Varna Vibhaga

By Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri


There is mix-up between svAbhAvika varNa (inherent varNa) and aupAdhika varNa(by birth). Then there is confusion about upanayana eligibility, Veda eligibility and Mukti eligibility.

There are two kinds of varNavibhaaga.
 
1. svAbhAvika varNa vibhAga. 
That is division of BrahmaNa, KShatriya, Vaishya and Shudra that is inherent to the Jiva i.e. based on svabhAva guNa and so continues even in moksha. This is applicable only to a section of humans and they are Raajasasaatvikas and Bhagavatas/Vaishnavas and so are all muktiyogyas. Veda adhikaara is not a prerequisite for mokSha.
 
2. AupAdhika varNa vibhAga. 
This is also called janma varNa or yoni bhedakR^ita varna. That is division of BrahmaNa, KShatriya, Vaishya and Shudra that is by birth. Any devata or Vaishnava naras(humans) or naraadhamas or tamoyogya daityas can be born in any of the varNas. Obviously this is a clear indication that aupAdhika varNa is not an indicator of either svAbhAvika varNa or moksha yogyate.
 
In all normal circumstances aupAdhika varNa is followed for performing samskAras. If people start claiming rights based on svAbhAvika varNa, things can go out-of-control. So, to guide and show, even devatas, when they take birth, follow the aupAdhika varNas to demonstrate to the world that it is the best way to do since a possibility to misuse the svAbhAvika varNa approach is averted and secondly there need not be any fear that absence of Veda adhikaara is a hindrance for moksha.
 
A claim that absence of Veda adhikaara is absence of moksha yogyata is a horrendous and sinful act as that is tantamount to saying that none of the women will go to moksha. It is like hitting on the face of Sri Madhvacharya and Sri Vedavyasa, since Sri Madhvacharya stated explicitly that Sri Vedavyasa composed Mahabharata for Veda anadhikari mokShayogya Jivas.
 
We have been extremely fortunate that our Moola granthas and the commentaries of our Acharya and our Guru Parampare have been very consistent in explaining these concepts clearly and unambiguously.
 
We have been extremely unfortunate that from time to time, there is emergence of certain people, who have the capacity to twist our Moola granthas and the commentaries of our Acharya and our Guru Parampare so as to create confusion thru partial quotes and misinterpretations galore. Apart from the loss of clarity and creation of ambiguity, this dangerous act breeds hatred, casts division and leaves a bad taste that can make people either repulsive or rebellious. It can have detrimental effect of extremes like disbelief or cult mentality.
 
This is an open challenge to the people in PurvapakSha. They may not trust Sri Bannanje. That is fine. Let them go and check with any scholar – just a small partial list in random order –
 
Sri D. Prahladachar
Sri Haridas Bhat
Sri Nagasampige
Sri Satyatma Tirtharu
Sri Vidyasimhacharya
Sri Vishvesha Tirtharu
Sri Vidyadheesha Tirtharu
Sri Vidyesha Tirtharu
Sri Prabhanjanacharya
Sri Kurnool Acharya
 
Or any scholar they like. All the scholars will tell the same thing. It is a clearly stated concept. The scholars will get a shock of their lives that someone can twist such an obvious thing.
 
We can say "Upanayana eligibility" can lead to Upanayana getting done. If Upanayana is done, it gives Veda eligibility. But Veda eligibility is not a guarantee for mokSha.
 
PramANa: There were two Jivas in RavaNa (Jaya and RavaNa rAkShasa). That body had Veda adhikAra. Jaya was muktiyogya, but not the Rakshasa Jiva inside RavaNa's body, who was only andhaMtamo yogya.
 
One must first decide if it is about Upanayana adhikAra, or Veda adhikAra, or mokSha adhikAra.
 
Also, one must note the difference between Satva, rajas and tamas in the svabhava and those in PrakRuti or in the actions performed by the body.
 
Some give several pramanas, and make the claim that the same thing is told by Acharya Madhva, Sri Padmanabha tirtharu, Sri Tikacharyaru, Sri Sudhindraru, and finally Sri Rayaru. No wonder a common man falls flat thinking that it is true. 
 
When all the quotes are given, where is the issue?
 
The issue is not with the quotes. The issue is how the quotes are given, how the context and purpose have been concealed, how the interpretation has been made in a totally wrong fashion, and how a simple analysis is missed out as to how his interpretation will lead to enormous issues.
 
Their main premise is that the shudras don’t have Veda adhikAra and so, they are not eligible for mokSha. If their logic that absence of Veda adhikAra implies ineligibility for mokSha, then none of the ordinary women is eligible for mokSha, since ordinary women do not have Veda adhikAra. Is that not ridiculous? Added to that their position also implies that Acharya Madhva is all confused, he and all his parampare think that Sri Vedavyasa is on a wrong mission and what not. Why?
 
See what Acharya Madhva says in GitA bhAshya (upodghAta) –
 
“naSHTa dharmaj~nAnalokakR^ipALubhiH brahmarudrendraadibhiH arthitaH j~nAnapradarshanaaya bhagavaan vyaasaH avatataara | tatashcha iShTAniShTapraaptiparihaarasAdhanaadarshanaat vedaarthaaj~nAnAchcha samsaare klishyamaanaanaam vedaanadhikAriNAm strIshudrAdInam cha dharmaj~nAnadvaaraa moksho bhavediti kR^ipaaluH sarvavedaarthopabR^iMhitaaM tadanuktakevaleshvaraj~nAnadR^ishhTArthayuktAM cha, sarvaprANinAM
avagAhyAnavagAhyarUpAM kevalabhagavatsvarUpaparAM paroxArthAM
mahAbhAratasaMhitAmachIklR^ipat.h  | “
 
“There after(After Sri VedavyAsa has taken avataara), with the intention of granting mokSha to the women and shudras and others, who were unable to see the means of obtaining iShTarUpa mokSha and avoiding aniShTarUpa duHkha and being unaware of vedArtha, and suffering in samsAra, being ineligible for vedAs, the Highly Compassionate One Composed MahabhArata samhita, which elaborates sarva vedaartha, and the ones untold there and visible to only IshvarajnAna, filled with hidden meanings, containing both kinds of matter namely not completely graspable and also easily graspable and primarily propounding Bhagavat svarUpa.”
 
If shudras are not eligible for mokSha, then why is he bothering about writing Mahabharata? What is the meaning of above statement? If their interpretation were true, then Acharya Madhva says one thing here and totally opposite thing in Gita Bhashya ? And all his followers starting from Sri Padmanabha tirtharu, TIkacharyaru to Rayaru also do the same mistake of going against the intent of Sri Vedavyasaru? 
 
All of them must realize and understand one thing. Acharya Madhva and all the main TIkakaras and Tippanikaras are very consistent and will not commit the blunder of self-contradicting or contradicting one another.
 
How to take the statement “shudras are tAmasa”? 
 
It has been quoted out of context, stripping all the surrounding information. That is a relative statement, implying that among Rajas satva jIvas, they are more tAmasa than others. It does not mean that they are fully tAmasa and so ineligible for mokSha.
 
Where and how do we say that? It is all over. How could they, who claims to be a staunch followers of Sri Rayaru, commit such a big blunder of not seeing what is told in Gita Vivruti?
 
We will see all commentaries starting from Acharya to Rayaru.
 
Acharya's Bhashya says :
chaturvarNasamudaayaH | saatviko braahmaNaH | saatvikaraajasaH kShatriyaH | raajasataamaso vaishyaH | taamasaHshUdra iti guNavibhaagaH |
 
From this some concluded that Shudra is completely taamasa and so avaishnava and so not eligible for mokSha|
 
It is a pity, since they did has not understood the purpose, context and completeness of the pramaaNa. This is exactly the danger in the posts that pretend to give pramaaNas, but with completely wrong interpretation. Shudra is tAmasa among the category of rAjasa-sAtvikas.
 
Sri Padmanabha Tirtahru's Tika says -
 
“tatra shUdro vA anyo vA viShNubhaktashchetsAtvika eva | brAhmaNAdirapyavaiShNavashchettAmasa eva | “
 
“There whether it is Shudra or others, if they are Vishnubhaktas, then they are sAtvikas only. BrAhmNAs, etc, also if avaiShNavas, then they are tAmasas only.”
 
Teekacharyaru's Tika on Gita Bhashya is called Prameya deepika and not Bhashya deepika.
Look at the Tika of TikAcharyaru(PrameyadIpika)
 
“chaturvarNa iti | varNAshchatvAro guNAstrayaH |  'tatkathaM teshhu guNavibhAga' ityata Aha - “sAttvika” iti |  'rAjasasthasAttvikeshhvevAyaM vibhAga' iti j~nAtavyam.h | nirdeshaprAthamyAt.h xatriye rajasassattvamadhikaM | tata eva vaishye tamaso rajaH |  tachcha samasattvayutam.h | 'rajo.apexayA tamo.adhikaM shUdra' ityasau tAmasaH |  sattvaM tu tamaso.apyadhikam.h |” 
 
“Acharya says chaturvarNa samudaaya. VarNas are four, guNas are three - So how can guNas be divided among them?” - if that question comes, that is answered in “sAtviko ...”. One must realize that the division is only in rAjasa sAtvikas. The first is specified(BrahmaNa is sAtvika). In kshatriya Satva is more than Rajas. Likewise for Vaishya rajas is more than tamas. That rajas matches in amount to satva. For Shudra Tamas is more than Rajas and so he is said as tAmasa. But Satva is more than Tamas.” 
 
If Tikarayaru did not say that the objectors could have implied that Acharya said something in Bhashya and contradicted himself in his own tAtparya. But even after seeing these words, how could they say things which will make Acharya look bad as a self-contradicting person?
 
This is what Rayaru says about BKVS.
 
tatra rAjasasAtvikAnAmatra grahaNam|
“Here we have to take only Rajasa sAtvikas.”
 
'rAjasAstu narAstatra viprA' ityaShTAdashatAtparyokteH|
Naras or humans are Rajasas. There Vipras are.. - Thus the tAtparya of 18th chapter describes.
 
' sAtviko brAhmaNa..' ityAdyetadbhAShyokteshcha|
It is said in Bhashya that 'BrahmaNa is sAtvika' ,etc.
 
tathA cha atisattvAdhikarajoguNayuktAH brAhmaNAH|
Thus Brahmanas are those who have Satva a lot more than Rajas.
 
kiMchitsattvAdhikarajoguNayuktAH kShatriyAH|
“Kshatriayas have satva a little more than Rajo guNa”.
 
Tamo.apekShayA.adhikaM samasattvaM yad rajastadyuktA vaishyAH|
“Satva and Rajas are equal and more than Tamas for Vaishyas”.
 
rajo.apekShayA.adhikatama upetAH, tamo.apekShayA.adhikasattvopetAshcha shUdrA
“Tamas is more than Rajas and Satva more than Tamas for shudras.”
 
iti *guNavibhAgakRutO brAhmaNAdivarNaH|
Thus BrahmaNadi varNas are divided by using guNas.
 
Acharya's TAtparya itself is clear. Yet TikAcharyaru makes even clearer.
 
Acharya's TAtparya -
 
rAjasasAtvikeshveva shuddha sAtvikAH kinchidrajoyuktasAtvikA samarajoyukta sAtvikAH satvAt kiMchidUnatamoyuktasAtvikAH iti varNabhedaH | satvapradhAnatvAdetaanaarabhya uttarottaraM sarve.api mokShayogyAH |
 
“Among Rajasa sAtvikas only (1) shuddha sAtvikas (BrahmaNas), (2) a little rajo-yukta sAtvikas (kShatriyas), (3) rajas and tamas being equal (Vaishyas), Tamas being more than Rajas sAtvikas (Shudras) – this kind of varna division exists. Because these are all have more satva(than other guNas) starting from them all higher ones are muktiyogyas. 
 
Teekacharyaru's commentary called Nyaya deepika on Gita tAtparya says this -
 
“raajasa saatvikaa na saadhaarana vipraadayaH | api tu bhaagavataa eveti vaakyaantaraanusaareNoktam | hetvantaram chaaha | satveti | raajasasaatvikaanaarabhya hiraNyagarbhaavasaanaaH sarve.api mokShayogyAH |” 
 
“Rajasa satvikas are not ordinary vipras, etc (means it includes upto Shudras). And also they are Bhagavatas only, which is told thru another sentence. The reason for that is also told. “satva...” thus. Starting from Rajasa sAtvikas until Chaturmukha Brahma, all are mokShayogyas.”    
 
Why is that so? They have more Satva than Rajas and Tamas. Jnana comes from Satva and mokSha comes from Jnana.
 
Vidura not given upanayana does not prove shudras are not muktiyogyas. Not getting upanayana is not a hindrance for mokSha. That infact blows the theory that Upanayana and vedaadhikaara are a must for mokSha. They are not a must. Nor they are a guarantee for mokSha.
The following chart gives a visual presentation to get the concept. Note that the those, who have taken birth as shudras, will consist of a tiny amount of devatas, some mukti yogyas, some nitya samSaris and some tamoyogyas. What percentage – God only knows.
 
However, the ones, who are svAbhAvika shudras among them are muktiyogyas as per all the commentaries.

Click to zoom in☝



Comments

Post a Comment