When Shree-Krishna says - 'I created the castes depending on their virtue and karma' – I think of it as follows. Based on my karma and accumulation of virtue in my previous life, I was born in one of those four castes. If I do a good job in this life, I will be born in a higher caste in my next life. This cycle will continue until I become a Brahmin. After that – my soul no longer will come back to this earth; it will reach heaven. This explanation has been used by established Brahmins society in those days. But, it is no longer valid. Brahmins of those days were not the 'by-birth' Brahmins; spiritual knowledge used to elevate someone into Brahmin-hood. I always cite an example from Vedanta to everyone. Many of you may know it already. That is as follows: There was a boy, named Satyakam. He used to live near the Ashram of Goutam Rishi. Every morning, Rishi used to teach 'Brahmagyan' to his students sitting under a shady tree in front of the Ashram. Satyakam used to watch it from far. He longed to acquire Brahmagyan also from the Rishi, but – did not dare to approach the Rishi. As time passed, his curiosity grew. One day, he ventured to approach the Rishi, as he was teaching his students. He stood in front of him with customary joint-hands (karajore). Rishi looked up and saw the boy standing in front of him. He asked, "My boy, what's your name? Where do you live, and why did you come to me?" The boy said, "My name is Satyakam; I live in Kushkhetra; I want to receive Brahma-gyan from you." Rishi asked, "As you know - only Brahmins are allowed to receive Bahma-gyan. Are you Brahmin?" The boy replied, "I don't know." "What's your father's name?" Rishi asked. The boy said, "Rishi-ji, I don't know my father's name also." All students started to laugh. Rishi calmly asked, "OK, go back to your mother, and ask her about your father's name, and come back to me tomorrow." The boy started to run back home out of joy. He went to his mother and asked, "Ma, who is my father? What's his name?" "Why are you suddenly asking me all these questions?" Mother asked. The boy replied, "Ma, I went to the Rishi; he will teach me Brahma-gyan - if I am a Brahmin; can you, please, tell me if I am a Brahmin?" Mother understood everything. She said, "My dear son, come to my lap." The boy went to her lap. She said, "Son, I had to struggle to survive in my youth. As a result, I came in contact with many men. During that dreadful period of my life, God blessed me with you. I do not know who your father is. But, go back to the Rishi, and tell him that - you are the son of your mother, Jabala. And also tell him that - your mother does not know who your father is." The innocent boy was happy to find an answer to the question Rishi asked. Next morning, he went back to the Ashram, and found that Rishi was again teaching his students sitting under the tree. Rishi asked, "Boy, did you find your father's name?" "Rishi-ji, my mother does not know my father's name, but – I am the son of my mother, and her name is Jabala." All students burst into laughter hearing the silly answers from the boy. But, Rishi stood up from his seat, came forward, and embraced the boy. He said, "You are the Brahmin. Those who can tell such truth without hesitation are Brahmins. Of course, I will teach you Brahma-gyan." This boy later on became the great Rishi Satyakam. Sorry, it's a big story, but has lesson in it. Shree-Krishna may have meant for such virtues by caste system.Jiten Roy
--- On Sun, 2/26/12, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Conversion to and from Hinduism
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sunday, February 26, 2012, 9:18 AM
'I created the castes depending on their virtue and karma' is as much of a primitive wisdom (read stupidity) as can be found in other religious stories and myths. If virtue and karma were to be the basis, what is this oxymoron of 'Brahmin without the knowledge of scripture'? How did this person ever become a 'Brahmin' before turning into a 'low creature'? Were the 'Chandals' hiding their karma and virtue while living in their original location, and did they all of a sudden acquire the karma and virtue of 'higher caste' by moving to another location? The way I see it, the caste system as it has been practiced by the Hindus over millennia is indefensible by our civilized standards of human intelligence and dignity. Krishna 's proclamation of 'I created the castes depending on their virtue and karma' in the Gita was deeply flawed, as there as no institution to decide on virtue and karma. If virtue and karma were the basis, a newborn would not have had any caste; rather once he/she was at a defined level of age/maturity he/she would have been placed in an appropriate caste, based upon what knowledge and skills he/she had acquired; all these should have been done after providing a fair chance for all kinds of learning to every newborn. Of course, the better sensible people among us in the modern age would say, human babies are not born with any religion, let alone castes and all the other sub-nonsenses. I know, the roots of this stupidity of the caste system have been too deep in the Hindu society, and the remnants of them do push out even among the better educated people. It bothers me a lot to see people who seem to be enlightened try to justify the caste system by quoting the 'guana karma' quote from Krishna in the Gita. Sukhamaya Bain From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Conversion to and from Hinduism
Arnold J. Toynbee liked Hinduism most among the religions. Asked why he didn't he get himself convert to it, his answer was that the priests would give him the status of Sudra. Such things happened when caste system became rigid. It was not so always. Even Viswamitra was not born a Brahmin. Gita says, "Chatubarnam maya sristam gunakarma bibhajasa':- 'I created the castes depending on their virtue and karma'. Even when system was rigid, many Chandals had turned into higher caste by simply moving to another location where people did not know them. Any Brahmin without the knowledge of scripture is a low creature, as the scripture says. ============================= I like the following exchanges between Mr. Subimal Chakrabarty and Dr. Kamal Das. To fit the topic, I have changed the heading. I am also curious, did the immigrant Jews convert to Hinduism? If so, did they do it out of their respect for Hinduism, or were they forced by the Hindus? From what I see in the history of the subcontinent over the last thousand years, I agree with Mr. Chakrabarty, "Hinduism within its own periphery will rather suppress the lower castes obliging them to convert to another religion. In that sense Hinduism is anti-preaching." Talking about conversion to Hinduism, I have wondered, who gets converted to what caste? Who in the world would be interested in getting converted to a Shudra or Chandal? The way I see the attitudes of the powerful Hindus, they would not take the average Muslim or black African for anything better than a Shudra or Chandal. Of course the Hindu leaders have been keen on licking the boots of the Nawabs and the white Europeans. They would not dare converting them to anything less than Brahmin or Kshatitrya. But, why in the world would the average Nawab/British demote himself from kicking the butts of the Hindus to be equal to the Hindus? Talking about civilized and uncivilized, the Hindus had some of the most uncivilized practices in the world, the remnants of which are still lingering. Finally, let me appeal to all, please try your best to avoid attacking anyone personally. Thanks, Sukhamaya Bain ========================= What happened to the immigrant Jews? Did Hindu preachers convert them to Hindus? What I know about Buddhists is this: Hindus made Buddha as one of their "avatars". Can you please shed light on the parts of Indian history when Hindus tried to convert non-Hindus and "untouchables" including various tribes Hinduism? According to Nihar Ranjan Ray even the chandals in Bengal were outside the chaturvarna system. This means that they were not even shudras.I don't understand why you react so sharply when I want to say that exit from Hinduism is lot easier than getting into it if not impossible! This attitude of the Hindus made it lot easier for the Buddhist, Christian, and Muslim preachers to convert the Indians to their respective religions. ========================== From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Taqiya does not mean deceit. It means hiding or keeping secret one's religion. if some one feels danger if he discloses his faith "Hinduism" and "Judaism" are "too pure" to accept an outsider. Really??? What happened to the three major waves of Jewish immigrants to India? What happened to the Buddhists who constituted ninety percent of Bengal populace before Adisur? =========================== Preaching or propagating a religion if you will is marketing of an idea. As in modern marketing you have to use all the marketing tools, strategies, and tactics to be effective. Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam have been being missionary religions. And we know what missionaries do in general. Besides the soft spoken preachers, rulers and conquerors also supplement the efforts of the preachers sometimes with sword. Historically Christian and Islamic history of preaching have not been always peaceful particularly when the rulers and conquerors have taken active roles. Buddhism although a proselytizing religion was an exception in this respect. "Hinduism" and "Judaism" are "too pure" to accept an outsider. Hinduism within its own periphery will rather suppress the lower casts obliging them to convert to another religion. In that sense Hinduism is anti-preaching. In modern times, Chaitanyadeb and Vivekananda made exceptions. While Christian missioneries risked their lives to go to remote araes in India, the custodians of Hinduism kept themselves busy with the task of making religion more and more inaccesible. Service to the distressed humanity and bringing light to the underprivileged and neglected people are the good sides of preaching. There are ugly sides too. Bribing for example is an example. **************************************************** "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190
|
