A test of varna other than by birth

[happyhindu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

That is the reason why I suggest that we better don't think of any community-level efforts to show that as brahmins we have thrown out casteism and, instead, allow the natural course of individuals and families to change, evolve and fit in with the society at large.

Sir,
I feel the attitude of people (in general) is that they do not like to see the idealogical basis existing in their religion that anyone is (spiritually) inferior by birth. So the problem is with the ideology, which i feel will be hopefully addressed by the orthodoxy in future, in whatever way they feel is suitable to the prevailing times. But this is not in anyway related to community-level activities. So i feel there is no reason why anyone must avoid community activities, esp to uplift the needy. Infact if one does not uplift the needy, wud it not be a sin? (sorry sir, i do believe in God, karma and rebirth. I very well accept that prayer and religion might only be delusory means of what we imagine to be emancipation, however in personal life am not able to live without prayer...esp as i grow older i find me leaning more towards prayer...if not anything atleast it works like psycological therapy; which is why i feel the need to venerate is ingrained in humans...and am becoming more and more aware of words/thots that can be considered a "sinful"...i dunno if i will ever have any liberation from these thots..)

Regards.

 

[sangom]

I think the first reference to the three gunas - satva, rajas and tamas - was first propounded by the Samkhya darsana of Kapila later adopted by Patanjali in his yoga sutras. The original idea was that these three are inherent properties of "prakriti", the most subtle form of matter, and the universe originates because of the inequilibrium of these three gunas in practically anything, moving as well as non-moving.

The subsequent adaptation of this Samkhya-Yoga mixture in Bhagavdgita was probably the first attempt to classify the four varnas with the three guna attributes. See BG 4.13, 18.42, 18.39. From then onwards it became a fashion to appropriate "saatvika guna" to brahmins, though the original propounders of the idea did not say any such thing. This mischief done in BG is what is still beguiling most people. Actually there is no need for a brahmin to be satvic, rajasic or tamasic, not even predominantly one of them; it is the equilibrium of these three which causes the manifestation of the universe to cease - this may perhaps be the equivalent of "union with parabrahmam" according to advaita vedanta.

 

[SwamiTaBra]

it is the equilibrium of these three which causes the manifestation of the universe to cease - this may perhaps be the equivalent of "union with parabrahmam" according to advaita vedanta.

Is it what you mean by "tri-guna-ateetha"? Literally it would mean one beyond (transcending) the tri-gunas?

Rgds.,

 

[sravna]

I think the first reference to the three gunas - satva, rajas and tamas - was first propounded by the Samkhya darsana of Kapila later adopted by Patanjali in his yoga sutras. The original idea was that these three are inherent properties of "prakriti", the most subtle form of matter, and the universe originates because of the inequilibrium of these three gunas in practically anything, moving as well as non-moving.

The subsequent adaptation of this Samkhya-Yoga mixture in Bhagavdgita was probably the first attempt to classify the four varnas with the three guna attributes. See BG 4.13, 18.42, 18.39. From then onwards it became a fashion to appropriate "saatvika guna" to brahmins, though the original propounders of the idea did not say any such thing. This mischief done in BG is what is still beguiling most people. Actually there is no need for a brahmin to be satvic, rajasic or tamasic, not even predominantly one of them; it is the equilibrium of these three which causes the manifestation of the universe to cease - this may perhaps be the equivalent of "union with parabrahmam" according to advaita vedanta.

Dear Shri Sangom,

I think what is relevant is whether the underlying logic of what is said is sound and whether what is said is for the upliftment of the society and what is not really relevant is who said what and when. I think according sattvic or good qualities to the highest varna and making it the most responsible among the varnas was a rational and the wise thing to do.

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Sangom Sir said -

The subsequent adaptation of this Samkhya-Yoga mixture in Bhagavdgita was probably the first attempt to classify the four varnas with the three guna attributes. See BG 4.13, 18.42, 18.39. From then onwards it became a fashion to appropriate "saatvika guna" to brahmins, though the original propounders of the idea did not say any such thing. This mischief done in BG is what is still beguiling most people. Actually there is no need for a brahmin to be satvic, rajasic or tamasic, not even predominantly one of them; it is the equilibrium of these three which causes the manifestation of the universe to cease - this may perhaps be the equivalent of "union with parabrahmam" according to advaita vedanta.

Greetings, Sir. BG 18.42 to 18.44 are misguiding. (Why did you mention 18.39? I don't get that, please). But, 4.13 is not misguiding; but there is plenty room to misinterpret that slokam. BG 4.13 only says there are four varnas based on Guna & karma. It never says such varnas are based on birth. If it does not say that, why should one interpret it that way? In fact, in my opinion, verses 18.42 to 18.44 contradict verse 4.13. I request you to comment on that view, please. Thanks.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Sri.Sangom Sir said -

Greetings, Sir. BG 18.42 to 18.44 are misguiding. (Why did you mention 18.39? I don't get that, please). But, 4.13 is not misguiding; but there is plenty room to misinterpret that slokam. BG 4.13 only says there are four varnas based on Guna & karma. It never says such varnas are based on birth. If it does not say that, why should one interpret it that way? In fact, in my opinion, verses 18.42 to 18.44 contradict verse 4.13. I request you to comment on that view, please. Thanks.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Raghy,

18.39 is a mistake; I just can't figure out how it came at all. As you say 18-41 to 47 are what lay down the rules. But 4.13 is the prologue for it, though innocent-looking. It is like saying as follows:

4.13 - I have created the four-castes (four-varnas, if you want it that way) system, according to the gunas and karmas. Pl. note that he does not say gunas only. Though I introduced that I am not its originator, i.e., I am free from any blame attached to it!

18.41 - The respective duties of brahmins, kshatriyas, vaisyas have been fixed with the inherent natures arising on account of the 'gunas'.

... and so on.

Thus you will see that 4.13 is a summary or prologue, which is expanded in Ch 18. 41 to 47. In between is the warning (3.35) that if anyone even tries to swerve from "svadharma" the results will be "dangerous" (bhayaavaha; kindly see the similarity between 3.35 and 18.47.

 

[CLN]

Most of us profess to be mentally clear of the distinction between 'varna' and 'jaathi' - varna getting decided by the quality which is predominantly possessed by a person (because of which it should be also literally possible for one individual to be attributed to different varnas in different periods of his life - Valmiki, Vishwamitra, Ajamila, Angulimal etc. being examples for upward / downward movement in the varnashrama ladder), while 'Jaathi' sticks to a person by virtue of his birth. But in real life, we hardly make any attempt to separate the two concepts - one possible reason being that it is very easy to find the jaathi of a person by simply knowing his lineage, but it is not all that simple to assess one's qualities thoroughly enough to conclude which varna he may fit in. So, the cocept of varna remains only in paper in our times. It is most unfortunate and inappropriate that simply discarding the true meaning of 'varna' the society adobted the very same four terms of varnashrama - 'brahmana', 'kshatriya', 'vaishya', 'shudra' to refer to jaathis - a later day creation I believe. Can any one who has made an in-depth study of this issue, share his information about when and, if possible, why and by whom was this 'mischief' actually committed - to the detriment of the well-being of the society itself as a whole?

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Sangom Sir,

Greetings. This discussion is for academic purpose only. I don't subscribe to any varna or any jati classifications.

WRT to BG 4.13, the four varnas are created based on guna & karma. Why can't every person experience any of the varnas at different times in the same day due to one's ever changing guna and karma? It does not matter to me the way it was interpreted for thousands of years. Let us say, I am able to think outside the box.....So, what happens if varnas are mere conditions of an individual due to the action and the guna based purely on situations?

I do come across very interesting situations in my work; The situations thrown at me are hilarious.....(Today one short tempered person chose to start a fight with me because I said to him 'I am not interested in arguing with anyone!'...He wanted to drag me in an argument to prove him that arguments are not constructive way of communication!). So, guna, karma......yes, these things were not analysed properly, things were done with prejudice in those days. But, what would be your opinion if discussing on purely academic level, please? Thanks.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

I think what is relevant is whether the underlying logic of what is said is sound and whether what is said is for the upliftment of the society and what is not really relevant is who said what and when. I think according sattvic or good qualities to the highest varna and making it the most responsible among the varnas was a rational and the wise thing to do.

Shri Sravna,

I do not find any logic underlying these slokas. Samkhya did not elevate any of the three gunas; all three were equal. The words 'satva', 'rajas' and 'tamas' were probably convenient epithets to indicate them. It is like saying white, red and dark blue and then attributing greatness to white, intermediate status to red and a despicable status to dark blue. And since white has been termed the great colour, adopt saying brahmins will like white colour, kshatriyas-red, vaisyas - reddish blue and sudras - dark blue. Can it be called logic?

Suppose I say brahmins are of tamas because they don't have to do anything productive for the society but only fool the others with their high-sounding and unproductive vedic chanting, abracadabra, and at times, some high-falluting discussions about afterworld, liberation etc., kshatriyas will have a mix of tamasic and rajasic because, though most of the time they are a burden for the actual producers, in times of war these kshatriyas are of 'some' use, and vaisyas and sudras are satvic because they uncomplainingly toil and produce all the goods and services for the society, will it not have more logic?

You say,"according sattvic or good qualities to the highest varna and making it the most responsible among the varnas was a rational and the wise thing to do". But in what way do you think brahmins were made "the most responsible among the varnas"? Is it not the truth that the brahmin varna was the most irresponsible towards society as a whole? Doing nothing productive and living like parasites on the wealth created by others and blowing it off in some ridiculous and costly yagas which was only for their benefit (earning punya and going ultimately to the world of the angirases, the highest class (castes there also?!) of pitrus?

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI CLN.

As you say, varNa and jAti are different: the terms brAhmaNa, kShatriya, vaishya and shUdra are the names of the four varNas, although the first is used today exclusively to refer to the brahmins caste and the last to all other castes in general, with the third being used commonly with the castes such as the Chetty, Chettiars, etc. The term kShatriya is hardly used, expect perhaps in such caste names as the kShatriya rAju (to which shrI Sathya Sai Baba belongs).

Today, castes are rigid, and are by birth: no one can/would do anything about it. What should come is the peaceful co-existence and mutual respect between castes, which is possible only at the behest of political will. As regards the varNa, today there IS movement, but strangely though inevitably, the same person of a specific caste today works in different varNas.

For example, a retired army ex-service man who is a brahmin by caste working in a bank with a side business in computer software, works in all the four varNas: he is drawing his pension for his services in the army as a kShatriya, works now in the banking business as a vaishya, sells his services in the IT sector as a shUdra, and by the svadharma of his own brahmin caste is expected to follow it yatA-shakti--to the extent possible for him.

Although the confrontation between the upper and lower castes today is not because of brahmins, the whole confusion, according to KAnchi ParamAchArya was due to brahmins abandoning their svadharma and women taking up professional employment.

 

[sravna]

Shri Sravna,

I do not find any logic underlying these slokas. Samkhya did not elevate any of the three gunas; all three were equal. The words 'satva', 'rajas' and 'tamas' were probably convenient epithets to indicate them. It is like saying white, red and dark blue and then attributing greatness to white, intermediate status to red and a despicable status to dark blue. And since white has been termed the great colour, adopt saying brahmins will like white colour, kshatriyas-red, vaisyas - reddish blue and sudras - dark blue. Can it be called logic?

Suppose I say brahmins are of tamas because they don't have to do anything productive for the society but only fool the others with their high-sounding and unproductive vedic chanting, abracadabra, and at times, some high-falluting discussions about afterworld, liberation etc., kshatriyas will have a mix of tamasic and rajasic because, though most of the time they are a burden for the actual producers, in times of war these kshatriyas are of 'some' use, and vaisyas and sudras are satvic because they uncomplainingly toil and produce all the goods and services for the society, will it not have more logic?

You say,"according sattvic or good qualities to the highest varna and making it the most responsible among the varnas was a rational and the wise thing to do". But in what way do you think brahmins were made "the most responsible among the varnas"? Is it not the truth that the brahmin varna was the most irresponsible towards society as a whole? Doing nothing productive and living like parasites on the wealth created by others and blowing it off in some ridiculous and costly yagas which was only for their benefit (earning punya and going ultimately to the world of the angirases, the highest class (castes there also?!) of pitrus?

Amusing. What are you going to bring down next? Good Qualities?

 

[CLN]

namaste shrI CLN.

As you say, varNa and jAti are different: the terms brAhmaNa, kShatriya, vaishya and shUdra are the names of the four varNas, although the first is used today exclusively to refer to the brahmins caste and the last to all other castes in general, with the third being used commonly with the castes such as the Chetty, Chettiars, etc. The term kShatriya is hardly used, expect perhaps in such caste names as the kShatriya rAju (to which shrI Sathya Sai Baba belongs).

Today, castes are rigid, and are by birth: no one can/would do anything about it. What should come is the peaceful co-existence and mutual respect between castes, which is possible only at the behest of political will. As regards the varNa, today there IS movement, but strangely though inevitably, the same person of a specific caste today works in different varNas.

For example, a retired army ex-service man who is a brahmin by caste working in a bank with a side business in computer software, works in all the four varNas: he is drawing his pension for his services in the army as a kShatriya, works now in the banking business as a vaishya, sells his services in the IT sector as a shUdra, and by the svadharma of his own brahmin caste is expected to follow it yatA-shakti--to the extent possible for him.

Although the confrontation between the upper and lower castes today is not because of brahmins, the whole confusion, according to KAnchi ParamAchArya was due to brahmins abandoning their svadharma and women taking up professional employment.

Dear Sir,

I am in (almost) complete agreement with you, but I still cannot understand why the venerated Paramacharya, with no disrespect intended towards him, should come down specifically on brahmins (by caste). (A Jagatguru is supposed to be a universal guru for all castes). After all, people (of all castes) taking up jobs differing from their respective svadharmas and womenfolk (of all castes) taking up professional employment have been happening due to changes brought in by political scientific and technological happenings and are not restricted to India alone. Further, such changes are not restricted to Hinduism also. I do not want to raise a fresh controversy on that account, but there is a wide-spread belief among all people in all over the world - brahmins (by caste included) - that this IS Progress!

Perhaps, he was only echoing the sentiments expressed in those Bhagavat Gita Slokas in which there is a strong admonition of people who leave svadharma - the very slokas on which interesting comments are being offered in this very same thread by some other learned contributors.

 

[sangom]

Amusing. What are you going to bring down next? Good Qualities?

I am only trying to point out - may not be able to "bring down" - irrational ideas aimed at glorifying the brahmins without any justification for it, from the society's pov.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sir,

I am in (almost) complete agreement with you, but I still cannot understand why the venerated Paramacharya, with no disrespect intended towards him, should come down specifically on brahmins (by caste). (A Jagatguru is supposed to be a universal guru for all castes)...

Shri CLN,

The acaryas of the mutts, particualrly the Kanchi senior swami, are/were steeped in the traditional wisdom and of viewing the society function in the archaic manner, which alone will ensure the old legitimacy, power and greatness to them. Hence his lament about "braahmanans" leaving their "svadharma" which, he might have even said, is the cause of each and every bad thing now happening.

But the same person kept mum during the 1930's and 1940's when almost all the influential TBs - both social leaders and religious bigwigs - had taken up "paradharmas", mostly legal side, which is prohibited for braahmanan. Why, he then had to ensure their support and adulation, for various reasons. If he is now saying about brahmins leaving their svadharma, it is just an excuse, nothing more.

 

[SwamiTaBra]

namaste shrI CLN.

As you say, varNa and jAti are different: the terms brAhmaNa, kShatriya, vaishya and shUdra are the names of the four varNas, although the first is used today exclusively to refer to the brahmins caste and the last to all other castes in general, with the third being used commonly with the castes such as the Chetty, Chettiars, etc. The term kShatriya is hardly used, expect perhaps in such caste names as the kShatriya rAju (to which shrI Sathya Sai Baba belongs).

Well, perhaps the largest number of jatis exist amongst the vaishya varna, because all economic activities come under that from money-lending to agricultural activities. We normally associate vaishya varna only with trade and money lending, in fact it spans whole range of the economic activities. Brahmins of this age practically have taken many of the vaishya callings. A moneylender/banker, trader, smith, farmer are all vaishyas. It must be remember the specific skills of each trade were taught/transmitted by the seniors and experts within the respective jatis. There were apparently used to be rigid code-of-conduct for each jatis -- whether they were documented or not is something I am unaware of.

E.G.:A money lending Chettiar or a mahajan will be ignorant about smithy and vice-versa though both are vaishyas.

Likewise a temple-priest and a srotriya are brahmins, but there is a world of difference amongst them.

So jatis approximate trade-guilds though in a much profounder sense.

Contrary to what we imagiine that sudras and panchamas form bulk of the population, it is in the vaishyas that form the bulk of the populace -- simply because it is for economic activities most number of hands are required.

Although the confrontation between the upper and lower castes today is not because of brahmins, the whole confusion, according to KAnchi ParamAchArya was due to brahmins abandoning their svadharma and women taking up professional employment.

That is not the sole reason according to him. The problem started when brahmin started getting into secular employment (mostly manned by vaishyas or some jatis like kayastas in north). I am puzzled where kayastas fit into the scheme of varnashrama.

svadharma of his own brahmin caste is expected to follow it yatA-shakti--to the extent possible for him.

It is easy to say, but very difficult to practice. Just take for instance shaving.
Now it has become a norm to have a shave daily. Many of the old-timers know that many days are excluded for having shave. Is it possible even to observe even a very simple discipline. At best one can do Sandyavandanam before leaving for work and do in evening/night.On tours one may have to give that a miss -- or some people may be determined to do in their hotel rooms in a w/c attached bath.

If one has to talk of keeping a distance from women in menses at workplace, you can well imagine the furore that will be created.

 

[sravna]

Shri Sravna,

Suppose I say brahmins are of tamas because they don't have to do anything productive for the society but only fool the others with their high-sounding and unproductive vedic chanting, abracadabra, and at times, some high-falluting discussions about afterworld, liberation etc., kshatriyas will have a mix of tamasic and rajasic because, though most of the time they are a burden for the actual producers, in times of war these kshatriyas are of 'some' use, and vaisyas and sudras are satvic because they uncomplainingly toil and produce all the goods and services for the society, will it not have more logic?

Dear Shri Sangom,

You can say whatever you feel like saying but the chances are, you will not be taken seriously by right minded people. This is a perfect example of burying you head in sand and not willing to accept the truth. It only shows how deep rooted the prejudice is in preventing the acknowledgment of the positive aspects of something and using one's fancy to depict it as something else.

Shri Sangom, I think you are making an unfair assessment of our past and being particularly unfair to the motives of the brahmins.

 

[tbs]

hi saidevo,

For example, a retired army ex-service man who is a brahmin by caste working in a bank with a side business in computer software, works in all the four varNas: he is drawing his pension for his services in the army as a kShatriya, works now in the banking business as a vaishya, sells his services in the IT sector as a shUdra, and by the svadharma of his own [COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]brahmin [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]caste[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] is expected to follow it yatA-shakti--to the extent possible for him.


what u said is correct....im an ex serviceman....by birth brahmin....doing kinda vaishya vritti.....may b some part shudra vritti tooo... i born in brahmin family...studied veda patashala....joined army as kshatrya dharma...
did vaishya vritti too.....many time shudra vrittee too.....


regards
tbs

 

[SwamiTaBra]

But the same person kept mum during the 1930's and 1940's when almost all the influential TBs - both social leaders and religious bigwigs - had taken up "paradharmas", mostly legal side, which is prohibited for braahmanan. Why, he then had to ensure their support and adulation, for various reasons. If he is now saying about brahmins leaving their svadharma, it is just an excuse, nothing more.

What made you conclude that he offered concession to TBs going into the legal profession? He advocated early marriages, but his devotees do what pleases them.

He knew fully well that he would not listened to even by his devotees, but thought as an acharya of a mutt it was enjoined on him (his dharma) to show what he considered was the right path.

The present acharya of Sringeri too holds similar views(being well versed in scriptures), but is reluctant to put forward perhaps because he thinks it is futile.

Rgds.

 

[CLN]

From a purely professional point of view, is there ANY ONE AT ALL who is NOT a Vaishya today - the Priest in the temple who lengthens or shortens the Ashtothara he recites when doing Archana to the deity according to his assessment of the devotee who comes to the temple, the Vadhyar who conduct marriages / shraddhas and other such vaideega kaaryas and collect (more often demands) his pre-determined dakshina / sambhavana, the Teacher (which expression includes elementary school teachers as well as University professors) who claims salary, arrears, pension etc.(and who will not, and need not as well, tolerate any short-payment), the District Collector, The Army General / The Air Commodore / The Admiral and Government Secretaries and Directors and Commisioners and their likes all included?

Where is a real brahmin (Cho scripted even a TV serial called "Enge Brahmanan?") today? Where is a pure Kshatriya? Where is a Sudra? Are we all not Vaishyas, some times acting as Sudras also, but rarely, if never, as Brahmins and kshatriyas? Am I hitting any raw nerve?

 

[SwamiTaBra]

From a purely professional point of view, is there ANY ONE AT ALL who is NOT a Vaishya today - the Priest in the temple who lengthens or shortens the Ashtothara he recites when doing Archana to the deity according to his assessment of the devotee who comes to the temple, the Vadhyar who conduct marriages / shraddhas and other such vaideega kaaryas and collect (more often demands) his pre-determined dakshina / sambhavana, the Teacher (which expression includes elementary school teachers as well as University professors) who claims salary, arrears, pension etc.(and who will not, and need not as well, tolerate any short-payment), the District Collector, The Army General / The Air Commodore / The Admiral and Government Secretaries and Directors and Commisioners and their likes all included?

Your analysis, I am afraid is flawed. There is a general dharma like honesty, truthfullness which are applicable to all.

In any profession honesty is must. Just because as a priest, someone is truncating the namavalis in an archana he should not be called a vaishya. In fact that would mean casting aspersions on vaishyahood. Even for prostitutes there was supposed to be a dharma - a visesha dharma.

All dishonesty will deem to be clearly violative of the samanya dharma.

Rgds.,

 

[CLN]

Your analysis, I am afraid is flawed. There is a general dharma like honesty, truthfullness which are applicable to all.

In any profession honesty is must. Just because as a priest, someone is truncating the namavalis in an archana he should not be called a vaishya. In fact that would mean casting aspersions on vaishyahood. Even for prostitutes there was supposed to be a dharma - a visesha dharma.

All dishonesty will deem to be clearly violative of the samanya dharma.

Rgds.,

Dear

Dear Mr. Swamy,

I am afraid that you have got me all wrong. I NEVER intended to cast any aspersion on the Varnam / or even the caste of Vaishya, nor did I intend to ridicule people engaged in the professions I have listed, at all. If my words give raise to such an interpretation I apologoze unconditionally.

All that I wished to point out was that in today's world it is just not viable at all to maintain the qualities normally associated with a brahmin or a kshatriya or even a sudra and strictly stick to the svadharma of a person - be he a brahmin or a kshatriya or a shudra. Honesty / dishonesty has nothing to do with what I mentioned. A Vaishya, as a matter of fact, is and should be permitted and allowed to make 'profit' in his trade; otherwise, his technique must be a flawed one and he cannot sustain his trade / business. It is NOT at all a sin to make profit as such. But, there often arises a situation when a 'buyer' and 'seller' transact, the buyer at times feels that the seller wishes to make undue profit and complains. On the other hand, the seller feels that he deserves a certain amount of profit for the troubles he has taken to 'produce' whatever he is selling and if the buyer is unwilling to pay, he complains. This scenerario is normal among Vaishyas and cannot be considered immoral or even unethical.

Now, take the case of a Vadhyar. A true brahmin is not expected to be concerned at all with what he is going to get as 'dhakshina' /'sambhavana'. [The Dhaana mantram invariably includes 'yathkinchith', whether it involves a hand-to-mouth poor grahastah, or, a multi-billinaire grahastha.] But, if a Vadhyar is really like that in today's world, chances are that his son in school will have to drop out because he cannot pay the necessary fees, his daughter cannot be married off because he has no money to meet the expenses involved, or his sick mother will die because he cannot buy medicine in time for her and so on and so forth. This argument can be applied with equal validity to others in my list also.

So, when I highlighted the prevailing activities of those I cited, it was NOT done with any intention of faulting them or belittling them. I only pointed out that it is JUST NOT EASY AT ALL to maintain the type of standard / attitude expected to be maintained by a brahmin. Similar things can be said for Kshatriyas also.

I hope I have made my point clear.

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI CLN.

I fully agree with your statement in post no.46:
"I only pointed out that it is JUST NOT EASY AT ALL to maintain the type of standard / attitude expected to be maintained by a brahmin."

I am a retired man now, but since I have been indifferent to my svadharma even in knowing about it all these years, and mainly due to my having not learnt Sanskrit early in life, I find it difficult to cope with even the most rudimentary routines of a brahmin--such as trikAla sandhyA vandanam, gAyatrI japam, nitya pUja, at least listening to my shAkhA of the Vedas, etc. leaving aside the daily yajnas and tarpaNas. This is the reason I said that as parents we must be conscious of the traditional daily life of a brahmin, follow it yAtA-shakti ourselves, and at the same time try to inculcate the knowledge and shape up the habit among our children.

As to what is 'A Day in the Life of a Brahmin', ParamAchArya explains here:
A Day in the Life of a Brahmin from the Chapter "Grhasthasrama", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org:

Some people might jump at the sage for the prescription of the daily routine of 'bali' in the above chapter, but let us be clear that he is only repeating the dharma-shAstras, which was his duty as a maThAdhipati.

I think it could go a long way if a brahmin today is conscious of his traditional duties, repents for what he misses, plans to take up what he can among the missed things at a later time and do gAyatrI-mantra-prAyachitta for what he can never take up. Instead of this, we find many brahmins questioning the relevance of their svadharma when they seek to abandon it partly or fully, and such questioning is wrong IMO.

Here is a book that narrates the life a Hindu (brahmin) lived even during the times of the British rule:
'hindu AchArakANDam': The Hindu at Home
by Rev.J.E.Padfield
The Hindu at home : being sketches of Hindu daily life : Padfield, J. E. (Joseph Edwin) : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

When I leafed through the pages of this book some months back, I wondered as to what could be the mantras that the author paraphrases in the book.

 

[sangom]

Your analysis, I am afraid is flawed. There is a general dharma like honesty, truthfullness which are applicable to all.

In any profession honesty is must. Just because as a priest, someone is truncating the namavalis in an archana he should not be called a vaishya. In fact that would mean casting aspersions on vaishyahood. Even for prostitutes there was supposed to be a dharma - a visesha dharma.

All dishonesty will deem to be clearly violative of the samanya dharma.

Rgds.,

Dear Shri Swami,

It is not that simple a matter, I feel. A braahmana is required to be the paragon of honesty. So if he is dishonest even to the slightest extent, the punishment, according to Dharma Sastras (which lay down both the Dharma and punishments for violation thereof) is to make the brahmana an outcaste (jaatibhrashTan) and send him out of the kingdom and attach all his assets to the king/kingdom. We cannot even consider lowering him to vaishya caste.

 

[SwamiTaBra]

Dear Shri Swami,

It is not that simple a matter, I feel. A braahmana is required to be the paragon of honesty. So if he is dishonest even to the slightest extent, the punishment, according to Dharma Sastras (which lay down both the Dharma and punishments for violation thereof) is to make the brahmana an outcaste (jaatibhrashTan) and send him out of the kingdom and attach all his assets to the king/kingdom. We cannot even consider lowering him to vaishya caste.

I fully agree with you that a brahmin is required to be a paragon of virtue and deviations thereof have to be dealt with much greater severity. This is what I called the burden of expectations.

This would not imply others can get away with anything.

However, the jurisprudence we have inherited from the British will not take into account these factors.

Rgds.,

 

[SwamiTaBra]

I am yet to come across any one express as eloquently with masterly precision about the development of social order in India as Sri Aurobindo did in his essay “The Cycle of Society”. That there is truth in cynicism and concern that each on of us have is quite evident from the following passage:

This typal stge creates the great social ideals which remain impressed upon the human mind even when the stage itself is passed. The principal active contribution it leaves behind when it is dead is the idea of social honour; the honour of the Brahmin which resides in purity, in piety, in a high reverence for things of the mind and spirit and a disinterested possession and exclusive pursuit of learning and knowledge; the honour of the Kshatriya which lives in courage, chivalry, strength, a certain proud self-restraint and self-mastery, nobility of character and obligations of that nobility; the honour of the Vaishya which maintains itself by rectitude of dealing, mercantile fidelity, sound production, order liberality and philanthropy; the honour of the Shudra which gives itself in obedience, subordination, faithful service, a disinterested attachment. But these more and more cease to have a living root in the clear psychological idea or to convention, though the most noble of conventions. In the end they remain more as a tradition in the thought and on the lips than a reality of the life.

For the typal passes naturally into the conventional stage. The conventional stage of human society is born when the external supports, the outward expressions of the spirit or the ideal, become more important than the ideal, the body or even the clothes more important than the person. Thus in the evolution of caste, the outward supports of the ethical fourfold order, -- custom, -- each began exaggerate enormously its proportions and its importance in the scheme. At first, birth does not seem to have been of the first importance in the social order, for faculty and capacity prevailed; but afterwards, as the type fixed itself, its maintenance by education and tradition became necessary and education and tradition naturally fixed themselves in a hereditary groove. Thus the son of a Brahmin came always to be looked upon conventionally as a Brahmin; birth and profession were altogether the double bond of the hereditary convention at the time when it was most firm and faithful to its own character. This rigidity once established, the maintenance of the ethical type passed from the first place to a secondary or even a quite tertiary importance. Once the basis of the system, it came now to be a not indispensable crown or pendent tassel,insisted upon indeed by the thinker and the ideal code-maker but not by the actual rule of society or its practice. Once ceasing to be indispensable,it came inevitably to be dispensed with except as an ornamental fiction. Finally, even the economic basis began to disintegrate; birth, family custom and remnants, deformations, new accretions of meaningless or fanciful religious sign and ritual, the very scarecrow and caricature of the old profound symbolism, became the riveting links of the system of caste in the iron age of the old society. In the full economic period of caste the priest and the Pundit masquerade under the name of the Brahmin, the aristocrat and feudal baron under the name of the Kshatriya, the trader and money-getter under the name of the Vaishya, the half-fed labourer and economic serf under the name of the Shudra. When the economic basis also breaks down, then the unclean and diseased decrepitude of the old system has begun; it has become a name, a shell, a sham and must either be dissolved in the crucible of an individualist period of society or else fatally affect with weakness and falsehood the system of life that clings to it. That in visible fact is the last and present state of the caste in India.

… we have first the symbolic idea of the four orders, expressing -- to employ an abstractly figurative language which the Vedic thinkers would not have used nor perhaps understood, but which helps best our modern understanding – he Divine as knowledge in man, the Divine as power, the Divine as production, enjoyment and mutuality, the Divine as service, obedience and work. These divisions answer to four cosmic principles, the Wisdom that conceives the order and principle of things, the Power that sanctions, upholds and enforces it, the Harmony that creates the arrangement of its parts, the Work that carries out what the rest direct.