A Hindu Response to Dr. BR Ambedkar's book - "Annhiliation of Caste" Hindu-Phobia and Hindu-Hatred

2 points | Post submitted by suyash95 55 days ago | 2 comments | viewed 60 times

Response in Detailed manner


Add your comment

Please Login or Signup to leave a comment
  • suyash95 55 days ago | +0 points

    Dr BR Ambedkar's works are the prime example of Edward Said's Orientalism thesis - an Indian taking on Judeo-Christian Eurocentric lens in describing Hinduism and India.Orientalism is the imitation or depiction of aspects in the Eastern world. These depictions are usually done by writers, designers, and artists from the West.Annhilation of Caste(Proper term is Jaatis) means an Utopian class of Darwinian Social Order where all people are equal,This is impossible and against Nature.

    Caste is derived from the Portuguese casta = class which In Hinduism is translated as varṇa and jāti. But this dichotomy is false .Varṇa means "character" or "Nature" and refers to one's natural disposition. Jāti refers to the community in which one is born,Communities are formed on basis of Similar Professions or Ideologies.

    Ambedkar was a highly qualified economist, having done his doctorates from Columbia University and the London School of Economics. He studied in the “Macaulayan model” English schools right through his growing years.

    If you remember, Max Mueller’s job was to discredit the faith of the Hindu, to show it in poor light the world over and to disassociate Hindu history as mere mythology. The manner in which this was done was so effective, that by the end of the 19th century, those graduating from these missionary schools were ashamed of being Hindu. And the only version of Manusmriti that Ambedkar read was the colonial version. In English.

    And here is one translation:Let us take famous Purusa Sukta

    Here’s the British translation:

    At the top of the hierarchy were the Brahmins who were mainly teachers and intellectuals and are believed to have come from Brahma's head. Then came the Kshatriyas, or the warriors and rulers, supposedly from his arms. The third slot went to the Vaishyas, or the traders, who were created from his thighs. At the bottom of the heap were the Shudras, who came from Brahma's feet and did all the menial jobs.

    The real translation is as follows (paraphrased):

    From this cosmic intelligence humans derive the four most desirable traits of character, namely wisdom (brahmin), nobility (kshatriya/rajanah), industry (vaishya) and innate talent or facility (shudra).

    Dr BR AMBEDKAR had massive Ego problem and He was very impatient acc to my view. I think this was biggest mistake of people like Ambedkar who conflated Hinduism with its sociology - ignoring the foundation which is philosophy. He did not foresee the great advances in science and education and the mass migration of Hindus to other parts of the world not the fact that several million Hindus have been living in Indonesia for over 1000 years!

    Take for eg - his book Riddles in Hinduism

    It is an example of polemics by a man who was genuinely angry with the behaviour of some Hindus of his time. Hindu scripture and philosophical thought is like a trackless forest with many contradictory things in them. It is with the help of the Acharyas (they are not infallible either) and one's personal experience and thought that Hindu Dharma yields its fruits. This makes it extraordinarily difficult for Hindu laymen to even understand Hindu teachings. It is one of the reasons for riddles. Moreover, Hinduism not being an organized religion like the Abrahamic faiths has a quality control problem. Freedom comes with a steep price.There are many diverse voices and opinions under the rubric of “Hinduism” and there is no consensus. So what one acharya permits another forbids - it is up to the discerning individual to make his/her own choice.There is so much more to Hinduism than meets the eye and Ambedkar should not have judged the ancient tradition from the corrupted and deviant modern customs and usages of the uninformed public.

    I would like to quote Swami Vivekananda’s comment on Prophet Muhammad which is quite relatable to Dr BR Ambedkar’s works n views in present context

    “Though Muhammad was inspired, "he was not a trained Yogi, nor did he know the reason of what he was doing." Vivekananda wrote that He had brought wonderful things for Humanity but also great evil has been done through Muhammad's fanaticism with "whole countries destroyed" and "millions upon millions of people killed”

    I can relate it with BR Ambedkar . In the name of uplifting some oppressed fews, he divided us in the lines of caste and religion forever by institutionalizing it in Constitution which has the potential to incite Civil Wars in future.Crores of people from several generations have paid price for his anguish against Hinduism. Ambedkar’s help was Sweet Poison . In short term,it benefitted but in the longer run, it has caused unrest in society.

    Basically , Ambedkar was selling scraps from a Western orientalist and colonial story concerning Indian culture as facts about the world, much like those other marginal merchants who buy crumbs from European dining tables at steeply discounted prices to resell these at marked-up prices in India. In the course of the nineteenth century, a dominant account about Hinduism and the caste system had crystallized in Western scholarship. one example -

    Here’s Ambedkar fantasising about an imaginary shepherd in the Middle East, while clearly drawing inspiration from Christian Europe for our constitution (copied) but looking for social justice in a tradition that affirms the Vedic view which he wanted to escape !

    Source - Ambedkar: life and mission by Dhananjay Keer

    In its original Christian form, this revolved around a contrast between true and false religion: false religion is the invention of men seeking to satisfy their own worldly desires by invoking the name of God, whereas true religion is the genuine revelation of God to humanity. In contrast to the universal spiritual teachings of true religion, the priests of false religion impose a set of constricting rules and rites on the believers and thus keep them in control.

    According to this Western-Christian story, Indian culture was constituted by one such false religion, namely Hinduism: the Brahmin ‘priests’ imposed all kinds of rites and rules as sacred commandments; thus, they manipulated and oppressed the masses. The crowning piece of their deception, so it was said, was the caste system: an immoral social hierarchy sold as divine injunction.

    Over the decades, this Protestant-Christian account underwent a process of secularization: its teachings about false religion were transformed into common-sense ideas about Hindu religion. The predicate ‘false’ was dropped but the basic story remained the same, from the textbooks of colonial education to the treatises of social scientists: (a) ‘Hinduism’ was the dominant ‘religion’ of Indian culture; (b) it was a flawed religion that did not present a message of equality to humanity, but instead provided stifling rules for specific groups of people; (c) the variety of jatis across India are so many expressions of an immoral hierarchy sanctioned by religion and held in place by a priesthood.

    Both Western and Indian authors endorsed this as a factual description of Indian society. But this is where the rub comes: without the support of an entire cluster of Christian-theological ideas about false religion, this account of Hinduism and caste could never make sense in the first place. Now listen to Ambedkar’s famous undelivered speech The Annihilation of Caste (1936), often considered the clearest formulation of his thought on the matter:

    ‘The Hindus hold to the sacredness of the social order. Caste has a divine basis. You must therefore destroy the sacredness and divinity with which Caste has become invested.’

    ‘What is called Religion by the Hindus is nothing but a multitude of commands and prohibitions. Religion, in the sense of spiritual principles, truly universal, applicable to all races, to all countries, to all times, is not to be found in them …’

    ‘Caste is no doubt primarily the breath of the Hindus. But the Hindus have fouled the air all over and everybody is infected, Sikh, Muslim and Christian.’

    ‘You must have courage to tell the Hindus, that what is wrong with them is their religion—the religion which has produced in them this notion of the sacredness of Caste. Will you show that courage?’

    Elsewhere he writes:

    ‘Inequality is the official doctrine of Brahminism and the suppression of the lower classes aspiring to equality has been looked upon by them and carried out by them without remorse as their bounden duty … There is no social evil and no social wrong to which the Brahmin does not give his support.’

    Ambedkar’s basic message was that (a) Indian society is dominated by an all-pervading religion named Hinduism, (b) this is a bad and wrong religion, which has no universal spiritual principles, (c) its evil Brahmin priests are responsible for inventing its multitude of commands and prohibitions, (d) the caste system has its sacred foundations in Hinduism, (e) this Hindu system prevents a true nation and society from coming into being in India. To annihilate caste, one would of course have to destroy its foundations – the religion that has produced it; consequently, the annihilation of caste entailed the annihilation of Hinduism.

    This is what Ambedkar stood for. He echoed such utterances as though they constituted a rational and moral analysis of a culture; in reality, these were discarded scraps of an old Christian theology of false religion now presented as facts about the world. If our ‘colossus’ had even an inkling of the Protestant-Christian framework which produced the judgements he reproduced, he could have spared himself the effort and summed up his harangue in one simple sentence: ‘Hinduism is false religion and it needs to disappear.’

    What, then, can one say to the people who try to present Ambedkar as a great thinker and humanitarian visionary? Imagine a preacher in today’s world who insists that a particular religion is false and evil and needs to be wiped from the face of the earth. He would not be considered a paragon of humanitarian vision but a dangerous fanatic. Ambedkarites make an exception for Hinduism, which indeed needs to be wiped out according to them, but that is because they truly believe it is a false and evil religion. Their hatred is not only inspired by centuries of preaching Western-Christian stories about India as God-given truth, but even more so by decades of emotional investment and vested interest. They are among the dangerous fanatics of today.

    Let us take some of his prepositions -

    1 - Hinduism is a False Religion

    Rami Sivan's answer to Is Hinduism a false religion?

    Rami Sivan's answer to Are non-Hindu borns accepted as Hindus?

    2 - Hinduism is based on Inequality and Inequality is the official doctrine of Brahminism

    Subhash Chandra Gautam's answer to Does Hinduism promotes Inequality as said by Dr BR Ambedkar? (Check Comment)

    3 - Hinduism is based on Casteism

    Rami Sivan's answer to How can Hinduism have two contradictory philosophies like Advaita and Caste System?

    Ambedkar claimed that caste consciousness is the reason why neither the Hindus nor the Indians can be said to form a nation or a society. How sensible is this? If we leave aside the Protestant-Christian conception of ‘the Hindu caste system’, which is anything but scientific, we can make one simple observation: it is characteristic of Indian culture in general and the Hindu traditions in particular that they accommodate a tremendous variety of jatis and other groups, which follow their own traditions and have their own swamis, temples, and mathas (or similar such institutions).

    People are part of the jati in which they are born; mostly, they continue the practices transmitted to them by their ancestors and taught to them by their parents; they go to their swamis for guidance and to their temples to do puja. Now, what is wrong with this?

    Of course, there has been discrimination and conflict among members of these groups. But how does this prevent nationhood or national unity? In every nation under the sun, there was and is discrimination and conflict between groups that are not just social classes. In the United States, for instance, we see ethnic groups, linguistic groups, and religious denominations, which are discriminated from each other and have known conflict. In India, there are jatis. In America, apparently, the existence of such empirical groups and the undeniable discrimination among them do not prevent nationhood. How could caste (and caste discrimination) then prevent India from becoming a united nation?

    Only one framework can make sense of this idea that members of a nation should all belong to one and the same community without discrimination: namely, the notion of the nation intrinsic to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Each of these religions claims that their believers are united as a community in God, where they relate to each other as equals: the chosen people of God for the Jews, the communitas or ecclesia for the Christians, and the Umma for the Muslims. As such, in these religions, all are equally part of the same community and this is what makes them a nation. Hence also, Christianity and Islam developed a typical condemnation of Hinduism: it does not create this kind of community and instead chops up the believers into a hierarchy of castes; this shows that it is a false divisive religion that denies the equality of believers before God.

    The Europeans mapped the protestan experience of India and we internalised it as fact. Tyranny of the church becomes tyranny of Brahmins, fiefdom and serfdoms of land owners in Europe becomes caste system in India, decentralised polity becomes corruption and so on.We have internalised the colonial experience where the Europeans saw only misogyny, caste and corruption. This says more about European society of the time rather than India. Brahminism is a mirror image from Europe Society where Pope and Church had supreme powers.Europe feudal system of the Middle Ages when the Church had total power over society,The majority of the population were serfs and were exploited, down trodden and lived in abject poverty while the clergy and nobles lived in extravagant luxury. In India this was completely reverse. Here the Vaishya-Shudra community was the major production n land owning power n the Brahmins were poor. this is complete reverse

    This condemnation was reproduced in a ‘secular’ form not only by Western scholars, but also by colonized Indians like Ambedkar. Stripped of rhetoric, factoids, and anecdotes, his writings on caste say one thing over and over again: Hinduism is not (like) Christianity; it should become (like) Christianity. But this is what the missionaries and colonials had been saying all along. Inevitably, our supposed ‘fighter for Hindu unity’ also peddled the accompanying Western-Christian moral judgements about the Hindus: they are anti-social, inhumane, and indifferent to others’ suffering; they are slaves of their religion and its priesthood; they have ‘fouled the air all over.’To promote the annihilation of a culture and its traditions without any understanding is one of the worst things one can do to humanity. Our cultures and our roots are all we have to save us from the loss of bearings that is overtaking the contemporary world. For India, the rediscovery of its cultural resources will be essential to its future survival.

    Yet, instead of taking this seriously, the country is witness to the rising celebration of a ‘thinker’ whose ‘thought’ stands diametrically opposed to this endeavour. If there is one piece of evidence that establishes the intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of India’s ideologues on all sides of the political spectrum, it must be their glorification of Ambedkar’s thought. Does that make him into the ‘jewel of India’, the Bharat Ratna?

    Ambedkar made a severe mistake -He wanted a perfect society where all Human Beings are equal but Inequality is ingrained in this World.Human Beings are divided by Nations,races,clans,tribes,Ideologies,their own choices.Utopia is simply impossible,You can try as much you want but acheiving Perfect Equality is impossible.Egalitarian is a communist utopian concept - an egalitarian society has never and will never exist. Society has been divided into classes since the very existence of civilizations. The class struggle has always been there, not just in india.

    The problem lies in Human Nature . It is noticeable that with the passage of time, any ideology is also bound to create diversity since it is the very human nature to differ among them selves. This leads to strong irreconcilable differing subgroups that depend upon the mass appeal and acceptance. It assumes more materialistic outlook than spiritual one over the passage of time and then the things start going wrong. Another human weakness that leads to disaster is its faltering weaknesses like ego, anger, greed, passion, jealousy, hatred and etc which sway the opinions of various individuals and create differing strong subgroups; whether in castes, classes or races. Ultimately all lead to the same divisions and diversity and this is precisely Why there were 1000’s of Jaatis in Hinduism becoz of thousands of languages ,customs,traditions,Gods, etc . India has the largest vegetarian cuisine of any nation on earth. It has the most languages and dialects in one sub-continent and the greatest variations in local customs and traditions and even dress.

    There is so much variety and freedom of thought and worship . The culture of India is extremely ancient and hundreds of different cults, religions, view-points, tribes and people lived together and encountered each other .Fundamentally India was not fundamentally different from the rest of the world, and jātis are very much like communities elsewhere in the world. The caste system as we see it was created by the British for the jātis “were not aware of the specific varṇa class they belonged to but were squeezed into the varṇa system by the British administrators.”

    There is a lot of BIAS n hypocrisy in judging Indian Society.Indian society in the past is judged Through today’s modern day standards which is a complete FRAUD. No other society is judged like that. No culture or civilization in the past had social equality, and no modern democracy or nation has social equality. This comparative perspective is essential to get an unbiased and sincere view. Otherwise, we get these hypocrite pseudo-secular leftists who only find faults with Hinduism, while conveniently ignoring the same faults in all other systems (I hope you do not belong to this category).Simple fact is that medieval geopolitical and sociopolitical dynamics can not be judged by 21st century standards.Only the regressive or utterly nefarious ones would do that for reasons well known....... not a secret.

    a theoretical Concept like Varna had existed in other Civilizations

    Zoroastrian Varna system in Iran

    priests (Persian: Asravan‎)

    warriors (Persian: Arteshtaran‎)

    secretaries (Persian: Dabiran‎)

    commoners (Persian: Vastryoshan‎)

    Confucian Varna system in CHINA -

    the shi (gentry scholars),

    the nong (peasant farmers),

    the gong (artisans and craftsmen),

    and the shang (merchants and traders).

    Plato Varna System in Ancient Greece

    Producers or Workers:

    Guardians/Soldiers:

    Philosopher/Kings

    The Big Scandal of Indology

    Remember that varna was a social theory . The actual reality of society can never be mapped into a theory. This is why when the British started to map different jatis to different varnas there were thousands and thousands of letters in protest of the mapping.Take the standard narrative—"India had a "static caste system" for 5000 years (where wily Brahmins had installed themselves on the top)." Static for 5000 years. Wow. Then everyone would be really clear about their varna right? Why the hell were they protesting the mapping? It is intersting that Scheduled Castes were claiming themselves as Brahmin,Kshatriya when British were preparing their Census

    Likewise, the Brahmins were not unlike priestly communities world over and their class was not closed. We know from modern times that communities can just declare themselves to be Brahmins (like the Saurashtras) and the same process doubtlessly occurred in the past.

    Jaatis were thriving when the British set foot in India:

    Jaatis were occupational guilds. For example, the steel making people were a jaati and there were several thousand jaatis like this. There was competition among them but no Conflict or Hierarchy. When steel- making flourished, the corresponding jaatis flourished and when the steel industry went down, the associated jaatis went down. Each jaati had a distinct identity, complete with its occupation, religious practices and its own Hindu religious deity.It also served as a social security net. So, if a person ended up broke, the community would come to that individuals aid and provide him with the needs till he finds suitable employment. In that way, it did protect a person from outside influence by forming a close knit unit.

    The Indian Jaati system allowed diversity to flourish unlike what you’d observe in other regions of the world. For example, in France or Italy, there were violent language-based wars to impose homogeneity on everyone. In other words, a single Jaati survives in France or Italy today which is made up of a single ethnicity following similar religious practices and speaking one language.

    We can corroborate the strong jaati social system by looking at high-quality Indian exports (of those times) which were in high demand among the European elite. (No wonder Columbus was sponsored by the Spanish queen to discover a sea route to India!)

    Hindu Varna-Jaati system was a socio-economic arrangement of a sophisticated and complex and economically stable society. All societies have had and do have hierarchical structures based on birth and occupation. Farmers, workers guilds - now known as unions, merchant guilds known as associations, law-enforcement and soldiers, nobility and clergy are all class compositions of almost every society.

    In historical terms in India there were several benefits which the system known as varna brought with it.All members of the Jaatis were educated in their tradition craft and all were employed and social security maintained through mutual channels of assistance.The Hindu Varna-Jaati system was a socio-political arrangement for a stable and sustainable economy. Each JAATI had a share of the market which was specifically theirs and each JAATI was an independent professional and legal body. They made their own rules and laws and administered their own justice and provided social security to all its members. All professional education was undertaken by the caste for all its members in a time when there was no universal education.
    They decided what they would eat, how they would dress, who would marry and how ceremonies and other functions would be carried out. Some JAATIS ate beef some didn’t, some remarried their widows some didn’t, some engaged in child-marriage and some didn’t etc. etc.

    When the Jews arrived in India they were assigned the JAATIS of Saniwar Telis (Saturday oil-pressers because of their refusal to work on Saturdays) They remained as a distinct JAATIS until the 19 century when they adopted full status as Beni Israel Jews.The Parsis who sought refuge in India became vaishyas and survived with all their customs and language in tact to this day.
    The Christians of Kerala were also able to maintain their traditions and customs for nearly 2000 years BECAUSE of this system.

    The incredible multi-culturalism of India where myriads of groups have maintained a distinct identity for thousands of years is only because of the Varna-Jaati system and its group autonomy.

    The unit of an ancient pre-industrial society was the extended family; a large number of families working in the same profession constituted a jāti. The extended family fulfilled all those functions which are now fulfilled by the market and the government. Education, employment, health care, insurance, old age care, arranging of marriages, child-care and resolution of family disputes. Those matters which could not be resolved within the extended family were referred for arbitration to the elected governing body of the jāti community known as the panchayat. Each and every jāti was autonomous and took care of their own members providing training, employment, security, super-annuation etc. They decided their own laws and rules about marriage, food and personal and inter-personal conduct and every other aspect of social life. So for example some jātis ate pork and beef and others didn’t, some were vegetarian, some drank alcohol and used marijuana, some were matriarchal some were patriarchal, some accepted divorce and remarriage of widows and others didn’t. The jāti also resolved land and stock disputes and also dealt with crime such as theft, murder, rape etc.

    The different jātis also had networks of other jātis with whom they would exchange goods and services. One of the defining features of the jātis was the complex matter of inter-dining and inter-marriage. Inter-dining consists of sharing water, raw-food, dry food and cooked (wet) food. There were rules about what item of consumption could be taken from which jātis. Many of these rules were obvious — like vegetarian jātis would not take cooked food from carnivore jātis or inter-marry with them.

    Members of jātis would dress in certain ways and wear insignia and forehead marks which would identify them to others. On seeing another member of one’s jāti one could be assured of mateship, help and hospitality.

    Jaati hierarchies were always changing and fluid. No single jaati was always at the bottom or always at the top. Plus, there was no fixed, pre-defined hierarchy until the British came and did a census, and forced a fixed hierarchy between jaatis Since the 3rd century when India began expanding international trade the 5 most powerful and economically influential caste were the 5 Sudra Vishvakarma Jaatis:– Goldsmiths, silversmiths, blacksmiths, stone masons and the carpenters. The vied with the brahmins for social supremacy. Even from the 3rd century the dominant occupations of the Sudra were farming, craftsmanship and trade. Have you ever seen or heard of anyone disrespecting any of these

    The kings would refrain from interfering with working of the jātis and concentrated on the collection of taxes. The jāti system in an agrarian society functioned to create a stable and sustainable economic framework. Nowadays it is no longer required since education, health-care, social security and crime is dealt with by the state and employment, business, insurance and retirement are all taken care of by the market. The vast majority of the traditional jāti occupations are now redundant just as 40% of the jobs done today will become redundant in another 30 years.

    In ancient times,in a pre-industrial agricultural world,people preferred to marry with their own social, linguistic and cultural groups and those families with whom they shared common, values, customs and traditions.This thing can be observed among every Civilization,every living species Even After converting to Islam,The different Tribes in Saudi Arabia still marry among their circles only even today. Until modern cities became populated with millions of migrants that helped to increase diversity and heterogeneity, communities were close-knit and exclusionary and insular, both as a necessity for survival and for the comfort of cultural familiarity.

    Every society had ,has a class structure, some more formalised than others. Like it or not .These classes marry and socialise within their circles because of commonalities in culture and ease of movement within their circles. Social and economic progress are social issues not religious ones. As you well know the issue of kith & kin and caste runs very deep and is immensely complex.caste endogamy is about preservation of specific culture/language/cuisine/traditions, not aspiring towards a different caste. caste isn't a pyramid, it's linear. The terms "upper" and "lower" must be done away with, they are inaccurate

    Moreover ,people would have done it to ensure Stability,security n transmission of some social skills. human beings are naturally inclined to tribalism its in our DNA. So we look for any common ground to agglutinate together and to set ourselves against others. In ancient times,there were no modern means of transportation,communication. Life was hard.People spent their daily activities in collecting water,arranging n preparing for food and other basic necessities.There were no rapid communication methods ,communities were close-knit and exclusionary. one cannot imagine a life without smartphones today.. and Ambedkar commented about times back then... when water lose by itself was a luxury... using pompous phrases like " basic human rights"...

    India has made transition from Pre Industrial Agricultural world to Industrial world n now to Modern World,so this is the process of Normalization,.As the society progresses and people belonging to differnt JATIS prosper,differences between people will become less,people will migrate n freuently marry each other.They have to move beyond Ambedkar

    We need to understand the world of 3000 years ago. Agrarian, low tech (Bullock carts, ploughs, buckets, ropes etc.), simple living, no consumerism. And then learn some socio-economic history.

    Your position is society and the job you did on the farm was determined by your birth family. So the son of a farmer would be a farmer, a carpenter, a cobbler, a cowherd, a priest, a warrior - would all teach their own trades to their sons. So rigid caste develops.

    We cannot judge them based on the morals of today, that was just how the world was in those times and that is how all Ancient Civilizations n Societies behaved

    Then comes the Gupta age of economic expansion - as society grows more sophisticated and more complex and consumerism increases - jātis develop to cater to the needs for fine goods. etc. etc. etc.

    The tribes or clan were confined to a geographical area as the village society in india was self sufficient society they didnot have the urge to explore and andventure which made the jati's even more stronger.Labor was changing and so was the division of labor. The broader categories changed little. The warriors classes continue to be engaged in army. The priest classes also expanded into sectors related to education and math. The merchant classes expanded into different types of trade. The details changed, but the broader structure survived to this day.

    Post Industrial Age all these jātis and castes became redundant - the majority of their hereditary professions have disappeared just as the majority of the jobs we do today will disappear in 20 years.

    So ,we get Varna-Jaati was a socio-economic model - religion was at one time pervasive - everything involved religion. It is a universal principle. Since the Industrial Revolution the world has changed and the varna-jāti economical model is now defunct. Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma) is a philosophy of life concerned primarily with dukha (suffering) the causes and the solution. Economic paradigms do not answer or respond to the fundamental philosophical questions of life. Vedanta has nothing to do with economical paradigms and hence the VJ system can happily be jettisoned in the 21st century.

    There was no systematic science and maths like we have today. Given that people were busy in their family occupations through father-son apprenticeship, they would have learnt the necessary trade knowledge in the family. A farmer would teach his son practically. Physicians would have had their own private treatises to refer to. Mass printing was started in Europe to print Bibles for various churches across Europe. There was no compelling need here to read religion from a book. Religion was spread through means of stories, songs and poems to general populace. So, without mass printing, how would you expect to impart education to as many people as possible? And why would people learn what they don't need. The nature of economy did not support education for all, unlike today when information has exploded. The priest never learnt how to trade, and the trader never learnt how to perform rituals. The real problem was lack of dignity of some occupations due to notions of purity, and excess prestige of others, and this became rigid into a belief that abilities were hereditary. Breaking these misconceptions, and providing equal dignity, is they key to dismantling discrimination based on caste. In today's world, the desire to make India progress has definitely made many to practice equality, and this will remain the motivator, and much needs to be done.

    The problems associated with every hierarchical structure are the same - all based on greed and self-interest — exploitation, oppression, prejudice, discrimination, dissimulation, cruelty etc. etc.

    So we see as society changes norms, values and hierarchies change. So it was in Europe as well - but the europeans were quick to respond to socio-economic changes becoz they were not under Foreign Occupation but Indians are slow - still operating on Victorian models of 100 years ago.

    If u consider Indian Society without Hindu concept of Varna for a moment,U will realize that this arrangement was common with all other societies n things were same.People never thought it wrong. It is just that Hinduism is more refined and it went further in its description.

    The greatest error of modern critics of Hindu Varna-Jaati is “presentism”. In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas,values and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of ancient works - they need to be analysed within their context and not through a modern lens .This presentation is called “Presentism” becoz we apply modern humanistic values in judgement upon ancient defunct texts.Nowadays much of critical commentary stems from “Presentism” - projecting todays’ values onto ancient texts - which is a deeply flawed methodology. One needs to understand the texts in context and in comparison to similar texts.

    You cannot judge a society of 3000 years ago by our present modern values. Freedom is a post-modern concept. Every society is in transition and evolving. 200 years ago the British transported women who stole potatoes to feed their starving children, to Australia for 7 -8 years. people were hanged in England for stealing anything above 40 pounds in value. The British had a very rigorous class system. Gays have been outcasts in European society till 50 years ago. It was after the invasions and the colonization that the stratification got really bad. Heck, when Marco Polo visited India in the 13th century, he said that both men and women walked around more or less naked and it was not considered anything. He was pretty puritanical and pissy about it. Then came the Islamic invasions, mass rape and worse - then women had to cover head to toe and restrictions increased over time to the point many communities didn’t allow their womenfolk to go outside due to the danger then it became a “custom”.

    Most folks today see the ancient world retroactively through the lens of their current situation instead of doing a mental time-travel thing and putting themselves back in time.

    Life spans were short in them days (40 - 50 years was very old) — and the imperative for most people was to learn a trade and get to work, get married at puberty - have as many kids as possible because 1/3rd of them would die before their first birthday.

    In the old days people had to walk for kilometers to rivers to wash clothes and fetch water - sometimes twice a day. Then there was milking, churning, cooking, cleaning, child-rearing - 24/7 …

    The only way to get an education was to learn the trade of your father and your community.

    To study one Veda it took a full-time study of 12 years ending at age 21. Most commoners were parents of numerous children by then.

    BUT there was a major revolution in 1439 when a German guy invented a printing press - not long after, printed books began appearing in India and in a flash we arrive at the 21st century when all the Vedas and allied literature is now IN PRINT!

    This is also indicated by Maslow's hierarchy. You need to satisfy the bottom tiers before you move up (esteem) and before Industrial Revolution in 18 century,most people were busy satisfying their Basic needs. Context and perspective is important. All of human civilisation for the past 100,000 years has been by default imperfect struggling for perfection. We need to time-travel to make judgements, sitting in our comfortable middle class lounges, sipping chardonnay in AC with surround sound is not a base for harsh judgements of past systems.

    One need to get the point -

    There is hierarchy (pecking order) in every living species on the planet. Dominance hierarchy is imprinted in our biological and genetic DNA.Individuals are constantly competing for dominance in every sphere of existence — as with individuals so with groups.humans are social being. We eventually seek to form groups and like minded people get together.

    Hindu scriptures reflect reality. So an hierarchy of power and value is mentioned but there are many variations on what exactly the hierarchy is.Hierarchy is a natural phenomenon. If you watch David Attenborough’s nature series you would know that social hierarchy is natural to every almost species and especially primates. The difference is that chimpanzees - our nearest cousins have a male dominated hierarchy (patriarchy) and bonobos have a matriarchy. Even lobsters have a hierarchy as Dr. Jordan Peterson has illustrated. Hinduism teaches

    There is a natural hierarchy in every society. People have different “social value” - a pediatric heart surgeon has great social value than a car- salesman or a lawyer. A nurse has greater social value than a priest. All living beings have “intrinsic value” because they are all manifestations of God. We should treat all beings with respect, kindness, consideration, equality, compassion and generosity. In other words we should practice the Golden Rule - treat others as you would like them to treat you.

    Supremacism n Elitism in Caste like Japanese feudalism n Chinese imperial bureaucracy hv origins in sociology n economics. Skilling limitations, less opportunities due 2 hereditary transference of knowledge coupled vd stagnant urbanisation results in system like caste.It dies vd economic prosperity and education.

    Every complex sophisticated society on earth has a hierarchy based either on power or competence or both.

    Every power hierarchy however benign and benevolent at inception tends towards exploitation, oppression and tyranny.

    Every human being will seek his/her advantage at the expense of others unless restrained by some moral force. All primates naturally care for their own circle or tribe and will exploit and plunder others mercilessly.

    Fear of the other, stereotyping, racism, tribalism, discrimination and all forms of separative judgment and rationality are inherent human qualities which need to be overridden by moral and ethical teachings and practice.

    Obviously all this changed with the market forces. Nowadays few people work in their hereditary professions. The problems associated with the caste/class system are the universal ones — prejudice, discrimination, oppression, exploitation, corruption, coercion, etc. These faults are found in all Human Societies wherever they are. Even the Soviets and Chinese couldn’t eradicate the class system in their Communist Utopias.

    These kind of discriminations existed in every Society n Civilization n Culture at that times.Anybody can look this from China,Japan,Korea,Africa,America To European Societies. All these societies reformed by themselves becoz there was no Foreign entity reforming them. The main Problem is Hindus were never given the chance to correct things. by their own,Instead People who destroyed India made rules n labels for Indians ,

    Castes in a Global Perspective - Is Caste Only a Hindu Problem? (Part 6) - ChakraNews.com

    We can relate to this - People evolve, moral ideas - ie. Dharma changes -even the Shastra says if a teaching or custom is repulsive or objectionable to the people it should be abandoned. So Dharma is democratic and is constantly evolving. Many things we did 2000 years ago we find horrible now. 200 years ago the British exiled women to Australia for 7 years for stealing bread or potatoes to feed their starving children. If a hungry man stole chicken he was hanged. For 400 years the Europeans plied the transatlantic slave trade. Women were treated as possessions and only given the vote in 1900. Until 50 years ago homosexuals were imprisoned for 2 years - today they have marriage equality. So all societies evolve and get better with every passing year.

    Ambedkar did not look at the Condition of Hindu society which was very poor with abject poverty among masses.He did not consider this fact that India was under Muslim n Chrsitian rule for 1000 years.The Mobility between different Varna n Jatis was reduced after Islamic invasions .The Britishers made it officially static.Atleast some time should have been given to Hindus for Reform.Did Ambedkar not notice the Reform Movements which Hindus were running like Arya Samaj,Brahmo Samaj etc. Tell me in Europe too , The majority of the population were serfs and were exploited, down trodden and lived in abject poverty while the Christian clergy and nobles lived in extravagant luxury.why they did not left Christianity.The Blacks were persecuted n were forced into slavery ,But they did not leave Christianity in America n Africa.The Arabs never considered Asian Muslims as Equals and exploited them.Why they did not left Islam. Why so partiality with Hinduism ?India was suffering from abject poverty at that times .Millions of people died in Famines every year .Islamic rule had already ravaged India ,It destroyed lakhs of temples , its indigenous education centres . Jawahar lal NEHRU said this - “ The impact of the invaders from the north-west and of Islam on India had been considerable. It had pointed out and shone up the abuses that had crept into Hindu society -the petrification of caste, untouchability, exclusiveness carried to fantastic lengths.” Jawaharlal Nehru, wrote in his book Discovery of India, 1946 p. 218. Social stagnation in India started happening around 13th-14th century which Ambedkarite claim 5000 years of oppression. Many "Dalit" castes were created during the Mughal time as many were pushed into 'dirty' occupations.It so happened that that time period was already ripe for social stagnation to happen. Ritual purity was getting more and more strong. This notion of purity actually an influence of Jainism and Buddhism. Now increased massively with Islamic disruption of society.

    Caste system in modern day India:

    Caste system today continues to be characterized by hierarchy, hereditary and endogamy. Some positive aspects include the beauty of diversity, community and brotherhood, shared customs, traditions and ancestors, social security and trade expertise. The downsides are obvious – discrimination, violence, one group looking down upon another, social prejudices, untouchability and so on. Disadvantages outweigh the benefits since it is now a tool in the hands of unscrupulous politicians for vote bank politics and of course, with the latest Cambridge Analytica scandal exposing caste-based research by Indian political parties, it is more than obvious that caste data can be used for anything including undermining democracy. Destabilizing forces in India play a key role in first creating and then deepening the fault lines between say Dalit/Dravidian groups and the rest of Hindu community, for instance.

    In conclusion, I do not believe, even for a moment, that everything was fine and dandy in the Indian society before caste was imposed. Of course, there was some amount of inequality, discrimination, one group looking down upon another and several other social grievances. But find me one place and time in history or even today where everything and everyone was/is equal?! What I do find remarkable about this Varna-Jaati civilization is that they did NOT indulge in mass genocides (both physical and cultural), violent language wars, aggressive and forceful religious conversions, massive destruction of public properties like universities and places of worship, persecutions and illegal wars.

    No country in the world is free from inequalities. A constant human endeavour for more money and more power ensures that. A discriminatory system has been widespread, whether it worked against non-Christians, non-Muslims, blacks, homosexuals, women, AIDS patients or lepers. The racism that was historically prevalent in western societies and continues in various forms today is also a kind of pernicious caste system. The holocaust has been blamed on Nazism and anti-Semitism, but few have noticed the caste system in which it was embedded Even the United Nations Security Council has its own caste system with just five permanent members, which have veto powers. The graduates from Ivy League universities and members of exclusive clubs enjoy their own caste privileges.

    It can be argued that India has put together the world’s biggest affirmative action plan called “Reservations” to help the historically disadvantaged castes. With reserved slots in government schools and colleges, positions in government services and seats in electoral constituencies, there has been a massive effort to be inclusive. Whether the effort has yielded results or has resulted in a “reverse caste system” is something that needs to be examined.

    Those who ask try to argue that one's birth cannot be the criterion for the choice of one's work. Should we continue with the philosophy of birth driven fate in this world? If they are considered as age old practices that perpetuate ignominy in our culture, why not the caretakers of our religion should declare it null and void.

    Well, I will ask to send yourself back in a time machine - before government sponsored public education. How would a person get an education or learn a trade? It was from their fathers or their family. So priests son’s were priests, carpenter’s sons were carpenters etc.Nowadays everyone gets education and few people follow their traditional professions and everyone can follow a career of their choosing, therefore judging a person by their birth is wrong and should be condemned at every level.But registering a person’s caste on their ID card only reinforces and perpetuates the patriarchal hierarchical caste system.

    The modern stratification of caste-identity in India and its bizarre expressions is an outcome of the institutionalized policies of the British and Indian governments abetted by the Marxists and minorities, as well as poverty and lack of opportunities for growth. It is not due to any imagined perversity of the original classification of society in Hindu traditions.One example- acc. to Hinduism- all Farming n Cattle breeding related works come under VAISHYA but Our Constitutions say otherwise.

    A knowledge of History would be useful in understanding this .All the major religions and cultures since the beginning of time are guilty of discrimination, oppression, subjugation and exploitation at some stage in their history, and much of this discrimination is sanctioned in their Holy Books (B & Q) by order of God. Both the B and the Q endorse slavery and a two tiered system of people - chosen/elite and the rejected or damned. The chosen heading to heaven and the rejected going straight to eternal damnation and torture. This is ETERNAL discrimination and torture which is far worse a doctrine than caste. The big difference is that the discriminatory practices of the caste system are a disgraceful social issue and are not endorsed by the Veda, Upanishads or the Gita. So they are man-made as opposed to divinely sanctioned practices.

    I suggest you study up on the European religious wars, the Inquisition, the witch-burning, slavery, the anti-semitism and diabolical treatment of the Jews in European Christian countries for 1900 years culminating in the murder of 6,000,000 of them during the 2nd WW — just because of their religion — now THAT is discrimination!! how racism is the foundation of the Western university; epistemicide, i.e. destruction of knowledge of indigenous peoples.

    Includes

    1. Burning of libraries of all rival peoples (including Muslims and the Aztecs) 1/2

    http://okcir.com/Articles%20XI%201/Grosfoguel.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0KTBTbuyPtvwTkjR6nRzWb2d2o2SMIppmbBFr_g6A3qwf-G4BXAWDofZk…

    Indigenous pre-Christian oral knowledge held by European women was destroyed by burning women’s bodies (witch-hunts; women’s bodies were living books). Then read about the Islamic Jihad and the conquest of North Africa, Spain and the Middle East, and of course India and the discriminatory treatment of the unbelievers and schismatics. (Still on-going) Then read up on the history of conquest and settlement of the Americas, the genocide of the natives and their subjugation and impoverishment. Then take a peek at the civil war in USA and browse the Jim Crow laws. Then pop down to Australia to check out the treatment that the Aborigines received the notorious “aboriginal hunts” in which they were hunted and killed like animals and the deplorable conditions that they suffered and are still suffering. And on and on it goes — discrimination is not unique to Hinduism — it is a universal phenomena which all civilised nations are now working on in order to rectify. Gender, race, sex and class inequality is still on the front page of the Western political agenda today!

    Until the separation of Church and State religion and ethnicity and nationality were one and the same. Christian and Muslim wars of conquest are the same. Hindus never extended their empire to South East Asia through warfare - it occurred though gentle trade. Christians were responsible for untold tragedies in the world, the extermination of the natives of America is one of their outstanding achievements. The destruction of the vast libraries of the Incas and Mayas and their temples is still fresh. Then we need to discuss anti-Semitism - especially in Germany. The Jews have been the most hated and targeted group in Christendom since the alleged crucifixion. A pernicious and irrational hatred which was theologically justified and practically perpetrated by Holy Mother Church - culminating in the holocaust. Ask the Jews what they think about Christianity.

    Then there is the “Stolen Generation” - native children stolen from their parents are forced to convert to Christianity in USA and Australia. Then let’s also not forget the hundreds and thousands of victims of clergy abuse. The list of inequities is very long Warren.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/vatican-ii-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-catholic-anti-semitism/2012/10/25/f2a2356e-1ee2-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html

    Ambedkar severely errored on Hinduism . Hinduism by its very nature cannot be oppressive or discriminative since there is not one set of rules and regulations or standards that apply to everyone. There is no command and control structure and no one in charge.There is complete freedom to do as you please as long as it is legal according to civil law. No one is compelled to express belief in any dogmas or creeds, to pray, fast, go to temple, eat vegetarian food, or to abstain from alcohol of sex — it is up to the individual and his or her Karma — obviously there may be oppressive families and tyrannical patriarchs — but that has nothing to do with religion.There was never any command and control structure and no one was ever in charge. The sacred law only applied to orthodox Brahmins and for them it was indeed be exceedingly oppressive The social disabilities and restrictions Brahmins submit to are overbearing for commoners and the Brahmins were forbidden to superimpose their values on others.reason why Hinduism can never be oppressive is because there never was any supervising and enforcing bureaucracy like in the Abrahamic religions.

    Also,Check
    Subhash Chandra Gautam's answer to Do People convert out of Hinduism to other religions becoz of Caste System?

    So ,stop being put in anxiety about the alleged persecution and discrimination 1000 years ago in India and lets’ move forward in peace and amity into the 22nd century. Anxiety about the past only promotes DUKHA.

    I would like objections to my answer in comment section.Check my comment

    (Quora Moderation is deleting my comment,So i am adding below)

    Does Hinduism promotes Inequality as said by Dr BR Ambedkar?

    I am assuming you mean it in the post-modern Neo-Marxist sense of all humans being “equal” and are entitled to equity (equality of outcome).What u want is against NATURE.U want an Utopian Social class of Darwinian order where all People r equal?

    People’s efforts and competence vary. This will naturally lead to an unequal society. Inequality is natural, found everywhere in nature. Thus, equality is an unnatural dogma. Where does it come from?From Judeo-Christian Values. Everyone can't be equal. Your skill ur strategy your struggle defines your future if everyone became same then why would anyone give time to job study work ? If you're getting everything for free.

    Lack of discrimination on class? But discrimination is the very essence of class. Without that there would be no class. You want a "classless society"? Has this ever happened in any country in any time? And why?Why would one treat everyone equally? Those who have not studied should be treated equally to be rocket scientists or doctors? Rich and poor get treated equally in a 5-star?

    Equality before law? But the law itself is unequal. And access to it is unequal. Who can afford to go to court? How many can access the Supreme Court? Inequality is part of the "system of justice." And if inequality is part of the justice, what is justice?

    Let's posit an alternative. Instead of "equality" let us say our goal is to maximize human potential, or to maximize talent of a society. So one could do a broad talent search to locate this talent, and focus on nurturing it, wherever it exists.

    Here are two satirical pieces

    The Land of Equality, Part I

    Land of Equality, Part II

    In what biological sense are men and women equal? Do both sexes have the same reproductive abilities, life-cycles, reactive dynamics, health issues etc?

    Are all humans born with the same physical characteristics, talents, skills, intelligence, abilities, health, strength, character, self-management skills, aspirations etc.? Are all humans born in the same socio-economic environment with the same equal opportunities this affords?Do all humans have the same psychological profile, aspirations and desires? So in what way are “all equal”?

    Hinduism observes reality as it is and is pragmatic as opposed to idealistic in its approach. Hinduism teaches that on an ontological level of the jīvātman, all sentient beings are “equal” in that we are all minute aspects of the totality of Being, the Unified Field. Popularly stated as “God dwells within each and every sentient being.” Hindus greet by saying NAMASTE which means “the divine in me salutes the divine in you!” So from a spiritual perspective we are all equal. Hinduism teaches that people are born different, with different talents,skills and aspirations.

    Every individual is unique and has their own trajectory in life according to their Karma. Notwithstanding our biological and social differences, from a social perspective, everyone should be given the same access to education, health-care and public transport - the three basic essentials for a modern society.

    Everyone should be assessed and treated on the basis of their merits and not their caste, religion, socio-economic background, ethnicity or gender. Is it possible to have equality of outcome? Clearly not - equity cannot be demonstrated nor is it logically feasible

    Social equality is a farce propagated by the followers of those religions which teach a true and permanent inequality between followers (superior) and non-followers (inferior — “heathen”, “infidel”, etc). These religions teach a permanent spiritual inequality for eternity, while hypocritically preaching “universal brotherhood”

    Hinduism, in its infinite wisdom, teaches spiritual equality of everyone, regardless of whether they are followers or non-followers. And in the mundane world, it says that inequality in inevitable due to the material origin of mentions nature. No two trees grow to the same heights, no two human beings are identical in their talents and abilities. Societies change with time, and social groups or individuals rise and fall in their importance or status. So striving for a utopian social equality is a futile attempt mentions In any case, Hinduism teaches that the ultimate goal of human life is to transcend society and the material world into a spirituality. Almost all Hindu saints and sages are people who were socially underprivileged, but spiritually rich.

    Social equality is a fanciful, unattainable pretense of the modern democratic world, which in fact perpetrates many many types of social inequality.LEFT is doctrinated with useless western social theories. It's a figment of imagination to achieve some utopian social justice.Utopia can never be achieved. Mao tried to usher in one and ended up killing millions. I'd rather be in a realistic world where If I make x widgets an hour, I should be paid more than someone who makes x/2 widgets an hour irrespective of what our group identities are.

    “Egalitarianism” is a 20th century-spun. Abrahamisms had the worst form of human slavery till the 20th century.

    For example, someone who spends years studying and doing research for a PhD doesn’t get paid even 1% of the money that a movie star with minimal education gets mentions paid for a single movie. So even in this harmless situation, there are two types of inequalities. And this, in a society which allows freedom of choice.

    For another example, the top 0.1% richest people in the USA earn 188 times as much as the bottom 90%.

    Inequality.org


    Also Read - Response to Ambedkar's paper - CASTES IN INDIA: THEIR MECHANISM, GENESIS AND DEVELOPMENT

    https://hindumediawiki.com/story.php?id=504

    [reply]
    • suyash95 55 days ago | +0 points

      1 -  Hinduism is a False Religion

      In order to answer this question we need to define two words - “Hinduism” and “Truth”.

      “Hinduism” is a term coined by the British for administrative reasons and refers to a collective of divergent schools of philosophy and belief systems that originated in the Sub-Continent of India over 5000 years ago. We ourselves refer to “Hinduism” simply as DHARMA - which translates as deontology.

      These diverse schools of thought have been evolving, developing, modifying and adapting to changing circumstances over millennia. So under the umbrella of “Hinduism” there are sects and traditions which are contradictory to each other and some are in sync with each other. So there is nothing general and definitive which can be said about Hinduism. In fact everything and anything you say about India or Hinduism can be located and identified.

      So Hinduism per se cannot be truth of untruth - it is just a name of a collective. One needs to ask which specific elements or beliefs within the vast collective of Hinduism are true.

      Next we need to define what we mean by “Truth”.

      “Truth” is that which corresponds to reality and is coherent i.e. non-contradictory and is rational.

      Hindu philosophy adds another criterion to this definition - “utility”. So truth must be both reflective of reality and applicable to the interesting of daily like.

      SO - “Is Hinduism true?” - The several philosophical schools of Hinduism deal with this metaphysical question and in fact the Vedas and the Vedānta and all the other esoteric schools have the ULTIMATE TRUTH as their sole inquiry - so you would need to start studying Indian Philosophy to ascertain for yourself what is and what is not “truth” and how it is applicable to your particular situation and stage of life.

      Philosophical Hinduism is perfectly rational - perhaps the most rational of all the religions barring Buddhism its sister religion.

      But under the umbrella of “Hinduism” there is also an abundance of nonsense, pseudo-science, superstition, erroneous beliefs, irrationality, immorality, fake guru and their deceptive teachings, social injustice etc. All the ills of any society.

      Are non-Hindu borns accepted as Hindus?

      This is a frequently asked question but we always need to parse what we mean by terms.

      What is Hinduism?

      The term “Hinduism” is a category of people for the purpose of civil administration created by the British. The Portuguese, prior to the British, referred to the same category of people as Gentoo.

      Hindoo was a term also used for the inhabitants of the subcontinent of India - everyone who was not a Christian, Muslim, Jew or Parsi. And as well all know the broad category of “Hindoo” includes dozens of different religious and belief systems with thousands of different customs and usages and dialects.

      So you could very well ask the question “are non-Indians accepted as Gentoos?” Which makes absolutely no sense.

      There are 7 million Hindus living in Indonesia where Hinduism has been established for over a thousand years - long before either “Gentoo” or “Hindu” were coined.

      The whole of South East Asia (the population of which are ethnically descendant of proto-malay) - was at one time part of a great Hindu empire - greater one may say than any empire in India - since these non-Indians aka non-Hindoos built the largest Hindu temple on planet earth which also happens to be the largest religious structure ever built - Angkor Wat. So one wonders what they called themselves since neither of the descriptors “Gentoo” nor “Hindoo” were available to them.

      Having ascertained the imprecise and vague nature of the above terms we now have to examine the second part of the question “ACCEPTED”.

      I will answer the question with several questions.

      • Does Hinduism have a central command and control structure?
      • Which is the authorising body?
      • Who is the elected pontiff of the Hindus?
      • Where is the assessment and vetoing committee located and what is their email address and website?
      • Which sect accepts indiscriminately the decisions of the acharyas of other sects?
      • Which acharyas accept unanimously the decisions of other acharyas of the very same sect and lineage?
      • If one lineage or sect accepts non-Indians as Gentoos/Hindoos who has the authority to cancel their stamp of approval?

      If you - the gentle reader - don’t know the answer to these questions then you are part of the problem!

      2 - Hinduism is based on Inequality

      I am assuming you mean it in the post-modern Neo-Marxist sense of all humans being “equal” and are entitled to equity (equality of outcome).What u want is against NATURE.U want an Utopian Social class of Darwinian order where all People r equal?

      People’s efforts and competence vary. This will naturally lead to an unequal society. Inequality is natural, found everywhere in nature. Thus, equality is an unnatural dogma. Where does it come from?From Judeo-Christian Values. Everyone can't be equal. Your skill ur strategy your struggle defines your future if everyone became same then why would anyone give time to job study work ? If you're getting everything for free.

      Lack of discrimination on class? But discrimination is the very essence of class. Without that there would be no class. You want a "classless society"? Has this ever happened in any country in any time? And why?Why would one treat everyone equally? Those who have not studied should be treated equally to be rocket scientists or doctors? Rich and poor get treated equally in a 5-star?

      Equality before law? But the law itself is unequal. And access to it is unequal. Who can afford to go to court? How many can access the Supreme Court? Inequality is part of the "system of justice." And if inequality is part of the justice, what is justice?

      Let's posit an alternative. Instead of "equality" let us say our goal is to maximize human potential, or to maximize talent of a society. So one could do a broad talent search to locate this talent, and focus on nurturing it, wherever it exists.

      Here are two satirical pieces

      The Land of Equality, Part I

      Land of Equality, Part II

      In what biological sense are men and women equal? Do both sexes have the same reproductive abilities, life-cycles, reactive dynamics, health issues etc?

      Are all humans born with the same physical characteristics, talents, skills, intelligence, abilities, health, strength, character, self-management skills, aspirations etc.? Are all humans born in the same socio-economic environment with the same equal opportunities this affords?Do all humans have the same psychological profile, aspirations and desires? So in what way are “all equal”?

      Hinduism observes reality as it is and is pragmatic as opposed to idealistic in its approach. Hinduism teaches that on an ontological level of the jīvātman, all sentient beings are “equal” in that we are all minute aspects of the totality of Being, the Unified Field. Popularly stated as “God dwells within each and every sentient being.” Hindus greet by saying NAMASTE which means “the divine in me salutes the divine in you!” So from a spiritual perspective we are all equal. Hinduism teaches that people are born different, with different talents,skills and aspirations.

      Every individual is unique and has their own trajectory in life according to their Karma. Notwithstanding our biological and social differences, from a social perspective, everyone should be given the same access to education, health-care and public transport - the three basic essentials for a modern society.

      Everyone should be assessed and treated on the basis of their merits and not their caste, religion, socio-economic background, ethnicity or gender. Is it possible to have equality of outcome? Clearly not - equity cannot be demonstrated nor is it logically feasible

      Social equality is a farce propagated by the followers of those religions which teach a true and permanent inequality between followers (superior) and non-followers (inferior — “heathen”, “infidel”, etc). These religions teach a permanent spiritual inequality for eternity, while hypocritically preaching “universal brotherhood”

      Hinduism, in its infinite wisdom, teaches spiritual equality of everyone, regardless of whether they are followers or non-followers. And in the mundane world, it says that inequality in inevitable due to the material origin of mentions nature. No two trees grow to the same heights, no two human beings are identical in their talents and abilities. Societies change with time, and social groups or individuals rise and fall in their importance or status. So striving for a utopian social equality is a futile attempt mentions In any case, Hinduism teaches that the ultimate goal of human life is to transcend society and the material world into a spirituality. Almost all Hindu saints and sages are people who were socially underprivileged, but spiritually rich.

      Social equality is a fanciful, unattainable pretense of the modern democratic world, which in fact perpetrates many many types of social inequality.LEFT is doctrinated with useless western social theories. It's a figment of imagination to achieve some utopian social justice.Utopia can never be achieved. Mao tried to usher in one and ended up killing millions. I'd rather be in a realistic world where If I make x widgets an hour, I should be paid more than someone who makes x/2 widgets an hour irrespective of what our group identities are.

      “Egalitarianism” is a 20th century-spun. Abrahamisms had the worst form of human slavery till the 20th century.

      For example, someone who spends years studying and doing research for a PhD doesn’t get paid even 1% of the money that a movie star with minimal education gets mentions paid for a single movie. So even in this harmless situation, there are two types of inequalities. And this, in a society which allows freedom of choice.

      For another example, the top 0.1% richest people in the USA earn 188 times as much as the bottom 90%.

      Inequality.org

      3 - Hinduism is based on Casteism

      Excellent question. The two are separate matters. Vedanta is a philosophy of mind and spirit, based on Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma-sutras. (Prasthana trayam) Vedanta discusses the three realities; Brahman, Jiva and Jagat and prescribes a methodology for achieving the highest goal - moksha.

      The Varnashrama Dharma is an economic theory not a philosophy. It is a complex system for social management in the age of a balanced economy. The system in its pure form aims at the optimization of the three goals of human life - the tripod of material happiness; Dharma - occupation and value system for the society and individual, artha - production and expenditure of wealth, and kama - enjoyment, recreation, procreation etc.

      These two aspects of life are known as trivarga - the three material goals of the householder and apavarga - ultimate liberation from samsara - the goal of the renunciates. So one can indeed study and practice Vedanta without any reference whatsoever to the caste system.

      One can also practice the caste system without any reference to Vedanta - which is generally the case.

      The message of the Gita is an integrated system where caste is not based on birth but rather on merit and all three goals of human happiness should be striven for, but without attachment but rather in a spirit of renunciation.

      I want to be brief and just remind you that the caste-system is an extremely complex network of kinship and social relations involving transactions of goods and services. It has been very flexible over the generations but in its present form is a complete corruption and travesty - since society has dramatically changed since its formulation. The problems of the caste system are the same as any economic system - corruption, greed, oppression, exploitation etc.. There is no economic system in the world that is pure and benevolent - neither capitalist or communist

      [reply]

Welcome to HMW!


This site is for discussion about Hinduism.

You must have an account here to participate.

Register here >>>>

We do NOT offer personalized advice based on astrology.

Check the Guidelines for posting >>>>

Suggested Offline Book


Related Posts