Sanatana Dharma - Aka Hinduism (2nd Bin)

[gangajal]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Gangajal ji, I am in agreement with the above. The quotes above (relevant sections taken) shows that Varna still is dictated by birth. But it shows no one is superior or inferior by birth. The keyword "BY BIRTH ALONE" would not be relevant at all if Varna was purely guna/karma oriented. The qualification 'even though a Brahmana by birth' would be meaningless if there is no Jaati.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Sundar ji,
I have to disagree with you here. The term, "by birth alone" need not imply the concept of birth into a Jati. There is an alternative interpretation possible. What Yudhisthir is referring to is the case of a child born to parents who are of Sattvika type. The question that arises in such a case is whether such a person born of Sattvika parents (thus Brahmana parents according to the Gita) would be Brahmana or be Sattvika by nature. What Yudhisthir is saying is that a child born of Sattvika parents need not be of Sattvika type. Only conduct (Karma and Guna) will determine the varna.

Gangajal

P.S. I read through your posts on Gita 18.63 and the place of Smritis. I beg to disagree with the interpretation of Paramacharya although I do not want to get into argument. For example, I do not see how the idea," that Smritis can be changed" is wrong when Manu Smriti, itself, advises Hindus to (implicitly) change offensive laws:

Let him avoid (the acquisition of) wealth and (the gratification of his)
desires, if they are opposed to the sacred law, and even<b> LAWFUL ACTS WHICH
MAY CAUSE PAIN IN THE FUTURE OR ARE OFFENSIVE TO MEN</b>. (Manu Smriti IV.176)

Why would Manu Smriti admit the possibility that some of the laws mentioned in the text would be considered to be offensive if Rishi Manu considered his Smriti to be infallible? If the Smriti is not infallible then later Hindus have the right to reject the offensive laws according to the authority of the Smriti itself.