Understanding "Brahmanism"

[OKO]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Before I begin, I want to make it be known that this post is not to incite any communal strifes but instead share some questions that I have been ruminating over for a while.

If we classify brahmanas into categories, they would come under the following:

1. Those who are born as one and continue to live as one.
2. Those who live as one.

But per my understanding, a Brahmin is one who is knowledgeable, particularly in the Vedas. With the advent of a more Smartha (shruti abiding and not only followers of advaitha) dominant culture, does it mean that "Brahmins" do not exist anymore?

My second question pertains to the Sri Vaishnavas and their classification as Brahmins. Ramanujacharya does not "convert" anyone into Brahmins but says jivas are all equal and can attain moksha and went on to start the SV sect. Though this sect has brahmins in it, can they really be classified as brahmins solely on that account? From my research, I have understood that SV's become classified as such during the British times as they could not wrap their head around this aspect (much like the concept of pillais et cetera). So should SV's proudly claim brahmin-hood when the basic philosophy is against identifying yourself by caste-based identities and, in fact, asks for one to shed such ideologies (Re: Sharanagathi / Prapathi)? Furthermore, why does Vedantacharya promote varnashrama dharma and goes on to say that Perumal follows it / protects it (raguvera gadyam / thirivinagar oppilappan kovil sannithi's prapatti and mangalam) if it is ideologically not compatible? Or is varnashrama dharma to be followed because you were born into that family for a particular reason, etc?

Furthermore, why is it that TBs have solidified into Iyers and Iyengars when many Iyers follow Iyengar "traditions" like wearing different forms of Lakshmi-Narayana kadakshams (Gopi Chandanam, Namams), praying to Perumal, etc? Is it not quite restrictive in nature and against the idea of attaining knowledge if we all focus on fighting amongst ourselves on an ideological basis instead of practising what the various Acharyas have taught us?

I am unsure if this post has a "flow," but I just wanted an external opinion on the above.

 

[a-TB]

Dear OKO
Since you asked for some 'external opinions' in your last line, I am sharing a few thoughts.

The Bhagavad Gita is a Smriti text but is considered similar to an Upanishad because it encapsulates the essence of all major Upanishads. It presents teachings in a relatable way, regardless of one's stage in life.

I recommend looking for the definition of a Brahmana in chapter 18 of the Gita. Online searches show it is verse 18.42. Here is one translation:

> "Serenity, self-restraint, austerity, purity, forgiveness, uprightness, knowledge, realization, etc. — these are the duties of the Brahmanas, born of their own nature."

This may not be the best translation, but it is a starting point. Elsewhere and in this context, birth in a family is not considered when defining who a Brahmana is.

The word 'caste' is of Portuguese origin. 'Jaathi' or 'Kula' is often taken as caste, but this now includes hierarchy, which is purely human imagination. The concept of 'Kula' came about with a broad-minded thought process. Early societies did not value ambition and competition as they do today. Excellence was acceptable, but ambition arises from comparing oneself to others. A person born to a pot maker created pots and sold them. No one was denied Moksha. However, caste ideas of hierarchy have corrupted the original idea of 'Kula.'

So, if you ask if there are any Brahmanas today, my answer is yes, but they are spread worldwide and are not connected by birth. Most people are business-oriented, so we are all Vaishyas to some extent.

Strive to live as a Brahmana by the definition given in the Gita.

The second question is more historical and related to caste ideas. The practices of various sects, including Sri Vaishnavism (SV) today, are very divisive. But even as a dualist (I know SV claims a special case of Advaita, though to me they are qualified dualists), why not see all as devotees in front of Maha Vishnu?

Swami Vivekananda talked about this unity in his famous Chicago address:

> "As the different streams having their sources in different places all mingle their water in the sea, so, O Lord, the different paths which men take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee."

This is from the Sandhyavandanam mantras recited every day by many people.

Strive for unity and oneness and speak against divisiveness. That is the best Brahmana in action.

All the best

 

[OKO]

The Bhagavad Gita is a Smriti text but is considered similar to an Upanishad because it encapsulates the essence of all major Upanishads. It presents teachings in a relatable way, regardless of one's stage in life.

Thank you so much for your reply!

Could you please elucidate why is it that the BG is considered a smriti and not a shruti as it is Bhagawan who conveys it to Arjuna?

 

[a-TB]

To answer this question, it's important to have a correct understanding of what Sruti and Smriti are. There are discussions about these topics in various forums, and most are often incorrect. While it may not be productive to engage in such discussions, I will share my understanding to answer your questions.

For those who believe in miracles as defining what God is, my perspective might not resonate. Rishis were human beings, and the divinity that expressed through them can equally express through you and me, provided we can shed our wrong ideas. Sruti or Veda is considered divine because it is not of human origin; it is said to be "Apauruṣeya," which means "not of human origin" or "impersonal, authorless." This concept is central to the Vedas. They are believed to have been revealed to ancient sages as spiritual insight. This does not mean that we are not capable of the same insights.

The ritual sections are collections called Samhita and have no particular author, hence they are authorless. The topics they address cannot be derived by the means of knowledge available to human beings, such as perception and inference.

The ritual section may state that a ritual should be performed to reach heaven. Now, heaven is purely a belief-based concept and cannot be proved or disproved by logic. The same Veda in the knowledge section clarifies the real intent of using terms such as heaven. Again, the teachings of the Upanishad cannot be derived by means of knowledge available via perception and logic. But they can be very much understood as true here and now.

There is nothing mysterious about the term 'not of human origin.' It does not mean that some God came and created rules and teachings. For those who believe in miracles as defining God, this concept may not appeal. God is recognized in the form of order and laws of the universe. They are infallible. A miracle that breaks these laws to show divinity is absurd, for nature does not admit violations for anyone.

Vyasa presented the Gita teachings as Bhagavan teaching Arjuna (which can be any of us, for it is for us). The miracles in the Bhagavata Purana, etc., by Krishna have a different purpose altogether. They are meant to teach the highest truth via stories. Therefore, rule out miracles from your thinking. This includes the 11th chapter of the Gita, the Vishvarupa Darshana, etc.

What is a Smriti text?

They are remembered texts, not from insights but by memory and learning. Smriti texts are considered to be "remembered" or "traditional" texts, passed down through generations. Smriti texts are considered secondary to Sruti texts but still hold significant authority in Hinduism. However, because they are place- and time-dependent, many can become non-applicable. Due to human corruption, many have been fodder for divisiveness, unlike the original Sruti from which these are derived.

Examples of Smriti texts include the Puranas, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Dharmashastras. The Bhagavad Gita is considered a Smriti text because of its derivation from the Mahabharata, its interpretation of Vedic principles, and its traditional authority in Hinduism.

 

[renuka]

Dear OKO,
The Bhagavad Gita means " The Song of Divinity"

Usually when we hear a song..we remember its tune first though we might not always remember every word.
Then we make the effort to learn the lyrics and render it along with its tune.

Likewise..here we are meant to remember the lyrics of the Divine song...contemplate on its meaning via our intellect..hence the usage of the word Smriti.

But is that all?
No..one has to move on from intellect stage of Smriti to the deep insight stage of Shruti.

Does the Gita offer the transiton from Smriti to Shruti?

Yes it does.
The Gita is considered the Divine Cow, Krishna the Gopala( Cowherd) providing the milk of spiritual knowledge and Arjuna is the calf which receives the divine wisdom.

So where does the Shruti appear here?
It appears when we surrender to the Divine after having heard the song( smriti)..understood the wisdom of it and realize that it is now the time to lay down the intellect and let the Sanathana Sarathi( Eternal Charioteer) guide us to the stage of Shruti where we will develop deep insight which will by pass our intellect and will be revealed to us like how ancient Rishis,Prophets, Messengers received their revelations.
One may ask does God talk to us?
Well, once all the agitations of the mind is surrendered, the coast is clear..and we hear the Divine Song which existed all the while in us muffled by own thoughts..when nothing obstructs the song anymore we hear it..Shruti.


verse denoting surrender to the Sanathana Sarathi.

BG 18.66: Abandon all varieties of dharmas and simply surrender unto Me alone. I shall liberate you from all sinful reactions; do not fear.

सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज |
अहं त्वां सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुच: || 66||

sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śharaṇaṁ vraja
ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo mokṣhayiṣhyāmi mā śhuchaḥ