Did Adi Shankaracharya denounce Caste?

[Guest guest]

I have read that he did. If so then why do Smartas follow the caste system and believe in Brahmin authority?

 

I also have some other questions.

 

1.What is the difference between Hinduism and Brahminism? Some say it is one and the same while others say there are differences.

 

2.Do lower castes have any place in the Hindu religion? I have been studying the Vedas and it is very clear that Brahmins have laid down their supremacy along with the Kshatriya's by making the Vis and Shudra class their servants. Further, Shudras are not aloud to study the Vedas nor pray with the upper caste. How can Shudras and Untouchables believe in Hinduism when they are denounced from the start and cannot even pray with the upper caste. I have heard Hindus say that caste is based on merit but dont you think you would be going against the Vedas which many Hindus consider Holy? It is clear in the Vedas that Caste is based on birth and not merit.

 

3. Can one be a Hindu and not have to folow caste or believe in Brahmin supremacy? Growing up Hindu, I have never believed in caste and never believed Brahmins or upper caste to be higher than anyone. Growing up in the US, I never really knew that it was such a big part of my religion. I honestly believe that Brahmins have created this system to enslave others, which is evil.

 

Lastly, I have read that Adi Shankaracharya was responsible for kicking Jains and Buddhists out of India and bringing back a reformed Hinduism. Is this true?

If Adi Shankaracharya was a great person who denounced caste and such, then why would he kick others out? How can we Hindus be tolerant of others when history shows we ave kicked every other religion out? Even today, with RSS and their nazi supremacy.

 

If anyone can answer my questions I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

[Guest guest]

 

I have read that he did. If so then why do Smartas follow the caste system and believe in Brahmin authority?

 

I also have some other questions.

 

1.What is the difference between Hinduism and Brahminism? Some say it is one and the same while others say there are differences.

 

2.Do lower castes have any place in the Hindu religion? I have been studying the Vedas and it is very clear that Brahmins have laid down their supremacy along with the Kshatriya's by making the Vis and Shudra class their servants. Further, Shudras are not aloud to study the Vedas nor pray with the upper caste. How can Shudras and Untouchables believe in Hinduism when they are denounced from the start and cannot even pray with the upper caste. I have heard Hindus say that caste is based on merit but dont you think you would be going against the Vedas which many Hindus consider Holy? It is clear in the Vedas that Caste is based on birth and not merit.

 

3. Can one be a Hindu and not have to folow caste or believe in Brahmin supremacy? Growing up Hindu, I have never believed in caste and never believed Brahmins or upper caste to be higher than anyone. Growing up in the US, I never really knew that it was such a big part of my religion. I honestly believe that Brahmins have created this system to enslave others, which is evil.

 

Lastly, I have read that Adi Shankaracharya was responsible for kicking Jains and Buddhists out of India and bringing back a reformed Hinduism. Is this true?

If Adi Shankaracharya was a great person who denounced caste and such, then why would he kick others out? How can we Hindus be tolerant of others when history shows we ave kicked every other religion out? Even today, with RSS and their nazi supremacy.

 

If anyone can answer my questions I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

 

 

First off, many yogis reject the caste system and consider themselves Hindu. Caste system is not INTEGRAL to Hinduism, it is a societal institution, one that MAY or MAY NOT have been a product of racism. The Vedas have been interpolated as have other texts throughout the centuries. No one text can lay claim to being "as-is" from the date of conception, it's just not possible. Controvery surrounds every scripture, as there are a billion different people who interpret it a billion different ways.

 

Also, I don't believe the caste system was conceived as a method to subjugate people, but with the noble goal of dividing labor. But like any institution, it got corrupted over the years, until one caste was considered higher while another caste was considered lower just based on the roles it was assigned. The caste system became more rigid as time went on.

 

Look at the Mahabharata if you want to see evidence of caste mobility, of people not acting as per their caste duties and seeking aspersions outside of their designated caste. Karna was considered a sudra, but got promoted to kshatriya because he was given land by Dhuryodana. Drona was a brahmin who warred with Drupada for land that Drupada promised him earlier when he became king. Was his action brahmin-like? Of course not. Ashwattama acted like an asura when he unleashed a deadly weapon irresponsibly, was he acting brahmin-like? No of course not. And he was regarded as only the SON of a brahmin, but not a brahmin himself as a result.

 

Initial conception of the caste system had each caste come from a part of God, and thus INITIALLY they were considered equals and to be respected.

 

In the Bhagavad-gita it even says that to look down upon other castes as inferior is wrong (paraphrased of course, but its intent was to say that God is in everyone and everything and should be respected by the yogi as God immanent).

 

Brahmanism is a derogatory term often used by anti-Vedic Indologists who propose the Aryan Invasion theory (one with very little evidence other than circumstantial). Also it is associated with the idea of Brahmins being the highest caste, or the idea of religion BASED on caste. Hinduism is NOT based on caste, however. It is based on God, and the idea of realizing the Self. That is the primary goal of Hinduism, and that is what is important about it. Caste isn't important, however, the idea of doing your dharma and mitigating your karma are the central tenets you should be imbibing from the religion.

 

Besides, if Brahmins are truly the highest caste, why are they also considered the poorest? Is being a brahmin really that desirable for a materialist? All he does is pray to God for other people, teach scriptures, perform yajnas. Many brahmins beg for food. Yes, they are often richly rewarded for these services, and they hold power, but it is not like they are indolent and have power without merit or any such thing.

 

I believe in the authority of TRUE Brahmins. That is, not Brahmins who were born into the family of brahmins. But people who know Brahman, who are enlightened. They have authority, and they are the ones who should be doing the pujas and ceremonies. I don't believe lower caste people, as in people who haven't become God-realized OR who are unlearned in the scriptures, should be doing pujas as there is very little effect. The brahmins should be the conduit from the people to the spiritual realm of God, not merely a symbolic function rendered empty of meaning.

 

I don't believe in caste by birth, but I do believe in caste by gunas, or natural qualities. That's not caste by birth OR merit, but something in between. Like your genetic traits (not racial but more in terms of intellectual capacity and spiritual IQ), and a combination of that and merit.

 

As for Adi Shankaracharya "kicking out" jains and buddhists, I hope you're joking, because Shankaracharya was no warrior. Any FOOL can see that. He was not violent or anything. What he did was spread Hinduism by teaching and debates and that's how he managed to revive Hinduism.

 

Also, you must be very foolish to believe that Brahmins "created" Hinduism just for power and glorification. This was not the case, and for you to claim such a thing makes you a very poor Hindu, not to mention a huge fool. It's possible the Brahmins tried to edit the Vedas to gain supremacy over other castes, I'll admit, but to say Hinduism was born of evil is to show your stupidity and utter failure to see what Hinduism's really all about.

[Guest guest]

 

I have read that he did. If so then why do Smartas follow the caste system and believe in Brahmin authority?

 

 

This is a good question but I don't know the answer. It is best if some Smartas to reply to that one. From what I've heard, you have the incident in Vanarasi where shankara's followers told an untouchable to move out of their way, to which the untouchable replied "What shall I move, the body or the atman?". Upon hearing these world Shankara bowed down to the untouchable and said "He who speaks such wise words is my greatest teacher". Now some Brahmins who are casteist add their own spin on that story saying the untouchable was really Shiva in the form of an untouchable, just out to test Skankara, but this is unlikely to be the case. It seems that while shankara denounced the hereditary catse system, after his death his monkhood went back to their own prejudices against caste. It could be that since Shankaras followers told the untouchable to move, they were always casteist, but not shankara himself. Shankara saw everything as a manifestation of Brahman including untouchables and that discrimination against people due to caste was due to ignorance.

 

 

1.What is the difference between Hinduism and Brahminism? Some say it is one and the same while others say there are differences.

 

 

Brahminism is a term used by mainly westeners to describe a period in Hinduism when the Brahmins ruled heavily over all the other castes, through superstition and priestcraft. It was almost as if the Brahmins had become mediators between God and mankind. This was a period which was heavily ritualistic and it is believed that the Brahmins exploited the masses, through made up rules and degrading rituals. This was probably the period when the manu smriti was written and it was Brahminism that Buddha and Mahavir was strongly against as well as the sages of the Upanishads. Although brahminism was a long period in Hindu history, it died out due to the growing Buddhist and Jain religions. But anti-Hindu groups use it against the Brahmins of today to describe their lifestyle, as sometimes in rural areas of India Brahmins may still exploit other castes.

 

 

2.Do lower castes have any place in the Hindu religion? I have been studying the Vedas and it is very clear that Brahmins have laid down their supremacy along with the Kshatriya's by making the Vis and Shudra class their servants. Further, Shudras are not aloud to study the Vedas nor pray with the upper caste. How can Shudras and Untouchables believe in Hinduism when they are denounced from the start and cannot even pray with the upper caste. I have heard Hindus say that caste is based on merit but dont you think you would be going against the Vedas which many Hindus consider Holy? It is clear in the Vedas that Caste is based on birth and not merit.

 

 

Where have you been reading the Vedas? Whose translation? I say this because you have Hindu groups that are based only on the Vedas, like Arya Samaj who say the Vedic religion is for everybody regardless of caste and they get their evidence from verses from the Vedas itself. They believe that caste is determined my merit and actions of an individual and not birth. The idea of caste by birth came later. Discrimination against lower caste came later.

You have people from low caste backgrounds who have realised God, so how can it not be for them? There are low castes in Hindu sects and they are treated like other devotees. The problem of caste is a social problem and has to do with Hindu society and not Hindu religion.

 

 

3. Can one be a Hindu and not have to folow caste or believe in Brahmin supremacy? Growing up Hindu, I have never believed in caste and never believed Brahmins or upper caste to be higher than anyone. Growing up in the US, I never really knew that it was such a big part of my religion. I honestly believe that Brahmins have created this system to enslave others, which is evil.

 

 

Most Hindus I know of do not believe in Brahmin supremecy. The only Brahmins who get respect from educated Hindus are the true Brahmins. But it is true that some fake Brahmins still exploit ignorant memebers of the Hindu society to this day. Brahmins created the idea of Brahmin supremecy within the classical period of Hinduism and they're the only ones who believe it. That period is over and we move into a new age where the brahmins will have to prove their worth to Hindu society by their actions.

 

 

Lastly, I have read that Adi Shankaracharya was responsible for kicking Jains and Buddhists out of India and bringing back a reformed Hinduism. Is this true?

If Adi Shankaracharya was a great person who denounced caste and such, then why would he kick others out? How can we Hindus be tolerant of others when history shows we ave kicked every other religion out? Even today, with RSS and their nazi supremacy.

 

 

That is not to be taken literally. In History Jainism and Buddhism became so strong and powersfull, that Hinduism was on it's deathbed. It is believed that the majority of India was Buddhist back then (since the influence of Ashoka) and because the Buddhist had beaten Hindu scholars in debates and won the Hindu society over. Alot of Hindu's back then who remained Hindus became superstitious and followed many fasle holy men who led them astray.

However because the Buddhists ignored the idea of God, the usual questions were starting to frustrate their followers. So then Shankara comes along and revives the worship of God in forms as well as formless, revives Hindu society and successfully defeats Buddhist scholars and well as those of other Hindu schools in debates. Many came back to Hinduism because his teachings tend to 'overlap' Buddhist teachings, while still remaining Vedic. He also gave importance to rational thinking and logic. Shankara paved the way for the other Acharyas to come along and continue to revive Hinduism.

So Shankara didn't literally kick them out of India - where would he kick them out to? India was the country of their origin! It simply was because their religion couldn't stand up to Shankara's teachings and so died out, though there still are Jain and Buddhist communities in India. Some Indian sects that lacked a spiritual philosophy adopted his Advaita Vedanta, to give them a ground to stand on, even though they wern't in his line.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Shankara seems to have upheld the caste system, as there are statements in his commentaries such as "A shudra who hears the Vedas should have molten lead poured into his ears."

 

The caste system today is corrupted and needs to be thrown out. The original system Krishna speaks of in the Gita is based on one's quality, not based on one's birth:

 

catur-varnyam maya srstam

guna-karma-vibhagasah

tasya kartaram api mam

viddhy akartaram avyayam

"According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the nondoer, being unchangeable."

[Guest guest]

 

Shankara seems to have upheld the caste system, as there are statements in his commentaries such as "A shudra who hears the Vedas should have molten lead poured into his ears."

 

 

Really? That's news to me. Where in his commentaries does he say such a thing? That looks like a verse from Manu Smriti, which to me looks nonsensical. What is pouring molten lead into the ears of a shudra going to achieve? The only thing it would achieve is some more converts to Buddhism and bad karma for the brahmin who does this.

 

What I don't understand is how could Shankara hold such views when he was a follower of the Gita that is against caste-by-birth. The two views conflict. You can never imagine Sri Krishna saying that. Shankara saw the Gita and Upanishads to be more important than the Vedas.

 

How about the other Acharyas (e.g Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarkar)? Did they support or denounce caste system?

[Guest guest]

can jndas quote as to from which part of Shankara Bhashya, he extracted this quotation about shudras?

Beforeever forming any opinion that varnashrama dharma is ruined and obtaining any opinion in this regard from smarthas, could any efforts be made to obtain opinion of shrivaishnava and Madhva schools wherein also one would find similar opinion.

[Guest guest]

Every oppression on dalits allover India is perpetrated today by the so called intermediary castes. Newspapers are littered about these atrocities wherein one can never find the involvement of brahmins. Easier said that caste system should be thrown out. To the contrary,the current day aparthied system in India, aka , Quota system, induces every other caste to fight for including their caste under OBC/SC/ST. These same groups when it comes to Religion gives novel definition to varna and ashrama. In this neo movement one would interestingly find total wiping out of three varnas viz., Kshathriya, vysya and shudra. Here, again there is rat race to occupy the position of a brahmin although in their heart of hearts what they have against brahmins and brahminism is hatred. This sort of neo cults - one should understand that they are not relgious cult but social cults under religious mask.

[Yegan]

I have a sort of similar question regarding caste system. Below is my question from a previous post. Didnt get a convincing answer though.

 

Previous Post:

Hari Bol,

I have been reading some of the threads on this forum and have come across one which has shed some confusion in my mind.

As per his holiness Srila Prabhupada, caste is nature dependent and NOT birth dependent. So someone who is born in a sudra family for example can later do preaching and thus is a brahmin, independent of his family background.

Now what I cannot understand is if this is so, then why Dronocarya refuses to accept Karna as his disciple. To my knowledge Dronacarya refuses to accept Karna as his disciple because he thought the latter was from "sudra" family.

Karna blatantly has the nature of a warrior and as such Dronacarya should have accepted him as disciple, since caste is nature dependent.

Can anyone plz enlighten me on this issue. I am not well versed in Mahabaharat, my appologies if I made a wrong statement.

Jai Radhe

End post:

If Adi Shankara has indeed stated the following,

Shankara seems to have upheld the caste system, as there are statements in his commentaries such as "A shudra who hears the Vedas should have molten lead poured into his ears."

 

then his teachings are meant only for the brahmins.

[Guest guest]

 

Really? That's news to me. Where in his commentaries does he say such a thing? That looks like a verse from Manu Smriti, which to me looks nonsensical. What is pouring molten lead into the ears of a shudra going to achieve? The only thing it would achieve is some more converts to Buddhism and bad karma for the brahmin who does this.

 

Shankara quotes this verse about "pouring molten lead into the ears" from the Manu Smriti in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya. He also quotes the "Shudra is a walking crematorium verse". I cannot produce the sutra numbers now, but I have seen this commentary.

 

 

What I don't understand is how could Shankara hold such views when he was a follower of the Gita that is against caste-by-birth. The two views conflict. You can never imagine Sri Krishna saying that. Shankara saw the Gita and Upanishads to be more important than the Vedas.

 

The Gita does not say anywhere that caste is not by birth. The tradition is caste is by birth only. This is very clear and there is no room for ambiguity. Recently, some new organizations relying on foreign sources for income need to keep their benefactors happy by convincing them that caste is not by birth and an american can become a brahmana too, but this is not traditionally correct.

 

 

How about the other Acharyas (e.g Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarkar)? Did they support or denounce caste system?

 

Everyone is uniformly agreed that caste is by birth alone. No system exists by which a non-Brahmana can upgrade to a Brahmana.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

 

Everyone is uniformly agreed that caste is by birth alone. No system exists by which a non-Brahmana can upgrade to a Brahmana.

 

what about Hindus now being born in America and Canada. What caste are they? There is no caste by birth system in these countries.

[Guest guest]

 

what about Hindus now being born in America and Canada. What caste are they? There is no caste by birth system in these countries

 

The location of birth is immaterial. It is the lineage/origin that decides one's caste.

 

When I said american, I mean the non-Hindus. I use American as an example only because most of the money flows in from the US.

 

A Brahmana has to have a gotra and gotra defines the origin. As you can see, there is no way an organization in Varanasi can "convert" a mlechcha into a Brahmana in exchange for x dollars.

 

With recent culture changes bringing in inter-caste marriages, some Brahmanas marry non-Brahmanas. From what we see, in most cases, this will donwgrade the Brahmana into the class of the spouse rather than the other way around.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

What I don't understand is how could Shankara hold such views when he was a follower of the Gita that is against caste-by-birth.

 

What makes you conclude he is speaking about caste by birth?

 

Regarding Gita supporting caste by birth, as already cited above, Krishna speaks the opposite:

 

 

catur-varnyam maya srstam

guna-karma-vibhagasah

tasya kartaram api mam

viddhy akartaram avyayam

"According to qualities (guna) and the work associated with them (karma), the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the nondoer, being unchangeable."

 

If you have found a verse where Lord Krishna says "according to one's birth their caste is determined" then please post it. But it doesn't exist, so don't waste time looking for it.

[Guest guest]

 

Really? That's news to me. Where in his commentaries does he say such a thing? That looks like a verse from Manu Smriti, which to me looks nonsensical. What is pouring molten lead into the ears of a shudra going to achieve? The only thing it would achieve is some more converts to Buddhism and bad karma for the brahmin who does this.

 

Shankara quotes this in his commentary on sutra 1.3.38. He also quotes a bunch of other smriti which supports a similiar position.

 

We have Varnas and Ashramas.

 

It is no secret that the 4 varnas have been rigidly followed among the Brahmanas from time immemorial to the present day. Like I said before, a Brahmana has to be from Brahmana parents only and there is no other way. An example, is the eligibility for citizenship in the middle-east muslim countries (Unless your parents are citizens, you cannot be a citizen). You can consult authorities from Brahmana Sampradayas for more details on how the system works.

 

However, it has been acknowledged that people from all varnas are eligible for worship and final emancipation, except perhaps emancipation may not be available to all varnas in the Madhva Sampradaya.

 

Aside from Varnas, there are also Ashramas, which are the 4 stages in one's life, the last being Sanyasa. These Ashramas are available to one and all without discrimination (for the most part). So in theory, an American caucasian (Mlechcha) can get Sanyasa Diksha from a Brahmana Guru if the Guru considers the candidate to be competent enough. Tthis will not make the disciple a Brahmana as he still does not have a valid Gotra. But like I said above, it is not necessary to become a Brahmana to attain liberation.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

Some say he supports caste but when I read about him everywhere it says he is known for denouncing caste. This is confusing. I don't think he supported caste for some reason, I think Brahmins have twist strories and scriptures around to maintain their supremacy.

[Guest guest]

 

Aside from Varnas, there are also Ashramas, which are the 4 stages in one's life, the last being Sanyasa. These Ashramas are available to one and all without discrimination (for the most part). So in theory, an American caucasian (Mlechcha) can get Sanyasa Diksha from a Brahmana Guru if the Guru considers the candidate to be competent enough. Tthis will not make the disciple a Brahmana as he still does not have a valid Gotra. But like I said above, it is not necessary to become a Brahmana to attain liberation.

 

Cheers

 

Dear Shiv, thanks for adding this. For us Caucasian followers of eastern yoga systems, trying to obtain liberation, we do not know much about "Caste-politics" or what-not - we're just looking for spiritual progress and answers, and that's why we've turned to the eastern wisdom traditions.

[Guest guest]

 

Shankara quotes this verse about "pouring molten lead into the ears" from the Manu Smriti in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya. He also quotes the "Shudra is a walking crematorium verse". I cannot produce the sutra numbers now, but I have seen this commentary.

 

 

So therefore are we as proper Hindus supposed to believe this nonsense? That a Brahmin is supposed to pour molten lead into the ears of a shudra if he hears the Vedas? This is worse than Islam! Do Smartas or Brahmins nowadays actually believe this?

 

I find it hard to believe that Shankara was like that, because his followers have made him out to be a rationalistic dynamic Hindu reformer who saw everyone as equals. So basically they are liars. I wonder how many of these Hindu groups are liars. This picture of Shankara being painted is therefore far from the truth? Shankara really wasn't that great after all?

 

If this was true, then westerners have it good, as they can practice Hindu spirituality without worrying about this caste business. Non-brahmin Hindu's especially the lower castes and untouchables are doomed.

 

 

The Gita does not say anywhere that caste is not by birth. The tradition is caste is by birth only. This is very clear and there is no room for ambiguity. Recently, some new organizations relying on foreign sources for income need to keep their benefactors happy by convincing them that caste is not by birth and an american can become a brahmana too, but this is not traditionally correct.

 

 

According to many scholars of the Gita they would disagree with you. The 'tradition' of caste by birth may have been there for some time, but it according to scholars the early Vedic religion wasn't so rigid until it turned into Brahminism. Because something was practiced as 'tradition' for some time, it doesn't make it true. 'Traditionally' there were alot of things in Hinduism that are now not followed at all or very little or at least outlawed such as Sati, Ashwamedha Yajna, Animal Sacrifice, etc.

 

 

Everyone is uniformly agreed that caste is by birth alone. No system exists by which a non-Brahmana can upgrade to a Brahmana.

 

 

No I don't think so. We know many of the groups you'd like to refer to as neo-Vedantists don't believe in that, nor do modern Hindu groups derived from the Smartas. The Gaudiya Vaishnavas don't believe in that nor do Arya Samaj and both have systems where a non-brahmana can become a brahmana.

 

I still wonder what the other Acharyas made out of the caste-by-birth thing and whether they discriminated against other castes?

[Guest guest]

 

So therefore are we as proper Hindus supposed to believe this nonsense? That a Brahmin is supposed to pour molten lead into the ears of a shudra if he hears the Vedas? This is worse than Islam! Do Smartas or Brahmins nowadays actually believe this?

 

Valid questions.

 

It is a fact that we have verses on cutting off a Shudra's tongue, pouring lead into his ears, etc., in Smriti like Gautamiya Dharma Shastra, Manu Smriti, etc. The specific context is about barring the study of Vedas by Shudras.

 

Shankara quotes these verses to reaffirm the ineligibility of Shudras to study Vedas. This has been the traditional view right from the days of Jabala Upanishad (Atharvana Veda) till now.

 

I cannot speak for everyone and so this is my opinion (also shared by some others).

 

1. These harsh threats against Shudras are found only in Smriti and not in Shruti.

 

2. They are more to discourage Shudras from entering Brahmana territory. The Study of Vedas were traditionally their strong-hold and these Smritis were written by them to protect their legacy.

 

3. Until the time of Ashoka, this was a non-issue. The Brahmanas were not threatened by Shudras in any way and so it was not necessary for them to write threats about cutting off tongues.

 

3. These Smriti works are post Ashoka. Ashoka himself was from a lowly caste and a Buddhist who actively supported the religion. During his time, Shudras who coverted over to Buddhism held high positions which until that time were reserved for Brahmanas. Under royal patronage, Buddhism began to gain popularity and became a redoubtable rival to the religion of the Brahmanas. Many see such Smriti works and also portions of the Puranic literature as a back lash against the rising power of Buddhism. The origin of the Kalki character is also attributed to these troubled times. Just like the oppressed Jews created a savior who would redeem them from their troubles, the Brahmanas created a Kalki who would reinstate them to their past position of power and glory.

 

4. Was molten lead poured into any Shudras ears at any time? It is highly doubtful. These Smriti are more wish lists of certain individuals than actual ways of life. The author imagined his own ideal (read twisted) society which he wrote down. The ideas were never translated ino real life.

 

Shankara may be called a reformer for making Vedanta a popular religious system as for many centuries before his time, the vedanta religion held a low profile relative to Buddhism which was creating waves by brilliant authors like Nagarjuna, etc. Hindus love such revolutions.

 

But if people are under the impression that he worked to abolish the caste system, then that is not correct. Efforts to abolish caste system are mostly politically driven and started after India became a British colony.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

 

According to many scholars of the Gita they would disagree with you. The 'tradition' of caste by birth may have been there for some time, but it according to scholars the early Vedic religion wasn't so rigid until it turned into Brahminism.

 

Brahmanism is the religion of the vedas. They received the mantras, maintained them for 1000s of years and created all the auxillary literature.

 

The Gita is not a one-stop-shop for answers as some people make it out to be. Any interpretation of the Gita which conflicts with other mainstream sources + what is noticed in real life is obviously incorrect. Besides, the Gita only clarifies the characterestics of the varnas. A statement that a Brahmana will possess characeterestic M cannot be taken to mean that anyone who possesses characterestic M is a Brahmana.

 

You should read the incident of Satyakama Jabala from the Jabala Upanishad. There is no doubt that a Brahmana has to have a valid gotra (ancestry). Arya Samaj cannot provide a convert with a Gotra for it has no meaning then.

 

 

Because something was practiced as 'tradition' for some time, it doesn't make it true. 'Traditionally' there were alot of things in Hinduism that are now not followed at all or very little or at least outlawed such as Sati, Ashwamedha Yajna, Animal Sacrifice, etc

 

Ashwamedha Yaga can be performed even now except time have changed and there is no king who has the ability to perform one. It has not been outlawed. Sati is not a traditional system and was picked by some sections of the society much later.

 

I will give you animal sacrifice. This system which was practised by Brahmanas in vedic times has now been outlawed.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

A mistake above. Please read Chandogya Upanishad in place of Jabala upanishad.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

Shiv u were partly correct and partly incorrect. Ashwameda Yagnya is banned in kali yuga. But opinions differ as to performance Yagnyas with animal sacrifice. In parashara smruthi it has been sanctioned that as long as there is varna vyavastha ( that is ofcourse a varna vyavastha by birth) performance of certain yagnyas with animal sacrifice is allowed. even today yagnyas are performed with "aja pashu" - "Goat" as the animal sacrificed in yagnya. Varnasharam is Dharma. Caste is politics. There is - there was - there would be pulls and counter pulls against Caste politics - But caste would remain - that too birth based castes would remain - atleast for the benefit of enjoying quota raj - for another thousand years. Brahmins performing their rituals depending upon the kaala desha varthamaana - would also continue - atleast for a few lakhs of years - this i am telling as ordained by puraanas. - After all this is only prathama paada of kali. Only in chathurtha paada it is expected that things would go in total disarray. And all the hullobullo about brahmin hatred would also be continued by intermediary castes - who have no locus standi with varnashrama - but who enjoy oppressing the so called low castes.

[Guest guest]

 

Valid questions.

 

It is a fact that we have verses on cutting off a Shudra's tongue, pouring lead into his ears, etc., in Smriti like Gautamiya Dharma Shastra, Manu Smriti, etc. The specific context is about barring the study of Vedas by Shudras.

 

Shankara quotes these verses to reaffirm the ineligibility of Shudras to study Vedas. This has been the traditional view right from the days of Jabala Upanishad (Atharvana Veda) till now.

 

I cannot speak for everyone and so this is my opinion (also shared by some others).

 

1. These harsh threats against Shudras are found only in Smriti and not in Shruti.

 

2. They are more to discourage Shudras from entering Brahmana territory. The Study of Vedas were traditionally their strong-hold and these Smritis were written by them to protect their legacy.

 

3. Until the time of Ashoka, this was a non-issue. The Brahmanas were not threatened by Shudras in any way and so it was not necessary for them to write threats about cutting off tongues.

 

3. These Smriti works are post Ashoka. Ashoka himself was from a lowly caste and a Buddhist who actively supported the religion. During his time, Shudras who coverted over to Buddhism held high positions which until that time were reserved for Brahmanas. Under royal patronage, Buddhism began to gain popularity and became a redoubtable rival to the religion of the Brahmanas. Many see such Smriti works and also portions of the Puranic literature as a back lash against the rising power of Buddhism. The origin of the Kalki character is also attributed to these troubled times. Just like the oppressed Jews created a savior who would redeem them from their troubles, the Brahmanas created a Kalki who would reinstate them to their past position of power and glory.

 

4. Was molten lead poured into any Shudras ears at any time? It is highly doubtful. These Smriti are more wish lists of certain individuals than actual ways of life. The author imagined his own ideal (read twisted) society which he wrote down. The ideas were never translated ino real life.

 

Shankara may be called a reformer for making Vedanta a popular religious system as for many centuries before his time, the vedanta religion held a low profile relative to Buddhism which was creating waves by brilliant authors like Nagarjuna, etc. Hindus love such revolutions.

 

But if people are under the impression that he worked to abolish the caste system, then that is not correct. Efforts to abolish caste system are mostly politically driven and started after India became a British colony.

 

Cheers

 

Everyone must learn the original and pure vedic religion does not have this discrimination and coldheartedness. This discrimination is a byproduct of the Kali Yuga, which has been going on for 5,000 yrs now. Please any westerners reading this who may be curious about Hinduism, do not be discouraged to seek out a vedic tradition because of a few, tired old bigoted religious leaders. Such are fake men of God. True men of God have love and compassion for all who come to them for spiritual advancement. They would never dream of turning someone away because he was a janitor or of a certain race. There are plenty of qualified, and compassionate gurus who will initiate you and instruct you in the vedas, and help you spiritually.

[Guest guest]

 

It is a fact that we have verses on cutting off a Shudra's tongue, pouring lead into his ears, etc., in Smriti like Gautamiya Dharma Shastra, Manu Smriti, etc. The specific context is about barring the study of Vedas by Shudras.

 

 

I wonder why this was such an issue? Were the Shudras a different race or very dark skinned or were they poor unhygenic people with bad health who did menial jobs? Why was there was no thought from the Brahmins for thousands of years to help them out?

 

 

Shankara quotes these verses to reaffirm the ineligibility of Shudras to study Vedas.

 

 

He must be very angry with the neo-vedantists nowadays that teach his philosophy to people from all castes and backgrounds.

 

 

3. Until the time of Ashoka, this was a non-issue. The Brahmanas were not threatened by Shudras in any way and so it was not necessary for them to write threats about cutting off tongues.

These Smriti works are post Ashoka. Ashoka himself was from a lowly caste and a Buddhist who actively supported the religion. During his time, Shudras who coverted over to Buddhism held high positions which until that time were reserved for Brahmanas. Under royal patronage, Buddhism began to gain popularity and became a redoubtable rival to the religion of the Brahmanas.

 

 

Interesting. Ashoka's grandfather was Chandragupta Maurya, one of the greatest emperors in India's (true) history. He was apparently low-caste and was friends with Chankayka (a Brahmin). Is this not strange that they were friends and worked together in this period when Shudras were not a threat to Brahmins but were accepted as kings in India? Isn't the role of Chandragupta, the role of a Ksatriya, even though he was Shudra by birth? This proves the caste system of later was silly as the life of Chandragupta shows how successful a person not born a Ksatriya was in the life of a Ksatriya. Both Chandragupta and Asoka were Hindus for most of their professional-lives, but both converted to Jainism and Buddhism respectively later on. Maybe they had enough of Brahmins telling them what to do.

 

I heard there was many inter-caste marriages during this period. So many Hindus today are probably inter-caste.

 

 

4. Was molten lead poured into any Shudras ears at any time? It is highly doubtful. These Smriti are more wish lists of certain individuals than actual ways of life. The author imagined his own ideal (read twisted) society which he wrote down. The ideas were never translated ino real life.

 

 

But there still is caste-oppression in India.

 

Shankara may be called a reformer for making Vedanta a popular religious system as for many centuries before his time, the vedanta religion held a low profile relative to Buddhism which was creating waves by brilliant authors like Nagarjuna, etc. Hindus love such revolutions.

 

 

But how did Shankara defeat Buddhists who had opened the door to the shudras, only to have Shankara win over most of India and slam the door shut in the face of the shudras again? It would've been hard for a country with an open philosophy to become a restrictive philosophy after so long.

 

 

But if people are under the impression that he worked to abolish the caste system, then that is not correct. Efforts to abolish caste system are mostly politically driven and started after India became a British colony.

 

 

I think reformers such Sri Chaitanya did their bit before the British ruled. What I've heard of Shankara was that he denounced caste. According to Wikipedia he called caste and meaningless rituals as "foolish". Shankara did break alot of Brahmin rules like performing the funeral rites of his mother, while he was an ascetic.

[Guest guest]

Neo-Vedantists (so-called) are true men of God, if they open their arms to help all spiritual seekers. What kind of men of God shut the door to the Kingdom to would be seekers? This is asuric behaviour at it's worst.

 

Buddhism has always been appealing because of it's love and compassion for all beings. There is no discrimination of any caste in Lord Buddha's teachings. Bodhisattvas are said to long for the enlightenment of all. True spiritual men of the vedic tradition, do as well.

[Guest guest]

Although study of Vedas was restricted to Brahmanas, there existed other literature for non-Brahmanas such as Puranas and other stories to learn about these topics. That way, knowledge was never really restricted. At some point for some mysterious reason, the Veda mantras became a closed canon and could not be edited or added to anymore. This closed canon became the legacy of the Brahmanas and has been guarded this way until now. If Shankara lived now and still stuck to those obsolete ideas, then he would rightfully be an idiot. But he lived in a different time when the varna system along with its rules and restrictions was to be religiously followed. The same applies to Madhva well. In their time, their ideas were in line with the prevailing conditions.

 

What is the origin of the Shudras? It may have probably started by color or occupation. Till the last couple of centuries, occupations and crafts continued in a family - the son would follow his dad's profession.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

In parashara smruthi it has been sanctioned that as long as there is varna vyavastha ( that is ofcourse a varna vyavastha by birth) performance of certain yagnyas with animal sacrifice is allowed.

Along with ashvamedha and gomedha yajnas, the pitru yajna (which is the primary Vedic yajna involving animal flesh) is also forbidden in Kali yuga:

 

asvamedham gavalambham

sannyasam pala-paitrikam

devarena sutotpattim

kalau panca vivarjayet

"In this age of Kali, five acts are forbidden: offering a horse in sacrifice, offering a cow in sacrifice, accepting the order of sannyasa, offering oblations of flesh to the forefathers, and begetting children in the wife of one's brother."

 

The Gita is not a one-stop-shop for answers as some people make it out to be.

The Gita is in perfect harmony with all Vedic literatures, and all Acharya's have accepted it as such, including Shankara (ekam shastram devaki putra-gitam).