Krishna unavailable to non-Brahmanas?

[ranjeetmore]

I have the answer.

 

Each and every Acharya of Bhakti has strongly maintained that NOTHING is at all the cause/root of Bhakti let alone varna-asrama.

Sri Gauranga refused Ramananda's proposal that follwing varna-asrama is the highest ideal.

Sri Tulsidasa has counted Varna-asrama is his list of things that canot lead to the ultimate Ananda.

Bhagavatam,etc. also confirm this.

 

BUT.

 

This rule applies to the devotee who is immersed in bhava stage or higher or more importantly for the RAGANUGA DEVOTEES.

 

For the neophyte devotee,constant remembrance is nigh impossible.Thus the need to first undergo discipline and regulations as regarded only to his deity of Sri Vishnu.This increases attachment for spontaneous performance of services.

 

You say that GV's stress the need to become brahmanas.Brahmanical culture is performance of karma kanda/yagnas/cultivating knowledge of Brahmn etc.

 

GV's or any vaishnava brahmana doesn't do all these things.Bhakti is foremost.A person who is born as chandala and who cries in ecstacy in remembrance and a high class brahmana who reads the vedas out of strict vows etc, are in no way the same.The so called chandala is washing away good/bad karma of millions of lives(Sanchit karma) by merely clapping in ecstasy.The Brahmana does NO SUCH THING.In Fact he INCREASES HIS GOOD KARMA by performing Karma Kaanda.

If the Brahmana is cultivating Jnana,if he is consistent for million years,eliminates Ajnana(ignorance/avidya).For Jnana destroys avidya.This avidya is nothing but the combined entity of Rajo/tamo guna.The Jnani STILL REMAINS in sattvic guna.This is the final verdict.

 

Thus the chandala is unimaginably purer than the brahmana.

 

There should be no problem in accepting such a pure person as a brahmana.

 

I hope you got ur anser.

[visnujana]

 

To me someone who intends to be a Vaishnava and then also at the same time is trying to become a Brahmana or believes that the Brahmana is better than people of other varnas in attaining Krishna is a confused individual.

Kaisersose, it's vaisnava-diksa, it's not the same as diksa the smartas have. Rather it's totally different. I think what causes the confusion is the name, like ISKCON devotees say 'brahmana initiation'. It's just a word, and no other mathas, as far as I know, use that term anyway. Traditionally, it's vaisnava-diksa.

Brahmana is one who knows the Brahman. Vaisnavas understand Brahman as Para-Brahman, the Supreme Godhead, so they also want to know the Brahma, and that's exactly what vaisnava-diksa offers them.

In your response to my previous post in this thread you agreed that Vaisnavas can obtain the same good qualities. That's all vaisnavas want from diksa. They don't want to become a brahmana but they want to have qualities of vaisnava / brahmana. Once they attain the qualities, it's up to you whether you want to call them brahmanas or just vaisnavas.

Now what's the danger in wanting to have qualities that are favorable to bhakti?

[rrao]

 

Brahmana is one who knows the Brahman. Vaisnavas understand Brahman as Para-Brahman, the Supreme Godhead, so they also want to know the Brahma, and that's exactly what vaisnava-diksa offers them.

 

The question asked earlier is, "why the obsession about becoming a brahmana?" And this was offered as an answer. So in that context, let me ask this:

 

If a Brahmana is "one who knows the Brahman," then how does one become "one who knows the Brahman" simply by initiation?

 

How does society actually know who does or does not "know the Brahman?"

 

If a brahmana is someone who actually knows Brahman, then why does the Bhagavata Purana (1.7.42-43) refer to Ashvatthama as a brahmana? And that too after he murdered the sleeping sons of the Pandavas? Did Ashvatthama, a murderer, actually "know the Brahman?"

[visnujana]

 

The question asked earlier is, "why the obsession about becoming a brahmana?" And this was offered as an answer.

Actually, this was just a link in a chain of conversation, not a direct answer offered to the original question. But anyway..

 

So in that context, let me ask this:

 

If a Brahmana is "one who knows the Brahman," then how does one become "one who knows the Brahman" simply by initiation?

Initiation is traditionally called vaisnava-diksa in Sanskrit. It consists of the ceremony of diksa itself and the process of diksa, which takes as much time as needed for a particular disciple (sisya) to achieve the goals of diksa which are two: anartha-nivriti (freedom of all anarthas, unwanted bad qualities and inclinations in the heart) and divya-jnana (the divine knowledge, which is basically knowing the Brahman). I believe I have explained this earlier in this thread. Both the ceremony and the process of diksa are important and required for the achievement of the goals of diksa.

 

 

How does society actually know who does or does not "know the Brahman?"

Members of Vaisnava Community acquire knowledge from the following trustworthy sources: Guru, Sadhu (saintly persons) and Sastra (the authorized scriptures). The knowledge however is not taken blindly. Anyone can ask as many questions as needed until full satisfaction and complete understanding of the subject. More over in rare cases when one is still not satisfied he or she can approach the other 2 sources of knowledge for reconciliation. This method of acquiring knowledge has been successfully practiced for thousands of years. Vaisnavas can know if someone has achieved the Parabrahman by the same universal method. In some cases though it is self-evident for a qualified vaisnava.

 

 

If a brahmana is someone who actually knows Brahman, then why does the Bhagavata Purana (1.7.42-43) refer to Ashvatthama as a brahmana? And that too after he murdered the sleeping sons of the Pandavas? Did Ashvatthama, a murderer, actually "know the Brahman?"

In attempt to answer your last question I'd like to simply quote from the Bhaktivedanta's Purport to this very shloka from Bhagavatam you mentioned:

 

TRANSLATION (SB 1.7.42)

Sri Suta Gosvami said: Draupadi then saw Asvatthama, who was bound with ropes like an animal and silent for having enacted the most inglorious murder. Due to her female nature, and due to her being naturally good and well-behaved, she showed him due respects as a brahmana.

 

PURPORT By H.D.G. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

 

Asvatthama was condemned by the Lord Himself, and he was treated by Arjuna just like a culprit, not like the son of a brahmana or teacher.

But when he was brought before Srimati Draupadi, she, although begrieved for the murder of her sons, and although the murderer was present before her, could not withdraw the due respect generally offered to a brahmana or to the son of a brahmana. This is due to her mild nature as a woman.

Women as a class are no better than boys, and therefore they have no discriminatory power like that of a man. Asvatthama proved himself to be an unworthy son of Dronacarya or of a brahmana, and for this reason he was condemned by the greatest authority, Lord Sri Krsna, and yet a mild woman could not withdraw her natural courtesy for a brahmana.

Even to date, in a Hindu family a woman shows proper respect to the brahmana caste, however fallen and heinous a brahma-bandhu may be. But the men have begun to protest against brahma-bandhus who are born in families of good brahmanas but by action are less than sudras.

The specific words used in this sloka are vama-svabhava, "mild and gentle by nature." A good man or woman accepts anything very easily, but a man of average intelligence does not do so. But, anyway, we should not give up our reason and discriminatory power just to be gentle. One must have good discriminatory power to judge a thing on its merit. We should not follow the mild nature of a woman and thereby accept that which is not genuine. Asvatthama may be respected by a good-natured woman, but that does not mean that he is as good as a genuine brahmana.

[hindustani]

Nicely written which made things easier:) and understandable.

 

Asvatthama was condemned by the Lord Himself, and he was treated by Arjuna just like a culprit, not like the son of a brahmana or teacher.

But when he was brought before Srimati Draupadi, she, although begrieved for the murder of her sons, and although the murderer was present before her, could not withdraw the due respect generally offered to a brahmana or to the son of a brahmana. This is due to her mild nature as a woman.

Women as a class are no better than boys, and therefore they have no discriminatory power like that of a man. Asvatthama proved himself to be an unworthy son of Dronacarya or of a brahmana, and for this reason he was condemned by the greatest authority, Lord Sri Krsna, and yet a mild woman could not withdraw her natural courtesy for a brahmana.

Even to date, in a Hindu family a woman shows proper respect to the brahmana caste, however fallen and heinous a brahma-bandhu may be. But the men have begun to protest against brahma-bandhus who are born in families of good brahmanas but by action are less than sudras.

The specific words used in this sloka are vama-svabhava, "mild and gentle by nature." A good man or woman accepts anything very easily, but a man of average intelligence does not do so. But, anyway, we should not give up our reason and discriminatory power just to be gentle. One must have good discriminatory power to judge a thing on its merit. We should not follow the mild nature of a woman and thereby accept that which is not genuine. Asvatthama may be respected by a good-natured woman, but that does not mean that he is as good as a genuine brahmana.

[raghu]

 

Initiation is traditionally called vaisnava-diksa in Sanskrit. It consists of the ceremony of diksa itself and the process of diksa, which takes as much time as needed for a particular disciple (sisya) to achieve the goals of diksa which are two: anartha-nivriti (freedom of all anarthas, unwanted bad qualities and inclinations in the heart) and divya-jnana (the divine knowledge, which is basically knowing the Brahman). I believe I have explained this earlier in this thread. Both the ceremony and the process of diksa are important and required for the achievement of the goals of diksa.

 

But the point is that in ancient Vedic culture, people were conventionally called as brahmins if they were of brahmin birth and were pursuing brahmana-dharma. There was no way for a common man to objectively judge if the brahman had achieved "anartha-nivriti" and "divya-jnana"

 

 

achieved the Parabrahman by the same universal method. In some cases though it is self-evident for a qualified vaisnava.

 

Since it is only self-evident for a qualitified vaishnava, and that too only in some cases, how can society function on foundation of different social classes if most people have no practical means by which to identify a brahmana? Isn't the answer simply that brahmanas were identified as such by their birth and their adherence to brahmana dharma?

 

 

In attempt to answer your last question I'd like to simply quote from the Bhaktivedanta's Purport to this very shloka from Bhagavatam you mentioned:

 

TRANSLATION (SB 1.7.42)

Sri Suta Gosvami said: Draupadi then saw Asvatthama, who was bound with ropes like an animal and silent for having enacted the most inglorious murder. Due to her female nature, and due to her being naturally good and well-behaved, she showed him due respects as a brahmana.

 

PURPORT By H.D.G. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

 

Asvatthama was condemned by the Lord Himself, and he was treated by Arjuna just like a culprit, not like the son of a brahmana or teacher.

But when he was brought before Srimati Draupadi, she, although begrieved for the murder of her sons, and although the murderer was present before her, could not withdraw the due respect generally offered to a brahmana or to the son of a brahmana. This is due to her mild nature as a woman.

Women as a class are no better than boys, and therefore they have no discriminatory power like that of a man. Asvatthama proved himself to be an unworthy son of Dronacarya or of a brahmana, and for this reason he was condemned by the greatest authority, Lord Sri Krsna, and yet a mild woman could not withdraw her natural courtesy for a brahmana.

Even to date, in a Hindu family a woman shows proper respect to the brahmana caste, however fallen and heinous a brahma-bandhu may be. But the men have begun to protest against brahma-bandhus who are born in families of good brahmanas but by action are less than sudras.

The specific words used in this sloka are vama-svabhava, "mild and gentle by nature." A good man or woman accepts anything very easily, but a man of average intelligence does not do so. But, anyway, we should not give up our reason and discriminatory power just to be gentle. One must have good discriminatory power to judge a thing on its merit. We should not follow the mild nature of a woman and thereby accept that which is not genuine. Asvatthama may be respected by a good-natured woman, but that does not mean that he is as good as a genuine brahmana.

 

 

So again, here we have the case of Ashvatthama who committed murder. He was Drona's son. Drona was a brahmana and thus Ashvatthama was a brahmana. And despite murdering the sons of the Pandavas, both the Bhagavatam and your guru's commentary still refer to him as a brahmana.

 

Doesn't this show that "brahmana" just refers to a social category of people who are *supposed* to act in a certain way, but by itself is not indicative of a high level of spiritual realization? After all, you would not claim that Ashvatthama had attained "divya jnana" and "anartha nivritti," would you?

 

regards,

 

Raghu