Caste System by Birth?

[theist]

 

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> 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"> 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? </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> 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 being lying if I said I considered it to be infallible.

 

 

<!-- / message --><!-- sig --> __________________

 

In common speech we use words that are convient but may not be strictly accurate. For instance we talk of ourselves and others as if they were their bodies even though we are aware they are not. However when need for philoshical precision is needed we can ecplain the difference between self and body.

 

I take things like this in this way.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

The four Varna or divisions of human society, based on aptitude and Karma, were created by Me. Though I am the author of this system, one should know that I do nothing and I am eternal.(4.13)

 

So it is quite clear according to Gita varna is not man made but the formation by non other but the creator him self.

 

 

So the question arises how does a varna can be established as a fair and just without causing a lot of confusion.

 

If an individual make a judgement then on what bases that would be made ?

These presupposes the birth of an individual was random there was no guna karma attached from previous life, real smack in the face, might as well throw Vedas and karma out of the window.

 

Those who do not agree with birth, perhaps they can tell us, how before the brits who broke the back bone of verna system, by feeding their lies, worked?

 

The division within a family it self would be hard to overcome. There has been different quarters for each varna, how would a family within which there are different varna live to gather, how would a marriage take place? On what basis child’s samskaras would be performed? There could be many complication of acceptance.

 

Krishna can not establish an imperfect system.

 

Gita chapter one,

The everlasting qualities of Varna and family traditions of those who destroy their family are ruined by the sinful act of illegitimacy. (1.43)

 

We have been told, O Krishna, that people whose family traditions are destroyed necessarily dwell in hell for a long time. (1.44)

 

Now Arjun was worried about kula dharma what would that be? Because some of you may have us believe it could be any number of four.

 

Ignorance (or outright rejection) of varNAshrama dharma has caused serious problems in the interpretation and practice of hindu dharma.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Baobabtree]

 

If an individual make a judgement then on what bases that would be made ?

 

Individuals need to attempt to base their varna upon which they think they're the most qualified to preform. It's obviously not that simple, and people are going to make mistakes, but this is the Kali Yuga, what can you do?

 

 

These presupposes the birth of an individual was random there was no guna karma attached from previous life, real smack in the face, might as well throw Vedas and karma out of the window.

I don't argue that someone is born into the caste of their parents. This is clear from what Smritis say about individuals like Parashurama (amongst others). Instead, I'd argue that one's varna can change, if they find they are more qualified for another varna (likewise if they choose to follow the varna of their parents, it should be because they feel they are qualified)

 

 

The division within a family it self would be hard to overcome. There has been different quarters for each varna, how would a family within which there are different varna live to gather, how would a marriage take place? On what basis child’s samskaras would be performed? There could be many complication of acceptance.

I don't think one needs to segregate themselves from people of other varnas.

 

 

Now Arjun was worried about kula dharma what would that be?

From what I understand this means family duties, yes?

 

 

Because some of you may have us believe it could be any number of four.

 

I don't quiet understand what you mean here?

 

Just out of curiosity , how do you think one would determine a foreign man's varna?

[raghu]

 

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.

 

Even the mahAbhArata refers to individuals by their birth-varna as a matter of convention. Drona was a brAhmana even though he had a kShatriya's disposition, and so on.

[raghu]

 

I don't argue that someone is born into the caste of their parents. This is clear from what Smritis say about individuals like Parashurama (amongst others). Instead, I'd argue that one's varna can change, if they find they are more qualified for another varna (likewise if they choose to follow the varna of their parents, it should be because they feel they are qualified)

 

 

Where in the scriptures you stated that you accept as authority (Vedas, upanishads, and mahabharata) is the above view supported? I would be interested to see clear and explicit evidence - Sanskrit and verse numbers.

 

Thanks.

[Baobabtree]

 

Where in the scriptures you stated that you accept as authority (Vedas, upanishads, and mahabharata) is the above view supported? I would be interested to see clear and explicit evidence - Sanskrit and verse numbers.

 

Thanks.

You yourself believe one is born into their caste, so I don't need to give any evidence there. I will admit, I can't think of any examples of people changing castes, that come directly to my mind from the texts I mentioned, but didn't Valmiki change his caste from an outcaste to a Brahmin?

[theist]

Excellent question. Outside of India the very concept has no meaning. What can be shown somewhat is that there are basically four distinct pyscho/physcial types. In other words this system of varna created by Krishna is one of qualities ... reognized as such or not.

 

Birth is not a player. Most of the brahmanas by birth today end up working in sudra positions in IT and thinking it brahminical because it involves thinking.

[Ganeshprasad]

 

Individuals need to attempt to base their varna upon which they think they're the most qualified to preform. It's obviously not that simple, and people are going to make mistakes, but this is the Kali Yuga, what can you do?

 

 

For a start we can stop making mistakes and leave it to higher authority. It is very convenient to hide behind kali yuga, there is no bases in Shastra to assign Verna on an individual whims.

 

 

 

I don't argue that someone is born into the caste of their parents. This is clear from what Smritis say about individuals like Parashurama (amongst others). Instead, I'd argue that one's varna can change, if they find they are more qualified for another varna (likewise if they choose to follow the varna of their parents, it should be because they feel they are qualified)

 

There is no bases in Shastra, infact Krishna warns us against it as Raghu has already mentioned which I repost here

 

 

<DIR>Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 18.47

 

śreyānsva-dharmo viguṇaḥ

para-dharmātsv-anuṣṭhitāt

svabhāva-niyataḿkarma

kurvan nāpnoti kilbiṣam

 

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.

 

 

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 18.59

 

yadahańkāramāśritya

na yotsya itimanyase

mithyaiṣa vyavasāyas te

prakṛtis tvāḿniyokṣyati

 

If you do not act according to My direction and do not fight, then you will be falsely directed. By your nature, you will have to be engaged in warfare.

 

 

</DIR>Why did Lord Krishna say it was Arjuna's nature to fight? And that too despite Arjuna offering to give up everything and take to begging? Because Arjuna was born a kshatriya and he was obligated to follow kshatriya dharma. Arjuna did not get promoted to brahmin status because of his compassion for his family.

 

 

 

I don't think one needs to segregate themselves from people of other varnas.

 

What we think is of no consequence even today if you went to a village we will find different quarters for each varna,that is how vedic society worked, so my point was how would you accommodate different family members it is just not practical.

 

 

From what I understand this means family duties, yes?

No more than that, family tradition like raghukul rit chali aiyi

Kula means lineage, race, family etc. which is more or less ones varna

Besides Arjun was concerned for varna Shanker i.e. destruction of his varna.

 

 

 

I don't quiet understand what you mean here?

 

Going by your logic if varna was changed by our whims we may end up with possible four varna in our ancestry therefore the question begs which kula dharma would Arjun was concerned about, do you see the point?

 

 

 

Just out of curiosity , how do you think one would determine a foreign man's varna?

 

Why would I want to do that? Thankfully hindu dharma is not about Proselytization

If some one enquires than it is spirituality that would interest them, why would they want to join a varna system.

At the end of the day we must transend all the differences

 

The final stage in the matrix of Hindu society is saMnyAsa, which only occurs in the context of brAhmaNa dharma. The brAhmaNa varNa is dedicated to spiritual instruction, and their greatest wisdom is embodied in the Ashrama of saMnyAsa.

 

In saMnyAsa itself, there is no distinction, and the saMnyAsa dIkshA involves the renunciation of varNa and every previous Ashrama ~ indeed, saMnyAsa involves the renunciation of attachment to the three worlds!

 

The highest knowledge of saMnyAsAshrama declares that all men are equal in the eye of god, and that varNa, Ashrama, and ultimately even dharma, are superfluous constructs. But this esoteric wisdom has unfortunately become exoteric dogma in some non-brAhmaNa circles, and the dismissal of varNAshrama dharma is especially favored by aspirants who were born without dvija varNa (by Sarbhnga)

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[shvu]

 

You yourself believe one is born into their caste, so I don't need to give any evidence there. I will admit, I can't think of any examples of people changing castes, that come directly to my mind from the texts I mentioned, but didn't Valmiki change his caste from an outcaste to a Brahmin?

 

I do not know if Valimiki turned into a Brahmin, but a more stronger example of such an exception is that of Vishwamitra, a Kshatriya turning into a Brahmana and today we have two Brahmin gotras that claim to have originated from him - Vishwamitra gotra and Kaushika gotra.

 

I vaguely remember reading more on the topic in Pargiter's book [Ancient Indian History Historical Tradition] on of how a couple of very early Vedic kings turned into Brahmanas, really before the time of Gotra formation. But they were very special circumstances and these individuals appear to have undergone a lot of effort in the cross-over process.

 

Cheers

[kimfelix]

There are at least two places in the Mahabharata which state that varna is not determined by birth alone. These are verses 20-21 of Chapter 177 of the Aranyaka Parvan (3.177.20-21) and verse 8 of Chapter 182 of the Shanti Parvan. It states there that if the qualities of a Brahmin are not found in one of Brahmin birth then he is not a Brahmin and if the qualities of a shudra are not found in one who is a shudra then he is not a shudra. I can give the Sanskrit if anyone is particularly interested, but they are clear references that show that this view is scriptural.

[raghu]

 

You yourself believe one is born into their caste, so I don't need to give any evidence there. I will admit, I can't think of any examples of people changing castes, that come directly to my mind from the texts I mentioned, but didn't Valmiki change his caste from an outcaste to a Brahmin?

 

What I believe is besides the point. I was asking you to cite the references that support your point of view.

 

There are exceptions in which one's varna got changed from that of his birth varna. VishvAmitra was said to have been a king before he became a rAjarishi and then later a brahmarishi. However, he did not decide this status himself - it was conferred upon him by Brahma. This is hardly consistent with your point of view that:

 

"I don't argue that someone is born into the caste of their parents. This is clear from what Smritis say about individuals like Parashurama (amongst others). Instead, I'd argue that one's varna can change, if they find they are more qualified for another varna (likewise if they choose to follow the varna of their parents, it should be because they feel they are qualified) "

 

I have already cited numerous instances in which one's varna was as a matter of convention considered to be that of his birth.

[raghu]

 

There are at least two places in the Mahabharata which state that varna is not determined by birth alone. These are verses 20-21 of Chapter 177 of the Aranyaka Parvan (3.177.20-21) and verse 8 of Chapter 182 of the Shanti Parvan. It states there that if the qualities of a Brahmin are not found in one of Brahmin birth then he is not a Brahmin and if the qualities of a shudra are not found in one who is a shudra then he is not a shudra. I can give the Sanskrit if anyone is particularly interested, but they are clear references that show that this view is scriptural.

 

I would like to see these. Also, if possible please specify which edition you are quoting from.

[raghu]

 

Birth is not a player. Most of the brahmanas by birth today end up working in sudra positions in IT and thinking it brahminical because it involves thinking.

 

...in contrast to the more enlightened position of iskcon/prabhupada vaishnavas who argue that one's varna is based on conduct, and yet take up brahminical work while saying they are shudras due to lack of qualification.

[Baobabtree]

 

There is no bases in Shastra, infact Krishna warns us against it as Raghu has already mentioned which I repost here

 

What about individuals like Valmiki? Why are we to assume, they are an exception to how varna is usually determined?

 

 

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.

The very term nature (which I admit might be an incorrect translation) would seem to indicate something along the lines of individuals qualities.

 

 

Why did Lord Krishna say it was Arjuna's nature to fight? And that too despite Arjuna offering to give up everything and take to begging? Because Arjuna was born a kshatriya and he was obligated to follow kshatriya dharma. Arjuna did not get promoted to brahmin status because of his compassion for his family.

 

Because it would be wrong of him to become a beggar, based on his uneasy attitude towards fighting his family members. Non-violence can only be maintained to certain level. If Arjuna and the other warriors had chosen ahsima over fighting, the Kauravas would have unrightfully kept the throne of Hastinapura, and in doing so, would have thrown the world into despair, and slain many inoccent people. Not to mention Arjua still had the nature of a kshatriya, his unease was due to the fact he had to fight his family, instead of men not related or well known to him. He couldn't renounce his varna and its dharma based upon this.

 

 

What we think is of no consequence even today if you went to a village we will find different quarters for each varna,that is how vedic society worked, so my point was how would you accommodate different family members it is just not practical.

Where is this strict segregation mentioned in The Vedas, Upanishads or Mahabharata?

 

 

No more than that, family tradition like raghukul rit chali aiyi

Kula means lineage, race, family etc. which is more or less ones varna

Wouldn't this instead indicate something more like an individuals gotra?

[raghu]

 

What about individuals like Valmiki? Why are we to assume, they are an exception to how varna is usually determined?

 

Because most examples in the smritis are not like that of Valmiki, obviously. QED Valmiki is an exception and not indicative of the rule. What about Arjuna? What about Ajamila? Or the brAhamanas who were offended by NRga mahArAja? Or Drona? Or AshvathAma? These are all individuals who had a specific varna by birth but were effectively faced with promotion or demotion of their status based on behavior, yet the texts continue to refer to them by their birth varna.

 

 

The very term nature (which I admit might be an incorrect translation) would seem to indicate something along the lines of individuals qualities.

 

Arjuna's nature was compassionate and forgiving. He was ready to give up fighting which was not consistent with the behavior of a kshatriya, as Krishna Himself stated in gItA 2.2-3, 2.31-33. Thus, when Krishna was rejecting his self-promotion to brahminical renunciation, He was doing so not on the basis of Arjuna's attitude of renunciation but rather on the basis of Arjuna's status as a kshatriya, which was based on his birth. Arjuna did not cease to be a kshatriya because he refused to fight and wanted to be non-violent.

 

 

Where is this strict segregation mentioned in The Vedas, Upanishads or Mahabharata?

 

There are numerous references throughout the smritis that either directly or indirectly support a social hierarchy. But there is no point in quoting them if you are going to arbitrarily reject whatever you don't like. The question is on what basis do you limit yourself to just certain texts? Why is mahAbhArata acceptable but dharma-shAstras or bhAgavatam not? Merely because you like one and not the other won't cut it.

 

 

Wouldn't this instead indicate something more like an individuals gotra?

 

gotra, jAti, and varna are all interlinked.

[Baobabtree]

 

There are numerous references throughout the smritis that either directly or indirectly support a social hierarchy. But there is no point in quoting them if you are going to arbitrarily reject whatever you don't like. The question is on what basis do you limit yourself to just certain texts? Why is mahAbhArata acceptable but dharma-shAstras or bhAgavatam not? Merely because you like one and not the other won't cut it.

Why don't you accpet Shiva Purana, or Kulachudamani Tantra? Because, you are a Sri Vaishnava. Though, at the moment I don't really belong to any specific sect, my views regarding the hiearchy of deities, is similar to the view Smartha's have. Therefore, I tend to reject Vaishnava texts like Bhagavatam, Vishnu Purana or Manu Smriti which hold Vaishnava views in regards to diety hierarchy (that Vishnu is supreme, and all other deities are demi-gods). There are others I simply have not studied yet at all, thus I don't really reject them, but I am ignorant of them, and therefore can't say I really accept or believe in them.

 

 

What about Arjuna? What about Ajamila? Or the brAhamanas who were offended by NRga mahArAja? Or Drona? Or AshvathAma?

I would think this indicates that these individuals stayed in the castes in which they were born.

 

 

Arjuna's nature was compassionate and forgiving. He was ready to give up fighting which was not consistent with the behavior of a kshatriya, as Krishna Himself stated in gItA 2.2-3, 2.31-33. Thus, when Krishna was rejecting his self-promotion to brahminical renunciation, He was doing so not on the basis of Arjuna's attitude of renunciation but rather on the basis of Arjuna's status as a kshatriya, which was based on his birth. Arjuna did not cease to be a kshatriya because he refused to fight and wanted to be non-violent.

It appears clear to me that Arjuna wished to cease fighting, due to the fact he might have to slay his friends and relatives, not because he was trully inclined to become a brahmin, and of a non-violent nature (which even then a brahmin should give up, during such wars where violence and not absolute pacifism are neccesarry).

[theist]

 

It appears clear to me that Arjuna wished to cease fighting, due to the fact he might have to slay his friends and relatives, not because he was trully inclined to become a brahmin, and of a non-violent nature (which even then a brahmin should give up, during such wars where violence and not absolute pacifism are neccesarry).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nope

 

TRANSLATION BG 18.59

If you do not act according to My direction and do not fight, then you will be falsely directed. By your nature, you will have to be engaged in warfare.

[cbrahma]

With all the text parsing, what is being missed about Arjuna is the more important fact that he was devotee in the rasa of friendship.

He was put into illusion (Yogamaya) as part of the lila of the battle.

It transcends all these material considerations of varna-ashrama, and yes varna-ashrama is material.

[kimfelix]

Raghu, sorry for the delay in replying to you. I was citing the BORI Critical Edition of the Mahabharata. There is a reference in the teachings of the dharma-vyadha that is also interesting. I can't find the exact reference immediately but it must be in the Aranyaka Parvan. There it says:

 

yas shudro dame satye cha satatothitah tam brahmanam manye: if a shudra is always elevated in terms of restraint and truthfulness then I consider him to be a Brahmin.

 

In 12.182.8, Bhrigu says:

 

shudre chaitad bhavel laksyam dvije chaitan na vidyate

na vai shudro bhavech chudro brahmano na cha brahmanah

This designation (of a Brahmin described previously) may appear in a shudra and not exist in a Dvija. The shudra is then not a shudra and the Brahmin is not a Brahmin.

 

The same verse is spoken by Yudhishthira to Nahusha in the form of a serpent in 3.177.20.

 

This is not the only side of the argument from the Mahabharata but it does show that this opinion is a viable position to take and does have scriptural support.

[tackleberry]

 

Raghu, sorry for the delay in replying to you. I was citing the BORI Critical Edition of the Mahabharata. There is a reference in the teachings of the dharma-vyadha that is also interesting. I can't find the exact reference immediately but it must be in the Aranyaka Parvan. There it says:

 

yas shudro dame satye cha satatothitah tam brahmanam manye: if a shudra is always elevated in terms of restraint and truthfulness then I consider him to be a Brahmin.

 

In 12.182.8, Bhrigu says:

 

shudre chaitad bhavel laksyam dvije chaitan na vidyate

na vai shudro bhavech chudro brahmano na cha brahmanah

This designation (of a Brahmin described previously) may appear in a shudra and not exist in a Dvija. The shudra is then not a shudra and the Brahmin is not a Brahmin.

 

The same verse is spoken by Yudhishthira to Nahusha in the form of a serpent in 3.177.20.

 

This is not the only side of the argument from the Mahabharata but it does show that this opinion is a viable position to take and does have scriptural support.

This is what traditionalists call 'arthavAda.' Let me give an example. Sometimes, we compare two evil men, A and B, and say, "Compared to A, B is a saint." It's not as if we actually believe in B's alleged saintliness, but simply to emphasize A's degradation, we may say so.

 

Likewise, when some texts say brAhmaNa ceases to be brAhmaNa, or varNa is determined by guNa rather than by birth, it's just to stress the utter importance of cultivating these brahminical guNa-s, so much so even birth isn't important. Not that the texts are ACTUALLY denying birth-based varNa, because if they were, we wouldn't have had birth-based varna system right from satya yuga.

 

God Himself, in his incarnations, didn't change this, and made sure it functioned properly. So one has to understand these apparently contradictory statements in the manner described.

[kimfelix]

Tackleberry, if you read the whole of chapter 182 of the Shanti Parvan that explanation is very unlikely. It says what it says and if it doesn't mean what it says then it is highly misleading. It is not simply a matter of a different interpretation. If we were to follow the line you recommend then anyone would be able to say, 'Well the scripture says 'x' but in fact it really means 'y''. In that case why bother reading scripture at all if you can just pretend it doesn't say what it says. I would prefer to accept that even in the scriptures different authorities have different opinions on issues. We can live with diversity and difference of opinion because we are a mature tradition. That is the great strength of our religion.

[raghu]

 

Why don't you accpet Shiva Purana, or Kulachudamani Tantra?

 

We accept smritis to the extent that they do not contradict shruti. If something contradicts shruti, then point of view of shruti is upheld.

 

 

Though, at the moment I don't really belong to any specific sect, my views regarding the hiearchy of deities, is similar to the view Smartha's have. Therefore, I tend to reject Vaishnava texts like Bhagavatam, Vishnu Purana or Manu Smriti which hold Vaishnava views in regards to diety hierarchy (that Vishnu is supreme, and all other deities are demi-gods).

 

Rejecting something simply because it does not match your views or the views of your favorite sect is highly arbitrary. If you don't accept the supremacy of Vishnu that how do you reconcile your position with RV 1.22.20? Or how about aitareya brAhmana 1.1.1 which explicitly states that Visnu is highest and Agni lowest?

 

There doesn't seem to be much point to further discussion given the lack of agreement on basic pramAnas.

[raghu]

 

Raghu, sorry for the delay in replying to you. I was citing the BORI Critical Edition of the Mahabharata. There is a reference in the teachings of the dharma-vyadha that is also interesting. I can't find the exact reference immediately but it must be in the Aranyaka Parvan. There it says:

 

yas shudro dame satye cha satatothitah tam brahmanam manye: if a shudra is always elevated in terms of restraint and truthfulness then I consider him to be a Brahmin.

 

In 12.182.8, Bhrigu says:

 

shudre chaitad bhavel laksyam dvije chaitan na vidyate

na vai shudro bhavech chudro brahmano na cha brahmanah

This designation (of a Brahmin described previously) may appear in a shudra and not exist in a Dvija. The shudra is then not a shudra and the Brahmin is not a Brahmin.

 

The same verse is spoken by Yudhishthira to Nahusha in the form of a serpent in 3.177.20.

 

This is not the only side of the argument from the Mahabharata but it does show that this opinion is a viable position to take and does have scriptural support.

 

I haven't got access to the BORI edition. Recently I saw someone quoting similar verses from a different edition, and I noticed that while the verses seemed to uphold his "varna by conduct" point of view, the context actually upheld the opposite.

 

Without being able to examine the context of these verses for the moment, I suspect that these seeming contradictions are actually acknowledgement of the two different cases, namely (1) the conventional view that one is known by the varna of his birth and expected to follow in that line, and (2) the exceptional cases in which one is known by a varna other than that of his birth, like vishvAmitra and others. You yourself have pointed out that there are two views in the scripture, so how else to reconcile them?

 

Again, this is all a tentative position without having yet read the context.

[cbrahma]

 

Likewise, when some texts say brAhmaNa ceases to be brAhmaNa, or varNa is determined by guNa rather than by birth, it's just to stress the utter importance of cultivating these brahminical guNa-s, so much so even birth isn't important. Not that the texts are ACTUALLY denying birth-based varNa, because if they were, we wouldn't have had birth-based varna system right from satya yuga.

 

 

At birth doesn't one's body determine the gunas that have influence, initially? That's what karma is all about. The question is can one become freed of this influence, especially in Kali Yuga in which the modes of passion and ignorance predominate?

[kimfelix]

If anyone has the Ganguli translation, the relevant part of the conversation with Yudhishthira is on page 360 of volume 3, in Chapter CLXXIX and the relevant passage from the Bhrigu-Bharadvaja Samvada is page 34 of Volume 9, in Chapter CLXXXIX.