Oppressive verses in the Vedas

[Khadgar]

I'm squaring off against a guy who is claiming that the Hindu scriptures are oppressive and offensive and inherently racist. He brought forth these arguments:

The Taittriya Brahman is responsible for the following explanation:

i.2.6.7.—"The Brahmana caste is sprung from the gods; the Shudras from the Asuras."

iii. 2.3.9.—"This Shudra has sprung from non-existence.

According to the Kathaka Samhita (xxxi.2) and the Maitrayani Samhita(iv.1.3;i.8.3)

"A shudra should not be allowed to milk the cow whose milk is used for Agnihotra."

II. The Satapatha Brahmana (iii.1.1.10), the Maitrayani Samita (vii.l.l.6) and also the Panchavirnsa Brahmana (vi.l.ll) say:

"The Shudra must not be spoken to when performing a sacrifice and a Shudra must not be present when a sacrifice is being performed.":

9. Not every one may enter it, but only a Brahman, or a Râganya, or a Vaisya, for these are able to sacrifice.
3:1:1:1010. Let him not commune with every one; for he who is consecrated draws nigh to the gods, and becomes one of the deities. Now the gods do not commune with every one, but only with a Brahman, or a. Râganya, or a Vaisya; for these are able to sacrifice. Should there be occasion for him to converse with a Sûdra, let him say to one of those, 'Tell this one so and so! tell this one so and so!'

p. 5
This is the rule of conduct for the consecrated in such a case.


III. The Satapatha Brahmana (xiv.l.31) and the Kathaka Samhita (xi.lO) further provide that :

"The Shudra must not be admitted to Soma drink."

The Aitareya Brahmana (vii.29.4) and the Panchavirnsa Brahmana (vi.l.ll) reached the culminating point when they say:

"Shudra is a servant of another (and cannot be anything else)."


I was pretty dismayed by all this, being a believer that Hinduism is a tolerant tradition. I still believe it is, obviously that won't change, but I would like to know if there is a way to counter his arguments above. Is there a way to show that he has taken the texts out of context? Or perhaps if it was mistranslated? Much of these arguments I know have been taken from Dr. Ambedkar's works. But still, his thrust is that this is the reason for brahminism and caste based oppression in India, and that no matter how much the Mahabharat/Gita or any other texts tried to rectify this mess, that the inequality of society continue because of this. I would like to hope that the literal/poetic/metaphorical/allegorical meanings of these texts have been taken out of context.

Can anyone please help me? Thanks in advance.

[satay]

Namaskar,

Welcome to HDF!

Is it at all possible for you to invite this 'guy' over here at HDF so that the learned members of HDF can converse with him directly instead of you being his agent?

[Khadgar]

Namaskar,

Welcome to HDF!

Is it at all possible for you to invite this 'guy' over here at HDF so that the learned members of HDF can converse with him directly instead of you being his agent?


I doubt it, he's not on any other forum. He happens to be a devout Christian in my area. But I will definitely ask him, thank you. In the meanwhile, is there a rebuttal to the texts he provided above? The only thing I can come up with is to say that the brahmanas were not sacred texts in themselves, but merely commentary on the Samhitas by everyday brahmins at the time. Furthermore that the Yajur Ved is also not sacred, and that it was compiled by brahmins for only ritual purposes without spirituality in mind. ?

[satay]

I doubt it, he's not on any other forum. He happens to be a devout Christian in my area. But I will definitely ask him, thank you. In the meanwhile, is there a rebuttal to the texts he provided above? The only thing I can come up with is to say that the brahmanas were not sacred texts in themselves, but merely commentary on the Samhitas by everyday brahmins at the time. Furthermore that the Yajur Ved is also not sacred, and that it was compiled by brahmins for only ritual purposes without spirituality in mind. ?

I don't see the point of convincing this 'devout christian' of anything related to Hinduism.

What's your own orientation?

Sudra jati has been crying foul for centuries for no reason and shouting and screaming oppression while they enjoy nice spots in engineering and medical universities without being properly qualified for and nice spots in Indian government.

Is there a point in pleasing the dalits that question the very basis of the Hindu Dharma?

[Khadgar]

I don't see the point of convincing this 'devout christian' of anything related to Hinduism.

What's your own orientation?

Sudra jati has been crying foul for centuries for no reason and shouting and screaming oppression while they enjoy nice spots in engineering and medical universities without being properly qualified for and nice spots in Indian government.

Is there a point in pleasing the dalits?

Yes there is. I am one. But I still believe philosophies outlined by the Gita. It is the Vedas I have to scrutinize; specifically the Yajur. Even if I weren't, I would like to have peace of mind that these oppressive verses have been misunderstood somehow. The main purpose is still to defeat the Christian fellow at the debate, but I would like peace of mind just as much as he would. So if you have any insights to the above verses, please share.

Dalits have a right to question the very basis which they believe have been the tool of their oppression. I did question and I came to the conclusion that Sanatan Dharma does not oppress, in fact it liberates. It is corrupt brahmins of old who had social power that created the oppressive social system called brahminism... and brahminism IS the tool of Dalit oppression. Brahminism is the exact opposite of Sanatani.

[satay]

Dalits have a right to question the very basis which they believe have been the tool of their oppression. I did question and I came to the conclusion that Sanatan Dharma does not oppress, in fact it liberates.


If you yourself discovered this that Dharma does not oppress then you should be able to communicate that discovery to others like this guy the devout christian or other dalits and start a reform among them.



It is corrupt brahmins of old who had social power that created the oppressive social system called brahminism... and brahminism IS the tool of Dalit oppression. Brahminism is the exact opposite of Sanatani.

The 'corrouption' of any social system in any society has nothing to do with Hinduism in general and Vedas in particular.

[sm78]

I'm squaring off against a guy who is claiming that the Hindu scriptures are oppressive and offensive and inherently racist. He brought forth these arguments:

The Taittriya Brahman is responsible for the following explanation:

i.2.6.7.—"The Brahmana caste is sprung from the gods; the Shudras from the Asuras."

iii. 2.3.9.—"This Shudra has sprung from non-existence.

According to the Kathaka Samhita (xxxi.2) and the Maitrayani Samhita(iv.1.3;i.8.3)

"A shudra should not be allowed to milk the cow whose milk is used for Agnihotra."

II. The Satapatha Brahmana (iii.1.1.10), the Maitrayani Samita (vii.l.l.6) and also the Panchavirnsa Brahmana (vi.l.ll) say:

"The Shudra must not be spoken to when performing a sacrifice and a Shudra must not be present when a sacrifice is being performed.":

9. Not every one may enter it, but only a Brahman, or a Râganya, or a Vaisya, for these are able to sacrifice.
3:1:1:1010. Let him not commune with every one; for he who is consecrated draws nigh to the gods, and becomes one of the deities. Now the gods do not commune with every one, but only with a Brahman, or a. Râganya, or a Vaisya; for these are able to sacrifice. Should there be occasion for him to converse with a Sûdra, let him say to one of those, 'Tell this one so and so! tell this one so and so!'

p. 5
This is the rule of conduct for the consecrated in such a case.


III. The Satapatha Brahmana (xiv.l.31) and the Kathaka Samhita (xi.lO) further provide that :

"The Shudra must not be admitted to Soma drink."

The Aitareya Brahmana (vii.29.4) and the Panchavirnsa Brahmana (vi.l.ll) reached the culminating point when they say:

"Shudra is a servant of another (and cannot be anything else)."


I was pretty dismayed by all this, being a believer that Hinduism is a tolerant tradition. I still believe it is, obviously that won't change, but I would like to know if there is a way to counter his arguments above. Is there a way to show that he has taken the texts out of context? Or perhaps if it was mistranslated? Much of these arguments I know have been taken from Dr. Ambedkar's works. But still, his thrust is that this is the reason for brahminism and caste based oppression in India, and that no matter how much the Mahabharat/Gita or any other texts tried to rectify this mess, that the inequality of society continue because of this. I would like to hope that the literal/poetic/metaphorical/allegorical meanings of these texts have been taken out of context.

Can anyone please help me? Thanks in advance.


Brahmana and Sudra are spiritual orientations and not a jati or caste. I am not seeing anything offensive in the above quotes (except at few odd places) when understood from this angle. Maybe I am queer. However I also doubt these translations are accurate though.

Sudra forms the feet of the viraat purusha while brahmana form the head.

If some christian sees oppression in such a beautiful description of God ~ I suggest pointing out the biblical nonsense to him. A christian has no business in Hinduism , please make that clear to your christian friend and don't waste your own time.

[satay]

With respect to 'debating' with a christian, please invite any christian here on HDF or invite me to their place and I am ready to debate the 'oppression in their corrupted scriptures' anywhere anytime anyplace. They have misunderstood the message of their own Guru!

[Khadgar]

If you yourself discovered this that Dharma does not oppress then you should be able to communicate that discovery to others like this guy the devout christian or other dalits and start a reform among them.

I've communicated them about the Gita, the Rig Veda and the entirety of the Upanishads. They are accepting that those are much more tolerant, but it is the Yajur Ved verses that I have outlined in the original post that they have a problem with.



The 'corrouption' of any social system in any society has nothing to do with Hinduism in general and Vedas in particular.

Right, it has nothing to do with Hinduism. But it has everything to do with brahminism which is not wrought of spirituality, but rather is a social order.



Brahmana and Sudra are spiritual orientations and not a jati or caste. I am not seeing anything offensive in the above quotes (except at few odd places) when understood from this angle. Maybe I am queer. However I also doubt these translations are accurate though.

Sudra forms the feet of the viraat purusha while brahmana form the head.



My understanding, from reading the Rig Ved are that all Varnas are equal, and interchangible, through intention and action, and that they are not hereditary. I will let him know that in the Yajur, the Brahmana and the Sudra don't refer to Varnas, but rather to spiritual outlook. The only question I would have here is why would a kshatriya or a vaisya have a better spiritual outlook than a sudra?

[Khadgar]

With respect to 'debating' with a christian, please invite any christian here on HDF or invite me to their place and I am ready to debate the 'oppression in their maleccha scriptures' anywhere anytime anyplace.


Just so you know, even as a Dalit, I'm not entirely a fan of Ambedkar's misinformed views of Hinduism.

[satay]

My understanding, from reading the Rig Ved are

Rig Ved is not a night time story book for children that it can just be 'read' and understood. Direction of a learned guru is a must. This is why these types of personal readings and understandings of Hindu scriptures have been confusing the so called scholars of christianity. Christians are confused peasants who ultimately murdered their own guru for advocating that 'I am' God.

Who is your guru?

[Khadgar]

Rig Ved is not a night time story book for children that it can just be 'read' and understood. Direction of a learned guru is a must. This is why these types of personal readings and understandings of Hindu scriptures have been confusing the so called scholars of christianity. Christians are confused peasants who ultimately murdered their own guru for advocating that 'I am' God.

Who is your guru?


I have no guru. Every now and then when I get the chance, I ask several gurus and scholars at my local temple. But before I ask them anything, I converse with them to make sure they aren't being influenced by brahminism.

[satay]

Just so you know, even as a Dalit, I'm not entirely a fan of Ambedkar's misinformed views of Hinduism.

It is only in the Hindu society Dr. Ambedkar and the likes enjoy(ed) high posts in Government even today. Hindus did not murder and hung Gautama shakayamuni for rejecting the vedas nor did we murder and hung Guru Nanak and others for doing the same. Hindus respect them as gurus with a need that had to filled during their own time.

Such is the tolerance of Hindus and Hinduism.

[satay]

I have no guru. Every now and then when I get the chance, I ask several gurus and scholars at my local temple. But before I ask them anything, I converse with them to make sure they aren't being influenced by brahminism.

How do you differentiate between a person who is influenced by brahminism (whatever that means)? It would be interesting for me to know just as a curiousity.

[Khadgar]

It is only in the Hindu society Dr. Ambedkar and the likes enjoy(ed) high posts in Government even today. Hindus did not murder and hung Gautama shakayamuni for rejecting the vedas nor did we murder and hung Guru Nanak and others for doing the same. Hindus respect them as gurus with a need that had to filled during their own time.

Such is the tolerance of Hindus and Hinduism.


That's fine, but the thing is neither the Buddha, nor Guru Nanak Ji ever said Hinduism was 'false'. They just preferred a different way and accepted the pluralistic ways of the history of SubContinent. Vedic Philosophy, and the Karmic spiritualities: Sanatani, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism all say that there are many paths to the Ultimate. And I have made it clear to the Christian fellow that his religion is not like that. If you don't believe in Jesus, you are damned to hell for eternity.

But my point in all of this is that while I tolerate Ambedkar's ill inclinations, as well as the inclinations of would-be Christians who would like to convert me, I have no intention of sitting back and not fighting with my words. I really DO need a counter to those arguments above. If you can help me, I will cite you and this website as my resource. So please, anything you've got, I'd like to hear it.

[satay]

I don't see how the christians have any right to question the vedas.

Trying to teach them the correct meaning would be like trying to teach nuclear science to a kindergarten child. Don't you think?

[Khadgar]

How do you differentiate between a person who is influenced by brahminism (whatever that means)? It would be interesting for me to know just as a curiousity.

I converse with them for a while, I get their opinions of other Varnas [than their own] and opinions of Dalits. As well, I try and get their opinion of minorities, women, etc. in general.

[Khadgar]

I don't see how the christians have any right to question the vedas.

Trying to teach them the correct meaning would be like trying to teach nuclear science to a kindergarten child. Don't you think?

Even so, there's no reason I can't be a gentlemen and provide a rebuttal. Again, if you've got a counter to the original post, please help me out. I would be very grateful.

[satay]

Even so, there's no reason I can't be a gentlemen and provide a rebuttal. Again, if you've got a counter to the original post, please help me out. I would be very grateful.

I think that you are not following what I am saying so I will reword it here...

Kindergarten children by default do not have the ability to comprehend, study and understand the lectures meant for phd. students. This is not an insult to the kindergarten students...their condition is such that they lack the ability to comprehend much so they must start with the very basics...
A is for an apple... B is for a Bat...

this way to salvation...don't go anywhere else you will get lost eternally...

like that...

[Khadgar]

I think that you are not following what I am saying so I will reword it here...

Kindergarten children by default do not have the ability to comprehend, study and understand the lectures meant for phd. students. This is not an insult to the kindergarten students...their condition is such that they lack the ability to comprehend much so they must start with the very basics...
A is for an apple... B is for a Bat...

this way to salvation...don't go anywhere else you will get lost eternally...

like that...

I understood what you're saying. I don't view him as a Kindergartener. I want to give him the chance to try and understand the material. Who knows, maybe I'll change his mind about Eastern traditions. He's not a bad guy. He generally approaches things logically. He is inquisitive of those verses. So yes, I would still like that counter-argument. Leave the rest to me.

[satay]

I converse with them for a while, I get their opinions of other Varnas [than their own] and opinions of Dalits. As well, I try and get their opinion of minorities, women, etc. in general.

So what exactly is 'Brahmanism'?

[Khadgar]

So what exactly is 'Brahmanism'?

From what I understand, as far as my opinion is concerned, brahminism is the social order, far removed from spirituality that resulted in the caste based heirarchy to hegemonize the power of a select few brahmins in the societies of old that got carried forward through to modern times. It further involves many backwards, narrow-minded rituals that only helped to maintain a stagnant status quo, and maintained the power of those select brahmins. The kshatriyas, vaisyas and sudras that bought into this social ideology too began oppressing what they believed to be their lessers.
There were many brahmins, kshatriyas, vaisyas, and sudras in history that spoke out against this, but they were often marginalized.

[satay]

I understood what you're saying. I don't view him as a Kindergartener. I want to give him the chance to try and understand the material.


First point is that if he really wanted to 'understand' the mateiral he would have understood it on his own.

Secondly, why is it important for him to understand this material that doesn't concern his spiritual development anyway?

Thirdly and more importantly, what does it matter to anyone if his opinion of eastern traditions is changed or not. Certainly, eastern traditions, hinduism and hindus are unaffected by this devout christians understanding or misunderstanding.

Hinduism accepts that not everyone has the ability to comprehend dharma so this is why there is adharma in the society. This is part of nature...of kali...

Hindus have no instructions to shove hinduism down other people's throats so there is no point in shoving down the correct meaning of the verses down his throat. All he will do is vomit it out...

[Khadgar]

Hinduism accepts that not everyone has the ability to comprehend dharma so this is why there is adharma in the society. This is part of nature...of kali...




Actually, Hinduism accepts the opposite, that everyone DOES have the ability to comprehend the material if they are sincere in their pursuit of Knowledge. Lord Krishna quite adamantly outlined this in the Gita.

[satay]

Actually, Hinduism accepts the opposite, that everyone DOES have the ability to comprehend the material if they are sincere in their pursuit of Knowledge. Lord Krishna quite adamantly outlined this in the Gita.

That was covered in my first point.

[satay]

From what I understand, as far as my opinion is concerned, brahminism is the social order, far removed from spirituality that resulted in the caste based heirarchy to hegemonize the power of a select few brahmins in the societies of old that got carried forward through to modern times. It further involves many backwards, narrow-minded rituals that only helped to maintain a stagnant status quo, and maintained the power of those select brahmins. The kshatriyas, vaisyas and sudras that bought into this social ideology too began oppressing what they believed to be their lessers.
There were many brahmins, kshatriyas, vaisyas, and sudras in history that spoke out against this, but they were often marginalized.

Such social problems exist in many other socieities and not only in India. Though India has a target on her back...

[Khadgar]

That was covered in my first point.


I understand, all I'm doing is trying to give a proper non-misconstrued version of that very knowledge to him.

If you don't have a rebuttal to the original post, please say so and I'll just have to continue on in my pursuits to find the proper meaning and proper context. If you do, please tell me, I truly am sincere in asking for your help.

[Khadgar]

Such social problems exist in many other socieities and not only in India. Though India has a target on her back...

Oh don't get me wrong, one of the first things I did was to point out the feudal system in Medieval England. Not to mention the hegemony of the Catholic Church.

[satay]

I understand, all I'm doing is trying to give a proper non-misconstrued version of that very knowledge to him.

If you don't have a rebuttal to the original post, please say so and I'll just have to continue on in my pursuits to find the proper meaning and proper context. If you do, please tell me, I truly am sincere in asking for your help.

Please re read my posts properly.

[satay]

Oh don't get me wrong, one of the first things I did was to point out the feudal system in Medieval England. Not to mention the hegemony of the Catholic Church.

And yet, the christian is hypocrite enough not only to question the problems of a distant society but also the scriptures of that society that have nothing to do with him.

Amazing the hypocrisy of these guys.

[Khadgar]

Please re read my posts properly.


I did. My thrust still stands. So unless you have anything better for me, my argument to him will be that the Yajur was not a spiritual book by any means, nor were the entirety of the Brahmana scriptures. And even then, that the Brahmana and Sudra of the Yajur did not reflect Varna, but rather it reflected pursuit of spiritual awareness. And that the true meaning of Vedic Philosophy will come from the Rig Ved Sahmitas and the entirety of Upanishads.

[satay]

I did.

but you didn't comprehend them.

[Khadgar]

but you didn't comprehend them.


I did. You didn't really say anything instead of just telling me to tell him to do his own research.

As it stands, do you have any objections to the explanation that I will provide for him [as listed above]? If so, please outline them as clearly and concisely as possible. Otherwise, that shall be my rebuttal.

[satay]

The christian scripture bible preaches and propagates racism.

What is 'Racism'?

Racism is the belief in the ineherent superiority of a particular race or races over others, usually with the implication of a right to dominate over others. The following passage of the christian scripture indicates that its followers are holy people, special people, chosen people and superior race in the court of God.

For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God bath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.? - Deuteronomy, 7/6

The question to ask the christians is:

Does Bible believe in equality of all men of the universe?

Vedic religion does not approve of superiority of a particular race or races over others. No one is superior or inferior. All are equal children of one God.

Rig Veda 2/13/2

All the walkers who walk on the path have equal right to the path.

[satay]

I did. You didn't really say anything instead of just telling me to tell him to do his own research.


Though I have said to many others to do their own research on HDF I didn't tell you to tell him to do this.

I think that the problem is that you are reading what I am writing but not really comprehending so instead of jumping to answer me back right away why not take your time and read properly what I wrote and try to comprehend before jumping off to tell this devout christian anything about the Vedas.

[Khadgar]

Though I have said to many others to do their own research on HDF I didn't tell you to tell him to do this.

Essentially, you did:


First point is that if he really wanted to 'understand' the mateiral he would have understood it on his own.




I think that the problem is that you are reading what I am writing but not really comprehending so instead of jumping to answer me back right away why not take your time and read properly what I wrote and try to comprehend before jumping off to tell this devout christian anything about the Vedas.

Humour me, why don't you tell me exactly what it is that you want me to comprehend. I won't resort to attacking the Bible because I'm beyond that. What I'm asking for is how those verses should be interpreted, properly.

[satay]

Humour me,

How exactly do you want me to humour you?

[satay]

I won't resort to attacking the Bible because I'm beyond that.

What does this mean?

No one here is attacking the bible and I didn't tell you to attack the bible.

[Khadgar]

What does this mean?

No one here is attacking the bible and I didn't tell you to attack the bible.

I'm referring to your Deuteronomy quote.



How exactly do you want me to humour you?

Tell me the answer:



How those verses should be interpreted, properly?

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam



I won't resort to attacking the Bible because I'm beyond that.

Yet it does not stop you attacking yojur ved and bramanas how come you and your friend cant rise above it? Vedas are infallible just that we need proper eyes to see it.



What I'm asking for is how those verses should be interpreted, properly.

For this we need to approach a tatva darsi render service and ask submissively, read gita.
Without getting total picture of dharma it would be difficult to make sense of few verses even though it might seem harsh and I am not suggesting what you posted is harsh.

Inequality is nature of this dualistic world and just as Krishna says

sarvarambha hi dosena
dhumenagnir ivavrtah
because all undertakings are enveloped by defects as fire is covered by smoke, O Arjuna. (18.48)

What to us laymen seems unjust at times is purely our faulty vision or a deliberate attempt to denigrate a system that if not understood, and for those who have axe to grind will never understand, will always see a fault just like, fire is covered by smoke.

Jai Shree Krishna

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Khadgar,

In Advaita, there is no morality attached to the idea of Avidya!

The entire corpus of Hindu scripture was composed with spirituality in mind!

And the Yajur Veda is the scriptural source for the whole of Shaivism! So you are on rather offensive ground when you claim that the Yajur Veda is not a spiritual text!

A Shudra is someone who has no understanding of the one God of Sanatana Dharma. And a Brahmin is defined as someone with full understanding.

And anyone who relies on the spiritual knowledge of those who are ignorant, while steadfastly ignoring the advice of those who actually understand Sanatana Dharma, and having no knowledge of Sanskrit for independent study of the Vedas, and without a wise Guru for appropriate interpretation and advice, will always be confused about Hinduism.

Brahmanism is NOT merely a "social order far removed from spirituality" !

All of the quoted verses have been misunderstood, but I have absolutely no interest in defeating random fools (especially via a supposed proxy)!

"Sincerity" in the pursuit of spiritual knowledge is most important. So why not do a little bit of your own research here on HDF? The forum has an automated search facility, and (if you are sincere) all of the information you need is already here.

[satay]

I'm referring to your Deuteronomy quote.


The 'quote' is not mine, it is from the bible, the scripture of your devout christian friend. I didn't make it up. Racism is what bible teaches.





Tell me the answer:

I seriously doubt that my answer will be able to humour you.

How about this? You dalits cry foul that the rest of the hindus have been oppressing you for centuries...isn't it? How about I ban you from HDF so that instead of you crying foul you will actually have something to talk about with your christian friend. Then you can really say that a hindu oppressed your dalit a$$.

That would be me humouring you. Would you like me to humour you like that?

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Sarabhanga and all

"Brahmanism is NOT merely a "social order far removed from spirituality"

Yes it is if that Hindu refuses to touch or respect another human being, wen their main doctrine i.e. Advaita Vedanta, says that we are all Brahman. Are there some who are more equal than the other's (pure) before god eyes ? Shouldn't Hinduism revert to Samkhya as is main philosophie? I think Samkhya point of view is less hypocrite from the perspective of the hindu social spiritual order.
I would like to add the fact that in India gurus are Killed and Kicked out as well especially if they don't have a big economic power behind to support the movement.I am remembering Ghandiji witch is not the better example but was killed anyway.
I hope you guys don't get offended. I really love Hinduism and especially holly mans ( sadhus ) but there are things that for me are just not right.
And please stop calling Christian to every one who comes here with difficult questions, it is childish, this is a forum, a place for discussion and understanding not a monologue house.
Thank you!

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Nuno,

Hinduism is much more than just Advaita Vedanta, and I would assume that the majority of practicing Advaitins are Sannyasins.
Who has defined Hinduism as just Advaita Vedanta?

For ritual purposes, all must be of like mind, with exactly the same intention, and so (quite naturally) those who do not understand and share the same intentions are excluded from certain ritual spaces. Perhaps it could be likened to the exclusion of non-nudists from a nudist camp.

Why should a practicing Hindu, trying to maintain ritual purity, be blamed for not wanting to touch someone who is unwashed (for example)? And why should a celibate Sadhu be forced to physically touch those who do not abstain? And why should a strict vegetarian be forced to eat in the same place as someone who regularly consumes the flesh and blood of other sentient beings?

There is NO good reason for disrespecting another ~ but those who (through their own ignorance) perceive disrespect where none is intended, and are too blind to see their own disrespectful behavior, have no justification in accusing others of disrespect or hypocrisy.

I have NOT mentioned Christianity here, but perhaps you have taken my description of a Shudra as a definition of a Christian ~ which was not my intention, but it does seem appropriate for most. ;)


And anyone who relies on the spiritual knowledge of those who are ignorant, while steadfastly ignoring the advice of those who actually understand Sanatana Dharma, and having no knowledge of Sanskrit for independent study of the Vedas, and without a wise Guru for appropriate interpretation and advice, will always be confused about Hinduism.


Brahmanism is not MERELY a “social order”, and it is certainly not “far removed from spirituality”.

But if the ONLY thing that one associates with Brahmanism is the vague idea of “untouchable” (and specifically as it relates to the untouchabilty of other humans) then I can see the impression of “discrimination” that might arise in the minds of those who have been discriminated against.

I do not doubt that there are bigoted and racist (supposedly Brahmana) Hindus, and I have myself occasionally encountered discrimination based on nothing more than superficial genetic impressions. But none of that has any bearing on the true nature of Sanatana Dharma ~ it is only spiritual ignorance, social arrogance, and more of a political statement (and self-indictment) than anything to do with true Dharma.

And with hindsight, I can now see that sometimes what I took for “unfair” discrimination was actually justified, and my own feeling of indignation uncalled for.

[satay]

Namaskar Nuno,



I hope you guys don't get offended. I really love Hinduism and especially holly mans ( sadhus ) but there are things that for me are just not right.


Could you please share those things that are not just right for you? If not for anything then just for my curiousity.



And please stop calling Christian to every one who comes here with difficult questions, it is childish, this is a forum, a place for discussion and understanding not a monologue house.
Thank you!

First, it is not the 'difficulty' of the question but the intention of the questioner that is the focus of this thread. It is always better to have a direct converstion with the questioner than to his or her agent.

It is childish for people to have imaginary friends who claim to be devout christians and are hypocrite enough to question the scriptures of others all the while ignoring the racism in their own scriptures.

Sarabhanga and I have encountered many such people with imaginary friends over the years.

I have no problem playing this game though most devout hindus will not.

[Khadgar]

The 'quote' is not mine, it is from the bible, the scripture of your devout christian friend. I didn't make it up. Racism is what bible teaches.





I seriously doubt that my answer will be able to humour you.

How about this? You dalits cry foul that the rest of the hindus have been oppressing you for centuries...isn't it? How about I ban you from HDF so that instead of you crying foul you will actually have something to talk about with your christian friend. Then you can really say that a hindu oppressed your dalit a$$.

That would be me humouring you. Would you like me to humour you like that?

And this is exactly what's wrong with India. I'm so glad I work with several organizations that actually help my Dalit brethren by bringing them the true Sanatani instead of the distorted ideology many parts of the nation seem to revel in. The fact that you haven't even tackled the issue, and rather resorted to ad hominem attacks on my people just goes to prove that point.


On the otherhand, I actually like sarabhanga's response because that gave me somewhat the answer that I needed. In fact, it seems to somewhat go along with the idea that the reference is being made not towards Varna, but towards spiritual inclination.

For the record, you didn't actually bother to take the time to ask me what *I* believe, did you? I'm pretty sure you'd be surprised.... or at the very least, have your fears alleviated about me 'creating an imaginary friend' just to start trouble on this forum. If I really wanted to do that, I'm fairly certain, I would have made said imaginary friend a Wahabi.

[satay]

To add to my previous post, though caste system is a social phenonmenon of India I don't see why any Indian especially Hindu indians should give it up just because non-indians don't like it.

Caste system in itself is not the problem, abusing others based on ones caste is the problem but that problem exists everwhere in any organization or society.

Just like oppressing minorities be they women or people of different race or income class is morally wrong so is oppressing others based on their castes. I don't understand why India and Indians should get slapped for this problem that exists everywhere in the world.

It is time for Indian hindus to stop feeling guilty about their 'caste' and the 'caste system'. No matter how much propaganda missionaries of other religions spread and no matter how loud non-indians screams and shout, I for one will not give up my caste. Those who have hard time with such things are free to ignore such things.

[satay]

And this is exactly what's wrong with India. I'm so glad I work with several organizations that actually help my Dalit brethren by bringing them the true Sanatani instead of the distorted ideology many parts of the nation seem to revel in. The fact that you haven't even tackled the issue, and rather resorted to ad hominem attacks on my people just goes to prove that point.


On the otherhand, I actually like sarabhanga's response because that gave me somewhat the answer that I needed. In fact, it seems to somewhat go along with the idea that the reference is being made not towards Varna, but towards spiritual inclination.

For the record, you didn't actually bother to take the time to ask me what *I* believe, did you? I'm pretty sure you'd be surprised.... or at the very least, have your fears alleviated about me 'creating an imaginary friend' just to start trouble on this forum. If I really wanted to do that, I'm fairly certain, I would have made said imaginary friend a Wahabi.

I trust that you are 'humoured' at this point of our conversation. ;)

[Khadgar]

To add to my previous post, though caste system is a social phenonmenon of India I don't see why any Indian especially Hindu indians should give it up just because non-indians don't like it.

Caste system in itself is not the problem, abusing others based on ones caste is the problem but that problem exists everwhere in any organization or society.

Just like oppressing minorities be they women or people of different race or income class is morally wrong so is oppressing others based on their castes. I don't understand why India and Indians should get slapped for this problem that exists everywhere in the world.

It is time for Indian hindus to stopping feeling guilty about their 'caste' and the 'caste system'. No matter how much propaganda missionaries of other religions spread and no matter how loud non-indians screams and shout, I for one will not give up my caste. Those who have hard time with such things are free to ignore such things.

As long as Indians understand that Varna (I don't prefer to call it 'caste': a name given by the British Raj, thank you), is not hereditary and that it is chosen through action and intention, and that it is interchangible in one's lifetime; and that no Varna is more important than another as outlined in the Gita, then I have no problem with it.

Furthermore, as long as they understand the nature of the similarity of terms used for Varnas v.s. those used for spiritual inclinations.


And your Varna isn't there for you to give up. Your Varna is there for you to earn. Btw, I don't really see myself as a 'Dalit'. Certainly not after understanding Sanatani. I've served in the military. I see myself as a kshatriya. I fully intend and act as such to protect the nation that I am proud of.



I trust that you are 'humoured' at this point of our conversation. ;)

Certainly, but not by you. The others did in fact provide me with the explanation that I needed. For the record, I don't believe any text is spiritual; some are better than others at helping one open their own spiritual gateway towards the Ultimate Reality/Brahman/Nirvana/etc.

You still haven't asked me what I believe.

[Khadgar]

One thing I do want to add about morality. I do believe that morality can be attached insofar as the science of the Philosophy is concerned. Morality flows NATURALLY as a function of human understanding of the nature of Karma and Rebirth and the delusion of the 'worldly self' and the journey to overcome this delusion.

[satay]

As long as Indians understand that Varna (I don't prefer to call it 'caste': a name given by the British Raj, thank you), is not hereditary and that it is chosen through action and intention, and that it is interchangible in one's lifetime; and that no Varna is more important than another as outlined in the Gita, then I have no problem with it.

Furthermore, as long as they understand the nature of the similarity of terms used for Varnas v.s. those used for spiritual inclinations.



Varna and Caste are two different things. non-indians are confused about both. I am not talking about varna but about caste as in jati. Due to crying foul of oppression oppression oppression by the higher castes, the higher caste hindus walk around with this 'guilt'. Indians should be proud of their varna and their jati.




And your Varna isn't there for you to give up. Your Varna is there for you to earn. Btw, I don't really see myself as a 'Dalit'. Certainly not after understanding Sanatani. I've served in the military. I see myself as a kshatriya. I fully intend and act as such to protect the nation that I am proud of.


You yourself answered here earlier that you are a dalit. Please make up your mind.




Certainly, but not by you. The others did in fact provide me with the explanation that I needed. For the record, I don't believe any text is spiritual; some are better than others at helping one open their own spiritual gateway towards the Ultimate Reality/Brahman/Nirvana/etc.


and?



You still haven't asked me what I believe.

Like I said you read my post but didn't comprehend them. Please reread them, I did ask about your orientation.

[Khadgar]

You yourself answered here earlier that you are a dalit. Please make up your mind.

My background is Dalit. But I don't see myself as such. Because I served in a civil institution, i.e. the military [and maybe will again in the future], my Varna [which is not my background], is Kshatriya.


and?
And I'm satisfied with this?


Like I said you read my post but didn't comprehend them. Please reread them, I did ask about your orientation.

If you're open minded then yea, I'd be happy to share what I believe.

[Khadgar]

In fact, I'll make a new thread about it.

[satay]

My background is Dalit. But I don't see myself as such. Because I served in a civil institution, i.e. the military [and maybe will again in the future], my Varna [which is not my background], is Kshatriya.


so in other words, your jati is from dalit caste because you were born in that a dalit jati but by your action you are kshatriya. Great...what I am saying is that Indians should be proud of both! You should not be ashamed of your dalit jati nor should any hindu born in other jatis or castes. And one should always be proud of his or her varna!



And I'm satisfied with this?


I am unable to answer this for you.





If you're open minded then yea, I'd be happy to share what I believe.

First, what does 'open mindedness' has to do with if you would share your beliefs or not. Does your belief depend on other people's mindedness being 'open'?

Secondly, why is it important for you that I ask you what your beliefs are (even though that was the first thing I did in post 2 or 3) before you share them with HDF members?

Thirdly, who really cares? As a hindu, what do I care or more importantly why should I care what you believe or not believe?

[satay]

In fact, I'll make a new thread about it.

So, are we done on this thread? Can I delete it now or do you have anything more to add to the 'oppressive verses of the vedas'?

[Khadgar]

So, are we done on this thread? Can I delete it now or do you have anything more to add to the 'oppressive verses of the vedas'?

Go for it.

[satay]

This thread will be deleted this weekend unless anyone wants me to keep it here.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste,

I have no problem with deletion, but I would point out that (despite the general impression that Kshatriya is the "military caste") to truly be considered as a Kshatriya one should have Kshatri parents and/or a Brahmana Guru. And the spiritual battle is the Kshatriya's own Sadhana.

[Madhavan]

The four divisions are based on one's own nature and not based on birth per se. Mahabaratha plainly says that a Brahmana who does not follow Brahmana dharma is worse than a shudra. Similarly, a shudra who behaves like a Brahmana is indeed a Brahmana.

Birth as such confers on a person some dharma to follow in accordance with one's karma. By following this dharma, a person is able to work out his karma and attain to God. The four fold division has its basis in Karma theory and are an essential part of Hinduism. A person not following his dharma may not be able to work out his karma properly that can stand in the way of spiritual progress.

The division in the society ensures that people in lower strata are motivated to raise their spiritual nature to that of the brahmana who is the role model. A person born in any order can raise himself by virtue of his determination and penance. Evidently, the kShatriya named Kaushika later become Brahmarishi Vishwamitra by means of Yoga. Kaushika was aspiring to Brahmanhood motivated by Sage VaiSiSta without which he would have simply remained a king.

Untouchability is not a part of Sanatana Dharma. WE have seen in history how badly slaves and prisoners of war were treated. Untouchability may have been associated in India to prevent such harsh treatment meted out to such people, and thus save them from physical abuse. 'The Uncle Tom's cabin' was impossible because slaves and prisoners were untouchables. In later days this might have degenerated into a political equation where some priestly community took advantage.

Religions that dont incorporate the four fold division are infact primitive religions where a real Brahmana( a realized Yogi) does not exist in the society. When a religion addresses people who are still not very spiritually inclined and most people are yet unqualified for Yoga there is no need for division - all are shudras only.

When a Christian aspires to acquire the same realization as Jesus he is a Brahmana. When he merely follows the teachings of Jesus, he is a Kshatriya or a vaishiya or a shudra depending upon his commitment. The division is always implied , regardless of whether you accept it or not.

Doesn't Christianity or Islam divide people as "believer"(brahmana) and "non beleiver"(shudra)? This is a close approximation to the Hindu four fold division. Also a Shudra in Hindu Dharma is still considered religeous(not non beleiver) but only follows a certain dharma in accordance with his karma.

[atanu]

The four divisions are based on one's own nature and not based on birth per se. Mahabaratha plainly says that a Brahmana who does not follow Brahmana dharma is worse than a shudra. Similarly, a shudra who behaves like a Brahmana is indeed a Brahmana.

-----Untouchability is not a part of Sanatana Dharma. WE have seen in history how badly slaves and prisoners of war were treated. Untouchability may have been associated in India to prevent such harsh treatment meted out to such people, and thus save them from physical abuse. 'The Uncle Tom's cabin' was impossible because slaves and prisoners were untouchables. In later days this might have degenerated into a political equation where some priestly community took advantage.

Religions that dont incorporate the four fold division are infact primitive religions where a real Brahmana( a realized Yogi) does not exist in the society. When a religion addresses people who are still not very spiritually inclined and most people are yet unqualified for Yoga there is no need for division - all are shudras only.

When a Christian aspires to acquire the same realization as Jesus he is a Brahmana. When he merely follows the teachings of Jesus, he is a Kshatriya or a vaishiya or a shudra depending upon his commitment. The division is always implied , regardless of whether you accept it or not.

Doesn't Christianity or Islam divide people as "believer"(brahmana) and "non beleiver"(shudra)? This is a close approximation to the Hindu four fold division. Also a Shudra in Hindu Dharma is still considered religeous(not non beleiver) but only follows a certain dharma in accordance with his karma.


Namaste Madhavan,

Nicely put.

I wish to add. In scriptures, the head of Brahman giving rise to Brahmana and the feet giving rise to Shudra is symbolic. Brahman is saman. There is no feet and head.

It means that what gives shape to thoughts is Brahmana and what executes is shudra. There cannot be any good or bad. Pushan, the Sun -- the preserver, protector, illuminator, is known as shudra. There are khatryas like soma, rudra, indra etc. -- they are destroyers of adharma.

The caste system, as prevalent today, is man-made to a large extent, created and preserved to ensure hierarchy and group dominance. It has nothing to do with dharma and has very ugly repurcussions from both sides. Lord Shiva's destruction of Daksha is destruction of these false hierarchies.

Lord Shiva appeared to Shankaracharya and questioned his value belief on shudras etc. being untouchables. Similarly, a person (Jabala) of unknown origin is known to have been taken in as a disciple and who attained brhma gyan.

Man made categories are false (ignorance) though they are natural since nothing is unnatural. When Advaita is true how can these divisions which cause hatred be true? Untouchabilty is a sin, arising out of ignorance of I-Me-Mine.

My POV.

I have probably seen khadgar's comments earlier also (written with different username).

Om Namah Shivaya

[Khadgar]

I have probably seen khadgar's comments earlier also (written with different username).

Om Namah Shivaya

Wha? This is the first time I've been on this site. I'll admit that those quotes had me baffled, so I went on search of a place or forum where I could get quick answers.

btw, I don't see why I would have to have Kshatriya lineage. I consider myself every bit of the Kshatriya Varna as anyone who has had Kshatri parents or Brahmin guru.



Religions that dont incorporate the four fold division are infact primitive religions where a real Brahmana( a realized Yogi) does not exist in the society. When a religion addresses people who are still not very spiritually inclined and most people are yet unqualified for Yoga there is no need for division - all are shudras only.



Now, I imagine we're talking about spiritual inclination rather than Varna in this case. If that is so, there's no reason to take a four fold division literally. In fact, it seems to me, if anything there would only be two broad categories: Brahmana and Sudra. The pursuer of spirituality, and the pursuer of worldly. As such no religion or spiritual tradition is ever 'primitive', because all traditions deal with those trapped in delusion and worldly desires v.s. those seeking to overcome it.

At the very least, the following spiritualities are not primitive: Sanatani, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucius, Shinto, Chinese Traditional, Native American, and several Celtic and Sufi traditions.

[satay]

Namaste,

I have no problem with deletion, but I would point out that (despite the general impression that Kshatriya is the "military caste") to truly be considered as a Kshatriya one should have Kshatri parents and/or a Brahmana Guru. And the spiritual battle is the Kshatriya's own Sadhana.

:bowdown:

[satay]

Namaskar!


The caste system, as prevalent today, is man-made to a large extent, created and preserved to ensure hierarchy and group dominance. It has nothing to do with dharma and has very ugly repurcussions from both sides. Lord Shiva's destruction of Daksha is destruction of these false hierarchies.
Om Namah Shivaya

Your point of view is all too common. However, I present the view of Rajeev Sirinivasan which in mind is quite refreshing....



"It has become a conditioned, Pavlovian reflex for Indians to condemn the entire idea of caste unthinkingly. It has become a cliché to rail against caste, but jati and varnam are just a codification of the fact that all humans are not born equal in their endowments: Some are tall, some are fat, some are musically talented, and so on. We cannot escape the ruthless Bell Curve.

The very term 'caste' is not proper, because it is a European Christian distortion of the ideas of jati and varnam, which the colonialists condemned out of ignorance and prejudice." What is deplorable is not caste per se, but casteism, or discrimination based on caste. This is similar to the rightly abhorred discrimination based on other inescapable biological facts: Race, gender, or age. Casteism must be condemned in the strongest possible terms, but that does not mean caste has to be thrown out, baby with bath-water.

Allegedly egalitarian Communist states, too, have their elites: Rulers' offspring get the plum jobs. Not too many children of Polit Bureau members toil in the gulags of China , or have their organs harvested on demand. In Muslim societies, too, there are obvious hierarchies: Women are defined to be inferior. Among men, Arabs are top of the heap; among Arabs, Prophet Mohammed's tribe is superior. In that tribe, Mohammed's family members are more privileged. The rigidity of caste as we know it is yet another 'contribution' - as are very many of modern India 's ills, such as dowry - of Christian European imperialists. They capriciously decided that the Manusmrti was the rulebook of Indian society, and used their census to arbitrarily assign jatis to varnams. The objective of the imperialists was simple: To divide and rule. Today, their lineal descendants, the Communists, have latched on to the same idea as a way of subverting India .

The truth of the matter is that jati is an entirely satisfactory construct for most members of a particular jati, so long as there is no overt discrimination against them. It is not as though people are just dying to get into a 'higher' jati. They are content with their existing in-group, even if they belong to a relatively 'low' jati. It is belonging that matters. Finally, caste makes Indian society robust.

It is a system theory axiom that a centralised, monolithic system is vulnerable to a single-point failure. But a distributed system, which has many smaller, independent, nodes, is far more difficult to destroy. Castes have functioned as these distributed nodes, and thus no attacker could overthrow the system. Caste, in a fundamental way, has been a reason for the longevity of Indian civilisation. Surely, the distortions in this perfectly sensible construct need to be removed, but it is not per se inappropriate.




source: hinduwisdom.info

[Khadgar]

The truth of the matter is that jati is an entirely satisfactory construct for most members of a particular jati, so long as there is no overt discrimination against them. It is not as though people are just dying to get into a 'higher' jati. They are content with their existing in-group, even if they belong to a relatively 'low' jati. It is belonging that matters. Finally, caste makes Indian society robust.



Wholeheartedly disagree with this. The idea of differentiation into strata is inherently racist and discriminatory. It is a product of brahminism, not Sanatani. Nobody is content at being considered 'low'. I'm guessing this was probably written by a brahmin. At the end of the day, it is entirely defeated when put into the context of true Sanatani.

Furthermore, there's nothing to be proud of for just being 'born' into something. Firstly, pride itself is self defeating. Secondly, if one should be proud, it should be for accomplishments, not birthright.

'Caste/Jati' was never a part of Vedic Philosophy. It was never a part of Sanatani. It is a construct of brahminism.

[satay]

Furthermore, there's nothing to be proud of for just being 'born' into something. Firstly, pride itself is self defeating. Secondly, if one should be proud, it should be for accomplishments, not birthright.


Prehaps 'pride' is the wrong word I used previously. However, the point I was trying to make was that just because non-hindus and non-indians don't like it Indians shouldn't be so quick to slap themselves just to please others who have classes of their own in their own socieities.

I don't see why I should give up my jati just because you or a chrisstian missionary doesn't like it.

Just because someone presents a different view in support of caste system doesn't mean they oppressed your dalit ancestors and/or are brahmins.

As a matter of fact, please give me the names of people or contact who claim to be brahmins and have oppressed you because you are born into a dalit family. You may PM me or email me at karmic_hindu@yahoo.com


As far as pride, I am proud of those dalits that converted to christianity but quickly realized that they were not treated equally in their new religion as the salesmen claimed. So they decided to revert back to dharma.


'Caste/Jati' was never a part of Vedic Philosophy. It was never a part of Sanatani. It is a construct of brahminism.

So?

[Khadgar]

Prehaps 'pride' is the wrong word I used previously. However, the point I was trying to make was that just because non-hindus and non-indians don't like it Indians shouldn't be so quick to slap themselves just to please others who have classes of their own in their own socieities.

The fact is most of these other societies have done away with social classes.



I don't see why I should give up my jati just because you or a chrisstian missionary doesn't like it.


Do what you want, just know that if we go by 'spiritual inclinations', then sticking to one's birthright is a self defeating egoistic view and ultimately renders you a spiritual sudra.



Just because someone presents a different view in support of caste system doesn't mean they oppressed your dalit ancestors.


Didn't say they did. I did say that the system they seem to support in fact did.




So?

It's inherently illogical, and divides, and is ultimately harmful to Indian society. More than that, dividing people up into groups based on birthright is easily the most crude and primitive concept present today.

[satay]

Since you are too quick to cry foul and say that the opinion in support of Caste system must be from a brahmin family member. I present here the view of a scholar who is not even indian by birth!




"The caste system is often portrayed as the ultimate horror. Inborn inequality is indeed unacceptable to us moderns, but this does not preclude that the system has also had its merits.

Caste is perceived as an "exclusion-from," but first of all it is a form of "belonging-to," a natural structure of solidarity. For this reason, Christian and Muslim missionaries found it very difficult to lure Hindus away from their communities.

Sometimes castes were collectively converted to Islam, and Pope Gregory XV (1621-23) decreed that the missionaries could tolerate caste distinction among Christian converts; but by and large, caste remained an effective hurdle to the destruction of Hinduism through conversion. That is why the missionaries started attacking the institution of caste and in particular the Brahmin caste. This propaganda has bloomed into a full-fledged anti-brahminism, the Indian equivalent of anti-Semitism."



Dr. Koenraad Elst (1959 -) Dutch historian, born in Leuven, Belgium, on 7 August 1959, into a Flemish (i.e. Dutch-speaking Belgian) Catholic family. He graduated in Philosophy, Chinese Studies and Indo-Iranian Studies at the Catholic University of Leuven. He is the author of several books including The Saffron Swastika, Decolonising The Hindu Mind - Ideological Development of Hindu Revivalism and Negationism in India: Concealilng the Record of Islam

[satay]

The fact is most of these other societies have done away with social classes.



Before I answer the rest of the post, let's see some proof of such societies. Please name at least one such society.

[Khadgar]

As a matter of fact, please give me the names of people or contact who claim to be brahmins and have oppressed you because you are born into a dalit family. You may PM me or email me at karmic_hindu@yahoo.com



How bout I give you a documentary to watch instead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBxy1R0jitM

It's only 11 mins long.

[satay]

In fact, let me post the link here instead of recycling material in hDfpur.

At the following link those who are interested will find opinions and views of not only non-hindus but also non-indians.


http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Caste_System.htm#A%20Comprehensive%20Look:%20Pro%20and%20Cons%20of%20The%20Caste%20System

[Khadgar]

Before I answer the rest of the post, let's see some proof of such societies. Please name at least one such society.

Serfdom is no longer a part of British social strata, as the feudal system no longer exists. Same for Norway, Sweden, Finland.

The Catholic Church no longer has political power in Italy/France to the same degree it did.

Apartheid has been done away with, at least legally.

As has segregation in America.


I'll think of more, and post them after.

[satay]

How bout I give you a documentary to watch instead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBxy1R0jitM

It's only 11 mins long.

Are you unable to at least name one such society without classes?

alright, let's see the youtube video...

[satay]

Serfdom is no longer a part of British social strata, as the feudal system no longer exists. Same for Norway, Sweden, Finland.

The Catholic Church no longer has political power in Italy/France to the same degree it did.

Apartheid has been done away with, at least legally.

As has segregation in America.


I'll think of more, and post them after.

In all of these societies 'racism' based on color and different treatment of women still exists.

[Khadgar]

In fact, let me post the link here instead of recycling material in hDfpur.

At the following link those who are interested will find opinions and views of not only non-hindus but also non-indians.


http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Caste_System.htm#A%20Comprehensive%20Look:%20Pro%20and%20Cons%20of%20The%20Caste%20System


From the website:



Caste system has been exploited against the Hindus, for the last two centuries by the British, Christian Missionaries, Secular historians, Communists, Muslims, Pre and Post-Independence Indian politicians and Journalists for their own ends. One way to discredit any system is to highlight its excesses, and this only adds to the sense of inferiority that many Indians feel about their own culture. Caste system is often portrayed as the ultimate horror, in the media, yet social inequities continue to persist in theoretically Egalitarian Western Societies.


This isn't even what I was getting at. The very idea that people are 'divided' into groups, especially by birthright, goes against the very fabric of Monism that is the nature of Vedic Philosophy and Sanatani [and in fact all four Karmic] spiritualities.

[Khadgar]

In all of these societies 'racism' based on color and different treatment of women still exists.

Illegally. As I alluded to above.

Whereas casteism codifies this racism into the realm of legality. I'm glad it has been outlawed and will work to see it disappear from the face of Bharat if possible.

[satay]

Illegally. As I alluded to above.



And so is the treatment of dalits that is presented in the video of youtube.

So can you name a socieity where there are no separation based on class?

[satay]

This isn't even what I was getting at. The very idea that people are 'divided' into groups, especially by birthright, goes against the very fabric of Monism that is the nature of Vedic Philosophy and Sanatani [and in fact all four Karmic] spiritualities.

Vedic or not I don't see how india's caste system is any different than any class system that exists in any other society.

The point is that christian missionaries provoke general indians, especially dalits by feeding the nonsense about inequality yet inequality exists in their own socieities as well.

Why must a person born in a brahmin family get slapped for 'inequality' by those who support this inequality in their own socieities?

For the record, I am not from a brahmin jati.

For example, Men have been oppressing women for centuries in all societies. What's the source of this oppression? Certainly a person born in a village of polland mistreating his wife has nothing to do with the Indian caste system or vedas.

There is a bigger problem of oppression that exist in this world and we can not and should not single out India, Indians and especially Hindus and put the blame on their heads. However, this is what the missionaries have been doing.

People are divided into groups by birth in all societies. e.g. What's the source of the last name 'smith'?

[Khadgar]

And so is the treatment of dalits that is presented in the video of youtube.

So can you name a socieity where there are no separation based on class?

Currently? I'd say Canada. Ethniticities are celebrated, not differentiated. I'm in Canada btw, I have served Canada and Canada has helped me. And I am a proud Canadian even though I wasn't born here.

[satay]

Currently? I'd say Canada. Ethniticities are celebrated, not differentiated. I'm in Canada btw, I have served Canada and Canada has helped me. And I am a proud Canadian even though I wasn't born here.


I am proud Canadian as well.

I agree with you that Canadian society celebrates differences. However, this society is also not without class or different treatment of minorities and women and especially of Aboriginals.

How do we as a Canadian society treat aboriginals? We put them on reserves, separate from the rest of the society.

Ask an aboriginal if he is treated equally, I am willing to bet that he/she will give you a huge list of 'unequal' treatment.

As a matter of fact, aboriginals are treated very poorly compared to the immigrants from asia.

The fact is that there is no such society in the world today where people will not have biases of their own.

I still don't see how one can single out indians, hindus, brahmins and caste system when oppression of other races, colors and gender exists in all socieities.

[satay]

And I am a proud Canadian even though I wasn't born here.



Firstly, pride itself is self defeating.


Now, you are contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that 'pride' is bad for ego.

You are proud to be Canadian yet you want Indians Hindus to be not proud of their jati.

Please make up your mind about 'pride'.

[satay]

Do what you want, just know that if we go by 'spiritual inclinations', then sticking to one's birthright is a self defeating egoistic view and ultimately renders you a spiritual sudra.



I am quite content in my position as a spiritual shudra, perhaps I am even a spiritual dalit. What's wrong with being the 'feet' of virat purusha?

[Khadgar]

I am quite content in my position as a spiritual shudra, perhaps I am even a spiritual dalit. What's wrong with being the 'feet' of virat purusha?


Interesting.. my belief...... I don't think the Purusha was meant to be portrayed in terms of spiritual inclination, but rather actually was an attempt to show Varna itself.

The way I see it. The Body cannot function without the feet, nor the thighs, nor the arms, nor the head. To me it is showing that all Varnas are equal and must be so in order for society to function. As such, with division of labour [again based on CHOICE of action and intent]; all are equal and interdependant in society.

[satay]

Interesting.. my belief...... I don't think the Purusha was meant to be portrayed in terms of spiritual inclination, but rather actually was an attempt to show Varna itself.

The way I see it. The Body cannot function without the feet, nor the thighs, nor the arms, nor the head. To me it is showing that all Varnas are equal and must be so in order for society to function. As such, with division of labour [again based on CHOICE of action and intent]; all are equal and interdependant in society.

You are mixing two different things.

All societies in the world are divided into classes be it race, economic strength, gender, religious group or any other 'grouping'.

Caste system is no more harmful or immoral than any other division of classes that exist in any society. That is my point.

And so, no one has the right to blame indians, hindus, india, brahmins or any other member of any other caste or class and point fingers and shout and scream oppression oppression all the while when the oppression exists everywhere in due to class divisions in all socieities.

[satay]

So, can you name another society that has no class differences?

If you can not then it is hypocrisy to point fingers at others.

[satay]

The way I see it. The Body cannot function without the feet, nor the thighs, nor the arms, nor the head.

Medically, brain is the most important part of human body. One can not say that a foot is equal to brain.

The body can function fine though not to its optimum without feet. Ever heard of a wheel chair? It is harder to live without feet no doubt but as far as body is concerned it can function...

[Madhavan]

Please leave out dalitism from the discussion because it has nothing to do with dharma and a product of social degeneration. There were times during muslim rule when Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam and when they chose to leave Islam they would either be killed or even if they reverted they probably became outcastes because Hinduism did not have an organised way for a person(like the Arya Samaj) to become or reconvert to a Hindu. All societies in the past had such things.

If people are continuining to bring the issue of dalitism, it should be discussed on a forum of politics rather than Hindu religion. I guess this is a wrong forum.

[atanu]

Namaskar!



Your point of view is all too common. However, I present the view of Rajeev Sirinivasan which in mind is quite refreshing....



source: hinduwisdom.info

Dear Satay,

As in the article of Rajeev, I am also pointing at discrimination based on so-called caste system. And it does not matter who is shudra and who is brahmana. Who has the power at present is the crux. And I said that very bad things happen from both sides.

And shudra Pushan's name indicates that He is the nourisher.


I support wholly, the opinion of Madhavan that dalitism (or brahminism) etc. should be kept aside for political forums.

Om

[atanu]

Wha? This is the first time I've been on this site. I'll admit that those quotes had me baffled, so I went on search of a place or forum where I could get quick answers.

btw, I don't see why I would have to have Kshatriya lineage. I consider myself every bit of the Kshatriya Varna as anyone who has had Kshatri parents or Brahmin guru.



Now, I imagine we're talking about spiritual inclination rather than Varna in this case. If that is so, there's no reason to take a four fold division literally. In fact, it seems to me, if anything there would only be two broad categories: Brahmana and Sudra. The pursuer of spirituality, and the pursuer of worldly. As such no religion or spiritual tradition is ever 'primitive', because all traditions deal with those trapped in delusion and worldly desires v.s. those seeking to overcome it.

At the very least, the following spiritualities are not primitive: Sanatani, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucius, Shinto, Chinese Traditional, Native American, and several Celtic and Sufi traditions.


Namaste,

Please do not mix qoutes from different posters.


Om

[Madhavan]

Dear Khadgar,



Now, I imagine we're talking about spiritual inclination rather than Varna in this case. If that is so, there's no reason to take a four fold division literally. In fact, it seems to me, if anything there would only be two broad categories: Brahmana and Sudra. The pursuer of spirituality, and the pursuer of worldly. As such no religion or spiritual tradition is ever 'primitive', because all traditions deal with those trapped in delusion and worldly desires v.s. those seeking to overcome it.


Is the classification between a 'pursuer of spirituality' and 'pursuer of worldly' so well defined? Why cant there be people who are in the middle? Why cant you think of:

brahmana - 'pursuer of spirituality'
kshatriya - 'pursuer of spirituality' (more) + 'pursuer of worldly'(less)
vaishiya - 'pursuer of spirituality' (less) + 'pursuer of worldly'(more)
shudra - 'pursuer of worldly'

The above is not strictly correct because in Hindu Dharma spirituality and moksha is not exactly connected to these - it is just an indicator of what Dharma a person should follow in accordance with his karma.

Brahmanas are supposed to be completely free from vices, court poverty and be steadfast in truthfulness. Therefore his role is as a spiritual guru for the society.

Kshatriyas are supposed to protect all the other three divisions.

Vaishiya is supposed to accumulate wealth honestly, and use it in charity and reduce inequalities in the society. If vaishiyas start becoming brahmanas who would feed the society?

Shudra is supposed to serve others and it does not necessarily mean anything menial. Most of us who work for somebody( even if it be a big corporate) is a shudra. In this way, he constitutes the work force of the society without which society would break down.

Why it is also related to birth has its answer in one's karma. We cannot question this, and this is matter spiritual. It is upto a person to live upto his birth or forfeit his order. A brahmana must live upto the ideals of a brahmana. For the same crime, a brahmana was punished much more heavily than a shudra because he cannot feign ignorance of Dharma. Those who point fingers at Hindu Dharma dont realize that being a Brahmana and enjoying that privilege entailed following the brahmana dharma of yama and niyama fully. A brahmin is respected and accorded a higher status in socieity for what he really deserves and only if he deserves it.

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Madhavan


"Is the classification between a 'pursuer of spirituality' and 'pursuer of worldly' so well defined? Why cant there be people who are in the middle? Why cant you think of:

brahmana - 'pursuer of spirituality'
kshatriya - 'pursuer of spirituality' (more) + 'pursuer of worldly'(less)
vaishiya - 'pursuer of spirituality' (less) + 'pursuer of worldly'(more)
shudra - 'pursuer of worldly' "

I do agree with you but let me add another perspective.
From my point of view we are all also servants.

A brahmana serves the needs for spirituality and knowledge.
A kshatriya serves the needs of it´s people for protection and government.
A vaishiya serves the needs for food and trade.
A shudra serves by work.

We are all pursuers of happiness be it worldly be it spiritual. Any way what´s the difference between one and the other in a perfect society ?

Keep on i really love your post's.

[Khadgar]

Medically, brain is the most important part of human body. One can not say that a foot is equal to brain.

The body can function fine though not to its optimum without feet. Ever heard of a wheel chair? It is harder to live without feet no doubt but as far as body is concerned it can function...


I see the Body not as a 'body', but as a societal body, in which case, no the society cannot function without the feet.




All societies in the world are divided into classes be it race, economic strength, gender, religious group or any other 'grouping'.

Caste system is no more harmful or immoral than any other division of classes that exist in any society. That is my point.



Fair enough, my point is that 'grouping' is inherently harmful whatever the society. Two wrongs don't make a right.



And so, no one has the right to blame indians, hindus, india, brahmins or any other member of any other caste or class and point fingers and shout and scream oppression oppression all the while when the oppression exists everywhere in due to class divisions in all socieities.


My take is that not only should Indians be blamed, but all societies should be blamed for inequities. But more to the point, rather than blaming, I would like to see us urge for improvement.... I would see all societies work towards equality.

[Agnideva]

Namaste Khadgar,


The very idea that people are 'divided' into groups, especially by birthright, goes against the very fabric of Monism that is the nature of Vedic Philosophy and Sanatani [and in fact all four Karmic] spiritualities.

Whereas casteism codifies this racism into the realm of legality. I'm glad it has been outlawed and will work to see it disappear from the face of Bharat if possible.Keep fighting the good fight Khadgar. You truly must be kshatriya. There is absolutely no Dharma in holding that some people are unequal by birth, occupation, etc. Swami Vivekananda has said clearly that casteism (caste based discrimination) is against the religion of Vedanta. Personally, it matters little to me how and when these sorts of nefarious beliefs and practices arose in Indian Hindu society. It is far more important that we all realize and teach that caste discrimination in any shape or form is against the higher principles of Sanatana Dharma, and we work to see that it disappears altogether in South Asian society.

OM Shanti,
A.

[satay]

Fair enough, my point is that 'grouping' is inherently harmful whatever the society. Two wrongs don't make a right.


Agreed. However, why is it that non-indians start pointing fingers at the 'caste system' and then point fingers at vedas all the while ignoring the same problem of division strongly supported by their own scriptures?




My take is that not only should Indians be blamed, but all societies should be blamed for inequities. But more to the point, rather than blaming, I would like to see us urge for improvement.... I would see all societies work towards equality.

Sure, now that you agree that the problem is not only localized to India nor to the 'caste system' nor to the 'vedas' specifically not to the yajur and that there is no such society without divisions, yes, I agree that all socieities should be 'equally' blamed and we should 'all' work to improve the situation.

It is unfair to ONLY blame the indians, to point fingers at the 'caste system' and to blame the vedas for the problem of grouping. Examine all societies, all religious scriptures and blame everyone who is participant in the division or grouping of people. That would be rational and fair.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Agnideva


Namaste Khadgar,


Keep fighting the good fight Khadgar. You truly must be kshatriya. There is absolutely no Dharma in holding that some people are unequal by birth, occupation, etc. Swami Vivekananda has said clearly that casteism (caste based discrimination) is against the religion of Vedanta. Personally, it matters little to me how and when these sorts of nefarious beliefs and practices arose in Indian Hindu society. It is far more important that we all realize and teach that caste discrimination in any shape or form is against the higher principles of Sanatana Dharma, and we work to see that it disappears altogether in South Asian society.

OM Shanti,
A.


While it is every ones duty to speak up against discrimination and injustices, that is in no way could be attributed to varna system. All the problems that exists in India and there are many are by no means the fault of Cast systems. The brutal occupation over a thousand years has taken its toll in all departments, only thing that sustain us is our dharma. Varna has been integral part of our society it was there in the past and it still remains now.

The Brits did their best to divide us, fed their lies about the cast system, yet they were the biggest class conscious society ever.
In the context of equality, In Gita Krishna says

vidya-vinaya-sampanne
brahmane gavi hastini
suni caiva sva-pake ca
panditah sama-darsinah

The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste].(5.18)

Does this mean we interact equally in all the ways? No
Even though we see the soul equally within both. We milk the cow and we learn spiritual topics from the brahmanas.

All the society must progress, but to hold back the more intelligent in preference to positive discrimination, in the name of equality, is a disservice not only to the individual but the nation as a whole.
We must honour the wise and service should not be looked upon as untouchable everything has its place, we must learn to be proper sama-darsinah.

Jai Shree Krishna

[satay]

The only way to rid of all divisions be they race, gender or any other grouping from all societies including Indian is by education. For example, when I came here in Canada in the late 80's racism was quite visible especially against people from east indian origin.

Now I observe that with the newer generation growing up racism is getting reduced. I think this is because more and more kids are getting use to seeing a 'guy with a turban', or 'an indian' sitting in the class (in front mind you) and there are more of us here so there is more exposure to the 'curry culture'.