[Advaita-l] shudra

[Anbu sivam2]

Dear Sunilji,
I am talking about Buddhism as a religion in relation to Hinduism as a
religion and the social impact of Buddhism.  The necessity of the four
varnas in Hinduism and the consequent balance between them that was held by
the Dharma which together is called Varnasrama Dharma was explained in the
Musings that I posted earlier.  This balance was disturbed by the Buddhist
religion that held sway for a while in ancient India.  Varnasrama Dharma is
part of the vedic religion that preached the concept of the immanence and
transcendence of God .  Buddhism on the other hand is avaidhic and preached
nireeswara vaadham.  Buddhism was therefore opposed by the Brahmins and the
kshathriyas guided by them.  It is a historical fact that Brahmins in
thousands were slaughtered by Buddhist kings.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Shri Anbu Sivamji,
>
> I am shocked that you do not know about Buddhism yet you are talking about
> that. Had you read the chapter on "Brahman" in the "Dhammapada" you would
> have known that the Brahmins are a respected lot in Buddhism and Lord Buddha
> said what a true brahmin should be like. Exclusivity is there in Buddhism
> also. In Buddhism, as practised, everybody cannot become an ascetic or monk.
> For example, a physically disable person is not allowed to be a monk,
> whereas in Hinduism the physical disability does not come in the way of
> becoming an ascetic and acquiring knowledge at all and Astavakra is a
> burning example of that. Further for you information Lord Buddha was a born
> Hindu and he died a Hindu. He never said that he was establishing a new
> dharma. He said that he was only restating what had been told by the earlier
> seers. Even Dr. Ambedkar, who loved the ideals of Lord Buddha, remained a
> Hindu till his last year in life and his wife was a brahmin lady. In case
>  you have any doubt I am also a lover of Lord Buddha and of Buddhism while
> remaining myself a Hindu.
>
> Intellectuals always had some privilege like even the toda'ys brahmins ie.
> the professors, teachers and the research scholars devote full-time to jnana
> and they need not resort to another means of livelihood as long as they are
> devoted to that profession.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 8/20/09, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] shudra
> To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Date: Thursday, August 20, 2009, 7:04 AM
>
>
> As you know when the Hindu kings of yore faught against each other it made
> no impact on the varna system.  It was only at the advent of Buddhist and
> Jain religions that the system got affected.  These religions opened up the
> gnana maarga that reqired the abandonment of karma to all and sundry
> whereas
> Sanathana Dharma had reserved it for the Brahmins only, the reason being
> that the society can ill-afford the non-Brahmins varnas to abandon their
> karma and dharma..  Buddhism and Jainism are avaidhic religions and so the
> varnasrama dharma were not theirs to follow.  Particularly under Buddhism
> the need for Brahmins as a community was not required and this alone caused
> the clash between the Brahmins and the Buddhists.  When the kings switched
> over to Buddhism they could not depend on the ancient dhaarmic
> self-restraints on the part of different communities as the kshathriyas got
> weaker and varna mingling was unavoidable.  Actually there was near chaos
> in
> the law and order situation and for the first time the kings (not rishis)
> were called to enact laws of restrictions on the communities.  The first
> and
> foremost was the forbiddance of intermingling (untouchability) was
> introduced.  This is how secular law started!  However many kings started
> to
> revert back to Hinduism as it was more easier to rule under the dhaarmic
> system.  There were also wars among the Hindu and Buddhist kings.  The ones
> who constituted the kshathriyas under the Buddhist were never absorbed back
> into the Hindu kshathriya community and they were enslaved and formed the
> fifth varna of outcasts.  In modern days the occupations held by the
> sudhras
> have also vanished mostly to mechanization and they are also joing this
> fifth varna who are now probably called the dalits.  This constitute a
> great
> reservoir of inertia and the modern politicians who are mostly the vaisyas
> use them to wreak havoc on the already strained varna system by targetting
> the weak Brahmins.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Michael Shepherd wrote:
> >
> >  I would be happy to clear up this matter of 'shudra' with the help of
> >> members here : it is clearly an aspect of advaita, yet there seems to be
> a
> >> confusion about the real meaning of the term -- and thus, whether it has
> >> any
> >> relevance in today's society..
> >>
> >> The confusions seem to be two in particular : first, that varna and jati
> >> and
> >> 'caste' are randomly used in relation to shudra; and second, that by
> >> translating it as 'labourer' rather than 'servant' there is a sense of
> >> inferiority implied.
> >>
> >>
> > A big problem is the varna system as depicted in books bears little
> > relation to the system that actually exists in Indian society.  The
> Shudra
> > varna as a sociological category is meaningless.  Shudra castes include
> > economically dominant landholders, professionals and artisans as well as
> the
> > oppressed and downtrodden.  And this is not new, in fact it has been the
> > state of affairs for all of Indias recorded history.  Even in the
> shastras
> > it is not cut and dry.  For instance of the two examples Shankaracharya
> > gives of Shudras who were jnanis, one Dharmavyadha was a hunter and
> butcher
> > of meat but the other Vidura was the minister of the Kurus, hardly a
> servile
> > position.
> >
> >  Yet if the definition of 'servant' and 'service' is applied, it is
> >> immediately obvious that one can serve kings, ministers, brahmins,
> >> kshatriyas, and anyone else -- paid or unpaid -- with the highest
> >> faithfulness, skills, devotion, and knowledge.
> >>
> >> How then can any spiritual gifts be denied to shudras ? How can shudra
> be
> >> seen as
> >> next to dalit in some map of society ?
> >>
> >>
> > If Shudra means anything at all it is they are not dvija or twice-born.
> > That means they are not entitled to initiation into the study of the
> Vedas.
> >  The problem is that the Upanishads are the basis of Vedanta and being
> part
> > of the Vedas, it would prima facie seem to mean that Shudras (and women,
> and
> > foreigners etc.) are not eligible to study Vedanta and achieve moksha.
> This
> > view was indeed held by some thinkers and even in the Smarta tradition,
> > there are some orders that do not accept non-dvija or non-Brahmanas.
> >
> > But this is not the majority view and Shankaracharya explains why.  The
> > function of the karmakanda of the Vedas is to produce the desired goal
> > (icchita phala) by means of accumulating merit and avoiding sin.  This
> goal
> > once acquired is enjoyed until it becomes exhausted whereupon the cycle
> has
> > to begin again.  Adhikara or eligibility for karma legitimately depends
> on
> > external factors (along with caste they could include, gender, age,
> wealth,
> > region, level of education, etc.) because the body itself is the product
> of
> > this process of karma. However jnana is different.  Brahman is not a
> thing
> > to be acquired neither can it be lost as it is the indwelling essence of
> all
> > that is.  One who posesses qualities such as chetana (awareness), viveka
> > (the ability to discriminate between real and non-real,) vairagya
> > (renunciation of material things) etc. has the adhikara to know Brahman.
> >  And as it is plainly evident that the non-dvija are capable of posessing
> > such qualities.
> >
> > So much for theory but the practical problem still remains.  Without
> access
> > to the Vedas _how_ will non-dvija get the knowledge that leads to
> > liberation?  Bhagavan Krishna Dvaipayana who is called Vedavyasa because
> of
> > organizing the Vedas into four, also took the essence of the Vedas and
> > composed the Mahabharata (which contains the Bhagavadgita,
> Sanatasujatiyam
> > etc.) and the 18 puranas culminating in the Bhagavata.  By studying these
> > (which are therefore collectively known as the fifth veda,) the non-dvija
> > can also receive the same spiritual gifts available to the Brahmanas,
> > Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas.
> >
> > --
> > Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>