhoja Smriti and

> then the other Smritis?

 

There are several instances where corruption is quite

possible. Although I donot intend to find out who the

real author is and whether a text truly pertains to

some particular author or not, I still would like to

point out that the very nature of texts is its ability

to be corrupted.

 

There are still many people that donot think that the

Viveka choodamani is a work of Sankara himself. I

would point out that such people need not be Advaita

haters, but may themselves be quite a strong-willed

Vedantist.

 

Although the texts are corruptible, we cannot simply

hold all texts as useless and throw them away. Yet,

blind beleif in just a text is tantamount to nothing

other than superstition.

 

Although one has no evidence to show clearly that the

Shankara bhashya on the Gita is corrupted, the

enthusiastic orthodox have always had the tendency to

write their own texts or change the text of Sankara or

some acclaimed sage.

 

Text or scripture in it's very sense is subject to

change since everything in this world is ultimately

subject to change. I shall not argue against the

Mimamsa position of 'Shabda' and the eternity of the

meaning of words. But texts as such are only records

of words. Whether words have an eternal meaning or

not, corruption is surely possible.

 

In fact it may be noted that due to it's predominantly

Adviatic nature, the dualists at one point used to

argue that the Bh. Gita was a later addition to the

Smriti [allegedly done by Sankara himself], and hence

is not valid scripture. This in my opinion is a

misplaced notion. The Bh. Gita surely predates the

Brahma sootras.

 

Yet the point to be noted is that scritpure IS subject

to corruption and hence scripture is not worth

cinging. Statements such as 'This scripture is the

ultimate means of knowledge' etc. is only due to a

misplaced sense of attachment to the scripture and is

not different from the beleif that the Holy Bible was

God-given word and that it came to earth from heaven.

 

Yet, scriptures are not to be decried. Future

generations will have no access to the true scritpure

if they are not preserved. The fact that scripture is

corruptible is the reason for the need for it's

preservation. The fact that the intonations of the

Veda are important to be closely noted indicates that

the corruptibility of the Veda was known earlier

itself and appropriate steps were perhaps taken to

safeguard against such corruption.

 

Scripture although is subject to corruption is

important. For example, during the medieval ages, the

teaching of the Buddha had been completely lost in

India and Buddhist schools were numerous and held

positions, now known to be clearly rejected by the

Buddha. Modern technology has helped maintain these

texts and publish them in large numbers to help

everyone know about the true teachings of the Buddha.

If the teachings of the Buddha had not been recorded

in the Pali Canon and if they were not maintained in

their pristine purity through the ages and their

validity not verified from time to time by different

Councils, perhaps the present generation would never

know the true meaning of the Buddha's teachings.

Perhaps India would still remain deprived of his

teachings.

 

Scripture is therefore surely important. Yet, they are

not incorruptible.

> Where did this Raja Bhoja suddenly appear from?

> Should the hierarchy

> of texts now be like this – first Shruti, then Raja

> Bhoja Smriti and

> then the other Smritis?

 

I think the story of Raja Bhoja was not so necessary.

But it does point out glaringly that attempts were

made to write texts in the name of other sages. If

this were continued superstitions would also be

attributed to those sages. Thus Raja Bhoja did

something useful for you and me.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

> > >Why are we perturbed by the varnashrama system

> anyway?

>

> > Because there is a fundamental contradiction in

> not seeing

> > equality in all men (by following the

> varnashrama), yet

> > mouthing SOHAM.

>

> How is this fundamental contradiction to be removed?

......

> How many people are there

> in this world

> that take the beggars from the street to their homes

> to provide them

> food to eat and a shelter to sleep? Not many, I

> assure you. But you

> will find many believers in equality who leave the

> beggars in the

> street, starving and hungry, when they themselves

> sleep in the

> comfort of their beds with the cosy feeling that all

> men are equal.

 

This is a good point to be taken. Yet, there are the

following comments that I have to make:

 

1. Bringing beggars from the streets and offering food

is something no-one ever did. Not even the greatest of

kings or the greatest of saints, whether the Buddha or

Shankara. To complain that the chiming on equality

should involve such behavior is not very fair. It is

at best saying that Sankara or Buddha were not truly

enlightened and did make distinctions while talking of

universal dhamma.

 

2. It is wrongly perceived that the caste system is an

expression of inequality created by the perpetrators

of the Varnaashrama. The castes are natural. Nobody

creates them. They exist whether or not we like them.

But they do not affect enlightenment. They are:

a. meant for the ones leading the social life and

involved in actions desirous of fruits such as

heavens.

b. are defined on the basis of people's orientation

for work and fruits.

c. are not a means of knowledge and hence will not

lead to nibbana

Birth in different families is itself an indication of

inequalities.

 

It is however our attachment/clinging/pride in castes

that is difficult to handle. 'maa kuru, dhana, jana,

youvana garvam....' Don't pride in wealth, birth or

youth.

 

3. Soham is NOT an expression of equality in society.

 

The two are different. Caste is a social order, Soham

is an onotlogical position/metaphysical statement.

 

Also, Soham is meant for the Sankhyas or the ones with

conviction on the yoga of knowledge. Caste is meant

for the Yogis or the ones with conviction on the yoga

of action.

 

4. The reason why we are perturbed about caste is the

same as the reason we are perturbed about anything

else - philosophy, Brahman, Atman, Sankara, Buddha,

work in office, lifestyle, democracy, equality,

inequality, capitalism, communism, anything.

 

You have asked the right question that leads to

enlightenment, but qualified it further and made it

difficult for yourself to see the path to

enlightenment.

 

The nature of this perturbance when studied more

closely will be liberating.

 

You are perturbed about caste because you are attached

to:

 

a. your own caste or

b. the caste system itself or

c. your own notions on the caste system.

 

When you give up such a clinging and view it as a

pehnomenon of nature like the distinction in

carnivorous, omnivorous and herbivorous creatures, you

would not be perturbed by it.

 

This is a fetter. It is best for every individual to

decide what to do with such a fetter.

 

5. The notion of equality is very flowery and

beautiful to talk about. But it is irrelevant to the

topic here. Yet, our ideas on castes need not be very

strict to make social life difficult.

 

I shall not talk about this anymore, since social

issues donot concern me being a Bhikku and a monk.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

-Ref post number 30475

 

Bhikku yogiji observes at the end of his rather Elongated post

 

(I shall not talk about this anymore, since social

issues donot concern me being a Bhikku and a monk. )

 

Yogiji , i found these two lines not only amusing but intriguing as

well. The very fact that a bhikku and monk is a member of the

Advaitin group tells me that he likes to associate with like-minded

devotees and loves SATSANGATI. In the good old days , how many

sadhus had access to the internet or the cell phone. Now-a-days , if

you go to Sivananda Ashram in Rishikesh, you will see a computer room

where Sadhus go and access the internet and share their views on

spiritual and other matters. I see them also having a cell phone !!

The days of 'mauna' and 'cave' rishis are over , it appears.

 

There are two types of renunciation mentioned in the scriptures.

 

As per sri Satguru swamiji

 

"Vividisa Sanyasa and Vidwat Sanyasa. Vividisa Sanyasa is when an

aspirant renounces the world in order to attain God. When the Buddha,

Sri Ramana Maharishi or Swami Vivekananda took Sanyasa it was as a

means of liberation. When the Upanishadic sage Yagnavalkya, an

illumined soul left the world it was Vidwat Sanyasa -it was an

outward expression of an inward realisation, an external affirmation

of an internal fact. These Great Souls have no need of Sanyasa- their

hearts; minds and souls are dyed ochre. But they take Sanyasa either

to keep up the tradition or more importantly because they have a

Divine Task, to teach the way to God and more importantly to work for

Lokasangraham, the integration of peoples and to spread the message

Vasudaiva Kutumbakam (the world as the family of God). "

 

(http://www.www.srisathguru.com/sss4.htm )

 

Swami Vivekananda was a 'parivrajaka' swami - he was a wandering

monk. He travelled from Kashmir to Kanyakumari spreading the divine

message of the scriptures . His lord and master Paramahamsa

Ramakrishna himself used to come down from 'samadhi' every now and

then to enjoy the company of bhaktas and share his views on

sprituality. Adi shankara , a parama jnani, travelled from Kashmir to

Kashi to Kanchi to spread the message of 'advaita' for such saints

are interested in 'lokasangraham'.

 

Also, all the Ashrams including Sivananda ashram, Ramakrishna

missions , Adi shankara's various mutts are all involved in a big way

in addressing social problems. Have you not heard if the great work

done by shankar netralaya - they have a center in New York too. When

Gujarat was hit by a massive earthquake a couple of years ago, the

volunteers ( momks) of the Ramakrishna mission were the first ones to

rush to the rescue of the victim with food and medicines. Swami

Sivananda himself was a medical doctor from SRI LANKA who later on

became a sanyasi. If you go to Risshikesh, you will see the wonderful

work done by the sivananda disapensary ( right opposite to the

ashram) to address the healthcare needs of the poor and the needy.

 

In my humble opinion, an enlightened person is also a person with a

social conscience. If you visit Sri Ramanashram , you will see that

everyone ( regardless of who he is - begggar , monk, or simply a

visitor ) will not go to bed hungry.

 

Real renunciation is only renunciation to the 'fruits' of our

actions .

 

There are many saints who were great social reformers too. Some names

come readily to mind- Dalai Lama , Vinobha Bhave , Mata Amritananda

mayee.

 

anyway .....

 

love and metta

 

Dalai lama said 'Kindess itself is a religion'

[Guest guest]

dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati wrote: -Ref post number

30475

 

 

 

When the Buddha,

Sri Ramana Maharishi or Swami Vivekananda took Sanyasa it was as a

means of liberation. Respected Madam,

You are mischaracterizing Bhaghavan

Ramana by saying that he took sanyas, as though he were frantically searching

for some means to come upon the natural state. Ramana is an adivarnasmi. People

like Ramana, saint Vallalar, Gunangudi Mastan, Thayumanavar, and

J.Krishnamurthy, are born siddhas. They did not practice any system to know the

natural state of life. Saint Vallalar and Ramana did not encourage Sanyasa.

Nowadays, the sanyasis are more attached to external things than even the

so-called worldy men, going round with their hectic tour programmes, giving

lectures endlessly, which contain only the borrowed knowledge of the

scriptures, and not their original experience. Let us not make much of all

these organized sanyasahood. Kanchi Paramacharya writes in his, 'Deivathin

Kural,' that the land of Tamil Nadu is sacred, having given birth to great

saints like Mastan, who though born of a muslim family, was an advaitin down to

the boots. Mastan's writings reveal that he has passed through all stages of

samdhi spoken of by sage Patanjali, and finally attained the great denouement,

the dharmamegha samadhi, spoken of even in Mahayana Buddhism. But the mahatmas

of nowadays are only therapists arrogating to themselves the knowledge of

living a life of freedom from problems, which they glibly advertise to the

world like management psychologists, who belive that all should have some ego,

all their worldviews being only how to lead a successful and peaceful and

achievement-oriented life. They quote examples of some men having risen to

heights from lowly situations like being laboures. All over the world, the

religious men included, there is worship of success and talents, this

encroaching the sacred dimension of truth also, where the words sucess, talent,

effort, have no place.

Sankarraman

 

 

 

Mail

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

 

 

[Guest guest]

ref 30530

 

Sankaraman avargale:

 

Dear sir, please go back and read my post one more time. It was not i

who was saying sri Ramana is a SANYASI' - i was merely quoting Sri

Satguru swamiji . I was quoting swamiji to establish the difference

between two types of sanyasa. (vividisa and vidwat sanyasa)

 

 

Jivanmuktas like sri Ramana maharishi NEED NOT TAKE SANYAS -you are

right.

 

Sri Ramana says

 

"Renunciation does not imply apparent divesting of costumes, family

ties, homes, etc., but renunciation of desires, affection and

attachment. There is no need to resign your job, only resign yourself

to God, the bearer of the burden of all.

 

One who renounces desires actually merges in the world and expands

his love to the whole universe. Expansion of love and affection would

be a far better term for a true devotee of God than renunciation, for

one who renounces the immediate ties actually extends the bonds of

affection and love to a wider world beyond the borders of caste,

creed and race.

 

A sannyasi (wandering monk) who apparently casts away his clothes and

leaves his home does not do so out of aversion to his immediate

relations but because of the expansion of his love to others around

him. When this expansion comes, one does not feel that one is running

away from home, instead one drops from it like a ripe fruit from a

tree.Till then it would be folly to leave one's home or job."

 

Sri Ramana goes on to say

'

"Renunciation is always in the mind, not in going to forests or

solitary places or giving up one's duties. The main thing is to see

that the mind does not turn outward but inward. It does not rest with

a man whether he goes to this place or that place or whether he gives

up his duties or not. All these events happen according to destiny.

All the activities that the body is to go through are determined when

it first comes into existence. It does not rest with you to accept or

reject them. The only freedom you have is to turn your mind inward

and renounce activities there."

 

(http://www.hinduism.co.za/renuncia.htm )

 

Sankararamanji - as usual, you make some wonderful points and i am

amazed by the 'depth' of knowledge in your posts . Thanks for reming

us about Saint Mastan ....

 

sir, have you been to Kanchi? right next to the Kanchi mutt is a

Mosque ... do you know that in the mutt , the gurukula boys will be

chanting the vedic mantras and at the sametime the loudspeakers from

the Mosque will be broadcasting 'ALLA-HU AKBAR' ... funny part

is 'om' and 'hu' are both beautiful chants .

 

Kabir das-ji sings

 

If God be within the mosque, then to whom does this world belong?

 

If Ram be within the image which you find upon your pilgrimage,

 

then who is there to know what happens whithout?

 

Hari is in the East: Allah is in the West. Look within your heart,

 

for there you will find both Karim and Ram;

 

All the men and women of the world are His living forms.

 

Kabir is the child of Allah and of Ram: He is my Guru, He is my Pir.

 

regards

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

>

>

>

> dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati wrote: -Ref post

number 30475

>

>

>

But the mahatmas of nowadays are only therapists arrogating to

themselves the knowledge of living a life of freedom from problems,

which they glibly advertise to the world like management

psychologists, who belive that all should have some ego, all their

worldviews being only how to lead a successful and peaceful and

achievement-oriented life. They quote examples of some men having

risen to heights from lowly situations like being laboures. All over

the world, the religious men included, there is worship of success

and talents, this encroaching the sacred dimension of truth also,

where the words sucess, talent, effort, have no place.

> Sankarraman

 

Dear Sir,

 

The sanyasa is meant for self transformation and not for social

transformation or philonthrophy or any other such nonesense. The case

with Sri Shankaracharya, Bhagavan Ramana and Swami Viveknanda and the

like were different. Pure and undiluted love flowed from the deapths

of their hearts and responded to the misery of the suffering masses.

But if you closely observe the modern karma yogis!!!? of any order (

Ofcours exceptionsa are always there) you will feel a kind disgust.

They have so much inner confusion, greed for power etc. that

sometimes you cannot call them even gentlemen and virtues of a

sanyasi is a far cry. Swami Vivekananda himself tells that doing good

to the world and leading a comfortable life is a worst kind of

materialism. He has spoken very lucidly about this in his lecture

Practical Religion which is in 4 th volume of his complete works.

 

Now the difference between Sadguru and Management Guru is fast

vanishing. Some people especially in the corporate world are getting

benifitted ofcourse. But in what way it is helping the so called

gurus in their spiritual unfoldment is the biggest question. As JK

says - You are the world. If you can chage whole world can chage. If

you cannot change nothing will chagne. A true sanyasi is one who gets

fullfillment from the realisation of self he is aatma rama. In 99 %

of the cases these things are reflection of inner confusion and lack

of clarity of the monk and an apparant! compassion or concern? for

the society.

 

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

 

Yours in the lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

>

> Mail

> Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

>

>

>