I have heard that the Manu Smriti mentions different treatment for different castes.
I have heard that the Manu Smriti mentions different treatment for different castes. Manu Smriti seems to be more of a code of social conduct.
I want to know if there is any religious or Vedic permission to carry on caste based discriminations.
What are the religious belief systems in today's Hindu society which encourage casteism?
Reading Bhagavad Gita, Ashtavakra Gita and couple of Upanishads didn't help me find any such discriminations.. infact what i found was the opposite.
Exclude social majoritarian dominance, politics and reservation system form discussion. Let the focus be on scriptures and religious customs.
I want to know if there is any religious or Vedic permission to carry on caste based discriminations.
What are the religious belief systems in today's Hindu society which encourage casteism?
Reading Bhagavad Gita, Ashtavakra Gita and couple of Upanishads didn't help me find any such discriminations.. infact what i found was the opposite.
Exclude social majoritarian dominance, politics and reservation system form discussion. Let the focus be on scriptures and religious customs.
Caste system was formulated with good intentions in mind. Like in an office there are admin boys, contractors, permanent staff, Experienced staff, it was meant to give guidelines to society. But the experienced staff (brahmins in this case) mistreated these and found a way to dominate the society as they were the knowledge workers. This was not started in near past. Even from times of Adi Shankaracharya it was evident that untouchability and caste system was part and parcel of the society. It must be blamed on the people who made these untouchability rules. It was never part of manusmriti. But all blame went to manusmriti. I don't think the untouchability or caste system will in any day take its intended form, so better ignore it. That's my personal opinion. I don't know of any authority (texts) as I am illiterate in such aspects.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all - there are only Varnas - Varna means choice /solicitation. This is what is said in Vedas and Shastras. वृणीते is the verb from the root "वृ" - means choosing. The word "वरः" - groom is chosen by the bride (in those days). Varna means one chooses his/her profession - to be a scholar or to be a warrior or to be in trade /commerce or to be in service. This is purely out of choice - some students are good with maths and some are not. So the one who is good with maths chooses to be a math-major and he chooses his profession accordingly. The same way look at the Sikh religion - they choose to be warriors to protect dharma - so they adopted their lifestyle accordingly. This is entirely based on one's Samskaara (disposition) else one can't shine in that job - simply put "doing what you like".
ReplyDeleteNow the "Jaati"from the root "जन्" means to be born. Other words like (Jananam, jaataka, jaatakaranam, etc. came from the same root) - no where in "dharmashastra" or any other "smriti" texts be it "manusmriti" or "atrismriti" or "parasharasmriti" it is said that the Varna is determined by the Jaati.
During the 17th century in India - there was a total dull period and during that time society moved towards divisions of labour based on Jaati instead of Varna. - this was a big mistake - this at that time was done to protect scholar family young (girls and boys) who are trained on Vedas and shastras - if they marry others then the parampara (lineage) could be lost. This practice spread to other Varnas and slowly engulfed the entire Bharat as the practice.
Many social reformers right from Adi Shankaraacharya, Ramanujaacharya, Swami Vivekananda, Mahakavi Subramaniay Bharati were all against - social division based on birth (Jaati).
In today's context people want to retain their Jaati (for getting reservations) but do a different job not according to their disposition /mental state and educational background and finally end up being unhappy in the society.
For example Dr. Manmohan Singh - he was a great scholar (thus due to his Samskara (disposition) he can be considered as a Brahmana, despite being born in a Warrior clan (kshatria). Thus he turned out to be a bad administrator. In a democracy if one needs to be a good administrator he/she needs to be a Kshatriya .Vaishya (Warrior and/or trade /commerce).
During the 17th century in India - there was a total dull period and during that time society moved towards divisions of labour based on Jaati instead of Varna.
ReplyDelete17th century or 7th century??
During the time of Shri Adi Shankaracharya, discriminations existed and the Manisha Panchak was written by Shankaracharya himself to correct his wrong treatment of a chandaal (if i remember it correctly).
Chandala is a human flesh eater, they and svapaakas (dog eaters) were considered unclean and therefore untouchables. Discrimination existed for long but not like today with Jaati but on the basis of one's character which is decided based on food habits and not based on profession. Dharma vyadha was a butcher and he was also a jnaani. I see some merit in food based discrimination because when plenty of other food available - why one normal person needs to resort to dog meat or human meat.
ReplyDeleteSo was it 17th century or 7th when society moved towards divisions of labour based on Jaati instead of Varna.?
ReplyDeleteSo you mean to say there was no jaati based discrimination on times of Adi Shankaracharya. I was of the opinion otherwise. But after reading your comments, I tend to think in same lines of you.
ReplyDeleteI don't suggest that discrimination was never there, all I say is that discrimination was not based on birth (jaati) - but based on Samskaara. I will write a detailed piece on Samskaara.
ReplyDeleteDiscrimination from Varna to Samskaara to Jaati has taken place - sometime starting in the 16th century to gradually engulfing the whole nation by 19th century - there were many reasons for this including insecurity, lack of proper knowledge on our shastra, social stigma, Food habits, superstitions, etc.
Now having said all these we have to see whether can we totally remove discrimination? (the word discrimination has a negative connotation and therefore I use the word differentiation). In worldly affairs it is not possible or wise to remove all differentiation.
ReplyDeleteIrrespective of the differntiation, the fundamental rights such as - food, drinking water, cloths, a place to stay, education, citizenship, voting, justice - etc. are applicable to all
But are people really having access to all these? - people in many villages are deprived of food, drinking water, etc.
When we take the lands of Tribal communities - without really providing proper rehabilitation or when there is a war and people are forced to relocate - people are deprived of their fundamental rights - This is against "dharma" - this is the reason why - during the past the fight was only between "Kshatriyas" those who are prepared to die or to be left with nothing etc. The rest of the Varnas are required to run the nation - else people welfare will be destroyed
Also the wars used to take place in designated areas. Wars were never invasions, except for the first time when Alexander invaded India and then when Ashoka destroyed Kalinga - these 2 were in the recorded history. If Ashoka fought dharmayuddha, there was no need for him to have so much grief.
So the varnasrama dharma had its own benefits. We have to adopt what is suitable for today and leave the rest.
Please see this for my thoughts on the topic. http://oupanishadam.blogspot.com/2015/02/who-is-hindu-and-what-it-means-to-be-one.html
ReplyDeleteBaring a few brahmana gurus (who are acharyas), many Jeevan muktas (enlightened beings) are from other Varna - mainly kshatriyas - so it is wrong to say only brahmans are interested in Moksha - in fact the brahmans are eager to protect the "shastra - achaarya" parampara and even reject the "Vamachaara Taantrika" method.
ReplyDeleteEven if one doesn't achieve moksha, dharma will be protected. Thats why Vaidika brahmans are more focussed on the Karma Kanda of the Veda and mimamsa as a darshana - because both are totally about dharma.
Brahmans are not priests - this type of translation is wrong - the "archaka" or "poojari" is the priest and also "Pandaa" - these people study "Agama" and not Vedas. The priests are about 10% of the total brahman community. The word "purohita" or "pandit" is the general term - this means the one who has studied Veda.
Earlier the title for one who studied Veda is Bhatta (Bhattar in Tamil Nadu, Bhattariri in Kerala, Bhatt in Karnataka, Maharashatra, Gurajarat , Kashmir and Bhattacharya in Bengal). Those who haven't studied Veda in the past are not eligible to carry this title. The one who studied 2 Vedas - dvivedi, 3 -trivedi and 4 - chaturvedi, the one who performed Soma yajna - Somayajee, the one who performed Vaajapeya yajna - Vajapeyee, etc.
The same way the one who has been given a Mantra deekshaa can only use the title "Deekshita".
Now people in North India are carrying these titles as "Surnames" with out even knowing the significance of their forefathers who did these Vedic /Aagama rites.