Vana Parva: the Philosophical Treasure Trove of MB - Page 2

Vana Parva also provides a lot of answers to long-standing questions.

It tells us exactly why the Pandavas deserved what they fought for.

It proved why Draupadi's rage was not blind, that she could clearly weigh consequences and was not thinking about herself only when she spoke of war.

It also contains a careful evaluation by that generations representatives (Pandavas) of THEIR past- through the stories that they heard and analyzed. As Janu di mentioned this enriched their understanding of their contemporary society as well as themselves. 😃

The Yaksha asked, 'What constituteth the divinity of the Brahmanas? What even is their practice that is like that of the pious? What also is the human attribute of the Brahmanas? And what practice of theirs is like that of the impious?'

Yudhishthira answered, 'The study of the Vedas constitutes their divinity: their asceticism constitutes behaviour that is like that of the pious; their liability to death is their human attribute and slander is their impiety.'

I have an issue here with this part.

Firstly, does this not clearly show casteism- because Brahmanas are considered to be DIVINE here and Yudhishthir justifies that by saying only they have the knowledge of the Vedas.

It is also indicative that Brahmans are above other castes and even classifying someone as Brahman clearly indicates a division.

Any thoughts on this?

I am not blaming Yudhi here though because the question is itself casteist.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

The Yaksha asked, 'What constituteth the divinity of the Brahmanas? What even is their practice that is like that of the pious? What also is the human attribute of the Brahmanas? And what practice of theirs is like that of the impious?'

Yudhishthira answered, 'The study of the Vedas constitutes their divinity: their asceticism constitutes behaviour that is like that of the pious; their liability to death is their human attribute and slander is their impiety.'

I have an issue here with this part.

Firstly, does this not clearly show casteism- because Brahmanas are considered to be DIVINE here and Yudhishthir justifies that by saying only they have the knowledge of the Vedas.

It is also indicative that Brahmans are above other castes and even classifying someone as Brahman clearly indicates a division.

Any thoughts on this?

I am not blaming Yudhi here though because the question is itself casteist.

The answer is in the quest itself.

The Yaksha asked,--'By what, O king, birth, behaviour, study, or learning doth a person become a Brahmana? Tell us with certitude!'

Yudhishthira answered,-'Listen, O Yaksha! It is neither birth, nor study, nor learning, that is the cause of Brahmanahood, without doubt, it is behaviour that constitutes it.

Also, if you see his answer to Nahusha and Bhishma's explanation in Shanti Parva, you will find that Brahmins were not considered Brahmins by birth at that time. It was all about professions. Geeta also says the same thing. Brahmin means someone having seven virtues as per Nahusha Samvada. Brahmin means educators, scholars, doctors, sceintists and authors by profession. Don't you also put Doctors and Scientists, their knowledge and ability to save the world in today's scenario above anyone else? Won't you worship someone who eats only as much as offered and then remains content with that much simple life style? Brahmins of that time were like this only. Today doctors and all charge heavily but still we worship them. These people used to serve mankind for free and used to live on begging. That's the divinity of their character.

You have read Dr. Bhaduri's analysis. He too said about this. Brahmin does not mean an upper caste with special advantages. It is all about their selfless service for which even kings would have to protect them with care for the sake of nation.

Hope I could make it clear.

Also, the very next question is on divinity of kshatriya too. Kshatriyas similarly refer to today's police and army. They are our protectors. That is their divinity too for which we worship them.

@Pro, Yes, the fifth or sixth time refers to the fifth/sixth prahar of a day, which generally means afternoon/evening.

Originally posted by: DharmaPriyaa

The answer is in the quest itself.

The Yaksha asked,--'By what, O king, birth, behaviour, study, or learning doth a person become a Brahmana? Tell us with certitude!'

Yudhishthira answered,-'Listen, O Yaksha! It is neither birth, nor study, nor learning, that is the cause of Brahmanahood, without doubt, it is behaviour that constitutes it.

Also, if you see his answer to Nahusha and Bhishma's explanation in Shanti Parva, you will find that Brahmins were not considered Brahmins by birth at that time. It was all about professions. Geeta also says the same thing. Brahmin means someone having seven virtues as per Nahusha Samvada. Brahmin means educators, scholars, doctors, sceintists and authors by profession. Don't you also put Doctors and Scientists, their knowledge and ability to save the world in today's scenario above anyone else? Won't you worship someone who eats only as much as offered and then remains content with that much simple life style? Brahmins of that time were like this only. Today doctors and all charge heavily but still we worship them. These people used to serve mankind for free and used to live on begging. That's the divinity of their character.

You have read Dr. Bhaduri's analysis. He too said about this. Brahmin does not mean an upper caste with special advantages. It is all about their selfless service for which even kings would have to protect them with care for the sake of nation.

Hope I could make it clear.

Yes of course the caste system is something which comes out of profession. It is occupational. However, a son born of a Brahman would be considered a Brahman so birth can not be completely negated here. Dr Bhaduri explained the meaning of the word Brahmin but from my reading, what he means is how Brahmins are CONSIDERED TO BE. For eg, a Kshatriya is said to be brave, strong and valient.

But today we know these divisions do not define personality in anyway. My question was a little different. I was just wondering how Dharma could adher to a man made societal division and consider it to be a category for someone to be just.

We cannot deny here that you are called a Brahmin because your parents are Brahmin. And you are expected to follow the same societal occupation.

Originally posted by: DharmaPriyaa

Also, the very next question is on divinity of kshatriya too. Kshatriyas similarly refer to today's police and army. They are our protectors. That is their divinity too for which we worship them.

We do not workship the army or the police. We do not consider their work in someway greater than any other work. The caste system has many origins, but today I am not a Brahmin by my birth- will working and serving others, learning etc make me a Brahmin? No.

Hence my question.

Originally posted by: DharmaPriyaa

Also, the very next question is on divinity of kshatriya too. Kshatriyas similarly refer to today's police and army. They are our protectors. That is their divinity too for which we worship them.

Question : weren't the shudras/low birth people equally important to the society too? Why were they considered inferior?

Shudras would constitute the sweepers, the janitors etc right?

Aren't they equally important to society?

I understand doctors, scientists deserve the privilege for their services, but why the sweepers be considered not that important?

Please correct if I am wrong here 😊

Originally posted by: AnkitaPurka66

Question : weren't the shudras/low birth people equally important to the society too? Why were they considered inferior?

Shudras would constitute the sweepers, the janitors etc right?

Aren't they equally important to society?

I understand doctors, scientists deserve the privilege for their services, but why the sweepers be considered not that important?

Please correct if I am wrong here 😊

I think this hierarchy of professions come from the fact that some professions require intelligence along with strength. For eg, a doctor requires more effort to become one and more merit and intelligence than a sweeper.

However, that may garner more PAY but both deserve equal respect. You cannot treat someone inferior to others because they don't do as "important" a job as you do.

The caste system is discriminating in nature, divisive and where as professions can be chosen, here BIRTH comes into play as one becomes a Brahmin not by being a teacher but by being born to a Chatterjee or a Banerjee (using bengali examples as I am one). This is the problem.

Why do you need to refer to a good man as a brahman when there are enough other words to use? I don't buy such logic.

Edit: All jobs are equally important. The reason why one job is considered more respectable is the hardwork or effort needed to go to that position. I can be a sweeper today but not a doctor because the latter requires more skills and use of the brain. However, can I function without a sweeper? No. So a sweeper is as important as I am being into any other profession.

No one is considered inferior as per Vedas. Geeta or MB does not say that Shudras must be neglected. The answerer Yudhishthira himself never discriminated between higher and lower castes. He took care of everyone as a king.

However, you are getting me wrong. I answered that no one can be a Brahmin or anything by birth but by profession. That's what I understand from my reading. And @Captainspark I get your point. If the present soceity cannot be as generous as Vedic era then whom should we blame for that? In this era I am considered as a Brahmin by birth but in that era I would have been considered as a Brahmin because I am a teacher and author. This is what I'm trying to say.

Seems like we are not trying to understand the other questions at all and being only after this caste issue instead of learning. Please correct me if I am wrong 😊