4 thoughts on “Are all men created/born equal? Vedic vs. Abrahamic difference. – Pt. 1

  1. Vedic Dharma, neither, advocates the concept of misogyny, nor of the feminism, nor of the androcentrism, nor of the eunuchoidism, nor of racist casteism. As all these concepts are products of the thoughts emerged from Occidental society, they find no place in the Vedic saṁskṛti. Even when Vedic Dharmaśāstras bar a woman (of the āryaṇ trivarṇas) from undergoing the vaidika-liṅga-sannyāsa (eka-daṇḍa or tri-daṇḍa), our Dharmaśāstras are not misogynist for misogyny is considered ‘hate for the feminine gender’. Hate is produced by a feeling of harm for the targeted entity. Dharmaśāstras have imposed certain restrictions on women of the trivarṇas, on the dvija-bandhus & on the śūdras etc. for their scientific upliftment – and not out of hate or harm for them. Hence, Dharmaśāstras are never racist nor misogynist etc.

    According to dharmaśāstras and purāṇas etc., a woman (of trivarṇas), is allowed, at most, to undergo, only, the vṛtta-sannyāsa and not the actual liṅga-sannyāsa. Only an upanīta brāhmaṇa puruṣa (seminally born male brāhmaṇa who has undergone upanayanam saṁskāra) is allowed to undergo vaidika-liṅga-sannyāsa. Nobody else can.

    However, to be influenced by the western modern concept of ‘equal rights’, ‘casteism’, ‘social inequality’ and ‘feminism’ etc. and to thus, consider the ancient Vedic tradition of dharma-śāstras and their specific prohibitions to be impractical or not suitable for the current circumstances – is a sign of deeply rooted subtle distrust in the dictum of the scriptures and the ancient convention.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. An addition to the earlier published essay — “Are all men created/born equal? Vedic vs. Abrahamic difference — Pt. 1”

    A brahmana is a brahmana by his very jati or birth. Our article released few days back (“All men created/born equal? Vedic vs. Abrahamic difference — Pt. 1” — https://brvf.org/2017/03/30/are-all-men-createdborn-equal-vedic-vs-abrahamic-difference-pt-1/) proves it. by citing from Shrimad-bhagavatam 10.86.53 and all classical Gaudiya Vaishnava Sanskrit commentaries on it.

    When it is said in Manu-smrti that a brahmana not performing sandhya-vandanam for straight three or more days in a row becomes equivalent to a shudra, it means that such a brahmana goes back to the ‘an-upeta’ (not yet having undergone upanayanam) status. That status is equivalent to a shudra only in a very limited comparative context.

    Just as how a shudra doesn’t have eligibility to undergo Vedic studies due to his lifelong seminal ineligibility to undergo upanayanam, similarly, a brahmana cannot undergo Vedic studies till the age of 8 years after which he is allowed to undergo upanayanam. Till age 8, a born brahmana is equivalent to a shudra only in a limited context of not being able to study Veda. (A born shudra cannot study Veda lifelong, whereas, a born brahmin cannot study Veda before age 8 and before undergoing upanayanam). However, even then, an an-upeta brahmin boy is not equal to a born shudra in the context of social respect.

    A born brahmin, whether an-upeta (before age 8) or whether upeta (after undergoing upanayanam at age 8) or whether upeta turned an-upeta (by not performing sandhya-vandanam) or whether a dvija-bandhu (a born brahmin not undergone upanayanam any time in life or undergone upanayanam from a non-born-brahmana or undergone upanayanam after the last age limit prescribed by smrtis is over) — in all four circumstances, he is respected as a brahmana unless if he turns an aggressor or ‘atatayi’ like Drauni Ashvatthama.

    In two (options of ‘an-upeta’ & ‘upeta turned an-upeta) of these circumstances (subtracting the options of ‘upeta’ & ‘dvija-bandhu’), the born brahmana becomes equivalent to a shudra only in a limited context of not being able to study Vedas for the time being till the conditions of first time upanayanam or the re-upanayanam are not met. However, his social inequality with a shudra in the context of respect being given to him (to such a born brahmana) remains unhampered. Also, in both of these cases (‘an-upeta’ & ‘upeta turned an-upeta’), a born brahmana does not loose the inherent eligibility (not possessed by a born shudra lifelong) to undergo upanayanam either for the very first time or for a second/third etc. time.

    Among the remaining (subtracting ‘an-upeta’ & ‘upeta turned an-upeta’) two options (‘upeta’ & ‘dvija-bandhu), so far as ‘upeta’ is concerned, he is not equivalent to a born shudra in any context, whatsoever.

    Among the last option remaining (‘dvija-bandhu’) within the total four, such a born brahmana is equivalent to a shudra, only, in a sense that though such a born brahmana possessed, before the last prescribed age limit to undergo upanayanam, the inherent eligibility to undergo upanayanam (this eligibility not neither inherent nor acquired at any time lifelong by a born shudra as substantiated by Shrimad-bhagavatam 1.4.25 — “stri-shudra-dvijabandhunam trayi na shruti-gocara” — then what to speak of much inferior antyajas & the lowest of all — the mleccha/yavanadikas), such a born brahmana turned dvija-bandhu does not continue to possess such inherent eligibility to undergo upanayanam and neither he can acquire such an eligibility any time after.

    But, even such a dvija-bandhu is not equal to a born shudra in terms of social respect as he (the born brahmana) continues to be given, scripturally, the respect given to a born brahmana. Otherwise, Srimad-bhagavatam 10.86.53 (“brahmano janmana shreyan…”) will turn irrelevant.

    Nevertheless, according to Manu-smrti, a sat-shudra (11 castes only) becomes, socially, equivalent in respect given to a brahmana after that such a born sat-shudra crosses the physical age of 90 years.

    Even after turning an ‘atatayi’, a born brahmana, though, doesn’t continue to, scripturally, deserve social respect given to a born brahmana by default, nonetheless, such a brahmana turned atatatayi is, scripturally, still considered to not undergo any sort of physical death penalty (yavana/mleccha governance does not believe in this Vedic law). Physical death penalty, according to Vedic Dharmashastras, can be given only to those who are not born as brahmanas. Shrimad-bhagavatam 1.7.53 – wherein Bhagavan Shri Krishna Himself proclaims — “brahma-bandhur na hantavyam atatayi vadharhanah” & the resultant act of Arjuna when he disgraced Ashvatthama, but does not kill him, physically, due to a born brahmana being immune to the death penalty. Such is the emphasis given to seminal birth in the Vaidika Samskriti.

    A) Bhagavan Ramacandra is above all sins and virtues due to His para-brahmatva or Absolute Godhood.

    However, in the incarnation resembling that of a human to protect the Vaidiki maryada, the Maryada-purushottama acted like a normal human prone to be afflicted by committed sins or virtues.

    As far as Ravana is concerned, he was accepted as belonging to ‘an-arya’ or ‘anti-Vedic’ Rakshasa-jati or demoniac species. Though his seminal father was from the brahmana-kula, his mother hailed from the rakshasa-kula. Hence, his jati was of a rakshasa an-arya. Killing a rakshasa is no sin for he is not an Arya Brahmana.

    Nevertheless, there was a class of ignorants who claimed Ravana to be a brahmana just because of his brahmana father, so, in order to wipe away allegations of brahma-hatya super-imposed on Raghava, Rishis advised Raghava to undergo atonement.

    B) As far as killing of a brahmana by Shivaji is concerned, it was done for the sake of ‘atma-raksha’ in a war and killing a brahmana in atma-raksha in a dharma-yuddha is treated exceptional. The foremost law of yuddha is atma-raksha at any cost. Nonetheless, prayashchittam is prescribed by dharma-shaastras for it is a killing of a brahmana anyhow.

    — Gurupadacharya Svami

    Liked by 2 people

  3. One of the scripturally advocated merits (eligibility/योग्यता/अधिकारित्व) of occupying any highest post of a sannyasi/acarya etc. in Sanatana-dharma is the dvijatva and more specifically, vipratrva — which, constitutes ‘shrotriyatva’. Hence, if jati-gata-varna-nirddharanam and the resultant promotion to highest spiritual/religious positions is ignored in Sanatana-dharma (Arya-samskrti), the whole concept of scripturally advocated merit smashes. This is because the jati-gata-varna-nirdharanam is a scientific based process and produces the best genetic makeup to assimilate the true import of scriptures. Varna-sankaras and non-varnashramis’ genes are not designed as such and hence, they are forbidden to study the Vedas. This fact is once more testified in Shrimad-bhagavata-mahapurana 1.4.25 — “स्त्रीशूद्रद्विजबन्धूनां त्रयी न श्रुतिगोचरा”.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Acceptance of the whole notion that the orthodox Vedic traditions need to be changed in order to spread, promote or even safeguard Sanatana-dharma and Aryan-samskriti is the first defeat of the followers of Sanatana-dharma. Because, if the orthodox tradition is not let to remain orthodox, the Vedic tradition is no more the Vedic tradition. Then, to keep spreading the mutated form of Hinduism in the name of the spread of Hinduism is useless. The scriptures of Sanatana-dharma like the Vedas etc. are perfect due to their origination from the exhalation of the Supreme God Hari and therefore, they do not need any ‘circumstantial support’. In short, if Hinduism is made ‘Sai Baba ism’ and then spread under the name of Hinduism, we don’t think it is the spread of Hinduism. Thanks for your understanding.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s