Guest guest Posted November 22, 2006 Report Share Posted November 22, 2006 Hare Krishna, > Sri Anant Shenoy's view is in fact upheld by most of the modern > Srivaishnavas, who enthusiastically support birth based brahmanahood and > deny veda-adhikara to all those borne in lower castes. But a few in private > do hold the view that present day Iyengars have a mixed origin. But the > theory wherever stated definitely differentiate varNa and jati. > I reproduce > some sections from a publication 'RAMANUJA DARSHANAM': 1. Please note that such online publications may not necessarily be the traditional position of the sampradAya itself, as you may have experienced even within Gaudiya sampradaya. It is remarkable that in this article, there is not a single quote provided from any of the purvacharyas' works in the Ramanuja tradition that birth does not determine one's varNa. The only quote provided is that people of all varNas are allowed to become great devotees of the Lord, which no one disputes in any case. 2. Even giving the article consideration for whatever is written in it, it is quite disappointing and does not shed any light on the issue. Rather, in the name of supplying proof from the Gita, it ends up contradicting the Gita by saying that jAti is based on birth but varNa is not. Consider the first chapter of the Gita itself. Arjuna says that by the pollution of women, there will be "varNa- sa~Nkara" [which means "mixing of varNas"]. As I have pointed in my reply to Krishna Susharla-ji, Bhishma elaborates on the topic of varNa-sa~Nkara by enumerating the different types of sa~Nkara, all resulting when a woman in one varNa marries a man in another forbidden varNa. (such as a shudra man marrying a brahmana woman, etc) This section points clearly to the birth-based determination of varNa. This is further corroborated by Arjuna a few verses later where he says that the result of varNa-sa~Nkara is that jAti-dharma and kula- dharma get destroyed. The word "jAti-dharma" has been interpreted as follows: 1. Sridhar Svami says jAti-dharma = varNa-dharma 2. Baladeva Vidyabhushana says jAti-dharma = xatriya-Adi-dharma (in other words, varNa dharma) 3. Madhusudana Saraswati says jAti-dharma is xatriya-Adi-varNa- dharma. 4. Raghavendra Swami says jAti-dharma is xatriyatva-Adi-dharma Thus, all the commentators that have explained this word (across different schools) have equated it with varNa-dharma. Thus, to say that jAti is birth-based but varNa isn't is baseless for they are equated in the Gita by even the Gaudiya commentators. > *Answer: *We have instances from p*urAnas *of many who were not born > > from *Brahmin *parents actually teaching Brahmins and Kshatriyas. For > > example, Sri Vedavyasa was the one who actually compiled 4 Vedas. But > > he was not born to *Brahmin *parents Again, I don't see the point of wasting time quoting the same old statements with the same old mistakes. > > At first, the people had more or less a right to choose over their *Varna* > > based on their *karmas *and their interests. However, over time, fathers > > began to expect their sons to take over the duties of their specific > calling. As usual, no evidence given for the above statement that at first, people chose their own varna. There cannot be, because there was a birth-based system as Mahabharata depicts clearly. > *Answer: *The root for *jAti *is '*jan*', which means birth. It might have > > happened that due to a continual devolution of one's father's duty to his > > son over many years, Varna became confused with jAti and we know > > where we are now. Mere speculation with no evidence (and lot of evidence that refutes this, even from the Gita), sadly passed of as "Ramanuja Darshanam". Yours, Anant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2006 Report Share Posted November 27, 2006 Ram Ram pranam The following are the slokas of Vajrasucika Upanisad 3 - 9. If someone says A particular person is a brahmana because he is a brahmana spirit soul" then the scripture replies No That is not so The soul remains the same even though because of karma it transmigrates into many different kinds of material bodies Therefore it is not that certain spirit souls are brahmanas by nature and others are not." If someone says A particular person is a brahmana because he has the body of a brahmana,¢ then the scripture replies No That is not so All classes of human beings down to the lowest outcaste have the same kind of material body made of five material elements and subject to old age death and other changes in exactly the same ways Neither is it true that brahmanas have fair complexions ksatriyas ruddy complexions vaisyas yellou complexions, and sudras darë complexions Therefore there is no such thing as a brahmana body It is not the body that is a brahmana." If someone says One becomes a brahmana by taking birth in a brahmana family,¢ then the scripture replies No That is not so A brahmana may be born in any kind of family Indeed many great brahmana sages were not born from brahmanas Rsyasrnga Muni was born from a doe Kausika Muni was born from kusa grass Jambuka Muni was born from a jackal Valmiki Muni was born from an anti-hill Vyasa Muni was born from a fisherman's daughter Gautama Muni was born from the side of a rabbit Vasistha Muni was born from Urvasi Agastya Muni was born from a pot of water All this is described in the Sruti-sastra Thus many great brahmana sages although not born in brahmana families are accepted as great brahmanas because of their spiritual wisdom Therefore it is not birth in a brahmana family that makes one a brahmana." If someone says A particular person is a brahmana because he has knowledge,¢ then the scripture replies No That is not so Many ksatriyas and others have true knowledge and understand the final goal of life but they are still not brahmanas Therefore it is not knowledge alone that makes one a brahmana." If someone says A particular person is a brahmana because he performs his prescribed duties,¢ then the scripture replies No That is not so Many pious living entities alike perform the prescribed duties resulting from their previous karma but that does not make them all brahmanas Therefore it is not performance of prescribed duties that makes one a brahmana." If someone says A particular person is a brahmana because he performs pious deeds,¢ then the scripture replies No That is not so Many ksatriyas and others gave gold in charity and performed many pious deeds but that did not make them brahmanas Therefore pious deeds alone do not make one a brahmana." Then someone may ask Who is a brahmana then?¢ The scriptures answer A brahmana directly sees the Supreme Personality of Godhead who has no rival who is never born never touched by the modes of material nature and never trapped in material actions who is free of the siø material waves and the siø material states of being who is free of all defects whose form is eternal limitless and full of knowledge and bliss who is free of material dualities who is the resting place of all that exists who is the Supersoul residing in the hearts of all living beings who is everywhere within and without everything like the great sky who is a loom on which everything is woven whose bliss never ends who is invisible who is seen only by His own consent and who voluntarily appears before His devotees and becomes like a walnut grasped in their hands Also a brahmana is free of lust attachment and other vices is endowed with peacefulness self-control and other virtues is free of envy hankering illusion and other defects and has a heart untouched by pride and false ego The Sruti Smrti Puranas and Itihasas declare that such a person is a brahmana A person who does not have these qualities cannot be a brahmana A brahmana always meditates on the Supreme Personality of Godhead who has no rival and is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss A brahmana always meditates on the Supreme Personality of Godhead who is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss Thus the Upanisad is spoken. ard Cheap Talk? Check out Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 Ram Ram pranam Here are some quotes related to the topic: "sugasya tadanadara-sravanat sucyate hi" nasau pautrayanah sudrah sucad-bravanam eva hi suda tvam raja pautrayanah sokac-chudroti muninoditah prana-vidyam-avapyasmat param dharma-vaptavan The following story is from the Chandogya Upanisad (Saavarga-vidya 4): There was a great king named Janasruti Pautrayara, who was famous for his good works. Two rsis wanted to create a desire for spiritual knowledge in his heart and they took the form of swans to accomplish this. One of them praised the king while the other contemptously accused him of lacking spiritual knowl- edge. The swan then praised the sage Raikva for being very learned. Upon hearing this the king was smitten with grief and approached the sage Raikva with presents seeking spiritual knowledge from him. Raikva twice addressed the king sudra. "O Sudra, you have brought all these presents, and now you want me to instruct you?" Thereafter, Raikva taught him the spiritual science. The Brahma-sutra says: "Raikva addressed Janasruti Pautrayana as sudra because Pautrayana was overwhelmed with sorrow." The use of the word sudra in this verse does not mean that Janasruti was a sudra at birth, but that he was lamenting. The purport is that those who are overwhelmed by lamentation are known as sudras. It is written in the Padma-Purana that King Pautrayana was a ksatriya and that because of his lamentation, Raikva Muni called him a sudra. [The word sudra, therefore, means "one who laments."] Later, Pautrayana gained knowledge of the ultimate goal of life and the supreme religion from Raikva. (Brahma-sutra 1.3.34) Madhvacarya's Commentary, Quoting from Padma-Purana 14.48 "ksatriyatvavagates ca uttaratra caitra-rathena lingat" bhasye: "ayam asvatariratha iti citraratha samvandhinitvena lingena pautrayanasya ksatriyatvavagates ca rathastvasvatariyuktascitra ityabhidhiyate iti brahme yatra vedo rathas tatra na vedo yatra no ratha iti ca brahma-vaivarte" The Brahma-sutra says: "That Janasruti was ksatriya and not a sudra is understood from the rest of the story, where he is described along with a ksatriya, Abhipratmrin, who was a Caitra-ratha." [because Janasruti was a ksatriya and not a sudra by quality, he was fit for hearing spiritual knowledge from Raikva Muni, who would not have instructed him if he actuallly was a sudra. The pur- pose of Raikva Muni's calling him a sudra was simply to illustrate that constant lamentation is the quality of a sudra, and that if he were to instruct Janasruti, the king would have to rid himself of the tendency toward lamentation. That Raikva did instruct Janasruti is proof that the king freed himself from the ten- dency, and was not a sudra, but was qualified to study the Vedas. Those who have the qualities of sudras are forbidden to study the Vedas because they will pervert the meaning of the Vedas.] The whole point is that one may know a person's varna from his qualities. ard Access over 1 million songs - Music Unlimited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2006 Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 PAMHO Hare Krishna Ambassador O P Gupta, IFS, lists out the following shUdras seen in Vedas (source http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13167991 ) (i) Risi Kavas Ilusu was revealed Suktas (X.30) (X.31) (X.32) and (X.33) of Rigveda and sloka 453 of Samveda. Risi Ilusu Aksova mojvan was revealed Sukta (X.34) of Rigveda. Both, under current Manusmriti definition were sudra. (ii) In Tandya Brahman (14.66) risi Vatsa has been called a sudra-putra. Revelations to risi Vatsa are there in Rigveda, (VIII.6) (VIII.11), Samveda (8,20,137,143, etc) and Yaj (IV.16-36), (VII.40), (XXVI.15). (iii) Risi Kaksivat was son of risi Dirghatamas by a sudra maid servant (Brihaddevata IV.24.25). Risi Kaksivat was revealed many richas in RV (I.119to 125). (iv) Maharisi Vedvyas compiled all richas into four Vedas in the format currently available. He also composed Mahabharat, Shrimad Bhagwat Gita and all the Puranas. He was born to Satyawati daughter of a fisherman by risi Parasar. He was of dark complexion (Krishna Dwaipayan). Thus, as per Manusmriti definition, he was a dalit Hindu/Varna-sankar by birth. As we know, Kauravas and Pandavas were descendants of this Satyawati through Vedvyasa. But, Kauravas and Pandavas are accepted as Kshatriyas not on basis of birth but on the basis of their occupations (as rulers/kings). (v) Maharishi Mahidasa Aitereya, a Maharastrian Sudra (perhaps a Mahar), composed Aitereya Brahman and chapters I, II & III of Aitereya Aryanaka. His mother was a maid named Itara. T.Harikrishnan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Shri Anant wrote: >In all the above cases, family history is considered in determining >varNa. And I see a glaring omission of Baladeva's comments on >Vidura - is there any reason you didn't try to explain that? shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa says: "Some souls, such as Vidura and others, although born as shUdras, become elevated by their attainment of perfect transcendental knowledge. By hearing and understanding the PurANas and other transcendental literatures, shUdras and others can become liberated. The only real classes of higher and lower among men are determined by the final result of their lives." But as shrIla Prabhupada explains: "Vidura, born in the womb of a sudra mother, was forbidden even to be a party of royal heritage along with his brothers Dhrtarastra and Pandu. Then how could he occupy the post of a preacher to instruct such learned...? Answer is that even though it is accepted that he was a sudra by birth, because he renounced the world for spiritual enlightenment by the authority of Rsi Maitreya and was thoroughly educated by him in transcendental knowledge, he was quite competent to occupy the post of an acarya or spiritual preceptor." Vidura was a sudra, born sudra. Then how he became a preacher? So the reason is... "According to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, anyone who is conversant in the transcendental knowledge or the science of Godhead, be he a brahmana or sudra, a householder or a sannyasi, is eligible to become a spiritual master." Not that because he was born a sudra, he cannot preach, he cannot take the post of acarya or spiritual master. "That is not Caitanya philosophy. Caitanya philosophy has nothing to do with this body, external body. Caitanya philosophy is concerned with the soul. This movement is the movement of elevating the soul, saving the soul from degradation. Therefore people sometimes are surprised. The bodily concept of life, the same activities will be karma. And on the platform of spiritual life, the same karma will be bhakti. Same karma will be bhakti. So bhakti is not inactivity. Bhakti is all active. Yat karosi yaj juhosi yad asnasi yat tapasyasi kurusva tad mad-arpanam. This is bhakti, bhakti-yoga. Krsna says to everyone, "If you cannot give up your karma, then that's all right. But the result of your karma, give to Me. Then it will be bhakti." ......... "The conclusion is that Vidura was never a sudra, but was greater than the purest type of brahmana." (as seen in http://iskcon.krishna.org/Articles/2000/08/00092.html ) He remained a shUdra for a part of his stay in earth, during which he was not qualified for learning Veda, but later ".... by the authority of Rsi Maitreya and was thoroughly educated by him in transcendental knowledge, he was quite competent to occupy the post of an acarya or spiritual preceptor" This was Vidhura's second birth. T.Harikrishnan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 Hare Krishna PAMHO Avadhuta Raya Prabhu has opined that: >Now, in Kali yuga everybody is born as a sudra but by the pancaratriki system of >purification (not the Vaidic) one can become elevated to sattva guna where >proper understanding of Vedic wisdom becomes clear. The stage of being one step >to God realization. 1. "Pañcaratra is a pre-Puranic form of Hinduism, which equated Narayana with Vishnu. They later merged with the Bhagavata and evolved into present-day Vaisnavism." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancaratra ). Pancharatriki system is commonly understood as a simpler form of worship of the Supreme, as compared to vedic system. Purification processes are also included here. Even though most Gaudiaya brahmanas do not study vedas, it is not due to absence of Vedadhikara, rather it is due to the fact that vedic system is considered not suitable for this age of Kali. But it can be argued by orthodox brahmanas that pancaratriki system being outside the vedic system cannot bestow vedadhikara to anyone. 2. Purification by Vedic system could also be possible for everyone including those borne of Shudra parents. Here are some (quite extensive) quotes from the book "WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS? by Dr B.R. Ambedkar (http://www.dr-ambedkar.com/writings/38A.%20Who%20were%20the%20Shudras%20Preface.htm) "The Dharma Sutras say that a Shudra is not entitled to the Upanayana ceremony and the wearing of the sacred thread. But in Samskara Ganapati there is an express provision declaring the Shudra to be eligible for Upanayana." "The Dharma Sutras say that a Shudra has no right to perform Vedic ceremonies and sacrifices. But Jaimini, the author of the Purva Mimarnsa mentions an ancient teacher by name Badari— whose work is lost— as an exponent of the contrary view that even Shudras could perform Vedic sacrifices. The Bharadvaja Srauta Sutra (v.28) admits that there exists another school of thought which holds that a Shudra can consecrate the three sacred fires necessary for the performance of a Vedic sacrifice. Similarly, the commentator of the Katyayana Srauta Sutra (1.4.16) admits that there are certain Vedic texts which lead to the inference that the Shudra was eligible to perform Vedic rites." "The Dharma Sutras say that a Shudra is not entitled to the sacred drink of Soma. But in the story of the Ashvins, there is definite evidence that the Shudra had a right to the divine drink of Soma. The Ashvins, as the story goes, once happened to behold Sukanya when she had just bathed and when her person was bare. She was a young girl married to a Rishi by name Chyavana who at the time of marriage was so old as to be dying almost any day. The Ashvins were captivated by the beauty of Sukanya and said "Accept one of us for your husband. It behoveth thee not to spend thy youth fruitlessly." She refused, saying "I am devoted to my husband." They again spoke to her and this time proposed a bargain: "We two are the celestial physicians of note. We will make thy husband young and graceful. Do thou then select one of us as thy husband." She went to her husband and communicated to him the terms of the bargain. Chyavana said to Sukanya "Do thou so"; and the bargain was carried out and Chyavana was made a young man by the Ashvins. Subsequently, a question arose whether the Ashvins were entitled to Soma, which was the drink of the Gods. Indra objected saying that the Ashvins were Shudras and therefore not entitled to Soma. Chyavana, who had received perpetual youth from the Ashvins, set aside the contention and compelled Indra to give them Soma." "It is, however, interesting to refer to the view of Prof. Weber when he comments on the passage from the Satapatha Brahmana (i.1.4.12) where it says that different modes of address should be adopted inviting the sacrificer to proceed with the sacrifice, addressing him as 'come' if he is a Brahmin, 'hasten hither' if he is a Kshatriya, 'hasten hither' if he is a Vaishya and 'run hither' if he is a Shudra. Prof.Weber says : "The entire passage is of great importance, as it shows (in opposition to what Roth says in the first Volume of this Journal, p. 83) that the Shudras were then admitted to the holy sacrifices of the Aryans, and understood their speech, even if they did not speak it. The latter point cannot certainly be assumed as a necessary consequence, but it is highly probable and I consequently incline to the view of those who regard the Shudras as an Aryan tribe which immigrated into India before the others."" " To assume, as the objection does, that from the very beginning the Aryan Society treated its different classes differently in the matter of Upanayana is to my mind a very unnatural supposition. Primitive society does not begin with differentiation. It begins with uniformity and ends in diversity. The natural thing would be to suppose that in the matter of the Upanayana the ancient Aryan society treated all its classes on the same footing. It may however be argued, on the other side, that such an original tendency in favour of uniformity need not be accepted as being universal, that it may well be that in the ancient Aryan society the Shudras and the women were excluded from Upanayana. Fortunately for me, it is not necessary for me to rely on logic alone though I contend that logic is on my side. For there is ample evidence both circumstantial as well as direct to show that both Shudras as well as women had at one time the right to wear the sacred thread." "That the ancient Aryan society regarded Upanayana as essential for all will be evident if the following facts are borne in mind. Upanayana was allowed for the deaf, the dumb, the idiot and even the impotent. A special procedure was prescribed for the Upanayana of the deaf and dumb and idiots. The principal points in which their Upanayana differs from that of others are that the offering of Samidh, treading on a stone, putting on a garment, the tying of mekhala, the giving of deer skin and staff are done silently, that the boy does not mention his name, it is the achary a himself who makes offering of cooked food or of clarified butter, all the mantras are muttered softly by the achary a himself. The same procedure is followed as to other persons who are impotent, blind, lunatic, suffering from such diseases as epilepsy, white leprosy or black leprosy, etc. The six anuloma castes were also eligible for Upanayana; this is clear from the rules [f21] for the Upanayana of Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and of mixed castes like Rathakara, Ambashtha, etc, Upanayana was permitted to Patitasavitrikas. The proper age for the Upanayana of a Brahman boy was 8th year from birth, of a Kshatriya 11th year and of a Vaishya 12th year. But a certain latitude was allowed so that the time for Upanayana was not deemed to have passed upon the 16th, the 22nd and the 24th year in the case of Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas respectively. After these years are passed without Upanayana taking place, a person was held to have become incompetent thereafter for learning the Savitri (the sacred Gayatri verse). Such persons were then called Patitasavitrika or savitripatita. According to the strict interpretation of rules, no Upanayana is to be thereafter performed for them, they are not to be taught the Veda, nor is anyone to officiate at their sacrifices and there is to be no social intercourse with them (i.e., no marriage takes place with them). But even in their case, there was readiness to relax the rules [f22] subject to certain penances. Upanayana was permitted in the case of Brahmaghnas. A Brahmaghna is a person whose father or grandfather had failed to perform Upanayana. The original rule [f23] was that if a person's father and grandfather also had not the Upanayana performed for them then they (i.e., the three generations) are called slayers of brahma (holy prayers or lore); people should have no intercourse with them, should not take their food nor should enter into marriage alliance with them. But even in their case the rule was relaxed and they were allowed Upanayana if they desired, provided they performed the prescribed penance. A further relaxation was made in the case of a person whose generation beginning with the great grandfather had not the Upanayana performed on them. [f24] Even they were allowed to have their Upanayana performed if they desired, provided they performed penance which included studenthood for twelve years and bath with the Pavamani, and other verses. On his Upanayana, instruction in the duties of the householder was imparted to him, and though he himself could not be taught the Veda, his son may have the samskara performed as in the case of one who is himself a patitasavitrika so that his son will be 'one like other Arya'. Upanayana was permitted to the Vratyas. It is difficult to state exactly who the Vratyas were, whether they were Aryans who had for more than three generations failed to perform the Upanayana or whether they were non-Aryans who were never within the Aryan fold and whom the Brahmins wanted to convert to the Aryan faith. It is possible that it included both. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that Upanayana was open to the Vratyas provided they performed Vratyastomas. Vratyas were those who lead the Vratya life, were base and were reduced to a baser state since they did not observe studenthood (brahmacharya) nor did they till the soil nor engage in trade. There were four Vratyastomas, the first of which is meant for all Vratyas, the second is meant for those who are Abhishasta who are wicked or guilty of heavy sins and are censured and lead a Vratya life, the third for those who are the youngest and lead a Vratya life and the fourth for those who are very old and yet lead a Vratya life. In each of the four Vratyastomas, Sodasastoma [f25] is always performed. It is by the Sodasastoma that they can attain this (superior status). The Sodasastoma was supposed to have the power to remove the guilt of these. By performing the Vratyastoma sacrifice, they should cease to be Vratyas and become eligible for social intercourse with the Orthodox Aryas, to have the sacrament (samskara of Upanayana) performed of them and then be eligible to study the Veda. In the Vratyata-shuddisamgraha [f26] provision is made for the purification of Vratyas even after twelve generations subject to appropriate penances. Upanayana was so highly thought of that Baudhayana (ii.10) allowed Upanayana for the Asvattha tree. Given these facts, it is difficult to believe that the women and Shudras were excluded from the Upanayana by the Aryan society from the very beginning." "It is, however, not quite necessary to depend upon circumstantial evidence. There is enough direct evidence to show that there was a time when both women and Shudras had the right to Upanayana and did have it performed. As to the Upanayana of women the statements [f27] contained in the Hindu religious books are quite explicit. Anyone who examines them will find that Upanayana was open to women. Women not only learned the Vedas but they used to run schools for teaching the Vedas, are even known to have written commentaries on the Women Purva Mimamsa. As to the Shudras, the evidence is equally positive. If Sudas was a king, if Sudas was a Shudra, if his coronation ceremony was performed by Vasishtha and he performed the Rajasuya Yaga, then there can be no doubt that the Shudras did at one time wear the sacred thread. In addition to circumstantial evidence and the evidence of the authors mentioned before, the Sanskara Ganapati cited by Max Muller [f28] contains an express provision declaring the Shudra to be eligible for Upanayana." [ [f28] - History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (1860), p. 207.] "Those who, in spite of the evidence to which I have referred, think that they must insist upon their objection should remember the weakness of their side. Assuming that the Shudras had never had the benefit of Upanayana, the question they have to face is why were the Shudras not allowed the benefit of the Upanayana. The orthodox theory merely states the fact that there is no Upanayana for a Shudra. But it does not say why the Shudra is not to have his Upanayana performed. The explananation that there was no Upanayaa of the Shudra because he was a non-Aryan is a modern invention which has been shown to be completely baseless. Either there was once an Upanayana and it was stopped or the Upanayana was from the very beginning withheld. Either may be true. But before one or the other is accepted to be true, it must be accompanied by reasons. There being no reason why the benefit of the Upanayana was withheld from the Shudra, the presumption must be in favour of my thesis which states that they had the right to Upanayana, that they were deprived of it and gives reasons why they were deprived of its validity." "When Upanayana was open to everyone, Aryan or non-Aryan, it was not a matter of social significance. It was a common right of all. It was not a privilege of the few. Once it was denied to the Shudras, its possession became a matter of honour and its denial a badge of servility. The denial of Upanayana to the Shudras introduced a new factor in the Indo Aryan society. It made the Shudras look up to the higher classes as their superiors and enabled the three higher classes to look down upon the Shudras as their inferiors. This is one way in which the loss of Upanayana brought about the degradation of the Shudras." "Let me begin by listing in one place the riddles of the Shudra. The following include the most important of them : (1) The Shudras are alleged to be non-Aryans, hostile to the Aryans, whom the Aryans are said to have conquered and made slaves. How is it then that the rishis of the Yajur Veda and the Atharva Veda should wish glory to the Shudras and express a desire to be in favour of the Shudras? (2) The Shudras are said not to have the right to study the Vedas. How is it then that Sudas, a Shudra, was the composer of the hymns of the Rig Veda? (3) The Shudras are said to have no right to perform sacrifices. How is it that Sudas performed the Ashva-Medha sacrifice? Why does the Satapatha Brahmana treat the Shudra as a sacrificer and give the formula of addressing him? (4) The Shudras are said not to have the right to Upanayana. If this was so from the very beginning, why should there be a controversy about it? Why should Badari and the Samskara Ganpati say that he has a right to Upanayana? (5) The Shudra is not permitted to accumulate property. How is it that the Maitrayani and Kathaka Samhitas speak of the Shudras being rich and wealthy? (6) The Shudra is said to be unfit to become an officer of the State. How is it then that the Mahabharata speaks of Shudras being ministers to kings? (7) It is said that the duty of the Shudra is to serve, in the capacity of a menial, the three Vamas. How is it then that there were kings among the Shudras as testified by the case of Sudas and other cases mentioned by Say ana? (8) If the Shudra had no right to study the Vedas, if he had no right to Upanayana, if he had no right to sacrifice, why was he not given the right to have his Upanayana, to read the Vedas and to perform sacrifice? (9) The performance of Upanayana of the Shudra, his learning to read the Vedas, his performing the sacrifices, whether they were of any value to the Shudra or not, were certainly occasions of benefit to the Brahmins in as much as it is the Brahmins, who had the monopoly of officiating at ceremonies and of teaching the Vedas. It is the Brahmins who stood to earn large fees by allowing the Shudra the right to Upanayana, the performance of sacrifices and the reading of the Vedas. Why were the Brahmins so determined to deny these concessions to the Shudras, when granting them would have done no harm and would have increased their own earnings? (10) Even if the Shudra had no right to Upanayana, sacrifices and Vedas, it was open to the Brahmins to concede him these rights. Why were these questions not left to the free will of the individual Brahmins? Why were penalties imposed upon a Brahmin if he did any of these prohibited acts?" Another piece of evidence is from Sree Vidyadhiraja Parama Bhattaraka Chattampi Swamikal (1853 - 1925) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattambi_Swamikal), an eminent saint and social reformer from Kerala, India. His work "Vedadhikara Nirupanam" (in Malayalam) also tries to prove vedadhikara for all, including the sHudras. (I am not sure whether an English translation of this text exists, but some references are given below): "....[He] expressed his ideas in his works Prachina Malayalam, Vedadhikara Nirupanam, and Advaita Chinta Padhathi. In Prachina Malayalam he rejected the legend of Parasurama and the popular concept of Caturvarnya and asserted that the criterion of caste is not birth but an individual's Karma. Vedadhikara Nirupanam made a scathing attack on religious superstition and sacerdotal dictatorship of Brahmans. Chattambi Swamikal took a very critical attitude towards the scriptures as well as the notion that the Vedas were the sole preserve of the Brahmans. He also asserted that the non-Brahmans too had the right to install idols of Vedic deities. Thus he was the first intellect who questioned the scriptural hegemony of Brahmans." Source - http://www.keralahistory.ac.in/casteandsocial.htm "Till recent times scholarship was considered the monopoly of the Brahmins. It is therefore no wonder that the study and the teaching of the Vedas were the close preserve of the members of that community. Among the few non-Brahmins who had dared to trespass into the forbidden ground was Thunchath Gurupadar. Chattambi Swamigal was filled with a firm determination to break into the citadel of orthodoxy and establish the right of everyone to study the Vedas. He had spent years in making himself conversant with sacred books and the culture of ancient times. His Vedadhi- karanirupanam was a work capable of being published in two or three volumes.. Of this treatise, written by him in pencil, we have got only a part in book form. The rest of the book has been lost to us. The traditional view was that Brahmins can learn and teach the Vedas, Kshathriyas and Vaisyas can only learn them, and Sudras can neither learn nor teach them. Swamiji has successfully exposed the error of this view with abundant evidence cited from ancient books." Source - www.scholarswithoutborders.in/KnowledgeBeforePrinting&After.pdf T.Harikrishnan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 Some comments/clarifications on Sri Anant Shenoy's post: >So far, no one has come forward to explain Baladeva's comments on >Vidura. I hope someone will do that. Srila Prabhupada has dealt with that, the gist of which I have already posted. >Which specific examples in the Puranas are you talking about? The >examples of Vidura and Dharma-vyAdha are from Mahabharata, as much >as the Gita is from Mahabharata. Superficial reading of Puranas may highlight the idea that birth is indeed paramount in deciding varNa. Since your argument rests on practices followed in the Purana – Itihasas, I only suggested a deeper understanding of such practices. For example: "In the religious scripture Mahabharata, Yudhisthira, is questioned by Yama in the form of a Yaksha, about what makes one a Brahmin. Yudhisthira, without hesitation, said that it is conduct alone that makes one a Brahmin." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varnas) >Again, you are just mixing svAbhAvika varNa with aupadhika varNa. >Birth is NOT taken as adequate and accurate in determining >svAbhAvika varNa (which BG 4.13 is talking about). In Arjuna's case, >his svAbhAvika and aupadhika varNa coincide. In Vidura's case, they >don't. But both follow their aupadhika varNa nonetheless. The differentiation 'svAbhAvika varNa - aupadhika varNa' seems to be non-shastric. Please establish the Vedic foundation of it's use and practice. >1. The "rejection of BG 4.13" is in your own imagination. No one has >rejected it. >2. The "alleged Puranic practices" are from Mahabharata itself, the >same text from where you have quoted BG 4.13. 1.If not reject, you are diluting the by bringing in the concept of 'svAbhAvika varNa - aupadhika varNa'. 2."alleged Puranic practices" alludes to misunderstanding Puranic practices due to superficial readings of the same. >Since birth does not determine svAbhAvika varNa, there is >no "glaring omission". Since birth does determine "aupadhika varNa" >the first thing that you will be asked (as Gautama asked Satyakama) >will be your gotra. It happens in any traditional temple to this >day. What was the varNa that Gautama determines? svAbhAvika varNa or aupadhika varNa? What gotra was Satyakama ultimately assigned to? >Also, if you are aware of the population genetics literature on >Indian populations based on various varNas and castes, they have >been determined to be highly differentiated for the last 10,000 >years, which goes against the quality-based varNa-determination >system that you imagine, which should produce highly homogeneous >genetic data due to admixture of caste lineages. Please provide the references. >So Baladeva was going off track when he justified Vidura as having >brahma-j~nAna from study of Vedas in previous birth and not by a >study of Vedas in this life? No. Vidura studied Vedas in previous birth, but neglected the same in his present birth – at least for a long time. >It is 1.3.38 not 1.3.8. Sorry. I stand corrected. >This is a fallacious conclusion of yours after quoting Baladeva. >Baladeva is NOT saying that Janashruti's guNa and karma were used to >>*determine* his varNa before he became a king. He is saying that >Janashruti was a kshatriya by birth, since if he wasn't a kshatriya >by birth, he would not be able to become a generous giver of wealth, >rule a kingdom and possess other characteristics of a king such as a >chamberlain, giving cows, necklaces, chariots, etc as alms. In >short, if he was not a kshatriya by birth, he would not have been a >king and cultivated the guNa-karmas of a king. The very fact that he >is a king means he is a kshatriya. 1.I could not get where Srila Baladeva said that Janashruti was a kshatriya by birth. Shastra says one becomes kshatriya by second birth, not the first. 2.Does not Vedas, Puranas and Dharma shastras also refer to shUdra kings? >A person born a kshatriya should cultivate the guNas of a kshatriya >and perform the karmas of a kshatriya, and Baladeva is merely saying >that Janashruti did do them, which shows that he was a kshatriya by >varNa. Which varNa - svAbhAvika varNa or aupadhika varNa? >What you are trying to say would have been applicable if Janashruti >was NOT BORN A KSHATRIYA BUT A SHUDRA and still Baladeva had given >the same arguments. Thus, this does nothing to prove your case. Shastra says that everyone is born as shUdra – She/He is again born as brahmana, kshatriya and vaisya. Some remain shUdra. If you agree to this, then yes it proves my case. >In fact, Janashruti's behavior with Raikva was hardly befitting the >true qualities of a kshatriya - as he first offered bribes to Raikva >to teach him brahma-vidyA. But because he was a king, Raikva finally >taught him when he approached him the right way. He was sent away the first time because Janashruti was "overcome by grief". He did not accept the gifts too. When approached again, he accepted him; but the gifts were refused. >A minor correction - it is Raikva, not Rai~Nka (as you say it). Sorry about that too. My mistake. This is again wrong. >1. There is no guNa like "friendship with others of same varNa". "Sadhu Sanga" is often referred to as a good habit to cultivate. Therefore I correct it "friendship with brahmana varNa". Sadhu Sanga, a guNa? Why not? >2. Kapeyas and Abhipratari were NOT of the same varNa. Kapeya was a >brahmana and Abhipratari was a kshatriya. I stand corrected. It was "Sadhu Sanga". >Not "could be" but it IS used to argue that. The straightforward >proof that is given is - >1. Kapeyas (a brahmana) and Abhipratarin (whose varNa is to be >inferred) were sitting together, implying some connection between >the two families. >2. Tandya Brahmana says "Kapeyas made Chaitraratha perform >sacrifice" implying that Kapeyas brahmanas are connected to >Chaitrarathas kshatriyas. (That Chaitrarathas are kshatriyas is >proven by a text which equates the two terms by saying -- "a prince >who was Chaitraratha was born") >3. A brahmana family is always connected with a kshatriya family and >not with more than one kshatriya family. >4. In this Chandogya story, Kapeyas is connected with Abhipratarin. >5. Thus, the inference is that Abhipratarin is a Chaitraratha. >Thus, there is ONLY janma used in the inferential proof here. This is the second proof that was given. Even if it is acceded that janma is important, this should have been used as the first proof. >No. The plain sentence is "from him there descended a Chaitraratha >who was a prince". This proves that Chaitrarathas are kshatriyas. Brahmana can also father a prince. The statement "caitrarathir nAma kShatra-patir ajAyata (From him was born another kShatriya of the Caitraratha family)" proves that the father was also a kshatriya and not of brahmana varNa (for arugument's sake). >What is stated here is that members of Chaitraratha lineage are >kshatriyas. "Chaitrarathas are kshatriyas". Period. Your statements >about guNas, etc do not come into the picture in this proof at all. Correct. How they came to be called as kshatriyas are not mentioned here. That guNa is considered is not at all mentioned. So too with janma. > >This again is fallacious reasoning. This story is as much compatible >with the birth-based system as with the system you are proposing >(which is why your so-called proof is not a proof but only your own >way to reconcile the story with your system) >Consider this example from a birth-based system. >1. SatyakAma expresses a desire to study the Vedas to his mother >Jabala, and asks her what his gotra is, so that he can tell the guru >when he asks for it. If he was a shudra by birth, his mother would >say "you cannot study the Vedas, my dear child". But because he is a >brahmana by birth, she says no such thing. But at the same time, >gotra is asked when you approach a guru and she does not know the >gotra of her husband's family, so she tells the boy to just say that >he is SatyakAma Jabala. >2. SatyakAma then approaches Gautama. Gautama asks him for his >gotra. SatyakAma says his mother told him that she does not know his >gotra, and asked him to just say SatyakAma Jabala when he approaches >a guru. >3. Gautama infers "If he was a shUdra by birth, he would have cooked >up a gotra to get access to Vedas, since he would know very well I >do not teach shUdras. But he so honestly told me that he doesn't >know what his gotra is, at the risk that I may turn him away. Thus, >he must be a brahmana, otherwise he would have lied." You are reading too much into the text that is quite straightforward by itself: 1.SatyakAma's mother forgets her husband's gotra or has not heard about it at all. (You have mentioned in a previous post "Every brahminical lineage maintains its gotra and Veda-shAkhA that it is supposed to preserve." And at least one exception is seen here. ) 2.Gautama thinks: All those begotten of shUdras are crooks, they cook up gotras at will. 3.Gautama also thinks: Those begotten of brahmanas have this sterling quality of not lying. What is this varNa that Gautma determines? svAbhAvika varNa or aupadhika varNa? svAbhAvika varNa cannot be determined by mere mortals, of which Gautama is one. aupadhika varNa can only be determined by janma (which is not ascertained here, since gotra is missing) and not by qualities such as 'not lying'. Does it seem that under exceptional situations, a third category of varNa can be possible? Now that SatyakAma is initiated as a brahmana he should have a gotra and Veda-shAkhA, isn't? What will that be? >In all the above cases, family history is considered in determining >varNa. And I see a glaring omission of Baladeva's comments on >Vidura - is there any reason you didn't try to explain that? >Yours, >Anant 1.At least brahmana SatyakAma can not claim an unbroken family lineage, a sound history as proved by his gotra and Veda-shAkhA. 2.I have posted some comments on Vidura separately. T.Harikrishnan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 Hare Krishna PAMHO Sri Anant Shenoy had posted this regarding "RAMANUJA DHARSHNAM" >1. Please note that such online publications may not necessarily be >the traditional position of the sampradAya itself, as you may have >experienced even within Gaudiya sampradaya. It is remarkable that in >this article, there is not a single quote provided from any of the >purvacharyas' works in the Ramanuja tradition that birth does not >determine one's varNa. The only quote provided is that people of all >varNas are allowed to become great devotees of the Lord, which no >one disputes in any case. >2. Even giving the article consideration for whatever is written in >it, it is quite disappointing and does not shed any light on the >issue. Rather, in the name of supplying proof from the Gita, it ends >up contradicting the Gita by saying that jAti is based on birth but >varNa is not. [and] >The word "jAti-dharma" has been interpreted as follows: >1. Sridhar Svami says jAti-dharma = varNa-dharma >2. Baladeva Vidyabhushana says jAti-dharma = xatriya-Adi-dharma (in other words, varNa dharma) >3. Madhusudana Saraswati says jAti-dharma is xatriya-Adi-varNa- dharma. >4. Raghavendra Swami says jAti-dharma is xatriyatva-Adi-dharma >Thus, all the commentators that have explained this word (across >different schools) have equated it with varNa-dharma. Thus, to say >that jAti is birth-based but varNa isn't is baseless for they are >equated in the Gita by even the Gaudiya commentators. I also find lack of quotes for your conclusions given above. Moreover your arguments, as you have said earlier, owes much to the book "Hindu Dharma" by Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi. Let us examine the relevant parts of this book and how much scriptural evidences he has given: [please excuse me again for the rather extensive quote] "Some concede that Bhagavan does not deny caste differences, but however argue that, according to the Lord, caste is not based on birth but on the individual qualities of people. In support they quote this line from the Gita. "Caturvarnyam mayasrstam guna-karma-vibagasah". When do we come to know the qualities that distinguish an individual? At what age does he reveal his nature? How are we to determine this and impart him the education and training necessary for the vocation that will be in keeping with his qualities? Take, for instance, the calling of the Brahmin who has to join the gurukula when he is seven or eight years old. His education covers a period of twelve years; after this alone will he be qualified for his vocation which includes, among other things, teaching. If a man's occupation were to be fixed until after his character and qualities are formed, it would mean a waste of his youthful years. Even if he were to learn a job or trade thus at a late age it would mean a loss not only to himself but also to society. The Lord speaks again and again that we must be constantly engaged in work and that we must not remain idle even a moment. How then would he approve of an arrangement in which every individual has to be without any work until his vocation is determined according to his character? Does this mean that the Lord lends his support in theory alone to the system of vocations according to the differing qualities of people and that in actual practice he wants occupations to be based on birth? But he is not like a politician [of these days] speaking one thing and doing something entirely different. What do we see in Krsna's own life as a divine incarnation? When Arjuna refuses to fight saying that it is better to become a mendicant than spill the blood of friends and relatives even if it be to rule over an empire, what does the Lord tell him? He urges Arjuna to fight. "You are born a Ksatriya and you are duty-bound to wage war. Take up your bow and fight". Here too it may be argued thus: "Arjuna was a great warrior and a great hero. His reluctance to take up arms against friends and relatives must have been a momentary affair. His inner quality and temperament were that of a man of valour. So the Lord enthuses him to go to war. What he refers to as Arjuna's svadharma (own duty) cannot be the same as his jati dharma (caste duty). The Lord must be referring to Arjuna's natural character as his svadharma. " If such an argument is correct, what about the character of Dharmaputra (Yudhisthra)? From the very beginning he is averse to war and anxious to make peace with the Kauravas. Does he not go so far as to say that he would not insist on half the kingdom but he would be satisfied with just five houses? Krsna goes to the Kauravas as his envoy [of peace] but is himself dragged into war by them. Earlier he encouraged Yudhisthra to subjugate all his neighbouring kingdoms to become an imperial ruler and perform the rajasuya. Does Dharmaputra desire such glory? His inner character and temperament show that he is not warlike by nature nor do they suggest that he desires the status of a mighty imperial ruler. Sri Krsna Paramatman makes such a man practice his dharma of a Ksatriya. All this shows that by svadharma it is jati dharma that the Lord means. Men like Dronacarya were born Brahmins but they took up the duty of Ksatriyas. Bhagavan does not deprecate them since they were otherwise great men, but all the same he does not show any displeasure when Bhima taunts Dronacarya for having forsaken the dharma of his birth. Thus we have confirmation that by svadharma the Lord means the jati dharma of birth. Then, why does he use the phrase "guna-karma-vibhagasah" in the Gita? It is jatidharma that goes to make the inner guna (inner quality or nature) of an individual. So Sri Krsna's dictum in the Gita that the caturvana division is in accord with the gunas and the idea that the caste is based on birth are one and the same. There is no conflict between the two. You cannot find fault with Sri Krsna for his practice being at variance with his precept. Parasurama and Dronacarya were Brahmins but they were Ksatriyas by nature. On the other hand, Visvamitra, a valorous Ksatriya king known for his violent and passionate temperament, became a Brahmin rsi. Cases like this are extremely rare, and are exceptions to the rule of jati dharma. On the whole we see that the Lord functions on the basis that, whatever be the outward qualities of individuals, their inner quality is in keeping with their hereditary vocations. How can birth be the basis of the quality on which one's occupation is based? Before a man's individual character develops, he grows in a certain environment, the environment evolved through the vocation practiced in his family from generation to generation. He adopts this vocation and receives training in it from his people. It is in this manner that his guna is formed, and it is in keeping with his work. Everybody must have the conviction that he is benefited by the occupation to which he is born. When people in the past had this attitude in the past they were free from greed and feelings of rivalry. Besides, though they were divided on the basis of their vocations, there was harmony among them. Children born in such a set-up naturally develop a liking and aptitude for the family vocation. So what is practised according to birth came to be the same as that practised according to guna. Whatever the view of reformers today, in the old days an individual's ability to do a job was in accord with his guna; and in the dharma obtained in the past a man practised his calling according to his guna. Now it has become topsy-turvy. What is the view of the psychologists on this question? According to them, heredity and environment play a crucial part in determining a man's character, abilities and attitudes. In the past all vocations were handed down from grandfather to father and from father to son. Besides, each group practising a particular occupation or trade lived in a separate area in the village. The Brahmins, for instance, lived in the agrahara and, similarly, each of the other jatis had its own quarter. So the environment also helped each section to develop its special skills and character. These two factors - heredity and environment - were greatly instrumental in shaping a person's guna and vocation. Instead of speaking about the subject myself, I will cite the views of Gandhiji who is much respected by the reformists: "The Gita does talk of varna being according to guna and karma, but guna and karma are inherited by birth." So the fact that Krsna Paramatman's practice is not at variance with his doctrine is confirmed by Gandhiji. Modernists should not twist and distort the Vedas and sastras and the pronouncements of Krsna Paramatman to suit their own contentions. Krsna is usually imperative in his utterances. "I speak, you listen," such is his manner. But when he speaks of people and their duties, he does not inpose himself saying "I speak thus", but instead he points to what is laid down in the sastras to be the authority. During Krsna's own time the various castes were divided according to birth: we learn this, without any room for doubt, from the Mahabharata, the Bhagavata and the Visnu Purana. I mention this because some research scholars today are likely to put forward the view that caste based on birth evolved after the time of Krsna. The epic and the Puranas mentioned above declare categorically that during the age of Sri Krsna Paramatman the sastras dealing with varnasrama were the authority for dharma. It was at such a time, when an individual's vocation was determined by birth, that the Lord declared in clear terms : Yah sastra -vidhim utsrjya vartate kama-karatah Na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukham na param gatim Tasmacchastram pramanam te karyakaryavyavasthitau Jnatva sastravidhan oktam karma kartum iha'rhasi -Bhagavadgita, 16. 23 & 24. Who so forsakes the injunctions of the sastras and lives according to his own desires does not obtain liberation, finds no happiness. (The Sastras determine your work, what is right and what is wrong. You must know the way shown by the sastras and pursue the work - vocation - according to them.) Sri Krsna establishes that an individual owes his caste to his birth. There should not be the slightest doubt about it." Sources: (http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part20/chap2.htm) and (http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part20/chap3.htm) How much shastric evidences are given for the assertions that: 1.quality does not determine vaRna. 2.Dharmaputra's inner character and temperament show that he is not warlike by nature [a successfully determination of the svAbhAvika varNa] 3.it is jatidharma that goes to make the inner guna (inner quality or nature) of an individual [guNa is bestowed on an individual by jati] 4.Sri Krsna's dictum in the Gita that the caturvana division is in accord with the gunas and the idea that the caste is based on birth are one and the same 5.by svadharma the Lord means the jati dharma of birth 6.exceptions can be there to the rule of jati dharma 7.On the whole we see that the Lord functions on the basis that, whatever be the outward qualities of individuals, their inner quality is in keeping with their hereditary vocations. [but exceptions are possible] 8.what is practised according to birth came to be the same as that practised according to guna. 9.heredity and environment play a crucial part in determining a man's character, abilities and attitudes 10.Before a man's individual character develops, he grows in a certain environment, the environment evolved through the vocation practiced in his family from generation to generation. He adopts this vocation and receives training in it from his people. It is in this manner that his guna is formed, and it is in keeping with his work. [Which in essence means guNa is developed after the birth of an individual in the environment where he is brought up] 11.Everybody must have the conviction that he is benefited by the occupation to which he is born. 12.These two factors - heredity and environment - were greatly instrumental in shaping a person's guna and vocation. [Which means guNa is partially developed at birth, and later on matures in the environment.] Convincing scriptural evidences are expected here in support of the above rather than Gandiji's statement "The Gita does talk of varna being according to guna and karma, but guna and karma are inherited by birth." Madhvacharya will not approve many of the above conclusions because [i once again quote]: "Madhva interprets the concept of VarNa mentioned in the Vedas (Purusha Sooktha) as not being defined by birth, but by the nature of a Soul. For example a Soul having the nature of a Brahmin could have been born as a Shudra and vice versa. The caste system decided by birth is actually Jaati and not VarNa. The VarNas simply define the disposition of the Soul, for example a Soul classified as BrahmaNa VarNa is disposed towards learning, a Kshatriya Soul is disposed towards administration and a Shudra Soul is disposed towards performing Service." (Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhvacharya) So to begin with if we can have some quotes from Madhvacharya, to support the above statements from "Hindu Dharma", it may perhaps enrich the debate. T.Harikrishnan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 Hare Krishna PAMHO PancharAtra and Vedas Avadhuta Raya prabhu remarked: >Now, in Kali yuga everybody is born as a sudra but by the pancaratriki system of >purification (not the Vaidic) one can become elevated to sattva guna where >proper understanding of Vedic wisdom becomes clear. The stage of being one step t>o God realization. and Bhava Dasa prabhu added: >I was just listening to Prabhupada this morning on this very subject. >He states that within strict Vaidic-vidhi regulations, no. However, >arcording to Pancaratriki-vidhi (which we follow), yes. Sri Anantji however gave the rejoinder: >PancharAtra, being smritis, can sure purify any varNa, including >mlecchas. We are only talking about shrutis here. What is the actual position of the PancharAtras? Some pointers: 1. "Paramatma Sandarbha, annucheda 18, and Mahabharata both declare: pancaratrasya krtsnasya vakta tu bhagavan svayam Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, spoke the Pancaratra" (as seen in source http://www.salagram.net/Gayatri-Mantraratha-dipika.htm) 2. "The pancaratrika system has the most authorized codes for transcendental devotional service. Without the help of such codes, one cannot approach the Lord, certainly not by dry philosophical speculation. The pancaratrika system is both practical and suitable for this age of quarrel. The Pancaratra is more important than the Vedanta for this modern age." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 1:5:38 Purport ) 3. "The scriptures known as the Pancaratra-sastras are recognized Vedic scriptures that have been accepted by the great acaryas. These scriptures are not products of the modes of passion and ignorance. Learned scholars and brahmanas therefore always refer to them as satvata-samhitas. The original speaker of these scriptures is Narayana, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is especially mentioned in the Moksa-dharma (349.68), which is part of the Santi-parva of the Mahabharata. Liberated sages like Narada and Vyasa, who are free from the four defects of conditioned souls, are the propagators of these scriptures. Sri Narada Muni is the original speaker of the Pancaratra-sastra" (Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi lila 5:41 ) (Both the quotes above as seen at http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/gss/sastra/vedas/pancharatra.htm ) 4. "Historically, there was a lot of resistance to the Agama-s from the vedAntins. There were even texts which said that the pAncarAtrins should not be invited to partake in SrAddha meals, people should not talk to them, etc., alongside the texts that supported the Agama adherents. There was also counter-attack from the pAncarAtra camp, including statements calling the veda-s as perverted texts incapable of fulfilling the human values (purushArthAproyojaka). It is in this atmosphere that SrI yAmuna-muni undertook his valiant defense of the pAncarAtra through his work Agama-prAmANya, to bring about reconciliation between the two camps. He pointed out that the pAncarAtra and the veda-s both originated from SrIman nArAyaNa, and were complementary to each other. Inevitably it was a very sensitive undertaking, since it touched on the sensitivities of both the opposing camps. Then there came the time when the pAncarAtrins claimed superiority over the veda-s saying that the pAncarAtra was more ancient, and the veda-s came later. Perhaps in this atmosphere, SrI vedAnta-deSika endeavored to bring a balance between the veda-s and the Agama-s, quoting passages from the pAncarAtra text Lakshmi-tantra) that the wise man should never transgress even in his thoughts the conduct prescribed in the veda-s. It cannot but be noticed that our great pUrvAcArya-s have done exceptional service in bringing about the reconciliation between the vedanta adherents and the Agama group, trying to make sure that people don't succumb to self-destruction through disunity. ( As seen at Source: http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/cgi-bin/kbase/Pancaratra ) 5. "Hari Om! The wisdom and performance of eternal spiritual principles as given in the Vedic scripture Pancaratra which Lord Krishna aeons before had instructed in initiation to Brahma, Shiva, Indra and Surya the sun-god is again being explained to the Pandavas as the eternal principles of the Bhagavad-Gita which is the abridged form of the Pancaratra and the essence of all Vedic scriptures. The manner in which the demi-gods, the great sages, the saintly kings and how human beings should achieve Vedic wisdom by performing karma yoga in Satya, Treta, Dwarpa and kali yugas or the four measurements of Vedic duration comprising a period of 1, 360, 000 years. All these things are explained in the Bhagavad-Gita. From Arjuna to Manu, all perform karma yoga and gain Vedic wisdom as prescribed in the Bhagavad-Gita. The Brahma Vaivarta Purana states that there is no Vedic scripture superior to the Bhagavad-Gita. The Pancaratra which is supplementary to the four Vedas should be learned and assimilated in its entirety and the Bhagavad-Gita is its essence. Thus there is nothing that can compare to the illustrious Bhagavad-Gita." (from Madhvacarya's Commentary to BG 4.3 as seen in source http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-04-03.html ) Therefore, if PancharAtras are the 'essence of all Vedas' and PancarAtras do not 'transgress the conduct prescribed in the veda-s.', then something permitted/approved by PancharAtras should be have been permitted/approved by the Vedas too. Due to the fact that presently only 6% of the Vedas are available, a real understanding of Veda dharma is possible only through scriptures like PancharAtras. PancharAtra dharma on purification of shUdras is therefore is in conformity with that of Veda dharma. T.Harikrishnan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 Hare Krishna, achintya, "Harikrishnan T" <t.harikrishnan wrote: > > Shri Anant wrote: > > >In all the above cases, family history is considered in determining > >varNa. And I see a glaring omission of Baladeva's comments on > >Vidura - is there any reason you didn't try to explain that? > > shrIla Baladeva VidyAbhUShaNa says: > > "Some souls, such as Vidura and others, although born as shUdras, > become elevated by their attainment of perfect transcendental > knowledge. By hearing and understanding the PurANas and other > transcendental literatures, shUdras and others can become liberated. > The only real classes of higher and lower among men are determined by > the final result of their lives." Here, Baladeva is confirming that shUdras attain knowledge and moxa through the Puranas, not through Vedas. > > But as shrIla Prabhupada explains: > The very word "but" indicates that you are implying Srila Prabhupada's words are opposed to Baladeva's words. > "Vidura, born in the womb of a sudra mother, was forbidden even to be > a party of royal heritage along with his brothers Dhrtarastra and > Pandu. Then how could he occupy the post of a preacher to instruct > such learned...? Answer is that even though it is accepted that he was > a sudra by birth, because he renounced the world for spiritual > enlightenment by the authority of Rsi Maitreya and was thoroughly > educated by him in transcendental knowledge, he was quite competent to > occupy the post of an acarya or spiritual preceptor." Please note that Vidura went to Maitreya towards the end of the Mahabharata, when the Kuruxetra battle happened. Vidura's greatness is all manifested even before he learnt from Maitreya. Even before he was "thoroughly educated by Maitreya in transcendental knowledge", he was quite competent to occupy the post of an AchArya. But the fact is that he did not factually occupy the post of an AchArya because as a shUdra, to perform the duty of a brAhmaNa would be against his varNAshrama-uchita-niyata-karma. > Vidura was a > sudra, born sudra. Then how he became a preacher? Vidura (as a shUdra) was no more a preacher than Yudhishthira (as a xatriya) was a preacher. The issue at hand is that Vidura was a shUdra, not a brAhmaNa. His preaching to Dhritarashtra is irrelevant to his varNa-status. Dhritarashtra was not a disciple of Vidura, nor did Vidura adopt the position of a brAhmaNa and initiate disciples. Just because he preached to Dhritarashtra does not mean he was a brahmana. > > So the reason is... "According to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, anyone who > is conversant in the transcendental knowledge or the science of > Godhead, be he a brahmana or sudra, a householder or a sannyasi, is > eligible to become a spiritual master." Not that because he was born a > sudra, he cannot preach, he cannot take the post of acarya or > spiritual master. Because he was a shUdra, he did not take the post of a brAhmaNa. That is the point. "That is not Caitanya philosophy. Caitanya > philosophy has nothing to do with this body, external body. Caitanya > philosophy is concerned with the soul. This movement is the movement > of elevating the soul, saving the soul from degradation. It is the main exponent of Caitanya philosophy - Baladeva - who says that even when shUdras get mukti, there is a tArAtamya in the phala they get. Thus, there is also a varNa classification at the level of the soul, even as per Baladeva. (Note that this classification is not the aupadhika classification) Therefore > people sometimes are surprised. The bodily concept of life, the same > activities will be karma. And on the platform of spiritual life, the > same karma will be bhakti. Same karma will be bhakti. So bhakti is not > inactivity. Bhakti is all active. Yat karosi yaj juhosi yad asnasi yat > tapasyasi kurusva tad mad-arpanam. This is bhakti, bhakti-yoga. Krsna > says to everyone, "If you cannot give up your karma, then that's all > right. But the result of your karma, give to Me. Then it will be > bhakti." What is the purpose of quoting this? > > ........ > > "The conclusion is that Vidura was never a sudra, but was greater than > the purest type of brahmana." > > (as seen in http://iskcon.krishna.org/Articles/2000/08/00092.html ) As if mere declarations make something a truth. Yes, Vidura was not a shUdra as a soul, but his aupadhika varNa was shUdra, and he lived perfectly according to it. Rather than following him, what is the benefit in using him to bolster a varNAshrama-viruddha-avaidika way of life? > > He remained a shUdra for a part of his stay in earth, during which he > was not qualified for learning Veda, but later ".... by the authority > of Rsi Maitreya and was thoroughly educated by him in transcendental > knowledge, he was quite competent to occupy the post of an acarya or > spiritual preceptor" This was Vidhura's second birth. A figment of your imagination, that's all. Where is the pramANa to show that Vidura initiated disciples as a brAhmaNa, or that he learnt the Vedas and taught the Vedas to others after learning from Maitreya? And what does preaching to others have to do with being a brAhmaNa who does Veda-adhyayana? Vidura preached to Dhritarashtra both before and after learning from Maitreya. So what? He did not adopt the position of a brAhmaNa and study the Vedas, even after learning from Maitreya. Yours, Anant > > T.Harikrishnan > 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.