32 What does the Gita say about caste system & social justice – Gita 9.33

Hare Krishna. Welcome to our Gita study course. Now we are discussing the middle of the ninth chapter of the Gita, and today we’ll discuss one of the more controversial aspects of the Gita’s teachings. The topic we’ll discuss is what it says about the caste system and social justice at large. Okay, sorry, so this will be based on 9.32 in the Bhagavad Gita.
Krishna says that those who take shelter of me, he certainly, even if they are born in lower species (Papa means low-born species, or unrighteous species), and even if they be women, Vaishyas, or Shudras, even they can attain the supreme perfection. So I’ll discuss this in broadly three parts today. We’ll look at the caste system as it is known in today’s terminology, what was its intention, and how what we have monetized as the distortion; then we will look at a statement from scripture that seems discriminatory, and finally, we will look at equality in principle and practice. So let’s look at this.

Now, the first point to recognize is that although we live in an egalitarian society, we need a hierarchy for any kind of functioning. Every functional society needs a hierarchy based on competence to tackle life’s many problems. So if we have a group of people who need food, we could say everybody is equal, but not everybody is equally good at cooking. So if a person who is good at cooking is put in charge, and they take charge and others follow them, a hierarchy is formed. But that hierarchy is beneficial for everyone because everybody will get good food. But the key here is that the hierarchy is based on competence. Now, instead, if the hierarchy is based simply on power or privilege — for example, someone says, “I’m the head cook because I’m the oldest, I’m the wealthiest, or I am the physically strongest” — that may not lead to good food. So the point is that in every area of life, we do need hierarchy.

The Varanashram, as the original system that was there in India for thousands of years, was based on this intention: it was a hierarchy based on competence. Its purpose was that different people, with their different competencies, could cooperate. The purpose was not, as it has happened in today’s system, discrimination based on birth. So Varana refers to the occupational division, and Ashram refers to the life-stage division. We’ll focus today on the occupational division. The example given in the Vedic literature, which is also reiterated in the Bhagavatam, is of a social body. A body has different parts: head, arms, belly, and legs. Now, each part of the body has its own competency. What the legs can do, the head can’t do. What the belly can do, the hands can’t do. So if all the parts of the body play their role, the whole body functions effectively.

Similarly, society is compared to a body, where the Brahmanas are said to be the head, the Kshatriyas are the arms, the Vaishyas are the belly, and the Shudras are the feet. So there is a natural division of labor based on competency. Broadly speaking, the Brahmanas are the, we could say, the ministerial class — not ministers in the political sense, but ministers in the religious sense. So they’re the priests, the teachers, and the advisors. They play a particular and vital role in society. The Kshatriyas are the warriors. They are the people who are the martial guardians of society. They may do it directly by fighting as soldiers or warriors, or they can do it by administration, that is, the statesmen and diplomats.

Now, if the body is attacked, the first resource that we usually use to protect the body is the hands. Similarly, the Kshatriyas are meant to protect the whole body. The head is meant to guide the whole body, and the Brahmanas guide the whole body. The belly is what nourishes the body. For any functional society, money and wealth are required, and the wealth generators are the Vaishyas. They are the Krushi, Gorakshavanijyam. The Bhagavad Gita says that their professions are farming, cow protection, and business. So, basically, they are the wealth generators. Just as the belly provides food for the whole body, the Vaishyas are the primary wealth generators who provide wealth for the whole of society.

The Shudras are like the feet. The feet carry the body around, so the Shudras are general assistants who perform various activities to assist society. Now, this metaphor focuses on cooperation — how the different limbs of the body cooperate. Similarly, different people in society cooperate for the overall functioning of society.

Now, if we consider this from a non-functional perspective (non-functional meaning, someone might argue, “Why is the head higher and the feet lower?”), that argument doesn’t consider the fact that the body is not just an ornament meant for demonstrating a particular value. The body is a tool for serving a particular purpose. So, I repeat: the body is not just an ornament for demonstrating a particular value; the body is a tool meant to serve a particular purpose. The body is meant to function so that the human living being can survive and thrive.

Similarly, society is not meant just to demonstrate certain values; society is meant to do something of value. People in society need to recognize that equality is itself not a supreme value. Equality is meant to help us do something of value. Yes, if we consider this from a non-functional perspective, we might ask why the head should be higher and the legs lower. But from a functional perspective, that’s where they fit, and if the body is to function, that’s the best way they are placed. Similarly, the underlying idea is that from a functional perspective, society is meant to do certain things.

Now, this doesn’t mean society is meant to. Basically, there are certain needs that are meant by society, and each social limb or social group, if it finds a role according to its particular position, can function optimally. So now, what are the basic principles underlying Varanashram? Spiritually, everyone is equal, but materially, everyone is different. And materially, if we try to say, we claim that everybody is equal, no — not everybody is equally good at fighting, not everybody is equally good at intellectual analysis, not everybody is equally good at practical skills, or not everybody is equally good at making money. So people are different. And here, in this Vedic text, this is a given truth that at a functional, at an essential level, everybody is equal, but at a functional level, everybody is different. Quite often, the system of Varanashram, as it degenerated into the caste system, has been seen as a source of great social evil, and that’s true, but still, it serves some purpose.

So here I have two or three quotes from Western thinkers who observed India. Mark Tully, a BBC correspondent, who wrote several books, says about the superficiality of egalitarianism: “The alienation of many young people in the West and the loneliness of the old show the suffering that egalitarianism inflicts on those who do not win — the superficiality of an egalitarianism which, in effect, means equal opportunities for all to win and then ignores the inevitable losers.”

So we may say that everybody is equal, but the problem is that everybody is not equal. Say, if a society like today’s society highlights academic success and says everybody should be equal, that’s good — everybody is equal in principle. But students, or children, who from birth have a low IQ, now what happens to them? They grow throughout the education system feeling inferior, inadequate, and then they end up as “losers.” No matter how hard some students may study, some students may just have an outstanding capacity to remember facts, mathematical tables, and stuff like that. Others may have an outstanding capacity to forget that kind of thing; they may remember other things, but they forget that. So, a society that imposes equality but then ignores the inevitable losers actually ends up creating feelings of inferiority, insecurity, and inadequacy.

For all that, the elite of India have become so spellbound by egalitarianism that they are unable to see any good in the only institution which does provide a sense of identity and dignity to those who are robbed from birth of the opportunity to compete on an equal footing — that is, caste.

So here, it’s a very important point that some people are robbed from birth of the opportunity to compete on an equal footing. Let’s consider IQ itself. While IQ is not necessarily a parameter for determining a happy life or even necessarily a successful life, IQ is a fairly good predictor of academic success. So, the fact is that reality itself — life itself — doesn’t offer tribute to the ideal of equality in a sentimental way. We may believe that everybody is equal, but with respect to, say, IQ, people are not equal, so they are robbed from birth of the opportunity to compete on equal footing.

There could be so many other areas. For example, if we lived in a society that was constantly at war — and there are societies like this in the past and even now, wars are going on in some parts of the world — but if we look at history, there are times when a country is said to have an unprecedented time of prosperity, sorry, at a time of peace. What are the times of peace? That is, for 20 years — 20 years they didn’t have a war. Otherwise, constantly, this state was fighting against that state, and someone was attacking, someone was plundering. So imagine a society if it was primarily either defending against invaders or itself invading. Then naturally, those who are physically well-built would be considered the best, and all those people who did not have that kind of physical build would be deprived. If someone was physically limited in some way or had special needs, they would not be able to function at all or would be disqualified in that society.

The point is that birth itself can be discriminatory. So rather than having one definition of success for all of society, Varanashram created different hierarchies. And that brings us to the next point.

Gerald Heard, in his book Man the Master, calls Varanashram an “organic democracy” — the rule of people who have organized themselves in a living, not a mechanical, relationship. Instead of all men being said to be equal, which is a lie, all men are known to be of equal value, if we could but find the position in which their potential contribution could be released and their essential growth pursued.

So here, of course, “men” is used in an inclusive sense, referring to all of humanity. It’s like “man proposes, God disposes” — there was no gender-specific sense. It was a gender-inclusive reference to humanity at that time in the past. But the point here is that to say everybody is equal is just not true. Actually, it’s a lie. So, people are organized in a living, not a mechanical, relationship. A living relationship means that, as I talked about, the society — the body has to function. For the body to function, how can each part contribute? All men are known to be of equal value. That means everybody has something valuable to contribute if they can — if the place where they can contribute is found out.

So, these four Varanas — rather than thinking of them as forecasts, we can think of them as four human types. There are some people who are naturally of a Brahminical orientation, some people who are more function-oriented, some people who like to manage, delegate, and organize, some people who like to analyze, study, and teach, and some people who like to trade and own money. Now, everybody needs money, but some people delight in it primarily, and some people have skills by which they can assist others. So, their potential contribution can be released, and their essential growth pursued if they can contribute where they are fit.

So I already talked about a hierarchy. Rather than having one hierarchy, like in the educational system where everybody goes through the same system — now, I’m not criticizing the education system per se, but I’m pointing out that there are certain limitations. If everybody is tested solely based on IQ, those who are not that good at IQ will not be able to succeed and thrive. So if, instead of having one hierarchy, there are multiple hierarchies, then everybody is fit. “Okay, you fit into this hierarchy,” and then you rise in that hierarchy. If they rise in that hierarchy, as Albert Einstein is attributed to have said, “A fish should not be judged by its ability to climb a tree.” So similarly, it’s not necessary to judge everybody by the same set of parameters.

Now, often the caste system was talked about as being discriminatory, but actually, it served another purpose of creating a sense of belonging to a bigger whole. So there is no doubt that caste is the main cause of this. Sidney Lowe, in his book A Vision of India, says, “There is no doubt that caste is the main cause of the fundamental stability and contentment by which Indian society has been braced for centuries against the shocks of politics and the cataclysms of nature. It provides every man with his place, his career, his occupation, and a circle of friends. It makes him, at the outset, a member of a corporate body. It protects him through life from the canker of social jealousy and unfulfilled aspirations.”

So now, before I finish, what does this mean? Let’s look at the first sentence. Sometimes, it’s perceived that the caste system has been so horribly discriminatory. Now, no doubt it has been discriminatory. However, if we consider that people from all castes have still lived on for centuries, if you consider all the ancient civilizations, hardly any of them are existing now. We go to modern-day Egypt, and it has nothing to do with the Egyptian civilization where the pharaohs and others were. If you look at the Mayan civilization, the Aztec civilization, and the Mesopotamian civilization, they don’t exist at all now. If you consider Chinese civilization, there is hardly much of ancient China in today’s China.

India is probably the world’s only ancient civilization which is continuing till today. Of course, there are changes, but there is a remarkable sense of cultural continuity. So now, why was there…

India has shown remarkable resilience, even after being repeatedly attacked by invaders. Any system that is excessively discriminatory will eventually face rebellion, especially when there’s both internal dissatisfaction and external aggression. However, the Indian social system, particularly Varanashram, didn’t collapse because it served a purpose—it provided a sense of community. In certain parts of India, groups with similar skills or businesses naturally grouped together. This was more than just physical proximity; it created a sense of belonging, a community of like-minded individuals.

Varanashram was meant to allow people to rise based on their skills and abilities, preventing unnecessary competition between, for example, intellectuals and businesspeople, who might have different values (intellectuals might not make as much money as businesspeople). This system reduced social jealousy, ensuring that people could feel successful and connected to their communities.

The idea behind caste was not to divide or discriminate but to create cooperation within groups. However, the caste system went wrong when it became based on birth, not competence. People began claiming power based on being born into higher castes, which led to inequality. Birth can help someone gain qualifications, but it shouldn’t be the sole determining factor for success. The Vedic scriptures state that divisions in society should be based on qualities (guna) and actions (karma), not birth (janma).

Some scriptural verses seem discriminatory, such as referring to people as “low-born” or “impure.” But these can be understood in different ways. Some commentators believe these verses refer to non-human species or people outside the traditional caste system. In any society, there will be people with different inclinations and skills, and not everyone fits neatly into the Varanashram framework. So, even those outside this system (like “low-born” people) can still attain spiritual success.

There are also statements in scripture that seem discriminatory, like the classification of women, Vaishyas (merchants), and Shudras (workers) as lower-born. But we must understand that not every statement in scripture is a direct teaching. For instance, when a demon in the Bhagavatam says that the destruction of Brahmanas (priests) will lead to the downfall of the gods, this isn’t a statement of truth—it’s a part of a story and must be understood in context.

In conclusion, the caste system originally had a purpose of social organization and cooperation, but when it became based on birth instead of individual competence, it led to problems. Scriptures need to be understood in context, and not every statement is meant to be taken as a universal truth.

Understanding who is speaking is important when interpreting scriptures. Some statements in scriptures are descriptive, meaning they describe events or conditions at a particular time, rather than prescriptive, meaning they tell us what we should do. For example, Lord Chaitanya’s time, as described in the Chaitanya Charitamrita, included the practice of not allowing non-Hindu devotees into Lord Jagannath’s temple, even though this was not Lord Chaitanya’s wish. This is a description of what happened at that time, not a prescription of how things should be.

Similarly, the times described in scriptures like the Mahabharata and Bhagavatam were not ideal. If they were, Krishna wouldn’t have descended to restore dharma (righteousness). Krishna’s teachings in the Bhagavad Gita also reflect that the knowledge he gave to Arjuna had been lost over time and needed to be restored.

The caste system, which sometimes categorized people as “low-born,” existed during the times of the Mahabharata. Krishna’s mention of “low-born” people doesn’t mean they are permanently inferior, but rather that, in society at the time, they were considered low-born, even though they could still achieve spiritual progress. So, not everything in the scriptures is prescriptive; some statements simply describe what happened at the time.

For example, prescriptive statements are commands like “you should surrender to me” (Bhagavad Gita 18:66), while descriptive statements are facts like “I am the source of everything” (Bhagavad Gita 10:8). Descriptive statements, while valuable, don’t dictate behavior. The Bhagavad Gita teaches that even people considered “low-born” can reach the highest spiritual goal if they practice devotion.

The idea of being “low-born” isn’t about spiritual destiny—it reflects the circumstances of one’s birth. We all have a past, and that determines where we start in life. Some people are born with more natural inclinations towards intellectual or physical pursuits. In the past, society may have classified people based on their birth, with the assumption that those born into certain roles were more suited for certain spiritual paths.

However, this doesn’t deny anyone their spiritual potential. The Bhagavad Gita teaches that spiritual growth depends on the soul’s journey, not just the body’s birth circumstances. Some people may be born into situations where they aren’t naturally inclined toward deep spirituality, but that doesn’t mean they are spiritually inferior. It just means that their starting point might be different.

The key takeaway is that while some people may be classified as “low-born,” this doesn’t limit their potential for spiritual growth. The path of bhakti (devotion), which the Bhagavad Gita emphasizes, is open to all, regardless of birth.

The path of karma (action) and jnana (knowledge) have specific requirements. Karma requires ritual purity, and jnana needs intellectual abilities. People who aren’t born with the necessary qualities might not be suited for these paths. However, the path of bhakti (devotion) is universal. Whether someone is intellectual or physically inclined, they can practice bhakti and grow spiritually. Bhakti is inclusive because it focuses on the heart and the soul’s natural longing to love and be loved, which can be directed toward Krishna. The key idea is that where we come from doesn’t determine where we can go, especially in the path of bhakti.

Krishna’s teachings suggest that everyone is unqualified for bhakti because our love is often directed away from Krishna. However, we are never disqualified, meaning Krishna always allows us to practice bhakti, even if our love is misdirected. The mercy of Krishna is what qualifies us to practice bhakti, and this is the true power of bhakti—it’s not about birth or external qualities, but about the potential for love within us.

When we look at equality in society, we see two main ideas: capitalism and communism. Capitalism allows people to rise based on wealth and power, but it often leads to exploitation and inequality. Communism tries to enforce material equality but doesn’t work well because it can suppress talent and create inefficiencies.

Spirituality, however, integrates both material diversity and spiritual equality. It acknowledges that people are different in their material abilities but emphasizes that everyone is equal at the spiritual level. In terms of ability, not everyone is equal, but spiritually, we all have the same divine spark. So, while people differ in abilities, they are equal in their essence.

Equality of opportunity is essential—everyone should have the chance to grow spiritually without discrimination. However, equality of results is not practical. If everyone is treated the same regardless of effort or ability, it leads to inefficiency and dissatisfaction, as seen in historical experiments with communism. For example, in Soviet Russia, the idea of giving everyone equal marks regardless of their performance led to a decline in motivation and competence.

In conclusion, while equality in ability and results isn’t realistic, equality of opportunity should be provided. Bhakti ensures this spiritual equality by allowing everyone, regardless of background, to grow spiritually and develop love for Krishna.

So, there are some people who are wealthy and have computers. There are some people who have smartphones, and as they were bought and used, the manufacturing process accelerated and became more efficient, and then it was made available for everyone.

So, if we try to impose equality of results in society, that is just not going to work. We can’t have artificial equality in terms of results; there will be diversity in results. But if there are different hierarchies, and people are given the sense that they can climb up a hierarchy that suits them, and people have different definitions of success, then what will happen is that people won’t feel discriminated against. If everybody is rated based on, say, how much money is in your bank balance, then that’s just one hierarchy. We can’t have everybody being judged by one hierarchy.

People’s self-worth can’t be reduced to their network or their GPA. There have to be different parameters. So, we can’t have equality of results. Inequality in results is not always because of discrimination; it can be because of ability, upbringing, culture—so many factors come into play.

The idea is that, rather than imposing equality in an artificial way, we have it in an organic way, where everybody has an equal opportunity to grow spiritually. We can’t immediately change the society we are born in, but whether we are born in an equal society or a discriminated society, bhakti spirituality can always give us the strength and facility to grow to our best and find enduring fulfillment.

So, I’ll summarize what I spoke about today. I spoke on the topic of the caste system and social justice as mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita. We talked about the caste system—the purpose was not discrimination but cooperation, and the idea is of the social body. Every part is not equal in isolation, but the body itself doesn’t exist in isolation. The body exists for a function, and every part is of value, provided we find what its value is.

Similarly, the caste system is not about equality, because birth itself is discriminatory and different people have different abilities. Rather than claiming that everybody is equal, we find where people can contribute in a way that is of value to society. If there are different hierarchies, rather than one definition of success for everyone, people are protected from the canker of social jealousy and can have a sense of belonging with others who are similarly endowed.

Now, birthright is not wrong. Birth can help in gaining qualifications, but birth itself is not the qualification.

We then discussed whether this is scriptural, whether it’s worth talking about discrimination. The term “papayona” (lowborn) came up, and we discussed how this term could refer to a separate category, not a descriptor of the three primary categories. We also discussed how everything in scripture is not necessarily a teaching of scripture; scripture may have prescriptive statements, but it also may have many descriptive statements. When looking at a statement, we need to consider not just the statement itself, but the stress of the statement.

For instance, even if a student has a low IQ, the focus is not on the student’s low IQ, but rather on the effectiveness of the course in helping the student. Similarly, the Bhagavad Gita stresses the potency of bhakti, not the status of any particular class of people. Are some people lowborn? Yes, we do have a backstory, we have a history, and what we have done does determine our starting point in this life, but it doesn’t determine our ending point. That is up to us, based on how we act. There are certain paths—like the paths of karma and jnana—that require ritual purity or intellectual capacity, and in those paths, certain kinds of birth may not be the best qualifications. But bhakti is universal; it enables everybody to grow—not just grow, but grow toward the life’s ultimate perfection.

We also discussed equality in principle and practice at four levels. We discussed how communism and capitalism both have their problems, because at their base both are materialistic. Capitalism is materialism in retail, and communism is materialism in wholesale. We discussed equality in identity: Yes, when we understand our essential identity as spiritual, our very longing for equality points to our spirituality.

However, equality in ability is not true, because different people are differently endowed. Equality in opportunity is possible—society through social justice should seek equality in opportunity. To establish equality in opportunity, social justice is complemented by spiritual justice. When we understand how we are equal in identity, social justice, if not having a spiritual foundation, can’t provide a metaphysical basis for its claim that society should be equal. How can we claim equality when every material metric shows that we are different?

Thus, equality is not just a sentiment; it is grounded in reality when we understand that our identity is spiritual. Social justice, in terms of establishing the equal identity of all people and creating systems where people have equal opportunity, is good. But if social justice starts claiming that we should have equal results, that can be disastrous.

We recognize that, whatever the nature of society, and however much we are able to change or not change it, we all can access the spiritual equality of bhakti and thereby bring out our best and find life’s best fulfillment. Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

So, are teachers who teach material knowledge or are experts in material knowledge considered to be brahmanas as well? Definitions of words are sometimes relative to context. But if you consider that there are innate inclinations and people work according to certain inclinations, it could very well be that somebody might love to teach physics, and somebody might love to teach art or some other field. If they truly delight in teaching—not for money, not for fame, but just because they love it—saying they are not brahmanas because they are not devoted to God is imposing an extraneous qualification on a system based on one’s own perspective.

Varanashram itself is not bhakti, and some people, especially those who are teachers of bhakti, might not understand the difference between the two and try to present varanashram from a bhakti perspective. That’s fine, which is one way of looking at varanashram. We didn’t have much time to go into it, but we can say that there are three kinds of varanashram: traditional or Vedic varanashram, asuri (demonic) varanashram, and daivi (divine) varanashram.

Vedic varanashram was what was present in traditional Vedic society, where brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaishyas, and shudras engaged in their different social roles, and they gradually became elevated. The idea was that if a shudra performed their duties dutifully throughout their life, they would be elevated in the next life, eventually becoming a vaishya, then a kshatriya, and then a brahmana. They would continue to be elevated further.

However, within the bhakti understanding, it doesn’t have to be like this. It can be like this: a brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya, or shudra can practice bhakti from wherever they are and can become spiritually elevated and liberated. So, a vaishya or a shudra doesn’t have to become a kshatriya or rise up the varanashram system to ultimately become a devotee and transcend.

Vedic varanashram was focused on social arrangement, which was not necessarily directly devotional. Then, asuri varanashram, or demoniac varanashram, was when the Vedic varanashram got distorted, and everything became based on birth. Daivi varanashram is what our acharyas have conceived. That is, society needs to be organized in some way, and varanashram is the way Krishna has described it in the Bhagavad Gita. If everybody is devotionally inclined and can be engaged according to their nature, they can happily contribute to society and grow spiritually.

We need to be clear about what we are talking about. Within daivi varanashram, everyone should be a devotee, and if somebody is not a devotee, they will not be considered a brahmana within the daivi varanashram system. However, if you consider varanashram as an organic division of society present in every society according to inclinations, then there will be people who will be teachers. Even if they are not theistic, they will be considered brahmanical if that is their inclination, their vocation.

So, is varana based on nature, not intelligence?

Is it that if somebody likes to read, they are brahmanas? Not just reading—we have to consider what someone is reading. It’s not that vaishyas or shudras don’t have intelligence. Everybody has intelligence, but it is a specific kind of intelligence. There are many people who read books, but some people may just like reading fiction. How many people will read books that are about metaphysics or higher realities of life?

The idea is not that one varana is intelligent and another is not. There are different kinds of intelligences, and each person requires intelligence in that activity to do it. For example, somebody skilled as an artisan has sharp intelligence—they can look at a piece of wood and immediately know whether it’s suitable for making woodcraft. That’s expertise, and we can’t deny that.

When we talk about nature, it’s definitely not as simple as intelligence. Intelligence is one aspect of nature, but it’s not just that brahmanas are intelligent—everyone is intelligent in different ways. If you want to talk about intelligence in terms of information processing ability or analytical ability with respect to life’s deeper truths, intelligence that is suited for the role of a minister, teacher, mentor, or priest, that’s a particular kind of intelligence. It involves learning, assimilating, analyzing, and teaching—this is brahmanical intelligence.

Yes, everybody has intelligence, but nature involves much more than intelligence.

Krishna’s purpose is not to specifically mention particular demographics. Otherwise, he would have just mentioned lobon and not specified demographics. My point is that what is the stress of the verse? Every statement can have many points, but what is the main point, the emphasis? I give the example of a retort: even if it’s not the main point, the emphasis is still there.

Similarly, in this verse, yes, there is a reference to lobon and three classes of people, but the point of the verse is not that these people are lobon. The point is that even they can be elevated.

Most of my family in Taiwan, we all got into an A-rated university, and many of them have become successful. When we came to the West, we pursued our dreams. I went on to become a yoga teacher. Does that mean we are brahmanas solely because of our intellectual capacity to learn? Or have we become some kind of sudras because we are doing occupations that are not research- or study-related?

There are two or three different things here. Varanashram was a form of social division that was present traditionally in society when it was structured in a different way. Today, society is structured differently.

On the Application of Varanashram in Modern Society

The question arises whether applying the specifics of Varanashram (the traditional division of society into four varnas—Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras) to today’s world is valuable or even relevant. The principle behind Varanashram is not about rigid classifications but about engaging individuals according to their natural qualities and inclinations.

Srila Prabhupada, the founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), spoke about how devotees transcend traditional varna divisions. His teaching was not about assigning labels based on birth but about recognizing the qualities and attributes of individuals. In today’s world, when Prabhupada discussed establishing Varanashram, he emphasized the importance of qualities rather than strict social labels.

There is a misconception that someone who receives a salary, for example, cannot be considered a Brahmana. However, I haven’t found any scriptural basis for this idea. The term Shavutti, which refers to a dog’s attitude, is often misused to describe a materialistic approach, but it does not specifically say anything about earning a salary. I know many respected Brahmanas, both within Vaishnavism and other traditions, who hold jobs, receive salaries, and still perform priestly duties, rituals, and teaching.

In my understanding, a person’s nature must be carefully assessed, considering multiple factors. The principle of Varanashram is about understanding someone’s nature and engaging them accordingly, but this cannot be based solely on factors like education or profession. Guna (qualities) and karma (activities), as described by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita, are better indicators of a person’s nature.

Can Profession Determine Nature?

A person’s profession, such as being a professor or a businessperson, does not necessarily indicate their spiritual qualities. Even in academia, extreme ambition, envy, and political scheming may not align with Brahminical qualities, even if the person holds an intellectual profession. On the other hand, someone in business can practice ethical principles, which might align more with the qualities of a Vaishya.

Similarly, an artisan might take great pride in their work, showing a sense of excellence and ethics, while another might view their work as merely a means to earn money. No single activity can serve as an exhaustive determinant of one’s nature. This reflects a broader temptation in spiritual traditions: to reduce the complexity of spirituality into simplistic bullet points or single rules. The truth is, the system of Varanashram, based on nature, is complex and requires careful understanding.

For example, Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur, a revered Vaishnava teacher, worked for the king of Manipur and received a salary. Does that mean he was not a Brahmana? He was not a Brahmana by birth, but by his spiritual stature, he far exceeded the qualifications of a Brahmana. This shows that we must resist the temptation to simplify spirituality into one-point determiners.

On the Presence of Prostitutes in Krishna’s Time

Some people might question why there were prostitutes in Dwaraka, the city where Krishna resided, if Krishna, as the supreme personality, was present. This leads to a common temptation: to romanticize the past as a perfect utopia, while demonizing the present. But life, throughout history, has always been complex and messy. The material world has always presented existential challenges, and people have dealt with them in various ways.

We need to avoid idealizing the past. For example, while the four regulative principles (no meat-eating, no gambling, no intoxication, and no illicit sex) are central to Krishna consciousness, there are scriptures that mention meat-eating as a part of the diet of warriors like Maharaja Rantideva, who was a Kshatriya.

In ancient times, Kshatriyas, being warriors, might have hunted and consumed meat during military expeditions, especially when other food sources were unavailable. This does not mean that meat-eating was glorified, but rather that it was a functional reality, not a recommended or desirable part of the lifestyle.

Regarding prostitutes in Krishna’s time, we must recognize that different individuals have different backgrounds. The Bhagavatam, for instance, speaks of Pingala, a prostitute, who, after experiencing a pivotal moment in her life, detaches from material desires. Her wisdom grew as a result of her experiences, which indicates that even someone in such a profession can attain spiritual wisdom.

Additionally, the Vyad Gita in the Mahabharata recounts the teachings of a butcher to a sage. This shows that wisdom is not confined to one’s social class or profession, and that spiritual insight can come from unexpected sources. Similarly, the Bhagavatam mentions the butcher Vyada, who, despite his profession, imparted spiritual knowledge.

The complexity of the material world cannot be reduced to simple categories. We must resist the temptation to impose one-dimensional labels on individuals based on profession, societal role, or external circumstances. The true measure of a person’s nature lies in their qualities and actions, which align with their spiritual growth.

So, there is this renunciate, a sadhu, who thinks, “I am so proud of being a renunciate.” He goes to a home and expects the lady of the house to give him alms. She tells him, “I’m taking care of my household responsibilities, please wait for some time,” and he feels annoyed. He thinks, “I’m doing this for society, to take care of my family.” Eventually, she comes and serves him food. Before that, this sage (the renunciate) goes outside and, in a display of his power, gets angry at a bird making a lot of noise. He glances at the bird, and its wings catch fire. He feels proud of his power.

But then, the lady tells him, “I’m not like that bird whom you can burn with your anger. I am a virtuous, responsible, beautiful lady, and I have the power of my chastity.” The sage is surprised—not only because she is so assertive about her position, but also because she knows about him. He asks, “How do you know about this?” She replies, “Go to this butcher, and you’ll learn something from him.” The sage is shocked and says, “I cannot go to a butcher.” She insists, “He is a wise person.”

The sage then goes to the butcher, and the butcher speaks a lot of philosophy to him. The sage then realizes that he shouldn’t label people based on externals. He realizes that not all renunciates are sages. He learns that people may be circumstantially engaged in certain professions, but that doesn’t define who they are.

In the Vyadha Gita, it is described how people, due to their circumstances, may be engaged in certain professions, but this doesn’t define them spiritually. Even if a woman is a prostitute, for example, the Bhagavatam speaks about how, by devotion, she can be spiritually elevated. The Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam both share this principle: that someone, no matter their background or profession, can be spiritually perfected through devotion.

We do try, as much as possible, to reorganize our social roles in ways that are spiritually compatible, but we shouldn’t label people based on their material situations. Just because someone’s profession may seem incompatible with spiritual progress, we shouldn’t assume they are spiritually fallen. The two are different things.

The Bhagavatam contains references meant to radically restructure our conceptions of spirituality. Bhakti is so inclusive that even prostitutes or butchers can become devotees. Now, we may ask, “Shouldn’t they give up those professions if they are actually devotees?” But we don’t know their full backstory. The fact that the Bhagavatam does not bother to tell us this backstory indicates that it doesn’t consider it important. The point is that wherever one is, materially speaking, they can practice bhakti and become elevated.

Of course, when we try to share bhakti systematically, there are certain standards expected within the institution for followers. However, we should also know that bhakti is not limited to institutional followers. Bhakti devi is independent; she is a goddess on her own and can manifest in anyone’s heart. Wherever there is devotion, it should be respected.

Normally, there is a system where those who want to grow spiritually should try to arrange their material lives in ways that harmonize with their spiritual growth. However, if for some reason this is not happening for certain individuals, we shouldn’t label them as spiritually fallen simply because their material lives are disharmonious. We should see their spiritual inclination of the heart as something that transcends their material situation.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful questions. Hare Krishna, Bhagavad Gita ki Jai! Thank you very much.