Caste System by Birth?

[raghu]

 

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?

 

People can get degraded or reformed, but in Vedic society when someone referred to their varna they referred to them by the varna of their birth.

 

This is also true in the story of Ajamila. The Yamaduttas said:

 

 

SB 6.1.65

: Because his intelligence was pierced by the lustful glance of the prostitute, the victimized

brāhmaṇa

Ajāmila

engaged in sinful acts in her association. He even gave up the company of his very beautiful young wife, who came from a very respectable

brāhmaṇa

family.

 

 

SB 6.1.66

: Although born of a

brāhmaṇa

family, this rascal, bereft of intelligence because of the prostitute's association, earned money somehow or other, regardless of whether properly or improperly, and used it to maintain the prostitute's sons and daughters.

 

 

SB 6.1.67

: This

brāhmaṇa

irresponsibly spent his long lifetime transgressing all the rules and regulations of the holy scripture, living extravagantly and eating food prepared by a prostitute. Therefore he is full of sins. He is unclean and is addicted to forbidden activities.

 

Ajamila was still referred to as a brAhmana despite his degraded activities. It is therefore incorrect to say that one would be considered a shudra for giving up his brahminical duties. Certainly he may become a shudra or worse by nature, and society may acknowledge that, but by convention he was still *referred* to by the varna of his birth. Note that this is not the same as saying that he had the qualifications of his birth varna - in this case Ajamila had clearly lost those.

[AncientMariner]

 

People can get degraded or reformed, but in Vedic society when someone referred to their varna they referred to them by the varna of their birth.

 

This is also true in the story of Ajamila. The Yamaduttas said:

 

 

SB 6.1.65

: Because his intelligence was pierced by the lustful glance of the prostitute, the victimized

brāhmaṇa

Ajāmila

engaged in sinful acts in her association. He even gave up the company of his very beautiful young wife, who came from a very respectable

brāhmaṇa

family.

 

 

SB 6.1.66

: Although born of a

brāhmaṇa

family, this rascal, bereft of intelligence because of the prostitute's association, earned money somehow or other, regardless of whether properly or improperly, and used it to maintain the prostitute's sons and daughters.

 

 

SB 6.1.67

: This

brāhmaṇa

irresponsibly spent his long lifetime transgressing all the rules and regulations of the holy scripture, living extravagantly and eating food prepared by a prostitute. Therefore he is full of sins. He is unclean and is addicted to forbidden activities.

 

 

Ajamila was still referred to as a brAhmana despite his degraded activities. It is therefore incorrect to say that one would be considered a shudra for giving up his brahminical duties. Certainly he may become a shudra or worse by nature, and society may acknowledge that, but by convention he was still *referred* to by the varna of his birth. Note that this is not the same as saying that he had the qualifications of his birth varna - in this case Ajamila had clearly lost those.

 

 

That sounds reasonable now that I see you are acknowledging that qualification does have something to do with caste and not just merely birth. With that understanding I don't see how this has turned into such a controversial subject.

[cbrahma]

 

Dvija-sresthah. In that meeting of Naimisaranya, there were all best brahmanas, the ksatriya and the vaisyas. They are supposed to be twice-born. One birth by the father and mother, and the other birth is by the guru and Vedic knowledge. The guru is the father and Vedic knowledge is the mother. This is in Aryan civilization, this varnasrama, varna: brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya, sudra. Sudras are once-born. They have no ceremony for twice-born. Or one who is not twice-born, he's a sudra. If the twice-born ceremony is not observed, is not observed, then it is sudra. Or act..., practically at the present moment, even in India, these ceremonies are not accepted or they do not care for it. And what to speak of other countries. Therefore the conclusion of the sastra is kalau sudra-sambhavah. In this age of Kali, there are only sudras. Practically there is no brahmana, no ksatriya, no vaisyas. Maybe some vaisyas. But this is the position.

But here it is said, varnasrama-vibhagasah. Unless one, unless the society comes to the institution for accepting these four varnas and asrama, it is not human society. And in the human society there is understanding of God, not in the animal society. Therefore as the institution of varnasrama is now abolished, people are becoming godless. Because varnasrama means the institution or a set-up of society where gradually one can understand Visnu and worship Visnu. Visnur aradhyate. That is the system. Not that so-called brahmana and so-called ksatriya, they have no information of Visnu, and they are declaring, "I am brahmana,I am ksatriya." They are called, according to sastra, brahma-bandhu, dvija-bandhu. Dvija-bandhu. One who is born of a brahmana family or a ksatriya family or vaisya family, but do not act as brahmana, ksatriya, and vaisyas, they are called dvija-bandhu. They are not accepted as dvija. Stri-sudra-dvija-bandhunam trayi na sruti-gocara.

Srila Prabhupada purport Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.13

 

[theist]

 

Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc. have their walls also but in many ways the Hindu wall is the thickest. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> This so called "Hindu-wall" happens to be where your own religion finds it origins.

 

"My religion?" And what would that be since I have never been a member of any religion. Most people that have known me consider me a hindu of some type since I chant Hare Krsna, read Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, lived in a Iskcon temple for a short while etc.

 

You are obviously laboring under some misconceptions concerning what I consider religion.

[shvu]

 

That sounds reasonable now that I see you are acknowledging that qualification does have something to do with caste and not just merely birth. With that understanding I don't see how this has turned into such a controversial subject.

 

What is meant by qualification? Who is the judge and who authorized this judge to determine someone's or his own qualifications?

 

It is impossible to evaluate a person and classify him into a varna. Look at some of the long time devotees right here on this forum. They have been devotees since the 70s and yet after 30+ years they are so arrogant and offensive, not to mention shallow. What varna will you assign to them and on what basis? A good point was made on how Prabhupada classified some devotees as Brahmanas who eventually did not measure up. But at the time Prabhupada "made" them Brahmanas, I assume they appeared to have all the necessary qualifications. But that was not really the case.

 

In the absence of a judge, for the concept of Varna to make any sense, it has to be classified by birth. Or there is no meaning to the whole concept and may as well be trashed.

 

Anyway AM,

 

You said you are here to learn. A number of posts have been made on the topic and so what is your current view? Has your outlook on Varnas changed or does it remain exactly the same? if you have not learnt anything, why? And also your ancestors eating cows has no bearing on you. It is what you do and not do that matters.

 

I suppose Iskcon telling people they have shudra mentality/intelligence makes it easier to brainwash young people by lowering their self-esteem and their confidence in their own ability to think independently. Has that possibility occured to you?

 

Cheers

[Baobabtree]

 

 

I suppose Iskcon telling people they have shudra mentality/intelligence makes it easier to brainwash young people by lowering their self-esteem and their confidence in their own ability to think independently. Has that possibility occured to you?

 

Sort of like how caste centered Hindus tell people who are born into shudra familys that they must always remain subordinate and humble to those born in brahmin familys, and can never gain as much self worth as the brahmins?

[AncientMariner]

 

You said you are here to learn. A number of posts have been made on the topic and so what is your current view? Has your outlook on Varnas changed or does it remain exactly the same? if you have not learnt anything, why? And also your ancestors eating cows has no bearing on you. It is what you do and not do that matters.

 

To be honest I really don't know for sure. I can see valid points on both sides of this argument. I don't understand how on one hand you say Varnas are determined by birth but if I am born into a sudra family doesn't that make me a sudra by birth with no chance of ever being anything but a sudra according to your model?

 

 

I suppose Iskcon telling people they have shudra mentality/intelligence makes it easier to brainwash young people by lowering their self-esteem and their confidence in their own ability to think independently. Has that possibility occured to you?

 

I have never been a member of Iskcon but basically all the knowledge I have of vedic thought has come from studying Prabhupadas books so on some level I probably have been influenced by Iskcon. I think that kind of manipulation you speak of probably has gone on in Iskcon based on what I have read about its history but from everything I can tell about Prabhupada he seemed to be a very humble pleasant person.

 

 

Cheers

 

Cheers back to you!

[shvu]

 

Sort of like how caste centered Hindus tell people who are born into shudra familys that they must always remain subordinate and humble to those born in brahmin familys, and can never gain as much self worth as the brahmins?

 

Technically the caste system in India and the varna system are different. A Brahmin of subcaste A looks down upon a Brahmin of subcaste B.

 

Mixing up varna and caste will result in erroneous conclusions. And why are you taken by what someone else says how worthy you are?

 

Cheers

[tackleberry]

 

Sort of like how caste centered Hindus tell people who are born into shudra familys that they must always remain subordinate and humble to those born in brahmin familys, and can never gain as much self worth as the brahmins?

 

Of course, you went around India and spoke to millions of shUdras, and they all revealed this great secret to you. They all told you the exact same thing, that brAhmana-s want them to be subordinate, and all the rest. Shame on these caste centered Hindus!

[raghu]

 

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.

 

 

There are two problems with the above argument.

 

The first is that the Upanishads often speak in mystical language. This Upanishad makes the point that a brahmin is one who knows Brahman, or something to that effect. Certainly that is the etymology of the word Brahmin. But by convention people who were born into that varna and were expected to take up the role of spiritual leaders (knowers of Brahman) were known as Brahmins, whether they really "knew" Brahman or not. Ordinary individuals cannot tell if a given Brahmin really "knows" Brahman or not. From what I have read of it, this Upanishad is not trying to uproot the whole varnAshram system; rather it is taking a mystical approach to understanding the subject matter by delving into categories at a more symbolic level.

 

The second point is that the Vajra-suchika may not really be a genuine shruti. There are many texts that are passed off as "Upanishads" even though they have no known paramparA that preserves them. Many scholars, both secular and Vaishnava, strongly suspect that some of these are authored texts from a relatively recent period. This makes the Vajra-suchika's authority rather questionable to being with. But as always, I am happy to hear of any convincing arguments to the contrary.

[raghu]

 

Technically the caste system in India and the varna system are different. A Brahmin of subcaste A looks down upon a Brahmin of subcaste B.

 

Mixing up varna and caste will result in erroneous conclusions. And why are you taken by what someone else says how worthy you are?

 

Cheers

 

The varnAshrama system really recognizes only four varnas - that of the brAhmanas, kShatriyas, vaishyas, and shUdras. Then there are those living outside the scope of the varnAshrama system. Today's caste system certainly originated from varnAshrama system but it does have a lot of embellishments (i.e. subcastes) that are not part of the original system and are thus not based on shAstra.

 

No matter where you go, humans find ways of dividing up into classes, subclasses, etc, and then try to rationalize looking down on each other for some reason or another. It is always wise to remind ourselves that varnAshrama is about having a place in society and having society place expectations on you. It's not about having the ambition to take up another varna's work or earn recognition or social standing.

[Dark Warrior]

 

"But the important point is if your intention is to worship Vishnu/Krishna then Varna does not matter. You simply worship Vishnu and do not bother with Varnas. And since it does not matter it is not important to you to try to beat into other people that varna cannot be by birth. "

 

 

That seems to be a fair point to me.

 

No matter what varna a devotee is, you should always consider him to be an elevated soul. In fact, you should not hesitate to bow at the feet of a chandala if he is a devotee of Vasudeva.

 

Even the Lord was not a Brahmin (except for Vamana). So its foolish to look down on devotees based on caste, or be proud of your own caste.

 

The Sri Vaishnava sect, in this respect, has its ups and downs. On the up side, many of our acharyas are not Brahmins. Thus, we have been properly instructed to treat all bhagavatas irrespective of caste, with great respect. Among the alvars, one alvar called himself 'Thondaradippodi', meaning, 'Dust at the feet of bhagavatas'. This is the sort of servitude we must show towards the Lord's devotees.

 

The downside is that, during the golden period of Sri Vaishnavism, there were many Sri Vaishnava brahmins who harbored deep feelings of prejudice against non-brahmin devotees who were exalted by the sampradaya. This eventually led to a rift, and hence you have two subsects of Sri Vaishnavism today - the Thenkalai and the Vadakalai divisions. I shall not go into it much, because it is distressing.

[cbrahma]

Lord Chaitanya says:

 

"I am not a brahmana, I am not a ksatriya, I am not a vaisya or a sudra. Nor am I a brahmacari, a householder, a vanaprastha or a sannyasi. I identify Myself only as the servant of the servant of the servant of the lotus feet of Lord Sri Krsna, the maintainer of the gopis. He is like an ocean of nectar, and He is the cause of universal transcendental bliss. He is always existing with brilliance. "

 

Chaitanya Caritamrta Madhya 13. 80

 

 

[shvu]

 

Lord Chaitanya says:

 

"I am not a brahmana, I am not a ksatriya, I am not a vaisya or a sudra. Nor am I a brahmacari, a householder, a vanaprastha or a sannyasi. I identify Myself only as the servant of the servant of the servant of the lotus feet of Lord Sri Krsna, the maintainer of the gopis. He is like an ocean of nectar, and He is the cause of universal transcendental bliss. He is always existing with brilliance. "

 

Chaitanya Caritamrta Madhya 13. 80

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is the first two sentences are not related to the rest of the quote at all. He could have have just dropped these lines and the meaning of the verse would have meant the same. This is how writers create confuision by adding redundant statements.

 

And since Varna comes from Birth, he was a Brahmana no matter what he said. There are some people who do not like to attach themselves to any country...they call themselves citizens of the world. However, in reality, he will be born/nationalized in some country and that is his country...no matter what he says.

 

Same logic. Therefore Chaitanya was a Brahmana by birth and that was his Varna. I know it is a waste of time to discuss anything with you, but I think the absence of a link between varna and devotion should be emphasized on this forum.

 

Cheers

[cbrahma]

 

The problem is the first two sentences are not related to the rest of the quote at all. He could have have just dropped these lines and the meaning of the verse would have meant the same. This is how writers create confuision by adding redundant statements.

 

And since Varna comes from Birth, he was a Brahmana no matter what he said. There are some people who do not like to attach themselves to any country...they call themselves citizens of the world. However, in reality, he will be born/nationalized in some country and that is his country...no matter what he says.

 

Same logic. Therefore Chaitanya was a Brahmana by birth and that was his Varna. I know it is a waste of time to discuss anything with you, but I think the absence of a link between varna and devotion should be emphasized on this forum.

 

Cheers

LOL. Now we're getting literary criticism of Gopal Bhatta Swami by svu nobody.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam all

I see no end to this argument, traditionalist knows correctly and supported by Vedas, maintains the truth that the verna is birth established or else the system will have no real authority, without any bias, to referee a verna of an individual. On other hand those who are new to this tradition argue on the bases of guna karma and to large extent it is true but a very difficult task for humans to be a perfect judge. This is the job of Yamraja.

It is the final exam the death and a new beginning from then on. Any change of verna in the middle is froth with danger and confusion, yes there are exception and the classic example is Visvamitra but this is rare and an exception to the rule.

 

It is quite clear guna and karma plays an important part in establishing this system.

After all if we believe in karma then it is at the end of ones life time we have to accept our new beginning.

yam yam vapi smaran bhavam

tyajaty ante kalevaram

tam tam evaiti kaunteya

sada tad-bhava-habitat

 

Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, that state he will attain without fail. (8.06)

 

Such a yogi is born in a family of wise transcendentalists. A birth like this is very difficult, indeed, to obtain in this world. (6.42)

 

After taking such a birth, O Arjuna, one regains the knowledge acquired in the previous life, and strives again to achieve perfection. (6.43)

 

Even after seeing the Lord in his Virat rup Arjun is calling Karan, the Sut putra even though he is a great warrior. Birth is one’s pahechan there is no escaping that but a noble person is Dhira not disturbed by all this, one’s job is to know the truth and in pursuit of this there is no loss, if I fail than there will be a better chance later. Death is a great leveller.

Jai Shree Krishna

[tackleberry]

 

Even after seeing the Lord in his Virat rup Arjun is calling Karan, the Sut putra even though he is a great warrior.

 

I don't see how this is relevant. But just for the record, there was nothing wrong with Arjuna's attitude, because Karna was a sUta putra (at least to people other than Bhishma etc. who knew the truth).

[Ganeshprasad]

 

I don't see how this is relevant. But just for the record, there was nothing wrong with Arjuna's attitude, because Karna was a sUta putra (at least to people other than Bhishma etc. who knew the truth).

 

Pranam

I did not say there was anything wrong with Arjun’s attitude, but he never acknowledged him as a satriya even though he was a great warrior, he always reminded him of his apperant low birth. In other words his guna karma was not enough for him to be recognize as satriya by a person no less than Arjun, that is the point.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Baobabtree]

 

It is better to engage in one's own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another's occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one's nature are never affected by sinful reactions.

 

Couldn't the very fact that he mentions "Duties prescribed according to one's nature" indicate that one's varna is determined by a person's nature, not what their parents' castes are? When this is taken into account, the first line could very well be warning us of taking up duties based upon things like which family we're born into.

[RadheyRadhey108]

That's a really good point, Baobatree.

[theist]

 

Couldn't the very fact that he mentions "Duties prescribed according to one's nature" indicate that one's varna is determined by a person's nature, not what their parents' castes are? When this is taken into account, the first line could very well be warning us of taking up duties based upon things like which family we're born into.

 

Checkmate.

 

In past times it may have been that there was a stronger correlation between ones nature and one's birth. What I mean is an orderly, progressive society on earth like how the vedic system is described, would have an orderly system for those taken birth as well.

 

Still guna would be the determining factor.

 

Society today is anything but such a progressive system. Kali-yuga is described as one of confusion so how are we to expect clarity in the system of birth. Afterall the world over the so-called ksatiryas are working for the vaisyas and their interests and no one listens to the brahmana or spiritually aware class.

[raghu]

 

Couldn't the very fact that he mentions "Duties prescribed according to one's nature" indicate that one's varna is determined by a person's nature, not what their parents' castes are? When this is taken into account, the first line could very well be warning us of taking up duties based upon things like which family we're born into.

 

One must interpret in the context of the scripture. An incorrect interpretation can be spotted when it is found to be inconsistent with context and/or other scriptures.

 

You are asking if his nature could not be something different from his birth-varna, and that his duties prescribed according to this nature.

 

But there is no evidence that a person's "nature" was determined independently of his birth as a general rule in Vedic society. Even in the bhAgavatam itself we don't see this happening at all. As mentioned already several times, drona and ashvatthAma were both referred to as brAhmanas despite having taken to the kShatirya profession. Even Prabhupada refers to them as such. How do you convincingly explain that away?

[Baobabtree]

Even in the bhAgavatam itself we don't see this happening at all. As mentioned already several times, drona and ashvatthAma were both referred to as brAhmanas despite having taken to the kShatirya profession. Even Prabhupada refers to them as such. How do you convincingly explain that away?

At the risk of offending most posters on this forum, I must state that I don't consider the Srimad Bhagavatam to be an infallible scripture. That being said, I hold it very high esteem, and do except many tales from it as being true, but I'd be lying if I said I considered it to be infallible.

[Avinash]

Hi Baobabtree,

What do you consider as authentic, if not Bhagavatam?

[Baobabtree]

The Vedas, Upanishads and the Mahabharata. That isn't to say, I don't hold the view that other texts might not also be authentic. I just haven't studied any other texts, that I personally believe in (though I plan on studying a lot more).