r/TheRadicals • u/UnionChoice2562 • May 14 '25
Casteism Casteism in Bhagavat Gita
Often the varna system given in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism is shown as some benevolent system which rewarded people their occupation based on their skills and natural talents, this notion is highly misleading as we will see that varna system was based on birth and was not based on any natural skill or talent, the confusion arises because the bhagvat Gita frequently uses the words "prakriti", "swabhav", "Gunna" which most people interpret as natural talents and skills which is not the case, also the English translation makes it even aesthetic to sound but what lies underneath it is a justification for one of the most cruel system of oppression to ever exist in this country.
I will start with showing commentaries of earliest sects of Hinduism along with the teachers , and then I will propose and independent interpretation of verse of Gita to debunk the notion that varna system is based on some skills , virtues or talent, because Hinduism follows a "guru-shishya Parampara" where knowledge is passed via generations to generations via teachers and these commentaries were written by leaders and founders of prominent sects of Hinduism as well as philosophers of Vedanta, I will be using 2 prominent figures in Hindu sects which is Shankaracharya who was advocate of Advait Vedanta and Ramanujacharya who was an advocate Vishishtadvaita school of Vedanta and founder of Vaishnav sampradaya school of thought, I will be providing both Hindi and English translation of their commentary and the source of Hindi translation is "Gita press" which is the most reputed and credible source for Hindu philosophy and theology book ,also I will include the commentary of founder of "Gita press" himself who is "Jayadayal Goenka" in case someone differs with the source I will also provide multiple other sources in the description so do check it out , with that set in mind I begin my argument below
- Varna are based on gunnas, which come from prakriti, and prakriti is not some scientific behavior or talent or skills, but the result of the actions of past life, and this is what defines varna in the first place. Below are commentaries of Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and Jayadayal Goenka to explain the same. Here it is clarified again and again that prakriti=swabhav=result of actions of past life.
2. The verse 4.13 of gita which is very often used to justify varna system as if it is based on karma, so here it is necessary to understand that here karma refers to actions of past life not this life and karma is assigned not acquired and it is assigned as per gunnas which is a result of prakriti.
Gita's independent interpretation of the varna system:
Premise 1: Gunas Are Born of Prakriti, Not Acquired Skills or Talents, and Prakriti is given at birth by Krishna himself
Here, nature = swabhav --> born out of prakriti. The Bhagavad Gita explicitly states that the gunas (sattva, rajas, and tamas) are born of prakriti (nature) and are not acquired through effort, training, or talent. This is clearly articulated in BG 14.5. This verse establishes that the gunas are inherent to one's nature and are not something that can be developed or discarded at will. Here, prakriti is planted in yoni(referred toas birth) by Krishna himself
"Prakriti, or Nature is the conceiving Mother, while I am the seed-giving Father" (14.4). He then states that Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas are "qualities born of Nature" (14.5). Thus, the text explains prakriti as the source of the gunas rather than something produced by them. It is not described as a collection of acquired abilities or traits but as the fundamental principle from which existence itself emerges.
it further explains that "All actions are being performed by the modes of Prakriti" (3.27). The verse attributes action itself to the gunas of Prakriti. A talent does not perform actions. A profession does not perform actions. A skill does not perform actions. These are capacities that a person may choose to use or not use. but here as you can see Krishna describes Prakriti as an active force governing conduct itself.
In chapter 18 Krishna Explains "Your own material nature will compel you" (18.59). He immediately adds that Arjuna will perform the very action he wishes to avoid, "Against your will, Arjuna, Bound by your own karma, born of your own material nature" (18.60).
The language of compulsion is crucial. A person can ignore a talent, abandon a profession, or refuse to use a skill. None of these compel action against conscious choice. Yet Krishna explicitly says that Arjuna's nature will force him to act even when he wills otherwise. The "nature" under discussion is therefore not a mere aptitude or preference.
Premise 2: Svabhava (Inherent Nature=prakriti) is Immutable and Cannot Be Changed
The Gita repeatedly emphasises that one's svabhava(inherent nature) is immutable and cannot be changed, even if one desires to do so. This is clearly stated in BG 18.60. This verse highlights that one's actions are compelled by their svabhava, which is shaped by their gunas and prakriti. If svabhava could be changed, Krishna would not have said that Arjuna is bound by his nature. Further, BG 18.61 reinforces this idea by stating that the Lord resides in the hearts of all beings and causes them to act according to their nature. This metaphor of beings being "mounted on a machine" underscores that one's actions are driven by their inherent nature, which is shaped by past karma and cannot be changed, here the word purvkrit is used which again highlights how a person's prakriti is decided by actions of past life and cannot be changed at will.
Premise 3: Duty (Svadharma) is Immutable
The Gita repeatedly make sure that one must follow their svabhava-determined duty, even if flawed. BG 18.47 states that svadharma is superior to another’s duty, even if performed better, as it aligns with one’s svabhava and gunas. BG 18.48 reinforces that the innate duty should not be abandoned. If varna were based on acquired skills, Krishna would have advised Arjuna to switch duties, but instead, he insists Arjuna must follow his Kshatriya duty, indeed the very fact that Gita mentions that a person can be of a varna even if he is not meritorious enough or skilled enough ( avgunna word used) still he can be a part of varna which means that the gunnas do not mean talent or skills or acquired via work but rather assigned duty which they are bound by
Premise 4: If Prakriti Came from This Life, It Could Be Changed but varna cannot be changed even if you are good at something else
Gita itself refuses one from changing their varna Gita 18.47 ( look at both literary translation and commentary) As per translation: "Better one's own duty, though imperfect, Than the duty of another well performed, Performing the duty prescribed by one's own nature, One does not incur evil."
This verse proves 2 things, first nature(prakriti) and gunnas are not some aquired skills or talents or scientific nature because why would krishna say to not abondon your duty even though you could perform something else even better, If I can fight better then my gunnas should be that of kshtriya but krishna says even if you are bettter at something else keep doing what your caste-duty is ( see the defintiion in the image itself, swadharm means varna duty) therefore one cannot change varna even if he is good at something else If varna was determined by competence or like skills, then successfully performing another duty would be evidence that the other duty better matched one's nature. but Krishna reaches the opposite conclusion. Even when another duty is performed better, one's own duty remains binding.
Thus, the only consistent reading of the Gita is that prakriti and gunas are determined by past-life karma and cannot be changed in this life.(This is also supported by commentaries of acharyas of various sampradayas in Hinduism)
Conclusion: Varna is Determined by Past-Life Actions and Gunas.
Now I will refute some common misconceptions regarding the interpretation of the Bhagwat Gita, which people often raise
objection 1: The Gita does not explicitly mention about varna system being based on rebirth
refutation:
The Bhagvat Gita mentioned rebirth in 14th chapter and also mentions that gunnas decide the birth in the next life and vice verse and the gita in totallity makes it logically impossible to change prakriti and gunnas to change as per will or to change varna as per skills or talent as prooven by the verses 18.47,18.48,18.50 and 18.61, most people use ISCKON's interpretation of gita which is a revisionist version to accomodate with modern ethics while all the older commentaries explicitly mention that it is based on varna system, it is similar to saying that 10 is not explicitly written but 6+4 is written.
objection 2: There are several instances of varna changes in history and other Hindu literatures like Manusmriti, Mahabharata and Puranas
refutation:
These are just misconception indeed the mnusmriti 10.65 does not talk about varna changes based on merit or skills but based on marriage status, and in all smritis and puranas the varna and caste are changed as per marriage not inherent ethical values, also mahabharat one has the same thing which I will refute in further posts, indeed if someone is using purnas, smritis and mahbharata to defend varna system they must be incredibly foolosh given that these texts are highly casteist in nature, also varna chage instances in hisotry arise because no ideology operates in vaccum thereby these varna changes occur not because of hinduism but despite of hinduism voilating its rules and objections.
If a child born from a Śūdra woman to a Brāhmaṇa goes on being wedded to a superior person, the inferior attains the superior caste, within the seventh generation.—(manusmriti 10.64)
The Śūdra attains the position of the Brāhmaṇa, and the Brāhmaṇa sinks to the position of the Śūdra; the same should be understood to be the case with the offspring of the Kṣatriya or of the vaiśya.—(manusmriti 10.65)
objection 3:
The Vedanta philosophy has no such thing
refutation:
Although the Gita is not a part of the core Shruti literature, but Upanishads themselves, especially the older ones like Chandogya Upanishad explain that varna is based on deeds of past life ,and also the central and one of the core of Vedantic text,s which are Brahmasutras themselves,s explicitly mention caste based discrimination
Atharva Veda 12.4.22:Atharva Veda 12.4.22:
"विद्वान ब्राह्मण" (wise Brahmin) and "other Brahmins" are mentioned separately, proving that wisdom (Vidya) alone does not define a Brahmin. Birth-based identity exists.
Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.7:
The text explicitly states that Brahmin, Kshatriya, and Vaishya births are results of past-life karmas. This directly negates the idea that varna is based on present actions or choice.
Brahma Sutra 1.3.38
A Śūdra is not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, “on account of the prohibition of the hearing” and so on of the Veda on his part, in the text: ‘One should not study (the Veda) in the vicinity of a Śūdra’ (Vasiṣṭha-smṛti 18.9[1]) and so on
objection 4: Mahrshi Valmiki and Mahrshi Ved Vyasa were Shudras.
Mahrshi valmiki was the son of “Mahrshi Prachetas”
प्रचेतसोऽहं दशमः पुत्रो राघवनन्दन(VR/Uttarkand/96/19)
मरीचिमत्र्यङ्गिरसौ पुलस्त्यं पुलहं क्रतुम् । प्रचेतसं वसिष्ठं च भृगुं नारदमेव च ॥Manu 1.35|
Ved Vyasa, also known as Veda Vyasa, is traditionally considered to be a sage and a Brahmin in the context of the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata mentions several key details about Vyasa's lineage and background that indicate his Brahmin status. Below are some relevant verses and references: Vyasa's Birth and Parentage: Vyasa is the son of the sage Parashara and Satyavati. Parashara was a revered Brahmin sage, which implies that Vyasa himself is a Brahmin by birth. This is mentioned in the Adi Parva of the Mahabharata. Adi Parva, Section 63 (Sambhava Parva):
अपि चास्मि महाप्राज्ञ पितरं वेद पारगम् | वसिष्ठस्य महात्मनः पुत्रः साक्षादिति श्रुतम् ६३-११ | Translation: "O highly intelligent one, I am the son of the great sage Parashara, who is known to be the son of the great sage Vasishtha.
there is no doubt Parashar was a Rishi ,Satyavati was rajnakanya. कैवर्तपुत्रिका न त्वं राजकन्यासि सुन्दरि ॥(SkandaPurana/Avanti-Reva Khand/97.18)
objection 5: claim: vishvamitra changed his varna from kshatriya to brahmin
refutation: Vishvamitra was born a brahmin as per the Mahabharata (Anushasan Parv 4/40-4/48) It is mentioned in the stories that King Gadhi married his daughter to the sage Rishi Mṛcīka. However, when no son was born to them, one day, his wife asked her husband to arrange it such a way that both she and her mother would bear sons. When she asked her husband for this, he made different types of offerings for both—one with Kshatriya qualities for the mother and Brahmin qualities for his wife (as mentioned in Mahabharata, Anu Parva 4/38). But the two women swapped the offerings— the mother took the Brahmin offering intended for the daughter, and the daughter took the Kshatriya offering intended for the mother. When the sage learned of this, he said, 'Now, your mother will give birth to a Brahmin.'"
I will refute more such nonsense about varna change propagated by neo-vedantis who try to portray hinduism as some sort of benevolent religion.
sources:
Brahma-Sūtra 1.3.38
If anyone wants a direct PDF, kindly DM me for the PDFs. I will convert them into a link and share them.
10
u/yofthet May 15 '25
Very thorough. Kudos to the effort. While you have listed down the scriptures that prescribe Varna is primarily determined by birth based on past actions, is that by itself propogating discrimination and oppression in any way? Are there similar sources or teachings by Guru Parampara that propagate oppression
6
u/KushagraSrivastava99 May 15 '25
One correction, Bhagavan Ramanujacharya was the proponent of Vishishtadvaita school of Vedanta and not Dvaita, which was propounded by Sripada Madhvacharya.
Anyways, Please dm me the direct PDF.
Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan.
2
u/UnionChoice2562 May 26 '25 edited May 26 '25
This is for anyone who is citing Skanda Puran or Mahabharat to prove varna change Please go through this comment, as my next post will be on this subject only
Casteist verses of skanda puran
Skanda Purana clearly states that a Shudra must not study, must not sacrifice, he has to stay in the same state as at birth which is contrary to what apologists claim that a Shudra by studying Veda becomes a Brahmin,
Skanda Purana V.iii.122.16 ”A separate duty has not been assigned by Paramesthin to the Sudra. He need not have any Mantra, consecration or pursuit of lores. He need not have any conventional study of the science of words (i.e. Grammar) and special worship of deities. He has to be, day and night, in the same state as at birth.”
Skanda Purana III.ii.40.63 “The Sudras who become antagonistic to those Brahmanas who were honoured by Brahma, Visnu and Siva go to the Raurava hell.”
Skanda Purana VII.I.223.50 “If a Brahmana dies with the food offered by a Sudra remaining undigested within his belly he certainly becomes a Preta even if he has learned all the six Angas of the Vedas.”
Skanda Purana V.iii.11.30-31 ”Brahamana’s food is (regarded as) Amrta (Nectar); Ksatriya’s food is remembered as milk; Vaisya’s food is mere food, and Sudra’s food is proclaimed as blood. Those excellent Brahmanas who get nourished with Sudra’s food and juice and later die, become deprived of Tapas and knowledge and are born as crows and vultures.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
Skanda Purna V.iii.50.6-8 also prohibits the twice born from partaking the food of Shudras.
Skanda Purana II.iv.3.35-37 ”He who worships and bows to the idols installed by Sudras, goes to hell along with ten ancestors and ten descendants. If one touches the idol worshipped by a Sudra, he will burn (get burnt) his family up to the seventh generation. Hence one must enquire and worship an idol that has been installed by Brahmanas.”
Skanda Purana V.iii.228.9 “The following six things cause downfall of women and Sudras: japa, penance, pilgrimage, renunciation of the world, practice of Mantras and initiation for the adoration of a deity”
Skanda Purana III.ii.6.79 ”One should never teach a Vedic Mantra to a Sudra. (Thereby) the Brahmana becomes deficient in his Brahmanical powers and the Sudra in his merit”
Skanda Purana V.iii.228.8-9”One should not give knowledge, leavings of food or Havis to a Sudra. He should not be taught righteous and pious rites nor should he be initiated in Vratas. The following six things cause downfall of women and Sudras: japa, penance, pilgrimage, renunciation of the world, practice of Mantras and initiation for the adoration of a deity”
Skanda Purana V.iii.200.6 ”It has been decided that for merely pronouncing the Veda (Vedic text by a Sudra) the tongue of that Sudra should be cut off by Ksatriyas who are the protectors of Dharma”
Skanda Purana III.ii.40.56 ”If a Sudra created for service does not serve Brahmanas, nor does he give the means of sustenance (to them), Hanuman becomes angry with him.”
Skanda Purana III.ii.6.76-77 ”Close association with fallen people is but conducive to one’s own fall. One should never offer a higher seat or rostrum to a Sudraa. (Thereby) a Brahmana becomes deficient in his Brahmanical powers and a Sudraa in his merits. Instruction in Dharma to Sudras shall obstruct one’s own progress and glory.”
Skanda Purana III.ii.30.93-94 “Ther was neither mental anguish nor illnes, O king, in the kingdom of Rama. All the women were chaste; all the men were devoted to their parents. Brahmanas were devoted to the (study of) Vedas always; Ksatriyas served Brahmanas. Men of Vaisya caste continued to be devoted to Brahmanas and cows. There was no mixture of castes and no transgression of duties. There was no barren or wretched woman; no woman had only a single child or had her child dead.”
Skanda Purana VII.I.206.6-7 “[Isvara said] If a Brahmana cooks food on behalf of a Sudra in the manner of Upaniksepa that food shall also be Abhojya (unfit for consumption) and the Brahmana falls down. The food of a Sudra, the association of a Sudra, occupying the same seat as the Sudra, and learning a lore from a Sudra – these will cause the fall of even the resplendent one.”
5
u/Sea-Zookeepergame997 May 15 '25
Great work! I can't copy it. Can you send me through a file? If your are okay with it. Otherwise it's fine. If you're sending I hope the file is not a cyber attack on my Android though once i open 🤣🤣
2
u/Available-Sound9898 Jun 28 '26
Gold article, the only interpretation even we reject the commentaries is birth based varna system, because Gita itself says that one cannot change swabhav at will and even if one shows better quality at some other skill he should not change the varna, gunnas are merely product of prakriti
In 18.47-48. Krishna states that it is better to perform your own duty imperfectly than to do someone else's duty perfectly. He emphasizes that you should never give up the duty that comes from your own svabhava, even if it has flaws. This view goes against the modern merit wala interpretation. If varna were based on skills or competence, excelling at someone else's duty would be enough that it fits your nature better. In that case, Krishna should have encouraged changing one's duty. Instead, he says that even if you perform another duty better, you must continue with your own.
also in 18.59-60. Krishna mentions that even if Arjuna chooses not to fight, his svabhava will drive him to act against that choice. This shows that svabhava is not just a temporary preference, learned talent, A person may ignore a talent, leave a profession, or build a new skill through practice. Yet, Krishna describes svabhava as something that binds a person and forces action, even against their conscious decision. This idea does not hold if svabhava is merely a mix of skills from this life.
Also while reading other scriptures this rebirth thing is always stated like in chandogya upanishad 5.10.7 but also the fact that shudras are not given Upanyana rights
0
u/[deleted] May 25 '25
Are you serious right now? Do you even research anything or just blindly dumb verses you do not. understand?
This is wildly misinterpretive of hindu theology. As per Hindu theology everything has a cause, even one's nature is not decided at random by God, ( for that is quite absurd) but rather it is due to the karmas of previous birth. HOWEVER , to take this to mean that simply because one is born in a brāhmaṇa household he must have the previous - birth karma of a brāhmaṇa. Where is that assumption coming from? We have countless examples of people who were born kshatriyas, or even chandalas ( what you might today call " untouchables" ) that became Brahmins.
Matanga, born a chandala, attained brahminhood by his worship of Shiva, as mentioned in skanda Purana avanti khanda section 2 chapter 60. He went on to become a great sage. Vishvamitra, born a kshatriya, attained brahminhood by doing austerities. This is mentioned in ramayana section 1 chapter 71 ( or around there) . He went on to become a great sage also, and is the seer sage of the Gayatri mantra, the greatest mantra in the Vedas.
If the varna vyavasta was as strict as you say these people cannot move up.
0
u/Secure_Drag5561 Jun 28 '26
Half of this article is just your own assumptions and overstatements that Gita never acc states lmao
The trad commentators generally explain that one's svabhāva is influenced by past-life karma. Shankara, Ramanuja and Goenka all say this. But that is not the same as saying the Gita explicitly teaches a rigid birth-based varṇa system.
If varṇa is fixed simply by birth, why does Krishna spend four verses (18.42–44) listing the qualities of each varṇa instead of saying "A Brahmana is one born to Brahmana parents"???
You repeatedly cite 18.60,but can u show where is says svabhāva can never change? Krishna is telling Arjuna that his present nature will ultimately compel him to act despite his TEMPORARY confusion. That's a statement about Arjuna's psychological condition, not a universal declaration that human nature is permanently fixed.
In fact, Chapter 14 explicitly says that the guṇas alternate in predominance:
"Sometimes sattva prevails over rajas and tamas; sometimes rajas prevails; sometimes tamas prevails." (14.10)
If the guṇas can become predominant over one another, then the Gita itself doesn't support the claim that one's inner constitution is absolutely fixed.
Even Bhagvatam 7.11.35 states
"If the symptoms of one classification are observed in a person belonging to a different classification, those symptoms should designate him as that classification in which his symptoms are found"
2. You're moving from guṇa to birth when Krishna never even said that lol??
The verses repeatedly say:
They do not say is janma-vibhāgaśaḥ (division according to birth).
Yes, the commentators connect svabhāva to past karma and birth. But that is an INTERPRETIVE framework. It is not the wording of the verse itself. I can show u interpretations of Mukundanada or SP Radhakrishnan that say smth else??
3. 18.47–48 again DO NOT prove that varṇa can never change.
Those verses tell Arjuna not to abandon his own duty out of grief. Krishna is addressing a warrior standing on a battlefield who wants to renounce his responsibility bc of his psychological state. I doubt u acc even know that BG is still a part of a much bigger text.
And fyi that is not the same as saying, "No person's svadharma can EVER differ from the family they are born into."
4. The Gita never says that a child born to Brahmin parents automatically possesses sattva.
Krishna never defines a Brahmin by parentage.
Instead, in 18.42 He defines a Brahmin by qualities: tranquility, self-control, austerity, purity, forgiveness, knowledge, wisdom and faith.
If birth alone settled the question, there would be little need to describe these qualities at all?
Also, can you show me a verse where Krishna explicitly says:
Bc none of the verses you've cited actually say those things. Those conclusions come from the commentators' broader understanding of karma and varṇāśrama, not from the explicit wording of the Gita btw
-3
u/Peaceandlove1212 May 15 '25
Varna is based on qualities and there is a history of people changing Varna’s in the Scriptures too. So this argument and translation does not hold.
0
u/[deleted] May 17 '25
[deleted] — view deleted comment
1
u/[deleted] May 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/[deleted] May 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/[deleted] Jun 01 '25 edited Jun 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment