Varna: just birth or also heredity?

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

A member sent me an email (see below) asking about a modern view that varna is birth-based but not heredity based. He wants to know of smriti references (specific quotes) that state clearly that "birth-based" implies "heredity-based". I am posting in the forum hoping someone can answer his question, in some depth if possible. Apart from this, he has made several observations on the plight and ongoing degradation of traditional Hindu society and among brahmins.

My understanding of the distinction: If only birth-based but not heredity, then the child of a shudra couple may be a brahmin by guna - which would mean that their svadharma for obtaining chitta shuddhi is that of a brahmana. The child of a shudra and brahmin may be a kshatriya by guna. Etc. (Whereas the traditional position would be that the child of brahmana parents also has the same varna and should abide by the brahmana svadharma).

Thus varna would be divorced from heredity; and one has to figure out his/her varna (inner guna make-up) that is not necessarily known from the varnas of the parents.

Here is the his mail, slightly edited:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VARNA DIVORCED FROM HEREDITY

We all know varna is by birth and jatis in general belong to a varna.

There are many neo-vedantins who agree/may agree that varna is by birth (And not necessarily by karma or occupation) but de-link it from heredity.

That means the child's varna need not match the parents' varna, despite parents being of the same or different jaati. (These groups claim jati does not equal varna).

So for example, An Iyer jati husband and Iyer jati wife " can be of different varnas" as is their child.

Similarly a Rajput male marrying a Kashmiri Pandit female may both "belong to a Braahmana varna by birth" and their son can belong to the Vaishya varna by birth.

How these groups define varna, IMHO, is mental gymnastics describing personality traits, etc but don't describe how to determine those traits in a child.

Also preposterous is that based on their logic, how to determine timing of samskaras, one's Vedic shaakha, mrityu asoucha time period, etc ?

When told that Manu Smriti describes child of 2 Braahmana parents is a Braahmana, these groups claim:

i. Manu is describing personality types not jaati/heredity.

ii. Manu Smriti is outdated.

iii. Manu Smriti has interpolations.

iv. Neo groups are just as valid as acharyas, etc

My question, is there a specific verse in any of the smritis  that mention varna, in addition to being by birth, is also by heredity ?

As many of varnas have drifted away from their respective swadharma (in occupation and nitya-karma anushthanas) coupled with similar education and entering similar occupations; the "lines have blurred" among the varnas. One can see all 4 varnas in IT, business, engineering, law, and medicine - unified by socio-economic/academic status.  Hence many see that "more dharmic" among them should marry regardless of varna. Hence similarly "less dharmic" among them would marry regardless of varna.

[Many neo Vedantic gurus/groups] support that above idea. 

But based on shastric references per dharma shastras a "more dharmic" Brahmin should marry a "less dharmic Brahmin" versus a like minded "more dharmic" Vaishya.  It would be best /ideal if both those brahmins were both "more dharmic"

With regards to Brahmins:

Nowadays compared to 2-4 generations ago, we are "not like clones". for the most part, as far as I have known, men wore shikha, performed SV, and had similar achara.

In the past , the women were more dharmic , and in many situations the men returned to true values and the children were put on the proper path.

But if the woman is less dharmic or more dharmic but indifferent after marriage,  then the beginning of the downfall occurs.

But from what I see anecdotally in the West among Brahmins (mainly SI Brahmins); more women than men marry with Caucasians. And even with women being vegetarian, claiming Hindu identity, and coming from moderately traditional homes.

But since "not being clones" and not "equally more dharmic" , issues like alcohol consumption, keeping of pets, eating eat (not necessarily an issue if GSB, KP, and Bangla Brahmins), performing SV (forget Veda Adhyayana, agnihotra, Brahma Yagna, Ekadashi Vrata, No onion/garlic, rajaswala stithi achara- very difficult/rare to observe anyways) can make matrimonial compatibility very difficult among Brahmins. 

Also in current times and perhaps upto 40 years prior; in the West and urban India, having intimate relations with someone else than spouse before marriage will make it very difficult for a more dharmic person to accept that person as a spouse. Unfortunately, many Brahmins engage in this behavior.

[लोकेश]

> We all know varna is by birth...

Not all of us have a consensus on whether varna was by birth or karma. It is well known controversy where some argue that varna used to be by birth while others argue that varna was by guna or occupation. There are evidences to support both views from Puranas, Smriti as well as Veda.

Anyhow whatever the past may have been, in modern Bharat there's no place for regressive practices like assigning varna based on birth or hereditary which is akin to racism and slavery. In fact it's crime to discriminate someone based on their birth.

Happy Independence Day!

[Nithin Sridhar]

Namaste,  

My upcoming on Manusmriti titled 'Chatuhsloki Manusmriti: A Commentary' has a long chapter on Varna. 

Do check below image with relevant Shastra quotations to the discussion:

Regards,

Nithin 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qNJ1OEQ%2B1FwG3v9OPa-dyN7T%2BG0YcaDXxDKr1QgohmVA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

> We all know varna is by birth...

Not all of us

He is addressing those who follow the traditional teachings of the smartha sampradaya, in which varna dharma is svadharma known for those who can identify their varna through birth/heredity. The post is appropriate in our forum. He distinguished those Hindus who do not know this, or hold contrary opinion (on birth vs heredity) regarding varna dharma, as neo-vedantins. 

From the traditionalist's perspective, modern Bharath by maligning the knowledge of varna dharma is losing its way and sinking deep in the quicksand of ignorance.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

have a consensus on whether varna was by birth or karma. It is well known controversy where some argue that varna used to be by birth while others argue that varna was by guna or occupation. There are evidences to support both views from Puranas, Smriti as well as Veda.

Anyhow whatever the past may have been, in modern Bharat there's no place for regressive practices like assigning varna based on birth or hereditary which is akin to racism and slavery. In fact it's crime to discriminate someone based on their birth.

Happy Independence Day!

[लोकेश]

नमस्ते

> He is addressing those who follow the traditional teachings of the smartha sampradaya

The position of labeling a person Brahman or Shudra by their birth rather than their merit is an adharmic practice. It doesn't matter what sampradaya one belongs to. 

One may call it "varna dharma" or whatever fancy name but under the hood, it is racism. And once combined with the injunctions on Shudra prescribed by smritis such as Manu Smriti, this "varna dharma" is nothing short of practicing and advocating slavery.   

> From the traditionalist's perspective, modern Bharath by maligning the knowledge of varna dharma is losing its way and sinking deep in the quicksand of ignorance.

Modern Bharat has got a lot of things wrong by divorcing itself from Vedanta, Sanskrit, etc. Yet the spirit of equality that is embedded in the constitution is a boon and is the same spirit advocated by Vedanta, Sant Vani, and Puranas.

विद्याविनयसम्पन्ने ब्राह्मणे गवि हस्तिनि ।
शुनि चैव श्वपाके च पण्डिताः समदर्शिनः ॥

श्रूयतां धर्मसर्वस्वं श्रुत्वा चैवावधार्यताम् ।
आत्मनः प्रतिकूलानि परेषां न समाचरेत् ॥   

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/advaitin/bSPV3xO1_TY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-oN5Fsc8FvsLnv8aRcJ8bDeyJPZa1_gDeLYNm1afi-i8w%40mail.gmail.com.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Mr lokesh speaks like a good "westerner" would where he would transpose race and slavery over in this context as well.
The statement above reeks of universalising western constructs.

First learn what varna is then comment on it,because your statements smells like that of a leftist frankly.

Also swami vivekananda on this at his final stage says this,

What are your views, Swamiji, in regard to the relation of caste to rituals?"
"Caste is continually changing, rituals are continually changing, so are forms. It is the substance, the principle, that does not change. It is in the Vedas that we have to study our religion. With the exception of the Vedas every book must change. The authority of the Vedas is for all time to come; the authority of every one of our other books is for the time being. For instance; one Smriti is powerful for one age, another for another age. Great prophets are always coming and pointing the way to work. Some prophets worked for the lower classes, others like Madhva gave to women the right to study the Vedas. Caste should not go; but should only be readjusted occasionally. Within the old structure is to be found life enough for the building of two hundred thousand new ones. It is sheer nonsense to desire the abolition of caste. The new method is — evolution of the old."

Also conflating race with varna reeks of ignorance yet again.

Also above statement again forgets what equality actually means which comes from a liberal construct of blank slate which is an anthropological fiction as admitted by great intellectuals like F.Hayek and Thomas Sowell too.

Regards

Saptarshi

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2BksRZfknfzkOo2qeR%2BFKthm93DBQFvCunmydhRjarTodOkGqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

The whole issue about all this conflict is only about dignity,thats it.

Dignity of labour is the foremost value which when achieved ends all of this conflict.

But as anybody knows dignity of labour is not same as equality !

For further knowledge read paper of JR Lucas (Against Equality).

[putran M]

Namaskaram Rishi-ji,

The whole issue about all this conflict is only about dignity,thats it.

Dignity of labour is the foremost value which when achieved ends all of this conflict.

But as anybody knows dignity of labour is not same as equality !

Yes. It goes without saying that the principle of diagnosing one's inner gunas via varna and hence the right type of karma that is the antidote for that jiva's mind state is not at all an injunction for people to develop high-low feelings towards one another. Each does the svadharma appropriate for him/her and everyone in society respects each other for fulfilling their roles. It is simple and worked well to sustain Hindu society; now everything is topsy-turvy due to infiltration of wrong ideas.

For Swami-ji's comments, there is nothing wrong with his forwarding a variant understanding of varna and dharma in general; and how things were or ought to be. What we would rather want is to allow the next person and group to follow their religion. Suppose orthodox sampradaya believes in certain smritis that RKM or Swamiji considers to be outdated or belonging to another time. Let that be. Their sampradayas then differ on this issue. Allow each to follow their religion; they can have their tarka on equal terms, like we and dvaitins have on siddhanta. The problem always comes because of the abrahamic mentality, adopted by all these anti-varna characters, that they know what is dharma and satya and it is their duty to impose their "religion" on everyone and eradicate those who believe otherwise. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

From email conversations:

On high and low:

Quote

This is a shloka from commentary on brihadaranyaka by great swami vidyaranya.

It says,"all beings in the universe are in relation of mutual dependence/usefullness which is madhu"

This notion that nobody is low or high, as we all are in mutual dependence where everyone is indispensable because of what they bring in towards shared goal of happiness, this novel policy according to those "scholars" if made a policy among public, it will bring in the idea deep inside of fraternity and mutual dignity.

Unquote

Response:

Yes, that sloka can be a basis for not holding high-low ideas in society even if each has his or her unique role to play. If it is a team sport, then everyone is respected for what they contribute, because ultimately what really matters is that the team wins. If you take the essential organs of the human body, like brain, heart and kidney, do we want to say my brain is high and kidney is low? They have different functions but I want them all to be healthy: so I study for the brain and do exercise for the heart.

There are other ways to consider this. If we take the case of the gross bodies of people, there are a host of differences that can be known through pratyaksha and several of them will affect how we will perform in various tasks. A woman alone can bear a child.  The woman then is "high" in the context of her special capacity to bring the child into the world. The man would be "high" in some other sense but "low" if the criteria is child bearing. Similarly, a tall man may aspire to excel in certain sports whereas a dwarf cannot. The "tall man" is then superior in the context of fitness for that sport and the sports fans may "worship" him, in fact. But we know that is at a superficial level only, and otherwise as human beings, both the tall man and the dwarf are equal in dignity. 

Likewise, brahmana or shudra, this is a matter of body and its work-type. Each jiva has earned its body through past karma. However, the purpose of that body now is to fulfill the corresponding svadharma. The dwarf need not feel bad about not succeeding in a sport and society should not consider him "low" as a person/jiva simply because he does not jump high or run fast. The question for the present life is how best you use the body you are given to move forward towards the fourth purushartha. If you do that, through karma yoga, then you are "high" among men; if not, then you are ordinary or "low". (And the varna assignment can change in future births, hence for the traditionalist, this is just a temporary role anyway and cannot touch the atma.)

The other ideas of "high" and "low" that get superimposed on a person based on the varna-assigned work they do should be regarded in the same way as having bias for woman over man (or vice versa), or tall person over dwarf. It either only has a superficial contextual validity based on human preferences within their samsara, or is just a matter of ignorance; and otherwise not to be taken seriously. 

We should also keep in mind: the higher vedantic principle for why it doesn't make sense to entertain such feelings is simply because we are all the Atman. Who is superior: Lord Venkateshwara or Lord Krishna? Wait, it is the same Ishvara in both forms, so even though they may be manifest differently and we think one manifestation is more preferable to another, those who know better look upon both manifestations as the same Divine Sat. Likewise, with all beings, reflections of that Self, no question of high vs low in any real sense.

On knowing dharma through pramana

The traditionalist is not making a self-determination on what is dharma but instead accepting the pramana-knowledge of Ishvara's Order. His primary reason for following his duty is shraddha. He is actually detached from the moral dilemma over good and bad kind of work that the non-traditionalist assumes in all this. If the doctor gives two medicines to two patients, they simply take their medicine; it would be stupid if they start arguing over who gets the red pill and who got the blue one.

----

The nature of samsara is such that any act done for my jiva-self will cost somebody or something else. To build a house, I need to cut trees and use the wood of other killed trees. In the space where I build, several small creatures which were residing will inevitably be killed. Then is our action dharma or adharma? We cannot prove the selfishness is right, nor can we conclude our desire to build the house is wrong. Hence we won't be able to know what is dharma or not. It will be relative and arbitrary. 

The pramanas and aptas teach us the facts of Ishvara's Order that we cannot decide upon and realize with our intellect alone. If they say that a grihasta should build a house and live with his family, then that is an act of dharma and not adharma; and he knows the same through his shraddha in the pramanas. 

Beyond the ambivalence of right and wrong, dharma is also rooted in knowledge of the fourth purushartha and of punarjanma etc. All of this, the nastika has no clue of and does not want to believe, so where is the question of him coming to a right conclusion on dharma based on simply pratyaksha pramana? It cannot happen. He wants to hold us hostage to his ignorance.

----

... Their arguments however are based on feel-good sentiments and they will simply reject our Pramanas as being flawed and adharmic. So how can there be a mutual meeting point? That is why I feel it is best to just demand our space to follow our religion, rather than to try and convince such people of its knowledge.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

I added the contents of the last mail (slightly edited) to the earlier file on Perspectives on birth-based varnashrama... See attached, perspectives 12 and 13.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[ravi chandrasekhara]

Nice.  

Few thoughts.

1. I wonder if harsh punishments apply to astral body after death and/or also arthavaada in current body.

2.There is also from Devi Bhagavatam that if a Dvija doesn't perform Sandhya Vanadana, then next birth is a Dog. This can mean arthavaada or next birth could be human living an animal's life or treated like a dog after death in the astral body ? In jest,  a dog's life in the West and in Urban Indian wealthy homes is better than the way our Gua Mata is treated in many situations even in India and better "life" than many humans !

3.Also those Dvijas who give ip a Upanayana/Gayatri after 3 generations, become Dvija bandhus- "like Shudras" (and no longer have adhikara for Upanayana) and I wonder after more time, they are considered Shudra Jaatis that we say today who are functionally behaving like Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. And perhaps may have intermarried with those of original Shudra Jaatis.

Pranam,

Ravi Chandrasekhara

On Sunday, August 18, 2024 at 08:57:32 AM CDT, putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram,

I added the contents of the last mail (slightly edited) to the earlier file on Perspectives on birth-based varnashrama... See attached, perspectives 12 and 13.

thollmelukaalkizhu

On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 9:20 AM putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram,

From email conversations:

On high and low:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-r_if64%2BueB5rb8%2B9xiZgAesewdQwjWz7Y4uyN-Ng7tVQ%40mail.gmail.com

.

[लोकेश]

नमः सर्वेभ्यः

In the Mahabharata, Yudhisthira was asked a direct question by the Yaksha regarding the cause of Brāhmanatva:

यक्ष उवाच।
राजन्कुलेन वृत्तेन स्वाध्यायेन श्रुतेन वा।
ब्राह्मण्यं केन भवति प्रब्रूह्येतत्सुनिश्चितम् ॥ 3-314-109 

यक्षने पूछा- राजन्! कुल, आचार, स्वाध्याय और शास्त्रश्रवण – इनमें से किसके द्वारा ब्राह्मणत्व सिद्ध होता है? यह बात निश्चय करके बताओ ।

Yaksha asks:
"After careful consideration, tell me, what truly makes someone a Brahmana? Is it lineage, behavior, study, or knowledge?"  

युधिष्ठिर उवाच।
शृणु यक्ष कुलं तात न स्वाध्यायो न च श्रुतम्।
कारणं हि द्विजत्वे च वृत्तमेव न संशयः ॥ 3-314-110 

युधिष्ठिर बोले- तात यक्ष ! सुनो न तो कुल ब्राह्मणत्व में कारण है न स्वाध्याय और न शास्त्रश्रवण। ब्राह्मणत्वका हेतु आचार ही है, इसमें संशय नहीं है ।

Yudhisthira replies:
"Listen, dear Yaksha, neither lineage, nor study, nor even the knowledge determines Brahmanatva. It is behavior alone that is the cause, without any doubt."  

This supports my earlier point—there has never been a unanimous view, even traditionally, on whether varna is determined by birth. Therefore, we should avoid labeling perspectives that don’t align with birth-based varna as anti-Hindu, non-traditional, or against Sanatana Dharma.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Again this "आचार" isn't something which is independent of birth,as this आचार is something you learn by virtue of the parenting you have which you get by sheer having been born their.

Therefore,yes those who are against this are speaking apasiddhantam.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/2b062a08-89d1-4f57-bd4d-4048a6b68c22n%40googlegroups.com.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Sat shudras are dvija bandhus -pandit rajendranath ghosh (author of kayastha chandrika)himself a shudra by birth.

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Which is why another verse from brihat parashara is applicable here too.

Vidya,tapas,and as off spring of a brahmana couple one becomes a brahmana.but one who is devoid of vidya,tapas but only by birth who is a brahmana is not pujya at all".