12-22-2005, 05:24 AM
Sunder,
Yes, I had gargI and maitereyI from women side and raikva and jAnashruti from shUdras in mind. Also the story of satyakAma jAbAli whose mother was a maid servant and who didn't know who was satyakAma's father. But satyakAma was accepted as a brahmana.
Regarding Raikva-upAkhyAnam, here is a chandamama type of rendition. Raikva the brahmajnAni was a cart-driver and supposedly a shUdra, but was also called a brAhmaNa due to his knowledge. When king jAnashruti approached raikva to learn from him, raikva scolded him calling him a shUdra! Most people derive from it that king jAnashruti was born a shUdra. But I have to submit, that the upanishads, permeated by the sublime essence of "oneness" in the universe as they are, make it mighty hard at times to base varNa on jAti. So who knows whether jAnashruti was born a shUdra or raiva rishi called him such because he deserved it. Sages like satyakAma jAbAli and raikva were called brAhmaNa precisely because of their attributes (guNa), although by birth they were shUdra and raikva by action too.
Regarding shri shankara's commentary, well you caught me trying to brush things under the carpet, <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Now that I have to come clean, I must say that the thinking of the times can show up in one's views, even for the acharyas. And all such views don't have to be the eternal truth type. Don't we all know about the story of the chAndAla and ShrI shankara, and the moral of that story! It was also neat that shiva himself, also called akula (literally of no-family, or of low caste/family), was the one who supposedly came as the chAndAla to impart a lesson to shrI shankaracharya.
You had mentioned the childhood impressions determine to a large degree the attributes and even actiions, so that becomes a determinant of varNa based on jAti.
I have heard another interpretation based on reincarnation theory. In this, a person of attributes of a certain varNa, may be born into a family that shares similar attributes, i.e. same varNa. But that is not a guarantee as karma and prArabdha can perhaps conspire to make a mismatch in someone's life.
Therefore it is best and IMHO truest to the central idea of varNa, to base it only on guNa & karma and not on birth. Although birth may have an unusually strong correlation with the varNa of a person. And therefore, I respectfully disagree with any acharyas/sages if they insist that only jAti should be the basis of varNa.
P.S. another article
Is Caste System Intrinsic to Hinduism?
P.S. Regarding raikva-upAkhyAnam, Hazariprasad Dwivedi a famous Hindi writer who spent many years at shAnti-niketan, wrote a great novel titled "anAma-dAsa kA pothA". Despite the weird/funny title, the book is a great read based on a fictional life story of raikva rishi. I am not sure whether it has been translated into other languages or not.
Yes, I had gargI and maitereyI from women side and raikva and jAnashruti from shUdras in mind. Also the story of satyakAma jAbAli whose mother was a maid servant and who didn't know who was satyakAma's father. But satyakAma was accepted as a brahmana.
Regarding Raikva-upAkhyAnam, here is a chandamama type of rendition. Raikva the brahmajnAni was a cart-driver and supposedly a shUdra, but was also called a brAhmaNa due to his knowledge. When king jAnashruti approached raikva to learn from him, raikva scolded him calling him a shUdra! Most people derive from it that king jAnashruti was born a shUdra. But I have to submit, that the upanishads, permeated by the sublime essence of "oneness" in the universe as they are, make it mighty hard at times to base varNa on jAti. So who knows whether jAnashruti was born a shUdra or raiva rishi called him such because he deserved it. Sages like satyakAma jAbAli and raikva were called brAhmaNa precisely because of their attributes (guNa), although by birth they were shUdra and raikva by action too.
Regarding shri shankara's commentary, well you caught me trying to brush things under the carpet, <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Now that I have to come clean, I must say that the thinking of the times can show up in one's views, even for the acharyas. And all such views don't have to be the eternal truth type. Don't we all know about the story of the chAndAla and ShrI shankara, and the moral of that story! It was also neat that shiva himself, also called akula (literally of no-family, or of low caste/family), was the one who supposedly came as the chAndAla to impart a lesson to shrI shankaracharya.You had mentioned the childhood impressions determine to a large degree the attributes and even actiions, so that becomes a determinant of varNa based on jAti.
I have heard another interpretation based on reincarnation theory. In this, a person of attributes of a certain varNa, may be born into a family that shares similar attributes, i.e. same varNa. But that is not a guarantee as karma and prArabdha can perhaps conspire to make a mismatch in someone's life.
Therefore it is best and IMHO truest to the central idea of varNa, to base it only on guNa & karma and not on birth. Although birth may have an unusually strong correlation with the varNa of a person. And therefore, I respectfully disagree with any acharyas/sages if they insist that only jAti should be the basis of varNa.
P.S. another article
Is Caste System Intrinsic to Hinduism?
P.S. Regarding raikva-upAkhyAnam, Hazariprasad Dwivedi a famous Hindi writer who spent many years at shAnti-niketan, wrote a great novel titled "anAma-dAsa kA pothA". Despite the weird/funny title, the book is a great read based on a fictional life story of raikva rishi. I am not sure whether it has been translated into other languages or not.