Caste System

[Guest guest]

Monalisa

 

The reference to division of society (caste is not even a Hindu word) is seen in the Purush Sukta of Rig Veda and can be seen in various chapters of the Bhgavad Gita (chapter 18 verses 40 onwards).

 

The key comments in these scriptures of authority of Hinduism (which I cannot fault are):

 

Age and aptitude (varnashram) must be taken into account to decide the role a person can play in society.

There is absolutely no sanction for a hereditary hierarchical caste system in the scriptures of authority.

Manu is a smriti scripture - it came with a sell-by-date. I know of no Hindu family in the UK who possess the Manu or who has read the Manu so I sometimes challenge these Hindus. As you are not following the teachings of Manu have you stopped being Hindus? The answer is no, we are still Hindus.

There has been a great fixation by western academics to elevate the position of Manu and interpret these teachings as central to Hinduism.

I had to fight the education board in the uk to remove "hereditary caste system being taught as Hinduism." It can be explained as 'atrocity in the name of religion'.

Vivekananda said, 'Hereditary caste system is an 'atrocity in the name of religion' it is not 'religion.'

By equating Manu to Hinduism the western academics have undermined the central tenet of Hinduism that offers the highest dignity to every human being!

You are: Atman

 

 

jay

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Jay,

I am not really sure about the fact that 'caste' or 'jati' is not hereditary according to our hindu scriptures. I cannot imagine that the vedas could have been preserved if 'caste' was not hereditary. For if upanayana is to be performed early in life and close to 7 years of age as prescribed in the shastras, how could someone have a choice and look for aptitude to decide the candidacy. And if done late, it would lose all its purpose for it would only be a mere intellectual learning like we have today. Also what would the yardstick of such an aptitude? Is it an aspiration or a desire to learn vedas or some measurements of intellectual aptitude or a moral uprightness. People often quote some verses from 'Mahabharatha' where we have sayings like birth alone does not make a person brahmin. True, but it doesn't mean that people from other orders are sanctioned to perform the duties of a brahmin. For example, we see Vidura is being respected by one and all and is close to heart to Shri Krishna and is a son of Sage Vyasa himself. But even then he is not allowed to rule the kingdom. I don't think it is because he is incapable or doesn't have aptitude but simply does not have the sanction of the shastras for the sake of a greater objective. Surely Manu may not be the authority when it comes to the question of soul, but he is quoted everywhere as an authority by our own hindu scholars when it comes to dharma and the workings of the society and is very much tied into us. Surely westerners/academics are obsessed with Manu but we are not going to solve it by downplaying the importance of Manu.

 

I cannot even imagine how the idea of caste would work if it was not hereditary. It would be like today. Yes, caste is no longer hereditary but also there is not much of a caste any more. Does 'caste not hereditary' mean that a father can be a brahmin and his son a shudra and all the other possible combinations? How can anyone even perform his caste based shastric injuctions in such a case, for we see these injunctions differing widely for each caste based upon the necessities of his duties! Surely we've had many saints from shudras but it was not that they became Brahmins before/after becoming saints. What I am trying to imply here is that godliness or saintliness is no way tied to being or not-being a brahmin but social duties were and it was not based on any aptitude. We can understand groups of people or castes procaliming them as 'brahmins' or 'kshatriyas' or whatever they want to, but surely it cannot be on an individual basis depending upon aptitude. I think Swamiji described fluidity of 'castes' only at a group level and not an individual level. Lets say caste is not hereditary, what does it solve? Mostly by saying caste is not hereditary, we imply a shudra can also perform the duties of a brahmin. But then it implies that the duties of a brahmin are better than the duties of a shudra and defeats the whole purpose of saying 'caste is not hereditary'. I think instead of proving that 'caste is not hereditary' we need to focus on the fact that 'privileges' are not to be accorded by caste and one caste is not 'better' than any other caste and it was only a 'division of labour' and a life aligning around it towards a higher purpose.

 

This is not to deny the sufferings of people over the ages under a distorted caste system or to dismiss them unsympathetically under a 'failed good system' cover, but we have lost the original idea of caste and of a society whose sole purpose was to propel man towards higher non-sensual objectives rather than getting mired in day to day existential competitions. I am of the opinion that workings of caste as it was in the olden days was more complex and cannot be solved by equating the caste duties to our jobs and right/denial of career aspirations we have today. I am confused myself on Swamiji's views on casteism. For sometimes we see some positive notes on it and many times he comes down on it heavily. Surely he was against privilege in the name of caste, but was he against casteism itself, is something I am unable to conclude.

 

I am not saying that we should go back to casteism. I am only saying that casteism had been part of hinduism for social orderings and values and we'll be lying if we are going to deny it. Swamiji himself says it is a socal institution that has been part and parcel of our society from the time we know it, not with a little influence on the side but as a major driver of people's lives. I cannot even imagine hinduism in the past without the idea of caste. And I don't think that we have to be apologetic about it either, for most of the studies have been extrapolations from our present degeneration into the past. Trying to ignore and throw it away or twist it in the face of half-baked media criticism is certainly not the solution, however well the intentions might be. If we continue in this manner, may be the next generation would even end up throwing up Bhagavatham as some lewd writings and may be even dismiss Sukar and Bhagavatham as minor deviations of Hinduism, fit to be cauterized.

 

I apologise for my long confused mail and I sincerely pray that; may Swamiji give us the clarity of thought to understand things in the true light.

 

Regards,

Raj

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

Vivekananda

ramlist

Friday, April 06, 2007 9:49 AM

[sri Ramakrishna] Caste System

 

Monalisa

 

The reference to division of society (caste is not even a Hindu word) is seen in the Purush Sukta of Rig Veda and can be seen in various chapters of the Bhgavad Gita (chapter 18 verses 40 onwards).

 

The key comments in these scriptures of authority of Hinduism (which I cannot fault are):

 

Age and aptitude (varnashram) must be taken into account to decide the role a person can play in society. There is absolutely no sanction for a hereditary hierarchical caste system in the scriptures of authority. Manu is a smriti scripture - it came with a sell-by-date. I know of no Hindu family in the UK who possess the Manu or who has read the Manu so I sometimes challenge these Hindus. As you are not following the teachings of Manu have you stopped being Hindus? The answer is no, we are still Hindus. There has been a great fixation by western academics to elevate the position of Manu and interpret these teachings as central to Hinduism. I had to fight the education board in the uk to remove "hereditary caste system being taught as Hinduism." It can be explained as 'atrocity in the name of religion'.

Vivekananda said, 'Hereditary caste system is an 'atrocity in the name of religion' it is not 'religion.'

By equating Manu to Hinduism the western academics have undermined the central tenet of Hinduism that offers the highest dignity to every human being!

You are: Atman

 

 

jay

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jay, Thanks for the information. It has been quite a torture to listen to lectures which emphasizes Caste system as the key component of Hinduism. Recently a faculty student group discussion led to this reseach. My objective is to understand the role of Manu Samhita in Caste system and its contribution to the development of the religion. According to my understanding caste system is a social structure developed in the Indo-Aryan society. But its unfortunate that the vedic philosophies are often mixed up with the social system. Thanks for citing the sources. This would surely help me to research. Regards Monalisa Vivekananda <vivekananda wrote: Monalisa The reference to division of society (caste is not even a Hindu word) is seen in the Purush Sukta of Rig Veda and can be seen in various chapters of the Bhgavad Gita (chapter 18 verses 40 onwards). The key comments in these scriptures of authority of Hinduism (which I cannot fault are): Age and aptitude (varnashram) must be taken into account to decide the role a person can play in

society. There is absolutely no sanction for a hereditary hierarchical caste system in the scriptures of authority. Manu is a smriti scripture - it came with a sell-by-date. I know of no Hindu family in the UK who possess the Manu or who has read the Manu so I sometimes challenge these Hindus. As you are not following the teachings of Manu have you stopped being Hindus? The answer is no, we are still Hindus. There has been a great fixation by western academics to elevate the position of Manu and interpret these teachings as central to Hinduism. I had to fight the education board in the uk to remove "hereditary caste system being taught as Hinduism." It can be explained as 'atrocity in the name of religion'. Vivekananda

said, 'Hereditary caste system is an 'atrocity in the name of religion' it is not 'religion.' By equating Manu to Hinduism the western academics have undermined the central tenet of Hinduism that offers the highest dignity to every human being! You are: Atman jay

TV dinner still cooling?Check out "Tonight's Picks" on TV.

[Guest guest]

Dear Raj

 

Thank you for your detailed email outlining how caste is a 'social phenomenon' and how can society survive without it or even preserve the vedas

and ceremonials like Upanayana. You also ended your message with ' May Swamiji give us clearity of thoughts'

 

The explanation I gave came from Swamiji. Let me develop it further.

 

Let me give you a simple example illustrating 'hereditary caste' as a socio-economic entrapment and not a religious injunction.

 

A potter's son in a village where there is no school, no money and no way of escaping becoming a potter, so he learns pottery or he perishes. Would it be right to say that he keeps being

a potter because Hinduism insisted on it? Of course not. The same potter's son discovers the magic of IT technology, gets trained in the city and moves up the social scale or a new evolved caste...This is the way forward. It is the changing economic landscape of India that will remove the entrapment of hereditary caste system and the life of slavery for many oppressed people.

 

Let us again look at 'caste or idea of division of labour based on age and aptitutde':

No modern academic can fault this. Every modern education system uses this as a streaming process for youngsters.

So we already here the evolved 'caste system' in operation.

 

Let us use another example: The father may be a road-sweeper the son may become a teacher.. (If I can use this as a simplistic example: Shudra father with a Brahmin son).

Now if you say, 'Oh dear but the son was not given upanayana because the father was a shrudra' .. my response would be: who cares?

 

Continued promotion of the Manu Smriti with its HEREDIARY CASTE SYSTEM AS A RELIGIOUS INJUCTION OF HINDUS HAS DONE MORE HARM TO THE PORTRAYAL OF HINDUISM than anything else.

 

Every society has a class system .. class of rich.. class of the intellectuals.. etc.. this is the way society operates but such class division cannot be

given religious sanction. That is what I had to fight in the UK.

 

Once the BBC in UK interviewed me and asked me:

'Where in the UK is the hereditary caste system being practised?' They were hoping I was going to name some Hindu temple or something like that in the UK.

My honest answer was the only place we can see hereditary caste system being practised in the UK with full pomp and glory is in Buckingham Palace.

Here a person is considered fit to be the head of the state by mere birth and also fit to be the head of the church . this is hereditary caste squared : )

 

jay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

Hinduism has never lived by dogmas. It has changed

,evolved and grown with times and that is the most

dynamic feature which has saved it being static and

rigid and has prevented Hindus from being fanatic

Jehadis. So let us not live in the past and be real

Hindus by discarding the old social traditions which

do not empower individuals or the society.In this

twenty first century it is the science and technology

which empowers.To quote one of the most modern Indian

Hindu Sam Pitroda " In a society still riddled with

centuries-old prejudices,stereotypes,caste system and

rituals we need continuous intervention of a force

that is non-

political,non-judgmental,non-denominational and

rational to empower people. To me technology is that

force. "

Further he says , I quote again " Being born

underprivileged, precisely among the people we are now

talking of empowering, technology opened doors for

me.It erased my caste and empowered me to upward

mobility. "

It is unfortunate that politicians are trying to

consolidate this evil of caste system for gaining

power through vote banks. Most unfortunately the

ruling congress and the parties like D M K is adding a

more dangerous dimension by dividing India further on

religious line while pretending to talk in name of

secularism!

Let us banish these divisive tendencies as Swami

Vivekanand taught to us all.

 

 

 

R C Desai,

Vallabh Vidyanagar

 

 

 

 

________

India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new

http://in.answers./

[Guest guest]

Many thanks dear friends for illuminating discussion on 'Caste System'. We did have similar discussion some time back also. There is no denying that this caste system served the society well in the past by providing division of labor with dignity. Bhagvad Geeta, which is considered as essence of Sanatana Dharma says that it is not by birth but by 'Karma'. No one has ever asked the caste of a saint or a Sanyasi in Hindu society. Spirituality is above it all. Sri Ramakrishna used to say that there is no caste distinction in Bhaktas and he used to practice it too. The concept of 'Religion' as distinct from Dharma however does include social norms which needs to be followed. Where as Dharma defines duties for a person, wherever he finds himself, which he practices in daily life for his spiritual growth. In the first case a person has to follow the norm for fear of external forces (like state laws, social laws etc.) Where as in

the second case he does it all and more of his own inner volition for it helps him grow in spiritual life. It seems,our western intellectual brothers have missed this subtle difference while judging Hinduism and Hindu way of life. To my mind faults in the Hindu society today are not because of the faulty social system as such, but because of its faulty application. I request Ms.Monalisa, who is doing research in this field, to give us the benefit of her studies in due course. Regards Chetan

[Guest guest]

All i would liket to say to Jay's comments and response is " I agree"

Caste system if hereditary is a slur on Hinduism. It was never meant to be that way

 

Live U's list of the best places to Eat, Study Party

[Guest guest]

Another excerpt from Swami Vivekananda on this topic. The full thing

is in Vol5 Pg377 of the Complete Works.

 

Swamiji: My disciples are all Brahmins! I quite admit the truth of

the words that none except the Brahmins has the right to Pranava. But

the son of a Brahmin is not necessarily always a Brahmin; though

there is every possibility of his being one, he may not become so.

Did you not hear that the nephew of Aghore Chakravarti of Baghbazar

became a sweeper and actually used to do all the menial services of

his adopted caste? Was he not the son of a Brahmin?

 

The Brahmin caste and the Brâhmanya qualities are two distinct

things. In India, one is held to be a Brahmin by one's caste, but in

the West, one should be known as such by one's Brahmanya qualities.

As there are three Gunas — Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas — so there are

Gunas which show a man to be a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudra.

The qualities of being a Brahmin or a Kshatriya are dying out from

the country; but in the West they have now attained to Kshatrid,

from which the next step is Brahminhood; and many there are who have

qualified themselves for that.

 

Q. Then you call those Brahmins who are Sâttvika by nature.

 

Swamiji: Quite so. As there are Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas — one or

other of these Gunas more or less — in every man, so the qualities

which make a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, or Shudra are inherent in

every man, more or less. But at times one or other of these qualities

predominates in him in varying degrees, and it is manifested

accordingly. Take a man in his different pursuits, for example: when

he is engaged in serving another for pay, he is in Shudrahood; when

he is busy transacting some piece of business for profit, on his own

account, he is a Vaishya; when he fights to right wrongs, then the

qualities of a Kshatriya come out in him; and when he meditates on

God or passes his time in conversation about Him, then he is a

Brahmin. Naturally, it is quite possible for one to be changed from

one caste into another. Otherwise, how did Vishvâmitra become a

Brahmin and Parashurâma a Kshatriya?