Is the Community digging its own grave

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

This thread is primarily about SC weddings and preservation of principles & values embedded in some of the traditions in the future.

I think this thread is not about SC weddings - either in the sense of an SC man marrying an SC woman, nor a tabra man/woman marrying only a person of the complementary sex belonging to SC. My limited understanding of the OP has been that it is about any tabra boy or girl marrying from any caste other than Tabra, and thus it can be a tabra-saiva pillai marriage, a tabra-goundar marriage, tabra-mudaliyar marriage and so on till we come to perhaps the last of the caste groups.

<snip>

In my view Guna based definition does not apply to someone only by birth and hence is universally applicable to anyone in any part of the world.

For people who may have hang ups with Varna names I have nothing more to say. I will not discuss such topics with them out of respect for their wish.

AFA my knowledge goes, Purushasooktam is the earliest available reference to the four varnas or castes, if it is agreed that this sooktam is as old as the rest of the rigvedic corpus (samhitA). (Some scholars are of the view that this chAturvaRNyam came much later and this purushasooktam is a much later interpolation - with more modern sanskrit usage - to justify the subsequent introduction of the four fold classification of society rather than individuals.

BG forms a part of the larger Mahabharata, and this M.Bh. contains many references to show that the classification was birth-based. (In particular I remember Bheeshma's advice to Yudhishtira about various aspects of running the affairs of the country, in which Bheeshma tells that a Shudra should not be allowed to accumulate any wealth except for the purpose of getting yAga/s conducted by brahmins; there are other similar references to all the four categories also.) From the rest of the M.Bh. the idea of "guNa brAhmaNa", guNa kshatriya, etc., does not emerge at all. Hence, for people of normal intelligence, the particular reference in BG IV-13 and subsequent amplifications in verses 18-41 to 44 looks like some new kind of interpretation. But the writers of BG, being subscribers to the caste system, have not forgotten to make Krishna emphasize that all that he had said till then was subject to the birth-based varna system. Look at 18-48 of the BG:—

सहजं कर्म कौन्तॆय सदोषमपि न त्यजेत् ।
सर्वारम्भाहि दोषेण धूमेनाग्निरिवावृताः ॥
sahajaṃ karma kaunteya sadoṣamapi na tyajet |
sarvārambhāhi doṣeṇa dhūmenāgnirivāvṛtāḥ ||

I give below the interpretation of this verse also, according to the "GeetA rahasya" by Bal Gangadhar Tilak for readers' better appreciation:

1. GeetA rahasya by Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

"O son of Kunti! that action which is naturally (by result of birth - the sanskrit word is "sahajam"), "niyata" that is — ordained, Trans. _from the previous SlOka)according to the division of the qualities, such Action, even if improper, should not ever be given up; because all ārambha (that is, activities) are enveloped in (some) fault (or other), as fire in smoke.

It will be clear therefore that even the BG verse IV-13 is subject to the limitation of
sahajaṃ karma (or that karma which is ordained according to one's birth).

Coming to the practicality of guNa varNas, there should be proper methods defined to assess the inherent "guNa" of each person and a proper authority for such assessment & certification. Each one cannot be made the authority to assess and certify the guNa of others, if the society has to go on without disruption.

 

[Nara]

.....I am not a history buff and think history is an unnecessary distraction when one is trying to learn universal principle.

It is said those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. Varna, and its progeny jAti, has a sordid history. Not paying attention to it is unwise.

Unlike birth based definitions we have Guna based definitions.
B. Gita Chapter 4, Verse 13 :

[snip]

Meaning is : The four divisions of human order was created by me according to differences in duty and qualities. Though I am its author know me to be a non-doer and changeless

[snip]

Today we need this distinction just like we need to distinguish between birth based Varna and Duty based Varna. This prefacing by Guna is not invented by me but by some teachers in modern days.

This is the favorite verse for those who wish to argue varna is not birth based. But it does not say anything about varna being not birth based. What it says is Krishna created the four varnas with the attendant gunas associated with those varnas. I am not the one saying this, the great Acharyas say this and has been followed to this day. What tks is suggesting is not orthodox, but he is right about "some teachers in modern days". These neo-vendantins are shy about birth based varnas. So they have concocted this Guna Varna. But these neo-vedantins ignore verses from Chapter 2, 9 and 18 where there is no ambiguity that varna in BG is birth based.

A sastrigal born in a Brahmin family doing Vaidika Karma is actually a Vaishya and if he is doing his duty without proper Shraddha he is Tamasik from a Guna perspective. Such a person has to be directed to do more physical work for self growth.

All this is superfluous. The purported objective is "spiritual" progress, then why must one be concerned with all these gunas and give names like satva and brahmana etc., especially since these terms have a very toxic meaning both in theory and in practice to this very day? Further, Babasaheb Ambedkar already took this so called guna based classification and demolished it in his "Annihilation of Caste".

What is the purpose of these guna varnas anyway. From what tks has stated we know that this Brazilian woman knows Sanskrit, understands the meaning behind rituals, has read and understood Upanishads and has been to Hrishikesh (?) and a beautiful person both inside and outside, that makes her a Guna Brhmana, why? Why can't she be just a good religious person, or even "spiritual" person? Why must she be branded Guna Brahmana as though everyone with these attributes will be a wonderful person -- that is the subtext, Guna Brahmana being superior to all others, after all who would want to be a Guna Shudra or be branded as one. Also, there could very well be someone else with exactly same attributes as the Brazilian woman and may not be very beautiful inside.

In as much as tks is rejecting the orthodox view of varna and and looking at BG verses a la carte, why have any varna at all? Our aptitudes and interests do not neatly fall into four categories. People who are super smart in learning can be driven by ambition for material success or be a complete loser falling pray to all sorts of bad habits --they all do not become life long learners and teachers. People of all sorts of attributes and aptitudes fall anywhere in a continuum of super sloth in one end and super ambitious on the other. Similarly, there are lot of people with no aptitude or interest in book learning who possess great wisdom and are very kind, loving, etc., etc. So, the whole idea of looking at people as Guna Brahmana or Guna Shudra is not only impossible, but it serves no purpose at all as a guide to shape our lives.

This project of Guna Varna is both unsound in theory and useless in practice.

Think outside the box. Break out of the Brahmnical thinking into which the cultural forces have imprisoned you. There are many philosophers from across the globe who have thought about these matters and have taught universal principles that elevate human beings without categorizing them into purposeless three gunas and four varnas. You can start with our own Thiruvalluvar.

Thanks ...

 

[sangom]

< snip >

Think outside the box. Break out of the Brahmnical thinking into which the cultural forces have imprisoned you. There are many philosophers from across the globe who have thought about these matters and have taught universal principles that elevate human beings without categorizing them into purposeless three gunas and four varnas. You can start with our own Thiruvalluvar.

Thanks ...

I do not personally think that every one should be "compelled" to think out of the box, or to break out of the brahmanical thinking. People may, if they so wish, continue to believe in the superiority of brahminism; but as long as people believe in it (i.e., the superior qualities of brahmins over others) let them be honest about it and let them not attempt obfuscation by bringing in new terms like "guNa brAhmaNa" etc., let them not cherry pick by making statements like "history is an unnecessary distraction", etc., and try to confuse people with terms like "universal principle".

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Shri Tks,

There is substance in the arguments of Mr. Nara and Mr. Sangom as presented in their post 197 and 198. My position in this is that:

1. Who can certify, as Sangom asks, a guna brahmana, a guna kshatriya , a guna vyshya and a guna shudra? Is it possible to have a central certifying authority? So this guna...... concept is not practically feasible.

2. Either you go by the birth based division as laid down in the scripture and accept that there can be divisions as laid down there without the upper lower tags or you join the vociferous crowd here and deny that there can not be any difference at all among human beings.

Think about it. Thanks.

 

[Nara]

.... or you join the vociferous crowd here and deny that there can not be any difference at all among human beings..

The highlighted portion is not my view and if I may include Sangom even though I am sure he can take care of himself this is not his view either.

Cheers!

 

[Vaagmi]

Sri Nara in # 197:

Think outside the box. Break out of the Brahmnical thinking into which the cultural forces have imprisoned you. There are many philosophers from across the globe who have thought about these matters and have taught universal principles that elevate human beings without categorizing them into purposeless three gunas and four varnas. You can start with our own Thiruvalluvar.

This liberal advice from a higher ground is uncalled for here. If one believes in a certain principles/ideas it would be advisable to keep it. There is no need to advise others. Now the specifics: This call to think outside the box presumes others are caught in a narrow band and are unable to break out. What if they too have thought about all that you have thought about and have come to a conclusion different from yours or just opposite of what you believe? All the philosophers in the globe might have thought about it and yet there can be many like me who refuse to accept the proxy thinking done by them. Even keeping your belief in the scripture's division of human beings into the four varnas you can practice universal principles and live perfectly in harmony with other human beings in this globe. It requires only a mind free from prejudices to understand this possibility and POV. And by the way Valluvar has spoken about brahmins. Thanks.

 

[biswa]

Mr. TKS,

Thanks for the detailed exposition. What is the purpose of Birth Varna at all, and why is it relevant in the present age? I disagree with the idea that somebody is born suited to do a certain thing. Only when there are controlled scientific experiments with siblings separated and then measured will I believe that.

Now let me present a simple counter-example. In the medieval ages in both North and South India any women associated with the musical and performing arts belonged to the courtesan or devadasi communities. They were typically "low caste" by birth.

In current day India, from North to South, from East to West, a large fraction of women involved in classical singing, dancing and fine arts come from the upper castes. They are very far removed from devadasis. So what happened to the skills/qualities acquired by birth? Maybe there were none after all.

If Bharatnatyam can be learned by a Bengali girl none of whose ancestors knew about the dance, why can't Vedas be recited by the "lower castes" and why cant the "upper castes" take up limo driving or cricket playing?

In short, what is even the point of Birth Varna?

 

[sangom]

The highlighted portion is not my view and if I may include Sangom even though I am sure he can take care of himself this is not his view either.

Cheers!

I will say that "there can not be any difference at all - perceived a priori - among human beings, although no two humans may ever be identical in all respects. But the government and society should not arbitrarily classify people into different echelons, based on their birth in particular families."

 

[prasad1]

Mr. TKS,

Thanks for the detailed exposition. What is the purpose of Birth Varna at all, and why is it relevant in the present age? I disagree with the idea that somebody is born suited to do a certain thing. Only when there are controlled scientific experiments with siblings separated and then measured will I believe that.

Now let me present a simple counter-example. In the medieval ages in both North and South India any women associated with the musical and performing arts belonged to the courtesan or devadasi communities. They were typically "low caste" by birth.

In current day India, from North to South, from East to West, a large fraction of women involved in classical singing, dancing and fine arts come from the upper castes. They are very far removed from devadasis. So what happened to the skills/qualities acquired by birth? Maybe there were none after all.

If Bharatnatyam can be learned by a Bengali girl none of whose ancestors knew about the dance, why can't Vedas be recited by the "lower castes" and why cant the "upper castes" take up limo driving or cricket playing?

In short, what is even the point of Birth Varna?

I agree that that any birth based system is flawed, you can call it jati, verna, or caste.
Having said that I would like to add that I believe in Karma theory. So we are born according to our karmas. So may be our parentage is determined by our karmas. To an extent our present value system is based on our environment. Our formative years are influenced by our surrounding (that includes) parents.

But so claim superiority or exclusivity because of birth is wrong. You got to earn it.

 

[biswa]

Completely agree Mr. Prasad. There are definitely cultural and family influences. There is also the effect of monetary influence. Take the case of Siddhartha Mallya: Sidhartha Mallya biography, net worth, quotes, wiki, assets, cars, homes and more This person has done nothing of note in his life but has model/filmstar girlfriends and is now a director in his dad's company. In some sense this is an extension of Birth Varna because his birth gave him an unfair advantage.

Like Warren Buffet, I am in favour of increasing estate and inheritance taxes, make all education free so that everybody has Varna mobility and has a fair shot at a prosperous future.

 

[tks]

Mr. TKS,

Thanks for the detailed exposition. What is the purpose of Birth Varna at all, and why is it relevant in the present age? I disagree with the idea that somebody is born suited to do a certain thing. Only when there are controlled scientific experiments with siblings separated and then measured will I believe that.

Now let me present a simple counter-example. In the medieval ages in both North and South India any women associated with the musical and performing arts belonged to the courtesan or devadasi communities. They were typically "low caste" by birth.

In current day India, from North to South, from East to West, a large fraction of women involved in classical singing, dancing and fine arts come from the upper castes. They are very far removed from devadasis. So what happened to the skills/qualities acquired by birth? Maybe there were none after all.

If Bharatnatyam can be learned by a Bengali girl none of whose ancestors knew about the dance, why can't Vedas be recited by the "lower castes" and why cant the "upper castes" take up limo driving or cricket playing?

In short, what is even the point of Birth Varna?

You are right, birth Varna has no meaning in today's age when the work a person does has no bearing on what the ancestors did.

In a corrupt society that is power and money hungry Guna analysis is irrelevant as well.

Sri Prasad has already replied with an excellent response which you and I can resonate with...

Regards

 

[tks]

Dear Shri Tks,

There is substance in the arguments of Mr. Nara and Mr. Sangom as presented in their post 197 and 198. My position in this is that:

1. Who can certify, as Sangom asks, a guna brahmana, a guna kshatriya , a guna vyshya and a guna shudra? Is it possible to have a central certifying authority? So this guna...... concept is not practically feasible.

2. Either you go by the birth based division as laid down in the scripture and accept that there can be divisions as laid down there without the upper lower tags or you join the vociferous crowd here and deny that there can not be any difference at all among human beings.

Think about it. Thanks.

Sri Vaagmi:

Item 1: When duty of a person coincided with what that person's ancestors did, then the focus is not competition but excellence. In the context of excellence Guna definition for a given work mattered.

The goal was not money and power per se in that society but realizing our true nature was, which was not denied to anyone in any Varna. Therefore discharging the duties very well mattered by developing the right Gunas.

There is no useful purpose to classify anyone in today's society - that will miss the point of all the teaching. My primary point is that B.Gita made a special focus in Gunas in several verses while describing the four groups.
It is consistent across the teaching in all the 700 verses. A person who is prejudiced and/or capable of only first order analysis will present the usual arguments that B.Gita has done mischief (post #153 is my response to such a comment).

Some Islamic sites put down B.Gita with usual references which is arising from ignorance that is regurgitated by others who are confused in my view.


This Guna definition in B.Gita helps us to strive for the right Gunas and even recognize a person with right qualities when that is apparent. There is no central certifying authority is needed per se but many properly educated teacher can sense when one has developed a mature outlook in life with right Gunas.

One could have certification for teachers as I mentioned in another post and observe if the students aspiring to be teachers exhibit the right level of maturity during their training.

You can see this link about this famous expression "I know it when I see it" by a US Supreme Court Justice.

Item 2: Scriptures is a generic word. The upper and lower tags do not exist in duties. I explained this in my post already. There are differences in human beings but how we discharge our duties from where we start our life is the key to achieving goals (which is not about power or money).

Sri Nara has had many hateful posts about Brahmins, and Sri Sangom has had many negative things about women as well. I call this narrow minded and prejudiced views coming from lack of maturity in life. It is not possible to project a liberal outlook if one can have hateful message about any group in my view.

When a person goes around with a hammer everything will look like a nail. Many topics in this forum by them leads to bashing brahmins.

In post #165 I asked Sri Nara to explain chapter 2, verse 16. He has obviously not replied to a specific query. The reason is that without understanding that it is hard to get the complete picture. Also in post #193 chapter 4, verse 13 has second part which I did not go into which is also central to understand the full message. That part is

"Though I am its author know me to be a non-doer and changeless"

How Sri Krishna be author and claim he did not do anything ?

In a forum like this it is hard to do justice in a response. So I usually refer people to proper teachers since I feel not qualified to explain all this succinctly.

Lastly let me say that I may come across as arrogant and my apologies if I did so. Allow me to explain, please.

Usually if someone asks a question in a forum I will share my thoughts. If I do not know something I am open to learning.

If on the other hand if someone takes a strong position I expect they have really done their homework since we are dealing with a subject matter that is subject to understanding and not beliefs (or opinions or prejudices). I hold them to higher level of understanding and if I see immaturity in understanding then I call that out only to the extent to stop polluting with propagating incorrect messages. That may come across as pointed.

You are welcome to critique my response or ask other questions - I will answer if I have something to share

Regards

 

[biswa]

I agree that that any birth based system is flawed, you can call it jati, verna, or caste.
Having said that I would like to add that I believe in Karma theory. So we are born according to our karmas. So may be our parentage is determined by our karmas. To an extent our present value system is based on our environment. Our formative years are influenced by our surrounding (that includes) parents.

But so claim superiority or exclusivity because of birth is wrong. You got to earn it.

Mr. Prasad,

How about a strong inheritance tax that erases previous karma during rebirth? If we have no knowledge of our previous birth, why should we suffer or benefit from it?

But of course, if we believe in karma, maybe it extends to more than just birth? One may be born a prince and die a pauper (no reference to current events intended).

 

[sarang]

1. Varna dharma is a timeless basic concept of sanatana dharma, and has scriptural, traditional and historical reference and sanction and has continuity.
2. A person born in USA, say, gets US citizenship; the right to citizenship cannot be denied or taken away even if the person is a thief, criminal, desadrohi or mass murderer. Of course, the individual has the right to renounce his citizenship and seek his fortune elsewhere, in a different country.
3. A person born in a brahmana family is a brahmana by birth; it cannot be taken away from him. Some respect their good fortune, have faith in the scriptures and samskarams, and live a life which is a blend of prescribed rituals and practices, adapted for modern living as well.
4. Brahmanas have respected others and treated some from other varnas as acharyas and gurus worthy of worship (azhwars for eg.) Even today, many brahmanas have no difficulty in accepting Ma Amrutanandamayi, Sai baba, Sri sri ravishankar as their guru without giving up their birth based sampradayam.
5.Many brahmanas have renounced their birth varna, have become jains, budhdhists, christians, muslims and other avedic sects. There are also born brahmanas who claim to be human and are against brahmana scriptures, traditions and values, but refuse to opt out and renounce their birth status and keep their distance.
6. Whether one accepts it or not, right from puranic times to present day, asuras to budhdhists to muslims to missionaries have targeted only brahmanas because they knew that brahmanas are the pillars of sanatana dharma.
7. As in the past, today's brahmanas will face such threats with the modern astras available; learning scriptures, practicing anushtanams, and preserving family traditions and values. For this we don't need anyone's approval or permission.

 

[sangom]

< snip >
3. A person born in a brahmana family is a brahmana by birth; it cannot be taken away from him. Some respect their good fortune, have faith in the scriptures and samskarams, and live a life which is a blend of prescribed rituals and practices, adapted for modern living as well.

My impression is that most brahmanas - at least the tabras - do respect their good fortune (?) of having been born as brahmanas in brahmana family/families, and this, rather overmuch. However, very few of these tabras bother to study or learn their scriptures systematically, and their faith in the scriptures and samskarams is at best hollow or empty. The main driving force in their lives is earning more (& more & more) money and enjoying all kinds of material luxuries; and in their pursuit of these "neo-puruShArthas" (i.e., earning more money and enjoying all kinds of material luxuries) they are only too prepared for non-conformance to the injunctions of the scriptures and proper observance of the samskaras, etc. These tendencies have, in effect, transformed their faith and samskarams to a comic imitation of what is truly meant by the scriptures and samskaras. This caricaturing is what is sought to be white-washed by saying "adapted for modern living as well".

4. Brahmanas have respected others and treated some from other varnas as acharyas and gurus worthy of worship (azhwars for eg.) Even today, many brahmanas have no difficulty in accepting Ma Amrutanandamayi, Sai baba, Sri sri ravishankar as their guru without giving up their birth based sampradayam.

This is a direct fall-out of the "caricatured" faith which has been referred to above. All these modern day gurujis, swamijis, godmen/godwomen, etc., are in the "business of religion" and are not true teachers or gurus. I do not think our puranas or other scriptures mention about "personal gurus" of the modern-day kind - i.e., a guruji/swamiji/godman/godwoman, etc., who becomes a guru for one person and sometimes not even for that person's spouse or children. (There were rAjagurus, kulagurus, etc. but this was a continuing arrangement and the entire family accepted that guru as a revered consultant.)

Modern day tabras flock to these modern day gurujis, godmen, etc., because it has become some kind of status symbol, so to say, by means of which the devotee tabra seeks to indirectly boast as to how far spiritually progressed he/she is. (Some have certain business or even unholy connections with such gurus and these, obviously, are not made public.) The above quoted is an empty claim because all these modern day gurujis, swamijis, godmen/godwomen, etc., do not provide any spiritual training; they are merely playing on the mass psychology of the present society in order to earn more (& more & more) money and to enjoy all kinds of material luxuries, personally, through such methods. They are thus on the very same wavelength as most of the brahmins. (You will not find any modern day gurujis, godmen, etc., who is ready to live his/her entire life in a humble thatched shed/mandap, resort to begging in practice for one time meal only and eschew all kinds of luxuries and sleep on the floor. The last such holy man perhaps was Shirdi Sai Baba.)

Hence the remarks quoted above only strengthen what is said in item 3 above. Brahmanas have degraded themselves and there is nothing about which they can honestly be proud about, today.

 

[sarang]

They, who have faith, dedication and resolve are active in protecting, nurturing and continuation of sanatana dharma ideals and practices in general, and brahminical dharma, traditions, rituals and karmas as supported by their mutts, acharyas and institutions. Bad mouthing good or not so good brahmanas about their real or imagined life style will not make any difference to the initiated and faithful. This is applicable to other communities as well. A man of faith will do what he believes in to the best of his ability; he will not waste time and energy and cloud space telling the other man is wrong; perhaps he has nothing worthwhile to follow or enrich himself.

 

[prasad1]

Post#209 has factual error.

A person born in USA, say, gets US citizenship; the right to citizenship cannot be denied or taken away even if the person is a thief, criminal, desadrohi or mass murderer.

It is true in USA, but same law does apply in UK, Japan, and other countries. It also depends on the citizenship of the parents.
Birth within the territory of Japan does not automatically confer Japanese citizenship. Only in the case of a child whose parents are unknown or stateless is the child considered a Japanese citizen.
Child born in the United Kingdom, at least one of whose parents is a British citizen or has settled in the United Kingdom. Child born in the United Kingdom whose parents are unknown.
Birth within the territory of Saudi Arabia does not automatically confer citizenship.
Birth within the Federal Republic of Germany does not automatically confer citizenship. However, from January 1, 2000, citizenship will be acquired by birth in Germany if one parent has lived in the country for eight years.

​When you have errors in your evidence, then the conclusion (even if correct) is suspect.

 

[prasad1]

Mr. Prasad,

How about a strong inheritance tax that erases previous karma during rebirth? If we have no knowledge of our previous birth, why should we suffer or benefit from it?

But of course, if we believe in karma, maybe it extends to more than just birth? One may be born a prince and die a pauper (no reference to current events intended).

Fortunately you can not change the Karmas.
In USA the rich never pay the inheritance Tax, you hire a bunch of smart Trust lawyers to avoid paying Taxes.

 

[sarang]

It is an upamana, analogy, given to explain a subject for easier understanding. Applying a one to one correspondence is neither warranted nor implied. May be, some exposure to subjects than simple arithmetics will expand horizons; I hope the next response is not about factual nil relationship between horizon and arithmetics!

Post#209 has factual error.




It is true in USA, but same law does apply in UK, Japan, and other countries. It also depends on the citizenship of the parents.
Birth within the territory of Japan does not automatically confer Japanese citizenship. Only in the case of a child whose parents are unknown or stateless is the child considered a Japanese citizen.
Child born in the United Kingdom, at least one of whose parents is a British citizen or has settled in the United Kingdom. Child born in the United Kingdom whose parents are unknown.
Birth within the territory of Saudi Arabia does not automatically confer citizenship.
Birth within the Federal Republic of Germany does not automatically confer citizenship. However, from January 1, 2000, citizenship will be acquired by birth in Germany if one parent has lived in the country for eight years.

​When you have errors in your evidence, then the conclusion (even if correct) is suspect.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Mr.Biswa
Your words in # 202

Thanks for the detailed exposition. What is the purpose of Birth Varna at all, and why is it relevant in the present age? I disagree with the idea that somebody is born suited to do a certain thing. Only when there are controlled scientific experiments with siblings separated and then measured will I believe that.

If you are looking for scientific proof somebody has already given it here http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...in-caste-but-can-we-call-real-brahmins-5.html.

Now let me present a simple counter-example. In the medieval ages in both North and South India any women associated with the musical and performing arts belonged to the courtesan or devadasi communities. They were typically "low caste" by birth. In current day India, from North to South, from East to West, a large fraction of women involved in classical singing, dancing and fine arts come from the upper castes. They are very far removed from devadasis. So what happened to the skills/qualities acquired by birth? Maybe there were none after all.

Here your words “Only when there are controlled scientific experiments with siblings separated and then measured will I believe that” will eminently fit.

If Bharatnatyam can be learned by a Bengali girl none of whose ancestors knew about the dance, why can't Vedas be recited by the "lower castes" and why cant the "upper castes" take up limo driving or cricket playing?

Where from did you get the idea that lower castes can’t recite Vedas?

In short, what is even the point of Birth Varna?

Birth varna is like the tuner in your radio.

 

[Nara]

.... My primary point is that B.Gita made a special focus in Gunas in several verses while describing the four groups.
It is consistent across the teaching in all the 700 verses. A person who is prejudiced and/or capable of only first order analysis will present the usual arguments that B.Gita has done mischief (post #153 is my response to such a comment).

[snip]

Sri Nara has had many hateful posts about Brahmins

Criticism of Brahminism and Brahminist behavior is not "hateful posts about Brahmins". Simply branding them as such is at best a tactic to avoid having to address the issues.

tks, when I started this discussion with you I tried to be respectful to you, I only criticized the idea of Guna Brahmana as supremacist and I even conceded you probably didn't see it that way. The response from you was a litany of condescending dismissals of my abilities and accusation that I was a casteist. You are continuing to respond in the same manner, never addressing the issues raised head on, but generous in insulting comments about me. I really don't care about the insults just as long as you would also address the issues.

In post #165 I asked Sri Nara to explain chapter 2, verse 16. He has obviously not replied to a specific query. The reason is that without understanding that it is hard to get the complete picture.

Post #165 is a post made by me, not you. Also when I click the link it takes me to post #11. In any case, if you think 2.16 of BG supports your Guna Brahmana theory then state your case.

I agree that we need to have a "complete picture" and the complete picture is BG or commentaries of BG by great Acharyas do not support Guna Brahmana. I have already stated my arguments in post #202. Please try to respond to it, throw in your usual insults if you like, but please also state your reasoned rebuttal.

Also in post #193 chapter 4, verse 13 has second part which I did not go into which is also central to understand the full message. That part is
"Though I am its author know me to be a non-doer and changeless"

How Sri Krishna be author and claim he did not do anything ?

If you think this shows what I said about this verse in post #202 is not true then you have to state it more clearly. Show me why your interpretation of the verse is correct and the commentaries of great acharyas are wrong. Simply asserting that nara doesn't understand or nara is not capable of understanding is not sufficient.

Thanks ...

 

[Nara]

....Where from did you get the idea that lower castes can’t recite Vedas? .

Vaagmi, I am not sure whether this is a trick question or a serious one. I have listened to BG Kalakshepams by eminent SV scholars who have also written excellent books expounding many original texts. They all assert that Dharmashathras are like bitter medicine, they seem harsh in places, but are good and essential for the proper functioning of the society. If they have the authority they would probably make Manu law of the land. This was always a disappointment to me even during the days of my delusion.

thanks ...

 

[Vaagmi]

Vaagmi, I am not sure whether this is a trick question or a serious one. I have listened to BG Kalakshepams by eminent SV scholars who have also written excellent books expounding many original texts. They all assert that Dharmashathras are like bitter medicine, they seem harsh in places, but are good and essential for the proper functioning of the society. If they have the authority they would probably make Manu law of the land. This was always a disappointment to me even during the days of my delusion.

thanks ...

Dear Nara,

I do not play tricks. I listen to kalakshepam from learned elders. But I take what is clearly not disputable. The rest I search in the archives myself and come to my own conclusions on the basis of facts. If I understand right the "delusion" you refer to, I am sure you will come out of your current delusions too. I speak from experience.

I consider Vedas as the ultimate truth and authority. Where there is differences between what is said in Vedas and smritis/itihasas/puranas, shastra etc. the former(vedas) takes precedence and authority. Even for this rule I depend on the very smritis. Please refer to Sri jApala smruthi which says "ஸ்ருதி ஸ்ம்ருதி விரோதேது ஸ்ருதிரேவ கரீயஸி, அவிரோதே ஸதாகார்யம் ஸ்மார்த்தம் வைதிகவத்ஸதா. This is confirmed in Meemaamsa also. Now I can quote a few well known instances from the vedas about the learning of vedas by NBs.

1.Please refer to ChAndOkyam in which a shudra by name jAnasruthi learnt vedas from Raigyava.

2.Please refer to what is said in Rg veda about kakshivanthan, a shudra. He learnt vedas.

3.There is another story of a panchama, Gavasha which also confirms there was no restriction on a panchama learning vedas. Please refer to Rg Veda 7th Ashtaka where the mantras that were 'seen' by Gavasha find a place.

4.Please refer to Chandokya 4th prapAta in which some one whose varna was not known -jApAlan - leaning vedas is mentioned.

A very old Banyan tree on the banks of the irrigation tank in my village used to be the home for not only many birds but also many weeds (parasites?). Just nearby was a young but equally big peepul tree which never had any such growth on its body and it was always clean and beautiful. Sanatana dharma is like that Banyan tree. A true seeker of knowledge in it always gets what he wants-knowledge about the truth. Thanks.

 

[sravna]

I read with interest the debate whether varna is guna based or not. I think the logical conclusion one would have to make is that varna is really guna based.

This is not inconsistent with the interpretations of the great acharyas. In the birth based varna we consider the physical lineage. You descend from your forefathers all the way down to your grandparents and your parents. Due to the work of the genes you inherit many features of your parents. In the case of spiritual lineage the ones preceeding in the line correspond to ones previous births. You get into a body in accordance to your deeds in the previous births.

Thus if we know the deeds of the soul in the past we can correctly classify the spiritual development of the soul. But it is not possible to have that knowledge. The alternative is to find that out on the basis of the facts about the physical self it takes. Can we say that because a soul takes the physical self that is associated with brahmin parents, it is sattva in nature? In the days of the acharyas we could have said this Then this was indeed true because brahmins never married outside their varna and hence sattva genes were transmitted along the physical lineage without being altered in substance. So the birth based varna classification would have held. But today the situation is different and one cannot definitely infer the nature of a soul in any meaningful way from the physical birth.

Thus the real basis is only the guna and the birth in to a particular group is only an indicator of that basis and this indicator is currently being compromised. But the real and the original basis of varna classification was only guna and this is what we should infer from what the BG also says.

 

[Nara]

..... I listen to kalakshepam from learned elders. But I take what is clearly not disputable. The rest I search in the archives myself and come to my own conclusions on the basis of facts.

Dear Vaagmi, that is very convenient isn't? What you take or not take is not the issue here.

If I understand right the "delusion" you refer to, I am sure you will come out of your current delusions too. I speak from experience.

Is this "called for" or only you are allowed to issue such admonishments ?

Now I can quote a few well known instances from the vedas about the learning of vedas by NBs.

Now, the reciting of vedas is about the so called Shudras, not NB.

1.Please refer to ChAndOkyam in which a shudra by name jAnasruthi learnt vedas from Raigyava.

This guy is supposed to be a king, not a Shudra.

4.Please refer to Chandokya 4th prapAta in which some one whose varna was not known -jApAlan - leaning vedas is mentioned.

Satyakama's story is laced with some ugly subtext. All the back and forth is in the archives, I don't want to re-litigate.

2.Please refer to what is said in Rg veda about kakshivanthan, a shudra. He learnt vedas.

3.There is another story of a panchama, Gavasha

You have to be more specific than these. Besides, whoever said there is a consistent narrative in these texts, it takes a Suthrakara and/or Bhashyakara to stitch together one and if your view is that there is no scriptural prohibition against "Shudra" reciting the vedas, then your view is not consistent with them. The fact is they are not even allowed to listen to the sound of reciting of the vedas.

But, what is this about "seeing" the Vedas, how do you see something that was not written down until relatively recently.

Sanatana dharma is like that Banyan tree. A true seeker of knowledge in it always gets what he wants-knowledge about the truth. Thanks.

If this works for you that is great, for a lot of people what you call Sanatana Dharma aka Brahminism, is like a well with lot of water, but is contaminated water.

It is one thing to marvel at Brahmnical vedantam, Dharma, etc., but, one must be tone deaf to not hear what the so called "Shudras" and "panchamas" hear when "Guna Brahmana", "Shudra can become Brahmana", or "Sanatana Dharma is like Banyan tree" are talked about.

Thank you ...