• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The virtues of caste system

Wannabe Yogi

Well-Known Member
Current Indian society has passed laws, though debatable in their effectiveness, in removing caste status from individuals.

There is nothing to respect about the caste system of India. I find people that support it no better than those who support segregation in the US among blacks and whites.

Now I give myself the old familiar suggestion.

Caste discrimination in India is a crime against Humanity just like slavery and racism was (and is) in America.

India started just over 60 years ago. America has been working on its race problems for over 200 years. You just have to go to an Indian reservation to see the American Dalits. The fact is that 1/3 Native Women will be raped by non Native men (whites) during her life time this is a fact. I frankly don't see to much concern in America about the problems on Indian reservations. The huge difference in life expectancy and health is just two more examples of this truth.

Here are a few facts about the caste system:

-In Vedic times the caste system was flexible people moved up and down. In fact some of the Vedas was written by non Brahmins and even people who were born into a low caste. Over the centuries this system became more and more fixed in place.

-Many sects of Hinduism over the last 1000 years have rejected parts or all of the caste system.

There are good ideas in the traditional Indian caste system:

-The higher caste folks have higher standards of ethics. The brahmins were expected to live poor and simple lives. They were expected to be teachers of ethics.

-The system is based not on wealth like the American caste system. Which by the way, is becoming less and less flexible, since the Reagan revolution.

Americans tend to have a very simplistic view of the caste system.
Dr Ambedkar (one of the great freedom fighter of the dalits) who started the whole neo-Buddhist movement in India. Had a very dim view of our treatment of blacks and Native Americans.

Many Dalits like their caste status given by the government due to affirmative action programs (american term). Many groups are fighting to get that statues in the Indian courts who are not traditionally seen as Dalits.
 
Last edited:

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Got any real arguments you want to bring to the table other than a nonexistent defense of a socially mal-contrusted, arbitrary mechanism for placing undue values on human existence.

And you can claim out of one side of your mouth that you are against a caste system all you want, but then spit out defenses for it and B-S attacks against those who treat it with contempt at the same time ... it just makes you look foolish, or at least that is my humble opinion.

You don't like my comparison? Tough. I stand by it. And furthermore, I think your reply evidences a hypocrisy that is shameful. But hey, that's just me.

Okay. Like gnomon, you're arguing against something that's not being defended. In debates, we call that "strawman." I'm against the modern caste system, and I don't think the original varna system is relevant for modern times. But, at the same time, I recognize that on paper, it seems to work just fine.
 
Last edited:

Wannabe Yogi

Well-Known Member
Actually the Dalits have been pretty much part of the caste system.

Once again you just have no Idea of what you are talking about.

Why are the Dalits discriminated against ? Because they are out side the caste system. There are 4 castes. The Dalits are not one of them.

Thats the problem. Before you make judgments about solutions to the problems of others. It would be nice if you had even a rudimentary understanding of the subject matter.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Once again you just have no Idea of what you are talking about.

Why are the Dalits discriminated against ? Because they are out side the caste system. There are 4 castes. The Dalits are not one of them.

Thats the problem. Before you make judgments about solutions to the problems of others. It would be nice if you had even a rudimentary understanding of the subject matter.
It seems that Gnomen's claim has some basis in fact.
Dalit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The "caste system" deals with outcasts too.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
The caste system, as described by the OP, seems to be a slightly modified version of Marxist (err.... not a historian) Communism. And we all know why Communism falls apart. :D

I actually think comparing the original Varna system to communism is quite fair. Both work fine on paper, but in practice, they're VERY easy to exploit by the power-hungry.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Let's get some clarification out of the way.

The original Varna system was NOT based on birth, but based on natural inclinations.

The Sage Visvamitra, Lord Rama's Guru, was originally a kshatria who became a brahmana (the proper term for brahmin) later in life. Therefore, it used to be possible, at least in certain areas, to move between the castes in life.

The Purusha Suktam and Bhagavad Gita, two of the most famous texts which talk about the system (though the Gita in more detail), do not mention untouchables, and therefore I think it's fair to assume that they weren't part of the original system. I have not read the Manusmriti, so I don't know what it says on the system.

Therefore, based on the original system, if someone is born to a shudra, but is more naturally inclined to be a ruler, he is a kshatria.

EDIT: Here's the verses from the Gita that speak of the varna system:

41. O great hero! the duties of Brahmanas, Kshatrias, Vaisyas, and also of Sudras have been divided according to the qualities born of their own nature.
42. Serenity, control of senses, austerity, purity, straight-forwardness, knowledge, insight, and faith in the Supreme Being - these are a Brahmana's duties born of his own nature.
43. Prowess, splendor of personality, unfailing courage, resourcefulness, dauntlessness in battle, generosity, leadership - these are a Kshatria's duties born of his specific nature.
44. Agriculture, cattle-rearing, and trade form the duty of the Vaishya springing from his own nature, while the natural duty of a Sudra consists in subordinate service unto others.
45. By being devoted to one's own natural duty, man attains to spiritual competency.
-Translation by Swami Tapasyananda

Thus, there is nothing indicating that untouchables are part of the original system, nor is there any indication that it was originally based on birth, but that it's rather based on individual nature.
 
Last edited:

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
I only hoped to offend those people who would attempt to justify a cruel, antiquated way of life.

To what end? All that would happen is that such people would hate you, disregard you and anything you say, and continue to believe that the modern caste system is good, thus the problem remains unfixed.
 

Eliot Wild

Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
Fair enough, then. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

Oh, no ... You mean I won't be taken as seriously as someone who extols the "Virtues" of a system of social stratification, one that literally imposes different levels of status, entitlement and 'value' on human lives.

I don't care upon what criteria or conditions social stratification is based. No human should be forcibly subjected to social segregation that imposes arbitrary levels of status, privilege and rights upon them depending on what station they are "assigned".

Now, one might argue that all socio-political systems do that. Even in so-called free, democratic systems, there are stratification mechanisms, such as wealth, celebrity, position, etc. And I would agree. But these systems are forced on no one. And furthermore, there are installed functions within the better systems for inacting change. Ideally, the most functional systems would allow the participants themselves to 'manage' and overhaul the systems, if deemed necessary, timely or appropriate.

The fact of the matter is that very few socio-political systems are perfect. However, it seems to me that the best system would be one that empowers the individual rather than assigns them a status and function depending on some predesignated, arbitrary stratification process.

It also seems to me that the 'better' perspective is not to extol the "virtues" of antiquated, dysfunctional, inherently-partial systems, regardless of any redeeming specks and flecks one may find within them. The more appropriate perspective and goal of the social and political scientist would be to strive for the most just and functional systems, those that empower the individual while protecting civil rights and individual liberties. At least that is my humble opinion, regardless of whether anyone takes me seriously or not.
 

Eliot Wild

Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
To what end? All that would happen is that such people would hate you, disregard you and anything you say, and continue to believe that the modern caste system is good, thus the problem remains unfixed.


Seriously? My personal ambivelance for the feelings of those who extol the "virtues" of repugnant socio-political models is going to insure the continuance the modern-day caste systems.

Wow, do you really think your hyperbole and continued attempts to validate and defend such systems are going to fix any problems? You're attempting to justify a system of subjugation. What are your personal ends? I think those of you who are unwilling to show outright contempt for systems of imposed social stratification are merely demonstrating how your personal religious leanings trump your integrity and ethics.

If you and others want to demonstrate the value of Hinduism, then show us something of value.

There is no place for any caste system in this world, at least not in mine. Thank you for letting us know there is room for the subjegation of others in your own.
 
Last edited:

Eliot Wild

Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
No, you won't be taken seriously, because you're arguing against strawmen of your own creation instead of actually reading the arguments being presented. Basically, you're acting much like a creationist does when dealing with evolution.

NOBODY NOBODY, but NOBODY (did I say nobody enough times? NOBODY) is defending the modern caste system.


I have contempt for all such systems. And frankly, I don't care if I am taken seriously by people who find value and virtue in any system of imposed social stratification.

Edit: I think you misunderstand something. You keep trying to insult me by telling me how others will perceive me. Dude, that doesn't work on me. For starters, I could care less what anyone like you thinks of me. Secondly, I'll let others read these posts and make their own determinations. Also, you have woefully misunderstood something else--I am not arguing against the modern-day system ... at least not only. I am throwing all the contempt I have in me at your beloved caste system--regardless of which one you are talking about. I find all systems of social stratification and impositions of status and station to be repugnant.
 
Last edited:

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Seriously? My personal ambivelance for the feelings of those who extol the "virtues" of repugnant socio-political models is going to insure the continuance the modern-day caste systems.

It won't help the problem, that's for sure.

Neither will your continued strawmen.

Besides, if you're as ambivalent as you claim, WHY ARE YOU HERE?!
 

Eliot Wild

Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
It won't help the problem, that's for sure.

Neither will your continued strawmen.

Besides, if you're as ambivalent as you claim, WHY ARE YOU HERE?!


I am "ambivalent" towards the feelings of those who advocate the "virtues" of such systems. I am not ambivalent towards human rights, civil liberties and dysfunctional socio-political systems that oppress people. And you can keep calling my contempt for all caste systems a "strawman" as much as you want, but it won't change the fact I am talking about ALL caste systems, that way I don't leave any out, including the ones you and other defenders seem to be so fond of.

That's not a strawman. That's me telling you straight-up, if you believe in a system of imposed social stratification, one that designates station and status based on an arbitrary measuring stick, whether it be religious in nature, political in nature, financial in nature, or anything outside of the bounds of personal integrity and individual merit, then I hold the utmost contempt for it.
 

Eliot Wild

Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
... you won't be taken seriously, because you're arguing against strawmen of your own creation instead of actually reading the arguments being presented. Basically, you're acting much like a creationist does when dealing with evolution.


Let me ask you this ... Will I be taken as seriously as someone who advocates and defends an arbitrary social-stratification system and attempts to insult someone holding a counter-position by comparing them to a "creationist" while all the while never stating why they are advocating said system of social-stratification?

I won't stoop down and tell you nobody will take you seriously, and I won't compare you to a creationist. I don't need to rely on name-calling and false accusations. I will let the passing readers determine for themselves what they take seriously and what they dismiss.

I wonder how many outside of those sympathetic to Hinduism will find merit in any caste system.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
I am "ambivalent" towards the feelings of those who advocate the "virtues" of such systems. I am not ambivalent towards human rights, civil liberties and dysfunctional socio-political systems that oppress people. And you can keep calling my contempt for all caste systems a "strawman" as much as you want, but it won't change the fact I am talking about ALL caste systems, that way I don't leave any out, including the ones you and other defenders seem to be so fond of.

That's not a strawman. That's me telling you straight-up, if you believe in a system of imposed social stratification, one that designates station and status based on an arbitrary measuring stick, whether it be religious in nature, political in nature, financial in nature, or anything outside of the bounds of personal integrity and individual merit, then I hold the utmost contempt for it.

Oh, I see.

So every single person is exactly the same? Every single person can be a soldier, president, plumber, priest, programmer, mathematician, poet, novelist, etc? Everybody has the same mental capacities?
Everybody has the same physical capabilities?

People with mental issues and learning disabilities should be taught in the exact same classrooms as those without such issues, instead of separate classes that can give them what they need in a mode that they can understand?

(due to some internet issues, I didn't see this post before the next one)
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
With a title like "The Virtues of Caste System", & the discussion of it's positive traits, this strikes me
as an invitation to bring up the negative side too. With a topic so controversial & despised, it might
be impossible to limit discussion to just virtues. Blunt words should be expected.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Most of the remarks in this thread side with the first, without even considering different opinions/ theories/ possibilities. That is like saying plainly that Hindus were dirty - stupid - racist- criminals which is difficult for me to believe considering their great history.

no i wasnt saying that at all

to the contrary, i believe the caste system was imposed on the indians by the aryan invaders who sought to subjugate them....the aryans are lighter skin races and this could very well explain why the caste system puts the lighter skin colors above the darker skins.

perhaps after many years, the hindu sages sought to give a religious explanation for why there was a difference in the classes of people and that is how the caste system became so embedded in the Indians psyche. While i dont believe the religion was the instigator of the caste system, I do believe it was used to give the caste system a solid foundation
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
With a title like "The Virtues of Caste System", & the discussion of it's positive traits, this strikes me
as an invitation to bring up the negative side too. With a topic so controversial & despised, it might
be impossible to limit discussion to just virtues. Blunt words should be expected.

That's true, especially considering the West's constant ability to overreact. ^_^

Since the virtues of the original were already mentioned, let's actually look at some of the real problems of the original system:

1. Who enforces these rules? If any one of these positions takes on that role, that position will very likely start to impose strict rules about it in order to glorify theirs above the others. That's most likely what happened to it, and I suspect it happened really quickly. (King Ashoka outlawed it, and he ruled not too long after the point in time when the Gita is thought to have reached its current state... darn shame he didn't succeed in the long run.) Point is, it's EXTREMELY easy to exploit and corrupt, which is why I think it's fair to compare it to communism.

2. It's EXTREMELY limiting. ONLY priests, warrior/kings, merchants/farmers, and workers? What about storytellers (called Sutas back then)? Are scientists considered among brahmanas? How about entertainers? I imagine it's partially due to this limitation that gave rise to the concept of dalits, and we all know what came of that. :(

3. Even in the aforementioned Scriptures that talk about it, it's somewhat vague. Only a few verses of the Gita specifically refer to them, and while they don't outwardly say they're about birth, they don't explicitly say it's NOT about birth, and thus make it easy to say it's about birth. Plus, let's not try to hide this, the Gita basically implies (or directly states, I can't remember) that Sudras are composed mentally of the guna (aspect of nature) of Tamas, which basically implies that they're unintelligent.

(I'm sure there's more)

That's why I still say it's not directly relevant to modern times. What I glean from it is: "know yourself, and act accordingly."
 
Last edited:

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
By the way, I haven't yet read a single piece of work from a modern Hindu Sage who still accepts the Caste System; every single one of them that I've read have only ever criticized it, and say that it has NO place in modern Hinduism.
 
Top