Religions > Atheism > Re: How doth the Great Parayan improve his shining tail, was Re: Karma and Dharma
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Quizz" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 02:48:16 PM |
| Object: |
Re: How doth the Great Parayan improve his shining tail, was Re: Karma and Dharma |
On 22 Mar 2005 20:26:09 -0800, "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
David wrote:
Granted I cannot read Sanskrit, but every translation I've read of
the Bhagavad Gita has explained caste and why it's "true".
To be precise, it explains <varna> (the 4 Brahminical varnas are
Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras). It does not explain
<jAti> which is what he calls caste.
What I am curious about is how does one tell (with certainty) who
belongs to what caste when the literature I have read seems to point
to it being primarily via birth?
Manu goes into who can marry who (I assume so the castes don't become
to mixed - which they ended up becoming anyway).
So if it is not by birth why the marriage laws? Why the need to know
who the parents are and what caste they belong to?
Also if a Sudra is not permitted to read the Vedas who (and how) is it
determined if the person really is a Sudra or not?
Just curious.
Q.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How doth the Great Parayan improve his shining tail, was Re: Karma and Dharma |
25 Mar 2005 08:29:51 PM |
|
|
Quizz wrote:
On 22 Mar 2005 20:26:09 -0800, "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
David wrote:
Granted I cannot read Sanskrit, but every translation I've read of
the Bhagavad Gita has explained caste and why it's "true".
To be precise, it explains <varna> (the 4 Brahminical varnas are
Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras). It does not explain
<jAti> which is what he calls caste.
What I am curious about is how does one tell (with certainty) who
belongs to what caste when the literature I have read seems to point
to it being primarily via birth?
According to the caste=jati definition of caste and "varna is not by
birth" theory, people tell who belongs to what caste by their parents'
caste and people's varna can be told by their behavior.
Manu goes into who can marry who (I assume so the castes don't become
to mixed - which they ended up becoming anyway).
So if it is not by birth why the marriage laws? Why the need to know
who the parents are and what caste they belong to?
Suppose Jim Crow went into who can marry whom and wrote a law that
Americans may not marry Indians or Africans. Suppose this hypothetical
law were still in force. Now, according to this law, what would be some
examples of people who may not get married?
Also if a Sudra is not permitted to read the Vedas who (and how) is
it
determined if the person really is a Sudra or not?
To supporters of the "not by birth" theory, your question would look
similar to the question, "If one with no aptitude to fly an aircraft is
not permitted to be a pilot, how is it determined if a person really
has no aptitude to fly an aircraft?"
Just curious.
Q.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parayan" |
|
| Title: Re: How doth the Great Parayan improve his shining tail, was Re: Karma and Dharma |
29 Mar 2005 10:06:29 AM |
|
|
wrote:
<snip>
So if it is not by birth why the marriage laws? Why the need to
know
who the parents are and what caste they belong to?
Suppose Jim Crow went into who can marry whom and wrote a law that
Americans may not marry Indians or Africans. Suppose this
hypothetical
law were still in force. Now, according to this law, what would be
some
examples of people who may not get married?
Also if a Sudra is not permitted to read the Vedas who (and how) is
it
determined if the person really is a Sudra or not?
To supporters of the "not by birth" theory, your question would look
similar to the question, "If one with no aptitude to fly an aircraft
is
not permitted to be a pilot, how is it determined if a person really
has no aptitude to fly an aircraft?"
Just curious.
Q.
But the supporters of the "not by birth" theory have the croockednes
to make their children pilots, without checking whether the their
children have necessary gunas and they have the cunningness to block
others to be pilots, if flying aerocrafts is a lucrative job.
In adharmic(Ambedakarite) societies, there are non-profit institutions
to control
and regualate flying aerocrafts for safety of public. So children of
pilots and children of non-piolts have equal "burden" of following
rigorous stipulations of becoming pilots.
But in dharmic (hinduized) socities only children of brahmins have the
opportunity to know how one can be brahmin, and only they are allowed
to
enjoy being most pious and rightous. Others are asked not to try to be
pious or rightous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Quizz" |
|
| Title: Re: How doth the Great Parayan improve his shining tail, was Re: Karma and Dharma |
29 Mar 2005 01:10:42 PM |
|
|
On 29 Mar 2005 02:06:29 -0800, "Parayan" <parayan@blackplanet.com>
wrote:
Q Wrote:
Also if a Sudra is not permitted to read the Vedas who (and how) is
it determined if the person really is a Sudra or not?
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com wrote:
To supporters of the "not by birth" theory, your question would look
similar to the question, "If one with no aptitude to fly an aircraft
is
not permitted to be a pilot, how is it determined if a person really
has no aptitude to fly an aircraft?"
Parayan wrote:
But the supporters of the "not by birth" theory have the croockednes
to make their children pilots, without checking whether the their
children have necessary gunas and they have the cunningness to block
others to be pilots, if flying aerocrafts is a lucrative job.
In adharmic (Ambedakarite) societies, there are non-profit institutions
to control and regualate flying aerocrafts for safety of public. So
children of pilots and children of non-piolts have equal "burden"
of following rigorous stipulations of becoming pilots.
Mr Ranjit and myself were only discussing the theory and what sort of
points are made for and against it. Neither of us were actually trying
to debate with each other.
He presented good points (as you did in this reply).
But in dharmic (hinduized) socities only children of brahmins have the
opportunity to know how one can be brahmin, and only they are allowed
to enjoy being most pious and rightous. Others are asked not to try to be
pious or rightous.
This is a good point; which was briefly touched upon in one of our
replies.
Thank you for your insight.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Quizz" |
|
| Title: Re: How doth the Great Parayan improve his shining tail, was Re: Karma and Dharma |
26 Mar 2005 06:47:17 AM |
|
|
On 25 Mar 2005 12:29:51 -0800, "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quizz wrote:
On 22 Mar 2005 20:26:09 -0800, "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
What I am curious about is how does one tell (with certainty) who
belongs to what caste when the literature I have read seems to point
to it being primarily via birth?
According to the caste=jati definition of caste and "varna is not by
birth" theory, people tell who belongs to what caste by their parents'
caste and people's varna can be told by their behavior.
I see.
So even if a child is born to Sudra (or Dalit) parents the child's
'varna' may be that of a Brahmin meaning that child is free to study
the Vedas and marry a Brahmin girl later on in his current life (not
at some later birth).
Likewise a Brahmin by his varna could be a Sudra, what then would
happen to him? Would he have to leave his family and find a Sudra
family to live with (as a Brahmin Sudra would be forbidden from
certain rites and learning). Would he be forced to take a wife from
another caste?
I noticed you mentioned "theory" is this a newer development or has
there always been the two (historical) views within Hinduism regarding
this?
And the theory itself, is it generally accepted by most and if so on a
practical level (in normal day to day life) or only on an intellectual
level amongst some?
Manu goes into who can marry who (I assume so the castes don't become
to mixed - which they ended up becoming anyway).
So if it is not by birth why the marriage laws? Why the need to know
who the parents are and what caste they belong to?
Suppose Jim Crow went into who can marry whom and wrote a law that
Americans may not marry Indians or Africans. Suppose this hypothetical
law were still in force. Now, according to this law, what would be some
examples of people who may not get married?
Sorry I do not know who Jim Crow is :-( but I do get the point you are
making.
I understand you are using a hypothetical setting, however such a
statement would favor the 'birth' scenario as opposed to the varna
position, as it would involve racial (or birth) parents (i.e. their
race/class etc) in determining who can marry who.
Also if a Sudra is not permitted to read the Vedas who (and how) is
it determined if the person really is a Sudra or not?
To supporters of the "not by birth" theory, your question would look
similar to the question, "If one with no aptitude to fly an aircraft is
not permitted to be a pilot, how is it determined if a person really
has no aptitude to fly an aircraft?"
That is a good point but I fail to see how exactly this varna is
determined.
I mentioned the Vedas on purpose since a Sudra is not supposed to
study or recite them. But how can their 'aptitude' be determined (or
known) if they are not permitted to try in the first place?
What is your understanding of these ideas within the Mahabharata?
----
The man that doubteth virtue is destined to take his birth in the
brute species. The man of weak understanding who doubteth religion,
virtue or the words of the Rishis, is precluded from regions of
immortality and bliss, like Sudras from the Vedas!
O intelligent one, if a child born of a good race studieth the Vedas
and beareth himself virtuously, royal sages of virtuous behaviour
regard him as an aged sage (not withstanding his years)! The sinful
wretch, however, who doubteth religion and transgresseth the
scriptures, is regarded as lower even than Sudras and robbers!
-- Mh. 3:031
~~~~
Q1. Does the above not imply that it is via a present birth one
becomes a Sudra (or brute species whatever that means) on account of
the actions of a former life?
Q2. What is meant by a good race? Does not 'race' imply a group (or
caste) based primarily on ones genealogy (hence birth) and not varna?
--------
I did read one interesting thing which seems to support the varna
theory when Yudhishthira was having a discussion with a serpent:
----
"Yudhishthira said, Those characteristics that are present in a Sudra,
do not exist in a Brahmana; nor do those that are in a Brahmana exist
in a Sudra. And a Sudra is not a Sudra by birth alone - nor a Brahmana
is Brahmana by birth alone. He, it is said by the wise, in whom are
seen those virtues is a Brahmana. And people term him a Sudra in whom
those qualities do not exist, even though he be a Brahmana by birth.
"The serpent said, 'O king, if thou recognise him as a Brahmana by
characteristics, then, O long-lived one, the distinction of caste
becometh futile as long as conduct doth not come into play.'
"Yudhishthira said, 'In human society, O mighty and highly intelligent
serpent, it is difficult to ascertain one's caste, because of
promiscuous intercourse among the four orders. This is my opinion.
Men belonging to all orders (promiscuously) beget offspring upon women
of all the orders. And of men, speech, sexual intercourse, birth and
death are common. And to this the Rishis have borne testimony by using
as the beginning of a sacrifice such expressions as - of what caste so
ever we may be, we celebrate the sacrifice.
Therefore, those that are wise have asserted that character is the
chief essential requisite. The natal ceremony of a person is performed
before division of the umbilical cord. His mother then acts as its
Savitri and his father officiates as priest. He is considered as a
Sudra as long as he is not initiated in the Vedas.
Doubts having arisen on this point, O prince; of serpents, Swayambhuba
Manu has declared, that the mixed castes are to be regarded as better
than the (other) classes, if having gone through the ceremonies of
purification, the latter do not conform to the rules of good conduct,
.... Whosoever now conforms to the rules of pure and virtuous conduct,
him have I, ere now, designated as a Brahmana.'
-- Mh. 3:179.
~~~~
Q3. Yudhishthira in all fairness seems to lean towards the varna side
but he did mention it was his opinion (and some wise ones apparently
also said this) however what did he mean by "promiscuous intercourse
among the four orders"? Would this not imply that caste was originally
(at least) via birth?
Q4. If Yudhishthira is correct (and Manu) does this mean caste (jati)
is essentially finished since the castes are now so mixed?
Q5. The "natal ceremony" that is preformed before the umbilical cord
is cut is meant to be officiated by the father (as a priest) is a
Sudra father able to perform such a ceremony? (I assume it is not
Vedic otherwise he could not).
--------
However when I read further in the same book I found this:
----
According to thy advice, I shall honour my father and my mother; for a
man with an impure heart can never expound the mysteries of sin and
righteousness. As it is very difficult for a person born in the Sudra
class to learn the mysteries of the eternal religion, I do not
consider thee to be a Sudra.
-- Mh. 3:214
Though born in the Sudra class thou shalt remain a pious man ... thou
shalt also remember the events of thy past life and shalt go to
heaven; and on the expiation of this curse, thou shalt again become a
Brahmana.
In obedience to the customs of thy (present) race, thou hast pursued
these wicked ways, but thou art always devoted to virtue and versed in
the ways and mysteries of the world. ... these being the duties of thy
profession, the stain of evil karma will not attach to thee.
-- Mh. 3:215
~~~~
Note 1:
The first quote (Mh 3:124) seems to support the idea that this
individual is a Sudra (via birth) but is not to be considered one
because he can expound the mysteries and has virtue etc.
However further on it clearly mentions being "born in the Sudra class"
and that though good and devoted to virtue he must still live as a
Sudra till the "expiation of this curse" is passed and **then** he
will **become** a Brahmin again (in a future birth).
Q6. Does this not imply that ones varna may be that of a Brahmin but
according to his birth he must still live out his life as a Sudra
because it is the result of some past sin or action?
Note 2:
Later on (in Mh. 215 its to long to quote here but you can read it for
yourself) a form of double think appears to take place where a Sudra
that is virtuous and good should not complain about his treatment (or
circumstances) proving that he is really a Brahmin (or of a higher
caste) but if he does complain, take offense or retaliates that seems
proves he really is a Sudra (or low man).
The problem here is that it is a 'catch 22' situation; since whatever
circumstances he is suffering (in the present) is due to past actions
(karma) it could allow abuse to continue. Yet if he complains or takes
action 'that's proof of his low nature'.
~~~~
Sorry about all the questions, I have left out many others (from the
Mahabharata and other Hindu books) but time permitting I would like to
examine them also a bit more closely.
-- Q.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parayan" |
|
| Title: Re: How doth the Great Parayan improve his shining tail, was Re: Karma and Dharma |
31 Mar 2005 08:50:37 AM |
|
|
Quizz wrote:
On 25 Mar 2005 12:29:51 -0800, "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quizz wrote:
On 22 Mar 2005 20:26:09 -0800, "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
What I am curious about is how does one tell (with certainty) who
belongs to what caste when the literature I have read seems to
point
to it being primarily via birth?
According to the caste=jati definition of caste and "varna is not by
birth" theory, people tell who belongs to what caste by their
parents'
caste and people's varna can be told by their behavior.
I see.
So even if a child is born to Sudra (or Dalit) parents the child's
'varna' may be that of a Brahmin meaning that child is free to study
the Vedas and marry a Brahmin girl later on in his current life (not
at some later birth).
Hindus and their masters (brahmins) have some authority (and
responsibility) in(to) explaining what varnna is and how varna system
is implimented and maintained.
But Dalits are not hindus. You seems to be equating Dalits and Sudras.
We, Dalits, have no special interest in Sudras/brahmins.
But as human beings, we symapathaise with Sudras, even if Sudras are
happy to be trampled under the legs of brahmins.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How doth the Great Parayan improve his shining tail, was Re: Karma and Dharma |
26 Mar 2005 08:30:29 AM |
|
|
Quizz wrote:
On 25 Mar 2005 12:29:51 -0800, "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quizz wrote:
On 22 Mar 2005 20:26:09 -0800, "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
What I am curious about is how does one tell (with certainty) who
belongs to what caste when the literature I have read seems to
point
to it being primarily via birth?
According to the caste=jati definition of caste and "varna is not by
birth" theory, people tell who belongs to what caste by their
parents'
caste and people's varna can be told by their behavior.
I see.
So even if a child is born to Sudra (or Dalit) parents the child's
'varna' may be that of a Brahmin meaning that child is free to study
the Vedas and marry a Brahmin girl later on in his current life (not
at some later birth).
A proponent of the "varna is not inherited" school would claim that a
Dalit's Brahmana child OUGHT TO (not is free to) pursue vocations such
as priesthood, but he's not free to marry his (the proponent's)
daughter because she is of a different jati. I haven't, however, got
one of these proponents to tell me by what procedure they would be able
to identify a Brahmana child in a "bhangi basti" (a villageful of
sanitation workers).
Likewise a Brahmin by his varna could be a Sudra, what then would
happen to him?
Then, he ought to pursue a Sudra calling, under which category Arindam
Banerjee conveniently includes Engineering, presumably going by the
rationale that engineering is not priesthood, warriordom or trade.
Perhaps Arindam would like to comment on whether those with an aptitude
for selling trinkets or vegetables are vaishyas.
Would he have to leave his family and find a Sudra
family to live with (as a Brahmin Sudra would be forbidden from
certain rites and learning).
No, but he ought to pursue Sudra pursuits.
Would he be forced to take a wife from
another caste?
Aha! These proponents of "varna is not inherited" have escape clauses.
A sudra Brahmin can marry a brahmana Brahmin from the same jati because
they are of the same jati but a brahmana Sudra can't marry the same
brahmana Brahmin because they are from different jatis. The claim is
that jati has nothing to do with Hinduism, so it remains unexplained
from what source (if it's not Hinduism) Brahmins get the idea that
they won't marry their daughters to brahmana Sudras.
I noticed you mentioned "theory" is this a newer development
or has there always been the two (historical) views within Hinduism
regarding
this?
There has been such a theory at least since the Buddha but no one can
identify a case in history or mythology where a brahmana Brahmana
married his daughter to a brahmana Sudra in preference to a
non-brahmana Brahmana or a case where a Brahmana noticed that his child
was a sudra and therefore ought to do sudra work. .
And the theory itself, is it generally accepted by most and if so on
a
practical level (in normal day to day life) or only on an
intellectual
level amongst some?
Primarily on an intellectual level.
Manu goes into who can marry who (I assume so the castes don't
become
to mixed - which they ended up becoming anyway).
So if it is not by birth why the marriage laws? Why the need to
know
who the parents are and what caste they belong to?
Suppose Jim Crow went into who can marry whom and wrote a law that
Americans may not marry Indians or Africans. Suppose this
hypothetical
law were still in force. Now, according to this law, what would be
some
examples of people who may not get married?
Sorry I do not know who Jim Crow is :-( but I do get the point you
are
making.
A gent who made laws, after the emancipation of slaves, to keep blacks
from exercising the same rights as whites.
I understand you are using a hypothetical setting, however such a
statement would favor the 'birth' scenario as opposed to the varna
position, as it would involve racial (or birth) parents (i.e. their
race/class etc) in determining who can marry who.
Ah, but the conception of what an American, African and Indian are have
changed since the Civil war. A black American would have been an
African then but an American today. A South African immigrant would
have been an American then, but an African today. Similarly, what Manu
meant by a Brahmana and a Sudra might be different from what people
mean by it today.
Also if a Sudra is not permitted to read the Vedas who (and how)
is
it determined if the person really is a Sudra or not?
To supporters of the "not by birth" theory, your question would look
similar to the question, "If one with no aptitude to fly an aircraft
is
not permitted to be a pilot, how is it determined if a person really
has no aptitude to fly an aircraft?"
That is a good point but I fail to see how exactly this varna is
determined.
I mentioned the Vedas on purpose since a Sudra is not supposed to
study or recite them.
According to the "varna not by birth" school, he may study and recite
them but it is not his calling to do so professionally; i.e., if he
becomes a priest, he would not be a good one.
if they are not permitted to try in the first place,
They are now permitted to be priests. To flip that around, how can an
acharga Brahmin's child's aptitude to be a pilot be determined if he's
not permitted to try it in the first place?
how can their 'aptitude' be determined (or
known)?
Have you read the story of the princess and the pea? In the story, the
method of detecting whether a girl was a princess was to see whether
she could sleep with a pea under her mattress (a huge pile of
mattresses according to the story). According to Madhu, one of the
proponents of the "varna is not inherited" theory, a brahmana would not
be able to tolerate doing dirty work, so those who choose to be
sanitation workers cannot be brahmanas since they demonstrate a
tolerance for such work. Someone recently posted a case of a woman who
tried for 1 1/2 years to break out of sanitation work and engage in
trade instead, but enough people refused to buy from her that she had
to give up and go back to sanitation work. Perhaps Madhu would like to
comment on what her varna is.
What is your understanding of these ideas within the Mahabharata?
What do you think is my understanding?
The man that doubteth virtue is destined to take his birth in the
brute species. The man of weak understanding who doubteth religion,
virtue or the words of the Rishis, is precluded from regions of
immortality and bliss, like Sudras from the Vedas!
O intelligent one, if a child born of a good race studieth the Vedas
and beareth himself virtuously, royal sages of virtuous behaviour
regard him as an aged sage (not withstanding his years)! The sinful
wretch, however, who doubteth religion and transgresseth the
scriptures, is regarded as lower even than Sudras and robbers!
-- Mh. 3:031
~~~~
Q1. Does the above not imply that it is via a present birth one
becomes a Sudra (or brute species whatever that means) on account of
the actions of a former life?
Q2. What is meant by a good race? Does not 'race' imply a group (or
caste) based primarily on ones genealogy (hence birth) and not varna?
--------
I did read one interesting thing which seems to support the varna
theory when Yudhishthira was having a discussion with a serpent:
----
"Yudhishthira said, Those characteristics that are present in a
Sudra,
do not exist in a Brahmana; nor do those that are in a Brahmana exist
in a Sudra. And a Sudra is not a Sudra by birth alone - nor a
Brahmana
is Brahmana by birth alone. He, it is said by the wise, in whom are
seen those virtues is a Brahmana. And people term him a Sudra in whom
those qualities do not exist, even though he be a Brahmana by birth.
"The serpent said, 'O king, if thou recognise him as a Brahmana by
characteristics, then, O long-lived one, the distinction of caste
becometh futile as long as conduct doth not come into play.'
"Yudhishthira said, 'In human society, O mighty and highly
intelligent
serpent, it is difficult to ascertain one's caste, because of
promiscuous intercourse among the four orders. This is my opinion.
Men belonging to all orders (promiscuously) beget offspring upon
women
of all the orders. And of men, speech, sexual intercourse, birth and
death are common. And to this the Rishis have borne testimony by
using
as the beginning of a sacrifice such expressions as - of what caste
so
ever we may be, we celebrate the sacrifice.
Therefore, those that are wise have asserted that character is the
chief essential requisite. The natal ceremony of a person is
performed
before division of the umbilical cord. His mother then acts as its
Savitri and his father officiates as priest. He is considered as a
Sudra as long as he is not initiated in the Vedas.
Doubts having arisen on this point, O prince; of serpents,
Swayambhuba
Manu has declared, that the mixed castes are to be regarded as better
than the (other) classes, if having gone through the ceremonies of
purification, the latter do not conform to the rules of good conduct,
... Whosoever now conforms to the rules of pure and virtuous conduct,
him have I, ere now, designated as a Brahmana.'
-- Mh. 3:179.
~~~~
Q3. Yudhishthira in all fairness seems to lean towards the varna side
but he did mention it was his opinion (and some wise ones apparently
also said this) however what did he mean by "promiscuous intercourse
among the four orders"? Would this not imply that caste was
originally
(at least) via birth?
Q4. If Yudhishthira is correct (and Manu) does this mean caste (jati)
is essentially finished since the castes are now so mixed?
Q5. The "natal ceremony" that is preformed before the umbilical cord
is cut is meant to be officiated by the father (as a priest) is a
Sudra father able to perform such a ceremony? (I assume it is not
Vedic otherwise he could not).
--------
However when I read further in the same book I found this:
----
According to thy advice, I shall honour my father and my mother; for
a
man with an impure heart can never expound the mysteries of sin and
righteousness. As it is very difficult for a person born in the Sudra
class to learn the mysteries of the eternal religion, I do not
consider thee to be a Sudra.
-- Mh. 3:214
Though born in the Sudra class thou shalt remain a pious man ... thou
shalt also remember the events of thy past life and shalt go to
heaven; and on the expiation of this curse, thou shalt again become a
Brahmana.
In obedience to the customs of thy (present) race, thou hast pursued
these wicked ways, but thou art always devoted to virtue and versed
in
the ways and mysteries of the world. ... these being the duties of
thy
profession, the stain of evil karma will not attach to thee.
-- Mh. 3:215
~~~~
Note 1:
The first quote (Mh 3:124) seems to support the idea that this
individual is a Sudra (via birth) but is not to be considered one
because he can expound the mysteries and has virtue etc.
However further on it clearly mentions being "born in the Sudra
class"
and that though good and devoted to virtue he must still live as a
Sudra till the "expiation of this curse" is passed and **then** he
will **become** a Brahmin again (in a future birth).
Q6. Does this not imply that ones varna may be that of a Brahmin but
according to his birth he must still live out his life as a Sudra
because it is the result of some past sin or action?
Note 2:
Later on (in Mh. 215 its to long to quote here but you can read it
for
yourself) a form of double think appears to take place where a Sudra
that is virtuous and good should not complain about his treatment (or
circumstances) proving that he is really a Brahmin (or of a higher
caste) but if he does complain, take offense or retaliates that seems
proves he really is a Sudra (or low man).
The problem here is that it is a 'catch 22' situation; since whatever
circumstances he is suffering (in the present) is due to past actions
(karma) it could allow abuse to continue. Yet if he complains or
takes
action 'that's proof of his low nature'.
~~~~
Sorry about all the questions, I have left out many others (from the
Mahabharata and other Hindu books) but time permitting I would like
to
examine them also a bit more closely.
-- Q.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Quizz" |
|
| Title: Re: How doth the Great Parayan improve his shining tail, was Re: Karma and Dharma |
26 Mar 2005 12:05:42 PM |
|
|
On 26 Mar 2005 00:30:29 -0800, "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
(snips made)
Quizz wrote:
So even if a child is born to Sudra (or Dalit) parents the child's
'varna' may be that of a Brahmin meaning that child is free to study
the Vedas and marry a Brahmin girl later on in his current life (not
at some later birth).
A proponent of the "varna is not inherited" school would claim that a
Dalit's Brahmana child OUGHT TO (not is free to) pursue vocations such
as priesthood, but he's not free to marry his (the proponent's)
daughter because she is of a different jati. I haven't, however, got
one of these proponents to tell me by what procedure they would be able
to identify a Brahmana child in a "bhangi basti" (a villageful of
sanitation workers).
A very good question.
Likewise a Brahmin by his varna could be a Sudra, what then would
happen to him?
Then, he ought to pursue a Sudra calling, under which category Arindam
Banerjee conveniently includes Engineering, presumably going by the
rationale that engineering is not priesthood, warriordom or trade.
Perhaps Arindam would like to comment on whether those with an aptitude
for selling trinkets or vegetables are vaishyas.
Well to be fair and if one is to follow that stream of thought to its
logical conclusion then yes those with such an aptitude would have to
be Vaishyas.
Would he have to leave his family and find a Sudra
family to live with (as a Brahmin Sudra would be forbidden from
certain rites and learning).
No, but he ought to pursue Sudra pursuits.
Okay.
Would he be forced to take a wife from
another caste?
Aha! These proponents of "varna is not inherited" have escape clauses.
A sudra Brahmin can marry a brahmana Brahmin from the same jati because
they are of the same jati but a brahmana Sudra can't marry the same
brahmana Brahmin because they are from different jatis. The claim is
that jati has nothing to do with Hinduism, so it remains unexplained
from what source (if it's not Hinduism) Brahmins get the idea that
they won't marry their daughters to brahmana Sudras.
I am sorry but that does not make sense. The logic of the 'varna is
not inherited' view seems faulty and appears to amount to the keeping
of castes while saying in the same breath that there is no caste.
This jati clause (marrying within the same jati) would still allow the
same divisions. It is similar to the cases where the Japanese were
called 'Honoury Whites" meaning white but not white. When it came to
inter-marriage it was rejected, looked down upon etc.
Now I understand what you were driving at with the analogy you
presented.
As to the question of where did jati originate that is a valid
question, which ought to be followed by the question of why has it not
been dismantled yet?
I noticed you mentioned "theory" is this a newer development
or has there always been the two (historical) views within Hinduism
regarding this?
There has been such a theory at least since the Buddha but no one can
identify a case in history or mythology where a brahmana Brahmana
married his daughter to a brahmana Sudra in preference to a
non-brahmana Brahmana or a case where a Brahmana noticed that his child
was a sudra and therefore ought to do sudra work.
It seems both the Jains and the Buddhists were against the caste
system and thus taught their followers accordingly. Perhaps some of
their values were picked up by others.
And the theory itself, is it generally accepted by most and if so on
a practical level (in normal day to day life) or only on an
intellectual level amongst some?
Primarily on an intellectual level.
Okay.
Sorry I do not know who Jim Crow is :-( but I do get the point you
are making.
A gent who made laws, after the emancipation of slaves, to keep blacks
from exercising the same rights as whites.
Ahh now I see.
I understand you are using a hypothetical setting, however such a
statement would favor the 'birth' scenario as opposed to the varna
position, as it would involve racial (or birth) parents (i.e. their
race/class etc) in determining who can marry who.
Ah, but the conception of what an American, African and Indian are have
changed since the Civil war. A black American would have been an
African then but an American today. A South African immigrant would
have been an American then, but an African today. Similarly, what Manu
meant by a Brahmana and a Sudra might be different from what people
mean by it today.
Very true. The context (historical / sociological) of what the author
themselves meant is important, as words and meanings can change (or be
twisted) into something else over time.
A good point, thank you for that.
That is a good point but I fail to see how exactly this varna is
determined.
I mentioned the Vedas on purpose since a Sudra is not supposed to
study or recite them.
According to the "varna not by birth" school, he may study and recite
them but it is not his calling to do so professionally; i.e., if he
becomes a priest, he would not be a good one.
I am not so sure that such a person would not be a good one, if he is
of that 'varna' he could well be a great one.
I have noticed (and read) some great works by Indians, Asians,
Europeans etc within a diverse selection of what Hindus would call
'foreign religions'. Race, jati, class, caste (or whatever) does not
seem to hamper the intellect of those people (despite covert classism)
if given half a chance.
if they are not permitted to try in the first place,
They are now permitted to be priests. To flip that around, how can an
acharga Brahmin's child's aptitude to be a pilot be determined if he's
not permitted to try it in the first place?
True, he would have to sit a test (after proper instruction) to
determine if he does have the aptitude for such work.
As for more mundane work ... that is another question.
how can their 'aptitude' be determined (or
known)?
Have you read the story of the princess and the pea? In the story, the
method of detecting whether a girl was a princess was to see whether
she could sleep with a pea under her mattress (a huge pile of
mattresses according to the story). According to Madhu, one of the
proponents of the "varna is not inherited" theory, a brahmana would not
be able to tolerate doing dirty work, so those who choose to be
sanitation workers cannot be brahmanas since they demonstrate a
tolerance for such work.
I know we would perhaps differ on the above somewhat, for instance I
have no aptitude (and I mean this literally) for labour, mechanical
things, i.e. give me an engine and I will stare blankly at it, or a
hammer and nail and I will 5 times out of 10 end up hitting my own
fingers.
However give me a pile of books, and not a problem I will go through
them, comment on them and write up articles or summaries, whether
secular, historical or religious.
But I do understand the point you have made, however in my case it
could be related to being able to travel a lot (living and learning
from a variety of different cultures) from a very early age along with
social conditions etc.
Yet if one is not able to avail themselves of those conditions then
would 'varna' not be connected to the social conditions (and
opportunities) that surround the person in day to day life? And if so
then is it really 'varna' or rather merely an instance of opportunity?
Someone recently posted a case of a woman who
tried for 1 1/2 years to break out of sanitation work and engage in
trade instead, but enough people refused to buy from her that she had
to give up and go back to sanitation work. Perhaps Madhu would like to
comment on what her varna is.
Exactly! This is what I meant above. If she is not accepted and the
social conditions around her are negative then the chances against her
success are slim at best.
One wonders what would have happened if she set up shop elsewhere or
even in another country, would she have fared any better?
What is your understanding of these ideas within the Mahabharata?
What do you think is my understanding?
I believe your understanding rejects the 'varna' theory.
I left the Mahabharata quotes below if others wish to comment on them.
Again thank you for your time, it has been well appreciated.
-- Q.
===============
What is your understanding of these ideas within the Mahabharata?
----
The man that doubteth virtue is destined to take his birth in the
brute species. The man of weak understanding who doubteth religion,
virtue or the words of the Rishis, is precluded from regions of
immortality and bliss, like Sudras from the Vedas!
O intelligent one, if a child born of a good race studieth the Vedas
and beareth himself virtuously, royal sages of virtuous behaviour
regard him as an aged sage (not withstanding his years)! The sinful
wretch, however, who doubteth religion and transgresseth the
scriptures, is regarded as lower even than Sudras and robbers!
-- Mh. 3:031
~~~~
Q1. Does the above not imply that it is via a present birth one
becomes a Sudra (or brute species whatever that means) on account of
the actions of a former life?
Q2. What is meant by a good race? Does not 'race' imply a group (or
caste) based primarily on ones genealogy (hence birth) and not varna?
--------
I did read one interesting thing which seems to support the varna
theory when Yudhishthira was having a discussion with a serpent:
----
"Yudhishthira said, Those characteristics that are present in a Sudra,
do not exist in a Brahmana; nor do those that are in a Brahmana exist
in a Sudra. And a Sudra is not a Sudra by birth alone - nor a Brahmana
is Brahmana by birth alone. He, it is said by the wise, in whom are
seen those virtues is a Brahmana. And people term him a Sudra in whom
those qualities do not exist, even though he be a Brahmana by birth.
"The serpent said, 'O king, if thou recognise him as a Brahmana by
characteristics, then, O long-lived one, the distinction of caste
becometh futile as long as conduct doth not come into play.'
"Yudhishthira said, 'In human society, O mighty and highly intelligent
serpent, it is difficult to ascertain one's caste, because of
promiscuous intercourse among the four orders. This is my opinion.
Men belonging to all orders (promiscuously) beget offspring upon women
of all the orders. And of men, speech, sexual intercourse, birth and
death are common. And to this the Rishis have borne testimony by using
as the beginning of a sacrifice such expressions as - of what caste so
ever we may be, we celebrate the sacrifice.
Therefore, those that are wise have asserted that character is the
chief essential requisite. The natal ceremony of a person is performed
before division of the umbilical cord. His mother then acts as its
Savitri and his father officiates as priest. He is considered as a
Sudra as long as he is not initiated in the Vedas.
Doubts having arisen on this point, O prince; of serpents, Swayambhuba
Manu has declared, that the mixed castes are to be regarded as better
than the (other) classes, if having gone through the ceremonies of
purification, the latter do not conform to the rules of good conduct,
.... Whosoever now conforms to the rules of pure and virtuous conduct,
him have I, ere now, designated as a Brahmana.'
-- Mh. 3:179.
~~~~
Q3. Yudhishthira in all fairness seems to lean towards the varna side
but he did mention it was his opinion (and some wise ones apparently
also said this) however what did he mean by "promiscuous intercourse
among the four orders"? Would this not imply that caste was originally
(at least) via birth?
Q4. If Yudhishthira is correct (and Manu) does this mean caste (jati)
is essentially finished since the castes are now so mixed?
Q5. The "natal ceremony" that is preformed before the umbilical cord
is cut is meant to be officiated by the father (as a priest) is a
Sudra father able to perform such a ceremony? (I assume it is not
Vedic otherwise he could not).
--------
However when I read further in the same book I found this:
----
According to thy advice, I shall honour my father and my mother; for a
man with an impure heart can never expound the mysteries of sin and
righteousness. As it is very difficult for a person born in the Sudra
class to learn the mysteries of the eternal religion, I do not
consider thee to be a Sudra.
-- Mh. 3:214
Though born in the Sudra class thou shalt remain a pious man ... thou
shalt also remember the events of thy past life and shalt go to
heaven; and on the expiation of this curse, thou shalt again become a
Brahmana.
In obedience to the customs of thy (present) race, thou hast pursued
these wicked ways, but thou art always devoted to virtue and versed in
the ways and mysteries of the world. ... these being the duties of thy
profession, the stain of evil karma will not attach to thee.
-- Mh. 3:215
~~~~
Note 1:
The first quote (Mh 3:124) seems to support the idea that this
individual is a Sudra (via birth) but is not to be considered one
because he can expound the mysteries and has virtue etc.
However further on it clearly mentions being "born in the Sudra class"
and that though good and devoted to virtue he must still live as a
Sudra till the "expiation of this curse" is passed and **then** he
will **become** a Brahmin again (in a future birth).
Q6. Does this not imply that ones varna may be that of a Brahmin but
according to his birth he must still live out his life as a Sudra
because it is the result of some past sin or action?
Note 2:
Later on (in Mh. 215 its to long to quote here but you can read it for
yourself) a form of double think appears to take place where a Sudra
that is virtuous and good should not complain about his treatment (or
circumstances) proving that he is really a Brahmin (or of a higher
caste) but if he does complain, take offense or retaliates that seems
proves he really is a Sudra (or low man).
The problem here is that it is a 'catch 22' situation; since whatever
circumstances he is suffering (in the present) is due to past actions
(karma) it could allow abuse to continue. Yet if he complains or takes
action 'that's proof of his low nature'.
~~~~
Sorry about all the questions, I have left out many others (from the
Mahabharata and other Hindu books) but time permitting I would like to
examine them also a bit more closely.
-- Q.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Madhu Sudhan" |
|
| Title: Re: How doth the Great Parayan improve his shining tail, was Re: Karma and Dharma |
27 Mar 2005 09:06:39 PM |
|
|
Quizz <quizz@noemail.com> wrote in message news:<p1fa41hvgfgevcfvn7604odsfpn9nuav9n@4ax.com>...
On 26 Mar 2005 00:30:29 -0800, "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
(snips made)
I just noticed this. Let me summarise re caste and varna.
Varna is for spiritual progress and is from scriptures. Each person is
advised to identify his temperamental attributes and channel them in
the service of the Lord and hence to society. Hence an intellectual
and compassionate person will be a scholar, priest etc. A warrior will
be a kshatriya, a vaishya is commerce minded. The sudra is just a fun
loving person who does not get interested in intellectual pursuits or
valour or money but just wants fun. The sudra is advised to serve
society. The sudra is allowed to eat some meat with restrictions and
also permitted some alcohol The kshatriya like wise but with a lot
more restricions. Brahaman and vaishya are not allowed either.
Sudras who eat meat with restrictions cannot take part in vedic
studies but can study any number of other scriptures such as Ramayana,
Mahabharatha,Githa etc etc etc. They have lots of scriptures to study
from. Vedic study demands commitment to a way of life that is strict.
In Hindu society a priest can only be a person who is satvic for
generations. Hindus wont generally accept a person as a priest if he
ate meat and drank alcohol and learnt the scriptures from age 25. His
training as Hindu has to be from his previous generations and he has
to be rooted in that tradition.
It would be unacceptable for a person who eats meat and whose parents
and relatives eat meat to be a priest. May be if he is vegetarion for
some years he *may* qualify for vedic studies but not in a traditional
school. To be in a traditional school he has to be from a family of
vegetarians and follow traditions for generations. To be a priest even
higher. Saints are exempted from all these requiremenst.
Thus varna is based on temperament and work. There is no
birth(jathi). Jathi does not find even mention in scripture. In fact
scripture condemns birth based obsession ( vajra sucika upanisad,
mahabharatha).
Now jaathi. Jaathi means - from birth. Caste is a poor translation of
jaathi. There are thousands of castes. English translations also
translate varna as jaathi wrongly. Birth accentuates some
characteristics and develops them further. Thus a child can learn the
trade early and will be better. This was an asset in older days with
agrarian, feudal structure and existed all over the world. Thus Levis
( priests hereditarily in Judaism),Smiths, Goldsmiths, Carpenter,
Weaver etc. As society progressed and factories emerged they diminish
and remain as just names. Same in India,. Nowdays the jaathis do not
do same occupations. Jaathis remains as jaathis only for marriage.
Jaathi can be good as well as bad. Even robbers were a caste!
Prostitutes were a caste! In India everything became a caste. Now
jaathi is less.
It is most important to know jaathi is a social structure and has no
scriptural sanction. In fact many saints condemend jaathi. They said
those who devoted to God are all equal devotees. Gandhiji condemned
caste discrimination. The jaathi system is deep in India and
subcontinent, may be in all agrarian societies. Thus is exists in
christian,muslims, sikh, buddhist and jain societies. No one is exempt
although they will claim it is from Hinduism!
Now, there are some jaathis who had disgusting practices. I mentioned
prostitution. Many others had eaten dead animals, rats, pigs fed on
feces and feasted on them. These are facts. They skinned dead animals.
They avoided bathing. They kept the surroundeings very dirty. These
are facts we have to face. Let us call them castes A.
Hinduism demands ritual purity. While worshippimg certain rituals have
to be performed. If any one had no bath, he cannot come near the
worshipping place. Any meat eater has to avoid the inner sanctorum.
Beef eaters are forbidden even near the temple etc. All this is even
inside the house. Beef eating is forbidden in the houses and even
outside. Castes A were therefore excluded from temples.
Castes became more complicated as society advanced in previous years.
As foerigners came with different practices like christians, Huns,
Greeks, Parsees, muslims etc it became solidified to retain identity.
Caste became embedded in Indian society. It still was/is a social
order and has no sanction in religion as such. Many teachers later
advocated that varna correspond with caste and added janma(birth) to
guna and karma. This may be because there was much greater
corrspondence at that time with birth and temperament. May be children
in the same family all had more or less temperametn. Not nowdays
though. But even these teachers still lad emphasis on character and
karma not mere janma ever.
The British, missionaries and muslims always implicated the religion
of Hinduism as the cause of caste system. This was to conquer,
denigrate, destroy and facilitate converions. Many Hindus fell for
this as well
Will stop there for people to comment. Getting too long
.
|
|
|
| User: "Quizz" |
|
| Title: Re: How doth the Great Parayan improve his shining tail, was Re: Karma and Dharma |
29 Mar 2005 12:53:00 PM |
|
|
On 27 Mar 2005 13:06:39 -0800, (Madhu Sudhan)
wrote:
(snips made)
I have read similar before but I fail to see how this answers or
adresses the discussion points (and questions) that Mr. Ranjit and I
were going over?
In future please address the discussion topic point by point rather
than merely inserting a broad 'cut n paste' article.
Thank you.
Quizz wrote:
So even if a child is born to Sudra (or Dalit) parents the child's
'varna' may be that of a Brahmin meaning that child is free to study
the Vedas and marry a Brahmin girl later on in his current life (not
at some later birth).
Mr. Ranjit Wrote:
A proponent of the "varna is not inherited" school would claim that a
Dalit's Brahmana child OUGHT TO (not is free to) pursue vocations such
as priesthood, but he's not free to marry his (the proponent's)
daughter because she is of a different jati. I haven't, however, got
one of these proponents to tell me by what procedure they would be able
to identify a Brahmana child in a "bhangi basti" (a villageful of
sanitation workers).
A very good question.
Likewise a Brahmin by his varna could be a Sudra, what then would
happen to him?
Then, he ought to pursue a Sudra calling, under which category Arindam
Banerjee conveniently includes Engineering, presumably going by the
rationale that engineering is not priesthood, warriordom or trade.
Perhaps Arindam would like to comment on whether those with an aptitude
for selling trinkets or vegetables are vaishyas.
Well to be fair and if one is to follow that stream of thought to its
logical conclusion then yes those with such an aptitude would have to
be Vaishyas.
Would he have to leave his family and find a Sudra
family to live with (as a Brahmin Sudra would be forbidden from
certain rites and learning).
No, but he ought to pursue Sudra pursuits.
Okay.
Would he be forced to take a wife from
another caste?
Aha! These proponents of "varna is not inherited" have escape clauses.
A sudra Brahmin can marry a brahmana Brahmin from the same jati because
they are of the same jati but a brahmana Sudra can't marry the same
brahmana Brahmin because they are from different jatis. The claim is
that jati has nothing to do with Hinduism, so it remains unexplained
from what source (if it's not Hinduism) Brahmins get the idea that
they won't marry their daughters to brahmana Sudras.
I am sorry but that does not make sense. The logic of the 'varna is
not inherited' view seems faulty and appears to amount to the keeping
of castes while saying in the same breath that there is no caste.
This jati clause (marrying within the same jati) would still allow the
same divisions. It is similar to the cases where the Japanese were
called 'Honoury Whites" meaning white but not white. When it came to
inter-marriage it was rejected, looked down upon etc.
Now I understand what you were driving at with the analogy you
presented.
As to the question of where did jati originate that is a valid
question, which ought to be followed by the question of why has it not
been dismantled yet?
I noticed you mentioned "theory" is this a newer development
or has there always been the two (historical) views within Hinduism
regarding this?
There has been such a theory at least since the Buddha but no one can
identify a case in history or mythology where a brahmana Brahmana
married his daughter to a brahmana Sudra in preference to a
non-brahmana Brahmana or a case where a Brahmana noticed that his child
was a sudra and therefore ought to do sudra work.
It seems both the Jains and the Buddhists were against the caste
system and thus taught their followers accordingly. Perhaps some of
their values were picked up by others.
And the theory itself, is it generally accepted by most and if so on
a practical level (in normal day to day life) or only on an
intellectual level amongst some?
Primarily on an intellectual level.
Okay.
Sorry I do not know who Jim Crow is :-( but I do get the point you
are making.
A gent who made laws, after the emancipation of slaves, to keep blacks
from exercising the same rights as whites.
Ahh now I see.
I understand you are using a hypothetical setting, however such a
statement would favor the 'birth' scenario as opposed to the varna
position, as it would involve racial (or birth) parents (i.e. their
race/class etc) in determining who can marry who.
Ah, but the conception of what an American, African and Indian are have
changed since the Civil war. A black American would have been an
African then but an American today. A South African immigrant would
have been an American then, but an African today. Similarly, what Manu
meant by a Brahmana and a Sudra might be different from what people
mean by it today.
Very true. The context (historical / sociological) of what the author
themselves meant is important, as words and meanings can change (or be
twisted) into something else over time.
A good point, thank you for that.
That is a good point but I fail to see how exactly this varna is
determined.
I mentioned the Vedas on purpose since a Sudra is not supposed to
study or recite them.
According to the "varna not by birth" school, he may study and recite
them but it is not his calling to do so professionally; i.e., if he
becomes a priest, he would not be a good one.
I am not so sure that such a person would not be a good one, if he is
of that 'varna' he could well be a great one.
I have noticed (and read) some great works by Indians, Asians,
Europeans etc within a diverse selection of what Hindus would call
'foreign religions'. Race, jati, class, caste (or whatever) does not
seem to hamper the intellect of those people (despite covert classism)
if given half a chance.
if they are not permitted to try in the first place,
They are now permitted to be priests. To flip that around, how can an
acharga Brahmin's child's aptitude to be a pilot be determined if he's
not permitted to try it in the first place?
True, he would have to sit a test (after proper instruction) to
determine if he does have the aptitude for such work.
As for more mundane work ... that is another question.
how can their 'aptitude' be determined (or
known)?
Have you read the story of the princess and the pea? In the story, the
method of detecting whether a girl was a princess was to see whether
she could sleep with a pea under her mattress (a huge pile of
mattresses according to the story). According to Madhu, one of the
proponents of the "varna is not inherited" theory, a brahmana would not
be able to tolerate doing dirty work, so those who choose to be
sanitation workers cannot be brahmanas since they demonstrate a
tolerance for such work.
I know we would perhaps differ on the above somewhat, for instance I
have no aptitude (and I mean this literally) for labour, mechanical
things, i.e. give me an engine and I will stare blankly at it, or a
hammer and nail and I will 5 times out of 10 end up hitting my own
fingers.
However give me a pile of books, and not a problem I will go through
them, comment on them and write up articles or summaries, whether
secular, historical or religious.
But I do understand the point you have made, however in my case it
could be related to being able to travel a lot (living and learning
from a variety of different cultures) from a very early age along with
social conditions etc.
Yet if one is not able to avail themselves of those conditions then
would 'varna' not be connected to the social conditions (and
opportunities) that surround the person in day to day life? And if so
then is it really 'varna' or rather merely an instance of opportunity?
Someone recently posted a case of a woman who
tried for 1 1/2 years to break out of sanitation work and engage in
trade instead, but enough people refused to buy from her that she had
to give up and go back to sanitation work. Perhaps Madhu would like to
comment on what her varna is.
Exactly! This is what I meant above. If she is not accepted and the
social conditions around her are negative then the chances against her
success are slim at best.
One wonders what would have happened if she set up shop elsewhere or
even in another country, would she have fared any better?
What is your understanding of these ideas within the Mahabharata?
What do you think is my understanding?
I believe your understanding rejects the 'varna' theory.
I left the Mahabharata quotes below if others wish to comment on them.
Again thank you for your time, it has been well appreciated.
-- Q.
===============
What is your understanding of these ideas within the Mahabharata?
----
The man that doubteth virtue is destined to take his birth in the
brute species. The man of weak understanding who doubteth religion,
virtue or the words of the Rishis, is precluded from regions of
immortality and bliss, like Sudras from the Vedas!
O intelligent one, if a child born of a good race studieth the Vedas
and beareth himself virtuously, royal sages of virtuous behaviour
regard him as an aged sage (not withstanding his years)! The sinful
wretch, however, who doubteth religion and transgresseth the
scriptures, is regarded as lower even than Sudras and robbers!
-- Mh. 3:031
~~~~
Q1. Does the above not imply that it is via a present birth one
becomes a Sudra (or brute species whatever that means) on account of
the actions of a former life?
Q2. What is meant by a good race? Does not 'race' imply a group (or
caste) based primarily on ones genealogy (hence birth) and not varna?
--------
I did read one interesting thing which seems to support the varna
theory when Yudhishthira was having a discussion with a serpent:
----
"Yudhishthira said, Those characteristics that are present in a Sudra,
do not exist in a Brahmana; nor do those that are in a Brahmana exist
in a Sudra. And a Sudra is not a Sudra by birth alone - nor a Brahmana
is Brahmana by birth alone. He, it is said by the wise, in whom are
seen those virtues is a Brahmana. And people term him a Sudra in whom
those qualities do not exist, even though he be a Brahmana by birth.
"The serpent said, 'O king, if thou recognise him as a Brahmana by
characteristics, then, O long-lived one, the distinction of caste
becometh futile as long as conduct doth not come into play.'
"Yudhishthira said, 'In human society, O mighty and highly intelligent
serpent, it is difficult to ascertain one's caste, because of
promiscuous intercourse among the four orders. This is my opinion.
Men belonging to all orders (promiscuously) beget offspring upon women
of all the orders. And of men, speech, sexual intercourse, birth and
death are common. And to this the Rishis have borne testimony by using
as the beginning of a sacrifice such expressions as - of what caste so
ever we may be, we celebrate the sacrifice.
Therefore, those that are wise have asserted that character is the
chief essential requisite. The natal ceremony of a person is performed
before division of the umbilical cord. His mother then acts as its
Savitri and his father officiates as priest. He is considered as a
Sudra as long as he is not initiated in the Vedas.
Doubts having arisen on this point, O prince; of serpents, Swayambhuba
Manu has declared, that the mixed castes are to be regarded as better
than the (other) classes, if having gone through the ceremonies of
purification, the latter do not conform to the rules of good conduct,
.... Whosoever now conforms to the rules of pure and virtuous conduct,
him have I, ere now, designated as a Brahmana.'
-- Mh. 3:179.
~~~~
Q3. Yudhishthira in all fairness seems to lean towards the varna side
but he did mention it was his opinion (and some wise ones apparently
also said this) however what did he mean by "promiscuous intercourse
among the four orders"? Would this not imply that caste was originally
(at least) via birth?
Q4. If Yudhishthira is correct (and Manu) does this mean caste (jati)
is essentially finished since the castes are now so mixed?
Q5. The "natal ceremony" that is preformed before the umbilical cord
is cut is meant to be officiated by the father (as a priest) is a
Sudra father able to perform such a ceremony? (I assume it is not
Vedic otherwise he could not).
--------
However when I read further in the same book I found this:
----
According to thy advice, I shall honour my father and my mother; for a
man with an impure heart can never expound the mysteries of sin and
righteousness. As it is very difficult for a person born in the Sudra
class to learn the mysteries of the eternal religion, I do not
consider thee to be a Sudra.
-- Mh. 3:214
Though born in the Sudra class thou shalt remain a pious man ... thou
shalt also remember the events of thy past life and shalt go to
heaven; and on the expiation of this curse, thou shalt again become a
Brahmana.
In obedience to the customs of thy (present) race, thou hast pursued
these wicked ways, but thou art always devoted to virtue and versed in
the ways and mysteries of the world. ... these being the duties of thy
profession, the stain of evil karma will not attach to thee.
-- Mh. 3:215
~~~~
Note 1:
The first quote (Mh 3:124) seems to support the idea that this
individual is a Sudra (via birth) but is not to be considered one
because he can expound the mysteries and has virtue etc.
However further on it clearly mentions being "born in the Sudra class"
and that though good and devoted to virtue he must still live as a
Sudra till the "expiation of this curse" is passed and **then** he
will **become** a Brahmin again (in a future birth).
Q6. Does this not imply that ones varna may be that of a Brahmin but
according to his birth he must still live out his life as a Sudra
because it is the result of some past sin or action?
Note 2:
Later on (in Mh. 215 its to long to quote here but you can read it for
yourself) a form of double think appears to take place where a Sudra
that is virtuous and good should not complain about his treatment (or
circumstances) proving that he is really a Brahmin (or of a higher
caste) but if he does complain, take offense or retaliates that seems
proves he really is a Sudra (or low man).
The problem here is that it is a 'catch 22' situation; since whatever
circumstances he is suffering (in the present) is due to past actions
(karma) it could allow abuse to continue. Yet if he complains or takes
action 'that's proof of his low nature'.
~~~~
Sorry about all the questions, I have left out many others (from the
Mahabharata and other Hindu books) but time permitting I would like to
examine them also a bit more closely.
-- Q.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Quizz" |
|
| Title: Re: How doth the Great Parayan improve his shining tail, was Re: Karma and Dharma |
31 Mar 2005 01:28:52 PM |
|
|
On 30 Mar 2005 21:35:55 -0800, (Arindam Banerjee)
wrote:
Likewise a Brahmin by his varna could be a Sudra, what then would
happen to him?
Then, he ought to pursue a Sudra calling, under which category Arindam
Banerjee conveniently includes Engineering, presumably going by the
rationale that engineering is not priesthood, warriordom or trade.
True. Engineering deals with nitty-gritty details, and is thus Shudra
activity. Like Medicine, Plumbing, Carpentry, Pottery, etc.
I am curious about something; how (and who) determined the role (jobs
etc) of the Sudra ...:
A. Originally? (i.e. was it from the Vedas / Manu etc)
B. In Modern times? (i.e. Philosophy / ideology etc)
I realise that there appears to be a changing views about the duties
(and rights) of a Sudra in India.
What I am unsure of is how do they work out what job is applicable in
a modern context. Is it based on past principles and then extended to
modern jobs?
Anyone with desire to sell for gain (on a moral basis, of course) has
vaishya varna.
Well to be fair and if one is to follow that stream of thought to its
logical conclusion then yes those with such an aptitude would have to
be Vaishyas.
Good, good.
Would he have to leave his family and find a Sudra
family to live with (as a Brahmin Sudra would be forbidden from
certain rites and learning).
In my case, and in the cases of all brahmins I know of who took up
engineering or medicine, there was no problem so far as marriage was
concerned. Girls from brahmin families are more than happy to marry
brahmin boys who do such shudra activities. These days, no brahmin
engineer-shudra I know carries out the rites his grandfather may have
done, and his learning of Western culture is superior to any brahmanic
learning by a factor that could range from 10:1 to 1000000:1.
Okay.
In the past (meaning say 100 years ago) brahmins were strictly
forbidden all shudra activity. Even touching a tool meant doing
a severe penance, for the brahmin. Thus, shudras avoided
competition from the brahmins, leaving them no choice but to
carry out priestcraft and learning, and so be reviled for uttering
"mumbo-jumbo" and for greediness, facing the hostility of all
the monotheists and the atheists.
Were Brahmins restricted in the past to these fields due to religious
beliefs or were they restricted for social reasons (or perceptions)?
With the British rule, things changed a lot. The brahmins were not so
restricted, and could take up the professions. So they became better
off, and created extraordinary hostility among the malicious as a
result, and this is often seen in the political arena.
Perhaps I have missed something here but why would a Brahmin taking up
other occupations cause hostility?
If there is no educational or social discrimination (or favoritism)
then I fail to see why hostility would be the result.
Would he be forced to take a wife from
another caste?
Well, when my uncles emigrated to Europe in the 60s - and did such
shudra activity as engineering and medicine there - they married
European women. One of them is a widow, and the other is still very
happily married.
Okay.
Aha! These proponents of "varna is not inherited" have escape clauses.
A sudra Brahmin can marry a brahmana Brahmin from the same jati because
they are of the same jati but a brahmana Sudra can't marry the same
brahmana Brahmin because they are from different jatis.
The relevant concept here for brahmins and other "high castes" is not
jati but kul and gotra, roughly translating to clan and lineage.
Thanks for that clarification I was not aware of kul and gotra, I
mistakenly assumed this was part and parcel of jati.
Jati translates more to tribe/group_function_type than caste, and jati is
more closely associated with the Backward Classes and Scheduled
Tribes. A dynamic tribe with multiple functions, with dispersed
members in different geographical locations, follows kul and gotra
when it comes to marriage, and thus form an endogamous society that
can be regarded as caste, with a particular varna associated with all
its members, regardless of individual proclivity.
Okay.
The claim is
that jati has nothing to do with Hinduism, so it remains unexplained
from what source (if it's not Hinduism) Brahmins get the idea that
they won't marry their daughters to brahmana Sudras.
As per theory, brahmin women cannot marry non-brahmins, unless the
non-brahmins are kings. However, these days many brahmin women marry
non-brahmins, and their children take on the
varna/jati/caste/customs/thought-styles of their spouses. Similarly,
the children of non-brahmin women marrying brahmins may be regarded as
brahmins, if such children have no objection when they grow up.
When did these changes occur and what caused them? Do you think that
these changes will be common place amongst Hindu's in the near future?
Regarding jati; if it has nothing to do with Hinduism where did it
come from and what hinders its complete dismantling?
Thank you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parayan" |
|
| Title: Re: How doth the Great Parayan improve his shining tail, was Re: Karma and Dharma |
31 Mar 2005 10:12:35 AM |
|
|
Quizz wrote:
On 25 Mar 2005 12:29:51 -0800, "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quizz wrote:
On 22 Mar 2005 20:26:09 -0800, "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
What I am curious about is how does one tell (with certainty) who
belongs to what caste when the literature I have read seems to
point
to it being primarily via birth?
According to the caste=jati definition of caste and "varna is not by
birth" theory, people tell who belongs to what caste by their
parents'
caste and people's varna can be told by their behavior.
I see.
So even if a child is born to Sudra (or Dalit) parents the child's
'varna' may be that of a Brahmin meaning that child is free to study
the Vedas and marry a Brahmin girl later on in his current life (not
at some later birth).
Hindus and their masters (brahmins) have some authority in explaining
what varnna is and how varna system is implimented and maintained
and they have responsibility to explain the same.
But Dalits are not hindus. You seems to be equating Dalits and Sudras.
We, Dalits, have no special interest in Sudras/brahmins.
We do not think we are slaves (another word of Sudra).
But as human beings, we symapathaise with Sudras, even if Sudras are
happy to be trampled under the legs of brahmins.
If Muslims were hindus
If Africans were hindus,
If Japanese were hindus, so and so
we could have been hindus.
Brahmins make the claim that Dalits are hindus, not out of their love
to
us.
Not because of their alacrity to eduacate Dalits, they are making these
claims.
(Remeber some brahmin(Sesh) made the remark that brahmins have the
alacrity to
pursue knowledge and they educate non-brahmins.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Quizz" |
|
| Title: Re: How doth the Great Parayan improve his shining tail, was Re: Karma and Dharma |
31 Mar 2005 03:11:13 PM |
|
|
On 31 Mar 2005 02:12:35 -0800, "Parayan" <parayan@blackplanet.com>
wrote:
Quizz wrote:
So even if a child is born to Sudra (or Dalit) parents the child's
'varna' may be that of a Brahmin meaning that child is free to study
the Vedas and marry a Brahmin girl later on in his current life (not
at some later birth).
Hindus and their masters (brahmins) have some authority in explaining
what varnna is and how varna system is implimented and maintained
and they have responsibility to explain the same.
Yes, it would be important to understand how such a vast change would
be implemented and maintained.
The problem I have is there appears to be three main views:
a. A strict caste system,
b. The varna concept (where inter-marriage between castes is
acceptable)
c. And the same varna concept where one can follow their natural
inclinations but are still restricted from inter-caste marriage (on
account of jati).
At least these seems to be some good discussion on this point (for
once) without it denigrating to name calling or blame-shifiting (a
common theist/religious tactic).
In relation to 'varna' since the discussions I had with a gentleman on
this group (Mr Ranjit) I have gone back to re-read the references
regarding caste in the context of varna, jati, race etc.
Thanks to Mr. Arindam Banerjee I am also having a closer look at kul
and gotra which I had not considered.
This issue however is somewhat complex and any implementation of the
varna theory (from the intellectual to the practical) into society
would not be an easy task.
But Dalits are not hindus. You seems to be equating Dalits and Sudras.
Sorry about the misconception.
We, Dalits, have no special interest in Sudras/brahmins.
We do not think we are slaves (another word of Sudra).
Would you mind telling me what is meant by Dalit? I wrongly assumed it
was a caste (or sub-caste) within Hinduism (again my apologies).
But as human beings, we symapathaise with Sudras, even if Sudras are
happy to be trampled under the legs of brahmins.
Reading the Hindu writings I always wondered how or why Sudra's would
put up with such treatment or why there was even a need for such harsh
rules.
I seriously doubt though that they could have been happy, unless the
religious laws were so ingrained that they actually believed their
current life was a 'punishment' for some former transgression.
If Muslims were hindus
If Africans were hindus,
If Japanese were hindus, so and so
we could have been hindus.
Point taken.
Brahmins make the claim that Dalits are hindus, not out of their love
to us. Not because of their alacrity to eduacate Dalits, they are
making these claims.
If Dalits are not a part of Hinduism what is their historical origin?
(Remeber some brahmin (Sesh) made the remark that brahmins
have the alacrity to pursue knowledge and they educate non-brahmins.
Sorry I am not familiar with this person.
Thank you for your insight.
Q.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
