On Being A Brahmin

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Shri a-TB,

The idea that each one's entitled opinion should not be changed is a wrong one. The more logical and coherent ones need to prevail over the lesser ones for the good of everybody and that is what sankara did. It was a logical argument which he did.

 

[a-TB]

Dear Shri a-TB,

The idea that each one's entitled opinion should not be changed is a wrong one. The more logical and coherent ones need to prevail over the lesser ones for the good of everybody and that is what sankara did. It was a logical argument which he did.

Dear Mr Sravana,

I have not seen you here in a while. Welcome.

Please understand this. What would motivate someone to change someone's views if they are not your students? The statement here is not about debate between two people in search of truth. Your point is well taken in those situations.

The key word here is fight. Other philosophers may say they had a fight with Sankara and they are not evolved people. But Sankara is.

Fighting by Arjuna in the battlefield was for duty but he was not told to fight for his ego. So the point I objected to was to the use of fight to describe Sankara's interaction and gave a reason why people describe Sankara that way. This requires introspection

 

[prasad1]

There is NO egoless person. Everyone has an ego, it is the degree of that ego that matters.
Chinmayanandaji used to recount this often. I consider Chinmayanandaji as my Guru.

When he finished his study with his Guru Tapovan Maharaj in the foothills of Himalayas, Chinmayanandaji wanted to come down and help ordinary folks. He went to his guru and asked his permission. Tapovan Maharaj could not understand the need. He was of the opinion that seeker must come to the guru, just as Chimamandaji did. Tapovan Maharaj was disappointed that Chinmayanandaji had not got over his ego. Even though the desire to help others to realize Tapovan Maharaj's teaching was noble, there was Chinmayanandaji's ego was being stoked.

After Years of traveling the world, Chimayanandaji was sure that Tapovan Maharaj will change his opinion. Swamiji went to see his Guru, Tapovan Maharajji was pleased that Chinmayanadaji was successful, but still, he could not commend Chinmayanadaji, as he still had that EGO.

I agree that no one really changes their opinion, sometimes we stand up for it and other times let it slide.

I do not know Adi Shankara's motives, but glad he did what he did to save Hinduism. Similarly, I am Glad that Chinmayanadaji preached and opened my world, and saved countless others like me.

One can fill an empty vessel, but you can not fill a vessel that is full.

 

[KRN]

Dear Mr Sravana,

I have not seen you here in a while. Welcome.

Please understand this. What would motivate someone to change someone's views if they are not your students? The statement here is not about debate between two people in search of truth. Your point is well taken in those situations.

The key word here is fight. Other philosophers may say they had a fight with Sankara and they are not evolved people. But Sankara is.

Fighting by Arjuna in the battlefield was for duty but he was not told to fight for his ego. So the point I objected to was to the use of fight to describe Sankara's interaction and gave a reason why people describe Sankara that way. This requires introspection

Dear Sri a-TB,

If we go by your above logic, then there is no need for Krishna, an evolved person - whom the world reveres as Jagadguru - a veritable God himself, to involve himself in the battle against evil. As you know very well, Krishna did fight asuras throughout his life, and described the purpose of his taking the avatars as "For the protection of the good, for the destruction of evil". Krishna, being a Kshatriya fought evil in his way, while Sankara was an adept in fighting in the Brahminical ways. I hope you would ponder on this a bit.

Fighting by Arjuna in the battlefield was for duty but he was not told to fight for his ego.

But he was! What else do you make of the Gita (2:33 - 2:36). You would find there Krishna goading Arjuna's ego. I would say Gita (2.3) also.

 

[a-TB]

Dear Sri a-TB,

A) If we go by your above logic, then there is no need for Krishna, an evolved person - whom the world reveres as Jagadguru - a veritable God himself, to involve himself in the battle against evil. As you know very well, Krishna did fight asuras throughout his life, and described the purpose of his taking the avatars as "For the protection of the good, for the destruction of evil". Krishna, being a Kshatriya fought evil in his way, while Sankara was an adept in fighting in the Brahminical ways. I hope you would ponder on this a bit.



B) But he was! What else do you make of the Gita (2:33 - 2:36). You would find there Krishna goading Arjuna's ego. I would say Gita (2.3) also.

Point A above:

You answered it already. Krishna was a Kshatriya and protecting from bad is his duty. So he fought those forces. Krishna is evolved but that does not absolve him of the duties of his avatara. He fought to do this Kshatriya duty. Focus is duty. That is my understanding.

Point B

You said in Vishnusahsra nama that Lord is the giver of pride (you did not explain why). So he is the giver of Pride to Arjuna and so he can use that to bring Arjuna out of his wrong thinking in the battlefield. The ego of Arjuna who is not evolved becomes an instrument to get him out of initial sorrow and get him ready to learn.

Now if you have another explanation, please provide.

All people and even evolved people have some basic ego to survive in this earth. But fighting requires commitment to ego wishes that cannot be there in an evolved person. Teaching for a willing student is not the same as fighing a person with opposing views.

Brahmin's duties do not include verbal fights as far as I know.

 

[meghavarshini]

I claim to be a secular brahmin. I have no faith in religeous rituals practised nor I have a thread. I did not have a thread

ceremony.

Yet Internally I have a feeling of superiority as I belong to this class due to birth in a brahmin family.

The deep rooted feelings of superiority makes me rate people based on their caste .

I am not in any profession associated with my caste.Then there are many who go to veda pathshalaas and engage in

service

of God in temples besides helping other folks to perform rituals.But if one engages them one would discover that they

would not like their children to take up their profession.

When any of my extended family children marry out of caste or religion , I may not hotly oppose but I would not

encourage either.The response is likely to be muted . Internally I would thank my stars that my children did not do the

same.

It is paradoxical. - Claiming to be secular, saying that we believe in equality of caste and religion . Yet internally secular

brahmins are as much casteist as the traditional brahmins. I presume that other caste girls when they get into our families

through marriage , They are treated as outsiders barging in and they have to perform extra hard learning our way of life

to

fit into our families.

Secular brahmins are more difficult to deal with than conventional ones as they have a dual personality. They pose as

those believing in caste and religion equality and their actions show them to be the exact opposite. Lol

https://livewire.thewire.in/politics/the-janeu-why-do-woke-brahmins-flaunt-a-symbol-of-oppression/

Congratulations. You made it into the news.

 

[KRN]

Yet after studies of Vedanta people have their ego ideas project on Saints like Sankara. This is just amazing to me. Why should Sankara care to change anyone's opinion? If he is teaching someone, yes - it makes sense. The whole premise of Sankara going around fighting to get his opinion in is an oxymoron.

Dear Sir,
We were talking about Sankara engaging in fights, which you objected to. It is your choice whether to accept the evidence of history or not. However it is a well established, historical fact that Sankara did traverse throughout India, engaging in debates, to establish the interpretation of the Sruti, according to what he was taught in his Guru Parampara

 

[KRN]

Point A above:

You answered it already. Krishna was a Kshatriya and protecting from bad is his duty. So he fought those forces. Krishna is evolved but that does not absolve him of the duties of his avatara. He fought to do this Kshatriya duty. Focus is duty. That is my understanding.

Very good. Now since you admit/agree that Krishna was an evolved soul, he obviously had a clear sense of purpose in his incarnation. As you say, focus is on the performance of Kshatriya duty. Now among the three Gunas, what is the Guna of a kshatriya, as enunciated in the Gita? And what is the guna which the sentiment we call "ego" correspond to? Please refer the Gita and get back to me with your answer.

 

[KRN]

Point B

You said in Vishnusahsra nama that Lord is the giver of pride (you did not explain why). So he is the giver of Pride to Arjuna and so he can use that to bring Arjuna out of his wrong thinking in the battlefield. The ego of Arjuna who is not evolved becomes an instrument to get him out of initial sorrow and get him ready to learn.

Now if you have another explanation, please provide.

That is a good guess, but not fully correct. But you have hit upon the word "ego as an instrument"which is correct. Now the point is this : An evolved soul has gone beyond the three gunas. At the same time, for fulfilling his worldly duties, he takes up one or more Gunas(which are, however perfectly under his control).

The core difference in our views is this.
You had taken up a stand that ego is some sort of negative thing, that an evolved person should not be seen with (this is the sense that one gets from your argument) whereas all along I was highlighting the fact that, to an evolved person (Sankara, Krishna...) everything has its place and ego is a trait that can be manifested at the right place (ofcourse in a controlled manner).

You are incorrect in your statement that Krishna used the ego of Arjuna to get him to learn. Arjuna had already submitted himself as a willing learner, through the words "sishyastheham sadhi maam tvaam prapannam...." The ego of Arjuna was used to show how the same course Krishna has advocated (ie, action) is justified in multiple ways. It is what you would call "adding force to an argument".

 

[KRN]

All people and even evolved people have some basic ego to survive in this earth. But fighting requires commitment to ego wishes that cannot be there in an evolved person. Teaching for a willing student is not the same as fighing a person with opposing views.

Brahmin's duties do not include verbal fights as far as I know.

The Brahmana is the ONLY person who is traditionally entrusted with the task of teaching the Srutis, and interpreting them the right way. Since Veda is the dharma-moolam, the Brahmana is essential for the maintenance of dharma. Now if a circumstance arises in which the Sruti is misinterpreted, then if the Brahmana keeps silent, or merely takes care of his yogakshemam by pursuing menial jobs, he would be failing in his duty. Certainly, as part of his duty, the Brahmana is entitled to undertake any means at his disposal, to ensure that the Sruti that is bestowed to his care, is properly interpreted and taught. So there is nothing wrong in brahmanas like Sankara, Madhva etc indulging in verbal fights, to spread their message.