[flagged]
How many municipal workers cleaning streets and toilets are from higher castes ?
The monopoly of the church on God and crown was precisely why it was imported into India by the British to consolidate their power.
"Caste" is often used to white wash the Islamic and Christian colonization of India that lasted for a 1000 years, that reduced the richest nation to one of the poorest.
This poverty creation machine that the British colonization is not merely an effect of exploitation or greed, it was very much driven by the same racist and Christian supremacy that drove the nazis.
The "dalits" are very much the biggest victims of colonization.
Very good point, BTW. You're not going to find a rigid social stratification system in a rich society. Stratification takes over as an outcome of societal collapse, as people are reduced to fighting over scraps of their former wealth and will cling to any form of seeming stability, however damaging in the long term. This is exactly what occurred in the West of late antiquity and the dark ages, culminating in the early middle ages.
If the guys writing the history didn't mess it up, wasn't buddha himself against the caste system? That seems way before there was even a Church in the West to begin with.
Gautama Buddha was against any rigid interpretation of the varnas, but he was not unusual in that - this was close to Hindu orthodoxy even at the time.
Buddha considered himself very much a Hindu.
Earlier, Gokhale, Apate, Trimkaji, Andhala, Pansara, Kale, Behre, etc [all Brahman surnames], who showed their bravery by killing rats in their homes, persecuted us, not sparing even pregnant women, without any rhyme or reason. This has stopped now. Harassment and torture of Mahars and Mangs, common during the rule of Peshwas in Pune, have stopped. Now, human sacrifice for the foundation of forts and mansions has stopped – now, nobody buries us alive. Now, our population is growing in numbers. Earlier, if any Mahar or Mang wore fine clothes, they would say that only Brahmans should wear such clothes. Seen in fine clothes, we were earlier accused of stealing such clothes. Their religion was in danger of being polluted when Untouchables put clothes around their bodies; they would tie them to a tree and punish them. But, under British rule, anybody with money can buy and wear clothes. Earlier, punishment for any wrongdoing against the upper castes was to behead the guilty Untouchable— now, it has stopped. Excessive and exploitative tax has stopped. The practice of untouchability has stopped in some places. Killing has stopped on the playground. Now, we can even visit the marketplace.
Source: https://www.forwardpress.in/2020/02/165-years-ago-first-fema...
We have a cottage industry even today that churns out fake attacks on Christians to justify interference or bullying by western countries.
And did the girl live for centuries just so she can experience the white savior?
But it's quite clear that the essay managed to rattle your threadbare, befuddled convictions.
Perhaps connected to a church or left organisation
The Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas entirely and this infuriated the Brahmins of that time. He had both philosophical and pragmatic objections to the theistic stance of Brahminical groups, along with a total rejection of their focus on mass animal slaughter in the name of rituals.
From the original Pali canon, this discourse captures the Buddha's position:
https://suttacentral.net/an3.61/en/sujato
And, Adi Sankara wrote an entire polemic trashing the Buddha as an insignificant man who should be shunned by everybody. Here is a passage straight from the Vedanta Sutras written by Sankara:
Moreover, Buddha by propounding the three mutually contradictory systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only, and general nothingness, has himself made it clear either that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions, or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused.--So that--and this the Sutra means to indicate--Buddha's doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness.
1. There is no reason to believe the Pali Tripitaka represents the authentic words or teachings of the Buddha. He would have spoken Magadhi as his mother tongue. Pali was a Western Prakrit and moreover a trade and literary language not a popular one. Also the Pali Tripitaka was composed and edited by the Hinayanists several centuries after the Buddha’s life and expresses doctrinal developments that would be anachronistic in that era.
2. There is no particular reason to believe that Buddha and early Buddhism was against caste except in the general sense that they are against worldly behaviors of any type. You won’t find anything about it in the Aryan eightfold path (Aryashtangamarga) for instance. (Aryan is usually translated as “noble” in this case. Did you ever wonder why?). The ten major disciples of the Buddha were all either Brahmanas or his royal relatives. The first major historical Buddhist ruler Ashoka in his rock edicts exhorts his subjects to respect both “Brahmanas and Shramanas”. The Ashokavadana, the earliest Buddhist hagiography (and canonical in Theravada) states that a Buddha can only be born in a Brahmana or Kshatriya womb.
3. Buddhism is against karma and holds that liberation is from Jnana only. Animal sacrifices are mentioned a lot because they are particularly vivid examples of the negative consequences of karma but the Buddhist critique applies just as readily to lighting a ghee lamp for worldly reasons. The Jains were more consistently for non-violence than the Buddhists. (No predominantly Buddhist culture is predominantly vegetarian). Jnana only is the position of Advaita Vedanta too. The difference is Smarta Hinduism developed a modus vivendi where karma was acceptable for householders. There was no lay Buddhism during its Indian phase only the sangha so the question could be put aside.
4. Yes Astika philosophers and saints contended against Buddhist counterparts (and each other) but it is anachronistic to bring those disputes back to the time of the Buddha himself. By the time of Shankaracharya there were several mutually antagonistic Buddhist sects. (Actually three is generous. Traditionally there are said to be eighteen.). That is what he is referring to. They can’t all be “the true teaching of the Buddha” unless he was incoherent.
https://suttacentral.net/general-guide-sujato
Sujato addresses several claims in his essay, and has some helpful hints on the historical placement of the Buddhadhamma.
The Buddha was not a social reformer - his teaching was about total renunciation of the world. But there are plenty of discourses that reject the birth-based caste system and instead establishes that deeds and actions are the sole criteria for judging a person.
An example: https://suttacentral.net/mn98/en/sujato
You are mistaken about Karma (Pali: Kamma). Kamma is a central pillar in the Buddha's Teaching. It is, arguably, one of the most important aspects, since Nibbana is described as the cessation of kamma.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html
Adi Sankara's rejection of the Buddha's Teaching was not a simplicistic dismissal based on sectarian divisions. His rejection was based on philosophical differences - the Vedanta Sutras make that very clear.
In any case, my main point was that it is nonsensical to call the Buddha as a Hindu.
I am mystified as to what you think I’ve got wrong about karma. As you say Nirvana involves the cessation of karma. Jnana alone is its cause. This is the same as Advaita Vedanta (and several other darshanas.). The point of difference is what pragmatic concessions are to be given to those who cannot become monks. To be a Buddhist in ancient India was to be a monk. There were lay people who donated to the monks but they otherwise carried on their ancestral traditions. There was no specifically Buddhist way to be a layman until after the religion left India. In Smartism, to learn Advaita Vedanta and give up karma and become a monk is the highest goal but if you can’t, rituals and worldly life still have some positive worth. Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Tantra were even more this-world oriented and in actual practice more egalitarian and accessible than Buddhism nevermind whatever rhetoric was put forth.
I don’t understand the distinction you are trying to make between sectarian division and philosophical difference. A philosophical difference is what makes a sect a sect no?
We agree that Buddha was not a Hindu. For exactly the same reasons we must say Buddha was not not a Hindu. The whole question anachronistically projects latter day concerns and concepts too far into the past. But was Buddhism (or is or could it be) Hinduism? That’s the real bone of contention anyway and its a much more ambiguous question. We could mention how Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu or Yoga borrows concepts from Mahayana or the wholesale adoption of Shaiva tantric concepts in Vajrayana. I personally like to compare with Jainism. It is just as old as Buddhism, heretical to Astikas for exactly the same reasons as Buddhism and yet thoroughly integrated into social structures, modes of worship, and literary traditions to the extent that the man in the street is not even aware that Jainism is anything more than another Hindu sect. I think that would have been the fate of Buddhism if it had survived to this day. And that’s the key. It went extinct a long time ago. So the correct answer to my question is: “we don’t know.”
It is troubling to see how the current wave of jingoism coupled with religious fervor is trying to reduce the Buddha to a mere pawn in an imaginary, all-encompassing Hindu pantheon. Maybe you are not deliberately trying to do this, but the muddled and confused efforts of numerous foot-soldiers expose the sad trend all the same.
This is not true, there's no conflict. The Buddha was not interested in abstract doctrines but only in what was most pragmatically useful for attaining stream entry, enlightenment and liberation from craving and desire. People who are actually pursuing these goals, even in modern times (with very compelling results, though obviously any claims to arhat status will always be viewed skeptically by most) have clarified how anatta is entirely compatible with a Higher Self as with Brahman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara
From the second para:
He also explained the key difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, stating that Hinduism asserts "Ātman (Soul, Self) exists", while Buddhism asserts that there is "no Soul, no Self".
For that matter, even Shankara's description of the Atman is entirely in the negative, stating what the Atman is not. So even while accepting the existence of the Atman, he's clearly tending towards a universalist description that, again, is quite compatible with a practical understanding of the Buddhist doctrine of not-Atman.
Buddhists themselves reduced the historical Shakyamuni to one member of a pantheon long ago. This was a clear trend in Mahayana and Vajrayana before Allauddin Khilji came and settled the issue once and for all.
Brahmins are a small subset, who at different regions and times might have been corrupt. Just like the church.
But unlike the church, Hinduism is experiential and no one has a monopoly, which is precisely why Buddhism is one of many 1000s of movements.
There is no singular holy book and no need even in communities where it existed.
You really need to look into the Buddha's teaching properly before trying to appropriate it to fit your agenda.
A Hindu will feel very comfortable in a Buddhist temple and practice and vice versa. Hindus themselves have extremely diverse traditions.
I see where we have diverging views. My Swedish landlords who happens to be a Christian once asked we where is your holy book.
In her mind not having a one-one equivalent with Christianity delegitimises the religion.
In trying to intellectualise the debate, you have taken the limited view of a Christian.
The vast majority of the Hindus are open to the ideas of Buddhism as well as 1000s of tribal/rural/regional gods and rituals. Not only is there no conflict, there is perhaps no clear boundaries.
This is completely alien to xtianity/Islam.
In another comment you said that casteism was brought by the West to India. (I do not agree with this but lets go with for now). So it clearly follows that Hindus (Hinduism) adopted casteism from somewhere externally. This is not for debate because we have seen and continue to see Hindus practicing casteism for whatever reason.
Hinduism can be simultaneously extolled for adopting "good" ideas from Buddhism but is also beyond criticism for adopting casteism from the west?
You arbitrarily laid the boundary for Hinduism at "caste" arguing that it was brought externally and hence not an inherent Hindu feature, yet somehow you take pride in Hinduism being a religion that does adopt external ideas. Which one is it?
If you have been under Islamic and xtian occupation for a 1000 years, there isn't a lot of options.
Some communities are driven to extreme poverty and it becomes a dog eat dog world.
Considering Islam in Perssia completely wiped out the culture in 50 years.
And it took only 150 years for xtianity to wipe out pagan culture in Europe or the Americas.
Caste as a system was clearly used by the British to separate communities at different levels of destitution coopting some as native informants.
Even in current day USA people are divided on their political, regional, occupational lines. Dems and Reps each consider themselves superior and the other one dumb. Inspite of public schools there is a big impact of family background even in politics.
Kind of hard to make that argument and simultaneously argue that the soul transfers to a new body at death and is confined to Earth (or worse) until the soul reaches a stage of enlightenment sufficient to move to heaven. Its arguable whether caste applies even in this life - and definitely does not between lifetimes as even the highest type of body on this planet (human) is not assured.
The popularity of yoga is hilariously touted as a precursor of things to come. The prime minister has created an "international" yoga day. They assume this will be followed by international adoption of ayurveda, cow "science", cow worship, renaming of several mathematical and scientific discoveries after Indian gurus who supposedly discovered everything originally in the veda.
The don't seem to be aware that modern yoga practised in the west is a modern invention by an Indian fitness instructor who was attempting to capture a portion of the American fitness market jumpstarted by eugen sandow. Most of the so called asanas have been incorporated into yoga from modern gymnastics.
Hey, if nationalism and fascism (ethnic or otherwise) are going to reign supreme anyway in this "Brave New World" of Fake News Media and Fake Social Media, I'll gladly root for the Hindu version over others. I'd rather worship actual cows than the newfangled "sacred cows" that are being pushed by some parts of the West.
Are you not sick and tired of a colonial propaganda of attributing everything to the west.
I pity people who actually believe Renaissance or Industrial revolution was something that happened overnight.
Even as the "liberal" elite and evangelists try to force their agenda on the rest of the world, their own homesteads are turning more dharmic.
They are verses that specify that one must perform ones caste duties ("dharma") no matter what even if you are better at other things. Why on earth would United states turn dharmic?
You should perhaps watch some videos of what actual Hindu gurus say.
I am watching videos of what actual hindu gurus are saying and quoting hindu texts
https://twitter.com/DalitChef/status/1283967349691826184?s=1...
Right from the horses mouth. Quoting prabhupada.
https://twitter.com/Devendrakumar_/status/128447931018772890...
More knowledge from Prabhupada. Click on the video to hear him explain clearly.
"The word dharma is used. Dharma means occupational duty. Dharma does not mean some religious sentiment. No. Natural division and the occupational duty."
Mixing of varna is deleterious to society.
https://vaniquotes.org/wiki/The_Vedic_civilization_is_varnas...
Your obsession with dead people and their lies, does not apply to a living tradition like Hinduism.
Btw, 2 of the gurus I cited are alive.
Where do you find a fault in this?
The greatest sages and kings are famouly NOT born into families of priests or nobility.
"The shudras are the only section of society allowed to accept another’s employment"
As I am an employee now, as are many of my brahmin friends, are we shudras now? If I start teaching the holy books, do I become a brahmin?
What the hell does duties according to ones nature mean? Who decides ones "nature"? A single person can be an employee, warrior, priest or businessman. What is the point of forcing people into categories?
What does it mean to perform your caste duties and nothing else, even if I am better at something else? How does that jive with "duties according to ines nature". If I am an employee, can't I have a side business.
Why is there so much worry about marriage across caste lines? Why fret about varna sankara? It is obvious that you get your caste by birth, not by your acts. If you perform your caste duties without asking questions you get an upgrade to a higher caste in the next birth. Ultimately, becoming a brahman. You can cross check with any guru in a temple you like, instead of arguing with me.
Examples of shudras becoming brahmins are pre-bhagavata gita. After the gita, such a caste transition is only possible via the cycle of death and rebirth.
Yes that is right, if you become a teacher, lawyer, guru or advisor, you become a brahmin as intended. You need to be guided by the guidelines meant for a brahmin, do not be driven by wealth or power or accumulation of land.
Birth based assignment of varna has always been debated as wrong interpretation most famously in the Mahabaratha.
Unfortunately, it is human nature to assign birth based privileges. Most famously by projecting Rahul Gandhi as the only viable opposition leader, by birth privileges.
Ironic considering Modi the son of a tea seller is demonised.
Westerners misusing Indian terms to suit their own desires should be pushed back on. It sometimes seems like a deliberate strategy to confuse and therefore hide the philosophy conveyed by those terms even though much of that philosophy is universal and nonsecular.
Also, in reading threads on this forum over the years, it is quite clear that many fall into the classic trap of confusing ethnicity with religion. Leaders that call for extremist measures are usually promoting the interests of some subset of their community - not promoting the ideals called for by their religion - but many of their followers don't understand religion well enough to realize that. This is just as applicable to the west as it is to other places.
And a breakthrough or political condition that favors a change.
You are seeing that today with China and the US.
That would be ironic considering that they had not completely freed many of their colonies yet.
One of the baddest-ass diplomatic moments in modern history was in the 50s when India's UN ambassador read the US Declaration of Independence in protest of its support for colonial regimes in the name of anti-Communism.
But the hypocrisy of the west in applying those values doesn't mean they aren't worthwhile or worth fighting for.
Exporting and enforcing values that you do not yourself follow.
Do as I say not what I do.
This is way to much strawman for me . And I did believe what you said in another post on Modi as governor, now i guess I'll have to check myself.
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=naruvimama
Development of gujarat under modi is a fig leaf for the underlying reason for voting for modi. The motivations are right wing religious ethno fascism. The others in this case are muslims, with Christians and Sikhs being discriminated on a more opportunistic basis. Their vote for modi is in the hopes of building a hindu religious ethno state along Nazi principles with the muslims playing the role of German Jews. This idea is being heavily propagandize through social media, primarily WhatsApps encrypted channels.
The religious frenzy being built up in the country is absolutely unreal. Well educated software engineers have also been completely absorbed into this fold, as you can observe from the comments.
The only identity of a western atheist is that they are against believers.