Caste

[Guest guest]

There are arguments on both sides of the fence. Varna is by birth and is by choice. Let me present some evidence why it is by birth and would like to hear evidence why it is not.

 

Arjuna refers to jAti dharmA and kula dharmA as being eternal. In another verse Krishna implies that women, vaishyAs and shUdrAs as less qualified than the righteous kshatriyAs and brahmanAs. There are interpretations that svadharmA refers to varnashrama duty which is based on birth.

 

Add to this Manu nIti (as it is available today) and CanakyAs works.

 

Why is it not birth based ?

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-18-2002).]

[raga]

Narada Muni states in the Bhagavata (7.11.13):

 

<center>saMskArA yatrAvicchinnAH

sa dvijo ’jo jagAda yam

ijyAdhyayana-dAnAni

vihitAni dvijanmanAm

janma-karmAvadAtAnAM

kriyAz cAzrama-coditAH</center>

 

"Those who have undergone all the samskaras [beginning from garbhadhana] without interruption are known as dvija (twice-born). Those who are sanctioned by Brahma, who are engaged in worship and study of the Vedas as prescribed, they are the twice-born, who are purified by their janma (birth), karma (duties) and kriya (actions), they should follow the system of asramas [of brahmacari, grihastha etc.]"

 

[raga]

Here are some relevant excerpts from Bhaktivinoda's Jaiva Dharma. Notes in [brackets] are mine.

 

<hr><blockquote><font color=blue>

 

>>Muslims [what to speak of Westerners!] are not eligible to perform the duties prescribed for the different varnas in the varnasrama-system because their birth disqualifies them. However, they have

every right to participate in the practices of bhakti.<<

 

(Jaiva Dharma, chapter 6, page 111)

 

 

>>One must take birth in a brahmana family to perform yajnas and other such activities, and even one who is born in a brahmana family must be purified by the ceremony of investiture with the sacred thread before he is eligible to perform the duties of a brahmana. Similarly, a candala may have become purified by the chanting of harinama, but he is still not eligible to perform yajnas until he acquires a seminal birth in a brahmana family. However, he can perform the angas of bhakti which are infinitely greater than yajnas.<<

 

(Jaiva Dharma, chapter 6, page 113)

 

 

>>There are two types of human activity: material activities that relate to practical existence (vyavaharika); and spiritual activities that relate to the ultimate truth (paramarthika). A person may have attained spiritual qualification, but that does not necessarily qualify him for particular material activities. For example, one who is a Muslim by birth may have acquired the nature and all the qualities of a brahmana, so that he is a brahmana from the spiritual point of view, but he still remains ineligible for certain material activities, such as marrying the daughter of a brahmana.<<

 

(Jaiva Dharma, chapter 6, page 114)

 

 

>>"If one violates social customs, one is guilty of secular impropriety, and members of society who take pride in their social respectability do not condone such activities. That is why one should not perform them, even if he is spiritually qualified.<<

 

(Jaiva Dharma, chapter 6, page 114)

 

[raga]

Moreover, from Jaiva Dharma, third chapter:

 

<blockquote><font color=brown>>>[Aristocratic brahmana comes among the Vaishnavas and speaks:] “The Manu Smriti and other dharma-sastras state that the brahmana caste is the highest caste. According to these sastras, religious rites such as chanting brahma-gayatri and other Vedic mantras at dawn, noon and sunset (sandhya-vandana) are considered to be nitya-karma (eternal duties) for the brahmanas. If these activities are obligatory, why is Vaishnava behavior opposed to them?”

...

[Vaishnava dasa gives a lengthy reply, presenting how the so-called “nitya-dharma” is also naimittika-dharma, or temporary duties, from the spiritual perspective. Some excerpts:]

 

“For example, a brahmana's chanting of sandhya-vandana, like his various other duties, is temporary and subject to specific rules. These activities do not stem from his natural, spiritual proclivity. If after peforming these prescribed duties for a long time, one obtains the association of suddha-bhaktas (sadhu-sanga), one develops ruci (taste) for hari-nama. At that time, sandhya-vandana is no longer a circumstantial, prescribed karma. Hari-nama is complete spiritual practice, whereas sandhya-vandana and other such practices are only the means to obtain this principal goal and can never be the complete reality.

 

Naimittika-dharma is commendable because it aims at the truth, but it is eventually meant to be abandoned, and it is mixed with undesirable results; only spiritual reality is truly beneficial. Although the jiva should relinguish matter and its association, materialism is prominent in naimittika-dharma. Moreover, naimittika-dharma produces such an abundance of irrelevant results that the jiva cannot help but get entangled with them.”<< </font></blockquote>

 

In other words, adopting a particular varna is of no particular spiritual merit. Gita (3.35) proclaims:

 

<center>zreyAn sva-dharmo viguNaH

para-dharmAt sv-anuSThitAt

sva-dharme nidhanaM zreyaH

para-dharmo bhayAvahaH</center>

 

"It is far better to discharge one’s prescribed duties, even though faultily, than another’s duties perfectly. Destruction in the course of performing one’s own duty is better than engaging in another’s duties, for to follow another’s path is dangerous."

 

 

[raga]

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu considered it unnecessary for Vaishnavas to superimpose varnasrama-dharma upon themselves. It is external and impotent in perfecting our bhakti-tendency. This is evident from both Mahaprabhu's instructions to Sanatana Gosvami and His discourse with Ramananda Raya. The verses are as follows:<blockquote><font color=red><center>prabhu kahe paDa zloka sAdhyera nirNaya

rAya kahe sva-dharmAcaraNe viSNu-bhakti haya

prabhu kahe eho bAhya, Age kaha Ara</center>

 

Prabhu said, "Recite a stanza from the scriptures in ascertaining the perfection of life."

 

Ramananda Raya replied, "By executing one's sva-dharma (prescribed duties), Vishnu-bhakti is there."

 

Prabhu replied, "This is external. Why don't you tell me something better?"

 

(CC Madhya 8.57, 59)

 

<center>eta saba chADi' Ara varNAzrama-dharma

akiJcana haJA laya kRSNaika-zaraNa</center>

 

"All of this one should reject, including varnasrama-dharma, and without attachment to the mundane, take exclusive shelter of Sri Krishna."

 

(CC Madhya 22.93)</font></blockquote>

 

Certainly if one is already situated within a varnasrama society, he may maintain his social position if he leads the life of a householder, but there is no real merit for adopting varnasrama if one is not already situated within a position in a varnasrama

society.

 

In the words of Brahmaji (SB 10.14.3):

 

<center>jIvanti san-mukharitAM bhavadIya-vArtAm

sthAne sthitAH zruti-gatAM tanu-vAG-manobhir</center>

 

"In your life, stay wherever you are, and participate in hearing discourses about the Supreme Person in the association of saints."

 

Thus one should stay wherever he is, or adopt a position convenient enough so he can stay in it, and focus on the essential practices of bhakti.

 

[Guest guest]

Raga, these are very nice posts. It glorifies that devotional service is attainable by every one. And it is also the purpose of life. But even if one becomes a devotee, sAstrAs interpreted in medieval times say that one cannot chant vedic hymns. One should usurp another's position out of jealousy and should follow svadharma. But what determines svadharma ? From your posts, it seems that birth, activities and performance of samskaras contribute to one's svadharma. I can understand that birth determines one's nature to a large extent because birth is itself based on previous activities. But one born as a shudra, mlecha or yavana, if devoted to the Lord attains so many wonderful qualities surpassing all brahmins. On the other hand, a person born in a brahmana family if he does not adhere to the sanatana dharma loses all the merits of his previous pious activities that gave him this birth. This we all observe and I want to understand if this is true, why not allow them to read and recite the vedas ? If what Karthik said is true, Atharva Veda allows Vedas to be recited by any one incl. shudras. Then who has the authority to stop any one from reciting Vedas ? Sri Vaishnavas hold the view that prappatti can be performed by every one. But Bhakti Yoga has to be performed only by brahmin vaishnavas. Sankarites hold the view that caste cannot be changed in one's lifetime. It seems that Gaudiya Vaishnavism also has similar ideas. But if this contradicts Atharva Veda, then all of them have to be rejected on this count.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-18-2002).]

[Guest guest]

 

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, these are very nice posts. It glorifies that devotional service is attainable by every one. And it is also the purpose of life. But even if one becomes a devotee, sAstrAs interpreted in medieval times say that one cannot chant vedic hymns. One should usurp another's position out of jealousy and should follow svadharma. But what determines svadharma ? From your posts, it seems that birth, activities and performance of samskaras contribute to one's svadharma. I can understand that birth determines one's nature to a large extent because birth is itself based on previous activities. But one born as a shudra, mlecha or yavana, if devoted to the Lord attains so many wonderful qualities surpassing all brahmins. On the other hand, a person born in a brahmana family if he does not adhere to the sanatana dharma loses all the merits of his previous pious activities that gave him this birth. This we all observe and I want to understand if this is true, why not allow them to read and recite the vedas ? If what Karthik said is true, Atharva Veda allows Vedas to be recited by any one incl. shudras. Then who has the authority to stop any one from reciting Vedas ? Sri Vaishnavas hold the view that prappatti can be performed by every one. But Bhakti Yoga has to be performed only by brahmin vaishnavas. Sankarites hold the view that caste cannot be changed in one's lifetime. It seems that Gaudiya Vaishnavism also has similar ideas. But if this contradicts Atharva Veda, then all of them have to be rejected on this count.

 

[Sarasvati]

I read an article in Hinduism Today about an Indian priest who was in favour of by-birth system. But even he was ready to install Deities in Fiji and appoint some local non-brahmana-born people to become priests there. Those Fijian brahmanas would then start a brahmana-lineage in Fiji. It seems to me that in ancient times(and even nowadays in traditional Indian setting) the influence of the family was so strong that the children got nicely trained in their parents' varna. What we have to understand is that in modern setting (even in India or Fiji) children often choose a path very different from that of their parents. We have seen it happen in Iskcon. Also many brahminically inclined non-Iskcon parents (East-Indian) have seen their children turn to non-brahminical activities. Some long-standing ksatriya-families (such as the royal family of England)have given birth to people who would rather work in some other capacity, possessing neither desire nor skills to execute ksatriya's duties. This is how things go as Kali-yuga progresses. it is nice to discuss about things proper and non-proper, but one must not forget that we are living in a very different society than our foremothers and -fathers.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by Sarasvati:

I read an article in Hinduism Today about an Indian priest who was in favour of by-birth system. But even he was ready to install Deities in Fiji and appoint some local non-brahmana-born people to become priests there. Those Fijian brahmanas would then start a brahmana-lineage in Fiji. It seems to me that in ancient times(and even nowadays in traditional Indian setting) the influence of the family was so strong that the children got nicely trained in their parents' varna. What we have to understand is that in modern setting (even in India or Fiji) children often choose a path very different from that of their parents. We have seen it happen in Iskcon. Also many brahminically inclined non-Iskcon parents (East-Indian) have seen their children turn to non-brahminical activities. Some long-standing ksatriya-families (such as the royal family of England)have given birth to people who would rather work in some other capacity, possessing neither desire nor skills to execute ksatriya's duties. This is how things go as Kali-yuga progresses. it is nice to discuss about things proper and non-proper, but one must not forget that we are living in a very different society than our foremothers and -fathers.

Excellent points. If it is just a custom, we can change it. But if it is part of shruti, we cannot.

 

What I am opposed to is making casteism part of Vedic tradition when Atharva Veda (as Karthik claims) states just the opposite. If Vedas allow all people incl. women and shudras to chant the hymns, there is no reason why some one or group stop them from doing so. If Vedas proscribe, then it is a different matter.

[raga]

What I am opposed to is making casteism part of Vedic tradition when Atharva Veda (as Karthik claims) states just the opposite.

Let's see the quote of Karthik from Atharva Veda first.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

There is a distinction between the pancharatrika and vaidika systems of "brahmincal initiations", i.e. upanayanam, etc.

 

In the pancharatra, emphasis is placed on the power of the Lord to lift anyone to the platform of purified consciousness, whereas in vaikhanasa-agamas, birth is one of the beneficial aspects of purity. It does not make one a brahmana, but it is conducive to this and is thus given importance.

 

The 10 samskaras are purificatory ceremonies which elevate one's consciousness. They begin from pre-birth. Thus they are relevant in forming one's occupational activity, though not all in all.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 06-19-2002).]

[Guest guest]

JNDas, you and few other devotees may be elevated enough to say these

 

1. Vedas support varna by birth and one cannot change varna

2. It is important to be a devotee not a brahmana

 

But it is not the case with every other person. Even I find it difficult to accept elevated devotees as not brahmins just on account of birth - when they have qualities of 1000 brahmins. I am not for pride to say that I have acquired brahminical qualities so I am a brahmin. Nor am I for usurping another person's svadharma out of envy or false conceptions of superiority and inferiority. But I am asking for shruti pramAnA to say that varna is by birth.

 

 

[raga]

Certainly the ontological position of a genuine Vaishnava is far superior to that of a brahmana. We may glorify a saintly devotee as a foremost brahmana, and a deva among mankind.

 

Nevertheless, it does not mean that such a devotee desires to become a brahmana any more than he desires to become a deva, such as Indra, Candra or Brahma. In fact, adopting artificial designations is a mere impediment on his path of devotion. Sri Caitanya prayed:<blockquote><font color=blue>

 

<center>nAhaM vipro na ca nara-patir nApi vaizyo na zUdro

nAhaM varNI na ca gRha-patir no vana-stho yatir vA

kintu prodyan nikhila-paramAnanda-pUrNAmRtAbdher

gopI-bhartuH pada-kamalayor dAsa-dAsAnudAsaH

 

(PadyAvalI 63)</center>

 

“I am not a brahmana, a ksatriya or a vaisya, nor am I a sudra. I am not among the varnas, not a grihastha, not a vanaprastha nor a sannyasi either. But I am the servant of the servants of the lotus feet of Him who is the Lord of the cowherd maidens, and a paramount nectarine ocean of brilliant universal bliss!”

 

 

[Sarasvati]

Yes, we want to serve Radha-Krishna, and that's all that should matter. Thank you.

 

 

[krishnas]

Originally posted by ram:

There are arguments on both sides of the fence. Varna is by birth and is by choice. Let me present some evidence why it is by birth and would like to hear evidence why it is not.

 

Arjuna refers to jAti dharmA and kula dharmA as being eternal. In another verse Krishna implies that women, vaishyAs and shUdrAs as less qualified than the righteous kshatriyAs and brahmanAs. There are interpretations that svadharmA refers to varnashrama duty which is based on birth.

 

Add to this Manu nIti (as it is available today) and CanakyAs works.

 

Why is it not birth based ?

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-18-2002).]

Varna may be influenced by birth, but birth does not determine varna. In Bhagavad-giitaa, Krishna says "chatur varnyam mayaa sR^iShTa guna-karma vibhaagashaH." Karma and guna are the basis of varna - jaati (birth) is not mentioned.

 

The shruti clearly states:

 

tarhi jaatir braahmaNa iti chet tan na |

tatra jaatyantarajantuShvanekajaatisambhavaat | maharShayo bahavaH santi || vajra up 5 ||

 

If someone says: "One becomes a braahmana by taking birth in a braahmana family," then the scripture replies: "No. That is not so. A braahmana may be born in any kind of family. Indeed, many great braahmana sages were not born from braahmanas. (vajrasuuchika upaniShad 5)

 

This Upanishad then goes on to mention various examples of Brahmins who did not have Brahmin birth, like Vyaasa, Gautama, Vaalmiiki, etc.

 

In the Vedaanta-suutra, there are statements to the effect that a shuudra is not qualified to study the Vedas. There are similar statements about the relative lack of qualification of women, shuudras, vaishyas, etc.

 

But if we define varna based on qualification, which is as it should be, then these statements are telling us nothing new. Yes, a shuudra (for example) cannot study the Vedas, because being a shuudra implies that he has not undergone the process of spiritual initiation. We should think of these categories as based on qualification rather than birth, unless context forces us to think of them in another sense.

 

Shriimad Bhaagavatam discusses varnaashrama dharma, even though it is external to the goal of pure devotional service. Clearly, we are meant to transcend even varnaashrama, but this does not make it unimportant or unnecessary for most devotees practicing saadhana-bhakti. If we were already surrendered to Lord Krishna, then perhaps then varnaashrama would be unnecessary for us. But short of attaining that stage, I am not familiar with any scriptural statement that allows us to give it up.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

 

 

------------------

www.achintya.org

[raga]

If we were already surrendered to Lord Krishna, then perhaps then varnaashrama would be unnecessary for us. But short of attaining that stage, I am not familiar with any scriptural statement that allows us to give it up.

How about this one (Gita 18.66):<blockquote><font color=blue>

 

<center>sarva-dharmAn parityajya

mAm ekaM zaraNaM vraja

ahaM tvAM sarva-pApebhyo

mokSayiSyAmi mA zucaH</center>

 

"Renounce all kinds of dharma and just surrender unto Me. I will deliver you from all sins, do not worry."

 

[raga]

If someone says: "One becomes a braahmana by taking birth in a braahmana family," then the scripture replies: "No. That is not so. A braahmana may be born in any kind of family. Indeed, many great braahmana sages were not born from braahmanas. (vajrasuuchika upaniShad 5)

 

This Upanishad then goes on to mention various examples of Brahmins who did not have Brahmin birth, like Vyaasa, Gautama, Vaalmiiki, etc.

Out of interest, I took a look at Bhaktivedanta Swami's commentary on the aforementioned Gita 3.35. Here's an excerpt:<blockquote><font color=brown>When one is under the spell of the modes of material nature, one should follow the prescribed rules for his particular situation and should not imitate others. For example, a brahmana, who is in the mode of goodness, is nonviolent, whereas a ksatriya, who is in the mode of passion, is allowed to be violent. As such, for a ksatriya it is better to be vanquished following the rules of violence than to imitate a brahmana who follows the principles of nonviolence. Everyone has to cleanse his heart by a gradual process, not abruptly. However, when one transcends the modes of material nature and is fully situated in Krsna consciousness, he can perform anything and everything under the direction of a bona fide spiritual master. In that complete stage of Krsna consciousness, the ksatriya may act as a brahmana, or a brahmana may act as a ksatriya. In the transcendental stage, the distinctions of the material world do not apply. For example, Visvamitra was originally a ksatriya, but later on he acted as a brahmana, whereas Parasurama was a brahmana but later on he acted as a ksatriya. Being transcendentally situated, they could do so; but as long as one is on the material platform, he must perform his duties according to the modes of material nature.</font></blockquote>

In other words, one who has risen beyond tri-guna, such as the sages mentioned in the Upanishad, may act as he desires. As for the rest, they should follow duties in accordance with their nature.

 

I think there would be no objection to "creating" a class of brahmanas if these people would actually be brahmanas of the highest qualification. However, when we have pipeline production brahmanas who are chewing their nails and digging their nose without proper conception of sadacara, what to speak of "brahma jAnAtIti brAhmaNaH", it becomes rather objectionable.

 

I think a core issue at hand is the recent fusion of Vaishnava diksa with upavita samskara and entrance into brahmana-varna. It appears to be at the root of the problem of having many brahmanas carrying upavita who are in truth brahmanas neither by birth nor by qualities.

 

[karthik_v]

First of all sorry to have said that it was Atharva veda which states that shudras are eligible to listen to the vedas. I checked and it is actually Yajur veda. Yajur Veda X.X.V.2 says:

 

Yatemam vacam kalyanim, avadani janebhyah, brahma rajanyabhyam, Sudraya ca aryaya ca, svaya caranaya ca

 

Translation: Let everyone listen to these auspicious words, be they brahmins, kshatriyas, Sudras, people of noble birth, our own people or others..."

 

[krishnas]

Originally posted by raga:

How about this one (Gita 18.66):<blockquote><font color=blue>

 

<center>sarva-dharmAn parityajya

mAm ekaM zaraNaM vraja

ahaM tvAM sarva-pApebhyo

mokSayiSyAmi mA zucaH</center>

 

"Renounce all kinds of dharma and just surrender unto Me. I will deliver you from all sins, do not worry."

That's my point, Raga. If we are surrendering to Krishna, then we are directed to renounce all kinds of external dharmas like varnaashrama. I was actually referring to this very shloka.

 

For those not yet on the platform of surrender, dharma is to be followed to the letter.

 

 

[sha]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

First of all sorry to have said that it was Atharva veda which states that shudras are eligible to listen to the vedas. I checked and it is actually Yajur veda. Yajur Veda X.X.V.2 says:

 

Yatemam vacam kalyanim, avadani janebhyah, brahma rajanyabhyam, Sudraya ca aryaya ca, svaya caranaya ca

 

Translation: Let everyone listen to these auspicious words, be they brahmins, kshatriyas, Sudras, people of noble birth, our own people or others..."

Here is an excerpt from a well informed message posted on another board:

 

 

There is a principle that wherever a smriti contradicts the sruti, or vedas, it is to be rejected. and nowhere in the vedas does it say some are higher than others, or deserve to be treated better than others.

 

In vedic religion, people are divided into four varnas that are supposed to contribute in different ways to the society, and its not something that depends on birth.

 

Varna is from the root 'vrn', to choose. you choose what duty you perform in your society.

 

some verses from ved -

 

Samjnana Sukta (Rigveda X.191.2-4):

 

Walk together in harmony, speak in harmony

Let your minds be of one accord,

As the wise men of old, being of one mind,

Accepted the share of sacrifice

(so may you share your belongings). ||2||

 

May your counsel be common, your assembly united,

Common the mind, and the thoughts of these- united.

A common purpose do I lay before you,

And worship with your common oblation. ||3||

 

Let your aims be common,

And your hearts of one accord,

And all of you be of one mind,

As you may live well together. ||4||

 

Atharvaveda (Shaunakiya Samhita) III.30:

 

The union of hearts and minds

and freedom from hate I bring you.

Love one another as the cow

loves the calf that she has borne. || 1 ||

 

Common be your water-store, common your share of food;

I bind you together to a common yoke,

United, gather around the sacrificial fire

like spokes around the nave of a wheel. || 6 ||

 

With your common desire I'll make you all

have one aim, be of one mind, following one leader,

like Devas who preserve their immortality.

Morn and eve may there always be a loving heart in you. || 7 ||

 

The fact that varna was not birth based can be seen in the smritis themselves.

 

Manu smriti says a shudra attains the status of a brahmin and becomes entitled to his privileges if he possesses qualities of the latter such as complete knowledge and learning and a calm temperment etc.. and in the same way, a brahmin who has qualifications of a shudra, dullness of intellect, ignorance of ved, dependence on service of others etc. he descends to the position of a shudra (shudro brahmagaataameti brahmanashchaiti shudrataam...)

 

And apastamba sutras further say 'by acting according to truth and virtue, a shudra becomes fully entitled to by degrees to the rights of a vaishya, kshatriya and brahmin and the acts prescribed for these varnas..

 

Similarly a brahmin belonging to the highest varna by acting against dharma goes to the status of the varnas below him and has to observe the duties laid down for them.. that conduct which is opposed to dharma causes a man to fall to the status of a lower varna' - (dharmacharyya jadhanyo varnah etc...)

 

explains the saying -

 

janmane jayate shudra, karmane jayate dvijah.

we are all born shudras, and by actions we become dvija, twice-born. it's terrible hindus have allowed foreigners to rewrite their history for them. in the past, bharat never had these divisions of aryan and dravidian even when the caste system had deteriorated into birth-based discrimination.

 

In the ved, arya is never ever used in the sense of race, tribe, caste or color.

 

there's a verse that goes:

 

om vi jaaniihyaaryaan ye cha dasyavo barhishmate randhayaa shaasadavrataan I

 

Oh Almighty God, [vi jaaniihi] you alone know those who are [aaryaan] righteous [ye+cha] and those who are [dasyavah] wicked. may you [shaasat] chastise [avrataan] the irreligious and [randhaya] set them right [barhishmate] for the sake of those that perform the noble deeds.

(rgved 1.51.8)

 

In the rgved, arya is used in two senses - that of progeny (apatya) and 'one fit to be approached' (gamaniiya), derived from the root 'r', to go.

 

When the person approached is agreeable then 'arya' refers to one who is noble or good, but in disagreeable sense, it means one to be encountered or assailed, an enemy or great foe. this is clear in the ved coz the word is used as an adjective not only for 'indra' etc but also dasa and vrtra (rig 6.25.2, 6.22.10, 6.60.6).

 

It's said in nirukt (6.26.1) that an 'aarya' is 'ishwaraputra' - or a son of god ie. one who takes god as his creator and faithfully follows his commandments. valmiki ramayana describes Sri Raam as 'aryah sarvasamashchaiva sadaiva priyadarshan' - an arya, one who cared for equality to all and was dear to everyone.

 

As for dasa or dasyu, the word 'dasa' is derived from two words in chhandas - 'dasu' - to destroy, and 'daasr' - to give.

 

In the former case, there are two senses, one in the passive and one in the causative, either meaning 'to be destroyed' or 'causing destruction'. in the second sense of 'give', it denotes a person who is paid or given something - a servant.

 

Dasyu's also from the root 'dasu', meaning 'one who destroys' or is harmful.

 

According to nirukta (7.23.1) dasyu is derived from 'das', to perish, 'one who through his inferior actions impairs the social strength of the masses'.

 

It refers to those who are degenerate - the wicked, the evilminded, robbers and thieves, unbelievers etc.

 

In ved, Almighty God is praised for protecting the good and chastising the evil. yo dasyuumradharaam avaatiran - it is he that keeps the wicked in despicable state.

 

So those who say 'aryans' are a foreign race that came into india and subjugated the native dravidians are totally wrong.

 

Human society was originally divided between aryas and dasyus, and then we have the division of four classes/varnas so that society can function properly.

 

Btw in india we have pancha dravida brahmins (from tamil nadu, kerala, andhra, karnataka, maharashtra, gujerat) and pancha gauda brahmins who are located in the north.

Dravida desha is a geographical term for south india, and that's all.

 

 

Please read more at the link -

 

Caste and Varna:

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=383&discussionID=19807

 

<small><font color="white">

 

[This message has been edited by sha (edited 06-20-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

First of all sorry to have said that it was Atharva veda which states that shudras are eligible to listen to the vedas. I checked and it is actually Yajur veda. Yajur Veda X.X.V.2 says:

 

Yatemam vacam kalyanim, avadani janebhyah, brahma rajanyabhyam, Sudraya ca aryaya ca, svaya caranaya ca

 

Translation: Let everyone listen to these auspicious words, be they brahmins, kshatriyas, Sudras, people of noble birth, our own people or others..."

So I will refrain from pouring molten lead -

 

Is a shudra qualified to be brahmana allowed to chant vedic hymns, have upanayanam done and chant gAyatri ?

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Just as we have punishments for those who impersonate doctors, lawyers, or police officers (i.e. practicing such occupations without the necessary training and qualification), so in the Vedic times there was punishment for unqualified people hearing and reciting the Vedas which was the duty of a qualified (i.e. trained) brahmana.

 

[shvu]

 

First of all sorry to have said that it was Atharva veda which states that shudras are eligible to listen to the vedas. I checked and it is actually Yajur veda. Yajur Veda X.X.V.2 says:

Yatemam vacam kalyanim, avadani janebhyah, brahma rajanyabhyam, Sudraya ca aryaya ca, svaya caranaya ca

 

Translation: Let everyone listen to these auspicious words, be they brahmins, kshatriyas, Sudras, people of noble birth, our own people or others..."

Karthik,

 

Thanks for the reference.

 

Prima facie, this texts appears suspicious to me. When stalwart Acharayas have clearly stated that Shuudras are not eligible for Upanayana and Vedic study, I would be very surprised if they chose to ignore direct Vedic sources and drew support from Smriti.

 

Sacred-texts.com claims to have the complete Yajur veda and their site carries only 6 Khandas, while you quoted from the 10th. What is your source for this text?

 

Thanks

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 06-20-2002).]

[Sarasvati]

In former ages, the guru would see if the disciple possessed the potential to become a qualified brahmana, kshatriya or whatever. Nowadays, the guru (impersonal educational institution) will not accept such qualified student if he/she doesn't have enough money. Sure, scholarships exist, but a rich man's son gets in even if he is less qualified than the scholarship student.

[karthik_v]

Shvu:

 

Prima facie, this texts appears suspicious to me. When stalwart Acharayas have clearly stated that Shuudras are not eligible for Upanayana and Vedic study, I would be very surprised if they chose to ignore direct Vedic sources and drew support from Smriti.

 

Assuming that the works of the stalwart acharyas have not been interpolated. None of the traditions had continuous disciplic succession. Even Sringeri mutt was revived thanks to Tipu sultan Muslims often killed our acharyas. So, it is quite possible that after long breaks, the new acharya introduced his own spin.

 

I got this reference from my friend, who follows Sri Aurobindo and lives in that ashram. I can check with him the source he uses, but he is very meticulous. I don't think you should take sacred-texts too seriously. They use Griffith's Rk veda, which is full of errors. They grab whatever they can get for free and host. I think the best way is to go to the samhitas as preserved in a tradition.