Guest guest Posted December 11, 2000 Report Share Posted December 11, 2000 On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 Mrgerald wrote: > I was giving a close reading to various Gita verses on "svabhava" and it is > clear that there are two levels of it. One is changeable within one's life > for example "karpanya-dosopahata-svabhavah" and Krishna asks Arjuna how this > miserly svabhava came upon him. Sridhara Swami on 17.1-3 however, calls this > attitude level of svabhava a "secondary differentiation" of the gunas to > distinguish it [i think] from the a higher level of svabhava. This "I think" part is the crux of the matter for which you will be asked to demonstrate shastric support, because placing these definitions into a taratamya involves a value judgement. > The higher primary level is the one that comes with birth (saha-jam 18.48). Here too? > That svabhava is intrinsic to the body and is an effect of one's prarabhda > karma or manifested destiny. One's duty is svabhava-niyatam (dictated by the > [primary] svabhava). But is this "primary" notion coming from the same place as your ideas about the "primary" meaning of the word "karma"? > Except for a few notable exceptions, one's prarabhda > karma does not change even though Vidya Devi has the power to do so. Baladeva > and most Vedanta commentators agree on this point. Therefore one's duty does > not change. In the most advanced stage, a jivanmukta [in the Vaishnava sense] > is able to do others work but even then he usually does not. And if many of > the various associates of Lord Caitanya are considered to be liberated souls > or at least jivanmuktas then there are so many examples of such who follow > their own duty. Lowborn devotees will have to do brahminical work at least as long as those born in families which were once brahmanical continue devoting most of their time to medical, computer, and engineering careers, or other things, instead. But that's only true if we actually care about anyone else. > One's duty is > dependent on one's primary svabhava and that in turn correlates with one's > condition of birth (saha-jam). This is a hard pill to swallow; it can hardly be publicised (there would be little use in trying anyway), and now that the whole world has adopted the pseudo-egalitarian ideals of American democracy, those who push this will definitely need to be Divinely empowered. Now there is the fourfold svabhava and the > stri-svabhava. What is actually condemned is linking one's duty to jaati > (which was only relevent in purer times and situations), but this distinction > between jaati and janma is completely missed in Womens Ministry literature. ...as the distinction between jati and varna is in popular presentations of caste. > This dual level of svabhava is mentioned in Krsna Dharma's Mahabharata: > > > *Vyasadeva to Dhrtarasthra proposing the King send > > > Duryodhana to serve > > > the Pandavas while they are in forest exile: "The > > > nature a man acquires > > > at birth stays with him throughout his life. It > > > seems impossible that > > > Duryodhana would ever be able to humble himself > > > before the Pandavas or > > > anyone else." > Duryodhana's pride is a secondary level svabhava, hence the use of the word > "seems." > Does all this make sense? Yes, but probably moreso in Sanskrit. > I am interested in doing a search on "svabhava" in the whole Mahabharata and > show that these are two main ways that it is used. Where is the searchable > site? Where is the main Mahabharata site? Check the Indology list archives; there is such a site, but I can't remember where. Try an academic library too. I'm pretty sure there are hardcopy editions. By the way, ever reasd Louis Dumont's _Homo Heirchicus_? I think you would like it. MDd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2000 Report Share Posted December 18, 2000 In a message dated 12/11/00 10:12:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, mpt writes: mrgerald> Sridhara Swami on 17.1-3 however, calls > this > > attitude level of svabhava a "secondary differentiation" of the gunas to > > distinguish it [i think] from the a higher level of svabhava. > This "I think" part is the crux of the matter for which you will > be asked to demonstrate shastric support, because placing these > definitions into a taratamya involves a value judgement. Well the krpana-svabhava in early chapter 2 is obviously changeable (how has it come upon Arjuna during his life and not at birth?). And the varna-svabhava comes with birth (saha-jaM). That itself indicates the hierarchy of svabhava. > > The higher primary level is the one that comes with birth (saha-jam 18.48). > > Here too? Its implicit. One comes with birth, the other can vacillate. Sort of like in Ayurveda your pulse at birth indicates your prakrti (or fundamental nature), and if the pulse varies in life that is considered vrkrti or just a temporary development overlying the real prakrti. The goal is always to be consonant with one's prakrti. I am arguing its the same for svabhava. > > > > > That svabhava is intrinsic to the body and is an effect of one's prarabhda > > > karma or manifested destiny. One's duty is svabhava-niyatam (dictated by > the > > [primary] svabhava). > But is this "primary" notion coming from the same place as your > ideas about the "primary" meaning of the word "karma"? By "secondary" I am referring to things like krpana-svabhava. By "primary" I am referring to what is mentioned in text 18.41 which says duties are distributed by svabhava-prabhavair-guna-- or by svabhava which was generated from the gunas. All acaryas explain this verse to indicate something thats fixed. > Lowborn devotees will have to do brahminical work at least as long > as those born in families which were once brahmanical continue devoting most > of their time to medical, computer, and engineering careers, or other > things, instead. But that's only true if we actually care about anyone else. Well I would argue that the Hindu children are sudras and vaisyas by svabhava and that they are doing their function and the introspective Westerner who does brahminical work is acting according to his as well. The Westerner's birth is only "low" in the sense that samskaras werent done and the father isnt an active brahmana. His jaati may be "low" but his svabhava is not. In BRS 1.1.21-22, it is said that bhakti gets rid of prarabda karma and SB 3.33.6 is cited (the dogeater becomes a priest of ritual by chanting). Then the example of of prarabhda karma thats pointed out is "jaati" which is in essence eradicated. However, it says nothing of ridding one of svabhava. I argue that the dogeater who becomes a pujari was neccessarily already a brahmana svabhava soul. If a ksatriya etc svabhava soul chants, they only attain the stage of viprasamya (brahmana-like but not brahmana). Krishna Balarama Swami's citations of the commentaries i think can be used to substantiate this latter point on viprasamya. One's duty is > > dependent on one's primary svabhava and that in turn correlates with one's > > > condition of birth (saha-jam). > This is a hard pill to swallow; it can hardly be publicised > (there would be little use in trying anyway), and now that the whole world > has adopted the pseudo-egalitarian ideals of American democracy, those who > push this will definitely need to be Divinely empowered. Well its in the text of the Gita-- sahajam. At the very least the leaders in our movement ought to agree that this is the real siddhanta/truth and can be judiciously applied when there are groups of mature devotees. It is definitely relevant in terms of the women debate. > By the way, ever reasd Louis Dumont's _Homo > Heirchicus_? I think you would like it. Will look at that some day. Thanks GS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2000 Report Share Posted December 27, 2000 > This "I think" part is the crux of the matter for which you will > be asked to demonstrate shastric support, because placing these > definitions into a taratamya involves a value judgement. > > > The higher primary level is the one that comes with birth (saha-jam 18.48). > Here too? Sorry I didn't respond to all of this before. The thing about this theory is that it still does not fit with the statements of shruti. I know I brought up this argument before, and you (Gerald, I mean) probably also tried to answer it before, but I probably was not satisfied with the answer to begin with. The Vajra-suchika Upanishad says: tarhi jaatir braahmaNa iti chet tan na | tatra jaatyantarajantuShvanekajaatisambhavaat | maharShayo bhavaH santi | R^ishyashR^i.ngo mR^igyaH | kaushikaH kushaat | jaambuuko jambuukaat | vaalmiiko valmiikaat | vyaasaH kaivartakanyaayaam | shashapR^iShThaat gautamaH | vasiShTha urvashyaam | agastyaH kalase jaata iti shrutatvaat | eteShaa.m jaatyaa vinaapyagre j~naanapratipaaditaa R^iShayo bahavaH santi | tasmaan na jaatir braahmaNa iti || VSU 5|| tarhi - then; jaatiH - birth; braahmaNa - braahmaNa; iti - thus; chet - if; tan - that; na - not; tatra - there; jaaty - birth; antara - another; jantuShu - in living entities; aneka-jaati-sambhavaat - because of many births; maharShayaH - great sages; bahavaH - many; santi - are; R^ishyashR^i.ngaH - Rishyashringa; mR^igyaH - from a doe; kaushikaH - Kausika; kushaat - from a kusa grass; jaambuukaH - jambuka; jambuukaat - from a jackel; vaalmiikaH - Valmiiki; valmiikaat - from an anti-hill; vyaasaH - Vyaasa; kaivarta - kanyaayaam - from a fisherman's daughter; shasha-pR^iShThaat - from the side of a rabbit; gautamaH - Gautama; vasiShTha - Vasishtha; urvashyaam - from Urvasi; agastyaH - Agastya; kalase - in a waterpot; jaata - born; iti - thus; shrutatvaat - because of the Shruti-shaastra; eteShaam - of them; jaatyaa - by birth; vinaa - without; apy- also; agre - before; j~naana - by knowledge; partipaaditaa - established; R^iShayaH - sages; bahavaH - many; santi - are; tasmaan - therefore; na - not; jaatiH - birth; braahmaNa - braahmana; iti - thus. If someone says: "One becomes a braahmaNa by taking birth in a braahmana family," then the scripture replies: "No. That is not so. A braahmana may be born in any kind of family. Indeed, many great braahmana sages were not born from braahmanas. Rishyashringa Muni was born from a doe. Kaushika Muni was born from kusha grass. Jaambuuka Muni was born from a jackal. Vaalmiiki Muni was born from an anti-hill. Vyaasa Muni was born from a fisherman's duaghter. Gautama Muni was born from the side of a rabbit. Vasishtha Muni was born from Urvashii. Agastya Muni was born from a pot of water. All this is described in the Shruti-shaastra. Thus many great braahmana sages, although not born in braahamana families, are accepted as great braahmanas because of their spiritual wisdom. Therefore it is not birth in a braahmana family that makes one a braahmana (shrii vajrasuuchika upaniShad 5). The thing I want to call your attention to is the statement that a brahmin can be born in any family. The Upanishad then goes on to give examples of this. Note that this clearly contradicts your svabhava by birth theory, which so far I have seen no explicit scriptural reference to. We should try to understand why this "varna-by-birth" theory (and variations thereof) is suddenly becoming so popular. Is it because that is what the scriptures really say? Or is it actually because ISKCON has failed to produce a brahminical class? Certainly ISKCON is guilty of initiating many unqualified people into the sacred thread who stay unqualified. And because of human nature or whatever, we tend to notice the masses of such unqualified brahmins instead of the tiny handful of less outspoken, qualified brahmins amongst them. It's easy to take note of this failure, and then try to justify it from a scriptural standpoint. But the scriptures don't support this viewpoint. However much birth is an advantage in getting one's varna, I have never seen it said that one is restricted to one's varna by birth. And I think that our attempts to rationalize this theory are just based on our anger and frustration with ISKCON for abusing the varnaashrama principles. Because they have abused it, and that is a fact. > Lowborn devotees will have to do brahminical work at least as long > as those born in families which were once brahmanical continue devoting most > of their time to medical, computer, and engineering careers, or other > things, instead. But that's only true if we actually care about anyone else. Ouch! But well said, nonetheless. I think I will remember to use that next time I hear some caste brahmin NRI criticizing Western devotees in ISKCON. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2000 Report Share Posted December 27, 2000 In a message dated 12/27/00 10:50:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, krishna writes: tasmaan -> therefore; na - not; jaatiH - birth; braahmaNa - braahmana; iti - thus. > Therefore it is not birth in a braahmana > family that makes one a braahmana (shrii vajrasuuchika upaniShad 5). > > The thing I want to call your attention to is the statement that a brahmin > can be born in any family. The Upanishad then goes on to give examples of > this. Note that this clearly contradicts your svabhava by birth theory, > which so far I have seen no explicit scriptural reference to. This is the same error that Vishakha et al make. The term jaati means birth *only* in the sense of *lineage* not in the sense of *svabhAva*. The Vraja-sukica Upanisad confirms that a svabhAvika-brahmana is not neccessarily born in a lineage of brahmanas as was usually the case in the earlier yugas. > > We should try to understand why this "varna-by-birth" theory (and variations > thereof) is suddenly becoming so popular. Is it getting popular? > But the scriptures > don't support this viewpoint. However much birth is an advantage in getting > one's varna, I have never seen it said that one is restricted to one's varna > by birth. > Bhagavad-gita 18.41 and 18.48 clearly says that varna-duty is generated from one's guna/svabhava which comes with birth--saha-jaM. All the acaryas comment on this verse in the same way: Sridhara Swami-- One should not relinquish the duty to which one is born. Madusudana Sarasvati--...one should not...give up the duties...to which one is born. Sankara--One should not give up the duty (karma) to which one is born, which devolves from the very birth. Ramanuja comments in the same way. I haven't looked at Baladeva's or VCT's comments. The logic behind fixed varna is based on the passage in Vedanta sutra which says that although Bhakti-devi *can* change one's prarabhda karma, She does not interfere with it. Prarabhda karma indicates that which has already started to manifest. The svabhava is one such manifestation that does not change by bhakti (although it in theory can). GS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2000 Report Share Posted December 28, 2000 > > The thing I want to call your attention to is the statement that a brahmin > > can be born in any family. The Upanishad then goes on to give examples of > > this. Note that this clearly contradicts your svabhava by birth theory, > > which so far I have seen no explicit scriptural reference to. > > This is the same error that Vishakha et al make. Who are "Vishaka et al?" The term jaati means birth > *only* in the sense of *lineage* not in the sense of *svabhAva*. Jaati means birth. That is the literal meaning of it. If you argue that it here means birth in a very special sense, then you can only do so on the basis of an authoritative commentary. Have you one? Otherwise, your conclusion above is really an inference. There is nothing wrong with that, but you have to recognize it as such before assuming that it's obviously correct. As an outsider looking in, (or what that be an insider looking out?), if I were asked to reject the evidence I just provided for the reason that you just gave, I would ask why I must accept this interepretation of the Upanishad. Specifically, I would want a better reason than the fact that it happens to support my opponents' point of view. I mean, the Upanishad is *very* clear on this point. I need a good reason why I must reject the literal meaning of "jaati" and accept a secondary meaning. According to Gaudiiya Vaishnava epistemology, such rejection of literal meanings is only warranted if inconsistency with context and/or just plain nonsense is derived from the primary meaning. So far I have seen nothing like this demonstrated. The > Vraja-sukica Upanisad confirms that a svabhAvika-brahmana is not neccessarily > born in a lineage of brahmanas as was usually the case in the earlier yugas. But the crucial point is that the Upanishad says "braahmana," and not "svabhaavika-braahmana." The latter is, again, an inference. Is there such a thing as a non svabhaavika-braahmana, a brahmin who does not have the nature of a brahmin? > > We should try to understand why this "varna-by-birth" theory (and > variations > > thereof) is suddenly becoming so popular. > > Is it getting popular? Well, if you accept the Tattvavaadi and Shri Vaishnava opinions, then sure. They seem quite vocal these days about their idea that birth is a prerequisite for brahminical status. Is it any coincidence that this is occurring at precisely the same time as the disintegration of ISKCON, an allegedly Vaishnava organization run almost entirely by (in theory) non-caste brahmins? Not to mention that this is an organization which, for better or for worse, has influenced the spiritual thinking of Vaishnavas from other sampradaayas, much to the consternation of their respective orthodoxies. > > But the scriptures > > don't support this viewpoint. However much birth is an advantage in getting > > one's varna, I have never seen it said that one is restricted to one's > varna > > by birth. > > > > Bhagavad-gita 18.41 and 18.48 clearly says that varna-duty is generated from > one's guna/svabhava which comes with birth--saha-jaM. All the acaryas > comment on this verse in the same way: OK, let's look at those verses then: brAhmaNa-kSatriya-vizAM zUdrANAM ca parantapa karmANi pravibhaktAni svabhAva-prabhavair guNaiH SYNONYMS brAhmaNa-of the brAhmaNas; kSatriya-the kSatriyas; vizAm-and the vaizyas; zUdrANAm-of the zUdras; ca-and; parantapa-O subduer of the enemies; karmANi-the activities; pravibhaktAni-are divided; svabhAva-their own nature; prabhavaiH-born of; guNaiH-by the modes of material nature. TRANSLATION BrAhmaNas, kSatriyas, vaizyas and zUdras are distinguished by the qualities born of their own natures in accordance with the material modes, O chastiser of the enemy. sa-doSam api na tyajet sarvArambhA hi doSeNa dhUmenAgnir ivAvRtAH SYNONYMS saha-jam-born simultaneously; karma-work; kaunteya-O son of KuntI; sa-doSam-with fault; api-although; na-never; tyajet-one should give up; sarva-ArambhAH-all ventures; hi-certainly; doSeNa-with fault; dhUmena-with smoke; agniH-fire; iva-as; AvRtAH-covered. TRANSLATION Every endeavor is covered by some fault, just as fire is covered by smoke. Therefore one should not give up the work born of his nature, O son of KuntI, even if such work is full of fault. Now it's fairly clear that the sense of "svabhaava" is being taken as "born of one's nature" etc as Srila Prabhupada translates it. But while choosing to reinterpret "jaati" in the Vajra-suchika Upanishad, I note that you do not accept the possibility of reinterpretation here. Why must "svabhaava" refer to the nature one is born with, as opposed to the duties born out of his nature? Please look at Srila Prabhupada's translations more closely: he refers to WORK born of his nature, and QUALITIES born of his nature. He does not say that one is born with his nature which is then unchanging. In the purport to 18.48, he even writes, "Despite these flaws, one should continue to carry out his prescribed duties, for they are born out of his own nature." He pretty much reiterates the same concept given in the Sanskrit, but never says in his commentary that one's nature is fixed at birth (your point of view, if I understood it right). I'm assuming that Srila Prabhupada would not have been mistaken in his interpretation of svabhaava. I'm also assuming that Srila Prabhupada correctly represents the Gaudiiya Vaishnava point of view, and that the GV point of view is the correct point of view. But if these assumptions are themselves under question, then we need to do more nit-picking analysis of the Sanskrit to see which interpretation of svabhaava is supported. > Sridhara Swami-- One should not relinquish the duty to which one is born. But he does not belong to our sampradaaya. > Madusudana Sarasvati--...one should not...give up the duties...to which one > is born. Irrelevant. He also does not belong to our sampradaaya. > Sankara--One should not give up the duty (karma) to which one is born, which > devolves from the very birth. Again besides the point. Not from our sampradaaya. The entire advaitic view on karma and karma-kaanda duties has to be suspect anyway, since their whole point of view is that the material world is all illusion. > Ramanuja comments in the same way. And he also is not from our sampradaaya. > I haven't looked at Baladeva's or VCT's comments. Which are the only ones relevant here, if the issue is in figuring out what the Gaudiiya Vaishnava point of view is. If the issue is in figuring out which Vaishnava point of view is correct, then merely quoting so many other commentators who have different points of view will prove nothing. The Sanskrit itself has to be analyzed. There are many other points of view held by Gaudiiyas which are opposed by most if not all other schools of thought. > The logic behind fixed varna is based on the passage in Vedanta sutra which > says that although Bhakti-devi *can* change one's prarabhda karma, She does > not interfere with it. Prarabhda karma indicates that which has already > started to manifest. The svabhava is one such manifestation that does not > change by bhakti (although it in theory can). But this is based on a very inept presentation of the Govinda-bhaashya to begin wtih. I know I read Vasu's translation also, but he makes other errors which are not consistent with Vaishnava thought and even refers to theories by Arya-samaj and other non-Vedic doctrines. Radha-Krishna and I also discussed the concept of praarabdha-karma in a very different context, specifically the devotee on the bhaava platform vs the prema platform. A jiivan-mukta remains in his body due to praarabdha-karma. I don't see what this has to do with svabhaava - perhaps the linking of the two is again another inference? yours, - K 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.