Brahmin-Is it by birth?

[suvarchas]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

This is a very core issue nagging us and all modern secularists who are quoting umpteen sources( whether right or wrong we do not know) to prove that it is by Guna or qualities.

A cursory reading of the epics prove that it is by birth and birth alone.Modern reformers starting from Gandhi and others tried hard to prove that Varna and caste are different.They are difrenet.But the classic episodes in Ramayana and Mahabharatha prove beyond doubt that caste tag is attched by birth.
1.In Ramayana when a shudra does a penance and as a result of which a brahmin youth dies,Rama slays that Shudra staing he has no right to do penance.Why did not Rama grant him the right to be a brahmin based on his Guna?Modern guys conveniently forget all these episodes and quote some dubious sources with misinterpretations
2.In Mahabharatha so many episodes prove that birth alone is the criterion
When Karna acted as a Brahmin to get boons of ashtra from Parashurama,he was stung by a bee when his guru was lying down resting on Karna's lap.When Parashurama found that he immediately reacted stating that Karna could not be a brahmin who was incapable of bearing a pain which means Gunas are dependant on varna and not other wise in general.There would be exceptions but such cases would not be a general rule for the fear of breaking the social order.A classic case is also of Ekalyva who broke the tradition of learing an art without a Guru and paid a price for that
3 Again in Drona's case when Pandavas chided him for taking up of fighting Pandavas in war which was against tradition,Krishna did not rebuke them that it was as per his Guna.This instance also proves that Livelihood was only by birth
4.Other incidental proofs in shastras are that certain karmas like Choula karma of keeping Shika for brahmins are prescribed at the age of three.Is i possible to decide the guna of a three year old kid?

 

[s007bala]

re

This is a very core issue nagging us and all modern secularists who are quoting umpteen sources( whether right or wrong we do not know) to prove that it is by Guna or qualities.

A cursory reading of the epics prove that it is by birth and birth alone.Modern reformers starting from Gandhi and others tried hard to prove that Varna and caste are different.They are difrenet.But the classic episodes in Ramayana and Mahabharatha prove beyond doubt that caste tag is attched by birth.
1.In Ramayana when a shudra does a penance and as a result of which a brahmin youth dies,Rama slays that Shudra staing he has no right to do penance.Why did not Rama grant him the right to be a brahmin based on his Guna?Modern guys conveniently forget all these episodes and quote some dubious sources with misinterpretations
2.In Mahabharatha so many episodes prove that birth alone is the criterion
When Karna acted as a Brahmin to get boons of ashtra from Parashurama,he was stung by a bee when his guru was lying down resting on Karna's lap.When Parashurama found that he immediately reacted stating that Karna could not be a brahmin who was incapable of bearing a pain which means Gunas are dependant on varna and not other wise in general.There would be exceptions but such cases would not be a general rule for the fear of breaking the social order.A classic case is also of Ekalyva who broke the tradition of learing an art without a Guru and paid a price for that
3 Again in Drona's case when Pandavas chided him for taking up of fighting Pandavas in war which was against tradition,Krishna did not rebuke them that it was as per his Guna.This instance also proves that Livelihood was only by birth
4.Other incidental proofs in shastras are that certain karmas like Choula karma of keeping Shika for brahmins are prescribed at the age of three.Is i possible to decide the guna of a three year old kid?

suvarchas

while its convenient to project puranas,ithihasas,shastras...etc in a way suitable to our thinking-,but,in 5111 Kali Yugam,things are different in society globally.I agree with your debate to some extent only,as,; if a child born in a family of brahmanas is raised in a tradition,customs of a brahmana living,its possible the for the child to attain 'brahman'.

there are innumerable instances of puranic lore,which also has said,despite being born as shudra,vaishya,kshatriya family,a child can still attain 'brahman'.these are of course exception to the rule.

so,for easier attainment of a particular trait to be pre-dominant, ie shudra,vaishya,kshatriya,brahmana=if one adheres to living in a certain manner or be trained in a particular trait,its possible to be that trait of personality,by the grace of god and society.

its only a societal make up which allows determinations.in todays india,with science as building block for education not gurukula system,you cannot have the vedic system to prevail.even after graduating from gurukula system,how will they continue in grihastashrama?how will they maintain a family for progeny is equally important aspect of life.

so,our gurus whats they decide for us,shud be accepted without any conditionality.that also is in extreme danger,as displayed in chennai with kanchi gurus and other gurus elsewhere.so,gurudom is in danger or sanathana dharma aka hinduism is in danger.beware.

sb

 

[sapr333]

Suvarchas>> Brahmin-Is it by birth?>>>

Out of the 850Mn hindus of this day, I havent heard any single hindu untouchable becoming a Brahmin because of his gunas. In that context, you statement could be right.

A word of caution.. Any thing isolated based upon 'Birth", also, fits in to the subclause of Racism.. So, please tread carefully!!!

 

[happyhindu]

This is a very core issue nagging us and all modern secularists who are quoting umpteen sources( whether right or wrong we do not know) to prove that it is by Guna or qualities.

A cursory reading of the epics prove that it is by birth and birth alone.Modern reformers starting from Gandhi and others tried hard to prove that Varna and caste are different.They are difrenet.But the classic episodes in Ramayana and Mahabharatha prove beyond doubt that caste tag is attched by birth.
1.In Ramayana when a shudra does a penance and as a result of which a brahmin youth dies,Rama slays that Shudra staing he has no right to do penance.Why did not Rama grant him the right to be a brahmin based on his Guna?Modern guys conveniently forget all these episodes and quote some dubious sources with misinterpretations
2.In Mahabharatha so many episodes prove that birth alone is the criterion
When Karna acted as a Brahmin to get boons of ashtra from Parashurama,he was stung by a bee when his guru was lying down resting on Karna's lap.When Parashurama found that he immediately reacted stating that Karna could not be a brahmin who was incapable of bearing a pain which means Gunas are dependant on varna and not other wise in general.There would be exceptions but such cases would not be a general rule for the fear of breaking the social order.A classic case is also of Ekalyva who broke the tradition of learing an art without a Guru and paid a price for that
3 Again in Drona's case when Pandavas chided him for taking up of fighting Pandavas in war which was against tradition,Krishna did not rebuke them that it was as per his Guna.This instance also proves that Livelihood was only by birth
4.Other incidental proofs in shastras are that certain karmas like Choula karma of keeping Shika for brahmins are prescribed at the age of three.Is i possible to decide the guna of a three year old kid?

Dear Suvarchas,

Please note that its not the secularists alone that say varna is not by birth. It is the various monastic traditions of India that say varna is not by birth.

Till date, one can differentiate b/w only two groups:

1) Brahmanical mutts that say varna is by birth. This in fact seems to be the very basis on which they were established.

2) Mutts and Ashrams that say varna is not by birth. The ekadandi sampradaya (on which the kanchi mutt and the 4 mutts established by Adi Shankara are based) does not recognize varna by birth. It recognizes jati or heredity occupation by birth, but is based on the fact that brahman can be realized by anyone. However, the Kanchi and Shankara mutts interpret varna as by birth. This appears to be the main reason why affiliation of the dasanamis / ekadandis with these brahmanical mutts are most minimal. None of the yoga schools consider varna by birth either.

Please also note that the interpretation of the scriptures of the monastic traditions, yoga schools and brahmanical schools concerning nearly all scripture / texts are the same; except varna.

While the rest of the lot do not interpret varna as by birth, it is only the brahmanical mutts that interpret it to be so.

The reason is that a man in the service of god as a priest need not attain brahman, a man feeding fire in the hope of attaining brahman need not attain brahman (as per brahmasutra), but a man toiling away in a field can be a brahman-realized soul.

If the alwars and nayamars were to be classified by the monastic schools, they wud call all of them as brahmin. But if they were to be classified by a brahmanical mutt, they wud be seperated based on occupation. The monastic and yoga schools considered occupations as heredity and handed down thru generation, not the realization of brahman.

Regards.

 

[sapr333]

so,our gurus whats they decide for us,shud be accepted without any conditionality.that also is in extreme danger,as displayed in chennai with kanchi gurus and other gurus elsewhere.so,gurudom is in danger or sanathana dharma aka hinduism is in danger.beware.

sb

Matter of fact, most of the Acharyas support Suvarchas point of view.. Be it Puri or Sringeri..

The Untouchables ARE NOT HINDUS!" So says THE SHANKARACHARYA OF PURI (India Express, April 4, 1989)

PS: I have not checked this with Indian Express archives..

 

[KRS]

Dear suvarchas Ji,

This topic has been covered extensively in the past couple of years in this very Forum. Please go back and read the applicable topics, which are many.

There are serious differences of opinion among the Hindu luminaries. Majority view currently seems to side with what the Srutis (Vedas & Upanishads) seem to say - that a Brahmin is by guna attained by rigorous training.

Without the attendant training required to be a Brahmn, such a question like this is meaningless. Your citing of later Smritis do not say that a Brahmin is by birth alone - they only describe the customs in existence at the time of writing. By the way, you need to also know that your citation of what Sri Rama did is contained in Uttara Kanda, whose authorship is now disputed as being not written by Valmiki, but added much later on by someone.

This issue of Varna by birth is not likely to be settled definitively one way or another any time soon within our religion.

Dear sapr333 Ji,

I do not understand the import of your posting. Do you mean to say that as TBs we have no right to discuss this issue because it is 'racism?'. Why would Dalits be offended by this? Are you not trying to limit an important discussion within our community? I can be proud to be a 'born' brahmin, while at the same time address the Dalit discrimination issue, which I have said should be viewed as an issue for ALL Hindus.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sapr333]

Dear suvarchas Ji,



Dear sapr333 Ji,

I do not understand the import of your posting.

1)) Do you mean to say that as TBs we have no right to discuss this issue because it is 'racism?'.

2))Why would Dalits be offended by this? Are you not trying to limit an important discussion within our community?

33)) I can be proud to be a 'born' brahmin, while at the same time address the Dalit discrimination issue, which I have said should be viewed as an issue for ALL Hindus.

11) I really welcome that. This is the key issue which U.N and recently (last week) scandinavians are raising it as an issue about India. I truly welcome someone who debates this in public, than brushing it under the carpet..I appreciate your point of view.

22) I would ask you this way.. Pls ponder,what makes dalits to get offended? If you could convince every one with your ideology, in line with Human Rights,Value for life, Sociality,Practicality,equality....why not!! I welcome this too.

33)) Yes , glad,you are proud of being a Brahmin.. In the same tone, please also work for making an untouchable to believe that he is also proud of himself being an untouchable or dalit.. If so, and if you have made a dalit be proud of himself comparatively against all his upper castes, I think, you have won your mission..
Regards,
KRS

PS: Pls dont address me with suffix 'Ji'... its just a virtual forum, and I dont need/command any adjective respects..Thanks

 

[sapr333]

I think, Suvarcha has a very valid point... Being on last line, it skipped out of my eyes..

He asks a good logical question... Is it possible to guage the guna of an unborn child ?

 

[KRS]

sapr333, will do.

PS: Pls dont address me with suffix 'Ji'... its just a virtual forum, and I dont need/command any adjective respects..Thanks

My response in 'red':

11) I really welcome that. This is the key issue which U.N and recently (last week) scandinavians are raising it as an issue about India. I truly welcome someone who debates this in public, than brushing it under the carpet..I appreciate your point of view.
But this particular posting has nothing to do with what the UN and the Scandinavians are discussing - just by talking whether a person is born a brahmin does not imply any discrimination to anyone else. Am I missing something here?

22) I would ask you this way.. Pls ponder,what makes dalits to get offended? If you could convince every one with your ideology, in line with Human Rights,Value for life, Sociality,Practicality,equality....why not!! I welcome this too.
As I have pointed out elsewhere (after much pondering), I have said that the Dalits have every reason to be offended as they are discriminated by a lot of our brothers (not just Brahmins) in various ways and are made to feel that they are not part of Hinduism (even today). Why would then a discussion of import about whether a brahmin is by birth in the religious real should offend anyone?

This is a religious issue. What you are talking about in equality etc. are social issues. You seem to be confusing the two. If a Brahmin today wants to practice whatever he thinks is correct without discriminating or hurting others, what is wrong with this? I would defend anyone's right to practice what he/she considers his/her dharma as long as it is not illegal or immoral or untenable. We can not just ram rod social reforms on people with genuine faith in their religion from the social concept and equate their orthodoxy with being discriminatory or racist.

33)) Yes , glad,you are proud of being a Brahmin.. In the same tone, please also work for making an untouchable to believe that he is also proud of himself being an untouchable or dalit.. If so, and if you have made a dalit be proud of himself comparatively against all his upper castes, I think, you have won your mission..
I happen to believe in what you say the mission is and do privately what I believe in. But please do not ask everyone to undertake such initiatives because these are personal issues. Just because a person says that he is a Jathi Brahmin and does not want to work for the advancement of a Dalit does not automatically make him a bad person. As long as he/she does not hurt anyone else, let him/her be. The crux of the problem in both sides is the non acceptance of deeply held beliefs by either side. Religion is emotional and cultural. You are not going to change people's hearts by calling them names.

Regards,
Ram

 

[KRS]

sapr333,

Please read his posting again - he is talikng about the guna of a 3 year old, not an unborn child.

Maha Periaval of Kanchi has used this as an argument to say that a brahmin is by birth. His concern was for the boy to be educated/trained to be a 'full' brahmin and the 'cultural' atmosphere existing in a brahmin household will greatly aid this. His ultimate concern was to preserve our Vedas and other handed down religious gems for the future.

Regards,
KRS

I think, Suvarcha has a very valid point... Being on last line, it skipped out of my eyes..

He asks a good logical question... Is it possible to guage the guna of an unborn child ?

 

[happyhindu]

Suvarchas>> Brahmin-Is it by birth?>>>

1) Out of the 850Mn hindus of this day, I havent heard any single hindu untouchable becoming a Brahmin because of his gunas. In that context, you statement could be right.

2) A word of caution.. Any thing isolated based upon 'Birth", also, fits in to the subclause of Racism.. So, please tread carefully!!!

1) Not true. So-called untouchables have become 'brahmins' or brahman-ralized because of gunas. Here is a list of so-called backward caste saints: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lower-caste_Hindu_saints#Backward-caste_Sants

The wiki definition of a saint-plus-backward-caste wud be as described by a brahmanical mutt. For monastic traditions, there is no such thing as a 'backward-caste'.

So, it really depends on where or how you (wish to) look.

2) This by-birth theory is a 2-pronged issue. I do not think it amounts to racism. To corroborate this am giving a brief outline of scriptural references that created the two sections, those that go by-birth and those that go not-by-birth.

As mentioned in a previous thread earlier, there is no mention of untouchability in the vedas. It comes mainly with the dharmasutras.

There are various dharmasutras that carry various injunctions. Ex: gautama dharmasutra su.12.4 says that if a shudra happens to hear the vedas then his ears be filled with lead and lac, if a shudra utters the vedas, his tongue be cut off and if he were to commit the vedas to memory than his body be cut into pieces.

However, the same dharmasutra mentions of people moving from one class to another. Some scholars therefore think that such injunctions (in various dharmasutras) cud be interpolations.

But such injunctions got quoted by Sri Adi Shankara in his Brahma Sutra bhashyam which also (almost fully) concluded that a shudra has no right to knowledge thru the vedas, and that (near conclusion) was based predominantly on the dharmasutras.

To some sections, it seems that the interpolated parts in dharmashastras happened from 2BC to 6AD during the time when various present-day caste frameworks were formed. And by the time Sri Adi Shankara reestablished hindu religion and the 4 mutts, the supposedly-interpolated sections (of untouchability) were already being followed in certain geographical regions.

However, there is no evidence of any of those 'scriptural' punishments ever having been followed, they were merely meant to be detterents (there are quite a few reasons given for why they were meant to be deterrents at that time).

Adding to the dharmatexts, a section beleives that the upanishads were also interpolated (ex: taitrriya.s.7.i.1.6 says a shudra is unfit for performing sacrifices). It is also said that during this time (the time of chaotic migratory patterns in the subcontinent), the attainment of brahman came to be equated with the means, that is, if a man were to perform yagnyas, then he wud attain brahmanhood (purva mimansa school).

At the same time, the upanishad and yoga schools were following a different viewpoint. To them there is no guarantee that a man with fire or ahavaniya wud become brahman realized. To the yoga school, the fire lit outside signified the fire of the atman within, and feeding the fire was equivalent to feeding the body oxygyen (fuel). To them the act of breathing in a particular way was the yagya and that caused moksham or brahman realization and not the fire lit outside. This was the opposite of what the Purva mimansaka school (Jaimini, et al) held.

So, the hindu schools just continued to grow in 2-directions. While the brahmanical mutts hold varna is by birth, the other monastic traditions (includes units like arya samaj, sivananda ashram, kriya yoga groups, etc) did not consider that realizing brahman depended on the occupation. Each of the bi-directional school of thot have / had their own set of practices, both of which insist that rigorously applying them will result in moksham or brahman-realization.

Lets put it this way. These 2-versions of by-birth and not-by-birth have come to exist for a reason. Both versions have their own explanations, and if we are judging, then some of them may seem right, some not right. (to me) both are god designed and will exist for a reason. So, personally to me, both are right.

The only prob comes with insistence. If a brahmin-mutt-affiliated-'brahmin' insists that "only we are brahmins", then the yoga / upanishad school can very well reflect the same insistence by being stuck on the opposite. So, when both argue, it cud seem to a bystander that how crazy these ppl are, they argue as though they they have a patent on attaining brahmanhood. The differences in approach by different schools are conveniently overlooked, but the injunctions become used as bashing sticks by those who wish to paint the entire faith in a negative light.

Actually, (to me) its all just a farce...hindusim has provided ample opportunities for anyone to seek brahman in whichever way they wish to..natural sanskritization has always been happening..and ppl had always been able to pursue what they wished to, even in the past, no matter how much of a deterrent any injunction had been or was meant to be....

Regards.

ps - truly, who knows god except god, who knows brahman except brahman. had put in the diary - ka:shaknoti avadharyati brahman vina kevalam brahman [who can ascertain brahman except (without) brahman alone ?]

 

[suvarchas]

Dear Suvarchas,

Please note that its not the secularists alone that say varna is not by birth. It is the various monastic traditions of India that say varna is not by birth.

Till date, one can differentiate b/w only two groups:

1) Brahmanical mutts that say varna is by birth. This in fact seems to be the very basis on which they were established.

2) Mutts and Ashrams that say varna is not by birth. The ekadandi sampradaya (on which the kanchi mutt and the 4 mutts established by Adi Shankara are based) does not recognize varna by birth. It recognizes jati or heredity occupation by birth, but is based on the fact that brahman can be realized by anyone. However, the Kanchi and Shankara mutts interpret varna as by birth. This appears to be the main reason why affiliation of the dasanamis / ekadandis with these brahmanical mutts are most minimal. None of the yoga schools consider varna by birth either.

Please also note that the interpretation of the scriptures of the monastic traditions, yoga schools and brahmanical schools concerning nearly all scripture / texts are the same; except varna.

While the rest of the lot do not interpret varna as by birth, it is only the brahmanical mutts that interpret it to be so.

The reason is that a man in the service of god as a priest need not attain brahman, a man feeding fire in the hope of attaining brahman need not attain brahman (as per brahmasutra), but a man toiling away in a field can be a brahman-realized soul.

If the alwars and nayamars were to be classified by the monastic schools, they wud call all of them as brahmin. But if they were to be classified by a brahmanical mutt, they wud be seperated based on occupation. The monastic and yoga schools considered occupations as heredity and handed down thru generation, not the realization of brahman.

Regards.

Varna and castes are different.Castes are the outcome of the various intervarna marriages like anuloma and pratiloma which has been prevalent from time immeorial.
Anuloma marriages are between higher varna man and lower varna woman.Pratiloma is the other way round.Jaatis were the result of such marriages .Children born out of pratiloma were condemned generally(Iam only talking of the past history)
In Viswamithra's case ,any Srividhya upasaka would know the story of Kaadi vidhya and haadi vidhya where Viswamithra was a case of womb transplant after knowing which Vasishta accepted him as a Brahmin
Great souls and saintly persons were born in all varnas and were venerated but they were not considered as Brahmins like Nammazhwar,Appar,Sekkizhar,Suta pauranika.Similarly not all rishis were from Brahminfold and they were always treated a class apart.In all such cases they never took to Brahmin dharma,but they were respected for their piety and knowledge

 

[happyhindu]

Varna and castes are different.Castes are the outcome of the various intervarna marriages like anuloma and pratiloma which has been prevalent from time immeorial.
Anuloma marriages are between higher varna man and lower varna woman.Pratiloma is the other way round.Jaatis were the result of such marriages .Children born out of pratiloma were condemned generally(Iam only talking of the past history)
In Viswamithra's case ,any Srividhya upasaka would know the story of Kaadi vidhya and haadi vidhya where Viswamithra was a case of womb transplant after knowing which Vasishta accepted him as a Brahmin
Great souls and saintly persons were born in all varnas and were venerated but they were not considered as Brahmins like Nammazhwar,Appar,Sekkizhar,Suta pauranika.Similarly not all rishis were from Brahminfold and they were always treated a class apart.In all such cases they never took to Brahmin dharma,but they were respected for their piety and knowledge

Suvarchas,

This is the explanation i have come across from brahmins of brahmanical mutts. If you ask a non-brahmanical ashram, they will explain it in another way. Am not inclined to judge who is right or not. It will be an endless argument.

All that apart, but again i do not know what is the context of "time immemorial" used here (reg anuloma, pratiloma).

During the neolithic, everyone was settling from hunting to farming; and language was developing. And i beleive all indians and all humans worldwide come from those hunters and farmers. Culture developed in layers, by intermixing.

All these ideas of accepting who as who is certainly not from "time immemorial" (to me).

Regards.

 

[sapr333]

1) Not true. So-called untouchables have become 'brahmins' or brahman-ralized because of gunas. Here is a list of so-called backward caste saints: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lower-caste_Hindu_saints#Backward-caste_Sants

]

HappyHindu, I have gone through the links.. Before clicking,I thought, there would be a huge list of some 3-5 crore Sants!!....Jokingly

Imagine, tomorrow when our children after learning PPM(Part Per Million), Data analysis, comes to you and ask a question...

Dad!! Those data seems to be very ancient and doest seems to give any convincing numerical figures to prove your point!!..

Now,(in this day) why we couldnt find/pick/choose/annoit someone amongst the huge populace of 850Mn ? Do you mean the whole mass lack gunas?

Or else, we should accept the point of handle Suvarcha.. "Yes, it by birth, not guna alone"

PS: Im missing bala here.. He is been banned

 

[happyhindu]

HappyHindu, I have gone through the links.. Before clicking,I thought, there would be a huge list of some 3-5 crore Sants!!....Jokingly

Imagine, tomorrow when our children after learning PPM(Part Per Million), Data analysis, comes to you and ask a question...

Dad!! Those data seems to be very ancient..

Now,(in this day) why we couldnt find/pick/choose/annoit someone amongst the huge populace of 850Mn ? Do you the whole mass lack gunas?

Or else, we should accept the point of handle Suvarcha.. "Yes, it by birth, not guna alone"

PS: Im missing bala here.. He is been banned

Its not possible for the whole mass to lack gunas or qualities that cause a man to seek brahman.

Right from Mahavtar Babaji to Narayana guru - did they lack gunas?

Am not sure i understood suvarchas' idea of "by birth, not guna alone".

If he means to say someone is already brahmin by birth even if his gunas are not ok (meaning even if he steals, murders, etc), then it is rather similar (but not exactly) like a christian thinking he will go to heaven since he is baptized no matter what mistake he commits.

If he means to say a man is already brahmin by birth, then how come 'brahmins' are born...because according to manusmrithi, if a brahmin does all his required duties, he will get moksham...then how come brahmin are not getting moksham but are being born...

Even the brahmasutra declares anuvritti..shabdath, meaning there is no return for released souls, which Sri Adi Shankara accepts, so how come brahmins are being born, if they are supposed to have got moksham? (i did look for the answer, but i will reply after suvarchas replies to this).

Regards.

 

[KRS]

From one of the greatest Hindus the following words came:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_C...Volume_4/Writings:_Prose/Aryans_and_Tamilians

Regards,
KRS

 

[sapr333]

Its not possible for the whole mass to lack gunas or qualities that cause a man to seek brahman.

Right from Mahavtar Babaji to Narayana guru - did they lack gunas?

.

Happy Hindu, you have a good social answer.. I agree..
But..But.. Babaji, Narayana Guru, Kriubananda warriar,Satya Sai Babha, Mata Amrytamai are all not Brahmins right, according to social context.

Yes, we can frame a spiritual definition for Brahmins based on one's guna. May be God knows who is true brahmin and who is not.. But, what handle Suvarcha's idea of Brahmin is purely worldly matter.. Something by birth..

To have a neutral view, I would say, there are 2 versions of Brahmins.. One is a Brahmin of social context, some one gets ordained by birth..And there is someone, who dont sport a holy thread across torso, but still he is a Brahmin in the eyes of God, based upon his guna.

I think the problem gets solved, once we define a seperate nomenclature for these two different species..

 

[sapr333]

Varna and castes are different.Castes are the outcome of the various intervarna marriages like anuloma and pratiloma which has been prevalent from time immeorial.
Anuloma marriages are between higher varna man and lower varna woman.Pratiloma is the other way round.Jaatis were the result of such marriages .Children born out of pratiloma were condemned generally(Iam only talking of the past history)

Suvarcha, would you agree with my definition that,

Brahmins are identified just by birth, just like black/white/yellow/almond eyes/blue blood/scandinavians/aryans/dravidians/native indians etc etc...And its just another human race identified by birth, and has nothing to do with "Guna"...
If so, Im with you.

 

[KRS]

sapr333,

Some present day gurus describe 3 kinds of 'Brahmins'.
1. 'Jathi Brahmana' - born in to a particular Brahmin caste
2. 'Guna Brahmana' - one who exhibits the sattvic qualities expected of a Brahmin (irrespective of birth)
3. 'Jnana Brahmana' - one who has achieve Jnanam, the ultimate objective of a human being.

Regards,
KRS

To have a neutral view, I would say, there are 2 versions of Brahmins.. One is a Brahmin of social context, some one gets ordained by birth..And there is someone, who dont sport a holy thread across torso, but still he is a Brahmin in the eyes of God, based upon his guna.

I think the problem gets solved, once we define a seperate nomenclature for these two different species..

 

[sapr333]

2) This by-birth theory is a 2-pronged issue. I do not think it amounts to racism. To corroborate this am giving a brief outline of scriptural references that created the two sections, those that go by-birth and those that go not-by-birth

I remember one of the interesting points shared by handle Nacchinarkinian in some other thread.. He said, ''look, its our culture, and we enjoy Idli and vada, whats the problem... Take Jaathi as culture and identity, which every person has..'' I fully agree with him.. Spaniards/Irish/Yorkshirians do have their own identity and maintain that.. For eg, Cricketer Jeoffrey Boycott often jokes in pride about his Yorkshire accent...Crikit..Huhndreds..etc. They do carry this by birth, but they dont come under the definition of racism.

The problem here is, when we add Guna to a Brahmin... Being good/guna/better moral than the other/better learned than other by birth, doest come by birth. If any group claims such thing , as ordained quality by birth, then it amounts to racism..

I think, handle Suvarcha needs to clarify this.

 

[sapr333]

sapr333,

Some present day gurus describe 3 kinds of 'Brahmins'.
1. 'Jathi Brahmana' - born in to a particular Brahmin caste
2. 'Guna Brahmana' - one who exhibits the sattvic qualities expected of a Brahmin (irrespective of birth)
3. 'Jnana Brahmana' - one who has achieve Jnanam, the ultimate objective of a human being.

Regards,
KRS

The question here is not what present day guru or my guru says.. Each one can have their own views and interpretations..So...

Lets set our discussion keeping Veda/Upanishad as Stratum.. I think, im sharing handle HappyHindus' view here..

 

[KRS]

sapr333,

If you hold veda/upanishad as a stratum, then this issue of 2 kinds of brahmins does not arise.

What Srimathi HH Ji has written is the evolution of an interpretation only and is in no way different from what I have written.

I wrote what I wrote to extrapolate/supplement what she has written.

Regards,
KRS

 

[happyhindu]

Sapr,

I concur with Sri KRS ji's post.

If you meet with babas of various monastic traditions, incl those considered offbeat like naga babas, then you'd see that all of them consider (and call) themselves brahmins. To them anyone initiated into brahmacharyam is a brahmin. So already those nomenclatures exist.

Also apart from guna, what makes the diff socially, is the occupation.

If one were to go by genes, one wud understand the idea of how behavorial patterns apparently run in families.

If one were to go by past life regressions and understanding of the soul, one wud understand the idea of how the soul seems to come back to similar circumstances, similar family patterns, similar people around them, etc.

The people you work with and the people you commuicate with without seeing them, were all people you once knew if a different avatar in a diff role in a diff lifetime.

Sometimes when you see someone, you like them instantly, you always want to spend time with them...sometimes no matter how much effort you put into a relationship, it just does not work out...is it not because both your 'karmas' are at work?

Therefore, after thinking abt it, yes i do think there are roles of jathi brahmanas, guna brahmanas and jnana brahmanas. (tube lights like me light up slowly)

Moreover, if you were to go by genes, then it is obvious that old population have been carried into new populations.

The old tribal developed brahmanical roles and functions do exist in a diff avatar, in a diff form today. And everybody has lived those lives before. It just seems to depend on what part of the whole sanchita karma has come to act as the prarabdha in the current lifetime..

Ask yourself, why do feel the need and the urge to know god? Why don't you feel the urge to mull over a business idea to make money?

If possible, do read the Starteller issue of last month where an interview is published of a physician named Newton Kondaveti who recalled that he was a budhist acharya teaching in taxila a very long time back.

Regards.

 

[happyhindu]

Sapr,

Reg the interpretations of what the vedas / upanishads say: i put down a line that had written in my diary to give you an idea of how the same sentence can become a 2-pronged understanding.

Just this sentence: ka:shaknoti avadharyati brahman vina kevalam brahman, can be understood in two ways (avadharyati=know/ascertain and vina=except/without):

1) who can know brahman except brahman (alone) ?
2) who can know brahman without brahman ?

The first interpretation cud be understood by one group as "only brahman knows brahman and (therefore) brahman can never be understood".

The second interpretation cud be understood by an other group to mean that "without realization of brahman, one cannot understand brahman".

So, that very easily 2-divergent ideas / schools can be formed.

Sanskrit is sheer poetry, flowing divine like the Mothers Ganga, Goda devi, Saraswati, Sindhu, Narmada, Cauvery..

The prob seems to come when wordly ppl seek to out pressure on a system of knowledge that is meant to flow without dams and other obstructive units..

this pressure ofcourse can affect all the way down to the every single free spirit....just see my various posts...how i have become confused and succumbed to pressure over these months...is it ever possible to keep wordly ppl away from interferring in the hindu ways and paths of knowledge? will the scadinavians and missionaries stop?

 

[sapr333]

Lets wait and see, what Suvercha got to say about all the recent 10 Posts..


>>> after thinking abt it, yes i do think there are roles of jathi brahmanas, guna brahmanas and jnana brahmanas>>

Keeping in mind the Barathiyar's song, "Jaathigal Illaiyadi Paapa", do you agree with the point of abolition of all Jaathis, incl Jathi Brahmin, and hold firmly on the guna/jana brahmnas in terms of vocation/spirituality.


In some other thread, Nacchinarkinian shared a different interesting view, ie, "Jaathi is a culture and identity, so it should remain, and every one would love to hold on to their culture".