Caste System by Birth?

[Baobabtree]

 

If you don't accept the supremacy of Vishnu that how do you reconcile your position with RV 1.22.20?

As I have stated before I'm no Sanskrit scholar, but Ralph Griffith translates this verse as

 

 

20 The princes evermore behold that loftiest place where Viṣṇu is,

Laid as it were an eye in heaven.

How does this verse affirm he alone is the supreme deity. Also, I'm unable to find an online translation of the Aitreya Brahmana, would you mind posting the verse you cited?

[raghu]

 

As I have stated before I'm no Sanskrit scholar, but Ralph Griffith translates this verse as

 

How does this verse affirm he alone is the supreme deity.

 

In the Sanskrit it refers to the "paramam padam" or "supreme abode" of Vishnu. QED Vishnu is the Supreme Deity.

 

 

Also, I'm unable to find an online translation of the Aitreya Brahmana, would you mind posting the verse you cited?

 

Agnir vai devAnAm avamo Visnuh paramas, tadantarena sarvA anyA devatA

 

I don't know if there is an online translation but basically it says that among devas Vishnu is highest and Agni lowest, all others are in between. This refutes the "all gods are the same god" idea that many neo-advaitins have.

[Baobabtree]

 

I don't know if there is an online translation but basically it says that among devas Vishnu is highest and Agni lowest, all others are in between. This refutes the "all gods are the same god" idea that many neo-advaitins have.

 

Thanks and Pranams to you. I'm curious to know what you think the proper translations for this veres is-

46 They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.

To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.- Rig Veda 1:164:46

(however this topic really doesn't have to do with the subject of hiw varna should be determined. Perhaps we should start another thread to continue this conversation).

[Baobabtree]

 

Nope

<!-- 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"> 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.</td></tr></tbody></table>

How is this verse contrary to what I said. Isn't Krishna stating it is his nature to preform a kshatriya's dharma?

[raghu]

 

I'm curious to know what you think the proper translations for this veres is- 46 They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.

To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.- Rig Veda 1:164:46 (however this topic really doesn't have to do with the subject of hiw varna should be determined. Perhaps we should start another thread to continue this conversation).

 

I don't have time to look at the context or give any sort of commentary on this at this moment. For the time being, I will just state the general vedAntic principle that when reference is made in scripture to an entity with attributes of Brahman, even with names that are ordinarily understood to refer to subordinate entities, then one should understand that it is Brahman that is being referred to.

 

Thus, mantras like this are no problem for Vaishnvas. Certainly Vishnu can have names that are also commonly understood to be names of other devas. One has to use context to understand who exactly is being referred to - the paraBrahman or another entity. If in one context Vishnu is referred to by an anya-devata name, and in another context a deity by the same name is spoken of as being dependent on Vishnu, then one should understand that these are two different entitites. It would be illogical to assume otherwise.

 

I suggest you start a new thread if you want to discuss this further.

[theist]

 

How is this verse contrary to what I said. Isn't Krishna stating it is his nature to preform a kshatriya's dharma?

 

You are correct. I misread your post badly and apologize.

[Dark Warrior]

 

mantras like this are no problem for Vaishnvas. Certainly Vishnu can have names that are also commonly understood to be names of other devas. One has to use context to understand who exactly is being referred to - the paraBrahman or another entity. If in one context Vishnu is referred to by an anya-devata name, and in another context a deity by the same name is spoken of as being dependent on Vishnu, then one should understand that these are two different entitites. It would be illogical to assume otherwise

 

That's correct.

 

One must understand that when the Veda Purusha praises a Deva like Indra or Agni, there are two reasons, 1) The Veda is recognising the indweller within the Deity, who is Vishnu (Brahman), 2) Each deity does possess one attribute of the Lord. For instance, Rudra possesses auspiciousness. Brahma has intelligence, etc. So, the Veda goes into ecstasy over a particular guna of Brahman at times, and indicates that guna by giving the name of the deity endowed by the Lord with that guna.

 

In the Vedas, obeisances to different deities are performed, but it is clear that these prayers are always directed to the antaryami (indweller) within the deity.

 

All the deities like Indra, Agni, Rudra, etc., although being praised by Vedas as Supreme, are also pointed out as having defects. For instance, Shathapatha Brahmana shows how Rudra was born, and asked Brahma to remove his sins. Then, in another Upanishad (I believe Kena), Indra, Agni and Vayu are shown to be boasting about their accomplishments, upon which Uma chastises them. And everyone knows that no supreme deity will ever have ahankara like this, boasting and stuff.

 

This way, by a process of elimination, every deity's position is affirmed. It only leaves Vishnu, and statements like 'Om tad Visnoh Paramam Padam', as well as 'Narayana vidmahe Vasudevaya dimahe tanno Vishnu Prachodayat'....prove that Vishnu alone is Supreme.

 

For instance, a mantra invoking Agni with the word 'Namaha' signifies that the Veda is surrendering to Lord Vishnu, as the antaryami of Agni. This is substantiated by various pramanas in texts like the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, where it is explicitly pointed out that Brahman is the indweller of all, and the sareeri/sareera concept is expounded.

 

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>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). </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

Considering that Sri Adi Sankaracharya himself used only Vishnu Purana, indicated that only Narayana was the Saguna Brahman (as per his commentaries on Prasthna Trayam) and also condemned Pasupata and Shakta as unvedic, I think your smarta lineage needs to check its roots properly.

[AncientMariner]

 

I'm calling your bluff. Prove to me, down to the Sanskrit, chapter, and verse where the bhAgavatam says that everyone is a shudra by birth in Kali Yuga.

 

 

Found one that says at the end of the Kali yuga all the social classes will be reduced to the lowest level of sudra.

 

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.2.12-16

 

kṣīyamāṇeṣu deheṣu

dehināḿ kali-doṣataḥ

varṇāśramavatāḿ dharme

naṣṭe veda-pathe nṛṇām

pāṣaṇḍa-pracure dharme

dasyu-prāyeṣu rājasu

cauryānṛta-vṛthā-hiḿsā-

nānā-vṛttiṣu vai nṛṣu

śūdra-prāyeṣu varṇeṣu

cchāga-prāyāsu dhenuṣu

gṛha-prāyeṣv āśrameṣu

yauna-prāyeṣu bandhuṣu

aṇu-prāyāsv oṣadhīṣu

śamī-prāyeṣu sthāsnuṣu

vidyut-prāyeṣu megheṣu

śūnya-prāyeṣu sadmasu

itthaḿ kalau gata-prāye

janeṣu khara-dharmiṣu

dharma-trāṇāya sattvena

bhagavān avatariṣyati

 

SYNONYMS

kṣīyamāṇeṣu — having become smaller; deheṣu — the bodies; dehinām — of all living entities; kali-doṣataḥ — by the contamination of the age of Kali; varṇa-āśrama-vatām — of the members of varṇāśrama society; dharme — when their religious principles; naṣṭe — have been destroyed; veda-pathe — the path of the Vedas; nṛṇām — for all men; pāṣaṇḍa-pracure — mostly atheism; dharme — religion; dasyu-prāyeṣu — mostly thieves; rājasu — the kings; caurya — banditry; anṛta — lying; vṛthā-hiḿsā — useless slaughter; nānā — various; vṛttiṣu — their occupations; vai — indeed; nṛṣu — when men; śūdra-prāyeṣu — mostly low-class śūdras; varṇeṣu — the so-called social orders; chāga-prāyāsu — no better than goats; dhenuṣu — the cows; gṛha-prāyeṣu — just like materialistic homes; āśrameṣu — the spiritual hermitages; yauna-prāyeṣu — extending no further than marriage; bandhuṣu — family ties; aṇu-prāyāsu — mostly very small; oṣadhīṣu — plants and herbs; śamī-prāyeṣu — just like śamī trees; sthāsnuṣu — all the trees; vidyut-prāyeṣu — always manifesting lightning; megheṣu — the clouds; śūnya-prāyeṣu — devoid of religious life; sadmasu — the homes; ittham — thus; kalau — when the age of Kali; gata-prāye — is almost finished; janeṣu — the people; khara-dharmiṣu — when they have assumed the characteristics of asses; dharma-trāṇāya — for the deliverance of religion; sattvena — in the pure mode of goodness; bhagavān — the Supreme Personality of Godhead; avatariṣyati — will descend.

 

TRANSLATION

By the time the age of Kali ends, the bodies of all creatures will be greatly reduced in size, and the religious principles of followers of varṇāśrama will be ruined. The path of the Vedas will be completely forgotten in human society, and so-called religion will be mostly atheistic. The kings will mostly be thieves, the occupations of men will be stealing, lying and needless violence, and all the social classes will be reduced to the lowest level of śūdras. Cows will be like goats, spiritual hermitages will be no different from mundane houses, and family ties will extend no further than the immediate bonds of marriage. Most plants and herbs will be tiny, and all trees will appear like dwarf śamī trees. Clouds will be full of lightning, homes will be devoid of piety, and all human beings will have become like asses. At that time, the Supreme Personality of Godhead will appear on the earth. Acting with the power of pure spiritual goodness, He will rescue eternal religion.

 

PURPORT

Significantly, these verses point out that most so-called religions in this age will be atheistic (pāsaṇḍa-pracure dharme). In confirmation of the Bhāgavatam's prediction, the United States Supreme Court has recently ruled that to be considered a religion a system of belief need not recognize a supreme being. Also, many atheistic, voidistic belief systems, often imported from the Orient, have attracted the attention of modern atheistic scientists, who expound on the similarities between Eastern and Western voidism in fashionable, esoteric books.

These verses vividly describe many unsavory symptoms of the age of Kali. Ultimately, at the end of this age, Lord Kṛṣṇa will descend as Kalki and remove the thoroughly demonic persons from the face of the earth.

[AncientMariner]

Here is another relevant verse it seems:

 

<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD>Canto 1: Creation</TD><TD class=m>Chapter 3: Kṛṣṇa Is the Source of All Incarnations</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.3.21

tataḥ saptadaśe jātaḥ

satyavatyāḿ parāśarāt

cakre veda-taroḥ śākhā

dṛṣṭvā puḿso 'lpa-medhasaḥ

 

SYNONYMS

tataḥ — thereafter; saptadaśe — in the seventeenth incarnation; jātaḥ — advented; satyavatyām — in the womb of Satyavatī; parāśarāt — by Parāśara Muni; cakre — prepared; veda-taroḥ — of the desire tree of the Vedas; śākhāḥ — branches; dṛṣṭvā — be seeing; puḿsaḥ — the people in general; alpa-medhasaḥ — less intelligent.

 

TRANSLATION

Thereafter, in the seventeenth incarnation of Godhead, Śrī Vyāsadeva appeared in the womb of Satyavatī through Parāśara Muni, and he divided the one Veda into several branches and subbranches, seeing that the people in general were less intelligent.

 

PURPORT

Originally the Veda is one. But Śrīla Vyāsadeva divided the original Veda into four, namely Sāma, Yajur, Ṛg, Atharva, and then again they were explained in different branches like the Purāṇas and the Mahābhārata. Vedic language and the subject matter are very difficult for ordinary men. They are understood by the highly intelligent and self-realized brāhmaṇas. But the present age of Kali is full of ignorant men. Even those who are born by a brāhmaṇa father are, in the present age, no better than the śūdras or the women. The twice-born men, namely the brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas, are expected to undergo a cultural purificatory process known as saḿskāras, but because of the bad influence of the present age the so-called members of the brāhmaṇa and other high-order families are no longer highly cultured. They are called the dvija-bandhus, or the friends and family members of the twice-born. But these dvija-bandhus are classified amongst the śūdras and the women. Śrīla Vyāsadeva divided the Vedas into various branches and subbranches for the sake of the less intelligent classes like the dvija-bandhus, śūdras and women.

[AncientMariner]

No response. DOES THIS MEAN I HAVE OFFICIALLY WON THIS DEBATE HERE AND FOREVER MORE! THANK YOU! IT WAS FUN!

[tackleberry]

 

No response. DOES THIS MEAN I HAVE OFFICIALLY WON THIS DEBATE HERE AND FOREVER MORE! THANK YOU! IT WAS FUN!

 

That was funny. The reason why no one responded was because those verses had nothing to do with Raghu's question. Put simply, the verses don't prove your point, so why would anyone care to respond?

[cbrahma]

 

That was funny. The reason why no one responded was because those verses had nothing to do with Raghu's question. Put simply, the verses don't prove your point, so why would anyone care to respond?

 

"For 10,000 years of Kali such devotees of Mine will fill the whole planet. After the departure of My devotees there will be only one varna [outcaste]." (Brahma-vaivarta Purana 4.129.59)

Vaisnava verse book:

"Note that this phrase (kalau sudra-sambhavah) originates from the following verse found in the Skanda Purana:

 

 

asuddhah sudra-kalpa hi

brahmanah kali-sambhavah

 

asuddhah - impure, sudra-kalpa - like sudras, brahmana - brahmanas, kali-sambhavah - born in Kali-yuga, present age of degradation

In the Kali-yuga brahmanas will certainly become like (be born as) impure sudras. (Without samskaras and spiritual training, the brahmanas of Kali-yuga are considered sudras.)

 

[raghu]

 

Here is another relevant verse it seems:

 

<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD>Canto 1: Creation</TD><TD class=m>Chapter 3: Kṛṣṇa Is the Source of All Incarnations</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.3.21

tataḥ saptadaśe jātaḥ

satyavatyāḿ parāśarāt

cakre veda-taroḥ śākhā

dṛṣṭvā puḿso 'lpa-medhasaḥ

 

SYNONYMS

tataḥ — thereafter; saptadaśe — in the seventeenth incarnation; jātaḥ — advented; satyavatyām — in the womb of Satyavatī; parāśarāt — by Parāśara Muni; cakre — prepared; veda-taroḥ — of the desire tree of the Vedas; śākhāḥ — branches; dṛṣṭvā — be seeing; puḿsaḥ — the people in general; alpa-medhasaḥ — less intelligent.

 

TRANSLATION

Thereafter, in the seventeenth incarnation of Godhead, Śrī Vyāsadeva appeared in the womb of Satyavatī through Parāśara Muni, and he divided the one Veda into several branches and subbranches, seeing that the people in general were less intelligent.

 

 

 

I don't understand what this verse, even as translated, has to do with this discussion.

[raghu]

 

Found one that says at the end of the Kali yuga all the social classes will be reduced to the lowest level of sudra.

 

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.2.12-16

 

kṣīyamāṇeṣu deheṣu

dehināḿ kali-doṣataḥ

varṇāśramavatāḿ dharme

naṣṭe veda-pathe nṛṇām

pāṣaṇḍa-pracure dharme

dasyu-prāyeṣu rājasu

cauryānṛta-vṛthā-hiḿsā-

nānā-vṛttiṣu vai nṛṣu

śūdra-prāyeṣu varṇeṣu

cchāga-prāyāsu dhenuṣu

gṛha-prāyeṣv āśrameṣu

yauna-prāyeṣu bandhuṣu

aṇu-prāyāsv oṣadhīṣu

śamī-prāyeṣu sthāsnuṣu

vidyut-prāyeṣu megheṣu

śūnya-prāyeṣu sadmasu

itthaḿ kalau gata-prāye

janeṣu khara-dharmiṣu

dharma-trāṇāya sattvena

bhagavān avatariṣyati

 

SYNONYMS

kṣīyamāṇeṣu — having become smaller; deheṣu — the bodies; dehinām — of all living entities; kali-doṣataḥ — by the contamination of the age of Kali; varṇa-āśrama-vatām — of the members of varṇāśrama society; dharme — when their religious principles; naṣṭe — have been destroyed; veda-pathe — the path of the Vedas; nṛṇām — for all men; pāṣaṇḍa-pracure — mostly atheism; dharme — religion; dasyu-prāyeṣu — mostly thieves; rājasu — the kings; caurya — banditry; anṛta — lying; vṛthā-hiḿsā — useless slaughter; nānā — various; vṛttiṣu — their occupations; vai — indeed; nṛṣu — when men; śūdra-prāyeṣu — mostly low-class śūdras; varṇeṣu — the so-called social orders; chāga-prāyāsu — no better than goats; dhenuṣu — the cows; gṛha-prāyeṣu — just like materialistic homes; āśrameṣu — the spiritual hermitages; yauna-prāyeṣu — extending no further than marriage; bandhuṣu — family ties; aṇu-prāyāsu — mostly very small; oṣadhīṣu — plants and herbs; śamī-prāyeṣu — just like śamī trees; sthāsnuṣu — all the trees; vidyut-prāyeṣu — always manifesting lightning; megheṣu — the clouds; śūnya-prāyeṣu — devoid of religious life; sadmasu — the homes; ittham — thus; kalau — when the age of Kali; gata-prāye — is almost finished; janeṣu — the people; khara-dharmiṣu — when they have assumed the characteristics of asses; dharma-trāṇāya — for the deliverance of religion; sattvena — in the pure mode of goodness; bhagavān — the Supreme Personality of Godhead; avatariṣyati — will descend.

 

TRANSLATION

By the time the age of Kali ends, the bodies of all creatures will be greatly reduced in size, and the religious principles of followers of varṇāśrama will be ruined. The path of the Vedas will be completely forgotten in human society, and so-called religion will be mostly atheistic. The kings will mostly be thieves, the occupations of men will be stealing, lying and needless violence, and all the social classes will be reduced to the lowest level of śūdras. Cows will be like goats, spiritual hermitages will be no different from mundane houses, and family ties will extend no further than the immediate bonds of marriage. Most plants and herbs will be tiny, and all trees will appear like dwarf śamī trees. Clouds will be full of lightning, homes will be devoid of piety, and all human beings will have become like asses. At that time, the Supreme Personality of Godhead will appear on the earth. Acting with the power of pure spiritual goodness, He will rescue eternal religion.

 

 

 

I don't agree with your theory that this verse shows that everyone is a shudra. Being "reduced to shudra status" is not the same as being a shudra. If one is already a shudra then how does he get "reduced" to such status?

 

This verse is just talking about the Kali Yuga and the faults that will come with it. You stated earlier that the bhAgavatam says that everyone is born a shudra, but there is no such evidence in the bhAgavatam.

[raghu]

I suppose someone should respond to this before the clueless ones trumpet the "defeated" claim.

 

 

For 10,000 years of Kali such devotees of Mine will fill the whole planet. After the departure of My devotees there will be only one varna [outcaste]." (Brahma-vaivarta Purana 4.129.59)

 

Call me sectarian, Hindu, or whatever is the term we use these days for those who ask inconvenient questions or trouble us for precise evidence but... I don't really see how this verse proves the point that we are all shUdras by birth or that we are all considered to belong to the varna of our "mental disposition."

 

All this verse says (based on the translation, I have not looked at context yet), is that after some time in Kali Yuga there will only be people who live outside the varnAshrama system. Since it mentions 10,000 years, and we are only 5000 years or so into Kali Yuga, I can only conclude that the time it refers to is at least 5,000 (if not more) years away.

 

 

Vaisnava verse book:

"Note that this phrase (kalau sudra-sambhavah) originates from the following verse found in the Skanda Purana:

 

 

 

asuddhah sudra-kalpa hi

brahmanah kali-sambhavah

 

asuddhah - impure, sudra-kalpa - like sudras, brahmana - brahmanas, kali-sambhavah - born in Kali-yuga, present age of degradation

In the Kali-yuga brahmanas will certainly become like (be born as) impure sudras. (Without samskaras and spiritual training, the brahmanas of Kali-yuga are considered sudras.)

 

Verses that are given without precise citations are often spurious in my experience. But anyway assuming its authenticity, this again does not support the claim of iskcon's theologians for two reasons:

 

1) It says that the brahmanas will "become like impure shudras." It does not say that they are shudras. The translator has very cunningly suggested that this means that they are considered shudras, but that is not what the verse itself says. The verse (as far as i can read without proper transliteration) says that the brAhmanas born in Kali-yuga are impure and certainly like shUdras.

 

2) The verse refers to the brAhmanas as impure. But the iskcon view is that if they are impure, then they are not brAhmanas. So why does the verse refer to them as brAhmanas? If the iskcon view is correct, then instead of saying "the brAhmanas become impure," it should instead say that there are no brAhmanas in Kali-yuga.

 

This just gets back to what I have been saying earlier - people in Vedic culture are known by the varna of their birth, even if they lose qualification. In a society that judges a person by his/her varna, where is the question of one changing one's varna based on behavior? On the contrary, one's varna remains unchanged, so that the shame of falling from the standard is greater! People like Ajamila, Ashvathama, etc. were known as brahmanas even after their shameful behavior just to emphasize how far they had fallen.

 

Iskcon people favor a "varna based on current behavior" theory because they can use it to rationalize any fall down. If a "brahmana" in their ranks falls down, then he can just write it off by saying he is no longer a brahmana and thus minimize the shame. Not so according to Vedic culture! If you are a brahmana and you fall down, then a brahmana you remain in name only, and society will rightfully regard you with scorn and derision because more was expected of you in the first place.

 

We should all guard against false theories proposed by ex-hippie, pseudo-Vaishnavas that do nothing but serve to rationalize the breaking of sacred vows and abandonment of varnAshrama duties. They simply want a system where they can be as fallen as they want without being put under society's microscope. It is very similar to the fallen iskcon gurus who are suddenly referred to as "retired gurus" or some such nonsense. This is the logical conclusion of "varna by mental behavior" theory!

[raghu]

Here is a logical question that arises from this discussion.

 

The iskcon mental speculators say that one's varna is based on one's intrinsic mental disposition and as such is a dynamic rather than fixed thing, unrelated to one's birth. If one does brahminical duty and has a brahminical disposition, then he is a brahmin. But if he falls from the standard than he was never really a brahmin. And so on.

 

It is a well known fact that Swami Prabhupada initiated thousands of disciples, and of those many took to the brahminical profession (by accepting sacred thread, doing worship, and becoming gurus). And it is also well known that the vast majority of these fell away from the standard and many became responsible for some of the most egregious human rights violations ever seen in a religious movement.

 

Prabhupada either (A) initiated these people knowing that they would fall down and abuse so many children, or he (B) initiated them because he had faith in his idea that they could become brahmanas and that they would stay true. Either (A) or (B) must be true. They cannot both be true. Nor can they both be false.

 

If (A) is true, then Prabhupada is responsible for the iskcon gurukula abuse and so many social evils in iskcon. But if (B) is true, then it demonstrates that he was wrong about the character of these devotees. I assume most people would prefer (B) over (A).

 

So, if such an elevated devotee as Prabhupada can be wrong about the character of a devotee whom he has turned into a brahmin, then how can *anyone* in iskcon assign a specific varna on the basis of his perception of that person's varna? If Prabhupada was wrong about people he "assigned" to brahmin varna, and you people worship him so much, then why do you think you could assert what varna someone belongs to?

 

Thus the whole theory that your varna is what you make of it falls apart.

[kimfelix]

Raghu, two points in response to your previous post:

 

1. Why would Mahabharata make exactly the same point as Prabhupada seemed to following with ISKCON, and Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati in his Gaudiya Math?

 

2. And there are many Brahmins by birth who have also fallen from brahminical standards. So your argument must equally discredit the validity of selection by birth.

[suchandra]

 

Here is a logical question that arises from this discussion.

 

The iskcon mental speculators say that one's varna is based on one's intrinsic mental disposition and as such is a dynamic rather than fixed thing, unrelated to one's birth. If one does brahminical duty and has a brahminical disposition, then he is a brahmin. But if he falls from the standard than he was never really a brahmin. And so on.

 

It is a well known fact that Swami Prabhupada initiated thousands of disciples, and of those many took to the brahminical profession (by accepting sacred thread, doing worship, and becoming gurus). And it is also well known that the vast majority of these fell away from the standard and many became responsible for some of the most egregious human rights violations ever seen in a religious movement.

 

Prabhupada either (A) initiated these people knowing that they would fall down and abuse so many children, or he (B) initiated them because he had faith in his idea that they could become brahmanas and that they would stay true. Either (A) or (B) must be true. They cannot both be true. Nor can they both be false.

 

If (A) is true, then Prabhupada is responsible for the iskcon gurukula abuse and so many social evils in iskcon. But if (B) is true, then it demonstrates that he was wrong about the character of these devotees. I assume most people would prefer (B) over (A).

 

So, if such an elevated devotee as Prabhupada can be wrong about the character of a devotee whom he has turned into a brahmin, then how can *anyone* in iskcon assign a specific varna on the basis of his perception of that person's varna? If Prabhupada was wrong about people he "assigned" to brahmin varna, and you people worship him so much, then why do you think you could assert what varna someone belongs to?

 

Thus the whole theory that your varna is what you make of it falls apart.

 

It surely can happen that a spiritual master accepts newcomers as disciples and puts faith in them that they would become spiritually situated, but it so happens that these devotees fall away. The guru who once accepted these souls as disciples still has to some how or other stick to them and cannot just reject them and thus indicate that it was all fatally wrong to initiate these individuals. When it comes to relate to worldly issues, the spiritual masters instructions are not always conclusive. This is Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's point about relative and absolute. For example, during Srila Prabhupada's preaching years, American women were much more resigned to dependance under men then they are nowadays. A lot of women, especially those in third world countries still remain entirely depending on men by force of culture or religion. Regardless of socio-religious ideals, the fact remains that in modern times men cannot be fully trusted to uprightly protect women or to consistently provide their livelihood and especially their spiritual education. Therefore quite naturally women will feel the need to become socially, financially, and religiously independent. Independent women are in no way blocked off from practicing essential Krsna consciousness, and in many examples independence from spiritualy weak men has been encouraging to their spiritual welfare.

[matarisvan]

 

Raghu, two points in response to your previous post:

 

1. Why would Mahabharata make exactly the same point as Prabhupada seemed to following with ISKCON, and Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati in his Gaudiya Math?

 

2. And there are many Brahmins by birth who have also fallen from brahminical standards. So your argument must equally discredit the validity of selection by birth.

 

kimfelix,

 

This has been addresses in detail already.

 

We will go by example.

 

1. Can you identify a Brahmin not by birth but by the iskcon meaning? What are your standards and how do you know your categorisation is correct?

 

2. Prabhupada thought he was capable of doing this and failed miserably. How are his followers more competent than him to be able to make such identification?

 

3. If the Mahabharata understanding is correct, then why was such a system not followed in India for thousands of years?

 

4. If varna of an individual can change from time to time then what meaning does it have?

[kimfelix]

Raghu, I will try to reply to the questions you have asked as best I can, although I am not necessarily opposing your position. I can see two sides to this debate and I am not an advocate of one or the other.

 

1. I would prefer to say the Yudhishthira or Bhrigu way as that gives a little greater strength to the position and shows that it is not some modern invention. The standards employed would be those given in Chapter 18 of the Gita; there are people from all backgrounds who have a tendency towards intellectual pursuits and are less materialistic. This is certainly not ideal but neither is the birth method as we can see so many Brahmins by birth who don't meet the Gita's criteria. So, yes, the method is flawed but then so is selection by birth, perhaps more so.

 

2. Prabhupada is an interesting character and his attempt to transplant Indian religion into a Western environment is a fascinating study. I think that in initiating his followers as Brahmins he was following the lead set by his own guru, Bhakti-siddhanta Saraswati. Do you think that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati was also mistaken in his attempt? I am no advocate for ISKCON and have only a limited knowledge of its procedures, but I would say that the emphasis on devotion to Krishna as transcending all other qualities led the Gaudiya Math leaders to suppose that if one had Krishna bhakti then such a person was greater than a Brahmin. It is not a unique idea. Basavanna and the Lingayats held a similar view in relation to Shiva bhakti. They have no Brahmins because they regard Shiva bhakti as transcending all such designations. I also suspect that Prabhupada found it hard to comprehend the Western mind and when he saw great commitment to the cause in his followers he presumed a level of sincerity that was not quite there. I think he failed to grasp how temporary everything is in the West and how prone young Westerners are to take something up very ardently and then set it aside a few years later.

 

3. I would say that the caste system as it has been practised in India for centuries is not based on any sort of spiritual realisation. Swami Vivekananda makes this point very eloquently. It is more about families preserving their own wealth and status than the spiritual upliftment of society. I do know some Brahmins by birth who take this identity very seriously and are wonderful admirable people, a joy to be with, but they are equally opposed to being given status by birth alone.

 

4. Good point. I would say that in modern society varna has very little meaning in religious life. It is a leftover from the past. Caste provides a very valuable sense of community but too often it is connected to pride and contempt for others. What does varna mean for most people today, particularly those living in the West or in Indian cities? It is not an important element in our religious lives and I think that most Hindus would share that view.

[raghu]

 

Raghu, two points in response to your previous post:

 

1. Why would Mahabharata make exactly the same point as Prabhupada seemed to following with ISKCON, and Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati in his Gaudiya Math?

 

To correctly emphasize that birth is not *sufficient* i.e. - arthavAda. If one is born into a varna he has also got to take up the duties enjoined upon that varna. Nevertheless, he will be known by the varna of his birth regardless of what he does. When Ajamila ran off with a prostitute, did the smRti-s stop calling him a brAhmana and instead refer to him as a sUdra?

 

 

2. And there are many Brahmins by birth who have also fallen from brahminical standards. So your argument must equally discredit the validity of selection by birth.

 

You did not understand the argument.

 

The argument was not just that iskcon brahmanas fell down, but that an otherwise qualified and saintly guru could not correctly assign them their varna. Remember: the iskcon view is that you belong to whatever varna that you decide you belong to and/or whatever varna is given to you by the guru (there being at least 2 different views expressed by the inconsistent iskcon theologians). Whereas in Vedic culture one is known by the varna of his birth. The former is quite subjective while the latter is not.

 

So the point is - if even Prabupada could not correctly figure out someone's varna, then what are the ramifications for this in a system that make varna based on external assignment instead of objective criteria?

[raghu]

 

So your argument must equally discredit the validity of selection by birth.

 

I forgot to mention this. You might be laboring under the misconception (as theist and cbrahma certainly are), that I am personally rooting for a birth-based varna system, and/or that I am motivated by some perks that such a system supposedly offers me. I am not in either case.

 

My point has always been simply that a birth-based varna system is the Vedic standard that has been followed for thousands of years and is authenticated in scripture. If birth-independent, behavior-depedent, dynamic varna classification is what Lord Krishna wanted us to follow, then I would certainly follow that.

 

We cannot on one hand say that we follow Vedic culture and then on the other hand abandon the Vedic cultural position on varna.

[shvu]

x

[raghu]

 

1. I would prefer to say the Yudhishthira or Bhrigu way as that gives a little greater strength to the position and shows that it is not some modern invention.

 

In that case, let us call the birth-based varna position the traditional Vedic way so as to acknowledge that it is authenticated by sAstra and not a modern-day, Hindoo mental concoction as iskcon revisionists are apt to think.

 

 

The standards employed would be those given in Chapter 18 of the Gita; there are people from all backgrounds who have a tendency towards intellectual pursuits and are less materialistic. This is certainly not ideal but neither is the birth method as we can see so many Brahmins by birth who don't meet the Gita's criteria. So, yes, the method is flawed but then so is selection by birth, perhaps more so.

 

Any system of classifying people into different categories is inherently subject to abuse, and by that logic "flawed."

 

But the reality remains that a classless society does not exist. Communism does not officially accept the existence of social classes within a communist society, but history has shown that social classes exist in their countries all the same. Christians and Muslims spread propaganda that they do not accept any caste distinctions, but the reality in India is that Indian Christians and Indian Muslims still break up according to caste lines. In Western society, everyone is considered equal and class mobility is thought to be available for all when inequality exists. The reality however, is that people in Western countries form "castes" according to income and social standing, and many groups constantly complain that they face discrimination along racial or cultural lines. I can personally attest to both of these, having observed them first-hand in the West.

 

gItA chapter 18 has nothing to do with refuting birth-based varNa. All these slokas (I assume you mean 18:41-44) do is reiterate the duties that fall upon each varna, which then serves as Lord Krishna's segue to emphasize why Arjuna must do his varNAshrama duties. There is no call in the gItA to abandon one's birth-based varNa and take up the varNa of another. Arjuna was not allowed to take up the brAhmaNa profession despite demonstrating an attitude of renunciation and compassion that was uncharacteristic of a kShatriya. Does the gItA advocate that we do our duties, or that we fulfill our ambitions for upward class/caste mobility? I think you know the answer as well as I.

 

The Lord wants our *surrender,* not our social ambitions.

 

 

2. Prabhupada is an interesting character and his attempt to transplant Indian religion into a Western environment is a fascinating study. I think that in initiating his followers as Brahmins he was following the lead set by his own guru, Bhakti-siddhanta Saraswati. Do you think that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati was also mistaken in his attempt?

 

Mistaken? Perhaps, perhaps not. If someone can show the pa~ncharAtric pramANa upon which his dIkSha system was supposedly based, then I will concede that it may have been an alternative in some contexts. However, I will caution you by stating that based on what I have read of hari-bhakti vilAs, which is their main authority on ritualistic matters, the birth-based varNa system appears to be upheld by sanAtana gosvAmI. This would make Bhaktisiddhanta/Prabhupada's approach at least ungrounded in the rituals of their own sampradAya from what I can see.

 

 

I am no advocate for ISKCON and have only a limited knowledge of its procedures, but I would say that the emphasis on devotion to Krishna as transcending all other qualities led the Gaudiya Math leaders to suppose that if one had Krishna bhakti then such a person was greater than a Brahmin.

 

Certainly a devotee of Hari is very great, and should be given special respect independent of his ordinary social standing. However, the reality remains that people are not all equal, and despite trying to embrace a paradigm of absolute equality, they will become differentiated by their different intrinsic abilities. In iskcon everyone is a "pure devotee" and is considered above the "mundane rules and regulations" of the Vedas, dharma-sAstras, etc. But not everyone is equally capable of discussing philosophy, managing institutions, etc. Does their officially classless society seem a practical approach to the very real problems of living in this world?

 

 

It is not a unique idea. Basavanna and the Lingayats held a similar view in relation to Shiva bhakti. They have no Brahmins because they regard Shiva bhakti as transcending all such designations.

 

The point I am trying to make is that such ideas are about as practical as Karl Marx's view that a communist society would lead to an undoing of all inequalities and class distinctions.

 

 

I also suspect that Prabhupada found it hard to comprehend the Western mind and when he saw great commitment to the cause in his followers he presumed a level of sincerity that was not quite there. I think he failed to grasp how temporary everything is in the West and how prone young Westerners are to take something up very ardently and then set it aside a few years later.

 

All of which supports the idea that being raised *properly* from birth into a specific varna is necessary for that person to successfully stick with his varNAsrama duties. Which in turn gets back to a birth-based varNa system where the parents don't have to wonder how to raise their child; they just raise him or her according to the standards of their varNa.

 

 

3. I would say that the caste system as it has been practised in India for centuries is not based on any sort of spiritual realisation. Swami Vivekananda makes this point very eloquently.

 

Many things in India are admittedly not based on spiritual realization, including Swami Vivekananda and his quasi-Advaitic teachings.

 

 

It is more about families preserving their own wealth and status than the spiritual upliftment of society.

 

That is the politically correct thing to say, of course. And to be fair, any social system, even a genuine Vedic one, can be abused by people who are corrupted by materialistic values. But really now, how many can say scientifically that the system is "more about preserving wealth and status?" I don't think there is much unbiased scholarship on the subject. Most of academia is inherently hostile to India and Indian culture, yet their views of India continue to color everyone's perceptions of Indian values, including those of many Indian sympathizers and self-professed Hindu revivalists.

 

 

I do know some Brahmins by birth who take this identity very seriously and are wonderful admirable people, a joy to be with, but they are equally opposed to being given status by birth alone.

 

The reality is that many brahmins are also habituated to downplay (at least officially) birth and its significance. It just isn't politically correct for them to say they are brahmins anymore, even in India. If they identify themselves as brahmins, they will be scorned as opportunistic exploiters of the agrarian Hindu masses. For this reason, some "traditionally-minded" brahmins will officially downplay birth, but in practice they still prefer to associate with other brahmins, marry their children to other brahmins, etc.

 

 

4. Good point. I would say that in modern society varna has very little meaning in religious life.

 

 

I would say that varNa has a lot of meaning, especially in modern religious life. Brahmins who perform their sandhya-vandana do so because this was the brahminical duty that was inculcated in them. Brahmins who still go to temple and support devotional projects do so because they were habituated to think of themselves as responsible for such things. And what of brahmins who remain vegetarian despite mounting secular pressure to do otherwise? It is only because of that instinctive feeling that being a brahmin means having certain values, even if they cannot speak the spiritual language that is required to articulate the basis of such values.

 

 

It is a leftover from the past. Caste provides a very valuable sense of community but too often it is connected to pride and contempt for others. What does varna mean for most people today, particularly those living in the West or in Indian cities? It is not an important element in our religious lives and I think that most Hindus would share that view.

 

Try though you might, you cannot eliminate caste from the human diet. Whether you call it classes or something else, "caste" will always exist. I once read an article by an Indian feminist who described her days as a Delhi college student, rubbing elbows with other women of a "progressive" social disposition. These women were above all such things like varna, puja, etc. But they very much admired fair skin, the ability to speak English, and the knowledge of how to obtain reliable birth control. In their society, Indian women who could perfectly speak English, converse competently about the latest Hollywood films, and wore jeans on a daily basis were regarded as part of the upper crust. But those women who preferred to speak in Hindi or some regional dialect, were not accustomed to taking birth control pills, or did not know all the nuances of American culture were treated with derision. Women of the latter group found it difficult to enjoy all the perks of membership in the college sorority or whatever it was. They were regularly discriminated against in many subtle and overt ways.

 

I think the reality is that human beings, no matter their background, will always break up into classes. They will either do this on the basis of religious values taught from birth or on the basis of impermanent things that have no relevance to spiritual life.

[kimfelix]

Raghu, thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree with a lot of what you say, particularly regarding the perspective of the Gita. I was arguing mainly from the other side just as a way of pursuing the topic from a range of perspectives. On the last point, I agree that a lot of Brahmins do take their identity very seriously but that is not quite the same as the whole varna dharma idea. In terms of society as a whole and the social role of dharma, then varna is no longer a central issue. Perhaps we need to reinterpret the Gita's emphasis on varna dharma in a more general sense as loka-samgraha, having a responsibility for the welfare of society as a whole that must be reconciled with our personal quest for spiritual goals.

 

Anyway thank you again for your intelligent and learned words. Regardless of your birth, I regard you as a Brahmin.