Caste among Vaishnavas
Parthasarati Dileepan
(References: <4fla14$2...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>)
>Definitely true - the system used by the Vaishnavas (all sampradayas,
>I believe) is the varnashrama system set forth by Krishna. Your place
>in this classification scheme depends on your actions, not on your
>parents.
Parts of what I am about to say is probably not PC,
but then I am simply stating the official
Sri Vaishnava position. Some may claim that the non-PC
part of what I have said in the following is so only for
Vadakalai and does not represent Thenkalai view. But
the facts are not that clear.
Sri Vivek's statement is not entirely correct, at least
as it applies to "all sampradaya" sic. For Sri Vaishnavas
caste is most definetly determined by birth. But then,
what that entails is ONLY that you MUST perform the duties
of your caste as specified by Manu. I must add, caste as a
vehicle for economical exploitation or any other form of
exploitation has nothing to do with Sri Vaishnavam.
As a matter of fact, Sri Vaishnava saints have time and
again stressed that bhakthaas must be treated as one's
lords without regard to their caste.
Hare Krishna, Dileepan
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.22, 2/6/96
Send message with 'help' (no quotes) in body, to s...@atlantis.mae.cornell.edu
(Please remove this signature from follow-ups to avoid posting rejection)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Vivek Sadananda Pai
Haribol,
In article <4fvabt$o...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
Parthasarati Dileepan <MF...@utcvm.utc.edu> writes:
[ Vivek said birth-by-caste is not Vaishnava ]
|> Parts of what I am about to say is probably not PC,
Well, not to mock the PC folks, but given that Vaishnavism
is quite a bit older than the PC crowd, and given that they
don't even have a respected acharya, then who cares? ;-)
|> Sri Vivek's statement is not entirely correct, at least
|> as it applies to "all sampradaya" sic. For Sri Vaishnavas
|> caste is most definetly determined by birth. But then,
[...]
|> As a matter of fact, Sri Vaishnava saints have time and
|> again stressed that bhakthaas must be treated as one's
|> lords without regard to their caste.
Let me ask a few questions, then, not for the purposes of
attack, but for clarification:
a) can a person change castes, or is his/her caste fixed for
life?
b) somewhat of a reformulation of (a), but who can/cannot
become a guru?
c) historically, have there been any famous non-Brahmins in
the Sri Vaishnava tradition, and if they weren't gurus,
what exactly are their positions?
Once again, the above questions are intended to provide more
information, since I am, quite admittedly, largely ignorant
of the Sri Vaishnavas.
ys,
Vivek
M.Ranganathan
Vivek Sadananda Pai <vi...@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>
>|> Sri Vivek's statement is not entirely correct, at least
>|> as it applies to "all sampradaya" sic. For Sri Vaishnavas
>|> caste is most definetly determined by birth. But then,
>[...]
>|> As a matter of fact, Sri Vaishnava saints have time and
>|> again stressed that bhakthaas must be treated as one's
>|> lords without regard to their caste.
>
>Let me ask a few questions, then, not for the purposes of
>attack, but for clarification:
>
>a) can a person change castes, or is his/her caste fixed for
> life?
Traditionally, no. One cannot changes ones caste. However, that is
a "recent" tradition. Remember that Sri Ramanujacharya was a reformer.
As I mentioned, Ramanujacharya explicitly stated that all those who
behaved like Brahmins were to be considered as such and hence there are
no "typical" racial or ethnic characteristics such as fair skin etc
that one can attach to Sri Viashnavas. However, over time, the sect
became more and more insular until finally it became the most insular
group amongst all Brahmins - a sad phenomenon, but then again, who am
I to judge history.
>
>b) somewhat of a reformulation of (a), but who can/cannot
> become a guru?
Sanyasis are beyond the boundaries of caste. Caste applies only to
those who live in society - not those that have revoked it.
>
>c) historically, have there been any famous non-Brahmins in
> the Sri Vaishnava tradition, and if they weren't gurus,
> what exactly are their positions?
Of course. I think Tyagaraja is a person that most Sri Vaishnavas would
revere and consider a "Guru" ( Do you know the touching song "Mokshe
varavaru.." ?) BTW, what exactly do you mean by "Guru" here ? There is
no official "Guruship determining facility" amongst us. We consider
Valmiki a "Guru" - he was most certainly not a Sri Vaishnava. If you
are asking about the head of Ahobila Mutt, I dont think there has
been a non-Brahmin one that I know of.
Ranga.
michael tandy
>>a) can a person change castes, or is his/her caste fixed for
>> life?
>Traditionally, no. One cannot changes ones caste.
It might be interesting to note here that there are branches of the Gaudiya
sampradaya that feel this way as well (the Gaudiya tradition is very
expansive.) There is a reason for this. Although according to the Gita one is
categorized not by birth but by characteristics and behavior, at the same time,
there is an undeniable correlational coefficient between "lower" birth and
sinful proclivities, and hence categorization in a lower caste. But of course
this isn't absolutely true. Still, because one's birth is generally the product
of indulging in foolish actions and desires in the past (which indicate one's
conditioning by the three gunas), it shouldn't be surprising that someone
claims that only by birth in a higher caste can one be accepted as "higher
caste," or vice-versa. It's simply true, practically, though not necessarily
so. It is as difficult to find someone born in a lower family who is fully
qualified as a brahmana as it is for a fully qualified lowborn person to
overcome his nature. If the full ramification of this was reflected upon more
often by both ends of the social spectrum, there would probably be a lot less
dispute and misunderstanding about it, and in fact it would probably do a
little good for both sides. But this is a most difficult subject matter to
properly understand, and a very easy one to misunderstand. Better if everyone
simply chants Hare Krsna.
>As I mentioned, Ramanujacharya explicitly stated that all those who
>behaved like Brahmins were to be considered as such
In fact, this very thing is stated by the Srimad Bhagavatam directly.
-m
Parthasarati Dileepan
>Vivek Sadananda Pai <vi...@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>>
>>a) can a person change castes, or is his/her caste fixed for
>> life?
The caste is fixed at birth. The only exception was Visvamithrar
who was born a Kshathriya, but later became a brahmin. This is
explained away by a legend that shows that he was intended to be
born a brahmin, but because of meddling by a lady was born a Kshathriya.
]
Sri Ranga wrote:
>As I mentioned, Ramanujacharya explicitly stated that all those who
>behaved like Brahmins were to be considered as such and hence there are
>no "typical" racial or ethnic characteristics such as fair skin etc
>that one can attach to Sri Viashnavas.
To my knowledge, based mostly on listening to lectures of
learned Sri Vaishnavas and somewhat on my own reading, Sri Ramanuja
did not object to birth based varnashrama dharma. It can be conjectured
that for Sri Vaishnavas, at least in theory, those who behave like
non-brahmins are equally respectable as those who behave like brahmins.
"Brahmin behavior" is not superior, but simply different. Therefore,
I am not sure what is meant by considering someone a "brahmin" based
on behavior. A brahmin behaving like a non-brahmin or a kshathriya
behaving like a non-kshathriya, are behaving contrary to scriptures.
For mutual respect, admiration, and service to each other, caste is
not relevant; only devotion to Lord Sriman Narayana is. Varna simply
determines duties to be performed. This is my understanding of the
theoretical position of Sri Vaishnavas.
>Vivek Asked:
>>b) somewhat of a reformulation of (a), but who can/cannot
>> become a guru?
Ranga answered:
>Sanyasis are beyond the boundaries of caste. Caste applies only to
>those who live in society - not those that have revoked it.
Swami Sri Desikar states without any ambiguity that only
a brahmin by birth can be an acharya for another brahmin
by birth. It is argued that only another person of the
same varna will be able to teach the duties prescribed
for that varna properly.
One more point, among Sri Vaishnavas, taking up
sanyasam does not free one from performing his
duties. Sri Vaishnava sanyasees continue to wear the
sacred thread and do sandhya vandhanam, etc. etc.
>Sri Viveak asked:
>>c) historically, have there been any famous non-Brahmins in
>> the Sri Vaishnava tradition, and if they weren't gurus,
>> what exactly are their positions?
Sri Ranga answered:
>Of course. I think Tyagaraja is a person that most Sri Vaishnavas would
>revere and consider a "Guru" ( Do you know the touching song "Mokshe
>varavaru.." ?)
There have been many famous non-brahmins. The philosophical
guiding light for Srimad Ahobila Mutt was a non-brahmin by
birth called SatakOpan (Nam Azhvaar). Interestingly, in the
line-up of acharyaas going all the way up to Sriman Narayana
Himself, this non-brahmin is the first acharya in this
world Aove him are, VisvaksEnar, Sri, and Sriappathi.
I am unable to answer this apparent contradiction. The
explanation may have something to do with the circumstances
of Nam Azhvaar's birth.
For Parakala Mutt, the oldest Vadakalai Sri Vaishnava Mutt
Thirumangai Azhvaar, another non-brahmin, is the guiding
light. I think Sri Mani Varadajan posted some more details
in this regard recently.
It is true that Thyagaraja is much revered as an extraordinary
devotee of Lord Sri Rama and an unequalled musical genius. But
I don't think he is considered a religious acharya among
Sri Vaishnavas.
-- Parthasarati Dileepan
michael tandy
>I will try to answer both Sri Vivek and Sri Ranga with this reply.
> To my knowledge, based mostly on listening to lectures of
> learned Sri Vaishnavas and somewhat on my own reading, Sri Ramanuja
> did not object to birth based varnashrama dharma.
I think it is important to recognize that (as far as I am aware) there is no
acarya who has disrespected jati-brahmanas; Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu in
particular observed the social etiquette of his time in regard to respecting
brahmanas, even though he simultaneously insisted that those born in a lower
family were to be respected as Vaisnavas if they were so qualified. The status
of a Vaisnava is higher than that of the brahamana, for he or she is completely
transcendental to the influence of the modes of nature. But to be a qualified
Vaisnava is no mean feat, and we should always remember this.
> "Brahmin behavior" is not superior, but simply different.
This can be argued, because brahmana behavior is relatively
(capital R) better than others in that it is relatively more conducive
to the development of pure devotional service. One cannot perservere
in bhakti unless one is situated firmly in sattva-guna--the qualification of
the brahmana--but that is not to say that simply (capital S) by becoming firmly
situated in sattva-guna, one's work is done. One has to transcend the influence
of the modes of nature altogether (sa gunan samatityaitan) in bhakti-yoga.
To be a qualified brahmana is a fertile ground for this development, and that
is it's worth. One born in a qualified brahmana family should take advantage
of it's ultimate purpose rather than become complacent and proud of himself,
for "pride precedeth the fall."
Hare Krsna! :-)
-m
M.Ranganathan
Parthasarati Dileepan <mf...@utcvm.utc.edu> wrote:
>I will try to answer both Sri Vivek and Sri Ranga with this reply.
>
>
>>Vivek Sadananda Pai <vi...@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>a) can a person change castes, or is his/her caste fixed for
>>> life?
Sri Parthasarati,
Thanks for your response. I am clearly ignorant of the views of Sri
Ramanujacharya and about many aspects of Sri Vaishnava beliefs and
traditions. I only know a few vauge things based on heresay for the
most part. I would like to know more. Do you have any good references
you can post ?
Thanks in advance.
Ranga.
Mani Varadarajan
> >
> >c) historically, have there been any famous non-Brahmins in
> > the Sri Vaishnava tradition, and if they weren't gurus,
> > what exactly are their positions?
>
>
> revere and consider a "Guru" ( Do you know the touching song "Mokshe
> varavaru.." ?)
Tyagaraja was a brahmin. However, there have been famous
non-brahmin acharyas in the tradition, and there are to
this day ekangi Sri Vaishnavas (non-brahmin Sri Vaishnava
sannyaasis), though they do not get much press.
Two examples of non-brahmin acharyas I have cited in another
article: Thirukkacchi NambigaL (an acharya to Ramanuja) and
Vilancholai PiLLai (acharya to Sri ManavaaLa MaamungaL's
acharya).
The latter is not famous outside the tradition.
Nammaazhvaar is venerated as the first human acharya of
the tradition. This point receives powerful expression
in the ``Acharya Hridayam'', a work of the 13th century
scholar Azhagiya ManavaaLa PerumaaL Naayanaar.
Mani
Mani Varadarajan
> For Sri Vaishnavas
> caste is most definetly determined by birth. But then,
> of your caste as specified by Manu. I must add, caste as a
> vehicle for economical exploitation or any other form of
> exploitation has nothing to do with Sri Vaishnavam.
> again stressed that bhakthaas must be treated as one's
> lords without regard to their caste.
While what Dileepan has set forth is correct, the theory
requires some more explanation. Caste is recognized by
all Sri Vaishnava acharyas as a circumstance of birth.
In other words, if one is born into a brahmin family, one
is nominally a brahmin. However, this does not translate
into any kind of superiority, either moral, spiritual or
social. These are ``vertical'' societal divisions, implying
difference but not hierarchy, as opposed to a ``horizontal''
division.
The point may be argued that even vertical divisions
are inherently discriminatory, and that such differentiation
invariably leads to exploitation. I believe that there is
a great deal of merit to this argument; however, I shall
not discuss this point now, as my concern is to
simply explain caste as the Sri Vaishnava acharyas
understood it, without trying to justify the moral
rightness or wrongness of the position. The acharyas
were handed a body of seemingly contradictory Sastras
and traditions which they attempted to resolve in various
ways. The different ways in which they resolved the Sastraic
ordinances reflect their varied intellectual emphases
and social upbringing, as well as their concern to
obey what they perceived as the will of the Lord.
The apparent schizophrenia regarding caste is present
from well before the days of Ramanuja. At the Lord's
command, tradition has it that the temple priest of Srirangam
violated all caste laws and carried the untouchable bhakta
ThiruppaaN Azhvaar to the presence of Lord Ranganatha.
The most venerated saint in the Sri Vaishnava tradition was
born in what is called the Sudra caste or fourth varNa.
At the same time, Sri Vaishnavism has become a bedrock
of brahminical and caste orthodoxy, and all the primary
acharyas from Nathamuni's time have been brahmin males.
The practices of Ramanuja present an interesting example of the
various ways the caste theory was interpreted. By all accounts,
Ramanuja was among the most catholic of acharyas, accepting and
teaching all who wished to be initiated into the Vaishnava fold.
To this day, there are rumors that Sri Vaishnavas are of mixed
brahmin/non-brahmin origin because of Ramanuja's practices. He
is also eulogized as having brought to the forefront the Tamil
poems of the Azhvaars, particularly of the non-brahmin saints
Thirumangai and Nammaazhvaar, elevating them to the status of the
Sanskrit Veda and providing for their study and recitation in the
Sri Vaishnava community. The revolutionary nature of this act
cannot be overstated. The declaration of the Divya Prabandham as
equivalent to the Vedas was attacked by the rest of the brahmin
orthodoxy, and to this day, Sri Vaishnavas actively defend this
belief.
Ramanuja also actively sought to expand the Vaishnava
community to include people of all castes. Against great
opposition, he restructured the Srirangam temple organization
to include more people of different backgrounds. There are
also several episodes in his life history where he
demonstrated the superiority of the sincere belief and
practices of some low caste followers over the haughty
behavior of some of his high-born disciples. He is also
credited with throwing open the Melkote temple to the local
untouchable community for a few days during the year and
naming them ``thirukulatthar'' (of holy birth). While not a
complete reversal of the extant caste hierarchy (the temple
was opened for only three days), this act should once again
be appreciated in the light of the social conditions of
the time.
Finally, Ramanuja also openly preached the doctrine of
Saranaagati as a means of moksha for all, in stark contrast
to the other Vedic systems of the time. In doing so, he
was following the practices of the Azhvaars and his
predecessor Yamunacharya, who had several highly venerated
non-brahmin disciples including untouchables. However,
Ramanuja broadcasted these teachings to a much wider
audience than ever before.
Given that Ramanuja was born into a conservative Vedic
household near Kanchipuram, it is interesting to speculate
as to the sources of his egalitarianism. At a very young
age, Ramanuja came in contact with the diverse Sri Vaishnava
community and was inspired by their methods. Perhaps this
is the reason that he steadfastly declares that ``no one is
dear to the Lord by virtue of birth or social status''
[commentary on the Gita] and that all jIvAtmas are
fundamentally equal, being essentially of the nature of
knowledge and bliss. These statements can be contrasted with
the opinions of Sankaracharya, who taught that only brahmin
sannyasis could achieve moksha in this life, and of Madhvacharya,
who believed in a hierarchy of jIvas to such an extent that he
assigned inherent varNas to the jIvas themselves.
However, there is another side to Ramanuja's writing that is
more disturbing to the modern mind. In the Sri Bhashya,
he upholds the traditional restrictions barring the study
of the Veda to Sudras [apaSudrAdhikaraNa in the Brahma Sutras].
He quotes several smriti texts to support his point. It is
not that Ramanuja is commenting differently from other acharyas
on this issue; all of them argue against the right of Sudras
for the brahma-vidya. However, it is interesting in Ramanuja's
case that within the Sri Vaishnava community he was completely
open regarding caste issues, but presented a public face that
aligned itself with the prevailing brahmin orthodoxy. I have
my own speculations concerning his reasons for doing so, but
I will write them in another post if requested.
So, Ramanuja's opinions on caste dharma is somewhat ambiguous.
However, we can definitely conclude that he was of the opinion that
all were eligible for moksha through SaraNaagati, that bhaktas
were equal in the eyes of the Lord, and that one birth was
in no way inherently superior to another, particularly in
terms of spirituality.
>From this dual position articulated by Ramanuja, successive
Sri Vaishnava acharyas evolved their own theories of caste
as it pertained to the Vaishnava community. All acharyas are
in agreement that in general, the duties as specified in the
Gita and dharma-Sastras are to be observed to the best of
one's ability. This being the case, caste is essentially
a birth-based institution. However, many acharyas have
either inverted the hierarchy or have positively eliminated
it altogether. Pillai Lokacharya (c. 13th century) writes
that humility and a lack of selfish egoism are the hallmarks
of Vaishnava behavior, and given that these characteristics
are easier to develop in people born in socially low castes,
birth in a low caste is actually the best! Similarly,
Azhagiya ManavaaLa PerumaaL Naayanaar (c. 13th century) implies
that because of the Lord's birth into a nominally low caste
(the cowherd clan), and the birth of Nammaazhvaar into
the Sudra caste, there is obviously no way these castes
can be considered low. In fact, Naayanaar goes so far as
to say that if one is a SaraNaagata, caste status is irrelevant,
and that the prapanna-kula dharma now is most important.
This is a completely revolutionary viewpoint, as it does
away with the notion of caste among Vaishnavas. [This is
similar to the Gaudiya viewpoint articulated by Bhaktivedanta
Swami.]
Vedanta Desika (c.13th - 14th centuries) takes a more
conservative viewpoint, maintaining that Sastraic ordinances
must be observed even by SaraNaagatas. Nonetheless, his
opinions are liberal compared to the rest of brahmin orthodoxy.
There are many other examples of how in Sri Vaishnava
theory, birth should not be a basis for exploitation or
victimization, that one's beliefs as a Vaishnava are
most important, and that all Vaishnavas are to be given
the utmost respect irrespective of birth, sex, or origin.
I shall conclude with a Tamil verse written by AruLaaLa
Perumaal Emberumaanaar, a direct disciple of Ramanuja:
pUthangaL aindhum porunthudalinaar piRandha
saadhangaL naankinOdum sangadham aam
pEdhan kondenna payan peruveer evvuyirkkum
indhirai kOn tann adiyE kaaNun caraN
Regard as refuge for all people but the feet of Visnu!
What could be the use of distinguishing four (varNas)
among human beings who are all born with the (same kind of)
body, consisting of a combination of the five elements!
[Jnaana Saaram, v.14]
M.Ranganathan
Mani Varadarajan <ma...@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> wrote:
>In article <4g0c6g$9...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> M.Ranganathan <ra...@cs.umd.edu> writes:
>> Of course. I think Tyagaraja is a person that most Sri Vaishnavas would
>> revere and consider a "Guru" ( Do you know the touching song "Mokshe
>> varavaru.." ?)
>
>Tyagaraja was a brahmin. However, there have been famous
First thank you Mani for a very informed posting. Wish you could
repeat this in one of the Indian regional newsgroups. Might open a few
eyes. But then again, perhaps you shouldnt. Not much use casting
perls before swine.
I trust you are right about Tyagaraja being Brahmin. Where does
the "Mokshe varavaru ...." song come from ? Thought it had to do
with a low caste person being barred from entry into a temple
(Srirangam) and he was finally engulfed by God and disappeared.
Ranga.