The title of this post, '
Aham Brahmanasmi' (I am a Brahmin) may remind many of you of a similar aphorism '
Aham Brahmasmi'. The latter, which shall no more be a topic of discussion in this post, is in accordance with the vedanta philospophy of India and literally translates to 'I am Brahma', meaning that every person is an embodiment of god. The former, in contrast, has been used in this post to indicate the '
Aham'kara (conceit) of a few Brahmins of modern day who consider their birth in a so-called Brahmin family sacrosanct. It pains me more than I can ever express, to criticize that very same 'Brahmin' (in the context of modern India), the original ideals of whom, as have been laid down in our ancient scriptures, I highly revere.
I decided to blog down this post after having a first-hand experience of caste-fanaticism from a priest, highly conceited of the fact that he was a Brahmin. It was decided quite some time back that we (our family) would have to offer a
puja to
Lordess Durga, and based on the availability, a priest was chosen for the same. For reasons unknown to us, he constrained us to have the
puja ceremony held at his residence. The
puja commenced at dusk. However, we were made to watch the
puja and perform all the rites from a small-room outside the
puja-room. Apparently, it was because we belong to a class of '
Gouda Saraswat Brahmins' (a brahmin class that doesn't consider meat-eating anti-religious, for its own historical reasons ), that we were not let into the main
puja hall. Not only did he try to keep distance from us, but also made sure that the
aarathi was served to us only after it was served to all the other Brahmins present there. However the same person who considered touching or letting non-brahmins into his
puja-room unholy, didn't regard accepting (huge sums of) money from the same to be sacrilegious.
I hereby make a humble attempt to bring to the kind attention of all such brahmins, the real-caste-system as was prevalent in ancient India in contrast to the one of the present. Caste of a person was determined purely based on his way of living and was in no way based on his birth.
Lord Shree Krishna in the
Bhagavadgita (Ch. 18, verses 41-44), explains the various qualities of the 4 castes.
- A brahmin is one who subjugates the activities of the mind and the senses, teaches the others the vedas and the other scriptures and himself is an adept realizer of god (Verse 42).
- A Kshatriya exhibits valour, fearlessness, cleverness in battle and is a protector of his people(Verse 43).
- Agriculture, rearing of cows and honest exchange of merchandise make a vaishya and, Service to the other castes is the natural duty of the shudra (Verse 44).
(Courtesy of "The song divine", Gita Press, Gorakhpur)
The lord also proclaims that a person, no matter which caste he belongs to, can reach god by the devoted discharge of his natural duties as described above. In ancient India, under no circumstance, was one caste held above the other and all castes had their own importance in the society. So a person would be regarded as a Brahmin, not by virtue of his lineage, but by his spiritual advancement. So the son of a Brahman would not necessarily be a brahmin. Also, a Shudra could transcend into a brahmin, if his conduct qualified him so and similarly a brahmin would no longer be considered so if his lifestyle defied the rules set for a brahmin. It is relevant to mention here that the 'Gayatri Mantra', considered holy by brahmins, was given by Sage Vishwamitra who was originally a Kshatriya, who later turned himself into a Brahmin by rigourous penace.
Our vedas (Rig veda 10.90) say thus,
The Brahman was purusha's* mouth, of both his arms was the Kshatriya made.
His thighs became the Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra was produced.
(Translation- Courtesy http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10090.htm)
* Here 'Purusha' can be thought of as the all-pervading god
This is a widely misinterpreted mantra of the Rigveda. What could have only been meant was: 'The brahmins being a source of (realized) knowledge enlighten the lives of others by spreading the same by way of reciting them, hence their association with the mouth. Similarly Kshatriyas are a source of physical strength and therefore are considered to be the shoulders of god. The vaishyas, mainly engaging themselves in business, act as pillars of the economy, therefore their association with the thighs. The shudras being the labour class have been associated with the feet thereby indicating physical labour.'
Please note that this shloka, in no way, indicates that any class is superior to the other. Now, will it not be foolish to consider the body self sufficient with just the face and without the shoulders and legs, or the other way round. So in reality, all castes are equally important as are the various parts of the human body. It is highly unfortunate that a shloka with a message as clear as a crystal has been misinterpreted to form an absolutely senseless caste-system based on birth and on mundane matters of life like eating habits etc. It is an irony that the very same brahmins who claim to have mastered the vedas fail to understand this simple truth contained in them.
Suppose that there arose a system in our modern-day society where the son of a medical doctor would be considered a doctor by default and that of an engineer, an engineer and so on, and moreover, if the doctors were to claim that they were superior to the rest and should be considered as the masters, would it not be considered foolish? So, are we not fools if we still find the prevailing fallacy of the caste system sensible? Even now it is a custom in a few temples to have two separate, isolated houses to offer prasada to devotees belonging to the different castes. The same people who refuse to accept food or water from the so-called lower classes, do they refuse to accept blood from a donor belonging to a lower class, in case of a medical emergency? When it is the same blood which flows through us all, how can the mere bearing of a certain thread or the inane chanting of a few mantras, make a person supreme and more godly? As Swami Vivekananda rightly puts it, 'Our religion is in the kitchen. Our God is the cooking-pot, and our religion is, "Don't touch me, I am holy"'. Our mythology narrates: when Kanakadasa, a devotee of Lord Krishna belonging to a lower class, was not granted admission into a shrine in Udupi by the local priests, his selfless devotion caused the idol of Krishna, originally facing east (as is generally the case with any other temple) to turn around, following the collapse of the western wall to grant Kanakadasa the fortune of Darshan.
It is very unfortunate that a country that taught the world "vasudhaiva kutumbakam" (the entire world is one family) refused to accept a few people in its family owing to the fact that they were born in a certain clan. Let us hope that at least in the years to come, this horrible demon- the caste system in its present form- shall undergo complete refinement, in accord with the ideals actually laid in our scriptures.
[ Disclaimer: Please note that I don't intend to criticize any person or belief and have no personal hatred of any form against any person or sect. The above mentioned incident was merely personal and I, therefore, have no right to criticize any sect. My sole intention was to bring to light, certain truths about our present India. ]