PDA

View Full Version : My Take: Hinduism's caste problem, out in the open - CNN (blog)



HDFNewsBot
16 July 2010, 08:30 PM
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />
My Take: Hinduism&#39;s caste problem, out in the open (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNHTTYOvPLjhbbDh4-Yz8gBz_kMi1A&url=http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/16/hinduisms-caste-problem-out-in-the-open/)
CNN (blog)
“There is no caste in Hinduism,” he told me, and no evidence would convince him otherwise. Not the fact that all my Hindu friends know precisely what caste ...

and more &raquo; (http://news.google.com/news/more?ned=us&ncl=d9QNyrgKmHf-YdM)


More... (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNHTTYOvPLjhbbDh4-Yz8gBz_kMi1A&url=http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/16/hinduisms-caste-problem-out-in-the-open/)

Kumar_Das
17 July 2010, 08:42 AM
Yeah thats the only insult they can lodge against Hinduism, :rolleyes: because Hindus are a nice open minded respectful people. Of all religious groups in the world, they are the most mindful and understanding. And so because theres close to nothing to criticise about Hinduism, no life ****ers want to pick on the Hindu caste system. Because thats the only criticism they can level against us.

Ramakrishna
17 July 2010, 11:24 PM
Namaste,

Well the man he talks about at the beginning of the article was wrong. There is caste in Hinduism. That is blatantly obvious and it was laid out in the Vedas, as the writer explains.

But I don't understand the point the writer is trying to make at the end. Some people argue that Muslim terrorists are true followers of Islam and some argue that they are not. But it is clear that people like that woman in India who killed her 22-year-old daughter are not following Hinduism, because as was mentioned in the other thread, there is nothing in Hinduism that calls for somebody to be killed if they marry outside of their caste.

It seems like the writer is trying to argue that caste itself is bad. Now that is completely different. I'm not sure if the caste system itself is wrong, and that is never something I have really thought about. But now I am looking more into it and researching the caste system. Whether or not the caste system itself is wrong is up for debate and obviously there are different views on that. But it is clear that killing somebody for marrying outside of their caste is not only wrong, but it is not called for in Hinduism. The writer is trying to intertwine the caste murders with the caste system itself, and that is misleading on his part for doing so.

Jai Sri Krishna

Believer
18 July 2010, 12:48 PM
Ah, the caste system raises its ugly head again.

Yes, we do have social groupings which we call castes. Since this is practiced by Hindus - in the eyes of some people - it translates to Hindu religious code. And we also have various ethnic/linguistic/IQ groupings. So what? What are we going to do about them? NOTHING!

In the old days, people basically got divided into groups based on their abilities which were perhaps connected to their drives/intelligence levels/aptitudes/professions. In the arranged marriage system, the people married within their own groups and over the centuries, these groupings became castes. In today's world, with increased interaction between different groups (castes) and education, the well defined groupings are weakening, at least in the cities. It will take a long time before we evaluate a person solely on the basis of his merits without any thought being given to his "connections" to a particular group. Social norms cannot be legislated out overnight from the hearts and the minds of people. As much as the outsiders (read Westerners) might belittle us on this issue, we don't have to assume a defensive posture. My response to these critics is simply, so what? What do you want me do about this? I will act on it the day you eliminate racial attitudes (which are their version of the caste system), from your society. The accuser must be made aware that the basic human nature has built-in biases against colors/appearances/intelligence levels/professions etc. and Hindus are not alone on this mess. Certainly I don't condone a murder, but, if the family/social group felt that it would function better by culling its wayward members, then so be it and the law will take its course and resolve the issue. No one is going to shame me, or put me in a defensive position or force me to lower my self-esteem because a member of "my ethnic group" did something that was perceived to be "wrong". My answer to critics - Take a chill pill and MYOB. We will deal with it in our own way, without any apologies offered to anyone.

The claim that every Indian knows his caste is to me, a colossal lie. I would love for someone to analyze my background/aptitude/interests and tell me what caste I belong to.

PARAM
19 July 2010, 10:23 AM


There is no Caste system in Hinduism, this is only man made.

Even today you cannot find caste system here, the only system which is there is to join as a brotherhood community of same ancestors.


Only politics have made it a problem, the reservation quota system is making an out of Hinduism caste system. This is a political vote bank system, politicians are always working for Sc, St Obc, Muslims other non Hindu religions etc, Hinduism could not be blamed for it.

Ramakrishna
19 July 2010, 02:17 PM
Namaste Believer,


Ah, the caste system raises its ugly head again.

Yes, we do have social groupings which we call castes. Since this is practiced by Hindus - in the eyes of some people - it translates to Hindu religious code. And we also have various ethnic/linguistic/IQ groupings. So what? What are we going to do about them? NOTHING!

In the old days, people basically got divided into groups based on their abilities which were perhaps connected to their drives/intelligence levels/aptitudes/professions. In the arranged marriage system, the people married within their own groups and over the centuries, these groupings became castes. In today's world, with increased interaction between different groups (castes) and education, the well defined groupings are weakening, at least in the cities. It will take a long time before we evaluate a person solely on the basis of his merits without any thought being given to his "connections" to a particular group. Social norms cannot be legislated out overnight from the hearts and the minds of people. As much as the outsiders (read Westerners) might belittle us on this issue, we don't have to assume a defensive posture. My response to these critics is simply, so what? What do you want me do about this? I will act on it the day you eliminate racial attitudes (which are their version of the caste system), from your society. The accuser must be made aware that the basic human nature has built-in biases against colors/appearances/intelligence levels/professions etc. and Hindus are not alone on this mess. Certainly I don't condone a murder, but, if the family/social group felt that it would function better by culling its wayward members, then so be it and the law will take its course and resolve the issue. No one is going to shame me, or put me in a defensive position or force me to lower my self-esteem because a member of "my ethnic group" did something that was perceived to be "wrong". My answer to critics - Take a chill pill and MYOB. We will deal with it in our own way, without any apologies offered to anyone.

Good points. It seems like the writer is deliberately trying to find a problem with Hinduism, since that is his job, to find problems with the world's religions. But if this is the best he can do, then this just shows the beauty and strength of Sanatana Dharma.


The claim that every Indian knows his caste is to me, a colossal lie. I would love for someone to analyze my background/aptitude/interests and tell me what caste I belong to.

I would like the same. I also have no idea what caste I belong to.

Jai Sri Krishna

rcscwc
16 August 2010, 08:53 PM
Problem is not caste per se. It is there. Every political certifies it is there. Many political parties have crass casteist appeals. And they are in the forefront of bashing caste system. No castes, no Lalu or Paswan or Mayawati. So such people have vested interests in caste system.

What did Mayawati say about Obamas election? It is victory for dalits. How?

rcscwc
16 August 2010, 09:04 PM
The claim that every Indian knows his caste is to me, a colossal lie. I would love for someone to analyze my background/aptitude/interests and tell me what caste I belong to.

Those who matter do know rheir castes. You may not be knowing yours.

But I can gaurantee that that do not belong to those castes which enjoy reservation benefits.

Can you tell the castes Narendra Modi and Mayawati belong to?

Believer
18 August 2010, 02:21 PM
The claim that every Indian knows his caste is to me, a colossal lie.



You may not be knowing yours.



You are repeating what I am saying; and then contradicting me at the same time. What is the purpose of your post???

Eastern Mind
18 August 2010, 04:46 PM
Vannakkam: I know my caste. I'm an outcaste. Yahoo! Actually my Tamil friends think I'm a Vellalar farmer. Because of the temple garden and landscaping, the joint ownership of cows with esteemed others on here, and my rich agricultural background, it could be. They like a 'real' farmer to come to Pongal celebrations. But their situation illustrates something. I just don't know what. Although none of them are farmers any more, more likely to be doctors or engineers, they keep that caste. Same with all the non-temple Brahmins I know.

Aum Namasivaya

rcscwc
20 August 2010, 08:22 PM
Anyone who can muster his fellow caste men becomes a strong man in Indian politics. Laloo, Mulaya, Maya, Paswan etc are the examples. They flaunt their caste, hang a caste certificate around their neck and then bemoan casteism. Qhat a hypocrisy!!

Ugly head of caste? Whose caste is raising its head?

Ashvati
23 August 2010, 12:32 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I very well could be because of who the translation was written by, but I've read the verses he claims to be the origin of caste and they talk of social classes but they say nothing about the rules surrounding them. Going purely off of what those verses about Purusha said, one could only see it as being like the social groupings in the west of "blue collar, white collar". It doesn't say anything about keeping castes seperate or hereditary. Later texts like the Manu Smriti do, but last I checked they were of secondary importance and the fact that they came so much later would indicate, archeologically, that they would be affected by the later social developments of the time they were written.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about the verses concerning Purusha. Not to sound overly influenced by ego, but I'm very certain they don't say anything about caste being so pervasive and limiting.

sanjaya
27 August 2010, 11:50 PM
No Ashvati, I think you're right. Gita says that God created the four castes. However, this largely refers to division of labor, and Gita also says that even the so-called lower castes are able to reach God, and are not at any disadvantage. I think the important thing here is to recognize that caste is not rigid or based on birth, and it isn't an indication of moral standing.

Sahasranama
28 August 2010, 04:55 AM
and Gita also says that even the so-called lower castes are able to reach God, and are not at any disadvantage.Yes, that's indeed what's said in the Gita. But westerners have this misconception that in order to achieve liberation, you have to reincarnate from the birth of an outcast, to that of a shudra, to that of a vaishva, to that of a khatriya and finally to that of a brahmana. It's contradictory to what's written in the Hindu scriptures, like the bhagavad gita, but westerners and some dumb Indians like to spread nonsense like that.

I have read more nonsense from websites comparing Hinduism to Buddhism, saying that in Hinduism you need priests to reach god. If people keep spreading such nonsense, it's understandable that people will develop an aversion to casteism.

Ashvati
28 August 2010, 06:01 AM
No Ashvati, I think you're right. Gita says that God created the four castes. However, this largely refers to division of labor, and Gita also says that even the so-called lower castes are able to reach God, and are not at any disadvantage. I think the important thing here is to recognize that caste is not rigid or based on birth, and it isn't an indication of moral standing.

I was actually talking about the Rig Veda, but the Gita talks about it too. If I recall, the Gita does propose limitations of only doing the work of your caste and does mention caste-mixture and caste-pollution as a result of "irreligion". I'll have to double-check that, but I'm pretty sure it does say that. Still though, it came after the Vedas and would thus be of secondary importance to them.

Sahasranama
28 August 2010, 08:39 AM
That's in the chapter called "the yoga of Arjuna's confusion," so the words cannot be taken as advice.

I wouldn't say that the Gita is only of secundary importance, the words came straight from Krishna.If you believe the Gita is only of secundary importance, then please don't read it, it's not some novel.

Ashvati
28 August 2010, 03:01 PM
I mean only that the Vedas are the texts generally accepted as defining hinduism, I meant no insult or offense.

Sahasranama
29 August 2010, 02:50 AM
Officially, yes. But practically it's the Gita that most Hindus are familiar with.

The upanishads are the essense of the vedas, the Gita is the essense of the upanishads.

Eastern Mind
29 August 2010, 06:41 AM
Officially, yes. But practically it's the Gita that most Hindus are familiar with.

The upanishads are the essense of the vedas, the Gita is the essense of the upanishads.


Vannakkam Sahsranama: I asked this once before and got no answer, but perhaps you know. (You weren't around these forums at the time.)

What were the historical forces in more recent (or earlier) history that make what you say so true. How was it that the Gita became so popular? Were there dozens, or maybe just one or two saints who quoted it a whole lot? I'm curious as to how this happened. The teaching portion within a great epic somehow becomes the scripture, while other books such as Tirukkural or portions of Upanishads which contain many of the same ideas are left behind in some kind of scriptural rat race. It's almost like in today's modern world of publishing where a stint on Oprah, or a $100 000 promotional blitz makes one book more popular than a better one. I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm just curious. Maybe you can shed some light on the subject for me.

Aum Namasivaya

Sahasranama
29 August 2010, 10:02 AM
In my understanding the Bhagavad Gita didn't become mainstream until a few centuries ago. It became even more popular after the Gita Press started collecting versions of the Gita from all over India and started publishing the scripture for low costs with goverment subsidies.

The esoteric knowledge of the gita is not something that can be understood by picking it up casually. Therefore the Gita wasn't thaught to everyone. In the past many scriptures were kept amongst the priviliged ones, it was prohibited to talk about them to the underserving. Whereas the samhita/brahmana potion of the vedas have always been mainstream, unlike the aranyakas that also contain the upanishads.

In the Sanatana Dharma, the bhagavad gita holds a main place. It's glories have been expounded upon in various puranas like the skanda purana, the varah purana, the padma purana etc. The Bhagavad Gita has always been important to the yogis, bhaktas and jnanis, it took awhile though for the laypeople to catch on.

Eastern Mind
29 August 2010, 10:10 AM
Vannakkam Sahasranama:

Thank you for the explanation. So it seems it is parallel to the invention of the printing press for much literature. That invention was one that definitely changed the history of mankind. Other sacred books and their use increased dramatically then as well.

Of course it is very hard to go back before that and get a real sense of what was being spoken about and by whom. Unless of course, as another thread discusses, time travel is possible.

Aum Namasivaya

viprava
09 October 2010, 01:46 PM
All,

Every one in india does know his varna ( I would like to avoid caste) and few have forget them, however it is possible to reterive them.

As per the vedas and Manusmiriti, the varna has been classified into 4 groups some say 6 groups which i need to verify and understand before I can share them. All thise 4 varnas as stated by earlier members it based on action or Dhrama of induviduals. And the varna of person were identified based on actions that he would be responsible.

Today, we are in blame game for our own reason and actions as well due to understandings of westerns friends. The fact is varna classification is present from vedic period and it comes from vedas itself.

In early days, there was no heridetary attached to varna system this is something which got adopted later point in time and is first cause for all the problems that we see today or root cause.

In those days they used the eyes of vedas to determine to which varna one belongs to based on dhrama he would fullfilling in his life, this varna was given to him and was used to help the society to provide mentorship and help to to person to fullfill his objective.

The system of varna is the best as of now, if ones follow as per vedas then it is process oriented and not people oritented, it has nothing to do with political classification - Most of caste or subcaste and not varna were honered by the political class who lacked the excat basis of varna and went as per their comfortness.

If one truly follows the varna as per the vedanga, then will and can see a society of completly harmony

yajvan
11 October 2010, 09:29 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast

In the West there too is this varṇa. It is socio-economic and beyond:

One can be from an income level : upper, middle or lower class - solely driven by income and not by knowledge.
In the military rank is established and can spill into civilian life
There are those that live on the south side of the tracks and those that do not
There are those that go to ivy league schools and others that do not
In England you can be considered working class, some as Royalty, etc.
In the USA you can be from the South ( a Southerner) or from the North ( a Northerner) - not so much a distinction as Easterner or Westerner
IN the USA there are the minorities ( blacks) and the majority ( the whites)
All different varṇa-s of religion
There are blue collar workers and while collar workers
There is ethnicity - where one comes from - German, Italian, Mexican, Canadian, European, Indian, African, etc.
You can be in a union or non-union
Political affiliation of Republican, Democrat , Independent, Green Party, Libertarian, Peace & FreedomHence varṇa is with us today in forms and fashions. To identify a person ( jiva) based upon their actions .

IMHO If we get caught up of definition people by what they do, verses who they are, we can perpetuate ignorance and re-enforce
it in the individual. I find so many people identify themselves by w3hat they do - I am a manager, a butcher, a teacher, a librarian,
a bus driver, a deep sea diver, a (____________). I am Bob verse my name is Bob.

'I' am infinite, 'I' am here by the grace of the Supreme. Men may come and men may go , but 'I' go on forever - so say the wise.
praṇām

words

varṇa - outward appearance , exterior , form , figure , shape , color ; color = race , species , kind , sort , character , nature , quality , property (applied to persons and things)



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gHn9TdbJeyw/SomZIiWGhnI/AAAAAAAAB00/MhqG7TSVTDw/s400/multicolor%2Brose.jpg