Varna determination and who trains

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

> In my humble opinion, you are completely off base with this thinking in

> context to Srila Prabhupada's morning walk conversations on varnasrama.

>

 

One doesn't even need to read your selection of "cut-out&paste-on"

quotes from morning walk conversations in order to understand

that what the whole world knows since its existence: If you need

to get trained into some occupation, then go to someone who is

himself an expert in it already, a professional guy. And if you

need the spiritual guidance, then find a guru (not the kind of

guru who teaches you how to make shoes, or fix the broken bones,

if you know what I mean).

 

Look, I certainly am not oposing to Srila Prabhupada that

brahmanas' occupational duty is to be teachers (besides

other duties). But when it comes down to the people's

individual training into performance of particula jobs,

then people don't got to have a brahmana to personally

train them there. One of your posted Prabhupada's quotes

goes:

 

 

"Brahmanas generally used to become astrologers, Ayur-Vedic physicians,

teachers and priests." C.C. Adi 17.103-4

 

 

"Teacher" here is a profession for itself. An academic

occupation. There are plumbers, there are formula 1 drivers,

and there are physicians, and there are teachers. Now you

got to explore this simple appearance of the word "teacher"

in the above quote up to extent to "prove" how plumbers

got to get trained by brahmanas into connecting the water

pipes.

 

And Dhronacarya was the example of an *exception*. All military

men (ksatriyas) get generally trained by another experienced

military men (ksatriya). Not by brahmanas (though, as

Prabhupada said it, if needed they will step in and do it)

And all vaisyas get the business training from the experienced

vaisyas. It is not that Mr. Brahmana got to come to

Mr. Gangaprasad's shop to train his sons how to sell saris

and curtas to ISCKON devotees (if you have ever been in

Vrindavan and visited "Gangaprasad" or "Dinesh" or any

of those shop-keepers, you will certainly get my point).

 

I don't know if there is any sense to pursue this anymore.

 

 

 

> I think mostly you just disagree for the sake of disagreeing, though. "If

> its Janesvara talking it must be wrong".

 

 

Sure. What else. The one who questiones and disagrees with your

statements here, must be mostly having no other base for it but

the above one.

 

 

 

 

ys mnnd