Enjoy non pixelated Video calls on Reliance 3G. Switch to Reliance!RCom.co.in/3G
New Delhi: Parliamentarians across the political spectrum Monday condemned what they called an 'insult' to the Bhagvad Gita after a member pointed to an IANS report that the ancient Indian treatise was facing the prospect of being branded as 'extremist' literature and banned in Russia.
MPs urged the government to ensure the religious rights of Russian Hindus are protected and an explanation is sought from Moscow over the issue, following which the Lok Sabha was promised that External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna would speak in the house Tuesday.
Angry MPs forced two disruptions of the Lok Sabha after Biju Janata Dal leader Bhartruhari Mahtab raised the issue during Zero Hour in the house and asked the government to intervene immediately because it had threatened the religious freedom of Hindus in Russia.
The house was adjourned till 2 p.m. and then till 4 p.m. Peace returned to the house after a short discussion was allowed in the Lok Sabha. At least eight MPs spoke on the matter.
Mahtab raising the issue said a court in Siberia's Tomsk city was hearing a case filed by state prosecutors, as was reported by IANS Saturday when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was on an official visit to Moscow.
The case, which has been going on since June, seeks a ban on a Russian translation of the 'Bhagavad Gita As It Is' written by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (Iskcon).
It also wants the Hindu religious text banned in Russia, declared as literature spreading 'social discord', and its distribution rendered illegal in Russia.
Indians in Moscow, numbering about 15,000, and followers of the Iskcon religious movement in Russia have appealed to the Indian government to intervene diplomatically to resolve the issue.
'I want to know from the government what it is doing. The religious rights of Hindus in Russia should be protected. The government should impress upon the Russian authorities through diplomatic channels,' Mahtab said, asserting that the Indian text 'doesn't preach hatred'.
Shouting the slogan 'Bolo Krishna Bhagwan ki jai', Lalu Prasad of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RLD) said 'any insult to Gita is an insult to Lord Krishna'.
'This will stir anger among millions of Krishna devotees in the world. Let this parliament pass a resolution and send a protest note to Russia against this insult,' Lalu Prasad said.
Many members recited shlokas from the Gita to assert that the book teaches the essence of life, the art of living and striving.
BJP MP Hukumdeo Narayan Yadav said India should lodge a protest with the Russian authorities and the case in the Siberian city was an 'insult to the entire humanity because Gita is not a religion-specific book and it concerns all human beings'.
Arun Kumar Vundavalli of the Congress also condemned the incident but he also seized the moment to drive home the point that MPs need to learn from the Gita, be disciplined and not create disruptions in parliament.
'Let's stick to the rule book. Gita teaches us to work without caring about returns. Let's not fight and let the house run smoothly,' he said.
Winding up the short discussion, Parliamentary Affairs Minister P.K. Bansal assured the house that S.M. Krishna will be speaking Tuesday after he gets the full details of the case. 'We are all united over the issue and I respect the sentiments of the house.'
Hindus make last bid to save Bhagavad Gita from ban in Russia
2011-12-19 18:00:00 Last Updated: 2011-12-19 18:51:51
New Delhi: In a last ditch effort to save Bhagavad Gita from a ban, as reported first by IANS, aghast Hindus in Russia appealed to the Siberian court to seek the views of the nation's human rights panel on the religious text and preachings, before pronouncing its verdict.
Following their last-minute plea, represented by their advocate Mikhail Fralov, the court in Tomsk city in Siberia has given the human rights panel 24 hours to come with its deposition, following which it will deliver the verdict Tuesday.
As reported by IANS from Moscow last week, the court - which has been hearing the case filed by the state prosecutors since June - was otherwise ready to deliver its judgment Monday.
The development comes just two days after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh returned home Dec 17 from Moscow after the annual Summit meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Dec 16.
After the IANS report, parliamentarians across the political spectrum Monday created a ruckus in parliament and asked the government to ensure the religious rights of Hindus in Russia are protected.
Referring to the IANS report, Biju Janata Dal leader Bhratruhari Mahtab pointed out in the Lok Sabha Monday that the Bhagvad Gita was facing the prospect of being branded as 'extremist' literature and banned there.
He was joined by a host of MPs, including Rashtriya Janata Dal's Lalu Prasad.
The prosecution in Russia also wants the Russian translation of 'Bhagavad Gita As It Is' by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (Iskcon), declared illegal, claiming it spread 'hatred'.
In view of the case, Hindus settled in Moscow, numbering about 15,000, and followers of the Iskcon movement in Russia have asked the Indian government to intervene diplomatically to resolve the issue in favour of the scripture, an important part of Indian epic Mahabharata written by sage Ved Vyas.
Iskcon followers in Russia have also written a letter to the Prime Minister's Office in New Delhi, calling for immediate intervention, lest the religious freedom of Hindus living there be compromised.
'When the matter came up before the court, our advocate pleaded to pronounce the verdict after hearing the view of Russia's Human Rights Committee on what it thought of Bhagavad Gita and of Hindus' religious rights,' said Sadhu Priya Das of Iskcon.
'The court accepted the plea and has given 24 hours for the committee to come with its deposition before it,' Das, who is a devotee at a 40-year-old Krishna temple in central Moscow, told IANS over the phone from Moscow.
'This is our last ditch effort to convince the court to see our point of view and uphold Hindus' religious rights. The verdict will now come out on Tuesday,' he said.
Advocate Fralov, speaking to IANS over phone from Tomsk where he had appeared in the court hearing earlier, said the defence sought the deposition of the human rights panel in the case because they wanted to use all the legal options to defend the Gita.
'One of the last few options was to get the Human Rights Committee involved in the case, so that the rights of minorities get highlighted before the court,' Fralov said.
He also said Hindus and Krishna devotees in Russia had much earlier represented to the human rights panel asking it to give its views before the court, which it agreed to. The committee, later, also wrote to the Tomsk court that it would like to present its views on the case, which the court accepted.
Originally published by Bihar Rationalist Society (Bihar Buddhiwadi Samaj) 1993. Electronically reprinted with permission.
I have read and admired Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian. On the other hand, I have also read and disagreed with M.K.Gandhi's Why I Am a Hindu. My acquaintance with these writings has inspired me to write this essay explaining why I am not a Hindu, though I was born in a Hindu family.
The Meaning of "Hindu"
The word "Hindu" is a much-abused word in the sense that it has been used to mean different things at different times. For example, some people even now, at least some times, use the word "Hindu" as a synonym for "Indian". In this sense of the term, I am certainly a "Hindu" because I do not deny being an Indian. However, I do not think that this a proper use of the term "Hindu". There are many Indians such as Muslims, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians as well as rationalists, humanists and atheists who do not call themselves "Hindu" and also do not like to be described as such. It is certainly not fair to convert them into Hinduism by giving an elastic definition of the term "Hindu". Besides, it is also not advisable to use the word "Hindu" in this sense from the point of view of clarity. The word "Hindu" may have been used in the beginning as a synonym for "Indian" [1], but, at present, the word is used for people with certain definite religious beliefs. The word "Hindu" belongs to the category of words like "Muslim", "Christian", "Buddhist" and "Jain" and not to the category of words like "American", "British", "Australian", "Chinese" or "Japanese". There are, in fact, many Indians who are not Hindus, and on the other hand, there are many Hindus who are not Indians , for example, those who are citizens of Nepal, Sri Lanka and some other countries.
In the religious sense, the word, "Hindu" is often used broadly to include Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs in addition to those who are described as "Hindu" in this most restricted sense of the term, that is, the adherents of Vedic or Brahmin religion. For example, the expression "Hindu" is used in the Hindu law not only for those who are Hindu by religion but also for persons who are Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs by religion. This, again, is too broad a definition of "Hindu". If we consistently use the word "Hindu" in this sense, we will have to say that Japan is a Hindu country!
The above definition of "Hindu" is clearly inadequate from a philosophical point of view. Buddhism and Jainism, for instance, explicitly reject the doctrine of the infallibility of the Vedas and the system of varna-vyavastha, which are fundamental to Hinduism, that is, if the term "Hinduism" is used in its most restricted sense. Therefore, clubbing together Buddhists and Jains or even Sikhs with those who believe in the infallibility of the Vedas and subscribe to the varna-vyavastha is nothing but an invitation to confusion.
Though I agree with Buddhism in its rejection of god, soul, infallibility of the Vedas and the varna-vyavastha, still I am not a Hindu even in this broad sense of the term "Hindu", because as a rationalist and humanist I reject all religions including Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. However, in this essay I am concerned with explaining why I am not a Hindu in the most appropriate sense of the term "Hindu", that is, the sense in which a person is a Hindu if his religion is Hinduism in the restricted sense of the term " Hinduism". In this restricted sense of "Hinduism", Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are excluded from its scope. I also maintain that this is, at present, probably the most popular sense of the term, and every body should, in the interest of clarity, confine its use, as far as possible, to this sense only, at least in philosophical discourse.
Radhakrishnan, for example, has used the term "Hindu" and "Hinduism" in this restricted sense when he says in hisThe Hindu View of Life that, "The chief sacred scriptures of Hindus, the Vedas register the intuitions of the perfected souls." [2] Or, when he says that "Hinduism is the religion not only of the Vedas but of the Epics and the Puranas." [3]
Basic Beliefs of Hinduism
Gandhi, too, has used the term "Hindu" in this restricted sense, when writing in Young India in October, 1921, he says:
I call myself a sanatani Hindu, because,
I believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas and all that goes by the name of Hindu scriptures, and therefore in avatars and rebirth.
I believe in the Varnashram dharma in a sense in my opinion strictly Vedic, but not in its present popular and crude sense.
I believe in the protection of the cow in its much larger sense than the popular.
One may be tempted to ask, at this point, whether all the beliefs listed by Gandhi are really fundamental to Hinduism. In my opinion, (I) the belief in the authenticity of the Vedas and (II) the belief in the varnashram dharmaare more basic to Hinduism than the belief in cow-protection and idol-worship. [5] Though it cannot be denied that, in spite of attempts by reformers like Kabir, Rammohan Roy and Dayanand Saraswati, idol-worship is still practiced widely by the Hindu masses, and there is, at present, a taboo on eating beef among a large number of Hindus. In any case, I am in a position to establish the fact of my not being a Hindu by asserting the contradictory of each of the above statements made by Gandhi:
In other words, I assert that I am not a Hindu, because,
I do not believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas and all that goes by the name of Hindu scriptures, and therefore in avatars and rebirth.
I do not believe in the varnashram dharma or varna-vyavastha either in the sense in which it is explained in Hindu dharma shastras like Manusmriti or in the so-called Vedic sense.
I do not believe in the Hindu taboo of not eating beef.
I disbelieve in idol-worship.
However, while explaining why I am not a Hindu, I will concentrate mainly on (I) the belief in the authenticity of the Vedas, and (II) the varnashram dharma , which I consider more fundamental to Hinduism. Besides, in the concluding section of the essay, I will briefly discuss moksha, which is regarded as the highest end of life in Hinduism, and some other Hindu doctrines like karmavada and avatarvada.
The infallibility of the Vedas
First of all, let me explain what do I mean by saying that "I do not believe in the Vedas", and why I do not do so.
The schools of ancient Indian thought are generally classified by orthodox Hindu thinkers into two broad categories, namely, orthodox ( astika) and heterodox ( nastika). The six main Hindu systems of thought -- Mimamsa, Vedanta, Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya and Vaisheshika -- are regarded as orthodox ( astika), not because they believe in the existence of god, but because they accept the authority of the Vedas. [6]
Out of the six orthodox systems of Hindu thought, Nyaya system is primarily concerned with the conditions of correct thinking and the means of acquiring true knowledge. According to Nyaya system, there are four distinct and separate sources of knowledge, namely, (i) perception (ii) inference (iii) comparison, and (iv) testimony or shabda.
Shabda, which is defined in the Nyaya system as "valid verbal testimony" is further classified into (i) the scriptural (vaidika), and (ii) the secular ( laukika). Vaidika or scriptural testimony is believed to be the word of god, and therefore, it is regarded as perfect and infallible .[7]
Mimamsa or Purva Mimamsa, another orthodox Hindu system is "the outcome of the ritualistic side of the vedic culture". However, in its attempt to justify the authority of the Vedas, Mimamsa elaborately discusses different sources of valid knowledge. Naturally enough, among the various "sources of valid knowledge", Mimamsa pays greatest attention to testimony or authority, which, too, is regarded by it as a valid source of knowledge. There are, according to Mimamsa, two kinds of authority -- personal ( paurusheya) and impersonal ( apaurusheya). The authority of the Vedas is regarded by Mimamsa as impersonal. [8]
As mentioned earlier, according to Nyaya, the authority of the Vedas is derived from their being the words of god. But Mimamsa, which does not believe in the existence of god, declares that the Vedas like the world, are eternal. They are not the work of any person, human or divine. The infallibility of the authority of the Vedas, according to Mimamsa, rests on the "fact" that they are not vitiated by any defect to which the work of imperfect persons is liable. [9]
Thus, orthodox Hindu schools like Nyaya and Mimamsa regard the testimony of the Vedas as infallible, though they give different reasons for doing so. Well-known orthodox Hindu theologians like Shankar and Ramanuja believed in the authority of the Vedas. Manusmriti, too, upholds the infallibility of the Vedas. As pointed out by S.N.Dasgupta, "The validity and authority of the Vedas were acknowledged by all Hindu writers and they had wordy battles over it with the Buddhists who denied it." [10]
The point worth noting is that though popularly Hinduism is a theistic religion, it is not essential to believe in the existence of god for being an orthodox Hindu -- belief in the authority of the Vedas is more important.
When I say, "I do not believe in the Vedas", what I mean is that I do not regard the testimony of the Vedas as a valid source of knowledge. In other words when I say, "I do not believe in the Vedas", I do not mean that each and every proposition contained in the Vedas is false. It is quite possible that one may find a few true statements in the Vedas after great amount of patient research. But I assert that the truth or the falsity of a proposition is logically independent of its being contained or not contained in the Vedas. A proposition is true if there is a correspondence between the belief expressed by it and the facts. Otherwise, it is false. So, a proposition contained in the Vedas might be true, that is, if there is a correspondence between the belief expressed by it and the facts, but it is, I insist, not true because it is contained in the Vedas. I categorically reject as invalid every argument of the form: "The proposition P is contained in the Vedas. Therefore, the proposition P is true".
Besides, I also assert that some propositions contained in the Vedas are certainly false. For example, according to Purusha-Sukta of Rig Veda , Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras originated respectively from the mouth, hands, thighs and feet of the purusha or the creator. I categorically reject this statement as false. I maintain that varna-vyavastha is a man-made social institution and it has nothing to do with the alleged creator of this world.
I also reject both the reasons put forward in support of the infallibility of the Vedas. I neither regard them to be "the words of god" nor I consider them to be eternal and impersonal. I believe that Vedas were conceived, spoken and written by human beings. The question of their being "words of god" simply does not arise, because there are no good reasons for believing in the existence of god. The existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god is totally inconsistent with the presence of suffering and evil in this world. It is impossible for god to exist. [11]
Similarly, Vedas could not have come into existence before human beings appeared on this earth, and before Sanskrit language came into existence. And there are no good reasons for believing that Sanskrit language came into existence even before human beings appeared on this earth!
As far as Gandhi is concerned, though he liked to describe himself as a sanatani Hindu, he was, in fact, not a completely orthodox Hindu. For example, in the article quoted earlier in this essay Gandhi goes on to add, "I do not believe in the exclusive divinity of the Vedas. I believe the Bible, the Koran, and the Zend-Avesta to be as much divinely inspired as the Vedas. My belief in the Hindu scriptures does not require me to accept every word and every verse as divinely inspired, I decline to be bound by any interpretation, however learned in may be, if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense. "[12](emphasis mine)
I seriously doubt that this position will be acceptable to an orthodox Hindu. In fact, Gandhi's position comes very close to that of rationalists and humanists when he says that "I decline to be bound by any interpretation however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason and moral sense". However, since he refused to say in so many words that he did not believe in the authority of the Vedas, Gandhi may be described, in my opinion, as a liberal Hindu with an eclectic approach towards religion. On the other hand, my position is radically different from that of Gandhi, because I do not consider either the Vedas or the Bible, the Koran and Zend-Avesta or any other book to be divinely inspired.
Varna-vyavastha
Before discussing varna-vyavastha or varnashram dharma, let me clarify in the very beginning that I am not interested in giving my own interpretation of what varna-vyavastha is or ought to be in its ideal form. I am interested, firstly, in giving an objective exposition of varna-vyavastha as contained in recognized Hindu scriptures like Vedas and dharmashastras like Manusmriti; and secondly, in mentioning my reasons for rejecting varna-vyavastha. In doing so I will concentrate on the chaturvarnya (four-fold division of society) aspect of varna-vyavastha.
We have already noted that the first reference to varna (class based on birth or caste) is to be found in thePurusha-Sukta of the Rig Veda . The reference to the four ashrams or stages of life, namely, Brahmcharya,Garhastya, Vanprashta and Sanyas is to be found in the Upanishads. These are, in their turn, related to the fourpurusarthas or ends of life, namely, dharma (duty), artha (wealth), kama (satisfaction of sensual desires) andmoksha (liberation). Out of these, the Upanishads attach maximum value to sanyas ashram and mokshapurusartha, which is regarded as the highest end of life. [13]
The system of varnashram dharma is upheld by popular Hindu scriptures like Ramayana, Mahabharata andBhagvat-Gita. In Ramayana, for example, Ram kills Shambuka simply because he was performing tapasya(ascetic exercises) which he was not supposed to do as he was a Shudra by birth. [14]
Similarly, in Mahabharata, Dronacharya refuses to teach archery to Eklavya, because he was not a Kshatriya by birth. When Eklavya, treating Drona as his notional guru, learns archery on his own, Drona makes him cut his right thumb as gurudakshina (gift for the teacher) so that he may not become a better archer than his favorite Kshatriyastudent Arjuna!
The much-glorified Bhagvat-Gita, too, favors varna-vyavastha.[15] When Arjuna refuses to fight, one of his main worries was that the war would lead to the birth of varna-sankaras or offspring from intermixing of different varnasand the consequent "downfall" of the family. [16] On the other hand, Krishna tries to motivate Arjuna to fight by saying that it was his varna-dharma (caste-duty) to do so because he was a Kshatriya. In fact, Krishna goes to the extent of claiming that the four varnas were created by him only. [17] Thus, Arjuna's main problem was being born aKshatriya. Had he been a Brahmin or a Vaishya or a Shudra by birth, he would have been spared the trouble of fighting a destructive war. Even the much-applauded doctrine of niskama karma is nothing but an exhortation to faithfully perform one's varnashram dharma in a disinterested manner. [18]
The celebrated orthodox Hindu theologian Shankar, too, was a supporter of varna-vyavastha. According to him,Shudras are not entitled to philosophical knowledge. [19] However, the most elaborate exposition of varnashram dharma is to be found in Manusmriti, an important dharmashastra of Hindus. Let us turn to it in order to have a close look at the varna-vyavastha.
Manusmriti
In the very first chapter of Manusmriti, it is clearly stated that Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras were created by Brahma (creator of this world) from his mouth, hands, thighs and feet respectively. [20]
Manu claims that the same Brahma, who created this world, also created Manusmriti and taught it to him. [21]
The duties of the different varnas are also mentioned in the Manusmriti. The Brahmins were created for teaching, studying, performing yajnas (ceremonial sacrifices), getting yajnas performed, giving and accepting dan(gifts).[22] The Kshatriyas were created for protecting the citizens, giving gifts, getting yajnas performed and studying. [23] The Vaishyas were created for protecting animals, giving gifts, getting yajnas performed, studying, trading, lending money on interest and doing agricultural work. [24] The Shudras were created by Brahma for serving Brahmins and the other two varnas without being critical of them. [25]
It is interesting to note that studying, getting yajnas performed and giving gifts or charity are common duties ofBrahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas; whereas teaching, accepting gifts and performing yajnas are reserved exclusively for Brahmins. The Shudras, of course, are denied the rights to study, getting yajnas performed byBrahmins or even giving gifts to them.
Manusmriti further states that having originated from the mouth of Brahma, being elder and being the repository of the Vedas; Brahmins are the masters of the entire universe. [26] Besides, Brahmins alone act as a sort of post office for transmitting food to the gods and the dead, that is to say, the gods and the dead eat food through the mouths of Brahmins (apparently because they do not have mouths of their own). Therefore, no one can be superior to Brahmins.[27] All others are said to enjoy everything owing to the Brahmins' mercy.[28] The Manusmriti clearly states that Brahmins alone are entitled to teach this dharmashastra and none else. [29]
Manusmriti refers to the Vedas, which are to be regarded as the main valid source of knowledge about dharma, as shruti and to dharmashastras as smriti. No one is to argue critically about them because religion has originated from them. [30] Any nastika (non-believer) or critic of the Vedas, who "insults" them on the basis of logic, is worthy of being socially boycotted by "noble" persons. [31]
In short, the main features of chaturvarnya as elaborated in the Manusmriti are as follows:
1. Division of Hindu society into four varnas on the basis of birth. Out of these only the first three, namely , Brahmins , Kshatriya and Vaishya, who are collectively known as dwija (twice-born) are entitled to upanayan and the study of the Vedas. Shudras as well as women of dwija varnas are denied the right to study.
2. Assigning different duties and occupations for different varnas. This is to be enforced strictly by the king. [32]According to Manusmriti, if a person of lower caste adopts the occupation of a higher caste, the king ought to deprive him of all his property and expel him from his kingdom. [33]
3. Treating Brahmins as superior and other varnas, namely, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra as inferior to him in descending order with the Shudra occupying the bottom of the hierarchy. A Brahmin is to be treated as god and respected even if he is ignorant. Even a hundred-year old Kshatriya is to treat a ten year old Brahmin as his father.[34]Brahmin alone is entitled to teach. If a Shudra dares to give moral lessons to a Brahmin, the king is to get him punished by pouring hot oil in his ear and mouth. [35] Similarly, if a Shudra occupies the same seat as a Brahmin, he is to be punished by branding his waist (with hot rod) or getting his buttocks cut! [36]
4. Treating women as unequal. Women, that is, even women belonging to Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishyavarnaare not entitled to upanayan and the study of the Vedas. For them, marriage is equivalent to upanayan and service of their husbands is equivalent to the study of the Vedas in the gurukul.[37] Even if the husband is morally degraded, engaged in an affair with another woman and is devoid of knowledge and other qualities, the wife must treat him like a god. [38] A widower is allowed to remarry but a widow is not. [39] Besides, women are not considered fit for being free and independent. They are to be protected in their childhood by father, in youth by husband and in old age by son. [40] They should never be allowed by their guardians to act independently. [41] A woman must never do anything even inside her home without the consent of her father, husband and son respectively. [42] She must remain in control of her father in childhood, of husband in youth and of son after the death of her husband. [43]
5. Treating different varnas as unequal for legal purposes. The Hindu law as codified by Manu is based on the principle of inequality. The punishment for a particular crime is not same for all varnas. In fact, the punishment varies depending on the varna of the victim as well as the varna of the person committing the crime. For the same crime, the Brahmin is to be given a mild punishment, whereas the Shudra is to given the harshest punishment of all. Similarly, if the victim of a crime is a Shudra, the punishment is mild, and the punishment is harsh in case the victim is a Brahmin. For example, if a Brahmin is awarded death sentence, it is sufficient to shave his head, butKshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra are to actually die. [44] If a Kshatriya, a Vaishya, or a Shudra repeatedly gives false evidence in the court, he is to be punished and expelled from the kingdom, whereas the Brahmin is not to be punished, he is to be only expelled. [45] If a person has sexual intercourse with a consenting women of his ownvarna, he is not to be punished. [46] But if a person of lower varna has sexual intercourse with a woman of highervarna, with or without her consent, he is to be killed. [47] If a Brahmin forces a dwija to work for him, he is to be punished. [48] But if a Brahmin forces a Shudra to work for him, whether by making or not making payments to him, he is not to be punished, because Shudras have been created only for serving Brahmins.[49] If a Brahminabuses a Shudra, he is to be fined mildly, [50] but if a Shudra abuses a Brahmin, he is to be killed. [51] On the other hand, even if a Brahmin kills a Shudra, he is merely to perform penance by killing a cat, frog, owl or crow, etc. [52] Thus a Shudra is to be killed for abusing a Brahmin, whereas a Brahmin is to be let off lightly even if he kills a Shudra. Such is the unequal justice of Manusmriti.
In fact, this system of graded inequality seems to be the very essence of the varna-vyavastha. Whether it is the choice of names, [53] or the manner of greeting, [54] or the mode of entertaining guests, [55] or the method of administering oath in the court, [56] or the process of taking out the funeral procession, [57] at each and every step in life, from birth to death, this system of graded inequality is to be applied and observed. Manu does not even spare the rates of interest on loan. For borrowing the same amount, Kshatriya has to pay more as interest thanBrahmin, Vaishya more than Kshatriya and the poor Shudra has to pay the maximum amount as interest! [58]
6. Prohibiting inter-marriage between different varnas. According to Manusmriti, a dwija ought to marry a woman of his own varna.[59] A woman of the same varna is considered best for the first marriage. However, a dwija may take a woman of inferior varna as his second wife if he is overcome by sexual passion. [60] But Manu strongly disapproves of Brahmins and Kshatriyas taking a Shudra woman even as their second wife. They becomeShudra if they do so. [61]
7. Supporting untouchability is also a part of the scheme of social stratification outlined in theManusmriti. Manu clearly mentions that Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya, collectively known asdwija and the Shudras are the four varnas. There is no fifth varna.[62] He explains the origin of other castes by saying that they are varna-sankara castes, that is to say, castes originating due to the intermixture of different varnas, both in anuloma (upper varna male and lower varnafemale) and pratiloma (lower varna male and upper varna female) manner. [63] For example,Nishad caste is said to have originated from anuloma relationship between Brahmin male andShudra female,[64] whereas C handala caste is said to be owing its origin to pratilomarelationship between Shudra male and Brahmin female. [65]
Manu seems to be disapproving of pratiloma relationship more than the anuloma, because he describes C handalas as the lowest of the low castes. [66]
Let us see what Manusmriti, has to say about the C handala. The Chandala, says Manusmriti, must not ever reside inside the village. While doing their work, they must reside outside the village, at cremation ground, on mountains or in groves. They are not entitled to keep cows or horses, etc., as pet animals. They may keep dogs and donkeys. They are to wear shrouds. They are to eat in broken utensils. They are to use ornaments of iron, not of gold. They must keep moving from one place to another, not residing at the same place for a long duration. [67] They must not move around in villages and cities in night hours. They may enter the villages and cities in daytime, with king's permission, wearing special symbols (to enable identification), and take away unclaimed dead bodies. [68]
Moreover, how is the "religious" person to deal with the Chandala? He must not have any social intercourse (marriage, interdining, etc.) with them. He must not talk to or even see them! [69] He may ask servants (apparently Shudras) to give them food in broken utensils. [70]
8. Granting divine and religious sanction to varna-vyavastha. Manu gives divine and religious sanction to the varna-vyavastha by claiming divine origin for the varnas as well as for theManusmriti and demanding unquestioning obedience of it.
So, that completes my exposition of the varna-vyavastha. I want to emphasize in particular that my exposition does not contain any exaggeration at all. The reader may check each and every statement by comparing with the original Manusmriti in order to satisfy himself or herself. I cannot help if the system is so unjust and so out of tune with out existing values that even an objective exposition reads like a severe condemnation. Nevertheless, I will now turn to my reasons for rejecting varna-vyavastha: I reject varna-vyavastha because it is irrational, unjust and undemocratic, being opposed to the democratic and human values of liberty, equality and fraternity.
Criticism of varna-vyavastha
The varna-vyavastha is opposed to the value of liberty as it denies the freedom to choose one's occupation and marriage partner to one and all. Everyone must join the occupation of his varnaand must marry within his varna. Similarly, it denies the freedom to study to the Shudras and woman in particular. Even the dwija must study the Vedas before he studies anything else. Otherwise, he becomes a Shudra.[71] (Incidentally, according to Manusmriti, there are several ways by which a Brahmin or dwija may become a Shudra but there is no way by which a Shudramay become a Brahmin. A Shudra must always remain a Shudra.)[72]
What is worse, the Chandala is even denied the freedom to reside at a place of his choice or to wear clothes and ornaments of his choice. He is not even free to keep pet animals of his choice.
The conflict between varna-vyavastha and the value of equality is more than obvious. As I mentioned earlier, the system of graded inequality seems to be the very essence of varna-vyavastha. It denies equal respect to all in society. It denies equality before law. It denies equal access to marriage partners. It denies equal access to jobs. The occupation of teachers and priests, for example, is reserved exclusively for Brahmins. Finally, it also denies equal access to education and knowledge.
A Brahmin, according to Manu, must not teach the Shudra and woman even if he dies with his knowledge without imparting it to anybody. [73] On the other hand, if anyone studies the Vedas on his own he or she will go straight to hell. [74] In other words, cent percent reservations for dwijamales in the sphere of education.
The varna-vyavastha is most unfair to the Shudras and the untouchables. They are denied respect, knowledge, power and wealth. They are denied access to occupations considered respectable, just as they are denied access to men and women of upper varnas for marriage. The Shudras are virtually reduced to being slaves of the Brahmins in particular and the dwijas in general, whereas the untouchables are regarded as outcast -- beyond the pale of the society. The women are generally treated as sexual objects and as unfit for being independent and free.
As far as fraternity is considered, we must not expect it to exist in a society, which is so unequal and unjust. A Shudra's waist is to be branded or his buttocks are to be cut only because he occupies the same seat as the Brahmin. The "religious" are not to talk or even look at aChandala. Inter-marriage is prohibited. Manu seems to be most eager to prevent inter-mixing of the varnas. Thus, the Hindu social order is based on the isolation and exclusiveness of thevarnas.
The Manusmriti not only outlines a totally undemocratic and unjust social system but also gives divine, religious sanction to this man-made social institution of chaturvarnya. Some Hindus, including apparently learned "thinkers" and writers, smugly wax eloquent about Hinduism being the most tolerant and liberal religion of the world.
Is there any other religion, which sanctions slavery and untouchability? Is there any other religion in which only persons born in a particular caste ( Brahmin) are entitled to become priests?
Slavery is not peculiar to India or to Hinduism, but carrying it to the extremes of untouchability, and granting it divine and religious sanction is peculiar to Hinduism.
Similarly, some Hindus may be tolerant, just as some of them are intolerant, but Hinduism or Hindu religion is not tolerant at all, either socially or intellectually. Manusmriti, for example, clearly says that anybody who argues critically and logically about dharmashastras ought to be ostracized. [75] Non-believers, including freethinkers, rationalists and Buddhists, are not to be entertained respectfully as guests; though, mercifully, they may be given food. [76] The families of non-believers are destroyed sooner than later according to Manu. [77] A state with a large number of Shudras and nastikas soon meets its destruction. [78]Manusmriti is full of abusive epithets for freethinkers and non-believers. The unorthodox ( nastikas) are sometimes equated with the Shudras, sometimes with the Chandalas, sometimes with thieves and sometimes with lunatics! [79] Such is the generosity of Hindu dharma.
Apologies for varna-vyavastha
Let me now consider what the apologists of varna-vyavastha have to say in its defense.
A standard defense of varna-vyavastha is to say that it is a system of division of labor. It is easy to grant that division of labor is essential for any complex society, but it is equally easy to see thatvarna-vyavastha is not a system of division of labor based on aptitude and capability. It is a system of division of labor based on birth . Besides, it has other associated features such as feeling of superiority and inferiority, inequality before law, denial of equal access to knowledge and prohibition against inter-marriage.
What have these features to do with the division of labor?
Division of labor is found in all societies, but varna-vyavastha is not. Thus, trying to justify varna-vyavastha as division of labor is a futile exercise.
Another standard defense of the varna-vyavastha is to say that the system was originally based on aptitude and capability. Whether it was actually ever so is a subject for historical research. Most probably, the racial theory of the origin of castes is true. However, even if we grant for the sake of argument that the varna-vyavastha was originally based on aptitude and capability, how does it help? We cannot say that because the system was originally, some time in remote past, based on aptitude and capability; therefore we ought to gladly suffer the present system based on birth. It hardly makes any sense at all!
In any case, Manusmriti was most probably written between200 BC and 200 AD [80] and the system as outlined in it is totally based on birth. Gautam Buddha, who lived in sixth century BC, challenged the infallibility of the Vedas as well as the varna-vyavastha. There are several passages in Tripitaka, mainly in Digha Nikaya and Majhima Nikaya which are "directed against the claims of the Brahmans to be of different origin from the rest of humanity, born from the mouth of Brahma, having a hereditary prerogative to teach, guide and spiritually govern the rest of the society." [81] In Majhima Nikaya Buddha is quoted as refuting varna-vyavastha on several occasions. According to Buddha, it is unreasonable to decide one's place and functions in society on the basis of one's birth in a caste. Buddha is also quoted as insisting that in the eyes of the law all persons ought to be treated as equal, irrespective of the caste or varna in which he or she is born. [82] Thus, it is obvious that even if the system of varna-vyavastha ever existed in its ideal form -- which is doubtful -- it had already degenerated by the time of Buddha, that is, about 2500 years back.
The most blatant defense of varna-vyavastha, however, is to say that human beings are born unequal, and, therefore, it is natural and normal for children to join the occupation of their fathers. Surprisingly and sadly, no less a person than Gandhi defended varna-vyavastha in a similar manner.
To quote Gandhi: "I believe that every man is born in the world with certain natural tendencies. Every person is born with certain definite limitations which he cannot overcome. From a careful observation of those limitations the law of varna was deduced. It establishes certain spheres of action for certain people with certain tendencies. This avoided all unworthy competition. Whilst recognizing limitations, the law of varna admitted of no distinction of high and low; on the one hand it guaranteed to each the fruits of his labors and on the other it prevented him from pressing upon his neighbor. This great law has been degraded and fallen into disrepute. But my conviction is that an ideal social order will only be evolved when the implications of this law are fully understood and given effect to". [83]
Again, "I regard Varnashrama as a healthy division of work based on birth. The present ideas of caste are a perversion of the original. There is no question with me of superiority or inferiority. It is purely a question of duty. I have indeed stated that varna is based on birth. But I have also said that it is possible for a shudra, for instance, to become a vaishya. But in order to perform theduty of vaishya he does not need the label of a vaishya. He who performs the duty of a brahmanwill easily become one in the next incarnation." [84]
So, varna-vyavastha, according to Gandhi, is a "healthy division of work based on birth", which takes into account the "natural tendencies" of human beings and avoids "unworthy competition."
This apparently plausible defense of varna-vyavastha is, in fact, most unscientific. It is a well-known and scientifically verified fact that acquired characteristics are not inherited biologically, only genetic qualities are transmitted from one generation to another. For instance, carpentry is an acquired characteristic; just as knowledge of philosophy is an acquired quality. Neither a carpenter's son or daughter is born with the knowledge of carpentry, nor is a philosopher's daughter or son born with the knowledge of philosophy. These are acquired characteristics and, therefore, they cannot be inherited biologically. If sometimes, though not always, a carpenter's son becomes a good carpenter or a philosopher's daughter acquires a good knowledge of philosophy, without being formally initiated into these disciplines, it is not because they are born with the required knowledge, but only because of the favorable environment at home, which enables them to acquire these characteristics. The result could be different if their places were to be interchanged.
One may say that though the knowledge of carpentry of philosophy in not inherited biologically, the mental qualities enabling one to acquire the requisite knowledge is inherited. Some physical and mental qualities are, no doubt, inherited but this does not mean that parents and their children are always identical in physical or mental qualities. It is a well known fact -- anybody can verify this by careful observation -- that due to different permutations and combinations of chromosomes and genes offspring of same parents are not always identical to one another or to their parents. More often than not, they are different. For instance, one son or daughter of same parents may be tall and another short. The colors of skin, hair and eyes may differ likewise. What is true of physical characteristics is equally true of mental qualities. Thus, a child may or may not have the mental characteristics, which his father has.
Therefore, it is totally unscientific to forcefully restrict children to the occupations of their forefathers.
It is true that all human beings are not equal in the sense of being identical in physical or mental qualities. But it does not follow from this that they ought to be denied equal opportunity to join a vocation of their choice or that they ought to be denied equality before law or equal respect as human beings in the society.
As for "unworthy" competition, how do we know that the competition is unworthy unless all are, to begin with, given equal opportunity? Take the example of Gandhi himself. He was a bania by caste. Yet, in spite of some serious aberrations such as supporting varna-vyavastha based on birth and linking politics with religion, he performed fairly well in the role of a national leader. It would have been a great loss for the nation if in the name of avoiding "unworthy" competition in politics, Gandhi would have been confined to running a grocery shop. Similarly, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was born in an "untouchable" caste, but he played an important role in the drafting of the democratic constitution of independent India. He also taught in a college for some time. To use the terminology of varna-vyavastha, he ably performed the work of a Brahmin.
Is it possible to imagine how many Ambedkars we may have lost by now owing to the restrictivevarna-vyavastha?
As we have noted earlier, varna-vyavastha is a closed system of social stratification without any scope for upward social mobility. To quote M. Haralambos, author of a textbook on sociology, "A person belongs to his parents jati and automatically follows the occupation of the jati into which he was born. Thus no matter what the biologically based aptitude and capacities of an untouchable, there is no way he can become a Brahmin. Unless it is assumed that superior genes are permanently located in the Brahmin caste, and there is no evidence that this is the case, then there is probably no relationship between genetically based and socially created inequality in traditional Hindu society." [85]
Returning to Gandhi, though Gandhi was opposed to untouchability and caste, he did not carry his opposition to its logical conclusion. Inconsistently enough, he continued to support the varna-vyavastha based on birth. At one stage, he even supported restrictions on interdining and intermarriage. As he wrote in Young India in 1921, "Hinduism does most emphatically discourage interdining and intermarriage between divisions... It is no part of a Hindu's duty to dine with his son. And by restricting his choice of bride to a particular group, he exercises rare self-restraint. Prohibition against intermarriages and interdining is essential for the rapid evolution of the soul. "[86] (emphasis mine)
Later Gandhi moved away from these orthodox ideas, and started supporting intercaste marriages. Finally in 1946, he refused to solemnize any marriage at Sevagram Ashram unless one of the parties was an untouchable. [87] May be he would also have given up varna-vyavasthaif he had lived longer. That, however, is in the realm of imagination, the fact is that Gandhi supported varna-vyavastha. It is worth noting that he invented his own conception of varna-vyavastha, which, according to him, had nothing to do with the feeling of superiority and inferiority or with prohibition against intermarriage. We find here in Gandhi a quaint mixture of conservatism and reformism.
I would like to dispose of one last objection before concluding this section. One may say that the Hindu law at present is quite different from what Manu desired, and presently Hindus in general do not follow Manu in totality. This is true. The Hindu law at present, for instance, allows inter-caste marriage and prohibits bigamy and child marriage. It permits divorce. It also allows widow remarriage and grants equal rights to daughters in father's property. Nevertheless, there seems to be a gap between the progressive Hindu law and the conservative social practices of the Hindus. A majority of Hindu marriages are still within the caste and very few Hindu women actually claim or get a share in father's property.
The Indian constitution has rightly made special provisions, such as reservations in services for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other socially and educationally backward classes, to enable them to enter occupations and positions of power, which had been traditionally denied to them. No doubt, some upper caste liberal Hindus, too, support the policy of reservation. But, by and large, the Hindu upper castes are far from fully reconciled to this progressive step as is evident from violent and aggressive anti-reservation agitation spearheaded by upper caste students from time to time. This kind of reactionary agitation aimed at preserving the present dominance of upper castes in education and the services enjoys considerable support and sympathy in the upper caste dominated media as well as the academia.
On the whole, the Hindu society is yet to fully exorcise the ghost of Manu. Caste based on birth and untouchability still exist in the Hindu society, in spite of the fact that untouchability has been abolished by the Indian constitution. The distribution of education, power and wealth continues to be uneven in the Hindu society, with the dwijas being on the top and the Shudras and untouchables being at the bottom. Teaching is no more an exclusive preserve of Brahmins, but the occupation of Hindu priests is still fully reserved for Brahmins, though this fact does not arouse the ire of our fervent anti-reservationists.
Moksha, Karmavada and Avatarvada
Moksha is traditionally regarded as the highest end of life in Hindu religion. The "endless cycle of birth and death" is considered a bondage from which one must attain liberation, that is mokshaor mukti.
This whole concept of bondage and liberation is based on the unproved assumption of life after death, and the existence of soul ( atma) which continues to exist apart from the body even after death. In the famous words of Gita, the soul changes bodies just as human beings change clothes. [88]
Now, there are no good reasons for believing in the existence of soul or life after death or rebirth. These beliefs are not at all supported by incontrovertible scientific evidence. According to S.N. Dasgupta, "there has seldom been before or after Buddha any serious attempt to prove or disprove the doctrine of rebirth. The attempts to prove the doctrine of rebirth in the Hindu philosophical works such as Nyaya, etc. are slight and inadequate." [89]
However, even before Buddha, Lokayat had disproved the existence of soul, life after death, rebirth, heaven and hell on an empirical basis, as these things are never perceived. [90]
Thus, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to believe that each one of us has got one and only one life . Once a person is dead, he is dead for ever. Never to be reborn.Mind, consciousness, memory and life cannot outlast the destruction of brain and body.This is the harsh truth; howsoever we may dislike it.
The belief in soul seems to have originated from primitive animism. [91] If this belief continues to persist, in spite of total lack of evidence in its support, it is only because of human beings' inability to come to terms with, or to squarely face, the reality of death. One likes to believe that one's near and dear ones, who are dead and finished forever, actually continue to live in some other imaginary world, and that they will also be reborn one day. One draws comfort from the thought that one will not die even after death, and continue to live in some other form. It is paradoxical that, first, the fear of death and love of life makes one readily accept the belief in the immortality and rebirth of soul without adequate evidence, and, then, getting rid of this alleged cycle of birth and death itself becomes the topmost religious aim! [92]
The problem of getting "released" from the alleged cycle of birth and death is a pseudo-problem (in the sense that one is trying to get rid of something which simply does not exist) and moksha is an imaginary ideal which has nothing to do with the reality. Instead of running after the imaginary ideal of moksha, it is far better to concentrate on improving and living well this one and only life, which we have.
Mimamsa, which is an orthodox Hindu school of thought, considers attainment of heaven (swarga), instead of moksha, as the highest end of life. References to heaven and hell are also to be found in the Manusmriti. The belief in heaven is fairly widespread at popular level. However, the ideal of the attainment of heaven, too, is based on unproved assumptions, like life after death and the existence of heaven, and, therefore, it cannot be accepted.
Another related doctrine is the Hindu belief in karmavada or the so-called law of karma. According to this doctrine, every human being gets the fruits of his actions either in the present or in some future life. Whatever a human being is in his present life is the result of his own actions in the past life or lives.
This, again, is a totally unverified and unverifiable doctrine based on the assumption of the "cycle of birth and death". It is only a convenient tool for explaining away the perceived inequality in human society. The idea of karma is found in Buddhism and Jainism as well. However, these religions do not support varna-vyavastha. But in Hinduism the doctrine of karma, along with the idea of god, has been used for providing ideological support to the unjust varna-vyavastha and for making it appear just and fair. In Hinduism the so-called law of karma merely serves the purpose of legitimizing the unjust varna-vyavastha by making the Shudras and the "untouchables" meekly accept their degrading position as a "result of their own deeds" in imaginary past lives, and by assuring them "better" birth in "next life" if they faithfully perform theirvarna-dharma in their present lives. [93] In this way, this doctrine prevents them from revolting against this man-made undemocratic system, which has nothing to do with alleged past and future lives.
Lastly, I come to the Hindu doctrine of avatarvada. According to this doctrine, whenever religion is threatened in this world, god takes birth as an avatar to put things back into order. Ram and Krishna, for example, are popularly regarded as avatars by the Hindus.
Belief in avatarvada, too, is logically unjustifiable and merely makes one run away from one's own responsibilities. Instead of making efforts to improve their own condition, those who believe inavatarvada keep waiting for an avatar to take birth. Since god does not exist, there is no question of his being born on this earth as an avatar. (Let me add here that I also do not believe in the truth of statements like "Jesus is the son of god" or "Mohammed is the messenger of god".)
Not only I do not regard Ram or Krishna (or anyone else) as an avatar of god, I also do not regard them as ideal personalities. Ram, as mentioned earlier, was on upholder, of the varna-vyavastha. His cruel behavior with Sita, after fighting a destructive war with Ravana to get her released, is too well known to need recapitulation. [94]
Krishna, on the other hand, is portrayed in the Mahabharata as the teacher of Bhagvat Gita , a book which expounds untrue and harmful doctrines like the belief in god and immortal soul,avatarvada, karmavada, varnashram dharma and the doctrine of moksha.
In Mahabharata Krishna adopts and advocates adoption of unfair means like lying and deception for achieving one's ends. Obviously, he did not believe in the doctrine of purity of ends and means. There are several flaws in the character of Krishna as portrayed in the Mahabharata,Bhagvat and Harivamsa. These have been ably enumerated by Dr. Ambedkar in his The Riddle of Ram and Krishna . I refer the interested reader to this work for a fuller treatment of this subject.[95]
Conclusion
To conclude, I categorically reject major Hindu religious beliefs including the doctrine of the infallibility of the Vedas, varnashram dharma , moksha, karmavada, and avatarvada. I am not an admirer of Ram and Krishna, and I also do not believe in idol worship or the Hindu taboo of not eating beef. I support logical and scientific thinking; and a secular, rational morality based on human values of liberty, equality and fraternity. Therefore, I am not a Hindu by conviction, though I am a Hindu by birth.
Endnotes
[1] S. Radhakrishnan, The Hindu View of Life (Bombay: Blackie & Son (India) Ltd., 1979), p. 12.
[2] Ibid., p. 14.
[3] Ibid., pp. 16-17.
[4] M.K.Gandhi, "Aspects of Hinduism" in Hindu Dharma (New Delhi: Orient Paperbacks, 1978), p. 9.
[5] Ninian Smart, "Hinduism" in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. in chief, Paul Edwards) Vol. IV (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. & The Free Press, 1972), p.1.
[6] S.N.Dasgupta , A History of Indian Philosophy , Vol. 1 (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1975), pp. 67-68.
[7] Chatterjee and Datta, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy .
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] S.N.Dasgupta, Op. Cit., p. 394.
[11] I have discussed the question of the existence of god in my small Hindi book Kya Ishwar Mar Chuka Hai? (Patna: Bihar Buddhiwadi Samaj, 1985, 1995). See, Is God Dead? (An introduction to Kya ishwar mar chuka hai? ) [Patna: Buddhiwadi Foundation, 1998]
[12] M.K.Gandhi, "Aspects of Hinduism" in Hindu Dharma , pp. 9-10.
[13] A.L.B., "History of Hinduism" in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica , Vol. 8 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1981), pp. 910-11.
[14] B.R. Ambedkar , Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol. 4, Riddles in Hinduism (Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, 1987), p. 332.
[15] Y.Masih, The Hindu Religious Thought (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983), pp. 192-93.
[16] Bhagvad-Gita I: 40,41, 42,43.
[17] B.G. IV: 13.15.
[18] Y.Masih, Op.Cit., p.208, Also see, pp. 224-25.
[19] V.P.Verma, Modern Indian Political Thought (Agra: Lakshmi Narain Agarwal, 1991), pp. 50-51.
[20] Manusmriti (MS) I: 31.
[21] MS I:58.
[22] MS I:88.
[23] MS I:89.
[24] MS I: 90.
[25] MS I: 91.
[26] MS I: 93, Also see, X: 3.
[27] MS I: 95.
[28] MS I: 101.
[29] MS I: 103.
[30] MS II: 10,13.
[31] MS II: 11.
[32] MS VIII: 410.
[33] MS X: 96. Also see, Kautilya, Arthshastra I: 3, Quoted by J.N. Farquhar in An Outline of the Religious Literature of India ( Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984), p. 44.
[34] MS II: 135.
[35] MS VIII: 272.
[36] MS VIII: 281.
[37] MS II: 67.
[38] MS V: 154.
[39] MS V: 168,157.
[40] MS IX: 3.
[41] MS IX: 2.
[42] MS V: 147.
[43] MS V: 148.
[44] MS VIII: 379.
[45] MS VIII: 123.
[46] MS VIII: 364.
[47] MS VIII: 366.
[48] MS VIII: 412.
[49] MS VIII: 413.
[50] MS VIII: 268.
[51] MS VIII: 267.
[52] MS XI: 131.
[53] MS II: 31,32.
[54] MS II: 127.
[55] MS III: 111,112.
[56] MS VIII: 88.
[57] MS V: 92.
[58] MS VIII: 142.
[59] MS III: 4.
[60] MS III: 12.
[61] MS III: 14,15,16,17,18,19.
[62] MS X: 4.
[63] MS X: 25.
[64] MS X: 8.
[65] MS X: 12.
[66] Ibid.
[67] MS X: 50,51,52.
[68] MS X: 54,55.
[69] MS X: 53.
[70] MS X: 54.
[71] MS II: 168.
[72] MS VIII: 414.
[73] MS II: 113; X: 1.
[74] MS II: 116.
[75] MS II: 11.
[76] MS IV: 30.
[77] MS III: 65.
[78] MS VIII: 22.
[79] MS III:150, 161; IX: 225. From a humanist point of view, there is nothing wrong in being born as a Shudra or a Chandala, but in the context of the Manusmriti, these are abusive epithets.
[80] Manusmriti (Varanasi: Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan, 1982), pp. 10-11.
[81]A.K.Warder, Indian Buddhism (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1980),p.163.
[82] Y.Masih, The Hindu Religious Thought, pp. 336-37.
[83] Nirmal Kumar Bose, Selections from Gandhi ( Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1972), p. 265.
[84] Ibid., p. 263.
[85] M.Haralambos, Sociology Themes and Perspectives (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1980) pp. 27-28.
[86] N.K.Bose, Op.Cit., p. 266.
[87] Louis Fischer, Gandhi (New York: New American Library, 1954), pp. 111-12, Also see, N.K.Bose, Op.Cit., p. 267.
[88] B.G. II: 20-25.
[89] S.N. Dasgutpa, A History of Indian Philosophy , Vol. I, p. 87.
[90] Chatterjee and Datta. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy .
[91] See M.N.Roy, "The Transmigration of Soul" in India's Message ( Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1982), pp. 4-6.
[92] Probably "the cycle of life and death" is considered "bondage" because it will presumably lead to death again and again. So, primarily the doctrine of liberation seems to be a reaction against death.
[93] "Those whose conduct has been pleasing will quickly attain a pleasing birth, the birth of a Brahman or a Kshatriya, or a Vaisya; but those whose conduct has been abominable, will quickly attain abominable birth, the birth of a dog, or a hog, or an Outcaste." Brihadaranyaka, quoted by J.N. Farquhar, An Outline of the Religious Literature of India , p. 34, Also see, S.N.Dasgupta, Op. Cit., p. 363.
[94] See, my "Why I do not want Ramrajya" in Why I am Not a Hindu & Why I do not want Ramrajya (Patna: Bihar Rationalist Society, 1995).
[95] B.R. Ambedkar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches , Vol. 4, Riddles in Hinduism.
The Bhagavad Gītā (Sanskrit: भगवद्गीता, ˈbʱəɡəʋəd̪ ɡiːˈt̪aː (help·info), Song of God), also more simply known as Gita, is a 700-verse Hindu scripture that is part of the ancient Sanskrit epic, the Mahabharata, but is frequently treated as a freestanding text, and in particular, as an Upanishad in its own right, one of the several books that constitute general Vedic tradition. It is revealed scripture in the views of Hindus, the scripture for Hindus represents the words and message of God, the book is considered among the most important texts in the history of literatureand philosophy.[1] The teacher of the Bhagavad Gita is Lord Krishna, who is revered by Hindus as a manifestation of God (Parabrahman) Himself,[1] and is referred to within as Bhagavan, the Divine One.[2]
The context of the Gita is a conversation between Lord Krishna and the Pandava prince Arjuna taking place in the middle of the battlefield before the start of theKurukshetra War with armies on both sides ready to battle. Responding to Arjuna's confusion and moral dilemma about fighting his own cousins who command a tyranny imposed on a disputed empire, Lord Krishna explains to Arjuna his duties as a warrior and prince, and elaborates on different Yogic[3] and Vedantic philosophies, and explains different ways in which the soul can reach the supreme being with examples and analogies. This has led to the Gita often being described as a concise guide to Hindu theology and also as a practical, self-contained guide to life. During the discourse, Lord Krishna reveals His identity as the Supreme Being Himself (Svayam Bhagavan), blessing Arjuna with an awe-inspiring vision of His divine universal form.
The direct audience to Lord Krishna's discourse of the Bhagavad Gita included Arjuna (addressee), Sanjaya (using Divya Drishti (or divine vision) gifted by the sage Veda Vyasa to watch the war and narrate the events to Dhritarashtra), spirit of Lord Hanuman (perched atop Arjuna's chariot) in his flag and Barbarika, son of Ghatotkacha, who also witnessed the complete 18 days of action at Kurukshetra.
The Bhagavad Gita is also called Gītopaniṣad, implying its having the status of an Upanishad, i.e. a Vedantic scripture.[4] Since the Gita is drawn from the Mahabharata, it is classified as a Smṛiti text. However, those branches of Hinduism that give it the status of an Upanishad also consider it a śruti or "revealed" text.[5][6] As it is taken to represent a summary of the Upanishadic teachings, it is also called "the Upanishad of the Upanishads".[7] Another title is mokṣaśāstra, or "Scripture of Liberation".[8]
The Bhagavad Gita occurs in the Bhishma Parva of the Mahabharata and comprises 18 chapters from the 25th through 42nd and consists of 700 verses.[11] Its authorship is traditionally ascribed to Vyasa, the compiler of the Mahabharata.[12][13] Because of differences in recensions, the verses of the Gita may be numbered in the full text of theMahabharata as chapters 6.25–42 or as chapters 6.23–40.[14] According to the recension of the Gita commented on by Shankaracharya, the number of verses is 700, but there is evidence to show that old manuscripts had 745 verses.[15] The verses themselves, using the range and style of Sanskrit meter (chhandas) with similes and metaphors, are written in a poetic form that is traditionally chanted.[citation needed]
As with all of the Mahabharata, the text of the Gītā cannot be dated with certainty. Some astrologers have calculated the Bhagavad Gita traditionally being revealed circa 3000 BCEbased purely on Sri Krishna's horoscope .[16][17][18] The entire epic went through a lengthy process of accumulation and redaction during roughly the 5th century BCE to the 5th century CE. Some scholars have placed the composition of the Gītā in the earlier phase of this period, between roughly the 5th and the 2nd century BCE.[12][19][20] The mainstream assumption of a pre-Christian date has been widely repeated, e.g. by Indian PresidentRadhakrishnan.[12] Recently it has been speculated to date around early centuries of the Common Era instead. Thus, John Brockington (1998) argues that the Gītā can be placed in the first century CE.[21] Based on claims of differences in the poetic styles, some scholars like Jinarajadasa have argued that the Bhagavad Gītā was added to the Mahābhārata at a later date.[22][23]
Within the text of the Bhagavad Gītā itself, Lord Krishna states that the knowledge of Yogaand self renunciation contained in the Gītā was first instructed to mankind at the very beginning of their existence.[24] Therefore, the history and chronology of the Bhagavad Gita may be taken to be clear from the text itself, by its adherents. Although it may seem to some that the original date of composition of the Bhagavad Gita is not clear, its teachings are considered timeless and the exact time of revelation of the scripture is considered of little spiritual significance by religiously-motivated scholars such as Bansi Pandit, and Juan Mascaro.[7][25]Swami Vivekananda dismisses concerns about differences of opinion regarding the historical events as unimportant for study of the Gita from the point of acquirement of Dharma.[26]
A manuscript illustration of the Battle of Kurukshetra, fought between the Kauravas and the Pandavas, recorded in the Mahābhārata.
The Mahabharata centers on the exploits of the Pandavas and the Kauravas, two families of royal cousins descended from two brothers, Pandu and Dhritarashtra, respectively. Because Dhritarashtra was born blind, Pandu inherited the ancestral kingdom, comprising a part of northern India around modern Delhi. The Pandava brothers were Yudhishthira the eldest, Bhima, Arjuna, Nakula, and Sahadeva. The Kaurava brothers were one hundred in number, Duryodhana being the eldest. When Pandu died at an early age, his young children were placed under the care of their uncle Dhritarashtra who ascended the throne since the Pandavas were minors.[27][28]
The Pandavas and the Kauravas were brought up together in the same household and had the same teachers, the most notable of whom were Bhishma andDronacharya.[28] Bhishma, the wise grandsire, acted as their chief guardian, and the Brahmin Drona was their military instructor. The Pandavas were endowed with righteousness, self-control, nobility, and many other knightly traits. On the other hand, the hundred sons of Dhritarashtra, especially Duryodhana, were endowed with negative qualities and were cruel, unrighteous, unscrupulous, greedy, and lustful. Duryodhana, jealous of his five cousins, contrived various means to destroy them.[29]
Arjuna chooses Krishna instead of his vast army, 18th century painting
When the time came to crown Yudhisthira, eldest of the Pandavas, as prince, Duryodhana, through a fixed game of dice, exiled the Pandavas into the forest.[28]On their return from banishment the Pandavas demanded the return of their legitimate kingdom. Duryodhana, who had consolidated his power by many alliances, refused to restore their legal and moral rights. Attempts by elders and Krishna, who was a friend of the Pandavas and also a well wisher of the Kauravas, to resolve the issue failed. Nothing would satisfy Duryodhana's inordinate greed.[30][31]
War became inevitable. Both Duryodhana and Arjuna requested Krishna to support them in the war, since he possessed the strongest army, and was revered as the wisest teacher and the greatest yogi. Krishna offered to give his vast army to one of them and to become a charioteer and counselor for the other, but he would not touch any weapon nor participate in the battle in any manner.[30] While Duryodhana chose Krishna's vast army, Arjuna preferred to have Krishna as his charioteer.[32] The whole realm responded to the call of the Pandavas and the Kauravas. The kings, princes, and knights of India with their armies assembled on the sacred plain ofKurukshetra.[30] The blind king Dhritarashtra wished to follow the progress of the battle. The sage Vyasa offered to endow him with supernatural sight, but the king refused the boon, for he felt that the sight of the destruction of those near and dear to him would be too much to bear. Thereupon, Vyasa bestowed supernatural sight on Sanjaya, who was to act as reporter to Dhritarashtra. The Gita opens with the question of the blind king to Sanjaya regarding what happened on the battlefield when the two armies faced each other in battle array.[33]
Bronze statue representing the discourse of Krishna and Arjuna, in Kurukshetra
The Bhagavad Gita begins before the start of the climactic battle at Kurukshetra, with the Pandava prince Arjuna becoming filled with doubt on the battlefield. Realizing that his enemies are his own relatives, beloved friends, and revered teachers, he turns to his charioteer and guide, Krishna, for advice.
In summary the main philosophical subject matter of the Bhagavad Gita is the explanation of five basic concepts or "truths":[34]
Krishna counsels Arjuna on the greater idea of dharma, or universal harmony and duty. He begins with the tenet that the soul (Atman) is eternal and immortal.[35] Any 'death' on the battlefield would involve only the shedding of the body, whereas the soul is permanent. Arjuna's hesitation stems from a lack of accurate understanding of the 'nature of things,' the privileging of the unreal over the real. His fear and hesitance become impediments to the proper balancing of the universal dharmic order. Essentially, Arjuna wishes to abandon the battle, to abstain from action; Krishna warns, however, that without action, the cosmos would fall out of order and truth would be obscured.
In order to clarify his point, Krishna expounds the various processes in which the soul can fulfill its potential and understanding of the true nature of the universe. Krishna describes the yogic paths of devotional service,[36]action,[37]meditation[38] and knowledge.[39]Fundamentally, the Bhagavad Gita proposes that true enlightenment comes from growing beyond identification with the temporal ego, the 'False Self', the ephemeral world, so that one identifies with the truth of the immortal self, the absolute soul or Atman. Through detachment from the material sense of ego, the Yogi, or follower of a particular path of Yoga, is able to transcend his/her illusory mortality and attachment to the material world and enter the realm of the Supreme.[40]
Krishna does not propose that the physical world must be forgotten or neglected. Rather, one's life on Earth must be lived in accordance with greater laws and truths, one must embrace one's temporal duties whilst remaining mindful of timeless reality, acting for the sake of service without consideration for the results thereof. Such a life would naturally lead towards stability, happiness and, ultimately, enlightenment.
To demonstrate his divine nature, Krishna grants Arjuna the boon of cosmic vision (albeit temporary) and allows the prince to see his 'Universal Form' (this occurs in the eleventh chapter).[41] He reveals that he is fundamentally both the ultimate essence of Being in the universe and also its material body, called the Vishvarupa ('Universal Form').
In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna refers to the war about to take place as 'Dharma Yuddha', meaning a righteous war for the purpose of justice. In Chapter 4, Krishna states that he incarnates in each age (yuga) to establish righteousness in the world.[42]
There are many who regard the story of the Gita as an allegory; Swami Nikhilananda, for example, takes Arjuna as an allegory of Ātman, Krishna as an allegory of Brahman, Arjuna's chariot as the body, etc.[43]
Mahatma Gandhi, in his commentary on the Gita,[44] interpreted the battle as "an allegory in which the battlefield is the soul and Arjuna, man's higher impulses struggling against evil."[45]Swami Vivekananda also said that the first discourse in the Gita related to war can be taken allegorically.[46] Vivekananda further remarks, "this Kurukshetra War is only an allegory. When we sum up its esoteric significance, it means the war which is constantly going on within man between the tendencies of good and evil."[13]
In Sri Aurobindo's view, Krishna was a historical figure, but his significance in the Gita is as a "symbol of the divine dealings with humanity",[47] while Arjuna typifies a "struggling human soul."[48] However, Aurobindo rejects the interpretation that the Gita, and the Mahabharata by extension, is "an allegory of the inner life, and has nothing to do with our outward human life and actions":[48]
"
...That is a view which the general character and the actual language of the epic does not justify and, if pressed, would turn the straightforward philosophical language of the Gita into a constant, laborious and somewhat puerile mystification....the Gita is written in plain terms and professes to solve the great ethical and spiritual difficulties which the life of man raises, and it will not do to go behind this plain language and thought and wrest them to the service of our fancy. But there is this much of truth in the view, that the setting of the doctrine though not symbolical, is certainly typical...
The Gita consists of eighteen chapters[49] in total:
Visada Yoga: Arjuna requests Krishna to move his chariot between the two armies. When Arjuna sees his relatives on the opposing army side of the Kurus, he loses morale and decides not to fight.
Sankhya Yoga:: After asking Krishna for help, Arjuna is instructed that only the body may be killed, as he was worried if it would become a sin to kill people (including his gurus and relatives), while the eternal self is immortal. Krishna appeals to Arjuna that, as a warrior, he has a duty to uphold the path of dharma through warfare.
Karma Yoga: Arjuna asks why he should engage in fighting if knowledge is more important than action. Krishna stresses to Arjuna that performing his duties for the greater good, but without attachment to results, is the appropriate course of action.
Jnana Yoga: Krishna reveals that he has lived through many births, always teaching Yoga for the protection of the pious and the destruction of the impious and stresses the importance of accepting a guru.
Karma Vairagya Yoga: Arjuna asks Krishna if it is better to forgo action or to act ("renunciation or discipline of action"[50]). Krishna answers that both ways may be beneficent, but that acting in Karma Yoga is superior.
Dhyan Yoga: Krishna describes the correct posture for meditation and the process of how to achieve Samādhi.
Paramahamsa Vijnana Yoga: Krishna teaches the path of knowledge (Jnana Yoga).
Aksara-Parabrahman Yoga: Krishna defines the terms brahman, adhyatma, karma,atman, adhibhuta and adhidaiva and explains how one can remember him at the time of death and attain his supreme abode.
Raja-Vidya-Guhya Yoga: Krishna explains panentheism, "all beings are in me" as a way of remembering him in all circumstances.
Vibhuti-Vistara-Yoga: Krishna describes how he is the ultimate source of all material and spiritual worlds. Arjuna accepts Krishna as the Supreme Being, quoting great sages who have also done so.
Visvarupa-Darsana Yoga: On Arjuna's request, Krishna displays his "universal form" (Viśvarūpa), a theophany of a being facing every way and emitting the radiance of a thousand suns, containing all other beings and material in existence.
Bhakti Yoga: Krishna describes the process of devotional service (Bhakti Yoga).
Ksetra-Ksetrajna Vibhaga Yoga: Krishna describes nature (prakrti), the enjoyer (purusha) and consciousness.
Gunatraya-Vibhaga Yoga: Krishna explains the three modes (gunas) of material nature.
Purusottama Yoga: Krishna describes a symbolic tree (representing material existence), its roots in the heavens and its foliage on earth. Krishna explains that this tree should be felled with the "axe of detachment", after which one can go beyond to his supreme abode.
Daivasura-Sampad-Vibhaga Yoga: Krishna tells of the human traits of the divine and the demonic natures. He counsels that to attain the supreme destination one must give up lust, anger and greed, discern between right and wrong action by discernment through Buddhi and evidence from scripture and thus act correctly.
Sraddhatraya-Vibhaga Yoga: Krishna tells of three divisions of faith and the thoughts, deeds and even eating habits corresponding to the three gunas.
Moksa-Opadesa Yoga: In conclusion, Krishna asks Arjuna to abandon all forms of dharma and simply surrender unto him. He describes this as the ultimate perfection of life.
The Gita addresses the discord between the senses and the intuition of cosmic order. It speaks of the Yoga of equanimity, a detached outlook. The term Yoga covers a wide range of meanings, but in the context of the Bhagavad Gita, describes a unified outlook, serenity of mind, skill in action and the ability to stay attuned to the glory of the Self (Atman) and the Supreme Being (Bhagavan). According to Krishna, the root of all suffering and discord is the agitation of the mind caused by selfish desire. The only way to douse the flame of desire is by simultaneously stilling the mind through self-discipline and engaging oneself in a higher form of activity.
However, abstinence from action is regarded as being just as detrimental as extreme indulgence. According to the Bhagavad Gita, the goal of life is to free the mind and intellect from their complexities and to focus them on the glory of the Self by dedicating one's actions to the divine. This goal can be achieved through the Yogas of meditation, action, devotion and knowledge. In the sixth chapter, Krishna describes the best Yogi as one who constantly meditates upon him[51] – which is understood to mean thinking of either Krishna personally, or the supreme Brahman – with different schools of Hindu thought giving varying points of view.
Krishna summarizes the Yogas through eighteen chapters. Three yogas in particular have been emphasized by commentators:
Bhakti Yoga or Devotion,
Karma Yoga or Selfless Action
Jnana Yoga or Self Transcending Knowledge
While each path differs, their fundamental goal is the same – to realize Brahman (the Divine Essence) as being the ultimate truth upon which our material universe rests, that the body is temporal, and that the Supreme Soul (Paramatman) is infinite. Yoga's aim (moksha) is to escape from the cycle of reincarnation through realization of the ultimate reality. There are three stages to self-realization enunciated from the Bhagavad Gita:
The influential commentator Madhusudana Sarasvati (b. circa 1490) divided the Gita's eighteen chapters into three sections, each of six chapters. According to his method of division, the first six chapters deal with Karma Yoga, which is the means to the final goal, and the last six deal with the goal itself, which he says is Knowledge (Jnana). The middle six deal with bhakti.[52]Swami Gambhirananda characterizes Madhusudana Sarasvati's system as a successive approach in which Karma yoga leads to Bhakti yoga, which in turn leads to Jnana yoga.[53]
Karma Yoga is essentially Acting, or doing one's duties in life as per his/her dharma, or duty, without attachment to results – a sort of constant sacrifice of action to the Supreme. It is action done without thought of gain. In a more modern interpretation, it can be viewed as duty bound deeds done without letting the nature of the result affect one's actions. Krishna advocatesNishkam Karma (Selfless Action) as the ideal path to realize the Truth. The very important theme of Karma Yoga is not focused on renouncing the work, but again and again Krishna focuses on what should be the purpose of activity. Krishna mentions in following verses that actions must be performed to please the Supreme otherwise these actions become the cause of material bondage and cause repetition of birth and death in this material world. These concepts are described in the following verses:
"Work done as a sacrifice for Vishnu has to be performed, otherwise work causes bondage in this material world. Therefore, O son of Kuntī, perform your prescribed duties for His satisfaction, and in that way you will always remain free from bondage."[54]
"To action alone hast thou a right and never at all to its fruits; let not the fruits of action be thy motive; neither let there be in thee any attachment to inaction"(2.47)[55]
"Fixed in yoga, do thy work, O Winner of wealth (Arjuna), abandoning attachment, with an even mind in success and failure, for evenness of mind is called yoga"(2.48)[56]
"With the body, with the mind, with the intellect, even merely with the senses, the Yogis perform action toward self-purification, having abandoned attachment. He who is disciplined in Yoga, having abandoned the fruit of action, attains steady peace..."[57]
In order to achieve true liberation, it is important to control all mental desires and tendencies to enjoy sense pleasures. The following verses illustrate this:[58]
"When a man dwells in his mind on the object of sense, attachment to them is produced. From attachment springs desire and from desire comes anger."(2.62)[58]
"From anger arises bewilderment, from bewilderment loss of memory; and from loss of memory, the destruction of intelligence and from the destruction of intelligence he perishes"(2.63)[58]
According to Catherine Cornille, Associate Professor of Theology at Boston College, "The text [of the Gita] offers a survey of the different possible disciplines for attaining liberation through knowledge (jnana), action (karma) and loving devotion to God (bhakti), focusing on the latter as both the easiest and the highest path to salvation."[59]
In the introduction to Chapter Seven of the Gita, bhakti is summed up as a mode of worship which consists of unceasing and loving remembrance of God. As M. R. Sampatkumaran explains in his overview of Ramanuja's commentary on the Gita, "The point is that mere knowledge of the scriptures cannot lead to final release. Devotion, meditation and worship are essential."[60]
As Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita:
"And of all yogins, he who full of faith worships Me, with his inner self abiding in Me, him, I hold to be the most attuned (to me in Yoga)."[61]
"After attaining Me, the great souls do not incur rebirth in this miserable transitory world, because they have attained the highest perfection."[62]
"... those who, renouncing all actions in Me, and regarding Me as the Supreme, worship Me... For those whose thoughts have entered into Me, I am soon the deliverer from the ocean of death and transmigration, Arjuna. Keep your mind on Me alone, your intellect on Me. Thus you shall dwell in Me hereafter."[63]
"And he who serves Me with the yoga of unswerving devotion, transcending these qualities [binary opposites, like good and evil, pain and pleasure] is ready for liberation in Brahman."[64]
"Fix your mind on Me, be devoted to Me, offer service to Me, bow down to Me, and you shall certainly reach Me. I promise you because you are My very dear friend."[65]
"Setting aside all meritorious deeds (Dharma), just surrender completely to My will (with firm faith and loving contemplation). I shall liberate you from all sins. Do not fear."[66]
Vana Yoga is a process of learning to discriminate between what is real and what is not, what is eternal and what is not.[67] Through a steady advancement in realization of the distinction between Real and the Unreal, the Eternal and the Temporal, one develops into a Jnani. This is essentially a path of knowledge and discrimination in regards to the difference between the immortal soul (atman) and the body.[citation needed]
In the second chapter, Krishna's counsel begins with a succinct exposition of Jnana Yoga. Krishna argues that there is no reason to lament for those who are about to be killed in battle, because never was there a time when they were not, nor will there be a time when they will cease to be. Krishna explains that the self (atman) of all these warriors is indestructible. Fire cannot burn it, water cannot wet it, and wind cannot dry it. It is this Self that passes from body to another body like a person taking worn out clothing and putting on new ones. Krishna's counsel is intended to alleviate the anxiety that Arjuna feels seeing a battle between two great armies about to commence. However, Arjuna is not an intellectual.[citation needed] He is a warrior, a man of action, for whom the path of action, Karma Yoga, is more appropriate.
"When a sensible man ceases to see different identities due to different material bodies and he sees how beings are expanded everywhere, he attains to the Brahman conception."[68]
"Those who see with eyes of knowledge the difference between the body and the knower of the body, and can also understand the process of liberation from bondage in material nature, attain to the supreme goal."[69]
In Sanskrit editions of the Gita, the Sanskrit text includes a traditional chapter title naming each chapter as a particular form of yoga. These chapter titles do not appear in the Sanskrit text of the Mahabharata.[70] Since there are eighteen chapters, there are therefore eighteen yogas mentioned, as explained in this quotation from Swami Chidbhavananda:
All the eighteen chapters in the Gita are designated, each as a type of yoga. The function of the yoga is to train the body and the mind.... The first chapter in the Gita is designated as system of yoga. It is called Arjuna Vishada Yogam – Yoga of Arjuna's Dejection.[71]
In Sanskrit editions, these eighteen chapter titles all use the word yoga, but in English translations the word yoga may not appear. For example, the Sanskrit title of Chapter 1 as given in Swami Sivananda's bilingual edition is arjunaviṣādayogaḥ which he translates as "The Yoga of the Despondency of Arjuna".[72]Swami Tapasyananda's bilingual edition gives the same Sanskrit title, but translates it as "Arjuna's Spiritual Conversion Through Sorrow".[73] The English-only translation by Radhakrishnan gives no Sanskrit, but the chapter title is translated as "The Hesitation and Despondency of Arjuna".[74] Other English translations, such as that by Zaehner, omit these chapter titles entirely.[75]
Swami Sivananda's commentary says that the eighteen chapters have a progressive order to their teachings, by which Krishna "pushed Arjuna up the ladder of Yoga from one rung to another."[76] As Winthrop Sargeant explains, "In the model presented by the Bhagavad Gītā, every aspect of life is in fact a way of salvation."[77]
There are 6 arishadvargas, or evils that the Gita says one should avoid: kama (lust), krodha (anger), lobh (greed), moha (deep emotional attachment), mada or ahankar (arrogance) and matsarya (jealousy). These are the negative characteristics which prevent man from attaining moksha (liberation from the birth and death cycle).
The Gita states that the man should not keep his interests on the fruition of deeds but rather on the tranquility produced in the mind by pusuing the deed itself.
"
On action alone be thy interest,
Never on its fruits. Let not the fruits of action be thy motive, Nor be thy attachment to inaction.
"
The Gita also states that one should not needlessly grieve over entities whose doom is already predetermined.
"
For certain is death for the born
And certain is birth for the dead; Therefore over the inevitable Thou shouldst not grieve.
"
The Gita centers on the revelation of Vaishnamonotheism, offering the alternative of just war, even against relatives, provided the aggression is in the "active and selfless defence of dharma", to the pacifist Hindu concept of non-violence.[78]
Some commentators have attempted to resolve the apparent conflict between the proscription of violence and ahimsa by allegorical readings.Gandhi, for example, took the position that the text is not concerned with actual warfare so much as with the "battle that goes on within each individual heart". Such allegorical or metaphorical readings are derived from the Theosophical interpretations of Subba Row, William Q. Judgeand Annie Besant. Stephen Mitchell has attempted to refute such allegorical readings.[79]
Scholar Radhakrishnan writes that the verse 11.55 is "the essence of bhakti" and the "substance of the whole teaching of the Gita":[80]
"
He who does work for Me, he who looks upon Me as his goal, he who worships Me, free from attachment, who is free from enmity to all creatures, he goes to Me, O Pandava.
"
Scholar Steven Rosen summarizes the Gita in four basic, concise verses:[81]
"
"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from me. The Wise who fully realize this engage in my devotional service and worship me with all their hearts." (10.8) "My pure devotees are absorbed in thoughts of me, and they experience fulfillment and bliss by enlightening one another and conversing about me." (10.9) "To those who are continually devoted and worship me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to me." (10.10) "Out of compassion for them, I, residing in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance." (10.11)
"
Ramakrishna said that the essential message of the Gita can be obtained by repeating the word several times,[82] "'Gita, Gita, Gita', you begin, but then find yourself saying 'ta-Gi, ta-Gi, ta-Gi'. Tagi means one who has renounced everything for God."[citation needed]
According to Swami Vivekananda, "If one reads this one Shloka — क्लैब्यं मा स्म गमः पार्थ नैतत्त्वय्युपपद्यते । क्षुद्रं हृदयदौर्बल्यं त्यक्त्वोत्तिष्ठ परंतप॥ — one gets all the merits of reading the entire Gita; for in this one Shloka lies imbedded the whole Message of the Gita.[83]
"
Do not yield to unmanliness, O son of Prithâ. It does not become you. Shake off this base faint-heartnedness and arise, O scorcher of enemies! (2.3)
"
Mahatma Gandhi writes, "The object of the Gita appears to me to be that of showing the most excellent way to attain self-realization" and this can be achieved by selfless action, "By desireless action; by renouncing fruits of action; by dedicating all activities to God, i.e., by surrendering oneself to Him body and soul." Gandhi called Gita, The Gospel of Selfless Action.[84]
Eknath Easwaran writes that the Gita's subject is "the war within, the struggle for self-mastery that every human being must wage if he or she is to emerge from life victorious",[85] and "The language of battle is often found in the scriptures, for it conveys the strenuous, long, drawn-out campaign we must wage to free ourselves from the tyranny of the ego, the cause of all our suffering and sorrow".[86]
The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people. With the exception of you [the Pandavas], all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain.[87]
The Bhagavad Gita's emphasis on selfless service was a prime source of inspiration for Mahatma Gandhi.
J. Robert Oppenheimer, American physicist and director of theManhattan Project, learned Sanskrit in 1933 and read the Bhagavad Gita in the original, citing it later as one of the most influential books to shape his philosophy of life. Upon witnessing the world's first nuclear test in 1945, he later said he had thought of the quotation "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds", verse 32 from Chapter 11 of the Bhagavad Gita.[88][89]
In a heterogeneous text, the Gita reconciles facets and schools of Hindu philosophy, including those of Brahmanical (orthodox Vedic) origin and the parallel ascetic and Yogic traditions.[citation needed] It had always been a creative text for Hindu priests and Yogis.[citation needed]Although it is not strictly part of the 'canon' of Vedic writings, almost all Hindu traditions draw upon the Gita as authoritative. For the Vedanticschools of Hindu philosophy, it belongs to one of the three foundational texts Prasthana Trayi (lit. "three points of departure"), the other two being the Upanishads and Brahma Sutras.[citation needed]
A 2006 report suggests that the Gita is replacing the influence of "The Art of War" (ascendant in the 1980s and '90s) in the Western business community.[90]
Traditionally the commentators belong to spiritual traditions or schools (sampradaya) and Guru lineages (parampara), which claim to preserve teaching stemming either directly from Krishna himself or from other sources, each claiming to be faithful to the original message. In the words of Mysore Hiriyanna, "[The Gita] is one of the hardest books to interpret, which accounts for the numerous commentaries on it – each differing from the rest in an essential point or the other."[91]
Different translators and commentators have widely differing views on what multi-layered Sanskrit words and passages signify, and their presentation in English depending on the sampradaya they are affiliated to.[citation needed] Especially in Western philology, interpretations of particular passages often do not agree with traditional views.
The oldest and most influential medieval commentary was that of the founder of the Vedanta school[92] of extreme 'non-dualism", Shankara(788–820 A. D.),[93] also known as Shankaracharya (Sanskrit: Śaṅkarācārya).[94] Shankara's commentary was based on a recension of the Gita containing 700 verses, and that recension has been widely adopted by others.[95] There is not universal agreement that he was the actual author of the commentary on the Bhagavad Gita that is attributed to him.[96] A key commentary for the "modified non-dualist" school of Vedanta[97] was written by Ramanujacharya (Sanskrit: Rāmānujacharya), who lived in the eleventh century A.D.[94][98] Ramanujacharya's commentary chiefly seeks to show that the discipline of devotion to God (Bhakti yoga) is the way of salvation.[99] The commentary byMadhva, whose dates are given either as (b. 1199 – d. 1276)[100] or as (b. 1238 – d. 1317),[77] also known as Madhvacharya (Sanskrit:Madhvācārya), exemplifies thinking of the "dualist" school.[94] Madhva's school of dualism asserts that there is, in a quotation provided byWinthrop Sargeant, "an eternal and complete distinction between the Supreme, the many souls, and matter and its divisions."[77] Madhva is also considered to be one of the great commentators reflecting the viewpoint of the Vedanta school.[101] Madhva has written two commentaries on Bhagavadgita : Bhāshya and Tātparya. They have been explained further by many ancient pontiffs of Dvaita School likePadmanabha Tirtha, Jayatirtha and Raghavendra Tirtha.
In the Shaiva tradition,[102] the renowned philosopher Abhinavagupta (10–11th century CE) has written a commentary on a slightly variant recension called Gitartha-Samgraha.[citation needed]
In modern times, notable commentaries were written by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi, who used the text to help inspire theIndian independence movement.[104][105] Tilak wrote his commentary while in jail during the period 1910–1911 serving a six-year sentence imposed by the British colonial government in India for sedition.[106] While noting that the Gita teaches possible paths to liberation, his commentary places most emphasis on Karma yoga.[107] No book was more central to Gandhi's life and thought than the Bhagavadgita, which he referred to as his "spiritual dictionary".[108] During his stay in Yeravda jail in 1929,[109] Gandhi wrote a commentary on theBhagavad Gita in Gujarati. The Gujarati manuscript was translated into English by Mahadev Desai, who provided an additional introduction and commentary. It was published with a foreword by Gandhi in 1946.[110][111] Mahatma Gandhi expressed his love for the Gita in these words: "I find a solace in the Bhagavadgītā that I miss even in the Sermon on the Mount. When disappointment stares me in the face and all alone I see not one ray of light, I go back to the Bhagavadgītā. I find a verse here and a verse there and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming tragedies – and my life has been full of external tragedies – and if they have left no visible, no indelible scar on me, I owe it all to the teaching of Bhagavadgītā."[112]
Dayananda Saraswati (Chinmaya Mission) of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam wrote the most extensive commentary on the Gita, based on 363 lectures he delivered, spanning over 2000 pages. Swami Vivekananda, the follower of Sri Ramakrishna, was known for his commentaries on the four Yogas – Bhakti, Jnana, Karma and Raja Yoga. He drew from his knowledge of the Gita to expound on these Yogas. Swami Sivananda advises the aspiring Yogi to read verses from the Bhagavad Gita every day. Paramahamsa Yogananda, writer of the famous Autobiography of a Yogi, viewed the Bhagavad Gita as one of the world's most divine scriptures. A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, wrote Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is, a commentary on the Gita from one of many perspectives of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. The work became the principal text for the modern Hare Krishna movement, became one of few authoritative comments on Bhagavad-Gita (total number of Bhagavad-Gita editions, around the world in different languages, is at least several hundreds(quote-needed). Most of them are apa-sampradayic, not transmitted in disciplic succession, parampara).
The first English translation of the Bhagavad Gita was done by Charles Wilkins in 1785.[115][116] In 1981, Larson listed more than 40 English translations of the Gita, stating that "A complete listing of Gita translations and a related secondary bibliography would be nearly endless" (p. 514[117]). He stated that "Overall... there is a massive translational tradition in English, pioneered by the British, solidly grounded philologically by the French and Germans, provided with its indigenous roots by a rich heritage of modern Indian comment and reflection, extended into various disciplinary areas by Americans, and having generated in our time a broadly based cross-cultural awareness of the importance of the Bhagavad Gita both as an expression of a specifically Indian spirituality and as one of the great religious "classics" of all time." (p. 518[117])
The Gita has also been translated into other European languages. In 1808, passages from the Gita were part of the first direct translation of Sanskrit into German, appearing in a book through which Friedrich Schlegel became known as the founder of Indian philology in Germany.[118] Swami Rambhadracharya released the first Braille version of the scripture, with the original Sanskrit text and a Hindi commentary, on 30 November 2007.[119]
Philip Glass retold the story of Gandhi's early development as an activist in South Africa through the text of the Gita in the opera Satyagraha. The entire libretto of the opera consists of sayings from the Gita sung in the original Sanskrit.[120] In Douglas Cuomo'sArjuna's dilemma, the philosophical dilemma faced by Arjuna is dramatized in operatic form with a blend of Indian and Western music styles.[121]
^ The phrase marking the end of each chapter identifies the book as Gītopanishad. The book is identified as "the essence of theUpanishads" in the Gītā-māhātmya 6, quoted in the introductionto the book by the founder of ISKCON Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, A.C. (1983), Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, Los Angeles: The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.
^Coburn, Thomas B. (1984). "'Scripture' in India: Towards a Typology of the Word in Hindu Life". Journal of the American Academy of Religion52 (3): 435–459. JSTOR1464202.
^Juan Mascaro; Simon Brodbeck (2003), "Translator's introduction to 1962 edition", The Bhagavad Gita, Penguin Classics, p. xlviii
^Zaehner, Robert Charles (1973), The Bhagavad-Gita, Oxford University Press, p. 7, "As with most major religious texts in India, no firm date can be assigned to the Gītā. It seems certain, however, that it was written later than the 'classical' Upanishads with the possible exception of the Maitrī which was post-Buddhistic. One would probably not be going far wrong if one dated it at some time between the fifth and the second centuries B. C."
^ John Brockington, The Sanskrit Epics (Leiden, 1998)
^C. Jinarajadasa (1915). "The Bhagavad Gita". Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar, Madras. India. Archived from the original on May 23, 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-24. "…an analysis of the epic shows at once by differences of style and by linguistic and other peculiarities, that it was composed at different times and by different hands"
^ For a brief review of the literature supporting this view see: Radhakrishnan, pp. 14–15.
^Mascaro, Juan; Simon Brodbeck, The Bhagavad Gita, p. xlviii, "Scholars differ as to the date of the Bhagavad Gita; but as the roots of this great poem are in Eternity the date of its revelation in time is of little spiritual importance."
^Vivekananda, Swami, "Thoughts on the Gita", The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Advaita Ashrama, "One thing should be especially remembered here, that there is no connection between these historical researches and our real aim, which is the knowledge that leads to the acquirement of Dharma. Even if the historicity of the whole thing is proven to be absolutely false today, it will not in the least be any loss to us. Then what is the use of so much historical research, you may ask. It has its use, because we have to get at the truth; it will not do for us to remain bound by wrong ideas born of ignorance."
^Ramanuja's translation BG 2.12 "...you have always existed. It is not that 'all of us', I and you, shall cease to be 'in the future', i.e., beyond the present time; we shall always exist. Even as no doubt can be entertained that I, the Supreme Self and Lord of all, am eternal, likewise, you (Arjuna and all others) who are embodied selves, also should be considered eternal."
^ "Arjuna represents the individual soul, and Sri Krishna the Supreme Soul dwelling in every heart. Arjuna's chariot is the body. The blind king Dhritarashtra is the mind under the spell of ignorance, and his hundred sons are man's numerous evil tendencies. The battle, a perennial one, is between the power of good and the power of evil. The warrior who listens to the advice of the Lord speaking from within will triumph in this battle and attain the Highest Good."Nikhilananda, Swami (1944), "Introduction", The Bhagavad Gita, p. 2
^ Gandhi, Mohandas K., The Bhagavad Gita According to GandhiBerkeley Hills Books, Berkeley 2000
^ Fischer, Louis: Gandhi: His Life and Message to the WorldMentor, New York 1954, pp. 15–16
^Vivekananda, Swami, "Sayings and Utterances", The Complete works of Swami Vivekananda, 5, p. 416
^Miller, Barbara Stoler (2004), "The Fifth Teaching: Renunciation of Action", The Bhagavad-Gita: Krishna's Counsel in Time of War, Random House, Inc., p. 59, ISBN0553213652
^A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. "Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Verse 6.47". Bhaktivedanta VedaBase Network (ISKCON). Retrieved 2008-01-14."And of all yogis, the one with great faith who always abides in Me, thinks of Me within himself, and renders transcendental loving service to Me – he is the most intimately united with Me in yoga and is the highest of all. That is My opinion."
^ For example, the first line of the Bhagavad Gita is dhṛtarāşţra uvāca, which occurs immediately after the last line of the preceding chapter in the full Sanskrit text of the Mahabharata: | 6.23.1dhṛtarāşţra uvāca | 6.23.1a dharmakşetre kurukṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ || Source: Electronic text (C) Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, India, 1999. Electronic edition downloaded from: [2].
^ "Strength founded on the Truth and the dharmic use of force are thus the Gita's answer to pacifism and non-violence. Rooted in the ancient Indian genius, this third way can only be practised by those who have risen above egoism, above asuric ambition or greed. The Gita certainly does not advocate war; what it advocates is the active and selfless defence of dharma. If sincerely followed, its teaching could have altered the course of human history. It can yet alter the course of Indian history." Michel Danino, "Greatest Gospel of Spiritual Works" in New Indian Express (10 December 2000).
^ For B. G. Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi as notable commentators see: Gambhiranda (1997), p. xix.
^ For notability of the commentaries by B. G. Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi and their use to inspire the independence movement see:Sargeant, p. xix.
^ Stevenson, Robert W., "Tilak and the Bhagavadgita's Doctrine of Karmayoga", in: Minor, p. 44.
^ Stevenson, Robert W., "Tilak and the Bhagavadgita's Doctrine of Karmayoga", in: Minor, p. 49.
^ Jordens, J. T. F., "Gandhi and the Bhagavadgita", in: Minor, p. 88.
^ For composition during stay in Yeravda jail in 1929, see: Jordens, J. T. F., "Gandhi and the Bhagavadgita", in: Minor, p. 88.
^ Desai, Mahadev. The Gospel of Selfless Action, or, The Gita According To Gandhi. (Navajivan Publishing House: Ahmedabad: First Edition 1946). Other editions: 1948, 1951, 1956.
^ A shorter edition, omitting the bulk of Desai's additional commentary, has been published as: Anasaktiyoga: The Gospel of Selfless Action. Jim Rankin, editor. The author is listed as M.K. Gandhi; Mahadev Desai, translator. (Dry Bones Press, San Francisco, 1998) ISBN 1-883938-47-3.
^ Quotation from M. K. Gandhi. Young India. (1925), pp. 1078–1079, is cited from Radhakrishnan, front matter.
^ For Sri Aurobindo, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan,Swami Vivekananda and Swami Chinmayananda as notable commentators see: Sargeant, p. xix.
^ For Sri Aurobindo as notable commentators, see: Gambhiranda (1997), p. xix.
^ abGerald James Larson (1981), "The Song Celestial: Two centuries of the Bhagavad Gita in English", Philosophy East and West: A Quarterly of Comparative Philosophy (University of Hawai'i Press) 31 (4): 513–540, doi:10.2307/1398797,JSTOR1398797.
^ What had previously been known of Indian literature in Germany had been translated from the English. Winternitz, Volume 1, p. 15.
This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details.WikiProject Hinduism or the Hinduism Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (February 2007)
Varna refers to the categorization of the Hindu society by four castes, hypothesized by the Brahmins and their sacred texts. This quadruple division is not to be confused with Jāti or even the much finer division of the contemporary caste system in India.[1] The four varnas, or chatur varna, are mentioned in ancient texts in the following (stratified) order, from top to bottom,[2]
the Shudras: cattle keepers, agriculturists, labourers, artisans and service providers.[citation needed]
The first three varna are considered Arya, and thus allowed to participate in Vedic rituals from which the Shudra varna is excluded, although it was the largest segment of the population.[4]
Separate and shunned by the society, including by the Shudras, were the "untouchables" such as theDalit and the Chandaal (cāṇḍāla), who had to deal with the disposal of dead bodies and are described as dirty and polluted. There was a belief that one's Karma in the past, resulted in one's condition in this birth. "Now people here whose conduct is good can expect to quickly attain a pleasant birth, like that of a Brahmin, the Kshatriya, or the Vaishya. But people of evil conduct can expect to enter a foul womb, like that of a dog, a pig, or a Chandaal".[5]
The varna system of the Brahminical society is described in the various Puranas and Smritis, among others. Manusmriti, is one of numerous Dharmashastra texts reflecting the laws and society of Maurya period India and being a reference work for the Brahmins of Bengal especially, was relied upon by the British colonial administrators and scholars based in Calcutta, the capital city. Manusmriti was almost unknown south of the Vindhyas. The modern Hindu caste system recognizes many more social groupings not mentioned in the Hindu scriptures and only theoretically accepts the necessity of following prescribed duties. Caste politics is a controversial issue in the contemporary Republic of India.
Varna is a Sanskrit term varṇa (वर्ण) is derived from the root vṛ, meaning "to cover, to envelop" (compare vṛtra). Derived meanings include "kind, sort, character, quality". All these meanings are already present in the Rigveda's use of the word.
The meaning "class of men, tribe" in the Rigveda refers to the division between Aryas and Dasa.[6] The earliest application to the formal division into four social classes appears in the late Rigvedic Purusha Sukta (RV 10.90.11–12), which has the Brahman, Rajanya (= Kshatriya), Vaishya and Shudra classes made of the head, arms, thighs and feet of the primordial giant, Purusha, respectively. Other Vedic texts and the Manusmriti, a law text dating to roughly between 200 BCE and 200 CE follow suit.
The varna classification was first described, almost in passing, in the Purush Sukta of the Rgveda 1090.
Rigvedic evidence of such a quadruple division of society has been compared to similar systems, especially with a view to reconstructing hypothetical Proto-Indo-European society. Such comparison is at the basis of the trifunctional hypothesis presented by Georges Dumézil. Dumézil postulates a basic division of society into a priesthood (Brahmins), warrior class or nobility (Kshatriyas) and commoners (Vaishyas), augmented by a class of unfree serfs (Shudras), as was done in ancient Iran and Greece as well (where the fourth class is called pan-Hellenes).
The Purusha Sukta in the Rig-Veda 10:90 refers to the four principal varnas, although the word varna is not used, described in Manu's code, viz. Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. They are compared to the body of the "primordial man" or Purusha: "The Brâhmana was his head, of both his arms was the Râjanya made. His thighs became the Vaishya, his feet became the Sûdra" (RV 10.90.12) This model is often cited for its hierarchical ordering of the varnas, however, by the same logic the model also implies the concept of interdependence and interchangeability of the varnas. Furthermore reading this mantra within the entire context of the Purusha Sukta, which also describes the Purusha as the origin of the Sun (from his eye), the Moon (from his mind), the sky (from his head), air (from his navel), horses, cattle, etc. leads one to the conclusion that the entire Sukta is emphasizing the point that all these come from the original Purusha.[citation needed]
Many Hindu yogis and sages have, over the centuries, constantly commented about inheriting social status. Ramanujacharya initiated people from all castes into his tradition, and broke taboos by inviting them to his house for food. Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (15th century), the powerful bhakti of Krishna also denounced inheriting social status. He famously distributed the Hare Krishna mantra to all around India, claiming this was the True path to moksha.[citation needed]
Kanakadasa of the 15th century also denounced inherited social status. He believed that Life in every human being is Divine, and that only the ignorant wrought injustice against their own brethren by this practice. Basavanna of the 12th century is said to have denounced inherited social status and tried to unify all communities under the Linga (form of Shiva).[citation needed]
The concept of dharma deals mainly with the duties of the different varṇas and āśhramas (life cycles).
Manusmriti is often quoted in reference to the Varna system as an inherited social class system. However, the Hindu rightists usually point out that the Manusmṛti is a later work that does not form a part of Hindu Scriptures, so it is of questionable relevance. The rightists contend that the Manusmṛti has been used by British colonialists, politicians and sociologists to denigrate those of the Hindu faith.[citation needed]
The Manusmṛti claims that by the time it was written in ancient times, Hindu society included another class (untouchables) of people without a position in any of the four Varnas and therefore associated with the lowest of the jobs. The upper classes, who were supposed to maintain ritual and corporal purity, came to regard them as untouchables. The people of this "fifth varna" are now called Dalits (the oppressed) orHarijans; they were formerly known as "untouchables" or "pariahs". However, this last addition social strata is not a part of the religion of Hinduism. Hinduism only categorizes occupations into four categories.
The first three varnas are seen as "twice born" and they are allowed to study the Vedas. In India and Nepal the sub-communities within a varna are called "jat" or "jati" (the varna is also used instead of jat). Traditionally, individuals are allowed to marry only within their jati. People are born into a jati and normally it cannot be changed, though there were some exceptions in Hindu Scriptures. For example, the sageVishwamitra was born as a Kshatriya and by deep tapas (meditation) became a venerable Brahmin rishi. Good deeds during ones lifetime can allow a low class jati member to ascend to the upper class and study the Vedas as a Brahmin priest.
The occupations of the Vaishya are those connected with trade, the cultivation of the land and the breeding of cattle; while those of a Kshatriya consist in ruling and defending the people, administering justice, and the duties, of the military profession generally and ruling and expounding all dharma. Both share with the Brahmin the privilege of reading the Vedas. To the Brahmin belongs the right of teaching and expounding the sacred texts. Shudras were the serfs, and performed agricultural labour.
Manusmriti assigns cattle rearing as Vaisya occupation, however there are sources in available literature that Kshatriyas also owned and reared the cattle and cattle-wealth was mainstay of their households.Emperors of Kosala and Prince of Kasi are some of many examples.[3]
The Tantric movement that developed as a tradition distinct from orthodox Hinduism between the 8th and 11th centuries CE[7] also relaxed many societal strictures regarding class and community distinction. However it would be an over generalization to say that the Tantrics did away with all social restrictions, as N. N. Bhattacharyya explains:
"For example, Tantra according to its very nature has nothing to do with the [class] system but in the later Tantras [class] elements are pronounced. This is because although many of our known Tantric teachers were non-Brāhmaṇas, rather belonging to the lower ranks of society, almost all of the known authors of the Tantric treatises were Brāhmaṇas."[8]
Namaste! Welcome to the Bhagavad- Gita online. We are happy you have arrived and it will be our pleasure to serve you. Here you will be presented transcendental knowledge of the most profound spiritual nature as revealed in the Bhagavad- Gita. It is the divine discourse spoken by the Supreme Lord Krishna Himself and is the most popular and well known of all the sacred scriptures from ancient India. Always being revered as a true source of spiritual knowledge it reveals the purpose and goal of human existence. In conjunction to this we will be presenting precise Vedic verification of the Supreme Lord Krishna's divine incarnations as evidence confirming His supreme position. In Bhagavad- Gita, chapter 10, verse 20, the Supreme Lord reveals that He manifests as the immortal soul within each and every living entity. No where else within any other religious scripture is this information available. Our purpose is to make the eternal knowledge of Bhagavad- Gita freely available to everyone all over the Earth.
The Bhagavad- Gita is considered by eastern and western scholars alike to be among the greatest spiritual books the world has ever known. In a very clear and wonderful way the Supreme Lord Krishna describes the science of self-realization and the exact process by which a human being can establish their eternal relationship with God. In terms of pure, spiritual knowledge the Bhagavad- Gita is incomparable. Its intrinsic beauty is that its knowledge applies to all human beings and does not postulate any sectarian idealogy or secular view. It is appproachable from the sanctified realms of all religions and is glorified as the epitome of all spiritual teachings. This is because proficiency in the Bhagavad- Gita reveals the eternal principles which are fundamental and essential for spiritual life from all perspectives and allows one to perfectly understand the esoteric truths hidden within all religious scriptures. Many great thinkers from our times such as Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi and Albert Schweizer as well as Madhvacarya, Sankara and Ramanuja from bygone ages have all contemplated and deliberarted upon its timeless message. The primary purpose of the Bhagavad- Gita is to illuminate for all of humanity the realization of the true nature of divinity; for the highest spiritual conception and the greatest material perfection is to attain love of God!
The authorization of the disciplic succession of the Brahnma Madhva Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya through the line of Sri Krishna Caitanya Mahaprabhu as verified in the Vedic scripture the Garga Samhita Canto 10, chapter 61, verses 23, 24, 25, 26.
Now for the first time Vedic verification of the Supreme Lord Krishna divine incarnations are revealed all together according to Vedic scriptures. Manifesting Himself in the forms of His varieagated incarnations, the Supreme Lord appears in the material worlds millenium after millenium to reestablish the principles of righteousness as confirmed in Bhagavad-Gita, chapter four, verse eight. The question may arise from those followers of the worlds religions of Buddhism, Christianity, Hebrewism, Hinduism and Islam as well as those who have studied Lemurian, Atlantean, Sumerian, Mayan and Egyptian schools of thought; why is it that Krishna is positively the Supreme Lord of all? This illustrated compilation of the Supreme Lord Krishna's divine incarnations combined with sincere, diligent study of the Bhagavad- Gita will perfectly answer all spiritual questions as well as illuminate all spiritual directions.
Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Albert Schweizer, Aurobindo, Carl Jung, Prime Minister Nehru, Herman Hesse, Vivekananda, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Paramahamsa Yogananda, Rudolph Steiner, Adi Shankara, Aldous Huxley, Ramanuja, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Srila Prabhupada, Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Madhvacarya, and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
If you like to be informed about changes, updates and improvements send us an email to webmaster@bhagavad-gita.org.
Established November 1998.
The terms varna (general classification based on occupation) and jāti (caste) are two distinct concepts: while varna is a four-part division of all Hindu groups, jāti (community) refers to specific endogamous groups. Generally a sub-community is divided into exogamous groups based on same gotras (गोत्र). The classical authors scarcely speak of anything other than the varnas; Indologists sometimes confuse the two.[9]
Critics point that the effect of communities (jatis) inheriting varna was to bind certain communities to sources of influence, power and economy while locking out others and thus create more affluence for jatis in higher classes and severe poverty for jatis in lower classes and the outcaste Dalit. In the last 150 years Indian movements arose to throw off the economic and political yoke of an inherited class system that emerged over time, and replace it with what they believed to be true Varnashrama dharma as described in the Vedas.
While the [varna] system was originally evolved for the necessary classification of human duty in order to preserve the organic stability of society, its original meaning and its philosophical foundation was forgotten through the passage of time, and bigotry and fanaticism took its place through the preponderance of egoism, greed and hatred, contrary to the practice of true religion as a social expression of inner spiritual aspiration for a gradual ascent, by stages, to God Almighty. Vidura, famous in the Mahabharata, was born of a Shudra woman. But he had the power to summon the son of Brahma, from Brahmaloka, by mere thought. Which orthodox Brahmin can achieve this astounding feat? It is, therefore, necessary for everyone to have consideration for the facts of world-unity and goodwill, Sarvabhuta-hita, as the great Lord mentions in the Bhagavad Gita. Justice is more than law. No one's body is by itself a Brahmin, because it is constituted of the five gross elements,- earth, water, fire, air and ether. Else, it would be a sin on the part of a son to consign to flames the lifeless body of a Brahmin father. It is, therefore, not proper to victimise a colleague by an action plan of any religious community wedded to fundamentalist doctrines.
Paramahansa Yogananda also opposed what he called to the un-Vedic inherited social status as we know it today. He taught that varna originated in a higher age, but became degraded through ignorance and self-interest. Yogananda said:
These were (originally) symbolic designations of the stages of spiritual refinement. They were not intended as social categories. And they were not intended to be hereditary. Things changed as the yugas [cycles of time] descended toward mental darkness. People in the higher [classes] wanted to make sure their children were accepted as members of their own [class]. Thus, ego-identification caused them to freeze the ancient classifications into what is called the 'caste system.' Such was not the original intention. In obvious fact, however, the offspring of a brahmin may be a shudra by nature. And a peasant, sometimes, is a real saint.
—Conversations with Yogananda, Crystal Clarity Publishers, 2003
Ravi Batra, "The Downfall of Communism and Communism: a New Study of History", Macmillan, New York, NY, USA, 1978
Sohail Inayatullah, Understanding P. R. Sarkar: The Indian Episteme, Macrohistory and Transformative Knowledge, Brill Academic Publishers, 2002, ISBN 9004128425.
Kane, Pandurang Vaman: History of Dharmasastra: (ancient and mediaeval, religious and civil law) -- Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1962–1975
Jati Bhaskar", Jwalaprasd Mishra, (Hindi), published by Khemaraj Shrikrishnadas,1914.
G.S. Ghurye (1961). Caste, Class and Occupation. Popular Book Depot, Bombay.
G.S. Ghurye (1969). Caste and Race in India, Popular Prakashan, Mumbai 1969 (1932)
Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar (1967) Human Society-2, Ananda Marga Publications, Anandanagar, P.O.Baglata,Dist. Purulia, West Bengal, India.
Ghanshyam Shah, Caste and Democratic Politics in India, 2004
Welzer, Albrecht. 1994. Credo, Quia Occidentale: A Note on Sanskrit varna and its Misinterpretation in Literature on Mamamsa and Vyakarana. In: Studies in Mamamsa: Dr Mandan Mishra Felicitation Volume edited by R.C. Dwivedi. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass.
Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age, by Susan Bayly and Gordon Johnson.
No comments:
Post a Comment