Hinduism and the cast system
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 июн 2024
- Subscribe to Allah School in Mecca youtube page: / @allahsschoolinmecca
Contribute or add on to the Cause cash.me/$Infmega
Check out more 5 % media here: 5percentmedi...
Also to see more INFMEGA Content, check out: / the-world-according-to...
/ infmega
Instagram: / infmega
Peace. This is the God, C I Wise. For further clarity, here is an excerpt from a story from the early Buddhist texts told by the Buddha to Assalāyana, a Brahmin (the highest caste) of his time, who came to debate with him about the purity of his caste. (Buddha was from a lower caste.) The story's about an even more ancient encounter between a group of seven Brahmins and a revered wiseman named Asita Devala who was highly respected by all despite being of low caste. The Brahmins didn't recognize him at first and disparaged him for his caste. They are shamed when he reveals his true identity. When reading, please note the following:
1. This is essentially a story about the Brahmins' foolish belief in the genetic purity of their caste's lineage: what we in modern times would call "racial purity." This belief was also combined with a belief in spiritual purity because the Brahmins subscribed to a religious belief that they were born from the mouth of their god whereas the lower castes were born from other places on his body. (E.g., the lowest were born from the soles of their god's feet; as such, they were inherently dirty and black, and born to be trampled on as servants to the higher castes.)
2. The Brahmins claim their caste alone is white and all other, lower castes are black. (The translator gives "fair" and "dark," but the original Indic words are sukka and kanha: "white" and "black.") This is almost certainly not simply a metaphor for purity (though it may be that, too), but an actual reference to their phenotype or physical appearance; because, once again, this is a lesson on the falsity of genetic or racial purity.
3. Devala is this wiseman's name; he is called "Asita." "Asita" means "black." (In other texts, he's called, Kala Devala; "kala" also means "black.") His name, Devala, is probably a cognate of the word, "deva," meaning "god." (The same etymology as "divine," "divinity," even "devil.") Thus, with Devala meaning "godly" or "god-like," his name is something akin to "black god."
4. Lastly, in the reincarnation belief of the time, the gandhabba was believed to embody the spirit of the being to be reborn. It was believed it had to be present when the parent's were conceiving; if it was not, there's be no conception. And, it was the gandhabba's caste and karma from its previous life, that would determine what caste would be born in the next.
STORY:
Once upon a time, Assalāyana, while seven brahman seers were living in leaf huts in a stretch of forest a pernicious view like this arose in them: ‘Only brahmans form the best caste, all other castes are low; only brahmans form the fair caste, all other castes are dark; only brahmans are pure, not non-brahmans; only brahmans are own sons of Brahmā, born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, formed by Brahmā, heirs to Brahmā.’ And Assalāyana, the seer Asita Devala heard: ‘Indeed seven brahman seers are living in leaf huts in a stretch of forest and a pernicious view like this has arisen in them: “Only brahmans form the best caste, all other castes are low; only brahmans form the fair caste, all other castes are dark; only brahmans are pure, not non-brahmans; only brahmans are own sons of Brahmā, born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, formed by Brahmā, heirs to Brahmā.”'
Then, Assalāyana, the seer Asita Devala, having trimmed his hair and beard, having clothed himself in a pair of crimson coloured cloths, having put on sandals with many linings and taking a staff made of gold, appeared in a cell in a hall of the seven brahman seers. And then, Assalāyana, as the seer Asita Devala was pacing up and down in the cell in a hall of the seven brahman seers, he spoke thus: ‘Now, where have these revered brahman seers gone? Now, where have these revered brahman seers gone?’
Then, Assalāyana, it occurred to the seven brahman seers: ‘Who is it who, while pacing up and down like a village lad in a cell in a hall of the seven brahman seers, speaks thus: “Now, where have these revered brahman seers gone? Now, where have these revered brahman seers gone?”’
Then, Assalāyana, the seven brahman seers put a curse on the seer Asita Devala, saying: ‘Become a vile cinder.’ But, Assalāyana, the more the seven brahman seers cursed the seer Asita Devala, the more lovely became the seer Asita Devala, the more good to look upon and the more charming. Then, Assalāyana, it occurred to the seven brahman seers: ‘Vain is austerity for us, fruitless the Brahma-faring. Formerly when we put a curse on anyone, saying: Become a vile cinder, he became as a cinder; but the more we put a curse on this one the more lovely he becomes, the more good to look upon, the more charming.’
‘Austerity is not vain for the revered ones, nor fruitless the Brahma-faring. But, revered sirs, please get rid of your misapprehension about me.’
‘We will get rid of whatever misapprehension there is. But who is the revered sir?’
‘Is the seer Asita Devala known to the revered sirs?’
‘Yes, sir.’
‘I, sirs, am he.’ Then, Assalāyana, the seven brahman seers approached the seer Asita Devala in order to honour him. Then, Assalāyana, the seer Asita Devala spake thus to those seven brahman seers: ‘I have heard this, good sirs: While seven brahman seers were living in leaf huts in a stretch of forest a pernicious view like this arose in them: “Only brahmans form the best caste, all other castes are low; only brahmans form the fair caste, all other castes are dark; only brahmans are pure, not non-brahmans; only brahmans are own sons of Brahmā, born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, formed by Brahmā, heirs to Brahmā.”’
‘Yes, sir.’
‘But do you, sirs, know whether their mothers consorted only with brahmans, not with non-brahmans?’
‘No, sir.’
'And do you, sirs, know whether their mothers’ mothers back through seven generations consorted only with brahmans, not with non-brahmans?’
‘No, sir.’
‘And do you, sirs, know whether their fathers consorted only with brahman women, not with non-brahman women?’
‘No, sir.’
‘And do you, sirs, know whether their fathers’ fathers back through seven generations consorted only with brahman women, not non-brahman women?’
‘No, sir.’
‘But do you, sirs, know how there is conception?’
‘We do know, sir, how there is conception. There is here a coitus of the parents, it is the mother’s season and the gandhabba is present; it is on the conjunction of these three things that there is conception.’
‘But do you, sirs, know whether that gandhabba is a noble or brahman or merchant or worker?’
‘We do not know, sir, whether that gandhabba is a noble or a brahman or a merchant or a worker.’
‘This being so, do you know, sirs, who you are?’
‘This being so, sir, we do not know who we are.’
Peace to the God C.I. Wise. All praises due.
Peace to the God for that food. Hope to build with him in person about this. Thanks a bunch. Peace
Peace. Caste system in India is not based on color. European white people are not allowed in the holiest sacred sites in India. They are treated like untouchables. The caste or varna system being based on skin color is ironically a british colonial teaching. "Untouchables" were created during the Buddhist and Jain dynasties in India, where meat eaters were considered unclean and became social outcasts. Peace.
Peace @calmislamly.
You appear to have some knowledge of ancient Indian history. (It also appears that you maybe enjoy Tragedy Khadafi's music?)
You are absolutely right about Europeans being barred from certain activities, holy sites, and so on, as, like Shudras and Untouchables they are not twice-born, caste Hindus. And, indeed, the British (along with other European colonial groups) linked Indian caste divisions to modern concepts of race: specifically, the division between White and Black as currently defined, (predictably) associating Whites with the uppermost castes. There are, however, cultural, historical, and scientific justifications for this. But, no, it is not true that they were the first to connect caste to skin color.
Also, there are some problems with your statement that untouchables "were created during the Buddhist and Jain dynasties in India, where meat eaters were considered unclean and became social outcasts". Your statement is, as the 5% would say: right, but not right AND exact.
If you sincerely wish to engage on this and are not simply trolling, then I would be happy to build with you in an atmosphere of equality. If not, then I'll just say,
Peace.
@@CIWise Peace God indeed I got this handle from Tragedy in a freestyle yes sir!
Understand that I am only using the word 'caste' since that is the word most people are used to. But really we are discussing Varna. I am also speaking from a certain level of personal experience since my background is from this particular culture. I was actually just in India. It is true that Varna means "color" but that does not indicate skin color, it was simply a method of classification. For example one of the Vedas, Yajur Veda, is separated into a black and white version, but both are seen as 'holy'
Even the European has backed away from the so-called "Aryan invasion" theory. The academic world has instead shifted towards a "migration" model...where India was populated initially by migrants from Africa, who eventually split into two groups, one populating the northern region, one populating the southern regions, and then some recent migration from outside India later on down the line. The "proto indo-european language" is a theoretical language created by linguists in an effort to draw a relation between the languages of Europe, and Sanskrit since there are clear similarities. The question arises, which came from which? Well obviously the European will have his biases, unfortunately most have adopted his version of history. The truth is we really don't know what happened. We can only speculate as to the origin of Sanskrit. For anything else we have to refer to the source material themselves - Vedas, the epics; Ramayana, and Mahabharatha (ithihasas), Puranas....and from studying these sources can can ascertain two key points related to this topic:
1) The Vedas never refer to any place outside the Indian subcontinent. All the holy places mentioned are and remain in what we know as 'India' today.
2) "Skin color" was NEVER seen as an indicator of varna; or ones social status. Ones position, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, or Shudra was known based on name and occupation. According to tradition, the compiler of the Vedas himself - Veda Vyasa was known for having dark or black skin. In the Mahabharata and Ramayana - the two key reference sources for the origin of much of Indian or 'hindu' culture today, we see diversity of skin color among all the varnas. Just like we do today. As per shastra (religious authoritative texts) the definition of a Brahmin is one born to 2 Brahmin parents. That is it. All Brahmins have 'Gotras' that are associated with the 7 sages who saw the Veda and if someone says he or she is a Brahmin, they should be able to trace their lineage by naming their Gotra. A person who can't trace his or her tree back at least 7 generations is considered to be an outcast.
You said in this video that Indians are like Puerto Ricans, they are mixed. This isn't completely untrue but not totally accurate. Mixing in India is a recent phenomenon and even so, mixing only really occurs between the bottom two Varnas, not the top two. DNA evidence has shown that Brahmins have been endogamous for at least the last 3-4000 years ie; they do not mix with the other varnas. If this is the case, then why are so many Brahmins dark skinned as well as light skinned? Skin color in India is regional, not "caste based". The current prime minister of India comes from a low-caste and is lighter skinned than most Indians.
Regarding Buddhism and Jainism, I largely agree with your understanding of how Elijah saw Buddhism and conflated it with Hinduism. But Buddhism is not some egalitarian alternative to "hinduism." The Buddha himself, as you say, came from the Kshatriya class. All of his direct disciples came from the Brahmin or Kshatriya class. All of the later Buddhist stalwarts who are responsible for shaping Buddhist thought into what ultimately became "Buddhism" were Brahmins - Nagarjuna, Buddhaghosa, Dignaga, Asvaghosa, etc..- ALL Brahmins. It is true that the Buddhism remains silent on the Vedas, but they do not speak against it. Within the Vedic tradition, Buddha is viewed as an avatar who came to "mislead" the Brahmins who had become largely pre-occupied with mindless ritualism, most of which involved the great sacrifices that necessitated killing Cows, goats, and other animals and then partaking of them by eating them. It is a misconception that the vegetarianism we see in India today is a "hindu" thing. It is actually a Jain thing first, and was adopted by Buddha next. Later Vedic thinkers like Gaudapada and his grand student Sankaracharya adopted the Buddhist dialectic and notions of non-violence while remaining loyal to the Veda....but since India was ruled by Buddhist dynasties and Jain kingdoms during much of it's history, we can see that influence. Under these authorities many people from the common class who traditionally ate meat and fish were persecuted and pushed out of the social system and a large amount of these people became what we know as untouchables.
Anyway I appreciate your insight God and I do want to build on this further. My IG is Rishi.I.Be7
PEACE!
@@calmislamly Peace, G.
(So, speaking to your handle, does that make me an actual PhD nigga tryin' ta harm you? LOL)
Alright, so you have a great breadth of knowledge on the subject, and this is obviously going to be a far deeper build than you and I can get into here in the comments section. There's much I can learn from you, so I appreciate your offering your info (I was actually going to ask); I'll be in tune, and we can continue with the finer details privately. I'll respond in broad strokes, though, here for anyone who has been following the thread thus far.
1. You speak of the Proto-Indo-European language hypothesis and the fact that we can't say for sure which came from which. You also say that the Vedas mention no geographical region outside of the S. Asian sub-continent. Taken together, the implication is that Sanskritic/Vedic/Aryan language and culture are quite possibly autochthonous or aboriginal to India. You also mention that Western scholars have largely abandoned the Aryan Invasion Theory in favor of a migration narrative. Well, then, the exchange of a "migration" for an "invasion" notwithstanding, the end result would be the same: the Aryans--the people of the Vedas--along with their language and culture, would not be original to the Indian sub-continent. Which one is it then? "I don't know" is an acceptable answer (because a lot of this no one knows), but you can't subscribe to both theories at the same time.
2. Yes, indeed, we are speaking about varna and not jaat, or caste. The word "varna" does, as you surely know (though some readers might not), mean "color," "outer appearance," "external form," and so on. (Etymologically, it is of the same root as the modern English word "varnish.") And each of the four varnas did have a color symbolically associated with it in the ancient past. I can't recall all four of them off-hand; however, I do remember that the Brahmin (the highest) was white and the Shudra (the lowest), predictably, was Black.
3. Buddhism, as you say, was a Kshatriya movement. I agree that it was not some egalitarian, anti-caste movement, like so many paint it out to be these days. However, it was clearly a movement of resistance against Brahmin encroachment and hegemony in the region of Northeastern India. Yes, Kshatriyas, who were the kings in ancient times, are and were the second highest varna. However, many formerly non-Aryan kingdoms were swallowed up by the Aryans as they and their culture spread throughout the sub-continent and became honorary Kshatriyas, like how Hawaiians and Eskimos (and Puerto Ricans!) were conquered and are now honorary "Americans". The Sakyan kingdom, Buddha's kingdom--was one of these. They had been thoroughly Aryanized by the time of the Buddha: speaking a mostly Indo-Aryan Prakrit--which still retained, however, many non-Aryan words and features. The main insult we find hurled against Buddhist monks by Brahmins in the earliest Buddhist texts is that they were Black, bald-headed, clean shaved, barbarian slaves born from God's feet. Importantly, none of these descriptions (aside from the last one, which is a religious-based insinuation of their being low-castes, tribals, outcastes, and such) are symbolic. They are all physical descriptions: including their being BLACK! which is a physical description situated in among other physical descriptions.
Your remarks about the creation of the untouchable class and its relation to meat-eating: forgive my assumption, but I gather that you got it from Ambedkar. If so, I would further assume that you've read his earlier, more well-known work as well (as that book was published relatively recently). My guruji is an Ambedkarite monk, and it's mostly from him--and my own observations (I lived in India for a few years)--that I know whatever I know (which is altogether too little). I'm always ready to learn more! I've already added you on IG and will be in tune.
Knowledgeable about India and a Tragedy fan?!! F**k, yeah! Let's build, God!
Peace.
Peace. I sincerely enjoyed this discussion. I will that I can also partake in further discussions
@@calmislamly Peace.
I'm really upset because I put up a long response this morning which addressed several (though certainly not all) of the issues you raised and took me an hour to put together. Anyway, I don't see it now. I thought I succeeded in putting it up, but maybe I didn't. Maybe I did and it got zapped: I don't know.
Anyway, I unfortunately don't have time to put together another response. I apologize to the readers, because it was really for them. To the brother, I'll catch you on IG.
Peace to all.