They did it on their own - out of arrogance, not because of wanting to be promoted higher. The crtieria of becoming another varna is to change lifestyle, not ill-treat others. And in any case, you can't call this "brahminism" when those upper caste NB decided to follow it themselves.
Yes, and that is the reason for discimination in India or anywhere. What DK didn't do is point to this fact and agree that it existed throughout society. Instead they attacked only brahmins when the issue was more bigger than that. In doing this they clearly are the ones who "washed their hands" off the issue - the accusation Nara gives.
Social mores are deeply inter-twined with religion. What benefit did they (the self-appointed kshatriyas) get by keeping populations socially subjugated?
What benefit did they get out of suppressing the "low castes"? Except for a sense of social power closely inter-twined with the position as "Kshatriyas" who overpowered and subjugated others ?
So deeply was this sense of "kshatriya-hood" entwined in the hindu ethos that even if a shudra became a king (like Shivaji) he too wanted to be recognised as a "Kshatriya" by brahmins. Which basically meant that in effect, the brahmins were deciding the social ethos atleast in british and pre-british india.
Actual crux of brahmin philosophy which Nara has equalled to just "lip service" are the inspirations to what made men like Chankya believe that anyone can become great - because the Upanishads, like the BG take temperament into doing of a duty, not birth. And can explain why you don't call that brahminism?
Most of the upanishads were post-buddhism texts (these were not written in the vedic period) and were hence (at that time) were not a part of the brahmanical cannon centered around offering fire sacrifices. BG has been interpreted to mean caste by birth by Chandrashekhara Swami:
Character and Vocation by Birth from the Chapter "Varna Dharma For Universal Well-Being", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org:
Yes, like all upper castes do because they don't want their caste positions to be infiltrated in a false idea of being "higher". But when you can consider this evil as "brahminism", you have trouble considering anything else which speaks of people's temperament or speaks of all self as one as brahminism. It is from such philosophies that many brahmins took inspiration to fight casteism - did Bharatiyar become an "ex-brahmin"? What he foguht for was in perfect accordance with the earliest legacy pertaining to the culture.
And birth-based caste is not based on anything written in an actual text because all those are references to people who actually did jobs in an ancient social set up.
If caste was not birth-based, why are brahmanical mutts claiming that caste is by birth (or that a brahmin is by birth)? Another question - if varna is by temperment, do you think you are a brahmin?
Sure, maybe you can point out as to how many brahmin institutions speak of the Upanishads or the BG as being in par with the Manu Smriti.
All brahmanical mutts hold the smrithis sacred and at par with the vedas. For online material, here are chapters 6 to 8 that equate Smrithis at par with the Vedas:
1) Chapter 6:
Smritis - not Independent Works from the Chapter "Dharmasastra", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org:
2) Chapter 7:
The Source of Smritis is the Vedas from the Chapter "Dharmasastra", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org:
3) Chapter 8:
Sruti-Smriti - Srauta-Smarta from the Chapter "Dharmasastra", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org:
The conclusion of Chandrashekhara Swami is that Smrithi never contradicts Shruti and that the Smrithis are not less authoritative than the Shrutis (vedas)(btw, upanishads came to be considered part of the vedas). From chapter 8:
There is no second opinion regarding the fact that what is called "Srauta"(directly mentioned in the Vedas) is wholly authoritative. But what is not directly mentioned in Sruti but included in Smrti - that is Smarta - is not to be taken to be less authoritative. Smarta never contradicts Srauta.
"How do you claim that those who fought against casteism took inspiration from upanishads and bhagvad gita?"
From the philosophy of it. And that is exactly why the Arya Samaj or that of Aurobindo Ghosh didn't become "ex-brahmins".
I don't understand wht you are conveying. Are you saying Aurobindo was a born-brahmin? BTW, Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, Aurobindo, Vivekananda, Bharatiyar, etc are all sprouts of colonial India. Give me examples from pre-British india where anyone fought against casteism (or did something to uplift the "low castes') after getting inspired by upanishads and BG.
Many dalits too like "Dhangars" which itself means "one who gives" (alluding to a rich people), were upper castes until the economic changes in the face of colonialism made them poor. Brahmins themselves didn't ever own much wealth, and had a culture surrounded about education - which is why
the continued to be previlaged. Brahmins continuing to be previlaged has got to do with their culture of education, others who came to become educated societies also prospered.
What makes you think brahmins didn't ever own much wealth? Historically, there were kshatropeta brahmanas (brahmins of kshatriyas descent) which included the Bhadradvajas, Bhrigus, Gargas, Samkritis, Mudgalas, Kanvas, Urukshayas, Kapis, Priyamedhas, Vishnu-vriddhas, Haritas, Shaunakas, etc, all of whom fought wars. How can anyone claim that they owned no wealth ?
"Manu 2.30:
...let (the father perform or) cause to be performed the Namadheya (the rite of naming the child), on the tenth or twelfth
(day after birth), or on a lucky lunar day, in a lucky muhurta, under an auspicious constellation.
Manu 2.31:
Let (the first part of) a Brahmana’s name (denote something) auspicious, a Kshatriya’s be connected with power, and a Vaisya’s with wealth, but a Sudra’s (express something) contemptible.
So a baby at birth was already a shudra and had to be given a name that expressed something contemptible."
And why should this be given more weight over the texts which speak of temperament based caste? Those texts which speak of the temperament based caste are earlier and regarded more important aspect as compared to the Manu Smriti.
Which are the texts that speak of caste based on temperment? If you meant Upanishads and BG, please explain how? Which upanishad mentions that caste is based on temperment? And are you saying that all upanishads pre-date the smrithis? And what about the brahmanical view that BG supports caste by birth (wrt the sayings of Chandrashekhara Swami reg varna and family environment)?
Yes, in 1030 AD. There are earlier Greek accounts like that of Arrian's Indica:
"This also is remarkable in India, that all Indians are free, and no Indian at all is a slave. In this the Indians agree with the
Lacedaemonians. Yet the Lacedaemonians have Helots for slaves, who perform the duties of slaves; but the Indians have
no slaves at all, much less is any Indian a slave", (Indica VIII.X)
So there is a difference between Arrian's work written around ~150 AD and that of Al-Beruni written in 1030 AD. Something apparently happened between ~150 AD and 1030 AD which changed indian culture significantly, enough to result in a culture of slavery and divine labour laws within that ~800 year gap. According to historians, Manusmrithi was written between 200BC and 200AD (coinciding with the Sunga Empire). So it is quite apparent that culture changed after 200AD. And the lowest of the lows have remained as such since nearly the past 2000 years..
Indian society changed for the worse, but this didn't have to only do with the brahmins - a blame game you and Nara, like the DK are so interested in. We will never be able to look ahead to solving the problem because of this blame game that people like Nara or the DK organization continue to engaged it. Should I call this washing your hands off the issue?
Dunno why you see any of this discussions as a blame game. You are not the only person intereted in a solution. IMO, as of now, there is only 1 way to solve this problem -- that is, give up birth-based caste rigidity. And this, i feel, needs to be addressed at the grass-roots level by the orthodoxy themselves. Which hopefully some far-sighted visionary benevolent spiritual leader will do.
All that you quote of Manu Smriti is less a religious text, it is a text of law and it was agreed by all previlaged people. The evil that comes from it then pertains to our society's ethos and not to one group. The castes that followed it, all did so willingly. Sooner we accept that, the sooner we will be able to tackle all facets of casteism. Organizations like Arya Samaj are fighting casteism with their very message and acceptance of all people.
Its not just Manusmrithi. Take any smrithi, the laws concerning shudras are more or less the same. I do not think shudras followed things willingly (who would willingly want his wealth to be seized or allow himself to be tortured to serve as a slave).
"Sorry the varna system was heredity and formed the basis to ill-treat people. Which is why even till today low-castes are ill-treated on account of their caste. "
Wrong. Acadmics today, who are areligious and secular agree that the varna system was a social system that became heriditary later.
Please let me know why you think varna was a social system (which time period was this?) and became heredity only later (when?). Anyways, it however, remains a fact that people are ill-treated on account of merely being low-caste (even) today.
"What is the "original varna system" you speak of, that is based on temperment? When did it exist? Even a blatant
womaniser like Indra was considered arya varna in the vedic period. His character did not make him a dasyu."
First, you know nothing of the vedas. The first one to divide it as "eulogy to kings", "killing spree" and "account of war". Then you go on to say that karmakanda was not spoken of by anyone, almost like they only regarded one hald of vedas as important. The stories of Indra were reminders to people in power, which is why you don't see any legend in which Indra gets away with it. There are many more legends like that, of many more kings, brahmins etc.
Well am not the first person to speak of war accounts, or on the killings of non-aryas in the samhitas. Its all over many books. And did i say "karmakanda was not spoken by anyone" - vivek, i think you should get over your habit of misquoting people and putting words into their mouth. If you would like to quote anything i said about the karmakanda, please do so with the relevant sentences from the relevant post.
The original varna system is the one written in the earliest references to it, and this is even shown in buddhist texts which is why buddhist monks are refered to as brahmanas. This was in the BC era, long, long before Manu Smriti or Al-Bruni's time.
We are speaking about the Vedas and the Vedic system. Not Buddhism which had to become a seperate religion unto itself for obvious reasons.
So please let me know in which period in hindu history was any "original varna system" followed based on a man's temperment and not family of birth.
This explains why the Greek accounts - which are also of a more earlier time, have a seprate idea of Indian society. And it is on this basis that academics believes that varna system was first a social system like in our society, until it became rigid later.
But the Greek account of Indica by Arrian mentions seven castes (or social groups). Not varnas. There is no mention of a chaturvarna system. So where goes claims of any "original varna system" based on temperment, and that too based on upanishads?
"How do you know brahmins created the upanishads? The authors of several upanishads are unknown."
Wow! This is an important question to you, because upanishads don't discriminate on caste. Simple fact: people who studied philosophy in ancient India were called brahmins. So, I can say brahmins wrote the upanishads in the same manner as saying kshatriyas made conquests. Brahmins were the ones who preserved the upanishads and spread them too. When you delight in pointing the parts of Manu smriti you forget that brahmins have done a great deal to contribute against casteist thinking too - something you are adamant not to admit, like the DK and like Nara for hate against the community.
On what basis can you say that people who studied philosophies in ancient india were brahmins? BTW, speaking of philosophies, the conversations between shri nara and shri saidevo on whether the anthanars were brahmins or not, may interest you.
Btw, those "brahmins" have little connection with today's brahmin community. The brahmin community today, only considers it their legacy to carry on those literature like Upanishads, BG etc, while its been influenced by things that came along too - like the mutts.
May i know, again, on what basis you make these claims?
If you listen to ISCKON's explainations where they correctly explain that the individual belongs to a caste based on his inclination.
I agree with ISCKON's stand that caste should be decided based on temperment, proclivity, ability, and not on the family of birth. But from the historical pov, in which time period in ancient India was such a chaturvarna system followed (based on inclinitions / temperment)?
Hating brahmins for a personal reason of EVR was because he was not allowed in a temple in Kashi. His was a vendetta of this sort, not a struggle against casteism by men like Rabindranath Tagore, Vivekananda, or Aurobindo Ghosh.
I agree. But EVR was not dis-allowed in any temple. The actual incident is described here:
Periyar E. V. Ramasamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia EVR would have never known how it is to be treated as a harijan if he had not been thrown out of a choultry that exclusively fed brahmins. However, what matters is that EVR found resonance with the low-castes and they followed him. So instead of blaming EVR, DK, British, etc, it is a good idea to understand why EVR was able to get the support of the 'low-castes' with his preachings.
The boundaries of Aryavarta are changed in various references. Even the word "Aryanem Vaejo", with the word "Vij" academics say is a region of fast flowing water. In all the meanings in the Sanskrit dictionary I provided there is no meaning of Arya being a clan or tribe, to say then that Aryavarta was inhabited by some tribe like that is a fiction.
Just because a region has a fast flowing river, does not mean that the boundries of a region can change as per the course of a river. The historical location of Airyanem Vaejah has not been identified for sure as yet (some historians only suggest that it might be the amu darya region of central asia, we still have to wait for definitive clues esp from the linguistic and archeological ends). The aryavarta of smrithis is more or less the region of present-day north-india since the smrithis themselves describe the boundries. In the writings of old commentators, there are population groups that are clearly demarcated as arya and anarya (non-arya).
"Again, let me know which time period was this? When did an "original varna system" exist, during which a man's profession was decided based on qualities and abilities alone (and not on the family into which he was born)?"
Do your own reading, and do that of buddhist texts too. This period was during the times of the Mauryas, during the time of the Upanishads, or of Buddha. And that is why the BG, Upanishads and Buddhist texts have that meaning.
Oops, are you saying that during the period of the Mauryas, something called an "original varna system" based on temperment was followed? And this was the "original" vedic chaturvarna system? Sir, can you please explain the basis for such a claim? Not that i cannot do my own reading, its just that the claims you make are kinda fantastic, so i require you to clarify yourself.
Infact, The Manu dharma texts don't take authority from the Vedic schools itself actually, which is why Manu Smriti is presented as Brahma's authority, when Brahma is not worshipped. You will never see Manu Smiriti thus being taught as important as Upanishads or BG either.
I do not understand wht you mean by "when Brahma is not worshipped". Please explain. Do brahmanical mutts / orthodox brahmins accept that smrithis do not take authority from 'vedic schools'? A smarta is a follower of the smrithi. Ofcourse the smrithi is more important ( if not equally important) to him than the upanishads or gita. Btw, you go on talking about upanishads -- so, please tell me in which upanishad has it been mentioned that caste is based on temperment and not on the family of birth?
Anyway, you rhetoric is again getting back to the blame game. The fundamental reason organizations like DK will be able to polarize our society more to hate, and the reason why mutts will continue with their ideas contrary to the Upanishads, and the reason why violence against dalits will continue. Your idea is to blame brahmins, you ask me how I know brahmins wrote the upanishads, but take it for granted that something as evil as the Manu Smriti laws will be written by brahmins. The issue can never be solved with that sort of thinking.
Am not interested in diverting the topic to DK-bashing or british-bashing. We can do plenty of DK-bashing and British-bashing later. You need not jump on to my 'sort of thinking' or anyone's sort of thinking either. For now please stick to topic at hand. Will wait for your reply to the questions asked in this post.
Regards.
