Part-1 | Part-2 ( Pls read part-1 before reading this )
One of the reason, people go against caste system are due to some tactically formed arguments, which is often repeated in academic and media circles. Listed below are some of those which i remember.
-
Caste system classifies people based on birth.
-
Birth Based Discrimination
-
Caste system forces people in particular profession for thousands of years.
-
Caste system promotes untouchability.
if you had come across any other such arguments, please share it in the comment section, so that i can include it in the list. I will deal with each of the above, in subsequent posts in this series.
Caste System Classifies people based on birth:
A powerful argument, that makes many hindu intellectuals, defenseless. The perception made is that, just because a person is born in a particular jaathi, he is to carry over the baggage of that identity for his entire life, unable to come out of it.
The falsehood of this argument can be gauged from the very simple question: how many people wanted to come out of their jaathi? The reality is that people (including dalits) fought for respect for their jaathi, rather than coming out.
Inspite of this reality, why is that no hindu intellectual had ever countered this false propoganda? The reason is lack of understanding of our jaathi setup, and also because most hindu intellectuals are urban dwellers, who dont know anything about the rural setup.
Today, this gap is diminishing, as more youths from rural area got educated and work in urban centers, and able to see both sides of the world.
Varna and Jaathi:
There is so much confusion b/w varna and jaathi. The english word caste is being interchangeably used to denote both.
Varna is a social framework that existed as a model for creation of governing units. (whether its a dhesam or a samasthanam). The varna is just a classification and does not identify with any race.
On the other hand, the jaathi is the direct identity of people groups. A jaathi is based on kulam and gothram. A gothram is a group of people coming from same paternal lineage. Which means, all people in a gothram are brothers and sisters.
A kulam is a group of gothrams, having matrimonial bondings. So a kulam is a total composite of individual gothrams. A kulam with gothrams, along with the kula profession constitutes a jaathi. So naturally, jaathi can only be based on birth. There is nothing wrong in it.
We can understand more on this, if we look at the society. In tamilnadu, there were 4 ancient dhesams. Chola dhesam, pandya dhesam, chera dhesam and thondai dhesam. The brahmanas residing in chola dhesam are called choliya brahmins, whereas those in pandya dhesam are pandya brahmins. So as, a farmer in chola dhesam are called choliya vellala, whereas in pandya dhesam are called pandya vellala.
So here, brahamana denotes the classification, whereas choliya brahmin denotes a group of people living in chola dhesam. Brahmana is a varna, and choliya brahmin is a jaathi.
A choliya brahmana would not marry with a pandya brahmana or brahmins from other region.
Also, there are different sects, like adhi saivar, deekshithar, etc who also are classificed as brahmana, but a different jaathi.
What is caste?
As the british slowly conquered india, they started introducing western model of administration, to govern this vast land. For that they attempted to study the indian society, which they did not know much. In that process, they started seeing indian society from the western perspective.
The first thing, they looked in our society is a religion, that is similar to christianity. Then a social order, that is similar to western master slave model. The budhism, sikhism, jainism are centered around single personality who created that, and hence britishers, approved it as separate religion. Whereas, the rest of the numerous diverse culture, doesnt fit in to their framework of religion. So they grouped all else, in to single identity called Hinduism.
Next, the four varnas, which manu smriti described was being taken as four castes, and being categorized on the model of western Upper/Lower caste. And this became a base for all the propoganda later unleashed.
Varna, a social framework, is being treated as westernised caste, and manu smriti, a time bound law book, being treated as religious book similar to bible. And this flawed classification became official, and all govt policies taken based on this. And the same blunder is being followed even after independance.
Consequences of British Classification:
This british classification had resulted in disastrous consequences in indian society. The varnas, which earlier were based on dharma, was now converted to a race. The brahmins, in a varna setup, would become a shudra, if he did not follow brahmana dharma. But when this varna transformed in to caste system ( due to british classification ), this condition is removed. A brahmin would be a brahmin by birth, no matter, whether he is a drunkard or goes to caberat or eats meat or eats beef.
The values in a social system are enforced by the rulers. In our case, the new ruler, the britishers, discarded these values, and let the system degrade. After so called independance, when the same administrative structure was retained and continuing till today, how do we expect any change in the corrupted caste system?
So when values is removed from a system or setup, it naturally degrades and perishes. This is true for all institutions.
What about Jaathi?
As said earlier, the varnas are just conceptual framework. Its not direct identity. The brahmins all over india learnt vedas, and hence british made a horizontal classification, and grouped all brahmins as one caste. However, the other varnas, identified themselves based on the region. Eg: gomathi chettiyar, devanga chettiyar, kamma nayakar, thottiya nayakkar, choliya vellalar, pandya vellalar etc.. These identities are multi-dimensional, based on region, profession and lineage. Hence difficult for horizontal classification.
So these different jaathis are also tagged to the caste system, which till this date, had created so much confusion, that a typical hindu intellectual could not understand, what is a kulam, jaathi, and varna. And hence the extreme Birth Based Hysteria.
( I will write a separate post on this varna, jaathi and kulam later)
Need of the Hour:
The hindu intellectuals has to first throw away the british classification, and start looking at our society from a fresh perspective. So far, there has been no single indegenous study, about our society, and social setup. All official documents rely on british sources, which means, an entire generation of indians are educated from alien perspective.
The original varna dharma has to be upholded. The anglicised brahmins, who went for government jobs, and other private sector jobs should discard their brahmana identity, since as per original varna dharma, they cannot be called a brahmana. Infact they dont have anything to lose by discarding this identity, and instead, they can choose a new identity or name for them ( for now, lets call them Ex-Brahmins). On the other hand, such an act, will help us shield the traditional brahmins, from the vicious propoganda . The Ex-Brahmins have to realise, that the traditional brahmins bore the brunt of the actions, done by them.
At the intellectual level, the Ex-Brahmins should make attempts to undo the british racial classification of the varnas, and establish the original purpose of the varna dharma. Also, the Ex-Brahmins, as a matter of self-introspection, should do a study on how, the anglicised brahmins who went to government jobs, affected the traditional brahmins so that the remedial measures be taken atleast from now.
Today, there are more than 35000 temples in tamilnadu, which do not have any one to do even One kaala pooja. The reason is emigration of traditional brahmins to other jobs. Only the Ex-Brahmins, who are relatively wealthy now, can create a conducive environment for these traditional priests, support them socially & economically, and encourage them to continue their brahmana dharma, learn shastras, ayurveda and be multi-skilled. The Ex-Brahmins, if they ever cared to uphold the dharma (spoilt by them), should come forward for this.
Unless we do this, we can never be able to stop the current degradation of our society, culture and religions.
Links for References:
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/article/castesystem.htm
U seems to be a Kshatriya, knowing dharma and laying it down for betterment of society.
Varna is not by birth, is by behavior.
Jaati maybe by birth, but need not restrict occupation.
Sanyasi transcends Jaati/Kula, is a brahmana, brahma jnani.
@X,
Every varna has to behave well.. Even today, most sudra, do not indulge in stealing or in rowdyism..
A varna is defined by the dharma and the duties, and the required life style needed for it..
Varna is definitely by birth, but to remain in a varna, one should follow the dharma.. otherwise, he would either become shudra or outcaste..
Jaathi is a multi-dimensional one.. profession is one of the dimension..
Sanyasi transcends every thing.. jaathi/kulam/dhesam and everything else..
The behavior of a person with respect to the four purusharthas- kama, artha, dharma and moksha determine his varna. If kama is predominant, he is sudra. If artha, producing things, material are of interest to him, Vaishya he is. If thoughts of dharma is what predominates, he is kshatriya. And if thoughts of brahma are what occupies him, he is brahmana.
Vyasa was a brahmana. his son Dritarashtra was not. nor was Pandu. But Vidur was.
Stealing or rowdyism is not related to varna. It is mleccha/asurik characteristic.
Inherent tendencies that determine varna, based on karma samskara, are present from birth, in latent form. But, activities of person can strengthen them or modify them.
@X
varna is NOT about individual.. its about a community.. varna cannot exist based solely on any individual.. bcoz, an individual is always associated with his parents, his relations, his family, his wife and his child.. everyone of them has to follow the varna dharma..
The definition you gave is wrong understanding..
In varna dharma, the shudras are exempted from strict discipline of life.. it doesnt mean, kama is predominant in him.. Higher the varna, higher the strict life code, bcoz, they are entrusted with the responsibilities.. the vyshyas are NOT just traders, but all skilled workers.. Money usually corrupts, and hence a vyshya dharma is defined in such a way, that he doesnt go and use his money power, to exploit the society..
Similarly, a kshatriya is the one, who is entrusted with ruling or governance.. they are more powerful than vyshya, and hence should be more responsible than the vyshya.. hence their dharma is more stricter than the vyshya..
The brahmana is entrusted with all the knowledge and also the spiritual duties.. the brahmanas usually are master of all knowledge, right from vedas to medicine to astrology.. Their intellectual prowess is more powerful than the ruling power of kshatriyas.. hence, their life dharma is the most strict, and they are banned from doing any kind of work or business..
We need to see the varna from this perspective..
So what is the varna or community of Vyasa, who was son of fisherwoman? of his father Parashara who was son of low caste woman, of his children Dritarashtra and Vidura?
Satyakama Jabala was son of maid, with father unknown. was recognised as brahmana by his Guru.
Raikva called king Janasruti ‘sudra’ first time. second time he gave knowledge about life. why ?
What is varna or Sri Krishna, the go-pala?
Varna changes, depending on which purushartha predominates personality.
Different people have different personal characterstics. Some r inclined towards producing, handling, materials. Asking him to contemplate on brahma would be futile. Another person may be attracted by physical features, personality, sensuality, etc., asking him to uphold dharma, contemplate brahma or produce things, would be foolish.
Somebody may be interested in the questions about life, what is its purpose, what is all this creations, manifestations? Asking him to engage in farming or metal work may not be optimum, nor asking him to fight to uphold dharma.
Yet another may have a strong sense of correctness. He would be most suitable to administer the land.
Such inherent tendencies, are result of past karma samskara. After actualisation of karma samskara, persons may exhaust vasanas. or may accrue more vasanas depending on his activities. Thus his inclinations change and his varna too.
Just because a person is born to a brahmana, does not necessarily mean that s/he will become brahma jnani.
A kshatriya’s son need not necessarily be courageous or resilient or tenacious or discerning, all essential qualities for a kshatriya.
Entrusting such a person with governance would be incorrect.
Responsibility does not necessarily come with birth or upbringing, while such factors do influence it to some extent.
I am glad to see Senthil doing some fresh and fearless thinking on this accursed topic of “Caste”. Two suggestions for his consideration:
1. Please give supporting references as much as possible from primary sources. This will considerably enhance the credibility of the interpretation/explanation.
2. In due course try to counter specific Indian comments on “Caste” as per se pernicious and that brahmanas oppressed lower castes. No doubt there was oppression but since when and where?
R.Venkatanarayanan
Thanks venkatanarayan sir..
1. most of what i wrote is based on my direct observations on the society, and also partly due to my experiences of my childhood.. i dont know how i can give reference for a subject, which no one so far has cared to document.. i am more focussed on understanding things, than to prove to some on else..
The areas where i can give references are british survey of indian society during 1800s.. i will try to reproduce relevant sections..
2. There was no oppression by original brahmins (ie, who remained in traditional dharma) .. the notion of oppression itself is highly debatable.. i will explain in my future post .. we need to first come out of this established propoganda.
@X,
/** So what is the varna or community of Vyasa, who was son of fisherwoman? **/
Vyasa is a rishi.. rishis transcend varna and jaathi.. and a rishi should reside in forest, subside on minimal things, meditate to realise brahman,.. so he is placed above brahmana varna, and eligible to learn vedas and teach vedas.. It doesnt matter what varna he belongs to..
people from any varna can become a sanyasi or rishi.. once they become a rishi, they lose their varna.. However, as long as they remain inside the varna, they are bound by its dharma..
So what is the difference b/w brahmana and rishi? A brahmana is allowed to fulfill normal desires of life (kama), whereas, a rishi transcends it..
You can take any historican or ithihasa figure.. they all become brahma gnanis (NOT brahmanas), only after becoming rishi.. viswamitra, got deeksha from vashistar, after becoming a rishi..
Please prove me, if any shudra became brahmana by remaining within varna dharma..
@X,
/** A kshatriya’s son need not necessarily be courageous or resilient or tenacious or discerning, all essential qualities for a kshatriya. Entrusting such a person with governance would be incorrect.
**/
You are debating theoritically.. a son acquires his parent’s character.. since both father and mother are from kshatriya varna, mostly the son gets the same character.. apart from that, he is brought up among kshatriya community, and acquires the kshatriya character, by virtue of his community.. its very rare, that a son of a king becomes inefficient.
Look at the succession procedure in our dharma.. when the son of the king / chief is inefficient or unsuitable, the second son is chosen.. if that is not possible, the son of the king’s brother is entrusted with the power.. If not, the most closer family in that lineage is given the power..
/**
Responsibility does not necessarily come with birth or upbringing, while such factors do influence it to some extent.
**/
responsibility comes mostly with birth and upbringing.. that’s how most of indian society is ordered without any regulation, contrary to the recent UK riots..
Vyasa was born son of fishrwomn & Parashara Muni who himself was son of anothr low caste womn. As per Manusmriti, they must be called Nishada or something? They weren’t born Rishis, right? So till the time they learnt and became Rishis, were they of Nishada community?
Y was Satyakama Jabala, son of maid with unknown father, a child and not having knowledge of vedas, recognized as brahmana by Guru?
Y King Janasruti was called sudra ?
There is no restrictn that “a rishi should reside in forest, subside on minimal things, meditate to realise brahman”.
No. Rishi or brahmana or Sanyasi transcends all restrictions. Having realised brahma, s/he can be in forest or city, in rags or silks, immaterial, s/he, one with brahman, remains so.
brahmana is one who realizes brahma or seeks earnestly to realize brahma.
The statement “A brahmana is allowed to fulfill normal desires of life (kama)” is not tenable.
1. kama is not the “normal desires of life” for a brahmana. moksha is the normal desire for a brahmana. kama is subordinate, and by and large, brahmana sees through the impermanence of kama and transcends it.
2. A brahmana does not need to be allowed or disallowed to fulfil kama, if it arises.
Parashara, Vishwamitra expressed kama when it arose.
Arjuna, the kshatriya, conscious of dharma, refused kama towards Urvashi, also rejected marriage proposal to Uttara, who was his student during Agyatvas.
>>>”shudra became brahmana by remaining within varna dharma”
What do you mean by varna dharma ?
There is a story of one brahmana, having done lot of tapas, gained siddhis, went to beg alms, waited at one house, got angry due to delay, housewife told him he has more to learn, suggested him to approach a meat seller. The meat seller gave him knowledge.
People born at any strata of society can develop knowledge through dharmik living.
A child does not acquire parent’s character. S/he may imbibe some through upbringing. But has individual characteristic and personalty.
Nowadays materialistic brainwashing does achieve uniformity in aggrandizing thoughts and deceitfulness in character to a large extent. But it still remains impermanent dependent on external influence.
It is the outworn old western theory of race that propagates the idea that parents’ characterstics are transmitted to children.
/** As per Manusmriti, they must be called Nishada or something? They weren’t born Rishis, right? So till the time they learnt and became Rishis, were they of Nishada community?
**/
YES.. pls look at when exactly vyasa started learning vedas? after getting deeksha from a rishi (i think vasudeva), and after he became a rishi..
/** Y was Satyakama Jabala, son of maid with unknown father, a child and not having knowledge of vedas, recognized as brahmana by Guru?
**/
Satyakama’s mother was a daasi.. which means, she has mated with men from all sections.. when satyakama went to the rishi and said the truth about him, the rishi felt that he should have been born through a brahmana, and then accepted him as his disciple..
Please tell me, what did satyakama later become? did he become a millionare from the knowledge of veda he gained? as far as i have read, he became another rishi.. right?
/** Y King Janasruti was called sudra ? **/
I dont know much about this story.. so could not comment now..
/** 1. kama is not the “normal desires of life” for a brahmana. moksha is the normal desire for a brahmana. kama is subordinate, and by and large, brahmana sees through the impermanence of kama and transcends it.
2. A brahmana does not need to be allowed or disallowed to fulfil kama, if it arises.
Parashara, Vishwamitra expressed kama when it arose.
**/
In vaidiha dharma, a brahmana is allowed to enter garpagraha, only after he is married, and begets a son.. A sanyasi should not enter the garpagraha, and if he did so, the brahmin priests would do a punyasana, and clean up the place..
A brahamana is part of the society, entrusted with a duty.. whereas a rishi, is free from all karmas, and hence reside in forests..
A rishi seeks the brahma-vidya, by doing intense tapas in forest.. whereas, a brahman has to perform a role within the society..
Hope, i am making a point here..
/** What do you mean by varna dharma ? **/
The dharma ( the duties and the life style) prescribed for the 4 varnas, for normal functioning of the society..
/** There is a story of one brahmana, having done lot of tapas, gained siddhis, went to beg alms, waited at one house, got angry due to delay, housewife told him he has more to learn, suggested him to approach a meat seller. The meat seller gave him knowledge.
**/
And he was NOT a brahmana.. he was a rishi.. (brahmana is different from rishi as explained earlier)
in tamil, this story was attributed to kongana sidhar..
/** People born at any strata of society can develop knowledge through dharmik living.
**/
Varna dharma is about the duties we have to do.. NOT knowledge.. knowledge was possessed by all varnas..
/** A child does not acquire parent’s character. S/he may imbibe some through upbringing.
**/
Pls substantiate.. its an age old wisdom, that a child acquires the character of its parents.. i think u are in denial..
Even today, scientifically it is proven..
/** It is the outworn old western theory of race that propagates the idea that parents’ characterstics are transmitted to children.
**/
I call it as a reactionary response to western racism.. we are denying everything that has any associations with birth..
I can only request you to ignore the west and their concepts and ideologies, and look at our society from fresh perspective..
Dear Senthil,
It is a pleasure to read your blogs, particularly for the ancient information you provide in a new light and the originality of presentation. I have come across such inner certitude, very rare to see these days, only in a writer of the early last century, Kanipayyoor Sankaran Naboothirpad, who was also a great scholar. I hope you will be able to do an in-depth study of this topic and perhaps write a book.
Thanks a lot sir.. we need to understand more about how our society functioned.. its a continuous learning process for me..
I am planning to write a separate post on varnashrama dharma, as i understood it, from various sources and by direct observation..
Senthil -
Today, the Government has pronounced judgement on ‘Hindu society and taken the onus of removing ‘untouchability’ and caste system from ‘Hindu’ society.
Assume that the caste system exists, has existed and and everything that has been said about the caste system is correct.
Assume.
Now also assume, that official Indian History is correct. Lot of assumptions, but for the next few minutes, assume.
If the official narrative of caste system, foreign invasions and Government role in ‘improving society is correct and factual, which means that:-
1. ‘Hindu’ caste system existed (s)
2. Foreigners ruled over India
3. Government has a role in removing caste
are all correct, why was the caste system not removed between 8th century,
1. After Mohammed Bin Qasim’s ‘invasion’
2. To when the British ‘gave’ independence to India
3. To now, after the ‘secular’ Government has taken over.
Going by the ‘modern’ logic, Manusmriti, and various other texts were composed between 500BC-500AD, that helped to ‘establish Hinduism’.
So Hinduism was about 1000-1200 years old, when Islam started ‘ruling’ over India. For the last 1200 years ‘Hindusim’ has been a ‘defeated’ religion. Defeated by ‘caste-less’ peoples and religions.
Does ‘modern’ history measure these non-‘Hindu’ rulers on the parameter of removing caste system in their territories?
If the ruling ‘elites’ of the ‘Hindu’ elites were able to impose the caste system in 1200 years, why were the ‘caste-less’ Muslims and British not able to remove it in 1200 years?
After you or the ‘official’ historians answer these questions, then we can continue with the ‘discussion’ on the caste system.
Till then, it is a waste of time.
Dear Anurag,
Excellent point.. i believe, no one would have the answer.. and probably, no one would like to answer..
Senthis – Since, this creature of the ‘caste-system’ has been identified by the British, understood and appreciated by those who love the British version of history, be talked, discussed and flogged by them.
I have not found any trace of the ‘caste-system’ that the British defined and convinced many of us. I have nothing more to add to the analysis of this fiction.
@ anurag. very good point.
probabaly you might get an answer saying that the caste system has gone so rigid in india that they were unable to remove it. people themselves were so deep rooted that they didnt want to change..
more over, other religions also has divisions among them. shia and sunni in islam. catholic, protestant. penta costal in christianity…. who are they to preach about “caste less society” in india?
Is that true?
Or is it that Caste system is a British myth – and what we have is simple social discrimination – which is unfortunately, a global social fact?
In fact I would think that this entire ‘caste-system’ story is nothing but an elaborate hoax, to justify State intervention, expansion of the State, which was always minimal in India – and still remains at low levels.
The caste system has allowd Indian Government to mount an ambitious agenda aimed at expanding the role of the State.
Dont look at the ‘suspect’ (in this case the State) – look at the motive for the murder (of the Indian socuial system).
Senthil,
As usual a well analyzed one. The guys who talk about Vyasa and Parasara shall read the purana properly. As for Dhritarashtra and others, they were not born out of normal wedlock but a special case called Niyoga which is prohibited in Kali yuga.
“The falsehood of this argument can be gauged from the very simple question: how many people wanted to come out of their jaathi?”
The author is ignorant or attempting dis/mis-information.
Only a moron will say the dalit were happy with satus-quo. No need for me to elaborate.
Rizal – Change this logic slightly. Only slightly.
Most of the Islamic world, including Kasab wants to Yumm-Rika. Does it mean that all Muslims are unhappy with their religion?
Mr. Rizal.. abuse is not an answer to a debate.. if what i said is a mis-information, please prove it..
and if u can, pls tell me how many people want to come out of their jaathi?
Ah, the familiar anst against Brahmins from other FC and BC. It is nothing but a power struggle. Birth-based professions now, does not hold any meaning and value.
@Anurag,
/** Or is it that Caste system is a British myth – and what we have is simple social discrimination – which is unfortunately, a global social fact?
**/
I would like to question the term “Social Discrimination”.. Discrimination can happen only in centralised society.. Our society is a decentralised and free.. how come discrimination happen?
/** Dont look at the ‘suspect’ (in this case the State) – look at the motive for the murder (of the Indian socuial system).
**/
Very valid point.. the purpose of missionaries was to break jaathi so that they convert people..
the purpose of british government was to make every section of people to depend on them, so that they could control them.. Earlier, every jaathi was independant self-organising collective unit.. and when some one was independant, naturally the british govt could not subdue it..
And the purpose of present indian government is NOT much different from colonial britishers.. infact it was worse.. jaathi was dismantled, to provide economic coolies to corporate companies..
If every jaathi were self-reliant and independant, if every village was self-sustainable, from where will those corporate companies get work force..
If you are questioning ‘institutionalized’ discrimination, I would stand qualified. I mean discrimination at a perceptual, group level.
Some positive perceptions like Madrasis are intelligent … Sikhs are brave … types. There are similarly, negative perceptions. In Mumbai, Marathis have a favourite story about Gujjus. In turn Gujju Brahmins have a favorite story about the vaaniyas. These are of course, half-true perceptions, which can take on the form of discriminatory behaviour.
My grandfather would not use vessels used by any non-vegetarian guest. We had separate cutlery and utensils for serving vegetarian food to non-vegetarian guests. My grandfather thought that contact with non-vegetarian contaminated the vessels – which could never be purified.
One group having its own perception about another group, and this is limited only within that group.. how does it become discrimination? Does having opinion about others itself a discrimination?
And do you say, what your father did is a discrimination?
I was referring to my grandfather – actually.
Yes. He discriminated. In his house, on his property. In a very unobtrusive manner. There were others who behaved offensively, regularly.
Anyway, discrimination at individual, family, community level is real – all over the world. Rich people dont want poor people (except household servants) near them. Society places a premium on height. Can anyone stop me, from liking (or disliking) Brown, Black, Yellow, White, Pink, Red, Blue people?
The problem is when ‘institutions’ like the State put the force behind implementation. For instance, the US Supreme Court implemented racial discrimination and slavery laws. Was the might of the Indian State behind ‘caste-system’?
We forget that India’s Golden Age (according to official history) was under non-kshatriyas – The Gupta kings. How did a trading-caste dynasty rule over a large India, and usher in a ‘golden’ age?
In case of my grandfather, it was not just opinion. But also behaviour. Very subtle, very unobtrusive, limited to food and clothing.
He spent years as a para-medic, where he treated rich, poor, vegetarians, non-vegetarians, young and old, everyone. Is this ‘caste-system’? The very same British did not want to eat with Indians – and there were many British clubs, hotels, public places, which were ‘exclusive’. No Indians allowed. Now that was caste-system – because the might of the British Raj was behind that exclusion.
Great post Senthil! I think we have to ask the question this way – Caste system has survived all the ‘attempts’ by buddha, bhakti saints, Muslim invaders / settlers, British, communism, capitalism, liberalization….so it surely must be the greatest system on earth since no system on earth has or will survive such an onslaught! Once we open our eyes to this maybe then we can start to understand that perhaps caste-system was created out of thin air where no system was ever present.
Sunil – Buddha was NOT against the chatar-varna system. He was very clearly in favour of the Chatar-varna system. That is the very basis of Bharattantra – which Buddha promoted.
The caste-system that we read about and are talking about is a different creature altogether.
Anuraag i agree with you on that. I was mentioning the western narrative.
what abut Pandu Dhritarashtra, Vidur, children of Vyasa? what community wer they of ?
Why did Rishi conclude that Satyakama was indeed born to a brahmana? If the father was indeed a ‘brahmana’, what was he doing misusing daasi? Is that chap brahmana then?
If qualities r all transferred thru birth, how do u explain the many ‘brahmins’ of today not displaying any quality to produce vedas/ understand meaning? Many of thm in fact display behavior that will put a chandala of old to shame. why so ?
So what did Kongana Sidhar learn from meat seller that he cud not from a fellow rishi/brahmana? How do u explain the meat seller’s knowledge? was that chap’s father too brahmin, like Satyakama’s?
If children acquire parents character, all u av 2 do is kill off all theives and robbers. There wont b any such in future, u think ?
@ X
/*If qualities r all transferred thru birth, how do u explain the many ‘brahmins’ of today not displaying any quality to produce vedas/ understand meaning? Many of thm in fact display behavior that will put a chandala of old to shame. why so ?*/
You are right. brahmins are not following what they are suppose to follow. Also the kshatrias (the rulers like ministers, MLAs, CMs) are also not following their code of ethics. Should i remind you of the 2G scam?? Also current vaishyas (the business class) are also not folowing the way they are suppose to. Their greed in the form of corpororitization and globalization has killed planet earth and its resources. Improper financial models. we hit recession every 3 years. If US is affected the whole world is impacted. Are these intelligent model for society? definitely not. But still we have to live because there is no alternative. If you say Sudras (working class) were exploited by brahmins in the past, then the current working class(right from software engg to clerk) are being explited by the vaishyas.Dont software engineers work 18 hours a day and get paid more and still keep cribbing about their long working hours? What about non software engineers who dont get paid as good as software engineers who struggle to even pay rents? Todays society is a mess. so we dont even deserve comparing today with vedic society. SO Shall we go and fight against vaishyas? Atleast in the long past (before britishers came) the brahmins didnt exploit the shudras. Show me one proof from antient text where a sudra compains saying he is exploited.
So when we talk about history, lets talk about history and not compare them with today. Today everything is a mess. British has brought the so called “social reforms” which delinked indians from the vedic lifestyle. So when we analyze things we need to stick either to the past or to the present instead of going back and forth.
If you want me to answer your question in one line, i would say “see enge brahmanan” serial by CHO Ramaswamy where he says that “no one is a brahmin today .No one cant be a brahmin as mentioned in the dharmas. Even if few brahmins aspire hard to be, the society is not supportive enough.”
/** Even if few brahmins aspire hard to be, the society is not supportive enough.
**/
And that is the reason, why brahamana dharma can only be followed as a community and NOT as individual..
/*So what did Kongana Sidhar learn from meat seller that he cud not from a fellow rishi/brahmana? How do u explain the meat seller’s knowledge? was that chap’s father too brahmin, like Satyakama’s? */
Even adhi shankara who was a brahmin by birth broke his last brahminical conditioning from a chandala (Shiva himselves). Dont look at sidhas and seekers. They are beyond social classifications. but for a common man who works for his living, society needs certain laws in order to maintain a balance. Just because kongana learnt from a meat seller, it doesnt mean all meat sellers are intelligent and you cant mathematically equate meatsellers > brahmanas. So Sidhas or any sadhakas who are on path to realize the self, if they are open then even a child or even a beggar can teach them. More over, in those days, intelligence is not measure by some institution providing you a degree certificate. Every one was intelligent in their own way. So there is no question of equality and inequality. Its “Not Applicable”. Its only a western mind who will think in that lines.
/*If children acquire parents character, all u av 2 do is kill off all theives and robbers. There wont b any such in future, u think ?*/
Yes children do aquire parents characters. But if they are intelligent and concious enough, they can break them and decide what they wanted to be. Entire spiritual process is to break not just the parents characters that we acquired in this birth. But to break the entire characteristics that we acquired from this birth and all previous births right from single celled ameaba to human. Only then we will really think out of the box in our own way. Only then we will see the present as it is without any prejudices. That state is called “liberation” or “nirvana” or “enlightenment”.
“If we kill all the theives, will there be no theives? ” If a child, even from a brahmin family gets greedy and decide to steel, he becomes a theif. So is it intelligent enough to say “kill the brahmin father. Then there wont be theives”??
Its a individuals decision to steel. People get influenced by their surroundings, people with whom they interact and also get influenced on life situations. In this context, it is said that “children aquire parents character”. If a doctor swithes a Child that is born to a shudra and gives it to a brahmin parents, the child will definitely acquire brahminical knowledge. But remember, the child will also have acuired the biological traits of his shudra parents as well which might be a challenge for the child to learn the brahminical knowledge. There are lots of factors that influcence these qualities of a person and looking at one or two examples and coming to a conclusion or arguing is a bad approach.
The following would influence a persons decision at any given point of time
1) Our past actions and learnings that he aquired from those actions (karma)
2) our parents karma (present and past)
3) Current births brought up , people with whom we have aquientance and our own thinking process and free will.
4) Ever Changing life situations.(social, political, financial)
With all these huge factors influencing a persons decision, its so childish to argue that “if we kill all theives, then there will be no theives in future.”
The point about “if we kill all theives, then there will be no theives in future” was to demonstrate the pointlessness in the suggestion that characterstics acquire from parents. It does not.
@ X
/*The point about “if we kill all theives, then there will be no theives in future” was to demonstrate the pointlessness in the suggestion that characterstics acquire from parents. It does not.*/
I agree but not completely. Children do aquire characteristics from their parents. It is also ONE AMOUNG THE VARIOUS influencing factors. we cannot neglect this. All the examples like VIdur or any other rishis or kshatrias were intelligent enough that they were able to break their patterns and decided what they wanted to be and so they acquired those characters and so there is the descrepancies(child is a kdhatria, father is a brahmana or father is a rishi) in this general rule.
the genral rule is for the common man who is still stuck in the hands of his karma and in this context YES the child gets influenced by parents characteristics. I have provided few influencing factors that would decide the quality of a child (where ever it is born) and whether a child is a brahmana/kshatria/sudra has to be looked individually case by case and need not be debated to this extend
/** what abut Pandu Dhritarashtra, Vidur, children of Vyasa? what community wer they of ?
**/
You need to know about Niyoga, to understand the above question.. pls read the below link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niyoga
/** Why did Rishi conclude that Satyakama was indeed born to a brahmana? If the father was indeed a ‘brahmana’, what was he doing misusing daasi? Is that chap brahmana then?
**/
you need to change the perception of daasis.. it was part of the society, and the daasis are supposed to know various arts.. She was NOT a enslaved prostitute as we find in red-light area today..
While i am yet to acquire more understanding on this aspect, i can only say, that we cannot get the real understanding with prejudiced mind.. your aversion for daasi stems from the christian values..
Was there any rule which says that a brahmana should not visit a daasi? or say a rishi should not visit a daasi?
/** If qualities r all transferred thru birth, how do u explain the many ‘brahmins’ of today not displaying any quality to produce vedas/ understand meaning? Many of thm in fact display behavior that will put a chandala of old to shame. why so ?
**/
Because, the brahmana as a community had declined due to 200 years of anti-brahminism across india.. so even individual brahmins who follow brahamana dharma could not sustain.. earlier, the kings were patronage of brahmins.. and the new independant india, enacted all laws to oppress brahmins.. These all collapsed the brahmin community..
WE cannot judge past from present day situations..
/** How do u explain the meat seller’s knowledge? **/
It was not knowledge, but wisdom.. every section in our society, including shudras, had the wisdom, through puranic stories.. shudras doesnt mean they are ignorant..
Again the guys who talk about Satyakama shall quote a passage where it says brahmana misused a dasi and where it mentions that she was a dasi?
As per the link u provided, Vidur must’ve been servant to Dhritarashtra/Duryodhana? his varna was sudra?
change what perceptn about daasis?
U apparently seems to assume that there is a perceptn about daasis that needs to be changed.
U have also assumd that ther is an aversion to daasis due to christian values. care to substantiate that assumptn?
The point made was in the context of the question- how did Guru conclude that Satyakama was brahmana?
Its not because the Guru clairvouyantly found out that Jabala had sex with a brahmana. It was nothing to do with who Satyakama’s father may have been. It was entirely due to the behavior displayed by Satyakama. It is because of the qualities of ‘truthfulness’, ‘inquisitiveness’ and ‘desire for knowledge of brahma’ that Satyakama displayed, that the Guru recognized him as brahmana. It was only to such a person, who displays these characteristics, that wisdom of vedas were to be revealed. This is the reason it is said that vedas r to b given only to brahmana.
If u say that since Satyakama displayed those characterstics his father must have been a brahmana, it is being presumptuous. That argument leads to suggestn that every son of brahmana must display such characterstic, which is not substantiated by reality.
U can’t have it two ways. Either those characterstics are genetic, which means Jawaharlal Nehru must have had those characterstics, and v failed to discern them. or they r not genetic, which is actually correct.
It is western idiocy of racism that theorized that characterstics r genetically acquired.
Only physical features are genetically acquired.
Anti-brahmanism? Does not explain that large chunk of brahmins today are richer than average indian. In fact, many brahmins actively served brutish. Which means brahmin community as u call it declined much before 200 yrs back.
Now dont say it was because muslim rulers targeted brahmins.
My point is that community living does not guarantee that person acquires varna characterstics. It depends to a large extent on karma samskara, and individual choices made by the person in the present.
Wisdom is not gained from puranic stories. Wisdom occurs through contemplatn, enquiry, inquisitiveness, seeking knowledge of self.
The meat seller, engaged in his work activity also contemplated upon life and came to his knowledge which he revealed to Sidhar. It is through the same process that vedas were arrived at. The meat seller was verily a brahmana, knower of brahma. Does not mean that every meat seller is such, or that every meat seller may becom such. No. But it does mean that characterstics are not transmitted through parents. Else how do u explain Sri Narayana Guru and Amritanandamayi Devi? What about NaMo, who is performing well as an administrator, a kshatriya. Did his parents display such characterstics?
Now dont say they r exceptions. Ambedkar, the son of a non-brahmin, non-kshatriya displayed better such charactersics compared to ‘pandit’ nehru or the many vassal kings of his time.
@sivakumar,
I have read this story from internet from few sites.. there it was mentioned like that.. but i never said , a brahamana misused a daasi.. my position is that it is not considered wrong on the part of brahmana, to engage a dasi.. a daasi is very much a part of the society, and she is NOT a prostitute as we see today..
@Senthil,
The translation that you mentioned are not supported by any of the Acaryas like Sankara or Ramanuja.
Yes, you are correct that dasi is not same as Vesya (Prost). Dasi is more like today’s maid servant. If Dasi was so derogatory term, then Mira or any bhaktas would not have called themselves as dasa or dasi
@sivakumar
could you pls cite me any references that you feel as credible?
@Senthil
The sankara bhashya of chandogya upanishad can be downloaded from this link: http://www.archive.org/details/Shankara.Bhashya-Chandogya.Upanishad-Ganganath.Jha.1942.English. Satyakama story comes in this upanishad
@sivakumar,
Thanks for providing me the link.. i am quoting the relevant sections from the book u referred..
The above lines clearly indicate, that jabala is a daasi..
So it makes clear, that the rishi is convinced that only a brahmana could speak such truths openly.. he did not mention that brahmana is a quality.. rather, he indirectly conveys that his father would have been a brahmana, as a child acquires the varna & jaathi of his father..
The bashyam provided in the same book confirms this..
@Senthil
Did you read this sentence “In my husbands house, I had to attend upon many people who came as guests and strangers, -as servant….”? The key here is “In my husband’s house”. Does one become dasi at her own husband’s house? When our mother and wife serve our relatives do they become dasi? Today there are so many brahmin ladies in TN who work as cook in others house. This is also a type of serving. Do they become dasi? For your information there is no word Dasi in the sanskrit text.
@X,
/** As per the link u provided, Vidur must’ve been servant to Dhritarashtra/Duryodhana? his varna was sudra?
**/
Yes.. again please read about Niyoga.. it is a arrangements where, when a husband has died or unable to beget children, another man can substitute him for getting children.. the child born out of this would be considered as son of the husband and NOT as son of the substitute..
/** change what perceptn about daasis?
U apparently seems to assume that there is a perceptn about daasis that needs to be changed.
**/
Change the way you perceive daasi.. from your earlier comments, i can only interpret that you treat dasis as same as present day prostitutes..
**/
U have also assumd that ther is an aversion to daasis due to christian values. care to substantiate that assumptn?
**/
Yes.. if there is no aversion to dasis, then you would not have any issues with a brahmana mating with a daasi, and a child born out of it..
/** The point made was in the context of the question- how did Guru conclude that Satyakama was brahmana?
….
It was entirely due to the behavior displayed by Satyakama.
**/
Our ancient rishis considered that a child’s characteristics is acquired from his father.. pls read manusmriti.. It says, the women’s womb is to be considered as fertile soil.. While soil influences health of the plant, it is the seed, which decides the characteristics.. hence, the conclusion that characteristics are passed through male..
Such an opinion may be wrong or right, from today’s scientific perspective.. but the fact is that our ancient rishis had this kind of understanding..
/** That argument leads to suggestn that every son of brahmana must display such characterstic, which is not substantiated by reality.
**/
And if a son of brahmana did not follow brahmana dharma, or ineligible, he is to be outcasted or reduced to shudra.. so, what will you get, if you kick out all those non-compliant offsprings in the brahmana varna? And pls remember, this filtering happened for around 5000 years..
/** That argument leads to suggestn that every son of brahmana must display such characterstic, which is not substantiated by reality.
**/
It is because, the above said system of exclusion of non-compliant offspring has been stopped after british take over.. the british converted brahmana varna in to racial group.. so for the british (& its continuing offshoot, the present indian government) , a brahmana can be a drunkard or loafer or a meat eater.. still he is a brahmin, bcoz he is born to a brahmin..
The problem is that you are following british classification, and ignoring original varna dharma.. apply the filtering rules, and u will get a brahmana community devoid of all those people u mentioned (like nehru etc)
@X,
/** Wisdom is not gained from puranic stories. Wisdom occurs through contemplatn, enquiry, inquisitiveness, seeking knowledge of self.
**/
Why do you think so? The essense of vedas is engrained in puranic stories.. and people understand it more easily than others..
/** The meat seller, engaged in his work activity also contemplated upon life and came to his knowledge which he revealed to Sidhar. It is through the same process that vedas were arrived at. **/
NO.. the wisdom is different from the brahma vidya, which is acquired by rishis,
/** The meat seller was verily a brahmana, knower of brahma. Does not mean that every meat seller is such, or that every meat seller may becom such.
**/
Knowing about something is different from realising about it..
/** Else how do u explain Sri Narayana Guru and Amritanandamayi Devi? **/
They are sanyasis and NOT to be identified by their jaathi.. and any one can become a sanyasi.. even a chandala can become a sanyasi.. no smriti ever bans any varna from becoming a sanyasi..
/**
What about NaMo, who is performing well as an administrator, a kshatriya. Did his parents display such characterstics?
**/
A kshatriya may be a king.. but NOT all kings can be a kshatriya.. Kshatriyahood is NOT about fighting war, but the quality of people..
Muhammad Ghori is an efficient fighter than prithviraj.. that doesnt make him a kshatriya..
Similarly, aurangazeb is most efficient administrator.. that doesnt make him a kshatriya..
Please understand, even indian army soldiers and majors cannot be called kshatriya.. kshatriyahood is NOT about shooting..
/** Ambedkar, the son of a non-brahmin, non-kshatriya displayed better such charactersics compared to ‘pandit’ nehru or the many vassal kings of his time.
**/
Ambedkar’s caste doesnt belong any of the varna..
@X,
Please understand that knowing about vedas is different from learning to recite vedas and practice it.. when a brahman, explains the message of a particular veda mantra to a shudra, no one opposes.. the problem starts only when shudra attempt to recite vedas..
The essense of vedas is contained in puranic stories which every common people are aware of.. but the reciting of vedas, preserving it, practicising it and propogating it are entrusted to brahmanas, by our ancient rishis.. we need to respect that..
Again please understand that if i attempt to just know what is said in a veda mantra, it may not be wrong.. but it is wrong if i attempt to recite those mantras..
Acc to u, Vidur was servant of Dhritarashtra due to birth to daasi. But MahaBharat says Vidur was respected advisor in Kuru Sabha. How did a sudra servant become respected advisor ?
Means, it was Vidur’s behavior-based varna, not birth-based varna, that determined his position in society. That and other examples of that time show that varna was not birth based, but behavior based.
It is not about aversion to daasi. What is averse is the relationshp the supposed Mr brahmana father of Satyakama was supposed to hav had with Jabala. A ‘brahmana’ is not supposed hav illicit relatnship with daasi. A daasi has a job to do at her place of work. A person misutilising his superior position to satisfy carnal desires mis-using daasi and rendering things in such a way that the woman herself does not know who the father of child is, is no ‘brahmana’,is more of a mleccha. This is the hole u find in when u consider varna as birth based.
Please dont impute to rishis what is ur understanding about child’s characterstics. If u quote manusmriti, Vyasa is a nishada. How then he compiled veda? If nishada child or his sudra child like Vidur can grow up to understand veda, it means that u r contradicting ur assertion that child acquire parents’ characterstics and that varna is based on birth. birth-based characterisation is associated with western racism propaganda. It was not the significant aspect to Bharatiya parampara where u even have a fisherwoman Satyavati becoming queen.
If characteristics are passed thru male, as u understand Mansumriti to imply, how did Ravana, son of Vishravas become what he became? What about Prahlada, son of Hiranyakashipu ? How come the children of brahmanas who complied vedas serve western interest today?
U have developed a birth-is-significant theory and r trying to force fit bharatiya sampada into it, just like europeans had their pet theories and tried to force fit bharatiya narrative into them.
Heck, just because a brahmana’s son does not display requisite interest to know brahma does not mean that he is reduced to sudra. Brahmana’s son who displays dharmik consciousness is a kshatriya and suited to administer society. Anothr one who displays interest towards material objects, their production and operation, is suited to become vyshya. It is a brth-based, instead of behavior-based, mis-understanding that leads u to mistaken classificatn of non-brahmana-character son as sudra.
Even when u attack the british system for classifying children of brahmana who don’t display brahmana characterstics as brahmins, u actually question birth-based classification, which is what brutish system is all about, and u actaully substantiate behavior-based classification.
If wisdom is obtained through puranic stories, things wud have been so much easy. That notion actually has a fairy tale tinge to it- western influence. Like, ‘just accept lard jesus as ur gad and u will be salvated’. Just read the puranic stories and u will gain wisdom.
How do you know that meat seller’s knowledge was different from brahma vidya ?
Is wisdom different ? meat seller’s wisdom different from brahmin’s is it ?
Knowing is different from realizing, is it ? In this case, u mean the meat seller only knew brahma; that ‘realizing’ brahma is only possible to Mr brahmana whose father was also brahmana?
The point is that SriNarayana Guru, AmritanandamayiDevi, Ambedkar, NaMo, all became what their parents were not, displaying characteristics not displayed by their parents. merely points to the fact that characteristics r not based on parents. but on karma samskara. If u don’t get it, thn u don’t get the essence of bharatiya vichaardhara on life’s purpose, which is actualisation of karma. It is not propagating parent’s characterstics!
Ghori was no better fightr than Prithviraj, just crooked. Aurangzeb administrator? Next u will say Nehru was a great intellectual and historian, having written ‘Discovery of India’. And Alexander was a great ruler. What is ur definition of administrator?
kshatriya is one who understands what is dharma- that which sustains. In that sense, modi may or may not qualify to be called kshatriya(dont know him personally). But his adminstration skills are proven.
yes. Army is not kshatriya. In fact, western army concept is more sudra like. personality, leadership, charishma, perceived glory, conditioned response, drilled behavior, etc., are what drives them, not dharmik discernment.
Even when veda is told to a sudra, there is reason to oppose. Because, the sudra is unable to understand its meaning and misunderstands it. Like how wendy donkeyger has misunderstood veda and bhagavad gita. sudra here refers to a person is enamoured with appearances and does not seek to know reality of brahma.
Yes, reciting of vedas, preserving it, practicising it and propogating it are entrusted to brahmanas. But brahmana here refers to one who seeks to know brahma. It is not birth-based characterstic.
It IS wrong if you attempt to just know what is said in a veda mantra, for then u will not understand what is in the veda mantra. You will undertand it only when ur purpose is realization of self. That is why only brahmana, one who seeks knowledge of brahma, should have access to veda.
/** Acc to u, Vidur was servant of Dhritarashtra due to birth to daasi. But MahaBharat says Vidur was respected advisor in Kuru Sabha. How did a sudra servant become respected advisor ?
**/
It seems, you have very low opinion of shudras.. please note that shudras are NOT untouchables.. they are just servants, or servant class.. shudras are NOT slaves..
Vidura was made as minister, for his wisdom, which any way came from vyasa..
/** A ‘brahmana’ is not supposed hav illicit relatnship with daasi. A daasi has a job to do at her place of work. A person misutilising his superior position to satisfy carnal desires mis-using daasi and rendering things in such a way that the woman herself does not know who the father of child is, is no ‘brahmana’,is more of a mleccha.
**/
what do you mean by illicit relationship? Its a christian concept, and you are applying to our culture..
A daasi is a socially recognised person, who has the freedom to live with any one she wants.. She is NOT forced prostitute.. rather, one should win her acceptance, before going to her..
next, there is no where told that a brahmana should not have carnal desires.. In varnashrama dharma, a brahmana is entitled to have dharma, artha, kaama and moksha.. there is no One-One relationship enforced.. a brahmana can marry more than one wife.. Please read manusmriti..
/** If u quote manusmriti, Vyasa is a nishada. How then he compiled veda? If nishada child or his sudra child like Vidur can grow up to understand veda, it means that u r contradicting ur assertion that child acquire parents’ characterstics and that varna is based on birth
**/
Vyasa was born to satyavathi ( an adopted child of a fisherman king), and parasara, a rishi.. Pls tell me how did he become a nishada?
And Vyasa is supposed to have left to the forest during his childhood and became a rishi.. As i said earler, when some one has become a rishi, he leaves all his social identity, and hence the varna too..
/** birth-based characterisation is associated with western racism propaganda. *
**/
Varnasharama dharma is about birth based Role, and NOT birth based characterisation.. it is multi-dimensional.. a person acquires his father’s duty or dharma, and if he fails in his dharma, he is thrown out.. Please tell me where does characterisation comes..
The problem is that you are debating based on western definition of varnashrama dharma, (or probably a negationist & reactionary definition)..
/* Heck, just because a brahmana’s son does not display requisite interest to know brahma does not mean that he is reduced to sudra
**/
Again, i can see only the corrupted understanding of varnashrama dharma.. a brahmana’s role is to learn vedas, follow the life code prescribed for brahmana varna, perform yagna and homam , do daily sandhya vandhana, etc.. Brahmana varna is a role.. It is a set of duties or karmas that a brahmana has to do.. it is action oriented..
It is for this role, the brahmana varna is created.. if anyone fails to do so, he is either made as shudra or as outcaste..
/** Even when u attack the british system for classifying children of brahmana who don’t display brahmana characterstics as brahmins, u actually question birth-based classification, which is what brutish system is all about, and u actaully substantiate behavior-based classification.
**/
I am saying, that british converted birth based role system in to birth based caste system.. the british stripped off the values associated with varnas, and hence the total degradation.. varna is about birth based role.
/** How do you know that meat seller’s knowledge was different from brahma vidya ?
Is wisdom different ? meat seller’s wisdom different from brahmin’s is it ?
**/
You may know and understand about yoga techniques.. and this knowledge is different, from the experience, you gain by actually practising it.. In other words, we all know that meditation will take us to a state of empty mind or a mind with very few thoughts.. but when we actually practice it and attain such a state of mind, it is realisation.
/** The point is that SriNarayana Guru, AmritanandamayiDevi, Ambedkar, NaMo, all became what their parents were not, displaying characteristics not displayed by their parents
**/
Sri Narayana Guru, amritanandamayi, were sanyasins.. ambedkar was a mahar, who doeisnt fit in to varnasharama dharma. Ambedkar and NaMo are irrelevant here.. they are just slaves of corporate systems.. Ambedkar, a slave to British East India Company Constitution, and NaMo, a slave to its colonial heir, the Indian Constitution.
/** If u don’t get it, thn u don’t get the essence of bharatiya vichaardhara on life’s purpose, which is actualisation of karma. It is not propagating parent’s characterstics!
**/
One’s life purpose in bharatheeya dharma is to do the duties of the varna he was born to.. ie, he has to take forward his parent’s profession.. Doing what one likes is western philosophy, and an asuric character..
/** Brahmana’s son who displays dharmik consciousness is a kshatriya and suited to administer society. Anothr one who displays interest towards material objects, their production and operation, is suited to become vyshya. It is a brth-based, instead of behavior-based, mis-understanding that leads u to mistaken classificatn of non-brahmana-character son as sudra.
**/
So you are saying, varna system is Like a Corporate Company.. and brahmana,kshatriyas, vyshyas & shudras, are corporate post just like we have today as CEO, Managers, Admins, Sales Executive, Workers, etc.. and for these corporate positions of brahmana, any one can apply and prove his character, and then become a brahmana.. and if that person did not qualify for a brahmana, then he can try for Kshatriya Post.. if NOT, he can try for Vyshya post.. and if NOT, then atleast for a shudra post..
What you are saying is just like this.. and infact, most hindu intellectuals, had this corrupted understanding of varnashrama dharma..
They all treat varnashrama as individualised corporate jobs, for any one to apply and benefit..
Does it not appear silly?
@X,
Please understand that the varnasharama dharma had degraded a lot, during mahabharatha times.. and it was at the end of dhredha yuga and hence the onset of kali yuga had been visible there..
So mahabharatha cannot be taken as absolute example of varnashrama dharma.. Instead, we need to take ramayana as basis for understanding varnasharma.. we need to compare and contrast ayodhya, and lanka..
/** If characteristics are passed thru male, as u understand Mansumriti to imply, how did Ravana, son of Vishravas become what he became?
**/
Ravana has learned all four vedas, and extreme shiva bhaktha.. Rama did prayachitham for brahma hathi dhosham, after winning over ravana.. which indicates he considered ravana as brahmana..
Whether I have low opinion of shudras or not is immaterial. Fact remains that it was Vidur’s behavior-based varna, not birth-based varna, that determined his position in society. As u urself admit, that he was made minister for his wisdom, suggesting that pepl were accorded positions based on their expressed behavior. Point may b noted, ur honor.
Illicit relatnship is one that is not sanctioned by society/prevalent norms of society. Eg, manusmriti does not support relatnship between a brahmana and a daasi. Daasi has a place in society; only, it is not in the bed of a ‘brahmana’. brahmana may marry more than one wife. He may even marry a daasi. But even that did not take place here. That is the issue.
Btw, it is not established that daasi had sex with a brahmana, that Satyakama’s father was brahmana. That is ur speculation based on wrong conclusion that personality traits r transferred from parent.
Satyavati was considered fisherwoman by society. Parashara’s mother was low caste. So parashara himself was a nishada or so according to your birth-based varna theory. Sure Parashara later became rishi. but genes do not change, do they ? So satyavati’s and Parashara’s child definitely was something like nishada/low caste as per ur birth based theory.
Same with Vyasa. He may have left his varna after becoming rishi. but his genes remain same if u go by birth based theory and his children shud carry those low caste genes, as per ur birth based theory. This is where ur birth based theory is proving inconsistent.
‘birth-based characterisation’. The point is that ‘birth based role’ implies that the character required to carry out that role is transmitted through birth.
Brahmana varna may be considered a role. But there are certain character requirements necessary to carry out that role. The point is that those character reqmts are not necessarily tranmitted through birth. If it was, u wudn’t find the descendants of many ‘brahmanas’ of yore behaving today in ways exactly opposite to those requiremnts.
If unrealised wisdom was what the meat seller had, the Sidha needn’t have travelled to the meat seller for it, isn’t it?
Point is that u cannot know something without realising it. What u referring to is passed on knowledge. For eg., we are told that “meditation will take us to a state of empty mind or a mind with very few thoughts”, but that is hearsay and we cant say v know that until we experience it.
The point about NaMo,Ambedkr, Sri Narayana Guru, AmritanandamayiDevi, still remains that their behavior is different from their parents and disproves ur birth based transmission of qualities. And there are such numerous people who do not display characterstics as of their parents. Many of the politicl, business leaders today r self-made pepl, displaying characterstics unseen in their parents, while many other prgeny of political/business dynasties prove to be not upto their progenitors in character or ability or quality.
The purpose of life, and its not about human life alone, in bharatiya view, is to actualise karma samskara. Births are taken for that purpose at suitable time and place and consitions. re-births occur as required too. Births are not taken for taking forward parents’ profession. It is only incidental to karmik actualisation. A mundane example. You hire a taxi. the taxi is there to take u to ur destination. In the process the taxi also reaches ur destination. However, u wudn’t say that purpose of ur journey was to take the taxi to the destination. You may change path midway and reach a diffrnt destination as per ur wish.
Doing what one likes is not western philosophy, or asuric character, if devoid of selfish element. In fact that is what bharatiya parampara supports. For eg., if u like cultivating crops, instead of administering society like ur parent, go ahead and cultivate crops, feed society. If u like to find reason and purpose of life, instead of being attracted by charishmatic personalities, go find the purpose of life and give direction to society. If u r attracted to personality glamor charishma, not finding happiness in producing tools like ur parent, go ahead, serve a personality of ur liking and find happiness. Doing what one likes, without selfishness, is what bharatiya sampada supports.
If u must compare with company setting, consider that 100 people are available in a company. They come with different past-experience-based qualificatn. Sensible idea wud be to ascertain the qualificatns of each individual and designate them to different posts. The past-experience-qualificatn is karma samskara. It wud be wrong to designate people based on surname.
The precise point is that learning all vedas and extreme shiv bhakta did not make Ravan into a good man, his karma samskara and vasana trumped his birth, thereby dis-proves birth-based transmission of qualities.
@X,
You are fixated with the aversion to birth based.. and you are locked up in negating it, rather than an open minded discussion.. many of your views are theoritical, and from ur own utopian views.. probably, a hindutva influence.. and we are going to repeat the same thing in further debates.. u need to relax from your hardened position.. the debate should be inquiring and not fixated..
@X
X, you need to consider this factor to understand child birth.
I think the entire debate between X and senthil just has a thin line in understanding and this thin line separates the difference.. what is this difference??? “Conciousness.”
When a child is born in a brahmana family or any other varna, this birth takes place “conciously” and it is not a “random event”.East says its happening “conciously”. West thinks they are “random event”.
So when a child is born in any varna, it means that naturally it has opted for that varna and since there is a definite role defined for every varna in the society, and so it implicitely means that the child (before birth itself) has decided to perform that role.
West is not able to percive this and so they consider everything is happening at random and so in the name of “freedom of thought” the child is encouraged to take up any profession. So the entire course of action is out of sync with what the child (before birth) thought and what it is now doing in the society. this pulls down the individual from conciousness to unconciousness. now from this unconciouss level, if we look at life (birth and death) and varnasharama dharma, it will definitely look like its a wrong model.
Life doesnt just begin from this birth. Its a continous process. Birth of a child cannot be judged from its day of birth. There are lots of other factors that has influenced the child to take birth on a particular varna. Just because we cannot perceive this, we settle to decision that there is only one life and we dont have the choice to select our parents.
If this decision of birth is made unconciously, then everything looks contradictory. Childs aspirations are different from what the varna does in the society. All yogic practises is to raise the human conciousness.
Rishis and sages are fully concious. SO they dont fit into this model. They choose to take birth in any varna and one fine day they become a Rishi which is their true quality.
Makes sense???
‘Role to play’ is not the purpose of life. It is actualisation/exhausting of karma, vasanas. Role that is played happens collaterally.
/*‘Role to play’ is not the purpose of life. It is actualisation/exhausting of karma, vasanas. Role that is played happens collaterally.*/
So??????????
what are you trying to convey??
there is a spiritual part in dharma and there is a social part as well. if you are a brahmin, you play a definite role in the society and fullfill yourself thereby “satisfying” your past vasanas. if you are a vaishya you do something else and satisfy your vasanas. if you are a shudra you are a worker and satisfy your karma.
if you live conciously, you die conciously. if you die conciously, you can choose your next birth conciously. and thats why more significance is given to the way we live our current life so that we become more and more concious about our actions. when you live a concious exhuburant life, you wanted to contribute to society in a certain way and a order is prescribed and so varnashrama dharma..
not everyone was an enlightened being . so people are at various levels of conciousness. so they were classified in a certain way and were given certain roles to play in the society.
if you look at this model “unconciously”, you would see confusion as it is in india right now , as it is in the indian minds right now (including the brahmins).
whats so confusing here????
a screw in an aeroplace is playing its role in holding the parts together. Engine in a place is playing its part. does it mean that screw is inferior because of its size as compared to the engine/wings? engine is more critical and so if a screw is aspiring to become an engine without bothering to hold the parts together, imagine what would happen ??? same has happened to peoples mind. they started aspiring for things which they need not aspire. its either money or “education as imparted by the west”.
somewhere deep within you, you think shudras = derogatory.
if you remove this perspective and see life (society) the way it naturally is, then everything will fall in place properly.
/** ‘Role to play’ is not the purpose of life. **/
There is no special purpose to life. TO LIVE is the purpose of life.. thats it…
in the process of living we learn things, we evolve form nothing to something and back to nothing. apart from this there is no definite purpose to life.
when are you happy do you think “why life”??
its only when your energies are low and when you are in a dull mood, you think “why life and whats it purpose”.
“why life” is a purely a western thought..
@X,
/** The point about NaMo,Ambedkr, Sri Narayana Guru, AmritanandamayiDevi, still remains that their behavior is different from their parents and disproves ur birth based transmission of qualities
**/
I had already said that people from any varna and even from avarna can become a sanyasi.. u r still obsessed with your aversion to birth based.. pls open up your mind..
/** Illicit relatnship is one that is not sanctioned by society/prevalent norms of society. Eg, manusmriti does not support relatnship between a brahmana and a daasi.
**/
As again, u are applying christian morals on indian society.. christianity is totalatarian religion that enslaved the whole society.. whereas, varnashrama is NOT that.. it is a dharma for a settled people, and NOT necessarily for all settled societies.. there are many other groups of people, like tribals, who doesnt fall in to varnashrama dharma.. similarly, the asuric society (based on authoratarian rule) also doesnt fall in to varnashrama.. and the fisherman, the mystics, the rishis and sages, are all doesnt fall in to varnashrama dharma..
So there is no universal morality in bharatheey society..
Consider the story of how parasarar coited with satyavati to beget vyasar.. do you say it is an illicit relationship?
“people from any varna and even from avarna can become a sanyasi”
The point is that people r displaying characterstics different from parents, proving that birth-based character tranmission theory is false.
Opening up mind does not mean ignoring on ground facts and imagining up theories to suit preconceptions.
There may not be universal morality in bharateeya samaj, but there definitely is consciousness of what is dharma, what is not. Misusing a daasi for carnal pleasure and rendering in such a state that she does not know who fathered her child, is not accepted behavior in bharatiya society. definitely not from a supposed ‘brahmana’. So the supposition that Satyakama’s father was brahmin is untenable.
Parashar Satyavati case was different. Satyavati was not saddled with a child with unknown father. Further, Satyavati retained her virgin state.
Anybody who reads Manusmriti will understand that relatnship between brahmana and daasi is not supported. Outcasting of children of such relationship proves it.
@X
/**
The point is that people r displaying characterstics different from parents, proving that birth-based character tranmission theory is false.
**/
not necessarary that birth based character transmission theory is false. they are showing difference in characters because of the karmas that they acquired in previous birth. you may be a left handed person and that doesnt mean that your parents should be.. we cannot come to a conclusion that you have not acquired any traits or your parents. its follish to come to such conclusion. you might have acquired other qualities or habits from your parents(even ancestors) which you will express in gross or subtle way.
genetic inheritance is just one contributing factor. there are a lot more. i am tired stating the same point over and over in this discussion and you keep posting the same example again and again. i am not sure why you are stuck with the word “birth based inheritance” .. senthil, is this another kinda hysteria ??
/** manusmriti does not support relatnship between a brahmana and a daasi. **/
Please quote me relevant manusmriti texts to substantiate ur point..
satyakama may be borne even out of a rishi, who is above brahmana varna, and often considered as brahmana.. the point is that jabala was a dasi, and satyakama would have borne out of a brahman (it may be a rishi too)
/** For eg., if u like cultivating crops, instead of administering society like ur parent, go ahead and cultivate crops, feed society. If u like to find reason and purpose of life, instead of being attracted by charishmatic personalities, go find the purpose of life and give direction to society. If u r attracted to personality glamor charishma, not finding happiness in producing tools like ur parent, go ahead, serve a personality of ur liking and find happiness. Doing what one likes, without selfishness, is what bharatiya sampada supports.
**/
This is NOT varnashrama dharma.. this is aprtly western model and partly budhist model.. please dont misunderstand yourself..
/** If u must compare with company setting, consider that 100 people are available in a company. They come with different past-experience-based qualificatn. Sensible idea wud be to ascertain the qualificatns of each individual and designate them to different posts. The past-experience-qualificatn is karma samskara. It wud be wrong to designate people based on surname.
**/
And again a wrong example and a wrong understanding of the karma samskara
senthil, what would be the right understanding of karma samskara? Below “closely appears” to be right…
/** If u must compare with company setting, consider that 100 people are available in a company. They come with different past-experience-based qualificatn. Sensible idea wud be to ascertain the qualificatns of each individual and designate them to different posts. The past-experience-qualificatn is karma samskara. It wud be wrong to designate people based on surname.
**/
i just meant the anology of karma with individuals with corporate prior experience…that seems to be close to the right …..
the comparison with a corporate company is totally wrong.. can you apply varnashrama dharma to an asuric society?
Corporate company is based on authoratarian, command and control.. whereas in varnashrama dharma, no one commands or dictates others.. Just compare and contrast ayodhya and lanka.. ravana was a dictator.. Can we say Rama is a dictator?
And this mis-interpretation of varnashrama dharma by hindutva vaadis is the root cause of the problem..
And again the root cause is the anglo-dubashi brahmins, who after becoming British East India Company employees, started to interpret company postings with varnashrama dharma..
hm.. senthil.. u r breaking my wrong idealogies one by one.. good one though….
Comparison with corporate was first made by senthil, in the following sentance.
“So you are saying, varna system is Like a Corporate Company.. and brahmana,kshatriyas, vyshyas & shudras, are corporate post just like we have today as CEO, Managers, Admins, Sales Executive, Workers, etc.. and for these corporate positions of brahmana, any one can apply and prove his character, and then become a brahmana.. and if that person did not qualify for a brahmana, then he can try for Kshatriya Post.. ”
It was in reply to senthil’s above comment that the following statement was made-
“If u must compare with company setting, consider that 100 people are available in a company. They come with different past-experience-based qualificatn. Sensible idea wud be to ascertain the qualificatns of each individual and designate them to different posts. The past-experience-qualificatn is karma samskara. It wud be wrong to designate people based on surname.”
/** The point is that people r displaying characterstics different from parents, proving that birth-based character tranmission theory is false.
**/
I think, i name my post very apt – “The birth based hysteria”.. you cannot expect a xerox copy of the parents in the child.. i can explain you further, only when you come out of this negative obsession..
/** There may not be universal morality in bharateeya samaj, but there definitely is consciousness of what is dharma, what is not.
**/
Please state what is dharma..
/** Misusing a daasi for carnal pleasure and rendering in such a state that she does not know who fathered her child, is not accepted behavior in bharatiya society
**/
Please tell me how can a daasi be misused?? Does jabala said she is being misused? much of the problem lies in your perception..
Secondly, varnashrama dharma allows a brahmana to pursue artha & kaama after doing their dharma..
/** Anybody who reads Manusmriti will understand that relatnship between brahmana and daasi is not supported.
**/
u still did not provide me the relevant verse in manusmriti which says, a brahmana should not have relationship with a daasi..
/** is not accepted behavior in bharatiya society **/
its similar to missionaries saying “Christian society doesnt accept this and that”.. bharatheeya society is NOT a totalatarian or centralised society.. we had the panchali married by 5 pandavas..
/** Parashar Satyavati case was different. Satyavati was not saddled with a child with unknown father.
**/
How it was different? do you accept parasarar having pre-marital relation with satyavati and begetting a child? a rishi is more higher than a brahmana varna.. are you going to condemn and abuse parasarar?
I can only request you to come out of the christian morality that you were indoctrinated by school system, and then look at our history and culture..
Nobody is expecting xerox copy of parent. Don’t again mis-attribute and then counterargue.
Children, especially the people named, displayed behavior widely at variance with their parents. Even among brothers, even among twins, widely varying behavior is observed.
If u clone a human being also, I’ll bet that behavior will differ from the parent.
Dharma is that which sustains.
Daasi is misused when she is used for activity other than what daasi is suppopsed to do, viz., clean house, help in household chore etc.
When she is made to do activity that is supposed to b done by the wife alone, such as having sex and getting children, it is misuse of daasi.
>>>>”varnashrama dharma allows a brahmana to pursue artha & kaama after doing their dharma..”
There is no dharma is misusing a daasi and rendering her incapable of identifying the father of one’s child. If a ‘brahmana’ has done that, that person is no ‘brahmana’. He is only so based on the incorrect birth-based theory.
Do u mean to say that manusmriti supports relatnship between brahmin and daasi ?, that too illicit relationship ? extra marital ? where ? show me.
That children of such alliances are outcasted implicitly means that manusmriti does not approve such relatnships.
“bharatheeya society is NOT a totalatarian or centralised society” doesn’t mean that anything goes here. Its western way to see things as either black or white. panchali married 5 pandavas doesn’t mean she had sex with all 5 together. at any given time she was monogamous.
Since u hav difficulty in comprehending, let me repeat, Parashar Satyavati case was different because (1) Satyavati was not saddled with a child, (2) she or the child did not hav to live wondering who the father may hav been (3) Satyavati retained her virginity (4) People did not know about it, she didn’t hav to live in shame.
Not only was it otherwise in the case of Jabala, she had to bring up the child alone, without financial help too.
Fixating with birth-based tranmission of behavioral characterstics is exactly what western and christian theology teaches. Like everything else that they teach, this too is BS.
@x,
The reason why men behave contrary to their birth castes today is because the bull has lost three legs.
i agree with you.. the jaathi collapsed and hence there is no peer regulation..
@senthil,
I hope you understood what I meant by the bull. I am refering to very popular analogy in vaidic scriptures.
@x,
Why did Parashurama curse Karna when he discovered that Karna had tolerated the insect bite without flinching?
@X,
please read my another blog post on deva daasis..
http://psenthilraja.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/kurai-onrum-illai-by-ms-subulakshmi/
@X,
/** Comparison with corporate was first made by senthil, in the following sentance.
….
….
It was in reply to senthil’s above comment that the following statement was made-
**/
I made this comparison only as a light sarcasm.. it seems, i have not conveyed properly..
I just wanted to convey that Varna system is NOT like Company post.. and varnashrama dharma is NOT a corporate company..
Even in corporate company, an employee recruitment for managerial position is NOT deputed to do labour work..
@dhruv,
Can you pls quote that analogy from vedic scriptures?
@senthil
My reply sits in your moderation queue.
@senthil
The analogy is pretty standard when there is a discussion in vedic texts about the four yugas and their properties:
The bull is none other than Dharma.
For example, an excerpt from Mahabharata (translation of Kisari Mohun Ganguli):
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01064.htm
See the lines:
“And the learned Dwaipayana, beholding that virtue is destined to become lame by one leg each yuga (she having four legs in all) and that the period of life and the strength of men followed the yugas, and moved by the desire of obtaining the favour of Brahman and the Brahmanas, arranged the Vedas. And for this he came to be called Vyasa (the arranger or compiler).”
Dharma the bull has been mistranslated to lady virtue though, a result of the translator’s reaching out to connect with latin literature, to make his translation more digestable for the english audience back in the 1880s. He also had to worked with the limitations of english language and vocabulary.
Here is very detailed discourse on Kaliyuga and ghora kaliyuga, again from the Mahabharat.
:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03189.htm
Here too translation takes some liberties, again because of linguistic and v limitations. Like traslating Dharma to Morality changes the flavour a bit. And Adharma has been called sin, although sin is closer to paap in meaning. But Kisari mohan Ganguli does translate sentence by sentence nonetheless.
“Thus addressed, that foremost of Munis began his discourse again, delighting that tiger of the Vrishni race and the sons of Pandu as well. And Markandeya said, ‘Listen, O monarch, to all that hath been seen and heard by me, and to all, O king of kings, that hath been known to me by intuition from the grace of the God of gods! O bull of the Bharata race, listen to me as I narrate the future history of the world during the sinful age. O bull of the Bharata race, in the Krita age, everything was free from deceit and guile and avarice and covetousness; and morality like a bull was among men, with all the four legs complete. In the Treta age sin took away one of these legs and morality had three legs. In the Dwapara, sin and morality are mixed half and half; and accordingly morality is said to have two legs only. In the dark age (of Kali), O thou best of the Bharata race, morality mixed with three parts of sin liveth by the side of men. Accordingly morality then is said to wait on men, with only a fourth part of itself remaining. Know, O Yudhishthira, that the period of life, the energy, intellect and the physical strength of men decrease in every Yuga! O Pandava, the Brahmanas and Kshatriyas and Vaisyas and Sudras, (in the Kali age) will practise morality and virtue deceitfully and men in general will deceive their fellows by spreading the net of virtue. And men with false reputation of learning will, by their acts, cause Truth to be contracted and concealed. And in consequence of the shortness of their lives they will not be able to acquire much knowledge. And in consequence of the littleness of their knowledge, they will have no wisdom. And for this, covetousness and avarice will overwhelm them all. And wedded to avarice and wrath and ignorance and lust men will entertain animosities towards one another, desiring to take one another’s …”
I recommend reading that whole page: (again the link is http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03189.htm)
another view of caste system- http://agniveer.com/5415/the-reality-of-caste-system-2/
However, the webmaster there does not tolerate opposing views for long.
i had already debated with him and he is intolerant..
That the fellow claims to speak on behalf of vedas is dangerous.
It is almost like the Roman Catholics appropriated the right to speak on behalf of the messenger of gad.
The antagonism the fellow shows to opposing views is almost similar to the inquisitionary behavior by the self-appointed gad’s messenger church.
@x,
Yes.. but we cannot do anything about it.. he was more extreme than the christian missionaries..
Pingback: Varnashrama Dharma is NOT totalatarian | Senthilraja’s blog
Good points but say a farmers so/daughter if thyhe chooses can study and become a Doctor, Scientist, something in Business, Military/Police, Politics can they still do that with out any reprecusions
This is a tricky & misleading question.. Suppose, your whole family is involved in farming (of say 100 acres).. your father and mother works in the field, managing it.. and you go to school, in the morning, and work with your father in the afternoon.. and you are all doing good collectively.. what would be the best thing for you to do? Either to take over your father’s farming, and continue life, or to study in some university and become a doctor discarding all that your family had so far invested???
In a typical jathi setup, there is NO individual corporate JOB.. every one in the family have a stake in it and participates in that profession.. and every family does the same profession..
So you become expert an expert in farming, by working along with your father.. once you are grown up, you marry a girl, who also becomes an expert like you by working in farms with her family.. wont it be a perfect match for you to take over your father’s profession, where both you and your wife are already expert in it?
This is what a jathi setup is.. Hope it makes sense to you..
Good Point and I can see how it can get tricky and misleading but is it possible for that son or daughter to study become say a Doctor but still work at the Farm and still help the community by being a Doctor as well as tending to the farm.
Also not all people who born in a Farming Family mignt not want to continue on the farm is it wrong for that Child to do what they want as long as they dont forget where they come from or completley abandon the Farm. But I guess you have to take things into account like is he or she the only child, can he afford to leave the farm and other factors.
But it is easier for him to tend to the farm and marry a wife who comes from similar background as it is convinent.
Can a person be both a doctor and an engineer in government deparments? Its NOT allowed right? why?
/** Good Point and I can see how it can get tricky and misleading but is it possible for that son or daughter to study become say a Doctor but still work at the Farm and still help the community by being a Doctor as well as tending to the farm.
**/
Yes.. its possible, and that’s what happening now.. but, its a common sense, that one cannot ride in two horses.. no one prevents one from knowing the art of healing.. the local medinical knowledge is present among all jathis.. only professional vaidhyas learnt and practiced advanced therapy..
Its like, asking, whether i can learn home medicines while being a lawyer..