So, how should we present the Varna, the idea of Varna, and how much should we emphasize it?

So, how should we present the concept of Varna, and how much should we emphasize it—especially when teaching the Bhagavad Gita or introducing Krishna consciousness to newcomers, particularly in the West?

There is always a tension in understanding which parts of the Gita are descriptive—that is, specific to the social and historical context of the time—and which are prescriptive, meant to be universally applied.

For instance, Krishna instructing Arjuna to fight a physical war is a descriptive part of the Gita. It may have been prescriptive for Arjuna, given his role as a Kshatriya in that context, but it’s not prescriptive for us today.

Now, regarding the Varna system—it does appear in various parts of the Gita: Chapter 2, Chapter 4, Chapter 18, and even indirectly in Chapter 16. So it’s certainly not an insignificant theme. But how central is it to the message of the Gita?

One way to look at it is that Varna is mentioned to emphasize Arjuna’s duty within the social order, as part of his service to Krishna. That would make the Varna system a contextual feature, not the core message.

If we examine the Gita more broadly, the message of Bhakti—devotional service—clearly transcends Varna-ashrama. Krishna states that anyone, regardless of Varna, can engage in Bhakti. Even more, Yoga is arguably the most emphasized concept in the Gita. Words like yoga, yogi, yukta, and yunjan appear far more frequently than karma, dharma, Bhagavan, or Brahman.

So, Krishna’s emphasis is on cultivating a transcendental consciousness while acting in the world. From this lens, we could reasonably argue that the Varna system is not central to the Gita’s core message.

Yet, in many traditional commentaries, and even in our modern-day teachings, we often stress Karma Yoga—especially as it relates to Varna-ashrama. This sometimes gives it more prominence than the Gita itself seems to.

Given this, even if we do wish to present the idea of Varna, we need to do so with nuance. There are at least three layers of complexity:

1. Correlation:
   There is the traditional Varna categorization, and then there is a person’s psychophysical nature today. Even in classical Dharma Shastra, there is a recognition of both prakriti (nature) and vikriti (distortion or deviation). A person may have a mix of dispositions—say, predominantly Kshatriya with some Brahminical traits.
2. Genealogy vs Nature:
   Today, we no longer have pure genealogical lines that align neatly with Varna identities. Many people embody blended qualities, and the categories don’t map cleanly anymore.
3. Modern Professions vs Traditional Varnas:
   Professions today rarely correspond directly to ancient Varna roles. I’ve heard strange examples—like calling a doctor a Brahmana because they heal, but a surgeon a Shudra because they work with the body. That’s absurd. Does more study make you fall from Brahmana to Shudra?

This raises a fundamental question: Is Varna determined by one’s nature or by one’s job? Today, many people’s jobs don’t align with their nature at all. It’s a messy picture, and oversimplification only leads to confusion.

So, my take is: don’t overemphasize it. Teach clearly and compassionately, and then move on.

The underlying principle of Varnashrama is to help people engage with the world in a way that is productive materially and supportive spiritually. That’s what matters most. How exactly that plays out today? It will vary case by case.

Therefore, we shouldn’t rigidly label someone as belonging to a particular Varna, or decide if someone is “suitable” for something based solely on this lens.

Ultimately, as Krishna says, everyone is on His path. So let’s focus on nurturing that inclusive, transcendental spirit.