Caste is only by birth-never by gunas

[Guest guest]

Sri Sankaracharya chandrasekerendra Saraswathi swami said

 

Let us first consider the view that according to the Vedas themselves caste is not based on birth. ( After all, the Vedas are the source of our religion. So it is essential to be clear on this point. ) Earlier I sought to counter the view that there was Vedic sanction for post-puberty marriages. The present contention about what the Vedas say about caste is similar, being based on a passage read out of context. What is mentioned as an exception to the rule is being interpreted as a rule itself. I will give firm proof in support of the view that caste is based on birth and not on the nature or qualiti of individuals. The caula of children belonging to particular caste is performed at the age of three, the upanayana at five or seven. These are samskaras based on birth and performed in childhood. So it would be absurd to claim that one's vocation is based on one's nature of qualities. Is it possible to determine one's qualities or nature in early childhood?

 

Let us now come to Gita. It is true that the Gita speaks of "samadarsana ", "seeing the selfsame thing in everything and everybody. But it would be perverse to argue on this basis that the Gita does not recognise any caste distinctions. When, according to Krsna, do we attain the stage of samatva, the stage when we will look upon all as equal? We must consider the context : The Lord speaks of the samadarsana of the wise man who is absorbed in the Atman and for whom there exists nothing [ other than the Atman] including creation- and even the fact that Isvara is the creator is of no consequence to him. The Lord says that all are equal for a man when he renounces karma entirely to become an ascetic and attains the final state of enlightenment. The Vedas and the Upanisads say the same thing. Only an individual belonging to the highest plane can see all things as One [as one Reality]. Samadarsana is not of this phenomenal world of plurality nor is it for us who are engaged in works. The Lord speaks in the Gita of samadarsana, samacitta and samabhuddhi from the yogin's point of view, but by no means does he refer to "samakaryatva" as applied to our worldy existence.

 

Some concede that Bhagavan does not deny caste differences, but however argue that, according to the Lord, caste is not based on birth but on the individual qualities of people. In support they quote this line from the Gita. "Caturvarnyam mayasrstam guna-karma-vibagasah".

 

When do we come to know the qualities that distinguish an individual? At what age does he reveal his nature? How are we to determine this and impart him the education and training necessary for the vocation that will be in keeping with his qualities? Take, for instance, the calling of the Brahmin who has to join the gurukula when he is seven or eight years old. His education covers a period of twelve years; after this alone will he be qualified for his vocation which includes, among other things, teaching. If a man's occupation were to be fixed until after his character and qualities are formed, it would mean a waste of his youthful years. Even if he were to learn a job or trade thus at a late age it would mean a loss not only to himself but also to society. The Lord speaks again and again that we must be constantly engaged in work and that we must not remain idle even a moment. How then would he approve of an arrangement in which every individual has to be without any work until his vocation is determined according to his character?

 

Does this mean that the Lord lends his support in theory alone to the system of vocations according to the differing qualities of people and that in actual practice he wants occupations to be based on birth? But he is not like a politician [ of these days] speaking one thing and doing something entirely different.

 

What do we see in Krsna's own life as a divine incarnation? When Arjuna refuses to fight saying that it is better to become a mendicant than spill the blood of friends and relatives even if it be to rule over an empire, what does the Lord tell him? He urges Arjuna to fight. " You are born a Ksatriya and you are duty-bound to wage war. Take up your bow and fight".

 

Then, why does he use the phrase "guna-karma-vibhagasah" in the Gita?

 

It is jatidharma that goes to make the inner guna (inner quality or nature) of an individual. So Sri Krsna's dictum in the Gita that the caturvana division is in accord with the gunas and the idea that the caste is based on birth are one and the same. There is no conflict between the two. You cannot find fault with Sri Krsna for his practice being at variance with his precept.

 

Parasurama and Dronacarya were Brahmins but they were Ksatriyas by nature. On the other hand, Visvamitra, a valorous Ksatriya king known for his violent and passionate temperament, became a Brahmin rsi. Cases like this are extremely rare, and are exceptions to the rule of jati dharma. On the whole we see that the Lord functions on the basis that, whatever be the outward qualities of individuals, their inner qulaity is in keeping with their hereditary vocations.

 

How can birth be the basis of the quality on which one's occupation is based? Before a man's individual character develops, he grows in a certain environment, the environment evolved through the vocation practiced in his family from generation to generation. He adopts this vocatiuon and recieves training in it from his people. It is in this manner that his guna is formed, and it is in keeping with his work. Everybody must have the conviction that he is benefitted by the occupation to which he is born. When people in the past had this attitude in the past they were free from greed and feelings of rivalry. Besides, though they were divided on the basis of their vocations, there was harmony among them. Children born in such a set-up naturally develop a liking and aptitude for the family vocation. So what is practised according to birth came to be the same as that practised according to guna. Whatever the view of reformers today, in the old days an individual's ability to do a job was in accord with his guna; and in the dharma obtained in the past a man practised his calling according to his guna. Now it has become topsyturvy.

 

What is the view of the psychologists on this question? According to them, heredity and environment play a crucial part in determining a man's character, abilities and attitudes. In the past all vocations were handed down from grandfather to father and from father to son. Besides, each group practising a particular occupation or trade lived in a separate area in the village. The Brahmins, for instance, lived in the agrahara and, similarly, each of the other jatis had its own quarter. So the environment also helped each section to develop its special skills and character. These two factors - heredity and environment - were greatly instrumental in shaping a person's guna and vocation.

 

Instead of speaking about the subject myself, I will cite the views of Gandhiji who is much respected by the reformists:" The Gita does talk of varna being according to guna and karma, but guna and karma are inherited by birth. " So the fact that Krsna Paramatman's practice is not at variance with his doctrine is confirmed by Gandhiji. Modernists should not twist and distort the Vedas and sastras and the pronouncements of Krsna Paramatman to suit their own contentions.

 

Krsna is usually imperative in his utterances. " I speak, you listen, " such is his manner. But when he speaks of people and their duties, he does not inpose himself saying " I speak thus ", but instead he points to what is laid down in the sastras to be the authority. During Krsna's own time the various castes were divided according to birth : we learn this, without any room for doubt, from the Mahabharata, the Bhagavata and the Visnu Purana. I mention this because some research scholars today are likely to put forward the view that caste based on birth evolved after the time of Krsna. The epic and the Puranas mentioned above declare categorically that during the age of Sri Krsna Paramatman the sastras dealing with varnasrama were the authority for dharma. It was at such a time, when an individual's vocation was determined by birth, that the Lord declared in clear terms :

 

Yah sastra -vidhim utsrjya vartate kama-karatah

 

Na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukham na param gatim

 

Tasmacchastram pramanam te karyakaryavyavasthitau

 

Jnatva sastravidhan oktam karma kartum iha'rhasi

 

-Bhagavadgita, 16. 23 & 24.

 

Whoso forsakes the injuctions of the sastras and lives according to his own desires does not obtain liberation, finds no happiness. (The Sastras determine your work, what is right and what is wrong. You must know the way shown by the sastras and pursue the work - vocation - according to them. )

 

Sri Krsna establishes that an individual owes his caste to his birth. There should not be the slightest doubt about it.

 

Critics of varna dharma will perhaps argue thus: "Let the pronouncements of the Vedas and of Krsna be whatever on the subject of jati dharma. We do not accept them because they represent a partisan view. We must devise a system in which vocations are determined according to one's guna or quality and mental proclivity and not according to birth. Caste systems must be done away with. "

 

What is the relationship between a man's vocation on the one hand and his guna - his character and natural inclination - on the other? If you pause to think about the question, you will realise that this relationship is highly exaggerated these days. Everybody suffers from the sense of self-importance and want a great measure of freedom for himself in all things. That is the reason why people insist that their feelings and thoughts must be respected. They do not pause for a moment to consider whether such feelings are helpful to society, whether they are good or harmful for it. And if they are harmful, should they not be checked for the sake of the community? Freedom is demanded for everything without such questions being taken into consideration.

 

If we examine how far the natural inclination and character of a man have to do with the work he likes to do, we will discover that in 90 out of 100 cases there is no connection at all between the two. A person of vairagya (that is one who is detatched and without any passion ) would not like to stick to any job. Another who is full of energy and enthusiasm and who does his work after careful planning would be averse to any job of a routine nature. Some are keen to join army and some the navy and, in contrast, there are some others who would turn their face against either even if compelled to do so. Those with a flair for writing, music or painting would discountenance any type of drab work.

 

But how many get the job for which they think that they are fitted and for which they have a natural aptitude? Not even 10 per cent.

 

All sorts of people come to the Matha to see me. They pay their respects and tell me about what they want to do in life. I gather the impression that most of them are in jobs that are not in keeping with their interests or aptitude. A father comes and tells me:"My son has applied for admission to the engineering college as well as to the commerce college. If he fails to get admission to the first he will join the second. If he join the engineering college there is nothing like that. I seek your blessings. " Is there any connection between the job of an engineer and that of a commerce graduate? Even so the boy in question is prepared to the work of an engineer (like surveying) or of a commerce graduate (like auditing). A young man tells me: "I have passed my Intermediate" Iam not sure whether I should join the medical college or prepare for the IAS examination. " Again what is the connection between the work of a doctor and that of a collector perhaps? If one's profession is based on one's qualities, how is it that a young man who wants to become a doctor also contemplates a career in the IAS?

 

What would you say of a lawyer or an industrialist joining a political party and eventually becoming a minister? Among ministers today we see not only lawyers and industrialists but also ex-officials, doctors, professors, and so on. Are the qualities required for a minister the same as those required for a doctor, lawyer or professor?

 

There being no compatibility between a man's job and his qualities and natural inclination is a phenomenon not confined to the "higher" levels. Sometimes a devotee comes and tell me: "I was a counter clerk in a cinema. Now I have joined in the army. Please bless me". Another says: "I was a waiter in a restaurant but now I manage a Kiosk. " What is the connection between the job of a cinema assistant and a soldier or between that of a waiter and that of a wayside shopkeeper?

 

Today the government professes to be "socialistic". Its view is that appointments are to be made not on the basis of caste but on the basis of character and educational qualifications of the candidates. But when it conducts examinations for big positions some are selected for IAS and some for IPS from the same group of candidates. Now from the point of view of natural inclination what is the relation, say, between a collector and a police superintendent? So long as no technical work is involved, employees of one department are transferred to another where the work is entirely different. In these instances there is nothing to support the theory of quality and mental proclivity in the allotment of work.

 

The majority of people do not choose their jobs according to their inborn character. They somehow learn to adjust themselves to their work whatever it happens to be. On the whole there is competition for such jobs are very paying. To talk of inborn nature, quality or mental outlook is all bunkum. Would it not be ridiculous if "svadharma" comes to mean the job or vocation that brings the maximum money for the minimum of work?

 

Full article may be viewed inhttp://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part20/chap2.htm

[Guest guest]

In the phenomenal world with its works and day-to-day affairs, it does not make sense to claim that there are no differences. The sastras, however, teach us that even in such a world we must be filled with love for all castes, for all creatures and we must look upon all as the same without regarding one as inferior to the rest or superior. It means the attitude of non-difference is in love, not in karma. " We must always feel inwardly that all are one and we must be permeated with love for all. But in karma, in action there must be differences, " such is the teaching of the sastras.

 

In this worldly life, the four varnas developed branches and many jatis came into being. From the saptasvaras (the seven notes) are formed the 72 melakarta ragas. And from them have developed countless musical modes called janya ragas. In the same way, from the four varnas the numerous jatis were born. Seperate dharmas seperate customs and rites, evolved for these jatis.

 

We feel apologetic about the differences in Hindu society especially since we think that the followers of other religions are not divided in the same way as we are. The latter are scornful of Hinduism on this score and some Hindus themselves feel that the differences in our society are unjust. But, if you pause to reflect on the subject, you will realise that if our civilization has survived from prehistoric times until today it is only because of these very differences in our society, the differences according to varna dharma.

 

In other religions too, even if there is no caste according to their scriptures, the communities are divided. Some of the divisions are almost like jatis and they do not intermarry. Muslims are divided into Sias (Shias), Sunnis and Ahmadiyas. In the south the Pattanis (Pathans) and Labbai Muslims do not intermarry. Among Christians there are Catholics, Protestants and followers of the (Greek) Orthodox Church. Hindus are divided on the basis of labour or work, but are united on another level. But followers of other religions, though themselves divided, speak ill of us. Yet we do not respond properly to their criticism.

 

The moral and ethical ordinances in other religions are applicable to all their followers. In Hinduism too there is a code of conduct meant for all varnas and all jatis. But in addition to this, there are seperate dharmas for jatis with different vocations. There is no intermingling of these vocations and their corresponding dharmas. This fact is central to Hinduism and to its eternal character.

 

This religion has flourished for countless eons. What is the reason for its extraordinarily long history. If Hinduism has survived so long it must be due to some quality unique to it, something that gives it support and keeps it going. No other religion is known to have lasted so long. When I think of our religion I am reminded of our temples. They are not kept as clean as churches or mosques. The latter are frequently whitewashed. There are so many plants sprouting from the gopurams and our temples support all of them. The places of worship of other religions have to be repaired every two or three years. Our sanctuaries are different because they are built of granite. Their foundations, laid thousands of years ago, still remain sturdy. That is why our temples have lasted so long without the need for frequent repair. We do so much to damage them and are even guilty of acts of sacrilege against them, but they withstand all the abuses. All are agreed that India has the most ancient temples. People come from abroad to take photographs of them. These temples still stand as great monuments to our civilization inspite of our neglect of them and our indifference. It is not easy to pull them down. Perhaps it is more difficult to demolish these edifices than it must have been to build them.

 

Our religion to repeat is like these temples. It is being supported by something that we do not seem to know, something that is not present in other faiths. It is because of this "something" that inspite of all the differences, it is still alive.

 

This something is varnasrama dharma. In other religions there is a common dharma for all and we think that that is the reason for their greatness. These religions seem to touch the heights of glory at one time but at other times they are laid low. Christianity supplanted Buddhism in some countries. Islam replaced Christianity or Christianity replaced Islam. We know these developments as historical facts. The civilizations and religions that evolved in ancient Greece and China no longer exist today. Hinduism is the witness to all such changes in other religions and it is subject to attacks from inside and outside. Yet it lives-it refuses to die.

 

There was a palm-tree round which a creeper entwined itself. The creeper grew fast and within months it entwined the entire tree. "This palm has not grown a bit all these months", the creeper said laughing. The palm-tree retorted:"I have seen ten thousand creepers in my life. Each creeper before you said the same thing as you have now said. I don't know what to say to you. " Our religion is like tree in relations to all other faiths.

 

Although there are seperate duties and religious rites for the different castes in our religion, the fruit of the rites are same for all.

 

 

[Guest guest]

"whatever be the outward qualities of individuals, their inner qulaity is in keeping with their hereditary vocations. "

 

This point of urs is absurd and stupid, according to this a toilet cleaner(thotti) and his whole vamsa shld be toilet cleaning.

 

get a life priya vaishnava.

 

[Guest guest]

Can a person from sudra caste enter a temple ? they were prohibited from entering the temple even until the last century. Is not god equal to all ?

 

Tell me this

[barney]

Vedas recognize different people have different skills and qualifications, but it is no by birth, it is by guna [qualification] and karma [work]. So if someone born of a sudra [worker] father becomes qualified [guna] and works as [karma] a brahmana he should be accepted as a brahmana... In the same way if the son of a brahmana doesn't have the qualifications of a brahmana or work as a brahmana then he is not a brahmana. There are so many examples of this in the Vedic scriptures.

 

Here is another clarification for yourgoodself.

Author: Pt. Inderjeet Heeralall

Source: Stabroek News, January 15, 2000

 

Dear Editor,

 

It is with disgust that I sometimes listen to some Pandits delivering their sermon or updesh. There is much to be desired about their use of the English language. Even their Hindi is poor and their knowledge of Sanskrit. The root reason for this is because the so-called Brahmins dominate the arena of Pandits and do not allow persons born in non-Brahmin homes to be an understudy or elevated to the position of Pandits.

 

A person is not born a Brahmin. A Brahmin is described as " a person of spiritual values". As a result, an individual born of Brahmin parentage will have to study and elevate themselves and live the life of a Brahmin. I know of many children who are born from Brahmin parentage and live the lives of rogues. Would you consider that person a Brahmin? Definitely not. A person is considered a Brahmin by karma or action. Today it is educational qualifications that hold the system of functional division in a society, in place. You have to be a law graduate to be a lawyer and a medical graduate to be a doctor. It does not help if your father was a lawyer, for you to become a lawyer. You need to hold the necessary qualification to enroll into that position. Similarly, a person will have to study the Hindu Scriptures, viz., the four Vedas, the Upnishads, the Geeta and other related and pertinent texts coupled with the upholding of spiritual values.

 

Any person who has studied the scriptures, preaches it and lives a noble and spiritual life is a true Brahmin, whether he was born from Brahmin parentage or not. The days for "anancy" stories are long gone. Followers of Hinduism are now more literate and educated than before and as a result demand healthier and educational discourses when listening to a Pandit. There is need for more educated and knowledgeable Pandits in our society. There are many brilliant persons who have great knowledge of the Hindu scriptures and who live a noble and spiritual life style. We should recognize those persons as Pandits and accept them as competent individuals to perform our religious ceremonies.

 

The rejection of persons born in non-Brahmin homes as Pandits is largely due to the practice of the caste system that was misinterpreted in India. The first question to address is why is there a caste system? Well, personally I have always been very ignorant of the topic of caste since I didn't really know it existed although my father was a practicing Pandit in Guyana. Hence, I am not too familiar with the justification in the Indian subcontinent. Through my philosophical exposes and my study of comparative religion, I have compared the caste system to Plato's ideal state. In The Republic, Plato argues that each person in society has a function and it is necessary for each person to fulfil his or her function for society to be just. Similarly, one can argue that the four castes were developed to give each individual a function in society. That is, with the evolution of society it was no longer plausible for the tiller of the soil to assume the functions of priests, warrior, merchant, and artisan all rolled in one. It was during my studies to become a qualified Pandit that I learnt of the Indian caste system.

 

The Indian caste system constitutes four castes:

 

1. Brahmins (priests), the highest castes, made up of those collections of Families considered the purest and most learned among the people of India.

2. Kshatriyas (warriors), the next highest castes, made up of those collections of families with primary responsibilities in the area of governance and maintenance of social order, especially the function of kingship;

3. Vaishya (belonging to the people), those collections of families involved in commerce, business and ordinary economic productivity; and

4. Shudra (servile), the lowest castes of servants of those collections of

families who serve the higher castes.

 

I do not see a problem with the sub-division but I do see a problem with the person who does not live the quality of life as that of a Brahmin to be considered a Brahmin. A person is therefore grouped into a caste by virtue of their occupation and not by birth. So if the son of a Brahmin occupies himself in conducting a business he will be considered a Vaishya (people that are involved in commerce). Likewise if the son of a Vaishya studied the scriptures and lives the life of a saint and preaches the religion he is a Brahmin.

 

Would this "Born-Brahmin" be a thing of the past? I have to be optimistic and say yes! I sincerely believe that the caste system will slowly, but surely, dwindle away. My optimism is grounded on history. With education and time false ways of thinking will change. So, in conclusion, I feel that with time the caste system in India and elsewhere will be diminished. Truth will prevail. The people will demand knowledgeable Pandits and Brahmins will be only synonymous with knowledge and proper lifestyle.

 

Yours faithfully,

Pandit Inderjeet Heeralall

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

There's no point in complaining about Christians and Muslims, when we have Hindu's like yourself who still want to carry on the idea of caste-by-birth. No wonder those born in lower castes are leaving Hinduism! Even the called 'educated' Hindus would leave when they hear something like this. And you want us to believe you because your master said so?

 

You say to read the full article, but whoever wrote that isn't the ultimate authority in Hinduism. You may find him in defence of hereditary caste-system, but you'll find many others against heredity-caste system and for gunas, not birth. I don't know the official views of Shankaracharya, but I'm glad there are other schools of Vedanta that oppose him and am even more glad of Hindu holy men who oppose caste by birth. I don't think many Hindus (maybe only some Brahmins) would want to go back to the time when caste-by-birth was strong as it will lead to caste oppression as described in manu smriti. In a way I'm glad they don't have a power-grip on society.

 

In the case of the great Sage Vyasa, what was he? His father was either a Brahmin or a Kshatriya and his mother a low-caste fisherwoman. So that makes him 50/50%. Why did he live as a Sage when he should've been half-a-fisherman?

[Guest guest]

Its again like this.varna by gunas doesnt make sense.When do you teach vedas to a man?When he develop the gunas?How many years will that take?When do you put sacred thread to a bhramin?At what age?At age 25?When does a king teach his son military skills? At what age?At age 30?Who makes sense?

 

I can understand peoples anguish.But they confuse varna with caste.That is the major problem.Varnas and caste share similiar relationship like sun and east.What connection is there?Nothing.It appears that sun rises in east.Thats all.It isnt reality.YOu try to find the name of a single caste in vedas.You wont.

 

What are the jobs alloted to sudras?

 

Building houses-----engineer

sculptures -----artist

chariot riding------car driver

Agriculture---------(they can own farms too)

fishing

bee hives,floriculture,black smith...

 

I can only list.It goes on and on.IN every society,even in todays usa there are people who do these jobs.Do they consider these jobs as humiliation or an insult?

 

Sudras can enter temples,can pray god,have equal rights in everything.castes were creation in later era.Sudras can do any job that was alloted to them.A sudra born to a blacksmith can build houses.He can own land and do agriculture.

 

In fact when sudras do not get livelihood from their profession for any reason,they are permitted to do any other job,even business like vysyas.

 

Sage vyasa,viswamithra,valmigi are exceptions.Not the norm.If god granted siranchivi status to markandeya does that apply for all?

[barney]

You are not living in the age of Valmiki or Vayasa. This is the 21st century and you should face reality. Hinduism has gone through rivival centuries after centuries. Divine men have come and gone and yet you still want to live in bygone age. Come to my country and see a non brahmin gurukal performing rituals far more better than a original brahmin. Before this some years back we imported[had been doing it since the time temples were estblished in our country]a brahmin priest from India for our Mariamman Temple, but this priest during his spare time would go to movies and one day he was caught making love with a girl[hindu brahimn] at the lake gardens one evening. He was immeniadly packed off to India. Now we send selected youths India [from any family] who wish to learn to become temple priest and this programe is very sucessful. So we do not woryy any more about getting a brahmin priest. Now we are glad to see non brahmin priest coming out after training wearing the poonool[string] over their shoulder. Now that is practical. In our country there is no such thing as sudras coz such jobs are now being taken up by non Indians in our county. So were is Sudra, Brahmin or Kastrias and for your information the kastrias in our country are all non Indians. So here non Indians are Kastrias and Sudras and Indians are becoming Brahmins. It is not great? So your theory of caste is now fading away. In fact in our counrty we do not talk about varna or cast and as long as one is a Hindu and that is all that matters.

[maadhav]

no.

 

krishna does not say so in gita.

the hindus have no reason to believe what you said,

except those who want to malpractice varnasrama.

 

[Guest guest]

Guna and karma determine birth, determine your varna. Same thing. Because of their blood line, the varna's qualities and characteristics are in their members' genes. They have a tendency to do the defining activites of their varna.

 

Changing varna in current life is rare no? Possible but rare. Some non-brahmin in the process of doing tapas and sadhana will be born as brahmin next time around.

 

A lower varna member doing activities of a higher varna still has the qualities of his lower varna in his genes. So He should not cross breed. He will pollute higher varnas even though making efforts to be higher himself.

[Guest guest]

I see many brahmin girls in the west marry westerners. They throw away all the tapas and punya of their great rishi ancestors for what? It sickens me. Such are the ways of kali yug, much to fix. Tamaso my jyotir gama.

[Guest guest]

{I see many brahmin girls in the west marry westerners. They throw away all the tapas and punya of their great rishi ancestors for what? It sickens me.}

 

Well what is even more sick is that you'd still refer to them as Brahmins. I'm sorry but you and priya-vaishnava's view of Brahmins by birth is long gone! I understand if you are born into a Brahmin family you are brought up with a superiority complex where you'd still like to control society but those days are numbered. These so-called Brahmin girls you speak of - I know the type and I don't think they should even call them Hindus, there's nothing Hindu about them, apart from the ancestery they come from. Alot of those girls don't even like to call themselves Hindus, they prefer to say they "don't know what they are" or that their "parents are Hindus, but they are not". That just goes to show how low the Brahmin community has sunk, yet you still want others to look up to people like these as if they are closer to God?

 

Your shankaracharya may say that caste by birth, but I'm glad other Hindu leaders differ. Now we know who to beware of.

[Guest guest]

varna comes by birth.But it can be changed.Im tired of saying it.I have quoted how varnas can be changed from mahabharatha in a seperate post "How did caste and varna originate?"

[Guest guest]

http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr5c.htm

[Guest guest]

ok,it only proves what i said.Hindu culture was spread all over the world.Earlier whole world was hindu.That is why all these hindu symbols are used all over the world.Nobody migrated anywhere.Krishna created whole world as hindu.Even jesus was a hindu.But his disciples twisted everything later.

 

Preeti jintha in make up looks different from a south indian.Remove tons of make up and she will be same as all.South Indians and north indians are caucasians.The dasyus mentiond in rigveda are iranians.Refer zand avesta.It will call Indira as their destroyer.It refers to iranic aryans and indian aryans.Thats all.

[Guest guest]

That stormfront site is a neo-nazi site, so you can't trust what is written there!

 

Some points to clarify, esp on the 'Indian actors' as evidence.

 

First of all Priety Zinta comes from a caste called 'zinta' which was created only a few hundred years ago so are quite recent. It was created as a group of White British men who had married rajput Indian women and had adopted the customs, culture and religion. The offspring from this caste are all mixed race.

 

The AIT argument doesn't work as the people of the north of India were generally fairer that the south anyway. Borders doesn't make people's race different only climatic conditions and environment. Plus, the AIT ignores the fact that the armies Alexander the great had left in India, did inter-marry and apopt indian customs. Megasthenes (320BC) was the Greek ambassador to Chandragupta and a devotee of Krishna had wrote down that their were many 'foreign' races living in India and not just the Greeks.

Chandragupta Maurya married a Greek girl after her father (Selucus Nicator - Macedonian ruler of the North-western areas) had surrendered to him. If he had kids with her they would've been mixed race. So you see alot of the Indians with very European-like features are probably from a mixed race ancestery and not the fabled Aryan 'race'.

 

 

http://www.indiavisitinformation.com/Indian-History/Mauryas-Gupthas%20.shtml

 

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/aryan_invasion_theory.htm

[xxvvii]

It's easy to say varna by gunas. But if you do so in practice, it will damage varna's firmness.

[Guest guest]

I dint say so.Sage vyasa said so in mahabaratha.

[kandukondein]

I found this funny...He is comparing pooja bhatt aishwarya rai...amir khan and a native villager for his aryan invasion theory. This proves the basic foundation on which AIT is built.

[Guest guest]

He compares amir khan witha southerner.Amir khan's natives might be arabs.Salman khan claims proudly that he is adescendent of mongols.And he shows blondes in afghanisthan as proof.Afghanisthan is invaded by all sorts of people.Russians,americans,british,mongols,iranians,indians.How do you judge who were that girls ancestors?

 

Many bhramins in south India are darker than dalits.There dies aryan invasion

[Guest guest]

tamil brahmins are not real brahmins nor are they aryan. they are dravidian. not saying this is bad, it is the truth. brahmins in tamilnad are simply descendents of rulers of tamilnad that were simply put into brahmin caste because they were politically powerful and it was a way to spread hinduism there (think about, convert to hinduism and we will make you brahmin). they are not aryan and priety zinta does not look like someone from tamilnad without her make up, that is toooo funny!

[Guest guest]

What proof exists for your created bhramins theory?If a king was converted as a bhramin he cannot rule.Have you ever heard of any bhramin ruling Tamilnadu?If he ruled, a bhramin would have been outcasted.

 

Who would prefer chola kingdom mto narayana's kingdom?Not the bhramins of those days. Lord Vishnu is a karpaga vrusha. Asking an empire from him equals asking loin cloth from karpaga vriksha.

 

Bhramins of those days were like fire.Pure to the core.

 

Anthropology classifies south Indians,north indians,europeans all as caucasians.Other races are negroid,mongoloid and austroloid.

 

Come to Andhra and see the naidu caste people.They will be fairer than the north Indians.In tamilnadu in every community dark and fair people exist.Most malayalis are fair than north Indians.Malayali girls are fair than any indian state girls.NOt just malayali bhramin girls,but all malayalis are so.

 

 

[Guest guest]

not fairer than kashmiri, punjabi, himachal pradeshi, delhi, real fair women. i knew a naidu and she was brown. what is this thing you say. some aryans did invade karnataka, teluguland, malabar and those are true upper castes. rest are pretenders. sorry to break it to you, what you said is laughable! i've been to hyderabad and tamilland meenakshi temple and i did not see one person like me there. you are self-concious of yourself, let go of these impressions you have. AIT is correct.

[Guest guest]

I know one Naidu and she was brown.So all naidus are brown.

Great reasoning skills.Keep it up.

 

Malayali girls are indeed fair than any state girls.Kashmir and punjab have cooler temperatures.So people are naturally fair.You havent seen naidu girls in coimbatore and sivakasi.

 

I only wonder if those arynas did not have any job than invading.They seem to have invaded north pole to south pole.

[Guest guest]

you cannot generalise. there are fair skinned south indians, these are the aryans that invaded south, but they represent very small percentage compared to north indians. sorry you cannot see this.

 

there are dravidians all across india (like in bihar, bengal, etc...), but highest pure form is found in tamilnad. where are you from?