I am posting some views from Kanchi Paramacharya on the fall of brahminism and would like to know your views
Who is Responsible for the Decay of Varna Dharma? from the Chapter "The Vedic Religion And Varna Dharma", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org:
The Brahmin relinquished the duties of his birth-the study of the Vedas and performance of the rites laid down in the Vedic tradition. He left his birthplace, the village, for the town. He cropped his hair and started dressing in European style. Giving up the Vedas, he took to the Mundane learning of the West. He fell to the lure of jobs offered by his white master and aped him in dress, manners and attitudes. He threw to the winds the noble dharma he had inherited from the Vedic seers through his forefathers and abandoned all for a mess of pottage. He was drawn to everything Western, science, life-style, entertainment.
The canonical texts have it that the Brahmin must have no love for money, that he must not accumulate wealth. So long as he followed his dharma, as prescribed by the sastras, and so long as he chanted the Vedas and performed sacrifices, he brought good to the world, and all other castes respected him and treated him with affection. In fact they looked upon him as a guide and model.
Others now observed how the Brahmin changed, how his life-style had become different with all its glitter and show and how he went about with all the pretence of having risen on the scale of civilization. The Brahmin had been an ideal for them in all that is noble, but how he strayed from the path of dharma; and following his example they too gave up their traditional vocations that had brought them happiness and contentment, and left their native village to settle in towns. Like the Brahmin they became keen to learn English and secure jobs in the government.
Dear Shri Subbudu,
I observe that HH Shri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathy, (CS) the auothor has omitted one vital aspect from the whole discussion given above. That is, the relevance of the Vedas and Sastras, the chanting of the vedas and performance of sacrifices, etc., as perceived in modern times. It it true that the priesthood of the vedic society was somehow able to convince itself and also make the other three wings of the vedic society (the Kshatriya, the Vaisya and the Sudra) also get convinced, or at least, to accept that the duties of the priesthood were most sacrosanct and necessary for the well-being of the world and that any questioning of this axiomatic truth will invite drastic punishments. But today, the situation is drastically different and, there will be only a small percentage of brahmins who sincerely and honestly believe the above axiom, imo. This change, according to me, is due in the main to the increase in Man's scientific knowledge and the widening of his rational horizon.
Let us assume, as CS has done, that the brahmins (of TN) had not been lured by the "mess of pottage" and had stuck to the way of life prescribed by the Sastras, and led a simple life, do you expect that all the other castes/varnas would necessarily and without fail, have taken the cue from those brahmins and stuck to the old-fashioned social equations within the Hindu society and also would have continued to perform their Sastra-divined occupation/avocations? I for one, do not at all think so.
On the contrary, it is my considered view that the Tamil brahmins from the present-day TN and Kerala (Palghat) must have been quite aware of the changes taking place gradually all around, and hence they sensed that their time-honoured vedadhyayanam, teaching of vedas, yajanam, yaajanam, etc., would not any longer be acceptable to the society at large and their future would be quite bleak if they believe the sastraic injunctions implicitly, and so they decided to stray away into other (and non-brahmanic) ways of livelihood to avoid starvation. Possibly, the lure for (more) money and creature comforts might have lured away more and more brahmins in this way, as time went by.
It is also an unsubstantiated statement when CS says, "The Brahmin had been an ideal for them in all that is noble, but how he strayed from the path of dharma; and following his example they too gave up their traditional vocations that had brought them happiness and contentment, and left their native village to settle in towns." There is no evidence to support this which is at best the author's subjective opinion.
For thousands of years the Brahmin had been engaged in Atmic pursuit and intellectual work. In the beginning all his mental faculties were employed for the welfare of society and not in the least for his own selfish advancement. Because of this very spirit of self-sacrifice, his intelligence became sharp like a razor constantly kept honed. Now the welfare of society is no longer the goal of his efforts and his intelligence has naturally dimmed due to this selfishness and interest in things worldly. He had been blessed with a bright intellect and he had the grace of the Lord to carry out the duties of his birth. Now, after forsaking his dharma, it is natural that his intellectual keenness should become blunted.
It is very difficult to substantiate the statement in the first sentence above. What evidence is there to show that the
brahmins had been using all their "mental faculties" for the welfare of society and not for his own selfish advancemen? From what little is known, the Brahmins were doing yajanam and yaajanam mainly and for that purpose they learnt the veda/Vedas and also created specialties under the priestly occupation
so as to make the whole sacrifice a more and more elaborate and intricate, not easily understood, ritual. This perhaps helped the Brahmins of those days to convince the gullible public that the vedic sacrifices were the actual pillars which supported the very existence of the universe (yajñādbhavanti bhūtāni…etc.) and the Brahmins, in turn, tended to believe in that story as truth. In fact, however, the Brahmins lived as a community of priests, held as the highest layer of society and called “bhūsuras” (devas in this mortal world) and were supported and financed by the other two “dvija” castes.
Where did the Brahmin use his mental faculty for the “welfare of society”, except in his make-believe justification of his own existence and superiority to others (BTW, I am glad that CS himself admits this superiority in these words,
“But, on the other hand, though he spoke the language of equality, he kept aloof from other castes thinking himself to be superior to them.”)
Due to sheer momentum the bicycle keeps going some distance even after you stop pedalling. Similarly, though the Brahmin seeks knowledge of mundane subjects instead of inner light, he retains yet a little intellectual brightness as a result of the "pedalling" done by his forefathers. It is because of this that he has been able to achieve remarkable progress in Western learning also. He has acquired expert knowledge in the practices of the West, in its law and its industries. Indeed he has gained such insights into these subjects and mastered their finer points so remarkably well that he can give lessons to the white man himself in them.
Is there any scientific evidence for any of the above averments, except the authority of CS himself?
A question that arises in this context is how Vedic studies which had not suffered much even during Muslim rule received a severe set-back with the advent of the European. One reason is the impact of the new sciences and the machines that came with the white man. Granted that many a truth was revealed through these sciences- and this was all to the good up to a point. But we must remember that the knowledge of a subject per se is one thing and how we use it in practice ins another.
Here I find CS admitting to the waning of the influence of the old brahministic influence on the other forward castes due to the influence of science and advent of modern technology. But admitting that would defeat his agenda and so he tries to qualify his unwitting admissions with subsequent saving clauses.
Up till now all members of society had their hereditary jobs to do and they did not have to worry about their livelihood. Now, with the example of the Brahmin before them, members of other castes also gave up their traditional occupations for the jobs made available by the British in the banks, railways, collectorates, etc. With the introduction of machinery our handicrafts fell into decay and many of our artisans had to look for other means of livelihood. In the absence of any demarcation in the matter of work and workers, there arose competition for jobs for the first time in the country. It was a disastrous development and it generated jealousy, ill-will, disputes and a host of other evils among people who had hitherto lived in harmony.
As if to exacerbate this ill-will, the Brahmin took one more disastrous step. On the one hand he gave up the dharma of his caste and joined hands with the British in condemning the old order by branching it a barbarous one in which one man exploited another. But, on the other hand, though he spoke the language of equality, he kept aloof from other castes thinking himself to be superior to them. If in the past he had not mixed physically with members of other castes, it did not mean that he had placed himself on a high pedestal. we must remember that there was a reason for his not coming into physical contact with other castes. There have to be differences between the jatis based on food, work and surroundings. The photographer needs a dark room to develop his films. To shoot a film, on the contrary, powerful lights are needed. Those who work in a factory canteen have to scrupulously clean; but those who dust machinery wear soiled clothes. This does not mean that the waiter in a canteen is superior to the factory hand who dusts machines. The man who takes the utmost care to keep himself intellectually bright, without any thought of himself, observes fasts, while the soldier, who has to be strong and tough, eats meat.
CS says practically what the self-loathing, anti-brahmin, neo non-brahmin lobby here in this Forum, say often, viz., blaming the Brahmins themselves for their downfall. But ideas like an ideal society ruled by the Dharma is a product of his idealistic imagination.
With urbanization and industrialization it becomes necessary for people belonging to various jatis to work together on the same shift, sit together in the same canteen to eat the same kind of food. The Brahmin for whom it is obligatory to observe fasts and vows and to perform various rites was now seen to be no different from others. Office and college timings were a hindrance to the carrying out of these rites. So the Brahmin threw them to the winds. He had so far taken care to perform these rites with the good of others in mind. Like a trustee, he had protected dharma for the sake of society and made its fruits available to all.
All that belonged to the past. Now the Brahmin came forward proclaiming that all were equal and that he was one with the rest. All the same he became the cause of heart-burning among others and -ironically enough- in becoming one with them he also competed with them for jobs. That apart, though he talked of equality, he still thought himself to be superior to others, in spite of the fact that he was not a bit more careful than they about the performance of religious duties. Was this not enough to earn him more hatred?
I wonder whether Brahmins could have been any more capable of being
“a bit more careful than they about the performance of religious duties”, given the difficulties in modern urban living conditions.
