Questions about hinduism

[ThreeFiddy]

Can someone answer some of these questions regarding hinduism because I've asked a few people and they give me mixed and contradicting answers.

Okay first thing's first:

Is the caste system a part of hinduism or is it a social thing that is seperate from the religion?

[adren@line]

The reason they are contradicting is because "Hinduism" is a vague term.

There are Hindus who dont follow a word of the Vedas, those who's beleifs are based on tribal customs, those who believe in Heavan and Hell, those who dont, those who use idols, those who dont, those who encourage the acquisition of wealth and those who renounce wealth.

The caste system is very complex.

One hand, we have it interprted as simply a social class system. Brahmins were priests, intellectuals, etc.

Kshatrya's were soldiers, kings, aristocrats.

On the other hand, many Hindu books (all of the ones written by the Aryans) mentioned caste and tyhe duties of each individual caste.


The caste system did not exist in India ( in its present) form during the IV civilizations.

There is no need to blow the caste system out of proportion. The exact same thing existed in Europe. Rich aristocrats did not associate, mingle, or talk to poorer people at all.

The poorer classes stuck to themselves, and were often abused by the richer classes. The same theme is occurant throughout every civilization.

So on one hand, if you follow the Vedic texts, it is part of Hinduism. If you do not follow the Vedic texts, than it is not.

[ThreeFiddy]

I wasn't really blowing it out of proportion beacuse I always thought (without backing:P) that it was a social thing and not really prescribed by the religion until someone yesterday who's doing hinduism in university told me that it is very much part of the core of hinduism as prescribed by the Vedas. The only problem I have with the cast system is that one is "impaied", of sorts, from birth.

BTW, this is not to say that I don't have a problem with the old british social structure of the aristrocrats, barrons, etc. Cast systems have existed prior the greek civilisations. I was just wondering why "hinduism" (I'll say that for the sake of simplicity) has it as one of it's core concepts, because it seems a bit anti-human-rightish. Especially during modern times.

So on one hand, if you follow the Vedic texts, it is part of Hinduism. If you do not follow the Vedic texts, than it is not.

I heard that the Vedas is a very integral part of hinduism?

[adren@line]

It is an integral part of Vedic Hinduism.

There are many Hindus who do not follow a word of the Vedas.

What ever you learn in Uni is usaulyl over-simplified (with any religion).

I mean, its safe to say that most Hindus *in practice* follow Vedic Hinduism, but it is far from its original form, and more ritual based. I can bet many of them havent even read the Vedas (there isnt necesarily a need too either).


because it seems a bit anti-human-rightish. Especially during modern times

Well it was based on the premise that human beings inherently were inequal (some were smarter, stronger, some were not)...

However, most people accepted their positions in life and were content with what they had. Natuarally, this was abused by the higher classes.

Especially during modern times

Eh its not soo bad today. People associate regardless of caste. They only seem to care when it comes to marriage.

[Zapata]

Can someone answer some of these questions regarding hinduism because I've asked a few people and they give me mixed and contradicting answers.

Okay first thing's first:

Is the caste system a part of hinduism or is it a social thing that is seperate from the religion?

CASTE system is NOT part of hindu religion.

various professional hierachies are described in the scriptures... like brahmins, shatriyaas etc.. but this has been deliberately mis-interpreted by some and laid out the as the current caste system that we now know of.

There is proof is Ramayana where ram eats berrys touched and bitten by a low caste person to prove that all humans are equal and should be treated that way too.

[adren@line]

Just the fact that Ram ate the fruit of a low-caste to prove equality shows that caste is part of the religion.

[Zapata]

Just the fact that Ram ate the fruit of a low-caste to prove equality shows that caste is part of the religion.

watever man!!

im not here to argue..... neither of us are scholars here.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Just the fact that Ram ate the fruit of a low-caste to prove equality shows that caste is part of the religion.

not really...in itself it just showz that caste existed at that time...and that Ram rejected certain aspects of it (vis the taboo on dining)...nothing else nothing more...

[Hindu_Nutcase]

(deleted what i posted earlier because its too long)

will post again later :D

[deception]

hey "hindu nutcase" are we suppose to take your assertions about hinduism seriously with an username like yours? maybe u should reconsider your username, how about "hindu_not_so_nutcase"? fyi, i'm part of the "hindu massive" and i greatly appreciate your "respect"

[Hindu_Nutcase]

hey "hindu nutcase" are we suppose to take your assertions about hinduism seriously with an username like yours? maybe u should reconsider your username, how about "hindu_not_so_nutcase"? fyi, i'm part of the "hindu massive" and i greatly appreciate your "respect"

well if you can, then please take my assertions independently of my user name.....

[Hindu_Nutcase]

The Vedic texts do speak of society as comprising of Brahmins, Kshtatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras.

But the description of what constitues each of these categories is not birth. It says that all of the four "types" are contained in each individual, but that one predominates more than the other:

The kinds of decriptions of what makes a person belong to one or another category is based mostly on conduct and qualities, eg in the famous dialogue between Yudhisthira and Yaksa in the Mahabharata, Yudhisthira is asked whether a person is a brahmin based on "birth, learning, or conduct" and his answer is that only "conduct" makes a person a brahmin and not birth.

The Gita says:

intellectuals who have serenity, self-control, austerity, purity, patience, honesty, transcendental knowledge, transcendental experience and faith in the divine are Brahmins (18.42)

those having the qualities of heroism, vigor, firmness, dexterity, steadfastness in battle, charity and skill in administration are called kshatriyas or protectorz (18.43)


-So in the ideal of nacient Hindu society - it was character and function that would be the over-ruling determinant of "caste". Perhaps the ideal was hardly practiced in reality but there are anecdotes of when birth was over-rided, eg, the author of the Ramayana (Valmiki) was born born as a fisherman but was considered and spoke of himself as a brahmin.

- Behind the Hindu social system was originally a noble idea. It aimed to give those people who developed their minds, the learned, pre-eminence in society over the warrior and merchant classes, with the conditions that the intellectuals fore-go the pusuit of wealth and power. Unfortunately, over time birth became a boundary of classification that could not be crossed.

-In the modern world it is the merchant (commercial) interests and class that is most influential in the world, including being capable of dictating religion and other intellectual pursuits in many situations. The warrior class also has much power, whereas intellectualism and spirutuality is generally subservient to these.

For example, medicine research is limited by financial and profit consideration rather than the number of people who could benefit. Protozoal diseases affect many in the world, but not so much in the rich west where there is the most profitable market. So there is a comparative lack of research in drugs in this field, compared with drug research which is more profitable. This is an example of how knowledge pursuit is subservient to finance. Wars are also often fought for primarily financial considerations, showing how kshatriya-hood is subservient to vaishya-hood.

[Tigr]

The original vedas did not speak of heriditory component of the caste system...it was basically based upon occupation. The cast system in its present form was formalized in a book called Manusmriti...written about 4-5 century AD...by Manu. This book is extremely self serving to the brahmins...and formalizes heriditory components of the castes. Its an evil book...and has resulted in exploiting people. It belongs in th emiddle ages...where it should stay.

[Ragga_NZ]

K, i don't really kno shit bout all this but i heard the caste system was introduced by early invaders...Alexander n all them...again i know nuffin...so do lead me the right way

[Hindu_Nutcase]

K, i don't really kno shit bout all this but i heard the caste system was introduced by early invaders...Alexander n all them...again i know nuffin...so do lead me the right way

Untrue. Alexander only got upto the River Sutlej before his forces mutinied and went back to where they came from, so it is illogical that the Greks had any real bearing on India's polity, except for the formation of a more centralised Indian empire under Emperor Chandragupta Maurya (grandfather of Ashoka).

[tru2dalimit]

Caste was described as a way to seperate society by function, because it creates a natural order and prevents chaos. These stupid rules imposed in present times aren't part of early form of caste system. brahmins have used the caste system to assert their superiority over everyone else, and that is how the bhakti movements began. caste is part of the religion, but not in the adulterated form of today. Krishna was born into a kshytriya caste, but he was bought up buy cattle herders. Ram associated with everyone, even the ape ppl, and that shows that caste isn't about intermingling, its only rigid when based upon occupation. Due to the lack of education the system thrived cuz many ppl wouldn't revolt against it, and these close minded ppl wouldn't change their ways.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

wait! something's wrong here!

aren't castes different from varnas? there are four varnas - the brahmins, the kshatriyas, the vaishyas and the shudras, but there are hundreds - if not thousands - of castes.

some one please correct me if i am wrong.

yes...

that just shows that the "caste system" with hundreds of castes is not a religious phenomenon.

The "varna" that a "caste" belongs to is not fixed, they have gone up and down through history. For example my own "caste" is originally a shudra caste, but most of us would consider ourselves "vaishya" (business) because thats generally what we live like. Similarly there are former warrior castes who did something disgraceful or got beats and are now unclassified in terms of caste.

Castes are clans / tribes, that may have their own rules.

So there is more than one phenomenon going on.

Check the following link which explains how these phenomenons blend into today's scenario:

http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/cas3.pdf

[Hindu_Nutcase]

yeah, i know what you mean.

people confuse castes and varnas all the time, and its not just random people. i know hindus who do it too.

Perhaps even more Hindus do it than others !