Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 The articles seems interesting, however we must keep in mind about the accuracy of the period they are stating i.e 5000 bc , obtained by some artifacts and calculated through carbon dating. Off late Carbon Dating has not been found accurate. --- Madhusudan Bheemasenarao <madhusudanb wrote: > > skumar [skumar] > Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:13 PM > Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism > > Hi, > > I think you might find the following story > interesting! > > Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism > > http://news.sify.com/cgi-bin/sifynews/news/content/news_fullstory_v2.jsp?article\ _oid=12564633 > > Thanks > Sharat > > > nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h| > taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa| > tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH > punaH | > karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA > || > > " I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all the > actions that I do are His worship. Even then, the > worship I do is through His grace and not otherwise. > That devotion and the fruits of the actions that > come to me are due to His recurring grace " > If one always practices to do actions with a > dedicated spirit to Hari, in this way, it pleases > Vishnu. > --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in > GitA tAtparya > -- > To send an empty E-mail (without subject > and body info.) to > - > -- > Visit VMS at http://www.madhva.org > View the latest events in the US by selecting the > 'Events' link > -- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 Namskara, Certainly not.It is not interesting rather it is quite misleading. The person who has written this article has just taken the literal translation out of whatever he has read(Vedas,Manusmriti).Just read the following statement which is enough to say the article is not worth reading: " Thus, Vedas, Ramayana and Gita confer authority on sudras to possess and read all these. " The above statement is against Madhwa philosophy. This article definitely increases our mithya jnana if we think it's good and may lead to andan tamas.It's better if we ignore these articles. Vadiraj On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 Rajaraman Nagarajan wrote : >The articles seems interesting, however we must >keep in mind about the accuracy of the period >they are stating i.e 5000 bc , obtained by >some artifacts and calculated through carbon dating. >Off late Carbon Dating has not been found accurate. > >--- Madhusudan Bheemasenarao <madhusudanb >wrote: > > > > skumar [skumar] > > Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:13 PM > > Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism > > > > Hi, > > > > I think you might find the following story > > interesting! > > > > Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism > > > > >http://news.sify.com/cgi-bin/sifynews/news/content/news_fullstory_v2.jsp?articl\ e_oid=12564633 > > > > Thanks > > Sharat > > > > > > nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h| > > taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa| > > tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH > > punaH | > > karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA > > || > > > > " I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all the > > actions that I do are His worship. Even then, the > > worship I do is through His grace and not otherwise. > > That devotion and the fruits of the actions that > > come to me are due to His recurring grace " > > If one always practices to do actions with a > > dedicated spirit to Hari, in this way, it pleases > > Vishnu. > > --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in > > GitA tAtparya > > -- > > To send an empty E-mail (without subject > > and body info.) to > > - > > -- > > Visit VMS at http://www.madhva.org > > View the latest events in the US by selecting the > > 'Events' link > > -- > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2003 Report Share Posted January 30, 2003 Namaskara, I agree to the Carbon dating inaccuracy but not to the statement: " Thus, Vedas, Ramayana and Gita confer authority on sudras to possess and read all these. " The above statement is not against Madhwa philosophy. If we look at the essence of the artice, which conveys prohibition of casteism is indeed in agreement with the essence of Vedas and Bhagavadgita. Lord Sri Krishna says “Chaturvarnyam mayaa sristam gunkarma vibhajanah”. It is to be observed that the division here is based on 'Gunas' and it has nothing to do with caste. Unfortunatley, in English, there is no synonym for sanskrit word 'Varna'. 'Varna' is not 'Caste' which is a classification based on birth! There is no such mention in Bhagavadgita. Depending on the nature of the person, that person can be called Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Sudra. For example, if a family has four sons, one of them may be Brahmana, if he is more inclined towards intellectual activities (towards knowing about Brahma). One who is interested in knowing about Brahma Jnana is a Brahmana. Other person may be Kshatriya, oriented more towards physical activities and protecting the house, other person may be Vaishya, oriented towards handling the day-to-day business of the family, and the last might be Sudra, interested in doing service. It's the dominant presence of one quality and subtle presence of all other three qualities makes a 'Jiva' belong to that 'Varna' whose presence is predominant. As we know that Jnana, Bhakti and Vairagya (Knowledge, Devotion and Detachment) alone can help us attaining Moksha, it paramounts to saying that none other than one belonging to 'Brahmana' caste, is eligible for Moksha. Looking from the caste perspective, the Lord who preached Bhagavadgita and the reciepient Arjuna, both are not Brahmins by caste! It's the duty of the learned in Vedas to impart the knowledge to the aspirant who is interested in knowing Brahman. It is really unfortunate that since so many years, people belonging to Brahmana 'caste' have mis-interpreted the Vedas to their advantage and created the caste based society! I understand that it's a hard paradigm shift to accept this, but that's the true spirit of Vedas. Just think about it! A saatvic soul who desperately wants to know about Brahman cannot be deprived of the knowledge just because that soul is not born in a Brahmana caste! Regards, Prahlad Kulkarni --- Vadiraj <skvadiraj wrote: > Namskara, > > Certainly not.It is not interesting rather it is quite > misleading. > The person who has written this article has just taken the literal > translation out of whatever he has read(Vedas,Manusmriti).Just > read the following statement which is enough to say the article is > not worth reading: > > " Thus, Vedas, Ramayana and Gita confer authority on sudras to > possess and read all these. " > > The above statement is against Madhwa philosophy. > > This article definitely increases our mithya jnana if we think > it's good and may lead to andan tamas.It's better if we ignore > these articles. > > > Vadiraj > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 Rajaraman Nagarajan wrote : > >The articles seems interesting, however we must > >keep in mind about the accuracy of the period > >they are stating i.e 5000 bc , obtained by > >some artifacts and calculated through carbon dating. > >Off late Carbon Dating has not been found accurate. > > > >--- Madhusudan Bheemasenarao <madhusudanb > >wrote: > > > > > > skumar [skumar] > > > Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:13 PM > > > Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I think you might find the following story > > > interesting! > > > > > > Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism > > > > > > > >http://news.sify.com/cgi-bin/sifynews/news/content/news_fullstory_v2.jsp?articl\ e_oid=12564633 > > > > > > Thanks > > > Sharat > > > > > > > > > nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h| > > > taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa| > > > tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH > > > punaH | > > > karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA > > > || > > > > > > " I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all the > > > actions that I do are His worship. Even then, the > > > worship I do is through His grace and not otherwise. > > > That devotion and the fruits of the actions that > > > come to me are due to His recurring grace " > > > If one always practices to do actions with a > > > dedicated spirit to Hari, in this way, it pleases > > > Vishnu. > > > --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in > > > GitA tAtparya > > > -- > > > To send an empty E-mail (without subject > > > and body info.) to > > > - > > > -- > > > Visit VMS at http://www.madhva.org > > > View the latest events in the US by selecting the > > > 'Events' link > > > -- > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2003 Report Share Posted January 30, 2003 Namaskara, Does anyone here is thinking in line with what God is thinking??? if so, is the person is on par with the God or what????..God is Ananthaguna paripurna, who doesn't do a single mistake or doesn't shows any discrimination in his actions...God has created four varnas, there is no doubt about it, Srihari is the supremacy for everything & anything & we should abide by that.When he created this world with four varnas, it is his willfullness to go & take food from anyone out of the four varnas. Just because Sri Rama has taken food from Sabri, doesn't mean that we are equal to God and start going to have food with SC/ST/Dalit's. This is greatest apachara which we are going to do to the Lord. Veda clearly says that Sudras do not have authority to read Veda. Just for instance, when women do not have authority to read Veda's how can anyone go & think beyond this. Veda clearly says that Brahmana should take bath from the head, Kshatriya should bath from his shoulders, Vaishyas from thighs & Sundras just wash their feet. Meaning Sudra just by washing his feet will get punya. Clearly to say that he should do his karma as Lord instructed. No second question should arise. If we start questioning it shows that we do not have belief in Veda or Lord and we are wishing to go against these. I am writing this from my alpajnana from God's grace and presenting to the SriHari's charanaravinda. Hari Sarvothama & Vayu Jeevothama. Hare Srinivasa, Vandanegalu, --- Prahlad Kulkarni <kprahlad wrote: > Namaskara, > > I agree to the Carbon dating inaccuracy but not to > the statement: > > " Thus, Vedas, Ramayana and Gita confer authority on > sudras to > possess and read all these. " > The above statement is not against Madhwa > philosophy. > If we look at the essence of the artice, which > conveys prohibition of casteism is indeed in > agreement with the essence of Vedas and > Bhagavadgita. > Lord Sri Krishna says “Chaturvarnyam mayaa sristam > gunkarma vibhajanah”. It is to be observed that > the division here is based on 'Gunas' and it has > nothing to do with caste. Unfortunatley, in > English, there is no synonym for sanskrit word > 'Varna'. 'Varna' is not 'Caste' which is a > classification based on birth! There is no such > mention in Bhagavadgita. Depending on the nature > of the person, that person can be called Brahmana, > Kshatriya, Vaishya or Sudra. For example, if a > family has four sons, one of them may be Brahmana, > if he is more inclined towards intellectual > activities (towards knowing about Brahma). One who > is interested in knowing about Brahma Jnana is > a Brahmana. Other person may be Kshatriya, oriented > more towards physical activities and > protecting the house, other person may be Vaishya, > oriented towards handling the day-to-day > business of the family, and the last might be Sudra, > interested in doing service. > It's the dominant presence of one quality and subtle > presence of all other three qualities makes a > 'Jiva' belong to that 'Varna' whose presence is > predominant. > As we know that Jnana, Bhakti and Vairagya > (Knowledge, Devotion and Detachment) alone can help > us > attaining Moksha, it paramounts to saying that none > other than one belonging to 'Brahmana' caste, > is eligible for Moksha. Looking from the caste > perspective, the Lord who preached Bhagavadgita and > the reciepient Arjuna, both are not Brahmins by > caste! > It's the duty of the learned in Vedas to impart the > knowledge to the aspirant who is interested in > knowing Brahman. It is really unfortunate that since > so many years, people belonging to Brahmana > 'caste' have mis-interpreted the Vedas to their > advantage and created the caste based society! > I understand that it's a hard paradigm shift to > accept this, but that's the true spirit of Vedas. > Just think about it! A saatvic soul who desperately > wants to know about Brahman cannot be deprived > of the knowledge just because that soul is not born > in a Brahmana caste! > > Regards, > Prahlad Kulkarni > > > --- Vadiraj <skvadiraj wrote: > > Namskara, > > > > Certainly not.It is not interesting rather it is > quite > > misleading. > > The person who has written this article has just > taken the literal > > translation out of whatever he has > read(Vedas,Manusmriti).Just > > read the following statement which is enough to > say the article is > > not worth reading: > > > > " Thus, Vedas, Ramayana and Gita confer authority > on sudras to > > possess and read all these. " > > > > The above statement is against Madhwa philosophy. > > > > This article definitely increases our mithya jnana > if we think > > it's good and may lead to andan tamas.It's better > if we ignore > > these articles. > > > > > > Vadiraj > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 Rajaraman Nagarajan wrote : > > >The articles seems interesting, however we must > > >keep in mind about the accuracy of the period > > >they are stating i.e 5000 bc , obtained by > > >some artifacts and calculated through carbon > dating. > > >Off late Carbon Dating has not been found > accurate. > > > > > >--- Madhusudan Bheemasenarao > <madhusudanb > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > skumar > [skumar] > > > > Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:13 PM > > > > Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit > casteism > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I think you might find the following story > > > > interesting! > > > > > > > > Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism > > > > > > > > > > > >http://news.sify.com/cgi-bin/sifynews/news/content/news_fullstory_v2.jsp?articl\ e_oid=12564633 > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Sharat > > > > > > > > > > > > nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA > karmachaakhilam.h| > > > > taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna > naanyaThaa| > > > > tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h > punaH > > > > punaH | > > > > karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH > sadhA > > > > || > > > > > > > > " I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all > the > > > > actions that I do are His worship. Even then, > the > > > > worship I do is through His grace and not > otherwise. > > > > That devotion and the fruits of the actions > that > > > > come to me are due to His recurring grace " > > > > If one always practices to do actions with a > > > > dedicated spirit to Hari, in this way, it > pleases > > > > Vishnu. > > > > --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya > in > > > > GitA tAtparya > > > > -- > > > > To send an empty E-mail (without > subject > > > > and body info.) to > > > > - > > > > -- > > > > Visit VMS at http://www.madhva.org > > > > View the latest events in the US by selecting > the > > > > 'Events' link > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2003 Report Share Posted January 30, 2003 shrI gurubhyo namaH hariH OM shrImadAnandatIrthabhagavatpAdAchAryagurubhyo namaH Namaste, > > Prahlad Kulkarni [kprahlad] > Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:47 AM > Namaskara, > > I agree to the Carbon dating inaccuracy but not to the statement: > " Thus, Vedas, Ramayana and Gita confer authority on sudras to > possess and read all these. " > The above statement is not against Madhwa philosophy. After his memorable invocatory verse on Sriman Narayana, the verily great " dashapramiti " Srimad AnandatIrtha, in the upodghAta (preface) to his first work Gita Bhashya, explains the conditions for the Lord to take avatAra as Sri Vedavyasa: naShTadharmaj~nAnalokakR^ipALubhiH brahmarudrendrAdibhirarthito j~nAnapradarshanAya bhagavAn.h vyAso.avatatAra | Prayed by the merciful devatas such as Brahma, Rudra and Indra when they saw the decline of dharmajnAna, the Lord took his incarnation as Sri Vedavyasa to impart right knowledge. (But, what then is the use of right knowledge? Or what is the problem if dharmajnAna declines? To that, Srimad Acharya writes:) tatashcheshhTAnishhTaprAptiparihArasAdhanAdarshanAt.h vedArthAj~nAnAchcha saMsAre klishyamAnAnAM vedAnadhikAriNAM strIshUdrAdInAM cha dharmaj~nAnadvArA moxo bhavediti kR^ipALuH sarvavedArthopabR^iMhitAM tadanuktakevaleshvaraj~nAnadR^ishhTArthayuktAM cha sarvaprANinAM avagAhyAnavagAhyarUpAM kevalabhagavatsvarUpaparAM paroxArthAM mahAbhAratasaMhitAmachIklR^ipat.h | And then (i) to enable people to obtain desirable ends and to avoid undesirable ones (iShTA-prApti, aniShTA-parihAra) and (ii) to enable folks such as women, shUdrAs etc, who were distressed due to lack of right knowledge, which in turn was due to their not being eligible to study the Vedas, obtain right knowledge of dharma, which is the means to obtain moksha, the ever Kind Lord wrote the Mahabharata, which is full of the principles mentioned in all the Vedas that give knowledge of the Supreme Lord.... (partial and free translation). The point here is that Srimad Acharya does consider shUdrAs as not eligible for studying the Vedas, which is an important aspect of caste system (not casteism) and gives that as the reason behind Sri Vedavyasa's avatara. This is not the only instance. He mentions this in his commentary on the 'apashUdrAdhikaraNa'. For a brief summary, one can look at the relevant aNubhAShya verse: " j~neyo na vedaiH shUdrAdaiH " (He is not to be known by the shUdrAs by reading Vedas). This adhikaraNa considers an instance of Pautrayana, where this rule is seemingly flouted and ends with declaring Pautrayana to be a kshatriyA based on his possession of a chariot; possession of a chariot is possible for only people who have eligibility for Vedas (as depicted in a Smriti quoted by Sri Raghavendra Tirtha). Following Srimad Anandatirtha, other saints have also upheld the strict regulations for different castes. Sri Raghavendra Tirtha quotes the Bhagavata line 'strI-shUdra-brahmabandhUnAM trayI na shruti gocharA' (Shrutis i.e. Vedas are not to be heard or chanted by women, shUdrAs and brahma-bandhus i.e., fallen brahmins. So, whether we like it or not, we cannot say that " > The above statement is not against Madhwa philosophy " . Vadiraj is indeed right in his condemnation of the article. > If we look at the essence of the artice, which conveys > prohibition of casteism is indeed in agreement with the > essence of Vedas and Bhagavadgita. Lord Sri Krishna says > " Chaturvarnyam mayaa sristam gunkarma vibhajanah " . It is to > be observed that the division here is based on 'Gunas' and it > has nothing to do with caste. Unfortunatley, in English, > there is no synonym for sanskrit word 'Varna'. 'Varna' is not > 'Caste' which is a classification based on birth! There is no > such mention in Bhagavadgita. Depending on the nature of the > person, that person can be called Brahmana, Kshatriya, > Vaishya or Sudra. For example, if a family has four sons, one > of them may be Brahmana, if he is more inclined towards > intellectual activities (towards knowing about Brahma). One > who is interested in knowing about Brahma Jnana is a > Brahmana. Other person may be Kshatriya, oriented more > towards physical activities and protecting the house, other > person may be Vaishya, oriented towards handling the > day-to-day business of the family, and the last might be > Sudra, interested in doing service. It's the dominant > presence of one quality and subtle presence of all other > three qualities makes a 'Jiva' belong to that 'Varna' whose > presence is predominant. This kind of interpretation that the caste system is not based on birth instead on the guNas displayed is opposed by the very verse in the Gita (and later chapters also). If one harmonizes the various scriptures -- Vedas, purANAs, dharmashAstras, kalpa-sUtras -- two factors, birth and one's activities are important. A Brahmana or a traivarNika is first by birth. This is a necessary condition. But it is not a __sufficient__ condition. (i) He should have initiation into the sacred thread (after which he becomes a dvija) and (ii) he should learn scriptures as much as possible, follow his varNa dharma properly AND in addition to all these, he should practice austerities to obtain the virtues of shama, dama etc. Ofcourse, Hari-bhakti is the foremost virtue that he should possess; not possessing which would nullify the existence of others. Why is birth a necessary condition? The answer to that is simple: There are scriptural quotes to that effect. And secondly birth is a decision by the Lord indicates what exactly one's guNAs and karmas are. He knows what your guNAs and karmAs are. The guNAs refer, not to the qualities displayed or preferred by a particular person, but to the innate qualities of different jAtis (which do not map to the varNa system, which he has upheld in other instances as shown by above quotes) that Srimad Acharya describes in Gita bhashya on the 'chAturvarNyaM' verse. If birth were not to be a necessary condition and if the attitudes and aptitudes alone were to be determinant of one's caste, the whole scriptures will end up as nonsense. For example: consider the case of upanayana: A Brahmana should have his upanayana by 8th year (before 16 th year), a kshatriya by 12th year (before 20th year) and a vaishya by 16th year (before 24th year). Would one be in a position to decide whether a boy is a Brahmana or a kshatriya or a vaishya by his 8th year based on his guNAs? Whether he has purity, forgiveness, bhakti et al? One's aptitudes changes at different stages of life. Which means it is possible to keep one's varNas at their will and mood. None of the scriptures ever depict such a thing: 1. Arjuna displayed 'dayA' towards kauravas at the beginning of the war. Lord Krishna, instead of hailing it as a brahminical quality, criticized him and motivated him to do his duty as a kshatriya: nArAyaNadviT.h tadanubandhinigrahaM. The Lord did not ask him to become a brAhmaNa for a while. Instead, the Lord tells him: svadharme nidhanaM shreyaH paradharmo bhayAvahaH. If birth were not to be a necessary factor, this very idea of 'svadharma' and 'paradharma' becomes redundant. 2. Yudhishthira too showed many such qualities of compassion towards kauravas. Instead of converting him into a Brahmana, he was reprimanded for holding a non-kshatriya attitude. 3. Vidura showed many brahminical qualities. But he never become a priest, instead he served the kuru race. 4. The story of dharma-vyADha, a butcher who instructs a brAhmaNa-brahmachAri regarding nature of dharma, is another case in point. There are numerous other passages in Mahabharata that explicitly reject a position of a person changing one's varNa. THere is a passage in MBh (anushAsana parva), that states that a shUdra with good qualities becomes __like__ a brAhmaNa and not a brahmaNa. Srimad Acharya also uses this idea to refute a wrong interpretation of the shruti statement: brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati (knower of brahman will become brahman). Srimad Acharya says that just like a shUdra with good qualities should be treated _like_ a brahmin, i.e., with respect etc, so too a knower of Brahman will become like Him, i.e., shoka-rAhitya: devoid of sorrow. 5. Why, somebody as great as Kanakadasa himself never attempted any such conversion. And if aptitude to be the decisive factor, who would decide if one had the aptitude or not? Vedas never mention a dharmAdhikAri to baptize somebody as a brAhmaNa or anything. > As we know that Jnana, Bhakti and > Vairagya (Knowledge, Devotion and Detachment) alone can help > us attaining Moksha, it paramounts to saying that none other > than one belonging to 'Brahmana' caste, is eligible for > Moksha. You should understand the rationale behind caste system: Srimad Acharya says: sva-vihita-vR^ittyA bhaktyA bhagavadArAdhanA eva paramodharmaH | When one's varNa-Ashrama-dharma is executed, with a sense of devotion, as the worship of Lord -- that is parama-dharma. This is the sense behind one's sAdhana. How well you execute the role given to you determines the path to Moksha. Jnana-bhakti-vairagya are irrespective of one's caste. Notice the background of Gita: The Lord instructs Arjuna to fight war with sense of niShkAma karma to get moksha. > knowing Brahman. It is really unfortunate that since so many > years, people belonging to Brahmana 'caste' have > mis-interpreted the Vedas to their advantage and created the > caste based society! I understand that it's a hard paradigm > shift to accept this, but that's the true spirit of Vedas. Proof needed. I just hope you are not trying to take the article at http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Brahmana-Vaisnava.html as a proof. It has too many errors to be of any worth. > Just think about it! A saatvic soul who desperately wants to > know about Brahman cannot be deprived of the knowledge just > because that soul is not born in a Brahmana caste! Sri Raghavendra Tirtha answers this in his Tattva-manjari on the aNu-bhAShya verse: tarhi yogyAnAM sachchhUdrAdInAM anuttamastrINAM cha muktyabhAvaH syAt.h | vishhNuj~nAnAbhAvAt.h | na cheshhTApattiH | " mAM hi pArtha vyapAshritya ye.api syuH pApayonayaH | striyo vaishyAstathA shUdrAste.api yAnti parAM gatim.h " ityAdivirodhAdityato.api -- " j~neyo na vedaiH " -- ityAdi | nasamAso.ayam.h | vibhAshhAnuvR^ittyA nalopasya vikalpitatvAt.h naJN.hsamAso vA | navedaiH avedaiH vedAdanyairitihAsapurANAdibhiH shUdrAdyaiH janArdanaH saMsArArdano bhagavAneko j~neya ityarthaH | " In such a case, will it be that, the deserving people such as shUdras with good activities and the best of women will not be granted mukti? Because of their not having Vishnu-jnAna? ..... (To answer this question, Srimad Acharya says): (Vishnu is) not to be known by Vedas by Shudras. ... By (the knowledge contained in) other texts such as the itihAsa (Mahabharata) and Puranas, the Lord Janardana (Janardana = one removes us from the samsAra) is to be known by shUdras etc. Regards, Krishna > > Regards, > Prahlad Kulkarni > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2003 Report Share Posted January 30, 2003 Namaskara, I do not have a formal learning in Vedas to initiate a discussion on Vedanta about casteism. My opinion is purely a reflection of my listening to the cassette 'Giteya Belaku' by Sri Bannanje Govindacharya. With all due respects to what Krishna has mentioned in his e-mail, if any of the members of this list happen to be in Bangalore, should visit or talk to Sri Bannanje Govindacharya, if they are interested in knowing the Truth. I believe in what Sri Bannanje says because he does not talk without a reference in Vedas. But, in the cassette, there is not enough evidence to quote here. In fact, I was awe-struck myself when I listened to it and I definitely would like to talk to him when I visit India. In order for us to accept the Truth, we must surely convince others who believe otherwise and this becomes even important because Sri Bannanje is a staunch Madhwa. Vedas are so rich that one can derive infinite meanings out of it. That's why Sri Madhwacharya had taken the avatara to help us understand the right meaning. Let us have the spirit of finding the correct answer and not accept what we believe is right. Regards, Prahlad Kulkarni --- Krishna K <KADIRIK wrote: > shrI gurubhyo namaH hariH OM > shrImadAnandatIrthabhagavatpAdAchAryagurubhyo namaH > > Namaste, > > > > > Prahlad Kulkarni [kprahlad] > > Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:47 AM > > > Namaskara, > > > > I agree to the Carbon dating inaccuracy but not to the statement: > > > " Thus, Vedas, Ramayana and Gita confer authority on sudras to > > possess and read all these. " > > The above statement is not against Madhwa philosophy. > > After his memorable invocatory verse on Sriman Narayana, the verily > great " dashapramiti " Srimad AnandatIrtha, in the upodghAta (preface) to > his first work Gita Bhashya, explains the conditions for the Lord to > take avatAra as Sri Vedavyasa: > > naShTadharmaj~nAnalokakR^ipALubhiH brahmarudrendrAdibhirarthito > j~nAnapradarshanAya bhagavAn.h vyAso.avatatAra | > > Prayed by the merciful devatas such as Brahma, Rudra and Indra when they > saw the decline of dharmajnAna, the Lord took his incarnation as Sri > Vedavyasa to impart right knowledge. > > (But, what then is the use of right knowledge? Or what is the problem if > dharmajnAna declines? To that, Srimad Acharya writes:) > > tatashcheshhTAnishhTaprAptiparihArasAdhanAdarshanAt.h > vedArthAj~nAnAchcha saMsAre klishyamAnAnAM vedAnadhikAriNAM > strIshUdrAdInAM cha dharmaj~nAnadvArA moxo bhavediti kR^ipALuH > sarvavedArthopabR^iMhitAM tadanuktakevaleshvaraj~nAnadR^ishhTArthayuktAM > cha sarvaprANinAM avagAhyAnavagAhyarUpAM kevalabhagavatsvarUpaparAM > paroxArthAM mahAbhAratasaMhitAmachIklR^ipat.h | > > And then (i) to enable people to obtain desirable ends and to avoid > undesirable ones (iShTA-prApti, aniShTA-parihAra) and (ii) to enable > folks such as women, shUdrAs etc, who were distressed due to lack of > right knowledge, which in turn was due to their not being eligible to > study the Vedas, obtain right knowledge of dharma, which is the means to > obtain moksha, the ever Kind Lord wrote the Mahabharata, which is full > of the principles mentioned in all the Vedas that give knowledge of the > Supreme Lord.... (partial and free translation). > > The point here is that Srimad Acharya does consider shUdrAs as not > eligible for studying the Vedas, which is an important aspect of caste > system (not casteism) and gives that as the reason behind Sri > Vedavyasa's avatara. > > This is not the only instance. He mentions this in his commentary on the > 'apashUdrAdhikaraNa'. For a brief summary, one can look at the relevant > aNubhAShya verse: " j~neyo na vedaiH shUdrAdaiH " (He is not to be known > by the shUdrAs by reading Vedas). This adhikaraNa considers an instance > of Pautrayana, where this rule is seemingly flouted and ends with > declaring Pautrayana to be a kshatriyA based on his possession of a > chariot; possession of a chariot is possible for only people who have > eligibility for Vedas (as depicted in a Smriti quoted by Sri Raghavendra > Tirtha). > > Following Srimad Anandatirtha, other saints have also upheld the strict > regulations for different castes. Sri Raghavendra Tirtha quotes the > Bhagavata line 'strI-shUdra-brahmabandhUnAM trayI na shruti gocharA' > (Shrutis i.e. Vedas are not to be heard or chanted by women, shUdrAs and > brahma-bandhus i.e., fallen brahmins. > > So, whether we like it or not, we cannot say that " > The above statement > is not against Madhwa philosophy " . Vadiraj is indeed right in his > condemnation of the article. > > > If we look at the essence of the artice, which conveys > > prohibition of casteism is indeed in agreement with the > > essence of Vedas and Bhagavadgita. Lord Sri Krishna says > > " Chaturvarnyam mayaa sristam gunkarma vibhajanah " . It is to > > be observed that the division here is based on 'Gunas' and it > > has nothing to do with caste. Unfortunatley, in English, > > there is no synonym for sanskrit word 'Varna'. 'Varna' is not > > 'Caste' which is a classification based on birth! There is no > > such mention in Bhagavadgita. Depending on the nature of the > > person, that person can be called Brahmana, Kshatriya, > > Vaishya or Sudra. For example, if a family has four sons, one > > of them may be Brahmana, if he is more inclined towards > > intellectual activities (towards knowing about Brahma). One > > who is interested in knowing about Brahma Jnana is a > > Brahmana. Other person may be Kshatriya, oriented more > > towards physical activities and protecting the house, other > > person may be Vaishya, oriented towards handling the > > day-to-day business of the family, and the last might be > > Sudra, interested in doing service. It's the dominant > > presence of one quality and subtle presence of all other > > three qualities makes a 'Jiva' belong to that 'Varna' whose > > presence is predominant. > > This kind of interpretation that the caste system is not based on birth > instead on the guNas displayed is opposed by the very verse in the Gita > (and later chapters also). > > If one harmonizes the various scriptures -- Vedas, purANAs, > dharmashAstras, kalpa-sUtras -- two factors, birth and one's activities > are important. A Brahmana or a traivarNika is first by birth. This is a > necessary condition. But it is not a __sufficient__ condition. (i) He > should have initiation into the sacred thread (after which he becomes a > dvija) and (ii) he should learn scriptures as much as possible, follow > his varNa dharma properly AND in addition to all these, he should > practice austerities to obtain the virtues of shama, dama etc. Ofcourse, > Hari-bhakti is the foremost virtue that he should possess; not > possessing which would nullify the existence of others. > > Why is birth a necessary condition? The answer to that is simple: There > are scriptural quotes to that effect. And secondly birth is a decision > by the Lord indicates what exactly one's guNAs and karmas are. He knows > what your guNAs and karmAs are. The guNAs refer, not to the qualities > displayed or preferred by a particular person, but to the innate > qualities of different jAtis (which do not map to the varNa system, > which he has upheld in other instances as shown by above quotes) that > Srimad Acharya describes in Gita bhashya on the 'chAturvarNyaM' verse. > > If birth were not to be a necessary condition and if the attitudes and > aptitudes alone were to be determinant of one's caste, the whole > scriptures will end up as nonsense. > > For example: consider the case of upanayana: A Brahmana should have his > upanayana by 8th year (before 16 th year), a kshatriya by 12th year > (before 20th year) and a vaishya by 16th year (before 24th year). Would > one be in a position to decide whether a boy is a Brahmana or a > kshatriya or a vaishya by his 8th year based on his guNAs? Whether he > has purity, forgiveness, bhakti et al? > > One's aptitudes changes at different stages of life. Which means it is > possible to keep one's varNas at their will and mood. None of the > scriptures ever depict such a thing: > > 1. Arjuna displayed 'dayA' towards kauravas at the beginning of the war. > Lord Krishna, instead of hailing it as a brahminical quality, criticized > him and motivated him to do his duty as a kshatriya: nArAyaNadviT.h > tadanubandhinigrahaM. The Lord did not ask him to become a brAhmaNa for > a while. Instead, the Lord tells him: > > svadharme nidhanaM shreyaH paradharmo bhayAvahaH. If birth were not to > be a necessary factor, this very idea of 'svadharma' and 'paradharma' > becomes redundant. > > 2. Yudhishthira too showed many such qualities of compassion towards > kauravas. Instead of converting him into a Brahmana, he was reprimanded > for holding a non-kshatriya attitude. > > 3. Vidura showed many brahminical qualities. But he never become a > priest, instead he served the kuru race. > > 4. The story of dharma-vyADha, a butcher who instructs a > brAhmaNa-brahmachAri regarding nature of dharma, is another case in > point. > > There are numerous other passages in Mahabharata that explicitly reject > a position of a person changing one's varNa. THere is a passage in MBh > (anushAsana parva), that states that a shUdra with good qualities > becomes __like__ a brAhmaNa and not a brahmaNa. Srimad Acharya also uses > this idea to refute a wrong interpretation of the shruti statement: > brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati (knower of brahman will become brahman). > Srimad Acharya says that just like a shUdra with good qualities should > be treated _like_ a brahmin, i.e., with respect etc, so too a knower of > Brahman will become like Him, i.e., shoka-rAhitya: devoid of sorrow. > > 5. Why, somebody as great as Kanakadasa himself never attempted any such > conversion. > > And if aptitude to be the decisive factor, who would decide if one had > the aptitude or not? Vedas never mention a dharmAdhikAri to baptize > somebody as a brAhmaNa or anything. > > > As we know that Jnana, Bhakti and > > Vairagya (Knowledge, Devotion and Detachment) alone can help > > us attaining Moksha, it paramounts to saying that none other > > than one belonging to 'Brahmana' caste, is eligible for > > Moksha. > > You should understand the rationale behind caste system: > Srimad Acharya says: sva-vihita-vR^ittyA bhaktyA bhagavadArAdhanA eva > paramodharmaH | > > When one's varNa-Ashrama-dharma is executed, with a sense of devotion, > as the worship of Lord -- that is parama-dharma. > > This is the sense behind one's sAdhana. How well you execute the role > given to you determines the path to Moksha. Jnana-bhakti-vairagya are > irrespective of one's caste. Notice the background of Gita: The Lord > instructs Arjuna to fight war with sense of niShkAma karma to get > moksha. > > > knowing Brahman. It is really unfortunate that since so many > > years, people belonging to Brahmana 'caste' have > > mis-interpreted the Vedas to their advantage and created the > > caste based society! I understand that it's a hard paradigm > > shift to accept this, but that's the true spirit of Vedas. > > Proof needed. I just hope you are not trying to take the article at > http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Brahmana-Vaisnava.html as a > proof. It has too many errors to be of any worth. > > > Just think about it! A saatvic soul who desperately wants to > > know about Brahman cannot be deprived of the knowledge just > > because that soul is not born in a Brahmana caste! > > Sri Raghavendra Tirtha answers this in his Tattva-manjari on the > aNu-bhAShya verse: > > tarhi yogyAnAM sachchhUdrAdInAM anuttamastrINAM cha muktyabhAvaH syAt.h > | vishhNuj~nAnAbhAvAt.h | na cheshhTApattiH | " mAM hi pArtha > vyapAshritya ye.api syuH pApayonayaH | striyo vaishyAstathA > shUdrAste.api yAnti parAM gatim.h " ityAdivirodhAdityato.api -- " j~neyo > na vedaiH " -- ityAdi | nasamAso.ayam.h | vibhAshhAnuvR^ittyA > nalopasya vikalpitatvAt.h naJN.hsamAso vA | navedaiH avedaiH > vedAdanyairitihAsapurANAdibhiH shUdrAdyaiH janArdanaH saMsArArdano > bhagavAneko j~neya ityarthaH | > > " In such a case, will it be that, the deserving people such as shUdras > with good activities and the best of women will not be granted mukti? > Because of their not having Vishnu-jnAna? ..... > (To answer this question, Srimad Acharya says): (Vishnu is) not to be > known by Vedas by Shudras. ... By (the knowledge contained in) other > texts such as the itihAsa (Mahabharata) and Puranas, the Lord Janardana > (Janardana = one removes us from the samsAra) is to be known by shUdras > etc. > > Regards, > Krishna > > > > > Regards, > > Prahlad Kulkarni > > Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 > > Prahlad Kulkarni [kprahlad] > Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:17 PM > Namaskara, > I do not have a formal learning in Vedas to initiate a > discussion on Vedanta about casteism. > My opinion is purely a reflection of my listening to the > cassette 'Giteya Belaku' by Sri Bannanje > Govindacharya. > With all due respects to what Krishna has mentioned in his > e-mail, if any of the members of this > list happen to be in Bangalore, should visit or talk to Sri > Bannanje Govindacharya, if they are > interested in knowing the Truth. If somebody is interested in knowing the truth, there's a better way. Pls take the verses and quotes in my original mail that are given by Srimad Acharya in his works and check if they get to the same translation that I have given. If it doesn't pls point out. If it does, check with others if it is OK. If it is, then check with Sri Bannanje if he is giving a figurative meaning and in case he is, ask the need for a figurative meaning, forsaking the straightforward meaning. And ask him for a pramANa to check if figurative meanings are upheld by our illustrious Acharya and his commentators somewhere. If he has pramANa for every figurative meaning he gives (like Sri Raghavendra Tirtha who refers to Aitareya Upanishad's 'dasha' iti sarvaM to hold that the puruSha-sUkta's 'atyatiShThat.h dashAN^gulam.h' refers to the Lord Hari's surpassing this world by an infinite amount, instead of just 'ten fingers'), well and good. Never assume that he or anybody will have a pramANa just because they have furnished pramANAs in the past. This is a process that will introduce one to 'formal learning' in my opinion. This will also help us remind ourselves that the Purnabodha, Srimad Anandatirtha is our Acharya, and not others, who are there only to help us. Sri Jayatirtha, Sri Vyasatirtha, Sri Vadiraja tirtha, Sri Raghavendra tirtha and so many others have always quoted and cross-referenced Srimad Anandatirtha himself; for, he alone can be 'shuddhaM pramANaM sa me' (for me, He is a pramaNA by himself) as said by Sri Jayatirtha in Nyayasudha. All said and done, I doubt, though I haven't heard that cassette, that you have misinterpreted Sri Bannanje. Or that you have taken his words in isolation. > of it. That's why Sri Madhwacharya had > taken the avatara to help us understand the right meaning. > Let us have the spirit of finding the correct answer and not > accept what we believe is right. The last line cuts both ways. Regards, Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 Arguing about who is eligible to read the Vedas and who gets Moksha first etc...are not going help any of us in our individual spiritual pursuits. We should leave this activity to those who are supremely qualified to do so.... --- Krishna K <kadirik wrote: > > > > Prahlad Kulkarni [kprahlad] > > > Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:17 PM > > > Namaskara, > > > I do not have a formal learning in Vedas to > initiate a > > discussion on Vedanta about casteism. > > My opinion is purely a reflection of my listening > to the > > cassette 'Giteya Belaku' by Sri Bannanje > > Govindacharya. > > With all due respects to what Krishna has > mentioned in his > > e-mail, if any of the members of this > > list happen to be in Bangalore, should visit or > talk to Sri > > Bannanje Govindacharya, if they are > > interested in knowing the Truth. > > If somebody is interested in knowing the truth, > there's a better way. > Pls take the verses and quotes in my original mail > that are given by > Srimad Acharya in his works and check if they get to > the same > translation that I have given. If it doesn't pls > point out. If it does, > check with others if it is OK. If it is, then check > with Sri Bannanje if > he is giving a figurative meaning and in case he is, > ask the need for a > figurative meaning, forsaking the straightforward > meaning. And ask him > for a pramANa to check if figurative meanings are > upheld by our > illustrious Acharya and his commentators somewhere. > If he has pramANa > for every figurative meaning he gives (like Sri > Raghavendra Tirtha who > refers to Aitareya Upanishad's 'dasha' iti sarvaM to > hold that the > puruSha-sUkta's 'atyatiShThat.h dashAN^gulam.h' > refers to the Lord > Hari's surpassing this world by an infinite amount, > instead of just 'ten > fingers'), well and good. Never assume that he or > anybody will have a > pramANa just because they have furnished pramANAs in > the past. > > This is a process that will introduce one to 'formal > learning' in my > opinion. This will also help us remind ourselves > that the Purnabodha, > Srimad Anandatirtha is our Acharya, and not others, > who are there only > to help us. Sri Jayatirtha, Sri Vyasatirtha, Sri > Vadiraja tirtha, Sri > Raghavendra tirtha and so many others have always > quoted and > cross-referenced Srimad Anandatirtha himself; for, > he alone can be > 'shuddhaM pramANaM sa me' (for me, He is a pramaNA > by himself) as said > by Sri Jayatirtha in Nyayasudha. > > All said and done, I doubt, though I haven't heard > that cassette, that > you have misinterpreted Sri Bannanje. Or that you > have taken his words > in isolation. > > > of it. That's why Sri Madhwacharya had > > taken the avatara to help us understand the right > meaning. > > Let us have the spirit of finding the correct > answer and not > > accept what we believe is right. > > The last line cuts both ways. > > Regards, > Krishna > Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 Ramadasa Hari January 31, 2003 : > Arguing about who is eligible to read the > Vedas and who gets Moksha first etc...are not going > help any of us in our individual spiritual > pursuits. We should leave this activity to > those who are supremely qualified to do so.... That is very strange indeed. In fact there are two lines, with three components in each. 1a. Arguing about who is eligible to read the Vedas. 1b. Convincing oneself of the outcome. 1c. Implementing what one decides on. 2a. Arguing about who is eligible to get moxa. 2b. Convincing oneself of the outcome. 2c. Implementing what one decides on. 2a is purely academic and it is the God's grace that is needed to get moxa. 2b is futile and 2c does not come into picture. Now as for 1, we still have some major problems. How to determine who are supremely qualified? If we make some kind of decision about the existing people and come up with " supremely qualified " , what are we supposed to do if we hear " conflicting " views among " supremely qualified " . There are two sub-options there - 1. blindly choose one and go behind them 2. Further analyze their options and decide based on pramANa-s (santaH parIxyAnyataradbhajante, mUDhaH parapratyayaneyabuddhiH - only wise will analyze and decide one or the other choice, only the unwise get guided blindly by others' beliefs). Second major problem - what if " supremely qualified " do not argue among themselves? Then ordinary people like us have no scope to know the truth, as per our Acharya. How can one say " ...are not going to help any of us in our individual spiritual pursuits. " Isn't 1c. important for ordinary people also? How can 1c. be done, unless 1b is done. 1b can be done only on inquiry. Closing one's eyes and thinking that the problem will go away will not help. If " supremely qualified " of present times do not indulge in arguments among themselves and pass on to ordinary people with pramANa-s, we have even a better choice of looking upto more " supremely qualified " of past times like our prior saints like our Acharya and his commentators like Sri Vadiraja. One must note that neither a specific varNa nor vedAdhikAra is a prerequisite for moxa. Regards, Kesava Rao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 Thanks for breaking down the problem. I think we differ in how we view the problem. You say and I quote: > 1a. Arguing about who is eligible to read the Vedas. My point is why are you worried about others. Determine if " I am eligible to read the Vedas " . That someone is *not* eligible is of no concern to me. To go to great extents to prove that is so, is merely an academic exercise. The Acharya's diktat on this is plain and simple. If it bothers you that sudhras and women are not allowed then you are getting side-tracked from the goal. We all have our own paths to tread. Lets focus on where we are headed. I hope you get my drift. I am not closing my eyes and hoping for the problem to go away. I do *not* see a problem. Please don't get me wrong. I am all for great minds discussing worthy topics. This group has many such learned scholars who can help ordinary mortals like me. And I hope that the discussions continue albeit on more worthy topics > 1b. Convincing oneself of the outcome. > 1c. Implementing what one decides on. Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 Ramadasa Hari wrote on January 31, 2003 : > I think we differ in how we view the problem. Most certainly. > > 1a. Arguing about who is eligible to read the Vedas. > > My point is why are you worried about others. Then what is the purpose of the list? Why should I not be worried about others. Any list of our Madhva tradition is like a family to me. Sharing the information is what it is all about. There are many who look for that kind of information. There may be some who are not interested in these things. > Determine if " I am eligible to read the Vedas " . For determining that the information has to be supplied. > That someone is *not* eligible is of no concern > to me. It is to me. I have to tell my own people if it is relevent. > To go to great extents to prove that is so, is merely an > academic exercise. Ceratinly not. It is a means for many to choose a course of action. > The Acharya's diktat on this is plain and simple. I guess you mean Acharya Madhva. Can you explain how it is plain and simple. > If it bothers you that sudhras and women are not > allowed then you are getting side-tracked from > the goal. It does not bother me at all. Let people do what ever they like. This is purely for those who seek information. > We all have our own paths to tread. Certainly. > Lets focus on where we are headed. That is what exactly I try to do always. > I hope you get my drift. Not really. > I am not closing my eyes and hoping for the problem > to go away. I do *not* see a problem. The only problem is this. When some one seeks some information, why not give that or discuss that. > Please don't get me wrong. Not at all. The purpose for the list is to have a discussion. > I am all for great minds discussing worthy topics. > And I hope that the discussions continue albeit on more > worthy topics Who determines the worthiness of a topic? Regards, Kesava Rao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 Namaskara, when i first read this article, i found it interesting in terms of subject and narration and thought of just sharing this to the group. The amount of discussion it generated itself shows that it is an important topic relevent to our day to day life. I am a beginner in Madhwa Phylosophy and hence cannot vouch wether it is right or wrong and hence thought it would be good to put it in this forum so that some learned people will correct it, where necessary, and i already have seen that, also some other important topics are emerging from that. Whether this discussion is relevent or not should be judged by individuals themselves and who ever is interested in the "khandana" or "support" should be welcomed to express and others can please disregard. Otherwise, i don't see any need for these forums and will become relevent for mere announcements. Regards,Sharat. Ramadasa Hari <kukka_thoka wrote: Thanks for breaking down the problem. I thinkwe differ in how we view the problem. You sayand I quote:> 1a. Arguing about who is eligible to read the Vedas.My point is why are you worried about others. Determine if "I am eligible to read the Vedas".That someone is *not* eligible is of no concernto me. To go to great extents to prove that is so,is merely an academic exercise.The Acharya's diktat on this is plain and simple.If it bothers you that sudhras and women are notallowed then you are getting side-tracked fromthe goal. We all have our own paths to tread. Letsfocus on where we are headed. I hope you get mydrift.I am not closing my eyes and hoping for the problemto go away. I do *not* see a problem.Please don't get me wrong. I am all for great mindsdiscussing worthy topics. This group has manysuch learned scholars who can help ordinarymortals like me. And I hope that the discussionscontinue albeit on more worthy topics> 1b. Convincing oneself of the outcome.> 1c. Implementing what one decides on. Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.http://mailplus.nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h|taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa|tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH punaH |karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA ||"I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all the actions that I do are His worship. Even then, the worship I do is through His grace and not otherwise. That devotion and the fruits of the actions that come to me are due to His recurring grace" If one always practices to do actions with a dedicated spirit to Hari, in this way, it pleases Vishnu. --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in GitA tAtparya --To send an empty E-mail (without subject and body info.) to - --Visit VMS at http://www.madhva.orgView the latest events in the US by selecting the 'Events' link-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 Dear RamadAsa Hari, " Attaining mOksha " is another expression for " attaining the Creator " . Thus in the matters such as " who is eligible for mOksha ? " etc are to be left in the hands of the Creator - which is both the means and the end for " Attaining mOksha " . Do we need JignyAsA or enquiry into matters such as " who is eligible for mOksha " , " what is the relationship between jnyAna and mOksha? " etc etc at all? is the question. Sri Jayatheertha TeekAchArya has called JignyAsA as chitta-samgata-shAstra. As pertaining directly to our mind, yes we do need to enquire. To know God is to know His mahimaas. It is prasAda that leads one to jnyAna in the form of shravaNa-manana-dhyAna. The highest prasaada, athyartha-prasAda is not there unless there is jnyAna, and this highest prasAda leads to mOksha. To understand all this thro a study of shAstra is to know the all Creatorship of God in every step of the way. Thus, to know " who is eligible for mOksha? " is to know the all-creatorship of God and His mahimaa, thus is part of the process of brahma-jignyAsA which simply means it should lead us to a further study of shAstra. Srimad Acharya discusses this issue of gradations of adhikAra in brahma-jignyAsA under " jignyAsAdhikaraNa " in BSB. More on this later. ________________________________ Jay Nelamangala - " Ramadasa Hari " <kukka_thoka " Kesava Tadipatri " <meerakesav; Friday, January 31, 2003 10:30 AM Re: Re: Interesting Article > > Thanks for breaking down the problem. I think > we differ in how we view the problem. You say > and I quote: > > > 1a. Arguing about who is eligible to read the Vedas. > > My point is why are you worried about others. > Determine if " I am eligible to read the Vedas " . > That someone is *not* eligible is of no concern > to me. To go to great extents to prove that is so, > is merely an academic exercise. > The Acharya's diktat on this is plain and simple. > If it bothers you that sudhras and women are not > allowed then you are getting side-tracked from > the goal. We all have our own paths to tread. Lets > focus on where we are headed. I hope you get my > drift. > > I am not closing my eyes and hoping for the problem > to go away. I do *not* see a problem. > > Please don't get me wrong. I am all for great minds > discussing worthy topics. This group has many > such learned scholars who can help ordinary > mortals like me. And I hope that the discussions > continue albeit on more worthy topics > > > 1b. Convincing oneself of the outcome. > > 1c. Implementing what one decides on. > > > > > > Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus. > > nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h| > taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa| > tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH punaH | > karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA || > > " I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all the actions that I do are His worship. Even then, the worship I do is through His grace and not otherwise. That devotion and the fruits of the actions that come to me are due to His recurring grace " > If one always practices to do actions with a dedicated spirit to Hari, in this way, it pleases Vishnu. > --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in GitA tAtparya > -- > To send an empty E-mail (without subject and body info.) to - > -- > Visit VMS at http://www.madhva.org > View the latest events in the US by selecting the 'Events' link > -- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 --- Krishna K <KADIRIK wrote: > > > > Prahlad Kulkarni [kprahlad] > > Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:17 PM > > > Namaskara, > All said and done, I doubt, though I haven't heard that cassette, that > you have misinterpreted Sri Bannanje. Or that you have taken his words > in isolation. To prove that the concept of 'Caste System' has not been misinterpreted by me or understood it in isolation, I would like to quote a real life example exactly as narrated by Sri Bannanje in his cassete 'Giteya Belaku'. English translation of what Sri Bannanje narrated in Kannada: " A non-Brahmin student approached Pejawar Mutt Swamiji at Bangalore Vidya Peetha and asked for admission in Vidya Peetha to study Shastras as he is deeply interested in learning it. I also happened to be present there when the student approached. Even though Swamiji knew that he deserves to be taught, Swamiji had to reluctantly say 'NO' to him so as to please the other 'Brahmin students'. I offered the student to teach Shastras. He started learning Shastras from me and he was doing really good. Everything was going smoothly but he was very disturbed by the fact that he is not made to sit with the Brahmin students while taking Prasada in temple premises. He was also subjected to other mockery which made him feel so insulted that he decided to leave the place. Thus, I lost a very good student. " The above incident clearly depicts that Sri Bannanje does not support the _caste system by Birth_. > This is a process that will introduce one to 'formal learning' in my > opinion. This will also help us remind ourselves that the Purnabodha, > Srimad Anandatirtha is our Acharya, and not others, who are there only > to help us. Sri Jayatirtha, Sri Vyasatirtha, Sri Vadiraja tirtha, Sri > Raghavendra tirtha and so many others have always quoted and > cross-referenced Srimad Anandatirtha himself; for, he alone can be > 'shuddhaM pramANaM sa me' (for me, He is a pramaNA by himself) as said > by Sri Jayatirtha in Nyayasudha. I agree without any second thought that Srimad Anandatirtha is our only Guru. 'Acharyaha srimadacharyaha santhu mey janma janmani' Without the grace of Sri Hari and Vayu we cannot obtain Moksha. Having said that, let us face some real facts. In this age of Kaliyuga, with alpa Jnana, alpa Buddhi etc. coupled with the 'Job' we have to do for living, does not leave us with sufficient time to understand and interpret the monumental works of Srimad Acharya and his disciples. I being a layman, to begin with, depend on the 'Pravachanas' given by learned scholars of our times. Sri Bannanje is also one among them, as he has aptly been called 'Vidyavachaspati' by the learned. So, whatever he says, should be taken seriously. However, I think any further discussion about this is futile until what Sri Krishna K has written is presented before Sri Bannanje. Or anyone in the list who has more proofs against what Sri Krishna K has presented. I have seen that a lot of exchange of emails have been happening and personally I have benefitted a lot from some of the emails by the scholars. Some of them feel that the very nature of numerous exchange of emails tells that the subject matter is very important. Nevertheless, I agree to Sri Keshava Rao that this list is for discussion and we being the part of the Madhwa family should discuss anything related to Madhwa Philosophy in a spirit of harmony. However, for a moment, let us think how the 'Caste system' is going to affect our lives. If a Shudra by Birth, thinks that he does not have the authority to read and understand Vedas, there is no reason why that person should be disappointed. As quoted by Sri Krishna K in his earlier e-mails, Sri Vedavyasa composed 'Mahabharata' for that reason. 'Mahabharata' is the essense of all the four Vedas, and hence it has been called 'Panchama Veda'. (Fifth Veda) It is also said about 'Mahabharata' that whatever is not there in 'Mahabharata' cannot be found anywhere! It is the summum bonum, quintessence of all Vedas. A Saatvic soul, which is 'Moksha Yogya' can attain Moksha if they cultivate Bhakti and try to understand the Supreme through 'Mahabharata' and the Puranas. It is to be understood that Grace of God alone gives 'Moksha' and Bhakti alone is responsible for Grace of God. (Bhakti being defined by Sri Acharya as 'Mahatma gyana purvaka sudrudaha snehaha iti bhaktirithi proktaha') The ultimate interest of a Sadhaka should be towards knowing the spiritualstic interpretation of Vedas (Apara Vidya) and not ritualistic interpretation of Vedas alone(Para Vidya). 'Para Vidya' does not lead one to Moksha Sadhana. Whatever Jnana we strive to acquire either through Shravana-Manana-Dhyana and discussions in this list, should help towards increasing the Jnana, Bhakti and Vairagya otherwise such Jnana is only 'Bandhaka' to 'Moksha'. Regards, Prahlad Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2003 Report Share Posted February 1, 2003 Dear friends, Some comments: 1. I think that no one who has studied Shasthras in even some depth, could really argue against the conclusion that Vedadhikara is limited to three Varnas and " Shudras " are excluded. In fact, the Brahma Suthra Apashudradhikarana, discusses in some length, this subject and gives a decision that they are NOT eligible to learn Vedas inspite of there being a specific reference in an Upanishad, when a person was addressed as Shudra in this context. The primary reason for which Mahabharatha, which includes Geetha in it, was composed was for the benefit of Sthree, Shudra and Brahma-bandhu. Incidentally there is no disagreement between Advaita, Dvaita etc. on this issue. 2. Having stated this, there is some room for discussion as to what is meant by Varna and who are really Shudras, in the modern society. Brahmins by birth, (so is the kshathriya and Vaishya categories intended and defined by Lord Krishna in the Geetha - Chathurvarnyam mayaa shrushtam etc - ) are taken as eligible for learning Vedas. Most of those who claim this eligibility spend no real time and effort in studying Vedas or for that matter, any Shasthras. It is not uncommon that Upanayanas are performed a day earlier than the Marriage day and the Gayathri Upadesha is by the priest rather than by the father - as the latter has never done Sandyhyavandanam himself. Are such persons Brahmins and do they have any adhikara at all - least of Vedadhikara? 3. Further studying Vedas requires the strict observance of the austere life of a Brahmachari and residence in Gurukula, with a competent Guru. How many such persons are really there? The nearest one could reach to this ideal, is the system followed by a dwindling, but still alive traditional lot of families or by institutions like Poornaprajna Vidyapeeta. We can safely exclude most of ourselves from the list of eligible persons due to lack of samskaras and even sincerity of the desire to learn Vedas. Further, learning Vedas, does not mean learning only to recite them correctly. Except for the few texts which form part of various compositions of our great Gurus, we do not have even competent translations or commentaries on the Vedas, What we have are flawed ones as the one by Sayanacharya only. 4. I have mentioned all this to show that there is really no issue under serious consideration except for Brahmin-baiting by some - claiming that all this is due to the " vested interests " of privileged classes denying the presently vocal majority (in the democratic setup) of their inalienable right to knowledge etc. It is for this reason that women organise themselves to claim Vedadhikara, each subsect amongst the so called backward classes, establishes its own Guru and Matha etc. The motivation is not Vedas - but the more obvious societal control and acquisition of wealth. I have generally answered many questioners - there is no dispute about the Adhikara for Geetha and Mahabharatha - it will take several lifetimes, before we could seriously assimilate what is contained in them. It is far more difficult to recite Vedas correctly, extremely difficult to understand their interpretation and except for a very few great souls, there is no possibility of the results of Vedic manthras being secured by reciting them. Srimadacharya's demonstrating the validity of the Vedas to a Shudra king - in Sumdhvavijaya - also implies that we need persons in the same league to secure such results. 5. Coming to the point under discussion, the so called Vedadhikara being limited is no longer under any one's control or volition. Books and Cassettes are freely available and there are always sufficient renegades who take the money and look the other way, when some one wants to overstep some boundary imposed by society. I feel that those of us who have been fortunate to have had the samskaras and also have the background of a traditional family to some extent. at least to realise that Vedas are the fountainhead of Brahmajnana - should make earnest attempts to learn what ever they can with the few available opportunities - and leave the question of interpreting eligibility etc. to those who think they know the answers. In any case, there would be very few persons who would be happy to accept the duties of Shudras, as defined in the Geetha and still want to learn Vedas. NAPSRao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 > > Prahlad Kulkarni [kprahlad] > Saturday, February 01, 2003 1:22 AM > The above incident clearly depicts that Sri Bannanje does not > support the _caste system by Birth_. > However, I think any further discussion about this is futile > until what Sri Krishna K has written is presented before Sri > Bannanje. Or anyone in the list who has more proofs against > what Sri Krishna K has presented. Sure. I'd like to know what Sri Bannanje or his followers have to say about the Acharya's Bhashya and the subcommentators on the Brahmasutra: || OM tadabhAvanirdhAraNe cha pravR^itteH OM || where it is clear that one's caste must be decided by one's pravR^itti only when it cannot be known. The instance of exemplary Satyakama Jabali is the case in point. Not to waste a mail, here's some information on Satyakama Jabali: This is narrated in Chandogya Upanishad: Satyakama approaches Sage Gautama for getting initiated into brahmacharyA and thereby into the Vedic hold. The latter asks him about his gotra (which would also reveal his parentage). The boy goes to his mother, jAbAli, and repeats the question, to which, she replies that she does not know his father and his gotra; and that he can use her name as a surname and call himself, 'satyakAma jAbAli'. The young boy repeats that to the Sage Gautama and tells him, 'This is what my mother has told me. Instruct me if you wish to'. The Sage tells him 'Arjavam' cannot be a lakshaNa of a shUdra and hence agrees to teach him. (Arjavam generally means honesty. Srimad Acharya defines it thus: manovAkkarmaNAmavaiparItyaM : Non-discordance of mind, speech and actions is truthfulness) Satyakama is instructed to feed the cows in the forest. Full of desire to please his teacher, he declares that he will not return till the cows multiply to 1000 and then proceeds to the forest, unmindful of the fact that other students will progress in the meantime. The tattva-abhimAni-devatas, who watch all our actions, highly pleased with his honesty and devotion to teacher, appear in the trayAgni to teach him about Brahman and compensate for his absence in the gurukula. When Satyakama returns to the Ashrama, Gautama tells him that he has learnt everything that he could have taught. But Satyakama insists that he teach him, even if it is the same thing, for, " AchAryAddhaiva vidyA viditA sAdhiShThaM prApatIti " (for one's studies to be useful, one should get the vidyA from one's Acharya). The last incident (depicting the need for upadesha from one's niyata guru) is the subject for another Brahmasutra, which I don't remember. Saw this one when skimming through B.N.K.Sharma's " Brahmasutras and their Principal Commentaries " . Coming back, the very fact that this matter of adhikAra and anadhikAra is dealt with in the Brahmasutras makes it important for us to think and 'worry' about. So, Sri Ramadasa Hari, we cannot just wish away this subject as a peripheral issue. This above incident can also be used to analyze this: > > rao [rao] > Saturday, February 01, 2003 10:09 AM > " Here caste means probably caste(varna) of jeeva swaroopa,not the > body " . > As a social system since it is not possible to determine > swaroopa- varna,we follow body-caste. But if it is possible > determine once > swaroopa by his deeds and acts definately he is eligible for study of > highest text " this what Acharya Madhwa mean as per Mr.Bannanje. Note that the incident of Satyakama Jabali is quoted in the BS, to instruct us on a course of action when the 'body-caste' was not determinable. Only aparoxajnAnis can determine svarUpa-varNa (and to determine X is an aparoxa-jnAni, one should also be so?). Knowing the svarUpa-varNa does not mean one can overwrite all the dicta of varNAshrama dharma. That too is the subject of another Brahmasutra. While Advaita holds that karmas have no place once jnAna is attained, we hold that the aparoxajnAni has to follow all the regulations mentioned in the shAstra. Not doing so will subject to 'hrAsa' (reduction) of bliss in Moksha. All said and done, this thing about 'women not being eligible to hear the Vedas' is clarified by Srimad Anandatirtha and his commentators. The essence of that discussion is that women in the devatA category are not barred. This includes women like Sachi, Urvashi and other women. Humans do not seem to have the eligibility. (Incidentally, Sri Raghavendra Tirtha takes up the issue of Vidura also and convinces that his case does not transgress the rule). There is a biography, called 'mahAprasthAna', written on Sri Vidyamanya tirtha of Palimaru Math. Some details therein are of interest here. The compiler refers to an article by the swamiji in Tattvavada magazine, 1984 (forgot the month). The swamiji takes up the issue of women being present in upanyAsas and pravachanas where certain vedavAkyAs are being discussed. He says that there is no problem with it; it is only 'shAnti-pATha-pUrvaka-pATha' that is barred. That makes sense. If one were to by the strict sense of the dictum, 'strI shUdra brahmabandhUnAM trayI na shruti gocharA', how can we be advised to use God's names (that occur in the Vedas) for children? And what about so many words that are common to Vedas and non-Vedas? That Mahabharata starts with a word that occurs in the Vedas also shows that the author had a different meaning for the rule in the Bhagavata: strI shUdra brahmabandhUnAM trayI na shruti gocharA | Regards, Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2003 Report Share Posted February 4, 2003 - Krishna K Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:02 PM RE: Re: Interesting Article > > Prahlad Kulkarni [kprahlad] > Saturday, February 01, 2003 1:22 AM> The above incident clearly depicts that Sri Bannanje does not > support the _caste system by Birth_.> However, I think any further discussion about this is futile > until what Sri Krishna K has written is presented before Sri > Bannanje. Or anyone in the list who has more proofs against > what Sri Krishna K has presented.Sure. I'd like to know what Sri Bannanje or his followers have to sayabout the Acharya's Bhashya and the subcommentators on the Brahmasutra:|| OM tadabhAvanirdhAraNe cha pravR^itteH OM || where it is clear thatone's caste must be decided by one's pravR^itti only when it cannot beknown. The instance of exemplary Satyakama Jabali is the case in point. Addressing a Scholar of Stature Sri Bannanje in a forum,where he is not a member, is totally rediculous. If you have thrust to know, Please go and approach him with all humility.Even for granted that Sri Bannanje replies,ascertain ur self first, whether you have the ability to grasp even a bit otherwise all these will be only email showoffs. Madhusudan Bheemasenarao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2003 Report Share Posted February 4, 2003 Dear All, I did post a response to this, yesterday i.e. 3rd Feb 03 IST. If it's gone to someone's personal mail id, please forward it to the group. Thanks, Anand Manvi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2003 Report Share Posted February 4, 2003 Hi all, My 2 cents worth. Argument that all have Vedadhikara may be rooted in trying to egalitarian. This political paradgm of egalitarianism is a modern one first proposed by John Locke (16-17th c). According to it, all are equal in terms of certian " unalienable rights viz., life liberty and persuit of happiness " and does not include Vedadhikara! so people shouldn't be confused. In these days, practices of Mathas and orthodoxy may appear politically incorrect but in strict accordance with shastras, so it is our duty not to publicise or criticise these. --Mokashi. , " Anand Manvi <m_anand_rao> " <m_anand_rao> wrote: > Dear All, > > I did post a response to this, yesterday i.e. 3rd Feb 03 IST. If it's > gone to someone's personal mail id, please forward it to the group. > > Thanks, > > Anand Manvi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2003 Report Share Posted February 10, 2003 > > Madhusudan Bheemasenarao [madhusudanb] > Tuesday, February 04, 2003 9:39 AM > > - > > Krishna K > > > > Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:02 PM > > RE: Re: Interesting Article > > > > > > Prahlad Kulkarni [kprahlad] > > > Saturday, February 01, 2003 1:22 AM > > > > > The above incident clearly depicts that Sri Bannanje does not > > > support the _caste system by Birth_. > > > > > However, I think any further discussion about this is futile > > > until what Sri Krishna K has written is presented before Sri > > > Bannanje. Or anyone in the list who has more proofs against > > > what Sri Krishna K has presented. > > > > Sure. I'd like to know what Sri Bannanje or his followers have to say > > about the Acharya's Bhashya and the subcommentators on the Brahmasutra: > > || OM tadabhAvanirdhAraNe cha pravR^itteH OM || where it is clear that > > one's caste must be decided by one's pravR^itti only when it cannot be > > known. The instance of exemplary Satyakama Jabali is the case in point. > > Addressing a Scholar of Stature Sri Bannanje in a forum,where he is not a member, is totally rediculous. > If you have thrust to know, Please go and approach him with all humility.Even for granted that Sri Bannanje > replies,ascertain ur self first, whether you have the ability to grasp even a bit otherwise all these will be only email > showoffs. All that is vainglorious fanspeak, for, it does not address any of the points I raised. Such talk is not worth responding except for some clarifications: A. I was responding to Sri Prahlad's point about whatever references I had given " is presented before Sri Bannanje " . I was offering more points that Sri Prahlad or any person who will " present these to Sri Bannanje " for clarification. The idea that " I was addressing a scholar of stature of Sri Bannanje " is incongruous. B. Please note that I did not bring Sri Bannanje's name to the discussion. I do respect Sri Bannanje for his personal accomplishments. But personal accomplishments or respect for him have no bearing on how issues or objections are resolved. I was contesting Sri Prahlad's statement that mAdhva philosophy is against the varNAshrama dharma; to be precise -- varNa-nirdhAraNa by pravR^itti and not by janma at all. Do not digress from that and make a political issue out of a shAstra-issue; Persisting further on that line shall be construed as incompetence to answer the objections. I wonder what you would do if other scholars disagree with Sri Bannanje on this issue. I do know some who disagree with him on not just this issue but some other issues as well. Not to waste a mail in personal clarifications, here's some more 'mail-showoff' (which is anyway better than a mail with zilch utility): It is well known that Srimad Acharya accepts Pancharatras as a valid textual authority. The Vishishtadvaitins also consider them as an authority, though I am not sure if they have beyond using the knowledge of rituals. Nearly every samhitA in Pancharatras, says F.Otto Schrader, can be said to be elaborate on 10 topics, on an average. Creation is one such topic. One ubiquotous feature in the creation theory of Pancharatra is the explanation of creation by the vyUha forms (aniruddha, pradyumna, sankarshana and vAsudeva) of the Lord. I have seen only padma-samhitA and sheSha-samhitA and these two do mention using the vyUharupas. In fact, the nArada pancharatra, which some ISKCONites hold to be the basis for ideas on Radha, is denounced as mutilated on this very basis (that creation is not explained using vyUha rUpa). This idea can also be seen in Srimad Acharya's mahAbhArata-tAtparya-nirNaya (1st chapter). The question, however, was whether this detail can be found anywhere in the currently available shruti. The answer is in Srimad Acharya's bhAShya on Taittariya Upanishad. The passage, 'asad vA idamagra AsIt.h' is shown to depict creation from the vyUharUpas of the Lord. The phrase 'svayam akuruta' makes any other interpretation implausible. Regards, Krishna P.S. I was offline for most of the last week. Hence the delay in reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2003 Report Share Posted February 10, 2003 > > kmokashi2001 <kmokashi > [kmokashi] > Wednesday, February 05, 2003 2:22 AM > Hi all, > My 2 cents worth. > Argument that all have Vedadhikara may be rooted in > trying to egalitarian. This political paradgm of > egalitarianism is a modern one first proposed by John Locke > (16-17th c). According to it, all are equal in terms of > certian " unalienable rights viz., life liberty and persuit of > happiness " and does not include Vedadhikara! so people > shouldn't be confused. vedAdhikAra is not an end in itself. It is means to Hari bhakti which every person has a right to. Extending that, one can safely say that mAdhva doctrine does not hamper anybody's pursuit of happiness. Regards, Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2003 Report Share Posted February 10, 2003 Friends, The motivating forces in the demand for Vedadhikara by the so called deprived castes have virtually nothing to do with recognition of Vedas as a source of God knowledge leading to Mukthi. They are instead part of the general milieu of power sharing in a democratic setup - where the under privileged sections are displacing the earlier groups in power - against their resistance. Infact, the Vedas are really of no interest to the large majority of people. There are very strong movements trying to get the Rituals performed in the local languages - which has its counterpart groups even among christians. Thus the age old and hoary Vedas will be quietly forgotten, except by a minuscule population - who will also " use " them to maintain some privileges in society - such as working as priests, receiving gifts etc. There are two issues which we need to be clear about. Every authoritative source that I have heard of so far - Geetha, Brahma Suthras etc hold that only three varnas (males only) can study vedas. If one wishes to argue that this apparent discrimination against Shudras, Women etc is unjust and in any case can not be upheld in the present day - one can do so - without trying to suppress the clear edicts attributed to Vedavyasa and Krishna on the subject. Obviously no scholar of the present day would be able to hold a contrary position based on what are considered as valid pramanas. The other issue is how to interpret the data as applied to the modern day with its multiplicity of castes and whether the Varnashrama dharma concept itself is applicable. In the Madhvanavami celebrations one of the guest speakers did try argue that the Caste system has become in practice iniquitous, in which a large majority is treated as inferior and therefore, in a democratic setup, this might well lead to abandonment of Hindu heritage by this majority. Sri Pejawar Swamiji however clearly declared that Varnashrama Dharma is an essential part of our faith and can not be given up. We should instead do all we can to remove inequities in the system. If one looks at some figures, the proportion of Brahmins in under 5% of the total population in the south while it is believed to be around 10 - 12 % in the North. The enormous subdivision of castes, makes it difficult to identify which of them are really remnants of the Kshathriya and Vaishya. There is a practice of Upanayana and theoretical vedadhikara in some groups for which I have no figures, but there is no doubt that this is a much smaller percentage than those who do not do so. In places like Bengal, there is a great admixture of castes and Varnasankarya due to which names like Mukhopadyaya are used by all without any relationship to the castes. In an earlier posting I had mentioned that we should not play up the issue, for the simple reason that even those who have Vedadhikara as per present accepted standards never study Vedas. Thus this point can serve only as a divider and irritant to people without any meaningful action on the ground. I would like to reiterate this suggestion. Let the problem of the individuals be treated as those which will perhaps not get onto the limelight. When we have Swamijis from all castes and communities today and we have foreigners who have studied Vedas as their main life time endeavour, and who are often quoted approvingly by many of us - what is the sense in debating this issue in the present day and age. NAPSRao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2003 Report Share Posted February 11, 2003 > > napsrao [napsrao] > Monday, February 10, 2003 10:53 PM > The other issue is how to interpret the data as applied to the modern > day with its multiplicity of castes and whether the > Varnashrama dharma > concept itself is applicable. Thanks for taking up this issue, but there's one more dimension that needs an answer from the Swamijis and the like. With the industrial revolution and what not, the scenario has pretty much changed with many brAhmins going to jobs for securing a livelihood. This is definitely against a Brahmin's varNashrama dharma as defined in scriptures. Manu smriti says that a brAhmaNa can take up the occupation of a Kshatriya or that of a Vaishya, but never that of a shUdra, which is service. That employment is not same as service cannot go a long way. So, what is our 'sva-vihita' vR^itti? We know that the ideal 'sva-vihita' is quite different from what is possible for the general mass today. A serious sAdhaka would perhaps sacrifice the comforts of remunerating job, to get into the ideal mode, but what about the half-serious ones? Is there an alternative? And how can one perform 'niShkAma karma' at jobs? Regards, Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2003 Report Share Posted February 11, 2003 > > And how can one perform 'niShkAma karma' at jobs? > Sri Sathyathma Theertha Swamiji of Uttaradi Mutt addressed the issue of niShKAma karma in his address to the US devotees. You can find the address at the following location: http://www.madhvaradio.org/sriraghuttama/ Send Flowers for Valentine's Day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2003 Report Share Posted February 11, 2003 Dear Krishna, I can not resist the urge to give an immediate reply to your very legitimate questions. My own attempts to get answers to these and other such issues from "Swamijis" and others have not produced better answers. The closest that I came to achieve some mental satisfaction was when I had the privilege of talking to the late Sri Vidyamanya and I believe that I am reflecting some of his thoughts here. Thanks for taking up this issue, but there's one more dimension that needs an answer from the Swamijis and the like. With the industrial revolution and what not, the scenario has pretty much changed with many brAhmins going to jobs for securing a livelihood. This is definitely against a Brahmin's varNashrama dharma as defined in scriptures. Manu smriti says that a brAhmaNa can take up the occupation of a Kshatriya or that of a Vaishya, but never that of a shUdra, which is service. That employment is not same as service cannot go a long way. So, what is our 'sva-vihita' vR^itti? We know that the ideal 'sva-vihita' is quite different from what is possible for the general mass today. A serious sAdhaka would perhaps sacrifice the comforts of remunerating job, to get into the ideal mode, but what about the half-serious ones? Is there an alternative? And how can one perform 'niShkAma karma' at jobs? The question of whether joining some sort of service with security of living standards , engaging in business on one's own or with others, or decide once and for all that this is not Svavihitha vritthi and try to survive with teaching of Shasthras, performing rituals as a Purohitha and accepting gifts etc as prescribed for Brahmins is very difficult. It is an individual decision, which depends greatly on our own priorities and commitment to our faith. If you look at some historic personages, you will see that many great saints were traders in Gold and Silver - Ex. Puranadara Dasaru and Yadavaryaru. Many persons have even served kings as ministers with great distinction. Perhaps it would be difficult to classify service to a Government or Company as only appropriate to Shudras, if one remembers that these institutions are entirely impersonal and perhaps stand in the place of erstwhile kings. The age old tradition in our country based on an essentially agricultural economy was to grant lands and even villages to temples, Mathas and pious individuals. Even Revenue earnings from many villages were some times granted. This is no longer possible and very few temples have been able to retain even a small portion of the land grants given historically to them. Further, the concept of Rajashraya or support from the wealthy for charitable institutions and pious persons has taken a beating, as the traditional kings and landlords have vanished from the scene to be replaced by the temporary "kings" who hold fort and rule over us by convincing people by hook or crook to vote for them. Even the mental state which produced the land grants and the like has changed beyond recognition. The recognition that Brahmins were the priests for all classes of people has changed with each caste trying to assert its identity with its own Matha. In the present day therefore, there does not seem to be any alternative for Brahmins also to undertake "Service" jobs, specially as these give them an ability to maintain not only a decent standard of living without having to beg from Riffraff, but give them capacity to support others not so well placed in life and institutions like Poornaprajna Vidyapeeta. There is an unmistakable acceptance of the hard truth even by Swamijis, who offer Shawls and the like to persons who have distinguished themselves in this manner, while perhaps a poorer but more conservative Brahmin who tries to limit himself to the earlier defined roles is quietly overlooked. I have no quarrel with this in principle, as they have also to run the costly Mathas and temples and in many cases do commendable work in spreading the message of Tatvavada and providing support to Shastraic education. If all the Brahmins do try to go back to "basics" we will all starve! Having said this, I would like to stress on two points made by the late Palimaru Swamiji. The first is to do your best to perform the minimum daily rituals prescribed for the Varna and Ashrama. One would be really surprised by what can be done, if we are sincere in our desire and efforts. The second is "Do not do any thing which is forbidden as wrong" - such as say, eat meat or take drinks etc as a part of our efforts to succeed in the worldly ratrace. In other words, if one is conscious all the time that our priority is acquisition of Jnana and achievement of spiritual progress and all our efforts are with the background knowledge of our Asvathanthrya and a genuine desire to do the best in the direction of pleasing God, we will not only be free of the sense of continuously doing wrong, but also be guided by God Himself into the right channels and course of actions. I have believed in this personally and it has always given me a great sense of satisfaction. Lastly, Acharya Madhva has given us a philosophy of service to society and even other lesser endowed creatures as a means of pleasing God. I would like to quote here an incident from Haridasa Bhakthavijaya of Belur Keshavadasaru. When Vijayadasaru on a particular occasion gave all the drinking water collected with a lot of effort to a donkey, his dear disciple Gopaladasaru objected. Vijayadasaru clarified that the Punya in saving the life of the donkey dying of thirst was greater than a Yathra to Banaras! I do believe that whatever we can legitimately earn, by honest means and spent in righteous causes should be capable of being justified without any pangs of conscience. May be when we evolve further on the road to devotion we will also get the faith that "Yadrucchalabhasamthruptha" concept seems to suggest. NAPSRao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.