Who are We? - Part II

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

OK, Chintana. Gotchya. Sorry for interfering in the great debate.

Love you all.

Dear Srimathi Kamakshi Ji,

I do not understand!

You seem to have certain ideas that obviously were violated by my postings in particular as well as the posting of Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji above. It is very difficult to understand your position, unless we understand your views.

When I was talking about Gurus and Sishyas above you responded,

"Right, magic? Wow! Thanks!".

Is there something that I have said somewhere that has angered you in some manner?

You seem to react to certain innocent (may not be accurate) remarks with contempt! Am I correct in saying this?

Please let me know where I have hurt you in any way. Because, your responses indicate that you were either hurt by some of my postings or you possess certain knowledge that can explain what I am saying as bogus.

Either way, I would sincerely appreciate your comments.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri KRS,

Sorry it took me quite long to reply.

You've been clear about Prakrithi and Purusha but I am still of the opinion that the 'unreal' is the 'Unmanifested Purusha' not 'Prakrithi'. For, the Soul can be unmanifested but how can Prakrithi (Nature) be unmanifested? Isn't all soul (Purusha) struggle in some sense an overcoming of nature (Prakrithi)? How can one overcome something that is not manifest?

Is the Upanishad from the point of view of someone who has left the mortal coil or someone who has transcended the mortal coil?

Is it - imagined and perceived- or -unseen and seen?

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji,

My answers are in 'blue'.

There is undoubtedly the 'unmanifest' Prakrithi. For example, anything beyond the visual and acoustic spectrum of the frequency scale is 'unmanifest' to the humans. 'Unmanifest' relating to humans, to me are those things that we can not comprehend through our senses and mind. In addition to 'Purusha' for example, we also do not comprehend the other lokhas, spirits that have no body, but have the other two attributes of a human being, say the 'psychological' state of a Purusha (per Sri Aurobindoo).

This Upanishad pertains to a person levaing the mortal coil, who has not yet transcended his/hers physical being (again, my opinion).

Pranams,
KRS


2. 'Renunciation' in my mind is synonymous with 'non-attachment', while 'Samkhya' is the acquisition of the discriminatory knowledge.

Really? I was under the impression that non-attachment is a step toward renunciation. Samkhya is something that aids the process. This is just me - my interpretation.

First step to renunciation is non-attachment. Once that is acheived, then 'renunciation' is the automatic result.


Interim steps? - I would hazard a guess - do your prescribed duty and offer it as a prasad to Him and meditate.

I have a feeling it is more than that.

I would hope so! Within the four stages of one's life, I am talking about the three and a half stage.

Pranams,
KRS

Regards,
Chintana

Thank you.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri KRS,

What makes you come to the conclusion that this shloka refers to death? If the seeing of Light or God or IT or That or Atman is achieved in the physical body how can it be death in the sense we understand it. Many living mahatmas have achieved it - Vivekananda for one. He had seen IT.

Point is I think this is a reference to that special moment when an individual is able to perceive the Hiranyagarbha. After that moment I think everything becomes different for that individual. I think this shloka refers that specific dissolution of the individual self into the cosmic self. I think that moment where one loses identification with one's physical body is metaphorically termed death. What do you think?

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji,

I agree with you, philosophically. 'Death' applies to a physical body. So, in that sense, if One knows the answer to the eternal question 'Who am I?' then He/She ceases to be. Because, by definition, a rain drop has merged in to an infinite ocean.

I am not quite sure we parsed out the nitty grittys of dharma the last time. We did cover quite some ground on Bhakti, Karma and Gnana Yogas.

The reason I am bringing this up is Dharma has the connotation of being larger than the individual and Karma has the connotation of remaining within the control of the individual.

I think that they can not be seperated. One's place in his/hers current life vis-a-vis society, is Karma. But then that situation prescribes one's Dharma in his/her life. For example, one can be born to work in a slaughter house. That is that person's Karma. But if that person slaughters pursuiant to their work dictation, then that is Dharma. There will be no Karmaphala attached to it. This is why Sri Krishna urges Arjuna to fight.

Or does it really refer to those who have not seen IT? Because the 'understanding' of a 'self' cannot come with reason, only with perception/intuition.

But, 'self' and the 'seer' is within everyone. A lot of us ignore the 'seer' (we loosely call it our conscience) without much thought.

Regards,
Chintana

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Why the Varna system got degenerated?

Folks,

I am posting the next installment of the topic 'Who are we?' here. We have established that the Varnashrama Dharma was divined, not for competition, but to allocate different works of the society to different classes of people, mainly based on one's inherited traits (there is a bit of contention on this statement; whether birth determines one's dharma; but let us agree that our tradition shows that if a person from ANY birth wants to fit in to any of the four Varnas, he/she was able to do that, provided they were exceptional.

I am going to post again excerpts from the 'Hindu Dharma' by Jagatguru Sri Chandrasekhara swamigal here. These writings are direct and stark. He points fingers. But His words are very illustrative. In my opinion, unless we understand these words, we will not understand our current predicament.

Let me break this up in to manageable postings.

Politicians and intellectuals alike say that jati is part of an uncivilized system. Why? Who is responsible for the disintegration of so worthy an arrangement as varna dharma?
These are question that I raised and I shall try to answer them. The wrong ideas that have developed about varna dharma must be ascribed to the Brahmins themselves. They are indeed responsible for the decay of an ages-old system that contributed not only to our Atmic advancement but also to the well-being of the nation as well as of all mankind.
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.

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.

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.

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.

The introduction of steam power and electricity made many types of work easier but it also meant comforts hitherto unthought-of of to gratify the senses. If you keep pandering to the senses more and more new desires are engendered. This will mean the production of an increasing number of objects of pleasure. The more we try to obtain sensual pleasure the more we will cause injury to our innermost being. The new pleasures that could be had with scientific development and the introduction of machines were an irresistible lure for the Brahmin as they were to other communities. Another undesirable product of the sciences brought by the white man was rationalism which undermined people's faith in religion and persuaded some to believe that the religious truths that are based on faith and are inwardly experienced are nothing but deception. The man who did not give up his duties even during Muslim rule now abandoned them for the new-found pleasures and comforts. He dressed more smartly that the Englishman, smoked cigarettes and even learned to dance like his white master. Those who thus became proficient in the arts of the white man were rewarded with jobs.

Now occurred the biggest tragedy.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Why the Varna system got degenerated - Part 2

Folks,

This is my second installment:

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.

Ill feelings developed between Brahmins and non-Brahmins also. How? Brahmins formed only a small percentage of the population. But they were able to occupy top positions in the new order owing to their intelligence which, as I said before, was the result of the "pedalling" done by their forefathers. They excelled in all walks of life- in administration, in academics, in law, in medicine, engineering and so on. The white man made his own calculations about developing animosity between Brahmins and non-Brahmins and realised that by fuelling it he could strengthen his hold on the country. He fabricated the Aryan-Dravidian theory of races and the seeds of differences were sown among children born of the same mother. It was a design that proved effective in a climate already made unhealthy by rivalry for jobs
.
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.

Why should there be bad feelings between the two, between the Brahmin and the Ksatriya? Does the Brahmin have to come into physical contact with the Ksatriya To prove that he does not bear any ill-will towards him? If he intertwined with the Ksatriya he would be tempted to taste meat and such a temptation might eventually drag him into doing things that militate against his own duty. Each community has its own duties, customs and food habits. If all jatis mixed together on the pretext of equality without regard to their individual ways of life, all work would suffer and society itself would be plunged into confusion.

It was with a definite purpose in view that the village was divided into different quarters: the agrahara (the Brahmin quarter), the agriculturists quarter and so on. Such a division was possible in rural life but not in the the new urban way of living. 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?

The Brahmin spoiled himself and spoiled others. By abandoning his dharma he became a bad example to others. as a matter of fact, even by strictly adhering to his dharma the Brahmin in not entitled to feel superior to others. He must always remain humble in the belief that "everyone performs a function in society; I perform mine". If at all others respected him in the past and accorded him a high place in the society it was in consideration of his selfless work, his life of austerity a, discipline and purity. Now he had descended too such depths as to merit their most abrasive criticism.

It is my decided opinion that the Brahmin is responsible for the ruin of Hindu society. Some people have found an explanation for it. The Brahmin, if he is to be true to his dharma, has to spend all his time in learning and chanting the Vedas, in performance sacrifices, in preserving the sastras, etc. What will he do for a living? If he goes in search of money or material he will not be able to attend to his lifetime mission- and this mission is not accomplished on a part-time basis. And if he takes up some other work for his livelihood, he is likely to became lax in the pursuit of his dharma. It would be like taking medicine without the necessary diet regimen: the benign power gained by the Brahmin from his Vedic learning will be reduced and there will be a corresponding diminution in the good accruing to mankind from his work.

This is one reason why Brahmin alone are permitted by the sastras to beg for their living. In the past they received help form the kings_ grants of lands, for instance-in consideration of the fact that the dharma practised by them benefited all people. But the sastras also have it that the Brahmins must not accept more charity than what is needed for their bare sustenance. If they received anything in excess, they would be tempted to seek sensual pleasures and thereby an impediment would be placed to their inner advancement. There is also the danger of their becoming submissive to the donor and of their twisting the sastras to the latter's liking. It was with a full awareness of these dangers that in the old days the Brahmins practised their dharma under the patronage on the rajas(accepting charity to the minimum and not subjecting themselves to any influence detrimental to their dharma).

The argument of those who have found an excuse for the conduct of latter days Brahmins goes thus. "Brahmins ceased to receive gifts from rulers after the inception of British rule. How can you expect them to live without any income? Force of circumstances made them to English education and thereafter too seek jobs with the government. It is unjust to find fault with them on that score "

There is possibly some force in this argument but it does not fully justify the change that has come over Brahmins. Before the British, the Moghuls ruled us and before them a succession of sultanates. During these periods a few pandits must have found a place in the darbar. But all other Brahmins adhered to their dharma, did they not, without any support from any other ruler? The phenomenon of the Brahmin quarter becoming deserted, the village being ruined, all pathasala (the Vedic school) becoming forlorn and the lands(granted to Brahmins)turning into mere certificates is not more than a hundred years old. Did not Vedic dharma flourish until a generation ago?

Pranams,
KRSI

 

[KRS]

Why the Varna system got degenerated - Part 3

Folks,

This concludes my posting on this subject by Sri Jagatguru Shankaracharya Chandrasekhara swamy Ji. In many ways , He was a radical, imploring our community to live against the tides of modern life, fueled by technology and mobility. Please reflect on his well framed, logical arguments:

The Vedic religion prospered in the past not only because of the patronage extended to the Brahmins by the Hindu rulers. People belonging to all varnas then were anxious that it should not become weak and perish. They saw too it that the Brahmin community did not weaken and contributed generously to its upkeep and to the nurturing of the Vedic tradition. Today you see hundreds of Vedic schools deserted. There are few Brahmin boys willing too study the scriptures. Who had raised the funds for the Vedic institutions? [In Tamil Nadu] the Nattukottai Nagarattars, Komutti Cettis and Vellalas. The work done by Nagarattars for our temples indeed remarkable. Throughout Tamil Nadu, if they built a temple they also built a Vedic school with the belief that the Vedas constituted the "root" of the temple. This root, they felt, was essential to the living presence of the deity in the temple and for the puja conducted there. Similarly, the big landowners among the Vellalas made lavish donations to the Vedic schools.


If the Brahmin had not been tempted by the European life-style and if he were willing to live austerely according to the dictates of the sastras, other castes would have come forward to help him. It is not that the others deserted him. He himself ran away from his dharma, from his agrahara, from his village and from the Vedic school because of his new appetite for the life of luxury made possible with the new technology of the West. He forgot his high ideals and paid scant respect of the principle that the body's requirements are not more that what it takes- in physical terms- to help the well-being of the Self. All told the argument that the Brahmin was compelled to abandon his dharma because he was denied his daily bread does not hold water. We cannot but admit that the Brahmin became greedy, that he yearned far more that what he needed for his sustenance.
Let us concede that the Brahmin left his village because he could not feed himself there and came to a city like Madras. But did he find contentment here? What do we see today in actual practice? Suppose a Brahmin received a salary of Rs1000 in Madras today. If he gets a job in Delhi with double the salary he runs off there. When he goes to Delhi he would abandon totally the dharma he was able to practise at least to a small extent in Madras. Later, if he were offered $4000 a month in America he would leave his motherland for that country, lured by the prospect t of earning a fortune. There, in the United States, he would became totally alienated from his religion, from his dharma, from all his money. The Brahmin is willing to do anything, go to any extent, for the sake of money. Fort instance, he would join the army if there were the promoter of more income in it. If necessary he would even take to meat and to drinking. The usual excuse trotted out for the Brahmin deserting his dharma does not wash
.

I will go one step further. Let us suppose that, the following the import of Western technology, other communities also became averse to observing their respective dharmic traditions. Let us also assume that, with their thinking and feelings influenced by the Aryan-Dravidian theory concocted by the English, these castes decided not to support the Brahmins any longer. Let us further assume that to feed himself(for the sake of a handful of rice) the Brahmin had to leave hearth and home and work in an office somewhere far away from his native village. Were he true to his dharma he would tell himself: "I will continue to adhere to my dharma come what may, even at the risk of death". With this resolve he could have made a determined effort to pursue Vedic learning and keep up his traditional practices.


There is no point, however, in suggesting what people belonging to the generation that has gone by should have done. I would urge the present generation to perform the duties that the past generation neglected to perform. To repeat, you must not forsake your dharma even on pain of death. Are we going to remain deathless? As it is we accumulate money and, worse, suffer humiliation and earn the jealousy of others and finally we die losing caste by not remaining true to our dharma.


Is it not better then to starve and yet to be attached firmly to our dharma so long as there is breath in us? Is not such loyalty to our dharma a matter of pride? Why should we care about how others see us, whether they honour us or speak ill of us? So long as we do not compete with them for jobs they will have no cause for jealousy or resentment. Let them call us backward or stupid or think that we are not capable of keeping abreast of the times. As we not now already their but of ridicule? Let us be true to our dharma in the face of the mockery of others, even in the face of death. is not such a lot preferable to suffering the slings of scorn and criticism earned by forsaking our dharma for the sake of filling our belly? People nowadays die for their mother land; they lay down their lives for their mother tongue. They do not need a big cause like the freedom of the country to be roused too action: they court death, immolate themselves, even for a cause that may be seem trivial like the merger of a part of their district in another. Was there any demonstration of faith like this, such willingness to die for a cause or a belief, when the British came here with their life-style? At the same time did we protect our dharma with courage, in the belief that even death was a small pride to pay for it?

The Lord himself has declared in the Gita that it is better to die abiding by one's dharma that prosper through another man's dharma ("nidhanam sreyah"). Brahmins who had seen no reason to change their life-style during the long Muslim period of our history changed it during British rule. Why? New sciences and machinery came with the white man. The motor car and electricity had their own impact on life there. Brahmins were drawn to comforts and conveniences not thought of before. This could be for a reason for their change of life, but not a justification.


The Brahmin is not to regard his body as a means for the enjoyment of sensual pleasures but as an instrument for the observance of such rites as are necessary to protect the Vedas- and the Vedas have too be protected for the welfare of mankind. The basic dharma is that to the body of the Brahmin nothing must be added that incites his sensual appetite. It was a fundamental mistake on the part of the Brahmin to have forgotten the spirit of sacrifice that incites his dharma and become a victim of the pleasures and comforts easily obtained form the new gadgets and instruments. There is pride in adhering to one's dharma even when one is faced with adverse circumstances. Brahmins(during British rule) committed a grave mistake by not doing so and we are suffering the consequences. See the ill-will in the country today among children of the same mother. We have created suffering for others also. At first Brahmins were denied admission to colleges and refused jobs. Now things have come to such a pass that other communities also suffer the same fate.


All was well so long as man, using his own innate resources, lived a simple life without the help of machines. With more and more factories and increasing machine power, life itself has become complicated. The situation today is such everyone is facing difficulties in getting admission to college or in getting a job.


Pranams,
KRS

 

[Amoorkan]

Dear KRS,

Interesting.

You have said: "I am going to post again excerpts from the 'Hindu Dharma' by Jagatguru Sri Chandrasekhara swamigal here. These writings are direct and stark. He points fingers. But His words are very illustrative. In my opinion, unless we understand these words, we will not understand our current predicament."

Could you paraphrase which ones are Mahaswamy's words and which ones are yours. Also please give the source (such as website to be more precise rather than Hindu Dharma in general which could be voluminous)of His quote whenever you quote them. Is it too much to ask?

 

[silverfox]

Can we go back to our old ways?

Dear KRS:

Thank you for the wonderful postings. With great respect to Swamiji, I seriously doubt if we, Brahmins, could go back and live the old Dharmic way! Also, isn't this all part of the overall scheme of things by the Lord? Isn't this all part of evolution?

 

[Kamakshi]

KRS,

By all this exercise of yours, please forgive me for saying, it is a shameless attempt on your part to say we who are gathered here are stupid to claim that we are Brahmins. If we accept your contention then we have to close the shop and claim that we are non-Brahmins!

Let me reiterate that we are all Brahmins and any attempt to define us is to driving a dagger into our heart. The devil as they say are in the detail. So many have answered your question 'Who are we?' in so many different ways and let me tell you that there are crores of Brahmins outside this forum who would define in ten thousand crore ways!

In our heart and psyche we are Brahmins and perhaps we can't satisfy you to give one single answer.

Good luck to you!

 

[Amoorkan]

Dear Silverfox,

I do not think our great Acharyal would put us into the kind of predicament portrayed by KRS. We do not know if Paramacharyal was accurately quoted or misquoted and what was said in what context. I agree with Kamakshi that our being as Brahmins are not easily explainable but quite easily understood. It is like the question "Who am I" - difficult to answer but easy to know! "Ayye! Athi sulabham!" exclaimed Bhagavan Ramana..

 

[silverfox]

Uncalled for remarks!

Dear Kamakshi:
I am somewhat surprised at your unkind and harsh remarks on Sri KRS. You are trying to read too much into this; he is not trying to force his views on us; he is just a messenger. And... please... no personal attacks!

In my view, Sri KRS is a kind and nice gentleman.

KRS,

By all this exercise of yours, please forgive me for saying, it is a shameless attempt on your part to say we who are gathered here are stupid to claim that we are Brahmins. If we accept your contention then we have to close the shop and claim that we are non-Brahmins!

Let me reiterate that we are all Brahmins and any attempt to define us is to driving a dagger into our heart. The devil as they say are in the detail. So many have answered your question 'Who are we?' in so many different ways and let me tell you that there are crores of Brahmins outside this forum who would define in ten thousand crore ways!

In our heart and psyche we are Brahmins and perhaps we can't satisfy you to give one single answer.

Good luck to you!

 

[Chintana]

Dear Kamakshi,

I agree with Silverfox in that your language was unkind - I mean your response to KRS.

I also believe what KRS tried to do was to post somebody else's views as a marker, as a guideline perhaps. It is upto us to figure out what the essence of that message is and figure out how to incorporate that into our lives.

This process of course, requires patience, a willingness to be curious and sincere efforts to move towards convincing results. It is not for people who are looking for quick-fixes.

You are welcome to disagree with anybody's views but please take care to avoid words like "shameless" etc.

There is no shame in presenting a point of view.

Regards,
Chintana

 

[Kamakshi]

Dear Silverfox and Chintana,

I was indeed harsh. I am sorry!

But I do think that the messenger is not different from his message. It won't make sense otherwise.

 

[Chintana]

Dear Sri KRS,

I think we need to learn how to incorporate the essence of Brahminical/Vedic teachings in the context of the current flow of life.

One cannot turn the clock back and say, 'I am not going to use technology or modern ways'.

Everything that happens in the world occurs only with the Lord's permission. So if technology and mobility are the order of the day then they are the characteristic of this yuga/era/ etc..(take your pick).

So how do we go about achieving an inner sense of spirituality while remaning in the thick of activity? That, I think would be more useful to consider.

I am not saying there is no value in following austere ways but not all of us are in a position to do that. Hinduism has made a concession for every kind of adherent within its fold. Why should it be any different now?

Regards,
Chintana

 

[Chintana]

Dear Kamakshi,

Dear Silverfox and Chintana,

I was indeed harsh. I am sorry!

But I do think that the messenger is not different from his message. It won't make sense otherwise.

I didn't understand what exactly you meant.

Regards,
Chintana

 

[Kamakshi]

Dear Chintana,

That was in reply to Silverfox who wrote "he is not trying to force his views on us; he is just a messenger." My contention was the message whatever it was (a bit daring to call us that we are not who we really are and a bit confusing to drag a great sage who is not there for us to seek clarification) is non-different from Sri KRS who would not have advocated the message had he not liked it. That is what I meant when I said the message is non-different from the messenger.

Anyways, my point is that any attempt to define a Brahmin (or any other varna) into a compact secular formula is infructious. The varnas are talked of in this meaningless way as if they could cease to exist. He seems to deny the Guna Visesham (the driving force) that is involved in the varnam emphasising only the kaarmic factor (the changing one) and this to me is a biased idea leading to a ridiculous concept. As far as I know Guna is not easily understood without the help of a Guru. Some modern guys think that everything is in the realm of knowledge of everyone with or without a Guru. There are some knowledge that are kept secret by the Hindus (read Brahmins) and such secrecy is a discrimination according to these secular people. No one can argue and win over these people because their stand point is really unhindu however much they might quote from our scriptures.

I hope you would allow me to view my opinion without being branded. This was precicely the reason I refused to enter into polemics earlier. But I couldn't stand idle when our own existence is challenged this time using the realm of philosophy and the Veda and the Masters.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji, Sowbhagyavathi Kamakshi Ji, Sri Silverfox Ji, and Sri Amoorkan Ji,

I did not know that a mere posting of MahaPeriaval's words would create such a furor! In my postings above, everything in blue characters are the sayings of Maha Periaval from His book 'Hindu Dharma'. This book is online at www.kamakoti.org, and so anyone can visit this site and know that what I was quoting is from His words.

I quoted His words prcisely because, it is relevant to our topic of discussion. Yes, we know we are 'Brahmins' but what does the word mean in today's context? Are we Brahmins with the definition of why the Varna system was divined or are we Brahmins in today's cultural and genetic concept?

If we define ourselves with the former definition, then are we following everything that our Shastras and our Gurus have dictated?

If we define with the later, what does that mean? Is Brahminism then genetic? If I marry outside of my community, am I still a 'Brahmin'? Even if I do not live the life of a Brahmin, prescribed in our scriptures and shastras, am I still a Brahmin?

If I have crossed the oceans, that was forbidden in our shastras, am I still a 'Brahmin'?

What does this mean? Who are we?

This is the question, I want to explore. Not dictate. I do not know the answers to these complex questions. Nor do I know the answer to the eternal question posed by my adopted Guru, the Maharishi Ramana, 'Who am I?'

So, Sowbhagyavathi Kamakshi Ji, please enlighten myself on my questions above. I do not know the answers. I have no problem in calling me names; because I know I am talking from ignorance. As I asked you before, please tell me where I have gone wrong? What specific staement of mine is contrary to your belief?

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Kamakshi]

Dear KRS,

Nobody called you 'names'. The tone was felt to be a little harsh by Silverfox and Chintana for which I apologized.

You say, "Yes, we know we are 'Brahmins'". Then why do you tread into the realm of confusion? Because when you ask: "what does the word mean in today's context? Are we Brahmins with the definition of why the Varna system was divined or are we Brahmins in today's cultural and genetic concept?" you will get millions of answers and the best thing you would do is to insist that your answer is the best one! (This is why I said the 'devil is in the detail').

You say you wanted to 'explore'. Such explorations are fraught with pitfalls when you tread into realms that are understood only from a Guru. I once again post below my point of view if you have not understood.

"Anyways, my point is that any attempt to define a Brahmin (or any other varna) into a compact secular formula is infructious. The varnas are talked of in this meaningless way as if they could cease to exist. He seems to deny the Guna Visesham (the driving force) that is involved in the varnam emphasising only the kaarmic factor (the changing one) and this to me is a biased idea leading to a ridiculous concept. As far as I know Guna is not easily understood without the help of a Guru. Some modern guys think that everything is in the realm of knowledge of everyone with or without a Guru. There are some knowledge that are kept secret by the Hindus (read Brahmins) and such secrecy is a discrimination according to these secular people. No one can argue and win over these people because their stand point is really unhindu however much they might quote from our scriptures."

You have said "Nor do I know the answer to the eternal question posed by my adopted Guru, the Maharishi Ramana, 'Who am I?' ". A Guru in my understanding is the one whose message one has understood. Bhagavan Ramana not only posed the question "Who am I?" but also gave out and explained the answer. Aadhi Sankara also explained it as "Sidhaanandaroopahas Sivoham, Sivoham". May be if you are serious you might know the answer. Just a suggestion, the choice is yours.

However much you may entreat me I am not qualified to be your 'Guru' and neither would I merely want to 'explore' for fun's sake. Perhaps if you have not separated the 'Guna-karma' basis of the varna (because you seem to have thrown out the Guna aspect and kept only the oft-changing karma aspect of the varna) you would understand much better. Beyond this I cannot tell you anything more.

 

[Chintana]

Response to Kamakshi - I

Dear Kamakshi,

The maroon italics...

Dear Chintana,

That was in reply to Silverfox who wrote "he is not trying to force his views on us; he is just a messenger." My contention was the message whatever it was (a bit daring to call us that we are not who we really are and a bit confusing to drag a great sage who is not there for us to seek clarification) is non-different from Sri KRS who would not have advocated the message had he not liked it. That is what I meant when I said the message is non-different from the messenger.

If I may, Kamakshi, I think your understanding of this particular issue is somewhat incomplete. I will explain.

First - about KRS's posting: Going by the way he has presented information in the past he starts a discussion by usually presenting information that is regarded as a standard in some way - such as those presented by a scriptural authority or a spiritual authority. This presentation usually takes the form of several postings by him. AFTER such views are presented he invites discussion on it - usually this is the time when people say they agree with the views or not - and sometimes they say why.

This time around he presented Kanchi Periyava's views on who a Brahmin is and how s/he should be. From what I understand this presentation was intended to find out if we all agreed with those views, whether we differed, if so why.

These are all baby steps toward building a concept of what we as Brahmins (who are not necessarily priests) should be - what we should incorporate in our lives and what we should let go as things that are not relevant today.

This is a process and cannot be achieved in one posting.

I feel you lost patience and felt offended that such information was presented in the first place.

About Silverfox's posting: There is a saying in America - Don't shoot the messenger - the Tamil literature equivalent is that the 'Thoothuvan' is not the bad guy. Silverfox did not say he agreed or disagreed with KRS's views. So I don't understand how you can equate KRS's postings and Silverfox's postings.

Anyways, my point is that any attempt to define a Brahmin (or any other varna) into a compact secular formula is infructious.

You should have just said this and avoided all of the other extra, unnecessary language. This seems to be the point you want to make.

The varnas are talked of in this meaningless way as if they could cease to exist.

For your information, nobody uses the term 'Varna' in everyday usage. It has been replaced by 'caste' and 'jathi'.

A concept exists only as long as people retain it in their thoughts. The absence of that concept from language is usually a big sign that that idea has been forgotten or rejected. And 'varna' dropped out of everyday usage a looooong time ago.

The answer to your question - YES - Varna - or any concept for that matter CAN cease to exist.


He seems to deny the Guna Visesham (the driving force) that is involved in the varnam emphasising only the kaarmic factor (the changing one) and this to me is a biased idea leading to a ridiculous concept.

Really? The Guna Vishesham of Brahmins is supposed to be Saathvekam. That includes soft-spokenness, a desire to uphold truth, a desire to serve God (which implictly means acceptance of God), non-violence, respect for all beings, human (especially WOMEN!) and non-human etc. How many of the members of our community do you think fit this profile? If you know of even one person who does not uphold all or any of these qualities, your argument cannot stand.

What do you mean by Karmic factor and why is it the 'changing one'?

To the best of my knowledge Karma simply means action.

Karmic law means that force in the universe which returns the exact consequences of those actions - nothing more, nothing less.

Karmic tendencies or Vasanas are habits of thought which we inherit from our previous births - all that means is that we need to strengthen our positive Vasanas and weaken the negative ones in this birth.

Where does your idea of 'karmic factor' as the 'changing one' fit in?

On another note: When you say things like 'ridiculous concept' you have to explain what it is and why it is so. You cannot expect us to understand your definitions, let alone agree with them. If descriptions such as these follow without explanations it means the words are empty, with no meaning.


As far as I know Guna is not easily understood without the help of a Guru.

For that matter there are several things about the life and world that are not understood without the help of a guru. But the people without a guru or in search of a guru need an explanation for what some of these ideas are - one cannot expect everybody to receive even a basic understanding of such knowledge ONLY after getting a guru. Perhaps a deeper sense of knowledge comes with an association with a guru. But basic knowledge - it is quite possible to get that from a good book written by a well acknowledged authority.



...contd

 

[Chintana]

Response to Kamakshi - II

...contd

Some modern guys think that everything is in the realm of knowledge of everyone with or without a Guru.


What is it with language such as this one? What do you mean by "some modern guys"? Are you referring to KRS? Then SAY that! If you have the courage to criticize his posting you certainly have the courage to refer his name DIRECTLY.

I am pretty sure you followed my exchange with BAAM. I brought up this point of referring to people directly (you may refer the "some interesting questions" thread). Same point applies here.

To address the point you raised: If some people think they can understand everything without a guru then it is their problem. Why are you getting so worked up?


There are some knowledge that are kept secret by the Hindus (read Brahmins) and such secrecy is a discrimination according to these secular people.

I think secrecy in anything or anywhere is a responsibility. As long as the holders of a secret can explain why they have to guard it and under what conditions such a secret may be made known to others they have the legitimacy to hold that secret. This is what happens with governments in the world. They have a Secret Service. And we know that the Secret Service will not reveal to us any information that will go against national security interests. We are comfortable with this idea because members of the Secret Service have the appropriate educational background and work experience. Members of the government who give them that authority are legitimate representatives that the people chose.

Have the Brahmins proven themselves to be qualified guardians of the "secret" as you put it? I don't think so. Do you? I am sure there are honorable exceptions to this general rule. But we cannot make this statement of the entire community.

Also, I don't happen to believe that there is any secret. It is specialized knowledge available to any dedicated aspirant.

It is morally wrong to prevent anyone from having access to the WORK (I don't mean caste-based occupations) or EFFORT that is needed to find that "secret". Because such an EFFORT is every human being's birth right. Everybody has the right to seek God if they so wish.



No one can argue and win over these people because their stand point is really unhindu however much they might quote from our scriptures.

I think a sound argument will always win - as long as both parties are reasonable and willing to learn.

Please don't be offended because someone opened up the scriptures for questioning. Our Upanishads are nothing but a collection of debates. According to me, it is UNBRAHMINICAL to be unquestioning - why? - because it is un-upanishadic. It is of course different for those who have crossed the stage of questioning and argumentation and reached the stage of conviction. But if one does indeed experience some measure of conviction then such persons should be willing to answer the questions of those who are still in the exploratory stage.


I hope you would allow me to view my opinion without being branded. This was precicely the reason I refused to enter into polemics earlier. But I couldn't stand idle when our own existence is challenged this time using the realm of philosophy and the Veda and the Masters.

You are of course free to voice your opinion but you will be held to stricter standards of reasoning. I think being afraid to enter into polemics speaks of a lack of reason-based conviction. I don't think people should be afraid to learn, to question, to make mistakes, and learn not to repeat them.

Your last sentence -the one about how you couldn't stand it when our existence is being challenged - that one brought a smile on my face. Where is this anger being applied? Why is it not being directed at the Dravida Kazhagam (and its various avatars) which is quite literally beating the Brahmins out of existence? Why is it being turned toward someone like KRS who is just trying to do some accounting - taking stock of what we have and what we should be having?

With all this Kamakshi, I still don't understand what made you so angry. Are you angry because a poster dared to question the scriptures (is it the 'how dare he!') feeling?

I think a more constructive response from you should address the following: Why should we not question the scriptures? Why are Brahmins of today qualified to hold 'the secret' as you put it? And what is a good way to counter many of the accusations that non-Brahmins have raised about the Brahmins such as - we are ungodly, we are not vegetarians anymore, we are not spiritual giants anymore?

Regards,
Chintana

 

[Chintana]

Dear Sri KRS,

As you have address me too in your list I am going to try to offer some explanations.

If you feel they ring true in your heart please feel free to take them. Of course you can and should look at other sources to supplement or take another point of view/direction.

I think you have embarked on a difficult but valorous journey. Congratulations on the same!

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji, Sowbhagyavathi Kamakshi Ji, Sri Silverfox Ji, and Sri Amoorkan Ji,

I did not know that a mere posting of MahaPeriaval's words would create such a furor! In my postings above, everything in blue characters are the sayings of Maha Periaval from His book 'Hindu Dharma'. This book is online at www.kamakoti.org, and so anyone can visit this site and know that what I was quoting is from His words.

Thank you. I did see that you had mentioned it was a quote from Maha Periyava.

I quoted His words prcisely because, it is relevant to our topic of discussion. Yes, we know we are 'Brahmins' but what does the word mean in today's context? Are we Brahmins with the definition of why the Varna system was divined or are we Brahmins in today's cultural and genetic concept?

If we define ourselves with the former definition, then are we following everything that our Shastras and our Gurus have dictated?

If we define with the later, what does that mean? Is Brahminism then genetic? If I marry outside of my community, am I still a 'Brahmin'? Even if I do not live the life of a Brahmin, prescribed in our scriptures and shastras, am I still a Brahmin?

If I have crossed the oceans, that was forbidden in our shastras, am I still a 'Brahmin'?

What does this mean? Who are we?

This is the question, I want to explore. Not dictate.

I am somewhat allergic to presenting categorical answers to such deep questions. I would really like to indulge in a method that helps one arrive at an appropriate answer by posing appropriate questions. But that technique may not be suitable in a public forum.

So it is with a considerable measure of diffidence that I present these words:

I think it is THOUGHTS that make one a Brahmin. (Of course, actions follow - but the reverse may not be true).

The accrual of knowledge, which to me, is the direct result of receptivity, intelligence (combined with common sense) driven actions, an intuition-based perception, a willingness to constantly learn and correct one's mistakes (it is supposed to get harder as one gets deeper within), the willingness to participate in worldly action only as a tool that serves to love and serve God (in order to realize one is just a part of a beautiful, magnificent cosmic force) - these constitute at least a part of being Brahmin. Our ancient masters who got to the ultimate stage were so good at it that they made a science out of it - called Yoga (literally means Union).

My half-a-cent.

I hope this clarifies at least a few things.


I do not know the answers to these complex questions. Nor do I know the answer to the eternal question posed by my adopted Guru, the Maharishi Ramana, 'Who am I?'

To really find out the meaning of that answer you would need spiritual training. To my knowledge, it cannot come from books and reflection alone.

So, Sowbhagyavathi Kamakshi Ji, please enlighten myself on my questions above. I do not know the answers. I have no problem in calling me names; because I know I am talking from ignorance. As I asked you before, please tell me where I have gone wrong? What specific staement of mine is contrary to your belief?

Pranams,
KRS

I hope the views I presented serve as a starting point for you. There is so much to be explored. The depths that you want to discover are solely upto you. Only you can develop your convictions. Please make sure you constantly test out any scriptural truth before you adopt it. See what makes you comfortable, see what makes you uncomfortable. Above all, I highly recommend intensifying the search/ prayers for a true guru - someone you feel comfortable having a personal relationship with. It's alright if that person is not present in the physical body - such masters don't need a form. They will come if asked with love. Do be sure to watch how you feel when you read the works of the different masters.
The minute you have a 'aha! this is it!' feeling when you read somebody's words, it usually means your search for a guru has ended.

Regards,
Chintana

 

[KRS]

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Kamakshi Ji,
My reponse is in blue below.

Dear KRS,

Nobody called you 'names'. The tone was felt to be a little harsh by Silverfox and Chintana for which I apologized.

Well, calling me as 'secular' seems to me that I am being called names. I do not understand what part(s) of my discussion point has led you to charecterize me as such. But, regardless, as I have said, I don't mind being called a 'secularist' if the correct definition of the word is implied.

You say, "Yes, we know we are 'Brahmins'". Then why do you tread into the realm of confusion? Because when you ask: "what does the word mean in today's context? Are we Brahmins with the definition of why the Varna system was divined or are we Brahmins in today's cultural and genetic concept?" you will get millions of answers and the best thing you would do is to insist that your answer is the best one! (This is why I said the 'devil is in the detail').

Realm of confusion? I am presenting a line of relevant quotes and discussions to the topic at hand. Yes, there may be millions of answers to the question posed out there, but I would like the readers to draw their own conclusion based on the material presented. If it is incomplete or short on facts, then I am sure people like you will correct me and add to the discussion. But I do not agree one should not talk about something within my religion.

You say you wanted to 'explore'. Such explorations are fraught with pitfalls when you tread into realms that are understood only from a Guru. I once again post below my point of view if you have not understood.

I again disagree with your contention. Yes, one learns from one's Guru, but to say that that is the only place for any learning is not logical.

"Anyways, my point is that any attempt to define a Brahmin (or any other varna) into a compact secular formula is infructious. The varnas are talked of in this meaningless way as if they could cease to exist. He seems to deny the Guna Visesham (the driving force) that is involved in the varnam emphasising only the kaarmic factor (the changing one) and this to me is a biased idea leading to a ridiculous concept. As far as I know Guna is not easily understood without the help of a Guru. Some modern guys think that everything is in the realm of knowledge of everyone with or without a Guru. There are some knowledge that are kept secret by the Hindus (read Brahmins) and such secrecy is a discrimination according to these secular people. No one can argue and win over these people because their stand point is really unhindu however much they might quote from our scriptures."

What is a 'secular formula'? Varna as well as Varna Dharma, if they exist, I do not know about it! As Sowbhagyavathi aptly pointed out, Jathis exist. And, by the way, I am not talking about the degeneration of the Varna concept. I am quoting the Hindu Stalwarts who have talked about this.

What I learn from my Guru is my own business. But what I discuss here is in the public place, for anyone to think over and either agree or disagree. Varna system was divined for the orderly function of the society. In that sense it is open for debate.

I did not talk about the 'Guna' theory, because it is not relevant to the discussion points that I am raising. If you think that it is relevant, you are more than welcome to discuss it. But I know you will not, because you seem to think that any discussion about Varna should not take place at all.

You have said "Nor do I know the answer to the eternal question posed by my adopted Guru, the Maharishi Ramana, 'Who am I?' ". A Guru in my understanding is the one whose message one has understood. Bhagavan Ramana not only posed the question "Who am I?" but also gave out and explained the answer. Aadhi Sankara also explained it as "Sidhaanandaroopahas Sivoham, Sivoham". May be if you are serious you might know the answer. Just a suggestion, the choice is yours.

I said what I have said to underscore the unsound analogy between the topic 'Who are we?' and the eternal question 'Who am I?'. I know what the latter means in terms of how the Bhagavan defined it. What I meant was I do not yet know 'Who am I?'. I have not reached that level yet. Again the answer to the latter question can not be known by the mind.

However much you may entreat me I am not qualified to be your 'Guru' and neither would I merely want to 'explore' for fun's sake. Perhaps if you have not separated the 'Guna-karma' basis of the varna (because you seem to have thrown out the Guna aspect and kept only the oft-changing karma aspect of the varna) you would understand much better. Beyond this I cannot tell you anything more.

Actually I was inviting to participate in discussions based on reason and logic. I was requesting you to post your views, that's all. No one is just 'exploring' for fun's sake. The postings so far and the discussions around them are all with a serious purpose of understanding the topic. I am sorry you feel that this is all done without seriousness the topic demands.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji,

Thank you for your reply above. Your definition of who a Brahmin is quite appreciated. Ofcourse this is part of our Ashrama Dharma. But when we talk about Varna Dharma, we should talk about the relationship of each Varna to the overall society. This is the relationship we are now struggling with (in my opinion) as people, and are trying to make sense out of.

I will try my best to present various views on this from our Stalwarts. I know that we are talking from the writings of these giants, who may not be physically with us anymore, but I am of the opinion that they would not have left us the legacy of their writings and speeches, if they did not want us to read and discuss them. As you say, we will try to take baby steps. During this journey, I am hoping to learn as well, and already that hope is being fulfilled.

Regards,
KRS

 

[hariharan1972]

Swot ?

KRS Ji,

In the context of what you presented in terms of how brahmins have evolved over several generations, can you draw an inference to the SWOT of Brahmins of today ?

At your convenience that is.

Regards

 

[Chintana]

Dear Sri KRS,

Of course we can discuss texts, if that's what you'd prefer.

But texts are just that - texts.

I, for one, am not enamored by words but by the truths they contain.

If reclamation of some of those truths is what you seek then intuition is the way to go.

But if you want to discuss an external social factor like relationship with other 'Varnas' (to me they exist in today's context as castes and jathis) that is a different story. We had a system were the centripetal and centrifugal forces of society were kept in check not only by different occupational classifications but by the acknowledgement and respect of each caste (varna?) of the other.

We don't live in a context where people respect one another for what their occupations are/should be. So the relationship between the varnas (?) has to be engineered by well meaning and publicly respected representatives of those divisions.

In my view we are very far away from this reality.

I need a little bit more clarity on the type of answer you want - Who are we in what context? Spiritual or social? To me it seems like you move back and forth between these two realms so I find it hard to present an answer that might satisfy you.

It will be great if you can provide this clarity before you post another set of postings. We are in the second part of this thread and have read the postings you've contributed but I feel it is time to clarify what exactly you are looking for.


Regards,
Chintana

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji,

Thank you for your reply above. Your definition of who a Brahmin is quite appreciated. Ofcourse this is part of our Ashrama Dharma. But when we talk about Varna Dharma, we should talk about the relationship of each Varna to the overall society. This is the relationship we are now struggling with (in my opinion) as people, and are trying to make sense out of.

I will try my best to present various views on this from our Stalwarts. I know that we are talking from the writings of these giants, who may not be physically with us anymore, but I am of the opinion that they would not have left us the legacy of their writings and speeches, if they did not want us to read and discuss them. As you say, we will try to take baby steps. During this journey, I am hoping to learn as well, and already that hope is being fulfilled.

Regards,
KRS