04-27-2005, 04:09 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is it a fact that the Gita and the Upanishads say that the duty is decided by birth?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let us see if it does... Initially I used to be quoting the Gita verses "Chathur Varnyam Mayaa Shrushta GUNA KARMA Vibhagasha:" i.e. The Varnas are classified based on Guna and Karma (Competence and Profession.) The Rudra Prashnam also sings praise of all varnas as Divine. It says "Kulaalebhyo, Karmaarebhyasha vo namah", "Punjishta" (Chicken thief), and Nishadha (night robber) are also the Lord Himself, the Carpenter, Ratha maker, potter, dog, dog-owner/hunter are all Divine. The Vedic praise is quite astounding here. Then something went seriously wrong (or was it wrong?)
But, in the Brahma Sutras, Samanvaya Adhyaya (First Volume), third chapter, the nineth topic is called APASHUDRADHIKARANAM. Here the topic is "Vedas should not be given to Shudras". Here, the Purvapakshi (opponent) says that Shudra is not by birth but only by nature. He quotes Raikva calling Janasruthi as "Rae Shudra". Acharya Sri Shankara defends this and says Vedas should not be given to a Shudra by BIRTH. People like Vidura (who is the son of a Dasi) and others can attain liberation by study of Smrithis, Itihasa/Puranas.
Here is the link for Apasudradhikaranam: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-3-09.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->AND A SUDRA IS NOT A SUDRA BY BIRTH ALONE - NOR A BRAHMANA IS BRAHMANA BY BIRTH ALONE.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The statement is consistent. The key word is ALONE. (I am not professing my views of an unequal society. I am stating the views of the Shruthi - that no profession is higher or lower than the other, the work of a Brahmana is important for a Brahmana, and the work of a Vaishya is equally important as that of a Potter, or Arrow-maker.) The Smrithi Prasthana, and the Brahma Sutras maintain this.
In the PARAMAARTHIKA level, the question of Varna or Jathi does not arise, as it is Chidananda Roopa Shivoham. But on the Vyavaharika level it does matter.
<b>ABOUT VIDHURA:</b> An iteresting thing about Vidhura is that he was highly capable of understanding the Vedas. Vidhura was considered a Shudra as he was born of a Dasi <b>and Vedavyasa - the compiler of Vedas.</b> Yet he was not an adhikari for Vedic learning. On the other hand, Vyaasa was the <b>son of a Fisher-woman</b> and my great-grand-uncle Parashara. Both Vyasa and Vidhura had non-brahmin mothers who were not legally married to their genetic fathers. Both were born of Brahma-gnanis. Yet one was the compiler of vedas, and the other was not entitled to learn it.. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> This is a perplexing situation even for me to figure out. I tried posing this to a Swami Ishwarananda of Chinmaya mission 2 days ago. The answer I got was the same old defence "That was a different age, and this is a different age. Thus these rules are not applicable now." My doubt continues... Can you clarify or correct my doubt ?
Let us see if it does... Initially I used to be quoting the Gita verses "Chathur Varnyam Mayaa Shrushta GUNA KARMA Vibhagasha:" i.e. The Varnas are classified based on Guna and Karma (Competence and Profession.) The Rudra Prashnam also sings praise of all varnas as Divine. It says "Kulaalebhyo, Karmaarebhyasha vo namah", "Punjishta" (Chicken thief), and Nishadha (night robber) are also the Lord Himself, the Carpenter, Ratha maker, potter, dog, dog-owner/hunter are all Divine. The Vedic praise is quite astounding here. Then something went seriously wrong (or was it wrong?)
But, in the Brahma Sutras, Samanvaya Adhyaya (First Volume), third chapter, the nineth topic is called APASHUDRADHIKARANAM. Here the topic is "Vedas should not be given to Shudras". Here, the Purvapakshi (opponent) says that Shudra is not by birth but only by nature. He quotes Raikva calling Janasruthi as "Rae Shudra". Acharya Sri Shankara defends this and says Vedas should not be given to a Shudra by BIRTH. People like Vidura (who is the son of a Dasi) and others can attain liberation by study of Smrithis, Itihasa/Puranas.
Here is the link for Apasudradhikaranam: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-3-09.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->AND A SUDRA IS NOT A SUDRA BY BIRTH ALONE - NOR A BRAHMANA IS BRAHMANA BY BIRTH ALONE.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The statement is consistent. The key word is ALONE. (I am not professing my views of an unequal society. I am stating the views of the Shruthi - that no profession is higher or lower than the other, the work of a Brahmana is important for a Brahmana, and the work of a Vaishya is equally important as that of a Potter, or Arrow-maker.) The Smrithi Prasthana, and the Brahma Sutras maintain this.
In the PARAMAARTHIKA level, the question of Varna or Jathi does not arise, as it is Chidananda Roopa Shivoham. But on the Vyavaharika level it does matter.
<b>ABOUT VIDHURA:</b> An iteresting thing about Vidhura is that he was highly capable of understanding the Vedas. Vidhura was considered a Shudra as he was born of a Dasi <b>and Vedavyasa - the compiler of Vedas.</b> Yet he was not an adhikari for Vedic learning. On the other hand, Vyaasa was the <b>son of a Fisher-woman</b> and my great-grand-uncle Parashara. Both Vyasa and Vidhura had non-brahmin mothers who were not legally married to their genetic fathers. Both were born of Brahma-gnanis. Yet one was the compiler of vedas, and the other was not entitled to learn it.. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> This is a perplexing situation even for me to figure out. I tried posing this to a Swami Ishwarananda of Chinmaya mission 2 days ago. The answer I got was the same old defence "That was a different age, and this is a different age. Thus these rules are not applicable now." My doubt continues... Can you clarify or correct my doubt ?