Gita key verses course 17 – Why are religious people so sectarian? – Gita 5.18

Our topic is why religious people sometimes are sectarian and it is better to be spiritual, not religious. So, we will discuss based on 5.18 in the Bhagavad Gita. That is our next slide. That is: Samadarshinaha. Samadarshinaha is to see equally. And Panditaha. What happens over here is the wise people, the Panditas, they see everyone equally. And this equality applies not just to all human beings, but to all living beings. And this verse talks about a whole spectrum of humanity. Now, we will be discussing later the concept of the three modes when we come to the appropriate section, but broadly, the three modes convey the mentality or the disposition of people. Vidya Vinaya Sampannya, one who is learned and humble, that kind of a wise Brahmana, spiritual, intellectual. Gavi Hastini. Gavi Hastini is an elephant and cow. And a dog and a dog-eater.

Now, often people, especially in the Vedic context, are classified according to what they consider as consumable, edible. So, Swapaka is considered to be a person who doesn’t have much discrimination in what is to be eaten. As the word’s literal translation is a dog-eater. So, basically, all human beings, from those who would be considered the most evolved to those who are considered least evolved. A Brahmana and an indiscriminate consumer of animal flesh. Basically, the idea is that there is equal vision. Pandita Samadarshina.

Now, it’s interesting that while the statement about equal vision is made, there is also a factual, there is also an acceptance or acknowledgment of a functional vision. Functional vision means that yes, this particular living being is a dog, this particular living being is an elephant, this particular living being is a cow, this particular human being is from this kind of social categorization. So, there is a functional identification also that is there, but beyond that, there is a spiritual vision of Samadarshina.

Now, how are all living beings equal? Because everybody is a part of, everybody is essentially spiritual, everybody beyond their bodily coverings is a soul. So, in that sense, because everybody is a soul and all souls are essentially equal, just the level of consciousness of the soul varies from person to person. So, in that sense, there is difference, but otherwise, there is equality. So, this understanding is vital for gaining clarity.

So, let’s move on to the next slide. We will be discussing what causes the kind of sectarianism or discrimination that comes up. So, basically, for functioning in any aspect of life, there is a combination of hierarchy and equality. Suppose, say, a plane is to be flown from New York to LA. Now, we could say, okay, all passengers are equal. Well, not exactly. Right in the beginning, the announcement comes that everybody should follow the instructions of the crew. And the crew follows the instructions of the captain. So, if everybody in an airplane were said to be equal, then could any passenger go and sit in the captain’s seat or could anyone just take charge of the airplane, practically piloting it or overall directing it? No. There is a hierarchy required.

So, in every aspect of life, we see hierarchy. Say, for example, during mafia driving on a road, then the traffic cops, they are at a higher hierarchy. And if they tell that you have to stop or you’re speeding, you get a ticket, then people get a ticket. So now, at one level, nothing will function without hierarchy. So, even at home, if we say, everybody is equal, fine. But then if there is some food to be cooked, well, somebody might know cooking, another person might not know cooking at all. So, even if everybody is pitching in to cook, it might be better that the person who knows how to cook take the lead and direct everyone else.

For functioning effectively, hierarchy is required. Hierarchies are essential because different people have different degrees of competence. But at the same time, equality is also needed. Say, for example, if we are seated and staff serves everyone but doesn’t serve some people, and then why are they not served? Maybe it’s because of their race, maybe it’s because of something else. Then that will be discrimination, and that would be unfair. If some people are given more tickets than others, that would be considered discriminatory. If food is cooked but some people are not given food, that would be considered discriminatory. So, equality has to be there.

We could say that there has to be hierarchy in terms of authority for deciding, but at the same time, there has to be equality in terms of opportunity.

So, let’s move forward. Without hierarchy, what happens? See, if there is only emphasis on hierarchy, there is an over-emphasis that can lead to tyranny. In such cases, we have tyrannical governments, and we have tyrannical leaders where “I am the boss, and that’s why you have to obey me.” If there is only emphasis on hierarchy without consideration of competence, then that can become tyrannical. In the modern world, most of the societies have democratic governments, which basically hold that people elect who will be the leader.

Generally, if a person is a king who has inherited the kingdom, there is a certain amount of suspicion that this person might be tyrannical. So, there is over-emphasis on hierarchy that leads to tyranny. On the other hand, if there is over-emphasis on equality, that leads to anarchy. Why anarchy? Because, as we discussed, if it is said that anybody can drive a plane, that won’t work. Different people have different degrees of competence.

So then, what is the solution? There has to be a balance of hierarchy and equality.

Now, how does this apply in the spiritual context? The word religious has now acquired a certain negative connotation. That’s why many people want to be religious but not spiritual. So, in general, what happens is religious people emphasize hierarchy over equality. For example, if within a religious structure, say, if somebody goes to a temple or somebody goes to a church, and certain aarti is being performed, certain sacraments are being performed, then the performer of the sacrifice—who maybe showers or sprinkles sacred water on others—is considered at a purer level.

Now, at a functional level, maybe they follow higher standards of friendliness and hygiene. Maybe they take a bath and purify themselves physically. But the idea is that for performing any kind of specific ceremonies, practices, or rituals, especially those involving a mass of people, there is a hierarchy involved. And this hierarchy is what is emphasized by religious people. So, there could be people in positions of authority, such as those performing rituals or overseeing them. There could also be institutional authority, where some people hold power within the structure.

When hierarchy is emphasized over equality, that sort of attitude is common among religious people. On the other hand, among spiritual people, there is an emphasis on equality over hierarchy.

So, equality over hierarchy means everybody is equal. Everybody is essentially equal, and an egalitarian attitude is there. Naturally, we might gravitate toward the spiritual way of looking at things. Everybody should be considered equal. Yes, that is true. But spirituality is also a process for growth. In one of our earlier sessions, we had discussed how spiritual and material are levels of consciousness, and it’s like going up a mountain. The bottom of the mountain is material consciousness, and the top of the mountain is spiritual consciousness. We need to rise from material consciousness to spiritual consciousness.

To go up the mountain, there can be different paths. Now, somebody might be more experienced in climbing up the mountain. Somebody might already be situated higher, and they can see better and guide us, telling us, “Okay, go this way, don’t go that way.” So, from a functional perspective, there could be people who need to guide the mountain climbing expedition, and there has to be some amount of authority. Ideally speaking, the authority should be based on competence.

Now, religion, although the word has a negative connotation, essentially means the path by which someone can go from material consciousness to spiritual consciousness. Different people can have different religions in terms of what they follow specifically, but essentially, there is a path to be followed. And following the path, a certain structure of authority, a certain hierarchy, will be required. Ideally speaking, the hierarchy should be based on competence. This means those who are at the top of the mountain should be spiritually more evolved. They should be wiser and more realized, and then they can guide others in rising to spiritual consciousness.

So, when there is this understanding of a balanced sort of understanding—there is spiritual and there is religious—religious people just focus on, “Yeah, I am at a higher position, you are at a lower position, offer your respects to me.” Well, okay, some amount of respect has to be offered, but the idea is that everybody is equal in the sense that everyone has the potential to rise to the top. And everybody needs to be given the potential and opportunity to rise to the top.

Now, of course, we are not going so much into religious sectarianism here because we discussed earlier how there can be different paths of the mountain. Some people might claim that my path is the only path to the mountain, and we discussed exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism earlier. Exclusivism says “my path is the only path,” pluralism says “all paths are right,” and inclusivism says “there is one purpose, and many paths are included within that purpose.” The purpose is to go up the mountain, and different paths might take us to the top of the mountain.

We will now see how religious but spiritual misapplication can happen. Among various cultures across the world, India has probably the spiritual wisdom tradition that asserts universal equality. Whether it is the Advaithic or Dvaithic tradition, they say that essentially we are all Atma. Now, the relation of the Atma or the Paramatma might be a matter of difference, but the point is that universal equality is very strongly asserted as a philosophical truth.

Yet, India is also characterized by a social structure that imposes severe discrimination: the caste system. We see how this can lead to cognitive dissonance. Philosophically, it is said that everyone is equal, but practically, society was so stratified that certain people were considered untouchables. They could not even enter certain areas or touch certain things. If they came into contact with specific water, they could be punished. Some people were strongly discriminated against.

So, what happened here? Why did the philosophical truths not play out and were not demonstrated in real life? Returning to the hierarchy and equality principle, we can look at another pendulum. At one extreme is ritualism, where externals alone matter—this is the hierarchy and what is right, that is wrong. At the other extreme is sentimentalism, where externals don’t matter at all. What the Gita and many spiritual traditions across the world say is that externals are ways to the internals. There are certain spiritual practices; spirituality is not just a state of mind, but a level of consciousness attained by doing something at a practical level. And that practical doing is the essence of spiritual growth.

So, the externals matter, just like we can’t sentimentally say that the bottom and top of the mountain are equal, or that somebody at the bottom and somebody at the top of the mountain are equal. No, everybody has equal spiritual potential, and everyone can rise to the top, but they actually have to go through the journey to rise to the top.

Now, when ritualism is emphasized, as happened in the caste system, what was the cause of the irony? Without an emphasis on education about the purpose of the hierarchy—the purpose of the hierarchy and the purpose of the entire structure ultimately—the external is seen as essential. In the case of the caste system, the external thing was birth. Which particular dynasty or caste you were born into became seen as essential.

When you talk in terms of the bottom and the top of the mountain, it seems very simple. Yes, everybody has to go to the top, and a hierarchy might be needed to guide how to get there. But the spiritual journey often takes a long time. The bottom and the top are not always so clearly visible. What happens is that the ultimate purpose is sometimes overlooked, and hierarchies are seen not as functional but as foundational or central. Then, people say, “I am here, I need to be respected, and you are down there, you need to be revived.” This is what happened in the caste system.

The caste system was meant for cooperation but became a tool for discrimination. This kind of discrimination doesn’t only happen within the Indian tradition. Hierarchies are often created across the world, and that leads to discrimination. When the British came to India, for example, they thought that white people were superior. But it wasn’t just white people—it was specifically white men. Until the start of the 20th century, especially before the World Wars, men held central positions of authority.

It wasn’t that men were exploiting women—men and women were meant to cooperate, functioning as a family unit and a social unit, with the family being the fundamental social unit. However, wherever there is a hierarchy, there is a tendency to move toward tyranny. When this happens, the hierarchy needs to be challenged and curtailed.

In the caste system, Brahmanas began claiming superiority because they were born into higher castes. This also happened to some extent with the Kshatriyas. People’s essential and lifelong identity became tied to their birth, rather than being functional. The four varnas—Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra—are meant for social cooperation so that everyone can contribute according to their natural inclinations and endowments. Some people will play ministerial roles, some will play managerial roles, others will be mercantile, and some will play mechanical roles like artisans. All of these roles are important for the social system.

We’ll talk more about how the caste system contributes to spiritual growth when we discuss varnashram later. But for now, our point is different. The caste system serves as an example of how sectarianism, discrimination, and tyranny can arise within a spiritual context. These issues emerge when there is an overemphasis on externals rather than internals.

Now, we move on to a four-quadrant diagram. On the X-axis is “religious,” and on the Y-axis is “spiritual.” If people are neither religious nor spiritual, they will be materialistic. If people are religious but not spiritual, they are ritualistic—they just perform specific rituals and that’s all. If someone claims they are spiritual but not religious, this can be a good sentiment. They might say, “I don’t want any discrimination,” but it can lead to people becoming overly sentimental. Just like everyone can cook in the kitchen, everyone can cook, but that doesn’t mean everyone is equally good at it. If you want good food, not everyone will be equally able to produce it.

Yes, everybody is essentially spiritual, but we all need guidance on how to grow spiritually. And that guidance should be based on where someone is in terms of their spiritual growth. Sentimentalism refers to the rejection of hierarchy. Spiritual but not religious means someone is open-minded, and doesn’t believe their path is the only right path, which is fine.

Today, the word “spiritual” is used in a more positive sense, and “religious” is often used in a negative sense. However, this distinction is quite recent. Even 50-60 years ago, Albert Einstein said that the deepest appreciation of the universe, when we see the harmony and intricacy of nature, is a religious appreciation of the universe. When he used the term “religious,” he meant it in the same positive sense that we now use “spiritual.”

The idea here is that when there is an openness to some higher or deeper truths in life, an eagerness to explore what lies beyond what is just apparent, that is what is called “spiritual.” Originally, the term “religious” was meant to guide us toward that non-material reality, ultimately toward the ultimate non-material reality, which is God.

Now, if there is to be transformational growth, there has to be a combination of both religious and spiritual practices. We need to be religiously spiritual. Being religiously spiritual means that when we are trying to climb up a mountain, we must religiously, or diligently, follow the path that will take us up. But while following this path, we also need to recognize that there is a purpose to the path, and it’s not just adherence to the path that will take us up. There are different paths, and different people can ascend by following their specific paths. This combination of religious adherence and spiritual openness is what leads to transformational growth.

So, there must be both religious and spiritual elements together. We can call it “religiously spiritual” or “spiritually religious,” but the point is that both must combine for growth. This dynamic plays out in various ways in today’s world. Sectarianism arises when a hierarchy is emphasized. The hierarchy may serve a purpose at a particular level, but if the purpose of the hierarchy is forgotten, then the hierarchy should be relegated to a lower place, and not overly emphasized.

In fact, the Bhagavatam, which talks about Bhakti through various examples, is a remarkably subversive book. By “subversive,” I mean that the traditional structures of hierarchy are repeatedly subverted to emphasize the importance of Bhakti (devotion). I have a whole class on this, discussing how, time and time again, almost every significant past time in the Bhagavatam subverts religious structures. So, as we approach Narsimha Chaturdashi, which is soon, the defining character of this celebration is the exemplary devotion of Prahlad.

Normally, there is a cosmic hierarchy: there are godly beings and ungodly or demoniac beings, with the divine considered higher than the demoniac. Prahlad, however, was born in a demoniac family, but through his devotion, he surpasses even the greatest of divine beings. In this way, Prahlad’s devotion subverts the normal divine and demoniac hierarchy.

Similarly, the Bhagavatam is full of examples where hierarchy is inverted in favor of Bhakti. For instance, there is the story of Ambarish Maharaj and Durvasa. Durvasa, a Brahmana and a Sannyasi, is spiritually lacking—he is short-tempered and judgmental. When he visits Ambarish Maharaj and sees that Ambarish is eating before him, Durvasa becomes enraged and tries to punish him. However, when he attempts to attack Ambarish Maharaj, it is Durvasa who becomes the target of the Lord’s anger. The Sudarshan Chakra chases Durvasa, and eventually, he must seek forgiveness not from the Lord, but from Ambarish Maharaj, a Kshatriya householder.

This is an inversion of the typical social hierarchy, where a Brahmana and Sannyasi seeks forgiveness from a Kshatriya grahastha. The point is that hierarchies can be inverted.

Another vivid example of the inversion of hierarchy comes from the Krishna Leela in the 10th Canto of the Bhagavatam. In this story, a group of Brahmanas is performing a grand sacrifice. These Brahmanas are focused entirely on their rituals and are disdainful of any interruptions. Krishna’s cowherd friends come to them asking for food, but the Brahmanas refuse, even though Krishna himself has requested it. Later, Krishna instructs his friends to go to the Brahmanas’ wives, who immediately recognize Krishna’s request and bring the best food to him.

The purpose of the rituals, after all, was to please the Gods, and Krishna is the highest of the Gods. But the Brahmanas, so caught up in the rituals, missed the ultimate purpose of their actions. They were religious but not spiritual—they emphasized the external ritual without recognizing its deeper, spiritual meaning.

On the other hand, the Brahmana Patnis, the wives of the Brahmanas, were assisting their husbands in the performance of the rituals. They did not reject the rituals. In fact, they had cooked the elaborate feast and made various arrangements for the sacrifice. This was not an indiscriminate rejection of all rituals, as sometimes happens when spiritual life is rejected entirely. However, there are times when what is conventionally considered religious actually comes in the way of being spiritual.

In a normal, functional way, we follow the religious path to become spiritual. But sometimes, what is considered religious becomes so ritualistic and fossilized that it no longer raises one to a higher consciousness or leads to spiritual growth. In such cases, it may need to be set aside.

The example of the Yajna Brahmana Patnis shows that while they may not have been experts in religious rituals, they were deeply grounded in the spiritual purpose of the rituals. This demonstrates that hierarchy can sometimes be misleading, and that the purpose must always be kept in mind.

To avoid the negative consequences of hierarchy, we need to avoid tyranny and sectarianism. We must function according to hierarchy but with equality in mind. This means remembering that everyone is essentially equal in terms of spiritual potential. We should not let hierarchy become the sole defining factor, as doing so can lead to discrimination and sectarianism.

To harmonize hierarchy and equality, we must focus on spiritual growth. The key question should always be: what will lead us and others to higher consciousness? If we keep this focus, we can all grow harmoniously and steadily, and ultimately, we can all realize our spiritual potential and reach the top of the mountain.

To summarize, I spoke about why religious people can become sectarian and whether it is better to be spiritual but not religious. I explained that sectarianism arises when those in authority consider themselves elite and special and push others down. People who belong to a particular path may think they are special just because of their affiliation, without considering their actual position. The key idea is that for effective functioning, there has to be a hierarchy. But this hierarchy must be based on competence, as we see in fields like driving, cooking, or flying an airplane—without a hierarchy, there can be anarchy. However, if hierarchy is emphasized too much, with no recognition of equality, it can lead to tyranny.

We also discussed the “pendulum” of extremes. One extreme is focusing only on externals in the spiritual path, which can become ritualism. The other extreme is to disregard the importance of rituals or philosophical understanding entirely, which can lead to sentimentalism. The balanced approach is to use externals as a means to grow spiritually.

We also talked about the four quadrants: without being spiritual or religious, a person is materialistic, with no concept or possibility for spiritual growth. Focusing only on being spiritual but not religious can lead to sentimentalism, as it denies the importance of hierarchy and the tangible path of progress. Emphasizing religion without spirituality leads to ritualism. The ideal state is transformational, where both spiritual and religious elements are harmonized. We harmonize hierarchy and equality by acknowledging equality in principle and adopting the hierarchy that helps us grow spiritually. By focusing on the purpose of spiritual growth, we can all advance steadily.

Now, let’s move on to the questions. The first question is: What is the effect of sentimentality, and what are its effects? Pure sentimentality is discouraged in the case of the Brahmana wives.

Sentiment is healthy, and we all want to have spiritual sentiments, such as love for Krishna. However, sentimentality refers to allowing emotions to be the sole deciding factor in our actions, without considering other important aspects. When the Brahmana Patnis went to Krishna, they were driven by deep devotion for him. But they were also open to philosophical instructions from Krishna. They accepted his teachings about how they should continue their social duties while worshiping him inside their hearts.

Sentimentality, on the other hand, means allowing sentiment alone to be the driving force in one’s life. For example, someone might say, “Last night I had a dream about Krishna, and because Krishna came to me in my dream, my life is now perfected. Who needs to do all this sadhana business?” Such thinking overlooks the fact that true spiritual growth is not defined by dreams but by our ongoing practice and relationship with Krishna.

Spirituality is based on how we serve Krishna in our wakeful state because we exercise our free will to move toward him. Sentimentality, however, arises when we claim that we alone are the highest, based on certain parameters we consider absolutely important. For example, we might discuss the principle of the Guru. Every devotee should be inspired by their spiritual master. But if someone starts thinking, “My spiritual master is the greatest, and if you don’t follow my spiritual master, you will not grow spiritually,” this becomes sectarian.

Yes, we should have deep devotion and respect for our spiritual masters, but we must also understand that Krishna can manifest through different spiritual masters for different people. Sectarianism can arise when we say, “Only my spiritual master is a pure devotee, yours is not.” But how can we truly know this? Sentimentality means making our sentiments the sole deciders of our actions, rather than giving them their due place. When sentimentality takes over, it can lead us astray.

Explanation of the Four Quadrants

The first quadrant is self-explanatory. For example, Carl Sagan, in his famous TV series Cosmos, claimed that the cosmos is all that ever existed, all that exists, and all that will ever exist. This is an ideological claim, not a scientific fact. It’s a presumption, which is part of the framework of methodological naturalism in science, assuming that nature is all that exists. However, when such a presumption is presented as a conclusion, it becomes misleading.

A person who claims that there is nothing beyond the material and dismisses all religious rituals as “hocus pocus” would fall into this quadrant. Such a person neither accepts any higher reality nor believes in spirituality.

The second quadrant is someone who is religious but not spiritual. This person emphasizes rituals and practices to the exclusion of everything else. For example, fasting on Ekadashi may be seen as essential to spiritual practice. But if someone criticizes others for not fasting on the same day or from the same foods, this becomes an example of religious practice without true spiritual depth. Such behavior can lead to sectarianism, blinding people to the real essence of spirituality.

An anecdote illustrates the dangers of sectarianism: A Catholic nun, while talking to a teenage girl in an orphanage, was shocked when the girl said, “I want to become a prostitute.” But then the nun relaxed when the girl corrected herself: “Oh, I thought you said I want to become a Protestant!” In this case, the fanaticism for Catholicism led to an absurd perspective, equating the sin of prostitution with the perceived heresy of being Protestant. This shows how sectarianism can distort our understanding of others and blind us to the bigger picture.

The third quadrant represents someone who is spiritual but not religious. This person does not follow any particular spiritual path and may feel spiritual by merely thinking deeply about life. While such a person may have good feelings, spirituality requires a more structured process for growth. There must be both intellectual understanding (doxy) and practical practice (praxy) for true spiritual development.

Spirituality has two key aspects: doxy (orthodoxy) and praxy (orthopraxy). Doxy refers to the intellectual or philosophical aspect of spirituality, while praxy is the practical aspect, involving rituals and practices. Both aspects are meant to help us gain a deeper understanding of spiritual realities and lead us to a higher consciousness. If neither aspect is acknowledged, and there is no effort in practice or philosophical analysis, a person is being spiritual but not religious.

The ideal state is when one is both spiritual and religious. This means acknowledging a particular path and following it diligently while recognizing that others may follow different paths and still grow spiritually. This balance of doxy and praxy is what leads to real spiritual progress.

Difference Between Spirituality and Religion

I have already touched upon the difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality involves experiencing transcendence, and the more we grow spiritually, the more we detach from material desires and become attracted to spiritual experiences. This attachment to the spiritual reduces our craving for sensual experiences, which is a key indicator of spiritual growth.

When we practice sadhana bhakti, if our attraction to Krishna increases and our capacity to resist sensual pleasures grows, we are progressing spiritually. These signs of growth indicate that we are moving towards higher consciousness.

Final Note on Questions

Regarding questions about Parikshit Maharaj, the stories of Parikshit Maharaj differ in the Mahabharata and the Bhagavatam because they occur in different cosmic cycles, and thus, the details may vary slightly.

Each book has a particular purpose, and the narrative is told accordingly. For example, the primary purpose of the Mahabharata is to demonstrate the gradual spiritual growth where someone follows dharma and then attains swarga (heaven). The Mahabharata can be seen as an activist book that focuses on this world. So, naturally, when Parikshit Maharaj is threatened by a curse that is unfair, he tries to resist it. His courtiers and soldiers make arrangements for him to stay on top of a mountain in an enclosed structure to protect himself. Then, a Brahmana comes to see him and offers a fruit. Toward the end of the seventh day, Parikshit Maharaj accepts the fruit, and from it, a snake-like being emerges and bites him, leading to his death.

In contrast, the Bhagavatam tells the story differently: Parikshit Maharaj renounces the world, goes to the forest, sits down for seven days, and listens to the Bhagavatam. A snake-bird comes and bites him, and he dies. This difference in narrative reflects that depending on one’s role in society, one may approach difficulties in different ways.

For example, if a devotee gets cancer, they may think, “This is God’s will; I will accept this and focus on spiritual growth.” This is one approach, and it can be fine if the devotee is older or the chance of recovery is low. However, if someone is young and feels they still have much service to do, they may try vigorously to find a cure through treatments and travels. Both approaches are valid, depending on the person’s consciousness and intent. Parikshit Maharaj, even when striving to protect himself, was focused on the protection of dharma. As long as the king is safe, he can protect dharma; if the king is destroyed, dharma can be destroyed. The key is the consciousness behind the action—whether one sees the body as a tool given by Krishna to grow spiritually or whether one feels that the body is deteriorating and thus focuses entirely on spiritual growth.

These two different approaches to spiritual growth are symbolized by the narratives in the Mahabharata and the Srimad Bhagavatam. In the Mahabharata, the focus is on resisting the inevitable, trying to maintain one’s material position, while the Bhagavatam emphasizes renunciation and complete focus on the spiritual path.

On the Caste System and Equality:

Regarding questions on the caste system, I will discuss it more in a future session, but I will provide a quick answer here about the discrimination against Karana and Ekalavya. Karana’s story is complicated, but Ekalavya’s case is clearer. He was a talented individual but belonged to the Nishadha group, which was disruptive to the Kuru administration. Ekalavya’s refusal by Drona was not only based on caste but also because of his affiliation with a group that opposed the Kauravas. Later, Ekalavya joined forces with Jarasandha, who was an enemy of Krishna. In this context, Ekalavya’s actions and associations reflected his character and tendencies, not just his caste.

In the case of Karana, there were mistakes he made, which will be discussed later. But essentially, there was discrimination, though this was not solely based on caste but also on Karana’s behavior and actions. Krishna, in the Bhagavad Gita, talks about the decline of dharma over time. The society depicted in the Mahabharata was not ideal but had deviated from its ideal principles. In Krishna’s time, society was rigid and stratified, which led to unhealthy discrimination. Krishna came to correct these imbalances.

Regarding the flexibility in the varna system, it depends on the wisdom of the leaders. If the leaders are spiritually aware, they will look beyond external characteristics and focus on a person’s qualities and behavior. The Upanishads, for example, tell the story of Satyakama Jabali, who, despite being born in a lower caste, was acknowledged as a Brahmana because of his truthfulness. Similarly, Narada Muni, born to a maidservant, became such a great sage that even the greatest gods respected him profoundly. These exceptions show that people born in lower hierarchies could rise above their caste through their qualities and spiritual progress.

On Parikshit Maharaj’s Birth:

The Bhagavatam describes that Parikshit Maharaj was revived by Krishna after being struck by Ashwathama’s Brahmastra, which killed him in Uttara’s womb. The Bhagavatam doesn’t explicitly say he was stillborn or revived after death, but it mentions Krishna’s protection. According to Vishwanath Chakravarti’s commentary, Parikshit’s survival and devotion to Krishna were significant. He saw Krishna’s intervention and was deeply devoted to Him, which is why he was so attracted to Krishna.

Thank you for your attention, Hare Krishna!