Varna of Eastern Europe - 2

November 12, 1994

Q: What is the present dominant varna of Eastern Europe?

This question of varna in the Eastern European area is a bit complex. Now, I have said that the general dominance of Eastern Europe is shudra, and I propose that this is in fact the case. But there are some exceptions, and also there are some complex circumstances. Now regarding what varna was dominant in pre World War II Eastern European nations, I would say they were dominated at that time not by vaeshya, but by shudra. You see the vaeshyan society of that period was an economic overlay on an impoverished area in which the main mentality of the people remained shudra. They are a people who are simple and desire, most of all, the health and welfare of their families. They are a humble people who accept dominance. But there were strong pockets of vaeshyan dominance. You see, there may be dominance within a shudra society of ruling classes of different varnas, but the main varna, the overall mentality which dominates the society, will be that of the people at large, not the ruling class.

It is like a pyramid. At the top are a small number of people who may rule the society. They may be of a different bent, but unless they are strongly associated with the common people, they will not represent the varna of that society. So, in particular, in a shudra society, you may have a ruling class of one type or another, and yet the society is shudra because the quality and characteristic of the shudra is that they do not feel confident, in themselves, to rule. They think that they are not adequate to the task. So they will give the rule to this one or that one, and they will humbly accept the ruling class, whereas, in the ks'attriya, this will never be the case. They will not accept dominance. They will insist that the ruling class be a reflection of their approach. They would be dishonored otherwise.

Likewise, a vipran society becomes very filled with unrest if the ruling class does not reflect their approach. They will argue, they will write so many treatises, they will do so many protests, they will not put up with this. But a shudra will tolerate dominance by any type of individual as long as their basic needs are sufficiently met.

So the mentality of a shudran society may be different from the ruling class. It is very deceptive. You may think it is this type or that type, but it is because the ruling class consists of this approach or that approach. If the ruling class is disconnected from the society at large, if the ruling class is simply another dominator or conqueror of the people, there will be a schism. They do not reflect the approach of the shudras; they literally rule them. So they rule the people and the people themselves are a common lot.

Now there were pockets in Eastern Europe where the people themselves became vaeshyan, where the vaeshyan mentality was assisted to become the coloring of the people themselves. But these are pockets, not the society at large. If one takes Eastern Europe as a whole, one would have to say it has been primarily shudran all along.

Now, regarding post-communist Eastern European nations, again there was an overthrow of one ruling class by another, one dominant class by another, but the overall society did not change. There are areas of existing vaeshyan domination. But if one takes the whole of Eastern Europe, it is not.