Can the Shudras study the Vedas....

[Poeticus]

On one post you state that you meant that you were lower than all other castes, yet in the post immediately following it, you say you were being satirical? If you cannot be consistent in your statements, then its unproductive to converse with you. Clearly you're not taking this thread very seriously.

If you can't understand what that
list was about, it's futile to converse
on this any further.​

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

This is quite laughable.
Here, I'll create another
one, one that is more
to your liking. I apologize
for leaving you out:​

1. Jaskaran Singh
2. Brahmin
3. Kshatriya
4. Shudra
2,453. Vinayaka
34,560. Poeticus​

I don't consider myself to be higher or lower than anyone else, I consider myself to be a human, just like anyone else. This is the last time I will request you to stop derailing this thread with provocative posts. If you cannot remain on topic, then I will not respond to your statements.

 

[Poeticus]

Glad you put yourself way below me. It shows you for the great, but humble being you are.

In all seriousness, I will study the Vedas if I ______ feel like it. Still I can have nightmares of old hunched Brahmin men beating me with a cane... "You there! Get away from that book. It's not for you!"

V, as an ex-teacher, what would your first
instruction be on satirical lists? It seems
someone has taken the list as a definitive,
personal representative of how I view
caste hierarchy. Could the instruction also
involve a little bit of Intro to Desperation 101?​

 

[Tyaga]

Growing to exceed a brAhmaNa is not the same actually being a brAhmaNa by birth. Therefore, that verse does not go against a birth-based varNAshrama system; saying that someone can attain the same shreyastvaM as someone from another class is not the same as saying that he is from the other class. I never said, nor would I ever think, that a shUdra is innately inferior to a brAhmaNa. However, I do believe in the concept of svadharma: if it is not the duty of a shUdra to recite the veda-s, then why do so? I'm not against a shUdra taking initiation, but I feel that it goes against the entire concept of niShkAmakarmayogam.

Pranam Jaskaran bhai,

(Whew,now you have gotten rid of the nasty colors that you type in )

Anyway,those verses does say that a Shudra could become a Brahmana,right?So much for the 'casteist' text which Ambedkar burned!

Yes,our Varna is decided by birth.For eg a man who is born in a Shudra family is a Shudra at birth,but that doesn't mean he can't upgrade his Varna by merit during his later life,does it?.

I think i have mentioned the story of Kavasa Ailusa on a thread from HDF.He was son of a slave,yet,became a Kavi by the blessings of Sarasvati.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Anyway,those verses does say that a Shudra could become a Brahmana,right?So much for the 'casteist' text which Ambedkar burned!

It says that a shUdra could reach the STATUS of a brAhmaNa (which doesn't really mean much, as a shUdra devotee is already above a ritualistic brAhmaNa from the perspective of smR^iti). It does not, however, state that they could become a brAhmaNa. From my perspective, the manusmR^iti is quite casteist and is likely interpolated, but that's besides the point.

Yes,our Varna is decided by birth.For eg a man who is born in a Shudra family is a Shudra at birth,but that doesn't mean he can't upgrade his Varna by merit during his later life,does it?.

For what purpose would one want to change their varNa? That's representative of discontent and thereby ahaMkAra. As I've pointed out, from the perspective of the sAttvikapurANam-s, a chaNDAla is not lesser than a brAhmaNa, all varNa-s are equally important.

I think i have mentioned the story of Kavasa Ailusa on a thread from HDF.He was son of a slave,yet,became a Kavi by the blessings of Sarasvati.

Cases like his and those of AiluSha, vAmadeva gautama, vAlmIki, vidura, etc. are exceptions, they do not make the rule, nor is it necessarily preferable to change one's varNa.

 

[Tyaga]

It says that a shUdra could reach the STATUS of a brAhmaNa (which doesn't really mean much, as a shUdra devotee is already above a ritualistic brAhmaNa from the perspective of smR^iti).

Pranams,

Could you tell me which Smriti says that?

As I've pointed out, from the perspective of the sAttvikapurANam-s, a chaNDAla is not lesser than a brAhmaNa, all varNa-s are equally important.

Not just the Puranas! See Vajasaneyi Samhita 18.48

Cases like his and those of AiluSha, vAmadeva gautama, vAlmIki, vidura, etc. are exceptions, they do not make the rule, nor is it necessaril preferable to change one's varNa.

Yes,i can agree with you on this.But it does prove that even though rare,one was able to upgrade his Varna.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Pranams,

Could you tell me which Smriti says that?

Here:
Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 7 Chapter 9 Verse 10

 

[zenzero]

Friend Ravi,

To ignore discriminatory attitudes

Sorry as you have misunderstood the word IGNORE here as it is strictly meant as an internal system i.e. if such matters arise in our own thoughts then it should not be given importance and ignored; rather to be on the path is to ignore all thoughts and be with That Void!

I have recounted the tale over here, of how an untouchable child in rural India was allowed to be gored by a bull, as some nut case shouted out to people who tried to rescue the child from the bull, that he was an untouchable, and hence should not be touched. Needless to say , the child was gored by the bull and killed.

The problem with our mind is that it reacts to situations as you have. A spiritual person would do his karma instead of forming opinions about the incident. If such a person was there he would surely try to save that life and if failed will take it that it was so predetermined that the soul will take birth and live for 'X' number of years. KARMA.

Thoughts within one's own mind is important as that is where change within the individual comes from and that passes on to others. If one does not allow negative thoughts to originate in their own minds the persons around such a individual too will be positively charged.

I would state that ignoring such discriminatory attitudes, and talking about religion, compassion and God at the same time, is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Again thoughts originating in your mind as a reaction as the mind always reacts/prejudges from whatever the mind has stored from past thoughts and decisions taken from his own and of those around.

The direction does not depend on the way we wish to, or our personal fancies, but on the path of Truth and Dharma, which must be walked upon, even if it is a lonely one filled with thorns .
One must be wise enough by foresight to understand the path of change, and follow this direction, or else we will be forced by nature to follow this path.

Do you understand what a 'PATH/WAY/RELIGION' is??
It is that which an enlightened individual has laid down for his followers to follow as he achieved enlightenment follow a particular path/way. So we have different paths /ways/religion which are based on an individual's path.
Sanatan dharma is different as it is a way of life where every individual like you and me are free to experiment our own paths/ways and find enlightenment or simply follow those who have laid down one amongst the thousands and thousands available in our scriptures.

Love & rgds

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. this lowly Dalit. ..

Dalit? Oppressed? How? I have asked you once earlier also. Who is oppressing you?

.. but since he's not a dvija, it's not his svadharma (as per varNAshrama), nor is it even his inclination (he stated multiple times that he really isn't a fan of reading), which is what I am getting at.

He may not be a 'dvija', but he can easily be one. He has had this birth, a 'yajnopavita' will make him 'dvija'. For 'yajnopavita', he needs to be adopted by a 'dvija', and I am willing to do that for any 'dalit' or 'shudra', if they think it is important. He engages in 'svadhyaya', therefore, there is nothing wrong with his inclination. Is being able to read the only way to know?

 

[Aupmanyav]

(Whew,now you have gotten rid of the nasty colors that you type in )

He has come back to it promptly.

I would state that ignoring such discriminatory attitudes, and talking about religion, compassion and God at the same time, is hypocrisy of the highest order.

What Jas says is true. Many Vaishnava sects have no problem with 'varna' or 'jati'. So many Azhwars were dalits. So many sants were dalits. One can reach the highest even if one is illiterate or is a 'shudra'. Kashmir Shaivism, I think has no caste restrictions. Nath Sampradaya has none. There are so many others as well. And lastly 'advaita' has none. 'Advaita' should simply show the door to a person who believes in differences.

 

[Ravi500]

Yes, one's jAti and varNa are based on karma, but the karma of the past life, not that of the present, since you are born before you actually do anything. If the above quote was not supporting a birth based system, then I presume that a hog or a dog (they are also mentioned in that verse, after all) could also become a brAhmaNa in their life-time?

And does the quote states the one with good karma will be born precisely in a birth-based caste system or as one with brahminical, kshatriya, vaishya and shudra qualities !!

Guru Raidas was born as a cobbler and became an enlightened master or brahmana, whom Mira herself accepted as her Guru.

Satyakama Jabala was born as an illegitimate son of a prostitute, who became a Rishi.

Narayana Guru, Kabir were of humble origin but became brahmana's through their karma.

Vasishta, Rama's Guru was born a Shudra who became a brahmana through his efforts.

Vishwamitra was born a Kshatriya , who became a brahmana through his efforts.

I would like to know zenzeroji's comments on this as well.

Before you accuse me of engaging in gurunindA, you should first realize that I don't consider neo-Hindus to be lesser than regular Hindus, I just consider them to be non-traditional (you can interpret that however you like). How then, am I belittling or degrading anyone?

Well, you stated that Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati stated an 'absurd view' , and even ' LOLed ', on his views , which is derogatory of his person.
And I have seen you putting the same points over here with respect to sages like Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, which most people in India will take as absurd.


Ironically, the person whom you revere, Prabhupada, was defended by me from Aup's views questioning his scholarship, when no one else did so, even though I am intrinsically a jnana yogi.I still wonder over that at times.

And the fact that these Hindu sages have stated these views espousing varna and not the birth-based system, can be considered as authoritative in this subject.

And does 'being traditional', synonymous with the absolute truth !!

Truth is dynamic and living, not static.

The smritis were thus subject to updation from time to time, based on this fact.

Also, for a person who is so staunchly against birth-based varNa, you seem to be pretty hung up over the place where I was born. Is that not a bit hypocritical?

I only stated that your intellectual understanding of Hinduism and the Hindu culture , may not be precise, considering your comments against the given sages, and also Vivekananda. And this could be because of your being born and brought up in Pakistan where there is not a well-established Hindu culture.

This can be easily understood by anyone.

I have only compassion for the Hindus in Pakistan .

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, you stated that Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati stated an 'absurd view', and even ' LOLed ', on his views, which is derogatory of his person.

Though your post is not addressed to me, but I want to give this explanation. I am not against his idea of including 'shudras' as equal 'adhikaris' of all things. My differance with him is about the distorted and incorrect translation of Vedas that he has done.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Ironically, the person whom you revere, Prabhupada, was defended by me from Aup's views questioning his scholarship, when no one else did so, even though I am intrinsically a jnana yogi.I still wonder over that at times.

I don't revere prabhupAda, lol. I find some of his views to be innately sexist. However, I do agree with his criticism of the vedAnta society and other neo-Hindu societies regarding distributing meat prasAdam.

Well, you stated that Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati stated an 'absurd view', and even ' LOLed ', on his views , which is derogatory of his person.

Merely because an individual classifies himself as an AchArya don't make his views reasonable. His view that the veda-s support Abrahamic-like monotheism is irrational and absurd, most definitely. Also, he speaks ill of so-called "idol-worship" and hence the pA~ncharAtrika system which I follow, so why should I respect an individual's views if he/she criticizes and defames my views and those of many others. His satyArtha prakAsha is filled with the crudest criticism of other sampradAya-s and pantha-s and you want me to extend respect to him?

 

[Ravi500]

I don't revere prabhupAda, lol. I find some of his views to be innately sexist. However, I do agree with his criticism of the vedAnta society and other neo-Hindu societies regarding distributing meat prasAdam.

Oh, I see. I got this idea, because of your fondness for quoting prabhupada for criticizing other saints.

And let me assure you that I had been to the ramakrishna mission , and I had never had meat prasadam. The prasadam I had was vegetarian . The Mission is strictly vegetarian.

Merely because an individual classifies himself as an AchArya don't make his views reasonable.

Oh, I see. So, I believe you consider your views superior to these sages revered by millions of Hindus !

His view that the veda-s support Abrahamic-like monotheism is irrational and absurd, most definitely.

I believe he has every right to follow his viewpoint, just as yours, most definitely, and I don't find anything absurd in his viewpoint.

Also, he speaks ill of so called "idol-worship" and hence the pA~ncharAtrika system which I follow, so why should I respect an individual's views if he/she criticizes and defames my views and those of many others. His satyArtha prakAsha is filled with criticism of other sampradAya-s and pantha-s and you want me to extend respect to him?

So you are reacting to his criticism.

See, there are many sects in Hinduism, and I would advise you to not criticize the sects and their teachings, if you do not want anyone to criticize yours as well.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Oh, I see. So, I believe you consider your views superior to these sages revered by millions of Hindus!

'Superior' or 'inferior' is a wrong classification in Hinduism. 'His' and 'mine' is better. He had his views, I have mine. Whether millions follow him or trillions, that is not the consideration. Perhaps no one may have views similar to me (although I have come across hundreds of deconverted scientific-minded Christians, now atheists, who have views similar to mine), that does not mean that I have to abandon my views. You want to follow him, do that, I have no problem with that. But he was not the only one who accepted 'dalits' as equals.

I have only compassion for the Hindus in Pakistan.

To a hindu, this should be natural, but you you are not showing enough of it here.

So you are reacting to his criticism.

Did he criticize the belief of other Hindus? As a Hindu, he had no right to do that. He should have stopped at presenting his views. Only a 'dambhi' (an arrogant person) would do that, and a 'dambhi' is also 'foolish' because his own views are his fetters.

 

[Ravi500]

'Superior' or 'inferior' is a wrong classification in Hinduism. 'His' and 'mine' is better. He had his views, I have mine.

Then we would have to say that Krishna's views and Duryodhana's views
can also not be classified as superior or inferior ! Krishna had his views, Duryodhana had his. As per you, both should be respected.

Whether millions follow him or trillions, that is not the consideration.

And you must also see that when millions follow him, there must be something behind the fame. There cannot be smoke without fire.

Krishna was also criticized in the same manner by Shishupala who held Krishna not worthy of taking the offerings at the yagna, citing numerous defects.

But he was not the only one who accepted 'dalits' as equals.

And may we know the others !

To a hindu, this should be natural, but you you are not showing enough of it here.

I believe in compassion for all, really, not in a exclusive context, though, which you can obviously understand.

Did he criticize the belief of other Hindus? As a Hindu, he had no right to do that. He should have stopped at presenting his views. Only a 'dambhi' (an arrogant person) would do that, and a 'dambhi' is also 'foolish' because his own views are his fetters.

As an acharya with mastery of the vedas, he did criticize some other viewpoints. However he has attained the qualification for it, through his deep scholarship and penance, which is why even in spite of great opposition, he heroically launched his institution, which can be found now in every nook and corner of India and the world as well.

First , attain this scholarship and penance, and then feel free to criticize his views.

 

[Tyaga]

Here:
Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 7 Chapter 9 Verse 10
[/b][/i]

Thanks,still a medieval era text though

 

[Ravi500]

Friend Ravi,

Sorry as you have misunderstood the word IGNORE here as it is strictly meant as an internal system i.e. if such matters arise in our own thoughts then it should not be given importance and ignored; rather to be on the path is to ignore all thoughts and be with That Void!

And does action rise from thought alone ! Is there any other source of action, which you may be knowing. I am asking this as an enquiry.



There are many saints and even enlightened ones who have undertaken actions for social improvement.

Guru Nanak and Kabir, emphasised the unity of all religions and strove to stop the infighting between various sects.

Basaveshwara and Narayana Guru, criticized the prevailing casteist attitudes and worked to improve the conditions of the unprivileged castes with their folowers.

Would you tell them as well to focus on their enlightenment and be in the void instead.

Also , this is a discussion forum, not a meditation centre. The objective and dharma over here is to find truth through reasoning and intuition .

Ignoring all thoughts and being the void, which you repeat a lot often, is something that requires great equanimity of mind, and are you sure you yourself are in a thoughtless state while writing this, or yet to achieve !!

A spiritual person would do his karma instead of forming opinions about the incident.

Yes, dharma is right karma. The karma then would be to ensure that such an incident does not happen again through creating awareness through right understanding.

That is what Krishna, with his teachings in the Gita, would have done.

You can see a man lying on the road injured, and then leave him thinking it is his karma.

Or you can be the good samaritan and help him out, understanding your own duty and dharma in the process, and that not doing so would be adharma on your part in the process.

The problem with our mind is that it reacts to situations as you have.

Again thoughts originating in your mind as a reaction as the mind always reacts/prejudges from whatever the mind has stored from past thoughts and decisions taken from his own and of those around.

I stated thus...

I would state that ignoring such discriminatory attitudes, and talking about religion, compassion and God at the same time, is hypocrisy of the highest order.

If you think that this is a reactive thought and not a proactive thought, I would only humbly state that that may perhaps reflect a lack of character on your part or unconsciousness, which may be compelling you to react afterwards.

So, I would humbly ask you to do a self-check yourself.

I hope you also take in mind the fact that I alone defended you, when you were intensely accused of trolling over here with your posts.

I could have kept quiet being in the Void as you adviced me now, but acted otherwise.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then we would have to say that Krishna's views and Duryodhana's views
can also not be classified as superior or inferior! Krishna had his views, Duryodhana had his. As per you, both should be respected.

Duryodhana was a just and mighty warrior. When everybody spoke against Karna, he adopted him and gave him the sovereignty of Anga. What to say of respect, Duryodhana is worshiped as a God in Uttarkhand. He was not at fault if Vidhata (Lord Brahma) wrote an ignominous fate for him. It was Krishna and Bheem who conspired to attack him in his lions, that he died, though it was against the rules of combat.

And you must also see that when millions follow him, there must be something behind the fame. There cannot be smoke without fire.

Millions followed Hitler or millions follow Osama. Millions are not always correct.

And may we know the others!

Sri Vaishnavas of Sri Ramanujacharya, Lingayatas of Basaveshwara, Sri Ramanand, Pushti marga of Sri Vallabhacharya, Vaishnavas following Sri Madhvacharya, Gaudiya Vaishnavas of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. I am sure many Shaiva and Shakta sampradayas also accept people from all castes. In the recent times, Gandhi, Narayana Guru, Vinoba Bhave, Baba Amte, RSS, and VHP.

Sri Ramananda was the guru of Anantananda, Bhavananda, Dhanna Bhagat, Kabir, Nabha, Naraharyanda, Pipa, Ravidas, Bhagat Sain, Sukhananda, Ranka and Tulsidas.

As an acharya with mastery of the vedas, he did criticize some other viewpoints. However he has attained the qualification for it, through his deep scholarship and penance, which is why even in spite of great opposition, he heroically launched his institution, which can be found now in every nook and corner of India and the world as well.

I find his translation of Vedas atrocious, contrived, and misleading. Compare it with Ralph Griffiths translation at Sacred-texts.com. I have already mentioned that popularity is not a measure of worth. Even Osho, Swami Nithiyananda, and Asaram Bapu also are very popular.

 

[Ravi500]

Duryodhana was a just and mighty warrior. When everybody spoke against Karna, he adopted him and gave him the sovereignty of Anga. What to say of respect, Duryodhana is worshiped as a God in Uttarkhand. He was not at fault if Vidhata (Lord Brahma) wrote an ignominous fate for him. It was Krishna and Bheem who conspired to attack him in his lions, that he died, though it was against the rules of combat.

Then why don't you follow Lord Duryodhana and write the Kaurava Gita for him.

I enjoyed reading your views, though.

I hope you understand that this was a war which the pandavas would have lost within the 5th day itself, if it were not for Krishna.

Man to man, Karna was a superior archer to Arjuna.

Sri Vaishnavas of Sri Ramanujacharya, Lingayatas of Basaveshwara, Sri Ramanand, Pushti marga of Sri Vallabhacharya, Vaishnavas following Sri Madhvacharya, Gaudiya Vaishnavas of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. I am sure many Shaiva and Shakta sampradayas also accept people from all castes. In the recent times, Gandhi, Narayana Guru, Vinoba Bhave, Baba Amte, RSS, and VHP.

Sri Ramananda was the guru of Anantananda, Bhavananda, Dhanna Bhagat, Kabir, Nabha, Naraharyanda, Pipa, Ravidas, Bhagat Sain, Sukhananda, Ranka and Tulsidas.

Thank you for putting them over here.:namaste

I find his translation of Vedas atrocious, contrived, and misleading. Compare it with Ralph Griffiths translation at Sacred-texts.com..

So you find Ralph Griffiths a better sanskrit scholar than Dayanand who spent all his time in India and learned under an accomplished master !

I have already mentioned that popularity is not a measure of worth. Even Osho, Swami Nithiyananda, and Asaram Bapu also are very popular.

It can also be a measure of worth too , looking at the popularity of Gandhi, Buddha and Krishna the world all over.

As the saying by Socrates goes, " Fame is the perfume of heroic deeds. "

Also I wonder why you find Osho superficial ! Hope you do not have any personal envy for his outrageous books and deeds.