| |
|
|
|
Written by Sri Swami Chandrashekarendra
Saraswati |
|
|
|
The fact that aupasana is to performed by all castes gives rise to the
questions: "Why only aupasana? Why should not all castes have the right
to learn the Vedas, chant the Gayatri and perform sacrifices?” On the
other hand, we have atheists who want the Vedas to be consigned to the
flames and the idols of Gods like Ganesa to be broken and, on the other,
we have people calling themselves reformist who want to extend to all
the right to perform Vedic rites.
Do I not lamblaste Brahmins for having become a degenerated class?
Taking a cue from this the reformers argue: "After all, it is the
Brahmin
who has become debased and it is he who has debased others also. Now,
when new life is being breathed into the Vedic dharma, why should
Brahmins alone be given the right to it, Brahmins who have failed in
their
duty? All those castes that believe that the Vedas and Vedic works are
essential to the well-being of mankind must be enabled to learn the
Vedas and perform Vedic rites. All of them must have the right to wear
the sacred thread and learn the scriptures."
Organisations like the Arya Samaj have accepted the right of all to
learn
the Vedas and perform sacrifices. Here and there a Subramanya Bharati
or someone like him imparts Brahmopadesa to a Pancama. The reformists
ask why the Vedas cannot be made common to all.
This is not acceptable in the least. I am a representative and spokesman
of the sastras. It is my duty to state that this (making Vedic dharma
common to all castes) is not permitted by the sages who created the
sastras and assigned the duties special to each caste. They (the sages)
were known for their spirit of sacrifices and impartiality and they had
no
interest other than the happiness of mankind.
A man sins in two ways. If he forsakes his hereditary karma, he commits
one kind of sin-such a man is called a "karma-bhrasta". But if he
forsakes
his karma and takes up the karma of another (that is if he practices the
religious customs and duties of another caste) he becomes a
"karmantara-pravista". According to the sastras he is guilty of a
greater
offence than the karmabhrasta.
Why? There are two reasons.
An individual who forsakes his karma because he believes that varna
dharma itself is meaningless may be said to act out of conviction and he
may be said to be obeying his conscience. In his action we may find some
justification. But, in the matter of the sastras, the question is not
one of
conscience. The question is: what about the man opts for the customs
and rites of others? He does so because he believes that the customs and
rites to which he is born are not as good those of the latter. To think
that
one vocation or one type of work is inferior to another, or superior to
it,
is not in keeping with modern ideas of socialism and the principle of
dignity of labour. At the same time, it is not also in accord with the
sastras. The karma-bhrasta who discards all varna dharma believes that
the sages created a system not suitable to the times. He does not,
however, think that they were partial to some castes. But not so the
karmantarapravista
who thinks that the sages were partial. He chooses
another man's dharma because he believes that it is better for his inner
advancement than his hereditary calling and dharma. His action implies
that the sages practised deception by creation the division of varnas.
So
his offence is greater.
It is true that Brahmins have gone astray. But what is the meaning of
creating a new class of Brahmins? It amounts to saying, "He (the
Brahmin)
has forsaken his dharma. Now I will take it over." To take up another
man's dharma, apart from forsaking one's own dharma is a grave offence,
worse than nearly giving up one's own dharma. I have stated repeatedly
that all karma has only one purpose, that of destroying one's ego-sense,
ahamkara. What is the foundation of varna dharma? It is one's
willingness
to follow the vocation and dharma that belong to one by hereditary
without any consideration of one's likes and dislikes.
Such willingness is based on the realisation that the vocation and
dharma
that have come to us are according to the will of Isvara, that they are
manifested through the Vedas and sastras and that to practise them is to
destroy our ego.
What does it mean to create a new caste, to create new Brahmins?
However good the intention behind such a process may be- even if it be
the desire that Vedic works must be performed and that the sound of the
Vedas must fill the air - the ego-consciousness will obtrude in it like
the
nut jutting out from a cashew fruit.
Apart from this, however much you talk of equality and rationalism, the
newly created Brahmins will suffer from an inferiority complex and will
be
racked by doubts as to whether they can practise their new dharma and
whether they can chant the mantras and practise the rites in the same
manner as people who are Brahmins by birth.
The Arya Samaj and other reformist organisations have for their part
abolished caste and given everybody the right to learn Vedas. Then how
is it that non-Brahmins have not joined these organisations in large
numbers or taken to the study of the Vedas? One important reason is a
certain hesitation in joining anything new. Another, equally important,
is
that people believe that it is one thing to become an atheist but quite
another for the old Vedic customs to be changed.
So, though a couple of reformers may start a movement to through open
Vedic learning to everybody, only four or five percent of the people
will
join them. The remaining 95 percent or so will continue to be in the old
Hindu setup.
Also the few who join the new caste will have at heart a
sense of fear and a feeling of inferiority. They will keep doubting
whether
their actions will yield the desired result. If that be so, how will
their
minds be pure? It is not only the ego-sense that makes the mind impure
but fear, the feeling of inferiority and being racked by doubts. Rites
performed in such a frame of mind will not serve the purpose of creating
happiness in the world. Besides, members of the new caste are likely to
develop conceited thinking that they are doing what Brahmins by birth
ceased to do or could not do - there will a spirit of challenge in their
action. When they practise what others were practising [or were
expected to practise] there will naturally be a desire on their part to
make
an exhibition of it. There will no sincerity in their actions. All told,
neither
they nor the world will benefit from their works.
We must recognise facts for facts and not be carried away by emotions.
Have I not you about the power of the sound of the Vedas? This sound is
not produced easily by everybody in the right manner. What I say applies
not only to the sound of Vedas or the Vedic language but also to other
languages and their sound. Take the case of German or Urdu. Some
words in these two languages are tongue-twisting. Telugu is spoken in
our
neighbourhood but we find it difficult to vocalise some of its sounds.
Suppose a German child or a Muslim or Telugu child were to be born in
Tamil Nadu. These children would be able to pronounce such words easily
that
is German, Urdu or Telugu as the case may be-because to them they
would come naturally.
However vehemently you may deny the existence of hereditary factors,
you find evidence of the same every day in all spheres. Those who have
been the custodians of the Vedas all these centuries will find it easy
to
learn and chant the Vedas despite the present gap of two or three
generations in their tradition. The same cannot be said of other
communities. The mantras will serve no purpose if they are wrongly
enunciated. However well-intentioned the new class of people studying
the Vedas maybe, their efforts will not be fruitful.
Another point. Here we have a class of people born into a dharma and
practising it hereditarily for thousands of years and acquiring in the
process certain qualities. If such people forsake that dharma, how would
you expect others who are strangers to it to take their place especially
in
the present new circumstances.
There are today two unfortunate developments in the country. One is
that of the Brahmins giving up Vedic learning and Vedic works and the
second that of other communities wanting to practise the Vedic dharma.
It is difficult to say which of the two is worse. Not performing the
duty
that belongs to us by birth is an offence. But, as the Lord says in the
Gita,
to take up the duty of another is a greater offence.
"Svadharme nidhaman sreyo paradharmo bhayavahah". It is better to die
within the sphere of one's own duty than to take up another's duty.
Perilous and fearful is the duty of other men. Since death is certain
anyway, if we carry out the duty that is properly ours there will be no
rebirth for us. What do we mean by saying that another man's dharma is
fearful? If a person practises another man's dharma he will be pushed
into hell. Suppose such a man does not believe in a certain place called
hell, we may then take it that he will suffer infernal sorrow in this or
next
birth. Apart from this, not being an atheist, he will be eaten up by the
fear
that he is perhaps committing a sin by pursuing another man's dharma.
Were he not a nonbeliever
he would not have faith in the Vedas and
sastras and would not in the first place take up the Brahmin's vocation.
So
the one who has faith in the Vedas would be constantly nagged by the
worry: "The sastras proclaim that the sound of the Vedas will bring good
to the world. But the same sastras proclaim, don't they, that the
pursuit
of another man's dharma is fearful? "
The point to be noted is that if you believe in the sastras you must
believe
in them fully. If you are an atheist you could of course reject all of
them.
But to make a show of being very clever and twist the sastras as you
like,
accepting some parts or rejecting or changing some others, is an offence
more grave than that of being an atheist. To think that Mother Veda
should dance to our tune is also a great offence. Learning the Vedas in
such an attitude is tantamount to ridiculing them.
I am not angry with reformists, nor do I suspect their motives. They go
wrong because of their ignorance or thoughtlessness. If they wish to
pull
down the fence to go to the other side, they must think of the
possibility
of the few still remaining there walking over to this side.
If people truly feel that their present vocation is as honourable as the
practice of Vedic dharma, they will not think of taking up some calling
other than their own. "Brahmins have forsaken the Vedas. So the world is
not filled with the sound of the Vedas which is so essential to its well
being. To fill this vacuum a new Brahmin class must be created. "Those
who want to take the place of the Brahmins, who are traditionally
dutybound
to follow the Vedic dharma, will have a feeling of conceit, not to
speak of a spirit of challenge and a sense of inferiority also. If you
really
want to work for the goal of making the Vedas a living reality again,
your
efforts must be directed towards turning those who were engaged in the
preservation of the Vedic heritage back to the dharma to which they
hereditarily belong.
If I criticise Brahmins it is not because I feel that they cannot be
corrected
or that I have washed my hands of them. Nor do I feel that Brahmins
alone as a caste are responsible for all ills of today. If I administer
them a
reproof now and then for their having given up their dharma during
Islamic and British rule and for being lured today by the glitter of
modern
civilization, it does not mean that they are to be wholly blamed for
everything. Placed as they are in today's circumstances any caste or
class
would have done the same. Those who find them guilty now think that
they would acquit themselves better if they were in their place. But
they
too would have been compelled to make the same mistakes by the force
of circumstances. If people hereditarily engaged in intellectual
pursuits
find themselves unable to apply their minds to Atmic matters and instead
find themselves in involved in mundane affairs, it means a topsy turvy
slide-down.
I do not justify such behaviour nor the descent into worldly affairs
from
the heights of spirituality. Nowadays reformists try to justify even
prostitution on psychological grounds. Similarly, I wish to point out
that
they is a psychological explanation for the degeneration of Brahmins
also.
If I criticise Brahmins, it does not mean that others should join in the
attack, thinking that they (the Brahmins) alone are worthless people. It
is
the duty of these others to make Brahmins worthy of their caste. After
all, during the past forty or fifty years, Brahmins have been an easy
target
of attack and ridicule. How silently they have suffered all this, also
the
humiliation at the hands of their detractors. Until some four or five
generations ago, Brahmins were the guardians of all our Atmic wealth,
all
our arts. Considering this, is it not the duty of others to bring them
back
to the practise of their true dharma? They must be tactfully reminded of
the high dharma they had once pursued and the spirit of sacrifice for
which they were known.
It is likely that in the past a few ignorant Brahmins treated other
communities harshly. This is no reason why their descendants today
should pay for it and be maligned and harassed in a spirit of
vengefulness.
It must also be borne in the mind that Brahmins themselves have been in
the forefront in the fight against "the old unjust practices" and in
giving
other communities a high place in society. So there is no point in
fuelling
the flames of hatred. Nor can it be claimed truthfully that such hatred
is
part of "Tamil culture".
Unfortunately, what Brahmins did in the name of reforms resulted in the
wrong kind of equality for, instead of raising people belonging to the
lower strata to a higher level, it had the effect of bringing the upper
classes downward. Equality can be of two types: in the first all occupy
a
high level in society; in the other all occupy a low level. To carry a
load
uphill is difficult but it is easy to push it down. Quality has suffered
in the
attempt to create equality. It is not desirable to have that kind of
equality
in which everyone does the same kind of work. Nor should it be thought
that they is no equality in a system in which the various vocations, the
various types of work, are divided among different groups of people. I
have already spoken a great deal on the subject. Our endeavour must be
to create unity in diversity, nor uniformity.
It is important to remember that neither hatred of Brahmins nor dislike
of
Sanskrit has ever been a part of Tamil culture and civilization.
Sanskrit is
the repository of Atmic and religious sastras, a storehouse of poetry
and
works on arts. Everyone must learn to regard it as "our own language".
The need for the existence of "Brahmanya" as a separate entity must be
recognised. This is essential to the preservation of the Vedas, the
performance of sacrifices, etc, whose purpose is the good of mankind.
Today the Vedas, the Upanisads and so on are available in print. Anybody
can read them and try to understand them. But everybody need not learn
to chant the Vedas; it takes many years to do so. Everybody need not
also
perform sacrifices.
There ought to be an element of humility on the part of those who wish
to carry out reforms; there must be sincerity of purpose. Then no need
will arise to go contrary to the sastras. |
|
|
|
|
