Caste-based discrimination in Hindu scripture

An analysis by a dear friend:

http://www.leftbrainwave.com/2017/01/the-scriptural-sanction-for-caste-based.html?m=1

thanks for sharing this.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:An analysis by a dear friend:

http://www.leftbrainwave.com/2017/01/the-scriptural-sanction-for-caste-based.html?m=1

Your dear friend has a flawed and incomplete knowledge of Hindu scripture if he thinks it sanctions discrimination causing abuse and harm to the person on the basis of caste. May be he is reading the wrong scripture or erroneous translation / interpretation of Hindu scripture.

TN is in need of a new DKhead, now that AIADMK is going through problems. Your friend should try for its leadership. As long as he doesn't criticize Kamba Ramayana, he will do fine. He can spice his story up by blaming Aryans (Hindians) for all the social ills in India. He may even be acceptable as a national leader if he ars-licks Babur, Humayun, Jalaluddin, Aurangajeb, Arcot Nawabs and Thuglakh. Soonya, Laloo, Mamata, et al., will then ask him to join the mahagadbandhan to fight against communal forces........

It's a fairly long article. I doubt Seva has read through my friend's very carefully considered points in the time between my posting of the link and Seva's response. My friend is by no means an iconoclast and considers himself very much a Hindu. He is deeply educated in the scriptures, fluent in Sanskrit, and is a Carnatic musician by hobby. He comes from an orthodox Tamil Brahmin family by birth. I trust his judgment implicitly.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:TN is in need of a new DKhead, now that AIADMK is going through problems. Your friend should try for its leadership. As long as he doesn't criticize Kamba Ramayana, he will do fine. He can spice his story up by blaming Aryans (Hindians) for all the social ills in India. He may even be acceptable as a national leader if he ars-licks Babur, Humayun, Jalaluddin, Aurangajeb, Arcot Nawabs and Thuglakh. Soonya, Laloo, Mamata, et al., will then ask him to join the mahagadbandhan to fight against communal forces........

You are angry. You are upset.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:It's a fairly long article. I doubt Seva has read through my friend's very carefully considered points in the time between my posting of the link and Seva's response. My friend is by no means an iconoclast and considers himself very much a Hindu. He is deeply educated in the scriptures, fluent in Sanskrit, and is a Carnatic musician by hobby. He comes from an orthodox Tamil Brahmin family by birth. I trust his judgment implicitly.

It is not just Dayananda who advocated Sruti as the authority. Sruti is the authority from the beginning

Your friend brings in a variety of arguments based on smriti, Jaggi, Sri Sri, Gandhi, etc. None of them are authorities on the topic.

His article may appeal to the uninformed. The unfortunate thing is, many who read it may think that he is basing his arguments on authoritative sources.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:It's a fairly long article. I doubt Seva has read through my friend's very carefully considered points in the time between my posting of the link and Seva's response. My friend is by no means an iconoclast and considers himself very much a Hindu. He is deeply educated in the scriptures, fluent in Sanskrit, and is a Carnatic musician by hobby. He comes from an orthodox Tamil Brahmin family by birth. I trust his judgment implicitly.

It is not just Dayananda who advocated Sruti as the authority. Sruti is the authority from the beginning

Your friend brings in a variety of arguments based on smriti, Jaggi, Sri Sri, Gandhi, etc. None of them are authorities on the topic.

His article may appeal to the uninformed. The unfortunate thing is, many who read it may think that he is basing his arguments on authoritative sources.

from the article:

The fact of the matter is that to most Hindus (with the exception of scholars and holy men), the true import of Hinduism comes not from the Vedas, but from the great epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, and from the various Puranas...

Most Hindus have no idea what the Vedas contain, and could not even chant the mantras without the aid of a priest.

In similar fashion, most of the morals and even many of the rituals of Hindus are based on the two great epics and the Puranas. Hindu marriage rituals are directly based on the rituals of the wedding between Rama and his wife Sita, described in the Ramayana.

The two epics and the Puranas permeate every aspect of a Hindu’s life. The Vedas, on the other hand, are only a collection of mantras (chants) which most Hindus do not even know the meaning of. They are chanted usually during important rituals by people who don’t even know what they are saying – birth, death, marriage, and even daily offerings to the Gods. Most Hindus have no idea what the Vedas contain, and could not even chant the mantras without the aid of a priest.

… any attempt to claim that Hinduism does not support caste discrimination — any attempt that relies on completely discounting what is in the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, or the Puranas, and purely focuses on the Vedas or Upanishads – is simply unrealistic and should be disregarded as unrepresentative of Hinduism in practice.

Vakavaka has a point in that in accordance with Hindu orthodoxy, Sruti gets primacy over smriti. So even if the common hindu is not aware of what is in the Vedas, that is no excuse for ignoring completely what the Vedas say about the hindu caste system. An advantage in studying what the Vedas say about the caste system is that it reveals the evolution of the Hindu caste system.

----
"His (Purusa's) mouth became the Brahmin; his arms were made into the Ksatriya, his thighs the Vaisya, and from his feet the Sudra was born." -- Rig Veda 10:90:12.

"…thereby the Ksatriya, whenever he likes, says, 'Hello Vaisya, just bring to me what you have stored away!' Thus he both subdues him and obtains possession of anything he wishes by dint of this very energy." -- Satapatha Brahmana 1:3:2:15.

"If in the process of negotiating betrothal there are first ten suitors of the non-Brahmana varna for a woman (the marriageable girl), all of them lose their claims of marriage and, only the Brahmin, the learned one, if he grasps her hand would be her husband and only he. Not even the man of Ksatriya varna and not even the man of Vaisya varna but only the Brahmin is the husband of the bride in such cases of claimants of betrothal, and the sun, as it appears, revealing this fact to the people of five classes (4 varnas and the fifth avarna) rises up." -- Atharva Veda 5:17:8-9.

"People here whose behaviour is pleasant can expect to enter a pleasant womb, like that of a woman of the Brahmin, the Ksatriya, or the Vaisya caste. But people of foul behaviour can expect to enter the foul womb, like that of a dog, a pig, or an outcaste woman." -- Chandogya Upanisad 5:10:7.

"And whilst not coming into contact with Sudras and remains of food; for this Gharma is he that shines yonder, and he is excellence, truth, and light; but woman, the Sudra, the dog, and the black bird (the crow), are untruth: he should not look at these, lest he should mingle excellence and sin, light and darkness, truth and untruth." -- Satapatha Brahmana 14:1:1:31.

"Now the gods do not commune with everyone, but only with a Brahmin, or a Rajanya (Ksatriya), or a Vaisya; for these are able to sacrifice. Should there be occasion for him to converse with a Sudra, let him say to one of those, 'Tell this one so and so! Tell this one so and so!' This is the rule of conduct for the consecrated in such a case." -- Satapatha Brahmana 3:1:1:10.

Forget Hindu scriptures and your friend's interpretation of it. Your ancestors were tambrams. You would've seen this caste discrimination shit quite in abundance within your own family. From what I've noticed, most tambrams have absolutely no deeper understanding of Hinduism unlike the telugu brahmins and they feel pretty superior to others and are discriminatory. If you notice, most of the contemporary tambrams call themselves 'atheists', 'communists' and are self-haters aka strong opponents of Hinduism. Except for the dalit converts, you wouldn't find the kind of Hindu haters in any other group of Indians.

The self-hatred seems like the sins passed down from their ancestors. They probably were the ignorant folks who, like your friend, interpreted the scriptures to suit their agenda. Seeing the shit going on in their families, the later generations turned away from Hinduism and turned into self haters. Karma comes around and bites. 

Long ago, I attend a Vedanta class at one of the tambram's home. At the end of the class, everyone was given coffee. I noticed that I was the only one who was given the coffee in a disposable cup. It was then that i noticed that every one else except me was a tambram. I was like, whoa! Even the educated, americanized folks can be such a-holes. Ironically, the class was on Advaita!! What's the use of conducting such classes when you can't imbibe what's being taught? Obvisously, that was the last i've seen them. 
The problem isn't with Hinduism. The problem was with these tambrams. No wonder DMK gained ground in TN and tambrams were looked upon with disdain. We can't imagine such a thing in Andhra. So yeah, go deeper into understanding Hinduim rather than looking at it negatively and superficially with your narrow perspective.

Rashmun wrote:Vakavaka has a point in that in accordance with Hindu orthodoxy, Sruti gets primacy over smriti. So even if the common hindu is not aware of what is in the Vedas, that is no excuse for ignoring completely what the Vedas say about the hindu caste system. An advantage in studying what the Vedas say about the caste system is that it reveals the evolution of the Hindu caste system.

----
"His (Purusa's) mouth became the Brahmin; his arms were made into the Ksatriya, his thighs the Vaisya, and from his feet the Sudra was born." -- Rig Veda 10:90:12.

Wrong, as usual. The real translation in the above is that brahmin (professionally) was the mouth (as a mouthpiece / voice) of society, Ksatriya as its arms (strength) and Vaisya as the foundation or thighs of society, and Sudra as the newcomer to society (arriving on foot)  ---  http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/_caste.html

There is no caste based discrimination in the above from the Rig Veda (Book 10: Hymn 90.12), which uses caste merely as a profession / situation with respect to the society.

kinnera wrote:Forget Hindu scriptures and your friend's interpretation of it. Your ancestors were tambrams. You would've seen this caste discrimination shit quite in abundance within your own family. From what I've noticed, most tambrams have absolutely no deeper understanding of Hinduism unlike the telugu brahmins and they feel pretty superior to others and are discriminatory. If you notice, most of the contemporary tambrams call themselves 'atheists', 'communists' and are self-haters aka strong opponents of Hinduism. Except for the dalit converts, you wouldn't find the kind of Hindu haters in any other group of Indians.

The self-hatred seems like the sins passed down from their ancestors. They probably were the ignorant folks who, like your friend, interpreted the scriptures to suit their agenda. Seeing the shit going on in their families, the later generations turned away from Hinduism and turned into self haters. Karma comes around and bites. 

Long ago, I attend a Vedanta class at one of the tambram's home. At the end of the class, everyone was given coffee. I noticed that I was the only one who was given the coffee in a disposable cup. It was then that i noticed that every one else except me was a tambram. I was like, whoa! Even the educated, americanized folks can be such a-holes. Ironically, the class was on Advaita!! What's the use of conducting such classes when you can't imbibe what's being taught? Obvisously, that was the last i've seen them. 
The problem isn't with Hinduism. The problem was with these tambrams. No wonder DMK gained ground in TN and tambrams were looked upon with disdain. We can't imagine such a thing in Andhra. So yeah, go deeper into understanding Hinduim rather than looking at it negatively and superficially with your narrow perspective.

What about telugu brahmins who were (and are) atheists? People like Goparaju Ramachandra Rao for example.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:It's a fairly long article. I doubt Seva has read through my friend's very carefully considered points in the time between my posting of the link and Seva's response. My friend is by no means an iconoclast and considers himself very much a Hindu. He is deeply educated in the scriptures, fluent in Sanskrit, and is a Carnatic musician by hobby. He comes from an orthodox Tamil Brahmin family by birth. I trust his judgment implicitly.

It is not just Dayananda who advocated Sruti as the authority. Sruti is the authority from the beginning

Your friend brings in a variety of arguments based on smriti, Jaggi, Sri Sri, Gandhi, etc. None of them are authorities on the topic.

His article may appeal to the uninformed. The unfortunate thing is, many who read it may think that he is basing his arguments on authoritative sources.

He merely seems to be commenting about caste system in Hindu scriptures after reading others' flawed commentaries (which I have already recognized) on these texts.  He seems to have not read the original sruti texts himself.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:It's a fairly long article. I doubt Seva has read through my friend's very carefully considered points in the time between my posting of the link and Seva's response. My friend is by no means an iconoclast and considers himself very much a Hindu. He is deeply educated in the scriptures, fluent in Sanskrit, and is a Carnatic musician by hobby. He comes from an orthodox Tamil Brahmin family by birth. I trust his judgment implicitly.

It is not just Dayananda who advocated Sruti as the authority. Sruti is the authority from the beginning

Your friend brings in a variety of arguments based on smriti, Jaggi, Sri Sri, Gandhi, etc. None of them are authorities on the topic.

His article may appeal to the uninformed. The unfortunate thing is, many who read it may think that he is basing his arguments on authoritative sources.

He merely seems to be commenting about caste system in Hindu scriptures after reading others' flawed commentaries (which I have already recognized) on these texts.  He seems to have not read the original sruti texts himself.

his argument is that the vast majority of hindus are unaware of the contents of the sruti text. Consequently for any behavior demonstrating caste based discrimination we should seek the smriti texts, particularly the Ramayana and Mahabharata, for the theoretical basis of this behavior.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:It's a fairly long article. I doubt Seva has read through my friend's very carefully considered points in the time between my posting of the link and Seva's response. My friend is by no means an iconoclast and considers himself very much a Hindu. He is deeply educated in the scriptures, fluent in Sanskrit, and is a Carnatic musician by hobby. He comes from an orthodox Tamil Brahmin family by birth. I trust his judgment implicitly.

It is not just Dayananda who advocated Sruti as the authority. Sruti is the authority from the beginning

Your friend brings in a variety of arguments based on smriti, Jaggi, Sri Sri, Gandhi, etc. None of them are authorities on the topic.

His article may appeal to the uninformed. The unfortunate thing is, many who read it may think that he is basing his arguments on authoritative sources.

He merely seems to be commenting about caste system in Hindu scriptures after reading others' flawed commentaries (which I have already recognized) on these texts.  He seems to have not read the original sruti texts himself.

his argument is that the vast majority of hindus are unaware of the contents of the sruti text. Consequently for any behavior demonstrating caste based discrimination we should seek the smriti texts, particularly the Ramayana and Mahabharata, for the theoretical basis of this behavior. 

Before he starts making wrong statements about the behavior and knowledge of others (which you call vast majority), he should try to figure out the difference between sruti and smriti, and the importance of sruti over smriti.

kinnera wrote:Forget Hindu scriptures and your friend's interpretation of it. Your ancestors were tambrams. You would've seen this caste discrimination shit quite in abundance within your own family. From what I've noticed, most tambrams have absolutely no deeper understanding of Hinduism unlike the telugu brahmins and they feel pretty superior to others and are discriminatory. If you notice, most of the contemporary tambrams call themselves 'atheists', 'communists' and are self-haters aka strong opponents of Hinduism. Except for the dalit converts, you wouldn't find the kind of Hindu haters in any other group of Indians.

The self-hatred seems like the sins passed down from their ancestors. They probably were the ignorant folks who, like your friend, interpreted the scriptures to suit their agenda. Seeing the shit going on in their families, the later generations turned away from Hinduism and turned into self haters. Karma comes around and bites. 

Long ago, I attend a Vedanta class at one of the tambram's home. At the end of the class, everyone was given coffee. I noticed that I was the only one who was given the coffee in a disposable cup. It was then that i noticed that every one else except me was a tambram. I was like, whoa! Even the educated, americanized folks can be such a-holes. Ironically, the class was on Advaita!! What's the use of conducting such classes when you can't imbibe what's being taught? Obvisously, that was the last i've seen them. 
The problem isn't with Hinduism. The problem was with these tambrams. No wonder DMK gained ground in TN and tambrams were looked upon with disdain. We can't imagine such a thing in Andhra. So yeah, go deeper into understanding Hinduim rather than looking at it negatively and superficially with your narrow perspective.

When I was young, myself and a Tamil friend of mine were going on a tour of SI temples and in Madras, we went to his parents' house. When I was eating my meal, the mother was checking if I knew the proper rituals! I decided to do the elaborate thingie so that their way looked like a short cut. LOL.

now what are meal eating rituals?

- wash hands first with soap and water?

- help serve food (if you da guest). If nothing else, make sure all have water/drink.

- make sure kids eat first, if they upto it.

- start eating only when all are seated and served (unless the host aunt INSIST that you eat FIRST and NOW, so you - the least confrontational one -  begin eating, and your Ex husband gives you an evil eye, and you dare-eye him back. Seriously, 20 years now, he needs to get with it. he's not even my husband dammit).

- keep sabzi in the right, achar, etc in the left, dal, etc on the opp side, rice/roti in the middle?

- if you don't want something, and it's been served to you, return it to the serving ware BEFORE you have begun eating? Better still, chupchap eat it, and refuse seconds?

- eat with one hand, serve with another? Drink water also with another, especially if eating with hands?

- roti first, rice later? Or is it just a preference thing?

- no double dipping?

- no chewing noises?

- no talking with food in mouth? (More for reminding kids)

- pick your plate when done?

- help the host with cleaning up?

- help serve dessert?

- offer to make tea/coffee?

t w wrote:now what are meal eating rituals?

- wash hands first with soap and water?

- help serve food (if you da guest). If nothing else, make sure all have water/drink.

- make sure kids eat first, if they upto it.

- start eating only when all are seated and served (unless the host aunt INSIST that you eat FIRST and NOW, so you - the least confrontational one -  begin eating, and your Ex husband gives you an evil eye, and you dare-eye him back. Seriously, 20 years now, he needs to get with it. he's not even my husband dammit).

- keep sabzi in the right, achar, etc in the left, dal, etc on the opp side, rice/roti in the middle?

- if you don't want something, and it's been served to you, return it to the serving ware BEFORE you have begun eating? Better still, chupchap eat it, and refuse seconds?

- eat with one hand, serve with another? Drink water also with another, especially if eating with hands?

- roti first, rice later? Or is it just a preference thing?

- no double dipping?

- no chewing noises?

- no talking with food in mouth? (More for reminding kids)

- pick your plate when done?

- help the host with cleaning up?

- help serve dessert?

- offer to make tea/coffee?

LOL.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

kinnera wrote:Forget Hindu scriptures and your friend's interpretation of it. Your ancestors were tambrams. You would've seen this caste discrimination shit quite in abundance within your own family. From what I've noticed, most tambrams have absolutely no deeper understanding of Hinduism unlike the telugu brahmins and they feel pretty superior to others and are discriminatory. If you notice, most of the contemporary tambrams call themselves 'atheists', 'communists' and are self-haters aka strong opponents of Hinduism. Except for the dalit converts, you wouldn't find the kind of Hindu haters in any other group of Indians.

The self-hatred seems like the sins passed down from their ancestors. They probably were the ignorant folks who, like your friend, interpreted the scriptures to suit their agenda. Seeing the shit going on in their families, the later generations turned away from Hinduism and turned into self haters. Karma comes around and bites. 

Long ago, I attend a Vedanta class at one of the tambram's home. At the end of the class, everyone was given coffee. I noticed that I was the only one who was given the coffee in a disposable cup. It was then that i noticed that every one else except me was a tambram. I was like, whoa! Even the educated, americanized folks can be such a-holes. Ironically, the class was on Advaita!! What's the use of conducting such classes when you can't imbibe what's being taught? Obvisously, that was the last i've seen them. 
The problem isn't with Hinduism. The problem was with these tambrams. No wonder DMK gained ground in TN and tambrams were looked upon with disdain. We can't imagine such a thing in Andhra. So yeah, go deeper into understanding Hinduim rather than looking at it negatively and superficially with your narrow perspective.

When I was young, myself and a Tamil friend of mine were going on a tour of SI temples and in Madras, we went to his parents' house. When I was eating my meal, the mother was checking if I knew the proper rituals! I decided to do the elaborate thingie so that their way looked like a short cut. LOL.

I doubt if she even knew the spiritual significance of the rituals. That said, the priests who I met over here are pretty knowledgeable and wise and weren't anything but stupidly ritualistic. I once offered to volunteer to make a dish for the temple prasadam, but then on the day I was supposed to make it, I got my periods. I went and asked the temple priest's wife on what I should do. She said, he's going to tell me what he tells her to do when she gets hers and she had to make the naivedyams. That's to just sprinkle some turmeric water on the head and go ahead with the preparation of the dish. He then came and assured me that it's fine, and not be too caught up in the ritualistic part. I can tell you that it came from his vast knowledge and wisdom. A very learned and wise priest. He's from Madhurai, but his ancestors were telugu (maybe that's why the wisdom has been passed on )

t w wrote:now what are meal eating rituals?

- wash hands first with soap and water?

- help serve food (if you da guest). If nothing else, make sure all have water/drink.

- make sure kids eat first, if they upto it.

- start eating only when all are seated and served (unless the host aunt INSIST that you eat FIRST and NOW, so you - the least confrontational one -  begin eating, and your Ex husband gives you an evil eye, and you dare-eye him back. Seriously, 20 years now, he needs to get with it. he's not even my husband dammit).

Vids, though brahmin, your ancestral folks would've been anything but regressive. Else, you'd be doing the, 'Hinduism sucks!' kinda thing now.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:It's a fairly long article. I doubt Seva has read through my friend's very carefully considered points in the time between my posting of the link and Seva's response. My friend is by no means an iconoclast and considers himself very much a Hindu. He is deeply educated in the scriptures, fluent in Sanskrit, and is a Carnatic musician by hobby. He comes from an orthodox Tamil Brahmin family by birth. I trust his judgment implicitly.

Max, I believe you consider yourself to be intelligent and rational and all that stuff. Instead of relying on your friend's judgment, why don't you yourself make an effort to read some scriptures and get some understanding? Upanishads have the main philosophical concepts of Hinduism. Get to the source. Order a book from Amazon. Read the ones which are written by Indians, not some westerner with half baked understanding of Hinduism. Eknath Easwaran is one reliable author. Read it. Gain some knowledge and hopefully, some wisdom.

kinnera wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

kinnera wrote:Forget Hindu scriptures and your friend's interpretation of it. Your ancestors were tambrams. You would've seen this caste discrimination shit quite in abundance within your own family. From what I've noticed, most tambrams have absolutely no deeper understanding of Hinduism unlike the telugu brahmins and they feel pretty superior to others and are discriminatory. If you notice, most of the contemporary tambrams call themselves 'atheists', 'communists' and are self-haters aka strong opponents of Hinduism. Except for the dalit converts, you wouldn't find the kind of Hindu haters in any other group of Indians.

The self-hatred seems like the sins passed down from their ancestors. They probably were the ignorant folks who, like your friend, interpreted the scriptures to suit their agenda. Seeing the shit going on in their families, the later generations turned away from Hinduism and turned into self haters. Karma comes around and bites. 

Long ago, I attend a Vedanta class at one of the tambram's home. At the end of the class, everyone was given coffee. I noticed that I was the only one who was given the coffee in a disposable cup. It was then that i noticed that every one else except me was a tambram. I was like, whoa! Even the educated, americanized folks can be such a-holes. Ironically, the class was on Advaita!! What's the use of conducting such classes when you can't imbibe what's being taught? Obvisously, that was the last i've seen them. 
The problem isn't with Hinduism. The problem was with these tambrams. No wonder DMK gained ground in TN and tambrams were looked upon with disdain. We can't imagine such a thing in Andhra. So yeah, go deeper into understanding Hinduim rather than looking at it negatively and superficially with your narrow perspective.

When I was young, myself and a Tamil friend of mine were going on a tour of SI temples and in Madras, we went to his parents' house. When I was eating my meal, the mother was checking if I knew the proper rituals! I decided to do the elaborate thingie so that their way looked like a short cut. LOL.

I doubt if she even knew the spiritual significance of the rituals. That said, the priests who I met over here are pretty knowledgeable and wise and weren't anything but stupidly ritualistic. I once offered to volunteer to make a dish for the temple prasadam, but then on the day I was supposed to make it, I got my periods. I went and asked the temple priest's wife on what I should do. She said, he's going to tell me what he tells her to do when she gets hers and she had to make the naivedyams. That's to just sprinkle some turmeric water on the head and go ahead with the preparation of the dish. He then came and assured me that it's fine, and not be too caught up in the ritualistic part. I can tell you that it came from his vast knowledge and wisdom. A very learned and wise priest. He's from Madhurai, but his ancestors were telugu (maybe that's why the wisdom has been passed on )

Yeah, looks like he is learned. Perhaps, his family moved there during the Nayaka period. Coimbatore, Kanchi, Tanjavur, etc., also had a similar background. Many moved there from Telugu areas.

arghhh@all the typos and errors in my posts. I need to proofread before posting.

Hahaha! I see that chaddi supporters are getting their chaddies in a twist.

The chaddie-less are getting very uncomfortable. They sooo want the caste-based discrimination to be a part of Hinduism, forever! They would go to any lengths to work towards that. Pathetic!!

kinnera wrote:The chaddie-less are getting very uncomfortable. They sooo want the caste-based discrimination to be a part of Hinduism, forever! They would go to any lengths to work towards that. Pathetic!!

So, is that why chaddies indulge in revisionist history and live in alternate reality?

http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/art-caste.html

SP: You have spoken incorrectly. With great respect, I beg to submit that you are not speaking correctly. In the Bhagavad-gita [4.13] it is stated, catur-varnyam maya srishtam guna-karma-vibhagasah. "These four orders of brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaishyas, and sudras were created by Me according to quality (guna) and work or activities (karma)." There is no mention of birth (janma).

FluteHolder wrote:http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/art-caste.html

SP: You have spoken incorrectly. With great respect, I beg to submit that you are not speaking correctly. In the Bhagavad-gita [4.13] it is stated, catur-varnyam maya srishtam guna-karma-vibhagasah. "These four orders of brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaishyas, and sudras were created by Me according to quality (guna) and work or activities (karma)." There is no mention of birth (janma).

Western "scholars" and Aurangajeb-ites like Rashmun are fond of quoting Manu Smriti as being the authority for Hinduism (with a negative agenda). In fact, there were different sutras that communities in India followed depending on local needs and traditions. For example, people from my area follow Apasthamba sutra (because Apasthamba was from Godavari area). Parasara also created a sutra that became influential. However, none of these pretend to be equivalent to Sruti.

The original discussion of varnas is in Purusha suktam of Rg veda. When I used to participate in Indo-Link and Sulekha, I wrote a translation of Purusha suktam. In my view, Sadhyas looked at the chaotic and incohesive views on the universe and decided to create an orderly one (the chaotic Purusha was symbolically sacrificed in a yajna and from that Purusha came the orderly universe). So, from "Purusha" came forth everything depending on roles. Indra, Agni and Brahmana come from the face; Earth, physical forms and Sudras, from the feet......... You can see from this classification that the qualities and the roles are the basis for the division (a bit like how roles are assigned in an organization). Every part of Purusha is sacred for Sadhyas. So, there is no upper and lower varna. In fact, the verse, "pAdOsya viswAbhUtAni" indicates the importance of Purusha's feet. Saguna Brahman that we worship is from this Purusha's feet! So, in a way, Sudra is the most important varna in the classification.

Re. "Krishna consciousness" of Prabhupada's cult. When Krishna says, everything comes from me alone; so, submit yourself to me and I'll do the rest......., Prabhupada takes the dualistic view of what the Upanishads suggest. The consciousness that the upanishads allude to is Brahman itself. The moment one makes it a quality of Brahman (like in dualism), you are looking at the Brahman-Maya aspect (a bit like Eswara leela). The proper way to look at consciousness is by identifying oneself with it and operate from that platform. That was the intent of the Upanishads. Prabhupada's followers jumping up and down and shouting Hare Rama Hare Krishna is mostly for diverting the mind towards consciousness with the hope that eventually these guys will operate from the consciousness angle.......

confuzzled dude wrote:

kinnera wrote:The chaddie-less are getting very uncomfortable. They sooo want the caste-based discrimination to be a part of Hinduism, forever! They would go to any lengths to work towards that. Pathetic!!

So, is that why chaddies indulge in revisionist history and live in alternate reality?

Eh? what do you want to hear? That caste-based discrimination has been sanctioned by Hinduism and that Brahmins have every right to treat others like crap? I know you guys want that sooo bad so that you can continue to demonize Hinduism.

If anything, the core Vedantic principles of hinduism talk about the omnipresence of the Supreme/Brahman (not brahmin), the divinity in everyone and everything, the oneness and equality of all. There's no room to treat each other with discrimination. 

Vedanta=the end part of the Vedas, whose spiritual principles are explained in the Upanishads.

Guest wrote:Forget Hindu scriptures and your friend's interpretation of it. Your ancestors were tambrams. You would've seen this caste discrimination shit quite in abundance within your own family. From what I've noticed, most tambrams have absolutely no deeper understanding of Hinduism unlike the telugu brahmins and they feel pretty superior to others and are discriminatory. If you notice, most of the contemporary tambrams call themselves 'atheists', 'communists' and are self-haters aka strong opponents of Hinduism. Except for the dalit converts, you wouldn't find the kind of Hindu haters in any other group of Indians.

Not sure you move around with may folks other than those with your bent of mind. I know a lot of folks who hate Hinduism to the core and are neither Brahmins nor Dalits. Another fellow Telugu Kancha Ilaiah is neither a Brahmin nor Dalit but does hate Hinduism. You can see his writings in the web. 

Hinduism is second most hated in my list and I am neither a Brahmin nor a Dalit. I've observed that this feeling of superiority is present in every group of folks not restricted to just Tamil Brahmins or Telugu Brahmins. Even in the so called group of Dalits, there is a feeling of superiority between different caste groups. 

Coming to this article, reading parts of it, looks like a nicely  written one, but nothing new, this has been discussed at length already by opponents of Hinduism including Ambedkar, E.V.Ramasamy et.al. Maybe since this is written by a friend it carries extra weight with Max, but these things have been known for quite sometime.

Ponniyin Selvan wrote:

Guest wrote:Forget Hindu scriptures and your friend's interpretation of it. Your ancestors were tambrams. You would've seen this caste discrimination shit quite in abundance within your own family. From what I've noticed, most tambrams have absolutely no deeper understanding of Hinduism unlike the telugu brahmins and they feel pretty superior to others and are discriminatory. If you notice, most of the contemporary tambrams call themselves 'atheists', 'communists' and are self-haters aka strong opponents of Hinduism. Except for the dalit converts, you wouldn't find the kind of Hindu haters in any other group of Indians.

Not sure you move around with may folks other than those with your bent of mind. I know a lot of folks who hate Hinduism to the core and are neither Brahmins nor Dalits. Another fellow Telugu Kancha Ilaiah is neither a Brahmin nor Dalit but does hate Hinduism. You can see his writings in the web. 

Hinduism is second most hated in my list and I am neither a Brahmin nor a Dalit. I've observed that this feeling of superiority is present in every group of folks not restricted to just Tamil Brahmins or Telugu Brahmins. Even in the so called group of Dalits, there is a feeling of superiority between different caste groups. 

Coming to this article, reading parts of it, looks like a nicely  written one, but nothing new, this has been discussed at length already by opponents of Hinduism including Ambedkar, E.V.Ramasamy et.al. Maybe since this is written by a friend it carries extra weight with Max, but these things have been known for quite sometime.

They should start a new religion and call it - Hateful religion. Come think of it, it already exists - iSlam and Communism.........

Ponniyin Selvan wrote:
Coming to this article, reading parts of it, looks like a nicely  written one, but nothing new, this has been discussed at length already by opponents of Hinduism including Ambedkar, E.V.Ramasamy et.al. Maybe since this is written by a friend it carries extra weight with Max, but these things have been known for quite sometime.

P.S., nice to see you back and posting.

Seshadri Kumar’s narration and conclusions about caste according to Krishna and the Bhagavad Gita are totally ridiculous and baseless.

In his webpage on caste (http://www.leftbrainwave.com --- dated: May 22, 2017), he even goes out of his way claiming “In this seven-part series, I present the original Sanskrit text of each verse discussed, its transliteration, its word-by-word meaning, its free translation,...”, but that hardly seems true.

For example, in Section “BG4: The Duties of the Different varNas” in his webpage, he states the following (in boldface), as if according to Krishna / the Bhagavad Gita, “The Shudras, because they have no positive qualities in their souls, and because they are unfit for the duties of the aforementioned three varNas owing to the fundamental defect in their AtmAs, which are dominated by tamas, have only one duty – to serve the other threevarNas without complaining, and depend on them to take care of their needs.”

However, in reality, there is no verse in the Bhagavad Gita (in Sanskrit and supposedly spoken by Krishna) which has the above translation in English (by Seshadri Kumar: “Shudras, because they have no positive qualities in their souls, and because they are unfit for the duties of the aforementioned three varNas owing to the fundamental defect in their AtmAs, which are dominated by tamas, have only one duty – to serve the other threevarNas without complaining, and depend on them to take care of their needs.”).

Ponniyin Selvan wrote:

Guest wrote:Forget Hindu scriptures and your friend's interpretation of it. Your ancestors were tambrams. You would've seen this caste discrimination shit quite in abundance within your own family. From what I've noticed, most tambrams have absolutely no deeper understanding of Hinduism unlike the telugu brahmins and they feel pretty superior to others and are discriminatory. If you notice, most of the contemporary tambrams call themselves 'atheists', 'communists' and are self-haters aka strong opponents of Hinduism. Except for the dalit converts, you wouldn't find the kind of Hindu haters in any other group of Indians.

Not sure you move around with may folks other than those with your bent of mind. I know a lot of folks who hate Hinduism to the core and are neither Brahmins nor Dalits. Another fellow Telugu Kancha Ilaiah is neither a Brahmin nor Dalit but does hate Hinduism. You can see his writings in the web. 

Hinduism is second most hated in my list and I am neither a Brahmin nor a Dalit. I've observed that this feeling of superiority is present in every group of folks not restricted to just Tamil Brahmins or Telugu Brahmins. Even in the so called group of Dalits, there is a feeling of superiority between different caste groups. 

Coming to this article, reading parts of it, looks like a nicely  written one, but nothing new, this has been discussed at length already by opponents of Hinduism including Ambedkar, E.V.Ramasamy et.al. Maybe since this is written by a friend it carries extra weight with Max, but these things have been known for quite sometime.

Oh yeah, I've been seeing folks such as the ones who you mingle with. I've seen them online though, here in Sulekha and such; folks who want to adhere to the aryan invasion theory, divide indians as aryans and dravidians, hate the north indians/hindians because they are the aryans, hate hinduism for the sole reason that they perceive it as an aryan religion and that its original scriptures are in Sanskrit. It's futile to argue with such idiotic haters and fanatics.

Guest wrote:

Ponniyin Selvan wrote:

Guest wrote:Forget Hindu scriptures and your friend's interpretation of it. Your ancestors were tambrams. You would've seen this caste discrimination shit quite in abundance within your own family. From what I've noticed, most tambrams have absolutely no deeper understanding of Hinduism unlike the telugu brahmins and they feel pretty superior to others and are discriminatory. If you notice, most of the contemporary tambrams call themselves 'atheists', 'communists' and are self-haters aka strong opponents of Hinduism. Except for the dalit converts, you wouldn't find the kind of Hindu haters in any other group of Indians.

Not sure you move around with may folks other than those with your bent of mind. I know a lot of folks who hate Hinduism to the core and are neither Brahmins nor Dalits. Another fellow Telugu Kancha Ilaiah is neither a Brahmin nor Dalit but does hate Hinduism. You can see his writings in the web. 

Hinduism is second most hated in my list and I am neither a Brahmin nor a Dalit. I've observed that this feeling of superiority is present in every group of folks not restricted to just Tamil Brahmins or Telugu Brahmins. Even in the so called group of Dalits, there is a feeling of superiority between different caste groups. 

Coming to this article, reading parts of it, looks like a nicely  written one, but nothing new, this has been discussed at length already by opponents of Hinduism including Ambedkar, E.V.Ramasamy et.al. Maybe since this is written by a friend it carries extra weight with Max, but these things have been known for quite sometime.

Oh yeah, I've been seeing folks such as the ones who you mingle with. I've seen them online though, here in Sulekha and such; folks who want to adhere to the aryan invasion theory, divide indians as aryans and dravidians, hate the north indians/hindians because they are the aryans, hate hinduism for the sole reason that they perceive it as an aryan religion and that its original scriptures are in Sanskrit. It's futile to argue with such idiotic haters and fanatics.

I guess the feelings are mutual..  Take care. 

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Ponniyin Selvan wrote:
Coming to this article, reading parts of it, looks like a nicely  written one, but nothing new, this has been discussed at length already by opponents of Hinduism including Ambedkar, E.V.Ramasamy et.al. Maybe since this is written by a friend it carries extra weight with Max, but these things have been known for quite sometime.

P.S., nice to see you back and posting.

Seshadri Kumar’s narration and conclusions about caste according to Krishna and the Bhagavad Gita are totally ridiculous and baseless.

In his webpage on caste (http://www.leftbrainwave.com  --- dated: May 22, 2017), he even goes out of his way claiming “In this seven-part series, I present the original Sanskrit text of each verse discussed, its transliteration, its word-by-word meaning, its free translation,...”, but that hardly seems true.  

For example, in Section “BG4: The Duties of the Different varNas” in his webpage, he states the following (in boldface), as if according to Krishna / the Bhagavad Gita, “The Shudras, because they have no positive qualities in their souls, and because they are unfit for the duties of the aforementioned three varNas owing to the fundamental defect in their AtmAs, which are dominated by tamas, have only one duty – to serve the other threevarNas without complaining, and depend on them to take care of their needs.”

However, in reality, there is no verse in the Bhagavad Gita (in Sanskrit and supposedly spoken by Krishna) which has the above translation in English (by Seshadri Kumar: “Shudras, because they have no positive qualities in their souls, and because they are unfit for the duties of the aforementioned three varNas owing to the fundamental defect in their AtmAs, which are dominated by tamas, have only one duty – to serve the other threevarNas without complaining, and depend on them to take care of their needs.”).

Furthermore, even though nowhere in the Bhagavad Gita (in the words of Krishna as a Sanskrit verse) there is any mention of Sudra or the soul / atma of Sudra being the outcome of Tamas (the mode of darkness for matter / nature according to the Samkhya), yet the author (in “BG5: the nature of the Sudras” -- http://www.leftbrainwave.com/) makes the following baseless claim (in italics), 

“Krishna explains the qualities of atamas-ridden being in the verses presented here. The tamas-dominated person, i.e., the Shudra, has no redeeming features, according to Krishna. He is stupid, evil, wicked, untrustworthy, irresponsible, lazy, vulgar, vain, etc. He is also given to erroneous conclusions and always believes the opposite of what a thing’s true nature is – he mistakes good for evil and vice versa; righteousness for urighteousness and vice versa; and so on.”

This clearly shows that there is a considerable misunderstanding and lack of knowledge in the above about the Bhagavad Gita and the Samkhya philosophy. 

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Ponniyin Selvan wrote:
Coming to this article, reading parts of it, looks like a nicely  written one, but nothing new, this has been discussed at length already by opponents of Hinduism including Ambedkar, E.V.Ramasamy et.al. Maybe since this is written by a friend it carries extra weight with Max, but these things have been known for quite sometime.

P.S., nice to see you back and posting.

Seshadri Kumar’s narration and conclusions about caste according to Krishna and the Bhagavad Gita are totally ridiculous and baseless.

In his webpage on caste (http://www.leftbrainwave.com  --- dated: May 22, 2017), he even goes out of his way claiming “In this seven-part series, I present the original Sanskrit text of each verse discussed, its transliteration, its word-by-word meaning, its free translation,...”, but that hardly seems true.  

For example, in Section “BG4: The Duties of the Different varNas” in his webpage, he states the following (in boldface), as if according to Krishna / the Bhagavad Gita, “The Shudras, because they have no positive qualities in their souls, and because they are unfit for the duties of the aforementioned three varNas owing to the fundamental defect in their AtmAs, which are dominated by tamas, have only one duty – to serve the other threevarNas without complaining, and depend on them to take care of their needs.”

However, in reality, there is no verse in the Bhagavad Gita (in Sanskrit and supposedly spoken by Krishna) which has the above translation in English (by Seshadri Kumar: “Shudras, because they have no positive qualities in their souls, and because they are unfit for the duties of the aforementioned three varNas owing to the fundamental defect in their AtmAs, which are dominated by tamas, have only one duty – to serve the other threevarNas without complaining, and depend on them to take care of their needs.”).

Furthermore, even though nowhere in the Bhagavad Gita (in the words of Krishna as a Sanskrit verse) there is any mention of Sudra or the soul / atma of Sudra being the outcome of Tamas (the mode of darkness for matter / nature according to the Samkhya), yet the author (in “BG5: the nature of the Sudras” -- http://www.leftbrainwave.com/) makes the following baseless claim (in italics), 

“Krishna explains the qualities of atamas-ridden being in the verses presented here. The tamas-dominated person, i.e., the Shudra, has no redeeming features, according to Krishna. He is stupid, evil, wicked, untrustworthy, irresponsible, lazy, vulgar, vain, etc. He is also given to erroneous conclusions and always believes the opposite of what a thing’s true nature is – he mistakes good for evil and vice versa; righteousness for urighteousness and vice versa; and so on.”

This clearly shows that there is a considerable misunderstanding and lack of knowledge in the above about the Bhagavad Gita and the Samkhya philosophy. 

(3)   In “BG1: The Intermixture of varnas” (http://www.leftbrainwave.com/),  the author wrongly credits the following (in Italics) also to Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita,

“Krishna explains that inter-varNaunions are a bad thing (in pratilOmaunions, in which the varNa of the man is lower than than of the woman - even though this is not explicitly stated, it is the intent, because the discussion is on lower-varNa men taking widowed Kshatriya women as wives), because the children from these unions are cast out of the varNas of both parents. This means that there is no one among the offspring of such unions to perform the rituals that need to be performed monthly and yearly for the souls of the departed ancestors. If these rituals are not performed, then the souls of the ancestors sink into hell. Thus, mixed-varNa marriages should not be allowed when the varNa of the man is lower than that of the woman.”

In reality, the above (in Italics) is kind of a lame excuse used by Arjuna in a number of verses at the end of Chapter (1) of the Bhagavad Gita to wiggle out of his duty and not confront his enemies. It absolutely has nothing to do with Krishna. Krishna, in the beginning of Chapter (2), even scoffs at the above suggestion by Arjuna and he goes on to emphasize, in Chapter (2) and later in the Bhagavad Gita, that nothing can harm or taint the soul as it never diminishes or dies and that whatever happens to a person afterwards (including salvation) is due to his / her own thoughts, words and actions earlier.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Ponniyin Selvan wrote:
Coming to this article, reading parts of it, looks like a nicely  written one, but nothing new, this has been discussed at length already by opponents of Hinduism including Ambedkar, E.V.Ramasamy et.al. Maybe since this is written by a friend it carries extra weight with Max, but these things have been known for quite sometime.

P.S., nice to see you back and posting.

Seshadri Kumar’s narration and conclusions about caste according to Krishna and the Bhagavad Gita are totally ridiculous and baseless.

In his webpage on caste (http://www.leftbrainwave.com  --- dated: May 22, 2017), he even goes out of his way claiming “In this seven-part series, I present the original Sanskrit text of each verse discussed, its transliteration, its word-by-word meaning, its free translation,...”, but that hardly seems true.  

For example, in Section “BG4: The Duties of the Different varNas” in his webpage, he states the following (in boldface), as if according to Krishna / the Bhagavad Gita, “The Shudras, because they have no positive qualities in their souls, and because they are unfit for the duties of the aforementioned three varNas owing to the fundamental defect in their AtmAs, which are dominated by tamas, have only one duty – to serve the other threevarNas without complaining, and depend on them to take care of their needs.”

However, in reality, there is no verse in the Bhagavad Gita (in Sanskrit and supposedly spoken by Krishna) which has the above translation in English (by Seshadri Kumar: “Shudras, because they have no positive qualities in their souls, and because they are unfit for the duties of the aforementioned three varNas owing to the fundamental defect in their AtmAs, which are dominated by tamas, have only one duty – to serve the other threevarNas without complaining, and depend on them to take care of their needs.”).

Furthermore, even though nowhere in the Bhagavad Gita (in the words of Krishna as a Sanskrit verse) there is any mention of Sudra or the soul / atma of Sudra being the outcome of Tamas (the mode of darkness for matter / nature according to the Samkhya), yet the author (in “BG5: the nature of the Sudras” -- http://www.leftbrainwave.com/) makes the following baseless claim (in italics), 

“Krishna explains the qualities of atamas-ridden being in the verses presented here. The tamas-dominated person, i.e., the Shudra, has no redeeming features, according to Krishna. He is stupid, evil, wicked, untrustworthy, irresponsible, lazy, vulgar, vain, etc. He is also given to erroneous conclusions and always believes the opposite of what a thing’s true nature is – he mistakes good for evil and vice versa; righteousness for urighteousness and vice versa; and so on.”

This clearly shows that there is a considerable misunderstanding and lack of knowledge in the above about the Bhagavad Gita and the Samkhya philosophy. 

(3)   In “BG1: The Intermixture of varnas” (http://www.leftbrainwave.com/),  the author wrongly credits the following (in Italics) also to Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita,

“Krishna explains that inter-varNaunions are a bad thing (in pratilOmaunions, in which the varNa of the man is lower than than of the woman - even though this is not explicitly stated, it is the intent, because the discussion is on lower-varNa men taking widowed Kshatriya women as wives), because the children from these unions are cast out of the varNas of both parents. This means that there is no one among the offspring of such unions to perform the rituals that need to be performed monthly and yearly for the souls of the departed ancestors. If these rituals are not performed, then the souls of the ancestors sink into hell. Thus, mixed-varNa marriages should not be allowed when the varNa of the man is lower than that of the woman.”

In reality, the above (in Italics) is kind of a lame excuse used by Arjuna in a number of verses at the end of Chapter (1) of the Bhagavad Gita to wiggle out of his duty and not confront his enemies. It absolutely has nothing to do with Krishna. Krishna, in the beginning of Chapter (2), even scoffs at the above suggestion by Arjuna and he goes on to emphasize, in Chapter (2) and later in the Bhagavad Gita, that nothing can harm or taint the soul as it never diminishes or dies and that whatever happens to a person afterwards (including salvation) is due to his / her own thoughts, words and actions earlier.

Well, it has been fashionable to peddle the caste stories for political reasons. DKheads, Kancha, Maya, Laloo, Mulayam, CONmen, et al., harnessed the caste issue as long as they could. Now it is becoming a barren buffalo and there is no more milk to suckle. If Pappu tires, the buffalo  (the vote-bank) will kick him where it hurts most....

Unfortunately, Max seems to be more interested in supporting his friend than checking the facts. Perhaps, Max is also Sikular in his knowledge of Sruti......