Rajesh,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->How can one classify a profession to a varna though ? Computer programming is brahmana or vaishya ?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is my take. There is a story in the Mahabharata which shows a butcher who is a knower of Brahman. The Mahabharata has it that the butcher treated his profession as an outlet for self-expression, for his livelihood, for his service to society, and for his adoration of the Lord. This man matured into a saint. His teachings to an ascetic is known as the Vyadha Gita. That example suggests that the whole classification of profession to a varna is an incorrect idea.
A person can do any profession which is in tune with his inner nature, which allows his spiritual growth. No profession can a priori be classified to a varna.
I have been searching high and low to get ahold of Vyadha Gita. Can anyone send me a link or point me to where I can get a copy of it ? online or offline.
<!--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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->That example suggests that the whole classification of profession to a varna is an incorrect idea.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is anecdotal data. Not sure how much can be read into it. Let me try again.
(1) everybody should do what they do to the best of their ability.
(2) a person should do what is best suited to his gunas.
(3) profession of programming involves sattvic gunas - just as an example.
(4) brahmanas (just as an example) have sattvic gunas
(5) and hence brahmanas are best suited for programming (eg again).
I think what the whole social arrangement depends on #1, that is that in order for Dharma to prevail or for social progress etc, everybody must do what he does to the best of his abilities. And to maximise this ability 3 (2-4) interrelated things have been posited by various people.
Now my query was mainly directed at point #3. How is one to recognise the gunas required in a given profession ? Your answer was more towards #4.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->That example suggests that the whole classification of profession to a varna is an incorrect idea.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is anecdotal data. Not sure how much can be read into it. Let me try again.
(1) everybody should do what they do to the best of their ability.
(2) a person should do what is best suited to his gunas.
(3) profession of programming involves sattvic gunas - just as an example.
(4) brahmanas (just as an example) have sattvic gunas
(5) and hence brahmanas are best suited for programming (eg again).
I think what the whole social arrangement depends on #1, that is that in order for Dharma to prevail or for social progress etc, everybody must do what he does to the best of his abilities. And to maximise this ability 3 (2-4) interrelated things have been posited by various people.
Now my query was mainly directed at point #3. How is one to recognise the gunas required in a given profession ? Your answer was more towards #4.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rajesh,
The profession of programming requires patience, learning, and ability to get along with others. That would suggest that it requires the person to have some elements of Sattva Guna.
<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Interesting discussion going on , there is one incident from the uttarakanda of the ramayana .
the nature of the incident is dubious , many claim it to be a late addition of dravidian movement propaganda machine ramaswami .
yet kalidasa mentions it in his raghuvamsa and Bhavabhuti in uttara rama charitra , if these works were also tampered with am not sure of.
This incident has been used to browbeat the hindus about the caste system ,once again i repeat my personal opinion is the incident is of dubious nature but often questions are raised against so want to have a strong answer to defend .
The incident in question is Shambuka Vadha
In rama rajya the son of a young brahmin couple dies a untimely death , in ancient india if a son dies before the father , it means grave unjustice is happening and the king is held responsible , when the issue is brought befor lord rama and he is accused of the boy's death , Lord rama gets agitated and is informed it might be due to the penances of shambuka who being a chandala
is not entitled to learn the vedas.
and he having learnt them in secret overhearing them , is practising austerities in the forest to attain swarga and to enter it with his physical body.
Rama flies into a rage , proceeds to the forest and slays Shambuka ,who while dying praises rama and the dead boy comes back to life.
Rama is hailed by the present devatas from the sky.
This flies against all the message of the ramayana , shabari a tribal is a great devottee , the king of the bhils is a great friend of rama and a great devotee and many more incidents.
then why shambuka ???? is this incident real at all ?? or totallly a falsification of the actual fact.
if it happened what is the actual take , wish to see senior members respond with a good debunking with references .
<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> would give me a chance to get back to those lefties after all these years.
you can find the above dubious incident plastered over all leftie muslim anti hindu sites , commie historians use this incident as a beating stick especially in the south against all right thinking people who want to unite hindus across cast lines.
have searched a lot for a good debunking , wish to see one on this forum .
Rajesh,
Most emplyers require employees to have Sattva Guna which means they want their employees to have serenity, patience, uprightness,and learning. The requirement for military is slightly different since there qualities like valour, fighting spirit are required.
No employer would like to have people with Rajasa and Tamasa Guna. Gita defines the three Gunas in terms of work done as follows:
<i>Work of the nature of duty done by one without hankering for fruits, and without attachment or passion or hate - such work is spoken of as born of Sattva. (Gita 17.23)
But work that is done by a person merely for the gratification of his desire, and with great strain and a feeling of self-importance is said to be born of Rajas. (Gita 17.24)
And that work which is performed under delusion, without any regard to consequence, loss, injury to others, and to one's own capacity - is said to be born of Tamas. (Gita 17.25)
</i>
In the real world the employers know that people want to earn money for the gratification of desires, they want to feel important and that some people have destructive habits. Giving raises, creating jobs with important nomenclatures and laws against offensive behaviour are all admissions that most people are not of pure Sattvika type but have a strong admixture of Rajasa and Tamasa Gunas.
12-17-2005, 05:16 AM (This post was last modified: 12-17-2005, 05:23 AM by Sunder.)
<!--QuoteBegin-gangajal+Dec 17 2005, 02:53 AM-->QUOTE(gangajal @ Dec 17 2005, 02:53 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
[right][snapback]43314[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gangajal ji, arguments, as long as they get to a higher good is always encouraged. If it becomes meaningless rants (jalpa/jati/vithanda), then I se no point in arguing. Knowing you or Ashok ji, I can safely say an argument with you will go in the positive direction.
Manu Smrithi 4:173 says that a legal matter may be avoided if it causes future pain. This does not mean the validity is questioned. For Manu Smrithi itself (in chapter 2) states it's infallibility.
Chapter 2
10. But by Sruti (revelation) is meant the Veda, and by Smriti
(tradition) the Institutes of the sacred law: those two must not be
called into question in any matter, since from those two the sacred law
shone forth.
11. Every twice-born man, who, relying on the Institutes of
dialectics, treats with contempt those two sources (of the law), must
be cast out by the virtuous, as an atheist and a scorner of the Veda.
12. The Veda, the sacred tradition, the customs of virtuous men, and
one's own pleasure, they declare to be visibly the fourfold means of
defining the sacred law.
---------------------
Thus, "one's own pleasure" is one of the means to define law. This is not a flaw in smrithi. As it is already stated by it as legit to resort to one's pleasures and bend rules (in case of apadh-dharma?)
Now, in retrospect, the picture seems to be coming together - atleast a bit closer.
sarangadhara this is what I found on that incident:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Brahmin writers have not only codified and justified the existing caste system, and possibly hardened it; in the final editing of many influential classics of Puranic Hinduism, they have also unnecessarily extended caste distinction beyond the social sphere, incorporating spiritual liberation in the calculus of karma and caste duties. The crassest example of this tendency is the Shambuka story in what experts consider the youngest layer of Valmikiâs Ramayana, where Rama âhas toâ kill the low-caste ascetic Shambuka because the latterâs spiritual vocation is contrary to his caste duties and therefore harmful to society as a whole.83
In anti-Hindu polemic, this episode is always held up as proving the true and irreducible inhumanity of Hinduism. However, J.L. Brockington contrasts this episode of the Ramayana (7:67) with the contrary evaluation of a similar act in an older layer of the Ramayana, viz. Dasharathaâs paying dearly for his killing Shravana, an ascetic of mixed Vaishya-Shudra descent (2:57): âThere has been an enormous shift in attitudes between the period of the former, among the earlier additions, and the latter, among the latest parts included in the textâ, viz. an appalling hardening of caste discrimination.84 The harsh caste discrimination of recent centuries is a vaguely datable innovation in Hindu social history, not an age-old conditions.85
http://voiceofdharma.com/books/wiah/ch11.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Take the Ayodhya case. The Ramajanmabhoomî case has everything in its favour. But with what face can the Sangh Parivar approach the âlowâ-caste Hindus of certain areas in, say, Marathwada - where they are not allowed to enter a temple, but would be allowed to enter a mosque if they became Muslims, or perhaps even without that prerequisite - with the suggestion that the Babri Masjid be replaced once more with a Rama temple? Especially if those âlowâ-caste Hindus happen to be aware of certain Sangh publications which glorify or whitewash the interpolated story in the Valmiki Ramayana where Ram cuts off the head of a âlowâ-caste Shambuka for the sin of performing ritual austerities?
<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> bharatvarsh ji , thanks for posting the link , that is exactly what i was talking about and rajesh ji your link helps too , it says particularly in south the incident has been used as a beating stick.
I brought up this incident because of the karma -guna jati discussion going on .
If hindusim has to face the challenges these ideas would have to be threshed out ,unless there emerges a ramanujacharya who can proclaim from the highest temple top from kanyakumari to kashmir , o hindus sons of the same great mother called hindusim stand shoulder to shoulder , each one of you is different no less no more but each one of you shall contribute in your own way i think we shall see a frittering away of hindu unity.
I always have beleived , the key joint of hindu unity will only materialize if the idea of caste is removed and the idea of karma guna is ushered in .
Would love to see ashok ji and sunder ji's take on the above incident . references if possible even if bhavabhuti's uttara rama charitra is ruled out what about kalidasa's raghuvamsam was that tampered too?
and the most surprising part , some of sangh publications and hvk have the shamubka stotra , the one supposedly sung by shambuka as he lay dying , is this not counter productive to the ideal of oneness and if it was a fabricated one why have it .
excuse me for so many questions , trying to gather as much as i can.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Would love to see ashok ji and sunder ji's take on the above incident . references if possible even if bhavabhuti's uttara rama charitra is ruled out what about kalidasa's raghuvamsam was that tampered too?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No I don't think they were all tampered with but the point is as discrimination hardened in society more and more of such passages were interpolated into the scriptures (which may not have been present in the original version) and Kalidasa and other contemporary playwriters used the contemporary versions of the epics to write their plays and hence they also have the Shmbukha incident in there, atleast that is what I think.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I brought up this incident because of the karma -guna jati discussion going on. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the discussion is about karma-guna-varna rather then jati. We have lakhs of jatis while only 4 varnas. And Jati isnt going anywhere. Jati and Varna has existed for thousands of years..
The original Valmili-Ramayana doesn't mention the Shambuka story. The story is in Uttarakanda which is known to be a later interpolation. Kalidasa and Bhavabhuti also briefly mention it.
The original Valmiki Ramayana has sweet stories like Sri Rama with Shabari, the boat man, Vanaras etc. where Sri Rama clearly doesn't come out the type of person who one could accuse of being an intolerant casteist. Forget different human castes, he manages to form a respectful rapport even with birds, animals and humanoids.
The absurdity of the Shambuka story in the backdrop of the overall character of Sri Rama and the known interpolation of Uttarakanda makes it superfluous to bring Sri Rama in the Shambuka debate. Whoever wrote Uttarakanda, and whenever he wrote it, put that story in there. Why blame Sri Rama for some author trying to be overjealous in his protection of his perceived caste privileges or for whatever reason that author had.
This is one reason I don't want to get too much into stories. Many Puranas have stories that if taken literally will cause most neurons in one's head to explode with frustration. Often the stories are allegorical and not historical and not to be taken literally. Some of the most egregious stories can be found in Bhavishya Purana, which I haven't read, but have seen excerpts from that talk of apparently, not only Jesus and Muhammad but also Queen Victoria!
The fact is that most of these story writers came much later than what they were writing about and one has to keep one's perspective about the proper authority. As far as Rama-katha is concerned, Valmiki is the authority. And if his original Ramayana without the Uttarakanda didn't have Shambuka story in it, well the story of Shambuka had nothing to do with Sri Rama. May be some other king, who had the interpolating writer in his payroll, murdered some poor fellow like Shambuka, and the interpolating writer framed it on Sri Rama to justify that deed by creating a false precedence! Or may be tha author was just trying to create a false precedence to maintain some pet caste privileges.
Please check the following link for some more skepticism:
Also recall the nuisance many story writers have created based on artificial stories of Sri Krishna. So much so that Sri Krishna of many of such salacious "stories" and Sri Krishna of Gita seem to be light years apart.
I know many Indians who take Sri Krishna lightly due to such stories. Their views have been corrupted by them and they haven't graduated enough towards spirituality to appreciate Gita and its deliverer. And there they stay in darkness about the true natue of Sri Krishna.
It is Gita that is revered as the word of Sri Krishna, and is held as a revealed text. All the stories put together don't come to that level.
If all the stories were to be dumped into the Indian ocean that won't be as great a loss as losing one shloka of Gita. Gita's every shloka has guided sadhakas and yogis through many thousands of years. Sri Krishna as the personal guru, jagadguru, the friend, the father, the beloved, the Atman, one's own deepest self and the Self of the universe, the Narayana, has guided people through many tribulations across time and space through his words in Gita. That is the Sri Krishna the yogis talk of and adore, based on their own experiences.
That is one reason I get upset with writers like Jayadeva and Vidyapati. Fine as their poetry is, and given that they were writing in their contemporary contexts where such things were considered alright, the contrast as compared to Gita and subsequent doubts that they create in readers' minds causes much damage.
For me Sri Krishna is one who in Gita unambiguously calls kAma (desire) one of the greatest enemies, and if a story writer and poet has other ideas, well, then I have a problem with that poet or writer.
sarangadhara,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Interesting discussion going on , there is one incident from the uttarakanda of the ramayana . the nature of the incident is dubious , many claim it to be a late addition of dravidian movement propaganda machine ramaswami .yet kalidasa mentions it in his raghuvamsa and Bhavabhuti in uttara rama charitra , if these works were also tampered with am not sure of.
This incident has been used to browbeat the hindus about the caste system ,once again i repeat my personal opinion is the incident is of dubious nature but often questions are raised against so want to have a strong answer to defend .
The incident in question is Shambuka Vadha
In rama rajya the son of a young brahmin couple dies a untimely death , in ancient india if a son dies before the father , it means grave unjustice is happening and the king is held responsible , when the issue is brought befor lord rama and he is accused of the boy's death , Lord rama gets agitated and is informed it might be due to the penances of shambuka who being a chandala is not entitled to learn the vedas. and he having learnt them in secret overhearing them , is practising austerities in the forest to attain swarga and to enter it with his physical body. Rama flies into a rage , proceeds to the forest and slays Shambuka ,who while dying praises rama and the dead boy comes back to life.
Rama is hailed by the present devatas from the sky.
This flies against all the message of the ramayana , shabari a tribal is a great devottee , the king of the bhils is a great friend of rama and a great devotee and many more incidents. then why shambuka ???? is this incident real at all ?? or totallly a falsification of the actual fact.
if it happened what is the actual take , wish to see senior members respond with a good debunking with references .
<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> would give me a chance to get back to those lefties after all these years.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I noticed several responses to your mention of Shambuka Vadha. It has been suggested that the incident has been interpolated. I have my own take on this incident. It is my contention that the word Sudra has been used in two ways in Hindu scripture. It has been used in the sense of Jati and it has been used in the sense of Varna (Character type). This dual use is very confusing. Ramayana is a prime example where this dual usage is found. Shabari, Guhak were people of Shudra Jati. Shambuka was a Shudra by Varna. A careful perusal of the Ramayana story makes it clear that Shambuka was attempting to harm the denizens of Deva Loka. You have given a short synopsis of the Shambuka story. Let me fill in some of the details to show how when you read the ENTIRE story and NOT a politically truncated story that a completely different picture emerges.
<b>THE ACTUAL STORY</b>
<i>It is indeed true that the incident starts with the death of a son of a young brahmin couple . It is also true that the incident is interpreted to mean that some grave injustice is happening. It is also true that the issue is indeed brought befor lord rama, It is indeed true that Lord Rama is informed that it might be due to the penances of shambuka who is a Shudra. It is at this point that the details given in the story actually matter. Lord Rama is now told that in Krita Yuga a Shudra is not entitled to do Tapsya and that this restriction is NOT there in Kali Yuga. Lord Rama went to the forest and saw Shambuka doing Tapasya. Shambuka told Lord Rama that he is a Shudra and he is doing Tapasya to take over Deva Loka. When Lord Rama heard that Shambhuka was trying to conquer Deva Loka he beheaded Shambhuka. Then Indra and other Devas appear and shower flowers over Lord Rama. It is quite clear from the story that Indra and other Devas were relieved that Rama stopped Shambhuka from trying to conquer Deva Loka. Devas told him that since Shambhuka's unethical power grab of Deval Loka has been stopped, the son of the Brahmana is now living.
</i>
Several questions arise after reading through the story. Why is it that during that Yuga, Shudras wern't allowed to do Tapasya? Why is it that just a person A is affected and even dies when some other person is doing something bad? Such a thing will make a mockery of the theory of Karma. If because I do anything bad, you get affected then that will make salvation impossible. All these things suggest that a literal reading of the story is fraught with grave danger. The writer of this story does NOT want us to read this story literally. So how can one read the story? My suggestion is that one should replace the word Shudra here by person with Tamasa Guna. Then the story makes perfect sense. A person with Tamasa Guna was not allowed to do Tapasya during that age because he would inflict great damage to dharma. Remember that Gita defines the work done under the influence of Tamasa Guna as," And that work which is performed under delusion, without any regard to consequences, loss, injury to others, and to one's own capacity - is said to be born of Tamas" (Gita 17.25). Shambhuka was definitely NOT an innocent person and was doing Tapasya to harm others.
One can not also accept that Shudras , in the sense of Jati, were not allowed to do Tapasya during that time. If I recall correctly Rama appeared before Guhaka at the point of Guahaka's death. The point of all Tapasya is to see God at the moment of death. The whole story does not make sense if the word Shudra is taken to mean people who are called Shudras by our society. It does make sense if the word Shudra is taken to mean a person of Tamasa Guna.
There is one other point here. You may well say that one shouldn't keep changing the meaning of a term in order to interpret the scripture. My answer to that is that there is at least ONE other example in Hindu scripture where one is forced to interpret the word Shudra differently in order to keep two parts of Shuti in harmony. Adi Shankaracharya has himself done it. It is another matter that Adi Shankara's attempt is not correct as pointed out by Vivekananda. You will find the details in the website given below.
Ashok Kumar ji , Rajesh ji ,gangajali ji and many others , thank you for the detailed responses .
First i do agree with ashok kumar ji's point that many stories do mislead , it is better to follow the gita , but the problem and contention as you brought out in the case of lord krishna being taken lightly by the majority as a womanizer is the point i made out in my first post.
Stories are closer to the common populace who does not take the time to read the gita , Lord Krishna to save the 16000 women taken in by naraka , weds them to grant them respectability and the sastras say in spite of marriage Krishna is a Urdhva vetas i.e a brahmachari of the highest order ,reason being in his mind he being narayana is free from the fruits of karma and the doership.
But how will a common man understand so deeply ,so what is the way to make him understand for example in the case of Shambuka incident to say that the source was tampered , When he does not beleive lord krishna's version itself how will he understand the shambuka incident , there are tons of more like karna's in the mahabharata etc .
the hold of stories and mythology is much more on the common public ,and each one of these stories acts as a bludgeon in the hands of christian pastors and muslim vultures , so why do no the hindu gurus come out in force and condemn these ambiguous stories .
Gangajaali ji interesting take on the tamasa guna aspect , have heard a similar story in the discourse of chandrasekhara saraswati (associated with the kanchi math in andhra ) ,would agree with that , but as i said above how do you make the grassroot public aware of the true stuff .
if i were a rss worker trying for unity in a lower jati area , if the question of a karna or shambuka is brought up what would i do ???
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Interesting discussion going on , there is one incident from the uttarakanda of the ramayana .