Caste System by Birth?

[AncientMariner]

 

Once again, I am not calling you a shudra (I never did). You considered yourself to be at the level of a shudra and I am pointing out the consequences of your assumptions.

 

 

What caste are you in, or are you a Vaisnava and therefore not a caste member?

[matarisvan]

 

Another cheap shot at an exalted Vaisnava by a person with no apparent knowledge or qualification but prejudice upon prejudice.

Right. When you said it was foolish to consider Varna by birth you took a cheap shot at countless traditional Vaishnava Gurus of thousands of years who were a hundred times exalted than Prabhupada.

But that does not matter. If a blunder of Prabhupada is pointed out, then it is a cheap shot and upsets you to the point of tears.

Well…boo-hoo. Your double standards are only making you look worse, if such a thing is possible.

[AncientMariner]

 

Once again, I am not calling you a shudra (I never did). You considered yourself to be at the level of a shudra and I am pointing out the consequences of your assumptions.

 

 

I would have to say that I am at least by birth I am lower than a sudra because my family has eaten cows for generations. Hopefully I am making some progress out of that caste but who knows.

[matarisvan]

 

I like what Kulapavana had to say on this in a previous message on this thread.

"Sometimes in the middle of a battle, you make commanders out of ordinary soldiers, because that is all you have. Srila Prabhupada had a tremendous faith in the purifying nature of the process of Krsna consciousness and he was hoping that these unqualified people somehow be helped by Krsna in the execution of their service."

It does not matter what Prabhupada’s intentions were. He is not capable of making that determination and as known to everyone, he clearly failed.

Actually there is another way of reading this which reflects even more badly on Prabhupada. He knew these people lacked Brahmana virtues and in spite of that made them Brahmanas and gave them power they did not deserve. That is committing mistake knowingly which is a sin.

Either way you look at it his experiment failed and should be a clear example that Varna cannot be determined outside birth based on external traits. I call it an experiment because such a practice of determining Varna is absent in tradition.

If Prabhupada himself could not do it correctly, as his disciple how do you think you can? And we already said we cannot either. So if no one can determine Varna, the only way is by birth which is how it has been always done.

 

[AncientMariner]

 

<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

It does not matter what Prabhupada’s intentions were. He is not capable of making that determination and as known to everyone, he clearly failed.

Actually there is another way of reading this which reflects even more badly on Prabhupada. He knew these people lacked Brahmana virtues and in spite of that made them Brahmanas and gave them power they did not deserve. That is commiting a mistake knowingly which is a sin.

Either way his experiment failed and should be a clear example that Varna cannot be determined outside birth based on external traits.

If Prabhupada himself could not do it correctly, as his disciple how do you think you can?

 

 

So which sect of Vaisnavism do you consider yourself a part of because it seems to be in contradiction with Caitanya Mahaprabhu based on my understanding of the teachings Caitanya Mahaprabhu?

[cbrahma]

 

Right. When you said it was foolish to consider Varna by birth you took a cheap shot at countless traditional Vaishnava Gurus of thousands of years who were a hundred times exalted than Prabhupada.

But that does not matter. If a blunder of Prabhupada is pointed out, then it is a cheap shot and upsets you to the point of tears.

Well…boo-hoo. Your double standards are only making you look worse, if such a thing is possible.

Did you read the quote from Prabhupada. He rejects varna by birth. He is in the Brahma sampradya disciplic succession. So I guess he's the one who is taking the cheap shot.

[matarisvan]

 

So which sect of Vaisnavism do you consider yourself a part of because it seems to be in contradiction with Caitanya Mahaprabhu based on my understanding of the teachings Caitanya Mahaprabhu?

 

The Sri-Vaishnava sect.

[matarisvan]

 

Did you read the quote from Prabhupada. He rejects varna by birth. He is in the Brahma sampradya disciplic succession. So I guess he's the one who is taking the cheap shot.

 

I have no problems accepting this.

[AncientMariner]

 

The Sri-Vaishnava sect.

 

What is the Sri-Vaishnava sects view on Caitanya Mahaprabhu?

[cbrahma]

 

I have no problems accepting this.

You would rather commit apharada to a disciplic succession than dispel your illusion of a varna by birth, which so far you haven't had the courage to declare.

[matarisvan]

 

You would rather commit apharada to a disciplic succession than dispel your illusion of a varna by birth, which so far you haven't had the courage to declare.

 

Wake up.

 

Advaita follows a disciplic succession from Narayana and follows varna by birth.

SriVaishnavism follows a disciplic succession from Narayana and follows varna by birth.

Tattavada follows a disciplic succession from Vishnu and follows varna by birth.

Iskcon claims to follow a disciplic succession (indirectly through Tattvavada) from Krishna and does not follow varna by birth.

 

You are commiting Aparpadha to 3 disciplic successions but I am commiting aparadha to only one which I consider bogus anyway.

 

You are in a much worse position.

[cbrahma]

 

Wake up.

 

Advaita follows a disciplic succession from Narayana and follows varna by birth.

SriVaishnavism follows a disciplic succession from Narayana and follows varna by birth.

Tattavada follows a disciplic succession from Vishnu and follows varna by birth.

Iskcon claims to follow a disciplic succession (indirectly through Tattvavada) from Krishna and does not follow varna by birth.

 

You are commiting Aparpadha to 3 disciplic successions but I am commiting aparadha to only one which I consider bogus anyway.

 

You are in a much worse position.

The Brahma sampradaya is in disagreement with the others?

How does that reflect on me and since Lord Caitanya is in that succession how can you claim to be a Gaudiya Vaisnava, or do you?

[AncientMariner]

 

According to BG 4.13, the Lord has created the four-fold order, presently known as the caste system. Whether we call it varnAshrama dharma or caste, the labels are immaterial at the moment. Question is: Is it birth-based? Let's see.

 

#1 The words again...cAtur-varNyam mayA sRSTam....these words suggest that the Lord created the caste system. No argument here.

 

#2 guNa-karma-vibhAgashaH - According to guna and karma, this system has been created. Which means, Krishna makes sure people take birth in the respective castes based on their previous karma etc. If one argues that a person can choose his caste, it's tantamount to faulting the Lord Himself! It's like saying, "Krishna has made a wrong decision by giving me a birth in the kshatriya caste, so I choose to be brAhmaNa." Are we to choose our caste, or will Krishna choose for us? Who is the Lord?

 

#3 If caste system is by choice, as modern scholars would have us believe, how are we to choose? What's the basis? And we could be wrong! But accepting caste by birth ends this problem, because the Lord cannot make mistakes.

 

#4 Krishna spoke to Arjuna, who was born in a royal family. He was a kshatriya by default. In fact, most people from all yuga-s were 'born' into castes. They didn't choose their caste. Exceptions like Valmiki are just that, exceptions, and they don't prove the rule.

 

#5 When Krishna says a brAhmaNa has to be kind, generous, tolerant, must perform yajnA-s, he's describing the gunas that a person born into a brAhmaNa caste has to cultivate, and the karma-s he has to perform, karma-s such as yajna, tapas etc.. It doesn't mean anyone who has these guna-s is a brAhmaNa. OTOH, a brAhmaNa must try to have these guna-s. That's all there's to it.

 

Conclusion:

All the above shows that caste system is by birth. I see nothing discriminatory about this. The Lord knows best, and based on our karma and guna, he gives us a birth in a certain caste. All we have to do is perform our duties pertaining to that caste in the spirit of bhakti. This makes one a vaishnava, regardless of caste. At the end of the day, that's what matters, bhakti to Krishna.

 

So why would people break their heads to prove that caste system is by choice, when it most certainly isn't! And I repeat, there's nothing shameful about birth-based caste, because it isn't man-made, it's created by the Lord Himself, who's infallible, achyuta. Yet, I see people arguing in favor of caste by choice, whatever that means. Without some rigidity, can there be any system in place? And if choice were to determine caste, then millions of people can make different decisions, almost on a daily basis. This would imply a frequently changing system, which is no system at all!

 

 

 

I personally haven't heard of anything about caste by choice. I have read Prabhupadas books and he seems to suggest that if you can develop the qualities of a higher caste then you can move your caste so it isn't only just a matter of choosing but also a matter of becoming qualified. My understanding is that the failure of the caste system in the Kali-yuga is brahmanas that are not really qualified to be brahmanas manipulating the other castes for sense gratification or something to that effect.

[RadheRade1657]

 

And once again, religious hatred rears its ugly head.

LOL

 

The tradition of indiscriminate, politically-correct, acceptance of all and sundry religions is the characteristic of neo-Advaitic cults like Sai Baba, Vivekananda, Chinmayananda, etc whose respective audiences consist of those who are trained to avoid critical thinking or thinking of any kind. Apparently, iskcon people desperately want to be counted within this crowd. Well that's fine by me!.

 

Now it's reared it's head. Along with it's twin brother, hypocrisy.

[Baobabtree]

 

Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc. have their walls also but in many ways the Hindu wall is the thickest.

This so called "Hindu-wall" happens to be where your own religion finds it origins.

 

 

AshvathAma

Some Gujarati friends of mine have told me though one is born into a caste, he can change castes, and actually used Ashvathama as an example, claiming he had fallen from the status of a Brahmin after attempting to murder an unborn infant.

 

 

You would rather commit apharada to a disciplic succession than dispel your illusion of a varna by birth, which so far you haven't had the courage to declare.

Because you know, all Vaishnavas are Gaudiyas

[cbrahma]

 

from:

Caste System in Hinduism

A Historical and Analytical Approach – Dr. R.K. Lahiri, PhD

November 20, 2005

 

 

The Confusion

Today people have mistaken Varnas for caste and treat them as identical. Varnas are God created and caste is not. Varnas are conditioned with one’s actions and desires based on Gunas. The caste is man made. It is simply a social institution and can easily be changed and modified according to changing needs of society. Caste-by-birth was never the original intent nor it ever was the basis upon which the Varnas were constituted, Sutra says that a person should be engaged only in a field of activity that he is capable of doing.

Today we have miserably failed to understand what a Brahmin is. Generally we believe that one is born by birth in a certain class. This belief has keenly been protected and propagated by the vested interests. It also served the policy of divide and rule of the foreign rulers and served an easy prey to conversions. The confusion has been repeatedly tried to be removed by the saints. Vajra Suchikopanishad clearly states that one can not be a Brahmin either by its being, birth, physical equipment of body and color or by wisdom and knowledge nor by religious action even.

Hindus believe in rebirth and countless yonis of births. So the very idea of being born in one birth as Brahmin is unscientific. Even the physical body structure does not make one a Brahmin. The body is made of matter and matter acts uniformly in every clime and time. Every one is so born and there can not be any difference. The ill-found belief that a Brahmin is fair, Kshatriya black, Vaisya yellow and Sudra dark black is entirely baseless. Even the cremation and last rites are the same for all of us. The possession of super brain and knowledge is also not the monopoly of Brahmin alone. Vishvamitra, the warrior was a talented seer and was not a Brahmin. So were many saints, and even Kabir, Dadu, Nabhadas. Raiyadas, the Alvars and the Saivites etc. We have also to remember that even a wise man goes astray and loses the right path.

Vajra Suchikopanishad states clearly that a Brahmin is one who lives and moves in Brahman. He remains above the pair of opposites. He is unmoved in joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure, pride and prejudice, and has conquered desires and is free from ego-sense. The one so equipped is indeed a Brahmin.

 

 

Here is corroboration by an impartial scholar who has no connection with Prabhupada or ISKCON.

[cbrahma]

 

Because you know, all Vaishnavas are Gaudiyas

Not so. But so what? Are you repudiating the Gaudiya sampradaya?

[Baobabtree]

Not so. But so what? Are you repudiating the Gaudiya sampradaya?

No, I'm simply stating there are going to be those who disagree with what your particular sampradaya teaches.

[raghu]

 

This so called "Hindu-wall" happens to be where your own religion finds it origins.

 

Some Gujarati friends of mine have told me though one is born into a caste, he can change castes, and actually used Ashvathama as an example, claiming he had fallen from the status of a Brahmin after attempting to murder an unborn infant.

 

Because you know, all Vaishnavas are Gaudiyas

 

You should ask your Gujarati friends for the evidence to support their view. I certainly would like to see it, because the evidence of the bhAgavata clearly supports the opposite - namely, that ashvatthAma was still referred to as a brahmana (and not a shudra) despite his crime:

 

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam

1.7.16

 

tadā

śucas

te

pramṛjāmi

bhadre

 

yad

brahma

-

bandhoḥ

śira

ātatāyinaḥ

 

gāṇḍīva

-muktair viśikhair

upāhare

 

tvākramya

yat

snāsyasi

dagdha

-

putrā

 

 

O gentle lady, when I present you with the head of that

brāhmaṇa

, after beheading him with arrows from my

Gāṇḍīva

bow, I shall then wipe the tears from your eyes and pacify you. Then, after burning your sons' bodies, you can take your bath standing on his head.

 

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam

1.7.19

 

yadāśaraṇam

ātmānam

 

aikṣata

śrānta

-

vājinam

 

astraḿ

brahma

-

śiro

mene

 

ātma

-

trāṇaḿ

dvijātmajaḥ

 

 

When the son of the

brāhmaṇa

[

Aśvatthāmā

] saw that his horses were tired, he considered that there was no alternative for protection outside of his using the ultimate weapon, the

brahmāstra

[nuclear weapon].

 

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam

1.7.35

 

mainaḿ pārthārhasi

trātuḿ

 

brahma

-

bandhum

imaḿ

jahi

 

yo 'sāv

anāgasaḥ

suptān

 

avadhīn

niśi

bālakān

 

 

Lord

Śrī

Kṛṣṇa

said: O

Arjuna

, you should not show mercy by releasing this relative of a

brāhmaṇa

[

brahma

-

bandhu

], for he has killed innocent boys in their sleep.

 

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam

1.7.42

 

tathāhṛtaḿ paśuvat

pāśa

-

baddham

 

avāń

-

mukhaḿ

karma

-

jugupsitena

 

nirīkṣya

kṛṣṇāpakṛtaḿ

guroḥ

sutaḿ

 

vāma

-

svabhāvā

kṛpayā

nanāma

ca

 

 

Śrī

Sūta

Gosvāmī said:

Draupadī

then saw

Aśvatthāmā

, who was bound with ropes like an animal and silent for having enacted the most inglorious murder. Due to her female nature, and due to her being naturally good and well-behaved, she showed him due respects as a

brāhmaṇa

.

 

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam

1.7.43

 

uvāca

cāsahanty

asya

 

bandhanānayanaḿ

satī

 

mucyatāḿ

mucyatām

eṣa

 

brāhmaṇo

nitarāḿ

guruḥ

 

 

She could not tolerate

Aśvatthāmā

's being bound by ropes, and being a devoted lady, she said: Release him, for he is a

brāhmaṇa

, our spiritual master.

 

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam

1.7.48

 

yaiḥ

kopitaḿ

brahma

-

kulaḿ

 

rājanyair ajitātmabhiḥ

 

tat

kulaḿ

pradahaty

āśu

 

sānubandhaḿ śucārpitam

 

 

If the kingly administrative order, being unrestricted in sense control, offends the

brāhmaṇa

order and enrages them, then the fire of that

rage

burns up the whole body of the royal family and brings grief upon all.

 

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam

1.7.49

 

sūta

uvāca

 

dharmyaḿ

nyāyyaḿ

sakaruṇaḿ

 

nirvyalīkaḿ

samaḿ

mahat

 

rājā

dharma

-suto

rājñyāḥ

 

pratyanandad vaco

dvijāḥ

 

 

Sūta

Gosvāmī said: O brāhmaṇas, King

Yudhiṣṭhira

fully supported the statements of the Queen, which were in accordance with the principles of religion and were justified, glorious, full of mercy and equity, and without duplicity.

 

 

Note how in the end, Yudhishthira (who was the son of DharmarAja) actually agreed with Draupadi's point of view. Nowhere in the text does ashvatthAma get referred to as a shudra.

 

You actually would not want someone's varna to be reclassified when they commit a criminal act. In Vedic society, a brahmana would receive the most severe punishment for commiting a crime compared to someone of a lower varna who had done the same. In the mahAbhArata there is a well known story in which both Duryodhana and Yudhishthira were asked to pronounce judgement on a group of criminals consisting of a shudra, a vaishya, a kshatriya, and a brahmana who had conspired to commit murder. While Duryodhana stated that they should all be put to death, Dharmaputra's view was that only the brAhmana should be put to death while the other three received progressively lighter punishments.

 

There is no question that ashvatthAma became degraded by his act, just as there is no question that others can also become degraded regardless of their hereditary standing. But as a matter of convention, they were still referred to by their hereditary varna. There was no referee who determined one's varna status by some other means.

[cbrahma]

 

No, I'm simply stating there are going to be those who disagree with what your particular sampradaya teaches.

Ok. Then whoever that may be cannot claim to belong to it - ie. Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya.

Nevertheless they must bring forward Vedic evidence to prove their repudiation, since they reject the authority of acarya.

[raghu]

Please note also that in the verses I quoted earlier, Drona is also referred to indirectly as a brahmana. Drona was born a brahmana but due to his disposition he took to a kshatriya's way of living. He did not get demoted in status to a kshatirya. Throughout the mahAbhArata and the bhAgavatam he is referred to as a brahmana.

[AncientMariner]

 

Please note also that in the verses I quoted earlier, Drona is also referred to indirectly as a brahmana. Drona was born a brahmana but due to his disposition he took to a kshatriya's way of living. He did not get demoted in status to a kshatirya. Throughout the mahAbhArata and the bhAgavatam he is referred to as a brahmana.

 

 

If nobody ever falls from a Brahmin birth or moves down castes and all that how come religion ever declines and Krishna apparently incarnates when there is a decline in religion?

[raghu]

Those who still think that one's varna is based on one's mental disposition, and can thus be changed, should look at the iskcon recension of the bhAgavatam 10.64. I will provide the summary translation from Swami Prabhupada here:

 

 

The King continued, "In spite of all this, unfortunately one of the brahmana's cows chanced to enter amongst my other cows. Not knowing this, I again gave it in charity to another brahmana. As the cow was being taken away by the brahmana, its former master claimed it as his own, stating, 'This cow was formerly given to me, so how is it that you are taking it away?' Thus there was arguing and fighting between the two brahmanas, and they came before me and charged that I had taken back a cow that I had previously given in charity." To give something to someone and then to take it away is considered a great sin, especially in dealing with a brahmana. When both the brahmanas charged the King with the same complaint, he was simply puzzled as to how it had happened. Thereafter, with great humility, the King offered each of them 100,000 cows in exchange for the one cow that was causing the fight between them. He prayed to them that he was their servant and that there had been some mistake. Thus, in order to rectify it, he prayed that they would be very kind upon him and accept his offer in exchange for the cow. The King fervently appealed to the brahmanas not to cause his downfall into hell because of this mistake. A brahmana's property is called brahma-sva, and according to Manu's law, it cannot be acquired even by the government. Both brahmanas insisted that the cow was theirs and could not be taken back under any condition; neither of them agreed to exchange it for the 100,000 cows. Thus disagreeing with the King's proposal, both brahmanas left the place in anger, thinking that their lawful position had been usurped.

 

Now, I don't think anyone would question the point that the brahmanas' behavior in this case was inappropriate. It was clearly inappropriate and out of character for 2 brahmanas to argue so viciously over a cow. But, the point is that the bhAgavatam still refers to them as brahmanas, and so does Prabhupada in his translation!

 

 

 

At this time, Lord Krsna was present among His relatives who were members of the ksatriya class. To teach them through the exemplary character of King Nrga, He said: "Even though a ksatriya king may be as powerful as fire, it is not possible for him to usurp the property of a brahmana and utilize it for his own purpose. If this is so, how can ordinary kings, who falsely think of themselves the most powerful beings within the material world, usurp a brahmana's property? I do not think that taking poison is as dangerous as taking a brahmana's property. For ordinary poison there is treatment--one can be relieved from its effects; but if one drinks the poison of taking a brahmana's property, there is no remedy for the mistake. The perfect example was King Nrga. He was very powerful and very pious, but due to the small mistake of unknowingly usurping a brahmana's cow, he was condemned to the abominable life of a lizard. Ordinary poison affects only those who drink it, and ordinary fire can be extinguished simply by pouring water on it; but the arani fire ignited by the spiritual potency of a brahmana can burn to ashes the whole family of a person who provokes such a brahmana." (Formerly, the brahmanas used to ignite the fire of sacrifice not with matches or any other external fire but with their powerful mantras, called arani.) "If someone even touches a brahmana's property, he is ruined for three generations. However, if a brahmana's property is forcibly taken away, the taker's family for ten generations before him and for ten generations after him will be subject to ruination. On the other hand, if someone becomes a Vaisnava or devotee of the Lord, ten generations of his family before his birth and ten generations after will become liberated." Lord Krsna continued: "If some foolish king who is puffed up by his wealth, prestige and power wants to usurp a brahmana's property, it should be understood that such a king is clearing his path to hell; he does not know how much he has to suffer for such unwise action. If someone takes away the property of a very liberal brahmana who is encumbered by a large dependent family, then such a usurper is put into the hell known as Kumbhipaka; not only is he put into this hell, but his family members also have to accept such a miserable condition of life. A person who takes away property which has either been awarded to a brahmana or given away by him is condemned to live for at least 60,000 years as miserably as an insect in stool. Therefore I instruct you, all My boys and relatives present here, do not, even by mistake, take the possession of a brahmana and thereby pollute your whole family. If someone even wishes to possess such property, let alone attempts to take it away by force, the duration of his life will be reduced. He will be defeated by his enemies, and after being bereft of his royal position, when he gives up his body he will become a serpent. A serpant gives trouble to all other living entities. My dear boys and relatives, I therefore advise you that even if a brahmana becomes angry with you and calls you by ill names or cuts you, still you should not retaliate. On the contrary, you should smile, tolerate him and offer your respects to the brahmana. You know very well that even I Myself offer My obeisances to the brahmanas with great respect three times daily. You should therefore follow My instruction and example. I shall not forgive anyone who does not follow them, and I shall punish him. You should learn from the example of King Nrga that even if someone unknowingly usurps the property of a brahmana, he is put into a miserable condition of life."

 

Maharaja Nrga's situation shows that although the brahmanas were easily offended and behaved out of character, the punishment for offending them even inadvertently was still grave. Hence, these were brahmanas, and they did not cease to be brahmanas despite their wrong behavior.

[raghu]

 

If nobody ever falls from a Brahmin birth or moves down castes and all that how come religion ever declines and Krishna apparently incarnates when there is a decline in religion?

 

I never claimed that "nobody ever falls from a Brahmin birth." Clearly there are many fallen brahmins, and Vedic religion has declined.

 

All I have stated is that the shAstras still refer to such people as brahmins by convention. Please consult the numerous scriptural quotes already provided by me earlier and translated by your very own Swami Prabhupada.

[AncientMariner]

 

I never claimed that "nobody ever falls from a Brahmin birth." Clearly there are many fallen brahmins, and Vedic religion has declined.

 

All I have stated is that the shAstras still refer to such people as brahmins by convention. Please consult the numerous scriptural quotes already provided by me earlier and translated by your very own Swami Prabhupada.

 

 

Now you are saying people can move down or possibly up(?) castes but it is conventional to keep refering to them as their former caste?