how can we reconcile our scriptures with our current environment? can we selectively chose what is appropriate and correct to the present?
I have read quite a lot on Maha Perivaal's speeches on various issues and one of it is this varna by birth. He actually says that both are the same and explains how.
Yes, I have read the same. He supports Varna by birth citing the verse from Gita. He also says that since one has to start training the children from a young age in scriptures, deciding on aptitude among all is not practical, even if one accepts Varna is not by birth.
I am not crticizing any luminary. I was just trying to point out in response to Sri TBS's posting that this is not a setlled issue in our religion as he made it seem to be, but there are definite divergence of opinion.
[some views. please exercise your discretion about the contents]
Looks like the issue of varna by birth, applicability of old scriptures in the present, etc cannot be settled if people are gonna mix diff streams of thot into one system, and then hope to settle the issues by applying each of its beliefs to all of the system.
Its like a man can be trained to be both a doctor and an engineer at the same time, but is expected to work as a lawyer and a mettalurgist by applying the principles of medicine and engineering to the fields of law and mettalurgy. It may be done, yes, but tends to make things complicated.
The brahmanas of yore came in all forms of thot. Some were non-ritualist, the kind that offered homa in the mind to burn off vasanas to seek union with the cosmic consiocusness, while some were ritualist who did not beleive in a god outside of themselves and harnessed energies for certain results and so on....
The aryasamaj beleives the varna of a student was assigned after 14 years of study for the children.
Many monastic traditions seem to agree that a child, to begin with was given his father's varna, and was tutored initially according to that. But since the basic subjects of study were common, if a child showed aptitude in any one of them, later his varna was changed, and he was made to specialize accordingly.
To a state, it wud have been useless, if a man with great administrative abilities, or a man with great reflexes as an ace sword fighter, wud have to follow the role of a trader or a priest; if the varna were to be fixed by birth.
imho, the confusion part of varna-by-birth or not-by-birth seems to come in the post-buddhist period.
Popular hindu renaissance in the post-buddist period supposedly saw the establishment of many temples, writing of puranas, writing of dharmashastras (gautama was the earliest i think), establishing of the current gotra system, creation of varna by birth system as fixed by the dharmashastra writers (i still think it was the kings who wanted it that way, because until this time, it appears that many kingdoms had no heredity system and kings were elected from a class of nobles; and in a new system or in fragmented kingdoms, it was easy to establish what each wanted, as heredity ownership), and so on.
Also people wanted quick fixes for probs (like 'do this ritual, you get this result" type of belief), instead of the almost zero ritualism of the buddists, that ppl were probably tired of by this time. It was a lot about the mood of the masses, i guess.
It appears that most dharmashastra writers were from the purvamimansaka ritualist school, who unlike the monks, beleived in no brahmaloka of no-return, but did take on the idea of brahman as something attainable thru purva rituals. So to them, they are brahmins.
In effect, the current argument of monastic schools that claim rituals result in no brahman, and the claim of purvamimansakas that rituals do result in brahman, appears to be a long standing disagreement, more than 2k years old.
To each, the definition of a brahmin varied. However its possible that since the law makers were purva followers, their ideology prevailed, and the monastic schools continued to exist, but on the sidelines as non-popular ones.
Then came Shri Adi Shankara, after all this jhanjhat was fixed, when things were being followed the orderly by-birth way. One advantage was that no one had to suffer unemployment even if he was no good at his job.
Shri Shankara reformed the practices of the purvamimansaka ritualists, who incorporated more of the teachings of brahman of the uttaramimansaka schools into the purva ones, along with bhakti, surrender, etc.
However, what Shri Shankara did establish was monastries of the vedantin uttaramimansaka schools, not establishments of the purvamimansaka ritual followers.
So far it appears that in the past, a sadhu was a renunciate, a purvamimansaka was a ritualist, a brahman was one who attained brahman, a vipra was a theologician vedantin, and so on, but the effects of the reform period, and mingling up of people and ideas in the muslim period, jumbled up the practices of what came to be called present day brahmins.
As regards the vedic brahmins, no one can say for sure who they were. The upanishads were supposedly not written by dharmashastra followers or purvamimansa ritualists, the agamas were supposedly witten by purvamimansa ritualists, several shakhas were lost, and each time a system came to exist based on what was available at that time, 'brahmins' in the buddhist system (who probably were purva ritualists turned buddhist turned dharmashastra followers) became incorporated as brahmins into the hindu system.
Now comes the confusion part of who is a brahmin, is varna by birth or not, and are selective scriptures applicable now. Obviously the system has undergone very many chages. Populations mixed and merged. Old was carried into the new, with some modifications. Changes in the system were either accounted for or unaccounted for, based on whether they happened due to circumstances (as they did during the mughal period), or based on changes made voluntarily by ppl (as they did in the post-buddhist period). But obviously practices were influenced and underwent changes..
And if one were to find an answer to the varna by birth question, then i think that won't be resolved as long as a class tries to represent all definitions of a 'brahmin', of various schools with each of its practices, as it was in different periods of time.
If one were to settle these issues, they probably may need to seperete each school for what it represented, at each period of time. That probably wud either not be possible or wud be troublesome. But it does create confusion, since the practices came to be merged. Bhiksha to a purva follower remains a symbolic practice during upanayanam, probably borrowed from the old monastic traditions and not followed in practice.
However, if instructions given about 'following dharma', were to be a mix of both schools, it does create confusion for a present day stance, like now (in the present time) should a 'brahmin' be a bhikshuk following the monastic traditions, or should he be a paid ritualist like the purva ritual followers?
Quite a dilemma.
in what ways do you think one needs to "concentrate on present deeds and shape the future destiny" ?
