Who is a Brahmin?
by Jyotsna Kamat
First Online: November 02, 2002
Page Last Updated: December 22,2007
The belief that people born in brahmin caste, automatically become brahmins, is a much later concept in the very ancient land of India. In the pre-Gita period (before the beginning of the Christian era) a Brahmin was a person who had attained highest spiritual knowledge (brahmavidya). This was an extremely difficult path of discipline of body, mind , and intellect, and people irrespective of their birth or class, who dedicated to such an austere life were recognized as brahmins.
A great example of this tradition (that a person becoming a brahmin, rather than born as one) is the case of Vishwamitra, a warrior (kshatriya), who became a brahmin after attaining brahmavidya, and composed the Gayatri mantra, the most sacred hymn of the Hindus.
A smritis, or code of conduct composed by sage Atri defines brahminhood very clearly.
"By birth, every man is a Shudra (an ignorant person). Through various types of disciplines (samskaras), he becomes a dwija (twice born). Through the studies of scriptures, he becomes a vipra (or a scholar). Through realization of supreme spirit (brahmajnana), he becomes a brahmin."
The Bhagavad-Gita divides1 the class of people into four categories of Brahmana, Kshtriya, Vaishya, and Shudra depending on the traits (svabhava) inherent in individuals.
3 comments:
Thanks for posting it here. I think we can observe following errors in Kamat's article:
1. Geeta does not divide people on the basis of traits (swabhava). It is on the basis on Guna and Karma.
2. I think Kamat has misinterpreted Shudra as an ignorant person. That shows her bias against the Shudras due to their inferior social status.
Muni Atri actually just means a progression of how someone becomes a brahmin (he does not accept someone as Brahmin just by birth or profession). According to him (my interpretation), just as far as a Shudra is from Brahmin, a newborn baby is also equally far from being a Brahmin. I disagree with Muni Atri on the language used by him (By the way, is it part of Vedas?? I hope not).
Just like no-one can be a brahmin at birth, I believe no-one can be Shudra by birth either. You have to "serve the society" in order to become a Shudra. Ignorance does not make you Shudra. It is the service profession, that can make you Shudra.
HareKrishna, Thanks for your comments .
Thanks for posting it here. I think we can observe following errors in Kamat's article:
1. Geeta does not divide people on the basis of traits (swabhava). It is on the basis on Guna and Karma.
*Murali*
Guna means quality of nature or nature as well ( many meanings for the same word) , probably she might have used in that context.definitely to put in your
words it is more clear.
2. I think Kamat has misinterpreted Shudra as an ignorant person. That shows her bias against the Shudras due to their inferior social status.
*Murali*:
I beg to differ with your understanding here. It's not the question of ignorance here, rather lack of sufficient knowledge for spirituality ( or to act in
particular modes of nature sattva, rajas or tamas).Modes of nature will directly reflect in the nature of people.
Muni Atri actually just means a progression of how someone becomes a brahmin (he does not accept someone as Brahmin just by birth or profession).
*Murali* I completley agree with this.
According to him (my interpretation), just as far as a Shudra is from Brahmin, a newborn baby is also equally far from being a Brahmin. I disagree with Muni
Atri on the language used by him (By the way, is it part of Vedas?? I hope not).
*Murali*
I beg to differ with you here as ,new born baby has no knowledge of spiritual or any thing of that sort, He has to go through some samskaras and
studies , practises to become Brahmana and if he does not go through any he remains what he is and he will be suitable only for service jobs .
you can see that in the shloka ( i added now , which is the one referred in the text later, he has to go through samskaras to become dwija (twiceborn ).
Going by your undestanding it seems the problem is only with respect to how to refer to person before he acquires or choses any particular nature ?
"nothing" -
or
something ?
but "nothing" is not possible, since the person as soon as he enters in to this world he is influenced by different modes ,so he must be acting in one of the modes of nature predominantly
If some thing what should we refer to ?
based on his learnings Muni Atri has given this classification.
For your information, Muni Atri is father of Lord Dattatreya ( incarnation of trimurtis in one form).and the code of conduct referred here is part
of smriti as mentioned in the blog already.
Just like no-one can be a brahmin at birth, I believe no-one can be Shudra by birth either. You have to "serve the society" in order to become a Shudra.
Ignorance does not make you Shudra. It is the service profession, that can make you Shudra.
*Murali*
I differ with you prabhuji, because per bagavadGita, it is some thing to do with nature( Guna) and work,then why you are talking about only work here?
As you mentioned earlier, BagavadGita clearly defines how a person is brahmana or sudra , and we can clearly see that ,Guna or nature is some thing to do
with Knowledge a person has acquired( which will determine which mode sattva or rajas or tamas he will act or predominantly ),so Muni atri's explanation fits very well in
the context.
I have to make one more point here, it slides in to the discussion of 3 modes of nature which is again a big subject itself...so .......
If Geeta were to be crystal clear we would not have this discussions. It is at times pardoxical and tries to tease our brains. "Logic" cuts into long conversation.
Post a Comment