Who is Brahmanan

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Hello Smt. Renuka, Greetings!

Its just a practical division of the human society based on functions for the perfect synchronization of the Cosmic Orchestra both at the microcosmic and macrocosmic level.

Varna system is not some grand design that was just perfect. A systematized and hierarchical varna system is not a necessary ingredient for a society to function and thrive.

Many other civilizations were able to make do without Varna system. They found order and progress without an overt varna system which was in the most part birth based except when money and power allowed some movement.

It does not denotes superiority.

Just declaring this won't make it true. Varna system always served to keep some people superior and some others inferior. For all his greatness, wisdom, character, and conduct, Vithura, the only one to stand up and object when Draupati was disrobed, was repeatedly put in his place for the crime of being a Shudra.

best regards!

 

[happyhindu]

Sri PVR,

Varna system is mentioned in Rg Veda, in Purusha Suktam. Here it is -
Verse Thirteen
brahmanosya mukhamasit
bahu rajanyah kritaha
uru tadasya yadvaishyaha
padhyagam shudro ajayata

From His face (or the mouth) came the brahmanas. From His two arms came the rajanya (the kshatriyas). From His two thighs came the vaishyas. From His two feet came the shudras.

Reference - Purusha sukta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It may not be a word to word translation. but, the jist is the same in any translation.

So, we can say that the varna system was really old. But as for the defining the varnas, there are numerous views from many scholars, which, I am sure you would have read from various sources. It does not matter which view is taken, still it is discriminatory. I don't think I have given you all the answers you were looking for; I do not know much at all. When we were reciting 'Purusha Suktham', my wife was asking about this verse quoted above. she did not like it.

Purushasuktam has been discussed here: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-scriptures/2222-purushasuktam-varna.html If you wish i can request for that thread to be opened to continue the discussions there.

Brahma Rishi seems to have backed off (chickened off ?). Sunil Kumar is here (in the place of BR maybe). Lets not disturb his conversation with Shri Nara.

 

[Raghy]

Sow.Sri. HH said :-

"Purushasuktam has been discussed here: purushasuktam - varna If you wish i can request for that thread to be opened to continue the discussions there."

Sri. HH, You are right. Before long we may end up discussing purusha Suktham. Kindly open the thread, please. Also, if it is possible, kindly have the few posts related to Purusha Suktham to that thread, please. Thank you. Thank you for the suggestion.

 

[sapthajihva]

This raises some uncomfortable questions with regard to incest, unless these are only allegorical. But most Christians view biblical stories are true in their entirety.

It may be that all males were named 'adam' and females 'eve' - a common terminology...

 

[Raghy]

Sri. Nara said:-

"But most Christians view biblical stories are true in their entirety."

Some of the Christians questioned the Bible too. The most interesting one was the Scopes trial also known as 'Scopes monkey trial'.
The Scopes Trial — formally State v. Scopes, Scopes v. State, 152 Tenn. 424, 278 S.W. 57 (Tenn. 1926), Scopes vs. The State of Tennessee — and informally as the Scopes Monkey Trial -
Link - Scopes Trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

an interesting court scene from the movie 'inherit The Wind', the same trial in a movie.

YouTube - Inherit the Wind scene, creationism vs. evolution

(Dear moderators, I don't know if this post is appropriate. If found inappropriate, kindly delete the post, please).

 

[Nara]

Sri. Nara said:-
Some of the Christians questioned the Bible too. The most interesting one was the Scopes trial also known as 'Scopes monkey trial'.

You know dear Raghy, I live a mere 30 miles from Dayton, TN, the place where the so called "monkey trial" was held!

This was a circus to draw attention. The defense lawyer was an agnotic who did not believe in the bible at all. I am sure there are a lot of nominal Christians who do not believe that bible is literally true. But what I was saying is that many do. The orthodox ones do. With the possible exception of some western Anglicans and Episcopalians, most other churches believe in the inerrancy and the literal truth of bible.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Dear Sunilkumar:

Greetings! I will follow the way you have organized the issues. The only thing is, there are too many issues and it is somewhat time consuming and cumbersome to prepare the responses for all the issues at the same time. So I would like to take one or two at a time, come to some sort of conclusion and then move on. I hope this process is acceptable to you.

Also, if you can tell me when you will be online, I can log in at the same time so that the back and forth can be quick. My local time 10:30 hours behind India.

In this first phase I would like to discuss the first two issues from your revised list.

Issue 1: About human ability/proclivity for sin:

.... humans are created as free rational moral creates, [...] humans have the ability to rebel against God and God's moral nature, commandments etc. [....] More so, given that God is offering help/transformation/salvation etc, at least, this cannot be a ....

My question is more fundamental than this and is very simple. In as much as god is all powerful why can't god create jeevas with no sin and no capability to sin in the first place?

I am unable to comprehend why a compassionate god would do anything different.


Issue 2: "..belief in the literal truth of crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is not required for moksham?

A person who has not and could not hear of the life/teachings/doctrine/salvation etc of Jesus cannot of course be blamed.

What do you mean by " cannot be blamed"? What will happen to such jeevas? Will they go to heaven? Please answer this question as directly as possible please.

If a person who never heard of Jesus, but praying for Rama's help or Krishna's help to overcome sin, for genuine relationship with God, for God's salvation, transformation etc (and not merely asking for material things like physical well being, wealth, health etc), I do not think there is any Christian doctrine that finds fault with it, in itself. However, a Christian doctrine may say that such a person who is already seeking/desiring/looking at symbols of salvation, incarnation, God's help for transformed life etc would find it impossible to resist Jesus -

This is contradictory! You start out with, "If a person who never heard of Jesus", and then, after a lot of beating around the bush you say a person seeking salvation "would find it impossible to resist Jesus".

How can a person who has never heard of Jesus, but desirous of moksham, find Jesus irresistible?

Next, let us take the case of someone who has heard of Jesus, but knows very little about the Christian theology. If this person meets all your criteria such as,

praying for help to overcome sin, for genuine relationship with God, for God's salvation, transformation etc (and not merely asking for material things like physical well being, wealth, health etc).​

Only that, for them god is Rama or Krishna, or Shiva, not Jesus. Tell me directly sir, will they go to heaven when the time comes?

I have asked specific questions that need direct answers. Supporting explanations are fine, but there is no use of lots of discussion without answering the questions.

We will deal with the other issues after dealing with these two to our mutual satisfaction.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

It may be that all males were named 'adam' and females 'eve' - a common terminology...

There are many Christians from Protestant denominations who believe in the word for word literal truth of the bible, very much like the orthodox Vaideekas who believe in the immutable truth of every word in the Vedas. These Christians have some splaining to do.

The Catholics, it seems, take more of an a la carte view of Bible, some verses are literally true and some are not, and the Church gets to decide which ones are literal and which ones are allegorical. Apparently, the contents of this binary grouping could change over time.

Cheers!