Row 1506

Content Data

This page contains data entry 1506 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

Raw Record

{
  "text": "# Caste system in India: According to Wikipedia\n\n​\n\n[Wikipedia page dedicated to the topic \\\\\"Caste System in India\\\\\"](https://preview.redd.it/7tjy03qldes91.png?width=799&format=png&auto=webp&s=7e447b8a27806389a2572f9968455866fbd315e7)\n\n​\n\n[From the same Wikipedia page](https://preview.redd.it/vzdepx6qdes91.png?width=804&format=png&auto=webp&s=f4ab92d4f61959e1d43eca338f97bc4ff68ada2a)\n\nUnder the Varna section, the article mentions that it is a system consisting of four classes. And, then it goes on to say that there is also a 5th class outside the system! If a 5th class indeed existed, why the ancient texts that mention the other four classes did not talk about the 5th one? Were tribes and untouchables absent in ancient societies? That can't be the case because evolution theories suggest that societies are the advanced form of primitive tribes. \n\nThankfully, Wikipedia allows us to verify the information by checking the citation. Clicking on citation 23rd will take us to the referred book. However, the said book seemed to have a low rating and a few bad reviews due to its lack of authenticity and quality. \n\nBelow is an excerpt from one of the reviews,\n\n> “I should also mention that the author of this book (Susan Bayly) goes under the username 'Sitush' in Wikipedia; who enjoys quoting this book in many caste and community related articles (to raise it's academic importance? I can only suspect). Outside of Wikipedia, this book holds no or very little academic value as significant conclusions are drawn solely from opinion of the author. “   ([https://books.google.co.in/books?id=HbAjKR\\_iHogC&sitesec=reviews](https://books.google.co.in/books?id=HbAjKR_iHogC&sitesec=reviews)) \n\nEven though disappointed, one might go back to the Wikipedia page to resume the reading with an assumption that this one might be a rare occurrence. \n\nThe next section talks about Jati\n\n​\n\nhttps://preview.redd.it/5y3esvqtdes91.png?width=788&format=png&auto=webp&s=476537c2086b667b6e11a05981d04135290c8a63\n\nHere under the Jati sub-section, the article states that Jati is mentioned less often in the ancient texts. Here again, it mentions that the ancient text mentions Varna more often and there are four Varnas! It's normal for people to get confused by reading contradictory statements on the same topic. Thankfully Wikipedia has a page dedicated to \"Varna\" ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna\\_(Hinduism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism))  ) . So lets' check that page to clear the confusion in our heads. \n\n​\n\nhttps://preview.redd.it/57ko6f3wdes91.png?width=526&format=png&auto=webp&s=9c6408953a76feb254c5244a5b200dbd25b92b49\n\nhttps://preview.redd.it/jceupvrxdes91.png?width=808&format=png&auto=webp&s=aead0be94bc8ff6ab0abc91ba360d2e1b07dde11\n\nHere it is mentioned that the four varnas together are called Savarna and Dalits and tribals are called Avarna. However, under the etymology section it says, Varna contextually means \"colour, race, tribe, species, kind, sort, nature, character, quality, property. So, if the word Varna has such a broad meaning and it is the basis for the varna system, then why Dalits and tribes are excluded? Don't they have any such attributes? The section also mentions that the word varna can be used in the context of Objects. So, does this varna system applies to Objects too?\n\nSince the section mentions Mahabharata as a reference, let's check whether it offers more information on Varna. \n\nThankfully, the Bhagavat Gita, which is part of Mahabharata, mentions something about Varna. It says \n\n  \n\n>**catur-varnyam maya srstam guna-karma-vibhagasah**   \n>  \n>**tasya kartaram api mam viddhy akartaram avyayam**  \n>  \n>***Translation: Even though the four varnas that are categorized based on qualities and duties are created by me, I remain as a non-doer.*** \n\n*Here the Gita* explicitly says that Varnas are created based on qualities and duties and there are four varnas. However, on Wikipedia, we can see a desperate attempt to create a 5th Varna for people that are “assumed” to be outside these 4 varnas. *If there was indeed a fifth Varna, why was it not mentioned in any of the ancient texts including the texts that mention the four varnas? So, by not mentioning a fifth Varna, do the texts implicitly say everything is included in the Varna classification? Or is exclusion has become the norm when something is not mentioned?*\n\n# Then what is the Varna system?\n\nThe Varna System divides society into major 4 groups; [Brahmins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin) (People equipped with the task to acquire and share knowledge), the [Kshatriyas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshatriya) (rulers, administrators and warriors), the [Vaishyas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaishya) (merchants, tradesmen), and [Shudras](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shudra) (farmers and artisans and labourers). Contradictory to the misinterpretation each class served the same society rather than serving a single class or one another. \n\nIf someone wants to check whether the Varna system was vertical by design and the Shudras were the lowest among the four, just visit the dedicated wiki of Shudra ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shudra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shudra))\n\n​\n\nhttps://preview.redd.it/h1o3noo0ees91.png?width=506&format=png&auto=webp&s=22d8e419e9bd5aa4d8b993656995b08441570e1d\n\n The article mentions that the lowest “caste” Shudra participated in the coronation of Kings or were ministers and kings (Kshatriya, an upper caste, according to wiki’s own definition) according to ancient Indian texts. \n\nThe same page also states that The term *śūdra* appears only once in the [*Rigveda*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda) under the mythical story of creation embodied in the [*Purusha Sukta*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purusha_Sukta) *(\"The Hymn of Man\"). However, the following paragraphs mention that* The *Purusha Sukta* verse is now generally considered to have been inserted at a later date into the Vedic text, possibly as a [charter myth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_myth) . According to [Stephanie Jamison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_W._Jamison) and Joel Brereton, \"there is no evidence in the Rigveda for an elaborate, much-subdivided and overarching caste system\". It also quotes Historian [R. S. Sharma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Sharan_Sharma) states that \"the Rig Vedic society was neither organized on the basis of the social division of labour nor on that of differences in wealth... \\[it\\] was primarily organised on the basis of kin, tribe and lineage. \n\n​\n\nhttps://preview.redd.it/37ezd2z4ees91.png?width=814&format=png&auto=webp&s=e4fe442e9acf1d7a7f30d4a0fea0d5cd0d2ed004\n\nSo, after going through [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shudra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shudra) it is very normal for readers to question the authenticity of all other articles mentioning the “caste system” as it is presented and propagated widely today on and outside of Wikipedia.\n\nGoing back to the \"Caste system\" page of Wikipedia, It mentions  Manusmriti, ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti)) as the main source of \"Caste system\". However, the main Wikipedia page for Manusmriti states that the presumed authenticity of the text is false.\n\n​\n\nhttps://preview.redd.it/0kjgwmw6ees91.png?width=619&format=png&auto=webp&s=72016a09e37eb019d35d998272dcd1775ef1ad84\n\n​\n\nhttps://preview.redd.it/363553u8ees91.png?width=770&format=png&auto=webp&s=c1df54032fa87fde56aefb01c789a77228910d47\n\n​\n\nhttps://preview.redd.it/a1omd8s9ees91.png?width=805&format=png&auto=webp&s=054e26a0c57ca149f57a952379a0a6273d5459ee\n\n**Manava dharmasastra (Manusmriti)**\n\n* The Manava dharmasastra presents itself as a discourse given by [Manu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_(Hinduism)) (Svayambhuva) and [Bhrigu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhrigu) on [dharma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma) topics such as duties, rights, laws, conduct, virtues and others.\n* The current Manu, **Vaivasvata Manu**, also referred to as **Shraddhadeva** and **Satyavrata** was the king of  [Dravida](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravida_Kingdom) before the [great flood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth). He was warned of the flood by the [Matsya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsya) (fish) [avatar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar) of [Vishnu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu), and built a boat that carried the Vedas, Manu's family and the [seven sages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saptarishi) to safety, helped by Matsya.\n* If we go by the chronology of Vishnu Avatars, Matsya avatar come before Rama, Vamana and Krishna avatars. etc.  So, if Manu was present during Matsya Avatar, He must have written down Manusmriti after the great flood once he had saved the Vedas and sages.   \n* However, Ramayana, the Itihasa of Rama and Mahabharata the Itihasa of Krishana and Pandavas do not mention anything about Manusmriti nor the “caste system” in the form widely presented today (including the first mentioned Wikipedia pages). \n* This raises several questions such as, what was the “caste system”, if it ever existed, in the Dravida Kingdom? If Manu wrote down the laws after the great flood, why is the social structure and dharma philosophy mentioned in Ramayana and Mahabharata inconsistent with the \"Law of Manu\"? If it was written after Mahabharata, are the rules apply only to kaliYuga (KaliYuga starts after the death of Krishna) and were never implemented prior to it? Then what is the authenticity of saying the “Caste system” originated in Hinduism? (Since most Hindu texts are written prior to Mahabharata) \n* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puru\\_and\\_Yadu\\_Dynasties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puru_and_Yadu_Dynasties) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\\_of\\_Ikshvaku\\_dynasty\\_kings\\_in\\_Hinduism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ikshvaku_dynasty_kings_in_Hinduism) mention various dynasties after Manu. So, what was the “Caste system” that existed during this period if there was indeed one? \n* If the title “Manusmriti” is a modern term and late innovation, was it a deliberate attempt to give authenticity to the book by naming it after \"Manu,\" one of the forefather figures in Hinduism?\n* Since the current Manu is the 7th of 14 manus, which Manu is mentioned in Manusmriti? If it is the 7th Manu himself, then what was the “Caste system” followed in previous Kalpas, if there was any? \n* Hinduism was the religion of several kingdoms such as Thailand, Bali, Cambodia etc. Why the “Caste system” is peculiar to India?\n\nThe page  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti) quote several scholarly on the historical validity of Manusmriti\n\n​\n\nhttps://preview.redd.it/ba30eskcees91.png?width=774&format=png&auto=webp&s=a4090f6ed9ed1728e0a116d26d587bd2f6d10ed1\n\n* **So, if Manusmriti (Manava** **Dharmasastra) was never implemented by any kings or rulers in history, why do several Wikipedia pages state it as the source of Varna and the “caste system” in India? Without proving the historical validity of the book and Varna, how can someone conclude that the \"Caste system in India\" originated from Hinduism?**\n\n# Jatis\n\nIn Indian philosophy, *jati* (genus) describes any group of things that have generic characteristics in common. For example, Natyasastra mentions that Jātis[\\[53\\]](https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-natyashastra/d/doc210187.html#note-e-82387) relating to the Overlapping notes are three in number: Madhyama, Pañcamī and Ṣaḍjamadhyā. It also says there are seven Jātis in the Ṣaḍja Grāma; Ṣāḍji, Ārṣabhī, Dhaivati, Naiṣādi, Ṣaḍjodīcyavatī, Ṣaḍjakaiśikī and Ṣaḍjamadhyamā. The eleven Jātis[\\[55\\]](https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-natyashastra/d/doc210187.html#note-e-82389) in the Madhyama Grāma are; Gāndhārī, Raktagāndhārī, Gāndhārodīcyavā, Madhyamodīcyavā, Madhyama, Pāñcamī, Gāndhārapañcamī, Āndhrī, Nandayantī, Karmāravī and Kaiśikī.\n\nIf we check Vedanta, we can see that both Varna and Jati are mentioned under classical metres. \n\nThe Classical metres are divided into three types viz. 1. *vṛtta* or *varṇa*, 2. *mātrā* or *jāti* 3. *gadya*. The metres (*chandas*) which are calculated through letters are called as *varṇa* type, and the *mātrā* type is calculated by syllabic instances. The *gadya* type of metres are not accepted by all prosodicians, but authorities like Gaṅgādāsa, Candraśekhara, Raghunātha and Gopīnātha advocate for this metre.\n\nWhen it comes to social structure, ***Jāti*** as a term was used to describe a cohesive group, mostly based on occupation and traditions. Knowing one's Jati made it easier for others to understand his occupation.  \n\nSince it was used to identify a group, there was no hierarchy in place and it was not hereditary in nature. \n\nFor example, Traditional Nair communities ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nair) ) were warriors. They were literate in Sankrit and Malayam. They also served as scribes and bailiffs for the royal courts and many took fame as philosophers and poets. As per modern definition Nairs are treated as a “Caste”. However, if we try to classify this community under the Varna system, we can place them under any four categories due to the various roles played by them in society. **Kartha** ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kartha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kartha) ) or **Karthavu**, meaning \"Lord\" in the Malayalam language, is an aristocratic Nair title which traditionally meant, \"One who does\". In modern times, Kartha is treated as another “Caste” even though traditionally they were part of the Nair clan.\n\nAnother “Caste” Kaniyar, now classified as “Other backward Communities” were proficient in Sanskrit and Mathematics. They practised Ayurveda and astrology and also taught in village schools. They were also Kalaris (Traditional fencing, martial arts). ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaniyar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaniyar)) conducted by Kaniyars.\n\nWe can find similar phenomena across almost all castes and jati in a historical sense.\n\n**If we investigate Hindu literature,**\n\n* Vyasa's (compiled the single, eternal *Veda* into four separate books — [*Rigveda*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda)*,* [*Samaveda*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaveda)*,* [*Yajurveda*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yajurveda) and [*Atharvaveda*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atharvaveda). And also wrote Mahabharata among other books) birth name was *Krishna Dvaipayana*, which possibly refers to his dark complexion and birthplace. He was born to Satyavati a fisherwoman and **Parāśara**, a Maharshi and the author of many ancient Indian texts. \n* Later Satyavati married King Shantanu\n* Nala was a Nishada. He was an expert with horses and popular for his culinary skills. He married Damayanti, daughter of Bhima (not the Pandava one) and a princess of the [Vidarbha Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidarbha_Kingdom)\n* As Bahuka (ugly dwarf form due to a curse) Nala served King [Rituparna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rituparna) of Ayodhya. Nala served as both charioteer and cook.\n* Indrasena, the daughter of Nala and Damayanti was married to [Mudgala](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudgala), the king of [Panchala](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchala). Mudgala later became a Rajarshi.\n* Guha, a Nishada, was a dearest friend of Rama and Rama revered him as he is his 4th brother. \n* Krishna was raised by Nanda and Yashoda of Yadavas (one of the castes of Other Backward Classes today). Yadavas were cattle herders (Krishna himself used to rear cattle). He later becomes the King of Dwaraka. He volunteered to take the role of charioteer for Arjuna during the Mahabharata war.\n* Ekalavya was a Nishada prince. He fought alongside Jarasandha, King of Magadha.  \n* Karna was raised by Radha and Adhiratha Nandana (a charioteer). He went to school in Hastinapura and studied martial arts under the sages Drona, and Kripa. He later becomes the King of the Anga kingdom.\n* Ravana was the son of Sage “Vishrava / Vishravas” who was the son of sage “Pulastya”(son of Brahma). His mother was Kekashi, daughter of SUMALI - a Daitya. However, he later becomes the King of Lanka. He is regarded as Rakshasa (not to be confused with Daitya (Children of [Diti](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diti)), Raksha means to protect and Rakshsa means from whom need protection) due to his character and Sita even called him a Chandala (Not to be confused with caste, Chandala means people who do not follow social rules and live in Shmashana).\n* Drona, Kripa, Parashurama etc were Brahmins by birth but fought in many wars and were experts in Dhanuvidya. \n* Vishwmitra was a King once. He became Rajarshi and then brahmarshi. The is considered to be the father/Rishi of Gayatri mantra. \n* The youngest of Pandavas, Sahadeva is described to be skilled in swordsmanship and astrology. His brother Nakula is described as skilled in *Ayurveda*, sword fighting, and horse keeping.\n* One of the wives of Bhima was Hidimbi, a Rakshasi and forest dweller. Their son Ghaṭotkaca was a great warrior and played an important role in the Mahabharata war.\n* Hanuman was born to Anjana and Kesari of Vanara kingdom (Vanara means forest dwellers). Vanaras fought alongside Rama in Ramayana. \n* Mahapadma Nanda was the first Emperor of the Nanda Empire of ancient India. The Puranas describe him as a son of the last Shaishunaga king Mahanandin and a Shudra woman\n* In Soundarya Lahari - Shloka 75 - , Sankaracharya, the founder of Dasanami sects call himself Dravida Sisu. IN Sanskrit Dravida means the land between three waters (Oceans), unlike the modern meaning.\n* The story of Satyakama Jabala\n* Raikva, Janashruti and Kavasa Ailusha were admitted to ashrams for Vedic learning even after revealing their low caste status\n* Sage Parasara was born of a Shvapaka woman, Kapinjala of a Chandala woman, and Madanapala of a boat woman\n\nSo, if we compare the concept of Jati and caste, we can find that\n\n* The Jati system was totally different from the caste system\n* It was common for people to change Jati and occupation.\n* People changed occupations based on the living standards and opportunities available\n* People from the same caste participated in different occupations varying from Brahmin varna to Shudra varna\n* People competed with each other in observance of dharma and purity rules. The one who followed his dharma was considered superior and revered in society. \n* We don’t find any examples of the modern-day caste system\n\n\\--------------------------------------------------------------\n\n# Caste system: False narratives\n\nOne of the most misinterpreted terms is Chandala. For example, the below sloka from Ramayana is interpreted as\n\n>न शक्या यज्ञमध्यस्था वेदी सृग्भाण्डमण्डिता ।  \n द्विजातिमन्त्रपूता च चण्डालेनावमर्दितुम् ।।3.56.18।।  \n>  \n>The sacrificial altar adorned with ladles and vessels and sanctified by the sacred mantras recited by brahmins cannot be defiled by a **chandala** (man of the lowest caste).\n\nHere, the translation emphasises that chandala is a lower caste even though the sloka does not mention anything about “caste”. \n\nTo understand how much misinterpreted and out-of-context such slokas are, let's have a look at the previous and following slokas of Ramayana. \n\nThe slokas are taken from Aranya kanda of Ramayana\n\nContext: Sita reprimanding Ravana.  \n\n  \n\n>यदा विनाशो भूतानाम् दृश्यते काल चोदितः |  \n तदा कार्ये प्रमाद्यन्ति नराः काल वशम् गताः || ३-५६-१६  \n>  \n>\"As and when ruination of created beings manifests actuated by Time, then all of them will place their behaviour in endangerment, as they have gone under the control of End-Time. \\[3-56-16\\]  \n>  \n>माम् प्रधृष्य स ते कालः प्राप्तो अयम् रक्षस अधम |  \n आत्मनो राक्षसानाम् च वधाय अन्तः पुरस्य च || ३-५६-१७  \n>  \n>This is that time which has bechanced on you owing to your molesting me, you basely demon, by which time-factor yourself, all of your demons, and even all of your queens in the Chambers of Queens will be devastated. \\[3-56-17\\]  \n>  \n>न शक्या यज्ञ मध्यस्था वेदिः स्रुक् भाण्ड मण्डिता |  \n द्विजाति मंत्र संपूता चण्डालेन अवमर्दितुम् || ३-५६-१८  \n>  \n>It is impossible for a profaner to heavily tread on the Altar of Fire amidst a Ritual Hall surrounded by oblational vessels, further sanctified by Vedic hymns. \\[3-56-18\\]  \n>  \n>तथा अहम् धर्म नित्यस्य धर्म पत्नी दृढ व्रता |  \n त्वया संप्रष्टुम् न शक्या अहम् राक्षसाधम पापिना || ३-५६-१९  \n>  \n>Likewise, I am the solemnly pledged legitimate wife of one who steadied himself in righteousness, and such as I am, you basely demon, it is impossible for you trespasser to touch me even. \\[3-56-19\\]\n\n  \n\nSo, here Sita telling Ravana (The king of Lanka who has queens in chambers of queens, born to a brahmin, an expert in Vidya and Veda, a revered devotee of Shiva) that it will be impossible for him to touch her. Here the term Chandala is used to show the behaviours of Ravana which are against the established social norms. \n\nChandala was a term used to describe people who do not follow the rules of society. \n\nTraditionally Chandals were a community who has the right to “*antya, uttara kriyaaH”* (the rituals of death and cremation). As per Hindu traditions, they are equal to Brahmins (Vedic scholars). The brahmins conduct “jaata aadi kriyaaH 'rites from birth onwards...' as an initiator. But it was Chandals who conducts death rites. They were not used to participating in society because they saw the material life and social norms as Maya. Generally, Lord shiva is regarded as Chandala. (Prajapati, being the father of society disapproved his daughter’s marriage to Shiva). Shiva is the lord of Dissolution and is the lord of all laws but participates in none (Similar to what Krishna said to Arjuna in Geeta, Shiva is regarded as the father of all sampradaya traditions and spirituality). \n\nIn short, Ravana, a person who is an expert in Vedas and Sastras and whose responsibility is to conduct according to the same,  is now behaving like a Chandala. \n\n***Now coming to Rigaveda, the famous sloka where the four varnas are mentioned as the limbs of Brahma***. \n\n  \n\nQuoting BBC ([https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35650616](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35650616)) \n\n>“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.  \n>  \n>The main castes were further divided into about 3,000 castes and 25,000 sub-castes, each based on their specific occupation.  \n>  \n>Outside of this Hindu caste system were the achhoots - the Dalits or the untouchables.”\n\n​\n\nhttps://preview.redd.it/xdf6zl2gees91.jpg?width=976&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5336bef587ef47199b5cbd119bed45bc4eee3173\n\nThe below image is from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna\\_(Hinduism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism)) \n\n​\n\nhttps://preview.redd.it/shwlvtlhees91.png?width=876&format=png&auto=webp&s=d036d4df25bcfd16c01b3d0f29d91943b11e6114\n\nSo, let's have a look at the Sloka 10 90 11-12, which is part of Purushasukta, in Rigveda \n\n  \n\n>यत्पुरुषं व्यदधुः कतिधा व्यकल्पयन् ।  \n>  \n>मुखं किमस्य कौ बाहू का ऊरू पादा उच्येते ॥११॥  \n>  \n>ẏat-Purussam Vya\\[i-ā\\]dadhuh k͟hatidhā Vya\\[i-ā\\]kalpayan |  \n>  \n>ṃukham k͟himasya k͟hau Bāhū k͟hā ūurū Pādā ūcyete ||11||  \n>  \n>**What did the purusha (i.e. virat) hold within him? How many parts were assigned in his huge form? What was his mouth? What was his arms? What was his thighs? And what was his feet?**  \n>  \n>ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीद् बाहू राजन्यः कृतः ।  \n>  \n>ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत ॥१२॥  \n>  \n>Brāhmanno-āsya ṃukham-āasīd Bāhū ṟājanyah k͟hrtah |  \n>  \n>ūurū ṭad-āsya ẏad-Vaiśyah Padbhyām ṣūdro ājāyata ||12||  \n>  \n>**The Brahmanas were his mouth, the kshatriyas became his arms, the vaishyas were his thighs, and the shudras were assigned to his feet.**\n\nLet's also have a look into Sloka 13 to 16 of Purushasukta to understand the context. \n\n  \n\n>चन्द्रमा मनसो जातश्चक्षोः सूर्यो अजायत ।  \n>  \n>मुखादिन्द्रश्चाग्निश्च प्राणाद्वायुरजायत ॥१३॥  \n>  \n>Candramā ṃanaso Jātaś-Cakssoh Sūryo ājāyata |  \n>  \n>ṃukhād-īndraś-Ca-āgniś-Ca Prānnād-Vāyur-ājāyata ||13||  \n>  \n>The moon was born from his mind and the sun was born from his eyes, Indra and agni (fire) were born from his mouth, and vayu (wind) was born from his breath.\n\n​\n\n>नाभ्या आसीदन्तरिक्षं शीर्ष्णो द्यौः समवर्तत ।  \n>  \n>पद्भ्यां भूमिर्दिशः श्रोत्रात्तथा लोकाँ अकल्पयन् ॥१४॥  \n>  \n>ṇābhyā āasīd-āntarikssam ṣīrssnno ḍyauh Samavartata |  \n>  \n>Padbhyām Bhūmir-ḍiśah ṣrotrāt-ṭathā l̤okā ākalpayan ||14||  \n>  \n>His navel became the antariksha (the intermediate space between heaven and earth), his head sustained the heaven, from his feet the earth (was sustained), and from his ears the directions (were sustained); in this manner all the worlds were regulated by him.\n\n​\n\n>सप्तास्यासन् परिधयस्त्रिः सप्त समिधः कृताः ।  \n>  \n>देवा यद्यज्ञं तन्वाना अबध्नन्पुरुषं पशुम् ॥१५॥  \n>  \n>Saptāsya\\[i-ā\\]asan Paridhayas-ṭrih Sapta Samidhah k͟hrtāh |  \n>  \n>ḍevā ẏadyajnyam ṭanvānā ābadhnan-Purussam Paśum ||15||  \n>  \n>By making seven enclosures with three times seven sacrificial firewood, the deva (the shining one referring to virat) in that yagna (sacrifice of creation), bound the infinite expanse of the purusha as (apparently) finite living beings (pashu).\n\n​\n\n>यज्ञेन यज्ञमयजन्त देवास्तानि धर्माणि प्रथमान्यासन् ।  \n>  \n>ते ह नाकं महिमानः सचन्त यत्र पूर्वे साध्याः सन्ति देवाः ॥१६॥  \n>  \n>ẏajnyena ẏajnyam-āyajanta ḍevās-ṭāni ḍharmānni Prathamānya\\[i-ā\\]asan |  \n>  \n>ṭe ḥa ṇākam ṃahimānah Sa-Canta ẏatra Pūrve Sādhyāh Santi ḍevāh ||16||  \n>  \n>The devas performed the external yagna by meditating on the real yagna (i.e. contemplating on the purusha who is shining behind everything); and thus they first obtained the dharma (based on the oneness of the purusha), by meditating on the greatness of the chidakasha (blissful spiritual sky behind everyone, which is the essence of the purusha), during those earlier times, the spiritual aspirants became the shining one themselves.\n\nFrom this description, it is clear that the particular sloka is taken out of context. Purushasukta, talks about the whole universe as Purusha. Every living and non-living thing is assigned to his limbs. Also, it is important to note that, there is no mention of varna, jati or caste in the mentioned Sloka. Since all limbs of Purusha have the same colour, the division can not be based on the colour right?\n\nNow after going through all these slokas, can anyone think that the slokas as mentioned in Wikipedia and BBC talk about 4 castes and how it is hierarchical in order, “exploitive” and then there is also an outcast!\n\nIf anyone still thinks that there is a “chance” for a 5th Varna, let's have a look at the sloka 4 of the same section. ([https://shlokam.org/purushasuktam/](https://shlokam.org/purushasuktam/) )\n\n​\n\n>त्रिपादूर्ध्व उदैत्पूरुषः पादोऽस्येहाभवत्पुनः ।  \n>  \n>ततो विष्वङ् व्यक्रामत्साशनानशने अभि ॥४॥  \n>  \n>ṭri-Pād-ūurdhva ūdait-Pūrussah Pādo-āsye\\[a-ī\\]ha-ābhavat-Punah |  \n>  \n>ṭato Vissvang Vya\\[i-ā\\]krāmat-Sāśana-ānaśane ābhi ||4||  \n>  \n>The three parts of the purusha is high above (in transcendental realm), and his one part becomes the creation again and again. There, in the creation, he pervades all the living (who eats) and the non-living (who does not eat) beings.\n\nSo Purusha prevails in everything (Including no living thing). So the classification applies to everything, the whole universe, not just human beings, right?\n\nThis shows how misinterpreted the Vedas are! After comparing original literature with the modern definition of caste, one will start to wonder whether there is an agenda to create narratives to give authenticity to the modern-day caste system. The failure in interpreting the slokas also shows the lack of intelligence in the translator because if it was indeed hierarchical in structure, why say Kshatriyas are arms? In a proper hierarchy, it is better to assign chest or abdomen to Kshatriyas instead of arms! This also shows most interpreters (and translator) does not understand what is Purusha in Hinduism. \n\nThis also shows the lack of understanding of Hindu culture. As per Hindu Dharma, one’s feet are the most revered (The concept of Lotus feet) out of all limbs. The Hindu philosophy states that all beings are divine, and all earthly beings are an incarnation of the Paramatma. \n\nBy taking the form of an earthy being and touching the earth with the divine feet, one makes the earth equal in divinity to Paramatma. The same philosophy is applied in Hindu customs such as Namaskar, touching the feet and even blessing someone with feet. Gurupadukas (The divine padukas (loosely translated to slippers in English) of Guru) are most revered among Hindu paramparas. Bharat, the brother of Rama took the padukas worn by Rama on his head and placed them on the throne of Ayodhaya and ruled the kingdom on behalf of Rama. \n\nSimilarly, if we refer to Manu smriti, the “most referred sloka” says \n\n​\n\n>लोकानां तु विवृद्ध्यर्थं मुखबाहूरुपादतः ।  \n ब्राह्मणं क्षत्रियं वैश्यं शूद्रं च निरवर्तयत् ॥ ३१ ॥  \n>  \n>*lokānāṃ tu vivṛddhyarthaṃ mukhabāhūrupādataḥ* |  \n *brāhmaṇaṃ kṣatriyaṃ vaiśyaṃ śūdraṃ ca niravartayat* || 31 ||  \n>  \n>For the sake of the prosperity of the worlds he caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet.\n\n  \n\nHere also no “caste’ is mentioned. No hierarchy is mentioned. The Sloka itself says Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra are created for the prosperity of the world. \n\nSince as per popular narrative, brahmins are at the top of the “hierarchy” and bestowed with the permission to exploit the other 3 “lower” varnas, let's crosscheck what the Manusmriti says on this matter (For a moment, let's accept the authenticity of the text). \n\n​\n\nhttps://preview.redd.it/z7cw890mees91.png?width=523&format=png&auto=webp&s=01ede0464ea61ba7495381650e1813c7996b9208\n\n1.87. **But in order to protect this universe He, the most resplendent one, assigned separate (duties and) occupations to those who sprang from his mouth, arms, thighs, and feet.** \n\n​\n\nhttps://preview.redd.it/uucy0tgmees91.png?width=475&format=png&auto=webp&s=5da8581ab9442ddb1a2e91810874cea576079319\n\n1.88. **To Brahmanas he assigned teaching and studying (the Veda), sacrificing for their own benefit and for others, giving and accepting (of alms).**\n\nAs per the above sloka, brahmins are the most exploited among the four because he is supposed to study and teach Vedas, sacrificing (Yagna) for their own benefit and for others. He is supposed to take alms for a living and also give alms. If we look into Gurukula sampradaya and stories of Drona, Sudama and many other acharayas, we can see that this principle was indeed followed. \n\n**Edicts 3 and 11 of Ashoka also order to respect Brahmanas and Sramanas.** \n\nSo, if we go through the original test it becomes clear that  In the Varna system, each Varna is supposed to serve the other three Varnas. \n\n* Kshatriyas protected the other three.\n* Brahmins taught the other three.\n* Vaishyas gave materials and money to the other three.\n* Sudras gave service to the other three\n\nSo the system was interdependent, unlike feudal systems where the top class exploit the others. This division of duties was based on the concept of **universal responsibility** and became the root of the **Jajamani system** that protected ancient kingdoms and societies. \n\n**The word “Varna”**\n\nVarna is a Sanskrit word that has been misinterpreted the most in history. Commonsense says that to understand a Sanskrit word, you must rely on Vyakarna and Nirukta. Without these codes of interpretation, it is easy to misinterpret Sanskrit. A small word in Sanskrit might have a wider meaning depending on various contexts. \n\nThe word “Varna” is not exclusive to the Varna system. In Nirukta itself, there are 5 major ways mentioned to interpret the meaning of Sanskrit words. These are\n\n1. Varnaagama\n\n2. Varnaviparya\n\n3. Varnavikara\n\n4. Varnalopa \n\n5. Tatvardhanusara\n\nIf we assign the meaning “colour” to varna, how come words have colours?\n\nLet's take the example of the word Gotra. According to Sanskrit rules, the word gotra originates from “gung” (Shabda/syllabi) which is also common with the Sanskrit word for cloud. This is because clouds absorb water with the help of sun rays, contain it and send it back to the surface in the form of rain to sustain life on earth. \n\nSimilarly, a gotra preserves knowledge through Parampara (not to be confused with racial lineage) and shares it with the right person when the time comes. It is for the interpreter to understand the meaning of the word as per the context. Such usages are very common across Sanskrit literature. You may evaluate the meaning of “Meghnath” using the same principle and see whether the son of Ravana was the lord of clouds or he represent something else. \n\n**Additional notes**\n\nAlong with Manava Dharmasastra (Manusmriti), ancient India had between eighteen and thirty-six competing Dharma-sastras (as per some scholarly opinions). So, taking a book of assumed authenticity and misunderstanding the concept of dharma for laws/rules and using the book exclusively for the administration and legislation shows the myopic mindset of the then administrator. This misunderstanding might be caused due to the fact that they didn't understand the native culture, were not able to understand Sanskrit properly or because they followed a single book to distinguish between rights and wrongs concerning all matters in life. However, Dharma sutras are descriptive in nature not prescriptive. \n\nAlso here are a few slokas from ancient Hindu literature that portrays how the Varna classification is not hereditary in nature, yet all-inclusive and all varnas are to be treated equally.\n\n​\n\n>Rucham no dhehi brahmaneshu Rucham rajasu naskridhi |  \n>  \n>Rucham vishveshu shudreshu Mayi dhehi rucha rucham ||  \n>  \n>–Taittiriya Samhita V 7.6 3-4   \n>  \n>***Put light in our Brahmanas, put it in our chiefs (kings), (put) light in vaishyas and Shudras, put light in me by your light.***\n\n​\n\n>Na kulam vrittahinasya Pramanamiti me matihi /   \n>  \n>Anteshwapij jatanam Vrittameva vishishyate //   \n>  \n>– Mahabharata, Udyoga Parva, Ch 34, v 41.   \n>  \n>***High birth can be no certificate for a person of no character. But persons with good character can distinguish themselves irrespective of low birth.***\n\n​\n\n>Yastu Shudro dame satye dharme cha satatotthitah   \n>  \n>tam brahmanamaham manye vritten hi bhavet dvijah   \n>  \n>– Mahabharata, Vanaparva, Ch 216, vs 14-15.   \n>  \n>***That shudra who is ever engaged in self-control, truth, and righteousness, I regard him a brahmin. One is a twice born by conduct alone.*** \n\n​\n\n>Na jatih karanam tata gunah kalyanakaranam   \n>  \n>Vritasthamapi chandalam tam devah brahmanam viduh   \n>  \n>\\- Uttaragita  \n>  \n>***Birth is not the cause, my friend; it is virtues, which are the cause of welfare. Even a Chandala observing the vow is considered a brahmana by the gods***\n\n**The story of Shankaracharya**\n\nA chandala stood in the way of the Shankaracharya. The Acharya asked him to move away. The Chandala asked him whether the Acharya’s behaviour was consistent with his philosophy. He asked further: Viproyam Shvapachoyam ityapi mahan koyam Vibhedabhramah (what is this confusing distinction between a brahmin and an untouchable?). Shankaracharya then prostrates before him as before a guru and breaks out into five verses known as Manisha Panchakam. He reiterates his Advaita philosophy, but in his very first verse, he says that a person who knows the Supreme, whether he is a Chandala or a twice-born, is a guru for him. (Chandaloastu sa tu dvijoastu gururityesha manisha mama)\n\n**Twice born**\n\nAs per Hindu philosophy, all new burns are treated equally. All are born Shudra and only after the Upanayana one becomes a twice-born. The sacred thread indicating twice borns is worn only after getting initiated into Brahamavidya after which the person becomes brahmachari (Moving towards Brahman/practising Brahma vidya). Later when the person accepts Sanyasa the thread is left behind since a sanyasi and Brahman is not two entity but one. \n\n**Lineage as per Hindus**\n\nThe Hindu tradition followed the Gotra system. All beings were born to one of the 7 gotras that originated from Saptarshis (Each Kalpa these saptarshis changes). The main purpose of Gotra was to eliminate inbreeding. No gotra bestowed any special advantages to its people, because all varnas and Jatis were part of all gotras and Varnas and Jatis were dynamic and offered mobility. \n\n​\n\n>*“This distinction is invariably kept up through all the castes, from the Brahman to the Pariah. And however remote the persons related are from the original stock, so long as the memory is preserved of their springing from the same root, although in the fiftieth generation, or in the twentieth degree of relationship, the male line retains its right in all cases to connect itself with the female ; but never can the children of the male line intermarry with each other, nor those of the female line unite. Agreeably to this distinction, a custom has arisen, which, as far as I know, is peculiar to the Brahmans. They are all supposed to know the Gétram or root from whence they spring; that is to say, they know who was the ancient Muni or devotee from whom they descend ; and in order to avoid intermixture with a daughter or descendant of this original stock they find a reason for marrying into a different Gétram.”* (A description of the character, manners and customs of the people of India)",
  "label": "r/indiarwresources",
  "dataType": "post",
  "communityName": "r/IndiaRWResources",
  "datetime": "2022-10-07",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5LakwwYTd6NUc2RVVyVnRYSnhubUd6aDFMR081clZ1WlNwUGtHdEEwSGZ2WWxhTktxQ252akNKS3lNSjVoVFdLbUppZ0JYX1RNbWp3ZFhtck94T0ZKSzZObXc9PQ==",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9EXzZOdUJDMGt4Vnpfb013NHJQUDBha0RIUW0tQU5xTmpLdEZFOGZobEIyOVZqbnZtOXNjVGVoRHAtbF9sQzIzNFVTaGppa1VPcmJjTEVwS3VaeF9UQXZwWFhITm5BR012UE1rRnA3Ny1IRFA0elRRWHB5aXdEMlhwOFpLQWNiMVFEM01BWUJkMWR1VHhjVEptSEVidkNpWjAtNmVFZ0xzeURVSDZ5cld1RVBEMWVmYnRaNWJWY01KVE5ZZFZwOGwxdy1CS3hpX0JKUzZOTllPenNsTnQxZz09"
}

Entry Information

• Entry ID: 1506
• Repository: Axioma AXP
• Dataset: arrmlet/reddit_dataset_36
• Total Entries: 100,000