यस्य यल्लक्षणं प्रोक्तं पुंसो वर्णाभिव्यञ्जकम् ।
यदन्यत्रापि दृश्येत तत्तेनैव विनिर्दिशेत् ॥
yasya yal lakṣaṇaṁ proktaṁ puṁso varṇābhivyañjakam |
yad anyatrāpi dṛśyeta tat tenaiva vinirdiśet ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 7.11.35)
“If a characteristic which is said to be an indicator of a person’s varṇa should be observed even elsewhere [i.e., even in a person born in a different varṇa], one should designate him [i.e., the person in whom the characteristic was observed] specifically with that [i.e., with the varṇa of that characteristic which was observed].”
Commentary
śamādibhir eva brāhmaṇādi-vyavahāro mukhyo na jāti-mātrād ity āha—yasyeti | yad yadi anyatra varṇāntare’pi dṛśyeta tad varṇāntaraṁ tenaiva lakṣaṇa-nimittenaiva varṇena vinirdiśet, na taj-jāti-nimittenety arthaḥ |
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā)
“The conduct of a brāhmaṇa and so on [i.e., or a kṣatriya, vaiśya, etc.,] specifically by way of equanimity and so on [i.e., shown specifically by way of the general characteristics of a particular varṇa, such as the characteristics of equanimity (śama), self-control (dama), and so forth in the case of the brāhmaṇa varṇa, as per the specification of these characteristics stated earlier in SB 7.11.21–24] is primary [in determining how a person is to be designated and respected]; it is not only birth [i.e., it is not birth alone but birth as well as indicative characteristics that determine the designation of a varṇa to an individual and the respect meant to be shown to them]. Thus, he says yasya … [i.e., he speaks this verse]. If (yat) [a characteristic which is said to be an indicator of a person’s varṇa] should be observed elsewhere (anyatra), that is, even in a person of a different varṇa [i.e., even in a person born in a different varṇa], one should designate him—the person of the other varṇa—specifically with that, that is, specifically with the varṇa that has the [observed] characteristic for its basis, and not with the varṇa that has his caste (jāti) for its basis. This is the meaning.”
kiṁ ca yasya puṁso varṇābhivyañjakaṁ yal-lakṣaṇaṁ varṇaṁ brāhmaṇādi-jātim abhivyañjayati yat tac ca sāmānyato vihitam eva śama-damādikaṁ, na tu viśeṣato vihitaṁ sandhyopāstādikaṁ yady anyatra jāty-antare’pi dṛśyate taj-jāty-antaram api tenaiva brāhmaṇādi-śabdenaiva vinirdiśed iti brāhmaṇādi-tulyādaraṁ lakṣayati | na ca ‘para-dharmo bhayāvahaḥ’ iti vācyam, śama-damādīnāṁ para-dharmatvābhāvād iti bhāvaḥ |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“Furthermore, if a characteristic which is an indicator of a person’s varṇa, that is, which indicates the varṇa, meaning, the caste (jāti)—brāhmaṇa and so on—[of a person], and which is [a characteristic] that is enjoined only in general [for that varṇa], such as equanimity (śama) and self-control (dama) [in the case of the brāhmaṇa varṇa, as described earlier in SB 7.11.21], and not rather, enjoined in particular [i.e., not, rather, enjoined only for those born in a particular varṇa], such as worship [performed] at the sandhyās and so on [i.e., such as a practice performed only by persons of the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, and vaiśya varṇas who have undergone the requisite saṁskāras and not, rather, practices or other forms of conduct enjoined for performance by all], is be observed elsewhere, that is, even in a person of a different caste (jāti), one should designate even him—the person of the other caste (jāti)—specifically with that, that is, specifically with term brāhmaṇa and so on [i.e., or kṣatriya, vaiśya, or śūdra, as appropriate to the qualities observed in the person]. In this way, Śrī Nārada specifies respect equal to [alt., fit for] a brāhmaṇa and so on [i.e., in this way Śrī Nārada teaches that someone should be shown respect in accord with the qualities they exhibit; if, for example, they exhibit the qualities of a brāhmaṇa, then they should be shown the respect due to a brāhmaṇa even if they were born in a different caste (jāti)]. And it is not that [the statement in Śrī Gītā 3.35], ‘The dharma of another (para-dharmo) is dreadful (bhayāvahaḥ) [i.e., a cause of suffering for oneself]’ should be stated [in this regard, i.e., it is not that someone who exhibits the general qualities enjoined for a varṇa other than the one of their birth is certain to undergo hardship because of that] because of the non-existence of equanimity (śama), self-control (dama), and the like [i.e., and other such general qualities enjoined for the brāhamaṇa varṇa] being ‘the dharma of another’ (para-dharma) [i.e., being instances of someone adhering to ‘the dharma of another’ (para-dharma) since such qualities are applicable and beneficial for all, and thus are not a cause of hardship for anyone]. This is the purport.”
Śrī Gaṅgāsahāya in his Anvitārtha-prakāśikā-ṭīkā on this verse explains that “one should designate” (vinirdiśet) means “one should treat” (vyavaharet), the import being that Śrī Nārada’s saying one should designate a person who exhibits general qualities that are characteristic of a varṇa different from that of their birth to have the varṇa of the qualities they exhibit means one should treat or behave with the person in accord with the qualities they exhibit insofar as one should honor someone who exhibits the qualities of a brāhmaṇa like a brāhmaṇa and not neglect to do so just because the person was not born in a brāhmaṇa family (vinirdiśet vyavaharet, na tu kula-mātreṇeti brāhmaṇavad ādarābhiprāyeṇa). This commentator also adds, however, that the import of this statement of Śrī Nārada is not that a person born in a non-brāhmaṇa family who exhibits general characteristics of a brāhmaṇa should engage in rites at the sandhyās, recitation of the Veda, and other activities enjoined specifically for brāhmānas or that they should be considered eligible for charity and the like as brāhmaṇas are, because this would be contrary to established etiquette (na tu sandhyā-vandana-veda-pāṭhādi-prāpty-arthaṁ dānādi-yogyārthaṁ vā vyavahāra-virodhāt).