Posted on: 17 Jun 2018
Shri Hrushikesh Asked:
1) Dear Swami, To one of your discourses on Veda and concept of Human incarnation shared on the Facebook group Sanathana Dharma.
[Saurabh Attri Paliwal argues that Human incarnation concept is against the veda. Please find his argument below.
Veda says god is unborn and formless. He had some some limitations like other human beings, he left his motherland to save his people from the wrath of jarasandh army (because it was too big as compared to yadavas' army ). He was a smart person but not god , the concept of incarnation is against veda . And our brutal history proved this fact. so why do u think krishna was god ?
I request you to enlighten us with your sweet words.]
Swami replied: The Veda says “Yamaivaisha vrunute tena labhyah, tashyaisha aatmaa vivrurnute tanuum svaam”. This means God comes mediated for the sake of devotees aspiring to see Him only and God appears through the appearing medium. Human incarnation is understood by those devotees only, who prayed God to appear before them for clarification of doubts and for their service to Him. Other souls can’t identify Him since they believe in the unimaginable God only, who can’t be even imagined by brain. Such souls can’t meditate upon the unimaginable God except to know that such God exists (Astiityeva… Veda). Such souls suffer with ego and jealousy towards a co-human form and hence, can’t ever accept human incarnation of God due to repulsion between common media (common human bodies having same common properties like eating etc., and God will not interfere with these common properties of medium just like the current in electrified wire doesn’t interfere with the properties of the wire like leanness etc.). God prefers human form only to preach true spiritual knowledge and to clarify the doubts of the devotees (Maanusheem tanumaashritam— Gita). The four great statements of the Veda (Mahaavaakyaas) say that awareness is God and that God is myself, yourself and himself. The meaning is that God always takes human form, which is always associated with awareness (awareness can’t exist itself without a body). The spiritual knowledge of God is taken as awareness just like a jewel is taken as gold. In fact, the awareness here doesn’t mean mere awareness (like lump of Gold) but, it means the special spiritual knowledge (like the jewel with special design). The followers of monism (Advaita) took this special jewel as lump of gold and everybody with or without knowledge became God! Myself, Yourself and himself (in Mahaavaakyas) mean that the human form of God looks like any other human form like myself, yourself and himself as far as the visible medium is concerned. The Veda also says that God entered His creation and became it while maintaining its original form (Tadevaanupraavishat.., satcha tyatchaabhavat— Veda). This means that God remains in His original place (Sat) and simultaneously becomes the medium (tyat) also due to His unimaginable power. You should not say that God entered the entire creation and became it. In such case, God becomes totally responsible for all the sins done in this world. If I say that he has entered his house, it doesn’t mean that he is everywhere in the house since it can mean also that he is in a room of his house. God enters a devoted human body along with its soul and this is told by the Veda (Dvaa suparnaa...) as two friendly birds sitting on the same tree. If one can’t tolerate the contemporary human form of God, he can worship the energetic incarnations like God Shiva, God Vishnu etc., represented by statues. A devotee travelled certain distance towards human incarnation can worship statues representing past human incarnations. If he doesn’t like form, he can worship light etc. as the representative model of God (Pratiika). Krishna showed cosmic vision to Arjuna in which He is killing all the Kauravas along with their huge army. Can’t He kill the petty army of Jaraasandha in a fraction of second? As per divine boon, Jaraasandha is to be killed by Bhima. You shall not judge the total personality by a single incident without going into it deeply also. Who said that God is born when the incarnation is born. The birth is for the medium only. You say that God is formless. This is also wrong because He is beyond form like earth and formless objects like space. Both form and formless are the items of creation and the creator-God is beyond creation since He is unimaginable. This unimaginable God is identified with a medium having birth and form (Prakrutim svaam... Gita). In this Gita verse, God says that though He has no birth, He is born in view of the birth of His medium.
2) Dear Swami, Please find the reply to the answer that you gave to Mr. Raghavendra Rao on his arguments on condemning upanayanam based on the Caste system and Gender.
[Swami: Your opponent has not given any argument on this except saying that this is not accepted by Vedanta-Sutras and commentators of Vedanta. Without logical analysis, we can’t accept any portion of any scripture since there is every possibility of insertion by some selfish people.>
Raghavendra Rao: What kind of guru will claim that selfish people can insert material in śruti? I already quoted śruti showing that varṇa is based on birth. Everyone accepts śruti as 100% pristine. Again, that mantra:
तद्य इह रमणीयचरणा अभ्याशो ह यत्ते रमणीयां
योनिमापद्येरन्ब्राह्मणयोनिं वा क्षत्रिययोनिं वा वैश्ययोनिं
वाथ य इह कपूयचरणा अभ्याशो ह यत्ते कपूयां
योनिमापद्येरञ्श्वयोनिं वा सूकरयोनिं वा
चण्डालयोनिं वा ॥ छ.उ. ५.१०.७ ॥
"Among them, those who have good residual results of action here (earned in this world and left as residue after the enjoyment in the region of the moon), quickly reach a good womb, the womb of a Brāhmaṇa, or of a Kṣatriya or of a Vaiśya. But those who have bad residual results of action quickly reach an evil womb, the womb of a dog or of a hog or of a Caṇḍāla." (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 5.10.7) [translated by Swami Swahananda]
Swami repled:- In the Veda, only 7 meters like Trishtup, Bruhati, Gayatri etc., were only used. In the Shrisuktam, which is from Khilabhaaga (lost part), latest meters like Shardulavikriditam, Sragdhara (Lakshmiim Kshiira..., Yaasaa...) are used leading to the doubt of latter insertions. Kalidasa wrote a verse in Vedic meter in Shaakuntalam, which exactly looks like Veda! Whether insertions were done or not, we are not bothered about it. If any concept is told by God, it shall be logical and hence, the concept will successfully pass through logical analysis and shall not depend on some foolish interpretation given by somebody whom we like! Why do you fear for analysis if it is true? Statements of Upanishats (Veda) were analyzed by several commentators in different ways.
I am again and again telling that in the above Vedic part, the caste by birth or by qualities is not specifically mentioned. It says that the soul is born in a suitable caste based on its qualities and deeds. It means that qualities and deeds are the basis for the classification of caste system. All the souls are issues created by God. All are sons of God (Aham bijapradah pitaa… Gita). All the four sons are born to the same father. Then, based on your argument of caste by birth, all the four sons must have the same caste by birth. The sons of same father and of same caste can be divided based on their qualities and professional deeds. One may become teacher, one may become soldier, one may become a business man and one may become farmer. The father divided them in to four castes based on their qualities and professions. The son of the soldier or farmer may become teacher and belongs to teaching community or caste. If you go to the root level, caste by birth can’t stand at all since all the souls are born or created by the same Divine Father and all will get the same caste of God by birth. The difference between castes can come only by the qualities and deeds only and never by birth. All are the issues of God only by birth and will get the same caste of God as per your theory itself.
All the teachers are related to face, which has brain and mouth. All soldiers are related to hands having strength to fight. All merchants dealing with wealth are related to thighs (since Goddess Lakshmi or wealth sits on His thigh). All the farmers denoting physical work on soil are related to feet (which walk on the soil) of God. Do you say that the feet of God are low, from which the pious Ganga River is born? Every devotee salutes to the divine feet only. Not only the sons get the caste of father, but also, grandsons etc., get the caste of their grandfather only. The different limbs are related to different activities based on qualities and belong to the same divine body.
[Swami: Upanayanam:- i) Means becoming close to God (by yoga). ii) Means putting the three threads as cross belt (ruudhi).
Gaayatri:- i) Means God protecting the person, who sings-Gaayantam traayate (yoga). ii) Means God protecting the person, who recites a specific hymn written in the meter called as Gayatri (ruudhi).
Raghavendra Rao: None of this changes the fact that upanāyaṇam is for twice-born males only. It isn't a question of what I want or don't want. This is what has been followed for centuries, and claiming otherwise is nothing more than historical revisionism.
Raghavendra Rao: Your guru claims I have given no śāstric proof. Well, the burden of proof is on the challenger to tradition. Where is the śāstra that says that upanāyaṇam can be given to women and śūdras?
His whole argument is predicated on a false assumption, namely, that reserving upanāyaṇam for certain classes somehow privileges them. That is incorrect. Everyone has their prescribed duties, and those duties all lead to the same Bhagavān. Upanāyaṇam is a responsibility and, contrary to your guru's claims, Viṣṇu Purāṇa explicitly states that Kali-Yuga, women and śūdras are blessed because they do not have the responsibility to perform Vaidika-karmas, therefore they cannot incur sin from their improper performance or non-performance.
The evidence for this (too many ślokas to quote, you need to read the entire chapter) is here: http://www.sacred-texts. com/hin/vp/vp157.htm]
Swami replied:-
1) A wrong concept cannot have strength of past time in the name of tradition. The concept can be right only if the argument supports it. Shankara says that darkness standing in a closed house for centuries, can’t have legal right of position of rent act. It will run away as soon as the truth established by logic enters the house by opening the door in a minute!
2) Scripture says “puraakalpetu naariinaam maunjiibandhana mishyate”, which means that in ancient times, females were having the Upanayanam. Again it is said “Janmanaa jaayate shuudrah, karmanaa jaayate dvijah”, which means that everybody is born as Shudra and everybody becomes Brahmana by practice (qualities and deeds). Shudra means the soul weeping for materialism due to ignorance (shoati iti). Every child of every caste weeps in child hood due to ignorance and is called as shudra. ‘Everybody (sarvah)’ shall be common borrowed item for both the lines as per Sanskrit grammar. The meaning of the word of Upanayanam is ‘becoming close to God’ by propagating spiritual knowledge, which leads people to God (Brahma nayati iti). Krishna was not Brahmana by birth as per your theory, belonging to Yadavaas (B.C.). He preached the Gita, the universal spiritual knowledge and led several people to God and is the real Brahmana decided by qualities and deeds. Even though the responsibility lies on the petitioner, the responsibility of reply lies with the respondent or defendant also.
3) You agree that all can reach Bhagavan. Ok. There is no quarrel. We will reach God in our version of Upanayanam (becoming close to God) and Gayatri (singing songs on God). As long as you don’t object our path leading to God, we don’t object your path of Upanayanam and Gayatri in your versions (putting three threads and initiating a hymn written in Gayatri meter). You must agree that your version is Ruudhi (forcibly imposing some unrelated meaning on the word without examining the root meaning of the word) only and is not connected to Yoga (connecting the meaning through the meaning of the root word). You have to decide that whether Ruudhi gives the true meaning or Yoga. We are sure of our version since our version is purely based on the meanings of the words (yoga). In view of this, you are requested to review your version since Ruudhi is not correct. If you are rigid about your path, I prostrate to your feet and say good bye. If you review your version for the sake of your own welfare only without bias and prejudice to blind tradition without analysis, we are happy since we wish all shall become close to God through the true path.
4) I searched the link for evidence from your side, but, could not find it. please pass it on directly.
[Swami: While answering the question that whether God is partial to some souls only, your opponent said that only female is delivering the child and only Kshatriya is fighting in the war. Both these are dissimilar examples. Only female can deliver the child.
Raghavendra Rao: Your guru glossed over the point that this is an example, by his own logic, of God being partial to men, since only women are designed to carry children. So if you argue that having different prescribed duties means that God is partial to some varṇas, then you must agree that God is partial to men because men do not have to bear children. When your logic leads to untenable conclusions, you should examine whether that logic is something you still want to cling to.]
Swami replied:- I could not follow what exactly you mean to say. I told that both (female delivering issues and soldier fighting in the war) are dissimilar because female has no option except to deliver the child and anybody having courage and strength can become soldier irrespective of his birth as Kshatriya or from any other caste. Natural inevitability exists in the first example whereas, in the second example, such natural inevitability that only Kshatriya can fight doesn’t exist. What I meant was that Kshatriya (by birth) is not to fight inevitably like the female delivering the child inevitably. Your above argument is obscure to Me. Please clarify your statement in detail. A Kshatriya by birth need not necessarily fight in the war since Uttarakumara, son of king Viraata, ran away on seeing the war and hence, is not Kshatriya by qualities. Drona, a Brahmana born by birth fought in marvelous way! Similarly, Vishvaamitra, a Kshatriya by birth preached spiritual knowledge and hence, is Brahmana, who is the sage of your so called Gayatri hymn.
[Swami: The opponent said that in the Gita even though it is said that caste system is created by God based on qualities and deeds, it means not qualities and deeds of the present birth whereas it means qualities and deeds of previous birth.
Raghavendra Rao: Yes, that is obvious. If you feel it is "present birth," then explain why Arjuna, who had performed great austerities, and who was uninterested in the kingdom, was still coaxed into fighting the war. Why was he not then and there promoted to Brāhmin status based on his current guṇa and karma?
In fact, if current guṇa and karma (and not birth) determine one's varṇa, then how does one determine what one's sva-dharmas are?
In the West, there is an organization called ISKCON which initiated large numbers of Westerners as Brāhmins citing their view that they had become so based on "guṇa and karma" of their present birth. Then many of them became degraded and committed all kinds of inauspicious acts. So.... were they ever Brāhmins, or were they not, based on their present birth guṇa and karma. And if someone can mistakenly think them to Brāhmins when they were not, then what are the implications for anyone else claiming they can designate who is and is not a Brāhmin?]
Swami replied:-
1) Arjuna was a warrior from the beginning and never preached spiritual knowledge to anybody at any time to become Brahmana. He came to the war and dropped from it seeing close relatives like Bhishma (Grandfather) etc. He did not say that he is dropping from the war based on the spiritual knowledge. Hence, he is a Kshatriya by qualities and deeds. Once the caste is fixed by qualities and deeds, one shall not deviate from his duties of his caste fixed by qualities and this is Svadharma (Svadharme nidhanam… Gita) or the duty of the caste fixed by qualities already. Krishna also says that the nature (qualities) will make him to fight (prakrutistvaam niyokhyati) and not his Kshatriya caste by birth. There are no past deeds based on qualities that decide his caste to be Brahmana.
2) If the people based on their present qualities and deeds are given the Brahmana caste and if they are degraded, they are no more Brahmanas. Are you sure that everybody born in Brahmana caste by birth is not degraded? As per you, the soul according to good qualities in the previous birth is only born in Brahmana-caste. If so, why such soul born as Brahmana by birth is also degraded? We will call any upgraded soul as Brahmana and degraded soul as Shudra irrespective of his birth. Then, you need not brood over that a Brahmana decided by qualities is degraded. If he is degraded, he goes to the lower caste since our caste system is purely based on the qualities and deeds present in this moment.
[Swami: Objection to his version is: In the Gita, it is said that caste system is created by God based on qualities and deeds of the soul. It is not mentioned whether the qualities and deeds are of this birth or of previous birth.
Raghavendra Rao: The Chāndogya Upaniṣad I quoted earlier explicitly mentions the qualities and deeds of the previous birth. Surely your guru agrees that the Gītā should be interpreted in a way that makes it consistent with śruti.]
Swami replied:- If you are consistent of your side only that the caste is by birth, I am also consistent to say you that Shruti does not specify the caste in which the soul is born (by its previous qualities), is surely by birth only. ‘By birth’ is not specified in Shruti. It can be the caste by qualities and in fact, it is, based on various arguments already given by Me in the previous reply.
[Swami: Suppose, your version is correct, in such case, the quality of spiritual preaching of a soul must always bring it to the caste of Brahmanas (by birth) only. Then, every member of the Brahmana family (by birth) must have been spiritual preacher only (The meaning of the word ‘Brahmana’ is that the person leading the society towards God through spiritual preaching- Brahma nayati iti). But, we are not finding this in the world. There are several Brahmanas, who are not interested in spiritual preaching and are interested in other professions with corresponding qualities.
Raghavendra Rao: This argument bears no weight. Of course a person born a Brāhmin should take up Brāhmin profession. This is why Uddālaka tells his son to study Veda:
श्वेतकेतुर्हारुणेय आस तँ ह पितोवाच श्वेतकेतो
वस ब्रह्मचर्यं न वै सोम्यास्मत्कुलीनोऽननूच्य
ब्रह्मबन्धुरिव भवतीति ॥ छ.उ. ६.१.१ ॥
“Om. Once upon a time there was one Śvetaketu, the grandson of Aruṇa. His father said to him, 'O Śvetaketu, live the life of a Brahmachārin. Dear boy, there never is anyone in our family who does not study and is only nominally a Brāhmaṇa.’" (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.1.1.) [translated by Swami Swahananda]
If birth does not designate one as a Brāhmin, then how did the father know to tell him to study? ]
When a Brāhmin does not perform his prescribed duties, he isn't demoted to some other varṇa. See the example of Ajāmila in Bhāgavatam sixth skandha. Or, you can look at the examples of Drona and Aśvatthāma, who were Brāhmins even though they took up arms and behaved like kṣatriyas. If your guru is right, then why doesn't Mahābhārata describe them as kṣatriyas? The fact of the matter is, a person's varṇa is based on his birth and the actions he performs are judged according to the standard that is expected of him based on his birth-varṇa. So, if he does not perform his prescribed duties, he incurs sin. See the Viṣṇu Purāṇa I quoted earlier which shows how, based on this fact, women and śūdras are actually at an advantage in Kali-Yuga.]
Swami replied:-
1) When a caste is fixed by qualities and deeds, in such caste also, naturally, the father is interested to pass on the duties of his caste (decided by qualities) to his issue (son or daughter). When a father encourages his son to learn the talents of his caste (decided by qualities), it is not a proof for the caste existing by birth. A teacher will naturally encourage his son to become teacher so that he will pass on his teaching talents to his son. If the son learns teaching talents and becomes teacher, we say that the son became teacher by his talented qualities received from his father and you can’t say that he became a teacher because he was just a son of a teacher. Even if the father-teacher tries to make his son as teacher, the son may not become teacher due to lack of interest in teaching profession. The son may become a farmer and belongs to farmers’ community. There is no rule that the son of a teacher must become teacher and to become teacher is his duty. If you say that women and Shudras have advantage in Kali Yuga, it means that they were in disadvantage in previous ages and the sin comes to you for avoiding advantage to them. However, don’t bother about the sin since the sin is unreal because you have not actually taken away the advantage from them. Your version of Upanayanam and Gayatri is not real due to your rigid Ruudhi in absence of yoga. You have taken away the unreal advantage from them and they were in real advantage following our version through yoga. All of them sang songs on God (Gayatri) and became close to God (upanayanam). You have left the real meaning of these words and stuck to a false rigid version forced by rigid ancestors. You are always in the disadvantage whereas females and shudras are always in advantage by following the real meaning of these words. It is said that if you try to spoil others, you will be spoiled.
2) If the path of Shudras and females is more advantageous, why don’t you follow the same path without clinging to your traditional path, which has lesser advantage as per your words only! Ajaamila was the son of a Brahmana, which means that his father was Brahmana by his qualities. Ajaamila is Brahmana by birth (this means that Ajaamila is born to a Brahmana by qualities). The Veda (Brahmabandhuriva...) calls people like Ajaamila as Brahma bandhu (means that he is related as son to Brahmana by qualities) and not a real Brahmana. Drona was also Brahma bandhu since he was the son of sage Bharadwaaja, who was a Brahmana by qualities. Killing Drona was not told as sin coming by murdering Brahmana (Brahmahatyaa paapam). Ashvatthaama was also Brahma bandhu since his grandfather was a real Brahmana by qualities. This nomenclature is given by the Veda.
[Swami: But, if the souls having qualities in the previous birth are always given the birth in corresponding castes (by birth) only, we also find spiritual preachers born in other castes like ‘Sūta’, a low-caster person, who was made the president of sacrifice by all the sages due to his special knowledge of the Vedas.
Raghavendra Rao: Please provide śāstric pramāṇa for this. If you are talking about the story from the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, I can tell you that this example does not support your argument, because the individual in question who was a śūdra, was not promoted to the status of a Brāhmaṇa.]
Swami replied:- The story of Sūta is in the Bhagavatam, which is very famous since the Bhagavatam is known to every devotee. What is the story from Satapatha Brahmana that you want to give to oppose this? Please be clear.
[Swami: You tell that Shankara, as a commentator also supported caste by birth only, Shankara also told that one may be a Brahmana or Chandaala by birth, but, if he is having spiritual knowledge, he must be treated as spiritual preacher or Guru (Chandaalostu satu dvijostu Gururityeshaa...).
Raghavendra Rao: I don't know where he said that, since you gave no explicit reference. However the fact remains that he NEVER said that such a person becomes a Brāhmin. Thus, you have not actually proven your argument.
It is a fact that Śaṅkarācārya wrote in his Vedānta-sūtra commentary that śūdras are not eligible to study the Vedas. In fact, all major commentators have taken that position. So far, I have not seen any convincing evidence or argument to the contrary. Saying that someone can be spiritually advanced despite low-birth (a possibility which śāstras and orthodox commentators all agree upon) is not the same thing as saying he becomes a Brāhmin, can get upanāyaṇam, and can study Veda.]
Swami replied:- The Manishapanchakam of Shri Shankara is very famous in our Hindu tradition. Guru means preacher of spiritual knowledge to remove the ignorance and Brahmana means the spiritual preacher leading all people to God. Guru means removal of ignorance and Brahmana means leading all to God through preaching of spiritual knowledge. Both the words mean one and the same. We are calling somebody as Brahmana through the meaning of this word (Yoga). You are fixing this word on a person, who is born as Brahmana in a chain of caste decided by birth only irrespective of the qualities (Ruudhi). Again, you say that Upanayanam means putting three threads and repeating a hymn written in Gayatri meter (Ruudhi). We say that Upanayanam means becoming close to God (Upa samiipam Brahmano niiyate anena iti) through Gayatri meaning singing devotional songs on God (Gayantam traayate iti) and our version is based on yoga. If your version is valid, why a saint throwing away the cross belt and stopping recitation of Gayatri hymn is regarded to be highest by all castes of Hinduism? Why such a saint is treated as highest ripened in knowledge? Mandanamishra insisted on cross belt whereas Shankara insisted upon spiritual knowledge. Shudras by qualities can be prevented from the Vedic scripture since they are worried (Shochati iti Shuudrah) more about materialism and spoils the interest of devotees on God. Here, again, Shudra means the person opposing the spiritual knowledge and not by birth. Sūta was a low-caste personr and due to his special knowledge of the Vedas, he was selected as president (Brahma) of the sacrifice performed by sages. Shankara also said in the commentary on first Brahma Sutra that the required four qualities have no relevance with caste. Ramanuja climbed the wall of temple and announced the holy mantra to all castes and when His guru told that He will go to hell, He told that He is prepared to go to hell.
[Swami: Your intension is that the soul in the previous birth having spiritual knowledge is born in Ist category only.
Raghavendra Rao: No, that is a strawman argument. The point is, one gets a birth based on the kind of consciousness one has developed from his previous life. If he has an excess of sattva, he is more like to get a Brāhmin birth, and so on. This means only that he has a sāttvik consciousness at birth, NOT that he keeps it throughout his life. To cultivate sattva one has to follow the prescribed duties, or else the consciousness becomes more rājāsic or tamāsic and will lead to a lower birth in the next life.
Ajāmila was a Brāhmin despite all the sinful activities he performed, but his status was based on birth. He did not enjoy any respect as a Brāhmin because of his degraded nature, but that does not mean he became a śūdra. The text nowhere states that he became śūdra or mleccha or lower.]
Swami replied:- We agree that Ajaamila became degraded and still he is to be considered as Brahmana by birth (Brahma bandhu) since throughout his birth, he remains as the son of a real Brahmana by qualities. As soon as he is degraded, he is called as Chandaala by deeds (Janma Braahmanah, Karma chandaalah). Once he is degraded, he is no more Brahmana by qualities and deeds and can’t be called as Brahmana by practice (karma braahmanah). Four categories result:- 1) Brahmana by birth and by practice (Janma Braahmanah, Karma Braahmanah) 2) Brahmana by birth and Chandaala by practice (Janma Braahmanah, Karma Chandaalah) 3) Chandaala by birth and by practice (Janma chandaalah, karma chandaalah) and 4) Chandaala by birth and Brahmana by practice (Janma chandaalah Karma Braahmanah). I think, you will not oppose this since it is a fair classification based on facts and no fact can be opposed blindly because the adjectives like Janma (birth) and karma (practice) are accepted truths. But, My friend! Remember one point that if Ajaamila’s father was also a chandaala by qualities, Ajaamila becomes chandaala by qualities and chandaala by birth also. However, if you say that the original sage of the chain (Gotra) of forefathers of Ajaamila was a real Brahmana by qualities, we will allow this also, by saying that Ajaamila is chandaala by qualities and Brahmana by birth referring to the original sage (Gotra). In this way, even if all forefathers of Ajaamila up to the original sage were chandaalas by qualities, we will say that Ajaamila and his forefathers were chandaalas by qualities and Brahmanas by birth referring to the original sage of that dynasty. But, tell Me, My dear friend! What is that you have achieved by this? Do you think that the good qualities of the original sage are coming down through the genes? No. Science says that genes transfer only certain mannerisms and not the qualities! I am sorry to disappoint you like this. Mannerisms have no value at all.
[Swami: Regarding Satya Kaama Jaabaala:- Satya Kaama is decided as Brahmana by the preacher based on his quality observed, which is speaking truth. This directly supports our argument that the caste is decided by qualities in the case where there is doubt of birth
Raghavendra Rao: No it doesn't. You are misinterpreting the mantra - all of the Vedānta commentators disagree with you. Satyakāma was determined to be Brāhmin by birth because his guru could perceive that elevated lineage by the way he spoke the truth. Saying that speaking truth makes you a Brāhmin is wrong. Many other non-Brāhmins were renowned for speaking truth - Yudiṣṭhira, Rāma, etc - none of them were described as Brāhmins. Moreover, guru Hāridrumāta Gautama asked Satyakāma for his gotra - that is a hereditary designation, and if upanāyaṇam is meant for everyone, then it makes no sense to ask for gotra, and even less sense for not knowing the gotra to be any kind of issue.]
Swami replied:- What is the use of finding Gotra, which speaks about the original sage from whom the dynasty came down when his qualities cannot come in to dynasty through genes? The genes of the dynasty will never transfer the qualities from sage to the members of that dynasty. If the Gotra can help us in inferring certain hidden good qualities in Satyakaama, which were passed down from the sage, it can be of some useful information. When there is no connection between the Gotra and qualities, why so much strain is taken in finding out his Gotra? Still if you are searching for Satyakaama to be called as Brahmana by birth with reference to the original sage, we have no objection, which is the most useless information since qualities are not transferred by the genes of the sage in his dynasty. Satyakaama is already found as Brahmana by qualities like truth in speech and based on this, he can be called as real Brahmana.
[Swami: Your opponent said that everybody knows that the Brahmana (by birth) speaks truth only.
Raghavendra Rao: I never said this. This is a strawman argument. I said that it was the way he spoke the truth that allowed Gautama to determine his lineage. All Vedānta commentators quote this episode to support their view that śūdras cannot study the Vedas. It seems to have escaped your notice that Gautama was asking him his gotra to determine his eligibility for such study. That contradicts your theory that upanāyaṇam is meant for everyone.]
Swami replied:- If the Shuudra is by qualities, certainly, he shall not be allowed to enter the study of the Veda because he opposes the spiritual knowledge since the meaning of the word shuudra is anybody, who is worried about materialism only. Such person will spoil the interest of devotees on the Veda and hence, devotees must be far from him. But, remember that such shuudra is not by birth and is by qualities and deeds only. However, if you take a shuudra by birth, who is interested in spiritual knowledge by qualities, it will be greatest sin if you object him to study the Veda. What is the meaning of the Veda? It means only knowledge (Vidul- Jnaane). What do you mean by the word Adhyayana or study? The verb Ayana means knowledge and the prefix Adhi means fixed in knowledge. Study doesn’t mean blind recitation of the Veda without knowing its meaning. Hence, it is said that the Veda shall be studied and known (Adhyetavyo jneyashcha). The Veda means knowledge. Adhyayana means knowledge. Jneya means knowledge. Thrice stress is given on knowledge and not on mere recitation or the language in which the knowledge exists. Hence, the Veda means the knowledge of a Vedic statement and not mere the Vedic statement in Sanskrit language irrespective of its meaning. For example, let us take a Vedic statement “Satyam vada dharmam chara”. Do you mean that prohibition from the Vedic study means that the above statement shall not be recited as it is in Sanskrit or the meaning of the above statement shall not be known? The meaning of the above statement is “speak truth and do justice”. When anybody knows this meaning even in other language like English, he has studied the Veda since the concept (knowledge) spoken by the Veda is known by which the concept can be practiced in life. If a shuudra by birth knows this meaning in his own language and practices it, he has really studied the Veda. A Brahmana by birth, not knowing this meaning due to blind recitation or even knowing this meaning doesn’t practice this in life, has not really studied the Veda. Practice (Aachaara) means knowledge as said by Shankara (Gatyarthaanaam dhaatuunaam jnaanaarthakatvaat). When the knowledge of the above Vedic statement is said even in other language, such statement in other language is also the Veda since the Veda means the knowledge of the concept and not mere language. You may recite the same statement written in Vedic meter called as Veda. You read the same meaning in other verse written in worldly meter in the same Sanskrit language by the name Smruti (Puraanoktam) to which a shuudra by birth is eligible as per your blind tradition also. When the meaning is exactly same, even though languages are different, we call both Shruti and Smruti as one and same. What is that you are achieving by prohibiting shuudra by birth to simply a language? Is it logical? Is it justified? You think by your consciousness with open mind! The prohibition of shuudra to the Veda means prohibition of an opponent opposing the knowledge of the Veda. Such opponent is shuudra by qualities and not by birth.
[Swami: Advice to your opponent:- Your opponent is advised not to use comments based on ego. The comments like ‘have you read the Gita?’ can be avoided, which are unnecessary, if you stick to the logic of your arguments strictly
Raghavendra Rao: I disagree. It's a fair question to pose to someone who claims he has understood what the text is saying. And i note that you never bothered to answer it, which I find telling.]
Swami replied:- I once again repeat that I have answered every bit of your question with lot of patience without losing temper anywhere. Temper generates such unnecessary personal remarks, which are not connected to the point of subject. Shankara told that the first quality required to study the Brahma Sutras dealing with the Veda (Upanishats) is patience without losing temper (shamadamaadi saadhana shadguna sampattih). If you are rigid in your own fixed way without opening your mind to the other side, even God can’t help you and this is said by sages (evam mamaanubhava iti vaktaaram nahi indropi shaknoti nivaarayitum). I understood your rigid mentality and tried to speak truth in your own language also since I love you also. In fact, I am more concerned about you.
[Swami: A person, not having strength on his side only uses such unnecessary comments to discourage opponent. The result of the logical debate itself will decide who has read the Gita and who has not read the Gita and who has understood the Gita and who has not understood the Gita.
Raghavendra Rao: Based on our discussion to date, my impression is that you have very superficial knowledge of what the Gītā and Upaniṣads are saying. Which just goes back to the point that, instead of arguing on Facebook about something you obviously know nothing about, wouldn't your time be better spent reading these texts for what they are actually saying, instead of reading into them what you want them to say?
Jithendra Pandey: Raghavendra rao , do you know Vedas more than Swami Dayanand did ? Or more then Swami Vivekananda did ?
Raghavendra Rao: Arguing based on the spiritual superiority of your guru or acharya is sentimental. Vedas are the main pramāṇa and if someone says something that is against Vedas, we don't give him a pass merely because he wears saffron robes and has "Swami" in his name.
You can choose to do that if you want. It's the guru's responsibility to know the Vedas. It's not my responsibility to accept an incorrect interpretation of the Vedas merely because the person giving it insists on being accepted as a guru. A proper guru will not contradict the Vedas at all.
Kindly enlighten us with your knowledge blessings.
A Dust particle in your creation, Hrushikesh]
Swami replied:- This is called as EXTRA! Did I ever say that you must follow My argument since My name is Swami and since I wear saffron cloths? The mediator (Jithendra Pandey) simply introduced Swami Dayaananada and Swami Vivekaananda, who spoke about the same subject in Hinduism. You shall ask him about their points of view on this subject for further discussion with open mind. He did not mention My name and mentioned only the names of above two scholars. Without commenting on them, you have unnecessarily attacked Me! There are several names containing the word Swami like Rama Swamy, Krishna Swamy, Subrahmanya Swamy, etc. There are several beggars wearing saffron cloth for filling their stomachs as said by Shankara (udaranimittam...). Shall I also accept your logic with faithful devotion since your name is that of the great devotee Raghavendra Swamy, who also unfortunately possesses the word ‘Swamy’! When the temper comes, ignorance predominates as said by the Gita (Krodhaat bhavati sammohah). You think that you are alone the scholar of the Vedas! A scholar told that he alone is scholar (Ahameva Panditah...). After ripening of knowledge, he told that he is also a scholar (Ahamapi panditah…). All of us are accepting the same Veda as authority. We have different interpretations on the same Vedic statement. There are several commentaries on the same Vedic statement. A deep logical discussion must be done to know which interpretation is correct and which interpretation is wrong. You say that you follow the Veda only, which means that we are not following the Veda and that we are against Veda! We also follow the same Veda and we are not contradicting the original Veda since we are contradicting only an interpretation, which is proved wrong in impartial and emotionless discussion, which is based on a single aim of finding out the true interpretation of the Veda. My friend! Don’t be fast in retorting others. Take some time and think patiently about the other side also. If you realize that other side is correct, you are benefited by knowing the truth and not the other side at all, which already knows the truth. Wish you good spiritual path. — Datta Swami
3) Dear Swamiji, One of the spiritual aspirant Mr. Basudeba Mishra requested you to answer the following questions. He has read your discourse on unimaginable God and asked the following questions.
[a ) Is space God? What is infinity?
b ) Can we not touch smoke through our body? Even we feel air due to touch with our body. Then how can stream of the smoke be infinite? By your logic, fire should be infinite because all smoke are not associated with fire, and hence we cannot touch it making it unimaginable. Thus, according to you, smoke should be infinite and fire should also be infinite.
c ) If the universe is expanding, why is it not evident in local scales of the solar system or even the Galaxy? How do we see galactic mergers? How do you explain galactic blue shift? What is dark energy? All these show that the universe is not expanding, but spinning around a central axis. How do you explain it?
d ) What is space? How is space generated?
e ) How do you define a miracle? Are they subject to the laws of physics? If not what law governs them? What is the proof thereof? If space is unimaginable, how do you know about its boundaries? If we can know its boundaries, how can it be unimaginable?
The bending of space (spacetime curvature), if true, how do you explain the fact that only the space between the apple and the Earth bends bringing the apple to the ground and the branch underneath the apple or a bird flying in between are not affected by it?
I request you to kindly enlighten us.
Hrushikesh, A dust particle in your creation]
Swami replied:-
a)Space is imaginable and God is unimaginable. No imaginable item can be the unimaginable God. Space is subtle energy created by God as per the Veda. Infinite means the unimaginable boundary of world. Infinite doesn’t mean that the boundary of the world doesn’t exist at all. It exists, but, is not known by a person in reference. Infinity means existence of unknowable boundary and doesn’t mean non-existence of boundary.
b)I have given a simile for space and God by smoke and fire. A simile is in one aspect only and need not be in all aspects. If you follow the track of imaginable space (smoke), you will reach its unimaginable generator-God (fire). By this simile, fire need not be unimaginable.
c)Expansion of universe doesn’t mean expansion of the same universe already existing, in which case the density of the universe or space gets diminished leading to certain problems, which are not experienced by us. Expansion means addition of new parts of universe created by God so that the density of the already existing universe is not disturbed. All the items mentioned by you like merge of galaxies, existence of dark energy are the items of already existing universe and have no participation in expansion of universe.
d)As I told, space is subtle energy and not nothing existing relatively with reference to God and not with reference to matter and energy. If matter and energy disappear, space (subtle energy) can exist empty of matter and energy and not empty of itself. If space disappears, matter and energy must disappear since both these exist relatively with reference to space or subtle energy. The gross (detectable) energy and matter are forms of subtle energy only. Hence, space is not geometrical (Einstein said that space is geometrical following the language of science and as founder of theory of relativity, he knows that space is something, which bends along the boundary of an item). Imaginable space is generated from unimaginable God and the link between unimaginable and imaginable items is not known in the worldly logic, in which, we find only links between imaginable causes and imaginable products only. This link is, hence, unimaginable and hence, the process of generation of space from God is unimaginable.
e)Miracle is unimaginable event expressed from the unimaginable source called as unimaginable God, which is clearly seen by us in this world, if we have open mind to observe the perception.
Space is imaginable and finite. Since we are unable to reach the boundary (especially in view of its constant expansion by addition of new creations of space or universe constantly) we say that the boundary of infinite space is unimaginable in view of our relative reference and not in view of absolute reference of God (since God is omniscient, the boundary of the universe must be known to Him). The expansion of space or universe is not absolute concept, but is only a relative concept in view that the space is expanding so that we can never touch its boundary where unimaginable God exists. Hence, space is relatively infinite (in our reference) and is absolutely finite (in the reference of God).
f)Space bends along the boundary of an object. The object has also space in it and hence, the bending of space doesn’t affect the absolute nature of the space. The matter and awareness are modifications of space and every item (bird or branch of tree) is totally made of space (subtle energy) only. Apple falls on the ground based on the gravitational force.
4) Dear Swami, To one of your discourses on Veda and concept of Human incarnation shared on the Facebook group Sanathana Dharma.
Jossy Thomman has the following questions.
[He says The very attitude of authority of Veda is the darker than darkness of ignorance of ego ,the illusion of the I consciousness. There is no authority in Vedas and Upanishad . The very meaning of Vedas is ending the knowledge . Authority means knowledge .
The very authority and knowledge is the cause of ignorance of the ego the I consciousness. In Vedas and Upanishad there is no concept of God, but the moment you bring the idea of God the very understanding of Upanishad and Vedas ended up in the human limitation and created the idea of God and me the separation and duality begins ;result is the mental conflict and suffering . That is how the organised religion and belief of Hinduism become the unconscious movement of the mental prayers , rituals and worships. Great sages who lived in the forest shared their wisdom of understanding to the younger generation .They never talked about God , but they were taught and shared consciousness, awareness, and aliveness. Their understanding rooted in the Brahma the cosmic intelligence of the ultimate reality. Once Gita was taken over by Hinduism, and Hindus ,it become the collective unconsciousness of the humanity ,and that is why as long as one create the image of Hindu one can never transform the ego to the cosmic intelligence of the ultimate reality.
How can authority and knowledge can go beyond the mind,? beyond the ego ?
Regards, Hrushikesh, A Particle of Dust in your creation]
Swami replied:- I am glad that you have agreed in Brahma, the root cosmic intelligence, which we call as God. First of all, tell Me frankly that you are with open mind to find out the spiritual truth irrespective of the names of religions like Hinduism, Christianity etc. If you are not biased to any specific religion and cling to the basic spiritual knowledge existing in all religions, I can talk freely with you.
To decide any point in worldly matters or spiritual knowledge, enquiry through discussions, called as the stage of knowledge, is essential. Even now, we both are in that stage only. End of the knowledge comes only when correct decision is arrived at. The consciousness of I is essential as the basis to receive knowledge and to do anything. This is the basic ego and is not the pride, which is its over projection. Pride is wrong, but, basic ego is not wrong. High temperature is dangerous, but, normal temperature is essential basis of the life.
You seem to be more concentrated on the life in the world (Pravrutti) than development of personal relationship with God (Nivrutti). Exactly, God also wants the same. You can lead a peaceful and logical life if the society is disciplined without sin. For this discipline, the concept of existence of unimaginable God is very essential because everybody should be cautious about the unimaginable ways of unimaginable God to punish every sin even if one escapes the law of land through corruption and tricks. If the concept of God is deleted, the society will end in chaos and in such state, you will not be so peaceful to ask Me this question leisurely. Nivrutti is discouraged by God. God comes down as incarnation only to protect Pravrutti. Even the miracles exhibited by God through clear perception are also meant for the establishment of existence of unimaginable God by whom alone peace can be really restored.
5) Dear Swami, Mr. Vikash has responded to the discourse about the analysis of the veda in the following way. He argues that there is less time in Kaliyuga and it is why vedas are written and mantras are given. In satyug treta and dwapar yugas people used to live long.. long very long. Some thousands years and they have whole time to learn everything from basics but not now. That is why geeta is being said by lord krishna at the end of dwapar yug. How to tackle this argument.
[Please read the his opinion on the analysis in his words below
Writer seem to be half knowledged and just want to publish it..He was perhaps in a hurry ... He somewhere mentioned that you can see the scene where lord krishna tells geeta by mouth. Is he referring TV Serial Mahabharata for supporting his facts. Is he somehow a TV fan trying to prove things based on serials? So he talks about vedas authenticity basically. It is same like someone asking people to use fan , motors, exhaust fan, cooler etc only then if they only understand the principle of electromagnetism. But my friend some are from commerce and some from arts and some science students don't study in class. It doesn't mean that they can't use fans. They can. And if you want to learn before using it then your age is very less ..It is why vedas are written and mantras are given. In satyug treta and dwapar yugas people used to live long.. long very long. Some thousands years and they have whole time to learn everything from basics but not now. That is why geeta is being said by lord krishna at the end of dwapar yug .
I request you to enlighten us with your sweet words.
Regards, Hrushikesh, A Particle of Dust in your]
Swami replied:- You are talking unnecessary things based on a simple point told by Me that Krishna spoke the Gita through His mouth. Anybody speaks through mouth only and not through anus! What is the big point you have condemned? If you oppose this point by saying that I have seen T.V. Serials and want to publish my half knowledge, every reader will laugh at you saying that you shall go to a psychiatrist. You are simply mad, pointing out a big mistake in My saying that I have said that Krishna spoke the Gita through His mouth. You are making big sounds due to your little knowledge (at least, half knowledge is better than little knowledge) like a pot having little water in it (Alpo ghato ghoshamupaiati nuunam). I said this point because for the people who are seeing the scene of Krishna speaking to Arjuna, it may appear as if one human being is speaking through his mouth to another human being. By seeing the speech from the mouth of Krishna, one may think that the invisible-unimaginable God is not speaking whereas Krishna alone is speaking. Krishna is the external medium with whom God merged and God is speaking through the mouth of Krishna. This fact can’t be realized since we observe Krishna as the speaker speaking through His mouth. The soul of Krishna only speaks through the mouth of Krishna. Here, God merged with the soul of Krishna and is speaking through the mouth of Krishna. Hence, the speech is called as the Bhagavat Gita and not Krishna Gita. Without understanding the concept, you are speaking like a mad child! Not only child, but also, mad!
You said that fan can be used without knowing about electromagnetism. I doubt about your knowledge in the electromagnetism also since you speak about Mantras through which you can attain fresh air fast without any fan also. I am sure that some cheat has washed your brain through such false concept of Mantra to earn from you. Your pocket must have been empty by now like yourself! Please take care of your financial position since your vigour shows that you will be looted completely in short time. Mantra means that statement, which is repeated by you without any force or attraction to some ambition (Mananaat traayate iti mantrah…). If you utter again and again a poem or song on God that attracts your mind through presentation of divine personality of God without any ambition for fruit from God, such repeated poem or song is Mantra. God is pleased when you praise Him through such mantra. Anybody having little commonsense is eligible to study spiritual knowledge and education in commerce etc., is not required. Your comparison with fan is wrong. It is not like a fan that can be used by anybody by putting on its switch. The subject is to enquire deeply regarding the right path to reach God. Scholars are showing different paths, condemning each other. We have to discuss carefully about the correct path to please God. You can give another suitable example for this subject, which is that which school should be preferred for admitting your child. Different people are advising different schools and you have to analyse different advises and select the really best school. I am sure that you have no time since some cheat may advise you that if you recite a mantra for 100 times given by him after offering him Rs.100, without wasting time in analysis, you will go to some school and that will be really the best school due to the effect of Mantra! This will spoil the future of the child. I am very much concerned about you not only in the spiritual life but also in worldly life. God bless you by giving patience to find out true direction. – Datta Swami