Jnana Karma Sannyasa Yoga

Hindi

पुराणों में सर्वाधिक समादृत भागवत पुराण में कई स्थलों पर ब्राह्मणों की उत्पत्ति क्षत्रियों से बताई गई है। उदाहरण के लिए यह विवरण देखें— "मन्युपुत्र गर्ग से शिनि और शिनि से गार्ग्य का जन्म हुआ। यद्यपि गार्ग्य क्षत्रिय था, फिर भी उससे ब्राह्मण वंश चला। महावीर्य का पुत्र था दुरितक्षय। दुरितक्षय के तीन पुत्र हुए—त्रय्यारुणि, कवि और पुरष्कारुणि। ये तीनों ब्राह्मण हो गए।" (श्लोक 19–20, अध्याय 21, भागवत पुराण)अर्थात, वर्ण का आधार जन्म नहीं, गुण और कर्म होना ही उचित है—जैसा कि भगवान ने गीता में भी संकेत दिया है, और जैसा कि भागवत पुराण के इस संदर्भ से भी स्पष्ट होता है। महाभारत में ऋषि विश्वामित्र के क्षत्रिय से ब्राह्मण बनने का उदाहरण भी इस दृष्टिकोण को बल देता है। अपने 'अकर्ता' होने की बात भगवान ने गीता के श्लोक (4.13) की दूसरी ही पंक्ति में क्यों कही—यह विचारणीय है। आज वर्ण-व्यवस्था टूट चुकी है। यदि भगवान इस वर्ण-व्यवस्था पर दृढ़ रहते, तो क्या यह टूट सकती थी? नहीं! यह व्यवस्था उस समय के सरल समाज में कार्य-निष्पादन की सुविधा हेतु बनाई गई थी। परंतु हजारों वर्षों के मानवीय उद्विकास के पश्चात समाज में जो जटिलताएँ उत्पन्न हुईं, उनमें इस व्यवस्था का टूटना स्वाभाविक ही था। इसीलिए भगवान ने तत्काल ही स्पष्ट कर दिया—इस वर्ण-व्यवस्था का कर्ता होने के बावजूद मुझे अकर्ता ही जानो; अर्थात, इस वर्ण-व्यवस्था के प्रति उन्हें कोई आग्रह या आसक्ति नहीं है। यह एक देश-काल-सापेक्ष वर्ग-व्यवस्था मात्र थी। अकर्ता' शब्द का गूढ़ संकेत अगले ही श्लोक (4.14), तथा आगे चलकर भी विशेष रूप से दिया गया है।

English

The verse is often cited by clerical and spiritual leaders to emphasize that the fourfold system, having been established by God, is inviolable and shouldn’t be altered. But a closer examination of the verse offers a different perspective. Firstly, the division was rooted in individuals’ attributes and professional roles. There is no hint anywhere in this verse or elsewhere in the Gitā that God created it based on lineage or ancestry. We will gradually observe how the Lord skillfully challenges the established practices of Orthodox Hinduism in a sophisticated manner without resorting to rudeness. In the second line of the verse, He introduces two intriguing concepts. Firstly, despite being the Creator ("Kartā") of the varna system, He asserts Himself as its "Akarta." When discussing "karma", "akarma", and "vikarma," we understood "akarma" to denote actions performed without attachment to them or their outcomes. Thus, the Lord indicates that He is not "attached" to the varna system that He created. We also know that He is not attached to any of His creations. So, why does He emphasize this immediately after stating He is its "Kartā"? It suggests that He would not mind if the varna system disappeared. Furthermore, He drops further hints that the varna system is indeed changeable by describing Himself as "Avyaya," or changeless and timeless. Why does He make this assertion immediately, right in the second line of the verse? What was the occasion or necessity? It implies that while He, the Creator, remains constant, His creation - the varna system - is subject to change. There is no alternative interpretation of the wording in the second line. In any case, it is universally acknowledged that change is inherent in God's creation. Change is the sole constant in Creation unless God explicitly wills otherwise. Therefore, if the varna system has evolved and is gradually fading away, it indicates that God has not ordained its permanence. Throughout time, societal structures have undergone evolution, complicating the once straightforward divisions. In the dynamic modern society, individuals frequently transition between roles and professions, making rigid adherence to an archaic classification system impractical. If God had intended the system to be universal and unchangeable, it could not have been altered by humans, as said. However, we observe significant changes in the system, particularly since India's independence, and anticipate its gradual disappearance in the coming decades and centuries. This also prompts reflection on why God designed the system exclusively for India and not for other parts of the world. The Bhagavad-Gitā’s portrayal of the fourfold system differs significantly from its real-world implementation. The Gitā consistently promotes universal equality, compassion, and fraternity among all people (12:13). In stark contrast, the historical application of the fourfold system in Sanātana Dharma has often marginalized the Shudras, placing them at a disadvantage within the hierarchy. The Gitā, in essence, opposes any form of discrimination or prejudice against any human group. There are not one or two but dozens of verses on “samata” (equality) and “samachittattva” (even-mindedness) in the Sacred Book.^1