Caste

[shvu]

 

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.

While the Shankara Maths of the North had long breaks, the Sringeri Math has had no trouble from Invaders and has had an unbroken line of Shankaras. Besides Islam folks did not arrive in India at least for 4 centuries after the time of Shankara during when his Bhaashya had already become famous and was also criticized by Raamaanuja and others, which means there were multiple copies in vogue, by then. There have been no different recensions of his Bhaashya, to the best of my knowledge.

 

As we know, Indians are not far behind others when it comes to Interpolations and the Manu Smriti may have been authored/ interpolated during the time of the Buddha, when the Brahmins reigned supreme. Also, the Gautamiiya Dharma Suutra.

 

However the important point is, according to the big 3, Shuudras are not eligible for Upanayana and ipso facto are not elgible for Vedic study.

 

Also, where are contradictions in the Bhaashya according to Shivaananda?

 

Thanks

 

[karthik_v]

Shvu:

 

the Sringeri Math has had no trouble from Invaders and has had an unbroken line of Shankaras.

 

That is what they claim. The simple truth is that SM also had a broken lineage. Even as recent as Tipu Sultan' time, it was only with his help that the mutt was given a life. In fact, tipu Sultan was a tyrant who massacred the Hindus. But, when he faced the music from the British, to neutralize opposition, he revived Sringeri mutt.

 

Besides Islam folks did not arrive in India at least for 4 centuries after the time of Shankara during when his Bhaashya had already become famous and was also criticized by Raamaanuja and others, which means there were multiple copies in vogue, by then.

 

This, assuming that we can ascertain Sankara's date with any certainty Second, I don't think that Ramanuja makes any mention about Sankara's mention of GS. I even wonder if Ramanuja ever mentions about GS. So, that is not a clincher.

 

Manu Smriti may have been authored/ interpolated during the time of the Buddha, when the Brahmins reigned supreme. Also, the Gautamiiya Dharma Suutra.

 

Quite possible, but not certain. Pre-Buddhist Tamil works have no memory of MS or GS. If they were present and enforced by the Brahmins then, how come they don't even find a mention?

 

However the important point is, according to the big 3, Shuudras are not eligible for Upanayana and ipso facto are not elgible for Vedic study.

 

First, we have to ascertain they said so. Second we have to analyze if what they said was authorized by the vedas. If it has no vedic sanction, then it is better discounted or treates as interpolation. There are too many verses in the vedas that say that everyone should listen to the vedas and NONE which proscribes them. If an acarya says something contrary, the onus is upon him to defend it.

 

Also, where are contradictions in the Bhaashya according to Shivaananda?

 

I will post them this evening, if I get home early. If not on Tuesday, when we return from Yosemite

[kailasa]

Varnasrama it materialistic the system also is intended for materialist. As as a rule everyone want enough strong impurity of material life, the rules varnasrama adjust this question.

 

Without varnasrama there will be only society of animals as occurs. The human life begins with varnasrama. Varnasrama it is a USUAL WAY of life for all and as bhagavata dharma will amplify, varnasrama will be shown natural by an image. Varnasrama it is result bhagavata dharma and in itself varnasrama does not represent any value. Varnasrama it is the simply external party, but if the fidelity will be distributed everywhere, in what kind all this will be submitted?

 

We already follow varnasrama, what means brahmana, grihastha, sannyasa, what for in such case to accept sannyas? This you see varnasrama? Lord Caiyanya you see has rejected varnasrama?

[sha]

Here are more excerpts from another board for better understanding :

Scriptural sanction is there for allowing shudras to study the vedas and uplift themselves.

 

"yathemaam vaacham kalyaaniimaavadaani janebhyah.

brahmaraajanyabhyaam shudraaya chaaryaaya cha svaaya charanaaya"

 

"So may I speak these blessed words (the holy veda) to all the people, to the brahman and the kshatriya, the shudra and the vaishya, to those very dear to me and those not so close."

 

- yajur veda 16.2

 

thus no man can be denied the right to rise in learning and righteousness as god almighty has commanded.

 

Here's another commandment God has given that many may not have seen before -

 

"ajyesthaaso akanisthaasa ete sam bhraataro vaavrdhuh saubhagaaya,"

 

"In mankind no one is superior or inferior. Society evolves when all strive together like brothers for glory and prowess."

 

(rigved 5.60.5)

 

"na vishesho'sti varnaanaam... karmabhir varnataam gatam "

 

"There is no difference of classes... men became seperated into classes in consequence of their actions (or works)."

 

- mahabharata, shantiparvan 6935

 

 

Brahmin in the vedas is defined as

 

'brahma jaanaati iti brahmanah',

the one who has knowledge of god and ved is called as brahmin.

 

learning and virtue make one brahmin, and thus makes one the most eligible for marriage. if by birth one was proclaimed that one is brahmin, no doubt it would be most unjust, but where does ved say that birth makes a brahmin?

 

for example, the aitareya brahmana tells of the great rishi or seer of the veda, kavash ailush, who was born in a shudra family, and the mahabharata records the story of the chandala (outcaste), matanga who became recognised as a rishi.

 

in the veda there is a description of a family in which members followed various occupations -

 

"karuraham tato bhishag upala-prakshini nanaa, naanaadhiyo vasuyavo'nu gaa iva tasthimendraayendo pari srava "

 

(rig 9.112.3)

 

- i am a poet (or carpenter), my father a physician, my mother a grinder of corn. striving for wealth, following various occupations and plans, we remain (in the family) like cattle in a common stall etc.

 

The fact is the vedas contradict the entire concept of social inequality -

 

'ajyesthaaso akanisthaasa' -

 

"in mankind no one is superior or inferior" (rigved 5.60.5).

 

naanaanaam vai u no dhiyo vi vrataani janaanaam I

takshaa rishtam rutam bhishag brahmaa sunvantam ichati I

 

"Various are our thoughts and endeavours, diverse are the ways of different men.

The carpenter seeks the broken, the physician seeks a patient, and the priest the worshipper."

 

-- rigveda 9.112.1

 

yatraa nah puurve pitarah pareyur ena jajnaanah pathyaa anu svaah I

 

"All men, born on this earth, tread their own paths which they have made for themselves, leading them whither our ancient fathers have departed."

 

-- rigveda 10.14.2

 

[Guest guest]

 

the Bhaghavat Puran states that in this kali yug everyone is born sudra.

 

Varnasrama is really just a pipe dream for society at large.

India is a total mess with the caste system,the only solution is to completly dismantle the caste system through vigorous education ,enforcing laws and making sure that that a social stigma will be attached to those who re-enforce caste distinctions.

 

The many sordid stories that one hears of violence and discrimination based on caste is a product of social acceptance,that must be reversed if India is to prosper.

 

Society as a whole in this day and age is not ready for anything else.

[xxvvii]

India is a total mess with the caste system,the only solution is to completly dismantle the caste system

As you know, I don't intend to parry the problem, however, this solution is unacceptable. Caste system is to be restore to its nomal state at the beginning of next age.

[Guest guest]

We have to see if there is clear support for caste based on birth. I think caste, by qualities, is inevitable. And it is good.

 

Caste by birth seems bad because we cannot see some one's activities in the previous life and we can see the bad activities of some one in this life. This makes it difficult to accept caste brahminism, kshatriyaism etc.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-23-2002).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Even one's relation with a brahmana was respected in ancient times. We can see how Ashvatthama had his life spared simply for being the son of a brahmana - despite him having killed the children of the Pandavas.

 

Of course there are many other reasons as well, but certainly one of them was his relation to a true brahmana.

 

[Rati]

There are some discussions on this topic going on in some of the other devotee boards on the net.

 

One of the points that was brought up about VAD is that it is just adding another layer of false material identification that will just interfere with the development of one's bhakti. Another point was that, although it may seem good 'on paper', practically speaking it is never going to gain acceptance in today's world. You might be able to implement it on some small farm with a hundred or so devotees, but to even conceive of propagating it in society at large (whether we are talking about India or America or Australia) is basically a pie in the sky pipe dream. Someone even remarked that it could involve nama-aparadha for those who consider it as important as chanting the holy names.

 

Better to focus on the essentials, like kirtan and puja and lila smaran (for those so inclined) and, as Jagat always says, try to just be better human beings and cultivate respect for others (whether Vaishnava or non-Vaishnava, but ESPECIALLY Vaishnavas).

 

ys - Rati

 

[Gauracandra]

I have to agree with Shvu on that Yajur Veda verse. It has been quoted by two different people here, one gave the verse number as X.X.V.2 and another as 16.2. I spent about 1-2 hours searching through whatever translations of Yajur Veda I could find on the internet, and I couldn't find anything like it. I'm thinking it looks like the Vedas have been interpolated

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

One of the points that was brought up about VAD is that it is just adding another layer of false material identification that will just interfere with the development of one's bhakti.

The varnashrama system is designed for purification. It analyses our situation within the modes of nature and allows us to engage those natural tendencies in the service of God, thereby purifying us of our contaminations. Those who are situated beyond the modes of nature have no duty to follow, yet Krishna says even they continue to follow such prescribed duties to set perfect examples for the common men to follow.

 

One may think it is adding another layer of false material designation. To be honest, what are any of our activities in the world? Working in the university, watching the worldcup on TV, eating bagels and cream cheese... its all adding layers of material identification. We don't mind keeping those, as they are pleasing to us in some way or another. But varnashrama, or regulation, is not very pleasing to us at first - as are most activities meant for purification.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by shiva:

Varnasrama is really just a pipe dream for society at large.

 

But this can be said of sankirtan movement also. I think we should not worry about what is our opinion when we discuss Vedic opinion.

 

[krishnas]

Originally posted by raga:

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.

 

Since most of us, though claiming to follow Gaudiiya Vaishnavism, are still affected by the modes, we are therefore not above varnaashrama.

 

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.

 

Let's not confuse two issues, however. Any system can be abused, as is obvious from the present mess of a caste system that prevails in India. The fact that unqualified people are being given sacred thread and "brahmin" status represents an abuse. There is nothing wrong with the original principle.

 

Part of the problem, I think, is the precedent that was set. In ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada toured all over the world and initiated thousands of disciples. Given that he had few years of life left, and was trying to establish the foundation for his international society, it seems not unreasonable. But why must this same system be followed today? Why can't gurus just have a few disciples each, and spend more time with personally training them in spiritual life? The error I think that is made in ISKCON and ISKCON-clone societies is in allowing disciples to have a relationship with their guru that consists only of a few meetings and mostly correspondence. Granted, it worked for Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, but that doesn't mean it should work for everyone.

 

 

 

[krishnas]

Originally posted by Rati:

There are some discussions on this topic going on in some of the other devotee boards on the net.

 

One of the points that was brought up about VAD is that it is just adding another layer of false material identification that will just interfere with the development of one's bhakti.

 

 

That argument can be made about just about anything. Even the wearing of dhoti and tilak can also become the basis of pride and abuse of social standing. I have met devotees who brag about the number of rounds they chant, for example.

 

In that sense, there is nothing wrong with varnaashrama (as defined by scripture) itself that makes it opposed to principles of bhakti. Everything has its place, and so does varnaashrama. If one is too weak to follow varnaashrama regulations, then where is the question of him developing pure devotional service? Realize that we are talking about the average person, who is not above the modes, and hence he needs to be regulated by scripture. If we are talking about the exceptional devotee who is beyond the modes and surrendered to Lord Krishna, then that is a different matter.

 

Scripturally speaking, one cannot find fault with say, the 10,000 sons of Daksha Prajaapati, or Lord Shiva, because they do not follow all varnaashrama regulations. But the Vishnu Puraana, which I quoted in the Bhaktisiddhaanta thread, alread states that vad is the means by which worldly people worship Lord Vishnu. We can't just sweep scriptural injunctions under the rug because they are inconvenient.

 

Another point was that, although it may seem good 'on paper', practically speaking it is never going to gain acceptance in today's world. You might be able to implement it on some small farm with a hundred or so devotees, but to even conceive of propagating it in society at large (whether we are talking about India or America or Australia) is basically a pie in the sky pipe dream.

 

I'm sure Vaishnavas used to say the same thing about bhaagavata-dharma, until Srila Prabhupada single-handedly spread it all over the world.

 

Someone even remarked that it could involve nama-aparadha for those who consider it as important as chanting the holy names.

 

That is just plain silly. The Nitai das article was the first and only time I ever saw anyone give such an argument, and I think anyone can see that the article was blatantly hostile and full of low-class accusations.

 

If someone has a reasonable argument to make that adopting VAD is dangerous to one's saadhana, then we can discuss it. It would be best if it had some substance, since the bhajankutir article clearly did not.

 

Varnaasharma = naamaparaadha and Vaishnava-ninda? Come on....

 

Varnaashrama is a means to an end. But harinaama is an activity that takes place even on the transcendental platform. There is really no question about it.

 

Better to focus on the essentials, like kirtan and puja and lila smaran (for those so inclined) and, as Jagat always says, try to just be better human beings and cultivate respect for others (whether Vaishnava or non-Vaishnava, but ESPECIALLY Vaishnavas).

 

And among those essentials, I would include, obeying the injunctions of shruti and smriti, etc.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

[raga]

That is just plain silly. The Nitai das article was the first and only time I ever saw anyone give such an argument, and I think anyone can see that the article was blatantly hostile and full of low-class accusations.

For the record, if you have a careful look, it is not written by Nitai das. It is clearly labeled as a "guest article".

 

[sha]

Originally posted by 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!”

 

 

 

<font color="red">bhagavad bhakti hInasya jAtiH zAstraM japas tapaH

aprANasya iva dehasya maNDanaM loka ranjanaM</font>

 

(Hari Bhakti Sudhodayam 3.11)

 

[sha]

Originally posted by 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!”

 

 

<font color="red">"Let me (if need be) be born as man or celestial, as wild beast or mosquito, as animal or worm, as bird or any other creature.

 

What harm can accrue from these embodiments,

if in every such birth my heart always feels inclined to disport in the waves of Supreme Bliss consisting in the REMEMBRANCE of Thy lotus feet ?"</font>

 

<font color="blue">"O Lord! What does it avail a man to be a student brahmacari, a householder, an anchorite, a mendicant or one outside these four orders?

 

O Master of all beings!

Bestower of all good!

He whose heart-lotus comes in Thy possession -

to him Thou becomest his 'Own', and Thyself bearest his worldly burdens."</font>

 

(Sivanandalahari. 10, 11- Jagadguru Sri Sankaracarya)

[krishnas]

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..."

I am unable to find this in my copy of YajurVeda Samhitaa. Are you sure the transliteration is correct? The numbering of the mantras also does not seem correct. At least in my version (the one translated by Griffith and revised by Arya), there are 40 adhyaayas, and the there is the number of mantras which seems to be continuous throughout the text (does not start from 1 with each new adhyaaya). But I don't see how there are four numbers....

 

 

 

 

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

www.achintya.org

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by krishnas:

I am unable to find this in my copy of YajurVeda Samhitaa. Are you sure the transliteration is correct? The numbering of the mantras also does not seem correct. At least in my version (the one translated by Griffith and revised by Arya), there are 40 adhyaayas, and the there is the number of mantras which seems to be continuous throughout the text (does not start from 1 with each new adhyaaya). But I don't see how there are four numbers....

 

Shvu pointed out the same. I got this from a friend and I have asked him if the numbering is correct. Once he responds, I will revert.

[sha]

One of the points that was brought up about VAD is that it is just adding another layer of false material identification that will just interfere with the development of one's bhakti.

<font color="red">vasudeva sutaM devaM kamsa cANUra mardanam

devakI paramAnandaM kRSNaM vande jagad guruM

</font>

 

I humbly prostrate to the Spiritual Master of the universe,

Lord Krishna, Who is the darling Son of King Vasudeva,

Who destroyed the evil Kamsa and Canura demons, and

Who is the Supreme Joy of Mother Devaki devi.

 

The world Teacher, Lord Krishna was instructing the seekers in the verse- 18.66 of Gita, "give up all dharmas (Varna Ashrama Dharma)"

and embrace "bhagavata dharma" - i.e. "mAm ekam zaraNam vraja" (EXCLUSIVE SURRENDER to Lord Himself) which is Prema Bhakti, Selfless Divine Love.

 

After Gita ends giving the final verdict, Bhagavatam (Parama hamsyaam

Samhitaayaam) begins. The first verses of Srimad Bhagavatam (Parama

hamsyaam Samhitaayaam) proclaim:

 

dharmaH projjhita kaitavo 'tra paramo... and goes beyond the Dharma (VAD) and liberation mentioned in the verse 18. 66. of Gita.

 

<font color="blue">tyaktvA svadharma caraNAmbujaM harer

bhajan napakvo 'tha patet tato yadi

yatra kva vAbhadram abhUdamuSya kiM ko

vArtha Apto 'bhajatAM svadharmataH</font>

 

(Srimad Bhagavatam 1. 5. 17)

 

Has evil ever befallen him anywhere in any womb or birth, who adores the lotus feet of Sri Hari neglecting his own 'dharma' (religious order and social duty), even if he dies at a stage when he is yet unripe in his devotion, or falls from his 'sadhana' (preparation)?

 

On the other hand, what purpose has been achieved by those who fail to worship God, through devotion to their socalled own 'dharma' (VAD)?

 

<font color="red">sa vai puMsAM paro dharmotato bhaktir adhokSaje

ahaituky apratihatA yayA' 'tmA samprasIdati

 

dharmA svanuSThitaH puMsAM viSvaksena kathAsu yaH

notpAdayed yadi ratiM zrama eva hi kevalam</font>

 

(Bhagavatam 1. 2. 6, 8)

 

That alone is the highest Dharma of men, from which follows devotion to Sri Krishna,- a devotion which is absolutely motiveless and knows no obstruction, and as a result of which the soul realizes the All Blissful God and thus attains His Grace.

 

A Dharma well performed is but labour lost, if it<u> fails to generate Love</u> for the stories of Bhagavan Sri Krishna.

 

<font color="blue">AJjAya ivaM guNAn doSAn mayA ' 'diSTAnapi svakAn

dharmAn saMtyajyaH sarvAn mAM bhajet sa ca sattamaH

 

dharmaH satya dayopeto vidyA vA tapasAnvitA

madbhaktyApetam AtmAnaM na samyak prapunAti hi</font>

 

(Bhagavatam 11. 11. 32 and 11. 14. 22)

 

He who knowing the merits and demerits of VAD - (religious duty and its opposite) gives up ALL Dharma even as sanctioned by Me,

and WORSHIPS Me in Love, is the BEST among sages.

 

Dharma (VAD) joined to truthfulness and compassion or learning coupled with

austerity, never WHOLLY purifies the heart and mind which is DEVOID of Devotion to Me (Lord Krishna).

 

<font color="red">mannimittaM kRtaM pApaM maddharmAya ca kalpate

mAmanAdRtya dharmo 'pi pApaM syAn matprabhAvataH</font>

 

In Padma Purana Lord says-

 

The SIN that is performed for MY sake is NOT sin, it is 'Dharma'. But the 'Dharma' that is PERFORMED without surrendering to Me is sin.

 

That is why Saint Sri Tulasidasji said -

 

<font color="blue">'tajyo pitA prahlAda vibhISaNa bandhu bharata mahatArI

bali guru tajyo kAnta brajavantani bhe saba mangala kArI</font>

 

Prahlada Maharaj left his father,

prince Bharata gave up his mother,

Vibhishana escaped from his brother, Ravana,

Bali Maharaj ignored his guru and

Gopis renounced their own husbands and family.

 

All these Saints had become great due to their EXCLUSIVE LOVING SURRENDER to their Lord but not through VAD.

[krishnas]

Originally posted by sha:

The world Teacher, Lord Krishna was instructing the seekers in the verse- 18.66 of Gita, "give up all dharmas (Varna Ashrama Dharma)"

and embrace "bhagavata dharma" - i.e. "mAm ekam zaraNam vraja" (EXCLUSIVE SURRENDER to Lord Himself) which is Prema Bhakti, Selfless Divine Love.

 

 

"Give up all dharmas AND surrender unto me..." The meaning is obvious. Do both, not just one. There is no basis for giving up dharmas unless one has taken to sharanaagati. I doubt most of us are on that stage.

 

dharmaH projjhita kaitavo 'tra paramo... and goes beyond the Dharma (VAD) and liberation mentioned in the verse 18. 66. of Gita.

 

And yet we still find descriptions of varnaashrama duties within the pages of the Bhaagavatam itself. I wonder why.

 

Prahlada Maharaj left his father,

prince Bharata gave up his mother,

Vibhishana escaped from his brother, Ravana,

Bali Maharaj ignored his guru and

Gopis renounced their own husbands and family.

 

All these Saints had become great due to their EXCLUSIVE LOVING SURRENDER to their Lord but not through VAD.

These example do not prove that just anyone can renounce varnaashrama. In the cases above, the issues of renunciation occurred in devotees who were already on the highly elevated platform of bhakti. Several of the individuals above (Vibhiishana, Bharata, Bali) were obviously engaged in their varnaashrama duties prior to achieving perfection in devotion.

 

What the examples above show is that great devotees can renounce varnaashrama dharma when the issue of ultimate surrender to the Lord becomes a reality. In other words, they were living up to the instruction of "sarva dharmaan parityajya maam ekam sharanam vrajaa..."

 

Only such perfected souls have lease to renounce varnaashrama. The same does not hold for the average person. If just anyone could renounce varnaashrama, then why was it wrong for Arjuna to want to leave the battlefield and enter the begging profession? Remember that Krishna's initial arguments were along the lines of following ordinary dharmas. Only later does Krishna advise Arjuna to give up those dharmas.... only to surrender to Him.

 

Varnaasharma is a means to an end, but not an end in and of itself. It is meant for purification of the consciousness of a devotee who is still affected by the modes of material nature. It regulates sense gratification by providing an opportunity to engage one's senses in Krishna's loving service.

 

In the pages of the Bhaagavatam, varnaashrama itself is not criticized, but rather the attitude of performing varnaashrama without also cultivating bhakti.

 

The quotes that you provide are very wonderful, but they don't condemn following of varnaashrama by conditioned souls.

 

yours

 

...K

 

 

[This message has been edited by krishnas (edited 06-28-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by krishnas (edited 06-28-2002).]

[krishnas]

Originally posted by raga:

<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."

 

 

The issue then becomes one of determining what "one's prescribed duties" are. Some Sri Vaishnavas with whom I have debated this topic hold that this verse, and others like it, prove that varna is based on birth. But it is by no means obvious here that "one's prescribed duties," (i.e. varnaashrama duties) are those that are inherited by birth.

 

 

 

 

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

www.achintya.org

[theist]

Crystal Krishnas.

[krishnas]

Originally posted by raga:

For the record, if you have a careful look, it is not written by Nitai das. It is clearly labeled as a "guest article".

It's not my intention to misrepresent him, but whether he wrote it or not, the same lack of good taste prevails. While I have many differences of opinion with contemporary ISKCON customs in the West, I would be pretty embarassed to allow such a blatantly uncultured piece of writing to show up in any publication I took responsibility for.

 

I am not blind to the abuses of principle that occur within the existing Gaudiya institutions like ISKCON. I would be the first to embrace an alternative if a viable one presented itself. But unfortunately the only people who seem concerned about ISKCON's problems just exhibit the same kinds of sentimentalism and fanaticism which they criticize about ISKCON. I find it hard to be impressed with the alternatives, to date.

 

I don't lament the fact that debate takes place within our sampradaaya. This is healthy. What is bothersome is the fact that everyone feels compelled to pull out the dirty laundry and use below-the-belt generalizations just to make their points. At least this was one thing I didn't have to worry about when I associated with Sri Vaishnavas. Is it really so difficult to ask for some basic standard of etiquette?

 

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by krishnas:

The issue then becomes one of determining what "one's prescribed duties" are. Some Sri Vaishnavas with whom I have debated this topic hold that this verse, and others like it, prove that varna is based on birth. But it is by no means obvious here that "one's prescribed duties," (i.e. varnaashrama duties) are those that are inherited by birth.

 

 

A brahmana may have the ability to clean. But this ability should be used for cleaning the temple. Not toilets for maintainence of the body. Similarly, a brahmana may be able to fight, do business - but this must not be used for personal gain. A kshatriya by nature may also follow his nature of fighting even though he can abstain from fighting through practice of self-restraint. A vaishya may not indulge in fighting or menial work. A shudra may not load himself with responsibilities of running a business even though he may have the ability.

 

So a distinction is made between one's ability to do a particular varnashrama duty and one's nature. If it is not natural to you, then even if you can do it, it is not your duty. What we can is determined by cultivation. What we are is determined by our nature. What is the cause of our nature ?