Vedas, Hindus prohibit casteism

[Guest guest]

This is my second time posting this, because I'm not sure if the

first one went through due to a program glitch. If the first one did

make it through, then please delete this one.

 

> >

> http://news.sify.com/cgi-

bin/sifynews/news/content/news_fullstory_v2.jsp?art

> > icle_oid=12564633

> >

 

> This decline warrants serious introspection and reappraisal of our

> socio-religious norms. Whereas Islamic and Christian priests have

been

> working overtime to seek new converts so as to increase their

demographic

> weight, bulk of Hindu priests unaware of Rigvedic norms but, armed

with

> Manusmriti have been functioning in such manner over last one

thousand that

> years reduces population of Hindus by making it difficult for a

sizeable

> chunk of Hindus (now called ST/SC/Dalits) to let them remain Hindus

with

> honour and dignity; and, by not seeking new converts to Hinduism.

 

This sounds suspiciously like a plea for orthodox Hindus to abandon

Vedic standards of ethical conduct, which many people are already not

following. By lowering the standards, one can be more inclusive of

those who are not prepared to follow them.

 

Yet it remains to be said why such a "religion" should have any

merit, when the abandoment of dharmic tenets is acceptable for the

sake of generating numbers.

 

There are many references in the Puraanic literature to the

unfortunate disposition of people in Kali Yuga, specifically in

regards to our laziness, our tendency to embrace materialism, our

tendency to cheat, etc. Given this, it goes without saying that

genuine religion, which discourages materialism and encourages self-

realization, will not be popular among the masses.

 

> Concepts like castes by birth, upper/lower castes, untouchables and

dalits

> are expressly prohibited by Rigveda, Ramayana and Shrimad Bhagwat

Gita.

>

 

Although I do not disagree with the conclusion above, I take great

issue with the methods used to arrive at such conclusions. For

example:

 

> All others (Brahmanas, Upnishads, Puranas, Sutras, Smrities) are

just

> commentaries, stories mixed with historical accounts and poets'

> imaginations.

 

This is simply absurd, and the author of this document had better do

a little more research before he makes wild claims of this kind. In

the Atharva Veda Samhitaa, we find the following:

 

R^ichaH saamaani chandaa.msi puraaNa.m yajuShaa saha |

uchchhiShTaaj jaj~nire sarve divi devaa divishritaaH || AV 11.7.24 ||

 

The R^ig, Saama, Yajur, and Atharva Vedas appeared from the Supreme

Lord along with the PuraaNas and all the demigods residing in the

heavenly planets (atharva veda 11.7.24).

 

This indicates that the Puraanas have the same divine origin as the

Vedas themselves, and supporting evidence is found also in the

Chaandogya Upanishad 7.1.2-4. This is hardly consistent with the

author's theory that Puraanas, Upanishads, etc are merely "poets'

imaginations."

 

Is it not presumptuous that people who do not posess even a hundredth

the knowledge, austerity, or humility as the great Vedaanta

commentators will make such statements, in total defiance of the

conclusions of the same?

 

> Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed after Vedas. Shrimad Bhagwat

Gita is

> a part of Mahabharata. It is believed that Manusmriti was composed

during

> Kushan period, about 100 years after Chankya/Kautilya. Arthur A.

Macdonnel

> in his book "A History of Sanskrit Literature" (1899 AD) estimates

that

> Manusmriti in its present form was composed near about 200 AD.

 

Yet in the Upanishads we have the following:

 

sa yathaardraidhaagnerabhyaahitaatpR^ithagdhuumaa vinishcharanti

eva.m vaaare'syamahato bhuutasya niHshvasitametadyadR^igvedo

yajurvedaH saamavedao'tharvaaN^girasa itihaasaH puraaNa.m vidyaa

upaniShadaH shlokaaH suutraaNyanuvyaakhyaanaani vyaakhyaanaani

asyaivaitaani niHshvasitaani || BU2.4.10 ||

 

As from a fire kindled with wet fuel, clouds of smoke issue forth,

so, my dear, verily, from this Glorious Great God has been breathed

forth the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, Saama Veda, Atharvaangirasa,

Itihaasa, Puraanas, Science of knowledge, Mystic Doctrines of

Upanishads, pithy verses, aphorisms, elucidations and commentaries.

>From Him, indeed, are all these breathed forth

(bR^ihadaaranyakopaniShad 2.4.10).

 

Since Mahaabhaarata is one of the Itihaasas, there is no question of

it having never existed before Vyaasa's compilation of it. Similarly,

we have it on the authority of Naarada Muni that the Itihaasas are

part of the fifth Veda:

 

rigveda.m bhagavo'dhyemi yajurveda.m saamavedamaatharvaNa.m

chaturthamitihaasapuraaNa.m pa~nchama.m vedaanaa.m veda pitR^iya.m

raashi.m daiva nidhi.m va kovaakyamekaaayana.m devavidhyaa.m

brahmavidhyaa.m bhuutavidhyaa.m kShatravidyaa.m nakShatravidyaa.m

sarpadevajanavidhyaametadbhagavo'dhyemi || CU 7.1.2 ||

 

Revered master, I know the Rig Veda, the Yajurveda, the Saaamaveda,

and the Atharvan as the fourth, the Itihaasa, Puraanas as the fifth,

graammer, the rules for the worship of the manes, mathematics, the

science of portents, the chronology, logic, the science of ethics,

etymology, the ancillary knowledge of the Vedas, the physical

science, the science of war, the astronomy, the science of snake-

charming and the fine arts. This, venerable master, I know

(chaandogya upaniShad 7.1.2).

 

> In his book, Macdonnel warns that the smritis are not on the same

footings

> as law books of other nations as these are works of private

individuals

> (Brahmins); these were written by Brahimins for benefit of

Brahinins whose

> caste pretentions these books consequently exaggerate.

 

Note the implicit prejudice in the above statements, which of course,

colors the entire argument to follow. He first begins with an

assertion, "these were written by Brahimins for benefit of Brahinins"

(sic), which he cannot prove in any meaningful way.

 

Note that such a sentiment plays right into the Western egalitarian

mentality, which often lends itself to moral relativism. We judge a

person's varna by their conduct and quality (chaatur varnyam mayaa

sR^iShtaa guna karma vibhaagaShaH....); but if we falsely assume that

everyone is equal, then we fail to condemn those practices adopted by

some people that are contrary to dharma (meat-eating, smoking, liquor

drinking, etc).

 

> In sloka (I.31), Manusmriti wrongly claims, that for growth of

people

> (lokanbridhi) Brahma created Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra

from

> mouth, arms, thighs and feet. With a view to create hereditary

monopoly on

> easy money of dakshina, greedy priests centuries after Vedas

concocted that

> as Brahman was born from mouth of Purusa, he was the superior most

and as

> Sudra was born from feet which is impure part of body he was impure

and the

> inferior most.

 

First of all, the article attempts to find fault with Manu Smriti for

the analogy of the different varnas as being like the different parts

of the body of the Purusha. But then it goes on to cite the

unscrupulous activities of "greedy priests" who misused the statement

for material gain. Either the fault is in the text or in the people

who misused it. The author wants to find fault with the text, but in

the end, the only criticism he can bring to bear is in reality

against the "greedy priests" who allegedly misused it. This is hardly

honest.

 

We need not selectively interpret scriptural statements so as to give

ourselves an excuse to criticize them, and in so doing, make a name

for ourselves. The fact that Brahmins are likened to the mouth,

Kshatriyas, the arms, Shuudras the legs, etc has abundant truth to

it. Brahmins are the teachers of society, and without teachers

civilization wanders blindly with no purpose. I see absolutely no

problem at all with this.

 

I also don't see a problem with Shuudras being likened to the legs of

society. Is it not a fact that we can only function when we have all

of our body parts in good working order? Who here would gladly

amputate a leg? The Purusha analogy drives home the point that all

members of society must cooperate for it to survive. But unscrupulous

socialist-minded commentators neglect this point, since it is not

convenient for their criticisms.

 

yours,

 

Krishna Susarla

www.achintya.org