Review of Gosai.com (Gaudiya) on Caste - 1
The http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Brahmana-Vaisnava.html makes a lot of noise about how mAdhvas have an incorrect understanding of Caste.
The Page starts with an objection (apparently from the mAdhva side, but this should apply to other schools of Vedanta such as advaita and vishiShTAdvaita) that many Gaudiyas are not Brahmanas, yet treat themselves like Brahmans. A Smriti is quoted. The response surprisingly has quotes from various scriptures that delineates a brAhmana's laxaNas (surprising).
Quite obviously, the gosai.com folks don't understand that both (i) janma AND (ii) samskArAs (which include laxaNas such as shama, dama etc) are needed for a person to be called brAhmaNa. Each is a necessary condition and niether is sufficient. They have themselves given the quotes for both. The Harita smriti quote is the pramANa to prove the necessity to have birth in a brAhmaNa family. Grhyasuutras are replete with such references. The Manusmriti has given different labels to people born from an intermixture. If a brAhmaNa were to be identified just on the basis of samskAra or laxaNa, what sense does one make of injunctions such as 'aSTame.varSe.braahmaNam.upanayet' (Perform the upanayana of a brAhmaNa in his eight year; from the Ashvalaayana grhyasuutra)? Who determines if the character of a boy matches that of brAhmaNa or kShatriya etc, at that tender age? This is not just about upanayana; the type of clothes to be worn, the material of which the sacred thread is made, the limiting age for upanayana -- all are different for different castes.
If predisposition (such as shama, dama) alone were to determine the caste of a person, why did Lord Krishna ask Arjuna to fight? In fact, Arjuna was predisposed to peace, not fighting the war etc. Why does the Lord condemn his thinking instead of asking him to take up sannyAsa?
The Quoted Mahabharata verses are pramANa that the necessary samskAras (and laxaNas like shama, dama etc) are also necessary. In fact, gosai.com has played tricks with evidence here, to which I will come in a later blog.
Therefore, niether the western born mlechCha nor the jAta-brAhmaNa without samskAras can be considered brAhmaNas. So much for the gosai's rhetoric. When one notices that the amount of rhetoric is much more than the argument, one wonders if they engaged a film script-writer to write that page :-)
More comments on this page http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Brahmana-Vaisnava.html to follow.
The Page starts with an objection (apparently from the mAdhva side, but this should apply to other schools of Vedanta such as advaita and vishiShTAdvaita) that many Gaudiyas are not Brahmanas, yet treat themselves like Brahmans. A Smriti is quoted. The response surprisingly has quotes from various scriptures that delineates a brAhmana's laxaNas (surprising).
Quite obviously, the gosai.com folks don't understand that both (i) janma AND (ii) samskArAs (which include laxaNas such as shama, dama etc) are needed for a person to be called brAhmaNa. Each is a necessary condition and niether is sufficient. They have themselves given the quotes for both. The Harita smriti quote is the pramANa to prove the necessity to have birth in a brAhmaNa family. Grhyasuutras are replete with such references. The Manusmriti has given different labels to people born from an intermixture. If a brAhmaNa were to be identified just on the basis of samskAra or laxaNa, what sense does one make of injunctions such as 'aSTame.varSe.braahmaNam.upanayet' (Perform the upanayana of a brAhmaNa in his eight year; from the Ashvalaayana grhyasuutra)? Who determines if the character of a boy matches that of brAhmaNa or kShatriya etc, at that tender age? This is not just about upanayana; the type of clothes to be worn, the material of which the sacred thread is made, the limiting age for upanayana -- all are different for different castes.
If predisposition (such as shama, dama) alone were to determine the caste of a person, why did Lord Krishna ask Arjuna to fight? In fact, Arjuna was predisposed to peace, not fighting the war etc. Why does the Lord condemn his thinking instead of asking him to take up sannyAsa?
The Quoted Mahabharata verses are pramANa that the necessary samskAras (and laxaNas like shama, dama etc) are also necessary. In fact, gosai.com has played tricks with evidence here, to which I will come in a later blog.
Therefore, niether the western born mlechCha nor the jAta-brAhmaNa without samskAras can be considered brAhmaNas. So much for the gosai's rhetoric. When one notices that the amount of rhetoric is much more than the argument, one wonders if they engaged a film script-writer to write that page :-)
More comments on this page http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Brahmana-Vaisnava.html to follow.
posted by Krishna K | 3:59 AM
8 Comments:
Dear Krishna,
Have you blogged on the 2nd part of gosai on caste ?
VADHULA@GMAIL.COM
How do you then explain chandogya Upanishad story of Satyakama who was recognised as a Brahmana
inspite of a low birth. Haridrumata Gautama accepted him as a brahmana simply on the strength of his brahminical character.
Srimad Madhvacharya comments on this story as follows:
arjavam brahmane saksat
sudro'narjava-laksanah
gautamas tviti vijnaya
satyakamam upanayat
"A brahmana possesses the quality of simplicity, and a sudra possesses the quality of crookedness.
Knowing this fact, Gautama gave upanayanam to Satyakama."
Sir,
I have been enjoying reading the posts on Tattvavada. I think Lord prevented Arjuna from taking sanyasa because Arjuna was trying to imitate the true quality of brahmana. Shamam, damam doesnt refer to bodily compassion which arjuna showed on the battle field of kuruskhetra, but its the respect and compassion as induvidual jiva. Also in your post you didn’t answer about satya kama jabali incident as mentioned in sastras.
aSTame.varSe.braahmaNam.upanayet' (Perform the upanayana of a brAhmaNa in his eight year; from the Ashvalaayana grhyasuutra)? – Yes the upanayana should be performed only when such person is found to be with brahminical qualities. The qualities are always present in the person they only take time to manifest. Just because the qualities donot get manifest at such tender age doesn’t mean they are not present in him. It is to the expert acharya who determines the person has brahminical qualities or not.
Please donot consider offensive and forgive me for my limited knowledge. Please reply me for my comment. I really want to learn a lot on this topic.
Why isn't my comment published? Please review my comment.....
Thanks for all comments. I hadn't seen this blog for a long time now, and did not notice that there were comments left. Sorry for the late update.
Satyakama Jabali is an inspiration for me -- Speak inconvenient truths!
Regarding his episode in Chandogya, the sage Gautama first asked him to find out about his lineage. If qualities alone were sufficient to determine the caste, that inquiry would be unnecessary.
I remember reading a reference in Manusmriti which says that a person's caste must be inferred from the qualities ONLY if his lineage from an Aryan varNa is not known.
Regarding Sri Madhvacharya's commentary on the Satyakama Jabali discussion, you have translated Arjava as simplicity. but ArjavaM means being truthful. In his GitabhAshya, Srimad Acharya says - ArjavaM manovAkkarmaNAm avaiparItyaM: absence of discord between one's thoughts, speech and acts.
So you mean to tell that even though a person was born in shudra family he cannot be called as brahmana if exhibits the qualities of a brahmana. What about kanaka das?
Post a Comment
<< Home