I am troubled by the traditional Hindu caste system.

[Boojatta]

Is that a good reason for people to suspect that I might be an anti-Hindu religious bigot?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. Obviously this question

has a history of its own.

The caste system is very much in odds with the American system, at least "on paper."

[varkam]

3. It's interesting you should say that...

Link

[riderinthestorm]

2. No, but perhaps it's motivation for you to become a civil rights advocate.

Peace!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. So was Ghandi

as I recall, he worked hard for the rights of the untouchables.

Hinduism is a large religion, with many various sects. I don't think that caste becomes that important in some of them, especially the mystical ones. (Hey, if Sufis can go to a Hindu ashram and be invited to do zkr, the Islamic chanting, I sort of think that the folks at that particulary ashram aren't concerned about caste.)

[lvx35]

8. Yeah, Gandhi worked hard against caste. nt

[manic expression]

5. No

but people who are too ignorant or thick to see that the caste system in India is a social construct and not a religious one are just that: either ignorant or thick.

I ask anyone to find justification for the caste system in Hindu scripture. The caste system is purely a product of Indian society, not of religion.

The caste system in India is scarcely different from the social setups of just about every culture. You want to see a caste? Look at the Latino workers who are mowing White America's lawns this afternoon. Furthermore, the caste system is simply a way of passing an occupation on to the next generation. This happens in just about every culture as well, even in the "first-world" (it is pretty much the way EVERYTHING is without industrialization).

Caste abuse happens to any group, no matter how high or low they may be. Brahmins, the "highest" case, have experienced abuse from lower castes, along with other groups, simply because that group gained power and had no intention to use it well. With this in mind, it is safe to assume that abuse of caste is oftentimes not hierarchical, it is simply one group wrongly taking advantage of something when it can.

An important note is that the caste system no longer holds the power it once did, mostly due to the economic and social changes in India. Caste abuse is almost exclusively a thing of the uneducated, rural and reactionary areas.

Source for fourth paragraph:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,12559,1505978,00.html

[The Magistrate]

6. Not Good Enough, Sir

The religion itself is a social construct, an artifact of Indian society and history: all regions share that characteristic. This line is as futile as maintaining Falwell or Robertson and their flocks are not "really" Christians.

[manic expression]

7. How so?

The religion itself is clearly independent of the society. Why has Hinduism not only existed but flourished in countries and cultures with no formal caste system (namely Britian and the US)? Why is the caste system almost insignificant today, while Hinduism has not significantly weakened?

Why are the Brahmins, the RELIGIOUS leaders, oftentimes subjected to the worst of caste abuse?

The caste system is (was) purely a way of structuring Indian society and passing on occupation from father to son (mother to daughter as well, in many cases). Again, this sort of thing occurs in every country, including the one I am presently sitting in (de facto castes, if you will, but castes nonetheless). This system has seen abuses, yes, tremendous and unacceptable abuses. However, this has nothing to do with the religion, as this is something that occurs when any group gains control and uses it for the wrong reasons (again, I cited a case where the "highest" caste was getting screwed over by those who were supposedly much "lower" than them...the point is that in the few places where the caste system still holds sway, it is about which occupational group has the opportunity to control the power, and that is all). Furthermore, all of this does absolutely nothing to truly involve Hinduism.

Again, I ask you to find any real justification for the caste system in Hindu scripture. None exists.

[Dufaeth]

11. See the Puranas

That is where the justification comes from. Please let us know the abuses the Brahmins suffered that were worse than those of the Dalits?

Yes this discrimination is no longer as bad as it once was, but many modern Christian and Muslim societies have also freed themselves from discriminatory edicts of their religions. That doesn't mean those problems don't still exist within the teachings, just that a culture has gotten past them.

[manic expression]

16. The Puranas?

Those are Hindu epic stories, and there are no less than 19 major Puranas. As a matter of fact, you and I (or anyone) can write a Purana, as long as it meets a certain criteria. At any rate, we should analyze the passage (the one that is most commonly cited is the story where the castes come from the deity).

The abuses Brahmins have suffered are abuses. That is enough to know that the caste system is neither religious nor as black and white as people believe.

To expand on your second paragraph (which I agree with), the places where discrimination is more common are the rural regions. A lack of education and a group's desire to control resources are major reasons for this injustice. That has nothing to do with religion.

Also, Christian and Islamic countries are very far from anything close to the lack of discrimination you present. In Latin America, indigenous peoples are often looked at as sub-human, savage and "problems" to the "better" society. In my area, Latinos do the work to make rich white people's houses look nice; how is that not a "caste"? I don't even need to tell you about Islamic countries.

[The Magistrate]

17. Some Specifics Of The Abuse Of Brahmins Would Be Appreciated, Sir

Grover Norquist has likened progressive taxation to twentieth century genocides, to give just one example of how a dominant group claims abuse at the hands of its inferiors....

[manic expression]

19. Of course

I posted this in my original response.

"Brahmins and Dalits, at the top and the bottom of Hindu society, seek political alliance to fight 'Yadav Raj'"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,12559,1505978,00.html

[The Magistrate]

20. That Is Not Quite What You Have Suggested, Sir

At least not to my reading of it. That is simply a local rivalry, and indicates there is hostility between castes, and that the higher do not locally have the matter in hand. From some aspects, it could be viewed as something revolutionary. It is far from demonstrating that something inherent to the caste system persecutes the higher castes as well as the lower.

[manic expression]

22. But it is

This case demonstrates that the caste system can be used to any group's advantage, regardless of where they supposedly are. Do not dismiss this as something separate or extraordinary, because the system is being wielded by a group that is oppressing other groups, which makes any claim of pure hierarchy incorrect. To say that those who are not "on top" are powerless is so obviously incorrect, as this shows that caste abuse can and will happen to all members.

If a group has a chance to abuse the system, especially in a situation with little resources and much to lose, that group very well may do so. It is a defining characteristic of caste abuse that ANY caste can carry out such injustice, as this shows.

It is certainly not revolutionary, because the abuse is still an abuse in the caste system. A revolutionary development would be dissolving the caste system, not using it to hurt other members of it.

[The Magistrate]

24. A Revolutionary Development, Sir

Is a group that is not on top ousting one that is; it is not necessary to overthrow an entire culture to have a revolution. A thing like this is simply a symptomn of disintigration of a system, not a refutation of its fundemental structural inequalities, which were rigorously enforced in the past.

[manic expression]

25. Such a development

Would be those with power losing it to those without it. Those with power are conversely not on the top of the caste system, but they have the power nonetheless. Therein lies the point.

[The Magistrate]

13. No Religion Is Independent Of the Society In Which It Forms, Sir

Nor, for that matter, of the society in which it may come to exist other than its native one. The fact that a religion may transplant itself, or elements of itself, into a foreign sphere does not demonstrate its independence; indeed, it generally demonstrates the opposite, and in several ways.

First, such a transplant, like the graft of a branch of one sort of tree onto the trunk of another, generally takes on characteristics of the new host in its expression and further development in the new milieu. Buddhism in China is a very different thing than Buddhism in its native India, for example, and so is Buddhism in Japan and Tibet, just as Christianity is a very different thing in Mexico than in Italy, or Islam a very different thing in Indonesia than Saudi Arabia.

Second, what transplants of a religion from one society to another is generally a very attenuated version of the original. What most Westerners who fancy themselves devotees of various Oriental religions actually believe and practice has very little relation to the beliefs and practices of the ordinary people who grew up in those religions in the countries and societies they are native to. They are generally but the philosophical cream, rather than the whole milk of ritual and practice and unexamined conviction those raised up from birth to the thing experience as the religion.

Third, where persons of a religion immigrate to another land, in which they are a decided minority, and where the ordinary patterns of culture and society and law and custom are very different from theirs, the fact that the limitations these conditions impose on the full expressiin of their religion as they might practice it in their native setting hardly demonstrates that what they are constrained from doing is not inherent to the normal practice of their religion. It simply demonstrates the necessary accommodation to unfavorable conditions travelers often face: you might as well say that a man who fetches up somewhere no one speaks his language well, and so is constrained to speak with a vocabulary approximating a first grader's, no longer has himself command of his whole range of expression.

[manic expression]

18. All are, as a matter of fact

Societies will largely go unchanged with a change of religion. Roman soldiers devoted themselves to Mithras, a Persian deity, with no trouble or societal shift. On the other hand, the society of the Americas was drastically changed with the arrival of Christians, but the actions of the Christians like invasion, oppression, forced and imported labor and new cultural customs was what changed it most, not the religion.

"First, such a transplant, like the graft of a branch of one sort of tree onto the trunk of another, generally takes on characteristics of the new host in its expression and further development in the new milieu. Buddhism in China is a very different thing than Buddhism in its native India, for example, and so is Buddhism in Japan and Tibet, just as Christianity is a very different thing in Mexico than in Italy, or Islam a very different thing in Indonesia than Saudi Arabia."

When a religion comes into another culture, the religion largely conforms to that culture, while the culture dictates the way in which the religion is taken on. A certain faith will change to accomodate differences between various cultures. For instance, Islam took on many Persian practices after it spread. This is culture forming itself into a religion, not a religion molding and defining a culture. Islam in Africa has practices and sects that are unheard of in other Islamic areas. That all clearly proves my point: that a society is independent of its main religion.

"Second, what transplants of a religion from one society to another is generally a very attenuated version of the original. What most Westerners who fancy themselves devotees of various Oriental religions actually believe and practice has very little relation to the beliefs and practices of the ordinary people who grew up in those religions in the countries and societies they are native to. They are generally but the philosophical cream, rather than the whole milk of ritual and practice and unexamined conviction those raised up from birth to the thing experience as the religion."

First and second generation immigrants who follow their faith most emphatically do not fit your description. Furthermore, the practices of Hinduism (for example) in India are not so different from the practices of Hinduism in the US. The rites of temples remain the same, the chants do not change, tilaks do not become a different color; the religion is very much present and without any real dilution. The specific practices of Hinduism in India vary about as much as anything, but the basic practices and especially the philosophy and meaning are common to all. It is no different when the religion crosses international borders.

Converts are likewise not "diluting" a religion, lest you suggest that diversity in race constitutes that much.

"Third, where persons of a religion immigrate to another land, in which they are a decided minority, and where the ordinary patterns of culture and society and law and custom are very different from theirs, the fact that the limitations these conditions impose on the full expressiin of their religion as they might practice it in their native setting hardly demonstrates that what they are constrained from doing is not inherent to the normal practice of their religion. It simply demonstrates the necessary accommodation to unfavorable conditions travelers often face: you might as well say that a man who fetches up somewhere no one speaks his language well, and so is constrained to speak with a vocabulary approximating a first grader's, no longer has himself command of his whole range of expression."

Again, when a religion is practiced in a different society, the religion itself is not changed. The factors of "...culture and society and law and custom" are not integral parts of religion, and are actually separate. The laws may change and the culture may change (and the adherents may follow them to perfection), but that has no bearing on the faith. Therefore, the practice of religion in another society does not change the religion, and it does not limit the expression of that religion either. Caste is clearly not an "expression" of Hinduism, as it is an expression of Indian society only (I have provided arguments as to why). This is like suggesting that the English common law system (or stare decisis, for that matter) is an "expression" of Catholicism (the Normans being Catholic). Religion is not significantly altered, but the host society is. This all puts the influence of such practices squarely in the realm of society and apart from religion.

[The Magistrate]

23. Societies Do Not Largely Go Unchanged With A Shift In Religion, Sir

Your Roman example certainly demonstrates no such thing. The religious practices of Roman society were not monolithic, and accorded credit to the claims of just about every divity going at the time in some degree. A tremendous variety of cults were practiced, and devotion to one was not exclusive, requiring renunciation of others. The basic layer was the old gods and household dieties of Latinum, over-layed by identification later with the Olympian pantheon, and with further incorporation into popular worships of the various dieties expansion of Roman rule brought into view. Sometimes this was done as a species of diplomacy wholly foreighn to modern thought. Durung the wars with Carthage, for example, the Romans imported the cult of Cybele, on the sound reasoning that, since the Carthaginians originated near where that diety was worshipped, prayer to it from Rome might dilute its partisanship in the conflict. Incorporation of a new cultus simply embroidered the system further, and did not in any way constitute a change in religious practice or attitude.

Roman Europe, on the other hand, underwent drastic social changes upon conversion to Christianity. That was a religion that demanded renunciation of any other religion, and pursued same with a fine attention to detail. Any number of previously common Roman practices and attitudes went to the wall. Everything from guiding philosophies to the occassions for social congregation to the relations between the sexes altered mightily. It did not overthrow economic arrangements, of course, as it did not bring any news means production, but it altered just about everything not directly related to them. No one caught up from Augustan Rome and set down in the days of Charlemagne would have recognized much beyond the plows, and his habitual behaviors and attitudes would have got him killed in short order, but a person swept up from the days of Scipio Africanus would have had a great deal less difficulty if set down in the time of Trajan; some adjustment would be needed, but the terms of the game would have been recognizeable.

My opening statement was that a religion is not independent of the culture it forms in, nor, for that matter, is it independent of some other culture it comes to exist in. Most of the rest of your comments seem on close examination to agree withy this, rather than refute it. You acknowledge, for instance, that a religion will be changed by the cuklture it comes to reside in, but for some reason call this culture forming itself into religion, rather than religion being altered into the patterns of the culture, and thus demonstrating its subordination to them.

The claim converts dilute a religion is yours, not mine: my claim was that in most instances Western converts to Oriental religions skim the philosophical cream, and they do so because the great body of the cultural elements of those religions are wholly foreign to them, and thus what they call being Buddhist, for example, is something very different than what someone born and raised to the faith in China or Cambodia means by the same statement.

Persons practicing religions in places where they make for a poor cultural fit are frequently restrained from practicing them in full. An Evangelist in Saudi Arabia cannot evangelize; a Saterian in Des Moines cannot perform animal sacrifice. Again, the cultural milieu defines the religious practice, as a matter of practical fact. If you are of the belief things exist in an ideal form regardless of what actually occurs, that is well and good, and that is not a proposition that has ever set too well with me.

[manic expression]

26. Religion is not the deciding factor

The Romans were not monolithic, but that still was a change in devotion which was accompanied by no major societal shift. A change in religion is not defined as a "change in attitude", only a change in specific faith. That constituted one, at least.

(by the way, I would like to remind you that Hinduism is not monolithic either)

Yes, Europe was changed by Christianity. However, Christian Europe still used classical art (even if it took them until 1300), wore the same clothes, had (roughly) the same social structure (do you think the Franks changed their society when their king suddenly converted? Of course not), kept the rule of the Emperor, spoke the same languages and other things. What did Constantine (the lunatic emperor) do right after winning his battle for Christianity? That's right, he built a triumphal arch, a practice done by Roman rulers since before Caesar. This continuity is far more significant than the day people have tea, for instance. Someone from the Pax Romana would not recognize the Holy Roman Empire because so much changed outside of the realm of religion, mostly due to other influences. Also, religion was a big part of life during that time (Carlus Magnus' time), which is what would've probably gotten our Roman citizen into trouble, but it was certainly not inseparable from the society itself. People started using sarcophagi instead of cremation because of the influence of Egyptian culture more than anything else, for example.

"You acknowledge, for instance, that a religion will be changed by the cuklture it comes to reside in, but for some reason call this culture forming itself into religion, rather than religion being altered into the patterns of the culture, and thus demonstrating its subordination to them."

Religion does conform to a culture, and the culture may reflect a religion, but adaptation and reflection does not mean a real significant change at all. A religion will take characteristics of that culture, but it will NOT fundamentally change upon entering a new society. A host culture will obviously take in a religion (general terms here), but it can and will undeniably retain its identity upon changing its religion (or gradual, natural alteration of its religion). A society (class structure, etc....), on the other hand, is changed by other forces that are apart from religion.

OK, I was just saying that converts are no less a member of a religion than anyone else. Buddhism is different because Buddhism is a religion that allows individuals to pursue it without worrying about congregation or practice at all. This is one of the reasons it is still a major world religion. Therefore, it is very much Buddhism, simply taken in a different way than someone in Thailand.

Well, an Evangelist saying proslytizing is just an expression of their religion is like a conman saying theft is an expression of his/her true self. However, you can still practice Santeria in Des Moines, so long as the fundamental meanings remain the same (you could also work at a slaughterhouse). At the same time, this doesn't really contradict what I've been saying (look 2 paragraphs above this: "Religion does conform to a culture...").

[lvx35]

9. well said.

The roots of the caste were originally how they organized society, just as we have government, media, military, commerce, they had theirs. The original basis was supposedly in the persons worldy desires...LAborers (Shudras), were primarlity driven by bodily desires thus did physical work, mechants had material desires so they did material work, soldiers/rulers had moral/social desires so they did organizational work, and Brahmin had spiritual intellectual desires so they did that work.


And your right about it falling apart. The mechant caste (Vaishya) now has aquired much more power, as businessmen than the military (Ks.atriya) caste, who originally ruled the state and was positioned above them.

[Dogmudgeon]

10. Caste: it's an Indo-European thing

It's not just the Hindus; there was a very similar caste system in use among the Celtic tribes of Europe. Most modern Celtophiles would like to believe that the pre-Christian Celtic culture was nobler, more humane, and "better" than our own, but sadly, that's not the way it was.

In fact, all Indo-European tribes seem to have been afflicted with a strong dose of mystical fanaticism, and it extended to their caste systems. The Greeks and Romans were quite attached to their gods, although those gods just barely qualified as divine, even by their own standards. The "classical" cultures had very strong caste systems, as well, and developed ideologies justifying slavery to a high point.

There should be no concern of being "anti-Hindu" or any kind of bigotry; caste systems, fanaticisms, and other cultural norms that we have left behind are still a strong part of our history. I certainly have no animus against the Proto-Indo-Europeans! My understanding is that the caste system has been dying out in India, and will continue to wither away as poverty is alleviated and education becomes more widespread.

--p!

[Odin2005]

28. Very good point.

Ancient Greek philosphers justified slavery and patriarchy by supposing that it was the slave's/woman's lot in life as decreed by fate. The concepts of Fate and Destiny were very important in Indo-European societies. I get a kick out of those New Age Neopagans, since they worship the deities of societies that were brutally patriarchal and violent and think that's a good thing.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. If so, then you are in good company

Gandhi was troubled enough by the caste system that he worked very hard to have it abolished. It is because of him that the caste system is officially denounced and not recognized by Indian law.

I doubt that the Mahatma was an anti-Hindu religious bigot, though. :hi:

[Hoping4Change]

14. Caste system ending? Dream on. Google the and rise

of extremist Hinduism and the BJP.


"The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), functions as the political wing of the Hindu nationalist Sangh Parivar. Within the Sangh Parivar, it is allied with extremist groups such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Bajrang Dal, and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), which engage in a virulent hate campaign and sometimes acts of violence against religious minorities. The RSS was founded by admirers of fascism and Nazism, produced the radicals who killed Gandhi, and is now a major paramilitary organization with millions of members. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee publicly praises the RSS, attends their functions and has feted the organization’s leadership at his residence, and some of the other top BJP officials, including Home Affairs Minister L. K. Advani are RSS associates.

The BJP has appointed to government cultural institutions individuals who are attempting to Hinduize the school curriculum by altering textbooks and curriculum to emphasize Hinduism, and requiring that Hindu texts be taught in all schools. BJP officials have also attempted to restrict minority religious groups’ international contacts, reduce their rights to build places of worship, pass state anti-conversion laws that target them, and alter the religion-specific personal laws that govern their marriages, adoptions, and inheritance, which weaken their rights under the Indian Constitution. Recently, with BJP support, laws have been adopted that restrict the ability of a Hindu to change his religion in Tamil Nadu and Gujarat states, and proposals are underway for national restrictions on religious conversions. Pope John Paul II spoke out against these developments in June 2003 as “unjust” and “prohibiting free exercise of the national right to religious freedom.” The BJP continues to practice discrimination against Christian and Muslim, but not Hindu, Dalits (“untouchables”).



http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/publications/India/summary.htm

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. I never said it was *actually* ended

I said that the caste system is officially denounced by government policy and not recognized by Indian law. There is a big difference between prohibiting bigotry by law and actually ending it, as we in the United States see all too regularly.

[manic expression]

21. Google

the last major election in India. The BJP didn't fare too well.

The Democratic Party produced radicals who fought tooth and nail for slavery and segregation. What's your point?

The BJP does have some good ideas. First, they want to have a common law to everyone (Muslims, for instance, have different laws when it comes to divorce and other things, so it creates a lot of problems). Secondly, passing anti-conversion laws are very good, as they protect the culture and religion against foreign conmen. Christians (including the Pope) call this "unjust" because they want to convert as many people as possible. However, aggression should not be tolerated, be the target a person or a religion. A group that fights against unjust conversions and attacks on an entire tradition are more than justified.

Call them nationalist if you want, but it is far from black and white.

Oh, and if you wanted to talk about the actual situation of caste in India and not about the BJP, you should know that caste discrimination is almost completely exclusive to areas with no education and few resources and wealth.



Oh, and Freedom House? Please...

(from their website)


Caption: "Nina Shea (center), Center Director and Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, briefed President George W. Bush and his staff, including National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley and Chief of Staff Andrew Card on the issue of extreme shari'a in both Iraq and Saudi Arabia in February 2005."

"It (Freedom House) insists that U.S. foreign policy defend Christians and Jews, Muslim dissidents and minorities, and other religious minorities in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Iran and Sudan."

What group is absent from this list? That's right, Hindus. Interesting.

Very, VERY suspect. I'll trust this "house" as far as I can throw it (as in not at all).

[sweetheart]

27. Like most things... pearls... swine (not you)

The caste system has roots in old mystical views that each soul has a natural
profession it is best adapted to. This is not to do at all with any social
role, but each incarnate soul individually and separately.

Then the castes are warrior, king, servant, priest, artisan, sage, scholar
These are screwed up in too many years of repressive hindu dogma to become
5 castes "untouchabe" sudra (servant), vaisha (mixed), kshakriya (warrior), brahmin (priest).

The 7 original castes are archetypes from mystical teachings going back before
recorded history....

In the buddhist 8-fold path, one of the "folds" is "right work" which is related
to the original concept of caste, that your soul has in its dharma a natural
career that will bring you spriitual joy and enlightenment, whereas all other
careers will lead you to suffering and bondage.

The concept of a spiritually-right profession has passed over 1000's of years of
former generations of neocons, that its to do with genetics and birthrights, when
the old spiritual concept has no such roots.