Should women not chant Vedas? (part-4)

Other parts of this series can be read here: Part 1  Part 2  Part 3  Part 5

The analysis of the verse 10-34 of Gita is continued
to probe into whether there exists some other meaning
to this verse.

Krishna says, 'Among women, I am fame (kIrthi), prosperity
(srI), speech (vAk), memory (smrti), intelligence
(mEdhA), endurance (Dhrti) and forgiveness (kshamA)."
All the qualities required for learning karma khanda
and gyana khanda as well are to be found in these
qualities in women.

A unique feature of this verse is that

after saying this he describes Himself as Death!!

The relevant verse is as follows:

"I am also Death which snatches all away.
I am the origin of all that shall be born",

The Lord as being the origin of Birth in this context
is easy to understand. But why does He tell about
Himself as being Death in the context of telling who
He is among women?

Thinking about the two great epics, we seem to get
closer to the core idea. Is it because the Lord swung
into action as Lord of Death when the women were
wronged?

When Sita was abducted, Valmiki merely goes about
narrating how the incidents had happened and how Sita
was distressed. Then Jatayu enters the scene and is
badly wounded.

She goes near him, holds him and wails inconsolably

saying so many words.

Ravana then lifts her up by her hair…

At this juncture Valmiki says that

"that demon whose shine is similar to the Death

has clutched her hair loosened from her bun,

as death loomed large on him." (3-52-8)

When Ravana did this act (of holding her
aloft by her hair), Brahma deva remarked with delight,
"kaaryam kRitam iti" (the deed is done),

implying that Ravana's fate is now sealed.

The other other-worldly beings such as kinnara etc

also rejoiced that Ravana's end had come.

They didn't seem to comment like this
when Sita was abducted. At that time everyone was
watching in stunned silence.

But the act of touching
Sita's hair and lifting her by holding it

seems to be an act of grave offence

to signify that Ravana's fate is sealed.

It is note-worthy that Rama let go Kakasura who harmed her
mortally in her private part, but he didn't do that to
Ravana whose committing of an affront on Sita's
dignity was a shade physically lesser than what
Kakasura had done. The sookshumam seems to lie in
hair!

Why I am led to think like this is because similar
dreadful end was foretold by Draupadi when she made a
vow of not tying up her hair till the Kauravas were
vanquished and Dhuryodhana's blood was smeared on her
hair.

Probably there is more than what we know

about the importance given to women's hair

because I have heard elders raise objection to letting the hair untied.

There is some sanctity attached to woman's 'aLaga-bhAram'.

The purpose of the above narration is to stress the
point that the Lord does not take kindly on acts that
affect woman's dignity, safety and (probably) the 7
qualities that have found mention in His own song.

Whenever such qualities (mEdha, vAk, speech etc) are
exhibited, there has been no hindrance to their
seeking of lofty Principles. To substantiate this, let
me quote what sage Yajnavalkya said to his wife.

Yajnavalkya was too happy to hear Maitreyi ask him
what leads to deathlessness.

He says, "you have always
been very dear to me and what you say now makes you
dearer still", and continues to unravel the Eternal
Knowledge to her.

If it had been mandatory for anyone
to learn Vedas as antecedent to inquiry into
Eternal knowledge, how could Yajnavalkya had given it
to his wife? Of the different pramanas that Bhagavad
Ramanuja had quoted, why did he not consider this one?
In practice, this antecedent clause bars not only
women, but also men from taking up direct inquiry –
something what we all do today.

With advancement of kali yuga, the first notable
casualty is vedadhyayana. One can count the number of
persons learning the karma khandam as Ramanuja thinks
is required for further abhyasa. If he has meant it to
be a strict rule, then not many men, leave alone
women, are entitled to do the meditation on Brahman.

On arriving at this thought, I felt I need to know
Ramanuja's mind better.

Elsewhere - in 3 places in
brahma sutra-bhashya to be precise - Ramanuja had said
something, but practiced something else in his own
life. (I request the readers not to consider my
language as an affront on him. This is an intellectual
exercise which I took to Ramanuja in Melkote when I
was not convinced why he chose to give an explanation
like this, while he could have as well spoken like
Shankara in his interpretation of the sutra.)

One area is the interpretation on who a shudra is.
Though Ramanuja defines a shudra as one 'who is
grief-stricken', he preferred to fall in line (in sri
bhashyam) with the sutrakara who said that shudrahood
comes by caste. ("shudras by caste are not entitled to
Brahma vidhya" - 1-3-33) But in practice, Ramanuja
never barred anyone from learning / knowing
Thirumanthram or sat vishayam.

Another area where he wrote something and preached
another is in determining whether the jiva has any
freewill.

The life of a person is a series of action and reaction

leaving little scope for own volition.

But there must a beginning of this cycle.

At that time what caused the jiva to do an action?

In his commentary to Brahma sutra, he does
speak about jiva's own 'volition' at the initial stage
– only as a logical consequence in the context without
producing any pramana to substantiate this. For,
theoretically, vedopanishads do not support the idea
of freewill to the jiva. There is no case built for
the conditions that can determine what this initial
stage that he has in mind. He does not explain what
defines the initial stage and what factors contribute
to spontaneity of will of the jiva.

But this ideological dilemma is tempered down

in Vedartha sangraha (124)

where he talks about god conferring on the jiva
'spontaneously a holy disposition of will and
intellect'. Further later, the granthas like
Srivachana bhooshanam and Mumukshuppadi which reflect
his grooming and thought harp on the virtues of
shedding 'swa-shakthi', that is shedding of freewill
and glorification of absolute subservience to god.

Thus we find him deviating from what he wrote earlier.

Yet another area where the transformation in thought
is found, is in his composition of Vaikuntha gadhyam
glorifying the Lord in Form. But all along his Sri
bhashya, he had heavily relied on pramanas on formless
god (Brahman). There was a heavy accent on the
metaphysical aspects of the inquiry, than on a god of
form. It strikes the attention of the reader of
Vedartha sangraha, that wherever he speaks about a god
with form, he relies on quotes by telling that the
Sutrakara says like this. But later he seems to have
been so convinced about propagating the idea of God
with form, for the sake of common man to worship.

So that leaves only with this chanting of Vedas.

According to Ramanuja learning to chant Vedas is

a pre requisite for learning Gyana khanda (inquiry into Brahman)

because the scriptures say so.

Did Ramanuja foresee that a time would come when the
ashrama dharma would collapse at least with reference
to learning Vedas formally at a gurukul?

Probably not, considering
the fact that it was only with the advent of Macaulay,
the education system changed in this country. But he,
with far-sight must have made some amends somewhere –
to suit the changing conditions.

Thus my concern about the bar on women to chant to
Vedas got transformed into a larger concern, as his
notions seem to affect men also who do not take
up Vedic learning. Then what is his prescription for
people of our times and of future?

He changed his stance on 3 issues (as stated above –

on Shudras, the initial freewill for the Jiva and God with form)

What is his stance on learning Vedas as a pre requisite

which is not possible even for men in this current Age?

With this thought in mind,

I was standing in front of him in Melkote
with my eyes closed.

"Is it right to say that women should not recite
Vedas?

By saying so, are we women barred from learning

the nature of Brahman (Gyana khanda)?

Is it right to de-bar countless people like me

who are willing to learn about the nature of Brahman,
mainly because

we have not had formal Ashrama-type training?

Please tell me, please tell me"

(to be continued)

Aryan Invasion Theory has no basis.

Given below is an article debunking Aryan Invasion Theory. Only parts of the article which I agree with are posted below. The full article can be read in the link

http://content.iskcon.org/icj/6_1/6_1klostermaier.html

The author makes a significant statement that the Ithihasas and not the Rig Vedas -must be analysed because only they talk about past events of Bharat. That was what was being continuously done in this country for all times in the past. The Colonial scholars vitiated such a trend and had taken the scholarship backwards. Atleast now let them study the Ithihasas and know the history of not only Bharath but of mankind itself. I am happy that I am already working on that direction and writing my analysis in Tamil. I would write it in English after I finish the series in Tamil which is likely to consist of 100 articles. At the moment I am working on the 67^th article which will identify the Manushya bhasha (Human language) spoken by Hanuman and Sita in Ashoka vana as described in Valmiki Ramayana. 

From Mahabharatha we will know that the Indus culture is post -Mahabharatha culture. Infact the Indus settlements were those of the people of Dwaraka who were forced to abandon Dwaraka when it was inundated after the exist of Krishna. 

The following picture shows the route taken by Arjuna who led the Dwarakans in their search for locations to settle down after they left Dwaraka. This route is derived on the basis of the descriptions in given in Musala parva in Mahabharatha. We can see the route going through the areas of Indus settlements.

The article describing this route can be read here:

IVC was the post Mahabharata culture (World Tamil Conference series 14)

-Jayasree

****************

From

http://content.iskcon.org/icj/6_1/6_1klostermaier.html

Questioning the Aryan Invasion Theory and Revising Ancient Indian History

By

Klaus Klostermaier

Debunking the Aryan Invasion Theory: The New Chronology

Contemporary Indian scholars, admittedly motivated not only by academic interests, vehemently reject what they call the 'colonial-missionary Aryan invasion theory'. They accuse its originators of superimposing-for a reason-the purpose and process of the colonial conquest of India by the Western powers in modern times onto the beginnings of Indian civilisation: as the Europeans came to India as bearers of a supposedly superior civilisation and a higher religion, so the original Aryans were assumed to have invaded a country on which they imposed their culture and their religion.

A recent major work offers 'seventeen arguments: why the Aryan invasion never happened'.6 It may be worthwhile summarising and analysing them briefly:

1. The Aryan invasion model is largely based on linguistic conjectures which are unjustified (and wrong). Languages develop much more slowly than assumed by nineteenth century scholars. According to Renfrew speakers of Indo-European languages may have lived in Anatolia as early as 7000 BCE

2. The supposed large-scale migrations of Aryan people in the second millennium BCE first into Western Asia and then into northern India (by 1500 BCE) cannot be maintained in view of the fact that the Hittites were in Anatolia already by 2200 BCE and the Kassites and Mitanni had kings and dynasties by 1600 BCE

3. There is no memory of an invasion or of large-scale migration in the records of Ancient India-neither in the Vedas, Buddhist or Jain writings, nor in Tamil literature. The fauna and flora, the geography and the climate described in the Rigveda are that of Northern India.

4. There is a striking cultural continuity between the archaeological artefacts of the Indus-Saraswati civilisation and subsequent Indian society and culture: a continuity of religious ideas, arts, crafts, architecture, system of weights and measures.

5. The archaeological finds of Mehrgarh (copper, cattle, barley) reveal a culture similar to that of the Vedic Indians. Contrary to former interpretations, the Rigveda shows not a nomadic but an urban culture (purusa as derived from pur vasa = town-dweller).

6. The Aryan invasion theory was based on the assumption that a nomadic people in possession of horses and chariots defeated an urban civilisation that did not know horses, and that horses are depicted only from the middle of the second millennium onwards. Meanwhile archaeological evidence for horses has been found in Harappan and pre-Harappan sites; drawings of horses have been found in paleolithic caves in India; drawings of riders on horses dated c. 4300 BCE have been found in Ukraina. Horsedrawn war chariots are not typical for nomadic breeders but for urban civilisations.

7. The racial diversity found in skeletons in the cities of the Indus civilisation is the same as in India today; there is no evidence of the coming of a new race.

8. The Rigveda describes a river system in North India that is pre-1900 BCE in the case of the Saraswati river, and pre-2600 BCE in the case of the Drishadvati river. Vedic literature shows a population shift from the Saraswati (Rigveda) to the Ganges (Brahmanas and Puranas), also evidenced by archaeological finds.

9. The astronomical references in the Rigveda are based on a Pleiades-Krittika (Taurean) calendar of c. 2500 BCE when Vedic astronomy and mathematics were well-developed sciences (again, not a feature of a nomadic people).

10. The Indus cities were not destroyed by invaders but deserted by their inhabitants because of desertification of the area. Strabo (Geography XV.1.19) reports that Aristobulos had seen thousands of villages and towns deserted because the Indus had changed its course.

11. The battles described in the Rigveda were not fought between invaders and natives but between people belonging to the same culture.

12. Excavations in Dwaraka have lead to the discovery of a site larger than Mohenjodaro, dated c. 1500 BCE with architectural structures, use of iron, a script halfway between Harappan and Brahmi. Dwarka has been associated with Krishna and the end of the Vedic period.

13. A continuity in the morphology of scripts: Harappan, Brahmi, Devanagari.

14. Vedic ayas, formerly translated as 'iron,' probably meant copper or bronze. Iron was found in India before 1500 BCE in Kashmir and Dwaraka.

15. The Puranic dynastic lists with over 120 kings in one Vedic dynasty alone, fit well into the 'new chronology'. They date back to the third millennium BCE Greek accounts tell of Indian royal lists going back to the seventh millennium BCE.

16. The Rigveda itself shows an advanced and sophisticated culture, the product of a long development, 'a civilisation that could not have been delivered to India on horseback' (p.160).

17. Painted Gray Ware culture in the western Gangetic plains, dated ca 1100 BCE has been found connected to (earlier) Black and Red Ware etc.

Let us consider some of these arguments in some detail. As often remarked, there is no hint in the Veda of a migration of the people that considered it its own sacred tradition. It would be strange indeed if the Vedic Indians had lost all recollection of such a momentous event in supposedly relatively recent times- much more recent, for instance, than the migration of Abraham and his people which is well attested and frequently referred to in the Bible. In addition, as has been established recently through satellite photography and geological investigations, the Saraswati, the mightiest river known to the Rigvedic Indians, along whose banks they established numerous major settlements, had dried out completely by 1900 BCE-four centuries before the Aryans were supposed to have invaded India. One can hardly argue for the establishment of Aryan villages along a dry river bed.

When the first remnants of the ruins of the so-called Indus civilisation came to light in the early part of our century, the proponents of the Aryan invasion theory believed they had found the missing archaeological evidence: here were the 'mighty forts' and the 'great cities' which the war-like Indra of the Rigveda was said to have conquered and destroyed. Then it emerged that nobody had destroyed these cities and no evidence of wars of conquest came to light: floods and droughts had made it impossible to sustain large populations in the area and the people of Mohenjo Daro, Harappa and other places had migrated to more hospitable areas. Ongoing archaeological research has not only extended the area of the Indus-civilisation but has also shown a transition of its later phases to the Gangetic culture. Archeo-geographers have established that a drought lasting two to three hundred years devastated a wide belt of land from Anatolia through Mesopotamia to Northern India around 2300 BCE to 2000 BCE.

Based on this type of evidence and extrapolating from the Vedic texts, a new story of the origins of Hinduism is emerging that reflects the self-consciousness of Hindus and which attempts to replace the 'colonial-missionary Aryan invasion theory' by a vision of 'India as the Cradle of Civilisation.' This new theory considers the Indus-civilisation as a late Vedic phenomenon and pushes the (inner-Indian) beginnings of the Vedic age back by several thousands of years. One of the reasons for considering the Indus civilisation 'Vedic' is the evidence of town-planning and architectural design that required a fairly advanced algebraic geometry-of the type preserved in the Vedic Shulvasutras. The widely respected historian of mathematics A. Seidenberg came to the conclusion, after studying the geometry used in building the Egyptian pyramids and the Mesopotamian citadels, that it reflected a derivative geometry-a geometry derived from the Vedic Shulva-sutras. If that is so, then the knowledge ('Veda') on which the construction of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro is based, cannot be later than that civilisation itself.7

While the Rigveda has always been held to be the oldest literary document of India and was considered to have preserved the oldest form of Sanskrit, Indians have not taken it to be the source for their early history. The Itihasa-Purana served that purpose. The language of these works is more recent than that of the Vedas and the time of their final redaction is much later than the fixation of the Vedic canon. However, they contain detailed information about ancient events and personalities that form part of Indian history. The Ancients, like Herodotus, the father of Greek histo-riography, did not separate story from history. Nor did they question their sources but tended to juxtapose various pieces of evidence without critically sifting it. Thus we cannot read Itihasa-Purana as the equivalent of a modern textbook of Indian history but rather as a storybook containing information with interpretation, facts and fiction. Indians, however, always took genealogies quite seriously and we can presume that the Puranic lists of dynasties, like the lists of paramparas in the Upanishads relate the names of real rulers in the correct sequence. On these assumptions we can tentatively reconstruct Indian history to a time around 4500 BCE.

A key element in the revision of Ancient Indian History was the recent discovery of Mehrgarh, a settlement in the Hindukush area, that was continuously inhabited for several thousand years from c. 7000 BCE onwards. This discovery has extended Indian history for several thousands of years before the fairly well dateable Indus civilisation.8

 Old verses new? Or scientists verses philologists?
We are left, at present, with two widely differing versions of Ancient Indian History, with two radically divergent sets of chronology and with a great deal of polemic from both sides. Those who defend the Aryan invasion theory and the chronology associated with it accuse the proponents of the 'New Chronology' of indulging in Hindu chauvinism. The latter suspect the former of entertaining 'colonial-missionary' prejudices and denying originality to the indigenous Indians. The new element that has entered the debate is scientific investigations. While the older theory rested on exclusively philological arguments, the new theory includes astronomical, geological, mathematical and archaeological evidence. On the whole, the latter seems to rest on better foundations. Not only were the philological arguments from the very beginning based more on strong assertions and bold guesses, civilisations both ancient and contemporary comprise more than literature alone. In addition, purely philologically trained scholars-namely grammarians-are not able to make sense of technical language and of scientific information contained even in the texts they study.

Consider today's scientific literature. It abounds with Greek and Latin technical terms, it contains an abundance of formulae composed of Greek and Hebrew letters. If scholars with a background in the classical languages were to read such works, they might be able to come up with some acceptable translations of technical terms into modern English but they would hardly be able to really make sense of most of what they read and they certainly would not extract the information which the authors of these works wished to convey to people trained in their specialities. The situation is not too different with regard to ancient Indian texts. The admission of some of the best scholars (like Geldner, who in his translation of the Rigveda, considered the best so far, declares many passages 'darker than the darkest oracle' or Gonda, who considered the Rigveda basically untranslatable) of being unable to make sense of a great many texts-and the refusal of most to go beyond a grammatical and etymological analysis of these-indicates a deeper problem. The Ancients were not only poets and litterateurs, but they also had their sciences and their technical skills, their secrets and their conventions that are not self-evident to someone not sharing their world. Some progress has been made in deciphering medical and astronomical literature of a later age, in reading architectural and arts-related materials. However, much of the technical meaning of the oldest Vedic literature still eludes us.

The Rigveda-a code?
The computer scientist and Indologist Subhash Kak believes he has rediscovered the 'Vedic Code' which allows him to extract from the structure, as well as the words and sentences of the Rigveda, and the considerable astronomical information which its authors supposedly embedded in it.10 The assumption of such encoded scientific knowledge would make it understandable why there was such insistence on the preservation of every letter of the text in precisely the sequence the original author had set down. One can take certain liberties with a story, or even a poem, changing words, transposing lines, adding explanatory matter, shortening it, if necessary, and still communicate the intentions and ideas of the author. However, one has to remember and reproduce a scientific formula in precisely the same way it has been set down by the scientist or it would not make sense at all. While the scientific community can arbitrarily adopt certain letter equivalents for physical units or processes, once it has agreed on their use, one must obey the conventions for the sake of meaningful communication.

Even a non-specialist reader of ancient Indian literature will notice the effort to link macrocosm and microcosm, astronomical and physiological processes, to find correspondences between the various realms of beings and to order the universe by establishing broad classifications. Vedic sacrifices-the central act of Vedic culture- were to be offered on precisely built geometrically constructed altars and to be performed at astronomically exactly established times. It sounds plausible to expect a correlation between the numbers of bricks prescribed for a particular altar and the distances between stars observed whose movement determined the time of the offerings to be made. Subhash Kak has advanced a great deal of fascinating detail in that connection in his essays on the 'Astronomy of the Vedic Altar'. He believes that while the Vedic Indians possessed extensive astronomical knowledge, which they encoded in the text of the Rigveda, the code was lost in later times and the Vedic tradition was interrupted.11

India, the cradle of (world-) civilisation?
Based on the early dating of the Rigveda (c. 4000 BCE) and on the strength of the argument that Vedic astronomy and geometry predates that of the other known Ancient civilisations, some scholars, like N.S. Rajaram, George Feuerstein, Subhash Kak and David Frawley, have made the daring suggestion that India was the 'cradle of civilisation'. They link the recently discovered early European civilisation (which predates Ancient Sumeria and Ancient Egypt by over a millennium) to waves of populations moving out or driven out from north-west India. Later migrations, caused either by climatic changes or by military events, would have brought the Hittites to Western Asia, the Iranians to Afghanistan and Iran and many others to other parts of Eurasia. Such a scenario would require a complete rewriting of Ancient World History-especially if we add the claims, apparently substantiated by some material evidence, that Vedic Indians had established trade links with Central America and Eastern Africa before 2500 BCE. It is no wonder that the 'New Chronology' arouses not only scholarly controversy but emotional excitement as well. Much more hard evidence will be required to fully establish it, and many claims may have to be withdrawn. But there is no doubt that the 'old chronology' has been discredited and that much surprise is in store for the students not only of Ancient India, but also of the Ancient World as a whole.

Sorting out the questions:
The 'Revision of Ancient Indian History' responds to several separate, but interlocking questions that are often confused.

1. The (emotionally) most important question is that of the original home of Vedic civilisation, identified with the question: where was the (Rig-)Veda composed? India's indigenous answer to that question had always been 'India', more precisely 'the Punjab'. The European, 'colonial missionary' assumption, was 'outside India'.

2. The next question, not often explicitly asked, is: where did the pre-Vedic people, the 'Aryans' come from? This is a problem for archeo-anthropologists rather than for historians. The racial history of India shows influences from many quarters.

3. A related, but separate question concerns the 'cradle of civilisation', to which several ancient cultures have laid claim: Sumeria, Egypt, India (possibly also China could be mentioned, which considered itself for a long time the only truly civilised country). Depending on what answer we receive, the major expansion of population/civilisation would be from west to east, or from east to west. The famous lux ex oriente has often been applied to the spread of culture in the ancient world. India was as far as the 'Orient' would go.

4. It is rather strange that the defenders of the 'Aryan invasion theory', who have neither archaeological nor literary documents to prove their assumption, demand detailed proof for the non-invasion and refuse to admit the evidence available. Similarly, they feel entitled to declare 'mythical' whatever the sources (Rigveda, Puranas) say that does not agree with their preconceived notions of Vedic India.

Some conclusions:
If I were to judge the strength of the arguments for revising Ancient Indian History in the direction of 'India as Cradle of Civilisation' I would rate Seidenberg's findings concerning the Shulvasutra geometry (applied in the Indus civilisation; Babylonian and Egyptian geometry derivative to it) highest. Next would be the archeo-astronomical determination of astronomical data in Vedic and post-Vedic texts. Third is the satellite photography based dating of the drying out of the Saraswati and the archeo-geographical finding of a centuries long drought in the belt reaching from Anatolia through Mesopotamia and Northern India. Geological research has uncovered major tectonic changes in the Punjab and the foothills of the Himalayas. At one point a section rose about sixty metres within the past 2 000 years.

'Vasishta's Head', a bronze head found near Delhi, was dated through radio-carbon testing to around 3700 BCE- the time when, according to Hicks and Anderson, the Battle of the Ten Kings took place (Vasishta, mentioned in the Rigveda, was the advisor to King Sudas). A further factor speaking for the 'Vedic' character of the Indus civilisation is the occurrence of (Vedic) altars in many sites. Fairly important is also the absence of a memory of a migration from outside India in all of ancient Indian literature: the Veda, the Brahmanas, the Epics and the Puranas. Granting that the Vedic Samhitas were ritual manuals rather than historic records, further progress in revising Ancient Indian History could be expected from a study of Itihasa-Purana, rather than from an analysis of the Rigveda (by way of parallel, what kind of reconstruction of Ancient Israel's History could be done on the basis of a study of the Psalms, leaving out Genesis and Kings? Or what reconstruction of European History could be based on a study of the earliest Rituale Romanum?)

Scholars discuss India’s ‘Caste’ system

From

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2011/08/vedic-scholars-discuss-multitude-of.html

 

FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 2011   

Vedic scholars discuss a multitude of aspects of India's 'caste' system:

Worldwide Conference on Varna, Jati and Kula

 

WORLD ASSOCIATION FOR VEDIC STUDIES (WAVES) Successfully Completes a Worldwide Conference on Varna, Jati and Kula (Caste)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Vedic Scholars Discuss a Multitude of Aspects of India's "Caste" System

Piscataway, NJ (World Assoc. for Vedic Studies - WAVES) August 5, 2011. –

On July 31, 2011, WAVES concluded a well-attended three-day conference on Varna, Jati and Kula (Caste) that featured prominent scholars worldwide and robust youth participation from high school, college and graduate school students, including members of Gayatri Pariwar, HSC and Youth for Sewa. For three days, scholars from various institutions and with diverse backgrounds presented historical, anthropological, social, and spiritual aspects of the Caste system in India.


The conference was co-sponsored by All World Gayatri Pariwar and inaugurated by Dr. Pranav Pandya (Head, All World Gayatri Pariwar and Chancellor of Dev Sanskriti University). Other prominent speakers at the conference included Swami Tattvavidananda (representing Arsha Vidya Gurukulam and the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha), Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Dr. R. Vaidyanathan, Rajiv Malhotra, Dr. MG Prasad, Dr. Madan Lal Goel, Suresh Chauhanke (Chairman and Managing Director of Sudarshan TV), and Prof. Ved Nanda. In addition, several students participating in the youth forum made presentations reflecting unique Hindu-American perspectives on the topic of caste. They expressed a yearning to learn more about Hinduism from authentic sources and appreciation for the original jati / varna system, which many felt had continuing relevance in modern times.


Dr. Pandya, in his inaugural address, remarked, "The origin and purpose of Varna-Ashram-Dharma (the core foundation of Indian civilization) is rooted in the main purpose of life, which is to achieve Self-enlightenment and perfection, for which the Varna-order provided the choice of a suitable path and support system for a thriving social fabric and personal life attainments, including social upliftment and material development as desirable side effects."


Dr. Pandya further noted that, "Had Varna-order been imposed upon the society by brute force, then it would not have survived the test of time in a highly decentralized, diverse, pluralistic and autonomously distributed society that India has represented through the ages."


The conference drew nearly 100 participants over the course of the weekend, sparking lively and provocative discussions. At the conclusion of the conference, many of the attendees voted to adopt a set of resolutions reflecting several of the key points emerging from the conference presentations.


In particular, it was agreed that jati / varna in their original form were beneficial for the psycho-spiritual development of the individual and for social harmony and prosperity. In fact, several participants on the conference panel on Western Perspectives on Varna, Jati and Kula, including Jeffrey Armstrong and Krishna Kirti Das (Christopher Shannon), strongly advocated for the incorporation of Jati / Varna principles into modern Western society. 


Second, it was agreed that the negative social practices of untouchability and the like result from a degenerated and distorted social system that cannot be equated with Jati / Varna and that it is unfair to condemn Jati / Varna for the social evils associated with a social system that is a grossly corrupted distortion of Jati / Varna. Hindus worldwide condemn untouchability and other such negative social practices as discrimination. "Well, if people have completely discarded the genuine Varna-order, and instead rolled out an unjust and corrupted order, then it's utterly unreasonable to slander the genuine Varna-order," was the view of Yuga-rishi Pandit Shriram Sharma Acharya (founder of All World Gayatri Pariwar), as quoted by Sanjay Saxena at the conference.


Third, there was consensus that it is inimical to Hindu interests for others, including Hindu organizations not based in India, to conflate Jati / Varna with racism or crimes against humanity—this is a matter for Indians to solve as an internal social issue under the sovereign power of India and one in which much progress has been made by the Indian government, the democratic / legal institutions of India and the grassroots efforts of many Hindu organizations and acharyas. 


The resolutions adopted by the WAVES conference will be separately published, along with conference proceedings and a detailed paper setting forth Hindu perspectives on Jati / Varna / Kula.


The reactions of youth participants at the conference were of appreciation for the forum and readiness for engagement. "I am very grateful for this opportunity to learn so much about my culture", said Kshama Desai of Youth for Sewa. "It was fantastic to see Hindu youth brainstorming the values of their tradition in such a constructive way", said Sashi Kejriwal, President of WAVES. Ravi Jaishankar, Secretary of the HSC (Hindu Students Council) National Body, eloquently expressed the need for the community to provide support to his generation to carry forward the Hindu tradition.


A series of presentations were made highlighting the ways in which the original and practical concepts of Varna and Jati can be integrated with modern social, economic, political, and spiritual lives throughout the world. Projects are likely to evolve to critically evaluate useful elements of the system for the benefit of society.

For more information go to www.wavesinternational.net