The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

[brihaspati]

When I first landed up in BRF, I did not think of trying to create any philosophical structure or framework. I did not even imagine having to think of identity, ideas of nationhood, least about spirituality and values. But I was quickly forced to blurt things out on this, due to the then prevailing atmosphere where all such explorations appeared to draw flak at a certain level. I think I had repeatedly tried to get people to think about the value-basis of their judgments, their perceptions, their conclusions - on everything that concerned India. From there I had proposed looking at deciding what is "us" and what is "them" - or better - "what is not us".

Without clearing up the principles we cannot proceed. I now do not call for values - realizing in my own internal grapplings that values will always remain contextual, and therefore subject to convenient interpretations by those relatively more powerful than others. I therefore try to establish broad principles and a logical structure to conclude what the relevant "values" should be - in each historical context, even hopefully for the future.

However much Harbans-ji has been facing the flak - I sympathize with him to an extent, because I have faced this dilemma from childhood. However, I still insist, that we should understand one thing very clearly :

we typically start with fundamental, profound, deep objectives [where society/social organization/spirituality and interaction between all three is concerned] which are more abstract and more universally applicable than being limited to a particular time, place and people.

When we try to apply this principle, we are forced to implement it within existing material and social constraints. This then associates a set of implementations to the original objective.

After some time, out of neglect or otherwise [possibly also entrenched vested interests] the original principle is forgotten, dropped, suppressed, fuzzed over, deliberately misinterpreted or misrepresented. However, the associated implementations are now taken as hard equivalents of the principle.

Over a longer iteration - since the implementation benefits the existing power structure - it is made into a permanent structure completely defining, characterizing, and fixing for ever - the original objective.

I am trying to get people to think on this process that we have allowed ourselves to be duped into. We must elicit, extract, reconstruct the timeless, universal principles that were used to formulate the elaborate practices. We should not be bogged down into blindly accepting the "implementation" as EQUAL to the "objective" or "fundamental".

At the same time, I wish people really went into practical organizational work, in any form whatsoever, be it charity, spiritual, clubs, political parties. Engage, engage and engage people. Talk, listen, interact. Absorb, the underlying spirit - of people, and of the land. Absorbing through a filter - without getting contaminated. Nothing - absolutely nothing is sacrosanct. Not ideas, not memes, not texts. To do anything, you need power. Power to mobilize people, move minds. You have to enter minds to bring them out. This practical absorption of the reality of how social movements germinate, and how they fail, and how they can be retrieved - will ultimately coalesce into a single movement. Binding all the hearts - at least the majority of it anyway.

I do not think the idea of a "Bharatatma" sourced from within the sum-total of the "Hindu" as the primary driver while not disparaging the contributions or insights afforded by those who have felt the need to diverge from whatever they thought was a stagnant/insufficient "Hinduism" - should be abandoned. However vague, politically and socially isolating it may feel initially. Stake a claim on that identity - we have to answer to no one as to what we think it means. We can smilingly and cheerfully say - we are starting out on a journey of self-discovery, and while on it - we intend to discover the heart of our nation - for we are the nation. We are beholden to no one to be answerable and give a textual, legal document on what we think we are. Its a work in progress - a quest - just as our original thinkers meant it tobe. To be Bharatyia is to be human - and we cannot put humanity into a single tight, well defined, well-locked, insulated - box.

Power to move - will not come by giving up on the identity - just because it feels inevitably isolationist in teh current scenario. If you stick to it - you will win.

[SBajwa]

Brihspati Sir!!

For each person responding you there are at least 100 reading and learning from your posts and not responding you!! KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK!!!! YOU ARE PART OF SOUL OF BR!!!

[Pranav]

Sex has always been the target of elite control - and its so funny that such control never seems to have been implemented on the powerful.

B ji, as per social engineering practices applied by modern elites, sexual profligacy is considered desirable. That is because promiscuous populations with unstable family backgrounds are considered to be more amenable to political control.

[Pranav]

I am open to be educated further on the meaning of Varnas!

I am leaning towards the view that the Purusharthas - Kama, Artha, Dharma, and Moksha refer to activities.

The Tamas-Rajas-Sattva Gunas refer to the motivations, spirit and mindset with which these activities are being carried out.

Varna refers to the relative level of the 3 Gunas within an individual. Whether an individual is mostly Tamasic, a mixture of Tamas and Rajas, a mixture of Rajas and Sattva, or mostly Sattvic. Obviously, individuals do evolve, so their Varna also changes over time, perhaps over many lifetimes.

Consider for example how a Tamasic individual would act - his Kama activities would be uncontrolled and promiscuous, his Artha activities would involve corruption and stealing, his Dharma activities would involve setting up legal systems under which he can function with impunity, and his Moksha activities would involve occasionally going to places like Tirupati, and performing rituals in a hypocritical way. All in all, an apt description of our present ruling class.

It can be said that people of different Gunas would probably have differing emphases on the 4 Purusharthas. For example, the Tamsic individual is likely to spend more time in promiscuity and corruption than in performing Pujas. A Sattvic individual may spend more time thinking about Dharma and Moksha than about Kama. He too does engage in Kama activities, but they may be more oriented towards mutual love and respect, rather than promiscuity.

[Pranav]

Shudra varNa AFAIU is basically about application - anyone who picks up something originally created by the other 3 varNas and implements it in society, that is shudra. That includes applied technologies, soldiers of war, bookkeepers, all non-"fundamental research" oriented penpushers and labrats in academia or any scholarly institution, etc.

The type of work a shudra varNa is associate with simply depends on which of the other varNas it is primarily serving. Its not that books = brahmin, weapons = kshatriya, broomstick = shudra, etc.

So medical doctor profession would certainly be mainly shudra varNa. Because of their notary and leadership role in society they may also fulfill kshatriya varNa. Because of involvement in corporate medical industry and having one's own practice, etc., they may also fulfill vaishya varNa. If they are involved in bench to bedside research at a fundamental level, they could fulfill brahmaNa varNa. But mainly it is shudra varNa - just like most of the professions!

A comment - You are associating Varna with activities. I prefer to associate it with the Gunas, the spirit with which various activities are carried out.

For example, Sant Tukaram, who was an enlightened soul, and was a potter by profession, ought to be considered a Brahmana. For such a person, even pottery becomes way to realize the unity of Atma and Brahma. A similar statement could be made about Sant Ravidas, who was a cobbler by profession. Or the weaver Kabir for that matter.

But you are right to the extent that different Varnas may have differing emphases on various activities (as I mention in my previous post). So, as a Brahmana, Tukaram may have spent a fair amount of time in composing devotional Abhangas. Other potters, who may have been Vaishyas by Varna, would probably not have had such an inclination.

[member_20317]

Pranav ji,

I think what Carl ji is saying is that all 3 gunas are experienced by everyone. But with a unique combination for each. Which means the unique combination is the differentiating factor and not the disparate Gunas, per se. This personal combination of gunas, becomes our temporal substance and the filter for the initiation of our respective life processes. Life processes of understanding-action-observation-acknowledgement-recognition-cultivation.

Separately I do agree on the 'varna' merely getting explored for the benefit of new enquiring minds who are have noticed the gaps in the popular narrative. The push as such may have to wait. Varna has undergone the same semantic jugglery that 'Halal' and 'Haram' have undergone. Form the Hindu POV, these days Haram is a cuss word when in fact it should have been the badge of honour. Halal instead should have been the cuss word instead it is considered a term of inclusive camaraderie for the uber intellectuals.

But we must remember that we need to keep our ears to the ground as Brihaspati ji suggests. The link between substance and action cannot be avoided for too long. Some or the other time people will raise questions impinging on the significance of boundary conditions and the significance of recognizable silhouettes.

[Pranav]

Pranav ji,

I think what Carl ji is saying is that all 3 gunas are experienced by everyone. But with a unique combination for each. Which means the unique combination is the differentiating factor and not the disparate Gunas, per se. This personal combination of gunas, becomes our temporal substance and the filter for the initiation of our respective life processes.

Yes, I am generally in agreement with that remark.

[member_20317]

However much Harbans-ji has been facing the flak - I sympathize with him to an extent, because I have faced this dilemma from childhood. However, I still insist, that we should understand one thing very clearly :

we typically start with fundamental, profound, deep objectives [where society/social organization/spirituality and interaction between all three is concerned] which are more abstract and more universally applicable than being limited to a particular time, place and people.

When we try to apply this principle, we are forced to implement it within existing material and social constraints. This then associates a set of implementations to the original objective.

After some time, out of neglect or otherwise [possibly also entrenched vested interests] the original principle is forgotten, dropped, suppressed, fuzzed over, deliberately misinterpreted or misrepresented. However, the associated implementations are now taken as hard equivalents of the principle.

Over a longer iteration - since the implementation benefits the existing power structure - it is made into a permanent structure completely defining, characterizing, and fixing for ever - the original objective.

I am trying to get people to think on this process that we have allowed ourselves to be duped into. We must elicit, extract, reconstruct the timeless, universal principles that were used to formulate the elaborate practices. We should not be bogged down into blindly accepting the "implementation" as EQUAL to the "objective" or "fundamental".

Brihaspati ji,

this mechanic works the way you have highlighted only when new origination is not allowed or not treated at par. In another context it took me ~5 years to understand and systematize it (no family background) and later I realized my conclusions were merely a reverberation of the ancient works being lived even today. But what is to say that those ancient kaarigars were themselves not a reverberation in an unending cycle. The fear of the new is a very real fear and while most outsiders have succumbed to this fear we have managed it well until now. Henceforth it is anybody’s guess. Ideally it should be a new fight every moment, a new judgment every moment in recognition of a new origination every moment both within and without. And somehow we have to do that in one smooth fashion without freezing up in fear. Like you I also hope we are upto it in all walks of life.

Guru ji, popular culture at times says in a pithy what vast philosophies cannot. In a Hollywood movie there was an advice given by a sniper to another ‘Slow is smooth, smooth is fast’. Both the sniper and the terrorist handle pretty much the same weapons but in vastly different manners.

From the POV of the worldwide legal framework the ‘doctrine of severability’ has stood the test of Dik and Kaal. In a dharmic context this much suffices but in a non-dharmic context this may require a further mahima-mandan in the form of ‘overbreadth doctrine’.

I hope I have added to your original thoughts.

[Agnimitra]

A comment - You are associating Varna with activities. I prefer to associate it with the Gunas, the spirit with which various activities are carried out.

Pranav ji, actually I was saying exactly the opposite: That varNa should not be linked with activity, such as books = brahmin, weapon = kshatriya, broomstick = shudra...

varNa can be lined with sense of purpose and mode of observing and experiencing something.

guNa, on the other hand, can have multi-ordinal meanings. At different levels of being the same guNa can have different meanings (and value). Someone could be sattvik at an external level and tamasic at a deeper level, or vice versa. Moreover, while "tamasic" may be "bad" at an external level, it may be "interesting" and valuable at a deeper level. There is even a Rishi in the RigVeda called "deergha-tamas" ("deep tamas"? "longshadow"?).

Therefore, since the depth-context is relevant to the meaning and value of a guNa, I suggested it is not a practical method of assigning varNa as far as assigning educational or employment opportunities goes. So my suggestion was also that at this point trying to "measure" varNa is not relevant to society. Before that can happen, a spiritual process needs to be widespread and in agreement.

For example, Sant Tukaram, who was an enlightened soul, and was a potter by profession, ought to be considered a Brahmana. For such a person, even pottery becomes way to realize the unity of Atma and Brahma. A similar statement could be made about Sant Ravidas, who was a cobbler by profession. Or the weaver Kabir for that matter.

Why can't a "shudra" realize Atman? One can still say that he was shudra, but that he encompassed the purposes of the brahmana also. In that sense he was more than just any one varNa. That's the whole point B ji has been making - we all have all varNas. But still it is possible that someone's defining varNa is shudra or vaishya or kshatriya and he/she realizes Atman and Brahman. In fact, it is a widely held scholarly opinion that a fully self-realized person who is not of brahmana varna cannot become teacher of veda, whereas a non-self-realized person who is brahmana can! this is a significant statement.

[member_20317]

In fact, it is a widely held scholarly opinion that a fully self-realized person who is not of brahmana varna cannot become teacher of veda, whereas a non-self-realized person who is brahmana can! this is a significant statement.

Wow man never thought of that!

[Pranav]

varNa can be lined with sense of purpose and mode of observing and experiencing something.

I would actually define Guna in that way, but I agree with this since I am saying that Varna and Guna are aligned.

guNa, on the other hand, can have multi-ordinal meanings. At different levels of being the same guNa can have different meanings (and value). Someone could be sattvik at an external level and tamasic at a deeper level, or vice versa.

Perhaps you could give an example ... I would say Guna is something fundamental and is associated with the deepest levels of consciousness.

One can still say that [Tukaram] was shudra...

If one says that Varna corresponds to an individual's evolutionary status then someone who is Self-realized is by definition a Brahmana.

In fact, it is a widely held scholarly opinion that a fully self-realized person who is not of brahmana varna cannot become teacher of veda, whereas a non-self-realized person who is brahmana can!

This one cannot agree with, a Self-realized individual is supposed to be one with Brahma. You may have heard of the legend of Dnyaneshwar and the buffalo which started chanting the Vedas?

That's the whole point B ji has been making - we all have all varNas.

It is a matter of definition. I would say that Varna represents evolutionary state. Depending on your evolutionary state, your emphasis on and approach towards the goals of Kama, Artha, Dharma and Moksha could be different.

[RajeshA]

We typically start with fundamental, profound, deep objectives [where society/social organization/spirituality and interaction between all three is concerned] which are more abstract and more universally applicable than being limited to a particular time, place and people.

When we try to apply this principle, we are forced to implement it within existing material and social constraints. This then associates a set of implementations to the original objective.

After some time, out of neglect or otherwise [possibly also entrenched vested interests] the original principle is forgotten, dropped, suppressed, fuzzed over, deliberately misinterpreted or misrepresented. However, the associated implementations are now taken as hard equivalents of the principle.

Over a longer iteration - since the implementation benefits the existing power structure - it is made into a permanent structure completely defining, characterizing, and fixing for ever - the original objective.

I am trying to get people to think on this process that we have allowed ourselves to be duped into. We must elicit, extract, reconstruct the timeless, universal principles that were used to formulate the elaborate practices. We should not be bogged down into blindly accepting the "implementation" as EQUAL to the "objective" or "fundamental".

brihaspati garu,

very true!

The one constant is change! The other constant can be our principles if we so desire. So it is best to build on these constants, like change - the change occurring all around us as something we sense, we foresee, we observe, we analyze and then we try to tame it and channelize it as per our survival instincts and principles. We have to keep running to stay on the same spot, to stay rooted to the principles of Dharma.

We have to learn how to ride the waves of sociological changes taking place due to changing technology, economic currents, globalization, urbanization, information access, external and internal security challenges, yearnings of the people, rise of political forces, etc. and still try to light our way through these storms using the light of our principles - of Dharma.

If we have to respond to change we can't keep anything other than our principles of Dharma and the ultimate Satya as sacrosanct - be they political structures, economic models social traditions and even religious rituals should be open for scrutiny.

When we undertook our little exercise with preambles, one suggestion I made was

to encourage the vitality of the nation through constant introspection, debate and reform especially of society, religion and politics

We need to keep abreast of ourselves!

[member_20317]

VARNA BEING INTERPRETED AS EVOLUTIONARY STATES

Varna being interpreted as evolutionary states in contemporary times would lead to finger pointing as an escape mechanism. This is so not merely from the temporal POV but also from the Guhya-Sachit POV.

1) From the temporal POV, if a duty has to be assigned then there has to be somebody at the other end. For example I am a Shudra and I demand protection but then there has to be a Kshtriya at the other end in this interpretation. Unfortunately we only have GoI at the other end. Also the situ for such an interpretation to work would be a yug where Dharm is strong and duties are not looked upon as liabilities. Instead duties are looked upon as qualifiers. I deliver, so I am qualified so bets should be placed on me kind of straight logic.

2) From the Guhya-Sachit POV an interpretation derived without the context is agadam-bagdam. Context implies our presence at a point in the vastness of time and space. In a democratic set up the Swadharm is the complete locus standi evolving from the same value votes. Which implies same value duties and same value rights. That is why some of the veterans are mentioning that Dharm is very subtle and Varna is a subset of Dharm, not the superset. Besides in a case where same kinds of rights & duties are placed on everybody (several &/or joint) there is no question of special treatments for anybody which is a concomitant phenomena in the old interpretation of the Varna structure fit for a different time and place.

In x <=> ? <=> y / in x <= ? => y / x => ? <= y, if we place the infinite at the center then x & y can be anything. But at all cost we have to remember what is sought to be put at the center. In absolutely no case can a limited interest be placed at the center.

-----------------------------------

VARNA AND GUNAS:

This is a very important phase of understanding. Gunas are distributed unevenly, is observable fact. Will and power to cultivate these Gunas is also distributed unevenly, also pramaanic. This will lead us to the conclusion that Gunas should inform the Varna at both the individual and collective level.

1) The same value votes system allows a person to form his own Varna based on his own gunas. But beyond that stage Varna is sought to be avoided. This creates a funny situation where the qualities/gunas of an individual are recognized and harnessed but not that of a body of individuals. For example we all notice how different businessmen, individually or in groups, evolve their own style of conducting business after their initial training within the same Indian milieu. Different styles being dependent upon their individual gunas and the gunas of the group they originally belonged to before their business training began. By subverting Varna a collective experience is sought to be negated (for ease in political exploitation). The fact of group qualities is sought to be falsified. Its like saying you have gunas but when in partnership with other individuals you have none, unless the authorized person sanctions it. To me that sounds bunkum. An attempt at denuding us of our true layered existence.

2) At an individual level too the gunas will remain in a composite condition not in an elemental condition. However at any given point in time most individuals will practically experience a preponderance/overriding condition of only one Guna. An attempt at denying us our individual Varna is an attempt at denying us our individual evolution of gunas. Which is thought to facilitate covert political control of what is essentially uncontrollable.

------------------------

VARNA --> ACTIVITY BUT ACTIVITY -/-> VARNA

Gunas becoming the basis for Varnas and Varna in turn forming the basis for the activity makes sense. But taking it in the opposite direction does not instill confidence. Also the regular cycle creates the least amounts of gaps in the understanding of nature around us. While the irregular cycle fills it up with bigger gaps than a mint. There are certain quarters who want us to buy the hole with the promise of mint or some other titillation. Scoring control over circumstances necessitates a struggle against getting controlled.

[RajeshA]

Some thoughts on Varna

Rajesh

In many ways Hindu thought can be tricky for mere mortals! As I have understood it, which is still in a very modest measure, is that in almost all cases we are faced with both the contextual as well as universal elements of any concept, be it Dharma, or something else.

One reason why there was so much stratification in the Indian society was because of this contextual applicability. The Dharma of a Brahmin, a Kshatriya, a Vaisya or a Sudra would be different, and so that each has clarity of purpose, there was a need to specialize Dharma as his Varna-specific Dharma. There was no need for any individual belonging to any Varna to try to understand completely the Dharma of other Varnas, other than for basic general knowledge. Each caste had its own operating manual.

That stratification is breaking and it is good that is breaking. But that means now, each of the Dharmics would have to embody all Varnas and be good in all of them as much as possible, though one would still look for specialization in one field. Now every individual is being asked to be an all knowing hard-working enterprising ripped brave-heart, then the question arises how is such an individual to be educated in Dharma as he needs to solve all the conflicts arising out of several different context-dependent varna-specific Dharmas, all in real-time, and that too when not only the ethic aspects of an action are to be pondered upon, but also the strategy , tactics and skills for the job at hand.

May be that is the next step of our evolution - not specialization but all-encompassing varna, something one can commit to only if one becomes a supramental being.

Rajesh

On Brahmins:

We should try to differentiate between Hinduism/Vedism and Brahminism.

Our scriptures talk about Brahmin varna. It is an open system. Anybody dealing with creation, preservation and dissemination of knowledge can be considered to be of Brahmin varna.

Those jatis, which consider themselves Brahmins, need to reclassify themselves as Gotric Brahmins. If one is a Gotric Brahmin, it says nothing about that person's varna. He can be a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya or a Shudra. Gotric Brahmins developed their own smritis, with their own laws to regulate their sub-society. That is Brahminism, or should be considered Brahminism. Brahminism cannot be considered as equivalent of Hinduism or Vedism. Brahminism smritis, whatever they may be, do not have any bearing on Shruti, and they also should not have any bearing on the whole of Hindu society. Brahminic smritis should only regulate the society of Gotric Brahmins, i.e. have internal relevance only.

Of course, Gotric Brahmins are individually or as a group free to keep those regulations or to discard them. It is their choice.

As such if they wish to have marriage only among themselves, i.e. their choice. Nobody from outside can impinge on their freedom. Furthermore, this freedom does not say anything about Hinduism at all. For the Vedic Brahmin term is an open system. Anybody can become a Brahmin.

When we speak of historical inequities, we should keep in mind, that we are not speaking of varnas, but of jatis, as historically privileged and historically disadvantaged/oppressed.

Atri

RajeshA ji,

Our scriptures talk of "Dvijas" and not "brahmins" on most instances. The fact that Dvija (twice-born) is exclusively translated as "brahmin" is one of the dire deracinations of Indic narrative. When english translations were made, the only people who had kept alive the tradition of "upanayana" were few caste brahmins, and hence all the translators understood that dvija = brahmin. MBH and other smirits are crystal clear on who is brahmin and who is dvija..

Dvija - Rescuing Varna from Jaati

जन्मना जायते शूद्रः. संस्कारात् द्विजं उच्यते |
वेद-पाठात् भवेत् विप्रः ब्रह्म जानाति ब्राह्मणः| स्कंदपुराण ६.२३९.३१

Everyone is Shudra by birth. With Sanskaras (the system of 16 sanskaras in dharma) makes a person "Dvija". Mastering Vedas (knowledge) makes one "Vipra". One becomes a "Brahmana" as he attains "Brahma-Jnana".

applying modern context -

Everyone is Shudra by birth. After enrolling in school (Upanayana sanskara) and graduation (Samaavartana) one becomes Dvija (twice born). After becoming a "master" of a particular stream of knowledge, one becomes a "Vipra". And after attaining "Brahma-Jnaana" one becomes Brahmana.

If one looks at most of the Smriti verses dealing with "dharmaarthik" theories pertaining to Purushaartha-trayi (Dharma-artha-kaama i.e. politics and economy, jurisprudence, personal lifestyle), the most frequent term used is "Dvija".

Dvija is one who has initiated his formal education in an institution which is recognized by sociopolity of given space and time. Initiation of education is marked by Upanayana Sanskaara (admission to primary school in modern context) and Samaavartana sanskaara (graduation - HSC OR Bachelor's degree).

[RajeshA]

I think one important question is what benefit can Varnas provide Indians today?

[Pranav]

I think one important question is what benefit can Varnas provide Indians today?

I think the Varna concept was an attempt by Indic sociologists to understand how a society can function more efficiently and meet the needs of all its people.

I don't think it was ever intended to be enforced by law.

So I don't think there needs to be any state action as far as Varnas are concerned. Just provide lots of opportunity for vocational training and socio-economic mobility.

I think the German apprenticeship system is very interesting and it has produced a very competitive high-tech sector.

[RajeshA]

I think the Varna concept was an attempt by Indic sociologists to understand how a society can function more efficiently and meet the needs of all its people.

I agree. It is an effort to align the needs and functioning of a society with the role every individual can or does play.

So I don't think there needs to be any state action as far as Varnas are concerned. Just provide lots of opportunity for vocational training and socio-economic mobility.

I think the German apprenticeship system is very interesting and it has produced a very competitive high-tech sector.

I agree. After all it is the skills and their application by the individuals which improves the functioning of the society!

[RajeshA]

Some Thoughts on Varna

For some time I've had a certain structure in mind to understand Varna. I don't know how far it is correct.

So something I wrote sometime earlier

• Brahmin is one who preserves, expands and propagates knowledge.
• Kshatriya is one who leads and protect others.
• Vaisya is one who manages economic activity.
• Sudra is one who works.

However I would like to reformulate that a bit:

• Brahmin is the creative faculty.
• Kshatriya is the organizational faculty.
• Vaisya is the ownership faculty.
• Sudra is the application faculty.

Individuals, institutions as well as societies possess all the four faculties.

It may be possible for a society to structure its activities around these four faculties, and then assign those who are engaged in these activities the corresponding faculty. The individual on the other hand would however still have all of these four faculties in his persona and activity in some measure.

So it is is more like saying, "I'm engaged in an activity in society which the society has designated as belonging to such and such faculty - Varna", but that is not his personal Varna.

Similarly an institution, i.e. a company too may have all these four faculties in it. R & D Dept. may be considered Brahmin. Management may be considered Kshatriya. Finance Dept. may be considered Vaisya. Employees may be considered Sudras.

So the manager of an auto company would be a Kshatriya w.r.t. his institution and a Sudra w.r.t. society, as far his personal life is concerned he may gravitate to Brahmin, if he is the creative type, but his personal disposition is hardly of concern to the society as such to give him a label.

[member_20317]

RajeshA ji,

I believe you are being overly defensive. Faculty informs the action which provides the feedback for more gyan. Gyan (of gunas), Karm (from varnas) and Shrudha (in trials) are not disjoint, even if not simultaneous and even if one is only consequent on the other.

We cannot really understand something pegged to an artificial origin.

A going concern presumption is a necessity for the formulation of executory considerations. Basically theek hai, begair akl ke kaam kiya but if akl is present then the man will learn from the results. Learning before or after action is a chicken and egg conundrum. Can safely ignore it.

Aur akl nahi hai to jo marzi pahele aaye, it all, is only going to go downwards.

Irreconcilability is what we need to gaurd against. Because that is artificial.

JMT.

[RajeshA]

Some Thoughts on Varna

As mentioned earlier these faculties are available at the level of society, institution and person.

• Brahmin is the creative faculty.
• Kshatriya is the organizational faculty.
• Vaisya is the ownership faculty.
• Sudra is the application faculty.

Brahmin Faculty (Creative): The creative faculty expands the horizons of our senses, our capabilities and our existing creations. It brings forth patterns which were not there before perhaps tweaking preexisting knowledge or machines or simply providing us with a new perspective to view the world. Without this faculty, mankind would just not progress.

Kshatriya Faculty (Organizational): Another way to understand this faculty is as one where decisions are made, and these decisions touches other entities as well. Without the decisions intent would not be transformed into action. But decisions are taken taking the data into consideration. As such it also becomes the duty of this faculty to ensure that the data is optimal so that one can take optimal decisions. When it comes to leading people, again decisions need to be made and so that one has the option of making difficult decisions, the kshatriya tries to enhance the skills of the people under him, looks after their needs, ensures that they follow and obey his decisions and since it is people we are talking about, of course a kshatriya would need to develop effective psychological models which he can apply to the people under him.

Vaisya Faculty (Ownership): It is with this faculty that interests arise. Only when somebody takes ownership of some process, is one able to develop a stake in it and ensure its well-being. Besides this faculty also aligns with the biology-level instincts of man.

Sudra Faculty (Application): This is basically applying one's knowledge and skills, which may be gained through the Brahmin faculty, or may have been inculcated through learning and turning this knowledge and skills to work. It is the productive faculty.

[RajeshA]

RajeshA ji,

I believe you are being overly defensive. Faculty informs the action which provides the feedback for more gyan. Gyan (of gunas), Karm (from varnas) and Shrudha (in trials) are not disjoint, even if not simultaneous and even if one is only consequent on the other.

We cannot really understand something pegged to an artificial origin.

A going concern presumption is a necessity for the formulation of executory considerations. Basically theek hai, begair akl ke kaam kiya but if akl is present then the man will learn from the results. Learning before or after action is a chicken and egg conundrum. Can safely ignore it.

Aur akl nahi hai to jo marzi pahele aaye, it all, is only going to go downwards.

Irreconcilability is what we need to gaurd against. Because that is artificial.

JMT.

ravi_g ji,

Of course there is interconnectedness among all four faculties. After all they all come from Purusha! So they are in fact part of each human!

These faculties are simply a prism to structure the human world. Using this prism, one can structure a single human, an institution or a whole society.

What has gone lost is I believe the fact that these faculties are applicable at multiple levels of human activity.

In order to do something you need the knowledge/skill (Brahmin), the self-interest (Vaisya), the decision/intent (Kshatriya) and the application (Sudra).

I myself see no irreconcilability! In fact using this model one can understand why one relates these terms to Purusha, and how it is possible that the terms evolved in the way they did!

[ShauryaT]

In order to do something you need the knowledge/skill (Brahmin), the self-interest (Vaisya), the decision/intent (Kshatriya) and the application (Sudra).

I myself see no irreconcilability! In fact using this model one can understand why one relates these terms to Purusha, and how it is possible that the terms evolved in the way they did!

RajeshA Ji: May I suggest more Sadhana and meditation on the following.

cātur-varṇyaḿ mayā sṛṣṭaḿ
guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ

[ShauryaT]

I think one important question is what benefit can Varnas provide Indians today?

Whatever we want to. See that is the beauty of the system. It provides guidelines not detail instructions. Discard the guidelines at your own risk, like what has been done.

Chatur Varna is ordained. It's basis in gunas and karma's is also ordained. You and I can do squat to change that. What we can do is figure a way to use it to order our "current" society based on the needs of today's society. But, chatur varna is to be used to structure a dharmic society to support dharmic goals and objectives.

Think about a gram sabha, a sub district level of organization. How can Chatur Dharma be used for such a structure of society? What does this unit need to do, so that its peoples can live a dharmic life, in support of dharmic objectives. To keep it simple, imagine no other larger units in play and no external threats.

[RajeshA]

In order to do something you need the knowledge/skill (Brahmin), the self-interest (Vaisya), the decision/intent (Kshatriya) and the application (Sudra).

I myself see no irreconcilability! In fact using this model one can understand why one relates these terms to Purusha, and how it is possible that the terms evolved in the way they did!

RajeshA Ji: May I suggest more Sadhana and meditation on the following.

cātur-varṇyaḿ mayā sṛṣṭaḿ
guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ

cātur-varṇyaḿ mayā sṛṣṭaḿ
guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ

can be translated as:

Four Varnas were created by Me in terms of division of Guna (~qualities) and Karma (~activity)!

The word "Varna" has been used in Rig Veda with the meanings like "kind, sort, character, quality"!

I really don't see anywhere where the activity spoken of is solely at the level of human society. The activity can be at the level of a single human action, day-to-day person's life, institution or whole society.

Also Purusha, i.e. consciousness consists of these faculties - creativity, decision, motivation and application.

Also one can see the division of the Gunas according to these Varnas

[ShauryaT]

One can become very innovative in interpreting, to the degree of denying obvious truths in front of us, which is available in spades. The entire history of chatur Varna has been used to organize society. Pick any Dharma Shastra - it will become clear. Let not the abuses of the system put fears in us on what was its design purpose. cātur-varṇyaḿ is in context of mayā sṛṣṭaḿ. mayā sṛṣṭaḿ is our world.

[Agnimitra]

• Brahmin is the creative faculty.
• Kshatriya is the organizational faculty.
• Vaisya is the ownership faculty.
• Sudra is the application faculty.

Also:
Brahmanical faculty discovers Purpose.
Kshatriya faculty decides on Direction.
Vaishya faculty takes responsibility for Efficiency.
Shudra faculty cultivates Skills.

[ShauryaT]

Read the Purusha Sukta as a spiritual understanding of the matter. RV suktas have been much abused but even there a composite reading makes it clear. One cannot ignore historical usage of the word. Read chapter 18 of the Gita, it will be more clear with contextual examples of Varna. Chapter 14 of BG will make gunas clear to you.

[RajeshA]

One can become very innovative in interpreting, to the degree of denying obvious truths in front of us, which is available in spades. The entire history of chatur Varna has been used to organize society. Pick any Dharma Shastra - it will become clear. Let not the abuses of the system put fears in us on what was its design purpose. cātur-varṇyaḿ is in context of mayā sṛṣṭaḿ. mayā sṛṣṭaḿ is our world.

"mayā sṛṣṭaḿ" as far as I understand means "created by Me", and it refers to the four varnas - creativity, decision, motivation and application and are to be taken as given in order to understand Purusha - consciousness.

What we are looking at is a verse on philosophy.

All this however does not negate the usage of Varna in order to structure the activity of human society, for after all human society too is an organism with parallels to a human, and a human society too possesses a collective consciousness (Purusha).

So Varna can also be used in the traditional way! However, IMHO the meaning is much broader and much deeper.

But perhaps there is some other division of consciousness in the scriptures of which I am not aware in which case Varna could have a different meaning than what I hypothesized above. If you have other leads on consciousness please let me know.

[RajeshA]

• Brahmin is the creative faculty.
• Kshatriya is the organizational faculty.
• Vaisya is the ownership faculty.
• Sudra is the application faculty.

Also:
Brahmanical faculty discovers Purpose.
Kshatriya faculty decides on Direction.
Vaishya faculty takes responsibility for Efficiency.
Shudra faculty cultivates Skills.

Yes of course!

However I believe Purpose as such belongs to the Vaisya Faculty! Vaisya faculty is I believe responsible for taking ownership of any undertaking - single action, day-to-day tasks, company, human society, etc. Vaisya Faculty manifests in ownership, self-interest, purpose, drive!

[RajeshA]

ShauryaT ji,

thanks for your references. I've read these but would look at them again!

[member_22872]

deleted, need to think before I post.

[brihaspati]

Again, we fall prey to that illusion that a particular implementation is the original object and objective. Principles are more universal than their applications and implementations.

The very need to categorize, classify, is a very human tendency to model. Models help humans to simplify decisionmaking, lower cognitive and processing load, and may help in devising appropriate responses to repetitive phenomena. If the same situation from which the model was developed - recurs - then the best response based on the developed model might be again the best strategy.

But this means humans also have a tendency to create artifacts - out of this modeling process. Language illustrates this process very accurately. People try to describe things in terms of pre-existing words with associated concepts and meanings as interpreted by the audience. In the process they willingly or unwillingly create associations that over time take over the original idea.

The attempt at categorizing just four "varnas" could be a particular attempt, at a particular place time and for a particular people, even for a particular level of social development and complexification of society. It might have been an eminently appropriate model - that helped people organize and train and condition themselves - for that society, for that time, for that level of technology, for the cumulative social historical political experience of that society up to that point of time. But the problem starts off when the modeling aspect is forgotten, and because it had been so successful [by force or voluntarily] it became associated with the original purpose of seeking to understand how social processes ran, and how best to try and organize society as a whole - but again at that point of time.

After some time, because distinct categories would inevitably be used by existing or developing power structures to create hierarchies in their own benefit - the model became "permanent" and unchallengeable. Insistence on unchangeability of distinct categories which carry specialization of duties, professions, privileges associated with supposedly more abstract categories - is a typical sign that - categories imply hierachies of power and privilege, and of necessity will overtly or covertly eulogize certain categories while lowering others in esteem.

Allowing group based specializations, and not insisting on every individual attaining a minimum level of all qualifications [something we do in our schools regardless of whether they proceed to universities or not], is a sure fire way of allowing these categories to be used by power elite. Typically, the model will be insisted upon as divinely given, original, and pre-ordained [not aimed at you ShauryaT ji], and unalterable.

What we see is the typical human power dynamics making a model, and replacing the original quest to understand the actual dynamic phenomenon behind that human attempted model - with the model itself.

I agree that varna looks like an useful category : in that (1) it is well known or well-misunderstood and well reconstructed to suit power elite [poistivelya s well as negatively]., (2) it is small enough in apparent size ["a good round number - 3 or 4 would be good , 5 will be too large for murkh aam - don't we know the best for them?" etc] to deal with for the pea-brains, elites assume non-elite have (3) it can be turned around - just as any human made model can be - to address almost all imperialist-Abrahamic critique, as well as from within "seculars" of "Hindu" and cognate religious origin.

But its much better to understand it as a model derived at an early stage of human social organization - in spite of any pragmatic postponement of the public acknowledgment of that understanding being decided on.

I am proposing the line of interpreting them as all round developmental targets for the character and attitudes of a modern "Bharatyia" to be pursued by each individual simultaneously in all four - to the best of her/his abilities. This allows us to (1) retain them and not reject them entirely - thereby leaving a chance to keep orthodox literal interpretationists a chance for bargaining (2) retain the basic purpose of devising models to cope with and best respond to social processes as they exist now (3) allow sufficient flexibility in addressing the criticisms and bottlenecks arising out of historical aberrations like by-descent, by-profession, exclusivist, and privileged associations (4) helps us to keep continuity of identity at a deeper level rather than turning reform and readjustment into revolutionary disruption of the civilizational process.

If you do not broaden the base and top of the social-power pyramid into a sphere - where - there is no top but a "centre", and anyone can aspire to reach the "centre" as all points are equidistant from the centre, and to reach the centre no one has to cross another's line of sight to the centre, we will not manage to do what we are aiming at.

[brihaspati]

Maya-srstam - why should it be taken in the dvaitic sense? Why do we always come to the dvaita model when we need to claim something as beyond challenge by mere mortal humans? Should we not also consider the advaitic angle too - in this case - maya srstam would mean, we as part of the whole have created the categorization. Just as "we=I" destroy "our=my" creation in cyclical times, and build anew, "I=we" can destroy and rebuild as and when "we=I" see the need for it.

[Agnimitra]

venug, yes Purpose defines everything. If one has discovered true purpose, then one will find a way to learn and do what is needed. That's why I think some of the smrtis and shastras say that Brahmana can do the work of any of the other varnas, but not vice versa!

RajeshA ji, by "purpose" I meant in the largest scope, rather than a determination to do something. Purpose can be in terms of "Beingness", "Doingness" or "Havingness". Everyone has some purpose that is limited by different horizons. Shudra also has purpose and a sense of ownership and pride in his profession. Even a depressed or lost individual has a purpose to find purpose. In some ways the Brahmana is like that too! -- but at a self-determined and knowledgable level. So the quality of purpose (and ownership, etc.) have different scopes of definition. Its like guNa IMHO.

ShauryaT ji / Pranav ji, IMHO "guNa-karma vibhaagashah" refers to the divisions (ordinal levels) of guNa and karma. Varna encapsulates all those levels of the jeeva. So the karmic trajectory of the jeeva may manifest different guNas at different stages of spiritual evolution/devolution, but that trajectory is the evolute of his varNa. Yes, guNa is also expressed at its most fundamental level, but it is ordinal, whereas varNa is not. I don't think "vibhaagashah" means that varna is a derivative of guNa and karma. Rather, varNa is more fundamental, that should be clear. varNa is even specified in jyotisha.

[The interpretation of guna-karma-vibhaagashah as meaning that varna is "implemented" based on some externally observed attributes could be just one of many interpretations - at a particular level based on place, time and historical circumstance. But at a philosophical level, vibhaagasgaH would mean divisions on an ordinal scale.]

The relative value of any varNa is also context dependent. The 3 dwija varNas are like the primary colours. Everyone is a servant, of the Lord or at least of his own body. So every shudra is some combination of the 3 primary varNas. Therefore a self-realized person is a servant who has realized all varNas within himself. I guess that's one way I understand it.

[ShauryaT]

I am proposing the line of interpreting them as all round developmental targets for the character and attitudes of a modern "Bharatyia" to be pursued by each individual simultaneously in all four - to the best of her/his abilities.

To what end? How shall it be used by society? My sense is you do not want Varna to be used to order societal functions? You are by and large rejecting the very basis of how our civilization has used this concept.

Does a Dhramic society even have any meaning witout Varna Dharma?

I understand the concerns you have laid in multiple posts but why should an SD society care about Varna at all based on the above lines you are proposing. Not challenging, putting some questions to understand.

[ShauryaT]

Carl ji: reading upon reading gives only one meaning of vibhaagashah. It is the division of human society.

[RamaY]

ShauryaT garu,

You made me very happy sir. Take a bow!

[Agnimitra]

Carl ji: reading upon reading gives only one meaning of vibhaagashah. It is the division of human society.

Yes but division based on what?
Some people say it is jaati onlee. Is that your view?
Now some are saying it is based on some external perception of talents and inclinations. Is this your view? This sounds more reasonable, but even this can lead to problems. In the course of life, one discovers one's talents and true inclinations, after undong some of the social "conditioning" that we inevitably go through in our formative years.

Goethe said something like - "Character is shaped in the torrent of this world, but talent is formed in the stillness of one's being." Thus, as one gains the fruits of one's spiritual process, one discovers new purposes, new talents, new drives. Some are late bloomers, chhupa rustams.

I completely agree that dharma is based on varnashrama. But you are not being clear whether varna is a derivative of guna and karma or the other way round!

[brihaspati]

ShauryaT ji,

are societal functions as they exist today - orderable by dividing up society into just four? Not only just four - but with specialization of functioning being divided up into mutually exclusive social divisions? Is the nature of social interactions and experiences - even in its variety, divisible into four?

Even in the past, it would not have been possible or feasible. People were forced to cross strict division lines of functionality specialization in their daily and larger lives. If your family is attacked, your child being raped, and you have not specialized or functionally been approved by society to train/inflict violence/defence/physical-weapons-martial say since you are category X - would you wait until the members of the proper section of society trained/"charcha" subdivision in whose jurisdiction the physical retaliation required - falls in category Y, arrive?

[brihaspati]

Dividing of society into mutually exclusive groups based on functionality will always be abused. No exceptions.