Distinctions marked by birth such as caste should be ignored

 

From 'Iswara Pratyabhijna Vivritti Vimarshini' of Abhinavagupta:

yaḥ kaścit jananadharmā, tasya ataḥ siddhiḥ, na tv atrajātyācārādau bhara iti sarvānugrāhakatvam uktam/ etac ca prārambha evāsmābhir vitatam/

Jāti [caste] should not be considered an appropriate measure of a candidate’s eligibility for entry into the soteriological path of the Pratyabhijñā. So Distinctions marked by birth — including caste distinctions — are to be ignored.

==========

(from an article "Outside religious and social norms")

Alexis Sanderson: When Kshemaraja attacks those in the Swachhandabhairava cult who use water instead of braga, he accuses them of being “in the power of the demon caste.” Obviously, their concern to keep their cult pure in the understanding of the non-tantric orthodox religion, free from all elements that from one point of view or another could compromise their claims that they are by birth Brahmins, deprived them of understanding the importance of renouncing the caste of their birth (jatyuddhara) and joining the extra-caste “caste” of Bhairava (bhairavajati), which was part of the initiation ritual. It would be rash to claim that the extracaste that was required of the left hand tantric abolished the caste of the initiate’s birth, which was important for such exoteric social interactions as marriage. However, he was really required to identify with the deity of his initiation in such a way that the two levels of his self-perception (as an active member of the caste (upanita) and as an initiate (dikshita) were strictly separate. That is why the Svacchandatantra says that any person who even just names the former caste of another initiate, after death will be punished by torture in hell. The initiate who objected to the offering of alcohol rejected this internal hierarchy and thus was no different from the uninitiated (pasha).