SANATANA DHARMA PART6 28424 KANCHI MUTT IN Hindu Dharma
VARNA DHARMA VIEWED IN MODERN DAYS
What is Varna Dharma? ANOTHER EASY VIEW OF Kanchi mutt
(Hindu Dharma: Part 2, The Vedic Religion: Introductory (5 chapters))
In the old days the kitchen fireplace was fuelled with dried wood, cow dung
and so on. On rainy days it was difficult to light it. But if only a few
sparks were produced they could be fanned into a flame so as to set the
wood or cow dung on fire. Our sanathana dharma has not entirely perished. A
few sparks of it are present in the life of a small number of great men
still living in our midst. It is my ardent wish to keep blowing on them
with a view to propagating our ancient religion in its true character.
Our reformers want to do away with varna dharma so as to make Hinduism no
different from other faiths.
In this context, I must ask you: What is religion? Religion is like a
therapeutic system meant to cure the ills contracted by the self. The
physician alone knows about the disease afflicting the patient and how it
is to be treated. Our sanathana dharma is the medicine prescribed by our
sages and creators of the dharma sastras who never sought anything for
themselves and who, in their utter selflessness, were concerned only about
the good of mankind.
In other countries other physicians have prescribed medicines in the form
of their own religious systems. Would your doctor like to be told that he
should treat you in the same way as another doctor treats his patient?
There are several systems of medicine. In one there is a strict diet
regimen, in another there is not much strictness about the patient's food.
In one system the medicines administered taste sweet; in another they taste
bitter. To be restored to health we have to follow strictly any one method
of treatment, not insist on a combination of the various therapies.
Other religions lay down only such duties as are common to all their
followers. In the Vedic religion there are two types of dharma, the one
being common to all and the other to individual varnas. The duties common
to all Hindus, the universal code of conduct, have the name of "samanya
dharma". Non-violence, truthfulness, cleanliness, control of the senses,
non-acquisitiveness (one must not possess material goods in excess of what
is needed for one's bare requirements, not even a straw must one own in
excess), devotion to Isvara, trust in one's parents, love for all creatures
- these form part of the samanya dharma. Then each varna has its own
special code of conduct or "visesa dharma" determined by its hereditary
vocation.
If the special duties (visesa dharma) of the various varnas were made
common to all (that is made part of the samanya dharma) a situation would
arise in which no one would observe any dharma. To illustrate, I shall give
you an example. Abstaining from meat was laid down as a common dharma in
Buddhism. But what do we see today in countries where that religion has a
wide following? There almost all buddhists eat meat. In contrast to this is
what obtains in our religion. Our seers and authors of the dharma sastras
had a profound understanding of human nature. They made abstention from
meat applicable to a limited number of people. But others follow the
example of these few, on days of fasting, on special occasions like the
death anniversaries of their parents, on days sacred to the gods.
The religions that flourished once upon a time in other countries-
religions that had one common code of conduct for all its adherents - have
become extinct. In Europe the Hellenic religion is gone. So too in West
Asia the prehistoric Hebrew faiths no longer exist. And in the East only a
residue remains of Confucianism, Shintoism, etc. Religions like Buddhism,
Christianity and Islam too have but one code of conduct for all their
adherents. Their followers in various countries now find less and less
inner satisfaction. The number of people who have lost faith in their
religion is on the increase in all these lands. They become either atheists
or turn to the yoga, bhakti or jnana schools of Hinduism.
It is difficult to say how long people will continue to owe allegiance to
the religions that arose in various countries during historical times. I
say this not because I happen to be a representative of Hindus nor is it my
wish to speak in demeaning terms about other religions. My wish is indeed
that people following different religions ought to remain in their
respective folds and find spiritual fulfilment in them. I do not invite
others to embrace my faith. In fact, I believe that to do so is contrary to
the basic tenets of my religion. Nothing occurs in this world as an
accident. People with different levels of maturity are born in different
religions: so it is ordained by the Lord. I believe that a man grows
inwardly by practising the tenets of the religion of his birth.{ Maha
periyava expanded the swa dharma @ shaka dharma)
I speak about what I feel to be the worthy features of Hinduism- features
that are not found in other religions - it is neither to speak ill of the
latter nor to invite their followers to our side. Non-Hindus attack these
unique aspects of our religion without taking the trouble of understanding
them and some Hindus themselves are influenced by their views. That is why
I am constrained to speak about the distinctive doctrines of our religion.
Acceptance of concepts like karma, the Lord's incarnations, etc. will in no
way weaken their [of non-Hindus] attachment to the basic beliefs of their
own religions. What is the fundamental concept of any religion, its living
principle? It is faith in the Lord and devotion to him. For others to view
these special concepts of Hinduism sympathetically does not mean that their
faith in God or devotion to him will be affected in any way.
I say all this not because I think that other religions are in any trouble
nor because I have reason to be happy if indeed, they are. I echoed the
views of distinguished students of religion like Toynbee, Paul Brunton and
Koestler. I merely repeated their view that lack of faith in religion -
indeed atheism - is growing day by day everywhere and that all religions
are struggling for their survival.
This trend is seen to be on the rise in our own country. But foreigners who
have made a study of religious beliefs all over the world are unanimous in
their view that in comparison with other countries things are better here.
"The religious urge has not yet reached a lamentable state in your country,
" They tell us, Sadhakas, seekers, keep coming to India in large numbers. A
little thought should show without a shadow of doubt that if religious
feeling is on the decline and atheism on the rise in India it is due to the
fact that we have become increasingly lax in observing varna dharma and
have come to believe that all Hindus should be made into one without any
distinction of caste.
When a religion divides its followers in many ways, we think that there
will be no unity or integrity among them. It also seems to us that such a
religion will fall apart as a result of internal squabbles. Since the time
of Alexander, India has been invaded by wave after wave of foreigners
belonging to other faiths. Considering the divisions in our religion and
the series of foreign invasions, Hinduism should have ended up in smoke.
But what we actually see is different. Religions which have no distinctions
of caste and which prescribed the same duties and rites for all their
followers have disappeared in the flow of time. Similar systems still
surviving today are faced with danger, as is attested to by the
intellectuals amongst their own followers. But Hinduism with its many
divisions is still breathing. We must try to understand the secret of its
survival without being carried away by emotions.
We have practised varna dharma for millennia and it has continued to be a
living force. What is its secret? Or think of this. It is the special duty
of Brahmins to preserve the mantras. But have they ever been in a majority?
No. Have they enjoyed the power of arms? No. Have they had at least money
power, the advantage gained from wealth? The answer again is "No".
(Brahmins acquiring the habit of accumulating money is a recent phenomenon.
It is of course quite undesirable). How or why did other castes accept the
divisions laid down in the sastras created by the Brahmins who did not have
the strength derived either from money or from numbers?
A great man like the Buddha or the Jina arose to proclaim: "We do not need
the Vedas, nor do we need the sacrifices prescribed by them. Let us have
one uniform dharma for all people. We do not need Sanskrit either. Let us
write our new sastras in Pali or some other Prakrt, in a language
understood by the common people. "It is true that some people were
persuaded to embrace these new religions, Buddhism and Jainism, but the
attraction of these faiths was momentary and the two gradually declined.
The old Vedic religion emerged again with new vigour.
A great man (KR Thirumoolar) has sung thus: "It is needed a wonder that
life remains in this body with its nine apertures (nava-dvara or nine
gates). If it departs it is no matter to be wondered at. " Likewise, it
would not have been a matter for surprise if Hinduism had perished with all
its constant exposure to attack from outside. It is indeed a miracle that
it is not dead.
If some faiths in India itself and outside have declined and if our
religion alone has survived for ten thousand years, does it not mean that
it has something that is lacking in others? This something is the varna
system. Our present-day reformers argue that the varna division is
responsible for the disintegration of our society. The fact is it is
precisely this division, varna dharma, that has sustained it and kept it
intact. It follows that this dharma has features that are superior in
character to concepts like equality, features that are vital to the very
well-being of people. Our society is divided on the basis of it, but it
must be noted that this division has helped our religion to preserve itself
successfully against all onslaughts.
There are four varnas - Brahmin, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras. We identify
"varnas" with "jatis". In point of fact, varna and jati are not the same.
The varnas are only the four mentioned above, that is Brahmins, Ksatriyas,
Vaisyas and Sudras. Within each there are many jatis. Among Brahmins there
are Ayyars, Ayyangars, Raos, and so on. In the fourth varna there are
Mudaliars, Pillais, Reddis, Naikkars, Nayudus, Gaundars, Padayacis.
In common parlance jati is used for varna. I am also using the two as
interchangeable terms.
The sastras lay down separate rites and practices for the four jatis (that
is the four varnas). This means that within the fold of the same religion,
Hinduism, there are numerous differences. Food cooked by one caste is not
to be eaten by the another. A young man belonging to one jati is not to
marry a girl belonging to another. The vocation practised by one jati is
not to be practiced by the another. The differences are indeed far too many.
Apart from the large number of divisions in each varna already existing,
more and more divisions (or jatis) are coming into being. Thus Hinduism
appears to be a strange religion.
Hindus today feel ashamed of the fact that a religion of which they have
otherwise reason to be proud (because it once belonged to the whole world)
should have so many differences in it. Other religions too have their dos
and don'ts. The Ten Commandments are meant for all Christians. So are the
injunctions of the Quran for all Muslims. But in Hinduism the dos and
don'ts are not the same for all. What one man does as part of his dharma
becomes adharma if done by another. For instance, it is dharma for one man
to wear the sacred thread and chant the Vedas, while the same is adharma
for another. If the person who chants the Vedas does not bathe and keep his
stomach empty he will be guilty of adharma. Another, however, need not
necessarily bathe nor observe fasts. When I see that our religion is still
alive with all these differences, I am reminded of the words of a great
man. . "That one day all of us will die is not to be wondered at. The real
wonder is that we have nine openings (or gates) in our body but our life do
not escape through any of them. "
Navadvare sarire' smin ayuh sravati santanam
Jivatityadbhutam tatra gacchatiti kim adbhutam
Similarly one must wonder at the fact that our religion is still alive in
spite of all its differences and in spite of the fact that people are
troubled by doubts about the same.
For the same it is offence to chant the Vedas, while for the others it is
an offence not to chant the same. Why should there be so many differences
in our religion and why should it seem to be discriminatory? Some feel that
it is shameful even to speak about the differences and believe that they
are a blot on our faith, which has otherwise many worthy features. While
some Hindus try to satisfy themselves about these somehow, many find them
to be a constant irritant. Then there are also people who feel angry about
these differences and turn atheists as a reaction to the same.
Some are at heart proud of Hinduism but want the varna system to be
scrapped and all Hindus to form a single class without any distinction as
is the case with the followers of other religions. "The Vedas must be
thrown open to all and there must be one common form of worship for all",
they declare. "We must do away with the system of separate religious rites
and practices." Some go further and claim that such was the concept
obtaining in our religion during the time of our forefathers. "The original
thinkers of our religion who proclaimed the oneness of the individual self
and the Paramatman, "they argue, "would not have believed in such
differences among the individual souls. Krsna Paramatman says in the Gita
that the vocations are assigned to people according to differences in their
nature, not according to their birth." So they hold caste to be a blot on
our religion and believe that the system of hereditary occupations did not
originally obtain but was a later invention.
It is Jati dharma that goes to make the inner guna (inner quality or
nature) of an individual. So Sri Krsna's dictum in the Gita that the caturvana
division is in accord with the gunas and the idea that the caste is based
on birth are one and the same. There is no conflict between the two. You
cannot find fault with Sri Krsna for his practice being at variance with
his precept.
Parasurama and Dronacarya were Brahmins but they were Ksatriyas by nature. On
the other hand, Visvamitra, a valorous Ksatriya king known for his violent
and passionate temperament, became a Brahmin rsi. Cases like this are
extremely rare, and are exceptions to the rule of jati dharma. On the whole
we see that the Lord functions on the basis that, whatever be the outward
qualities of individuals, their inner quality is in keeping with their
hereditary vocations.
How can birth be the basis of the quality on which one's occupation is
based? Before a man's individual character develops, he grows in a certain
environment, the environment evolved through the vocation practiced in his
family from generation to generation. He adopts this vocation and receives
training in it from his people. It is in this manner that his guna is
formed, and it is in keeping with his work. Everybody must have the
conviction that he is benefited by the occupation to which he is born. When
people in the past had this attitude in the past they were free from greed
and feelings of rivalry. Besides, though they were divided on the basis of
their vocations, there was harmony among them. Children born in such a
set-up naturally develop a liking and aptitude for the family vocation. So
what is practised according to birth came to be the same as that practised
according to guna. Whatever the view of reformers today, in the old days an
individual's ability to do a job was in accord with his guna; and in the
dharma obtained in the past a man practised his calling according to his
guna. Now it has become topsy-turvy.
What is the view of the psychologists on this question? According to them,
heredity and environment play a crucial part in determining a man's
character, abilities and attitudes. In the past all vocations were handed
down from grandfather to father and from father to son. Besides, each group
practising a particular occupation or trade lived in a separate area in the
village. The Brahmins, for instance, lived in the agrahara and, similarly,
each of the other jatis had its own quarter. So the environment also helped
each section to develop its special skills and character. These two factors
- heredity and environment - were greatly instrumental in shaping a
person's guna and vocation.
Instead of speaking about the subject myself, I will cite the views of
Gandhiji who is much respected by the reformists: "The Gita does talk of
varna being according to guna and karma, but guna and karma are inherited
by birth." So the fact that Krsna Paramatman's practice is not at variance
with his doctrine is confirmed by Gandhiji. Modernists should not twist and
distort the Vedas and sastras and the pronouncements of Krsna Paramatman to
suit their own contentions.
Krsna is usually imperative in his utterances. "I speak, you listen," such
is his manner. But when he speaks of people and their duties, he does not
inpose himself saying "I speak thus", but instead he points to what is laid
down in the sastras to be the authority. During Krsna's own time the
various castes were divided according to birth: we learn this, without any
room for doubt, from the Mahabharata, the Bhagavata and the Visnu Purana. I
mention this because some research scholars today are likely to put forward
the view that caste based on birth evolved after the time of Krsna. The
epic and the Puranas mentioned above declare categorically that during the
age of Sri Krsna Paramatman the sastras dealing with varnasrama were the
authority for dharma. It was at such a time, when an individual's vocation
was determined by birth, that the Lord declared in clear terms :
Yah sastra -vidhim utsrjya vartate kama-karatah
Na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukham na param gatim
Tasmacchastram pramanam te karyakaryavyavasthitau
Jnatva sastravidhan oktam karma kartum iha'rhasi
-Bhagavadgita, 16. 23 & 24.
Who so forsakes the injunctions of the sastras and lives according to his
own desires does not obtain liberation, finds no happiness. (The Sastras
determine your work, what is right and what is wrong. You must know the way
shown by the sastras and pursue the work - vocation - according to them.)
Sri Krsna establishes that an individual owes his caste to his birth. There
should not be the slightest doubt about it.
KR After part 5 of sanatana dharma, (28424) for people who feel shrunk,
the words of Maha Periyava can be soothing. Hence part 5 and part 6 are
all from Kanchi mutt only. But Hinduism is not a religion and way of life
and so dwelve deep in meaning do justice to the extent
K RAJARAM IRS 28424
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZor7WgnC%2B4WFO0v4SD08n_5yrwkV8EBDej9CY-qKcTsrOA%40mail.gmail.com.
