09 Jun 2018
Shri Hrushikesh asked:- Dear Swami, The opponent Mr. Raghavender Rao condemns that fact that Women and Shudras are not eligible for Upanayanam. Below is the dialogue between me and opponent. Kindly look in to the same and enlighten us with your holy words.
[Hrushikesh: I said Śūdras, women, and Dalits are definitely eligible for upaṇayanam?
Opponent: They are not and you have no evidence to substantiate this. In fact, what you are saying goes against the Vedānta-sūtras and against all the principal commentators of the Vedānta.
Hrushikesh: << How can God be partial to some human beings only.>>
Opponent: Why only women must bear unborn child for 9 months and go through all those troubles? Is God being partial to men? Why only kṣatriyas are forced to fight battles even when they do not want to? Is God partial to non-kṣatriyas? Answer these questions and you have the answer to your own. Otherwise, you are just blindly repeating left-wing propaganda. Have you actually read Bhagavad-gītā in its entirety?
Regards, Hrushikesh Pudipeddi
Dear Swamy, Namaskaaram to Swami's Feet.
This was the response to the discourse about the caste system based on the Karma and not on Janma. I have shared on the group Warriors of Hinduism. I request you to kindly let me know how to tackle this argument in which the opponent quotes the following verses from Veda's about the caste system. Please read below.
The varṇa system is based on guṇa and karma. This does not mean one's present varṇa is based on one's present guṇa and karma. That is not logical. It is based on one's past guṇa and karma. The Gītā śloka (have you read Gītā?) must be interpreted in the context of the Mahābhārata of which it is a part, and of the Upaniṣads of which it represents the distilled essence. Regarding the Mahābhārata, we know that Arjuna was born a kṣatriya, and he was not promoted to the status of a Brāhmin merely because he was very renounced and wanted to give up the battlefield.
The śruti is very clear that varṇa is birth based. Hence, we have:
तद्य इह रमणीयचरणा अभ्याशो ह यत्ते रमणीयां
योनिमापद्येरन्ब्राह्मणयोनिं वा क्षत्रिययोनिं वा वैश्ययोनिं
वाथ य इह कपूयचरणा अभ्याशो ह यत्ते कपूयां
योनिमापद्येरञ्श्वयोनिं वा सूकरयोनिं वा
चण्डालयोनिं वा ॥ छ.उ. ५.१०.७ ॥
"Among them, those who have good residual results of action here (earned in this world and left as residue after the enjoyment in the region of the moon), quickly reach a good womb, the womb of a Brāhmaṇa, or of a Kṣatriya or of a Vaiśya. But those who have bad residual results of action quickly reach an evil womb, the womb of a dog or of a hog or of a Caṇḍāla." (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 5.10.7) [Translated by Swami Swahananda]
Then of course, we have the story of Satyakāma Jabāla who was asked to give his gotra (a hereditary designation) prior to receiving upaṇayanam. This would make no sense in a world where birth was considered. Finally, the ācāryas, including Śrī Śaṅkarācārya, all interpret this episode as indicating that Satyakāma was determined to be a Brāhmin by birth, not because he spoke the truth (which anyone can do), but by the way he spoke the truth, which allowed his guru to perceive by his mystical insight that the boy was a Brāhmin. All ācāryas have quoted this episode to prove that a śūdra is not eligible to study the Vedas.
The present attempt to redefine varṇa as being based on one's present guṇa and actions is illogical and is nothing more than an attempt to appease Western-educated people. But it is not consistent with what śāstras say.
We have this discussion over and over on this forum. Each time, the Neo-Hindus make the same illogical statement that varṇa is not based on birth. Each time I bring up the same śruti pramāṇas proving that this is not the case. And each time the Neos ignore them and just attack me as an evil casteist Brahmin who wants to exploit people and take over the world. I don't doubt that this is where this conversation will eventually lead. But who knows, maybe this time....
Regards, Hrushikesh (A dust particle in your creation)]
Swami Replied:-
A) ‘Upanayanam and Gaayatri’:- Your opponent has not given any argument on this except saying that this is not accepted by Vedanta-Sutras and commentators of Vedanta. Without logical analysis, we can’t accept any portion of any scripture since there is every possibility of insertion by some selfish people. Your opponent has not quoted exactly the scripture or portion of commentary to support his argument since its correct interpretation is also to be examined. If correct interpretation is not coming for any statement of the scripture or commentary through sharp and deep logical analysis, we will conclude that it is an insertion only since the divine scripture or the divine commentator will never give such statement, which does not pass through the justified analysis. In spite of this, let us examine the analysis of both these words. Both these words can have the following possibilities of meaning. A word can have its meaning based on the root meaning (yoga) or based on usage without referring to its root meaning (ruudhi):-
Upanayanam:- i) Means becoming close to God (by yoga). ii) Means putting the three threads as cross belt (ruudhi).
Gaayatri:- i) Means God protecting the person, who sings- Gaayantam traayate (yoga). ii) Means God protecting the person, who recites a specific hymn written in the meter called as Gayatri (ruudhi).
The yoga sense is more accurate than the sense of ruudhi. The strength of ruudhi is only the long time in which such blind tradition without referring to its meaning (yoga) is followed. The logical analysis shows that you are not allowing some castes and women of all castes to this ruudhi side of both these words. It means that you are not allowing the special advantage of this ruudhi side to all the souls created by God. In such case, God becomes partial to some castes and to masculine gender only without any reason. If you take the Yoga side, it allows every human being to become close to God by singing songs with full devotion. The Yoga side is justified because the meaning of the name of the sage related to this Gaayatri, Vishvaamitra is – ‘he, who is the well-wisher of the entire humanity in the creation’. Even if you maintain rigidly on your ruudhi side, we don’t have any objection to you as long as you don’t negate our Yoga side. In fact, you should not have any objection since we are not bothered about your ruudhi side, which is putting three threads and initiating a specific hymn. Without both these ruudhi activities, we are only singing on God and by that we are becoming close to God. We don’t object you (ruudhi) to come to our side (Yoga) and we don’t mind you objecting us to your side since we are not interested at all in your side! If you become close to God through your ruudhi side, we have no objection since we wish all should become close to God. If you are not objecting our side, there is no quarrel at all. God will only decide which side is going to please Him so that we can become close to God. We are sure of our side. You decide about your side without blindly fixing to tradition lacking analysis. You have experienced your side from a long time. You can come to our side for some time and experience our side also to decide which side is correct. Experience is said to be the ultimate stage of authority, which should be always associated with analysis also so that experience of two moons in the sky (by a person having defective eyes) does not become ultimate authority.
While answering the question that whether God is partial to some souls only, your opponent said that only female is delivering the child and only Kshatriya is fighting in the war. Both these are dissimilar examples. Only female can deliver the child whereas any person of any caste (by birth) having courage and strength can fight in the war. Since female is taking this responsibility, she is given the first place in the list of honorable elders (Maatrudevo bhava).
B) Caste by birth and caste by qualities and deeds:- The opponent said that in the Gita even though it is said that caste system is created by God based on qualities and deeds, it means not qualities and deeds of the present birth whereas it means qualities and deeds of previous birth. Objection to his version is:- In the Gita, it is said that caste system is created by God based on qualities and deeds of the soul. It is not mentioned whether the qualities and deeds are of this birth or of previous birth. In such case, there is 50-50 probability for both versions. Suppose, your version is correct, in such case, the quality of spiritual preaching of a soul must always bring it to the caste of Brahmanas (by birth) only. Then, every member of the Brahmana family (by birth) must have been spiritual preacher only (The meaning of the word ‘Brahmana’ is that the person leading the society towards God through spiritual preaching- Brahma nayati iti). But, we are not finding this in the world. There are several Brahmanas, who are not interested in spiritual preaching and are interested in other professions with corresponding qualities. Teachers, soldiers, businessmen and agriculturists are the four communities of interest and professions only and any human being can come under any category of this classification irrespective of its birth as said in the Gita. This point totally condemns your argument. But, if the souls having qualities in the previous birth are always given the birth in corresponding castes (by birth) only, we also find spiritual preachers born in other castes like ‘Sūta’ (a low-caste person), who was made the president of sacrifice by all the sages due to his special knowledge of the Vedas.
Your opponent quoted the Veda in which it is said that the soul takes birth in the caste (by birth) as per its qualities and deeds. But, it is not told in the Veda that the caste, in which the soul is born, is based on birth or based on qualities and deeds. Due to 50-50 probability, let us take both options and examine each. a) If the caste is by birth only and not by qualities and deeds, the born soul need not be necessarily encouraged by the family, which may or may not have such qualities. This means that if a soul is having quality of spiritual knowledge, it may be born or may not born in a family having spiritual knowledge since every family in Brahmanas (by birth) is compulsorily not having spiritual knowledge. In such case, how the soul having spiritual knowledge is encouraged by such family not having spiritual knowledge? b) If you say that such a soul is born in a family having spiritual knowledge only, then, you have accepted the caste system by qualities and not by birth since in every caste, families having interest in spiritual knowledge exist. c) If you say that the soul having spiritual knowledge is born in the caste of Brahmanas (by birth) and the same family of the same caste is having spiritual knowledge also, what is the objection if I say that the soul is born in the family of other caste having same spiritual knowledge? Whatever may be the caste, the family shall have spiritual knowledge to receive the soul having interest in spiritual knowledge to become Guru or Preacher. You tell that Shankara, as a commentator also supported caste by birth only, Shankara also told that one may be a Brahmana or Chandaala by birth, but, if he is having spiritual knowledge, he must be treated as spiritual preacher or Guru (Chandaalostu satu dvijostu Gururityeshaa...). Does this mean that Shankara realized His mistake and stated like this on falling on the feet of a Chandaala, who questioned Shankara about the caste by birth?
There are four possibilities seen in this world:-
I) Brahmana family (by birth) having spiritual knowledge.
II) Brahmana family (by birth) having no spiritual knowledge.
III) Non-Brahmana family (by birth) not having spiritual knowledge.
IV) Non-Brahmana family (by birth) having spiritual knowledge.
Your intension is that the soul in the previous birth having spiritual knowledge is born in Ist category only. If this is the intension of the Veda quoted by you, in the Veda, it must have been clearly stated that such soul will be born in Brahmana family by birth as well as the same Brahmana family by qualities also. Such clarification is not given in the Veda. In such case, your intension has 50% strength only. Our intension is not simply against your intension to say that such soul will be born in IVth category only. Our intension is that such soul may be born in Ist or IVth category, whichever is more effective to such soul in its encouragement and its progress. We support our intension by bringing the following fact as witness:-
Witness:- If the soul having spiritual knowledge in the previous birth is born in Brahmana family (by birth) as well as Brahmana family by qualities also, the situation in the world should have been that every Brahmana family (by birth) must have its members compulsorily possessing spiritual knowledge and every non-Brahmana family (by birth) must compulsorily shall not possess members having spiritual knowledge. Such situation is not existing in the world and hence, your argument is disposed based on the perception-witness existing in the world.
Regarding Satya Kaama Jaabaala:- Satya Kaama is decided as Brahmana by the preacher based on his quality observed, which is speaking truth. This directly supports our argument that the caste is decided by qualities in the case where there is doubt of birth, which is not significant at all. In the Veda, it is not mentioned that the preacher has decided the caste (by birth) of this boy using his mysterious sight (divyadrushti). This mysterious sight is your imagination only, which is not in the Veda. Moreover, if the preacher has such mysterious sight, why should he take so many steps of enquiry to know the caste of the boy through his qualities like speaking truth etc. Your opponent said that everybody knows that the Brahmana (by birth) speaks truth only. This is not correct since there are several Brahmanas (by birth) speaking lies. There are several non-Brahmanas (by birth) speaking truth. Hence, since the preacher decided that the boy is Brahmana through the quality of speaking truth only, it means that all the persons speaking truth are Brahmanas. This results in accepting the caste by qualities only and not by birth.
The Veda says that a Brahmana, not having spiritual knowledge, shall be called as Brahmabandhu - which means a relation of the sage, who was a real Brahmana having spiritual knowledge (Brahmabandhuriva...). Hence, a person born in the caste of Brahmanas (by birth) is not to be called as Brahmana, but, to be called as Brahmabandhu or a simple relation to the sage, who was a real Brahmana. The concept of Brahmabandhu or simply relationship by birth can be used if the property of a real Brahmana (sage) is to be passed on to his son, who may be a real Brahmana or not. From this point of legal heritage, your classification is fully valid.
According to your opponent, no lady in the caste of Brahmanas (by birth) is having Upanayanam and Gayatri taken on ruudhi side and hence, is not Brahmana. This means every male Brahmana is married to a non-Brahmana lady only and their issues shall not be called as pure Brahmanas since you say that the caste is by birth, which means that a Brahmana shall marry a Brahmana lady only to generate Brahmana issues!
In fact, the real Gayatri (singing on God) is with all ladies of all castes since they sing very sweetly on God with their naturally gifted sweet voice. Gayatri is not with the male Brahmana (or male Dvija), who simply recites the hymn written in Gayatri meter without singing it! Even other castes (other than male dvijas) are singing on God since you have restricted them to your false Gaayatri. You can easily find the universality of real Gaayatri irrespective of caste, gender, religion etc., by which you will prove the absence of blind partiality of God and the Veda. You must note one point clearly:- We have brought out the real meaning of Gayatri and recommend it to every soul to become close to God. We are not saying that the forbidden ritual (of putting three threads along with initiation in to a specific hymn) shall be implemented to every human soul since we know very well that such blind ritual has no significance at all. We are not fighting for the three threads and the specific hymn called as Gayatri by you because we don’t attach any significance to your thread or to your hymn. We are only bringing this real Gayatri to the focus so that every soul (including yourself) will travel in the right spiritual path avoiding partiality to the divine Father, who created all the souls (His issues) and wishes that every soul shall be benefited.
If you analyze without emotion, you will find that you have harmed yourself by trying to harm others and this happens everywhere by the will of God. One must have open mind to find out the truth, by which, one will benefit himself/herself along with others also.
C) Advice to your opponent:- Your opponent is advised not to use comments based on ego. The comments like ‘have you read the Gita?’ can be avoided, which are unnecessary, if you stick to the logic of your arguments strictly. A person, not having strength on his side only uses such unnecessary comments to discourage opponent. The result of the logical debate itself will decide who has read the Gita and who has not read the Gita and who has understood the Gita and who has not understood the Gita.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★