I am inconclusive as regards "God" – call it by whatever name. Maybe some atheist thinking, but my mind does not accept anything if it is simply stated, even if it is stated in our scriptures. (Excuse me for deviating from the main topic).
This is very interesting. Though inconclusive, if you do not mind, can i request you to please say something about what have been or are your current feelings or ideas about "God". I do not think you are deviating at all...because ultimately this is what we all want to know - "God".
Same for KRS-ji and VV-ji, since this is "the pursuit" (which we are discussing here), could you please also mention what has been the concept of "God' to you. Kunjuppuji, Brahmanyanji, please wud you also contribute. What does "God" feel like (or mean) to you. Thankyou.
According to the Upanishad, if a Brahmin is one who has realized Brahman, then, on the same lines, what is the status quo of the other castes?
Imho, "caste" or "ja-ati" are just numerous occupation groups we take birth into numerous times. One can be doing any occupation and yet have his mind fixed (or in the pursuit of) a certain form of stillness. Am not sure such an individual wud fit the pic of "brahmin", since just as you say, me too find it tuf to see the nirguna state fitting into or qualifying as 'varna'. Such people tend to see themselves removed from both any form of varna (this might be the spiritual avarna group ?).
Am trying to see a diff b/w social-varna and spriritual-varna, as two seperate classes. They seem to have always existed, with both living side-by-side in peace. A switch-over from social-varna to spiritual-varna has always happened.
I do not consider any saints as 'non-brahmin' at all. To me the concept of 'saints' of 'backward classes' just does not apply. Kabir wud certainly be 'brahmin' to me (again, i am making a clear diff b/w a sage (sanyasi) and a saint (a 'realized' sanyasi)). A 'sage' wud not fit into any form of varna, but a 'realized' sage as a 'saint' might fit into the spiritual-varna as 'brahmin'. But then, it also depends on the various sanyasa-traditions, as each seem to have their own definitions.
The meaning of Brahman may denote different things according to one’s pursuit; some may identify "Truth" with Brahman, some "Knowledge", others "Love", and yet others call it devoid of any identity (or character) – "Nirguna". "Guna" arises only from desire – a desire to know more, a desire to live, a desire to do our duty, a desire to act, a desire to achieve the state of Brahman; that is why detachment is advocated in all our activities – "Attached, yet detached". So, a state of mind where there is no desire, no attachment is "Nirguna". This is not possible to achieve with sensory organs – as is obvious. Hence, it is that state of realization of the conscious mind, when not acted upon by the sensory organs. It is said that the highest chakra of Kundalini also leads to this state.
imho, not necessarily, since the sahasrara is the nirguna. As for the detached way of doing things, it is said that just mooladhara awakening is sufficent to produce complete detachment inside, while retaining a sort of passionate life outside. But this is not considered good by spiritual masters. Esp if both worlds are seem as clashing and hence causing confusing to the person, its not considered 'proper' awakening at all - they would ask one to harmonize both the outer and inner worlds, if one wants to see any nano-thing of anything more. This might mean, having to forsake one of the worlds.
So, if a person is qualified to be "Nirguna", he is not a Brahmin (as he becomes "Nirguna" itself); can it be said that a Brahmin is one who strives to be a "Nirguna"? But then, this is applicable to all – Kshatriya, Vysya and Shudra alike. Then, who indeed, is a Brahmin?
Not sure if there is anything called "brahmin" as a varna that exists outside of oneself (am refering to spiritual-varna here). We churn the ocean of our conscious mind, struggle to understand why we are thus, and then attempt to move towards the 'mindless' state. By doing so we wud be moving from the tamasa guna to sattva guna. Then again, what is 'brahminhood' from the scriptures? Am depending on vv-ji to explain that part.
In current times too, there are saints that will not fit into social-varna as brahmins but will certianly fit the spiritual-varna as "brahmins". There still are mantra-drishtas amongst us. Mata Amritanandamayi is one who comes to my mind right away, for she strings beautiful songs (like krishnam shranam mama) instead of mantras alone as chants.
Seems that, it is not the spiritual that can identify a Brahmin, as there are examples of Non-Brahmins achieving "Moksha". So let us start in a different manner – Of the four varnas, define who is a Shudra, a Vysya and a Kshatriya, the residual element may be the Brahmin!
That should be simple???
