|
|
|
Written by Sri Swami Chandrashekarendra
Saraswati |
|
|
|
It is alleged that Brahmins created the dharmasastras for their own
benefit. You will realise that this charge is utterly baseless if you
appreciate the fact that these sastras impose on them the most stringent
rules of life. There is also proof of the impartiality of the
dharmasastras in
that the Brahmin who is expected to be proficient in all the arts and
all
branches of learning can only give instruction in them but cannot take
up
any for his livelihood however lucrative it be and however less
demanding than the pursuit of the Vedic dharma.
Now it is claimed that all people are equal in all spheres, that all are
equal
before the law. But members of legislative bodies, judges, etc, enjoy
certain privileges and cannot be treated on the same footing as the
common man. These privileges have indeed been codified. If anyone
criticises a judge he will be charged with contempt of court. Even I may
be hauled up for contempt for my remarks. People who call themselves
democrats and socialists have managed for themselves special
allowances, special railway passes, etc, that the common people are not
entitled to. In contrast, the Brahmins who have preserved the
dharmasastras have bound themselves to vigorous discipline, roasted
themselves, as it were, in the oven of ritual practices. If the
Brahmin's
purity is affected by someone he punishes himself by bathing and
fasting.
The Brahmin must be conversant with the fourteen branches of the Vedic
lore. He must be proficient even in Gandharva-veda or music and must be
acquainted with agricultural science, construction of houses, etc. At
the
same time he must give instructions in these subjects to pupils from the
appropriate castes. His own vocation is the study of the Vedas and he
must have no other source of income.
Visvamitra was the master of Dhanurveda (military science). When he
performed sacrifices, the demons Subahu and Marica tried to play havoc
with them. Though a great warrior himself he did not try to drive away
the demons himself. Instead, he brought Rama and Laksmana for the
purpose. Visvamitra thereafter gave the instruction to the two in the
use
of astras and sastras.
If the Brahmin is asked, "Do you know to wield a knife? " he must be
able
to answer, "Yes, I know". If he is asked, "Do you know to draw and
paint"
again he must say, "Yes". But he cannot wield a knife or become an
artist
to earn his livelihood. All he can do is to learn these arts and teach
others
the same according to their caste. He is permitted to receive a daksina
to
maintain himself and he must be contented with it however small the
sum may be. The Brahmin's speciality' his true vocation, is Vedic
learning.
If members of certain castes are seen to enjoy certain privileges there
must be some reason for the same. The man selling tickets has a room to
himself and those who buy them have to stand outside and cannot
complain about it saying that the practice offends against the principle
of
equality. If everybody gets in on the pretext of equality how can the
ticket
seller function? Will the man be able to sell the tickets properly?
Everybody needs some special convenience to carry out his duties. A
member of a joint family who falls ill has to be afforded certain
special
comforts- other members are not justified in demanding the same. In our
religion there are many duties and rites that are common to all. But to
carry out one's special duties certain conveniences are needed: as a
matter of fact what are called conveniences are actually not
conveniences or privileges, and also they are necessary to carry out the
duties of the caste concerned for the welfare of the society as the
whole.
It is important to accept this truth: the special dharma of any jati is
meant
not only for those who constitute that jati but for society as a whole.
Love must spring from the heart, so too the sense of unity. Unity is not
achieved by all jatis becoming one. What do we see in Western countries
where intermarriage is not prohibited and where all people mix together?
There is much rivalry and jealousy among people there. According to our
sastras, everyone in the past performed his duty and helped others to
perform theirs and this was how they remain united. The daughter-in-law
does not speak to the father-in-law out of respect for him. Would you
call
such respect ill-will? If someone close to us and belonging to our own
caste has some "pollution", we do not touch him. Does it mean that we
dislike him? It seems we all are mentally confused and do not have a
proper appreciation of our different dharmas. |
|
|
