ADVAITA-L Digest - 4 Mar 2003 to 5 Mar 2003 (#2003-55)

[hemang Chamakuzhi Subramanian]

All,

      Had actually posted a message long back question the very
facet upon which  a person's caste decided at his birth..or is the
varna decided on his Dina karma(his occupation).  By this
defenition most of the world...as they work for the others..and
are not involved in trades/devotion to God..are Sudras..its
improbable that everyone starts pouring lead into everyone else's
ears..anyway..so it would be preposterous to keep reminding
ourselves of arcane rules/laws that were bestowed..... This topic
has probably beaten all records..on the list by all means..

     Please enlighten me, if this defenition is wrong and any of
the scriptures elucidate that birth is  the only way a person's
Varna is decided(ie. his varna is fixed by his Father Or Mother Or
either Or not)....

     If the defenition of shudra, is a laborer or a worker or
someone..who works for others..then all people who work as
software engineers are more or less Sudras...(someone claimed that
since we sell our skill we are more or less the Vishyas...not
shudras..anyways..)

       So Swami chinmayananda, by that defenition of varna is a
Brahmin by Karma, as he has spend most of his life propogating the
hindu Dharma..by elucidating the scriptures to lesser mortals
veiled by their prognostic Karmas..


with due respect.
  -hemang Subramanian




>Date:    Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:27:20 -0800
> From:    ravi chandrasekhara <vadhula at YAHOO.COM>
>Subject: Re: Statements in our shastras
>
>Dear Members,
>
>Thank you for the responses to my questions.  I can
>"deal" with shastras stating considering women as
>flesh, etc to develop vairagya or even "considering
>vedic sacrifices as useless" compared to one seeking
>moksha.  But to see a statement of pouring metal into
>a Sudra's ear is contradictory to our morals.
>
>Another qustion I have is about non dvijas not being
>being taught Vedas.  Does it apply also to sanyasis of
>non-dvija background ? (that is their purva ashrama)
>For example, Swami Chinmayananda was of the Nayar
>caste in Kerala (which belongs to the Sudra varna) and
>he gave discourses on Upanishads.  Are upanishads
>limited to sanyasis of dvija background only or
>available to all ?
>
>Dhanyavaad, Ravi Chandrasekhara















>--- "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM> wrote:
> > My take on this subject.  excerpts have been taken
> > from several other
> > posts in this thread:
> >
> > Ravi Chandrashekhar wrote:
> >
> > > I picked up some English translations of quotes
> > from our shastras; do
> > > they actualy say this or are these
> > mistranslations:
> > >
> > > Apastamba DharmaSutra (2:8)
> > >
> > > "As it is a sin to touch a Candala, so is it to
> > speak to or to look at
> > > one"
> > > Gautama DharmaSutra (12: 1-6) "If a Sudra uses
> > abusive language or
> > > physical violence against twice born people, the
> > part of his body used
> > > for the crime should be chopped off. If he has sex
> > with an Arya woman,
> > > his penis should be cut off and all his property
> > confiscated, if the
> > > women had a guardian, then, in addition to the
> > above, he shall be
> > > executed. And if he listens in on a Vedic
> > recitation, his ears shall be
> > > filled with molten tin or lac, if he repeats it,
> > his tongue shall be cut
> > > off, if he commits it to memory, his body shall be
> > split asunder."
> > >
> >
> > No our shastras do actually say such things.  They
> > are not mistranslations
> > except for minor quibbles such as the metal involved
> > is lead not tin.
> >
> > Historians will react to  such things in one way.
> > Politicians in another.
> > But what should we as followers of Dharma do?  are
> > we required to pour led
> > in peoples ears? if not, why not since this is
> > plainly the wish of Rshi
> > Apastambha?  Here is one possible solution:
> >
> > Malolan Cadambi wrote:
> >
> > > Here is one interesting incident which you might
> > want to read about:
> > >
> >
>http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/sep96/0086.html
> >
> > the Shrivaishnava viewpoint as explained by Mani
> > makes sense from their
> > point of view because they hold God to be the
> > supreme authority.  So his
> > wishes trump the shastras.  From a Smarta point of
> > view the Vedas being
> > apaurusheya are authoritative in themselves (as are
> > the shastras based
> > upon them.) and no man or God has the power to alter
> > the dharma based upon
> > them.
> >
> > Instead the authority to interpret is given to
> > "tradition" as a whole
> > (hence the name Smarta)  To determine  the proper
> > action, we need to look
> > at what was actually done on a historical basis.
> >
> > FACT: From ancient times to the present day, the
> > non-dvijas have not been
> > taught the Vedas.
> >
> > FACT: There is no historical evidence that anyone
> > ever had lead poured
> > into their ears for illegitimately listening to the
> > Vedas.
> >
> > FACT: Shankaracharya while explaining the
> > apashudraprakarana of the
> > Brahmasutras upholds the idea that Shudras may not
> > learn the Vedas but
> > says they can become jnanis anyway.  He gives the
> > examples of Vidura and
> > Dharmavyadha from the Mahabharat as examples.
> >
> > By examining these and other facts can we determine
> > the proper course of
> > action.  As Malolan said, reason has to be employed
> > here.  We cannot
> > simply dump our responsibilities into the lap of a
> > book or sage, or deity.
> >
> > Does this mean we can simply do whatever we want?
> > After all a brief
> > examination of the scene will tell us e.g. not many
> > people do
> > sandhyavandana these days.  May the teachings of
> > Rshi Apastambha onthis
> > topic be ignored also?  No.  Because the necessity
> > of sandhyavandana isn't
> > just a pet theory of Rshi Apastambha but the
> > consensus of all the sages
> > and acharyas upto the present day.  Furthermore
> > those who don't do it have
> > not carefully examined the facts and determined they
> > don't need to but are
> > simply ignorant and lazy which disqualifies them as
> > judges of Dharma.
> >
> > Like any successful civilization ours contains a
> > certain amount of
> > contradiction.  Want support for dictatorship?  the
> > arthashastra advises a
> > king to ruthlessly eliminate any competitors to his
> > power.  But it also
> > says the purpose of a king is to "prevent the big
> > fish from swallowing the
> > little fish" which could be interpreted in a more
> > democratic way.  The
> > staus of women?  Some shastras say e.g. to increase
> > their vairagya men
> > should think of them as nasty bags of blood, filth
> > and bones.  While
> > others they should considered the embodiment of
> > Lakshmi Devi and
> > misfortune befalls a home were the women are
> > mistreated.  Or how about
> > Karma versus Jnana?  Advaita Vedanta becomes a lot
> > more convoluted when
> > taking Karma into account.  Shankaracharya obviously
> > prefers Jnana and I
> > bet he wished he could just make those parts of the
> > shastras that seem to
> > promote Karma go away but to his credit he doesn't
> > censor.  I believe this
> > attitude is why the Vedic religion has survived for
> > so long when others of
> > similiar antiquity have not.
> >
> > One last point:
> >
> > > Ravi Chandrashekhar wrote:
> > >
> > > Vasista DharmaSutra (3:1)
> > >
> > > "Brahmins who are not learned, do not teach, or
> > who do not maintain the
> > > sacred fires become equal to sudras."
> >
> > I do not put this quote in the same class as the
> > others.  It is a simple
> > statement of fact.
> >
> > --
> > Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> > It's a girl! See the pictures -
>http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
>http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date:    Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:47:48 -0800
> From:    Sanjay Verma <sanjay1297 at YAHOO.COM>
>Subject: Re: Statements in our shastras
>
>--0-1134196364-1046846868=:35333
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>Hello all,
>My sincere apologies if my comments are out of context. I have
>been busy studying for medical board exams, and as such have not
>been diligent in reading all the messages on this list serve. So,
>if my comments are redundant, I am sorry. I came across this
>email and felt compelled to reply...
>While "Shastras" hold a high place in Hindu scripture, let us not
>forget that they are composed by fallible human beings (i.e.,
>part of the smriti canon of literature). What is written in the
>various shastras should be taken with a grain of salt -- composed
>with perhaps good intention, but subject to the cultural and
>political biases of the time. Whenever there is conflict, the
>sruti texts always supercede the smriti texts. Therefore, debates
>about the "morality" or spiritual wisdom of ostensibly prejudiced
>and inhumane statements (e.g., chopping off the penis of a shudra
>who has sex with an aryan woman, as quoted below)... debates on
>these topics are in my opinion a waste of our mental and
>spiritual energy.
>Going back to the purpose of this list serve (Vedanta as taught
>by Shankaracharya), I believe there is a story about Adi
>Shankaracharya who encountered an untouchable. At first Sri
>Shankaracharya was indignant that the low-caste person would not
>move away from his path. However, when the person responded that
>the true nature was the Atman, and that for the Atman, there is
>no low-caste or high-caste, no distinction between "I" and "you",
>Adi Shankaracharya paid him obeissance for reminding him that
>worldly distinctions of caste are truly inappropriate for the
>spiritual sage. Now, I don't have the details of this story
>memorized... please read this for the spirit of hte message and
>not the letter of the narration. Thus, women and low-caste
>memebers being excluded from spiritual teachings is absurd.
>I believe on this website, it states that all commentators on
>Advaita Vedanta make their name by commenting on some canonical
>works (e.g., Bhagavad Gita, BrahmaSutra, etc.). So, here I refer
>to BG 5:18, and I quote from Adi Shankaracharya's commentary
>"Bhagavadgita Bhasya":
>"The sages perceive the same truth in the Brahmana, rich in
>knowledge and culture, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eating
>outcaste." BG 5:18
>Shankara's commentary:
>"In the saatvika brahmana, endowed with knowledge ad culture, who
>has the best latent imporession of life's experiences,
>inanintermediate being like the cow that is rajasic without such
>impression, and in the low merely tamasic beings like anelephant
>etc, the sages are trained to perceive the same, single, and
>immutable Brahman, wholly unaffected by constituents like the
>sattva and by the latent impression they generate."
>Furthermore, Shankaracharya anticipates the objection:
>"Now, is not the food offered by such tained indivuduals
>forbidden? Vide, the smriti: 'The food should not be accepted
> from him who invidiously treats equals as unequals and unequals
>as eqals' GDS. Answer: 'No, the are not tainted. How?' " [going
>on to BG 5:19 for further explanation]
>Furthermore, in BG 18:30-32, Sri Krishna says that that intellect
>is rajasic [not as pure as sattvic] which erroneously understands
>righteousness and unreighteousness, duty and non-dute. Adi
>Shankaracharya explains in his commentary that the righteousness
>here refers to those actions enjoined by the shastras and
>unrighteousness referes to those actions forbidden by the
>shastras. Clearly, the lesson here is to rise above such shastric
>morals and focus more on the universal, all-pervading divinity.
>Near the end of the BG (18:67-71), Sri Krishna says that "this"
>(i.e, BG) should not be taught to a non-ascetic, a non-devotee, a
>person who does not seek it, or a person who reviles Him. Note,
>that there is no mention of caste or gender. Sri Krishna states
>that   A N Y O N E   who teaches the BG (to devotees), or who
>studies this righteous dialogue, or who listens to it, will have
>offered Him the knowledge sacrifice, which earlier He states is
>among the highest of sacrifices.
>Okay, I must return to my studies... I do hope that we can focus
>more on the spirit of the all-pervasive Brahman and how to
>achieve that realization... the ritualistic practices enjoined by
>the Shastras often times serve to be more divisive rather than
>cultivating universal love.
>Om Shanti,
>Sanjay
>
>  ravi chandrasekhara <vadhula at YAHOO.COM> wrote:Dear Members,
>
>Thank you for the responses to my questions. I can
>"deal" with shastras stating considering women as
>flesh, etc to develop vairagya or even "considering
>vedic sacrifices as useless" compared to one seeking
>moksha. But to see a statement of pouring metal into
>a Sudra's ear is contradictory to our morals.
>
>Another qustion I have is about non dvijas not being
>being taught Vedas. Does it apply also to sanyasis of
>non-dvija background ? (that is their purva ashrama)
>For example, Swami Chinmayananda was of the Nayar
>caste in Kerala (which belongs to the Sudra varna) and
>he gave discourses on Upanishads. Are upanishads
>limited to sanyasis of dvija background only or
>available to all ?
>
>Dhanyavaad, Ravi Chandrasekhara
>
>--- "Jaldhar H. Vyas" wrote:
> > My take on this subject. excerpts have been taken
> > from several other
> > posts in this thread:
> >
> > Ravi Chandrashekhar wrote:
> >
> > > I picked up some English translations of quotes
> > from our shastras; do
> > > they actualy say this or are these
> > mistranslations:
> > >
> > > Apastamba DharmaSutra (2:8)
> > >
> > > "As it is a sin to touch a Candala, so is it to
> > speak to or to look at
> > > one"
> > > Gautama DharmaSutra (12: 1-6) "If a Sudra uses
> > abusive language or
> > > physical violence against twice born people, the
> > part of his body used
> > > for the crime should be chopped off. If he has sex
> > with an Arya woman,
> > > his penis should be cut off and all his property
> > confiscated, if the
> > > women had a guardian, then, in addition to the
> > above, he shall be
> > > executed. And if he listens in on a Vedic
> > recitation, his ears shall be
> > > filled with molten tin or lac, if he repeats it,
> > his tongue shall be cut
> > > off, if he commits it to memory, his body shall be
> > split asunder."
> > >
> >
> > No our shastras do actually say such things. They
> > are not mistranslations
> > except for minor quibbles such as the metal involved
> > is lead not tin.
> >
> > Historians will react to such things in one way.
> > Politicians in another.
> > But what should we as followers of Dharma do? are
> > we required to pour led
> > in peoples ears? if not, why not since this is
> > plainly the wish of Rshi
> > Apastambha? Here is one possible solution:
> >
> > Malolan Cadambi wrote:
> >
> > > Here is one interesting incident which you might
> > want to read about:
> > >
> >
>http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/sep96/0086.html
> >
> > the Shrivaishnava viewpoint as explained by Mani
> > makes sense from their
> > point of view because they hold God to be the
> > supreme authority. So his
> > wishes trump the shastras. From a Smarta point of
> > view the Vedas being
> > apaurusheya are authoritative in themselves (as are
> > the shastras based
> > upon them.) and no man or God has the power to alter
> > the dharma based upon
> > them.
> >
> > Instead the authority to interpret is given to
> > "tradition" as a whole
> > (hence the name Smarta) To determine the proper
> > action, we need to look
> > at what was actually done on a historical basis.
> >
> > FACT: From ancient times to the present day, the
> > non-dvijas have not been
> > taught the Vedas.
> >
> > FACT: There is no historical evidence that anyone
> > ever had lead poured
> > into their ears for illegitimately listening to the
> > Vedas.
> >
> > FACT: Shankaracharya while explaining the
> > apashudraprakarana of the
> > Brahmasutras upholds the idea that Shudras may not
> > learn the Vedas but
> > says they can become jnanis anyway. He gives the
> > examples of Vidura and
> > Dharmavyadha from the Mahabharat as examples.
> >
> > By examining these and other facts can we determine
> > the proper course of
> > action. As Malolan said, reason has to be employed
> > here. We cannot
> > simply dump our responsibilities into the lap of a
> > book or sage, or deity.
> >
> > Does this mean we can simply do whatever we want?
> > After all a brief
> > examination of the scene will tell us e.g. not many
> > people do
> > sandhyavandana these days. May the teachings of
> > Rshi Apastambha onthis
> > topic be ignored also? No. Because the necessity
> > of sandhyavandana isn't
> > just a pet theory of Rshi Apastambha but the
> > consensus of all the sages
> > and acharyas upto the present day. Furthermore
> > those who don't do it have
> > not carefully examined the facts and determined they
> > don't need to but are
> > simply ignorant and lazy which disqualifies them as
> > judges of Dharma.
> >
> > Like any successful civilization ours contains a
> > certain amount of
> > contradiction. Want support for dictatorship? the
> > arthashastra advises a
> > king to ruthlessly eliminate any competitors to his
> > power. But it also
> > says the purpose of a king is to "prevent the big
> > fish from swallowing the
> > little fish" which could be interpreted in a more
> > democratic way. The
> > staus of women? Some shastras say e.g. to increase
> > their vairagya men
> > should think of them as nasty bags of blood, filth
> > and bones. While
> > others they should considered the embodiment of
> > Lakshmi Devi and
> > misfortune befalls a home were the women are
> > mistreated. Or how about
> > Karma versus Jnana? Advaita Vedanta becomes a lot
> > more convoluted when
> > taking Karma into account. Shankaracharya obviously
> > prefers Jnana and I
> > bet he wished he could just make those parts of the
> > shastras that seem to
> > promote Karma go away but to his credit he doesn't
> > censor. I believe this
> > attitude is why the Vedic religion has survived for
> > so long when others of
> > similiar antiquity have not.
> >
> > One last point:
> >
> > > Ravi Chandrashekhar wrote:
> > >
> > > Vasista DharmaSutra (3:1)
> > >
> > > "Brahmins who are not learned, do not teach, or
> > who do not maintain the
> > > sacred fires become equal to sudras."
> >
> > I do not put this quote in the same class as the
> > others. It is a simple
> > statement of fact.
> >
> > --
> > Jaldhar H. Vyas
> > It's a girl! See the pictures -
>http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
>http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
>_______________________________________
>
>The journey of a thousand miles begins
>with a single step.--Chinese Proverb
>
>_______________________________________
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
>--0-1134196364-1046846868=:35333
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>
><P>Hello all,
><P>My sincere apologies if my comments are out of context. I have
>been busy studying for medical board exams, and as such have not
>been diligent in reading all the messages on this list serve. So,
>if my comments are redundant, I am sorry. I came across this
>email and felt compelled to reply...
><P>While "Shastras" hold a high place in Hindu scripture, let us
>not forget that they are composed by fallible human beings (i.e.,
>part of the smriti canon of literature). What is written in the
>various shastras should be taken with a grain of salt -- composed
>with perhaps good intention, but subject to the cultural and
>political biases of the time. Whenever there is conflict, the
>sruti texts always supercede the smriti texts. Therefore, debates
>about the "morality" or spiritual wisdom of ostensibly prejudiced
>and inhumane statements (e.g., chopping off the penis of a shudra
>who has sex with an aryan woman, as quoted below)... debates on
>these topics are in my opinion a waste of our mental and
>spiritual energy.
><P>Going back to the purpose of this list serve (Vedanta as
>taught by Shankaracharya), I believe there is a story about Adi
>Shankaracharya who encountered an untouchable. At first Sri
>Shankaracharya was indignant that the low-caste person would not
>move away from his path. However, when the person responded that
>the true nature was the Atman, and that for the Atman, there is
>no low-caste or high-caste, no distinction between "I" and "you",
>Adi Shankaracharya paid him obeissance for reminding him that
>worldly distinctions of caste are truly inappropriate for the
>spiritual sage. Now, I don't have the details of this story
>memorized... please read this for the spirit of hte message and
>not the letter of the narration. Thus, women and low-caste
>memebers being excluded from spiritual teachings is absurd.
><P>I believe on this website, it states that all commentators on
>Advaita Vedanta make their name by commenting on some canonical
>works (e.g., Bhagavad Gita, BrahmaSutra, etc.). So, here I refer
>to BG 5:18, and I quote from Adi Shankaracharya's commentary
>"Bhagavadgita Bhasya":
><P>"The sages perceive the same truth in the Brahmana, rich in
>knowledge and culture, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eating
>outcaste." BG 5:18
><P>Shankara's commentary:
><P>"In the saatvika brahmana, endowed with knowledge ad culture,
>who has the best latent imporession of life's experiences,
>inanintermediate being like the cow that is rajasic without such
>impression, and in the low merely tamasic beings like anelephant
>etc, the sages are trained to perceive the same, single, and
>immutable Brahman, wholly unaffected by constituents like the
>sattva and by the latent impression they generate."
><P>Furthermore, Shankaracharya anticipates the objection:
><P>"Now, is not the food offered by such tained indivuduals
>forbidden? Vide, the smriti: 'The food should not be accepted
> from him who invidiously treats equals as unequals and unequals
>as eqals' GDS. Answer: 'No, the are not tainted. How?' " [going
>on to BG 5:19 for further explanation]
><P>Furthermore, in BG 18:30-32, Sri Krishna says that that
>intellect is rajasic [not as pure as sattvic] which erroneously
>understands righteousness and unreighteousness, duty and
>non-dute. Adi Shankaracharya explains in his commentary that the
>righteousness here refers to those actions enjoined by the
>shastras and unrighteousness referes to those actions forbidden
>by the shastras. Clearly, the lesson here is to rise above such
>shastric morals and focus more on the universal, all-pervading
>divinity.
><P>Near the end of the BG (18:67-71), Sri Krishna says that
>"this" (i.e, BG) should not be taught to a non-ascetic, a
>non-devotee, a person who does not seek it, or a person who
>reviles Him. Note, that there is no mention of caste or gender.
>Sri Krishna states that   A N Y O N E   who teaches the BG (to
>devotees), or who studies this righteous dialogue, or who listens
>to it, will have offered Him the knowledge sacrifice, which
>earlier He states is among the highest of sacrifices.
><P>Okay, I must return to my studies... I do hope that we can
>focus more on the spirit of the all-pervasive Brahman and how to
>achieve that realization... the ritualistic practices enjoined by
>the Shastras often times serve to be more divisive rather than
>cultivating universal love.
><P>Om Shanti,<BR>Sanjay
><P>
><P> <B><I>ravi chandrasekhara <vadhula at YAHOO.COM></i></b>
>wrote:
><BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
>BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Dear Members,<BR><BR>Thank you
>for the responses to my questions. I can<BR>"deal" with shastras
>stating considering women as<BR>flesh, etc to develop vairagya or
>even "considering<BR>vedic sacrifices as useless" compared to one
>seeking<BR>moksha. But to see a statement of pouring metal
>into<BR>a Sudra's ear is contradictory to our
>morals.<BR><BR>Another qustion I have is about non dvijas not
>being<BR>being taught Vedas. Does it apply also to sanyasis
>of<BR>non-dvija background ? (that is their purva ashrama)<BR>For
>example, Swami Chinmayananda was of the Nayar<BR>caste in Kerala
>(which belongs to the Sudra varna) and<BR>he gave discourses on
>Upanishads. Are upanishads<BR>limited to sanyasis of dvija
>background only or<BR>available to all ?<BR><BR>Dhanyavaad, Ravi
>Chandrasekhara<BR><BR>--- "Jaldhar H. Vyas"
><JALDHAR at BRAINCELLS.COM>wrote:<BR>> My take on this subject.
>excerpts have been t
>  aken<BR>> from several other<BR>> posts in this
>thread:<BR>><BR>> Ravi Chandrashekhar wrote:<BR>><BR>> > I picked
>up some English translations of quotes<BR>> from our shastras;
>do<BR>> > they actualy say this or are these<BR>>
>mistranslations:<BR>> ><BR>> > Apastamba DharmaSutra (2:8)<BR>>
> ><BR>> > "As it is a sin to touch a Candala, so is it to<BR>>
>speak to or to look at<BR>> > one"<BR>> > Gautama DharmaSutra
>(12: 1-6) "If a Sudra uses<BR>> abusive language or<BR>> >
>physical violence against twice born people, the<BR>> part of his
>body used<BR>> > for the crime should be chopped off. If he has
>sex<BR>> with an Arya woman,<BR>> > his penis should be cut off
>and all his property<BR>> confiscated, if the<BR>> > women had a
>guardian, then, in addition to the<BR>> above, he shall be<BR>> >
>executed. And if he listens in on a Vedic<BR>> recitation, his
>ears sh
>  all be<BR>> > filled with molten tin or lac, if he repeats
>it,<BR>> his tongue shall be cut<BR>> > off, if he commits it to
>memory, his body shall be<BR>> split asunder."<BR>> ><BR>><BR>>
>No our shastras do actually say such things. They<BR>> are not
>mistranslations<BR>> except for minor quibbles such as the metal
>involved<BR>> is lead not tin.<BR>><BR>> Historians will react to
>such things in one way.<BR>> Politicians in another.<BR>> But
>what should we as followers of Dharma do? are<BR>> we required to
>pour led<BR>> in peoples ears? if not, why not since this is<BR>>
>plainly the wish of Rshi<BR>> Apastambha? Here is one possible
>solution:<BR>><BR>> Malolan Cadambi wrote:<BR>><BR>> > Here is
>one interesting incident which you might<BR>> want to read
>about:<BR>>
> ><BR>><BR>http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/sep96/0086.html<BR>><BR>>
>the Shrivaishnava viewpoint as explained
>  by Mani<BR>> makes sense from their<BR>> point of view because
>they hold God to be the<BR>> supreme authority. So his<BR>>
>wishes trump the shastras. From a Smarta point of<BR>> view the
>Vedas being<BR>> apaurusheya are authoritative in themselves (as
>are<BR>> the shastras based<BR>> upon them.) and no man or God
>has the power to alter<BR>> the dharma based upon<BR>>
>them.<BR>><BR>> Instead the authority to interpret is given
>to<BR>> "tradition" as a whole<BR>> (hence the name Smarta) To
>determine the proper<BR>> action, we need to look<BR>> at what
>was actually done on a historical basis.<BR>><BR>> FACT: From
>ancient times to the present day, the<BR>> non-dvijas have not
>been<BR>> taught the Vedas.<BR>><BR>> FACT: There is no
>historical evidence that anyone<BR>> ever had lead poured<BR>>
>into their ears for illegitimately listening to the<BR>>
>Vedas.<BR>><BR>> FACT: Shankaracharya while explain
>  ing the<BR>> apashudraprakarana of the<BR>> Brahmasutras
>upholds the idea that Shudras may not<BR>> learn the Vedas
>but<BR>> says they can become jnanis anyway. He gives the<BR>>
>examples of Vidura and<BR>> Dharmavyadha from the Mahabharat as
>examples.<BR>><BR>> By examining these and other facts can we
>determine<BR>> the proper course of<BR>> action. As Malolan said,
>reason has to be employed<BR>> here. We cannot<BR>> simply dump
>our responsibilities into the lap of a<BR>> book or sage, or
>deity.<BR>><BR>> Does this mean we can simply do whatever we
>want?<BR>> After all a brief<BR>> examination of the scene will
>tell us e.g. not many<BR>> people do<BR>> sandhyavandana these
>days. May the teachings of<BR>> Rshi Apastambha onthis<BR>> topic
>be ignored also? No. Because the necessity<BR>> of sandhyavandana
>isn't<BR>> just a pet theory of Rshi Apastambha but the<BR>>
>consensus of all the sages<BR>> and a
>  charyas upto the present day. Furthermore<BR>> those who don't
>do it have<BR>> not carefully examined the facts and determined
>they<BR>> don't need to but are<BR>> simply ignorant and lazy
>which disqualifies them as<BR>> judges of Dharma.<BR>><BR>> Like
>any successful civilization ours contains a<BR>> certain amount
>of<BR>> contradiction. Want support for dictatorship? the<BR>>
>arthashastra advises a<BR>> king to ruthlessly eliminate any
>competitors to his<BR>> power. But it also<BR>> says the purpose
>of a king is to "prevent the big<BR>> fish from swallowing
>the<BR>> little fish" which could be interpreted in a more<BR>>
>democratic way. The<BR>> staus of women? Some shastras say e.g.
>to increase<BR>> their vairagya men<BR>> should think of them as
>nasty bags of blood, filth<BR>> and bones. While<BR>> others they
>should considered the embodiment of<BR>> Lakshmi Devi and<BR>>
>misfortune befalls a home were t
>  he women are<BR>> mistreated. Or how about<BR>> Karma versus
>Jnana? Advaita Vedanta becomes a lot<BR>> more convoluted
>when<BR>> taking Karma into account. Shankaracharya
>obviously<BR>> prefers Jnana and I<BR>> bet he wished he could
>just make those parts of the<BR>> shastras that seem to<BR>>
>promote Karma go away but to his credit he doesn't<BR>> censor. I
>believe this<BR>> attitude is why the Vedic religion has survived
>for<BR>> so long when others of<BR>> similiar antiquity have
>not.<BR>><BR>> One last point:<BR>><BR>> > Ravi Chandrashekhar
>wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> > Vasista DharmaSutra (3:1)<BR>> ><BR>> >
>"Brahmins who are not learned, do not teach, or<BR>> who do not
>maintain the<BR>> > sacred fires become equal to
>sudras."<BR>><BR>> I do not put this quote in the same class as
>the<BR>> others. It is a simple<BR>> statement of fact.<BR>><BR>>
>--<BR>> Jaldhar H. Vyas <JALD
>  HAR at BRAINCELLS.COM><BR>> It's a girl! See the pictures
>-<BR>http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/<BR><BR><BR>__________________________________________________<BR>Do
>you Yahoo!?<BR>Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips,
>more<BR>http://taxes.yahoo.com/</blockquote><BR><BR>_______________________________________<br><br>The
>journey of a thousand miles begins<br>with a single
>step.--Chinese
>Proverb<br><br>_______________________________________<p><br><hr
>size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
><a
>href="http://rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailtagline/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/">Yahoo!
>Tax Center</a> - forms, calculators, tips, and more
>--0-1134196364-1046846868=:35333--
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of ADVAITA-L Digest - 4 Mar 2003 to 5 Mar 2003 (#2003-55)
>*************************************************************

>From  Thu Mar  6 00:30:04 2003
Message-Id: <THU.6.MAR.2003.003004.0800.>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:30:04 -0800
Reply-To: sanjay1297 at yahoo.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
From: Sanjay Verma <sanjay1297 at YAHOO.COM>
Subject: caste
In-Reply-To: <20030306060028.17090.qmail at webmail6.rediffmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1255034491-1046939404=:73454"

--0-1255034491-1046939404=:73454
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


I agree, this topic has captivated the attention more than any I can remember.
My final contribution on the topic of caste determination:
Please refer to BG 18:40 - 44
"In this world, in heaven or again, among gods, no being is found that is free from thse three contstituents [sattva, rajas, and tamas] of Prakriti."
"Sourge of foes! The works of Brahmanas, Ksatriyas and Vaisyas, as also those of the Sudras have been alloted according to the constituents of their nature"
[Shakara himself here comments that a Brahmana is one in whom sattva predominates, a Kshatriya is one in whom rajas subordinates sattva, and a Vaisha is one in whom rajas subordinates tamas. A Shudra is one in whom tamas subordinates rajas.]
"Restraing [of mind], restraint of senses, penance, cleanliness, endurance, guilelessness, knowlesge, realization, faith in the scriptures -- these constitute the work of Brahmanas"
"Courage, power, resolution, skill, non-flight from battle, generosity, and might constitute the work fo the Ksatriyas derived from their nature."
"Agriculture, rearing of cattle, and tade are the works of Vaisyas born of their nature. The work of the Sudras born of Sudra-nature is menial service in essence."
Once again, I refer to the story from the Upanishads [I will find the exact citation soon] in which a Brahmana teacher accepts the son of a prostitute as a Brahmana student based on his honesty and his "nature" -- caste was not determined by birth or family lineage spiritually speaking, though in practice it has been that way.
If anyone would like to offer competing interpretations of caste determinations, I have this to say in advance... The Upanishads and the Gita hold much more weight in the Hindu tradition (spiritually speaking) whereas the the shastras and epics hold much more weight culturally speaking (i.e, as practiced by common people).
Furthermore, in the practice of Vedanta, why does it really matter how caste is determined? Is this not a moot point in modernity? If the Vedas are not to be taught to anyone but the dvijas, then many of us would have have had access to them. It is because of modern techology, mass printing, and foreign translators (especially the Europeans during the 19th Century) that we have access to the shruti texts. The issue of access is a moot one one -- they are avialable to anyone who seeks them 9on the internet, in Indology bookstores, and elsewhere). The issue of access to genuine understanding of the shruti texts is also a moot one -- no matter what one's backgroung by birth, unless one has the right spiritual makeup, one will not undersand the shruti texts no matter how much time one invests in the study of them.
With that said, I conclude my contribution to this topic. I suspect that one can find just about anything in scripture to justify one's own attitude to these issues. That is precisely why I tend to quote the BG or the Upanishads in my contributions -- they carry more weight.
Peace,
Sanjay
 hemang Chamakuzhi Subramanian <hemangcs at REDIFFMAIL.COM> wrote:
All,

Had actually posted a message long back question the very
facet upon which a person's caste decided at his birth..or is the
varna decided on his Dina karma(his occupation). By this
defenition most of the world...as they work for the others..and
are not involved in trades/devotion to God..are Sudras..its
improbable that everyone starts pouring lead into everyone else's
ears..anyway..so it would be preposterous to keep reminding
ourselves of arcane rules/laws that were bestowed..... This topic
has probably beaten all records..on the list by all means..

Please enlighten me, if this defenition is wrong and any of
the scriptures elucidate that birth is the only way a person's
Varna is decided(ie. his varna is fixed by his Father Or Mother Or
either Or not)....

If the defenition of shudra, is a laborer or a worker or
someone..who works for others..then all people who work as
software engineers are more or less Sudras...(someone claimed that
since we sell our skill we are more or less the Vishyas...not
shudras..anyways..)

So Swami chinmayananda, by that defenition of varna is a
Brahmin by Karma, as he has spend most of his life propogating the
hindu Dharma..by elucidating the scriptures to lesser mortals
veiled by their prognostic Karmas..


with due respect.
-hemang Subramanian












_______________________________________

The journey of a thousand miles begins
with a single step.--Chinese Proverb

_______________________________________


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
--0-1255034491-1046939404=:73454
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<P>I agree, this topic has captivated the attention more than any I can remember.
<P>My final contribution on the topic of caste determination:
<P>Please refer to BG 18:40 - 44
<P>"In this world, in heaven or again, among gods, no being is found that is free from thse three contstituents [sattva, rajas, and tamas] of Prakriti."
<P>"Sourge of foes! The works of Brahmanas, Ksatriyas and Vaisyas, as also those of the Sudras have been alloted according to the constituents of their nature"
<P>[Shakara himself here comments that a Brahmana is one in whom sattva predominates, a Kshatriya is one in whom rajas subordinates sattva, and a Vaisha is one in whom rajas subordinates tamas. A Shudra is one in whom tamas subordinates rajas.]
<P>"Restraing [of mind], restraint of senses, penance, cleanliness, endurance, guilelessness, knowlesge, realization, faith in the scriptures -- these constitute the work of Brahmanas"
<P>"Courage, power, resolution, skill, non-flight from battle, generosity, and might constitute the work fo the Ksatriyas derived from their nature."
<P>"Agriculture, rearing of cattle, and tade are the works of Vaisyas born of their nature. The work of the Sudras born of Sudra-nature is menial service in essence."
<P>Once again, I refer to the story from the Upanishads [I will find the exact citation soon] in which a Brahmana teacher accepts the son of a prostitute as a Brahmana student based on his honesty and his "nature" -- caste was not determined by birth or family lineage spiritually speaking, though in practice it has been that way.
<P>If anyone would like to offer competing interpretations of caste determinations, I have this to say in advance... The Upanishads and the Gita hold much more weight in the Hindu tradition (spiritually speaking) whereas the the shastras and epics hold much more weight culturally speaking (i.e, as practiced by common people).
<P>Furthermore, in the practice of Vedanta, why does it really matter how caste is determined? Is this not a moot point in modernity? If the Vedas are not to be taught to anyone but the dvijas, then many of us would have have had access to them. It is because of modern techology, mass printing, and foreign translators (especially the Europeans during the 19th Century) that we have access to the shruti texts. The issue of access is a moot one one -- they are avialable to anyone who seeks them 9on the internet, in Indology bookstores, and elsewhere). The issue of access to genuine understanding of the shruti texts is also a moot one -- no matter what one's backgroung by birth, unless one has the right spiritual makeup, one will not undersand the shruti texts no matter how much time one invests in the study of them.
<P>With that said, I conclude my contribution to this topic. I suspect that one can find just about anything in scripture to justify one's own attitude to these issues. That is precisely why I tend to quote the BG or the Upanishads in my contributions -- they carry more weight.
<P>Peace,<BR>Sanjay
<P> <B><I>hemang Chamakuzhi Subramanian <hemangcs at REDIFFMAIL.COM></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<P>All,<BR><BR>Had actually posted a message long back question the very<BR>facet upon which a person's caste decided at his birth..or is the<BR>varna decided on his Dina karma(his occupation). By this<BR>defenition most of the world...as they work for the others..and<BR>are not involved in trades/devotion to God..are Sudras..its<BR>improbable that everyone starts pouring lead into everyone else's<BR>ears..anyway..so it would be preposterous to keep reminding<BR>ourselves of arcane rules/laws that were bestowed..... This topic<BR>has probably beaten all records..on the list by all means..<BR><BR>Please enlighten me, if this defenition is wrong and any of<BR>the scriptures elucidate that birth is the only way a person's<BR>Varna is decided(ie. his varna is fixed by his Father Or Mother Or<BR>either Or not)....<BR><BR>If the defenition of shudra, is a laborer or a worker or<BR>someone..who works for others..then all people who work as<BR>software engineers are more or less Sudras...(someone claimed that<BR>since we sell our skill we are more or less the Vishyas...not<BR>shudras..anyways..)<BR><BR>So Swami chinmayananda, by that defenition of varna is a<BR>Brahmin by Karma, as he has spend most of his life propogating the<BR>hindu Dharma..by elucidating the scriptures to lesser mortals<BR>veiled by their prognostic Karmas..<BR><BR><BR>with due respect.<BR>-hemang Subramanian</P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>_______________________________________<br><br>The journey of a thousand miles begins<br>with a single step.--Chinese Proverb<br><br>_______________________________________<p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailtagline/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Tax Center</a> - forms, calculators, tips, and more
--0-1255034491-1046939404=:73454--